Jesse Walker | October 17, 2007
History is written by the
victors, but sometimes a scholar can correct
the record:
Before white settlers arrived, Australia's indigenous peoples lived in houses and villages, and used surprisingly sophisticated architecture and design methods to build their shelters, new research has found....
The findings, by the anthropologist and architect Dr Paul Memmott, of the University of Queensland, discredits a commonly held view in Australia that Aborigines were completely nomadic before the arrival of Europeans 200 years ago.
The belief was part of the argument used by white settlers to claim that Australia was terra nullius - the Latin term for land that belonged to nobody.
Few of the original buildings remain, because "local authorities burned or bulldozed the structures in the belief they were health hazards."
Memmott outlines his evidence in a thick and pricey new book, Gunyay, Goondie + Wurley. If you don't feel like shelling out $70 for that, you can see a gallery of Aboriginal architecture here.
Help Reason celebrate its next 40 years. Donate Now!
Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.
Wow! Those pictures are AMAZING! They were so advanced! Had I
not have seen the pictures that you linked to I would have believed
the white colonizer's propaganda about the aborigines having no
advanced society, technology or culture. This disproves those
racist lies once and for all.
Again, thanks for the AMAZING pictures, they were a veritable
Atlantis!
mnuez
www.mnuez.blogspot.com
P.S. I take a backseat to no one in being skeptical about what are
claimed to be the "benefits" of Western Civilization but, like it
or not, let's not start fabricating the record about who did what.
I can't imagine that a single one of your readers will be surprised
by the fact that aborigines built the occasional palm-frond hut.
Oh? But they should be because some Aussie scholar somewhere said
that they had never ever EVER built any huts at all? Yah... I mean
seriously, if they had something really advanced that would blow
our minds, then sure, share the news, but fuckin HUTS? ~ m
He's discrediting the view that Australia was only populated
nomadic tribes which gave the settlers reason to say that they
could just move in. And just because you don't live in a hut, that
doesn't give you or anyone else the right to bulldoze someone's
home just because you want their land.
Douchbag.
I was looking forward to see the "houses" described in the article. If that is a house, you should see the duplex the hornets built in my shed.
mnuez, did you miss the hut that was built on the priciples of a Klemperer rosette? Jeez, pay more attention.
Hi Marc! You read in my comment a justification for conquest
based on access to superior technology? Cool! cause that's EXACTLY
what I was saying, as for example when I wrote: "I take a backseat
to no one in being skeptical about what are claimed to be the
'benefits' of Western Civilization..."
Great reading comprehension, bro!
mnuez
Umm, its possible to be nomadic and live in temporary
structures, especially if they can be built quickly. So I'm not
even sure the traditional view that the aborigines were nomadic has
been refuted.
Not that this justifies etc. etc.
Great reading comprehension, bro!
Since we're on the subject of reading comprehension, you should
note that the claim the scholar is disputing involves whether the
Aborigines were a completely nomadic people, not how advanced their
technology was.
Umm, its possible to be nomadic and live in temporary
structures, especially if they can be built quickly. So I'm not
even sure the traditional view that the aborigines were nomadic has
been refuted.
There's more details in the article - e.g., "In the rainforest area
around Cairns, in Queensland, where there was heavy rain for much
of the year, people would occupy such villages for up to a year, he
said." It describes stone structures as well.
If you read the original you find some interesting information
but it seems to dispute the actual main claim of this man. He says
the Aborigines were not nomadic as claimed and to prove this he
says that in some cases they stayed in one place for up to one
whole year! That implies that this is the longest period of time he
could find. The article says "people would occupy such villages for
up to a year". The implication is that most didn't stay that long
and none he found stayed longer.
In other words that confirms the nomadic nature of the Aborigines,
it doesn't dispute it in spite of the Professor's claims to the
contrary.
Jesse Walker,
A general reassessment of the technology, culture, etc. of
Australia's indigenous peoples has been underway for a while
now.
One long held claim was that they did not have agriculture; but it
has become apparent that they had a kind of agriculture or at least
proto-agriculture at the time of European settlement.
The pictured hut is Updated and was not part of the original
post.
It is a picture of the VERY best and MOST impressive hut out of all
those listed.
No linked-to hut remotely equals it in "surprisingly sophisticated
architecture and design methods".
And this - the photographic pinnacle of "houses and villages" -
somehow overturns some belief that any of us had ever had about
Aborigines?
mnuez
P.S. The point of this comment is simply to point out that this
blog post was updated without the expected "UPDATE" acknowledgment
and that the update is slightly disingenuous as it offers for
photographic evidence the ONE AND ONLY hut of all those linked to
that might rival what the Egyptians might have built over fifteen
thousand years ago.
The Australian Aboriginals and other Native Peoples were as
adapted to their environment as any "modern" people.
Most of us would simply starve if we were placed in a
pre-industrial society because we wouldn't know how to feed, clothe
and shelter ourselves. In that environment, we would appear
"backward".
What am I supposed to do, mnuez? Put the word "update" above the
photo?
Yes, I forgot to include the pic when I first put up the post.
Happens a lot. I could have made a note to that effect when I added
the photograph five minutes later, but I didn't, because no one in
their right mind gives a shit.
As for the architecture and design methods, I rather doubt you're
in a position to judge. What matters is how effective a structure
is in keeping out precipitation, avoiding extreme temperatures,
etc., not how pretty it is.
Nomadic or not, I don't consider a civilization advanced unless they have discovered the dildo...
For those of you dising the hut, keep in mind that the only
reasons anyone ever built more than huts are population density and
bad weather (with the occasional glory-be-to-god).
Think about it; if you live in a climate that was about 75-80*F
year round, you don't exactly need thermopane windows. When nobody
you've ever even heard of has ever traveled further than the next
valley, how high do you have to build?
Anyway, there has been a lot of new research on indigenous
populations throughout the world and it has often as not undermined
earlier notions regarding the technology, lifestyles, etc. of
indigenoud populations. The networks of cities in the Amazon is a
good example of this.
Anyway, in a lot of instances because a population did not build
monumental architecture, etc. out of stone the nature of these
societies is lost until one does a lot of digging, etc.
The time has come to say "Fair's Fair"!!
I was just shocked that there was no Midnight Oil reference yet it
the comments.
There'll be food on the table tonight...
Gee, when I was a kid, my family would decamp every summer to a
beachside bungalow with neither heat nor A/C. We'd return to our
regular lodgings just before school started, where we could make
use of such sophisticated features as a concrete basement and a
furnace. Were we then nomads who could have been dispossessed by
anyone with superior contracting skills?
Kevin
Actually I find that structure rather attractive.
For all the "superior" architecture and culture of invading or
migrating "advanced" cultures...where doso many people fanataise
about going on vacation or retiring...to some simple thatched roof
hut on an undeveloped tropical shore.
I think we are all missing the point here - not only were they much more advanced than the European land-grabbers led us to believe, but with their lack of a strong central government they were free from the many ills of the regulatory state.
Few of the original buildings remain, because "local
authorities burned or bulldozed the structures in the belief they
were health hazards."
Ha! Some things never change. "We're going to make you homeless
because your current home doesn't meet our health standards."
Missionaries drew on Aboriginal technology for buildings, using tree bark for roofs and walls, and grass thatching for gables, as well as reeds and animal hides, he added.- The Grauniad
`Cause nobody from Britain knew what a thatched roof was before
alighting on the farthest shore, right?
Kevin
My comment here had absolutely nothing to do with race or any
justification conquest. I do nevertheless, have lots to say on the
subject. In fact I just came across a post here by Ronald Bailey
entitled: "Is Nobelist James Watson, Co-Discoverer of the Structure
of DNA, a Racist?" wherein Watson makes some fine points about the
importance of recognizing the differences between peoples when we
attempt to help others and in response Ronald quotes himself off
saying something like, "aw shucks, let's still be nice to SMART
black people, okay?".
In any event, the post is from yesterday and still here on the main
page but considering the impressive output of the Reason staff (and
I mean that entirely complimentary, this blog is one of the best
and most interesting in my opinion) I doubt that many people will
read my comment there. Considering the subjects that appear to loom
behind the surface on THIS comment thread however, I think that my
comment there (posted all of ten minutes ago) is important to
reprint here as well:
The fault, dear Ronnie, is not in our stars but in ourselves. It is
EXTRAORDINARILY obvious that the main factor, out of which most
other factors flow, for black non-success in our society is
genetic.
That being the case, you and all of your libertarian friends have
the choice of either choosing to be Nazis or to cease being Free
Marketers (capitalized as all religions are).
People don't suffer the ravages of Western Civilizations bottom
rungs because they "choose" to live a life of worry, stress and
struggle for survival. They live among the dregs because they
aren't as "fit" as you to "survive" the Free Market that you
worship.
In my opinion therefore they have every natural right to rise up
and take from you your status, class and goodies by the force of
their brute fists. Your capitalism has resigned them to a world
where they live constantly at the edge of despair and they have
every right to upturn your applecart.
So, again, racial inequality May be an illusion of mine... but I
don't think so.
Of course however race has nothing to do with it. The evil nature
of the unregulated free market destroys the souls of less able
Japanese people in a racially monolithic society as well. Pygmies
are not the only people less able to become top-notch lawyers than
is Alan Dershowitz. Lots of Ashkenazi Jews have low intelligence or
other personality faults that keep them from attaining "the
American dream" as well - and these people are just as likely to
suffer the ill effects of the "greed is good" (or was it "God"?)
doctrine as is a Birmingham black kid. But the issue of "race" may
turn out to be the one that finally shows your type for who you
are: people who are simply Lucky enough to be born with the right
intellectual goods to succeed in the modern economic system and who
justify their success through self-congratulatory claims that
"anyone can do it!", meaning that you have what you have because
you Deserve it rather than because of luck-of-the-genes.
And who supports you? who props you up? the very people who have
the most to lose by it. The believers in the religious doctrine of
Racial Tabula Rasa who keep up their laughable patter about how
"racism" is what's "keeping the black man down". No doubt this
constantly expressed belief improves some people's sense of
self-worth by constantly telling them that "your brains are not
inferior!" (Or Dumbo Diamond style, "Yali's people are SUPERIOR!")
but it serves the one overriding goal of Genetic Meritocracy by
allowing the capitalistic system to continue to function as it
does.
Cheers Gentle Libertarians ~
mnuez
www.mnuez.blogspot.com
What am I supposed to do, mnuez? Put the word "update" above
the photo?
I had some Mnuez-types go after my professional work a couple of
months ago, so I will share with you the lessons I learned: what
you are supposed to do is admit that you don't have the balls to
tell The Truth about the Secret Worldwide Jewish Conspiracy To
Destroy The White Race, because as a media slave you dare not
offend your Zionist masters (who of course control the entire
media).
That is, of course, assuming you're merely an unwitting pawn in the
S.W.J.C.T.D.T.W.R. Maybe you're more of a puppetmaster rather than
a puppet? Either way, you're going to be very, very sorry when the
Day Of The Rope comes, unless you repent NOW and admit that your
entire career to date has been a lie.
I hope this helps.
It turns out that the start of mnuez' rant is just as EXTRAORDINARILY untrue and the rest is just as EXTRAORDINARILY incoherent as it was when he posted several threads down.
The S.W.J.C.T.D.T.W.R. would be pretty silly, considering Jews are white.
The S.W.J.C.T.D.T.W.R. would be pretty silly, considering
Jews are white.
Not according to the white nationalists, they're not.
Seriously.
And no, don't ask me to explain the logic. I can't do that anymore
than I can explain why the theme of "Catcher in the Rye" was really
"Kill John Lennon." Darn stupid sanity keeps getting in the
way.
they're not white because they killed jesus. it's true!
plus you know the horns.
people would occupy such villages for up to a year I
think sedentism requires at least a year and a day.Those aborigines
sure fucked it up with that almost or just a year stuff.Forfeited
their whole fucking Continent!
Dumb Savages never realized just how close they were to stepping up
to Barbarism.
One long held claim was that they did not have agriculture;
but it has become apparent that they had a kind of agriculture or
at least proto-agriculture at the time of European
settlement.
Damn that proto-agriculture!When THE MAN points to your plants the
correct answer is "We meant to do that".Step up Savages, you were
this close and you blew it. Unilinear cultural evolution is a
bitch.
I think the early Europeans were suprisingly sophisticated. It took us another 200 years to craft our Kelo decision.
Jennifer,
"Either way, you're going to be very, very sorry when the Day Of
The Rope comes..."
Not to be nit-picky, but it's actually the Great Day of the Rope.
Until then I can be found mixing with mongrel(sp) races.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245