How does this happen? Surely there must have been one power hungry tribe out there who wanted bigger borders?
It's probably the largest practicable range of control for very-low tech level.
There wasn't too much internal structure to their tribes so whenever they started to grow things just collapsed
>>768697
Too busy surviving to engage in other activities?
>>768721
Yes, which probably stemmed from the severe lack of agricultural development. I don't know why that never occurred, however.
>>768742
Lack of species which lend themselves to domestication.
>>768742
Can a more knowledgeable anon pitch in to address this?
>>768742
No Grains
No Domesticatable animals
They intentionally burnt down all the rainforests
>>768742
No animals that could easily be domesticated, no crops that could easily be farmed. Which raises the question of what history would look like if those had existed...
>>768777
see >>768755
This is also the reason why we don't see a lot of high-level development in the America's. Agriculture allowed cities, but domestication allows civilization as we know it as it allows fast communication and travel as well as increasing the overall work someone can do with out an equivalent increase in manpower. Sub-Saharan Africa, mainly in the deep Congo and Sahel, lack these which accounts for the low level of development you see. This is why West and East Africa were the major areas of sub-Saharan development, as they had the land for proper agriculture, and they could trade for the types of crops and animals used in Eurasia due to their proximity to the coast.
>>768668
Why would you spend human lives taking land when the land is Australia?
no agriculture.
literally the answer.
>>768836
Same goes for Africa.
If you live in an abundant area, you don't need much to live and the population density is higher, leading to more tribal territories.
If you live in a fucking desert, you've usually got to move around for food, and nobody wants to come settle on your territory and struggle harder than you already do by having to compete for the same scarce resources.
>>768862
I am just confused as Aboriginals are painted as generous beings who lived with nature and 'one another', rather than technology, doesn't seem so.
>>768794
>They intentionally burnt down all the rainforests
J U S T
U
S
T
>>768879
They're humans like everyone else, which means they're dicks like everyone else. Any notion of the noble savage is complete fantasy.
>>768836
I don't know if their geographical domain necessarily corresponds with the population of the tribe, though. If you're the tribe sitting on the one spot of desert that's remotely inhabitable and claim the whole area as your domain, you'll probably be top dog in that area.
I'm also willing to bet the borders aren't entirely accurately pictured or as well defined among the actual tribes.
Anyone ITT that hasn't encountered aborigines in real life needs to gtfo because you're missing the obvious explanation.
>>768985
I assume what you're saying is that they're just genetically stupid.
That's true. But they're not that way for no reason. The geographic circumstances mentioned ITT are what caused them to evolve to be this way.
>>769003
The peoples of Queensland had perfect conditions for agriculture, it's really strange they didn't develop any means of technological farming. I mean it's all farmland here now. They had the land. I think it was the opposite of what people are saying, the fact that food was so easy to come by they didn't need to. I mean if you have ever seen a gathering of Wallabies/Kangaroo's you will understand, they are piss easy to kill also. They are one of the only things where I live you can just go out and kill without a license as they are everywhere and a pest.
Dumbest animal ever
>be driving
>see Wallaby eyeing my car off
>make it past
>it decides to jump under back wheel
>dead
>>768794
>They intentionally burnt down all the rainforests
I believe that is actually a holdover idea from racist colonial days. It isn't backed up by science.
>>769029
it was sick of living with australians m8
>>769043
No. The theory holds weight long after that. It's time to put the noble savage perfect caretaker myth. It is a genesis meme that needs to die
>>769029
Farming isn't just about having the land, you need the plants too. Remember that grains did not start in a ready to mill and eat form. It took hundreds if not thousands of years of selective breeding to cultivate wild grasses into the wheat grains we know today, same with corn and rice, you also need reliable river sources and land the periodically renews it's nutrients, like in a flood plain to get really large scale agriculture off the ground, this is part of the reason we start seeing the first agrarian civilizations popping up in places like Mesopotamia, the Nile, and Indus.
>>768818
Agriculture was prominent in the Americas though, at least by the 1000's. But some places much earlier and they had cities in North America, Mesoamérica, the Andes and even the Amazon. Unless you mean domestication of animals in which case I agree they did not get to develop to the extent of Eurasia.
>>769543
>Unless you mean domestication of animals
I did, it's unfortunate that the America's didn't really have any animals that were really suited to domestication, or that the opportunity never popped up. It really hurt American civilization in the long run. I mean even the one major domesticated animal in the Americas, the Llama, isn't as useful as a horse or ox, it's main role was as a sheep substitute. If horses had managed to some how migrate to America before the Europeans got heavily involved their in the 1400's, the story of civilization in the America's might be radically different.
>>768742
Many historians believe there was agriculture, but the first settlers refused to acknowledge what it was, to justify muh supremacy.
Also, literally the oldest construction on earth:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brewarrina,_New_South_Wales#Ancient_Aboriginal_fish_traps
>>768668
You're talking pre-agricultural societies here. Most of them couldn't sustain the manpower to actually exert control over larger areas, and if you did see a population rise, you'd almost certainly see a spreading out and splitting up into multiple tribes anyway, which prevents consolidation.
>>768668
Indigenous belief was centred on the land. They literally believed the place they are born in is part of them. Hence no conquest
>>769591
Many Native American tribes also had similar beliefs, and they had no problem conquering each other, on occasion they even formed rather large polities.
>>769043
>racist
just use bourgeois.
>>768668
>been here 40,000 years
>all they invented was a stick
All you need to know about noongas
>>769604
We're not talking about native americans, are we?
>>769660
My point was that the same sorts of beliefs in other cultures didn't prevent them from attacking and conquering others. So what's so special about Abbo beliefs that they aren't susceptible to the same behavior?
empire of kush global syndiclit
>>768697
Do you really think there was nothing but decentralized tribes in Africa until the modern day?
>>768668
Think for a second anon, who wants to fight a war in Australia, putting all of your shit at risk? Tribal structure, no standing military forces, slow bloody warfare, relatively reactionary outlook. Nothing is ever going to happen in an environment like this without outside stimuli.
>>769757
It's really interesting reading about the Portugese traders diaries about the Mali regions, most were merchant cities that traded with sea shells and cucumbers and little kingdoms that struggled with the Muslim tribes to the north
>>768794
They do that because it can get hot in the summer and droughts come in waves here. We actually burn our forests now, the techniques is called back burning.
In saying that, not all of australia is cultivational saves a few in irrigated lands, plus their extent of technology is due to their isolation, dumb as they are, they literally became an apex predator and left it at that.
>>768879
Thats total bullshit
Native Aussies were 100% savage
>>771591
Abos even had areas that they prohibited being burnt down and the controlled burns pretty much led to the proliferation of key foods to their diet as you said like Kangaroos which you can still see the effects of to this day since Roos are absolutely everywhere!
>>769528
>No. The theory holds weight long after that. It's time to put the noble savage perfect caretaker myth. It is a genesis meme that needs to die
Lrn 2 Climate
trying to impose a modern political map on pre-colonial tribal Australia is completely retarded
>>769585
>Brewarrina Ngemba Billabong
>>769029
>The peoples of Queensland had perfect conditions for agriculture
The only Australian flora or fauna that we've been able to domesticate is the macadamia tree
>>769540
Abos have been there for 40,000 years. Indonesia cultivated rice within that time period. But why not the Abos?
>>769566
They had pre-horses but they ate them. They kind of learnt their lesson concerning buffalo when Europeans arrived, but alas...
>>769757
Which is why I merely made a comparison. I'm one of the less-faggy SJW invoking Mali, Songhai, Ghana, Aksum, Zimbabwe, Lunda and Luba, Zulu, etc.
>>772820
>Indonesia cultivated rice within that time period. But why not the Abos?
Could be that Australia just didn't have the necessary grains prototypes necessary for cultivation, or if they did, the necessary organization for farming never arose for various reasons, or the opportunity for dedicated agriculture never arose. It's almost impossible to know why agriculture never spread to Australia.
>>772820
>Abos have been there for 40,000 years. Indonesia cultivated rice within that time period. But why not the Abos?
Indonesia and Australia have vastly different environments for one. Indonesia is also much closer and has more ties to other civilized areas like India and China, while Australia was much more isolated, though not entirely isolated.
>>769506
good banter +10
>>772820
don't rice crops require a lot of water?
>>772898
You can grow them out of water, but they're usually grown in water to keep bugs out and keep weeds from growing around it.
>>772864
I think it also happened that Indonesia was, and still is, focusing its trade, commercial, and subjugation efforts towards Southeast Asia and Papua.
Documented evidence of Indonesians reaching and exploring Australia also only occurred at the same time the Europeans found it. If White people hadn't colonized it, the Indonesians would have colonized at least the northern edge. Australia is remote but undoubtedly has valuable resources.
>>772921
A lot of those resources wouldn't have been apparent at the time, and most of it unavailable to them with the technology they had at the time. There's also plenty of farmland in Australia today, but I'm pretty sure ancient agriculture wouldn't have worked there.
>>772932
They did. Wood, and especially iron, which Indonesians had experience with for more than a millennium at that point.
Also, more speculatively, what might have Indonesians called Australia in their own language?
>>772989
Some of the iron deposits might have been too deep, but there could still be interest for it. There's no way people are going thousand of miles out of their way to get wood, though, when Indonesia as a whole is filled with jungles and trees.
>>773010
>There's no way people are going thousand of miles out of their way to get wood
.
>>773037
Not if they have an insanely massive abundance of it in a place like Indonesia
the maori and others must have reached australia, I wonder why they couldn't settle it
>>772989
SEAsians knew of the existence of Australia.
But gave 0 fucks about it as it was far from the trade routes
>>768668
Nomads who arent animal based dont really have the ability, means or desire to conquer large tracts of territory.
Also IIRC that map is based more on language/dialect
When you existence is limited to a nomadic circuit conflict only really emerges when another group tries to make part of your circut theirs in times of scarcity.
>>769585
Issue is that those eel farms were extraordinarily rare. It would be like saying that Cahokia like cities in the US were normal rather than exceptional.
>>769540
>>769029
What I think is the biggest issue is why aboriginal groups who had contact with Indonesians and the agricultural land to support it did not develope it and despite this contact remained on relatively similar grounds tech wise to all the other tribes.
You would think that maybe even archery would spread.
>>768742
>guns, germs and steel
