mhaze,
I've told the account of a Missionary family rescuing an unwanted twin girl child from an ant's nest - they did not believe.
If you believe there were two persons 65,000 years ago that migrated to Australia, double the population every hundred years, and see what you figure. I went to 2,500 years and got a figure of 33,554,432, it is ridiculous to believe that aboriginals did not kill each other and kill off children at a high rate. Australia would have a population greater than India and China combined, and there were no invading countries before 1788. Then the British killed of how many by disease and murder?

It has been our inbreeding with them and our medicines that have improved their lives, is the reason for the expediential growth in their numbers. .

SM,

"Just that there is no proof that the culture then bears any resemblance to the culture today or even the culture 1000 years ago." Agree, culture is not static but dynamic, over a large population its not even homogenises. There are different cultural/religious/political practices and beliefs by sub groups within the overall group. A small example, speaking with my Tamil friend the other day I said; "Hindus don't eat beef", he said; "Not true many Hindus eat beef, and see nothing wrong with it, in fact beef is widely sold in towns and villages all over India".

Language is a very important part of culture, and its also one of the most diverse things in any culture.If you read Chaucer and his 'Old English' very different from modern English, language undergoes cultural change all the time.

The word "massacre" was not mine, it came via mhaze. As for life expectancy, lower down the social order the less ones life expectancy, that would be true with the Romans as well as the British, still true today. There is no evidence that there was any great social difference within Aboriginal clans and groups, the "elites" lived much the same way as the "peasants" and both in general probably lived about the same life span.

If the aboriginal population has existed for 65,000 years and as is proposed by some to live long lives and not kill each other. Then try doubling the population ever 100 years x 650 times which will give a supposed population of aboriginal in !788. I got 33,554,432 after 25 times which is 2,500 years, and that is greater than the population of Australia currently.

The idea that just because there are a lot of skeletal remains that are from people around 70 yrs of age means that most aboriginals lived to that age is just plain bonkers.

Most Egyptian mummies we've found are either pharaohs or high priests. Therefore most Egyptians were pharaohs or high priests!!

Dear mhaze,

Lol.

Are you still trolling through discredited journals for your mythical evidence of widespread cannibalism?

This is getting a little wearisome, especially since you refuse to provide references.

Let me know where you plucked: "In hard summers, the new-born children were all eaten by the Kaura tribe in the neighbourhood of Adelaide, according to Dr McKinley." and I will do the research and deal with it.

Dear mhaze,

Don't bother.

You had whinged: “But it doesn't really matter how many examples I unearth, does it, since you'll reject each for entirely spurious reasons.”

Except they aren't fresh examples are they you dolt. It is just you rehashing quotes you have forgotten we had dealt with already.

This was in part of the Quadrant article you quoted earlier Posted by mhaze, Saturday, 8 July 2023 9:58:19 AM

“In hard summers the new-born children seem to be all eaten in the Kaura tribe. [Explorer Alfred William] Howitt inferred this from the remarkable gaps that appeared in the ages of the children”

I had addressed it with:

"So age gaps appearing in children means you go straight to 'Well they must have eaten them all!' Back then that conclusion might have been understandable with all the lurid tales of 'Blacks' circulating but it is just stupid now."

You have then gone off desperately fishing for other examples of cannibalism and found a different source but this time mentioning McKinley instead of Howitt.

To be clear it would seem that McKinley recorded the age gaps and Howitt inferred from this that in hard summers the new-born children were all eaten by the tribe. See page 794 The Native Tribes of South-East Australia. But it is the same as your original quote isn't it.

Of course your latest iteration just says “"In hard summers, the new-born children were all eaten by the Kaura tribe in the neighbourhood of Adelaide, according to Dr McKinley.”.

However that original from Howitt's book says: “In hard summers the new-born children were all eaten by the Kaura tribe in the neighbourhood of Adelaide ; this might be inferred from the remarkable gaps that appear in the ages of the children.”

So where did you get the quote complete with the misspelling of McKinlay? Here: http://www.heretical.com/cannibal/austral1.html

The result of you googling Cannibalism and Australia?

Give it away.