Talk:New Guinea
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
New Guinea is part of WikiProject Indonesia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Indonesia and Indonesia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page. Please do not substitute this template.
|
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale. |
| High | This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. |
|
|
|
[edit] earlier comment unsigned
For real info on Papua and West Papua try http://members.optushome.com.au/daeron and New Guinea back on http://fandom.net/~daeron ; and the tragic genocide at http://members.optushome.com.au/daeron/Genocide ; same author but without his words being twisted. Example compare the current Papua_(Indonesia_province) against the original authors version http://members.optushome.com.au/daeron/West%20Papua
[edit] Fourth highest landmass
The statement that New Guinea is the fourth highest landmass doesn't make sense, or at least it isn't backed up by figures. The link only shows that it ranks fourth in landmasses sorted by their highest point. That fact is more obscure and confusing than it is useful, and I suggest removing it. DPoon 08:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Reference on population migration
This entire section has hardly anything to do with New Guinea and doesn't need to be
here. Suggest consult Human migration topic.
JohnBurton 00:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
The bushmen are not the same race as other Africans; there was no mention of the Veddoids or Melanesians; for this reason I substituted a reference to a paper on the Veddoid population. It mentions evidence for Veddoid people in Southwest Asia, India, China, and Australasia as well. (unattributed)
It's not terribly helpful/useful to delete text and simply insert a reference in its place. The root peoples of the so-called "Veddoid" peoples are the San bushmen. I refer you to Spencer Wells' recent DNA investigations that traced San (possessors of the oldest known human DNA on the planet) DNA directly from the San to the Tamils/Dravidians in southern India and then on to Australia in an effort to pinpoint human migration patterns out of Africa. It reinforces what pan-Africanists/Afrocentrists have been saying for decades. It is also why I, as an African American living in a multicultural, multinational community, am constantly mistaken for an East Indian/Bangladeshi. And that is precisely why I wrote the passage as I did. deeceevoice 08:54, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I've reverted (and tweaked) the text. The revision is simply incorrect. deeceevoice 08:40, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
A source: Oceanea Ethnology: Melanesia
- "The basic population [of Fiji] is Negroid, a tall, dark-skinned people with broad features and a mop of black, woolly hair who at an early period occupied the whole area from New Guinea to Fiji. At the present time, they exist as a people inhabiting the western three-quarters of Papua New Guinea. Elsewhere they had been modified through the migration through the southeast of New Guinea and the island chain of Melanesia, of those Indonesian folk who became the Polynesians and the Micronesians." deeceevoice 08:59, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Many laypeople have old-fashioned thoughts when it comes to anthropology. Modern genetics has proven that Africans and Aboriginal Australians are genetically farthest apart, despite their superficial resemblance. Read reliable books such as The History and Geography of Human Genes by Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza. All modern humans are believed to have African origins, of course, but that doesn't mean Aboriginal Australians are genetically closest to Africans.
Here is an excerpt from Homo sapiens sapiens, the true, modern human:
- Australian aborigines are genetically the most distant from the Africans.
See also Ice Ages and the mitochondrial DNA chronology of human dispersals: a review, which provides several good maps of human migration, and see carefully that Aboriginal Australians are descendants of Asians with the M and N types of mtDNA.
Deeceevoice, you probably misunderstand Spencer Wells' studies. The followings are excerpts from National Geographic's article Documentary Redraws Humans' Family Tree:
- In his [Spencer Wells'] view, the early travelers followed the southern coastline of Asia, crossed about 250 kilometers (155 miles) of sea, and colonized Australia by around 50,000 years ago. The Aborigines of Australia, Wells says, are the descendants of the first wave of migration out of Africa.
and
- Wells says a second wave of hominids left Africa around 45,000 years ago, reproduced rapidly, and settled in the Middle East; smaller groups went off to India and China.
- Isolated by mountains and the sea for many generations, and exposed to a colder climate and less sunlight than in Africa, the Asian populations became paler over time.
Since Asians went out of Africa later than Aboriginal Australians did, the former are genetically closer to Africans than the latter are. The current version describing New Guinean people as Africanoids is simply incorrect. - TAKASUGI Shinji 08:04, 2005 Apr 18 (UTC)
Sorry, but that's just silly. And, no, I haven't misunderstood Spencer Wells' findings. Genetic "proximity," if you will, is not about timelines. It is about when and how distinctly/widely mutations occurred from the "root stock." Clearly, physically, Asians are quite different from indigenous African peoples, who obviously closely resemble not only the Australian aborigines, but the Papuans, as well. The genetic mutations of Asians over time and the resultant phenotypical differences make them a population distinct from Africanoid peoples. Put an Asian in the middle of, say, Namibia, and they'd be immediately recognizable as foreign to the land. Do the same with a Papuan, and there would be no such recognition. They are black-skinned, look identical to black Africans and their descendants the world over and have woolly, nappy hair. deeceevoice 16:21, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- You are repeating the 19th-century anthropology, which incorrectly relied mainly on physical appearance. Today, anthropologists agree that DNA is more important than color of complexion. Thinking Papuans are Africans is just silly. People in a tropic region should have dark complexion to avoid UV, and that's all. This article needs more attention from real anthropologists, to remove the error the current version has. - TAKASUGI Shinji 16:46, 2005 Apr 18 (UTC)
Further, Spencer Wells' DNA tests reveal distinct linkages between the San bushmen, the Tamil/Dalit people of southern India and the Australian aborigines. Nappy hair and black skin are definitively black African/Africanoid phenotypes. Anthropologists generally concur that the Africanoid Papuan peoples reached New Guinea via a land bridge connecting it to Australia that became visible after a climate change that caused sea level to drop. The Southeast Asians came by sea from the north. What this article needs is objectivity -- not fiction that makes no sense whatsoever. IMO, you can't simply pull black-skinned, nappy-headed black people out of the air (actually, I was thinking about a part of one's anatomy, but I'm being polite) and call them Asians. Your link claiming that "Australian aborigines are genetically the most distant from the Africans" sounds intriguing -- and ridiculous -- enough so that I will take a look at it. (I'm trying to remain open-minded.) But I'm crunching a deadline at the moment and won't be able to get to it immediately. Peace. deeceevoice 17:40, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Takasugi, I've come across some additional information, which may shed some light on our disagreement. One source I consulted focused on the Australian land bridge. Another focused on additional routes of migration from Southeast Asia as being the first. In each case, however, the oldest waves of migration into New Guinea were characterized as "Negrito" in phenotype. (There's no secret that Bantu-like black peoples were the first inhabitants of these areas also.) Is the general consensus that the first humans in New Guinea came from the north? I haven't had a chance to read up on this widely, but here's a passage I came across (it mentions sea and land-bridge approaches from the north):
Although modern Australian aborigines and African Negroes are regarded by Westerners to be similar in physical appearance, serogenetic and DNA analysis seems to indicate that Negroes and Australians are the two least related peoples in the world [a fact which echoes your point]. Genetically the Australians and Melanesians seem closest related to Southeast Asians. Arguably, black Asians/Australians may have originated in Africa in prehistoric times, but if we count them as African, we should count most Europeans as Asian because Indo-Europeans purportedly migrated out of Central Asia, and by extension, all humans as African, since we all came out of Africa. But since modern Eurocentric views judge race by phenotype and not genotype, a discussion of black achievement can include non-African black civilizations in order to refute European stereotypes of color=destiny.
Of course, the prehistoric "African" (phenotypically/genetically) presence in Asia is fairly widely accepted today -- but I suppose it's still convenient/easier to assume a more direct route from Africa to Australia to Papua than from Africa to Southeast Asia to Papua. It certainly was for the author of the article I found.) But that, of course, doesn't make it the only route, the first route, or even the predominant one. But assumptions being what they are, I think it important to come to the truths of this matter and to use precise language. If it is, indeed, correct that the earliest wave of migration definitively occurred from the north, then it is also important to note that these migrants were also "Afro-Asiatic," apparently being an offshoot of black African "root stock" that mutated/evolved in isolation over the centuries, producing peoples who are phenotypically closer to black Africans, but also who are genotypically more related to other (Afro-Asiatic?) Asian peoples," generally. That may sound awfully complicated; but it's certainly more accurate, given that most people's reflexive/stock images of "Asians" are, phenotypically, pale-skinned; sloe-eyed peoples with straight, dark hair. Tell me, any info regarding which Asian groups the Papuan DNA more closely resembled? (I realize this may be in the article link you provided -- which I will get to; I promise.) deeceevoice 12:35, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Native names; Highland agriculture
There must be quite a few native (non-Indonesian) names of the island (or land). Jared Diamond (2005), btw, has a nice treatment of the highland's agricultural practices. A-giau 23:34, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
[edit] wheres the information about their economy?
we could source some info from the world fact book
- Since the island of New Guinea includes two different countries, please see the articles Papua New Guinea and Western New Guinea for the separate economy sections. --Hottentot
[edit] Citation
Can someone fix my citation format for Jared Diamond? It's in the history section, tenth paragraph. I just can't get it right.
Steve
- I think I fixed it. Let me know if I did it right. --Khoikhoi 07:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Torres Straight
What's the source for the information that the Torres Straight flooded so recently, around 5,000 BCE? Theshibboleth 21:30, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Old Map of New Guinea
The map of New Guinea (New Guinea.png) that has just been placed at the start of the article is very old and shows Dutch names such as 'Aroe' for the Aru Islands, and 'Hollandia' for Jayapura. If it's going to stay in the article it might be better in the history section (perhaps accompanied by a discussion of Dutch colonisation, naming, etc). In my opinion the first map in the article should be as up-to-date as possible. Dougg 00:47, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
- Agreed. I've moved it down to the "History" section, and noted in the caption that some of the place names are old. But I wouldn't be sorry to see it go entirely, especially if it can be replaced by a map that shows current place names. Especially in its "colorised" form, it's not particularly historic or beautiful. CDC (talk) 01:06, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] cannibalism?
Why isn't there any reference to cannibalism here? It seems worthy of at least a mention
-Justforasecond 23:39, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
- Most of the Canibal stories realted to New Guinea were mostly lies
Maybe that fact should be mentioned, as Papua New Guinea, like it or not, is best known in some parts of the world for supposed cannibalism.
According to Jared Diamond in Guns, Germs, and Steel, cannibalism may have arisen in New Guinea due to the scarcity of sources of protein. The traditional crops, taro and sweet potato, are low in protein compared to wheat and pulses, and the only edible animals available were small, unappatizing ones such as mice, spiders, frogs. Cannibalism led to the spread of kuru, until the Australian administration outlawed the practice around 1959. DPoon 08:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Section added. Justforasecond 19:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
"unappatizing" Really? Do they know this? 170.173.0.1 04:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Geology and geography
Should we mention the volcano, Rabaul caldera? --Uncle Ed 15:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Origins of Agriculture in New Guinea
Someone recently requested citations for the following statements in the "History" section:
Western agronomists still do not understand all practices, and native gardeners are notably more successful than most scientific farmers.[citation needed] Some authorities believe that New Guinea gardeners invented crop rotation well before western Europeans.[citation needed]
I agree these are unsupported and need authoritative reference. No informed person doubts that agriculture in New Guinea was, and remains, a sophisticated endeavor, but the statement regarding success, as well as crop rotation, seems suspect to me. At the same time, this paragraph should mention that archeological evidence is conclusive that agriculture arose independently in New Guinea at the same time as in Mesopotamia (10,000 BP, i.e. 8,000 BCE), and thus New Guineans were certainly early innovators. As for crop rotation, I don't know -- someone with greater knowledge please jump in. Aloha. Arjuna 01:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
