It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Indigenous Australians most ancient civilisation on Earth, DNA study confirms

page: 2
19
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 22 2016 @ 05:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage


Dreamtime.



Out of all the cultures on Earth who make wild claims about knowledge of their extreme antiquity, the only one that I have ever really bought into was the aborigine people.

Unravelling where the parable ends and the reality begins is really impossible without context. But the way they can make your mind wander.....




posted on Sep, 22 2016 @ 06:00 PM
link   
a reply to: punkinworks10

Exactly....no way the sentinelese and adamanese are not concurrent evolutionary "brothers" with the first migration populations of erectus which gave rise to the hobbit, Java man and a slew of other extinct hominids....

I have seen nothing to dissuade me from this classification...
But I'm not a geneticist and am at the mercy of their conclusions from their research...

chris



posted on Sep, 22 2016 @ 06:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Blackmarketeer
In anthropology, I don't think hunter/gatherers constitute a civilization.

However, that is a very long time for a continuous population and society.

Dreamtime.



Exactly. That's not a civilization. But it IS a culture group, and it would be the oldest living cultural group on the planet - truly an exciting thing!


I thought that was the San people? Genetically at least. I could certainly be mistaken. If I am, could someone please explain.



posted on Sep, 23 2016 @ 05:33 AM
link   
I was surprised there was no mention of the Lake Mungo discovery in that article because it directly supports the DNA age suggestion of around 50k years, possibly even longer than that. Kow Swamp produced some interesting finds as well although seemingly more recent at around 20k years.

Lake Mungo

The Lake Mungo remains are three prominent sets of bodies: Lake Mungo 1 (also called Mungo Lady, LM1, and ANU-618), Lake Mungo 3 (also called Mungo Man, Lake Mungo III, and LM3), and Lake Mungo 2 (LM2). Lake Mungo is in New South Wales, Australia, specifically the World Heritage listed Willandra Lakes Region.[1][2] LM1 was discovered in 1969 and is one of the world's oldest known cremations.[1][3] LM3, discovered in 1974, was an early Aboriginal Australian human inhabitant of the continent, who is believed to have lived between 40,000 and 68,000 years ago, during the Pleistocene epoch. The remains are the oldest anatomically modern human remains found in Australia to date. His exact age is a matter of ongoing dispute.



posted on Sep, 23 2016 @ 06:41 AM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

I have had the privilege to know and work along side many Aboriginal people and there knowledge of their surroundings is amazing , During the eighties i was working out of William creek ( South Australia ) and was travelling back from a prospecting site and the aboriginal man i was working with said " water over there " . Well as anyone would i called his bluff and we drove in the direction he pointed and sure enough in the middle of nowhere there was a soak . I asked him how he knew and he said that approaching the area he noticed birds flying at an angle away from the track , a little later he noticed birds flying the opposite way at the same angle . Where the angles meet there is water , simple but quite brilliant really . As for their traditional beliefs here is a quick insight .
en.wikipedia.org...

In the wiki article it says the practise of Kurdaitcha died out by the 20th century . Sorry wiki but as of the middle nineties at least they were still around , well if the two totally separate conversations i had was to be believed .
edit on 23-9-2016 by hutch622 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 23 2016 @ 07:10 AM
link   
a little off topic i know, but i found it interesting, and funny.

when we brits started colonizing australia, and asked the aborigines what these strange creatures were called, kangaroo was the reply and the name stuck.

in aborigine kangaroo means 'i dont know'.



posted on Sep, 23 2016 @ 09:04 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage


In anthropology, I don't think hunter/gatherers constitute a civilization.

However, that is a very long time for a continuous population and society.


The article's headline played fast and loose with the definition of "civilization." The studies abstract indicted the Aboriginal 'social group,' a much better term, as having a living memory and oral tradition that is the oldest on Earth, even older than any social group in Africa. They would have needed to organize as a society and develop the means and technology to cross a body of water to reach Australia, even if by island hopping during glacial maximums.
edit on 23-9-2016 by Blackmarketeer because: words



posted on Sep, 23 2016 @ 09:12 AM
link   
a reply to: stinkelbaum




Word History: A widely held belief has it that the word kangaroo comes from an Australian Aboriginal word meaning "I don't know." This is in fact untrue. The word was first recorded in 1770 by Captain James Cook, when he landed to make repairs along the northeast coast of Australia. In 1820, one Captain Phillip K. King recorded a different word for the animal, written "mee-nuah." As a result, it was assumed that Captain Cook had been mistaken, and the myth grew up that what he had heard was a word meaning "I don't know" (presumably as the answer to a question in English that had not been understood). Recent linguistic fieldwork, however, has confirmed the existence of a word gangurru in the northeast Aboriginal language of Guugu Yimidhirr, referring to a species of kangaroo. What Captain King heard may have been their word minha, meaning "edible animal."

Hope that clears things up .



posted on Sep, 23 2016 @ 10:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Pilgrum

BTW here is a link to the whole paper in the OP

A genomic history of Australia


I was thinking Mungo was used in this study, but i was in error, mungo was used in a study published earlier this summer.


The publication in 2001 by Adcock et al. [Adcock GJ, et al. (2001) Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98(2):537–542] in PNAS reported the recovery of short mtDNA sequences from ancient Australians, including the 42,000-y-old Mungo Man [Willandra Lakes Hominid (WLH3)]. This landmark study in human ancient DNA suggested that an early modern human mitochondrial lineage emerged in Asia and that the theory of modern human origins could no longer be considered solely through the lens of the “Out of Africa” model. To evaluate these claims, we used second generation DNA sequencing and capture methods as well as PCR-based and single-primer extension (SPEX) approaches to reexamine the same four Willandra Lakes and Kow Swamp 8 (KS8) remains studied in the work by Adcock et al. Two of the remains sampled contained no identifiable human DNA (WLH15 and WLH55), whereas the Mungo Man (WLH3) sample contained no Aboriginal Australian DNA. KS8 reveals human mitochondrial sequences that differ from the previously inferred sequence. Instead, we recover a total of five modern European contaminants from Mungo Man (WLH3). We show that the remaining sample (WLH4) contains ∼1.4% human DNA, from which we assembled two complete mitochondrial genomes. One of these was a previously unidentified Aboriginal Australian haplotype belonging to haplogroup S2 that we sequenced to a high coverage. The other was a contaminating modern European mitochondrial haplotype. Although none of the sequences that we recovered matched those reported by Adcock et al., except a contaminant, these findings show the feasibility of obtaining important information from ancient Aboriginal Australian remains.


Mungo Man DNA 2016


I have been trying to find a age for WLH4 that was used in this study, I am thinking its in the 20kya range.

Since you mentioned kow swamp, I have seen a cast of the KS1 skull along side other pliestocene human skulls and if that skull had not been found in the context it was it would be hard to say it wasnt Homo Erectus.
This pic does not due the skull justice, but was as good as i could get at the smithsonian. From the side the brow ridges ARE VERY PRONOUNCED, and the skull is visibly very different from other modern human skulls.




One thing that seems to get forgotten is that wilandra lakes and kow swamp are deep in SE australia, so if LM3 is 40-60kya, that means people were in australia much much earlier.
Another interesting thing is the aboriginal Tasmanians were negritos, not dark like the australians, but black with the peppercorn hair and everything.

There is a really good austrailan movie about a young woman living in Tasmania in the 1890's?, and this womans grandmother was one of the earlier settlers in tasmania, and had written a book about the aboriginal tasmanians, who were long gone by the time of the movie setting.



posted on Sep, 23 2016 @ 01:00 PM
link   
a reply to: punkinworks10

That link is still just for the abstract, the whole paper costs $40 from that site.



posted on Sep, 23 2016 @ 01:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Blackmarketeer

what? i just had the whole paper up , and am looking at it right now from the link




screen shot of paper



posted on Sep, 23 2016 @ 01:50 PM
link   
a reply to: punkinworks10

I'm getting the full paper also from your link. Works just fine on my end so thanks for posting it and saving me the trouble of finding it later.



posted on Sep, 23 2016 @ 01:56 PM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar

Hey there PeterV,

you are welcome.


There is another paper from a while back that talks about how the melanesians, papuans and australians differ gentically, with austrailians denisovan component not being related to their papuan component, but it is in melanesians.

I'll see if i cant track that down on Dienekes' blog



posted on Sep, 24 2016 @ 07:33 AM
link   
a reply to: punkinworks10

Thanks for that - heavy reading but very informative



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 1   >>

log in

join