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.

 

Yet more proof.....1st Americans were Australians.

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 13 2005 @ 06:24 AM
link   
Inhabitants of what is now Australia travelled by canoe to settle in the Americans more than 30,000 years ago, say anthropologists in light of new research.

They would have island hopped via Japan and Polynesia to the Pacific coast of the Americas at a time when sea levels were lower than they are today, Dr Silvia Gonzalez from John Moores University in Liverpool told this week's annual meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science in Exeter.

The claim will be unwelcome to today's native Americans who came overland from Siberia and say they were there first.

Most researchers say they came across the Bering Straits from Russia to Alaska at the end of the Ice Age, up to 15,000 years ago.

But Gonzalez said skeletal evidence pointed strongly to Australian origins and hinted that recovered DNA would corroborate it.

"This is very contentious," said Gonzalez. "[Native Americans] cannot claim to have been the first people there."

[Edit by Byrd... the rest of the article is here: www.abc.net.au... ]

[edit on 13-2-2005 by Byrd]




posted on Feb, 13 2005 @ 06:46 AM
link   
I read recently that they've found Kangaroos bouncing around in North America, how they got there, no one knows! Interesting hey.



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 05:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Toadfish
Most researchers say they came across the Bering Straits from Russia to Alaska at the end of the Ice Age, up to 15,000 years ago.
[edit on 13-2-2005 by Byrd]


The thing is, we're not really sure if that's accurate. It could have been as long as 30,000 years ago. Archeologists have found signs of possible human habitation in North America from as long ago as 24,000 years.



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 09:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by toechopper

Originally posted by Toadfish
Most researchers say they came across the Bering Straits from Russia to Alaska at the end of the Ice Age, up to 15,000 years ago.
[edit on 13-2-2005 by Byrd]


The thing is, we're not really sure if that's accurate. It could have been as long as 30,000 years ago. Archeologists have found signs of possible human habitation in North America from as long ago as 24,000 years.



Yhe we know...............Thats what we are saying.

There where people in North-South America LONG BEFORE the Indian people Arrived just 9000 years ago.

Think of all the remains of humans found in North America over the past 10-50 years, where it was proven the remains WHERE NOT of American Indian ancestry.

The Indians Stop all-testing on the remains & claim the body for burial.



Well this tactic might not work for much longer as other cultures like the Australian Aboriginals start court action to prove that the remains found in North America are NOT Indian & could infact be of Australian ancestry, so there for bans on ALL HUMAN REMAINS CLAIMED BY THE INDIANS,
(To prevent further testing) should be lifted & the reaming subjected to FULL AND COMPRAHENSIVE TESTING TO CONFIRM ANCESTERY, so that the remains can be returned to their rightful cultures.


(Oldest American skull found)
archives.cnn.com...


The American Indians Have Lived Of The History Of Other Peoples Culture Long Enough.........This Will Soon End ( ONCE & FOR ALL )


[edit on 16-2-2005 by Toadfish]



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 09:54 PM
link   
Excuse me Toadfish, but how does "may have been" equate to "were", as you are asserting?

Btw, the use of American Indians is incorrect. The proper term is Native American Indians and 'native' would imply that they were indigenous to the Americas prior to America ever coming into existence. And though 'indigenous' would imply 'native to an area', there is working room to indicate that there were migrations into the Americas by a variety of ethnic peoples eventually becoming termed or classed as 'indigenous' and 'native' to the Americas.




seekerof

[edit on 16-2-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 09:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof


Btw, the use of American Indians is incorrect. The proper term is Native American Indians




In the spirit of the topic and political correctness for its purposes, then, we should refer to "post-Australian-Aboriginal-pre-European-colonization-indigenous-native-American-Indian peoples".



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 10:05 PM
link   

I can go with that MaskedAvatar.




seekerof



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 10:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar

Originally posted by Seekerof


Btw, the use of American Indians is incorrect. The proper term is Native American Indians




In the spirit of the topic and political correctness for its purposes, then, we should refer to "post-Australian-Aboriginal-pre-European-colonization-indigenous-native-American-Indian peoples".



If you really wanted to be political correct you would not call ANYONE native or indigenous to America until the vertices are in.

But the facts are Indian can ((NOT)) call themselves NATIVE as there were people & cultures in the Americas LONG before them UP TOO 50 000 years before.


So In the spirit of the topic and political correctness, might I suggest the term?

Native (US'ers) or USERS for short.

As A race of people, even the name ( Indian ) is not their own.

To recap,

They are not Native or indigenous to America. ( not the 1st people of America)

& nor are they Indian.

political correctness puz:

:

Cultural thievery.



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 11:23 PM
link   
I have mentioned before that I consider anyone referring to himself as a "native American" because of his race is simply a racist. As someone born in the US. I am as native an American as any Navajo, Cree, or Cherokee. I will continue to call those folks American Indians, unless they have a tribal name that they'd like to be called.

But we have no proof that some of the really old remains are not American Indians, although I think that some of them probably are. Kennewick Man, for example, certainly had a lot of caucasaoid physiognomy, including the cranial indices and long-bone cross-sections.

The first article cited by Toadfish, however, doesn't seem to make much sense. Australian Aborigines are more like Negroes than either Asians or Caucasians; look at the cephalic indices, oval cross-section of the femur and the humerus, and of course the curly hair, flattened nose, and full lips.

Yet there is not trace of such a physiognomy much east of the Solomon Islands; all the areas north are Micronesians, and the further east are Polynesians. I find it difficult to understand how these putative proto-Australoids passed through the islands (which we're pretty sure weren't even settled until 1500 to 3500 years ago) without settling there, and continued to the West Coast of North America.

Further, the article claimed that the 'long-face' individuals were Australoid is contradicted by the second article cited by Toadfish; it quotes Silvia Gonzalez, the Mexican archaeologist, as saying the skull physiognomy was consistent with the Ainu of Japan, whom, as we know, are proto-Caucasoids now mostly limited to living on the northern island of Hokkaido.

So the bottom line is tha there is no "proof" of any thing, although the American Indians' claim to be the first folks here is getting more and more tenuous.

It'll be interesting to see the reports of any studies on the mitochondrial DNA of the remains.

[edit on 16-2-2005 by Off_The_Street]



posted on Feb, 17 2005 @ 04:05 AM
link   
besides australians, the egyptians have supposedly seen her blue mountains majesty....www.marsearthconnection.com...
www.xpeditionsmagazine.com...
www.fortunecity.com...

i'll get a few more later....



posted on Feb, 17 2005 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Toadfish

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar

Originally posted by Seekerof


Btw, the use of American Indians is incorrect. The proper term is Native American Indians




In the spirit of the topic and political correctness for its purposes, then, we should refer to "post-Australian-Aboriginal-pre-European-colonization-indigenous-native-American-Indian peoples".



If you really wanted to be political correct you would not call ANYONE native or indigenous to America until the vertices are in.





OK, sorry.

"post-Australian-Aboriginal-pre-European-colonization-indigenous-native-American-Indian peoples, pending vertical entry."



posted on Feb, 17 2005 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Toadfish
There where people in North-South America LONG BEFORE the Indian people Arrived just 9000 years ago.

What remians? The onyl one I am aware of is kennewick man, and there was no genetic testing on that specimin.
 


off the street
As someone born in the US. I am as native an American as any Navajo, Cree, or Cherokee.

I tend to think that any people in a country before european colonialists show up can call themselves 'natives' and keep that as a name for their group, even tho its technically incorrect. Besides 'amerindian' can be a weird sounding word.

Yet there is not trace of such a physiognomy much east of the Solomon Islands; all the areas north are Micronesians

I'm not sure how strongly facial and cranial characteristics really correlate with actual ethnic-cutlural identity, but I do have trouble seeing aboriginal australians (heck, aboringinal just means native anyway eh) as having much if anything to do with polynesians. Also, a japan to alaska route? Aren't many people talking about an island hopping route from polynesia to america nowadays?

although the American Indians' claim to be the first folks here is getting more and more tenuous.

What would it matter anyway? It wouldn't affect the status of their reservations, or any other legal status, it wouldn't mean that the land is any more or less theirs, heck, australia doesn't belogn to the aboriginies. It would be somewhat ironic if the current amerindians had invaded and wiped out the aboriginal americans tho.

off the street
It'll be interesting to see the reports of any studies on the mitochondrial DNA of the remains.

Any genetic study would be extremely interetsing. There should be evidence of this previous population however in the modern amerindian population tho.



posted on Feb, 17 2005 @ 11:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Toadfish
The claim will be unwelcome to today's native Americans who came overland from Siberia and say they were there first.

"This is very contentious," said Gonzalez. "[Native Americans] cannot claim to have been the first people there."


Toadfish, Toadfish. Sigh. When I read your thread title, I thought, 'wow, a cool idea I can get down with'. Then I read your post.

First off, the scientists quoted should not put words in my mouth, nor the mouths of my brothers and sisters. This claim is not unwelcome to us; we have known of our Aboriginal brothers for millenia. We are the children of the dreamtime of all nations.

We are made up of all races. Always have been. Some of us came over from Siberia last week. Some others from Norway a thousand years ago. Some of us lived here with the Mammoths. Some came over from Africa a few thousand years ago. Others from Australia. I heard a Croat came over last week and joined the Mohawks. You could join us too, if you lose your attitude. You see, Native American Indian is not a race thing. Its a tribal thing.



Native Americans cannot claim to have been the first people there


Now that has to be the stupidist thing I have ever heard any learned person say. The blood of the mammoth hunters is in every Native American tribe- every tribe has crossbred over the millenia. We Cherokees at least saw to that. For example, we ourselves come from the area of greater North Carolina by way of Mexico. But our People have lived for ages in tribelets all over. In Washington State, for example, we have the Ama-ama people, (HammaHamma)- Cherokee for 'saltwater people'. To our People, it is to gain high face to marry someone from very far away. The farther, the better the catch. So we used to wander, not just to trade and explore but to marry. And we have inhabited this country from the Beginning.

I understand the desperate attempts to weasel out of the fact that Europeans came to this land uninvited and committed unprovoked aggressive warfare and expropriation of land and human rights from my Ancestors. I understand why the English and Spanish and Portuguese and French and German and Russian governments do not want to apologize, let alone pay reparations to American Indian Nations. This is politics, and is understandable, if not justifyable.

But the attempt to say, 'those who were originally there, weren't originally from there' is inexcusable, bad science, symantic suicide, and as laughable as an assinine roadapple. The applicable law is called prior occupancy, which you might be familiar with as Real Title.

[edit on 18-2-2005 by Chakotay]



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chakotay

Originally posted by Toadfish
The claim will be unwelcome to today's native Americans who came overland from Siberia and say they were there first.

"This is very contentious," said Gonzalez. "[Native Americans] cannot claim to have been the first people there."


Toadfish, Toadfish. Sigh. When I read your thread title, I thought, 'wow, a cool idea I can get down with'. Then I read your post.

First off, the scientists quoted should not put words in my mouth, nor the mouths of my brothers and sisters. This claim is not unwelcome to us; we have known of our Aboriginal brothers for millenia. We are the children of the dreamtime of all nations.

We are made up of all races. Always have been. Some of us came over from Siberia last week. Some others from Norway a thousand years ago. Some of us lived here with the Mammoths. Some came over from Africa a few thousand years ago. Others from Australia. I heard a Croat came over last week and joined the Mohawks. You could join us too, if you lose your attitude. You see, Native American Indian is not a race thing. Its a tribal thing.



Native Americans cannot claim to have been the first people there


Now that has to be the stupidist thing I have ever heard any learned person say. The blood of the mammoth hunters is in every Native American tribe- every tribe has crossbred over the millenia. We Cherokees at least saw to that. For example, we ourselves come from the area of greater North Carolina by way of Mexico. But our People have lived for ages in tribelets all over. In Washington State, for example, we have the Ama-ama people, (HammaHamma)- Cherokee for 'saltwater people'. To our People, it is to gain high face to marry someone from very far away. The farther, the better the catch. So we used to wander, not just to trade and explore but to marry. And we have inhabited this country from the Beginning.



But the attempt to say, 'those who were originally there, weren't originally from there' is inexcusable, bad science, symantic suicide, and as laughable as an assinine roadapple. The applicable law is called prior occupancy, which you might be familiar with as Real Title.

[edit on 18-2-2005 by Chakotay]





@ Chakotay.

your showing your ignorance of other culturesChakotay.

You talk about tribe's.......Cherokee for 'saltwater people'

& the Dreamtime as if it belongs to the Indians.


(BUT)


IF IT IS SHOW THAT THE AUSTRALIAN ABORININALS WERE THE FIST PEOPLE TO SETTLE THE AMERICAS IT WOULD MEAN INDIAN BELEAFS WERE BASED ON THOSE OF THE AUSTRALIAN ABORIGINALS.
_______________________________________
__________________________________________________________


So far the only proof that man lived in the Americas before 12000 years ago' shows, remains of Australian Aboriginals in south America date back to over 40 000 years, the human Bodies, & artifacts, found there.

you just need to look @ Australian Mythology too see the connection.

the Aboriginal cultures of Australia are amoungst the oldest in the World.

The oldest humans found in Australia, were found in the far south of the countrie, & date to...47, 000 years.

for humans to have' arrived in the FAR SOUTH OF AUSTRALIA, they had to travel from the, FAR NORTH, OF AUSTRALIA, to get there.........

No hunan remaines have yet been found in Australias north, BUT there are Tools Carvings, & cave paintings, found there, some of them date to 60,000 years ago, & others to 132,000 years ago.

About 2500 different tribes lived on the continent of Australia and for thousands of years they lived as their ancestors did. They had very primitive tools, such as the boomerang, which they used for hunting. Most Aboriginal "throwing sticks" did not return when thrown, but they could be used with deadly accuracy to bring down large animals such as kangaroos. The type of boomerang that returned when thrown was mainly used for contests of skill.

For more than 40,000 years, they lived by the laws of their rituals, myths and spiritual beliefs. The belief system of the Aboriginals is the longest continuing religion in the world, and it guided--and still guides--every aspect of their lives.

Their beliefs are based on the "Dreamtime" -- a period when the world was formed, and when the First People were spirits that lived long before the various tribes. These spirit people were responsible for creating the seas, the sun, stars, rain, fire, and more. Many landmarks or unusual rock formations were believed to be marks left by the spirits, or they were the spirits, themselves, who had transformed into these natural objects. Because of these beliefs, the land was viewed as sacred. Many of their myths and legends are "creation stories" that explain how some objects or animals came into being. Through songs, dance, storytelling and rituals.



aboriginal stories Myths & Legends about gondwana, tell how the Australian aborigines lived in Australia before the dawn of time.....BEFORE the break up of their homeland, gondwana or RU

For hundreds of years Europeans passed this legend off as a story, but in the last 80 years we have learnt much about how gondwana, was a supper continaint that was made up of the lands of Australia, north & South America, Indonesia, & Antarctica.

_______________
________________________________

The Australian Aboriginies tell a story about a serpent, called the ....
( rainbow serpent )

he rainbow serpent/snake is a major mythological being for Aboriginal people across Australia, although the creation stories associated with it are best known from northern Australia. Such is its significance that it has been described as "an agent of destiny" for Aboriginal people.

The Rainbow serpent was a god(dess) and This creature was said to have helped shape the land of gondwana, especially the water ways.



Large rock art of the 'Rainbow Serpent', Mt. Borrodaile - 48,000 yrs old.
Northern Territory......Copyright © 48,000 B.C Aboriginal Australia Pty Ltd

Dreamtime Rainbow Serpent Real

The rainbow serpent which features prominently in Aboriginal Dreamtime legend, may not have been a mythological creature after all. New evidence provided by the archeological remains of a species of a primitive Australian snake suggest it could be the basis for what has long been regarded as folklore. Known as the Wonambi Naracoortensis, the creature ranged in length from five to ten metres and was the width of a car wheal. It was big enough to swallow extremely large creatures. The rainbow serpent, which appears in Aboriginal rock art going back 40,000 years, is said to command the powers of creation and destruction and plays a key role in the Aboriginal Dreamtime. The latest claims are based on fossil records from Naracoorte in South Australia which first revealed the giant snake. It is believed to have survived until 30,000 to 40,000 years ago

The site is at Serra Da Capivara in remote northeast Brazil. proves that Australian Aborigines settled America some 40,000 before anybody else.

when these Australias arrived in america they took with them their myths & legands of the DREAMTIME.......

evidence of survivors comes from Terra del Fuego, the islands at the remotest southern tip of South America.

They took with them, on their journy from Australia to America,
40000 yrs ago storys & mythology handed down from their ancestors.

the Serpent can also be found in all american mythology.
As can many legends & mythology of the Australian Aborigines.

Big foot =OR= The BUNYIP.

Australian aboriginal stories describe the bunyip as an evil spirit which dwells in creeks, swamps, and billabongs. The bunyip's loud bellowing cry terrifies the aborigines.

They avoid water sources where they believe a bunyip might live. Some stories suggest the bunyip emerges at night principally to prey on women and children as well as animals. Many white settlers also claimed encounters with the bunyip. While descriptions of the bunyip vary, most portray a creature with a hairy horse-like head and large body. Aboriginal stories about the bunyip may reflect oral traditions of the diprotodon, a rhinosceros-sized herbivore. Diprotodon was the largest marsupial ever to have existed.


The Bunyip

A monster of Aboriginal mythology, the bunyip was the subject of traditional beliefs and stories in many parts of Australia. Its name varied according to tribal nomenclature, but its appearance and habits were essentially the same in many eastern regions of the continent. In general it lived in the depths of lagoons and water-holes, emerging on moonlit nights to capture and devour any luckless human prey that came within reach. It had a particular fondness for Aboriginal women. From their earliest contacts with the natives, European settlers began to hear tales of the bunyip. For a considerable part of the nineteenth century many colonists and some scientists believed in the actual existence of the monster.



QUESTION.....
was the story of Big foot, handed down in the Americas by the Australian Aboriginals when they first arrived in America' were they told & re-told stories of the Dreamtime as told by their ancestor who lived in Australia 60,000 - 120 000 years ago.

We know that the"First Americans" were Australian' Adam and Eve were Australians, not Africans as most experts on human evolution now believe, according to recently completed research.

The research, soon to be published by an American scientific journal, presents a new genetic tree showing anatomically modern humanity emerged from a common ancestor who lived in Australia 60,000 years ago.

Were skulls physical proof that bunyips existed?

In 1846 an unusual skull was retrieved from the banks of the Murrumbidgee River in New South Wales. In the first flush of excitement several experts declared that it was the skull of something unknown to science. In July 1847 the so-called ‘bunyip skull’ was put on exhibition in the Australian Museum (then located at the Supreme Court House, Sydney)

www.nla.gov.au...



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 11:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof


Btw, the use of American Indians is incorrect. The proper term is Native American Indians and 'native' would imply that they were indigenous to the Americas prior to America ever coming into existence.




[edit on 16-2-2005 by Seekerof]


Your wrong yourself there friend.

North American Indian is the term , IF you must use it. We prefer you not.



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 11:54 PM
link   
Wait, correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't today's inhabitants of Australia just prisoners from Great Britian from long ago? That's what we always learned in school.



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 11:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShawNee922
North American Indian is the term , IF you must use it. We prefer you not.


In the interests of cultural awareness, what would be the proper term? I for one am not sure. In Canada, we use First Nations.

Or would it just be better to not even make reference to it?


doh! see I really am confused, but decided to leave this up so everyone could have a good laugh at my stupidity!


I meant to ask what you would prefer to be called.

[edit on 18-2-2005 by Duzey]

[edit on 18-2-2005 by Duzey]



posted on Feb, 19 2005 @ 03:57 AM
link   
Going by archaeological evidence, the Australian Aborigines, complex cultural pictograms found at 2 sites near Penrith and Lake Mungo in New South Wales and 1 site in Western Australia and the Northern Territory detail the Aboriginal belief in "The Dreaming" (i.e., the period of time in which the 'Wodjina' created, formed, and differentiated the world). These sites date from 45,000 BCE to 38,000 BCE respectively. Thus, the Australian Aboriginal culture must be at least 47,000+ years old. Also Australian Aboriginals are totaly different to the African peoples, firstly the Australian Aboriginal skin pigmentation is dark dark brown unlike the African who's skin pigmentation is BLACK! Religious beliefs are totally different, but American Indian have almost the same religious beliefs as the Australian Aborigines which is unchanged and untouched by western or eastern beliefs. All other religions globaly are significantly modern about 2-3000 years old, christianity, islam etc etc.evolved to suit the requirements of the respective natives of that period. A study of very ancient cultures such as the Australian Aboriginies, untouched by Western or Eastern religions of Europe and Asia, prove that God DID NOT send warnings and prophets to all people. Furthermore it is obvious that the concept of eternal punishment or a Satan figure is not indiginous to all religions. Unlike other religions Australian Aborigines have had no need to worship a god or a creator, therefore didn't worship any entity. Every animate or inanimate object is seen as extremely sacred and is respected as such, true ecologists true conservationists, extremely respectful of extended family and skin goupings. The term skin groupings was created by the non indigenous community because of the complex family structures in Aboriginal law which has never been broken for millenia and is upheld to this day.



posted on Apr, 22 2011 @ 01:07 PM
link   
My mother went to the American Smithsonian in Washington DC a few years ago to give the museum a reproduction of an old native outfit for the museum to display! The outfit was discovered in a melting glacier and was estimated to be around 12000 years old. My mother did her best to make accurate replica of this hunting outfit using ancient techniques, like using porcupine quills as bead work and flower petals for coloring!
While at the Smithsonian, she was shown the oldest artifact ever found in the Americas, was of Gwich'in Ancestory, and was a small carving made from Caribou antler!! It was said to be tested and shown to be maybe 124,000 - 130,000 years old!!! It was found near the town OLD CROW, in the Yukon territory, Canada! It is unknown to me why this isn't brought up in history classes or anything, but my mother seen it first hand! Go to the Smithsonian in Washington DC and see it for yourself!



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join