It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


why were ancient australian aboriginals left out of annunaki influence

page: 3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 25 2010 @ 09:20 PM
reply to post by megabyte

First of all, is there any evidence that the mayan the Egyptians etc. all evolved around the same time period, indipendently of each other? That many structures have been alligned to match the orion belt does not necessarily mean alien intervention. There could have been a cultural exchange that is not documented.

History is about what can be traced and proven. The void isnt necessarily aliens from outer space. That many cultures believed in star people from the stars can have something to do that everybody looked up and saw stars. However I admit there are things that can not be explained away easily, such as prove that there were ancient cultures who mapped the solar system correctly, something which we achieved with Nasa grade equipment.
edit on 25-12-2010 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 25 2010 @ 09:27 PM
they are nomads, people who move from place to place, being tribes with set boundries, boundries which each tribe maintained for their own growth and survival, areas broken up into sub divisions like a farm for rotation of crops, though never being stripped bare or needing replanting, moving from one harvest to the other as the seasons dictated. cultivation of land also not possible for all areas, so hunter gathering being the best way for survival as boundry provided and no one place becoming as permanent fixture in settlement.

posted on Dec, 25 2010 @ 09:35 PM
reply to post by megabyte

my thought would be that they were smarter beings... why? because a being from third dimension evolving his spiritual being wants and almost always attains enlightened reaching into new dimension, why build a house/shrine/monument if i can create them at will in higher vibrational spaces.

just a thought

posted on Dec, 25 2010 @ 09:56 PM
Aboriginals were rooted in pre-human genes. They are much different = racism.
Modern aboriginals are what's left. The most ancient types = died off, were killed by other aboriginals when they fled = racism.
Egyptians landed and wrote about their visit and influenced aboriginals in the area = heresy
The latest wave of aboriginals are fairly new and were connected to the same ancients that we are = my opinion
Chinese and Japanese had a presence here = they say so...
The earliest bones in Aus' didn't have African DNA, but are unrelated to aboriginals = true
There were 7 race types in Australia, mainly Negritos and Australoids = true

This should interest you

I love how everyone says how great they are/were, but this 'noble savage' idiom is rubbish. They had constant tribal wars, raped and exchanged women who whose bones usually show signs of violence...

It's nice to imagine a race of people in harmony with society, but it's not at all realistic. I grew up with media signing praises and making us all feel guilty, but not even 1% of what I hear is true.

Just to throw a spanner in the works.. The earliest aboriginals did harvest food, but later arrivals burnt down the continent, subsequently killing off all the mega fauna. There was nothing that could be farmed except the giant wombat, and that animal lasted 11,000 years after their arrival. Some of the groups hadn't learned to harvest fire, and on the east coast they all talk of pre-humans who were still there when settlers arrived... stories of the Yowi (Australia's big foot) involve recently extinct mega fauna. The smaller type are pre-humans

posted on Dec, 25 2010 @ 10:04 PM

Originally posted by megabyte
either the australia aborigine could not evolve beyond hunter gatherer in part because suitable crops and livestock were not in Australia

or they were not smart enough to civilise beyond hunter gatherer [i dont believe this one because there are plenty australian aboroginals today who certainly have brians and can become high achievers]

so what are some other theories?

Shut have no idea what you are talking about

Literally our entire land is unsustainable for crops. The aborginals had no mean of having the technology to be able to cultivate the land. Even the early European settlers had issues, and they never settled here til about 1789. What do you expect?

And to assume they are of less intelligence than any other race is simply a pathetic unedcuated assumption

posted on Dec, 25 2010 @ 10:07 PM
I heard something about the chinese arriving to australian shores 1000s of years ago, but because the land was barren they turned around and went home, or got killed by a giant tsunami.

posted on Dec, 25 2010 @ 10:24 PM
reply to post by megabyte

As one poster said, I feel alot of what Sitchin is saying is some pretty cool stuff to think about, but I think he's missing a more realistic picture. I feel we overthink things so much that we forget to look at the simplicity of what started the belief in the first place.

As Sitchin did, someone can sit back and tie so much of the common mythology of the worlds history together, under common similarity. I think the bigger problem is, which one was first? We can date sumerian culture back 5 thousand years ago by texts, but anything older than that or even in that age range is dated on hearsay for the most part.

If there was a forgotten time before the sumerians, and it wasnt space aliens, it could have been a conquering nation that arrived in Oz all those years back. Hmm I wonder just how long a story being told as "happening a long time ago" interprets to "a thousand... 10 thousand years... Last galactic cycle,,, 40 days, 40 nights...

Ancient peoples from the last time we blew ourselves up? Atlantis? Angels comming down to mingle with the offspring? Wasnt there something about a flood in the aboriginal belief? Anyone have a good link to a more decent, informative site about the beliefs?

Ive always leaned towards... A whole lot can happen in 6 thousand years! I can see populations exploding from hardly nothing in very little time. I can see alot of catastrophies in 6 thousand years, heck, i've witnessed a serious amount of them in the last 10 years, 50, 100 years.

Who's to say that we arnt all part of what was left after a full chaotic world of messed-up-ness, that ended up swimming with the fishy's. Altantis went that same route. It was supposedly 10,000 years before plato. Im curious to know how we kept up with all that time without pens and paper... or some sort of stone calendar that says "This is today" and "this is 10,0000 years ago". Im afraid I would also have to see all the little blocks in between...

Wonder how bad you could pervert a world with knowledge in 1500 years? What if it were 5000 years ago? What if you gave up that knowledge today? Imagine the next 1500 years...

posted on Dec, 25 2010 @ 10:39 PM

Originally posted by auswally
reply to post by megabyte

why didnt they proceed to developing villiages?

They had no need, now i ask back why should they ?


but being hunter gatherers meant that they had many deaths of loved ones when there were several years in a row of low rain fall that lead to famines

agriculture was invented so that ppl could produce more food crops or livestock in times of plenty so that they did not need to have famines caused by droughts that lasted and lasted

posted on Dec, 25 2010 @ 10:43 PM
reply to post by squandered

you are so spot on

they were not these perfectly attuned spiritual people some here want to tell us

they were normal ppl with wars and famines and even in times of drought, cannibalism

and I am not singling out the australian aboriginal for the cannibalism - it existed everywhere else too

posted on Dec, 25 2010 @ 10:46 PM

Originally posted by OzWeatherman

Originally posted by megabyte
either the australia aborigine could not evolve beyond hunter gatherer in part because suitable crops and livestock were not in Australia

or they were not smart enough to civilise beyond hunter gatherer [i dont believe this one because there are plenty australian aboroginals today who certainly have brians and can become high achievers]

so what are some other theories?

Shut have no idea what you are talking about

Literally our entire land is unsustainable for crops. The aborginals had no mean of having the technology to be able to cultivate the land. Even the early European settlers had issues, and they never settled here til about 1789. What do you expect?

And to assume they are of less intelligence than any other race is simply a pathetic unedcuated assumption

that is exactly the point I am making - that there were australian aborigines just as smart as ppl anywhere else but the lack of farmable species in australia had an impact of what the aborigines could do

so my question stands - why not? did the annunaki overlook australia when they gave out seeds and livestock that could be farmed?

any ideas?

posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 12:04 AM

Originally posted by megabyte
reply to post by squandered

you are so spot on

they were not these perfectly attuned spiritual people some here want to tell us

they were normal ppl with wars and famines and even in times of drought, cannibalism

and I am not singling out the australian aboriginal for the cannibalism - it existed everywhere else too

I am spot on, thanks.. (you get shouted at when you say what most people think)

The problem is that we are spat on by our own people.
Aboriginals aren't capable of matching the modern world, working hard and making industrial progress.
This is 100% racist and completely true. It's why we spit on ourselves. People love the full blood aboriginals as they are so grounded and earthly, and they hate the half castes because they have the 'white man' vicious streak and use it to avoid doing anything they don't want. Add to that a much better brain for politics then any other people.

We nearly wiped them out. They weren't expected to survive, so we invented a new history that attempts to force them to adapt and forces us to take up the shortfall. It's just alarmist dogma that gets the ball rolling. Food for the sheeple.

Some people would be seething at my comment thus far. Some would even kill me for what I've said... but the unfortunate truth is that moral compensation is only promoted from people who don't pay. The average Joe pays and pays, and if he complains or challenges the PC rhetoric, he's branded. The fairytale of the noble savage has already been accepted.

I don't know who he is (doesn't say), but in this link I learned more here than anywhere else. The answers to this post are all there. The only bias the author shows is a very rare lack of bias to the convicts.

To finish, aboriginals weren't too hard to mix with. The early settlers were instructed to make friends. Things had progressed since other colonisations, but not so much British snobbery. War was never brought to them. They struggled with common diseases and many of them were wiped out. They interbred as much as they could because the white man had the tools for survival. The convicts and cheap settlers weren't allowed to embrace their culture or bring it into the new society (but they did) and the aboriginals were a middle ground - both sides fought for their approval.

There was no such thing as rape to aboriginals. Cannibalism was common. They had no concept of ownership which is the only real source of strife; that farmers would move them on. No matter how proactive the policies were, anything the government tried failed. The most notable failure is to lie to them, telling them they were so awesome, we were so bad, they suffered so much (like having to work, be educated, plan etc) and every chance there is paint them as victims, done. All the government does is throw money at them. They can't handle the situation, so even though the blame is put on the average Joe, they were the real threat.
edit on 26-12-2010 by squandered because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 12:23 AM
reply to post by megabyte

"so my question stands - why not? did the annunaki overlook australia when they gave out seeds and livestock that could be farmed?

any ideas? "

Replace "annunaki", with "slavery"

The force that evolved the human world did make to Australia but pre-human genes are too dominant to see a race change very much. There are many white aboriginals who can't keep a house in good order and it takes a lot of generations for 1 part aboriginal blood to be dissolved to the point where that person doesn't classify themselves as aboriginal.

Recent findings show another pre-human species related to Neanderthal whose DNA is prevalent in PNG. Of course that means it is part of aboriginal DNA but nobody is allowed to go there. These genes don't dissolve. They are stronger than what most of us here have.

All of what I've said IS RACIST, except that I'm not looking down on anyone. In the recent past people were judged as inferior and used as slaves in some places, just to civilise them - an excuse as it were... In Australia aboriginals are proud of their heritage and most Aussies are proud to be a part of that. That's why I'm all for being realistic and not saying they are just as smart. In some ways they are much smarter, by far! and in other ways they are animals by comparision - work ethic etc.

My theory is:
1. They've never been enslaved. There hasn't been 10,000 years of genetic purification, thus no need for commerce and even a concept of civilisation. (They were already here)
2. The root gene is an animal. This means it's been developed by the survival of the fittest and not cultivated by civilisation. The unmanageable people weren't culled by the church, instead they profited in a brutal world.
3. The root gene is dominate. We all have it and in times of strife it will come back. After 100's of mass migrations and population decline the root gene didn't dissolve into next to nothing like ours because we've had 1000's of cultural, migratory clashes, total wars etc.

If anyone argues that white people (or others) can be just as wild, I'll agree. There's no shortage of feral people here. It's about conditioning, but the effects of slavery aren't in their blood.

posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 12:31 AM
reply to post by squandered

it is a big thing to adjust from stone age to modern age and that is a subject for another thread

but what i am asking about is why of all the continents on earth this was the only continent with no higher culture in any small corner

in africa you had egypt for example - where is the australian equivalent?

why did they never get from hunter gatherer to agriculture?

to explain once again - hunter gatherers are at the mercy of weather - too many years in a row when rain is inadequate and a lot of people and children die no spiritual connection can compensate for watching your baby die can it?

with agriculture you can minimise the damage by over producing in good years and storing food for the drought years

Australia is capable of having a drought for 10 years - that is a long time to try and feed their children with very scarce food and their meat species dying out because of lack of water and food too

so once again - why did the annunaki not give them seeds and livestock as Zecheria Sitchin claims was done in Sumeria and other places? before Sumeria there is no record of these species existing and then suddenly they were just there

so if not annunaki then why didnt the techniques make their way to Australia - they did have contact with Indonesians who had contact to the higher cultural places like china and cambodia and so they could have taught the australian aborigine some things about preserving food for lean years [obviously not rice growing as that needs a lot of water, but the cambodians and chinese must have had other plants]

yes they collected bush yam but there is no evidence they cultivated it or stored it for lean years

so why were australian aboriginals not part of what was happening everywhere else in those early times when agriculture was invented

posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 01:49 AM
reply to post by megabyte

I really felt like I had answered that. I'll start by straightening out some things you've stated.

Australia has not just had 10 years of drought, here and there over 40,000 years. The land went from lush to dessert, from having an inland sea to the worlds largest dessert. It was joined to Asia and now the sea's are relatively high. What's more, my area just finished 10 years if drought, while the Nth was flooding. It's a big place.

When Australia was lush, there were civilisations. Go to the link I have added above. You need a constant supply of water and arable regions, plus flora and fauna suitable to farming for any sizable towns to grow.

At the start there were some unknown, advanced civilisations. There was farming and the earliest cave paintings show a much mopre advanced society than what was found, say: 3000 & 2000 & 1000 & 500 years ago. I'll warrant a guess and say the hominid natives picked up fire from them and wreaked havoc for 10,000 years before they were all gone.

When you assert that they should have evolved you neglect the 100,000 years when the world was made up of hunter gathers, thinking aboriginals should have evolved at the same time. Why didn't others evolve in a 40,000 year period, and how would we know?

I see no reason to believe in Alien genetic interference, when I know that ancient civilisations were using slaves for at least 20,000 years and as such there's no chance that anyone here doesn't have slavery in their past - and without doubt the same genetic influence is affecting us now. Perhaps aboriginals were the displaced people, (from various migrations) that roamed the furthest (to the most isolated part of the globe) being the most repelled by slavery. I digress...

That's why I explain the lack of industrial means to isolation and older genetics. The same goes for sub-Saharan Africa - also isolated. The isolation was far from complete though. It doesn't have to be.

Same goes for drought. If there was nothing to eat, they could just move on. Most aboriginals were nomadic and almost every aboriginal left is from nomadic tribes. They evolved to the conditions. They are closer to the root gene and more adaptive, physically rather than mentally. Their frontal lobe is massive and they know where the water is because they never forget what they see.

Everything else is already written above. They didn't need to change because life was pretty good. They were more spiritual and the religious beliefs were post awakening. They belonged to the land. We think the world belongs to us. (Something about original sin smacks true.) What's more the Christian missionaries rated aboriginals as the best Christians.

The only other thing I'll add is from personal observation. Aboriginals seem to shun modernisation and are repelled by stress. Cities hurt them like a crisis. I'm generalising to those I've met in remote places and the ugly behaviour they exhibit in cities but when you are amongst them you get the impression they see an ever encroaching force of evil that threatens to take them away from their connection to the land. Since they are a mix of many waves of migration I'll hazard a guess that those who made it to such an isolated place were already running from the same sense of defilement, so instead of evolving they grew stronger in the culture of anti-modernisation.

If you want to take Indonesian influence into context, it's all as expected. Timorese aboriginals are just like them. There are many tribal areas left. The influence was slow because there wasn't much going on. The population there hasn't fully been replaced but there's a stark differences between indigenous, mixed and Asian arrivals. In fact all of Asia was aboriginal recently and there were distinct races only 10,000 years ago. Look at PNG if you want a clearer picture.

posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 01:59 AM

Originally posted by megabyte
reply to post by B.Morrison

egyptians could have travelled by boat to australia

based on the gympie pyramid - gympie ape & the early heiroglyph's found in that cave,
it's certainly possible.


even though the australian aboriginals did meet up with indonesians, Asia has some well developed cultures and Australia never even got started in the things one would call cultural developments

so the question remains - why?

good question, and If I had to guess I would say it was a conscious choice of theirs to remain the same - in order to adhere to the laws of their gods - as far as I'm aware - full blood aboriginals literally had a different chromosome make-up to us - sharing the type of one or 2 other tribes in the world that apparently can still interact with these spirits and 'sense' them in a way that we cannot - If a god was telling me to do something & I could actually 'see' it, I would probably do as I was told also.

The other possibility I propose is they simply never had anything good to trade?

just guessing though...

so the question remains - why every continent has farming and textiles making and writing and the australian aboriginals did not borrow or develop these
so why isn't there?

good question, I can only speculate as I have. I'd love to know more myself.


Gradius Maximus

you all had interesting posts that made me think...

edit on 26/12/10 by B.Morrison because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 02:02 AM
Aboriginals didn't do farming as we know it IMO due to the different climates in different regions where certain animals/food sources weren't available.
It's easier for animals like kangaroos and emus to do their own forraging rather than Aboriginals being responsible for herding them around to follow the food trail, which in often distant regions can be scarce.
They had the ability to track their prey which is also another handy skill for them to locate their food source when needed.
Also coastal tribes lived mainly on seafood and also large marine animals like turtles, dugongs and whales. Indigenous people were very clever using harpoons and spears

I think farming didn't take off because of the different regions, climates, local food sources and the fact that it's easier to hunt and track live game when it's needed than farm the animals and have to lug huge amounts of feed for them back to where the farm would have been. By hunting, they could travel light.

So my point being, that they could very well have come into contact with the knowledge of farming but rejected it because of the above reasons. After all, they'd survived a long time without having to do it.
This is just my opinion and not based on any fact but it's pretty obvious to me why.

posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 02:46 AM
reply to post by megabyte

Was aggriculture benificial to them or was it more profitable for the people to stick to hunting? You have to admit, they were pretty secluded from the rest of the world for a long time. I did wonder about this once, of how civilizations could exist and other parts of the world remained "native". Perhaps it was the amount of people that gathered together to form these cities or markets. Im certain that spawned more free thinking, inventions and what not. People living close together, living on one anothers imaginations and day to day chores. In Oz, the people adapted to a harsher environment, which probably became visible in their actions towards one another. Survival was the natural instict living on a land that was part desert, part forest, part swamp, alot of mystery.

Lost tribe anyone?

Its just sad that theyre are no longer any pure aboriginies left since the last 50 some years, right?

Maybe the "alien" element didnt care to go too far from base. Maybe there were no resources there. Since the aborigonies believed they were visited 10k years ago, perhaps the aliens touched down there first, mined all the resources (cmon thats a pretty big place with a mountain in the middle of it. The dirt and stone there have an erie red ore look to it.

Once they were done there, perhaps they moved off to the other countries and gave them the knowledge from that point on. By then, they took what they came for and scattered out, only to be seen in the nights sky now and then.

An explosion of people all around the world, 10k years ago.. thats pretty crazy. Wonder where they all went?

posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 03:10 AM
reply to post by squandered

yes but i think i posted my post b4 i saw yours

ok then - if zecharia sitching had not died perhaps we could have his theory about this

as it is - maybe some other author or archeologist can prove some theories we have all mentioned in this thread

one thing that keeps being said is that survival was better as hunter gatherers but as I mentioned b4 - only agriculture allows you to store food for lean years and thus help your family to live and survive

I know the seeds in native australia were not the same as the seeds and livestock on other continets and I am asking why not - why did australia have to wait till white men settled australia before all those seeds and livestock became available - guess we will have to wait till an expert studies this question and writes a book about it

posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 03:13 AM
reply to post by theRhenn

There are many pure blood aboriginals left. My friend married one and he brags that she's pure blood. She has very strong bone structure and goes crazy when she drinks, but he says she makes up for with love and he really loves her.

The red ore look, is iron oxide. Australia is a giant mine these days!

posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 03:24 AM
reply to post by megabyte

I don't see why there has to be livestock in Australia, but there was (for at least 11,000 years)
There was giant wombats. I've forgotten what they're called detra...?

There is evidence of farming (including massive milling stones) and it's theorised that this occurred when the continent was still lush - before bushfire hunting techniques devastated the flora and fauna. The use of fire to drive out game for easy picking has completely altered Australia's ecosystem.

Many trees can't propagate without fire. 1000 km was burnt down I my state a few years ago. If you go there now there's still not much ground cover but most of the trees have recovered. It's normal here, even though this fire was excessively hot and did a lot more damage than what typically happens. It's more normal for bushland to completely recover and the wildlife to manage to escape and return. It's actually a case where without constant "burning off", you set yourselves up for a time bomb with bushfire being so colossal nobody / nothing survives. You should look into that. It might explain something more about the reasons why modernisation never took off. They certainly were 'reached' so...

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in