Aboriginal people have lived in Australia for a minimum of 65,000 years

Status
Closed
May 2011
2,848
Rural Australia
A note: let's keep genetics in the background. I understand this is relevant here, anyway we cannot discuss scientific works without a suitable knowledge of the matter.

This said, as for I know several kinds of "humans" cohabited in that far past [with Homo Sapiens and Neanderthals]. One is know: the Denisovans.
I was responding to the claim that ....... "The Aboriginal genome carries no Neanderthal. "

It was my understanding that the evidence indicates that all people located outside of Africa, including the First Australian people, have a small percentage of Neanderthal DNA. This may not be correct, and while I have no suitable knowledge of the technical details, I am interested in the findings of those who have such a knowledge.

The explanation that I have read for this is that whichever humans "migrated out of Africa", prior to their migration into Asia and Australia, there must have been some merging with the Neanderthal people. Afterwards (?) and in Asia (?) other DNA evidence indicates merging with other types of early humans such as the Denisovans.

RE: OUT OF AFRICA THEORY

I am interested to learn from those who have a more detailed knowledge of this area of studies, how this "Out-Of-Africa" theory would be effected if it were to be established that the first people here in Australia arrived more than 100,000 years ago. Thanks for any info. The answers I have seen for this is to postulate that the earliest people moved out of Africa in a number of waves, and that the wave of earliest Australian continent dwellers was not 65,000 years ago - there was an earlier migration.


ETA: I have just read the above in connection to my questions:

t seems very unlikely to me that Neanderthals got to Australia. However, it seems entirely plausible that other human groups did - Denisovans, or late Homo erectus, or some other group we don't have a name for ye. If the 100,000 year old site really is 100,000 years old, and it really is a human-created shell midden, then this means one of two things. Either the migration models based on <BANNED TOPIC> are incorrect and anatomically-modern humans left Africa much earlier; or the pre-modern humans that we know were in Indonesia for hundreds of thousands of years came to Australia. The latter probability seems quite plausible to me. For ancient humans to be in Java, and Flores, and Luzon, like we know they were, they had to have crossed seas. How hard, then, would it really be for them to get from the Wallacean islands to Australia at a peak glacial period?
I am not aware of the controversy involving some asserted <BANNED TOPIC>. Can someone point me to a summary of the controversies in this area? Thanks

Finally here is my starting place: Recent African origin of modern humans - Wikipedia


"Recent African origin," or Out of Africa II, refers to the migration of anatomically modern humans (Homo sapiens) out of Africa after their emergence at c. 300,000 to 200,000 years ago, in contrast to "Out of Africa I", the migration of archaic humans from Africa to Eurasia between roughly 1.8 to 0.5 million years ago.

Since the early 21st century, the picture of "recent single-origin" migrations has become significantly more complex, not just due to the discovery of modern-archaic admixture but also due to the increasing evidence that the "recent out-of-Africa" migration took place in a number of waves spread over a long time period. As of 2010, there were two main accepted dispersal routes for the out-of-Africa migration of early anatomically modern humans: via the "Northern Route" (via Nile Valley and Sinai) and the "Southern Route" via the Bab al Mandab strait.[21]

  • Posth et al. (2017) suggest that early Homo sapiens, or "another species in Africa closely related to us," might have first migrated out of Africa around 270,000 years ago.[22]
  • Finds at Misliya cave, which include a partial jawbone with eight teeth have been dated to around 185,000 years ago. Layers dating from between 250,000 and 140,000 years ago in the same cave contained tools of the Levallois type which could put the date of the first migration even earlier if the tools can be associated with the modern human jawbone finds.[23][24]
  • An Eastward Dispersal from Northeast Africa to Arabia during 150–130 kya based on the finds at Jebel Faya dated to 127 kya (discovered in 2011).[8][9] Possibly related to this wave are the finds from Zhirendong cave, Southern China, dated to more than 100 kya.[21] Other evidence of modern human presence in China has been dated to 80,000 years ago.[14]
  • The most significant dispersal took place around 70,000 years ago via the so-called Southern Route, either before[25] or after[18][19] the Toba event, which happened between 69,000 and 77,000 years ago.[25] This dispersal followed the southern coastline of Asia, and reached Australia around 65,000-50,000 years ago. Western Asia was "re-occupied" by a different derivation from this wave around 50,000 years ago, and Europe was populated from Western Asia beginning around 43,000 years ago.[21]
  • Wells (2003) describes an additional wave of migration after the southern coastal route, namely a northern migration into Europe at circa 45,000 years ago.[note 3] This possibility is ruled out by Macaulay et al. (2005) and Posth et al. (2016), arguing for a single coastal dispersal, with an early offshoot into Europe.
 
Last edited:
Likes: specul8
Jan 2015
3,508
Australia
Sure thing Naoms. Here you go for starters:
- the human race started a long time before Australia's indigenous population (Introduction to Human Evolution)
- indigenous culture is not a 65,000 year old culture because it wasn't even a single culture when Europeans arrived (History: 60,000 years : Working with Indigenous Australians and First Australians), it was many different cultures.
-Those cultures, in mainland Australia at least, were primarily nomadic, and that second article, which is in no way sympathetic to colonial Australia, notes that "They lived for a couple of thousand generations in small, nomadic bands, as befits a hunter-gatherer existence, moving in their own rhythms about the vast expanse of Australia", a point you can read more about in this quadrant essay (Aboriginal Policy: 50 Years of Failure – Quadrant Online).
- Indigenous people were, in the limited instances of pre-colonial trade we know about, influenced by said traders (Islam and Indigenous Australia and When Islam came to Australia), and so it follows they would have been more influenced had they had more exposure to outsiders.

- My conclusion from those facts is that there is nothing remarkable about the fact that there were indigenous people here 65,000 years ago. It may be interesting for those trying to work out the patterns of human migration, but it does not show evidence of a 65,000 year continuous culture, or a culture that intentionally eschewed more advanced cultures ways as a deliberate choice. What I find remarkable is that the development of indigenous Australia was still as nomadic and behind other civilisations as it was, whether we called that stone age or a different term they were developmentally at that point (see sources above about hunter gatherer nomads without metallurgy, etc). There have been some new books others have cited, in a recent literary trend to re-think how developed indigenous Australia was prior to settlement, but the things that those writers discuss possibly existing on a more advanced level than we previously thought 300 years ago, like Agriculture for eg, existed in what we call Stone Age Europe too (Early Agriculture Nearly Tanked Ancient Europe’s Population | Smart News | Smithsonian), so it does not seem inaccurate to say the developmental level was the same as stone age Europe, because even if they had agriculture, etc, that stuff existed back then in other places too.

CaesarMagnus out.

NB- that is a hurried google search of sources. I could have found more with time. I do not necessarily support all the positions in said links obviously, but the points they are linked to support are pretty vanilla ones.
 
Last edited:

specul8

Ad Honorem
Oct 2016
3,031
Australia
Thanks for responding to a question I was asking KJ :) regarding this bit ;
  • The most significant dispersal took place around 70,000 years ago via the so-called Southern Route, either before[25] or after[18][19] the Toba event, which happened between 69,000 and 77,000 years ago.[25] This dispersal followed the southern coastline of Asia, and reached Australia around 65,000-50,000 years ago. Western Asia was "re-occupied" by a different derivation from this wave around 50,000 years ago, and Europe was populated from Western Asia beginning around 43,000 years ago.[21]]
I've said it before but ;

There are 'foundation stories' of people arriving on the W.A. coast, not finding water and dying and others arriving later, having difficulty, eventually finding water and finding the remains of those that came before them.

And, there is still a distinctive difference between brown and black Aboriginals and their body types. No one seems prepared to discuss this ( and I dont mean just here ) . The only person who would was an Aboriginal, friend ( 'full blood' -of brownish skin colour, good physique and average height ). We noted a tall, slender, very black 'near indigo' Aboriginal walking across the road and my friend nodded towards him and said " Real blackfellah - dessert man , compared to him, I am like a white fellah ' . So some of the Aboriginals acknowledge the difference, but their explanations are a little confusing .

Some of the old school anthropology does answer some curious questions, but some of it also seems wrong , and that has developed as genetic research has developed . All I can say about that is ; they say people been in Australia long enough for one type to be genetically diverse. Some say diversity comes from 'different waves' of settlement . The 'mix' seems as diversified as their cultures ; 'slender graciles' , 'robust', 'pygmies' , etc .

BUT also regarding this new info ... check out WHY we dont discuss genetics on Historum .... its because its such a complex subject and even the opinion of experts in this field differs and can be re interpreted .


I suspect further revelations will reveal a mix of both ideas.
 

specul8

Ad Honorem
Oct 2016
3,031
Australia
Sure thing Naoms. Here you go for starters:
- the human race started a long time before Australia's indigenous population (Introduction to Human Evolution)
- indigenous culture is not a 65,000 year old culture because it wasn't even a single culture when Europeans arrived (History: 60,000 years : Working with Indigenous Australians and First Australians), it was many different cultures.
-Those cultures, in mainland Australia at least, were primarily nomadic, and that second article, which is in no way sympathetic to colonial Australia, notes that "They lived for a couple of thousand generations in small, nomadic bands, as befits a hunter-gatherer existence, moving in their own rhythms about the vast expanse of Australia", a point you can read more about in this quadrant essay (Aboriginal Policy: 50 Years of Failure – Quadrant Online).
- Indigenous people were, in the limited instances of pre-colonial trade we know about, influenced by said traders (Islam and Indigenous Australia and When Islam came to Australia), and so it follows they would have been more influenced had they had more exposure to outsiders.

- My conclusion from those facts is that there is nothing remarkable about the fact that there were indigenous people here 65,000 years ago. It may be interesting for those trying to work out the patterns of human migration, but it does not show evidence of a 65,000 year continuous culture, or a culture that intentionally eschewed more advanced cultures ways as a deliberate choice. What I find remarkable is that the development of indigenous Australia was still as nomadic and behind other civilisations as it was, whether we called that stone age or a different term they were developmentally at that point (see sources above about hunter gatherer nomads without metallurgy, etc).

CaesarMagnus out.

NB- that is a hurried google search of sources. I could have found more with time. I do not necessarily support all the positions in said links obviously, but the points they are linked to support are pretty vanilla ones.

I am sure N. is going to have fun correcting your 'homework' :D

I wont get further involved, but just point out one amusing thing in the above .

One of the references above you give , to save your hide, was the very one I put up , that you criticised as invalid and not worth anything as it was full of prejudice and innauracies and went on with post after post , disrupting tis thread criticing the entry and its author .

This bit from your 'evidence' When Islam came to Australia '

The Makasssans represent Australia's first attempt at international relations, according to anthropologist John Bradley from Melbourne's Monash University - and it was a success. "They traded together. It was fair - there was no racial judgement, no race policy," he says.

And the picture it includes you yourself mocked as a collection of dots that is supposed to represent a sail .

1557097633908.png

So, you NOW use the very evidence we put up, that you mocked and refuted as wothless to try and save your own hide ?

and you last 'qualifying statement ' is very similar to what I said , when you went on a rampage about me using a source that said within it ;

" "They traded together. It was fair - there was no racial judgement, no race policy,"

If you like I can put what you said about these, previously OUR sources, right here below in a quote box extracted from your posts .
 
Jan 2015
3,508
Australia
I'm cited it on purpose; as though to say "even your source supports my point of view on this". I, like most people, don't support 100% of everything in every source I cite; but our situations are different because in that instance you directly quoted said remark, and then wouldn't defend it.
 

Naomasa298

Forum Staff
Apr 2010
32,491
T'Republic of Yorkshire
NB- that is a hurried google search of sources. I could have found more with time. I do not necessarily support all the positions in said links obviously, but the points they are linked to support are pretty vanilla ones.
So you formed your opinions, and only found the sources to support it when I asked you to, because had you done it the other way around, you would have gone straight to known sources without needing to do a Google search. That shows the level at which you contribute to discussions on this forum.

Your contribution to this thread is done.
 

specul8

Ad Honorem
Oct 2016
3,031
Australia
I thought I would add this to clear up any confusion left behind about the continuation of Aboriginal culture , as opposed to Aboriginal cultures .

( And I note that I nor KJ nor anyone suggested that there was a static never changing 'same as always' Aboriginal culture )

" Australian Aboriginal culture includes a number of practices and ceremonies centered on a belief in the Dreamtime. Reverence for the land and oral traditions are emphasized. Language groupings and tribal divisions exhibit a range of individual cultures. "


tps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Aboriginal_culture
Just like some other cultures that had cultural variations within their main cultural framework, either over time or varied locations.

Aboriginal culture and variations in that culture, seem to have developed due to the specific environments and locations in Australia , including a vastly changing climate, over long periods of time .
 
Nov 2011
972
The Bluff
I've been involved in this discussion since I studied far prehistory, so that I expect contents and contributions, not a never-ending sequence of empty rhetorical questions.
With respect, the question was hardly rhetorical and had a clear answer. The paper in question (which, given your interest, I imagine you've read) states the following in its precis:

The time of arrival of people in Australia is an unresolved question. It is relevant to debates about when modern humans first dispersed out of Africa and when their descendants incorporated genetic material from Neanderthals, Denisovans and possibly other hominins.
While I take your point that to arrive here, early modern humans obviously came from elsewhere, the implications for the "out of Africa" are real:

The settlement of Madjedbebe around 65 ka (conservatively 59.3 ka, calculated as 65.0 ka minus the age uncertainty of 5.7 kyr at 95.4% probability) sets a new minimum age for the human colonization of Australia and the dispersal of modern humans out of Africa and across south Asia. The final stages of this journey took place at a time of lower sea level, when northern Australia was cooler and wetter. Our chronology places people in Australia more than 20 kyr before continent-wide extinction of the megafauna and supports an age of more than 60 kyr for the incorporation of Neanderthal and Denisovan DNA into the modern human genome. It also extends the period of overlap of modern humans and Homo floresiensis in eastern Indonesia to at least 15 kyr (ref. 39) and, potentially, with other archaic hominins — such as Homo erectus — in southeast Asia and Australasia.
Now, to have this dismissed with banal generalities or, as another has remarked, "opinion as fact", such as "every country" had people existing 65ka is a nonsense. As the paper makes clear, this (unless challenged) provides a new view of human dispersal from Africa - especially to SE Asia. Human dispersal, as far as we know, was far from as widespread as a certain poster would claim and certainly had not reached the Americas at that time (as just one example).

On the matter of "culture", that is a harder aspect to nail down from the archaeology. The paper does present evidence of what can only be described as cultural "indicators" in the archaeology and, I suspect, there's more work to come from that shelter:

The first occupants used elaborate lithic technology, ochre ‘crayons’ and other pigments—including one of the oldest known examples in the world of the use of reflective (micaceous) pigment (Fig. 2i, k–m). They also collected and processed plant foods, as revealed by macrofossils and artefact residues. Artefacts in the lowest dense band show traces of Australia’s earliest evidence of seed grinding and pigment processing, together with the world’s oldest known edge-ground hatchets (Fig. 2a).
Most interesting there is the evidence of seed grinding - 65 ka. As I say, likely more work to come from that shelter. At least one hopes.

Again, I've the paper in question should any wish it.
 
Last edited:
Mar 2019
512
Kansas
I thought I would add this to clear up any confusion left behind about the continuation of Aboriginal culture , as opposed to Aboriginal cultures .
.
And we can see this distinction in the modern world. It is easy to see that there are distinct cultural markers between say Australian culture and North American culture. But on the next level it is easy to argue that both cultures are subsets of Western culture.

A good example of this is the woomera. Virtually every tribal grouping use a variation of this tool. But the one thing all them do is add functions to the tool to increase its utility well beyond its primary purpose as a spear thrower. So one one level we see the individual subsets of tribal cultures being held in the bigger frame work of Aboriginal culture.
 
Likes: specul8
Status
Closed

Similar History Discussions