| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Earlier Migration to Down Under?
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


Earlier Migration to Down Under?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12
Author
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 3936
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Apr 2014 at 12:14
 
fantasus wrote:
 
Hehe.
Who promised it? Was iot the promise of the british judges? If You do so and so offenses You were promised 10, 20 years in"paradise"?
(again i could not resist..)
 
LOLShouldn't you be in bed by now?
 
But before you go................
 
One of my Irish ancestors was sentenced to Transportation for Life to Van Diemans land for stealing food.
 
On the same prison ship was a man convicted of Manslaughter, he was sentenced to Transportation for 12 years.
 
Go figure?
 
 


Edited by toyomotor - 27 Apr 2014 at 12:23
I often wonder why I try.
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Apr 2014 at 16:08
Anyways... I prefer New Zealand Rolling on the floor
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 3936
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Apr 2014 at 03:58
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Anyways... I prefer New Zealand Rolling on the floor


Then the joke's on you.  Moon
I often wonder why I try.
Back to Top
fantasus View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07 May 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 1943
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote fantasus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Apr 2014 at 05:46
In the OP two initial "out of Africa" movements are mentioned, but we may imagine the possibillity there were other. Then they may have walked over a "land bridge", and this is still there in Sinai r the man made Suez Canal. Or perhaps Arabia and East Africa was at "swimming distance", if there was a shark-free passage?
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 3936
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Apr 2014 at 06:37
Originally posted by fantasus fantasus wrote:

In the OP two initial "out of Africa" movements are mentioned, but we may imagine the possibillity there were other. Then they may have walked over a "land bridge", and this is still there in Sinai r the man made Suez Canal. Or perhaps Arabia and East Africa was at "swimming distance", if there was a shark-free passage?

Yes, I agree. Most experts now believe that there were a number of migrations "out of Africa", by different routes, obviously after the people had crossed into Arabia. There is also evidence now of "back migration", people who had left Africa, returning at some later time.

But there is no evidence of back migration from Australia.
I often wonder why I try.
Back to Top
fantasus View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07 May 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 1943
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote fantasus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Apr 2014 at 08:27
Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

Originally posted by fantasus fantasus wrote:

In the OP two initial "out of Africa" movements are mentioned, but we may imagine the possibillity there were other. Then they may have walked over a "land bridge", and this is still there in Sinai r the man made Suez Canal. Or perhaps Arabia and East Africa was at "swimming distance", if there was a shark-free passage?

Yes, I agree. Most experts now believe that there were a number of migrations "out of Africa", by different routes, obviously after the people had crossed into Arabia. There is also evidence now of "back migration", people who had left Africa, returning at some later time.

But there is no evidence of back migration from Australia.
The reason none of the Australians did not go back could be they under normal circumstances did not have the means to cross at all. In other words they came by one or more "accidents". That could be they were surprised by unexpected currents, taken by some storms or tsunami waves. Of course that is only suggestions that may turn out to be wrong.
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 3936
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Apr 2014 at 09:35
Originally posted by fantasus fantasus wrote:

Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

Originally posted by fantasus fantasus wrote:

In the OP two initial "out of Africa" movements are mentioned, but we may imagine the possibillity there were other. Then they may have walked over a "land bridge", and this is still there in Sinai r the man made Suez Canal. Or perhaps Arabia and East Africa was at "swimming distance", if there was a shark-free passage?

Yes, I agree. Most experts now believe that there were a number of migrations "out of Africa", by different routes, obviously after the people had crossed into Arabia. There is also evidence now of "back migration", people who had left Africa, returning at some later time.

But there is no evidence of back migration from Australia.
The reason none of the Australians did not go back could be they under normal circumstances did not have the means to cross at all. In other words they came by one or more "accidents". That could be they were surprised by unexpected currents, taken by some storms or tsunami waves. Of course that is only suggestions that may turn out to be wrong.

The general opinion is that after crossing the land bridge to get to Australia, the sea rose, isolating them in Australia. As I've pointed out in other posts, they were not boatbuilders at all so they were here to stay.


I often wonder why I try.
Back to Top
fantasus View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07 May 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 1943
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote fantasus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Apr 2014 at 09:44
Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

Originally posted by fantasus fantasus wrote:

Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

Originally posted by fantasus fantasus wrote:

In the OP two initial "out of Africa" movements are mentioned, but we may imagine the possibillity there were other. Then they may have walked over a "land bridge", and this is still there in Sinai r the man made Suez Canal. Or perhaps Arabia and East Africa was at "swimming distance", if there was a shark-free passage?

Yes, I agree. Most experts now believe that there were a number of migrations "out of Africa", by different routes, obviously after the people had crossed into Arabia. There is also evidence now of "back migration", people who had left Africa, returning at some later time.

But there is no evidence of back migration from Australia.
The reason none of the Australians did not go back could be they under normal circumstances did not have the means to cross at all. In other words they came by one or more "accidents". That could be they were surprised by unexpected currents, taken by some storms or tsunami waves. Of course that is only suggestions that may turn out to be wrong.

The general opinion is that after crossing the land bridge to get to Australia, the sea rose, isolating them in Australia. As I've pointed out in other posts, they were not boatbuilders at all so they were here to stay.


Yes, but that land bridge may not have been all the way from Asia, only from New Guinea. 
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 3936
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 Apr 2014 at 02:56
fantasus:

If you look at a modern map of the Malaysia, Indonesia area you will see that it's dotted with hundreds of small islands. This is what remains of the land bridge between Asia and Australia.

There's no real point in debating this, it seems that it is historical and geographical fact. Papua New Guinea were also part of the much larger "Gondawana Land" before sea rose.

Google Gondawana Land, it will probably prov ide you with some additional info.


I often wonder why I try.
Back to Top
fantasus View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07 May 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 1943
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote fantasus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 Apr 2014 at 07:58
Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

fantasus:

If you look at a modern map of the Malaysia, Indonesia area you will see that it's dotted with hundreds of small islands. This is what remains of the land bridge between Asia and Australia.

There's no real point in debating this, it seems that it is historical and geographical fact. Papua New Guinea were also part of the much larger "Gondawana Land" before sea rose.

Google Gondawana Land, it will probably prov ide you with some additional info.


I do not disagree that under the iceages there was a lot more land in Indonesia.
Still the ocean between some of the isles, I don´t remember if it is Flores, is very deep, so much more than the changing of seawater level. therefore there was not any complete connection by land during the last iceages.
another thing: There was a supercontinent geologists call "Gondwanaland", but since that was so much before humans(tens if not hundreds millions of years before us), it is not relevant for human settlement of New Guinea Australia.  Before that there was a "Pangea" consisting of all continents in one supercontinent. That "Pangea" an any supercontinents before are irrellevant for human migrations since they disappeared very long before us.
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 3936
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 Apr 2014 at 10:54
[QUOTE=fantasus] [QUOTE=toyomotor]fantasus:

If you look at a modern map of the Malaysia, Indonesia area you will see that it's dotted with hundreds of small islands. This is what remains of the land bridge between Asia and Australia.

There's no real point in debating this, it seems that it is historical and geographical fact. Papua New Guinea were also part of the much larger "Gondawana Land" before sea rose.

Google Gondawana Land, it will probably prov ide you with some additional info.

fantasus wrote:
I do not disagree that under the iceages there was a lot more land in Indonesia.
Still the ocean between some of the isles, I don´t remember if it is Flores, is very deep, so much more than the changing of seawater level. therefore there was not any complete connection by land during the last iceages.

I dont agree. Have you researched this?

Google "Australian Aborigines" and you will find that in fact there was a land bridge along what is now the Indonesian Anchipelago. If, having read the article, you then look up some of the references at the bottom of the article, you will find that you're wrong.

another thing: There was a supercontinent geologists call "Gondwanaland", but since that was so much before humans(tens if not hundreds millions of years before us), it is not relevant for human settlement of New Guinea Australia.  Before that there was a "Pangea" consisting of all continents in one supercontinent. That "Pangea" an any supercontinents before are irrellevant for human migrations since they disappeared very long before us.

Correct, I was using it as an illustrative point only, not factual.



I often wonder why I try.
Back to Top
fantasus View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07 May 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 1943
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote fantasus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 Apr 2014 at 11:35
Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

[QUOTE=fantasus] 
I do not disagree that under the iceages there was a lot more land in Indonesia.
Still the ocean between some of the isles, I don´t remember if it is Flores, is very deep, so much more than the changing of seawater level. therefore there was not any complete connection by land during the last iceages.

I dont agree. Have you researched this?

Google "Australian Aborigines" and you will find that in fact there was a land bridge along what is now the Indonesian Anchipelago. If, having read the article, you then look up some of the references at the bottom of the article, you will find that you're wrong.

To begin with look here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_Australians#Arrival_and_occupation_of_Australia   and read:It is generally believed that Aboriginal people are the descendants of a single migration into the continent, split from the first modern human populations to leave Africa, 64,000 to 75,000 years ago,[33] although a minority propose that there were three waves of migration,[34] most likely island hopping by boat during periods of low sea levels (see Prehistory of Australia). Aboriginal people seem to have lived a long time in the same environment as the now extinct Australian megafauna.[35]
  and:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Australian_immigration   :" In any event, this migration was achieved during the closing stages of the Pleistocene epoch, when sea levels were typically much lower than they are today. Repeated episodes of extended glaciation resulted in decreases of sea levels by some 100–150 m. The continental coastline therefore extended much further out into the Timor Sea than it does today, and Australia and New Guinea formed a single landmass (known as Sahul), connected by an extensive land bridge across the Arafura Sea, Gulf of Carpentaria and Torres Strait.

It is theorised that these original peoples first navigated the shorter distances from and between the Sunda Islands to reach Sahul; then via the land bridge to spread out through the continent. Archaeological evidence indicates human habitation at the upper Swan River, Western Australia by about 40,000 years ago; Tasmania (also at that time connected via a land bridge) was reached at least 30,000 years ago."


Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 3936
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 Apr 2014 at 15:16
from http://learnline.cdu.edu.au/tourism/uluru/downloads/Origins%20of%20Indigenous%20Australians.pdf

ORIGINS OF INDIGENOUS AUSTRALIANS 
WHERE  INDIGENOUS PEOPLE CAME FROM 

The information in this section is based on the work of 
archaeologists. There are two basic schools of archaeological 
thought as to where Australia’s Indigenous people originated. 
The first, and more accepted, viewpoint is that the first 
Australians came here across a land bridge from Asia. During 
two ice ages – one approximately 20 000 years ago and the 
other approximately 60 000 years ago – so much water was in 
the form of ice that the sea level all over the world dropped 
more than 100 metres. 

As a result, more land was exposed and, consequently, it may 
have been possible to travel across exposed land bridges 
without having to cross any great expanses of water. 

People who subscribe to this theory believe that Indigenous 
people travelled to Australia from the north, with the most 
recent immigration happening only 4 000 years ago (when 
scientists believe dingos first arrived). 

The second school of thought is that human life originated 
simultaneously in different parts of the world including 
Australia. Due to the age of early Australian human remains, 
there is some basis for believing that Australia may have been 
one of the original centres of human development, and that 
human life in this part of the world may have actually spread 
out from Australia. 

This theory is based on the age of some remains of Indigenous 
people which studies have shown are over 60 000 years old. 
The age of these remains correlates with the first drop in the 
sea level by more than 100 metres. 

Archaeologists who promote this view believe that in previous 
ice ages the sea level did not drop far enough for a significant 
land bridge to the north to have formed. 

The difficulty with this view is that there has been no evidence 
discovered in Australia of the lower primates from whom these 
earliest Australians could have evolved. Nonetheless, these 
earliest Australians would have been contemporaries of the 
earliest discovered humans in Africa. 
Whatever the origins of Indigenous people, most archaeologists 
agree that once Indigenous people reached Australia they 
moved south over many thousands of years to inhabit the 
coastline of the continent. Gradually, people also moved into 
the arid interior. 

There is ongoing speculation about when the first Indigenous 
people lived in Australia and new archaeological findings 
continually add clues, often contradicting earlier theories. 
Currently, two factors in particular affect this speculation. 
Origins of Indigenous Australians Director of National Parks © 2007 

Firstly, two distinct kinds of skeleton have been discovered and 
studied — ‘the Robust’ which is more ancient with heavier 
bones, and ‘the Gracile’, which is a lighter, more modern 
skeleton. 

The Robust people did not evolve into the Gracile people, and 
at times they coexisted. Second, the land bridge theory 
restricts when people could have migrated to Australia. Flood 
(2004, p 74) offers what many archaeologists believe to be the 
best estimate, taking into account these two factors: 
It is clear that Indigenous roots go back a long way. We 
know that Gracile people were camped by the shores of 
the Willandra Lakes more than 30 000 years ago, and it is 
now generally agreed that they were not the first 
migrants, but that they were preceded by more robust 
people. 

Since at least 50 kilometres of open sea had to be 
crossed, even at a time of lowest sea level, it seems most 
probable that the Gracile people entered greater Australia 
at the time of very low sea level, about 50 000 to 55 000 
years ago, and that the Robust people came rather earlier, 
perhaps 70 000. This is speculation and may well be 
disproved by new discoveries, but such a two migrations 
theory best fits the available evidence. 

Although the beginnings of human habitation in Australia 
remain in dispute, it seems the earliest Australians did not 
move to Uluru immediately. Recent archaeological work in the 
Cleland Hills to the north of Uluru suggests that Indigenous 
people were living in this region at least 22 000 years ago. 
HOW PEOPLE CAME 
Although the first immigrants may have come to Australia by 
accident, they could also have seen the smoke of bushfires on 
the greater Australian mainland – which at the time included 
what is now Papua New Guinea – from the nearest Indonesian 
islands. 

Even the easiest route from what was then the mainland of 
Asia would have required eight sea voyages. People could have 
travelled either through Sulawesi and a number of intervening 
islands to the Australian mainland near where New Guinea is 
today, or via a series of shorter island hops through Timor to 
the Kimberley. Unfortunately, no craft used to make the island 
hops has survived to be studied. However, they were probably 
small rafts constructed from light wood, such as mangrove or 
bamboo. People sailing them would have had to navigate 
according to the drift of tides. 

The first migrants may have been gradually forced from their 
previous homes by the rising seas and disappearing hunting 
grounds as the ice ages receded. Volcanic activity in the area 
that is now South-East Asia may have also driven people to 
seek safer homelands. The drier, cooler shorelines of ancient 
Australia would have provided open woodlands ideal for human 
habitation and easy movement. 
WHO CAME 
There are very few examples of ancient Asian remains to 
compare with what is known of early Australians, and to 
support the theory of Asian migration. There appear to be 
similarities between the Gracile Australians and some ancient 
inhabitants of southern China, the Philippines and Indonesia. 
The Robust Australians may be similar to an early Javanese 
inhabitant termed Solo man. 
REFERENCE 
LIST 
Flood, J 2004, Archaeology of the Dreamtime: the story of 
prehistoric Australia and its people, JB Books, South Australia, 
ISBN: 1876622504 

I'm not prepared to argue the point on this, because of the differing views, and of course if the Aborigines arrived up to 90,000 before previously thought, the geographic situation would have been different, and the land bridge may have existed. I simply don't know.

As I mentioned before, there are varying views on how the Aborigines came to Australia. It doesn't matter for the purposes of this thread how they came, the OP is about WHEN.





I often wonder why I try.
Back to Top
fantasus View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07 May 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 1943
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote fantasus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 Apr 2014 at 20:42
From what I read in your latest post, there was land bridges, but they were "broken up", by rather short distances of open water even when sealevel were at its lowest, perhaps some tens of kilometres. I admit I thought there was consensus among the experts that all humans ultimately have the same origin - came from the same geographical area (but it is then a question of how big it was and were it was located, most likely in Africa) on earth and did not originate in different isolated places. So I saw it as evident the early australians came from elsewhere, and had to cross at least some distance of open sea (though it may have been short). The only questions left being how, when, from where and why.
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 3936
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Apr 2014 at 02:20
Originally posted by fantasus fantasus wrote:

From what I read in your latest post, there was land bridges, but they were "broken up", by rather short distances of open water even when sealevel were at its lowest, perhaps some tens of kilometres. I admit I thought there was consensus among the experts that all humans ultimately have the same origin - came from the same geographical area (but it is then a question of how big it was and were it was located, most likely in Africa) on earth and did not originate in different isolated places. So I saw it as evident the early australians came from elsewhere, and had to cross at least some distance of open sea (though it may have been short). The only questions left being how, when, from where and why.


1. Well, walking, and just possibly, a little bit of sea travel. This will no doubt become clearer as the "when" is confirmed. As I said, if they came ~130,000 years ago, the terrain would have been different to ~60,000 years ago.

2. The answer to the when is just now being researched and discussed, with some scientists saying perhaps as long as 130,000 years ago-but at least 60,000 years ago.

3. "Out of Africa", as part of the Coastal Migration.

4. Why did the chicken cross the road? Why do humans do such things even today? Curiosity perhaps, looking for pastures greener perhaps.

One could well ask why they left Africa at all-and what the consequences would have been if they hadn't.


I often wonder why I try.
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 3936
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 May 2014 at 15:48
Pinguin:

I was wrong to attack you personally, it won't happen again.

However, I don't resile from the position that your posts, in response to anything about the Americas, amount to garbage.

1. You never provide scientific sources with which to corroborate whatever point you are trying to make;

2. You refuse to accept scientific evidence presented to you;

3. You never answer questions put to you properly;and

4. What you do write in your posts is invariably wrong and reflect a very limited knowledge on whatever topic you espouse.

Could you please, in future, provide some source for your contentions, and confine yourself to addressing what has been put to you.

If you address the matters I've put to you in this post, we could have some interesting debate/discussion on matters of fact.

Thank you in anticipation.
I often wonder why I try.
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 3936
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 May 2014 at 12:39
And now it seems that Australian Aborigines were part of the first migration out of Africa.
 
From Nature Magazine:
Quote "Aboriginal Australians are descendents of the first human explorers. These are the guys who expanded to unknown territory into an unknown world, eventually reaching Australia," says Eske Willerslev, a palaeogeneticist at the University of Copenhagen, Denmark, who led the study. It appears online today in Science1. "
 
and
 
"An analysis of his genome indicates that his ancestors started their journey more than 60,000 years ago, branching off from humans who left Africa. The ancestors of contemporary Europeans and most other Asians probably went their separate ways less than 40,000 years ago, according to Willerslev's team. "

References

  1. Rasmussen, M. et al. Science http://10.1126/science.1211177 (2011).
  2. Bowler, J. et al. Nature 421, 837-840 (2003). | Article | PubMed | ISI | ChemPort |
  3. HUGO Pan-Asian SNP Consortium Science 326, 1541-1545 (2009). | Article | PubMed | ISI | ChemPort |
  4. Green, R. E. et al. Science 328, 710-722 (2010). | Article | PubMed | ISI | ChemPort |
  5. Reich, D. et al. Nature 468, 1053-1060 (2010).
  6. Reich, D. et al. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 89, 1-13 (2011). | Article |


Edited by toyomotor - 21 Jun 2014 at 14:13
I often wonder why I try.
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 3936
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Aug 2014 at 03:34
Further finds of ancient skeletal remains bolster the view that AMH may have left Africa much earlier than first thought, with suugestions being made that the genetic date leans towards an exodus from Africa ~130,000 YBP.
 
 
Quote A closer look at the genetics also suggests there was an earlier migration. Recently, Katerina Harvati of the University of Tubingen in Germany and her colleagues tested the classic "out of Africa at 60,000 years ago" story against the earlier-exodus idea. They plugged the genomes of indigenous populations from south-east Asia into a migration model. They found that the genetic data was best explained by an early exodus that left Africa around 130,000 years ago, taking a coastal route along the Arabian peninsula, India and into Australia, followed by a later wave along the classic route (see map) (PNAS, doi.org/tz6).An early exit from Africa is still very much a minority view, says Chris Stringer at the Natural History Museum in London. But he says Harvati's evidence has left him "open to the possibility".
 
 
I often wonder why I try.
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 3936
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Sep 2017 at 04:00
Quote from http://www.ancient-origins.net/news-history-archaeology/extinct-denisovans-siberia-made-stunning-jewelry-did-they-also-discover-021627.

Extinct Denisovans from Siberia Made Stunning Jewelry. Did They Also Discover Australia?


The distance from the only currently known home of the Denisovans in Altai region to the nearest point of Australia is roughly akin to the length of the Trans-Siberian railway, and yet it is looking increasingly likely that these ancient species of humanoids somehow made this epic journey deep in pre-history, perhaps 65,000 years ago.

Separate evidence from the Denisova cave in southern Siberia certainly shows they had myriad talents at least 50,000 years ago, even if their ultimate fate was extinction. 

Yet remarkably their DNA lives on in the Aboriginal people of Australia and the Melanesians of Papua New Guinea to a far greater extent than in any other modern-day populations worldwide.

The article really does raise some questions about the origins of the first Australians, and it could be that they were in fact Denisovans.

For the rest of this article, see the above link.


I often wonder why I try.
Back to Top
Vanuatu View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain


Joined: 23 Feb 2015
Location: New England
Status: Offline
Points: 1076
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Vanuatu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Sep 2017 at 04:01
toyomotor So Denisovans are Shaman, explorers, mystics and socially diverse. You have been waiting for more news on Denisovans. 

Are you kind of thrilled to see a connection with Australia? Did you suspect it?
The root of all desires is the one desire: to come home, to be at peace. -Jean Klein
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 3936
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Sep 2017 at 07:23
Originally posted by Vanuatu Vanuatu wrote:

toyomotor So Denisovans are Shaman, explorers, mystics and socially diverse. You have been waiting for more news on Denisovans. 

Are you kind of thrilled to see a connection with Australia? Did you suspect it?

1. No, I don't agree with the terms "Shamans" or "Mystics", but it could be that they were explorers, always looking for greener pastures, as were our ancient Home Sapien ancestors.

2. Yes, I've been waiting for more detail on the Denisovans, and I certainly wasn't expecting this latest release, although I was aware of Denisovan DNA in Australian Aborigines and some of the Papua/New Guinea Highland tribes.

3. Yes, I am a bit thrilled I guess. If this link is proven beyond doubt, it could change the way modern science looks at the population of a number of other countries.

4. Finally, the hint of a fourth people, apart from Homo Sapiens, Neanderthals and Denisovans, is exercising my interest currently. Again, if this theory is developed and a fourth people is identified, it could change everything else we think we know about our ancient ancestors.



Edited by toyomotor - 21 Sep 2017 at 07:26
I often wonder why I try.
Back to Top
Vanuatu View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain


Joined: 23 Feb 2015
Location: New England
Status: Offline
Points: 1076
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Vanuatu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Sep 2017 at 14:17
Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

Originally posted by Vanuatu Vanuatu wrote:

toyomotor So Denisovans are Shaman, explorers, mystics and socially diverse. You have been waiting for more news on Denisovans. 

Are you kind of thrilled to see a connection with Australia? Did you suspect it?

1. No, I don't agree with the terms "Shamans" or "Mystics", but it could be that they were explorers, always looking for greener pastures, as were our ancient Home Sapien ancestors.


If a group of Denisovans made a retreat to Siberia as the article says, then they are the "Shaman" or "Saman." aren't they?  Without religious connotation speaking of the genetic group strictly. 

And if Denisovans are the ancestors of the Tibetans then I think mystic or shaman- generically- is a suitable description. What do not agree with? Just curious. 
The root of all desires is the one desire: to come home, to be at peace. -Jean Klein
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 3936
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Sep 2017 at 00:46
Vanuatu

In this context, I think retreat is meant as "withdraw or move".

I haven't seen a reference anywhere that touches on their "religeous" beliefs-probably because the had none. They were to develop later perhaps.

As it relates to Tibetans, it seems that the Denisovans may have had a high altitude tolerance which was, in part at least, shared with the resident Tibetans.

Don't forget that the analysis of Denisovan DNA is still in it's infancy and a lot depends on more skeletal remains and/or hand tools being found.
I often wonder why I try.
Back to Top
Vanuatu View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain


Joined: 23 Feb 2015
Location: New England
Status: Offline
Points: 1076
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote Vanuatu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Sep 2017 at 15:39
Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

Vanuatu

In this context, I think retreat is meant as "withdraw or move".
Right, I understand. Traffic over land bridges moved both ways.

Quote I haven't seen a reference anywhere that touches on their "religeous" beliefs-probably because the had none. They were to develop later perhaps.
Taking the broad look at who Denisovans were and who their descendants might be- namely the Siberians, including their Shaman are possible descendants. Yes the Shaman could be seen as religious figure. Yet the statement has nothing to do with religion.

Quote As it relates to Tibetans, it seems that the Denisovans may have had a high altitude tolerance which was, in part at least, shared with the resident Tibetans.
Yes, good indicator they are descendants of the Denisovans, NOT saying the Denisovans were mystics in pre-history but that their descendants became mystics.

Quote Don't forget that the analysis of Denisovan DNA is still in it's infancy and a lot depends on more skeletal remains and/or hand tools being found.
Of course. Lots of speculating going on here. Apologies if that was unclear.
The root of all desires is the one desire: to come home, to be at peace. -Jean Klein
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.109 seconds.