FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Biblical Criticism - 2001
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 05:55 AM

Notices

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 12-02-2001, 11:08 AM   #1
DRFseven
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,322
Post Australians First Americans?

Does anyone put any stock in the not-very-popular-but-gaining-credibility theory that Tierra del Fuego on the tip of So. America was possibly populated by island-hopping sea-travelers from Australia about 40,000 years ago?

It seems that the oldest human fossils there have facial measurements coinciding with Australian negroid proportions and dissimilar to Asian ones. These Australian fossils have been dated to 12,500 yrs., while Mongolian-featured fossils go back only to 9,500 yrs. The only remaining members of the Fuegan tribe that was documented and filmed there in the 1930's (now in their eighties), show a genetic mutation that originated in Australia. In addition, there is an Australian aboriginal tribe that is seafaring, very unusual for Australian aborigines, and this tribe has cave paintings depicting humans in boats that have been dated to 20,000 years. Also, the Australian and the Fuegan paintings and descriptions of ceremonies are very similar.

Quartz tools were found under the Fuegan village site that date to 40,000 years. It has been suggested that Australians reached South America first, and that the traditional Bering Strait migration from Siberia did not happen until much later, since a huge mountain of ice would have blocked anyone trying to cross until about 11,000 years ago. The theory is that the entering Mongolians attacked and absorbed the Australians, forming the genetic stock that was to populate the Americas. This theory is very controversial, but helps to explain why the oldest artifacts are found farther south, while the closer to Alaska the remains are found, the younger they are, something that would be expected to show the opposite results if people entered from the Siberian land bridge to Alaska.
DRFseven is offline  
Old 12-02-2001, 11:52 AM   #2
Vorkosigan
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Barrayar
Posts: 11,866
Post

[QUOTE]Originally posted by DRFseven:
[qb]Does anyone put any stock in the not-very-popular-but-gaining-credibility theory that Tierra del Fuego on the tip of So. America was possibly populated by island-hopping sea-travelers from Australia about 40,000 years ago?

Interesting stuff, DRF, but why is it in this forum?

Michael

[ December 02, 2001: Message edited by: turtonm ]</p>
Vorkosigan is offline  
Old 12-02-2001, 02:01 PM   #3
Pantera
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cambridge, England, but a Scot at heart
Posts: 2,431
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by turtonm:
<strong>Interesting stuff, DRF, but why is it in this forum?</strong>
Biblical Criticism & Archaeology?

I guess the alternative would be S&S, but it does seem more like a question for history buffs than science buffs.

Or we could stick it in E/C and have Douglas explain that Tierra del Fuego didn't exist 40,000 years ago and the artefacts were all put there by the flood.
Pantera is offline  
Old 12-02-2001, 02:23 PM   #4
DRFseven
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,322
Post

Quote:
Michael: Interesting stuff, DRF, but why is it in this forum?
Well, I read through and couldn't find a place that seemed appropriate. So I picked the one that had "Archaeology" in the title. I could have put something in it to the effect of "If Australians came here 40,000 years ago, the earth must be more than 6,000 years old" to make it fit the topic, but I didn't want it to be a thread about creationists' idea of the age of the earth. I was hoping people who are interested in the study of early humans might give their opinions.
DRFseven is offline  
Old 12-02-2001, 03:38 PM   #5
joedad
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: PA USA
Posts: 5,039
Post

DRFseven,

Considering that Polynesians got to Hawaii and Easter Island, and the first "Australians" to Australia, I wouldn't discount it and am curious why I haven't seen any mention of it in Science News. I'm very interested to read more.

Do you have any links?

joe
joedad is offline  
Old 12-02-2001, 03:49 PM   #6
DRFseven
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,322
Post

Quote:
Pantera: Biblical Criticism & Archaeology?

I guess the alternative would be S&S, but it does seem more like a question for history buffs than science buffs.

Or we could stick it in E/C and have Douglas explain that Tierra del Fuego didn't exist 40,000 years ago and the artefacts were all put there by the flood.
Yeah, that's the problem; nowhere to put it. It seems more like archaeology than history to me, and I guess it could have gone into Misc., but I wanted to keep it in science. Feel free to move it wherever you think it should be.

Here's a <a href="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/2705first.html" target="_blank">Nova: Mystery of the First Americans</a> transcript with a slightly different version of the peopling of the Americas'. In this version, the first inhabitants did not actually come from Australia, but were part of a wave that split in southern Asia, where one group went to Australia and the other to the New World. Then, thousands of years later, the Mongoloid group, with features much like present day American Indians, came in and replaced them.
DRFseven is offline  
Old 12-02-2001, 04:02 PM   #7
DRFseven
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,322
Post

Quote:
Joe: Considering that Polynesians got to Hawaii and Easter Island, and the first "Australians" to Australia, I wouldn't discount it and am curious why I haven't seen any mention of it in Science News. I'm very interested to read more.

Do you have any links?
Hi, Joe. I just posted a link, but here's actually more the one I was looking for. It's about <a href="http://cyberbuzz.gatech.edu/kaboom/mail-archives/Eyring-L/9910/0347.html" target="_blank"> "Luzia"</a>, the 12,500 year old South American skeleton, named, whimsically, in honor of the famous "Lucy." She has the Australian-negroid facial features that are so atypical of modern Asians.

And here's another with <a href="http://www.discovery.com/news/features/ancientimmigrants/ancientimmigrants.html" target="_blank">neat pictures</a>.

[ December 02, 2001: Message edited by: DRFseven ]</p>
DRFseven is offline  
Old 12-03-2001, 06:50 AM   #8
Kosh
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Orions Belt
Posts: 3,911
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by DRFseven:
<strong>
Yeah, that's the problem; nowhere to put it. </strong>
I posed on this very topic in E&C, afterhaving
seen that same show, and they
moved it to S&S. Got a reply from someone who
seemed to be in the business who didn't lend
much credence to it, but his response appeard
to be [partially] an ad homiem attack on educational television. :-)

Here's the link. If this doesn't work, search
S&S for "The earliest americans".

<a href="http://ii-f.ws/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=10&t=000507&p=" target="_blank">http://ii-f.ws/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=10&t=000507&p=</a>
Kosh is offline  
Old 12-05-2001, 07:33 AM   #9
DRFseven
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,322
Post

Thanks for your link to the previous discussion on this topic, Kosh. I was intrigued by the rather bold assertions that the South American skull was Negroid in appearance and that it had been held as "off-limits" for two decades, so I've been trying to find information that would shed light on current archaelogical opinion. In looking, I find that there is a big political brouhaha over Amer-Indian rights to archaelogical finds and over the idea that Indian ancestors may not have been "first." This would apparently mean that many of the archaeological sites that have been declared "sacred" Indian burial grounds, would have dubious connection with present day native American tribes.

It seems now that most archaeologists say the idea of the 10,000 years ago, Bering strait crossing that populated the Americas down an "ice-free corridor" from Alaska down through South America by Mongolian people is dead. Most at least concede that a prior group from south Asia, of Negroid stock, must have entered American shores first and traveled down the ice-free coast (artifacts being submerged after the melting of ice) to make settlements in South America, and these populations were later absorbed by the Mongolians who did come across after the ice was gone. The explanation for the Australo-negroid genetic factor and appearance of features is usually that the same wave that came to coastal America went to Australia. Some contend that instead of coming from South Asia, they came from Africa.
DRFseven is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:27 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.