Ask the aborigines about the Bradshaw art in the Kimberley’s WA. When I was a child 50yrs ago. My family went on a guided tour to see this art work. And the aboriginal guide told us the artwork pre dated aboriginals and the aborigines did not know who was responsible for the Bradshaw art.
The people depicted in the Bradshaw rock art don't look aboriginal with their dress & ornaments nore double ended canoes.....looks like a different race for sure...
The people depicted in the Bradshaw rock art don't look aboriginal with their dress & ornaments nore double ended canoes.....looks like a different race for sure...
I think the notion that just because the art was a different style that it was painted by a different race is so ludicrous. You don't think that the different styles could be attributed to the thousands of years difference between when one tribe developed a style and when the other tribe developed their style? There has never been a shred of evidence that suggest a different race inhabited Sahul before the aboriginal groups apart from the Torres Strait peoples who are a different group, yet they arrived later and never spread south
Anthropologist Professor Alfred Cort Hadden in his 1909 book, "Races of Man", suggests the first settlers were Papuans, "they were of small stature with woolly tight cropped hair and broad noses". This race he claims were hunted down by the Davidians who came from Southern India and are the descendants of the current aboriginals. There have been reports from Portuguese and Dutch sailors going back to 1600's claiming they saw tall natives chasing down and murdering smaller natives. Hadden suggests the Tasmanian aboriginal were descendants of this early Papuan race.
If you are going to regurgitate this type of BS you will need to get your facts straight. Alfred Cort Hadden in his 1909 book, "Races of Man", was a theory and NOT FACTUAL. He tried to group people according to their features, hair, broad nose and so on. None of it has been backed by scientific research, just like your comment. So just because the Dutch saw these things doesn't mean that these people had been unalived by my people, also these Davidians that you speak of are they our ancestors or as you say "descendants of the current aboriginals". Notice how stupid your comment is, and why didn't Alfred research over in WA, but instead he chose to study the people in FNQ. I have been looking into this for the last couple of years and from the articles that I have read about the Australian pygmies is that they were found on the Atherton Tablelands, in and around Malanda. One of the tribes mentioned was the Idinjii tribe. They were referred to as pygmies due to their short stature, and negroid features, tight curly hair. There were also photographs of these people dating from the 1940s, and if you know anything about photography back then, people had to stand for a period of time to capture the photo, and as a result a lot of it was staged. I am an indigenous person from this area and the name of my tribe is Yidinjii often refered to as Idinjii, and I have relatives that are of short stature between 130 to 140 cm tall. tight curly hair etc. The same features described in Alfreds book and the other articles that I have read. So would it be fair for me to say that my people are descendants of these so called pygmies and that they are not extinct but much rather are still here and thriving. I even had an Aunty that was naming people, that were in photographs from as early as the 1920s. So might I suggest you do a bit more research or better yet go out to your local Aboriginal community and get the information first hand, and stop regurgitating this type of BS propaganda designed to suggest that my people have no claim to this land because they weren't the first here and they are either from India or Papua New Guinea. Perhaps we share a common ancestor, or perhaps we are so vastly different from each other as the DNA study shows. DNA studies also show that we have been here for 120 000 years, longer then what was first thought, so how does that fit your narrative now.
Correction Australian Aboriginals are not a nation as such. there are many different mobs, tribes, or groups. But there has and is not even today a common grouping into what we understand to be a nation. This is a term applied to Aboriginal people in Australia that dates about ten or so year coined by suburban, urban, intelligentsia folks to describe something they want to exist to better suit a narritive and does not represent actual traditional peoples or the facts both now or in the long long history of Australia.s native peoples
@@beachbum433 If I remember my history correctly. the Canadian native people actually used the Australian Aboriginal land rights deals and practices to their advantage when acquiring their native title rights etc. But the first nation thing is annoying to me as its a falsehood and not factually representative in history or even on the ground today.
@@markshearer1831 "First nation" vs "first nations". I don't know enough anthropology or political history to know if professionals ever use those terms. There's probably no evidence for "nation states" (a term that is definitely used in those professions) in Australia prior to Federation on the first day of the 20th Century, which is pretty late in the day. In Italy and in Germany, before 19th Century unification, the member units that would make up those nations were kingdoms and principalities. How much indigenous regional groups saw themselves as living in discrete political units would've varied over the millennia, and would've been whatever they perceived it to be at the time, not what we people from another culture and time-period might see it as.
Nomadic hunters. They would eat an area out then burn it (so it was easier to move through when they came back), go walkabout looking for a food rich area, exhaust the food resource burn it then move on again according to the seasons
According to the first Europeans to see aboriginals in Tasmania (was it Abel Tasman)? They were stark naked however in the caves were found bone needles millenia old used for sowing hides together. They had grown used to the freezing weather and lost sowing technology or the need for warm clothing. Same in Patagonia.
Not so long ago, the aborigines said they had been here for 10,000 years. Then it became 40,000 years all of a sudden. Then 50, 60, and now 65,000 years.
@@graemeharris9779 I've seen that information, 120,000 years doesn't fit the time lines from the out of Africa and Asian settlement. The Pygmy story has also been debunked. 75,000 is the most reliable proven time of occupation, creating the oldest continuous civilization on the planet.
@@pkd6369 There is reasonable evidence to suggest that there were others on the Australian continent before and alongside Aboriginal people. An example is where did the Bradshaw figures in the Kimberley region come from? There was also evidenc that Dutch people lived in Australia prior to the 1st fleet. It is possible that any groups may have evolved into the people groups we are more familar with. The matter is contested as there is no clear evidence. But any studies are not accepted.
There's no evidence. No one has been silenced. Whacks get ignored. Indigenous Australians carry the oldest genomes of any one else alive. If some pygmies washed up on shore a few thousand years ago, that still does not change this fact of DNA. They descended straight from the first wave out of africa.
@rinzler9775 same boohoo story. They killed us all. It's getting old. The OOA theory has been struggling for a long time. It isn't now and never has been a scientific fact.
"Traditionally, the Urekehu were a pale skinned race that occupied the Pacific Islands before the Polynesian immigrants swept down from the north. Driven by these fierce warriors into the mountains and misty haunted places they became ... eventually extinct." These legends of a pale skinned race with blue, green or grey eyes were also known in NZ and likely also true for the southern regions of Australia before the Pole shift twelve to thirteen thousand years ago. Note: Ruth Park quoted above, recalled these old stories from the days before they were reworked for political purposes to write out the concept of a white people pre-existing the now indigenous races of these regions.
Good points. Although light skinned are not white. If there is truth to the tale, those people could have been related to the groups that inhabited South East Asia up to Taiwan and Japan, so lighter-skinned but not Caucasians. The current Aboriginals have genetic ties to peoples from farther South towards South India.
@@WillRobinson-r7c there is an NZ elder woman who shared an oral tale of her descendants sailing out of ancient Persia if I remember correctly. She was on you tube pictured with some of her close family…very interesting stuff 🙂
No metals, ceramics, agriculture,no wheel,no written language,only stone tools & no architecture after 65,000 years & non-Indigenous Australians are expected to pay homage to this cultural heritage?
Start by getting rid of the Jews who hate Indo-European civillization and achievements. They love to slander you by dividing and conquering you by a fool’s sports known as ”politics.
@@moonlion7047 And created songs, legends, myths and dances, pictures and some hollowing out rocks. Australian stories go back some tenthousands of years. Scandinavians did only create a writing after contact with the romans. Same with the brits. The celts rejected writing and insisted on oral tradition only after they got romanised and got another religion it changed.
@@mweskamppp my bad. Damn they sound like wonderful people. I might start leaving my car unlocked and house ....oh wait that's right an abo stole it during my home invasion. Stfu.
If you want to research the subject suggest the book 'Cape York. The savage frontier.' I had to get it from a locked area in my library and give my licence as collateral to read on premises. Apparently the truth is out there, but the powers that be don't want anyone to access it!
The First inhabitants were the Negrito People . The People of Trugganini . Also called the Tasmanians . They DID live on the Mainland as well , until the Larger , more Aggressive " Aboriginal " people arrived from Asia , courtesy of the Land-bridge that existed at the time where Torres Strait now is . They got driven South and basically eradicated by these Interlopers . And then 250 years ago White Man showed up and Finished the Job .
There has never been a land bridge. Look up the Wallace line. The narrowest the this gap has been is something like 80km. Sunderland, which include Australia Papua and Tasmania and some of the smaller islands during the ice age. My understanding is that there is a singular DNA source for all these groups but a divergence after first arriving in the area. Not sure about the origin of the female DNA postion but there appears no clear line to the out of Africa version of 70 75 thousand years ago which gives us the Asian and European lines.
The original inhabitants of Australia were Denisovan/Homosapien hybrids from SE Asia. Mungo Man is one of these. The current lot are Homosapien Africans who have inter-bred with the original population, from about 33,000 years ago. As this was in and during the last Ice-age, they walked into the pre-history land of Sahul from New Guinea. As such, the current Aboriginal population is not the "first inhabitants" of Australia and have no native title.
So we can finally stop this Welcome to country, and we acknowledge the original landowners blah blah . 😂 The Americas don't do it for the Indians...do they ?
I am part aboriginal, and there is an oral history about the people who inhabited the land before the aborigines, they are sometimes referred to as Mungo man, aboriginal elders I have spoken to know of this history, but it isn't made known because it would destroy the narrative of the aboriginal people being the first people, they were probably the first invaders.
Your photo is probably on a sex offender register; if not, you certainly look like you belong on one. There’s no way any mob would claim you, so don’t bother saying you’re half Aboriginal-you’re simply embarrassing yourself.
I am an Australian. I was told in school 45,000 years ago. During my aboriginal studies a book said 45,000 - 65,000 years ago. Now an aboriginal spokesperson says 145,000+ years now. Regardless, the original couple migrations either interbred with the newer arrivals or were killed off in the tribal wars that occurred. Btw, how about using some animations that actually look like Australia aboriginals, instead of Native Americans.
Which aboriginal spokesperson said 145000 years? I'm calling your bluff.. I expect you to not answer this question because you made that shit up didn't you?
lol this is a joke and so has science its becoming a tool of choice to push non sense down our throat what a joke this vid 2mins in and i stopped watching
The Maori people have been in New Zealand for less than a thousand years and used to talk of two distinct groups of people here before them. Such talk is rare now, and may even have been eradicated by contemporary politics.
I was taught that before the maori arrived was a peaceful people called something like marori. They were wiped out by a war like race called...maori...just sayin
@@libgiles8376 They were the red-headed Moriori people of the Chatham and Pitt Islands. Some were murdered and some were enslaved by the Maori people. There's a lot more to the story but it is too gruesome to mention.
@libgiles8376 There are conflicting stories about the Moriori. One history says Maori went over to the Chathams and slaughtered them but another says they did so at the behest of the Europeans. Maybe some truth in that. But Moriori were essentially Maori people too. I have not related the Moriori to the redheaded people of Maori stories. There are tales of redheaded people throughout oral histories and in artefacts from all over the world, including Polynesia, Africa, and South America. Often these people also have blue eyes. That part of the description certainly doesn't fit with the Moriori.
I asked an Elder in Yulara, how long her people had been here and she immediately stated the 65,000yr number. I then asked how she knew that number: no answer, just a smile. I then asked that we have the technology to confirm a skeletons DNA/age that may confirm her people had been here longer. She then replied that burial sites were off limits. So, if we are unable to carbon date the bones of a decease Indigenous Person due to cultural reasons, and they are unable to source where they got the 65,000yr figure, so are we to rely on simply word of mouth? This 'past down from generation to generation/story time? Its clear they do not even know. And without evidence, they are unreliable and making it up.
PNG and West Papua have some things in common with Australian Aboriginal people.Like smoke ceremonies,face painting,even the animals like wallaby, cassowaries,or tree kangaroos
But why didn’t they have bows and arrows, farmed crops and didn’t even have a proper canoe, they never advanced past the boomerang, anything else discovered was not aboriginal as such, first inhabitants, I call bs.
yes and they recon Aboriginal language is 70 percent the same as PNG language so there's a place far north Australia that's only 1 or 2 km to PNG its easy to cross in a canoe that's where they've come from
Look up Mungo man remains found at Lake Mungo which pre-date any aboriginal people remains said to be from an Indonesian decent not teaching that anymore
Australia was invaded by many waves of settlers over the last 50,000 years. This is why we have more than 250 cultures, languages, and endless battles. Many tribes went extinct. Just like everywhere else on earth. In 1788 Captain Arthur Phillip's First Fleet arrived with many races on board. The English were the first in the world to introduce legal nation-states to prevent wars. So, the first-nation in this land is Australia.
Of course it does. Stick you head back in the sand, mate...Above all, don't go to North Queensland where the locals will be happy to tell you they have a vastly different culture to arid lands aborigines.@@BassMatt1972
"Vastly" is an over statement.isolation brings about different customs and languages etc. All you need to do is stop living in the dark ages and look at the genomic analysis. Its all written there. @beachbum433
No we can't because their skin is black, so therefore they get pretty much anything they want, yet it'll never be enough for them and they'll never stop the whining.
Giving back what was already theirs, I'm white, I get the same Centrelink benefits, be careful who you accuse of scamming Centrelink, no doubt you are the same.
It’s not PC to talk about this. When I was a kid, the Museum of Natural History had an extensive display on this topic with 1,000s of exhibits. They became “politically incorrect” and disappeared! Today, they have been “air-brushed” out of our history and what has been inserted is a mythology that’s unsupported, that todays aboriginals ancestors were here 40,000+ years ago DESPITE hard evidence they arrived about 6,000 years ago and hard evidence they killed the inhabitants and in some instances ate them.
You are displaying anti-scientific, anti-evidence mentality. The well evidenced claims of 65,000 years of aboriginal occupation of Australia come from qualified expert scientists, most of whom are white, so it is not unsupported claims from aborigines. You are engaging in a conspiracy theory. Museums often change what is on display, and if they did remove a whole lot of aboriginal items, that would imply anti-aboriginal beliefs, not a cover-up. Of course, I don't actually believe the museum(s) are engaged in anti-aboriginal behaviours, and it is more likely you are misremembering what you as a kid saw, or as a kid misinterpreted what you saw.
What a load of bullshit, I think someone mad because they just don’t like the fact black people are the original people of Australia and have an ego about your white ancestors invading and been called colonisers so your just trying to turned it around to us
Would like to hear your source not “trust me bro”. Dutch science proved we was here 65,000+ plus years ago it’s hard to remember history when whites have wiped it with genocide and inbreeding
The Aborigines have the oldest belief system known to the world, and Australia is one of the most isolated continents too. It shouldn't be their burden to bear if the newcomers project onto them about killing inhabitants. This "hard evidence" is a ploy to detract from Aborigines suffering without consequence by pedaling they were some murderous cannibalistic group. It's an age old dehumanisation tactic in order to detach yourself from basic empathy upon seeing any wrongful treatment of other people. I've heard this exact tale before, the Americans did it do the Native Americans, claiming the indigenous people must be savage and would always resort to cannibalism, and probably killed the people that came before to rationalise their genocide. Yet it was the pilgrims who were responsible for the Jamestown murder of a 13 year old girl with a blow to the back of the head and ate her when the climate was too inhospitable for them. They had many instances of similar occurrences, the Donner party had Native people trying to help them before it was too late and they ate their own because they couldn't till the land when they arrived, and those in power were too prideful to accept help, and how were the Native Americans repaid? Well America got its start with the Winchester arm dealing and shot Native's practically for sport when germ warfare and handing out smallpox blankets weren't effective enough. Nothing to do with being 'PC' so much as every accusation is a confession, and history is incredibly malleable based on who tells it, if you have a bias you'll want to hear that 'version' of events. I believed the past British convicts who faced persecution were better people and were now working towards harmony with the land that has also become their home. Clearly that's idyllic, many have a sordid history with the people, all you need to do is look at all the photos where they would round Aborigines up and chain them all by the neck looking smug about it, as if they were no better than an abused dog. The denigration just has to take a new shape. Other than that I'm disappointed there's people named Tommy and John with the palest pfp calling themselves Native in the comment section to give themselves a pass to say Aborigines are all aggressive. If I'm lucky this is AI talking to one another and not humanity letting me down again.
Indonesian fisherman & Papua New Guineans were the first people here. The Australian aboriginals particularly share many similarities with the latter. The Aboriginals didn't magically appear on this island continent. Our wildlife were really the first inhabitants, way before people.
@@treboratat Btw during 18 century, many aborigines from Arnhem land went to Makassar/Ujung Pandang (Sulawesi/Celebes island) and married with our people...
@@ariapinandita9240 sorry, only history started when the Europeans came, i don't mean that just like New Zealand was discovered did not know my ancestors lost it
Aborigines come from India originally I believe. The Indians in the very south of India look identical to the Australian aborigine. I have a handkerchief bought in India in the 1980s which shows tigers and kangaroos on it. There is more to it then most of us know.
You are correct. The Aboriginals of the do resemble tribes in India. The ppl of India also carry Deniveson DNA. As usual, the USA Blacks, they are the ones who get ridiculous about it, saying they killed us all when they got there. They always say that. There is no science behind the BS, but that's the usual BS story.
Every characteristic/trait that we call Indian, Asian, European can be found be found on the African Continent as this is where homo-sapiens come from.
This could be applied to EVERY continent, especially Asia. China, Japan, Korea, India, 90 percent of the Middle East, Turkey, Jordan ect, ect are all in Asia, including the Australian Aboriginals. The ancient DNA studies have been done and verified. They are from Asia,Eurasia to be exact. The world knows that tight curly hair and dark skin doesn't always equal black African. Spin it till doomsday. Spin it like a top. Spin it till your dizzy, no amount of culture vultures BS is going to change the results. The OOA is a theory, best quess, it isn't now, and never has been a scientific fact. The OOA has been struggling for a long time. New found ancient human fossils are not meeting the time line of the OOA. New sophisticated genetic studies and dating techniques have given up lots of surprises with more to come.
@projectevo3513 This could be applied to EVERY continent, especially Asia. China, Japan, Korea, Turkey, India, 90 percent of the Middle East, all in Asia. Asia is and always has been a very diverse looking group. ALL the ppl of the Pacific are also from Asia.
Reportly, there is some evidence that the Mercassins settled in the Kimberley region and allegedly produced the Bradshaw paintings,also bringing Boab fruit, which ultimately grew in the Kimberley region. There has also been reported a very small statue Australian Pigemy lived in the North Qld rain forest before Aboriginals .
The Australian continent did not exist 65,000 years ago. Therefore, it is disingenuous of anyone to claim ownership or uninterrupted existance in a land that didn't exist.
Australia has existed for billions of years, either as a separate continent (past 35 million years) or as part of the prior large land agglomerations like Gondwanaland and Pangea.
If this was a video of Australian Aboriginal people, then why the heck are you using pictures of the American Indians. Is this done deliberately to confuse the viewer, as you can not compare us to them. Sure there may be some similarities, but that's as far as it goes. Same can be said about the Polynesians, their travel is supposed to have began around 15 000 years ago, long after this land was already occupied. So start showing the truth or just stop doing video's like this when you have no grasp of anything.
@@EmpoweredMindz_ I'm not triggered, just sick of seeing people like you, who try to push this narrative that we Aboriginal people don't have a say here in our own country. Our histories, tradition, culture, are being told by non Aboriginal people who fail to even grasp any concepts of who we are as a people, and then try to pass it off as factual, when it is only theoretical. My problem with that is that too many non Aboriginal people think that all this is true and then use this BS to regurgitate against my people, to justify the atrocities that has been committed in this country. So how about you make yourself useful and research into the colonization of all First Nations Lands, the reason's why and exactly what had occurred. Also while your at it, research into why Captain Cook and the many of other Captains around at that time, had a goat in their quarters, sometimes referred to as a cabin boy. So in future if you intend to do another video like this, how about you start with reiterating that the information that you are about to divulge isn't factual or true, but rather a theory and should be taken as such. Using pictures of American Indians to depict Australian Aboriginal people, so who exactly is triggered, all that I am doing is stating the obvious. One other thing, how is it possible for the Aboriginal people to have unalived the Australian Pygmies and yet there are photographs of them on the Atherton Tablelands dating back in the 1940s. This could be a good topic for research, or perhaps the many atrocities that my people had to endure since colonization, the theft of our lands, the stolen wages, the reasons why much of our history is being hidden and suppressed.
Hey, I'm a Tasmanian. I want my land back and compensation from the aboriginal people who invaded my land. I demand more rights from them than they themselves receive and a voice in Parliament too.
The fact that Aboriginals had R1B in their male population pre European settlement says that the Aboriginals had contact with a Indo European step people and the only way this is possible is if Indo Europeans made it to Australia like the Vikings or that people from india after thr ayran invasion in thr bronze age made it to Australia or the Aboriginals haven't been in Australia as long as they claimed.
It's probably more realistic to assume that 'modern' aboriginals have been here for only a few thousand years. They came from Southern India and Sri Lanka. The languages still have a lot of similarity in sound and cadence. (Note Korean YT documentary on Sri Lankan 'Lost' tribe from a few years ago for similarities.).
Yes, thats what I claim too! The original inhabitans from Sri Lanka, the Veddas are close resembling the aborigines of Australia. When the Indo-Aryans invaded India from Central Asia over 4000 years ago, the ancestors of the Australian aborigines fleed Sri Lanka and the Southern part of India when they were replaced by tribes such as the Tamil and Singhalese, who came from northern India. Than the ancestors of the aborigines came over Indonesia to Australia. So, it is likely that they live since 4000 years here in Australia, but not 50,000 or even 65,000 years!
@@friedrichkass1644Do you hold any scientific qualifications, or are you basing your hypothesis on hunches and select internet searches? The ancestors of Aboriginal Australians are not believed to have lived in Sri Lanka or India. The generally accepted theory is that the ancestors of Aboriginal Australians migrated from Africa to Southeast Asia and then to Australia. This migration likely occurred tens of thousands of years ago, with estimates ranging from 50,000 to 65,000 years ago. During this migration, these early humans would have traveled through regions that are now part of Southeast Asia. While they might have passed through or near regions that are today part of India, there is no evidence to suggest that their ancestors specifically lived in Sri Lanka or India before reaching Australia. The genetic, archaeological, and linguistic evidence supports a direct migration route from Southeast Asia to Australia, bypassing prolonged settlement in South Asia. The Gwion Gwion (formerly known as Bradshaw) paintings, located in the Kimberley region of Western Australia, are some of the oldest known rock art in the world. Scientists have employed several methods to date these paintings: Radiocarbon Dating: Researchers have attempted to use radiocarbon dating on organic materials associated with the paintings, such as wasp nests built over the paintings. This method has provided a range of dates, some of which suggest the paintings could be over 17,000 years old. Optically Stimulated Luminescence (OSL): This technique dates the last time mineral grains were exposed to light. By dating sediments in rock shelters or those associated with the paintings, scientists can infer the minimum age of the paintings. Amino Acid Racemization: This method involves analyzing the chemical changes in the organic pigments or binders used in the paint. Changes in amino acids within organic components can provide age estimates. Comparison with Other Dated Materials: Sometimes, researchers compare the style and content of the Gwion Gwion paintings with other dated rock art in the region or with archaeological evidence from nearby sites. This can help provide a relative chronology. Radiocarbon Dating of Lichen: In some cases, scientists have dated the lichen growing over or near the paintings. Since lichen grows slowly, this can give an estimate of the minimum age of the paintings. The combination of these methods has helped scientists to estimate that the Gwion Gwion paintings are ancient, potentially dating back as far as 20,000 years ago, making them some of the oldest known examples of human art. Murujuga (Burrup Peninsula): This site in Western Australia contains an extensive collection of petroglyphs, some of which are estimated to be over 30,000 years old. The rock art here includes depictions of human figures, animals, and abstract patterns. Narwala Gabarnmang: This rock shelter in Arnhem Land, Northern Territory, contains paintings that are believed to be around 28,000 years old. The art includes stencils, paintings, and engravings. Mungo Man is estimated to be around 42,000 years old. His remains were discovered in 1974 at Lake Mungo in New South Wales, Australia, and have provided significant insights into early human history in Australia.
The ancestors of Aboriginal Australians are not believed to have lived in Sri Lanka or India. The generally accepted theory is that the ancestors of Aboriginal Australians migrated from Africa to Southeast Asia and then to Australia. This migration likely occurred tens of thousands of years ago, with estimates ranging from 50,000 to 65,000 years ago. During this migration, these early humans would have traveled through regions that are now part of Southeast Asia. While they might have passed through or near regions that are today part of India, there is no evidence to suggest that their ancestors specifically lived in Sri Lanka or India before reaching Australia. The genetic, archaeological, and linguistic evidence supports a direct migration route from Southeast Asia to Australia, bypassing prolonged settlement in South Asia. The oldest known Aboriginal paintings are the rock art found in Australia, which includes a variety of forms such as paintings, engravings, and carvings. Some of the oldest and most significant examples include: Ubirr and Nourlangie in Kakadu National Park: These sites in the Northern Territory are renowned for their rock art, with some paintings dating back over 20,000 years. The art includes depictions of animals, human figures, and Dreamtime stories. Bradshaw Rock Paintings (Gwion Gwion): Found in the Kimberley region of Western Australia, these paintings are believed to be at least 17,000 years old. The intricate and detailed figures depicted in this art are considered some of the oldest in the world. Murujuga (Burrup Peninsula): This site in Western Australia contains an extensive collection of petroglyphs, some of which are estimated to be over 30,000 years old. The rock art here includes depictions of human figures, animals, and abstract patterns. Narwala Gabarnmang: This rock shelter in Arnhem Land, Northern Territory, contains paintings that are believed to be around 28,000 years old. The art includes stencils, paintings, and engravings. Aboriginal cave paintings have been dated using a variety of methods, including: Radiocarbon Dating: This technique is used to date organic materials associated with the paintings, such as charcoal or plant fibers used in the paint. By measuring the decay of carbon-14 isotopes, scientists can estimate the age of these materials. Optically Stimulated Luminescence (OSL): OSL dating is used to determine the last time mineral grains, such as quartz or feldspar, were exposed to sunlight. This method is often applied to date the sediments or layers of earth in which the paintings are found, providing an indirect age for the paintings themselves. Uranium-Thorium Dating: This method is used to date calcium carbonate deposits, such as those formed by mineral-rich water seeping over the paintings. By measuring the ratio of uranium to thorium, scientists can determine the age of these deposits, which in turn provides a minimum age for the underlying paintings. Relative Dating Techniques: These involve comparing the styles and motifs of the paintings with other dated artworks or archaeological findings. This method can help establish a chronological sequence, although it does not provide precise dates. Archaeological Context: Sometimes the age of cave paintings can be inferred from the context in which they are found. For example, if artifacts of known age are found in the same layer as the paintings, this can provide an estimate for the age of the paintings. Do you believe science has got it all wrong, and you and fried brain cells have the keys to unlock Australia's ancient past? It’s okay to have theories; however, when you try to pass them off as fact, you need empirical evidence. This is usually obtained out in the field, not in your mum's basement.
First Australians have always been here....Yes, they traded with other indigenous peoples from Papua New Guinea, Indonesia and other island Nations, but we've been here ever since time... I am a Warlpiri/Luritja woman and my family has owned land for time in memorial....People have absolutely NO right to say "Your Ancestors never came from here!!" Our features are different from Africans, Asians, Torres Strait Islanders etc. we are unique to this country....I'm PROUD of who I am. ❤️🖤💛
Devonian’s. That’s the reason Aborigines have up to 14% Devonian dna , same as why Europeans have up to 7% Neanderthal dna. There was a recent article in the news a few months back about the oldest Skull found in Australia being Devonian. The book Sapiens gives a good account of how hominids migrated around the world
Apparently the first inhabitants discovered the wheel, knew how to make fire, and so on, but the aboriginals thought these discoveries were not important, and were lost until colonisation.
No silly now two wave of my ancestors came to Gondwana the first wave came from Indiana ocean around 160,000 years ago & they westerns Australia & central mob are the old poeples thats my mother family & my father came top of Australian throw Indonesia popular Guinea 70,000 years ago they came from two different times me I'm a 4 generation northern territory with Scottish background my mother was the first child in her family to have white Blood & my father had a white grandfather I'm 4 generation northern territory but I'm a 70,000 old year plus my mother family 100,000 years descendants my indigenous side 👍✌️❤️🙏 stay 💪🌏
Aye thanks for the information. Truganinni was my ancestor and the rest is Scottish too. Apparently Palawa walked to Tassie and became isolated, navigating the Bass Strait back then would have been an insane task. As a result they kept full blood until settlers rocked up. Their DNA is close to Papuan's from New Guinea, looks different to many mainland Aboriginal people.
you really need to go back to school - what you have written is unintelligble mish mash. Full stops were created for a reason - makes writing sensible and readable. This does not make sense
@@rickyspark4847 no I'm indigenous history knowledgeable & you how did it you get educated by the history of the pass that was wrong like Jesus is white what Santa Claus's white Easter Easter Bunnings for Easter & alot more is that the history you learned
Black Africans in Australia in pre history? Come on, Black Africans didn't even manage to go to Madagascar or the islands in the Indian Ocean before the Borneans or Europeans got there. Having images of dark skinned people with Native American headdresses is a bit dubious. 50 kya in Europe the people living there were not the ancestors of modern Europeans. Does knowing that mean anything other than that fact?
Scientists already found bones, that predated Aboriginal ppl a number or years back at a delicate time. The bones were tested for DNA and it was believed that African ppl had been here before them. There wasn't much more said after this, especially with all the politics going on around the country.
Yeah, rendered a lot of land useless because of salinity and taken a massive toll on the health of our river systems. Only 5% of Old growth forest left, and right winged pricks are forever complaining about how they aren't allowed to act like we did when we were uneducated. Sound about right Kooka?
Thanks for nothing to the Aboriginals.. 40k years and got nothing done.. the dinosaurs were the first life in Australia.. so why dont we do a carbon emission smoking ceremony and acknowledge them as original custodians of Australia 😅❤
Those cartoon people did not even look like Aboriginals! Did you copy Native American Indians instead? Anyway interesting topic and the Aboriginals were definitely not the first peoples to inhabit this continent....
What about the pygmies, there were pigmies in Australia I have pictures and info on the pigmies, it has been or tried to be removed. But they were here and were eaten (well so I have heard)
I've heard this before and only twice since the mid 80s first was a show on TV about it, but it's convenient not to mention because of the official narrative
It's likely they had some special visitors at that time. Isolated tribes across Europe all developed their own languages. Australia is so vast that tribes could stay isolated for very long periods,especially during extreme climatic events etc (ice age, volcano etc)
I hope the Australian Aboriginals will say sorry to the Africans and South East Asian, people and acknowledge them as the traditional land owners. Hopefully the Aboriginals will pay lots of taxes so these people can get all sorts of benefits. It's only fair that the do this since the expect others to do this when we thought they were traditional land owners of Australia.
In relation to the human race, I think every phase of mankind the World over has been overtaken and subsequently interbred throughout thousands of years and more. Really, there doesn’t seem to be a pure race as such anywhere. In relation to terra firma, migration by nomadic people seemed to be going on for thousands of years - for survival during ongoing climate change (the Ice Age etc) as well as to obtain various types of food/medicine from indigenous plant life. Therefore, it might be considered that land (in whatever region of the World) really doesn’t belong to one race but perhaps is to be shared, worked and appreciated by all who use it.
The term 'First Nations' is recent, having been borrowed from Canada. The Australian aborigines have never been one, united nation, but were always separate tribes with their own languages and cultures. Modern left-wing politics is forging a new Aboriginal nation. Btw your animation shows South American indians.
I am over 65 years old, and I have been in Australia longer than nearly all aboriginals alive today. So, welcome to Australia, abo's, now get a job and contribute, instead of bludging off the rest of us.
The Mabo case, formally known as Mabo v Queensland (No 2) [1992] HCA 23, was a landmark decision by the High Court of Australia that fundamentally changed the legal landscape regarding land rights in Australia. Here are the key points about the Mabo case: Background: The case was brought by Eddie Mabo, along with other plaintiffs from the Meriam people of the Torres Strait Islands, who challenged the Australian legal doctrine of terra nullius. Terra nullius, meaning "land belonging to no one," was the principle under which the British Crown claimed sovereignty over Australia in 1788, disregarding the existing Indigenous populations. The Plaintiffs: Eddie Mabo, a Meriam man from Mer (Murray Island) in the Torres Strait, along with David Passi and James Rice, argued that their people had continuously inhabited and maintained their lands according to traditional laws and customs. They sought legal recognition of their rights to their ancestral lands. The Decision: On June 3, 1992, the High Court of Australia delivered its historic judgment, overturning the doctrine of terra nullius. The Court recognized that Indigenous Australians had existing land rights under their traditional laws and customs that survived British colonization. Key Findings: The High Court acknowledged the Meriam people’s traditional ownership of the land on Mer (Murray Island), recognizing the concept of native title. The decision established that native title could exist in cases where Indigenous people had maintained a continuous connection to their land through traditional laws and customs. Native title could be extinguished by valid governmental actions that were inconsistent with the continued existence of native title rights. Implications: The Mabo decision led to the passage of the Native Title Act 1993 by the Australian Parliament, which provided a legal framework for Indigenous Australians to claim land rights. It marked a significant shift in Australian law, recognizing the prior and enduring connection of Indigenous peoples to their land. Legacy: The Mabo case is celebrated as a major victory for Indigenous rights in Australia, acknowledging the historical and cultural connection of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples to their land. It has paved the way for numerous native title claims and has had a profound impact on land rights and reconciliation in Australia. In summary, the Mabo case was a transformative legal decision that recognized the traditional land rights of Indigenous Australians, overturning the long-standing doctrine of terra nullius and leading to the establishment of the Native Title Act 1993.
Whether they have been here 20000 years or 90000 doesn't change the fact that in all that time, they did nothing with it. And it also makes no difference how long you been here. We are all migrants.
Recent DNA and language studies indicate the Australian aboriginal people came to Australia from Bew Guinea, northern Africa, Asia and the Middle East over a period of time 2,000 to 3,000 years ago. Of course there a various artifacts because of these very different people. It's also why there are around 400 different languages in the population. Its probable they intermixed, stole wives etc and partly why they were always at war with each other - and still are. BTW the dingo is related to the Thai native dog and is a relatively recent arrival, about 1,000 years.
Yeah, it's interesting how close we argue Homo Erectus came to the island continent, but only homo sapiens apparently made the final stretch. Obviously the problem is the archeological evidence, but as we find, that changes as we eventually find new evidence. But then you have to get your head around the divergence between the Tiwi phase and the Tickalara phase, and somehow how long it took to get from Tiwi to central Queensland, so while evidence abounds, the story is skewed to fit the evidence.
That is true, we need to stop calling Aboriginals "First Nation" people, as they were made up of hundreds of different tribes, many who had different dialects and often fought when they came into contact with each other. Just like the Māori in NZ, Aboriginal culture has lots of violence and barbarism, but no one wants that element discussed. They were definitely not a Nation.
So no, they are not the "first people" of this land, and it is just utterly silly they are called as such. And i'll never see them as such, since they are not the original inhabitants & never will be. But people will never look into this part of history, they'll constantly lie for the aborigines here & believe whatever lies they are told. And it is quite silly, that if you are not one of them, even if you'd be someone who's family line had been here for example, like 6 generations (such as myself), you aren't a native, you are still a "foreigner". Which is exactly what they are, but refuse to admit it, along with those who won't believe anything other than the false history they've been told. But it is good seeing a video like this, actually looking more into history, who was here before them. And thus showing, they are not they "first people", as they never will be.
I live in Australia, when you find objects like a cylindrical roller made from diorite and sparkling basalt, with amazing precision, it question who made it, as Aboriginals tended to be a make now culture, using a beach coble for make shift pestle, rather then make an evenly made perfectly rounded one, that looks more similar to ones at italy sourced from a quarry, that makes me believe earlier hominids made them, erectus or Austria species before first man Aboriginals.
Aboriginal Australians possess a unique genetic makeup that reflects their long history and deep connection to the Australian continent. Here are some key points about the DNA of Aboriginal Australians: Genetic studies have shown that Aboriginal Australians have one of the oldest continuous lineages in the world, with evidence suggesting their ancestors left Africa between 64,000 and 75,000 years ago. They are believed to have arrived in Australia at least 65,000 years ago, possibly even earlier. Aboriginal Australians carry distinctive genetic markers that differentiate them from other populations. These markers indicate a long period of isolation from other human populations, which has led to unique genetic traits. Within the Aboriginal Australian population, there is significant genetic diversity. This diversity is likely due to the long period of time they have inhabited the continent, as well as the varying environmental conditions and lifestyles across different regions of Australia. Genetic research has found some links between Aboriginal Australians and other indigenous populations in the region, such as the Papuans from New Guinea and the Melanesians from the Pacific Islands. These links suggest a shared ancestry among these groups before they became geographically isolated from one another. Studies of Y-DNA (paternal lineage) and mitochondrial DNA (maternal lineage) in Aboriginal Australians have identified haplogroups that are unique to them, as well as some that are shared with other populations in the region, reflecting ancient migration patterns and genetic drift. The arrival of Europeans in Australia had a significant impact on the genetic makeup of Aboriginal Australians. There has been some genetic mixing between Aboriginal Australians and Europeans over the past few centuries, although the core genetic heritage of Aboriginal Australians remains distinct. In summary, Aboriginal Australians possess a unique and ancient genetic heritage that reflects their long history and isolation on the Australian continent. Their DNA provides valuable insights into human migration and the adaptation of early humans to diverse environments.
The pygmies were here long before Aboriginals arrived and whiped them out but our government has been trying to whipe them out of our history books since the 1960s around the same time they invented the aboriginal flag
Recent research states that migrations passed through the Indonesian archipelago 40- 50,000 yrs ago pre sea level rise. After Asians came to Australia to trade right up until recent times. Two types of hominid have been found at Lake Mungo, NSW. Us folk are just one of many ‘nations’
@@danielsonn3046 A small race have been reported and cave drawings have been found under aboriginal ones in north Western Australia and they are the same as others found in other places including overseas
Back in the 1970's I read a Reader's Digest that said that there was a 'human' presence in Australia before Aboriginal colonisation. Unfortunately I can find no reference to it online and cannot remember what year, month's issue it was in. (About 7-8 years of age, so no wonder, but def. rem. it was Read. Digest.)
@@johnbrownscombe323 The government has been trying to whipe them out of our history books since the 1960s around the same time they invented the aboriginal flag,do some research smart cnt
I'll save you all time. The first Australian's were pygmies. The Papuan's who immigrated to Australia used them as a food source. It's too bad there aren't of them left or they'd be able be able to play the victim card too.
They were absorbed. You're telling made up theories and lies. Not one bone. Surely they didn't eat all the bones aswell. There's simply no evidence that these smaller statured people were here before anyone else or even whether or not they were a different people. Dna testing would be needed. Perhaps they had just bred that way for various reasons. Phenotypically they're similar to other tribes, just shorter statured. If tthry WERE a different people, that still does not necessarily make them pre-Aboriginal settlement. Perhaps they came later. Evidence of their pre-Aboriginal habitation would have to be produced. A few pics from the 60s don't prove a thing....except that their facial features were very Australian Aboriginal, aswell as the scarification etc
@@laabsenceofcol8079 the Chinese and the Dutch both documented that they witnessed the aboriginal people killing them off .. also the Bradshaw paintings are the oldest and are clearly not aboriginal paintings... Don't believe all this new woke made up history
@AsttoScott no one knows when they came or what happened to them. It doesn't mean they were here before Aboriginal people. You simply can't prove that. What doesn't lie is the human genome projects data that the Aboriginal people tested carry the oldest genome in the world. Whinging that someone else may have come here at some point in attempt to debase the claims of Aboriginal sovereignty is dopey. Can you locate these Dutch people? Many, including Phoenicians had visited Australia. It's not surprising. That doesn't remove the fact that Aboriginal Australians are related to the first wave of humans out of Africa. And yes, you're correct, DNA doesn't lie. You have no evidence from 70 thousand years ago to say that pygmies were here first. For all we know, a few of them drifted here on boats from somewhere else a few thousand years ago. No one knows
@AsttoScott my comments are being removed. There's no way you can prove pygmies were here first. For all we know a handful of them could have washed up on shore a few thousand years ago. There is no physical evidence for these claims. Many have visited these shores, including the Phoenicians. That doesn't mean that Australian Aboriginal people weren't here before any of them. You're correct in saying DNA doesn't lie. Australian Aboriginal people have the oldest genome in the world as marked by several genetic studies, one of those being the widely unknown Human Genome Project data. Indig mob are descended directly from the first wave out of Africa. They mixed with both Denisovan and Neanderthal. Come back and see me when you can literally prove your claims.
I sincerely celebrate Australia's 2nd nations people, but only question why they did not afford land rights and massive social welfare payments to the 1st nations people instead of eradicating them?
@@andrewstackpool4911 The First Nations pygmies were decimated by the Second Nations Aboriginals. With no pygmy flag flying, no apology, no welfare payments, no land rights, no free public housing, etc. It was an abusive humanitarian disaster.
@@EmpoweredMindz_ if you're going to put out videos on this subject you need to start removing the racist comments . And I don't think an educational video should have statements like they sat there for 40,000 years of playing with sticks you need to remove these idiots or your complicit in encouraging racist dumb behaviour
@@rosshitchen-ij6en no because we're not allowed to do any research . Bit hard to find out about a culture if they're hidden away from public view by their distant relatives stealing all the money
That's all great and we keep getting told that we owe them If they weren't the first here who did they conquer and who do they owe and how are they going to say sorry and do they expect their children grandchildren etc to pay for that too Time to stop the rot we all live here pull your heads in
The Aboriginals say the Europeans 'invaded' Australia. Well, even if they were the first people to arrive the question must be asked even if hypothetically - if they'd found people already here, would they have A; stayed and carried on with their own ways and customs with no regard for the other people's ways and customs, B; stayed but adopted the other people's ways and customs to fit in with them or C; left and gone back to where they came from accepting that the land was already 'taken'? The British did A but the Aborigonals want them to have done C but would they have done that? We'll never know.
@@EASAustraliaNSW Yeah, probably one of the bogans who thinks they're fauna and only invented a stick. They'll also ignore the fact that Aboriginal people can go walkabout with no supplies and survive off their knowledge and intuition, something that many explorers failed to do with well-supplied missions into the outback, famously Burke and Wills dumbasses died so close to water it's not even funny. They also ignore the help that Aboriginal people gave settlers in setting up farms in the early days. And the thanks they get is someone who doesn't have to work still thinks they're animals....
We all know the fastidious historic records you kept Let's have a look I'd love to do archaeological research on many sites in Australia Kimberley Ranges Kakadu The Gosford glyphs So never was Never will be
Mate we don't even know, history has been re-written every generation. What we do know is what the DNA sequencing can tell us. Palawa- Tasmanian Aboriginal people walked to Tassie before sea levels rose, apparently. Their genetic make-up is more closely related to Papuan's from New Guinea. Truganinni the last remaining full blooded people resemble Papuan's with the head shape, nose, tightly wound hair etc. Mainland Aboriginal people are closely related to Indians (from India, not Native Americans), so perhaps Captain Cook did name Indian Head (Gurrie, Fraser island) appropriately when the local Butchulla people greeted him on his voyage on that headland.
@@MrAshyb87 sorry I do not accept this nonsense that Fraser island is named gurrie The aboriginal people allegedly hate us colonial oppressors Use there own language and alphabet I withdraw permission to use ours I also want compensation for them dishonoring my culture That built roads Hospitals Schools For all You don't have to be white to enjoy the full benefits of society But we have to be black to travel in our own land I'm both What happens then
@@MrAshyb87 yes all you say is great but the problem is The aboriginal society is a dead society The aboriginal language A dead language So I don't need a welcome to country my grandmother was quarter cast aboriginal So some white guy getting paid 10000 dollars to welcome my ass to my own country can go piss off I don't work so he can feel culturally adequate
Many misconceptions exist relating to the Australian Aboriginals, and the idea some race found Australia before the Aboriginals is one of them. This misconception, like many others, was long ago proven incorrect via archaeology, anthropology, and genetics, but it still exists in part as result of mainstream science having an issue with remembering what it discovered previously. Hence, Dr Heman Klaatsch (1900s), Dr Ramsey Smith (1920s), and Dr Herbert Basedow (1930s), all concluded the Australian Aboriginals were the first humans to arise on Earth. Sir Arthur Keith (1940s) concluded the Aboriginal race met all criteria to be the ancestral race of all other races found on Earth. Dr Allan Wilson and Dr Rebecca Cann (i.e., “The Recent African Genesis of Humans”) (1980s) found that genetic markers of Aboriginals migrated around the world around 350-400,000 years ago. The Bradshaw paintings are only around 12,000 years old, and the Papuans arose only around 40,000 years ago, while the Aboriginal man, Mungo Man, is around 50-60,000 years old, the Aboriginal’s Madjedbebe occupational site in Kakadu Nation Park NT is around 80,000 years old, and the Aboriginal’s Moyjil occupational site at Warrnambool VIC is around 120,000 years old. As result of the long duration the Aboriginals spent in Australia, the oldest evidence relating to art, religion, human burial and cremation, surgery, long distance trade, seafaring, solar observation, aquaculture farming, bread making, among many other things, were all found in Australia.
OMG I'm a Taungurung Aboriginal woman and elder. Where is this all coming from? None of this is true. Our ancestors were scientifically traced back to us being the first people to leave Africa and migrate. Deciding to settle Australia which was uninhabited. I am about educating people about our culture to build reconciliation. However, this sort of rubbish is just an insult to our culture. This Video hasn't even used pictures of Aboriginal people the headdresses used are more relevant to either American Indian Nations or Australian Islander people. Please, please get the facts correct before putting insulting content such as this out 😢😢😢
Im sorry but your DNA says otherwise. You did NOT migrate out of Africa, you came from Asia, India to be precise and no you were Not the 1st peoples here. Yoy emigrated here just like everyone else and you mixed and wiped out the other peoples who WERE here 1st. It does make a good story though!
Aboriginal people's DNA is closely related to Papuan's from New Guinea and Indians from India, so which Aboriginal people are you referring to? We all came from somewhere brother
The mitochondrial sequence was found to belong to a haplotype (grouping of human populations based on mitochondrial DNA) S2. This is exclusively found among contemporary Aboriginal Australian populations. The present study is important for many reasons, but perhaps most importantly it has been planned and conducted, and is published, with the support of the Barkindji, Ngiyampaa and Muthi Muthi indigenous groups. Finally, this new study refutes the earlier suggestion that another extinct lineage of people predated Aboriginal Australians. The archaeology and the genetics provide very strong evidence that our First People have been here over the past 50,000 years. This was long before people first arrived in Europe.
I just can't understand why people can't comprehend that the Aboriginals are the first in this country and did not come from any other continent. It's 🤯.
The ancient DNA studies have been done and verified. The Aboriginals of Australia r not from Africa. They are from Asia, Eurasia, to be exact. Tight curly hair and dark skin don't always equal black African. The Negritos from the Philippines and the Natives of Papua New Guinea and others are from Asia. New sophisticated genetic studies and dating techniques have given up a lot of surprises, with more to come.
Because we all came from somewhere, it's about tracing our origin. Nuenonne, Palawa people are closely related to Papuan's from New Guinea, so it's assumed, reasonably that the people migrated from that area originally.
@MrAshyb87 The new sophisticated genetic studies and dating techniques have found that the ancient DNA of the Aboriginals of Australia, the Natives of Papua New Guinea, the Negritos from the Philippines and others are from Asia, Eurasia to be exact. These ancient DNA studies have been done and verified Tight curly hair and dark skin don't always equal black African. The world has known for a long time that diet and environment can dictate your physical appearance and your hair texture. You gotta have more than assumptions. You gotta have some recent science and substance behind your claims. New sophisticated genetic studies and dating techniques have given up lots of surprises with more to come.
@@leeclews7731 Put some science and substance behind your culture vultures claim, there isn't any. Some people are so obsessed with skin color and race that they have lost the capacity to grasp the science.
You have giving up theories but there is absolutely no evidence to back up these claims. The minimal strange aritfacts you chose not to show could be put down to bartering between the neighbouring countries. Until there is solid evidence this is just a theory as the narrator mentions numerous times.
Ask the aborigines about the Bradshaw art in the Kimberley’s WA. When I was a child 50yrs ago. My family went on a guided tour to see this art work. And the aboriginal guide told us the artwork pre dated aboriginals and the aborigines did not know who was responsible for the Bradshaw art.
The people depicted in the Bradshaw rock art don't look aboriginal with their dress & ornaments nore double ended canoes.....looks like a different race for sure...
The people depicted in the Bradshaw rock art don't look aboriginal with their dress & ornaments nore double ended canoes.....looks like a different race for sure...
Yes, I was told this 2.5 decades ago… listen to our Elders.
The Elders said the rock art was there when they got there and they don't know who or what people did it.
I think the notion that just because the art was a different style that it was painted by a different race is so ludicrous. You don't think that the different styles could be attributed to the thousands of years difference between when one tribe developed a style and when the other tribe developed their style? There has never been a shred of evidence that suggest a different race inhabited Sahul before the aboriginal groups apart from the Torres Strait peoples who are a different group, yet they arrived later and never spread south
Anthropologist Professor Alfred Cort Hadden in his 1909 book, "Races of Man", suggests the first settlers were Papuans, "they were of small stature with woolly tight cropped hair and broad noses". This race he claims were hunted down by the Davidians who came from Southern India and are the descendants of the current aboriginals. There have been reports from Portuguese and Dutch sailors going back to 1600's claiming they saw tall natives chasing down and murdering smaller natives. Hadden suggests the Tasmanian aboriginal were descendants of this early Papuan race.
I believe so too
Me when I'm delusional
Me pella Nuenonne prom Lunawanna Allonha.
Callim long pig.
If you are going to regurgitate this type of BS you will need to get your facts straight. Alfred Cort Hadden in his 1909 book, "Races of Man", was a theory and NOT FACTUAL. He tried to group people according to their features, hair, broad nose and so on. None of it has been backed by scientific research, just like your comment. So just because the Dutch saw these things doesn't mean that these people had been unalived by my people, also these Davidians that you speak of are they our ancestors or as you say "descendants of the current aboriginals". Notice how stupid your comment is, and why didn't Alfred research over in WA, but instead he chose to study the people in FNQ. I have been looking into this for the last couple of years and from the articles that I have read about the Australian pygmies is that they were found on the Atherton Tablelands, in and around Malanda. One of the tribes mentioned was the Idinjii tribe. They were referred to as pygmies due to their short stature, and negroid features, tight curly hair. There were also photographs of these people dating from the 1940s, and if you know anything about photography back then, people had to stand for a period of time to capture the photo, and as a result a lot of it was staged.
I am an indigenous person from this area and the name of my tribe is Yidinjii often refered to as Idinjii, and I have relatives that are of short stature between 130 to 140 cm tall. tight curly hair etc. The same features described in Alfreds book and the other articles that I have read. So would it be fair for me to say that my people are descendants of these so called pygmies and that they are not extinct but much rather are still here and thriving. I even had an Aunty that was naming people, that were in photographs from as early as the 1920s. So might I suggest you do a bit more research or better yet go out to your local Aboriginal community and get the information first hand, and stop regurgitating this type of BS propaganda designed to suggest that my people have no claim to this land because they weren't the first here and they are either from India or Papua New Guinea. Perhaps we share a common ancestor, or perhaps we are so vastly different from each other as the DNA study shows. DNA studies also show that we have been here for 120 000 years, longer then what was first thought, so how does that fit your narrative now.
That is also my understanding..........I believe you are correct.
Les Griffiths
Correction Australian Aboriginals are not a nation as such. there are many different mobs, tribes, or groups. But there has and is not even today a common grouping into what we understand to be a nation. This is a term applied to Aboriginal people in Australia that dates about ten or so year coined by suburban, urban, intelligentsia folks to describe something they want to exist to better suit a narritive and does not represent actual traditional peoples or the facts both now or in the long long history of Australia.s native peoples
It's a Canadian import...
@@beachbum433 If I remember my history correctly. the Canadian native people actually used the Australian Aboriginal land rights deals and practices to their advantage when acquiring their native title rights etc. But the first nation thing is annoying to me as its a falsehood and not factually representative in history or even on the ground today.
@@markshearer1831 "First nation" vs "first nations".
I don't know enough anthropology or political history to know if professionals ever use those terms.
There's probably no evidence for "nation states" (a term that is definitely used in those professions) in Australia prior to Federation on the first day of the 20th Century, which is pretty late in the day.
In Italy and in Germany, before 19th Century unification, the member units that would make up those nations were kingdoms and principalities.
How much indigenous regional groups saw themselves as living in discrete political units would've varied over the millennia, and would've been whatever they perceived it to be at the time, not what we people from another culture and time-period might see it as.
Nomadic hunters. They would eat an area out then burn it (so it was easier to move through when they came back), go walkabout looking for a food rich area, exhaust the food resource burn it then move on again according to the seasons
According to the first Europeans to see aboriginals in Tasmania (was it Abel Tasman)? They were stark naked however in the caves were found bone needles millenia old used for sowing hides together. They had grown used to the freezing weather and lost sowing technology or the need for warm clothing. Same in Patagonia.
Not so long ago, the aborigines said they had been here for 10,000 years. Then it became 40,000 years all of a sudden. Then 50, 60, and now 65,000 years.
The latest is 120,000 years.
And they were told the details about their history in coming to Australia by white scientists - they had no idea!
We can thank archaeologists for this information@@graemeharris9779
I'm pretty sure 0you'll find it is White anthropologists that have determined how long the Blackfella has been here.
@@graemeharris9779 I've seen that information, 120,000 years doesn't fit the time lines from the out of Africa and Asian settlement. The Pygmy story has also been debunked. 75,000 is the most reliable proven time of occupation, creating the oldest continuous civilization on the planet.
There were likely to be people living on the Australian continent, but these ideas have been silenced
@@pkd6369 There is reasonable evidence to suggest that there were others on the Australian continent before and alongside Aboriginal people. An example is where did the Bradshaw figures in the Kimberley region come from? There was also evidenc that Dutch people lived in Australia prior to the 1st fleet. It is possible that any groups may have evolved into the people groups we are more familar with. The matter is contested as there is no clear evidence. But any studies are not accepted.
There's no evidence. No one has been silenced. Whacks get ignored.
Indigenous Australians carry the oldest genomes of any one else alive.
If some pygmies washed up on shore a few thousand years ago, that still does not change this fact of DNA. They descended straight from the first wave out of africa.
@@pkd6369Your bright politicians !!!!
@@truth-Hurts375 wtf are you on about?
Very true the white Aboriginals don't want to lose access to 40 billion dollars every year
65,000 years my ass, long time to sit in the dirt and play with sticks. Everything we are told is a lie.
I agree. This video is just more of the same.
"modern" man is 2 million years old, 65,000 years is a blink of an eye in a prmitive society in balance.
Fossils were found and carbon dated - its scientific fact. Deal with it.
@@rinzler9775 that's the way sheep, trust the 'science'
@rinzler9775 same boohoo story. They killed us all. It's getting old. The OOA theory has been struggling for a long time. It isn't now and never has been a scientific fact.
"Traditionally, the Urekehu were a pale skinned race that occupied the Pacific Islands before the Polynesian immigrants swept down from the north. Driven by these fierce warriors into the mountains and misty haunted places they became ... eventually extinct."
These legends of a pale skinned race with blue, green or grey eyes were also known in NZ and likely also true for the southern regions of Australia before the Pole shift twelve to thirteen thousand years ago.
Note: Ruth Park quoted above, recalled these old stories from the days before they were reworked for political purposes to write out the concept of a white people pre-existing the now indigenous races of these regions.
Good points. Although light skinned are not white. If there is truth to the tale, those people could have been related to the groups that inhabited South East Asia up to Taiwan and Japan, so lighter-skinned but not Caucasians. The current Aboriginals have genetic ties to peoples from farther South towards South India.
@@justaminute3111 Green eyes, red hair
@@WillRobinson-r7c there is an NZ elder woman who shared an oral tale of her descendants sailing out of ancient Persia if I remember correctly.
She was on you tube pictured with some of her close family…very interesting stuff 🙂
@@leewright7623 Gabbi Plumm has some excellent videos as well
Albinos have always existed.
No metals, ceramics, agriculture,no wheel,no written language,only stone tools & no architecture after 65,000 years & non-Indigenous Australians are expected to pay homage to this cultural heritage?
Basically did nothing except use sticks and rocks.
Start by getting rid of the Jews who hate Indo-European civillization and achievements. They love to slander you by dividing and conquering you by a fool’s sports known as ”politics.
@@moonlion7047 And created songs, legends, myths and dances, pictures and some hollowing out rocks. Australian stories go back some tenthousands of years. Scandinavians did only create a writing after contact with the romans. Same with the brits. The celts rejected writing and insisted on oral tradition only after they got romanised and got another religion it changed.
@@mweskamppp my bad. Damn they sound like wonderful people. I might start leaving my car unlocked and house ....oh wait that's right an abo stole it during my home invasion. Stfu.
Us white people have been here for around 20 years and just about fucked it. I would of loved to see and live in Australia before the whites.
If you want to research the subject suggest the book 'Cape York. The savage frontier.' I had to get it from a locked area in my library and give my licence as collateral to read on premises. Apparently the truth is out there, but the powers that be don't want anyone to access it!
It's available on World of Books, Ebay, Booktopia, etc. so not entirely inaccessible.
@@smkh2890 I am an age pensioner, the book is the right price at my library. I can't afford to buy and store books!
@@IanWhiting-s8d have you tried requesting it ? there’s no reason why it should not be available to a public library
What a load of rot. Another conspiracy theorist.
@@laabsenceofcol8079 Read the book, ring the Tully library to see what you have to do to read it. The truth will set you free.
The First inhabitants were the Negrito People . The People of Trugganini . Also called the Tasmanians .
They DID live on the Mainland as well , until the Larger , more Aggressive " Aboriginal " people arrived from Asia , courtesy of the Land-bridge that existed at the time where Torres Strait now is .
They got driven South and basically eradicated by these Interlopers .
And then 250 years ago White Man showed up and Finished the Job .
Really? Where is the science behind your claim? There isn't any!
@@Teresa-y7t . Really ?
There are no records of the Genocide of the Negrito People ?
I suggest that YOU check the Facts .
@@Teresa-y7t Really ?
So there is " No Proof " of the GENOCIDE of the Negrito People ?
I suggest that YOU check your Facts .
@@Teresa-y7t . The " Science " is actually called History .
The Video was some A I driven thing .
Whereas I am a Native Australian .
There has never been a land bridge. Look up the Wallace line. The narrowest the this gap has been is something like 80km. Sunderland, which include Australia Papua and Tasmania and some of the smaller islands during the ice age. My understanding is that there is a singular DNA source for all these groups but a divergence after first arriving in the area. Not sure about the origin of the female DNA postion but there appears no clear line to the out of Africa version of 70 75 thousand years ago which gives us the Asian and European lines.
The original inhabitants of Australia were Denisovan/Homosapien hybrids from SE Asia. Mungo Man is one of these. The current lot are Homosapien Africans who have inter-bred with the original population, from about 33,000 years ago. As this was in and during the last Ice-age, they walked into the pre-history land of Sahul from New Guinea. As such, the current Aboriginal population is not the "first inhabitants" of Australia and have no native title.
WOOHOO!!!!!!!! That's EXACTLY what's needed!!! Some sort of theory - any shit will do - that means NO NATIVE TITLE!!!!!
PAYDIRT!!!!!!!!!!!
@@quietknight8250 lol, exactly
BS.
So…related to Mungo Macallum?😂
So we can finally stop this Welcome to country, and we acknowledge the original landowners blah blah . 😂
The Americas don't do it for the Indians...do they ?
I am part aboriginal, and there is an oral history about the people who inhabited the land before the aborigines, they are sometimes referred to as Mungo man, aboriginal elders I have spoken to know of this history, but it isn't made known because it would destroy the narrative of the aboriginal people being the first people, they were probably the first invaders.
That's nonsense. Which mob are you?
Im Aboriginal and I doubt you are with what your saying.What mob are you with?
You sure look part aboriginal, Tommy, fascinating how you couldn't even keep away from calling your own people "them" and "first invaders."
@@chaoticneutralsheep Lol.Tommy from london
Your photo is probably on a sex offender register; if not, you certainly look like you belong on one. There’s no way any mob would claim you, so don’t bother saying you’re half Aboriginal-you’re simply embarrassing yourself.
I am an Australian. I was told in school 45,000 years ago. During my aboriginal studies a book said 45,000 - 65,000 years ago. Now an aboriginal spokesperson says 145,000+ years now. Regardless, the original couple migrations either interbred with the newer arrivals or were killed off in the tribal wars that occurred. Btw, how about using some animations that actually look like Australia aboriginals, instead of Native Americans.
Ugh the images had me cringeing from the get-go.
Which aboriginal spokesperson said 145000 years? I'm calling your bluff.. I expect you to not answer this question because you made that shit up didn't you?
Take your time, but I'd really like to know who this aboriginal elder was and where you heard this.
lol this is a joke and so has science its becoming a tool of choice to push non sense down our throat what a joke this vid 2mins in and i stopped watching
I can't believe you, surely you're not so stupid as to think that no further research is being done
The Maori people have been in New Zealand for less than a thousand years and used to talk of two distinct groups of people here before them. Such talk is rare now, and may even have been eradicated by contemporary politics.
The Maoris invaded New Zealand. They killed off the inhabitant Polynesian people there
I was taught that before the maori arrived was a peaceful people called something like marori. They were wiped out by a war like race called...maori...just sayin
@@libgiles8376 They were the red-headed Moriori people of the Chatham and Pitt Islands. Some were murdered and some were enslaved by the Maori people. There's a lot more to the story but it is too gruesome to mention.
@libgiles8376
There are conflicting stories about the Moriori.
One history says Maori went over to the Chathams and slaughtered them but another says they did so at the behest of the Europeans. Maybe some truth in that. But Moriori were essentially Maori people too.
I have not related the Moriori to the redheaded people of Maori stories.
There are tales of redheaded people throughout oral histories and in artefacts from all over the world, including Polynesia, Africa, and South America. Often these people also have blue eyes. That part of the description certainly doesn't fit with the Moriori.
@@jeremyashford2145 Patupaiarehe
urukehu
Turehu
tūrehu
pakepakehā
Ngāti Maru
Miru
Just fleas arguing about who owns the dog they live on!! Get the hate out of ur hearts. We are all Australians!
Except aboriginals don't want to be Australians. They want to be the dog that all other flees pay for..
A good line from that movie ,it's true
I asked an Elder in Yulara, how long her people had been here and she immediately stated the 65,000yr number. I then asked how she knew that number: no answer, just a smile. I then asked that we have the technology to confirm a skeletons DNA/age that may confirm her people had been here longer. She then replied that burial sites were off limits. So, if we are unable to carbon date the bones of a decease Indigenous Person due to cultural reasons, and they are unable to source where they got the 65,000yr figure, so are we to rely on simply word of mouth? This 'past down from generation to generation/story time? Its clear they do not even know. And without evidence, they are unreliable and making it up.
whats remarkable is that there was 365 days in the aboriginal calender year also and no doubt 366 every aboriginal LEAP YEAR🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Dreamtime stories varied all the time.
How else do you expect the Great Australian Grift to continue?
Why are you showing American Indians? The first Australians did not look or dress like this at all.
PNG and West Papua have some things in common with Australian Aboriginal people.Like smoke ceremonies,face painting,even the animals like wallaby, cassowaries,or tree kangaroos
But why didn’t they have bows and arrows, farmed crops and didn’t even have a proper canoe, they never advanced past the boomerang, anything else discovered was not aboriginal as such, first inhabitants, I call bs.
yes and they recon Aboriginal language is 70 percent the same as PNG language so there's a place far north Australia that's only 1 or 2 km to PNG its easy to cross in a canoe that's where they've come from
Didn't Ernie Dingo invent the smoking ceremony?
@@WillRobinson-r7c He is toddler
@@topplate100 okay PNG alone have over 800-900 very active native languages
Finally. Two anthropologists told me this in the 1990s but I could never remember the details.
In your your dreams.
@@rosshitchen-ij6en Nah - we don't do dreamtime. We prefer facts.
@@BadBed1982 We prefer people with half a brain posting smart and interesting stuff, not people intellectually challenged trying to be funny.
How did you know your two imaginary friends were anthropologists? Were they colleagues, or just two gents down at your local steam room?
@@BadBed1982Post some facts and something interesting, or stop clogging up the thread with nonsense.
You spoke a lot, yet said nothing of substance.
Just like Pascoe in the book Dark Emu.
Look up Mungo man remains found at Lake Mungo which pre-date any aboriginal people remains said to be from an Indonesian decent not teaching that anymore
@@jeffreycornford3283 I was under the impression, that there was no firm evidence to support what youre saying?.
@@daniellebcooper7160 they have his remains learnt that when we visited many years ago
I can't find any evidence confirming Mungo man and mungo lady were not of aboriginal origin@daniellebcooper7160
Australia was invaded by many waves of settlers over the last 50,000 years. This is why we have more than 250 cultures, languages, and endless battles. Many tribes went extinct. Just like everywhere else on earth. In 1788 Captain Arthur Phillip's First Fleet arrived with many races on board. The English were the first in the world to introduce legal nation-states to prevent wars. So, the first-nation in this land is Australia.
Sounds like complete crap to this Aussie..
Of course it does. Stick you head back in the sand, mate...Above all, don't go to North Queensland where the locals will be happy to tell you they have a vastly different culture to arid lands aborigines.@@BassMatt1972
You're not even Australian.
"Vastly" is an over statement.isolation brings about different customs and languages etc. All you need to do is stop living in the dark ages and look at the genomic analysis. Its all written there. @beachbum433
@@laabsenceofcol8079 None of us are, as Australia is Norfolk Island , Cook never landed, all a big freemason lie , good story though
So , can we stop giving them the country and maybe re-claim some Centrelink payments ???
Victoria is going all out, mining royalty's squandered, no national parks for the people will exist soon
😂
No we can't because their skin is black, so therefore they get pretty much anything they want, yet it'll never be enough for them and they'll never stop the whining.
Giving back what was already theirs, I'm white, I get the same Centrelink benefits, be careful who you accuse of scamming Centrelink, no doubt you are the same.
good luck with that, bottle shops are usually owned by big corporations and you've got no chance against them
This is click-bait. The Title "Revealed: Who was in Australia Before The Aboriginal" - No-one is revealed. No evidence is cited.
It’s not PC to talk about this. When I was a kid, the Museum of Natural History had an extensive display on this topic with 1,000s of exhibits. They became “politically incorrect” and disappeared! Today, they have been “air-brushed” out of our history and what has been inserted is a mythology that’s unsupported, that todays aboriginals ancestors were here 40,000+ years ago DESPITE hard evidence they arrived about 6,000 years ago and hard evidence they killed the inhabitants and in some instances ate them.
You are displaying anti-scientific, anti-evidence mentality. The well evidenced claims of 65,000 years of aboriginal occupation of Australia come from qualified expert scientists, most of whom are white, so it is not unsupported claims from aborigines.
You are engaging in a conspiracy theory. Museums often change what is on display, and if they did remove a whole lot of aboriginal items, that would imply anti-aboriginal beliefs, not a cover-up.
Of course, I don't actually believe the museum(s) are engaged in anti-aboriginal behaviours, and it is more likely you are misremembering what you as a kid saw, or as a kid misinterpreted what you saw.
What a load of bullshit, I think someone mad because they just don’t like the fact black people are the original people of Australia and have an ego about your white ancestors invading and been called colonisers so your just trying to turned it around to us
No we’ve been here since the creation… so sorry if that’s hard to believe….
Would like to hear your source not “trust me bro”. Dutch science proved we was here 65,000+ plus years ago it’s hard to remember history when whites have wiped it with genocide and inbreeding
The Aborigines have the oldest belief system known to the world, and Australia is one of the most isolated continents too. It shouldn't be their burden to bear if the newcomers project onto them about killing inhabitants. This "hard evidence" is a ploy to detract from Aborigines suffering without consequence by pedaling they were some murderous cannibalistic group. It's an age old dehumanisation tactic in order to detach yourself from basic empathy upon seeing any wrongful treatment of other people.
I've heard this exact tale before, the Americans did it do the Native Americans, claiming the indigenous people must be savage and would always resort to cannibalism, and probably killed the people that came before to rationalise their genocide. Yet it was the pilgrims who were responsible for the Jamestown murder of a 13 year old girl with a blow to the back of the head and ate her when the climate was too inhospitable for them. They had many instances of similar occurrences, the Donner party had Native people trying to help them before it was too late and they ate their own because they couldn't till the land when they arrived, and those in power were too prideful to accept help, and how were the Native Americans repaid? Well America got its start with the Winchester arm dealing and shot Native's practically for sport when germ warfare and handing out smallpox blankets weren't effective enough.
Nothing to do with being 'PC' so much as every accusation is a confession, and history is incredibly malleable based on who tells it, if you have a bias you'll want to hear that 'version' of events. I believed the past British convicts who faced persecution were better people and were now working towards harmony with the land that has also become their home. Clearly that's idyllic, many have a sordid history with the people, all you need to do is look at all the photos where they would round Aborigines up and chain them all by the neck looking smug about it, as if they were no better than an abused dog. The denigration just has to take a new shape.
Other than that I'm disappointed there's people named Tommy and John with the palest pfp calling themselves Native in the comment section to give themselves a pass to say Aborigines are all aggressive. If I'm lucky this is AI talking to one another and not humanity letting me down again.
Indonesian fisherman & Papua New Guineans were the first people here. The Australian aboriginals particularly share many similarities with the latter. The Aboriginals didn't magically appear on this island continent. Our wildlife were really the first inhabitants, way before people.
We have several stories about Makassan/Makassar people from Sulawesi went to Australia to trade sea slug (teripang) with the native...
@@ariapinandita9240 Come on your not helping the colonizer with their stories there were nobody here for you to trade with
@@treboratat Btw during 18 century, many aborigines from Arnhem land went to Makassar/Ujung Pandang (Sulawesi/Celebes island) and married with our people...
@@ariapinandita9240 sorry, only history started when the Europeans came, i don't mean that just like New Zealand was discovered did not know my ancestors lost it
agreed and makes more sense good common ole common sense lol
Aborigines come from India originally I believe. The Indians in the very south of India look identical to the Australian aborigine. I have a handkerchief bought in India in the 1980s which shows tigers and kangaroos on it. There is more to it then most of us know.
You are correct. The Aboriginals of the do resemble tribes in India. The ppl of India also carry Deniveson DNA. As usual, the USA Blacks, they are the ones who get ridiculous about it, saying they killed us all when they got there. They always say that. There is no science behind the BS, but that's the usual BS story.
The Australian Aborigonals really do resembles the tribes of India.
Every characteristic/trait that we call Indian, Asian, European can be found be found on the African Continent as this is where homo-sapiens come from.
This could be applied to EVERY continent, especially Asia. China, Japan, Korea, India, 90 percent of the Middle East, Turkey, Jordan ect, ect are all in Asia, including the Australian Aboriginals. The ancient DNA studies have been done and verified. They are from Asia,Eurasia to be exact. The world knows that tight curly hair and dark skin doesn't always equal black African. Spin it till doomsday. Spin it like a top. Spin it till your dizzy, no amount of culture vultures BS is going to change the results. The OOA is a theory, best quess, it isn't now, and never has been a scientific fact. The OOA has been struggling for a long time. New found ancient human fossils are not meeting the time line of the OOA. New sophisticated genetic studies and dating techniques have given up lots of surprises with more to come.
@projectevo3513 This could be applied to EVERY continent, especially Asia. China, Japan, Korea, Turkey, India, 90 percent of the Middle East, all in Asia. Asia is and always has been a very diverse looking group. ALL the ppl of the Pacific are also from Asia.
Reportly, there is some evidence that the Mercassins settled in the Kimberley region and allegedly produced the Bradshaw paintings,also bringing Boab fruit, which ultimately grew in the Kimberley region. There has also been reported a very small statue Australian Pigemy lived in the North Qld rain forest before Aboriginals .
I've seen photos of those small negritos taken in Qld circa 1955.
They lived at Cape Grafton and were moved to the Aboriginal camp at Hopevale.
@@ThePlataf where are those photos show me ?
The Australian continent did not exist 65,000 years ago.
Therefore, it is disingenuous of anyone to claim ownership or uninterrupted existance in a land that didn't exist.
Australia has existed for billions of years, either as a separate continent (past 35 million years) or as part of the prior large land agglomerations like Gondwanaland and Pangea.
Tell us you're a creationist without telling us you're a creationist.
Reminds me of an Australian aboriginal myth about "Mimi people".
If this was a video of Australian Aboriginal people, then why the heck are you using pictures of the American Indians. Is this done deliberately to confuse the viewer, as you can not compare us to them. Sure there may be some similarities, but that's as far as it goes. Same can be said about the Polynesians, their travel is supposed to have began around 15 000 years ago, long after this land was already occupied. So start showing the truth or just stop doing video's like this when you have no grasp of anything.
You sound triggered!😅 just scroll past and have a wonderful day, keyboard warrior.
@@EmpoweredMindz_ I'm not triggered, just sick of seeing people like you, who try to push this narrative that we Aboriginal people don't have a say here in our own country. Our histories, tradition, culture, are being told by non Aboriginal people who fail to even grasp any concepts of who we are as a people, and then try to pass it off as factual, when it is only theoretical. My problem with that is that too many non Aboriginal people think that all this is true and then use this BS to regurgitate against my people, to justify the atrocities that has been committed in this country. So how about you make yourself useful and research into the colonization of all First Nations Lands, the reason's why and exactly what had occurred. Also while your at it, research into why Captain Cook and the many of other Captains around at that time, had a goat in their quarters, sometimes referred to as a cabin boy. So in future if you intend to do another video like this, how about you start with reiterating that the information that you are about to divulge isn't factual or true, but rather a theory and should be taken as such. Using pictures of American Indians to depict Australian Aboriginal people, so who exactly is triggered, all that I am doing is stating the obvious. One other thing, how is it possible for the Aboriginal people to have unalived the Australian Pygmies and yet there are photographs of them on the Atherton Tablelands dating back in the 1940s. This could be a good topic for research, or perhaps the many atrocities that my people had to endure since colonization, the theft of our lands, the stolen wages, the reasons why much of our history is being hidden and suppressed.
The original Australian's were a denisovan hybrid whos legacy left blond hair in Central Australian Aboriginals
What about the Fijians and Hawaiians who also had blonde hair?
@DeepVerma728 probably the same lineages
That would be the Tasmanians.
Hey, I'm a Tasmanian. I want my land back and compensation from the aboriginal people who invaded my land. I demand more rights from them than they themselves receive and a voice in Parliament too.
@@tim0e lol
The fact that Aboriginals had R1B in their male population pre European settlement says that the Aboriginals had contact with a Indo European step people and the only way this is possible is if Indo Europeans made it to Australia like the Vikings or that people from india after thr ayran invasion in thr bronze age made it to Australia or the Aboriginals haven't been in Australia as long as they claimed.
Show me an Aryan civilization outside of India?
Prove it shoiw the actual scientific study for me to read.I bet you can't
'Evidence is limited' sums it up.
It's probably more realistic to assume that 'modern' aboriginals have been here for only a few thousand years.
They came from Southern India and Sri Lanka. The languages still have a lot of similarity in sound and cadence. (Note Korean YT documentary on Sri Lankan 'Lost' tribe from a few years ago for similarities.).
No. Its probably realistic to follow the sound science that has things pretty well documented, not fringe theories designed to confuse and misinform.
No its not realistic at all.Smarter people than you have already made scientific findings on the matter.
Yes, thats what I claim too! The original inhabitans from Sri Lanka, the Veddas are close resembling the aborigines of Australia. When the Indo-Aryans invaded India from Central Asia over 4000 years ago, the ancestors of the Australian aborigines fleed Sri Lanka and the Southern part of India when they were replaced by tribes such as the Tamil and Singhalese, who came from northern India. Than the ancestors of the aborigines came over Indonesia to Australia. So, it is likely that they live since 4000 years here in Australia, but not 50,000 or even 65,000 years!
@@friedrichkass1644Do you hold any scientific qualifications, or are you basing your hypothesis on hunches and select internet searches?
The ancestors of Aboriginal Australians are not believed to have lived in Sri Lanka or India. The generally accepted theory is that the ancestors of Aboriginal Australians migrated from Africa to Southeast Asia and then to Australia. This migration likely occurred tens of thousands of years ago, with estimates ranging from 50,000 to 65,000 years ago.
During this migration, these early humans would have traveled through regions that are now part of Southeast Asia. While they might have passed through or near regions that are today part of India, there is no evidence to suggest that their ancestors specifically lived in Sri Lanka or India before reaching Australia. The genetic, archaeological, and linguistic evidence supports a direct migration route from Southeast Asia to Australia, bypassing prolonged settlement in South Asia.
The Gwion Gwion (formerly known as Bradshaw) paintings, located in the Kimberley region of Western Australia, are some of the oldest known rock art in the world. Scientists have employed several methods to date these paintings:
Radiocarbon Dating: Researchers have attempted to use radiocarbon dating on organic materials associated with the paintings, such as wasp nests built over the paintings. This method has provided a range of dates, some of which suggest the paintings could be over 17,000 years old.
Optically Stimulated Luminescence (OSL): This technique dates the last time mineral grains were exposed to light. By dating sediments in rock shelters or those associated with the paintings, scientists can infer the minimum age of the paintings.
Amino Acid Racemization: This method involves analyzing the chemical changes in the organic pigments or binders used in the paint. Changes in amino acids within organic components can provide age estimates.
Comparison with Other Dated Materials: Sometimes, researchers compare the style and content of the Gwion Gwion paintings with other dated rock art in the region or with archaeological evidence from nearby sites. This can help provide a relative chronology.
Radiocarbon Dating of Lichen: In some cases, scientists have dated the lichen growing over or near the paintings. Since lichen grows slowly, this can give an estimate of the minimum age of the paintings.
The combination of these methods has helped scientists to estimate that the Gwion Gwion paintings are ancient, potentially dating back as far as 20,000 years ago, making them some of the oldest known examples of human art.
Murujuga (Burrup Peninsula): This site in Western Australia contains an extensive collection of petroglyphs, some of which are estimated to be over 30,000 years old. The rock art here includes depictions of human figures, animals, and abstract patterns.
Narwala Gabarnmang: This rock shelter in Arnhem Land, Northern Territory, contains paintings that are believed to be around 28,000 years old. The art includes stencils, paintings, and engravings.
Mungo Man is estimated to be around 42,000 years old. His remains were discovered in 1974 at Lake Mungo in New South Wales, Australia, and have provided significant insights into early human history in Australia.
The ancestors of Aboriginal Australians are not believed to have lived in Sri Lanka or India. The generally accepted theory is that the ancestors of Aboriginal Australians migrated from Africa to Southeast Asia and then to Australia. This migration likely occurred tens of thousands of years ago, with estimates ranging from 50,000 to 65,000 years ago.
During this migration, these early humans would have traveled through regions that are now part of Southeast Asia. While they might have passed through or near regions that are today part of India, there is no evidence to suggest that their ancestors specifically lived in Sri Lanka or India before reaching Australia. The genetic, archaeological, and linguistic evidence supports a direct migration route from Southeast Asia to Australia, bypassing prolonged settlement in South Asia.
The oldest known Aboriginal paintings are the rock art found in Australia, which includes a variety of forms such as paintings, engravings, and carvings. Some of the oldest and most significant examples include:
Ubirr and Nourlangie in Kakadu National Park: These sites in the Northern Territory are renowned for their rock art, with some paintings dating back over 20,000 years. The art includes depictions of animals, human figures, and Dreamtime stories.
Bradshaw Rock Paintings (Gwion Gwion): Found in the Kimberley region of Western Australia, these paintings are believed to be at least 17,000 years old. The intricate and detailed figures depicted in this art are considered some of the oldest in the world.
Murujuga (Burrup Peninsula): This site in Western Australia contains an extensive collection of petroglyphs, some of which are estimated to be over 30,000 years old. The rock art here includes depictions of human figures, animals, and abstract patterns.
Narwala Gabarnmang: This rock shelter in Arnhem Land, Northern Territory, contains paintings that are believed to be around 28,000 years old. The art includes stencils, paintings, and engravings.
Aboriginal cave paintings have been dated using a variety of methods, including:
Radiocarbon Dating: This technique is used to date organic materials associated with the paintings, such as charcoal or plant fibers used in the paint. By measuring the decay of carbon-14 isotopes, scientists can estimate the age of these materials.
Optically Stimulated Luminescence (OSL): OSL dating is used to determine the last time mineral grains, such as quartz or feldspar, were exposed to sunlight. This method is often applied to date the sediments or layers of earth in which the paintings are found, providing an indirect age for the paintings themselves.
Uranium-Thorium Dating: This method is used to date calcium carbonate deposits, such as those formed by mineral-rich water seeping over the paintings. By measuring the ratio of uranium to thorium, scientists can determine the age of these deposits, which in turn provides a minimum age for the underlying paintings.
Relative Dating Techniques: These involve comparing the styles and motifs of the paintings with other dated artworks or archaeological findings. This method can help establish a chronological sequence, although it does not provide precise dates.
Archaeological Context: Sometimes the age of cave paintings can be inferred from the context in which they are found. For example, if artifacts of known age are found in the same layer as the paintings, this can provide an estimate for the age of the paintings.
Do you believe science has got it all wrong, and you and fried brain cells have the keys to unlock Australia's ancient past? It’s okay to have theories; however, when you try to pass them off as fact, you need empirical evidence. This is usually obtained out in the field, not in your mum's basement.
First Australians have always been here....Yes, they traded with other indigenous peoples from Papua New Guinea, Indonesia and other island Nations, but we've been here ever since time... I am a Warlpiri/Luritja woman and my family has owned land for time in memorial....People have absolutely NO right to say "Your Ancestors never came from here!!" Our features are different from Africans, Asians, Torres Strait Islanders etc. we are unique to this country....I'm PROUD of who I am. ❤️🖤💛
makes more sense you mob would have come from png also and indonesia tassie indigenous have same dna as png peoples
The Aboriginals Weren't The First People That Came to Australia, There Were Many Different People Who Came to Australia Long Before The Aboriginals,
"Many different" who?
BS who
Devonian’s. That’s the reason Aborigines have up to 14% Devonian dna , same as why Europeans have up to 7% Neanderthal dna. There was a recent article in the news a few months back about the oldest Skull found in Australia being Devonian. The book Sapiens gives a good account of how hominids migrated around the world
@nigelliam153 The Australia Aboriginals are NOT from Africa. They are from Asia, and no amount of BS is going to change the results.
@nigelliam153 the word you're trying to say is Denisovans. And everything else you've said is back to front as well.
Apparently the first inhabitants discovered the wheel, knew how to make fire, and so on, but the aboriginals thought these discoveries were not important, and were lost until colonisation.
No silly now two wave of my ancestors came to Gondwana the first wave came from Indiana ocean around 160,000 years ago & they westerns Australia & central mob are the old poeples thats my mother family & my father came top of Australian throw Indonesia popular Guinea 70,000 years ago they came from two different times me I'm a 4 generation northern territory with Scottish background my mother was the first child in her family to have white Blood & my father had a white grandfather I'm 4 generation northern territory but I'm a 70,000 old year plus my mother family 100,000 years descendants my indigenous side 👍✌️❤️🙏 stay 💪🌏
Aye thanks for the information. Truganinni was my ancestor and the rest is Scottish too. Apparently Palawa walked to Tassie and became isolated, navigating the Bass Strait back then would have been an insane task. As a result they kept full blood until settlers rocked up. Their DNA is close to Papuan's from New Guinea, looks different to many mainland Aboriginal people.
you really need to go back to school - what you have written is unintelligble mish mash. Full stops were created for a reason - makes writing sensible and readable. This does not make sense
@@KPI154 well mate look up in history books of today & maybe it will make sense to you champ
@@WilliamMclennan-y4m did you educate yourself with Bruce Pascoe book dark emu 😂
@@rickyspark4847 no I'm indigenous history knowledgeable & you how did it you get educated by the history of the pass that was wrong like Jesus is white what Santa Claus's white Easter Easter Bunnings for Easter & alot more is that the history you learned
Black Africans in Australia in pre history? Come on, Black Africans didn't even manage to go to Madagascar or the islands in the Indian Ocean before the Borneans or Europeans got there. Having images of dark skinned people with Native American headdresses is a bit dubious. 50 kya in Europe the people living there were not the ancestors of modern Europeans. Does knowing that mean anything other than that fact?
aborgines where not the first here.
"FIRST NATIONS"..??? Welcome to MY country...
Stop the 🧢
@@EASAustraliaNSW wow i think i have a stalker following me all over the place i see,
@@EASAustraliaNSWwhats the blue hat mean ?
@@davidratcliffe3710 it means cap, which is slang for crap
Scientists already found bones, that predated Aboriginal ppl a number or years back at a delicate time. The bones were tested for DNA and it was believed that African ppl had been here before them. There wasn't much more said after this, especially with all the politics going on around the country.
There's no way on earth they can prove 65 thousand years ago. There's is no data from more than 10 thousand years ago and even that debatable.
Talking Thousands of years, but look what 250yrs of MONEY has done.
Yeah, rendered a lot of land useless because of salinity and taken a massive toll on the health of our river systems. Only 5% of Old growth forest left, and right winged pricks are forever complaining about how they aren't allowed to act like we did when we were uneducated. Sound about right Kooka?
Oi
Tell me your uneducated without telling me your uneducated, you'd think you'd know better at your grown pre historic age
Thanks for nothing to the Aboriginals.. 40k years and got nothing done.. the dinosaurs were the first life in Australia.. so why dont we do a carbon emission smoking ceremony and acknowledge them as original custodians of Australia 😅❤
The English French Dutch & Russian explorers all came here & said A vastly Dry & arid desert place occupied by Stone age people.
Dinosaurs were not even remotely close to being the first life in Australia.
Didn't realise they were here to serve you?
@mrbiscuits915 they don't serve anyone..just destroy their communities and blame white folks for colonialism..
Can we do raptor awareness day ? That would be cool.
Those cartoon people did not even look like Aboriginals! Did you copy Native American Indians instead?
Anyway interesting topic and the Aboriginals were definitely not the first peoples to inhabit this continent....
Yeah they're far uglier than that and wrong colour 😮
Tamilsaboriginals real South indians
What about the pygmies, there were pigmies in Australia
I have pictures and info on the pigmies, it has been or tried to be removed. But they were here and were eaten (well so I have heard)
I've heard this before and only twice since the mid 80s first was a show on TV about it, but it's convenient not to mention because of the official narrative
@@nigelapps3122 The Enigma of the Australian Pygmies by Ted Rule.
No there wasn't.
@@arthurdent6828 The Enigma of the Australian Pygmies by Ted Rule. Look it up heaps of photos from 1890 up to 1950's.
the faries where also here
It's very interesting that all Aboriginal languishes are related though now diverse....and only 4500 to 6000 years old...easy to check
It's likely they had some special visitors at that time. Isolated tribes across Europe all developed their own languages. Australia is so vast that tribes could stay isolated for very long periods,especially during extreme climatic events etc (ice age, volcano etc)
Just read a book that confirms that ..100s of different dialects.Almost impossable for them to converse
@@RayYounger-o8v it shows how quickly languages diverge under certain conditions. Even in Europe we have a similar scenario.
I hope the Australian Aboriginals will say sorry to the Africans and South East Asian, people and acknowledge them as the traditional land owners. Hopefully the Aboriginals will pay lots of taxes so these people can get all sorts of benefits. It's only fair that the do this since the expect others to do this when we thought they were traditional land owners of Australia.
In relation to the human race, I think every phase of mankind the World over has been overtaken and subsequently interbred throughout thousands of years and more. Really, there doesn’t seem to be a pure race as such anywhere.
In relation to terra firma, migration by nomadic people seemed to be going on for thousands of years - for survival during ongoing climate change (the Ice Age etc) as well as to obtain various types of food/medicine from indigenous plant life. Therefore, it might be considered that land (in whatever region of the World) really doesn’t belong to one race but perhaps is to be shared, worked and appreciated by all who use it.
The term 'First Nations' is recent, having been borrowed from Canada. The Australian aborigines have never been one, united nation, but were always separate tribes with their own languages and cultures. Modern left-wing politics is forging a new Aboriginal nation. Btw your animation shows South American indians.
I am over 65 years old, and I have been in Australia longer than nearly all aboriginals alive today. So, welcome to Australia, abo's, now get a job and contribute, instead of bludging off the rest of us.
A Bark Shield and Wooden Spear vs sophisticated Musket, Gunpowder, and steel: no contest there! They are lucky to be still be here!
Despite what you have "learned' the aborigines did offer resistance to the European colonists. Also, "love" your genocidal attitude.
AB- means not or no ,AB-Original
The Mabo case, formally known as Mabo v Queensland (No 2) [1992] HCA 23, was a landmark decision by the High Court of Australia that fundamentally changed the legal landscape regarding land rights in Australia. Here are the key points about the Mabo case:
Background:
The case was brought by Eddie Mabo, along with other plaintiffs from the Meriam people of the Torres Strait Islands, who challenged the Australian legal doctrine of terra nullius.
Terra nullius, meaning "land belonging to no one," was the principle under which the British Crown claimed sovereignty over Australia in 1788, disregarding the existing Indigenous populations.
The Plaintiffs:
Eddie Mabo, a Meriam man from Mer (Murray Island) in the Torres Strait, along with David Passi and James Rice, argued that their people had continuously inhabited and maintained their lands according to traditional laws and customs.
They sought legal recognition of their rights to their ancestral lands.
The Decision:
On June 3, 1992, the High Court of Australia delivered its historic judgment, overturning the doctrine of terra nullius.
The Court recognized that Indigenous Australians had existing land rights under their traditional laws and customs that survived British colonization.
Key Findings:
The High Court acknowledged the Meriam people’s traditional ownership of the land on Mer (Murray Island), recognizing the concept of native title.
The decision established that native title could exist in cases where Indigenous people had maintained a continuous connection to their land through traditional laws and customs.
Native title could be extinguished by valid governmental actions that were inconsistent with the continued existence of native title rights.
Implications:
The Mabo decision led to the passage of the Native Title Act 1993 by the Australian Parliament, which provided a legal framework for Indigenous Australians to claim land rights.
It marked a significant shift in Australian law, recognizing the prior and enduring connection of Indigenous peoples to their land.
Legacy:
The Mabo case is celebrated as a major victory for Indigenous rights in Australia, acknowledging the historical and cultural connection of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples to their land.
It has paved the way for numerous native title claims and has had a profound impact on land rights and reconciliation in Australia.
In summary, the Mabo case was a transformative legal decision that recognized the traditional land rights of Indigenous Australians, overturning the long-standing doctrine of terra nullius and leading to the establishment of the Native Title Act 1993.
Whether they have been here 20000 years or 90000 doesn't change the fact that in all that time, they did nothing with it. And it also makes no difference how long you been here. We are all migrants.
what is the evidence that Aboriginals lived in Australia for 65000 years?
Zero evidence.
Unless Mr Anthony Alboriginal, the prime minister of Australia and number 1 enemy of White people of European descent says otherwise.
@beniboi6992
In other words, zero evidence.
vague at best, no signs of evidence
Science is not permitted to do proper research pc put a stopper in it.
That’s because they were eaten. 🤣
Recent DNA and language studies indicate the Australian aboriginal people came to Australia from Bew Guinea, northern Africa, Asia and the Middle East over a period of time 2,000 to 3,000 years ago. Of course there a various artifacts because of these very different people. It's also why there are around 400 different languages in the population. Its probable they intermixed, stole wives etc and partly why they were always at war with each other - and still are. BTW the dingo is related to the Thai native dog and is a relatively recent arrival, about 1,000 years.
very interesting
Yeah, it's interesting how close we argue Homo Erectus came to the island continent, but only homo sapiens apparently made the final stretch. Obviously the problem is the archeological evidence, but as we find, that changes as we eventually find new evidence. But then you have to get your head around the divergence between the Tiwi phase and the Tickalara phase, and somehow how long it took to get from Tiwi to central Queensland, so while evidence abounds, the story is skewed to fit the evidence.
Spacemen were here first 👽 🛸
even the blackfella says that the first were white and came from a silver egg
Pov it was aboriginals before they genetically adapted to the land, it’s called evolution , they’re the same people
Have akwats stated.. aborigines were not and never have owed Australia. m
Adam and Eve were in Australia. But today by the laws that British established, Australia belongs to Aboriginal people.
The first Nation people of Australia are British.
lol
That is true, we need to stop calling Aboriginals "First Nation" people, as they were made up of hundreds of different tribes, many who had different dialects and often fought when they came into contact with each other. Just like the Māori in NZ, Aboriginal culture has lots of violence and barbarism, but no one wants that element discussed. They were definitely not a Nation.
@@FartmallowWe were barbaric yet y'all were killing and raping each other that they sent yous on a fleet too gtfo away from them
So no, they are not the "first people" of this land, and it is just utterly silly they are called as such. And i'll never see them as such, since they are not the original inhabitants & never will be. But people will never look into this part of history, they'll constantly lie for the aborigines here & believe whatever lies they are told. And it is quite silly, that if you are not one of them, even if you'd be someone who's family line had been here for example, like 6 generations (such as myself), you aren't a native, you are still a "foreigner".
Which is exactly what they are, but refuse to admit it, along with those who won't believe anything other than the false history they've been told. But it is good seeing a video like this, actually looking more into history, who was here before them. And thus showing, they are not they "first people", as they never will be.
Africans migrated to Fiji. They could have migrated to Australia
bull dust white people came from russia
The images you’re using for the indigenous Australians are very glamorised.
The first documented Aboriginal was Mungo man about 50,000 BP
I live in Australia, when you find objects like a cylindrical roller made from diorite and sparkling basalt, with amazing precision, it question who made it, as Aboriginals tended to be a make now culture, using a beach coble for make shift pestle, rather then make an evenly made perfectly rounded one, that looks more similar to ones at italy sourced from a quarry, that makes me believe earlier hominids made them, erectus or Austria species before first man Aboriginals.
The denisoven reached Australia 1st and interbred with the humans that arrived next.
Aboriginals have about 4% denisoven dna
Aboriginal Australians possess a unique genetic makeup that reflects their long history and deep connection to the Australian continent. Here are some key points about the DNA of Aboriginal Australians:
Genetic studies have shown that Aboriginal Australians have one of the oldest continuous lineages in the world, with evidence suggesting their ancestors left Africa between 64,000 and 75,000 years ago. They are believed to have arrived in Australia at least 65,000 years ago, possibly even earlier.
Aboriginal Australians carry distinctive genetic markers that differentiate them from other populations. These markers indicate a long period of isolation from other human populations, which has led to unique genetic traits.
Within the Aboriginal Australian population, there is significant genetic diversity. This diversity is likely due to the long period of time they have inhabited the continent, as well as the varying environmental conditions and lifestyles across different regions of Australia.
Genetic research has found some links between Aboriginal Australians and other indigenous populations in the region, such as the Papuans from New Guinea and the Melanesians from the Pacific Islands. These links suggest a shared ancestry among these groups before they became geographically isolated from one another.
Studies of Y-DNA (paternal lineage) and mitochondrial DNA (maternal lineage) in Aboriginal Australians have identified haplogroups that are unique to them, as well as some that are shared with other populations in the region, reflecting ancient migration patterns and genetic drift.
The arrival of Europeans in Australia had a significant impact on the genetic makeup of Aboriginal Australians. There has been some genetic mixing between Aboriginal Australians and Europeans over the past few centuries, although the core genetic heritage of Aboriginal Australians remains distinct.
In summary, Aboriginal Australians possess a unique and ancient genetic heritage that reflects their long history and isolation on the Australian continent. Their DNA provides valuable insights into human migration and the adaptation of early humans to diverse environments.
The pygmies were here long before Aboriginals arrived and whiped them out but our government has been trying to whipe them out of our history books since the 1960s around the same time they invented the aboriginal flag
@@nathj4818 Any proof? A fossil, a tooth, a bone? It’s all a government conspiracy, is it? Why would the government want to do that? Lol.
@@nathj4818 No evidence of pygmies exist.They are as real as Santa.
Recent research states that migrations passed through the Indonesian archipelago 40- 50,000 yrs ago pre sea level rise. After Asians came to Australia to trade right up until recent times. Two types of hominid have been found at Lake Mungo, NSW. Us folk are just one of many ‘nations’
I doubt they were here that long ago
Smaller people were but aborigines only between 8 and 12 thousand years ago
Who were the similar people?
@@danielsonn3046
A small race have been reported and cave drawings have been found under aboriginal ones in north Western Australia and they are the same as others found in other places including overseas
@@jamesplummer356 so you don't know who or have any evidence, no bones? Could've just been Aboriginals doing different carvings
@@danielsonn3046 why does this upset you so much. You do realise the world is God given , no body owns it. Sad people believe they own a counrty
@@tinkingtinking2134 I'm not upset? I'm just trying to learn valid information with evidence
Back in the 1970's I read a Reader's Digest that said that there was a 'human' presence in Australia before Aboriginal colonisation.
Unfortunately I can find no reference to it online and cannot remember what year, month's issue it was in. (About 7-8 years of age, so no wonder, but def. rem. it was Read. Digest.)
Readers Digest was always a bit hard for a reader to digest.
Damm you can't find it? 😔 I wonder why? it's almost like it only existed in your imagination
The pygmies.
lepricons
Ronald McDonaldians were here ..first...for all we know
What are you smoking?
@@johnbrownscombe323 The government has been trying to whipe them out of our history books since the 1960s around the same time they invented the aboriginal flag,do some research smart cnt
@@johnbrownscombe323 Notice that my reply was deleted by YT for mentioning it
These guys look more like native Americans.
I'll save you all time. The first Australian's were pygmies. The Papuan's who immigrated to Australia used them as a food source. It's too bad there aren't of them left or they'd be able be able to play the victim card too.
They were absorbed. You're telling made up theories and lies. Not one bone. Surely they didn't eat all the bones aswell.
There's simply no evidence that these smaller statured people were here before anyone else or even whether or not they were a different people. Dna testing would be needed. Perhaps they had just bred that way for various reasons. Phenotypically they're similar to other tribes, just shorter statured. If tthry WERE a different people, that still does not necessarily make them pre-Aboriginal settlement. Perhaps they came later. Evidence of their pre-Aboriginal habitation would have to be produced. A few pics from the 60s don't prove a thing....except that their facial features were very Australian Aboriginal, aswell as the scarification etc
@@laabsenceofcol8079 the Chinese and the Dutch both documented that they witnessed the aboriginal people killing them off .. also the Bradshaw paintings are the oldest and are clearly not aboriginal paintings... Don't believe all this new woke made up history
@@laabsenceofcol8079 nope. DNA does not lie. Also too Dutch explorers witnessed it.
@AsttoScott no one knows when they came or what happened to them. It doesn't mean they were here before Aboriginal people. You simply can't prove that.
What doesn't lie is the human genome projects data that the Aboriginal people tested carry the oldest genome in the world. Whinging that someone else may have come here at some point in attempt to debase the claims of Aboriginal sovereignty is dopey.
Can you locate these Dutch people? Many, including Phoenicians had visited Australia. It's not surprising. That doesn't remove the fact that Aboriginal Australians are related to the first wave of humans out of Africa. And yes, you're correct, DNA doesn't lie.
You have no evidence from 70 thousand years ago to say that pygmies were here first. For all we know, a few of them drifted here on boats from somewhere else a few thousand years ago. No one knows
@AsttoScott my comments are being removed. There's no way you can prove pygmies were here first. For all we know a handful of them could have washed up on shore a few thousand years ago. There is no physical evidence for these claims. Many have visited these shores, including the Phoenicians. That doesn't mean that Australian Aboriginal people weren't here before any of them.
You're correct in saying DNA doesn't lie. Australian Aboriginal people have the oldest genome in the world as marked by several genetic studies, one of those being the widely unknown Human Genome Project data. Indig mob are descended directly from the first wave out of Africa. They mixed with both Denisovan and Neanderthal.
Come back and see me when you can literally prove your claims.
Maaaaaatee The white abo { PASCO} said they were farmers, I want to know what brand of tractor and crop dusting plane they used?
I sincerely celebrate Australia's 2nd nations people, but only question why they did not afford land rights and massive social welfare payments to the 1st nations people instead of eradicating them?
Eradicated? Really? They were stopped from eradicating each other
@@andrewstackpool4911 The First Nations pygmies were decimated by the Second Nations Aboriginals. With no pygmy flag flying, no apology, no welfare payments, no land rights, no free public housing, etc. It was an abusive humanitarian disaster.
Yes this should be taught. Who the true custodians are.
enduring culture? more like stagnated..
Evolution in reverse
@@WillRobinson-r7c Apparently the tasmanian mobs had lost the ability to make fire, so you're possibly correct.
Where can we find more information on pre aboriginal inhabitants of australia ? Thankyou !!
I'd suggest Google and amazon
@@EmpoweredMindz_ if you're going to put out videos on this subject you need to start removing the racist comments . And I don't think an educational video should have statements like they sat there for 40,000 years of playing with sticks you need to remove these idiots or your complicit in encouraging racist dumb behaviour
There was no pre Aboriginal inhabitants.
@@EmpoweredMindz_ I bet you can't prove there was.
@@rosshitchen-ij6en no because we're not allowed to do any research . Bit hard to find out about a culture if they're hidden away from public view by their distant relatives stealing all the money
That's all great and we keep getting told that we owe them
If they weren't the first here who did they conquer and who do they owe and how are they going to say sorry and do they expect their children grandchildren etc to pay for that too
Time to stop the rot we all live here pull your heads in
The Aboriginals say the Europeans 'invaded' Australia. Well, even if they were the first people to arrive the question must be asked even if hypothetically - if they'd found people already here, would they have A; stayed and carried on with their own ways and customs with no regard for the other people's ways and customs, B; stayed but adopted the other people's ways and customs to fit in with them or C; left and gone back to where they came from accepting that the land was already 'taken'? The British did A but the Aborigonals want them to have done C but would they have done that? We'll never know.
it would have been funny when aborigines first met humans and saw how intelligent humans are.
Are you saying they aren’t human?
What a stupid comment! !!
To say Aboriginal people aren't human is such a white supremicist statement
@@EASAustraliaNSW Yeah, probably one of the bogans who thinks they're fauna and only invented a stick.
They'll also ignore the fact that Aboriginal people can go walkabout with no supplies and survive off their knowledge and intuition, something that many explorers failed to do with well-supplied missions into the outback, famously Burke and Wills dumbasses died so close to water it's not even funny.
They also ignore the help that Aboriginal people gave settlers in setting up farms in the early days.
And the thanks they get is someone who doesn't have to work still thinks they're animals....
@@EASAustraliaNSWbarely
The Denisovans were here first.
Your right there “evidence is limited” what does that tell you? “always was always will be Aboriginal land”
The evidence may be limited but it is still evidence
We all know the fastidious historic records you kept
Let's have a look
I'd love to do archaeological research on many sites in Australia
Kimberley Ranges
Kakadu
The Gosford glyphs
So never was
Never will be
Mate we don't even know, history has been re-written every generation.
What we do know is what the DNA sequencing can tell us. Palawa- Tasmanian Aboriginal people walked to Tassie before sea levels rose, apparently. Their genetic make-up is more closely related to Papuan's from New Guinea. Truganinni the last remaining full blooded people resemble Papuan's with the head shape, nose, tightly wound hair etc.
Mainland Aboriginal people are closely related to Indians (from India, not Native Americans), so perhaps Captain Cook did name Indian Head (Gurrie, Fraser island) appropriately when the local Butchulla people greeted him on his voyage on that headland.
@@MrAshyb87 sorry I do not accept this nonsense that Fraser island is named gurrie
The aboriginal people allegedly hate us colonial oppressors
Use there own language and alphabet
I withdraw permission to use ours
I also want compensation for them dishonoring my culture
That built roads
Hospitals
Schools
For all
You don't have to be white to enjoy the full benefits of society
But we have to be black to travel in our own land
I'm both
What happens then
@@MrAshyb87 yes all you say is great but the problem is
The aboriginal society is a dead society
The aboriginal language
A dead language
So I don't need a welcome to country my grandmother was quarter cast aboriginal
So some white guy getting paid 10000 dollars to welcome my ass to my own country can go piss off
I don't work so he can feel culturally adequate
Many misconceptions exist relating to the Australian Aboriginals, and the idea some race found Australia before the Aboriginals is one of them. This misconception, like many others, was long ago proven incorrect via archaeology, anthropology, and genetics, but it still exists in part as result of mainstream science having an issue with remembering what it discovered previously.
Hence, Dr Heman Klaatsch (1900s), Dr Ramsey Smith (1920s), and Dr Herbert Basedow (1930s), all concluded the Australian Aboriginals were the first humans to arise on Earth. Sir Arthur Keith (1940s) concluded the Aboriginal race met all criteria to be the ancestral race of all other races found on Earth. Dr Allan Wilson and Dr Rebecca Cann (i.e., “The Recent African Genesis of Humans”) (1980s) found that genetic markers of Aboriginals migrated around the world around 350-400,000 years ago.
The Bradshaw paintings are only around 12,000 years old, and the Papuans arose only around 40,000 years ago, while the Aboriginal man, Mungo Man, is around 50-60,000 years old, the Aboriginal’s Madjedbebe occupational site in Kakadu Nation Park NT is around 80,000 years old, and the Aboriginal’s Moyjil occupational site at Warrnambool VIC is around 120,000 years old.
As result of the long duration the Aboriginals spent in Australia, the oldest evidence relating to art, religion, human burial and cremation, surgery, long distance trade, seafaring, solar observation, aquaculture farming, bread making, among many other things, were all found in Australia.
Always was!! Always will be mate!!
❤️💛🖤
So give your house and land up first mate to them.
Pure RACISM
OMG I'm a Taungurung Aboriginal woman and elder. Where is this all coming from? None of this is true. Our ancestors were scientifically traced back to us being the first people to leave Africa and migrate. Deciding to settle Australia which was uninhabited. I am about educating people about our culture to build reconciliation. However, this sort of rubbish is just an insult to our culture. This Video hasn't even used pictures of Aboriginal people the headdresses used are more relevant to either American Indian Nations or Australian Islander people.
Please, please get the facts correct before putting insulting content such as this out 😢😢😢
Im sorry but your DNA says otherwise. You did NOT migrate out of Africa, you came from Asia, India to be precise and no you were Not the 1st peoples here. Yoy emigrated here just like everyone else and you mixed and wiped out the other peoples who WERE here 1st. It does make a good story though!
Racist lies.
The carbon dating now is sixty five to seventy thousand years. The longest by far a continuous people. Truly remarkable. T
That number is bullshit ! Lucky to be 10,000 years !
What I want to know is, if they HAVE been here for so long, then how did they survive Noah's Great Flood - around 8,400 years ago?
Bullshit. The Aboriginals are the originals.
Obviously not
Aboriginal people's DNA is closely related to Papuan's from New Guinea and Indians from India, so which Aboriginal people are you referring to? We all came from somewhere brother
The mitochondrial sequence was found to belong to a haplotype (grouping of human populations based on mitochondrial DNA) S2. This is exclusively found among contemporary Aboriginal Australian populations.
The present study is important for many reasons, but perhaps most importantly it has been planned and conducted, and is published, with the support of the Barkindji, Ngiyampaa and Muthi Muthi indigenous groups.
Finally, this new study refutes the earlier suggestion that another extinct lineage of people predated Aboriginal Australians. The archaeology and the genetics provide very strong evidence that our First People have been here over the past 50,000 years. This was long before people first arrived in Europe.
@@MrAshyb87so basically no one is original people except for Africans..
Is it correct that Aboriginal people of the north say that the Bradshaw rock art is not their ancestors work, it was already there when they arrived?
People from the future that will discover time travel, came back and hid some stone tools to play a joke on archiologists.
Always was always will be.
always was what?
@@NickBiswellaboriginal
@@NickBiswellalways was made up
I've often wondered if it's meant to refer to those who are unable to progress past stone-age thinking..
@@NickBiswell whatever it is its starting to get boring as F.
Pygmies were first people in Australia. They still live in forests in far north QLD.
What are you smoking?
@@johnbrownscombe323 . Google it scom boy.
@@johnbrownscombe323 . Google search it. You will be shocked at what you discover.
I'm pretty sure that they went extinct in the 1960s
I just can't understand why people can't comprehend that the Aboriginals are the first in this country and did not come from any other continent. It's 🤯.
The ancient DNA studies have been done and verified. The Aboriginals of Australia r not from Africa. They are from Asia, Eurasia, to be exact. Tight curly hair and dark skin don't always equal black African. The Negritos from the Philippines and the Natives of Papua New Guinea and others are from Asia. New sophisticated genetic studies and dating techniques have given up a lot of surprises, with more to come.
Because we all came from somewhere, it's about tracing our origin.
Nuenonne, Palawa people are closely related to Papuan's from New Guinea, so it's assumed, reasonably that the people migrated from that area originally.
@MrAshyb87 The new sophisticated genetic studies and dating techniques have found that the ancient DNA of the Aboriginals of Australia, the Natives of Papua New Guinea, the Negritos from the Philippines and others are from Asia, Eurasia to be exact. These ancient DNA studies have been done and verified
Tight curly hair and dark skin don't always equal black African. The world has known for a long time that diet and environment can dictate your physical appearance and your hair texture. You gotta have more than assumptions. You gotta have some recent science and substance behind your claims. New sophisticated genetic studies and dating techniques have given up lots of surprises with more to come.
Do you think they just popped up from cabbage patches? 😂
Of course they came from another region 🙄
@@leeclews7731 Put some science and substance behind your culture vultures claim, there isn't any. Some people are so obsessed with skin color and race that they have lost the capacity to grasp the science.
You have giving up theories but there is absolutely no evidence to back up these claims. The minimal strange aritfacts you chose not to show could be put down to bartering between the neighbouring countries. Until there is solid evidence this is just a theory as the narrator mentions numerous times.
You can't lie to me we not 20.000. years old. Read God Bible 😂.
and earth spins around the sun at a wait for it whopping 666thosand miles or some figure inthe ball park weve spinning so fast water just doesnt move😂