very good m8,my great grandmother was multilingual,she spoke 5 languages from what my grandmother told me,my grandmother only knew one because the wt man was crule if they was caught speaking our language,now i know very little of our language because she was to afraid to speak her language even after 1967,she told me not to worry about our language and just remember our laws and learn all the wt mans ways so i can help our peoples in the new world
It's sad that the Aboriginal languages are disappearing, I think. Old Aborigines often speak/spoke multiple languages. I used to work with one that spoke four, Ngarla, Nyamal, Nyangumarta and English. English was his fourth language. There is so much knowledge in each language, knowledge about the living conditions in the place where it is spoken, and about the speakers' outlook on life. And therefore it is sad that languages disappear.
Great video mate, so the Pygmies were here first as I read years ago that disappeared from Wikipedia days after I came across it. It is also written in the settlers records !!!! Thank you for your very informative video.
I don't know if they were first, but they exist, because I have met them. Books about the early history of Innisfail Region read in my youth, and have some ripping yarns about a Sargent Johnson ( whom the river is named after ) and the aborigines that were cannibals, as wallaby and such are hard to catch in the jungle and we all need protein.
As a kid about 40 years ago I went on a tour of the Jenolan Caves with my parents. The tour started in the open cave just off to the right of the road leading to the complex. The guide talked about how many remains of various marsupials and pygmies had been discovered in there and that the archeologists believe the Aboriginals used to prepare their catch and cook them in there. Since then, I've been back as an adult; but curiously this is no longer included in the tour, they didn't even talk about that cave at all. Might be that it was not true, or that this information is no longer allowed to be told.
@@redbomberr4594 well this should be easy to verify, as many of us went to Jenolan in that era and earlier. Perhaps "pygmy possum", and your political slant makes you remember differently. It is simply impossible for the evil leftie govt to go around the country cleaning up the remains of a pygmy race to suit political correctness. In every part of the world, there are examples of much smaller individuals and groups within the local tribes; but that's not really what you're hoping for, is it?
@@mantiskf2003 Not hoping for anything except the truth about Aboriginal culture and history. Shove your political crap, both sides are wrong. There's too much corruption surrounding Aboriginal assistance programs. People out there desperately need help but none of the money makes it to them.
What happened to the first genetic study of the Mungo Lake skeletons (2001?) that declared they were NOT Homo Sapien Sapien but an unknowm hominid species?
I’m assuming it might be this article you are referring to (?): search.informit.org/doi/10.3316/ielapa.200107705 A search for ’Mungo lake skeletons’ on Google Scholar gives a huge number of hits, articles that are both older and much more recent. The more recent articles seem to agree with each other that these skeletons are early Australian Homo Sapiens-skeletons. Since the field of genetics has been developing so rapidly over the past couple of decades (and since I myself am not an expert within that particular field), I prefer to look at more recent articles rather than at older ones.
@@trevorbramich4849 Well, the National Museum of Australia writes the following on their website: "For the Paakantji, Mutthi Mutthi and Ngyimpaa people, the human remains and other evidence of their ancestors are an important part of their communal history and for them it is crucial that these remains be returned to their country. The remains of Mungo Lady were returned to Lake Mungo in 1992, while Mungo Man’s remains were repatriated in 2017." www.nma.gov.au/defining-moments/resources/mungo-lady
@@trevorbramich4849 This here is a good article, you can learn a lot from this. Evidently Mungo Man is a direct ancestor of modern Aboriginal populations. Is he a direct ancestor of the three groups in question, though? Maybe that is a trickier question to answer conclusively. Evidently, no DNA results from Mungo woman have been publised. (See also Wikipedia.) theconversation.com/new-dna-study-confirms-ancient-aborigines-were-the-first-australians-60616
Very interesting mate. The current aboriginals more than likely arrived by boat from PNG, which explains the Tasmanian aboriginals lack of denisovan DNA. There have to have been at least one more migration to Australia prior, the artists of the Bradshaw paintings
I have always wondered about the connection between the pygmy aborigines I have met (the whereabouts of whom I wont disclose on public forum) and the Tasmanian Aborigines, it would seem the Pygmy Abs were mostly eaten up as they are so yummy. The American Indians ate all their Horses and had to wait till the Europeans turned up with what we know as the horse today. Maybe Bass Strait saved the Tazzie Mob.
@@Nagin-zt6sc Indigenous Tasmanians have been said to differ from mainland Australian Indigenous. Do Tasmanian Indigenous & Phillipine pygmy people, share similar DNA & some language?
Thanks for your research. At 11.23 did you say four to five thousand years ago or 45,000 years ago? Earlier you stated the language spread from around 4,000 years ago.
The reason no genetic trace remains of the cultural immigrants is because they were the same people! Papuans, with a population growing from agriculture, invades Australia! Awesome hypothesis! Bravo.
It's only just a maybe but instead of the coming out of Africa theory what what if it all started with Australia Australia being the oldest landform on Earth
Speaking of genes, has anybody researched the Denisovan gene survival rate in mixed race (Aboriginal/European) Australians? It would be interesting to learn if specific Denisovan genes have such a positive adaptive advantage as to show strong persistence in such circumstances.
The Tindale samples are extensive and informative because of their locations. They are across the continent. This is how they describe such a clear picture of not only the origin population, and its path of settlement, but the lack of introduced sequences across the continent. Turns out that cultural influences and feral dogs had a dramatic effect, without much human arrival at all. Aboriginal people learned and adapted to something, as they do today. My initial guess, based on the mention here of verbal lexicon changes, is that probably the utility of working with dogs and associated verbal commands had a part to play.
Yep. I think I get it. The Papuans and Aborigines split from whomever it was in India at 62,000 to 75,000 years ago and in the intervening 4,000+ years got to Sahul [ conjoined Papua and Australia ] and became their own isolated and separate genealogical entity by 58,000 years ago. No genetic traces from " Eurasia ", meaning nothing from Indonesia and south-east Asia in the meantime, or, if such did come in, and did such as the Bradshaw rock art, then they got wiped out or died out. wikipedia gives it as 60,000 years ago as someone coming into Australia. Suffice to surmise that the Austronesians of Papua and Australia are nothing to do with anyone else. But never mind all that. That is nobody's business. Here is where it gets totally epic. Between 4,000 and 5,000 years ago a second migratory wave from Papua into Australia.
One possible possible explanation was talk which is now considered racist which was that the Aboriginals do not " throw back ", which implies something along the lines that they did not have generational genealogical succession. So, from the second wave migration, some lineages were and are ' invisible ', and so whilst the first wave genomics [ pre-5,000 years ago ] can go way back from the present to the distant past, it is different for those descendant from since 5,000 years ago.
@@mathish1477 Probably because England, (Anglia) was conquered by the Normans (Northmen - ie Vikings) in 1066, hence the strong Scandinavian connection
If the spread of Pama-Nyungan was facilitated by native Aboriginals with the competitive advantage of having domesticated dogs, there wouldn't have to be genetic traces left of this, would there?
Wikipedia has the following information about dingos (with reference, see Wikipedia for the reference): ’In 2017, a genetic study found that the population of the northwestern dingoes had commenced expanding since 4,000-6,000 years ago. This was proposed to be due either to their first arrival in Australia or to the commencement of the extinction of the thylacine, with the dingo expanding into the thylacine's former range.’ I find it interesting that both the dingo and the Pama-Nyungan languages would seem to have come in from the north, from Papua. The northernmost language that can be placed in the Pama-Nyungan family/grouped with the Pama-Nyungan languages, Kalaw Lagaw Ya (also known by other names), was in pre-colonial times spoken in Papua, and perhaps still is. Some wish to see a connection between the arrival of the dingo and the arrival of the Pama-Nyungan languages. I personally find that likely. Others argue for a native origin for the Pama-Nyungan languages, somewhere in north-central Australia, where they are most diverse. And it is true, of course, that languages are often most diverse in the area where they originated, like the Austronesian languages of Taiwan/Formosa. However, it is also a fact that languages do not always behave in ways that languages ’in general’ tend to behave. It is a problem in this context that we do not have diachronic information available for Pama-Nyungan languages, neither for divergent ones like Arrernte in the north-central, nor for really conservative ones like Ngarla and Gumbaynggir. As I said, I personally suspect that the languages came in from Papua, just as the dingos did.
Thank you for your response, I am completely sorry for wasting your time. I replayed the video and realised you said 4 to 5 thousand. Where as the first time I listened to your video I thought you said forty five thousand years ago 😂😂 so sorry
@@jackarootoro You have a very low tech approach to video making, but the content seems of high order. Have you yet done something on the possible influx of genes from India about 4,000 years ago?
I believe it was probably UA-cam. I was just saying that the Pygmy Aborigines existed, because I met them 40 yrs ago, they had become restricted in their range and they were small in number @@jackarootoro
I get so tired of hearing activists making politically motivated statements regarding continuous 100,000 yr settlement. It's a relief to listen to a scientist for a change.
did you ask what branch of science (or other field) that his PhD was attained in? It's just as tiresome reading people being amazed by any info that appears to them to divide and conquer any indigenous groups and their claims. There is absolutely a need for scientific research, but real science means you don't have a bias before testing an hypothesis.
Scientists ultimately look for evidence to disprove ideas not just for evidence that supports ideas. So Bowler, who found Mungo man now HAS to consider his idea of 50,000 year ancestry is wrong. It is challenged because of evidence at Moyjil VIC, in Lake George sediments of ACT and Great Barrier Reef sediments in QLD. These point to 100-120 kya. Especially at Moyjil, Bowler seeks for the knockout evidence of date able stone artefacts or human remains but has only found strong suggestions of what appears to be associated hearthfires and middens.
Scientists ultimately look for evidence to disprove ideas not just for evidence that supports ideas. So Bowler, who found Mungo man now HAS to consider his idea of 50,000 year ancestry is wrong. It is challenged because of evidence at Moyjil VIC, in Lake George sediments of ACT and Great Barrier Reef sediments in QLD. These point to 100-120 kya. Especially at Moyjil, Bowler seeks for the knockout evidence of date able stone artefacts or human remains but has only found strong suggestions of what appears to be associated hearthfires and middens.
Ignorant post. The reality is it’s now 65,000yrs bc they found more evidence during your lifetime, have you actually dug a hole and tried to search for anything in Australia? If they find older evidence should they not record it to save your feelings sake? Do you really think the oldest evidence available has been found? Australia is that big, and we had a great flood and all these other events. And you think the oldest evidence has been found? They say 65,000yrs bc that’s the latest evidence. The probability of the “latest” evidence being the “oldest” evidence in existence is highly unlikely. If they find evidence that is 80,000yrs old don’t be surprised if something went on longer than what we can find proof of for in modern times. Dust falls, things get covered over for millennia’s.
There was no functioning alaphabet and there existed no culture at all beyond the primitive hunter-gather lifestyles that they lived. And never proven that they progressed past stone age technology. Dot art was actually designed by a French man Geoffrey Bardon in Alice Springs in 1971.
Nonsense. While there was no written language, there were drawings that conveyed meanings, and they had a very strong oral tradition that passed knowledge, history, migration routes etc through thousands of generations. That included knowledge of farming, more in the style of permaculture and aquaponics than modern monocropping, but that is healthier for sustained harvests anyway. They also had sewing, textiles, basketry, the ability to cure leather and furs, and art, including dot painting. The white man was just the first to put it on canvas.
Wangkatja, phonetically genetically Tamil ngatu. Under ocean common abode. Victims of sea level rise. All the water came from Saturn. Nuclear phyllic substitution, ect. Cat wolf/sphinx , monocephus. Good go mate!
The Indian Migrants that they call Australian Indigenous had more than 264 languages, but not 1 common Language. And they have only been here between 1 and 2 Thousand years.
@@fredfred6522 well I'd suggest that anyone that's been here that long could consider themselves to be Australian and not indian...my family has only been here for a couple of hundred years and despite my European ancestry I know that I am Australian...which is a state of mind generated by the land itself....any group that's been here for thousands of years would be inately aware of the connection to this land and be physically adapted to it.
Did you know Aboriginal people have multiple wives ? Not the ones that are now Christian, but look up the Aboriginals that still live a tribal life! Some in the middle of Australia,have up to 20 wives ,most have around ,15 Where did I read this ? UA-cam has loaded up some documentary from the early 1950 ect....fascinating -
Yes, multiple wives has been standard. I wouldn’t know if that is still the case, but one can suspect that it is in more conservative/remote communities. Then again, the Australian Aborigine is a person with a smartphone in hand. At least this goes for younger Aborigines. And on the internet they can see many other lifestyles than their own tradtional one. And decide that they like other lifestyles better, and choose not to conform to tradition. At one point it was standard to marry off young girls with older men in Aboriginal Australia. I’m assuming many young girls would object to that these days.
The mutiple wife thing varries a lot depending upon the tribe. It is not really about multiple wifes at the one time (although that certainly does happen). From the little I know from actually being with some of the tribes, the various marriages are about survial. Marriages are made and broken depending upon the needs of the tribe. The first part of marriages is about the education of the HUSBAND. The second is about production of more offspring for the tribe. The third is about the education of the WIFE. You guys should pull your finger out and go and learn something for your self.
Yes the resent deceased Aboriginal leaded had 4 wives. Each had their own houses and the boss visited them in his helicopter, talk about disadvantaged Aborigines !!!!
You’d be amazed how much knowledge there is about animals and plants and so on. And if there’s nothing else to talk about you can always talk about how people are related. That used to be a favourite topic of conversation (and still is for Aborigines in some parts of Australia). See my videos about kinship in Australia. As I intend to show in coming videos, it does get ridiculously complicated, and very hard to understand for the outsider. Describing the basics is quite straightforward, but the more you go into detail, the more bewildering it gets. ua-cam.com/video/sx7z8BupYUc/v-deo.html
There was a Civilisation in Australia long before the Aborigines arrived around the time of the last Ice Age. They were the Lemurians a Colony of the Atlantean Culture. The Lemurians had Occupied Australia for at least 200 000 years maybe longer. They and the Atlanteans arrived on Earth by a a Space Ark from Avalon and Gave Rise to Modern Humans including the Aborigines.
@@jackarootoro Yep, I do say. The Pyramids around Australia prove that an Advanced Civilisation existed long before the Aborigines Arrived. The Aborigines called them the Wandjana or the Silent Watchers and they taught the Aborigines everything they know.🤣👍
I liked you comment, quite entertaining; I would like to add that if they had not forgotten how to make make helicopter gunships (armed with Machine guns), and battleships like the Bismark (or USS Missouri), I surmise that they would still have hegemony in this continent!
INdigenous believed to be two genes removed from white ancestry so could be absorbed in two generations by emerging with whites Blood groups usually B groups for most dark skinned people Europeans have usually A or O groups so why do I fifth generation Australian of paternal UK heritage have B blood group Language has delayed indigenous future lacking easy communication
Ok so pseudo science to prove what exactly . If the Aboriginals really had a sophisticated language system or systems before British settlement . Could you please write some of this language down in its original written script for me please . That means by the way not in Roman letters as is commonly done today as those written words would have come to the aboriginals from the British . Real science however states that there is no evidence for human occupation of Australia before 42'000 years ago. These are some cremated remains found by the mungo . So this doesn't add up, does it . Looking forward to reading ancient Aboriginal script . Quod Genus Sincere Tim
very good m8,my great grandmother was multilingual,she spoke 5 languages from what my grandmother told me,my grandmother only knew one because the wt man was crule if they was caught speaking our language,now i know very little of our language because she was to afraid to speak her language even after 1967,she told me not to worry about our language and just remember our laws and learn all the wt mans ways so i can help our peoples in the new world
It's sad that the Aboriginal languages are disappearing, I think. Old Aborigines often speak/spoke multiple languages. I used to work with one that spoke four, Ngarla, Nyamal, Nyangumarta and English. English was his fourth language. There is so much knowledge in each language, knowledge about the living conditions in the place where it is spoken, and about the speakers' outlook on life. And therefore it is sad that languages disappear.
Great video mate, so the Pygmies were here first as I read years ago that disappeared from Wikipedia days after I came across it. It is also written in the settlers records !!!! Thank you for your very informative video.
I don't know if they were first, but they exist, because I have met them. Books about the early history of Innisfail Region read in my youth, and have some ripping yarns about a Sargent Johnson ( whom the river is named after ) and the aborigines that were cannibals, as wallaby and such are hard to catch in the jungle and we all need protein.
As a kid about 40 years ago I went on a tour of the Jenolan Caves with my parents. The tour started in the open cave just off to the right of the road leading to the complex. The guide talked about how many remains of various marsupials and pygmies had been discovered in there and that the archeologists believe the Aboriginals used to prepare their catch and cook them in there. Since then, I've been back as an adult; but curiously this is no longer included in the tour, they didn't even talk about that cave at all. Might be that it was not true, or that this information is no longer allowed to be told.
@@redbomberr4594 well this should be easy to verify, as many of us went to Jenolan in that era and earlier. Perhaps "pygmy possum", and your political slant makes you remember differently. It is simply impossible for the evil leftie govt to go around the country cleaning up the remains of a pygmy race to suit political correctness. In every part of the world, there are examples of much smaller individuals and groups within the local tribes; but that's not really what you're hoping for, is it?
@@mantiskf2003 Not hoping for anything except the truth about Aboriginal culture and history. Shove your political crap, both sides are wrong. There's too much corruption surrounding Aboriginal assistance programs. People out there desperately need help but none of the money makes it to them.
The information states a different time frame if you listen closely.
What happened to the first genetic study of the Mungo Lake skeletons (2001?) that declared they were NOT Homo Sapien Sapien but an unknowm hominid species?
I’m assuming it might be this article you are referring to (?): search.informit.org/doi/10.3316/ielapa.200107705
A search for ’Mungo lake skeletons’ on Google Scholar gives a huge number of hits, articles that are both older and much more recent. The more recent articles seem to agree with each other that these skeletons are early Australian Homo Sapiens-skeletons. Since the field of genetics has been developing so rapidly over the past couple of decades (and since I myself am not an expert within that particular field), I prefer to look at more recent articles rather than at older ones.
@@trevorbramich4849 Well, the National Museum of Australia writes the following on their website: "For the Paakantji, Mutthi Mutthi and Ngyimpaa people, the human remains and other evidence of their ancestors are an important part of their communal history and for them it is crucial that these remains be returned to their country. The remains of Mungo Lady were returned to Lake Mungo in 1992, while Mungo Man’s remains were repatriated in 2017." www.nma.gov.au/defining-moments/resources/mungo-lady
@@trevorbramich4849 This here is a good article, you can learn a lot from this. Evidently Mungo Man is a direct ancestor of modern Aboriginal populations. Is he a direct ancestor of the three groups in question, though? Maybe that is a trickier question to answer conclusively. Evidently, no DNA results from Mungo woman have been publised. (See also Wikipedia.) theconversation.com/new-dna-study-confirms-ancient-aborigines-were-the-first-australians-60616
Swept under the carpet by the left, they did a "new" test to get the results they wanted lol
I think the conclusion was that they were modern humans but with a haplotype unrelated to any living human.
Very interesting mate. The current aboriginals more than likely arrived by boat from PNG, which explains the Tasmanian aboriginals lack of denisovan DNA. There have to have been at least one more migration to Australia prior, the artists of the Bradshaw paintings
I have always wondered about the connection between the pygmy aborigines I have met (the whereabouts of whom I wont disclose on public forum) and the Tasmanian Aborigines, it would seem the Pygmy Abs were mostly eaten up as they are so yummy. The American Indians ate all their Horses and had to wait till the Europeans turned up with what we know as the horse today. Maybe Bass Strait saved the Tazzie Mob.
So, where/when did the Tasmanian Indigenous originate, after leaving Africa?
@@Nagin-zt6sc we ALL originated in Africa...😊
Are the Tasmanian Indigenous related to the Philipines pygmy?
@@Nagin-zt6sc Indigenous Tasmanians have been said to differ from mainland Australian Indigenous. Do Tasmanian Indigenous & Phillipine pygmy people, share similar DNA & some language?
@@Nagin-zt6sc thank you for explaining.
Very interesting. Just found your videos.
Very very interesting. Thank you for your efforts. I have subscribed.
Very interesting. I’ll properly watch this again to get it all properly. Cheers
Thanks for your research. At 11.23 did you say four to five thousand years ago or 45,000 years ago? Earlier you stated the language spread from around 4,000 years ago.
That should be four to five thousand years ago.
Thanks.@@jackarootoro
The reason no genetic trace remains of the cultural immigrants is because they were the same people! Papuans, with a population growing from agriculture, invades Australia! Awesome hypothesis! Bravo.
It's only just a maybe but instead of the coming out of Africa theory what what if it all started with Australia Australia being the oldest landform on Earth
Science has proven man came out of Africa, aboriginals migrated down from Asia and papa New Guinea. Yet nobody talks about Mongo man .
and all the other primates ?
Speaking of genes, has anybody researched the Denisovan gene survival rate in mixed race (Aboriginal/European) Australians? It would be interesting to learn if specific Denisovan genes have such a positive adaptive advantage as to show strong persistence in such circumstances.
Yes, that would be really interesting! Is there anyone out there who knows?
Well done. I agree, the sample sizes are too small. Interesting though.
The Tindale samples are extensive and informative because of their locations. They are across the continent. This is how they describe such a clear picture of not only the origin population, and its path of settlement, but the lack of introduced sequences across the continent.
Turns out that cultural influences and feral dogs had a dramatic effect, without much human arrival at all.
Aboriginal people learned and adapted to something, as they do today. My initial guess, based on the mention here of verbal lexicon changes, is that probably the utility of working with dogs and associated verbal commands had a part to play.
Yep. I think I get it. The Papuans and Aborigines split from whomever it was in India at 62,000 to 75,000 years ago and in the intervening 4,000+ years got to Sahul [ conjoined Papua and Australia ] and became their own isolated and separate genealogical entity by 58,000 years ago. No genetic traces from " Eurasia ", meaning nothing from Indonesia and south-east Asia in the meantime, or, if such did come in, and did such as the Bradshaw rock art, then they got wiped out or died out. wikipedia gives it as 60,000 years ago as someone coming into Australia. Suffice to surmise that the Austronesians of Papua and Australia are nothing to do with anyone else. But never mind all that. That is nobody's business. Here is where it gets totally epic. Between 4,000 and 5,000 years ago a second migratory wave from Papua into Australia.
One possible possible explanation was talk which is now considered racist which was that the Aboriginals do not " throw back ", which implies something along the lines that they did not have generational genealogical succession. So, from the second wave migration, some lineages were and are ' invisible ', and so whilst the first wave genomics [ pre-5,000 years ago ] can go way back from the present to the distant past, it is different for those descendant from since 5,000 years ago.
It seems to me the English language is more closely related to Scandinavian languages than the preceding germanic.
@@mathish1477 Probably because England, (Anglia) was conquered by the Normans (Northmen - ie Vikings) in 1066, hence the strong Scandinavian connection
Please investigate the différence between languages and dialects!
If the spread of Pama-Nyungan was facilitated by native Aboriginals with the competitive advantage of having domesticated dogs, there wouldn't have to be genetic traces left of this, would there?
I can't tell if you are saying the dingo arrived 45,000 years ago or 4 to 5 thousand years ago
Jackaroo is Swede with good research skills who speaks good English that is both concise and easily followed.
Cheers, mate! 🙂
Interesting indeed 🤔 👌
Fascinating
Its obvious that there is a connection between southern indian people and Australian abos...their features ars the main clue
Yes, the similarity in features is striking!
And, the dogs in Southern India also have similar looks to dingoes.
I was always told Dingos arrived in Australia around 4 thousand years ago.
Wikipedia has the following information about dingos (with reference, see Wikipedia for the reference): ’In 2017, a genetic study found that the population of the northwestern dingoes had commenced expanding since 4,000-6,000 years ago. This was proposed to be due either to their first arrival in Australia or to the commencement of the extinction of the thylacine, with the dingo expanding into the thylacine's former range.’
I find it interesting that both the dingo and the Pama-Nyungan languages would seem to have come in from the north, from Papua. The northernmost language that can be placed in the Pama-Nyungan family/grouped with the Pama-Nyungan languages, Kalaw Lagaw Ya (also known by other names), was in pre-colonial times spoken in Papua, and perhaps still is. Some wish to see a connection between the arrival of the dingo and the arrival of the Pama-Nyungan languages. I personally find that likely. Others argue for a native origin for the Pama-Nyungan languages, somewhere in north-central Australia, where they are most diverse.
And it is true, of course, that languages are often most diverse in the area where they originated, like the Austronesian languages of Taiwan/Formosa. However, it is also a fact that languages do not always behave in ways that languages ’in general’ tend to behave. It is a problem in this context that we do not have diachronic information available for Pama-Nyungan languages, neither for divergent ones like Arrernte in the north-central, nor for really conservative ones like Ngarla and Gumbaynggir. As I said, I personally suspect that the languages came in from Papua, just as the dingos did.
Thank you for your response, I am completely sorry for wasting your time. I replayed the video and realised you said 4 to 5 thousand. Where as the first time I listened to your video I thought you said forty five thousand years ago 😂😂 so sorry
Is there a correlation between Tasmanian languages and the absence of dingos in Tasmania?
There probably is. But sadly we know very little of the original languages of Tasmania.
@@jackarootoro You have a very low tech approach to video making, but the content seems of high order. Have you yet done something on the possible influx of genes from India about 4,000 years ago?
@@markaxworthy2508 So far, no I haven't.
@@jackarootoro A pleasure yet to come, then!
What does it mean when your comment turns red and disappears on sending. I can only assume censorship.
Well, I don't censor comments. People are allowed to write what they want.
I believe it was probably UA-cam. I was just saying that the Pygmy Aborigines existed, because I met them 40 yrs ago, they had become restricted in their range and they were small in number @@jackarootoro
Some claim that aborigines just appear in Australia just like a magician taken them out of a hat
Yes, that is a modern urban Aboriginal idea. Traditional ideas about how Aborigines were created in Australia are a bit different.
Impossible, since we all came out of Africa.
I get so tired of hearing activists making politically motivated statements regarding continuous 100,000 yr settlement. It's a relief to listen to a scientist for a change.
did you ask what branch of science (or other field) that his PhD was attained in? It's just as tiresome reading people being amazed by any info that appears to them to divide and conquer any indigenous groups and their claims. There is absolutely a need for scientific research, but real science means you don't have a bias before testing an hypothesis.
Scientists ultimately look for evidence to disprove ideas not just for evidence that supports ideas. So Bowler, who found Mungo man now HAS to consider his idea of 50,000 year ancestry is wrong. It is challenged because of evidence at Moyjil VIC, in Lake George sediments of ACT and Great Barrier Reef sediments in QLD. These point to 100-120 kya.
Especially at Moyjil, Bowler seeks for the knockout evidence of date able stone artefacts or human remains but has only found strong suggestions of what appears to be associated hearthfires and middens.
Scientists ultimately look for evidence to disprove ideas not just for evidence that supports ideas. So Bowler, who found Mungo man now HAS to consider his idea of 50,000 year ancestry is wrong. It is challenged because of evidence at Moyjil VIC, in Lake George sediments of ACT and Great Barrier Reef sediments in QLD. These point to 100-120 kya.
Especially at Moyjil, Bowler seeks for the knockout evidence of date able stone artefacts or human remains but has only found strong suggestions of what appears to be associated hearthfires and middens.
Ignorant post. The reality is it’s now 65,000yrs bc they found more evidence during your lifetime, have you actually dug a hole and tried to search for anything in Australia? If they find older evidence should they not record it to save your feelings sake? Do you really think the oldest evidence available has been found? Australia is that big, and we had a great flood and all these other events. And you think the oldest evidence has been found? They say 65,000yrs bc that’s the latest evidence. The probability of the “latest” evidence being the “oldest” evidence in existence is highly unlikely. If they find evidence that is 80,000yrs old don’t be surprised if something went on longer than what we can find proof of for in modern times. Dust falls, things get covered over for millennia’s.
There was no functioning alaphabet and there existed no culture at all beyond the primitive hunter-gather lifestyles that they lived. And never proven that they progressed past stone age technology.
Dot art was actually designed by a French man Geoffrey Bardon in Alice Springs in 1971.
Nonsense.
While there was no written language, there were drawings that conveyed meanings, and they had a very strong oral tradition that passed knowledge, history, migration routes etc through thousands of generations.
That included knowledge of farming, more in the style of permaculture and aquaponics than modern monocropping, but that is healthier for sustained harvests anyway.
They also had sewing, textiles, basketry, the ability to cure leather and furs, and art, including dot painting. The white man was just the first to put it on canvas.
Wangkatja, phonetically genetically Tamil ngatu.
Under ocean common abode. Victims of sea level rise. All the water came from Saturn. Nuclear phyllic substitution, ect.
Cat wolf/sphinx , monocephus. Good go mate!
The Indian Migrants that they call Australian Indigenous had more than 264 languages, but not 1 common Language. And they have only been here between 1 and 2 Thousand years.
That really doesnot make any scence.
@@markthomas8766 Lol really, what part ?
I believe that there is an Indian connection because of linguistic , mythological and physical similaritys to the southern Indian Dravidians .
@@donaldmac1250 Well if that means that there Ancestory is Indian and Not Australian then yes.
@@fredfred6522 well I'd suggest that anyone that's been here that long could consider themselves to be Australian and not indian...my family has only been here for a couple of hundred years and despite my European ancestry I know that I am Australian...which is a state of mind generated by the land itself....any group that's been here for thousands of years would be inately aware of the connection to this land and be physically adapted to it.
620,000 claim to be aboriginal but really there only 5000 the british and irish must be very busy
Before the British were Holland, people, so you talking about between this period ?
Did you know Aboriginal people have multiple wives ? Not the ones that are now Christian, but look up the Aboriginals that still live a tribal life! Some in the middle of Australia,have up to 20 wives ,most have around ,15 Where did I read this ? UA-cam has loaded up some documentary from the early 1950 ect....fascinating -
Yes, multiple wives has been standard. I wouldn’t know if that is still the case, but one can suspect that it is in more conservative/remote communities. Then again, the Australian Aborigine is a person with a smartphone in hand. At least this goes for younger Aborigines. And on the internet they can see many other lifestyles than their own tradtional one. And decide that they like other lifestyles better, and choose not to conform to tradition.
At one point it was standard to marry off young girls with older men in Aboriginal Australia. I’m assuming many young girls would object to that these days.
How many wives do the aborigines u know have??
The mutiple wife thing varries a lot depending upon the tribe. It is not really about multiple wifes at the one time (although that certainly does happen). From the little I know from actually being with some of the tribes, the various marriages are about survial. Marriages are made and broken depending upon the needs of the tribe. The first part of marriages is about the education of the HUSBAND. The second is about production of more offspring for the tribe. The third is about the education of the WIFE. You guys should pull your finger out and go and learn something for your self.
Yes the resent deceased Aboriginal leaded had 4 wives. Each had their own houses and the boss visited them in his helicopter, talk about disadvantaged Aborigines !!!!
The most wives I have seen is 8, a top lore man from the Top End. Not unlike the Sultans, several groups on the African continent and the Mormons.
Aboriginal languages would have been very limited probably only 20 words
Hi Timothy. Why do you say that Australian Aboriginal languages would be restricted to 20 words ?
@@tonyfowler915 what did they have to talk about , they had nothing
You’d be amazed how much knowledge there is about animals and plants and so on. And if there’s nothing else to talk about you can always talk about how people are related. That used to be a favourite topic of conversation (and still is for Aborigines in some parts of Australia). See my videos about kinship in Australia. As I intend to show in coming videos, it does get ridiculously complicated, and very hard to understand for the outsider. Describing the basics is quite straightforward, but the more you go into detail, the more bewildering it gets.
ua-cam.com/video/sx7z8BupYUc/v-deo.html
Tell us what those 20 words are in that language please!! And the translation too please??
@@timothy6283 Wow... you are one ignorant person. Grow up. Learn something.
There was a Civilisation in Australia long before the Aborigines arrived around the time of the last Ice Age. They were the Lemurians a Colony of the Atlantean Culture. The Lemurians had Occupied Australia for at least 200 000 years maybe longer. They and the Atlanteans arrived on Earth by a a Space Ark from Avalon and Gave Rise to Modern Humans including the Aborigines.
You don't say?
@@jackarootoro Yep, I do say. The Pyramids around Australia prove that an Advanced Civilisation existed long before the Aborigines Arrived. The Aborigines called them the Wandjana or the Silent Watchers and they taught the Aborigines everything they know.🤣👍
I liked you comment, quite entertaining; I would like to add that if they had not forgotten how to make make helicopter gunships (armed with Machine guns), and battleships like the Bismark (or USS Missouri), I surmise that they would still have hegemony in this continent!
Where are the pyramids In Aus g
@@tylercampbell660 All over Australia just as the Local Indigenous Tribes, they know where they are.
You are dead right Spanish Jack, the sample size is pathetic, there are still lapposed
And Child Bride's I think was part of their culture.
Very similar to muslim culture.
Child brides are apart of a lot of cultures around the world and has been for centuries.
@@shelleymonkland8996 So that makes it ok then ?
INdigenous believed to be two genes removed from white ancestry so could be absorbed in two generations by emerging with whites Blood groups usually B groups for most dark skinned people Europeans have usually A or O groups so why do I fifth generation Australian of paternal UK heritage have B blood group Language has delayed indigenous future
lacking easy communication
I hope that you enjoyed this video, I turned off after 4 minutes .
Clearly fabricated view and somewhat clumsy research 😢😅
can you afford a razor?
😆 I can. Though during the pandemic I decided not to use one. I have now, which will soon become obvious, in a coming video.
Ok so pseudo science to prove what exactly . If the Aboriginals really had a sophisticated language system or systems before British settlement . Could you please write some of this language down in its original written script for me please . That means by the way not in Roman letters as is commonly done today as those written words would have come to the aboriginals from the British .
Real science however states that there is no evidence for human occupation of Australia before 42'000 years ago.
These are some cremated remains found by the mungo .
So this doesn't add up, does it .
Looking forward to reading ancient Aboriginal script .
Quod Genus Sincere Tim
McDribble.!! 🦧🍌🍌🦧
RUSSIA WAS HERE BEFORE PORTUGAL ( IS THIS ENOUGH PROBLEMS FOR EWE ? )