Homo floresiensis : Image Source : Wiki Commons
Posted on 09/08/2011 1:17:07 AM PDT by SunkenCiv
Following on from the previous article, The First Boat People, we know that Sahul, the original name of Australia during prehistoric times, was settled around 40,000 years ago. Although this date is disputed it is now universally accepted as the most accurate and reliable.
But who were these first people and from where did they come? Could humans have developed in Australia at the same time they were developing in Africa? Was there a wave of immigrants or only one founding population? And where does Homo floriensis fit into this picture, if at all?
It can quite comfortably be stated that humans did not develop in Australia in the same way that they did in Africa as 'no primates (apes or monkeys) or even more distant human relatives' (Burenhult 2003, 151) have been found in the continent. It had previously been thought that they existed no further east than the Indonesian Islands, but in 2003 Homo floriensis was discovered in the Liang Bua cave on the island of Flores by Mike Norwood and his team (Morwood et al 2004). Although this pushed an earlier species of human closer to the shores of Sahul, this is now considered the furthest east they would have come.
It is generally understood that 'colonization of Siberia began about 42,000 years ago' (Haviland et al 2010, 221), and Sahul afterwards as migrations moved further east. This all fits in neatly with the radiocarbon dating that has been accepted for the settlement of Sahul, but what about those dates, tested through Thermoluminescence, that place them even further back -- to the time of Homo erectus?
(Excerpt) Read more at heritagedaily.com ...
Homo floresiensis : Image Source : Wiki Commons
Well, sure, except for the female's pouches.
What big eyes you have, grandma.
Look at those teeth! I didn’t know there were English cavemen!
we know that Sahul, the original name of Australia during prehistoric times,
How do we know this?
These fellows’ credibility is immediately suspect when they state as fact that “Sahul” was the original name of Australia. How on earth would they have any hint of what the Australians 40k years ago called the place? Where are the properly carbon-14 dated recordings of 40k year old speech?
No, actually it doesn’t.
|
|
|
| GGG managers are SunkenCiv, StayAt HomeMother & Ernest_at_the_Beach | |
|
|
Thanks Renfield. Somehow the ping didn't go through. |
|
|
|
|
We don’t know that was what the first settlers called it. All we have is heresay a hundred times over.
Interesting. It sounds like at the time man arrived in Australia the climate and fauna made it a very attractive place to colonize.
It sounds like Sahul was the old name of historic times...being as prehistoric would by definition be prior to history, and hence we would have no record of it.
Whatever heresay is. Looks like heresy, which may be what’s on your mind anyway. Bye.
The name is prehistoric because there’s no (known) Aborigine writing systems until after European colonization — but that’s the name they’d given the place.
Australian desertification may correspond to the similar process in what used to be African savannah, but is now the Sahara desert. That would measure in the thousands of years. It wouldn’t be surprising if Australia has been settled and resettled dozens of times over the millennia.
:’)
Something cannot be “disputed” and “universally accepted” at the same time.
What does “is” mean? It means now, the present. And it says both are now, at the same time.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
