Simviation Forums

Have been believed to have crossed over the Bering Strait from Siberia to Alaska, and on down to the "lower 48", etc.

I heard on the radio today that there is evidence to suggest that the first "native Americans", predating the "Alaskan Migration", actually came from ... Australia.  It appears that DNA testing of remains in Southern California tends to support a commonality of characteristics with Australian aborigines.  Early Spansih writings tell of a people/tribe with physical characteristics significantly different to the other "Indians" then in the area.  Those people, however, died out early on due to illnesses and absorption into the overall population.

Hi Felix...!
Have you got any dates for these migrations...?
I have always thought that native Americans "always" lived there, similar to Ancient Britons always seemed to have lived here....?

(Out of Africa was long, long ago..)..,

Cheers Felix... ...!

Paul.

P.S. By Native Americans do you mean what we refer to as "Red Indians" from North America...?

Well we all started in Africa, then as we grew many of us humans moved on and into various different locations.  It is believed that the Native Americans came from over the Bering Strait (ie Russia) and colonised Northern America, then moved down into the US.  I don't see why the Australian Aborignes would not have tried to venture out to sea and find other places.  It is only humans natural sense to venture into new territory.

What I want to know is how Australia, a country cut off enough from the world to create speacies of animals unique to the landmass. Yet on the same land there are human beings who only differ from the rest of the world by skin colour.

Humans all came from coloured skin, it was only when we moved up further North our skin became lighter.

I treat what the experts tell me with a pinch of salt. Academics were never the most practical people & much of what they suggest defies all logic. Every few years someone comes up with a different theory as to the origins of the Human race which survives until someone comes up with another one. Despite being presented as fact these are only theories as there is no proof & never will be.

The Norwegian explorer Thor Heyerdahl believed the Polynesians originated from the west, the opposite to popular opinion. In 1947 he sailed a balsa wood raft named "Kon-Tiki" from Peru to Polynesia to prove it was possible.

The Kon-Tiki Expedition (1947)

After the war, Heyerdahl continued his research, only to meet a wall of resistance to his theories amongst comtemporary scholars. To add weight to his arguments, Heyerdahl decided to build a replica of the aboriginal balsa raft (named the "Kon-Tiki") to test his theories. In 1947, Heyerdahl and five companions left Callio, Peru and crossed 8000 km (4300 miles) in 101 days to reach Polynesia (Raroia atoll, Tuamotu Archipelago). Despite skepticisim, the seaworthiness of the aboriginal raft was thus proven and showed that the ancient Peruvians could have reached Polynesia in this manner.

He continued his research for many years afterwards with other successful expeditions.
http://www.greatdreams.com/thor.htm

I've seen it suggested that the Australian Aborigines are in fact Polynesians. If Heyerdahl was correct the Aborigines came from America, not the other way round.

What I want to know is how Australia, a country cut off enough from the world to create speacies of animals unique to the landmass. Yet on the same land there are human beings who only differ from the rest of the world by skin colour.

Tet tet.  The early inhabitants of Australia migrated there from southern Asia or somewhere nearby...

What I want to know is how Australia, a country cut off enough from the world to create speacies of animals unique to the landmass. Yet on the same land there are human beings who only differ from the rest of the world by skin colour.

 The unusual animals of Australia flourished there becouse they had no natural preditors.  By geological time, man is a recent arrival to that island continent, arriving long after Australia's wild life evolved.  

 Has anyone out there ever heard of Kenawick(sp) Man?  Several years ago a human skull was found along the banks of the Columbia River in Washington State.  The skull predated the arrival of "Native" Americans to the New World and was said to have "caucasian" features.  Not only that, there have been atleast two other skulls found in North America that have the same features as Kenawick(sp) Man.
 There has been much made about the "caucasian" features of these skulls and that perhaps the first settlers of the New World may have came form Europe.  Its now believed that these first settlers were of early Asian stalk, migrating to North America via the Bering Straits long before "Native" Americans came across.  What would become "Native" Americans came across in a second migration and "pushed" out the first migrators as they spread out across the New World.  

In which case. Time to re-write the history books. Who discovered America? And who discovered Australia?

We all know that there are three main races. Caucasoid, Negroid, and Mongoloid. They come from Europe, Africa, and Asia respectively. It isn't possible that early Americans came from Australia simply due to their features, at least not when it comes to North Americans. It has been a topic of discussion in every North American history class I've taken. There are two theories. Boats or land bridge. The land bridge theory seems most likely because crossing the Pacific at that time period would have proved extreamly difficult (although not impossible) for the primitive marine technology of the time.

The North American "Indian" or "Amerindian" (which is the term historians use) probably came from East Asia, most likely from Siberia or Mongolia. Most North American natives have strong Mongoloid features. Some of these features have faded in many due to being isolated from the master race but are still present.

Australian Aboriginese on the other hand tend to have more Negroid features and even some Caucasoid features. I know hardly anything on Australian history but judging by appearance, they probably originated in Africa. Crossing the Middle-East and making there way down into French-Indo-China and down into Australia. From what I've seen on TV, Southern Aboriginese are lighter in colour with more caucasoid features. This would suggest that they were making the evolutionary transition to make them more suited for a cooler climate. This would also suggest that they've been in Australia for a very long time.

The Kenawick Man is something I've never heard of but it can be explained. We know that Columbus wasn't the first European to discover the New World. He's just the one who takes credit for it. It has been documented that the Vikings once inhabited Labrador and Newfoundland as early as 1100 AD. Russia also had interests in the America. They had claimed the entire west coast of North America from Alaska to Oragon before they were pushed out by other settlers in the seventeen and eighteen hundreds. This included British Columbia and Washington. Unfortunately we can only guess at how that man got there over 30,000 years ago. We still have trouble figuring things out that happened a mere 2000 years ago.

I go along with Woody and Hagar and the rest of academia on this one.

Academia has a "publish or perish" hierarchy that says you have to come up with a new theory or you don't get tenure.  That works great in nuclear physics, where new theories are popping up every day, but not so well in archaeology.

As a result archaeologists must come up with new (notice I avoid calling them crazy) theories for the origins and migrations of mankind.

Just to set the record straight - there is no evidence whatsoever of European settlement/inhabitation/discovery  (whatever you want to call it) of the North American mainland before Columbus.

If you really want to whine and say that Christopher Columbus himself never personally set foot on the North American continent, well you  might be right.  Grant me the above and I will discuss this with you on another day.

Academia has a "publish or perish" hierarchy that says you have to come up with a new theory or you don't get tenure.

Exactly & extremely well put. Come up with a new theory & get a grant for further research - ad infinitum. The beauty of this system is that nobody can ever prove or disprove the theory.

I've been a confirmed cynic on all this theoretical nonsense since "Piltdown Man" was discovered to be a hoax. Piltdown is a small village in Sussex not far from where I live. This "missing link in evolution" was presented as fact in the history text books all the time I was at school. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/sci_nat/03/piltdown_man/html/default.stm
Once the hoax was uncovered the text books had to be withdrawn & rewritten. Since then I need absolute proof before I believe any of these unconfirmed theories.