Indigenous Australians most ancient civilisation on Earth, DNA study confirms

Indigenous Australians most ancient civilisation on Earth, DNA study confirms

Claims that Indigenous Australians are the most ancient continuous civilisation on Earth have been backed by the first extensive study of their DNA, which dates their origins to more than 50,000 years ago.

Scientists were able to trace the remarkable journey made by intrepid ancient humans by sifting through clues left in the DNA of modern populations in Australia and Papua New Guinea. The analysis shows that their ancestors were probably the first humans to cross an ocean, and reveals evidence of prehistoric liaisons with an unknown hominin cousin.

Note the study (A genomic history of Aboriginal Australia) is behind a pretty expensive paywall, so it may or may not refer to the Aboriginal culture in Australia as a civilization per se, that appears to be a bit of journalistic license taken by the Guardian. Then again, every new discovery seems to be pushing back the threshold of what a civilization is.

a reply to: Blackmarketeer
In anthropology, I don't think hunter/gatherers constitute a civilization.

However, that is a very long time for a continuous population and society.

Dreamtime.

originally posted by: Blackmarketeer
Indigenous Australians most ancient civilisation on Earth, DNA study confirms

Claims that Indigenous Australians are the most ancient continuous civilisation on Earth have been backed by the first extensive study of their DNA, which dates their origins to more than 50,000 years ago.

Scientists were able to trace the remarkable journey made by intrepid ancient humans by sifting through clues left in the DNA of modern populations in Australia and Papua New Guinea. The analysis shows that their ancestors were probably the first humans to cross an ocean, and reveals evidence of prehistoric liaisons with an unknown hominin cousin.

.

The DNA does not of itself show the history of the aboriginal people. It only shows connections between them and people on other islands or land masses. I'm afraid this is making some scientific evidence fit the theory. I fear It could equally, be used as 'evidence' to suit some other popular theory.

For example, This evidence shows that people from Papua New Guinea invaded and lived in Australia at some point in time and then went back to Papua New Guinea.

a reply to: Azureblue

The DNA does not of itself show the history of the aboriginal people.

Have you read the study?
Actually (from the abstract) it seems to isolate the Aboriginals at about 40 thousand years ago. The 50k would be the divergence (as a group?) from Eurasian populations.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Blackmarketeer
In anthropology, I don't think hunter/gatherers constitute a civilization.

However, that is a very long time for a continuous population and society.

Dreamtime.

Exactly. That's not a civilization. But it IS a culture group, and it would be the oldest living cultural group on the planet - truly an exciting thing!

a reply to: Byrd

Who is the runner up?

a reply to: Blackmarketeer

That's a long time. Maybe we should be really looking at their way of life , as it lasted a long time, until the convicts and the booze arrived.

Maybe there is something to "Luddites", shun technology of any kind and survive for 75 000 years. I know my family is about 2 weeks away from death if ever there was an EMP.

These guys didn't even invent the wheel and certainly left very little in the way of construction over the eons they existed here.

I need a definition of the term civilization , I think it may vary depending on who you talk to, is it urbanization, complex political organization, or even the act of being civil..like not bashing your guest over the head at the dinner table.
For example would Gobeki Tepe qualify as a civilization?? ..I don't know.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Byrd

Who is the runner up?

I would think the folks on the Andaman Islands.

a reply to: Blackmarketeer

This is a really interesting report. The thing i found most interesting was the links to another mysterious group of humans - linked to but NOT the Denisovians. This research actually suggests that previous studies may have mislabelled some links to Denisovians and that actually, it is this mysterious group that are the link (not the Denisovians themselves).

I have also been reading this today - Earth's wobblesmay have driven early humans out of Africa

In essence, it is a report on how the Milankovitch cycles may have driven human expansion by opening up green corridors for travelling groups of humans. It closely resembles older ancient climate models (but done using modern interpretations of data) which is interesting and also fits older "best fits" for human migration patterns. Interstingly enough, they speculate that the slow arrival in Europe could have been down to the predominance of Neanderthals in Europe - they plan on looking into this for the next study.

originally posted by: Spider879

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Byrd

Who is the runner up?

I would think the folks on the Andaman Islands.

I would say that is a very good guess Spider.

yowie, man. living in caves and stick and leather huts is not considered a civilization as they arent exactly civilized in the classical sense. they do have a very detailed and ancient history and traditions

They had a culture and small scale society with art and laws. They just didn't build cities being nomadic hunter gatherers but also didn't wreck the place in 10s of 1000s years of occupation as opposed to just 200 years of anglo occupation which has also wrecked that sustainable culture. The Brits actually declared the place 'Terra Nullus' meaning unoccupied and ripe for the picking. 40000+ years is not a bad effort with only sticks & stones at their disposal.

a reply to: Pilgrum

i totally destroying the surrounding habitat around them is a sign of civilization

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Byrd

Who is the runner up?

I would guess sentinalese or adamanese....in fact, I'm shocked the Australians are older...

-Chris

originally posted by: Spider879

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Byrd

Who is the runner up?

I would think the folks on the Andaman Islands.

I'm not sure where the idea that the andaman islanders are an isolated ancient population came from, as the islands have only been settled in the last ~2000 years by people from mainland asia, both austronesians and negritos.

Really they were that recent , I suppose their hostility towards strangers and their material culture, plus some claims that they represented links to some population of original OOAs, still 2000yrs meh. not bad but not as old as I suspected.

originally posted by: punkinworks10

originally posted by: Spider879

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Byrd

Who is the runner up?

I would think the folks on the Andaman Islands.

I'm not sure where the idea that the andaman islanders are an isolated ancient population came from, as the islands have only been settled in the last ~2000 years by people from mainland asia, both austronesians and negritos.

My idea came from my eyes.

-Chris

originally posted by: Spider879
Really they were that recent , I suppose their hostility towards strangers and their material culture, plus some claims that they represented links to some population of original OOAs, still 2000yrs meh. not bad but not as old as I suspected.

I do believe that the pacific negrito populations were in fact an interim OOA pygmy movement of people. They were after the Eurasians that became the australians and papuans, but before the emergence of the austronesian peoples..


So, i typed the above then found this paper.

So far, there is no strong evidence for mtDNA haplogroup M32 in South
or Southeast Asia (Chandrasekar et al. 2009; Wang et al. 2011), but there is a
156 / CHAUBEY AND ENDICOTT
possible link to a lineage found in Madagascar (Dubut et al. 2009; see Phylotree.
org), which was settled by Austronesian speakers from ISEA (Hurles et al. 2005).
A third minor-frequency mtDNA haplogroup (R22) found among the surviving
Great Andaman population also appears to have originated in Southeast Asia (Hill
et al. 2007), and the Andaman lineage appears to be specific to the archipelago
(our unpublished data). The chronology of a settlement after 25 ka aligns very
well with a proposed expansion of other mtDNA lineages within ISEA 30–10 ka
(Gunnarsdóttir et al. 2011; Jinam et al. 2012; Guillot this issue), prior to the expansion
of the Austronesian and Austroasiatic language families (~4–7 ka) (Gray et
al. 2009; Dunn this issue) and, significantly, after the first archaeological evidence
for human settlement of the region ~45 ka (Demeter et al. 2012).

The Andaman Islanders in a Regional Genetic Context The Andaman Islanders in a Regional Genetic Context

i now know where that ancient context came from