Out of Australia
42,000 Year Old Fishing Hook
Defies ‘Accepted’ Aboriginal History
By Steven
& Evan Strong
A
little over two years ago, the somewhat intriguing headline “Gone fishing,
42,000 years ago”
introduced an article in
the Sydney Morning Herald newspaper which was based on the
findings of a team of Australian archaeologists from the Australian National
University (Canberra). Their 2011 discovery of a fish hook at East Timor, along
with evidence of deep-sea fishing occurring up to 42,000 years ago, carried
with it some unexpected repercussions and was the catalyst for a considerable
reshuffling of deck-chairs on an African boat that supposedly made landfall in
Australia around 50,000 years ago.
The
problem is that the claims made by these scientists seem to contradict an
elemental assumption underpinning what another group of eminent genetic experts
concluded when examining the genome patterns found within a hundred year old
piece of hair belonging to an Australian Aboriginal man. Quite simply as things
stand, the conclusions of each investigation are in open defiance to each other
and logic demands that at least one theory has to be wrong.
Gone Fishing… and Hunting
The
recent archaeological dig at East Timor bears witness that modern humans
possessed “quite sophisticated technology and watercraft”, and through use of
hooks (like the one discovered) were engaged in “deep-sea fishing for large
delicacies such as tuna”. The Australian researchers insist that a high degree
of skill was essential “in catching the types of fish that would be challenging
even today”.
If
relying upon the accepted pre-historical narrative, the people exhibiting these
“amazingly advanced maritime skills” must have originated in Africa. “An
archaeologist at the Australian National University, Sue O’Connor” saw this
settlement and activity as proof of African mariners’ ocean transit to
Australia. She believes that “the first people who arrived in Australia at
least 50,000 years ago must have had boats because they had to cross hundreds
of kilometers of deep ocean trenches to get here from south-east Asia”.
Possibly…
but there is more to this discovery than one solitary hook.
The
analysis of bones found in the “oldest area of occupation… dated at 38,000 and
42,000 years old” of which “50% came from ocean fish, such as tuna and
trevally” also included “small amounts of marine turtles, rats, bats, birds and
snakes”. These people employed a highly sophisticated technology when deep-sea
fishing and obviously co-operated extensively in fishing, sailing and living
together. But not only did they sail and fish upon the open seas, food from
coastal and inland areas was also consumed. The sea, although used often, was
not the only place to hunt and gather food.
Until
this discovery in East Timor, the only evidence of ancient maritime technology
of this sophistication was the hypothetical settlement by Africans in
Australia. At first glance this belief seems to be supported by the 42,000 year
old dicovery in Timor. However, further analysis and comparison to recent
genome research casts considerable doubt, and raises questions that can neither
be answered nor accommodated by the Out-of-Africa theory.
Out of Africa Europe Asia Australia
The
findings of the recent genome
analysis of Aboriginal genetics are absolute: whoever was fishing for tuna and
other deep-sea fish off the coast of Timor 42,000 years ago were not of
Asian or European ancestry. It has now been proven through genetics that the
Asian and European races came into existence around 35,000 years ago. As such,
the fact that human occupation in East Timor spans back no less than 42,000
years ago narrows the field of possible occupants from 4 to 2: the First
Australians or Africans.
While
genetic study can reveal the lineage of human evolution, it does not reveal
geography, thus the scientists who conducted the analysis of the Australian
Aboriginal genome could only make a “best guess” as to whether the Africans or
Aboriginals were the source race, contingent on a “series of puzzles”.
According to what these scientists found, the first theoretical migration out
of Africa could only have been an express route straight through Asia at a
considerable speed with absolutely no stop-overs. Always moving
forward, these adventurous Africans supposedly raced across the globe at a
cracking pace before settling only in Australia. According to the current
understanding of the evolution of the human genome, these theoretical African
explorers barely had time to set up a temporary camp before departing, never
staying in one place as they purposefully raced across the Asian continent,
then setting sail from Timor (the closest Asian island and the supposed
final step in this momentous voyage across the ocean) and settling in the
uninhabited and presumably unknown continent of Australia without leaving any
genetic traces along their way.
So
let’s examine this theory: if African migrants were constantly in transit with
no intention of a permanently settling, why is it that birds, snakes and
bats were hunted and eaten? The hunting or trapping of these land-based animals requires an
intimate knowledge of the geography, climate,
habitats and habits of these food sources, and yet the researchers found
“38,000 bones from almost 2,900 fish” as part of their Timorese discovery. To
catch that many fish with shell hooks takes considerable time, patience and
presence, and its practice implies there was some form of long-term
settlement. The people who sailed to this island were not merely passing
through, stopping over to replenish supplies; the length of their tenure was
born out by occupation dates ranging from 16,000 to 42,000 years.
The
numbers just don’t add up, especially since the minimum starting date is 42,000
years. According to the results of the human genome studies, Australians were
already well settled before that date, and elsewhere the Asian (and European)
races had not come into existence. That being the case, who caught these
thousands upon thousands of deep sea fish? As the facts stand, it was either
pods of very skilled dolphins or non-Asian Homo
sapien sapiens.
Logically,
it cannot have been the hypothetical African Homo
sapien sapiens who populated Australia after sprinting through
Asia. There are no ancient African mtDNA, Y-Chromosomes or Genome patterning
evident in the DNA of the Original people, nor African bones found in
Australia. So all that is left in the boat are the resident
Australians. And there is actually ample archaeological
evidence found throughout the country, and many other locations off-shore, that
substantiates the use of massive ocean-going boats by ancient Aboriginals.
Well Before Their Time
Not
only do we dispute from where the first ocean-going boats set sail, the upper
limit of 42,000 years falls well short in our estimation. Research in Flores Island which, after
Timor, is the next closest island to Australia, seems to indicate similar
maritime technology and degrees of co-operative activity between various
hominids was actually occurring no less than 800,000 years ago. In 1998, the
late Professor Michael Morwood (1950-2013)
published a paper detailing “indisputable” proof that “some 800,000 years ago Homo erectus… had reached
the island of Flores”.
The
unexpected arrival of what Morwood assumed to be Homo erectus so long ago involved “water
crossings of at least 19 kilometres of open sea” in numbers large enough to
establish a viable population. And due to the “impoverished nature of the
ancient flora of the island” of Flores, they too, like those on Timor, must
have been skilled mariners and fishermen/women or they would have perished if
relying solely on what was readily available to hunt or gather.
Such
a date, as sensational as it may seem, has never been openly challenged.
According to researchers, “the dating is reliable – volcanic tuff deposits from
above and below indisputable stone artefacts and associated extinct fauna were
securely dated by the well-tried and tested fission-track method”. And yet
these sound findings appear to have been quickly forgotten in academic circles.
Despite the climate of academic selectivity, the issue still remains; every
academic and official text denies that Homo
erectus was able to invent such a boat, nor was bold and
intelligent enough to embark on such a leap of faith into the unknown, yet this
hard evidence exists.
One
can only imagine the skills in communication, organization and imagination
needed to construct the boat and convince others to step aboard, en route to an
unknown destination across the sea. This leads to one of two logical explanations:
either Homo erectus
was much smarter than is claimed, or Homo
sapien sapien evolved much earlier than is assumed.
In
what must further muddy the waters for proponents of the 60,000 year old
African theory, the ‘hobbits’ of Flores have been dated at between 18,000 to
96,000 years old. These extremely small hominids are regarded as entirely
separate from the present-day taller indigenous people of Flores, a distinction
which genetic and morphological studies have indisputably confirmed. From these
studies we understood that these smaller people were also, as it was with Homo erectus, an import to
Flores Island and could only have gotten to there by sailing a sizeable boat
from an unknown destination.
But
enough of Africa…. none of these archaeological findings make any sense if one
assumes that Africa was the sole birth-place of modern humanity. It is only
when the First Australians are acknowledged as the Original race from which Homo sapien sapiens
evolved that these apparent irregularities can be resolved. The extensive array
of scientific and historical evidence we have presented in previous articles
merely reinforces what this recent archaeological discovery and genetic
analysis unintentionally bear witness.
[For
more information, check out Steven’s previous article: DNA
Evidence De-Bunks Out-Of-Africa Theory of Human Evolution]
Walking Onto Site, Without Sight
Ever
since we began our research into the First Australians’ ancient history, there has existed
one ever-present obstacle: archaeologists and anthropologists who wander onto
Original country rarely seek Original permission first, and most seem incapable
of grasping anything of substance beyond the most basic and obvious. So much of
what they assume and conclude is lost in translation, with no understanding of,
or enquiry into, Original history and lore. To accurately comprehend and report
the mysteries, esoteric
powers, history and culture of the First Australians requires much more than a
degree, clipboard, computer or camera…. it requires the guidance of the
Original people, and the acuity to examine evidence without the baggage of
historical pre-conception.
The
sad part of the recent archaeological report from Timor, and so many others, is
that the shell hook is merely an introduction that leads to much more
enlightening avenues upon which to research and contemplate. There is more than
one way to catch a fish! But as usual, mainstream academics are unwilling
to progress any further than what they want to see, hindered by government regulation
and a culture of closed-mindedness in their ranks. Thus their examination
is restricted only to the hook, line and spear. Although the liaison and
combined endeavour evidenced in Timor undoubtedly crosses the boundaries of
‘accepted’ history, further implications of this discovery are simply ignored
in favour of the status quo.
As
a perfect example, the first time that we saw the photograph of a group of
Aboriginal men by a river engaged in an activity described by Jennifer Hoff in
her book Bundjalung Jugun as an example of “a large group of tribesmen
spearing fish”, we found her description as humorous as it was symptomatic. So
caught up in her historical conditioning, this manifestly incorrect commentary
highlights how little was understood of the First Australians. First up,
there is not one spear visible or in use in the photograph. The men are
definitely hunting for fish, and the devices, songs and participants are there
for the lens to record…. but, despite claims that she consulted closely with
the Bundjalung people (sic), such
detail was beyond the limited vision of the photographer. There was no need to
carry or brandish any weapon in this ancient activity; the most essential
ingredient in this fishing expedition was the song given by the Elder standing
with his arms outstretched. He was singing to his aquatic brothers and sisters:
the dolphins.
In
times when the Old Ways were observed, many coastal tribes made a compact with
their aquatic kin who they regarded as their brothers and sisters. A few men
would attract the dolphin’s attention by flailing leafy bushes against the
water, while most silently stood with heads bowed in reverence and thanks. This
sacred ancient alliance was forged in the Dreaming, and until the Elder who was
the custodian of a song that consecrated this inter-species alliance stood and
broke into song, the dolphins were at the ready but the hunt could never begin.
Everything was dependent on the Elders voice and verse, all the hunters had to
do was to stand in the shallow water and keep perfectly still. The rest was
easy, they silently waited and watched as the dolphins drove a school of fish
to their feet. Once their brethren had completed their part of the bargain, the
catch was gathered up and divided, guaranteed food for all, and the Elder
sang songs of thanks.
Dolphins Up and Down the Coast
This
concord was neither limited to one area nor hidden from non-Aboriginal
observers.
In the mid 1860s, magistrates and police stationed at Stradbroke Island (QLD
Australia) filed reports of the same coalition sharing in song, methods and
catch. According to their eyewitness accounts, dolphins and humans worked as
one and regarded each other as equal in every respect.
Before
allowing the left-hemisphere of the brain time to object, it needs to be
acknowledged that this ancient truth is also chronicled by the greatest
historians from the oldest living culture in the world, via the Dreaming stories. In a
‘Bundjalung Confederation of Language and Tribes’ Dreaming story, “The Man Who
Killed a Porpoise”, it is made clear that “the porpoises were the old people’s
friends”. One day “two young men took their net down to the beach” and
unintentionally caught a dolphin. Being “puzzled about porpoises”, one of the
men “wanted to know how they came to be so clever”, so he “killed the porpoise
and cut it open”. The next time the men went down to the beach in
preparation for another shared hunt, the dolphins did not respond to the
beating of branches or song. The “Old-men” knew something was amiss and didn’t
take long to identify the culprit. “Because he did such a bad thing, they took
him and killed him with a boomerang… like an axe. Then they threw his body into
the sea, and tossed the boomerang in after it”. This narrative from the Dreaming
serves two purposes; it is both a factual account of a well-known form of
co-operative enterprise, and a warning to any who transgress and interfere in
any way with dolphins.
Of
those who may be prepared to conceded that such extraordinary events could possibly
occur, many will undoubtedly prefer to believe that this practice was all part
of days long gone and of no relevance today. We disagree. The next account is
of the exact same partnership, still in operation less than two decades ago in
the 1990’s on the Evans River (NSW Australia). This interaction between species
was known of by many locals and, confirming its authenticity, the same story
was shared with me by two Original people present on the river-bank on the day
in question, both of whom offered pledges of absolute honesty when they
recalled what happened on that memorable and sacred day.
Even
when the two old men made their way down the river bank, those assembled on the
two banks were still none the wiser. They had been summoned to attend by these
Elders, but no-one knew what purpose sitting on the side of the bank would
serve. They had no hook, tackle or net. As the boat was freed from its moorings
and slowly drifted towards the middle of the river, no-one spoke or had the
slightest idea what was supposed to happen.
The
two men seated in the boat broke into song, some of the Old words were familiar
to those assembled, but many were not. Even though the dinghy was nearly two
kilometers (1.2 miles) from the ocean, it didn’t take long before the dolphins
responded to their ancient call. It wasn’t so much their unexpected appearance
that caught the spectators unaware, but the offerings they were directing
towards the old men. The school of fish were frantic. Close behind were around
ten dolphins in close pursuit, and ahead an escape route which was getting
shallower and narrower. For many fish there seemed to be one available avenue
of escape: the small boat. Fish were quite literally jumping out of the water
and into the laps of the elderly crew of two. Barely a minute passed before the
dinghy was so laden with fish there was a real possibility it would sink. The
load was lightened by throwing some fish out of the boat in thanks, as the Old
men slowly rowed the boat towards the shore.
As
was (and still is) the custom and law, the catch was shared equally between the
two Elders seated in the boat, those watching from the riverbank and their
aquatic kin swimming in the river.
Killer Whales
It
would be a mistake to assume that these mid-sized dolphins were the only
animals
with which the Aboriginal people could establish communication and share
endeavours. The largest of their species, the killer whale, was also willing to
hunt as a partner.
The
numerous
stories of the famous killer whales (Orcas) at Twofold Bay (NSW
Australia) herding and capturing many species of whales then seeking out their
partners’ whaling boats and guiding them back to their prey may seem a myth,
but it isn’t. There are literally hundreds of accounts testifying to the
truthfulness of these unusual events, and many were meticulously researched and
documented. However, the inspiration and motivation behind this extraordinary
example of co-operation was far less publicised.
As
is often the case, it all began in the Dreaming. Remarkably, even European
accounts acknowledge that this practice was of Aboriginal inspiration and was
occurring well before their arrival. According to the Original custodians, this
long-standing arrangement was reached at a time well past. The Yuin people
decided to light fires all along the headland to arouse the curiosity of their
reincarnated aquatic brothers and sisters: the killer whales. After they gained
their attention, one Elder limped along the top of the headland, grimacing as
he dragged himself near the cliff’s edge. Once their empathy was stirred,
the killer whales gathered together and drove a whale of a different species
onto the beach below. They were deceived; they acted from compassion, believing
the old man was incapable of hunting and would therefore starve. But so the
pattern began. Every time the killer whales beached a whale for the Original
people, the Elders would cut out the tongue and lips as a ‘payment’ which they
called the Law of the Tongue. This obligatory offering of
what was a delicacy to the Orcas, became an eternal Law.
Of
course a different version of this relationship is told by white commentators,
one which is far more accommodating to accepted European history. But this does
no more than reflect a tendency of academics to denigrate and reinterpret any
aspect of Aboriginal society
that contradicts their preferred interpretation of the world and its ancient
history.
In
an account of this activity published in The Daily Telegraph (June
5th, 2006), researcher Jeremy Stevens claims the reverence and inter-species
kinship shared by the Originals and the whales was purely due to deduction and
never the outcome of a special relationship. He alleges that “the Yuin
Aboriginal people had observed orcas herding baleen whales and the killer
whales were soon regarded as the re-incarnated spirits of Yuin ancestors…
the Yuin came to believe the orcas were providing food for the tribes”. Jeremy
Stevens feels such an empathetic relationship never existed, and that the
associated songs, ceremonies and Dreaming story are fabrications that
were used to explain the normal activity of the orcas, irrespective of any
tribal ritual or song.
But
there are obvious contradictions in Stevens’ reasoning. Firstly, his
assumption that Original people observed the orcas and merely leveraged
the opportunity they presented requires that the Original people were
previously able to survive and thrive in this coastal region without a viable
means of fishing, until the orcas provided one. Moreover, he showed no
understanding of the motivation that originally inspired these killer
whales to share in the hunt in the first place. The reality is that Jeremy
Stevens was never going to accept the Aboriginal explanation, instead he
ameliorated and reworked an ancient Original truth into something more
comforting and less threatening to non-Original sensibilities and
history. So let us ignore this poorly researched piece of shallow
journalism.
The
Law of the Tongue was widely accepted by
Aboriginals and white whalers alike as sacrosanct and compulsory. The offering
of the tongue and lips was a reflex reaction, and an essential part of the
hunt. And so it continued for centuries, until one arrogant white captain
refused to make payment after a successful hunt. Despite the vociferous
protests from crew members, pleading with him to obey the Original Law that
both peoples obeyed, he considered himself to be above such primitive
superstition and refused to make the exchange. From that fateful day, the
compact was broken and the killer whales moved on. The Aboriginals left
the area in disgust at this desecration and the custom rapidly stopped.
The Final Word
This
article has two complementary agendas: to provide evidence of the Original peoples’
maritime history, and to highlight how the sciences of genetics and
archaeology are subjective pursuits where, in many cases, the researchers’
academic conditioning and cultural baggage narrows their focus and blinds them
to the bigger picture. It makes no difference whether the observer is an
author, archaeologist, photographer or reporter, the professionals I have
discussed today approached the task primed only to record what was convenient,
what could be absorbed into their pre-conceived limitations, and what was never
there in the first place.
Earlier
in this article, I alluded to the fact that most scholars are ‘restricted only
to the hook, line and spear’. In their haste to prove currently-held theories,
they failed to conduct genuine scientific enquiry and simply ignored or
reinterpreted any evidence that was inconvenient to the status quo.
Excited by one shell hook, they fabricated many spears, and then cast out the
same tired old African theory without consideration of the wider historical
implications of the facts.
Whether
the greatest casualties are the opportunities lost or historical truths denied,
there is a reason this tragic state of affairs came about; disrespect for the
Original people and their ways, and the distrust this causes. Darkinoong
Elder Auntie Beve’s response to archaeologists wandering on to her
country uninvited was the initial inspiration behind this article, and
highlights why this impasse still exists:
“They
have written much that was never to have left country. They have written much
that was never near the truth… there is much we never tell or show them because
of this… the Old people knew when they were being belittled so they put their
tongue in their cheek and said “yes boss, you know it all”.
Academic
preconceptions and cultural disrespect will never uncover the truth of our
origins. The only way this sorry state of affairs can be overcome is with
a broadness of the mind and an openness of the heart.
About
the authors:
Steven
Strong is an Australian-based researcher, author and former high school
teacher. Evan Strong is a researcher, historian and author with a Bachelor
degree in the Social Sciences. Their work is to explore the
ancient story of the Original people, a narrative that was almost lost to
aggressive European colonisation.
For
more information visit http://ForgottenOrigin.com
From Wake Up World @ http://wakeup-world.com/2014/04/03/42000-year-old-fishing-hook-defies-accepted-aboriginal-history/
For more information Australian aboriginal people see http://nexusilluminati.blogspot.com/search/label/australian%20aborigines
For more information about humans NOT originating in Africa see http://nexusilluminati.blogspot.com/search/label/out%20of%20Africa%20debunked
- Scroll down through ‘Older Posts’ at the end of each section
Hope you like this
not for profit site -
It takes hours of work every day by
a genuinely incapacitated invalid to maintain, write, edit, research,
illustrate and publish this website from a tiny cabin in a remote forest
Like what we do? Please give anything
you can -
Contribute any amount and receive at
least one New Illuminati eBook!
(You can use a card
securely if you don’t use Paypal)
Please click below -
Spare Bitcoin
change?
Xtra Images – http://dreamcatcher.net/images/uploads/17441-medium.jpg
http://www.aboriginalartstore.com.au/media/17960/aboriginal_spirituality_photo_slideshow.CACHE-1000x1000.jpg
For further enlightening
information enter a word or phrase into the random synchronistic search box @
the top left of http://nexusilluminati.blogspot.com
And see
New Illuminati – http://nexusilluminati.blogspot.com
New Illuminati on Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/the.new.illuminati
New Illuminati Youtube Channel - http://www.youtube.com/user/newilluminati
New Illuminati on Google+ @ https://plus.google.com/115562482213600937809/posts
New Illuminati on Twitter @ www.twitter.com/new_illuminati
New Illuminations –Art(icles) by
R. Ayana @ http://newilluminations.blogspot.com
The Her(m)etic Hermit - http://hermetic.blog.com
DISGRUNTLED SITE ADMINS PLEASE NOTE –
We provide a live link to your original material on your site (and
links via social networking services) - which raises your ranking on search
engines and helps spread your info further! This site is published
under Creative Commons Fair Use Copyright (unless an individual article or
other item is declared otherwise by the copyright holder). Reproduction for non-profit use is permitted & encouraged,
- if you give attribution to the work & author. Please include a
(preferably active) link to the original (along with this or a similar notice).
Feel free to make non-commercial hard (printed) or software copies or
mirror sites - you never know how long something will stay glued to the web –
but remember attribution!
If you like what you see, please send a donation (no amount is too
small or too large) or leave a comment – and thanks for reading this far…
Live long and prosper! Together we can create the best of all possible
worlds…
From the New Illuminati – http://nexusilluminati.blogspot.com
No comments:
Post a Comment
Add your perspective to the conscious collective