4 ms·

Never heard of these glyphs in Australia before, but they seem to have been debunked as fake pretty quickly. (Sources 1, 2) That being said, Indigenous Austral

by TSiege 4y ago

Never heard of these glyphs in Australia before, but they seem to have been debunked as fake pretty quickly. (Sources 1, 2) That being said, Indigenous Australians of New South Wales (where these phony glyphs are) have done a lot of impressive things themselves and have an amazing history to learn an appreciate all their own. The most famous I'm aware of was the complex societies built upon massive fishery management. (Sources 3, 4) Sources: 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gosford_Glyphs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gosford_Glyphs 2: https://www.australiangeographic.com.au/blogs/tim-the-yowie-man/2021/03/the-gosford-glyphs-debunked/ https://www.australiangeographic.com.au/blogs/tim-the-yowie-... 3: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brewarrina_Aboriginal_Fish_Traps https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brewarrina_Aboriginal_Fish_Tra... 4: https://asia.nikkei.com/Life-Arts/Life/Ancient-Aboriginal-fish-traps-refocus-Australian-history-debate https://asia.nikkei.com/Life-Arts/Life/Ancient-Aboriginal-fi...

ncmncm 4y ago
It is always easy to claim things are a hoax. You don't even need to look at them. How the hoaxers found out about glyphs that had not been published yet seems to need explanation. And that they actually spell words and sentences not about gods or pharaohs, as sequences copied would have. The Ceruti mastodon butchered near San Diego 130,000 ya is one people tried really hard to debunk, and are now forced to admit is real. Nobody has a clue if it was H.s, H.n, H.e, or "others".
- wl 4y ago
  If you copy signs from a Greco-Roman period inscription, chances are good you'll copy a sign that's missing from some Greco-Roman sign lists. There are just so many more signs used in that period than the earlier periods—and the work of cataloging them is still ongoing. Looking at various pictures, I see many mistakes and the signs are badly copied. Even assuming Egypt sent their worst scribes to Australia, why would they be copying fragments of standard funerary texts—for example—on random rock walls far away from anything resembling an Egyptian burial?
  - ncmncm 4y ago
    What funerary texts?
    - wl 4y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gosford_petroglyphs.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gosford_petroglyphs.jpg ꜥnḫ ḏt n ḫꜣt... I mean, I'd need more context to do a real translation, but there's the "living forever" thing (ꜥnḫ ḏt) that comes after the name of the deceased, or maybe it's di (sign before is cutoff) ꜥnḫ ḏt ("given life forever"). There's the ḫꜣt relating to a corpse. That text is talking about a dead guy.
- TSiege 4y ago
  I'm all for accepting evidence when it's there. I do believe humans have been highly mobile for our entire history. Hell, the ancestors of Aboriginal Australians migrated to both Australia and Madagascar, proven by the fact that Madagascans are genetically much more closely related to Aboriginal Australians than Africans. The debunking of these glyphs are quite thorough, and looking at them as a lay person they look quite fresh. There's even a local known nearby aboriginal site that is 250 years old and looks it. As for the mastodon, it's news to me, but I'm highly suspect of any positive findings. I believe humans were in the Americas before the widely touted 14,000 year mark. There's solid evidence that Monte Verde in Chile could be 30,000 years old, but maybe just 14,000 years ago. But either way that's far into southern Chile begging the question of when did humans really first arrive in America. But as I said, 130,000 years ago? I'm skeptical, and so are most anthropologists from what I'm seeing
  - ncmncm 4y ago
    Madagascans are related to Indonesians, who like Polynesians have been traced back, ultimately, to Taiwan. There has been recent mixing with Australians. This happened historically quite recently. The marimba started life as the gamelan. The language is also Indonesian. The arrival is dated only 800ya.
    - TSiege 4y ago
      You are correct. My bad! I am unable to edit or delete that comment since too much time has passed but ncmncm is correct. I conflated Austronesian migration with Australian
      - ncmncm 4y ago
        More interesting is genetic connections between people at the tip end of South America and Australians. This is usually explained as their common ancestor being the first to enter and populate the Americas. Then, subsequent waves displaced and diluted them except at the extremum of their range. That probably means the first wave crossed not long after people got to Australia, and maybe via a similar route, i.e. island hopping, at least 50,000 years ago. They count four major waves of migration into the Americas, not counting any that left no mark.
- googlryas 4y ago
  No one is forced to admit it is real. In fact, if you read the wikipedia article, there are a number of people offering alternative explanations to explain the site. But really, do you think there is a cabal of powerful academics who have their identity so wrapped up in "Humans only came to the Americas 25,000 years ago", that they would try to explain away clear evidence of humans in the Americas 130,000 years ago?
  - ncmncm 4y ago
    Yet, astonishingly, did. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5z3DbmOuaFI https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5z3DbmOuaFI
  - ncmncm 4y ago
    Maybe if you find hominins in North America 130,000 years ago difficult to contemplate, you will have greater difficulty with 200,000 years? Look up "Leakey Calico Early Human site". Yes, that Leakey. National Geographic sponsored work. They dug down dozens of feet, kept finding older worked stone. 1960s.
    - googlryas 4y ago
      I did look it up: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calico_Early_Man_Site#Current_consensus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calico_Early_Man_Site#Current_... > The present consensus is that there is no evidence of human activity at the Calico Early Man site. This consensus developed based on a number of factors, including: > The lack of other evidence of human activity (e.g. human or animal remains, or non-tool artifacts). > The deep antiquity of the site (the next oldest date for human artifacts in the Americas is 30,000 BP, and that date itself is controversial). > The sheer number of possible tools, up to 60,000 by one account.[6] > The research by Duvall/Venner, Payen, and others providing possible natural explanations for the stone objects.
      - ncmncm 4y ago
        In other words, there was so much evidence, none of it counted. They did not, at the time, know about the Cerutti Mastodon. You can see vids on YT of visits to the site. There were so many tools found, there are piles of them left out on the ground. Very, very obviously knapped tools.

by TSiege 4y ago

ncmncm 4y ago

It is always easy to claim things are a hoax. You don't even need to look at them. How the hoaxers found out about glyphs that had not been published yet seems to need explanation. And that they actually spell words and sentences not about gods or pharaohs, as sequences copied would have. The Ceruti mastodon butchered near San Diego 130,000 ya is one people tried really hard to debunk, and are now forced to admit is real. Nobody has a clue if it was H.s, H.n, H.e, or "others".

wl 4y ago
If you copy signs from a Greco-Roman period inscription, chances are good you'll copy a sign that's missing from some Greco-Roman sign lists. There are just so many more signs used in that period than the earlier periods—and the work of cataloging them is still ongoing. Looking at various pictures, I see many mistakes and the signs are badly copied. Even assuming Egypt sent their worst scribes to Australia, why would they be copying fragments of standard funerary texts—for example—on random rock walls far away from anything resembling an Egyptian burial?
- ncmncm 4y ago
  What funerary texts?
  - wl 4y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gosford_petroglyphs.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gosford_petroglyphs.jpg ꜥnḫ ḏt n ḫꜣt... I mean, I'd need more context to do a real translation, but there's the "living forever" thing (ꜥnḫ ḏt) that comes after the name of the deceased, or maybe it's di (sign before is cutoff) ꜥnḫ ḏt ("given life forever"). There's the ḫꜣt relating to a corpse. That text is talking about a dead guy.
TSiege 4y ago
I'm all for accepting evidence when it's there. I do believe humans have been highly mobile for our entire history. Hell, the ancestors of Aboriginal Australians migrated to both Australia and Madagascar, proven by the fact that Madagascans are genetically much more closely related to Aboriginal Australians than Africans. The debunking of these glyphs are quite thorough, and looking at them as a lay person they look quite fresh. There's even a local known nearby aboriginal site that is 250 years old and looks it. As for the mastodon, it's news to me, but I'm highly suspect of any positive findings. I believe humans were in the Americas before the widely touted 14,000 year mark. There's solid evidence that Monte Verde in Chile could be 30,000 years old, but maybe just 14,000 years ago. But either way that's far into southern Chile begging the question of when did humans really first arrive in America. But as I said, 130,000 years ago? I'm skeptical, and so are most anthropologists from what I'm seeing
- ncmncm 4y ago
  Madagascans are related to Indonesians, who like Polynesians have been traced back, ultimately, to Taiwan. There has been recent mixing with Australians. This happened historically quite recently. The marimba started life as the gamelan. The language is also Indonesian. The arrival is dated only 800ya.
  - TSiege 4y ago
    You are correct. My bad! I am unable to edit or delete that comment since too much time has passed but ncmncm is correct. I conflated Austronesian migration with Australian
    - ncmncm 4y ago
      More interesting is genetic connections between people at the tip end of South America and Australians. This is usually explained as their common ancestor being the first to enter and populate the Americas. Then, subsequent waves displaced and diluted them except at the extremum of their range. That probably means the first wave crossed not long after people got to Australia, and maybe via a similar route, i.e. island hopping, at least 50,000 years ago. They count four major waves of migration into the Americas, not counting any that left no mark.
googlryas 4y ago
No one is forced to admit it is real. In fact, if you read the wikipedia article, there are a number of people offering alternative explanations to explain the site. But really, do you think there is a cabal of powerful academics who have their identity so wrapped up in "Humans only came to the Americas 25,000 years ago", that they would try to explain away clear evidence of humans in the Americas 130,000 years ago?
- ncmncm 4y ago
  Yet, astonishingly, did. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5z3DbmOuaFI https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5z3DbmOuaFI
- ncmncm 4y ago
  Maybe if you find hominins in North America 130,000 years ago difficult to contemplate, you will have greater difficulty with 200,000 years? Look up "Leakey Calico Early Human site". Yes, that Leakey. National Geographic sponsored work. They dug down dozens of feet, kept finding older worked stone. 1960s.
  - googlryas 4y ago
    I did look it up: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calico_Early_Man_Site#Current_consensus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calico_Early_Man_Site#Current_... > The present consensus is that there is no evidence of human activity at the Calico Early Man site. This consensus developed based on a number of factors, including: > The lack of other evidence of human activity (e.g. human or animal remains, or non-tool artifacts). > The deep antiquity of the site (the next oldest date for human artifacts in the Americas is 30,000 BP, and that date itself is controversial). > The sheer number of possible tools, up to 60,000 by one account.[6] > The research by Duvall/Venner, Payen, and others providing possible natural explanations for the stone objects.
    - ncmncm 4y ago
      In other words, there was so much evidence, none of it counted. They did not, at the time, know about the Cerutti Mastodon. You can see vids on YT of visits to the site. There were so many tools found, there are piles of them left out on the ground. Very, very obviously knapped tools.