Archeology and Science

Scientific research shows that the Mungo man contained a small section of mitochondrial DNA which possibly revealed that he had no modern Aboriginal or modern European background. The mitochondrial DNA had been extinct. The result concluded the 'Out of Africa' theory of human evolution. This meant that if Mungo Man was descended from a person who had left Africa in the past 200,000 years, then his mitochondrial DNA should have looked like all of the other samples found in the lake.
Study of the DNA extracted from Mungo Man showed that his appearance was unexpectedly similar to our modern appearance. It goes against the evolution theory which says that we evolved from the Neanderthal which are ape-like creatures.
The following quotes indicates opinions and facts from 2 scientists including and respectively.

"Some notion that everybody came out of one place now looks very unlikely at least based on the genetic evidence of the living," says Dr Alan Thorne

Professor Simon Easteal is an evolutionary geneticist who examined the DNA from Mungo Man and compared with the genes of early Australians "Things are much more complicated than this. We have a long and complex tapestry of interactions and different genes over an extended period of time in different parts of the world,"

tasmanaborigine2.jpgexternal image tasmanaborigine.jpg
Tasmanian Aborigine
Tasmanian Aborigine

external image mungomancolour.jpg

Dr Thorne provided us of the alternative of the explanation for the development of modern humans. This leads to the point that modern humans are respectively developed from Africa, Europe and Asia.

"Modern humans didn't just come from one area, they came from all areas," Dr Thorne said.

"We assert that when people began to leave Africa about two million years ago, they were the ancestors of all modern people and we don't think modern humanity emerged from one place later on.

He also discovered that the bones were 175 tiny fragments from the skull of a young woman, who died some 26 000 years ago. The skull had been burnt then smashed.

The skeleton, found by Jim Bowler, indicated that it was a gracile type of skeleton. By observing its pelvis and thighs, it was identified as male. Other features of the skeletons showed that the skeleton was of a male are the angle of the sciatic notch, a large femur head, and an estimated height of 170cm compared to the estimated height of 148 cm for Mungo woman. Dr Throne discovered that the bones were 175 tiny fragments from the skull of a young woman, who died some 26 000 years ago. The skull had been burnt then smashed.

It was discovered that another feature of this skeleton was the presence of a condition called woomera elbow in the right side of the body. This was a severe injury, believed to be the actions from throwing spears with woomera for a number of years. This was only dominating the spear throwing arm. This reaches to the conclusion that it is the earliest known use of a spear thrower, all the way back to 40, 000 or 60 000 years old in Australia.

Other Views from different people

Spoken By Dr Colin Groves, who is an anthropologist from the Australian National University. He was consulted by the media for his expert opinion.

"But at the same time as one "pure-race" hypothesis was hitting the dust, another was rising. Ancient Australian skeletons were being discovered in Victoria and southern New South Wales, and they seemed to show great diversity. None of them were Negritos, Murrayians or Carpentarians, but those from Keilor and Lake Mungo were like modern Aboriginal people, whereas some (not all) of those from Kow Swamp had very flat, sloping foreheads, and some people even likened them to so-called "Java Man", Homo erectus, that had preceded modern humans (Homo sapiens) in the region to the Northwest of Australasia at least as late as 300,000 years ago. Unfortunately, although Alan Thorne, the describer of the Kow Swamp skeletons, never actually said that they were Homo erectus, the idea that an extremely primitive people preceded the present Aboriginal people in Australia, and was eliminated by them, seems to have seeped into some folks' consciousness just like the Negritos did. Negritos or Homo erectus - either way, the Aborigines were not the first possessors of Australia so the land doesn't really belong to them and the whites needn't feel too bad about dispossessing them. Really good fodder, this, for the One Nation Party, and the Prime Minister needn't feel he has to say "sorry".

´╗┐Back To Contents