You skipped the most interesting part! The DNA of the first skeletal remains (LM1) were analyzed and matched known aboriginal populations and dated to a few thousand years ago. DNA analysis of the second skeleton (LM3) found that the DNA did not match that of known aboriginals from Australia. Furthermore, the mtDNA was older than "Mitochondrial Eve" from whom all living humans share a maternal lineage. This suggests the remains could have belonged to an entirely separate branch of the human race. Besides being a bombshell discovery for the peopling of Australia, the DNA analysis calls into question the traditional model of a single Out of Africa migration and suggests multiple waves of migration into Australia. Another group of researchers asserted that the remains could have been contaminated (by what? a 40k year old vampire on the excavation crew?), but besides not making any sense, no evidence of contamination was found. The remains were then returned to be re-buried, making sure no one else will ever be able to examine them again with more advanced DNA analysis. But ONLY the LM3 skeleton was re-buried, not the aboriginal remains LM1. Really gets the noggin joggin.
I believe the remains were re-buried because it was proof that modern day Indigenous Australians weren't Australias original inhabitants. Can you imagine the uproar in Australia if this was true?
@@MM-mk7gl Do you not know that their could be hundreds of other skeletons in australia that are older than the one thats supposedly not aboriginal ? So its not really proof
@@MM-mk7gl they could find another skeleton thats far older than this one by tommorow or whenever and it could probably be aboriginal, so shouldn't base anything over this finding, im sure there's more older skeletons out here than this one
@@Yeah--mn9qk what a joke. Mungo Man (WLH3) sample contained no Aboriginal Australian DNA and is solid scientific evdience that there were civilised communities tens of thosuands of years before Aboriginines claim to have lived in Australia. The only reason he was reburied was to hide the fact history got it wrong and ultimately Aborigines never were and never will be our "First Nations".
@AN4aARCHID IKR, so suprisinlgy convinient so they can continue to mislable a minority as "First Nations" and provide them a lifetimes worth of reparations.
theres much more to the mungo dig story but it has become a politically an culturally sensitive topic because it implys a number of racially different humans have occupied that region.
yu are on to it, gracile and robust skeletons sure do raise a lot of questions, than answers questions. There is much yet to unravel. Out of africa is dead in the water. Out of australia is where the evidence really leads us.
@@russellpearson1909 very possible that the more digging we do we'll be reevaluating many theorys about the history of the human race. ..a man from sri lanka informs me that many indigenous place names are easlily translated into his language and claims that there was two waves of sub continental indians...the first approximately 40 thousand years ago and the second about four thousand years ago....i believe from my own analysis that they worshipped the god indra and built large temples from mud brick. ..there is a suburb in brisbane queensland named indropilly.
@@donaldmac1250 indeed yu are correct, theory is often educated guess work and quite often winds up being disproved, but the theory lingers on. I have read about the Sir Lankan connection and while i dont put their arrival here at the same time frame as he does. Next thing they will be claiming land rights. lol Ernie dingo tested positive to Sir Lankan dna, but there was no mention how far back it went. Its a bit puzzlling actually as he comes from the far west and they came in via the north, north west. I have never really looked into that side of migration to our shores
Yes exactly, the real reason the Abbos wanted the remains returned was to stop any further mtDNA research which would indicate that Abbos are NOT "First Nation peoples" and are in fact late arrival interlopers & have no more claim to Australia than do Europeans.
The term "mindless savages" is truly insulting because no species of hominid has ever been "mindless" - our earliest ancestors have showed that they thought, crafted, and created things to improve their survival and quality of life. As for "savages"... well, look at how people treat each other and we are all still savages and maybe even more so because we should certainly know better and therefore have no excuses for our inhumanity to one another.
I sort of agree Allison, in that this narrative is insulting. However in my opinion the human species has largely become more savage and somewhat mindless as it has advanced and become more egocentric and disconnected from our once connected and interdependent relationship within the natural world and with each other. Not everyone though, but most, unfortunately.
very enlightened thinking, when yu are the inferior race, but have superior tech like cannons and guns against bow and arrows and spears, it is very easy to userp public perceptions to believe they are the superior race.
"One of the many humorous things in this world is the white man's notion that he is less savage than the other savages " , and i readily apply the same comparison concerning humans, and other species
Humans have existed for hundreds of thousands of years. Written history may tell you otherwise, but like science, we are making more and more progress understanding our past. Ancient people were very intelligent individuals and even created their own technology to build amazing things.
Yes the same ones that hide the fact that the real first people's of Australia were a dark skinned pygmy race that were predated on by the current aboriginal peoples.
My understanding of the most recent DNA findings, is different. The remains, are indeed Aboriginal. They also show however, that this man was not an ancestor of the indigenous people, currently living in the area.
@@warwicklewis8735 Just google "mungo man dna findings". You'll find plenty of reports. There were 2 DNA studies: one in 2001, and another in 2016. So, it's not new information, at all.
@@mombaassa obviously you did not read past the click bait headlines of those "reports". The study in 2001 declared that the DNA was not related to modern aboriginals (note that it was not European DNA either). The second study in 2016 retested the same sample (not a new one) and found that it was contaminated by at least 5 Europeans. Making the test results from the original study invalid due to contamination. These findings prove that the scientists were either monumentally incompetent or delibrately sabotaging the results. It also brings into question why the original 2001 study didn't report finding European DNA. And if not European then has the contamination occurred at a later time. And why is a new sample (taken by a competent scientist) not being made available. In order to further spread misinformation the "reports" then go on to mention that samples taken from other skeletal remains from the area are related to local indigenous people. Then quickly pass over the inconvenient fact that those samples are dated to much more recent times. A more accurate headline would read. "INCOMPETENT SCIENTISTS ENABLE INDIGENOUS PROPAGANDA TO FLORISH" But that would only happen in a world that had honest journalists who were not pursuing a political agenda.
From what I remember of that discovery was they were found to be a different race to today’s indigenous Australians and that finding didn’t go down too well.
That's a bit harsh, in light of evidence presented on an ABC website. Please supply proof of your allegation, and leave any racism out of it...@@katherineholten8878
Wrong. Those 2001 tests were found to have been contaminated. DNA testing has progressed a long way since those early days. Check the 2016 test results.
correct and they committed genocide when they invaded ....... and they have the gall to call us invaders. oh and btw, there has never been nor ever will be such a thing as "first nation". They where a bunch of tribal family based groups that constantly tried to kill other tribal family based groups. So much for a nation, there was no national identity until modern times, sorry but you missed the boat.
That was ok. Mungo lady was particularly interesting because in later more advanced testing by French scientists and Australian geneticists it was concluded that Mungo lady was of two human species, part Aborigine and part of unknown origin. There are a number of trains of thought, some believing the Aboriginie's were always here but their DNA proves otherwise. Some say there was no one here when the Aboriginie's first arrived in a location known as the East Kimberley, it cannot be proved or disproved. But the history of a culture can be expressed in many ways particularly through art. The Aboriginie's were prolific in their cave art and reportedly recent cave art in the West NT is believed to be 27,000 years old. That is 11,000 years older than the Gwion Gwion rock art on the Mitchell Plateau. What makes the Gwion cave art interesting is that does not have the features of Aboriginal cave art. It in fact matches cave art from from both African and Indian cave art content and styles. For the time period the Gwion Gwion's in character and style including content are more advanced, how and why did the style disappear? The two issues, was Australia already occupied by an existing hominid species that potentially interbred with the Aboriginie's or they were wiped out, both in light of Mungo lady's genetics and the Gwion may not seem so far fetched. I think we are going to go down the path of truth telling perhaps more excavation of the Mungo site will be a good start.
mate in darwin there was cave i used to go to with my friends as kids and teenagers that had no aboriginal artwork in the 70-80s then in the 2000s either 2001 or 2002 i took my kids there and it was still an empty cave then the same cave was reported on the news having aboriginal artwork in it around 2014 or 2015 with aboriginal artwork dating back 17,000 years old!!!! NONE OF THAT WAS THERE DURING THE FIRST TIME I SEEN THE CAVE IN THE 70s TO THE LAST TIME I WENT THERE IN THE EARLY 2000s!!!!!! AND IT WAS THE DOTTED ABORIGINAL ARTWORK THAT WAS ONLY INTRODUCED TO THEM RECENTLY WHILE I WAS YOUNG MAN !!!!!
What evidence is there that the current native residents of the area have any connection at all with Mungo man? If the ancient residents had a culture based on harvesting fish and shellfish they would have probably moved on long before the lake finally dried up thousands of years ago.
Because of DNA and the lake is within their tribal lands when the lake started to dry up they simply move to more productive part of their tribal lands
To get fish and shellfish from Lakes Mongo it would have been after the land upheaval where this sea was as has been known by other scientific study. People who came to Australia before complete break from Asian connection would have integrated with other tribes to maintain viability due to deaths of all sorts this mingling other DNA, there were over 100 tribal groups wandering around and not a lot of interchange of coupling due to tribal custom's. I think it will be a long time before it will be accepted that like us they came from elsewhere and were diverse in their origins as we are today.
@@macraghnaill3553 That is correct, and that glacial period started around 100,000 years ago, so the statement "dating as far back as the last ice-age" is pretty meaningless.
there were many glacial and interglacial periods in aust over the last couple of hundred thousand years, of which i beleive there were populations of maybe different human types like denisovan, erectus and little people at the same time. an eructus skull found on the darling river in 1902 was dated at 30,000 years bp
@@warwicklewis8735 try doing some deep research lewis, just like i have and do. But i have one big advantage over yu mate, Im not ignorant or predjudiced, and i am a very critical logical thinker. Which means i have a prior body of knowledge and can sniff out the horseshit real easy.
I hate comments like “mindless cave dweller”, how ignorant and arrogant. These were the bones of Homo sapiens, same as us, they were just as intelligent and capable as any modern human being, their technology allowed them to survive and even thrive in their surrounding. Pointless and foolish to use such terms when describing them.
@@jonimaricruz1692 aaww did someone muffle your self congratulatory virtue signalling echo chamber ??? The topic you initiated was the typical "noble savage" dogma currently echoing around in the chamber of woke ideologues. My comment is an opposing view but most definitely on point of topic. Claiming that the most primitive society on earth has intelligence and capabilities equivalent to modern society. That a paleolithic people had technolgy. And that merely surviving is a cultural achievement. Is undoubtedly a trope on the Rousseauian clique.
Ochre is used until today as sunscreen, and some researchers are saying that it may not have been sprinkled on the bodies in graves, but that the individuals may have been wearing it.
Ok... A few things: 1. Mungo Lady was a blonde white girl in what looked like wolf furs? The black man was visibly African American?? Are you really comfortable with entirely erasing Aboriginal people even from a story about us?? 2. Dude, do you have to lean into racist tropes QUITE so comfortably while, like everyone I'm sure, you show great enthusiasm and surprise that we are descended from "real humans" with feelings and thoughts just like yours! (Dramatic reveal)?? We aren't circus freaks and it's not the 60s anymore so you don't get to use that kind of racist coding without being called out. Edit this or remove it.
IF Humanity came "Out of Africa" in several migration waves, then there are no Indigenous People anywhere other than Africa. IF there are truly Indigenous People, then the "Out of Africa" claim is false. Can't have it both ways. Personally, I never accepted the "Out of Africa" hypothesis, Nature NEVER creates only one of a thing in only one place.
There are many human species, more human species are discovered all the time, we modern humans emerged out of Africa and encountered other human species and sometimes interbred with them. They believe humans came out of Africa because the oldest human remains are always found in Africa, plus many other scientific reasons.
@@dheath3697 They don't look anywhere else. If they took as much time, resources and intensity to look in Asia, The America's, etc for human remains as they do in Africa, the story would be very different.
@@oldmanfromscenetwentyfour8164 I didn't say anything different, but doesn't make you right, you said they don't search anywhere else, but that's not true at all, they search much more in Europe, China, SE Asia and particularly USA. Keep an open mind and follow the research, it's fascinating, truly!
No human is a "mindless savage." Like other similar YT bits, the images are largely irrelevant, such as a an image of "archaeologists" from 1968 holding old, rusted tools (not archaeological either) and a smartphone (didn't exist in the twentieth century), and no sort of cell phone existed in the 1960s.
How old do ancient remains have to be to considered members of a contemporary community? It seems a shame that remains that could have shed so much light on the populating of a location were taken away by others who may not be genetically related to the ancient remains. There should be a cutoff age for determining if human remains are indeed connected to a living population. Kennewick Man was proven to be genetically related to several tribes in Washington and Oregon and given to them. Kennewick Man was only about 9,000 years old.
BINGO. ITS INSANITY. These remains belong to humanity not some tribe. Also, why is it surprising human beings acted like human beings? They were Homo sapiens.
Kennewick man was also idiocy. The Clintoon Administration started this ridiculous nonesense. Think about it. If this is correct thinking, every human remains from Egypt to Iceland, from Siberia to South America, would be re-interred. Nobody wantscdomebody's grandfatherdug up.. But NINE THOUSAND YEARS? POLITICAL GENERATED NONSENSE.
@@thomaszaccone3960 Mungo man belongs in Australia and not overseas in some museum. It’s bad enough that a lot of history is stolen from Australia as it is.
How would you determine a “cut off age” ? There’s alot of research and anthropology involved to determine that. Culturally it’s a significance to people of the area it was founded. There’s no rule to say you have to be related to ancient remains either for it to be important to history.
@@MelaniaRose It's a good question. Like I said nobody wants to see an identifiable person connected with a currently live family dug up. Somebody who kicked off over 400 years ago - before recorded history - should be a subject for stidy.
These people are Aboriginal Australian, not Europeans ? I got confused ??? Lake mungo is a beautiful place, the Inland sea , and so are the Aboriginal people of Australia
I find it funny how the indigenous claim mungo man and lady to be one of their own, No where in history have you done that to your deceased or buried them in a way like that, I want more answers
Interestingly in Britain we found a forty thousand year old burial also buried covered in red ochre, ( The Red Lady Of Paviland) this suggests a cultural connection. this date coincides with the hight of the last ice age when the sea was at it's lowest.
8:48 Just because the ochre is red, from a distance of 100-200 km away doesn't mean they went there to get it. The lake is on a dehydrated river system and the more likely transmission of ocher is by trade either from group to group or through annual or biennial gatherings. Also ... can you _not_ do the photo thing? It's disconcerting to watch pictures that have no relevance to the story you're trying to tell, geologists not archaeologists, lake filled with water when Lake Mungo was dry, had been dry for thousands of years, random artefacts that did not exist at the dig, no actual photos of the dig or the archaeologists? You could do better, it's not that hard. I'd even rather snap shots of the peer reviewed articles you got your info from.
Especially as the current trend is to build entirely and purposefully false narratives about "1st Nations people" intimating ONLY Aborigines when thee were a variety at least 3 types of people 2 at least predating what we now call Aboriginals. If they spoke the truth the whole native title nonsense would be decimated as it is NOT relevant to Aboriginals . Lies upon lies upon lies all tangled and meaningless
Red ochre powder may have been something that was carried with the people for their use and not just gotten when mungo man died. There were to many irreverent pictures.
Mindless savage is a suitable title... When shown dna evidence remote sri lankan communities were happy and amazed to know their connection to the greater world of humanity... aboriginals when shown the same became violent and abusive towards the researchers.
People seem to make things up to be upset about, I've never felt the slightest temptation to interfere with science because someone happens to be a possible ancestor
Well, your territorial claims probably wouldn't look ridiculous if people found out you kicked another race off of a continent. So you have less motivation to stop all scientific investigation in to your "ancestors". Problem is these skeletons are not at all related to the aboriginals living there now. We can't have people finding that out..
The problem is they fear it is not an ancestor. This would interfer with the claim that aboriginals were the first inhabitants of Australia. It would also discredit the dating of early occupation sites as proof of aboriginal habitation.
@@warwicklewis8735 Even worse, some of the papers regarding Mungo Man identify him as having some Caucasian characteristics. This would be something that must not be spoken about.
yes but it's australia and aboriginals... that's all you need to know to instantly know the narrative will always be written to suit the aboriginals...
For those watching this... Australia does not have Deer or wolf, so the pictures are wrong. The ocean and desert pictured is not accurate, and the palm trees in the distance is also wrong. The first missionaries brought palm trees.
Couldn’t agree more. Stock photos from places, even continents, totally unrelated to Australia, let alone Lake Mungo. Very disappointed as the narrator sounded Australian, and should have invested more in locational accuracy. Lazy!
@@pixelpatter01 Didn't the Irish economy go belly up during the global financial meltdown , and now Northern Ireland has to deal with Brexit( another stroke of brit genius ... )
The mystery of when humans first populated Australia may be related to changes in sea level caused by glaciation in the northern hemisphere. Thus, during the last glacial period, the Wisconsinan, sea level was at least 80 meters below current levels as far back as 70 thousand years ago, meaning that land bridges could have existed between the islands of Indonesia and Australia. During the previous glacial period, the Illinoian, sea levels were around 120 meters below current levels 140 to 160 thousand years ago.
Why do we assume that Africa is the only place that human beings could come from? There is plenty of genetic evidence to prove that human beings started in a lot of different places
@@James-kv6kb I think it is more accurate to say that human evolution in the distant past took place on virtually every continent on Earth except probably N & S America with the hominin precursor to the genus Homo arising in Africa. Indeed, evolution of us, Homo sapiens, has not stopped. However, we should bear in mind that the story of human evolution is based on snapshots in time - a relatively few skeletal remains separated by millennia. But, as you say, genetic evidence is very useful, particularly to document hybridization.
We didn't have a great Barrier Reef up until 20.000 years ago or a Sydney Harbour When the great ice Shelf in the northern hemisphere started melting some were between 40/20 thousand years rasing the seas a Hundred Metre And Tasmania was still connected to Australia but a lake was the seperating During the W11 DIVER were send into the English channel to see where the ancient Peat Bogs were so as the landing craft different get bogged for the Attack on Dunkirk .
@@James-kv6kbdeffently Nearndertholds from the north They have found boans dating back 600.000 thousand years just not so long ago so inter breading .
Totally agree with you, virtually no factual images or video of lake Mungo, just copied and pasted bullshit images, as per many RU-vidrs. But the storyline somewhat accurate
Mungo Man and Mungo Lady. Australia's oldest human remains. The skeletons that rewrote human history. No British people could ever do that or be that important. haha
Since the Aboriginals are the oldest continuos culture in this world. I think we should hire some aboriginal people and take them to a tour in Europe and Asia and let them see the cave paintings and let them explain them to us.
Are you yourself sure of this or are the ones doing the investigations not being truthful? I personally see very few if any digs in Europe and the UK. Science is not exact someone always come along after with new evidence, that applies to all sciences.
Cambridge University studies show that Australian Aborigines languages are only 4000 years old, tht alone shows dating methods are very unreliable, Mt St Helens 30 year old rocks getting dated up to 2.8 million years old show dating methods are absurd, just theory based on theory!
3rd error, no evidence AT ALL that Mungo Man is related to modern Aboriginals, to the contrary, there is evidence “modern” aboriginals came from Southern Undia no more than 6,000 years ago, not 42,000+ years ago.
mungo man was reverred with good burial but mungo lady was likely not liked and possibly even killed and cremated. she could have been a prisoner but she was burned up for a reason maybe to not come back to harm them after death.
This red ocre was apparently popular. There was an incident in Maine, US where a red substance that looked like blood came up from the ground and caused a dig. The remains of the "Red Paint People" were thusly discovered. Not only was red ocre used as a paint for objects apparently people painted themselves with it and it might have been a poison that the Red ocre people dumped into the sites of the ones who died there. Possibly to indicate that the paint would cause dangerous iron levels. Regardless of the reason why it was in their sites apparently they had quite a bit of it as it was enough to make a giant fake blood pool that caused an alarm from the locals. I haven't heard anything about a storage Depot of it or a trail that it would have been imported from however it is known that the Picts of the north were known to be painted blue. This is likely from ingesting silver if they weren't painted blue and finally there is a reaction with copper that will turn skin green. Also arsonic will cause green skin. The paint in red ocre could be used as a protection from UV radiation. I suspect that they were using the body paint, that folks who used it might have become toxic, and that at this Maine site that the unit decided to abandon it. In addition to body paint and cave wall painting it's use in fabric and leather would have produced a nice camouflage for hunting.
History is the best example of we are probably wrg about nearly everything history is nearly always because it doesn't have enough information just like human beings.
Modern aboriginals have no Neanderthal DNA. Humans are attracted to bright colours. It seems a common attraction to body paint is ubiquitous to humanity.
@@jcoker423 the smallest percentage of Neanderthal DNA in any modern population and the highest percentage of Denisovian. A chihuahua and a great dane are both dogs but they are very different breeds.
A great presentation, of a subject worth noting. Life on a lake that sustained them with food 40,000 years ago. Who knows how vegitated is was then. Far from savage. I'm sure they never shook a baby to death. How civil are we?
I'm supposed to believe this crap.... every new discovery sounds like a bunch of crap.... I'm still disputing the theory of evolution.... cause how long does it take for humans to evolve into something better... look around the place....have I made my point... 😂🤣😂
I wish we could just clone some of these people. Then you'd have a way to tell just how intelligent they actually were. Mungo man may not even be aboriginal. He could have been another group before the group now. But we'll never know because they will make sure to hide that sht.
Australia used to look like Europe made of many nationsany of which were separated long distances for thousands of years however there all aboriginal the same way all Europeans are european
They could have asked the central and southern people who would have explained it over a coffee It seems that indigenous knowledge is always ignored unless a test tube can confirm something
This video portrays it as if they were the only people alive at the time. There were cultural societies living all over the planet at that time. These are not unique nor did they rewrite anything. New discoveries do not erase previous facts.
There was a huge variety of DNA before the flood straight from creation.but it became polluted with the fallen angels DNA . Hence the flood was sent to wipe out the pollution of mankind. Noah and familys DNA were what was left on earth, which was why brothers and sisters could no longer marry as mankind were able to in the beginning of time.
@8:49 the ochre came from 200 miles away? Or maybe the red ochre came from a lot closer and the site is buried by shifting sands?? In science all possibilities should be assesed.
The presumption of indigenous people to claim authority to disposition of ancient humans is not reasonable. Line up a hundred people and play a game of telephone--and see how verbal communication actually degrades. Without a clear line of unbroken thought the present does not speak for the past.
How utterly amazing. Ancient Black Folk actually may have cared, loved and grieved just like modern White people. Who could have possibly imagined that? Hint, not white folks.
Good comment - western arrogance is very much alive, it’s so easy to fall into this thinking. All humans are designed that way to some extent, I’m sure the origins of this thinking is primal in origin and remember reading this, it is part of the basis in which we form societies , family groups etc , we are all programmed to have and “ us and them” thinking but it’s a question of degree and maintaining respect for others - not always easy but essential.
I can't BELIEVE that a documentary like this, posted 2 years ago, would use words like "mindless savages" and "mindless brutes" about humann ancestors living 42000 years ago! I find this outrageous.
2nd error “brought in” why couldn’t it have been present for ceremonial purposes? Beggars belief the people kept the body unburied while some one walked 200 km to get the rock and carry it back 200km
The study of ancient human movement across the globe, should always take precedence over the wants of a current populations thoughts on such an ancient find. Advances in such knowledge are more important. Also, there was no 'first nation'. Aussie Aborigines were not one nation. They were many seperate groups, meeting for trade etc no doubt. But not a nation. nation.
The migration out of Africa may have been the first wave to leave Africa yet these ppls distant ancestors may have migrated originally from Australia creating what became the new African colony, like everything , new evidence n updates
If 40 thousand years, why not 100 thousand? Tool carrying hominins had been in SE Asia for half a million years by then. There are some indications of that in Southern Australia.
