Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Remains may be ancient[Australia]
The Area News ^ | 16 May 2012 | Emily Tinker

Posted on 05/17/2012 11:44:04 PM PDT by Theoria

ARCHAEOLOGISTS are on the cusp of unravelling the mystery behind a set of “hugely significant” ancient Aboriginal remains discovered in the region last year.

Former local man Robert Harris Jnr found the remains near an old water course late last February while working on a property outside Lake Cargelligo.

The remains – confirmed to be tens of thousands of years old –have been hailed as the greatest discovery in more than half a century.

“They’re more significant than first thought,” local Aboriginal site recorder and brother of Robert, Max Harris said.

“They are as old, or even older than Mungo man – he could be the oldest modern human ever discovered.

“He’s also supposed to be the ancestor of many central and western NSW Aborigines.”

NSW Office of Environment and Heritage archaeologist Phil Purcell said he hoped to have determined exactly how old the remains were by the end of the month.

“It’s not likely to be older than Mungo man, but it’s certainly going to be old,” he said.

“There wasn’t enough carbon left in the bone samples to be able to test, which is disappointing, but that also indicates that these remains are quite old.”

Mr Purcell said they were currently carrying out tests on the sand in which the remains were buried, but there were some discrepancies in the results.

“We’ve used OSL (testing) to date individual grains of sand in the burial put and we’re getting some pretty old dates back,” he said.

“We’re also doing uranium series dating on the bone and that shows they are significantly older again – there’s a difference of about eight to 10,000 years.

“We will make an official announcement when we have it sorted. It’s important to make the announcement when we know what we’re dealing with.”

Mr Harris said the remains had revealed the man was seven feet tall and had approximately size 15 feet and it had been a ritual burial.

The remains are due to be reburied in a special ceremony this Wednesday in the presence of Aboriginal elders and government representatives.


TOPICS: History; Science
KEYWORDS: aboriginal; australia; dna; godsgravesglyphs; kiacatooman
'Mr Harris said the remains had revealed the man was seven feet tall and had approximately size 15 feet and it had been a ritual burial.'

This one says around 6'5 to 7'4 :Ancient 'Kiacatoo Man' reburial today

1 posted on 05/17/2012 11:44:11 PM PDT by Theoria
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv

Interesting, Yowie, etc ping.


2 posted on 05/17/2012 11:45:18 PM PDT by Theoria (Rush Limbaugh: Ron Paul sounds like an Islamic terrorist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Theoria
We’re also doing uranium series dating on the bone and that shows they are significantly older again – there’s a difference of about eight to 10,000 years.

Could somebody knowledgeable help me out here? From what little I have read about uranium testing, I did not think it could be done directly to bones, but was done to igneous rock in the vicinity of the bones. And also I was under the impression that the slowness of the half life of most of the uranium cycle's isotopes made made precision to within tens of thousands of years unrealistic.

3 posted on 05/18/2012 12:27:37 AM PDT by AndyTheBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AndyTheBear

It depends on the geological profile of the site itself.

If the body is buried in an area where radioactive isotopes occurr naturally in groundwater, then the age of the bones, which have been absorbing these isotopes slowly over the years, can be dated.

That is how some items, such as carvings in ivory, have been dated in eastern Europe.


4 posted on 05/18/2012 12:45:44 AM PDT by SatinDoll (NO FOREIGN NATIONALS AS OUR PRESIDENT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv

Ping! This, an old dead guy, will be of interest to you.


5 posted on 05/18/2012 12:48:59 AM PDT by SatinDoll (NO FOREIGN NATIONALS AS OUR PRESIDENT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SatinDoll
If the body is buried in an area where radioactive isotopes occurr naturally in groundwater, then the age of the bones, which have been absorbing these isotopes slowly over the years, can be dated.

What kind of variance is there in the rate of absorption? Wouldn't the amount of current in the water, the amount of surface area exposure, the size and quantity of the pours on the bone and such have to be accurately estimated to know it?

6 posted on 05/18/2012 1:02:15 AM PDT by AndyTheBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Theoria

An Aussie mate of mine, who is part aborigine has told me that it is aborigine tradition not to speak of the dead....so lets whisper on this thread ok?


7 posted on 05/18/2012 1:05:22 AM PDT by AndyTheBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AndyTheBear

I really don’t know any particulars, just that this process has been used to determine the age of buried material capable of slowly fossilyzing by absorption of water containing radioactive isotopes.


8 posted on 05/18/2012 1:22:33 AM PDT by SatinDoll (NO FOREIGN NATIONALS AS OUR PRESIDENT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: SatinDoll
I really don’t know any particulars, just that this process has been used to determine the age of buried material capable of slowly fossilyzing by absorption of water containing radioactive isotopes.

Well, you knew more than I did at the least ;-).

9 posted on 05/18/2012 1:31:32 AM PDT by AndyTheBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Theoria
The Commonwealth countries like to call the descendants of their early residents “aboriginal” which is silly unless the current "aborigines" can trace their ancestry to the very “first” occupants of the region they live in—which can never be absolutely verified since conquests and migrations have been a human trait since we booted Neanderthals of their prime real estate.

“Native” doesn't work as it applies to all born in a certain area.
Here, “American Indian” is more accurate even if it was a Columbus gaffe. “Early American” is better but it does not contain the political power of “native” or “earliest” even though both are literally wrong.

So, headlining that the remains of an “Early Australian” (one may even add “very early”) were found would be true journalism.

picking nits can be fun

10 posted on 05/18/2012 2:55:08 AM PDT by Happy Rain ("Biden and Obama--funny ha ha and funny queer.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Theoria

What I find interesting about all these very ancient skeletons is how big they were.


11 posted on 05/18/2012 5:18:10 AM PDT by Jonty30 (What Islam and secularism have in common is that they are both death cults.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Theoria

I personally believe we all migrated out of Sweden.

As those who moved into Africa, their melanin turned their skin dark.


12 posted on 05/18/2012 7:26:40 AM PDT by Gatún(CraigIsaMangoTreeLawyer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jonty30
What I find interesting about all these very ancient skeletons is how big they were.

Well, if he was 6'5", with size 15 feet he was about the same size as my oldest son.

13 posted on 05/18/2012 7:33:37 AM PDT by EternalVigilance (We're not Republicans or Democrats. We're Americans. Visit SelfGovernment.US.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Theoria; SatinDoll; StayAt HomeMother; Ernest_at_the_Beach; decimon; 1010RD; 21twelve; 24Karet; ...

 GGG managers are SunkenCiv, StayAt HomeMother & Ernest_at_the_Beach
Thanks Theoria & SatinDoll.

To all -- please ping me to other topics which are appropriate for the GGG list.


14 posted on 05/19/2012 4:17:15 AM PDT by SunkenCiv (FReepathon 2Q time -- https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Theoria
'First Americans Were Australian'
15 posted on 05/19/2012 5:48:24 AM PDT by blam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AndyTheBear
An Aussie mate of mine, who is part aborigine has told me that it is aborigine tradition not to speak of the dead....so lets whisper on this thread ok?

OK...

16 posted on 05/19/2012 9:24:10 AM PDT by null and void (Day 1215 of our ObamaVacation from reality [and what dark chill/is gathering still/before the storm])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Jonty30
What I find interesting about all these very ancient skeletons is how big they were.

Genesis 6:4
There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

Numbers 13:33
And there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, which come of the giants: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight.

Deuteronomy 2:11
Which also were accounted giants, as the Anakims; but the Moabites called them Emims.

Deuteronomy 2:20
(That also was accounted a land of giants: giants dwelt therein in old time; and the Ammonites call them Zamzummims;

Deuteronomy 3:11
For only Og king of Bashan remained of the remnant of giants; behold his bedstead was a bedstead of iron; is it not in Rabbath of the children of Ammon? nine cubits was the length thereof, and four cubits the breadth of it, after the cubit of a man.

Deuteronomy 3:13
And the rest of Gilead, and all Bashan, being the kingdom of Og, gave I unto the half tribe of Manasseh; all the region of Argob, with all Bashan, which was called the land of giants.

Joshua 12:4
And the coast of Og king of Bashan, which was of the remnant of the giants, that dwelt at Ashtaroth and at Edrei,

Joshua 13:12
All the kingdom of Og in Bashan, which reigned in Ashtaroth and in Edrei, who remained of the remnant of the giants: for these did Moses smite, and cast them out.

Joshua 15:8
And the border went up by the valley of the son of Hinnom unto the south side of the Jebusite; the same is Jerusalem: and the border went up to the top of the mountain that lieth before the valley of Hinnom westward, which is at the end of the valley of the giants northward:

Joshua 17:15
And Joshua answered them, If thou be a great people, then get thee up to the wood country, and cut down for thyself there in the land of the Perizzites and of the giants, if mount Ephraim be too narrow for thee.

More results from King James Version...

17 posted on 05/19/2012 9:31:25 AM PDT by null and void (Day 1215 of our ObamaVacation from reality [and what dark chill/is gathering still/before the storm])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson