@AKA,

<<History has been heavily edited to fit within the coloniser's political intention ..>>

Yes, but in recent times the editing has been all the other way--to fit in with activists ambitions.

Which might explain why certain groups/individuals get very uncomfortable when they hear of findings that reveal successive waves of early Australians.

Hi Aka,

With respect, you do write some rubbish sometimes. And the point of the article has nothing whatever to do with colonisation.

If we can draw any generalisations from it, they may touch on the obvious point that even though the Australian landmass was more isolated from other human interactions and developments over fifty or more thousand years, it still eventually benefited from minimal contacts with Austronesians, Papua-New-Guineans and perhaps others, in the long years leading up to the incorporation of the first Australians into the activities of the rest of the world by the British.

And perhaps it is suggesting that nobody is unique, or their culture so perfect that they have not benefitted from interaction with other people.

Including their relations from Africa and India ;)

Joe

"The biggest estate on Earth"
Aka,
I am reading that now, will get back when finished, has some valid points right at the start.

I think you will find it very informative individual.

I found it very heavy on solid references that are so important when presenting something that challenges common myths.