Many landholders destroyed aboriginal relics and artifacts back then, especially after the site received attention. Stopped a lot of "hassles" in the eyes of landholders.
Some to this day still block off or dynamite rock paintings for example to stop aboriginal land claims. Happened recently up near us in Gympie with another site that was supposedly sacred land.
Frederic Slater (c1880- 10 March 1947[1]) was an Australian journalist, researcher and "authority on aboriginal folk lore".
In the 1930s, Slater was President of the Australian Archaeological and Education Research Society, also known as the Australian Archaeological Society. He married Katherine Elizabeth Slater who survived him and was executor of his will.
Slater studied Aboriginal place names and archaeological sites and provided information on Aboriginal languages including, for example, the meaning of Canberra and Queanbeyan. However, his best known contribution, which has been described as pseudoarchaeology, is the claim that Australian Aborigianes came from Egypt, based on carvings at Devil's Rock, Wollombi, in the Royal National Park, Brunswick Heads, and other locations. In an address at Sydney, to the Anthropological Society of New South Wales. he claimed the carvings were especially significant ...totems, symbols and ideographs, which show that the ancestors of original Australians migrated from Egypt in the late paleolithic and the neolithic ages.
Slater's observations and theories have been revived in recent years by other pseudoarchaeologists such as Steven Strong.
The Herald Sun "article" (I use the term loosely!) seems to be a re-hash of this bit of this bit of self-published "new archaeology" by Steven and Evan Strong: http://forgottenorigin.com/5-austral...slaters-legacy
Investigative Journalism at its finest!
</sarcasm>
Some contemporary information sourced from Trove. Egyptology and aliens brings up red flags for me too! But what a pity this site has apparently been destroyed.
The Herald Sun "article" (I use the term loosely!) . .
The Sun started by portraying the story as factual and hyped it so but they end by acknowledging, in a low-key style, that it may not actually be real.
Also, in the column on the right side of the page, there is a thumbnail of one of the computer-generated images in the story with the caption: Photo that could rewrite history.
A few comments... I have an interest in the genetic sciences as it relates to our understanding of human evolution and migration. I consider Spencer Wells and his team (https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/) to be at the forefront of research regarding where we all came from.
With respect to the Aboriginal 'Stonehenge'
1) Stating that the artifacts are from the Paleolithic age is too vague. The range for the age is too great to have any significance with respect to the "Out of Australia" versus "Out of Africa". Geologically this lines up with the Pleistocene. There is no confirmation in the article regarding the age of the site, so some sort of carbon dating would be nice...
2) While timing for genetics is generally not accurate, the mutation rate of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) and the tracking of it throughout the world is a well established science, albeit sometime subjective as to the chronological results. That said, it appears that the mutation (deepest split) occurs in Africa, not Australia, about 200,000 to 60,000 years ago. Thus, "Eve" came from Africa. (Note is didn't say "Adam").
3) Y chromosome analysis, while complex (due to size) allows a larger range of mutations, particularly in the "junk" portion of the strand. This second method also gives weight to the argument for "Adam" leaving Africa 60,000 years ago.
It'll be interesting to see if "Out of Australia" takes hold from a genetic standpoint, but there would have to be some epiphany for that to happen.
If you don't want to read the book (which is quite technical and you have to keep track of many many DNA markers in your head as you read it)... try https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dDXIX-y6aY
Standard disclaimer: I'm a Petroleum engineer, consequently I deal a lot with geology . I am not a geneticist or antropologist, paleo or otherwise . I have an interest in evolution, which results in me reading a lot on the subject...
I'm a PhD molecular geneticist who previously worked at Adelaide Uni's Australian Center for Ancient DNA (ACAD).
Spencer Wells is pretty good, but Svante Pääbo is the real deal.
[1] Carbon dating is only good for stuff up to 50,000 years old - other isotopic dating techniques are used for things older than this.
[2] You are correct - genetic 'clocks' are pretty unreliable because they are difficult to calibrate, and recent findings suggest that their 'tick rate' may change over time (because of external factors driving evolutionary adaptation - climate change, continental drift, appearance of new species etc).
"Out of Oz" cannot have happened - we can trace the propagation of human (& accompanying chicken & pig) molecular markers across Europe, Asia & Pacific islands (including Melanesia & PNG) into Australia.
The finding that non-African (i.e. Caucasian and Asian) populations today harbour 2-4 percent Neanderthal nuclear DNA (Africans exhibit 0%) via inter-breeding indicates that the "Out of Africa" scenario must be the case.
That really puts a Kybosh on racist claims that Caucasians are genetically 'superior' to Africans!
Yahoo!
Dean
Last edited by deanm; 10-11-2015 at 08:38 PM.
Reason: Spulling!
It seems the ancestors of a lot of us didn't just interbreed with Neanderthals, but a number of other hominid species as well, such as Denisovans. Quite fascinating really.
[1] It appears (from genetic evidence) that the ancestors of Australian aborigines migrated out of Africa into Europe then East through India and Asia, perhaps some 60-50 thousand years ago.
[2] Interbreeding with other pre-existing hominins happened on the way. At the time, sea levels were much lower than today - such that there was a land bridge connecting PNG to Australia.
[3] The distance from Europe/Middle East to Australasia along a coastal route is perhaps 20,000 km. If you move camp just 10 km/year, the journey takes just a few thousand years.
[3] The plot thickens further with recent DNA evidence revealing that now-extinct South American populations are related to Australian aborigines. The early migration(s) out of Africa may have gone North-west into the Americas as well as East...
The quote function isn't working for me at the moment, but Dean said ....
"[1] Carbon dating is only good for stuff up to 50,000 years old - other isotopic dating techniques are used for things older than this."
It's true that radiometric dating is the most accurate and robust available provided you have suitable material and you generally (always??) need a closed system. For the age range we are discussing U-Th is the most suitable but I believe suitable material is fairly rare in archaeological sites.
In the Australian context at least probably the best dating method is optically stimulated luminescence dating (OSL). It is used to date the last exposure of a sediment to light, thus giving its burial age. So one doesn't date the bone or artifact directly but dates the burial of the material around it. The age range is from as recent as a few hundred years out to possibly a million. OSL dates of 55ka on mud nests overlying rock art are the oldest reliable dates for Aboriginal occupation of Australia.
The finding that non-African (i.e. Caucasian and Asian) populations today harbour 2-4 percent Neanderthal nuclear DNA (Africans exhibit 0%) via inter-breeding indicates that the "Out of Africa" scenario must be the case.
Of course while popular culture views Neanderthals as somehow being inferior, the reality is they were simply one of our cousins and now indeed part of many of us.
. I am not a geneticist or antropologist, paleo or otherwise 
. I have an interest in evolution, which results in me reading a lot on the subject... 
