
Buried tools and pigments tell a history of humans in Australia for 65,000 years - iamjeff
https://theconversation.com/buried-tools-and-pigments-tell-a-new-history-of-humans-in-australia-for-65-000-years-81021
======
dalbasal
_“It puts to bed the whole idea that humans wiped them (megafauna) out,” said
Dr. Clarkson. “We’re talking 20,000 to 25,000 years of coexistence.”_

Does it? Is it not still possible that human populations increased, new (less
mgafauna friendly) cultures emerged or subsequent migrations caused one of
these? Humans co-existed with large animals in many places, before causing
extinctions at later points.

~~~
tray5
>Is it not still possible that human populations increased

This doesn't seem convincing to me, Indigenous Australian populations maxed
out around 1 million people, across the entire island. Considering the
population density and ranges of these creatures, I don't see how they could
physically do so.

> new (less mgafauna friendly) cultures emerged

It's important to remember Australia's isolation here and the cultures of
Indigenous Australia. All Indigenous Australians were nomadic hunter
gatherers, with a deep seated animalistic dreamtime belief system, it doesn't
make sense that a new culture suddenly rose up and caused mass extinctions, as
all of these cultures remained within their land ranges, and without evidence
of widescale war in Indigenous Australia, I don't see how this would happen.

>or subsequent migrations caused one of these?

Not really, again 20,000 years and Australia is a big, big place. Like really
big, and most of these creatures had wide ranges. I don't find the human
hypothesis has enough stock to stand up under scrutiny, especially considering
these extinctions happened at the end of an ice age.

~~~
autokad
> Not really, again 20,000 years and Australia is a big, big place. Like
> really big, and most of these creatures had wide ranges. I don't find the
> human hypothesis has enough stock to stand up under scrutiny, especially
> considering these extinctions happened at the end of an ice age.

north america and asia are big, but it seems very possible that (with other
factors) humans helped push mammoths to extinction.

you are also assuming equal dispersion across Australia, which may not be the
case, especially if climate change was cutting back their habitats - like it
was with the mammoth.

------
peatmoss
I'll note that one of the co-authors, Ben Marwick, has been very active in
elevating reproducible computing practices in research. My understanding is
that there's code and data available for this research.

Also, here's a short bit about reproducibility from Marwick that is worth a
read for anyone in academia: [http://theconversation.com/how-computers-broke-
science-and-w...](http://theconversation.com/how-computers-broke-science-and-
what-we-can-do-to-fix-it-49938)

------
teilo
Well, this will certainly bolster the "Out of Australia" theorists.

[http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=99257](http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=99257)

------
sohkamyung
I prefer the version published in The Conversation [1] by the researches
themselves. It contains more details including one part left out of the
NYTimes version: that the work was done with the approval of the Aboriginal
people who control the site:

"To make new research possible, a landmark agreement was reached between the
University of Queensland (and associated researchers) and the Gundjeihmi
Aboriginal Corporation representing the Mirarr traditional owners of the site.

The agreement gave ultimate control over the excavation to the Mirarr senior
custodians, with oversight of the excavation and curation of the material. The
Mirarr were interested to support new research into the age of the site and to
know more about the early evidence of technologies thought to be present
there."

[1] [ [https://theconversation.com/buried-tools-and-pigments-
tell-a...](https://theconversation.com/buried-tools-and-pigments-tell-a-new-
history-of-humans-in-australia-for-65-000-years-81021) ]

~~~
flukus
I really don't think they should have that level of control over something
65,000 which they may have no connection too.

More worrying is that I read previously that they had veto rights over any
published findings as well, which creates all sorts of integrity problems.

~~~
beefsack
Culture is one of the vitally important things which make us unique as humans.

Both as an Australian and as a linguist it's painful to understand how quickly
indigenous culture here is being lost; my narrow and focused view is on
language but the rate at which Aboriginal languages are dying at is absolutely
alarming.

Protecting culturally significant sites here is of vital importance both for
historical reasons as well as to the lives of modern indigenous Australians.

~~~
hyperdunc
Everything changes. All those indigenous languages are going to be lost in the
sense they won't be actively used anymore - and that's not a bad thing.

Even English will ultimately be lost, although it will likely be through the
mechanisms of language evolution rather than first becoming moribund.

Trying to preserving language and culture for its own sake is somewhat
selfish, because it restricts individuals' experience. Better to take the good
parts and incorporate them into daily life. The rest can remain in the tomes
of history.

~~~
Ar-Curunir
Trying to preserve culture is good because it leaves choice in the hands of
the individuals; they get to choose what parts to pick.

It's incredibly easy to talk about "survival of the fittest" cultures from a
Western point of view, but ask almost any other peoples that have had their
culture irreparably damaged by colonial policies, and you'll find a different
mindset.

~~~
hyperdunc
The individuals are doing that choosing when they choose not to preserve
certain parts. They're going to abandon the parts in favor of alternatives
that work better. The abandoned parts will no longer be passed down because
they lack practical value - but they can be recorded.

Trying to preserve a static and separate cultural identity is pointless when
knowledge, technology and our environments are changing quickly. At best the
efforts are well-meaning and harmless. At worst, they present as a fetish
where post-colonial guilt tries to turn the West into a zoo of distinct
cultures.

~~~
acdha
This is only true in the naive case where every decision is made in isolation,
completely free of coercion. In the real world, this is coming after many
decades of attempts to wipe out cultures, being overwhelmed by entertainment
and other forms of pressure – want to guess the odds of an indigenous person
successfully getting their music published, stories turned into movies, etc.
prior to very recently? In most colonial countries attempts to convert people
assimilate meant that schools prevented use of native languages and
traditions, often even separating children from parents, leaving multi-
generation gaps where people are truly learning those things for the first
time at middle age from surviving elders.

None of that is a neutral choice, and especially not one to make a
historically irreversible decision. Choosing not to preserve something means
it's gone forever even if people in the future disagree.

~~~
hyperdunc
My overall view is somewhat Darwinian, with selection based on merit rather
than coercion. Overt oppression of other cultures is obviously to be opposed.

------
grecy
This is one of my favorite things about Australia, because science has
absolutely no explanation for how humans arrived in Australia that long ago.

It massively predates any boats, and there are no boats in the history of the
Aboriginals.

In fact nobody has even really bothered to try an explain it, because it's
way, way, way outside the story that everyone came out of Africa.

~~~
flukus
> This is one of my favorite things about Australia, because science has
> absolutely no explanation for how humans arrived in Australia that long ago.

It's perfectly explainable, they arrived by boat. The exact time and migration
path is still pretty open for interpretation and revision, but building boats
is not beyond the capability of the people at the time. All they needed was a
fairly simple raft.

>In fact nobody has even really bothered to try an explain it, because it's
way, way, way outside the story that everyone came out of Africa.

No it isn't, it's perfectly consistent with the out of africa hypothesis.

~~~
posterboy
I wouldn't expect proof from such a long time ago though

------
aaron695
You don't get published for confirming existing theory (Sad but true, to an
extent)

So I'd bet against it.

The article itself links to another article that seems to have evidence
contradicting it -

[https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/08/science/aboriginal-
austra...](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/08/science/aboriginal-australians-
dna-origins-australia.html)

It'd be interesting to hear an expert opinion on it.

~~~
BinaryIdiot
> You don't get published for confirming existing theory (Sad but true, to an
> extent)

Reproducing studies and publishing the results is a hallmark of science so I'm
not sure I understand what you're referring to.

~~~
oldandtired
What he is saying is that there are no kudo's for publishing work that just
confirms something. Research grants are given for new work not for doing
confirming followup work.

This has become a problem in recent decades and has led to certain systemic
problems that have been discussed in various places in recent months.

If you say something like "I am submitting this grant request to replicate the
experiments of X who have published results Y so that we can confirm X's
results" then your grant application will most likely be refused.

