Somebody (I don't remember who) suggested that Australian Boabab trees were potential evidence of the direct population of Australia from Africa by a pre-Aboriginal people, based on the idea that the fruit of the Boabab tree would be an excellent food source for a long cross-ocean crossing, as well as supposed "African" characteristics in the Kimberley petrographs found in the same area as the trees. The theory is fringe-science at best (and I believe slightly offensive to Aboriginals) but I've been curious about the origin of the trees since coming across the theory. I skimmed through the paper but didn't see any estimate for a date for the genetic diversion of the Australian Boababs.
The Kimberly rock drawings are some of the oldest in Australia, and an intrinsic part of Aboriginal culture in the region which they are found. Assigning their origin to a non-aboriginal source was considered disrespectful by some.
It's generally the case that indigenous peoples have their own origin stories, which tend to not easily align with scientific explanations. Which is tricky because they have often experienced colonial exploitation and rejection of their cultures, and the science can come off as more of the same (even if it's true).
>It's generally the case that indigenous peoples have their own origin stories, which tend to not easily align with scientific explanations.
This, indigenous people everywhere always claim to be the first peoples and that they originated in whatever area they are indigenous to, even if it's obviously not true. It causes a lot of problems for science because they want to claim ownership of bones or artifacts from cultures that predate their own and prevent those items from being studied.
Fun fact: The Navajo speak of the Anasazi ("ancient enemies"/"ancient ones") as the tribe that used to occupy the land they later lived on, and explicitly consider them to be "those who are different from our people", not their own tribe.
That's awesome. Here a group of nomadic plains Indians shut down research into ancient mounds built by totally different prehistoric people. I get that some of these issues need to have some sensitivity around them, and research in the past wasn't always done with the appropriate level of reverence, but the pendulum has swung the other way now where we give too much credence towards avoiding hurt feelings that have no basis in reality.
Wouldn't you want informed consent if a scientist wanted to dig up your relatives' graves for research? It's just a scientific ethics question, combined with sovereignty issues. You want to do research on someone else's land in a different jurisdiction, it makes sense to know their laws and ask them for permission first.
Without safeguards like that you end up with HeLa and such.
Sure if it was my actual relatives, I'm not worried about people I'm definitely not descended from that lives several thousands of years ago though. The pendulum has swung too far in favor of people claiming ownership to graves that have no relationship to them.
Somebody (I don't remember who) suggested that Australian Boabab trees were potential evidence of the direct population of Australia from Africa by a pre-Aboriginal people, based on the idea that the fruit of the Boabab tree would be an excellent food source for a long cross-ocean crossing, as well as supposed "African" characteristics in the Kimberley petrographs found in the same area as the trees. The theory is fringe-science at best (and I believe slightly offensive to Aboriginals) but I've been curious about the origin of the trees since coming across the theory. I skimmed through the paper but didn't see any estimate for a date for the genetic diversion of the Australian Boababs.