Care to name any of those First Nations folk who were actually second?
By definition 1st Nations were the 1st, but the problem arises with the claim of being 1st.
Just 15000 years ago Northern Australia was connected to PNG, no water in between, and there seems to be regular discoveries that throw doubt over the received wisdom, but debate and further investigation get suppressed.
My problem is the debate getting suppressed, threats regarding loss of funding, not on any scientific basis but on politics, it makes anyone who genuinely follows the scientific process very very uncomfortable. Follow the science, if it supports a hypothesis great if it contradicts it accept it and review.
Title: Re: First Nations, Science and Politics
Post by: DJC on January 24, 2025, 04:02:08 pm
Care to name any of those First Nations folk who were actually second?
By definition 1st Nations were the 1st, but the problem arises with the claim of being 1st.
Just 15000 years ago Northern Australia was connected to PNG, no water in between, and there seems to be regular discoveries that throw doubt over the received wisdom, but debate and further investigation get suppressed.
My problem is the debate getting suppressed, threats regarding loss of funding, not on any scientific basis but on politics, it makes anyone who genuinely follows the scientific process very very uncomfortable. Follow the science, if it supports a hypothesis great if it contradicts it accept it and review.
There is overwhelming archaeological, paleoanthropological and DNA evidence that all Aboriginal Australians are descended from a single founding population that left Africa around 70,000 years ago.
In the mid-20th century an American anthropologist, Joseph Birdsell, proposed a "tri-hybrid" model of human migrations into Australia, by three distinct waves of racially distinct populations. This was based on his perception of physical characteristics of Aboriginal populations in different parts of Australia.
Birdsell’s theory was disproved by the scientific evidence mentioned above. However, it is still held up as fact by folk who ignore the evidence and wish to pursue an agenda opposing recognition of the First Australians.
Title: Re: First Nations, Science and Politics
Post by: PaulP on January 24, 2025, 04:13:13 pm
The first major genomic study of Aboriginal Australians ever undertaken has confirmed that all present-day non-African populations are descended from the same single wave of migrants, who left Africa around 72,000 years ago.
Compelling evidence that Aboriginal Australians are descended directly from the first people to inhabit Australia – which is still the subject of periodic political dispute.
Anatomically modern humans are known to have left Africa approximately 72,000 years ago, eventually spreading across Asia and Europe. Outside Africa, Australia has one of the longest histories of continuous human occupation, dating back about 50,000 years.
Dr Manjinder Sandhu, a senior author from the Sanger Institute and University of Cambridge, said: “Our results suggest that, rather than having left in a separate wave, most of the genomes of Papuans and Aboriginal Australians can be traced back to a single ‘Out of Africa’ event which led to modern worldwide populations. There may have been other migrations, but the evidence so far points to one exit event.”
The Papuan and Australian ancestors did, however, diverge early from the rest, around 58,000 years ago. By comparison, European and Asian ancestral groups only become distinct in the genetic record around 42,000 years ago.
The study then traces the Papuan and Australian groups’ progress. Around 50,000 years ago they reached “Sahul” – a prehistoric supercontinent that originally united New Guinea, Australia and Tasmania, until these regions were separated by rising sea levels approximately 10,000 years ago.
The researchers charted several further “divergences” in which various parts of the population broke off and became genetically isolated from others. Interestingly, Papuans and Aboriginal Australians appear to have diverged about 37,000 years ago – long before they became physically separated by water. The cause is unclear, but one reason may be the early flooding of the Carpentaria basin, which left Australia connected to New Guinea by a strip of land that may have been unfavourable for human habitation.
Title: Re: First Nations, Science and Politics
Post by: DJC on January 24, 2025, 06:01:40 pm
We've drifted well off topic so I split the thread.
My problem is the debate getting suppressed, threats regarding loss of funding, not on any scientific basis but on politics, it makes anyone who genuinely follows the scientific process very very uncomfortable. Follow the science, if it supports a hypothesis great if it contradicts it accept it and review.
Although I'm retired, I am an honorary research associate at La Trobe University and I have just co-authored a chapter in Tim Murray's Festschrift. Murray was Professor of Archaeology at La Trobe University for many years. Those carrying out research into Australia's past are a fairly small group and I know many of them and have corresponded with others. I also had a role in assessing applications for research grants some time ago. I can guarantee that anyone who does not follow the scientific process will not get a grant and there is absolutely no pressure on researchers to tailor their results to suit a political narrative.
Title: Re: First Nations, Science and Politics
Post by: PaulP on January 24, 2025, 06:13:16 pm
If my reading of the Cambridge article is correct, the research cited essentially strengthens the case for First Nations Indigeneity.
Title: Re: First Nations, Science and Politics
Post by: DJC on January 24, 2025, 08:19:25 pm
If my reading of the Cambridge article is correct, the research cited essentially strengthens the case for First Nations Indigeneity.
The DNA evidence confirms what decades of archaeological, physical anthropological, material culture and other research in Australia, Melanesia, and Southeast Asia has shown; one migration out of Africa with groups dropping off and staying put along the journey.
It also puts the kybosh on the claimed 120K human occupation site at Pt Ritchie-Moyjil
Of course, there have been other migrations, the Polynesians for example, but not to Australia until the First Fleet.
Title: Re: First Nations, Science and Politics
Post by: Thryleon on January 24, 2025, 08:44:52 pm
Imho there's a population issue with the claim of length of time indigenous people claim to be here.
They should have much larger populations than they do. The world populations exploded around 1800. By contrast the population here is so much smaller.
It doesn't quite marry up the way you would expect from a growth rate nor rate of change perspective.
Title: Re: First Nations, Science and Politics
Post by: DJC on January 24, 2025, 09:20:24 pm
Imho there's a population issue with the claim of length of time indigenous people claim to be here.
They should have much larger populations than they do. The world populations exploded around 1800. By contrast the population here is so much smaller.
It doesn't quite marry up the way you would expect from a growth rate nor rate of change perspective.
Where do you get your population figures from Thry?
The archaeological evidence indicates a significant increase in the Aboriginal population around 5,000 years ago.
I know most about southeastern Australia so I’ll focus on that.
The Aboriginal population of Victoria in the 1830s is estimated to have been somewhere between 25,000 and 50,000 and that population had been ravaged by smallpox that preceded the colonists spreading out from Sydney. By the late 19th century, the Aboriginal population had dropped to less than 1,000.
The population can’t exceed the carrying capacity of the environment and that is determined by both the resources in the environment and the technology available to that population. A population increase in industrial England does not mean that the populations of nomadic African cattle herders, slash and burn Melanesian farmers or Amazonian hunter-gatherers will increase.
Title: Re: First Nations, Science and Politics
Post by: northernblue on January 24, 2025, 11:14:10 pm
Imho there's a population issue with the claim of length of time indigenous people claim to be here.
They should have much larger populations than they do. The world populations exploded around 1800. By contrast the population here is so much smaller.
It doesn't quite marry up the way you would expect from a growth rate nor rate of change perspective.
World population exploded because of the Industrial Revolution, I don’t understand why you think Australian black fellas would have benefited… ?
Title: Re: First Nations, Science and Politics
Post by: northernblue on January 24, 2025, 11:14:44 pm
Welcome back Paul, you have been missed.
Title: Re: First Nations, Science and Politics
Post by: LP on January 25, 2025, 06:30:15 am
Look at the timelines being listed, 15000, 40000, 70000 years, much of it with a trafficable corridor between Australia and PNG, and beyond, yet little effort is made to explain the apparent lack of egress. Walked here from Africa, stopped, propped and did feck all for 40000 years. God's country!
You might feel the need to split this from a Trump thread, but it the politics of these issues that drive his agenda, scientists best get comfortable with being uncomfortable if the details remain so diffuse.
Title: Re: First Nations, Science and Politics
Post by: Lods on January 25, 2025, 08:31:33 am
We probably don’t need to go back tens of thousands of years to work out that the real issue for indigenous Australians was not occupation by a different people, but the fact that it took so long to happen.
For the vast majority of the last 3000 years the country was inhabited solely by indigenous people with little contact with other folks…. In the rest of the world-Europe, Asia, Africa and even central and North America, empires were rising and falling. With the rise and fall of these nations, and the subsequent movement and displacement of populations…. ideas, inventions, communication were swapped and traded. There was a mingling of people and cultures which added to and enhanced the previous inhabitants of an area. There were of course areas where this contact had a negative effect with war and disease accompanying this spread of cultures. The end result though has been a positive one which has brought us to the modern world that exists today.
But even by the time of European settlement in Australia huge cities dotted the world. It was inevitable that there would eventually be contact and occupation of this area. If it hadn’t been the British , it would have been the Dutch, the French, the Portuguese, the Spanish or the Germans (once established)…and if not one of these colonial powers it would have come from somewhere at later date. In some respects, it is probably better that the majority of early settlement came from one country rather than the hotch-potch of colonialism that was Africa, with multiple European powers claiming territory.
It was always going to happen, if not in the 18th century, almost certainly in the 19th…and definitely by modern times. A world where this vast continent remained untouched just isn’t logical. So Indigenous Australians were always going to confront this occupation and displacement, and they were never going to be able to resist it happening. Would there have been better ‘invaders’? Possibly, There certainly could have been worse The rest of the world mixed and mingled for centuries. By not having access to that and the associated advancements in a whole range of areas, it meant that Indigenous Australians were always disadvantaged in comparison.
Title: Re: First Nations, Science and Politics
Post by: kruddler on January 25, 2025, 08:38:58 am
Look at the timelines being listed, 15000, 40000, 70000 years, much of it with a trafficable corridor between Australia and PNG, and beyond, yet little effort is made to explain the apparent lack of egress. Walked here from Africa, stopped, propped and did feck all for 40000 years. God's country!
Showing your ignorance there i think LP.
There wasn't really anywhere else to go once the reached here. It was the end of the line. Only place to go that was nearby were islands.
Title: Re: First Nations, Science and Politics
Post by: DJC on January 25, 2025, 09:19:59 am
Look at the timelines being listed, 15000, 40000, 70000 years, much of it with a trafficable corridor between Australia and PNG, and beyond, yet little effort is made to explain the apparent lack of egress. Walked here from Africa, stopped, propped and did feck all for 40000 years. God's country!
You might feel the need to split this from a Trump thread, but it the politics of these issues that drive his agenda, scientists best get comfortable with being uncomfortable if the details remain so diffuse.
Follow the science LP.
It has been laid out for you but you choose to pursue a conspiracy theory.
Of course there was contact between Aboriginal Australians and Melanesians, Torres Strait Islanders are Indigenous Australians too. Interestingly, the bow was the preferred weapon of the Melanesians but its only use in Australia was as children’s toys among the Aboriginal people of Cape York. As I’m sure you know, the pig is a very important animal in Melanesian culture and is widespread both as domestic and feral animals. There is evidence of pigs being present on Cape York before white settlement; a parasite not present in European pig breeds, depiction of pigs in rock art and known trading of pigs by Torres Strait Islanders.
The Makassan visits to northwestern Australia are well-documented, both from archaeological evidence and historical observations … and they continue today, much to the consternation of Border Force. Aboriginal Australians travelled back to Sulawesi with Makassans and there are historical photographs of Aboriginal people living in Sulawesi.
Finally, there is archaeological evidence of a Polynesian presence along the eastern seaboard. This seems to indicate fleeting visits, generally to offshore islands, within the last few hundred years.
These are examples of contact between Aboriginal Australians and others and, in the case of Melanesians and Makassans, there is evidence of limited gene flow. However, there is incontrovertible evidence that the Aboriginal people who arrived in Australia around 60,000 years ago and those who saw the First Fleet arrive are one and the same people. DNA doesn’t lie!
Title: Re: First Nations, Science and Politics
Post by: DJC on January 25, 2025, 12:25:51 pm
We probably don’t need to go back tens of thousands of years to work out that the real issue for indigenous Australians was not occupation by a different people, but the fact that it took so long to happen.
For the vast majority of the last 3000 years the country was inhabited solely by indigenous people with little contact with other folks…. In the rest of the world-Europe, Asia, Africa and even central and North America, empires were rising and falling. With the rise and fall of these nations, and the subsequent movement and displacement of populations…. ideas, inventions, communication were swapped and traded. There was a mingling of people and cultures which added to and enhanced the previous inhabitants of an area. There were of course areas where this contact had a negative effect with war and disease accompanying this spread of cultures. The end result though has been a positive one which has brought us to the modern world that exists today.
But even by the time of European settlement in Australia huge cities dotted the world. It was inevitable that there would eventually be contact and occupation of this area. If it hadn’t been the British , it would have been the Dutch, the French, the Portuguese, the Spanish or the Germans (once established)…and if not one of these colonial powers it would have come from somewhere at later date. In some respects, it is probably better that the majority of early settlement came from one country rather than the hotch-potch of colonialism that was Africa, with multiple European powers claiming territory.
It was always going to happen, if not in the 18th century, almost certainly in the 19th…and definitely by modern times. A world where this vast continent remained untouched just isn’t logical. So Indigenous Australians were always going to confront this occupation and displacement, and they were never going to be able to resist it happening. Would there have been better ‘invaders’? Possibly, There certainly could have been worse The rest of the world mixed and mingled for centuries. By not having access to that and the associated advancements in a whole range of areas, it meant that Indigenous Australians were always disadvantaged in comparison.
To a certain extent Lods.
The Native Americans were isolated for up to 20,000 years, apart from the odd Irish monk, exploring Vikings and probably Basque fishermen.
A significant difference is the available resources. The Americas have potatoes, tomatoes, squash, corn, chilli, avocado, maple trees, cacao, quinoa, pineapple and beans, as well as pre-Columbus domesticated turkeys, Muscovy ducks, guinea pigs, llamas and alpacas. Of course, even the complex, sophisticated and highly organised South American cultures couldn't withstand relatively few Spaniards with horses, steel blades and firearms (and contagious diseases).
Over 200 years after European settlement, our only widespread native commercial crop is the Macadamia nut (grown mostly outside of Australia) and only essentially wild emus, crocodiles and marron are farmed in modest numbers.
The Dingo, which arrived in Australia between 5,000 and 10,000 years ago, most likely came via New Guinea (it's close relative is the New Guinea Singing Dog/Highland Wild Dog that first appeared in New Guinea around 11,000 years ago). The absence of the Dingo (and fossil or sub-fossil Dingo remains) from Tasmania supports the archaeological and DNA evidence that Dingoes arrived after the formation of Torres Strait. In other words, through human agency. While Dingoes reverted to their wild state, as did the New Guinea Dogs, they were tamed/domesticated and used for hunting, security and companionship by Aboriginal Australians. Domestication was part of the toolkit but there weren't suitable candidates apart from Dingoes and the odd Cape York feral pig.
Title: Re: First Nations, Science and Politics
Post by: Thryleon on January 25, 2025, 01:08:33 pm
Imho there's a population issue with the claim of length of time indigenous people claim to be here.
They should have much larger populations than they do. The world populations exploded around 1800. By contrast the population here is so much smaller.
It doesn't quite marry up the way you would expect from a growth rate nor rate of change perspective.
Where do you get your population figures from Thry?
The archaeological evidence indicates a significant increase in the Aboriginal population around 5,000 years ago.
I know most about southeastern Australia so I’ll focus on that.
The Aboriginal population of Victoria in the 1830s is estimated to have been somewhere between 25,000 and 50,000 and that population had been ravaged by smallpox that preceded the colonists spreading out from Sydney. By the late 19th century, the Aboriginal population had dropped to less than 1,000.
The population can’t exceed the carrying capacity of the environment and that is determined by both the resources in the environment and the technology available to that population. A population increase in industrial England does not mean that the populations of nomadic African cattle herders, slash and burn Melanesian farmers or Amazonian hunter-gatherers will increase.
looked it up on some statistical websites and found one that showed population change across the globe. On a conservative level, globally up until 1800 Oceania as a continent were miles behind everyone else, so either they weren't counting properly, there's gaps in statistical analysis for obvious reasons, or population growth here was significantly smaller in indigenous cultures than it was across the globe. Perhaps it was more of the nomadic hunter gatherer lifestyle that did this rather than settling and building cities, but its a very stark contrast when compared with global figures.
It's probably on par with native Canadian populations without having the challenge of overcoming freezing temperatures.
Title: Re: First Nations, Science and Politics
Post by: kruddler on January 25, 2025, 01:54:00 pm
It's probably on par with native Canadian populations without having the challenge of overcoming freezing temperatures.
I think you underestimate the troubles that come with living in Australia. Everything can kill you.
Might not get the cold, but you'll get the heat. Drought. Fires etc.
Not exactly. According to the rate of change in populations globally being conservative over 65000 years, you would see a compounding effect in population growth. Even starting from a low base, and looking at maybe 10 people as a starting point 4 thousand years ago, how does doubling every 10 years look in terms of population growth?
After 80 years its 2560, right?
So expand that out over time, accounting for a black death or two, the only real variance i can see is farming and animal husbandry (which might be enough by itself) but populations aren't huge today to support 65000 years of first nations continuous living. Maybe there is a claim to historic people's that died out (say early humans, or a variant of Neanderthal or somethign) that is being attributed to first nations people and generally speaking shouldn't be. That being said where are the bodies if the place is that dangerous too. I know it's a large country but I'm simply raising questions without making wide sweeping allegations or accusations either. Im just not sure they've been asked.
Title: Re: First Nations, Science and Politics
Post by: cookie2 on January 25, 2025, 02:09:16 pm
I’ve spent a few nights out in the open in central Australia. Not exactly balmy!
Title: Re: First Nations, Science and Politics
Post by: Gointocarlton on January 25, 2025, 03:51:01 pm
Whilst I cant contribute anything to the discussion, I find all this informative and educational, thankyou muchly to all you knowledgable, expert folk.
Title: Re: First Nations, Science and Politics
Post by: DJC on January 25, 2025, 05:01:20 pm
One fact that is often overlooked is that Australia and New Guinea have always been separated from Southeast Asia by significant sea barriers; the Wallace, Weber and Lydecker Lines in biogeographical terms. They mark the limits of distribution Australasian and Southeast Asian fauna.
The First Australians and the First Melanesians had to cross those sea barriers to reach Australia and New Guinea, or Sahul as the two land masses are called when they were one. Regardless of whether the route was via Sumatra and Timor or Borneo and Sulawesi, those sea barriers had to be navigated, and they have always been large enough to prevent the land on the other side to be seen. In other words, there was no guarantee of making landfall on the other side.
The First Australians and the First Melanesians managed to make those crossings but how they did it is unknown. They could have been aboard rafts used for coastal fishing that were washed away in a storm as was once depicted in a diorama at Museum Victoria.
What is known is that the next people to cross those sea barriers were the Lapita people who were ancestral to today's Polynesians and Micronesians. They arrived around 3,500 years ago and their relatively sophisticated watercraft coped well with the sea barriers and subsequent voyages of discovery and settlement across the Pacific as far as Easter Island and probably South America.
As with the arrival of the First Australians and the First Melanesians, the Lapita People's story is well-documented through the archaeology, material culture, physical anthropology, linguistics and DNA.
To recap, people left Africa around 70,000 years ago and travelled through Southeast Asia to the Sahul landmass by around 60,00 years ago, crossing significant ocean barriers to do so. The ancestral Melanesians settled in New Guinea and the Ancestral Aboriginal people continued on to occupy the southern part of Sahul. They were the first and last colonists to occupy Sahul when it was one land mass. Higher global temperatures cause sea level rises that separated mainland Australia from New Guinea and Tasmania and increased the size of the ocean barriers that have always separated Australia and New Guinea from Southeast Asia. No other humans successfully crossed those ocean barriers until the Lapita People around 3,500 years ago. The Lapita People colonised island Melanesia, Micronesia and Polynesia but only made occasional visits to Australia.
Title: Re: First Nations, Science and Politics
Post by: LP on January 25, 2025, 05:21:57 pm
However, there is incontrovertible evidence that the Aboriginal people who arrived in Australia around 60,000 years ago and those who saw the First Fleet arrive are one and the same people. DNA doesn’t lie!
No disputing that, but I'm not sure if it supports your case or mine.
I questioned 40000 years of apparent nothing, on the figures you provide they made an egress from Africa starting 72000 years ago, getting to Australia 60000 years ago, a 12000 journey, it seems reasonable. Then it's 60000 years of nothing after that, little mingling, nobody decided they liked it better where they came from, no significant visitors.
We read stories of great Polynesian explorers, crossings of seas hundreds of kilometres wide and open ocean thousands of kilometres, but we are asked to accept almost nothing in 60000 across regions largely trafficable by foot, no boat needed. I suppose someone will claim it was too good here, God's country, so why leave? But that only leads into Thry's population question, if life was so good, where is everybody? They aren't silly questions, they don't disrupt the evidence but they are explained by the received wisdom either.
I'm not questioning the evidence, it's fine, it is the gaps full of human collusions and rhetoric defending connected hypothesis that seems rubbery at best. FWIW, a lot of the Out of Africa hypothesis is rubbery too, not the general premise, I think it's not questionable, just that some seem unable to colour within the lines.
When a surface is trafficable, travel tends to be in many directions, Australia being a dead-end would never stop a wave of humanity having a bounce, but in 60000 not so much as a stone throw! ;)
Title: Re: First Nations, Science and Politics
Post by: kruddler on January 25, 2025, 05:33:42 pm
However, there is incontrovertible evidence that the Aboriginal people who arrived in Australia around 60,000 years ago and those who saw the First Fleet arrive are one and the same people. DNA doesn’t lie!
No disputing that, but I'm not sure if it supports your case or mine.
I questioned 40000 years of apparent nothing, on the figures they made an egress from Africa in starting 72000, getting to Australia 60000 years ago, a 12000 journey, it seems reasonable. Then it's 60000 years of nothing after that.
I'm not questioning the evidence, it's fine, it the gaps full of human collusions and rhetoric defending connected hypothesis that seems rubbery at best.
When a surface is trafficable, travel tends to be in many directions, Australia being a dead-end would never stop a wave of humanity having a bounce. But in 60000 not so much as a stone throw! ;)
Look at a map. Look at the direction of travel out of africa. Where are you expecting people to go?
I think it should be pointed out that people probably went in other directions, but its hard to survive on small islands over a millenia.
So the fact people haven't set up shop from your extended stretch, doesn't mean they didn't try (and fail) inbetween.
Title: Re: First Nations, Science and Politics
Post by: DJC on January 25, 2025, 05:33:53 pm
looked it up on some statistical websites and found one that showed population change across the globe. On a conservative level, globally up until 1800 Oceania as a continent were miles behind everyone else, so either they weren't counting properly, there's gaps in statistical analysis for obvious reasons, or population growth here was significantly smaller in indigenous cultures than it was across the globe. Perhaps it was more of the nomadic hunter gatherer lifestyle that did this rather than settling and building cities, but its a very stark contrast when compared with global figures.
It's probably on par with native Canadian populations without having the challenge of overcoming freezing temperatures.
You can't expect consistent human population growth across the globe. Even today we have some countries with negative population growth, some with migration providing modest population growth and some with booming birthrates. India had a population growth rate of around 2.3% for decades in the 20th century. It's now below 1%.
Technology and the carrying capacity of the environment are limiting factors. The Fertile Crescent would have had a much greater population growth in 4,500BCE than that of the San hunter-gatherers in the Namib Desert. Greenland was most likely unoccupied and no-one knew that New Zealand existed. Tierra Del Fuego probably always had a relatively low population until the Indigenous folk were exterminated and replaced by a mainly Caucasian population. It now has an annual population growth rate of around 3%.
There's also the post-colonisation Indigenous population crash that occurred in Australia and with most colonised peoples throughout history.
Title: Re: First Nations, Science and Politics
Post by: LP on January 25, 2025, 05:38:05 pm
You can't expect consistent human population growth across the globe. Even today we have some countries with negative population growth, some with migration providing modest population growth and some with booming birthrates. India had a population growth rate of around 2.3% for decades in the 20th century. It's now below 1%.
With a billion people that would be resource limited.
I'm not sure in the previous 60000, based on fossil records, that you could argue Australia was resource limited, probably abundant would be a better description.
Title: Re: First Nations, Science and Politics
Post by: DJC on January 25, 2025, 05:41:31 pm
However, there is incontrovertible evidence that the Aboriginal people who arrived in Australia around 60,000 years ago and those who saw the First Fleet arrive are one and the same people. DNA doesn’t lie!
No disputing that, but I'm not sure if it supports your case or mine.
I questioned 40000 years of apparent nothing, on the figures you provide they made an egress from Africa starting 72000 years ago, getting to Australia 60000 years ago, a 12000 journey, it seems reasonable. Then it's 60000 years of nothing after that, little mingling, nobody decided they liked it better where they came from, no significant visitors.
We read stories of great Polynesian explorers, crossings of seas hundreds of kilometres wide and open ocean thousands of kilometres, but we are asked to accept almost nothing in 60000 across regions largely trafficable by foot, no boat needed. I suppose someone will claim it was too good here, God's country, so why leave? But that only leads into Thry's population question, if life was so good, where is everybody? They aren't silly questions, they don't disrupt the evidence but they are explained by the received wisdom either.
I'm not questioning the evidence, it's fine, it is the gaps full of human collusions and rhetoric defending connected hypothesis that seems rubbery at best. FWIW, a lot of the Out of Africa hypothesis is rubbery too, not the general premise, I think it's not questionable, just that some seem unable to colour within the lines.
When a surface is trafficable, travel tends to be in many directions, Australia being a dead-end would never stop a wave of humanity having a bounce, but in 60000 not so much as a stone throw! ;)
I have answered your questions with reference to the best and most compelling scientific evidence. It's not rubbery. It's rock solid, apart from the Wallace and Weber Lines that constituted an impenetrable barrier to travel to Australia, New Guinea and Oceania for over 50,000 years.
As my T-shirt says, "Science doesn't care what you believe!"
Title: Re: First Nations, Science and Politics
Post by: LP on January 25, 2025, 05:44:40 pm
Look at a map. Look at the direction of travel out of africa. Where are you expecting people to go?
A massive journey, exceptional.
The regional map and climate and were quite different 60000 years ago, even dramatically different 15000 years ago, vastly different from what we know now due to the last glacial period. By comparison it's journeys on a postage stamp compared to the travel 12000 years before that.
Limited to this region, you could hike to islands and peninsulas where we now take a plane or boat.
Title: Re: First Nations, Science and Politics
Post by: LP on January 25, 2025, 05:50:16 pm
It's rock solid, apart from the Wallace and Weber Lines that constituted an impenetrable barrier travel to Australia, New Guinea and Oceania for over 50,000 years.
Isn't that a confusion of speciation versus geography, unless of course there is an assertion of more than one species in humanity?
The last glacial age isn't speculation, land bridges aren't myths and legends, and Australia based on the fossil record was a relative food bank, the evidence is in those solid rocks.
Title: Re: First Nations, Science and Politics
Post by: DJC on January 25, 2025, 05:58:55 pm
I'm not sure in the previous 60000, based on fossil records, that you could argue Australia was resource limited, probably abundant would be a better description.
What fossil records?
Have you spent much time in arid or semi-arid Australia? It would be a doddle to support a rapidly growing population there. ::)
The archaeological record shows that the Aboriginal population density was much higher in more resource rich areas like the coastal fringe, the Murray Valley, southwestern Victoria. But you also get evidence of stress in the form of chronic anemia, and other skeletal manifestations. These probably relate to periods of drought.
As I'm sure you know, many settlers took up land on the basis of Mitchell's glowing reports. Unfortunately, he had witnessed the tail end of a La Niña and the return to more usual weather patterns meant the loss of stock and failed crops. The abandoned town of Farina in South Australia is a classic example of how European Australians misjudge the harshness of the climate.
Anyway, that's it from me. You've formed an opinion that flies in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary and you're not going to be convinced even if we could produce a time machine so you could witness the last 70,000 years for yourself.
Title: Re: First Nations, Science and Politics
Post by: DJC on January 25, 2025, 06:10:33 pm
It's rock solid, apart from the Wallace and Weber Lines that constituted an impenetrable barrier travel to Australia, New Guinea and Oceania for over 50,000 years.
Isn't that a confusion of speciation versus geography, unless of course there is an assertion of more than one species in humanity?
The last glacial age isn't speculation, land bridges aren't myths and legends, and Australia based on the fossil record was a relative food bank, the evidence is in those solid rocks.
And what are these land bridges that you speak of? Australian and New Guinea were one land mass but have always been separated from Southeast Asia by significant areas of open sea that form the basis for the Wallace and Weber Lines.
You could have walked from Southeast Asia to Sahul 60,000 years, but only if you had an underwater breathing apparatus ::)
Title: Re: First Nations, Science and Politics
Post by: kruddler on January 25, 2025, 06:17:58 pm
Look at a map. Look at the direction of travel out of africa. Where are you expecting people to go?
A massive journey, exceptional.
The regional map and climate and were quite different 60000 years ago, even dramatically different 15000 years ago, vastly different from what we know now due to the last glacial period. By comparison it's journeys on a postage stamp compared to the travel 12000 years before that.
Limited to this region, you could hike to islands and peninsulas where we now take a plane or boat.
20,000 years ago the coastal water around australia were 120m lower than it is now. Dramatic difference to how things are today, absolutely.
Where do people live nowadays? On the coast. Where did people live then? Probably on the coast.
I think it was thry that asked where is the evidence and bones? Perhaps we need to check where the old coast was.....which is now completely underwater.
So lower populations were spread out over various areas that are now underwater and have 'created' islands. No stretch to think that these new islands meant resources available dwindled and so did the populations to the point it reached 0 in these areas, thus stunting the population growth rates compared to the rest of the world.
Again, when they hit australia, there was a dead end and no major lands to explore. where they spread out to is now underwater and/or was unreachable for 'technology' at the time.
I'm not sure what you expect.
Title: Re: First Nations, Science and Politics
Post by: DJC on January 25, 2025, 06:45:13 pm
The regional map and climate and were quite different 60000 years ago, even dramatically different 15000 years ago, vastly different from what we know now due to the last glacial period. By comparison it's journeys on a postage stamp compared to the travel 12000 years before that.
Limited to this region, you could hike to islands and peninsulas where we now take a plane or boat.
20,000 years ago the coastal water around australia were 120m lower than it is now. Dramatic difference to how things are today, absolutely.
Where do people live nowadays? On the coast. Where did people live then? Probably on the coast.
I think it was thry that asked where is the evidence and bones? Perhaps we need to check where the old coast was.....which is now completely underwater.
So lower populations were spread out over various areas that are now underwater and have 'created' islands. No stretch to think that these new islands meant resources available dwindled and so did the populations to the point it reached 0 in these areas, thus stunting the population growth rates compared to the rest of the world.
Again, when they hit australia, there was a dead end and no major lands to explore. where they spread out to is now underwater and/or was unreachable for 'technology' at the time.
I'm not sure what you expect.
There’s a lot of work being done on submerged landscapes around Australia (and around the world) and some great finds are turning up. Of course, the Bass Strait islands were once prominences on the Bassian Plain and they have archaeological evidence of Aboriginal occupation during the Pleistocene or last ice age.
A buzzword among Australian archaeologists is “intensification”. This refers to a radical change in population growth, settlement patterns, artefact types, subsistence strategies (large scale eel harvesting, more fishing, etc that occurred in the early Holocene (post ice age). I suspect that this was largely due to population pressure from those displaced from those previously expansive coastal plains.
Aboriginal culture wasn’t static. It was dynamic and responded to external and internal stimuli. Failure to do so would have meant extinction.
Title: Re: First Nations, Science and Politics
Post by: Thryleon on January 25, 2025, 10:48:57 pm
The regional map and climate and were quite different 60000 years ago, even dramatically different 15000 years ago, vastly different from what we know now due to the last glacial period. By comparison it's journeys on a postage stamp compared to the travel 12000 years before that.
Limited to this region, you could hike to islands and peninsulas where we now take a plane or boat.
20,000 years ago the coastal water around australia were 120m lower than it is now. Dramatic difference to how things are today, absolutely.
Where do people live nowadays? On the coast. Where did people live then? Probably on the coast.
I think it was thry that asked where is the evidence and bones? Perhaps we need to check where the old coast was.....which is now completely underwater.
So lower populations were spread out over various areas that are now underwater and have 'created' islands. No stretch to think that these new islands meant resources available dwindled and so did the populations to the point it reached 0 in these areas, thus stunting the population growth rates compared to the rest of the world.
Again, when they hit australia, there was a dead end and no major lands to explore. where they spread out to is now underwater and/or was unreachable for 'technology' at the time.
I'm not sure what you expect.
I dont expect anything just asking questions.
Entire populations may have shifted but we are at 1 million indigenous Australians today.
Samoa is a dot in the pacific ocean. As of 2023, population of 225681 people and 96%. Earliest signs of humans there is 3000 years ago. I get it, things are or were different in Australia.
I get that 200 years ago European settlement impacted these populations, but you can't deny in a country of this size, there likely should be significantly more indigenous people given the timeline quoted.
It's not a country it's a continent, that has/had 250 nations, and 65000 years of continuous inhabitants.
The Maori people of new Zealand first arrived there in 1250 odd AD, supplanted the previous land holders (the moriori) and in 1769 when cook got there he, estimated their number at 110000 odd people.
I'm willing to accept a lot, but you have to admit it's a bit of a hole. The Maori have reached a million people now too. Thing is, new Zealand has the shortest history out of every country. https://teara.govt.nz/en/history/page-1#:~:text=A%20robust%20people&text=The%20M%C4%81ori%20population%20before%20European%20contact%20may%20have%20reached%20100%2C000.
You know it actually doesn't change anything either? They were still here first, but maybe for not as long as asserted.
Title: Re: First Nations, Science and Politics
Post by: DJC on January 26, 2025, 12:38:48 am
Entire populations may have shifted but we are at 1 million indigenous Australians today.
Samoa is a dot in the pacific ocean. As of 2023, population of 225681 people and 96%. Earliest signs of humans there is 3000 years ago. I get it, things are or were different in Australia.
I get that 200 years ago European settlement impacted these populations, but you can't deny in a country of this size, there likely should be significantly more indigenous people given the timeline quoted.
It's not a country it's a continent, that has/had 250 nations, and 65000 years of continuous inhabitants.
The Maori people of new Zealand first arrived there in 1250 odd AD, supplanted the previous land holders (the moriori) and in 1769 when cook got there he, estimated their number at 110000 odd people.
I'm willing to accept a lot, but you have to admit it's a bit of a hole. The Maori have reached a million people now too. Thing is, new Zealand has the shortest history out of every country. https://teara.govt.nz/en/history/page-1#:~:text=A%20robust%20people&text=The%20M%C4%81ori%20population%20before%20European%20contact%20may%20have%20reached%20100%2C000.
You know it actually doesn't change anything either? They were still here first, but maybe for not as long as asserted.
If you don’t ask questions, you’ll not get answers.
First of all, a quick correction. The Moriori colonised the Chatham Islands, not New Zealand. While they shared a common origin with Māori, their culture and language diverged and they rejected violence, slavery and cannibalism. That backfired in 1835 when two Māori tribes, Ngāti Tama and Ngāti Mutunga arrived in the Chatham Islands aboard the Lord Rodney. The Moriori offered them hospitality but were slaughtered (many were cannibalised) or enslaved. The occupation of the Chatham Islands continued until 1870 when most of the Ngāti Tama and Ngāti Mutunga had returned to New Zealand. The Moriori had appealed to the colonial authorities but Judge Rogan found that they were “conquered” and forfeited any rights they may have had.
It’s getting late and I’ll continue my response tomorrow.
Title: Re: First Nations, Science and Politics
Post by: kruddler on January 26, 2025, 05:59:09 am
20,000 years ago the coastal water around australia were 120m lower than it is now. Dramatic difference to how things are today, absolutely.
Where do people live nowadays? On the coast. Where did people live then? Probably on the coast.
I think it was thry that asked where is the evidence and bones? Perhaps we need to check where the old coast was.....which is now completely underwater.
So lower populations were spread out over various areas that are now underwater and have 'created' islands. No stretch to think that these new islands meant resources available dwindled and so did the populations to the point it reached 0 in these areas, thus stunting the population growth rates compared to the rest of the world.
Again, when they hit australia, there was a dead end and no major lands to explore. where they spread out to is now underwater and/or was unreachable for 'technology' at the time.
I'm not sure what you expect.
I dont expect anything just asking questions.
Entire populations may have shifted but we are at 1 million indigenous Australians today.
Samoa is a dot in the pacific ocean. As of 2023, population of 225681 people and 96%. Earliest signs of humans there is 3000 years ago. I get it, things are or were different in Australia.
I get that 200 years ago European settlement impacted these populations, but you can't deny in a country of this size, there likely should be significantly more indigenous people given the timeline quoted.
It's not a country it's a continent, that has/had 250 nations, and 65000 years of continuous inhabitants.
The Maori people of new Zealand first arrived there in 1250 odd AD, supplanted the previous land holders (the moriori) and in 1769 when cook got there he, estimated their number at 110000 odd people.
I'm willing to accept a lot, but you have to admit it's a bit of a hole. The Maori have reached a million people now too. Thing is, new Zealand has the shortest history out of every country. https://teara.govt.nz/en/history/page-1#:~:text=A%20robust%20people&text=The%20M%C4%81ori%20population%20before%20European%20contact%20may%20have%20reached%20100%2C000.
You know it actually doesn't change anything either? They were still here first, but maybe for not as long as asserted.
Djc is much more knowledgeable on the topic and will provide his own answers, but you seem to be missing an important factor, or at least downplaying it's importance.
The 'white man' factor. Disease. Genocide. Even not too long ago you talk about the stolen generation. Indigenous people have not been treated well.
Another factor which you touched on in your comparisons is shear size.
Growth is somewhat exponential. That growth depends on starting numbers. The more spread out you get, the more numbers are not in the original location the longer it takes those numbers to grow. Higher growth comes from higher population density.
New Zealand, Samoa etc have a lot smaller borders and can contain a much quicker growth rate.
I think those 2 factors cannot be underestimated in the comparisons.
Title: Re: First Nations, Science and Politics
Post by: Thryleon on January 26, 2025, 08:04:32 am
Entire populations may have shifted but we are at 1 million indigenous Australians today.
Samoa is a dot in the pacific ocean. As of 2023, population of 225681 people and 96%. Earliest signs of humans there is 3000 years ago. I get it, things are or were different in Australia.
I get that 200 years ago European settlement impacted these populations, but you can't deny in a country of this size, there likely should be significantly more indigenous people given the timeline quoted.
It's not a country it's a continent, that has/had 250 nations, and 65000 years of continuous inhabitants.
The Maori people of new Zealand first arrived there in 1250 odd AD, supplanted the previous land holders (the moriori) and in 1769 when cook got there he, estimated their number at 110000 odd people.
I'm willing to accept a lot, but you have to admit it's a bit of a hole. The Maori have reached a million people now too. Thing is, new Zealand has the shortest history out of every country. https://teara.govt.nz/en/history/page-1#:~:text=A%20robust%20people&text=The%20M%C4%81ori%20population%20before%20European%20contact%20may%20have%20reached%20100%2C000.
You know it actually doesn't change anything either? They were still here first, but maybe for not as long as asserted.
Djc is much more knowledgeable on the topic and will provide his own answers, but you seem to be missing an important factor, or at least downplaying it's importance.
The 'white man' factor. Disease. Genocide. Even not too long ago you talk about the stolen generation. Indigenous people have not been treated well.
Another factor which you touched on in your comparisons is shear size.
Growth is somewhat exponential. That growth depends on starting numbers. The more spread out you get, the more numbers are not in the original location the longer it takes those numbers to grow. Higher growth comes from higher population density.
New Zealand, Samoa etc have a lot smaller borders and can contain a much quicker growth rate.
I think those 2 factors cannot be underestimated in the comparisons.
Whilst there are plausible explanations as to why the numbers never grew beyond a few hundred thousand (you could argue lack of water in a place like this and food) it still leaves a hole.
Warring nations and the plague caused a lot more death elsewhere.
European colonisers may have suppressed modern numbers but its arguable that the indigenous population should have been larger at the time of arrival, which doesn't quite work with the records we have been told about and the timeline.
I've seen an estimate of 350 000 to 700 000 indigenous when cook arrived. Cool, so compared to the Maori people who grew to 100 000 in 500 years, 350 thousand is at a conservative estimate only an additional 1000 years (given the same growth rate) which also means they didn't grow exponentially which is a massive problem to the maths. If it were 750000 then burial sites and human remains should be in much larger numbers than we have been told about.
Let's not forget that if the nations were as spread out as expected, and in such number then that leaves an average of 3000 people per indigenous nation at 750000 when the colonisers arrived.
That would mean a significant killing of indigenous people occurred to suppressed numbers. From what I've looked at estimates of tens of thousands occurred which is a tragedy, but thats not decreasing the growth rate to only reach 1 million, 200 years later.
Again this doesn't change a lot. I'm not ranting and raving about it, just trying to work out what happened to the people. The simple answer is lifestyle suppressed numbers so that they didn't grow. Thing is that doesn't fit the rhetoric that white man ruined everything.
Title: Re: First Nations, Science and Politics
Post by: kruddler on January 26, 2025, 08:13:09 am
Don't forget, cook wasn't the first white man to arrive......and you are putting a lot of faith in some of these estimates, which is can't fathom how those numbers came to be.
The Dutch stumbled upon us a lot earlier than him and may have indirectly attributed to a decline in numbers.
All in all, I don't think it's one factor, but a combination of everything that's been mentioned.
Title: Re: First Nations, Science and Politics
Post by: Blue Moon on January 26, 2025, 09:36:59 am
This discussion appears to be a battle of wits between unarmed combatants.
Title: Re: First Nations, Science and Politics
Post by: Lods on January 26, 2025, 11:05:30 am
All in all, I don't think it's one factor, but a combination of everything that's been mentioned.
There may be a dozen reasons suppressing population growth. One significant one is that it's hard to imagine a more difficult situation in which to give birth than an indigenous woman would have faced. Time for rest and recovery may have been limited for those groups on the move in search of food. Death in childbirth/ pregnancy and infant mortality would probably have been high.
Title: Re: First Nations, Science and Politics
Post by: DJC on January 26, 2025, 02:40:35 pm
All in all, I don't think it's one factor, but a combination of everything that's been mentioned.
There may be a dozen reasons suppressing population growth. One significant one is that it's hard to imagine a more difficult situation in which to give birth than an indigenous woman would have faced. Time for rest and recovery may have been limited for those groups on the move in search of food. Death in childbirth/ pregnancy and infant mortality would probably have been high.
Not necessarily Lods. Pregnancy was a risky business for most women before the advent of modern medicine. It could be argued that more active hunter-gatherer and agriculturalist women were better able to cope with childbirth than more sedentary women from industrialist societies.
Title: Re: First Nations, Science and Politics
Post by: Lods on January 26, 2025, 04:43:12 pm
There may be a dozen reasons suppressing population growth. One significant one is that it's hard to imagine a more difficult situation in which to give birth than an indigenous woman would have faced. Time for rest and recovery may have been limited for those groups on the move in search of food. Death in childbirth/ pregnancy and infant mortality would probably have been high.
Not necessarily Lods. Pregnancy was a risky business for most women before the advent of modern medicine. It could be argued that more active hunter-gatherer and agriculturalist women were better able to cope with childbirth than more sedentary women from industrialist societies.
Yes Infant mortality and death in childbirth was a much more risky business in all societies before the advent of modern medicine...it's why populations exploded as medical practices improved. Add the harshness of conditions that the Australian country side would have presented and childbirth in the first months of life would have been a tricky business. It's probably a swings and roundabouts thing. A more hardy, stronger woman on one hand, but the situation and elements against you on another.
Title: Re: First Nations, Science and Politics
Post by: kruddler on January 26, 2025, 06:14:56 pm
I think we all know what the problem was.
Dingos were eating babies.
Title: Re: First Nations, Science and Politics
Post by: DJC on January 26, 2025, 08:00:53 pm
This discussion appears to be a battle of wits between unarmed combatants.
Yes, both sides of the debate have relatively weak stances, which is the point I'm trying to make about one side seemingly dominant based on hypothesis.
I have no problem with the bits of science we see, it looks good, but the extensions in understanding are at times extravagant to say the least.
I've seen too much suppression of research by academic selection to have confidence in the dominant hypothesis.
Off Topic; Today we've seen a great example of how politics influences conclusions, just ask the CIA on COVID, Scientists will argue what happened today never happens. I fear much of the indigenous debate suffers similarly from politics, I find it very disappointing, I want all the evidence not a curated version from a selected perspective.
Title: Re: First Nations, Science and Politics
Post by: DJC on January 27, 2025, 10:19:06 am
This discussion appears to be a battle of wits between unarmed combatants.
Yes, both sides of the debate have relatively weak stances, which is the point I'm trying to make about one side seemingly dominant based on hypothesis.
I have no problem with the bits of science we see, it looks good, but the extensions in understanding are at times extravagant to say the least.
I've seen too much suppression of research by academic selection to have confidence in the dominant hypothesis.
Off Topic; Today we've seen a great example of how politics influences conclusions, just ask the CIA on COVID, Scientists will argue what happened today never happens. I fear much of the indigenous debate suffers similarly from politics, I find it very disappointing, I want all the evidence not a curated version from a selected perspective.
Let’s just say that I am relying on rock solid archaeological, physical anthropological, DNA and climate history evidence published in peer reviewed journals.
There is absolutely no evidence to the contrary. Science doesn’t care what you believe.
Title: Re: First Nations, Science and Politics
Post by: Thryleon on January 27, 2025, 11:39:45 am
I'm not expecting people to go, yeah its right or wrong.
Here is an account from a credible page, of what the indigenous interpretation of events are:
Either we as a nation are choosing not to acknowledge this, or there is an element of fiction and embellishment to what occurred.
There is a juxtaposition of people moving around and returning after 12 months vs what we read here about people not moving around so much.
There is lots of exaggeration here mixed with truth, and that is my contention. Not that these events didn't occur, not to minimise the impact of them to indigenous Australians. The problem with studying history is a lack of first hand accounts that are definitely believable because you are reading someone's truth and not an absolute truth.
I think a lot of people gloss over the fact that we are seeing a massive revision of history to suit an agenda.
The two stories are at odds with each other, and im surely not the only one that sees it?
As for people debating things without wits, I comment here purely to help encourage the conversation. Not to make indigenous people angry, I'm sensitive to their plight, and im not minimising their experience i just don't want to see fabrication.
It doesn't help anyone or anything, particularly a modern harmonious society which is what im interested in, where everyone can effectively move forward together.
Title: Re: First Nations, Science and Politics
Post by: kruddler on January 27, 2025, 12:29:30 pm
Thry, As best as i can tell your biggest issue is with the population figures quoted and that not lining up with what you deemed normal for other parts of the world. Is that a fair comment?
My question to that is, how the hell did anyone come up with any kind of estimate 200+ years ago that was even slightly accurate?
Looking at Perth as an example. The Dutch first arrived late 1600s. French early 1800s. Wasn't until 1830ish that anyone thought enough of it to do something with it. Cook was long dead before any of that (post Dutch) so how could he provide an estimate on anything happening outside of his little area on the east coast?
Australia is a huge country with every kind of biome spread between its sea borders. Any kind of extrapolation for population figures are going to be far from accurate that long ago.
Title: Re: First Nations, Science and Politics
Post by: DJC on January 27, 2025, 04:44:16 pm
A couple of loose ends:
The earliest evidence of exploitation of coastal resources by Aboriginal Australians comes from Boodie Cave on Barrow Island, northwest Australia. Excavation of the cave showed that the first occupation occurred between 51.1 and 46.2 ka [kilo annum or thousand years ago], consistent with other early dates for occupation of Australia. The report of the excavation by Peter Veth et al, states, "Marine resources are incorporated into dietary assemblages by 42.5 ka and continue to be transported to the cave through all periods of occupation, despite fluctuating sea levels and dramatic extensions of the coastal plain. The changing quantities of marine fauna through time reflect the varying distance of the cave from the contemporaneous shoreline. The dietary breadth of both arid zone terrestrial fauna and marine species increases after the Last Glacial Maximum and significantly so by the mid-Holocene. The cave is abandoned by 6.8 ka when the island becomes increasingly distant from the mainland coast."
It's worth noting that the authors of the paper come from 15 institutions in Australia, New Zealand, England and the USA so there goes the conspiracy theory around suppression of evidence and threats to funding.
You can find the paper at https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0277379117302640
And here's a link to a brief article about the discovery of Aboriginal stone artefacts on submerged landscapes off the Western Australian coast: https://www.york.ac.uk/news-and-events/news/2020/research/ancient-aboriginal-history/
Paul posted excerpts from and a link to the paper "A Genomic History of Aboriginal Australia", published in the prestigious journal Nature. The following are excerpts from earlier DNA research that demonstrate consistent findings of one migration by the ancestors of contemporary Aboriginal Australians.
Sheila M van Holst Pellekaan published "Origins of the Australian and New Guinean Aborigines" in 2008. She found that, "Mitochondrial deoxyribonucleic acid (mtDNA) and Y chromosome studies indicate deep ancestry for both Australia and New Guinea peoples, with evidence for limited, shared genetic connection as well as ancient maternal lineages specific to both places. Several entry points into Sahul might explain haplotype distribution. Migration by northern as well as by a southern coastal route remain possible scenarios, as no single regional source population is identifiable." https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470015902.a0020815
Morten Rasmussen et al published "An Aboriginal Australian Genome Reveals Separate Human Dispersals into Asia" in Science in 2015. This is a fascinating story in that the genomic sequence was obtained from a 100-year-old lock of hair donated by an Aboriginal man from southern Western Australia in the early 20th century. Rasmussen et al concluded, "The degree to which a single individual is representative of the evolutionary history of Aboriginal Australians more generally is unclear. Nonetheless, we conclude that the ancestors of this Aboriginal Australian man—and possibly of all Aboriginal Australians—are as distant from Africans as are other Eurasians, and that the Aboriginal ancestors split 62,000 to 75,000 years B.P. from the gene pool that all contemporary non-African populations appear to descend from. Rather than supporting a single early human expansion into eastern Asia, our findings support the alternative model of Aboriginal Australians descending from an early Asian expansion wave some 62,000 to 75,000 years B.P. The data also fit this model’s prediction of substantial admixture and replacement of populations from the first wave by the second expansion wave, with a few populations such as Aboriginal Australians, and possibly PNG Highlands and Aeta, being remnants of the early dispersal. This is compatible with mtDNA data showing that although all haplogroups observed in Australia are unique to this region, they derive from the same few founder haplogroups that are shared by all non-African populations. Finally, our data are in agreement with contemporary Aboriginal Australians being the direct descendants from the first humans to be found in Australia, dating to ~50,000 years B.P.. This means that Aboriginal Australians likely have one of the oldest continuous population histories outside sub-Saharan Africa today.
Morten Rasmussen wrote the article with the assistance of 47 co-authors and, as far as I can tell, only one is Australian and is associated with an Australian institution. Another nail in the coffin for the withheld evidence conspiracy theory. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1211177
Nano Nagle et al published "Antiquity and diversity of Aboriginal Australian Y-chromosomes" in 2015 in the American Journal of Physical Anthropology. They concluded, "The age of the Australian-specific Y-haplogroups suggests New Guineans and Aboriginal Australians have been isolated for over 30,000 years, supporting findings based on mitochondrial DNA data. Our data support the hypothesis of more than one route (via New Guinea) for males entering Sahul some 50,000 years ago and give no support for colonization events during the Holocene, from either India or elsewhere." https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.22886
It is patently obvious that the DNA evidence indicates a single migration event to Australia and New Guinea, or Sahul as the combined landmass is known, around 60,000 years ago, with no subsequent genetic admixture until European settlement.
Moving on to the Aboriginal population of Australia, Corey Bradshaw, et al published "Stochastic models support rapid peopling of Late Pleistocene Sahul" in Nature Communications in 2021. This is a modelling exercise rather than observed empirical data and 120 different scenarios were run. The models indicate that there was "rapid peopling of the entire continent of Sahul [that] occurred potentially within as few as 4370–5600 years, across a wide range of environments, including rainforests, savannas, deserts, alpine regions, grasslands and temperate forests."
And
"The highest-ranked relationship between carrying capacity and net primary production predicted a maximum continental-wide population of 6.3–6.5 million (0.55–0.57 people km−2) based on the carrying capacity predicted from the LOVECLIM Earth-systems model and the particular form of the best-supported relationship between human-population density and net primary production we considered."
"Overlaying the modern extent of Australia and New Guinea on the predicted population grid at 300 generations from initial entry indicates that ~27.5% of the continent’s total population is attributed to cells that are now under water (Fig. 3). In the case of the 50-ka single-entry scenario shown in Fig. 3, the above-water component of the Australian part of Sahul would give a total population of 3.1 million people at saturation."
The paper can be viewed at https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-21551-3. The modelling and mathematics may be a little daunting but the paper does have some nice graphics showing the extent of Sahul and the location of the earliest known occupation sites.
Then there's Alan Williams' 2013 paper "A new population curve for prehistoric Australia" published in Proceedings of the Royal Society. Again, this is modelling but it's based on a comprehensive dataset of radiocarbon dated occupation sites. Williams concludes:
"This shows low populations through the Late Pleistocene, before a slow stepwise increase in population beginning during the Holocene transition (approx. 12 ka) and continuing in pulses (approx. 8.3–6.6, 4.4–3.7 and 1.6–0.4 ka) through the Holocene. These data give no support for an early saturation of the continent, although the estimated population following initial landfall was probably greater than previously allowed (comparable with the Early Holocene). The greatest increase in population occurred in the Late Holocene, but in contrast to existing intensification models, changes in demography and diversification of economic activities began much earlier. Some demographic changes appear to be in response to major climatic events, most notably during the last glacial maximum, where the curve suggests that population fell by about 60 per cent between 21 and 18 ka. An application of statistical demographic methods to Australian ethnographic and genetic data suggests that a founding group of 1000–2000 at 50 ka would result in a population high of approximately 1.2 million at approximately 0.5 ka. Data suggests an 8 per cent decline to approximately 770 000–1.1 million at the time of European contact, giving a figure consistent with ethnographic estimates and with historical observations of the impact of smallpox, and other diseases introduced by Macassans and Europeans during and after AD 1788." https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rspb.2013.0486
Title: Re: First Nations, Science and Politics
Post by: Blue Moon on January 28, 2025, 05:27:36 pm
It's always disappointing when people introduce facts into these types of discussions.
Title: Re: First Nations, Science and Politics
Post by: Professer E on January 29, 2025, 10:03:20 am
What grinds my gears is the way people "interpret" (use) data. I haven't fact checked the dating work (having a PhD in isotopic geochemistry I actually am qualified to comment on the veracity of that stuff), so assuming it's correct ... Just because "people" habituated here 50ka ago doesn't mean that (1) they are what modern Aboriginal people consider Aboriginal and (2) it doesn't automatically mean that modern Aboriginal culture dates back to that date. Somantics, but I'd wager a Sahul individual would regard a Modern Aboriginal in similar ways to the Modern Aboriginals and Cook's mob.
Title: Re: First Nations, Science and Politics
Post by: Gointocarlton on January 29, 2025, 11:00:51 am
What grinds my gears is the way people "interpret" (use) data. I haven't fact checked the dating work (having a PhD in isotopic geochemistry I actually am qualified to comment on the veracity of that stuff), so assuming it's correct ... Just because "people" habituated here 50ka ago doesn't mean that (1) they are what modern Aboriginal people consider Aboriginal and (2) it doesn't automatically mean that modern Aboriginal culture dates back to that date. Somantics, but I'd wager a Sahul individual would regard a Modern Aboriginal in similar ways to the Modern Aboriginals and Cook's mob.
Dr Prof hey, you mysterious bugger 😂!
Title: Re: First Nations, Science and Politics
Post by: DJC on January 29, 2025, 01:31:01 pm
What grinds my gears is the way people "interpret" (use) data. I haven't fact checked the dating work (having a PhD in isotopic geochemistry I actually am qualified to comment on the veracity of that stuff), so assuming it's correct ... Just because "people" habituated here 50ka ago doesn't mean that (1) they are what modern Aboriginal people consider Aboriginal and (2) it doesn't automatically mean that modern Aboriginal culture dates back to that date. Somantics, but I'd wager a Sahul individual would regard a Modern Aboriginal in similar ways to the Modern Aboriginals and Cook's mob.
You have to look at the whole of the evidence Prof; distribution of the oldest occupation sites, the physical anthropology and the DNA evidence all tell the same story. Of course, culture can't be static and languages, material culture, kinship rules, creation stories, beliefs, food processing, food rules, etc must have changed significantly over that time. The bloke who died around 14,000 years ago and whose skull was found at Keilor in 1940 would not have been able to converse with the blokes who made their marks on Batman's treaty and would have been puzzled by their artefacts, ceremonies and behaviour. There are obviously spatial differences as well as temporal. The Tasmanian Aboriginals that Protector Robinson brought with him to the Port Phillip colony were useless in their intended roles as intermediaries and were shunned by the locals. However, genetically they are still the same people and direct descendants of the first colonisers.
Title: Re: First Nations, Science and Politics
Post by: Thryleon on January 29, 2025, 05:34:31 pm
Thry, As best as i can tell your biggest issue is with the population figures quoted and that not lining up with what you deemed normal for other parts of the world. Is that a fair comment?
My question to that is, how the hell did anyone come up with any kind of estimate 200+ years ago that was even slightly accurate?
Looking at Perth as an example. The Dutch first arrived late 1600s. French early 1800s. Wasn't until 1830ish that anyone thought enough of it to do something with it. Cook was long dead before any of that (post Dutch) so how could he provide an estimate on anything happening outside of his little area on the east coast?
Australia is a huge country with every kind of biome spread between its sea borders. Any kind of extrapolation for population figures are going to be far from accurate that long ago.
Sort of.
When I see a continent like Australia, lag so far behind population growth (compared with even a small dot in the ocean like samoa according to the time of arrival, to the time of european arrival), and then the claims made by people are that the continent was covered with 250 to 400 nations, it makes me wonder where all the people were.
Yeah I get it, they lived differently and didn't expand their population in line with modern populaces, but the world over people did this, yet not here. Makes me wonder why or why not. No assumptions made, different way of life is fine.
See this bit here from DJC: The cave is abandoned by 6.8 ka when the island becomes increasingly distant from the mainland coast. According to what I have looked up, the cave is abandoned 6,800 years ago, or 4800 BC, was first occupied, 49000 to 44000 BC, marine resources appear in the diet 42,500 years ago or 40,500BC at the Cave. What this indicates, is that people would have been living around said Cave for a long time, (long enough to experience the sort of tropical storms, that would see people leave and chose to return) perhaps long enough for it not to have had marine resources nearby it, yet never thought to move to Australia until after sea levels rose and made life difficult in the cave? people around the planet have evolved at different rates, so it stands to reason, that people here in Australia would have too. After all, its a continent.
In lieu of other evidence, we must assumed that the cave was inhabited by indigenous, but what if it werent, and the people there died out or were a different species of human altogether?
Regarding the estimates they are what we have. They could be true, false, wildly inaccurate, but generally speaking, the numbers are estimated from somewhere. I chose to think, that Cooks estimate is a estimate of what he saw in front of him. so 110 000 at botany bay and the surrounds. Not, on the continent. Too large like you state. Thing is, if there were 110 000 around then, then the 750k to 1.1 million isnt wildly inaccurate, but we should see a lot more evidence of these peoples way of life, unless we choose not to recognise it or the biggest cover up in history has occurred (of very large proportions I might add).
We look at Australia today, 25 million people, the bulk of which are in major cities like Melb, Syd, Perth, Brisb, Adelaide and then people dotted around the country, but european settlement chose most of the places based on geography and trade links to the rest of the world. It's a bit of a coincidence that they decided in such a large place, with such few people to displace the only ones that were here, and they simply didnt find somewhere else to live, and potentially defend their way of life there.
I just can't quite understand the logic, and that might say more about me than anything else. I would have thought that 50000 years to 0 AD and then 2000 years should yield much more sizeable populations, particularly in a country where food was abundant, and there are examples of Aboriginal people building houses, dams, sowing crops, irrigation, tilling the land, and altering the course of rivers.
Title: Re: First Nations, Science and Politics
Post by: Lods on January 29, 2025, 06:16:46 pm
@Thryleon Do you think that population lagging compared to a small pacific island might have something to do with 'population density'. Modern Australians tend to cluster in cities, country folk in towns. Go outside those areas even today and you can go for miles without contact, even in a car. Now do it on foot, and it could be weeks, months before you came into contact with other people....and the interacting with that group may not have always been a positve one.
Title: Re: First Nations, Science and Politics
Post by: Professer E on January 29, 2025, 06:44:56 pm
Living away from the coast comes down to food and water (resource) availability. This dictates that in many parts of Australia, Aboriginal population density was/is low.
Title: Re: First Nations, Science and Politics
Post by: DJC on January 29, 2025, 07:20:09 pm
When I see a continent like Australia, lag so far behind population growth (compared with even a small dot in the ocean like samoa according to the time of arrival, to the time of european arrival), and then the claims made by people are that the continent was covered with 250 to 400 nations, it makes me wonder where all the people were.
Yeah I get it, they lived differently and didn't expand their population in line with modern populaces, but the world over people did this, yet not here. Makes me wonder why or why not. No assumptions made, different way of life is fine.
See this bit here from DJC: The cave is abandoned by 6.8 ka when the island becomes increasingly distant from the mainland coast. According to what I have looked up, the cave is abandoned 6,800 years ago, or 4800 BC, was first occupied, 49000 to 44000 BC, marine resources appear in the diet 42,500 years ago or 40,500BC at the Cave. What this indicates, is that people would have been living around said Cave for a long time, (long enough to experience the sort of tropical storms, that would see people leave and chose to return) perhaps long enough for it not to have had marine resources nearby it, yet never thought to move to Australia until after sea levels rose and made life difficult in the cave? people around the planet have evolved at different rates, so it stands to reason, that people here in Australia would have too. After all, its a continent.
In lieu of other evidence, we must assumed that the cave was inhabited by indigenous, but what if it werent, and the people there died out or were a different species of human altogether?
Regarding the estimates they are what we have. They could be true, false, wildly inaccurate, but generally speaking, the numbers are estimated from somewhere. I chose to think, that Cooks estimate is a estimate of what he saw in front of him. so 110 000 at botany bay and the surrounds. Not, on the continent. Too large like you state. Thing is, if there were 110 000 around then, then the 750k to 1.1 million isnt wildly inaccurate, but we should see a lot more evidence of these peoples way of life, unless we choose not to recognise it or the biggest cover up in history has occurred (of very large proportions I might add).
We look at Australia today, 25 million people, the bulk of which are in major cities like Melb, Syd, Perth, Brisb, Adelaide and then people dotted around the country, but european settlement chose most of the places based on geography and trade links to the rest of the world. It's a bit of a coincidence that they decided in such a large place, with such few people to displace the only ones that were here, and they simply didnt find somewhere else to live, and potentially defend their way of life there.
I just can't quite understand the logic, and that might say more about me than anything else. I would have thought that 50000 years to 0 AD and then 2000 years should yield much more sizeable populations, particularly in a country where food was abundant, and there are examples of Aboriginal people building houses, dams, sowing crops, irrigation, tilling the land, and altering the course of rivers.
I haven't forgotten you or your propositions Thry :)
Let's start with Boodie Cave. First of all, there's absolutely no evidence that some other people lived there. In fact, apart from the "Hobbits" (Homo floriensis) and Solo or Java Man (Homo erectus), there's no skeletal evidence of any hominins in our part of the world until the first modern human skeletal remains were found in Niah Cave in Borneo and at Lake Mungo. The Niah Cave individual lived around 38 ka and Mungo Man around 42 ka.
Back to Boodie Cave - The Sahul continent as it was 50 ka was very different to the Australia we're familiar with. Apart from the much larger land mass and much of the continental shelf forming an extensive coastal plain, the climate was much colder and much drier than it is now. So, rather than the first Australians finding a welcoming coastal fringe with a tropical hinterland, the continent was far more arid than it is now. At 50 ka, Boodie Cave was optimally located to provide access to the Pleistocene coastline and the extensive arid coastal plains. As the temperature gradually increased, the conditions became less arid, and access to the coastline was less difficult. By 6.8 ka, when the cave was abandoned, the degree of difficulty in accessing the now Barrow Island meant that it made more sense to focus on the resources of the mainland coastline and the now much wetter coastal fringe.
It's worth noting that occupation of Boodie Cave would have been seasonal. The people who occupied the cave would have had a seasonal round determined by the availability of resources like berries, tubers, shellfish, migrating or spawning fish, bird and reptile eggs and so on. It's also worth noting that caves aren't terribly comfortable places to live and have never been first choice occupation sites. Most of the places where the Boodie Cave people spent their time would have been what archaeologists call "open sites". Open sites are located strategically throughout the landscape on spurs, dunes, near the confluence of rivers and many other landforms. Each open site or cave (or more often, rockshelter) would have provided access to a range of resources within a foraging radius; the distance people could walk, gather tubers or bludgeon a goanna, then walk back to camp. Open sites are much harder to detect than cave sites and generally don't have the same good conditions for preserving what the occupants left behind.
Now, even after the end of the Pleistocene and much warmer and more pleasant conditions, better access to potable water and resources, what is now the Australian part of Sahul wasn't all that welcoming with most of the continent still arid or semi-arid. Even now, agricultural activity is largely restricted to the coastal fringe or irrigated areas and most grazing is on rangelands with low stock numbers. Our soils are generally poor, and that's despite dumping most of Nauru on our farmlands. Of course, most of the 27M Australians live in large cities or around the coast. The population density of much of arid and semi arid Australia is probably less than what it was 200 years ago.
As mentioned previously, our native flora and fauna has very little in the way of species that may be domesticated and even fewer that would provide a return on the energy investment required to do so. The First Australians arrived with a very basic toolkit but came up with some significant innovations. Edge ground tools or axes were first developed in Australia and Japan tens of thousands of years before they appeared elsewhere. Seed grinding technology was also first developed in Australia. Then there's the extensive fish trap or weir systems at Brewarrina, southwestern Victoria and other places. These required intense communal efforts over centuries but provided abundant resources ... provided the rivers and streams continued to flow. The Aboriginal population densities in those areas was higher but, for most of Australia, the lower population densities reflected the carrying capacity of the land without access to the innovations of the industrial revolution, plants and animals that could be productively domesticated, or Nauru's superphosphate.
Now, a quick visit to Polynesia: The Polynesians, or Lapita People, were relative latecomers to Oceania, arriving in western Oceania around 3 ka. They had a sophisticated toolkit, ocean-going canoes, and domesticated plants and animals including sweet potato, taro, bananas, yams, breadfruit, sugar cane, pigs, dogs, and chickens. The dogs were largely herbivorous and were bred as food animals. They also had the benefit of making their homes on islands that had more productive soil, a settled, milder climate and abundant maritime resources, and not as many deadly creatures. It would be surprising indeed if their populations didn't increase quickly, then plateau. Of course, many of the Polynesian voyages of discovery were driven by population pressures and warfare.
Title: Re: First Nations, Science and Politics
Post by: LP on February 07, 2025, 07:59:34 pm
The left really can't help but become what they despise.
After months of endlessly berating Dutton as a racist, misogynist, bigoted, etc., etc., labelling him as a person who was destroying our countries international relations with it's top trading partners through Trump like rhetoric.
Now they get one photograph next to a Chinese high roller and Dutton is a communist spy! :o
What a bunch of weathervanes, they make a flock of sheep look like extroverts!