Buried tools and pigments tell a history of humans in Australia for 65,000 years • Hacker News Board

Re: Buried tools and pigments tell a history of humans in Australia for 65,000 years

#41

Post by acdha » Fri, Jul 21, 2017, 11:22 AM UTC

hyperdunc wrote: post #35

Ar-Curunir wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.…

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.

Re: Buried tools and pigments tell a history of humans in Australia for 65,000 years

#42

Post by RobertoG » Fri, Jul 21, 2017, 11:31 AM UTC

hyperdunc wrote: post #35

Ar-Curunir wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.…

It seems to me that the idea that, aggregate individual choices always give the best results, should be discredited by now.

It's totally possible for individuals to be trapped in game theoretical situations where they will lost very valuable things to them little by little. Ecology is the most famous example.

Anyway, the efforts for "trying to preserve a static and separate cultural identity" is something done by individuals that choose so, too. How could be otherwise?

Re: Buried tools and pigments tell a history of humans in Australia for 65,000 years

#43

Post by mmjaa » Fri, Jul 21, 2017, 11:39 AM UTC

grecy wrote: post #20

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.

The Bradshaw paintings seem to depict (Australian) humans using boats long before we thought it might have been possible:

http://www.australiangeographic.com.au/news/2013/08/aborigin...

Re: Buried tools and pigments tell a history of humans in Australia for 65,000 years

#44

Post by coldtea » Fri, Jul 21, 2017, 11:41 AM UTC

sundvor wrote: post #39

flukus wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was in this one ( http://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2017-07-20/aboriginal-she... ) from the (Australian) ABC, which I assume is the nytimes source: > Under the agreement, the Mirarr people have had a right to veto the excavation at any time, control over the artefacts and final say about findings announced about the site. This leaves it open to abuse like we see in other fields where they can conduct an experimen…

Careful here. I would by no means pretend to understand them, but I'm at least aware that there are a number of special sensitivities that must be considered when it comes to Aboriginal culture. So it's certainly not about abusing the research, but about respecting their culture (if I have it right).

Especially given that the British/Australians hunted them like animals, exterminated them by the thousands, displayed them in circus like fashion back in Europe, and forcibly sent their kids in concentration/"re-education" (whitening) camps up until the 80s.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolen_Generations

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_of_Indigenou...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truganini

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/14/aboriginal-bon...

Re: Buried tools and pigments tell a history of humans in Australia for 65,000 years

#45

Post by sundvor » Fri, Jul 21, 2017, 11:51 AM UTC

coldtea wrote: post #44

sundvor wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Careful here. I would by no means pretend to understand them, but I'm at least aware that there are a number of special sensitivities that must be considered when it comes to Aboriginal culture. So it's certainly not about abusing the research, but about respecting their culture (if I have it right).

Especially given that the British/Australians hunted them like animals, exterminated them by the thousands, displayed them in circus like fashion back in Europe, and forcibly sent their kids in concentration/"re-education" (whitening) camps up until the 80s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolen_Generations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_of_Indigenou... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truganini https://…

Yes, indeed - thanks. The history is horrible; a little respect is the least we can offer.

Re: Buried tools and pigments tell a history of humans in Australia for 65,000 years

#46

Post by posterboy » Fri, Jul 21, 2017, 12:10 PM UTC

flukus wrote: post #22

grecy wrote: post #20

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.

> 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…

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

Re: Buried tools and pigments tell a history of humans in Australia for 65,000 years

#47

Post by h0l0cube » Fri, Jul 21, 2017, 12:35 PM UTC

flukus wrote: post #21

ekianjo wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Then it should definitely be captured in the story. As a potential conflict of interest.

It was in this one ( http://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2017-07-20/aboriginal-she... ) from the (Australian) ABC, which I assume is the nytimes source: > Under the agreement, the Mirarr people have had a right to veto the excavation at any time, control over the artefacts and final say about findings announced about the site. This leaves it open to abuse like we see in other fields where they can conduct an experimen…

It seems a strange contradiction that someone would get flustered about the accurate preservation of a cultural history, and in the same breath demonstrate little interest in the conservation of that culture.

What's your motivation for wanting this information? Is someone's appetite for inconsequential information more important than a people's dignity? These aren't rhetorical questions, it seems there's an incompatible split in moral leanings on this thread and I want to get to the bottom of that.

Re: Buried tools and pigments tell a history of humans in Australia for 65,000 years

#48

Post by tray5 » Fri, Jul 21, 2017, 12:55 PM UTC

flukus wrote: post #26

dalbasal wrote: post #23

“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.

Multiple migration theories have been all but put to bed I think, but the current theory seems to be that the migration path was mostly coastal and only pushing inland later. That leaves plenty of room for humans to be the cause of extinction. I really don't understand why it's so hard to accept that humans are the cause, it seems to be a part of the noble savage myth.

>I really don't understand why it's so hard to accept that humans are the cause, it seems to be a part of the noble savage myth.

Because there's not enough evidence to make that claim. The structure of indigenous societies were nomadic hunter gatherers who were (as far as the evidence tells us) subsistence hunters. Truth is Indigenous Australians didn't have the population (or population density), nor the culture to hunt these creatures to extinction. Being largely nomadic within set ranges (i.e they travelled often but within their own nations land) it was suicidal to overhunt and deplete the resources, and this becomes a stronger point when you consider the timeframes on which the Aborigines existed on their land (again 20,000 years of overlap here). Also consider the sheer number of creatures that went extinct here, everything from Marsupial Lions to gigantic emus and echidnas, it doesn't match up with indigenous australians hunting behaviours that somehow they decided to overkill for this short period of time all these larger creatures, and then that behaviour suddenly stopped? (we have no evidence of Indigenous Australian's overhunting any other creatures to extinction).

To go even further, there's nothing in their oral history or paintings which gives the slightest hint that overhunting or hunting for status was ever present in any Indigenous Australian culture. Considering the ice age ended around the same time as the death of the last megafauna in Australia, I think its fair to evaluate every conclusion you make about the death of the megafauna within that context.

I'm not saying Indigenous Australians didn't have an effect on the death of the megafauna, anything being hunted in a time like a massive climate shift is going to affect population, but there's no direct evidence, nor indirect evidence about the behaviour and cultures of Indigenous Australia which point to mankind being the driver behind the numerous extinctions.

Re: Buried tools and pigments tell a history of humans in Australia for 65,000 years

#49

Post by tray5 » Fri, Jul 21, 2017, 1:00 PM UTC

dalbasal wrote: post #23

“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.

>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.

Re: Buried tools and pigments tell a history of humans in Australia for 65,000 years

#50

Post by hyperdunc » Fri, Jul 21, 2017, 1:57 PM UTC

acdha wrote: post #41

hyperdunc wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

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 colo…

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