Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

theconversation.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–57 of 57 posts

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

#51

Post by [deleted] »

tray5 wrote: post #49
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…

[deleted]

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

#53

Post by marcus_holmes »

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.

There is a fairly strong political urge to not blame indigenous peoples for the extinctions in Australia.

It's part of the "noble savage" myth, as you say. Very much to do with a narrative about indigenous peoples living in harmony with their environment unlike us stupid modern people who are destroying it.

This is linked with indigenous rights, native title, and a whole bunch of really deep-rooted issues in Australian culture. Aborigines living in the bush are revered, those living in the cities are despised. Australia takes pride in the fact that we have the longest continuous culture on the planet, whilst simultaneously doing everything possible to destroy that same culture. It's very complicated and very political.

Unless the science says definitively that humans were the cause for the extinctions, then the default position is that they weren't.

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

#54

Post by aleksei »

tray5 wrote: post #48
flukus wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I'm under the impression that there's simply not enough evidence to make a claim either way, exactly because there's no direct or indirect evidence in terms of culture or artifact. I really can't see how you can argue that there was no overhunting given you concede there's no knowing, and it comes across as if you just don't feel comfortable with human causes.

Edit: the last sentence might come across as aggressive, it was merely my observation.

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

#55

Post by curtis »

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.

I can't give you a citation but I'm under the impression that many scientists who are interested in megafauna extinction actual subscribe to a hybrid theory, namely that megafauna extinction was often the result of both human hunting and climate change happening at the same time, which could stress megafauna populations far more than just one or the other.

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

#56

Post by autokad »

tray5 wrote: post #49
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…

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

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

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

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

#57

Post by Jedd »

tray5 wrote: post #49
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…

I understand that the science doesn't conclusively prove either claim (or somewhere midway) between definitely human caused or definitely not.

> 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.

Do we know of any comparable, but better understood / researched cultures, where population numbers plateauing were not directly correlated with local extinction events -- but did occur some time after the plateauing? Of course it's confounded by trying to estimate numbers from tens of millenia ago, climate and volcanic events, and so on, but I feel there must be some other peoples / regions on the planet that can we can compare to.

As to the last point, initiating regular large fires is one way for a small number of people to effect significant landscape change.

> 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 ...

Keep in mind that there were around 250 different languages, reflecting the long-term isolation of many of these groups, and presumably at least that many different variations of 'the culture'. I think it's careless to assume a single, shared, and fully understood, culture existed across the entire continent for thousands of years, tens of thousands of years ago.

And I don't think anyone's suggesting that a 'new culture rose up and decided to eat all the giant wombats'.

> Not really, again 20,000 years and Australia is a big, big place.

True, but consider that today at least, about 5% of the landmass is considered arable, which IIRC puts us on a par with, say, France in terms of absolute arable land.

While grazing animals obviously don't require arable land per se, it helps to contextualise the landscape here -- there's immense areas of the country that are inhospitable to humans and large animals.

Almost all the useful (in terms of finding things to eat and drink) land is around the coast. Migrations of humans and megafauna doubtless occurred in response to local events, climate changes, curiosity, etc - but there are obvious constraints by and to both groups' movements due to this coastal limitation.

Post reply on HN