It is often stated that Australian indigenous culture is the oldest continuous culture in the World.
But is it?
Are there really no cultures in Africa that could be considered continuous?
What about in all the places along the way from Africa to Australia?
The Rev Dodgson said:
It is often stated that Australian indigenous culture is the oldest continuous culture in the World.But is it?
Are there really no cultures in Africa that could be considered continuous?
What about in all the places along the way from Africa to Australia?
A lot of this claim is based on language research.
Further whether Aboriginal culture is 50,000 years old or merely 10,000 it would still most likely qualify as the oldest as there are no places on Earth where people movement, language evolution and cultural change hasn’t taken place over the past 10 millennia
One other contender are the Bushmen of southern Africa though.
Witty Rejoinder said:
A lot of this claim is based on language research.
Any links?
How do you research the history of spoken languages?
The Rev Dodgson said:
Witty Rejoinder said:A lot of this claim is based on language research.
Any links?
How do you research the history of spoken languages?
The same way they do genetic work – by looking for similarities in other species/languages?
By continuous, we may be meaning, staying put.
Most others moved on.
roughbarked said:
By continuous, we may be meaning, staying put.
Most others moved on.
I believe there still quite a few examples of Homo Sapiens in Africa.
The Rev Dodgson said:
roughbarked said:
By continuous, we may be meaning, staying put.
Most others moved on.
I believe there still quite a few examples of Homo Sapiens in Africa.
Yes there are.
Witty mentioned the bushmen mainly because their language is so old. They also have unique DNA I have heard.
roughbarked said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
roughbarked said:
By continuous, we may be meaning, staying put.
Most others moved on.
I believe there still quite a few examples of Homo Sapiens in Africa.
Yes there are.
Witty mentioned the bushmen mainly because their language is so old. They also have unique DNA I have heard.
It does seem to be an Australian thing.
Looking at the first five pages of links from a binge on +“oldest continuous culture” every single one refers primarily to Australia.
roughbarked said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
roughbarked said:
By continuous, we may be meaning, staying put.
Most others moved on.
I believe there still quite a few examples of Homo Sapiens in Africa.
Yes there are.
Witty mentioned the bushmen mainly because their language is so old. They also have unique DNA I have heard.
But changes in a language, and interaction with other groups, do not indicate that a culture is not “continuous”.
The Rev Dodgson said:
roughbarked said:
The Rev Dodgson said:I believe there still quite a few examples of Homo Sapiens in Africa.
Yes there are.
Witty mentioned the bushmen mainly because their language is so old. They also have unique DNA I have heard.
But changes in a language, and interaction with other groups, do not indicate that a culture is not “continuous”.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kbRxSzDE4k&feature=emb_logo
The Rev Dodgson said:
Witty Rejoinder said:A lot of this claim is based on language research.
Any links?
How do you research the history of spoken languages?
I’ll see what I can find.
Well obviously for the historic period we have translated almost all written languages and understand to a good degree how they were pronounced and consequently how they have changed. For prehistoric spoken languages it’s a lot murkier but we do know that at the time of colonisation Aboriginal languages were a lot more similar over the entire Australian continent than those of North or South America were:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Aboriginal_languages#Common_features
Whether it is due to genetic unity or some other factor such as occasional contact, typologically the Australian languages form a language area or Sprachbund, sharing much of their vocabulary and many distinctive phonological features across the entire continent.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_languages_of_the_Americas
From the latter link:
“North America is notable for its linguistic diversity, especially in California. This area has 18 language families comprising 74 languages (compared to four families in Europe: Indo-European, Uralic, Turkic, and Afroasiatic and one isolate, Basque).”
and
“Although both North and Central America are very diverse areas, South America has a linguistic diversity rivalled by only a few other places in the world with approximately 350 languages still spoken and an estimated 1,500 languages at first European contact.”
…
As for the rest of the old world there is no evidence to suggest that spoken languages didn’t rapidly change with the rise of civilisations except for again the Bushmen.
And it must be remembered that language and culture and extremely intertwined.
Maybe the question has become too political to have a useful answer, but there’s some interesting stuff in the links.
Haven’t looked at the utube one yet, will do so later.
The Rev Dodgson said:
Maybe the question has become too political to have a useful answer, but there’s some interesting stuff in the links.Haven’t looked at the utube one yet, will do so later.
You should do. It comes from this page. https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/unprecedented-study-of-aboriginal-australians-points-to-one-shared-out-of-africa-migration-for
The Rev Dodgson said:
roughbarked said:
The Rev Dodgson said:I believe there still quite a few examples of Homo Sapiens in Africa.
Yes there are.
Witty mentioned the bushmen mainly because their language is so old. They also have unique DNA I have heard.
But changes in a language, and interaction with other groups, do not indicate that a culture is not “continuous”.
There is certainly a degree of continuity but we do know that most prehistoric communities were animist and frequently matriarchal so the fact that by rise of agriculture societies were usually patriarchal, and worshiped gods in various forms shows how much they did change of the last 10,000 years.
roughbarked said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
Maybe the question has become too political to have a useful answer, but there’s some interesting stuff in the links.Haven’t looked at the utube one yet, will do so later.
You should do. It comes from this page. https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/unprecedented-study-of-aboriginal-australians-points-to-one-shared-out-of-africa-migration-for
Thanks – for some reason I’m quite happy to waste 10 minutes reading, but 10 minutes video watching seems like a waste of time.
Thanks to witty for links too.
The Rev Dodgson said:
for some reason I’m quite happy to waste 10 minutes reading, but 10 minutes video watching seems like a waste of time.
I’m the same.
The Rev Dodgson said:
roughbarked said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
Maybe the question has become too political to have a useful answer, but there’s some interesting stuff in the links.Haven’t looked at the utube one yet, will do so later.
You should do. It comes from this page. https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/unprecedented-study-of-aboriginal-australians-points-to-one-shared-out-of-africa-migration-for
Thanks – for some reason I’m quite happy to waste 10 minutes reading, but 10 minutes video watching seems like a waste of time.
Thanks to witty for links too.
Fair rbough. As long as you are finding it all educational.
https://www.history.com/news/dna-study-finds-aboriginal-australians-worlds-oldest-civilization
roughbarked said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
roughbarked said:You should do. It comes from this page. https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/unprecedented-study-of-aboriginal-australians-points-to-one-shared-out-of-africa-migration-for
Thanks – for some reason I’m quite happy to waste 10 minutes reading, but 10 minutes video watching seems like a waste of time.
Thanks to witty for links too.
Fair rbough. As long as you are finding it all educational.
https://www.history.com/news/dna-study-finds-aboriginal-australians-worlds-oldest-civilization
enough?
Witty Rejoinder said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
roughbarked said:Yes there are.
Witty mentioned the bushmen mainly because their language is so old. They also have unique DNA I have heard.
But changes in a language, and interaction with other groups, do not indicate that a culture is not “continuous”.
There is certainly a degree of continuity but we do know that most prehistoric communities were animist and frequently matriarchal so the fact that by rise of agriculture societies were usually patriarchal, and worshiped gods in various forms shows how much they did change of the last 10,000 years.
I guess it’s reasonable to exclude “civilised” (ie urbanised) cultures from being “continuous” preceding their urbanisations, but there are still plenty of hunter/gatherer cultures outside Australia.
I think it does relate to oldest out of Africa that is a continuous civilization or culture.
All modern Africans stem from the Bushmen but haven’t yet seen where the Bushmen and the Australian Aborigine link. Perhaps the information is there but not noticed by mine eyes?
roughbarked said:
I think it does relate to oldest out of Africa that is a continuous civilization or culture.
All modern Africans stem from the Bushmen but haven’t yet seen where the Bushmen and the Australian Aborigine link. Perhaps the information is there but not noticed by mine eyes?
Your links would suggest that you should substitute “people” for “Africans”, including indigenous Australians, obviously.
roughbarked said:
I think it does relate to oldest out of Africa that is a continuous civilization or culture.
All modern Africans stem from the Bushmen but haven’t yet seen where the Bushmen and the Australian Aborigine link. Perhaps the information is there but not noticed by mine eyes?
We have the Aborigine/Papuan come from Africa 72,000 years ago, down to the modern aboriginal lanuages having dated only to 4,000.
Continuus or not, change was constant.
The Rev Dodgson said:
Witty Rejoinder said:
The Rev Dodgson said:But changes in a language, and interaction with other groups, do not indicate that a culture is not “continuous”.
There is certainly a degree of continuity but we do know that most prehistoric communities were animist and frequently matriarchal so the fact that by rise of agriculture societies were usually patriarchal, and worshiped gods in various forms shows how much they did change of the last 10,000 years.
I guess it’s reasonable to exclude “civilised” (ie urbanised) cultures from being “continuous” preceding their urbanisations, but there are still plenty of hunter/gatherer cultures outside Australia.
Yes. That’s why I specifically mentioned the America where there H/G societies mainly are Again the consensus is that there were quite large and continuous waves of movement as people entered the Amercias during the ice-ages whereas in Australia these were to a much lesser extent.. It is notable that the most diverse languages in Australia are those in FNQ and the Northern Territory closest to where new peoples would arrive from SE Asia
The Rev Dodgson said:
roughbarked said:
I think it does relate to oldest out of Africa that is a continuous civilization or culture.
All modern Africans stem from the Bushmen but haven’t yet seen where the Bushmen and the Australian Aborigine link. Perhaps the information is there but not noticed by mine eyes?
Your links would suggest that you should substitute “people” for “Africans”, including indigenous Australians, obviously.
No doubt about that.
are we to understand that “continuous” means not discontinuous, thus, the absence of any revolution, whether sociopolitical, economic, industrial, academic or otherwise
> But is it?
No.
roughbarked said:
roughbarked said:
I think it does relate to oldest out of Africa that is a continuous civilization or culture.
All modern Africans stem from the Bushmen but haven’t yet seen where the Bushmen and the Australian Aborigine link. Perhaps the information is there but not noticed by mine eyes?
We have the Aborigine/Papuan come from Africa 72,000 years ago, down to the modern aboriginal lanuages having dated only to 4,000.
Continuus or not, change was constant.
U.S. alleges wider Oath Keepers conspiracy, adds more charges in Jan. 6 Capitol riot
U.S. authorities on Friday alleged a broader conspiracy to attack the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6 among members and associates of the Oath Keepers, naming six new individuals charged in the case, all of whom appeared to be group members or associates.
One member posted on Facebook that 50 to 100 Oath Keepers planned to attend and that Jan. 6 would be “wild,” echoing then-President Donald Trump’s comment on Twitter rallying supporters to D.C.
A 21-page indictment alleged that the defendants “did knowingly combine, conspire, confederate, and agree with each other and others known and unknown” to force entry to the Capitol and obstruct Congress from certifying the election of Joe Biden as president in riots that led to five deaths and assaults on 139 police.
Read More:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/legal-issues/oathkeepers-charged-capitol-riot/2021/02/19/ac41f692-72ce-11eb-b8a9-b9467510f0fe_story.html?
Ooops sorry.
roughly translated oldest continuous probably means important, and ought be respected
i’m not sure what culture was the shortest discontinuous, or the youngest discontinuous
I might add that the capacity, perhaps even propensity for culture seems to be a universal of humans, almost as if it has some origins in biology, shaped way back in time, shaped by the environment maybe, social environments included, importantly
maybe i’m example of some of the oldest continuous biology on earth, i’m not sure
A few points:
All cultures are continuous back to the origin of culture, which in a sense probably predates H. sapiens. Each culture has evolved by a series of changes.
If what they mean is continuous and unchanging then it doesn’t apply in Australia (or anywhere). There were enormous changes in the cultures of Australia throughout the period of habitation.
But also: there’s never been 1 culture in Australia.
dv said:
A few points:
All cultures are continuous back to the origin of culture, which in a sense probably predates H. sapiens. Each culture has evolved by a series of changes.
If what they mean is continuous and unchanging then it doesn’t apply in Australia (or anywhere). There were enormous changes in the cultures of Australia throughout the period of habitation.
But also: there’s never been 1 culture in Australia.
The phrase does seem to be used mainly in a political context.
Perhaps we need a new phrase to mean “worthy of respect”.
dv said:
A few points:
All cultures are continuous back to the origin of culture, which in a sense probably predates H. sapiens. Each culture has evolved by a series of changes.
If what they mean is continuous and unchanging then it doesn’t apply in Australia (or anywhere). There were enormous changes in the cultures of Australia throughout the period of habitation.
But also: there’s never been 1 culture in Australia.
so cancel culture is the actual oldest continuous culture
dv said:
A few points:
All cultures are continuous back to the origin of culture, which in a sense probably predates H. sapiens. Each culture has evolved by a series of changes.
If what they mean is continuous and unchanging then it doesn’t apply in Australia (or anywhere). There were enormous changes in the cultures of Australia throughout the period of habitation.
But also: there’s never been 1 culture in Australia.
Never say never :)
Presumably the first group of humans to arrive could reasonably be considered to have a single culture.
I’m struggling to find a net link, but I’m pretty sure the people of this area understand at least two waves of people. There was The Old People. And there was the ancestors of the current locals. I’ve got it in books, but I can’t find it on the net.
buffy said:
I’m struggling to find a net link, but I’m pretty sure the people of this area understand at least two waves of people. There was The Old People. And there was the ancestors of the current locals. I’ve got it in books, but I can’t find it on the net.
Yes. At least two. That made it south.
roughbarked said:
buffy said:
I’m struggling to find a net link, but I’m pretty sure the people of this area understand at least two waves of people. There was The Old People. And there was the ancestors of the current locals. I’ve got it in books, but I can’t find it on the net.Yes. At least two. That made it south.
Finally, the research also offers an intriguing new perspective on how Aboriginal culture itself developed, raising the possibility of a mysterious, internal migration 4,000 years ago.
About 90% of Aboriginal communities today speak languages belonging to the “Pama-Nyungan” linguistic family. The study finds that all of these people are descendants of the founding population which diverged from the Papuans 37,000 years ago, then diverged further into genetically isolated communities.
This, however, throws up a long-established paradox. Language experts are adamant that Pama-Nyungan languages are much younger, dating back 4,000 years, and coinciding with the appearance of new stone technologies in the archaeological record.
Scientists have long puzzled over how – if these communities were completely isolated from each other and the rest of the world – they ended up sharing a language family that is much younger? The traditional answer has been that there was a second migration into Australia 4,000 years ago, by people speaking this language. https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/unprecedented-study-of-aboriginal-australians-points-to-one-shared-out-of-africa-migration-for
Ms Nagle said Aboriginal Australians were one of the most poorly studied populations from a human evolution perspective, despite being one of the oldest continuous cultures in the world.
“There has been ongoing debate for years among archaeologists, anthropologists and geneticists about when they arrived in Australia and the path they took to get here. “
“Our research found their migration to Australia was both ancient and complex, with at least two routes of entry.
“It supports previous findings that Aboriginal Australians arrived in Australia up to 55,000 years ago via the Indonesian island chain, but we found no evidence of any subsequent significant immigration until 1788.
“Our findings confirm they were isolated in Australia for tens of thousands of years before European colonisation.”
https://www.latrobe.edu.au/news/articles/2017/release/dna-study-of-indigenous-australians
“The very first people in the area were neither the Djab wurrung nor the Jardwadjali. Although possibly physically similar, the first people were culturally different to their successors. According to linguists, the Djab wurrung and Jardwadjali language is probably less than 5,000 years old, and the mechanism for a new language is usually a new people.
The Djab wurrung and the Jardwadjali probably arose out of the social upheaval accompanying rising seas, a more hospitable climate and an explosion in food and material resources at the end of the Ice Age. The Djab wurrung and Jardwadjali always referred to their predecessors as the Old People….With the water trapped in ice sheets and glaciers to the east and south during the last Ice Age, the Old People were living on the edge of a greatly expanded arid zone….”
—————————————————————————————
This book also has something to say about technological change in this area. (Gariwerd (the Grampians) in Southwest Victoria)
—————————————————————————————-
“…One of the few material indications that Aboriginal people changed with the times lies in the record of stone artefacts left behind in rock shelter floor deposits.
At Drual, the layers of deposits show that the Old People traded stone extensively throughout the Ice Age, obtaining, for instance, silcrete from central Victoria or the Mallee and rhyolite from the Rocklands area. About 5,000 years ago they switched to local resources of quartz and quartzite. A thousand years later, a specialised technique for making small thin blades from quartz was introduced. But the most significant change which occurred is signalled by the appearance of flakes of greenstone in the upper layers of the shelter floor deposits some 3,000 years ago.
This indicates that a major technological advance took place. An altered volcanic rock, greenstone combines hardness with a fine grain. It was to prove ideal for the production of heavy duty axe heads with a sharp cutting edge. By the time white men arrived, a greenstone axe was one of the most highly prized possession of a Jardwadjali or Dgab wurrung clan leader.
Greenstone was eventually traded between Aboriginal groups throughout south-eastern Australia. Astonishingly, one greenstone quarry near Lancefield in central Victoria came to dominate production, despite the evidence of more convenient local quarries, such as that on the Hopkins River near Gariwerd.
….Given that there is no discernible difference in quality between greenstone from any of the known quarries, archaeologists have speculated that possession of the central Victorian greenstone must have either attracted status as a “sacred” material or conferred higher social prestige on its owner. Either alternative would seem to imply that the Jardwadjali and the Djab wurrung were not only capable of technological change, but also as susceptible to skilled marketing as we are today.”
REF: The People of Gariwerd. Gib Wettenhall.
buffy said:
“The very first people in the area were neither the Djab wurrung nor the Jardwadjali. Although possibly physically similar, the first people were culturally different to their successors. According to linguists, the Djab wurrung and Jardwadjali language is probably less than 5,000 years old, and the mechanism for a new language is usually a new people.The Djab wurrung and the Jardwadjali probably arose out of the social upheaval accompanying rising seas, a more hospitable climate and an explosion in food and material resources at the end of the Ice Age. The Djab wurrung and Jardwadjali always referred to their predecessors as the Old People….With the water trapped in ice sheets and glaciers to the east and south during the last Ice Age, the Old People were living on the edge of a greatly expanded arid zone….”
—————————————————————————————
This book also has something to say about technological change in this area. (Gariwerd (the Grampians) in Southwest Victoria)—————————————————————————————-
“…One of the few material indications that Aboriginal people changed with the times lies in the record of stone artefacts left behind in rock shelter floor deposits.
At Drual, the layers of deposits show that the Old People traded stone extensively throughout the Ice Age, obtaining, for instance, silcrete from central Victoria or the Mallee and rhyolite from the Rocklands area. About 5,000 years ago they switched to local resources of quartz and quartzite. A thousand years later, a specialised technique for making small thin blades from quartz was introduced. But the most significant change which occurred is signalled by the appearance of flakes of greenstone in the upper layers of the shelter floor deposits some 3,000 years ago.
This indicates that a major technological advance took place. An altered volcanic rock, greenstone combines hardness with a fine grain. It was to prove ideal for the production of heavy duty axe heads with a sharp cutting edge. By the time white men arrived, a greenstone axe was one of the most highly prized possession of a Jardwadjali or Dgab wurrung clan leader.
Greenstone was eventually traded between Aboriginal groups throughout south-eastern Australia. Astonishingly, one greenstone quarry near Lancefield in central Victoria came to dominate production, despite the evidence of more convenient local quarries, such as that on the Hopkins River near Gariwerd.
….Given that there is no discernible difference in quality between greenstone from any of the known quarries, archaeologists have speculated that possession of the central Victorian greenstone must have either attracted status as a “sacred” material or conferred higher social prestige on its owner. Either alternative would seem to imply that the Jardwadjali and the Djab wurrung were not only capable of technological change, but also as susceptible to skilled marketing as we are today.”
REF: The People of Gariwerd. Gib Wettenhall.
The quarry even has its own wiki page.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_William_stone_axe_quarry
sibeen said:
buffy said:
“The very first people in the area were neither the Djab wurrung nor the Jardwadjali. Although possibly physically similar, the first people were culturally different to their successors. According to linguists, the Djab wurrung and Jardwadjali language is probably less than 5,000 years old, and the mechanism for a new language is usually a new people.The Djab wurrung and the Jardwadjali probably arose out of the social upheaval accompanying rising seas, a more hospitable climate and an explosion in food and material resources at the end of the Ice Age. The Djab wurrung and Jardwadjali always referred to their predecessors as the Old People….With the water trapped in ice sheets and glaciers to the east and south during the last Ice Age, the Old People were living on the edge of a greatly expanded arid zone….”
—————————————————————————————
This book also has something to say about technological change in this area. (Gariwerd (the Grampians) in Southwest Victoria)—————————————————————————————-
“…One of the few material indications that Aboriginal people changed with the times lies in the record of stone artefacts left behind in rock shelter floor deposits.
At Drual, the layers of deposits show that the Old People traded stone extensively throughout the Ice Age, obtaining, for instance, silcrete from central Victoria or the Mallee and rhyolite from the Rocklands area. About 5,000 years ago they switched to local resources of quartz and quartzite. A thousand years later, a specialised technique for making small thin blades from quartz was introduced. But the most significant change which occurred is signalled by the appearance of flakes of greenstone in the upper layers of the shelter floor deposits some 3,000 years ago.
This indicates that a major technological advance took place. An altered volcanic rock, greenstone combines hardness with a fine grain. It was to prove ideal for the production of heavy duty axe heads with a sharp cutting edge. By the time white men arrived, a greenstone axe was one of the most highly prized possession of a Jardwadjali or Dgab wurrung clan leader.
Greenstone was eventually traded between Aboriginal groups throughout south-eastern Australia. Astonishingly, one greenstone quarry near Lancefield in central Victoria came to dominate production, despite the evidence of more convenient local quarries, such as that on the Hopkins River near Gariwerd.
….Given that there is no discernible difference in quality between greenstone from any of the known quarries, archaeologists have speculated that possession of the central Victorian greenstone must have either attracted status as a “sacred” material or conferred higher social prestige on its owner. Either alternative would seem to imply that the Jardwadjali and the Djab wurrung were not only capable of technological change, but also as susceptible to skilled marketing as we are today.”
REF: The People of Gariwerd. Gib Wettenhall.
The quarry even has its own wiki page.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_William_stone_axe_quarry
Thanks, interesting.
Michael V said:
sibeen said:
buffy said:
“The very first people in the area were neither the Djab wurrung nor the Jardwadjali. Although possibly physically similar, the first people were culturally different to their successors. According to linguists, the Djab wurrung and Jardwadjali language is probably less than 5,000 years old, and the mechanism for a new language is usually a new people.The Djab wurrung and the Jardwadjali probably arose out of the social upheaval accompanying rising seas, a more hospitable climate and an explosion in food and material resources at the end of the Ice Age. The Djab wurrung and Jardwadjali always referred to their predecessors as the Old People….With the water trapped in ice sheets and glaciers to the east and south during the last Ice Age, the Old People were living on the edge of a greatly expanded arid zone….”
—————————————————————————————
This book also has something to say about technological change in this area. (Gariwerd (the Grampians) in Southwest Victoria)—————————————————————————————-
“…One of the few material indications that Aboriginal people changed with the times lies in the record of stone artefacts left behind in rock shelter floor deposits.
At Drual, the layers of deposits show that the Old People traded stone extensively throughout the Ice Age, obtaining, for instance, silcrete from central Victoria or the Mallee and rhyolite from the Rocklands area. About 5,000 years ago they switched to local resources of quartz and quartzite. A thousand years later, a specialised technique for making small thin blades from quartz was introduced. But the most significant change which occurred is signalled by the appearance of flakes of greenstone in the upper layers of the shelter floor deposits some 3,000 years ago.
This indicates that a major technological advance took place. An altered volcanic rock, greenstone combines hardness with a fine grain. It was to prove ideal for the production of heavy duty axe heads with a sharp cutting edge. By the time white men arrived, a greenstone axe was one of the most highly prized possession of a Jardwadjali or Dgab wurrung clan leader.
Greenstone was eventually traded between Aboriginal groups throughout south-eastern Australia. Astonishingly, one greenstone quarry near Lancefield in central Victoria came to dominate production, despite the evidence of more convenient local quarries, such as that on the Hopkins River near Gariwerd.
….Given that there is no discernible difference in quality between greenstone from any of the known quarries, archaeologists have speculated that possession of the central Victorian greenstone must have either attracted status as a “sacred” material or conferred higher social prestige on its owner. Either alternative would seem to imply that the Jardwadjali and the Djab wurrung were not only capable of technological change, but also as susceptible to skilled marketing as we are today.”
REF: The People of Gariwerd. Gib Wettenhall.
The quarry even has its own wiki page.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_William_stone_axe_quarry
Thanks, interesting.
Which brings me back to this item in the possession of our family.
I checked with Dr Richard Cosgrove who has done the only study on examples of this tool. His study was of tools of the same shape made from ground and polished hornsfels slate. His were dated at around 5,000 years in FNQ.
He also said he was in a different field of study today.
However, he observed that my ooyurka appeared to be pecked into shape from vesiculated basalt. Yet the working edge was ground and polished and I was flat out getting a cigarette paper between it and a straight edge for most all of it’s length.
He said it was a rainforest tool. This one was found on a sandhill near Leeton. Different stone different technique, same tool. lots of questions.
dv said:
A few points:
All cultures are continuous back to the origin of culture, which in a sense probably predates H. sapiens. Each culture has evolved by a series of changes.
If what they mean is continuous and unchanging then it doesn’t apply in Australia (or anywhere). There were enormous changes in the cultures of Australia throughout the period of habitation.
But also: there’s never been 1 culture in Australia.
Would you concede that without large scale external interventions cultures can change more slowly than may be the case elsewhere?
Witty Rejoinder said:
dv said:A few points:
All cultures are continuous back to the origin of culture, which in a sense probably predates H. sapiens. Each culture has evolved by a series of changes.
If what they mean is continuous and unchanging then it doesn’t apply in Australia (or anywhere). There were enormous changes in the cultures of Australia throughout the period of habitation.
But also: there’s never been 1 culture in Australia.
Would you concede that without large scale external interventions cultures can change more slowly than may be the case elsewhere?
so what we’re saying is, some cultures have a paucity of new experience and are less developed than others
buffy said:
“The very first people in the area were neither the Djab wurrung nor the Jardwadjali. Although possibly physically similar, the first people were culturally different to their successors. According to linguists, the Djab wurrung and Jardwadjali language is probably less than 5,000 years old, and the mechanism for a new language is usually a new people.The Djab wurrung and the Jardwadjali probably arose out of the social upheaval accompanying rising seas, a more hospitable climate and an explosion in food and material resources at the end of the Ice Age. The Djab wurrung and Jardwadjali always referred to their predecessors as the Old People….With the water trapped in ice sheets and glaciers to the east and south during the last Ice Age, the Old People were living on the edge of a greatly expanded arid zone….”
—————————————————————————————
This book also has something to say about technological change in this area. (Gariwerd (the Grampians) in Southwest Victoria)—————————————————————————————-
“…One of the few material indications that Aboriginal people changed with the times lies in the record of stone artefacts left behind in rock shelter floor deposits.
At Drual, the layers of deposits show that the Old People traded stone extensively throughout the Ice Age, obtaining, for instance, silcrete from central Victoria or the Mallee and rhyolite from the Rocklands area. About 5,000 years ago they switched to local resources of quartz and quartzite. A thousand years later, a specialised technique for making small thin blades from quartz was introduced. But the most significant change which occurred is signalled by the appearance of flakes of greenstone in the upper layers of the shelter floor deposits some 3,000 years ago.
This indicates that a major technological advance took place. An altered volcanic rock, greenstone combines hardness with a fine grain. It was to prove ideal for the production of heavy duty axe heads with a sharp cutting edge. By the time white men arrived, a greenstone axe was one of the most highly prized possession of a Jardwadjali or Dgab wurrung clan leader.
Greenstone was eventually traded between Aboriginal groups throughout south-eastern Australia. Astonishingly, one greenstone quarry near Lancefield in central Victoria came to dominate production, despite the evidence of more convenient local quarries, such as that on the Hopkins River near Gariwerd.
….Given that there is no discernible difference in quality between greenstone from any of the known quarries, archaeologists have speculated that possession of the central Victorian greenstone must have either attracted status as a “sacred” material or conferred higher social prestige on its owner. Either alternative would seem to imply that the Jardwadjali and the Djab wurrung were not only capable of technological change, but also as susceptible to skilled marketing as we are today.”
REF: The People of Gariwerd. Gib Wettenhall.
I wonder what the genetic record tells us? I would contend that the fact that Aboriginal Australians were largely morphologically similar across entire continent in 1788, while also markedly different from the present population of SE Asia, that though the language may have changed 5,000 years ago the genetics did not.
The dark skin colour of Dravidian in India would be the closest physically to Aboriginal Australians but then there is no evidence that they influenced prehistoric Australian languages.
buffy said:
I’m struggling to find a net link, but I’m pretty sure the people of this area understand at least two waves of people. There was The Old People. And there was the ancestors of the current locals. I’ve got it in books, but I can’t find it on the net.
There have been multiple waves of migration to Australia prior to European colonisation, and significant genetic and cultural exchange with the outside world even between these waves.
dv said:
buffy said:
I’m struggling to find a net link, but I’m pretty sure the people of this area understand at least two waves of people. There was The Old People. And there was the ancestors of the current locals. I’ve got it in books, but I can’t find it on the net.There have been multiple waves of migration to Australia prior to European colonisation, and significant genetic and cultural exchange with the outside world even between these waves.
If there were large scale and multiple waves of migration between Indonesia and Australia for much of prehistory how come there is no evidence of these seafarers bringing with them the most important prehistorical goods namely chickens, pigs or rice? Chicken for one was introduced to the islands of the pacific by seafarers on primitive canoes over thousands of kilometres but wasn’t taken the short distance to northern Australia. Something doesn’t add up.
Witty Rejoinder said:
dv said:
buffy said:
I’m struggling to find a net link, but I’m pretty sure the people of this area understand at least two waves of people. There was The Old People. And there was the ancestors of the current locals. I’ve got it in books, but I can’t find it on the net.There have been multiple waves of migration to Australia prior to European colonisation, and significant genetic and cultural exchange with the outside world even between these waves.
If there were large scale and multiple waves of migration between Indonesia and Australia for much of prehistory how come there is no evidence of these seafarers bringing with them the most important prehistorical goods namely chickens, pigs or rice? Chicken for one was introduced to the islands of the pacific by seafarers on primitive canoes over thousands of kilometres but wasn’t taken the short distance to northern Australia. Something doesn’t add up.
Goannas and Thylacaleos ate them all.
Witty Rejoinder said:
dv said:
buffy said:
I’m struggling to find a net link, but I’m pretty sure the people of this area understand at least two waves of people. There was The Old People. And there was the ancestors of the current locals. I’ve got it in books, but I can’t find it on the net.There have been multiple waves of migration to Australia prior to European colonisation, and significant genetic and cultural exchange with the outside world even between these waves.
If there were large scale and multiple waves of migration between Indonesia and Australia for much of prehistory how come there is no evidence of these seafarers bringing with them the most important prehistorical goods namely chickens, pigs or rice? Chicken for one was introduced to the islands of the pacific by seafarers on primitive canoes over thousands of kilometres but wasn’t taken the short distance to northern Australia. Something doesn’t add up.
Fair comment.
Now, how did Boabs (Adansonia gregorii) get here?
Michael V said:
Witty Rejoinder said:
dv said:There have been multiple waves of migration to Australia prior to European colonisation, and significant genetic and cultural exchange with the outside world even between these waves.
If there were large scale and multiple waves of migration between Indonesia and Australia for much of prehistory how come there is no evidence of these seafarers bringing with them the most important prehistorical goods namely chickens, pigs or rice? Chicken for one was introduced to the islands of the pacific by seafarers on primitive canoes over thousands of kilometres but wasn’t taken the short distance to northern Australia. Something doesn’t add up.
Fair comment.
Now, how did Boabs (Adansonia gregorii) get here?
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-08-07/boabs-come-africa-baobabs-evolution/10060946
https://www.australiangeographic.com.au/topics/science-environment/2019/07/how-did-the-iconic-boab-tree-get-to-australia/
Witty Rejoinder said:
dv said:
buffy said:
I’m struggling to find a net link, but I’m pretty sure the people of this area understand at least two waves of people. There was The Old People. And there was the ancestors of the current locals. I’ve got it in books, but I can’t find it on the net.There have been multiple waves of migration to Australia prior to European colonisation, and significant genetic and cultural exchange with the outside world even between these waves.
If there were large scale and multiple waves of migration between Indonesia and Australia for much of prehistory how come there is no evidence of these seafarers bringing with them the most important prehistorical goods namely chickens, pigs or rice? Chicken for one was introduced to the islands of the pacific by seafarers on primitive canoes over thousands of kilometres but wasn’t taken the short distance to northern Australia. Something doesn’t add up.
The polynesian expansion that spread pigs and chickens is, in the scheme of things, recent.
dv said:
Witty Rejoinder said:
dv said:There have been multiple waves of migration to Australia prior to European colonisation, and significant genetic and cultural exchange with the outside world even between these waves.
If there were large scale and multiple waves of migration between Indonesia and Australia for much of prehistory how come there is no evidence of these seafarers bringing with them the most important prehistorical goods namely chickens, pigs or rice? Chicken for one was introduced to the islands of the pacific by seafarers on primitive canoes over thousands of kilometres but wasn’t taken the short distance to northern Australia. Something doesn’t add up.
The polynesian expansion that spread pigs and chickens is, in the scheme of things, recent.
True that. NZ colonisation is only 1500 years or so, apparently.
sibeen said:
dv said:
Witty Rejoinder said:If there were large scale and multiple waves of migration between Indonesia and Australia for much of prehistory how come there is no evidence of these seafarers bringing with them the most important prehistorical goods namely chickens, pigs or rice? Chicken for one was introduced to the islands of the pacific by seafarers on primitive canoes over thousands of kilometres but wasn’t taken the short distance to northern Australia. Something doesn’t add up.
The polynesian expansion that spread pigs and chickens is, in the scheme of things, recent.
True that. NZ colonisation is only 1500 years or so, apparently.
Still, there was a window of opportunity for pigs and chickens (and a few others) to be brought to Australia. If the dingo arrived between 5,000 and 10,000 years ago there must have been no technological barrier.
party_pants said:
sibeen said:
dv said:The polynesian expansion that spread pigs and chickens is, in the scheme of things, recent.
True that. NZ colonisation is only 1500 years or so, apparently.
Still, there was a window of opportunity for pigs and chickens (and a few others) to be brought to Australia. If the dingo arrived between 5,000 and 10,000 years ago there must have been no technological barrier.
Right. Sometimes things don’t happen. It doesn’t erase the evidence of contact.
dv said:
party_pants said:
sibeen said:True that. NZ colonisation is only 1500 years or so, apparently.
Still, there was a window of opportunity for pigs and chickens (and a few others) to be brought to Australia. If the dingo arrived between 5,000 and 10,000 years ago there must have been no technological barrier.
Right. Sometimes things don’t happen. It doesn’t erase the evidence of contact.
No. I am genuinely curious as to why no Austronesian visitors brought with them chickens or pigs, or any useful plant species on their visits. These are the same people who reached and settled Madagascar in the early centuries CE, so voyaging to Australia should have been easy for them.
party_pants said:
dv said:
party_pants said:Still, there was a window of opportunity for pigs and chickens (and a few others) to be brought to Australia. If the dingo arrived between 5,000 and 10,000 years ago there must have been no technological barrier.
Right. Sometimes things don’t happen. It doesn’t erase the evidence of contact.
No. I am genuinely curious as to why no Austronesian visitors brought with them chickens or pigs, or any useful plant species on their visits. These are the same people who reached and settled Madagascar in the early centuries CE, so voyaging to Australia should have been easy for them.
I am sure that such visits happened, for trochus shells and sea cucumbers and the like, for thousands of years. Long before we started getting upity about fishing rights and EEZs.
party_pants said:
dv said:
party_pants said:Still, there was a window of opportunity for pigs and chickens (and a few others) to be brought to Australia. If the dingo arrived between 5,000 and 10,000 years ago there must have been no technological barrier.
Right. Sometimes things don’t happen. It doesn’t erase the evidence of contact.
No. I am genuinely curious as to why no Austronesian visitors brought with them chickens or pigs, or any useful plant species on their visits. These are the same people who reached and settled Madagascar in the early centuries CE, so voyaging to Australia should have been easy for them.
Maybe they were just hairdressers and telephone sanitisers?
party_pants said:
party_pants said:
dv said:Right. Sometimes things don’t happen. It doesn’t erase the evidence of contact.
No. I am genuinely curious as to why no Austronesian visitors brought with them chickens or pigs, or any useful plant species on their visits. These are the same people who reached and settled Madagascar in the early centuries CE, so voyaging to Australia should have been easy for them.
I am sure that such visits happened, for trochus shells and sea cucumbers and the like, for thousands of years. Long before we started getting upity about fishing rights and EEZs.
They did happen and yes, no chickens nor pigs did pass.
furious said:
party_pants said:
dv said:Right. Sometimes things don’t happen. It doesn’t erase the evidence of contact.
No. I am genuinely curious as to why no Austronesian visitors brought with them chickens or pigs, or any useful plant species on their visits. These are the same people who reached and settled Madagascar in the early centuries CE, so voyaging to Australia should have been easy for them.
Maybe they were just hairdressers and telephone sanitisers?
Lols.. hey. the indigies did have a spaceship dreamtime too.
roughbarked said:
furious said:
party_pants said:No. I am genuinely curious as to why no Austronesian visitors brought with them chickens or pigs, or any useful plant species on their visits. These are the same people who reached and settled Madagascar in the early centuries CE, so voyaging to Australia should have been easy for them.
Maybe they were just hairdressers and telephone sanitisers?
Lols.. hey. the indigies did have a spaceship dreamtime too.
Biume
party_pants said:
dv said:
party_pants said:Still, there was a window of opportunity for pigs and chickens (and a few others) to be brought to Australia. If the dingo arrived between 5,000 and 10,000 years ago there must have been no technological barrier.
Right. Sometimes things don’t happen. It doesn’t erase the evidence of contact.
No. I am genuinely curious as to why no Austronesian visitors brought with them chickens or pigs, or any useful plant species on their visits. These are the same people who reached and settled Madagascar in the early centuries CE, so voyaging to Australia should have been easy for them.
Actually the jury are still out on quite a lot of interloper plants and how they got to be here.
Basically, what we do know is that for quite a long time, trepang fishermen were allowed to fish in the northern waters.
party_pants said:
dv said:
party_pants said:Still, there was a window of opportunity for pigs and chickens (and a few others) to be brought to Australia. If the dingo arrived between 5,000 and 10,000 years ago there must have been no technological barrier.
Right. Sometimes things don’t happen. It doesn’t erase the evidence of contact.
No. I am genuinely curious as to why no Austronesian visitors brought with them chickens or pigs, or any useful plant species on their visits. These are the same people who reached and settled Madagascar in the early centuries CE, so voyaging to Australia should have been easy for them.
The Aborigines were hunter/gatherers, so lugging around pigs and chickens would not be an option, if they were brought here they would have been eaten pretty quickly.
PermeateFree said:
party_pants said:
dv said:Right. Sometimes things don’t happen. It doesn’t erase the evidence of contact.
No. I am genuinely curious as to why no Austronesian visitors brought with them chickens or pigs, or any useful plant species on their visits. These are the same people who reached and settled Madagascar in the early centuries CE, so voyaging to Australia should have been easy for them.
The Aborigines were hunter/gatherers, so lugging around pigs and chickens would not be an option, if they were brought here they would have been eaten pretty quickly.
Was my thoughts. They brought us gifts of food for our trepang.
PermeateFree said:
party_pants said:
dv said:Right. Sometimes things don’t happen. It doesn’t erase the evidence of contact.
No. I am genuinely curious as to why no Austronesian visitors brought with them chickens or pigs, or any useful plant species on their visits. These are the same people who reached and settled Madagascar in the early centuries CE, so voyaging to Australia should have been easy for them.
The Aborigines were hunter/gatherers, so lugging around pigs and chickens would not be an option, if they were brought here they would have been eaten pretty quickly.
All ancient cultures world-wide started off as hunter gatherers but given the opportunity they transitioned to settled agriculture. Of course Aboriginal commitments to country could mean that they didn’t but I think it still calls into question DV’s contention of regular and consistant migration.
JudgeMental said:
Michael V said:
Witty Rejoinder said:If there were large scale and multiple waves of migration between Indonesia and Australia for much of prehistory how come there is no evidence of these seafarers bringing with them the most important prehistorical goods namely chickens, pigs or rice? Chicken for one was introduced to the islands of the pacific by seafarers on primitive canoes over thousands of kilometres but wasn’t taken the short distance to northern Australia. Something doesn’t add up.
Fair comment.
Now, how did Boabs (Adansonia gregorii) get here?
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-08-07/boabs-come-africa-baobabs-evolution/10060946
https://www.australiangeographic.com.au/topics/science-environment/2019/07/how-did-the-iconic-boab-tree-get-to-australia/
I’ve mentioned Jack here before, in relation to the living paint in the Bradshaw cave paintings in Western Australia. The lecture of his I went to years ago covered the boabs too. He was a compelling lecturer. He died in May 2019.
Witty Rejoinder said:
PermeateFree said:
party_pants said:No. I am genuinely curious as to why no Austronesian visitors brought with them chickens or pigs, or any useful plant species on their visits. These are the same people who reached and settled Madagascar in the early centuries CE, so voyaging to Australia should have been easy for them.
The Aborigines were hunter/gatherers, so lugging around pigs and chickens would not be an option, if they were brought here they would have been eaten pretty quickly.
All ancient cultures world-wide started off as hunter gatherers but given the opportunity they transitioned to settled agriculture. Of course Aboriginal commitments to country could mean that they didn’t but I think it still calls into question DV’s contention of regular and consistant migration.
I think the term “given the opportunity they transitioned to settled agriculture.” is highly debatable as in higher populated countries with a smaller land mass, land and ease of travel becomes more difficult as neighbouring land owners might not appreciate intruders. Agriculture might well have been the way of overcoming the overpopulation problem, especially when wild game was being depleted by more people hunting them. With Australia’s large land mass and relatively small population it was probably not a major problem and a semi-nomadic lifestyle would have many advantages regarding nutrition, largely without the extensive Australian climatic problems.
A regular and consistent migration to Australia is also a contentious proposition other than from PNG due to distances involved elsewhere and more primitive water craft technology, making long sea voyages extremely dangerous unless done during the last two ice ages when water levels were much lower and possibly exposed land to island hop to Australia.