Oldest Aboriginal pottery discovered in Far North Queensland, say researchers
https://amp.abc.net.au/article/103681662

In short: Scientists have uncovered 82 pieces of pottery on Jiigurru (Lizard Island) that are dated to between 3,000 and 1,800 years old.

The pottery may have been made locally by First Nations people, making it the oldest — and one of the only — examples of Aboriginal pottery.

What’s next? Experts agree more archaeology in the area needs to be done.

More…

Tau.Neutrino said:

Oldest Aboriginal pottery discovered in Far North Queensland, say researchers
https://amp.abc.net.au/article/103681662

In short: Scientists have uncovered 82 pieces of pottery on Jiigurru (Lizard Island) that are dated to between 3,000 and 1,800 years old.

The pottery may have been made locally by First Nations people, making it the oldest — and one of the only — examples of Aboriginal pottery.

What’s next? Experts agree more archaeology in the area needs to be done.

More…

Was just now reading that.

roughbarked said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Oldest Aboriginal pottery discovered in Far North Queensland, say researchers
https://amp.abc.net.au/article/103681662

In short: Scientists have uncovered 82 pieces of pottery on Jiigurru (Lizard Island) that are dated to between 3,000 and 1,800 years old.

The pottery may have been made locally by First Nations people, making it the oldest — and one of the only — examples of Aboriginal pottery.

What’s next? Experts agree more archaeology in the area needs to be done.

More…

Was just now reading that.

Interesting article, that changes Aboriginal history a bit.

Would be interesting to replicate the recipe of materials used.

Why they stopped would be interesting.

Tau.Neutrino said:

Why they stopped would be interesting.

It appears to have only been on this island thus far.

Very interesting.

Though I still contend that the phrase “one of the only” doesn’t really mean anything.

dv said:

Though I still contend that the phrase “one of the only” doesn’t really mean anything.

I’ll go along with that.

Tau.Neutrino said:

Oldest Aboriginal pottery discovered in Far North Queensland, say researchers
https://amp.abc.net.au/article/103681662

In short: Scientists have uncovered 82 pieces of pottery on Jiigurru (Lizard Island) that are dated to between 3,000 and 1,800 years old.

The pottery may have been made locally by First Nations people, making it the oldest — and one of the only — examples of Aboriginal pottery.

What’s next? Experts agree more archaeology in the area needs to be done.

More…

that it was found on an island raises the question for me
as to possible contact with an ancient sea faring people:
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Phoenician

Ogmog said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Oldest Aboriginal pottery discovered in Far North Queensland, say researchers
https://amp.abc.net.au/article/103681662

In short: Scientists have uncovered 82 pieces of pottery on Jiigurru (Lizard Island) that are dated to between 3,000 and 1,800 years old.

The pottery may have been made locally by First Nations people, making it the oldest — and one of the only — examples of Aboriginal pottery.

What’s next? Experts agree more archaeology in the area needs to be done.

More…

that it was found on an island raises the question for me
as to possible contact with an ancient sea faring people:
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Phoenician

Yes it was from contact with a seafaring people. The Lapita.

dv said:

Though I still contend that the phrase “one of the only” doesn’t really mean anything.

That’s one of the only times I have seen you contend that.

Interesting, thanks for posting this TN.

It didn’t turn up in Just In. I wonder why.

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

Though I still contend that the phrase “one of the only” doesn’t really mean anything.

That’s one of the only times I have seen you contend that.

The grammraphopia position on this important question

…
“Perhaps you object because you think “the only” implies just one, but that’s not the case. In some constructions, “only” is used legitimately in a plural sense to mean very few.

For instance, if “only three people” know a secret, they’re “the only three people” who know it. And if Jack is among them, then he’s “one of the only three people” who know it. Nothing wrong there, either grammatically or logically.”
…

The northern Aborigines were known to be very aggressive to outsiders that would make any seafarer stay out to sea whilst they travelled south and Lizard Island would seem to be a good place to stop. Regular trips over the years for trade, marine life or just exploration could explain the differing ages of the pottery. Aborigines are very good at doing things in the simplest possible way and they had a plentiful supply of large shells for storage, cooking and holding water (plus a lot lighter to carry than pottery) indicating pottery would seem unlikely to be of local manufacture.

PermeateFree said:

The northern Aborigines were known to be very aggressive to outsiders that would make any seafarer stay out to sea whilst they travelled south and Lizard Island would seem to be a good place to stop. Regular trips over the years for trade, marine life or just exploration could explain the differing ages of the pottery. Aborigines are very good at doing things in the simplest possible way and they had a plentiful supply of large shells for storage, cooking and holding water (plus a lot lighter to carry than pottery) indicating pottery would seem unlikely to be of local manufacture.

Makes sense why fix something that isn’t broken

Michael V said:

Interesting, thanks for posting this TN.

It didn’t turn up in Just In. I wonder why.

I think it did. I reckon I read the headline before I went to Hamilton, meaning to come back to it. But then I heard it on NewsRadio in the car.

Yes, it was up 5 hours ago.

Link

:)

The Rev Dodgson said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

Though I still contend that the phrase “one of the only” doesn’t really mean anything.

That’s one of the only times I have seen you contend that.

The grammraphopia position on this important question

…
“Perhaps you object because you think “the only” implies just one, but that’s not the case. In some constructions, “only” is used legitimately in a plural sense to mean very few.

For instance, if “only three people” know a secret, they’re “the only three people” who know it. And if Jack is among them, then he’s “one of the only three people” who know it. Nothing wrong there, either grammatically or logically.”
…

That’s not my objection. What does “one of the only” tell you that “one of the” doesn’t?

buffy said:

Michael V said:

Interesting, thanks for posting this TN.

It didn’t turn up in Just In. I wonder why.

I think it did. I reckon I read the headline before I went to Hamilton, meaning to come back to it. But then I heard it on NewsRadio in the car.

Yes, it was up 5 hours ago.

Link

:)

Huh!

This has happened before.

I re-loaded Justin but it’s still not there. There seems to be a gap from 5 hrs to 17 hrs ago.

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

That’s one of the only times I have seen you contend that.

The grammraphopia position on this important question

…
“Perhaps you object because you think “the only” implies just one, but that’s not the case. In some constructions, “only” is used legitimately in a plural sense to mean very few.

For instance, if “only three people” know a secret, they’re “the only three people” who know it. And if Jack is among them, then he’s “one of the only three people” who know it. Nothing wrong there, either grammatically or logically.”
…

That’s not my objection. What does “one of the only” tell you that “one of the” doesn’t?

That it is a very rare thing.

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

That’s one of the only times I have seen you contend that.

The grammraphopia position on this important question

…
“Perhaps you object because you think “the only” implies just one, but that’s not the case. In some constructions, “only” is used legitimately in a plural sense to mean very few.

For instance, if “only three people” know a secret, they’re “the only three people” who know it. And if Jack is among them, then he’s “one of the only three people” who know it. Nothing wrong there, either grammatically or logically.”
…

That’s not my objection. What does “one of the only” tell you that “one of the” doesn’t?

Makes it seem more important perhaps ?

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

The grammraphopia position on this important question

…
“Perhaps you object because you think “the only” implies just one, but that’s not the case. In some constructions, “only” is used legitimately in a plural sense to mean very few.

For instance, if “only three people” know a secret, they’re “the only three people” who know it. And if Jack is among them, then he’s “one of the only three people” who know it. Nothing wrong there, either grammatically or logically.”
…

That’s not my objection. What does “one of the only” tell you that “one of the” doesn’t?

That it is a very rare thing.

That would be “one of the few”.

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

That’s not my objection. What does “one of the only” tell you that “one of the” doesn’t?

That it is a very rare thing.

That would be “one of the few”.

Would it be pedantic for me to suggest that this discussion should be moved to a pedantic thread?

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

That it is a very rare thing.

That would be “one of the few”.

Would it be pedantic for me to suggest that this discussion should be moved to a pedantic thread?

I think DV was talking about 1940 spitfire pilots.

Peak Warming Man said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

That would be “one of the few”.

Would it be pedantic for me to suggest that this discussion should be moved to a pedantic thread?

I think DV was talking about 1940 spitfire pilots.

neVAH

PermeateFree said:

The northern Aborigines were known to be very aggressive to outsiders that would make any seafarer stay out to sea whilst they travelled south and Lizard Island would seem to be a good place to stop. Regular trips over the years for trade, marine life or just exploration could explain the differing ages of the pottery. Aborigines are very good at doing things in the simplest possible way and they had a plentiful supply of large shells for storage, cooking and holding water (plus a lot lighter to carry than pottery) indicating pottery would seem unlikely to be of local manufacture.

But it was seen to be made from local ingredients.

roughbarked said:

PermeateFree said:

The northern Aborigines were known to be very aggressive to outsiders that would make any seafarer stay out to sea whilst they travelled south and Lizard Island would seem to be a good place to stop. Regular trips over the years for trade, marine life or just exploration could explain the differing ages of the pottery. Aborigines are very good at doing things in the simplest possible way and they had a plentiful supply of large shells for storage, cooking and holding water (plus a lot lighter to carry than pottery) indicating pottery would seem unlikely to be of local manufacture.

But it was seen to be made from local ingredients.

Similar to local ingredients. Clay and sand are a very common commodity.

PermeateFree said:

roughbarked said:

PermeateFree said:

The northern Aborigines were known to be very aggressive to outsiders that would make any seafarer stay out to sea whilst they travelled south and Lizard Island would seem to be a good place to stop. Regular trips over the years for trade, marine life or just exploration could explain the differing ages of the pottery. Aborigines are very good at doing things in the simplest possible way and they had a plentiful supply of large shells for storage, cooking and holding water (plus a lot lighter to carry than pottery) indicating pottery would seem unlikely to be of local manufacture.

But it was seen to be made from local ingredients.

Similar to local ingredients. Clay and sand are a very common commodity.

:) Not usually in the same place though.

roughbarked said:

PermeateFree said:

roughbarked said:

But it was seen to be made from local ingredients.

Similar to local ingredients. Clay and sand are a very common commodity.

:) Not usually in the same place though.

All you need to make clay is a drainage area carrying small particles to a common area.

PermeateFree said:

roughbarked said:

PermeateFree said:

Similar to local ingredients. Clay and sand are a very common commodity.

:) Not usually in the same place though.

All you need to make clay is a drainage area carrying small particles to a common area.

:) There’s ample evidence of that in nature.

roughbarked said:

PermeateFree said:

roughbarked said:

:) Not usually in the same place though.

All you need to make clay is a drainage area carrying small particles to a common area.

:) There’s ample evidence of that in nature.

More than ample, it is extremely common.

PermeateFree said:

roughbarked said:

PermeateFree said:

All you need to make clay is a drainage area carrying small particles to a common area.

:) There’s ample evidence of that in nature.

More than ample, it is extremely common.

You’d also assume humans removed in time and space would all have similar observation skills and basic abilities to create similar objects with the resources at hand.

Cymek said:

PermeateFree said:

roughbarked said:

:) There’s ample evidence of that in nature.

More than ample, it is extremely common.

You’d also assume humans removed in time and space would all have similar observation skills and basic abilities to create similar objects with the resources at hand.

Aboriginals were experts at weaving receptacles which are a lot lighter to carry about than pottery.

Witty Rejoinder said:

Cymek said:

PermeateFree said:

More than ample, it is extremely common.

You’d also assume humans removed in time and space would all have similar observation skills and basic abilities to create similar objects with the resources at hand.

Aboriginals were experts at weaving receptacles which are a lot lighter to carry about than pottery.

They were.
There is no mainland evidence of carrying pottery.
Things like coolamons and dilly bags, yes.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379124001252

Link

Early Aboriginal pottery production and offshore island occupation on Jiigurru (Lizard Island group),
Great Barrier Reef, Australia