There has been a great improvement in the ability to sequence, analyse and compare mtDNA and Y-DNA in existing creatures and in fairly recent fossils, in order to better understand phylogenetic relationships and histories.

This has led to greatly improved understanding of human history in Africa, Europe, Western Asia and the Americas. Consider the following papers:

DNA from a 400,000 year old hominin from Spain decoded
Late Pleistocene Human Skeleton and mtDNA Link Paleoamericans and Modern Native Americans
http://www.pnas.org/content/105/31/10693.full
Identifying Ötzi the Iceman’s Relatives

In Australia, not so much. The more unusual pieces of Australia’s scant skeletal record from the Pleistocene are unavailable for further analysis using modern techniques.

The fossils at the Kow Swamp site were discovered in 1968. Carbon dating was carried out, measurements were made and some casts taken. The KS specimens have been roughly dated to 15000 – 10000 years b.p. Due to the cranial shape and features, there was some suggestion that they might be H. erectus, though this was not the majority view.
In 1985, these fossils were actually reburied at a secret location near the Kow Swamp site so there is no prospect that the matter being resolved with further testing.

The LM3 sample from Lake Mungo was also intriguing. It is probably around 40000 years old but there is considerable disagreement. The skull and skeleton shape strongly indicated that LM3 does not bear any close relationship to modern aboriginals. mtDNA analysis suggested a very early divergence from before the most common recent ancestor of all existing humans: however the mtDNA was in poor shape due to thermal degeneration and the most recent sequencing techniques were unavailable. In 1992 the LM remains were given to a collective of three groups (3TTG) and since then they have been kept in a vault: no further analysis or confirmation testing has been permitted by 3TTG.

The Cohuna skull, dug up in 1926, was also intriguing inasmuch as it bore similarity to modern groups but had larger teeth and was unusually large. It is also around 10000 years old. It too was destroyed or reburied around the same time as the 1968 finds before it could be analysed using modern methods.

Quite probably, none of these are ancestral to any existing humans, let alone to any identifiable group.

I can conceive of an abstract right of ownership of skeletal remains being extended to known descendants of a specific individual. Even extension to a group to a deceased, previously unknown member of that group, which could be established for instance through artefacts or physical features or markings.

No such connection exists in this case. There’s no cultural connection, almost certainly no special genetic or familial connection. People can emotionally or spiritually fixate on skeletal remnants for various reasons: this is not to my mind a sound reason to basically shut down an important field of enquiry on an entire continent.

A language lasts a few thousand years at most: cultures and civilisations have a similar timeline, if they are lucky. The waves of migration that occurred circa 4500 b.p. caused identifiable changes in material culture, made an identifiable mark in the Y-DNA that can still be determined in modern indigenous Australians, coincided with the origin of the major Australian language family (Pama-Nyungan) in northern Australia, and resulted in significant change in fauna largely as a result of the introduction of the dingo. I do not know what, if anything, remained of prior culture, but giving sole control of Pleistocene remains to a group in existence in Australia now to lock up or reinter is akin to determining that modern British Celts have the right to rebury any pre-Roman remains before they can be studied.

The Kow Swamp bones were given to the Echuca Aboriginal Cooperative, dominated by Yorta Yorta people. I don’t know how long the Yorta Yorta have lived in that area. Hundreds or maybe thousands of years. Yorta Yorta is a P-N language so we can probably put a lid of 4000 years on how long people have been speaking Yorta Yorta or similar languages in the region (allowing for migration time). There’s no logical connection between the Yorta Yorta and the Kow Swamp bones other than that the former lived in about the same place as the latter 10000 years apart, they were unaware of the existence of the bones until some boffin went out there and found them, but the bones were given to the EAC unconditionally, the EAC buried the bones somewhere and the information has been lost.

Various anthropologists, archaeologists and palaeontologists have decried these decisions. The fact is that there has been no significant excavation of Pleistocene hominid fossils in Australia since the late 1980s. From “The Origins of Modern Humans: Biology Reconsidered” By Fred H. Smith, James C. Ahern: “Unfortunately, work on the prehistory of Australia was significantly impacted in the 1980s by changes in legislation surrounding the ownership of ancient remains (summarised in Pardoe 2004). Control was transferred to local Aboriginal groups, who reclaimed and reburied many of the Pleistocene human remains recovered by that point (Webb, 1987; Mulvaney, 1991; Pardoe, 2004). It also became much more difficult to publish data or photographs of ancient Australians, as control over the use of any data or images of the fossils also became subject to the discretion of local Aboriginal groups. As a result, palaeoanthropological fieldwork in Australia essentially ground to a halt as much of the modern debate over the origins of modern humans was beginning to take shape.”

Some kind of compromise must be possible.

Deevs, did you write that?

sibeen said:

Deevs, did you write that?

Of course. You think I’ve hired a ghostwriter?

dv said:

sibeen said:

Deevs, did you write that?

Of course. You think I’ve hired a ghostwriter?

a rapper with a ghostwriter? What the fuck happened?

The objections to this kind of study are presumably partly religious and partly political (fuelled by resentment at the casual commandeering of material in the old days and the racist nature of some early research). Progress on the issue is dependent on scientists maintaining a positive relationship with the groups who control such material, while trying to convince them of the value of the work to all parties concerned.

Ask Marcia Langton. She might help you.

Well, it was just that it was a lucid, intelligent and well thought out piece of writing; I was just wondering who did it.

Realistically, DV, could you please slightly expand upon it and send it into the ABC as a piece for their “The Drum” opinion pieces. It will in all probability be knocked back, making common sense and all, but I would really like to see you put this out to a wider audience.

sibeen said:

Well, it was just that it was a lucid, intelligent and well thought out piece of writing; I was just wondering who did it.

Ouch.

I’m serious on “The Drum” issue. The argument should be placed in the public forum.

Kudos, deevs, really grouse writing.

sibeen said:

I’m serious on “The Drum” issue. The argument should be placed in the public forum.

Kudos, deevs, really grouse writing.

Very well, I’ll do just that, but I’ll let it cook here for a few days so I can get the feedback of y’all.

sibeen said:

…

Realistically, DV, could you please slightly expand upon it and send it into the ABC as a piece for their “The Drum” opinion pieces. It will in all probability be knocked back, making common sense and all, but I would really like to see you put this out to a wider audience.

I agree.

I know more than one of those involved in having discovered aboriginal remains. In fact I happen to be one.

One bloke I’ve known for many decades once told me that he knew of places where there were ancient burials and that he would never tell. I asked why and he replied, “They have buildings full of bones that they don’t care a whit about. These are best left buried.”

…“They have buildings full of bones that they don’t care a whit about.

then he has little understanding the purpose of a museum.

ChrispenEvan said:

…“They have buildings full of bones that they don’t care a whit about.

then he has little understanding the purpose of a museum.

Not true. He had plenty of comprehension. He worked with the CSIRO.
What he was talking about has a lot to do with why we don’t know enough about what we had.

I have just asked someone who works in this field, to give independent academic comment. I await his reply, and will post that when it arrives.

roughbarked said:

I know more than one of those involved in having discovered aboriginal remains. In fact I happen to be one.

One bloke I’ve known for many decades once told me that he knew of places where there were ancient burials and that he would never tell. I asked why and he replied, “They have buildings full of bones that they don’t care a whit about. These are best left buried.”

In fairness, there are plenty of bones that are not of great significance: particularly from the last 1000 years. The scientific community was kind of a dick about it for a couple of hundred years.

But there are not buildings full of Australian hominid fossils more than 10000 years old. There are not buckets full of them. They are exceedingly rare.

Michael V said:

I have just asked someone who works in this field, to give independent academic comment. I await his reply, and will post that when it arrives.

Very grateful.

sorry but i don’t agree. stuff left in the ground will be lost. no two ways about it. and the csiro isn’t a museum.

Michael V said:

I have just asked someone who works in this field, to give independent academic comment. I await his reply, and will post that when it arrives.

I’ll be interested. The femur that is buried in my yard was examined and I know how old it is. The other material I’m talking about was never really examined.

dv said:

roughbarked said:

I know more than one of those involved in having discovered aboriginal remains. In fact I happen to be one.

One bloke I’ve known for many decades once told me that he knew of places where there were ancient burials and that he would never tell. I asked why and he replied, “They have buildings full of bones that they don’t care a whit about. These are best left buried.”

In fairness, there are plenty of bones that are not of great significance: particularly from the last 1000 years. The scientific community was kind of a dick about it for a couple of hundred years.

But there are not buildings full of Australian hominid fossils more than 10000 years old. There are not buckets full of them. They are exceedingly rare.

True. There are still those yet to be found and those that will never be found.

ChrispenEvan said:

sorry but i don’t agree. stuff left in the ground will be lost. no two ways about it. and the csiro isn’t a museum.

I agree. The fact that he ceased assisting the removal of burials because they weren’t being respected nor examined with any sort of respect, is a loss that can never be recovered.

dv said:

There has been a great improvement in the ability to sequence, analyse and compare mtDNA and Y-DNA in existing creatures and in fairly recent fossils, in order to better understand phylogenetic relationships and histories.

This has led to greatly improved understanding of human history in Africa, Europe, Western Asia and the Americas. Consider the following papers:

DNA from a 400,000 year old hominin from Spain decoded
Late Pleistocene Human Skeleton and mtDNA Link Paleoamericans and Modern Native Americans
http://www.pnas.org/content/105/31/10693.full
Identifying Ötzi the Iceman’s Relatives

In Australia, not so much. The more unusual pieces of Australia’s scant skeletal record from the Pleistocene are unavailable for further analysis using modern techniques.

The fossils at the Kow Swamp site were discovered in 1968. Carbon dating was carried out, measurements were made and some casts taken. The KS specimens have been roughly dated to 15000 – 10000 years b.p. Due to the cranial shape and features, there was some suggestion that they might be H. erectus, though this was not the majority view.
In 1985, these fossils were actually reburied at a secret location near the Kow Swamp site so there is no prospect that the matter being resolved with further testing.

The LM3 sample from Lake Mungo was also intriguing. It is probably around 40000 years old but there is considerable disagreement. The skull and skeleton shape strongly indicated that LM3 does not bear any close relationship to modern aboriginals. mtDNA analysis suggested a very early divergence from before the most common recent ancestor of all existing humans: however the mtDNA was in poor shape due to thermal degeneration and the most recent sequencing techniques were unavailable. In 1992 the LM remains were given to a collective of three groups (3TTG) and since then they have been kept in a vault: no further analysis or confirmation testing has been permitted by 3TTG.

The Cohuna skull, dug up in 1926, was also intriguing inasmuch as it bore similarity to modern groups but had larger teeth and was unusually large. It is also around 10000 years old. It too was destroyed or reburied around the same time as the 1968 finds before it could be analysed using modern methods.

Quite probably, none of these are ancestral to any existing humans, let alone to any identifiable group.

I can conceive of an abstract right of ownership of skeletal remains being extended to known descendants of a specific individual. Even extension to a group to a deceased, previously unknown member of that group, which could be established for instance through artefacts or physical features or markings.

No such connection exists in this case. There’s no cultural connection, almost certainly no special genetic or familial connection. People can emotionally or spiritually fixate on skeletal remnants for various reasons: this is not to my mind a sound reason to basically shut down an important field of enquiry on an entire continent.

A language lasts a few thousand years at most: cultures and civilisations have a similar timeline, if they are lucky. The waves of migration that occurred circa 4500 b.p. caused identifiable changes in material culture, made an identifiable mark in the Y-DNA that can still be determined in modern indigenous Australians, coincided with the origin of the major Australian language family (Pama-Nyungan) in northern Australia, and resulted in significant change in fauna largely as a result of the introduction of the dingo. I do not know what, if anything, remained of prior culture, but giving sole control of Pleistocene remains to a group in existence in Australia now to lock up or reinter is akin to determining that modern British Celts have the right to rebury any pre-Roman remains before they can be studied.

The Kow Swamp bones were given to the Echuca Aboriginal Cooperative, dominated by Yorta Yorta people. I don’t know how long the Yorta Yorta have lived in that area. Hundreds or maybe thousands of years. Yorta Yorta is a P-N language so we can probably put a lid of 4000 years on how long people have been speaking Yorta Yorta or similar languages in the region (allowing for migration time). There’s no logical connection between the Yorta Yorta and the Kow Swamp bones other than that the former lived in about the same place as the latter 10000 years apart, they were unaware of the existence of the bones until some boffin went out there and found them, but the bones were given to the EAC unconditionally, the EAC buried the bones somewhere and the information has been lost.

Various anthropologists, archaeologists and palaeontologists have decried these decisions. The fact is that there has been no significant excavation of Pleistocene hominid fossils in Australia since the late 1980s. From “The Origins of Modern Humans: Biology Reconsidered” By Fred H. Smith, James C. Ahern: “Unfortunately, work on the prehistory of Australia was significantly impacted in the 1980s by changes in legislation surrounding the ownership of ancient remains (summarised in Pardoe 2004). Control was transferred to local Aboriginal groups, who reclaimed and reburied many of the Pleistocene human remains recovered by that point (Webb, 1987; Mulvaney, 1991; Pardoe, 2004). It also became much more difficult to publish data or photographs of ancient Australians, as control over the use of any data or images of the fossils also became subject to the discretion of local Aboriginal groups. As a result, palaeoanthropological fieldwork in Australia essentially ground to a halt as much of the modern debate over the origins of modern humans was beginning to take shape.”

Some kind of compromise must be possible.

I could not agree more; it seems absurd that present human populations could lay claim to fossil remains going back tens of thousands of years. As only a glance of European history and the movement of people during the last 2,000 years, would show many if not most of the current occupiers of land, had little connection to previous populations and hence no claim on ancient remains.

It is not surprising considering Homo erectus was around in various parts of the world for nearly 2 million years and that in different habitats, it did not adapt and hence acquire regional characteristics leading to distinct species. The above excludes other Homo species besides H. sapiens that may have also left Africa and led to even greater diversity.

With our current understanding that several Homo species in realitively recent history, were living at the same time and probably also taking advantage of land bridges and low sealevels of previous Ice Ages, may well have led to other Hominins inhabiting Australia, or at least with a wider ancestral linage. In conclusion, I support the retention of ancient human remains, hopefully resulting in a better understanding with Aboriginal peoples of the importance of this information for ongoing study.

sibeen said:

Well, it was just that it was a lucid, intelligent and well thought out piece of writing….

+1

Thank you for that bit of reading.

I have been asked to provide some help. I doubt I can help, but I can comment.

I have considerable sympathy with the opinions expressed, or at least their motivation. I also have considerable reservations. I think this is written from a particular point of view. That of course is a reasonable thing, but the argument advanced would be more persuasive if more roundly considered.

For example, it is an understandable point of view to say that one does not recognise ownership rights over unrelated, ancient human remains. However to say that one cannot imagine ownership rights over human remains found on traditionally owned land suggests to me a failure of imagination. I am pretty sure others will be able to construe ownership rights in ways other than via strict ancestry. In particular, to describe the location as “about the same place” as if it is just an accidental, irrelevant detail of fact is, I think, to fail to see other ways of thinking.

This is significant because there is considerable precedent in colonial Australia deciding precisely what Indigenous Australians are allowed to have. Not-very-special places are given off as freehold to Australian colonists, while the very special places are decreed to be owned by all of humanity which, in practice, means the Australian colonists. Allowing others to make the decisions you want them too is a poor level of autonomy. Respect for the rights of others means accepting that they will make decisions you don’t agree with.

It is especially heightened by the fact that there is a very recent, very significant history of treating Indigenous Australian human remains with utter disrespect. We are not yet at a point where Indigenous Australians are – generally speaking – prepared to accept that this is in the past. The memory of it is very fresh. If that means extra sensitivity for some time to come, well so be it. Many non-indigenous Australians are happy to live in a wealthy country built on dispossession while trying to pretend the past has no relevance.

The comparison with Indigenous peoples of Britain is, as always, a red herring. To the extent that there are identifiable communities of Indigenous Britons with a recent history of dispossession and cultural oppression then there is justification in restorative justice and special cultural recognition of these groups. And in fact there is a level of this – special efforts to recognise languages that were officially or semi-officially suppressed for generations. But to suggest broader equivalence is to fly in the face of history and to ignore the lived experiences of the people concerned.

Finally, while this piece is not really directed at any kind of ‘solution’ the point raised by Bubblecar is relevant: you can whinge all you like, but the only possible progress on these matters lies in continued, mutually respectful engagement between archaeologists and traditional owners. For the government (for e.g.) to forcibly acquire these specimens would set cooperation back decades and I feel confident that there would not be a respectable museum in the country who would wish to accept them, nor an archaeologist of standing who would want to work on them.

Good points, all.

Thanks, MartinB

“Whinge” is a bit harsh.

MartinB said:

“Whinge” is a bit harsh.

You being “good Martin” and “bad Martin” all by yourself these days?

OI suppose someone has to do it.

>>It is especially heightened by the fact that there is a very recent, very significant history of treating Indigenous Australian human remains with utter disrespect. We are not yet at a point where Indigenous Australians are – generally speaking – prepared to accept that this is in the past. The memory of it is very fresh. If that means extra sensitivity for some time to come, well so be it. Many non-indigenous Australians are happy to live in a wealthy country built on dispossession while trying to pretend the past has no relevance.<<

Could not agree more, but the point with relics is to whose past do they belong? Just because they lie on land occupied for a very long time, does not mean the current occupants are related. Ancient human remains in Australia are so rare and their origins largely unknown, they then surely fall into a different category and deserve a more enlightened consideration as to their fate, if only to determine whether the remains are related to the people living there now. Should a relationship is proved, then it would be expected that the remains would be returned along with additional knowledge of their ancestry, which most aborigines from my observation very much appreciate.

l am sympathetic to Aboriginal feelings on this matter but IMO these feelings need not preclude all research into ancient human remains.

Perhaps a system whereby remains are unearthed, studied exhaustively and then returned where to they were first found would be acceptable to Aborigines.

Witty Rejoinder said:

l am sympathetic to Aboriginal feelings on this matter but IMO these feelings need not preclude all research into ancient human remains.

Perhaps a system whereby remains are unearthed, studied exhaustively and then returned where to they were first found would be acceptable to Aborigines.

Only if you add money.

Witty Rejoinder said:

l am sympathetic to Aboriginal feelings on this matter but IMO these feelings need not preclude all research into ancient human remains.

Perhaps a system whereby remains are unearthed, studied exhaustively and then returned where to they were first found would be acceptable to Aborigines.

The thing is: studies are never exhaustive. Even if all possible tests had been carried out on the specimens I’ve mentioned before being handed back, in the intervening years the relevant technology has improved out of sight. Presumably the coming decades will prove the same.

dv said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

l am sympathetic to Aboriginal feelings on this matter but IMO these feelings need not preclude all research into ancient human remains.

Perhaps a system whereby remains are unearthed, studied exhaustively and then returned where to they were first found would be acceptable to Aborigines.

The thing is: studies are never exhaustive. Even if all possible tests had been carried out on the specimens I’ve mentioned before being handed back, in the intervening years the relevant technology has improved out of sight. Presumably the coming decades will prove the same.

However, if DNA extracted from the bones clearly indicate they are ancestral to current occupiers of the land, then there would be less need to retain them and they could be returned, but if they are not directly related, then current land owners have no legitimate claim to them.

Aren’t cemeteries cleared and built on after a period of time, 100 years or so?
Lang Park used to be a cemetery.

Peak Warming Man said:

Aren’t cemeteries cleared and built on after a period of time, 100 years or so?
Lang Park used to be a cemetery.

They didn’t have many cemeteries prior to European settlement, so not really applicable.

PermeateFree said:

Peak Warming Man said:

Aren’t cemeteries cleared and built on after a period of time, 100 years or so?
Lang Park used to be a cemetery.

They didn’t have many cemeteries prior to European settlement, so not really applicable.

How many cemeteries have been built on in Australia? I wasn’t aware that this has happened?

bob(from black rock) said:

PermeateFree said:

Peak Warming Man said:

Aren’t cemeteries cleared and built on after a period of time, 100 years or so?
Lang Park used to be a cemetery.

They didn’t have many cemeteries prior to European settlement, so not really applicable.

How many cemeteries have been built on in Australia? I wasn’t aware that this has happened?

Still think the best disposal method is sea burial.

bob(from black rock) said:

PermeateFree said:

Peak Warming Man said:

Aren’t cemeteries cleared and built on after a period of time, 100 years or so?
Lang Park used to be a cemetery.

They didn’t have many cemeteries prior to European settlement, so not really applicable.

How many cemeteries have been built on in Australia? I wasn’t aware that this has happened?

I have seen some churches for sale which have graves within the grounds. I have no idea how that works.

bob(from black rock) said:

PermeateFree said:

Peak Warming Man said:

Aren’t cemeteries cleared and built on after a period of time, 100 years or so?
Lang Park used to be a cemetery.

They didn’t have many cemeteries prior to European settlement, so not really applicable.

How many cemeteries have been built on in Australia? I wasn’t aware that this has happened?

Don’t know for sure, but after a certain period of time (maybe 100 years) they can dig into a grave and bury another on top. There are others where the crematory was being redeveloped or the land needed for other purposes, in which case they had to remove any remains to a new site.

AwesomeO said:

bob(from black rock) said:

PermeateFree said:

They didn’t have many cemeteries prior to European settlement, so not really applicable.

How many cemeteries have been built on in Australia? I wasn’t aware that this has happened?

I have seen some churches for sale which have graves within the grounds. I have no idea how that works.

Church property I would imagine.

PermeateFree said:

AwesomeO said:

bob(from black rock) said:

How many cemeteries have been built on in Australia? I wasn’t aware that this has happened?

I have seen some churches for sale which have graves within the grounds. I have no idea how that works.

Church property I would imagine.

No, these were for sale to private buyers. I have no idea if caveats were imposed or how they could be.

PermeateFree said:

AwesomeO said:

bob(from black rock) said:

How many cemeteries have been built on in Australia? I wasn’t aware that this has happened?

I have seen some churches for sale which have graves within the grounds. I have no idea how that works.

Another good disposal method would be to liquefy the corpses and to pump the liquid down dis-used oil wells, another million years and more oil is ready for use.
Church property I would imagine.

The areas surrounding the Stadium precinct were amongst the earliest parts of Brisbane to be settled by Europeans. Areas adjacent to the site and the new supporting infrastructure contain several buildings and sites of cultural significance including the Christ Church, BCC Memorial Cemetery, Baroona Road School and the site of the former Brisbane Gaol. Prior to European settlement, the site was a swampy low-lying drainage area consisting of numerous creeks and waterways.

The Stadium site was part of the North Brisbane Burial Grounds and was the principal place of burial of Brisbane residents up to 1875. Following concerns regarding health issues, the cemetery was officially closed that same year to accommodate the city’s expansion to the west.

The maintenance of the various denominational areas was the responsibility of the different religious trustees, some of whom constructed chapels on their respective plots. One of these chapels was the original Christ Church for the local Anglican community constructed in a gothic manner in 1876. The church was subsequently destroyed by a severe storm in 1890. The current Christ Church, developed in 1891 and designed by diocesan architect John Hingeston Buckeridge, and the adjacent Memorial Cemetery, are the only remaining visible evidence of the original cemetery.

Brisbane grew rapidly during the 1880s resulting in the expansion of the city to the west beyond Hale Street. The infrastructure required to support the expanding city was developed, including the progression of the railway, and as a result the cemetery was subdivided and graves were gradually moved to Toowong Cemetery.

To facilitate the expansion of the city to the west, the development of the western suburbs’ roads and supporting infrastructure began to be developed across the cemetery site. Rubble from the excavations needed to develop Roma Street and Central Station railway excavations were used to fill parts of the low lying site and form the base of Caxton Street to the north of the Stadium.

The old Frank Burke grandstand under construction in 1961By the end of the 19th century, the suburbs surrounding the Stadium were developed and heavily populated. The working class cottages, synonymous with the area, were established typically on 12 perch (300m²) allotments which gave the area its unique ‘texture’ and urban character. The high density of population and lack of open space led the local council (then Ithaca Council) to petition the government for three acres of the cemetery for use as recreational fields. In 1891, this area was designed as a recreation reserve and was soon fenced off and used for football and cricket.

Increased public pressure to use the area for recreational purposes resulted in Ithaca Council persuading the government of the day to re-use the dilapidated cemeteries. As a consequence the Paddington Cemeteries Act (1911) was introduced and the site was redeveloped for recreational purposes.

Advertisements following the Act resulted in the relocation of 99 remains and 128 memorials to Toowong and other cemeteries. By mid 1914, most of the remaining headstones were removed to the Memorial Cemetery and subsequently the Toowong and Lutwyche Cemeteries.
———————————————————————————————————-

Peak Warming Man said:

The areas surrounding the Stadium precinct were amongst the earliest parts of Brisbane to be settled by Europeans. Areas adjacent to the site and the new supporting infrastructure contain several buildings and sites of cultural significance including the Christ Church, BCC Memorial Cemetery, Baroona Road School and the site of the former Brisbane Gaol. Prior to European settlement, the site was a swampy low-lying drainage area consisting of numerous creeks and waterways.

The Stadium site was part of the North Brisbane Burial Grounds and was the principal place of burial of Brisbane residents up to 1875. Following concerns regarding health issues, the cemetery was officially closed that same year to accommodate the city’s expansion to the west.

The maintenance of the various denominational areas was the responsibility of the different religious trustees, some of whom constructed chapels on their respective plots. One of these chapels was the original Christ Church for the local Anglican community constructed in a gothic manner in 1876. The church was subsequently destroyed by a severe storm in 1890. The current Christ Church, developed in 1891 and designed by diocesan architect John Hingeston Buckeridge, and the adjacent Memorial Cemetery, are the only remaining visible evidence of the original cemetery.

Brisbane grew rapidly during the 1880s resulting in the expansion of the city to the west beyond Hale Street. The infrastructure required to support the expanding city was developed, including the progression of the railway, and as a result the cemetery was subdivided and graves were gradually moved to Toowong Cemetery.

To facilitate the expansion of the city to the west, the development of the western suburbs’ roads and supporting infrastructure began to be developed across the cemetery site. Rubble from the excavations needed to develop Roma Street and Central Station railway excavations were used to fill parts of the low lying site and form the base of Caxton Street to the north of the Stadium.

The old Frank Burke grandstand under construction in 1961By the end of the 19th century, the suburbs surrounding the Stadium were developed and heavily populated. The working class cottages, synonymous with the area, were established typically on 12 perch (300m²) allotments which gave the area its unique ‘texture’ and urban character. The high density of population and lack of open space led the local council (then Ithaca Council) to petition the government for three acres of the cemetery for use as recreational fields. In 1891, this area was designed as a recreation reserve and was soon fenced off and used for football and cricket.

Increased public pressure to use the area for recreational purposes resulted in Ithaca Council persuading the government of the day to re-use the dilapidated cemeteries. As a consequence the Paddington Cemeteries Act (1911) was introduced and the site was redeveloped for recreational purposes.

Advertisements following the Act resulted in the relocation of 99 remains and 128 memorials to Toowong and other cemeteries. By mid 1914, most of the remaining headstones were removed to the Memorial Cemetery and subsequently the Toowong and Lutwyche Cemeteries.
———————————————————————————————————-

Just checking on the correct replying method.

The UWA archaeology department has had a good relationship with the aboriginal community and the record shows they have received grants for work in several Pleistocene sites in WA, and I noticed when looking around previously that they had been a fairly productive department.

An article on the ABC site today gives me some concerns that there has been a compromise whereby the UWA team identify the current custodians as descendants of people who lived in the area tens of thousands of years ago.

The piece relates to the dating of charcoal found in association with tools at the Yalibirri Mindi site. The charcoal has been dated to 30000 years ago.

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2015-06-04/human-life-in-mid-west-existed-30000-years-ago/6519896

The ABC Online headline gets it right but in the body of the article is the following quote:
___
Project coordinator Viviene Brown said it was an exciting find for both archaeologists and the Wajarri people.

“Our colleagues on the excavation, as soon as we told them they were just as excited as we are,” she said.

“I think they had expected their ancestors had been there for that long but this gave them the proof, which is great.

“In the Mid West the really small number of sites that we’d excavated didn’t seem to add up, they were all much younger than we expected.

“Until now we’ve had no evidence to say yes people were definitely in the Mid West at this very old time.”

____

There isn’t any way the researchers could have established descent of the Wajarri people from people who made those tools just by dating the charcoal. There are no human remains at YM to do genetic analysis on. To suggest that we could assume there was a connection between people who live in an area now and the people who lived there 30000 years ago is just dishonest.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-06-25/david-leyonhjelm-raises-doubts-over-aboriginal-occupants/6572704

Senator David Leyonhjelm questions if Aboriginals were first occupants of Australia; says it would be ‘bizarre’ to put into constitution

—-

For what it is worth, I agree. I don’t see the point in putting factually dubious statements in the constitution.

I am withholding judgment till I see the form of words that they want to insert into the constitution. As far as I can tell those who want the words are still arguing amongst themselves what should be said.

If indeed there were earlier cultures in Australia before the Aborigines I think the population change would be more of an intermingling rather than a takeover. Therefore I don’t think it is is incorrect to describe current Aborigines as descendant from the first Australians.

Australia’s not the only country having trouble reconciling science with native claims to remains:

What’s next for Kennewick Man, now that DNA says he’s Native American?

Native American tribes say it’s time for Kennewick Man to be reburied with respect, but the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers anticipates legal challenges.

http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/science/kennewick-man-mystery-solved-dna-says-hes-native-american/

Witty Rejoinder said:

If indeed there were earlier cultures in Australia before the Aborigines I think the population change would be more of an intermingling rather than a takeover. Therefore I don’t think it is is incorrect to describe current Aborigines as descendant from the first Australians.

They’re certainly firster than the rest of us.

Witty Rejoinder said:

If indeed there were earlier cultures in Australia before the Aborigines I think the population change would be more of an intermingling rather than a takeover. Therefore I don’t think it is is incorrect to describe current Aborigines as descendant from the first Australians.

That is certainly possible, but there are other possibilities, including that the earliest inhabitants actually died out before the arrival of the ancestors of the modern day Aboriginals. This would explain the lack of similarity in the DNA and physiology. The deadset truth is that it remains a moot point: it is an uncertain matter.

Bubblecar said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

If indeed there were earlier cultures in Australia before the Aborigines I think the population change would be more of an intermingling rather than a takeover. Therefore I don’t think it is is incorrect to describe current Aborigines as descendant from the first Australians.

They’re certainly firster than the rest of us.

Yes … It would be good if they could say something like that. The Australian Aboriginals have ancestors who were in Australia before ancestors of any existing non-Aboriginals. But not so prosaic. Get Colin Leslie Dean on it.

I feel a bit bad about siding with Lemonlimeand but there we have it.

dv said:

Bubblecar said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

If indeed there were earlier cultures in Australia before the Aborigines I think the population change would be more of an intermingling rather than a takeover. Therefore I don’t think it is is incorrect to describe current Aborigines as descendant from the first Australians.

They’re certainly firster than the rest of us.

Yes … It would be good if they could say something like that. The Australian Aboriginals have ancestors who were in Australia before ancestors of any existing non-Aboriginals. But not so prosaic. Get Colin Leslie Dean on it.

And keep Tom Keneally and Les Murray the fuck away from it.

Witty Rejoinder said:

If indeed there were earlier cultures in Australia before the Aborigines I think the population change would be more of an intermingling rather than a takeover. Therefore I don’t think it is is incorrect to describe current Aborigines as descendant from the first Australians.

The people of this area have about a 10,000 year old language, but within their stories are The Old People. I haven’t done the reading for quite some time, so I might be remembering this wrongly, but I think The Old People are recognized as different, not ancestors, but predecessors. These were the people around with the megafauna, before the last ice age. I’d have to go back and look it all up again.

dv said:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-06-25/david-leyonhjelm-raises-doubts-over-aboriginal-occupants/6572704

Senator David Leyonhjelm questions if Aboriginals were first occupants of Australia; says it would be ‘bizarre’ to put into constitution

—-

For what it is worth, I agree. I don’t see the point in putting factually dubious statements in the constitution.

That would depend on how you define “aboriginal”.

The extent of genetic and cultural connection between the Australian native peoples of the 18th Century, and the original Australian human settlers is an interesting historical and scientific question, but its relevance to questions of land rights and constitutional recognition is precisely zero.

When the first people arrived in Australia between 40,000-50,000 years ago the climate was mild (recovering from a previous Ice Age) with higher rainfall than today, permitting them to spread from the northern coastline into Central Australia.

During the height of the last Ice Age, Central Australia would in many places have been uninhabitable, which meant people were forced to move to the coast as sealevels also began to fall, which eventually created a land bridge to PNG and also Tasmania. After the worst of the Ice Age had passed, sea-levels began to rise again and the climate would have been more compatible, resulting in a movement of people from PNG to Australia and some Victorian Aborigines to Tasmania.

As the climate of Central Australia improved with higher rainfall, it permitted the PNG people to move onto the vacated inland. So the first Aboriginals are probably those around coastal areas and there is evidence that coastal people of WA, regarded the inland people very differently and were generally frightened of them.

Whether other people were here before the arrival of the first Aborigines and more akin to the Homo erectus linage, or others who came at different times and never established themselves is another possibility, but of which we currently have no solid evidence. However, the first Aborigines have been here for tens of thousands of years and with any rule of thumb, must be regarded as the dominant culture responsible for its land management and who have had considerable impact on Australia’s biota.

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-06-25/david-leyonhjelm-raises-doubts-over-aboriginal-occupants/6572704

Senator David Leyonhjelm questions if Aboriginals were first occupants of Australia; says it would be ‘bizarre’ to put into constitution

—-

For what it is worth, I agree. I don’t see the point in putting factually dubious statements in the constitution.

That would depend on how you define “aboriginal”.

The extent of genetic and cultural connection between the Australian native peoples of the 18th Century, and the original Australian human settlers is an interesting historical and scientific question, but its relevance to questions of land rights and constitutional recognition is precisely zero.

It is certainly not relevant to the question of rights.

But you are wrong about the other part. Its relevance to the issue of whether or not the constitution should contain a stayement that aboriginal Australians are Australia’s first inhabitants is precisely 100%.

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-06-25/david-leyonhjelm-raises-doubts-over-aboriginal-occupants/6572704

Senator David Leyonhjelm questions if Aboriginals were first occupants of Australia; says it would be ‘bizarre’ to put into constitution

—-

For what it is worth, I agree. I don’t see the point in putting factually dubious statements in the constitution.

That would depend on how you define “aboriginal”.

The extent of genetic and cultural connection between the Australian native peoples of the 18th Century, and the original Australian human settlers is an interesting historical and scientific question, but its relevance to questions of land rights and constitutional recognition is precisely zero.

It is certainly not relevant to the question of rights.

But you are wrong about the other part. Its relevance to the issue of whether or not the constitution should contain a stayement that aboriginal Australians are Australia’s first inhabitants is precisely 100%.

You haven’t said how you are defining aboriginal Australians.

My definition would be that any humans living in Australia before European settlement were aboriginal Australians, so aboriginal Australians were the first inhabitants by definition.

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

That would depend on how you define “aboriginal”.

The extent of genetic and cultural connection between the Australian native peoples of the 18th Century, and the original Australian human settlers is an interesting historical and scientific question, but its relevance to questions of land rights and constitutional recognition is precisely zero.

It is certainly not relevant to the question of rights.

But you are wrong about the other part. Its relevance to the issue of whether or not the constitution should contain a stayement that aboriginal Australians are Australia’s first inhabitants is precisely 100%.

You haven’t said how you are defining aboriginal Australians.

My definition would be that any humans living in Australia before European settlement were aboriginal Australians, so aboriginal Australians were the first inhabitants by definition.

Living in, is also a definition. There are records of visitors.

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

That would depend on how you define “aboriginal”.

The extent of genetic and cultural connection between the Australian native peoples of the 18th Century, and the original Australian human settlers is an interesting historical and scientific question, but its relevance to questions of land rights and constitutional recognition is precisely zero.

It is certainly not relevant to the question of rights.

But you are wrong about the other part. Its relevance to the issue of whether or not the constitution should contain a stayement that aboriginal Australians are Australia’s first inhabitants is precisely 100%.

You haven’t said how you are defining aboriginal Australians.

My definition would be that any humans living in Australia before European settlement were aboriginal Australians, so aboriginal Australians were the first inhabitants by definition.

On that point, I would have to wait to see the drafted legislation before I could comment in detail. It will be interesting to see what kind of definition is applied.

Having said that:
a) From the political context, it is plain that this modification to the constitution is to specially recognise Aboriginal Australians as it is usually applied: the people who inhabited Australia immediately prior to European settlement, their descendants and Australian ancestors. The recognition is being made to make up for the lack of formal recognition of these people throughout all of European Australia’s history.
There would be no cultural or legal reason to go to this trouble to recognise other pre-European people with no descendants. Those people were never wronged by European invasion. Moreover it would be somewhat pointless to include a statement for the sole purpose of pointing out that the first people in Australia were part of the set of humans living in Australia before European settlement.
b) I would think “any humans living in Australia before European settlement” would not be a useful category for any cultural or legal purpose.

FWIW (probably not much) I think this kind of thing is a cheap salve, and would prefer that more effort were put into more concrete things such as land rights, compensation for the stolen generations, reintroduction of bilingual education and other cultural preservation efforts, improvement of health services and education in remote aboriginal communities. It’s going to be a bit lame for this amendment to be debated while dozens of remote communities are being defunded.

dv said:

FWIW (probably not much) I think this kind of thing is a cheap salve, and would prefer that more effort were put into more concrete things such as land rights, compensation for the stolen generations, reintroduction of bilingual education and other cultural preservation efforts, improvement of health services and education in remote aboriginal communities. It’s going to be a bit lame for this amendment to be debated while dozens of remote communities are being defunded.

Would you not have been here 200 years ago?

roughbarked said:

dv said:

FWIW (probably not much) I think this kind of thing is a cheap salve, and would prefer that more effort were put into more concrete things such as land rights, compensation for the stolen generations, reintroduction of bilingual education and other cultural preservation efforts, improvement of health services and education in remote aboriginal communities. It’s going to be a bit lame for this amendment to be debated while dozens of remote communities are being defunded.

Would you not have been here 200 years ago?

I’m not as old as I look.

dv said:

roughbarked said:

dv said:

FWIW (probably not much) I think this kind of thing is a cheap salve, and would prefer that more effort were put into more concrete things such as land rights, compensation for the stolen generations, reintroduction of bilingual education and other cultural preservation efforts, improvement of health services and education in remote aboriginal communities. It’s going to be a bit lame for this amendment to be debated while dozens of remote communities are being defunded.

Would you not have been here 200 years ago?

I’m not as old as I look.

You are aware That I have no sight of your visage?

My definition would be that any humans living in Australia before European settlement were aboriginal Australians, so aboriginal Australians were the first inhabitants by definition.

—-

On that point, I would have to wait to see the drafted legislation before I could comment in detail. It will be interesting to see what kind of definition is applied.

——

Well if after 40,000 years of assimilation is not good enough then it probably never will be.

tauto said:

My definition would be that any humans living in Australia before European settlement were aboriginal Australians, so aboriginal Australians were the first inhabitants by definition.

—-

On that point, I would have to wait to see the drafted legislation before I could comment in detail. It will be interesting to see what kind of definition is applied.

——

Well if after 40,000 years of assimilation is not good enough then it probably never will be.

an ecomomic estimate.

roughbarked said:

tauto said:

My definition would be that any humans living in Australia before European settlement were aboriginal Australians, so aboriginal Australians were the first inhabitants by definition.

—-

On that point, I would have to wait to see the drafted legislation before I could comment in detail. It will be interesting to see what kind of definition is applied.

——

Well if after 40,000 years of assimilation is not good enough then it probably never will be.

an ecomomic estimate.

Do recall that assimilation requires another seeking dominance.

roughbarked said:

roughbarked said:

tauto said:

My definition would be that any humans living in Australia before European settlement were aboriginal Australians, so aboriginal Australians were the first inhabitants by definition.

—-

On that point, I would have to wait to see the drafted legislation before I could comment in detail. It will be interesting to see what kind of definition is applied.

The most discriminated against species would have to be, be, bees.

——

Well if after 40,000 years of assimilation is not good enough then it probably never will be.

an ecomomic estimate.

Do recall that assimilation requires another seeking dominance.

roughbarked said:

roughbarked said:

tauto said:

My definition would be that any humans living in Australia before European settlement were aboriginal Australians, so aboriginal Australians were the first inhabitants by definition.

—-

On that point, I would have to wait to see the drafted legislation before I could comment in detail. It will be interesting to see what kind of definition is applied.

——

Well if after 40,000 years of assimilation is not good enough then it probably never will be.

an ecomomic estimate.

Do recall that assimilation requires another seeking dominance.

—-

Aye, some of us have neanderthal genes

tauto said:

roughbarked said:

roughbarked said:

an ecomomic estimate.

Do recall that assimilation requires another seeking dominance.

—-

Aye, some of us have neanderthal genes

Indeed yay, ye speaketh of the truthful doctrines.

bob(from black rock) said:

The most discriminated against species would have to be, be, bees.

Nay, they at least, still live.

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

It is certainly not relevant to the question of rights.

But you are wrong about the other part. Its relevance to the issue of whether or not the constitution should contain a stayement that aboriginal Australians are Australia’s first inhabitants is precisely 100%.

You haven’t said how you are defining aboriginal Australians.

My definition would be that any humans living in Australia before European settlement were aboriginal Australians, so aboriginal Australians were the first inhabitants by definition.

On that point, I would have to wait to see the drafted legislation before I could comment in detail. It will be interesting to see what kind of definition is applied.

Having said that:
a) From the political context, it is plain that this modification to the constitution is to specially recognise Aboriginal Australians as it is usually applied: the people who inhabited Australia immediately prior to European settlement, their descendants and Australian ancestors. The recognition is being made to make up for the lack of formal recognition of these people throughout all of European Australia’s history.
There would be no cultural or legal reason to go to this trouble to recognise other pre-European people with no descendants. Those people were never wronged by European invasion. Moreover it would be somewhat pointless to include a statement for the sole purpose of pointing out that the first people in Australia were part of the set of humans living in Australia before European settlement.
b) I would think “any humans living in Australia before European settlement” would not be a useful category for any cultural or legal purpose.

FWIW (probably not much) I think this kind of thing is a cheap salve, and would prefer that more effort were put into more concrete things such as land rights, compensation for the stolen generations, reintroduction of bilingual education and other cultural preservation efforts, improvement of health services and education in remote aboriginal communities. It’s going to be a bit lame for this amendment to be debated while dozens of remote communities are being defunded.

I could debate the extent to which it is meaningful to separate Australian people into different cultural or ethnic groups, but I will instead question your evaluation of the value of the last paragraph. I agree this is where the focus should be.

I spoke in a social setting this evening, to an anthropologist who works for one of the local unis, to get a read on the situation.

He said that no one in his dept is interested in doing any work in the Pilbara or Mid West WA any more because it has become too political and litigious. Numerous times people returning from field trips were subpoenaed for their field notes, by legal teams either representing resource companies or indigenous groups, to the extent that people making unusual discoveries were wondering whether it woudl be better to just keep it in their heads rather than write it down.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-11-21/human-remains-returned-to-northern-wa/6961260
Stolen ancestral remains repatriated to Western Australia after years of negotiations
—-
Bardi Jawi elder Irene Davey said families from across the Dampier Peninsula gathered to see the boxes of bones restored to their coastal resting place.
—-

The processing of retrieving Indigenous remains from overseas institutions has been underway for around two decades.

Thousands of partial or full skeletons were seized by anthropologists, explorers and missionaries, and many still languish in museum collections in Europe and America.

Zoe Rimmer, who is co-chair of the Indigenous Repatriation Committee, said there was still a long way to go.

“To date there have been around 2,000 ancestral remains returned from international institutions, but there’s still a lot to go,” she said.