Witty Rejoinder said:

This probably needs its own thread:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminescence_dating

Here you go then.

I note they used luminescence dating for the new discovery in Australia’s north.

Luminescence dating is not reliable. Not anywhere near as accurate as carbon dating.

Without re-reading the news report of the discovery, i recall that luminescence dating was one of a number of methods employed in dating this site.

Presumably, comparisons of and combination of results from those various methods would produce a net result which has a good degree of certainty.

mcgoon said:

Without re-reading the news report of the discovery, i recall that luminescence dating was one of a number of methods employed in dating this site.

Presumably, comparisons of and combination of results from those various methods would produce a net result which has a good degree of certainty.

I’m not sure if it is the same site but another professor used luminescence to gain an older age of a similar site in the NT some decade or so ago. His findings were pooh poohed then too. The fact still remains though that aborigines were most likely here well before we think they were and that they were grinding axes long before anyone else. This latter would be because there was very little flint to knapp.

People like this, tend to bugger up the historical recording. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-07-21/illegal-sale-of-aboriginal-artefacts-investigated-by-tas-govt/8730624