3 ms·

The article mentions that human artefacts have been found in the sediment under the solidified lava from the eruption of the said volcanos. It also appears to

The article mentions that human artefacts have been found in the sediment under the solidified lava from the eruption of the said volcanos. It also appears to claim that Australia seems to be a general exception to the rule that human populations move around - in this case they appears to have stayed put. As a result, it’s a reasonable deduction that there were humans before the said volcanoes, and (less credibly) that they are generally linked to the aforementioned indigenous population. Ultimately I think what’s interesting is the first part, a piece of human culture survived for so long through whatever means.

stubish 7y ago
"Appears to have stayed put" is very interesting. For as long as I remember, the theory was Aboriginal settlement was in waves over a long period of time, from different regions depending on what routes were available at the time (land bridges etc.). Waves of settlement pushed existing populations further south, with the oldest group down in Tasmania (well documented as wiped out by Europeans). Now I'm reading "a single, rapid migration along the east and west coasts", and extrapolating from that the significant racial diversity would be divergence over the last 50,000 years. (https://www.nature.com/articles/nature21416 https://www.nature.com/articles/nature21416 linked from the article) (A tenancy to stay put might also help explain the amazing density of languages)
- mafm 7y ago
  Don't have sources at hand, but my impression from news articles over the last decade has been that recent archeological evidence has tended to indicate that aboriginal populations have been in australia for for quite a bit longer than the 50/60K years that was previously believed. One example: I think there were some campfire remains and associated artifacts in Tasmania that were recently dated and turned out to be a lot older than than expected, like at least 80K years old.

stubish 7y ago

"Appears to have stayed put" is very interesting. For as long as I remember, the theory was Aboriginal settlement was in waves over a long period of time, from different regions depending on what routes were available at the time (land bridges etc.). Waves of settlement pushed existing populations further south, with the oldest group down in Tasmania (well documented as wiped out by Europeans). Now I'm reading "a single, rapid migration along the east and west coasts", and extrapolating from that the significant racial diversity would be divergence over the last 50,000 years. (https://www.nature.com/articles/nature21416 https://www.nature.com/articles/nature21416 linked from the article) (A tenancy to stay put might also help explain the amazing density of languages)

mafm 7y ago
Don't have sources at hand, but my impression from news articles over the last decade has been that recent archeological evidence has tended to indicate that aboriginal populations have been in australia for for quite a bit longer than the 50/60K years that was previously believed. One example: I think there were some campfire remains and associated artifacts in Tasmania that were recently dated and turned out to be a lot older than than expected, like at least 80K years old.