How the Australian Aborigine eventually became Australia?
What would become the Australian Aborigines arrived in Australia * is a minimum of 40,000 years, perhaps as long ago as 60,000 years ago. For Australia, the humanity of the African cradle (as Homo sapiens), needs to get your feet wet. There is simply no way around this fact.
Even at the height of the ice age and the lower sea levels, migration to Australia would still have considerable distances across the ocean. There has never been a direct land route between Africa and Australia that hominids have crossed.
However, there was an ice age from terrestrial link between Australia and New Guinea until about 6000 years ago. Collectively, the Australia-New Guinea mass was called Sahul, but all of Sahul was always surrounded by distances can be formed on the ocean on the other nearest, about 90 km distant point on earth closer. To reach Sahul, where Australia, you need to navigate the blue ocean.
We really need to ask first is whether, as a member of our typical prehistoric nomadic hunter-gatherer ancestry, Aborigines would have been comfortable dealing with the masses of water. Rivers and streams you ford or swim across, maybe use a newspaper carrier to hold on to if necessary. Or, just continue to wander upstream to the water obstacle is surmountable. Lakes can walk around. But the ocean! The ocean off the coast must have been terrifying to our ancient ancestors, and rightly so. Therefore, perhaps it should not be surprising that, unfortunately, there is no proof, can be exposed in a museum that would become the Aboriginal culture has never had the ability or desire to surfing the blue of the ocean, at least according to what the culture has exposed the many generations since the alleged sea crossing (s).
Okay, back to the beginning. Once upon a time what would become the race of hunter-gatherers that we know today as the Australian Aborigine was just a hop, skip and a veil "short" far from the promised land. But first of all, that hop and jump.
Sooner or later in your wanderings of nomadic hunter-gatherers, you will cross the sea! So let's say you are the leader of a small group of nomadic "natives" of hunter-gatherers, somewhere in eastern Indonesia there are between 40,000 and 60,000 years. You climb up and over a hill, and there is everything to your surprise, establishes the ocean. You've never seen the ocean before, so like wow, Surprise! Now what do you do? Well probably you head to the shore to check. So what? Can you honestly credit the following monologue: "Hey gang look at what we found is the ocean What say we build a raft and set sail!"
Well, it might depend on whether or not you can see another side - the land across the ocean on the horizon that can not be achieved just by walking the coast around him. If there is nothing on the horizon except the ocean if you can not see the opposite shore, there is probably no way you are going to stick your toe in the water. In most cases no other land in sight, you do not have a clue what's on the other side of the ocean, if something (maybe it's always and forever) or to what extent it is on the other side. The known is safer than the unknown, discretion is the better part of valor.
But if you can see the land opposite, and, decisions, decisions. It all boils down to motive, means and opportunity.
Reason: You can associate this remote land through water with food, shelter, security (defense) and mates. No guarantee of course. If where you lack in one or more of these categories, you might be tempted to cross over - or more likely that not only move up or down on the coast or inland back. Are you really going to stop, make a raft and sail into the unknown out of pure curiosity there may be food, shelter, safety and / or friends there, if curiosity you probably even if it's more than just the academic curiosity? No, the daily hunt for survival, you'll probably ignore the ocean and the land on the horizon and just follow the coastline (or back home) - which will eventually lead you to most places that also offer food, housing, safety and dull. You also will not have much of a stupid reason if you fear that by doing so you enter in the field of "gods." There is something quite supernatural on the interface between the ocean and earth tides. The tides have seemed like a purely supernatural event, no natural explanation (Isaac Newton was a distant prospect at the time), an inexplicable action of the "gods" (which was really a real prospect at the time) somehow saying "this is our area, stay away."
Means: Even if you want to cross over to the mass of this unknown land, you will need raw materials, the ability to understand how to put them together properly, and acquire skills and maritime navigation. In any event, it is not all that easy construction and sailing and a marine boat or raft from scratch, with no handy-dandy how to make manual available. Everything will be trial and error. Can you afford the time and risk? In addition, you can not drink sea water to fresh water should be worn on any hypothetical trip. Have you sealed containers? If yes, how much do you need to take? Who knows? You certainly would not want a clue.
Opportunity: You and your group of nomadic hunter-gatherers have many urgent needs, such as finding food and water today, more shelter for tonight. You've found the shore and found that it was a good resource, unlike the land on the other side of which you know nothing. Coasts and seaside offers an abundance of food and resources shellfish, crabs, turtles, seals, sea birds, fish, algae (even dried for fuel). Coasts and seashores are good. Unknown lands have a low priority. But in the unlikely event that you have a lot of free time on your hands and the opportunity beckons - maybe.
If you forget the ground in front, on the use of coastal waters as a road along the coast and save your legs? Would you travel the coast by boat or raft? - Probably not. First of all, you're a hunter-gatherer. You can not do this from a raft. Second, the ocean, even just offshore, is nothing if not unpredictable and dangerous huge waves, storms, riptides, strong currents and sharp rocks benches, sharks, jellyfish, hypothermia and just all kinds of unknowns lurking beneath the surface to add to your fears. Would you rather high and dry 10 miles inland or at sea in a raft that is breaking and you try to keep your head above water and not end up as fish-food 10 miles? It takes much less sit effortlessly on the beach or swim or sail in the ocean, and it is much safer too! On land, you are in control, you have control. Even if you follow the coast of the ocean instead of the side of the earth, if you come to an impassable barrier, it is probably easier and much safer inside trek for some time to divert resources from swimming or rafting around the barrier with all the dangers that could result.
Dozens Fast forward thousands of years later.
Aborigines in the north-east of Australia, beginning about 2500 years ago, had contacts with the Melanesian sailors, the Torres Strait, which could island and reef-hop Torres Strait newly created. Poster Ice Age rise in sea level has created only 150 km from the Torres Strait marine barrier flood the old overland route separates Australia from New Guinea. However, the Melanesian marine technology has apparently not been readily adopted by Aborigines. In any event, it does not help to explain the arrival (s) - one or more waves - Aborigines there are several tens of thousands of years.
Before white settlement, there are less than three centuries, there is no archaeological evidence or pictorial Aboriginal Australia sophisticated maritime activities. The canoe is about as sophisticated as you get, the technology that is apparently through traders Makassan Sulawesi (an Indonesian island), and only since the early 18th century, or shortly before the arrival of white . It's not much help is to get the Aborigines in Australia there are 40,000 to 60,000 years.
All up, it was non-sailors who discovered the Australian Aborigines (the Dutch in 1606, the British in 1688, culminating with the visit of Captain Cook in 1770, the settlement so white in 1788) and not the reverse.
So if there's one thing you do not join in the Australian Aborigine, capabilities maritime navigation and the ocean. Aborigines were nomadic landlubbers with, at best, bark canoes. Aborigines go walkabout, not sailabout. If Aborigines had really maritime halfway decent capacity, you'd think they would have discovered and colonized or Lord Howe Island Norfolk Island, New Zealand, even tens of thousands of years. [Tasmania does not count since the island was connected to the Australian continent during the fall of sea level during the ice ages.] But New Zealand human habitation date back to just about 1300 or EC if you want, and Maori aren 't the Australian Aborigines.
This is similar to the mystery to know why the former East African Homo sapiens or Homo erectus prehistoric did not discover that rather large target island off its east coast - Madagascar. Madagascar was not inhabited until approximately 350 BCE and 550 CE, then Borneo. Indigenous African (Bantu) did not hit the city until 1000 CE. The evidence suggests to me that prehistoric hunter-gatherers simply do not have the seamanship skills everyone thinks they have had.
So the $ 64,000 question is, how did they, Aborigines arrive in Australia? In stupid boat! This is an obvious answer in prehistory to get from point A to point B, where A and B are separated by reasonably large ocean distances, our "primitive" ancestors must have built rafts or boats and used even through said large oceanic distances. There has been no other explanation is possible. But does it make sense? No, in my humble opinion. They, our prehistoric ancestors did not boat or raft building expertise or skills in navigation, seamanship and capacities. Is there real evidence that they did? Again, the answer is no.
The first boats found in the archaeological record only date to about 7000 BC, the historical era, far, far, after they were held so early prehistoric times. This is probably because the veil "modern", as in long ocean voyages involving sea crossings with nothing but the ocean view, has taken off in historical times, post agricultural revolution which goes back about 10,000 years ago. It is now well documented in the archaeological and pictorial archives. The main results were the establishment of trade routes and the opening of the Pacific (Hawaii, Easter Island, New Zealand, Madagascar, etc.) both the initial discovery and colonization. Maybe it was a logical consequence because of the stability and growth of the population caused by establishing colonies. Or, perhaps as agriculture itself maritime skills were a gift from the "gods."
Another piece of evidence that is not easy to achieve in Australia, SE Asia, despite the theory that it would have been relatively easy via island hopping is that Australia has a unique fauna. Can not find the kangaroo, koala, platypus or SE Asia, and you do not see wildlife SE Asia in the natural environment of Australia. Seeds, insects, birds, etc., may cross over, carried by the wind or by their own means, but not something that is bigger and fully terrestrial.
In conclusion, in prehistoric times, to migrate to certain geographic areas, such as Australia, it is traditional to actually take stating the obvious bleeding that primitive humans of that time had to stick their toes in the water and through the course of building rafts or boats, the acquisition of various maritime skills and sail the ocean blue. However, there is no evidence, let alone proof of this assertion. On the contrary, in my humble opinion, you'd be a bloody fool to stick your feet in the water, unless practically forced "under threat." It is a Catch-22: Before you risk your sailing all the blue of the ocean, you'd better first have or acquire motive, means and opportunity. But you can not be comfortable to have motive, means and opportunity after you have risked your while having first sailed the ocean blue and become skilled professional mariners. Or, in other words, before you're all comfortable stick your feet in the water, you have to stick your toes in the water. Faced with this kind of choice, reasonableness is to keep your toes out of the water from the get-go. It also indicates the bleeding obvious. When both parties say the bleeding obvious, and these two parts are mixed, and it's a Catch-22.
So how to make the Australian Aborigine Australia or Sahul? Well, maybe they beat their weapons and stolen, or were stolen, but they can not swim the distance and they do not navigate it. It's time to think outside the box.
* There is in fact no such animal as the Australian aborigines, rather, there are about 400 distinct Aboriginal groups throughout Australia. However, it is assumed that they all had a common origin collectively "ancestral".
For more information:
Flood, Josephine, Archaeology of Dreamtime: The Story of Prehistoric Australia and its people, Angus & Robertson, Sydney, revised edition, 1995
Isaacs, Jennifer (compiler and editor) Australian Dreaming: 40,000 years of Aboriginal History, Lansdowne Press, Sydney, 1980
Kamminga, Johan & Mulvaney, John Prehistory of Australia, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington DC, 1999:
Mountford, Charles P. & Roberts, Ainslie, Legends of the Dreamtime Publishing International Limited, Hong Kong, 1975:
Sciences librarian retired ......
What would become the Australian Aborigines arrived in Australia * is a minimum of 40,000 years, perhaps as long ago as 60,000 years ago. For Australia, the humanity of the African cradle (as Homo sapiens), needs to get your feet wet. There is simply no way around this fact.
Even at the height of the ice age and the lower sea levels, migration to Australia would still have considerable distances across the ocean. There has never been a direct land route between Africa and Australia that hominids have crossed.
However, there was an ice age from terrestrial link between Australia and New Guinea until about 6000 years ago. Collectively, the Australia-New Guinea mass was called Sahul, but all of Sahul was always surrounded by distances can be formed on the ocean on the other nearest, about 90 km distant point on earth closer. To reach Sahul, where Australia, you need to navigate the blue ocean.
We really need to ask first is whether, as a member of our typical prehistoric nomadic hunter-gatherer ancestry, Aborigines would have been comfortable dealing with the masses of water. Rivers and streams you ford or swim across, maybe use a newspaper carrier to hold on to if necessary. Or, just continue to wander upstream to the water obstacle is surmountable. Lakes can walk around. But the ocean! The ocean off the coast must have been terrifying to our ancient ancestors, and rightly so. Therefore, perhaps it should not be surprising that, unfortunately, there is no proof, can be exposed in a museum that would become the Aboriginal culture has never had the ability or desire to surfing the blue of the ocean, at least according to what the culture has exposed the many generations since the alleged sea crossing (s).
Okay, back to the beginning. Once upon a time what would become the race of hunter-gatherers that we know today as the Australian Aborigine was just a hop, skip and a veil "short" far from the promised land. But first of all, that hop and jump.
Sooner or later in your wanderings of nomadic hunter-gatherers, you will cross the sea! So let's say you are the leader of a small group of nomadic "natives" of hunter-gatherers, somewhere in eastern Indonesia there are between 40,000 and 60,000 years. You climb up and over a hill, and there is everything to your surprise, establishes the ocean. You've never seen the ocean before, so like wow, Surprise! Now what do you do? Well probably you head to the shore to check. So what? Can you honestly credit the following monologue: "Hey gang look at what we found is the ocean What say we build a raft and set sail!"
Well, it might depend on whether or not you can see another side - the land across the ocean on the horizon that can not be achieved just by walking the coast around him. If there is nothing on the horizon except the ocean if you can not see the opposite shore, there is probably no way you are going to stick your toe in the water. In most cases no other land in sight, you do not have a clue what's on the other side of the ocean, if something (maybe it's always and forever) or to what extent it is on the other side. The known is safer than the unknown, discretion is the better part of valor.
But if you can see the land opposite, and, decisions, decisions. It all boils down to motive, means and opportunity.
Reason: You can associate this remote land through water with food, shelter, security (defense) and mates. No guarantee of course. If where you lack in one or more of these categories, you might be tempted to cross over - or more likely that not only move up or down on the coast or inland back. Are you really going to stop, make a raft and sail into the unknown out of pure curiosity there may be food, shelter, safety and / or friends there, if curiosity you probably even if it's more than just the academic curiosity? No, the daily hunt for survival, you'll probably ignore the ocean and the land on the horizon and just follow the coastline (or back home) - which will eventually lead you to most places that also offer food, housing, safety and dull. You also will not have much of a stupid reason if you fear that by doing so you enter in the field of "gods." There is something quite supernatural on the interface between the ocean and earth tides. The tides have seemed like a purely supernatural event, no natural explanation (Isaac Newton was a distant prospect at the time), an inexplicable action of the "gods" (which was really a real prospect at the time) somehow saying "this is our area, stay away."
Means: Even if you want to cross over to the mass of this unknown land, you will need raw materials, the ability to understand how to put them together properly, and acquire skills and maritime navigation. In any event, it is not all that easy construction and sailing and a marine boat or raft from scratch, with no handy-dandy how to make manual available. Everything will be trial and error. Can you afford the time and risk? In addition, you can not drink sea water to fresh water should be worn on any hypothetical trip. Have you sealed containers? If yes, how much do you need to take? Who knows? You certainly would not want a clue.
Opportunity: You and your group of nomadic hunter-gatherers have many urgent needs, such as finding food and water today, more shelter for tonight. You've found the shore and found that it was a good resource, unlike the land on the other side of which you know nothing. Coasts and seaside offers an abundance of food and resources shellfish, crabs, turtles, seals, sea birds, fish, algae (even dried for fuel). Coasts and seashores are good. Unknown lands have a low priority. But in the unlikely event that you have a lot of free time on your hands and the opportunity beckons - maybe.
If you forget the ground in front, on the use of coastal waters as a road along the coast and save your legs? Would you travel the coast by boat or raft? - Probably not. First of all, you're a hunter-gatherer. You can not do this from a raft. Second, the ocean, even just offshore, is nothing if not unpredictable and dangerous huge waves, storms, riptides, strong currents and sharp rocks benches, sharks, jellyfish, hypothermia and just all kinds of unknowns lurking beneath the surface to add to your fears. Would you rather high and dry 10 miles inland or at sea in a raft that is breaking and you try to keep your head above water and not end up as fish-food 10 miles? It takes much less sit effortlessly on the beach or swim or sail in the ocean, and it is much safer too! On land, you are in control, you have control. Even if you follow the coast of the ocean instead of the side of the earth, if you come to an impassable barrier, it is probably easier and much safer inside trek for some time to divert resources from swimming or rafting around the barrier with all the dangers that could result.
Dozens Fast forward thousands of years later.
Aborigines in the north-east of Australia, beginning about 2500 years ago, had contacts with the Melanesian sailors, the Torres Strait, which could island and reef-hop Torres Strait newly created. Poster Ice Age rise in sea level has created only 150 km from the Torres Strait marine barrier flood the old overland route separates Australia from New Guinea. However, the Melanesian marine technology has apparently not been readily adopted by Aborigines. In any event, it does not help to explain the arrival (s) - one or more waves - Aborigines there are several tens of thousands of years.
Before white settlement, there are less than three centuries, there is no archaeological evidence or pictorial Aboriginal Australia sophisticated maritime activities. The canoe is about as sophisticated as you get, the technology that is apparently through traders Makassan Sulawesi (an Indonesian island), and only since the early 18th century, or shortly before the arrival of white . It's not much help is to get the Aborigines in Australia there are 40,000 to 60,000 years.
All up, it was non-sailors who discovered the Australian Aborigines (the Dutch in 1606, the British in 1688, culminating with the visit of Captain Cook in 1770, the settlement so white in 1788) and not the reverse.
So if there's one thing you do not join in the Australian Aborigine, capabilities maritime navigation and the ocean. Aborigines were nomadic landlubbers with, at best, bark canoes. Aborigines go walkabout, not sailabout. If Aborigines had really maritime halfway decent capacity, you'd think they would have discovered and colonized or Lord Howe Island Norfolk Island, New Zealand, even tens of thousands of years. [Tasmania does not count since the island was connected to the Australian continent during the fall of sea level during the ice ages.] But New Zealand human habitation date back to just about 1300 or EC if you want, and Maori aren 't the Australian Aborigines.
This is similar to the mystery to know why the former East African Homo sapiens or Homo erectus prehistoric did not discover that rather large target island off its east coast - Madagascar. Madagascar was not inhabited until approximately 350 BCE and 550 CE, then Borneo. Indigenous African (Bantu) did not hit the city until 1000 CE. The evidence suggests to me that prehistoric hunter-gatherers simply do not have the seamanship skills everyone thinks they have had.
So the $ 64,000 question is, how did they, Aborigines arrive in Australia? In stupid boat! This is an obvious answer in prehistory to get from point A to point B, where A and B are separated by reasonably large ocean distances, our "primitive" ancestors must have built rafts or boats and used even through said large oceanic distances. There has been no other explanation is possible. But does it make sense? No, in my humble opinion. They, our prehistoric ancestors did not boat or raft building expertise or skills in navigation, seamanship and capacities. Is there real evidence that they did? Again, the answer is no.
The first boats found in the archaeological record only date to about 7000 BC, the historical era, far, far, after they were held so early prehistoric times. This is probably because the veil "modern", as in long ocean voyages involving sea crossings with nothing but the ocean view, has taken off in historical times, post agricultural revolution which goes back about 10,000 years ago. It is now well documented in the archaeological and pictorial archives. The main results were the establishment of trade routes and the opening of the Pacific (Hawaii, Easter Island, New Zealand, Madagascar, etc.) both the initial discovery and colonization. Maybe it was a logical consequence because of the stability and growth of the population caused by establishing colonies. Or, perhaps as agriculture itself maritime skills were a gift from the "gods."
Another piece of evidence that is not easy to achieve in Australia, SE Asia, despite the theory that it would have been relatively easy via island hopping is that Australia has a unique fauna. Can not find the kangaroo, koala, platypus or SE Asia, and you do not see wildlife SE Asia in the natural environment of Australia. Seeds, insects, birds, etc., may cross over, carried by the wind or by their own means, but not something that is bigger and fully terrestrial.
In conclusion, in prehistoric times, to migrate to certain geographic areas, such as Australia, it is traditional to actually take stating the obvious bleeding that primitive humans of that time had to stick their toes in the water and through the course of building rafts or boats, the acquisition of various maritime skills and sail the ocean blue. However, there is no evidence, let alone proof of this assertion. On the contrary, in my humble opinion, you'd be a bloody fool to stick your feet in the water, unless practically forced "under threat." It is a Catch-22: Before you risk your sailing all the blue of the ocean, you'd better first have or acquire motive, means and opportunity. But you can not be comfortable to have motive, means and opportunity after you have risked your while having first sailed the ocean blue and become skilled professional mariners. Or, in other words, before you're all comfortable stick your feet in the water, you have to stick your toes in the water. Faced with this kind of choice, reasonableness is to keep your toes out of the water from the get-go. It also indicates the bleeding obvious. When both parties say the bleeding obvious, and these two parts are mixed, and it's a Catch-22.
So how to make the Australian Aborigine Australia or Sahul? Well, maybe they beat their weapons and stolen, or were stolen, but they can not swim the distance and they do not navigate it. It's time to think outside the box.
* There is in fact no such animal as the Australian aborigines, rather, there are about 400 distinct Aboriginal groups throughout Australia. However, it is assumed that they all had a common origin collectively "ancestral".
For more information:
Flood, Josephine, Archaeology of Dreamtime: The Story of Prehistoric Australia and its people, Angus & Robertson, Sydney, revised edition, 1995
Isaacs, Jennifer (compiler and editor) Australian Dreaming: 40,000 years of Aboriginal History, Lansdowne Press, Sydney, 1980
Kamminga, Johan & Mulvaney, John Prehistory of Australia, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington DC, 1999:
Mountford, Charles P. & Roberts, Ainslie, Legends of the Dreamtime Publishing International Limited, Hong Kong, 1975:
Sciences librarian retired ......
No comments:
Post a Comment