• fine_sandy_bottom
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    17 hours ago

    Oh man.

    First time round you said “The aboriginal people were the first of Homo Sapiens to leave Africa.” I merely responded that might be misleading.

    it’s not disputable that Aboriginals were in the first wave of humanity to leave Africa.

    No one is disputing that Aboriginals, along with every other race, descended from the first wave of humanity to leave Africa. That’s what the article you linked from the smithsonian says. Well done.

    You’re conflating being the first to become Isolated (in Australia and New Guinea) with being the first to leave Africa.

    But they did have to sail across the open ocean and did have to construct vessels that would allow them to do that.

    Aboriginals migrated to Australia via land bridges and short sea crossings over the course of many thousands of years. If you want to call a hunter in a dug out canoe a technological achievement then you’re welcome to.

    they lived with them for 17,000 years.

    This claim is derived from the existence of a single fossil. As you’re no doubt aware, this is a subject of hot debate. Wikipedia says:

    the main mechanism for extinction was human burning of a landscape that was then much less fire-adapted; oxygen and carbon isotopes of teeth indicate sudden, drastic, non-climate-related changes in vegetation and in the diet of surviving marsupial species. However, early Aboriginal peoples appear to have rapidly eliminated the megafauna of Tasmania about 41,000 years ago (following formation of a land bridge to Australia about 43,000 years ago as Ice Age sea levels declined) without using fire to modify the environment there, implying that at least in this case hunting was the most important factor. It has also been suggested that the vegetational changes that occurred on the mainland were a consequence, rather than a cause, of the elimination of the megafauna.