>The major weakness with suggesting that both the flint tools and the language spread were somehow caused by contact with another group is that we have no mechanism or hypothesis for what this means. Did this incoming group bring a new tool style? Teach the coastal Aboriginal people a new style? Did they invade and provoke some major group conflict? We don’t know.
The dissertation "Ritual Evolution in Pama-Nyungan Australia" argues that it has to do with high-cost initiations that effectively held society together, and therefore spread. I reached out for a copy, but never got a reply. Slated to be public in March. Abstract available here: https://oatd.org/oatd/record?record=oai%5C%3Aetheses.dur.ac.uk%5C%3A13981
"Hazing works" is a pretty weak explanation for all those changes, but it's an attempt.
Interesting quote from a geneticist, supporting the mystery you identify:
“Both types of data [genetic and linguistic] also show that the population expanded from the northeast to the southwest. This migration occurred within the last 10,000 years and likely came in successive waves, Bowern says, in which existing languages were overlaid by new ones. This expansion also seems to correspond with a stone tool innovation called a backed edge blade. But the accompanying gene flow was just a trickle, suggesting that only a few people had an outsize cultural impact, Willerslev says. "It's like you had two men entering a village, convincing everyone to speak a new language and adopt new tools, having a little sexual interaction, then disappearing," he says. Then the new languages continued to develop, following the older patterns of population separation. "It's really strange but it's the best way we can interpret the data at this stage." https://www.science.org/content/article/why-australia-home-one-largest-language-families-world
Thank you for these posts, it is helpful to enlarge the migration discussion here. It is a shame that Mugo remains are being re-buried for ideological reasons, as if a fixed cultural narrative must be preserved. Very unscientific approach !
In the 1980's I was examining NSW Museum aboriginal skulls, studying proximal wear patterns, I guess now that those skulls are no longer available for research.
>The major weakness with suggesting that both the flint tools and the language spread were somehow caused by contact with another group is that we have no mechanism or hypothesis for what this means. Did this incoming group bring a new tool style? Teach the coastal Aboriginal people a new style? Did they invade and provoke some major group conflict? We don’t know.
The dissertation "Ritual Evolution in Pama-Nyungan Australia" argues that it has to do with high-cost initiations that effectively held society together, and therefore spread. I reached out for a copy, but never got a reply. Slated to be public in March. Abstract available here: https://oatd.org/oatd/record?record=oai%5C%3Aetheses.dur.ac.uk%5C%3A13981
"Hazing works" is a pretty weak explanation for all those changes, but it's an attempt.
Interesting quote from a geneticist, supporting the mystery you identify:
“Both types of data [genetic and linguistic] also show that the population expanded from the northeast to the southwest. This migration occurred within the last 10,000 years and likely came in successive waves, Bowern says, in which existing languages were overlaid by new ones. This expansion also seems to correspond with a stone tool innovation called a backed edge blade. But the accompanying gene flow was just a trickle, suggesting that only a few people had an outsize cultural impact, Willerslev says. "It's like you had two men entering a village, convincing everyone to speak a new language and adopt new tools, having a little sexual interaction, then disappearing," he says. Then the new languages continued to develop, following the older patterns of population separation. "It's really strange but it's the best way we can interpret the data at this stage." https://www.science.org/content/article/why-australia-home-one-largest-language-families-world
Please see this https://www.quora.com/Is-there-a-genetic-connection-between-Dravidians-and-Aboriginals-of-Australia
Mungo burials on hold pending challenge from different group of Aboriginals.
YIKES REDDITIRINOS, SHUT THIS DOWN, THIS FULL OF HATE AND HAS BEEN DEBOONKED BY SNOPES.
This is excellent. Keep up the great work.
Thank you for these posts, it is helpful to enlarge the migration discussion here. It is a shame that Mugo remains are being re-buried for ideological reasons, as if a fixed cultural narrative must be preserved. Very unscientific approach !
In the 1980's I was examining NSW Museum aboriginal skulls, studying proximal wear patterns, I guess now that those skulls are no longer available for research.