You said: What is striking to me is how little curiosity there is in many of these problems within academia.
The answer is simple, with academia controlled by Aboriginal agendas, they do not want to know and if they want to keep their jobs, they cannot afford to know.
The drive is for all to accept that Aboriginal peoples are all descended from the same original group of Homo Sapiens, and therefore have a united and unified greater right to this land. There is much power and profit invested in that agenda.
And if archaeologists cannot get work unless they toe the official Aboriginal line, it is hardly surprising if historians and others are ignoring, rewriting and re-inventing history to prove the claim that those peoples called Aborigines have been here, untouched for longer than anyone else. This is the origin of the 'longest surviving culture' delusion which endures despite the fact that no-one alive today, or indeed for much of the 19th century lived a life like that of the stone-age peoples here when the British landed.
Nor the simple reality that since all humans are descended from the same group of distant ancestors, then logic decrees, all cultures are as old as each other. Let us also push aside that all cultures evolve and the first Aborigine to accept or steal and iron axe or realise broken glass made a better spear tip, was assimilating, evolving and triggering cultural change.
Sadly, academia has become seriously debased on many counts and none more so than in regard to vested agendas like Aboriginality. We live in an age when academia in general takes the view that opinion is the equal of fact and where even historians refuse to let facts get in the way of propaganda.
Maybe the swampy land bridge had so many blood sucking insects nobody could ever get through it. There was a blip I encountered about ancients burning to clear the trees evidence found in the coral.
Thank you for the essays. As an Indonesian educated in Australia, I wanted to understand the links between prehistoric Australia and what's now called Indonesia. Sadly those links won't be explained in the foreseeable future, not because of scientific limitations but because of politics.
My question would be, what are your thoughts on why Aborigines failed to evolve beyond stone-age? They were not alone of course and there were other isolated groups around the world who were similar, but there is a question as to why on such a huge mass of land, none of them evolved beyond a very primitive life despite the availability of resources.
You said: What is striking to me is how little curiosity there is in many of these problems within academia.
The answer is simple, with academia controlled by Aboriginal agendas, they do not want to know and if they want to keep their jobs, they cannot afford to know.
The drive is for all to accept that Aboriginal peoples are all descended from the same original group of Homo Sapiens, and therefore have a united and unified greater right to this land. There is much power and profit invested in that agenda.
And if archaeologists cannot get work unless they toe the official Aboriginal line, it is hardly surprising if historians and others are ignoring, rewriting and re-inventing history to prove the claim that those peoples called Aborigines have been here, untouched for longer than anyone else. This is the origin of the 'longest surviving culture' delusion which endures despite the fact that no-one alive today, or indeed for much of the 19th century lived a life like that of the stone-age peoples here when the British landed.
Nor the simple reality that since all humans are descended from the same group of distant ancestors, then logic decrees, all cultures are as old as each other. Let us also push aside that all cultures evolve and the first Aborigine to accept or steal and iron axe or realise broken glass made a better spear tip, was assimilating, evolving and triggering cultural change.
Sadly, academia has become seriously debased on many counts and none more so than in regard to vested agendas like Aboriginality. We live in an age when academia in general takes the view that opinion is the equal of fact and where even historians refuse to let facts get in the way of propaganda.
Which is what makes your site so refreshing.
Maybe the swampy land bridge had so many blood sucking insects nobody could ever get through it. There was a blip I encountered about ancients burning to clear the trees evidence found in the coral.
A great series. Thank you.
Good stuff
Thank you for the essays. As an Indonesian educated in Australia, I wanted to understand the links between prehistoric Australia and what's now called Indonesia. Sadly those links won't be explained in the foreseeable future, not because of scientific limitations but because of politics.
My question would be, what are your thoughts on why Aborigines failed to evolve beyond stone-age? They were not alone of course and there were other isolated groups around the world who were similar, but there is a question as to why on such a huge mass of land, none of them evolved beyond a very primitive life despite the availability of resources.
Just wondering:
Whence the Moriori people who predated the Maori on the "shaky islands" by a ling shot.
By all accounts, they were a hardy bunch, but no match for the Maori. How much of NZ was "ice free" during the last Ice Age?
Then, what, if anything, has been done on DNA tracking NATIVE Taiwanese, (not the Han latecomers) and the Maori?
Just how much "messing about in boats" was going on all over the Pacific?