Lancefield Swamp
37°17′02″S 144°43′25″E / 37.283833°S 144.723617°E
The Lancefield Swamp is a rich fossil deposit from the
Description
The site consists of a bone bed lying directly atop a layer of
Human artefacts were found in the bone bed and in the overlying clay, but evidence of reworking by water flow has been noted.[1] Thus it appears possible such artefacts are intrusions.
The Lancefield Swamp fossil site is important in the debate over the time of and causes of the extinction of Australian megafauna. Humans are estimated to have arrived in Pleistocene Australia, or prehistoric Sahul, at anything from 60ka to about 45ka.[citation needed]
Initial radiocarbon dates yielded estimates of 31ka, a comparatively young age, approaching the
However, when Lancefield Swamp was investigated by van Huet, it was found that the bones had been reworked by fast-flowing water at some time after the animals had died.
However, excavations begun in 2004 by Dortch et al. suggest that the Lancefield megafauna remains have not been disturbed since deposition.
On the other hand, if the dates are comparatively recent, say less than 35ka, then humans would be exculpated as a causative agent of the decline of megafauna. However, if the estimate falls somewhere close to 46ka, then human arrival, and the final demise of the megafauna, could be associated. [citation needed]
See also
- Australian Megafauna
- Lancefield, Victoria
- List of fossil sites (with link directory)
References
- ^ a b c d Gillespie R. et al. "Lancefield Swamp and the Extinction of the Australian Megafauna", Science 200, 1978, 1044-8.
- ^ Horton D. The Pure State of Nature, Allen & Unwin, Sydney 2000.
- ^ van Huet S. "The Taphonomy of the Lancefield Swamp Megafaunal Accumulation, Lancefield, Victoria". Records of the Western Australian Museum, supplement 57, 331-340, 1999.
- ^ van Huet S. et al. "Age of the Lancefield Megafauna: a reappraisal". Australian Archaeology, 46, 1998.
- ^ Dortch 2004:Formal Report
The Huet excavations were in a different part of the site to the original excavations. Also, Gillespie et al. did not find evidence of reworking, just the reverse. The deposits were clearly in situ in their part of the site.