Talk:Prehistory of Australia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Initial anthropology

From my reading, 'anthropology' was all the rage in the 18th C. (ie from initial contact): and has continued ever since.Thus I have removed sentence which claims otherwise. Eric A. Warbuton 03:08, 27 September 2005 (UTC)'[reply]

ARID

The term 'arid' has a technical definition of 'less than 250mm pa' from Groves 'Australian vegetation' (This is an encyclopedia-not the womans weekly-so can we be accurate) which is less than 40% of the land mass of Aust. And importantly the majority of tribal Aboriginals do not live in these areas- they live in the tropics and sub tropics. Also I dont know the reason for leaving 'remote' in the text is: it adds nothing to it. Can someone tell me? Eric A. Warbuton 06:15, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You initially said the issue was POV, not accuracy. If you can show that the majority of Aboriginal people live in areas which are not technically "arid," fine, delete it. I have no problems with deleting "remote" or replacing it with a less eurocentric word. Adam 08:20, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

extended periods of glaciation?

In the section on migration there is the phrase 'repeated episodes of extended glaciation' which I cant get my head round. In the period being talked about Im led to believe that there was a slow retreat from say 10,000bp. So are the dates correct as they now read in the text? Do they need adjusting? Can you provide some refs on the above process for us to peruse? Eric A. Warbuton 02:22, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence reads: "Repeated episodes of extended glaciation resulted in decreases of sea levels by some 100-150 m." What is difficult about this? It doesn't mean glaciation in Australia, it means globally. It means that global glaciation has fluctuated over the past million years, causing sea levels to rise and fall. Adam 06:14, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well: the context is at the end of the pleistocene epoch where there weren't 'repeated episodes of extended glaciation' : there was only deglaciation from at least 10000bp: can you provide refs to show otherwise?Eric A. Warbuton 08:37, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it was a little clumsily-phrased; when I wrote that sentence my intention was to avoid the implication that this was a singular event (rather, sea-levels have repeatedly fluctuated), whilst maintaining a link to a predominant factor in this fluctuation- ie,
glaciation. As Adam points out, I of course did not mean to imply that the most-recent glaciation referred to had a presence in Australia itself. The context of the sentence refers to not just the last 10,000 yrs ("end of the Pleistocene" is rather broad), but the whole of the extensive period in which it is possible (or it is claimed) that humans could have migrated to AU. Although generally-speaking, the trend after the Last Glacial Maximum was for sea-levels to rise, this did not happen uniformly and was influenced by other local factors, such as the topology of the shelf itself, which is quite shallow (particularly at the Torres Strait end), and ridged in several places. The Gulf of Carpentaria was several times in this period the Lake of Carpentaria, for example. Mini transgressions and regressions occurred, even when the overall trend was for general ocean encroachment in this area. If you've some ideas on how best to capture the essence of this, would be happy to hear them.--cjllw | TALK 08:46, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Well to achieve accuracy and momentum in the paragraph I'd remove this sentence: 'Repeated episodes of extended glaciation resulted in decreases of sea levels by some 100-150m' as it now stands it clogs it up with notions that are to vague and though of great importance should belong elsewhere. Yes? Eric A. Warbuton 09:00, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The point of the sentence is that humans migrated to Australia during the last major glaciation in the northern hemisphere, which caused sea-levels world-wide to fall, creating the land-bridge to Australia. Someone should write a clear sentence to that effect. Adam 09:08, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Adam there was never any landdridge to Australia. Even at the Glacial maximum 20,000 years ago, there was still a sea voyage of 160 kilometres needed across the Timor Gap, and by then Aborigines had already been resident in Australia sometime between 20,000 and 50,000 years. Hope this helps John D. Croft (talk) 11:51, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, 10,000y bp Tasmania was glaciated and the treeline in Victoria was at 600m so conditions in the N hemisphere are not the point. The direct mention of global glaciation wouldl be complex and problematic as over the last 70000 years there has been much flux of ice, as Mr Wright has rightly mentioned and if it is to be discussed I dont think this the correct text for it to go. Eric A. Warbuton 09:19, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, yes, conditions in the northern hemisphere are the point. Glaciation in the southern hemisphere was trivial by comparison, because the land area down here is much smaller than up there. Glaciers don't float. It was the glaciation of Eurasia and North America that locked up all the water and made sea levels drop, so that humans could walk to Australia. Adam 10:53, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this is not the place to go into the finer points of the whys and wherefores of sea level changes in this period (and in fact the present passage does not do this). However, in this context the fact the continent had a much-extended coastline for much of this time is key in understanding how people could have reached it in the first place. If we mention that eustatic sea levels had generally receded for lengthy periods, we also ought to explain even if briefly the understood mechanisms for this- namely, increased glaciation over significant portions of the globe (itself caused by other factors). Perhaps the present sentences are not the best, but the ideas still needs to be communicated that there were extended periods from 75k yrs ago when the coastline was much further out; the trend up to about 18k yrs ago was for seas to recede, and thereafter to rise, but local conditions saw fluctuations in this; and that AU and New Guinea were joined several times at various places, but Sahul is not believed to have been connected to Wallacea so some sort of navigation would have been required, whenever the 1st migrations took place.
That people once quite likely were living happily in areas which are now 50m or more below the ocean, and 100's of km out from the present shoreline, is probably not common knowledge, and probably deserving of an article in itself (say, human settlement of Sahul); in the absence of such an article I'm quite happy with the present summary of events, but if you can tweak it to cover the key points, pls do.--cjllw | TALK 11:10, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Eric, your revision looks just fine.--cjllw | TALK 02:37, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Politics and Social Orginization

Can someone add another chapter about how the tribe leader is chosen or who can marry who and so on. Efansay 09:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was no "leader" in a group. Elders were respected and obeyed due to the fact they were a) a source of knowledge, and b) experienced. But there was no single leader for any group. In excessively simplistic terms, you might say Aboriginal societies were
skin group. Aridd (talk) 09:56, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

The Savage Frontier

What do we make of this?

http://www.flagsociety.org.au/The_Savage_Frontier.htm

Theredchief (talk) 10:36, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Theredchief, this material is seriously outdated and mistaken. It was based upon the idea that Aborigines as seen in the 1850-1900 period were not the first inhabitants of Australia, but dispossessed an earlier "race" just as the Europeans were now "dispossessing" the Aboriginal inhabitants. This first race, presumed to be closer to the "apes" was the "negritto" found as pigmy races in the Highlands in New Guinea, various pre-Malay people's of South East Asia, the Andaman islanders, and the pignies of Africa. The racist theories upon which this was based have been thoroughly discredited and disproven. It now has only historical interest, although various racists still "trot it out" from time to time. Hope this helps, John D. Croft (talk) 11:47, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was discussed previously here, after being brought up by a sockpuppet of Premier, who was eventually banned for sock abuse. IIRC the consensus was that it was self-published and hence not a reliable source. --GenericBob (talk) 12:56, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What about the sources the author relied on as current and correct? I'd question whether it is racist to claim aborigines were part of a second wave of immigration.

It's interesting that Boomerangs were found in King Tut's tomb [1].

Was there really a land bridge to New Guinea and is there only evidence of a curly haired race in Tasmania and no dingoes?

If you read the whole book, he said evidence of a pre-historic stone quarry was discovered in NSW one time, and academics were quick to attribute it to aboriginal society, even though aborigines apparently avoided heavy manual labor.

Theredchief (talk) 03:02, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since it's not a reliable source, its analysis of previous sources is not something we can use. As to the boomerangs, all it means is that the laws of aerodynamics were the same in ancient Egypt as they were in prehistoric Australia. And I seem to recall Premier's last sockpuppet raising exactly these same issues over on Indigenous Australians a while back. --GenericBob (talk) 05:15, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know, I've seen that thread, and believe that editor was hard done by and was essentially dismissed out of hand.

Theredchief (talk) 10:43, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hard done by? Trying to mislead other editors via sockpuppet abuse is a serious breach of trust; as far as I'm concerned banning is an entirely appropriate sanction for somebody who demonstrates that they have no respect for their fellow editors. It doesn't stop them from creating a new single-purpose account and coming back to try pushing the same agenda on the same pages, but fortunately most of them (Premier included) are pretty heavy-handed about it and easy to spot.
If you get my meaning. --GenericBob (talk) 08:44, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://valeriebarrow.com/upload/Ancient-Egyptians-in-Australia.pdf and possibly other sources; see, for example, duplication detector. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see

guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:53, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Engineering of landscape

i'm parking some links here for further work, maybe should also be in History_of_Indigenous_Australians &/or History_of_Australia#Aboriginal_Australia but this seems like a good start because of the "Culture and technology" section.

Brewarrina Aboriginal Fish Traps / Baiame's Ngunnhu State of New South Wales and Office of Environment and Heritage

Portland: Indigenous History

"Fishers and Farmers: historicising the Gunditjmara freshwater fishery, western Victoria" Ian J. McNiven and Damein Bell, The La Trobe Journal, No 85, May 2010

Figure 15 Pencil sketch plan of an extensive eel channel facility covering 6ha, near Mt William (Robinson journal, 9 July 1841)

Figure 16 Aboriginal pencil drawing of an extensive eel channel facility at Mt William (Robinson journal, 18 July 1841)

"No Stone Unturned" Broadcast: 17/05/2015 5:27:25 PM, Reporter: Prue Adams, Landline, Australian Broadcasting Corporation

David Woodward ☮ ♡♢☞☽ 12:51, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Fires and extinctions

The text states that fires became frequent over the last 70000 years a.o. because of human activity, but this is confusing since there were certainly no humans in Australia 70000 years ago. Probably the meaning is that the initial fires had natural causes but later fires may in part have been caused by humans. Please correct.Helenuh (talk) 09:37, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No humans in Australia 70,000 years ago? That's actually far from certain... Yeti Hunter (talk) 23:28, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
this still cannot proof anything. The only thing is that the fire increased but nobody can proof this like a DIRECT man action. The continous attempts to show, by many wikipedians, that all the exictions are belonged to human activity is simply annoying.

No matter about this, but this paragraph is cleary unbalanced: Archaeological evidence (in the form of charcoal) indicates that fire, over 100,000 years (from ash deposits in the Coral Sea) was already a growing part of the Australian landscape.[26] Over the last 70,000 years it became much more frequent as hunter-gatherers used it as a tool to drive game, to produce a green flush of new growth to attract animals, and to open up impenetrable forest.[27] Densely grown areas became more open sclerophyll forest, open forest became grassland. Fire-tolerant species became predominant: in particular, eucalyptus, acacia, banksia, casuarina and grasses. The changes to the fauna were even more dramatic: the megafauna, species significantly larger than humans, disappeared, and many of the smaller species disappeared too. The direct cause of the mass extinctions is uncertain: it may have been fire, hunting, climate change or a combination of all or any of these factors, although the rapid decline of many species is still a matter of dispute.[29] With no large herbivores to keep the understorey vegetation down and rapidly recycle soil nutrients with their dung, fuel build-up became more rapid and fires burned hotter, further changing the landscape.

Those are frankly speaking, WEASEL WORDS to describe what happened in Australia 50,000 yrs ago. Evidently a lot of editors are posed their knowledge with Flannery babbling, that is itself, barely scientific, just like the 'blitzkrieg' model, that in Australia simply wouldn'work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.11.0.22 (talk) 18:55, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Missing Elements

This article has huge amounts missing in terms of description of Aboriginal life pre-colonisation, a subject which is of great interest to many people. Books on this from the 1800s to 1900s are abundant and easy to access (Tom Petrie, William Buckley, Douglas Lockwood etc.), and some tribes in Australia still practice culture (Martu people of WA, Yolngu of NT etc.). PDFs of Yolngu law as it has been practiced for 1000s of years has been written down by the elders for the broader public to understand, and is easy to access with a google search. Is there any particular reason for this?Alabama81bornandbred (talk) 10:09, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Racist namespace: please move it

My first time on this article. Randomly arrived here through another article. The current name space Prehistory of Australia is derogatory to the victims of British empire (aborigines). Lede says, "This era is referred as prehistory rather than history because there was no consistent written documentation of human events before 1788."

This may be totally unintentional in goodfaith, but sorry to say, this sounds ignorant or racist, specially from the perspective of the indigenous people. If colonial masters (or we editors) are ignorant of something then it does not mean that thing did not exist. Facts still exist even if no one knows about them. Current title comes across as racist, colonial-supremacist or

old world
-centric.

Having a written document is not the only criteria or way of knowing the history. We have enough knowledge of precolonial history through various other scientific means, such as archaeology, scientific dating, anthropology, and so on. Please move the article space to a accurate and fair title, e.g. Precolonial history of Australia or History of aborigines dominated era of Australia, or some such title determined by the other experienced Australian history buffs among editors on this talkpage. Thanks. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 00:21, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"prehistory" doesn't mean it didn't exist or happen - it simply means that it pre-dates writing. That's the definition of history and pre-history. Quoting the relevant articles:

History ... is the study of the past as it is described in written documents. Events occurring before written record are considered prehistory.

and

Prehistory is the period of human activity between the use of the first stone tools c. 3.3 million years ago and the invention of writing systems ...

If you have references describing the Indigenous Australians' use of writing before the arrival of the Europeans, feel free to cite them. Mitch Ames (talk) 01:10, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I note that Prehistory says:

The period when a culture is written about by others, but has not developed its own writing is often known as the protohistory of the culture.

and Protohistory says:

Protohistory is a period between prehistory and history, during which a culture or civilization has not yet developed writing but other cultures have already noted its existence in their own writings.

I don't think that "protohistory" applies here though, because while the Indigenous Australians had a culture or civilization before the Europeans arrived, nobody else was writing about it (until after the Europeans arrived). Mitch Ames (talk) 01:22, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We find only what we search for: Before I first read this article yesterday, existing sources in this article indicate the precolonial contact of aborigines in the non-european documentation e.g. ref name= "tamils_spread" (and many more) in the Contact outside Australia section. Take note of Observer-expectancy effect. Also, if someone "specifically" looks for something, they sure will find it. If editors keep an open mind in the future, then in addition to the existing citations in the article they can also find lot more sources that show pre-colonial documentation of the Australian aborigines, such as by the Indonesians, Chinese, Indians and possibly even Arabs sources. Bear in mind, colonists have been meticulous in documenting everything. There are numerous articulate, dominant, assertive, well resourced editors of that heritage, hence subconscious bias in favor of colonials is almost impossible to avoid, even by the well meaning editors. Aborigines are still marginalised, stigmatised, vulnerable and at risk section of the society with hardly any editor of their heritage expressing their view here. In this article, they are at mercy of the sense of fairness of editors of colonial heritage or others. All I ask for is an open mind, and that hopefully all other here will keep looking for more reliable sources on precolonial contacts. Thanks. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 11:23, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The "tamils_spread" ref (Origin and Spread of the Tamils by V. R. Ramachandra Dikshitar) is an outdated source. It includes ridiculous claims such as the Pandyan kingdom being the homeland of the Egyptians (p. 3), connecting the ancient Dravidians to "Cretan, Aegean, Sumerian, Babylonian, Egyptian, Polynesian" cultures (p. 29) etc. Dikshitar's theory of the contact between the ancient Indians and the ancient Australians is based on the discovery of the Tamil bell: as other scholars have explained, it could have been dropped off by, say, a Portuguese ship.
You've already been told by other users about the importance of
reliable sources -- outdated books containing fringe theories, predatory journals etc. are not acceptable. Also, please don't copy-paste same content across five different articles. utcursch | talk 13:15, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Thanks for explaining further on the tamil source. Tamil bell is new to me and interesting to read. I am satisfied with your explanation. My intention is to initiate the discussion, which I am glad is already happening successfully now.
About the reliable source, you, me and every other editor have been reminded by some fellow editor of the importance of reliable sources. We all have to agree and abide by it, and I have no problem embracing it.
About reusing the limited amount of text across few articles, it is permissible to add value by enhancing the articles, such as to cross-link the context of the related articles. I do not edit with the view to deliberately vandalise or distort the facts. Sometimes, I do challenged the existing text to enhance it, with the good intention, and am very open to discussion. Thankfully some fellow editors find it useful. An experienced editor, total stranger to me, even left me a kitten on my talkpage to thank me for my edits. I thankfully welcome all feedback. I am sorry, I will have to reject the generic "do not copy paste" comment. I welcome with sincere gratitude all constructive and actionable feedback on my talkpage. Discussing unrelated bilateral things on an article talkpage is not the right way. I apologise for my memory as I do not recognise you or recall any prior discussion between you or me on any talkpage, mine or yours. This is first time I am discussing with you here and I have already expressed my gratitude for your explanation. As long as I am treated with the same equal respect, sincerity, good non-patronising attitude and open mind as I am already treating you here in this message, then that is wonderful.
The impersonal issues I have raised above, still stand as numerous other editors also have already raised similar concerns about such dubious classification of history. Thanks. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 11:58, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that describing the recent ancestors of living people as "prehistoric" is extremely problematic, regardless of whether it's technically correct. But the vast majority of this article is about time periods that are considered prehistory everywhere. We already have an article on the precolonial history of Australia at History of Indigenous Australians. – Joe (talk) 14:19, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I re-read the
WP:BIAS
. Even if we personally did not do any injustice to the indigenous people, we are beneficiaries of injustice done to them. Hence, it is a debt on us to repay them their due respect. Onus is on us to eliminate the unintented or intended bias.
Winners rewrite the history. Imagine, if aborigines were more numerous today than all other Australians, then they would have written and classified this history very differently. Everyone knows about the Hitlor's holocaust but the Winston Churchill's holocaust are all but whitewashed.
Can the more experienced Australian historian "registered editor" please change the article title after arriving on consensus on the new name. Thanks. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 11:13, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@202.156.182.84: please tone down the rhetoric; it's not helping your case. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:22, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note that since my post of 12:22, 6 April 2018 (UTC), 202.156.182.84 has significantly edited some of their posts above this point. Diff. See also my comment to 202.156.182.84 about such editing. Mitch Ames (talk) 00:37, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sorry for hurting the feelings of racists who keep harping if I take a pro-aborigines stand because I felt the emotional pain for them when I randomly arrived here. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 20:25, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I arrived her randomly. I felt article was blatantly racist towards aborigines. That was my first impression. I made a hard hitting OP (original post above, I have since edited it, please see the history to read both), which got attention because of its blunt tone struck the conscience of the people who felt concerned before but were just silent. I thank them all who understood me and participated. I was civilised before. I later rephrased it in an attempt to take the reformed racists along in an inclusive way. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 20:25, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Revert to my original post. I STAND BY IT. Against the racism. And, the onus is on the people who might feel they "own this article who have been watching it for long time, I will start questioning them" for the "the bias" and "racism". I arrived here randomly, I felt "blatant racism" KKK-sque (first impression), I may be wrong, but that is exactly how it felt from a new unrelated person. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 20:25, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am thankful to the the editors with heart of compassion. I rephrased the OP after turning around the "emotionally attached self appointed owners" of this article to a state where they realise "they do not own it" and 'everybody owns it" and "even majoritarian academic periodicalization can be challenged specially if it is exclusivist, biased or racist" (unintended or not). I tried to recruit all as the stakeholders, let them lead it. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 20:25, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to give respect and recruit Mitch by giving hr long attention. I ignored her "petty small hearted payback post on my talkpage". She backed off when I made assertive OP, she suddenly went after me and kept going after me repeatedly as above even after I tried to heal her heart. Wikipedia may attract people with love of learning. Often lonely people have more time to spare. Wikiipedia is not the place to fix, own, and counsel the dysfunctional people. Please bring a "healthy adult" here. I am not your ex, mum or dad, fixer, etc @Micth. Leave the baggage out. I request you to please stop trying to get my attention in wrong ways. If you need attention, or help, seek if right way, in friendly terms and right healthy way please. Just go to H.E.A.L. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 20:25, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is "Prehistory" actually the term most used for the period in the study of Australian history? I was mildly surprised to see it as the title here. The article itself seems ok (better than History of Indigenous Australians?). Prehistory has issues, but these largely arise imo, because the term is standard in studies of "Old World" regions, where it ended 2,000 or more years ago, but not much used re elsewhere, so the article mostly covers the areas where the term is used. Would a name like Precolonial Australia or something solve much of the problem? Johnbod (talk) 11:29, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I find
old world classifications could be used for the old world articles. To describe the history of others, it is better to go by Johnbod's suggestion of using an article name like Precolonial Australia or some such term. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 12:09, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Regardless of the connotations of "prehistoric", Precolonial Australia would be a more accurate and descriptive article title, because the scope is (per the lead sentence) delimited by the colonization, not by the introduction of a writing system. I'd support a rename to Precolonial Australia (or similar). Mitch Ames (talk) 12:43, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see merit in your suggestion too. The effort by you and Johnbod's has already resolved the issue for me. As to which new exact terms should be used, I have no further preference. I am personally more inclined to go with other experts, i.e. joint decision made by Australian historians and experienced history buffs. If you and Johnbod (and other editors) arrive on a consensus on a term, that will be good enough for me. Out of respect for other editors, we still can wait bit longer (say a week), to allow more time for their input. I might not visit this article for a while. Will leave it to the two of you, because I feel content that the issue is in the hands of right people now. Thanks to both of you for making efforts to discuss and resolve. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 12:59, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - I agree we need input from those familiar with the subject, which I am not. A merge with History of Indigenous Australians might not be out of the question. That gets about 4x as many views as this, & parts go into more detail on the same subjects - eg the original settlement, though other parts are unreferenced, & maybe not so good. Meanwhile this one clearly needs attention - in the lead "This period is estimated to have lasted between 40,000 and 60,000 years", with a 2003 newspaper reference, but in the next section "The earliest evidence of humans in Australia is at least 65,000 years old" (as a minimum) - ref to Nature paper of 2017. The other article covers this much more fully, and supports the earlier date range. Johnbod (talk) 14:15, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
All three of us are on same page now. Among all other editors on this page, I find Johnbod's initially response the most useful. For that reason, I find Johnbod most suitable to (a) make the appropriate edits directly to this article (can be done now), and (b) rename it after a week if there are no further objections. Hopefully, he will kindly accede to this request. Thanks. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 15:43, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but no, I think such a move would be silly. Have you actually read the article? The peopling of the continent by archaic Homo sapiens is prehistory. Megafauna extinctions ~15,000 years ago is prehistory. The evolution of Australian material culture over the last 10,000 years ago is prehistory. If you care to search, there are dozens of books and hundreds of journal articles that use variants of "Australian Prehistory" in their title. We are talking about an entire field of study here. Wikipedia should have a dedicated article about it.
If the few remaining parts of the article that deal with more recent events are such a problem, they can simply be moved to History of Indigenous Australians.
By the by, it's totally untrue that prehistory is only, or mostly, used to refer to the Old World. – Joe (talk) 20:23, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Joe. Your first para adds further value/clarity to the discussion. Suggestion in your second comment is partially similar to Johnbod's suggestion, and I see merit in your suggestion. I will make a post to encourage others to provide more insights. Thanks. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 21:57, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please help: What are the alternative ways of periodicalization of history?

List of time periods has the

  1. Old world
    -centric periodization (label can be questioned, other periodicalizations can also belong to humans, such as point-3 below),
  2. Marxian stages of history (additional reading Historical materialism
  3. Mythological and astrological time periods.

Questions: Please add your own questions and/or answers.

  • (A) Are there more types of classification/periodization?
  • (B) If so, which ones are respectably appropriate for the indigenous cultures?
  • (C) How do indigenous people periodicalize their own history (from any other nation)? For example, some colonised cultures periodicalize their history as (c.1) precolonization, (c.2) colonization (era of invasions/foreign rule) and (c.3) post-independence (home rule).
  • (D) How do Australian indigenous people periodicalize their own history (from their own cultural perspective)?

Please participate: Please invite others who you think might be able to shed more light. Silent and shy readers please provide your opinion on the discussion above. There are no right or wrong answers. Please do not be shy. Additional reading -

old world-centric classification) and Periodization (for general reading). Thanks. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 21:57, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

I don't see what this has to do with this article? – Joe (talk) 22:04, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please let it flow, say for a week, and see where it leads. We might surprise ourselves. After a week, we can reconsider, and if found unsuitable here then we can move this thread to the List of time periods talkpage (if such a move is possible, else we just copy paste there after closing the discussion here). 202.156.182.84 (talk) 22:19, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Prehistory versus History

I think there is a misconception among many regarding the origin and purpose of the term prehistory and how it differs from history. The distinction between the terms has generally been about distinguishing the methods and sources used in writing the about the past. The period of written records, (on paper, parchment, stone, etc), is the accepted realm of historians. Even those historians publishing on the period of humanity prior to written records, generally rely on the writings of archaeologists, anthropologists and prehistorians, who in turn use as their primary method, non written sources - archaeological excavation, field survey, analysis of artefacts, C14, dendrochronology and other dating methods, etc. Note that the

Prehistoric China, Prehistoric Iberia, etc, etc, Garyvines (talk) 12:54, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

"Precolonial would be far worse, as it defines Aboriginal past entirely in terms of the conquerer's impact."
Thanks for your explanation Garyvines. I am glad we did not close out this discussion. Your refreshing insight is enlightening. Wow. touches my heart, mind and the essence of wikipedia" I confess, I was blinded to it. You open up a while new world of open brainstorming. Just a smiple thing opens up new vistas if our mind is open. Thank you. Wonderful. My gratitude and respect for you. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 18:25, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Silent shy readers: please express yourself Fresh ideas are better than the conformist jaded cliches. "Experts are nothing but educated fools." You are encouraged to just shoot direct and blunt from you heart. Encourage others too. Make it inclusive. Human are good. There should not be any packing order at wikipedia, you are at par regardless of age, gender, degrees, anonymity of wikipedia is good. All of must remind ourselves to behave equal. Admins, older and experienced editors have no extra rights, they just have extra tools. If they break the rules or play gods or unfair, they can be sanctioned and fired permanently. Please express yourself freely. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 18:25, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please try to stick to concrete suggestions for this article, 202.156.182.84 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Talk pages are not a forum for general discussion. – Joe (talk) 20:48, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I note that a corresponding article for America (the continent) is titled
Settlement of the Americas. That would be less fraught than this current title is as is evident in all the discussion. We live in an era when calling the event of 1788 the 'Settlement' of our country is a discredited history, and every Australian should be aware that the early arrival and the presence of people here extends so far back. There is already a redirect from Settlement of Australia, so would others support, given the sensitivities expressed above, changing the title to Settlement of Australia or even Settlement of Australasia, which would be a deservedly and appropriately more comprehensive article. If so we can initiate a proposal for one or the other of those name changes. Jamesmcardle(talk) 23:21, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Changed "the Diprotodon family" to "the genus Diprotodon"

Could anyone please tell me if I should have changed it to "the "Diprotodontidae family" instead? Sorry to passive-aggressively brag about adding italics to the article in this section's heading, by the way, but I didn't want to be dishonest by leaving out the italics here.--Thylacine24 (talk) 01:02, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Why is this article below contradicted this article that seemed to suggest that written records of the area started in 1606, yet the "Prehistory"(in quotes for obvious reasons) of Australia article says written records of the area started in 1788?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_exploration_of_Australia

Even more contradictions are found here... "Indonesian "Bajau" fishermen from the Spice Islands (e.g. Banda) have fished off the coast of Australia for hundreds of years. Macassan traders from Sulawesi regularly visited the coast of northern Australia to fish for trepang, an edible sea cucumber to trade with the Chinese since at least the early 18th century."

And Indonesia have written records back then too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thebeatles2020 (talk • contribs) 10:21, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Using the term "Stone Age" is problematic.

I think using the term "Stone Age" in reference to the Indigenous history of Australia is very problematic. It gives the idea that the Aboriginal people of that time period was very basic compared to the white people. https://theconversation.com/australian-archaeologists-dropped-the-term-stone-age-decades-ago-and-so-should-you-47275 2001:8003:6C22:F601:8DCF:EA43:A4EB:CFDA (talk) 04:25, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree. It would be better to just describe what they achieved and how they lived, in sync with nature, rather than applying an arbitrary yardstick from a totally different culture. HiLo48 (talk) 04:33, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well in technological terms, their culture was "very basic". That they lived "in sync with nature" is rather naive and patronising - their "achievements" included removing large sectors of the larger fauna, & probably changing the landscape considerably in many places. The Stone and Metal Ages are a global scheme that is useful for most parts of the world. Johnbod (talk) 04:40, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How could you say that Aboriginal technology was very basic @Johnbod:? That a big assertion! 2001:8003:6C22:F601:8DCF:EA43:A4EB:CFDA (talk) 04:45, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See the article - or do you think there's a lot missing? Johnbod (talk) 04:55, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You said that their technology is very basic. You have to back up your claim. 2001:8003:6C22:F601:8DCF:EA43:A4EB:CFDA (talk) 05:17, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So should we remove the word "Stone Age"? 2001:8003:6C22:F601:8DCF:EA43:A4EB:CFDA (talk) 09:57, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When we can actually show that Australian archaeologists have a new term that they use to discuss stone age technology. I still see reliable sources discussing the Australian stone age, and stone age technology is a real thing. We go by what the sources say. Doug Weller talk 11:19, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Eg [2] Doug Weller talk 08:46, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article you posted, by John Mulvaney, was published in 1961 - in the early 60s Australian archaeologists did indeed use the term "Stone Age" in describing Australian prehistory. However, the term has been widely rejected by archaeologists globally as overly simplistic and unhelpful. We still use technological periodisations around the world - e.g. Bronze Age, Iron Age, Chalcolithic, Neolithic, Mesolithic etc., but with exception of terms like MSA (Middle Stone Age - which has a specific meaning) archaeologists do not refer to "the Stone Age" any more.
You asked earlier for someone to "actually show that Australian archaeologists have a new term that they use to discuss stone age technology" - sure, the term most commonly used is "lithic technology". For example: Maloney et al 2022; Hiscock 2017; Hiscock & Maloney 2016; McCall 2012; Akerman 2006; Foley & Lahr 2003; Moore 2003; - etc etc etc. TheShippingPrayer (talk) 05:13, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, from the Greek lithos, meaning "stone" --Yeti Hunter (talk) 06:00, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously - and those archaeologists are still talking about stones, but they're not talking about the "stone age" which is what we're discussing TheShippingPrayer (talk) 06:28, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm convinced. Sorry about the old article, I missed the date. Doug Weller talk 06:37, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge History of Indigenous Australians and Prehistory of Australia

I would like to propose preserving the first article name. 'Prehistory' is no longer used to describe the precolonial period of Australian history and is considered a biased tem by most Australuan archaeologists and those hostorians who engage with Aboriginal history. There is considerable overlap in the existing articles in any case.Garyvines (talk) 11:16, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(This is being discussed at Talk:History_of_Indigenous_Australians#Merge_History_of_Indigenous_Australians_and_Prehistory_of_Australia). – Joe (talk) 09:01, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What the heck is a hostorian? Dimadick (talk) 10:06, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Talgai Skull

At one time, not sooo long ago, this was a strong candidate for the oldest human remain in Australia. It is still a relevant item and should be mentioned in the article. Kdammers (talk) 05:30, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV of paragraph on initiation rites under Culture and Technology

The section Culture and Technology contains this paragraph: "The initiation of young boys and girls into adult knowledge was marked by ceremony and feasting. Initiation rites included female genital mutilation, ritual gang raping, penile subincision."

Surely these three things were not the only types of initiation rituals. Listing only these three examples, regardless of whether they are documented by reliable sources, contravenes

WP:NPOV

Moreover, to a reader, it comes across as though whoever wrote this went through sources to look for most contentious examples of initiation rites. Regardless of whether that was their actual intention, it creates the appearance of a lack of neutrality.

I propose that the paragraph be replaced with a summary including a broad range of examples of the types of initiation rituals noted in historical literature - not just restricted to specific examples of rituals that readers would find offensive or unacceptable. 121.200.4.5 (talk) 03:56, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. You have described the problem well. HiLo48 (talk) 05:35, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Prehistory_of_Australia&oldid=1194728786"