Society/Culture Triple M filling the Triple J Australia Day hole

[King Brown]

sorted mentioned a number of ways that Maori's have integrated into wider NZ community. they have done it better than us.
From kids performing the haka, use of language etc. I raised the point that they also do not commemorate the day europeans landed in NZ but Waitangi day. That cannot be ignored.

NZ, Canada, etc have Treaty. We don't. We are the only Commonwealth country that does not have a treaty with its indigenous.
NZ, Canada do not commemorate their national day when Europeans settled those respective lands. We do.

But why did the British never make a treaty here? Don't distinguish each Commonwealth country as separate identities - at time of settlement each and every one of them was British.

Canada still celebrates Thanksgiving, which is essentially about first contact / settlement.

 

[Eagle Wrath]

Personally it depends on the basis for moving the date.
If it's moved to a significant date because of a historical milestone and/or based on something Australian it would act as a unifying date rather than the current date which is seen by a number of people as divisive.

May 8 - May8 - Mate. It makes the most sense

Happens to be my birthday as well.

 

[Mofra]

Happens to be my birthday as well.

You're Aussie-as mate!

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

It was End of Fashion

WA Rock sounds were, and are, one of the dominant sounds of JJJ. Eskimo Joe went more mainstream, and got a lot of play elsewhere, so End of Fashion may have suffered from that reflected perspective as they had a poppier sound. But overall the Js have been embracing more poppier sounds over these last 10 years because there aren't the same divides between genres that there used to be. To me, it sounds like they were just trying to let EoF down gently.

I think they did complain publicly at the time about it too. That shouldn't go against them, but obviously in practice it often does. One thing that may have cost them is I remember JJJ seemed to become more repetitive if you listened to it throughout the day. That would've meant less slots for different bands.

 

[QuietB]

I'm not advocating anything, but we have ask ourselves why in one case the British Empire was able to make terms with the Maori, yet not do so with indigenous Australians.

The assertion from cartwright is that the New Zealanders treated their indigenous better than Australians. But at the time, there was no concept of 'New Zealander' or 'Australian'. Both instances of settlement were achieved by the British Empire.

So, were the British specifically more racist to the indigenous than the Maori? If so, why? Was it because the Maori brought more to the table? Why did the Maori bring more to the table? Was it cultural or biological or something else?

It was aggression and resistance. Nothing more, nothing less. One people resisted and forced a treaty, the other did not.

It is not related to DNA, intelligence, evolution, it is simply horses for courses.

 

[King Brown]

It was aggression and resistance. Nothing more, nothing less. One people resisted and forced a treaty, the other did not.

Sure. But what is interesting is that the Maori eagerly acquired guns and used them against their invaders (and each other). Similarly, the native Americans in the US acquired guns, horses (previously unknown on that continent) and used them to resist their invaders. This never happened in Australia.

Unlike almost any other people on the planet, the indigenous were wholly unprepared for contact with Europeans.

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

It was aggression and resistance. Nothing more, nothing less. One people resisted and forced a treaty, the other did not.

It is not related to DNA, intelligence, evolution, it is simply horses for courses.

Actually the indigenous did resist. A lot. We just aren't taught about that (maybe kids are now). They didn't resist much in the early days, but then they had no reason to. Everyone else who had arrived had left after doing repairs and replenishing supplies. Fights began once it was clear they were expanding.

And by "horses for courses" you are kinda evoking the well-made arguments in Guns, Germs & Steel, which help to answer the racists' questions ITT. Of course it's hard to tell with racists if they are wilfully ignorant, 'culturally' ignorant, or just pretending to be ignorant.

 

[Appa]

NZ, Canada do not commemorate their national day when Europeans settled those respective lands. We do.

Yet there are still protests to remove Canada day and Waitangi day.

 

[King Brown]

The problem with Diamond's geography argument in GGS is that it is implicitly biologically racist.

What do you call the adaptation of a group to its geography? Speciation.

 

[Helfarch]

sorted mentioned a number of ways that Maori's have integrated into wider NZ community. they have done it better than us.
From kids performing the haka, use of language etc. I raised the point that they also do not commemorate the day europeans landed in NZ but Waitangi day. That cannot be ignored.

NZ, Canada, etc have Treaty. We don't. We are the only Commonwealth country that does not have a treaty with its indigenous.
NZ, Canada do not commemorate their national day when Europeans settled those respective lands. We do.

Sounds like you have been sucked in to the one continuous/contiguous culture myth.

Aboriginal inhabitants were/are a myriad of tribes/nations whatever you want to call them. Maori's got guns and had a bloody unification. However tyranny of distance plays a massive role in the differences.

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

Sounds like you have been sucked in to the one continuous/contiguous culture myth.

Aboriginal inhabitants were/are a myriad of tribes/nations whatever you want to call them. Maori's got guns and had a bloody unification. However tyranny of distance plays a massive role in the differences.

Sucked in by a myth that you just invented?

Who says it was 'one continuous/contiguous culture'? Indigenous still don't speak the same languages or have the same stories or beliefs. I suspect you're speaking out your hat. The oldest living culture idea is not saying it is one contiguous culture, but there are obvious similarities.

Do you claim people who talk about 'Western culture' or the 'anglosphere' are pushing a myth?

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

The problem with Diamond's geography argument in GGS is that it is implicitly biologically racist.

What do you call the adaptation of a group to its geography? Speciation.

Sorry fella, evolution does not occur that quickly. People are getting taller because our diet is better, not due to evolution.

 

[King Brown]

Sorry fella, evolution does not occur that quickly.

Yes it does.

The Andeans have only been in the Andes for less than 10,000 years, but have already evolved specific traits to cope with high altitudes. Milk has only been consumed for a similar time period, and milk-drinking populations have evolved lactase persistence. The same is true for alcohol consumption - why people of Western Eurasia can consume high levels of alcohol but people of the East can't without making them sick. Abilities to quickly process the alcohol in beverages are unique to a few populations.

Evolution is an extraordinarily fast process under selection pressures.

 

[Helfarch]

Sucked in by a myth that you just invented?

Who says it was 'one continuous/contiguous culture'? Indigenous still don't speak the same languages or have the same stories or beliefs. I suspect you're speaking out your hat. The oldest living culture idea is not saying it is one contiguous culture, but there are obvious similarities.

Do you claim people who talk about 'Western culture' or the 'anglosphere' are pushing a myth?

Contiguous is merely the assumption many people make if they know little about aboriginal history. Continuous culture gets misconstrued as unchanging or lacking innovation in the negative. However it is also used to potentially greatly exaggerate the age and or importance of structures, engraving and paintings. Some you can date and that's amazing, others just get "40000 years" slapped on them because it sounds cool.

So myth of contiguous and theory of continuous? Does that sit better for you?

 

[Helfarch]

Yes it does.

The Andeans have only been in the Andes for less than 10,000 years, but have already evolved specific traits to cope with high altitudes. Milk has only been consumed for a similar time period, and milk-drinking populations have evolved lactase persistence. The same is true for alcohol consumption - why people of Western Eurasia can consume high levels of alcohol but people of the East can't without making them sick. Abilities to quickly process the alcohol in beverages are unique to a few populations.

Evolution is an extraordinarily fast process under selection pressures.

This seems to support that - especially the rapid loss of the EPAS1 variant in the Han Chinese population.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/07/tibetans-inherited-high-altitude-gene-ancient-human

 

[cartwright]

Yet there are still protests to remove Canada day and Waitangi day.

There will always be those who will be against European settlement. Commemorating the day, is on another level though.

Sounds like you have been sucked in to the one continuous/contiguous culture myth.

Aboriginal inhabitants were/are a myriad of tribes/nations whatever you want to call them. Maori's got guns and had a bloody unification. However tyranny of distance plays a massive role in the differences.

yeah... 2018, and we are the only Commonwealth country without a treaty..
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...m/news-story/d4123d01d02c1e12a4ee7f5c5e602163

 

[Helfarch]

There will always be those who will be against European settlement. Commemorating the day, is on another level though.



yeah... 2018, and we are the only Commonwealth country without a treaty..
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...m/news-story/d4123d01d02c1e12a4ee7f5c5e602163

Paywall.

In the Maori example the treaty in English says the Queen has "sovereignty" over NZ - the Maori version says "governance". Slight difference. Some chiefs did not sign.

Canada they started to keep the peace and thwart the French there wasn't really a whole lot in it for the "First Nations".

So sure, treaty, whatever but other commonwealth countries doing something isn't a reason to do it as well.

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

Contiguous is merely the assumption many people make if they know little about aboriginal history. Continuous culture gets misconstrued as unchanging or lacking innovation in the negative. However it is also used to potentially greatly exaggerate the age and or importance of structures, engraving and paintings. Some you can date and that's amazing, others just get "40000 years" slapped on them because it sounds cool.

So myth of contiguous and theory of continuous? Does that sit better for you?

There is a YUGE trend for people to take what people with little knowledge say and pretend that it is indicative of 'the left' or 'the right' or whoever is against their argument who they want to make look bad. It's a pretty pointless way of arguing, but it's much easier than having to do research. You simply say 'this person on social media said hats aren't needed, but I got sunburnt on my nose so it's absurd that social media users think hats aren't needed'. It's reductive and often stupid. So, because lots of people know very little about First Australians doesn't mean that 'the world's oldest living culture' is a myth.

A culture developed, almost entirely independently for "40,000 years" (that's the lowest number we used to use, until the recent discovery gave strong evidence for a minimum 65,000 year date - people often said 40,000-100,000 years, we don't know the exact dates obviously, but we think homo sapiens left Africa about 100,000 years ago). That culture was obviously decimated by colonisation, but remains 'living' in areas. 'First contact' was still being made with in 1964 and the 17 year old who was there then would be in her 70s now.

Having said all that, it has nothing to do with "potentially greatly exaggerat[ing] the age and or importance of structures, engraving and paintings". We can measure those things scientifically, and we do. We don't just listen to what people claim. Anyone 'slapping' "40000 years" on something without thinking is, again, someone worth ignoring, not someone to be focussed on when making arguments about indigenous culture.

Yes it does.

The Andeans have only been in the Andes for less than 10,000 years, but have already evolved specific traits to cope with high altitudes. Milk has only been consumed for a similar time period, and milk-drinking populations have evolved lactase persistence. The same is true for alcohol consumption - why people of Western Eurasia can consume high levels of alcohol but people of the East can't without making them sick. Abilities to quickly process the alcohol in beverages are unique to a few populations.

Evolution is an extraordinarily fast process under selection pressures.

What the human body gets used to, does not equate to 'speciation'. There is a difference between saying 'how did milk drinking evolve' (as in change), as compared to thinking that evolving new species is a fast process happening throughout the body. If there's no pressure from a negative standpoint (e.g. Smallpox mortality), there's no need to change. And if there's no mutation that provides a big advantage, there's no positive pressure either.

What's more, if you whack a bunch of non-high-altitude people in a high-altitude their bodies change processes. High-altitude training is done to alter the blood cell count in a body. Or give a bunch of people milk who haven't before had milk (as an adult, I mean, basically all humans can handle milk as an infant) then the body can start to change to the environment - acclimatising. I have lactose-intolerant friends who are being given small amounts of lactose which will gradually be scaled up to help them get used to it. People's habits make the differences seem bigger because if you have an uncomfortable reaction to a food, you likely eat less of it so your stomach bacteria are less set-up to consume that product and so it gets more uncomfortable to have it.

A 'pressure' does occur from remaining in specific conditions, of course (i.e. bodies that do not adapt die earlier), but the rest of the body's functions aren't altered. It's just that one small thing. Put those people back in the previous climate where there's no need for that adaption and there's a good chance the change doesn't persist. i.e. it's not a new species.

As Helfarch's post hypothesises, the Tibetans got their gene from another species, while the Andeans (under 20,000 years at altitude) and the Ethiopians (~70,000 years at altitude) produced more hemoglobin (which for Andeans reduce if they return to regular altitude, but they have O2-rich hemoglobin).

the Tibetans’ inherited the entire gene from Denisovans in the past 40,000 years or so—or from an even earlier ancestor that carried that DNA and passed it on to both Denisovans and modern humans. But they ruled out the second scenario—that the gene was inherited from the last ancestor that modern humans shared with Denisovans more than 400,000 years ago because such a large gene, or segment of DNA, would have accumulated mutations and broken up over that much time

the interbreeding took place when the ancestors of Tibetans and Chinese were still part of one group some 40,000 years ago. But the gene was later lost in most Chinese, or the Han Chinese may have acquired it more recently from interbreeding with Tibetans, Nielsen says. Either way, what is most interesting, Nielsen says, is that the results show that mating with other groups was an important source of beneficial genes in human evolution. “Modern humans didn’t wait for new mutations to adapt to a new environment,” he says. “They could pick up adaptive traits by interbreeding.”

So it's saying 400,000 years would create variations to a large gene, but 40,000 would not. Evolution is not that quick. The gene remains in place without better-or-worse mutations creating variation. It is largely not in the general population of Han Chinese because there is no pressure to retain it. It isn't lost in Tibetans because it's very useful for them.

We are fundamentally all the same humans as those that left Africa in the first place, but with huge differences in knowledge, education and health. Hence why we all look so similar and share so many characteristics beyond the superficial differences in skin and hair. Skin colour changes due to vitamin D absorption being an advantage, so lighter skin made for healthier people in low-sun environments. Drinking milk similarly also relates to getting some vitamin D in and calcium, and vitamin D is needed for calcium absorption:


Diamond's well-explained point is that the human brain is brilliant, and smart people adapt to their environments using it. So lots of Scots were part of the enlightenment, but Papua New Guineans are genius when it comes to getting nutrition because in that part of the world it's hard to get the base calories needed to subsist. The brains aren't different. They are used differently. Hence why you can see people of all races excelling in fields that their parent's culture may have had no knowledge about. Australia underwent massive climate alterations with the arrival of humans. The indigenous, with the very same brain that we have all found to be an evolutionary boon, were able to adapt. The first few fleets on the other hand struggled, and the immigrant culture continues to mimic that of Europe, despite the many regional variations. Because we can only maintain a population this large with major food crops and beasts of burden that were not available in Australia.

 

[King Brown]

It's always funny to get pop science lectures from Ratts when you've read published articles on this.

What's more, if you whack a bunch of non-high-altitude people in a high-altitude their bodies change processes.

This is completely and utterly incorrect for altitudes above 3000 metres. At high altitudes, like Tibet, a person born at sea level will fail to thrive and their children will be dramatically underweight.

I have lactose-intolerant friends who are being given small amounts of lactose which will gradually be scaled up to help them get used to it.

JFC. Lactase persistence is encoded by the gene LCT, which first arose less than 10,000 years ago. It isn't something people derive through slowly accustoming their bodies to milk.

http://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000491

Handy hint: read something a bit more advanced than airport literature.

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

It's always funny to get pop science lectures from Ratts when you've read published articles on this.



This is completely and utterly incorrect for altitudes above 3000 metres. At high altitudes, like Tibet, a person born at sea level will fail to thrive and their children will be dramatically underweight.



JFC. Lactase persistence is encoded by the gene LCT, which first arose less than 10,000 years ago. It isn't something people derive through slowly accustoming their bodies to milk.

http://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000491

Handy hint: read something a bit more advanced than airport literature.

Back on this roundabout of you claiming to be super-Science man because you did a "STEM" course.

No wonder you spent 20 pages talking all around your desire to say indigenous are inferior. You think you are superior, but for some reason aren't superior enough to be able to ever actually show it. Funny that.

 

[King Brown]

Back on this roundabout of you claiming to be super-Science man because you did a "STEM" course.

Better than someone whose limits of understanding revolve around whatever book has appeared on the New York Times best sellers list.

You're wholly ignorant of the current science. Ability to digest milk is believed to have evolved sometime in the past 7000 years, with genes allowing the production of lactase into adulthood identified and well studied. The ability to digest milk conferred greater fitness to those who did so and selection pressures meant it spread across Europe.

Evolution really does work that fast.

 

[Sainteric]

There is a YUGE trend for people to take what people with little knowledge say and pretend that it is indicative of 'the left' or 'the right' or whoever is against their argument who they want to make look bad. It's a pretty pointless way of arguing, but it's much easier than having to do research. You simply say 'this person on social media said hats aren't needed, but I got sunburnt on my nose so it's absurd that social media users think hats aren't needed'. It's reductive and often stupid. So, because lots of people know very little about First Australians doesn't mean that 'the world's oldest living culture' is a myth.

A culture developed, almost entirely independently for "40,000 years" (that's the lowest number we used to use, until the recent discovery gave strong evidence for a minimum 65,000 year date - people often said 40,000-100,000 years, we don't know the exact dates obviously, but we think homo sapiens left Africa about 100,000 years ago). That culture was obviously decimated by colonisation, but remains 'living' in areas. 'First contact' was still being made with in 1964 and the 17 year old who was there then would be in her 70s now.

Having said all that, it has nothing to do with "potentially greatly exaggerat[ing] the age and or importance of structures, engraving and paintings". We can measure those things scientifically, and we do. We don't just listen to what people claim. Anyone 'slapping' "40000 years" on something without thinking is, again, someone worth ignoring, not someone to be focussed on when making arguments about indigenous culture.

What the human body gets used to, does not equate to 'speciation'. There is a difference between saying 'how did milk drinking evolve' (as in change), as compared to thinking that evolving new species is a fast process happening throughout the body. If there's no pressure from a negative standpoint (e.g. Smallpox mortality), there's no need to change. And if there's no mutation that provides a big advantage, there's no positive pressure either.

What's more, if you whack a bunch of non-high-altitude people in a high-altitude their bodies change processes. High-altitude training is done to alter the blood cell count in a body. Or give a bunch of people milk who haven't before had milk (as an adult, I mean, basically all humans can handle milk as an infant) then the body can start to change to the environment - acclimatising. I have lactose-intolerant friends who are being given small amounts of lactose which will gradually be scaled up to help them get used to it. People's habits make the differences seem bigger because if you have an uncomfortable reaction to a food, you likely eat less of it so your stomach bacteria are less set-up to consume that product and so it gets more uncomfortable to have it.

A 'pressure' does occur from remaining in specific conditions, of course (i.e. bodies that do not adapt die earlier), but the rest of the body's functions aren't altered. It's just that one small thing. Put those people back in the previous climate where there's no need for that adaption and there's a good chance the change doesn't persist. i.e. it's not a new species.

As Helfarch's post hypothesises, the Tibetans got their gene from another species, while the Andeans (under 20,000 years at altitude) and the Ethiopians (~70,000 years at altitude) produced more hemoglobin (which for Andeans reduce if they return to regular altitude, but they have O2-rich hemoglobin).


So it's saying 400,000 years would create variations to a large gene, but 40,000 would not. Evolution is not that quick. The gene remains in place without better-or-worse mutations creating variation. It is largely not in the general population of Han Chinese because there is no pressure to retain it. It isn't lost in Tibetans because it's very useful for them.

We are fundamentally all the same humans as those that left Africa in the first place, but with huge differences in knowledge, education and health. Hence why we all look so similar and share so many characteristics beyond the superficial differences in skin and hair. Skin colour changes due to vitamin D absorption being an advantage, so lighter skin made for healthier people in low-sun environments. Drinking milk similarly also relates to getting some vitamin D in and calcium, and vitamin D is needed for calcium absorption:


Diamond's well-explained point is that the human brain is brilliant, and smart people adapt to their environments using it. So lots of Scots were part of the enlightenment, but Papua New Guineans are genius when it comes to getting nutrition because in that part of the world it's hard to get the base calories needed to subsist. The brains aren't different. They are used differently. Hence why you can see people of all races excelling in fields that their parent's culture may have had no knowledge about. Australia underwent massive climate alterations with the arrival of humans. The indigenous, with the very same brain that we have all found to be an evolutionary boon, were able to adapt. The first few fleets on the other hand struggled, and the immigrant culture continues to mimic that of Europe, despite the many regional variations. Because we can only maintain a population this large with major food crops and beasts of burden that were not available in Australia.

The 40 to 65000 year premise is somewhat misleading their were waves of immigration and presumedly lots of battles/deaths. Its a bit like saying if your english that you are a direct decendant of iron age britons in england. Not really true for most and even if you are a very small part of your dna.

 

[Sainteric]

Actually the indigenous did resist. A lot. We just aren't taught about that (maybe kids are now). They didn't resist much in the early days, but then they had no reason to. Everyone else who had arrived had left after doing repairs and replenishing supplies. Fights began once it was clear they were expanding.

And by "horses for courses" you are kinda evoking the well-made arguments in Guns, Germs & Steel, which help to answer the racists' questions ITT. Of course it's hard to tell with racists if they are wilfully ignorant, 'culturally' ignorant, or just pretending to be ignorant.

Nothing like the maori who took on a super power and ground them to a stop.

 

[Helfarch]

A culture developed, almost entirely independently for "40,000 years" (that's the lowest number we used to use, until the recent discovery gave strong evidence for a minimum 65,000 year date - people often said 40,000-100,000 years, we don't know the exact dates obviously, but we think homo sapiens left Africa about 100,000 years ago). That culture was obviously decimated by colonisation, but remains 'living' in areas. 'First contact' was still being made with in 1964 and the 17 year old who was there then would be in her 70s now.

Stone tool problem, you date the sediment layer in which it was found not the tool itself - you don't have that with exposed stone work or structures. For example Brewerrina fish traps have "40000 years" slapped on them by multiple sites including govt ones when there is no way to date them and are more likely less than 3000 years old in line with other similar structures that have been dated. In this case 40000 years is used because it sounds better with no evidence. May as well say aliens built them and they prevent tiger attack.

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

Nothing like the maori who took on a super power and ground them to a stop.

The claim made was that the indigenous didn't resist. They did. A lot. The circumstances vary wildly with New Zealand, obviously. A major reported hindrance to indigenous resisting in Australia was the fact that were quickly beset by germs and lost a lot of their population to sickness and death.

The 40 to 65000 year premise is somewhat misleading their were waves of immigration and presumedly lots of battles/deaths. Its a bit like saying if your english that you are a direct decendant of iron age britons in england. Not really true for most and even if you are a very small part of your dna.

Don't know what you are saying here, but I've previously had discussions with people who've tried to claim multiple "waves of immigration" (in the context of them trying to claim indigenous cultures were not that old) and they were very dodgy theories. Maybe this article may assist if you are suggesting that the indigenous arrived in "waves", and it also applies to the current conversation regarding biological adaptions:

The most comprehensive genomic study of Indigenous Australians to date has revealed modern humans are all descendants of a single wave of migrants who left Africa about 72,000 years ago. It confirms modern Aboriginal Australians are the descendants of the first people to inhabit Australia — a claim that has previously been the subject of debate.

And the genetic information also shows Aboriginal people living in desert conditions may have developed unique biological adaptations to survive the arid conditions.

There are some dates within the article that are contradicted by the subsequent revelations about 60-65,000 being the date, but that potential for error was highlighted in the original article from a critic who still agrees the study reveals a single migration:

Professor Alan Cooper, at the Australian Centre for Ancient DNA, who was not involved in the study, agreed the researchers needed more information. He said dates within the paper were contradictory as it showed inter-mixing with another group of ancient humans known as Denisovans around 44,000 years at a time when the ancestors of Aboriginal Australians were already meant to be in Sahul. "They say there is only one invasion of [Sahul] and that happens around 50,000 years ago, but then they go on to say Aboriginal Australians have genetically mixed with Denisovans at 44,000 years. "So how can you be in [Sahul] after a single invasion, yet 6000 years later you mix with another extinct hominim that is not in Australia? This is early days and the first genomic data we've got from this area. Clearly these processes are much more complex than they have modelled, and I think that the dates are wrong as a result. All three genomic studies show a single movement Out of Africa, a single invasion of Sahul, but then after that the events in [Sahul] aren't very well resolved."

Indeed, both the articles I've linked to from the ABC have sections devoted to what critics say, including this which seems relevant to Helfarch. Often 'common sense' type problems with science are already things scientists have taken into account, but disingenuous people may pretend they haven't been (that happens a lot in the climate change debate):

Professor Zenobia Jacobs of the University of Wollongong used a combination of radiocarbon dating, and a technique called luminescence dating, which can tell when single grains of sand were last exposed to sunlight, to determine the age of the sediment surrounding the artefacts. The results indicated the lower layers were around 65,000 years old, give or take about 5,000 years. To make sure the dates were correct, Professor Jacobs sent four samples to the University of Adelaide for independent testing. The results were the same... Professor Peter Hiscock of the University of Sydney was one of the archaeologists who was sceptical about the dates presented nearly 30 years ago. He said the new study had convinced him it was the oldest site in Australia, although he thought the date of 65,000 years was "optimistic". "It certainly persuades me that people were there by 60,000 years — they could be there earlier — and that is really quite significant," he said. He said he was cautious about pinning down an exact date as artefacts may have moved from the sediment they were originally in. Professor Jacobs said there was a small amount of movement at the site of around 10 to 15 centimetres, but that was not enough to change the position of the artefacts. "There is a lot of independent strands of evidence pointing to there being limited disturbance of the artefacts over time," she said.