Talk:Archaeology of Australia

message: I'll be slowly filling out this article, adding content and constantly updating it. However, feel free to add anything that I haven't done so yet. Aggelophoros 01:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I removed the statement, "It is proven that that Megafauna existed in Australia alongside Aborigines until about 6,000 years ago", and rewrote the para (without committing to any one view).
Hard to be sure since the statement was not cited, but it might possibly be referring to results reported in the 1980s of Diprotodon remains dating to the Holocene or ca. 6500 BP, at sites such as Trinkey, Lime Springs and Tambar Springs (see for eg. James Kohen, Aboriginal Environmental Impacts 1995 p.51, and Mulvaney & Kamminga Prehistory of Australia 1999, p.124).
However, AFAIK these and other late-extinction dates obtained from other sites are generally open to question, and have been much debated. At least, there would be plenty of researchers (eg Richard Roberts, Tim Flannery) who would not agree that Megafaunal survival to such a late date is in any way 'proven'.
The whole set of questions surrounding Australian megafauna —just when they became extinct, how it was differentiated across the continent, what if any anthropogenic causes there were—is still an active and at time contentious research field, & as such categorical statements are probably not desirable here. --cjllw ʘ TALK 06:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Megafaunal extinction 

message: ... might like to note that Sturt did not just go wandering in 1829 or 1844.
He also did an expedition along the Murray in 1836.  This was Whether he saw crops then I dont know but he may have, given the Hentys were in that area big time then.  Also, who grew those crops?  Europeans had long been in the Depot Glen area pre 1844?  Here Indigenous people did the sheep washing but they didnt husband the sheep or import them from Europe etc. The McArthurs did.  All go read Charles Sturt's journals aagain and place them in their correct and appropriate context given the 1830s dynamics and ontologies of the time.  There is no journal for 1836 but there is a paper.     JJones  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.134.117.175 (talk) 02:01, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Jeannette Hope

message: - I think we should abandon use of the term 'Aboriginal archaeology' and replace this with Indigenous archaeology which is more inclusive. 
- The term 'Aboriginies' is highly problematic (borders on racism frankly) and very rarely appears in academic literature originating in Australia at least. Needs to be replaced with: Aboriginal people where the content specifically refers to mainland Aboriginal groups, communities, populations; Indigenous people where the content is referring to the broader community of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people throughout Australia. 
- Prehistory? There needs to be some consideration/discussion of whether this is really appropriate as well as some inclusion of a summary about debate about this term. 
Happy to make these changes myself, but thought it polite to flag them here first. 
Mickmorrison (talk) 23:16, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terminology  

message: Archaeology isnt 'Aboriginal' or 'Indigenous' so there is no such thing as Aboriginal or Indigenous Archaeology anyway.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.139.225.81 (talk) 01:07, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Aboriginal Archaeology

message: If I am entirely wrong I am right by UNE reckoning then, (and by anthropological reckoning also).  Just because an archaeologist or someone else used a term does not then legitimize that use in whatever context or provide an excuse to then just build on it ad infinitum.  An archaeologist might be an expert on archaeology but not necessarily on grammar.  Delete then replace.  Its what was tried on  Australia's Indigenous people by my lot anyway so is entirely culturally appropriate from both sides?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.134.113.76 (talk) 02:22, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Deal or Delete?

message: I hope that Australian archaeology one day sorts out re the yowie.  If the yowie does exist then there is likely descent back to something other than boats.  He does actually exist though but is not the hairy person version.  He is the bunyip in another form.  Some think bunyips dont exist though too but its all recorded.  That will do away with the hairy person theory though it likely gets very hairy if he is around.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.138.156.10 (talk) 02:19, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Yowie

message: Paragraph 1 does not correspond with sub headings further on in the article such as what historial archaeology is and what the archaeology of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Isand people is about.  Generally, slang headings such as 'historical archaeology' and Aboriginal archaeology give no correct description of what the sub discipline actually addresses plus incorrect anyway.  The sub discipline named 'The Archaeology of Australia's Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander People' likely needs to have added to it 'culture' resulting in 'The Archaeology of Australia's Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander People and Culture'.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.139.225.112 (talk) 07:52, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Doesn't Correspond

message: The article is now about names of archaeologists rather than anything else.  Many of the names on the list cannot be very notable as they have no link to any bio of them noting their notability.  They may be known within the archaeology trade but the wikipedia article is not written for the the archaeology trade but for all readers.  Most of the names on the list that claim notability likely need removing and perhaps being posted instead in some future edition of the Journal of AA rather than on wiki.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.138.240.36 (talk) 05:23, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Article Has Changed Focus

message: Don't put back all and sundry though as all and sundry likely are not notable at all.  The article would be heaps better with no names noted and a seperate article about people the archaeology trade considers notable and warranting listing but dont the AAA have an awards night for that 'in house'?  This is wikipedia and the article is about the Archaeology of Australia not a place to note Australian archaeologists that are a species it seems acceptable to the AAA so a very in house thing.  Where does that leave Governor Phillip and James Dawson?  (Mulvaney & Kamminga, 1999:11)  They are both very very notable but no one noted them in that silly list.  Phillip and Dawson would be more interesting to the wider non archaeologist reading public than many of the names on the list.  What about the missing Australian archaeologists too as there must be more missing archaeology in Australia (and the UK and France etc), than noted.  Who excavted it then removed it and where is it now?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.139.225.40 (talk) 00:19, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Good Idea

message: What on earth is this stuff?  The article says:
"The oldest historical artefacts discovered in Australia are several Chinese coins, discovered in a cache found buried in Northern Queensland. The coins have been given dates of 1,300 years ago.[9] It is possible that they were brought to Australia by Chinese miners rather than being evidence of earlier Chinese settlement.[citation needed]"
The source given is a highly improbable-sounding website <http://www.water.qld.gov.au/trade_missions/1998/china.shtm> which no longer exists.  To find very old Chinese coins in Australia is not unusual, because they could remain in circulation for centuries, but the date of a coin gives no information about the date when it arrived in Australia.  Is this a garbled version of the Palmer River "coin hoard" story of the 1980s, which has long been discredited?  Unless someone can supply a very good source, I'm deleting that paragraph. Peter Bell (talk) 05:54, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No response after a month.  I've deleted it. Peter Bell (talk) 07:42, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Chinese coins

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Australian archaeology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140126190110/http://www-personal.une.edu.au/~pbrown3/LM3.html to http://www-personal.une.edu.au/~pbrown3/LM3.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060108214520/http://www.archaeologyweek.com:80/ to http://www.archaeologyweek.com/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:34, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Oppose Since there is no reason given, I am not sure why this merge is being proposed. As the article's lede indicates, archaeology is done on Indigenous and non-Indigenous site and the discussion of maritime archeology is dealing with non-Indigenous ships. Kerry (talk) 08:22, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason/discussion is at Talk:History of Indigenous Australians/Archive 1#Merge discussion. – Joe (talk) 08:37, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge