Talk:History of Australia before 1901

message: No fish aint eels. You might not see a distinction but it made a fundemental economic difference to the Gunditjmara. Did the Gunditjmara breed eels or fish? By there systems of weirs and traps it could only be eels -fresh water fish in  southern Aust dont migrate. Moreover( and this is important) eels were selectively bred because they had the greatest conc. of fats and proteins of any animal available. Thus they were able to support a greater number of people than exists currently. And why are their traces of fats only found in eels in the burnt out stumps nearby? (see the latest edition of the procceedings of the royal society of Victoria)
Also are you happy with the paleoecological claptrap that you have reverted back to? Thus:'The australian continent gradually dried out over millions of years'? Where is there evidence that biodiversity was greater? Where is their evidence that the climate didnt stabilize and ameliorate 5000 years ago? Well? Youre an expert on paleoecology as well? Eric A. Warbuton 07:07, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Eels are in fact a species of fish. However, if eels were specifically targeted by the indigenous people of that particular area, I see no harm in narrowing it down. But where have you cited evidence to support your change? --Cyberjunkie | Talk 07:50, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: eels vs fish

message: Please take this in good faith.
 
a) saying that aborigines left 'very few' remains is surely POV? And factually wrong- the museums I go to have rooms amd rooms of the material. Not to mention the containers of material looted by European archealogists.
b) to say that aboriginals left no 'substancial' remains is POV. Admittedly its not the parthenon but then ours wont leave very much too talk about over the next few millenia either. All cultures leave archaealogical remains and in a scientific context its wrong to create a heirarchy of cultures.
   
c) saying that aborigines were 'perfectly' adapted to their environment is highly debatable and, though fashionable, no evidence exists or can exist for that matter. No culture has ever been. It would presuppose that they knew what they were doing ie. had some overview of human existence that we are unaware. All cultures exploit their changing environments for the purpose of survival. A good review of this idea is Flannery's 'The future eaters' whose thesis is, inter alia, that the environment of the australian continent is slowly degrading , chiefly because of poor soils and fire, and there's nothing we can do about it. Except of course be dimly aware of it.
d) aborigines seem to be written out of the text.Why is this? They play some mute role as backdrop at the outset but then wither away silently watching the main players take the stage no doubt pleased to watch representatives of the English throne take the stage. Eric A. Warbuton 04:07, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: INTRO

message: We agreed a few months back to break up the Australian history articles into five or six, as discussed above, but nothing much has really happened there. Is anyone willing to start doing this? Ambi 07:32, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Breaking down this article

message: Yes he wasnt the first person, european or even englishman to land in australia, but it doesnt change the fact that its popular opinion, or was popular opinion that Cook discovered Australia in 1770, and I think it should be noted even if you say that it is incorrect. Cfitzart 10:08, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok what about the sentence "A number of relics and remains have been interpreted as evidence that the Portuguese reached Australia in the early to mid 1500s, 200 years before Cook." - why is it so important that they're saying its 200 years before Cook, rather than 100 years before Jansz? It is an encyclopedia article, not a history encyclopedia article, theres nothing to say you cant put in a previously widely accepted opinion which was probably taught in every school in Australia before 1950. Cfitzart 10:35, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

text: at least they havent mentioned Zheng He! Cfitzart 11:19, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  cook 'discovered' australia 

message: The maps showing the colonies as settled are great. Good work Chuq! Just wondering though, should there be one of 1863 when the NT was established (as part of SA)?--Cyberjunkie | Talk 09:04, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think they are kind of deceptive since they imply that more of the country was explored that was the case and that borders technically existed, for example in 1830 very little of the country was actually settled- Brisbane, some of Tassie, NSW East of the Blue mountains and Perth. I guess they sort of show "statehood" but settlement is the wrong name. There is a really good map in my high shcool Longman Cheshire Atlas that shows settlement chronologically - I can scan it and email it to potential map makers if anyone is intersted.--nixie 09:13, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Settlement maps

message: The so-called Portugese stone house at Bittangabee Bay was built by the Imlay Brothers in the early 1830s.  It was not Portugese (nor for that matter was it Chinese at Gavin Menzies who wrote 1421 would claim. Thus I have removed this from the articleMirasmus 01:51, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bittangabee Bay Ruins

message: What about our Muslim friends whom came to Australia from Indonesia, and traded with the Aborigines.
I found no refrence to them at all.
"Asian and Oceanic mariners and traders were in contact with Indigenous Australians for many centuries before the European expansion into the Eastern Hemisphere. Some formed substantial relationships with communities in northern Australia." straight out of the DFAT website
:This is discussed quite extensively in the prehistory article.   --Robert Merkel 03:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are we forgeting somebody? 

message: I've heard various claims about the Chinese visiting Australia centuries before Europeans did.  Even if this is not widely supported, shouldn't the article briefly mention the claims and why they're not widely accepted? --Robert Merkel 03:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it's really for this article. It needs to be in Prehistory of Australia. Rebecca 05:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about the claims about the Chinese?