New Age For Mungo Man, New Human History

Science Daily ^ | FR Post 2-18-03 | Editorial Staff

[vannrox]

New Age For Mungo Man, New Human History

A University of Melbourne-led study has finally got scientists to agree on the age of Mungo Man, Australia's oldest human remains, and the consensus is he is 22,000 years younger.

A University of Melbourne-led team say Mungo Man's new age is 40,000 years, reigniting the debate for the 'Out of Africa' theory. The research also boosted the age of Mungo Lady, the world's first recorded cremation, by 10,000 years putting her at the same age as Mungo Man. It is the first time scientists have reached a broad agreement on the ages of the Lake Mungo remains.

"The ages paint a new picture of the human and climatic history of Australia," says the discoverer of the Lake Mungo remains, Professor Jim Bowler, a geologist and Professorial Fellow with the University of Melbourne.

The research will be published in the 20 February issue of Nature

In 1999, Australian National University scientists estimated the age of Mungo Man to be 62,000 years. This created a frenzy of excitement and vigorous debate among scientists as this rewrote the history of human occupation in Australia and had profound implications for the origins of modern man.

"Australia's colonisation is one of the keys to our understanding of how Homo sapiens evolved and spread around the world. It is critical we get the story correct," says Bowler.

To solve the long-standing debate, Professor Bowler amassed a multidisciplinary team of experts from the Universities of Melbourne, Adelaide, Wollongong, the Australian National University, CSIRO and the NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service, and used multiple methods and four separate dating laboratories to achieve a final consensus.

"Dr Nigel Spooner (formerly ANU) and Dr Bert Roberts (University of Wollongong), both co-authors on the paper, have advanced current dating techniques and were integral in achieving confidence in the accuracy of our results. They were supported by co-authors Dr Jon Olley (CSIRO) and Professor John Prescott (University of Adelaide)," says Bowler.

"The new age corrects previous estimates and provides a new picture of Homo sapiens adapting to deteriorating climate in Australia," he says.

The data show that maximum human occupation of Lake Mungo occurred between 45,000 and 42,000 years ago, a time when the lake was a lavish water and food supply for humans, animals and plants. This phase of intense occupation occurred at a time of major climatic change that also coincided with the disappearance of Australia's megafauna.

Between 60,000 and 50,000 years ago, the last ice age saw the expansion of freshwater lakes across what are now dry inland plains. By 45,000 years the system was beginning to change. By 40,000 years, at the time of both burials, the onset of drought conditions was associated with the expansion of Australia's desert dunes building to its maximum impact about 20,000 years ago.

"By 20,000 years, the lakes were dry, plants and animals were decimated and sand dunes had spread across the plains," says Bowler.

"The new dates reveal a rich tapestry of archaeological change that is rarely equaled elsewhere in the world and provides an ancient example of humans being forced to adapt to severe drought conditions similar to those that affect much of semi-arid and arid Australia today," he says.

The oldest evidence for human occupation of the Lake Mungo region has been dated from stone tools at about 50,000 years. This is consistent with the oldest artifacts found in Western Australia and Northern Territory.

"Evidence for occupation at 60,000 years or greater remains to be established," says Bowler.

"Lake Mungo confirms that the first Australians had colonised the country by 50,000 years and by 40,000 years had brought with them art and ritual burial," he says.

The Lake Mungo remains are still Australia's oldest human remains. Mungo Man is still the first well-dated evidence found anywhere in the world of such cultural sophistication, in this case, the anointing of the body with ochre before or during burial.

"This research extends far beyond mere academic interest. The Mungo people's story is of major importance to both their present day indigenous descendants and to all non-indigenous Australians," says Bowler.

"Non-indigenous Australians too often have a desperately limited frame of historical reference. The Lake Mungo region provides a record of land and people that we latter day arrivals have failed to incorporate into our own Australian psyche. We have yet to penetrate the depths of time and cultural treasures revealed by those ancestors of indigenous Australians," he says.

"The messages from the ancient Mungo people challenge us to come to terms with the history and dynamics of this strange land, especially with the rights and richness of their descendants.

"Indeed it is those descendants, in the person of the three traditional tribal groups of the Willandra region (the Barkandji, the Mutthi Mutthi and the Nyampaa) who facilitated and cooperated closely with this project. This represents an important new phase in the collaboration between science and traditional owners. Science and the Australian community owe them a special debt of gratitude."

###

Dr Wilfred Shawcross (ANU) and Dr Harvey Johnson (NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service) are responsible for the archaeological content of the paper.

Editor's Note: The original news release can be found here.

---

Note: This story has been adapted from a news release issued for journalists and other members of the public. If you wish to quote any part of this story, please credit University Of Melbourne as the original source. You may also wish to include the following link in any citation:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/02/030220082107.htm

[vannrox]

So, Mungo Man is quite young!

[seams2me]

He's 22,000 years younger than previously thought? Hang on, lemme grab my lipstick. He's DATING material.

[blam]

Date For First Australians

[Lurking Libertarian]

One good ping deserves another.

Patrick, would you mind pinging the rest of your list?

[VadeRetro]

The 62,000 year age had been controversial from the beginning. Most scientists are probably relieved that Mungo fits the expected settlement pattern better now.

The Associated Press version of this story quoted one of the scientists who did the earlier dating as calling for yet another set of measurements as a tie-breaker, saying that his was just as scientific as the new one. (I think he's ignoring that the first dating on Mungo Man preceded his and came back in the 40K range, so if you want to be picky there's no tie.)

[PatrickHenry]

Mungo Man (who?) ping.

[This ping list is for the evolution -- not creationism -- side of evolution threads, and sometimes for other science topics. To be added (or dropped), let me know via freepmail.]

[f.Christian]

The geolgic column proves a much younger earth.

There are no precambrian fossils --- how come ?

[Lurking Libertarian]

There are no precambrian fossils --- how come ?

There actually are precambrian fossils.

[John Valentine]

I don't understand why you biblical creationists have to drag your fantasies into every discussion that implies that the Earth is older than Semour's uncle.

It just makes you look insecure, and maybe with very good reason. You don't have a single shred of hard evidence to back up what is in essence a creation legend no more or less believable than any other.

[f.Christian]

... worms and shells !

[f.Christian]

Just calling evolution a theory is an overstatement . . .

only an idea // mood // feeling - - -

an ideology === perverse oddity ! ! !


To: f.Christian

Conjecture masquarading as science might be more appropos - I agree.


71 posted on 01/21/2003 12:04 PM PST by Havoc ((Evolution is a theory, Creationism is God's word, ID is science, Sanka is coffee))

DOGMA masquarading as science might be more appropos - I agree.

Main Entry: dog·ma
Pronunciation: 'dog-m&, 'däg-
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural dogmas also dog·ma·ta /-m&-t&/
Etymology: Latin dogmat-, dogma, from Greek, from dokein to seem -- more at DECENT
Date: 1638
1 a : something held as an established opinion; especially : a definite authoritative tenet b : a code of such tenets < pedagogical dogma > c : a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds
2 : a doctrine or body of doctrines concerning faith or morals formally stated and authoritatively proclaimed by a church

Main Entry: 1con·jec·ture
Pronunciation: k&n-'jek-ch&r
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French or Latin; Middle French, from Latin conjectura, from conjectus, past participle of conicere, literally, to throw together, from com- + jacere to throw -- more at JET
Date: 14th century
1 obsolete a : interpretation of omens b : SUPPOSITION
2 a : inference from defective or presumptive evidence b : a conclusion deduced by surmise or guesswork c : a proposition (as in mathematics) before it has been proved or disproved

[LiteKeeper]

bump

[John Valentine]

You guys are as hopeless as the New York idiots that postulated a completely outrageous scenario, that they called a "theory" for a horrific crime that if believed, would exonerate the guilty. When it was pointed out that thee was not a single piece of evidence to support this flight of fancy, they responded with the canard, "That's why we call it a theory!"

A theory is far more than unsupported conjecture. Ant that is emphatically true of the fact of evolution. It is not mere conjecture. It is a well built edifice based on solid research, study, revision, refinement, advancement and insight. It is resilient, responsive, and utilitarian. It answers questions and gives results.

What is creationism? Where are it's researchers? Where are it's facts? Where are it's results?

Nowhere. Creationism is a morally an intellectually bankrupt dead end that has to rely on distortion and outright lies to make its feeble points.

As a creation myth, you are welcome to it. But please don't insult us all by expecting us to take it seriously.

[gore3000]

It answers questions and gives results.

Really? Name one significant biological discovery which does not tend to disprove evolution. Just one.

[PatrickHenry]

Placemarker.

[John Valentine]

Well, that's a stumper, because I'm sure that whatever response I give, you'll say that it tends to disprove evolution.

But I'll toss this in and see where you take it.

The structure and function of the genetic "code", i.e. DNA and RNA.

[Aric2000]

Here we go, Blueskipping placemarker.

[Aric2000]

Ask him to name ONE Biological find that disproves Evolution, JUST one, and make sure that he doesn't give you any of his ID Behe Crap either.

I asked him that question once and never got a response, I wonder why. HMMM, Maybe because G3K is CLUELESS, yeah, I think that clueless is the right word.

[John Locke]

Ask him to name ONE Biological find that disproves Evolution

Creationists. They are clear proof that not all of us have evolved from monkeys.

[f.Christian]

Creation -- existence // science is not a myth but evolution is an urban legend --- cult // ideology !