nicknamenick...the Macassans from Indonesia were indeed coming to northern Australia but not quite 800 years ago. First visits may have been about 600 years ago but there's no doubt they started a sea slug industry in around the 1600s and it continued until the early 20th century.

Aboriginal people in the north not only adapted some Macassan (and Muslim) cultural practices but also adapted their own. One was the practice of putting a pseudo ships mast on a grave and the raising of it symbolized the farewell of the departed person (raised sails meant the Macassans were leaving).

Not only did Aboriginal people adapt various aspects they also married into Macassan families and many Aboriginal people still have familial ties to Macassans (and vice versa).

minotaur
Yes I agree and this is an earlier contact. Probably an Indonesian sword was used in NSW about 800 years ago by a supporter of deposed king Kertajaya of Kadiri Java. In Bundjalung country north NSW a boat arrived from Ngareenbil "overseas islands" ( J Isaacs 1980 ) and meaning "your beloved countryman" in Old Balinese language. The Clarence river leads to creeks near Tenterfield going west to the Darling .

Catalyst: Toorale Man murder mystery - ABC TV Science
http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/4211835.htm

Apr 7, 2015 - Bizarrely, the skull wounds on Toorale Man appear similar to those on gladiators
in Imperial Rome.
-
" I have received the following comment from the writer: " The aim of the experiments ( by mulga-wood on pig-skull ) were to determine whether traditional Aboriginal weapons could have caused trauma similar to that of the Toorale skull. Unfortunately our methods did not produce trauma,.."

Rachel Wang
School Administrator (Postgraduate Coursework Administrator)
School of Archaeology and Anthropology
ANU College of Arts and Social Sciences. "
-
The death of Kaakutja: A case of peri-mortem weapon ... - ResearchGate
https://www.researchgate.net/.../308184804_The_death_of_Kaakutja_A_case_of_peri-m...
.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308184804_The_death_of_Kaakutja_A_case
_of_peri-mortem_weapon_trauma_in_an_Aboriginal_man_from_north-western_New_South_Wales_Australia

. Of the weapons tested, the frontal wound observed in Kaakutja most closely resembles that produced by an African 'Samburu' sword. "

//pray tell us who were the first Australians and from whence did they come?//

Is Mise, I recommend you enjoy some History with Hilbert. I'm a big fan of this guy's work; this history of Australia is somewhat brief and patchy but it covers the pre-colonisation period fairly well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2DCNoJBJX-8

Dearest Foxy,

[Just in case you're not quite done]

I like many stories, but I love evidence. Stories can be fascinating, elaborating and filling out a narrative in order to strengthen what we already believe. Evidence can be dry, boring, but for all that, it clinches a story. Without it, a story is no more than that, indicating rather than definitively settling an issue. Evidence goes that vital step further.

Stories are what we tell children; evidence can be very disillusioning, but leads us on towards mature understanding.

Your choice :)

Love,

Joe

Dear Joe (Loudmouth),

The historical record documenting Indigenous/Settler relations
is a powerful and unequivocal record of our colonial
past, it is however mostly limited to written records
that largely exclude Indigenous voices. Yet the
magnitude, persistence and near universality of
Aboriginal oral narratives are surely telling, especially
when they span several living generations and the stories
are so well maintained. The number and spread of these
narratives that match-up gives credibility. Of course it
doesn't mean that every Aboriginal story is based on
truth but I still strongly believe that the importance
placed on oral traditions should be re-evaluated.

http://press-files.anu.edu.au/downloads/press/p70821/pdf/introduction11.pdf

See you on another discussion.

Cheers.

Dear Foxy,

[I'm presuming that you're still with us :) ]

No, what you write is unsubstantiated rubbish, with respect. Anybody can make up a story and tell it to someone else who might like its message and pass it on, especially if written records are denigrated and people rely on word of mouth. Sorry, dear, I've had too many experiences of stories being either completely fabricated, or completely wrong in their key details. I'll say it again, and again if necessary, I'm not saying that anybody telling a story is a liar, merely that they may have got details wrong: they may have misheard, misunderstood or felt some need to 'elaborate' or fill out a story to make it fit the times.

From another direction, IF a story is accurate, if it is substantial or consequential, then why shouldn't one expect some corroborating evidence ? In a sense, every story has to front up before a court or a judge, i.e. the listener, who surely has to ask, if they have any sense and are above the age of, say, seven, what evidence might there be to back up this story ?

After all, actions have consequences, and very likely, there may be written records. So I'm sorry, what you write has just a grain of truth but is mostly rubbish. My experience of Aboriginal oral memory is that it is invariably out of kilter with documentation, the more so with the passing of time. After all, people are not tape recorders. Events and people get conflated and confused, numbers (including those of fictitious events) get inflated with each telling, often within days. Of course, if people rely on oral rather than written accounts, they are relying on word of mouth, and therefore from trusted communicators, usually relations or friends, a sort of closed circle of agree-ers.

Agaqin, if something has really happened, why shouldn't there be some sort of evidence ?

Love,

Joe