Forensic scientists are hard put to tell what sort of sword may have been used in a murder last week, let alone thousands of years ago.
Academic BS.

Dr Mise
Thanks for your second opinion. I refer you to another quack doctor:

"Was the skeleton a child? I don’t think even a (very sharp) hardwood blade could cut through an adult outer cortex of bone.That is likely especially if the chisel is not sharp."
Sue L
Orthopaedic & Spine Surgeon

Adjunct Clinical Associate Professor, Monash University

-

"Sue has a strong interest in teaching and training having been Chairman of the Victorian & Tasmanian Regional Training program for the Australian Orthopaedic Association from 2006-2007.

She is currently an examiner in Orthopaedic Surgery for the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons.
-

"I understand you ask me for criticism of the submission or paper:
"The death of Kaakutja: A case of peri-mortem weapon trauma in an Aboriginal man from North-Western New South Wales Australia"
Archaeologists before writing anything about boomerang edge cutting, must contact someone who is familiar with cutting. "Cutting" can happen when the difference in quotient between compression strength (or hardness) of the cutting edge material and the material cut is big enough (let say more than 10). If the difference in the strengths is low or equal both sites the cutting edge and material cut will be DAMAGED (not cut). In my opinion you can only say about DAMAGES caused by the front edge of the wooden boomerang. You are right, comparing two identical blade cutting cases one with lower rake angle second with larger rake angle, they will differ between each other with force of action in following manner:
lower rake angle - larger force of action
higher rake angle - smaller force of action

If the arhaeologists do not know what was (is) initial round up (sharpness) of the front edge (in micrometers) of metal sword (saber) and the front edge of the boomerang they should not start any divagations described above.

Regards
Bolesaw Porankiewicz
-

BOLESAW PORANKIEWICZ, 2008-2011 University of Zielona Góra, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering. Research interest: wood cutting forces, cutting accuracy, wearing of wood cutting tools, construction and exploitation of wood cutting tools and woodworking machinery."

The first Australians, claim by the aboriginal movement is based on Mungo man, a skeleton excavated at Lake Mungo.
On the basis of this, the aboriginal movement claims they have been here 50,000 years, and were the first people here. skeleton is not aboriginal. It is Chinese.
“The recent Australian discovery of Mungo Man and his Chinese ancestors has reignited debate about humanity's origins without necessarily upsetting current theories, an eminent Chinese palaeontologist has said.
"It does not prove or disprove the Out of Africa theory," Professor Wu Xinzhi of the Institute of Palaeontology of Vertebrates in Beijing said.
This theory says all living people are descendants of homo sapiens who left Africa 100 000 to 150 000 years ago.
However Wu, who like most of his compatriots believes instead that homo sapiens evolved separately in different places around the globe, was pleased with the discoveries made by Australian anthropologist Alan Thorne from Mungo Man, saying it would stimulate further research.
Thorne's discovery was based on DNA analysis of Mungo Man, the name given to a skeleton discovered near Lake Mungo in the eastern Australian state of New South Wales in 1974.
This revealed the species was about 60 000 years old and was, he claimed, descended from a Chinese race of homo sapiens which had arrived in Australia 10 000 years previously.
The race, called Graciles by the Australian researcher, had a specific gene that no longer exists in modern people, he discovered.
But according to Wu, the Graciles, whose existence had not been conclusively proved previously, could be descended from an African ancestor who migrated to southern China before reaching Australia 70 000 years ago.
http://www.news24.com/xArchive/Archive/Mungo-Man-raises-new-questions-20010115
“Southeast Asia is a key region in the path of human dispersal from Africa round to Australia, as all hominins would have had to pass through this region en route to Australia. A change in the date of arrival in this region has huge implications for debates on when the first Australians reached our shores,” Dr. Westaway said.
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?hl=en&tab=wm&nsr=1#inbox/15deac679f8ac114

Aborigines have no evidence to support a claim as “first peoples”,

3n,

It could have been the sharp edge of a stone axe.
Stone axes have edges ranging from razor sharp to blunt.

I have a very blunt stone axe, non-hafted variety, that saw so much use that there are finger impressions on one side of the gripping edge.
I have made stone axes that would cut green timber with ease and there is a green stone axe (late Neolithic period) at Sydney University's Nicholson Museum that was re-hafted in the 1960s and then used to cut down a tree, the Professor who oversaw the museum at the time was not amused.

Well done Leo Lane, you have just exposed the paucity of your knowledge by cutting and pasting sections from a long discredited theory about Mungo Man. Recent DNA results from Mungo Man prove that there is no Chinese link. You really should keep up with latest findings if you want to put yourself out there as some sort of 'authority' on the subject of First Australians. Here, I'll help you out:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2016-06-07/dna-confirms-aboriginal-people-as-the-first-australians/7481360

Hello Joe, with all due respect it is not Foxy who writes rubbish but you. For one thing, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence...although I'm sure you are familiar with that.

Your over-reliance on recorded 'evidence' is a flaw in your argument as that evidence is often tainted and written by those with a vested interest in not giving the full story. It is a 'master narrative' written by white men who did not want the real truth to be told. And who really wants to document that they massacred innocent people? You also rely heavily on the SA experience, which as I've stated before was not as violent as parts of Australia...in particular Qld, NSW, Vic and Tasmania.

Tasmania presents an interesting case in some respects...on May 3rd 1804 there was the first violent clash between invaders/colonisers and it was reported that 3 Aboriginal people were killed and a number of others injured. In 1830 there was an inquiry into that sought to uncover the reason for the staunch, and violent, resistance of Aborigines during the Black War. As part of the inquiry one 'witness', Edward White, gave evidence about what happened on the the 3rd of May 1804 at Risdon Cove.

White stated he saw that a 'great many [Aboriginal people] were killed' and claimed he was a convict who arrived on the first ship that arrived at the cove in Sept. of 1803. His evidence was corroborated by James Kelly, a free settler and a 12 year old boy in 1804, and claimed that between 40 - 50 Aborigines were killed. Since then their testimonies, which are still on record and available online in the original transcripts, have been used as the basis for the claims a massacre occurred on that fateful day.

Those claims, and the evidence of White and Kelly, went unchallenged for over a century and used by historians and others of verifiable evidence of a massacre. That was despite Kelly not being at Risdon Cove but on the other side of the river when the alleged massacre occurred. Continued below.