Graham,
Great article, it gives a commonsense view.

It seems Stan Grants comments have achieved one good thing at least. Far more people are now more aware of the role various persons such as Cook, Tasman, Dampier and others played in the discovery and mapping the coast of 'the great south land'. Many, like myself, have been busy googling Australian history. In my case revising what I had been taught years ago in primary school. I found out about Mungo man which was discovered after my schooling.

Some later born may have missed out on much Australian history, so it will be new to them. The more that are aware of our history can only be a good thing.

One interesting thing is that two tiny islands, Saint Paul and Amsterdam, in the mid Indian ocean were discovered in 1522 which is far earlier than records show that 'New Holland' was found by Europeans. How they missed bumping into 'New Holland' is a mystery.

"The first European to reach Malacca and Southeast Asia arrived in Malacca Malaysia in 1509." However Malay troops didn't conquer Europe and Aboriginals tried but had a shortage of armoured cavalry.

".. mitochondrial DNA extracted from Mungo Man's 40,000-year-old fossilised remains by a team lead by Australian National University's Dr Greg Adcock." His bones are identified as Aboriginal type.

"Indigenous rock shelter in Top End pushes Australia's human history back to 65,000 years". Local people heard rumours of a fisherman who walked to the coast which used to be 23.7 kms further out but have forgotten his name and what he used for bait.

@Foxy

Anyone who uses the phrase "first Australians" needs to learn some more history themselves. Without researching, can you tell me who the negritos or murrayans were?

Dear benk,

I do know that the people who
settled Australia did come from the various ethnic
groups of South East Asia. Therefore I would simply
assume that the people you mention are descended
from ancient Australoid settlers.

I'm glad that I've aroused an interest in you regarding
the archaeological history of this country. I
imagine that it is a truly remarkable story. Especially
how they managed to survive over the ensuing millenia,
and the huge changes that these societies witnessed,
including the mass extinction of the mega fauna, and
the intense desertification of Australia during the last
Great Ice Age. They changed and adapted and rose to these
significant challenges.

Then what history is to be told about Negritos and Murrayans?

They had to adapt to changes they wrought!

This land was once covered coast to coast in verdant forest. That forest acted as a recharge mechanism to water the entire continent. But endless burning, killed megafauna and first wave settlers alike!

Vast deforestation by burning changed the local climate! Women were stolen along with their kids, which ensured they'd cooperate with the demands of the second wave invaders, who needed their local knowledge! Even so they were treated little better than animals!

Reassembled Mungo man archaeology, seems to tell a story of total racial genocide? Yes let's get all the history told including the oral history of the surviving cultures. Even when they seem completely contradictory!

And if that exposes the black armband revision and BS, so be it!

Whatever history is settled as being accurate! Let's ensure it includes the participants and actors rather than those arriving here as forced migrants!

All over the world, archaeological discoveries are giving lie to myth and legend, that bears no relation to the storytelling and historical embellishment!

Yes let's get the warts and all history told, minus the supposition and invention! And make sure it's written so not so easily revised or altered to suit the preferred narrative!
Alan B.