Thanks Lizz for throwing in another date to consider concerning Australian colonisation. However even in your article, it’s clear that there is much debate (this is good) and wide discrepancies among those who claim to know.

Sorry for harping on, but I think there is good reason not to fall in line with the mantra that ‘the Aborigines arrived here 40,000 years ago.’

I was hoping to challenge people to think a bit. Maybe I can claim success as CJ, in his last comment, has even thrown in a bit of reasoning amongst his usual bluster.

Lizz suggests 50,000 years. This is a full 10,000 years in error of the normally stated figure. Can we even imagine the length of this error margin? 10,000 years is longer than all of recorded history!

Above I suggested, using a theoretical mathematical model of population growth, that the Aborigines may have been here for 3500 years after a 0.28% (pretty small) annual growth rate. Continuing at the same rate, such a population would attain America’s present population after roughly 6,000 years. After 10,000 years the model would reach thousands of billions.

While these figures are only theoretical, the point is clear, That is, populations left to themselves grow rapidly. And it is in line with observed population growth. It is a human tendency to multiply. People like having kids.

So the obvious question, if the Aborigines have been here for 40,000 years, where are all the people?

Thus, as CJ has suggested, there must have been limiting factors that kept growth rate low. In reality, these hardships must have kept the growth rate constantly zero or negative, that the whole population must have lived on the brink of extinction for most of this supposed 40,000 years. This scenario stretches credibility.

Or were they living for millennia at maximum population? For 300,000 people, if we allow for one-third of the land area as desert, it means that there was only one person for every 18 square kilometres habitable land area. It’s doubtful this is near maximum, even for a subsistence existence.

CJ: I agree that "all cultures change," and it's for that reason that land rights in the most developed parts of Australia are irrelevant to improving the lives of the (part)Aboriginals. I also agree that the policies of the gov't were "misguided and malign" but again, what's your goal? Browbeating present-day white Australians for policies they are not responsible for? What good does that do?

Focus on the future. If you really want to help Indigenous kids who drop out of school and who can't find a job, you'll stop singling them out and truckling to fake Indigenousness. I've seen too many pictures of plump, beige kids in white face paint pretending to be Aboriginal dancers to take this nonsense seriously. And I doubt they do, either, as they are all into hip-hop anyway.

Mick:

Here is another link to the study:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?tmpl=NoSidebarfile&db=PubMed&cmd=Retrieve&list_uids=17496137&dopt=AbstractPlus

I am not making these claims: qualified geneticists are. Argue with them.

Regarding your linear projection of Aboriginal population: it makes no sense! I have read that they may have experienced population booms and busts, as all human societies do.

You are ignoring both genetic evidence and archaeology, so I conclude that you are arguing in bad faith.

I read an interesting article in The Australian today; see

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/stories/ind/eur,

"A small group in Wales, GB, which claims to represent the "indigenous Celtic culture" has launched a class action lawsuit against the governments of Germany, Norway and Sweden for its invasions during the 4th-7th Centuries AD and 1066, respectively. Seeking damages of over a billion dollars, the group is seeking compensation for the genocide of a people and culture claimed to be about 10,000 years old, plus the murder of their monarch, Arthur. A spokesperson for the Norwegian Government was quoted as saying, "They are entitled to their views, but we content that what they perceive to be 'truth' may not be the same for everybody else. We perceive the 'truth' of the matter differently." An unnamed official in the German government was quoted as saying "Fec% Off!"

"In a related story, a man on a street corner in Cairo, Egypt, reportedly claimed he represented the indigenous Egyptian race, dating back to before the construction of the pyramid, and was complaining that his people were discriminated against under a 'Moor-centric' dominant culture. The man has since disappeared."

"And no, I am not a Christian."

Then Rainier can you please explain these comments:

"Jesus told me to be patient with you so I am.
He also told me that I shouldn't blame him for people like you."
3 September 2007 5:35:31 PM
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6277

"I'm a big fan of God and JC, its their fan clubs I don't like."
24 May 2007 9:19:06 PM
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=5878

"Beware of practicing your piety before men in order to be seen by them; for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven." - MATTHEW 6:1
17 December 2006 9:45:11 PM
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=5153

Sorry I was confused.
You clearly despise Jesus.

BTW, I'm not a Scientologist.

Lizz,

Thanks for the link. If you accuse me of going against the flow of popular opinion, I’ll happily stand guilty there.

But since you accuse me of arguing in bad faith, I’d better say something to defend myself.

You state, “I am not making these claims: qualified geneticists are. Argue with them.” Okay, happy to.

But first, you said the mathematical model didn’t make sense. Yet your term ‘linear’ displays a poor understanding for what was being said (perhaps this could be excused if you are not mathematically inclined). I argued that population growth is precisely non-linear. A linear growth increases by a steady amount each year. Populations generally increase (or occasionally decrease) by a percentage each year. This is markedly different. It is the difference between adding and multiplying.

You’re main criticism was that I’m ignoring the genetic evidence and archaeology. Archaeologists generally use radiometric or carbon dating methods, which also are reliant upon mathematical models projected into the past. I could just as easily say (just as you did) that their arguments are in bad faith because they ignore evidence found in population growth statistics.

The arguments that the Aborigines may have experienced population booms and busts, is simply a rationalisation to get around what the population growth figures are obviously saying. Is there any evidence for these booms and busts? Just scratch the surface a little, you’ll find there is not.

In the end, I think the population growth models are reliable as they match up with what we have experienced with real figures of population growth in recent times.

You have to make a choice based on which mathematical models you think are more reliable, contain more reliable assumptions, and induce less unfounded rationalisations to explain the anomalies.

You are correct when you said earlier that there is never a last word. That is, not unless someone invents a time machine to go back and see what really happened.

Mick V
The major variable in respect to Aboriginal population growth or decline was very definitely the capacity of the environment to sustain growth for hunter gatherers. Bear in mind that their capacity to develop agriculture was limited. Aboriginals were totally dependent on the natural flora and fauna for subsistence as there were no beasts of burden nor crops capable of farming. They followed their food source which kept them on seasonal 'walkabout'
Clans would have spread throughout areas of abundance and numbers limited in desert areas where populations had to be nomadic to follow food and water source.
They intelligently adapted to nature's gifts and discovered means of making fire and understanding aerodynamics to create boomerangs and woomeras to extend their spear throwing.
Australian Aboriginals were able to survive in the harsh Australian environment where ignorant colonials perished.