Aboriginal ritual passed down over 12,000 years, cave find shows - Abos had 12,000 years to develop medical science but instead still burn sticks to this day

Aboriginal ritual passed down over 12,000 years, cave find shows​

The two miniature fireplaces with trimmed sticks immediately after they were exposed by excavation in Cloggs Cave square R31, with the sticks’ bases not yet separated from the sediments in which they sit. Credit: Nature Human Behaviour (2024). DOI: 10.1038/s41562-024-01912-w
Two slightly burnt, fat-covered sticks discovered inside an Australian cave are evidence of a healing ritual that was passed down unchanged by more than 500 generations of Indigenous people over the last 12,000 years, according to new research.

The wooden sticks, found poking out of tiny fireplaces, showed that the ritual documented in the 1880s had been shared via oral traditions since the end of the last ice age, a study in the journal Nature Human Behaviour said on Monday.
The discovery was made inside Cloggs Cave in the foothills of the Victorian Alps in Australia's southeast, in a region long inhabited by the Gunaikurnai people.
When the cave was first excavated in the 1970s, archaeologists discovered the remains of a long extinct giant kangaroo that had previously lived there.
But the Gunaikurnai people were not involved in those digs, "nor were they asked for permission to do research there", lead study author Bruno David of Monash University told AFP.
Further excavations starting from 2020 included members of the local Gunaikurnai Land and Waters Aboriginal Corporation (GLaWAC).
Carefully digging through the soil, the team found a small stick poking out—then they found another one. Both well-preserved sticks were made from the wood of casuarina trees.
Each one was found in a separate fireplace around the size of the palm of a hand—far too small to have been used for heat or cooking meat.
The slightly charred ends of the sticks had been cut specially to stick into the fire, and both were coated in human or animal fat.
One stick was 11,000 years old and the other 12,000 years old, radiocarbon dating found.

'Memoirs of our ancestors'​

"They've been waiting here all this time for us to learn from them," said Gunaikurnai elder Russell Mullett, a co-author of the study and head of GLaWAC.
Mullett spent years trying to find out what they could have been used for, before discovering the accounts of Alfred Howitt, a 19th-century Australian anthropologist who studied Aboriginal culture.
Some of Howitt's notes had never been published, and Mullett said he spent a long time convincing a local museum to share them.
In the notes, Howitt describes in the late 1880s the rituals of Gunaikurnai medicine men and women called "mulla-mullung".
One ritual involved tying something that belonged to a sick person to the end of a throwing stick smeared in human or kangaroo fat. The stick was thrust into the ground before a small fire was lit underneath.
"The mulla-mullung would then chant the name of the sick person, and once the stick fell, the charm was complete," a Monash University statement said.
The sticks used in the ritual were made of casuarina wood, Howitt noted.
Jean-Jacques Delannoy, a French geomorphologist and study co-author, told AFP that "there is no other known gesture whose symbolism has been preserved for such a long time".
"Australia kept the memory of its first peoples alive thanks to a powerful oral tradition that enabled it to be passed on," Delannoy said.
"However in our societies, memory has changed since we switched to the written word, and we have lost this sense."
He lamented that the ancient animal paintings found in French caves would probably "never reveal their meaning" in a similar way.
Indigenous Australians are one of the oldest continuous living cultures, and Mullett said the discovery was a "unique opportunity to be able to read the memoirs of our ancestors".
It was "a reminder that we are a living culture still connected to our ancient past," he added.


The really astounding thing here is the distinct lack of scientific progress. It boggles the mind thinking that in 12,000 years they could not develop any form of medical science and instead keep burning sticks, without ever wondering why it's not working. You could probably leave them alone for another 12 thousand years and come back to find the same exact thing.
 
if you're 12, sure
Your country is super gay.
I can accept your argument that you want to eat the tasty monster. But not that you're incapable of planning ahead by a year.
The whole point of hunter-gatherer societies is they're stable because they actually don't eliminate their prey. The ones that survived got past their phase of eliminating megafauna, or never even had that phase.
 
The whole point of hunter-gatherer societies is they're stable because they actually don't eliminate their prey. The ones that survived got past their phase of eliminating megafauna, or never even had that phase.
That's also not true. We can only see the ones that survived. Plenty of humanities disappeared. Homo Naledi, Floriensis, Denisovans.
 
Yeah, we were all bigtime cannibals. I don't think this is ever seriously disputed, people just don't like talking about it.

It all comes down to slavery. Once you pick up the idea of taking slaves, you can make them waste their calories and die doing shit that nobody who matters would bother with.
I suspect the causality is backwards. Before you take slaves, you have to have something for them to do that feeds you both.
 
read Guns, Germs and Steel when I was a kid and found it fascinating and was fond of expounding on it to people who would listen. But I wonder what I would think of it if I read it as an adult today?
Jared diamond takes this idea that’s really correct and then fails to apply it at the final step. What’s correct is that creatures are adapted to their environments. There’s no goal of evolution it just responds to the moment the currently reproducing things are in. If your environment favours being a lazy fucker who can graze abundant food from the surroundings all day in warm climates that’s what you’ll get. If it’s high altitude you need to cope with that . If it’s cold you need to cope with that too. He sees this happen to animals, and sees how the resources of the land shape outcomes. But he refuses to acknowledge that humans are animals too,
Inuit have physical adaptations to the cold, Sherpas have physical adaptations to altitude. But he then denies that intelligence is something that’s shaped by environment too. If you live in an environment that needs teamwork, smarts and planning to survive in then you’ll evolve those things. If you live somewhere that the best way to survive is conquest you’ll end up fierce. If you live somewhere where the best way to survive is just lounging why bother develop intelligence? Brains are expensive. It’s an infuriating boon to read as
Yeah, we were all bigtime cannibals.
Interesting. Pleasure or profit? Was it done ritually, for war or starvation driven?
Actually have you ever read a book called the edge of memory? It’s about abos passing down oral myth about the land shape and other stuff over 12,000 years. Your lot are very good at oral transmission of lore.
it’s odd to me that people will acknowledge Muh Svience evolution and then totally deny it applies to humans. We are subject to it as well.
 
From my Aboriginal hate thread: https://kiwifarms.st/threads/official-kiwifarms-indigenous-first-nations-hate-thread.191038/

Infanticide—the deliberate murder of new-born infants and young children—was practised widely, and perhaps ubiquitously, among Australian Aborigines before the coming of Europeans and the imposition of Western values, which, unlike the values of pre-contact Aborigines, regarded the deliberate killing of babies and small children as murder.

Most European observers noted that these killings were carried out without the slightest sense of guilt or sadness; they were necessary for the survival of the tribe. Apparently, most infants were killed by burying them alive. Rev. Frederick August Hagenauer (1829–1909), a Moravian missionary in Gippsland, stated that Aboriginal tribes would “bury new-born babes alive in the sand”, which was formerly “a common practice”. (Ibid.) But in many cases, the reality of what occurred was far worse. According to Peter Beveridge (1829–85), a Scottish-born grazier near Swan Hill, who arrived in 1845 and wrote a posthumously published (in 1889) work on the Aborigines, “Infanticide was often practiced, and meals were made by mothers of their own offspring. This practice is attributable to laziness principally; for if a mother has two children, one two years old and the other just born, she is sure to destroy the youngest.” (Ibid.) Similarly, William Edward Stanbridge (1817–94), a founder of Daylesford and a local council member there, gave a similar description of their infanticide customs: “New-born babes are killed by their parents, and eaten by them and their children. When such revolting occurrences take place, the previously-born child is unable to walk, and the opinion is that, by eating as much as possible of the roasted infant, it will possess the strength of both.” (Ibid.)

 
Interesting. Pleasure or profit? Was it done ritually, for war or starvation driven?
The best attested cannibalism was funerary in nature, but hunting other humans for food was thought to be pretty normal in times of scarcity. There are also some accounts of war-rite cannibalism similar to extant melanesian cultures, but that doesn't seem very widespread. The more outrageous accounts of people eating every second baby and making routine human sacrifices (as posted above by David Kirk Ginder) are now largely discredited and thought to be wh*toid lies motivated by territory disputes.
 
that didn't stop a bunch of undereducated, criminal white trash from developing a thriving civilization there in a fraction of the time
To be fair they also had the enormous resources, knowledge and technologies of Great Britain during the Industrial Revolution at their disposal. If England tried something like this during the Middle Ages they would have been screwed, like the Norse in the Americas.
 
I'm also not sure it's true. Wolves, bears, lions - many sorts of creatures - did evolve alongside man and still got wiped out or exist only through Man's forebearance. Wolves and bears are not extinct in Europe and North America because Europeans have avoided wiping them out. We have laws restricting bear hunting and other such self-imposed restraints.
I think it mainly refers to the wave of mass extinctions that happened during the Neolithic, and not to any of the gradual declines in the population of megafauna throughout historical period or any of the relatively fast declines that started in the industrial age.

As for the validity of Guns, Germs, and Steel, it's definitely not something that you want to take as gospel and it's been known that many individual hypotheses that he presented are wrong. Really Guns, Germs, and Steel is the kind of book that read alongside other books on history and science so you can see what he got wrong and what he most likely got right.

For instance, very early on he stated that he thought that New Guineans were noticeably more intelligent than Americans. Having read books on IQ, and being familiar with things like the Flynn Effect, that struck me as something that is flat out wrong. I knew that people who are not as far removed from traditional ways of living have certain habits of mind that people in the First World do not have, but that it is often considered foolish by psychologists to try to gauge someone's level of intelligence by the way they talk alone, much less when one is engaging in a language that they are not fluent in.

Really, I think Guns, Germs, and Steel achieved enough success (and was sufficiently controversial) that it inspired many people to pick through the book and find the flaws and half-truths that inevitably arise in books of a certain length.
 
Yeah, we were all bigtime cannibals. I don't think this is ever seriously disputed, people just don't like talking about it.

I realise I can never verify any answer you give me one way or another, but are you actually part Abo? I assumed that was a joke. Are roads comfy?
 
To be fair they also had the enormous resources, knowledge and technologies of Great Britain during the Industrial Revolution at their disposal.
this, i'm interested in. it was a penal colony. how many resources and how much access to technology are we talking? not being facetious, my assumption was it would've been extremely minimal.
 
Atrás
Top Abajo