4.8 Article

Cultural innovation and megafauna interaction in the early settlement of arid Australia

Journal

NATURE
Volume 539, Issue 7628, Pages 280-+

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/nature20125

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Australian Research Council [FT130100195, FT130101728]
  2. Australian Government through the National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Strategy (NCRIS)
  3. Australian Research Council [FT130101728, FT130100195] Funding Source: Australian Research Council

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Elucidating the material culture of early people in arid Australia and the nature of their environmental interactions is essential for understanding the adaptability of populations and the potential causes of megafaunal extinctions 50-40 thousand years ago (ka). Humans colonized the continent by 50 ka(1,2), but an apparent lack of cultural innovations compared to people in Europe and Africa(3,4) has been deemed a barrier to early settlement in the extensive arid zone(2,3). Here we present evidence from Warratyi rock shelter in the southern interior that shows that humans occupied arid Australia by around 49 ka, 10 thousand years (kyr) earlier than previously reported(2). The site preserves the only reliably dated, stratified evidence of extinct Australian megafauna(5,6), including the giant marsupial Diprotodon optatum, alongside artefacts more than 46 kyr old. We also report on the earliest-known use of ochre in Australia and Southeast Asia (at or before 49-46 ka), gypsum pigment (40-33 ka), bone tools (40-38 ka), hafted tools (38-35 ka), and backed artefacts (30-24 ka), each up to 10 kyr older than any other known occurrence(7,8). Thus, our evidence shows that people not only settled in the arid interior within a few millennia of entering the continent(9), but also developed key technologies much earlier than previously recorded for Australia and Southeast Asia(8).

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available