megafauna debate
Gary Vines
At least 17,000 years of coexistence: Modern humans and megafauna at the Willandra Lakes, South-Eastern Australia
Published in Quaternary Science Reviews Volume 157, 1 February 2017, Pages 206–211
john...@ozemail.com.au
Hello,
Maybe this is why we (or someone?) should hang onto those old books we have been discussing how to best dispose of?
Zygomaturus trilobus was a large lumbering "wombat", the size of a very large bull or my 1960s VW.
These authors say: "We know very little about its ecology, and we know even less about when and how it became extinct".
However when I went to Catholic education on the North Shore we had a big pictorial atlas of Australia (which we were told was where we all live -- "Australia, you've standing in it" is what we used to say ... as well as "Cheese cheese you dirty Japanese" before thumping any unfortunate child whose mother had packed cheese sandwiches for him.
Of course the 'excuse' for bashing your fellow school lad was that we had recently been fighting the Japanese in WWII and had read terrible things on atrocities.
Whether or not Japanese really did eat cheese in any big way did not fall within the bounds of then extent of schoolboy logic.
However getting back to the big pictorial atlas.
Right inside the front cover it shows the Aborigines spearing our mega-wombats.
Hence we (or SOME of the older us) have "always" known the megafauna and Aboriginal people overlapped.
Re these authors also saying "A specimen of this extraordinary marsupial with its large flaring cheek bones (zygomatics) was excavated on two separate occasions in the 1980s, first by zoologist Jeanette Hope and later by archaeologists Harvey Johnston and Peter Clarke" .. this equals still more cheers for Jeanette. But I had always thought she was an archaeo (and historian/heritage person) ...... I never before knew about those zoology times of hers.
The same authors also say/wrote: "if we show that megafauna and people co-existed for many years, then we may have to seek other explanations for their demise" - but is that absolutely a necessity to seek "other" explanation. You couldn't wipe out a megafuana overnight. I can believe it could easily take thousands of years. Unlike the 'Murkans who had things like Gatling guns they could use to help wipe out the bison, the Australian Aborigines for most of their time did not have 'advanced' weapons, and indeed some of them were only introduced to nuclear weapons by fallout around parts of South Australia.
Yet seventeen does seem "too many" thousands for the task to take !??
They also rightly say "Of course our date at 33,000 years ago does not represent the extinction date of Zygomaturus, just the latest dated remains of this iconic species". Rex (Rex Gilroy), when he still had his little museum at Mount Victoria, told me that there were still dinosaurs living on the Kanangra-Boyd plateau south of Jenolan Caves. And that he had found their footprints in the dust right where I had my honours thesis area, at Budthingeroo Creek. I was frankly a bit terrified at any rustling I heard in the bush after that. But I never saw anything definite (and now think it was only dingoes scaring me a bit). I did of course well know that Rex's "science" was not orthodox science, and took some re-assurance from that too.
I think these authors are quite right .. "It is possible that some species of megafauna co-existed for even longer so much work remains to be done" and also right that "There is still a great deal to learn about Australia’s ancient megafauna".
Re Cuddie Springs where there was supposed/inferred by some to be "blood on the weapon" type evidence of Aborigines butchering the megafuanal, Simone Meakin of the Geological Survey has written a nice treatment on that.
That's all I know - which is lvery ittle and so I never actually 'debate' this; just look and learn.
Cheers, John
----- Original Message -----
Jeannette Hope
Hi
I wasn’t going to comment on this because it’s complicated. I am involved with another team and am writing up the actual specimen. We do in fact know a bit about Zygomaturus, and its presence at the Willandra is a puzzle. Before we work out whether this specimen was killed by people, we need to work out what it’s doing there at all (early domestication?) I’ve already written a bit about this in a chapter in the book ‘Mungo over Millennia’ ed Helen Lawrence 2006.
And yes, John, I started out as a scientist, my PhD is in historic biogeography/palaeoecology and most of the stuff in my back shed is actually cave fossils.
Jeannette
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2016.0.7996 / Virus Database: 4749/13750 - Release Date: 01/11/17
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "OzArch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ozarch+un...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to oza...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/ozarch.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
john...@ozemail.com.au
Wow,
Thanks Jeanette ... DOMESTICATING the big wombat maybe.
That is an amazing thought that has never occurred to me. Who is the originator of that?
And thanks for the note that "watering down" might better be termed "complicating up" .. it's the main Heritage Act I imagine you refer to (not some Aboriginal Act?)?
I'm going out in the car for a while, as there is just SO MUCH amazement I can take in one day :-)
I think I have related before about finding the big sub-fossil ?wombat holes on the plain west of Bourke, well towards Gundabooka ranges. Another of the unsolved little things out west.
Cheers, John
----- Original Message -----From:oza...@googlegroups.comTo:
<oza...@googlegroups.com>Cc:Sent:Thu, 12 Jan 2017 12:47:56 +1100Subject:RE: {OzArch} megafauna debate
Jeannette Hope
John
The originator of that – me (but it’s joke). Those big burrows – Ziggie of course!
I was referring to the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974.
Tony Lowe
Dear Group,
While this doesn’t contribute to the current debate, I note there are only a handful of people that regularly make contributions. It puzzles me therefore that no-one makes the effort to spell one of the main contributor’s name correctly, even though it is before their eyes. Why is that? The last three people to have included Jeannette’s name in their responses have spelt it Jeanette. Maybe Jeannette is used to this but it irritates me, perhaps because I can’t explain why it is happening.
Regards,
Tony Lowe
Casey & Lowe Pty Ltd
T: (02) 9568 5375
F: (02) 9572 8409
M: 0409 988 846
From: oza...@googlegroups.com [mailto:oza...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of john...@ozemail.com.au
Sent: Thursday, 12 January 2017 1:01 PM
To: oza...@googlegroups.com
Jeannette Hope
Hi Tony
My name has been misspelt all my adult life, even on official documents, and even when I print it in very large letters on forms, and annotate ‘note spelling’. (I note that it’s misspelt in Westaway’s paper – and by the way, I didn’t discover and excavate the Zygomaturus – that was Peter Clark and Alan Thorne). I cannot explain why it happens either, but I’ve wondered if there is some odd psychological explanation. It’s not a common name (like Tony, John) which everyone knows how to spell, nor is it a really unusual name, which people take more care over. I think it’s a) because the name is seen as an extension of Jean, and Jeanette is the more common English/Scottish spelling and b) people don’t learn French anymore - I was born during WW2 and my sister (Lorraine) and I have patriotic French names.
How does this relate to archaeology? Well, it’s always been a cautionary tale for me about how really easy it is to mis-see things, to record what you expect to see rather than what is really there. And I use it as a shibboleth to sort people into good v. bad observers (cf Westaway’s paper).
Cheers
Version: 2016.0.7996 / Virus Database: 4749/13756 - Release Date: 01/12/17
jko...@netspeed.com.au
Cheers, John"
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ozarch+unsubscrib...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to oza...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/ozarch.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "OzArch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ozarch+unsubscrib...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to
oza...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/ozarch.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "OzArch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ozarch+unsubscrib...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to oza...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/ozarch.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2016.0.7996 / Virus Database: 4749/13756 - Release Date: 01/12/17
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "OzArch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ozarch+unsubscrib...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to oza...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/ozarch.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "OzArch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ozarch+unsubscrib...@googlegroups.com.
John Pickard
GrahamK
Jeannette Hope
This is an old bettong burrow, re-used by rabbits, on a gypsum lake just north of Balranald. The white object is a bettong skull which along with a few other bones has been dug out of the burrow by rabbits whose droppings are around the area. I came across this during an archaeological survey some years back, but didn’t have time to follow it up. So, John, I’d be really grateful if you could send me pdfs of those papers.
Jeannnnnnette
--
Steve Corsini
Did Bettongs typically have big communal burrows like rabbits?
SJC
From: oza...@googlegroups.com [mailto:oza...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Jeannette Hope
Sent: Saturday, 14 January 2017 6:01 PM
To: oza...@googlegroups.com
John Pickard
Cheers, John
John Pickard {NOT Jonathon, Jon, Pickett, Pritchard, Pritchett, Picard, Piccard, Prichard, or (my favourite) Prickhard}
John Pickard
Did Bettongs typically have big communal burrows like rabbits?
SJC
John Pickard
john...@ozemail.com.au
Hello Jeannnnnnette (a.k.a. Jeannette),
How high did a mound did they make at the spot you photographed?
Over in America I gather the prairie dogs may make literally millions of mounds -- some VERY noticeable (even from space).
There are just far far too many of them is places over there for anyone to plausibly say "the Indians did it all).
Cheers, John
----- Original Message -----From:oza...@googlegroups.comTo:<oza...@googlegroups.com>Cc:Sent:
Sat, 14 Jan 2017 21:01:15 +1100Subject:RE: Fossil Burrowing Bettong burrows [was Re: {OzArch} megafauna debate]
Jeannette Hope
Bettongs are still burrowing away on Barrow Island (there’s a song in there), and courtesy of Chevron there’s been a lot of research and publications about the fauna there: https://www.chevronaustralia.com/docs/default-source/publications/gorg0016-nature-book_mammals_final.pdf?sfvrsn=0 . There’s other stuff on line.
There’s some interesting information on fossil burrows in WA generally, and a summary of the Barrow Island observations of living bettongs in burrows in http://publications.rzsnsw.org.au/doi/pdf/10.7882/AZ.2007.008?code=rzsw-site, which is a free download. (“In February 1981, two of us, with several other observers,
counted 32 boodies leaving a warren with 67 entrances.”
I’ve also attached the most entertaining account of burrowing bettong behaviour after introduction of rabbits, from ‘The Mammals of South Australia’, by Frederic Wood-Jones, 1923-25. The original three parts were reprinted in 1969 in one volume, and there are cheap copies available on-line (don’t think it’s been digitised, I scanned the pages attached). This is a key source for semi-arid mammals in SE Australia, not just SA.
The burrow info is for Bettongia lesueur; according to Finlayson Bettongia penicillata made nests under vegetation, and ‘was said’ to carry nesting material in its prehensile tail. Finlayson notes that Gould claimed to have seen this, but F. says he knows of no more recent observation of this.
The two species occurred together (in SA, and at the Willandra) so it’s not surprising that they had different behaviours. There was a third rat kangaroo in SA and at the Willandra, Caloprymnus campestris, about which nothing much is known. It was first recorded in the 1840s, rediscovered (by Finlayson!) in 1931, then no other records till an unproven alleged sighting in 2011.
Cheers
Jeannnnette
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2016.0.7996 / Virus Database: 4749/13770 - Release Date: 01/14/17
john...@ozemail.com.au
Thanks Jeannette,
I'd been interested before that described 'large circular mounds with diameters commonly around 20 m in semi-arid New South Wales and Queensland .... which he thought may have been constructed by "extinct megapodes that weighed about 7 kg".
One of the mounds noted north of Broken Hill by the Geological Survey office I was told had precipitated calcrete veinlets in it .. hence 'ancient' ... and if so could be subject of an attempted radiocarbon dating? But the interested geos there have since that time both left that office.
Don't know if anyone else is interested still in them?
Cheers, John
----- Original Message -----From:oza...@googlegroups.comTo:<oza...@googlegroups.com>Cc:Sent:
Sun, 15 Jan 2017 14:26:37 +1100Subject:RE: {OzArch} Re: Fossil Burrowing Bettong burrows
john...@ozemail.com.au
Hello,
Continuing off megafaunal and on bettongs ... nice little critters and Steve asked "Did Bettongs typically have big communal burrows like rabbits? "
My apology if Jeannette of someone has already answered that and I've overlooked the answer as I'm in arrears looking at all.
I note from what was written on the last of the (mainland) bettongs in Aus ---- as Jeannette has already kindly scanned and sent to us ---- that it seems they very communal towards the end .. and were down to single pairs living in rabbit holes.
They no doubt would/could have been a whole lot more communal if they hadn't been dying out?
What was recorded of them in their latter times would make one wonder "bettongs mounds or rabbit mound" !?
Would, post the coming of the Europeans and Mr and Mrs Bunny, many "bettong" mounds be better termed rabbit mounds !? - viz.
Before the bettong died out in mainland Australia, it was written, from South Australia: "Rabbits are so universally spread over the country that there probably does not exist to day a Bettongia colony living in its own burrows. It has thrown in its lot with the rabbit, and although it appears to have its own apartments in the complicated system of the large warrens, it is merely a tenant, forming a part of a community in a manner which is rather remarkable when its exceedingly pugnacious character is considered. Nevertheless, though it lives in apparent harmony with the rabbits, and avails itself of the shelter of their burrows, it is suffering for the partnership. The remnant of the bettong rat kangaroos (Tungoos) is living in an environment in which there is a severe competition for succulent food. In good seasons there is enough juicy herbage for cattle and rabbits as well as Rat Kangaroos but in bad seasons the rabbits and the marsupials perish in large numbers. Such losses among the rabbits are soon made good, but with the marsupials this is not the case, and probably the end of the Tungoo is not far off. When times are bad, and when the cattle and rabbits have eaten all the herbage of the sand hills, the Tungoos become extremely bold, and will enter a homestead in their search for anything to eat. They will come into a room and boldly face a cat in order to obtain some potato peelings; they will scramble over a paling fence four or five feet high in order to get at the vegetable garden. They are bold and enterprising little animals which have made, and are making, a brave struggle against what seems an almost inevitable extermination. In the more cultivated districts of the South, where food is in plenty, the wholesale scattering of poisoned pollard has led to their complete extinction. The poison cart has done its deadly work on the slowly breeding Tungoo, although the rapidly-breeding Rabbit has survived the ordeal. In the North they are steadily being pressed out of existence by the competition for food ....... Nor must we forget that the remnant which still struggles on in the North is now exposed to the ravages of the fox ...... Tungoos are strictly nocturnal, and although they are gregarious in the sense that more than a single pair may inhabit a large warren, they do not live at the present time in what could be termed communities. Although the examination of their tracks on a sandhil1 might lead one to suppose that a very large number of animals inhabited the district, it will usually be found that the multiplicity of tracks is the product of, maybe, no more than a single pair" ( "The Mammals of South Australia", by Frederic Wood-Jones, 1923-25 ).
The main thing universally agreed on bettongs seems to be that they are cute (except males bite or hiss)?
Females may mate again on the day after birth and any fertilised egg remains in arrested gestation until weaning of the pouch young (Photo via Heirisson Prong threatened species project). The males and females differ considerably in disposition, the males being wild and pugnacious, the females considerably more docile. A female may, as a rule, be readily handled; but a male will bite and scratch with some severity if an attempt be made to pick him up.
( https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/5737284/b-bettong-Image1.gif ; https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/5737284/bettong-juvenile.jpg )
Noble called (at least for a time) his research on possible mallee fowl mounds his "CDK research" (meaning Chief Doesn't Know).
Did he ever get converted to the idea that his more regular/circular form (which is suspected megapodes made) could also have been bettong-made?
I think the Broken Hill geos thought 'their' mounds were just too big for bettongs to have made (?) ... e.g.:
Photograph by Kingsley Mills of an enigmatic mound in NW NSW, in the Kayrunnera 1:100K sheet area.
(Plate 33 in the Notes for the Nuchea 1:100K sheet geological map, by Peter Buckley)
(
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/5737284/koonenberry-mound.jpg
)
....... or especially too tall? What is maximum height for accepted bettong mounds, please?
I have now lost track of Peter Buckley to see what he still thinks (someone might know where he now is?):
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/5737284/peter-buckley-1.jpg
Extracts from Peter Buckley's 1:100K Nucea map sheet note, bearing on the 'enigmatic' mounds, are given below.
Today the mallee fowl is unfortunately declining across Australian under environmental competition with man and introduced animals. It is classified as rare and threatened with extinction in Western Australia, Nationally it is regarded as vulnerable. From a presumably once vast range the species continues to contract into fragmented pockets. This is endangering it in NSW. Other megapodes species occupy jungle or densely vegetated land. It is therefore speculated that "ancient mallee fowl" probably once constructed their mounds in denser vegetation. If so, might the bird once have constructed a bigger incubation gathering of leaf litter, and a bigger mound to go over it? Because of greater abundance of leaf litter? There is no real reason to think so, seeing that the species adequately controls incubation temperature with current nest/mound dimensions. Yet, if it did once build bigger structures then the presumed ancient mounds migth still related to mallee fowls without having to resort to other extinct bird genera? Such has been considered but no strong view emerged and instead Peter Buckley opted instead for having a strong preference for extinct bigger (megafaunal) birds. Nevertheless, it is noted that in Western Australia there have also be "megamounds" reported, up to 15m in diameter. Unfortunately little seems to have been written about these so called "megamounds", other than that they have been termed that by persons familiar with modern mallee fowl mounds. Were they single one or two season mounds, just larger than usual? Or might there have been different habits if population was once denser and more stable - perhaps with different bird pairs reworking the same mounded accumulations over a long time, gradually increasing the overall size of the accumulations that had been the cumulative work of many birds?’
Over a number of years, three geologists from the NSW Geological Survey who worked in western NSW, and one Cobar-based geologist from the exploration industry knew of these mounds and related to each other that they'd seen hundreds. None actually went to see what any of the others were seeing, however. Nonetheles, by shared description they all thought that they were referring to the same thing. Of those one (the private industry one) early formed a bird-source their. One of the Geo Survey geologists had initially no idea what formed the sandy mounds, another initially was suspecting an Aboriginal origin, and the third (Peter Buckley) formed a big bird theory (independently of knowning that the Cobar geologist had come up with that idea earlier). Impressed by Buckley's theory, the other two Survey geologists veered towards that too. It should be noted that the three Geological Survey geologists were all pre-occupied with other matters (mineral resources or older geology than Recent sand mounds) and except for Peter Buckley little paused to closely examine, map, or even measure the sandy mounds. The private industry geologist is understood to have done more, including some excavation, but details have not yet been made know. The only published data so far known of for northern NSW mounds is that by Peter Buckley within geological map sheet notes.
Life-sized Elephant bird reconstruction; with Peter Buckley, who has been a principal advocate in NSW of a 'big bird' approach to understanding the myriad mystery soil mounds of western NSW and adjacent States. (Photographed: Jan 2010 at Australian Maritime Museum in Sydney, this model being on loan from the American Museum of Natural History.)
( https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/5737284/elephant-bird-P1150958-2.jpg )
EXTRACTS FROM NUCHEA NOTES
[ NB: These extracts refer to 2003, and. Dr Mills, pers comm. 2008, later changed his mind on thinking that the Nuchea sheet mounds are man-made. ]
Enigmatic Landforms
Throughout the parts of the Nuchea sheet underlain by pre-Mesozoic basement, a prominent feature of the landscape is the presence of mounds composed of locally gathered small stones that rarely exceed 5 cm in diameter. The typical mound is "hemispherical" and about 20 m in diameter and 1 m high (about 350 tonnes) although some individual mounds range from 10 to 30 m in diameter and up to 2 m in height (Plate 33). Occasional elongate mounds to 40 m by 20 m, are usually 2 m high. Annular rings about 30 m in diameter with an opening gap, composed of the same material, also occur. It is apparent that many of these features are of some antiquity as there are a few that are cemented with travertine limestone and one on the Yancannia sheet that is overlain by a vegetated east-west sand dune (Mills pers com).
The mounds' mode of formation may seem to be a trivial side issue, but under a regime of increasing pressures on land use, such as grazing and mineral exploration, determining the nature of the mounds may prove to be an important task. Already, many of the larger mineral exploration companies conduct archaeological drill site clearances as a routine part of the exploration cycle. The only way to determine the mode of formation of this enigmatic landform is to gain more information, for example their distribution and morphology need to be documented and consideration given to an investigative excavation. Thermoluminescent or radio carbon dating of the mounds may help to elucidate the matter.
While arguments have been advanced that these mounds could be the result of the activities of some pre-historic animal, or be the remnants of an extensive plateau cover of outwash conglomerate, Mills (pers comm 2001) believes their morphology, siting and composition suggests that they are anthropogenic. Possible correlatives exist overseas, as many societies have constructed burial mounds, such as the Indian burial mounds of Wisconsin and the serpent effigy mounds of Peebles, Ohio.
~~~~~~~~~
Hey - what's this? Confronted by the craters of the mallee fowl.
( https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/5737284/mallee-fowl-crater.jpg , https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/5737284/bird-mound.jpg )
The name of the "private enterprise" geologist who apparently mapped hundreds of the mounds in SW Qld, NW NSW, and SA .. and was bird-minded on them .... will come back to me any moment.
He'd be retired now so if anyone were interested they could try and team up with him to get the mapped areas published?
Cheers, John
Steve Corsini
Jeannette, that’s really interesting. Thanks.
My wife used to do volunteer work at a local Wildlife refuge and Hospital (nowadays she looks after wildlife at home)
– the refuge had several animals that were used for education visits by school groups.
Typically there would be an Echidna, a Shingle-back/Bobtail, a tawny frogmouth, a couple of grey kangaroo joeys and Bill the Boodie (a burrowing bettong)
Bill was everyone’s favourite.
He was extremely cute.
sjc
From: oza...@googlegroups.com [mailto:oza...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Jeannette Hope
Sent: Sunday, 15 January 2017 11:27 AM
To: oza...@googlegroups.com