Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: Tasmanian Aborigines - 'Lord of the Flies' Theory

  1. #1

    Default

    When whites first colonised Tasmania, there were several things which struck them as very strange about the native inhabitants.

    Firstly, their technology was, even by Australian aboriginal standards, incredibly limited and primitive. Unlike their mainland Australian relatives, the Tasmanians "had no hafted implements (such as axes), no implements made of bone, no boomerangs or spear throwers, no dingos and no microlithic stone tools. Indeed, their entire tool kit seems to have consisted of about two dozen kinds of objects." (Tim Flannery, The Future Eaters.

    On top of this, the Tasmanians were one of the only peoples on earth who did not have the ability to make fire. When a band moved from camp to camp they carried smouldering fire-sticks, which they used to kindle fires at the new location. It was a great shame to allow these sticks to go out (which would have happened easily in Tasmania's wet and windy winters). A band that lost their fire had to eat raw meat until they found another band from which to get fire. It was utterly taboo to refuse another band's request for fire, even if the band were enemies or a band with which you were at war.

    Secondly, the whites noticed that the Tasmanians never ate scale fish. They ate shellfish in abundance, along with lobsters and seaweed, but no fish with scales. This was despite living on an island surrounded by vast quantities of fish. When whites offered any kind of scale fish to Tasmanian Aborigines they either fled in terror or even reacted with violence.

    For a long time it was assumed that these peculiarities were simply because the Tasmanians were the most primitive people on earth. It was thought that they were only able to survive despite these 'primitive' traits because of their isolation and, after Darwin, they were regarded as some kind of 'missing link' - barely human. This was also used to partly justify their extinction, as though it was nothing to do with the war waged against them by the settlers and was because they were doomed to die out anyway.

    These views began to change in the 1960s and 70s, when archaeologists made some startling finds. Analaysis of camp sites which had been continuously occupied for over 7000 years revealed that up until 3,500 years ago, the Tasmanians actually DID have most of the technology of the mainland tribes. Small, finely made microlithic tools - quite unlike the larger, clumsier tools of the later Tasmanians, were found in abundance. So were bone needles, also unknown from later finds, indicating that the earlier Tasmanians did sew fur clothing. It seemed that the Tasmanians had once been far more technologically sophisticated. Then, quite suddenly, 3,500 years ago, all these things disappear from the archaeological record.

    The other remarkable find was that the early Tasmanian DID eat scale fish. In fact, they ate so much of it that it seemed to form 10-15% of their total diet. Then, quite suddenly, all fish bones and scales disappear from the record as well.

    The strange thing is that, like the sudden decline in their technology, the evidence of eating fish also disappeared about 3,500 years ago.

    So the puzzle was 'why?' Why would the Tasmanians suddenly stop using their more complex technology. And why would they suddenly stop eating fish? And, most importantly, why would both things happen suddenly and apparently simultaneously?

    There is no definitive answer, but there is one theory which seems to explain both things.

    Fish are a great source of protein, but they also have some risks: food poisoning for example. The waters around Tasmania are sometimes prone to large outbreaks of a agal bloom called 'dinoflagellatae' or 'Red Tide'. This algae can infest large fish populations, killing the fish in vast numbers. The problem here is that if these fish are then eaten by humans, the result is usually chronic food poisoning, often leading to a very sudden death.

    The hypothesis is that such a bloom killed large numbers of fish, giving the Tasmanians an (apparently) free summer feast on the beach. The result would have been a sudden, massive case of almost certainly fatal food poisoning - resulting in most of the adult population dying in the space of a week.

    The survivors would have been on the brink on extinciton, but obviously survived. It's also likely that some parts of the population would have been less affected by others - small children who were still being weaned are likely to have been less likely to have been poisoned.

    This would have resulted in a bizarre situation. The surviving generation would have been made up of a disproportinate population of orphaned children, who then had to teach themselves survival skills. Simpler technologies - spears and primitive stone tools - would have been within their capacity. More complex technology like fire-making, fine tools, hafted weapons etc would have been beyond them, the knowledge for making them lost with the dead elders.

    So when the whites arrived, the Tasmanians they met were the descendants of these child survivors of the cataclysm of 3500 years before - people with very simple tools, no ability to make fire and a pathological fear of eating scale fish. Understandably so.

    It's not the definite answer to the puzzle, but it seems to explain the mystery. The idea of a generation of children reviving their culture from scratch - a Tasmanian-wide 'Lord of the Flies' is also a bizarre and intriguing possibility.

  2. #2

    Default

    Interesting read. I always wondered where today's high school education would get us if the rebuilding of the human civilization depended on it.

  3. #3
    Mehmed II's Avatar Vicarius
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Istanbul, Turkey
    Posts
    2,740

    Default

    Thanks for the article Thi..a nice one.

  4. #4
    Turnus's Avatar il Flagello dei Buffoni
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    1,093

    Default

    Very interesting. Sounds a bit far-fetched, though (in that a large population over such a large area was completely affected, and that after 3500 years, the technology was still not re-discovered), but it is nevertheless possible.
    Force Diplomacy Modifications for Rise of Persia 2.11 Beta and Roma Surrectum 1.5a.
    Member of S.I.N.
    Under the patronage of Obi Wan Asterix

  5. #5

    Default

    Interesting, but the Tasmanians werent the only people to eat fish. Japanese, North American Indians, and even the Romans to an extent all had fish as one of the main source of protein in their diet. I think its a bit far fetched that only the Tasmanians were affected by the "red tide"

  6. #6
    Turnus's Avatar il Flagello dei Buffoni
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    1,093

    Default

    Originally posted by deathdoom56@Apr 10 2005, 01:42 AM
    Interesting, but the Tasmanians werent the only people to eat fish. Japanese, North American Indians, and even the Romans to an extent all had fish as one of the main source of protein in their diet. I think its a bit far fetched that only the Tasmanians were affected by the "red tide"
    I think you missed one of the points entirely (that they DIDN'T eat fish due to a fear passed down through the generations from those who survived the food poisoning of the scaled fish).
    Force Diplomacy Modifications for Rise of Persia 2.11 Beta and Roma Surrectum 1.5a.
    Member of S.I.N.
    Under the patronage of Obi Wan Asterix

  7. #7

    Default

    Originally posted by Turnus@Apr 10 2005, 01:51 AM
    I think you missed one of the points entirely (that they DIDN'T eat fish due to a fear passed down through the generations from those who survived the food poisoning of the scaled fish).
    I was talking about the previous generation of course. The neolithic tribes in Japan had fish as their main protin source but we arent dead are we?

  8. #8
    Turnus's Avatar il Flagello dei Buffoni
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    1,093

    Default

    Originally posted by deathdoom56@Apr 10 2005, 01:56 AM
    I was talking about the previous generation of course. The neolithic tribes in Japan had fish as their main protin source but we arent dead are we?
    I see your point now. Perhaps this algae is native to the region, so that the red tide can only occur there (I haven't researched this).
    Force Diplomacy Modifications for Rise of Persia 2.11 Beta and Roma Surrectum 1.5a.
    Member of S.I.N.
    Under the patronage of Obi Wan Asterix

  9. #9

    Default

    Originally posted by Turnus@Apr 10 2005, 01:59 AM
    I see your point now. Perhaps this algae is native to the region, so that the red tide can only occur there (I haven't researched this).
    No, these algal blooms can occur in many parts of the world. And do so with some regularity. And can also cause mass food poisoning when they do.

    There almost certainly have been cases like this in Japan and elsewhere. The thing that seems to have made the Tasmanian outbreak significant is that it affected the entire island and that it probably happened in summer, when the semi-nomadic Tasmanians were usually in coastal camps rather then up in the mountains or forests. There are particular kinds of this algae in the waters around south-east Australia which can cause particularly widespread fish mortality. Only a few years ago there was an outbreak off the coast of New South Wales which caused hundreds of thousands, even millions, of dead pilchards and sardines to wash up on beaches. On some beaches the fish were two feet deep, and dead fish were found over an area of several hundred kilometers. Health authorities were quick to warn about the dangers of eating any of the dead fish.

    So the outbreak could feasibly affect the Tasmanians in the way hypothesised. Tasmania is not a small island, but algal blooms have occured which could easily have resulted in dead fish along all its coasts. If this was in the summer period (when these blooms often occur) the majority of the very small population of the Tasmanian aborigines could easily have been on hand to be affected.

    In Tasmania you have a unique set of circumstances where such a bloom could have wiped out the majority of an already extremely small population.

  10. #10
    Ecthelion's Avatar Great Ramen Connoisseur
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    The land beyond the River Styx
    Posts
    1,304

    Default

    Okay the, fish thing makes sense. Even if some adults survived (and I am sure that A FEW must have) they would stop eating the fish too. However, the loss in technology is a little bothersome. In most hunter-gather bands, the common technologies are known by all the adult males and almost all adult females. Boys and girls are taught their trades at a VERY young age, usually well before puberty (this is all from my anthropology professor).

    It is difficult to imagine ALL the adults dying. I mean, it just simply can't happen that completely. As long as there is one adult who knows about fire making and how to make complex tools, the technology would survive. Even with such primative communication methods, such important technologies would spread like wildfire throughout the island.

    Moreover, the island itself is not TOO far from the mainland. I find it hard to believe that in 3,500 years there would not be a single person to land on the island from the mainland.

    For technologies to so thoroughly erased and never revived, there must have been some sort of taboo around them. Maybe they believed (religiously perhaps) that fire should not be made, or that tools should not become more complicated. Perhaps there was a culture against technological change?
    This is my signature. Isn't it awesome?

  11. #11

    Default

    Still, 3500 years is a long time...
    "Jamf was only a fiction, to help him explain what he felt so terribly, so immediately in his genitals for those rockets each time exploding in the sky... to help him deny what the could not possibly admit: that he might be in love, in sexual love, with his, and his race's, death." - Thomas Pynchon, Gravity's Rainbow

    Join my Dark Throne army!
    Proudly patronizing Nihil

  12. #12

    Default

    Originally posted by Ecthelion@Apr 10 2005, 12:03 PM
    Moreover, the island itself is not TOO far from the mainland. I find it hard to believe that in 3,500 years there would not be a single person to land on the island from the mainland.
    There is no evidence of any contact between the mainland tribes and the Tasmanians. Bass Strait is actually 200 kilometres wide and one of the roughest and most unpredictable passages of water on earth. The Tasmanians had bark canoes that became water-logged after a few hours. The Victorian Aborigines had shallow wooden canoes, suitable for use in rivers. You can try crossing Bass Strait in either if you like, but if you do all I can say is 'Good luck'!

  13. #13
    Ecthelion's Avatar Great Ramen Connoisseur
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    The land beyond the River Styx
    Posts
    1,304

    Default

    If it is so hard to cross the straight... then how did they get there in the first place? Was there actually a landbridge during the last Ice Age?
    This is my signature. Isn't it awesome?

  14. #14
    Turnus's Avatar il Flagello dei Buffoni
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    1,093

    Default

    Originally posted by Ecthelion@Apr 10 2005, 07:38 PM
    If it is so hard to cross the straight... then how did they get there in the first place? Was there actually a landbridge during the last Ice Age?
    Indeed there was.
    Force Diplomacy Modifications for Rise of Persia 2.11 Beta and Roma Surrectum 1.5a.
    Member of S.I.N.
    Under the patronage of Obi Wan Asterix

  15. #15

    Default

    Originally posted by Ecthelion@Apr 10 2005, 12:03 PM
    For technologies to so thoroughly erased and never revived, there must have been some sort of taboo around them. Maybe they believed (religiously perhaps) that fire should not be made, or that tools should not become more complicated. Perhaps there was a culture against technological change?
    I agree that the idea of ALL the adults dying seems a little far fetched. But we don't know very much at all about the details of Tasmanian Aboriginal culture, since by the time anyone took much of an interest in it, it was extinct. So we don't know how technical knowledge was passed on in historic times, let alone how this happened back before the loss of the more complex technology 3500 years ago. So we can't assume that technical knowledge wasn't actually held by specialists within each band or by a small number of elders. There are plenty of parallels for this.

    The question is - why did the more complex technology disappear so completely and quickly 3500 years ago? And why did this co-incide with the sudden taboo on eating scale fish? This could simply be co-incidence, but that seems highly unlikely.

    As for your hypothesis above, why would they suddenly get a taboo about (i) eating fish, (ii) lighting fire, (iii) making fine stone tools, (iv) using bone tools, (v) making clothes from furs etc all at the same time?

    The food poisoning hypothesis gives us a plausible answer, even if we can't know all the details of precisely how the older technical knowledge died out so completely. This is most likely because we simply don't know enough about the early Tasmanians because no-one much bothered to learn about them in any detail until there were none left to learn about.

  16. #16

    Default

    Originally posted by ThiudareiksGunthigg@Apr 10 2005, 02:51 AM
    Only a few years ago there was an outbreak off the coast of New South Wales which caused hundreds of thousands, even millions, of dead pilchards and sardines to wash up on beaches. On some beaches the fish were two feet deep, and dead fish were found over an area of several hundred kilometers. Health authorities were quick to warn about the dangers of eating any of the dead fish.

    Strange, I don't remember that and I live in NSW.
    Proudly under the patronage of my honoured TWC father Justinian

    Respect is an action, not an act.

  17. #17

    Default

    Originally posted by Ran Taro+Apr 11 2005, 04:53 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td> (Ran Taro @ Apr 11 2005, 04:53 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-ThiudareiksGunthigg@Apr 10 2005, 02:51 AM
    Only a few years ago there was an outbreak off the coast of New South Wales which caused hundreds of thousands, even millions, of dead pilchards and sardines to wash up on beaches. On some beaches the fish were two feet deep, and dead fish were found over an area of several hundred kilometers. Health authorities were quick to warn about the dangers of eating any of the dead fish.

    Strange, I don&#39;t remember that and I live in NSW. [/b][/quote]
    The outbreak I&#39;m referring to happened in 1996 (IIRC) and affected the Jervis Bay area and other parts of the NSW south coast. I was working for a news monitoring service at the time and one of our clients was NSW Fisheries, so I spent a week monitoring and transcribing all TV, radio and newspaper reports on the outbreak. Perhaps it wasn&#39;t a story that a casual reader would have noticed, but it was big news in the area at the time.

    Smaller outbreaks happen all the time, especially in summer.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •