Lancefield Swamp and the Extinction of the Australian Megafauna

Gillespie, Richard; Horton, David; Ladd, P.G.; Macumber, Phillip G.; Rich, Thomas H.; Thorne, Robert F.; Wright, Richard

doi:10.1126/science.200.4345.1044-a

Cited by 56 publications

(53 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Some authors suggest that climate change may have been the primary cause of the megafaunal extinction (Calaby, 1976 ;Horton, 1977Horton, , 1984Main, 1978 ;Archer, 1984), but this is inconsistent with the megafauna having survived numerous glacial-interglacial cycles thought to have been of similar severity to the last glacial (White & O'Connell, 1979 ;Martin, 1984 ;Wright, 1986 b ;Kershaw, 1989). Although archaeological material has been found associated with megafaunal remains, there is no clear-cut evidence of human predation (Gillespie et al, 1978 ;Archer, 1984 ;Gorecki et al, 1984 ;Dodson et al, 1993 b). In marked contrast to northern hemisphere megafaunal extinctions, no killing grounds and tools designed to kill large animals have been found in Australia (Owen-Smith, 1989).…”

Section: Megafaunal Extinction and Aboriginal Landscape Burning : Mecmentioning

confidence: 99%

The impact of Aboriginal landscape burning on the Australian biota

1998

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

One of the most complex and contentious issues in Australian ecology concerns the environmental impact of Aboriginal landscape burning. This issue is not only important for the development of a comprehensive understanding of the dynamics and evolution of the Australian biota, but is central to the formulation of appropriate strategies for the conservation of the nation's biodiversity. Ethnographic evidence leaves little doubt that Aboriginal burning played a central role in the maintenance of the landscapes subsequently colonized by Europeans. Both 19th century European colonists and anthropologists in the 20th century documented the indispensability of fire as a tool in traditional Aboriginal economies, which have aptly been described as ‘fire‐stick farming’. Aborigines used fire to achieve short‐term outcomes such as providing favourable habitats for herbivores or increasing the local abundance of food plants, but it is not clear whether or not Aborigines had a predictive ecological knowledge of the long‐term consequences of their use of fire. A large body of ecological evidence suggests that Aboriginal burning resulted in substantial changes in the geographic range and demographic structure of many vegetation types. Aboriginal burning was important in creating habitat mosaics that favoured the abundance of some mammal species and in the maintenance of infrequently burnt habitats upon which the survival of specialized fauna depends. Aboriginal fire regimes were probably critical for the maintenance of at least one species of tree (Callitris intratropica) in the monsoon tropics. The question of the original impact of humans on the Australian environment is fundamentally speculative because of vague, disputed time frames proposed for the waves of colonization and shifting settlement patterns of Aborigines in the late Quaternary period. There is an inherent circular argument concerning the cause and effect of climate change, vegetation change, and burning through the late Quaternary. Charcoal and pollen evidence from long sedimentary cores is ambiguous and cannot be used to demonstrate unequivocally the initial impact of Aboriginal people on the landscapes of Pleistocene Australia. The sparse available evidence does not support the hypotheses that Aboriginal burning was primarily responsible for the extinction of Pleistocene megafauna; was critical for the maintenance of habitats of small mammals that have become extinct following European colonization; initiated widespread accelerated soil erosion rates in either the Pleistocene or Holocene; or forced the evolutionary diversification of the Australian biota. Burning may have caused the extinction of some fire‐sensitive species of plants and animals dependent upon infrequently burnt habitats, and it must have maintained structurally open vegetation such as grasslands and also extended the range of fire‐adapted species, such as Eucalyptus, into environments climatically suitable for rain forest. Palaeoecological research concerning prior impacts of Aborigines must ...

show abstract

Section: Megafaunal Extinction and Aboriginal Landscape Burning : Mecmentioning

confidence: 99%

The impact of Aboriginal landscape burning on the Australian biota

1998

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In Figure 3, the upper panel shows 14 C and other dates from Lancefield Swamp, a spring site in southeastern Australia with abundant megafauna and sparse archaeology. The megafaunal remains occur in a discrete bone bed 1.5-1.7 m below present surface, underlain by a channel fill from which charcoal was dated to about 30 ka (Gillespie et al 1978). Bones and teeth are very poorly preserved, with extensive mineral replacement (sometimes retaining the fibrous texture of dentine or collagen) but containing little or no residual protein; 14 C dates on bone fractions are widely scattered and unreliable.…”

Section: People and Megafaunamentioning

confidence: 99%

Dating the First Australians

Gillespie¹

2002

Radiocarbon

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT. The dating of selected archaeological and megafaunal sites from the Australian region is reviewed, with emphasis on recent work at some of the oldest sites. Improved chemical procedures with decreased analytical background for 14 C analysis, combined with new luminescence dating methods, has confirmed many of the results processed decades ago and significantly increased the maximum age for some others. The oldest occupation horizons in four different regions reliably dated by defendable multi-method results are in the range 42-48,000 calendar years ago, overlapping with the age range for similarly well-dated undisturbed sites containing the youngest extinct megafauna. There is less secure evidence suggesting some archaeology may be earlier and some megafauna may have survived later than this period. INTRODUCTIONEstimates of the time since humans first occupied the extended Late Pleistocene continent Sahul (sometimes called Greater Australia or Meganesia) have steadily increased since systematic archaeological excavation and radiocarbon dating became established in the 1960s. Jones (1968) considered 30,000 BP a reasonable estimate for the earliest arrivals, based on the available evidence showing 3 or 4 sites with 14 C dates of more than 20,000 BP. In the second edition of The Prehistory of Australia (Mulvaney 1975) an appended date list documented four sites in Australia and one in New Guinea with 14 C results older than 25,000 BP. The current edition (Mulvaney and Kamminga 1999) provides an overview of the hundreds of dates now accumulated for Late Pleistocene archaeological sites in Sahul. Some of the robust debate about claims for earliest occupation of the region is presented in Murray (1998).Traditional 14 C dating using radiometric counting has become less important in Sahul, as elsewhere, since accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) laboratories began to take on large workloads from the mid 1980s. In many situations this new measurement technology also allowed better pretreatment chemistry to be applied in the isolation and decontamination of specific sample components. At about the same time newer thermoluminescence (TL), optically stimulated luminescence (OSL), electron spin resonance (ESR), amino acid racemization (AAR), and uranium-thorium series (U/Th) dating methods began to make significant contributions to archaeology and the earth sciences. These and other techniques operate under different rules and on different materials to 14 C. An "archaeological event" such as a fire may sensibly be 14 C dated using charcoal, whereas luminescence methods on quartz sand are likely to be dating an "environmental event" such as exposure to sunlight, not necessarily directly associated with the target archaeological event. However, since everyone should eventually get the same answer to questions like "when did humans first colonize Australia" or "when did the megafauna become extinct" there are some instructive examples of cross-dating with different numerical methods.Projects such as dating the first Au...

show abstract

“…For example, apart from one site (Murray et al, 1980), there has been no evidence of extinct species found in the recently unearthed Pleistocene sites of southwestern Tasmania (see below). This appears to be so even where large numbers of extinct fauna have been excavated, for example, at Lancefield (Gillespie et al, 1978). While climate undoubtedly played an influential role (Horton, 1980), extinctions appear to have occurred differentially across the continent; for example, prior to ca.…”

Section: Faunal Extinctionsmentioning

confidence: 95%