Stay up to date with notifications from The Independent

Notifications can be managed in browser preferences.

New study rewrites theory of how first humans arrived in Australia

Humans from Southeast Asia likely used New Guinea rather than Timor Island as stepping stone to Australia

Vishwam Sankaran
Thursday 23 May 2024 07:58 EDT
Comments
Related: Palestinians mourn history as Israel destroys archaeological sites in Gaza

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

Archaeologists have unearthed stone artefacts and animal bones in a deep cave on Timor Island in the Pacific, forcing a rethink of when and how ancient humans first migrated to Australia.

Timor Island has long been seen as a stepping stone for the first human migration between mainland Southeast Asia and Australia and New Guinea. But the new findings challenge this theory.

Researchers dated and analysed the artefacts and sediments from the Laili rock shelter in Timor-Leste, north of Australia, to pinpoint the first arrival of humans in the region.

The Laili rock shelter, unlike other sites in the region, preserved deep sediments dating 59,000 to 54,000 years ago that showed no clear signs of human occupation.

This means that humans arrived in the Pacific region about 44,000 years ago and there was no habitation on Timor Island before this time.

The findings further indicate that early humans were getting to Australia by using New Guinea rather than Timor Island as the stepping stone.

“This is significant as these islands were most likely a gateway crossing for ancient humans making the crossing to Australia,” Shimona Kealy, a co-author of the study from The Australian National University , said.

“When we analyse and compare markers of human occupation from other sites across Timor-Leste and nearby Flores Island, we can confidently say humans were also absent throughout the wider region of the southern Wallacean islands.”

Tomb excavation in China's Anhui yields major discoveries

Researchers also found evidence that migration to these islands was ongoing, with evidence of occupation thousands of years after the initial settlement of Australia.

“The traditional view held by researchers is that early humans who were making these significant water crossings were stumbling upon these islands by mistake, largely because it was so long ago,” Dr Kealy said.

“Their arrival on Timor was no accident. This was a major colonisation effort, evident through the sheer number of people who were making the journey.”

Researchers said the findings are a “testament” to the maritime technology of the early humans, their boats and their confidence and competence in crossing the seas.

As early humans arrived on Timor Island, likely from the nearby Flores Island and mainland Southeast Asia, they used the cave very intensively with clear evidence of burning and trampling of the floor underfoot. “The shift from pre-occupation to intensive human activity at the site was very clear in the sediments,” Mike Morley, another author of the study from Flinders University, said.

Archaeologists found small stone tools and charred fish bones during the excavation, but are unsure what they were used for.

“Because a lot of their diet was either shellfish or small animals, you don’t really need big knives to gather that sort of food. But having small, fine tools is useful for things like stripping leaves to then weave into baskets, but also for creating wooden tools,” Dr Kealy explained.

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in