Well, Reddit is hugely popular and its userbase is many times higher than here, not that that's necessarily a good thing. So it stands to reason that more exposure to posts leads to more people wanting to share their new discoveries and coming here with a "filtered" set of links.
I’m intrigued by the statement that the west coast was reached first, and then the population spread from there. In school I learnt that the earliest settlers had come south via India and landed in the north (which I naïvely thought of as Cape York but of course, with the lower sea level would have been NG).
And some things never change: even 60 ky ago Adelaide was passed by…
We don't know whether they came via Sulawesi or Java, but both are Indonesian now. Both routes involved multiple substantial water crossings, even when sea levels were lowest.
> The models take data from archaeologists, anthropologists, ecologists, geneticists, climatologists, geomorphologists, and hydrologists, and analyses the information to come up with the most likely routes around the country.
This is kinda vague. You wonder where the conclusions came from.
The first link in the intro of the ABC article leads you to the paper, which is open access (for me at least).
They go into extensive detail of their methodology, but I'll give you a very brief summary that I think might explain why article says they 'take data' from all those folks.
1. Use environmental data to create layers which are superimposed onto the map and represent different concepts such as: water levels, creeks & rivers, topography, and terrain visibility (visual prominence).
2. Divide the map into a grid of 500sqm squares. Attribute these squares with value based on estimated caloric expenditure to traverse and the layer information created earlier.
3. Using a 25 year old woman as the agent, simulate the route of least caloric expenditure and plot it on the map.
(justification: Men travelled further, but often did so without families and thus are less suitable for migratory analysis)
So while strictly true from the ABC, the paper does take data from those sources, I totally agree with you calling that quote vague, its a very clickbaity interpretation of how data is used in the paper.
12 comments
[ 0.19 ms ] story [ 47.9 ms ] threadbtw it's interesting how I see things first on reddit then hours later here, but rarely the other ways
And some things never change: even 60 ky ago Adelaide was passed by…
We don't know whether they came via Sulawesi or Java, but both are Indonesian now. Both routes involved multiple substantial water crossings, even when sea levels were lowest.
This is kinda vague. You wonder where the conclusions came from.
They go into extensive detail of their methodology, but I'll give you a very brief summary that I think might explain why article says they 'take data' from all those folks.
1. Use environmental data to create layers which are superimposed onto the map and represent different concepts such as: water levels, creeks & rivers, topography, and terrain visibility (visual prominence).
2. Divide the map into a grid of 500sqm squares. Attribute these squares with value based on estimated caloric expenditure to traverse and the layer information created earlier.
3. Using a 25 year old woman as the agent, simulate the route of least caloric expenditure and plot it on the map.
(justification: Men travelled further, but often did so without families and thus are less suitable for migratory analysis)
So while strictly true from the ABC, the paper does take data from those sources, I totally agree with you calling that quote vague, its a very clickbaity interpretation of how data is used in the paper.