20.5 A Near-Extinction Event in the Early History of New Zealand
353
suffer continual loss of genetic diversity and also become susceptible to genetic disorders
through inbreeding. Their small size also makes them susceptible to chance events, such
as an imbalance in the birth rate (for example, a preponderance of boys), disease and disaster (for example, mass food poisoning). These factors dictate that such small, isolated
populations are doomed to extinction (p. 264).
Flannery tellingly illustrates the risks of isolation through discussion of the isolated history of Tasmanian aborigines. Like Kangaroo Island and the Bass Strait
islands, Tasmania was part of the Australian mainland till it was turned into an
island by the drowning of Bass Strait in the Ice Age floods 11,500 and 7,500 years
ago. Flannery comments:
The sole surviving Aboriginal population inhabiting a temperate Australian island was that
living in Tasmania. Tasmania is large enough to support some 5000 Aborigines living traditional life-styles. This is some ten times more than the absolute minimum size necessary for
long-term survival. But is a population of 5000 large enough to maintain a complex material
culture? Recent archaeological discoveries suggest that it was not. . .
The French savants of the Baudin Expedition, who observed the Tasmanians in 1802, were
amazed that even though the Tasmanians lived in an often bitterly cold climate, they lacked
clothing. Extraordinarily, they also lacked the ability to make fire. Mannalargenna, one of
the last of the Tasmanian Aborigines to live a traditional life, told of what would happen if
a group’s fire was extinguished. He said that people had no alternative but to eat raw meat
while they walked in search of another tribe. Significantly, one of the universal laws among
the Tasmanians was that fire must be given whenever requested, even if the asker was a
traditional enemy who would be fought after the gift had been given.
The French were also struck by the fact that the Tasmanians did not eat fish, even though
they were abundant in Tasmania’s coastal waters. Francois Peron records that when members of the Baudin Expedition offered some fish which they had caught, the Tasmanians
expressed amazement and horror. This was not an isolated instance, for earlier, in 1777,
members of Cook’s third expedition recorded that Tasmanians reacted with horror or ran
away when fish were offered to them (pp. 263–264).
Flannery comments on the limited material culture of the Tasmanians: they “had
no hafted implements (such as axes), no implements made of bone, no boomerangs
or spear throwers, no dingoes and no microlithic stone tools” (p. 265). This fact led
to Tasmanians being classed as the world’s most primitive people. But, Flannery
tells us, study of Tasmanian campsites occupied over the last 7,000 years shows that
the Tasmanians once had bone tools, including awls, reamers and needles, undoubtedly used for making skin cloaks similar to those used by Aborigines of southern
Australia. He notes that the variety of bone tool found in Tasmanian middens “dwindles with time, until eventually, about 3500 years ago, the last of them disappear
from the archaeological record” (p. 266). And, Flannery notes, older archaeological
sites show that fish once formed an important part, perhaps 10%, of the Tasmanians’
diet. Suddenly, about 3,500 years ago, the remains of fish cease to appear in refuse
dumps (p. 266).
Flannery argues that the most plausible explanation for the simplification of
material culture
seems to lie in the unique isolation and small population size of the Tasmanians. The theory
goes something like this. A small group of people are less likely to come up with technological innovations than a larger group. If the group is completely isolated, then new ideas
353
suffer continual loss of genetic diversity and also become susceptible to genetic disorders
through inbreeding. Their small size also makes them susceptible to chance events, such
as an imbalance in the birth rate (for example, a preponderance of boys), disease and disaster (for example, mass food poisoning). These factors dictate that such small, isolated
populations are doomed to extinction (p. 264).
Flannery tellingly illustrates the risks of isolation through discussion of the isolated history of Tasmanian aborigines. Like Kangaroo Island and the Bass Strait
islands, Tasmania was part of the Australian mainland till it was turned into an
island by the drowning of Bass Strait in the Ice Age floods 11,500 and 7,500 years
ago. Flannery comments:
The sole surviving Aboriginal population inhabiting a temperate Australian island was that
living in Tasmania. Tasmania is large enough to support some 5000 Aborigines living traditional life-styles. This is some ten times more than the absolute minimum size necessary for
long-term survival. But is a population of 5000 large enough to maintain a complex material
culture? Recent archaeological discoveries suggest that it was not. . .
The French savants of the Baudin Expedition, who observed the Tasmanians in 1802, were
amazed that even though the Tasmanians lived in an often bitterly cold climate, they lacked
clothing. Extraordinarily, they also lacked the ability to make fire. Mannalargenna, one of
the last of the Tasmanian Aborigines to live a traditional life, told of what would happen if
a group’s fire was extinguished. He said that people had no alternative but to eat raw meat
while they walked in search of another tribe. Significantly, one of the universal laws among
the Tasmanians was that fire must be given whenever requested, even if the asker was a
traditional enemy who would be fought after the gift had been given.
The French were also struck by the fact that the Tasmanians did not eat fish, even though
they were abundant in Tasmania’s coastal waters. Francois Peron records that when members of the Baudin Expedition offered some fish which they had caught, the Tasmanians
expressed amazement and horror. This was not an isolated instance, for earlier, in 1777,
members of Cook’s third expedition recorded that Tasmanians reacted with horror or ran
away when fish were offered to them (pp. 263–264).
Flannery comments on the limited material culture of the Tasmanians: they “had
no hafted implements (such as axes), no implements made of bone, no boomerangs
or spear throwers, no dingoes and no microlithic stone tools” (p. 265). This fact led
to Tasmanians being classed as the world’s most primitive people. But, Flannery
tells us, study of Tasmanian campsites occupied over the last 7,000 years shows that
the Tasmanians once had bone tools, including awls, reamers and needles, undoubtedly used for making skin cloaks similar to those used by Aborigines of southern
Australia. He notes that the variety of bone tool found in Tasmanian middens “dwindles with time, until eventually, about 3500 years ago, the last of them disappear
from the archaeological record” (p. 266). And, Flannery notes, older archaeological
sites show that fish once formed an important part, perhaps 10%, of the Tasmanians’
diet. Suddenly, about 3,500 years ago, the remains of fish cease to appear in refuse
dumps (p. 266).
Flannery argues that the most plausible explanation for the simplification of
material culture
seems to lie in the unique isolation and small population size of the Tasmanians. The theory
goes something like this. A small group of people are less likely to come up with technological innovations than a larger group. If the group is completely isolated, then new ideas