Slashdot Mirror


Ancient Cave Art May Depict Giant Bird Extinct For 40,000 Years

grrlscientist writes "Recently studied Australian Aboriginal rock art may depict a giant bird that is thought to have become extinct some 40,000 years ago, thereby making it the oldest rock painting on the island continent. The red ochre drawing was first discovered two years ago, but archaeologists were only able to confirm the finding two weeks ago, when they first visited the remote site on the Arnhem Land plateau in north Australia. 'Genyornis was a giant flightless bird that was taller and heavier than either the ostrich or emu. It had powerful legs and tiny wings, and probably closely resembled ducks and geese, its closest living relatives. ... Interestingly, Genyornis bones have been excavated in association with human artifacts in Cuddie Springs in the Australian state of New South Wales. It is likely that humans lived alongside these birds, and some scientists think that humans may have contributed to their extinction." Jamie recalled that in the essay "A Lesson from the Old Masters," in the volume Leonardo's Mountain of Clams and the Diet of Worms, Stephen Jay Gould thanks our ancestors who drew Irish Elk on cave walls for "providing the only possible evidence for a hump that would otherwise have disappeared into the maw of lost history."

137 comments

  1. This just in! by Xtense · · Score: 0

    Ancient art represents ancient reality, news at 11!

    --
    "We are the music makers, and we are the dreamers of dreams [...]."
    1. Re:This just in! by MokuMokuRyoushi · · Score: 0

      In other news - apples are sticky!

      --
      Humans are terrible replicators of Godly things.
    2. Re:This just in! by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 4, Funny

      Hey, it's just the clueless archaeologists misinterpreting reality. What happened was that six thousand years ago, the cavemen found some faked fossils and tried to imagine how that animal might have looked like if it had actually existed.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    3. Re:This just in! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Indeed. 20k years from now people may believe an "Iron Man" or "Iron Men" lived among us.

    4. Re:This just in! by TheKidWho · · Score: 1

      That would be pretty cool!

    5. Re:This just in! by Forge · · Score: 3, Informative

      So dose This mean Dinosaurs walked with man, or that Dinosaurs could draw?

      --
      --= Isn't it surprising how badly I spell ?
    6. Re:This just in! by osu-neko · · Score: 1

      So dose This mean Dinosaurs walked with man, or that Dinosaurs could draw?

      LOL! Yes, and the fact that even better likenesses (assuming you similarly outline them for people to see, since they wouldn't seem them if you didn't, and place them next to pictures since otherwise they'll make their own associations -- like the moose in the third picture down where they didn't put a posed dinosaur next to it so it looks like a moose to me) err, what was I saying? Oh yes, and the fact that even better likenesses in the clouds demonstrate that these dinosaurs are alive today and controlling the weather.

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    7. Re:This just in! by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 2, Funny

      Ancient art represents ancient reality, news at 11!

      Actually this provides proof of prior art for Big Bird and should invalidate all of Sesame Street's copyrights :-)

    8. Re:This just in! by MyLongNickName · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I have mod points but thought I would comment instead.

      To you and the clueless fucks who modded you up to +5 Insightful: Yes, you must think you are brilliant. Of course the archeologists have no idea that cave drawings represent reality. This is an absolutely new concept to them.

      It could have nothing to do with verifying that, yes indeed, this animal did go extinct in the time period they thing it did. It has nothing to do with showing the relationships the people had with the bird (was it food? was it considered to be good luck?) or how accurately the drawings represented the actual bird (based on fossilized remains). Or probably a dozen other insights that I would never think of.

      But yes, you oh brilliant 13 year old on Slashdot because Mom won't let you go out and play in the rain have skewered their efforts completely.

      Frankly, it is the +5 Insightful that set me off. How stupid can you be?

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    9. Re:This just in! by stealth_finger · · Score: 0

      Looks like two birds doing it to me, I wonder how they became extinct

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    10. Re:This just in! by Guido+von+Guido · · Score: 1

      Ancient art represents ancient reality, news at 11!

      Actually this provides proof of prior art for Big Bird and should invalidate all of Sesame Street's copyrights :-)

      The artist had no lawyers or lobbyists, so the copyright expired long before Sesame Street.

    11. Re:This just in! by nospam007 · · Score: 1

      Giant bird, rock painting...

      The bird Rock on rock, that would be really cool.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roc_(mythology)

    12. Re:This just in! by oldhack · · Score: 1

      Hey, lay off archeologists, they're doing the best they can.

      ;-)

      --
      Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
    13. Re:This just in! by alexborges · · Score: 1

      Dear AC:

      I think you are my long lost brother.

      Tell mom I love her.

      --
      NO SIG
    14. Re:This just in! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe, just maybe; the birds drew them...

    15. Re:This just in! by Xtense · · Score: 1

      To you and whoever modded op insightful: unicode needs some sort of character that marks jokes, like ENDOFJOKE or something. Also, I wonder if that algorithm from a newsstory couple of days ago that was supposed to detect sarcasm could be adapted here?

      --
      "We are the music makers, and we are the dreamers of dreams [...]."
    16. Re:This just in! by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      Uh.. the scientists who named it were fans of the show....

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    17. Re:This just in! by PigIronBob · · Score: 1

      fur krist sake, lurn yerself sum inglisk

      --
      You never catch me alive
    18. Re:This just in! by oztiks · · Score: 1

      After reading the amount of attention invested in debating big birds breed, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bird#Breed

      I can safely say it isn't me that gone mad, but its clearly the rest of the world!

    19. Re:This just in! by nick79au · · Score: 0

      they're both male?

    20. Re:This just in! by imakemusic · · Score: 1

      Why else would a packet of toothpicks need instructions?

      --
      Brain surgery - it's not rocket science!
    21. Re:This just in! by The+Spoonman · · Score: 1

      Hey! No stealing my line! Just because you've changed it from "A thousand years from now, archeologists will confirm proof that the great god Spiderman actually existed with the recent discovery of the lost city of New York" doesn't mean you can take it!

      --
      Which is more painful? Going to work or gouging your eye out with a spoon? Find out!
      http://www.workorspoon.com
  2. Genyornis? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    More like Ginormous!

  3. humans may have contributed to their extinction by nurb432 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Do we always have to blame man?

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    1. Re:humans may have contributed to their extinction by ZERO1ZERO · · Score: 2, Informative
      It's OK! Some scientists think that humans may NOT have contributed to their extinction.

      There tha's better.

    2. Re:humans may have contributed to their extinction by maugle · · Score: 4, Insightful

      OK, you're part of some primitive tribe living in the same area as a bunch of giant, flightless, and probably very tasty birds. Wouldn't you prefer hunting those huge birds instead of smaller animals that are more difficult to catch?

      Since they didn't have any concept of "sustainability", it's very easy to imagine those humans contributing to the birds' extinction.

    3. Re:humans may have contributed to their extinction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      tasty? these things were either predators or scavengers. They were not tasty.

    4. Re:humans may have contributed to their extinction by v1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      and some scientists think that humans may have contributed to their extinction."

      Well for starters, imagine the omlets you could get from that thing! Eggs were a primary food source for almost every hunter-gatherer society back in those times. It certainly wouldn't be the only example of man hunting a species to extinction.

      Australia is an isolated continent, and as such it works almost like an island, with a very fragile, mutually-dependent ecosystem. If you want to get more abstract with this, one could even say that man was responsible for their extinction yet never hunted them or their eggs... maybe man for some reason hunted some specific lizard to extinction, which also happened to be their primary food source? Weird subtle interactions like that can occur on islands.

      Man is good at causing these sorts of problems because as a species he's very organized. If Grok figures out that those eggs are easy to find and good eating, it doesn't take 25 generations of evolution to breed "nest hunting" behavior into the village. It takes a few months locally, maybe a few years across the entire area. Other species just can't adapt to something that fast. I don't think it's proper to "blame man" for this, it's just the next advancement in evolution. But it is unfortunate. And I think it's something that we just need to understand and accept at some level. Particularly for our behavior in the past when these subtle yet potent interactions weren't understood or respected.

      --
      I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    5. Re:humans may have contributed to their extinction by clang_jangle · · Score: 0

      Australia is an isolated continent, and as such it works almost like an island

      Australia is an island.

      --
      Caveat Utilitor
    6. Re:humans may have contributed to their extinction by zippthorne · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Why? Tuna and Lobster are pretty tasty.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    7. Re:humans may have contributed to their extinction by v1 · · Score: 1

      Island: any piece of sub-continental land that is surrounded by water.

      So, antarctica, asia, japan, iceland, see, they're ALL islands by the broader definition. Technically, if you had even a small lake on the moon, everything else, all the other land, would be an "island". But then we get into "what's a continent?" Most agree that australia is a continent, so I suppose that knocks it out of the running for islandness.

      By most common discussion though, japan is about the largest landmass still considered an "island". The reason australia seems to draw this debate more often is because of the distance it is from other land masses. But then the same is true for antarctica, but it just doesn't get anywhere near the press as australia.

      --
      I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    8. Re:humans may have contributed to their extinction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Modded overrated for pointing out a true fact of geology. The slashtards stike again!

    9. Re:humans may have contributed to their extinction by shermo · · Score: 2, Informative

      We know the Maoris did the same to the Moa in New Zealand, and there seem to be a lot of similarities here.

      --
      Insanity: voting in the same two parties over and over again and expecting different results
    10. Re:humans may have contributed to their extinction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You may have also noticed THEY'RE ON THE BOTTOM OF THE FUCKIN OCEAN. Not too hard for us,more of a challenge for primitive peoples. Not impossible, but when the giant flightless bird is standing a couple hundred yards away, I personally would give that a try first before climbing in a boat and fishing for shit.

    11. Re:humans may have contributed to their extinction by PigIronBob · · Score: 1

      as such it works almost like an island..


      but..., but..., never mind!

      --
      You never catch me alive
    12. Re:humans may have contributed to their extinction by PigIronBob · · Score: 1

      Japan is about the largest landmass still considered an "island"


      Madagascar is not talking to you as of today...

      --
      You never catch me alive
    13. Re:humans may have contributed to their extinction by PerformanceDude · · Score: 1

      Actually, Greenland is the holder of the title of worlds largest island.. Just saying...

      --
      Meus subcriptio est nocens Latin quoniam bardus populus reputo is sanus callidus
    14. Re:humans may have contributed to their extinction by DarkEmpath · · Score: 1

      A documentary I watched a few years ago suggested the most likely scenario was that the aboriginal practice of regularly burning off the countryside changed the flora to the point the mega fauna couldn't survive. Coprolites indicate a major change in the birds diet, just as they were disappearing.

      So, given the current state of evidence, the most likely reason for the mega fauna extinction in Australia isn't hunting, but destruction of the environment. The more things change the more they stay the same :-/

    15. Re:humans may have contributed to their extinction by thePig · · Score: 1

      One major reason why the blame is on man is that these species did not co-evolve with man.
      By the time humans reached say Australia, they were already very intelligent and were the apex predator of all the habitats he encountered, due to organisation, fire and tools.
      Since they did not co-evolve, these birds which were not afraid of humans since they have not seen humans before. Thus, they became easy prey to humans before they could evolve to learn fear for humans.
      Actually, humans are blamed for mega fauna extinction in almost all the continents other than africa due to the exact same thing. And this was a detriment to their future evolution due to lack of mega fauna to domesticate too - which is a different subject altogether.

      --
      rajmohan_h@yahoo.com
    16. Re:humans may have contributed to their extinction by PigIronBob · · Score: 1

      correct, my argument was that Japan is not the largest landmass considered to be an island, Madagascar springs to mind as one that is much larger, though not necessarily 'the' largest.I think that new Zealand would beat Japan for that matter

      --
      You never catch me alive
    17. Re:humans may have contributed to their extinction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tuna and lobster are not warm-blooded. There is a reason we hunt bears only when its diet consists of berries and other plants. The woodcock is a game bird that is edible, but unpopular, since it feeds mainly on worms. We don't hunt any large predator birds either. The very popular game animals, and domesticated farm animals (cow, pig, sheep, chicken) are all herbivores, while carnivores taste "gamey" and unpleasant.

    18. Re:humans may have contributed to their extinction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fun fact, Moa is the Polynesian word for chicken. Take from that what you will about their fate.

    19. Re:humans may have contributed to their extinction by the_womble · · Score: 1

      ABout is right: Japan is an archipelago, not a single island.

      Its total land area is less than that of Greenland, New Guinea, Borneo, Madagasgar, Baffin Island, or Sumatra.

      It is pretty big, with the biggest island slightly bigger than Britain (with close to twice the population)

    20. Re:humans may have contributed to their extinction by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      Do we always have to blame man?

      It's not personal, there's no need for a guilt trip about climbing to the top of the food chain before agriculture was invented.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    21. Re:humans may have contributed to their extinction by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      A bit of trivia: The Tasmanian Aborigines were cut off from the mainland about 30kyr ago and did not know how to make fire.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    22. Re:humans may have contributed to their extinction by thePig · · Score: 1

      Actually the leading theory suggests that they did have the knowledge of fire, but then lost it. Many other island cultures do show this behaviour - due to isolation.

      --
      rajmohan_h@yahoo.com
    23. Re:humans may have contributed to their extinction by vivian · · Score: 1

      Wow that would have to have sucked. I bet whoever let the last cinder snuff it took a long time to live that one down.
      I mean, it wouldn't have been so bad losing fire up around say, Cairns - but down in Tasmania? Brr!

    24. Re:humans may have contributed to their extinction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ohh, twaddle-squat. There's no scientific consensus that life is important.

    25. Re:humans may have contributed to their extinction by masterwit · · Score: 1

      If Grok figures out that those eggs are easy to find and good eating, it doesn't take 25 generations of evolution to breed "nest hunting" behavior into the village. It takes a few months locally, maybe a few years across the entire area.

      Yes but it could take half the season on CBS's Survivor...

      --
      We should start a new Slashdot and return control to the geeks. It actually wouldn't be that hard to get some users to
    26. Re:humans may have contributed to their extinction by anaesthetica · · Score: 1

      OK, you're part of some primitive wolfpack living in the same area as a bunch of giant, flightless, and probably very tasty birds. Wouldn't you prefer hunting those huge birds instead of smaller animals that are more difficult to catch?

      Since they didn't have any concept of "sustainability", it's very easy to imagine those wolves contributing to the birds' extinction.

    27. Re:humans may have contributed to their extinction by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Since they didn't have any concept of "sustainability", it's very easy to imagine those wolves contributing to the birds' extinction.

      The point is that there isn't any evidence of a dramatic increase in the population of wolves (or dingos, or marsupial lions, or whatever) coincident with the extinction of the Genyornis, while there is evidence of the human population increasing infinite-fold (from zero to a positive integer) at about the right time.
      This is all subject to uncertainty of dating - but the appearance of humans in Australia is approximately coincident with both extinction of most of the mega-fauna (big, possibly tasty, animals) and desertification of much of the country.
      Strangely the same happened, within dating error, when humans entered the Americas. And when humans arrived on the high seas (with the whales). And when humans arrived in New Zealand. And when humans arrived on numerous smaller islands such as the Reunion group and the Mauritius group.

      Your species has form for destroying faunas on contact.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  4. re Taste by jelizondo · · Score: 1

    It tastes like chicken...hmm!

    --
    Be very, very careful what you put into that head, because you will never, ever get it out. - Cardinal Wolsey
  5. I knew they were real! by BlackBloq · · Score: 2, Informative

    There must most defiantly refer to the venerable Chocobo!I knew it wasn't just a game! Now where did they bury the huge swords?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chocobo

  6. Crayola by Codename+Dutchess · · Score: 2, Funny

    I like how they claim they can use the crayon scribbles to tell the difference between an emu and this Genyomis.

    From TFA:

    "Initially, we thought it was another big emu," said consulting archaeologist Ben Gunn, a founding member of the Australian Rock Art Research Association who was documenting the Niwarla Gabarnmung site for the Jawoyn Association.

    But then we figured, nah, its probably this big giant extinct bird instead...

    1. Re:Crayola by osu-neko · · Score: 5, Insightful

      But then we figured, nah, its probably this big giant extinct bird instead...

      Well, yes. When you find a picture that looks like a bird, but not quite like the emus you knew were around, you might think it's a badly drawn emu. But when you discover that the features that made you think it was badly drawn turn out to exactly match the features of some other species, you can (a) continue to assume it's a badly drawn emu that happens to, by remarkable coincidence, be badly drawn in just the right way to make it looks rather like some other species, or (b) you can now assume it's that other species.

      Occam's razor is better satisfied by assume it is what it most resembles, not a badly drawn something else, with the coincidence that the badly drawn features happen to match the features of something else.

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    2. Re:Crayola by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 1

      Occam's razor is better satisfied by assume it is what it most resembles, not a badly drawn something else, with the coincidence that the badly drawn features happen to match the features of something else.

      But what if the artist was the first Picasso?

    3. Re:Crayola by Shadow+Wrought · · Score: 2, Funny

      But what if the artist was the first Picasso?

      Then it was probably a self-portait.

      --
      If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
    4. Re:Crayola by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Another interpretation is that Australian Aborigines conducted unsustainable hunting that led to it's extinction, and the first and original human inhabitants of Australia - the Bradshaws.
      This is another of their scams - they don't want the 'paint' carbon dated.

      Australian Aborigines don't want to know about the Bradshaw paintings - 65000 years ago?
      http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/bradshaws/introduction.php.
      Because it would prove they were not the 'first', and never mind much aboriginal art is painted OVER the Bradshaws.

      The above poster is right, pictures that look like spaceships do not prove spaceships must had landed and built Aztecs, Stonehenge and the Pyramids - and the same for emu's or any
      false cause conclusion not based on logic.

  7. Using the extinction to date the painting? by Dragoniz3r · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So, we think the bird went extinct 40k years ago, so we're using that to date the painting as being that old? Does that seem backwards to anyone else? How about we date the painting, then maybe we can get a better estimate of exactly when these birds went extinct?

    1. Re:Using the extinction to date the painting? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      So, we think the bird went extinct 40k years ago, so we're using that to date the painting as being that old?

      Of course not. There could have been a 35000 year-old member of the tribe who painted the picture.

      There has been a steady stream of evidence for human civilization much much earlier than is currently accepted. If I were a betting man, I'd bet that in my lifetime, there's going to be a revision of just how old humanity really is. Since anthropologists went way out on a limb 100 years ago and tied their estimates for the beginnings of human civilization to some notion of biblical "history" they have been working very hard to protect themselves from any challenge. Any evidence for civilization going back 25,000 or 55,000 or 150,000 years is simply ignored as being an "outlier". It must be spurious, they say, because it does not fit with our current theories. If those theories were to fall, so would the doctoral dissertations and published manuscripts of hundreds and hundreds of highly respected members of their fraternity.

      Every so often, someone like, say, Michael Tellinger, or Robert Bauval, who is a member in good standing of the club, dares to present evidence suggesting that the current estimates of human origins are way off. Those people are quickly and efficiently made to not exist in the collective consciousness of anthropology. When it comes to dealing with people who challenge conventional wisdom, anthropologists can be practically Stalinist in the ruthless way they can forget formerly prestigious fellows ever existed.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    2. Re:Using the extinction to date the painting? by Josef+Meixner · · Score: 2, Interesting

      How about we date the painting

      I don't think it is easy, if even possible. Don't forget it was scribbled on a sheet of rock. The sheet was created by natural processes, so no use to date it. The ocher also is a mixture of natural material (clay and iron oxide) and I don't think there is a way to date its use either. So only some kind of adhesive to get the paint to stick to the rock might contain carbon which could be dated. But the amount is probably very small and can be contaminated (the paintings were exposed to the surrounding for an very long time). So it seems useful to use any clue you can get to help in dating the drawings.

    3. Re:Using the extinction to date the painting? by zerro · · Score: 5, Informative

      of course, if we RTFA, we note that they plan on doing just that "Further studies, such as radiocarbon dating of the paint, are planned."

    4. Re:Using the extinction to date the painting? by Darkman,+Walkin+Dude · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I find your assertions interesting, and would be gratified if you could supply a few links to support both the earlier origin hypothesis and the closed ranks of anthropologists. Not criticising, I'm genuinely interested.

    5. Re:Using the extinction to date the painting? by Dragoniz3r · · Score: 2, Funny

      You must be new here :)

    6. Re:Using the extinction to date the painting? by wkcole · · Score: 1

      So, we think the bird went extinct 40k years ago, so we're using that to date the painting as being that old? Does that seem backwards to anyone else?

      Probably, but that doesn't mean that it *IS* backwards.

      How about we date the painting, then maybe we can get a better estimate of exactly when these birds went extinct?

      RTFA, and the sources it cites.

      What is really interesting about this is the age of the rock art, which would seem to be as old as any human art anywhere and make the case for the Jawoyn Aborigines having one of the oldest cultures in the world. Dating rock art tends to be imprecise to the point of near impossibility in many cases, dating bird remains in the 40kya range is much less so. TFA states that there is a plan to attempt to 'radiocarbon' date the drawing but since the medium is red ochre and the cited sources don't mention any other dating methods being tried despite extensive skepticism of the age, that's not very credible.

    7. Re:Using the extinction to date the painting? by jd · · Score: 1

      So are you saying Slashdot readers are object-oriented? Otherwise, how would they be new rather than malloc()ed?

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    8. Re:Using the extinction to date the painting? by jd · · Score: 1

      Clay can be dated, but it depends on specific circumstances. Baked clay will absorb radiation at a fixed rate, which is then released on re-heating. (Thermoluminescence dating.) It also absorbs water at a deterministic rate but this relies on it being dry to start with. Sun-dried is fine.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    9. Re:Using the extinction to date the painting? by jd · · Score: 2, Informative

      Usually, in such circumstances, there's a charcoal source that is connected to the art. But there are many forms of dating and I wouldn't trust the article to have been written with an exceptionally technical audience in mind. Creswell Crags' cave art was dated via the limestone deposited over the figures. Clay, under specific circumstances as I've listed elsewhere in the replies, can be dated. Anything exposed to cosmic rays can (in theory) be dated by the ratio of the isotopes. (Cosmic rays alter the nuclei at a deterministic rate.)

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    10. Re:Using the extinction to date the painting? by bwilli123 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      What is really interesting about this is the age of the rock art, which would seem to be as old as any human art anywhere and make the case for the Jawoyn Aborigines having one of the oldest cultures in the world. .

      from the original article

      The Jawoyn people say they are excited the painting could be Australia's oldest dated rock art. The Jawoyn are a group of Indigenous peoples who are the traditional owners of the land in Australia's Northern Territory...

      What leads you to believe that as successive waves of humans entered Australia that the current occupants are in any way related to the painting's creators? Were the original inhabitants pushed further south,overrun,wiped out,walked to Tasmania? http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/05/070509161829.htm

      "At the time of the migration, 50,000 years ago, Australia and New Guinea were joined by a land bridge and the region was also only separated from the main Eurasian land mass by narrow straits such as Wallace's Line in Indonesia. The land bridge was submerged about 8,000 years ago...

      Given 30,000 years plus at the front door entrance to Australia I think the Jarwoyn are the least likely descendants of the original artists.

    11. Re:Using the extinction to date the painting? by dbIII · · Score: 2, Informative

      Carbon dating on the implements used to mix the paint was used to get the age according to the news reports on the radio yesterday.

    12. Re:Using the extinction to date the painting? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well, unfortunately, if anthropologists closed ranks on someone, it's unlikely that they're still in the field. Usually the early origins model are killed in the crib, at the point of dissertation.

      When I did computer work for the Oriental Institute at the Univ of Chicago some years back, I encountered a professor who very quietly and very discreetly believed that human origins went back a lot further. He'd seen grad students do some amazing work in South West China with artifacts that just should not have been where they were found. And it wasn't just a few items. The kid was denied a PhD, which is quite rare in academia and left school completely. The prof told me that this happened more than once. He told me that Egyptology especially is rife with examples of much older origins for the monuments near Giza, but they are dismissed out of hand without analysis for the most part.

      Maybe he was a crank, but he had a named chair with the dept and the institute and didn't seem looney.

      I'm not an anthropologist, so I prefer believing really sketchy theories like those of Graham Hancock and Michael Tellinger and Mr Cremo. Be careful of the link that the AC below has included however. It set one of my spyware blockers into spasms, so it might not be what it seems. Maybe google "Forbidden Archaeology" for some interesting reading.

      Beyond that, affiant sayeth not.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    13. Re:Using the extinction to date the painting? by Mr+Z · · Score: 1

      Six of one, half a dozen of the other...

      You can new non-objects, and (with "placement new") you can malloc objects!

      One things for sure, C and C++ code can never truly be freed. Have you ever tried that on a function pointer?

    14. Re:Using the extinction to date the painting? by DMUTPeregrine · · Score: 1

      The birds must have gone extinct after the painting was made. The extinction time of the birds puts a limit on the latest the painting could have been made. The making of the painting tells pretty much nothing about when the birds when extinct.

      --
      Not a sentence!
    15. Re:Using the extinction to date the painting? by wkcole · · Score: 2, Informative

      What is really interesting about this is the age of the rock art, which would seem to be as old as any human art anywhere and make the case for the Jawoyn Aborigines having one of the oldest cultures in the world. .

      from the original article

      The Jawoyn people say they are excited the painting could be Australia's oldest dated rock art. The Jawoyn are a group of Indigenous peoples who are the traditional owners of the land in Australia's Northern Territory...

      What leads you to believe that as successive waves of humans entered Australia that the current occupants are in any way related to the painting's creators? Were the original inhabitants pushed further south,overrun,wiped out,walked to Tasmania? http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/05/070509161829.htm

      "At the time of the migration, 50,000 years ago, Australia and New Guinea were joined by a land bridge and the region was also only separated from the main Eurasian land mass by narrow straits such as Wallace's Line in Indonesia. The land bridge was submerged about 8,000 years ago...

      Given 30,000 years plus at the front door entrance to Australia I think the Jarwoyn are the least likely descendants of the original artists.

      You seem to have stopped reading that article a paragraph ahead of the answer to your question. One of the key findings from that genetic tracing work is that unlike many other places, Australia had only one genetically significant wave of immigration. Geographically, I believe it is also not quite right that Arnhem Land was the 'front door' into Australia, since Cape York was the most persistent part of the connection to New Guinea.

      In addition, there is some continuity between essentially modern Jawoyn rock art and the older drawings. When Europeans arrived, they were making red ochre rock drawings in the same places that have similar red ochre rock drawings going back thousands of years. Between that and the genetic evidence that all Australian Aborigines and Melanesians are descendants of a single group of immigrants from ~50kya, it would take significant hypothesizing away from the evidence to not credit their ancestors with the oldest of the drawings.

    16. Re:Using the extinction to date the painting? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Of course not. There could have been a 35000 year-old member of the tribe who painted the picture.

      Maybe there was an old photo they passed down through the generations? Or an engraving on a silver teapot.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    17. Re:Using the extinction to date the painting? by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      Agree it's seems difficult to date a painting, the culture changes very slowly, the painting tells a story and when the artist paints the picture he does so by retelling the story at the same time. The original may have been repainted continiously for (ten's of) thousands of years.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    18. Re:Using the extinction to date the painting? by Dragoness+Eclectic · · Score: 1

      Hmm.. Hancock and Tellinger actually advocate someone else's theories while admitting they aren't professional archaeologists. If you are familiar with the fields of archaeology, ancient history, and anthropology or folklore or even psychology, their theories discredit themselves.

      It's one thing to suggest that pre-dynastic Egyptians might have been a bit more organized and ambitious than generally known, and that they should be credit with the foundations of more than a few ancient Egyptian monuments and temples; it's a whole 'nother ball of wax to claim that we were created by space aliens from the eleventh planet, or that all human civilizations are descended from a high, now-vanished progenitor civilization that conveniently left no physical traces of itself. I can credit the former--known pre-dynastic artifacts such as the pottery of the Naqada civilizations shows they were settled agricultural peoples with a significant material culture, no less developed than that of early Dynastic Egypt. The latter sounds far too much like modern mystical wish fulfillment fantasies--woven people who no longer want to admit to believing in God, but still hark back to that old notion of Eden, and a Golden Age when everything was much better and all our leaders were wise and benevolent.

      I regard with suspicion any theory of civilization's origins that amounts to replacing "God" with "space aliens"/"ancient Atlantean solons", and "Eden" with "Lost Atlantis", etc. I also regard with suspicion any theory of civilization that implies "humans are too stupid to figure out agriculture/writing/building mud-brick buildings/etc on their own, so they must have been taught it by space aliens/high Atlanteans/etc."

      Also, taking a mythology where the attitudes and offices of the various dieties are so clearly a reflection of the attitudes and offices of the people of the time and proclaiming this mythology is actually the account of enslaving space aliens creating humanity just rates a "WTF are you smoking, dude?" in my book.

      --
      ---dragoness
    19. Re:Using the extinction to date the painting? by rp · · Score: 1

      I guess it depends on what you mean by 'civilization'. I think it's fairly well accepted that language is much much older than our evidence for it: people can speak for a long time before they have any inclination to start writing their words down.

    20. Re:Using the extinction to date the painting? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Hancock and Tellinger actually advocate someone else's theories while admitting they aren't professional archaeologists.

      Do you have any idea how much archaeology has been done by "amateurs"?

      Most of it.

      I regard with suspicion any theory of civilization's origins that amounts to replacing "God" with "space aliens"/"ancient Atlantean solons", and "Eden" with "Lost Atlantis", etc. I also regard with suspicion any theory of civilization that implies "humans are too stupid to figure out agriculture/writing/building mud-brick buildings/etc on their own, so they must have been taught it by space aliens/high Atlanteans/etc."

      You are lumping Tellinger, Hancock and Cremo in with a different group of cranks. But I agree.

      However, when you get a peek at the sheer volume of archaeological discoveries that have to be dismissed by academia in order to buttress their 6000-year model of human civilization, you start to realize that the mouse may be chasing the cat.

      Next time you're in Chicago, look me up and we'll take a walk over to the Oriental Institute. There's a guy there who makes terrific Dragon Well tea who is much more persuasive on this topic. He doesn't believe in aliens or Atlantis (except in song) but he believes in a much older origin for civilization.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    21. Re:Using the extinction to date the painting? by Dragoness+Eclectic · · Score: 1

      Actually, I would be interested in that if I ever get up to Chicago. The Oriental Institute's museum is one of the ones I want to see someday--I've an avid amateur (and writer's) interest in Egyptology and Assyriology (as they called it in the 19th century--it's Ancient Near Eastern Studies now, right?)

      I find it hard to believe that pre-dynastic Egyptian civilization is totally ignored, given Flinders Petrie's and others extensive excavations of the Naqada civilizations. There had to be something before Naqada I--they already had extensive trade networks and a settled, agricultural society. The problem in Egypt seems to me to be that evidence is probably buried under a mile of Nilotic sediment. Hmm, a quick Wiki look at Pre-Dynastic Egypt mentions a bunch of Neolithic cultures in the region, that were agricultural, settled and made beautiful stoneware. What's suppressed about older cultures? What are we defining as "civilization"?

      --
      ---dragoness
  8. An Australian flightless bird with strong legs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    It must be a surfin' bird!

  9. A distant cousin of the Moa? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    Perhaps it's worth considering that Australia's neighbour, New Zealand, has had pretty much the largest flightless bird, at 12ft (~4m) high the Moa, hunted to extinction by the Maori. It's considered to be a cousin of the Australian Emu. Little need for wings with no mammals around for all those thousands of years..

    Relatedly NZ has had by far the world's largest eagle, often depicted in indigenous culture carrying away small humans (think "children").

  10. Not a very good way to date a painting... by Spykk · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Who is to say that the descriptions of the bird were not passed down in legends? It seems entirely possible to me that the bird was painted after they had become extinct.

    1. Re:Not a very good way to date a painting... by joe_garage · · Score: 1

      I drew a dinosaur - therefore they still exist Oo O Oooo O O O OO o o oo

    2. Re:Not a very good way to date a painting... by ilguido · · Score: 1

      I think that there are better explanations for this paintings (like bad artists or bad science), however the Kafirs sculpted and engraved figurines of horses for centuries, without seeing a real horse. ( a quick reference for the sceptics: http://madamepickwickartblog.com/?p=9431 )

    3. Re:Not a very good way to date a painting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wouldn't that still be good evidence of interaction between people and this bird?

    4. Re:Not a very good way to date a painting... by wkcole · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Who is to say that the descriptions of the bird were not passed down in legends? It seems entirely possible to me that the bird was painted after they had become extinct.

      The answer to precisely that question is in the article, lifted directly from one of its source articles.

      More generally, the surprise about the age of this rock art isn't a matter of a century or two, or even really a millennium or five. The paleontologists and archaeologists are saying 40kya, the rock art expert is saying 5-10kya. There are very few cultures in the world which are known to have postulated anything older than 10kya as the beginning of humankind, and those which have done so tell stories of old times that are far from accuracy or precision. Getting the beak, leg, and claw shapes of an extinct bird passed down correctly through 30ky+ would be an unrivaled feat of trivial fact preservation.

    5. Re:Not a very good way to date a painting... by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 1

      I drew a dinosaur - therefore they still exist Oo O Oooo O O O OO o o oo

      Consider the implications of someone drawing a picture that showed Saturn (with rings) 1000 years ago.

      Of course, I'm sure you would have also invented all those 'obvious' inventions as well had you lived 200 years ago. Don't ignore the benefit of hindsight.

      --
      Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
  11. Whoa, no pictures! by grub · · Score: 1, Insightful


    Please remove all pictures of the bird. The bird is a sacred animal to my religion. Any pictures of the bird will lead to a holy war of the Birdists again you infidels.

    --
    Trolling is a art,
    1. Re:Whoa, no pictures! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please require showing of the Most Holy Bird, peace be upon her and her hatchlings. If you do not show the Most Holy Bird off everywhere and on everything, in it's divine blessings, this will logically lead to a holy war of the Birdites against you infidels and your heretic Birdist allies. Bless the Most Holy Bird as she blesses the world and makes it fertile!

  12. Midwest by DrugCheese · · Score: 3, Informative

    I've read stories of American Indian culture talking about the giant birds in the midwest states. South of me here along the Mississippi near Alton Illinois there apparently used to be a giant painting of a bird on the side of a bluff near a cave. Unfortunately the bluff was destroyed by the nearby state prison for gravel.

    --
    *DrugCheese rants*
    1. Re:Midwest by Paracelcus · · Score: 1

      Why does everybody think that really primitive people couldn't write science fiction?
      Maybe that drawing is the caveman equivalent of "Land of the lost".

      --
      I killed da wabbit -Elmer Fudd
    2. Re:Midwest by bogjobber · · Score: 1

      Because they weren't painting Sleestaks, they were painting a bird that actually existed.

  13. A cousin of the Moa? by delire · · Score: 5, Informative

    Last post disappeared to /dev/null. Trying again.

    It's perhaps worth considering that Australia's neighbour New Zealand had what's probably the world's largest flightless bird at 4m tall (12ft) , the Moa. Much like the Kiwi, it simply didn't need to keep wings as their were no mammals with which to compete. It was soon hunted to extinction by Maori settlers some 500 years ago. Of note it's considered to be a relative of the Australian Emu..

    While the rest of the bird kingdom in NZ devolved their wings, the world's biggest eagle, The Haast Eagle enjoyed the easy life, often making short work of the Moa from time to time.

    1. Re:A cousin of the Moa? by bar-agent · · Score: 2, Informative

      The terror bird predated the Moa and Haast's Eagle by eras (or epochs, not sure). It was around during the Cenozoic and wide-spread. Although moas were bigger, the terror birds were a tougher customer. Instead of wings, they apparently had short arms tipped with a claw that they used to spear and hold on to their prey, and a meat-cleaver of a beak.

      --
      i'd hit it so hard, if you pulled me out you'd be the king of britain [bash.org]
    2. Re:A cousin of the Moa? by saforrest · · Score: 1


      While the rest of the bird kingdom in NZ devolved their wings, the world's biggest eagle, The Haast Eagle enjoyed the easy life, often making short work of the Moa from time to time.

      I read something once where a scientist was conjecturing about what the first interaction between a human and a Haast Eagle, a raptor adapted to carry off and eviscerate 2-meter tall bipeds, must have been like.

      [Proto-Maori guy stepping out of seafaring canoe]
      Wow, nice island. Hey, what the hell is that?

  14. I'm not surprised by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Chocobos are a bitch to breed.

  15. Island or Continent. by doconnor · · Score: 1

    Pick one!

    1. Re:Island or Continent. by pipedwho · · Score: 2, Funny

      Australia, an island off the coast of New Zealand.

    2. Re:Island or Continent. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ima guess that your a kiwi

  16. Looks more to me like by v1 · · Score: 1

    a Great Leonopteryx

    --
    I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    1. Re:Looks more to me like by DarkEmpath · · Score: 1

      More like a Demon Duck of Doom.

  17. Maybe I am too skeptic by aBaldrich · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Now my question is, was this bird really extinct 40k years ago? Or is it an estimation? Because, maybe, they could have lived on longer than they thought.

    --
    In soviet russia the government regulates the companies.
    1. Re:Maybe I am too skeptic by jfengel · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's an estimation. All data points that old are estimates, and thinner on the ground than you'd like. So each new data point is potentially very handy in establishing the chronology of what happened when on the continent.

      Either the people were there earlier, or the bird there later, than previously thought. They have reason to believe it's the former (20,000 year old fossils should be easier to find than 40,000 year old ones), and it fits well into a picture that humans came and helped wipe the bird out. They've found skeletons of this bird in the same caves as evidence of human habitation, but the timing is hard to sort out. This data point helps make the picture more clear, if still not perfectly clear.

    2. Re:Maybe I am too skeptic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm confused. Why is this modded interesting? Someone questions the date a bit? So what? Maybe it is modded up just because the word skeptic is in the title...

    3. Re:Maybe I am too skeptic by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 1

      One of the points is Carbon dating, something you can generally do with Fossil's but not always with cave art. When it comes to deciding whether humans are earlier or the birds are later, they have more empiracal evidence for fossils than they usually do for drawings. There are a lot of ways to gauge how old something is, especially when its buried in the ground, since you have a rough idea of how long ago each level of dirt is. I don't know if the cave art was buried or discovered in a cave, the latter which makes it harder to date actually.

      So, I mean, it may seem like a lot of it is conjecture but the truth is Archaeologists have made a science out of dating items. I'm pretty sure that the date of the bird will likely remain the same, and it'll be human involvement that moves around a bit. Because neolithics and things from those era seem to be going back further and further, we have a hard time determining exactly when Man started using tools.

    4. Re:Maybe I am too skeptic by DarkEmpath · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I was actually just watching a YouTube video on the extinctions on mega-fauna yesterday. Apparently carbon dating is particularly difficult in Australia as we have an unusually high percentage of carbonate rocks. It causes a lot of environmental contamination. I can't believe I've lived here all my life and didn't know that.

      Growing up, I've heard figures about aboriginal arrival in Australia ranging from 40,000 years up to 80,000 ago. Since modern humans hadn't been human all that long 80,000 years ago, I'm leaning towards the lower end of that scale. All the evidence, however, points to mega fauna extinction within a short time after human arrival. A documentary I saw a couple of years ago indicated humans didn't hunt mega fauna to extinction, but the aboriginal practice of periodic burning of the landscape changed the flora, and the larger fauna (marsupial lions, giant goannas, giant kangaroos, and the subject of the article, the "demon duck of doom") weren't able to adapt in time.

      I'm guessing, in a place like this, 40,000 years back is all you can accurately carbon date, even under ideal conditions. I don't think anyone (in the scientific community) doubted humans and demon ducks of doom co-existed, we just didn't really know how long that coexistence was.

    5. Re:Maybe I am too skeptic by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      Humans have inhabited that area for (up to) 60Kyrs, so it seems to idicate that if humans wiped big-bird out, it took them ~40Kyrs to get a population big enough to do it.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  18. Don't tell the religious fanatics by fustakrakich · · Score: 0

    Actually it's a depiction of Mohammad disguised as a bird... The cave must be blown up...

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  19. Oh Crap! by zerospeaks · · Score: 2, Funny

    The young earth creationist are going to claim this one as "evidence" for a young earth.

    --
    http://wwww.zerospeaks.com
  20. This cave art is nothing by OeLeWaPpErKe · · Score: 1

    I found a drawing of a windows 3.0 on a wall somewhere in the city,

  21. What if the bird is fiction? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Here's a stupid question: What if the drawing(s) are fiction?

  22. Sounds to me like circular reasoning... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    First off, the scientists *somehow* come up with the magic number of 40,000 and say that is how many years ago the birds died out. Then they find a painting on a wall that *could* be one of those birds, and they assume the painting must then be 40,000 years old. Usually, the rock gets it's age from what's in it, and the fossil gets it's age from the rock. This leaves me wondering why in all the world we're still stupid enough to treat our theories like they are proven fact, when most of us don't even know where those theories (a.k.a. the dates) came from in the first place?

    1. Re:Sounds to me like circular reasoning... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like a Texas public school education to me.

    2. Re:Sounds to me like circular reasoning... by DarkEmpath · · Score: 1

      There there. Don't let those pesky scientists with their inconvenient "education" get you down.

      Back to church for you, you'll be much happier there.

  23. It looks like a bunyip by Psychotria · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Interestingly the drawing shown in the article looks remarkably like some drawings and descriptions of bunyips that I've seen and read about that the indigenous Australians described to colonial settlers (When I say some drawings I mean some of the earlier drawings post-colonisation. As time progressed after European settlement the drawings and descriptions seem to have diverged from the earlier descriptions). To me it does not seem too far fetched that remnants of this creature have been passed down through the generations eventually becoming myth or legend. So, have we found the bunyip?

  24. here's one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative
  25. The only question that matters... by matunos · · Score: 1

    Did Jesus ride a Genyornis? We don't know, but I bet he did!

  26. "Do we always have to blame man?", yes, this one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Do we always have to blame man?" - by nurb432 (527695) on Monday May 31, @02:34PM (#32409124) Homepage

    Yes, this man (were I there at that time), & I will tell you WHY now, too! It's because of this quote from the intial posting of this article above:

    "probably closely resembled ducks and geese, its closest living relatives."

    Now, I don't know about you guys reading, but... I LOVE DUCK &/or GOOSE meat, hugely bigtime!

    (Best tasting fowl meat there is, bar-none!)

    So, I guess what I am saying here is, that IF others here like duck or goose as much as I do? Heh, then they'll understand...

    APK

    P.S.=> Now, taking that a wee bit further, if many others feel this way also, then the survival rate of those birds wouldn't be very high in my estimation, because they'd get hunted out!

    (I mean, just judging by the sheer size of those things, it'd probably be hell trying to domesticate them & then support feeding a beast of that size (Chicken "mash", what I recall chickens being fed (from what I recall as a boy growing up right next to a farm) is largely grains, & grains can be used to feed people so it may not have been that "economically feasible" in those days to try to sustain a farm of these birds, as we do with chickens for food - they probably consume(d) many times what a chicken does to maintain such size!)...

    So, just on a not well thought out hunch here (and, lol, hungry as heck too - time to make some chow after posting this), I'd have to say this is probably what "went down" for these birds... & especially if their meat was like duck or goose (and they were THAT big - you could eat for a LONG TIME, and good, from just one of these birds imo).

    So tasty! apk

  27. Gamey, what a loaded word. by zippthorne · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I've heard "gamey" used to describe all manner of meats (including Bison, of all things) which, once I've tried them, have turned out to be flavorful and delicious. I've come to the conclusion that "gamey" means "doesn't taste like bland chicken" thus putting it outside of the comfort zone of the McDonald's generation of "connoisseurs."

    Also, one of those animals, the pig, is certainly *not* an herbivore, and coincidentally is the second most delicious of the bunch. Undomesticated pigs, who are both not Herbivores, and actually have the diet to prove it, are even more delicious than the domesticated variety in this writer's opinion.

    Therefore I'm hard pressed to conclude, having never tried other predators, mammalian or fowl, that they would necessarily be less delicious than the animals I have heretofore consumed.

    --
    Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    1. Re:Gamey, what a loaded word. by bogjobber · · Score: 4, Informative

      Bear and cougar are appropriately described as gamey. Edible and not disgusting by any means, but very stringy and certainly not something you would eat outside of necessity or novelty.

      But when bison, venison, elk, etc. are described as gamey it's for one of two reasons. Reason #1 is because it was taken from a less-than ideal animal. Aged females and adult males are less tasty than their younger, relatively hormone-free relatives. That's why in domesticated animals, males destined for slaughter and sale are neutered before they start to mature sexually. Animals taken in the wild obviously are not raised in the same controlled environments. Climate or disease might lead the animals to be much leaner and wirey in some years than they normally are. And very generally speaking the older the animal is, the less tender the meat.

      Reason #2 is that people don't understand how to cut or cook lean meat. People treat it same way they would beef, when that potentially could ruin the flavor. Many game processors will cut deer or elk it into thick steaks, but you really want thinner strips that can be cooked on lower heats and for shorter times to preserve the flavor. The meat is leaner and displays a lower amount of marbling than beef, and if you cook it past medium the gamey taste will become more pronounced. But if you get it from a restaurant or educate yourself on how to cook it properly, you should be able to enjoy the experience fully.

      I grew up in a family that hunted and ate pretty much everything and it's amazing how badly people can ruin some of the most delicious, healthy meat in the world.

    2. Re:Gamey, what a loaded word. by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      You can buy Emu steaks, pies, etc, here in Oz. Also crocodile and kangaroo steaks... Never tried any of it....

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    3. Re:Gamey, what a loaded word. by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      I grew up in a family that hunted and ate pretty much everything and it's amazing how badly people can ruin some of the most delicious, healthy meat in the world.

      You are so right. In Australia we are lucky enough to be able to eat Kangaroo nom nom. So cute, yet so tasty - actually roo's aren't that cute up close. Sure the does are but the male roos are cranky nasty beasts - lucky they are vegetarians and the leather is quite supple. I hunted these they are skittish and seem to know when you are armed, but I digress.

      I find using a skillet with a thick cast iron base and getting it really hot is good for cooking meats like this. 200-300 grams of roo meat cooked on a very hot skillet should be perfectly cooked in under 7 minutes. Olive oil on the skillet so that it flash smokes indicates the skillet is at the perfect temperature, splash some terriaki, a few olives, some mushrooms some bush tomato sauce - OH YEAH now we're talking. Absolutely melts in the mouth, so lean and a great change, tastes awesome. The tail makes a great roast dinner with potatos etc. Lots of nutrients to make me strong.

      I often think we are so divorced from our food. I think it's something you can only appreciate when you have hunted for the meal you are eating. Some animal died to fill my belly but somehow it's dignity was raped as it was turned into a quarter pounder. It's one of the reasons I just can't abide the cruelty imposed on animals by factory farming. It makes me wonder if the chemical by-products of it's suffering will make me sick.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    4. Re:Gamey, what a loaded word. by Heather+D · · Score: 1

      I've had emu and elk before. They're both quite good if done right as is venison. The Parent ids right though. You do need to know how to cook it to have it done right though. Well, that or know someone that does.

  28. Easy one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From the given description, it probably closely resembled a Qurupeco...

  29. Anonymous Coward and the ruler by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ? how do you (they) know it's drawn to scale? ...or what scale? By their reckoning, humans must have been 80 feet tall, judged by the bill board of the Marlboro Man in NY city. .... or about 5 inches tall, as evidenced by the head of Einstein in slashdot.

  30. Carnivourous birds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As I understand it the birds also thought the primitive people were tasty as well, giving those people a real reason to eradicate them.

  31. Google has cash to spare.... by Ogre332 · · Score: 1

    If I were them, I'd offer her $200,00.00 to settle out of court with the stipulation being that she has to go on public record as being a moron.

    --
    Shut up brain or I'll stab you with a Q-Tip. - Homer Simpson
    1. Re:Google has cash to spare.... by Ogre332 · · Score: 1

      Oops, wrong thread

      --
      Shut up brain or I'll stab you with a Q-Tip. - Homer Simpson
  32. Not news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ever since we shut down Cuddie Springs excavation every archeologist and his dog has dug up evidence of man living with megafaune from the back of the storage closest and loudly proclaims, hey this thing we have have had/ known about for ages is suddenly realy interesting and we need to open Cuddie Springs again.

    Its like nasa and their Mars meteor full of life every time the budget is in danger.