Taking sides over Dark Emu

[Lavender Bushranger]

What?

Dark Emu was 'challenged' for a few reasons.

Firstly because those challenging it stated that the research was based on the descriptions and perspective of white explorers. And as such, much of what Dark Emu described was either simply not true, and/or was misinterpreted by the white explorers at the time.

Secondly, it was challenged because by using the term 'mere hunters and gatherers', and trying to present evidence that Aboriginal people were in fact progressive - it perpetuated the European narrative that indigenous people were inferior and failures because they'd had 80000 to do something and they hadn't.

It was perceived to be supporting the notion that hunters and gatherers were inferior to races and cultures that built lots of s**t.

This was challenged because leaving the land as they found it, and doing so successfully and thriving for 80000 years is not something to be ashamed of, and is in fact an incredible achievement and something that is absolutely not indicative of failure and inferiority in any way, shape or form.

It's complete and utter success and a simply extraordinary achievement.

That's why Dark Emu was challenged.

 

[ferball]

Dark Emu was 'challenged' for a few reasons.

Firstly because those challenging it stated that the research was based on the descriptions and perspective of white explorers. And as such, much of what Dark Emu described was either simply not true, and/or was misinterpreted by the white explorers at the time.

Secondly, it was challenged because by using the term 'mere hunters and gatherers', and trying to present evidence that Aboriginal people were in fact progressive - it perpetuated the European narrative that indigenous people were inferior and failures because they'd had 80000 to do something and they hadn't.

I haven't read dark Emu but am aware of many things that challenge those mainstream claims about indigenous cultures in Australia. Are you saying the claims in dark Emu aren't true? Cos some are accurate if they are referring to what I think they are referring to.

Also - are you saying the term "mere hunters and gathers" in a book showing evuidence that the term "mere hunters and gatherers" is flawed invalidates the book?

It was perceived to be supporting the notion that hunters and gatherers were inferior to races and cultures that built lots of s**t.

Dark Emu was? Okay...

This was challenged because leaving the land as they found it, and doing so successfully and thriving for 80000 years is not something to be ashamed of, and is in fact an incredible achievement and something that is absolutely not indicative of failure and inferiority in any way, shape or form.

It's complete and utter success and a simply extraordinary achievement.

Indigenous people didn't "leave the land as they found it". They were actively involved in managing it. They "changed" it regularly by using controlled burning, building structures to alter the flow of water to enable fish farming, building "houses" (ie structures that were permanent and could be re occupied regularly with minimal work) in places where people needed shelter and carving humungous art galleries out of rock.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

I haven't read dark Emu but am aware of many things that challenge those mainstream claims about indigenous cultures in Australia. Are you saying the claims in dark Emu aren't true? Cos some are accurate if they are referring to what I think they are referring to.

Also - are you saying the term "mere hunters and gathers" in a book showing evuidence that the term "mere hunters and gatherers" is flawed invalidates the book?




Dark Emu was? Okay...



Indigenous people didn't "leave the land as they found it". They were actively involved in managing it. They "changed" it regularly by using controlled burning, building structures to alter the flow of water to enable fish farming, building "houses" (ie structures that were permanent and could be re occupied regularly with minimal work) in places where people needed shelter and carving humungous art galleries out of rock.

I'm not saying any of that.

I'm saying what was challenged in regards to Dark Emu.

 

[Laphroaig]

It perpetuates the European view that living in harmony with the land for 80000 years without f**king it up is a sign of failure.

Well that's a really neat trick. For Homo Sapiens to arrive in Australia 25,000 years before the human gene pattern they share is first identified in the middle east - where there is strong evidence that that's where the cocktail was brewed.

Seriously. The alleged arrival date gets 5 to 10,000 years earlier every year with no discernible justification.

If you're going to give condescending lectures at least try to get the basics right.

A hair under 50,00 years is still an impressively long innings. It does have one problem in some quarters though. It is uncomfortably coincidental with the rapid wipe out of the mega fauna which certain extremists simply won't countenance. Just like everywhere else in the world the megs are know to have been. Man arrives, bye bye bigggies.

We are far from the only country to attempt the claim that OUR indigenous folk were far to noble to slaughter large defenceless hunks of meat, but it doesn't fly under the weight of evidence. Anywhere.

 

[sr36]

I'm not saying any of that.

I'm saying what was challenged in regards to Dark Emu.

The biggest challenge is that it's academically dodgy. He went through early European accounts and cherry picked anything that could possibly be associated with agriculture and played it up, focussing on use of English words to describe things which were different to English versions of them. So when an early settler described a group of Aboriginal huts as a village, he pounced on it and made it sound like a permanent settlement, despite the explorer then going on to say that noone was currently living there - he left this part out and ignored everything else that would normally be associated with a hunter gather society, as he seemed to view hunter gatherer societies as being uncivilised and only interested in survival, so he wanted to change the portrayal of Aboriginal Australia as a hunter gatherer society - rather than changing views regarding the cultural richness of hunter gatherer societies.

 

[sr36]

Well that's a really neat trick. For Homo Sapiens to arrive in Australia 25,000 years before the human gene pattern they share is first identified in the middle east - where there is strong evidence that that's where the cocktail was brewed.

Seriously. The alleged arrival date gets 5 to 10,000 years earlier every year with no discernible justification.

If you're going to give condescending lectures at least try to get the basics right.

A hair under 50,00 years is still an impressively long innings. It does have one problem in some quarters though. It is uncomfortably coincidental with the rapid wipe out of the mega fauna which certain extremists simply won't countenance. Just like everywhere else in the world the megs are know to have been. Man arrives, bye bye bigggies.

We are far from the only country to attempt the claim that OUR indigenous folk were far to noble to slaughter large defenceless hunks of meat, but it doesn't fly under the weight of evidence. Anywhere.

You're making the mistake of viewing Aboriginal culture as static. It pretty much goes without saying that indigenous Australians wiped out the mega fauna not long after arriving. But it also goes without saying that over the next thousands of years they learnt enormous amounts, adapted and learnt to live sustainably on the continent.

 

[Laphroaig]

You're making the mistake of viewing Aboriginal culture as static. It pretty much goes without saying that indigenous Australians wiped out the mega fauna not long after arriving. But it also goes without saying that over the next thousands of years they learnt enormous amounts, adapted and learnt to live sustainably on the continent.

I don't think the lecturer will agree with you.

I am not making the mistake you suggest. I am challenging a silly blind spotthat feeds fictions to save itself.

I do however also believe that if the Meg's came back to life in the absence of pesky interference from modern do gooders then ANY hunter gatherer society on the planet, including ours, would kill them off again liketty spit.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

The alleged arrival date gets 5 to 10,000 years earlier every year with no discernible justification.

It has nothing to do with discernible justification.

It's more about carbon dating and optically stimulated luminescence.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

If you're going to give condescending lectures at least try to get the basics right.

What condescending lecture are you referring to?

I was asked to elaborate on why people have challenged Dark Emu. And I did.

 

[The Warlord]

It does have one problem in some quarters though. It is uncomfortably coincidental with the rapid wipe out of the mega fauna which certain extremists simply won't countenance. Just like everywhere else in the world the megs are know to have been. Man arrives, bye bye bigggies.

We are far from the only country to attempt the claim that OUR indigenous folk were far to noble to slaughter large defenceless hunks of meat, but it doesn't fly under the weight of evidence. Anywhere.

???

Is there anyone anywhere who "claims" that Aboriginal people didn't kill off the megafauna?

That's like the whole idea man - the Aboriginal folks "tamed" and farmed the land (not everywhere, but by and large) in the same way that happened in say Britain, where all the megafauna like bears and wolves were also driven to extinction.

I find it amazing that some people get so het up by the fairly unremarkable proposition that people living in Australia Felix like the Gunditjmara had lifestyles and economies in terms of nutrition and life expectancy equal to or superior to that of the average Western European at point of contact.

That's not even promoting how well the indigenous people were doing, its more and honest reflection of what life was like for your average peasant in Briatin or Ireland circa 1830.

 

[The Warlord]

The biggest challenge is that it's academically dodgy. He went through early European accounts and cherry picked anything that could possibly be associated with agriculture and played it up, focussing on use of English words to describe things which were different to English versions of them. So when an early settler described a group of Aboriginal huts as a village, he pounced on it and made it sound like a permanent settlement, despite the explorer then going on to say that noone was currently living there - he left this part out and ignored everything else that would normally be associated with a hunter gather society, as he seemed to view hunter gatherer societies as being uncivilised and only interested in survival, so he wanted to change the portrayal of Aboriginal Australia as a hunter gatherer society - rather than changing views regarding the cultural richness of hunter gatherer societies.

Wait until you hear about this other dude that was very specific in playing up what he wanted to hear, not bothering too much about the sourcing, not including and even wilfully ignoring accounts that didn't back up what he wanted the world to think in his report.

 

[Drought Break]

The biggest challenge is that it's academically dodgy. He went through early European accounts and cherry picked anything that could possibly be associated with agriculture and played it up, focussing on use of English words to describe things which were different to English versions of them. So when an early settler described a group of Aboriginal huts as a village, he pounced on it and made it sound like a permanent settlement, despite the explorer then going on to say that noone was currently living there - he left this part out and ignored everything else that would normally be associated with a hunter gather society, as he seemed to view hunter gatherer societies as being uncivilised and only interested in survival, so he wanted to change the portrayal of Aboriginal Australia as a hunter gatherer society - rather than changing views regarding the cultural richness of hunter gatherer societies.

The author doesn't seem the most trust worthy person getting around either. His claims of being aboriginal even have a lot of debate around it including from aboriginal groups.

 

[Laphroaig]

???

Is there anyone anywhere who "claims" that Aboriginal people didn't kill off the megafauna?

It's a common claim. One assumes motivated by an inability to tolerate the implication that being HUNTER gatherers and being at one with the land has certain conflicts attached.

Here you go. Reported in The Guardian. WOTASUPPRIZE.

Humans did not drive Australia's megafauna to extinction – climate change did​

Humans did not drive Australia's megafauna to extinction – climate change did | Scott Hucknall

We now know people and megafauna overlapped by up to 20,000 years, until changes to vegetation, water and fire

www.theguardian.com

The author of that headline must have felt remarkably self satisfied.

And as a bonus, the argument depends on the assumption of a human arrival 20,000 years earlier than any credible evidence supports, and that a great deal of credible evidence refutes..

 

[SaintsSeptember]

I agree there is plenty of contention regarding Aboriginal history and not just because some aren't Aboriginal.

Probably not the right thread for it though.

 

[Rusty Brookes]

It's a common claim. One assumes motivated by an inability to tolerate the implication that being HUNTER gatherers and being at one with the land has certain conflicts attached.

Here you go. Reported in The Guardian. WOTASUPPRIZE.

Humans did not drive Australia's megafauna to extinction – climate change did​

Humans did not drive Australia's megafauna to extinction – climate change did | Scott Hucknall

We now know people and megafauna overlapped by up to 20,000 years, until changes to vegetation, water and fire

www.theguardian.com

The author of that headline must have felt remarkably self satisfied.

And as a bonus, the argument depends on the assumption of a human arrival 20,000 years earlier than any credible evidence supports, and that a great deal of credible evidence refutes..

The article is about a paper in Nature Communications which is one of the pre-eminent scientific journals in the world. If you've got counter-evidence, go ahead and get a paper in response published.

Extinction of eastern Sahul megafauna coincides with sustained environmental deterioration - Nature Communications

The causes of the Upper Pleistocene megafauna extinction in Australia and New Guinea are debated, but fossil data are lacking for much of this region. Here, Hocknull and colleagues report a new, diverse megafauna assemblage from north-eastern Australia that persisted until ~40,000 years ago.

www.nature.com

 

[Noidnadroj]

It is equally important for the colony to both deny just how brutal invasion and colonisation was/is and the reality of the society that was invaded and their land stolen.

It's why Rabbit Proof Fence has to be toned down (although there's likely a commercial element there too ... would people pay to see a realistic portrayal of the brutality?) yet something like Dark Emu has to be viciously and relentlessly attacked because it dares to present a reality where many Aboriginal societies, like say the Gunditjmara, were living far healthier and more prosperous lives than their average European counterparts in the late 18th and early 19th centuries.

Dark Emu is predominantly a work of fiction written by a man claiming to have aboriginal ancestry but doesn’t. His work was rejected by the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies (AIATSIS), whose actual experts on this area of research dispute Bruce Pascoe’s claims:

Dark Emu was so bad even AIATSIS rejected it — Dark Emu Exposed - And the Assault on Australian History

How low can Bruce Pascoe go in spinning the fiction that is Dark Emu?

www.dark-emu-exposed.org

Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Laphroaig]

The article is about a paper in Nature Communications which is one of the pre-eminent scientific journals in the world. If you've got counter-evidence, go ahead and get a paper in response published.

You are an amusing chap.

NC is a thinly disguised vanity publisher with a publication fee 50 to 100 times higher than reputable journals charge. And an exclusive specialisation in publishing papers that nobody else will. The last Hail Mary pass for bad academics.

But I'll play anyway. Heres a little piece out of Science from 2015, on what is now the definitive methodology on the dispersion of the contemporary human gene pattern began to be solidified. It follows several independent research threads which by 2015 had narrowed down the establishment (by quantity and type) of Neanderthal DNA in contemporary human populations to a gene stock springing from the middle east between 50-60,00 years ago.

Neandertals and modern humans started mating early

Ancient encounter completely replaced Neandertal mitochondrial DNA, German bone suggests

www.science.org

As of now, that number has been further refined from dating of the same DNA pattern as it spread to other locations using ancient DNA sequencing and the clever trick of identifying the degredation of the Neanderthal DNA content, arriving at a number of generations since the genes merged.

The number now, from multiple sources and approaches is refined to 50-55,000 years. One of the 2022 Nobel winners got the gong for his part in further refining the story of Neanderthal DNA.

Can you guess where this is going? Australian Aboriginals are one of the many human groups who posess the Middle East sourced Neanderthal DNA profile.

So either you, or the two geniuses from U QLD who paid excessively to get published because real journals wouldn't touch them, are welcome to try to explain how a very distinctive gene pattern allegedly made it to Australia 25,000 to 30,000 years before it even existed. Anywhere.

 

[Rusty Brookes]

You are an amusing chap.

NC is a thinly disguised vanity publisher with a publication fee 50 to 100 times higher than reputable journals charge. And an exclusive specialisation in publishing papers that nobody else will. The last Hail Mary pass for bad academics.

But I'll play anyway. Heres a little piece out of Science from 2015, on what is now the definitive methodology on the dispersion of the contemporary human gene pattern began to be solidified. It follows several independent research threads which by 2015 had narrowed down the establishment (by quantity and type) of Neanderthal DNA in contemporary human populations to a gene stock springing from the middle east between 50-60,00 years ago.

Neandertals and modern humans started mating early

Ancient encounter completely replaced Neandertal mitochondrial DNA, German bone suggests

www.science.org

As of now, that number has been further refined from dating of the same DNA pattern as it spread to other locations using ancient DNA sequencing and the clever trick of identifying the degredation of the Neanderthal DNA content, arriving at a number of generations since the genes merged.

The number now, from multiple sources and approaches is refined to 50-55,000 years. One of the 2022 Nobel winners got the gong for his part in further refining the story of Neanderthal DNA.

Can you guess where this is going? Australian Aboriginals are one of the many human groups who posess the Middle East sourced Neanderthal DNA profile.

So either you, or the two geniuses from U QLD who paid excessively to get published because real journals wouldn't touch them, are welcome to try to explain how a very distinctive gene pattern allegedly made it to Australia 25,000 to 30,000 years before it even existed. Anywhere.

Dare I say it - you didn't read the article too closely given the hypothesis described was first published in Nature Communications - which according to you is the last Hail Mary pass for bad academics.

Deeply divergent archaic mitochondrial genome provides lower time boundary for African gene flow into Neanderthals - Nature Communications

Ancient DNA keeps expanding our understanding of complex genetic relationships between Pleistocene hominins. Here, Posth and colleagues analyse the mitochondrial genome of an archaic human that diverged from other Neanderthals ∼270,000 years ago, providing the minimum age for an African...

www.nature.com

Nature Communications IS a reputable journal (as if Nature are going to sully their reputation by going into vanity publishing) that is open access. There has been a massive push for open-access research from a large number of funding bodies including the ARC. Nature were smart enough to see where it was headed and filled the gap. It has an acceptance rate of around 7% and is ranked in the top quartile of all the disciplines it represents in Scimago JR.

So let's get pass that part. The paper you referenced noted that humans and megafauna were around between 40,000 and 60,000 which allows for the scenario in the Neanderthal hypothesis unless I'm missing something. This article in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science suggests humans first came to Australia around 50,000 years ago. I agree there's nothing to support the 80,000 years that was quoted - but the article you referenced about the megafauna extinction didn't mention that either.

https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1808385115

This piece from the authors notes the following:

“No doubt humans would have hunted megafauna and had it for dinner. But these new results show that humans alone didn’t drive megafauna to extinction; climate and environmental change was also a big driver.”

2020: Fossil discoveries reveal the cause of megafauna extinction - University of Wollongong – UOW

www.uow.edu.au

The point here is that there is evidence that humans and megafauna co-existed for thousands of years and that hunting wasn't the sole reason for the extinction of Australia's mega fauna.

By the way mods, happy to have this conversation moved to another thread.

 

[The Warlord]

Dark Emu is predominantly a work of fiction written by a man claiming to have aboriginal ancestry but doesn’t. His work was rejected by the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies (AIATSIS), whose actual experts on this area of research dispute Bruce Pascoe’s claims:

Dark Emu was so bad even AIATSIS rejected it — Dark Emu Exposed - And the Assault on Australian History

How low can Bruce Pascoe go in spinning the fiction that is Dark Emu?

www.dark-emu-exposed.org

Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

Rest assured my understanding of this issue is not drawn from Dark Emu alone.

And you prove my point, as does that horrid little site.

Any deviation from the colonisation myths has to be brutally attacked, as you're doing here.

Personally, I wouldn't be taking ALL of Dark Emu as gospel or proven scientific fact. And Pascoe's heritage actually has nothing to do with the wider issue.

Thing is, my point about the British colonisers having to destroy all evidence of the sophisticated societies they attacked and destroyed, and now the colonial society itself having to viciously assault any suggestion that the First Nations people were anything but nomadic hunter gatherer or "savages" is repeated again and again, from Ireland to the US to Canada.

 

[carltonchelsea]

because somewhere down the line they acquired some DNA.

DNA doesnt signify prejudice. Nor does acceptance.

Actually encountering and enduring it does.

Wow!!
My great grandmother, the mother of our beloved long lived grandfather on my mothers side was First Nations, is that me “acquiring some DNA down the line”?
“Acquired” what actual heck, I ******* buried this man, I spoke at his funeral, his mother was indigenous, how ******* far back or forward do we have to go to please you people?

And to the second bolded line, how the actual heck would you know?
Lived experiences?, Ive had ‘em mate, and even though I had fair hair until I reached my teen years, it didn’t stop the rednecks of all walks of life attempting to belittle me, grandmothers on the boundary lines at my footy games, shop owners not wanting to serve me, bullies at school, teachers, etc etc etc.
I didn’t care, I didn’t know who I really was (but we kinda did), until an aboriginal elder in Fitzroy in a chance meeting told me who I was.

Who the heck are you HairyO?, who the heck are you to tell my blonde haired blue eyed big bro he ain’t Aboriginal enough, that he can’t be proud of his great grandmothers heritage?
Who the heck are you to tell my family who we are?
The ******* audacity of you, you ******* hawthorn pricks are all the same!

heck you, you’re just like Bolt and the rest of the degenerate pricks that don’t even belong here or weren’t even born here telling us we ain’t “black enough”!
heck off mate would ya’?

 

[HairyO]

Wow!!
My great grandmother, the mother of our beloved long lived grandfather on my mothers side was First Nations, is that me “acquiring some DNA down the line”?
“Acquired” what actual , I ****** buried this man, I spoke at his funeral, his mother was indigenous, how ******* far back or forward do we have to go to please you people?

And to the second bolded line, how the actual * would you know?
Lived experiences?, Ive had ‘em mate, and even though I had fair hair until I reached my teen years, it didn’t stop the rednecks of all walks of life attempting to belittle me, grandmothers on the boundary lines at my footy games, shop owners not wanting to serve me, bullies at school, teachers, etc etc etc.
I didn’t care, I didn’t know who I really was (but we kinda did), until an aboriginal elder in Fitzroy in a chance meeting told me who I was.

Who the * are you HairyO?, who the * are you to tell my blonde haired blue eyed big bro he ain’t Aboriginal enough, that he can’t be proud of his great grandmothers heritage?
Who the * are you to tell my family who we are?
The ******* audacity of you, you ******* hawthorn pricks are all the same!

• you, you’re just like Bolt and the rest of the degenerate pricks that don’t even belong here or weren’t even born here telling us we ain’t “black enough”!
• off mate would ya’?

So 1/16th of you is something and that makes you entirely something?

Or do you get to be up to 16 things ?

Mod edit: the only reason this is still here is because the poster deserves to have it remain in posterity as proof of what they said.

 

[Chief]

You're a confirmed jerk, H.

 

[carltonchelsea]

So 1/16th of you is something and that makes you entirely something?

Or do you get to be up to 16 things ?

I don’t need validation from the likes of you as to whom my family are.
I don’t identify as indigenous, the ironic thing is though, it was people like you and Bolt that stood on the boundary line at the footy and called my darkie or blackie or abo, it was people like you that wouldn’t serve me at the shop, it was people like you that now want me to prove my “aboriginality” before I go seeking benefits that I don’t desire for me or my family.
The hypocrisy of right wing scum is truly astounding.
My brother and myself only begun this journey of discovery at the insistence of our two daughters, “we deserve to know”, they said.
If you take issue with that, well, you know what, happy hunting to ya, we’ll be waiting!

 

[Brad Goodman]

You're a confirmed jerk, H.

Just now?

 

[Laphroaig]

Dare I say it - you didn't read the article too closely given the hypothesis described was first published in Nature Communications - which according to you is the last Hail Mary pass for bad academics.

Deeply divergent archaic mitochondrial genome provides lower time boundary for African gene flow into Neanderthals - Nature Communications

Ancient DNA keeps expanding our understanding of complex genetic relationships between Pleistocene hominins. Here, Posth and colleagues analyse the mitochondrial genome of an archaic human that diverged from other Neanderthals ∼270,000 years ago, providing the minimum age for an African...

www.nature.com

Nature Communications IS a reputable journal (as if Nature are going to sully their reputation by going into vanity publishing) that is open access. There has been a massive push for open-access research from a large number of funding bodies including the ARC. Nature were smart enough to see where it was headed and filled the gap. It has an acceptance rate of around 7% and is ranked in the top quartile of all the disciplines it represents in Scimago JR.

This is quite fun. It's nice to encounter a voice that can supplement a bit of quick Googling with an actual argument.

Anyhoo. That's one view of open access. You could write an interesting fun piece on how similar the discussions around Crypto vs Traditional Finance and Open Access vs Traditional Publication might be. The big talk up by seemingly trustworthy sources around the former, the voice of caution against the damage caused by rejection of longstanding practices and safeguards on the other. It's not hard to find pages of search results extolling the wonder of both of these "new waves". Not hard to find withering criticisms either.

I don't invest in Crypto. Change and progress are not the same thing, although it seems many people believe so.

I agree there's nothing to support the 80,000 years that was quoted - but the article you referenced about the megafauna extinction didn't mention that either.

......

“No doubt humans would have hunted megafauna and had it for dinner. But these new results show that humans alone didn’t drive megafauna to extinction; climate and environmental change was also a big driver.”

Here's the problem. The article we started with DOES reference 80k years, or close to it. The entire argument unfolds from the unsupported statement presented as fact, that humans and megafauna had lived harmoniusly side by side for more than 20,000 years, therefore there must be a different explanation.

Its a cheap argumentative technique to get to a pre-desired conclusion.

The climate change idea has had a lot of air play in just about every place where we have a record of mega fauna extinctions. Where it falls over terminally is that there are several cases where quite adjacent locales had very different timelines for the extinction, where there is no reason to even suspect that they had significantly different climate experiences. In each of those cases the later arrival of homo sapiens in one location than in the other coincides with the difference.

Yuval Noah Harari presents the entire case extremely well (as he does on just about every subject he covers, at least in his first volume). Yes, it is pop science but it is outstanding in content and structure nonetheless.

The point here is that there is evidence that humans and megafauna co-existed for thousands of years and that hunting wasn't the sole reason for the extinction of Australia's mega fauna.

That isn't a valid A therefore B correlation. Four thousand years give or take a pinch is a typical timescale in known Meg extinctions. Ancient people didn't have guns and ships and aeroplanes, and typically started off at a new territory in small numbers and spread slowly. You didn't wipe out the last giant wombat in Darwin and then hop on a plane to Victoria to slaughter the ones there so you can get the job finished in a century or two. From a small population base in a distinct locality, it all takes time.