Why did exploratory rock-art funding dry up after it was discovered that Australia’s Aborigines were likely not the first inhabitants. And why were rock paintings destroyed that clearly showed a more sophisticated indigenous people were present prior to, and at the same time, as our Aborigines?
Hmmm, could it blow the concept of Aborigines as the first inhabitants out of the water? Could a refusal to fund further exploration have something to do with land rights, outrageous funding levels or Constitutional recognition?
Only around 5,000 rock-art sites are known out of a possible 20,000 and it's troubling sites have been desecrated.
After the alarming findings of a Graham Walsh (who spent 40 years studying Australian rock-art) were first published, they sent members of the Left wing “Australian Archaeological Association” into a panic. Walsh proposed that the paintings were drawn by an Asiatic people prior to, and since, the last ice age… around a mere 15,000 years ago.
Consequently, on the 18th December 1995, the Association issued a media statement declaring that Walsh's “interpretation” of rock-art was "racist”, thus funding was promptly discontinued.
But the enigma of these provocative rock-paintings lives on and cannot remain unexplained forever, despite the well-held belief that Australia’s Aborigines were Australia's original inhabitants.
There is a glaring gap between what we are asked to believe and what rock paintings show.