I wrote a paper about the very same subject over 30 years ago, I recommend it then, as I recommend it now.

>>“Indigenous people around the world use the phrase: ‘You look after Mother Nature, and Mother Nature will look after you’,” Mr Thompson said.

“It means to look after the country, and the country will provide you with bushfood, air that we breathe, water that we drink, and using traditional way of not over-collecting the plants and animals that we use as food source.”

Mr Thomson and the Yugul Mangi Rangers of southeast Arnhem Land carry an ancient oral tradition of looking after country, but now they’re joining forces with non-Indigenous scientists to put their knowledge down in ink.

They’ve recently produced a calendar detailing their profound knowledge of the seasons, and when and how to burn to best manage the land and avoid wildfires.

Every year, the rangers use traditional burning in the South-East Arnhem Land Indigenous Protected Area (SEAL IPA) to prevent huge wildfires from ravaging the landscape, and to open up habitat for easier hunting.

It starts off with patch burning, which involves finding small areas of savannah grass to burn.

“The traditional way of using burning is with wind, mainly. Lots of wind,” Mr Thompson said.

“It only goes up until the afternoon when the wind drops, and then the fog comes overnight and puts it out.”

The right conditions for this are from April through to July. Burning outside of that window runs the risk of starting a wildfire.

Soon after a traditional burn, new shoots will spring up from the ground attracting wallabies and kangaroos, which are an easier target for hunters after the understorey is cleared.<<

https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2019-11-27/indigenous-knowledge-combines-with-western-science/11738400

I read this elsewhere, interesting, can’t imagine it making the situation worse in regards to bushfires, they should trial it

Cymek said:

I read this elsewhere, interesting, can’t imagine it making the situation worse in regards to bushfires, they should trial it

There have been trials for quite some time.

Cymek said:

I read this elsewhere, interesting, can’t imagine it making the situation worse in regards to bushfires, they should trial it

That’s what’s done in Queensland. Operation Cool Burn is a key period when Queensland Fire and Emergency Services (QFES) has a particular focus on bushfire mitigation. Most years, this period starts at the beginning of April and is normally scheduled to finish at the end of July however can be extended if necessary, for example if there is widespread unseasonal rainfall which impacts on planned burning.

That timing sounds right with something I was told for this area too. Here you wait for the first frost, which dries off the grass, and then you can trickle burn it. So I was told.

What do the Aboriginal people say about people living in these bushfire prone areas.
Are they areas they’d not settle into permanently themselves as they are prone to uncontrollable bushfires

Cymek said:

What do the Aboriginal people say about people living in these bushfire prone areas.
Are they areas they’d not settle into permanently themselves as they are prone to uncontrollable bushfires

Permanent settlement is not really a strong feature of Aboriginal culture, except in rare situations. Mostly the native plants and animal species did not allow that sort of lifestyle.

party_pants said:

Cymek said:

What do the Aboriginal people say about people living in these bushfire prone areas.
Are they areas they’d not settle into permanently themselves as they are prone to uncontrollable bushfires

Permanent settlement is not really a strong feature of Aboriginal culture, except in rare situations. Mostly the native plants and animal species did not allow that sort of lifestyle.

True, I imagine many areas prone to flood or fire weren’t settled permanently by the natives either through prior experience or they just didn’t settle anyway

Cymek said:

party_pants said:

Cymek said:

What do the Aboriginal people say about people living in these bushfire prone areas.
Are they areas they’d not settle into permanently themselves as they are prone to uncontrollable bushfires

Permanent settlement is not really a strong feature of Aboriginal culture, except in rare situations. Mostly the native plants and animal species did not allow that sort of lifestyle.

True, I imagine many areas prone to flood or fire weren’t settled permanently by the natives either through prior experience or they just didn’t settle anyway

The people here had semi-permanent settlements but they were rainforest people who didn’t normally experience flood or fire.

Cymek said:

party_pants said:

Cymek said:

What do the Aboriginal people say about people living in these bushfire prone areas.
Are they areas they’d not settle into permanently themselves as they are prone to uncontrollable bushfires

Permanent settlement is not really a strong feature of Aboriginal culture, except in rare situations. Mostly the native plants and animal species did not allow that sort of lifestyle.

True, I imagine many areas prone to flood or fire weren’t settled permanently by the natives either through prior experience or they just didn’t settle anyway

I subscribe to the basics of the “Guns, Germs and Steel” hypothesis. That permanent settlement developed only in areas that had a set of local plants and animals that could provide a year round diet with sufficient and suitable nutrition. Including grains which could be stored without spoiling. It seems that nowhere in Australia met these basic conditions, so the people moved from place to place over a wider range.

party_pants said:

Cymek said:

party_pants said:

Permanent settlement is not really a strong feature of Aboriginal culture, except in rare situations. Mostly the native plants and animal species did not allow that sort of lifestyle.

True, I imagine many areas prone to flood or fire weren’t settled permanently by the natives either through prior experience or they just didn’t settle anyway

I subscribe to the basics of the “Guns, Germs and Steel” hypothesis. That permanent settlement developed only in areas that had a set of local plants and animals that could provide a year round diet with sufficient and suitable nutrition. Including grains which could be stored without spoiling. It seems that nowhere in Australia met these basic conditions, so the people moved from place to place over a wider range.

As I said the southern Tableland provided this. People would live in a place for a while then move a short distance & settle again.

party_pants said:

Cymek said:

What do the Aboriginal people say about people living in these bushfire prone areas.
Are they areas they’d not settle into permanently themselves as they are prone to uncontrollable bushfires

Permanent settlement is not really a strong feature of Aboriginal culture, except in rare situations. Mostly the native plants and animal species did not allow that sort of lifestyle.

Usually that reason is reliability or inreliability of rainfall. I’d say the people were prone to move to where they could see rain falling.

Tamb said:

party_pants said:

Cymek said:

True, I imagine many areas prone to flood or fire weren’t settled permanently by the natives either through prior experience or they just didn’t settle anyway

I subscribe to the basics of the “Guns, Germs and Steel” hypothesis. That permanent settlement developed only in areas that had a set of local plants and animals that could provide a year round diet with sufficient and suitable nutrition. Including grains which could be stored without spoiling. It seems that nowhere in Australia met these basic conditions, so the people moved from place to place over a wider range.

As I said the southern Tableland provided this. People would live in a place for a while then move a short distance & settle again.

You said that while I was typing.

Cymek said:

What do the Aboriginal people say about people living in these bushfire prone areas.
Are they areas they’d not settle into permanently themselves as they are prone to uncontrollable bushfires

With annual burns the fuel load is greatly reduced to form a mosaic of burnt vegetation that slows or even extinguishes the fire. Not difficult, but does need annual attention and intelligent consideration. Not the mindless burn of as much as you can, which is generally the European way of doing things, you then get large areas of similar aged vegetation with a high fuel load.

party_pants said:

Tamb said:

party_pants said:

I subscribe to the basics of the “Guns, Germs and Steel” hypothesis. That permanent settlement developed only in areas that had a set of local plants and animals that could provide a year round diet with sufficient and suitable nutrition. Including grains which could be stored without spoiling. It seems that nowhere in Australia met these basic conditions, so the people moved from place to place over a wider range.

As I said the southern Tableland provided this. People would live in a place for a while then move a short distance & settle again.

You said that while I was typing.

OK mate. All is forgiven.
Their strategy was to settle where the gatherers had a plentiful supply of fruit & vegies.
In one part of the year the hunters would walk to the coast where they had over the years built stone fish traps. In another part of the year the hunters would go inland for game.

party_pants said:

Cymek said:

party_pants said:

Permanent settlement is not really a strong feature of Aboriginal culture, except in rare situations. Mostly the native plants and animal species did not allow that sort of lifestyle.

True, I imagine many areas prone to flood or fire weren’t settled permanently by the natives either through prior experience or they just didn’t settle anyway

I subscribe to the basics of the “Guns, Germs and Steel” hypothesis. That permanent settlement developed only in areas that had a set of local plants and animals that could provide a year round diet with sufficient and suitable nutrition. Including grains which could be stored without spoiling. It seems that nowhere in Australia met these basic conditions, so the people moved from place to place over a wider range.

Pretty settled around this area, with an aquaculture system.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/may/23/budj-bim-indigenous-eel-trap-site-on-verge-of-world-heritage-listing

buffy said:

party_pants said:

Cymek said:

True, I imagine many areas prone to flood or fire weren’t settled permanently by the natives either through prior experience or they just didn’t settle anyway

I subscribe to the basics of the “Guns, Germs and Steel” hypothesis. That permanent settlement developed only in areas that had a set of local plants and animals that could provide a year round diet with sufficient and suitable nutrition. Including grains which could be stored without spoiling. It seems that nowhere in Australia met these basic conditions, so the people moved from place to place over a wider range.

Pretty settled around this area, with an aquaculture system.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/may/23/budj-bim-indigenous-eel-trap-site-on-verge-of-world-heritage-listing

Only when they were catching fish, which tend to be seasonal.

PermeateFree said:

buffy said:

party_pants said:

I subscribe to the basics of the “Guns, Germs and Steel” hypothesis. That permanent settlement developed only in areas that had a set of local plants and animals that could provide a year round diet with sufficient and suitable nutrition. Including grains which could be stored without spoiling. It seems that nowhere in Australia met these basic conditions, so the people moved from place to place over a wider range.

Pretty settled around this area, with an aquaculture system.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/may/23/budj-bim-indigenous-eel-trap-site-on-verge-of-world-heritage-listing

Only when they were catching fish, which tend to be seasonal.

>>“There are around 200 registered and recorded stone house sites, so people were living a sedentary life,” Rose said. “The area had such a reliable water supply from Darlot Creek, and the traditional name for that creek is Killara, which means ‘always there’. It’s a very appropriate name because even during the dry this year, it was still running.”<<

From that piece/link.

buffy said:

PermeateFree said:

buffy said:

Pretty settled around this area, with an aquaculture system.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/may/23/budj-bim-indigenous-eel-trap-site-on-verge-of-world-heritage-listing

Only when they were catching fish, which tend to be seasonal.

>>“There are around 200 registered and recorded stone house sites, so people were living a sedentary life,” Rose said. “The area had such a reliable water supply from Darlot Creek, and the traditional name for that creek is Killara, which means ‘always there’. It’s a very appropriate name because even during the dry this year, it was still running.”<<

From that piece/link.

Regardless of the stone houses, what governs whether they are there of not is the food availability. It is known they remained at this site for much longer periods because of the plentiful supply of fish (elvers or small eels if I remember correctly), but they don’t run all the year round. Probably had stone structures for provide shelter from the cold windy weather of the area.

PermeateFree said:

buffy said:

PermeateFree said:

Only when they were catching fish, which tend to be seasonal.

>>“There are around 200 registered and recorded stone house sites, so people were living a sedentary life,” Rose said. “The area had such a reliable water supply from Darlot Creek, and the traditional name for that creek is Killara, which means ‘always there’. It’s a very appropriate name because even during the dry this year, it was still running.”<<

From that piece/link.

Regardless of the stone houses, what governs whether they are there of not is the food availability. It is known they remained at this site for much longer periods because of the plentiful supply of fish (elvers or small eels if I remember correctly), but they don’t run all the year round. Probably had stone structures for provide shelter from the cold windy weather of the area.

https://theconversation.com/the-detective-work-behind-the-budj-bim-eel-traps-world-heritage-bid-71800

PermeateFree said:

buffy said:

PermeateFree said:

Only when they were catching fish, which tend to be seasonal.

>>“There are around 200 registered and recorded stone house sites, so people were living a sedentary life,” Rose said. “The area had such a reliable water supply from Darlot Creek, and the traditional name for that creek is Killara, which means ‘always there’. It’s a very appropriate name because even during the dry this year, it was still running.”<<

From that piece/link.

Regardless of the stone houses, what governs whether they are there of not is the food availability. It is known they remained at this site for much longer periods because of the plentiful supply of fish (elvers or small eels if I remember correctly), but they don’t run all the year round. Probably had stone structures for provide shelter from the cold windy weather of the area.

There were structures there for smoking the eels to preserve them. And they also traded them, I recall reading somewhere.

buffy said:

PermeateFree said:

buffy said:

>>“There are around 200 registered and recorded stone house sites, so people were living a sedentary life,” Rose said. “The area had such a reliable water supply from Darlot Creek, and the traditional name for that creek is Killara, which means ‘always there’. It’s a very appropriate name because even during the dry this year, it was still running.”<<

From that piece/link.

Regardless of the stone houses, what governs whether they are there of not is the food availability. It is known they remained at this site for much longer periods because of the plentiful supply of fish (elvers or small eels if I remember correctly), but they don’t run all the year round. Probably had stone structures for provide shelter from the cold windy weather of the area.

https://theconversation.com/the-detective-work-behind-the-budj-bim-eel-traps-world-heritage-bid-71800

That was a good read, thanks.

buffy said:

PermeateFree said:

buffy said:

>>“There are around 200 registered and recorded stone house sites, so people were living a sedentary life,” Rose said. “The area had such a reliable water supply from Darlot Creek, and the traditional name for that creek is Killara, which means ‘always there’. It’s a very appropriate name because even during the dry this year, it was still running.”<<

From that piece/link.

Regardless of the stone houses, what governs whether they are there of not is the food availability. It is known they remained at this site for much longer periods because of the plentiful supply of fish (elvers or small eels if I remember correctly), but they don’t run all the year round. Probably had stone structures for provide shelter from the cold windy weather of the area.

https://theconversation.com/the-detective-work-behind-the-budj-bim-eel-traps-world-heritage-bid-71800

Nomadic Aborigines did not mean they wandered all over the country. They knew their tribal country and what produced where and when, so they traveled on a circuit of their territory taking full advantage of peak food production times. The eel traps would have been looked after by the same people who obviously did very well from this natural feature and regular occurrence of eels, but the eels are not there all year around, therefore they would remain to take advantage at the right time and stayed far longer than other sites, but they would have had to move on when the fish supply reduced for that season. However they would return the following year.

>>These holding ponds allowed eels to grow in a restricted and protected area and be available to the Gunditjmara for much of the year. Critically, increasing the availability of the eels centred on improving eel survival, given that the eels breed in the Coral Sea. Builth described this complex network of ponds as “aquaculture”.<<

About halfway down.

Michael V said:

buffy said:

PermeateFree said:

Regardless of the stone houses, what governs whether they are there of not is the food availability. It is known they remained at this site for much longer periods because of the plentiful supply of fish (elvers or small eels if I remember correctly), but they don’t run all the year round. Probably had stone structures for provide shelter from the cold windy weather of the area.

https://theconversation.com/the-detective-work-behind-the-budj-bim-eel-traps-world-heritage-bid-71800

That was a good read, thanks.

http://www.monash.edu.au/pubs/monmag/issue17-2006/research/research-eels.html

ruby said:

Michael V said:

buffy said:

https://theconversation.com/the-detective-work-behind-the-budj-bim-eel-traps-world-heritage-bid-71800

That was a good read, thanks.

http://www.monash.edu.au/pubs/monmag/issue17-2006/research/research-eels.html

https://www.theage.com.au/national/life-was-not-a-walkabout-for-victorias-aborigines-20030313-gdvd81.html

buffy said:

>>These holding ponds allowed eels to grow in a restricted and protected area and be available to the Gunditjmara for much of the year. Critically, increasing the availability of the eels centred on improving eel survival, given that the eels breed in the Coral Sea. Builth described this complex network of ponds as “aquaculture”.<<

About halfway down.

buffy, it is well known these traps provided food for a lot of people for a considerable period of time. In fact it was SEMI-permanent, but for various reasons could not be permanent, as there would be periods when the fish would not support all the people that would come for the main feast, plus there are other food sources elsewhere, plus things they need to do to look after country. I can assure you that they would not have pictures of granny over the fireplace.

PermeateFree said:

buffy said:

>>These holding ponds allowed eels to grow in a restricted and protected area and be available to the Gunditjmara for much of the year. Critically, increasing the availability of the eels centred on improving eel survival, given that the eels breed in the Coral Sea. Builth described this complex network of ponds as “aquaculture”.<<

About halfway down.

buffy, it is well known these traps provided food for a lot of people for a considerable period of time. In fact it was SEMI-permanent, but for various reasons could not be permanent, as there would be periods when the fish would not support all the people that would come for the main feast, plus there are other food sources elsewhere, plus things they need to do to look after country. I can assure you that they would not have pictures of granny over the fireplace.

Please read ruby’s link too. This area was unusual.

Lake Bolac was a seasonal place. There is still an eel festival there each year. But down around Lake Condah it was an industry.

buffy said:

PermeateFree said:

buffy said:

>>These holding ponds allowed eels to grow in a restricted and protected area and be available to the Gunditjmara for much of the year. Critically, increasing the availability of the eels centred on improving eel survival, given that the eels breed in the Coral Sea. Builth described this complex network of ponds as “aquaculture”.<<

About halfway down.

buffy, it is well known these traps provided food for a lot of people for a considerable period of time. In fact it was SEMI-permanent, but for various reasons could not be permanent, as there would be periods when the fish would not support all the people that would come for the main feast, plus there are other food sources elsewhere, plus things they need to do to look after country. I can assure you that they would not have pictures of granny over the fireplace.

Please read ruby’s link too. This area was unusual.

I know buffy, I have read them and acknowledge what they say. However, there is considerable contrary opinion too. In recent years there has been a push by certain Aboriginal activists to promote Aborigines as mini versions of white society, namely they were not nomadic and were actual farmers. Probably they do this to dispel the myth of terra nullius or some such, although why they would want to adopt a grossly inferior system to replace their own that had served them for tens of thousands of years.

The reason Aborigines moved around within their territories was to take advantage of food and water resources, because if they remained for too long at a site, they would exhaust the resource and the animals they hunted would move elsewhere. It was very practical and worked well. The Murray River was another place where the Aborigines survived in large numbers and had less need to move far as their food supply was more regular, but even there, they did not, nor could not remain indefinitely in the same area.

buffy said:

PermeateFree said:

buffy said:

>>These holding ponds allowed eels to grow in a restricted and protected area and be available to the Gunditjmara for much of the year. Critically, increasing the availability of the eels centred on improving eel survival, given that the eels breed in the Coral Sea. Builth described this complex network of ponds as “aquaculture”.<<

About halfway down.

buffy, it is well known these traps provided food for a lot of people for a considerable period of time. In fact it was SEMI-permanent, but for various reasons could not be permanent, as there would be periods when the fish would not support all the people that would come for the main feast, plus there are other food sources elsewhere, plus things they need to do to look after country. I can assure you that they would not have pictures of granny over the fireplace.

Please read ruby’s link too. This area was unusual.

They looked pretty settled round the NSW areas too, from what I have read. They had enough time to be doing plenty of ceremonies, elaborately carving trees and creating decorative earthworks. And there are so many rock engravings around this area, which take time and patience. Not the actions of a people living desperate lives. I have read a few accounts of Sydney and Central Coast tribes doing regular visits to the Hunter Valley and other areas for large ceremonies, and to trade. There was stone tool manufacturing in the Hunter area. I lived there many moons ago and picked up a couple of stone tools from one of the creeks, before I knew I should value what I had found.

From my second link-
So how could previous archaeologists have missed all this, given the scale of the operation and that the fish farms would still have been operating when Europeans arrived?

Builth suspects it is because the Gunditjmara disappeared quickly after white settlers came. “History tells us, many (of the settlers) had a military background and they knew tactics – they knew how to survive – they knew how to win, and they knew how to get rid of Aboriginal people pretty quickly.”

By the time archaeologists had arrived in Australia the only Aboriginal people still leading traditional lifestyles in significant numbers were the ones living on the less desirable land.

“Most studies – certainly anthropological studies – focused on people dwelling in desert in semi-arid conditions, because they were the last people to live in their traditional land. These people (the Gunditjmara) were the first to lose their land, that’s the difference.”

ruby said:

buffy said:

PermeateFree said:

buffy, it is well known these traps provided food for a lot of people for a considerable period of time. In fact it was SEMI-permanent, but for various reasons could not be permanent, as there would be periods when the fish would not support all the people that would come for the main feast, plus there are other food sources elsewhere, plus things they need to do to look after country. I can assure you that they would not have pictures of granny over the fireplace.

Please read ruby’s link too. This area was unusual.

They looked pretty settled round the NSW areas too, from what I have read. They had enough time to be doing plenty of ceremonies, elaborately carving trees and creating decorative earthworks. And there are so many rock engravings around this area, which take time and patience. Not the actions of a people living desperate lives. I have read a few accounts of Sydney and Central Coast tribes doing regular visits to the Hunter Valley and other areas for large ceremonies, and to trade. There was stone tool manufacturing in the Hunter area. I lived there many moons ago and picked up a couple of stone tools from one of the creeks, before I knew I should value what I had found.

From my second link-
So how could previous archaeologists have missed all this, given the scale of the operation and that the fish farms would still have been operating when Europeans arrived?

Builth suspects it is because the Gunditjmara disappeared quickly after white settlers came. “History tells us, many (of the settlers) had a military background and they knew tactics – they knew how to survive – they knew how to win, and they knew how to get rid of Aboriginal people pretty quickly.”

By the time archaeologists had arrived in Australia the only Aboriginal people still leading traditional lifestyles in significant numbers were the ones living on the less desirable land.

“Most studies – certainly anthropological studies – focused on people dwelling in desert in semi-arid conditions, because they were the last people to live in their traditional land. These people (the Gunditjmara) were the first to lose their land, that’s the difference.”

That is NOT the difference ruby, but it is a lot of misinformed crap.

PermeateFree said:

ruby said:

buffy said:

Please read ruby’s link too. This area was unusual.

They looked pretty settled round the NSW areas too, from what I have read. They had enough time to be doing plenty of ceremonies, elaborately carving trees and creating decorative earthworks. And there are so many rock engravings around this area, which take time and patience. Not the actions of a people living desperate lives. I have read a few accounts of Sydney and Central Coast tribes doing regular visits to the Hunter Valley and other areas for large ceremonies, and to trade. There was stone tool manufacturing in the Hunter area. I lived there many moons ago and picked up a couple of stone tools from one of the creeks, before I knew I should value what I had found.

From my second link-
So how could previous archaeologists have missed all this, given the scale of the operation and that the fish farms would still have been operating when Europeans arrived?

Builth suspects it is because the Gunditjmara disappeared quickly after white settlers came. “History tells us, many (of the settlers) had a military background and they knew tactics – they knew how to survive – they knew how to win, and they knew how to get rid of Aboriginal people pretty quickly.”

By the time archaeologists had arrived in Australia the only Aboriginal people still leading traditional lifestyles in significant numbers were the ones living on the less desirable land.

“Most studies – certainly anthropological studies – focused on people dwelling in desert in semi-arid conditions, because they were the last people to live in their traditional land. These people (the Gunditjmara) were the first to lose their land, that’s the difference.”

That is NOT the difference ruby, but it is a lot of misinformed crap.

Sorry, which is the misinformed crap?

PermeateFree said:

buffy said:

PermeateFree said:

buffy, it is well known these traps provided food for a lot of people for a considerable period of time. In fact it was SEMI-permanent, but for various reasons could not be permanent, as there would be periods when the fish would not support all the people that would come for the main feast, plus there are other food sources elsewhere, plus things they need to do to look after country. I can assure you that they would not have pictures of granny over the fireplace.

Please read ruby’s link too. This area was unusual.

I know buffy, I have read them and acknowledge what they say. However, there is considerable contrary opinion too. In recent years there has been a push by certain Aboriginal activists to promote Aborigines as mini versions of white society, namely they were not nomadic and were actual farmers. Probably they do this to dispel the myth of terra nullius or some such, although why they would want to adopt a grossly inferior system to replace their own that had served them for tens of thousands of years.

The reason Aborigines moved around within their territories was to take advantage of food and water resources, because if they remained for too long at a site, they would exhaust the resource and the animals they hunted would move elsewhere. It was very practical and worked well. The Murray River was another place where the Aborigines survived in large numbers and had less need to move far as their food supply was more regular, but even there, they did not, nor could not remain indefinitely in the same area.

Hmmm, I wonder if that was the reason for the visits to other areas, a chance to let things regenerate. Like letting your crop land go fallow.

ruby said:

PermeateFree said:

ruby said:

They looked pretty settled round the NSW areas too, from what I have read. They had enough time to be doing plenty of ceremonies, elaborately carving trees and creating decorative earthworks. And there are so many rock engravings around this area, which take time and patience. Not the actions of a people living desperate lives. I have read a few accounts of Sydney and Central Coast tribes doing regular visits to the Hunter Valley and other areas for large ceremonies, and to trade. There was stone tool manufacturing in the Hunter area. I lived there many moons ago and picked up a couple of stone tools from one of the creeks, before I knew I should value what I had found.

From my second link-
So how could previous archaeologists have missed all this, given the scale of the operation and that the fish farms would still have been operating when Europeans arrived?

Builth suspects it is because the Gunditjmara disappeared quickly after white settlers came. “History tells us, many (of the settlers) had a military background and they knew tactics – they knew how to survive – they knew how to win, and they knew how to get rid of Aboriginal people pretty quickly.”

By the time archaeologists had arrived in Australia the only Aboriginal people still leading traditional lifestyles in significant numbers were the ones living on the less desirable land.

“Most studies – certainly anthropological studies – focused on people dwelling in desert in semi-arid conditions, because they were the last people to live in their traditional land. These people (the Gunditjmara) were the first to lose their land, that’s the difference.”

That is NOT the difference ruby, but it is a lot of misinformed crap.

Sorry, which is the misinformed crap?

All of it!

ruby said:

PermeateFree said:

buffy said:

Please read ruby’s link too. This area was unusual.

I know buffy, I have read them and acknowledge what they say. However, there is considerable contrary opinion too. In recent years there has been a push by certain Aboriginal activists to promote Aborigines as mini versions of white society, namely they were not nomadic and were actual farmers. Probably they do this to dispel the myth of terra nullius or some such, although why they would want to adopt a grossly inferior system to replace their own that had served them for tens of thousands of years.

The reason Aborigines moved around within their territories was to take advantage of food and water resources, because if they remained for too long at a site, they would exhaust the resource and the animals they hunted would move elsewhere. It was very practical and worked well. The Murray River was another place where the Aborigines survived in large numbers and had less need to move far as their food supply was more regular, but even there, they did not, nor could not remain indefinitely in the same area.

Hmmm, I wonder if that was the reason for the visits to other areas, a chance to let things regenerate. Like letting your crop land go fallow.

That was the Aboriginal way.

PermeateFree said:

ruby said:

PermeateFree said:

I know buffy, I have read them and acknowledge what they say. However, there is considerable contrary opinion too. In recent years there has been a push by certain Aboriginal activists to promote Aborigines as mini versions of white society, namely they were not nomadic and were actual farmers. Probably they do this to dispel the myth of terra nullius or some such, although why they would want to adopt a grossly inferior system to replace their own that had served them for tens of thousands of years.

The reason Aborigines moved around within their territories was to take advantage of food and water resources, because if they remained for too long at a site, they would exhaust the resource and the animals they hunted would move elsewhere. It was very practical and worked well. The Murray River was another place where the Aborigines survived in large numbers and had less need to move far as their food supply was more regular, but even there, they did not, nor could not remain indefinitely in the same area.

Hmmm, I wonder if that was the reason for the visits to other areas, a chance to let things regenerate. Like letting your crop land go fallow.

That was the Aboriginal way.

It is good farmers way too, when you aren’t thrashing the land for profit.

ruby said:

Hmmm, I wonder if that was the reason for the visits to other areas, a chance to let things regenerate. Like letting your crop land go fallow.

If you have a group of 20 and the calorie Intake required to keep them healthy and happy, that would dictate how you move, I don’t imagine there would be many calorie rich areas so movement would be a necessity. Aboriginals had a light touch on the environment not because they were hippies looking after country, but because they did not have the means to exploit the environment, ie chopping down a tree was a big undertaking with a stone axe, and lacked the sort of plants and animals that could be domesticated and exploited. The Fertile Crescent just needed a grass and sheep for wool, meat and milk to kick off.

ruby said:

PermeateFree said:

ruby said:

Hmmm, I wonder if that was the reason for the visits to other areas, a chance to let things regenerate. Like letting your crop land go fallow.

That was the Aboriginal way.

It is good farmers way too, when you aren’t thrashing the land for profit.

Only problem is the Aborigines were not farmers as we recognise the term. They used natural events, sometimes assisted by the smart use of fire, and they did all this with very little effort and could seek out other foods and conduct ceremony.

PermeateFree said:

ruby said:

PermeateFree said:

That is NOT the difference ruby, but it is a lot of misinformed crap.

Sorry, which is the misinformed crap?

All of it!

Aww, I dunno, PF. The science in this link looks quite interesting and fairly robust. But perhaps you know things that refute Heather Builth’s theories and findings?
https://www.theage.com.au/national/life-was-not-a-walkabout-for-victorias-aborigines-20030313-gdvd81.html

www.abc.net.au said:

indigenous-knowledge-combines-with-western-science

So is the implication that indigenous knowledge is not science-based, or that western is a special brand of science ¿

ruby said:

PermeateFree said:

ruby said:

Sorry, which is the misinformed crap?

All of it!

Aww, I dunno, PF. The science in this link looks quite interesting and fairly robust. But perhaps you know things that refute Heather Builth’s theories and findings?
https://www.theage.com.au/national/life-was-not-a-walkabout-for-victorias-aborigines-20030313-gdvd81.html

No, you are misrepresenting the situation as I was replying directly to your post, of which I repeat below:

>>They looked pretty settled round the NSW areas too, from what I have read. They had enough time to be doing plenty of ceremonies, elaborately carving trees and creating decorative earthworks. And there are so many rock engravings around this area, which take time and patience. Not the actions of a people living desperate lives. I have read a few accounts of Sydney and Central Coast tribes doing regular visits to the Hunter Valley and other areas for large ceremonies, and to trade. There was stone tool manufacturing in the Hunter area. I lived there many moons ago and picked up a couple of stone tools from one of the creeks, before I knew I should value what I had found.

From my second link-
So how could previous archaeologists have missed all this, given the scale of the operation and that the fish farms would still have been operating when Europeans arrived?

Builth suspects it is because the Gunditjmara disappeared quickly after white settlers came. “History tells us, many (of the settlers) had a military background and they knew tactics – they knew how to survive – they knew how to win, and they knew how to get rid of Aboriginal people pretty quickly.”

By the time archaeologists had arrived in Australia the only Aboriginal people still leading traditional lifestyles in significant numbers were the ones living on the less desirable land.

“Most studies – certainly anthropological studies – focused on people dwelling in desert in semi-arid conditions, because they were the last people to live in their traditional land. These people (the Gunditjmara) were the first to lose their land, that’s the difference.”<<

>‘You look after Mother Nature, and Mother Nature will look after you’

mum’s getting tired, heated, and grumpy, 7.7 billion children, it’s like a factory, and there’s never much nature in a factory