Dark Emu question

Here's an example of Pascoe's sources not backing up his argument.

On page 31, in the Grains section, Pascoe, wanting to show that early colonisers knew something of Aboriginal agriculture, in the purported form of making a paste out of grains, writes:

"Typical of the jealousy prevalent among explorers, Sturt said that, 'Mitchell knows nothing of this, indeed knows but little of their customs.' It's true, however, that when Mitchell observed haycocks extending for miles over a stubble paddock where every stak had been cut he wondered if, 'the heaps of grass had been pulled here, for some purpose connected with the allurement of agriculture.'"

Here's the entry from Mitchell's diary (via project Gutenberg.)

"In the neighbourhood of our camp the grass had been pulled to a very great extent, and piled in hay-ricks so that the aspect of the desert was softened into the agreeable semblance of a hay-field. The grass had evidently been thus laid up by the natives, but for what purpose we could not imagine. At first I thought the heaps were only the remains of encampments, as the aborigines sometimes sleep on a little dry grass; but when we found the ricks, or haycocks, extending for miles we were quite at a loss to understand why they had been made. All the grass was of one kind, a new species of Panicum related to P. effusum R. Br.* and not a spike of it was left in the soil over the whole of the ground. A cucurbitaceous plant had also been pulled up and accumulated in smaller heaps; and from some of the roots the little yam had been taken, but on others it remained. The surface, naturally soft, thus appeared as bare as a fallow field. I found a pole about 20 feet long, with a forked end, set upright by having one end planted in the ground and fixed by many sticks and pieces of old stumps from the river. As the natives erect similar poles on the banks of the Darling to stretch their nets on for taking ducks it is probable that the heaps of grass had been pulled here for some purpose connected with the allurement of birds or animals." ( http://www.gutenberg.org/files/12928/... )

Pascoe hasn't provided an accurate quote. He's changed the words (on top of not putting Mitchell's musings into context.) No wonder 'the allurement of agriculture' is such an awkward sounding phrase.

But Pascoe quotes the sources in his book. Those seem to be clear about the kind of agriculture and land management was in place. Reading about hunter-gatherer societies in addition, doesn't necessarily disprove anything. So many people want to re-prove terra nullius in order to layer Australian settlement with some kind of undisputed settler-nativist rights. There are not necessarily enough accounts in the documentary evidence, but there are enough to raise doubts about European settlers have carte blanche over the landscape.

Nick, Bruce ‘cherry picks’ those documents. He quotes the writers out of context. This is dishonest behaviour. I have digital copies of his sources & have read them. Most are free online. https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/www.u...

I think Tindal’s map destroys the notion of Terrra Nullius. Also the early writers do a good job of explaining Aboriginal borders and traditional land ownership. I don’t think we need to make the culture look European to argue against Terra Nullius. Bruce has picked a strange angle & a one not based on truth so is sure to fail eventually.

Since when do agriculture & permanent or semi-permanent settlement "look European" in other parts of the world pre-European invasion. Aboriginal agriculture and aquaculture in some instances doesn't "look European" at all. In south WA, Youlk (Platysace deflexa) was farmed by digging tubers into soil, covering with various plant matter which decomposed providing compost for the plants. Noongar people returned in the season when plants were producing multitudes of tubers and harvested.

This isn't in Pascoe's book because he concentrates on eastern australia.

Some of Pascoe's secondary sources eg. Gammage are questionable. I've only read 1st ed. I want to read 2nd ed to see how the book has changed.

Clare: since Bruce wrote Dark Emu. Bruce bias towards his own European farming culture which he unconsciously believes is superior shows heavily. He also discusses central Australia with his ‘grain belt’ theory & Arnhem Land where he describes their housing (falsely using a Murray Island Torres Strait house). Both these regions still have language and practice culture & we should let the elders of that area teach us - not Bruce. Thanks for the WA examples. Reminds me of the shell middens in NQ which are surrounded by high concentrations of edible plants from 1000s of years of planting.

Thanks Monte

EM Curr's "The Australian Race", 1880, Vol 1-3, gives a good account of Aboriginal Australia. It is freely available on line. There was no farming, even at Cape York where they were exposed to the Islanders' farming practices. The "grain map" compare areas where native seeds were "collected", to intensive European style agriculture. It is like comparing chalk and aardvarks. This book is an unfortunate hoax. Feeding this to school children is deplorable.

People’s knowledge of traditional Aboriginal culture is so low in Australia that people have accepted Dark Emu as true. Hopefully this encourages people to read the settlers diaries themselves & talk to the language speakers in the north.