By all means do please expand on your reasoning here.
It's by no means apparent to all how you arrived at your conclusion, particularly in light of evidence to the contrary.
It's by no means apparent to all how you arrived at your conclusion, particularly in light of evidence to the contrary.
There's no counterpart to the Genesis myth, nothing like "A went in unto B and she conceived". Children were brought by Rainbow Serpent or some such. Native Australians were on the brink of hunger a lot of the time, so they were only fertile during the seasons of abundant food.
All known Aboriginal practices of growing food involving moving/planting entire plants, not seeds.
The spirit of a new embryo came from a waterhole, with the help of the Rainbow Serpent. But they knew where babies came from.
Spitting/throwing seeds of fruit on the ground is a lot like planting them.
I know of no evidence that Indigenous Australians were so hungry that they were only sporadically fertile. Source?
From the full paper of the link you gave, regarding traditional method of abortion in Southern Arnhem Land women:
Voluntary controls are of course an important issue in any discussion of overall fertility.
A detailed survey of the available information on contraception, abortion and infanticide among Aborigines has revealed that Aboriginal women saw children as a contingent good (Cowlishaw 1979).
First there were widespread attempts at contraception by taking medicine, performing rituals and avoiding coitus.
It does include the extract:
It is the accepted view that huntergatherers in general and Australian Aborigines in particular were neither undernourished nor overworked.
But it is necessary to know more of the balance between work expenditure and nourishment, and the particular qualities of the diet that may have some bearing on fertility.
(Robson, 1975:51)Also they were eel traps, not farms or factories, were only available to a miniscule fraction of the tribes and they still were in equilibrium with eel supply.
Agricultural Revolution is not called revolution for nothing, that's basically when human population started growing after millennia of stability caused by equilibrium with food supply (aka hunger).
You might want to give 'Guns, Germs, and Steel' a read, which provides a different and more compelling hypothesis to 'eurasian man smarter' for the beginning of the agricultural revolution.
You really do live in some far removed fantasy world don't you.
I have rarely met any people that watch and know more about the plants and animals in their environment than australian aboriginals.
They know what feeds on what, when different animals breed, when plants produce fruit, when they pollinate.
You can't hunt kangaroo, for example, without knowing their movement patterns and it's a nice day out watching kangaroos lounge about feeding, mounting, and moving with the sun.
There's entire long standing practices about not hunting where kangaroos breed, etc. to keep numbers up.
The mindset that you've apparently missed is that of "keeping" domestic animals .. it was never a thing to people that were always surrounded by and living in the midst of animals they knew, watched, and knew where to find as needed.
Elcho Islanders don't keep birds in a cage, for example - that's a European thing:
Being a hunter-gatherer meant breeding until you match the area's carrying capacity, i.e. adding any more people causes hungry deaths. Aboriginal Australians caused extinctions of quite a few species after their arrival as they were unconsciously searching for the equilibrium.
The forests were cleared before Europeans arrived using bushfires
> Aboriginal Australians caused extinctions of quite a few species after their arrival as they were unconsciously searching for the equilibrium.
This isn’t particular to Australia. Every land where humans appeared, megafauna vanished because they were the easiest thing to hunt and didn’t breed quickly enough.
Either way my point about equilibrium (that means borderline hunger on average, hungry deaths every few years) stands.
So just happenstance?
> Modern humans spent about 200k years without figuring it out as well
Say that were true, your amazement in your OP would be a little strange.
> The sex-pregnancy link was figured out by observing domestic animals, a luxury they didn't have
I'll point you back to the sibling comment as evidence to the contrary:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37972080
Rituals around coming-of-age, first menstruation etc. also seem to oppose your claim. Plus also: common sense (have sex, pregnancy bump appears, baby comes out). The ability to deduce is common to all humans. If you think that indigenous Australians lack this faculty, that's kind of amazing.
That's a broad sweeping statement you'd be hard pressed to prove.
On the flip side you could watch old episodes of, say, Bush Tucker Man and pay attention to the parts in which aboriginal women talk about seeds and putting them back to grow more plants. You might also hit up the archives for old Malcolm Douglas epiosodes.
There are numerous articles such as, https://www.science.org/content/article/indigenous-people-sh..., that talk about seeds and aboriginal travels.
Or you could go direct to the source and talk to people that never lost connection to the land such as the Birriliburu Rangers, the last of the Pintupi Nine, or any number of communities in the Kimberley.
You come across as very ill informed.
Both of these personalities were the bread and butter of my teenage tv time.
Regarding the black bean trees, if this was true, early European explorers would have seen vast orchards of said trees, along with many food-producing ones. What they saw instead was complete refusal to help farm wheat that Aboriginals quickly learned to appreciate, even in the face of famine.
There's no shame in being a hunter gatherer who hasn't yet discovered a lot about nature. We've all been there.
FWiW I've never read or met Pascoe.
The part you've skipped over and not addressed is direct video recording of aboriginal people living traditional lifestyles talking about propagating and spreading plants.
Especially Bush Tucker Man which was a public facing documentary series running alongside the Australian Army recording traditional food practices and sources for the purposes of keeping soldiers alive in the northern territories of Australia.
This directly contradicts your position that aboriginal people didn't know what seeds did.
How you make such a statement about people that spent several tens of thousands of years in a place watching plants and animals and shaping the environment about them suggest you've not thought this through and likely never lived in aboriginal communities.
The agricultural revolution that spawned from the Indus valley civilisations were dependent on beasts of burden which were lacking in Australia. Though maybe with time something similar might have happened in Australia to, as it did in the Incan empire before it was destroyed by the conquistadors
> Pascoe is a conman.
As per this thread, you've made a lot of claims without sufficient back up, seem somewhat intransigent, and hold very one-sided beliefs. I think a little self-reflection is warranted, especially if your motivation is to convince people you have beyond a superficial understanding on these matters.
Have you seen them? I won't pretend to have read Walshe and Sutton, but from my cursory understanding of their criticism it's that Pascoe has conflated all indigenous tribes across the continent (not all engage directly in planting), and they used means of cultivating the land that were lower effort (harnessing fire and self-seeding) but still effective (which is much in sympathy with Pascoe's thesis). It certainly doesn't provide evidence that indigenous people didn't understand seeds
From our best understanding of pre colonial life, famine wasn’t a feature of it. Funnily enough it’s post agricultural societies that often died of famine because they enabled huge populations in cities and shifting climate would cause several years of floods and droughts at infrequent and irregular intervals, and at such scale that it couldn’t be planned for by early societies (and maybe we might find out our modern global one still has this flaw)
>From our best understanding of pre colonial life, famine wasn’t a feature of it.
Yes it was. Killing over food theft, cannibalism and general hardship are a staple of Aboriginal stories. Agriculture, even early transport, power structures and communication systems made it possible to store and redistribute excess food. A single very dry season in a particular part of Australia meant its inhabitants would have to feed on someone else's land or die trying.
Aboriginals are also way more susceptible to obesity and type 2 diabetes than Europeans, basically lacking European adaptations to abundant food.
Have you even visited Australia, and even slightly outside its cities? And then have you visited New Zealand? To have done so and still believe they are equally fertile would require some incredible cognitive dissonance.
> Australian lands are so fertile that it half Asia with wheat and meat
Modern agriculture is very different to ancient agriculture. We didn't have combine harvesters, high-yield evolved (or GMO) crops, fuel-driven pumps, bores that can collect deep group water, tractors to build irrigation and dams etc. Not sure how you could overlook any of this.
> staple of Aboriginal stories
Citations needed. Won't pretend I'm an expert on this, but I'll wager you aren't either. The risk of famine increases with population, especially a population that isn't self-sufficient. It's a post-agricultural phenomenon, which is not to say a tribe couldn't starve, but it's much harder. There's much evidence to say that cooperation, trade, and intermarriage with neighboring was a significant part of indigenous societies, likely borne out of necessity.
> A single very dry season in a particular part of Australia meant its inhabitants would have to feed on someone else's land or die trying.
Dry seasons were less of a problem than you might think, as indigenous people knew where all the water holes were, and could read the landscape^ to know where to dig to get to water. Not enough for expansive agriculture, but certainly enough to survive in one of the harshest environments in the world.
^ A common painting for central Australian tribes is the 'seed story' where they observe that ants have collected seeds to a location which reveal the location of a 'soakage'. Digging in this area, water can be found.
> way more susceptible to obesity and type 2
Any scientific consensus on this actually being a thing?
I ask rhetorically. There's no point arguing against motivated reasoning. I'm done here. Feel free to have the last word.
Australia was never short on food ever since it started farming, way before any kind of harvesters, deeps wells or GMO crops.
Here's to get you started on the Dreamtime stories: https://www.kullillaart.com.au/dreamtime-stories/Piggi-Billa... https://homelearningatikps.weebly.com/uploads/3/7/6/9/376979... https://www.artistwd.com/joyzine/australia/dreaming/goanna.p... https://www.kullillaart.com.au/dreamtime-stories/Mundiba-and...
Here's to type 2 diabetes: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC384914/
>Dry seasons were less of a problem than you might think
I'm not talking surviving a summer, I'm talking surviving 1997-2009 of continuous driest years on record over huge areas.
Peter Sutton is an anthropologist and linguist (>50 years); Keryn Walshe is an archaeologist (>35 years). Peter Sutton in particular has spent large amounts of time living with indigenous people in the far north. Their book describes many deficiencies in Dark Emu, and also gives a huge amount of interesting information about how aboriginal people lived, and the way they curated the land and the food resources available to them.
https://www.amazon.com/Farmers-Hunter-gatherers-Dark-Emu-Deb...
* Australia has much the same area as mainland USofA (ie. it's big) and spans from the tropical equatorial (northern Australia) to much closer to the south pole (Tasmania).
* Pre colonial territories looked something like: https://mgnsw.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/map_col_high...
* Geographic landscapes include: Coastal, Rainforest, forest, river, and desert.
There was (and still remains in some parts of Australia) a wide range of traditional lifestyles, the Murray river (and south western australia, and elsewhere) had extensive multigenerational fish traps - now largely destroyed for paddleboat navigation back in the day.
I've heard Dark Emu has deficiencies, I can't say I've ever read it. There are other books that address pre colonial aboriginal living, pay attention to place and landscape and avoid generalising across a large landmass.