Re Aboriginal plant cultivation. Bruce Pascoe's book 'Dark Emu' has been mentioned, but an earlier one was Sylvia Hallam's 1975 book 'Fire and Hearth: A study of Aboriginal usage and European usurpation in south-western Australia.' (This has recently been reprinted by the University of WA Publishing, with an update afterword by Sylvia.) The book was the first work to focus on Aboriginal burning practices, but it also contains many historical observation of Aboriginal planting and harvesting practices. Bill Gammage's 2011 'The Biggest Estate on Earth:How Aborigines made Australia' also discusses this.

There's also Harry Lourandos' 1997 book 'Continent of Hunter-Gatherers: New Perspectives in Australian Prehistory', which discusses the economic intensification (fish and eel traps, plant cultivation) that occurred in Australia roughly parallel in time to the development of agriculture elsewhere in the world. It's likely there was a parallel increase in population, sedentism and social organisation here as well (though of course not the same extent as with fully fledged agriculture). Some of the evidence for this is the start of large cemeteries (nomads don't need these!) and large infrastructure works, such as Victorian eel-traps. You don't put community effort into such works unless you have more mouths to feed, but when you produce more food, you have more kids, so you need to keep maintaining the infrastructure (and more of other resources) which means you have to hang around - presumably in the stone huts associated with the eel traps (there's also some evidence that the eels were smoked for storage). Given all this it's intriguing that there's some historic evidence for a very complex system of clan leaders or 'chieftains' in western Victoria (Diane Barwick's work), which makes sense if a society needs to marshall its labour-force into building public works.

(Joe: Your comment about who patrolled the fences is a red herring. Fencing is primarily for controlling domesticated herding animals, even so, fences in pastoral SE Australia didn't really come in until the late 1860s, 20-30 years after the squatters arrived; before that shepherds were used, as they still are in some parts of the world.)

Dear Cossomby,

Thank You so much for your posts and the information
that you provide. Please keep on posting. I learn
so much from you.

@doog

After World War II, the rest of the world decided that they would not be concerned about re-drawing borders or seeking compensation for historical events. The concept of right of conquest was invented to stop future Hitlers. As you point out, sovereignty was never ceded. However, under international law, sovereignty over he overwhelming majority of the Australian landmass was extinguished when the land was invaded and occupied.

The Mabo and Wik cases dealt with the exceptional cases of a few, isolated pieces of land, which had either never been occupied (Mabo), or where the Crown had ceded sovereignty, when pastoralists had walked off the land (Wik).

From a legal standpoint, there is no need for handouts. Chosing to close the gap, for social justice reasons, is another matter.

cossomby: This was the 1920s and 30s;

Yep, this was in the 1920. almost 100 years ago, eh. Times have moved on. Those girls, at least, got an education instead of gathering nuts in May.

Cossomby: However contrary to your negative stereotype, the Aboriginal descendants I know are warm and generous people.

Yep, most I know are too. But I do know some very educated shite stirring nutters.

Cossomby: who want the world to know what happened to stop similar things happening again.

We have all moved on from 100 years ago, except the shite stirrers driven by their Socialist Left Wing shite stirring friends.

Jayb: "Yep, this was in the 1920. almost 100 years ago, eh. Times have moved on. Those girls, at least, got an education instead of gathering nuts in May."

1. 1920s until around 1950s.
2. Your original comment said that Aboriginal kids only heard about 200 year old past mistreatment in school, then went stirring. What I described was in living memory of people still alive, and known to their families.
3. 'Got an education'? In what? Trying to avoid the boss's unwelcome attentions?

The women in my family since 1900 got a real education - my grandmother was a teacher, my mother didn't work (4 kids) but brought us up to value books and education, I have a uni degree, and my grand-daughter is at uni now. I have a huge respect for young Aboriginal women I know who are uni graduates, in spite of the fact that their 20th century female ancestors never had access to the education and opportunities I and mine did.

Hi Joe, back on the subject of treaty.

With 70% of Aboriginals being categorized as 'Urban' and with a demographic that is as complex as the rest of Australia. How do you formulate a meaningful treaty, i stress the word meaningful, that accommodates all the aspirations required to be contained in such a treaty. I am looking forward to reading the wording of any proposed treaty.

p/s In my view, if there is to be a treaty, there can be but one treaty for all, no multiple treaties. there is the rub, how do you formulate a treaty that fits the aspirations of an Aboriginal living in Redfern, and at the same time accommodate the same for a native of Arnhem Land. without simply using a load of meaningless vague platitudes. Maybe it is possible.

p/s/s In any treaty the recognition of sovereignty in the first instance is paramount ie the recognition of the sovereignty over Australia of Aboriginal people. Then the transference of that sovereignty to the second party ie The Commonwealth of Australia. Then in return The C of A has to make certain promises and undertakings that satisfy the first party. Agree. simple, not!