Farmers or Hunter-Gatherers?
Farmers or Hunter-Gatherers? The Dark Emu Debate is a non-fiction book on Indigenous Australian history by Peter Sutton and Keryn Walshe, published in mid-2021 by Melbourne University Press. It was written as a response to Bruce Pascoe's highly successful 2014 non-fiction book "Dark Emu: Black Seeds: Agriculture or Accident?" which describes evidence of agricultural and engineering activities by some Indigenous Australian groups, and suggests a more sedentary lifestyle than the more orthodox assessment that they were purely hunter-gatherers. Sutton and Walshe reject Pascoe's thesis of Indigenous agriculture, and argue that  his book contains serious errors and omissions. Contents. The book has a foreword written by Wiradjuri archaeologist and lecturer Kellie Pollard and ANU Emeritus Professor Tom Griffiths. Eleven chapters are written by Sutton and two by Walshe. Many of the chapters are structured thematically, while others address the controversy related to Pascoe's "Dark Emu". Walshe also contributed Appendix 1 of the book, which addresses the question of when Aboriginal Australians first settled on the Australian continent. Appendix 2 records the movements of convict William Buckley, who escaped captivity in 1803 and lived with the Wathaurong people on Victoria's  Bellarine Peninsula for 32 years, eventually becoming a Ngurungaeta, or tribal leader. Their source base includes archaeological, anthropological, and linguistic evidence, in addition to the accounts of Indigenous people, or "the Old People" in their terminology, of the pre-colonial mode of production. They note that colonist journals, which form the bulk of Pascoe's sources, give only a superficial account of Indigenous society, and question Pascoe's failure to consult Indigenous accounts of pre-colonial society. Sutton and Walshe devote a chapter to analysis of linguistic evidence, drawing on Sutton's command of several Aboriginal languages. They observe that  while pre-colonial Melanesian Torres Strait Island languages like Mabuiag and Meryam Mir have extensive terminology related to gardening and planting, their analysis of more than 40 Aboriginal languages reveals a near-total absence of such words. Another chapter addresses the degree of mobility and sedentism, observing that the highest level of sedentism was in areas around the Western District of Victoria, the Murray River, and eastern Cape York. They discuss William Buckley's account of the eel traps at Lake Condah in western Victoria, and deduce that a "semi-sedentary occupation pattern" was likely, with dwellings being occupied for  months at a time around the eeling season. Conversely, the highest levels of mobility were found in the arid Simpson Desert and Western Desert regions. They note that the Pintupi people of the Western Desert cultural bloc could move between areas of up to in a year, and cite the account of a Warlpiri man named Pariparu, who in the 1930s gave an account of 332 desert places he had walked to in the previous 11 months alone. Other groups in the far north moved with the monsoon, or followed seasonal food sources. Critique of "Dark Emu". The work is  the first scholarly critique published in monograph form. Throughout their book, Sutton and Walshe reject what they see as Pascoe's "social evolutionist" approach that perceives agricultural development and material factors as preconditions of "advancement", and the binary view that Pascoe establishes between "mere" hunter-gatherers and agriculturalists. They express the view that Aboriginal people were "complex hunter-gatherers, not simple farmers" and "ecological agents who worked "with" the environment, rather than, usually against it", to emphasise the skill and sophistication with which they managed country and prevailing environmental conditions. They call for an appreciation of "the complexities of Aboriginal  mental and aesthetic culture: those highly intricate webs of kinship, mythology, ritual performance, grammars, visual arts and land tenure", criticising Pascoe for neglecting these non-material elements. They observe that Aboriginal people interacted with Torres Strait Islander and Makassan peoples in the north of Australia, but consciously chose not to adopt their agricultural practices for a variety of cultural and economic reasons. Sutton and Walshe reject Pascoe's hypothesis that pre-colonial Indigenous Australian societies were based on sedentary agriculture. They contend that "Dark Emu" upholds a Eurocentric worldview, privileging agriculture above a hunter-gatherer socio-economic system. They state  that "Dark Emu" is "littered with unsourced material, is poorly researched, distorts and exaggerates many points, selectively emphasises evidence to suit those opinions, and ignores large bodies of information that do not support the author's opinions". They conclude that "Dark Emu" is "actually not, properly considered, a work of scholarship" and that "its success as a narrative has been achieved in spite of its failure as an account of fact". Sutton and Walshe conclude by stating that despite their strong criticisms of the rigour and accuracy of "Dark Emu", Pascoe's work has had a positive impact in sparking  discussion of and interest in Australia's first peoples. Reception and commentary. Sutton and Walshe's book has received acclaim from many quarters. Tim Rowse writes that Sutton and Walshe "chip away at so many parts of Pascoe's thesis that it is, in my opinion, demolished". A review in "The Conversation" describes "Farmers or Hunter-Gatherers?" as "just about perfect – a volume with the twin virtues of rigour and readability", and also that it "needs to be read carefully, keeping an open mind". Historian Mark McKenna writes of Sutton and Walshe's "forensic critique", reporting that they "methodically expose  the flaws in "Dark Emu". They argue how Pascoe ignores, omits, distorts and exaggerates crucial evidence, rehearses well-worn claims, commits fundamental errors, and rebirths the outmoded doctrine of "social evolutionism" by presenting traditional Aboriginal societies as farmers". However he also writes that it provides "an opportunity to deepen Australians’ knowledge of our Indigenous cultures", and "we’re witnessing a public argument about Aboriginal people and their cultures, rather than a discussion with them", and says that without Pascoe's multi-faceted contribution to Australian culture, "Sutton’s and Walshe’s valuable book would not exist". Bundjalung leader and politician  Warren Mundine questions the credibility of "Dark Emu" in light of Sutton and Walshe's work, and observes that Pascoe's claim of pre-colonial agricultural practices was incongruous with the lack of songlines or Dreamtime stories referring to such practices. Criticism of Sutton and Walshe's book has come from anthropologist Richard Davis who queries Sutton's difficulty in recognizing Aboriginal people's ability to undergo change over time. Davis also questions Sutton's dismissal of Pascoe on the grounds that he is not a trained anthropologist, which Davis argues dismisses non-academic points of view, such as Pascoe 's, on the lives of pre-colonial Aboriginal people. Despite Sutton and Walshe's strident criticism of "Dark Emu", author Bruce Pascoe responded positively to the publication of "Farmers or Hunter-Gatherers?" saying that he "welcome[d] the discussion and difference of opinion as it should further this important examination of our history". Writer and historian James Boyce writes that the work is important for those "who want to discuss the issues it raises outside the nasty platforms of the culture wars". He thinks that their most salient criticisms include that Pascoe uses white explorers’ journals, ignoring the knowledge of Aboriginal  sources, and also that he generalises from local examples and claims incorrectly that such technologies were used across the continent. However, he is also critical of some aspects of Sutton and Walshe's work, such as when they look at historical records in south-eastern Australia, and make points that seem "petty or overblown". They omit historical context in some cases (such as accepting an 1836 "census" of Aboriginal people in the Port Phillip District), and the use of William Buckley's accounts is questionable. In addition, the work does not convincingly refute Pascoe's assertion that the majority Australian  view assumes the inherent inferiority of its Indigenous peoples. The authors' evidence, the existence of the huge amount of accessible and accurate material contained in the "Encyclopaedia of Aboriginal Australia", does not show that the majority of the population is simply unaware of this. References. Sources