Books on Pre-European History of Australia

[Camara]

Do you know any books specialised in the History of Australia before the europeans?

I'm not sure if much exists about it, but a good book on the aboriginal peoples and their cultures etc (with maps!) would be great.
The best resource I found was this book from 1974 that is free
Aboriginal Tribes of Australia: Their Terrain, Environmental Controls, Distribution, Limits, and Proper Names, author: Norman Tindale, 1974 (https://openresearch-repository.anu.edu.au/bitstream/1885/114913/2/b13565965.pdf ).

Is there any obvious improvement on that book or some other good book on aboriginal people of Australia?

Thanks.

 

[Kovax]

I don't think that there were any written records or oral epics/sagas kept from before European settlement, so aside from what little has been dug up by archaeologists, there isn't a lot of information to work with. My assumption is that there was never a cohesive "civilization" there, mainly small hunter-gatherer tribes, and not much technological change over several thousand years, so "history" doesn't really apply.

Both North and South America have scattered evidence of more organized federations, proto-states, and several actual empires (particularly in Central America), but there was nothing comparable in Australia that I'm aware of.

You're probably looking for a Sociology book, not History, as any records that exist will inevitably deal with the aboriginal tribes AFTER contact with the West.

 

[Camara]

Well I am aware the "history" part may be a little difficult to establish, but something like the groups, their relations, primary lifestyles, etc (with MAPS ) would be great to start with.
The reference I posted is basically what I want, and fortunately we can get it free, but I wonder if something similar but better exists elsewhere.

Thanks.

 

[Yakman]

there is no pre-european "history" of australia, as there was no written language on the continent.

you'd be better served looking at anthropology studies of the aborigines.

 

[Sarmatia1871]

There are quite a few interesting studies of pre-European (and often also pre-human) Australia under the rubric of "environmental history" - this is a relatively new type of history that situates human history with environmental sciences, geography, anthropology and biology.

Gammage, Biggest Estate on Earth is interesting and all about pre-European history. A couple of other important books in this vein are Flannery, The Future Eaters and Pyne, Burning Bush - both aren't exclusively about pre-European history, as they do carry on to the present, but do situate Australian history in a much deeper framework.

 

[Henry IX]

Gammage, Biggest Estate on Earth is interesting and all about pre-European history.

A revolutionary book - he uses the earliest records of Europeans in Australia (along with contemporary anthropology) to uncover the nature of Aboriginal land management. In the process he refutes a very large portion of the received wisdom in the methods and structure of Aboriginal land management. It's well researched and well written by one of Australia's best historians.

Blue Mountains Dreaming ed by Eugene Stockton and John Merriman has a lot of information on a specific group, both pre- and post- contact including anthropology, archaeology and oral history.

Dark Emu by Bruce Pascoe covers much the same territory as The Biggest Estate on Earth. I have not yet read it, but I comes with good recommendations.

 

[Andre Bolkonsky]

there is no pre-european "history" of australia, as there was no written language on the continent.

you'd be better served looking at anthropology studies of the aborigines.

Needs to play more Civilization.

 

[Henry IX]

To follow up on my previous post, I have now read the first few chapters of Dark Emu and I can confirm it has some good information, although it does tend to be a little polemical for my tastes, which is perhaps unsurprising given the highly politicised nature of Aboriginal history in Australia. In particular the author has managed to combine information from a wide variety of sources including oral histories, early settler accounts, biological studies archaeology and anthropology to produce a fairly coherent argument.

 

[Kgw]

there is no pre-european "history" of australia, as there was no written language on the continent.

you'd be better served looking at anthropology studies of the aborigines.

That's like saying you can't have a history of Pre-Roman Europe of Pre-Hispanic Americas, as they have no written language.

 

[Yakman]

That's like saying you can't have a history of Pre-Roman Europe of Pre-Hispanic Americas, as they have no written language.

there was plenty of writing in the new world.

 

[Geriander]

That's like saying you can't have a history of Pre-Roman Europe of Pre-Hispanic Americas, as they have no written language.

Thats just how history is defined. Everything prior to written records is prehistory.

 

[Tufto]

Thats just how history is defined. Everything prior to written records is prehistory.

It's how history used to be defined, but not really any more. Historians use plenty of sources aside from written records: archaeological evidence, oral testimony and tradition, pictorial evidence and so on. Written records are usually the backbone of studies, but not always.

Most of the work in this case would likely be done by archaeologists and anthropologists, but that doesn't mean historians couldn't also work on it, especially since there are some later written records that can shed light on earlier events. Look at the books Sarmatia recommended, for instance.

 

[Geriander]

It's how history used to be defined, but not really any more. Historians use plenty of sources aside from written records: archaeological evidence, oral testimony and tradition, pictorial evidence and so on. Written records are usually the backbone of studies, but not always.

Most of the work in this case would likely be done by archaeologists and anthropologists, but that doesn't mean historians couldn't also work on it, especially since there are some later written records that can shed light on earlier events. Look at the books Sarmatia recommended, for instance.

I will admit that records of what was then recent oral traditions is something of a grey zone between history and prehistory. My response was mainly to Kgw ignoring the distinction between the two altogether..

 

[Kgw]

I ignore nothing. Following what Tufto said, you can write a "history" about a past without written records.

 

[Geriander]

I ignore nothing. Following what Tufto said, you can write a "history" about a past without written records.

You can write down their oral traditions, accounts of archaeological findings etc, same as for any prehistoric civilization. You can't write a history in the sense of records of person X doing Y in the year Z. The term prehistory exists for a reason. With regards to your earlier example of Europe before the Roman Empire, most of it is protohistory as others wrote about the Celts, Germans, etc.

 

[Arilou]

there was plenty of writing in the new world.

Quipu is one of those tricky things, it's clearly technically possible for it to serve as writing (and not just a mnemonic aid) but it's not quite clear if they actually did. (just about all the preserved ones predating the spanish conquest are relatively "simple" things and not "proper" writing)

There were plenty of "proper" writing systems (of varying types) in mesoamerica though.

 

[Sarmatia1871]

You can write down their oral traditions, accounts of archaeological findings etc, same as for any prehistoric civilization. You can't write a history in the sense of records of person X doing Y in the year Z.

Possibly not, but that's a staggeringly limited view of what history is.

 

[Geriander]

Possibly not, but that's a staggeringly limited view of what history is.

What’s wrong with using the terms prehistory or protohistory when they apply?

 

[Tufto]

What’s wrong with using the terms prehistory or protohistory when they apply?

Aside from the terminology implying a linear sense of historical time, wherein different types of human society are placed on a singular axis of development of being before or after an inevitable entering into history, they're just pointless terms in general. As Sarmatia pointed out, history is not just writing "a history in the sense of records of person X doing Y in the year Z". History that is solely narrative and event-driven is only a fraction of the kinds of things historians produce. You could certainly write social, cultural or environmental history with non-written materials, depending on their extent. Admittedly, again, it would probably be archaeologists and anthropologists doing the bulk of this work but historians would not be excluded from this either.