Rethinking Aboriginal peoples
D.Anton

There is a tendency for anthropologists and historians to define the people called "Palaeolithic" as "hunters and gatherers". Longtime I disagreed with that classification including all pre-urban peoples as such. First, I think the fishing and seafood consumption has been and is usually the first form of subsistence of pre-urban villages. For example, fishing and collecting shellfish and seabird eggs was the main source of livelihood for Charruas, Bohanes, Guarani and other indigenous nations of the Southern Cone. In addition native South American peoples managed their ecosystems, mainly through fire (which also served them to communicate). Besides, all the native peoples of this region knew how to  plant, and who did not was because they lived in inappropriate places for planting.

Australian Aboriginal peoples were considered "primitive" by some anthropologists and historians, who labeled them as "hunters and gatherers". This qualification  expressed an obvious racism that still is expressed in the brutal discrimination against these cultural groups in Australia even today.
An Aboriginal scholar studying ancient chronicles and documents concluded that aboriginal people managed forests, grasslands and deserts. They were not mere "hunters and gatherers". They planted (no large tracts of monoculture, but small farms) and opened trails in the woods to let herbivores come in. In Australia kangaroos and emus, while in Uruguay and neighboring areas they were deers and peccaries. See article by aboriginal writer Bill Gammage: "The Biggest State on Earth: How Aborigines made Australia".

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/bushtelegraph/rethinking-indigenous-australia's-agricultural-past/5452454