Australian Archaeology (Number 62) June 2006

In this issue Editorial Sean Ulm & Annie Ross

ii

ARTICLES Dauan 4 and the Emergence of Ethnographically-Known Social Arrangements across Torres Strait during the Last 600–800 Years Ian J. McNiven

1

Glass Ceilings, Glass Parasols and Australian Academic Archaeology Claire Smith & Heather Burke

13

When East is Northwest: Expanding the Archaeological Boundary for Leilira Blade Production Kevin Tibbett

26

An Ambitious German in Early Twentieth Century Tasmania: The Collections Made by Fritz Noetling Ruth Struwe

31

Test Excavation at the Oyster Harbour Stone Fish Traps, King George Sound, Western Australia: An Investigation Aimed at Determining the Construction Method and Maximum Age of the Structures Joe Dortch, Charles Dortch & Robert Reynolds

38

SHORT REPORTS The Temporality of Cultural Material on a Deflated Dune System at Abbot Point, Central Queensland Coast Bryce Barker

44

BOOK REVIEWS Desert Peoples: Archaeological Perspectives edited by Peter Veth, Mike Smith & Peter Hiscock Reviewed by Mark Basgall

47

First Farmers: The Origins of Agricultural Societies by Peter Bellwood Reviewed by Tim Denham

49

Hominid Adaptations and Extinctions by David W. Cameron Reviewed by Sylvia Hallam

50

Palaeo-Environmental Change and the Persistence of Human Occupation in South-Western Australian Forests by Joe Dortch Reviewed by Sylvia Hallam

51

The Origins of War: Violence in Prehistory by Jean Guilaine & Jean Zammit Reviewed by Graham Knuckey

53

The Archaeologist’s Manual for Conservation: A Guide to Non-Toxic, Minimal Intervention Artifact Stabilization by Bradley A. Rodgers Reviewed by Brandy Lockhart

54

The Archaeology of Time by Gavin Lucas Reviewed by Michael Morrison

55

The Archaeologist’s Field Handbook by Heather Burke & Claire Smith Reviewed by Tim Ormsby

56

Archaeology in Practice: A Student Guide to Archaeological Analyses edited by Jane Balme & Alistair Paterson Reviewed by Anne Ross 57

Inscribed Landscapes: Marking and Making Place edited by Bruno David & Meredith Wilson Reviewed by Michael Slack & Richard Fullagar

2006

Shared Landscapes: Archaeologies of Attachment and the Pastoral Industry in New South Wales by Rodney Harrison Reviewed by Lynette Russell 58 59

number 62

62

THESIS ABSTRACTS

63

BACKFILL Minutes of the 2005 Annual General Meeting of the Australian Archaeological Association Inc. Conference Reports 2005 AAA Conference Awards Conferences Successful Australian Research Council Grants 2005 The Australian Academy of the Humanities: 2005 Fellows

68 74 75 78 80 84

NOTES TO CONTRIBUTORS

85

ISSN 0312-2417

number 62

23°S: Archaeology and Environmental History of the Southern Deserts edited by Mike Smith & Paul Hesse Reviewed by Peter Thorley

June 2006

AUSTRALIAN ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION INC. Office Bearers for 2006 Position Australian

Archaeology,

the

official

publication

of

the

Australian

Archaeological Association Inc., is a refereed journal published since 1974.

Name

Address

Executive President

Alistair Paterson

relevant to archaeological research and practice in Australia and nearby areas.

Secretary

Fiona Hook

Contributions are accepted in five sections: Articles (5000-8000 words), Short

Treasurer

Adam Dias

Archae-aus Pty Ltd, PO Box 177, South Fremantle WA 6162

Reports (1000-3000), Obituaries (500-2000), Thesis Abstracts (200-500), Book

Membership Secretary

Annie Carson

Archaeology, M405, University of Western Australia, 35 Stirling Highway,

Public Officer

Sue O’Connor

Webmaster

Sam Bolton

It accepts original articles in all fields of archaeology and other subjects

Crawley WA 6009

Reviews (500-2000) and Backfill (which includes letters, conference details, announcements and other material of interest to members). Australian


Crawley WA 6009

Archaeology is published twice a year, in June and December.

Department of Archaeology & Natural History, Research School of Pacific & Asian Studies, Australian National University, Canberra ACT 0200 Archaeology, M405, University of Western Australia, 35 Stirling Highway, Crawley WA 6009

Subscriptions are available to individuals through membership of the Australian Archaeological Association Inc. or to organisations through


Media Liaison Officer

Kelly Fleming

Archaeology, M405, University of Western Australia, 35 Stirling Highway, Crawley WA 6009

institutional subscription. Subscription application/renewal forms are available at http://www.australianarchaeologicalassociation.com.au. Australian Archaeology Editors Editors:

Sean Ulm, Annie Ross

Editorial Assistant:

Geraldine Mate

Short Report Editors:

Catherine Westcott, Chris Clarkson, Lara Lamb

Book Review Editors: Ian Lilley, Jill Reid Thesis Abstract Editor: Stephen Nichols

Editor

Sean Ulm

Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander Studies Unit, University of Queensland, Brisbane QLD 4072

Editor

Annie Ross

Editorial Assistant

Geraldine Mate

School of Social Science, University of Queensland, Brisbane QLD 4072 School of Social Science, University of Queensland, Brisbane QLD 4072

Short Reports Editor

Catherine Westcott

Environmental Protection Agency, PO Box 15155, City East QLD 4002


Chris Clarkson

School of Social Science, University of Queensland, Brisbane QLD 4072


Lara Lamb

Department of Humanities & International Studies, University of Southern

Review Editor

Ian Lilley

Review Editor

Jill Reid

Department of Main Roads, GPO Box 1412, Brisbane QLD 4001

Thesis Abstract Editor

Stephen Nichols


Queensland

Lara Lamb


St Lucia QLD 4067

New South Wales

Wayne Brennan

AUSTRALIA

Australian Capital Territory

Stephen Free

4/10 Arthur Street, Queanbeyan NSW 2620

Email: [email protected]

Victoria

Nicola Stern

Department of Archaeology, La Trobe University, Bundoora VIC 3086

URL:

Tasmania

Robin Sim

School of Archaeology & Anthropology, Australian National University,

South Australia

Lynley Wallis

Graphic Design:

Lovehate Design

Printing:

Printpoint Australia Pty Ltd

Cover: Excavation in progress at Dauan 4, looking southeast (L to R: Fr. Imasu Aragu, Liam Brady and Trevor Mooka) (Photograph: Ian J. McNiven).

Queensland, Toowoomba QLD 4350 Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander Studies Unit, University of Queensland, Brisbane QLD 4072

All correspondence and submissions should be addressed to: State Representatives Australian Archaeology PO Box 6088

http://www.australianarchaeologicalassociation.com.au

Queensland, Toowoomba QLD 4350 PO Box 217, Katoomba NSW 2780

Canberra ACT 0200 The views expressed in this journal are not necessarily those of the Australian

© Australian Archaeological Association Inc., 2006 ISSN 0312-2417

Department of Archaeology, Flinders University, GPO Box 2100, Adelaide SA 5001

Archaeological Association Inc. or the Editors. Western Australia

Shaun Canning

11 Lawrence Way, Karratha WA 6714

Northern Territory

Daryl Guse

PO Box 43119, Casuarina NT 0811

TABLE OF CONTENTS Editorial Sean Ulm & Annie Ross

ii


1


13


26


31


38


44


47


49


50


51


53


54


55


56

Archaeology in Practice: A Student Guide to Archaeological Analyses edited by Jane Balme & Alistair Paterson Reviewed by Anne Ross

57

Shared Landscapes: Archaeologies of Attachment and the Pastoral Industry in New South Wales by Rodney Harrison Reviewed by Lynette Russell

58


59


62

THESIS ABSTRACTS

63

BACKFILL Minutes of the 2005 Annual General Meeting of the Australian Archaeological Association Inc.

68

Conference Reports

74

2005 AAA Conference Awards

75

Conferences

78

Successful Australian Research Council Grants 2005

80

The Australian Academy of the Humanities: 2005 Fellows

84


85

Number 62, June 2006

i

EDITORIAL This newsletter should aim at providing a wide, if superficial, coverage of all branches of Australian archaeology – historical, marine, prehistoric, industrial, etc. By allowing members to glimpse a broad spectrum of archaeological research, the newsletter will provide a service that other publications do not give. R.J. Lampert (AA 1974 1:1)

After three decades of successful publication, Ron Lampert’s comments are still pertinent. The central mission of AA remains to service the needs of all Australian archaeologists by presenting the results of significant archaeological research in Australia and nearby areas and to provide an outlet for information pertinent to its members – attributes that led Paul Bahn to characterise AA as ‘one of the liveliest and most humorous of journals’ (The SAA Archaeological Record 2002 2(1):20). However, 30 years on, AA is at a crossroads. Many similar association journals are now managed by major publishing houses to ease editorial and production workloads and to promote broad distribution. Budgets are tighter than ever before, exacerbated by low membership rates. At the same time, there is an urgent need to increase the public profile of archaeology in Australia to aid in the protection of cultural heritage. Pressure for change has also come from the shifting context of research in Australia. In May 2004 the Prime Minister announced the Research Quality Framework (RQF) as part of the ‘Backing Australia’s Ability’ policy. The RQF aims to measure the quality and impact of publicly-funded research conducted in universities and publicly-funded research agencies, as well as its benefits to the wider community. ISI citations and related bibliometrics are key components of the RQF preferred model released in December 2005. Such measures severely disadvantage regional journals such as AA which are not indexed in these databases (although some major international journals are also not included in the ISI Journal Citation Reports, such as Antiquity). The lower value placed on journals like AA is also reflected in local Australian university ranking systems, constructed in preparation for the RQF. The University of Queensland, for example, has ranked AA as a Tier 3 journal (i.e. third down the list – Journal of Archaeological Science and Current Anthropology, for example, are Tier 1, while journals like Archaeology in Oceania and Radiocarbon are Tier 2). The flow-on effect may well be that some contributors will choose not to publish in AA. To reverse this trend and to provide a high quality journal for our members we clearly need to raise the profile of AA in the archaeological landscape. The first stage of this strategy has already been completed with the searchable contents of all AA volumes now available online and the digitisation of AA back issues from 1974–2003 available as searchable fulltext on DVD. A second stage being investigated is to provide online open access to the full-text of all AA issues, with the exception of the last five years. We have also signed up to the WAC Global Libraries Program to support the development of archaeological resources in developing countries by donating 50 copies of each issue of AA published. Combined, these strategies will improve the visibility of AA, provide access to a ii

broader group of users and encourage the use (and citation!) of work published in AA. We have also taken the opportunity presented by the transition to the new editorial committee to review editorial policies and procedures. Over the next few years our aim is to continue to improve the quality of research material published in AA, through rigorous review processes, while maintaining AA’s role as a vehicle for information distribution. In another change, we have adopted a policy of inviting one senior and one more junior scholar to referee each article and short report. We will publish a formal list of referees in the December issue each year in recognition of the contribution of others to the quality of the journal. Astute readers may notice some formatting changes in this issue. These modifications represent only the third major change in the format of the journal since its launch in 1974. In June 1991 (Number 32) the format was changed from B5 to A4 size and in December 1992 (Number 35) the format was changed to include the distinctive orange cover which has been a trademark for many years. The redesign is part of a deliberate policy to broaden the appeal of AA and Australian archaeology to the wider public. Although we will still only print in black-and-white, colour photographs will be preserved so that they are available in electronic versions of articles when they become available online. All changes have been done within the existing budget for AA production. On another note, archaeology-related studies were well represented in Australian Research Council (ARC) Discovery, Linkage and Linkage Infrastructure Grants to commence in 2006. We include a list of successful grants in this issue, highlighting the wide range of current research initiatives. Congratulations also to Jim O’Connell (University of Utah), who was elected to the US National Academy of Sciences in April, and Sharon Sullivan who received AAA’s 2005 Rhys Jones Medal for Outstanding Contribution to Australian Archaeology. Perhaps the Rhys Jones Medal will be considered an ‘esteem indicator’ in the RQF? Finally, a big thanks to the team who helped with the transition from Flinders University and in relaunching the journal. In addition to the hard work and collegiality of the editorial committee we thank John Reid (Lovehate Design) and Antje Noll. The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies Unit and the School of Social Science at the University of Queensland provided funds to employ a casual Editorial Assistant. Numbers 62 and 63 (2006) will represent transitional volumes between the old and new editorial committees. We thank Donald Pate and Jo McDonald, in particular, for working with us to make the transition as smooth as possible. We hope that you enjoy the new format. We welcome any feedback. Sean Ulm and Annie Ross


DAUAN 4 and the Emergence of Ethnographically-Known Social Arrangements across Torres Strait during the Last 600-800 Years Ian J. McNiven Abstract

Kikori

Goaribari

Dibiri N

Abo

Fly River

Wabuda

Sumogi

Purutu Umuda

0

50

Kiw ai

Kilometres

Abaura

Or

na

tur i

R .

sa Kus si

Mai Kuss a

Bi

ri R.

R. mo io

Pahotu

Papua

s Wa

Parama Daru

Bobo

Mabaduan

Boigu

TOP WESTERN ISLANDS

Buru

Saibai Ugar

DAUAN

Damuth

Masig

Tudu Zegey

Iama Pulu

Erub

EA ST ER N

CENTRAL ISLANDS

Gebar

Mabuyag

IS

S ND LA

Excavations at Dauan 4 on the island of Dauan in the Top Western Islands of Torres Strait revealed a 700 year sequence created by marine specialists who ate turtle, dugong, fish and shellfish and employed mostly a flaked quartz technology. The presence of bipolar micro-cores less than 10mm in length reveals extreme reduction of quartz, possibly for manufacture of small skin cutting tools. While recent research indicates an antiquity of at least 4000 years for marine specialists in Torres Strait, Dauan 4 follows a suite of sites across the Strait demonstrating major cultural changes taking place within the last 600–800 years. These changes herald the emergence of ethnographically-known social arrangements marked by a rapid phase of site establishment and intensified site use consistent with population increase. Paralleling these changes was the appearance of new ritual sites linked spiritually to seascapes such as dugong bone arrangements, stone arrangements and shell arrangements. Such changes may have represented in part socially-mediated responses to a local expression of the Little Ice Age global climatic phenomenon.

Mer

Dauar

Aureed Sasi

Waier

Poruma

Programme for Australian Indigenous Archaeology, School of Geography and Environmental Science, Monash University, Clayton, VIC 3800, Australia

WEST PAPUA

Warraber

R.

Naghi

D i gu

l

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

R.

A key outcome of the introduction of the ‘intensification’ paradigm to Australian Indigenous archaeology by Lourandos (1983) has been a refocus of research agendas towards modelling social and cultural changes of the last 4000 years. While this refocus has been set within the broader context of identifying and explaining long-term changes beginning in the late Pleistocene, it is clear that the late Holocene, particularly the last 1000 years, reveals considerable temporal variability and historical dynamism in its own right. Indeed, Bridgewater South Cave and Seal Point Midden in Victoria, the two key excavated sites discussed by Lourandos (1983), reveal major increases in occupation within the last millennium. Yet recognition of major changes within the last 1000 years preceded the intensification debate, as seen for example with changes in technology, subsistence, settlement and gender roles along the New South Wales coast (e.g. Bowdler 1976; Lampert 1966). More recently, the last 1000 years has been brought into sharper focus as archaeologists attempt to identify and understand historical antecedents of ethnographically-known social arrangements – defined here as emplaced social practices dealing with the mutually integrated domains of people-people, people-environment and peoplespirit relationships that have spatialised and patterned material expressions amenable to archaeological inquiry and modelling. Mainland Australian examples include leilira blade production and exchange relationships in the Northern Territory (Allen 1994), shell fishhooks and gender roles along the eastern seaboard

Mua

y Fl

Introduction

WEST ERN ISL AN DS

Badu

Kerriri

Giralag

Ngiangu

Waibene Maurura Muri

Nurupai

Torres Strait

Murulag N

Somerset Bamaga

Cape York Peninsula

0

200 Kilometres

AUSTRALIA

Figure 1 Map of Torres Strait.

(Walters 1988), spiritscapes and Dreaming places in north Queensland (David 2002), tribal fissioning and regionalisation in southeast Queensland (McNiven 1999), and language and ritual expansions in the Western Desert (Gibbs and Veth 2002). Documenting these changes is crucial for contextualising and understanding socio-cultural transformations associated with European contact and its aftermath. Such documentation, preferably employing small analytical timeframes of 50–100 years, is becoming increasingly feasible with radiocarbon dating refinements producing standard deviations of less than 50 years. This paper extends this approach to understand the emergence of ethnographically-known social arrangements across Torres Strait. The catalyst for this exploration is the results of recent excavations on the island of Dauan. Dauan is located 10km south of the Papua New Guinea coast and represents an articulation point between the Papuan lowlands and the remaining islands of Torres Strait (Figure 1). The island consists of a granite boulder mountain fringed in various parts by a narrow zone of flats and mangrove forests (Figure 2). As in the past, the main village site is located on the northeast coast. In


1

Dauan 4 and the Emergence of Ethnographically-Known Social Arrangements across Torres Strait

Figure 2 Dauan showing location of Site 4, looking north (Photograph: Ian J. McNiven, 2000).

Figure 3 Plan and cross-section of Dauan 4.

1871 the London Missionary Society arrived, followed soon after by a number of survey expeditions (D’Albertis 1880; Moresby 1876). On 6 December 1879, Captain C. Pennefather on QGS Pearl arrived on Dauan to announce somewhat audaciously the annexation of the island and its people as part of the colony of Queensland. Published ‘information about the ethnography of this island is very meager’ (Haddon 1935:41). In terms of socio-cultural grouping, Dauan is linked to the muddy islands of Boigu to the west and Saibai to the east, to form what is referred to today as the Top Western Islands of Torres Strait. All three island communities speak Kala Kawaw Ya (Shnukal 1998:186). Today, most people speak Creole (‘Broken’) amongst themselves and English to non-Indigenous outsiders. Key clans include Dhoeybaw (Yam) and Koedal (Crocodile). Headhunting was a feature of life (and death) on Dauan up until the end of the nineteenth century and the Marind-Anim (Tugeri) of West Papua were dreaded in this regard. However, not all interactions with Papuans were hostile and strong kinship and trade ties existed between many coastal Papuans and Top Western Islanders (Lawrence 1994; McNiven 1998). Despite an international boundary, many of these friendly ties continue to the present. In the past, the Dauanalgal (people of Dauan) obtained food principally from gardening (yams, sweet potatoes, taro, cassava, sugarcane, bananas and coconuts) and from fishing and hunting marine turtle and dugong (Laade 1971). While marine hunting and fishing continues, gardening has dropped off in recent decades and most produce is obtained from the local IBIS store. Today, the population of Dauan is around 170 people and local affairs are administered by the Dauan Island Council. Archaeological research on Dauan has focused on rock art (e.g. McNiven et al. 2004a), and stone quarries and associated axe and club head (gabagaba) manufacture and trade (e.g. McNiven 1998; McNiven and von Gnielinski 2004; McNiven et al. 2004b). This research demonstrates the ‘traditional’ strategic importance of Dauan as the only source of tool stone across northern Torres Strait and the adjacent Papuan lowlands. Despite elaborations on the regional significance of Dauan, few archaeological insights have been made into daily life on the island. It is in this context that archaeological excavations at

Dauan Site 4 (designated hereafter as Dauan 4) shed new light on Dauanalgaw history.

2

Dauan 4 The site of Dauan 4 is located on the central west coast of Dauan on a narrow patch of relatively flat land that rises further inland to eventually form the steep slope of the mountain at the core of the island (Figure 2). Unlike most other sections of the west coast of Dauan, the area of Dauan 4 is relatively flat with uninhibited access to the fringing reef and sea from the beach. Dauan 4 features a surface scatter of marine shells over an area of 22m x 4m that extends across relatively flat land between the High Water Mark and the ‘datum’ granite boulder (Figure 3). Behind the site land rises more steeply to a series of large granite boulders. The site is covered with grass and is adjacent to a cassava garden planted recently by a local woman (Fr. Imasu Aragu, pers. comm., 2004). Next to the cassava garden is a small bamboo pole and coconut frond shelter belonging to the Mooka family. As in the past, the area of Dauan 4 is a favoured place for visitation by Dauan Islanders.

Excavation and Stratigraphy Two 70cm x 70cm contiguous squares (Squares A and B) forming a 0.7m x 1.4m pit were excavated adjacent to the highest density surface scatter of marine shells (Figures 3-4). The closest cassava plant to the pit is located 1.2m south of the southeast corner of Square B. The site datum was established on the highest point of the eastern adjacent boulder. Ground surface elevation of the northeast corner of Square B is 464mm below the datum and 95cm above the elevation of the adjacent High Water Mark. As the pit was excavated down 95cm, the base of the pit is at the same elevation as the High Water Mark. Sediments were excavated using relatively thin Excavation Units (XUs) within Stratigraphic Units (SUs). All excavated sediments were dry sieved through 3mm (measured on the diagonal) mesh on the adjacent beach. Plastic bags were laid across the base of the pit before backfilling with sieved sediments augmented with beach sands. Excavation of the pit ceased due to difficulty of excavation from encroachment of large granite boulders and a drop-off in cultural materials (represented mostly by tiny quartz flakes) to


Ian J. McNiven

Figure 4 Excavation in progress at Dauan 4, looking southeast (L to R: Fr. Imasu Aragu, Liam Brady and Trevor Mooka) (Photograph: Ian J. McNiven).

Figure 5 Squares A and B after excavation, south and west sections (scales in 10cm units) (Photograph: Ian J. McNiven).

Figure 6 Stratigraphy of Squares A and B, Dauan 4.

negligible amounts at the base of the pit (Figure 5). A total of 953.7kg (773.9 litres) of deposit was excavated from the pit. Ian McNiven and Liam Brady (Monash University) and Fr. Imasu Aragu and Trevor Mooka (Dauan) excavated the site between 21-28 April 2004. The moist, loose (unconsolidated), coarse-grained granitic sands comprising the pit were divided into four SUs based on changes in colour and texture (Figure 6). Sediment colour varies with depth as follows: SUs 1 and 2 (black, 10YR 2/1), SU3 (dark brown, 7.5YR 3/2), and SU4 (black, 7.5YR 2.5/1 to dark greyish brown, 10YR 3/2). Acidity (pH) ranged from 6.0 to 6.5. Sediments most likely derive from eroding granites and slope wash immediately inland of the site (see Figures 2-3). As they entered the site sediments built up around and buried a series of large granite boulders. The only beach inclusions observed during excavation were scattered fragments/pebbles of pumice. SU3 featured large reddish-brown sandy concretions, small fragments of which represented more than 50% of rocky rubble left in the sieve in SU3 and adjacent lower sections of SU2 and upper sections of SU4. Remaining rocky rubble was granite fragments. The excavation pit was inadvertently positioned on the northern margin of the concretion zone as all major concretions were restricted to the southern half of the pit. These concretions formed in situ, possibly as a result of chemical reactions associated with localised moisture regimes within sediments.

Few indications of post-depositional disturbance were observed during excavation. Burrows were small (Û>ÌÊ1Ì

ÝV>Û>ÌÊ1Ì


-µÕ>ÀiÊ -µÕ>ÀiÊ

ä

£

Ó

Î

{

x

È

£ Ó Î { x È Ç n £ä ££ £Ó £Î £{ £x £È £Ç £n £ Óä Ó£ ÓÓ

Ç


ä

£

7i}ÌÊvÊ >ÀV>Ê}É£äÊÌÀiÃÊvÊì«ÃÌ®

Ó

Î

{

7i}ÌÊvÊ iÊ}É£äÊÌÀiÃÊvÊì«ÃÌ®

Figure 7 Vertical changes in charcoal density, Squares A and B, Dauan 4.

Figure 8 Vertical changes in bone density, Squares A and B, Dauan 4.

in this paper were calibrated using this procedure, while dates on shell were calibrated using the marine calibration dataset (Hughen et al. 2004) with a ∆R value of 49±45 years (Ulm 2002). Dates expressed as ‘years ago’ (i.e. calendar years before 2005) represent approximations based upon the midpoint of the highest probability 1 sigma calibrated age-range rounded to the nearest 50 years. The first sample was obtained from near the base of the pit in Square B (XU20) at a depth of 75–80cm below the surface to establish the timing of first major use of the site. XU20 features a major concentration of charcoal (Figure 7). The resulting date of 691±35 BP (Wk-14943) produces a 2 sigma calibrated age-range of 558–662 cal BP (c.650 years ago) (Table 1). The second sample was obtained from Square B (XU10) at a depth of 28–32cm below the surface at the top of SU2. This XU marks a period of major increase in the density of charcoal, bone and shell (Figures 7-9). The resulting date of 435±45 BP (Wk-14942) produces a 2 sigma calibrated agerange of 324–516 cal BP (c.550 years ago). No radiocarbon date was obtained from the surface of the site, which continues to be used today. As such, the surface of the site is aged as modern. Thus, radiocarbon dating reveals that people have been camping at Dauan 4 for at least 650 years. The recovery of four tiny stone artefacts within the lower 10cm of deposit (XUs 21-22) below the date of c.650 years suggests that the site may have been in use a little earlier than this, around 700 years ago.

Cultural Materials and Activities Cultural materials recovered from the site include marine shells, bones, charcoal (including carbonised seeds – analysis incomplete), and stone artefacts. While 4.4g of ochre was identified, its cultural origin is questionable as it comprised tiny fragments without striations.

Marine Subsistence Archaeological, historical and contemporary ethnographic information demonstrates that Torres Strait Islanders have always been marine specialists, with essentially all protein coming from the sea in the form of turtle, dugong, fish and shellfish (McNiven and Hitchcock 2004). Faunal remains from Dauan 4 further support this contention. A total of 45.8g of bone was recovered from the pit (Figure 8). Most (98%) is marine turtle (waru)/dugong (dhangal) of which only 9% (3.9g) and 5% (2.1g) can be differentiated specifically as either marine turtle or dugong respectively. As identifiable dugong bone was restricted to a single rib fragment in XU9 from Square B, it is likely that nearly the entire ‘marine turtle/dugong’ category of bone is turtle. Clearly, the vast bulk of animal food consumed at the site throughout its history was marine turtle. The dramatic increase in bone at XU10 indicates an equally dramatic increase in consumption of turtle at the site within the last c.550 years.

Table 1 Radiocarbon dates for Dauan 4. * = highest probability of calibrated ranges.

4

Location

Depth (cm)

Lab. No.

Material Dated (sample wt)

␦13C‰ (±0.2)

% Modern

Sq B XU10

28-32

Wk-14942

Charcoal (4.74g)

-25.3

Sq B XU20

75-80

Wk-14943

Charcoal (8.21g)

-25.7

14

C Age (years BP)

Calibrated Age BP 68.3% (1 sigma range)

Calibrated Age BP 95.4% (2 sigma range)

Years Ago

94.7±0.5

435±45

334-360 446-504*

324-415 427-516*

c.550

91.7±0.4

691±35

564-601* 629-654

558-662*

c.650



ÝV>Û>ÌÊ1Ì

ÝV>Û>ÌÊ1Ì

Ian J. McNiven


ä

x

£ä

£x

Óä

Óx

Îä

Îx

{ä

{x

xä


-µÕ>ÀiÊ Square A

Square B -µÕ>ÀiÊ

ä

7i}ÌÊvÊ>ÀiÊ-iÊ}É£äÊÌÀiÃÊvÊì«ÃÌ®

Ó

{

È

n

£ä

£Ó

7i}ÌÊvÊ-ÌiÊÀÌiv>VÌÃÊ}É£äÊÌÀiÃÊvÊì«ÃÌ®

Figure 9 Vertical changes in marine shell density, Squares A and B, Dauan 4.

Figure 10 Vertical changes in stone artefact density, Squares A and B, Dauan 4 (excludes 1271g granite retouched flake from XU18a Square A).

All other identifiable bones were either fish (0.2g) or shark/ray (0.1g). The only fish bone/tooth identifiable to family level was a single Scaridae (parrotfish) pharyngeal tooth from XU11 Square B. A single water-worn shark’s tooth was recovered from XU11a Square A. From the scattering of fish bones through the deposit, fish clearly represented a consistent, albeit minor, part of the meat diet of people camping at the site. A total of 394.8g of marine shell (all large edible shellfish) was recovered (Figure 9). The amounts of shell in Square A (194.9g) and Square B (199.9g) were essentially the same. Shells in Square B were restricted to the upper 30cm of deposit dating to within the last c.550 years. Six species of shellfish representing a total MNI of only 35 was recovered. Most (69%) shells are mudu (Anadara antiquata) (MNI=24), the only species found in all XUs with shell. Remaining shells are kapap (mud whelks, Potamidae) (MNI=6) with minor amounts of ngata (chiton) (MNI=3), budi (Angaria delphinus) (MNI=1), spider shell (Lambis lambis) (MNI=1) and akul (Polymesoda erosa) (MNI=0, diagnostic fragments only) (local names provided by Dauan elders). All of these shellfish are readily available from nearby tidal habitats on the west coast of Dauan: reef sands and muds (mudu, kapap and budi), mangrove muds (akul) and rocks (chiton). The limited range and number of shellfish suggests that shellfishing was a low intensity foraging activity for users of the site during the last c.550 years.

Stone Artefact Technology Barham et al. (2004:53) in their overview of Torres Strait archaeology make the important point that to date ‘[a]lmost all evidence for lithic use and manufacture is non-stratigraphic and lacking any chronological linkage into the emerging occupational history of Torres Strait’. Dauan 4 provides the first excavated, dated and analysed stone artefact assemblage for Torres Strait. Yet the significance of this assemblage is not in terms of elucidating chronological change but in allowing detailed characterisation of a controlled sample of artefacts from a single site. This significance relates to raw material use, manufacturing techniques and artefact functions. A total of 270 stone artefacts weighing 1432.6g was recovered from Squares A and B (Figure 10). However, 1271.3g (89%) came from a single, aberrantly-sized granite retouched flake recovered from XU18a Square A. Most (76%) artefacts were manufactured from quartz (milky and crystal), followed by fine-grained volcanic and granite (Table 2). All four raw materials could have been obtained from Dauan given that the island is a granite outcrop with fine-grained volcanic (e.g. andesite) and quartz intrusions. It is likely that the fine-grained volcanic artefacts were made from one or more of a series of fine-grained volcanic dyke quarries known for the island (see McNiven et al. 2004b; McNiven and von Gnielinski 2004). The presence of water-rolled cortex on 20% (n=28) of the milky quartz artefacts and 12% (n=8) of the crystal quartz artefacts reveals that much of the quartz was not quarried directly from

Table 2 Stone artefact raw materials, Squares A and B, Dauan 4. Table excludes very large (1271g) granite retouched flake from XU18a Square A.

Raw Material Milky quartz

n

n %

Wt (g)

Wt %

Mean Wt (g)

Range Wt (g)

Mean Max. Length (mm)

Range Max. Length (mm) 4-44

139

51.7

66.31

41.1

0.48

0.01-18.42

11.1

Crystal quartz

65

24.1

6.02

3.7

0.09

0.01-1.14

8.1

4-21

Fine-grained volcanic

39

14.5

22.50

14.0

0.58

0.01-4.46

13.1

5-32

2.56

0.01-32.58

18.3

5-70

Granite Total

26

9.7

66.44

41.2

269

100

161.27

100


5


x

Çä

«>ÀÊ>iÃÊrÓx® «>ÀÊ ÀiÃÊr££®

Èä

{

ÀiµÕiVÞ

xä

¯

{ä Îä

Î

Ó

Óä

£ £ä ä

ä ä£ä

£äÓä

ÓäÎä

Îä{ä

{äxä

xäÈä

ÈäÇä

£ Ó Î { x È Ç n £ä ££ £Ó £Î £{ £x £È £Ç £n £ Óä Ó£ ÓÓ ÓÎ Ó{ Óx ÓÈ ÓÇ Ón Ó Îä

>ÝÕÊi}ÌÊ®

>ÝÕÊi}ÌÊ®

Figure 11 Size of stone artefacts, Squares A and B, Dauan 4 (excludes 1271g granite retouched flake from XU18a Square A).

Figure 12 Bipolar flake and core maximum lengths, Squares A and B, Dauan 4.

bedrock, but picked up as loose pebbles either in creek beds or, more likely, along the coast on tidal flats where such pebbles can be found today (personal observation). The only other raw material with water-rolled cortex was medium-grained granite (n=4). Most artefacts are unretouched flakes (87%), followed by flaked pieces (9%), cores (4%) and a single retouched flake (Ê>iÃ

iVÌÕÀiÀÃ

/Ì>Êi>iÃ

/Ì>Ê>iÃ

,iÃi>ÀVÊiÜÃ

/Ì>Êi>iÃ

/Ì>Ê>iÃ

iÛiÊÊiVÌÕÀiÀ

>ÃÃvV>Ì i>i

iÛiÊ ÊiVÌÕÀiÀ




>ÃÃvV>Ì

/Ì>ÊV>ìVÊ-Ì>vv

i>i

>i

>i

Figure 1 Percentage of archaeologists employed full-time in Australian universities, according to sex and classification, April 2006.

Figure 2 Percentage of archaeologists employed full-time as Lecturers in Australian universities, according to sex and classification, April 2006.

female lecturers in archaeology are meeting a metaphorical glass ceiling. This is broadly comparable to the national figure for academic staff in 2002 (Australian Vice Chancellors’ Committee 2003). These figures indicate that, despite changes designed to create a more level playing field, including legislative changes and the proactive employment policies that have been developed by many universities, women are advancing only slowly into the senior levels. Figure 3 shows the percentage of archaeologists employed fulltime as researchers in Australian universities, according to sex and classification. Women have higher or equal representation with men at all levels of Research Fellow, with the exception of that of Senior Research Fellow (Level C) and Professorial Research Fellow (Level E) (which is represented by a single male). It appears that women are either (a) choosing research fellowships over lectureships or (b) choosing research fellowships as an option until they can obtain a lecturing post. It should be noted that research and teaching positions are not directly equivalent. In contrast to lectureships, which are mostly tenured or tenuretrack, fellowships are normally of fixed duration. Postdoctoral fellowships, for example, are awarded for the researcher to undertake a particular project, over a specific period (usually three years). While research fellowships may appeal to women because they offer greater flexibility than lecturing positions, this is normally coupled with a level of insecurity, especially at the more junior levels. One difference between lectureships and research fellowships that may be relevant here is that while the former are determined by committees who interview applicants, the latter are determined on the basis of quality of project and quality of researcher, and do not usually involve a formal interview. These data raise a number of critical questions. What is the cause of this patterning? Does it apply to the general archaeological workplace, or only to the academy? Does this situation apply to disciplines other than archaeology? What lessons can be learnt from this? The question of cause is a complex one, since, as all archaeologists are aware, patterns in human behaviour are an intersection of many factors. Certainly, a fundamental issue is the cumulative effect of behaviours such as stereotyping, exclusion and isolation, devaluation and trivialisation of women’s abilities to reach their full potential. Irrespective of equity legislation, such subtle discriminatory practices can create a ‘chilly climate’ that inhibits professional advancement (see Wylie 1993). However, one problem with some of this literature is that it is framed in

terms of women as victims. Such an approach is seriously limited and could actually promote the situation, since it places the onus for change on the perpetrators (assumed to be primarily male), or on academic cultures (somehow intangible), rather than in the hands of women themselves. Beyond the indices of victimhood lie identifications of the differing values held by women and men (including enormous variation between the sexes) and how these values intersect with those of particular disciplinary cultures. The patterns identified in this paper need to be addressed. In our view, the area of greatest concern is that of entry into the academy (Level B), where men outnumber women at a rate of 2:1. If twice as many men as women continue to be employed at this level, the pattern will continue, and the academy will lose the talents of skilled people. It appears that the women who do not obtain a tenured post apply for research fellowships, take up consulting, or move to overseas institutions. In this context, it is notable that a significant number of young Australians have been appointed to posts in overseas institutions over the last few years. This is part of a wider trend in Australian society, whereby around 5% of our population (one million out of a population of slightly more than 20 million) live overseas (Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry 2004). While for some scholars a deciding factor has been that research in areas such as feminist theory, identity and postcolonial theory was not highly valued within the disciplinary culture of Australian archaeology at the time (see Meskell 2003), there is no doubt that these people are also influenced by their perceptions of whether they are likely to gain entry to the academy in Australia and promotion at the rate they expect. A more general study by the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (2004:2) found that:

16

The Push factors for these young academics ranged across what respondents saw as the relatively low status for professionals in these areas at home and the long-term funding decline and lack of research career opportunities in Australia. The Pull factors for these people revolved around better salary and career opportunities abroad.

Some of our top scholars, both female and male, are taking their intelligence, energy and skills permanently to another country, a disciplinary facet of the much discussed ‘brain drain’ of Australian academia (Hugo et al. 2001; Nicol 2000; Wood 2004). While this has to be evaluated against the scholars with comparable skills who immigrate to Australia, we should be


Claire Smith and Heather Burke

£ää ä nä Çä

¯

Èä xä {ä Îä Óä £ä ä iÛiÊÊ,iÃÊiÜ iÛiÊ Ê,iÃÊiÜ iÛiÊ Ê,iÃÊiÜ iÛiÊ Ê,iÃÊiÜ iÛiÊ Ê,iÃÊiÜ

>ÃÃvV>Ì i>i

>i

Figure 3 Percentage of archaeologists employed full-time as Research Fellows in Australian universities, according to sex and classification, April 2006.

concerned about the loss of skills to the Australian archaeological community from the scholars who leave permanently, as against the gain in skills that would come from them acquiring experience and qualifications overseas and returning home. Given the figures reported in this paper, we expect this Australian diaspora to continue. It is difficult to determine whether the pattern described above holds across the archaeological workplace. To do this, it would be necessary to assess these issues for other forms of employment, especially those in the cultural heritage management sector. The majority of Australian archaeologists are employed by government heritage agencies or work as private consultants, dealing with cultural heritage management (Frankel 1998:27). Goulding et al. (1993) assess the perception in Australian archaeology that women numerically dominate the cultural heritage sector. They found that ‘while women are more likely to be employed in cultural resource management … there is no gender difference on this point’ (Goulding et al. 1993:228). McGowan (1995) argued that the field of cultural heritage management, even at the senior levels, was female dominated, and that, because of this, the problems commonly associated with women’s work, such as lower pay and unsatisfactory conditions, affected cultural heritage management workers (both women and men). Essentially, because the field was female dominated, it was therefore perceived as ‘women’s work’. Writing in the early 1990s, Truscott and Smith (1993:219) noted that women comprised 60% of consultants and held 46% of government cultural resource management positions. This suggests that, as more women are employed, a perception arises that the sector is ‘full of women’ – even when their numbers are only around half, or less. It may also be related to the status of this sector (see Clarke 1993), which is sometimes perceived as being lower than that of the academy. In our view, a similar decrease in status may occur in the academy should it ever reach a point where the representation of women approaches demographic equity. What lessons can be learnt from this? Firstly, women archaeologists seeking lectureships within the academy, or advancement within its ranks, should recognise they are at a structural disadvantage. They would do well to take advantage of the numerous publications that offer career strategies for women (e.g. Chesterman 2000; Collins et al. 1998; Hansen 2005; Phillips 1998; Williams 2001; Zarmati 1998). Secondly, we need to recognise that it is an easy matter to lose ground, even when achievements have been accomplished. For example, women

made progress towards demographic parity and occupational equity in science, mathematics and engineering during the 1970s and 1980s, but this slowed during the 1990s (Goodell 1998) and, in some cases, has reversed (Vetter 1996). In terms of equity, the critical issues for women in Australian academic archaeology are whether those who now hold fellowships will obtain permanent entry to the academy and, if they do, whether they will obtain promotion at a comparable rate to their male peers. No doubt this will be influenced by the generational shift envisaged for Australian universities as baby boomers retire and are replaced by Generation X-ers (see Winchester 2005). Hopefully, the greater flexibility envisaged for university scholarly environments will translate into greater equity. Beyond this, it is important to consider what is happening in other archaeological workplace sectors. Cultural heritage management, in particular, is often marginalised (see Hope 1995), and is overlooked in studies such as our own, partly because it seems to be more difficult to gather data for this sector. While there is pertinent information in a number of studies (e.g. Flood 1993; Smith 2000), a more comprehensive study is needed – one that would consider the trends in heritage and other government agencies, as well as in the consulting sector. While there have been some very dedicated senior archaeologists in this sector who have been influential in saving sites and in developing heritage policy both in Australia and overseas, how the authority of individual females translates to equity in the workplace is a different matter, and one that deserves serious study in its own right.

Publications A central aspect of status within an academic profession is the production of high quality, peer-reviewed publications. Within post-processual archaeology, much has been made of the many ways in which prestige is unevenly distributed within the academy, and the various strategies through which this unevenness is maintained (e.g. Hutson 1998). Publication rates, particularly in terms of the number of journal papers and books, has been found to be one of the best predictors of rank across the subfields of American anthropology, including archaeology (Bradley and Dahl 1995). Obviously this is tied to wider gender and equity issues, as there is often a circular bind arising from the structural position of women within the academy, the consequent opportunities available to them to publish and the subsequent rate at which they can gain promotion and research funding. There are a number of ways in which the nexus between publication and status can be analysed in terms of women’s equity issues within the academy. We have chosen to look at the overall rates of publication according to sex, the comparative trends in these rates across the three major journals for Australian archaeology – Australian Archaeology (AA), Australasian Journal of Historical Archaeology (AJHA) and Archaeology in Oceania (AO) – and the incidence of co-authorship as one potential strategy by which women can enhance their publication opportunities. Figure 4 is an amalgamation of the rates of authorship for major articles across all three archaeological journals for the years 1984–2004 inclusive (the period when all three journals were in production). ‘Major’ for our purposes includes all articles within the main body of the journal (i.e. everything classed as an ‘article’ in AA or AO, and everything prior to the reviews section of AJHA). Editorials, obituaries and conference notes have been


17

£ää

ä

ä

nä

nä

Çä

Çä

Èä

Èä

nÈ £ nÇ £ nn £ n £ ä £ £ £ Ó £ Î £ { £ x £ È £ Ç £ n £ Óä ää Óä ä£ Óä äÓ Óä äÎ Óä ä{

n{ £

ä{

äÎ

Óä

äÓ

Óä

ä£

Óä

ää

Óä

Óä

n

£

Ç £

£

x

È £

{

£

Î

£

Ó

£

£

£

ä

£

£

£

£

£

£

£

£

n

ä

nn

£ä

ä

nÇ

Óä

£ä

nÈ

Îä

Óä

nx

{ä

Îä

nx

xä

{ä

£

xä

£

¯

£ää

n{

¯

Glass Ceilings, Glass Parasols and Australian Academic Archaeology

9i>À

9i>À

>i

1Ü

ä

nä

nä

Çä

Çä

Èä

Èä

£ £ Ó £ Î £ { £ x £ È £ Ç £ n £ Óä ää Óä ä£ Óä äÓ Óä äÎ Óä ä{

ä

£

n

£

nn

£

£

£

9i>À

£

n{

ä{ Óä

äÎ Óä

äÓ Óä

ä£ Óä

ää Óä

£

n

Ç

£

£

È £

x £

{ £

Î £

Ó £

£ £

ä £

£

£

£

£

£

£

n

ä

nn

£ä

ä

nÇ

Óä

£ä

nÈ

Îä

Óä

nx

{ä

Îä

nÇ

xä

{ä

nÈ

xä

nx

¯

£ää

ä

>i

i>i

Figure 5 Publication rates in Australian Archaeology.

£ää

n{

¯

Figure 4 Publication rates across all three major journals.

£

i>i

£

>i

9i>À i>i

>i

i>i

Figure 6 Publication rates in Archaeology in Oceania.

Figure 7 Publication rates in the Australasian Journal of Historical Archaeology.

excluded. There is a clear gap in the rate of publication, with men averaging 38% more publications in comparison to women. While secure identification of the number of unknowns may well enhance the relative publication rates for women, even a 100% attribution of these to female authors would not bring women’s publication rates equal to men’s. While a comparison between the figures in journal authorship and book authorship would also be enlightening, the data are not as readily available. In the United States, for example, Bradley and Dahl (1995) found that women and men produced similar numbers of papers, but that men produced more books than women, a pattern that they attribute to men being more likely to direct the major excavations that turn into book publications. While we suspect that the impetus for book publication in Australia derives from slightly different sources (e.g. doctoral theses as opposed to major excavation projects), given the disparity between male and female publication rates in journals we would expect a similar trend to be evident in the rates for book publication. When the rates of journal publication are compared between the three major journals, a slightly different trend is apparent (Figures 5-7). While publication rates for men generally exceed that of women, the rates are not consistent across all three journals. In these graphs, ‘female’ and ‘male’ include all articles authored or co-authored exclusively by women and men respectively. Unknowns have been excluded from the graphs. The most noticeable difference is between the rates evident in AJHA, where female authorship comes closest to matching that of males, compared to those in AA and AO. There are six years in which the female publication rate in AJHA either matches or exceeds that for males, compared to only one for AA and none for AO. While it is not clear precisely what combination of factors

this reflects, in the United States Chester et al. (1995) found significant differences in the topics of research interest pursued by women and men. While women demonstrated a greater interest in education, ethnicity, class and status, men showed a greater interest in artefact analysis, maritime archaeology and the military. Topics such as archaeological theory and the analysis of towns and plantations showed similar rates of interests. The greatest disparity was in publications on gender, with women outnumbering men at the ratio of more than 2:1 (Chester et al. 1995:217). It is interesting to note that the slight variance in publication rates between the three Australian journals could also be construed as representing broadly different research interests (i.e. pre- versus post-colonial archaeology), albeit with some degree of overlap. When consolidated into one graph, however, with female publication rates for each journal compared to the total male publication rate, this trend is less clear (Figure 8). In the two decades between 1984 and 2004 AA and AJHA have a similar incidence of the highest number of female publications in particular years (12 years for the former; 11 for the latter) compared to only four years for AO. In the United States, Chester et al. (1995) found that the success rate of men’s and women’s publications in historical archaeology was roughly equal but that men submitted substantially more publications than women. Men seem to be submitting substantially more publications to Australian journals as well. Both publication rates and the quality of publications can be enhanced through co-authorship. Co-authorship produces an increase in publication rates through more than a numerical equation. Co-authors put pressure on each other to work to a timeline, and co-authorship can enhance the quality of a publication through bringing to the work a different body

18



£ää

xä

ä

{x

nä

{ä ÕLiÀÊvÊÀÌViÃ

Çä

xä {ä Îä

Îx Îä Óx Óä

Óä

£x

£ä

£ä

ä

äÎ

äÓ

ä{ Óä

Óä

ää

ä£

Óä

Óä

Óä

Ç

n

£

£

£

x

È £

Î

Ó

£

{

£

£

£

£

n

nn

nÇ

nÈ

nx

ä

£

£

£

£

£

£

£

£

n{

x ä

ÕÌÊ®

9i>À iÊ>ÊÕÀ>Ã®

7iÊ®

7iÊ®

-iÊÕÌÊ®

-iÊÕÌÊ®

ÕÌÀÃ«Ê/Þ«i

Figure 8 Publication rates for women in each journal compared to the total male publication rate.

Figure 9 Rates of sole authorship compared to co-authorship by samesex colleagues.

xä

£ää

{x

ä

{ä

nä Çä

Îx

Èä

Îä ¯ Óx

xä {ä

Óä

Îä

£x

Óä

£ä

£ä

x

£ £ Ó £ Î £ { £ x £ È £ Ç £ n £ Óä ää Óä ä£ Óä äÓ Óä äÎ Óä ä{

ä

£

n

£

nn

£

nÇ

nÈ

£

-iÊÕÌÊ®

£

n{ -iÊÕÌÊ®

£

ÕÌÊ®Ê³Êi>`ÊÕÌ ÕÌÊ®Ê³Êi>`ÊÕÌ ® ®

nx

ä

ä

£

ÕLiÀÊvÊÀÌViÃ

ÕÌÊ®

7iÊ"®

£

¯

Èä

9i>À

ÕÌÀÃ«Ê/Þ«i

>i

i>i

Figure 10 Rates of co-authorship, with female leading authors counted as ‘female’, and male leading authors counted as ‘male’.

Figure 11 Book review rates across all three major journals. Unknowns have been excluded from the graph.

of knowledge and skills. Some researchers (e.g. Cole and Zuckerman 1984) have found that women and men co-author at roughly the same rate, while others (e.g. McDowell and Smith 1992) argue that co-authors are usually colleagues of the same sex. One implication of this is that there will be less co-authorship opportunities for women in disciplines that are largely composed of men. McDowell and Smith (1992:79) argue that a workplace environment that gives women comparable opportunities for co-authorship to men would enhance female productivity. In the Australian journals co-authorship is clearly a contributory factor to successful publication rates, although the relative percentages of female versus male co-authorship follow a similar pattern to overall publication rates (i.e. men are sole authors and co-authors together on a greater number of publications than women) (Figure 9). In terms of our study, this implies that same-sex collegial co-authorship is not a significant factor in increasing parity between female and male publication rates. Figure 10 amalgamates these figures with co-authored papers according to the sex of the leading author. As is evident from the graph, this does little to change the overall pattern. Another test of status within the academy is being called upon to review publications and grant proposals. The role of the reviewer is important, since the reviewer has direct influence on whether the project will be funded or the article or book published. In the United States, Chester et al. (1995) found that women were invited to write book reviews and to review grant proposals and the publications of their peers much less frequently than men. While comparable data on the grant review process are not available for Australian archaeology, the data on book review rates for women and for men show a pattern reminiscent to that of authorship (Figure 11). Male review rates

average 40% higher than women, although, interestingly, the disparity in this area seems to have been decreasing over time. Peer-reviewed publication outcomes are tied into many indicators of success in the academy, factoring heavily into employment, promotion and grant application processes. For women seeking advancement within the academy, publication rates can be part of a circular ‘low status’ bind: women don’t publish at comparable rates to men, not because their papers won’t be accepted, but because they don’t prioritise them, or because they don’t have confidence that their work will be accepted. However, studies elsewhere have shown that women and men have similar acceptance rates for publications, though women have lower submission rates (e.g. Chester et al. 1995). While we do not have figures for publication acceptance rates in Australia, we suspect a similar pattern, given women’s low application rate for research funding (see below). Irrespective, it seems clear to us that this is an area where change lies in the hands of women, though this could be enhanced by targeted institutional support.

Research Funding Since success in obtaining research funding is fundamental to academic progress, it is important to consider women’s and men’s relative ability to attract research funding. While the dominance of female Research Fellows in Figure 1 suggests that women are at least as successful as men at attracting research funds, it is also possible that the patterning is specific to that category of funding. It would be useful to have an analysis of archaeologists who obtained funding from the Australian Research Council’s (ARC) Discovery and Linkage programs, the premier funding programs for archaeology in Australia (see http://www.arc.gov.


19


au), particularly in regard to the ‘early career researcher’ category. While such a disciplinary specific analysis is beyond the scope of this paper, it is worthwhile considering the ARC’s records on comparative success rates for applicants by sex. Consistent with patterns for the previous five years, the selection report for 2005 states: In Discovery Projects, of a total of 6,787 applicants, 1,610 (23.7%) investigators applying were female and 5,177 (76.3%) were male. In recommended applications, 482 (20.9%) applicants are female and 1,825 (79.1%) are male. The overall success rate is 29.9% for female investigators and 35.3% for male investigators (Australian Research Council 2004).

While fewer women than men attract ARC funding, this should be interpreted in terms of women’s unequal representation in the academy. Since women comprised around 38% of the academic staff of Australian universities in 2002 (Australian Vice Chancellors’ Committee 2003), they should be expected to obtain around 38% of the funding. The success rate of 29.9% for women and of 35.3% for men is not a matter for serious consternation in terms of women’s abilities to attract funds, given the highly competitive nature of the ARC funding programs and the relative positions of women and men within university structures (Australian Vice Chancellors’ Committee 2003; Department of Education, Science and Training 2001). The application rate of 20.9% for women, however, is a matter of great concern, as it is almost half of what might be expected on a proportional basis. This is consistent with patterns in historical archaeology in the United States, where Chester et al. (1995:215-216) found that women had lower application rates than men, but broadly comparable success rates and, in fact, were more successful than men at obtaining grants at local and state levels. In Australia, it is likely that the low application rate by women reflects the position of many women as early or midcareer researchers and their concentration in junior positions (Australian Vice Chancellors’ Committee 2003; Department of Education, Science and Training 2001), with the higher teaching loads, lessened administrative support and lower publication rates that often accompany these positions. Again a circular bind is evident here: women don’t apply for grants partly because of the teaching loads of junior positions and they are in junior positions because they have not obtained the large grants that facilitate promotion. Apart from this, the low application rate for women should be understood in terms of women’s perceptions of their own likelihood of success, which are shaped, both overtly and covertly, by the disciplinary environments in which they operate and the expectations current in wider society. In our view, the low application rate for women suggests that some women carry a small glass parasol above their own heads.

Conference Participation Since one aspect of status within a profession is public performance, it is also useful to compare women’s and men’s behaviours at the public venues of Australian archaeology, both seminars and conferences. In the United States Chester et al. (1995:216) found that women do not fare well in terms of participation in activities that are invitation only, such as being keynote speaker or discussant for a conference session. 20

Even when assessed on a proportional basis, fewer women are invited to participate in these roles and those who are invited are called upon less frequently than their male counterparts. Chester et al. (1995) attribute this pattern to conference and session convenors wishing to draw upon people recognised as outstanding scholars and to women having a lower status within historical archaeology. In Australia, the fundamental study in this regard is that of du Cros and Smith (1993), who undertook surveys of the characteristics of male and female questioning in discussion sessions at the 1988, 1989 and 1990 annual conferences of the Australian Archaeological Association. Du Cros and Smith found that around 66% of audience questions and comments were made by men, even though they composed only around 40% of the audience, that men talked for around 50% longer than women, and that women were more likely to ask questions, while men were more likely to give opinions (du Cros and Smith 1993a: xviii). These behaviours varied according to topic area, with cultural heritage management having the greatest participation from women (69%) and men dominating discussions in ‘hard sciences’ sessions (88%), most likely reflecting areas of male and female specialisation. Du Cros and Smith attribute these patterns to a marginalisation of women, and this is certainly one aspect of it. It is also true, however, that some women decide not to engage in public debates, at least partly because such debates can be combative in Australian archaeology, and that this also affects many (particularly early career) men. How this pattern affects perceptions of women’s and men’s ‘performances’ at conferences, and public understandings of their employable skills, is another matter. At the time of writing, there are no data to assess whether the pattern identified by du Cros and Smith continues. Such a study could provide useful insights into this aspect of Australian archaeology.

Discussion This paper opened with a discussion of glass ceilings and asked whether one could be identified within Australian archaeology. This study demonstrates that, while more female archaeologists occupy full-time positions in Australian universities than was the case 10 years ago, the glass ceiling is still present in Australian academic archaeology. Our study identifies a two-tiered glass ceiling that impedes women in academic archaeology. The first is met by women early in their careers and prevents them from obtaining stable, tenure track positions within universities. The second impedes those women who gain employment in the academy from being promoted to the upper echelons. While our research focuses on the status of women in Australian academic archaeology, a more comprehensive study is needed, one which explores the patterns for women in other forms of archaeological employment. The trope of the glass ceiling raises an image of people locked beneath a transparent ceiling but able to see through to the world above them. Since glass is clear, those who are underneath such a ceiling might not notice it at first. If they do, they may choose not to examine it too closely, as its ongoing existence is confronting and, since it is ever-present, affects their day-to-day life. This glass barrier only becomes apparent if people try to pass through it. In terms of Australian academic archaeology, the notion of a glass ceiling is supported by an



assumption that these invisible barriers to advancement are imposed from above, and that the ceiling is constructed by those with an interest in preserving the special benefits and privileges of their gender, ethnicity or position. While this is no doubt part of it (either consciously or unconsciously), we would argue also for a ‘glass parasol’ – a barrier that is equally invisible, hard and ostensibly impenetrable, but one that is fashioned by the gender ideologies and gender roles ascribed to, and participated in by, both men and women (Figure 12). The glass parasol consists of those impalpable barriers that prevent qualified women from advancing to upper-level positions, and relate to gender ideologies of appropriate behaviour and gender roles enacted in activity patterns, social relations and behaviours in specific cultural settings (cf. Conkey and Gero 1997). While there may be some hope of glass ceilings being positioned at different heights in different institutional or disciplinary environments, the glass parasol is carried around by the individual, shaping their experience of each disciplinary or institutional culture. In contrast to the glass ceiling that is imposed from above, the glass parasol is fashioned by society as a whole and held by the woman herself. This study suggests that there are systemic barriers to women’s progress in Australian academic archaeology. The data show that female archaeologists are having difficulty in gaining entry-level employment in Australian universities and that women are under-represented in senior positions. While the figures relating to publication rates and grant submissions suggest that in some cases women’s progress is impeded by glass parasols, the discrepancies are too great to be attributed solely to this. Glass ceilings, in the form of cultural and institutional barriers, exist at the level of entry to the academy and advancement to the most senior levels. This a matter of serious concern, not only for the individuals involved, but also because of the skills and diversity that are being lost from the workplace. Perhaps the most serious concern of all is that these patterns are not unique to archaeology, the academy, or Australia. A recent study of professional employment in Wales, for example, found that: “Many believe it has become even harder for women to win promotions and hold on to them, and that not only is the glass ceiling still very much present, but women are also aware of hitting it at an early stage in their careers,” said Paul Clutton, director of Cardiff ’s Professional Recruitment Wales (Barry 2005).

The patterning we identify in this paper occurs despite recent changes aimed at redressing restrictive employment practices. While there is variation in different institutions, these changes include anti-discrimination legislation, the mandatory training of appointment committees in equity issues, and the opportunity for those seeking promotion to discuss career interruptions due to child-rearing and family responsibilities. In terms of advancement within the academy, the problem may lie more with reluctance on the part of women to apply for promotion than with discriminatory practices:

Figure 12 Glass parasols? (Drawing: Molly Trainor).

male colleagues. The success rate demonstrates that the quality of applications by women is not the problem in the promotion processes in universities. Women are applying in approximately equivalent numbers to the eligible pool, and when they apply for promotion they are relatively successful. In contrast to the mid-1990s when promotion for women was constrained at level C, it seems that moving from level C to D is the new barrier to promotion for academic women. The matter of contention is the exceedingly slow rate of progress towards gender equity. Women are still significantly under-represented at senior levels in Australian universities. Promotions policies and processes in place do not explain the lack of progress overall. Other factors, including more diffuse cultural understandings, must be operating. Without overcoming these, using the existing rate of a five per cent increase in the number of women at level E in seven years, achieving equal numbers of women and men in the professoriate would take another 49 years (Winchester et al. 2005:35).

This study has been followed by a number of studies commissioned by the Australian Vice Chancellors’ Committee, including two ‘action plans’ for women employed in Australian universities, the most recent of which was issued in April 2006 (see Australian Vice Chancellor’s Committee 2006). In a report commissioned by the Australian Government’s Office of Women, Burton (1997) identifies four major impediments to women achieving equity in the workplace:

• • •

The statistical evidence demonstrates that once women apply for promotion, they are successful, and in some cases, particularly at senior levels, they are more successful than their

•

Stereotypical beliefs about women’s roles, attributes, preferences and commitments. Selection processes for entry to senior and executive management. Non-merit based Human Resource Management (HRM) systems and practices. Inadequate provision to women of access to formal and informal developmental opportunities.


21


Again, the discussion is framed in the language of victimhood and, while the points have some validity, even nearly 10 years later (sadly), women are not going to feel powerful enough to move forward if they think of themselves – or allow others to think of them – as victims. While detailed consideration of all the factors raised by Burton is beyond the scope of this paper, we would like to discuss briefly the influence of stereotypical beliefs. The 1990 Catalyst survey of Chief Executive Officers of Fortune 500/ Service 500 companies found that stereotypes regarding women in business included: viewing them as less committed to their careers than men; not tough enough; disinclined to work long or unusual hours; too emotional; not aggressive enough (or, conversely, too aggressive); lacking quantitative skills; not wishing to relocate; and having difficulty making decisions (Catalyst 1990). One of the most ubiquitous stereotypes is that the combination of a successful career and a happy family is more difficult for females than for males. In a recent survey of 120 top British employers 32% attributed the balancing of work and family responsibilities as the principal obstacle to women’s advancement (Equal Opportunities Review 1996:6). A recent expression of this view by Harvard University President, Larry Summers (see Summers 2005), caused great controversy and a subsequent retraction (see Healy and Rimer 2005; Rimer 2005). However, the issues are much more complex than this, and always have been. For instance, only 3% of women managers interviewed in a 1984 Wall Street Journal/ Gallup survey cited family as the most serious obstacle in their careers, while 50% named reasons related to their gender (Burton 1997). Similarly, only 7% of female managers left their positions for family reasons in a Galagan survey cited by Hall (1995), while 73% left because they saw limited opportunities for women in their companies. Despite this, managers are still inclined to believe that the main impediment to women’s career progress is their inability to find a balance between work and family (Hall 1995:12). One criticism of studies such as we have undertaken here is that since the academic turnover in universities is slow, it takes a long time for structural changes to show. However, this criticism does not explain patterning at the entry-level of academic employment, and, given that women have had a substantive (though not equal) presence in the academy for almost 20 years, we doubt if it explains the differences in promotion profiles. While slow turnover in the academy may have some influence, in our view there are many more indices of performance that need to be addressed if we are to begin to understand the patterning identified in this paper. These indices include geographic mobility, networking, fundraising, consulting, teaching, age disparities at academic levels, and managerial (administrative) responsibilities. A recent study by Sabatier et al. (2006:322) has found that: promotion to professor is linked to different criteria for male and female academics. To be promoted, women have to demonstrate greater involvement in the different dimensions of scientific activity than men … [their] careers are influenced not only by the number of publications, but also by personal involvement in different dimensions, [such as] research management, fund raising and research.

With this in mind, a useful way to extend our current study would be to assess the effect of other performance indicators on 22

the speed of both women’s and men’s careers: Does the same complex of factors affect male and female progress in Australian academic archaeology? Moreover, we need to explore the reasons behind such patterning, not only within Australian academic archaeology but also in terms of the Australian academy as a whole. This would furnish a dataset to extend other recent studies in Australia (see Spoor and Lewis 1997) and allow comparison with other countries. When considered globally there are patterns that can seem surprising. For example, in Europe, Turkey has the highest percentage of female full Professors, while the Netherlands has the lowest (Boukhobza et al. 2000). Finally, we would like to draw attention to an issue that is pertinent to the younger generation of female archaeologists – those who, in many ways, are the target audience for this paper. Given the changes that have occurred within Australian academic archaeology over the last 20 years, young women may consider that equity has been achieved and some, moreover, may wonder if there had ever been a serious problem to be redressed in the first place. From a contemporary perspective, it could be a simple matter to overlook the many earlier women with comparable merits who tried but could not find their place in the academy. In some ways, the impetus for this paper came from the threat of neo-conservatism, in which successful women assume that all women could achieve the same success as them, if only they were willing to pay the price (see Pipes 1999), and whereby women who have yet to accomplish their goals assume they are on a playing field that is level with that of their male peers. The data analysed in this study show that this is not the case. While the climate of Australian academic archaeology may have warmed a little, it is still chilly, particularly at entry and upper levels. Neither glass ceilings nor glass parasols are likely to contribute to any kind of disciplinary warming.

Acknowledgements The initial ideas for this paper were scoped out as a small part of the article ‘Gender and (the disciplinary culture of) Australian archaeology’ (Smith and O’Donnell in press). The results identified in that paper gave us the impetus to conduct the research that is published here. As you can imagine, compiling the data published in this paper was what Americans might call ‘challenging’, especially in regards to current employment in university departments. Since people were continually changing institutions, being promoted or obtaining new fellowships, the database changed considerably between the first draft of the paper and the last, although the overall trends remained the same. In order to check the figures we had to go back to key people several times, so we are very grateful to those people who helped us calculate up-to-date figures for their academic staff. In particular, we would like to thank Jane Balme, Annie Clarke, Bruno David, Iain Davidson, David Frankel, Maciej Henneberg, Tom Hilliard, Rosalinde Kearsley, Susan Lawrence, Ian Lilley, Jane Lydon, Tim Murray, Sue O’Connor, Dan Potts, Frank Sears, Ken Sheedy, Matthew Spriggs and Sean Ulm. For critical comments on drafts, or parts, of this paper we thank John Campbell, Hilary du Cros, Annie Clarke, Bruno David, Alice Gorman, Gary Jackson, Ian Lilley, Jane Lydon, Angie McGowan, Lynn Meskell, Annie Ross, Laurajane Smith



and Katrina Stankowski. We also thank Molly Trainor for her drawing of Figure 12. Finally, we thank the reviewers of this paper, Sandra Bowdler and J. Peter White, for their suggestions and critiques of the original submission. We accept responsibility for any errors or omissions.

Endnotes ¹ We note in passing that several universities with a small number of archaeological staff (Deakin, Charles Darwin and Charles Sturt) no longer have archaeology programmes. There seems to be a point at which the numbers become so low that the entire programme is endangered. We were surprised at the level of fluidity in university employment profiles: our original data were compiled in February 2005 and when we updated our figures in April 2006, there had been staff changes in nearly all universities. ² The data were compiled from information on institutional websites, cross-referenced with Faculty handbooks, and confirmed by Heads of Departments and/or individual staff members. In those cases where more than one department employed archaeologists, the data were combined to give a figure for the university as a whole. We excluded non-salaried positions, such as Emeritus Professor or Adjunct Professor, casual, sessional positions, such as tutors, and half-time positions. The position of Reader was recorded as Associate Professor, as it is equivalent. Research fellowships have similar levels to lectureships, but within a research track: Postdoctoral Fellows as the equivalent of a Level A or B Lecturer (not all postdocs are the same), Research Fellows are the equivalent of a Level C or D Lecturer, and professorial Research Fellows are the equivalent of a Level E Lecturer. These data do not take into account interdisciplinary collaborations, or include scholars who work closely with archaeologists, but do not identify as archaeologists (e.g. people who have developed direct dating techniques for archaeological material, but are not archaeologists per se, or palynologists who work on archaeological questions) or those who draw upon archaeological data in the normal course of their work but primarily identify with another discipline (e.g. some ancient historians). The database is small, particularly for some classifications, and we have taken this into account in our analysis.

References Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry 2004 Why do one million Australians live overseas? ACCI Review 118:1-6. Retrieved 19 April 2006 from http://www.acci.asn.au/text_files/review/r118.pdf. Australian Research Council 2004 Discovery Projects Selection Report for Funding Commencing in 2005. Retrieved 19 April 2006 from http://www.arc.gov.au. Australian Vice Chancellors’ Committee 2003 Academic Staff by Classification and Gender: 1994-2002. Retrieved 19 April 2006 from http:// www.avcc.edu.au/content.asp?page=/policies_programs/women/index.htm. Australian Vice Chancellors’ Committee 2006 The Second AVCC Action Plan for Women Employed in Australian Universities 2006-2010. Retrieved 19 April 2006 from http://www.avcc.edu.au/content.asp?page=/policies_programs/ women/index.htm. Baker, B., S. Graham and S. Williams 2003 Teaching under a glass ceiling: A study of gender equity in federal education career fields. Advancing Women in Leadership 13. Retrieved 19 April 2006 from http://www.advancingwomen. com/awl/awl.html.

Barry, S. 2005 Cracking the glass ceiling barrier. Retrieved 19 April 2006 from http://icwales.icnetwork.co.uk/0300business/0100news/tm_objectid=15194 617%26method=full%26siteid=50082-name_page.html. Beck, W. 1995 Women in archaeology: Australia and the United States. In M.C. Nelson, S.M. Nelson and A. Wylie (eds), Equity Issues for Women in Archeology, pp.99-105. Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association 5. Washington, D.C.: American Anthropological Association. Beck, W. and J. Balme 1994 Gender in Aboriginal archaeology: Recent research. Australian Archaeology 39:39-46. Beck, W. and L. Head 1990 Women in Australian prehistory. Australian Feminist Studies 11:29-48. Boukhobza, N., H. Delavault and C. Hermann 2000 Demain la parité: Les en seignants-chercheurs a l’université, la place des femmes: 80. Paris: Ministère de l’education nationale. Bowdler, S. and G. Clune 2000 That shadowy band: The role of women in the development of Australian archaeology. Australian Archaeology 50:27-35. Bradley, C. and U. Dahl 1995 Productivity and advancement of women archaeologists. In M.C. Nelson, S.M. Nelson and A. Wylie (eds), Equity Issues for Women in Archeology, pp.189-194. Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association 5. Washington, D.C.: American Anthropological Association. Buckley, K. 1993 Cultural resource management and gender issues. In H. du Cros and L. Smith (eds), Women in Archaeology: A Feminist Critique, pp.173-174. Occasional Papers in Prehistory 23. Canberra: Department of Prehistory, Research School of Pacific Studies, Australian National University. Burton, C. 1997 Gender Equity in the Faculties and in the Institute of the Arts at the Australian National University: A Report. Canberra: Australian National University. Catalyst 1990 Survey of CEOs of Fortune 500/Service 500 Companies. New York: Catalyst. Chester, H., N.A. Rothschild and D. diZerega Wall 1995 Women in historical archaeology. In M.C. Nelson, S.M. Nelson and A. Wylie (eds), Equity Issues for Women in Archeology, pp.213-218. Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association 5. Washington, D.C.: American Anthropological Association. Chesterman, C. 2000 Women’s Executive Development in Australian Higher Education: The Wexdev Model. Paper presented at Nawe Conference, New Orleans, January 2000. Retrieved 5 January 2005 from http://www.uts.edu. au/oth/wexdev/pdfs/womens_exec_dev.pdf. Chicago Area Partnerships 1994 Pathways and Progress: Corporate Best Practices to Shatter the Glass Ceiling. Available from Women Employed, 22 W. Monroe, Suite 1400, Chicago, IL 60603. Clarke, A. 1993 CRM as archaeological housework: Confining women to the ghetto of management. In H. du Cros and L. Smith (eds), Women in Archaeology: A Feminist Critique, pp.91-94. Occasional Papers in Prehistory 23. Canberra: Department of Prehistory, Research School of Pacific Studies, Australian National University. Cole, J.R. and H. Zuckerman 1984 The productivity puzzle: Persistence and change in patterns of publication of men and women scientists. Advances in Motivation and Achievement 2:217-258. Colley, S. 2000 Sisters are doing it for themselves?: Gender, feminism and Australian (Aboriginal) archaeology. In L. Hurcombe and M. Donald (eds), Gender and Material Culture in Archaeological Perspective, pp.20-32. London: Macmillan. Collins, L.H., J.C. Chrisler and K. Qunia (eds) 1998 Career Strategies for Women in Academe: Arming Athena. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Conkey, M.W. and J. Gero 1997 Programme to practice: Gender and feminism in archaeology. Annual Review of Anthropology 26:411-437.


23


Department of Education, Science and Training 2001 Characteristics and Performance Indicators of Australian Higher Education Institutions, 2000. Retrieved 19 April 2006 from http://www.dest.gov.au/archive/highered/ statistics/characteristics/contents.htm#2. Diaz-Andreu, M. and N. Gallego 1995 Women in Spanish archaeology. In M.C. Nelson, S.M. Nelson and A. Wylie (eds), Equity Issues for Women in Archeology, pp.121-130. Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association 5. Washington, D.C.: American Anthropological Association. du Cros, H. and L. Smith 1993 Why a feminist critique of archaeology? In H. du Cros and L. Smith (eds), Women in Archaeology: A Feminist Critique, pp.xvii-xx. Occasional Papers in Prehistory 23. Canberra: Department of Prehistory, Research School of Pacific Studies, Australian National University. Equal Opportunities Review 1996 Limited progress for top women, says Hansard Society. Equal Opportunities Review 67(May/June):5-6. Flood, J. 1993 Cultural resource management in Australia. In M. Spriggs, D.E. Yen, W. Ambrose, R. Jones, A. Thorne and A. Andrews (eds), A Community of Culture: The People and Prehistory of the Pacific, pp.259-265. Occasional Papers in Prehistory 21. Canberra: Department of Prehistory, Research School of Pacific Studies, Australian National University. Ford, A. and A. Hundt 1995 Women in academia – Why the best men still win: An examination of women and men in Mesoamerican archaeology. In M.C. Nelson, S.M. Nelson and A. Wylie (eds), Equity Issues for Women in Archeology, pp.147-156. Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association 5. Washington, D.C.: American Anthropological Association. Frankel, D. 1998 Archaeology. In Knowing Ourselves and Others: The Humanities in Australia into the 21st Century, pp.17-28. Vol. 2. Canberra: Department of Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs. Gero, J.M. 1985 Sociopolitics and the woman-at-home ideology. American Antiquity 50(2):342-350. Gero, J.M. 1988 Gender bias in archaeology: Here, then and now. In S.V. Roser (ed.), Feminism within Science and Health Care Professions: Overcoming Resistance, pp.33-43. New York: Pergamon Press. Goodell, J. 1998 Increasing the enrolment, retention and success of female students in non-traditional areas: What strategies can we use to involve staff in developing a more gender- and culturally-inclusive educational environment? In B. Black and N. Stanley (eds), Teaching and Learning in Changing Times: Proceedings of the 7th Annual Teaching Learning Forum, The University of Western Australia, February 1998, pp.120-124. Perth: University of Western Australia. Retrieved 19 April 2006 from http://lsn.curtin.edu.au/tlf/tlf1998/ contents.html. Goulding, M., K. Buckley and G. Brennan 1993 The role of gender in archaeological career structures: A Victorian case study. In H. du Cros and L. Smith (eds), Women in Archaeology: A Feminist Critique, pp.222-231. Occasional Papers in Prehistory 23. Canberra: Department of Prehistory, Research School of Pacific Studies, Australian National University. Hall, P. 1995 Affirmative Action and Managing Diversity. Affirmative Action Agency Monograph 8. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service. Hansen, K. 2005 10 Powerful career strategies for women. Retrieved 19 April 2006 from http://www.quintcareers.com/women_career_strategies.html. Healy, P.D. and S. Rimer 2005 Furor lingers as Harvard chief gives details of talk on women. New York Times 18 February 2005. Hope, J. 1995 On the margin: Women, archaeology and cultural heritage – An Australian case study. In M.C. Nelson, S.M. Nelson and A. Wylie (eds), Equity Issues for Women in Archeology, pp.105-113. Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association 5. Washington, D.C.: American Anthropological Association.

24

Hugo, G., D. Rudd and K. Harris 2001 Emigration from Australia: Economic Implications. CEDA Information Paper 77. Melbourne: Committee for Economic Development of Australia. Retreived 19 April 2006 from http://www. immi.gov.au/research/publications/econimpact_1.pdf. Hutson, S. 1998 Strategies for the reproduction of prestige in archaeological discourse. Assemblage 4. Retrieved 19 April 2006 from http://www.shef. ac.uk/assem/4/. Hymowitz, C. and T.D. Schellhardt 1986 The glass ceiling: Why women can’t seem to break the invisible barrier that blocks them from the top jobs. The Wall Street Journal 24 March 1986, p.1. Keller, E.F. 1985 Reflections on Gender and Science. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. McDowell, J. and J. Smith 1992 The effect of gender-sorting on the propensity to coauthor: Implications for academic promotion. Economic Inquiry 30:68-82. McGowan, A. 1995 Working lives: The career prospects and aspirations of men and women cultural resource managers in Tasmania. In J. Balme and W. Beck (eds), Gendered Archaeology: The Second Australian Women in Archaeology Conference, pp.28-33. Research Papers in Archaeology and Natural History 26. Canberra: Archaeology and Natural History Publications, Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, Australian National University. Meskell, L. 2003 Feminist theory and feminist anthropology: What conversations could or should we be having? American Anthropological Association Newsletter April. Morrison, A.M., R.P. White, E. Van Velsor and Center for Creative Leadership 1992 Breaking the Glass Ceiling: Can Women Reach the Top of America’s Largest Corporations? Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co. National Science Foundation 1997 Professional Opportunities for Women in Research and Education (NSF 97-91). Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation. National Science Foundation 2003 Gender Diversity in Science Technology, Engineering and Mathematics Education (GDSE): Program Announcement (NSF 03-502). Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation. Nelson, M.C., S.M. Nelson and A. Wylie (eds) 1995 Equity Issues for Women in Archeology. Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association 5. Washington, D.C.: American Anthropological Association. Nicol, C. 2000 The state of research in Australia: Brain drain, university research funding and the microelectronics industry. Retrieved 19 April 2006 from http://www.dest.gov.au/sectors/science_innovation/publications_resources/ profiles/state_of_research_in_Australia.htm. Phillips, C. 1998 Answering the old boys’ club: Support systems for women archaeologists. In M. Casey, D. Donlan, J. Hope and S. Wellfare (eds), Redefining Archaeology: Feminist Perspectives, pp.63-67. Research Papers in Archaeology and Natural History 29. Canberra: ANH Publications, Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, Australian National University. Pipes, S. 1999 Women: Dancing on the glass ceiling. The Contrarian: News and Comments on Women’s Issues 3(17). Retrieved 19 April 2006 from http://www. pacificresearch.org/pub/con/1999/99-09-22.html. Reich, R.B. 1995 Message from the chair. In A Solid Investment: Making Full Use of the Nation’s Human Capital Recommendations, pp.4-6. Washington D.C: U.S. Department of Labor. Rimer, S. 2005 Professors at Harvard confront its president. New York Times 16 February 2005. Rosser, S.V. 2004 The Science Glass Ceiling: Academic Women Scientists and the Struggle to Succeed. London: Routledge. Sabatier, M., M. Carrere and V. Mangematin 2006 Profiles of academic activities and careers: Does gender matter?: An analysis based on French life scientist CVs. Journal of Technology Transfer 31:311-324. Smith, C. and E. O’Donnell in press Women and (the disciplinary culture of) Australian archaeology. In S. Nelson (ed.), Handbook of Gender Archaeology. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira.



Smith, L. 2000 A history of Aboriginal heritage legislation in south-eastern Australia. Australian Archaeology 50:109-118. Spoor, E. and C. Lewis 1997 Gender imbalance in higher education: The Australian perspective. In F. Gale and B. Goldflam (eds), Strategies to Redress Gender Imbalance in Numbers of Senior Academic Women, pp.34-47. Nedlands: University of Western Australia. Summers, L. 2005 Remarks at NBER conference on diversifying the science and engineering workforce. Retrieved 19 April 2006 from http://www.president. harvard.edu/speeches/2005/nber.html. Truscott, M. and L. Smith 1993 Women’s roles in the archaeological workforce. In H. du Cros and L. Smith (eds), Women in Archaeology: A Feminist Critique, pp.217221. Occasional Papers in Prehistory 23. Canberra: Department of Prehistory, Research School of Pacific Studies, Australian National University. U.S. Federal Glass Ceiling Commission 1995a A Solid Investment: Making Full Use of the Nation’s Human Capital Recommendations. Washington D.C: U.S. Department of Labor. U.S. Federal Glass Ceiling Commission 1995b Good for Business: Making Full Use of the Nation’s Human Capital: The Fact-Finding Report. Washington D.C: U.S. Department of Labor. Vetter, B.M. 1996 Myths and realities of women’s progress in the sciences, mathematics, and engineering. In C-S. Davis,A.B. Ginorio, C.S. Hollenshead, B.B. Lazarus and P.M. Rayman (eds), The Equity Equation: Fostering the Advancement of Women in the Sciences, Mathematics, and Engineering, pp.29-56. San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Victor, K. and M. Beaudry 1992 Women’s participation in American prehistoric and historic archaeology: A comparative look at the journals American Antiquity and Historical Archaeology. In C. Claassen (ed.), Exploring Gender through Archaeology, pp.11-21. Madison, WN: Prehistory Press.

Williams, C. 2001 Successful Woman’s Guide to Working Smart: Ten Strengths that Matter Most. Palo Alto: Davies-Black Publishing. Winchester, H. 2005 Staffing Issues for Universities. Paper presented to the 3rd Annual Higher Education Summit, 17-18 March 2005, Melbourne. Winchester, H., C. Chesterman, S. Lorenzo and L. Browning 2005 The Great Barrier Myth: An Investigation of Promotions Policy and Practice in Australian Universities. Canberra: Australian Vice-Chancellors Committee. Wood, F.Q. 2004 ‘Beyond Brain Drain’: Mobility, Competitiveness and Scientific Excellence. Armidale: Centre for Higher Education Management and Policy, University of New England. Retrieved 19 April 2006 from http://www.une.edu. au/sat/chemp/arms/. Wylie, A. 1993 Workplace issues for women in archaeology: The chilly climate. In H. du Cros and L. Smith (eds), Women in Archaeology: A Feminist Critique, pp.245258. Occasional Papers in Prehistory 23. Canberra: Department of Prehistory, Research School of Pacific Studies, Australian National University. Zarmati, L. 1998 Archaeo-speak: The politics of language in archaeology. In M. Casey, D. Donlan, J. Hope and S. Wellfare (eds), Redefining Archaeology: Feminist Perspectives, pp.3-8. Research Papers in Archaeology and Natural History 29. Canberra: ANH Publications, Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, Australian National University. Zikmund, B.B. 1988 The well-being of academic women is still being sabotaged – By colleagues, by students, and by themselves. Chronicle of Higher Education 1 September:A44.


25

WHEN EAST IS NORTHWEST: Expanding the Archaeological Boundary for Leilira Blade Production Kevin Tibbett Abstract

Survey Results

A recent archaeological survey of the Lake Moondarra stone axe quarry near Mt Isa in northwest Queensland has identified two leilira blade quarries. These quarries extend the known archaeological boundary of large blades from eastern Arnhem Land into northwest Queensland. The absence of leilira blades from six habitation sites at Moondarra and other sites in Kalkadoon country may assist in defining clear boundaries between two blade types that were used as functional or ritual/ceremonial objects. An argument is advanced that Moondarra provides archaeological evidence to allow a distinction between these types of artefacts in northwest Queensland.

A ground survey of Moondarra identified quarry numbers Q23 and Q24 as quartzite quarries where leilira blades were produced. Twenty-three of 26 contiguous quarries identified at Moondarra were basalt quarries where raw material used in the production of stone axes was extracted. A quartz quarry was also located at Moondarra. The debitage at Q23 covers an area of 10m x 6m and 30cm deep suggesting large-scale leilira blade production. This blade reduction floor is within 30m of large quartzite boulders from which raw material was quarried. The second quarry identified as Q24 is a 2km long section of the northern reaches of Stone Axe Creek. This quarry differs from Q23 in that there is a small amount of debitage, it is characterised by the presence of numerous quartzite cores and flakes up to about 15cm in length. Stone Axe Creek has incised into the landscape exposing large quartzite boulders. When flooding occurs after summer storms the normally dry creek bed becomes a raging torrent, redepositing debris, flakes and cores. It buries particles under gravel and transports gravel from some other places, exposing additional sources of new raw material. This dynamic state probably results in new raw material locales becoming exposed in areas that have been previously quarried. In effect, the creek has the potential to produce unused raw material on a regular basis. Blades collected from Q24 show minor chipping and slightly rounded edges that are probably the result of tumbling in the stony creek bed (Figures 2-3).

Introduction Discussions of the archaeology of blades in central and northern Australia have differentiated between large (leilira) and small blades. An argument has been advanced suggesting a disjunction between a lack of evidence for leilira blades in habitation deposits and abundant evidence for blades recorded from nonhabitation quarry sites. This disjunction extends to differences in ethnographic observations of blade use between domestic and ceremonial contexts. It is argued that no such disjunction exists for small blades, which have been recorded at quarries, habitation sites and in the ethnographic literature. The different archaeological expressions of leilira and small blades in central Australia has been taken as evidence that leilira blades have particular ideological values attached to them. A number of alternative explanations for these patterns, concerning reduction sequences and breakages, have been put forward. In this article, in addition to extending the known distribution of leilira blade quarries, I examine these arguments against this new evidence from northwest Queensland. The term leilira was first coined by Spencer and Gillen (1968[1899]:652) and is currently the archaeological term used to describe large blades produced in northern and central Australia (Figure 1). McCarthy (1967:32) described leiliras or large blades as: The leilira is either a long pointed blade triangular in section, or an elongate rectangular blade trapezoid in section. The striking platform is plain and high angled. The lateral margins may be trimmed, frequently at the butt end only and often up to the point. This trimming may extend to a central or lateral ridge and have some flat outer surface with a ridge on each side. The distal end is trimmed or plain point but it may be an oblique thin edge. They range in size up to 8 inches long [20cm] … The leilira is used for cutting up animals, cutting cicatrice scars, circumcision and subincision on men and introcision on women. School of Anthropology, Archaeology and Sociology, James Cook University, Townsville, QLD 4811, Australia

26

Implications of Leiliras at Moondarra The presence of large blades at two quarries at Moondarra extends the known ethnographic distribution of these artefacts several hundred kilometres due south of Lawn Hill (Roth 1897) and the archaeological boundary from eastern Arnhem Land to northwest Queensland (Allen 1997). These large blades are an archaeological mystery in northern Australia being conspicuously absent from habitation sites near quarries or reduction floors where archaeological evidence for large-scale production is found (Allen 1997). In addition, this blade technology was also used to produce smaller knives and spoons in northern and central Australia (O’Connell 1977; Roth 1904:17; Spencer 1928), and the changing function of blades (based upon size difference) attaches some confusion to their associations with myth and ritual and discard practices (Allen 1997; Graham and Thorley 1996).

Interpretations Leilira blades are distinguished here from smaller quartzite flakes by a minimum length of 100mm. Maximum length for complete quartzite flakes was 83mm for the specimens found on reduction floors in close proximity to Q23 and Q24. The complete absence of large leilira blades from the surface of the six reduction


Kevin Tibbett

Figure 1 Sketch of a large blade and the method of hafting in northern Australia (Davidson 1935:166).

cm

Figure 2 A selection of possibly rejected small and large blades from Q24 (Tibbett 2005:213).

Figure 3 Unused blades from the production of leiliras on Q23 (Tibbett 2005:213).


27

When East is Northwest: Expanding the Archaeological Boundary for Leilira Blade Production

Figure 4 Sources for knives and spearheads mentioned by Roth (1904) and the location of Moondarra.

Figure 5 The location of Moondarra and other blade quarries (after Allen 1997:368).

floors/habitation sites, and excavations at two habitation sites at Moondarra, and other major camping sites supports the suggestion for two separate tool types categorised on the basis of morphology (specifically length) (Tibbett 2005). Different tool types based upon function and size seems to be supported by both ethnographic observations and archaeological evidence. Roth (1904:22) noted that in northwest Queensland temporary knives, made from chert or quartzite were used in the removal of emu and kangaroo skin and then discarded after use. Knives bartered were used as fighting implements, and were also used for incising generally. The base of these exchanged knives had Triodia or Grevillea gum attached to assist in gripping the tool and sometimes they were lengthened with a wooden handle attached to the base. In addition, they were enclosed in Melaleuca sheaths with emu feathers used to protect the point. The spearheads or leilira blades observed by Roth (1904:18) were made from quartzite or andesite and knapped almost identically to knives except that they were thicker and longer. Binford and O’Connell (1984:415) also noted that the only morphological difference between blades used for various purposes was flake size, retouching and hafting. Allen (1997:369) has suggested that this similar morphology for spoons, knives and spearheads and fighting picks complicates the precise identification of large blade quarries. At Moondarra, Q24 comprises a mixture of both tool types (Figure 2). However, the presence of only larger-sized and apparently unused tools at Q23 indicates that leilira blade production was the principal activity conducted at this site. The production of large blades on this site may be partly attributed to the available size of raw material. Some of the quartzite boulders remaining near Q23 are close to a metre high and approximately 700–800mm across. Moore (2003:6) noted that at Camooweal (located approximately mid-way between Moondarra and Lawn Hill) small blades made from chert and used ethnographically as hafted knives and perhaps spear points measured between 30–90mm in length. This upper limit of 90mm for chert blades from Camooweal is similar to the maximum length of 83mm for quartzite blades found at habitation sites at Moondarra and the surrounding area. The length of Camooweal chert blades or knives may have been limited by the size of available raw material but this is not the case at Moondarra where large quartzite boulders are abundant in the upper reaches of Stone Axe Creek. Moore (2003:6) observed that nodules of Camooweal chert occur in the

100–150mm size range with finer-grained examples of 100mm and smaller. Cracking in larger tabular chert generally limits the blocks of raw material to about 200mm in length and 70–80mm in thickness (Moore 2003:6). According to Roth’s (1904:16) Aboriginal informants, the stone in the Georgina River was too short and full of flaws to manufacture good knife blades from, compared with those found in the Gregory River at Lawn Hill. Roth (1904:22) recorded the manufacture of knives from the headwaters of the Georgina River and the Selwyn Ranges. He made a distinction between knives and spearheads essentially on the basis of blade thickness and length with spearheads often trimmed at their sides (Roth 1904:18). Using length as a guideline, knives measure from two to over six inches in length (5-15cm) (Roth 1897:151), and spearheads measure up to and over seven and one-half inches in length (18.75cm) (Roth 1904:18). Akerman (1976a:118-122) conducted experimental archaeology to produce leilira blades and he described the knapping process in some detail. His experiments suggest that a blade suitable for a knife or spearhead could be produced once in every three or four attempts (Akerman 1976a:123).

28

Distribution of Large Blades The smaller knives noted by Roth (1904:18) had a slightly more southern provenance than spearheads. Lawn Hill was the region cited by Roth (1904:18) as the source for spearheads and he believed that the raw materials used for knives came from several sources such as Lawn Hill, the head of the Burke and Wills River (now the Burke River), the headwaters of the Georgina River and the Toko and Selwyn Ranges (Figure 4). Kinhill, Cameron, McNamara (1994) also recorded the presence of blades near Lawn Hill. However, Allen (1997:371) argues that the small size of the blades at Colless Creek near Lawn Hill described by Hiscock (1984:148) and Hiscock and Hughes (1980), suggests that these were not leiliras. Nonetheless, Roth’s (1904) ethnographic observations suggest that spearheads were sourced to this region. The presence of two leilira blade quarries at Moondarra extends the known archaeological distribution of this type of quarry from eastern Arnhem Land southeast to Mount Isa. While this represents an expansion of the archaeological distribution for large blades, it does not change the known ethnographic distribution. Akerman (1976a, 1976b) noted leilira blade quarries on Millstream Station and at Quondong Point. Both of these


Kevin Tibbett

sites are located in the Pilbara region of Western Australia. In addition, Dortch (1972) described similar sites in the Chichester Range area, which is to the east of Millstream. These sites are the southernmost archaeological boundary for leilira blades in Western Australia. Figure 5 shows Allen’s (1997) distribution map for leilira and other blade quarries and the extended boundary that includes Moondarra (Tibbett 2005), Millstream (Akerman 1976a) and Quondong Point (Akerman 1976b).

Large Blades and Habitation Sites The presence of the leilira blade quarries, but absence of these large blades from reduction floors and other habitation sites in the Mt Isa region, suggests that these implements might have been produced wholly for exchange and not intended for domestic consumption. However, Akerman (personal communication, 2004) has suggested that the absence of leiliras from Aboriginal campsites may be a consequence of recycling large damaged blades by flaking to produce smaller artefacts such as small casual knives, scrapers, and burren adze flakes. This form of rationing is thought to be unlikely at Moondarra for three reasons. First, being at the source of raw materials it seems doubtful that larger blades would have been reduced to smaller forms with an abundance of raw material available at two sites within 500m. Second, Stone Axe Creek has the potential to be replenished with suitable raw material. Third, the morphology of these smaller unretouched blades suggests that they have not been reduced from larger tools. The presence of platforms on the smaller quartzite flakes showing a relatively strong correlation of 0.59 (10% trim on n=115) between platform thickness and flake thickness suggests that these smaller, unretouched flakes have not been reduced from larger blades. Barton (1986), Bergman et al. (1983) and Paton (1994) have all suggested that diagnostic traits such as bulbs of percussion seldom occur when flaking occurs laterally. Paton (1994:176) suggests that when force is applied to these thinner flakes, snapping generally occurs as a result of stress fracturing caused by the thinner artefacts bending on impact. Paton (1994:174) argues that this type of breakage results in squarish segments, which he recorded when surveying habitation sites in the region of known blade quarries. His observations led him to consider the proposition that the blades had been deliberately broken. The type of debris that Paton (1994) noted at camping sites is not found at Moondarra or on other major camping sites to the immediate north of Mt Isa, further decreasing the likelihood of reduction at Moondarra. Moreover, the colour and grain of the smaller blades at Moondarra are similar to the quartzite boulders found at Q24, which are easily distinguished from the dark gray fine quartzite found at Q23. This implies that large blades from Q23 were not reduced to a smaller form, which is circumstantial evidence that artefacts produced from raw material sourced to Q24 were not rationed. Therefore, this type of recycling or deliberate breakage seems unconvincing in the case of large blades at Moondarra. Nevertheless, rationing is certainly a possibility when raw materials become scarce and the snapped quartzite flakes described by Paton (1994) may be an attempt to obtain smaller tools. The paucity of large blades on archaeological sites has a different interpretation in central Australia (see Graham and Thorley 1996). In this region leiliras are thought to have symbolic

and mythological power and thus these artefacts may not be readily abandoned near habitation sites (Graham and Thorley 1996). Allen (1997:371) has also suggested that the absence of large blades from archaeological sites in central Australia might be explained by curatorial practices associated with ritual status. He suggests that in northern Australia the spear hafting technology possessed both ritual and secular values whereas in central Australia, these blades were not used as spearheads and they were used in ritual (such as scarification), exchange and other ceremonies (Allen 1997:370). Graham and Thorley (1996) have observed large blades on surface sites in the James, Waterhouse and McDonnell Ranges and cited Ken Mulvaney who noted similar observations at an open site near Helen Springs. They doubted the interpretations of Paton (1994:175) and Allen (1991) who suggested that large blades produced on quarries were removed from the local area by long distance exchange networks and consequently are not found at habitation sites. Paton (1994:173-175) surveyed 15 habitation sites at varying distances from four blade quarries and noted the absence of unbroken large blades. This result is similar to the six habitation sites on Moondarra and two significant camping grounds to the north.

Dating Blade Technology Graham and Thorley (1996:75-76) argued that there are no secure dates for large blade production prior to the late Holocene. They suggested that this technology was associated with pearl shell and Kimberley point exchange systems (Akerman 1994; McBryde 1987) which are late Holocene additions to ceremonial exchange systems. Allen (1997:364-365) has drawn attention to the fact that despite the excavation of 14 rockshelters in western Arnhem Land, accurate dates for these large blades has not been forthcoming. Schrire (1982:151) obtained a date between 2000–4000 BP from three complete and one broken flake from Jimeri 1 site, southeast of Oenpelli. While Allen (1997:365) has suggested that the stratigraphic context of the dates and artefacts may be the result of post-depositional mixing, there is no direct evidence that this was the case. Some other dates for large blades excavated from deposits in western Arnhem Land are presented by Kamminga and Allen (1973), 25.6cm) of ferruginous sandstone. These rocks rest on or are embedded in estuarine sediments containing many pebblesized concretionary stones (Table 1; Figures 4-5). These small stones are in clusters wedged beneath and accumulated around the large rocks; many if not most of them may be naturally present as concretions in the clay. The pebble-sized stones probably do not represent a rubble base to support the wall, as is sometimes found in dry-stone walls, even though we found more of them beneath the large rocks in Test Trench 1 than in Test Trenches 2 and 3 (see below) dug in the vicinity of Trap 7. At the same time, given Archibald Menzies’s 2 October 1791 description of the Oyster Harbour structures (Menzies n.d.; see above) it is probable that the builders of the original construction placed numerous pebble-sized stones around the larger rocks. Thus, emplaced concentrations of pebble-sized stones (‘stones sand & gravel … raised up’ in Menzies’s above quoted phrase), either among or beneath the large rocks, very likely helped stabilise timber and brushwood inserted into the gaps between the cobble-sized rocks. This seems the best explanation for the large quantities of pebble-sized stones excavated from beneath and around the large rocks. No remains of wooden superstructures, as described for the Oyster Harbour stone structures by Vancouver and Menzies in 1791, appear to be preserved anywhere at the site complex.

Table 1 Recorded material from surface and Spits 1-5, Test Trench 1, Trap 7, Oyster Harbour fish traps (cf. Figures 3-4). All depths are below surface of mudflat.

40

Spit

Depth (cm)

Description

Surface

0

Approximately 20 rock cobbles (and one small boulder) resting on or slightly embedded c.0.2-1.0cm in unconsolidated dark grey and yellow-brown sediment.

1

0-5

Large rocks greatly decreased in number, in situ in unconsolidated dark grey and blackish sediment. Small objects: some highly fragmented modern rubbish, a few quartz chips (artefacts), fragments of non-artefactual quartz, wood and charcoal fragments, cockle shells (Katelysia sp.: whole shells, including many live specimens and many fragments, and other much smaller molluscs, living and dead, whose shells were intact).

2

5-15

Increase in large rock numbers in situ in dark to light grey sediment becoming more consolidated with depth. Small objects: modern wood artefactual fragment (see text), two or three small quartz chips, wood and charcoal fragments (modern?), decrease in mollusc shells and shell fragments (few or no live molluscs).

3

15-20

More consolidated light grey, more clayey sediment, slight decrease in large rocks (cobbles), increase in pebble-size concretionary ferruginous sandstone fragments. No artefacts or wood or charcoal fragments and few mollusc shells.

4

20-22

Yellowish, consolidated sediment (‘clay’) with patches or mottles of red and grey clay, decrease in large rock numbers, many very small stones. Very few other small objects.

5

22-25

Sediment as above, slight increase in large rock numbers, many very small stones. No other small objects. Number 62, June 2006

Joe Dortch, Charles Dortch and Robert Reynolds

We dug two further test pits (Test Trenches 2 and 3) four to five metres from Test Trench 1 in the tidal or mudflat at Trap 7. These two small excavations (Table 2) show much the same sequence of estuarine sediments though far fewer small objects than in Test Trench 1. This relative lack of small objects in the tidal flat subsurface away from Trap 7 may reflect a process in which the stones of the structure ‘trapped’ small objects washed in with tides and storm surges.

Test Trench 1: Small Finds and the Possibility of Bioturbation Small objects recovered in Test Trench 1, Spits 1 and 2, comprised small pieces of seemingly ‘non-artefactual’ wood, very small charcoal fragments, several quartz chips (artefacts) and some very small quartz ‘non-artefactual’ fragments. Spit 2 (depth range 5-15cm) also yielded a small piece of wood with a planed surface covered with flaking paint and penetrated by a rusted steel nail. This clearly modern find suggests very recent infiltration of objects into the subsurface within and below the structure. Disturbance by humans is discounted because the rocks of the construction do not appear to be displaced. It is likely that small objects drifting or rolling with the tide are lodged within the structure. We suggest that small objects resting on unconsolidated sediment between rocks in time become buried through bioturbation, through the burrowing of bivalves (cockles: Katelysia sp.) or other estuarine animals.

Chronology Because of the strong possibility of sediment mixing through bioturbation or other processes, test excavation of the estuarine sediment (‘mud’) surrounding and underlying the placed stones in Test Trench 1 at Trap 7 failed to uncover datable materials whose radiocarbon age assay might throw light on the structure’s maximum absolute age. Determining the original construction dates of Trap 7 or any of the stone structures at the other ‘South Coast’ estuaries noted above through radiocarbon dating may also be impeded by the likelihood of the structures having been periodically dismantled and rebuilt through centuries of use. In the 1990s, very small test pits dug by two of us (CD and JD) adjacent to the stones of a dozen structures and alignments on the foreshores of Wilson and Broke Inlets showed that the structures are built directly on thin layers of sand overlying deeply weathered clay, or on the clay itself; or directly on indurated iron-cemented sediments. Both the clayey and the indurated sediments may well pre-date the stone structures

Figure 5 View of east face of Test Trench 1, showing a profile of estuarine sediments (cf. Table 2) on which Trap 7 is built (Photograph: Joe Dortch).

by many millennia, thus effectively preventing meaningful assessment of the structures’ maximum ages by means of radiocarbon dating. Summing up, the age of the original construction and first use of structures and alignments at all three estuaries noted here for the Southern Ocean coast (Figure 1) remains unknown, though all presumably post-date glacio-eustatic sea-level rise to present height, occurring during the mid-Holocene, as mainly shown by radiocarbon dating of tree stumps in growth position on the foreshores of several estuaries, such as Broke Inlet (Dortch 1997:Table 1, 1999:Table 2).

Discussion and Conclusions The probability of sediment mixing as a result of bioturbation caused by bivalves and other burrowing animals or other processes in the Oyster Harbour tidal flat hinders if not prevents reliable radiocarbon dating of Trap 7. Despite this problem, it is possible that a useful maximum age for the structure could be determined through radiocarbon dating of wood or charcoal recovered from sediments at depths significantly deeper than Spit 5, 22–25cm below the mudflat surface, reached in Test Trench 1. Absolute ages post-dating mid-Holocene formation of regional estuaries are as yet lacking for the Oyster Harbour fish traps or for the other stone structures or alignment complexes

Table 2 Record of sediments excavated from Test Trenches 2 and 3, Trap 7, Oyster Harbour fish traps. All depths are below surface of mudflat.

Depth (cm)

Description

0-2

Veneer of grey to yellow-brown unconsolidated sediment, merging with dark grey to blackish, ‘muddier’ sediment. No stones, no other small objects.

2-10

Dark grey to blackish more consolidated sediment; no cobble-sized stones and very few stones of pebble size. Other small objects: very small wood and charcoal fragments, mollusc shells and shell fragments.

10-15

More consolidated, finer grained grey sediment, with fewer small objects, including pebble-sized concretionary stones, wood and charcoal fragments and whole shells and shell fragments.

>15

Grey merging to yellow clayey consolidated sediment with patches or mottles of red and grey clay. Very few pebble-sized stones (all present may be concretions formed in situ). Other small objects greatly decreased in number.


41

Test Excavation at the Oyster Harbour Stone Fish Traps, King George Sound, Western Australia

that may be fish traps located on estuary foreshores on the Southern Ocean coast. Dortch (1997, 1999) argues that late Holocene physical changes in most of these estuaries (notably, seasonal blockage of drainage due to sandbar formation in their narrow entrance channels) along this coast causing marked shifts in their water salinities from near fresh to hypersaline, and greatly affecting fish populations (e.g. Hodgkin and Lenanton 1981:307), must have had significant though not necessarily adverse consequences for Indigenous fishing strategies. He further speculates how these hydrological and physical processes would have affected fishing at estuaries such as Wilson and Broke Inlet, which are markedly controlled by them today. In any case, this problem does not apply to Oyster Harbour, which has a rocky, permanently unbarred entrance, and presumably has had free exchange with the sea since its formation during the mid-Holocene (Hodgkin and Clarke 1990:14, 16). As yet, the earliest absolute age for estuarine fishing on either the Southern or Indian Ocean coasts of the southwest is indicated by the c.1500–2000 BP radiocarbon dates for fish and molluscan remains excavated from Layer 2, Katelysia Rock Shelter, situated at the mouth of Wilson Inlet (Dortch 1999:Table 1). A previously considered age of c.3500–2500 BP for several small stone structures provisionally described as fish weirs and located at Lake Richmond (formerly a marine embayment) on the Indian Ocean coast of southwest Australia (Figure 1; Dortch 1997:Table 2) is dismissed, since the structures are demonstrably modern in origin (Randolph 2004). We suggest that the best indications of very early estuarine or marine fishing strategies regionally would be through the discovery, excavation and dating of faunal remains pertaining to coastal subsistence from rockshelter occupation deposits or other well preserved sites in coastal situations, as has been very successfully carried out by researchers in northeast and northwest Australia (Bowen 1998; Veth 1999). The compelling evidence from northwest Australia for very well established coastal subsistence patterns during the late Pleistocene (see summary in Veth 1999; cf. Bowdler 1999; Morse 1999; O’Connor 1999) makes a strong case for marine, estuarine and other coastal economic practices being similarly in train at much the same time along most other parts of the Australian littoral, including the South West. For the present, the most reliable South West records for the usage of marine resources prior to the late Holocene, are rare finds of marine mollusc shells from the late Pleistocene occupation sites of Devil’s Lair and Tunnel Cave (Smith 1999:Table 2; cf. Dortch et al. 1984; Dortch 1996). The absence of fish bone from late Pleistocene sites is unsurprising given their distance from contemporary shorelines. Evidence of estuarine or marine fishing in the region prior to the late Holocene might best be demonstrated from the discovery of fish bones in potential occupation deposits in limestone rockshelters located on the present coastline.

Acknowledgements We thank the Noongar community for the opportunity to undertake this work. In particular we thank Avril Dean, Dennis Colbung, Bobby Colbung and Rebecca Kahn who participated as principal field assistants and members of the Coyne, Colbung, 42

Loo, Woods and Williams families who visited the site while the work was in progress. The Western Australian Department of Indigenous Affairs funded this fieldwork.

References Baker, J. n.d. [Log of Lieutenant Joseph Baker, HMS Discovery 22 December 1790-1 July 1795]. Admissions 55/32, 33, Public Record Office, London. Bowdler, S. 1999 Research at Shark Bay, WA, and the nature of coastal adaptations in Australia. In J. Hall and I. McNiven (eds), Australian Coastal Archaeology, pp.79-84. Research Papers in Archaeology and Natural History 31. Canberra: Archaeology and Natural History Publications, Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, Australian National University. Bowen, G. 1998 Towards a generic technique for dating stone fish traps and weirs. Australian Archaeology 47:39-43. Dix, W.C. and S.J. Meagher 1976 Fish traps in the South-West of Western Australia. Records of the Western Australian Museum 4:171-187. Dortch, C.E. 1997 New perceptions of the chronology and development of Aboriginal estuarine fishing in south-western Australia. World Archaeology 29:15-35. Dortch, C.E. 1999 Archaeological assessment of Aboriginal estuarine fishing on the Southern Ocean coast of Western Australia. In J. Hall and I. McNiven (eds), Australian Coastal Archaeology, pp.25-35. Research Papers in Archaeology and Natural History 31. Canberra: Archaeology and Natural History Publications, Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, Australian National University. Dortch, C.E., G.W. Kendrick and K. Morse 1984 Aboriginal mollusc exploitation in southwestern Australia. Archaeology in Oceania 19(3):81-104. Dortch, J. 1996 Late Pleistocene and recent Aboriginal occupation of Tunnel Cave and Witchcliffe Rock Shelter, southwestern Australia. Australian Aboriginal Studies 2:51-60. Hodgkin, E.P. and R. Clarke 1990 Estuaries of the Shire of Albany. Estuarine Studies Series 8. Perth: Environmental Protection Authority (Western Australia). Hodgkin, E.P. and R.C. Lenanton 1981 Estuaries and coastal lagoons in south western Australia. In B.J. Neilson and L.E. Cronin (eds), Estuaries and Nutrients, pp.307-321. Totowa, NJ: Humana Press. King, P.P. 1827 Narrative of a Survey of the Intertropical and Western Coasts of Australia, Performed between the Years 1818 and 1822. Vol. 1. London: John Murray. Menzies, A. n.d. [1791] Journal of Archibald Menzies, botanist, with George Vancouver at King George’ Sound, September 27 1791 to October 13 1791. MS.B1135, Mitchell Library, Sydney. Morse, K. 1999. Coastwatch: Pleistocene resource use on the Cape Range Peninsula. In J. Hall and I. McNiven (eds), Australian Coastal Archaeology, pp.73-78. Research Papers in Archaeology and Natural History 31. Canberra: Archaeology and Natural History Publications, Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, Australian National University. Mulvaney, J. and N. Green 1992 Commandant of Solitude: The Diaries of Captain Collet Barker 1828-1831. Carlton: Melbourne University Press. O’Connor, S. 1999 A diversity of coastal economies: Shell mounds in the Kimberley region in the Holocene. In J. Hall and I. McNiven (eds), Australian Coastal Archaeology, pp.37-50. Research Papers in Archaeology and Natural History 31. Canberra: Archaeology and Natural History Publications, Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, Australian National University. Randolph, P. 2004. Lake Richmond ‘fish traps’? World Archaeology 36(4): 502-506. Smith, M. 1999 Southwest Australian coastal economies: A new review. In J. Hall and I. McNiven (eds), Australian Coastal Archaeology, pp.15-24. Research


Joe Dortch, Charles Dortch and Robert Reynolds

Papers in Archaeology and Natural History 31. Canberra: Archaeology and Natural History Publications, Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, Australian National University. Vancouver, G. 1798 A Voyage of Discovery to the North Pacific Ocean and Round the World. Vol. 1. London: G.G. and J. Robinson and J. Edwards. Veth, P. 1999 The occupation of arid coastlines during the terminal Pleistocene of Australia. In J. Hall and I. McNiven (eds), Australian Coastal Archaeology, pp.65-72. Research Papers in Archaeology and Natural History 31. Canberra: Archaeology and Natural History Publications, Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, Australian National University.


43

SHORT REPORTS The Temporality of Cultural Material on a Deflated Dune System at Abbot Point, Central Queensland Coast Bryce Barker Introduction Abbot Point on the central Queensland coast has long been recognised as an area of cultural heritage significance (Environmental Protection Agency 1999). The area has essentially been ignored in terms of research archaeology because of the lack of integrity of the cultural material, nearly all of which sits on deflated dune surfaces. Because of the problems associated with preservation of open sites in coastal tropical environments (see Bird 1992) most archaeological reconstructions in the region have been based on rockshelter deposits. However, the sheer volume and density of archaeological material found along the coast in this region indicate that open coastal sites such as Abbot Point and Upstart Bay to the north were probably intensively used with evidence of a much greater range of generalised hunter-gatherer activity in comparison to the more specialised rockshelter sites (Barker 2004; Bird 1992; Brayshaw 1990). Thus, given the evidence of intensive use of Abbot Point and its central location within a system of other clearly linked sites within the region (see below), it was felt that an attempt should be made to include this site within the wider framework of regional site patterning and use and that in this context an attempt should be made to establish its temporality. This study was carried out as part of a consultancy on behalf of Ports Corporation of Queensland and the Giru Dala Council of Elders, Bowen, with the aim of locating, recording and assessing the cultural heritage significance of prehistoric and historic sites within the boundaries of Ports Corporation of Queensland land holdings at Abbot Point and the Bowen region (Barker 1999) (Figure 1).

Figure 1 Abbot Point. Density of shell midden material calculated every 100m (after Ports Corporation of Queensland 2005).

foredune exposure. This rock platform is exposed at low tide. An extensive range of archaeological cultural material is present on the foredune area. All of the cultural material visible today sits on deflated dune surfaces.

Environment and Geomorphology Abbot Point is located 20km north of Bowen and is the site of a large coal loading facility at the extreme northern end of Abbot Beach (Figure 1). Abbot Beach is formed by an extensive beach dune system which extends south for 6km from Abbot Point in the north to an extensive mangrove system at Euri Creek in the south. The Caley Valley wetland surrounds Abbot Point to the south and west (Ports Corporation of Queensland 2005). The dune system extending the length of Abbot Beach consists of quartzose sands closely associated with estuarine/ river sedimentary outflow and sand moved onshore from the continental shelf during the Holocene marine transgression. The foredunes are mobile, early to mid-Holocene in origin, associated with transgressive events leading up to mid-Holocene sea-level stabilisation (Hopley 1970). A feature of the beach is the presence of an offshore rock platform extending parallel to the beach for approximately 3.5km, forming a seaward buffer to Department of Humanities and International Studies, University of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba, QLD 4350, Australia

44

The Archaeology The cultural material at Abbot Point is spatially extensive with discrete and often dense concentrations of midden material located within an almost continuous ‘background’ scatter of lower density shell and in this context it resembles other closely related coastal dune sites such as Upstart Bay to the north (Bird 1992; Campbell 1982). Midden material is present more or less continuously for 3.5km down the beach at varying densities ranging from a low of 9.1 fragments of shell/m² at the very northern end of the beach to 1000 fragments of shell/m² near the southern extent of the scatter (Figure 1). Although shell was used as an indicator of presence and density, it is acknowledged that dune deflation artificially magnifies densities; however, a complex and extensive array of other archaeological material is present which clearly differentiates this site from others along the coast. Thus, it is clear from the diverse range of archaeological evidence that Abbot Beach is an important site which saw intensive occupation.


Short Reports

This evidence includes a range of stone artefact ‘types’ including grindstones, hammer stones, backed blades and implements such as ‘Juan Knives’ and ‘Elouras’, edge-ground axes and other flaking debris (Figure 2). Raw materials range from local basalts and granite (Mount Roundback) to exotic cherts, quartzite and volcanic tuff from as far away as South Molle Island 120km to the south (see Barker and Schon 1994). Shell artefacts, such as Gelonia coaxans (mud mussel) scrapers and Melo amphora (Baler shell) water carriers are also present. Subsistence remains include a range of mangrove and sandy beach bivalves and gastropods, including the mud-dwelling mangrove bivalves Gelonia coaxans (mud mussel), Trichomya hirsuta (hairy mussel), oysters and Anadara aliena (mud ark) and the gastropods Telescopium telescopium (mud creeper) and Pyrazus ebeninus (mud whelk). Sandy rubble-dwelling bivalves include a range of Veneridae sp. Overall, the shell assemblage is dominated by a Muricdadae species, the rocky reef-dwelling thaid, Thais luteostoma. Other evidence of subsistence activity includes burnt turtle bone, bird bone and ‘hearth stone’ manuports. It is clear from the evidence of flaked bottle glass that Aboriginal occupation of the Abbot Point foreshore and wetlands continued into the historical period.

Radiocarbon Dating The basic rationale behind dating of non-stratified deposits at Abbot Point was to obtain a large sample of dates on cultural material in order to at least provide a maximum and a minimum age of site use. Although it can never be unequivocally proven that the dates obtained are the oldest, contextual factors, such as a close correlation with the known maximum age of cultural occupation for the region as well as with the temporal profile of site types such as coastal middens, can all provide corroborating evidence. The other key issue in the dating of non-stratified sites relates to ensuring that the material chosen is of cultural origins. Selection of shell for dating, therefore, was wherever possible carried out on mangrove species which have been culturally transported some 2km northward from the extensive mangrove forests to the beach. Other factors supporting cultural origins of dated samples include the marked differences between humanly selected shell species and individuals and those deposited through natural processes. Naturally deposited shell from such action as storm/cyclonic events tends to be extremely heterogeneous in terms of species present, including species known to be ‘noneconomic’, covers the whole range of sizes within a population

Figure 2 Deflated midden material and grindstone (scale=30cm) (Photograph: Bryce Barker).

and tends to be highly fragmented. Cultural deposits of shell on the other hand tend to be restricted in type (i.e. only preferred edible species), narrow in size range and largely intact or at least not as fragmented. At Abbot Point only three species of shellfish from the sand/rocky reef adjacent to the dune system are present from a potential shellfish population of dozens of species; they all fall within a similar size range and are largely intact. Although the range of mangrove species present is fairly broad, only two species were represented consistently across the site (Melo amphora and Gelonia coaxans). Furthermore these same species are found in middens that are stratified within the wider region and some at Abbot Point are burnt or artefactual. It is acknowledged that a direct cultural association with a single individual shell from the sandy/rocky reef system adjacent to the dune system can be strongly implied but not unequivocally stated. However, it is argued that the presence of mud-dwelling bivalve and gastropod species from mangrove systems 2km southward on the dune system in clear association with a wide range of other cultural material and fitting a cultural pattern of shellfish predation known for the region provides strong support for a cultural origin. Shell samples were collected approximately every 100m where shell was densest along the dune system extending southward for approximately 3.5km. Nine samples of shell were submitted for AMS dating to ANSTO (Table 1). Calibrations were conducted using the CALIB (v5.0.1) computer program (Stuiver and Reimer 1993). Dates on marine samples were calibrated using the marine calibration model dataset of Hughen et al. (2004). Although a range of marine reservoir corrections have recently been obtained specifically for

Table 1 Radiocarbon determinations from Abbot Point.

Location (see Figure 1)

Sample ID

Lab. No.

Species Dated

14 C Age (years BP)

Calibrated Age BP (2 sigma range)

300m

Sample 1

OZE880

Thais luteostoma

470±30

0*-223

700m

Sample 4

OZE881

Thais luteostoma

375±40

modern

1200m

Sample 5

OZE882

Melo amphora

310±35

modern

1600m

Sample 6

OZE883

Thais luteostoma

575±35

74-287

1900m

Sample 7

OZE884

Gelonia coaxans

555±35

0*-274

2400m

Sample 8

OZE885

Gelonia coaxans

490±35

0*-228

2700m

Sample 9

OZE886

Gelonia coaxans

360±35

modern

3100m

Sample 10

OZE887

Thais luteostoma

730±30

286-442

3500m

Sample 11

OZE888

Gelonia coaxans

505±30

0*-229


45

Short Reports

the central Queensland coast to the south of the study region (Ulm 2002), highlighting regional variation in the marine reservoir effect along the coast, the generalised regional average of ∆R=11±15 (Reimer and Reimer 2006) was used to calibrate dates (Stuiver and Reimer 1993). Samples too young for use of the calibration curves are reported as ‘modern’. Ranges marked with a ‘0*’ are suspect owing to impingement on the end of the calibration dataset (Stuiver et al. 2005). As shown in Table 1, only two dates fell outside the range of modern, Sample 6 (OZE883) with a calibrated age-range of 74– 287 cal BP and Sample 10 (OZE887), encompassing a temporal range of 286–442 cal BP. The range of dates obtained post-date the establishment of the dune system and closely mirror the very late Holocene range of the earliest dates from stratified coastal middens between Cape Cleveland and Bowen as well as another obtained in a stratified deposit at Abbot Point by Hopley (1970). By using a relatively large sample of dates spanning a representative sample spatially across the whole site, I have been able to reasonably show that these dates are a true reflection of the archaeological signature (Bird 1992; Campbell 1982; Hopley 1970). Whether this late Holocene temporal profile dating to the last 500–600 years is solely a product of cyclonic events as suggested by Bird (1992) and Rowland (1989) or a reflection of socio-cultural factors relating to post-500 BP changes to tropical Aboriginal coastal peoples on the east coast (Barker 2004) remains to be resolved.

Acknowledgements I would like to thank the Giru Dala Council of Elders, Jim Gaston, Bill Williams and Ports Corporation of Queensland for facilitating this study. The Australian Institute of Nuclear Science and Engineering (AINSE) generously provided a grant for the dating.

References Barker, B. 1999 A Cultural Heritage Assessment of Ports Corporation of Queensland Holdings at Abbot Point/Bowen Region (Bowen Shire). Unpublished report to Ports Corporation of Queensland and the Giru Dala Council of Elders. Barker, B. 2004 The Sea People: Late Holocene Maritime Specialisation in the Whitsunday Islands, Central Queensland. Terra Australis 20. Canberra: Pandanus Books.

46

Barker, B. and R. Schon 1994 A preliminary assessment of the spatial distribution of stone artefacts from the South Molle Island Aboriginal Quarry, Whitsunday Islands, central Queensland coast. Memoirs of the Queensland Museum 37:5-12. Bird, M. 1992 The impact of tropical cyclones on the archaeological record: An Australian example. Archaeology in Oceania 27(2):75-86. Brayshaw, H. 1990 Well Beaten Paths: Aborigines of the Herbert Burdekin District, North Queensland: An Ethnographic and Archaeological Study. Townsville: James Cook University Press. Campbell, J.B. 1982 New radiocarbon results for north Queensland prehistory. Australian Archaeology 14:62-66. Environmental Protection Agency (Queensland) 1999 Report on Abbot Point Field Survey. Unpublished report to the Environmental Protection Agency (Queensland), Brisbane. Hopley, D. 1970 The Geomorphology of the Burdekin Delta, North Queensland. Monograph 1. Townsville: Department of Geography, James Cook University. Hughen, K.A., M.G.L. Baillie, E. Bard, J.W. Beck, C.J.H. Bertrand, P.G. Blackwell, C.E. Buck, G.S. Burr, K.B. Cutler, P.E. Damon, R.L. Edwards, R.G. Fairbanks, M. Friedrich, T.P. Guilderson, B. Kromer, G. McCormac, S. Manning, C. Bronk Ramsey, P.J. Reimer, R.W. Reimer, S. Remmele, J.R. Southon, M. Stuiver, S. Talamo, F.W. Taylor, J. van der Plicht and C.E. Weyhenmeyer 2004 MARINE04 marine radiocarbon age calibration, 0-26 cal kyr BP. Radiocarbon 46(3): 1059-1086. Ports Corporation of Queensland 2005 Port of Abbot Point, Environmental Management Plan. Brisbane: Ports Corporation of Queensland. Reimer, P.J. and R.W. Reimer 2006 Marine Reservoir Correction Database. Retrieved 31 March 2006 from http://calib.qub.ac.uk/marine/. Rowland, M.J. 1989 Population increase, intensification or a result of preservation?: Explaining site distribution patterns on the coast of Queensland. Australian Aboriginal Studies 2:32-42. Stuiver, M. and P.J. Reimer 1993 Extended 14C data base and revised CALIB 3.0 14C age calibration program. Radiocarbon 35(1):215-230. Stuiver, M., P.J. Reimer and R. Reimer 2005 CALIB Manual. Retrieved 31 March 2006 from http://calib.qub.ac.uk/calib/manual/. Ulm, S. 2002 Marine and estuarine reservoir effects in central Queensland, Australia: Determination of ∆R values. Geoarchaeology 17(4):319-348.


BOOK REVIEWS DESERT PEOPLES: ARCHAEOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES Peter Veth, Mike Smith & Peter Hiscock (eds) Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, 2005, x+308pp, ISBN 1-4051-0091-5

Reviewed by Mark Basgall Archaeological Research Center, California State University, Sacramento, CA 95819-6106, USA Desert Peoples assembles a diverse set of papers intended to provide a global, comparative perspective on problems in the archaeology of deserts. Although the focus of most contributions is archaeological, ethnographic and historical elements can’t help but play a central role in many of the important debates examined in the volume. Likewise, despite the best efforts of the editors, some parts of the world are clearly better represented than others; the arid lands of central Asia and the Near East are not covered at all and there is only a single paper on North America. Serving in some sense as an informal mate to the more uneven (and considerably more costly) book, The Archaeology of Drylands, which dealt with agricultural societies, this volume is concerned mainly with the forager peoples that have occupied arid environments around the world. The volume opens with a wide-ranging essay by Smith, Veth, Hiscock and Wallis that outlines the intent and structure of the collection. Deserts are recognised as unpredictable ecological systems with a complex mode and tempo that imposed all manner of economic and social constraints on human populations. Differing widely in respect to relative aridity, and in the temporal and spatial distribution of plant, animal and material resources, the nuances of particular arid environments shaped the subsistence practices, settlement patterns, technologies and social relationships of both resident and transient occupants. Long-term climatic changes also have fundamental implications, having altered the marginality quotient of specific areas at crucial times in the past; on-the-ground conditions have clear consequences for efforts to model colonisation events or shifts in the stability and intensity of land-use patterns. The fundamental message of the introductory essay is that our preconceptions of what deserts are and how people would have coped with such environments have too often been normative and monolithic. Subsequent papers are organised into three groups. Part I ‘Frameworks’ asks just how variable human strategies were for dealing with arid environments. Widlok looks at how changing perceptions of hunter-gatherer societies, and their place in history, have influenced the development of anthropological theory. Providing a useful analysis of the so-called ‘Kalahari debate’ and its deeper implications, he then examines the value of reflexive and inflective approaches in understanding the nature of forager societies. Archaeologists, especially, will continue to rely at some level on ethnographic analogues, but we need to understand all that brings with it. The next two papers take a macro-level comparative perspective, using culture-historical data from different parts of the world to look for common processes. Hiscock and Wallis examine the environmental

context of desert colonisation in Australia and Africa, working the notion that the initial penetration of such environments occurred during periods of more favorable conditions; corollary to this is the idea that many archetypal features of desert adaptations reflect adjustments to increasing aridity rather than pre-existing strategies. Data from Africa are certainly less resolved than those for interior Australia, but there do appear to be parallels in the two records. Hiscock and O’Connor are in search of explanations for pulses in backed artefact use in the same two areas, critiquing current models that attribute the proliferation of such artefacts to emergent cognitive abilities or stylistic expressions that accompanied periods of enhanced social interaction. They clearly prefer an economic argument of the sort Hiscock has championed in Australia, relating the peak in backed artefact production to demands of tool stone conservation related to provisioning costs and risk minimisation. While I surely favour the last model, as an American monitoring the vast increase in citizens who adhere to biblical views of creation, I’m not altogether convinced that human populations never show cyclical changes in evident cognitive capacity. The four papers in Part II ‘Dynamics’ are concerned with long-term, diachronic patterns among desert societies and how these relate to changes in environmental and social conditions. Bird and Bliege Bird examine data from Australia and the Great Basin of North America in terms of variability in sexbased foraging strategies. Largely a primer on several optimal foraging models, this reviewer is not entirely convinced that the theoretical perspective offered in the paper really sheds that much light on the issue at hand. Is demonstrating that some body of ethnographic/archaeological data looks consistent with one or another evolutionary construct really a true ‘test’ of the hypothesis if alternative economic and social explanations are not explicitly examined? There are surely commonalities in the organisation of subsistence activities among a range of desert peoples, but the same labour allocations and foraging choices are duplicated among most simple societies. Veth next explores the relationship between periods of aridity, levels of mobility, and patterns of risk minimisation among late Pleistocene foragers in the Western Desert. He proposes an index of subsistence stress based on the relative extent of animal bone processing that, while simple, seems effective and correlates well with environmental conditions. Still more compelling is his effort to measure levels of residential mobility using a range of archaeological signatures (e.g. intensity of stone reduction, proportions of local and exotic tool stone etc). One might certainly quibble with just how diagnostic any one of these measures is on its own, but that’s not the point; taken together, as convergent evidence, the larger body of data makes a strong case that mobility was high during these initial periods of desert colonisation. McDonald’s paper is among the more innovative and intriguing contributions to the volume, looking at variation in arid zone rock art and how spatio-temporal distributions of stylistic elements can be used to augment and enhance our understanding of prehistoric occupation patterns. We know that aspects of social interaction/integration waxed and waned over time within particular areas, but these relationships are difficult


47

Book Reviews

to measure from the vantage of basic settlement geography and standard utilitarian assemblages. Borrero contributes one of two papers dealing with foragers in the South American deserts. Focusing on Patagonia, he summarises data that suggest drier environments were colonised after more mesic habitats west of the Andes, arid regions evidently offering reduced foraging potential, greater water constraints, and requiring populations to surmount the high mountains. The occupation lag was, however, comparatively short, in the order of two or three millennia. Part III of the volume, ‘Interactions’, provides a more varied set of papers that aim to examine factors beyond the environment that shaped desert societies, with an emphasis on the effects of social configurations and group interactions. Thackary summarises information on the Late Stone Age (LSA) archaeology of southern Africa, providing a systematic review of the environment and culture history of this interval. Perceived disjunctions in the timing of major technological and environmental shifts prompt her to look toward social and historical factors. Przywolnik contributes one of the more effective regional treatments in the book, examining longterm changes in the occupation history of coastal northwest Australia in the context of foraging patterns and patterns of social interaction. Again, employing rock art as an important adjunct, she argues that more extended, intensive occupations during the early Holocene were followed by a hiatus in regular coastal use as mangrove habitats disappeared in the mid-Holocene, to be eventually replaced by a pattern of more short-term, specialised coastal use in the late Holocene era. Reflecting a dynamic response to social and environmental factors, this reconstruction provides a significant contrast to models that promulgate a directional trend toward sedentism, social elaboration, and increased cultural complexity in later Australian prehistory. In another paper that takes on cultural developments in the Kalahari, Sadr reviews important data bearing on the interaction of foraging and non-foraging populations in the recent archaeological record. Inter-group interactions were clearly complex, in some cases showing relatively rapid assimilation of hunter-gatherer groups when Early Iron Age farmers arrived in the area, with more indirect and less dramatic effects in out of the way places. It seems clear that at least some LSA foragers were practicing a mixed herding/gardening economy in the Kalahari even before alternative economic systems seriously penetrated the region. M. Smith’s effort to integrate linguistic and archaeological information bearing on the spread of Western Desert languages is among the most ambitious and stimulating in the volume. Attempts to articulate these two disciplines to resolve common culture-historical concerns have proven difficult in virtually all areas it has been attempted and arid Australia is no exception, where it is hard to derive a common frame of reference, chronological milestones, and a set of signatures against which both dimensions might be calibrated. Recognising the danger in simply juxtaposing archaeological and linguistic sequences, Smith recommends a search for more inclusive semantic and lexical changes rather than terms for specific artefact types. One might also suggest the need to proffer some substantive advantage that language spreads might accrue, whether these are due to diffusion or active migration and population replacement. 48

The final three papers are the most idiosyncratic. The contribution by Santoro, Arriaza, Standen and Marquet on the coastal Atacama Desert suggests there was a lag in the occupation of this area relative to the more productive Andean uplands. An extremely impoverished area biotically, resources were confined to the immediate littoral zone and a relatively few, scattered oases associated with coastal drainages. Populations in the region show increasing sophistication in the use of maritime resources, with a regional mortuary tradition in place by c.8000–7000 BP. A. Smith explores the spread of pastoral societies in arid North Africa, where there appear to be continuities with predecessor foraging peoples. Technological parallels and common settlement geography suggest that herders likely emerged from earlier sheep hunters. Finally, Paterson explores the ways in which Aboriginal groups in Australia interacted with arid land pastoralists during the early historic period. Once the domain of written sources and oral accounts, recent attention to the archaeological record portrays a more varied and dynamic set of relationships and interdependencies. This is an important volume. By bringing together archaeological studies from around the world, and from a host of time periods, it provides an easily accessible set of materials that demonstrate just how variable arid regions are/ were and how forager populations in these areas confronted similar yet different environmental/social constraints. The range of the collection is perhaps best exemplified in the comparative reach and theoretical breadth of the studies. By my way of thinking, too many recent treatments of hunter-gatherer societies adhere to narrow evolutionary perspectives that work best when applied to relatively mundane aspects of resource provisioning, patch choice, and the like. This draws attention away from some of the broader patterns and processes of prehistory – elements that may in the end have roots in fitness and reproductive success, but which haven’t yet been effectively reducible to such measures. One thing that emerges from the volume is marked differences in the intellectual traditions and quality of data available for disparate parts of the world. As a group, the Australian papers are probably the most successful, due in part to the amount of recent work on this subject there but also to the focused and theoretically informed nature of the research. Many of the more compelling studies in the volume take a grand comparative perspective, whether at the regional, inter-regional, or cross-continental level, and this still seems an incredibly useful way to uncover broader adaptive processes. Basic pattern recognition remains a crucial first-order step in archaeological inquiry. To be sure, specialists from one area may have less familiarity with the details of others. This comes through in some papers in Desert Peoples, where cited literature is out of date, but it hardly negates the broader contrasts being attempted. It can be hoped that researchers from one part of the world will be prodded by some of the approaches advocated in another region to examine their own records from a similar vantage. In this era of regional and topical specialisation, which often leads to parochialism, the editors of this book can take great satisfaction in having provided a venue for looking at the big picture.


Book Reviews

FIRST FARMERS: THE ORIGINS OF AGRICULTURAL SOCIETIES Peter Bellwood Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, 2005, xix+360pp, ISBN 0-63120566-7

Reviewed by Tim Denham School of Geography and Environmental Science, PO Box 11A, Monash University, VIC 3800, Australia Over the last decade there have been several pan-regional reviews of agricultural origins, but few authors have attempted a global overview (cf. Smith 1995). In this comparative examination of the development and spread of agricultural societies in different parts of the globe, Peter Bellwood demonstrates an often encyclopaedic knowledge of his subject presented in regional and thematic reviews. He marshals archaeological, linguistic and human biological evidence in each region of the world where farming is currently thought to have originated independently. These lines of evidence are assembled to put flesh on the bones of the ‘early farming dispersal hypothesis’, essentially an updated version of the ‘farming/language dispersal hypothesis’. As succinctly stated (and discussed in Chapter 1): The early farming dispersal hypothesis postulates that the spreads of early farming lifestyles were often correlated with prehistoric episodes of human population and language dispersal from agricultural homelands (p.2, original emphasis).

From this perspective, agricultural colonists expanded through demic expansion in a ‘wave of advance’ (Ammerman and Cavalli-Sforza 1984) from an agricultural homeland. Through demographic expansion, farming populations spread outwards and, to varying degrees, their material culture, languages and genes replaced those of non-agricultural populations in newly colonised areas. These ideas came to the fore to understand distributions of Neolithic material culture, Indo-European languages and genes across Europe (Renfrew 1987), but are being increasingly applied in disparate parts of the globe, such as the spread of Austronesian language-speakers across Indo-Malaysia (e.g. Bellwood 1997:201-254). In contrast, others attribute greater historical efficacy to social interaction, admixture and transformation to understand present and past distributions of material culture, languages and genes (e.g. Richards et al. 2003; Thomas 1996). The phylogeny (demic diffusion) versus reticulation (social interaction) dichotomy sets the conceptual framework for Bellwood’s interpretation of early agricultural development and subsequent spread in different regions of the world. The dichotomy is purposefully heuristic. Each pole is acknowledged as an extreme that is unlikely to have occurred in the past, except during the settlement of uninhabited places (p.273). ‘Operational Considerations’ (Chapter 2) include an outline of the comparative method adopted, definitions of agriculture, its significance to human history, reasons for its development and how it may have been transmitted to non-agricultural groups. Following a rather selective ethnographic review, hunter-gatherers are considered to have only rarely adopted

agriculture. This conclusion provides crucial support to the early farming hypothesis because, if it holds, the diffusion of agriculture and associated material cultures in the past was largely due to demic expansion. Successive chapters (Chapters 3-8) present regional overviews for the origin and spread of agricultural societies. Most regional overviews are comprehensive and have a reference-like quality, although in places they may be too dense for the non-specialist and assume a degree of background knowledge. More significant are biases, particularly Eurasian, in the level of discussion given to each region of independent agricultural development. The origins of agriculture in Southwest Asia (Chapter 3, 23pp), with subsequent spread across Europe and Asia (Chapter 4, 30pp), and origins in East Asia (Chapter 6, 17pp), with subsequent spread across Southeast Asia and Oceania (Chapter 7, 14pp), are given extended discussion, as are, by virtue of their diffuseness, the multiple claimed centres of independent origin in the Americas (Chapter 8, 34pp). In contrast, Africa (Chapter 5, 14pp) and New Guinea (Chapter 7, 4pp) have only cursory treatments. Although I acknowledge my own New Guinean bias, greater discussion is merited because ‘New Guinea has been a powerhouse in the prehistory of the western Pacific’ (p.145). However, New Guinea’s contribution to the long-term history of the Pacific is less a direct result of demic diffusion and more a product of social interaction within Near Oceania prior to mid-Holocene migrations beyond (a point returned to below). In the remaining chapters of the book, Bellwood’s comparative method and line of argument become more explicit. Chapter 9 provides clear and concise overviews of key linguistic concepts and lines of historical interpretation. Of most relevance are discussions on the relative roles of phylogeny and reticulation in the histories of language family development. In Chapter 10, the distribution and phylogenies of major language families are compared to the archaeological evidence for agricultural homelands and dispersals. For some language families the discussions are a bit too brief and conclusions asserted rather than demonstrated. For most major language families, Bellwood argues for cultural and linguistic correlations, although the concluding section of the chapter is surprisingly more qualified. In Chapter 11, human biology is added as another comparative layer. Of most interest are accessible and evenhanded reviews of recent debates on human genetic data from Southweast Asia and Europe (pp.256-262) and Southeast Asia and Oceania (pp.265-271). Bellwood presents a ‘middle-of-theroad’ conclusion of demic diffusion with ‘constant processes of population mixing, sex-specific differential migration, and successive bottlenecks’ (p.272). The concluding chapter (Chapter 12) draws the disparate lines of cultural, linguistic and genetic data together. Bellwood proposes zonal (spatial) and staged (temporal) models for agricultural origin and spread. The degree of correlation among cultural, linguistic and genetic lines of evidence for any locale is a product of ‘dispersal-based pulsation at intervals, with reticulation in the periods (often extremely long periods) between’ (p.278). Unsurprisingly, given the nature of the evidence, ‘the final conclusion should be that language families and early agricultural economies spread through hunter-gatherer landscapes in prehistory essentially through population growth and dispersal, but with admixture’ (p.278). Demic diffusion is


49

Book Reviews

the dominant mechanism, with some allowance for reticulation during periods of standstill and ‘settling-in’. My reservations with the book stem from a different conceptual stance and derive from my own research in the New Guinea region. Firstly, the division between farmer and huntergatherer is too stark, a stance made explicit when Bellwood ponders why ‘particular groups of prehistoric foragers crossed the Rubicon into systematic agriculture’ (p.25). Although a comparative ethnographic review appears to indicate that few groups occupy transitional situations (pp.25-28), the variety of traditional lifestyles in New Guinea and their classificatory ambiguity would seem to suggest otherwise (Roscoe 2002; Specht 2003; Terrell 2002). Early agricultural practices in New Guinea were probably not ‘all-or-nothing’ adoptions, but were grafted onto pre-existing practices in diverse ways in different locales (Denham 2005). Similar ambiguities certainly exist elsewhere. Secondly, Bellwood acknowledges that the scale of comparative method adopted changes perspective (p.10), but then goes on to state that: ‘In such continental-scale situations, the irregularities of small-scale reality become “ironed-out”’ (p.10). Such a general and smoothed version of human history fails to take account of how small-scale practices relate to larger-scale interpretations. If we are unable to take account of localised variability in our continental-scale perspectives, then upon what are the latter based? For example, there are several cited archaeological, linguistic and genetic anomalies that do not accord with the ‘express train to Polynesia’ (Diamond 1988) version of Austronesian migration across Southeast Asia and Oceania. These anomalies seem to suggest extensive reticulation (over a presumably long time period) in Eastern Indonesia or Near Oceania, which yielded distinctive agricultural practices, linguistic characteristics and genetic markers in these regions, some of which were transferred to areas subsequently colonised. Although the effects of reticulation for New Guinea are alluded to, they are treated as asides and are subsumed within the larger demic expansion model. In such cases, more detail and balance are needed because it remains to be seen whether such isolates threaten the larger model (cf. Renfrew paraphrased in Schouse 2001:989). Unlike many books, Bellwood’s represents the cogent unfolding of a complex argument that draws on disparate types of information. The regional reviews of the archaeological evidence for early agriculture and its spread are, in the main, invaluable points of reference. Similarly, Chapters 9 and 11 are excellent starting points for archaeologists seeking to gain a foothold on seemingly impenetrable debates suffused with linguistic and genetic information, respectively. It is certainly the most scholarly, single-authored review of global agricultural origins on the market.

References Ammerman, A.J. and L.L. Cavalli-Sforza 1984 The Neolithic Transition and the Genetics of Populations in Europe. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Bellwood, P. 1997 Prehistory of the Indo-Malaysian Archipelago. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Denham, T.P. 2005 Envisaging early agriculture in the Highlands of New Guinea: Landscapes, plants and practices. World Archaeology 37(2):289-304. Diamond, J. 1988 Express train to Polynesia. Nature 336:307-308. Renfrew, C. 1987 Archaeology and Language: The Puzzle of Indo-European Origins. London: Jonathan Cape.

50

Richards, M., V. Macaulay and H-J. Bandelt 2003 Analyzing genetic data in a modelbased framework: Inferences about European prehistory. In P. Bellwood and C. Renfrew (eds), Examining the Farming/Language Dispersal Hypothesis, pp.459-466. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research. Roscoe, P. 2002 The hunters and gatherers of New Guinea. Current Anthropology 43:153-162. Schouse, B. 2001 Spreading the word, scattering the seeds. Science 294:988-989. Smith, B.D. 1995 The Emergence of Agriculture. New York: Scientific American Library. Specht, J. 2003 On New Guinea hunters and gatherers. Current Anthropology 44:269. Terrell, J.E. 2002 Tropical agroforestry, coastal lagoons and Holocene prehistory in Greater Near Oceania. In Y. Shuji and P.J. Matthews (eds), Proceedings of the International Area Studies Conference VII: Vegeculture in Eastern Asia and Oceania, pp.195-216. Osaka: National Museum of Ethnology. Thomas, J. 1996 The cultural context of the first use of domesticates in continental Central and Northwest Europe. In D.R. Harris (ed.), The Origins and Spread of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Eurasia, pp.310-322. London: University College London Press.

HOMINID ADAPTATIONS AND EXTINCTIONS David W. Cameron University of New South Wales Press, Sydney, 2004, xii+260pp, ISBN 0 86840 716 X

Reviewed by Sylvia Hallam School of Earth and Geographical Sciences, University of Western Australia, 35 Stirling Highway, Crawley, WA 6009, Australia As archaeologists we tend to concentrate on human cultures in the foreground, leaving the biological context dim and blurred in the background. We need to shift our focus if we are ever to hope to understand the biological evolution of the physiological, morphological and behavioural capacities which make those learned traditional and innovative patterns of behaviour we call cultures possible; and begin to apprehend the mix of biological and cultural in the further development of those capacities through manifold hominin genera and species. The cultural past of the species Homo sapiens is based on the biological capacities of its hominin forebears. We need to appreciate our heritage as terrestrial vertebrates, with external sense organs monitoring our surroundings, and a central nervous system sunk within the protection of an internal structural and locomotor framework; as mammals with highly efficient physiological mechanisms maintaining a steady chemical environment and temperature for the functioning of muscles and nervous systems, placental gestation, and young suckled by the mother, young who do not arrive with their behaviour completely genetically programmed, but a need succour as they learn; and as primates whose arboreal background involves emphasis on visual rather than olfactory senses, and learned coordination of vision and movement. As members of the hominoid super-family, the hominid family, and the hominin tribe we belong to taxa which have bushed out into a prolific diversity of genera, and species, and spread into a great variety of environments, moving between Africa and Eurasia, over the relatively short (20Ma) span of the Neogene. Although our hominid forebears showed relatively little specialisation (mainly of teeth, jaws and jaw musculature) to tie each taxon to one environment only, that seems to have been sufficient to


Book Reviews

lead to extinctions as the Himalayan-Tibetan massif rose and environments changed. Very few taxa survived the massive fluctuations of the Pleistocene, and those which not only survived but proliferated were those which showed least specialisation and retained most primitive generality, adding a multipurpose capacity to handle and adapt objects, artefacts, concepts and society. Cameron’s solid little book is a very condensed summary of the specialised field of primate systematics, but it provides for the non-specialist a very effective account of how the data are marshalled and handled to elucidate hominoid taxonomy, and throw light on the relationship of structure and function to environments and distributions. If one compares the position in the twenty-first century with that half a century ago, when LeGros Clark wrote on the fossil background to human evolution, the available fossil data is immensely richer. That does not make the task easier, but harder. We must surely be approaching the point of maximum complexity, after which situations will begin to clarify. I hope so. But I found it wholly admirable that Cameron does not try to solve the insoluble, but is willing to admit that quite often we do not yet have certitude. There are some taxonomic decisions he explicitly leaves in a suspense account. We don’t know yet. Archaeologists also should learn that sometimes it is allowable to conclude that several possibilities remain open – that we don’t know! There are some annoying minor errors, omissions and commissions which closer editorial scrutiny should have removed. The phrase ‘as such’ is constantly misused. ‘Above-branch’ and ‘below-branch’ locomotion appear to be reversed on p.151 (compare with p.149 and p.133). Items stray into the wrong columns in several of the tables showing tentative classifications – the Homininae have shifted out of the ‘sub-family’ column in Table 1.1. The second half of Table 7.6 has columns for sub-family, tribe, genus, and species; but the first half of the table, on the previous page, has lost the ‘tribes’ column, and the tribes Kenyapithecini, Sivapithecini and Pongini are distributed between the columns for sub-family and genus. Several technical terms explained in boxes appear also, helpfully, in the glossary, but not all. Archaeologists could learn a great deal from this modest but authoritative volume, not only from its very considerable substantive content, but also from its methodological rigor, and refusal to affirm a conclusion as incontrovertible prematurely.

PALAEO-ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE AND THE PERSISTENCE OF HUMAN OCCUPATION IN SOUTH-WESTERN AUSTRALIAN FORESTS Joe Dortch BAR International Series 1288, Archaeopress, Oxford, 2004, xi+226pp, ISBN 1 84171 638 3

Reviewed by Sylvia Hallam School of Earth and Geographical Sciences, University of Western Australia, 35 Stirling Highway, Crawley, WA 6009, Australia My first comments address the publisher’s role, rather than the author’s. BAR monographs fulfil a very useful function; many have become archaeological classics. But my copy of this book started falling to pieces before I had finished reading it,

which hardly encourages readers to regard these studies as of durable worth. As well as more robust construction, tighter editing would have been helpful. Just as one example of unfortunately common minor inconsistencies, did Dortch measure artefacts ‘to the nearest 0.01 mm’ or ‘to the nearest tenth of a millimetre’ (both on p.89)? The title of the monograph is distinctly misleading. ‘SouthWestern Australian Forests’ (Figure 2.1) extend north beyond the latitude of Perth, but this study examines in detail only their extreme southwest corner. Dortch does not always make it clear when he is talking about the southwest in the general sense of the Perth/Leeuwin/Albany triangle; when his remarks refer to the whole southern portion of this triangle (or the wider karri region within it); and when they are limited to his ‘study area’, ‘the Leeuwin-Naturaliste Region, extreme south-western Australia’, the limits of which remain undefined. Statements about the availability of certain plant and animal resources in the southwest do not necessarily apply to every region within it; for instance Dioscorea hastifolia does not occur south of the Murray. The author could have benefited also from an editorial reminder that mathematical arguments need to be expressed with extreme clarity, particularly when addressed to a readership which, even if adequately numerate, does not put mathematical manoeuvres at the centre of its interests. I found it strange that the main text should retain lengthy and recondite mathematical arguments, whilst straightforward artefact descriptions and drawings were consigned to an appendix. Nor does elaborate statistical treatment necessarily resolve difficult issues. For instance, Dortch puts a great deal of time and effort into tests on changes in flake shape over time, only to deduce ‘more frequent’ visitation of Devil’s Lair at the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) when there is lack of intensive reduction of chert artefacts (Dortch had previously proposed intensive retouch as the criterion of increased site usage). He then reverts to basing his deduction on the ‘large numbers’ of chert artefacts per unit time and volume, Bill Ferguson’s much simpler criteria, which Dortch had previously rejected. Dortch does not give sufficient credit to the pioneering work of Ferguson (1985), both in field methodology and in interpretation. Ferguson’s wide and systematic application of road surveys, test-pits and large area excavations in southern forested regions set a new benchmark in field methods (the excavated sediments in Ferguson’s sites were neither ‘poorly stratified’ nor ‘unconsolidated’, as can be seen from the trench depths and sharp outlines in his published photographs). On the interpretation of the fluctuations in artefact numbers at these sites, both Ferguson and his critics can be faulted. Ferguson’s critics have argued that artefact numbers cannot provide a proxy for demographic trends. The post-4000 increase might be partly explained by changing technology, but this does nothing to account for the earlier decrease in rate of artefact deposition. On the other hand, if Ferguson’s histograms are put side by side, the low points do not coincide between sites, as his ‘depopulation’ interpretation requires. A more economical explanation would be shifts in relative usage, increasing inland in moister, seaward in drier, phases. I find the data Dortch presents (e.g. Figure 4.1) entirely consonant with continuing overall population growth in


51

Book Reviews

the southwest as a whole. His graph shows growth in site numbers to be approximately exponential, which is exactly the mathematical expectation if total site numbers at any one time provide an approximate index of usage and thus of population. Dortch thus provides the best evidence against his own doubts about the validity of using site and artefact numbers as indices of population! Natural demographic increase is an entirely sufficient explanation, without the need to postulate improved technology or efficiency. The core of Dortch’s book, however, lies not in his interpretations of his own work and of the work of others, but in his description of his own field survey and excavations, and analyses of biotic and lithic remains. Dortch’s lithic analyses (as distinct from their interpretation) set a new benchmark for the meticulous treatment of appallingly difficult stone assemblages. From Tunnel Cave, for instance, the fossiliferous chert ‘tool’ assemblage comprises ‘all utilised pieces … only one has retouch’ (p.100). The quartz is worse. ‘I have examined’, Dortch tells us, ‘every stone artefact from Tunnel Cave and Devil’s Lair under a binocular microscope at magnifications from x6 to x40’. Material, artefact type, dimensions, weight, platform, dorsal scars, ventral scars, use scars, cortex, pot-lids, heat-crazing, all were recorded. This represents a truly massive and admirable labour. The results are also impressive. This is intractable material. Much of it is quartz, notoriously difficult to analyse. Even among artefacts made from chert, superior in its flaking properties to quartz, a mere handful can be slotted into ‘formal tool types’, mainly pieces that might have been bagged simply as ‘amorphous scraper’, or ‘utilised flake’. Dortch, however, barely concerns himself with formal typology, but concentrates rather on size and ‘intensity of usage’. In Devil’s Lair (p.97), at the LGM, as chert became more easily accessible from sources now offshore, so people used it more lavishly, making larger tools, and not bothering to squeeze every last drop of use out of any one blank. Later, as sea-levels rose, access to chert sources became limited once more, and people used their products more carefully. Patterns of usage of the more evenly available quartz remained unchanged, Dortch actually concedes (p.97) that human visits to Devil’s Lair may have been ‘more frequent’ at the very time that ‘chert artefacts are not greatly reduced (flaked intensively)’ (my emphasis). This is the opposite of the contemporary situation in Tunnel Cave (p.105), where ‘the high ratio of tools to debitage, and used artefacts to unused artefacts’ leads him to deduce more ‘intensive’ occupation around the LGM. Dortch thus effectively scuttles his own argument that intensity of usage of artefacts measures demographic trends over the whole region. He continues to maintain, however (p.109), that ‘Tunnel Cave provides little evidence that occupation intensity declined in response to major vegetation changes … from 12,000 to 8,000 BP … except that there are few artefacts dated to this period’ (my emphasis). Quantities of bone agree with quantities of artefacts (p.129). Why not concede that this ‘decline in artefact numbers’ is sufficient and acceptable evidence, showing itself more valid than devious and dubious measures of ‘intensity’ of artefact usage? The data Dortch amasses may not always be able to answer the questions he asks. Bones and charcoal in living deposits were not necessarily garnered right outside the front door. Perhaps when a habitat did change, people just went further to get the same resources, rather than ceasing to visit a really cosy 52

pied a terre. Contrary to Dortch’s statement (p.18) there is no guarantee at all that ‘in such a fine mosaic … it is the immediate surroundings of a site that may be most important for huntergatherers’ (my emphasis). Like other mammals, humans require much more than one sort of vegetation, for access, shelter, foraging and social, mating and ritual activities. A habitat may be intensively used, but have no camp-spot actually within it (e.g. alluvial yam-diggings), or be a good place for a camp, but draw its resources from the surroundings (e.g. many sandblows). The movements of an Aboriginal group over days, weeks, months, years and decades could take them repeatedly through the meagre karri of the Margaret River limestone ridge, and around and beyond it, taking in terrain and resources kilometres and tens of kilometres away. The real questions are about relative usage, of fairly wide ecological zones, which can be answered (if at all) only by wide and intensive survey and excavation. I found the discussion of burnt bone in hearths fascinating but flawed. Dortch (p.132) equates ‘the proportion of each species burnt specimens in all species burnt specimens’ with ‘the proportions of species present before the hearth was built’. However, the sample from which the first proportion was derived included not only the bones below the hearth, but additionally bones from the hearth, some of which will have been put in later; the equation is therefore untrue. It would be more useful to compare expected numbers of one species burnt with actually occurring numbers, then calculate the difference due to addition bone humanly deposited in the fire. I am particularly interested in Dortch’s discussion of the role of Aboriginal firing regimes in vegetation change, in partial avoidance of such change and in the (unintended) acceleration of change. I would agree with his deduction that ‘hunter-gatherers need not abandon regions characterised by mosaic vegetation’. Dortch conveniently sets up an ‘Aunt Sally’ to knock down, in the form of a supposed prior assumption that the southwest karri forests ‘severely limit or even exclude human occupation’. This is a useful expository device, but the Hallam (1975) pages cited do not say this. Hallam nowhere states nor implies that Aborigines avoided all karri forest; nor (despite Dortch p.41) that karri has few foods, necessarily a dense understorey, and is too wet to burn. It remains probable that karri forests in general were ‘burnt only patchily, for example on their western margin’ (Hallam 1975:27). The west is the area of Dortch’s study, a much thinner and more penetrable belt of karri than the extensive block inland from the south coast, from Pemberton across to Walpole. This main block may well have been frequented and burnt more ‘rarely’(p.27), and be ‘less exposed and liable to fire, though not unaffected on its coastal margin’ (Hallam 1975:55). Hallam (1975:75, 103) points out the diversity within forests; and cites historical and bore data which suggest Aborigines were burning, even if patchily, in the deep south near Broke Inlet and William Bay (if fire return periods of ‘less than a few years’ produced sedgelands in Tasmania, do the sedgelands of the south coast of Western Australia imply anything about Aboriginal burning?). The work of Pearce (1982) and of Bonner (Anderson 1984) confirmed that the forested triangle of the southwest and the karri areas of the far south, never supported really intensive human activity and population like that on the west coastal plain. Pearce’s forest sites were not ‘somewhat smaller’ than coastal


Book Reviews

plain sites, but about a tenth of the size, with around a tenth of the artefact density. The density of all sites, at more than 6/km² on the coastal plain, contrasts with around 1/km² in forest; while for major sites, with thousands of artefacts, the figures are 1/km² on coastal plain against between 0 and 0.06/km² in different parts of the forest (Anderson 1984:20-21). Overall decadal usage per unit area on the coastal plain was thus probably several degrees of magnitude greater than in the northern jarrah forest. Dortch gives no comparable site density, size, or artefact density figures for any part of the far southwest. Dortch provides a very useful summary of ecological work on the varied vegetation and fauna of the southern southwest. He could profitably have discussed how far Aboriginal occupancies related to and depended on the important and widely available resources of non-forested patches of heath, scrub, granite outcrop and their surrounds, swamps, estuaries, and sedgelands, widely scattered (see map p.19) within the generally forested districts (Christensen 1992), rather than to forest pure and simple. Aboriginal occupancies of forests only, or of any one vegetational formation, is not a meaningful concept. Aboriginal groups used the total resources of an entire area, forest and non-forest. Non-forest resources within forested contexts may well have been overall more important for subsistence than the surrounding forest. Dortch’s hard-won evidence does not enable him to come to incontrovertible conclusions. But to have sharpened the questions posed is a considerable achievement, and should lead to more, and more cooperative, work in a field of multidisciplinary and public significance.

References Anderson, J. 1984 Between Plateau and Plain: Flexible Responses to Varied Environments in Southwestern Australia. Occasional Papers in Prehistory 4. Canberra: Department of Prehistory, Research School of Pacific Studies, Australian National University. Christensen, P. 1992 The Karri Forest. Como, WA: Department of Conservation and Land Management. Ferguson, W.C. 1985 A Mid-Holocene Depopulation of the Australian Southwest. Unpublished PhD thesis, Department of Archaeology and Anthropology, Australian National University, Canberra. Hallam, S.J. 1975 Fire and Hearth: A Study of Aboriginal Usage and European Usurpation in South-Western Australia. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies. Pearce, R.H. 1982 Archaeological sites in the jarrah forest, southwest Australia. Australian Archaeology 14:18-24

THE ORIGINS OF WAR: VIOLENCE IN PREHISTORY Jean Guilaine & Jean Zammit Blackwell Publishing, Malden, 2005, xi+282pp, ISBN 1 4051 1260 3

Reviewed by Graham Knuckey ARCHAEO Cultural Heritage Services Pty Ltd, PO Box 333, The Gap, QLD 4061, Australia Violence and aggression have always been part of the ‘human condition’. Raymond Dart and others after him argued it has been an essential component of our pre-human, hominid

ancestry (Dart 1953; Lorenz 1966), until Dart’s ideas, in particular, lost favour as the result of advances in taphonomic analysis (e.g. Brain 1981). Nonetheless, violence and aggression have long been shown as behaviours common to intergroup human relationships, manifested at the most basic level as a mechanism of defence – the protection of self, family and tribe (Morris 1969). As a consequence, any discussion of the origins of warfare, that is, ‘organized, purposeful group action, directed against another group … involving the actual or potential application of lethal force’ (Ferguson 1990:26), is of great interest to the professional anthropologist/archaeologist and the non-professional alike. Jean Guilaine and Jean Zammit’s book, The Origins of War: Violence in Prehistory provides an insight into evidence they have studied over many years (artefacts, artistic depictions and actual skeletal trauma) that has been interpreted as manifestations of violent and aggressive behaviour from the past. The book begins with an introduction, moves through five chapters that follow a chronological order from hunter-gatherers in the Upper Pleistocene (Chapter 1), to violence perpetrated against individuals during the Iron Age (Chapter 5), and is summarised in a brief conclusion. The introduction sets out general terms and concepts essential to the development of the argument being presented. The authors deal briefly with topics such as the ‘nature-nurture’ debate (Lorenz 1966; Wilson 1975); that is, whether or not warfare can be explained as instinct (nature) or as learned behaviour (cultural). However, their descriptions of terms such as ‘war’, ‘aggression’ and ‘violence’ are too simplistic. War is too complex an issue to be skimmed over in the way the following definition suggests: The word “war” should be understood in its most general sense here – the sense is not one of armed conflict but rather bloody clashes between small groups, raids carried out on neighbouring parties, ambush attacks, and even individual murders (p.24).

Is this an adequate explanation of the term? The definition from Ferguson (1990) used earlier suggests not and this disparity is not adequately addressed at any stage throughout the rest of the book. For example, themes explored include cannibalism, torture and human sacrifice, topics that do not seem to relate directly to war (or its origins) by any other definition, yet come neatly within the rubric of the definition offered in the introduction. Throughout the book subjective language tends to dilute the potency of the discussion and statements such as ‘Humans lived according to the natural resources at their disposal and were unable to progress beyond this state’ (p.82) and ‘gruesome rituals’ (p.95), suggest a lack of scientific rigour has been applied to the archaeological evidence analysed. This lack of rigour results mainly from a paucity of physical evidence available for study, and the authors do not shy away from acknowledging this fact. For example, in Chapter 3 (2000-6000 BC) ‘The Difficulties of Making an Assessment’ (p.133) discusses problems associated with interpreting evidence as manifestations of premeditated violence (let alone warfare). As the quoted example from this subsection suggests, there are occasions where it seems the interpretations given are founded upon a very slight database: A survey of 48 sites concluded that roughly 75 bodies, out of the approximately 2000 to 3000 bodies buried in the tombs, were


53

Book Reviews

injured … Thus, it is possible that less than 4 percent of the estimated total were injured (p.133).

In Chapter 5 (from approximately 4000 BC) the main theme of the book begins to emerge. By this time in antiquity, city-states began to appear, developing from the fortified towns known to have existed during the fourth millennium BC. It is during this period that certifiable evidence of war (by any definition) appears and in this chapter the authors discuss, based upon more robust material evidence, the existence of professional soldiers, armies and warrior heroes. Despite the insights contained within The Origins of War, I read it with a growing sense of disappointment. Firstly, the broad and simplified definitions make the study indecisive toward its initial aim, the origins of war. Secondly, because the book is restricted to a discussion of evidence found in southern Europe (specifically France and Spain) it highlighted my own limitations. Concerning the former, is the title accurate? This book is much more a discussion of the prehistoric manifestations of violent and aggressive behaviour, and this behaviour commonly existed outside the context of war, however broadly the term is defined. Is there a simple solution? Remove the first half of the title; Violence in Prehistory would seem more apt, given the material evidence and the interpretations presented. As for the latter, this book has been translated from the original French text and as such the majority of the reference material it is based upon comes from French sources. With no knowledge of the language (and therefore no way of gauging the effect of translation on original intent), and no way to access most of the reference material, there is a real concern this review may be selling The Origins of War: Violence in Prehistory a little short of its true worth.

References Brain, C.K. 1981 The Hunters or the Hunted?: An Introduction to African Cave Taphanomy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Dart, R. 1953 The predatory transition from ape to man. International Anthropological and Linguistic Review 1:201-218. Ferguson, R.B. 1990 Explaining war. In J. Haas (ed.), The Anthropology of War, pp.26-55. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lorenz, K. 1966 On Aggression. London: Methuen and Company. Morris, D. 1969 The Human Zoo. London: Jonathon Cape. Wilson, E.O. 1975 Sociobiology: The New Sythesis. Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard Unity Press.

THE ARCHAEOLOGIST’S MANUAL FOR CONSERVATION: A GUIDE TO NON-TOXIC, MINIMAL INTERVENTION ARTIFACT STABILIZATION Bradley A. Rodgers Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York, 2004, xvii+214pp, ISBN 0306484676

Reviewed by Brandy Lockhart Department of Archaeology, Flinders University, GPO Box 2100, Adelaide, SA 5001, Australia This book attempts to bring conservation back into the field of archaeology by acting as a narrative or a resource book on 54

conservation methods and theories for those who may not be familiar with them. It provides archaeologists with the necessary instructions to conserve certain types of artefacts on their own, saving them money and time and allowing the conservation labs to be freed up for larger and more complex artefacts. The intended readers are archaeologists, so this book is very clear and straightforward and makes no assumptions about the reader’s prior level of conservation knowledge. The author, Bradley A. Rodgers, is an associate professor at East Carolina University. His specialisation is in the areas of nautical archaeology and conservation, making him an appropriate author for such a text. The book begins with a chapter entitled ‘The minimal intervention laboratory’. In this section Rodgers discusses the different types of laboratories that are available for conservation. The chapter outlines the necessities for a minimum conservation laboratory and how to go about creating one in a cost effective manner. Much of the expensive equipment can be substituted with common items at a much lower cost, and the creation of a conservation laboratory need not be as large an undertaking as the reader might initially expect. The chapters that follow concentrate on a material type, starting with wood. The process of degradation is described in some detail for both dry and waterlogged wood, followed by descriptions of the different conservation techniques that can be used on wood at varying levels of preservation. In addition to the instructions outlining how to preserve a wooden artefact, Rodgers also describes how to remove stains and safely store the artefact. All of the chapters have similar subheadings: a description of the material, its degradation, how and if concretions form, how to treat the artefact, how to remove stains, and how to store it properly. The materials covered include wood, iron, copper (and copper alloys), various other metals, ceramic, glass, stone, nonwood organics, and composite materials. For convenience each chapter begins with a flowchart. Following the flowchart the reader is first told which page to turn to in order to obtain information on how to recover and store the material. The reader then follows the flowchart based on where the artefact was found, freshwater, saltwater, or on land. By following the flowchart through to the end the reader is directed to the pages with the appropriate conservation techniques without having to reread the entire chapter. Each chapter concludes with an extensive bibliography that the reader can use to obtain further information on the conservation of the material being discussed. Within the book are several types of figures, including illustrations, photographs, flowcharts, computer drawings, graphs and tables. Fine line illustrations, as well as some of the other figures, are found in the wood chapter description of wood composition and degradation. Some of the figures are very detailed, such as the wood drawings, while others are simple and clear such as the electrolysis diagram (p.89). As previously mentioned, flowcharts are presented for each chapter to help direct the reader to the appropriate conservation technique. There are also tables at the beginning of each chapter outlining the available treatments for the material and whether or not they are recommended by the author, or if there are any known problems with them. Other tables throughout the book are used to demonstrate the effects


Book Reviews

of treatments. Photographs of artefacts are large and clear and accompanied by scales. Other photographs include laboratory equipment. Although this book is brief on many of the material types discussed, it is a very useful reference and can be used as an introductory text for all archaeologists, whether terrestrial or maritime. Not only does the volume provide archaeologists with the ability to conserve many artefacts themselves, it also informs them of how to safely store newly recovered materials until conservation can begin. It is thus a very valuable work to have during and after fieldwork. The brevity of the book and some of its chapters results not from a lack of content, but rather from its concise nature. The book is a guide, not a comprehensive text book for conservation, and as such provides basic, fundamental information as well as a bibliography to direct the reader to other conservation publications. Had the book been much larger and more comprehensive it would have lost some of its clarity and practicality. Rodgers makes it clear in the beginning of the book that conservation treatments should be non-toxic and reversible. All treatments that are recommended in this book fall under these categories. Only time-tested, proven treatments are promoted by the author although new and promising treatments are also mentioned. This book is intended for archaeologists not conservationists and is generally successful at remaining clear and informative. However, archaeologists have varying levels of conservation training and some of the terms used in the book will be new to many. The book would thus benefit from the addition of a glossary. The index is helpful, but rather than trying to relocate where something was defined it would be much simpler to be able to look it up in a glossary. In the introduction of The Archaeologist’s Manual for Conservation Rodgers states that: This manual is designed to take the mysticism out of archaeological artifact conservation and act as both a reference and a guide. It is intended to be a tool to assist archaeologists in stabilizing a majority of the artifacts they excavate, or those already in storage (p.1).

The goals of the book have been achieved and it would make an excellent and useful addition to any archaeologist’s library.

THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF TIME Gavin Lucas Routledge, London, 2005, ix+150pp, 0-415-31198-5

Reviewed by Michael Morrison School of Anthropology, Archaeology and Sociology, James Cook University, Townsville, QLD 4811, Australia The concept of time is of substantial consequence in contemporary debates in archaeology whether we acknowledge it or not. It underlies how we do what we do, for it is the very nature of our discipline to understand the void that exists between ourselves and the subjects (or objects) of study. To this end Lucas’ book is

timely because it complicates the notion of time as it relates to archaeological theory and practice, presenting a coherent series of arguments that work over some old ground as well as developing much that is new. It is also valuable because it is the most recent in a fairly limited number of books that have attempted to come to terms with the problems associated with time and archaeological interpretation (Gosden 1994; Knapp 1992; Murray 1999). The first chapter sets out to examine taken-for-granted assumptions about time in archaeology. This consists of an argument against the uncritical use of chronology as the sole temporal framework that archaeologists use to explain change. He suggests that chronology is not a universally held conception of time and that a reliance upon chronological temporal frameworks results in inherently singular and linear interpretations of archaeological change. Such approaches simplify the past and limit the possibility of understanding historical processes operating over different scales and durations. He reviews several alternatives to chronological (i.e. linear) temporal frameworks including Annales and non-linear dynamics which do not abandon chronology as such, but replace a linear conception of time with the well-established idea of temporal rhythms. That is, different historical processes have their own tempo or pace which operate over particular durations. In Chapter 2 Lucas reviews some of the ways that archaeologists see time in relation to the archaeological record. A number of important themes are explored here: the temporal characteristics of the archaeological record (such as ‘the Pompeii premise’), palimpsests and timescales, time perspectivism, and temporal structures of archaeological narratives. Indeed, it is a dense chapter that covers a great deal of ground. In particular, Lucas is critical of the idea that the archaeological record is a snapshot or frozen record of past cultural systems; he convincingly argues that archaeologists are not above or outside history, but instead that we engage with and interpret it and it is therefore inseparable from our present. This idea is similar in form to arguments first popularised by Shanks and Tilley (1987) and it is clear from Lucas’ work that they have aged well. Lucas also rejects the popular notion of palimpsest as a simple layering of events in place of a more complex view whereby they are construed as multiple overlapping events of various duration, and which have different impacts on the archaeological record. Even the concept of time perspectivism, an approach commonly advocated by some (Bailey 1981, 1983; Fletcher 1992; Knapp 1992), is criticised, for although there is recognition of multilayered temporal processes operating at different scales, time perspectivism is still reliant upon an essentially linear, chronological framework. As would perhaps be expected, the final verdict is for a more complex approach to archaeological narratives and while he suggests that a linear framework has merit, it should also be open to the possibility of temporal disruptions and dislocations. Chapter 3 investigates how societies in the past perceived time. Lucas argues that one way of getting at this through archaeology is to look at how past societies engaged with remains from earlier periods. Here he is specifically talking about artefacts or objects, and the ways these were reused and reinterpreted. This discussion would have benefited by including consideration of how material remains other than tools or implements influenced the activities of people in the past. For example, in a hunter-gatherer context


55

Book Reviews

how did evidence of previous use of areas (such as shell middens, rock art motifs, or artefact scatters) play out in the way people interacted with these places? The fourth chapter entitled ‘The Life and Times of a Roman Jar’ is a case study incorporating many of the arguments proposed in earlier chapters. The choice of a fairly nondescript artefact such as this is an interesting one because it reinforces his claims for the importance of critical engagement with the notion of time at all levels of archaeological interpretation. He argues that the jar is representative of two different sorts of temporalities. Firstly, it represents a chasm between ourselves and the past which is breached by chronology, in a sense by placing the item into our linear conception of time. This, he suggests is how we connect with the past. Secondly, he considers what he terms the jar’s ‘age profile’; that is, its temporality as perceived by the people who made and used it. Consideration of this question helps us to almost engage with the artefact as if we were engaging in a dialogue with an informant. For Lucas, there is no need to reconcile these two approaches for he argues it is in our interest to draw upon both temporalities. The concluding chapter makes the point that archaeologists need to reconsider the problem of time in archaeology through a rethinking of the nature of the discipline itself. To this end, Lucas presents a fascinating argument for the uniqueness of archaeology as a discipline (compared with history or anthropology) which while oriented around material culture and temporality, is not necessarily strictly chronological in nature. It is instead a mode of temporalisation, whereby we do not ‘excavate time’ but instead we create it by firstly alienating ourselves from the past only to then restore this disjunction through archaeological narratives. The discipline is about ‘stitching up’ tears in our temporal continuity between the past and the present and in this sense archaeology is a tool in maintaining our own identities. From this he raises some significant questions about the role of archaeology as a Western hegemonic discourse and asks whether this is in fact what defines the discipline. For an audience of researchers focused on Australian archaeological problems the book will be lacking in several areas. Most glaring is that it does not deal with the specific challenges of hunter-gatherer archaeology, instead preferring to draw on European post-Neolithic examples. Another limitation is that it only sporadically considers the problems of using ethnography in archaeology, or how his arguments are implicated in contexts where rich documentary sources are available. However, the most significant limitation of the book for this reviewer is that it has not dealt in any substantive way with the methodological and theoretical contributions of the Annalistes to the problems of time in historical explanation, and whose work clearly has significant implications for archaeology (e.g. Bailey 1981; Burke 1990; Hodder 1997; Knapp 1992). These issues aside, all-in-all Lucas presents a clear, well-written and logically structured book which is intended to be read from start to end rather than as individual chapters. It is clearly aimed at advanced undergraduates, postgraduates and practicing professionals rather than people who are new to archaeology or archaeological theory. Sadly, Lucas’ book will probably not cause much of a ripple on the Australian pond where theory and method are not nearly as close allies as they are in the United Kingdom. Nevertheless, it does raise some important issues for 56

consideration by those who are concerned about the political and philosophical motives of the discipline, and the practical problems of ‘doing archaeology’ in Australia.

References Bailey, G.N. 1981 Concepts, time scales and explanations in economic prehistory. In A. Sheridan and G.N. Bailey (eds), Economic Archaeology: Towards an Integration of Ecological and Social Approaches, pp.97-118. BAR International Series 96. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. Bailey, G.N. 1983 Concepts of time in Quaternary prehistory. Annual Review of Anthropology 12:165-192. Burke, P. 1990 The French Historical Revolution: The Annales School, 1929-89. California: Stanford University Press. Fletcher, R. 1992 Time perspectivism, Annales, and the potential of archaeology. In B. Knapp (ed.), Archaeology, Annales and Ethnohistory, pp.35-49. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gosden, C. 1994 Social Being and Time. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. Hodder, I. 1997 Interpreting Archaeology: Finding Meaning in the Past. London: Routledge. Knapp, B. (ed.) 1992 Archaeology Annales, and Ethnohistory. Sydney: Cambridge University Press. Murray, T. (ed.) 1999 Time and Archaeology. London: Routledge. Shanks, M. and C.Y. Tilley 1987 Re-Constructing Archaeology: Theory and Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

THE ARCHAEOLOGIST’S FIELD HANDBOOK Heather Burke & Claire Smith Allen & Unwin, ISBN 1 86508 862 5

Crows

Nest,

2004,

xxii+406pp,

Reviewed by Tim Ormsby Department of Archaeology, Flinders University, GPO Box 2100, Adelaide, SA 5001, Australia Fieldwork is an essential part of the archaeological research process. It is through fieldwork that archaeologists gather evidence to test their theories and research questions. This leads to the discourse, discussion and debate that we call archaeology. However, if you are new to the discipline or have never conducted field research before, fieldwork can appear to be a very daunting undertaking. What are the aims of the fieldwork? What equipment will you need? Where should you excavate? How do you actually excavate and how do you properly record what you find? These and many other questions all need to be answered before the researcher can even think about putting trowel to soil. The Archaeologist’s Field Handbook aims to answer all such questions. The authors have sought to provide a ‘hands-on field manual which provides a step-by-step guide to undertaking and successfully completing a wide variety of archaeological fieldwork projects’ (p.xvii). The book is divided into 10 chapters, each dealing with a different aspect of the archaeological research process. At the beginning of each chapter is a short bullet point list of what the reader will learn in that chapter, making it easy to find what you are looking for. The book is set out in a largely logical order, starting with how to prepare for fieldwork, including designing research questions, how to obtain funding and deciding on what equipment to take and ending with how to write final reports and


Book Reviews

getting results published. The remaining eight chapters discuss map reading and navigation methods (Chapter 2), finding and recording site details (Chapter 3), site surveying techniques (Chapter 4), excavation techniques (Chapter 5), techniques for recording historical and maritime sites (Chapter 6), Indigenous sites (Chapter 7), the basics of cultural heritage management (Chapter 8) and finally how to properly take photographs and illustrate artefacts (Chapter 9). The appendices contain a vast array of useful information, from sample recording forms, to a ceramic rim diameter chart as well as checklists for writing reports, tables and figures. Also covered are factors that, while not always associated with archaeological fieldwork, are very important considerations while out in the field. These include bush survival techniques, tips on getting along with fellow fieldworkers and campfire cooking. Several recipes for field cooking are also included. No two field projects are the same and as such, every archaeologist has developed different ways of doing things. To this end, the authors have also drawn upon the field experiences of many archaeologists, including helpful hints and tips on many different aspects of fieldwork. An important aspect of fieldwork that the authors put emphasis on is the legal and ethical obligations of archaeologists. Special emphasis is put on the ethical responsibilities of archaeologists working with Indigenous people. Anyone wanting to conduct research with Indigenous communities should, at the very least, read this section to be aware of how to properly conduct such research. Included in the online appendix on the publisher’s website are the codes of ethics of the professional archaeological associations. The word comprehensive is an understatement when describing The Archaeologist’s Field Handbook. It covers almost every imaginable aspect of fieldwork in an easy to understand and well-structured manner. This book will be invaluable for those just starting their archaeological career as well as seasoned field veterans. I highly recommend having this volume on one’s bookshelf, or better yet, in one’s backpack out in the field. As the old saying goes, forewarned is forearmed. This book definitely forearms archaeologists against the rigours and potential headaches of fieldwork.

ARCHAEOLOGY IN PRACTICE: A STUDENT GUIDE TO ARCHAEOLOGICAL ANALYSES Jane Balme & Alistair Paterson (eds) Blackwell Publishing, ISBN 978-0-631-23574-3

Malden,

2006,

xxvi+438pp,

Reviewed by Anne Ross School of Social Science, University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD 4072, Australia It is rare that a book is written as a text book but also provides an important contribution to the discipline and this volume deserves this dual recognition. As a text book it introduces undergraduate students to non-excavation techniques in archaeology, including site recording, sediment interpretation, artefact analysis, documentary research and report writing. For postgraduate students there is an emphasis throughout

the volume on the importance of the links between research questions, methods and conclusions. As a contribution to the discipline, it evaluates a range of different methods used in excavation research, and both reviews and grounds several theoretical approaches to analysis. The chapters follow a standard format, commencing with a detailed summary that lists the key elements addressed and provides an overview of the theoretical direction of the chapter. The main body of text uses a number of headings and subheadings, located in the wide margins, to guide the reader, stepby-step, through the arguments and ideas presented. Case studies in shaded boxes present grounded examples of more abstract ideas and analytical techniques. At the end of each chapter there is a summary and conclusion along with an evaluation of other resources on the topic; ideas for future research ensure that students and researchers can extend their understanding of the topics raised by further detailed reading and research. The book is structured logically. It commences with survey and site location, then proceeds through community consultation to rock art research, stratigraphic analysis and site dating, before introducing the main core of the volume, which is techniques for analysing finds. This core addresses artefact analyses (stone tools, residues and ceramics), the study of food remains (bone, plants and shells), and other relevant aspects of archaeological research (sediment analysis, documentary research and research into modern artefacts). The book ends with a chapter on writing up results for both reports and publication. As in any edited volume, the quality of the chapters varies, although in the main I was pleasantly surprised by how easy the volume is to read, how interesting the case studies are and how engagingly the analytical techniques are presented. The first chapter, ‘Finding Sites’ by Andrew David, was the most disappointing for me. Focusing almost entirely on remote sensing of large structures, with an emphasis on the United Kingdom, the relevance of this chapter for teaching undergraduate students in Australia about site survey techniques for Aboriginal sites is marginal. Without any critique of survey design techniques or site recording problems, its value for many Australian archaeology courses is limited. By contrast, the second chapter on ‘Consulting Stakeholders’ by Larry Zimmerman is extremely relevant to Australian archaeology and research. Consultation with traditional owners and members of the local community is now recognised as an integral component of both Aboriginal and historical archaeological research. As well as practical guidelines for undertaking consultation, Zimmerman also develops the idea of multivocal constructions of the past, an important development in cultural heritage discourse over recent years. The notion of varying cultural constructions of the past is taken up in the third chapter, ‘Rock Art’, by Jo McDonald. The multivocal nature of rock art interpretation is clearly discussed in this chapter, which also includes a variety of practical measures for recording rock art in a way that ensures that all the relevant voices are able to be heard in the analysis process. The practical tips and illustrations provided for achieving best results is an additional highlight of this chapter. The fourth chapter, ‘Stratigraphy’, by Jane Balme and Alistair Paterson, relates to stratigraphic recording and interpretation. It is a well-written and easy to follow review of geomorphic


57

Book Reviews

processes and laws of stratigraphic layering and includes step-bystep instructions for disentangling natural and cultural processes in sediment accumulation, using useful case studies. The fifth chapter on ‘Absolute Dating’ by Simon Holdaway concentrates on interpreting dates rather than on describing dating procedures, which is a sensible focus for an archaeological text. Holdaway presents a list of likely contaminants (although unfortunately does not gives clues to avoiding contamination during sample collection) and reviews advantages and disadvantages of different dating techniques. Case studies demonstrate the problems of time averaging and the use (abuse?) of depth-age curves. I was lucky enough to have Chris Clarkson present the approach to stone tool analysis outlined in Chapter 6 (by Clarkson and Sue O’Connor) to a class in 2005. Although I personally prefer a more technological/reduction approach to stone tool analysis than the rather typological approach to classification provided in this chapter, the methods introduced by Clarkson and O’Connor are easy to apply and the diagrams supplied make for easy explanation of terms commonly used in literature. In Chapter 7, ‘Residues and Usewear’, Richard Fullagar cautions against the widely held misconception that all use leaves residues and that all use-wear traces found on an artefact relate to object use. However, where residues and use-wear traces do occur, Fullagar’s guide for artefact handling, preparation of comparative collections, key to the identification of residues and wear patterns, and sample recording forms are very useful. Linda Ellis examines ‘Ceramics’ in Chapter 8. As well as giving guidance on artefact handling, analytical techniques, and generating interpretations, Ellis describes how pottery is made and, therefore, how analysis must be conducted to reveal the steps of manufacture. Ellis also emphasises the importance of conducting all artefact analysis in a research context – a vital message for any archaeology student. The importance of analysis within a research framework is also well demonstrated in Chapter 9, ‘Animal Bones’, by Terry O’Connor and James Barrett. For example, O’Connor and Barrett argue that there is no need to struggle to identify all finds to species level if the research question only requires identification to genus or even class. The chapter also provides a thorough review of sampling strategy (including mesh size), taphonomic processes, sample handling, and basic analytical techniques. In Chapter 10, ‘Plant Remains’, Wendy Beck demonstrates that plant remains are often better preserved than people think and she provides tips on retrieval and analysis of plant remains, as well as an interesting and useful discussion on the interpretation of results from plant analysis. Sandra Bowdler, in Chapter 11 ‘Molluscs and Other Shells’, provides a useful flow chart of midden analysis, from sampling and sorting to analysis and interpretation. Bowdler summarises the debate on how to separate cultural from natural shell deposits and provides thought-provoking ideas on advanced analysis and interpretation. Figures and diagrams to assist in the identification of shell fragments are very valuable. In my view, the chapter on ‘Sediments’ by Gary Huckleberry would have fitted better with Chapter 4 ‘Stratigraphy’, with its emphasis on the contextual value of sediments for chronology, site formation and palaeoenvironments. The clear explanation of particle size analysis and interpretation of soil formation 58

processes would have linked nicely to Chapter 4, as both chapters share an emphasis on the importance of disentangling cultural and natural factors in soil formation and deposition processes. The thirteenth chapter on ‘Artefacts of the Modern World’ by Susan Lawrence looks at cataloguing based on attribute analysis and provides a step-by-step guide with useful definitions and examples. The fourteenth chapter on ‘Historical Sources’ by Barbara Little relates concepts of ways of knowing to the notion of multivocal pasts as introduced in Chapters 2 and 3. This chapter provides an excellent framework for the development of a research plan, which is a particularly useful tool for Honours and postgraduate students. The final Chapter 15 by Peter White is arguably the most useful chapter in the volume. Entitled ‘Producing the Record’, it is all about how to write, and is an echo of every annotation made on an undergraduate essay or Honours thesis by an assessor, every editor’s mark, every anguished plea for clarity by any reader! This chapter sets out the steps needed to write an essay, a thesis, a report and a journal article. White sets out guidelines that include:

• • • • • •

Answer the question Define the topic Plan the work Write drafts Don’t rely on spell-checkers Don’t plagiarise

and also provides tips for producing clear yet concise figures and tables. Overall this is an excellent book and should be the handbook of every student of archaeology, regardless of age and level of knowledge.

SHARED LANDSCAPES: ARCHAEOLOGIES OF ATTACHMENT AND THE PASTORAL INDUSTRY IN NEW SOUTH WALES Rodney Harrison University of New South Wales Press, Sydney, 2004, xiv+240pp, ISBN 0 86840 559 0

Reviewed by Lynette Russell Centre for Australian Indigenous Studies, Monash University, Clayton, VIC 3800, Australia The research contained within this monograph was funded by the Cultural Heritage Division of the New South Wales Department of Environment and Conservation. Testament to the collaborative nature of such research the book is jointly published by University of New South Wales Press and the Department of Environment and Conservation. As such it is both well-produced and academically rigorous. Pleasingly, especially for students, the book is competitively priced, which hopefully will ensure a deserved wide readership. Shared Landscapes emerges from an ambitious project which aimed not merely to approach an understanding of the historical and archaeological aspects of the landscape but to also delve into, critique and assess the current state of interpretation and management in New South Wales.


Book Reviews

Shared Landscapes was a three year project concerned with two substantial regional case studies. The first was the East Kunderang Pastoral Station, now contained within the Oxley Wild Rivers National Park, west of Kempsey. The second case study involved the former Dennawan Aboriginal Reserve, now contained within the Culgoa National Park, in northern New South Wales (near Goodooga). The two regions were subject to extensive and thorough historical and archaeological survey, behavioural mapping and what might be termed oral testimony or even memory research. Behavioural mapping is described as ‘recording the places that people use and their activities at them, including both maps of contemporary muse as well as “oral history mapping”’ (p.58). The interpretation and analysis of these various means of recording locations, places and sites of significance are fascinating, showing that dual occupation (Aboriginal/non-Aboriginal) is rarely a form of sharing as the two (or many other) groups know the landscape in very different ways. A note should be made about problematic nature of the use of the term ‘shared’. A concern Harrison would appear to hold, having reflected on the concept more fully than in previous publications. In a recent book, Ian McNiven and I have attempted to engage with and critique the categorisation of the contact period as a shared space (McNiven and Russell 2005). Our concern is both terminological and conceptual. We argue that the term to ‘share’ suggests an invitation to participate or partake in. This term emphasises ideas of common possession and even common enjoyment. To ‘share’ denies the reality that for much of Australia’s past, Aboriginal people were imposed upon; they were coerced and forced to occupy these locations that many researchers now consider to be shared. We have a lengthy and detailed critique of the term and the concept which does not need to be laboured here. Suffice to say, Harrison is much more optimistic than we are, suggesting that ‘shared histories’ can play a role in the renewal and maintenance of Indigenous culture and the conservative Anglo-Australian discourse of reconciliation. Structurally Shared Landscapes comprises four sections. The first section is entitled ‘History, Heritage and the Pastoral Industry’. This section considers and elaborates the project’s methodology and its theoretical underpinnings. The second section is concerned with the first of the case studies – the East Kunderang Pastoral Station. In the third section, Harrison outlines the second case study – the Dennawan Aboriginal Reserve in northern New South Wales. In a reasonably short concluding chapter, Harrison attempts to develop the findings of the research and postulate a new model ‘or understanding of what constitutes pastoral heritage in New South Wales, and throughout Australia’ (p.218). This chapter also, significantly, explores some of the tensions and confluences around notions of shared histories, shared landscapes and shared heritage. Harrison embeds the research within contemporary historical archaeological practice, heritage studies and landscape theory, which involves consideration of the natural, cultural (socially constructed), spiritual and biographical qualities of landscape. This approach in Harrison’s hands ensures Shared Landscapes is focused on the relationships ‘between travel, landscape, history and narrative’ (p.57). In part, the strength of this approach comes from its collaborative nature. Harrison worked closely with historians to understand the documentary history of New South Wales’s pastoral industry. The result is a rich text which

demonstrates how both the cultural and natural landscapes were fundamentally impacted upon by pastoralism. This approach means that the interpretive model and the historical representation developed is landscape-based. Although individual locations such as stations, cattle and sheep corrals, shearing sheds and shearers’ quarters are important, the history is instead understood through the entirety of the landscape. Although heavily illustrated, Harrison does not undertake a study of the images per se. This should not be read as a criticism, rather that there is a potential future research project considering the rich archive of visual images relating to the pastoral history of southeast Australia and the Aboriginal and newcomer workers who maintained and extended it. Shared Landscapes is well-presented (though I fail to see the point of the flap inside the cover which could easily be printed on the reverse side of the cover card). The text is empirically rich and highly detailed. Harrison writes well, in a lucid manner with enough theoretical substructure to sustain the reader through the depth of the empirical material. Ultimately Harrison’s primary focus is the relationship(s) that Aboriginal people had with the pastoral industry and how their lifeways, culture, stories and connections were transformed by these interactions. Race and racism are conceptually and thematically woven through this history, affecting and controlling both people and their interactions. Aboriginal people in New South Wales are shown to have maintained their connections to and relationships with their country through the mechanism of the pastoral industry. As with any culture over time these relationships changed. However, the pastoral industry enabled Aboriginal people to ‘maintain cultural identity and cultural traditions … often in the face of explicit government policies to … remove their distinct identity’ (p.219). As such, there is optimistic hope that the same relationships, through the vehicle of this research, might now result in Native Title designations or other forms of land justice. Shared Landscapes represents a new and important field of research. It will be a valuable resource for professionals in the heritage industry, academic researchers and students. In many ways, this project should be used as a benchmark against which other heritage surveys might be measured.

References McNiven, I.J. and L. Russell 2005 Appropriated Pasts: Indigenous Peoples and the Colonial Culture of Archaeology. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.

INSCRIBED LANDSCAPES: MARKING AND MAKING PLACE Bruno David & Meredith Wilson (eds) University of Hawai’i Press, Honolulu, 2002, viii+303pp, ISBN 0824824725

Reviewed by Michael Slack & Richard Fullagar Department of Archaeology, School of Philosophical and Historical Inquiry, Building A14, University of Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia This edited volume of papers examines the making of place through ‘physical and metaphorical marking’ (p.1), and is much more than a book about rock art. David and Wilson’s volume covers an extremely diverse subject matter, but with similar theoretical underpinnings. Inscribed Landscapes is unsurprisingly


59

Book Reviews

postmodern, and for those already convinced of the multiple readings of the archaeological record, an excellent read. Others may struggle to see links between archaeology, Foi poetry and Federation Square in Melbourne. Comprised of three parts, the collection of 18 papers varies in time and space, with themes jumping from prehistoric Malta (Stoddart) to Aztec Central America (Umberger) in just a few pages. Written by a range of established authors on each particular region, papers are generally linked by the theoretical theme of approaches to landscapes through experience and the processes of inscription. These processes are seen to depend on human engagement with the landscape and how ‘landscapes are meaningfully, socially constructed places involving bodily and cognitive experience’ (p.6). In this way a seemingly disparate group of authors and themes find their common ground. Two particular themes are proposed in the introduction of the volume: landscapes of social participation and of resistance, upon which the subsequent papers are said to relate. These concepts are useful, although archaeological manifestations may be impossible or difficult to disentangle if not practically invisible. There are three parts to Inscribed Landscapes – art, monuments and a sectioned termed ‘beyond the mark’ (p.217). Of these, many archaeologists will find most relevance in the first section, an interesting synthesis of approaches to rock art studies and a collection of three Australian studies (McNiven and Russell, David and Wilson, Rosenfeld). The monuments section presents an interesting but very disparate group of papers, but concentrates mostly on European megaliths. The third section – the miscellaneous ‘flaked piece’ category of marking places – is the most uneven. Part 1 of the volume consists of eight papers and centers on rock art. Ballard discusses engravings found in Papua associated with paramilitary activities near the Freeport mine site. Very much in the tradition of anthropologist Michael Tausig, Ballard sees this landscape as one of a culture of terror and notes spaces of death in terms of the topographic arrangement of inscriptions on the landscape. Three layers of violence are imposed on this landscape: destruction of the known landscape, a replacement with a ‘topography of the dead’ (pp.13-14), and visual reminders of violence. Ballard introduces the idea of resistance through a study of graffiti at the site. Although this theme implies an archaeological problem because the rock art comprises graffiti of oppressors rather than resistance (which is not expressed by marking places). McNiven and Russell provide a summary of the current state of Australian contact archaeology as a part of postcolonial discourse. Rock art is discussed in terms of the production of non-secular responses to the frontier dynamic, and the authors urge for research aimed at understanding the dynamics of intercultural encounters rather than the old ‘chestnuts’ of hidden or missing histories. Specific rock art examples include sorcery, and burials with increased visibility to claim territory in the contact period. McNiven and Russell draw heavily on research by Frederick (2000) who drew attention to the problematic nature of contact art when it is only defined by presence of contact motifs. References to Henry Reynold’s work feature in discussions of contact history, but authors such as McGrath, Attwood, Elder, May and Fels seem a little relegated to the background. Discussions of Kimberley point trade cite Akerman, 60

but see also the recent work of Rodney Harrison and papers in Torrence and Clarke (2000). David and Wilson’s own paper uses the concept of graffiti as a means by which people effectively write themselves into a landscape. They assert that graffiti offer insight into the complex relationships between inscription, inscriber, and wider societal power relations. This paper presents the concept of a landscape of resistance extremely well. The authors use the case study of Wardaman art (a focus of research for both for some time now) to illustrate territorial resistance and mobilisation of territoriality. This perspective is very interesting and along with David’s Landscapes, Rock-Art and the Dreaming (2002) provides examples of the potentially exciting directions that rock art research can take us. Rosenfeld provides a synthesis of the rock art of Central Australia with particular emphasis given to the sites of Lilla, Puritjarra, Ewaninga and Wallace Rock Hole. She asserts the existence of regional variations, but also specific within-region variation in the western Central Ranges based on formality of motifs. It is the level of formality that Rosenfeld suggests alludes to site function, as for example those places with formally controlled designs are considered ‘mythologically powerful places’ (p. 76). Lee is also interested in rock art, specifically engravings but with a focus on the mass of instances and beautiful designs on the main island of Hawai’i. Similar to Rosenfeld, Lee believes that variation in motif is related to site type, function and spatial structure of the socio-cultural organisation of the creators. Lee also charts the development of an increasing complexity in petrogylph designs over time, and their importance to aspects of life, such as the ‘piko’ (pp.83-84) cupules associated with marking births. Lee draws primarily on ethnography to argue that rock art expresses and perpetuates a world order. Still with petroglyphs, Rainbird challenges the reader to an exploration of ‘sensual archaeologies’ (p.95) (think sound, smell and taste, and not sex). Taking the seemingly disparate case studies of Pohnpaid, at Pohnpei on the Caroline Islands in Micronesia, and Ilkley Moor, England, he attempts to demonstrate that there is much more to these sites than the visual. Rainbird argues that much of the social significance of such places might lie in their production and particularly through transmitted sounds. This is not as whacky as it sounds. Recent research by Steven Mithen (2005) echoes the point, and argues that such sounds and music in general have been crucial to hominid evolution. Darnell examines inscriptions along roads adjacent to the Qena bend of the Nile in the Western desert. ‘Furrows in the earth … mark experience of space’ (p.114) and these inscriptions are said to link places along a spine of the landscape. Inscriptions along these paths were marked and assert ‘political control, social rhythms, military tactics, religious observances, and economic endeavours’ (p.114). Part 1 of Inscribed Landscapes concludes with Taçon’s review of the relationship between rock art and landscapes. He suggests that 13 kinds of dichotomous relationships supposedly make such research more meaningful, and discusses six that have been recently applied (early vs recent, simple vs complex, figurative vs non-figurative, marking vs mapping, economic vs symbolic and secular vs sacred). However, no example or analysis based on any single dichotomy (it’s A or it’s B) really provides a satisfactory


Book Reviews

explanation of anything cultural or natural (another false dichotomy), and this paper reminds us that rock art will always be amenable to multiple readings. Part 2 of Inscribed Landscapes consists of five papers and focuses on monuments and the landscape. The first two papers of the five are focused on the megalith landscapes of western Europe. Allen and Gardiner present a simple paper on the archaeological visibility of the spiritual landscape of the Mesolithic through happenstance findings (cut features and post holes) in association with Neolithic monumental landscapes. The important assertion of the paper is the idea that you don’t necessarily have to be a sedentary population to create such a monumental landscape, and that hunter-gatherer populations who also mark landscape, may have done so in complex ways in Britain. Allen and Gardiner suggest cultural continuity with monument construction by Mesolithic hunter-gatherers prior to Stonehenge and Neolithic settlements. Scarre’s paper concerning the rich monumental landscape of Gree de Cojoux in Brittanny, France, attempts to make connections between the natural and monumental landscape. He creates links between local artefactual deposits and quartz quarries with the standing stones of the summit of the Gree de Cojoux. Scarre identifies three phases of construction, each marked by change with respect to funerary activities, settlement and ritual zones. Stoddart writes of the monumental landscape of the islands of Malta, seeing it as a prehistoric landscape of inscription. Charting the changes to monumental building over time and the effects of changes to populations and interaction with external forces, he describes approaches to material display that reflect the dominant ideologies of the Maltese, through broad phases: initial more or less permanent agricultural settlement, mortuary complexes, temples, iconoclasm/abandonment/re-use, intensive agricultural/defensive and Phoenician state intervention. In a geographic leap, the concluding two papers focus on the western hemisphere. Umberger examines the monumental landscape of Aztec Mexico, through links between rulers and gods with the natural landscape. She describes how natural features were brought into urban centers as built structures and the relocation of people to dynastic mountain sites, and inscription on the rocks surrounding them – all revealing Aztec expansion and powers of local cult sites. Adler examines the changes to settlement and land-use patterns of the American southwest Pueblo peoples in the creation of the immense civic kiva monuments. They were used, as Adler argues, to create and reproduce social boundaries. This is somewhat of a novel approach to such sites, whereas others have argued that ceremonial kivas were used rather to bring people together in a more egalitarian way. Adler concludes that ‘community, then, is a group based risk buffering strategy that establishes and reproduces access to resources, social identities, territorial boundaries, and interdependent relationships on a local level … but social communities do not always live together as an architecturally identifiable settlement (p.203, original emphasis). Part 3 of David and Wilson’s volume consists of five papers and is more of a consideration of alternative historical and contemporary ways in which inscription is used. Three Australian and two southeast Asian papers complete the volume.

Pulvirenti examines the ways in which home ownership of Italian-born people act to ‘anchor their subjectivities’ (p.221). The act of making a home is read as making an inscription on a host landscape through the act of ‘systemazione’ (settling down). Although interesting, it is a shame that no mention is made of the actual physical aspects of this type of inscription; that is how the Italian community make their own sense of place within Australian suburbs through cultural similarities or indeed differences with Italy. Carter presents an essay that both charts the political aspects of the construction of the Federation Square civic complex in Melbourne, whilst at the same time showing how the nature of contemporary inscriptions in very public spaces can be negotiated. This negotiation takes place by looking at various perceived pasts and the future, through the act of renegotiating political territory, particularly through the act of naming. It would have been enlightening to have more detailed reference to the actual inscriptions which feature prominently at the site, and in the accompanying figures, and Carter’s reasoning behind them. A similar theme of tension over landscape is discussed by Yea who details how a Sarawak cultural village tourist site has been used to represent a national identity that doesn’t really exist. Whilst the Malay government effectively promote a romanticised depiction of the past they concurrently exploit the same Indigenous groups and their region for industrial development. The Iban are in reality marginalised, sitting uncomfortably between the past and present, struggling to assert their identity and land rights. Langton’s paper on the Bama Native Title Claimants of Cape York shows how Aboriginal connections to the landscape stem from their own being and engagement with place, and through the inscription of senses, rather than through material monuments. Inscription of the landscape takes place by emplacement of power, which resides in places by virtue of the presence of ‘Old People’ (pp.266-267). She shows how central the role of elders is to this process as they mediate between the living and the dead, and that their presence emplaces the spiritual power of places. This is illustrated by Langton’s explanation of processes such as ‘singing out’ (p.262) and ‘giving smell’ by the elders. Weiner’s paper follows themes raised by Langton, and examines inscription of the landscape through poetry, a medium that leaves no material trace. He looks at song poems about deceased men, composed by women making sago. They are then arranged and performed by men. The song poems contrast movement (life) and stillness (death) in journeys through the landscape, but are eventually forgotten, leaving no enduring physical marks. Weiner sees this process as a means by which the Foi landscape is ‘confirmed as at once known and experienced, marked not only through physical alteration, but also in memorialisation through poeticisation’ (p.282). Inscribed Landscapes is generally a very interesting volume, with a variety of methodological and theoretical approaches all aimed at inspiring archaeological research away from the purely visual aspects of ‘inscribed landscapes’. It is well-written and illustrated. The approach to landscape is not particularly a new one, as anthropological and ethnographic themes have been incorporated into ‘archaeological’ research for some time.


61

Book Reviews

However, the papers of Pulvirenti, Carter, Yea, Langton and Weiner caution that inscription can be ‘beyond the mark’ and hidden to archaeology. In their introduction, David and Wilson discuss the two themes of resistance and participation that are said to be central to this book. These themes are only sometimes strongly evident in the subsequent papers (David and Wilson, Lee, Umberger, in particular). The volume provides a challenging collection, with the focus more on diversity rather than theoretical coherence – participation and resistance are in there, but are not really unifying concepts. The challenge remains to integrate the diverse insights about material culture, rock art and above ground monuments, from different disciplinary landscapes (archaeology, ethnohistory, social anthropology, geography, history, architecture, cognitive psychology, linguistics and others). Given this volume’s geographical and temporal scope, it certainly indicates the range of ways that current research is now viewing landscape.

References David, B. 2002 Landscapes, Rock-Art and the Dreaming: An Archaeology of Preunderstanding. London: Leicester University Press. Frederick, U. 2000 Keeping the land alive: Changing social contexts of landscape and rock art production over the course of Aboriginal-European contact. In R. Torrence and A. Clarke (eds), Negotiating Difference: The Archaeology of Cross-Cultural Engagement, pp.300-330. London: Routledge. Mithen, S. 2005 The Singing Neanderthals: The Origins of Music, Language, Mind and Body. London: Weidenfeld and Nicholson. Torrence, R. and A. Clarke (eds) 2000 Negotiating Difference: The Archaeology of Cross-Cultural Engagement. London: Routledge.

23°S: ARCHAEOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL HISTORY OF THE SOUTHERN DESERTS Mike Smith & Paul Hesse (eds) National Museum of Australia, Canberra, 2005, xii+436pp, ISBN 1 876944 307

Reviewed by Peter Thorley 91 Irvine Street, Watson, ACT 2602, Australia This book offers a collection of papers on the archaeology and environment of the arid lands of the southern hemisphere from a conference held in January 2003. The introduction provides an overview of the deserts and the main themes, the settlement of desert regions and the interplay between culture and climate. This and the following chapters in Part 1 ‘Environmental History’ review evidence for Quaternary climate change with emphasis on the period of human occupation. Comparisons are made between regions and continents allowing us to reflect on what makes Australia unique from a global perspective. Part 2, ‘Dynamics of Settlement’, reviews the archaeology of what are now arid parts of the African, Australian and South American continents in that order. Chapters are organised chronologically from those with the longest to those with the shortest human history. The primary orientation of this section is ecological; climatic histories are presented alongside the archaeological evidence for the timing of colonisation and the 62

impact of aridity during the Last Glacial Maximum. Discussion of the Pleistocene mostly excludes South America, which was occupied relatively late. Nonetheless, some valuable insights emerge from the Atacama (the driest of deserts) in terms of integration of environmental and archaeological datasets. The short-term timescale and finer-grained interpretations parallel the Holocene in Australian archaeology, which are covered here in papers by Robins (eastern Lake Eyre Basin) and Veth (Western Desert/Pilbara). Part 3, ‘Rock Art, Land and People’, shifts the focus from the ecological emphasis of previous chapters to the social and religious orientation of desert societies. The chapters in this section provide a select overview of the rock art of the southern deserts. South Africa is the most widely covered while Australia’s dry land art is limited to a single region. All chapters highlight changes through time and focus on ritual organisation as a major influence on rock art in desert regions. Despite the similarities in approach, the three continents appear to have very little in common stylistically. Part 4, ‘Hunters and Herders’, deals with pastoral expansion and its interaction with existing hunter-gatherers. Case studies are presented from three continents. In each case, the emergence of pastoralism is seen as much as the result of historical circumstances as prevailing environmental conditions. The dry areas of the three continents each have different experiences of contact with neighbours and colonial histories that saw pastoralism develop into the dominant form of land use that it has become today. Part 5, ‘Historical Perspectives’, opens with two papers which examine the desert as a narrative construct. The papers in this section are more philosophical and probing, focusing on the relationship between identity and landscape. Two case studies from Australia (MacFarlane and Kimber) and one from Chile (Jimenez) deal with understandings local people have of their own landscape, which the Chilean refer to as pampa and the Pintupi as ngurra. Encountering arid landscapes for the first time, explorers and settlers viewed them as deserts, as lifeless and empty. Local people viewed their homelands in a very different manner. As Jimenez points out, for the local Chilean population, the concept of pampa as an empty dehumanised space remained entirely foreign to them. While there are similarities between the histories of Indigenous desert peoples, there are also points of departure as we might expect in a book which takes such a broad geographical and chronological sweep. There is always the danger that a book which spans the whole human history of desert areas strung out across half the globe will unravel in an incoherent jumble of chapters, but the editors show a deft hand in making it all hang together. 23°S makes an excellent companion to another recently published book dealing with the archaeology of global desert environments (Veth et al. 2005). Collectively, the comparative perspective they provide makes for instructive reading which will have a major influence on the future direction of desert archaeological research in Australia and abroad. These two important recent additions to the literature will be welcomed not only by arid zone specialists, but also those with a wider interest in the archaeology of human-environment relations.

References Veth, P., M. Smith and P. Hiscock (eds) 2005 Desert Peoples: Archaeological Perspectives. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.


THESIS ABSTRACTS PORTONIAN RESPECTABILITY: WORKINGCLASS ATTITUDES TO RESPECTABILITY IN PORT ADELAIDE THROUGH MATERIAL CULTURE, 1840–1900 Susan Briggs

had little meaning, while for the McKay and Farrow families the evidence suggests they were conforming to the ideology to a large extent. The application of the ideology, however, was not a smooth process and this thesis identifies and explores areas where the ideology of respectability came into conflict with previously held views.

PhD, Department of Archaeology, Flinders University, August 2005

References During the nineteenth century the working class in Australia and Britain developed an ideology of respectability. At its core respectability was about dignity and the value of productive labour and as a bare minimum a man had to be able to independently support his wife and children without recourse to charity. From this basis other components could be added: temperance in the consumption of alcohol and tobacco and being able to keep a wife at home are two examples. Respectability can also be seen as the negotiation of others’ good moral opinion through one’s interpretation of the necessary displays of behaviour and material culture. In this respect the concept is not far removed from middle class gentility and indeed some of the displays were similar, the woman’s place in the home, for example. Despite these similarities historians have argued that respectability and gentility were not the same and that the former was not an emulation of the latter, a viewpoint taken by the current research. Of further consideration in the formulation of this study was the concern historians, in particular Peter Bailey (1979), have regarding the consistency with which the working class displayed respectability. Bailey believes that respectability was a ploy used by the working class to enhance their position during interclass encounters. This study was therefore interested in whether evidence for respectability could be found in the home. By examining the private domain, rather than the public, a sense of how integrated respectability was in the lives of Port Adelaide’s working class can be achieved. As a means of determining whether or not respectability was being displayed in Port Adelaide’s homes four themes were chosen. These themes were selected as being indicative of attempts to conform to the ideology of respectability, while also having the potential to leave archaeological evidence one way or the other. The first theme selected was temperance to be viewed through the alcohol- and tobacco-related artefacts. The second theme was the role of the wife in the home, her formulation of the home environment through ornaments and whether there was evidence for her participating in paid labour within the home through sewing-related objects. The third theme was attitudes towards children, as viewed through the toys and ceramics for children. The fourth and final theme selected was attitudes towards meal times as viewed through the faunal remains, condiment bottles and ceramics. Analysis of these themes was applied to artefact assemblages retrieved from two excavations. The first investigated tenanted cottages on Quebec Street. For a comparison the second excavation focused on two cottages on Jane Street, owned and occupied by the Farrow and McKay families. This analysis has revealed that residents from each of the three sites chose to participate in the ideology of respectability to different extents. For the residents of Quebec Street such displays

Bailey, P. 1979 Will the real Bill Blanks please stand up?: Towards a role analysis of mid-Victorian working-class respectability. Journal of Social History 12(3):336-353.

PARADISE LOST: THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE OF A LATE NINETEENTH CENTURY QUEENSLAND GOLD MINING COMMUNITY Jo Dudley BA (Hons), School of Social Science, University of Queensland, October 2005 In this thesis I investigate the presence of marginalised groups (based on gender, ethnicity, class and status) within a late nineteenth century Queensland gold mining town, compare their social and spatial manifestation with prevalent social customs and mores, and evaluate the appropriate use of combining multievidential and landscape methodologies to find and interpret marginalised groups in the archaeological record. The use of a multi-evidential dataset that combines historical, archival, spatial mapping and archaeological evidence enables the collation of the widest possible information on all those present at Paradise. By using a landscape approach to interpret the social and spatial manifestation of marginalised groups present at Paradise I was able to recognise the human social nature of the landscape, to interpret the landscape as a means of social expression, and to answer research questions on social boundaries, spatial patterning, gender and ethnic negotiation. Paradise is revealed as a distinct landscape of multiple and diverse identities; with residents using agency to negotiate society’s rules, to actively create and maintain spatial and social relations, and to shape the world in which they live. I argue that the results outlined in this thesis confirm that a combination of multi-evidential and landscape methodologies in historical archaeological research is appropriate for interpreting multiple identities and spatialities.

THE ANTIPODEAN HOG FARM: YOUTH SUBCULTURES, HUMAN ECOLOGY AND INVESTIGATIONS INTO THE LIFEWAYS OF AUSTRALIA’S HIPPIES Kristjan W.M. Farmen MA, Department of Archaeology, Flinders University, March 2005 The phenomenon of youth culture is a product of the postWorld War II period of the last half of the twentieth century.


63

Thesis Abstracts

This movement was linked to the rise of modern consumer culture after the war, the trend of both mothers and fathers working outside the home and leaving their older children to their own devices, and to those older children being stuck in a delayed maturity created by keeping them in school until their late teens. Working jobs after school gave these teenagers access to spending money, and they used the trappings of modern consumer culture to define a group of subcultures all their own. This way of life and the identification of the self with a particular subculture often continued into their early twenties. The research presented in this thesis examines one of these subcultures, the Hippies of Australia, as a case study within the broader realm of the world of youth in the late twentieth century. The research uses the tools and techniques of the archaeologist to investigate a historical phenomenon, and is informed by a theoretical background of human ecology and behavioural ecology. Participation in consumer culture is seen here as a strategy for humans to obtain the necessities and luxuries of life, within certain socially-defined parameters. Models are built to predict the spatial patterning of both an ideal Hippie commune, based on the literature and oral history interviews with former Hippies, and a settlement of the straight world, that which the Hippies strove to escape. The abandoned Hippie settlement of Yacca Creeks, dating from 1978 to 1984, on Kangaroo Island, South Australia, was selected for investigation. Data gleaned from this site reveal a largely communal resource acquisition strategy centered on the community, particularly with respect to housing, but dependent on input from the straight world for food and transportation energy.

KENNEWICK MAN MEETS LADY MUNGO: AN INTERNATIONAL LOOK AT REPATRIATION Tim Ormsby B. Archaeology (Hons), Department of Archaeology, Flinders University, October 2004 This thesis examines what factors impact on the outcomes of cases of the repatriation of Indigenous human remains. To do so, it compares and contrasts how repatriation issues are handled in Australia and the United States, an area about which very little has previously been written. The focus of this study is two case studies: the repatriation of Mungo Lady in Australia, and the battle over the remains of Kennewick Man in the United States. These two cases, while of a similar nature, resulted in vastly differing outcomes. The issues surrounding each case were numerous and complex in nature, as were the factors that influenced the outcome of each case. Analysis of the case studies concentrates on relevant legislation and archaeological codes of ethics as reflections of the respective political and social climates in each country. The results of this study have shown that acceptance by archaeologists of Indigenous ownership and control of Indigenous cultural heritage is more likely to produce an outcome that both Indigenous people and archaeologists can benefit from 64

when it comes to repatriation. While repatriation legislation does bring with it numerous benefits for both Indigenous people and archaeologists, having such legislation in place is not necessary for amicable repatriation to occur and can, in some instances, be the source of conflict itself.

BACKED ARTEFACT USE IN EASTERN AUSTRALIA: A RESIDUE AND USE-WEAR ANALYSIS Gail Robertson PhD, School of Social Science, University of Queensland, May 2005 This thesis addresses the question of backed artefact use in the midHolocene through an integrated residue and use-wear analysis of artefacts from six sites in eastern Australia. The probable use of these artefacts has intrigued archaeologists for more than a century and a number of hypotheses have been proffered. Backed artefacts appeared in the archaeological record in the late Pleistocene; there was an interim period of intense production from about 4000 BP to 1500 BP; and they had seemingly disappeared from use by the time of British colonisation. Backed artefacts therefore occupy a unique position in Australian archaeology in their potential for elucidating the nature and context of change in Aboriginal societies during this period. Various models for their efflorescence in the mid-Holocene have been proposed, the most promising of which involves the concept of a triggering event such as climatic change instigating a range of risk-reduction processes, including the possibility of an increased production of a highly maintainable and transportable toolkit. Until their purpose is known, however, explanations for the appearance, adoption and eventual disappearance of backed artefacts will continue to be speculative. This study, by revealing activities for which backed artefacts were used during the period of their most intense production, permits a fuller understanding of the factors influencing human behaviour and precipitating culture change in mid-Holocene Australia. An integrated residue and use-wear analysis of 218 backed artefacts from sites in central coastal New South Wales and the Central Highlands in western Queensland clearly reveals their association with a range of craft and subsistence activities, several of which were not predicted by previous researchers. Tasks involved animal processing such as skin-working, bone-working, butchery, hunting and feather preparation, and work with plant materials such as wood, non-woody and/or starchy plants. A ceremonial context was also inferred for several artefacts. Use as scrapers, knives, incisors, awls, drills or piercers, depending on the task and sometimes basic tool morphology, was also established. Artefacts were frequently multipurpose and/or multifunctional, and more than half exhibited evidence for hafting. Different activities were emphasised at various sites, and some tasks, such as skin-working, were performed at one site only. The most significant discoveries are the use of backed artefacts for incising and scraping bone, including bird bone, and clear evidence for use of Bondi points as awls and knives for skin-working. The use of Bondi points and geometric microliths as hafted incisors for wood-working is another important result, as is the identification of some feathers to species level, allowing conjecture on the role of duck, other water birds, and fowl in the


Thesis Abstracts

Aboriginal subsistence regime and ritual life in central coastal New South Wales. Despite frequent speculation in the literature, and some previous evidence for the use of backed artefacts as spear barbs, only one artefact in this sample provides evidence for such activity. This research not only tests the current hypotheses on backed artefact use by identifying many of their task associations and functions, it also makes an important contribution to our knowledge of site activities during a period of dramatic cultural change in the mid-to-late Holocene.

ALL THE SMALL THINGS: THE REFINEMENT OF FORAMINIFERAL ANALYSIS TO DETERMINE SITE FORMATION PROCESSES IN ARCHAEOLOGICAL SEDIMENTS Daniel Rosendahl B. Soc. Sci. (Hons), School of Social Science, University of Queensland, November 2005 Foraminifera are single cell protozoa that are ubiquitous in marine environments. The hard casings, or tests, of foraminifera are routinely studied in the earth sciences, particularly for palaeoenvironmental information. Foraminifera have been little studied by archaeologists, however, despite their potential to contribute to understandings of coastal site formation processes and localised palaeoenvironments. In this study techniques and methods of foraminiferal analysis are developed and applied to the problem of distinguishing between natural and cultural marine shell deposits, using the Mort Creek Site Complex, central Queensland, as a case study. Results allow unambiguous demarcation of the natural and cultural deposits studied, based on patterns of foraminiferal density. Natural deposits were found to have more than 1000 foraminifera per 100g of sediment, while cultural deposits exhibited less than 50 foraminifera per 100g of sediment. The range of taxa represented in the foraminiferal assemblage is consistent with a shallow water subtropical marine ecosystem, indicating general environmental stability throughout the period of deposit formation. Findings are applied to re-evaluate previous models of site formation at the Mort Creek Site Complex.

ANALYSIS OF LITHIC ARTEFACT MICRODEBITAGE FOR CHRONOLOGICAL DETERMINATION OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES George James Susino PhD, GeoQuEST Research Centre, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Wollongong, November 2004 This study explores the use of several different techniques to isolate and determine the age of lithic microdebitage in relation to archaeological deposits and associated sediments. Quartz microdebitage was identified on the basis of surface features and roundness index by applying scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and optical stereomicroscopy to archaeological sediments.

Characteristics of the quartz microdebitage were compared with quartz grains from the same sedimentary layer. The observation of diagnostic features on quartz grains made it possible to discriminate between microdebitage and sedimentary background. This investigation has established that microdebitage particles under 500µm diameter are not easily resolved under optical stereomicroscopy, requiring the aid of SEM to discern between microdebitage and sedimentary quartz. It was also ascertained that no adverse effects on the optically stimulated luminescence (OSL) signal are measurable after exposure to SEM, provided that the electron beam is kept at, or under, 10keV. Sedimentary material previously excavated from the Jinmium rockshelter (Northern Territory) and Mushroom Rock West (Queensland) was used to determine the age of quartz microdebitage from the archaeological layers by applying the OSL dating technique. The microdebitage OSL signal behaves similarly to that of sedimentary quartz grains, and is subject to the same problems. The OSL single-aliquot regenerative-dose protocol (SAR) was successfully applied to the age determination of microdebitage. The modifications used for the dose rate (due to particle size and shape) and for the calibration of the beta source (due to particle size) did not produce any inconsistencies or anomalous results. In the investigation of two archaeologically relevant sediment layers from the Jinmium rockshelter deposit, the minimum OSL age at 68cm for the microdebitage was estimated as 4100±900 years (12,600±4000 years using the central age model estimate, with 73% over-dispersion on the palaeodose), and, for the sedimentary material, a central age model of 5300±800 years (with a minimum age model estimate of 1900±400 years, and 78% over-dispersion). At 115cm in the deposit, the OSL central age model estimate for the microdebitage is 10,200±1100 years, with a minimum age model of 4500±600 years (and an over-dispersion of 56%). In the case study of Mushroom Rock West rockshelter, the OSL central age model estimate for microdebitage at 268cm is 21,200±3100 years (with a minimum age model estimate of 10,500±5200 years, and 60% over-dispersion), compared to a central age model estimate for the sedimentary quartz grains of 31,500±3100 years (with a minimum age model estimate of 11,100±1500 years, and 67% over-dispersion). At 441cm, the microdebitage yielded an OSL age of 27,400±2200 years. This sample of microdebitage produced the lowest over-dispersion (0.1%) on the palaeodose of any of the samples analysed, lending confidence to the accuracy of the palaeodose determination. The sedimentary quartz from the same sample produced an OSL minimum age model estimate of 33,500±5600 years (and a central age model estimate of 46,900±3400 years). Relationships between microdebitage and sediment OSL ages are discussed. Direct OSL dating of the unheated quartz derived from the manufacture of lithic tools now provides an alternative to the reliance on sedimentary quartz as the primary source information regarding the age of archaeological deposits. This knowledge may be applied also to archaeological sediments previously excavated, for identifying episodes of lithic manufacture in temporal relation to other evidence of cultural activity. The ages of the two archaeological sites analysed differ widely, and this difference was also represented in the ages obtained from the microdebitage. None of the OSL age determinations of microdebitage was found to be unrealistically outside the boundaries of pre-existing


65

Thesis Abstracts

age control. This is one indication of the validity of the novel experimental approach applied.

PHYTOLITHS, LATE QUATERNARY ENVIRONMENTS AND ARCHAEOLOGY IN TROPICAL SEMI-ARID NORTHWEST AUSTRALIA Lynley A. Wallis PhD, Australian National University, August 2000 As a consequence of poor preservation and a lack of depositional sites, palaeoecological records are almost entirely non-existent for the tropical semi-arid region of northwest Australia. Subsequently, our knowledge relating to late Quaternary environments and the interrelationship between people and the northwest landscape is impoverished. This thesis presents the results of investigations of phytoliths in archaeological and other late Quaternary sediments in the Kimberley region as a means of partially rectifying this problem. Three specific research goals were addressed. Firstly, to examine the nature of phytolith production in extant Kimberley flora. Secondly, to examine the nature of phytolith assemblages preserved in non-archaeological sediments. Finally, to apply the derived knowledge to the study of prehistoric plant exploitation and palaeoenvironment at an archaeological site. In order to examine aspects of variability in phytolith production by modern plants, a comparative reference collection of 338 specimens (representing 54 families) was constructed. This revealed a range of patterns, from a total absence of phytoliths through to the production of massive quantities, across both monocotyledonous and dicotyledonous plants. At the family level these results are largely in line with those from similar studies conducted elsewhere. Sufficient morphological variation has been demonstrated to exist to enable the use of phytoliths as a microfossil system for broad-level vegetation reconstruction in the savannah regions of northern Australia. Whether phytoliths provide a sufficient level of detail to address specific archaeological research questions is an issue that requires further investigation. A number of important economic plants in the Kimberley have been shown to produce distinctive phytoliths. However, in many more phytoliths are absent, or only redundant types are produced. Following the baseline floristic study, the focus of the research then shifted to the analysis of phytoliths recovered from modern sediments associated with a range of different ecological and vegetational settings. The results indicate there is a degree of homogeneity between samples, reflecting the dominance of grasses in most vegetation communities of the Kimberley. However, a more positive outcome is that it is possible to identify a number of distinct vegetation communities and environments on the basis of their associated sedimentary microfossil assemblages. Additionally, the examination of phytoliths from a small number of mud nests and tufa formations demonstrates the potential of such novel sediment sources to serve as chronological and environmental data traps in this region. The application of phytolith analysis to an archaeological site completed the study. Carpenter’s Gap 1 is a rockshelter located along the Napier Range in the inland southwest 66

Kimberley, with an occupation sequence spanning c.43,000 years. A detailed assessment of the formation processes at the site suggests the phytolith assemblage contained therein comprises primarily of two components, a largely naturally derived grass element and a predominantly culturally derived non-grass element. The phytolith record is interpreted as indicating that significant changes have occurred in both the local vegetation, and people’s behaviours, throughout the period of occupation of the site. The presence of certain grass and palm phytoliths at the base of the site suggests there had been a greater availability of water in the landscape c.43,000 BP. By 34,000 BP the local grassland vegetation had apparently shifted to a spinifex-dominated community, probably as a result of increasing aridity. Additionally, by the onset of the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) palms had disappeared from the sequence, providing further evidence of decreased precipitation in the site vicinity. However, despite the wider climatic and vegetation shifts, the presence of vine thicket type phytoliths throughout the sequence indicates the maintenance of such communities along the range at all times until at least 17,000 BP, although the extent of these patches cannot be gauged. These vine thicket patches would have provided a valuable focus for Aboriginal plant exploitation activities, as would have (semi-) permanent water sources represented by Cyperaceae type phytoliths. The occurrence of substantial quantities of sponge spicules and diatoms in the LGM levels of the site are interpreted as representing a need of people to transport water to the site in response to environmental stress associated with increased glacial aridity. The evidence from the archaeological phytolith analysis was examined within the wider regional context and found to fit reasonably well with the other evidence for vegetational and climatic change in the area. Overall, the study has demonstrated the suitability of phytolith analysis to questions of palaeoenvironmental interest in the tropical semi-arid areas of northern Australia. The application of the technique to Carpenter’s Gap 1 further demonstrates the potential of the approach in the archaeological discipline, providing researchers with glimpses into aspects of human plant exploitation. However, much remains to be discovered about the usefulness of phytolith analysis for addressing specific research questions in Australian archaeology and broader issues in palaeoenvironmental studies, and this thesis serves as a basis for such future studies in the region.

RETURN OF THE NGARRINDJERI: REPATRIATING OLD PEOPLE BACK TO COUNTRY Christopher Wilson B. Archaeology (Hons), Department of Archaeology, Flinders University, October 2005 I am Ngarrindjeri. My father is Ngarrindjeri. My grandfather is Ngarrindjeri. It is through this lineage that I identify as Ngarrindjeri and have the right to speak as a Ngarrindjeri person. I have also been granted the right to speak by Ngarrindjeri elders who I have worked with on this research. From the perspective of a Ngarrindjeri archaeologist, I consider aspects of the process of repatriation of Old People from museums to Indigenous


Thesis Abstracts

communities. A central part of my research is a case study of the return of 74 Old People from Museum Victoria to the Ngarrindjeri nation in August 2004. This thesis contributes to contemporary debates on repatriation and reburial within the discipline of archaeology, as well as providing a valuable resource for the Ngarrindjeri community. Privileging community voice and opinion and recognising the value of Indigenous expertise and knowledge in this research has provided specific insights into the implications of repatriating Old People to Indigenous communities. I argue that the repatriation process operating in the Australian context is still in an early stage of development. It is a process that does not adequately support Indigenous communities in their efforts to ensure that their Old People are laid to rest. An important outcome of my research has been the development of a culturally appropriate research methodology that highlights and acknowledges the importance of working in negotiation and collaboration with Ngarrindjeri elders. Traditional methods and approaches to archaeology involving Old People have been decolonised and in their place a different framework has been developed. This will assist other Indigenous archaeologists working with their own communities, as well as non-Indigenous researchers. I found that the research process, the methodology, is at least as equally important as the research topic. I have learnt through the research process that the terms ‘negotiation’ and ‘collaboration’ move beyond the simplistic meaning of an ‘interview’ between the ‘researcher’ and the ‘researched’ to a process of kungun and yunnan between my ‘elders’ and I as the ‘young Ngarrindjeri person’. As a Ngarrindjeri archaeologist, I was not only assessed as a ‘researcher’ under the structure of the university; elders who contributed to the research also assessed me as an Indigenous researcher working with my community. Furthermore, I was also undergoing cultural training as a ‘learner’ through assessment and examination by my elders. This in-depth and self-reflexive examination and exposure of my own identity and a critique of the archaeological training I received as an undergraduate student, has contributed to the transformation in the way I speak and write about my own people – the Ngarrindjeri. In conclusion, the research I have undertaken has been a journey that parallels the main topic of this thesis; along with the return of my Old People to Ngarrindjeri Ruwe (country) is the return of myself to my community.

ARCHAEOLOGY OF THE RUSSIAN SCARE: THE PORT ADELAIDE TORPEDO STATION Martin Wimmer B. Archaeology (Hons), Department of Archaeology, Flinders University, October 2005 This thesis examines the Port Adelaide Torpedo Station, a colonial era coastal defence facility in South Australia. It seeks to understand how the material culture of the site can reflect changing attitudes to coastal defence in that state between 1877 and 1924. The Torpedo Station bridges colonial and national defence theory and practice, having been operative in both regimes and is representative of the evanescent nature of industrial era warfare. Conceptualised at a time when theorists of coastal defence advocated

investment in shore-based fortifications and regarded naval vessels as no more than seaward accessories to these static structures, the Torpedo Station was very much a product of its time. By the early twentieth century this attitude to coastal defence had changed dramatically due largely to evolving technology and Federation. Federation brought a rationalisation of Australia’s naval assets and a unified national defence strategy. Defence theory shifted from one of isolated land-based military installations and a haphazard reliance on ships of the Royal Navy, to a national naval capability and deterrent. Investment in a naval fleet took precedence over expenditure on static land-based defences and sites such as the Port Adelaide Torpedo Station became superfluous to this new defence policy. The archaeology of the Torpedo Station provides a greater understanding of how the military scenarios which led to its establishment were era-specific and relevant only as long as the available military hardware and related theory remained immutable. The site, never modernised during its operational life and never reused after abandonment, presents a pristine military stratigraphy. The material culture of the site represents a manifestation of particular ways of seeing the world and reflects specialised experiences of time and place. The site is now severely degraded and unrecognisable as a former military installation. Despite this degradation, a predisturbance survey of the site has found the spatial integrity of the Torpedo Station to be largely intact. It contains remains relating to a discernable stage of intellectual development which are in the same arrangement now, as in a previous age. The cultural site formation processes which led to the site’s degradation are intimately tied to rapidly evolving armaments technology and shifting attitudes towards coastal defence. The fact that so little of the fabric remains visible above ground and that the Australian Navy transferred the site to the South Australian Harbours Board in 1924 is testament to its loss of strategic importance and reflects the changing attitudes to coastal defence in South Australia and by extension Australia.

THE ETHICS OF OWNERSHIP: INDIGENOUS CULTURAL PROPERTY RIGHTS AND THE PRACTICE OF ARCHAEOLOGY Nathan Woolford BA (Hons), School of Social Science, University of Queensland, June 2003 Archaeologists have taken a prominent role in the debate over Indigenous cultural property rights. While Indigenous people have asserted their right to control their cultural heritage, some archaeologists have opposed it. World heritage, national heritage, science and antiquity have all been called upon by some archaeologists to support their stance against Indigenous cultural property rights. I explore the historical and theoretical contexts of this debate and draw on two case studies to highlight the issues and explore the arguments involved. The literature surrounding the return of the Kow Swamp remains and a large collection of archival material concerning the Burnett River Engravings form the focus of this thesis. I conclude that there are no grounds on which to oppose the complete and legal recognition of Indigenous cultural property rights.


67

BACKFILL Minutes of the 2005 Annual General Meeting of the Australian Archaeological Association Inc. Western Australian Maritime Museum, Fremantle, Western Australia 28 November 2005 1. Welcome The 2005 AGM commenced at 5:15pm on Monday 28 November 2005 chaired by the President of the Australian Archaeological Association Inc., Judith Field.

secure support of a significant element of traditional owners in this matter. My regards to all for AAA this year – have a beer for me – so long and thanks for the fish!

4.3 National Archaeology Week 2. Apologies Apologies were received from Richard Fullagar, Lesley Head, Ian Lilley, Jay Hall, Donald Pate, John Mulvaney, Bruno David and Luke Godwin.

3. Confirmation of the Minutes of the 2004 AAA AGM The minutes of the 2004 AAA AGM held at the University of New England, Armidale, New South Wales, on 14 December 2004 were published in Australian Archaeology (60:84-91). Motion: ‘that the 2004 minutes as published in AA60 be accepted’. Moved: Sharon Sullivan. Seconded: Jo McDonald. Motion carried nem. con.

4. Business Arising from Previous AGM 4.1 Ngarrabullgan Conservation Issues Judith Field reported that she had received no further information concerning this issue from the committee co-opted at the last AGM. A report from Bruno David was read. The report stated that he had not heard from the Kuku Djungan Aboriginal Corporation. Bruno had sent them a heavy duty report months ago, and the solicitors told him afterwards that the mining threat would go to court, but it kept getting delayed. At this stage the mountain appears to be safe; it looks like we won’t have to use the AAA funding that was offered last year. Bruno will keep the membership informed when he hears more.

4.2 Kenniff Cave Conservation Issues Judith Field read the correspondence received from Luke Godwin in relation to this matter. John Mulvaney has now finished his submission to the Queensland Government and Luke has made some progress with consultation with various Aboriginal parties. One group has visited the site with a senior person and is very unhappy with things and wants to follow through. There is a factional element to this exercise so matters need to be handled carefully. There will be a meeting in the near future of various parties who have an interest in this matter (and others). The party who is very concerned intends to raise the matter at that meeting and a resolution has been drafted for the consideration of others attending. They also intend to note support and the strong interest of AAA in doing something, and I have explained the opportunity that Commonwealth legislation provides. So, either AAA can go alone, or wait a little longer and probably 68

Members involved in organising National Archaeology Week thanked AAA for funding and establishing the NAW website, and asked AAA for $2500 to continue funding for next year. Motion: ‘that AAA support National Archaeology Week funding up to $2500 for 2006’. Moved: Sean Ulm. Seconded: Peter Veth. Motion passed nem. con.

5. Reports 5.1 President’s Report (Judith Field) 2005 has been a quiet year for AAA. We have endeavoured to keep the association on an even keel. As noted already, 2005 has been a tragic time as we have witnessed the loss of two key members of the archaeological community. Firstly, Dr Bruce Veitch whose contribution to archaeology and the communities he dealt with were far reaching and will be long remembered. Our condolences and thoughts are with his wife Fiona and young son Conall. Secondly, was the untimely passing of Dr Tom Loy who has proven to be an inspiration to both colleagues and students he came into contact with. Richard Fullagar represented AAA at the memorial service. As we move into 2006 there will be new challenges for AAA, especially with the formulation of new legislation in various states and the need for the association to keep abreast of these changes and to meet the challenge of making a meaningful contribution to the agencies preparing the new laws. The AAA Executive is now handing on the mantle of responsibility to the new AAA team and I would like to express my deep gratitude to Joe Dortch, Amy Stevens and Michael Slack for their contributions. Also to Sean Ulm for acting as a sounding board when I needed to toss around ideas.

5.2 Secretary’s Report (Michael Slack) In addition to the matters described in the President’s report, the association held 11 meetings of the Executive in 2005 and attended to the following business. Correspondence AAA received 65 emails and 10 letters during 2005. Again, the greatest amount of correspondence concerned employment enquiries. National Archaeology Week attracted the attention of both individual students and school groups. On the basis of this steady flow of requests for basic information concerning


Backfill

archaeology in general, the AAA Executive drafted a list of common questions and answers that will be posted on a specific school students webpage on the AAA website in the future. Other correspondence ranged from membership enquiries, subscriptions to Australian Archaeology, scientific advice, and queries of alternative archaeology. Submission to the Victorian Government The Secretary took the lead in drafting an AAA response to the proposed changes to the Victorian Aboriginal Heritage Bill (exposure draft) in conjunction with the Victorian State Representative. The response will be completed in the next couple of weeks to be signed by the AAA President. Any members who still wish to contribute to this issue can contact the Secretary.

be improved relatively easily. Many of our 2004 members are yet to renew for 2005 and might appreciate more frequent renewal reminders. For example, a relatively small increase in income of around $900, or 18 ordinary rate subscriptions, would have brought 2004–2005 subscription income to the level it was in the 2003–2004 financial year and brought AAA finances to breakeven point. In conclusion, despite new and growing areas of expenditure, conference profits and DVD sales have been excellent. AAA finances can return to a satisfactory level by encouraging subscription renewals more intensively and monitoring expenditure on journal printing.

The AAA financial year ending 31 August 2005 saw a loss, largely because of the timing of major items of income and expenditure. Firstly, substantial profits ($6951) from the UNE AAA 2004 conference (Tables 1-2) arrived a few weeks after the end of the financial year. The UNE conference organisers should be congratulated for overseeing such a profitable conference. Secondly, the association paid two years of insurance premiums in one financial year ($6224). Conference income and insurance expenditure should therefore improve in AAA’s favour next year. However, AAA also printed excess journal issues this year, in anticipation of subscriptions that did not eventuate. AAA has a new and highly profitable source of revenue from the DVD containing the first 30 years of journal issues (19742003). The DVD went on sale at the 2004 conference and the first run of 100 discs sold out within days. To date, the DVD has made a profit of around $5000; that is, after allowing for the cost of digitising the entire past output of the journal and printing the first disc run. Future DVD printing will be substantially cheaper than these setup costs, and easily offset by maintaining the $50 purchase price (at the same time, DVD sales may decrease slightly as many potential of the purchasers now own copies). DVD sales will not pay for all areas of increased expenditure. Fortunately, AAA’s major source of revenue, subscriptions, may

Income Most income is from subscriptions, providing $900 less revenue than in 2004 (Table 2). No conference profits appear, because of the delay in payment from UNE. In fact there is an apparent deficiency of $5005, due partly to a bank correction in September 2004 (the start of the AAA financial year) that effectively cancelled $3605 of incomplete credit card sales vouchers (representing conference registrations) that were banked in August 2004, the previous financial year. The deficiency is also due to expenditure of $1400 on conference travel subsidies in April 2005. Following the arrival of the UNE payment of $6951 in October 2005, and allowing for the travel subsidies and a $1000 float provided by AAA in July 2004, there is an effective conference profit of $4551. Bank interest derives largely from our two investment accounts, detailed below. Interest is lower because on two occasions the term deposit happened to mature when the Treasurer was on extended fieldwork and could not request the higher rate of interest offered for the next term. The DVD has increased sales revenue and represents a substantial proportion of AAA income this year. It may continue to provide income in future at a somewhat lower level than this year as many existing members now own copies. Copyright fee income is higher than last year thanks to clarification of issues with the Copyright Agency Ltd (CAL) and resubmission of copyright payment requests.

Table 1 Profit and Loss summary, 31 August 2005.

Table 3 Profit and Loss – Expenditure.

5.3 Treasurer’s Report (Joe Dortch)

2004 $

2005 $

2004 $

Expenditure

2005 $

33,636

Total Income

31,580

1408

Auditor’s remuneration – fees

950

44,356

Total Expenses

42,249

418

Bank charges

943

(10,721)

Operating Profit (Loss)

(10,669)

196

Bankcard charges

57,491

0

DVD production

4295

Journal printing

22,461

365

68,211

Retained Profits

57,490

Profit Available For Appropriation

46,822

34,870

57,490

Retained Profits

46,822

548

Database maintenance

0

154

General expenses

0

Table 2 Profit and Loss – Income.

2004 $ 199

Income Copyright fees

4184

Net conference profits (deficiency)

2264

Interest received

1054

DVD/Back issue sales

0 2005 $ 743

345 54 3813

(5005)

2550

1410

44,356

9348

Insurance Internet fees Licences, registrations, permits Printing, stationery and postage Prizes Total Expenditure

(10,720) Operating Profit (Loss)

6224 756 54 3251 2950 42,249 (10,669)

25,935

Subscriptions

25,040

68,211

Retained Profits – 1 September 2004

57,491

33,636

Total Income

36,541

57,491

Retained Profits – 31 August 2005

46,822


69

Backfill

Expenditure As usual the greatest expense is journal printing (Table 3). This expense increased by 28% over the average for the previous two years (the 2004 figure represents two years’ journal printing) due to AAA printing more journals in anticipation of demand. Insurance premiums were paid for 2004 and 2005 in this same financial year, so are approximately double their normal cost. Remaining expenditure represents normal operating costs for our bank accounts, internet fees, stationery and postage etc. Auditor’s fees are reduced from previous years thanks to the efforts of the 2004 and 2005 auditor, who took a keen interest in the association and continued to rationalise the accounting this year. Reductions in expenditure were also achieved in printing (mainly for National Archaeology Week), stationery and postage, database and general expenses. Registration remains the same. All other areas of expenditure are higher than before, and there are two new expense categories, DVD production and insurance. The two new expenses will not continue to be as high as this year. As noted, insurance payments represent two years of premiums, and DVD production costs will no longer include setup costs. Bank charges should have been lower due to the move to electronic banking. The reason for the increase is to be investigated with the Commonwealth Bank. Prize-giving may not be as high in future. The 2004 conference included a photographic competition that does not appear to be a feature of the 2005 conference. For the current financial year, no major new costs are anticipated. Insurance costs should be somewhat reduced in future as the premium for the current financial year is now paid. Journal printing remains the largest expense but if subscription rates are improved, a similar level of expenditure on journal

printing (around $20,000) should be sustainable. Alternatively, the future Editorial and Executive committees may identify ways to meet demand more accurately (e.g. if multiple smaller runs can be produced for similar unit cost). Summary of Assets As of 31 August 2005 AAA assets totalled $46,822 (Table 4). This does not include $5000 received from both Rio Tinto and BHP Billiton. The $10,000 thus received in the 2004–2005 financial year is to provide an income for the Bruce Veitch Award for Excellence in Indigenous Engagement and is shown separately below. An account is to be established for these funds which are currently held in the AAA bank account. In the current financial year donations towards the Award fund were received from AACAI (Queensland Chapter) and Sean Ulm and Jill Reid, and Alcoa pledged $1000. At 16 November 2005 the total in the award fund stands at $11,000. Many thanks are owed to those who have donated. The latest statements for the AAA long-term accounts (Table 5) show a combined balance of $40,066, about the costs of two year’s journal printings, which is the intended purpose of these reserve funds.

5.4 Membership Secretary’s Report (Amy Stevens) AAA had a total of 465 members in 2005. There were 93 new members for this year, made up primarily of students. Membership initiatives this year involved a mail-out of subscription forms to all previous members and a further drive to increase student members with a mail-out of subscription forms to university departments and student archaeology Table 1 AAA members and new members, 2000–2005.

Year Table 4 Balance Sheet, 31 August 2005.

2004 $

Equity

2005 $

Reserves 57,490

Retained profits

46,822

Members

New Members

2005

465

93

2004

560

110

2003

568

126

2002

497

83

2001

367

67

2000

363

38

Represented by: Table 2 AAA membership types, 2004–2005.

1 Sep 2004 Current Assets

1 Sep 2005

2005

2004

Ordinary

263

320

22,784

Student

95

119

CBA Cash Management Trust

17,282

Institutional

56

57

Net Assets

46,822

Overseas

18

25

Retiree

25

32

18,638

Bank Account

22,345

CBA Term Deposit

16,507 57,490

Type

6756

Sundries

Bruce Veitch Memorial Award Fund

Total

0

Balance at 31 August 2005

10,000

0

Represented by funds held at the bank

10,000

Particulars

Amount Invested

Term deposit

$22,784

180 days

25/11/2005

Commonwealth Cash Management Trust

$17,282

Ongoing

70

560

State

2005

2004

2003

NSW

149

154

148

QLD

89

104

111

WA

62

47

44

VIC

58

66

81

ACT

49

66

81

Term Date

25/11/2005

7

465

Table 3 AAA membership by state, 2003–2005.

Table 5 Investment Register.

Statement Date

8

SA

37

31

39

NT

14

20

17

TAS

6

9

7


Backfill

societies. Despite these efforts, there was a drop in membership across most membership types and states. It would perhaps be of some benefit to have State Representatives involved in encouraging membership within their respective states. AAA has offered a bonus journal for new members over the past three years. Given the large number of new members over that time, AAA has now depleted its stock of relevant back issues and this initiative needs to be changed to offer a different issue of the journal or discontinued.

5.5 Webmaster’s Report No Webmaster’s report was received this year.

5.6 Editor’s Report (Donald Pate) The Editor of Australian Archaeology and the Executive of the Australian Archaeological Association were pleased to support the production of a Special Volume of AA for the December 2005 issue addressing ‘Teaching, Learning and Australian Archaeology’. The volume was edited by Sarah Colley (University of Sydney), Sean Ulm (University of Queensland) and Donald Pate (Flinders University) and is an important outcome of the AAA Teaching and Learning Subcommittee. In order to increase new AAA memberships and associated AA journal subscriptions, the editors continued to offer a complimentary copy of the Special 20th Year Volume AA39 (1994) with each new membership. When the back issues of this volume were depleted, the Special 50th Edition AA50 (2000) and the Special Volume honouring Peter White AA57 (2003) were provided to new members. The stocks for both of these volumes have now also been depleted. As of 16 December 2005, there were 112 new members who joined during the year. Some hard copies of back issues dating from 1996 are still available at reduced rates. Alternatively, back issues of AA Volumes 1-57 (1974-2003) are available in a digital format on a single DVD disc. Order forms for hard copy back issues and the DVD can be found on the AAA website and in the December issue of AA. The Editor thanks all members of the AA editorial team and journal contributors and referees for their contributions during the 2005 year. A special thanks to Sarah Colley and Sean Ulm for their editorial contributions to the Special Volume. Finally, thanks to Ian Murray at Graphic Print for his ongoing assistance with journal production. This will be the last year for the current editorial team. I have served as Editor for the past seven years and have learned a great deal from the position. It has been a very rewarding experience, and I am pleased to assist the new editorial team during next year’s transition. A team from the University of Queensland have expressed interest in taking over the editorial responsibilities of Australian Archaeology from 2006. I would like to express my gratitude to Pam Smith who served diligently as co-editor from 2001–2004 and to Susan Piddock who provided valuable assistance to the editors in a range of areas over the years. Finally, a big thanks to other members of the editorial team who assisted with the production of the journal from 1999–2005. We look forward to the continued improvement of the journal with the election of a new editorial team.

5.7 State Representative’s Reports No State Representative’s reports were received.

5.8 Media Liaison Officer’s Report No Media Liaison Officer’s report was received.

5.9 Archaeology Teaching and Learning Subcommittee Report (Jane Balme) The subcommittee has had a quiet year in 2005, but members continue to actively research archaeological education. The major activities in 2005 have been the circulation and analysis of a questionnaire by Sean Ulm on ‘Australian Archaeology in Profile: A Survey of Working Archaeologists 2005’, and the publication of the Special Volume ‘Teaching, Learning and Australian Archaeology’, edited by Sarah Colley and Sean Ulm as AA61. These activities have raised some ideas for action which we need to put into practice over the next 12 months. The implementation of the suggestions for improvement should be the focus for 2006. For instance, we need to get out information about the value of archaeology education more generally – that is, not just for those people who wish to become archaeologists, but its more general value for the majority of people who study archaeology at university, who don’t become archaeologists. We also would like to publicise the role and policy of the subcommittee more generally and develop broader networks, especially among university archaeology providers, regulatory authorities and industry practitioners. The AAA website is a good starting point for this. There is currently no forum for sharing good teaching and learning practices on a regular basis and this needs to be set up. The final issue is the resourcing and provision of archaeological education and government policy and practice in these areas needs to be monitored continually, and support for positive changes encouraged through lobbying. We need to identify strategic options for the maintenance and development of archaeology education in Australia.

5.10 Code of Ethics Subcommittee (Richard Fullagar) The AAA Code of Ethics Subcommittee has only one major item to report this year. It concerns issues raised in a published paper by Dave Johnston in the Artefact (2004 27:8-10). While we welcome his perspective, his article criticises the AAA Code of Ethics Subcommittee for ‘lack of Indigenous consultation’, a claim we deny. I am happy to continue in my capacity as Chair of the AAA Code of Ethics Review Subcommittee, if the new Executive agrees.

5.11 Discussion Arising Peter White asked whether it was possible to offer the AA DVD at a 20–25% discount to new members. Joe Dortch said that as there were so many left-over 2005 copies of the journal that these should be used as an incentive first. Sean Ulm proposed a motion of thanks to Michael Haslam for putting the DVD together. Seconded: Pam Smith. Motion carried nem. con. The President of AAA, Judith Field put forward the motion that the reports be accepted. Seconded: Val Attenbrow. Motion passed nem. con.


71

Backfill

6. Other Business 6.1 Annual Conferences for 2006–2008 Judith Field stated that although the Executive had worked hard on this issue the venues were not confirmed at this stage. She was aware that the University of Sydney would be willing to conduct a joint conference with ASHA and AIMA in 2007, and that Flinders had offered to organise another joint conference for 2008. At this stage the 2006 venue was uncertain and she had approached La Trobe and expected to receive confirmation before Christmas. Flinders had indicated that they could provide a backup if La Trobe declined, however Judith considered that to host two conferences in three years was too much work.

6.2 Prizes and Awards Subcommittee As there are many prizes and awards in AAA the Executive has spent a lot of time soliciting nominations. The Executive formed a Prizes and Awards Subcommittee for 2005 and drafted guidelines for nominations the John Mulvaney Book Award. It is proposed that this subcommittee involve State Representatives from next year. There will be no Mulvaney prize this year as no nominations were received. The President of AAA urged for a more active response from members in the future. The President co-opted a new subcommittee for prizes and awards consisting of Sean Ulm, Ken Mulvaney and Fiona Hook.

6.3 Indigenous Support Fund The Executive has been trying to negotiate with different conference organisers over the last two years to waive fees from conferences for Indigenous participants. There is a need for a policy to be in place to waive fees. AAA needs to be proactive to get Aboriginal people to conferences and assist members to achieve better outcomes. The President stated that she hoped AAA would officially establish a fund. Robin Torrence supported the idea but was concerned in reference to the budget of such a fund. She asked if Judith could be more specific, that whilst there was a real need for goodwill, the fund needed to be a realistic thing. Sean Ulm noted that there was already $2500 per year that had been approved for this purpose. Steve Free stated that as an Indigenous archaeologist he and his colleagues were self-funded to get to conferences, but that traditional owner groups really did need some money. He stated that he really wanted to see traditional owners from remote areas attend. Steve thought that AAA needed a statement on this matter on our website. Judith Field asked that AAA be proactive on this issue. Bryce Barker asked what the criteria would be, whether what we want is more than a statement and on what basis would funds be granted? Peter White stated that these issues need to come back to the Executive. Sharon Sullivan said that AAA should advertise the existence of the $2500, draft criteria for its disbursement, and that the Executive should be tasked with consideration of these issues. Robin Torrence stated that this task should be with a subcommittee. Val Attenbrow stated that she thought an Indigenous person should be on any subcommittee dealing with this issue. Judith Field asked if Steve Free would be willing. Wayne Brennan stated he would like to participate and that this was a serious issue that required some creative thinking 72

to establish a strong foundation. Judith Field stated she would task Lara Lamb with establishing the subcommittee and co-opt Wayne Brennan and Steve Free. Daryl Guse stated that we should really encourage research projects to build in this expense from their inception. Judith Field stated that many already do, and gave examples. Joe Dortch stated that there was already a process for subsidies but that it took a long time to get money, so he presumed what was being discussed was different. Judith Field stated that any fund needed to be available prior to a conference. Wayne Brennan supported this idea. Judith Field asked that AAA support the waiving of registration fees for unsupported Indigenous attendees in all cases. Sean Ulm suggested that an Indigenous engagement standing committee be established to have input into all committees, including the ethics subcommittee, as its issues pervade other areas. Peter White stated we should start with addressing the conference issue. Judith Field agreed and said the Executive should look at expanding the powers of the committee next year. Judith Field proposed a motion ‘that the conference attendance/registration fees for unsupported Indigenous attendees be waived for all future AAA annual conferences’. Seconded: Sharon Sullivan. Motion carried nem. con.

6.4 Bruce Veitch Award for Excellence in Indigenous Engagement Judith Field stated that a meeting had taken place a few days ago to discuss this award. The award is to be in honour of Bruce Veitch for his contribution to Australian archaeology, and that Judith Field and Fiona Hook were currently writing a description of the award and building the fund. Judith stated that the award would be comprised of the interest generated from the funds received. She stated that the awards subcommittee and State Representatives would solicit nominations for the award and that the nature of this award was to recognise ongoing work and need not be documented in formal reports. Fiona Hook then spoke about Bruce Veitch. She stated that having worked with Bruce for 13 years a major part of how he operated was his total respect of Aboriginal people and that they had always called the shots. After Bruce passed away she was approached by a number of companies to establish a fund in Bruce’s honour. Judith Field stated that the award would be formally announced at the conclusion of the conference session in honour of Bruce Veitch and that the first recipient would be announced at next year’s conference. The awards subcommittee would be responsible for determining the recipient. The committee to oversee the Bruce Veitch award will be Fiona Hook, Shaun Canning, Ken Mulvaney, Colin Pardoe and AAA Executive.

6.5 Cossack Sue Smalldon explained that Cossack is a very significant cultural landscape site and that the Western Australian Government was planning to build housing on the historic site. She stated that they had not examined alternatives, and asked for the support of AAA in opposing the Western Australian plans. Gaye asked that the President of AAA provide a letter stating that AAA opposed the construction of housing on this important archaeological site.


Backfill

Sue McIntyre-Tamwoy suggested that this issue should be circulated more widely. Sue Smalldon stated that she would do so. The President of AAA stated that she was happy to draft a letter and that she would co-opt Alistair Paterson to assist.

Sue McIntyre-Tamwoy stated that Oona Nicholson was currently drafting a response on behalf of the Victorian Chapter of AACAI. The AAA Secretary stated that he would make contact with her and combine efforts.

6.6 Burrup Peninsula

7. Election of Editors of Australian Archaeology

Sue Smalldon stated that she was seeking AAA support to help save the Burrup rock art. She read a petition covering letter. Sue asked that a motion that ‘AAA support the petition and provide a covering letter to accompany it’ be put to the members. Annie Ross stated that the petition required specific language and might require redrafting. Sue stated that this was only the case if it was to be presented to Parliament and that the petition was to go to the Minister. Ken Mulvaney stated that the archaeological community had been very quiet for 25 years and that a concern was that as this was an AURA petition a number of people who have had issues with one of the prime-movers have had problems signing. He stated that on the Franklin dam the archaeological community had contributed a great deal but that on this issue the community had brought shame on themselves. He urged members to sign regardless of the wording. Judith Field stated that if they wanted people to sign, they should get the wording correct. The petition was then reread. Annie Ross asked whether AAA was in a position to ‘call upon’ people. Ken Mulvaney replied that we didn’t need to be polite as the people the petition goes to represent us. Annie suggested in that case we use the word ‘demand’. Clint Hammond stated that the wording doesn’t really matter. Sue Smalldon stated that we just want to keep the pressure on. Jo McDonald stated that she and Peter Veth had written a report of the Aboriginal values of the Burrup but it had essentially disappeared. She said that AAA needed to do something as a community and that the rock art was extraordinary and highly significant. Sharon Sullivan stated that she had been a bureaucrat for a long time and that the idea of a petition was great. She asked that further to this the President authorise a member to seek a meeting with the minister on this issue. She stated that as AAA was a national organisation that she could raise the issue the next day at a National Cultural Heritage meeting in Canberra. Steve Free stated he strongly supported Sharon’s proposal and that she should meet with the minister as soon as possible and have as much information as possible. Judith Field asked if Sharon could take the petition with her. Sharon stated that she could do so. A motion was presented by the Secretary of AAA ‘that AAA seeks a meeting with the relevant ministers regarding the Burrup Peninsula and endorses the Executive to take any further action on this matter, and further that the AAA requests the Chairman of the National Cultural Heritage forum to raise this matter with the Federal Minister for the Environment and Heritage as an urgent matter’. Seconded: Val Attenbrow. Motion carried nem con.

The President of AAA opened nominations and discussion concerning election of editors to the floor. Bryce Barker expressed concern that as member of a small regional university he did not feel they had any opportunity to participate in the national body. Although Bryce stated that he saw the need for the Executive to be in the same place for organisational reasons he considered that the same requirements did not apply to the editorship of the journal. Bryce saw that a role in the editorship of AA as the only way that a small university could participate in the AAA executive. He stated that AAA was in danger of becoming the association of major universities in capital cities and that membership of country people might dwindle if they were not able to participate. Bryce further stated that he was against the idea of block nominations and wanted to be a part of AAA. The President supported Bryce’s concerns but noted that the reason that the capital city universities had dominated AAA Executives was because they had a critical mass. Bryce stated that in relation to the editorial board there was no logic to having all members from one institution. Judith Field welcomed the nomination of a team that involved regional members. Annie Ross stated that there was nothing to stop Bryce nominating for a position. Bryce expressed concern that the nominations for these positions were effectively filled before the AGM by the organisation of blocks. Jo McDonald stated that forming and being on committees, the Executive and running of the AGM were incredibly hard duties and took a lot of effort. Organisation of block nominations were, in her view, a way to expedite a long process. Jo stated that people should just nominate, and that a block is just an option, not stopping others from getting involved. Sean Ulm proposed a team nomination from the University of Queensland. He stated that he had organised a team prior to the AGM and had sent out an email to members of the existing editorial committee (including Bryce) as a courtesy. He stated that editorship was an incredibly difficult thing to do, and that he was confident that his team could make the journal work. He would be happy to withdraw their nomination if another team wished to nominate. The President of AAA asked whether Sean Ulm was prepared to have Lara Lamb as an additional short report editor of the journal so that a regional university was represented. Sean readily agreed. Peter White nominated Lara Lamb in such a position. The nominations put up by Sean Ulm and duly elected:

6.7 Victorian Aboriginal Heritage Bill Exposure Draft The Victorian Government has proposed new cultural heritage legislation to which AAA has prepared a response. Any members who had an interest in this issue were encouraged to make contact with the Secretary of AAA.

Editors – Sean Ulm, Annie Ross Editorial Assistant – Geraldine Mate Short Report Editors – Chris Clarkson, Catherine Westcott, Lara Lamb Book Review Editors – Ian Lilley, Jill Reid Thesis Abstract Editor – Stephen Nichols Sean Ulm asked that AAA thank Donald Pate and his team.


73

Backfill

8. Election of Officers of the Committee The following AAA Officers were elected for 2006: Executive President – Alistair Paterson Secretary – Fiona Hook Treasurer – Adam Dias Membership Secretary – Annie Carson Public Officer – Luke Lowery Webmaster – Samantha Bolton Media Liaison Officer – Kelly Fleming State and Territory Representatives ACT – Steve Free NSW – Wayne Brennan

NT – Daryl Guse QLD – Lara Lamb SA – Lynley Wallis WA – Shaun Canning VIC – Nikki Stern Public Officer – Luke Lowery

9. Close of Meeting Annie Ross asked for a vote of thanks from the floor for the outgoing Executive. Jane Balme asked for a vote of thanks for the conference organisers. The Public Officer of AAA closed the AGM at 6:45pm.

Conference Reports

Figure 1 Conference participants at Quillagua, the driest place in the world, in the Atacama Desert, Chile, October 2004. Between 1964 and 2001, mean annual rainfall at Quillagua was 0.5mm per annum (Photograph: Mike Smith).

THE 2ND SOUTHERN DESERTS CONFERENCE, ARICA, CHILE, 10 –14 OCTOBER 2005 Mike Smith Readers of AA might recall that a major conference – ‘23ºS: Archaeology and Environmental History of the Southern Deserts’ – was held at the National Museum of Australia in Canberra in 2003 (see AA56:53-54). Two years down the track, the Chileans have kept the momentum going with a second ‘Southern Deserts’ conference on the theme of ‘Human-Environment Interactions in Southern Hemisphere Deserts: Past, Present and Future’. This was organised by the Centro de Investigaciones del Hombre en el Desierto (www.codecite.cl), and sponsored (within Chile) by the Universidad de Tarapacá, the Corporación Regional de Desarrollo Científico y Tecnológico, the Millennium Centre for Advanced Studies in Ecology and Research on Biodiversity (Universidad de Chile), CONICYT, Casino Arica, and the Regional Government of Tarapacá, with international support from PAGES and IGCP500. The conference was held in the oasis town of Arica, on the arid coast of the Atacama Desert in northern Chile. Despite a major earthquake in September, it was a very successful meeting. National Museum of Australia, GPO Box 1901, Canberra, ACT 2601, Australia

74

Over four days it brought together 74 scholars from 13 countries, primarily showcasing the drylands archaeology of Chile, Bolivia and Argentina, but with strong comparative studies from southern Africa and Australia. The Australian contingent – several of whom gave keynote addresses – included Heather Builth, Matt Cupper, Pauline English, Kath Fitzsimmons, Paul Hesse, Peter Kershaw, John Magee, June Ross, Mike Smith and Steve Webb. The importance of these meetings is that they lay the groundwork for stronger comparative and interdisciplinary research in these deserts and build a network of research contacts across continents. Not withstanding this, the highlights of the Arica meeting were pre- and post-conference fieldtrips along the spectacular arid coastline, into the Andes to 5100m asl, and across the core of the Atacama Desert to San Pedro de Atacama (Figure 1). Conference papers are to be published in the journal Chungara Revista de Antropología Chilena (ISSN 0716-1182), which is available online as a full text ejournal at www.scielo.cl. Readers interested in comparing Australian deserts with the Kalahari and Namib in southern Africa should definitely keep an eye out for the 3rd Southern Deserts conference, to be held in Namibia in 2008 with fieldtrips along the hyper-arid Skeleton coast and across the northern Kalahari into Botswana. Details will be posted on the IGCP500 website as they become available (see http://igcp500.ouce.ox.ac.uk).


Backfill

2005 AAA Conference Awards RHYS JONES MEDAL FOR OUTSTANDING CONTRIBUTION TO AUSTRALIAN ARCHAEOLOGY: SHARON SULLIVAN In 2005, the Rhys Jones Medal was awarded to Professor Sharon Sullivan AO in recognition of her sustained and significant contribution to archaeology in a career spanning three decades. Sharon has an enviable track record in the discipline, recognised in the awarding of an AO in the Australia Day Honours List in 2004 and a life membership of ICOMOS worldwide, a rare honour for an Australian. She has published five books and nearly 50 papers. She is a fellow of the Australian Academy of the Humanities and on the National Executive Committee of Australia ICOMOS. Sharon has worked in heritage place management and land management generally for 30 years with considerable involvement in the development of cultural heritage systems in Australia. Importantly she has worked with the World Heritage Bureau and the World Heritage Committee reviewing nominations and operation of the committee as well as being the Australian Government’s main adviser and international representative on the World Heritage Committee. Sharon has had considerable influence in the New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS) where she worked in various capacities including Head, Cultural Heritage Management and Regional Director, NPWS Central Region. Sharon was one of the first cultural heritage managers employed by NPWS and consequently has had considerable influence on the formulation and development of legislation and policies on cultural heritage management in NSW. Since leaving NPWS, Sharon has been Executive Director, Australian Heritage Commission, and Director of her own heritage consultancy firm which has led her to many parts of the globe to assist in the improvement of heritage management policies. Sharon has played a very important role as advocate for the rights of Indigenous people and in mentoring people to have an active role in the management of their own heritage. Sharon has also been instrumental in working with Indigenous communities to achieve workable conservation plans for sites of cultural significance. As pointed out in her nomination, Sharon has been a pioneer in establishing protocols and programs in heritage management that we all take for granted today. She has been a great role model and mentor for many people in the archaeological community and is held in great esteem by her colleagues both in Australia and overseas, enhancing the reputation of Australia in progressive and responsible approaches to cultural heritage. It is with great pleasure that the Australian Archaeological Association acknowledges her great contribution and commitment to the discipline over the course of her professional career.

LIFE MEMBERSHIP FOR OUTSTANDING CONTRIBUTION TO THE AUSTRALIAN ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION: ISABEL MCBRYDE Isabel McBryde completed degrees in Latin and History at Melbourne University before departing for Cambridge in 1958. In 1960 her distinguished career as an archaeologist began in Australia’s first titled position in Prehistory and Ancient History at the University of New England. During this time she completed her PhD as part of pioneering regional studies in the New England area. In 1974 she was appointed as a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Prehistory and Anthropology at the Australian National University, culminating in her appointment to the Chair of Prehistory in 1986. Retired in 1994, Isabel holds Honorary Visiting Fellowships at the Australian National University and the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies. In addition to her academic contributions, Isabel has been active in a wide range of arenas relating to archaeology and cultural heritage over the last four decades. Significantly, she was a founding member of the Australian Archaeological Association Inc. and served as its first Secretary in 1974–1975. Few people have created such an enduring legacy for Australian archaeology. She has touched the minds, hearts and actions of virtually the entire Australian archaeological community. She is celebrated by students, Indigenous communities, colleagues and friends.

THE BRUCE VEITCH AWARD FOR EXCELLENCE IN INDIGENOUS ENGAGEMENT During the 2005 Australian Archaeological Association Annual Conference held in Fremantle, Bruce’s home town, President Judith Field announced the establishment of ‘The Bruce Veitch Award for Excellence in Indigenous Engagement’ in honour of the important contribution of Bruce Veitch to the archaeological discipline. Bruce passed away in Perth on 10 March 2005 after a short battle with motor neurone disease. Bruce is survived by his wife archaeologist Fiona Hook and son Conall. Bruce was a co-director of the cultural heritage company Archae-Aus Pty Ltd with Fiona. He made a major impact on the practice and ethics of archaeological work in Australia. From the pioneering research fieldwork on the Mitchell Plateau for his PhD to his collaborative cultural heritage work in the Pilbara and elsewhere, he was


75

Backfill

known for his energy, persistence and honesty. He mobilised consultancy work, collaborated closely with the traditional owners on whose sites he was working, and worked strategically with major industry players. Bruce’s commitment extended to mentoring graduates and he was endlessly supportive and generous with his time, skills and knowledge. Bruce was engaged in an extraordinarily broad range of archaeological endeavours across Australia, all of which were carried out with custodial and traditional owner support and participation. This Award has been created in recognition of Bruce’s contribution to the discipline. It will be awarded annually to any individual or group who has undertaken an archaeological or cultural heritage project which has produced a significant outcome for Indigenous interests. The applicant will have actively engaged with the Indigenous community in producing a successful outcome. Major funding to establish the award was provided by BHP Billiton Iron Ore, Pilbara Iron and Alcoa. Donations to maintain the fund are welcome. AAA will call for nominations for the award each year. The nature of the nominations will be flexible, considering the wide range of Indigenous collaborations and the remoteness of some communities. Nominations will be considered by the AAA Prizes and Awards Subcommittee and recommendations made to the AAA Executive for awarding during the Annual Conference.

When humans arrived in Sahul, they presented a new variable in Australasian ecosystems, with a range of potential impacts on local flora and fauna. The ecological context of human arrival and dispersal in Sahul is still poorly understood. Pollen, loess and speleotherm records have been used to infer broad trends in continental and regional climate. However, the detailed reconstruction of local climatic and environmental conditions at the time of human occupation is imperative for our understanding of the impacts of humans on their immediate environment and on the animals around them. Such detailed information can be obtained through biochemical analyses of fossil faunal remains recovered from archaeological sites. This paper describes climatic and environmental information obtained from the biochemical analysis of two Diprotodon optatum incisors, recovered from the earliest archaeological levels at Cuddie Springs, NSW. It is possible to reconstruct a snapshot of site-specific, subannual patterns of rainfall, seasonality, temperature and plant composition from the biochemical analysis of the Diprotodon teeth, using modern wombat teeth for comparison. This study examines consistencies and discrepancies between these climatic and environmental indices as recorded in the Diprotodon teeth, and the implications of this work in the context of human arrival and environmental impact.

CONFERENCE PAPER PRIZES

The Laila Haglund in Consultancy

(Judging Committee: Bill Jeffery, Ken Mulvaney, Andrew Wilson, Val Attenbrow, Colin Pardoe, Sean Ulm)

(Sponsored by the Australian Association of Consulting Archaeologists Inc.)

Best Overall Paper Prize

Chuuk Lagoon’s World War II Underwater Heritage Sites: Considering this Global Heritage from Different Viewpoints

(Sponsored by Pilbara Iron)

Maritime Mechanisms of Contact and Change through Trade and Exchange Stephen Beck Between 1863 and 1904, over 60,000 South Sea Islanders were indentured to work in Queensland sugar cane plantations. Before the Islanders could depart for Queensland, European recruiting agents had to compensate the Islanders’ families with trade goods. These goods usually consisted of firearms, tobacco, clay pipes, axes, knives, bolts of calico and trade beads. When the Islanders were returned three years later, they brought with them their own trade boxes replete with European goods. Research on the wreck of the Queensland labour schooner Foam has provided insights into the mechanisms by which these goods were introduced into the Islands. In this paper, I will present research findings that make explicit links between the maritime contact and exchange on the beach and the incorporation of European trade goods into the Islanders’ internal trading and power/status systems. I will also introduce a new model for the assimilation of European goods into the South Sea Islands.

Best Student Paper Prize

Reconstructing the Local Context of Megafaunal Decline in Semi-Arid Southeastern Australia: The Interplay of Humans and the Environment

76

for

Excellence

Bill Jeffery This paper discusses a number of issues in considering the research and management of the WWII underwater sites in Chuuk and the Pacific. The paper identifies the values that a number of interest groups place on these sites, the conflicts that have resulted and how this could assist in a more comprehensive view on their research/management needs. The paper will also demonstrate how these underwater sites should not be considered in isolation. They must be looked at as part of the broader history of the region and include consideration of terrestrial historic sites, the nature and impacts on the societies that share this heritage, as well as the physical environment that encompasses the sites.

CONFERENCE POSTER PRIZES (Judging Committee: Nicola Stern, Bryce Barker, Jill Reid)

Best Overall Poster Prize (Sponsored by Pilbara Iron)

Point of Resistance: Social Preservation through Trade and Exchange in Northwest Australia

(Sponsored by BHP Petroleum)

Rebecca A. Fraser & Karen L. Privat

Prize

Camille Kirby This poster offers an explanation for the atypical increase in Kimberley point production that coincides with the introduction of European materials such as glass and metals in an excavation situated in northwest Northern Territory. The underpinning


Backfill

archaeological data is drawn from Head and Fullagar’s excavation of the Marralam Outstation, eastern Kimberley region. In this, trade and exchange is proposed as a mechanism used to prevent change and preserve socio-cultural networks as a form of resistance in initial contact years.

BIG MAN AND SMALL BOY AWARDS (Judging Committee: Jo McDonald, Colin Pardoe, Annie Ross)

The Bob Katter Award Ian Lilley: For getting on the camel wagon – and for suggesting that there were more useful uses for camels on remote expeditions …

Best Student Poster Prize (Sponsored by BHP Iron Ore and Anthropology Museum, University of Queensland)

All the Small Things: Application of Foraminiferal Analysis in Archaeological Contexts Daniel Rosendahl & Sean Ulm For many decades Australian archaeologists have grappled with the problem of determining the origin of shell deposits. While it is often not difficult to distinguish between cultural shell deposits and natural shell deposits, some deposits exhibit ambiguous characteristics that limit understandings of site formation processes. The development of valid methods to differentiate site formation processes is critical to research in coastal archaeology. One possible solution is the microscopic analysis of archaeological sediments for the presence of a single-celled micro-organism known as foraminifera. This presentation assesses the efficacy of foraminiferal analysis to distinguish natural and cultural marine shell deposits, analysing a case study from the central Queensland coast.

AFI, AIF and FAI Award Sue O’Connor: For co-authoring five papers and presenting three – and for thus being so distracted that her ANU logo was back-to-front.

Albatross for the Sub-Mariner Award Cos Coroneos: For drawing a submerged rockshelter as having a drip line – but not for the hypothesis that all good archaeological ideas are born of alcohol …

Carmen Lawrence Award J. Peter White: For saying ‘the first sentence in my abstract might be wrong’ – i.e. the first ever admission of error.

Philip Ruddock Award Sean Ulm: For ‘breeding out’ the non-Australians in his national profession survey.

Ungrateful Bastard/Reluctant Hero Award Runner-Up Student Poster Prize (Sponsored by BHP Iron Ore and Anthropology Museum, University of Queensland)

Surviving the Cure: Life on Bernier and Dorre Island under the Lock Hospital Regime Jade Stingemore Between the years 1907 and 1917 two islands off Western Australia, Bernier and Dorre Islands, were used as ‘lock hospitals’ for Indigenous Western Australians who were judged to be syphilitic. This was done as a public health measure to limit the spread of disease from the Indigenous people to colonists. While it is clear from historical documentation that few of these individuals actually had syphilis, they were incarcerated on the islands until they were either deemed cured by the European doctors or died. Little is known of how the Europeans and the Aboriginal people lived, survived and actually recovered from disease on islands that are known as inhospitable and resourcedeficient. While European living areas show evidence of the latest delicate and expensive ceramic ware, imported foodstuffs, building materials and medical supplies, the research indicates clearly that both European and Aboriginal people made use of the limited resources available on the islands. The limited objects associated with Aboriginal sites were confined to bones, shells, glass, government-supply enamelware and corrugated iron. Differences are seen in spatial use, resource understanding and European hospital setup between the two islands. On Bernier Island males lived and worked in open areas near the hospital sites and exploited a relatively small range of the natural resources available on the islands. Nevertheless there is evidence that they continued to practice traditional tool making. On Dorre Island females lived in discrete shelter areas hidden from view of the hospitals and ate a variety of resources available on the islands.

Mike McCarthy: For yelling at Corioli Souter ‘I asked you to launch the bloody thing – not review it’ during his own book launch.

Viagra Award Mike Rowland: For saying ‘I can’t contemplate people from Easter Island having sexual intercourse with people from PNG’.

Court of King Caractacus – Purple Prose Award Bill Leadbetter: For describing his study area as ‘the crystal on the crown on the tip of the iceberg’ – and for saying that purpleproducing Aperlae was a ‘headline act’.

Steve Irwin Award Daryl Guse: For saying ‘the problem in the NT is that we have people that are great with crocs while the people in the Baltimore Aquarium were only used to talking to fish’.

Bush Tucker Man Award Neale Draper: For saying ‘sea lions and seals are really vertebrate sausage rolls’ and ‘the bones start out as parts of animals’.

Fawlty Towers – Don’t Mention the War Award Bill Jeffery: For his paper on different perspectives of the WWII conflict in the Pacific, which depended on whether you were a truck or a chook.

Hellfire and Brimstone Award Stephen Beck: Who concluded that trade in muskets stopped in his area because too many missionaries were being shot – and who observed that ‘the skulls were decorated – after death obviously’.


77

Backfill

Acacia, Smoke and Dingo Tail Award Ian Ryan: For saying ‘rockshelters were more popular with archaeologists than Aborigines’.

I Could be so Lucky (apologies to Kylie) Award Sam Spiers: For finding a burial which fitted exactly within a 1m x 1m square … (Devotees of the Imperial Raj take note – minimum trench size should be thus).

Tim Owen Award Cass Philippou: For saying ‘I haven’t been in cultural heritage for 25 years so I’m not old and bitter’.

Buffalo Bill Award Jude Field: For attributing the continent-wide extinction of megafauna to Bert Roberts.

Horatio (show us your badge) CSI Award Jo McDonald: For saying ‘the spear in the spine would have slowed him down a bit’ when asked about Octavia Man’s cause of death.

Imperial Raj Award Pam Smith: For the inappropriate referencing of her co-authors, for excavating obscurely-sized (unless using imperial measure) 33cm x 33cm test pits and for concluding that a single bullet casing demonstrated the likely poisoning of Aboriginal people in her massacre site.

Nigella Lawson Award Jon Carpenter: For describing his shipwreck in Sri Lanka (with a cargo of rice and cinnamon) as ‘the largest rice pudding in the world’.

Frodo Soliciting Award and BIG MAN AWARD Jane Balme: For offering the audience the opportunity of viewing Mike Morwood’s ‘thing’ in the corner, at the end of his talk …

Conferences XV UISPP CONGRESS: WORLD CONGRESS OF THE INTERNATIONAL UNION FOR PREHISTORIC AND PROTOHISTORIC SCIENCES (UISPP) 4–9 September 2006 Lisbon, Portugal The Congress has the aim of presenting the status of world prehistory in 2006, but also of engaging participation of nonEuropean countries and improving collaboration with other international organisations such as CAA, IFRAO and WAC. Over 130 sessions have been organised. The Congress will be articulated in seven main sections including: Theory and Methods, ArchaeoSciences, Hunter-Gatherers, First Farmers, Early Metallurgy and Complex Societies and Archaeology and Society. Several sessions will be devoted to the themes of Southern America Archaeology Panorama and Global State of the Art (the latter in association with IFRAO, the International Federation of Rock Art Organizations). Details: http://www.uispp.ipt.pt

LEGACY OF AN ICE AGE: WILLANDRA LAKES REGION WORLD HERITAGE AREA: HUMAN-LAND INTERACTIONS 7–9 September 2006 Mungo Lodge, via Mildura, Victoria A major conference celebrating the 25th anniversary of the Willandra Lakes Region World Heritage listing. The main focus will involve specialist science discussions with reviews of previous data, presentation of new work and integrating the Willandra data into the broader context of ice age Australia. Group forums with Aboriginal custodians will explore the interaction of Indigenous people and science, listen to traditional people and discuss the management of this heritage. Details: http://www.earthsci.unimelb.edu.au/~mlcupper/ Mungo.html 78

AUSTRALASIAN INSTITUTE FOR MARITIME ARCHAEOLOGY (AIMA)/ AUSTRALASIAN SOCIETY FOR HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY (ASHA) JOINT CONFERENCE: LAND, SEA AND AIR – AUSTRALASIAN ARCHAEOLOGY FROM 1606 TO THE PRESENT 14–18 September 2006 Darwin, Northern Territory The archaeology of the recent or contemporary past coincides this year with a celebration of 400 years of Dutch contact and papers are being sought for work relating to this period. In addition, the recent past encapsulates several milestones in human history: the advent of flight, two World Wars and ultimately human explorations into outer space. The concept of land, sea and air hopes to attract a range of papers that explore the different environments that humans have used in the past. Papers are sought from all around the world, although emphasis will be on research conducted in Australasia. Details: http://www.aima.iinet.net.au

ARCHAEOLOGY FOR ALL: THE THEORY AND PRACTICE OF COMMUNITY ARCHAEOLOGY 3–4 November 2006 University of Manchester, Manchester, UK What is community archaeology? What are the challenges and opportunities? What makes archaeological projects special and unique to their community? Does archaeology for all have a future? The aim of this major national conference is to provide a forum for debate about the growing area of community archaeology. The conference will provide an opportunity to explore: what the social, economic, tourism, educational and regenerative benefits


Backfill

of community archaeology are; how people can get involved in their own community projects; the role of the media; how to attract funds; the role of the professional, amateur enthusiast and volunteer; and where community archaeology is going. Details: [email protected]

CULTURAL HERITAGE AND INDIGENOUS CULTURAL AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS: A WORLD ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONGRESS SYMPOSIUM 3–5 December 2006 Burra, South Australia This cross-disciplinary international conference will address the history of and contemporary developments in the intersections between cultural heritage and cultural and intellectual property rights in Indigenous customary and academic worlds. Key speakers include: Julie Hollowell and George Nicholas, Canada; Maui Solomon, New Zealand; and Sven Ouzman, South Africa. The conference will be held in the heritage town of Burra, South Australia, in the traditional country of the Ngadjuri people. This conference will take an international perspective to examine in depth the cultural and intellectual property issues facing Indigenous, customary and academic communities, and examine critically the successes and failures of efforts to resolve such issues. This conference will be used to identify core issues. Our ultimate aim is to inform protocol- and policy-making at individual community, national and international levels. The overall goal of this research is to provide foundational knowledge and data to assist scholars, Indigenous communities, and other stakeholders in developing more equitable and successful resolutions and policies regarding the cultural and intellectual property rights issues that are fast emerging. Details: http://ehlt.flinders.edu.au/archaeology/conferences/ Burra%202006/Burra_Indigenous_2006.php

AUSTRALIAN ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION ANNUAL CONFERENCE: MODERN HUMANS IN ASIA, AUSTRALIA AND OCEANIA: TIMING, IMPACT, SIGNATURES AND SPREAD

SOCIETY FOR HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY CONFERENCE ON HISTORICAL AND UNDERWATER ARCHAEOLOGY 10–14 January 2007 Williamsburg, Virginia, USA Central to the theme of the 2007 SHA conference in Williamsburg/ Jamestown, Virginia, is the historical archaeology of Jamestown in the context of the emerging sixteenth and seventeenth century Atlantic World. The program will feature a plenary session focusing on the archaeology of the decades of European expansion along the Atlantic rim, and what it reveals of the process of cultural change among Europeans, Africans and native peoples. Concurrent sessions are open to presentations on regional or temporal variations on the plenary theme and other individual research projects that incorporate comparative and interdisciplinary research. Innovative use of advanced technology will be a sub-theme throughout. Details: http://www.sha.org

WORLD ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONGRESS (WAC-6) 20–27 May 2007 Kingston, Jamaica The Archaeological Society of Jamaica is hosting WAC-6 on behalf of the World Archaeological Congress. WAC-6 will be organised into themes and sessions. A theme contains a number of sessions relating to the same overall issue. Example: Theme – The African Diaspora; Sessions: Maroon Societies, Plantation Archaeology, and Post-Emancipation Free Villages. Both themes and sessions should emphasise international participation and global perspectives. Sessions can be organised in different formats, including demonstrations, workshops, debates, panels and forums. Selected sessions will provide simultaneous translation into different languages, including Spanish and French. Details: http://www.wac6jamaica.com/

XVII INQUA CONGRESS 2007 28 July–3 August 2007 Cairns Convention Centre, Cairns, Queensland

8–10 December 2006 Beechworth Campus, La Trobe University, Beechworth, Victoria This year’s conference will explore a wide range of issues relating to the settlement of Asia, Australasia and the Pacific by populations of modern humans. It is designed to broaden ongoing discussion about the dispersal of modern humans and the origins of behavioural modernity by enrolling the archaeological record of our own region into those debates. Topics for discussion include the timing and palaeoenvironmental context of initial settlement, dispersal through the region, human impacts on the region and the idea that the modern behavioural repertoire has a single, diagnostic signature. Details: http://www.latrobe.edu.au/aaa2006/index.html

Rising greenhouse gases are driving climatic boundaries beyond the Quaternary envelope; rising tides of humanity are pushing the ecosphere towards an impoverished and uncharted state. The world approaches a crossroad. In uncharted seas, sailing directions are taken from historical knowledge. Never has the need to understand Quaternary history been greater: history of climate, the biosphere and humankind. Quaternarists are skilled in integrating with other disciplines. The challenges are clear; our goal is that INQUA 2007 enhances our global ability to meet them. Every four years the international Quaternary community gathers together for the INQUA Congress. This is the largest gathering of its kind of Quaternary researchers. Session themes are broad, and such diverse topics are covered such as palaeoclimate, archaeology, glaciology, the carbon cycle and environmental reconstruction. To be placed on the mailing list, please register your interest at the Congress website Details: http://www.inqua2007.net.au


79

Backfill

Successful Australian Research Council Grants 2005 (Source: http://www.arc.gov.au) ARC DISCOVERY GRANTS 2006

Unearthing the Roots of Agriculture: MultiDisciplinary Investigations of Pleistocene and Holocene Plant Exploitation in Eastern Highlands Province, Papua New Guinea

Archaeology and Prehistory The Origins of Human Colonization in East Polynesia and their Relevance to Maritime Migration Chief Investigators: Prof. A.J. Anderson; Dr K. Szabo; Dr E. Conte 2006: $65,000; 2007: $65,000; 2008: $65,000 Australian National University Project Summary: The Indo-Pacific is a world of islands, including Australia, which was colonised during prehistory in several phases of migration, the last and longest of which was in East Polynesia. Extensive excavation of a large, waterlogged archaeological site of this era in French Polynesia will provide a better understanding of the period, society and external relationships of the early migrants, and of the processes of prehistoric maritime migration which link Australian peoples to those of our neighbours across the Pacific and Indian Oceans.

Chinese Middle to Late Pleistocene Hominid Behaviour: Exploring Cultural Variability through Time and Space Chief Investigators: Dr R.F. Cosgrove; Dr C. Shen; Dr H. Lu; Dr S. Wang 2006: $156,000; 2007: $82,000; 2008: $125,000 La Trobe University Project Summary: This research will contribute to the understanding of the spread of our species out of Africa 2 million years ago into East Asia. It examines the range of hominid behaviours and ecological circumstances that led to the successful colonisation of China by Homo erectus. It also addresses the vexed question of the relationship between H. erectus and H. sapiens. Did the latter evolve in situ from their antecedents as some suggest, or did H. sapiens replace H. erectus, in the great diaspora from Africa 120,000 years ago?

Drawing the Line: The Archaeology of Roman Provincial Borders in Late Antique Palaestina and Arabia (AD 250–650) Chief Investigator: Dr K. da Costa 2006: $109,000; 2007: $74,000; 2008: $84,000; 2009: $66,000 University of Sydney Project Summary: This project, using archaeological evidence from Jordan, will for the first time accurately establish the boundaries of provinces in the Roman Empire. By linking Australia and the Middle East in international scholarly research dealing with our common cultural heritage, it will increase our mutual understanding. The examination of very long-term trends in an ancient system which dealt with a complex, multicultural population will provide much needed comparative illustrations for the current national debate on the nature and security of Australian borders. It will also provide evidence of long-term economic change and its political consequences. 80

Chief Investigator: Dr T.P. Denham 2006: $140,000; 2007: $145,000; 2008: $145,000 Monash University Project Summary: The project will foster greater communication, public understanding and research links between Australia and Papua New Guinea. The project will also provide archaeological training for students at Australian universities and students and practitioners in Papua New Guinea. The research seeks to understand the development of societies and subsistence practices, particularly plant exploitation and agriculture, in New Guinea from the Pleistocene to the present. The research will chart long-term human-environment relations in New Guinea, which are central to understanding the sustainability of food production and the maintenance of biodiversity in the Australasian region.

Plant Use at the Dawn of Agriculture in Central Anatolia Chief Investigator: Dr A.S. Fairbairn 2006: $20,000; 2007: $20,000 Australian National University Project Summary: The project will increase collaboration with researchers in the UK and Turkish archaeological authorities. It will refine our understanding of the process, rate and direction of agricultural origins in Western Asia and improve Australia’s profile in origins of agriculture research. It will increase Australia’s knowledge base about other regions and help to consolidate and promote archaeobotany/archaeological science in Australia’s research community.

How Do Stone Tools Reflect Cognition Among the First Australians and their Precursors? Chief Investigator: Mr M. Moore 2006: $85,000; 2007: $78,000; 2008: $78,000 University of New England Project Summary: The popularity of the Indonesian ‘hobbit’ (Homo floresiensis) discovery provides an ideal platform for interpreting Australasian prehistory to a wider community. This project explores the arrival of modern humans in Indonesia, their interaction with ‘hobbits’, and the colonisation of Australia by comparing the different ways these hominins made stone tools. Although research indicates a significant level of behavioural unity in our genus, ‘hobbits’ were not like us. ‘Us’ refers, of course, to modern humans, and hence this research is of global relevance. By applying a ‘design space’ model to toolmaking in the past, this project will demonstrate that the earliest trends in technology apply equally to human groups throughout the world.


Backfill

Technological Advances in Large-Scale Roman Concrete Buildings during the 2nd and 1st centuries BC Chief Investigators: Prof. F.B. Sear; Mr A.E. Hutson; Dr H.M. Goldsworthy 2006: $70,000; 2007: $30,000; 2008: $40,000 University of Melbourne Project Summary: How were the Romans able to build monuments which are still standing after 2,000 years? Skills to achieve this were clearly not developed overnight. A multidisciplinary team from the University of Melbourne has identified the 1st century BC as a time of tremendous technological change in Roman architecture. Was it that the Romans used a technologically advanced type of concrete? Was it that they had perfected the structural design of vaults and domes? Was it simply their organisational ability or the enormous wealth which flowed from their vast Empire? A team of experienced archaeologists, architects and engineers seeks to answer these questions by survey and material analysis of a number of key Roman monuments.

Anthropology The Flores Hobbit – Homo Floresiensis or Microcephalic Eastern Indonesian? Chief Investigators: Dr F.D. Bulbeck; Dr M.F. Oxenham 2006: $40,000 Australian National University Project Summary: The hobbit is so controversial as it implies that a tiny hominin with a miniature brain coexisted for 30,000 years with modern humans in our region. This would have immense, fundamental implications for understanding the human colonisation of our region and the role of brain size in human evolution. Our research will determine whether the alternative explanation of microcephalic pathology is viable. If so the hobbit would still be of unique significance as the only known microcephalic hunter-gatherer who had survived to adulthood. The role of Australian scientists in spearheading the hobbit discovery places a high priority on resolving the debate objectively.

Isolation, Insularity and Change in Island Populations – An Interdisciplinary Study of Aboriginal Cultural Patterns in the Gulf of Carpentaria Chief Investigators: A/Prof. P.C. Memmott; Dr S.G. Ulm; A/Prof. I.A. Lilley; A/Prof. N.D. Evans; Dr E.C. Stock; A/Prof. N.G. White; Dr S.M. van Holst Pellekaan; Prof. D.S. Trigger; Dr R.P. Robins 2006: $90,000; 2007: $90,000; 2008: $90,000; 2009: $55,000; 2010: $40,000 University of Queensland Project Summary: Our interdisciplinary study tests pivotal hypotheses concerning insularity, isolation and cultural change in Aboriginal Australia. It examines two nowdivergent island populations residing in similar physical environments and with shared ancestral language and a common mainland source group. The project examines how these groups contended with cultural change over a 10,000 year time scale, sometimes acculturating exogenous traits whilst at others exploiting insularity and isolation to

promote distinctiveness through local invention in such a way that two different cultures emerged. The findings will contribute to international debates on island colonisation and how cultural reproduction continues in the face of globalising influences.

Genetics Evolution and the Immune System: Genetic Differences in Immune Response between Human Populations due to Adaptation to Living in Different Geo-Climatic Locations Chief Investigators: Prof. P. LeSouef; Prof. A.H Bittles; Dr J. Goldblatt; Mr P. Candelaria 2006: $120,000; 2007: $95,000; 2008: $95,000 University of Western Australia Project Summary: The project, which investigates the genetics of inter-population differences in immune response, will lead to advances in immunology and population genetics research, explain present population specific differences in disease incidence and possibly forecast future population trends of diseases such as asthma and allergy. The study will strengthen ties with collaborators around the world, thus promoting excellence in Australian research and gain Australia prestige in the international community as a country that produces research of global significance. Understanding the immune system’s ‘recent evolutionary roots’ has implications for the health of Australians, especially in light of Australia’s increasingly multiethnic background.

Geology Palaeoclimatic and Environmental Significance of Major Late Quaternary Drainage Contributions and Disruptions in the Lake Eyre Basin Chief Investigators: Prof. G.C. Nanson; A/Prof. B.G. Jones 2006: $110,000; 2007: $80,000; 2008: $80,000 University of Wollongong Project Summary: This study will advance our knowledge of the most remarkable floods ever known to have occurred in Australia. They were associated with a vast aquatic ecosystem in what today is the barren northern end of the Flinders Ranges, a region of desert dunes and salt lakes. Remarkably, such wet conditions appear to have coincided with episodes of megafaunal extinction and with the human occupation of Australia. The results will provide valuable information with which to better understand the main global drivers of episodes of profound wetness and dryness in Australian climate.

Ecology and Evolution Using Ancient DNA to Investigate the Environmental Impacts of Climate Change and Humans through Time Chief Investigators: Prof. A. Cooper; Prof. T.F. Flannery 2006: $160,000; 2007: $155,000; 2008: $155,000 University of Adelaide Project Summary: This project will provide important information about how climate change and human impact have


81

Backfill

effected our environment over the past 50,000 years, removing many of the large mammals and altering the landscape. It is critical that the background to our current environment is properly understood if we are to predict the effects of ongoing changes such as global warming. The research will concentrate on the effects of climate change on large mammals in North and South America, New Zealand, Australia and Africa over this time period, and will examine the additional impact of humans in each location.

Geochemistry Microanalysis of Human Fossils: New Insights into Age, Diet and Migration Chief Investigators: Prof. R. Grun; Prof. M.J. Spriggs; Dr I.S. Williams 2006: $105,000; 2007: $90,000; 2008: $90,000 Australian National University Project Summary: Human occupation of Australia and the Pacific dates back tens of thousands of years. New microanalytical techniques now make it possible to learn about the life histories of these ancient peoples: their diet, migration paths and the climate in which they lived. This project will benefit the Indigenous populations and researchers of neighbouring countries through collaboration and increased knowledge of their ancestors, thus enhancing Australia’s links and status as a good neighbour in the region. This falls squarely into the Research Priority ‘Safeguarding Australia – Understanding Our Region and the World’. In the future, our analytical approach will give important insights into the complex and rich archaeological heritage of Australia.

Out of Africa and into Australia: Robust Chronologies for Turning Points in Modern Human Evolution and Dispersal Chief Investigators: Prof. R.G. Roberts; Prof. R. Grun; Dr Z. Jacobs; Dr G.A. Duller 2006: $86,000; 2007: $30,000; 2008: $60,000; 2009: $70,000; 2010: $70,000 University of Wollongong Project Summary: This project will yield important new data on the timing of major turning points in human evolution and the human colonisation of Australia. This will improve our knowledge of Aboriginal cultural heritage and provide a longterm perspective on human/environment interactions to help forecast future impacts of human disruption of the Australian ecosystem (Environmentally Sustainable Australia NRP). Modern dating techniques underpin many archaeological and environmental projects, so the advances made in this study will benefit researchers worldwide, increase capacity for commercial services, and enhance Australia’s international standing in geochronology. We will also generate high quality research students and new collaborative initiatives.

Linguistics Proto Oceanic Language, People and Society: Foundations of the Austronesian Settlement of the Pacific 82

Chief Investigators: Prof. A.K. Pawley; Prof. M.D. Ross 2006: $110,000; 2007: $110,000 Australian National University Project Summary: The settlement of the far-flung Pacific Islands is an important chapter in human history. The origins of the languages and cultures of this region, and how the first settlers adapted to and exploited the island environments they encountered, which this study investigates in great detail, are matters of interest not only to scientists but to a wider public which includes Pacific Islanders themselves. Research on this scale requires a great deal of intellectual capital and this project will help to ensure that Australia maintains at least one strong research centre in this field.

Atmospheric Sciences Monsoon Extremes, Environmental Shifts, and Catastrophic Volcanic Eruptions: Quantifying Impacts on the Early Human History of Southern Australasia Chief Investigators: Dr M.K. Gagan; Dr J. Zhao; Dr R.N. Drysdale; Dr W.S. Hantoro; Dr G.A. Schmidt 2006: $245,000; 2007: $100,000; 2008: $100,000 Australian National University Project Summary: The coincidence of a long, diverse Australasian human history with Earth’s greatest climate systems presents the Australian and Indonesian communities with unrivalled opportunities for scientific discovery. Our study will improve understanding of global climate change, environmental shifts, volcanic catastrophes, and their role in early human dispersal, and extinction, in Australasia. The significance of the results will extend to the modern world, where human behaviour modifies, and is modified by, climate and environment. Integration of research strengths in Australia and Indonesia will contribute to an improved bilateral relationship in science, education, and training, and engage the public in the excitement of scientific discovery.

ARC LINKAGE GRANTS 2006 Linguistics Bininj Gunwok Lexicography Project Chief Investigator: Dr M.J. Garde 2006: $74,340; 2007: $74,340; 2008: $74,340 University of Melbourne and Gundjeihmi Aboriginal Corporation Project Summary: This project will make a contribution to Aboriginal language maintenance and documentation via lexicography. Only about 20 of the original 200 or so Aboriginal languages remain viable. Bininj Gunwok is one of these languages. Very few dictionaries exist for Australian languages and for those languages such as Bininj Gunwok which linguists class as ‘nonPama-Nyungan’, only a handful of dictionaries are available. The resulting Bininj Gunwok dictionary and cultural encyclopaedia will have applications for education, Aboriginal health, community development, land management and environmental science in Kakadu National Park and western Arnhem Land as well as applications for cross-cultural communication.


Backfill

Curatorial Studies Oral Tradition, Memory and Social Change: Indigenous Participation in the Curation and Use of Museum Collections Chief Investigators: Dr D. Hafner; Em/Prof. B.J. Rigsby; Ms L. Allen; Ms R. Wrench; Mr S.J. Wilmot 2006: $75,000; 2007: $75,000; 2008: $75,000 University of Queensland and Museum Victoria Project Summary: This project addresses concerns about how museums meet their charter in a diverse society. It will engage museums in a process of brokering and negotiation with Indigenous Australians in relation to specific museum collections. There is little formal recognition of how such processes occur within museums and contribute to the creation of shared meanings about ourselves as a nation. It is part of the role of museums as places of learning to engage and fascinate, and this project brings together traditional knowledge and expertise in three fields of study to pass on our national heritage to future generations.

Environmental Sciences Pharmacological Investigation of Medicinal Plant Products from Kaanju Homelands, Wenlock and Pascoe Rivers, Cape York Peninsula Chief Investigators: Dr S.J. Semple; Prof. R.A. McKinnon; Dr J. Wang; Mr D.J. Claudie 2006: $50,000; 2007: $55,500; 2008: $50,000 University of South Australia and Chuulangun Aboriginal Corporation Project Summary: This research will examine the potential for products to be developed from plants on Kaanju homelands. Kaanju people have an immense ecological knowledge accumulated over generations about the natural resources in an area recognised as being one of Australia’s most biologically diverse. Preservation of this knowledge is critical not only to Kaanju people but to the heritage of the Nation as a whole. The research also addresses the National Priority ‘Promoting & Maintaining Good Health’ through the investigation of novel pharmacological activities in areas of cardiovascular health, diabetes and cancer. The collaborative research partnership will serve as a model to assist other Aboriginal organisations, particularly in rural and remote areas.

Project Summary: Provision of dedicated instruments for contemporary and ancient/fragmentary DNA analyses will provide numerous opportunities for innovative research solutions in basic biology, archaeological, agricultural, biomedical, forensic and environmental sciences. No similar combination of facilities currently exists in the Australian region severely curtailing and jeopardising the quality of current and proposed research programs. The facilities will underlie innovative approaches to research in National Research Priorities 1 and 4 – An Environmentally Sustainable Australia and Safeguarding Australia.

Geochemistry A Highly Sensitive Mass Spectrometer for Trace Analysis of Biomarker Molecules to Study Changes in Recent and Ancient Environments Chief Investigators: Dr J.J. Brocks; Prof. G.D. Farquhar; A/Prof. K. Grice; Dr R.R. Haese; Dr R. Shalliker 2006: $390,700 Australian National University, Geoscience Australia, Curtin University of Technology and University of Western Sydney Project Summary: Maintaining the quality of water and soil is a critically important issue for Australia’s economic and social development. To be able to predict and plan the future of our natural assets, it is critical to understand their ecological past and their state before and after European settlement. We will utilise the new instrument to develop and apply innovative technologies providing Australia with new knowledge about the causes and effects of toxic cyanobacterial blooms, eutrophication, and contamination of reservoirs by bushfires. The new facility will also supply advanced oil fingerprinting techniques to the petroleum industry minimising exploration risk and increasing the chance of the discovery of new oil deposits.

ARC LINKAGE INFRASTRUCTURE GRANTS 2006 Genetics Expansion and Enhancement of the South Australian Regional Facility for Molecular Ecology and Evolution and the Australian Centre Ancient DNA Chief Investigators: Prof. A. Cooper; A/Prof. M.P. Schwarz; Prof. S.C. Donnellan 2006: $115,000 University of Adelaide, Flinders University and South Australian Museum Number 62, June 2006

83

Backfill

The Australian Academy of the Humanities: 2005 Fellows (Source: http://www.humanities.org.au/) At the Annual General Meeting of the Australian Academy of the Humanities on 19 November 2005, three outstanding scholars in archaeology were elected Fellows: Robert Edwards, Antonio Sagona and Peter Veth. Fellows elected to the Academy are residents of Australia who have achieved the highest distinction in scholarship in the humanities. Dr Robert Edwards AO has played a vital role in promoting Aboriginal cultural life. He has served in leading posts at the South Australian Museum, Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies (AIATSIS), the Aboriginal Arts Board, the International Cultural Corporation and the Museum of Victoria. From 1966 he photographed a swathe of Aboriginal rock paintings across Australia which resulted in over 15,000 images being deposited in public institutions. In his early years, he made important contributions to archaeology.

84

Associate Professor Antonio Giuseppe Sagona is Reader in the Centre for Classics and Archaeology at the University of Melbourne. His research interests cover many aspects of ancient Near Eastern archaeology but his main expertise lies in the field of preclassical Anatolia and Trans-Caucasus. His three-volume Caucasian Region in the Early Bronze Age has become the standard reference on the subject. He is editor of the annual Ancient Near Eastern Studies and a Fellow of the Society of Antiquaries. Dr Peter Marius Veth is Director of Research at AIATSIS and Adjunct Senior Fellow at the Centre for Cross Cultural Research at ANU. He has made outstanding contributions to archaeology in academic and public arenas. He has published four books on Australian archaeology, over 100 peer-reviewed papers and 10 Expert Witness Reports for the Federal Government on Native Title matters. He has greatly facilitated the development of Indigenous research capacity in Australia.


NOTES TO CONTRIBUTORS 1. General

5. References

Australian Archaeology, the official publication of the Australian Archaeological Association Inc., is a refereed journal published since 1974. It accepts original articles in all fields of archaeology and other subjects relevant to archaeological research and practice in Australia and nearby areas. Contributions are accepted in five sections: Articles (5000–8000 words), Short Reports (1000–3000), Obituaries (500–2000), Thesis Abstracts (200– 500), Book Reviews (500–2000) and Backfill (which includes letters, conference details, announcements and other material of interest to members). Australian Archaeology is published twice a year, in June and December. Provided submissions meet the requirements outlined in these Notes to Contributors and quality requirements assessed through peer review, we would normally anticipate publishing of submissions within 12 months.

Type the References starting on a new page. Include all and only those references cited in the paper. Do not cite papers in preparation. Papers may be cited as ‘in press’ where they have been accepted for publication. For general publication categories the format should follow the examples below. Please pay particular attention to capitalisation, punctuation and spacing. Submissions that do not conform to these referencing guidelines will be returned to authors for correction.

2. Submission of Contributions Submissions that do not conform to these Notes to Contributors may be returned to authors for correction before they are processed. All contributions must be typed, double line spaced, using 12 point Times New Roman font or similar. Do not use more than three heading levels. Do not use footnotes. Do not use double spaces after full stops at the end of sentences. Number all pages submitted consecutively. For further guidance on style refer to the most recent issue of Australian Archaeology. A 150– 200 word abstract must be included for articles. The abstract should be a complete, concise summary of the paper. A cover page must be included listing contribution title and full names, affiliations and addresses for correspondence (including email) of all authors. Do not include author names on pages other than the cover page.

Journal Articles Bird, C.F.M. and D. Frankel 1991 Problems in constructing a prehistoric regional sequence: Holocene south-east Australia. World Archaeology 23(2):179-192.

Book Chapters Craib, J.L. and G.R. Mangold 1999 Storm in a test pit: Effects of cyclonic storms on coastal archaeological sites in western Micronesia. In J. Hall and I.J. McNiven (eds), Australian Coastal Archaeology, pp.299-306. Research Papers in Archaeology and Natural History 31. Canberra: ANH Publications, Department of Archaeology and Natural History, Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, Australian National University.

Books Lourandos, H. 1997 Continent of Hunter-Gatherers: New Perspectives in Australian Prehistory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Edited Books Hall, J. and I.J. McNiven (eds) Australian Coastal Archaeology. Research Papers in Archaeology and Natural History 31. Canberra: ANH Publications, Department of Archaeology and Natural History, Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, Australian National University.

3. Processing of Contributions

Monographs

The Editors will acknowledge receipt of all contributions. The Editors and external peer reviewers will review all contributions submitted as articles and short reports. As for any refereed journal, authors may be asked to make revisions to their manuscript. If substantial revision is required manuscripts may be re-reviewed before a decision to publish is made. Once a paper is accepted in its final form, page-proofs will be sent to the senior author for checking. Proof Approval and Author Agreement forms will be sent with the page-proofs and must be completed and returned before publication can proceed. Final acceptance of manuscripts for publication is at the discretion of the Editors. For paper submission instructions see below.

Wickler, S. 2001 The Prehistory of Buka: A Stepping Stone Island in the Northern Solomons. Terra Australis 16. Canberra: Department of Archaeology and Natural History and Centre for Archaeological Research, Australian National University.

Theses David, B. 1994 A Space-Time Odyssey: Rock Art and Regionalisation in North Queensland Prehistory. Unpublished PhD thesis, Department of Anthropology and Sociology, University of Queensland, Brisbane.

Unpublished Reports Smith, J.R. and H.J. Hall 1996 Beaudesert Shire Regional Archaeological Project. Unpublished report to the Australian Heritage Commission, Canberra.

4. Citations

Internet Resources

References should be cited in text by author’s surname, publication year and page (e.g. Smith 1988:45). For three or more authors ‘et al.’ (with italics) should be used after the first surname (e.g. David et al. 1994). If multiple references are cited they should be ordered alphabetically and then by publication year, with authors’ names separated by a semicolon (e.g. Appleby 1990:19-25; Childe 1952; David 1988; David and Chant 1995; David et al. 1994, 1999; White and O’Connell 1982:42, 50).

Australian Bureau of Statistics 1996 Education: Participation in Education: The Education of Indigenous People. Retrieved 6 November 2003 from http://www. abs.gov.au/ausstats.

Listserver Communications Ross, A. 2004 Useless Australian archaeology graduates. Message posted to the AUSARCH-L listserver, 31 May 2004, archived at http://mailman.anu.edu.au/ mailman/listinfo/ausarch-l.


85

Notes to Contributors

6. Initial Submission

11. Reporting Radiocarbon Ages and Calibration

In the first instance, papers should be submitted by email with the contribution as a single attachment, including text, figures and tables, using Microsoft® WORD (.doc), Rich Text Format (.rtf) or Adobe® Portable Document Format (.pdf). Specifications for tables and figures should follow the guidelines below.

Conventional radiocarbon ages should be reported as ‘BP’ and calibrated ages as ‘cal BP’. Report laboratory number, material dated, calibration method used and any corrections made (e.g. marine reservoir correction).

12. Copyright 7. Final Paper Submission Instructions Once accepted for publication, final versions of papers (including figures and tables) should be submitted as email attachments or on clearly labelled 9.5cm high-density discs or CDs in PC or Macintosh format. Specifications for tables and figures should follow the guidelines below.

8. Text Text should be submitted using Microsoft® WORD (.doc) or Rich Text Format (.rtf).

9. Tables Type each table (including a caption) on a separate page at the end of the manuscript, not in the body of the text. Number and refer to tables in the text with Arabic numerals (i.e. Table 1 etc). Tables should be submitted using Microsoft® WORD (.doc) or Rich Text Format (.rtf).

Authors are responsible for ensuring that any material that has influenced the research or writing has been properly cited and credited both in the text and in the list of references. Contributors are responsible for gaining copyright clearance on figures, photographs or lengthy quotes used in their manuscript that have been published elsewhere. Once accepted for publication in Australian Archaeology, the author retains copyright in the work and may publish or authorise others to publish the entire work or any part thereof, provided that due acknowledgement is made in any further publication that the work was originally published in Australian Archaeology. An article will not be published until the signed Author Agreement has been completed and returned to the Editors by the contributor.

13. Other Contributors are encouraged to contact the Editors if they have any questions or concerns about the submission process.

10. Figures (Line Drawings and Photographs) Line drawings and photographs should both be referred to as Figures, and numbered consecutively with Arabic numerals (i.e. Figure 1 etc). Figures should be submitted on separate pages at the end of the manuscript, not in the body of the text. Figure captions should be typed on a separate page, not on the figures. For final submission, figures should be submitted electronically as separate files as TIFF, JPEG (maximum quality) or EPS (with preview) files. If figures cannot be submitted as computer files, please submit as black-and-white line drawings or as high contrast, glossy black-and-white prints. All figures will be printed as greyscale images. Figures should be submitted at final size, ready for the printing process. Figures should be submitted at resolutions of 600 dpi at final size. That is, the figure and its caption should be sized to fit either within the margins of a double columned page (170mm) or a single column (81mm). The available space within margins for the full length of a page is 250mm (this leaves room for a one line caption). Please choose appropriate letter size, line thickness and shading/stippling. Photocopies of drawings are not acceptable. If not your own work, you must acknowledge the origin of all figures and, where applicable, it is the author’s responsibility to obtain written unfettered permission to publish from the copyright owner of the original.

86

14. Correspondence and Submissions All correspondence and submissions should be addressed to: Australian Archaeology PO Box 6088 St Lucia QLD 4067 AUSTRALIA Email: [email protected]


AUSTRALIAN ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION INC. Office Bearers for 2006 Position Australian

Archaeology,

the

official

publication

of

the

Australian

Archaeological Association Inc., is a refereed journal published since 1974.

Name

Address

Executive President

Alistair Paterson

relevant to archaeological research and practice in Australia and nearby areas.

Secretary

Fiona Hook

Contributions are accepted in five sections: Articles (5000-8000 words), Short

Treasurer

Adam Dias


Reports (1000-3000), Obituaries (500-2000), Thesis Abstracts (200-500), Book

Membership Secretary

Annie Carson


Public Officer

Sue O’Connor

Webmaster

Sam Bolton

It accepts original articles in all fields of archaeology and other subjects

Crawley WA 6009

Reviews (500-2000) and Backfill (which includes letters, conference details, announcements and other material of interest to members). Australian


Crawley WA 6009

Archaeology is published twice a year, in June and December.

Department of Archaeology & Natural History, Research School of Pacific & Asian Studies, Australian National University, Canberra ACT 0200 Archaeology, M405, University of Western Australia, 35 Stirling Highway, Crawley WA 6009

Subscriptions are available to individuals through membership of the Australian Archaeological Association Inc. or to organisations through


Media Liaison Officer

Kelly Fleming

Archaeology, M405, University of Western Australia, 35 Stirling Highway, Crawley WA 6009

institutional subscription. Subscription application/renewal forms are available at http://www.australianarchaeologicalassociation.com.au. Australian Archaeology Editors Editors:

Sean Ulm, Annie Ross

Editorial Assistant:

Geraldine Mate

Short Report Editors:

Catherine Westcott, Chris Clarkson, Lara Lamb

Book Review Editors: Ian Lilley, Jill Reid Thesis Abstract Editor: Stephen Nichols

Editor

Sean Ulm

Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander Studies Unit, University of Queensland, Brisbane QLD 4072

Editor

Annie Ross

Editorial Assistant

Geraldine Mate

School of Social Science, University of Queensland, Brisbane QLD 4072 School of Social Science, University of Queensland, Brisbane QLD 4072


Catherine Westcott

Environmental Protection Agency, PO Box 15155, City East QLD 4002


Chris Clarkson



Lara Lamb


Review Editor

Ian Lilley

Review Editor

Jill Reid

Department of Main Roads, GPO Box 1412, Brisbane QLD 4001

Thesis Abstract Editor

Stephen Nichols


Queensland

Lara Lamb


St Lucia QLD 4067

New South Wales

Wayne Brennan

AUSTRALIA

Australian Capital Territory

Stephen Free

4/10 Arthur Street, Queanbeyan NSW 2620

Email: [email protected]

Victoria

Nicola Stern

Department of Archaeology, La Trobe University, Bundoora VIC 3086

URL:

Tasmania

Robin Sim

School of Archaeology & Anthropology, Australian National University,

South Australia

Lynley Wallis

Graphic Design:

Lovehate Design

Printing:

Printpoint Australia Pty Ltd

Cover: Excavation in progress at Dauan 4, looking southeast (L to R: Fr. Imasu Aragu, Liam Brady and Trevor Mooka) (Photograph: Ian J. McNiven).

Queensland, Toowoomba QLD 4350 Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander Studies Unit, University of Queensland, Brisbane QLD 4072

All correspondence and submissions should be addressed to: State Representatives Australian Archaeology PO Box 6088

http://www.australianarchaeologicalassociation.com.au

Queensland, Toowoomba QLD 4350 PO Box 217, Katoomba NSW 2780

Canberra ACT 0200 The views expressed in this journal are not necessarily those of the Australian

© Australian Archaeological Association Inc., 2006 ISSN 0312-2417

Department of Archaeology, Flinders University, GPO Box 2100, Adelaide SA 5001

Archaeological Association Inc. or the Editors. Western Australia

Shaun Canning

11 Lawrence Way, Karratha WA 6714

Northern Territory

Daryl Guse

PO Box 43119, Casuarina NT 0811

In this issue Editorial Sean Ulm & Annie Ross

ii


1


13


26


31


38


44


47


49


50


51


53


54


55


56

Archaeology in Practice: A Student Guide to Archaeological Analyses edited by Jane Balme & Alistair Paterson Reviewed by Anne Ross 57


2006

Shared Landscapes: Archaeologies of Attachment and the Pastoral Industry in New South Wales by Rodney Harrison Reviewed by Lynette Russell 58 59

number 62

62

THESIS ABSTRACTS

63

BACKFILL Minutes of the 2005 Annual General Meeting of the Australian Archaeological Association Inc. Conference Reports 2005 AAA Conference Awards Conferences Successful Australian Research Council Grants 2005 The Australian Academy of the Humanities: 2005 Fellows

68 74 75 78 80 84


85

ISSN 0312-2417

number 62


June 2006