Archaeological Settlement Patterns and Mobility Strategies: Lower Adelaide River, Northern Australia 9781407304618, 9781407335063

Table of contents :
Cover Page
Title Page
Copyright
Figures
Maps
Tables
Preface
Acknowledgements
1. Mounds, Mobility and Models
2. The Physical Landscape
3. The Archaeological Landscape
4. Lithic Raw Material Analysis
5. Modified Specimens
6. Fauna
7. Aboriginal Use of the Adelaide River Floodplains
8. The Adelaide River in Regional Perspective
References

Citation preview

BAR  S1987  2009   BROCKWELL   ARCHAEOLOGICAL SETTLEMENT PATTERNS AND MOBILITY STRATEGIES

Archaeological Settlement Patterns and Mobility Strategies Lower Adelaide River, Northern Australia

Sally Brockwell

BAR International Series 1987 9 781407 304618

B A R

2009

Archaeological Settlement Patterns and Mobility Strategies

Archaeological Settlement Patterns and Mobility Strategies Lower Adelaide River, Northern Australia

Sally Brockwell

BAR International Series 1987 2009

ISBN 9781407304618 paperback ISBN 9781407335063 e-format DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9781407304618 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

BAR

PUBLISHING

Contents

Contents



List of Figures List of Maps List of Tables Preface Acknowledgements

viii x xi xv xvii

1

Mounds, Mobility and Models

1

1.1 1.2

Introduction Earth Mounds in Southern Australia

1 1



Western Victoria Murray River Central Murrumbidgee Riverine Plain Macquarie Marshes

1 2 4 4



Location Chronology Morphology Origins Function Mounds and Settlement Systems Mounds as Cultural Markers

5 5 5 5 6 6 7



Aurukun Milingimbi Arafura Swamp Blyth River Kakadu Mary River Adelaide River Darwin Harbour Reynolds River

8 8 8 9 9 10 10 10 10



Location Chronology Morphology Origins Function Mounds and Settlement Systems Mounds as Cultural Markers

11 11 11 11 11 11 12



Mobility and Sedentism

13

1.3

1.4

1.5

1.6

Discussion

Earth Mounds in Northern Australia

Discussion of Earth Mounds in Northern Australia

Comparisons between Earth Mounds in Northern and Southern Australia

5

7

11

12

1.7

The Archaeology of the Lower Adelaide River

2

The Physical Landscape - Development and Resources of the Adelaide River

15

2.1 2.2 2.3

Introduction Location of the Study Area Geology

15 15 15

iii

14

Contents 2.4

The Climate Today

16



Hydrology

17



Hills and Ridges Open Woodland The Floodplains

17 17 18



Open Woodland and Monsoon Forest Floodplains Fire

20 20 20



Open Woodland and Monsoon Rainforest Floodplains

21 21



Palaeo-Climates The Environment 7000-4000 Years BP: ‘The Big Swamp Phase’ The Environment 4000-2000 Years BP ‘The Transition Phase’ The Environment 2000-150 Years BP: ‘The Freshwater Phase’ The Environment 150 Years BP to Present: ‘The Contact Phase’

23 23 23 24 24

2.5

2.6 2.7

2.8

Land Systems, Soils and Vegetation

Productivity Floral Resources

Faunal Resources

2.9 Aboriginal Subsistence and Seasonality 2.10 Palaeo-Environments

2.11 Conclusions

17

19 20

21 22 22

25

3

The Archaeological Landscape



26

3.1 3.2 3.3

Introduction Previous Archaeological Investigations Site Detection

26 26 27



Site Types Definition of Artefact Scatters Stone Artefact Definition Archaeological Visibility Survey Methodology

27 27 27 28 30



Hills and Ridges Open Woodland Lagoon and Watercourse Margins Monsoon Rainforest Floodplain Margins Beatrice Lagoon Middle Point North Point Koolpinyah Floodplains Beatrice Lagoon North Point

32 32 32 32 32 32 33 33 33 33 33 33



Adelaide River Mound Dimensions

34



Site Selection Excavation Methods Mound MP2 Mound MP5 Mound MP6 Mound NP19 Mound NP20

34 35 35 35 35 36 36



Mound MP2 Mound MP5 Mound MP6 Mound HD1 Mound NP19

37 37 37 38 38

3.4

3.5 3.6

3.7

Site Distribution

Results of the Surveys Excavations

Chronology

iv

32

34 34

36

Contents

Mound NP20 Discussion

38 38



The Big Swamp Phase The Transition Phase The Freshwater Phase The Contact Phase

39 41 41 41

3.8

Archaeological Models of Settlement Patterns and Mobility Strategies

38

4

Lithic Raw Material Analysis



43

4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4

Introduction Taphonomy Raw Material Sources Intra-Site Density and Distribution

43 45 46 49



Site MP2 Site MP5 Site MP6 Site HD1 Site NP19 Site NP20 Discussion

51 52 52 52 53 53 54



MP2 Flaked Raw Materials MP2 Ground Raw Materials Discussion MP5 Flaked Raw Materials MP5 Ground Raw Materials Discussion MP6 Flaked Raw Materials MP6 Ground Raw Materials Discussion HD1 Flaked Raw Materials HD1 Ground Raw Materials Discussion NP19 Flaked Raw Materials NP19 Ground Raw Materials NP20 Flaked Raw Materials NP20 Ground Raw Materials

56 57 57 59 60 61 62 62 63 63 64 64 65 65 65 65



Flaked Raw Materials Ground Raw Materials Discussion

66 66 67



Flaked Raw Materials Ground Raw Materials Discussion

67 68 69

4.5

4.6

4.7

Raw Materials

Raw Materials: Inter-Site Comparisons

Raw Materials: Chronological Comparisons

55

66

67

4.8

Conclusion

5

Modified Specimens



71

5.1 5.2

Introduction Modified Artefacts

71 71





71 72 72 72 72 72

5.3

MP2 Modified Artefacts MP5 Modified Artefacts MP6 Modified Artefacts HD1 Modified Artefacts NP19 Modified Artefacts NP20 Modified Artefacts

















Inter-Site Comparisons of Modified Raw Materials











































Rates of Modification Modified Raw Materials Discussion

v

70

72 72 75 77

Contents 5.4 5.5

Chronological Changes in Raw Material Modification Cores

79 82



Discussion

83



Points Leilira Blades Polished Flakes Discussion

84 84 85 85

5.6

Stone Implement Types

84

5.7 5.8 5.9

Retouched Flakes Ground Implements Discussion

6

Fauna



91

6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4

Introduction Methodology Taphonomy Distribution and Density of Faunal Remains

91 92 94 95



Inter-Site Comparisons of Faunal Distribution and Density Chronological Comparisons of Density and Distribution

96 96



Inter-Site Comparisons of Taxa Distribution and Abundance Chronological Comparisons of Taxa Distribution and Abundance

98 98



Mammals Birds Reptiles Turtles Fish Shell

99 99 101 101 102 103



The Environment Faunal Distributions and Foraging Strategies Seasonality

104 104 106

6.5 6.6

6.7

Taxa Abundance Taxa

Conclusion

85 86 87

96 99

104

6.8

A Revised Model of Settlement Patterns and Mobility Strategies

7

Aboriginal Use of the Adelaide River Floodplains



109

7.1 7.2 7.3

Introduction A History of Contact The Ethnographic Sources

109 109 110











The Explorers The Settlers The Anthropologists The Custodians

110 110 111 111



Environment Settlement and Subsistence

111 112



Environment Settlement and Subsistence

115 115



Environment Settlement and Subsistence

116 116



Environment Settlement and Subsistence

117 118



Environment Settlement and Subsistence

118 118

7.4 7.5 7.6 7.7 7.8

The Ethnographic Evidence 1850-1900 The Ethnographic Evidence 1900-1950 The Ethnographic Evidence 1950-Present An Ethnographic Model for the Lower Adelaide River Changes in Pre and Post-Contact Settlement Patterns and Subsistence Strategies

vi

107

111 115 116 117 118

Contents 8

The Adelaide River in Regional Perspective















120

8.1 8.2

Introduction A Summary of the Evidence from the Adelaide River

120 120



Earth Mounds Settlement Patterns and Mobility Strategies

120 121



The Big Swamps The Transition Phase The Freshwater Phase

123 123 124



The Big Swamp Phase The Transition Phase The Freshwater Phase

126 126 127

8.3

8.4

An Overview of Mid-Late Holocene Settlement and Subsistence Patterns on the Top End Coastal Plains

Discussion

8.5

Conclusion



References

vii

122

126

129 131

Contents

Figures

Figure 1.1 Figure 1.2 Figure 1.3

Average Diameter of Earth Mound in Southern Australia Average Length of Earth Mounds in Northern Australia Comparison between Average Diameter and Average Length of Southern and Northern Earth Mounds

5 11 13

Figure 2.1 Figure 2.2

Relative Productivity (g/m2) of Habitats Number of Seasonally Available Staples by Habitat

19 21

Figure 3.1 Figure 3.2 Figure 3.3 Figure 3.4 Figure 3.5 Figure 3.6 Figure 3.7 Figure 3.8 Figure 3.9 Figure 3.10 Figure 3.11 Figure 3.12 Figure 3.13

Section Drawing of MP2 Showing Location of Dated Samples Section Drawing of MP5 Showing Location of Dated Sample Section Drawing of MP6 Showing Location of Dated Samples Section Drawing of NP19 Section Drawing of NP20 Showing Location of Dated Sample MP2 Radiocarbon Determination (Wk-5581) MP2 Radiocarbon Determination (Wk-5582) MP2 Radiocarbon Determination (Wk-6374) MP6 Radiocarbon Determination (Wk-6668) MP6 Radiocarbon Determination (Wk-6669) HD1 Radiocarbon Determination (Wk-5957) HD1 Radiocarbon Determination (Wk-5796) HD1 Radiocarbon Determination (Wk-6373)

34 34 35 37 37 39 39 39 39 40 40 40 40

Figure 4.1 Figure 4.2 Figure 4.3 Figure 4.4 Figure 4.5 Figure 4.6 Figure 4.7 Figure 4.8 Figure 4.9 Figure 4.10 Figure 4.11 Figure 4.12 Figure 4.13 Figure 4.14 Figure 4.15 Figure 4.16 Figure 4.17 Figure 4.18 Figure 4.19 Figure 4.20 Figure 4.21 Figure 4.22 Figure 4.23 Figure 4.24 Figure 4.25 Figure 4.26 Figure 4.27 Figure 4.28

MP2 Distribution of Artefacts MP2 Discard Rate of Artefacts MP5 Distribution of Total Artefacts MP6 Distribution of Total Artefacts MP6 Discard Rate of Artefacts HD1 Distribution of Artefacts HD1 Discard Rate of Artefacts NP19 Distribution of Artefacts Inter-Site Comparison of Total Artefact Discard Rates (no./kg/100 yrs) by Phase Discard Rate of Total Artefacts (no./kg/100 yrs) by Phase Discard Rate of 6mm Artefacts (no./kg/100 yrs) by Phase MP2 Discard Rate of Flaked Raw Materials MP2 Discard Rate of Flaked Raw Materials MP2 Average Weight of Flaked Raw Materials MP2 Percentage Discard Weight of Flaked Raw Materials MP2 Discard Rate of Ground Raw Materials MP2 Average Weight (g) of Ground Raw Materials MP5 Distribution of Flaked Raw Materials MP5 Average Weight (g) of Flaked Raw Materials MP5 Weight (g) Distribution of Ground Raw Materials MP5 Average Weight of Ground Raw Materials MP6 Discard Rates of Flaked Raw Materials MP6 Percentage Discard Rates of Flaked Raw Materials MP6 Average Weight of Flaked Raw Materials MP6 Discard Weight of Ground Raw Materials MP6 Average Weight of Ground Raw Materials HD1 Discard Rates of Flaked Raw Materials HD1 Percentage Discard Rate of Flaked Raw Materials

45 45 45 45 47 47 47 47 47 47 48 49 49 49 49 49 50 52 52 52 52 52 53 53 55 55 57 57

viii

Figures Contents Figure 4.29 Figure 4.30 Figure 4.31 Figure 4.32 Figure 4.33 Figure 4.34 Figure 4.35 Figure 4.36 Figure 4.37 Figure 4.38 Figure 4.39 Figure 4.40 Figure 4.41 Figure 4.42 Figure 4.43 Figure 4.44 Figure 4.45 Figure 4.46 Figure 4.47 Figure 4.48

HD1 Average Weight of Flaked Raw Materials HD1 Discard Weight of Ground Raw Materials HD1 Average Weight of Ground Raw Materials Discard Rate of 6mm Local and Non-Local Flaked Raw Materials (no./kg deposit/100 yrs) Average Weight (g) of Total Flaked Raw Materials Average Weight of 6mm Flaked Raw Materials (no./kg deposit/100 yrs) Discard Weight of Total Ground Raw Materials Discard Weight of 6mm Ground Raw Materials Average Weight of Total Ground Raw Materials Average Weight of 6mm Ground Raw Materials Discard Rate of Total Flaked Raw Materials by Phase Discard Rate of Total Local and Non-Local Raw Materials by Phase Discard Rate of 6mm Flaked Raw Materials by Phase Discard Rate of Local and Non-Local 6mm Flaked Raw Materials by Phase Average Weight of Total Flaked Raw Materials by Phase Average Weight of 6mm Flaked Raw Materials by Phase Discard Weight of Total Ground Raw Materials by Phase Discard Weight of 6mm Ground Raw Materials by Phase Average Weight of Total Ground Raw Materials by Phase Average Weight of 6mm Ground Raw Materials by Phase

57 57 57 59 59 60 60 60 61 62 62 62 64 65 65 67 67 67 68 69

Figure 5.1 Figure 5.2 Figure 5.3 Figure 5.4 Figure 5.5 Figure 5.6 Figure 5.7 Figure 5.8 Figure 5.9 Figure 5.10 Figure 5.11 Figure 5.12 Figure 5.13 Figure 5.14 Figure 5.15 Figure 5.16 Figure 5.17 Figure 5.18 Figure 5.19 Figure 5.20 Figure 5.21 Figure 5.22 Figure 5.23 Figure 5.24

MP2 Percentage of Modified Artefacts MP2 Percentage of Modified Raw Materials MP5 Percentage of Modified Artefacts MP5 Percentage of Modified Raw Materials MP6 Percentage of Modified Artefacts MP6 Percentage of Modified Raw Materials HD1 Percentage of Modified Artefacts HD1 Percentage of Modified Raw Materials NP19 Percentage of Modified Artefacts Percentage of Modified Raw Materials NP20 Percentage of Modified Raw Materials Percentage of Total Modified Artefacts by Site Percentage of 6mm Modified Artefacts by Site Distribution of Total Modified Local and Non-Local Raw Materials by Site Distribution of 6mm Modified Local and Non-Local Raw Materials Total Artefacts Percentage of Modification by Phase 6mm Artefacts Percentage of Modification by Phase Percentage of Total Modified Raw Materials by Phase Percentage of 6mm Modified Raw Materials by Phase Total Local and Non-Local Raw Materials % Modification Rate by Phase 6mm Local and Non-Local Raw Materials % Modification by Phase Average Weight (g) of Cores by Raw Material and Phase Discard Weight of Ground Sandstone and Quartzite Pieces All Sites. Ground Implements. Percentage Distribution of Raw Materials by Weight

75 75 78 78 78 78 79 80 80 80 81 81 81 83 83 84 84 84 86 86 86 86 88 89

Figure 6.1 Figure 6.2 Figure 6.3 Figure 6.4 Figure 6.5 Figure 6.6 Figure 6.7 Figure 6.8 Figure 6.9 Figure 6.10 Figure 6.11 Figure 6.12 Figure 6.13 Figure 6.14

Inter-Site Comparison of Faunal Discard Rate Bone Discard Rate by Phase (g/kg/100 yrs) Percentage Distribution of Major Taxa (g/kg/100 yrs) by Phase Distribution (g/kg/100 yrs) of Mammals (minus Rodents) by Phase Distribution (g/kg/100 yrs) of Bird by Phase Distribution (g/kg/100 yrs) of Reptiles by Phase Distribution (g/kg/100 yrs) of Rodent and Snake by Phase Distribution (g/kg/100 yrs) of Turtle by Phase Distribution (g/kg/100 yrs) of Fish by Phase Percentage Distribution of Arius and Lates by Phase Distribution of Estuarine Shell by Phase Percentage Distribution of Floodplains Fauna by Phase Abundance (no.) of Major Food Taxa by Environmental Zone and Phase Percentage Distribution of Humanly Introduced Fauna by Phase

92 95 95 96 96 96 98 98 99 100 100 104 104 104

ix

Contents

Maps

Map 1.1

Location Map of Northern Australia

Map 2.1 Map 2.2

Location Map of the Study Area The Developmental Phases of the Adelaide River Floodplains (after Woodroffe et al. 1993:270)

16 20

Map 3.1 Map 3.2 Map 3.3 Map 4.1

Location of Archaeological Investigations in the Top End of the Northern Territory Location of Sites on the Lower Adelaide River (based on Commonwealth of Australia 1984b, 1984c) Location of Sites on the Lower Adelaide River Recorded during this Study (based on Commonwealth of Australia 1984a) Major Lithic Raw Material Sources (after Needham and Stuart-Smith 1984)

28 29

Map 7.1 Map 7.2

Adelaide River Region Early Contact Sites Wulna-Limilngan Country

112 114

Major Rivers Draining into the Van Diemen Gulf, their Catchments, and the Extent of their Coastal and Estuarine Plains (after Woodroffe et al. 1993:258)

123

Map 8.1



x

2

31 44

Contents

Tables

Table 1.1 Table 1.2 Table 1.3

Average Dimensions (m) of Recorded Earth Mounds in Southern Australia Average Dimensions (m) of Recorded Earth Mounds in Northern Australia (R=range) Comparison of Average Diameter (m) of Recorded Southern Earth Mounds and Average Length (m) of Recorded Northern Earth Mounds

Table 2.1

Table 2.3 Table 2.4 Table 2.5 Table 2.6

Utilized Plant Species Occurring in the Study Area by Habitat (after Bowman and Wilson 1986; Russell-Smith 1985; Russell-Smith et al. 1997; Smith 1980; Story 1969; Williams et al. 1969) FP=Floodplains, RF=Rainforest, WL=Woodland Important Faunal Food Species by Habitat (after Meehan 1982; Russell-Smith 1985; Russell-Smith et al. 1997). FP= Freshwater Floodplains, RF=Rainforest, WL=Woodland, FR=Freshwater Riverine, E=Estuarine Freshwater Floodplains Staple Foods by Season (after Russell-Smith et al. 1997) Woodland. Seasonally Available Important Foods (XX denotes staple) (after Russell-Smith et al. 1997) Monsoon Rainforest Staple Foods by Season (after Russell-Smith et al. 1997) Number of Seasonally Available Staples by Habitat (after Russell-Smith et al. 1997)

Table 3.1 Table 3.2 Table 3.3 Table 3.4 Table 3.5 Table 3.6 Table 3.7 Table 3.8 Table 3.9

Dimensions of Adelaide River Earth Mounds Lower Adelaide River Site Types (no.) and Land Systems Contents of Earth Mound MP2 Contents of Earth Mound MP5 Contents of Earth Mound MP6 Contents of Earth Mound NP19 Contents of Earth Mound NP20 Chronology of the Adelaide River Sites Chronological Phases of the Adelaide River Sites

32 33 36 36 36 36 36 37 38

Table 4.1 Table 4.2 Table 4.3 Table 4.4 Table 4.5 Table 4.6 Table 4.7 Table 4.8 Table 4.9 Table 4.10 Table 4.11 Table 4.12 Table 4.13 Table 4.14 Table 4.15 Table 4.16 Table 4.17 Table 4.18 Table 4.19 Table 4.20 Table 4.21 Table 4.22 Table 4.23

Predictions of Raw Material Acquisition by Phase Lithic Raw Materials Distance to Source MP2 Distribution of Total Artefacts through the Deposit MP2 Discard Rate of Artefacts per 100 years MP5 Distribution of Total Artefacts through the Deposit MP5 Discard Rate of Artefacts (per 100 years) MP6 Distribution of Total Artefacts through the Deposit MP6 Discard Rate of Artefacts (per 100 years) HD1 Distribution of Artefacts through the Deposit HD1 Discard Rate of Artefacts per 100 years NP19 Distribution of Total Artefacts NP20 Density and Discard Rate of Artefacts Excavated NP20 Contact Material Discard Rate of Total Artefacts (no./kg/100 yrs) by Phase All Sites. Discard Rate of 6mm Artefacts by Phase MP2 Distribution of Flaked Raw Materials over Time MP2 Proportions of Flaked Raw Materials by Phase MP2 Average Weight (g) of Individual Flaked Raw Materials over Time MP2 Discard Weight (g/kg/100 yrs) of Flaked Raw Materials MP2 Ground Raw Material Discard Rates (g/kg/100 years) MP2 Average Weight (g) of Ground Raw Materials over Time MP5 Distribution of Flaked Raw Materials over Time MP5 Average Weight (g) of Flaked Raw Materials over Time

44 44 45 46 46 46 46 48 48 48 48 50 50 50 50 51 51 51 51 51 53 53 54

Table 2.2

xi

5 12 13

17 18 19 21 22 22

Contents Tables Table 4.24 Table 4.25 Table 4.26 Table 4.27 Table 4.28 Table 4.29 Table 4.30 Table 4.31 Table 4.32 Table 4.33 Table 4.34 Table 4.35 Table 4.36 Table 4.37 Table 4.38 Table 4.39 Table 4.40 Table 4.41 Table 4.42 Table 4.43 Table 4.44 Table 4.45 Table 4.46 Table 4.47 Table 4.48 Table 4.49 Table 4.50 Table 4.51 Table 4.52 Table 4.53 Table 4.54 Table 4.55 Table 4.56 Table 4.57 Table 4.58 Table 4.59 Table 4.60 Table 4.61

MP5 Distribution of Ground Raw Materials by Weight (g) MP5 Average Weight of Ground Raw Materials MP6 Distribution of Flaked Raw Materials MP6 Percentage Discard Rate of Flaked Raw Materials MP6 Average Weight of Flaked Raw Materials over Time MP6 Weight (g) Distribution of Ground Raw Materials MP6 Average Weight (g) of Ground Raw Materials HD1 Distribution of Flaked Raw Materials over Time HD1 Percentage Discard Rate of Flaked Raw Materials HD1 Average Weight (g) of Flaked Artefacts over Time HD1 Weight (g) Distribution of Ground Raw Materials over Time HD1 Average Weight (g) of Ground Raw Materials through Time NP19 Distribution (no./kg) of Flaked Raw Materials NP19 Average Weight of Flaked Raw Materials NP19 Distribution (no./kg) of Ground Raw Materials NP19 Average Weight (g) of Ground Raw Materials NP20 Distribution (no./kg Deposit) of Flaked Raw Materials NP20 Average Weight (g) of Flaked Raw Materials NP20 Distribution of Ground Raw Materials NP20 Average Weight (g) of Ground Raw Materials Discard Rate of Total Flaked Artefacts (no./kg/100 yrs) by Site Discard Rate of 6mm Flaked Artefacts (no./kg/100 yrs) by Site Average Weight of Total Flaked Raw Materials by Site All Sites. Average Weight (g) of 6mm Flaked Raw Materials (NP19, NP20, MP2, MP5, MP6) Discard Weight (g/kg/100 yrs) of Total Ground Raw Materials Discard Weight (g/kg/100 yrs) of 6mm Ground Raw Materials (NP10, MP2, MP5, MP6, HD1) Average Weight (g) of Total Ground Raw Materials Average Weight (g) of 6mm Ground Raw Materials Discard Rate of Total Flaked Raw Materials (no./kg/100 yrs) by Phase Discard Rates of 6mm Flaked Artefacts (no./kg/100 yrs) (MP2, MP5, MP6. HD1, NP20) Average Weight (g) of Total Flaked Raw Materials by Phase Average Weight (g) of 6mm Flaked Artefacts by Phase Discard Weight of Total Ground Raw Materials (g/kg/100 yrs) by Phase Discard Weight of 6mm Ground Raw Materials (g/kg/100 yrs) (MP2, MP5, MP6, HD1, NP20) Average Weight (g) of Total Ground Raw Materials by Phase Average Weight (g) of 6mm Ground Raw Materials by Phase Predictions and Observations of Raw Material Acquisition by Phase Model and Outcomes of Artefact Discard Rates and Reduction Patterns between Phases

Table 5.1 Table 5.2 Table 5.3 Table 5.4 Table 5.5 Table 5.6 Table 5.7 Table 5.8 Table 5.9 Table 5.10 Table 5.11 Table 5.12 Table 5.13 Table 5.14 Table 5.15 Table 5.16 Table 5.17 Table 5.18 Table 5.19 Table 5.20 Table 5.21 Table 5.22 Table 5.23 Table 5.24

Predicted Levels of Mobility and Associated Lithic Strategies by Phase MP2 Number and Percentage of Modified Artefacts MP2 Percentage of Modified Raw Materials MP5 Number and Percentage of Modified Artefacts MP5 Modified Raw Materials (%) MP6 Number and Percentage of Modified Artefacts MP6 Percentage of Modified Raw Materials HD1 Number and Percentage of Modified Artefacts HD1 Percentage of Modified Raw Materials NP19 Number and Percentage of Modified Artefacts NP19 Percentage of Modified Raw Materials NP20 Number and Percentage of Modified Artefacts NP20 Percentage of Modified Raw Materials Number and Percentage of Total Modified Artefacts by Site Number and Percentage of 6mm Modified Artefacts by Site Percentage of Total Modified Raw Materials by Site Distribution of Total Local and Non-Local Modified Raw Materials by Site Percentage of 6mm Modified Raw Materials by Site Distribution of 6mm Local and Non-Local Modified Raw Materials by Site Modification Rate of Total and 6mm Artefacts by Phase Percentage of Total Modified Raw Materials by Phase Percentage of 6mm Modified Raw Materials by Phase Modification Rate of Total and 6mm Local and Non-Local Raw Materials by Phase Number and Weight of Bipolar and Non-Bipolar Cores xii

54 54 54 55 55 56 56 56 56 58 58 58 58 58 59 59 59 60 61 61 61 61 62 63 63 63 64 64 65 65 65 66 66 66 66 66 68 69 72 72 73 73 73 73 74 74 74 74 74 75 75 76 76 76 77 77 77 79 79 79 80 80

Contents Tables Table 5.25 Table 5.26 Table 5.27 Table 5.28 Table 5.29 Table 5.30 Table 5.31 Table 5.32 Table 5.33 Table 5.34 Table 5.35 Table 5.36 Table 5.37 Table 5.38 Table 5.39

Distribution and Average Weight (g) of Cores by Raw Material Adelaide River. Dimensions of Points Dimensions of Leilira Blades Dimensions of Polished Flakes Distribution of Retouched Flakes by Raw Materials Average Weight (g) of Retouched Flakes Number of Ground Implements Dimensions of Grinding Slabs Dimensions of Pestles Weight (g) of Ground Haematite and Ochre Discard Weight (g/kg/100 yrs) of Ground Sandstone Pieces Discard Weight (g/kg/100 yrs) of Ground Quartzite Pieces Ground Implements. Percentage Distribution of Raw Materials by Weight Ground Implements. Distribution of Raw Materials by Weight and Phase Predictions and Observations of Reduction Patterns by Phase

82 82 82 82 82 83 84 85 85 85 87 87 88 88 88

Table 6.1 Table 6.2 Table 6.3 Table 6.4 Table 6.5 Table 6.6 Table 6.7 Table 6.8 Table 6.9 Table 6.10 Table 6.11 Table 6.12 Table 6.13 Table 6.14 Table 6.15 Table 6.16 Table 6.17 Table 6.18 Table 6.19 Table 6.20 Table 6.21 Table 6.22 Table 6.23 Table 6.24 Table 6.25 Table 6.26 Table 6.27 Table 6.28 Table 6.29 Table 6.30 Table 6.31 Table 6.32 Table 6.33 Table 6.34

Predictions of Faunal Distribution by Phase MP2 Distribution of Fauna MP5 Distribution of Fauna MP6 Distribution of Fauna HD1 Distribution of Fauna (6mm) NP19 Distribution of Fauna NP20 Distribution of Fauna Faunal Discard Rate by Site Faunal Discard Rate by Phase MP2 Taxa and Species Abundance (LF=Late Freshwater, EF=Early Freshwater, T=Transition) MP2 Discard Rate of Fauna by Phase (g/kg deposit/100 yrs) MP5 Taxa and Species Abundance (LF=Late Freshwater, EF=Early Freshwater) MP5 Discard Rate of Fauna by Phase (g/kg deposit/100yrs) MP6 Taxa and Species Abundance MP6 Discard Rate of Fauna by Phase (g/kg deposit/100 yrs) HD1 Taxa and Species Abundance (EF=Early Freshwater, T=Transition, BS=Big Swamp) HD1 Discard Rate of Fauna by Phase (g/kg deposit/100 yrs) NP19 Taxa and Species Abundance NP19 Distribution of Fauna by Phase (g/kg/deposit) NP20 Taxa and Species Abundance NP20 Discard Rate of Fauna (g/kg deposit/100 yrs) Discard Rate of Taxa by Site (g/kg deposit/100 yrs) Distribution of Taxa by Phase (g/kg/100 yrs) Distribution of Mammals (g/kg deposit /100 yrs) by Phase Distribution (g/kg deposit/100 years) of Mammal minus Rodent by Phase Bird Distribution (g/kg/100 yrs) by Phase Distribution (g/kg deposit/100 yrs) of Reptiles by Phase Distribution (g/kg deposit/100 yrs) of Rodent and Snake by Phase Distribution of Turtle (g/kg deposit/100 years) by Phase Distribution of Fish (g/kg deposit/100 years) by Phase Distribution of Shell (g/kg deposit/100 years) by Phase Distribution of Floodplains Fauna (g/kg deposit/100 years) by Phase Predictions and Results of Faunal Distribution by Phase Distribution of Humanly Introduced Fauna (g/kg deposit/100 years) by Phase

93 93 93 94 94 95 95 97 97 97 97 98 99 99 99 101 101 101 101 102 102 102 103 103 105 105 105 106 106 106 107 107 107 107

Table 8.1

Sizes of Estuarine Plains and River Catchments (after Woodroffe et al. 1993:271)

123

xiii

Contents

xiv

Contents

Preface

This monograph is an edited version of my PhD thesis. The thesis was submitted to the Northern Territory University (now Charles Darwin University) in 2001 and there are no references post-dating this time. The monograph investigates settlement patterns and mobility strategies on the lower Adelaide River, northern Australia, in the late Holocene period. As earth mounds are the dominant site type in the study area and have a chronology spanning at least 4000 years, they provide an excellent opportunity for research into Aboriginal adaptive strategies in an environment that changed dramatically over the mid to late Holocene period. Earth mounds have been reported from a number of locations in northern Australia, but until now have not been studied intensively. Several themes raised by the literature in relation to earth mounds in both northern and southern Australia will be addressed, including location, morphology, chronology, origins and the role that earth mounds play in wider settlement systems. The earth mounds are located next to the vast floodplains of the Adelaide River, one of the major tropical rivers draining the flat coastal plains of the north. The floodplains of the northern rivers underwent dynamic environmental change from extensive mangrove swamps in the mid Holocene, through a variable estuarine and freshwater mosaic environment c. 3000 years ago, to the freshwater floodplains that are extant today. Geomorphological research into floodplain evolution in northern Australia has provided a framework within which the archaeology can be interpreted. I will argue that the earth mounds represent base camps and that occupation of the floodplain margins has been the major settlement strategy in the region from at least 4000 years ago until the recent past. However, within that time the occupants of the earth mounds have adapted their foraging patterns and altered their mobility strategies according to floodplain conditions.

xv

Contents

xvi

Contents

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank the traditional custodians and members of the Wairuk Association, Humpty Doo, Northern Territory, for granting me permission to undertake the fieldwork and for providing valuable information, assistance and cheerful company in the field; Tony Kenyon, Joan Kenyon, Lena Henry, Felix Holmes, Graham Kenyon, Lynette Hays, Justin Cooper, Cindy Cooper, Caroline Wandi, Stephanie Kenyon, Sammy Fejo, Nowell Kenyon, Brian Kenyon, Rhonda Henry, Dan Hays, and their children and grandchildren. I am grateful to the following organizations for funding, logistical support and access to resources; the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies, Australian Heritage Commission, Coastal Plains Research Station (Northern Territory Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries), North Australia Research Unit (Australian National University), Northern Territory University, Parks and Wildlife Commission of the Northern Territory. Many people gave generously of their time both in the field and the lab; Wendy Asche, Trish Bourke, Lloyd Browne, Darren Cooper, Chris Crassweller, Dr Dung, Margaret Florey, Prue Gaffey, Daryl Guse, Robin Hodgson, Carolyn McLean, Fiona Mowat, Monica Mulrennan, Judy Opitz, Marc Oxenham, Kate Peake, Eva Purvis, Norma Richardson and Marjorie Sullivan. For useful discussions, advice and support, I would like to thank firstly my supervisors Peter Hiscock and Ian Walters, and Annie Clarke without whom I would never have finished; also Kim Akerman, Harry Allen, Jim Allen, Greg Bowen, Chris Chippindale, George Chaloupka, Paul Clark, Barry Cundy, Jeannie Devitt, Pina Guiliani, Richard Fullagar, Denise Gaughwin, Jack Golson, Robin Gregory, Silvano Jung, Lesley Head, Phillip Hughes, Rhys Jones, Jo Kamminga, Robert Levitus, Ian Lilley, Andrew McWilliam, Lesley Mearns, Betty Meehan, Scott Mitchell, Ken Mulvaney, Sue O’Connor, Colin Pardoe, David Ritchie, Jeremy Russell-Smith, Robin Sim, Mike Smith, Natasha Stacey, Steve Sutton, Paul Taçon, Penny Taylor and Margie West. There was a large quantity of faunal remains and some historical material from the sites that needed identification. I am indebted to the following people for their assistance. The shell was identified by Trish Bourke and Fiona Mowat. Ian Walters and Scott Mitchell assisted with the initial faunal identifications. Helen Larson (Curator of Fishes, Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory [MAGNT]) introduced me to the reference collection of northern Australian fishes and helped extensively with identifications. Paul Horner (Curator of Vertebrates) and Dirk Megirian (Curator of Geology and Palaeontology), also of MAGNT, assisted with the identifications of mammals, birds and reptiles. Kim Akerman analysed the bone points and Scott Mitchell identified historic material from one of the North Point sites. Thanks also to the staff of the Waikato Radiocarbon Laboratory for their willing assistance with my dating inquiries; Tom Higham, Alan Hogg and Fiona Petchey. Kay Dancey and Silvano Jung produced the maps. Colin Woodroffe kindly gave permission to reproduce Figures 2.2 and 8.1. I am eternally grateful to Adam Black who has done such a wonderful job with formatting this monograph. And last but not least I would like to acknowledge my family and friends for their constant support and encouragement over the years.

xvii

Contents

xviii

1 Mounds, Mobility and Models

1 Mounds, Mobility and Models

1.1 Introduction The aim of this thesis is to determine the nature of pre-contact settlement patterns and subsistence strategies on the lower Adelaide River (Map 1.1) against the backdrop of the dramatic environmental change that took place on the coastal plains of northern Australia in the mid to late Holocene period. This study is comparable with previous research undertaken on the floodplains of other rivers in the Top End of the Northern Territory of Australia (for example Allen 1996; Allen and Barton 1989; Baker 1981; Bowen 1996; Brockwell 1983; Brockwell 1989; Guse 1992; Guse and Majar 2000; Hiscock 1996; Hiscock et al.1992; Kamminga and Allen 1973; Meehan 1991; Meehan et al. 1985; Schrire 1982; Woodroffe et al. 1988). The Top End is defined as that part of the Northern Territory north of the 15th parallel (Whitehead 1998:5).

Beaton 1985; Bourke 2000; Burns 1994, 1999; Cribb 1986, 1996; Cribb et al. 1988; McCarthy and Setzler 1960; Meehan 1982, 1988, 1991; Mitchell 1993; Mowat 1995; Peterson 1973; Roberts 1991,1994; Sullivan and O’Connor 1993; Veitch 1994, 1999; Warner 1969) and southern Australia (Balme and Beck 1996; Berryman and Frankel 1984; Bonhomme 1990; Buchan 1980; Coutts 1980; Coutts et al. 1976, 1979; Frankel 1991; Klaver 1987, 1990, 1998; Lane 1980; Simmons 1980; Sullivan 1980; Williams 1988, 1994). Most of the studies in northern Australia have tended to be on shell mounds and coastal and estuarine exploitation, although there has been some overlap with earth mound studies and some of the questions associated with them. It seems that in one key way earth and shell mounds are alike in that they are strategically located at the junction of resources (Rowland 1994:147). This chapter will review investigations into earth mounds in southern and northern Australia and identify themes concerning their role in settlement strategies that will be addressed by the Adelaide River study.

Previous surveys on the floodplain margins of the lower Adelaide River (Brockwell 1996c; Schrire 1968; Smith 1981a) revealed that the majority of sites located in the area are earth mounds. As stratified sites, earth mounds provide a unique opportunity to investigate settlement patterns and subsistence strategies as they can be linked chronologically to the evolution of the coastal plains of northern Australia. Previously such investigations have been limited mainly to rockshelters in western Arnhem Land. Earth mounds are a common archaeological feature of the northern Australian coastal plains. However, there is so far little known about them in the Northern Territory, although they have been reported from several areas as an adjunct to other research (Baker 1981, Meehan 1988, 1991; Peterson 1973). In 1981 and 1983, I conducted research into large open sites on the floodplain margins of the South Alligator River in Kakadu. These investigations revealed that earth mounds were a common feature of the area which, it was hypothesised, played a seasonal role in prehistoric Aboriginal adaptive strategies of the region (Brockwell 1983, 1989; Meehan et al. 1985). The current inquiry has provided an opportunity to undertake an integrated regional study of northern Australian earth mounds, as well as to test hypotheses generated by the Kakadu research and to extend investigations of other types of open sites in the lower Adelaide River area. Such studies also have the potential to address broader themes derived from Holocene research elsewhere in Australia, such as the role of mounds in Aboriginal settlement strategies and, in particular, hunter-gatherer mobility in an environment which changed dramatically through the mid to late Holocene. There have been numerous studies of mound sites, both in northern (cf. Baker 1981; Bailey 1975, 1977, 1994, 1999;

1.2 Earth Mounds in Southern Australia In southern Australia there have been a number of specific studies of earth mounds and their role in settlement and subsistence strategies. These studies have identified a number of themes including location, morphology, chronology, function and seasonality that are relevant to an investigation of earth mounds in northern Australia. Below I will review the evidence from southern Australia. Western Victoria In a survey of the Western District of Victoria, Coutts et al. (1976:13,19) located 207 mounds, mostly near creeks, rivers, lakes and seasonally inundated land. Of these 75% were situated on natural rises (Coutts et al. 1976:12). The study area has a large number of swamps and lakes that attract large numbers of birds (Coutts et al. 1976:9). Most of the mounds were located at the junction of resource zones, including woodland and grassland as well as swamps, close to water bodies, many following the line of the Hopkins River which flows through the area. About 45% of mounds were grouped mostly in pairs but in groups of up to six within a radius of 500 m (Coutts et al. 1976:12-13, 19-20). The dimensions of the mounds are listed in Table 1.1. They are mostly circular in shape and contain black soil with charcoal and flakes (Coutts et al. 1976:19). 1

1 Mounds, Mobility and Models

Map 1.1 Location Map of Northern Australia

In the VAS survey of western Victoria, two of the mounds were excavated but not dated. They were found to contain stone arrangements, tentatively identified as fireplaces, human burials, stone artefacts, and faunal remains of freshwater mussels and crayfish, snakes, lizards, emu egg shell, birds, marsupials such as quolls, bandicoots, wallabies, kangaroos, swamp and other rats, rabbits, and dingoes (Coutts et al. 1976:20-38; Table 4). It was concluded that the mounds represent a diverse range of activities including food preparation and cooking, artefact manufacture and represent seasonal base camps, located strategically close to water sources and a range of environmental zones (Coutts et al. 1976:42-43).

hearths. The small amount of bone was too fragmented to be analyzed. Stone artefacts were made mainly from quartz with some flint, all of which were imported from 30-50 km away, and were manufactured in situ. There were two greenstone axes made from local material but not manufactured at the site. One mound was dated to c. 2000 years BP and the other to c. 1000 years BP. Williams concluded that the variety of activities carried out on the excavated mounds indicated that they were base camps, and the mound cluster was probably the remains of a village. Excavations in other areas revealed mounds used as ovens and general camping areas (Williams 1988:169, 206). She concluded that mound function as determined by the archaeological and geomorphological investigations confirmed the ethnographic observations (1988:163).

Williams (1988) investigated earth mound sites in southwestern Victoria in former swamp (many have been drained by farmers) and river country. She selected the field sites because earth mound sites were common and there was ethnographic information concerning their use at contact (1994:162). She defined three classes of mounds: mounds used as the basis for shelters, mounds used as ovens, and mounds used as general living areas; or a combination of all three classes as integrated settlements/base camps (1988:72-75; 1994:163). The mounds were oval or round in shape. They ranged in size from small and low (three metres in diameter and 0.3 m in height) to large and high (more than 30 m in diameter and two metres in height). The smaller mounds were more common, ranging in size from 5-15 m in diameter (Williams 1994:163). At Caramut, she excavated two mounds and found that the mounds had been artificially built up in the top levels but not in the bottom layers which may mean that the mounds were located on natural rises (1988:72-135). Patches of wood and charcoal were interpreted as the remains of hut structures and

Murray River Coutts et al. (1979:15) located 122 mounds in the Nyah Forest in the Murray Valley. They were mostly less than 20 m in diameter and about 30 cm high, though there were exceptions that were larger. Coutts et al. defined two types based on survey and excavation. Type A was smaller, uniform in composition, and contained burnt clay pellets, charcoal and sediment (1979:15,54). The upper layers of Type B contained the same materials as Type A with the addition of the remains of freshwater mussel and other fauna. The lower levels were more compact and contained higher concentrations of burnt clay and charcoal, and less stone and fauna (Coutts et al. 1979:15,52-54). They found the Type B mounds to be comparable with those in western Victoria, except that the Murray mounds lacked the activity areas found on mounds in western Victoria (1979:87). Other results from Lake Tyrrell indicate that no mounds were found outside of the Murray 2

1 Mounds, Mobility and Models River floodplains suggesting that they were an adaptation to a regime of seasonal flooding (Coutts 1980:23).

his Murray River survey Simmons (1980:64-65) defined two types of mounds based on morphology and location. The first type were large isolated mounds with clearly defined boundaries measuring between 30 to 40 m in diameter and up to 0.75 m high, located on levees along the river. He described this type as being similar to ‘Type B’ mounds described by Coutts et al. (1979:15) for the Nyah Forest. The second type was found in clusters on promontories on the edge of the floodplain and is generally smaller than the isolated mounds. In Area B the mounds were located on the margins of lakes and alluvial flats. They were relatively small being between 10 to 25 m in diameter and 0.2 to 0.6 m high, full of burnt clay pellets (Simmons 1980:69-70). None of the mounds in Simmons’ Murray River survey were excavated and contents were judged from surface remains (1980:73). The mounds were made up of a matrix of dark silty soil, and contained numerous burnt clay nodules, charcoal, bone, egg shell and the remains of freshwater mussels and crayfish confirming their cultural origins (Simmons 1980:63-64,73-78). Stone artefacts were rare. Most were found on only two mounds in an atypical location on the red mallee sands high above the water. Simmons (1980:76) interpreted these sites as seasonal base camps. He assumed that the burnt clay pellets associated with the Area B mounds were used in cooking (1980:69-70). He concluded that ‘[t]he distributions of mounds, isolated finds, hearths, shell middens, scarred trees and burials found in close association with the floodplains, anabranches and lake systems clearly indicate the importance of aquatic resources and lake systems in local Aboriginal economies. Further, the high density of sites, the contents of the mounds, and in some cases their enormous volumes, indicate that these resources had been used for a long time’ (1980:83).

In the Murray Valley Coutts et al. (1979:30) excavated three sites. DP/1, a Type B site, is a large mound, measuring 50 m by one metre, is located on a slight rise on the floodplains of the Murray River and becomes an island during floods. It is badly disturbed in its upper layers by rabbits, rabbit trappers, and soil removal for market gardens. It contains burnt clay, charcoal, a few sparse faunal remains of freshwater shellfish, emu egg shell, fish, rats, frogs, reptiles, macropods and birds, a lot of which was burnt. There were also a very few stone, bone and shell artefacts. The chert that was present came from a source over 100 km away. Several burials were recovered (Coutts et al. 1979:33, 57). The site was dated to 1375±130 years BP. They conclude from the scarcity of the remains that the site was occupied only intermittently (1979:57). DP/2 and DP/3, Type A sites, were low-level mounds located on a levee and an anabranch respectively. The clay loam matrices at both sites contained burnt clay fragments and charcoal throughout but no stone artefacts or faunal remains (Coutts et al. 1979:3638). They concluded that the upper levels of DP/1 represent a seasonally occupied site built up on a base of cooking mound (1979:82). The limited faunal evidence indicates that the diet was composed of mainly aquatic species with a few land animals. On this basis, it was concluded that DP/1 was probably occupied post flood in spring and summer. On the other hand they interpret DP/2 and DP/3 as the build-up of rake-outs of cooking mounds (1979:84-85). VAS continued a series of surveys in the Murray Valley in 1978-79 that tended to confirm previous results regarding mound sites (Coutts 1980). Three major excavations and three test pits were undertaken. Once again, on the same criteria, mounds were found to be either of Type A or Type B, or natural in origin (see below) (Coutts 1980:31-36). One mound, located on the margin of the floodplains, appeared to be a Type B site but also contained a rich faunal assemblage and an edge-ground axe. It was identified as a Type C site, and interpreted to be a base camp used to exploit the area during floods (Coutts 1980:36).

Lane (1980) conducted a survey of archaeological sites along the Little Murray River. She located 81 mounds associated with water bodies conveniently located to exploit fresh water swamp resources. The average height of the mounds on the Little Murray River was 30 cm. As most of them were highly disturbed by farming activities, Lane (1980:115) commented that they were probably originally higher, perhaps up to one metre. They had an area of between 80 and 1300 m2 and 75% were less than 500 m2, comparable in size to the Nyah Forest sites. She confirmed Coutts et al.’s (1979:15) analysis of two site types distinguishable according to mound size and distribution: one type with few large mounds; the other with many small mounds (1980:115). Lane (1980) did not date or excavate any of the mounds located on the Little Murray River. The only remains found on the surface were freshwater shellfish. Lane (1980:116) interpreted the mounds as ovens and campsites and said they were unlikely to have been occupied during flood times (winter) when they would have been inundated.

In the Murray Valley, Sullivan (1980) defined the environmental location of the two types of mound. ‘Compact’ mounds [Type A] containing virtually no cultural material except burnt clay occur on low rises, such as eroded levees, low discontinuous levee deposits or sandy hummocks on the backplain of tributary streams within the Murray floodplain. ‘Soft’ mounds [Type B] containing shell, bone, stone and burnt clay in a dispersed silty matrix occur on prominent rises such as distinct levees and sand hummocks, or on top of the lower ‘compact’ mounds. Soft mounds are also concentrated towards the Murray River, e.g. along tributary streams and on the sides of floodplain lakes nearest the Murray channel’ (1980:54).

Buchan (1980) conducted a survey at Lake Coomeroop and nearby areas in the Murray Valley, southern New South Wales, where she located a number of mounds associated with the lake, along a creek connecting the lake to the river, and along the Murray River itself. The mounds fell into two site types: large mounds with dark silty soil containing baked clay pellets, charcoal, freshwater mussel and other faunal remains; and low circular mounds containing baked clay pellets and sometimes freshwater mussel shell (Buchan 1980:46-47). She highlighted the difficulty of determining whether the mounds

Surveys in New South Wales by Simmons (1980) covered two areas of the Murray River floodplains and terraces. Survey Area A was around the mouth of Speewa Creek, from Lake Jilleroo to Tooley Landing. Survey Area B covered a system of lakes and channels between the Murray River near Nyah 20 km north to the Wakool River. Among other site types the surveys revealed the existence of 75 mound sites, 16 in Area A and 59 in Area B (Simmons 1980:63). In Area A of 3

1 Mounds, Mobility and Models are natural or cultural in origin, especially those that contain material that is not unequivocally cultural, like the low circular mounds (1980:47). In order to address this problem, Sullivan and Buchan (1980) conducted a series of test excavations and augers on eight sites that had been identified previously as archaeological. Three of these mounds were unequivocally Aboriginal in origin and provided a benchmark for the others (Sullivan and Buchan 1980:89). They concluded that of those mounds containing only burnt clay pellets and charcoal, the cultural mounds have dark, compact matrices and are steepsided and flat bottomed (1980:96-97). Otherwise there was a continuum between natural (often the result of burnt tree stumps) and cultural mounds, and detailed investigation is required to identify the differences.

of the flood the small islands formed by the mounds could still be reached by bark canoes, providing a base for exploiting the area even when the main campsites had moved to the edge of the floodwater’ (1991:82). Central Murrumbidgee Riverine Plain In a regional survey of the central Murrumbidgee riverine plain Klaver (1998) recorded a total of 581 sites, of which 311 were mounds (Klaver 1998:245). Mounds were defined as being comprised of a number of different components including ovens, heat retainers, hearths and occupation floors (Klaver 1998:132-35). They mainly occurred in alluvial valley plains containing riverine and creek corridors (Klaver 1998:258). They were found in association with other site types such as small ovens, artefact scatters, middens, hearths and scarred trees but Klaver pointed out that only the upper exposed parts of the mounds could be considered contemporary with the surface sites (Klaver 1998:262). She subsequently excavated four mounds, two small ovens and a shell midden (1998:143). The mounds contained few stone artefacts or faunal remains apart from some turtle carapace, degraded mussel shell, bird, marsupial mouse and unidentifiable burnt fragments of bone. They were mainly composed of burnt clay heat retainers, oven pits and sediment sometimes containing ash and carbon (Klaver 1998:172-73, 176, 179, 181, 217). One oven pit was lined with a sheet of bark that she suggested was one explanation of scarred trees in the vicinity (1998:172). She obtained a suite of dates from the sites ranging from 2890±90 years BP to 390±70 years BP. She concluded that the mounds were all originally ovens but two of the larger sites containing ‘diverse domestic residues’ represented base camps, probably used seasonally during the summer months (Klaver 1998:279, 284).

Berryman and Frankel (1984; Frankel 1991) and Bonhomme (1990) surveyed the Wakool River and the Barmah Forest respectively in the Murray Valley. Both studies surveyed a number of different landforms, including sand dunes, river/ creek margins, swamp/floodplain margins and plains. Mounds were found associated with the floodplains/swamps, lagoons, and creeks and river, with the majority located next to swamps (Berryman and Frankel 1984:23-25; Bonhomme 1990:53-56). Their dimensions are listed in Table 1.1. In the Barmah Forest the largest mounds were associated with lagoons that hold water for a long time, and are located near to swamps (Bonhomme 1990:62). Some stone (quartz) artefacts and shell (freshwater mussel) were found on the surface of the mounds in the Barmah Forest (Bonhomme 1990:73,76). The quartz consistently showed bipolar working on both flakes and cores, a feature that Hiscock (1996) suggests may be indicative of sedentary behaviour. Bonhomme (1990:83) concluded that the mounds served a variety of functions including as processing sites, ovens and base camps. Bonhomme (1990:8485) also concluded that ‘the abundance and stability of the resources may have encouraged a semi-sedentary lifestyle, especially during the last 2000 years. In addition there are descriptions of vigorous ceremonial and trading activity along the Murray river, and more particularly around the Barmah area and the junction of the Goulburn and the Murray River.’

Macquarie Marshes Balme and Beck (1996) discussed 63 mounds located in the Macquarie Marshes area of the Macquarie River, New South Wales. These mounds were all situated on seasonally inundated fluvial sediments, never on higher ground or ground that was perennially wet or flooded only in peak rainfall years (Balme and Beck 1996:40). They were described as being roughly circular or oval in shape and their dimensions are listed in Table 1.1.

Berryman and Frankel (1984) excavated three mounds on the Wakool River and found nothing apart from some minute fragments of bone and shell, and clay balls used in ovens. The mounds were dated using carbon 14 and thermoluminescence (TL) on charcoal and burnt clay samples respectively and were found to be from 2753-2612 years CALBP (Downey and Frankel 1992:35). Because of the lack of finds, Berryman and Frankel (1984; Frankel 1991:80) were able only to guess at mound function, suggesting that the mound containing clay balls was an oven while the larger mounds were campsites. This interesting interpretation was based on mound size vis-à-vis location. The larger mounds were located adjacent to waterholes with permanent water, just as Bonhomme (1990:83) found in the Barmah Forest. Frankel (1991:80-82) suggested that this correlation exists because when swamps are full people can camp anywhere. However when swamps dry up in the summer, the population would be concentrated next to permanent water. He concluded that ‘mound placement reflects water levels and presumably access to other resources such as fish, shellfish and yabbies in the river and waterholes and plant foods in the surrounding areas…During the height

The mounds were not excavated. Burnt clay was littered on the surfaces. There was no bone found, but wetlands exploitation was indicated as there was shell found on top of one mound and a yabbie carapace on another. There were stone artefacts on only five mounds as little suitable local stone for flaking was available. An augur sample revealed that the deposit was fairly uniform dark grey sediment with charcoal and burnt clay throughout. A date of c. 1000 years BP was obtained from the base (Balme and Beck 1996:40-42). Comparing these mounds to analogous evidence from Papua New Guinea, Balme and Beck (1986:48) speculated that mounds in south eastern Australia were originally built up for use as gardens to grow tubers to support semi-sedentary populations. The burnt clay in the sites they interpreted as the result of burning to clear the sites for gardens rather than as oven debris (Balme and Beck (1996:45). This hypothesis is difficult to test archaeologically as the tuber in question, daisy yam, does not appear to yield phytoliths, which would provide evidence of the presence of the garden species at the sites (Boyd and Lynch 1996:50). 4

1 Mounds, Mobility and Models

Macquarie Marshes (central NSW)

No.

Diameter (m) R=range

63

13.7 (R=3-70)

0.15-0.76

43.1

Balme and Beck (1996)

0.7

36.1

Klaver 1988

Cooey Point, Murrumbidgee River

103

11.5

Murray

874

20.4 (R=1-150)

Nyah Forest (Murray Valley)

122