One archaeologist's midden is another's shell mound - vanessa ...
One archaeologist's midden is another's shell mound - vanessa ...
One archaeologist's midden is another's shell mound - vanessa ...
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
<strong>One</strong> archaeolog<strong>is</strong>t’s <strong>midden</strong> <strong>is</strong> another’s <strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong>: Defining the<br />
criteria for describing and classifing <strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong>s.<br />
Vanessa M.C. Alexander<br />
A thes<strong>is</strong> submitted in part fulfillment<br />
of the requirements for the degree of<br />
Bachelor of Arts with Honours in the<br />
Department of Archaeology,<br />
University of Sydney.<br />
October 2009<br />
1
The work presented in th<strong>is</strong> thes<strong>is</strong> <strong>is</strong>, to the best of my knowledge<br />
and belief, original except as acknowledged in the text. The<br />
material has not been previously submitted, either in whole or in<br />
part of, for a degree at th<strong>is</strong> or any other university.<br />
V.M.C Alexander<br />
October 2009<br />
Sydney, Australia<br />
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS<br />
Page<br />
Table of Contents…………………………………………………………………….. 2<br />
Appendix………………………………………………………………………………117<br />
L<strong>is</strong>t of Figures …………………………………………………………………………6<br />
L<strong>is</strong>t of Tables…………………………………………………………………………..19<br />
References Cited……………………………………………………………………....179<br />
Abstract………………………………………………………………………………...11<br />
Acknowledgments………………………………………………………………… …12<br />
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION TO RESEARCH<br />
Shell <strong>midden</strong>s and coastal archaeology……………………………………..13<br />
Research aims………………………………….……………………………….14<br />
The Blue Mud Bay Project………………………………………………..…...15<br />
Research Rationale..…………………………………………………………....15<br />
Research methodology………………………………………………………...16<br />
Thes<strong>is</strong> organization…………………………………………………………….17<br />
CHAPTER 2. SHELL MOUNDS IN AUSTRALIAN ARCHAEOLOGICAL<br />
RESEARCH<br />
Introduction……………………………………………………………………..19<br />
H<strong>is</strong>tory of research……………………………………………………………...20<br />
The investigation of the Dan<strong>is</strong>h <strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong>s in the 1860s…………..….20.<br />
Australian coastal archaeology an introduction……………………….…22<br />
Models for understanding Holocene coastal sites………………………...23<br />
Current research themes in Australian coastal archaeology……………..24<br />
Case studies…………………………………………………..…………...……..25<br />
Queensland……………………………………………………………….25<br />
Northern Territory………………………………………………………..27<br />
New South Wales…………………………………………………………29<br />
Western Australia……………………………………………………… 32<br />
Conclusion……………………………………………………………………….38<br />
CHAPTER 3. POINT BLANE PENINSULA, BLUE MUD BAY AND BMB/116<br />
Introduction………………………………………………………………………………39<br />
Location…………………………………………………………………………………...40<br />
Climate…………………………………………………………………………………….41<br />
The Wet Season…………………………………………………………………….41<br />
The Dry Season…………………………………………………………………….42<br />
3
Indigenous Seasons……………………………………………………………… 43<br />
The Point Blane Peninsula Palaeoenviroment…………………………………... 43<br />
Hydrology………………………………………………………………….…………… 45<br />
Geology & Soils………………………………………………………………………… 46<br />
Flora…………….……………………………………………………………………….. 47<br />
Fauna ………………….………………………………………………………………… 50<br />
BMB/116…………………………………………………………………………………. 53<br />
Project survey and excavation parameters……………………………………53<br />
Lumatjpi…………………………………………………………………………..53<br />
BMB/116…………..………………………………………………………………54<br />
Stratigraphy……………………………………………………………………....57<br />
Age……………………………………………………………………………….. 58<br />
Conclusion………………………………………………………………………………..59<br />
CHAPTER 4. DEFINING THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MOUNDED AND<br />
NON‐MOUNDED FORMS OF SHELL MIDDENS<br />
Introduction……………………………………………………………………………... 61<br />
Shell <strong>mound</strong> or <strong>shell</strong> <strong>midden</strong>‐why does it matter?.....…………………..……………61<br />
The source of the problem………………………………………………………………62<br />
Shell <strong>mound</strong>s or <strong>shell</strong> <strong>midden</strong>‐what <strong>is</strong> the difference?......…………………………..65<br />
Characterizing attributes of <strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong>s…………………………………………66<br />
Analys<strong>is</strong> of research data…………………………………………………………..67<br />
Describing <strong>mound</strong>ed and non‐<strong>mound</strong>ed <strong>shell</strong> <strong>midden</strong>s…………………………… 69<br />
Midden form attributes………………………………………………………………….70<br />
Definition: Criteria for describing and classifing <strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong>s…………………….72<br />
Definition d<strong>is</strong>cussion………………………………………………………………72<br />
Anthropological and naturally occurring <strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong>s……………………………..74<br />
Recording <strong>shell</strong> <strong>midden</strong>s in the field………….……………………..………...…...... 75<br />
Images of <strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong> profiles…………………………………………………………76<br />
Conclusions……………………………………………………………………………….78<br />
CHAPTER 5. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY<br />
Introduction……………………………………………………………………………. ..79<br />
Sampling………………………………………………………………………………….79<br />
Laboratory methods……………………………………………………………………. 80<br />
Analys<strong>is</strong> of molluscan remains for calculating MNI……………………………...81<br />
Analys<strong>is</strong> of non molluscan remains……………………………………………… 84<br />
Shell analys<strong>is</strong>……………………………………………………………………... 84<br />
Methodology for <strong>shell</strong> analys<strong>is</strong>: Reviews and implications…………………………86<br />
Number of identified specimens (NISP)…………………………………………..86<br />
4
Minimum number if individuals (MNI)…………………………………………..86<br />
Weight……………………………………………………………………………...87<br />
Summary of <strong>shell</strong> analys<strong>is</strong> methodology…………………………………………...87<br />
Field Data……………………………………………………………………………… ...88<br />
Conclusion………………………………………………………………………………..88<br />
CHAPTER 6. BMB/115 SITE DESCRIPTION, RESULTS AND<br />
INTERPRETATIONS<br />
Introduction…………………………………………………………………….………. 89<br />
The faunal assemblage: Marine <strong>shell</strong> remains………………………………………. 89<br />
Species diversity………………………………………………………………………... 90<br />
Dominate species……………………………………………………………………….. 93<br />
Shellf<strong>is</strong>h habitat…………………………………………………………………………. 96<br />
Summary and interpretations…………..……………………………………………... 98<br />
The origin of BMB/116: Cultural or natural? ……………………………………… ..100<br />
BMB/116 formation and occupation pattern………….……………………… …... 102<br />
Resource procurement strategies……………………………………………………...104<br />
BMB/84: A compar<strong>is</strong>on to BMB/116……………………………………………....... 105<br />
A review of <strong>mound</strong> site data on Point Blane peninsula…………………………….108<br />
BMB/116: Mound or <strong>midden</strong>? ………………………… ………………………… …109<br />
Conclusions……………………………………………………………………………...110<br />
CHAPTER 7. CONCLUSION, IMPLICATIONS AND<br />
FUTURE RESEARCH<br />
Conclusions……………………………………………………………………………...112<br />
Implications……………………….…………………………………………...………. 114<br />
Future research…………………………………...……………………………………..114<br />
APPENDIX 1…………………………………………………………………………….117<br />
1.1 Shell <strong>mound</strong> attribute research data<br />
1.2 Shell <strong>midden</strong> terminology research data<br />
1.3 Shell <strong>midden</strong> and <strong>mound</strong> dimensions research data<br />
APPENDIX 2…………………………………………………………………………….127<br />
2.1 Laboratory recording form Mollusc analys<strong>is</strong><br />
2.2 Laboratory recording form Non‐mollusc analys<strong>is</strong><br />
2.3 Recording form <strong>mound</strong> formation analys<strong>is</strong><br />
APPENDIX 3<br />
3.1 Laboratory recorded data: Shellf<strong>is</strong>h analys<strong>is</strong> excavation units 1‐12…………...135<br />
APPENDIX 4…………………………………………………………………………….160<br />
5
4.1 Laboratory recorded data: Non‐mollusc analys<strong>is</strong><br />
APPENDIX 5……………………………………………………………………………162<br />
5.1 Mound formation data analys<strong>is</strong><br />
APPPENDIX 6……………………………………………………………………..……166<br />
6.1 Shellf<strong>is</strong>h frequency analys<strong>is</strong> as a % of excavation units<br />
APPENDIX 7 ……………………………………………………………..…………….168<br />
7.1 Criteria for assessing <strong>shell</strong>f<strong>is</strong>h deposits<br />
APPENDIX 8……………………………………………………..……………………..170<br />
8.1 Point Blane peninsula <strong>mound</strong> dimension data<br />
APPENDIX 9………………………………………………………………………..…..174<br />
9.1 Field recording form for <strong>shell</strong> <strong>midden</strong>s<br />
REFERENCES CITED…………………………………………………………………..178<br />
6
LIST OF FIGURES<br />
Figure Short Title Page<br />
2.1 Map of Blue Mud Bay Arnhem Land (Alexander 2009).<br />
21<br />
2.2<br />
2.3<br />
2.4<br />
2.5<br />
3.1<br />
3.2<br />
3.3<br />
3.4<br />
3.5<br />
3.6<br />
3.7<br />
3.8<br />
The tumuli of Oden, Thor, and Freyda at Upsala Denmark (Lubbock<br />
1865).<br />
Map of northeast Australia showing Weipa’s principal <strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong><br />
sites (Bailey 1999:106).<br />
A Richmond River <strong>mound</strong> 1892 (Statham 1892: Plate IX).<br />
Map of Western Australian coastline with regions names in text<br />
(O’Connor 1996:166).<br />
Map of Blue Mud Bay region Arnhem Land (Faulkner 2006: 23).<br />
Map of northeastern Arnhem Land region, location of study area and<br />
Yolngu group boundary.<br />
Map showing the location of Point Blane peninsula and Grove Airport<br />
Bureau of Meteorology weather station (Bureau of Meteorology 2009).<br />
Seasonal weather table for Grove Airport N.T clearly illustrating Wet<br />
and Dry season rainfall (Bureau of Meteorology : Fairfax Media)<br />
Human initiated seasonal bush fires on Point Blane peninsula Blue<br />
Mud Bay (Photograph Clarke 2003)<br />
Mud Flats and <strong>midden</strong> site Point Blane peninsula (photograph Clarke<br />
2003).<br />
The hydrology of the Point Blane peninsula and neighboring areas,<br />
showing major river and creek catchment systems (Faulkner 2006:47)<br />
Aerial view of Lumatjpi inlet showing the five main vegetation units.<br />
(Google Earth 2009 & Alexander 2009).<br />
22<br />
26<br />
32<br />
34<br />
40<br />
41<br />
42<br />
43<br />
44<br />
45<br />
47<br />
51<br />
7
3.9<br />
3.10<br />
3.11<br />
3.12<br />
3.13<br />
3.14<br />
4.1<br />
4.2<br />
4.3<br />
4.4<br />
4.5<br />
4.6<br />
4.7<br />
4.8<br />
Areal view of Lumatjpi Inlet showing the location of the nine sites in<br />
the inlet including BMB/116 and BMB/84 ( Google Earth 2009 and<br />
Alexander 2009).<br />
Survey sketch of BMB/116 site location prior to excavation (Clarke<br />
2003).<br />
Cross‐section of BMB/116 (Clarke and Faulkner 2003: 72).<br />
Contour plan of BMB/116 (Clarke and Faulkner 2003:72).<br />
Location of quartzite artefacts across the Point Blane peninsula, with<br />
two km (thin line) and four km (thick line) radius intervals from<br />
quartzitic outcrop (Faulkner 2006:100).<br />
Stratigraphic profile of BMB/116, south section also showing<br />
approximate location of samples taken for radiocarbon dating (Clarke<br />
and Faulkner 2003:72).<br />
Shell <strong>mound</strong> on Point Blane peninsula (Photograph Clarke 2003)<br />
The West Point <strong>shell</strong> <strong>midden</strong> Tasmania excavated by Jones (1966) the<br />
site <strong>is</strong> 2.50m deep and dated 1,800‐1,200 BP.<br />
Two photographs of <strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong> sites on the Point Blane peninsula<br />
illustrate the complexities of identifying sites in the field (Photographs<br />
Clarke 2003).<br />
A 7m high conical Anadara <strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong> located on a laterite ridge<br />
approximately 1000m from the current coast at Hope Inlet near<br />
Darwin (H<strong>is</strong>cock 2008:177).<br />
Shell <strong>mound</strong> located on the mudflats Point Blane peninsula<br />
(Photograph Clarke 2003).<br />
Hancock Ridge NT a hemi‐spherical <strong>mound</strong>, and second <strong>mound</strong> with<br />
two phase formation a hemi‐spherical lower <strong>mound</strong> & conical <strong>mound</strong><br />
atop (H<strong>is</strong>cock & Hughes 2001).<br />
Weipa QLD a conical Anadara <strong>mound</strong> (Ir<strong>is</strong>h 2009).<br />
Hope Inlet NT conical Anadara <strong>mound</strong> (H<strong>is</strong>cock 2008:176).<br />
55<br />
56<br />
56<br />
57<br />
58<br />
59<br />
59<br />
64<br />
66<br />
67<br />
74<br />
77<br />
77<br />
77<br />
8
4.9<br />
4.10<br />
5.1<br />
5.2<br />
5.3<br />
5.4<br />
6.1<br />
6.2<br />
Ballina NSW, Richmond River hemi‐spherical oyster <strong>mound</strong> (Statham<br />
1892).<br />
Weipa 1958 Anadara <strong>mound</strong> photo from National Archives of<br />
Australia.<br />
Shell reference collection establ<strong>is</strong>hed for th<strong>is</strong> study. Species were<br />
identified in excavated remains from BMB/116 Point Blane peninsula.<br />
Three typical bivalve <strong>shell</strong>s all left halves, shown from the inner side.<br />
Note position on umbo used for calculating MNI.<br />
A Nerita s.p. gastropod with mouth area highlighted used for<br />
calculating MNI.<br />
Oyster lid and base both used for calculating MNI (The Australia<br />
Museum 2009).<br />
Profile of a typical eroded rocky foreshore in north‐western Australia<br />
showing the different levels at which various species of molluscs live<br />
(Wilson 2008:19).<br />
Diagram of a typical Australia estuarine tidal zone, illustrating context<br />
of the mangrove environment found in the Lumatjpi inlet (Australian<br />
Government, Geosciences Australia 2009).<br />
77<br />
78<br />
81<br />
83<br />
84<br />
84<br />
93<br />
105<br />
9
LIST OF TABLES<br />
Table Short title Page<br />
2.1 Research themes in Australian coastal archaeology.<br />
25<br />
2.2<br />
3.1<br />
3.2<br />
3.3<br />
3.4<br />
3.5<br />
4.1<br />
4.2<br />
4.3<br />
4.4<br />
4.5<br />
5.1<br />
6.1<br />
6.2<br />
Table of Western Australia sites as of 1999 (O’Connor 1996).<br />
Soil province profiles (after Haines et al. 1999:77 cited by Faulkner<br />
2006:28).<br />
Main vegetation units found in the Lumatjpi inlet (Brock 2001; Spect<br />
1958; Wilson et al 1990; Yunupingu et al 1995, cited by Clarke and<br />
Faulkner 2003:26).<br />
Range of fauna found on the Point Blane peninsula (Faulkner 2006:52).<br />
Wild flora and fauna resources accessed by the Yilpara community in<br />
2002 (Barber 2002:20‐37).<br />
Radiocarbon Estimates<br />
Sites mapped at Winnellie by Burns (1999).<br />
Summary of data: Attributes of <strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong>s in W.A; N.T;<br />
Qld; and N.S.W.<br />
Survey results for <strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong> terminologies (all references Appendix<br />
2).<br />
Shell <strong>midden</strong> form attributes (Sullivan 1989:51).<br />
Redefined <strong>midden</strong> terminologies & definitions after Roberts (1994:180)<br />
expanded by Alexander (2009).<br />
Shellf<strong>is</strong>h species identified in BMB/116 (Carter and Clarke 2009<br />
personal comments).<br />
Shellf<strong>is</strong>h species identified in each excavation unit BMB/116.<br />
Commonly recorded <strong>shell</strong>f<strong>is</strong>h species in sites across the Point Blane<br />
peninsula and BMB/116.<br />
35<br />
48<br />
49<br />
52<br />
53<br />
59<br />
64<br />
67<br />
71<br />
72<br />
75<br />
82<br />
91<br />
92<br />
10
6.3<br />
6.4<br />
6.5<br />
6.6<br />
6.7<br />
6.8<br />
6.9<br />
Dominant <strong>shell</strong>f<strong>is</strong>h species in each excavation unit BMB/116.<br />
Second dominant <strong>shell</strong>f<strong>is</strong>h species in each excavation unit BMB/116.<br />
Shellf<strong>is</strong>h and their habitat identified in BMB/116 faunal assemblage.<br />
Shellf<strong>is</strong>h weight by habitat calculated as a % across excavation units.<br />
Shellf<strong>is</strong>h habitat analysed as % of upper and lower sections of<br />
BMB/116.<br />
Data for site classification analys<strong>is</strong>. Based on site recording form<br />
(Appendix 1 Doc 6).<br />
Compar<strong>is</strong>on of Physical Features of BMB / 116 and BMB / 184<br />
93<br />
95<br />
96<br />
97<br />
98<br />
99<br />
108<br />
11
THESIS ABSTRACT<br />
Archaeological <strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong>s are well known features of Australiaʹs<br />
coastal landscape. Th<strong>is</strong> descriptive term automatically conjures images<br />
of conspicuous and highly d<strong>is</strong>tingu<strong>is</strong>hable <strong>shell</strong> deposits. A <strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong> BMB/116<br />
located in Blue Mud Bay Arnhem Land demonstrated anomalies in <strong>shell</strong>f<strong>is</strong>h<br />
species, age range and location from those traditional associated with northern<br />
Australian <strong>mound</strong> sites. The examination of these anomalies <strong>is</strong> the subject of th<strong>is</strong><br />
study. The study begins with a comprehensive review of Australian archaeological<br />
literature which revealed that the criteria for differentiating between <strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong>s<br />
and <strong>shell</strong> <strong>midden</strong>s are unclear and confused. The v<strong>is</strong>ual prominence of <strong>shell</strong><br />
<strong>mound</strong>s suggested the ex<strong>is</strong>tence of clear identification criteria for d<strong>is</strong>tingu<strong>is</strong>hing<br />
these archaeological deposits from other non‐<strong>mound</strong>ed <strong>shell</strong> deposits, such as <strong>shell</strong><br />
<strong>midden</strong>s. The establ<strong>is</strong>hment of criteria <strong>is</strong> important as cons<strong>is</strong>tency in the<br />
classification of sites <strong>is</strong> the most direct way to understand variation in the<br />
archaeological record. The first research aim examined the range of <strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong><br />
characterizing attributes including <strong>shell</strong>f<strong>is</strong>h species and age. Then the current<br />
ambiguities in ex<strong>is</strong>ting definitions of <strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong>s <strong>is</strong> examined and proposes new<br />
criteria for identifying <strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong>s in the field. The second research aim<br />
examines BMB116 in detail and places the sites characterizing attributes within the<br />
context of the identified range of <strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong> attributes. I will then apply the new<br />
criteria for classifing <strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong>s to the site.<br />
12
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS<br />
There are three people who must be thanked for their contribution to the research<br />
and writing of th<strong>is</strong> thes<strong>is</strong>. First thanks are to Dr Annie Clarke (Department of<br />
Archaeology, University of Sydney) who offered me a thes<strong>is</strong> topic associated with<br />
the Blue Mud Bay Project and superv<strong>is</strong>ed my progress. Thanks are due to Dr<br />
Mel<strong>is</strong>sa Carter (Department of Archeology, University of Sydney) my <strong>shell</strong>, and<br />
<strong>shell</strong> analys<strong>is</strong> special<strong>is</strong>t, and superv<strong>is</strong>or. Thank you for your time, interest and<br />
expert<strong>is</strong>e. Thank you to my external superv<strong>is</strong>or Dr Val Attenbrow (Principal<br />
Research Scient<strong>is</strong>t, Department of Anthropology, Australian Museum), for<br />
teaching me <strong>shell</strong> analys<strong>is</strong> and data recording and patiently answering my<br />
constant questions. Your suggestions of reading material sent me on a journey<br />
that transformed my ideas, and lastly for teaching me about academic writing. I<br />
am indebted to the body of research on the Point Blane peninsular by Annie<br />
Clarke, Patrick Faulkner and Marcus Barber, also to Paul Ir<strong>is</strong>h for talking to me<br />
about <strong>shell</strong> <strong>midden</strong>s and making h<strong>is</strong> research available. Finally I must thank my<br />
father Bryan and husband John without whose love, encouragement and financial<br />
support I could never have undertaken my wonderful journey of study at<br />
university.<br />
13
Chapter 1<br />
Introduction to research<br />
Shell <strong>midden</strong>s and coastal archaeology<br />
The archaeology of coastlines involves the study of the remains of preh<strong>is</strong>toric<br />
human occupation and their relationship with the geography, palaeoenviroment<br />
and marine and estuarine ecosystems which characterize different coastal regions.<br />
Coastal archaeology however <strong>is</strong> not confined to the land that immediately defines<br />
the coast. In Australia, coastal archaeology encompasses the ocean and its<br />
dreaming stories, resources, transport routes and the study of <strong>is</strong>lands and <strong>is</strong>land<br />
peoples. The study of coastal archaeology also extends inland to trade and<br />
resource zones, to inland sites which line relict coastlines and along freshwater<br />
estuarine systems that lead to the wetlands, billabongs and rivers. The d<strong>is</strong>tinctive<br />
markers of coastal occupation are the vast numbers of <strong>shell</strong> <strong>midden</strong>s which<br />
represent a range of past human activity, including long term resource<br />
procurement, and large‐scale social gatherings to the d<strong>is</strong>card of the remains of<br />
meals at temporary camp sites or along walking tracks. In th<strong>is</strong> study the term <strong>shell</strong><br />
<strong>midden</strong>s includes <strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong>s.<br />
From their earliest examination <strong>shell</strong> <strong>midden</strong>s revealed a wealth of information<br />
about human activities. Although the individuals who formed the sites often<br />
remain elusive a part of their lives can be gleaned from the study of these<br />
intriguing deposits. Middens and <strong>mound</strong>s are at once similar and different and<br />
have become an important subject of the investigation of Aboriginal Australians.<br />
Today coastal archaeology sites have become increasingly subject to damage from<br />
environmental processes, as well as mining, tour<strong>is</strong>t developments and recreational<br />
14
activities such as four wheel driving. The identification of an <strong>is</strong>olated landscape<br />
containing archaeological sites that have had negligible impact from modern<br />
settlement therefore provides an important opportunity for regional scale<br />
archaeological research. <strong>One</strong> such a project was undertaken between 2000 and<br />
2003 in Blue Mud Bay on the Point Blane peninsula, Arnhem Land (Clarke and<br />
Faulkner 2003).<br />
Research aims<br />
Within the broad frame work of a critical examination of the criteria applied for<br />
d<strong>is</strong>tingu<strong>is</strong>hing between archaeological <strong>mound</strong>ed and non‐<strong>mound</strong>ed <strong>shell</strong><br />
<strong>midden</strong>s, th<strong>is</strong> study provides an analys<strong>is</strong> and interpretation of an anomalous<br />
coastal <strong>shell</strong> deposit recorded in the Point Blane peninsula study area. The study<br />
has three main research aims:<br />
1. Through a critical review of the archaeological literature, to examine the<br />
characterizing attributes of <strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong>s to determine if the Anadara <strong>mound</strong><br />
model commonly used to describe <strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong>s <strong>is</strong> representative of the<br />
range of attributes represented in <strong>mound</strong>s across Australia. Th<strong>is</strong> aims seeks<br />
to answer the key question are the characterizing attributes of the <strong>mound</strong><br />
site BMB/116 still anomalous when compared to the wider model of <strong>shell</strong><br />
<strong>mound</strong>s data complied from across Australia.<br />
2. Based on the outcomes of th<strong>is</strong> review, to identify the key features or<br />
character<strong>is</strong>tics that clearly define the difference between <strong>mound</strong>ed and non‐<br />
<strong>mound</strong>ed forms of <strong>shell</strong> <strong>midden</strong>s, and if required identify and establ<strong>is</strong>h<br />
new criteria for more accurately defining these coastal deposits.<br />
3. Through a review of the recorded field data and an analys<strong>is</strong> of the<br />
excavated assemblage, provide a reassessment of the anomalous BMB/116<br />
site in the context of both the archaeology of the Point Blane peninsula<br />
15
study area and the new classificatory frame work developed for<br />
d<strong>is</strong>tingu<strong>is</strong>hing <strong>mound</strong>ed and non‐<strong>mound</strong>ed forms of <strong>shell</strong> <strong>midden</strong>s.<br />
The Blue Mud Bay Project and the anomalous site BMB/116<br />
The Point Blane peninsula was the location of an extensive archaeological<br />
investigation conducted under the auspices of The Blue Mud Bay Project (BMBP)<br />
(Clarke and Faulkner 2003). The major research aim of the BMBP was to identify<br />
Aboriginal resource use and occupation systems during the late Holocene, and<br />
specifically the last 3,000 years (Clarke and Faulkner 2003:4). Prior to the<br />
commencement of the BMBP in 2000 no archaeological work has been undertaken<br />
in th<strong>is</strong> region of Arnhem Land. An extensive field survey of the study area<br />
identified and recorded 141 sites, producing a d<strong>is</strong>tinct pattern of <strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong>s<br />
located along the wetland margins of the peninsula. Due to its determined status<br />
as an archaeological anomaly in the study area, test excavation of BMB/116 was<br />
undertaken (Clarke and Faulkner 2003). The present study represents the first<br />
investigation of the archaeological assemblage excavated from BMB/116, and<br />
provides a new contribution to the Blue Mud Bay project.<br />
Research Rationale<br />
The archaeological literature review undertaken as part of th<strong>is</strong> study demonstrated<br />
the ex<strong>is</strong>tence of a considerable degree of confusion for defining or d<strong>is</strong>tingu<strong>is</strong>hing<br />
<strong>mound</strong>ed <strong>midden</strong>s; or <strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong>s, and non‐<strong>mound</strong>ed forms of <strong>shell</strong> <strong>midden</strong>s in<br />
Australian contexts. Th<strong>is</strong> inherent incons<strong>is</strong>tency in archaeological field<br />
methodology implies a lack of clarity and cons<strong>is</strong>tency in the classification of<br />
cultural <strong>shell</strong> deposits. Th<strong>is</strong> <strong>is</strong> significant because research based on the application<br />
of cons<strong>is</strong>tent site classification criteria <strong>is</strong> perhaps the most direct way to elucidate<br />
variation in the archaeological record (Claassen 1991:11 cites Shenkel 1974).<br />
16
To resolve the incons<strong>is</strong>tent and potentially inaccurate criteria used for classifying<br />
coastal <strong>shell</strong> deposits, a critical review of the attributes and features commonly<br />
applied by archaeolog<strong>is</strong>ts for th<strong>is</strong> task <strong>is</strong> undertaken. The outcome of th<strong>is</strong> review<br />
process will be the identification of key features of criteria considered most reliable<br />
and accurate for d<strong>is</strong>tingu<strong>is</strong>hing <strong>mound</strong>ed from non‐<strong>mound</strong>ed <strong>midden</strong>s. These<br />
results will thus provide a new bas<strong>is</strong> for evaluating the anomalous site BMB/116.<br />
The underlying prem<strong>is</strong>e of th<strong>is</strong> study <strong>is</strong> the critical requirement for a clear<br />
understanding of constitutes <strong>mound</strong>ed <strong>midden</strong> forms in Australian archaeological<br />
contexts. Once th<strong>is</strong> <strong>is</strong> achieved the cons<strong>is</strong>tent application of specific criteria for<br />
d<strong>is</strong>tingu<strong>is</strong>hing coastal site types will provide a more reliable platform from<br />
comparing the regional and national archaeological data (i.e. site d<strong>is</strong>tribution<br />
patterns and nature of <strong>mound</strong>ed forms).<br />
Research Methodology<br />
To investigate the question of what criteria archaeolog<strong>is</strong>ts commonly used for<br />
d<strong>is</strong>tingu<strong>is</strong>hing between <strong>mound</strong>ed and non‐<strong>mound</strong>ed forms of <strong>shell</strong> <strong>midden</strong>, a<br />
detailed review of relevant archaeological literature was initially undertaken. Th<strong>is</strong><br />
provided the literary framework for an understanding of the origins and reasons<br />
for the inherent incons<strong>is</strong>tencies evident in th<strong>is</strong> methodological process. As an<br />
additional outcome, th<strong>is</strong> review provided the opportunity to identify key features<br />
or character<strong>is</strong>tics that offer a more reliable and accurate means for d<strong>is</strong>tingu<strong>is</strong>hing<br />
<strong>mound</strong>ed and non‐<strong>mound</strong>ed <strong>shell</strong>s <strong>midden</strong>s. Th<strong>is</strong> also provided the required<br />
criteria for evaluating the original classification of BMB/116 as a <strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong> and<br />
solving the question of its anomalous status.<br />
To fully achieve th<strong>is</strong> last aim, however, a detailed analys<strong>is</strong> of the excavated<br />
archaeological assemblage from BMB/116 was also required. By characterizing the<br />
17
nature of th<strong>is</strong> <strong>shell</strong> assemblage using common methods and criteria employed in<br />
archaeological analys<strong>is</strong> of non‐vertebrate remains, a more complete understanding<br />
of the depositional processes and nature of the BMB/116 <strong>shell</strong> deposit <strong>is</strong> achieved.<br />
Importantly, the archeological analys<strong>is</strong> also produces a comprehensive dataset for<br />
compar<strong>is</strong>on of BMB/116 with another site recorded in the study area (BMB/84), as a<br />
further method for determining the accurate classification of the former site. Th<strong>is</strong><br />
final task <strong>is</strong> also ass<strong>is</strong>ted by a compilation of the recorded field data for all <strong>shell</strong><br />
<strong>mound</strong>s recorded in the Point Blane peninsula study area. Th<strong>is</strong> process adequately<br />
demonstrates that a re‐assessment of the original classification of sites in the Point<br />
Blane peninsula study are (Clarke and Faulkner 2003) <strong>is</strong> required.<br />
Thes<strong>is</strong> organization<br />
Chapter Two presents a literary review of <strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong>s in Australian coastal<br />
archaeology providing the h<strong>is</strong>torical context for th<strong>is</strong> study’sresearch. Th<strong>is</strong> chapter<br />
also includes a d<strong>is</strong>cussion of influential theoretical models and current research<br />
themes in Australian coastal archaeology. A number of regions synonymous with<br />
the presence of <strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong>s form the focus of the d<strong>is</strong>cussion including New<br />
South Wales, Queensland, Northern territory and Western Australia.<br />
Chapter Three presents the archaeological and environmental background to the<br />
Point Blane peninsula study area. The chapter also includes a description of<br />
BMB/116 and tests excavation. Recorded field data <strong>is</strong> also provided and the<br />
preliminary site classification of BMB/166 as a <strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong> <strong>is</strong> d<strong>is</strong>cussed.<br />
Having provided the contextual framework for the anomalous nature of BMB/116<br />
in Chapter 3, Chapter 4 presents a detailed literature review of <strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong><br />
identification and classification in Australian coastal archaeology. Th<strong>is</strong> review<br />
18
demonstrates the need for both review and expansion of the criteria for defining<br />
<strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong>s and identifies a number of key criteria used for d<strong>is</strong>tingu<strong>is</strong>hing<br />
<strong>mound</strong>ed and non‐<strong>mound</strong>ed <strong>midden</strong> forms. As a suggested mothod for<br />
improving cons<strong>is</strong>tency in the identification of archaeological <strong>shell</strong> deposits, a<br />
propose Field Recording Form <strong>is</strong> also developed. Th<strong>is</strong> chapter concludes with a<br />
d<strong>is</strong>cussion of the implications of the new criteria for the identification of <strong>mound</strong>ed<br />
<strong>midden</strong>s in archaeological research.<br />
Chapter Five provides a brief description of the BmB/116 excavation methods<br />
followed by a more comprehensive description of the laboratory methods used for<br />
the analys<strong>is</strong> of the excavated assemblage. Th<strong>is</strong> chapter also includes a review of the<br />
common quantitative techniques used by archaeolog<strong>is</strong>ts for the analys<strong>is</strong> of<br />
archaeological <strong>shell</strong> remains<br />
Chapter 6 presents the results of analys<strong>is</strong> of the BMB/116 archaeological <strong>shell</strong><br />
assemblage, including data an species diversity, dominant species and species<br />
habitat. The archaeological data <strong>is</strong> compared to BMB/84 and the resulting<br />
implication for both the nature of the archaeological <strong>shell</strong> deposits in the study<br />
area and the original site type classification of BMB/116 are d<strong>is</strong>cussed.<br />
Chapter Seven presents the major conclusions of the research drawing on the<br />
achievements of the three major research aims of the thes<strong>is</strong>. In addition, a number<br />
of future research directions are identified for the BMB/116 site and the Point Blane<br />
peninsula, and the d<strong>is</strong>cipline of Australian coastal archaeology.ahcievements<br />
19
Chapter 2<br />
Shell <strong>mound</strong>s in Australian archaeological research<br />
Introduction<br />
Shell <strong>mound</strong>s began to attract the attention of Australian archaeolog<strong>is</strong>ts in 1963<br />
when Wright (cited by Bailey 1977:132) identified enormous <strong>mound</strong>ed <strong>shell</strong><br />
deposits at Weipa in northern Australia. The Weipa <strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong>s captured<br />
archaeolog<strong>is</strong>ts’ imagination due to their size; up to 13m in height (Morr<strong>is</strong>on 2003:<br />
1), which made a dramatic impact on the landscape. Shell <strong>mound</strong>s have now been<br />
identified along 3,000 kilometers of Australia’s northern coastline from the<br />
Kimberley region to eastern Cape York. They have been generally dated to the mid<br />
Holocene from 3000BP ‐ 600BP and are dominated by Anadara <strong>shell</strong> (H<strong>is</strong>cock<br />
2008:175‐179).<br />
Th<strong>is</strong> chapter presents a review of the h<strong>is</strong>tory of research about <strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong>s and<br />
will initially focus on the Dan<strong>is</strong>h Kjokkenmoddings or kitchen <strong>midden</strong>s first<br />
identified in the early 1800s. Th<strong>is</strong> <strong>is</strong> followed by a d<strong>is</strong>cussion about the themes<br />
which have directed the research and interpretation of <strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong>s in Australian<br />
coastal archaeology. The focus of th<strong>is</strong> review <strong>is</strong> primarily Australian research<br />
initially due to the vastness of the topic of <strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong>s in international research<br />
and secondly to focus on Australian trends and research directions. Case study of<br />
sites from Queensland, Northern Territory, New South Wales, and Western<br />
Australia are examined. Each state exhibits d<strong>is</strong>tinct variations in the h<strong>is</strong>tory of<br />
research, also of site establ<strong>is</strong>hment and formation. Due to the word limitations of<br />
th<strong>is</strong> paper’s length d<strong>is</strong>cussion of neither coastal <strong>is</strong>lands nor coastal research in<br />
Victoria, Tasmania or South Australia has been included (Figure 2.1). Th<strong>is</strong> review<br />
20
forms a context for viewing the Blue Mud Bay Project and the research undertaken<br />
in th<strong>is</strong> thes<strong>is</strong>.<br />
Figure 2.1: Map of Australia showing locations mentioned in text.<br />
H<strong>is</strong>tory of research<br />
The investigation of the Dan<strong>is</strong>h <strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong>s in the 1860s<br />
The publication of the investigation of the Dan<strong>is</strong>h kjokkenmoddings (Figure 2.2)<br />
(kitchen <strong>midden</strong>s); or <strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong> sites, in Lubbock’s 1865 publication “Pre‐<br />
h<strong>is</strong>toric Times” establ<strong>is</strong>hed an investigative bas<strong>is</strong> for archaeological research on<br />
cultural <strong>shell</strong> sites that has had an influence through to the present day. The<br />
Dan<strong>is</strong>h <strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong> sites were originally thought to be massive natural deposits<br />
cons<strong>is</strong>ting of ra<strong>is</strong>ed beaches. However, subsequent investigation identified a range<br />
of character<strong>is</strong>tics which resulted in the ‘beaches’ being identified as cultural in<br />
origin. These included the identification of selectivity of <strong>shell</strong> f<strong>is</strong>h species<br />
characterized by cons<strong>is</strong>tency in <strong>shell</strong> f<strong>is</strong>h size, diverse representation of <strong>shell</strong> f<strong>is</strong>h<br />
21
habitats and the absence of gravel from storm activity in the <strong>shell</strong> deposits.<br />
Excavations directed by Professor Steenstrup (Lubbock 1865:180) also uncovered<br />
flint tools, animal bone with butchery marks and hearths, all of which added to the<br />
identification of these sites as cultural in origin.<br />
Figure 2.2: The tumuli of Oden, Thor and Freyda at Upsala Denmark (Lubbock 1865).<br />
The Dan<strong>is</strong>h <strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong>s varied widely in size up to 300 yards (274m) long 30‐60<br />
yards wide (27‐55m) and between 3 to 10 feet in depth or height (.91‐3.00m).<br />
Variety in <strong>mound</strong> form was recorded with elongated and doughnut shaped<br />
deposits identified. Sites often occurred in clusters. By 1861 over 50 sites had been<br />
investigated by a specially assembled multid<strong>is</strong>ciplinary team which included<br />
archaeolog<strong>is</strong>ts. The identification of <strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong>s some eight miles from the<br />
current coastline together with and sections of coastline containing no <strong>midden</strong>s<br />
sites was interpreted as evidence for fluctuating sea levels and the impact of harsh<br />
environmental conditions on site survival. The four most prevalent species of<br />
<strong>shell</strong>f<strong>is</strong>h found in the <strong>midden</strong>s were oysters, cockles, mussels and periwinkles.<br />
Oysters had become almost extinct in Denmark by the 1860s and th<strong>is</strong> was<br />
attributed to both human predation and environmental factors such as a predator<br />
starf<strong>is</strong>h. The reduction in <strong>shell</strong>f<strong>is</strong>h size overtime in the <strong>midden</strong>s stratigraphic<br />
sequences was interpreted as evidence of over f<strong>is</strong>hing (Lubbock 1865:171‐197). The<br />
major themes identified in Dan<strong>is</strong>h <strong>midden</strong> study’s in the 1860s‐the selectivity of<br />
22
species, site form variation, sea level fluctuation, the impact of the dynamic coastal<br />
environment on site survival, and the impact of human predation‐are still all areas<br />
of current relevance in the study and analys<strong>is</strong> of <strong>midden</strong>s and <strong>mound</strong>s in both<br />
Australia and elsewhere in the world.<br />
Australian coastal archaeology<br />
An introduction<br />
The earliest use of coastal marine resources in Australia was identified by<br />
O’Connor (O’Connor 1989) in a rock shelter on Koolan Island off W.A. The<br />
culturally deposited <strong>shell</strong>s of mangrove molluscs were dated to >30000 years ago.<br />
Most Australian coastal sites do not demonstrate such antiquity as the coastline<br />
was impacted by first r<strong>is</strong>ing and then falling sea levels over the Ple<strong>is</strong>tocene and<br />
early Holocene. Coastal <strong>shell</strong> <strong>midden</strong> sites appear in the archaeological record as a<br />
world wide phenomenon between 8000 – 4000 years BP which generally accords<br />
with the stabilization of sea levels in the post glacial period (Meehan 1982:3 cites<br />
Thom & Chapell 1975:90‐93). In Australia there <strong>is</strong> a significant increase in the<br />
number of recorded coastal <strong>shell</strong> <strong>midden</strong> sites dated to the last 3000 years (and<br />
particularly the last 1000). Research seeks to understand why th<strong>is</strong> increase in the<br />
number of recorded <strong>shell</strong> <strong>midden</strong>s occurs during the late Holocene. Th<strong>is</strong> theme<br />
underlines research in coastal archaeology with d<strong>is</strong>cussion canvassing the effect of<br />
sea level change on <strong>midden</strong> formation and destruction and its relationship to<br />
culture change (McNiven & Hall 1999: 88). Shell <strong>mound</strong>s in Australia are typified<br />
by the Anadara <strong>mound</strong>s found across Australia’s tropical coastline from the<br />
Kimberley to Cape York. Anadara <strong>mound</strong>s are usually located away from modern<br />
coastlines and provide evidence that coastal environmental conditions were<br />
different in the past (H<strong>is</strong>cock 2008:177).<br />
23
Models for understanding Holocene coastal sites<br />
Changes in the Holocene archaeological record have been characterized by an<br />
increase in site numbers, artefact densities or d<strong>is</strong>card rates, and movement of<br />
populations into previously unoccupied territories. Researchers have looked for a<br />
single idea that could explain the economic change. Explanations have included<br />
social processes, environmental change, or change as a reconfiguration that<br />
followed an Australia‐wide single and upward trajectory in which economic<br />
practices became more efficient and complex. From these ideas the opinion has<br />
emerged that humans developed specific coastal economies only in the recent<br />
millennia. Th<strong>is</strong> platform of ideas influenced many archaeological investigations of<br />
Holocene coastal economies of mainland Australia. Two influential research<br />
models emerged in the 1980s to explain the changes indentified in the Late<br />
Holocene archaeological record; the coastal occupation time‐lag model (Beaton<br />
1985), and the intensification model, arguing for increases in social and economic<br />
complexity (Lourandos 1985). Today archaeolog<strong>is</strong>ts understand Late Holocene<br />
coastal economies by their regional and temporal diversity in both economic<br />
responses and environmental change (H<strong>is</strong>cock 2008:162‐182).<br />
Current Research themes in Australian coastal archaeology<br />
Coastal archaeology has developed to encompass a wide and diverse range of<br />
research specialties and themes (Table 2.1). Th<strong>is</strong> subject <strong>is</strong> too extensive to d<strong>is</strong>cuss<br />
sat<strong>is</strong>factorily in th<strong>is</strong> chapter so a table has been presented to indicate the range of<br />
research areas and themes currently d<strong>is</strong>cussed in Australian archaeological<br />
research.<br />
24
Table 2.1 Research themes in Australian coastal archaeology<br />
Research Themes<br />
(Developed from Hall & McNiven 1999:1‐4)<br />
Dynamic Environment<br />
Taphonomic processes<br />
Sea level fluctuation<br />
Storms<br />
Coastal Landscapes<br />
Seascapes<br />
Exposure of sites<br />
Modern development<br />
Estuarine landscapes<br />
Landscape evolution & resource availability<br />
Occupation landscapes<br />
Relationship with inland resources & occupation<br />
Cultural and heritage landscapes<br />
Long‐term human use of marine systems<br />
Ple<strong>is</strong>tocene culture<br />
Responses to sea level change<br />
Cultural change models<br />
Intensification<br />
Environmental determin<strong>is</strong>m<br />
Change in response to environment & social<br />
processes<br />
Research contexts<br />
Coastal economies<br />
Gender roles<br />
Island use<br />
Island systems<br />
Regional studies<br />
Culture & Heritage management<br />
25
Case Studies<br />
Queensland<br />
A spectacular landscape of <strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong>s <strong>is</strong> located at Weipa on Cape York in<br />
northern Queensland. Research on the <strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong>s at Weipa has generated more<br />
debate than any other coastal area in Australia and for that reason <strong>is</strong> a fitting place<br />
to begin th<strong>is</strong> review. In 1961 anthropolog<strong>is</strong>t W.E.H. Stanner (1961:8‐12) suggested<br />
that the giant steep‐sided <strong>mound</strong>s at Weipa were of natural origin. Later Wright<br />
(1963, 1971) identified that two of the Weipa <strong>mound</strong>s contained the classic<br />
d<strong>is</strong>tingu<strong>is</strong>hing markers of cultural <strong>midden</strong> deposits: artefacts, charcoal, f<strong>is</strong>h and<br />
animal bone. A detailed research project by Geoff Bailey (1977) interpreted the<br />
<strong>mound</strong>s as part of a cultural landscape that extended along the shores of four<br />
rivers which flow into Albatross Bay, Queensland (Figure 2.3). He later re‐<br />
examined their period of formation and occupation and dated th<strong>is</strong> from 3510‐290<br />
BP (Bailey et al. 1994:74) demonstrating<br />
site use over most of the Late Holocene.<br />
Figure 2.3: Map of northeast Australia<br />
showing<br />
Weipa’s principal <strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong> sites (Bailey<br />
1999:106).<br />
Bailey argued that the traditional<br />
cultural markers of <strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong>s were<br />
not the only method available for<br />
identifying cultural origins. Bailey<br />
proposed a ‘self‐selecting’ model as an<br />
alternative for a site’s cultural<br />
26
identification. The model also explained why <strong>mound</strong>s developed (Bailey 1999).<br />
The model proposed that the large <strong>mound</strong>s were located in preferred occupation<br />
areas and could be understood in relation to their accessibility, seasonal comfort;<br />
availability of a breeze to reduce the impact of mosquitoes, and location near a<br />
range of wet season food resource zones. Bailey’s ‘self selecting‘ model expanded<br />
to interpret clusters of <strong>shell</strong> bearing sites as a cultural landscape and provided a<br />
strong platform for the interpretation of <strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong> sites across northern<br />
Australia. The Weipa <strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong>s continue to attract new research and stimulate<br />
debate. In h<strong>is</strong> critical evaluation of Bailey, H<strong>is</strong>cock (2008:177) argues Bailey’s self<br />
selecting model needs to be modified to look beyond the realized benefits of the<br />
constructed <strong>mound</strong>s towards developing an understanding of what social<br />
motivation lay behind beginning and maintaining the accumulation of <strong>mound</strong>s<br />
over many generations.<br />
Tim Stone’s (1991:255) proposal that the Weipa <strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong>s were the abandoned<br />
nest of a Megapode, the Orange‐footed Scrubfowl, has been the most controversial<br />
hypothes<strong>is</strong>. Stone’s hypothes<strong>is</strong> has been successfully been d<strong>is</strong>counted by Bailey<br />
(1994:69‐79,) Beaton (1995: 802) and notably by Burns (1994:28‐36). Burns re‐<br />
investigated Stones original research sites on Channel Island Darwin Harbour.<br />
Her research establ<strong>is</strong>hed a set of criteria to archaeologically differentiate between<br />
Megapode <strong>mound</strong>s, cultural <strong>mound</strong>s and natural <strong>shell</strong> deposits. The debate and<br />
research on establ<strong>is</strong>hing archaeological criteria for identifying the difference<br />
between natural and cultural <strong>shell</strong> deposits has made a significant contribution to<br />
cultural <strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong> identification (Burns 1994; Carter 1997; Esposito 2005).<br />
More recently the Weipa <strong>mound</strong>s were explored by Morr<strong>is</strong>on (2003) who argued<br />
an alternative hypothes<strong>is</strong> for the <strong>mound</strong>s formation. H<strong>is</strong> research identified the<br />
‘boom / bust’ nature of Anadara <strong>shell</strong> bed formation as the source of the dominance<br />
of Anadara in the Weipa <strong>mound</strong>s. Morr<strong>is</strong>on argued that during boom periods,<br />
27
large numbers of people from different local clans participated in intensive social<br />
gatherings and consumed the abundant resource. Morr<strong>is</strong>on cites ethnographic<br />
and anthropological evidence stating large gatherings occurred at Weipa when<br />
particular resources were abundant (Morr<strong>is</strong>on 2003:5). Mound formation processes<br />
can be irregular, gradual or intense and formation patterns can at times be<br />
determined by the radio‐carbon dating of <strong>shell</strong> from selected stratigraphic layers of<br />
a site. However, in the case of the Weipa <strong>mound</strong>s radiocarbon dating has been<br />
unable to clarify <strong>mound</strong> formation patterns (Bailey 1977:134‐136).<br />
Bailey and Morr<strong>is</strong>on’s interpretations may both be valid and represent changing<br />
<strong>mound</strong> use over time at Weipa. The two hypotheses could represent different<br />
responses to the constantly evolving coastal environmental conditions which<br />
results in variation in the local resource base.<br />
Northern Territory<br />
In the Northern Territory research projects have identified cultural landscapes<br />
which feature coastal <strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong>s. Recent research in the Darwin Harbour region<br />
focused on Hope Inlet where archaeological sites are dominated by <strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong>s.<br />
Hope Inlet <strong>is</strong> located north‐east of Darwin Harbour and 200 occupation sites have<br />
been recorded. The investigation of the area by Bourke (2004, 2003, 2002) and<br />
Burns (1994, 1999) provided the opportunity for a regional compar<strong>is</strong>on of the<br />
landscapes in which <strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong>s cluster in Hope Inlet and Weipa. The two<br />
study’s differ in their theories for recorded occupation patterns, resource<br />
procurement and site types. The Hope Inlet landscape appears to be similar to<br />
Weipa yet detailed research on <strong>mound</strong> formation and the type of sites compr<strong>is</strong>ing<br />
the clusters has establ<strong>is</strong>hed that the regions are quiet different.<br />
28
Hope Inlet <strong>is</strong> a small nearly infilled estuary dominated by chenier plains, mud flats<br />
and mangrove forest. The inlets coastal plain covers an area of less than 100 sq<br />
kilometers and within th<strong>is</strong> area are located Aboriginal <strong>shell</strong> <strong>midden</strong>s, including<br />
<strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong>s and <strong>shell</strong> scatters, earth <strong>mound</strong>s, stone flake scatters and grinding<br />
stones. Bourke selected three <strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong>s for excavation, each in a separate<br />
cluster of varied site types. The location of the clusters was identified as occurring<br />
at the junction between different resource procurement zones. Occupation of the<br />
Anadara <strong>shell</strong> dominated <strong>mound</strong>s was dated between 2000–500 years BP and the<br />
study argued <strong>mound</strong> formation demonstrated long‐term continuous exploitation<br />
of Anadara. Bourke interpreted occupation of the area as not reliant on the<br />
exploitation of Anadara and continued during periods of Anadara scarcity. During<br />
these periods other fauna was exploited from marine, estuarine and terrestrial<br />
zones. The absence of exploitation of deeper ocean resources such as turtle and<br />
dugong known to be accessed during the contact period was also noted.<br />
The stone artefacts recorded at the site included edge‐ground axes, pestles and<br />
portable mortars. Ochre, hearth stones, and a low density of flaked stone artefacts<br />
were also present. Bourke identified the stone artefacts as of special significance for<br />
interpreting site importance. The stone for tool manufacture was imported, and<br />
portable mortars used for plant processing were considered as possibly associated<br />
with ceremonial activity (Bourke 2004: 19‐21). The presence of the range of heavy<br />
stone artefacts, importation of stone and presence of ochre are argued by Bourke as<br />
indicators of the site and regions importance and demonstrate use over an<br />
extended time period.<br />
Bourke interpreted Hope Inlet as a seasonal semi‐sedentary settlement (Bourke<br />
2002: 35). Its occupiers practicing a generalized and flexible subs<strong>is</strong>tence economy<br />
based on the resource zones of the foreshore, estuary, coastal plains and<br />
hinterland. Burns argues the absence of marine animal bone in the sites<br />
29
demonstrates that coastal <strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong>s cannot be taken as evidence of a economy<br />
that focuses on deep water marine resources. However anthropological evidence<br />
for other regions of Arnhem Land has demonstrated large marine animals were<br />
not processed at the same sites as <strong>shell</strong>f<strong>is</strong>h (Barber 2005: Appendix 25‐30). Bourke’s<br />
interpretation of <strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong> occupation at Hope Inlet suggests regional variation<br />
in locations were <strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong> are found when compared with Bailey’s and<br />
Morr<strong>is</strong>on’s (2003) interpretations of Weipa.<br />
Research at Hope Inlet and Weipa provides examples of the use of different<br />
research theories. Bailey’s hypothes<strong>is</strong> understands the establ<strong>is</strong>hment of occupation<br />
at Weipa through environmental determin<strong>is</strong>m; however he interprets behavior at<br />
the sites through social processes. Morr<strong>is</strong>on’s hypothes<strong>is</strong> of occupation at Weipa <strong>is</strong><br />
underpinned by ethnographic data. Environmental determin<strong>is</strong>m means that<br />
environmental change determines resource availability which directly influences<br />
human behavior. The theory <strong>is</strong> often applied; for example Beaton (1995), to explain<br />
the recent establ<strong>is</strong>hment of (
1999:195). In the 1930s the excavation at Burrill Lake (Thorpe 1931, 1932a, and<br />
1932b) focused on stone artefact typologies and not faunal resources. During the<br />
1960s and 1970s research by Bowdler (1970) Bailey (1975:45‐59) and Sullivan (1982)<br />
contributed to identifying the extent of coastal sites in NSW. By 1994 N.P.W.S<br />
Aboriginal Sites Reg<strong>is</strong>ter held records for 3,200 <strong>shell</strong> <strong>midden</strong> sites on the NSW<br />
coast (Attenbrow 1999: 201).<br />
The estuary of the Richmond River, Ballina NSW was the location of a v<strong>is</strong>ually<br />
significant cluster of <strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong> sites located along both sides of the river. The<br />
site was first investigated by Statham (1892:304‐314) (Figure 2.4), and Bailey<br />
(1975:45‐59) later reinvestigated the site to examine the relative significance of the<br />
quantity of <strong>shell</strong> in the <strong>mound</strong>s to the diet and settlement patterns of the local<br />
inhabitants. Bailey came to the unexpected conclusion that although vast in size<br />
the <strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong>s possibly played only a minor role in the diet and period of<br />
occupation of the occupiers. H<strong>is</strong> research calculated that the three large <strong>shell</strong><br />
<strong>mound</strong>s: 400m x 4m, and five <strong>midden</strong>s sites were used infrequently at a maximum<br />
of six times a year over the period 2000 BP to 100 BP. The <strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong>s were<br />
composed of 98% Sydney rock oyster with sparse evidence of f<strong>is</strong>h, mammal bone<br />
and stone artefacts. Bailey argued the infrequent occupation pattern represented<br />
an understanding that the oyster beds were vulnerable to over‐exploitation and<br />
their long‐term survival demonstrated they were a carefully managed resource.<br />
Statham (1892) and Bailey (1975:47 cites the following) both argued the sites could<br />
been see in compar<strong>is</strong>on to the oyster <strong>mound</strong>s of California (Gifford, 1916)<br />
Denmark (Madsen et al., 1900) and Japan (Groot & Sinoto, 1952) in terms of their<br />
individual size and general character. Statham and Bailey comments introduce a<br />
rare and important international compar<strong>is</strong>on between Australian <strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong>s<br />
and the wider international phenomena of Holocene <strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong> building.<br />
31
Figure 2.4: A Richmond River <strong>mound</strong> 1892 (Statham 1892: Plate IX).<br />
The interpretation of the limited economic importance of the Ballina <strong>mound</strong>s had<br />
implications for other researchers who sought to interpret the relative importance<br />
of the vast volume of molluscs in <strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong>s. The quantification of mollusc meat<br />
as a food resource in dietary reconstruction was an important research theme<br />
which evolved in America and then Australia in the 1870s (Dall 1877; Statham<br />
1892; cited by Claassen 1998:175). Research was revived between 1960 and the<br />
1980s however Claassen argues that today the requ<strong>is</strong>ite assumptions that underlie<br />
every facet of calculations when combined with inadequate sampling and seasonal<br />
variations in nutritional content, means that most archaeolog<strong>is</strong>t are no longer<br />
willing to undertake th<strong>is</strong> form of research (Claassen 1998:194).<br />
The realization that NSW coastal geography could be used to identify possible<br />
locations of <strong>shell</strong> bearing sites was identified by Sullivan when working as an<br />
archaeological consultant. In 1982 Sullivan undertook a broad‐scale and important<br />
archaeological survey of the NSW coast which recorded 801 sites. Sullivan<br />
recognized that the NSW coast divided broadly into two d<strong>is</strong>tinct geographical<br />
zones: the northern sand dominated depositional coastline and the southern<br />
bedrock dominated mixed coastline. Sullivan establ<strong>is</strong>hed that the northern and<br />
southern zones demonstrated a definite relationship between the location of <strong>shell</strong><br />
bearing sites and their geography. Geographical zones where sites were to be<br />
32
found were identified as beaches, rock platforms and estuaries. Determinants for<br />
site location within each zone were: type of rock platform from which <strong>shell</strong>f<strong>is</strong>h<br />
were collected, location of sand on which to camp, shelter from wind, and location<br />
of drinking water.<br />
Importantly for th<strong>is</strong> d<strong>is</strong>cussion Sullivan also establ<strong>is</strong>hed archaeological criteria for<br />
identifying the location of <strong>mound</strong>ed <strong>midden</strong> deposits. The application of the<br />
criteria led to recognition of the regions of Clarence – Morton and coastal New<br />
England in the north as containing the highest number of <strong>mound</strong>ed <strong>midden</strong>s on<br />
the NSW coast. Mounded <strong>midden</strong> sites were identified as typically located in<br />
estuarine environments sites and in NSW included Clybucca (Connah 1975),<br />
Sussex Inlet (Sullivan 1977) and Wombah (McBryde 1974). Sullivan’s survey also<br />
included the excavations of <strong>mound</strong>ed <strong>midden</strong>s at Pambula Lake (1982:178). The<br />
excavations identified temporal changes in species selection with the transition to<br />
mussel in the upper section of <strong>mound</strong>s. Sullivan suggested a connection with the<br />
introduction of f<strong>is</strong>h hooks found by Bowdler (1970) in a similar temporal change in<br />
a <strong>midden</strong> on the NSW south coast. Th<strong>is</strong> hypothes<strong>is</strong> has been widely refuted;<br />
however other viable answers were not proposed by d<strong>is</strong>senting researches<br />
(O’Connor & Sullivan 1994). Sullivan’s research has been identified as<br />
contributing to the research themes of landscape evolution and resource<br />
availability (Hall & McNiven 1999:3). It provides detailed knowledge on coastal<br />
geomorphology and coastal taphonomy as an important contextual bas<strong>is</strong> for any<br />
assessment in identifying patterns in cultural responses in coastal regions.<br />
33
Western Australia<br />
Figure 2.5: Map of Western Australia coastline with regions named in text (O’Connor 1996:166)<br />
Prior to 1983 no publ<strong>is</strong>hed <strong>shell</strong> <strong>midden</strong> study’s for W.A. ex<strong>is</strong>ted, leading Bowdler<br />
(1983) to state that <strong>shell</strong> <strong>midden</strong>s were apparently absent from the southwestern<br />
Western Australian coast. A survey of the southwestern coast Figure 2.5 (Dortch et<br />
al.1984) identified small localized <strong>shell</strong> scatters equating to one scatter for every<br />
180 km of coastline which suggested that Bowdler’s statements may be correct.<br />
During the following decade most sections of the southwest coast of Western<br />
Australia were surveyed (O’Connor 1996) reconfirming Dortch et al. (1984)<br />
findings (Figure 2.5 & Table 2.2). In the Central west and Pilbara, abundant<br />
evidence for coastal exploitation of marine and estuarine environments was<br />
recorded with occupation appearing from 8000 BP‐6000 BP following the marine<br />
34
transgression. These early <strong>shell</strong> <strong>midden</strong>s are dominated by gastropods sourced<br />
from forests of giant mangroves.<br />
Table 2.2: Table of W.A sites as of 1999 (O’Connor 1996)<br />
Summary of <strong>shell</strong> <strong>midden</strong> sites on the WA coast by region from south to north<br />
After O’Connor (1996)<br />
Region Occupation Dates Midden form<br />
South west‐<br />
Geraldton to Shark Bay<br />
Central west‐<br />
Shark Bay<br />
Southern Pilbara‐<br />
North‐West Cape<br />
Turquo<strong>is</strong>e Bay<br />
Pilbara<br />
Exmouth Gulf to<br />
Cape Keraudren<br />
Nickol Bay<br />
West Intercourse Island<br />
Western Desert<br />
Cape Keraudren to Lagrange<br />
5,080‐4,450 BP. Thin surface scatters<br />
7,000‐3,500 BP 100 <strong>shell</strong> scatters, <strong>shell</strong> species<br />
8,000‐7,000 BP<br />
5,500‐ modern<br />
No date<br />
4,500‐ 1,000 BP divided into<br />
two phases<br />
4,640‐3,950 BP mangrove<br />
phase<br />
4,000‐1,040 BP Anadara &<br />
Oyster<br />
6,200‐ 4,200 BP Terebralia to<br />
Anadara<br />
No date available<br />
No date available<br />
No archaeological work has<br />
been carried out. No <strong>midden</strong><br />
sites have been described<br />
from Mangrove phase<br />
Two sites of <strong>shell</strong> scatters<br />
Only ep<strong>is</strong>odic occupation up<br />
to modern period.<br />
Scatters of terebralia on<br />
landward Ple<strong>is</strong>tocene dunes.<br />
First evidence of stratified<br />
<strong>midden</strong>s<br />
Rock shelter<br />
1 <strong>mound</strong>ed <strong>midden</strong><br />
14 <strong>mound</strong>ed <strong>midden</strong>s‐2‐3m<br />
Northern Region (Kimberley) divides into 3 zones Southwest Kimberley, Central‐west<br />
Kimberley and Northern Kimberley<br />
high<br />
35
Southwest Kimberley<br />
Broome to 80 km south<br />
Roebuck Plain<br />
Cable Beach<br />
Central‐west Kimberley<br />
Buccaneer Archipelago<br />
Northern Kimberley<br />
Mitchell Plateau<br />
3,000‐ modern BP<br />
3,600‐to contact period<br />
No dates<br />
Extensive linear scatters on<br />
coastal dune systems<br />
Anadara <strong>mound</strong>ed <strong>midden</strong>s on<br />
chenier ridges<br />
Extensive d<strong>is</strong>persed scatters<br />
over dunes<br />
No <strong>midden</strong>s or <strong>shell</strong> scatters in open contexts. Change to<br />
rugged coastline and off shore <strong>is</strong>lands, absence of favorable<br />
habitats for marine molluscs<br />
3,000‐ modern BP<br />
Large <strong>mound</strong>ed <strong>midden</strong>s,<br />
Marcia changing to Anadara<br />
In W.A the <strong>mound</strong>ing of <strong>midden</strong>s have earlier radio metric dates in the southern<br />
part of their d<strong>is</strong>tribution in Pilbara (6200 BP) through to the northern Kimberley<br />
sites which date from 3000 BP. O’Connor (1996: 173) was unable to determine if<br />
environment or cultural factors were responsible. A later O’Connor (1999:48)<br />
suggested both local topography and environmental factors effected resource<br />
availability which resulted in the very different temporal sequences in the<br />
appearance of <strong>shell</strong> <strong>midden</strong>s. Large <strong>mound</strong>ed <strong>shell</strong> <strong>midden</strong>s of Anadara and Tapes<br />
similar to the Weipa <strong>mound</strong>s are only found on the northern Kimberley, Mitchell<br />
Plateau area of the Western Australian coast after 4200 BP and cease by 2000BP.<br />
O’Conner hypothesized that <strong>shell</strong> <strong>midden</strong> site frequency and <strong>shell</strong> density<br />
increased over time in a southern to northerly direction. O’Conner’s work gave the<br />
Western Australian coastline an archaeological footprint and identified potential<br />
locations to focus future research.<br />
A recent archaeological salvage project at Port Headland in the Pilbara region of<br />
Western Australian’s coast has yielded evidence that challenges O’Conner’s<br />
hypothes<strong>is</strong> of the sequence of occupation along the W.A coast. Th<strong>is</strong> project<br />
36
ecorded a wide range of site types. Harr<strong>is</strong>on’s (2009:81) excavations identified<br />
Anadara exploitation in northwestern Australia as continuous from at least 4592BP<br />
and possibly as late as 578BP which calibrates to 310‐60calBP. Harr<strong>is</strong>on states these<br />
dates encompass some of the earliest and latest dates associated with Anadara<br />
exploitation from northwestern Australia. Anadara deposition occurred across a<br />
variety of site types; <strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong>s, earth <strong>mound</strong>s, surface <strong>shell</strong> scatters and<br />
stratified lenses of <strong>shell</strong>. The sites are dominated by high percentages of Anadara<br />
<strong>shell</strong> and also include minimal stone artefacts and a small number of faunal<br />
remains. Seven sites were selected for excavation and radio carbon dating<br />
indicated each had a limited period of formation; averaging 700 years. Harr<strong>is</strong>on<br />
argued that the dates must be viewed collectively as they present a continuous<br />
sequence of occupation and resource exploitation over a 5000 year period.<br />
Harr<strong>is</strong>on has associated the establ<strong>is</strong>hment of exploitation of coastal resources with<br />
environmental factors. He argues the occupation of Port Hedland coincided with a<br />
period of increasing aridity during the mid to late Holocene resulting in resource<br />
stress and as result populations who previously accessed inland resources moved<br />
towards to the coast. The increased frequency of occupation and increased<br />
complexity of site types <strong>is</strong> interpreted as a social and economic response to these<br />
environmental factors. Harr<strong>is</strong>on applied Meehan’s (1982) observations of Anbarra<br />
to the Port Hedland sites, and identified the <strong>mound</strong>ed <strong>midden</strong> sites 13 & 14 as<br />
dinner‐time camps (2009: 91). The Anbarra observations are further extended to<br />
argue that the greater focus on <strong>shell</strong>f<strong>is</strong>h resources reflects a change in the economic<br />
practices of women. Faulkner (2006: 11) has recently argued against the use of<br />
anthropological evidence as it assumes continuity between the behavior of people<br />
in the past and the present. He further argues against the application of<br />
ethnographic data from d<strong>is</strong>tinctly different regions as too simpl<strong>is</strong>tic citing the<br />
inappropriate application of Meehan’s (1989) work as an example.<br />
37
He argues the different classification of site types of <strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong>s, earth <strong>mound</strong>s<br />
and <strong>shell</strong> <strong>midden</strong>s do not represent different behavioral signatures traditionally<br />
argued by Australian archaeolog<strong>is</strong>ts (Bourke 2004; Bailey 1999; Faulkner 2006).<br />
When attempting to classify the sites as <strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong>s, earth <strong>mound</strong>s or <strong>mound</strong>ed<br />
<strong>midden</strong>s, and <strong>shell</strong> <strong>midden</strong>s Harr<strong>is</strong>on found the similarity of the content, Anadara<br />
<strong>shell</strong> volume and length of occupation as problematic. He theoretically argues that<br />
if each site type represented the same rate of deposition they could be formed by<br />
the environmental context in which they occur. Harr<strong>is</strong>on’s argues <strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong>s<br />
are formed in areas were soils are eroding, on the margins of mudflats and<br />
mangroves. Earth <strong>mound</strong>s form in areas protected from erosion by sand dunes<br />
formed by wind blown sediments. Shell <strong>midden</strong>s form on surfaces where there <strong>is</strong> a<br />
shift from erosion to depositional environment after site occupation has ceased.<br />
The initial point that the sites could represent the same rate of deposition <strong>is</strong><br />
contradicted by Burns (1994) Brockwell (2006) and Roberts (1994).<br />
Harr<strong>is</strong>on’s argument that site types represent environmental contexts <strong>is</strong> further<br />
used to see the Port Headland <strong>midden</strong> sites as seamless sequence of occupation<br />
from 5360 BP to the present. All Anadara bearing sites are part of a constant<br />
expression of Anadara exploitation over time a view in line with Bailey (1999:105)<br />
and Cribb (1996:169). Harr<strong>is</strong>on’s argument answers H<strong>is</strong>cock’s (2008: 177) question<br />
of why begin the varied depositional processes. Harr<strong>is</strong>on’s applies an<br />
environmental explanation for the varied site forms of <strong>shell</strong> <strong>midden</strong>s over the<br />
popular behavioral interpretations.<br />
Harr<strong>is</strong>on’s contribution expands the data on age range, range of exploited species<br />
and site density of coastal occupation on the Western Australian Pilbara coast.<br />
Harr<strong>is</strong>on’s arguments are on one hand radical with h<strong>is</strong> ideas on site formation, and<br />
are flawed in h<strong>is</strong> application of anthropological evidence to explore the <strong>is</strong>sue of<br />
gender. The most interesting contribution h<strong>is</strong> research has made <strong>is</strong> the idea that<br />
38
<strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong>s should not be considered as individual phenomena but as part of an<br />
environmentally induced <strong>shell</strong> <strong>midden</strong> deposition pattern which must be<br />
considered collectively (Harr<strong>is</strong>on 2009). Th<strong>is</strong> interpretation may be unique and<br />
establ<strong>is</strong>h Harr<strong>is</strong>on’s research at Port Hedland as a regionally d<strong>is</strong>tinctive in<br />
interpretation, early site establ<strong>is</strong>hment and site density. Harr<strong>is</strong>on draws on a wide<br />
range of theoretical approaches environmental determin<strong>is</strong>m, social processes,<br />
anthropology and gender which he uses with enthusiasm to explore a range of<br />
theoretical propositions to interpret the occupation of Port Headland.<br />
Conclusion<br />
Th<strong>is</strong> chapter’s review of Australian coastal archaeology and focus on <strong>mound</strong>ed<br />
<strong>midden</strong> research has illustrated that the questions asked today began with the first<br />
examination of a <strong>mound</strong>ed <strong>midden</strong> in Denmark in the 1860s. The case study’shave<br />
illustrated that landscapes including <strong>mound</strong>ed <strong>midden</strong>s appear to be similar. Yet<br />
detailed analys<strong>is</strong> of <strong>mound</strong> content, associated sites and landscapes, in conjunction<br />
with and an understanding of the regional geography and palaeoenviroment<br />
allows varied interpretations of site use suggesting <strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong>s are not<br />
associated with any single form of social expression but are part of a diverse range<br />
of coastal landscape utilization all of which involve the consumption of molluscs.<br />
39
CHAPTER 3<br />
Introduction to Point Blane Peninsula, Blue Mud Bay<br />
and BMB/116<br />
Introduction<br />
Chapter 3 presents background information about the environmental context of<br />
the Point Blane peninsula and details of BMB/116 (Figure 3.1). Included <strong>is</strong> an<br />
overview of the regional climate, palaeoenviromental h<strong>is</strong>tory, hydrology, flora,<br />
and fauna. Th<strong>is</strong> provides a context for the archaeological research undertaken for<br />
th<strong>is</strong> thes<strong>is</strong> and forms an important bas<strong>is</strong> for the interpretation of research data.<br />
Coastal archaeolog<strong>is</strong>ts need to consider sea level fluctuations, coastline shifts,<br />
marine and estuarine ecosystem development in order to formulate models and<br />
interpret hunter‐gather occupation and adaptation (Hall & McNiven 1999:1).<br />
Figure 3.1: Map of Blue Mud Bay region Arnhem (Faulkner 2003:23)<br />
40
Location<br />
The case study site BMB/116 <strong>is</strong> located in the Lumatjpi inlet on the coastal margin<br />
of the Point Blane peninsula. The peninsula <strong>is</strong> bounded by Grindall Bay to the west<br />
and Myaoola Bay to the east (Figure 3.1). Point Blane peninsula <strong>is</strong> one of a series of<br />
small peninsulas which project into the northern end of Blue Mud Bay (Faulkner<br />
2006:22). The Lumatjpi inlet <strong>is</strong> one of the localities identified by members of the<br />
Madarrpa clan whose homelands are concentrated on the peninsula and who form<br />
the Yilpara Community (Clarke & Faulkner 2003:57). The Yilpara settlement <strong>is</strong><br />
located south of Lumatjpi and the majority of the Madarrpa clan of over 100<br />
people lives at Yilpara. The region in turn forms part of the traditional lands of a<br />
set of closely related Yolngu clans of greater Arnhem Land area (Figure 3.2).<br />
Figure 3.2: Map Northeast Arnhem Land region, location<br />
of study area and Yolngu group boundary.<br />
41
Climate<br />
Northern Territory’s climate <strong>is</strong> d<strong>is</strong>tinctly different from that of southern Australia,<br />
and within the Northern Territory itself there <strong>is</strong> great diversity. The territories<br />
northern part, known as the ‘Top End’, where the Point Blane peninsula <strong>is</strong> located,<br />
<strong>is</strong> d<strong>is</strong>tinctly different to the southern regions which are predominantly arid and<br />
semi‐arid. The weather in the north of the Territory divides into two d<strong>is</strong>tinct<br />
seasons; the ‘wet’ from October to April and the ‘dry’ from May to September.<br />
The Wet Season<br />
Figure 3.3: Map showing location of Point Blane<br />
peninsula and Grove Airport Bureau of<br />
Meteorology weather station (BM 2009)<br />
The wet season months from October to April are characterized by the monsoon<br />
trough which <strong>is</strong> the source of much rainfall (Figure 3.4). The accompanying hot<br />
summer temperatures run from December to February. A typical wet season<br />
cons<strong>is</strong>ts of a prolonged inactive period during the buildup. Th<strong>is</strong> period <strong>is</strong><br />
characterized by light winds, <strong>is</strong>olated showers and thunderstorm activity.<br />
Tropical cyclones can develop off the coast in the wet season. Heavy rain and high<br />
winds, sometimes of destructive strength, can be experienced along the coast.<br />
Bushfires, fairly common in October and November, are ignited by lightening<br />
42
from dry, gusty thunderstorms (Bureau of Meteorology, Weather table by Fairfax<br />
media).<br />
Figure 3.4: Seasonal weather table for Grove Airport N.T (Figure 3.3) clearly illustrating Wet and<br />
Dry season rainfall (BM2009: Fairfax Media)<br />
The Dry Season<br />
The Northern Territory’s second d<strong>is</strong>tinct season <strong>is</strong> the dry season running from<br />
May to September, when fine conditions prevail throughout the Northern<br />
Territory. The dry season <strong>is</strong> characterized by cool winter temperatures and sub<br />
tropical high pressure systems which push southeast trade winds resulting in clear<br />
skies and very dry conditions. Low pressure cold fronts occasionally reach the Top<br />
End marked by either thunderstorms or, if rainfall has been low, a wall of dust.<br />
Rainfall <strong>is</strong> generally low, although on the northeast coast light showers are<br />
common. Controlled and uncontrolled human initiated bushfires; (Figure 3.5)<br />
fuelled by abundant wet season growth, are widespread in the north during th<strong>is</strong><br />
season (Bureau of Meteorology 2009).<br />
43
Indigenous Seasons<br />
Figure 3.5: Human initiated seasonal bush fires Point Blane peninsula<br />
(Photo Clarke 2003).<br />
The Blue Mud Bay indigenous seasonal cycle <strong>is</strong> detailed, containing seven d<strong>is</strong>tinct<br />
seasons. The seven seasons occur within the overall rhythm of wet and dry<br />
seasonal pattern of the tropical north. The seasons are locally specific to the Yolngu<br />
people, coded for by changes in the wind and weather, but also by the appearance<br />
of plants and animals (Barber 2005:89).<br />
The Point Blane Peninsula Palaeoenviroment<br />
The archaeological survey of the Point Blane peninsula identified occupation dates<br />
from ranging from 2500 years BP to the present (Faulkner 2006:69). The Lumatjpi<br />
inlet BMB/116 site was dated to the end of th<strong>is</strong> period. Therefore a brief overview<br />
of the prevailing climatic and environmental conditions over th<strong>is</strong> period of the<br />
Late Holocene <strong>is</strong> warranted. The coastal plains of Australia’s northeast were<br />
44
formed following stabilization of sea‐levels around 6,000BP. Sedimentation and<br />
coastal progradation resulted in the formation of floodplains across the north<br />
coast. Following the ‘Sinuous Phase’ (4000‐2500 BP) rivers began to be establ<strong>is</strong>hed<br />
across the floodplains forming a mosaic of estuarine, freshwater and mud flat<br />
areas. By 2000 BP vast freshwater flood‐plains and wetlands were establ<strong>is</strong>hed and<br />
are still a major feature of the northern coastline and feature on the Point Blane<br />
peninsula (Figure 3.6). Coastline sedimentation continued forming intertidal<br />
mudflat on intertidal embayment. Th<strong>is</strong> development provided the optimal<br />
environment for the establ<strong>is</strong>hment of <strong>shell</strong>f<strong>is</strong>h beds which resulted in proliferation<br />
of <strong>shell</strong> <strong>midden</strong> sites across the north east coast (Figure 3.6) (Chappell 1988;<br />
Woodroffe et al.1988; cited by Brockwell et al. 2009:58). Evidence for climatic<br />
patterns during the Holocene has been obtained from pollen records on Groote<br />
Eylandt, located in Blue Mud Bay. Research indicated change in the climate from<br />
the early to late Holocene. The early Holocene was characterized by continuously<br />
increasing rainfall, which was followed after 4000 BP by a period of reduced<br />
rainfall and increased climatic variability. Th<strong>is</strong> was bought on by the modern<br />
ENSO (El Nino Southern Oscillation) (Brockwell et al. 2009:59).<br />
Figure 3.6: Mudflats & <strong>midden</strong> site, Point Blane peninsula (Photo Clarke 2003).<br />
45
After 3700 BP, the sharp reduction in effective precipitation was accompanied with<br />
increased climatic variability from around 1000 BP and continued to the present.<br />
<strong>One</strong> of the effects of the climatic variability was a decrease in monsoon conditions<br />
resulting in the widespread appearance of dune systems (Faulkner 2006: 41, citing<br />
Schulmesiter 1999:82) on which <strong>midden</strong>s are often located (Sullivan 1977:59).<br />
Hydrology<br />
The monsoon climate of d<strong>is</strong>tinct wet / dry seasons has a powerful impact on the<br />
hydrology of the northeast coastal plains. The northwestern edge of the Gulf of<br />
Carpentaria typically has a very low river run off into the sea. However the Blue<br />
Mud Bay coastline <strong>is</strong> notable for having the only substantial fluvial deposits on<br />
th<strong>is</strong> part of the coast (NT Dept of EWHA 2007). The coastal plain of Blue Mud Bay<br />
<strong>is</strong> mainly flat with extensive coastal swamps or wetland, the Barkley Tableland<br />
system of hills divides the coastal river drainage systems from the broad mostly<br />
dry shallow inland basin (Bureau of Metrology 2009).<br />
The Point Blane peninsula has a complex fresh water system dominated by the<br />
Durabudboi River (Figure 3.7). The river flows from the north of the Point Blane<br />
peninsula to the south and drains through the peninsula’s Dhuruputjpi wetlands<br />
and usually provide year round fresh water(Faulkner 2006: 46). Creeks, fresh<br />
water swamps, billabongs and sub‐surface aquifers make up the remaining<br />
components of the hydrological regime. The study area contains a number of<br />
reliable of fresh water sources one of which <strong>is</strong> located in the Lumatjpi Inlet (A.<br />
Clarke personal comment).<br />
46
Figure 3.7: The hydrology of the Point Blane peninsula and neighboring areas, showing major<br />
river and creek catchment systems (based on Natural Resources Div<strong>is</strong>ion, Department of Lands,<br />
Planning and Environment: Water Resources of North Eastern Arnhem Land Map sheet,<br />
Faulkner 2006:47).<br />
Geology & soil<br />
The Blue Mud Bay coastal plain extends up to ninety kilometers inland from the<br />
coast (Haines et al. 1999:1‐2). The geological h<strong>is</strong>tory of the area cons<strong>is</strong>ts of thin<br />
terrestrial deposits and shallow marine succession across Blue Mud Bay during the<br />
Cretaceous period. Th<strong>is</strong> process evolved as a response to the high stand of sea<br />
level and the beginning of the deep weathering process that has led to widespread<br />
laterite formation. The following Cainozoic period, gradually eroded the lateritic<br />
surface (Haines et al. 1999:91, cited by Faulkner 2006:26), and thin Cainozoic<br />
deposits cover over half the land area of Blue Mud Bay. Laterite <strong>is</strong> a feature of the<br />
excavated material identified from the BMB/116. The intensity of the original<br />
weathering processes has resulted in severe nutritional impover<strong>is</strong>hment of the soil<br />
profile (Hubble et al. 1983:26‐27, cited by Faulkner 2006:26).<br />
47
Table 3.1: Soil province profiles found in the<br />
Lumatjpi inlet (after Haines et al. 1999:77 cited<br />
by Faulkner 2006:28).<br />
(Czl) Gravelly, earthy sands<br />
(Cz) Shallow and gravely soils<br />
The above are grouped together as they are<br />
difficult to differentiate.<br />
(Qa) Alluvial gravel, sand, silt and clay<br />
found in active channels, flood plains.<br />
(Qr) Active and recently active cheniers and<br />
sandy beach ridges.<br />
The Lumatjpi Inlet <strong>is</strong> characterized by three geological soil provinces (Table 3.1).<br />
The Lumatjpi Inlet as surround by (Qr) profile on the water front, compr<strong>is</strong>ing of<br />
<strong>shell</strong>y sand as a narrow zone of ridges a few meters in height on the coastal fringes<br />
(Haines et al. 1999:77, cited by Faulkner 2006:28). The (Qa) profile borders and<br />
extends westwards along the freshwater tributary which flows into the Lumatjpi<br />
Inlet. Behind the waterfront beach ridges and extending outwards from the active<br />
channels and flood plains lie (Czl and CZ) soil profiles which characterized the<br />
greater part of the Point Blane peninsula (Faulkner 2006:27).<br />
Flora<br />
The Lumatjpi Inlet contains five of the nine d<strong>is</strong>tinct vegetation units (Table 3.2)<br />
found across the Point Blane Peninsula (Brock 2001; Spect 1958: Wilson et al 1990;<br />
Yunupingu et al 1995; cited by Clarke and Faulkner 2003:26). Each vegetation unit<br />
<strong>is</strong> closely associated with the hydrological and geological zones that form the inlet<br />
landscape and <strong>is</strong> illustrated in Figure 3.8.<br />
48
Table 3.2: Main vegetation units found in the Lumatjpi Inlet<br />
(After Brock 2001; Spect 1958: Wilson et al 1990; Yunupingu et al<br />
1995, cited by Clarke and Faulkner 2003:26)<br />
Unit Vegetation unit Flora species character<strong>is</strong>tic of<br />
No<br />
01 Monsoon vine<br />
thickets<br />
04 Eucalyptus forest,<br />
woodland grassy<br />
understory<br />
54 Seasonal flood<br />
plains<br />
vegetation units on Point Blane<br />
peninsula<br />
Black wattle, Yellow Flame Tree,<br />
Banyan, Milkwood, Red Flowered<br />
Kapok, Beach Hib<strong>is</strong>cus, and Native<br />
Cherry<br />
Darwin Woolly Butt (Eucalyptus<br />
minata), Stringybark (Eucalyptus<br />
tetrodona), Sorghum grass<br />
Sedgeland grasses Oryza & Eliochar<strong>is</strong><br />
s.p., Water Lilies, Bullrush, herblands<br />
& grasslands.<br />
102 Coastal dunes Coastal She Oak, Spinifex grass, Wild<br />
105 Mangal Low<br />
Closed‐Forest<br />
(Mangroves)<br />
Passionfruit, Monsoon Vine, Wattle &<br />
stunted shrubs.<br />
25 tree species, 26 shrubs and grasses<br />
in NT mangrove communities,<br />
including White Mangrove, Stilt Root<br />
Mangrove, Mangrove, Mangrove<br />
Holly.<br />
(Brock 2001; Specht 1958; Wilson etal.1990; Yunupingu et al. 1995<br />
cited by Faulkner 2006:48.)<br />
The inlet’s narrow coastal fringe <strong>is</strong> dominated by Mangal low closed forest (105)<br />
dominated by species of White Mangrove. The White Mangrove <strong>is</strong> the most<br />
widespread flora species in the region. The Coastal Dune Complex (102)<br />
vegetation unit forms across the coastal limits of the coastal plain. The dunes are<br />
located adjacent to the beach and form in narrow bands of well‐drained generally<br />
49
unconsolidated beach sands. On the landward side fresh water catchments<br />
supports woodlands of Coastal She Oak interspersed throughout by Monsoon<br />
Vine thickets (01) forming on both sides of the dunes. The Seasonal Flood Plains<br />
(54) begin at the narrowest point of the Lumatjpi Inlet where the fresh water<br />
tributary cuts through the landscape. The Seasonal Flood Plains are characterized<br />
by heavy, black to grey cracking clays exposed bare dry ground late in the Dry<br />
season, and covered by several meters of water supporting plant life during the<br />
wet. The majority of the remaining area of the Point Blane peninsula; excluding the<br />
wetlands, <strong>is</strong> covered by Mixed Eucalypts Woodlands with grass understory (04).<br />
The woodlands are characterized by the mixed stands of Darwin Woollybutt and<br />
Stringybark compr<strong>is</strong>ing the tree layer with a sorghum grassland understory<br />
(Faulkner 2006). The vegetation regime of Point Blane peninsula has d<strong>is</strong>tinct<br />
seasonal variation with periods of dry to flooding water, fresh to saline water<br />
environments and poor quality soil to sand. Th<strong>is</strong> <strong>is</strong> reflected in the diversity of<br />
vegetation that characterizes the region.<br />
Figure 3.8: Areal view of Lumatjpi inlet illustrating the five main vegetation units (Google Earth<br />
2009 & Alexander 2009).<br />
50
Fauna<br />
The range of faunal species recorded on the Point Blane peninsula was compiled<br />
by Clarke & Faulkner (2003) and Barber (2002), (Figure 3.3). Wider research on the<br />
fauna of Arnhem Land was undertaken during the American‐Australian Scientific<br />
Expedition to Arnhem Land in 1948 (Specht 1964). The most popular habitats for<br />
large numbers of fauna on the peninsula are the sub‐coastal lowland, floodplains<br />
and coastal woodland where the common rare species of native mammals are<br />
found. High levels of environmental damage around permanent water sources are<br />
caused by increasing populations of Water Buffalo, feral pigs, cats and dingoes.<br />
Table 3.3: Range of fauna found on the Point Blane peninsula (Faulkner 2006:52)<br />
Common species of<br />
mammals<br />
Rare species of<br />
mammals<br />
Feral species or<br />
problem species<br />
Common Wallaroo, Antilopine Wallaroo, Agile Wallaby, Short‐eared<br />
Rock Wallaby, NT Sugar Glider, Northern Brushtail Possum,<br />
Northern Brown Bandicoot, Eastern Horseshoe Bat.<br />
Grassland Melomys, Delicate Mouse, Brush‐tailed tree rat, Black‐<br />
footed Tree rat, Dusky rat, Red‐cheeked Dunnart, Northern Quoll,<br />
Fawn Antechinus, Short‐beaked Echidna,<br />
Water Buffalo, Feral Pigs, Feral Cats, Dingoes.<br />
Reptiles Saltwater Crocodile, Freshwater Crocodile, Goanna, Skinks,<br />
Mangrove Monitor, Marine Turtles, Freshwater Torto<strong>is</strong>es, File<br />
Snakes, Whip Snakes, Brown Snakes.<br />
Birds Magpie Geese, Brolga, Jabiru, Emu.<br />
Marine & Freshwater<br />
Fauna<br />
Dugong, Mud Crabs, Mud Lobster, Oysters, Mangrove Gastropods,<br />
Bi‐valves‐Anadara Polymesoda & Isognomon species. Freshwater<br />
mussel, F<strong>is</strong>h‐ Barramundi, Saratoga, Cod, Wrasse.<br />
51
Marine and freshwater fauna are extensively exploited within the study area.<br />
Dugongs, Mud Crabs, Mud Lobsters and a variety of mollusc species are<br />
frequently harvested around mangrove stands (Faulkner 2006:52). Shark, Rays and<br />
mullet are caught by spear f<strong>is</strong>hing from shallow water (Barber 2005:31). The range<br />
of fauna recorded in Table 3.3 suggests a high level of species and habitat diversity<br />
currently ex<strong>is</strong>ts in the study area. The relevance of th<strong>is</strong> data to BMB/116 <strong>is</strong> the<br />
contrast between the abundance of both terrestrial and marine fauna currently<br />
accessed by the Yilpara community in the research region (Table 3.4) and the<br />
limited range of fauna identified in the archaeological assemblage.<br />
Table 3.4: Wild flora and fauna resources accessed by the Yilpara community in 2002<br />
(Barber 2002:20‐37).<br />
Plants<br />
Fruits Wungapu, Muta muta Black fruit, Damang, Wak’naning,<br />
Dangapa, Wangaur, balkpalk, murrngga, dilminyin, liddawarr,<br />
gumbo, larrani, dalpi<br />
Nuts Pandanus nuts, Djillka, Darangalk pods,<br />
Berries Borpurr, Burrum burrum,murrtjumum<br />
Yams Bush yams, manmunga<br />
Bush Honey Barngitj (Tree or ant houses) Gaamu (Tree tops), Yarrpany (top<br />
Mammals, birds & reptiles<br />
of hollow trees)<br />
Mammals Kangaroo, Wallaby, Flying fox,<br />
Birds Magpie geese, Brolga, jabiru, Heron, Duck<br />
Reptiles Large goannas, Freshwater torto<strong>is</strong>e (20cm)<br />
Saltwater foods & bait<br />
Turtle & Dugong Green turtle, Hawksbill Turtle, Olive Ridley Turtle, Flatback<br />
Turtle, Loggerhead Turtle, Leatherback Turtle, Dugong.<br />
Shellf<strong>is</strong>h Terebralia, Polymesoda, Rocky reef oyster, estuarine oyster.<br />
Sharks and stingrays Cowtial ray, Barmbi, Mangrove whipray, manta ray, Sawf<strong>is</strong>h,<br />
Hammerhead shark, Lemon shark, Nervous shark.<br />
Crabs Mud Crab, sand crab, mangrove crab, Blue rock crab, hermit<br />
52
crab, small hermit crab.<br />
Marine F<strong>is</strong>h 26 species recorded. often targeted species were‐<br />
Parrot f<strong>is</strong>h, Wamungu, Estuarine Rock Cod, Trevally, Catf<strong>is</strong>h,<br />
Queensf<strong>is</strong>h, Barramundi. Caught on handlines or speared<br />
Freshwater F<strong>is</strong>h Saratoga, Sleepy Cod, Sooty grunter.<br />
BMB/116<br />
Project survey and excavation parameters<br />
The Point Blane peninsular was selected for an archaeological survey due to the<br />
contained and <strong>is</strong>olated nature of the region. Several factors were important in the<br />
implementation of the project survey area and unit size and excavation unit size.<br />
Long thin survey transects were selected due to the ease of locating transects, good<br />
site variability, relative density estimates and ability to observe the local ecology.<br />
The project applied a cons<strong>is</strong>tent test pit size of 1m x .50m for excavations (Clarke &<br />
Faulkner 2003:70). The test pit was divided into test pit A and test pit B each 50cm<br />
sq representing
Lumatjpi<br />
Nine archaeological sites are located in the area clustered around a coastal inlet<br />
known in th<strong>is</strong> study as the Lumatjpi inlet (Figure 3.9). The majority of the sites<br />
cons<strong>is</strong>t of very small, localized patches of thinly spread surface <strong>midden</strong>. The<br />
exceptions are BMB/116 and BMB/84 both of which were excavated (Clarke &<br />
Faulkner 2003). No photographs of BMB/116 survived the survey due to camera<br />
malfunction.<br />
Figure 3.9 Areal photo of the Lumatjpi inlet showing the location of the nine sites including<br />
BMB/116 and BMB/84. Note the woodland, mangrove and creek (Google earth 2009 &<br />
Alexander 2009)<br />
BMB/116<br />
Th<strong>is</strong> site classified as a <strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong> <strong>is</strong> located approximately 500m to the south of<br />
BMB/84 inside a stand of mangroves on the surface of a low, chenier‐ type ridge.<br />
The <strong>mound</strong> <strong>is</strong> described as elongated and irregularly shaped, measuring<br />
approximately 27.6m by 11.50m with a height of approximately 70cm, as shown in<br />
54
the cross section (Figure 3.11) and contour plan below (Figure 3.12). The site<br />
location <strong>is</strong> 20 to 30m in front of the low laterite ridge running parallel to the<br />
coastline and <strong>is</strong> surrounded by mangroves and paperbark (Figure 3.10).<br />
Figure 3.10: Survey sketch of BMB/116 site location prior to excavation (Clarke 2003).<br />
Vine thicket, paperbark trees and grass cover much of the surface. The site was<br />
selected for excavation as it <strong>is</strong> the only <strong>mound</strong> identified on the exposed coastline<br />
of the peninsula. Clarke & Faulkner (2003:71) also observed the different <strong>shell</strong>f<strong>is</strong>h<br />
species composition at the site in compar<strong>is</strong>on with the peninsula’s wetland<br />
<strong>mound</strong>s. The <strong>shell</strong>f<strong>is</strong>h species recorded on the surface of the site correlated with<br />
species identified during analys<strong>is</strong> (Appendix Doc 1).<br />
Figure 3.11: Cross section of BMB/116 (Clarke & Faulkner 2003:72)<br />
55
Figure 3.12: Contour plan of BMB/116<br />
(Clarke & Faulkner 2003:72)<br />
The survey excavation report recorded the presence of a piece of burnt termite<br />
<strong>mound</strong> and hearth stones, and a stone artefact found on the surface of the site. The<br />
stone artefact was identified as pink quartzite unretouched flake, secondary cortex,<br />
measuring L= 25.97mm x W= 44.38mm x T= 15.75mm and weighed 30grams<br />
(Faulkner 2006: 342). A total of 250 stone artefacts were recorded during the<br />
survey, the location of stone source and artefact d<strong>is</strong>tribution <strong>is</strong> illustrated (Figure<br />
3.13).<br />
56
Figure 3.13: Location of quartzite artefacts across the Point Blane peninsula, with two km (thin<br />
line) and four km (thick line) radius intervals from quartzitic outcrop (Faulkner 2006: 100).<br />
Stratigraphy<br />
Excavation revealed three major stratigraphic layers illustrated in the South profile<br />
of the excavation (Fig 6.5). The surface layer (10cm) of the deposit <strong>is</strong> characterized<br />
by densely packed <strong>shell</strong> with a fine matrix of light grey sediment. Underlying th<strong>is</strong><br />
surface deposit <strong>is</strong> a middle layer of densely packed <strong>shell</strong> in a fine, dark grey humic<br />
matrix extending approximately 10cm to 20cm in depth. Several patches of ash or<br />
charcoal also occur between these two layers. The bottom 10cm to 15cm of deposit<br />
<strong>is</strong> the orange sand and <strong>shell</strong> grit indicative of the chenier like surface the <strong>mound</strong><br />
57
site <strong>is</strong> sitting on. Th<strong>is</strong> basal unit contained a further, restricted lens of <strong>midden</strong><br />
material that can be seen in the south section of the stratigraphic profile.<br />
Age<br />
Figure 3.14: Stratigraphic profile of site BMB/116, south section<br />
also showing approximate location of samples taken for<br />
radiocarbon dating (Clarke & Faulkner 2003:72).<br />
Two samples of marine <strong>shell</strong> were submitted for radiocarbon dating. The<br />
approximate locations of these samples are shown in the stratigraphic profile<br />
(Figure 3.14) and the details are in Table 3.15. The surface sample (XU1) returned a<br />
date 650±60, which calibrated to 281 calBP. The sample from the base of the site<br />
(XU12) returned a date of 1120±60 which calibrated to 657 calBP. These dates<br />
suggest a minimum occupation period of 380 years for th<strong>is</strong> site.<br />
Table 3.5: Radiocarbon estimates – site BMB/116 (Clarke & Faulkner 2003:73).<br />
58
Conclusion<br />
In summary the Point Blane peninsula <strong>is</strong> typical of the dynamic northern coastal<br />
environment. The d<strong>is</strong>tinct bi‐seasonal climate has influenced the d<strong>is</strong>tribution of<br />
natural resources and hence the structure of human settlement and resource use<br />
from the late Holocene to the present. Barber’s anthropological study of current<br />
resource exploitation highlights the diversity of resources in the region. Th<strong>is</strong><br />
provides a secondary context for considering resource exploitation in the Lumatjpi<br />
inlet <strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong> BMB/116.<br />
59
Chapter 4<br />
Defining the difference between <strong>mound</strong>ed and non‐<br />
<strong>mound</strong>ed <strong>shell</strong> <strong>midden</strong>s<br />
Introduction<br />
Figure 4.1: Shell <strong>mound</strong> on Point Blane peninsula (Photo Clarke 2003)<br />
Th<strong>is</strong> investigation was initiated to examine the anomalous attributes BMB/116<br />
<strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong>. The site date, dominate <strong>shell</strong> species and regional location were<br />
identified as unusual (Clarke personal comment 2009) when compared with<br />
typical northern Australian <strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong>s (H<strong>is</strong>cock 2008). The site’s attributes were<br />
unique in the research area of the Point Blane peninsula (Clarke & Faulkner 2003).<br />
60
My first aim <strong>is</strong> to review <strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong> attributes recorded across a wide sample of<br />
Australia’s coastline. Th<strong>is</strong> review compiles a set of attributes which includes <strong>shell</strong><br />
<strong>mound</strong> site name; date, dominant species, site h<strong>is</strong>tory, dimensions and<br />
geographical location. The compilation and analys<strong>is</strong> of th<strong>is</strong> data achieves two<br />
results it forms a comparative base to review the BMB/116 within the wider<br />
context of <strong>mound</strong> sites recorded in WA, NT, QLD and NSW. Second, to determine<br />
if wider parameters can be establ<strong>is</strong>hed for <strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong> sites characterizing<br />
attributes beyond the current Anadara <strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong> model. Th<strong>is</strong> research identified<br />
incons<strong>is</strong>tencies in the way <strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong> sites were classified. As a result I sought to<br />
clarify the establ<strong>is</strong>hed criterion for the identification of Australian <strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong>s. A<br />
review of relevant literature identified that archaeological criteria specific to <strong>shell</strong><br />
<strong>mound</strong> identification had not been formally reviewed or establ<strong>is</strong>hed. Therefore,<br />
part of my thes<strong>is</strong>’ research undertakes th<strong>is</strong> task. I examine a variety of aspects of<br />
<strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong>s which includes characterizing attributes, terminology, and <strong>shell</strong><br />
<strong>midden</strong> form criteria, to determine which are the most applicable to the<br />
identification of <strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong>s. From th<strong>is</strong> a definition has been derived with criteria<br />
identifying <strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong>s in the archeological record. In Chapter 6 I apply the new<br />
criteria to review the attributes of BMB/116 classified by Clarke & Faulkner’s study<br />
criteria (2003) as a <strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong>.<br />
Shell <strong>mound</strong> or <strong>shell</strong> <strong>midden</strong> ‐ why does it matter?<br />
When undertaking a new research project two important questions need to be<br />
asked, have you identified a problem, and why does it matter? The absence of<br />
criteria for <strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong> identification <strong>is</strong> an important problem for two reasons;<br />
firstly, archaeolog<strong>is</strong>ts seek to differentiate between <strong>shell</strong> <strong>midden</strong> and <strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong><br />
sites to argue that different human behaviors are represented by different site<br />
types. These site types include a variety of <strong>shell</strong> <strong>midden</strong> types usually<br />
61
differentiated by their areal view and include <strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong>s and <strong>shell</strong> scatters.<br />
Within these typologies recent researchers have argued that <strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong>s sites<br />
play a role in ritual, ceremony and negotiation of territory (Bourke 2004; Morr<strong>is</strong>on<br />
2003; Cribb 1986; cited by H<strong>is</strong>cock & Faulkner 2006:210 and more recently<br />
Harr<strong>is</strong>on 2009). These researches argue that <strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong>s as a d<strong>is</strong>tinct site type<br />
represent strong symbols of cultural expression. Secondly, establ<strong>is</strong>hed criteria<br />
provide a base line for debate and compar<strong>is</strong>on of site data as was demonstrated by<br />
Burns (1994) study of cultural and Megapode <strong>mound</strong>s. Establ<strong>is</strong>hed criteria<br />
facilitates national collaboration between researches, research data and allows a<br />
more constant view point to identify regional trends in sites and site research.<br />
Therefore I believe it <strong>is</strong> important that sites identified as <strong>mound</strong>s either conform to<br />
or explain why they differ from accepted site classification criteria/ definitions.<br />
The source of the problem<br />
My research has revealed that the classification criteria for <strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong>s differ<br />
between researches. The repercussion has been that the difference between<br />
<strong>mound</strong>ed <strong>midden</strong> sites and non‐<strong>mound</strong>ed sites has become unclear. An example<br />
that succinctly demonstrates th<strong>is</strong> point <strong>is</strong> illustrated by an extract from Burns<br />
(1999:64, Table 4.1).<br />
Table 4.1: Sites mapped at Winnellie by Burns (1999).<br />
Site Site type Dimensions<br />
Wx Dx H<br />
Stone artefacts Environmental context<br />
WIN1 Shell <strong>mound</strong> 10x 5x 0.30 quartz flakes Outcropping<br />
rock/intertidal flats<br />
WIN2 Shell <strong>midden</strong> 8x 11x 0.30 quartz flakes Hill‐crest at hinterland &<br />
mangrove edge<br />
WIN3 Shell <strong>mound</strong> 14x 18x 0.30 to quartz flakes Hill‐crest at hinterland &<br />
0.40<br />
mangrove edge<br />
WIN4 Shell <strong>midden</strong> 10x 17x 0.30 quartz Hill‐crest at hinterland &<br />
mangrove edge<br />
62
Figure 4.2: West Point <strong>shell</strong> <strong>midden</strong> Tasmania excavated by<br />
Jones (1966) the site <strong>is</strong> 2.50m deep and dated 1800‐1200 BP.<br />
Burns’ table records sites classified as <strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong>s and <strong>shell</strong> <strong>midden</strong>s that<br />
demonstrate no d<strong>is</strong>cernable difference in height, length, width, or location. Yet<br />
Burns has classified the sites differently and uses these differences to support her<br />
d<strong>is</strong>cussion. Burns has widely stated (1994, 1999 & as Bourke 2002, 2003, 2004, & in<br />
Brockwell 2009) her classification of <strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong> sites as any site over 30 cm in<br />
height. In the above table two sites which meet these criteria are recorded as <strong>shell</strong><br />
<strong>midden</strong>s. The question ra<strong>is</strong>ed by th<strong>is</strong> example <strong>is</strong> does Burns use another unstated<br />
criteria to differentiate between the classification “<strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong>” and “<strong>shell</strong><br />
<strong>midden</strong>” in her research. The justification for the application of the criterion <strong>is</strong><br />
cited as Mitchell (1993:4). A close examination of th<strong>is</strong> reference reveals the<br />
statement that <strong>mound</strong> size and shape were not important criteria for<br />
differentiating cultural <strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong>s and Megapode <strong>mound</strong>s. I believe th<strong>is</strong><br />
statement has been transposed by Burns to justify her establ<strong>is</strong>hment of the criteria<br />
of >30cm in height as a classification criteria for <strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong>s. The implications of<br />
Burns work have been wide reaching with Clarke & Faulkner (2003); Faulkner<br />
(2006); and most recently Brockwell et al (2009) citing her <strong>mound</strong> classification of<br />
>30cm to classify <strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong> sites. Burns criteria that stresses height contrasts<br />
with the classification by Bowdler (1977); Sullivan (1984); Meehan (1984); Jones<br />
(1971 Figure 4.2) who have classified sites as <strong>shell</strong> <strong>midden</strong>s up to and greater than<br />
63
1m in height. Or H<strong>is</strong>cock’s reference to Anadara <strong>mound</strong>s which he describes as<br />
conical piles or steep ridges of <strong>shell</strong> (H<strong>is</strong>cock 2008:175). Bailey’s (1975, 1977)<br />
descriptions of <strong>mound</strong> sites are similar to H<strong>is</strong>cock’s. Th<strong>is</strong> demonstrates that in<br />
Australian research one archaeolog<strong>is</strong>t’s <strong>midden</strong> <strong>is</strong> another’s <strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong>.<br />
The classification of <strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong> sites by height only <strong>is</strong> essentially flawed. Sullivan<br />
in her outline of recording <strong>shell</strong> <strong>midden</strong> sites clearly demonstrates that the <strong>shell</strong><br />
<strong>midden</strong> form attribute of profile; for example <strong>mound</strong>ed or non‐<strong>mound</strong>ed, <strong>is</strong> the<br />
basic criteria for the classification of <strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong>s. Th<strong>is</strong> study’s d<strong>is</strong>cussion has<br />
highlighted that the classification of <strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong>s in Australian research <strong>is</strong><br />
incons<strong>is</strong>tent, and possibly flawed. The identification of differences between<br />
<strong>mound</strong>ed and non‐<strong>mound</strong>ed <strong>shell</strong> <strong>midden</strong>s needs to be establ<strong>is</strong>hed.<br />
Figure 4.3: The two photographs of <strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong>s sites on the Point Blane peninsula illustrate<br />
the complexities of identifying sites in the field (Photo Clarke 2003).<br />
Shell <strong>mound</strong> or <strong>shell</strong> <strong>midden</strong> ‐ what <strong>is</strong> the difference?<br />
The term <strong>shell</strong> <strong>midden</strong> <strong>is</strong> used to describe any <strong>shell</strong> deposit identified as cultural<br />
regardless of location, density, depth or v<strong>is</strong>ibility, or surface area it covers. Shell<br />
<strong>midden</strong>s are dumps of d<strong>is</strong>posed <strong>shell</strong>f<strong>is</strong>h <strong>shell</strong>s and usually compr<strong>is</strong>e part of the<br />
64
food consumed at the site. Shell <strong>midden</strong>s vary considerably in their form and<br />
makeup. They occur along open coastlines, around estuaries, along coastal and<br />
inland river flood plains and around coastal and inland lakes. Shell <strong>midden</strong>s may<br />
be open sites, or deposits within rock shelters. Their forms vary from circular or<br />
elongated <strong>mound</strong>ed deposits, through deposits of even depth spread across the<br />
land surface, to patches of thinly d<strong>is</strong>tributed <strong>shell</strong>. They may be present on the<br />
surface or buried (Sullivan 1989). Therefore it <strong>is</strong> to be understood that a <strong>shell</strong><br />
<strong>mound</strong> site <strong>is</strong> a form or type or variation of a <strong>shell</strong> <strong>midden</strong>. The examination of the<br />
characterizing attributes of <strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong>s <strong>is</strong> the first step to establ<strong>is</strong>hing the<br />
differences between <strong>mound</strong>ed <strong>shell</strong> <strong>midden</strong>s from other forms of non‐<strong>mound</strong>ed<br />
<strong>shell</strong> <strong>midden</strong>s.<br />
Figure 4.4: A 7‐m‐high conical Anadara <strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong> located on a laterite ridge approximately<br />
1000 m from the current coast at Hope Inlet near Darwin (H<strong>is</strong>cock 2008:177).<br />
65
Characterizing attributes of <strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong>s<br />
Shell <strong>mound</strong>s in Australian research are often represented by their dominant type<br />
the large Anadara <strong>mound</strong>s (figure 4.4) found along more than 3,000 km of northern<br />
tropical coastline. They are conical piles or steep ridges of <strong>shell</strong> that range from<br />
less than cubic meter to 10,000 tons of <strong>shell</strong>. They date from 3000BP to around 600<br />
years BP (H<strong>is</strong>cock 2008:<br />
165). It was against these characterizing attributes that BMB116 was compared.<br />
BMB/116 <strong>is</strong> less than 600 years of age and the dominate species <strong>is</strong> Marcia hiantina.<br />
To determine if the BMB/116 was a <strong>mound</strong> outside the accepted criteria, a survey<br />
was undertaken to establ<strong>is</strong>h if the Anadara <strong>mound</strong> model was truly representative<br />
of <strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong>s in Australia. The research compiled a range of data from <strong>shell</strong><br />
<strong>mound</strong>s sites recorded by Australian researchers. Th<strong>is</strong> data included site name,<br />
age, dominate <strong>shell</strong>f<strong>is</strong>h species, site morphology, dimensions and location. The<br />
detailed research data <strong>is</strong> presented in Appendix 1.1 (Shell <strong>mound</strong> attribute data)<br />
and analys<strong>is</strong> of data in Table 4.2. The research establ<strong>is</strong>hed wider parameters for<br />
characterizing <strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong>s beyond the Anadara type model and provided a<br />
different context for understanding BMB/116.<br />
Analys<strong>is</strong> of characterizing attributes of research data<br />
The survey of “<strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong>” attributes identified <strong>mound</strong>ed <strong>shell</strong> <strong>midden</strong>s sites<br />
across all the regions surveyed, the survey covered a period of research from 1977<br />
to 2009. The geographical zones in which <strong>mound</strong>s occurred correspond to the<br />
zones in which non‐<strong>mound</strong>ed <strong>midden</strong>s are found. The age range for <strong>mound</strong>s <strong>is</strong><br />
limited in compar<strong>is</strong>on to those for non‐<strong>mound</strong>ed <strong>midden</strong>s which have been dated<br />
as early as 34200 +/‐ 1050 BP (Veth 1999:65). The survey demonstrates a wider age<br />
range for <strong>mound</strong>ed <strong>midden</strong>s than that described (H<strong>is</strong>cock 2009:165) for Anadara<br />
66
<strong>mound</strong>s. The range of dominate species <strong>is</strong> diverse and <strong>is</strong> interpreted as indicating<br />
which <strong>shell</strong> f<strong>is</strong>h species were best suited to the environmental conditions of each<br />
location. The diversity argues against the idea that <strong>mound</strong>s should be associated<br />
with only a limited range of <strong>shell</strong>f<strong>is</strong>h species. Anadara <strong>shell</strong>s dominate <strong>mound</strong><br />
sites overall closely followed by various species of oysters and mussel. Th<strong>is</strong><br />
corresponds to a similar pattern of species of bi‐valves identified in the Dan<strong>is</strong>h<br />
<strong>midden</strong>s d<strong>is</strong>cussed earlier.<br />
Table 4.2: Summary of data: Attributes of <strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong>s in W.A; N.T;<br />
Qld; and N.S.W. (Research detail and references see Appendix 1.1)<br />
Attribute Variable<br />
Regions W.A; N.T; Qld; NSW.<br />
Geographical zones Estuarine, river, coast, inland, beaches, <strong>is</strong>lands.<br />
Geographical<br />
Locations<br />
Wetlands, mudflats, dunes, laterite ridges,<br />
Chenier ridges,<br />
Date range 5250‐90 years BP<br />
Dominant species Anadara granosa, Gafrarium tumidum, Saccostrea glomerata, Marcia<br />
hiantina, Ostrea angasi, Mytilus planulatus, Saccostrea glomerata,<br />
Anadara trapezia, Dorsina juvenil<strong>is</strong>, Coecella horsfieldi<br />
Site h<strong>is</strong>tories Stratigraphy‐Two phase, alternate rapid & minimal, cons<strong>is</strong>tent<br />
Pattern of occupation‐ Irregular, time limited, regular<br />
Length of occupation‐Limited, continuous.<br />
Dimensions Height 0.20m to 10m<br />
Length 1m to 400m<br />
Width 5m to 45m<br />
Data research period 1977 to 2009<br />
Site h<strong>is</strong>tories have been described by researchers in three different ways<br />
stratigraphy, pattern of occupation and length of occupation. Each descriptor<br />
demonstrated varied patterns however the two phases of stratigraphy in sites was<br />
the most commonly noted by excavators (see Appendix 1.1 for details). I would<br />
argue based on the data available that stratigraphy, pattern of occupation and<br />
length of occupation of <strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong> sites <strong>is</strong> determined by factors other than<br />
anything associated with the idea of deliberate <strong>mound</strong> construction. The criteria of<br />
dimension‐ height, length and width of <strong>mound</strong>s <strong>is</strong> widely varied (see Appendix<br />
1.3) and further detailed research would be required to determine if site<br />
67
dimensions correspond to geographical zones or demonstrated regional<br />
character<strong>is</strong>tics.<br />
The survey on the characterizing attributes for Australian <strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong>s<br />
establ<strong>is</strong>hed a wider range of attributes than the Anadara <strong>mound</strong> model against<br />
which BMB/116 was set. Collectively the attributes establ<strong>is</strong>hed a pattern that <strong>is</strong><br />
more limited than those identified for non‐<strong>mound</strong>ed <strong>shell</strong> <strong>midden</strong>s. The range of<br />
characterizing attributes of <strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong>s presented in th<strong>is</strong> study enhances our<br />
understanding of the diversity of <strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong> sites. When the attributes of<br />
BMB/116 age and dominate <strong>shell</strong> species are placed within th<strong>is</strong> wider context they<br />
are no longer anomalous but fall within an establ<strong>is</strong>hed range of known attributes<br />
for an Australian <strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong>. However as each identified <strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong> attribute<br />
can be attributed to non‐<strong>mound</strong>ed <strong>shell</strong> <strong>midden</strong>s they can not be used to classify a<br />
<strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong> site only to describe it. I next review the terminology to assess how<br />
<strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong>s have been described, to determine if more rigorous use of terms<br />
would ass<strong>is</strong>t in <strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong> identification.<br />
Describing <strong>mound</strong>ed and non‐<strong>mound</strong>ed <strong>shell</strong> <strong>midden</strong>s<br />
The terminology used for describing <strong>mound</strong>ed and non‐<strong>mound</strong>ed forms of <strong>shell</strong><br />
<strong>midden</strong>s <strong>is</strong> diverse and incons<strong>is</strong>tent (Appendix 1.2 and 1.3). Language varies<br />
across research projects and no formalized criterion or terminology <strong>is</strong> apparent.<br />
Terminology <strong>is</strong> the first point for any compar<strong>is</strong>on between research data and<br />
interpreting individual archaeolog<strong>is</strong>ts’ meaning <strong>is</strong> at times difficult. I have<br />
compiled the range of terminology (Table 4.3) current used to describe <strong>mound</strong><br />
sites. The table column entitled “Shell Mounds” highlights the problem. The seven<br />
terms italicized all have been used as general descriptions of <strong>mound</strong> sites. Without<br />
further clarification from the researchers are we to suppose to understand the sites<br />
68
as a) the all same site type, or b) different site types, or c) some the same and some<br />
different. Th<strong>is</strong> argument may appear pedantic; however, it <strong>is</strong> used to illustrate the<br />
problem of widespread variation in terminology and the lack of clarity of meaning<br />
which <strong>is</strong> demonstrated across all three columns of terminologies.<br />
Table 4.3: Survey results for <strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong> terminologies (all references Appendix 2).<br />
Range of terminologies used by Australian and international archaeolog<strong>is</strong>ts to describe non‐<br />
<strong>mound</strong>ed <strong>midden</strong>s and <strong>mound</strong>ed <strong>midden</strong>s.<br />
Middens Shell Mounds Shell Midden Sites<br />
Shell <strong>midden</strong> Shell <strong>midden</strong> <strong>mound</strong> Shell matrix site<br />
Kitchen <strong>midden</strong> Midden <strong>mound</strong> Shell bearing habitation site<br />
Coastal <strong>midden</strong> Shell <strong>mound</strong> Composite <strong>mound</strong> site<br />
Circular <strong>midden</strong> Surface <strong>mound</strong> Shell bearing site<br />
Doughnut shaped <strong>midden</strong> Mound of <strong>shell</strong> Shell bearing <strong>midden</strong> site<br />
Paleochannel <strong>midden</strong> Large domed <strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong><br />
High‐density <strong>midden</strong> Base site <strong>mound</strong> Complexes of <strong>midden</strong> sites<br />
Linear <strong>midden</strong> Elongated <strong>mound</strong> Shell matrix site<br />
‘West Point Type’ <strong>midden</strong> Overlapping <strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong>s Shell bearing habitation site<br />
Midden dump Mudflat <strong>mound</strong> Composite <strong>mound</strong> site<br />
Medium sized <strong>midden</strong> U shape <strong>mound</strong><br />
Band of <strong>shell</strong> <strong>midden</strong> Mounded <strong>shell</strong> <strong>midden</strong>/ earth<br />
<strong>mound</strong><br />
Band of <strong>shell</strong> Earth <strong>mound</strong><br />
Geomorphological <strong>mound</strong><br />
The second and most fundamental point demonstrated by Table 4.3 <strong>is</strong> that there <strong>is</strong><br />
failure to clearly understand the difference between <strong>shell</strong> <strong>midden</strong> and <strong>shell</strong><br />
<strong>midden</strong> forms as defined by Sullivan (1989). The incons<strong>is</strong>tency in the application<br />
of criteria used to identify and describe <strong>mound</strong>ed and non‐<strong>mound</strong>ed <strong>shell</strong><br />
<strong>midden</strong>s <strong>is</strong> also demonstrated by Table 4.3.<br />
69
Midden form attributes<br />
Form describes the different physical attributes of a site. Shell <strong>midden</strong> form may be<br />
a single attribute such as <strong>shell</strong> lens or a combination of attributes such as circular‐<br />
<strong>mound</strong>ed, or linear‐ d<strong>is</strong>continuous‐irregular surface. The <strong>shell</strong> <strong>midden</strong> forms are<br />
defined by Sullivan (1989:51) and have been further developed by myself and are<br />
presented in the Table 4.4.<br />
Table 4.4: Shell <strong>midden</strong> form attributes (Sullivan 1989:51)<br />
Profile: Non‐<strong>mound</strong>ed‐ <strong>mound</strong>ed.<br />
Mounded Cross sections‐ Conical, hemi‐spherical, irregular<br />
Areal Shape: Elongated, circular, oval, doughnut, irregular.<br />
Dimensions: Min height or depth, diameter<br />
or length x width = area (sqm)<br />
Surface or stratified sub‐surface: Surface scatter –stratigraphic lens<br />
Depth or height from current ground level Depth‐measurement below current ground<br />
level.<br />
Height‐ measurement above current ground<br />
level.<br />
Continuity: Continuous –d<strong>is</strong>continuous<br />
The <strong>shell</strong> <strong>midden</strong> form attribute of profile identifies whether the <strong>shell</strong> <strong>midden</strong> site<br />
<strong>is</strong> <strong>mound</strong>ed or non‐<strong>mound</strong>ed. The cross‐section differentiates between an irregular<br />
<strong>mound</strong>ed form of <strong>midden</strong> and a conical– hem<strong>is</strong>pherical <strong>midden</strong> profile that can be<br />
classified as <strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong>. For a <strong>midden</strong> to be classified as a <strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong> the<br />
profile must in essence be; <strong>mound</strong>ed / ra<strong>is</strong>ed in its centre, form a small hill shape,<br />
have a heaped up nature. The cross section conical or hemi‐spherical shape can<br />
also be a variation in between the two profile shapes. Critically <strong>shell</strong> <strong>midden</strong>s<br />
described as <strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong>s must be lower at the edges and r<strong>is</strong>e towards a central<br />
high point.<br />
Th<strong>is</strong> argument has been determined by the definition of the word ‘Mound’ as<br />
language <strong>is</strong> the critical point of communication in research. The term ‘<strong>mound</strong>’ <strong>is</strong><br />
70
defined in the Oxford Dictionary (1999) as a “ra<strong>is</strong>ed mass of earth or other compacted<br />
material, a small hill, a heap or pile, or by the Verb: heap up into a <strong>mound</strong>. The<br />
understanding of the words ra<strong>is</strong>ed and pile <strong>is</strong> also important Ra<strong>is</strong>e; lift or move to a<br />
higher position or level, set upright, increase the amount or level. Pile: a heap of things laid<br />
or lying one on top of another, a large amount, a large imposing building. The dictionary<br />
definition of these words defining and describing ‘<strong>mound</strong>’ must be represented in<br />
the physical form of any <strong>midden</strong> site classified as a <strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong>. Therefore I argue<br />
that along with profile the <strong>midden</strong> form attribute of dimension (height, width,<br />
length or diameter) <strong>is</strong> also important. Both conical and hem<strong>is</strong>pherical profiles in<br />
their nature have d<strong>is</strong>tinct height variation from the outer edge to the highest point<br />
of a site. For a conical or hem<strong>is</strong>pherical profile to be‐ imposing, a small hill, high in<br />
level, large, the dimensions of site width, length, or diameter must also be relevant<br />
to that description. On the bas<strong>is</strong> of these arguments and analys<strong>is</strong> I propose the<br />
following definition identifying the criteria that differentiates between <strong>mound</strong>ed<br />
and non‐<strong>mound</strong>ed <strong>shell</strong> <strong>midden</strong>s.<br />
Definition: Criteria for describing and classifing <strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong>s<br />
A <strong>shell</strong> <strong>midden</strong> site classified as a <strong>mound</strong> should exhibit the following attributes of<br />
<strong>midden</strong> Form Profile and Dimension. The site Profile should be <strong>mound</strong>ed with a<br />
cross‐section of hemi‐spherical to conical. The Dimensions of height, width, length<br />
or diameter should represent a ra<strong>is</strong>ed imposing mass, a small hill, a pile of<br />
substance. Be d<strong>is</strong>tinctly different from a small pile of <strong>shell</strong>, at least 75cm high and<br />
3m in diameter. Height must move from a lower profile towards a higher profile<br />
and then progress downwards again to a lower profile. Th<strong>is</strong> definition will tested<br />
on BMB/116 in Chapter 6 as part of the site analys<strong>is</strong>.<br />
71
Definition d<strong>is</strong>cussion<br />
The essential element of th<strong>is</strong> definition <strong>is</strong> that <strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong> sites must demonstrate<br />
an essentially <strong>mound</strong>ed form. Th<strong>is</strong> form must be composed of the form attributes<br />
of Profile, Dimension, and Depth/Height. Therefore site classified by height alone<br />
as argued by Burns (1994) have demonstrated no <strong>mound</strong>ed attributes and I would<br />
argue they are a form of <strong>midden</strong>. Arguments will immediately ar<strong>is</strong>e when any<br />
definition <strong>is</strong> proposed suggesting examples of when the definition would not<br />
apply. <strong>One</strong> comes immediately to mind and therefore need to be addressed. Shell<br />
<strong>mound</strong>s are often located on mudflats as demonstrated by the previous survey of<br />
<strong>mound</strong> data and are prominent on the Point Blane peninsula (Figure 4.5). The<br />
photograph of a mudflat <strong>mound</strong> identified on the Point Blane peninsular<br />
demonstrates that they exhibit no apparent <strong>mound</strong>ed form the criteria of Profile,<br />
Dimension are not evident as these features are buried under the sediment.<br />
Similar mud flat <strong>mound</strong>s have been described by Burns (1999:64).<br />
I counter th<strong>is</strong> problem by developing a range of <strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong> site types which can<br />
be identified and recorded in the field. The identification of mudflat <strong>mound</strong>s as a<br />
d<strong>is</strong>tinct site type will counter the <strong>is</strong>sues faced by the literal application of the<br />
definition. Formal identification of a mudflat site as a <strong>mound</strong> could be determined<br />
by test pit excavation.<br />
72
Figure 4.5: Shell <strong>mound</strong> located on mudflats Point Blane peninsula<br />
(Photo Clarke 2003)<br />
Anthropological and naturally occurring <strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong>s<br />
Having determined the criteria for classifing <strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong>s it <strong>is</strong> worthwhile briefly<br />
d<strong>is</strong>cussing what other types of <strong>shell</strong> <strong>midden</strong>s and <strong>mound</strong> sites will be encountered<br />
in the field. Mounds can be divided into anthropological and naturally occurring<br />
<strong>mound</strong>s. The div<strong>is</strong>ion of <strong>mound</strong> types into two groups (Table 4.5) <strong>is</strong> the first step<br />
in consolidating terminology and site classification. In the l<strong>is</strong>t of cultural <strong>mound</strong><br />
terms have included <strong>midden</strong> sites often associated with <strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong> clusters to<br />
further demonstrate the use and application of the terminology. The development<br />
of a field recording sheet will form the second part of consolidating terminologies<br />
used to describe <strong>shell</strong> <strong>midden</strong> sites and has been specifically designed to facilitate<br />
<strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong> identification and recording.<br />
73
Table 4.5: Redefined <strong>midden</strong> terminologies & definitions after Roberts (1994:180) expanded by<br />
Alexander (2009).<br />
Shell <strong>midden</strong>‐ any <strong>shell</strong> deposit identified as cultural in nature, regardless of size<br />
areal shape or density.<br />
Shell scatter‐ a <strong>midden</strong> deposit with sparse <strong>shell</strong>, low in density.<br />
Shell lens‐ a <strong>midden</strong> deposit often a buried thin layer of <strong>shell</strong> in the stratigraphy<br />
of a site.<br />
Shell pile‐ unsubstantial conical or hemi‐spherical piles of <strong>shell</strong> 3m in diameter. Demonstrating d<strong>is</strong>tinct difference between the lowest to<br />
highest point in height.<br />
Types of cultural <strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong>s<br />
Mudflat Mounds‐ As above and varying in size located directly on or under seasonally inundated<br />
mudflats.<br />
Anadara <strong>mound</strong>s‐ Shell <strong>mound</strong>s composed of 90% Anadara <strong>shell</strong>s.<br />
Earth Mound‐ Large <strong>mound</strong> of earth and sand with low percentage of <strong>shell</strong> (Brockwell 2006).<br />
Naturally occurring <strong>mound</strong>s which may contain <strong>shell</strong><br />
Megapode <strong>mound</strong>s‐ conical or elongated <strong>mound</strong>s 0.50 ‐ 5m H with a high sediment content<br />
reflecting the immediate surroundings (Burns 1994).<br />
Geomorphological <strong>mound</strong>s‐ Often storm deposits. Long stratified <strong>mound</strong>s made up entirely of <strong>shell</strong><br />
species commonly found in the active foreshore environment.<br />
Recording <strong>shell</strong> <strong>midden</strong>s in the field<br />
The development of a definition <strong>is</strong> a theoretical process that requires further<br />
development for practical application. The best method of testing the practical<br />
application of the archaeological criteria for classifing <strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong>s <strong>is</strong> through the<br />
development of a field recording sheet. The recording of <strong>shell</strong> <strong>midden</strong> sites was<br />
developed by Sullivan (1989:50‐53) for the Australian Heritage Comm<strong>is</strong>sion and<br />
74
th<strong>is</strong> will form the bas<strong>is</strong> of the Field recording form for <strong>shell</strong> <strong>midden</strong>s I have<br />
developed; Appendix 9.1, which specifically focuses on classifing <strong>mound</strong>ed <strong>shell</strong><br />
<strong>midden</strong>s. My recording sheet will form the second part of consolidating<br />
terminologies used to describe <strong>shell</strong> <strong>midden</strong> sites. The sheet <strong>is</strong> intended as a guide<br />
to what data sets are required for <strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong> site identification, recording, and<br />
range of data relevant for research purposes. The actual recording form used in<br />
any specific program will vary, depending on the reason for the program and the<br />
research question being asked (Sullivan 1989). Finalization of a Field recording<br />
form <strong>is</strong> beyond the scope of th<strong>is</strong> study and <strong>is</strong> a subject for future research. The<br />
Field recording form <strong>is</strong> included as preliminary suggestion of attributes and data<br />
categories that need to be considered. The inclusion of diagrams of <strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong><br />
profiles recorded in the field would be a useful guide to the recording sheet.<br />
However these are rarely reproduced in journals, a compilation of recorded<br />
<strong>mound</strong> shape diagrams <strong>is</strong> a subject for further research. I have included a few<br />
images and diagrams that I found available (Figures 4.6 – 4.10).<br />
75
Images of <strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong> profiles<br />
Figure 4.6: Hancock Ridge NT a<br />
hemi‐spherical <strong>mound</strong> and second <strong>mound</strong><br />
with two phase formation a hem<strong>is</strong>pherical<br />
lower <strong>mound</strong> & conical <strong>mound</strong> atop<br />
(H<strong>is</strong>cock & Hughes 2001).<br />
Figure 4.9: Ballina NSW, Richmond River hemi‐spherical<br />
oyster <strong>mound</strong> (Statham 1892).<br />
Figure 4.7: Weipa QLD a conical Anadara <strong>mound</strong><br />
(Ir<strong>is</strong>h 2009).<br />
Figure 4.8: Hope Inlet NT conical Anadara <strong>mound</strong><br />
(H<strong>is</strong>cock 2008:176)<br />
76
Figure 4.6 a geomorphic diagram has been used to illustrate two <strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong>s at<br />
Haycock Reach NT (H<strong>is</strong>cock & Hughes 2001:42). The top (figure 3) image <strong>is</strong> of a<br />
classic hemi‐spherical <strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong>. A hemi‐spherical shape <strong>is</strong> curved or a crescent<br />
shape. The bottom image (figure 4) <strong>is</strong> complex <strong>mound</strong>ed <strong>midden</strong> with two phases<br />
of formation. The bottom section <strong>is</strong> a hemi‐spherical linear <strong>mound</strong> and the upper<br />
section a conical <strong>mound</strong>. The method of using geomorphic diagrams to illustrate<br />
the surface topography of <strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong>s <strong>is</strong> rarely used however it <strong>is</strong> a highly<br />
effective for illustrating surface variations in <strong>mound</strong>s often ind<strong>is</strong>cernible in<br />
photographic images. Figure 4.7 clearly illustrates the hem<strong>is</strong>pherical <strong>mound</strong>ed<br />
profile and character<strong>is</strong>tic establ<strong>is</strong>hment of vegetation on <strong>mound</strong> sites. Figure 4.8 <strong>is</strong><br />
classic conical Anadara <strong>mound</strong> of Australia northern coastline. Figure 4.9 an<br />
estuarine oyster hemi‐spherical <strong>mound</strong>, the image <strong>is</strong> also of h<strong>is</strong>torical interest as<br />
the image of the site was recorded in 1892. The last image I have included in th<strong>is</strong><br />
chapter <strong>is</strong> the iconic image of an Australian <strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong>. Figure 4.10 <strong>is</strong> an iconic<br />
photo that records a journal<strong>is</strong>t standing<br />
on an enormous <strong>mound</strong> at Weipa in<br />
1958 and <strong>is</strong> now part of the National<br />
photographic archives of Australia.<br />
Figure 4.10: Weipa Anadara <strong>mound</strong> 1958<br />
(National Archives of Australia).<br />
77
Conclusion<br />
Th<strong>is</strong> study’s first research aim examined <strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong> characterizing attributes and<br />
produced a new model for Australia <strong>mound</strong> attributes beyond the traditional<br />
Anadara <strong>mound</strong> model. The research establ<strong>is</strong>hed that BMB/116’s age and dominate<br />
<strong>shell</strong>f<strong>is</strong>h species are within the normal range for an Australian <strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong> while<br />
still remaining anomalous on the Point Blane peninsula. However it was also<br />
determined site attributes could not differentiate between <strong>mound</strong>ed or non‐<br />
<strong>mound</strong>ed <strong>midden</strong>s. The second part of the research question sought to answer th<strong>is</strong><br />
question and establ<strong>is</strong>hed the criteria for classifing <strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong> are the <strong>midden</strong><br />
form attributes of profile, dimension. These findings challenge previous study’s<br />
methods of classifing <strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong>s and argue for <strong>mound</strong> site classification to be<br />
reviewed. The examination of th<strong>is</strong> study’s first research questions has provided<br />
two new theoretical bases from which to interpret the analys<strong>is</strong> BMB/116 presented<br />
in Chapter 6.<br />
78
Chapter 5<br />
Research Methodology<br />
Introduction<br />
The following procedures were adopted during the excavation and analys<strong>is</strong> of<br />
excavated material from BMB/116: sampling during excavation of BMB/116 and<br />
analys<strong>is</strong> of the excavated materials; analys<strong>is</strong> of molluscan remains and non‐<br />
molluscan remains; and design of recording sheets for the data generated during<br />
analyses.<br />
Sampling<br />
A sample of BMB/116 was recorded by excavating a trench 1m by 50cm from a<br />
high point of the site down the side of the site (Clarke and Faulkner 2003). Th<strong>is</strong><br />
trench, divided into Pit A and Pit B each 50cm square, was taken to a depth of 40‐<br />
50cm in 12 excavation units. The deposit divided into three stratigraphic units. The<br />
total weight of material removed in each excavation unit was recorded and then a<br />
bulk sample of approximately 1.50 kilo was removed. The remaining material was<br />
then sieved through 6mm and 3mm sieves and the sieve remains bagged<br />
according to sieve screen size. The entire residue from the 6mm sieve fraction for<br />
each excavation unit from Pit B was sorted and analysed for th<strong>is</strong> study. The<br />
residue from the 3mm sieve was determined to be too highly fragmented for<br />
mollusc species identification or meaningful sorting of molluscan from non‐<br />
molluscan remains and therefore would not produce effective results for th<strong>is</strong><br />
study.<br />
Laboratory methods<br />
79
Figure 5.1: Shell reference collection establ<strong>is</strong>hed for th<strong>is</strong> study species were identified in<br />
excavated remains of BMB/116 Point Blane peninsula.<br />
Two preliminary tasks were undertaken to facilitate the analys<strong>is</strong> of excavated<br />
materials. Firstly three data recording sheets were developed encompassing the<br />
specific needs of th<strong>is</strong> study (Claassen 1998: 106): Laboratory recording form: mollusc<br />
analys<strong>is</strong> (Appendix 2.1), Laboratory recording form: non‐molluscan analys<strong>is</strong> (Appendix<br />
2.2), and Recording form: <strong>mound</strong> formation analys<strong>is</strong> (Appendix 2.3). The criterion for<br />
molluscan analys<strong>is</strong> includes; MNI counts, weight per taxon, weight of non<br />
molluscan remains, % calculations. The criterion for non‐molluscan analys<strong>is</strong><br />
includes; Bucket weight, Identified material weight, which includes rubble, plant<br />
and charcoal. The criterion for <strong>mound</strong> formation analys<strong>is</strong> includes; analys<strong>is</strong> by<br />
excavation unit of <strong>shell</strong> weight, followed by dominate <strong>shell</strong> species, rubble weight,<br />
plant weight, charcoal weight and a calculation of the percentage per excavation<br />
unit of the dominate material. Secondly a <strong>shell</strong> reference collection was<br />
establ<strong>is</strong>hed primarily from BMB/116 B XU4; which had a high volume and wide<br />
range of species in good condition. The taxa were identified to species level where<br />
possible under the advice of Dr M. Carter (2009) labeled and collated in a specimen<br />
case (Fig 5.1).<br />
80
The bagged material from the 6mm sieve fraction for each excavation unit was<br />
initially sorted into molluscan and non‐molluscan material. The weight of material<br />
in each of these categories was recorded in the data base.<br />
Analys<strong>is</strong> of molluscan remains for calculating MNI<br />
The molluscan remains were identified and sorted according species see Table 5.1.<br />
The next process was to sort each Bi‐valve into species and then each species into<br />
predetermined categories for the calculation of MNI. Bivalve species were sorted<br />
into umbos
Fig 5.2: Three typical bivalve <strong>shell</strong>s all left halves, shown from the inner sides. Note umbo used<br />
for calculating MNI (Wilson 2008:13).<br />
Gastropods were sorted into whole mouths, whole <strong>shell</strong>s >70%, and fragments<br />
(Figure 5.3).<br />
Figure 5.3: A Nerita s.p. gastropod with mouth area highlighted used for calculating MNI<br />
(www.gastropods.com).<br />
82
Oysters were sorted into lids, bases and fragments (Ulm 2006:41) see figure 5.4.<br />
Each diagnostic category for each species was then counted and weighed and the<br />
data entered into the data base.<br />
Figure 5.4: Oyster lid and base both used for calculating<br />
MNI (The Australian Museum 2009).<br />
Non‐economic species of <strong>shell</strong>
excavation unit was recorded and calculated as a % of total excavation unit weight.<br />
Th<strong>is</strong> data will inform on the level of taphonomic d<strong>is</strong>turbance per excavation unit<br />
by hydrology.<br />
Shell analys<strong>is</strong><br />
Th<strong>is</strong> section reviews the methods used for the measurement of relative abundance<br />
of <strong>shell</strong>f<strong>is</strong>h in archaeological deposits, after which the methods selected to analyze<br />
BMB/116 are presented. The measure of relative abundance <strong>is</strong> important in the<br />
analys<strong>is</strong> of <strong>shell</strong> <strong>midden</strong>s because the generated data informs on <strong>shell</strong>f<strong>is</strong>h species<br />
volume, species proportion and identifies selectivity of targeted species. The<br />
identification of species selectivity in a <strong>shell</strong> deposit <strong>is</strong> a primary indicator for<br />
differentiating between cultural and natural <strong>shell</strong> deposits.<br />
There are three methods used to measure relative abundance. These are minimum<br />
number of individuals (MNI), number of individual specimens (NISP) and <strong>shell</strong><br />
weight per taxon. The data collected from the measurement of abundance in a<br />
deposit includes volume, density and proportion. The percentage frequencies for<br />
each taxon are the most common stat<strong>is</strong>tic generated for <strong>shell</strong>f<strong>is</strong>h in sites that<br />
contain more than one molluscan species. Th<strong>is</strong> measure bears the most<br />
interpretative weight. In cultural <strong>shell</strong> deposits the species diversity, ubiquity,<br />
species dominance and habitat can provide information about human behavior the<br />
environment and site formation processes across time (Claassen 1998:106 ‐116).<br />
Species diversity refers to the number of species in an assemblage, a number often<br />
compared with other site assemblages (Claassen 1998:117). In th<strong>is</strong> study diversity<br />
<strong>is</strong> measured across each excavation unit (Table 6.3). The identification of diversity<br />
<strong>is</strong> important for two reasons firstly as an indicator of the cultural origins of the site.<br />
84
Secondly species diversity informs on the local environmental during site<br />
occupation and indicates resource availability and procurement patterns.<br />
Species dominance <strong>is</strong> interpreted as either culturally or environmentally<br />
determined (Claassen 1998:133). In th<strong>is</strong> study species dominance <strong>is</strong> measured<br />
across all excavation units by weight and MNI. Meehan (1982:71 & 80) observed<br />
cultural determin<strong>is</strong>m as the range and quantity of species collected was not only<br />
related to <strong>is</strong>sues of subs<strong>is</strong>tence. Small quantities of a variety of species were<br />
collected by both children and adults to be eaten as tidbits before the main meal of<br />
a single targeted species. Environmental determin<strong>is</strong>m <strong>is</strong> illustrated by<br />
proportional hunting archaeolog<strong>is</strong>t analys<strong>is</strong> of <strong>shell</strong>f<strong>is</strong>h assemblages in the USA<br />
and South Africa (Yesner 1977; Lobell 1980; Litter 1980; Voigt 1982 cited by<br />
Claassen 1989:132) demonstrated that species proportions occurred in the same<br />
rank order as they do in the living environment.<br />
The identification of <strong>shell</strong>f<strong>is</strong>h habitats represents the optimal environmental<br />
conditions required for the establ<strong>is</strong>hment of <strong>shell</strong>‐beds (Faulkner 2009:83; Claassen<br />
1998:126). Information on the range of habitats of <strong>shell</strong>f<strong>is</strong>h species found in an<br />
archaeological site provides evidence for environmental conditions in a region<br />
during the period of site occupation (Claassen 1998:122). The identification of<br />
species habitat provides information on which foraging zones were targeted to<br />
procure resources consumed or processed at the site (Bourke 2004).<br />
Methodology for <strong>shell</strong> analys<strong>is</strong>: Reviews and implications<br />
The calculation of the quantity of individual taxon in excavated material <strong>is</strong><br />
typically determined by counting. Counting methods are; MNI where the number<br />
of predetermined diagnostic elements are counted, or NISP which involves the<br />
identification and counting of every <strong>shell</strong> fragment per taxon (Claassen 1998:106).<br />
85
Number of Identified Specimens (NISP)<br />
The NISP measure <strong>is</strong> the number of <strong>shell</strong> fragments identified to a particular taxon.<br />
NISP <strong>is</strong> useful for intra‐ and inter site compar<strong>is</strong>ons of individual taxon and for<br />
examining <strong>shell</strong> fragmentation rates (Ulm 2006:41‐42). The major limitation of th<strong>is</strong><br />
method <strong>is</strong> the level of identifiability of <strong>shell</strong> fragments. NISP has been criticized for<br />
over‐representing the abundance of taxa with d<strong>is</strong>tinctive sculpture attributes<br />
(Mowat 1995) or when taxa are highly fragmented (Marshall & Pilgram 1993: 261).<br />
The critical <strong>is</strong>sue associated with NISP methodology <strong>is</strong> that identification of every<br />
<strong>shell</strong> fragment <strong>is</strong> very time consuming and accuracy <strong>is</strong> problematic. NISP <strong>is</strong> argued<br />
not to be cost effective in terms of time and accuracy and MNI <strong>is</strong> preferable<br />
(Mowat 1995:81).<br />
Minimum Number of Individuals (MNI)<br />
MNI <strong>is</strong> the minimum number if individual taxon that can be counted. The<br />
diagnostic elements representative of each taxon <strong>is</strong> determined then sorted and<br />
counted. In bivalves hinges are counted, either by the highest number of hinges of<br />
left or right side, or where <strong>shell</strong> <strong>is</strong> more fragmented the total number of hinges are<br />
counted then halved to represent MNI. For asymmetrical bivalves (e.g. oysters)<br />
<strong>shell</strong> are separated into upper (lids) and lower (bases) valves and the greater<br />
number taken as MNI. For gastropods spires or mouths are counted to calculate<br />
MNI. In highly fragmented assemblages <strong>shell</strong> fragmentation <strong>is</strong> highly varied and<br />
results in an incons<strong>is</strong>tent pattern of survival of diagnostic elements severely over<br />
and under estimating different taxa’s levels of abundance(Ulm 2006:41).<br />
Weight<br />
The weight of all pieces of an individual taxon <strong>is</strong> calculated in either grams or<br />
kilograms and achieves an absolute frequency. Th<strong>is</strong> method <strong>is</strong> a quick and easy.<br />
86
The limitations of th<strong>is</strong> method are heavier <strong>shell</strong>ed taxon appear d<strong>is</strong>proportionate<br />
to lighter <strong>shell</strong>ed taxon when an MNI count many argue they represent the same<br />
number of <strong>shell</strong>s (Claassen 1998: 107). Th<strong>is</strong> problem <strong>is</strong> set against the <strong>is</strong>sue that<br />
MNI does not differentiate between <strong>shell</strong> size both within species and between<br />
species (Bowdler 1983:140). The solution has been successfully argued that both<br />
percentages by weight and MNI or NISP are needed to adequately describe the<br />
proportions of <strong>shell</strong>f<strong>is</strong>h species in a site (Coleman 1966: 37, cited by Bowdler<br />
1983:140).<br />
Summary of <strong>shell</strong> analys<strong>is</strong> methodology<br />
MNI <strong>is</strong> the preferred method if time <strong>is</strong> a premium. The calculation of weight of<br />
sorted taxon <strong>is</strong> a valuable addition as time permits. The combination of the two<br />
methods of MNI and weight counters many of the <strong>is</strong>sues that each method alone<br />
contains and provides a good bas<strong>is</strong> for measures of abundance and calculation of<br />
percentage frequencies. On th<strong>is</strong> bas<strong>is</strong> the use of MNI and weight <strong>is</strong> justified for the<br />
investigations in th<strong>is</strong> study.<br />
Field data<br />
Field data on 60 <strong>shell</strong>s sites identified during the Point Blane peninsula survey<br />
(Clarke & Faulkner 2003) was compiled for analys<strong>is</strong>. An Excel spreadsheet was<br />
establ<strong>is</strong>hed to record each <strong>mound</strong>’s code and dimensions including length, width,<br />
and height and also age when available. Th<strong>is</strong> data was then assessed to calculate<br />
the number of <strong>mound</strong>s less than 75cm in height. The compilation of th<strong>is</strong> data<br />
provides a data set to test the implications of the implementation of the <strong>shell</strong><br />
<strong>mound</strong> classification criteria presented in Chapter 4.<br />
87
Conclusion<br />
MNI and weight have been determined as the most suitable measurement for<br />
determining species abundance in BMB/116 B. Th<strong>is</strong> numerical data informs on<br />
each taxon’s relative abundance and if the range of <strong>shell</strong> f<strong>is</strong>h identified<br />
demonstrates selectivity of targeted species. Th<strong>is</strong> data which informs on human<br />
behavior and the environment <strong>is</strong> presented in Chapter 6. The field data <strong>is</strong> used in<br />
a comparative analys<strong>is</strong> of the dimensions of <strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong>s on the Point Blane<br />
peninsula, including BMB/116. Th<strong>is</strong> data supports the d<strong>is</strong>cussion in Chapter 3 on<br />
the characterizing attributes of <strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong> form of height, profile and volume.<br />
88
CHAPTER 6<br />
BMB/116: Results of analys<strong>is</strong> and interpretation<br />
Introduction<br />
Th<strong>is</strong> chapter presents the results of analys<strong>is</strong> of the BMB/116 test excavation. Analys<strong>is</strong><br />
focuses on the marine <strong>shell</strong> assemblage and investigates the key features of species<br />
diversity, dominant species and <strong>shell</strong>f<strong>is</strong>h habitat. Analys<strong>is</strong> <strong>is</strong> conducted by calculating<br />
data from each Excavation Unit (XU) of the BMB/116 excavation. Results obtained from<br />
the analys<strong>is</strong> are firstly used to interpret the nature of the BMB/116 <strong>shell</strong> deposit, and<br />
secondly to interpret the relationship between BMB/116 and the other archaeological<br />
sites identified in the Point Blane peninsula inlet. The final aim of th<strong>is</strong> chapter <strong>is</strong> to<br />
contextualize the BMB/116 archaeological deposit within the newly constructed<br />
classificatory framework of <strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong>s in Australian archaeology.<br />
The faunal assemblage: Marine <strong>shell</strong> remains<br />
The faunal assemblage of BMB/116 cons<strong>is</strong>ts almost exclusively of the remains of<br />
<strong>shell</strong>f<strong>is</strong>h (one small fragment of crustacean <strong>shell</strong> was recovered in XU3). Table 6.1<br />
provides the total weight and proportions of <strong>shell</strong> recovered from each XU. Th<strong>is</strong> data<br />
demonstrates the majority of the <strong>shell</strong> assemblage was recovered from the upper<br />
section of the excavation in XU1‐5, compr<strong>is</strong>ing 93% of the total <strong>shell</strong> assemblage. As<br />
described in Chapter 3, XU6‐7 were not excavated in BMB/116 (Test Pit B) and are not<br />
included in the archaeological analyses. The lower half of the excavation (XU8‐12)<br />
contained the remaining small proportion of the <strong>shell</strong> assemblage (7%). Based on th<strong>is</strong><br />
vertical d<strong>is</strong>tribution of the <strong>shell</strong> remains, for the purpose of th<strong>is</strong> analys<strong>is</strong> from th<strong>is</strong><br />
point XU1‐5 are classified as the upper half of excavation and XU8‐12 are classified as<br />
89
the lower half of the excavation. Th<strong>is</strong> div<strong>is</strong>ion of the assemblage directly corresponds<br />
to the natural stratigraphy of the BMB/116 excavation and the absence of XU6 and<br />
XU7 (described previously in Chapter 3).<br />
Species diversity<br />
Table 6.1 Total <strong>shell</strong> weight per XU.<br />
Upper half<br />
Lower half<br />
XU Shell<br />
weight<br />
(gm)<br />
% Shell<br />
weight<br />
1 1566.0 11.4<br />
2 3321.9 24.1<br />
3 3115.0 22.6<br />
4 3960.30 28.8<br />
5 786.5 5.7<br />
6 Not excavated<br />
7 Not excavated<br />
8 311.75 2.3<br />
9 222.5 1.6<br />
10 340.0 2.5<br />
11 128.0 0.9<br />
12 13.0 0.1<br />
Total 13764.95 100%<br />
A total of 26 species were identified in the BMB/116 assemblage, compr<strong>is</strong>ing 16 marine<br />
<strong>shell</strong> species that were identified to taxon level (Table 6.2) and ten species measuring<br />
Table 6.2 Identified <strong>shell</strong> f<strong>is</strong>h species<br />
Taxon Common name<br />
Anadara granosa Roughbacked cockle<br />
Asaph<strong>is</strong> violascens Sunset clam<br />
Anadara s.p Cockle<br />
Chama fibula Spiny oyster<br />
Gafrarium tumidum Venus <strong>shell</strong><br />
Isognomon ephippium Hammer oyster<br />
Marcia hiantina Beach clam<br />
Nerita s.p. Periwinkle<br />
Pinctada margaritifera Pearl or Winged oyster<br />
Polymosoda erosa Mud clam<br />
Saccostrea culcullata Rock oyster<br />
Strombus s.p Conch<br />
Septifer bilocular<strong>is</strong> Mussel<br />
Telescopium telescopium Long bum<br />
Terebralia palustr<strong>is</strong> Mud whelk<br />
Xanthomelon sp. Land snail<br />
Veneridae Family ‐<br />
Table 6.3 Shellf<strong>is</strong>h species present in each<br />
XU<br />
Marcia hiantina<br />
No. of species<br />
12<br />
10<br />
8<br />
6<br />
4<br />
2<br />
0<br />
Anadara granosa<br />
Isognomon ephippium<br />
Saccostrea culcullata<br />
Gafrarium tumidum<br />
Terebralia palustr<strong>is</strong><br />
Nerita s.p.<br />
Figure 6.1 Number of identified species per XU<br />
Polymesoda erosa<br />
1 x x x x x x x x x x x<br />
2 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x<br />
3 x x x x x x x x x x x x x<br />
4 x x x x x x x x x x x x<br />
5 x x x x x x x x x x<br />
8 x x x x x x x x x<br />
9 x x x x x x x x<br />
10 x x x x x x x x x<br />
11 x x x x x x x x x x<br />
12 x x<br />
N<br />
o<br />
t<br />
e<br />
x<br />
c<br />
a<br />
v<br />
a<br />
t<br />
e<br />
d<br />
Septifer bilocular<strong>is</strong><br />
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12<br />
Excavation Unit<br />
N<br />
o<br />
t<br />
e<br />
x<br />
c<br />
a<br />
v<br />
a<br />
t<br />
e<br />
d<br />
Telescopium telescopium<br />
Pinctada margaritifera<br />
Chama fibula<br />
Asaph<strong>is</strong> violascens<br />
Strombus s.p.<br />
Veneridae s.p.<br />
Xanthomelon sp.<br />
92<br />
Species
Dominant species<br />
The dominant species in the BMB/116 marine <strong>shell</strong> assemblage are determined by the<br />
analys<strong>is</strong> of both weight and MNI calculations of the identified species. Table 6.4<br />
provides a l<strong>is</strong>t of weight and MNI data for all identified species in each XU and Table<br />
6.5 provides a summary of the calculated %weight and %MNI of all identified species.<br />
Both quantitative datasets reveal the species Marcia hiantina as the unequivocally<br />
dominate species in each XU. In contrast, the second most dominant species <strong>is</strong><br />
variable throughout the BMB/116 deposit: XU1‐4 <strong>is</strong> dominated by Anadara granosa;<br />
XU5 <strong>is</strong> dominated by Isognomon ephippium; XU8‐10 are dominated by Saccostrea<br />
culcullata while the lowermost units (XU11–12) have proportionally equal quantities of<br />
Anadara granosa, Saccostrea Culcullata and Gafrarium tumidum. The species composition<br />
of the BMB/116 deposit indicates that although Marcia hiantina remained the dominant<br />
species throughput the occupation of the site, there may have been some change over<br />
time in the selection of species that were more secondary to the marine <strong>shell</strong>‐f<strong>is</strong>hing<br />
economy. Th<strong>is</strong> will be d<strong>is</strong>cussed further below in the context of <strong>shell</strong>f<strong>is</strong>h habitat of the<br />
identified species and procurement strategies.<br />
Of the relatively conservative number of 32 commonly occurring <strong>shell</strong>f<strong>is</strong>h species<br />
previously identified at Point Blane peninsula by Clarke and Faulkner (2003:49‐51),<br />
eight are indentified as commonly occurring across the 116 recorded <strong>midden</strong> sites.<br />
These species are l<strong>is</strong>ted in Table 6.6 in order of frequency. Th<strong>is</strong> table also l<strong>is</strong>ts the<br />
most commonly occurring species identified in the BMB/116 marine <strong>shell</strong> assemblage<br />
based on %weight and %MNI quantities. A compar<strong>is</strong>on of the two groups shows that<br />
only two species ‐ Marcia hiantina and Anadara granosa ‐ are identified as commonly<br />
occurring in both sets of archaeological data. Th<strong>is</strong> apparent variability in dominant<br />
species diversity across the study area will be d<strong>is</strong>cussed further below.<br />
93
Table 6.4 Shell species weight and MNI per XU<br />
XU1 XU2 XU3 XU4 XU5 XU8 XU9 XU10 XU11 XU12<br />
Species<br />
Marcia<br />
hiantina<br />
Anadara<br />
granosa<br />
Isognomon<br />
ephippium<br />
Saccostrea<br />
culcullata<br />
Gafrarium<br />
tumidum<br />
Terebralia<br />
palustr<strong>is</strong><br />
Polymesoda<br />
erosa<br />
Telescopium<br />
telescopium<br />
Nerita sp.<br />
Weight(gm)<br />
MNI<br />
Weight(gm)<br />
MNI<br />
Weights (gm)<br />
MNI<br />
Weight gms<br />
MNI<br />
Weight gms<br />
MNI<br />
854.00 58 2034.00 220 1750.00 236 2086.00 195 504.00 79 156.50 30 144.50 35 212.50 49 54.00 15 7.50 2<br />
450.00 11 299.00 10 167.00 6 254.00 9 4.50 2.50 3.00 1 / 15.00 1 1.00<br />
101.50 44.50 164.00 1 245.00 21 141.50 131 7.50 4.50 5.50 2.50 ‐<br />
49.50 5 62.50 2 97.50 3 156.00 15 46.50 1 66.00 5 23.00 1 32.50 5 15.00 2 ‐<br />
1.50 1.50 14.50 1 40.50 6 7.50 23.50 5 15.00 3 31.50 3 15.00 3 1.00 1<br />
‐ 12.00 12.50 63.50 18.00 ‐ 5.00 8.50 4.00 ‐<br />
23.00 1 10.00 38.50 1 ‐ 5.00 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐<br />
‐ 3.50 5.00 18.00 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐<br />
38.00 5 21.00 2 18.00 1 19.00 2 6.50 5.60 1 5.00 4.50 2 3.00 ‐<br />
Septifer<br />
bilocular<strong>is</strong><br />
1.50 2.00 8.00 37.50 10.50 10 2.70 1 ‐ 2.00 1 2.00 3 ‐<br />
Pinctada<br />
margaritifera<br />
2.00 4.50 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐<br />
Charma fibula ‐ 3.50 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐<br />
Unidentified<br />
<strong>shell</strong> &<br />
fragments<br />
44.50 10 794.50 39 791.55 36 954.80 341 27.00 48 40.55 45 25.50 10 42.50 9 12.50 9 3.50<br />
Totals 1566.00 90 3321.90 274 3115.00 285 3960.30 598 786.50 151 311.75 87 222.50 50 340.00 69 128.00 33 13.00<br />
Weight gms<br />
MNI<br />
Weight gms<br />
MNI<br />
Weight gms<br />
MNI<br />
Weight gms<br />
MNI<br />
94<br />
Weight gms<br />
MNI
Table 6.5 %Weight and % MNI of <strong>shell</strong> species per XU<br />
XU1 XU2 XU3 XU4 XU5 XU8 XU9 XU10 XU11 XU12<br />
%Weight<br />
%MNI<br />
%Weight<br />
%MNI<br />
%Weight<br />
%MNI<br />
%Weight<br />
%MNI<br />
Marcia hiantina 55% 65% 61% 80% 56% 79% 53% 33% 64% 53% 51% 34% 65% 70% 63% 70% 42% 46% 58% 67%<br />
Anadara granosa 29% 12% 9% 4% 5% 3% 7% 1% 1% ‐ 1% ‐ 1% 2% 1% ‐ 13% 3% 7% 33<br />
Isognomon ephippium 6% ‐ 1% ‐ 5% 3% 7% 3% 18% 8% 3% ‐ 2% ‐ 2% ‐ 2% ‐ ‐ ‐<br />
Saccostrea culcullata 3% 5% 2% 1% 3% 1% 4% 2% 6%
Shellf<strong>is</strong>h habitat<br />
Table 6.6: Commonly recorded <strong>shell</strong>f<strong>is</strong>h species in order of<br />
frequency (shaded species indicate common species)<br />
Point Blane peninsula study region BMB/116<br />
Anadara granosa Marcia hiantina<br />
Polymesoda erosa Anadara granosa<br />
Mactra abbreviata Isognomon ephippium<br />
Marcia hiantina Saccostrea culcullata<br />
Telescopium telescopium Gafrarium tumidum<br />
Ostrea s.p. Terebralia palustr<strong>is</strong><br />
Placuna placenta Nerita s.p.<br />
Septifer bilocular<strong>is</strong><br />
Table 6.7 provides a summary of the common habitats of the identified <strong>shell</strong>f<strong>is</strong>h<br />
species in the BMB/116 deposit. These species represent a range of coastal habitats,<br />
including mangroves, littoral sand and estuarine. For the purposes of th<strong>is</strong> study the<br />
different range of habitat areas have been broadly classified as one of the three main<br />
habitat areas: beach, rocky foreshore and mangrove (see Table 6.7). Analys<strong>is</strong> of<br />
habitats of the entire BMB/116 <strong>shell</strong> assemblage (based on %weight) demonstrates a<br />
cons<strong>is</strong>tent pattern within the deposit. Table 6.8 demonstrates that beach species<br />
clearly dominate compr<strong>is</strong>ing 68% of the total excavated deposit. Both rocky foreshore<br />
species (9%) and mangrove species (6%) compr<strong>is</strong>e much smaller proportions of the<br />
excavated <strong>shell</strong> (the remaining 17% compr<strong>is</strong>es fragmented <strong>shell</strong> and <strong>shell</strong>
Table 6.7<br />
Taxon Common name Specific habitat Broad habitat area<br />
Anadara granosa Roughbacked<br />
cockle<br />
Littoral sand and mud Beach<br />
Chama fibula Spiny oyster Coral rock, or <strong>shell</strong> debr<strong>is</strong> Rocky foreshore<br />
Gafrarium tumidum Venus <strong>shell</strong> Littoral muddy sand<br />
Beach<br />
Isognomon Hammer oyster Mangroves to under rocks Mangrove<br />
ephippium<br />
in shallow water<br />
Marcia hiantina Littoral sand Beach<br />
Nerita s.p. Periwinkle Mangroves roots / rocks Rocky foreshore<br />
Pinctada<br />
Pearl or Winged Attached to substrate in Beach<br />
margaritifera oyster<br />
intertidal / subtidal areas<br />
Polymosoda erosa Coastal rivers, streams ,<br />
estuaries<br />
Mangrove<br />
Saccostrea<br />
culcullata<br />
Rock oyster Mangrove roots/ rocks in<br />
subtidal areas<br />
Strombus s.p Littoral sand<br />
Mangrove<br />
Beach<br />
Septifer bilocular<strong>is</strong> Attached to rock or debr<strong>is</strong> Rocky foreshore<br />
Telescopium<br />
telescopium<br />
Long bum Mangroves<br />
Mangrove<br />
Terebralia palustr<strong>is</strong> Mud whelk Mangroves<br />
Mangrove<br />
Xanthomelon sp. Land snail Land Terrestrial<br />
Veneridae Family Littoral sand Beach<br />
Table 6.8: Shellf<strong>is</strong>h weight of each habitat<br />
calculated as a % across excavation units.<br />
XU Beach Rocky foreshore Mangrove<br />
Upper half<br />
1 83% 6% 7%<br />
2 70% 3% 2%<br />
3 63% 4% 6%<br />
4 60% 5% 8%<br />
5 66% 8% 20%<br />
Lower half<br />
8 59% 23% 2%<br />
9 73% 11% 4%<br />
10 72% 11% 6%<br />
11 66% 16% 5%<br />
12 73% 0% 0%<br />
Further analys<strong>is</strong> of the habitats represented in the lower and upper halves of the<br />
excavation, however, reveal a decrease in the proportions of rocky foreshore species<br />
and a corresponding increase in the proportions of mangrove species in the upper half<br />
of the excavation. Although the cons<strong>is</strong>tent large (~60%) proportions of beach species<br />
indicate that th<strong>is</strong> habitat zone remained of central importance for <strong>shell</strong>f<strong>is</strong>hing during<br />
the entire phase of site occupation, the change in the proportions of secondary<br />
<strong>shell</strong>f<strong>is</strong>h species may indicate a some localized environmental change in the area. Th<strong>is</strong><br />
will be d<strong>is</strong>cussed further below.<br />
Summary and Interpretations<br />
The results of the analys<strong>is</strong> presented above have demonstrated a number of d<strong>is</strong>tinct<br />
character<strong>is</strong>tics of the BMB/116 archaeological <strong>shell</strong> assemblage. These are<br />
summarized and interpreted as follows:<br />
• To the virtual exclusion of all other faunal remains including f<strong>is</strong>h bone, the<br />
excavated faunal assemblage compr<strong>is</strong>ed entirely of the remains of <strong>shell</strong>f<strong>is</strong>h;<br />
98
• The largest quantity of <strong>shell</strong> was recovered from the upper half of the<br />
excavation in XU1‐5, with a significantly smaller quantity in the lower half in<br />
XU8‐12;<br />
• The limited number of species identified in the BMB/116 excavated deposit<br />
(n=26) <strong>is</strong> cons<strong>is</strong>tent with broader patterns of limited species diversity<br />
previously establ<strong>is</strong>hed for the Point Blane peninsula study area;<br />
• The entire BMB/116 assemblage was dominated by a single species (Marcia<br />
hiantina), with some variability demonstrated in the second most commonly<br />
occurring species, most evident in a compar<strong>is</strong>on of the upper and lower<br />
halves of the excavation;<br />
• Compar<strong>is</strong>on of the eight most commonly occurring species at BMB/116 and<br />
the broader Point Blane peninsula study area (Clarke and Faulkner 2003)<br />
demonstrate variability in the diversity of identified dominate species with<br />
only two species – Marcia hiantina and Anadara granosa cons<strong>is</strong>tently recorded;<br />
• Beach species dominate the entire BMB/116 archaeological <strong>shell</strong> assemblage<br />
indicating th<strong>is</strong> habitat as a key resource procurement zone throughout the<br />
occupation of the site;<br />
• Species from rocky foreshore and mangroves occur in much smaller<br />
proportions throughout the deposit, suggesting these habitat areas were<br />
much less depended on for marine resource procurement;<br />
• Limited evidence for the possibility of localized environment change in the<br />
area indicated an increase in the deposition of mangrove <strong>shell</strong> species in the<br />
upper half of the excavation.<br />
The identified archaeological features of the BMB/116 deposit allow for the<br />
interpretation of a range of <strong>is</strong>sues central to the main research aims of developing an<br />
understanding of the resource procurement activities and deposition processes that<br />
99
esulted in the formation of BMB/116, and characterization of BMB/116 within the<br />
newly constructed contextual frame work for defining <strong>mound</strong>ed <strong>shell</strong> <strong>midden</strong><br />
deposits. Based on the results presented above, interpretations of site origin,<br />
occupation patterns, resource procurement activities, and coastal landscape change<br />
for BMB/116 are presented.<br />
The origin of BMB/116: Cultural or Natural?<br />
Criteria for determining the natural and cultural origins of <strong>shell</strong> deposits has been<br />
widely d<strong>is</strong>cussed and debated in archaeological literature (Bailey 1977; Bowdler 1983;<br />
Claassen 1998:76; Attenbrow 1992; Carter 1997; Esposito 2005). Appendix 7 provides a<br />
summary of the most common criteria used by archaeolog<strong>is</strong>ts for d<strong>is</strong>tingu<strong>is</strong>hing<br />
between natural and cultural <strong>shell</strong> deposits (Attenbrow 1992). Through the<br />
application of these criteria to the BMB/116 archaeological deposit and the results of<br />
the present analyses, Clarke and Faulkner’s (2003) identification of BMB/116 as a<br />
cultural <strong>shell</strong> deposit <strong>is</strong> unequivocally confirmed. The features which clearly<br />
d<strong>is</strong>tingu<strong>is</strong>h the site as cultural are:<br />
• A restricted range of <strong>shell</strong>f<strong>is</strong>h species sourced from three different coastal<br />
habitats located in immediate proximity to the site;<br />
• The dominance of the remains of one <strong>shell</strong>f<strong>is</strong>h species (Marcia hiantina);<br />
• Presence of cons<strong>is</strong>tently larger (adult) sized <strong>shell</strong>s for all identified species,<br />
while small (juvenile) <strong>shell</strong>s are were rare;<br />
• Overall limited quantity of <strong>shell</strong>s measuring
• Radiocarbon dating suggests site occupation occurred prior to European<br />
contact in the study area.<br />
<strong>One</strong> notable aspect of the analys<strong>is</strong> of the faunal remains was the absence of f<strong>is</strong>h<br />
bone. The presence of f<strong>is</strong>hbone <strong>is</strong> common in <strong>shell</strong> <strong>midden</strong>s and <strong>is</strong> generally<br />
considered to preserve well in these depositional contexts in Australia (Sullivan<br />
1989:49). The absence of f<strong>is</strong>h bone in the BMB/116 deposit <strong>is</strong> contrary to<br />
associated oral h<strong>is</strong>tory evidence, which suggests that the Lumatjpi Inlet was used<br />
for f<strong>is</strong>hing, freshwater collection and <strong>shell</strong>f<strong>is</strong>h gathering for the last 30 years<br />
(Clarke and Faulkner 2000 personal comments cited by Esposito 2005:11). Clarke<br />
(pers. comm. 2009), however, comments that vertebrate faunal remains were<br />
rarely found in <strong>shell</strong> <strong>midden</strong>s in Blue Mud Bay and suggests that harsh<br />
monsoonal conditions may impact on bone preservation in the study area.<br />
The limited range of archaeological faunal remains in BMB/116 <strong>is</strong> also in contrast<br />
to the wide selection of terrestrial and marine fauna used as subs<strong>is</strong>tence<br />
resources by the Yilpara community today (Chapter 3, Table 3.4) (Clarke and<br />
Faulkner 2000 cited by Esposito 2005:11 on f<strong>is</strong>hing in the inlet within living<br />
memory). The paucity of bone identified in sites across the region supports<br />
Clarke’s comment of poor preservation of archaeological vertebrate remains in<br />
the study area. The absence of f<strong>is</strong>hbone and other bone remains in BMB/116 <strong>is</strong><br />
interpreted as the possible result of taphonomic processes; however, further<br />
investigations may be required to confirm the reasons for the absence of<br />
archaeological vertebrate material across Blane peninsula. The small quantity<br />
and range of the non‐<strong>shell</strong> remains identified during the analys<strong>is</strong> does not<br />
warrant further description and consideration of these materials (see Appendix 4<br />
for details).<br />
101
BMB/116 formation and occupation pattern<br />
The above analyses demonstrated that the majority of the <strong>shell</strong> assemblage (93%)<br />
from BMB/116 was recovered from the upper half of the excavation, with very<br />
little <strong>shell</strong> in the lower half. Th<strong>is</strong> deposition pattern indicates intensive site use<br />
during the most recent phase of occupation which occurred sometime prior to<br />
280 years BP. Due to the absence of a radiocarbon date from the middle of the<br />
excavation (XU4 or XU5), which marks the likely transition from low intensity<br />
site use to high intensity site use, interpretation of the timing of th<strong>is</strong> transition <strong>is</strong><br />
not possible at present.<br />
The small proportion of the archaeological <strong>shell</strong> (7%) in the lower half of the<br />
excavation suggests that after initial site use, dated to 657 years BP, occupation<br />
of the site was non‐intensive. The presence of large quantities of laterite in the<br />
lower half of the excavation supports the interpretation of limited early site use,<br />
as well as the natural accumulation of th<strong>is</strong> material washed in from the nearby<br />
laterite ridge. In compar<strong>is</strong>on, smaller quantities of laterite were identified from<br />
the upper half of the excavation, confirming a change in site use and site<br />
contours (i.e. emergence of a <strong>mound</strong>ed form of <strong>shell</strong> <strong>midden</strong>) (see Appendix 5<br />
for %weights of laterite per XU).<br />
The nature of the <strong>shell</strong> remains identified in the lower half of the excavation <strong>is</strong><br />
cons<strong>is</strong>tent with descriptions of the recorded stratigraphic features at BMB/116<br />
(Clarke and Faulkner 2003:72). Restricted lenses of <strong>midden</strong> material were<br />
recorded during excavation and can be observed in the stratigraphic profile (see<br />
102
Figure 3.14). The cons<strong>is</strong>tent patterns observed throughout the assemblage in<br />
<strong>shell</strong>f<strong>is</strong>h species d<strong>is</strong>tribution (Table 6.3) and dominance of beach habitat species<br />
(Table 6.7) confirms <strong>shell</strong> in the lower half of the excavation as in situ cultural<br />
deposit and not the result of reworking (i.e. mixing with natural <strong>shell</strong> deposits).<br />
Th<strong>is</strong> evidence suggests the nature of the earliest occupation was transitory, with<br />
a small volume and restricted range of faunal resources deposited at the site<br />
during th<strong>is</strong> period.<br />
The nature of the <strong>shell</strong> remains identified in the upper half of the excavation <strong>is</strong><br />
cons<strong>is</strong>tent with the stratigraphic descriptions of densely packed <strong>shell</strong> with a fine<br />
matrix of light grey sediment (Clarke and Faulkner 2003:72). The large quantity<br />
of <strong>shell</strong> (93%) <strong>is</strong> interpreted as representative of the most intensive phase of<br />
occupation at BMB/116. The concentration of archaeological remains within<br />
XU2‐4 indicates th<strong>is</strong> as the most intensive period of the recent phase of site<br />
occupation, with XU5 marking a major point of transition in site use (i.e.<br />
commencement of a possible change in intra‐site occupation focus).<br />
Both the site contour plan (Figure: 3.12) and cross section below (Figure: 6.2)<br />
further inform on the impact of the nature of occupation on site formation. The<br />
cross section indicates the site had three different areas of occupation focus.<br />
Point A appears to be the largest occupation area and <strong>is</strong> representative of a small<br />
scale conical <strong>mound</strong> profile. Focus point B appears <strong>mound</strong>ed but smaller and<br />
lower and has merged with Focus point A. Focus point C has a slightly ra<strong>is</strong>ed<br />
area and <strong>is</strong> more character<strong>is</strong>tic of a <strong>midden</strong> profile. Ir<strong>is</strong>h (in press) has recently<br />
examined similar evidence of occupation focus areas in <strong>shell</strong> <strong>midden</strong>s through<br />
the identification of surface features, where subsequent excavation revealed a<br />
d<strong>is</strong>tinctive pattern of hearths.<br />
103
Figure 6.3: BMB/116 site cross section showing three areas of intra‐site occupation focus<br />
(after Clarke and Faulkner 2003:76).<br />
Resource procurement strategies<br />
A<br />
B C<br />
The analys<strong>is</strong> of the BMB/116 marine <strong>shell</strong> assemblage revealed a dominance of<br />
the species Marcia hiantina and a cons<strong>is</strong>tent dominance of <strong>shell</strong>f<strong>is</strong>h procured<br />
from beach habitats, including littoral sand and the intertidal zone. Today the<br />
beach within the inlet <strong>is</strong> restricted to the eastern most margin of the inlet. The<br />
clustering of seven sites (including BMB/116) in the mid northwestern section<br />
of the inlet suggests the beach may have once extended further towards the<br />
estuary than at present. The large sand bodies v<strong>is</strong>ible at both the eastern and<br />
western margins of the inlet today (see Figure 3.9) are further evidence of the<br />
remnant beach which <strong>is</strong> part of the modern coastal dune complex in the inlet<br />
(see Table 3.2). Th<strong>is</strong> situation also implies that the mangrove habitat may have<br />
once been restricted to the margins of the estuary on the western most point of<br />
the inlet, where an <strong>is</strong>olated <strong>midden</strong> deposit has been recorded. Th<strong>is</strong><br />
interpretation and the dominance of the Marcia hiantina throughout the<br />
BMB/116 excavated assemblage confirm the likelihood that the inlet may have<br />
been targeted primarily for its availability of beach <strong>shell</strong>f<strong>is</strong>h species.<br />
104
The increase in the deposition of remains from mangrove <strong>shell</strong>f<strong>is</strong>h species at<br />
BMB/116 illustrated previously (Table 6.7), provides further evidence for recent<br />
changes to the local site environment and <strong>shell</strong>f<strong>is</strong>h habitats (prior to 280 years<br />
ago). It <strong>is</strong> noted, however, mangrove resources remained only secondary to the<br />
<strong>shell</strong>‐f<strong>is</strong>hing economy with the beach continuing to be the main coastal habitat<br />
targeted for <strong>shell</strong>f<strong>is</strong>h throughout the period of site occupation.<br />
The results produced from the analyses of the BMB/116 excavated deposit have<br />
provided a useful body of data for a compar<strong>is</strong>on with another archaeological<br />
site recorded in the Point Blane peninsula study area.<br />
BMB/84: A compar<strong>is</strong>on to BMB/116<br />
The site of BMB/84 has been selected for comparative analys<strong>is</strong> for two key<br />
reasons. Firstly, BMB/84 <strong>is</strong> located 500m to the east of BMB/116 in the Lumatjpi<br />
inlet providing close spatial proximity between the two sites. Secondly, the sites<br />
have a broadly similar radiocarbon chronology and demonstrate<br />
contemporaneous occupation between the approximate period 480 – 280 cal yrs<br />
BP. Th<strong>is</strong> provides an excellent opportunity to compare two archaeological<br />
<strong>midden</strong> sites within the same local area and which presumably formed under the<br />
same environmental conditions. The identification of similarities and/or<br />
differences in the two sites may provide a broader view of occupation patterns<br />
within the inlet, as well as to ass<strong>is</strong>t in establ<strong>is</strong>hing the defining features or<br />
character<strong>is</strong>tics for d<strong>is</strong>tingu<strong>is</strong>hing between <strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong>s and <strong>shell</strong> <strong>midden</strong>s in<br />
Point Blane peninsula study area.<br />
105
BMB/84 <strong>is</strong> described as a <strong>midden</strong> complex, compr<strong>is</strong>ing dense concentrations of<br />
<strong>shell</strong> extending 320m x 75m along a sandy ridge behind the mangrove (Clarke<br />
and Faulkner 2003: 70‐71). The site complex <strong>is</strong> d<strong>is</strong>persed over 16,000m² with<br />
concentrated <strong>shell</strong> deposits covering an area of 1,500m². Significantly, the site<br />
complex contains both cultural and natural <strong>shell</strong> deposits. A summary of the<br />
main features of BMB/84 and the key similarities and differences with BMB/116<br />
are provided below and in Table 6.8:<br />
• The BMB/84 site complex <strong>is</strong> much larger than the <strong>is</strong>olated deposit at<br />
BMB/116, indicating differences in the nature of site use and deposition<br />
patterns of remains;<br />
• The presence of naturally deposited <strong>shell</strong> within the BMB/84 site complex<br />
indicates different environmental processes may have been affecting the<br />
two areas during the period of past occupation and use. The location of<br />
BMB/84 closer to coast may have exposed the site storm surge, resulting in<br />
the intermixing of natural and cultural <strong>shell</strong> deposits;<br />
• BMB/84 has broader species diversity than BMB/116. Th<strong>is</strong> <strong>is</strong> interpreted<br />
as the result of the presence of natural <strong>shell</strong> deposits at BMB/84, which by<br />
contrast are absent from BMB/116;<br />
• In spite of broader species diversity, BMB/84 demonstrates similar<br />
proportions of <strong>shell</strong>s from beach, rocky foreshore and mangrove habitats<br />
identified at BMB/116, therefore demonstrating similar patterns in<br />
procurement strategies and resource selection preferences;<br />
• BMB/84 <strong>is</strong> characterized by the d<strong>is</strong>tribution of a number of concentrated<br />
ground level <strong>midden</strong> deposits of a range of dimensions within a larger<br />
area of scattered surface <strong>shell</strong>. The results of radiocarbon of the<br />
concentrated <strong>shell</strong> deposits suggest that occupation may have been<br />
periodic and unfocused over a large area (over 16,000m²);<br />
106
• In contrast, the results of the BMB/116 analyses indicate that occupation at<br />
th<strong>is</strong> site was both spatially and temporally contained, resulting in the<br />
concentrated deposition of the remains of marine <strong>shell</strong> ra<strong>is</strong>ed above<br />
ground level to a >70cm.<br />
Table 6.9 Compar<strong>is</strong>on of physical features of BMB/116 and<br />
BMB/184<br />
BMB/116 BMB/84<br />
Date range 657‐281 cal BP 482‐ modern cal BP<br />
Extent of<br />
occupation<br />
380 years 482 years<br />
Profile <strong>mound</strong>ed flat<br />
Cross section irregular N/A<br />
Areal shape oval irregular<br />
Dimensions L 27.6m x W<br />
11.5m<br />
L 320 x W 50<br />
‐ height .70m N/A<br />
‐ depth ‐ 50cm<br />
‐ area 317.4m² 16,000 m²<br />
‐ volume 149.18 N/A<br />
Surface or<br />
subsurface<br />
surface Surface to subsurface<br />
Continuous<br />
/d<strong>is</strong>continuous<br />
continuous d<strong>is</strong>continuous<br />
Dominant<br />
species<br />
Other content<br />
v<strong>is</strong>ible<br />
Marcia<br />
hiantina<br />
Anadara<br />
granosa<br />
stone flake ‐<br />
Marcia hiantina<br />
Isognomon <strong>is</strong>ognomom<br />
A range of d<strong>is</strong>tinct physical and material differences are apparent between<br />
BMB/116 and BMB/84. It <strong>is</strong> suggested that BMB/84 represents a location where<br />
ongoing spatial and temporal variability in site use resulted in a broadly<br />
d<strong>is</strong>persed pattern of archeological <strong>shell</strong> deposits, with some limited and possibly<br />
107
short term concentration of depositional activities. In contrast, the nature of the<br />
archeological deposit at BMB/116 indicates that activities were spatially<br />
concentrated at the site, and even more specifically focused within the<br />
boundaries of the deposit itself (refer to above description of site contours and<br />
Figure 6.3). Several reasons may ex<strong>is</strong>t for these differences in the nature of site<br />
use and deposition patterns at BMB/116 and BMB/84. <strong>One</strong> simple possibility <strong>is</strong><br />
the availability of shade, a breeze or shelter from wind – three attractive features<br />
which happen to characterize the BMB/116 site location. Excavation and analys<strong>is</strong><br />
of BMB/84 (Esposito 2005) sought to determine the degree of mixing and<br />
reworking of the cultural <strong>shell</strong> deposits in th<strong>is</strong> area. The four test excavations<br />
produced mixed results with both cultural and natural deposits identified at<br />
varying XU levels, with a remixing of the natural beach ridge evident. It <strong>is</strong><br />
possible that natural processes are partly responsible for the natural and form of<br />
the <strong>shell</strong> deposits recorded in at th<strong>is</strong> site. Importantly, however, both th<strong>is</strong><br />
compar<strong>is</strong>on and the interpretation of the BMB/116 profile as demonstrating both<br />
<strong>mound</strong>ed and non‐<strong>mound</strong> forms clearly demonstrate the requirement for a<br />
review of the site classification process applied to the archaeological deposits on<br />
the Point Blane peninsula.<br />
A review of <strong>mound</strong> site data on Point Blane peninsula<br />
With the aim of assessing the efficacy of the newly identified criteria for<br />
classifying <strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong>s a review of the dimensions of <strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong> sites<br />
recorded in Point Blane Peninsula was undertaken. Due to the inherent<br />
constraints of th<strong>is</strong> d<strong>is</strong>sertation, however, only the height requirement criterion<br />
will be assessed here. Appendix 9 provides a l<strong>is</strong>t of the compiled data on the<br />
length, width and height, as well as age range and dominant archaeological<br />
108
material for <strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong> sites recorded in the study area. A further aim of th<strong>is</strong><br />
data review <strong>is</strong> to assess the implications of the newly establ<strong>is</strong>hed height<br />
criterion for the ex<strong>is</strong>ting classification of <strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong> sites across Point Blane<br />
peninsula. As outlined previously in Chapter 4, a minimum height of 75cm<br />
was determined as an important criterion for the classification of <strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong>s.<br />
Th<strong>is</strong> specific height <strong>is</strong> interpreted as demonstrating a d<strong>is</strong>tinct change between<br />
the lowest point and the highest point of a site represented by the deposit<br />
profile.<br />
The data compiled in Appendix 9 demonstrates that 28 out of 60 <strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong><br />
sites recorded on the Point Blane peninsula have a height of less than 75cm.<br />
Th<strong>is</strong> outcome therefore indicates that under the new classificatory frame work<br />
for identifying <strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong>s, and specifically the height criterion, the initial<br />
‘<strong>mound</strong>’ classification of these sites requires reconsideration. Based on th<strong>is</strong><br />
outcome, the final section of th<strong>is</strong> chapter provides a reassessment of the<br />
original classification of BMB/116 as a <strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong>.<br />
BMB/116: Mound or <strong>midden</strong>?<br />
As described above the BMB/116 deposit <strong>is</strong> interpreted as exhibiting both<br />
<strong>mound</strong>ed and non‐<strong>mound</strong>ed profiles. Th<strong>is</strong> newly establ<strong>is</strong>hed variable nature<br />
of the deposit profile <strong>is</strong> contrary to the original fieldwork classification of the<br />
site as a <strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong> (Clarke and Faulkner 2003). A further review of the field<br />
data recorded for BMB/116 (refer Table 6.9, Appendix 10) highlights the<br />
following key features of the site profile:<br />
• The site does not demonstrate one central high point;<br />
109
• The recorded height of 70cm <strong>is</strong> under the minimum determined height<br />
of 75cm;<br />
• The site cross section or profile <strong>is</strong> irregular, and hence does not conform<br />
to classificatory criteria of conical or hemi‐spherical.<br />
The resulting interpretation <strong>is</strong> that BMB/116 <strong>is</strong> not classified as a <strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong>.<br />
Although the review of the defining attributes of <strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong>s demonstrated<br />
BMB/116a age range, dominate <strong>shell</strong> species and location; anomalous for a <strong>shell</strong><br />
<strong>mound</strong> on the Point Blane peninsula, are within the demonstrated range of<br />
attributes for <strong>mound</strong> sites in Australian. Th<strong>is</strong> study demonstrated these<br />
characterizing attributes do not form the bas<strong>is</strong> for site classification. Only by<br />
the application and analys<strong>is</strong> of the <strong>midden</strong> forms of Profile and Dimension can<br />
<strong>mound</strong>ed and non‐<strong>mound</strong>ed <strong>midden</strong>s be differentiated. The above analys<strong>is</strong> of<br />
BMB/116 clearly demonstrate BMB//16 <strong>is</strong> a <strong>midden</strong> not a <strong>mound</strong>. Significantly,<br />
however, the reclassification of th<strong>is</strong> site as <strong>midden</strong> provides resolution to the<br />
anomalous status of th<strong>is</strong> site identified at the outset of th<strong>is</strong> study (Chapter 1).<br />
With the addition of BMB/116 to the catalogue of <strong>midden</strong> sites recorded on the<br />
Point Blane peninsula, all <strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong>s in the study area are restricted to the<br />
western wetland margins. Th<strong>is</strong> new result not only has significant implications<br />
for the previous interpretations of site patterns d<strong>is</strong>tribution, but for<br />
interpretations of the past cultural processes and behaviors responsible for<br />
their formation.<br />
Conclusions<br />
The results of the analys<strong>is</strong> of the excavated BMB/116 <strong>shell</strong> assemblage,<br />
including an investigation of species diversity, dominate species and <strong>shell</strong>f<strong>is</strong>h<br />
110
habitat, provided useful data for the interpretation of site origin, formation and<br />
past procurement strategies. Th<strong>is</strong> data provided useful compar<strong>is</strong>on with<br />
BMB/84 to determine similarities and differences across <strong>shell</strong> deposits within<br />
broadly similar spatial and temporal contexts in the Point Blane peninsula<br />
study area. The results demonstrated key differences in the form,<br />
concentration and extent of <strong>shell</strong> deposits at the two sites, suggesting<br />
variability in the depositional processes (and possibly taphonomic processes)<br />
through which they were produced.<br />
Based on the application of the newly identified height requirement for<br />
defining <strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong>s, a review of the site dimensions of <strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong>s<br />
recorded during fieldwork on the Point Blane peninsula revealed the need for<br />
reassessment of the original site classifications. Th<strong>is</strong> was further confirmed by<br />
the final diagnos<strong>is</strong> of BMB/116, which establ<strong>is</strong>hed that contrary to its original<br />
classification as a <strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong>, the site may more accurately be defined as a<br />
<strong>shell</strong> <strong>midden</strong>. Further implications and the significance of the outcomes of th<strong>is</strong><br />
study for the d<strong>is</strong>cipline of Australian coastal archaeology are d<strong>is</strong>cussed in<br />
Chapter 7.<br />
The previously identified anomalies of BMB/116 age and <strong>shell</strong> species was<br />
determined to be within the range of <strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong> attributes identified across<br />
NSW, QLD, NT and WA. The form of the site was reclassified as a <strong>shell</strong><br />
<strong>midden</strong> answering the question of why was only one <strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong> identified on<br />
the coastal margins of Point Blane Peninsula.<br />
Compar<strong>is</strong>on of BMB/116 data with BMB/84 data<br />
111
Introduction to BMB/84<br />
D<strong>is</strong>cussion<br />
Hypothes<strong>is</strong>: Interpretation of site use in the Lumatjpi Inlet.<br />
Introduction to field data analys<strong>is</strong><br />
Size analys<strong>is</strong> of <strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong>s on Blane Peninsula<br />
Compar<strong>is</strong>on with BMB/116<br />
Interpretation of field data analys<strong>is</strong><br />
Chapter 7<br />
Conclusion, implications and future research<br />
112
Th<strong>is</strong> chapter presents the major conclusions of th<strong>is</strong> study drawing on the<br />
achievements of the three major research aims. In addition a number of future<br />
research directions are identified for BMB/116 and the Point Blane peninsula, and<br />
a new research project on Australian <strong>shell</strong> <strong>midden</strong>s.<br />
Conclusions<br />
Th<strong>is</strong> study’s research was developed within the broad frame work of an<br />
examination of identifying what criteria could be applied to d<strong>is</strong>tingu<strong>is</strong>h between<br />
<strong>mound</strong>ed and non‐<strong>mound</strong>ed forms of <strong>shell</strong> <strong>midden</strong>s. Early research for th<strong>is</strong><br />
study identified incons<strong>is</strong>tencies in the way Australian archaeolog<strong>is</strong>ts described<br />
and classified <strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong>s and that no formal criteria for classifing <strong>mound</strong> sites<br />
had been developed. Within th<strong>is</strong> frame work a case study was undertaken of<br />
analys<strong>is</strong> and interpretation of an anomalous coastal <strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong> BMB/116<br />
located on the Point Blane peninsula. A critical review of the archaeological<br />
literature examined the characterizing attributes of <strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong>s which<br />
importantly establ<strong>is</strong>hed a wider range of site age and dominate species for <strong>shell</strong><br />
<strong>mound</strong> sites and identified they could be located anywhere <strong>shell</strong> <strong>midden</strong>s<br />
occurred. The research identified the commonly d<strong>is</strong>cussed Anadara <strong>mound</strong>s<br />
were not a suitable representative model for <strong>mound</strong> sites across Australia. The<br />
wider range of <strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong> attributes provided a new context to review the<br />
anomalous attributes of BMB/116 and determined they fell within the identified<br />
parameters of the range of attributes of Australian <strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong>s.<br />
The review also undertook to review the key features of <strong>midden</strong> form attributes<br />
and identified Profile and Dimension as offering an accurate and reliable means<br />
113
for d<strong>is</strong>tingu<strong>is</strong>hing between <strong>mound</strong>ed and non‐<strong>mound</strong>ed forms of <strong>shell</strong> <strong>midden</strong>s.<br />
From th<strong>is</strong> base a definition of criteria for describing and classifing <strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong>s<br />
was developed and presented. These bodies of research provided a new context<br />
for evaluating BMB/116 and resolve the question of its anomalous status.<br />
To fully understand and evaluate BMB/116 a detailed analys<strong>is</strong> of the excavated<br />
assemblage was undertaken. Th<strong>is</strong> identified the characterizing nature of the<br />
<strong>shell</strong> assemblage and a more complete understanding of the depositional<br />
processes was achieved. The recording of a comprehensive dataset provided the<br />
bas<strong>is</strong> for compar<strong>is</strong>on of BMB/116 with another site recorded in the immediate<br />
study area (BMB/84). Th<strong>is</strong> compar<strong>is</strong>on highlighted the contained spatial and<br />
temporal nature of BMB/116. The interpretation of the two sites suggested<br />
different behavioral and taphonomic circumstances affected the differing<br />
formation of the two sites. Three occupation focus points were also identified in<br />
BMB/116s profile which were interpreted has having both <strong>mound</strong>ed and non‐<br />
<strong>mound</strong>ed character<strong>is</strong>tics. Th<strong>is</strong> point clearly demonstrated a review of sites<br />
classification was required.<br />
The application of the new classificatory criteria of Profile and Dimension to<br />
BMB/116 identified the site did not met either criteria’s requirements for <strong>mound</strong><br />
classification. Th<strong>is</strong> resolved the final anomalous question of BMB/116 being the<br />
only <strong>mound</strong> site located on the coastal margins of the peninsula. The<br />
reclassification of BMB/116 establ<strong>is</strong>hes all <strong>mound</strong> sites on the Point Blane<br />
peninsula are located on the wetland margins. Th<strong>is</strong> result has significant<br />
implications for the pervious criteria used to classify <strong>mound</strong> sites in th<strong>is</strong> region<br />
and impacts on interpretations of <strong>mound</strong> site pattern d<strong>is</strong>tribution on the<br />
114
peninsula. Further, the implications impact on the classification of <strong>mound</strong> sites in<br />
a wide range of previous research.<br />
Implications<br />
The implications of the new classificatory criteria for <strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong>s were tested<br />
against field data complied from Point Blane peninsula. The criteria of<br />
dimension were tested as data on profile was not available. The results suggested<br />
30% of the <strong>mound</strong> sites on Point Blane peninsula would be identified for a<br />
review of their site classification. Th<strong>is</strong> suggests a major review of previously<br />
classified <strong>mound</strong> sites <strong>is</strong> required. The implementation of th<strong>is</strong> new frame work<br />
for classifing <strong>mound</strong> sites will produce results that will provide a direct way to<br />
elucidate variation in the archaeological record as demonstrate in the site<br />
compar<strong>is</strong>on between BMB/116 and BMB/84. The criterion will provide a more<br />
reliable platform for comparing regional and national archaeological data. Only<br />
then will a clearer understanding emerge of these elusive forms of <strong>midden</strong>s in<br />
Australian coastal archaeology.<br />
Future research<br />
Th<strong>is</strong> study identified a range of future research directions that would further<br />
develop the work undertaken in th<strong>is</strong> study. The other research directions extend<br />
beyond th<strong>is</strong> study to contribute to coastal archaeology as a d<strong>is</strong>cipline. Future<br />
research directly related to th<strong>is</strong> study includes<br />
• The further development of the Field Recording Form and an<br />
accompanying data base of <strong>mound</strong> profile images.<br />
115
• The compiling of a data base of <strong>mound</strong> profiles would also warrant an<br />
investigation in <strong>mound</strong> profile variations to determine if a wider range of<br />
profile cross‐sections could be included in those identified as <strong>mound</strong>ed in<br />
form.<br />
• The examination of the survival of f<strong>is</strong>h bone in <strong>midden</strong> sites in the study<br />
area to determine if taphonomic or cultural reasons can explain the<br />
absence of f<strong>is</strong>h bone from <strong>midden</strong> sites.<br />
• Further dating of marine <strong>shell</strong> from BMB/116 UX 5 and UX 8 to determine<br />
the chronology of the identified changes in site use.<br />
Point Blane peninsula would also provide the ideal study region for a range of<br />
future research;<br />
• The wider testing of the new classificatory criteria for <strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong>s.<br />
• The study of types of <strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong> sites as framework for identifying a<br />
wider range of categories of <strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong>s.<br />
Finally a major new research direction would focus on the examination of<br />
<strong>mound</strong> site surface areas to indentify surface features, and patterns of intra‐site<br />
occupation focus points. Excavation would be targeted at occupation focus<br />
points to determine if surface occupation points are replicated across the<br />
stratigraphy of the excavation.<br />
Th<strong>is</strong> study has identified that archaeological criteria are critical to the<br />
classification of any site. Shell <strong>mound</strong>s are widely known as d<strong>is</strong>tinctive markers<br />
of coastal archaeological landscapes however th<strong>is</strong> study has demonstrated wide<br />
variation ex<strong>is</strong>ts in <strong>mound</strong> site dimensions and profiles making site identification<br />
complex. The application of th<strong>is</strong> study’s new classificatory frame work for<br />
116
<strong>mound</strong> sites has resolved these difficulties and will introduce cons<strong>is</strong>tency into<br />
the identification of <strong>mound</strong> sites in future research.<br />
117
Appendix 1.1<br />
Shell <strong>mound</strong> attribute research data<br />
118
Location Location<br />
geograph<br />
y<br />
Weipa<br />
(Bailey 1977)<br />
Darwin<br />
Harbour<br />
)Burns 1999<br />
Bourke 2004)<br />
Mari‐<br />
aMaramay<br />
Croker Island<br />
(Mitchell<br />
1993)<br />
Port<br />
Headland<br />
(Harr<strong>is</strong>on<br />
2009(<br />
Richmond<br />
River Ballina<br />
(Bailey 1975)<br />
Point Blane<br />
peninsula<br />
(Clarke &<br />
Faulkner<br />
2003)<br />
Nickol Bay<br />
WA<br />
Nichol 2.<br />
(Clune 2002)<br />
Pambula<br />
Lake<br />
(Sullivan<br />
Date all<br />
BP<br />
Estuarine 3510‐710 Anadara<br />
granosa<br />
Mud flats 1601‐446 Anadara<br />
granosa<br />
Island 3000‐2000 Gafrarium<br />
tumidum<br />
Estuarine 3410‐2910<br />
5250‐4400<br />
1280‐1030<br />
Dom Species Formation Dimensions<br />
Anadara<br />
granosa<br />
River 1746‐250 Sydney Rock<br />
Oyster<br />
Wet<br />
Lands<br />
& mud<br />
flats<br />
2173‐281 Anadara<br />
granosa<br />
late sites<br />
Marcia hiantina<br />
Coast 4250 Anadara<br />
granosa<br />
Estuarine Ostrea angasi<br />
(mud oyster)<br />
2 phases<br />
1st surface<br />
scatter<br />
2nd <strong>mound</strong>ed<br />
L110m x W45m x<br />
H3m<br />
Max H 10m<br />
majority H
1982)<br />
Severs Beach<br />
(Sullivan<br />
1982)<br />
Pambula<br />
Lake<br />
(Sullivan<br />
1982)<br />
Coast 4000sqm<br />
cluster of sites<br />
1m to 10m<br />
diameter<br />
>1.50m D<br />
Esturine 2700‐ 90 Upper <strong>midden</strong><br />
Mytilus<br />
planulatus<br />
Lower<br />
Ostrea angasi<br />
Two<br />
phases<br />
120
Clybucca<br />
Andersons<br />
Inlet<br />
(Reg<strong>is</strong>ter of<br />
the National<br />
Estate<br />
www.heritag<br />
e.gov.au(<br />
Northern<br />
Kimberly<br />
(O’Connor<br />
1996)<br />
Blyth River<br />
BR Kula Kula<br />
Mounds<br />
Yuluk Yulluk<br />
<strong>mound</strong>s<br />
(Meehan<br />
1982:166)<br />
Howard<br />
River East<br />
Darwin<br />
(H<strong>is</strong>cock &<br />
Faulkner<br />
2006)<br />
River 5000‐2000 Upper<br />
Cassogstrea<br />
Commercial<strong>is</strong><br />
Lower<br />
Anadara<br />
trapezia<br />
Coast 4200‐<br />
present<br />
River<br />
Inland<br />
up to 5<br />
km<br />
Upper<br />
Anadara<br />
Lower<br />
Tapes hiantina<br />
Dosinia<br />
juvenil<strong>is</strong><br />
Coecella<br />
horsfieldi<br />
Two<br />
phases<br />
Two<br />
phases<br />
N/A<br />
N/A<br />
N/A<br />
Continuous<br />
<strong>midden</strong> complex<br />
350Klm. irregular<br />
depth <strong>is</strong>olated<br />
<strong>mound</strong>s<br />
Large Weipa like<br />
<strong>mound</strong>s<br />
30m diameter x<br />
5m H<br />
N/A<br />
N/A<br />
1800‐ 600 Anadara N/A 1m to 90m L<br />
.20m to 7m H<br />
121
Apendix 1.2<br />
Shell <strong>midden</strong> terminology research data<br />
122
Term Reference Source<br />
Shell matrix sites Forchhammer et al. 1851‐157 Claassen 1998<br />
Shell matrix level of – Single dump<br />
Lens<br />
scatter<br />
Ambrose 1967 Claassen 1998:6<br />
Shell‐bearing habitation site Claassen 1991 Same<br />
Base site <strong>mound</strong> Beaton 1985<br />
Meehan 1982<br />
Cited by Roberts 1994<br />
Composite <strong>mound</strong> site Cribb 1996 Cited by Bourke 2004<br />
Shell bearing site Widmer 1989 Claassen 1991<br />
Shell‐bearing <strong>midden</strong> site Claassen 1991 Same<br />
Kjokkenmodding<br />
Dan<strong>is</strong>h Government<br />
Claassen 1998<br />
Kitchen Midden<br />
Study group 1848.<br />
Brough Smyth 1878 (Aust)<br />
Rowland 1994<br />
Shell <strong>midden</strong> Waselkov 1987<br />
Same<br />
Sullivan 1989<br />
Same<br />
Clarke & Faulkner 2003 Same<br />
Bowdler 1983<br />
Same<br />
Coastal <strong>midden</strong> Woodroffe et al 1988 Same<br />
Circular shaped <strong>midden</strong> Bourke 2004 Same<br />
Doughnut shaped <strong>midden</strong> Bourke 2004 Same<br />
Paleochannel <strong>midden</strong> Woodroffe et al 1985 Same<br />
Midden scatter Woodroffe et al 1985<br />
Bailey 1975<br />
Beaton 1985<br />
Cited by Roberts 1994<br />
Shell scatter Bourke 2004<br />
Same<br />
Sullivan 1989<br />
Same<br />
Surface scatter Woodroffe et al 1985 Same<br />
High‐density <strong>shell</strong> <strong>midden</strong>s<br />
Low‐ density <strong>shell</strong> scatters<br />
McNiven 1992 (JFA)<br />
Same<br />
Shell <strong>midden</strong> <strong>mound</strong> Sullivan 1989 Same<br />
Midden <strong>mound</strong> Woodroffe Et al 1985<br />
Beatob 1985<br />
Meehan 1982<br />
Cribb 1986b<br />
Bourke 2004<br />
Cited by Roberts 1994<br />
Shell <strong>mound</strong> Cribb 1991<br />
Same<br />
Burns 1994<br />
Same<br />
Faulkner 2006<br />
Same<br />
Meehan 1982<br />
Same<br />
Surface <strong>mound</strong> Woodroffe et al 1988 Same<br />
Shell‐heap C Darwin 1839 Claassen 1998<br />
Conical <strong>shell</strong> heap Bailey 1975<br />
Meehan 1982<br />
Cribb 1986<br />
Beaton 1985<br />
Cited by Roberts 1994<br />
Mounds of <strong>shell</strong><br />
Rings of <strong>shell</strong><br />
Claassen 1998:6 Same<br />
U shaped <strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong> Frankland 1990 Rowland 1994<br />
Mudflat <strong>mound</strong> Woodroffe et al 1985 Cited by Roberts1994<br />
123
Elongated <strong>mound</strong><br />
Bailey 1975<br />
Cribb 1986b<br />
Bourke 2004 Same<br />
Earth <strong>mound</strong> Stocker 1971<br />
Crib 1986B<br />
Cited by Roberts 1994<br />
Bourke 2004<br />
Same<br />
Geomorphological <strong>mound</strong> Bailey 1975 Cited by<br />
Roberts 1994<br />
Large domed <strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong> Beaton Cited by Sullivan & O’Connor<br />
1993<br />
124
Appendix 1.3<br />
Shell <strong>midden</strong> & <strong>mound</strong> site dimensions research data<br />
125
Site description & location Dimensions Reference<br />
Scotland<br />
Large <strong>midden</strong>,<br />
Limfjord Northern Jutland<br />
Midden, Limfjord Northern<br />
Jutland<br />
5 open air <strong>midden</strong>s,<br />
Oronsay Island Scotland<br />
Cave <strong>midden</strong><br />
Ulva Island Scotland<br />
Occupation area <strong>shell</strong> <strong>midden</strong>‐<br />
Fife Scotland. Site B<br />
North America<br />
Shell <strong>midden</strong>,<br />
Mashomack Preserve<br />
Four small open <strong>midden</strong>s,<br />
Potowomut Neck, Rhode Island<br />
State<br />
Coastal <strong>shell</strong> <strong>midden</strong>,<br />
Brit<strong>is</strong>h Camp<br />
Extensive <strong>shell</strong> <strong>midden</strong>, Glenrose<br />
Cannery Site<br />
Japan<br />
Circular <strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong><br />
Natsushima<br />
7 <strong>shell</strong> <strong>midden</strong>s in a horseshoe<br />
shape, Kidosaku Site<br />
All of the above from Ir<strong>is</strong>h 1997<br />
Australia<br />
Large open <strong>midden</strong>,<br />
Bass Point NSW<br />
Open site <strong>mound</strong>ed <strong>shell</strong> <strong>midden</strong>,<br />
Pambula Lake NSW<br />
Large <strong>shell</strong> <strong>midden</strong> home base<br />
site, Matai Community<br />
Arnhem Land<br />
Anabarra territory <strong>shell</strong> <strong>midden</strong>s<br />
Large <strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong>s<br />
140m x 20m x1.90m Anderson & Johansen<br />
1986:35<br />
8m x 12m x 0.40m Same<br />
30m L x 0.06m D Russell et al 1995<br />
170m2 x 0.35m D Same<br />
30m x 3.50m x 0.50‐0.78m Coles 1971<br />
16sqm x 0.15m D Lightfoot 1985<br />
Size not recorded, small<br />
1‐2sm<br />
Kerber 1985<br />
300m x 4.00m D Stein 1992<br />
200m x 60m x 2 ‐ 5.50m Matson 1976<br />
15m diameter x 1.50m D Aikens 1982<br />
200‐400m x 0.02‐.40m D Koike 1996<br />
100m x 40m x 0.40m Bowdler 1976<br />
30m x 20m x 0.90m Sullivan 1984<br />
35sqm x 1.00m D<br />
Scatters to 1.00m D<br />
30m diameter x up 5m H<br />
Meehan 1982<br />
126
Australia additional site sizes by<br />
Alexander<br />
Small <strong>mound</strong>s adjacent to large<br />
<strong>mound</strong>s<br />
Lueng, M<strong>is</strong>sion River Qld<br />
13 Shell <strong>mound</strong> cluster<br />
Lueng, M<strong>is</strong>sion River Qld<br />
Shell <strong>mound</strong> clusters < 15 <strong>mound</strong>s<br />
Shell <strong>mound</strong>s<br />
Weipa Qld<br />
Overlapping <strong>mound</strong>s<br />
Shell <strong>mound</strong><br />
Hey River Weipa<br />
Shell <strong>mound</strong><br />
Agnes Waters Qld.<br />
Linear <strong>midden</strong><br />
Small <strong>midden</strong> dumps<br />
Doughnut <strong>midden</strong>s<br />
North West Tasmania Nelson Bay<br />
area<br />
Roughly circular <strong>mound</strong>s<br />
Croker Island Arnhem Land<br />
Shell <strong>mound</strong><br />
Band of <strong>shell</strong><br />
Band of <strong>shell</strong> <strong>midden</strong><br />
Port Hedland W. A.<br />
Shell <strong>midden</strong> <strong>mound</strong>s<br />
Richmond River NSW<br />
0.03m<br />
0.05m H 4.00m H<br />
5.00m H<br />
600sqm area<br />
Mounds< 0.05m H<br />
2 – 6m H<br />
5m diameter x 13m H<br />
<strong>mound</strong>s < 0.20 D<br />
245m x 40m x 7.50H<br />
23m x 17m x 1.50H<br />
Morr<strong>is</strong>on 2003<br />
Archaeology in Oceania<br />
Morr<strong>is</strong>on 2003<br />
Archaeology in Oceania<br />
Morr<strong>is</strong>on 2003<br />
Archaeology in Oceania<br />
Bailey et al 1994<br />
16m x 20m x >1m Rowland 1994<br />
1.5 km x 0.7 km x 1‐15cm<br />
H<br />
1‐3m diameter x 20‐30cm<br />
H<br />
13m external diameter x<br />
5m internal diameter x<br />
40cm H<br />
10m x 12m x 1.10m<br />
9m x 8m 0.80m<br />
26m x 24m x 0.80m<br />
77m x 18m x 0.10m<br />
246m x 196m x 0.10m<br />
148 x 133m x 0.10m<br />
D. Ranson 1978<br />
Aus Arc, no8, 149‐158<br />
S. Mitchell 1993<br />
Harr<strong>is</strong>on 2009<br />
400m x ….. x 4.00H Bailey 1975<br />
127
Appendix 2 .1<br />
Laboratory recording form <strong>shell</strong>f<strong>is</strong>h analys<strong>is</strong><br />
128
BLUE MUD BAY PROJECT: SHELLFISH ANAYLSIS<br />
Site BMB/116 Excavation Unit<br />
BMB/116B<br />
Spit No Date sorted<br />
Total <strong>shell</strong> weight sorted >6mm<br />
BIVALVES Shell weight Shell counts<br />
Species Total<br />
wgt<br />
Anadara antiquate<br />
Marcia hiantina<br />
Polymosoda erosa<br />
Gafrarium tumidum<br />
Fuliva tenvicostata<br />
Veneridae (Fam)<br />
Septifer Mussel<br />
Unidentified<br />
Frag wgt Whole<br />
<strong>shell</strong><br />
wgt<br />
Umbo to<br />
70%<strong>shell</strong><br />
Umbo to<br />
70%<br />
<strong>shell</strong><br />
OYSTER Shell weights Shell counts<br />
Chama fibula<br />
Saccostrea culcullata<br />
Pinctada<br />
margaritifera<br />
Isognomon<br />
ephippium<br />
Unidentified<br />
OTHER<br />
MARINE<br />
LIFE<br />
Barnacles<br />
Worm tubes<br />
Coral<br />
Crab<br />
Total<br />
wgt<br />
Total<br />
wgt<br />
Frag wgt Lid wgt Bases<br />
wgt<br />
No of<br />
70% lids<br />
No of<br />
70%<br />
bases<br />
Shell weights Shell counts<br />
Frag wgt Whole<br />
wgt<br />
No of<br />
specimns<br />
Whole <strong>shell</strong>s MNI<br />
No of beaks MNI<br />
MNI<br />
129
GASTROPODS<br />
Terebralia Paustr<strong>is</strong><br />
Telescopium Telescopium<br />
Strombus s.p.<br />
Nerita s.p.<br />
Terrestrial snail<br />
Unidentified gastropods<br />
Total<br />
wgt<br />
Shell weights Shell counts<br />
Frag<br />
wgt<br />
Whole<br />
<strong>shell</strong><br />
Wgt<br />
70%<br />
<strong>shell</strong><br />
wgt<br />
No 70%<br />
<strong>shell</strong>s<br />
No<br />
whole<br />
<strong>shell</strong>s<br />
SPECIES
Appendix 2.2<br />
Laboratory recording form Non‐mollusc analys<strong>is</strong><br />
131
Site BMB/116 Date sorted 24.8.09<br />
Excavation unit BMB/116 B<br />
Total weight of non‐mollusc material<br />
Total weight of rubble<br />
Spit No<br />
1<br />
2<br />
3<br />
4<br />
5<br />
6<br />
7<br />
8<br />
9<br />
10<br />
11<br />
12<br />
Total<br />
total as<br />
% of<br />
TP<br />
Bucket<br />
weight<br />
Bulk<br />
weight<br />
Bkt<br />
wgt<br />
less<br />
bulk<br />
wgt<br />
Material weights<br />
Non‐<br />
mol<br />
material<br />
total<br />
wgt Rubble Plant Charcoal<br />
Spit as<br />
% of<br />
test pit<br />
132
Appendix 2.3<br />
Recording form <strong>mound</strong> formation analys<strong>is</strong><br />
133
BLUE MUD BAY PROJECT: MOUND FORMATION ANALYSIS<br />
SHELL MOUND BMB/116<br />
TEST PIT NO………<br />
6MM ANALYSIS<br />
Honour Project for USYD<br />
2009<br />
Date<br />
sorted………………………..<br />
.<br />
SHELL SPECIES‐ A = Anadara granosa, G = Gafrarium tumidum, I = Isognomon<br />
ephippium, M = Marcia hiantina, S = Saccostrea culcullata<br />
SPIT LEVELS → 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12<br />
Shell wgt grams<br />
< 6mm<br />
Shell wgt grams<br />
Calculated<br />
sediment<br />
weight<br />
Page 2 Mound analys<strong>is</strong> by %<br />
Spit 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12<br />
Dom non‐<br />
mollusc<br />
material<br />
% of excavated<br />
remains in spit<br />
% of <strong>shell</strong> in<br />
excavated<br />
remains<br />
% of rubble in<br />
excavated<br />
remains<br />
% of sediment<br />
to spit<br />
% of spit wgt to<br />
test pit<br />
135
Appendix 3.1<br />
Laboratory recorded data: Shellf<strong>is</strong>h analys<strong>is</strong> excavation<br />
units 1‐12<br />
136
BLUE MUD BAY PROJECT: SHELLFISH ANALYSIS<br />
Site BMB/116 Excavation Unit<br />
BMB/116B<br />
Spit No 1 Date sorted 24.08.09<br />
Total <strong>shell</strong> weight sorted >6mm 1566.00 grams<br />
BIVALVES Shell weight Shell counts<br />
Species Total<br />
wgt<br />
Frag wgt Whole<br />
<strong>shell</strong> wgt<br />
Umbo to<br />
70%<strong>shell</strong><br />
Umbo to<br />
70% <strong>shell</strong><br />
Whole<br />
<strong>shell</strong>s<br />
Anadara granosa 450.50 251.50 199.00 8 15 11<br />
Marcia hiantina 854.00 610.00 244.00 88 28 58<br />
Polymosoda erosa 23.00 5.00 1 1<br />
Gafrarium tumidum 1.50 1.50 ‐<br />
Fuliva tenvicostata ‐<br />
Veneridae (Fam) ‐<br />
Septifer Mussel 1.50 1.00 0.50 3.00 2.00 ‐<br />
Unidentified ‐<br />
OYSTER Shell weights Shell counts<br />
Total<br />
wgt<br />
Frag wgt Lid wgt Bases<br />
wgt<br />
No >70%<br />
lids<br />
No >70%<br />
bases<br />
No of<br />
beaks<br />
Chama fibula ‐<br />
Saccostrea culcullata<br />
49.50 24.00 25.50 5 1 5<br />
Pinctada<br />
margaritifera 2.00 2.00 ‐<br />
Isognomon<br />
ephippium 101.50 89.50 12.00 3 ‐<br />
Unidentified<br />
‐<br />
OTHER<br />
MARINE<br />
LIFE<br />
Total<br />
wgt<br />
Shell weights Shell counts<br />
Frag wgt Whole<br />
wgt<br />
No of<br />
specimen<br />
s<br />
Barnacles 3.00 1.50 1.50 1 ‐<br />
Worm tubes ‐<br />
Coral ‐<br />
Crab ‐<br />
GASTROPO<br />
DS<br />
Total<br />
wgt<br />
Shell weights Shell counts<br />
Frag wgt Whole<br />
<strong>shell</strong> Wgt<br />
70%<br />
<strong>shell</strong> wgt<br />
No 70%<br />
<strong>shell</strong>s<br />
No whole<br />
<strong>shell</strong>s<br />
MNI<br />
MNI<br />
MNI<br />
no mouths MNI<br />
Terebralia Paustr<strong>is</strong> ‐<br />
Telescopium<br />
Telescopium ‐<br />
Strombus s.p.<br />
Nerita s.p.<br />
‐<br />
38.00 22.00 16.00 5 5<br />
Terrestrial snail 0.50<br />
0.50 ‐<br />
137
Unidentified<br />
gastropods<br />
SPECIES<br />
BLUE MUD BAY PROJECT: SHELLFISH ANAYLSIS<br />
Site BMB/116 Excavation<br />
Unit BMB/116B<br />
Spit No 2 Date sorted<br />
24.8.09<br />
Total <strong>shell</strong> weight sorted >6mm 3321.90gms<br />
BIVALVES Shell weight Shell counts<br />
Species Total<br />
wgt<br />
Frag wgt Whole<br />
<strong>shell</strong> wgt<br />
Umbo<br />
to<br />
70%shel<br />
l<br />
Umbo <<br />
70% <strong>shell</strong><br />
Whole<br />
<strong>shell</strong>s<br />
Anadara granosa 299.00 279.00 17.00 3.00 3 17 10<br />
Marcia hiantina 2034.00 1298.00 310.00 426.00 356 84 220<br />
Polymosoda erosa 10.00 10.00 ‐<br />
Gafrarium<br />
tumidum<br />
1.50 1.50 ‐<br />
Fuliva<br />
tenvicostata<br />
‐<br />
Veneridae (Fam) ‐<br />
Septifer Mussel 2.00 0.50 1.50 1.00 1<br />
Unidentified ‐<br />
OYSTER Shell weights Shell counts<br />
Total<br />
wgt<br />
Frag wgt Lid wgt Bases<br />
wgt<br />
No of<br />
70% lids<br />
No of<br />
70%<br />
bases<br />
No of<br />
beaks<br />
Chama fibula<br />
Saccostrea<br />
3.50 3.50 1 1<br />
culcullata<br />
Pinctada<br />
62.50 22.50 40.00 3 1 3<br />
margaritifera<br />
Isognomon<br />
4.50 4.50 ‐<br />
ephippium 44.50 44.50 ‐<br />
Unidentified 20.00 20.00 ‐<br />
OTHER<br />
MARINE<br />
LIFE<br />
Total<br />
wgt<br />
Shell weights Shell counts ‐<br />
Frag wgt Whole<br />
wgt<br />
No of<br />
specimn<br />
Barnacles 1.00 1.00 ‐<br />
Worm tubes ‐<br />
Coral ‐<br />
Crab ‐<br />
GASTROP<br />
ODS<br />
Total<br />
wgt<br />
Shell weights Shell counts<br />
Frag wgt Whole<br />
<strong>shell</strong><br />
Wgt<br />
70%<br />
<strong>shell</strong><br />
wgt<br />
No 70%<br />
<strong>shell</strong>s<br />
No<br />
whole<br />
<strong>shell</strong>s<br />
MNI<br />
MNI<br />
MNI<br />
no mouths MNI<br />
139
Terebralia<br />
Paustr<strong>is</strong><br />
Telescopium<br />
12.00 12.00 ‐<br />
Telescopium 3.50 3.50 ‐<br />
Strombus s.p. ‐<br />
Nerita s.p. 21.00 14.50 6.50 2 2<br />
Terrestrial snail 0.40 0.40 ‐<br />
Unidentified<br />
gastropods<br />
SPECIES<br />
BLUE MUD BAY PROJECT: SHELLFISH ANAYLSIS<br />
Site BMB/116 Excavation Unit BMB/116B<br />
Spit No 3 Date sorted 24.8.09<br />
Total <strong>shell</strong> weight sorted >6mm 3115.05 gms<br />
BIVALVES Shell weight Shell counts<br />
Species Total wgt Frag wgt Whole<br />
<strong>shell</strong> wgt<br />
Umbo to<br />
70%<strong>shell</strong><br />
Umbo to<br />
70% <strong>shell</strong><br />
Whole<br />
<strong>shell</strong>s<br />
Anadara granosa 167.00 106.50 60.38 0.12 7 6 6<br />
Marcia hiantina 1750.50 971.50 465.00 314.00 374 98 236<br />
Polymosoda erosa 38.50 32.50 6.00 1 1<br />
Gafrarium tumidum 14.50 9.50 3.50 1.50 1 1 1<br />
Fuliva tenvicostata ‐<br />
Veneridae (Fam) ‐<br />
Septifer Mussel 8.00 5.00 1.50 1.50 7 6 6<br />
Unidentified ‐<br />
OYSTER Shell weights Shell counts<br />
Chama fibula<br />
Total wgt Frag wgt Lid wgt Bases wgt No of<br />
70% lids<br />
No of<br />
70%<br />
bases<br />
Saccostrea culcullata 97.50 63.00 34.50 3.00 2.00<br />
Pinctada margaritifera<br />
Isognomon ephippium 164.00 96.50 67.50 21.00<br />
Unidentified<br />
OTHER<br />
MARINE LIFE<br />
No of<br />
beaks<br />
Shell weights Shell counts ‐<br />
Total wgt Frag wgt Whole<br />
wgt<br />
No of<br />
specimns<br />
Barnacles 0.50 0.50 ‐<br />
Worm tubes ‐<br />
Coral 0.05 0.05 ‐<br />
Crab 4.00 4.00 5.00 ‐<br />
141<br />
MNI<br />
MNI<br />
‐<br />
3<br />
‐<br />
1<br />
‐<br />
MNI
GASTROPODS<br />
Shell weights Shell counts<br />
Total wgt Frag wgt Whole<br />
<strong>shell</strong> Wgt<br />
70% <strong>shell</strong><br />
wgt<br />
No 70%<br />
<strong>shell</strong>s<br />
No whole<br />
<strong>shell</strong>s<br />
no mouths MNI<br />
Terebralia Paustr<strong>is</strong> 12.50 12.50 ‐<br />
Telescopium<br />
Telescopium<br />
5.00 5.00<br />
Strombus s.p. 1.00 1.00 1.00<br />
Nerita s.p. 18.00 18.00<br />
Terrestrial snail 0.50 0.50 ‐<br />
Unidentified 12.00 12.00 ‐<br />
SPECIES
BLUE MUD BAY PROJECT: SHELLFISH ANALYSIS<br />
Site BMB/116 Excavation Unit BMB/116B<br />
Spit No 4 Date sorted 24.8.09<br />
Total <strong>shell</strong> weight sorted >6mm 3960.30 gms All material Pre wash weight<br />
4982.25<br />
BIVALVES Shell weight Shell counts<br />
Species Total<br />
wgt<br />
Frag wgt Whole<br />
<strong>shell</strong> wgt<br />
Umbo to<br />
70%<strong>shell</strong><br />
Umbo to<br />
70%<br />
<strong>shell</strong><br />
Whole<br />
<strong>shell</strong>s<br />
Anadara granosa 254.00 97.00 145.00 12.00 5 14 9<br />
Marcia hiantina 2089.00 1368.50 536.50 185.00 195 196 195<br />
Polymosoda erosa ‐<br />
Gafrarium tumidum 40.50 7.00 33.50 1.00 1 12 6<br />
Fuliva tenvicostata ‐<br />
Veneridae (Fam) 5.00 1.50 3.50 3 3<br />
Septifer Mussel 37.50 33.50 2.50 1.50 13.0 5 9<br />
Unidentified poss<br />
Anadara granosa<br />
14.50 4.50 10.00 3<br />
OYSTER Shell weights Shell counts<br />
Chama fibula<br />
Total<br />
wgt<br />
Frag wgt Lid wgt Bases wgt No of 70%<br />
lids<br />
No of<br />
70%<br />
bases<br />
Saccostrea culcullata 156 76.5 79.5 15 2<br />
Pinctada margaritifera<br />
Isognomon ephippium 245 159.5 85.5 42<br />
No of<br />
beaks<br />
Unidentified 61.5 61.5 ‐<br />
OTHER<br />
MARINE LIFE<br />
Total<br />
wgt<br />
Shell weights Shell counts<br />
Frag wgt Whole<br />
wgt<br />
No of<br />
specimens<br />
Barnacles ‐<br />
Worm tubes ‐<br />
Coral ‐<br />
Crab ‐<br />
143<br />
MNI<br />
2<br />
MNI<br />
‐<br />
15<br />
‐<br />
21<br />
MNI
GASTROPODS Total<br />
wgt<br />
Shell weights Shell counts<br />
Frag wgt Whole<br />
<strong>shell</strong><br />
Wgt<br />
70% <strong>shell</strong><br />
wgt<br />
No 70%<br />
<strong>shell</strong>s<br />
No<br />
whole<br />
<strong>shell</strong>s<br />
no mouths MNI<br />
Terebralia Paustr<strong>is</strong> 63.50 63.50 ‐<br />
Telescopium Telescopium 18.00 18.00<br />
Strombus s.p.<br />
Nerita s.p. 19.00 14.00 5.00 2. 2<br />
Terrestrial snail 2.00 2.00<br />
Unidentified ‐<br />
SPECIES
BLUE MUD BAY PROJECT: SHELLFISH ANAYLSIS<br />
Site BMB/116 Excavation Unit BMB/116B<br />
Spit No 5 Date sorted 26.8.09<br />
Total <strong>shell</strong> weight sorted >6mm 786.50 gms<br />
BIVALVES Shell weight Shell counts<br />
Species Total wgt Frag wgt Whole<br />
<strong>shell</strong> wgt<br />
Umbo to<br />
70%<strong>shell</strong><br />
Umbo to<br />
70% <strong>shell</strong><br />
Whole<br />
<strong>shell</strong>s<br />
Anadara granosa 4.50 4.50 ‐<br />
Marcia hiantina 504.00 274.00 168.00 62.00 96 62 79<br />
Polymosoda erosa 5.00 5.00 ‐<br />
Gafrarium tumidum 7.50 7.50 ‐<br />
Fuliva tenvicostata ‐<br />
Veneridae (Fam) ‐<br />
Septifer Mussel 10.50 6.00 2.50 1.50 12 8 10<br />
Unidentified poss<br />
Anadara granosa<br />
13.50 5.00 8.50 4 2<br />
OYSTER Shell weights Shell counts<br />
Total wgt Frag wgt Lid wgt Bases wgt No of<br />
70% lids<br />
No of<br />
70%<br />
bases<br />
No of<br />
beaks<br />
Chama fibula ‐<br />
Saccostrea culcullata<br />
Pinctada margaritifera<br />
Isognomon ephippium<br />
46.50 38.50 8.00 1<br />
141.50 138.00 32.50 27.00<br />
Unidentified ‐<br />
OTHER<br />
MARINE LIFE<br />
Shell weights Shell counts<br />
Total wgt Frag wgt Whole<br />
wgt<br />
No of<br />
specimns<br />
Barnacles 0.50 0.50 2.00 ‐<br />
Worm tubes ‐<br />
Coral ‐<br />
Crab ‐<br />
145<br />
MNI<br />
MNI<br />
1<br />
‐<br />
13<br />
MNI
GASTROPODS<br />
Shell weights Shell counts<br />
Total wgt Frag wgt Whole<br />
<strong>shell</strong> Wgt<br />
70% <strong>shell</strong><br />
wgt<br />
No 70%<br />
<strong>shell</strong>s<br />
No whole<br />
<strong>shell</strong>s<br />
no mouths MNI<br />
Terebralia Paustr<strong>is</strong> 18.00 18.00 ‐<br />
Telescopium<br />
Telescopium ‐<br />
Strombus s.p. ‐<br />
Nerita s.p. 6.50 6.50 ‐<br />
Terrestrial snail 1.50<br />
Unidentified gastropods<br />
1.50 ‐<br />
SPECIES
BLUE MUD BAY PROJECT: SHELLFISH ANAYLSIS<br />
Site BMB/116 Excavation Unit BMB/116B<br />
Spit No 6 NOT EXCAVATED Date sorted<br />
Total <strong>shell</strong> weight sorted >6mm<br />
BIVALVES Shell weight Shell counts<br />
Species Total wgt Frag wgt Whole<br />
<strong>shell</strong> wgt<br />
Anadara granosa<br />
Marcia hiantina<br />
Polymosoda erosa<br />
Gafrarium tumidum<br />
Fuliva tenvicostata<br />
Veneridae (Fam)<br />
Septifer Mussel<br />
Unidentified<br />
Umbo to<br />
70%<strong>shell</strong><br />
Umbo to<br />
70% <strong>shell</strong><br />
OYSTER Shell weights Shell counts<br />
Chama fibula<br />
Saccostrea culcullata<br />
Pinctada margaritifera<br />
Isognomon ephippium<br />
Unidentified<br />
OTHER<br />
MARINE LIFE<br />
Barnacles<br />
Worm tubes<br />
Coral<br />
Crab<br />
Total wgt Frag wgt Lid wgt Bases wgt No of<br />
70% lids<br />
No of 70%<br />
bases<br />
Shell weights Shell counts<br />
Total wgt Frag wgt Whole<br />
wgt<br />
No of<br />
specimns<br />
Shell weights Shell counts<br />
Whole<br />
<strong>shell</strong>s<br />
No of<br />
beaks<br />
147<br />
MNI<br />
MNI<br />
MNI
GASTROPODS<br />
Terebralia Paustr<strong>is</strong><br />
Telescopium<br />
Telescopium<br />
Strombus s.p.<br />
Nerita s.p.<br />
Terrestrial snail<br />
Unidentified gastropods<br />
Total wgt Frag wgt Whole<br />
<strong>shell</strong> Wgt<br />
70% <strong>shell</strong><br />
wgt<br />
No 70%<br />
<strong>shell</strong>s<br />
No whole<br />
<strong>shell</strong>s<br />
SPECIES
BLUE MUD BAY PROJECT: SHELLFISH ANAYLSIS<br />
Site BMB/116 Excavation Unit BMB/116B<br />
Spit No 7 NOT EXCAVATED Date sorted<br />
Total <strong>shell</strong> weight sorted >6mm<br />
BIVALVES Shell weight Shell counts<br />
Species Total wgt Frag wgt Whole <strong>shell</strong><br />
wgt<br />
Anadara granosa<br />
Marcia hiantina<br />
Polymosoda erosa<br />
Gafrarium tumidum<br />
Fuliva tenvicostata<br />
Veneridae (Fam)<br />
Septifer Mussel<br />
Unidentified<br />
Umbo to<br />
70%<strong>shell</strong><br />
Umbo to<br />
70% <strong>shell</strong><br />
OYSTER Shell weights Shell counts<br />
Chama fibula<br />
Saccostrea culcullata<br />
Pinctada margaritifera<br />
Isognomon ephippium<br />
Unidentified<br />
OTHER MARINE<br />
LIFE<br />
Barnacles<br />
Worm tubes<br />
Coral<br />
Crab<br />
Total wgt Frag wgt Lid wgt Bases wgt No of 70%<br />
lids<br />
No of 70%<br />
bases<br />
Shell weights Shell counts<br />
Total wgt Frag wgt Whole<br />
wgt<br />
No of<br />
specimns<br />
Shell weights Shell counts<br />
Whole<br />
<strong>shell</strong>s<br />
149<br />
MNI<br />
No of beaks MNI<br />
MNI
GASTROPODS<br />
Terebralia Paustr<strong>is</strong><br />
Total wgt Frag wgt Whole<br />
<strong>shell</strong> Wgt<br />
Telescopium Telescopium<br />
Strombus s.p.<br />
Nerita s.p.<br />
Terrestrial snail<br />
Unidentified gastropods<br />
70% <strong>shell</strong><br />
wgt<br />
No 70%<br />
<strong>shell</strong>s<br />
No whole<br />
<strong>shell</strong>s<br />
SPECIES
BLUE MUD BAY PROJECT: SHELLFISH ANAYLSIS<br />
Site BMB/116 Excavation Unit BMB/116B<br />
Spit No 8 Date sorted 29.8.09<br />
Total <strong>shell</strong> weight sorted >6mm 311.75 gms<br />
BIVALVES Shell weight Shell counts<br />
Species Total wgt Frag wgt Whole<br />
<strong>shell</strong> wgt<br />
Umbo to<br />
70%<strong>shell</strong><br />
Umbo to<br />
70% <strong>shell</strong><br />
Whole<br />
<strong>shell</strong>s<br />
Anadara granosa 2.50 2.50 ‐<br />
Marcia hiantina 156.50 67.00 66.00 23.50 31 29 30<br />
Polymosoda erosa ‐<br />
Gafrarium tumidum 23.50 4.00 17.00 2.50 4 7 5<br />
Fuliva tenvicostata ‐<br />
Veneridae (Fam) ‐<br />
Septifer Mussel 2.70 2.50 0.20 2 1<br />
Unidentified ‐<br />
OYSTER Shell weights Shell counts<br />
Total wgt Frag wgt Lid wgt Bases wgt No of 70%<br />
lids<br />
No of<br />
70%<br />
bases<br />
No of<br />
beaks<br />
Chama fibula<br />
‐<br />
Saccostrea culcullata<br />
Pinctada margaritifera<br />
66.00 5.50 12.00 48.50 4 5<br />
5<br />
‐<br />
Isognomon ephippium 7.50 7.50<br />
‐<br />
Unidentified 7.50 7.50 ‐<br />
OTHER<br />
MARINE LIFE<br />
Shell weights Shell counts<br />
Total wgt Frag wgt Whole<br />
wgt<br />
No of<br />
specimens<br />
Barnacles ‐<br />
Worm tubes<br />
Coral ‐<br />
Crab ‐<br />
151<br />
MNI<br />
MNI<br />
MNI<br />
‐
GASTROPODS Total wgt Frag wgt Whole<br />
<strong>shell</strong> Wgt<br />
Shell weights Shell counts ‐<br />
70% <strong>shell</strong><br />
wgt<br />
No 70%<br />
<strong>shell</strong>s<br />
No whole<br />
<strong>shell</strong>s<br />
no mouths MNI<br />
Terebralia Paustr<strong>is</strong> ‐<br />
Telescopium Telescopium<br />
Strombus s.p.<br />
Nerita s.p. 5.00 4.00 1.00 1<br />
Terrestrial snail 1.50 1.50<br />
Unidentified gastropods 5.50 5.50<br />
SPECIES
BLUE MUD BAY PROJECT: SHELLFISH ANALYSIS<br />
Site BMB/116 Excavation Unit BMB/116B<br />
Spit No 9 Date sorted 26.8.09<br />
Total <strong>shell</strong> weight sorted >6mm 222.50 gms<br />
BIVALVES Shell weight Shell counts<br />
Species Total<br />
wgt<br />
Frag<br />
wgt<br />
Whole<br />
<strong>shell</strong> wgt<br />
Umbo to<br />
70%<strong>shell</strong><br />
Umbo to<br />
70% <strong>shell</strong><br />
Whole<br />
<strong>shell</strong>s<br />
Anadara granosa 3.0 1.0 2.0 1 1<br />
Marcia hiantina 144.5 53.5 65.5 25.5 38 33 35<br />
Polymosoda erosa ‐<br />
Gafrarium tumidum 15.0 8.5 3.5 3.0 3 2 3<br />
Fuliva tenvicostata ‐<br />
Veneridae (Fam) ‐<br />
Septifer Mussel ‐<br />
Unidentified ‐<br />
OYSTER Shell weights Shell counts<br />
Chama fibula<br />
Total<br />
wgt<br />
Frag<br />
wgt<br />
Lid wgt Bases wgt No of 70%<br />
lids<br />
No of<br />
70%<br />
bases<br />
Saccostrea culcullata 23.0 11.5 3.5 8.0 1 1<br />
Pinctada margaritifera<br />
Isognomon ephippium 4.5 4.5<br />
No of<br />
beaks<br />
Unidentified ‐<br />
OTHER<br />
MARINE LIFE<br />
Total<br />
wgt<br />
Frag<br />
wgt<br />
Shell weights Shell counts<br />
Whole<br />
wgt<br />
No of<br />
specimens<br />
Barnacles 0.50 0.50 ‐<br />
Worm tubes ‐<br />
Coral ‐<br />
Crab ‐<br />
153<br />
MNI<br />
MNI<br />
‐<br />
1<br />
‐<br />
‐<br />
MNI
GASTROPODS Total<br />
wgt<br />
Frag<br />
wgt<br />
Shell weights Shell counts<br />
Whole<br />
<strong>shell</strong> Wgt<br />
70% <strong>shell</strong><br />
wgt<br />
No 70%<br />
<strong>shell</strong>s<br />
No whole<br />
<strong>shell</strong>s<br />
no mouths MNI<br />
Terebralia Paustr<strong>is</strong> 5.00 5.00 ‐<br />
Telescopium Telescopium<br />
Strombus s.p.<br />
Nerita s.p. 5.00 5.00 ‐<br />
Terrestrial snail<br />
Unidentified gastropods<br />
SPECIES
BLUE MUD BAY PROJECT: SHELLFISH ANALYSIS<br />
Site BMB/116 Excavation Unit BMB/116B<br />
Spit No 10 Date sorted 27.8.09<br />
Total <strong>shell</strong> weight sorted >6mm 340.00 gms<br />
BIVALVES Shell weight Shell counts<br />
Species Total wgt Frag wgt Whole<br />
<strong>shell</strong> wgt<br />
Umbo to<br />
70%<strong>shell</strong><br />
Umbo to<br />
70% <strong>shell</strong><br />
Whole<br />
<strong>shell</strong>s<br />
Anadara granosa ‐<br />
Marcia hiantina 212.50 63.50 122.50 26.50 39 60 49<br />
Polymosoda erosa ‐<br />
Gafrarium tumidum 31.50 18.00 13.50 6 3<br />
Fuliva tenvicostata ‐<br />
Veneridae (Fam) 0.50 0.50 1 1<br />
Septifer Mussel 2.00 0.50 1.50 1 1<br />
Unidentified ‐<br />
OYSTER Shell weights Shell counts<br />
Total wgt Frag wgt Lid wgt Bases wgt No of<br />
70% lids<br />
No of<br />
70%<br />
bases<br />
No of<br />
beaks<br />
Chama fibula ‐<br />
Saccostrea culcullata 32.50 12.00 13.00 7.50 5.00 1<br />
5<br />
Pinctada margaritifera<br />
‐<br />
Isognomon ephippium 5.50 5.50<br />
Unidentified<br />
‐<br />
‐<br />
OTHER<br />
MARINE LIFE<br />
Shell weights Shell counts<br />
Total wgt Frag wgt Whole<br />
wgt<br />
No of<br />
specimen<br />
Barnacles ‐<br />
Worm tubes ‐<br />
Coral ‐<br />
Crab ‐<br />
155<br />
MNI<br />
MNI<br />
MNI
GASTROPODS<br />
Shell weights Shell counts<br />
Total wgt Frag wgt Whole<br />
<strong>shell</strong> Wgt<br />
70% <strong>shell</strong><br />
wgt<br />
No 70%<br />
<strong>shell</strong>s<br />
No whole<br />
<strong>shell</strong>s<br />
no mouths MNI<br />
Terebralia Paustr<strong>is</strong> 8.50 8.50 ‐<br />
Telescopium<br />
Telescopium<br />
Strombus s.p. ‐<br />
Nerita s.p. 4.50 3.00 1.50 2 2<br />
Terrestrial snail<br />
Unidentified gastropods<br />
SPECIES
BLUE MUD BAY PROJECT: SHELLFISH ANALYSIS<br />
Site BMB/116 Excavation Unit BMB/116B<br />
Spit No 11 Date sorted 27 .8 .09<br />
Total <strong>shell</strong> weight sorted >6mm 128 gms<br />
BIVALVES Shell weight Shell counts<br />
Species Total wgt Frag wgt Whole<br />
<strong>shell</strong> wgt<br />
Umbo to<br />
70%<strong>shell</strong><br />
Umbo to<br />
70% <strong>shell</strong><br />
Whole<br />
<strong>shell</strong>s<br />
Anadara granosa 15.00 9.00 6.00 2. 1<br />
Marcia hiantina 54.00 39.00 7.00 8.00 25 5 15<br />
Polymosoda erosa ‐<br />
Gafrarium tumidum 15.00 4.50 7.00 3.50 3 3 3<br />
Fuliva tenvicostata ‐<br />
Veneridae (Fam) ‐<br />
Septifer Mussel 2.00 1.50 0.50 6 3<br />
Asaph<strong>is</strong> violascens 4.50 0.50 4.00<br />
OYSTER Shell weights Shell counts<br />
Chama fibula<br />
Total wgt Frag wgt Lid wgt Bases wgt No of<br />
70% lids<br />
Saccostrea culcullata 15.00 11.00 4.00 2<br />
Pinctada margaritifera<br />
Isognomon ephippium 2.50 2.50<br />
No of<br />
70%<br />
bases<br />
No of<br />
beaks<br />
Unidentified ‐<br />
157<br />
MNI<br />
1<br />
MNI<br />
‐<br />
2<br />
‐<br />
‐
OTHER<br />
MARINE LIFE<br />
Shell weights Shell counts<br />
Total wgt Frag wgt Whole<br />
wgt<br />
No of<br />
specimen<br />
Barnacles ‐<br />
Worm tubes<br />
Coral ‐<br />
Crab 0.18 ‐<br />
GASTROPODS<br />
Shell weights Shell counts<br />
Total wgt Frag wgt Whole<br />
<strong>shell</strong> Wgt<br />
70% <strong>shell</strong><br />
wgt<br />
No 70%<br />
<strong>shell</strong>s<br />
No whole<br />
<strong>shell</strong>s<br />
158<br />
MNI<br />
no mouths MNI<br />
Terebralia Paustr<strong>is</strong> 4.00 4.00 ‐<br />
Telescopium Telescopium<br />
Strombus s.p. ‐<br />
Nerita s.p. 3.00 3.00 ‐<br />
Terrestrial snail ‐<br />
Unidentified gastropods<br />
SPECIES
BLUE MUD BAY PROJECT: SHELLFISH ANALYSIS<br />
Site BMB/116 Excavation Unit BMB/116B<br />
Spit No 12 Date sorted 27.8.09<br />
Total <strong>shell</strong> weight sorted >6mm 13.00 gms<br />
BIVALVES Shell weight Shell counts<br />
Species Total wgt Frag wgt Whole<br />
<strong>shell</strong> wgt<br />
Umbo to<br />
70%<strong>shell</strong><br />
Umbo to<br />
70% <strong>shell</strong><br />
Whole<br />
<strong>shell</strong>s<br />
Anadara granosa 1.00 1.00 ‐<br />
Marcia hiantina 7.50 3.50 4.00 4 2<br />
Polymosoda erosa ‐<br />
Gafrarium tumidum 1.00 1.00 2 1<br />
Fuliva tenvicostata<br />
Veneridae (Fam)<br />
Septifer Mussel<br />
Unidentified<br />
OYSTER Shell weights Shell counts<br />
Chama fibula<br />
Saccostrea culcullata<br />
Pinctada margaritifera<br />
Isognomon ephippium<br />
Total wgt Frag wgt Lid wgt Bases wgt No of<br />
70% lids<br />
No of<br />
70%<br />
bases<br />
No of<br />
beaks<br />
Unidentified 1.00 1.00 ‐<br />
OTHER<br />
MARINE LIFE<br />
Shell weights Shell counts<br />
Total wgt Frag wgt Whole<br />
wgt<br />
No of<br />
specimen<br />
159<br />
MNI<br />
MNI<br />
‐<br />
‐<br />
‐<br />
‐<br />
MNI
Barnacles ‐<br />
Worm tubes<br />
Coral ‐<br />
Crab ‐<br />
GASTROPODS<br />
Shell weights Shell counts<br />
Total wgt Frag wgt Whole<br />
<strong>shell</strong> Wgt<br />
70% <strong>shell</strong><br />
wgt<br />
No 70%<br />
<strong>shell</strong>s<br />
No whole<br />
<strong>shell</strong>s<br />
no mouths MNI<br />
Terebralia Paustr<strong>is</strong> ‐<br />
Telescopium<br />
Telescopium ‐<br />
Strombus s.p. ‐<br />
Nerita s.p. ‐<br />
Terrestrial snail<br />
Unidentified gastropods<br />
SPECIES
Appendix 4 .1<br />
Laboratory recorded data: non‐ molluscan analys<strong>is</strong><br />
161
BLUE MUD BAY PROJECT: NON-MOLLUSC ANALYSIS<br />
Site BMB/116 Date sorted<br />
24.8.09<br />
Excavation unit BMB/116 B<br />
Total weight of non-mollusc material<br />
Total weight of rubble<br />
Spit<br />
No<br />
Bucket<br />
weight<br />
Bulk<br />
weight<br />
1 6,000.00 1,500.0<br />
0<br />
2 12,000.0<br />
0<br />
3 11,000.0<br />
0<br />
4 20,000.0<br />
0<br />
1,400.0<br />
0<br />
1,300.0<br />
0<br />
1,000.0<br />
0<br />
Material weights in grams<br />
Bkt wgt<br />
less<br />
bulk wgt<br />
Total<br />
nonmol<br />
wgt<br />
Rubbl<br />
e<br />
Plant Charco<br />
al<br />
Nonmol<br />
as<br />
% of<br />
Bkt<br />
less<br />
bulk<br />
wgt<br />
4,500.00 58.77 55.50 3.27 0 1.31<br />
10,600.0<br />
0<br />
106.30 104.00 0.25 2.05 1.00<br />
9,700.00 204.27 192.00 1.72 10.55 2.11<br />
19,000.0<br />
0<br />
767.45 756.00 4.23 7.22 4.04<br />
5 9,500.00 1,200.0<br />
0<br />
8,300.00 470.00 461.00 6.00 3.00 5.66<br />
6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00<br />
7 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00<br />
8 8500.00 1200.00 6900.00 542.00 536.00 5.00 1.00 7.86<br />
9 12,500.0<br />
0<br />
10 16,000.0<br />
0<br />
11 16,000.0<br />
0<br />
1,500.0<br />
0<br />
1,300.0<br />
0<br />
14,00.0<br />
0<br />
11,000.0<br />
0<br />
14,700.0<br />
0<br />
14,600.0<br />
0<br />
648.50 644.00 4.00 0.50 5.90<br />
903.00 899.50 3.00 0.50 6.14<br />
887.00 884.00 1.50 1.50 6.08<br />
162
12 9,500.00 1,000.0<br />
0<br />
Tot 121,000. 12,800.<br />
al<br />
00 00<br />
Total as % of<br />
TP<br />
8,500.00 615.00 614.00 1.00 0.00 7.24<br />
108,200.<br />
00<br />
5,261.<br />
09<br />
Appendix 5.1<br />
Mound formation data analys<strong>is</strong><br />
5,146.<br />
00<br />
29.97 26.32 Averag<br />
e 4.96<br />
%<br />
4.86% 4.75% 0.03% 0.02%<br />
163
BLUE MUD BAY PROJECT: MOUND FORMATION ANALYSIS<br />
SHELL MOUND<br />
BMB/116 Honour Project for USYD 2009<br />
TEST PIT NO BMB/116B<br />
6MM ANALYSIS<br />
Date 5. 10. 09<br />
SHELL SPECIES‐ A = Anadara granosa, G = Gafrarium tumidum, I = Isognomon<br />
ephippium, M = Marcia hiantina, S = Saccostrea culcullata<br />
SPIT<br />
LEVE<br />
LS →<br />
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12<br />
Shell 156 332 311 3960 789. 0.0 0.0 311. 222. 340. 128. 13.0<br />
wgt<br />
in<br />
gram<br />
s <<br />
6mm<br />
6.00 1.90 5.05 .00 05 0 0 75 50 00 00 0<br />
Shell 2.00 5.00 6.50 47.5 10.5 0.0 0.0 6.55 10.5 14.5 1.00 2.50<br />
wgt<br />
Dom<br />
<strong>shell</strong><br />
MNI<br />
2nd<br />
dom<br />
<strong>shell</strong><br />
sp<br />
2nd<br />
dom<br />
<strong>shell</strong><br />
wgt<br />
2nd<br />
dom<br />
<strong>shell</strong><br />
MNI<br />
Other<br />
marin<br />
e wgt<br />
Rubb<br />
le<br />
wgt<br />
Plant<br />
wgt<br />
Charc<br />
oal<br />
wgt<br />
Dom<br />
non‐mol<br />
material<br />
by wgt<br />
& MNI<br />
Total<br />
excav<br />
ated<br />
remai<br />
ns<br />
wgt<br />
Calcu<br />
58 220 236 195 79 0 0 30 35 49 15 2<br />
A A A A I 0 0 S S S A,<br />
G, S<br />
450.<br />
50<br />
299.<br />
00<br />
167.<br />
00<br />
254.<br />
00<br />
141.<br />
50<br />
0.0<br />
0<br />
0.0<br />
0<br />
66.0<br />
0<br />
23.0<br />
0<br />
32.5<br />
0<br />
15.0<br />
0<br />
each<br />
11 10 6 9 27 0 0 5 1 3 A=2,<br />
G‐3,<br />
S=2<br />
3.00 1.00 4.55 0.50 0.00 0.0<br />
0<br />
55.5<br />
0<br />
104.<br />
00<br />
192.<br />
00<br />
756.<br />
00<br />
461.<br />
00<br />
0.0<br />
0<br />
3.27 0.25 10.5 7.22 3.00 0.0<br />
5<br />
0<br />
0.00 2.05 2.11 4.04 5.66 0.0<br />
0<br />
0.0<br />
0<br />
0.0<br />
0<br />
0.0<br />
0<br />
0.0<br />
0<br />
A,<br />
G<br />
1.00<br />
eac<br />
h<br />
A=0<br />
,<br />
G=1<br />
0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00<br />
536.<br />
00<br />
M M M M M 0 0 Ru<br />
bbl<br />
e<br />
162<br />
4.77<br />
287<br />
5.23<br />
342<br />
9.20<br />
717<br />
0.8<br />
323<br />
2.21<br />
646<br />
7.79<br />
4639<br />
.26<br />
1436<br />
0.74<br />
125<br />
9.05<br />
674<br />
3.19<br />
0.0<br />
0<br />
0.0<br />
0<br />
0.0<br />
0<br />
0.0<br />
0<br />
644.<br />
00<br />
899.<br />
50<br />
884.<br />
00<br />
614.<br />
00<br />
1.00 4.00 3.00 1.50 1.00<br />
7.86 5.90 6.14 6.08 7.24<br />
856.<br />
61<br />
604<br />
3.39<br />
Rub<br />
ble<br />
876.<br />
40<br />
1012<br />
3.60<br />
Rub<br />
ble<br />
1248<br />
.64<br />
1345<br />
1.36<br />
Rub<br />
ble<br />
1019<br />
.58<br />
1358<br />
0.42<br />
Ru<br />
bbl<br />
e<br />
627.<br />
74<br />
787<br />
2.26<br />
165
lated<br />
sedi<br />
ment<br />
weig<br />
ht<br />
Page 2 Mound analys<strong>is</strong> by %<br />
% of<br />
excav<br />
ated<br />
remai<br />
ns in<br />
spit<br />
% of<br />
<strong>shell</strong><br />
in<br />
excav<br />
ated<br />
remai<br />
ns<br />
% of<br />
rubbl<br />
e in<br />
excav<br />
ated<br />
remai<br />
ns<br />
% of<br />
sedi<br />
ment<br />
to<br />
spit<br />
% of<br />
spit<br />
wgt<br />
to<br />
Test<br />
pit<br />
36<br />
%<br />
96<br />
%<br />
32<br />
%<br />
97<br />
%<br />
33<br />
%<br />
95<br />
%<br />
24% 19<br />
%<br />
83% 51<br />
%<br />
3% 2% 2% 16% 36<br />
%<br />
64<br />
%<br />
4.20<br />
%<br />
68<br />
%<br />
9.80<br />
%<br />
67<br />
%<br />
8.90<br />
%<br />
76% 81<br />
%<br />
17.6<br />
0%<br />
7.60<br />
%<br />
0 0 12% 8% 8% 7% 7%<br />
0 0 36% 25% 27% 13% 1%<br />
0 0 63% 74% 72% 87% 98%<br />
0 0 88% 92% 92% 93% 93%<br />
0.0<br />
0%<br />
0.0<br />
0%<br />
6.40<br />
%<br />
10.2<br />
0%<br />
13.6<br />
0%<br />
13.5<br />
0%<br />
7.80<br />
%<br />
166
Appendix 6.1<br />
Shellf<strong>is</strong>h frequency analys<strong>is</strong> as a % of excavation unit<br />
167
Table 6.5 % Shellf<strong>is</strong>h frequency as a % of excavation unit<br />
Excavation<br />
units→<br />
Taxon<br />
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12<br />
Anadara<br />
granosa<br />
29% 9% 5% 6%
Appendix 7.1<br />
Criteria for assessing <strong>shell</strong>f<strong>is</strong>h deposits<br />
(Attenbrow 1992:4)<br />
169
Range and number of <strong>shell</strong>f<strong>is</strong>h species present<br />
o Percentage frequency of each <strong>shell</strong>f<strong>is</strong>h species<br />
o Habitat of <strong>shell</strong>f<strong>is</strong>h<br />
o Size of <strong>shell</strong> within individual species<br />
o Presence or absence of<br />
Non‐economic species or articulated <strong>shell</strong>s<br />
Water worn <strong>shell</strong>s<br />
Burnt or blackened <strong>shell</strong>s<br />
Non‐molluscan fauna<br />
Pumice and marine <strong>shell</strong> grit<br />
Charcoal, burnt wood, hearth stones<br />
Marine species not utilized by Aboriginal people eg coral<br />
Pitted stones<br />
Stratification<br />
o Location of the deposit in the soil profile and in the landscape<br />
o Recent non‐Aboriginal activities in the vicinity of the deposit.<br />
o Radiocarbon date<br />
170
Appendix 8.1<br />
Point Blane peninsula <strong>mound</strong> dimension data<br />
171
Shell <strong>mound</strong> dimensions field data from Point Blane Peninsular<br />
Site code Lengt Widt Heig Date Dominant<br />
h h ht<br />
Component<br />
BMB/24 22.70 10.50 0.62 Anadara Gran<br />
BMB/25 18.20 15.60 0.90 Anadara Gran<br />
BMB/26 34.60 33.00 2.46 Anadara Gran<br />
BMB/27 23.00 22.00 0.50 Anadara Gran<br />
BMB/28 28.00 28.00 2.60 Anadara Gran<br />
Dated BMB/29 23.60 21.00 1.07 2014<br />
calBP‐<br />
2326<br />
calBP<br />
Anadara Gran<br />
BMB/30 27.70 21.80 1.56 Anadara Gran<br />
BMB/34 15.40 14.00 0.56 Anadara Gran<br />
BMB/35 12.70 8.80 0.54 Anadara Gran<br />
BMB/36 10.30 7.50 0.42 Anadara Gran<br />
BMB/39 11.90 11.10 0.50 Anadara Gran<br />
BMB/40 10.30 9.30 0.54 Anadara Gran<br />
BMB/41 15.00 13.40 0.61 Anadara Gran<br />
BMB/42 13.80 9.50 0.44 Anadara Gran<br />
BMB/43 14.10 12.10 0.56 Anadara Gran<br />
BMB/44 16.70 12.80 0.67 Anadara Gran<br />
Dated BMB/45 22.70 11.40 0.35 550<br />
calBP‐<br />
624 calBP<br />
Anadara Gran<br />
BMB/46 44.50 19.30 0.66 Anadara Gran<br />
BMB/47 30.60 19.00 0.77 Anadara Gran<br />
172
Smallest<br />
<strong>mound</strong><br />
BMB/48 52.70 14.30 0.89 Anadara Gran<br />
BMB/49 32.20 13.00 0.62 Anadara Gran<br />
BMB/50 21.40 7.20 0.35 Anadara Gran<br />
BMB/51 29.70 10.50 1.32 Anadara Gran<br />
BMB/52 17.50 14.00 0.57 Anadara Gran<br />
BMB/53 38.00 19.00 3.29 Anadara Gran<br />
BMB/54 25.00 18.00 1.14 Anadara Gran<br />
BMB/56 5.80 4.50 N/A Anadara Gran<br />
BMB/57 32.20 28.00 1.19 Anadara Gran<br />
BMB/58 11.80 11.20 0.32 Anadara Gran<br />
BMB/60 13.60 10.00 0.33 Anadara Gran<br />
Dated BMB/61 13.00 10.90 0.29 1046<br />
calBP‐<br />
1264<br />
calBP<br />
Anadara Gran/<br />
Silcrete<br />
BMB/62 12.80 12.20 0.39 Anadara Gran<br />
BMB/63 16.40 10.40 0.44 Anadara Gran<br />
BMB/64 31.50 17.80 1.24 Anadara Gran<br />
BMB/65 16.10 12.5<br />
0<br />
0.88 Anadara Gran<br />
Dated BMB/71 19.80 19.40 1.08 1253<br />
calBP‐<br />
1519<br />
calBP<br />
Dated<br />
Largest<br />
<strong>mound</strong><br />
Anadara<br />
Gran/Silcrete<br />
BMB/72 17.50 13.50 0.35 Anadara Gran<br />
BMB/73 19.00 13.50 0.63 Anadara Gran<br />
BMB/74 16.30 15.60 0.39 Anadara Gran<br />
BMB75 16.40 14.50 0.41 Anadara Gran<br />
BMB/77 20.00 18.60 0.76 Anadara Gran<br />
BMB/78 41.00 15.40 0.84 Anadara Gran<br />
BMB/81 354.0<br />
0<br />
30.00 0.69 482<br />
calBP‐<br />
modern<br />
Anadara Gran<br />
BMB/82 60.50 38.00 1.82 Anadara Gran<br />
BMB/91 28.80 29.50 0.47 Anadara Gran<br />
BMB/92 20.00 13.00 0.86 Anadara Gran<br />
Dated BMB/93 23.00 14.60 0.49 surface<br />
1825<br />
Anadara Gran<br />
173
BMB/95 36.00 21.50 0.74<br />
calBP<br />
Anadara Gran<br />
BMB/97 17.50 11.40 0.57 Anadara Gran<br />
BMB/98 15.70 13.30 0.34 Anadara Gran<br />
BMB/99 41.00 32.50 1.43 Anadara Gran<br />
BMB/101 25.10 25.00 0.61 Anadara Gran<br />
BMB/105 20.40 14.40 0.63 Anadara Gran<br />
BMB/106 29.60 27.30 1.65 Anadara Gran<br />
BMB/107 24.20 21.70 0.99 Anadara Gran<br />
BMB/108 27.40 26.40 1.12 Anadara Gran<br />
BMB/109 31.00 21.50 1.04 Anadara Gran/<br />
Silcrete<br />
Dated BMB/116 27.60 11.50 0.47 281<br />
calBP‐<br />
657 calBP<br />
Anadara anti/<br />
Quartzite<br />
174
Appendix 9.1<br />
Field recording form for <strong>shell</strong> <strong>midden</strong>s<br />
175
Part 1 Shell <strong>midden</strong> recording and identification<br />
Field recording sheet<br />
Project name<br />
Recorders name Date<br />
GPS or map coordinates Site no:<br />
Location & description<br />
Coast / estuary / inland<br />
Aspect<br />
Landform<br />
Site v<strong>is</strong>ibility<br />
Isolated / cluster<br />
Midden description<br />
Continuous / d<strong>is</strong>continuous<br />
Contained<br />
Shell scatter<br />
Above ground‐ below ground<br />
Other<br />
Arial shape<br />
Oval<br />
Circular<br />
Irregular<br />
Linear<br />
Doughnut<br />
Profile<br />
Mounded<br />
Non‐<strong>mound</strong>ed<br />
Flat<br />
176
Irregular<br />
Profile Cross section<br />
Conical<br />
Hemi‐spherical<br />
Flat<br />
Undulating / irregular<br />
Researchers own sketch<br />
Dimensions (for both the site, e.g. <strong>mound</strong> cluster area, and individual deposit<br />
Eg <strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong>)<br />
Overall site area length<br />
Overall site area width<br />
Deposit length<br />
Deposit width<br />
Maximum depth<br />
Minimum depth<br />
Maximum height<br />
Minimum height<br />
Estimated volume<br />
Context<br />
Substrate<br />
Matrix<br />
Colour<br />
Interbedded lenses or layers<br />
Overlying sediments<br />
Shell species present<br />
177
Dominate species<br />
Secondary species<br />
Changes in <strong>shell</strong> species v<strong>is</strong>ible in stratigraphy<br />
Other v<strong>is</strong>ible contents<br />
Bone<br />
Stone<br />
Plant material<br />
Charcoal<br />
Hearths<br />
Stone artefacts<br />
Other<br />
Site d<strong>is</strong>turbances<br />
See reverse side of sheet for examples of <strong>mound</strong> profiles (Section still under<br />
development)<br />
178
References Cited<br />
Attenbrow, V. 1992 Shell or Shell Midden. Australian Archaeology 34.<br />
1999 Archaeological research in coastal southeast Australia: A review<br />
In J. H. Hall. & I. J. McNiven (eds.) Australian Coastal Archaeology<br />
Canberra: ANH Publications, Department of Archaeology and<br />
Natural H<strong>is</strong>tory, RSPAS, Australian National University.<br />
Australian Government Geosciences Australia 2009 zcoastswww.ozcoasts.org.au.<br />
Australian Government Bureau of Meteorology 2009. Climate Education: Climate of<br />
The Northern territory. www.bom.gov.au.<br />
Bailey, G. N. 1975 The roll of Molluscs in Coastal Economies: The results of<br />
<strong>midden</strong> analys<strong>is</strong> in Australia. Journal of Archaeological Science 2.<br />
1977 Shell Mounds, Shell Middens, and Ra<strong>is</strong>ed Beaches in the Cape<br />
York Peninsula. Mankind 11 (2).<br />
1993 Shell Mounds in 1972 and 1992: Reflections on recent<br />
controversies at Ballina and Weipa. Australian Archaeology 37:1‐18.<br />
1999 Shell <strong>mound</strong>s and coastal archaeology in northern Queensland In<br />
J. Hall and I. J. McNiven (eds.) Australian Coastal Archaeology. Canberra:<br />
ANH Publications Australian National University.<br />
Bailey, G. N., Chappell, J., Cribb, R. 1994 The origins of Anadara <strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong>s at<br />
Weipa, North Queensland, Australia. Archaeology in Oceania 29.<br />
179
Bailey, G. and Parkington, J. 1988 The archaeology of preh<strong>is</strong>toric coastlines: An<br />
introduction. In G. Bailey and J. Parkington (eds.) The Archaeology of<br />
Preh<strong>is</strong>toric Coastlines. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.<br />
Barber, M. 2002 Blue Mud Bay Project Final Report. Resource Use and Ecological<br />
Knowledge at Yilpara Outstation.<br />
2005 Where the clouds stand: Australia Aboriginal Relationships to<br />
Water, Place, and the Marine Environment in Blue Mud Bay, Northern<br />
Territory. Unpubl<strong>is</strong>hed PhD Tes<strong>is</strong>, the Australian National University.<br />
Beaton, J. M. 1985 Evidence for a Coastal Occupation Time‐Lag at Princess<br />
Charlotte bay (North Queensland) and Implications for Coastal<br />
Colonization and Population Growth Theories for Aboriginal<br />
Australia, Archaeology in Oceania 20 (1).<br />
1995 The Transition on the coastal fringe of Greater Australia. Antiquity<br />
69.<br />
Brock, J. 2001 Native Plants of Northern Australia, Sydney: Reed New Holland.<br />
Brockwell, S. 2006 Earth Mounds In Northern Australia. Australian Archaeology<br />
63.<br />
Brockwell, S., Faulkner, P., Bourke, P., Clarke, A., Crassweller, C., Guse, D.,<br />
Meehan, B., Sim, R., 2009 Radiocarbon dates from the Top End: A<br />
cultural chronology for the Northern Territory coastal plains.<br />
Australian Aboriginal Study’s1.<br />
Bourke, P. 2002 Shell Mounds and Stone Axes: Preh<strong>is</strong>toric Resource<br />
Procurement strategies at Hope Inlet, Northern Australia. Bulletin of<br />
the Indo‐Pacific Preh<strong>is</strong>tory Association 22.<br />
2003 Advent of Anadara Mounds and Theories on Mid‐ to Late<br />
Holocene Changes in Forager Economic Strategies‐ A Comment.<br />
Australian Archaeology 56 (June).<br />
2004 Three Aboriginal <strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong>s at Hope Inlet: Evidence for<br />
coastal, maritime Late Holocene economies on the Beagle Gulf<br />
mainland, northern Australia. Australian Archaeology 59.<br />
180
Burns, T. 1994 ‘Mound over matter: origins of <strong>shell</strong> and earth <strong>mound</strong>s of northern<br />
Australia: an evaluation of <strong>mound</strong>s on Channel Island and Middle Arm<br />
mainland, Darwin Harbour’, unpubl<strong>is</strong>hed BA (Hons) Thes<strong>is</strong>, the<br />
Northern Territory University Darwin.<br />
1999 Subs<strong>is</strong>tence and settlement patterns in the Darwin coastal region<br />
during the Late Holocene period: a preliminary report of archaeological<br />
research. Australian Aboriginal Study’s1.<br />
Bowdler, S. 1970 Bass Point: the excavation of a southeast Australia <strong>shell</strong> <strong>midden</strong><br />
showing cutural and economic change BA (Hons) Thes<strong>is</strong>. The University of<br />
Sydney.<br />
1983 Sieving sea<strong>shell</strong>s: <strong>midden</strong> analys<strong>is</strong> in Australian archaeology. In<br />
G. Connah (eds.) Australian Field Archaeology: A guide to techniques.<br />
Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.<br />
Carter, M. 1997 Chenier and Shell Midden: An Investigation of Cultural and Natural<br />
Shell Deposits at Rodd Peninsular, Central Queensland Coast. Unpubl<strong>is</strong>hed<br />
Honours Thes<strong>is</strong>, Department of Anthropology and Sociology, The<br />
University of Queensland.<br />
Chappell, J 1988 ‘Geomorphological dynamics and evolution of tidal river and<br />
floodplain systems in northern Australia’ in D Wade‐ Marshall and P<br />
Loveday (eds.) Floodplains Research. Northern Australia: Progress and<br />
Prospects, North Australia Research Unit The Australian National<br />
University (vol. 2).<br />
Characterization of the Marine environment of the northern marine region. 2007 North<br />
Marine Bioregional Planning Section, Marine Div<strong>is</strong>ion, NT Department<br />
of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts.<br />
Clarke, A., Faulkner, P. 2003 The Archaeological investigations on the Blane<br />
Peninsular, Blue Mud Bay, eastern Arnhem Land 2000‐2002. Darwin<br />
N.T: Office of Environment & Heritage, Department of Infrastructure,<br />
Planning & Environment.<br />
Claassen, C. 1998 Shells. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.<br />
181
Clune, G. 2002 Abydos: An archaeological investigation of Holocene adaptations on the<br />
Pilbara Coast, North Western Australia. Unpubl<strong>is</strong>hed PhD thes<strong>is</strong>,<br />
University of Western Australia.<br />
Clune , G. and Harr<strong>is</strong>on, R. 2009 Coastal <strong>shell</strong> <strong>midden</strong>s of the Abydos coastal<br />
plain, Western Australia. Archaeology in Oceania 44 Supplement<br />
Coleman, E. 1966 An analys<strong>is</strong> of small samples from the West Point <strong>shell</strong> <strong>midden</strong>.<br />
Unpubl<strong>is</strong>hed B.A. (Hons) thes<strong>is</strong>, University of Sydney.<br />
Connah, G. 1975 Current research at the Department of Preh<strong>is</strong>tory and<br />
Archaeology, University of New England. Australian Archaeology 5: 1‐6.<br />
Cribb, R. 1986 Sites, people, and archaeological information traps: a further<br />
transgressive ep<strong>is</strong>ode from Cape York. Archaeology in Oceania 21.<br />
1996 Shell Mounds, Domiculture and Ecosystem Manipulation on<br />
Western Cape York peninsula In P. H<strong>is</strong>cock and P. Veth (eds.)<br />
Archaeology of Northern Australia: Regional perspectives,<br />
Anthropology Museum, University of Queensland, St Luca,<br />
Tempus 4.<br />
Dortch, C. E., Kendrick. G. W., and Morse, K., 1984 Aboriginal mollusc<br />
exploitation in southwestern Australia. Archaeology in Oceania 19.<br />
Esposito, V. 2005 Sorting Shells. Unpubl<strong>is</strong>hed Honours Thes<strong>is</strong>, School of<br />
Archaeology and Anthropology, Australian National University.<br />
Faulkner, P. 2006 The ebb and flow: An archaeological investigation of late Holocene<br />
economic variability on the coastal margins of Blue Mud Bay, Northern<br />
Australia. Unpubl<strong>is</strong>hed PHD, Australian National University.<br />
2009 Focused, intense and long long‐term: evidence for granular ark<br />
exploitation from late Holocene <strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong>s of Blue Mud Bay,<br />
northern Australia. Journal of Archaeological Science 36.<br />
Hall, J. and McNiven, I. J. 1999 Australian Coastal Archaeology: Introduction. In<br />
J. Hall and I. J. McNiven (eds.) Australian Coastal Archaeology. Canberra:<br />
ANH Publications Australian National University.<br />
182
Harr<strong>is</strong>on, R. 2009 The archeology of the Port Hedland coastal plain and<br />
implications for understanding the preh<strong>is</strong>tory of <strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong>s and<br />
<strong>midden</strong>s in northwestern Australia. Archaeology in Oceania 44,<br />
supplement.<br />
H<strong>is</strong>cock, P. 2008 Archaeology of Ancient Australia. Oxon: Routledge.<br />
H<strong>is</strong>cock, P. and Faulkner, P. 2006 Dating the Dreaming? Creation of Myths and<br />
Rituals for Mounds along the Northern Australia Coastline. Cambridge<br />
Archaeological Journal 16:2.<br />
H<strong>is</strong>cock, P. & Hughes, P., 2001 Preh<strong>is</strong>toric and World War II Use of Shell<br />
Mounds in Darwin Harbour. Australian Archaeology 52.<br />
Ir<strong>is</strong>h, P. 2009 Photograph of a <strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong> at Weipa. www.archaeologyweek.com<br />
2009 Part past, Part Fiction in E. Brinch Petersen and M. Sorensen<br />
(eds.) Hunter‐Gather Study’sfrom Australia, Denmark and Greenland.<br />
University of Copenhagen (forth coming publication).<br />
Lourandos, H. 1985 Intensification and Australian Preh<strong>is</strong>tory, In T.D. Price and<br />
J.A. Brown (eds.) Preh<strong>is</strong>toric Hunter‐Gathers: The Emergence of Cultural<br />
Complexity, Orlando Florida: Academic Press.<br />
Lubbock, J. 1865 Pre‐h<strong>is</strong>toric Times as illustrated by ancient remains and the manners<br />
and customs of modern savages. London: Williams & Norgate. At<br />
www.//books.google.com.au<br />
Marshall, F. & Pilgram, T. 1993 NISP vs. MNI in Quantification of Body‐Part<br />
Representation. American Antiquity 58 (2).<br />
McBryde, I. 1974 Aboriginal Preh<strong>is</strong>tory in New England. Sydney: University of<br />
Sydney.<br />
McCarthy, F.D. and F.M. Setzler 1960 The Archaeology of Arnhem Land. In C.P.<br />
Mountford (Ed.) Records of the American‐Australian Scientific<br />
Expedition to Arnhem Land Volume 2: Anthropology and Nutrition.<br />
Melbourne: Melbourne University Press. Pp215‐295.<br />
Meehan, B 1982 Shell bed to <strong>shell</strong> <strong>midden</strong>. Canberra: Australian Institute of<br />
183
Aboriginal Studies.<br />
Milner, N. 2001 Seasonal study’sand palaeoenviromental analys<strong>is</strong> of oysters<br />
from the Dan<strong>is</strong>h kitchen<strong>midden</strong> of Krabbesholm, University of Durum<br />
and University of Newcastle upon Tyne Archaeological Reports.<br />
Mitchell , S. 1993 Shell Mound Formation In Northern Australia: A Case Study<br />
From Croker Island, Northwestern Arnhem Land. The Beagle, Records<br />
of the Northern Territory Museum of Arts and Sciences, 10(1)<br />
Morr<strong>is</strong>on, M. 2003 Old Boundaries and new horizons: the Weipa <strong>shell</strong> <strong>mound</strong>s<br />
reconsidered. Archaeology in Oceania 38.<br />
Mowat, F.M. 1995 Variability in Western Arnhem Land Shell Midden Deposits.<br />
Unpubl<strong>is</strong>hed M.A. thes<strong>is</strong>, Department of Anthropology, Northern<br />
Territory University.<br />
National Archives of Australia Virtual Reading Room. Aboriginal <strong>shell</strong> <strong>midden</strong> at<br />
Weipa 1958. vroom.naa.gov.au<br />
O’Connor 1989 Contemporary use of offshore <strong>is</strong>lands and implications for<br />
preh<strong>is</strong>toric site patterning in the wets Kimberley, W.A. Australian<br />
Aboriginal Study’s2.<br />
1996 Where are the <strong>midden</strong>s? ‐ An overview of the archaeological<br />
evidence for <strong>shell</strong>f<strong>is</strong>h exploitation along the northwestern Australian<br />
coastline. Bulletin of the Indo ‐ Pacific Preh<strong>is</strong>tory Association 15.<br />
1999 A diversity of coastal economies: Shell <strong>mound</strong>s in the Kimberley<br />
region in the Holocene. In J. Hall and I.J. McNiven (eds.) Australian<br />
Coastal Archaeology. Canberra: ANH Publications Australian National<br />
University.<br />
O’Connor, S., Sullivan, M. 1994 Coastal archaeology in Australia; developments<br />
and new directions. Australian Archaeology 39.<br />
Reg<strong>is</strong>ter of the National Estate Clybucca Aboriginal Area www.heritage.gov.au<br />
Roberts, A. 1994 The Milingimbi <strong>mound</strong>s. In Archaeology in the north (eds.) M.<br />
Sullivan, S. Brockwell, & A. Webb. Darwin: North Australia Research<br />
184
Unit (ANU).<br />
Roth, W. E. 1901 Food, its search, capture and preparation. North Queensland<br />
Ethnography 33.<br />
Sanger, D. and Sanger, M. J. 1997 The Damar<strong>is</strong>cotta Oyster Shell Heaps<br />
Northeastern Natural<strong>is</strong>t 4 (2) Pp 93‐102.<br />
Shulme<strong>is</strong>ter, J. 1999 Australasian Evidence for Mid‐Holocene Climate Change<br />
Implies Precessional Control of Walker Circulation in the Pacific.<br />
Quaternary International 57/58.<br />
Specht, R. L 1958 The climate, Geology, Soils and Plant Ecology of the Northern<br />
Portion of Arnhem Land, In R.L. Specht and C. P. Mountford (eds.)<br />
Records of the American‐ Australian Scientific Expedition to Arnhem Land<br />
Volume 3: Botany and Plant Ecology, Melbourne: Melbourne University<br />
Press. Pp 327‐414.<br />
Stanner, W. E. H. 1961 The Weipa Shell‐<strong>mound</strong>s. The Etruscan, 11.<br />
Stone, T. 1991 Megapode Mounds and Archaeology in Northern Australia.<br />
Emu 91.<br />
Sullivan, M.E. 1977 Aboriginal sites of Bherwerre Peninsula Conservation &<br />
Agricultural Branch Department, of Capital territory Conservation<br />
Memorandum 5: 54.<br />
1982 Aboriginal Shell <strong>midden</strong>s in the Coastal Landscape of New South Wales.<br />
Unpubl<strong>is</strong>hed PHD thes<strong>is</strong> Australian National University.<br />
1989 Recording <strong>shell</strong> <strong>midden</strong> sites. In J. Flood., I. Johnson., S. Sullivan<br />
eds.) Sites and Bytes: Recording Aboriginal places in Australia. Canberra:<br />
Australian Government Publ<strong>is</strong>hing Service.<br />
The Australian Oxford Dictionary 1999 (eds.) Cathryn Game. Sth Melbourne:<br />
Oxford University Press.<br />
Thom, B. & Chapell, J. 1975 Holocene sea levels relative to Australia. Search 6 (3).<br />
185
Thorpe, W. W. 1931 A rockshelter at Lake Burrill, New South Wales.<br />
Mankind 1: 53‐5.<br />
1932a. Lake Burrill rockshelter. Mankind 1: 78‐9.<br />
1932b. Lake Burrill rockshelter faunal remains. Mankind: 1: 109‐10.<br />
Ulm, S 2006 Coastal Themes: An archaeology of the Curt<strong>is</strong> Coast, Queensland.<br />
Terra Austral<strong>is</strong> 24 Canberra: ANUEPRESS. http:epress.anu.edu.au<br />
Veth, P 1999 The occupation of arid coastlines during the terminal Ple<strong>is</strong>tocene of<br />
Australia. In J. Hall and I.J. McNiven (eds.) Australian Coastal<br />
Archaeology. Canberra: ANH Publications Australian National<br />
University.<br />
Warner L. 1969 A Black Civilization: A Social Study of an Australian tribe.<br />
Gloucester, Massachusetts: Peter Smith<br />
Weatherzone 2009. Fairfax Media: www.weatherzone.com.au<br />
Wl<strong>is</strong>on, B 2008 A Handbook to Australian Sea<strong>shell</strong>s. On Seashores East to West and<br />
North to South. Sydney: Reed New Holland.<br />
Wilson, B.A., P.S. Brockhurst, M.J. Clarke and K.J.M. Dickinson 1990 Vegetation<br />
Survey of the Northern Territory: Explanatory Notes to Accompany 1:1000<br />
000 Map Sheets, Technical Report Number 49, Conservation<br />
Comm<strong>is</strong>sion of the Northern Territory, Palmerston, Northern Territory.<br />
Woodroffe, C. D., Chappell, J. MA., Thom, B.G 1988 Shell <strong>midden</strong>s in the context<br />
of estuarine development, South Alligator River, Northern Territory<br />
Archaeology in Oceania 23.<br />
Wright, R. V. S. 1963 Report on Archeological Reconna<strong>is</strong>sance Work in Cape York,<br />
Australian Institute of Aboriginal Study’sDocument No. 63/73<br />
(mimeographed).<br />
1971 Preh<strong>is</strong>tory in the Cape York Peninsular. In D. J. Mulvaney and J.<br />
186
Golson (eds.), Aboriginal Man and Environment in Australia, Australian<br />
National University Press, Canberra pp 133‐40.<br />
www.gastrpoods.com<br />
Yunupingu, B.L. Yunupingu‐Marika, D. Marika, B. Marika, B. Maraka, R<br />
Maraka, and G. Wightman 1995 Rirritjingu Ethnobotany: Aboriginal<br />
Plant use from Yirrkala, Arnhem Land, Australia, Northern Territory<br />
Botanical Bulletin No. 21, Parks and Wildlife Comm<strong>is</strong>sion of the<br />
Northern Territory, Darwin.<br />
Personal comments<br />
Dr A, Clarke. February ‐ August 2009.<br />
Re ‐ The Lumatjpi Inlet’s fresh water supply.<br />
Re ‐ Excavation reports.<br />
Re ‐ Survey photographs<br />
Re ‐ Bone survival in sites in the BMB region.<br />
Re ‐ Excavation methods<br />
Dr M, Carter. April‐ August 2009.<br />
Re ‐ Establ<strong>is</strong>hing <strong>shell</strong> reference collection.<br />
Re ‐ Shell identification and analys<strong>is</strong> methods.<br />
187