One archaeologist's midden is another's shell mound - vanessa ...

Recommendations

Info

Case Studies Queensland A spectacular landscape of shell mounds is located at Weipa on Cape York in northern Queensland. Research on the shell mounds at Weipa has generated more debate than any other coastal area in Australia and for that reason is a fitting place to begin this review. In 1961 anthropologist W.E.H. Stanner (1961:8‐12) suggested that the giant steep‐sided mounds at Weipa were of natural origin. Later Wright (1963, 1971) identified that two of the Weipa mounds contained the classic distinguishing markers of cultural midden deposits: artefacts, charcoal, fish and animal bone. A detailed research project by Geoff Bailey (1977) interpreted the mounds as part of a cultural landscape that extended along the shores of four rivers which flow into Albatross Bay, Queensland (Figure 2.3). He later re‐ examined their period of formation and occupation and dated this from 3510‐290 BP (Bailey et al. 1994:74) demonstrating site use over most of the Late Holocene. Figure 2.3: Map of northeast Australia showing Weipa’s principal shell mound sites (Bailey 1999:106). Bailey argued that the traditional cultural markers of shell mounds were not the only method available for identifying cultural origins. Bailey proposed a ‘self‐selecting’ model as an alternative for a site’s cultural 26
identification. The model also explained why mounds developed (Bailey 1999). The model proposed that the large mounds were located in preferred occupation areas and could be understood in relation to their accessibility, seasonal comfort; availability of a breeze to reduce the impact of mosquitoes, and location near a range of wet season food resource zones. Bailey’s ‘self selecting‘ model expanded to interpret clusters of shell bearing sites as a cultural landscape and provided a strong platform for the interpretation of shell mound sites across northern Australia. The Weipa shell mounds continue to attract new research and stimulate debate. In his critical evaluation of Bailey, Hiscock (2008:177) argues Bailey’s self selecting model needs to be modified to look beyond the realized benefits of the constructed mounds towards developing an understanding of what social motivation lay behind beginning and maintaining the accumulation of mounds over many generations. Tim Stone’s (1991:255) proposal that the Weipa shell mounds were the abandoned nest of a Megapode, the Orange‐footed Scrubfowl, has been the most controversial hypothesis. Stone’s hypothesis has been successfully been discounted by Bailey (1994:69‐79,) Beaton (1995: 802) and notably by Burns (1994:28‐36). Burns re‐ investigated Stones original research sites on Channel Island Darwin Harbour. Her research established a set of criteria to archaeologically differentiate between Megapode mounds, cultural mounds and natural shell deposits. The debate and research on establishing archaeological criteria for identifying the difference between natural and cultural shell deposits has made a significant contribution to cultural shell mound identification (Burns 1994; Carter 1997; Esposito 2005). More recently the Weipa mounds were explored by Morrison (2003) who argued an alternative hypothesis for the mounds formation. His research identified the ‘boom / bust’ nature of Anadara shell bed formation as the source of the dominance of Anadara in the Weipa mounds. Morrison argued that during boom periods, 27
Page 1 and 2: One archaeologist’s midden is ano
Page 3 and 4: TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Table of Con
Page 5 and 6: Minimum number if individuals (MNI)
Page 7 and 8: LIST OF FIGURES Figure Short Title
Page 9 and 10: 4.9 4.10 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 6.1 6.2 Ba
Page 11 and 12: 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6 6.7 6.8 6.9 Dominan
Page 13 and 14: ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS There are three pe
Page 15 and 16: activities such as four wheel drivi
Page 17 and 18: To resolve the inconsistent and pot
Page 19 and 20: demonstrates the need for both revi
Page 21 and 22: forms a context for viewing the Blu
Page 23 and 24: species, site form variation, sea l
Page 25: Table 2.1 Research themes in Austra
Page 29 and 30: Hope Inlet is a small nearly infill
Page 31 and 32: 1999:195). In the 1930s the excavat
Page 33 and 34: found were identified as beaches, r
Page 35 and 36: transgression. These early shell mi
Page 37 and 38: ecorded a wide range of site types.
Page 39 and 40: shell mounds should not be consider
Page 41 and 42: Location The case study site BMB/11
Page 43 and 44: from dry, gusty thunderstorms (Bure
Page 45 and 46: formed following stabilization of s
Page 47 and 48: Figure 3.7: The hydrology of the Po
Page 49 and 50: Table 3.2: Main vegetation units fo
Page 51 and 52: Fauna The range of faunal species r
Page 53 and 54: crab, small hermit crab. Marine Fis
Page 55 and 56: the cross section (Figure 3.11) and
Page 57 and 58: Figure 3.13: Location of quartzite
Page 59 and 60: Conclusion In summary the Point Bla
Page 61 and 62: My first aim is to review shell mou
Page 63 and 64: Figure 4.2: West Point shell midden
Page 65 and 66: food consumed at the site. Shell mi
Page 67 and 68: mounds. The range of dominate speci
Page 69 and 70: as a) the all same site type, or b)
Page 71 and 72: defined in the Oxford Dictionary (1
Page 73 and 74: Figure 4.5: Shell mound located on
Page 75 and 76: this will form the basis of the Fie
Page 77 and 78:
Figure 4.6 a geomorphic diagram has
Page 79 and 80:
Chapter 5 Research Methodology Intr
Page 81 and 82:
The bagged material from the 6mm si
Page 83 and 84:
Oysters were sorted into lids, base
Page 85 and 86:
Secondly species diversity informs
Page 87 and 88:
The limitations of this method are
Page 89 and 90:
CHAPTER 6 BMB/116: Results of analy
Page 91 and 92:
Table 6.2 Identified shell fish spe
Page 93 and 94:
Dominant species The dominant speci
Page 95 and 96:
Table 6.5 %Weight and % MNI of shel
Page 97 and 98:
Table 6.7 Taxon Common name Specifi
Page 99 and 100:
• The largest quantity of shell w
Page 101 and 102:
• Radiocarbon dating suggests sit
Page 103 and 104:
Figure 3.14). The consistent patter
Page 105 and 106:
The increase in the deposition of r
Page 107 and 108:
• In contrast, the results of the
Page 109 and 110:
material for shell mound sites reco
Page 111 and 112:
habitat, provided useful data for t
Page 113 and 114:
This chapter presents the major con
Page 115 and 116:
peninsula. Further, the implication
Page 117 and 118:
mound sites has resolved these diff
Page 119 and 120:
Location Location geograph y Weipa
Page 121 and 122:
Clybucca Andersons Inlet (Register
Page 123 and 124:
Term Reference Source Shell matrix
Page 125 and 126:
Appendix 1.3 Shell midden & mound s
Page 127 and 128:
Australia additional site sizes by
Page 129 and 130:
BLUE MUD BAY PROJECT: SHELLFISH ANA
Page 131 and 132:
Appendix 2.2 Laboratory recording f
Page 133 and 134:
Appendix 2.3 Recording form mound f
Page 135 and 136:
Calculated sediment weight Page 2 M
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Appendix 4 .1 Laboratory recorded d
Page 163 and 164:
12 9,500.00 1,000.0 0 Tot 121,000.
Page 165 and 166:
wgt Dom shell MNI 2nd dom shell sp
Page 167 and 168:
Appendix 6.1 Shellfish frequency an
Page 169 and 170:
Appendix 7.1 Criteria for assessing
Page 171 and 172:
Appendix 8.1 Point Blane peninsula
Page 173 and 174:
Smallest mound BMB/48 52.70 14.30 0
Page 175 and 176:
Appendix 9.1 Field recording form f
Page 177 and 178:
Irregular Profile Cross section Con
Page 179 and 180:
References Cited Attenbrow, V. 1992
Page 181 and 182:
Burns, T. 1994 ‘Mound over matter
Page 183 and 184:
Harrison, R. 2009 The archeology of
Page 185 and 186:
Unit (ANU). Roth, W. E. 1901 Food,
Page 187:
Golson (eds.), Aboriginal Man and E
show all

One archaeologist's midden is another's shell mound - vanessa ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?