RECORDS OF THE WESTERN AUSTRALIAN MUSEUM 79 086–092 (2011) SUPPLEMENT

Revisiting the ‘Neolithic Problem’ in

Peter White

School of Philosophical and Historical Inquiry, University of Sydney, New South Wales 2006, Australia. Email: [email protected]

ABSTRACT – The more we learn about varieties of subsistence, the less clear defi nitions of ‘agriculture’ become, and the harder it is to see the Australian and New Guinean data as falling into separate classes. Some Australian data, if found in New Guinea, would label those societies as agricultural. I suggest two avenues, residue analysis and historical research, along which research in this matter might usefully continue.

KEYWORDS: agriculture, domestication, New Guinea

INTRODUCTION AGRICULTURE

More than 35 years ago, I began a paper on I start with the concept of agriculture which, the ‘Neolithic Problem’ by quoting Capt. John as Harris (1996: 3) notes, ‘is characterised by a Moresby’s (1876: 18) contrast between Australia and confusing multiplicity of terms for [our] conceptual New Guinea (White 1971). Prominent in Moresby’s categories’. Among the archaeologists, Smith’s account is the difference between the Australians recent interesting discussion (2001) agrees ‘living precariously on wild fruits’ and the ‘Papuan’ with Harris (e.g. 1989), Yen (1989, 1995) and Winterhalder and Kennett (2006: 3) that agriculture , who ‘supply themselves is defi ned entirely by the presence of domesticated with constant vegetable food’. I think it is time to plants. Conceptually, he centres the process of revisit that contrast, which I then unquestioningly domestication fi rmly in the divide between hunter- accepted. I do this in the spirit of Gosden and gatherer and agricultural societies, encouraging Head (1999) who point out that ‘the deepest divide us to consider societies which are neither of these we see [between Australia and New Guinea] is as ‘low-level food producers’, whether or not that imposed by European thought’ (1999: 233), domesticates are present. Smith (2001: 14) defi nes especially its division between hunter-gatherer the two main characteristics of domestication as: a) ‘savages’ and agricultural ‘barbarians’. They then species-specifi c genotypic and phenotypic change, go on to argue that while food obviously looms and b) the reliance of these changed variants on large in life, there is much greater similarity in humans for survival. This gives us a ‘clear and the overall cultural structures of New Guinea constant vantage point’. Agricultural societies are and Australia than is generally accepted. Part then defi ned as those relying on domesticates for of the problem is the misconception that all of >50% of the annual calorifi c budget; societies whose reliance on domesticated plants is less than this each area can be unambiguously placed within are ‘low-level food-producers’. Harris (1996: table 1) a single economic category. Unlike Gosden and similarly draws a line between cultivation, which Head, however, I propose to remain focussed on may include land-clearance and systematic tillage, subsistence and on the assumptions which are and agriculture, which is ‘largely or exclusively’ built into our archaeological considerations. I draw based on domesticated plants. attention fi rst to the way in which most commonly Some archaeological defi nitions of agriculture accepted defi nitions of ‘agriculture’ raise problems encompass a wider range of data. Nesbitt (1996: when faced with actually trying to apply them to 19) for example, considers that some or all of the the archaeological record and second how Australia following should be used in making claims about has been downplayed in discussions of agriculture the presence of agriculture: a) physical landscape both because of these defi nitions and because of a changes, either direct (e.g. field systems) or mind-set that has a massive historical inertia. indirect (e.g. pollen, charcoal), b) plants, including REVISITING THE ‘NEOLITHIC PROBLEM’ IN AUSTRALIA 87 types and number of varieties, and c) human growth in relations between humans and other diets deduced directly from bone chemistry species, i.e. the relative scope of human involvement and morphology. Despite this wide-ranging with particular plants (or animals). He notes that approach, he continues to defi ne agriculture by the this may be easier to see with short-lived plant presence of domestication. In other words, among species than with trees which may outlast several a polythetic set, one criterion is necessary and the human generations. Appealing as this concept is, others are ancillary. and others like it (e.g. Rindos 1989), the problem On the other hand, some archaeological of observing such processes in archaeological discussions have suggested either broadening evidence, unaided by direct ethnographic analogy, the concept or that it should be abandoned. seems to me to be even more apparent than it is Spriggs (1996: 525) used the concept of ‘agro- with the archaeologists’ defi nitions. ecosystems that limit subsistence choice because of If, as the literature demonstrates, concepts of environmental transformation or labour demands’, ‘agriculture’ revolve around the domestication of pointing out that Yen considers morphological or plants, how extensively can this be observed or genetic evidence of change in plants is unlikely to inferred in New Guinea and Australia? exist in many tropical root and tree crops. Note that this implies domestication in Smith’s sense [a) NEW GUINEA above] will be impossible to fi nd. Recently, Terrell et al. (2003) have argued for replacing the graded steps Many New Guinean societies, both highland and towards agriculture proposed by Smith and Harris coastal, were, to European eyes, agricultural when with ‘domesticated landscapes’ and a ‘provisioning contacted. Their staples were often a few varieties table’ which focuses on the strategies used to of plants which were grown in fenced gardens, but acquire and maintain specifi c plant resources. these were nearly always supplemented by many other species, which were cultivated, curated or It is noticeable that all these defi nitions can be collected. The phenotypes of some of these plants, shown to be quite workable when present-day notably bananas, taro, sugar cane and, more societies are discussed, but are clearly much recently, sweet potato, were certainly modified harder, if indeed possible, to operationalise from their original forms and some of the new in an archaeological context. Smith notes that phenotypes would not survive without human determining the calorific intake of prehistoric help. In some localities agricultural practices societies is unlikely to be feasible, though he resulted in visible changes to the landscape, argues that seeing genetic and morphological such as ditches, mounds, walls and terraces. As changes in species should be easier. His specifi c archaeologists, our primary assumption has been examples are drawn from South-West Asia and that these visible endpoints, agricultural in the the Americas, where seeds and other hard plant restricted sense described above, have a history. remains are common. He rather dismisses other But until recently this history has been based kinds of plant/human interaction: ‘Given the entirely on direct and proxy evidence of landscape multitude of overlapping and confl icting defi nitions modification, inferences from settlement sizes and applications assigned to horticulture and and assumed permanency, and the appearance garden over the years, these labels tend to confuse of exotic domestic animals and pottery (cf. e.g. rather than to clarify when they are employed in Golson 1977, Denham et al. 2004a for the highlands, attempts to characterise any of the regions on the Spriggs 1996 for lowlands, but cf. Denham 2004 conceptual landscape between hunting-gathering for a contrary view), rather than on actual plant and agriculture’ (Smith 2001: 22). His discussion evidence. In the last few years some actual plant thus suggests root and fruit crops are relatively evidence has been forthcoming. The history of unimportant. Nesbitt’s comprehensive criteria morphological change in some tree crops is being may allow determination of whether societies provided by macroscopic remains and pollen were actually reliant on specifi c crops, but such a data (e.g. Lepofsky et al. 1998). Microfossils such range of data is rarely obtainable from a particular as starch grains and phytoliths, along with proxy archaeological record. Terrell et al. (2003: 354) say evidence of soil modifi cation and landscape fi ring, that for any prehistoric resource ‘one must try to demonstrate that humans were intimately involved gauge the likely harvesting skills that were used’, a with the same plants as are widely used today process for which the guiding principles are unclear (e.g. Denham et al. 2004b; Fairbairn 2005). But it is unless we assume that the past is like the present. also true that none of the critical criteria outlined Looking beyond the archaeologists’ attempts to above – morphological changes in species, primary capture the concept of agriculture, even less clarity dietary reliance on them, limited subsistence is apparent. Ingold (1996), for instance, would choice or ‘planned and repeated environmental dissolve any distinction between collection and manipulation’ (Terrell et al. 2003: 352) – are production and replace both with an analysis of archaeologically yet documented for any specifi c 88 PETER WHITE crops in prehistoric New Guinea (e.g. Haberle 1995; rights to areas for harvesting both yams (Dioscorea cf. Hather 1996). hastifolia) and reed rhizomes (Typha sp.). Firing the In New Guinea, it is the ethnographic evidence of country away from yam gardens was frequent, and a wide-ranging spectrum of reliance on plants often the rights to this were also carefully controlled. organised into recognisable gardens (although Hallam notes (1989) that in Western Australia: a) crops such as sago and pandanus are usually not), Dioscorea hastifolia was grown further south than that has given us an end-point back from which any other yam, b) the alluvial fl at environments we work. If there were no ethnographic evidence, in which these yams were primarily grown by our reconstruction of agricultural history would Aborigines were very different from those of their be much less certain. When New Guinea societies natural habitat of open woodland with granitic became ‘agricultural’ in terms of any of the above and basaltic soils, and c) their growing period general defi nitions is almost impossible to assess was the reverse of that of tropical yams of the – the best example of this being Kuk Swamp in the same species. That these differences were entirely Highlands (Denham et al. 2004b, and references the result of chance seems remote: a process of therein. In fact, according to these defi nitions many ‘domestication’ (following Rindos 1989) is likely to New Guinea societies are probably not ‘agricultural’ be at work. Whether this may have been deliberate even today (Guddemi 1992; Roscoe 2002). morphological transformation followed by clonal selection leading to the new varieties, along the AUSTRALIA lines documented by Doumont and Vernier (2000) in Benin, may not now be determinable. But, as Australia has been generally regarded as they note, domestication involves creating genetic populated by hunter-gatherers ever since Captain diversity within the germ plasm, and this might Cook in 1770 described its people as having ‘… be visible genetically. But what are the chances of no fi xed habitation but move about from place to fi nding this in the archaeological record? place … in search of food … [and] … we never saw We rarely have such detail elsewhere. In south- one Inch of Cultivated land in the whole country’ eastern Australia the daisy yam Microseris lanceolata (Journal 23 August 1770). Research over the past 30 years has shown that while this characterisation (formerly scapigera) was the staple food for people in may partially apply to some Aboriginal groups many regions, with dense concentrations of plants Cook encountered (e.g. Keen 2004: 117–120), in other over large areas being recorded by some early areas of the country things were different (for a reporters; one statement, for instance, describes general summary Keen 2004: 94–96). However, plants by ‘the millions’ (Gott 1982, 1983). Whether its the Australian ethnographic picture is heavily morphology or genetics were altered by Aboriginal obscured by the European invasion and its cultivation remains to be determined since all accompanying mindset. Until recently, the rapidity the fi elds were rapidly destroyed by sheep and with which Aboriginal societies were destroyed the plant is so far unidentifi ed in archaeological and the extent of that destruction have been contexts. The botanist Beth Gott considers that underestimated by scholars (Butlin 1983). The it was a staple resource ‘which could be used invasion was accompanied by diseases, which year-round’ (1982: 10) and notes that recorded sometimes seem to have preceded the arrival of Aboriginal treatment of the plants in the form of actual people. Many Aboriginal groups lost half soil preparation, fertilising by burning, and tilling or more of their population within a very short by harvesting would have increased harvests time, sometimes as little as a year (e.g. Attenbrow (see also Gott 1999a). It may also have altered 2002: 21–22). Because of this social and economic the plants in ways similar to those recorded by destruction, we need to consider whether some Chikwendu and Okezie (1989) for another variety ethnographic and archaeological data point to a of root vegetable in Nigeria. Additionally, in limited need for a more directed search for Australian areas there is clear evidence of landesque capital economic behaviour prior to this event. investment, such as the elaborate water-control One of the best studies using the very earliest systems for eeling (Coutts et al. 1978; Lourandos European accounts is Hallam’s synthesis of 1987), with their ‘thousands of yards’ of trenching southwest Australian ethnography (Hallam and stone banking and their ethnographically 1986, 1989). In the early 19th century, a number of described (if archaeologically hard to detect: Clarke alluvial river fl ats, spread over several hundred 1994) villages. European reports note frequent kilometres north from Perth, were noted as having warfare over territorial rights and quite dense ‘superior huts, well marked roads, deeply sunk populations even after the early epidemics. Such wells and extensive warran [yam] grounds’ by data imply low mobility and considerable landscape the shipwrecked George Grey. He and other early reorganisation, though this is not documented to observers remarked upon the relative permanence relate specifi cally to curation of plants. of occupation, with its concomitant proprietary There is strong evidence that similar styles of REVISITING THE ‘NEOLITHIC PROBLEM’ IN AUSTRALIA 89 economic behaviour existed elsewhere before DISCUSSION contact, but have either gone unreported or the Australian societies have always been implications have not been fully explored. The characterised as hunter-gatherer. Further, it is most obvious case is the Central and Lower largely on the basis of ethnographic evidence, Murray Valley (Pardoe 1994, 1995) and perhaps starting with Cook and continuing until the 20th other riverine areas. Pardoe’s remarkable syntheses century, that the Australians have been described of Murray River evolution and human skeletal as ‘domesticating the environment’ rather than biology (Pardoe 2006), along with evidence of the domesticating plants (Yen 1989, 1995). In Smith’s development and nature of cemeteries (Pretty terms, they are located among the low-level food 1977; Pardoe 1988; Littleton 1999) argues strongly producers. But the ethnographic and archaeological for very high population densities and a territorial evidence I have cited suggest that some Australian organisation based on strongly exclusionary societies may have altered the plants, and clearly principles. This is supported by Webb’s (1984, developed the infrastructure, in ways very much 1995) research on tooth wear, pathologies, stress equivalent to some New Guinea situations. I and decrease in stature, all of which lead him suggest that had the Australian ethnography to describe the Central Murray communities as described above been found in New Guinea, the ‘very settled’, and consisting of a ‘large, sedentary ‘hunter-gatherer’ cachet would have been less population intensifying its economy to feed itself’ readily applied. Further, because Australians are (1995: 280). Further, a heavy starch diet is supported ‘hunter-gatherers’, there has been little incentive by Webb’s observation of thick calculus build-up to investigate the archaeological record for the on teeth from burials around the Willandra lakes presence of agriculture or domestication in the dating back to at least mid-Holocene. The calculus senses described above. is similar to deposits on teeth from the Papuan It is, I believe, time to break away from the coast, where the standard diet was sago (Webb current attitude and accept that agriculture may 1995: 279–280). Proprietary rights to plant food have occurred in parts of Australia. In looking sources and the elaborate manipulation of these further for evidence, there are two obvious avenues may be legitimately inferred in contexts in which to explore. pathologies and diets of the past are so similar to The first is to expand on Sylvia Hallam’s those of many undoubted agricultural communities pioneering research into the historical and (Cohen and Armelagos 1984; Ulijaszek 1991). ethnographic evidence of landscape alteration. A range of plants was probably used to sustain How much of this evidence remains in the face these very dense Murray populations. Given of the large-scale and continuing European the swampy billabong nature of the river valley transformation of the landscape is probably itself, roots and rhizomes from rush-type water questionable. Earthmoving for subsistence plants such as cumbungi (Typha spp.), Scirpus in Aboriginal Australia had no reason to be spp. and Triglochlin procera seem likely to have quantitatively large per unit area. The smaller scale dominated (Gott 1983, 1999b). In drier country activities observed by Grey – paths, mounds, wells Microseris lanceolata is probable. Aboriginal fi eld etc. – were quite quickly obliterated and the same is to be expected elsewhere, wherever the white treatments of burning, aerating the soil by digging invaders settled. Today, traces are likely to be found and harvesting are likely to, and may have been only where European subsistence activities have not intended to, have synchronised and increased found the ground useful. Otherwise, our sources harvests, but in the longer term they will have will be in the historical records, and it is hard to changed plant phenotypes. The start of this riverine believe these have been exhausted. economy can be traced into at least the early-mid Holocene (Pardoe 1995). The second avenue capitalises on a recently developed area of research, plant microfossils such Another area where a similar society and as starch (Torrence and Barton 2006) and phytoliths economy is more tenuously inferred is coastal (Piperno 2006). Since Australian staples were roots, south-east Queensland. By inference on the basis of there will be no evidence of them in the form of the Murray data, Broadbeach and other cemeteries hard seeds or skins. But they did consist of starch (Haglund 1976: 79; McNiven 1991: 14) firmly and may well have contained phytoliths. Research mark group areas. Hall and his students have in Australia has already demonstrated that plants documented rich resources, both plant, especially processed by stone tools can be identifi ed, such bungwall (Blechnum indicum) (Hall et al. 1989), as Blechnum indicum and Marsilea sp. (Fullagar and marine (Hall 1982, 1999), which allowed high 2006: 181–182). Elsewhere in the world, changes in density populations, at least during the recent past. starches have been used as signals for domestication Apart from the cemeteries, little landesque capital (e.g. Piperno et al. 2000; Perry 2002), but similar has been reported. developments remain to be pursued here. 90 PETER WHITE

Another potential area of investigation through Chikwendu, V.E. and Okezie, C.E.A. (1989). Factors microfossils is study of their changing occurrences responsible for the ennoblement of African yams: through time as indicative of patterns of human use inferences from experiments in yam domestication of the local environment. This approach has been (pp. 344–357). In: Harris, D.R. and Hillman, G.C. (eds), Foraging and farming. Unwin Hyman: London. successfully carried out in New Guinea (Lentfer 2003) as well as in other parts of the world. It is Clarke, A. (1994). Romancing the stones. The cultural construction of an archaeological landscape in the both highly technical and time-consuming, but is Western district of Victoria. Archaeology in Oceania 29: probably the best chance of reaching back into the 1–15. real economic world of the past which, I suggest, Cohen, M.N. and Armelagos, G.J. (1984). Paleopathology may have been quite different to the one we think at the origins of agriculture: editors’ summation (pp. we know. 585–602). In: Cohen, M.N. and Armelagos, G.J. (eds), Paleopathology at the origins of agriculture. Academic CONCLUSION Press: Orlando, U.S.A. Coutts, P.J.F., Frank, R.K. and Hughes, P.J. (1978). Was there ever a ‘Neolithic Problem’? My answer Aboriginal engineers of the Western District of now is yes, but primarily in our own minds, guided Victoria. Records of the Victoria Archaeological Survey 7. by the defi nitions and assumptions deriving from Denham, T.P. (2004). The roots of agriculture and models imported from elsewhere. What the last aboriculture in New Guinea: looking beyond 30 years of research have shown us is that these Austronesian expansion, Neolithic packages and models are diffi cult or impossible to apply even indigenous origins. World Archaeology 36: 610–620. in the real-world contexts for which they were Denham, T.P., Golson, J. and Hughes, P.J. (2004a). Reading supposedly designed, and that they are probably early agriculture at Kuk Swamp, Wahgi Valley, Papua quite inapplicable to Australia or New Guinea. Data New Guinea: the archaeological features (Phases 1–3). 70 from these two areas demonstrate how strongly our Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society : 259–298. preconceptions have shaped our thinking about Denham, T.P., Haberle, S. and Lentfer, C. (2004b). New evidence and revised interpretation of early subsistence behaviour. agriculture in Highland New Guinea. Antiquity 78: Our current difficulties in this area may be 839–857. largely to do with scale. Instead of contrasting Doumont, R. and Vernier, P. (2000). Domestication of Australia and New Guinea, the research yams (Dioscorea cayenensis-rotundata) within the focus needs to be narrowed down to specific Bariba ethnic group in Benin. Outlook on Agriculture environments and subsistence practices. How 29: 137–142. did different communities change their resource Fairbairn, A. (2005). An archaeobotanical perspective on organisation over time? What was the impact Holocene plant-use practices in lowland northern 37 of this on their plants – and vice versa? Which New Guinea. World Archaeology : 487–502. communities were involved and are common Fullagar, R. (2006). Starch on artefacts (pp. 177–203). variables visible? What was the impact of such In: Torrence, R. and Barton, H. (eds), Ancient starch research. Left Coast Press: Walnut Creek, U.S.A. changes on population numbers, distribution and social organisation? In the face of such questions, Golson, J. (1977). No room at the top: agricultural intensifi cation in the New Guinea highlands (pp. definitions of ‘agriculture’ and the hierarchical 601–638). In: Allen, J., Golson, J. and Jones, R. (eds), ordering of groups into hunter-gatherers, small- Sunda and Sahul. Academic Press: London. scale food producers and agriculturalists becomes Gosden, C. and Head, L. (1999). Different histories: a irrelevant. The ‘Neolithic Problem’ disappears, common inheritance for Papua New Guinea and replaced by a more humanly scaled prehistory. Australia? (pp.232–520). In: Gosden, C. and Hather, J. (eds), Prehistory of food. Routledge: London. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Gott, B. (1982). Ecology of root use by the Aborigines of southern Australia. Archaeology in Oceania 17: 59–67. I thank Beth Gott for helpful discussions, Huw Gott, B. (1983). Murnong – Microseris scapigera: a study Barton for references, Robin Torrence and an of a staple food of Victorian Aborigines. Australian anonymous referee for critical encouragement. Aboriginal Studies 1983/2: 2–18. A rather different version of this paper was Gott, B. (1999a). Fire as an Aboriginal management presented at the World Archaeological Congress 5, tool in south-eastern Australia. Australian Bushfi re Washington in 2003. Conference, Albury, July 1999. www.csu.edu.au/ special/bushfi re99/papers/gott REFERENCES Gott, B. (1999b). Cumbungi, Typha species: a staple Aboriginal food in southern Australia. Australian Attenbrow, V. (2002). Sydney’s Aboriginal past. University Aboriginal Studies 1999/1: 33–50. of New South Wales Press: Sydney. Guddemi, P. (1992). When horticulturalists are like Butlin, N. (1983). Our original aggression. Allen and hunter-gatherers: the Sawiyano of Papua New Unwin: Sydney. Guinea. Ethnology 31: 303–314 REVISITING THE ‘NEOLITHIC PROBLEM’ IN AUSTRALIA 91

Haberle, S.G. (1995). Identification of cultivated Lourandos, H. (1987). Swamp managers of southwestern Pandanus and Colocasia in the pollen records and Victoria (pp. 292–308). In: Mulvaney, D.J. and White, the implications for the study of early agriculture in J.P. (eds), Australians to 1788. Fairfax, Syme and New Guinea. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 4: Weldon: Sydney. 195–210. McNiven, I. (1991). The Double Island Point Aboriginal Haglund, L. (1976). The Broadbeach Aboriginal burial burials, coastal southeast Queensland. Australian ground. University of Queensland Press: Brisbane. Archaeology 32: 10–16. Hall, J. (1982). Sitting on the crop of the bay: an Moresby, J. (1876). Discoveries and surveys in New Guinea historical and archaeological sketch of Aboriginal and the D’Entrecasteaux Islands. John Murray: London. settlement and subsistence in Moreton Bay (pp. Nesbitt, M. (1996). Agriculture (pp. 19–21). In: Fagan, 79–95). In: Bowdler, S. (ed.), Coastal archaeology in B.M. (ed.), Oxford companion to Archaeology. Oxford eastern Australia. Department of Prehistory, Australian University Press: Oxford. National University: Canberra. Pardoe, C. (1988). Cemetery as symbol. The distribution Hall, J. (1999). The impact of sea level rise on the of prehistoric Aboriginal burial grounds in 23 archaeological record of the Moreton region, south- southeastern Australia. Archaeology in Oceania : east Queensland (pp. 169–184). In: Hall, J. and 1–16. McNiven, I.J. (eds), Australian coastal archaeology. Pardoe, C. (1994). Bioscapes: the evolutionary landscape Research Papers in Archaeology and Natural . Archaeology in Oceania 29: 182–190. 31, Australian National University: Canberra. Pardoe, C. (1995). Riverine, biological and cultural 69 Hall, J., Higgins, S. and Fullagar, R. (1989). Plant residues evolution in southeastern Australia. Antiquity : on stone tools. Tempus 1: 136–160. Museum of 696–713. Anthropology, University of Queensland: Brisbane. Pardoe, C. (2006). Becoming Australian: evolutionary Hallam, S. (1986). Yams, alluvium and ‘villages‘ on the processes and biological variation from ancient to 2006/1 west coastal plains (pp. 116–132). In: Ward, G.K. modern times. Before Farming : Article 4. (ed.), Archaeology at ANZAAS Canberra. Canberra Perry, L. (2002). Starch granule size and the domestication Archaeological Society: Canberra. of manioc (Manihot esculenta) and sweet potato 56 Hallam, S. (1989). Plant usage and management in (Ipomoea batatas). Economic Botany : 335–349. Southwest Australian Aboriginal societies (pp. 136– Piperno, D. (2006). Phytoliths: a comprehensive guide for 151). In: Harris, D.R. and Hillman, G.C. (eds), Foraging archaeologists and paleoecologists. AltaMira Press: and farming. Unwin Hyman: London. Lanham, U.S.A. Harris, D.R. (1989). An evolutionary continuum of plant- Piperno, D.R., Ranere, A.J., Holst, I. and Hansell, P. (2000). people interaction (pp. 11–26). In: Harris, D.R. and Starch granules reveal early root crop horticulture in the Panamanian tropical forest. Nature 407: 894–897. Hillman, G.C. (eds), Foraging and farming. Unwin Hyman: London. Pretty, G.L. (1977). The cultural chronology of the Roonka Flat (pp. 288–331). In: Wright, R.V.S. (ed.), Stone Harris, D.R. (1996). Introduction: themes and concepts tools as cultural markers: change, evolution, complexity. in the study of early agriculture (pp. 1–9). In: Harris, Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies: Canberra. D.R. (ed.), The origins and spread of agriculture and Rindos, D. (1989). Darwinism and its role in the pastoralism in Eurasia. UCL Press: London. explanation of domestication (pp. 27–41). In: Harris, Hather, J.G. (1996). The origins of tropical vegeculture: D.R. and Hillman, G.C. (eds), Foraging and farming. Zingiberaceae, Araceae and Dioscoreaceae in Unwin Hyman: London. Southeast Asia (pp. 538–550). In: Harris, D.R. (ed.), Roscoe, P. (2002). The hunters and gatherers of New The origins and spread of agriculture and pastoralism in Guinea. Current Anthropology 43: 153–162. Eurasia. UCL Press: London. Smith, B.D. (2001). Low-level food production. Journal of Ingold, T. (1996). Growing plants and raising animals: an Archaeological Research 9: 1–44 anthropological perspective on domestication (pp. Spriggs, M. (1996). Early agriculture and what went 12–24). In: Harris, D.R. (ed.), The origins and spread before in island Melanesia: continuity or intrusion? of agriculture and pastoralism in Eurasia. UCL Press: (pp. 524–537). In: Harris, D.R. (ed.), The origins and London. spread of agriculture and pastoralism in Eurasia. UCL Keen, I. (2004). Aboriginal economy and society. Oxford Press: London. University Press: Oxford. Terrell, J.E., Hart, J.P., Barut, S., Cellinese, N., Curet, Lentfer, C.J. (2003). Plants, people and landscapes in A., Denham, T., Kusimba, C.M., Latinis, K., Oka, P., prehistoric Papua New Guinea: a compendium of Palka, J., Pohl, M.E.D., Pope, K.O., Williams, P.R., phytolith (and starch) analyses. PhD thesis, Southern Haines, H. and Staller, J.E. (2003). Domesticated Cross University: Lismore. landscapes: the subsistence ecology of plant and Lepofsky, D., Kirch, P.V. and Lertzman, K.P. (1998). animal domestication. Journal of Archaeological Method Metric analyses of prehistoric morphological change and Theory 10: 323–368. in cultivated fruits and nuts: an example from Island Torrence, R. and Barton, H. (2006). Ancient starch research. Melanesia. Journal of Archaeological Science 25: 1001– Left Coast Press: Walnut Creek, U.S.A. 1014. Ulijaszek, S.J. (1991). Human dietary deficiency. Littleton, J. (1999). East and west: burial practices along Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, the Murray River. Archaeology in Oceania 34: 1–14. B, 334: 271–279. 92 PETER WHITE

Webb, S.G. (1984). Intensification, population and ecology and the transition from hunting and social change in southeastern Australia: the skeletal gathering to agriculture (pp. 1–21). In: Kennett, D.J. evidence. Aboriginal History 8: 154–72. and Winterhalder, B. (eds), Behavioral ecology and the Webb, S.G. (1995). Palaeopathology of . transition to agriculture. University of California Press: Berkeley, U.S.A. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge. Yen, D.E. (1989). The domestication of environment White, J.P. (1971). New Guinea and Australian (pp. 55–75). In: Harris, D.R. and Hillman, G.C. (eds), prehistory: the ‘Neolithic problem’ (pp. 182–195). In: Foraging and farming. Unwin Hyman: London. Mulvaney, D.J. and Golson, J. (eds), Aboriginal man Yen, D.E. (1995). The development of Sahul agriculture and environment in Australia. Australian National with Australia as a bystander. Antiquity 69: 831–847. University Press: Canberra. Winterhalder, B. and Kennett, D.J. (2006). Behavioral MANUSCRIPT RECEIVED APRIL 2005; ACCEPTED SEPTEMBER 2006.