Ethnography and Prehistoric Archaeology in Australia

JOBNAME: AA Vol 15#2 PAGE: 1 SESS: 18 OUTPUT: Thu Jun 20 12:20:55 1996 /xypage/worksmart/tsp000/71052j/2pu

JOURNAL OF ANTHROPOLOGICAL ARCHAEOLOGY 15, 137–159 (1996) ARTICLE NO. 0005

HARRY ALLEN*

Department of Anthropology, University of Auckland, Private Bag 92019 Auckland, New Zealand

Received November 29, 1994; revision received May 30, 1995; accepted June 23, 1995

After a review of ethnographic approaches to Australian archaeology, this paper discusses food exchanges as an example of how Aboriginal society organizes production and social reproduction in gender specific terms. This goes well beyond the orthodoxy that men hunt and women gather. Evidence that food and other exchanges are reflected in the contemporary archaeological record is presented together with an outline of a debate between Gould and Binford about this issue. The structuring of production and exchange along gender lines in Aboriginal society is so pervasive that some form of patterning along these lines is to be expected. This is the case even in archaeological sites of long occupation where the original layout of household structures may have been destroyed. Exchanges at the individual and household level should also be preserved in the form of reduction sequences, stone raw materials and small refuse items such as chipping debris and bone fragments. © 1996 Academic Press, Inc.

INTRODUCTION tion that the repetition of short term events responsible for the building up of the ar- The joining of ethnography with archae- chaeological record are themselves ordered ology by the use of either direct historical by structures, which like Braudel’s longue or general comparative approaches is terri- duree (Sherratt 1992:139–140), can take on tory that has been well worked over by ar- an independent temporal existence that is chaeologists (Fletcher 1992, Gould and amenable to archaeological analysis. Watson 1982, Murray and Walker 1988, Fletcher (1989:68–72) has suggested that Smith 1992, Wylie 1982). In order to bring archaeology can make a distinctive contri- ethnographic and archaeological observa- bution to social theory not by copying theo- tions into some form of convergence, Smith ries from sister disciplines such as biology, (1992:26), following an argument devel- history, anthropology, or sociology but oped by Binford (1981), suggests that we rather by developing its own theoretical ap- differentiate between ethnographic time, the proach to the relationship between the ac- observation of contemporary events and tive and material components of human be- episodes over a short period of time, and haviour and how these find form in the ar- archaeological time, the study of patterns chaeological record. It was the pursuit of produced over long intervals (cf., Dunnell’s this goal that sent archaeologists out to [1982] “space-like” and “time-like” study extant societies in order to make sys- frames). Fletcher (1992:36) argues that a tematic observations of archaeologically better understanding of the archaeological relevant variables (Gould 1980, Gould and past will only emerge when we accept that Watson 1982). there was a hierarchy of processes operat- Archaeologists studying the long time ing at differing scales and rates over differ- period of Australian archaeology and those ent magnitudes of time. Similarly, struc- involved in ethnoarchaeological studies of tural archaeologists work on the assump- settlements, technology, and subsistence have seen their respective approaches as being either in conflict or competition (His- * E-mail: [email protected] cock 1983). While Smith (1992) and Fletcher

137 0278-4165/96 $18.00 Copyright © 1996 by Academic Press, Inc. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved. JOBNAME: AA Vol 15#2 PAGE: 2 SESS: 18 OUTPUT: Thu Jun 20 12:20:55 1996 /xypage/worksmart/tsp000/71052j/2pu

138 HARRY ALLEN

(1992) suggest that archaeological and eth- els of behaviour before they can assist ar- noarchaeological studies should be seen as chaeological interpretation. complementary parts of an analytic hierar- This paper examines ethnographic ap- chy, others argue that the archaeological proaches to Australian prehistoric archae- record is the product of an infinitely vari- ology. Observations of Aboriginal food ex- able set of ecological, behavioral, deposi- changes are discussed and compared with tional, and erosional processes. Conse- the archaeological analysis of contempo- quently, they claim the record is not ame- rary Aboriginal camp sites. A degree of cor- nable to interpretive theories based on relation between gender-based exchanges short term observations of individuals, or and the location and contents of household their interactions with one another and camps is demonstrated. While it is gener- with the ecological systems of which they ally acknowledged that the archaeological are a part (Murray 1987, Stern 1994:102). record will reflect both technological and Stern (1994:101), following Walker and gender considerations, it is concluded that Bambach (1971), suggests that the accumu- this is also true of exchange relationships. lation of sediments and cultural remains at archaeological sites produces “time aver- ETHNOGRAPHIC APPROACHES TO aged” assemblages or composites which AUSTRALIAN ARCHAEOLOGY span long periods of time. Neither the Ethnographic approaches to prehistoric original community structure nor short archaeology in Australia have a long his- term relationships between community tory. In a formal sense they began in the structure and ecological fluctuations can be 1920s with Norman Tindale’s exemplary discerned from this record, but only persis- ethnographic work (1925), and that of oth- tent, long term trends. While Stern is talk- ers sponsored by the Anthropological ing about the interpretations of the Middle Board of South Australia. To these can be Pleistocene archaeological record in Africa, added D. F. Thomson’s (1939) work in she (1994:96) makes it clear that her com- northern Australia, some of which tried to ments apply to any part of the archaeologi- relate seasonal movements with changes in cal record that involves behavioural or eco- material culture. In 1965, Tindale (p. 162) logical processes preserved over periods of argued that continued excavation in rock- 1000 to 10,000 years. Her strictures are shelters would provide only an incomplete equally applicable to the Australian past picture of the Aboriginal past. whether distant or recent. This is grist to the mill of Australian archaeologists who . . . it is high time that at least a few archaeolo- are suspicious of ethnographic explana- gists should . . . emerge from their cave holes to tions and rarely use ethnographic informa- study at first hand the data provided by living peoples. tion to create hypotheses against which their data might be interpreted. There was a call for research on the open Murray and Walker (1988:249) argue that sites Aborigines used as campsites and for the production of archaeological knowl- the incorporation of a sense of ethno- edge cannot exist without the use of some graphic “reality” into archaeological expla- form of analogical reasoning. They differ nations (Gould 1982, Peterson 1968, 1971, from many archaeologists in that they be- Thomson 1939). It was not until the period lieve the interpretation of the archaeologi- 1960–1973 that using ethnohistorical or eth- cal record cannot be based on so-called nographic accounts to flesh out and under- “commonsense.” Similarly, Binford (1991: stand the archaeological record became 277) stresses that ethnoarchaeological ob- more common. In general, the early at- servations must be transformed into mod- tempts (Allen 1968, 1972, Hiatt 1965, Peter- JOBNAME: AA Vol 15#2 PAGE: 3 SESS: 18 OUTPUT: Thu Jun 20 12:20:55 1996 /xypage/worksmart/tsp000/71052j/2pu

ETHNOGRAPHY IN AUSTRALIA 139

son 1971, 1973, White 1967a, 1967b, White haps inevitable that much of the emphasis and Peterson 1971) concentrated on re- on processes and variability in the Austra- gional or seasonal differences in diet, camp- lian archaeological record would concen- site location and material culture and stone trate on the manufacture and use of stone tool-use and manufacture. The archaeologi- tools, use-wear analysis, and the rationing cal correlates of observed ethnographic be- of raw-materials (Hayden 1979, Hiscock haviours remained poorly developed in 1986, Kamminga 1982). these works though Allen (1972) developed Useful information about Aboriginal ma- models of optimising gathering strategies terial culture was assembled by D. S. and camp-site location for the Darling Davidson between 1929 and 1951 (e.g., River Valley with which the archaeological Davidson 1934). Anderson (1988:129–132) data from a regional survey was compared. notes that studies of Australian Aboriginal Hayden as part of his ethnoarchaeological economy between the 1920s and 1960s study (1979) included the mapping and ex- largely took an atheoretical attitude and cavation of Western Desert camp sites for confined their comments to descriptions of which he had observational and informant material culture and food getting tech- data and thus directly brought ethno- niques. After this time, however, with the graphic and archaeological analysis to- demise of museum approaches to material gether. The emphasis on the ethnographic culture and technology, even such narrowly study of diet, seasonal changes in camp site focussed studies were rarely carried out. locality and collecting behavior, and group This has left a marked gap in our knowl- size as an aid to archaeology has continued edge of the interaction between social, ma- through to the present (Cane 1984, Gould terial and technical factors, though these 1980, Peterson and Long 1986) though few have begun to be addressed again more re- works have matched the duration and com- cently (Cundy 1989, Morwood 1987). prehensiveness of Meehan’s (1982) study of There have been a number of ethno- Gidjingali diet and behaviour. The ethnographic studies of open campsites and graphic team of Betty Meehan and Rhys settlement patterns. This has proved to be a Jones had the advantage of being able to more straightforward task than the ar- study both women’s and men’s activities chaeological study of open sites though simultaneously. While the analysis of the these too are new being regularly studied sexual differentiation of social roles and the in semi-arid and arid Australia and in parts division of labor and equipment has long of Northern Australia (H. Allen 1989, 1990, been a focus of Australian anthropology, Gould 1982, Smith 1986). There has also until recently, few detailed studies of the been an attempt to define the range of social relations of production have been camps used by Aboriginal foragers, such as carried out (see du Cros and Smith 1993). the “dinnertime” camps defined by Mee- Peterson’s (1968) emphasis on women’s use han (1988) as locations close to food source of mortars and pestles and their association where foraging parties might consume up with individual households at semiperma- to 75% of food collected before they re- nent wet season camps in northern Austra- turned to the home base with what was left. lia, and Hamilton’s (1980–1981) study of Meehan (1988:179) sets out the characteris- dual social systems, technologies, and ritu- tics of both home bases and dinnertime als in the Western Desert are notable excep- camps. She notes in addition the existence tions. of overnight camps and processing sites. Given the large number of stone artifacts Her approach is similar to that of Binford and their durability through the thousands (1982) who partially adopted Stanner’s of years of Australian prehistory, it is per- (1965) terminology and isolated annual JOBNAME: AA Vol 15#2 PAGE: 4 SESS: 18 OUTPUT: Thu Jun 20 12:20:55 1996 /xypage/worksmart/tsp000/71052j/2pu

140 HARRY ALLEN

ranges, residential camps and special use this, she argues that exchange is a part of areas. In 1986 (p. 37), Peterson suggested this process, one that is motivated by the that the home range of a band could be disequilibrium created by the division of approximated by linking the base camps labour. Rather than isolating acts of ex- used during a single year together with sat- change and looking only at exchanged ob- ellite overnight camps. Anderson and Rob- jects, it is necessary to widen the context of ins (1988) have mapped clan estates and analysis by seeing all exchanges as mo- provide an analysis of traditional (precon- ments in an overarching concept of social tact) and contemporary camping places for production and reproduction. Exchange is the Bloomfield River area of northern central to Aboriginal economic and social Queensland. Apart from Meehan and life and its’ meaning cannot be reduced to Jones’ studies, there have been few serious individual transactions. Allen (1996c) has attempts at mapping the location and con- attempted to provide a unified explanation tents of camps used over an entire year. of trade, exchange, and sharing, one that is Similarly, archaeological surveys have capable of joining domestic, local and long rarely been informed by ethnographic distance exchanges into a single field of analysis, thereby missing a process that study without losing sight of the social and might broaden the concept of “minimum historical specificity of any particular form. archaeological-stratigraphic units” (Stern Evolutionary studies of sharing and social 1994:93) in terms of an expected scale of storage complement this approach. Rela- interacting social units. tionships between production and ex- Advances in the study of hunter-gatherer change in Aboriginal Australia are further foraging, diet, and mobility patterns have explored in Allen (1995, 1996a, 1996b). been made through the study of human Given our present knowledge of Aborigi- evolutionary ecology, particularly in the nal society, it can be predicted that the so- application of optimisation theory (Smith cial relations of production will be drawn and Winterhalder 1992, Kaplan and Hill along the lines of sex and age. The sexual 1992). An area of increasing interest is the division of labor is seen not only in terms of role of sharing in the interaction between the equipment used and (to a certain ex- individuals and groups, whether work tent) the foods gathered, but also in the dif- based, domestic or residential (Hawkes ferent manner in which the proceeds of 1992, Hill and Kaplan 1993). Exchanges of women’s and men’s labor are treated. The food and other valuables play a significant small animals, shellfish and vegetable role in the articulation and objectification of foods gathered by the women are infor- kin, residential, and hierarchical relation- mally shared while any large game, or any ships in Aboriginal society. Furthermore, it category of animal food brought in by the will be shown below that sharing and ex- young men in quantity, is strictly divided change relationships are encapsulated between in-laws and seniors. within the archaeological record. Strathern (1985:197), following Wood- burn (1982) and Collier and Rosaldo (1981), FOOD EXCHANGES IN sees both women’s sharing of food with ABORIGINAL AUSTRALIA relatives and the men’s provision of food to in-laws as part of an immediate-exchange or Farjan (1993:3) makes the point that pro- brideservice economy. duction should be understood as the total The logic of direct-exchange is that only a process of constructing the social person woman can be exchanged for a woman. The and society itself, including material sub- logic of brideservice, concomitantly, is that only sistence and technology. Following from labor can be exchanged for labor. Asymmetries JOBNAME: AA Vol 15#2 PAGE: 5 SESS: 18 OUTPUT: Thu Jun 20 12:20:55 1996 /xypage/worksmart/tsp000/71052j/2pu

ETHNOGRAPHY IN AUSTRALIA 141

come from unequal value being put on the prod- the ritual and secular worlds together and ucts of labor (men’s game and women’s gath- begin to take on the appearances of ered food . . .). . . The services and gifts a groom tenders to his in-laws only represent his continu- bridewealth controlled by the seniors (Myers ing claims in his wife—his labor in performing 1988:58, see also Peterson 1969:31), or obtaining them cannot be detached from these affinal relationships. . . . In these band/com- Among the Pintupi, boards are frequently ex- munal/immediate-return/brideservice systems, changed as a result of bestowals between a man items do not come to stand for labor and do not and his male in-laws. . A young man must con- come to stand for persons. sequently rely on elder male relatives to supply him with sacred objects for marriage so that he Meggitt (1962:280) documents that a man may begin fulfilling his obligations must make gifts of food and give support to his wife’s father (often a classificatory Strict controls on ritual knowledge and mother’s brother) and also to his wife’s membership of landowning lodges turn mother’s brother, who plays a significant these into property rights for which pay- role in circumcision and subincision cer- ments of food must be made. Tonkinson emonies. Shapiro (1979:97) adds, (1988:157) notes, that in the Mardujarra case, the authority of the older men comes from their We thus presumably have a conceptual equivalence, based on equivalence of exchange amongst a series of objects: gifts = females = hu- . . . monopoly of esoteric knowledge, which will man lives = boy’s foreskin = wilyaru initiation . . . be transmitted only if young men conform to the the agents in this exchange scheme are said to be dictates of the Law, and are willing to hunt meat matrilineal groups, not ritual lodges, even for in continuing reciprocal payment for the major sacred activities such as circumcision. secrets that are progressively being revealed to them Peterson (1970, 1986), Shapiro (1973:380) Altman (1984:183) noted that the men and Goodale 1971:43) document that, in or- were eager to hunt and take part in this der to fulfill these requirements, the young process because success in hunting was as- men usually take up residence in the camp sociated with the attainment of secular of their parents-in-law. This contributes to adulthood through marriage, as well as up- the presence of nonlandowners in most Ab- ward mobility to higher grades of ritual original camps who freely make use of the knowledge. Exchanges of meat evened out products of the land. When the time came the food supply, but the process was direc- for a young man and his wife to leave his tional with food going from younger active father-in-law’s camp, he might be given sa- households to older less productive ones. cred boards in appreciation of his long term In household clusters, junior households contribution. Myers (1988:70) comments, did not directly receive game from outside the cluster, but received it via the senior His possessing the board from the host country man, who, while he might not have shot was a recognition of his prolonged residence and any game himself, was both the recipient of shared identity with the people of the country, a substantial proportion of meat and a cen- converting residence and cooperation through tral figure in its redistribution (Altman time into an identity projected into land owner- ship. 1987:142). Sackett (1979:242) similarly has documented the continuing importance of As well as involving brideservice com- male hunting and distribution of meat to mitments, the exchanges between a man elders. He observes that hunting is for men and his matriline in the Western Desert join linked with rituals allowing them to JOBNAME: AA Vol 15#2 PAGE: 6 SESS: 18 OUTPUT: Thu Jun 20 12:20:55 1996 /xypage/worksmart/tsp000/71052j/2pu

142 HARRY ALLEN

achieve prominence and establish their po- knowledge, have access to more wives and sition vis-a-vis that of the women, and notes female labor, and receive more gifts of food. that hunters ignored or wasted nonpresti- For the most part senior men act as a focus gious food items in the often forlorn hope of redistribution, sharing wives, and ritual of capturing a large kangaroo. knowledge with younger brothers. Keen Tonkinson (1988) claims that given the (1982), however, has documented that the ethos of mutuality and individual au- eastern Arnhem Land Yolngu elders are tonomy there are few inequalities among able to manipulate the system to their own the Western Desert Mardujarra. This egali- advantage gaining from 5 to 10 wives and tarianism emerges in the treatment of the establishing a rapidly growing clan at the dead in the Western Desert where people expense of their younger brothers. Finally, are buried in shallow graves with little sub- Hamilton (1982:101) notes that in eastern sequent ceremony. Hamilton (1980–1981) Arnhem Land, considerable labour is em- also notes that with marked female au- ployed in commemorating men of renown, tonomy in subsistence and rituals, the who receive elaborate funeral ceremonies structural and ideological dominance of involving double disposal, painted grave men over women found elsewhere in Ab- posts, and hollow-log coffins. It seems un- original Australia had not become a reality likely that the presence of elaborate funeral in the Western Desert. Given the low rates ceremonies in eastern Arnhem Land is en- of polygyny, and women’s access to ritual tirely unrelated to the greater opportunities property such as stories and painted de- there for individuals to manipulate their signs which they can sell, Western Desert control of ritual knowledge and access to women are apparently better off than their food gifts.3 It should be noted that Collier northern sisters. Despite this ethos of and Rosaldo (1981:323) place the geronto- equality, women in the Western Desert cratic societies of Eastern Arnhem Land at were still excluded from many of the ex- the inegalitarian extreme of their brideser- changes within the domestic and ritual vice type. sphere which are publically acknowledged as being central to the reproduction of Western Desert society.1,† Neither was the THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL IMPRINT OF burden of food gathering always equably FOOD EXCHANGES AND THE shared even if, at the end of the day, the GOULD-BINFORD DIALOGUE calorific returns from male and female pro- As noted previously, as part of his (1979) duction approached equal proportions examination of Aboriginal tool use and dis- (Altman 1984:185–186). Hawkes and card patterns at campsites in the Western O’Connell (1981:623) note that Alyawara Desert, Hayden excavated open areas of women often spent 4 or5haday,andoc- two campsites (10 m2 and 25 m2 respec- casionally as many as 10 h, collecting and tively) for which he had ethnographic evi- processing seed foods. Hamilton (1980– dence. He was able to locate hearths, sleep- 1981:14) records that, in contrast to all other ing places, activity areas and bone scatters. subsistence tasks, grinding grass-seed was Gargett and Hayden (1991) was reworked seen as arduous, and that, when important the original field data in terms of house- ceremonies were in progress, the women’s holds, kin relationships and sharing. They product in the form of baked grass-seed identified hearths, roasting pits, refuse con- cakes was appropriated by the men.2 centrations, artifact clusters and other In Arnhem Land, as men become more structures as lasting evidence from which senior, they attain a higher level of ritual interhousehold spacing, sleeping/eating areas, and related activity areas might be † See Note section at end of paper for all footnotes reconstructed, concluding (1991:30), JOBNAME: AA Vol 15#2 PAGE: 7 SESS: 18 OUTPUT: Thu Jun 20 12:20:55 1996 /xypage/worksmart/tsp000/71052j/2pu

ETHNOGRAPHY IN AUSTRALIA 143

Sharing between individuals and families is a distance. Although O’Connell’s and Hay- common thread in relationships that display the den’s data could be used to predict the spa- most predictable spatial patterning. Sharing not only influences how far apart people choose to tial nature of the archaeological record on live, but it also determines whom they live near. stratified open sites to date this has not been done. A similar study was carried out by Gould (Gould and Watson 1982:366), on O’Connell (1987) amongst Alyawara the basis of 70 observations he made in the people in central Australia. Contemporary Western Desert, noted that Aboriginal men Alyawara settlements are large (1–10 ha) divided large kangaroos into the same nine and contain 20–200 people. Settlements, portions regardless of how many people however, can be broken up into family and participated in the hunt or who they were, single sex households. He identified house- how far they travelled, the number of ani- hold activity areas consisting of shelters, mals killed, the time of the year, the relative other structures, hearths, and a refuse dis- abundance or scarcity of game, or the num- posal zone. Surrounding these were special ber of people waiting back in camp. He activity areas such as roasting pits, auto re- concluded that while ecoutilitarian expla- pair stations, and defecation areas. From nations accounted for most aspects of the this pattern of structures, hearths and butchering and consumption of meat, the refuse, O’Connell (1987:89–90) concluded strict adherence to a fixed pattern of initial that household clusters could be identified division was best explained by reference to archaeologically, at least for sites with a social obligations involving kin-based shar- short and uncomplicated settlement his- ing of food. Similarly, O’Connell and Mar- tory. Such household clusters provide an shall (1989) in their study of kangaroo body indirect reflection of social relationships at part transport among the Alyawara found the settlement. In any settlement, especially that once killed, the kangaroos were either the larger ones, there may be one or two cooked and butchered in the field or households located so far away from their brought back intact to the settlement for nearest neighbors as to be isolated, that is, processing. The body parts that were either to have no close neighbors. There are most cooked and eaten in the field or left there often senior men’s households, but may oc- were the viscera, skull, tail, feet, and fore- casionally be nuclear family or women’s limbs. Instead of taking the opportunity to households (O’Connell 1987:101–102). maximize their personal nutritional benefit by eating the best parts in the bush, where The position of individual households within a competion was lowest, the hunters con- settlement is a function of social relationships. sumed only the lowest ranked or most per- People usually camp nearest those individuals to ishable items. The highest ranked body whom they are most closely related. A tally of kin ties among 95 nearest neighbour households parts, the rear legs, were always brought in five settlements shows that primary consan- back to the camp (O’Connell and Marshall guinal links are present in 64% of all possible 1989:402) where, as noted above, they pairs. Close classificatory equivalents (e.g., par- would be given to in-laws or senior adults. ent’s siblings or first-generation parallel cousins) Questions regarding the social division account for an additional 19%. In most of the remaining cases, pairs consist of people living of large game have surfaced in an argu- near their closest relatives in the settlement. ment between Richard Gould and Lewis Binford (Binford 1984, 1987, 1991, Gould O’Connell further concluded that the vol- and Watson 1982, Gould and Yellen 1987, ume of interhousehold sharing, particu- 1991) about the effect that organizationally larly between adult women, but also sig- significant behaviours might have on the nificantly between adult men, was an im- structure of archaeological sites. The differ- portant determinant of interhousehold ences between the two positions concerns, JOBNAME: AA Vol 15#2 PAGE: 8 SESS: 18 OUTPUT: Thu Jun 20 12:20:55 1996 /xypage/worksmart/tsp000/71052j/2pu

144 HARRY ALLEN

among other things, the role of sharing, sexually division of activities might struc- butchery practices, camp household spac- ture archaeological remains while denying ing, and predation. Binford (1984:237) ar- a similar role to Ngatatjara butchery pat- gues that the archaeological record rather terns which he identifies as a social behav- than idiosyncratic behaviour, is the subject ior. Neither Gould nor Binford fully per- of his research. He portrays Gould’s eth- ceived that the division of large game is noarchaeological approach, which relies on only one of the many ways in which Ab- analogy (Wylie 1982), as only being able to original society makes use of gender differ- infer, rather than demonstrate, the effects of entiation to organize production and social cultural behavior on the archaeological rec- reproduction. Merlan (1988:57) provides ord. On the other hand, Gould (Gould and two insights into this process. First, she Watson 1982:366–70) wishes to discount an notes that intrinsic gender differences are ecoutilitarian explanation for Ngatatjara ascribed to different domains of activity (Western Desert) butchery patterns in order and space, especially in production and to demonstrate that such behaviour is ritual. Second, she points out (1988:55) that “anomalous.” biological age has little to do with concepts Binford, in his analysis of Alyawara resi- of social maturity and that the achievement dential structures (1987:474–475), identifies of adulthood is a dimension of gender male and female activity areas. He explains identity that is overtly manipulated the scatter of bone fragments on Alec’s through marriage or initiation. Marriage Gurlander “B” site not a result of distinc- and children mark the achievement of tive butchering and sharing practices but adult status for women, and the relation- rather as the outcome of processing, con- ships between parents, in-laws,4 siblings suming, and disposing of carcasses. None- and children are encapsulated in the free theless, Binford (1987:456–60) accounts for sharing of the food a woman has gathered. the presence of kangaroo heads and lower Males participate in a different, parallel rear legs in terms of a hunter keeping the economy termed a “dual social system” by marginal parts for himself (Alec as a hunter Hamilton (1980–1981). Male adult status is of kangaroos), and the presence of pelvic demonstrated through marriage and (even- parts and lumbar vertebrae of domestic tually) full participation in the ritual life of species because Alec was the recipient of the group. The animals hunted by the gifts of high quality food parts whenever young men are used as payments to their domestic animals were slaughtered. Bin- in-laws as brideprice and also to their se- ford (1987:474) noted that the most distinc- niors for property in the form of ritual tive characteristics of the men’s zone were knowledge. Gender is hence a more perva- the presence of automobile parts, oil cans sive aspect of Aboriginal life and society and grindstones used in making pigments than is acknowledged by the conventional for rituals. There has been a renaissance in archaeological acceptance of an economic men’s business in Aboriginal Australia in- division of labor. volving both ceremonies and hunting using While the North American protagonists guns and four-wheel drive vehicles (Alt- in the site structure debate argue about the man 1984:189, 1987:89, Sackett 1979). Bin- details, all accept that sharing and ex- ford’s analysis of bone fragments is a dem- changes of food in hunting and gathering onstration of the impact of this renaissance societies play a prominent role in the pat- on the structure of contemporary camps. terning of the archaeological record (Bin- Binford believes that the division of labor ford 1984:255). Most of the authors dis- is biologically and functionally determined. cussed here (Binford 1991:271, Gould and Consequently, he is able to accept that a Yellen 1991:292–293, Gargett and Hayden JOBNAME: AA Vol 15#2 PAGE: 9 SESS: 18 OUTPUT: Thu Jun 20 12:20:55 1996 /xypage/worksmart/tsp000/71052j/2pu

ETHNOGRAPHY IN AUSTRALIA 145

1991:12, O’Connell 1987:87) treat sharing as result in a breakdown of any patterns. In a discrete phenomenon, generally as a risk- the Australian context, these problems are minimizing strategy (Smith 1988). How- discussed, but not overcome, by Gargett ever, as we have seen food exchanges fulfill and Hayden (1991:30), O’Connell (1987:90– other functions as well. They organize hi- 91) and Peterson (1971:242). erarchical relations between men and Smith discusses the problem of the reuse women, and juniors and seniors, and also of structures and the difficulty of archaeo- assist the maintenance of cohesive residen- logically isolating single household units. tial groups. Developing a concept similar to Stern’s There is mounting evidence that different time averaged assemblages discussed pre- societies use age, sex, and residence after viously, Smith advocates the use of a house- marriage to organize settlements and ac- hold series to bridge the gap between eth- tivities and, furthermore, that these varia- nographic observations and the reality of tions are reflected in the short-term ar- processes involved in the formation of archaeological record. Archaeologists inter- chaeological sites. A household series is de- ested in small-scale processes have fined as a sequence of households inhabit- enthusiastically embraced “household ar- ing a given structure over more than a chaeology” as a way of studying domestic single generation (Smith 1992:30). It might groups and families (Smith 1992:30–31, be possible to set out conceptual units for Tringham 1991). O’Connell (1987:104) con- open archaeological sites that are similarly cluded that patterns in site structure will responsive to the problems of reuse and only be identified in relatively large scale postdepositional processes. Interestingly exposures, at or beyond the largest now un- enough, Myers (1982:192) concluded that dertaken on hunter–gatherer sites, and, that the structure of Pintupi (Western Desert) the data most likely to be informative with society as a regional system would only respect to site structures are very small materialise over time. Hunter–gatherer so- refuse items, such as chipping debris, small cial groups, above the level of the house- bone fragments, and plant macrofossils, hold, might not have an existence indepen- which can often be found in primary con- dent of repeatedly used camping places text. Peterson (1971:246) similarly advo- where connections between households are cates that the open sites, distributed over demonstrated by multiple instances of an area larger than that used by a band, sharing, a reversal of the “Pompeii prem- should be located and their internal layout ise” so elegantly criticized by Binford including the location of artifacts especially (1981). Single-period sites, thought to be mortars and pestles should be plotted. more reflective of hunter–gatherer social re- In hunter–gatherer archaeology, where ality, might not provide as true an indica- permanent houses are generally absent, tion of Aboriginal social organization as do single occupation sites are likely to be ar- reoccupied sites. chaeologically invisible, while multiple oc- cupations might make the isolation of “TIME-LIKE” STUDIES IN single households impossible. Processual AUSTRALIAN ARCHAEOLOGY and evolutionary archaeologists are pessi- mistic about the ability to incorporate the While some Anthropologists have been insights gained from ethnography into arguing over the meaning of observable, more conventional archaeological analyses. discrete events, the archaeological time O’Connell (1987:96), Smith (1992), and Bin- component of Australian archaeology has ford (1984:246) predict that long site occu- involved the establishment of a reliable pancy, or frequent exchanges of food would chronology of settlement and of broad JOBNAME: AA Vol 15#2 PAGE: 10 SESS: 18 OUTPUT: Thu Jun 20 12:20:55 1996 /xypage/worksmart/tsp000/71052j/2pu

146 HARRY ALLEN

changes of artifact technology. These re- and scraper” artifact tradition to the “Small main the central preoccupations of the dis- tool” tradition. Jones (1979:456–457), who cipline. Excavation strategies consistent sees this change as being a less than radical with this programme have necessarily re- one, comments, lied on the collection of small samples ob- tained by trenching deeply stratified rock- Within the assemblages of the Australian Core shelter sites which are sometimes hundreds Tool and Scraper Tradition, seen over a period of some 25,000 years and on a continent-wide scale, of kilometers apart. Most recently, attention there was a very slow developmental pattern. As has been devoted to the establishment of time proceeded there was a general dimunition the date of initial human occupation of the in the total size of tools, though the worked Australian continent, of particular region edges themselves tended to remain more con- (such as Tasmania and New Guinea) or of stant. . . . These reflect a process towards greater efficiency which can be measured in terms of the particular habitats (highland, cool tempera- average length of working edge per unit weight ture and arid areas) (J. Allen 1989, Allen et of tool,... Such a process in mid-Recent times al., 1988, Cosgrove 1989, Roberts et al., 1990, was augmented and probably accelerated by the Smith 1987). The major weaknesses of time- appearance of new suites of what are loosely re- like approaches to Australian archaeology ferred to as “small tools” which were added onto the old stone technology. These stone tools con- have been at the conceptual and explana- sisted variously of backed microliths, adze tory level. The complexity of the conti- flakes, unifacial and bifacial points etc, which nent’s archaeology has been reduced to cul- were differentially distributed across the conti- ture historic sequences of technological or nent but which all reflected the same technologi- cultural stages. Change, or its absence, has cal advances—namely a transformation in the methods of hafting of the stone bits to their been explained in unidimensional terms in- wooden handles. voking processes such as isolation, invention, adaptation, migration, diffusion, or re- While this view is now somewhat dated, action to environmental circumstances similar ideas of a more recent vintage are (Allen and Barton 1989:15–20, 131-7). common. Bowdler and O’Connor (1991:54 It has been claimed that the earliest stone & 61) argue that a good case can be made tools from Australia and New Guinea be- that the mid-Holocene archaeological rec- longed to a single technological complex, ord, dating no earlier than 4,500 B.P., shows the “Australian core tool and scraper tradi- the appearance of a loose package of events tion” which varied little over 8.5 million consisting of the invention and/or intro- km2 and 50,000 years (Jones 1979;455–457). duction of new, generally small, stone tool There has been only limited exploration of types, and the introduction of the dog. possible regional differences within this Leaving aside the questions as to wheth- tradition over time and space (Allen and er its archaeological manifestations possess Barton 1989:108–113, Allen et al., 1989:552– anything beyond a superficial unity, expla- 554, Lampert 1981) and less regarding the nations for the appearance and spread of mechanisms by which this uniformity, in the Small tool tradition have been limited. the face of environmental and other Apart from dating, the major explanatory changes, might have been maintained (see concerns have been, first, whether or not Godwin 1991 for a discussion of Pleistocene the source of the [idea for these] tools were information systems as open but ineffec- internal or external, and secondly, given tive). Few, if any, consistent, long term that the technology [conceived as spear trends have been isolated from this record. points and barbs] cannot be demonstrated A major, if controversial, division of Aus- to be functionally more efficient than the tralian prehistory is marked by the shift- existing wooden spears, whether it should over, at ca. 5000 B.P., from the “Core tool best be interpreted as a stylistic phenom- JOBNAME: AA Vol 15#2 PAGE: 11 SESS: 18 OUTPUT: Thu Jun 20 12:20:55 1996 /xypage/worksmart/tsp000/71052j/2pu

ETHNOGRAPHY IN AUSTRALIA 147

enon (White and O’Connell 1982:121 & (Bird 1993, Gero 1991), as has the tendency 124). Recently Hiscock (1994) has suggested to naively extrapolate contemporary ethno- that the Small tool tradition should be seen graphic models of gender activities back as a risk-minimizing strategy, one that as- onto the past. Simple assumptions that only sisted highly mobile Australian hunter- men hunt and only women gather are gatherers to cope with Holocene environ- readily falsified by observations to the con- mental changes and to colonize previously trary both from Australia and elsewhere unoccupied landscapes. (Bird 1993:23, McKell 1993:116). These have Hamilton (1980–1981:8) argues that ar- also put paid to the notion that women are chaeological patterns which are visible over biologically incapable of hunting. The strin- the long term in Australian prehistory have gency of these criticisms has had a further been structured by kinship and gender re- impact on questions of exactly when and lationships (see also Conkey and Gero where ethnographic analogies might use- 1991). Hamilton’s years of field work in fully be used in interpreting archaeological north and central Australia led to an inter- situations. Such caveats should not be est in an ethnographically informed archae- taken too far, however. As Catherine Berndt ology. She makes the point that in the West- noted nearly 25 years ago, Aboriginal infor- ern Desert many of the hafted implements mants are clear about the ideological role archaeologists associate with the Small tool material items play in their society. tradition could be used only by the men. Up to a point, a digging stick looks rather like a The women, in general, used only hand- spear. But the differences between them, though held stone implements. apparently small, are crucial—both structurally (how they are made, what they look like) and This suggests that the technological apparatus functionally (what they are expected to do). In and skills used by women for the manufacture of spite of what they have in common, they are not their wooden implements is a continuation of to be confused. And the Aborigines, while ac- the older ‘core tool and scraper’ tradition. . . . knowledging their common qualities, did not The spear-thrower, with its associated adze- confuse them, any more than they confused the stone, perhaps represents a more recent innova- sex referents that these tools, or weapons, sym- tion, one which was not made available to the bolized (Berndt 1970:46). women. It seems likely . . . that technological innovations in lithic industries adhered solely THE NORTH AUSTRALIAN LITHIC among men. Women continued the older tradi- SEQUENCE AND INTERPRETATIONS tions in technology, as . . . they continued the older ritual traditions, not because they are in- BASED ON HISTORICALLY nately ‘conservative’ but because innovations in OBSERVABLE PROCESSES both areas are introduced and elaborated within With the connections between gender, the context of exclusively male rituals. economy and technology in mind, it is time Hamilton’s observations here draw at- to turn to an archaeological problem. A tention to the fact that the introduction of lithic sequence from northern Australian new stone tools takes place either within an sites (in an area from the Kimberelys to the established cultural context or the tools Gulf of Carpentaria, north of the 20° South themselves might indicate the creation of a parallel) is shown on Table 1 below. De- new cultural context. pending on whether one accepts the cur- Explorations of gender issues in Austra- rently available Thermoluminescence and lian archaeology are most notable because Optical Dates or not, the north Australian of their rarity (Bird, 1993:22, Bowdler 1976 lithic sequence begins either close to 60,000 is an exception). The assumptions that B.P. (Roberts et al., 1994) or 35,000 B.P. (J. “man” was the sole marker and user of Allen, 1989) and ends during the early part stone artifacts has been recently criticised of the present century. The generalized se- JOBNAME: AA Vol 15#2 PAGE: 12 SESS: 18 OUTPUT: Thu Jun 20 12:20:55 1996 /xypage/worksmart/tsp000/71052j/2pu

148 HARRY ALLEN

TABLE 1 Schematic Sequence of Lithic Changes at Northern Australian Sites (from H. Allen 1989, Davidson 1935)

Lithics Time period

Bifacially pressure flaked points spread from Kimberleys eastward, large blades, flake adzes, quartz flakes, use polished flakes ca. 300 B.P.–A.D. 1935 Large blades, quartz flakes, flake adzes, use polished flakes, fewer small bifacial and unifacial points ca. 1,500–300 B.P. Small bifacial and unifacial points, flake adzes ca. 5,000–1,500 B.P. Small quartz and chert flakes, polished stone axes ca. 18,000–5,000 B.P. Quartzite flakes, cores with ?utilisation or retouch, polished stone axes ca. 60,000 or 35,000–18,000 B.P.

quence offered here, however, differs in a mation of freshwater wetlands. Further to number of significant ways from the con- the east, in the Kimberleys, pressure flaked ventional Core tool/Small tool model. bifacially worked “Kimberley points” were If the Core tool and scraper tradition ex- produced, with Davidson (1935) document- isted at all in this part of Australia, it is ing their active spread into areas where limited to the earliest part of the sequence, large blades were also used as spear points. prior to 18,000 B.P. However, archaeological Stone projectile points are closely associ- samples for this time period are minuscule ated with light weight, high velocity reed and are in sufficient for any certain identi- spears propelled by a spearthrower (Smith fication of the assemblages involved be- and Cundy 1985:36, Cundy 1989). A direct yond the comment that they include cores, association between the first occurrence of large flakes and polished stone axes. small projectile points and the introduction Through the Late Pleistocene to the mid- of a new spear/spearthrower technology is Holocene (ca. 18,000–5,000 B.P.), rock shel- not entirely robust, however, for while the ters contain large numbers of small flakes, small projectile points require a high veloc- ground pieces of ochre and few if any de- ity spear/spearthrower technology, the re- finable core tools or scrapers. After 5,000 verse is not necessarily the case. Wooden B.P., small unifacial and bifacial spear points, which are either unbarbed or points and flake adzes dominate much of barbed with small simple flakes, can serve the recent archaeological record (Allen and equally well and the changeover to a Barton 1989:119–127). The dating of this spearthrower-based technology might have change, and of the technology involved in occurred earlier than the change to stone point production, which concerns both point production. flaking techniques and changes in raw ma- The reeds for these spears and the raw terials, is variable across north Australia. materials for stone point manufacture do Small projectile points are illustrated in Fig. not occur within the same ecological zones 1, and their archaeological distribution is in Arnhem Land. Ethnographic accounts shown in Fig. 2. 5 In the western Arnhem suggest the men spent a considerable time Land sites, changes in the numbers of small manufacturing spears and trading them for points at different sites suggests shifts in reeds and other materials in secular, intrar- centers of production with large scale pro- egional trading networks (Allen 1996a, duction phasing out after ca. 1500 B.P. Dur- Berndt 1951:160–171, Love 1936:74–76, Ka- ing the more recent past, large unifacial pirigi in Jones 1985:167). Tacon (1991:198– blades, a few small projectile points and 189) draws on an ethnographic analogy use polished flakes occur in archaeological from eastern Arnhem Land, to argue that situations that are associated with the for- the small projectile points, being manufac- JOBNAME: AA Vol 15#2 PAGE: 13 SESS: 18 OUTPUT: Thu Jun 20 12:20:55 1996 /xypage/worksmart/tsp000/71052j/2pu

ETHNOGRAPHY IN AUSTRALIA 149

FIG.1. Small unifacial and bifacial projectile points from Ngarradj Warde Djobkeng, northern Aus- tralia.

tured from rocks of an iridescent nature, cal occurrences of large blades and small were charged with spiritual power. There is unifacial and bifacial points (Allen 1996a) no direct evidence that these small points presents a number of interesting differences were curated in any special manner on the (Figs. 2 and 4). In western Arnhem Land, archaeological sites of western Arnhem large blades occur in both everyday and Land where they occur on everyday living secluded, possibly ritual, contents. Further sites. The presence of small points in rock- to the east, they were manufactured until shelters mixed with shellfish and other the 1950’s at the Ngilipitji quarry, an area midden debris suggests that these points imbued with high ritual significance (Jones did not have the same restricted associa- and White 1988:56). Wrapped in bundles tions as they do elsewhere in Australia to- protected by paperback, they were traded day. The evidence remains somewhat am- from Ngilipitji as part of a ceremonial biguous, however, as there is more than one exchange network that reached across way in which male and female activities Arnhem Land and into central Australia might be segregated, possibly by using the (Thomson 1949). In Arnhmen Land, large same space at different times. At Ngarradj blades were used as tips for both hunting Warde Djobkeng, the levels with stone and duelling spears. Unlike the small uni- points have been mixed by the repetitive facial and bifacial points, however, which use of a large earth oven, a practice associ- had a restricted archaeological distribution, ated with the cooking of kangaroos, cer- these large blades spread far beyond the tainly a male task at present. area where they were used as spear points A comparison between the archaeologi- (Fig. 4). In both northern and central Aus- JOBNAME: AA Vol 15#2 PAGE: 14 SESS: 18 OUTPUT: Thu Jun 20 12:20:55 1996 /xypage/worksmart/tsp000/71052j/2pu

150 HARRY ALLEN

FIG.2. The archaeological distribution of small projectile points.

tralia, large blades have become part of ex- complex and multiple barbed spears were tensive ceremonial exchange networks. used for rituals or fighting only, while most However, in the center, they are not used on of the hunting was carried out with spears spears but rather were exchanged between with simple iron, stone or wooden points. the men, hidden from the women, and cu- Cylindrical spearthrowers have the widest rated in a manner that prevented them distribution, but the restriction of more spe- from being incorporated into domestic ar- cialised forms to particular localities dem- chaeological contexts. Blade quarries are onstrate that northern Australia was a cen- relatively common across northern and ter of innovation of new forms of spears central Australia (Figs. 3 and 4) and smaller and spearthrowers. The multiple forms of blades had an everyday use as men’s or stone projectile points of northern Australia women’s knives and spoons. and their complex archaeological relation- A number of spear and spearthrower ships, which includes the evidence of the technological complexes were distributed rock art, shows, first, that this area has been across northern Australia. Cundy (1989) a center of innovation in spear technology documents highly variable spear forms us- over the past 5,000 years, and second, that ing iron-headed shovel nosed points, stone the meaning and circumstances behind the points (either large blades or small points), spread and use of these stone points has wooden heads either plain or solidly varied in time and place. barbed or with stone, bone or wooden Tacon and Chippendale (1994:15) link the barbs attached, sting-ray barbs, or steel or change to small point production at ca. bone prongs. He notes that many of the 5,000 B.P. with the appearance of painted JOBNAME: AA Vol 15#2 PAGE: 15 SESS: 18 OUTPUT: Thu Jun 20 12:20:55 1996 /xypage/worksmart/tsp000/71052j/2pu

ETHNOGRAPHY IN AUSTRALIA 151

FIG.3. Large blades, showing the method of hafting onto a wooden shaft.

scenes of hooked sticks/spearthrowers, tralia.6 These remain interesting hypoth- barbed spears and battle scenes on the eses which can be tested against other find- walls of the Arnhem Land rockshelters. ings. They go on to argue that changes in the rock art between 6,000 and 4,000 B.P. sug- CONCLUSION gests a shift from small skirmishes to more The “time-like” archaeological ap- highly organized conflicts involving doz- proaches pursued up until now in northern ens of men, the beginning of a centralized Australia demonstrate lithic reduction evi- clan social structure and an ideological sys- dence, new varieties of stone projectile tem similar to that of present-day Aborigi- points, and increasingly complex archaeo- nal society. In an similar fashion, Allen logical relationships shown by the distribu- (1996a) concluded that the extensive but re- tion of these points within archaeological cent distribution of large blades was the in- sites and across wide areas of northern and direct evidence for a marked increase in so- central Australia. These stone projectile cial interaction and ceremonial exchange points simultaneously manifest both tech- networks joining northern and central Aus- nological and ideological factors. JOBNAME: AA Vol 15#2 PAGE: 16 SESS: 18 OUTPUT: Thu Jun 20 12:20:55 1996 /xypage/worksmart/tsp000/71052j/2pu

152 HARRY ALLEN

FIG.4. The archaeological and ethnographic distribution of large blades.

If it is appropriate to assume that the con- tifact reduction patterns, dated to this time nection drawn between spear technology period, to on-site and off-site production and male activities can be projected onto strategies and the opening and closing of the archaeological record, then the presence access to raw materials, a scenario in which of stone projectile points marks the time exchange relationships are implicated. that it is possible to identify a gendered What changed at 5,000 B.P., however, was structure to that record. The evidence of the introduction and spread of more stan- different curatorial practices and archaeo- dardised stone production techniques, a logical distributions concerning small uni- change that made these processes archaeo- facial and bifacial points and large blades logically more visible. Goodwin (1991) as- suggests that these meanings and exchange sociates these changes with the need to relationships have changed over time. mark social boundaries where certain indi- It cannot be assumed, however, that gen- viduals controlled access to information. der and exchange relationships are absent Extracting reliable information from ar- from the earlier parts of the northern Aus- chaeological materials is so difficult that in- tralian record. If the small flakes produced terpretive aids including ethnography between 18,000 and 5,000 B.P. were used as should only be abandoned when they can spear points and barbs, there is likely to be be demonstrated to be of no use. The single both functional and technological continu- stipulation must be that any interpretation ities represented in the later shift to unifa- has to be answerable to the rules of evi- cial and bifacial points (Cundy 1990). At dence and inference (Kosso 1991:625). On Ingaladdi, Cundy attributes changes in ar- the other hand, the naive use of ethnogra- JOBNAME: AA Vol 15#2 PAGE: 17 SESS: 18 OUTPUT: Thu Jun 20 12:20:55 1996 /xypage/worksmart/tsp000/71052j/2pu

ETHNOGRAPHY IN AUSTRALIA 153

phy can no longer be countenanced. An- about production, settlement organiza- thropological observations and theories tions, site location, and exchange for con- have to be reshaped so that they suit the temporary Aboriginal societies. This infor- analysis of human action revealed in the mation relates directly to many archaeo- archaeological record (Murray and Walker logical concerns. Even if knowledge of the 1988:254). These findings mirror those Kent remote past is restricted to stone artifacts, it (1993:374) has derived from her study of is hard to envisage an accurate historical variability in Kalahari faunal assemblages account of change over time for Australia that entirely ignores the multiplicity of pro- The data on sharing and faunal remain assem- cesses visible today. This information is blages appear to be consistent—in different situations, in different time periods, and in different pertinent not only for generating middle- environments, sharing patterns among many range theory applicable to Australian sites hunter–gatherers impact faunal remain assem- but also to challenge generalizations from blages in archaeologically visible ways. Given overseas many of which are based on inad- this, sharing needs to be taken into consideration equate data. when interpreting variability between faunal assemblages from different sites and/or time peri- The development of new approaches to ods, just as transport costs, bone density, element site surveying and the collection of data fragmentation, scavenger disturbance, and more from larger excavation areas will comple- ecological, taphonomic, and economic factors ment and enrich the current “deep site” ex- are routinely considered in most modern studies cavation strategy. Such studies would seem of faunal assemblages. capable of articulating and integrating Her conclusions are similar to those of much of the information collected by pres- O’Connell (1987) and Cundy (1990) that ently disparate branches of our discipline— even where the original layout of house- technological studies, use-wear studies, hold structures has been destroyed evi- ecological approaches, art studies, artifact dence of exchanges will be preserved in re- studies, and, finally, settlement ap- duction sequences, the distribution of stone proaches—into a more satisfying final raw materials and small refuse items such product than we are capable of at present. as chipping debris and bone fragments. Neither should the interaction between eth- Searching for Pompeii situations (the elu- nography and archaeology be unidirec- sive “single period” site) or projecting pre- tional. As Shott (1992:859 & 862) notes, ar- cise ethnographic models of sharing and chaeology has a role to play in the evalua- exchange back onto the archaeological rec- tion of ethnological theory. This is ord are unlikely to be effective strategies. particularly true in demonstrating a time This is not to say that in the Australian case depth for the complex and dynamic it is not entirely appropriate to interrogate changes that are a part of the prehistory of the record for patterns which might be re- many hunter gatherer societies which have, flective of exchanges or gender relation- until recently, been regarded as timeless ships. There is not necessity, however, to and unchanging. decide in advance the specific form these relationships might take. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS For many years Australian archaeologists I thank Peter Sheppard and Sally Horvath for com- have complained about the preoccupation ments on this paper. of social anthropologists with the social rather than the economic life of Aboriginal REFERENCES CITED communities. In the meantime, a new gen- Allen, H. eration of ethnographers and ethnoarchae- 1968 Western Plain and Eastern Hill: A reconstruc- ologists have been gathering information tion of the subsistence activities of the Aboriginal JOBNAME: AA Vol 15#2 PAGE: 18 SESS: 18 OUTPUT: Thu Jun 20 12:20:55 1996 /xypage/worksmart/tsp000/71052j/2pu

154 HARRY ALLEN

Inhabitants of Central Eastern Australia. B.A. Altman, J. C. (Hons) thesis, Department of Anthropology, 1984 Hunter-gatherer subsistence production in University of Sydney. Arnhem Land: The original affluence hy- 1972 Where the crow flies backwards: Man and land in pothesis re-examined. Mankind 14:179–190. the Darling Basin. Ph.D. thesis, Department of 1987 Hunter-gatherers today: An aboriginal economy Prehistory, Research School of Pacific Stud- in North Australia. Canberra, Australian In- ies, The Australian National University, Can- stitute of Aboriginal Studies. berra. Anderson, C. 1989 Late Pleistocene and Holocene settlement 1988 Anthropology and Australian Aboriginal patterns and environment, Kakadu, North- economy, 1961–1986. In Social anthropology ern Territory, Australia. Bulletin of the Indo- and Australian Aboriginal studies, edited by R. Pacific Prehistory Association 9:92–116. Berndt and R. Tonkinson, pp. 125–188. Ab- 1990 Environment History in southwestern New original Studies Press, Canberra. South Wales during the Late Pleistocene. In Anderson, C., and R. Robins The World at 18,000 BP, Vol. 2: Low Latitudes, 1988 Dismissed due to lack of evidence? Kuku- edited by C. Gamble and O. Soffer, pp. 296– Yulanji sites and the archaeological record. 321. In Archaeology with ethnography: An Austra- 1995 Settlement, Exchange and Brideservice in lian perspective, edited by B. Meehan and R. Australian Aboriginal Society. Paper pre- Jones, pp. 182–205. Department of Prehis- sented to World Archaeological Congress-3. tory, Research School of Pacific Studies, The New Delhi, India. December. Australian National University, Canberra. 1996a The distribution of large blades (leilira): Evi- Arnold, J. dence for recent changes in aboriginal cer- 1993 Labor and the rise of complex hunter- emonial exchange networks. In Understand- gatherers. Journal of Anthropological Anthro- ing ancient Australia: Perspectives from archae- pology 12:75–119. ology and linguistics, edited by P. McConvell Berndt, C. and N. Evans. Oxford University Press. In 1970 Digging sticks and spears, or the two-sex Press. model. In Woman’s role in Aboriginal society, 1996b Horde and Hapu: The reification of kinship edited by F. Gale, pp. 39–48. Australian In- and residence in prehistoric Aboriginal and stitute of Aboriginal Studies, Canberra. Maori settlement organisation. In Essays in Berndt, R. Honour of Roger Green, edited by J. Davidson, 1951 Ceremonial exchange in western Arnhem G. Irwin, D. Brown, and A. Pawley. In Press. Land. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 7:156–176. 1996c The Importance of Systems of Exchange in the Relations of Production for Aboriginal Binford, L. Australia. In Man, culture and environment in 1981 Behavioural archaeology and the ‘Pompeii prehistoric South and Southeast Asia, edited by premise,’ Journal of Archaeological Research A. Ghosh, I. M. Sutaba and D. D. Bintarti. 37:195–208. Jakarta. 1982 The archaeology of place. Journal of Anthro- pological Anthropology 1: 5–31. Allen, H., and G. Barton 1984 Butchering, sharing, and the archaeological 1989 Ngarradj Warde Djobkeng: White cockatoo record. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology dreaming and the prehistory of Kakadu. Oceania 3:235–257. Monographs Vol. 37. Oceania Publications, 1987 Researching ambiguity: Frames of reference University of Sydney. and site structure. In Method and theory for Allen, J. activity area research, edited by S. Kent, pp. 1989 When did humans first colonize Australia. 450–512. Columbia Univ. Press, New York. 20: Search 149–154. 1991 Is Australian site structure explained by the Allen, J., C. Gosden, R. Jones, and J. P. White absence of predators? Journal of Anthropologi- 1988 Pleistocene dates for the human occupation cal Archaeology 10:255–282. of New Ireland, northern Melanesia. Nature Bird, C. 331:707–709. 1993 Woman the Toolmaker: Evidence for Wom- Allen, J., C. Gosden, and J. P. White en’s Use and Manufacture of Flaked Stone 1989 Human Pleistocene adaptations in the tropi- Tools in Australia and New Guinea. In cal island Pacific: Recent evidence from New Women in archaeology: A feminist critique, ed- Ireland, a Greater Australian Outlier. Antiq- ited by H. du Cros and L. Smith, pp. 22–30. uity 63:548–61. Department of Prehistory, Research School JOBNAME: AA Vol 15#2 PAGE: 19 SESS: 18 OUTPUT: Thu Jun 20 12:20:55 1996 /xypage/worksmart/tsp000/71052j/2pu

ETHNOGRAPHY IN AUSTRALIA 155

of Pacific Studies, The Australian National ogy. Journal of Anthropological Research 38:1– University, Canberra. 25. Bowdler, S. Dussart, F. 1976 Hook, line and dilly bag: An interpretation 1992 The politics of female identity: Walpiri wid- of an Australian coastal shell midden. Man- ows at Yuendumu. Ethnology 31:337–350. kind 10:248–258. Farjans, J. Bowdler, S., and S. O’Connor 1993 Exchanging products: Producing exchange. Oce- 1991 The dating of the Australian small tool tra- ania Monograph 43. University of Sydney. dition, with new evidence from the Kimber- Fletcher, R. leys. Australian Aboriginal Studies 1991/1:53– 1989 Social theory and archaeology: Diversity, 62. paradox and potential. Mankind 19:65–75. Cane, S. 1992 Time perspectivism, Annales, and the poten- 1984 Desert camps: A case study of stone artifacts and tial of archaeology. In Archaeology, Annales Aboriginal behaviour in the Western Desert. and ethnohistory, edited by B. Knapp, pp. 35– Ph.D. Thesis. Department of Prehistory, Re- 50. Cambridge University Press. search School of Pacific Studies. The Austra- Gargett, R., and B. Hayden lian National University, Canberra. 1991 Site structure, kinship, and sharing in Ab- Collier, J., and M. Rosaldo original Australia. In The interpretation of ar- 1981 Politics and gender in simple societies. In chaeological spatial patterning, edited by E. Sexual Meanings, edited by S. Ortner and H. Kroll and T. D. Price, pp. 11–32. Plenum Whitehead, pp. 275–329. Cambridge Univ. Press, New York. Press. Gero, J. Conkey, M., and J. Gero 1991 Genderlithics: Women’s roles in stone tool 1991 Tensions, pluralities, and engendering ar- production. In Engendering archaeology: chaeology: An introduction to women and Women and prehistory, edited by J. Gero and prehistory. In Engendering archaeology: M. Conkey, pp. 163–93. Blackwell, Oxford. Women and prehistory, edited by J. Gero and Godwin, L. M. Conkey, pp. 3–30. Blackwell, Oxford. 1991 The Evolution of Information Processing in Cosgrove, R. Australian Prehistory and its Implications. 1989 Thirty Thousand Years of Human Coloniza- Paper presented at the Archaeology and Lin- tion in Tasmania: New Pleistocene Dates. guistics: Understanding Ancient Australia Science 243:1706–1708. Conference. University of the Northern Ter- du Cross, H., and L. Smith ritory, Darwin. 1993 Women in archaeology: A feminist critique. De- Goodale, J. partment of Prehistory, Research School of 1971 Tiwi wives. University of Washington Press, Pacific Studies. The Australian National Uni- Seattle. versity, Canberra. Gosden, C. Cundy, B. 1989 Debt, production, and prehistory. Journal of 1989 Formal variation in Australian spear and spear Anthropological Archaeology 8:355–387. thrower technology. BAR International Series, Gould, R. A. S548. Oxford. 1980 Living archaeology. Cambridge Univ. Press, 1990 Analysis of the Ingaladdi assemblage: A critique Cambridge. of understanding Lithic technology. Ph.D. the- 1982 ‘Indoor’ vs. ‘outdoor’ living: Preliminary sis, Department of Archaeology and Anthro- comparison of habitation residues in strati- pology. The Australian National University, fied open-air and rockshelter sites in the Canberra. Australian desert. In Oceanic studies: Essays Davidson, D. S. in honour of A. A. Koskinen, edited by J. Si- 1934 Australian spear traits and their derivations. ikala, pp. 241–252. The Finnish Anthropo- Journal of the Polynesian Society 43:41–72; logical Society, Helsinki. 43:143–162. Gould, R. A., and P. J. Watson 1935 Archaeological problems of northern Austra- 1982 A dialogue on the meaning and use of anal- lia. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Insti- ogy in ethnoarchaeological reasoning. Jour- tute of Great Britain and Ireland 65:145–184. nal of Anthropological Archaeology 1:355–381. Dunnell, R. Gould, R. A., and J. Yellen 1982 Science, social service, and common sense: 1987 Man the hunted; Determinants of household the agonizing dilemma of modern archaeol- spacing in desert and tropical foraging soci- JOBNAME: AA Vol 15#2 PAGE: 20 SESS: 18 OUTPUT: Thu Jun 20 12:20:55 1996 /xypage/worksmart/tsp000/71052j/2pu

156 HARRY ALLEN

eties. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology Park. Australian National Parks and Wildlife 6:77–103. Service. Special Publication, 13. Canberra. 1991 Misreading the past: A reply to Binford con- Jones, R., and N. White cerning hunter-gatherer site structure. Jour- 1988 Point Blank: stone tool manufacture at the nal of Anthropological Archaeology 10:283–298. Ngilipitji Quarry, Arnhem Land, 1981. In Ar- Hamilton, A. chaeology with ethnography: An Australian per- 1980–1981 Dual social systems: Technology, labour spective, edited by B. Meehan and R. Jones, and women’s secret rites in the eastern West- pp. 51–87. Department of Prehistory, Re- ern Desert. Oceania 51:4–20. search School of Pacific Studies, The Austra- 1982 Descended from father, belonging to coun- lian National University, Canberra. try: rights to land in the Australian Western Kamminga, J. desert. In Politics and history in band societies, 1982 Over the edge: Functional analysis of Australian edited by E. Laycock and R. Lee, pp. 85–108. stone tools. Occasional papers in anthropology Cambridge Univ. Press. 12. University of Queensland, Anthropology Hawkes, K. Museum. 1992 Sharing and collective action. In Evolutionary Kaplan, H., and K. Hill ecology and human behaviour, edited by E. A. 1992 The Evolutionary of Food Acquisition. In Smith and B. Winterhalder, pp. 269–300. Al- Evolutionary ecology and human behaviour, ed- dine De Gruyter, New York. ited by E. A. Smith and B. Winterhalder, pp. Hawkes, K., and J. F. O’Connell 167–202. Aldine De Gruyter, New York. 1981 Affluent hunters? Some comments in the Keen, I. light of the Alyawara case. American Anthro- 1982 How some Murngin men marry ten wives: pologist 83:622–625. The maritial implications of matrilateral Hayden, B. cross-cousin structures. Man. 17:620–644. 1979 Palaeolithic reflections: Lithic technology and Kent, S. ethnographic excavations among Australian Ab- 1993 Variability in faunal assemblages: The influ- origines. Australian Institute of Aboriginal ence of hunting skill, sharing, dogs, and Studies, Canberra. mode of cooking on faunal remains at a sed- Hiatt, B. [Meehan] entary Kalahari community. Journal of An- 1965 Some aspects of the economy of the Tasmanian thropological Archaeology 12:323–385. Aborigines. B. A. (Hons) Thesis. Department Kosso, P. of Anthropology, University of Sydney. 1991 Method in archaeology: Middle-range Hill, K., and H. Kaplan theory as hermeneutics. American Antiquity 1993 On why male foragers hunt and share food. 56:621–27. Current Anthropology 34:701–706. Kubota, S. Hiscock, P. 1991 Women’s craft production in Arnhem Land, 1983 Stone tools as cultural markers? Australian North Australia. Senri Ethnological Studies Archaeology 16:48–56. 30:31–46. 1986 Raw material rationing as an explanation of Lampert, R. assemblage differences: A case study of 1976 Variation in Australia’s Pleistocene stone in- Lawn Hill, Northwest Queensland. In Ar- dustries. Paper given to at the IXth Congress chaeology at ANZAAS Canberra edited by G. of the UISPP, Nice. Ward, pp. 178–190. Canberra Archaeological Love, J. R. B. Society, Canberra. 1936 Stone age bushmen of today. Blackie, London. 1994 Technological responses to risk in Holocene McKell, S. Australia. Journal of World Prehistory 8:267– 1993 An axe to grind: More ripping yarns from 292. Australian prehistory. In Women in archaeol- Johnson, V. ogy: A feminist critique, edited by H. du Cros 1990 The origins and development of Western and L. Smith, pp. 115–120. Department of Desert art. In The painted dream: Contemporary Prehistory, Research School of Pacific Stud- Aboriginal paintings from the Tim and Vivien ies, The Australian National University, Can- Johnson collection. Auckland City Art Gallery. berra. Jones, R. Meehan, B. 1979 The Fifth Continent: Problems Concerning 1982 Shellbed to shellmidden. Australian Institute of the Human Colonization of Australia. An- Aboriginal Studies, Canberra. nual Review of Anthropology 8:445–466. 1988 The ‘dinnertime camp.’ In Archaeology with 1985 Archaeological research in Kakadu National ethnography: An Australian perspective, edited JOBNAME: AA Vol 15#2 PAGE: 21 SESS: 18 OUTPUT: Thu Jun 20 12:20:55 1996 /xypage/worksmart/tsp000/71052j/2pu

ETHNOGRAPHY IN AUSTRALIA 157

by B. Meehan and R. Jones, pp. 171–181. De- tralian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, Can- partment of Prehistory, Research School of berra. Pacific Studies, The Australian National Uni- 1971 Open Sites and the Ethnographic Approach versity, Canberra. to the Archaeology of Hunter-Gatherers. In Meggitt, M. Aboriginal man and environment in Australia, 1962 Desert people. Angus and Robertson, Sydney. edited by D. J. Mulvaney and J. Golson, pp. Merlan, F. 239–248. Australian National University Press, Canberra. 1988 Gender. In Social anthropology and Australian Aboriginal studies, edited by R. Berndt and R. 1973 Camp site location amongst Australian hunt- Tonkinson, pp. 15–76. Aboriginal Studies er–gatherers: archaeological and ethno- Press, Canberra. graphic evidence for a key determinant. Ar- chaeology and Physical Anthropology in Oceania Morwood, M. 8:173–193. 1987 The archaeology of social complexity in Peterson, N. (in collaboration with J. Long) South-east Queensland. Proceedings of the 1986 Australian territorial organization. Oceania Prehistoric Society 53:337–350. Monographs 30. Oceania Publications, Syd- Murray, T. ney. 1987 Rememberance of things present: Appeals to au- Roberts, R. G., R. Jones, and M. Smith thority in the history and philosophy of archae- 1990 Thermoluminescence dating of a 50,000- ology. Ph.D. Thesis. Department of Anthro- year-old site in northern Australia. Nature pology, University of Sydney. 345:153–156. Murray, T., and M. Walker Roberts, R. G., R. Jones, N. Spooner, M. J. Head, A. 1988 Like WHAT? A practical question of analogi- Murray, and M. Smith cal inference and archaeological meaningful- 1994 The Human Colonisation of Australia: Opti- ness. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology cal Dates of 53,000 and 60,000 Year Bracket 7:248–287. Human Arrival at Deaf Adder Gorge, North- Myers, F. ern Australia. Quaternary Geochronology,in 1982 Always ask: Resource use and land owner- press. ship among Pintupi Aborigines of the Aus- Sackett, L. tralian Western desert. In Resource managers: 1979 The pursuit of prominence: Hunting in an North American and Australian hunter– Australian Aboriginal community. Anthropo- gatherers, edited by N. M. Williams and E. S. logica 21:223–246. Hunn, pp. 173–196. Australian Institute of Shapiro, W. Aboriginal Studies Press, Canberra. 1973 Residential grouping in Northwest Arnhem 1988 Burning the truck and holding the country: Land. Man 8:364–383. Time, and the negotiated identity among 1979 Social organization in Aboriginal Australia. Pintupi Aborigines. In Hunters and Gatherers Australian National Press, Canberra. 2. Property, Power and Ideology. Edited by T. Sherratt, A. Ingold, D. Riches and J. Woodburn, pp. 52– 1992 What can archaeologists learn from Annal- 74. Oxford, Berg. istes? In Archaeology, Annales, and ethnohis- O’Connell, J. F. tory, Edited by B. Knapp, pp. 135–143. Cam- 1987 Alyawara Site Structure and its Archaeologi- bridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, U.K. cal Implications. American Antiquity 52:74– Shott, M. 108. 1992 On recent trends in the anthropology of for- O’Connell, J. F., and B. Marshall agers: Kalahari revisionism and its archaeo- 1989 Analysis of kangaroo body part transport logical implications. Man 27:843–871. among the Alyawara of Central Australia. Smith, E. A. Journal of Archaeological Science 16:393–405. 1988 Risk and uncertainty in the ‘original affluent Peterson, N. society’: Evolutionary ecology in resource- 1968 The mortar and pestle: An ethnographic sharing and land tenure. In Hunters and gath- analogy for archaeology in Arnhem Land. erers 1: History, evolution and social change, ed- Mankind 6:567–570. ited by T. Ingold, D. Riches and J. Woodburn, 1970 The importance of women in determining pp. 222–251. Berg, Oxford. the composition of residential groups in Ab- Smith, E. A., and B. Winterhalder (Eds.) original Australia. In Women’s role in Aborigi- 1992 Evolutionary Ecology and Human Behaviour. nal society, edited by F. Gale, pp. 9–16. Aus- Aldine De Gruyter, New York. JOBNAME: AA Vol 15#2 PAGE: 22 SESS: 18 OUTPUT: Thu Jun 20 12:20:55 1996 /xypage/worksmart/tsp000/71052j/2pu

158 HARRY ALLEN

Smith, M. A. Tonkinson, R. 1986 A revised chronology for Intirtekwerle 1988 ‘Ideology and dominations’ in Aboriginal (James Range East) rockshelter, Central Aus- Australia: a Western Desert test case. In tralia. The Beagle, occasional papers of the Hunters and gatherers 2: Property, power and Northern Territory Museum of Arts and Sciences ideology, edited by T. Ingold, D. Riches, and J. 3:123–130. Woodburn, pp. 150–164. Berg, Oxford. 1987 Pleistocene occupation in arid Central Aus- Tringham, R. tralia. Nature 328: 710–711. 1991 Households with faces: The challenge of 1988 The pattern and timing of prehistoric settle- gender in prehistoric architectural remains. ment in Central Australia. Ph.D. thesis. Uni- In Engendering archaeology: Women and prehis- versity of New England, Armidale. tory, edited by J. Gero and M. Conkey, pp. Smith, M. A., and B. Cundy 93–131. Blackwell, Oxford. 1985 Distribution maps for flaked stone points Walker, K. R., and R. K. Bambach and backed blades in the Northern Territory. 1971 The significance of fossil assemblages from Australian Aboriginal studies 1985/2:32–37. fine grained sediments: time-averaged com- Smith, M. E. munities. Geological Society of America, Ab- 1992 Braudel’s temporal rhythms and chronology stracts, Programmes 3:783–784. theory in archaeology. In Archaeology, An- White, C. [Schrire] nales, and ethnohistory, edited by B. Knapp, 1967a Plateau and plain: Prehistoric investigations in pp. 23–34. Cambridge Univ. Press. Arnhem Land, Northern Territory. Ph.D. the- Stanner, W. E. H. sis, Department Prehistory, Research School 1965 Aboriginal territorial organization: Estate, of Pacific Studies. The Australian National range, domain and regime. Oceania 36:1–26. University, Canberra. Stern, N. White, C. [Schrire] 1994 The implications of time-averaging for re- 1967b The prehistory of the Kakadu People. Man- constructing the land-use patterns of early kind 6:426–431. tool-using hominids. Journal of Human Evo- White, C., and N. Peterson lution 27:89–105. 1971 Ethnographic interpretations of the prehis- Strathern, M. tory of western Arnhem Land. Southwestern 1985 Kinship and economy: Constitutive orders of Journal of Anthropology 25:45–69. a provisional kind. American Ethnologist White, J. P., and J. F. O’Connell 12:191–209. 1982 A Prehistory of Australia, New Guinea and Tacon, P. Sahul. Academic Press, Sydney. 1991 The power of stone: symbolic aspects of Woodburn, J. stone use and tool development in western 1982 Egalitarian societies. Man 17:431–51. Arnhem Land, Australia. Wylie, A. Tacon, P., and C. Chippendale 1982 An analogy by any other name is just as ana- 1994 Australia’s ancient warriors: Changing de- logical. Journal of Anthropological Research pictions of fighting in the rock art of Arnhem 1:382–401. Land, N.T. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 4:211–248. NOTES Thomson, D. F. 1939 The Seasonal Factor in human culture, illus- 1 Differences in female status in the Western Desert trated from the life of a contemporary no- versus that in Arnhem Land have emerged in the mar- madic group. Proceedings if the Prehistoric So- ket sales of Aboriginal art. Western Desert women ciety 5:209–221. have access to stories and designs and actively partici- 1949 Economic structure and the ceremonial exchange pate in the production of highly priced paintings cycle in Arnhem Land. Macmillan, Melbourne. (Johnson 1990:17). In Arnhem Land, women are re- Tindale, N. stricted to producing low priced craft items while the 1925 Natives of Groote Eylandt and the West men produce bark paintings and objects which yield Coast of the Gulf of Carpentaria. Records of the highest returns (Kubota 1991:31–46). the South Australian Museum 2:103–104; 2 Hamilton (1982:106–7) argues that Western Desert 3:102–134. societies are going through an ideological change 1965 Stone implement making among the Na- which shifts rights to land and group membership kako, Ngadadjara and Pitjandjara of the from a place-based to a father-based system, a change Great Western Desert. Records of the South that has implications for the nature of rights held by Australian Museum 15:131–164. men over women. The men continue to claim that JOBNAME: AA Vol 15#2 PAGE: 23 SESS: 18 OUTPUT: Thu Jun 20 12:20:55 1996 /xypage/worksmart/tsp000/71052j/2pu

ETHNOGRAPHY IN AUSTRALIA 159

their ritual manipulations are the sole determinant of where they are dated between 3,500 and 4,500 B.P. but human production and social reproduction thus deny- not more recently. Large numbers of unifacial points ing the female contribution to both. have been recovered from undated surface deposits 3 Gosden (1989) and Arnold (1993) usefully discuss near Lake Eyre. The archaeological determinants of that control of labour and production together with these southern Australian points and their relation- resulting debt relationships are significant factors in ship with the bifacial and unifacial points of northern the emergence of ranked societies. Australia is unknown. Figure 2 shows the area where 4 Gifts of food to in-laws are socially required. Dus- small bifacial and unifacial points occur together in sart (1992:346) documents that widows at Yuendumu defined archaeological contexts and apart from mark- preferred to escape this burden by not remarrying, ing single archaeological locations ignores the south- even though the elder males put pressure on their sis- ern distribution (see also Smith and Cundy 1985). ters to remarry to strengthen their claims on new, 6 Smith (1988:332–341) has documented an increase younger spouses. in site usage in central Australia after 1400 B.P. and 5 Outside the area of northern Australia, unifacial concluded that there may have been a recent increase points, and occasionally a few bifacial points, occur in in Central Australian populations associated with the sites such as Devon Downs and Fromm’s Landing, use of cereal resources and ceremonial sites.