Indigenous Fish Traps and Weirs of Queensland Michael J. Rowland1,2 and Sean Ulm2 1 Cultural Heritage Coordination Unit, Department of Environment and Resource Management, GPO Box 2454, Brisbane, QLD 4001, Australia [email protected] 2 Department of Anthropology, Archaeology and Sociology, School of Arts and Social Sciences, James Cook University, PO Box 6811, Cairns, QLD 4870, Australia [email protected] A Queensland state-wide review of coastal and inland fish traps and weirs is undertaken. More than 179 sites are described. For coastal Queensland, it is demonstrated that traps with multiple pens are common in the Torres Strait and at a limited number of locations in the southern Gulf of Carpentaria. Most traps and weirs south of Torres Strait and the Gulf are isolated structures, with traps in most cases having a single pen. Walls of traps are most often in the shape of an arc and found at points and estuaries and only occasionally on open beaches. Some traps and weirs on the coast were built or used by non-Indigenous people, including South Sea Islanders. Less information could be located on traps and weirs of inland Queensland, which appear to have included many organic traps and weirs. It was found that weirs are common east of the Great Dividing Range, while traps were common to the west. The review draws heavily on unpublished data and reports held by the Queensland Department of Environment and Resource Management. The use of this information along with published sources, theses, explorer’s diaries and ethnographic accounts allows a comprehensive overview of available information. Fish traps in particular are often found in coastal zones subject to development pressure and this work provides a baseline resource to generate discussion about research and management of this significant site type in these zones. Introduction traps, weirs and other stone structures. Recommendations Indigenous people throughout Australia have constructed were made concerning the future recording and fish traps and weirs over a long period of time and there is management of traps and weirs in Queensland (see considerable variety in types, numbers, size and location Bowen and Rowland 1999). A potential method for dating of these sites. They were designed to capture aquatic traps and weirs was also developed as part of that study animals, predominantly fish, and the more durable of and is discussed elsewhere (Bowen 1998). these structures (i.e. those made of stone) are still visible This paper builds on the results of Bowen and on Australia’s coasts and rivers today. Fish were also Rowland’s (1999) study to provide a comprehensive caught in natural pools and in a variety of small portable review of information pertaining to Indigenous fish traps traps but this review focuses predominantly on the more and weirs in Queensland. The review provides a baseline substantive and durable non-portable devices. resource to generate discussion about research, Fish traps have assumed an important place in management and other issues. The Queensland discussions concerning late Holocene Aboriginal culture Department of Environment and Resource Management change, in particular their possible role in increasing Indigenous Cultural Heritage Database (ICHD) provides marine production (Lourandos 1997). However, attempts the basis for this review, supplemented by published to directly date these structures have so far been articles and books, as well as unpublished reports and unsuccessful (e.g. McNiven 1994) with chronology often theses. An attempt has been made to incorporate established through dating of associated cultural deposits information from a wide range of sources, including (e.g. Bowen 1998; Ulm 2006). Recent discussions (e.g. explorer’s diaries, ethnographic accounts, and cultural McNiven 2003) have also developed the idea that some heritage surveys. Many of the sources reviewed here are stone features in the intertidal zone are associated with the not published or have limited availability, enhancing the cosmological landscape rather than serving a purely value of assembling this reference work. Published economic function. As McNiven (2003) demonstrates summaries of site types for Australia, individual States or with examples from the Torres Strait, the two spheres are Territories, or regions are rare (e.g. Hiscock and Mitchell not mutually exclusive with large fish trap complexes 1993) and it is hoped this review might encourage others playing a key role in the way that landscapes and to undertake similar reviews since they are extremely seascapes are inscribed with social meaning. Welz (2002) valuable for comparative purposes and for providing a has also attempted to interpret the fish traps of the Lower strategic focus for future research and management. Eyre Peninsula in the context of cultural and The review is organised into three major sections. The environmental variables using a landscape approach. first two sections synthesise descriptive information about In an unpublished report on Queensland traps and the types and distribution of traps and weirs in coastal and weirs produced by Bowen and Rowland (1999) an attempt inland areas respectively. For simplicity, an arbitrary was made to identify the range of site types, methods of geographic division of Queensland into five zones is construction, distribution across the landscape, antiquity, employed: Gulf of Carpentaria, Torres Strait, Northeast, possible origins, and possible overall economic function. Central and South (Figure 1). The final section considers The report sought to identify criteria that could be used to key research and management themes arising from the discriminate between Indigenous traps and those made by review, including determining the origins of traps and Europeans and South Sea Islanders who have built similar weirs, patterns in distribution, function, dating, and best Rowland & Ulm q a r | Vol. 14 | 2011 | 1 Figure 1. Fish traps registered on the ICHD and major geographical divisions employed in this discussion: Gulf of Carpentaria, Torres Strait, Northeast, Central, South. 2 | 2011 | Vol. 14 | q a r Indigenous Fish Traps and Weirs of Queensland practice guidelines for documentation and monitoring. A of South Australia indicate that the most common type of comprehensive listing of traps and weirs registered on the fish trap was a V-shaped weir. They may have been built ICHD is provided in Appendix A, which includes on bases of eroded calcreted Pleistocene dunes using a information about basic site attributes. Note that not all combination of loose limestone blocks and wooden sticks sites listed in Appendix A are discussed in the text owing but detailed surveys of the areas failed to find any to limited information (CW:B03, FK:C80, JC:A21, archaeological traces of these sites (Ross 2009). Fish traps KA:A67, KA:A72, KB:F91, LA:C80, KC:D93) or may therefore have been more common on Australia’s restricted status (DL:B03). coastline than the physical remains suggest. We identify five primary pen shapes or forms (see also Definitions McNiven 1994:92) (Table 1, Figure 2). The most The terms ‘traps’ and ‘weirs’ are often used common form is the U- or arc-shape followed by the V- interchangeably (e.g. Clarke 2002:154-157; Connaway shape. With a small surface area exposed to water, these 2007:5; Bannerman and Jones 1999). In the Australian shapes are better able to disperse pressure, and thus ethnographic and archaeological literature however there remain intact compared with those with a larger surface is a tendency to make a distinction between the two area, such as a square. They degrade slowly and thus though it is not consistently applied. On a worldwide require minimal maintenance (Meriam and Kraige basis, Connaway (2007:5) defines a ‘weir’ as an 1987:270-280). Some traps have a single pen, while obstruction placed in a stream or tideway or along a others have multiple pens, which may in some cases have shoreline to channel fish into a procurement area, while a been designed for the purpose of dividing and holding ‘trap’ is a device placed in the procurement area to fish (Van Waarden and Wilson 1994:81). capture and impound fish for collection but again the Most of the traps and weirs reviewed here are terminology is often used interchangeably. In this registered on the ICHD and are referred to using their site discussion we have tended to use the term used by the number based on the 1:250,000 map sheet series for recorder or observer. Fish traps and weirs in Australia Queensland (i.e. the site designated FL:C09 refers to the range from slight modifications to natural features of the Ingham sheet and is the 209th site recorded for the map landscape to special purpose-built structures (Mulvaney sheet. Sites are numbered A1-99, B100-199, C200-299 and Kamminga 1999:34-35). A ‘trap’ is generally defined etc). Other fish traps are not registered on the ICHD, but as an artificial structure (normally made of stone) found are described in published and unpublished sources. predominately in the intertidal zone with a length and breath that creates a holding area (cf. McNiven 2003). A trap may contain a single or multiple pens. Table 1. Primary fish trap or pen forms (see Figure 2 A trap with a clearly identifiable pen may be relatively for examples). easy to identify, however, a trap whose areas are further subdivided into pens may be decidedly more difficult to Type Description define. Memmott et al. (2008) faced with these U-shaped An arc-shaped curve oriented so that the methodological problems decided on an interim working open end faces the shore. Also referred to decision to treat each single wall feature as a unit and as ‘arc’. defer abstract interpretation (i.e. definition of a pen) until V-shaped A ‘V’-shaped variant of the arc-shaped further fieldwork.