Aboriginal Fish Hooks in Southern Australia : Evidence, Arguments and Implications
Aboriginal fish hooks in southern Australia : Evidence, arguments and implications. Rupert Gerritsen From time to time, in the wanderings of my imagination, I mull over the question of what should be my first course of action if I were the proverbial Martian archaeologist (Jones and Bowler 1980:26), just arrived on Earth to investigate its peoples, cultures and history. And in this imaginary quest, I ask myself, would my time be more productively spent observing and interrogating the "natives", or simply heading for the nearest rubbish dump to begin immediate excavations, a la Rathje (1974)? But, having chose the latter, what then would I make of such things, in my putative excavations, as discarded "lava lamps", "fluffy dice" or garden gnomes? Phallic symbols perhaps, ear-muffs for protection from "rap" music, maybe cult figurines! While such musings are, of course, completely frivolous, nevertheless a serious issue lies at their heart, the interface between ethnography and archaeology. In this scenario the choice faced by the alien archaeologist is clearly a false dichotomy. We are not faced with an either/or situation and I think it unlikely, in the current multidisciplinary climate, that anyone today would seriously argue for precedence of one discipline over the other. In basic terms both disciplines make significant contributions to our understanding of Australian prehistory (Bowdler 1983:135), each providing a body of evidence from which models, theories and explanations are developed. Archaeology, for example, provides invaluable time depth and a spatial dimension in studies of change and development in cultures, whereas ethnography puts flesh on the bones of cultures, revealing their intrinsic complexity and contextualising archaeological findings in the process.
[Show full text]