THEORIES AND AUSTRALIAN PREHISTORY:
THE LAST THREE DECADES
Bernard M.J. Huchet
INTRODUCTION
Several scholars have stressed that archaeologists in
Australia have generally been adverse to discuss
epistemological,theoretical and methoddogicalissues
(eg Gdson l986:6; Hiscock 1983:51-2; Mulvaney
1971:242; Murray and White 1981:258; Thornas
1982:4) and that there is a pressing need for further
studies in these areas (Thomas 1982:4). This paper
attempts to fill some of the gaps in the knowledge of
such issues by documenting the changes in the types
of theories used within the last thirty years. These
issues are part of a broader study which aims to
examine modelling approaches used in Australian
prehistoric archaeology (Huchet 1990a). A detailed
examination of theory was presentedten years ago by
Thomas (198l), who discussed the use of theory in the
prehistory of Tasmania only. Apart from what he calls
'vulgar materialism', Thornas did not document
theoretical frameworks used. This paper therefore
expands on these issues by adopting a greater
geographical perspective which indudes Tasmania,
the Australian mainland, Twes Strait and New Guinea,
and documenting the whde range of theories relied
upon by Australian prehistorians to explain archaeo?
put on the use of
logical data. Changes i ~emphasis
particular theories through time are documented,
although no consMeration is given here to explain why
a particular theory has assumed little or much
importance, and why changes ocwrred through time
In the types d theories relied upon. It is shown that
cultural materialism, with a deterministic emphasis, has
been, and still is, the dominant theoretical framework
adopted by Australian prehistorians, although some
significant changes have recently occurred, reflected
by an expansion in the range of theories used, and a
gradual increase in the importanceassumedby cultural
ecdogy and historical materialism.
PREVIOUS WORK
Since the establishment d academic and professional
archaeology in Australia in 1953 (White and O'Connell
1982:29), a number of retrospective studies have been
b p t m o n t of Prehistoryand Anthropology, T b Fawtties,
AusWhn National University, Canberra ACT 2601
published aiming to describe andtor analyse the
development of prehistoric archaeology. Many 05
these studies have presented useful, but largely
descriptive histories of Australian prehistoric
archaedogy, by documenting changes in the concepts,
the types of questions asked and the methods used in
the past (Lampert 1975; Mulvaney 1964a, 1971;
Rowland 1983; White and O'Connell l982:22-30).
Taking this approach one step further, other studies
have attempted to pinpoint the factors which brought
about such changes. The causal agents discussed are
varied and indude the 'Cambridge connection', the size
of the Australian continent, the number of scholars, the
nature of data bases (archaeological, geographic, and
others), and the social context of the practice of
archaeology, particularly the influence of Aborigines
upon the development of archaedogy (eg Allen and
Jones 1983; Gdson 1986; McBryde 1986; Murray and
White 1981, 1982; Ucko 1983).Few studies have gone
yet another step further by presentinga critical analysis
of the worth of particular concepts or methods (eg see
Davidson 1983, 1988; Hiscock 1983; Yoffee 1985).
The consideration of changes in theories used through
time and their evaluation has received least attention.
It is useful to distinguish between theory and concept.
To avoid confusion, theory is set apart from concept
as the former represents a far more integrated and
wider interpretative framework than the latter, being
based on a range of concepts and of a higher level of
abstraction. Examples of concepts would indude
adaptation, and unchanging Aborigines in an
unchanging environment; examples of theories are
discussed below and indude cultural materialism,
cultural ecology and historical materialism, with the
first two incorporating as one of several of its key
concepts, that of adaptation. On the basis of these
distinctions, it becomes obvious that there are less than
a handful of studies that have shown concern for the
types of theories used in Australian archaeology.
Some have discussed the validity or applicability of a
particular theory to the Australian context, such as
cultural materialism (Beaton 1983), and historical
materialism (Lwrandas 198381, 1984, 1985a, 1985b:
385-9), and sets d theories based on ecdogical
principles, in particular cultural ecdogy and cultural
materialism (Head 1986; Thomas 1981).
Huchet 45
There have only been two attempts, it would appear, at
documenting and analysing theories recently used in
Australian prehistoric archaedogy (Head 1986;
Thornas 1981). Although several schdars have
identified dominant concepts, in particular that of
adaptation, as well as the reliance upon other
ecdogical principles (eg Gdson 1986; Lourandos 1983
:81), they failed to discuss under which particular
theory such principles are applied.
In a review of Tasmanian archaeology, Thomas (1981)
documented a strong emphasis on what he called
'vulgar materialism'. This is an approach based on
cultural materialism, which relies heavily upon the
concepts of cuttural adaptation and ecological
determinism to explain economic, techndogical,
demographic and idedogical aspects of prehistoric
Tasmanian lifeways. This he referred to as the
'ecological approach'. T homas argued that 'vulgar
materialism' and, more generally, cultural materialism
is a degenerating research programme ill-suited to
explain past lifeways of prehistoric hunter-gatherers.
He proposed that a theory which placed social factors
as prime-movers should be adopted.
In classifyingapproaches under single theories, I have
relied on the dominant tendencies, assumptions and
variables found in each case study because, as will be
shown below, many theoretical positions adopted by
Australian archaeologists draw on a combination of
theoretical frameworks, and thus seldom conform to
one of the standard textbook definitions of theories, as
outlined here or by other workers.
Cultural Materialism
Cultural materialist approaches generally share the
following concepts. 'Culture' is viewed as an adaptive
device for humans to their environment. In order to
adapt, humans a d rationally. Their main concerns
include the need for high protein intake and the
regulation of population size. It is presumed that
population inherently grows unless contrdled by
'cultural' sanctions. Both environment and techndogy
tend to exert selective pressure in favour of particular
types of social organisation and ideologies (Harris
1968, 1979). Cultural materialists have a tendency to
deal only with features present cross-culturally and,
thus, ignore aspects only found regionally or locally. In
study individual cultures as
addition, they tend to
dosed systems ...' (Trigger 1971:328). The variables
that are of prime concern to cultural materialists are
environment, economy, technology and demography.
Techndogy is viewed as the most important element in
achieving adaptation, while soda1 aspects assume a
secondary role and ideological ones are of least
importance. All four primary variables can a d a s primemovers in causality whereas soda1 and ideological
aspects, being part of the superstructure, do not play
dominant rdes but are determined by infrastructural
elements as listed above (for details on this theory see
Harris 1968, 1979; Keesing 1981:150-4; Kohl 1981;
Thomas 1979: 118-20).
l...
Head (1986) also considered the strong reliance on
ecological concepts, in particular that of adaptation, in
the theories for Australian prehistory. She argued
these theories (cultural ecology and cultural
materialism) are inadequate and presented a
framework that can successfully accomodate both
social and ecologicallevdutionary approaches. The
framework allows for the possibility that both social and
environmental factors can initiate changes, and that
both interact rather than work in a vacuum or invariably
act as prime movers.
While both studies have made important intellectual
contributions to our discipline, there remains a need to
map with more precision changes in theories used
through time. This paper represents an attempt to do
so by considering changes which have occurred within
the last 30 years.
METHODS
Of the 105 publishedartides sampled for this paper, 25
were published in the 1960s, 35 in the 1970s and 45 in
the 1980s, thus covering the last three decades (for
more details on the sample, see Huchet lSOa:34-7).
For accuracy in results, this sample has been divided
into three periods only (each caveringten years) so that
changes in particular theoretical frameworks used
between 1960 and 1989 can be identified. The
definitions of theories encountered during my study are
given below. This is necessary since there are different
definitions available for each theory.
As there are differences in the forms of cultural
materialism used by archaeologists, a two-level
distinction between plain cultural materialism and
deterministic cultural materialism is made here.
The deterministic approach has been refened to as
'vulgar materialism' by Thomas (1981), and most
commonly
as
'environmental
determinism',
'deterministic ecology' (eg Trigger 1971) and 'crude
determinism'. I prefer to use the term 'deterministic'
rather than 'environmental determinism' since
variables other than environment are dten used in
deterministic explanations, in particular demography
and technology.
For example, demographic
determinism is apparent in the studies d Ross (1981)
and Wade (1967) and techndogical determinism in
Hallam's (1972) study. Environmental determinism is
based on the assumption that the environment does
not give any choice; thus, economy is equated to
ecdogy, although within the confines d a given
46 Theories and Australian Prehistory
techndogy. That is, as expressed by Thomas
7O), 'Economics simply invdves the selection
(1981:l
d the most efficient strategies...'. Determinism seeks
explanations in single causes (eg Price 1982:722),
most frequently the environment. The plain cultural
materialist approach is defined here as one which
makes some allowance for variables to act within a
system; thus, explanations can invdve more than one
factor rather than single prime-mwers. In addition,
and unlike the deterministic stance, it allows for human
choices.
Cultural Ecology
The definition of cultural ecology adopted here
conforms broadly with those prwided by Dunnell
(1WO), Keesing (1981:144-50), Kohl (1981), T homas
(1979:121-6) and Trigger (1971). This theory shares
many d its concepts with cultural materialism, most
evidently that of adaptation. Some authors have a
very broad definition of cultural ecology (eg Keesing
1981:l
44-50) by including under it cultural materialist
and systems approaches. This is also evident in
Australian archaeologicaldiscussions whereby several
authors have referred to the 'ecological approach' in a
broad sense (eg Head 1986). Although materialist
approaches used in Australia have become
increasingly oriented towards the consideration of
ecdogical aspects (see below), I restrid the meaning
of cultural ecology toa narrower sense than that given
to the ecdogical approach in Australia so as to
differentiate between it and cultural materialism or
other theories that are to varying degrees based on
ecological concepts.
Cultural ecologists define
environment as including both the physical environment and the human grwps under study, as well as
other interacting 'cultures' and soda1 groups. Cultural
ecology views ecdogy as an open, rather than dosed,
system by giving considerationto interactions between
human groups as well as between groups and their
environments. Further, cultural ecdogy is based on a
well developed systems approach, which views any
explanation in terms of several interacting variables,
generally with none acting as prime-movers. In
addition, it views adaptation as both short-term and
long-term adaptations, with the latter ultimately linked
to the concept of natural selection. The range of
relevant variables is generally broader than that
msidered by other theories in that it indudes aspects
that may only occur in some regions or societies. It
also gives far greater importance to the local
environmental details d relevance to the explanation
d adaptation (in the form of ecosystems study). This
indudes the effects d interaction patterns between
soda1 groups in terms d trade and warfare, among
other aspects. As for cultural materialism, cultural
ecdogy pre-supposes that there is a core area of
'culture' or infrastructure that indudes economy,
technology and demography, as well as a superstrudurewhich plays a seamdary rde in adaptation (ie
social and ideological aspects).
lnfrastructural
elements are directly affected by changes in environment whereas superstrudural elements are indirectly
so. Cultural ecology is also based on the concept of
homeostasis.
Economic Materialism
The main emphasis of economic materialism is on the
study of economy rather than ecology (Kohl 1981), and
thus it is less concerned with adaptation, which views
economy as somewhat similar to ecdogy.
Consequendy, the aspects of prime concern studied
are social structure and its organisation, trade,
exchange, systems of production and distribution uf
resources. It emphasises a historical reconstructionof
a society's technologyandfor of its exchange networks.
Historical Materialism
I have also adopted Kohl's (1981) definition here. The
basic foundations of historical materialism were laid in
the writings of Marx and, later, modified by the so-called
neo-Marxists. This approach is primarily interested in
the history of social and legal institutions and:
emphasizes the ever-changing, nonequilibrium
seeking nature of social life. A dialectical or historical materialist approach, accepts a conflictual,
as opposed to consensual, theory of society in
which the conscious pditical actions of social
groups or dasses remain central and paramount
however firmly or loosely rooted they may be to
their "economic base" (Kohl 1981:109).
Unlike cultural materialism, historical materialism
'...recognizes that the beliefs of a given group once
formulated can - during the course of any historical
process - assume a life of their own and substantially
affect a society's productive activities' (Kohl 1981:109).
Kohl (1981 :109-1 0) further explains:
For archaeologiststhe challenge is to reconstruct
the conflicting needs and strategies of groups
within complex societies or the relations among
different "band" and 'tribal" sodeties 1.. .l. It should
not assume that society as a whde was passively
adapting to its environment andlor technological
base.
RESULTS
Ambiguity in the Use of Theory
The vast majority of theoretical approaches used In
Australia do not conform to standard definitions. This
is reflected in a number uf ways. Perhaps most
common is that a deterministic stance of cultural
materialism is associated with elements not msistent
with such a determinism. For instance, authors will,
sometimes, consider the possibilfty d human m.
Huchet 47
cultural preferences, aesthetic values or idedogical
Influences on various aspects of 'culture', rather than
fundional, economic or other explanations (eg Bwdler
1974, l976:21&9; Gould 1968:178; Jones l968:2lO;
Mulvaney 1960:76, 1961:70, 86, 87; Mulvaney and
Joyce 1965:177, 186, 207). Many workers who have
adopted a cultural materialist approach have also
drawn to varying degrees on principles or assumptions
derived from cultural ecology (eg Birdsell 1977; Jones
1968,1969,1975; Mulvaney 1960; Smith 1986). Other
approaches based on cultural materialist theory show
relatively strong reliance upon economic materialism.
In Mulvaney's study (1964b), for example, elements of
economic materialism are apparent in his presentation
of data on trading networks, economic techndogy such
as fishtraps and eeling trench systems, but these
aspects are not developedtoa point whereby economy
is seen as playing a dominant rde in the organisation
of ather patterns of culture (eg techndogy, social and
ideological aspects, among others). Finally, a few
studies, although basically cultural materialist in
orientation, combine the use of at least two other
theories but in a less dominant manner. For instance,
Gdson (1972), besides cultural materialism, relies on
concepts compatible with economic materialism and
cultural ecology. The economic materialist side is
reflected in Gdson's lengthy discussion of the rde of
techndogy (canoes, axes, use of fire) and the
importance of trade in relation to settlement and
subsistence patternson various islands in Torres Strait,
as well as New Guinea and Australia, but does not
generally view economy, trade and techndogy as
prime-mwers in causal explanations. Elements of
cultural ecology, although basic, are present in the form
of a discussion of the local ecology in various regions
and the formulation of some explanations through a
systemic framework, in particular in Gdson's explanation of differences in settlement and subsistence
patterns between islands and the mainlands with three
or more variables viewed as relevant But as the
relations between variables are not defined, the
importance of groups are not stated and the concept of
homeostasis is not relied upon, this does not make
Gdson's cultural ecologyframework the dominant one.
Cultural
Materialism
Theories and their Relative Frequencies
Through Time
Results of an examination of 105 published swrcesare
given in Table 1. For 27 of the case studies, it was not
possibleto anive at a precise identificationdthe theory
used. In 17 studies, identification could not be done
beyond that of the materialist approach (recorded as
M) and in ten studies the theoretical framework,
although identified as 'cultural materialism', could not
be further dassified as either plain or deterministic.
The reason these cannot be specifically classified is
primarily because of the low number or even lack d
relevant propositions made in interpretinglexplaining
various patterns of past Aboriginal lifeways. In these
examples, identification relied primarily on the
selection of variables examined by the researcher.
CND CMP CM
CE
EM
HM
M
TOTAL
60
10
3
1
4
17
10
TOTAL
105
CMD = cultural materialisddeterministic; CMlP = cultural
rnaterialisnVplain; CM = cultural materialism cannot be more
specific; CE =cultural ecology; EM =economic materialism; HM
=historical materialism; M =materialism - cannot be more specific
-
Table l
Domimnt lheoretical framework used In each of 105
case studies
Several interesting patterns emerge from this data. If
we exdude the 'materialist' category, it becomes dear
that cultural materialism represents the dominant
theory used over the last three decades (Fig. l),
although its popularity has gradually decreased
through time. In the 1960s its popularitywas 100% (on
the basis of my sample) but decreased to 93.1% in the
1970s and 85.4% in the 1980s. Despite this decrease
in popularity, it is obvious that cultural materialism is
Cultural
Ecology
I .l9605
Period
Economic
Materialism
01970s Ml980s
Historical
Materialism
1
Flgure l Changes In emphasis put on theorles In Aostra11.n prehistory the last three decades
48 Theories and Australian Prehistory
Cultural Materialism
Deterministic
Plain
1
Figure 2 Changes in the nature and importance of cultural materialist theory in
Australian prehistory - the last three decades
currently still by far the most dominant framework used
In Australian prehistory.
Exduding now both 'M' and 'CM' categories, other
patterns emerge (Fig. 2). First, it can be seen that the
bulk of cultural materialist approaches used has been
heavily oriented towards deterministic, rather than
plain, cultural materialism, although determinism
s h w s a steady tendency over the last three decades
to decrease in importance, from 87.5% in the 1960s to
69.4% in the 1980s. Nevertheless it is still the
dominant theoretical tendency in prehistoric Australian
archaeology. Plain cultural materialism remained low
in popularity, and underwent no significant changes
through time, assuming between 115 % and 13.9% of
all theoretical positions during the last 30 years.
Second, the decrease in deterministic cultural
materialism is concomitant with a gradual increase in
reliance upon cultural ecology, economic materialism
and historical materialism. Cultural ecology has
assumed a steady increase in the last two decades,
although still remaining in low use during the last
decade with only 5.6% frequency, represented by two
studies out of 36 (Smith 1987; Veth 1989). It must of
course be remembered that these statistics are crude
since sample size for any one decade is relatively low.
Nevertheless, trends, however faint, are apparent. A
second trend is that of the rise of historical materialism
within the last decade, to assume 11. l % of studies
examined. Finally, economic materialism is represented by one study in the 1970s (that of Vandetwal
1973). Its absence in the 1980s and possibly 1960s is
probablydue to small sample size and thus one cannot
attempt to discern any meaningful patterns in changes
in its use through time. As already discussed above,
there are a number of studies that rely upon concepts
derived from economic materialism, although
incorporated within a position dominated by a cultural
materialist approach. Thus, in one form or another,
economic materialism has received some attention
throughout the last three decades, occasionally
assuming the dominant theoretical role in researchers'
approaches.
Third, and perhaps most interesting, is that the relative
number of theories in use increased through time, with
only one (cultural materialism) during the 1960% but
three in the 1970s and 1980s. It is very likely that at
least four are actually represented in the 1980s to
include economic materialism but againthis is probably
due to sample size. Thus, we have a diversification in
theoretical interests through time.
Finally, what is most obvious is the non-representation
of several approaches that are currently popular
elsewhere in the world (especially Briiin and the
United States), in particular contextual, structural and
symbolic approaches (for more details see Case 1973;
Earle and Preucel1987; Hodder l982a, 1982b 1986,
1987; Kobylinski 1987; Miller and Tilley 1984; Murray
1987: Chapters 6 and 7; Tilley 1981; Wellfare 1990;
Wylie 1982).
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
There are two main tendencies apparent in theoretical
shifts through time. The first one is the increased
reliance upon ecological concerns and concepts. This
is concomitant with a decrease in deterministic
explanations. The increase in ecological concerns
sees a progressive use of explanations invdving
multiple factors, thus taking the burden away from
single prime-movers in explanation. Related to this Is
a growing concern for the use d systemic concepts,
with more discussion of homeostasis, relationships
between variables explicitly defined, more ecological
details given, and a decreasing concern forthe analysis
of lithic material at archaeological sites while
Huchet 49
broadening interests to indude more data on the
environment, rock art, fauna1 material, social
information on languages and trade networks, among
other things. While I have not documented all of these
last tendencies, these are dearly reflected in my
analysis of case studies. Table 1 only shows these
trends in the broadest ways with only three studies
showing primary reliance on cultural ecdogy theory.
But this is misleading as ecological aspects are more
ubiquitous, although remaining secondary in many
workers'theoretical approaches, and were in use since
the 1960s with the work of McBryde and Jones among
others, although not assuming the dominant theoretical
thrust.
The major theoretical change that has occurred is
associated with the work of Lourandos.
This
represents the second main tendency in the development of the use of theory in Australian prehistory.
Lourandos introduced historical materialism to
Australian prehistoric studies, and the 11. l Oh frequency
recorded for the 1980s in historical materialism is
largely attributable to his published contributions
(Lourandos 1980, 1983, 1988) but also to one of his
followers (Ross 1988). Lourandos' approach represents a new and challenging avenue of research. Yet,
it has not been well accepted by other researchers in
Australia. While several workers have gone as far as
accepting his concept of intensification (eg Flood et
al. 1987) they have not been prepared to go one step
futther and accept what is most fundamental in
Lourandos' approach: the premise that social factors
can assume a key (or determining) role in the shaping
of other aspects of prehistoric Aboriginal life ways,
especially the economy, technology and settlement
patterns. Rather than bite into the historical materialist
cake, these researchers have attempted to force
intensification into the more familiar cultural materialist
framework. One may ask whether or not the discipline
will, not only adopt, but further elaborate upon
Lourandos' historical materialist ideas in the 1990s.
This will of course require a leap of faith since a social
approach is not easily applied to the Australian
prehistoric context. Will this occur once adequate
methods have been developed to extract social
information from artefacts? This cannot be easily
predicted, although significant methodological and
theoretical steps have recently been done in this
direction by researchers in archaeology (eg David and
Cde in press; Huchet 1WOb; Smith 1989; Webb 1984;
Wellfare 1990) and by scholars in other fields such as
linguistics (eg McConvell 1985). In spite of Thomas'
(1981) suggestion that we should not be limited in our
theoretical positions by the difficulty in extracting social
information from archaeological data, is it in fact what
has retarded the widespread adoption of socially
oriented theory in Australian a r c h a e d m Is historical
materialism simply inappropriate as a t h e o v Or is a
Mend d both ecologically and socially oriented
theories, as suggested by Head (1986) and Kohl
(I 981 :I 1I), more adequate than either one or the
other? These are important epistemological issues
that need to be discussed and empirically tested.
Two other interrelated questions that will need to be
answered in the future are (a) why has cultural
materialism assumed such a strong pdsition since the
beginnings of academic and professional archaedogy
in Australia?; and (b) why have theoretical frameworks
recently developed elsewhere (contextualism,
structuralism, etc) not seeded in Australia? The
conservatism towards preserving cultural materialism
may be a conscious choice on the part of practitioners,
or may be related to the nature of our continent and
archaeological data base, andlor other factors. We
may conclude that these are philosophical issues in
need of examination in the future.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
For constructive comments provided on a draft of this
paper, I wish to thank Tim Murray, Jane Balme, Mike
Monvood, lain Davidson, Claire Smith, Heather Burke,
Chris Lovell-Jones, Noeleen Steel and my wife Fran
Huchet. None of these people are responsible for the
ideas expressed in this paper. I also wish to thank Tim
Murray for his permission to make use of his PhD
dissertation. Finally I am grateful to Margaret Connelly
for her assistance with computing matters.
REFERENCES
Allen, J. and R. Jones 1983 Facts figures and folklore. Australian
Archaeology 16:1657
Beaton, J.M. 1983 Does intensification account for changes in the
Australian Holocene archaeological record?
Archaeology in Oceania 18:94-7
Birdsell, J.B. 1977 The recalibration of a paradigm for the first
peopling of Greater Australia. In J. Allen, J. Golson and
R. Jones (eds), Sunda and Sahul: Prehistoric Studies
in Southeast Asia, Melanesia and Australia, pp.113-67.
Academic Press: London
Bowdler, S. 1974 An account of an archaeological reconnaissance
of Hunter's Isles, northwest Tasmania, 197314. Records
of the QueenVictoria Museum 54: 1-22
Bowdler, S. 1976 Hook, line and dillybag: an interpetation of an
Australian coastal shell midden. Mankind 10:248-58
Case, H. 1973 Illusion and meaning. In C. Renfrew (ed.), The
Explanationof Culture Change: Models in Prehistory,
pp.35-46. Duckworth: London
David, B. and N. Cole In press 'Curious drawings' and 'tolerable
figures': investigating the prehistory of Cape York
Peninsula and beyond through an examination of its rock
art. In P. Hiscock (ed.) (title to be announced)
Davidson, 1. 1983 Beating about the bush? Aspects of the history
of Australian archaeology. Australian A r c h d o g y
17:136-44
Davidson, 1 . 1988 What happens when you try to change
paradigms? Paper presented at the Second New England
Archaeological Syrrposium: Technolagical AnaJysis and
50 Theories and Australian Prehistory
Australian Archaeology, January 1988. University of New
England: Arnidale
Dunnell, R.C. 1980 Evolutionary theory and archaeology. In M.B.
Schiffer (ed.), Advances In Archaeological Method and
T h q 3:35-99. Academic Press: New York
Keesing, R.M. 1981 Cultural Anthropology: A Contemporary
Perspective. Second edition. Holt, Rinehart and
Winston: New York
Kobylinski, 2. 1987 On processual archaeology and the radical
critique. Current Anthropology 28(5):68& 1
Earle, T.K. and R.W. Preucel 1987 Processualarchaeologyand the
radical critique. Current Anthropology 28(4):5O1-38
Kohl, P.L.
Flood, J., B. David, J. Magee and B. English 1987 Birrigai: a
Pleistocene site in the southeastern highlands.
Ar&#dogy i n Ocemia 229-26
Lampert. R.J. 1975 Trends in Australian prehistoric research.
Antiquity 49: 197-206
1981 Materialist approaches in prehistory. Annual
Review of Anthropology 10:89- 118
Lourandos, H. 1980 Change or stabilit)Q: hydraulics, huntergatherers and population in temperate Australia. World
Archaeology 11:245-66
Gdson, J. 1972 land mnectims, sea barriersand the relationship
of Australian and New Guinea prehistory. In D. Walker
(ed.), Bridge nd Barrier: The Natural and Cultural
Hktory of Tomes Stralt, pp.375-97. Australian National
University: Canberra
Lourandos, H. 1983 Intensification: a late Pleistoume-Hdocene
archaeological sequence from southwestern Victoria.
Archaeology In Oceania 18:81-94
Golson, J. 1986 Old guards and new waves: reflections on
antipodean archaeology 1954-1975. Archaeology in
ocemk 21:l-12
Lourandos, H. 1984 Changing perspectives in Australian
prehistory: a reply to Beaton. Archaeology i n Ocsuria
1W9-33
Gould, R.A. 1968 Preliminary report on excavations at Puntutjarpa
rockshelter near the Warburton Ranges, Western
Australia. Archaeology and Physical Anthropology in
Ocsnk 3~161-82
Lourandos, H. 1985a Problems with the interpretation of late
Holocene changes in Australian prehistory. Arch.eology
in Oceania 20:37-9
Hallam, S.J. 1972 An archaeological survey of the Perth area,
Western Australia: a progress report on art and artefacts,
dates and demography. Australian Institute of
Aboriginal Studies, Newslater 3(5):11-9
Harris, M. 1968 The Rise of Anthropological Theory. Crowell:
New York
Harris, M. 1979 Cultural Maeriallsm: The Struggk for a Science
of Culture. Random House: New York
Mad, L.
1Q86 Palaeoecological contributions to Australian
prehistory. Archaeology in Ocaania 21:121-9
H i , P. 1983 Stone dods as cultural markers? The last two
decades of stone artefact analysis in Australian
archaeology. Austrdin Archaeology 16:48-56
Hodder, I. (ed.) 1982a Symbolic and Structural Archaeology.
Cambridge University Press: C a m b r i i
Hodckr, 1. 1982b Symbdr In Action. Cambridge UniversityPress:
Cambridse
Hodckr, 1.
1986 R..ding the Put: Current Approaches to
htarprotation in Archaeology. Cambridge University
Press: Camkidge
Hodder, I. (ed.) 1987 The Archaeology of Contextual k m i n g s .
Cambridge University Press: Cambridge
Huchet, B.M.J. 1990a Modelling and Australian Prehistory.
Unpublished BA (Hons) thesis, Department of
Archaeokgy and Palaeoanthropology, University of New
England
Huchet, B.M.J. 1990b The identification of cicatrices depicted on
anthropomorphs in the Laura region, north Oueensland.
Rock Att -h
7(1):27-43
Jones, R. 1968 The geogaphid bedtground to the arrival of man
in Austraiia and Tasmania. Archaeology n d Phyrkal
Anthropology In Ocwnla 3: 186-21 5
Jones, R. 1969 Firestick farming. Au8traIi.n
16224-8
Naural History
Jones, R. 1975 The Neolithic, Palaedithic and the hunting
gardeners: man and land in the Antipodes. In R.P.
and M.M. Crosswell (eds),QuclternuyStudies,
pp.21-34. Rqral Society of New Zedand: Wellingbn
Lourandos, H. 1985b Intensification and Australian prehistory. In
T.D. Price and J.A. Brown (eds), Prehistoric HunterOatheras: The Emergence of Cultural Compkxlty,
pp.385-423. Academic Press: Orlando
Lourandos, H. 1988 Seals, sedentism and change in the Bass
Strait. In B. Meehan and R. Jones (eds), Arch-logy
with Ethnography: An Australian Perspective,
pp.277-85. Australian National University: Canberra
McBryde. 1. 1986 Australia's once and future archaeology.
Archaeology i n Oceania 21 :13-28
McConvell, P. 1985 The origin of subsections in northern Australia.
Ocsanla 56(1):1-33
Miller, D. and C. Tilley (eds) 1984 Maology, Power, and
Prehistory. Cambridge University Press: C a m b t i
Mulvaney, D.J. 1960 Archaeological excavations at Fromrn's
Landing on the lower Murray River, South Australia.
Proceedingsof the Royal Society of Vlctoria 72:53-85
Mulvaney, D.J. 1961 The stone age of Australia. Proceeding. of
the Prehistoric Society 27:56-107
Mulvaney, D.J. 1964a Australian archaeology 1929-1964:
problems and policies. The Australian Journal of
Sclm- 27(2):39-44
Mulvaney, D.J. 1964b Prehistory of the Basalt Plains.
Proceedings of the Royal Society o f Vlctorla
77(2):427-32
Mulvaney, D.J. 1971 Prehistary from antipodean perspectives.
Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 37(2):228-52
Mulvaney, D.J. and E.B. Joyce 1965 Archaeological and
geornorphological investigations m Mt Moffatt Station,
Queensland, Australia. P r o c d l n g s of the Rohktorlc
Society 31(7):147-212
Murray, T. 1987 Rememkances of Things Present: Appeals to
Authority in the History and Philosophy of Archaeology.
Unpublished PhD thesis, Deparlment of Anthropology,
University of Sydney
Murray, T. and J.P. White 1981 Cambridge in the bush?
Archaeology in Australia and New Guinea. World
Archaeology 13(2):255-63
Murray, T. and J.P. Whim 1982 C a m b r i i in the bush - again?
Austrdlm Archwology 15: 1OS2
Huchet 51
B. 1971 Archaeology and ecology. Wad LdArchuokgY
Price, B.J. 1982 Cultural materialism: a theoretical review.
A m a l c m Antiquity 47 (4):709-41
Trigger.
Ross, A.
1981 Holocene environments and prehistoric site
patterning in the Victorian Mallee. Archaeology In
ocoani. 16:145-54
Ucko, P.J. 1983 Australian academic archaeology Aboriginal
transformation of its aims and practices. Au8lnli.n
Archaeology 16:11-26
Ross, A.
1988 Archaeology and ethnography in the Victorian
Mallee. In B. Meehan and R. Jones (eds), Archaeology
wlth Ethnography: An Australian Perspective,
pp.260-9. Australian National University: Canberra
Vanderwal, R. 1973 The Torres Strait: potohistory and beyond.
Occasional Papers 2. Anthropology Museum,
University of Queensland: St. Lucia
Rowland, M.J. 1983 Aborigines and environment in Holocene
Australia: changing paradigms. Australian Aboriginal
StUdiOS 2~62-77
Smith, Claire 1989 Designed Dreaming: Assessing the Relationship
Between Style, Social Structure and Environment in
Aboriginal Australia. Unpublished BA (Hons) thesis,
Department of Archaeology and Palaeoanthropology,
Unhrersity of New England
Smith, M.A. 1986 The antiquity of seedgrinding in arid Australia.
Archaeology In Oceanla 21:29-39
Smith, Moya 1987 Dots on the map: sites and seasonalii, the Bardi
e x a m . Aurhallan Archaeology 25:40-52
Thomas, D.H. 1979 Archaeology. Hok, Rinehart and Winston:
New York
Thomas, N. 1981 Social theory, ecology and epistemology:
theoretical issues in Australian prehistory. Mankind
13(2):165-77
Thomas, N. 1982 In lieu of critical self-consciousness - some
comments on Murray and White's version of the history of
Australian archaeology. Australian Archaeology 14:1-5
Tllley, C.
1981 Conceptual frameworks for the explanation of
sociocultural change. In I. Hodder, G. lsaac and N.
Harrrnond (eds), Pattans of the Past, pp.363-86.
Cambridge University Press: Cambridge
2:321-36
Veth, P. 1989 Islands in the interior: a model for tJw colonizationof
Australia's arid zone. Archaeology I n Oceanla
24:81-92
Wade, J.P. 1967 The excavation of a rockshelter at Connel's Point
New South Wales. Archaeology and Physical
Anthropology In Ocwnla 235-40
Webb, S. 1984 Intensification, population and social change in
southeastern Australia: the skeletalevidence. Aboriglml
History 8(1):154-72
Wellfare, S. 1990 InferringGender: An Explanatory Framwork for
Discerning Small Scale Social Relations in FisherGatherer-Hunter Archaeology. Unpublished BA (Hons)
thesis, Department of Archaeology and Palaeoanthropology, University of New England
White, J.P. and J.F. O'Connell 1982 A Prehistory otAu.tr.114
Gulnw and Sahul. Academic Press: Sydney
N W
Wylie, M.A. 1982 Epistemological issues raised by a structuraliit
archaeology. In I. Hodder (ed.), Symbolle and
Structural Archaeology, pp.39-46. Cambridge
University Press: Cambridge
Yoffee, N. 1985 Perspectives on 'trends toward social compkxity
in prehistoric Australia and New Guinea'. Archaeology
In W I a 20:41-9.
Old oarsman dip into past
Yarns and a
feW coldies
THEolder oanmen of lrtchhardt Rowcn Club blew
the foam from a fewcoldlaon the weekendat them
annual reunlon
The World War II vclcnns meet u c h year to catch up
wnh old mata. swap yams and org.nlv fundralxn for
themmmg F r .
Club prmdcnt Netl M c W l u m said theold Olnmm's
Unlon was formed after the warby men whowre club
mcmben before the m n l l m aaned
"The l d u was to gather m e m h who bad k l r
~nttnUll0n
mth thedub Interruptedby thewar." M r
McCallum u l d
"Slan loner. a member of the club n m 1925 was the
union S lint wcretarv and IS st~llas m l m . hold~ngthc
postton of unwn patmn
I
"He reclred uhononw x c r c u r v t w u r e r about a "car
a formdablc m r d '
ago
-
The unlon 1-1 v u r n t v d more than SBOOOwlth wheh
11bought a pawoar doubkxull and halfacorlar~our
squadxull for the club
*-
pevdent
*l
MccOUun 'lek1.
Okl OaSmen"
McArthy kenhe) ond wwrurer Kevm Bond at the weekend's r u m m m
The Glebe and Mid Western Weekly
June 1990
(S upplied by R J)