AUSTRALASIANHISTORICALARCHAEOLOGY.I 6. 1998
PatternandPurposein Historical Archaeology
i€,
fr|eS
GRAHAM CONNAH
ial
nc
errts
nd
rrh
ren5
of
he
Fr
rl.
re
tly
ted
)t)
fre
red
il4
;o f
cal
nd
he
5a
rnd
em
otil
for
4'
:o f
aIe
rde
€nt
ItO
4
crk
ild
€e
ln
be
ds.
€l)'
md
tel.
ro f
n€d
md
tt o
sed
H4
HA
Srrs
rce,
rce.
tr
md
r the
Thepractice ofarchaeologt inevitably requires that we constantly assessthe activities ofboth ourselvesand
others, as well as asking what thepurpose of such activities might be. In the caseof historical archaeologt in
Australia and New Zealand, there seemsat present some danger of losing sight of what it is that we are trytng
to do and why. In origin archaeologt is a scholarly discipline and yet, after three decsdes of growth in our
respectivecountries, historical archaeologt remainspoorly representedin academic institutions both in stof
and in undergraduate courses. In contrast, there has been a substantial increase in private archaeological
consulting and in state-funded cultural resource mqnagement activities. Consequently, in spite of some
remarkableexceptions,greatly increasedarchaeologicalactivity hasgenerally resultedin only modestadditiors
to the body of published material that in the end constitutesthe discipline. It is surely timely to askjust whqt'n)e
are contributing to the study ofarchaeologt as awhole, and indeed to society in general?
In my opinion, historical archaeologyis facing a crisis. Certainly
this appearsto be the casewithin Aushalia but I suspectthat the
situation is much the samein New Zealandand indeedthat the
problemsthat I wish to discussareprobablyto be found alsoin
other areasof the world where the archaeologyof later literate
societiesis practised. To someextentthe origins of this crisis
lie in the characterof the archaeologicaldiscipline as a whole
andin the substantialandongoingchangesthathavetakenplace
within it over the last half century,but the most important ofthe
issuesrelevant to my discussionare specific to historical
archaeologaitself. Furthermore, what I have to deal with here
is not the result of someextemalthreattlat needsto be identified
and neutralized but is the product of what we ourselveshave
beendoing over the yearsand ofthe reasonswe havehad for
doing thosethings. My intention in this paperis to try to identi$
thenatureofthe problems,asI seethem, andto makesuggestions
abouthow they might be addressed.
A perusalof Australianpublicationsoverthe last few years,
and to a much lesserextentthoseof New Zealatd.leadsme to
believethat I am not alonein my concem. In a briefpaper such
asthis it is impossibleto mention all of the critiquesofthe subject
of Australian historical archaeologythat have been produced
in, say,the lastfifteen years,but thereareseveralthat do require
attention. The first of thesemust inevitably be the Binningham
and Jeanspaperof 1983entitled 'The SwissFamily Robinson
and the archaeologyof colonisations'which claimed that
'Australian historical archaeologyis now at a stage of
developmentwhereit is essentialthat we pauseandaskourselves
"What arewe doing and why arewe doing it?"' @irmingham &
JeansI 983:3). The paperthen went on to advocatean explicit
problem-orientedapproach,ratherthanwhat was characterized
asdescriptivedatacollectionandsuggested
a colonizationmodel
around which such an approach could be structured.
Significantly, some readershad difficulty understandingthis
paperand in seeinghow researchprojectscould be constructed
on the basis of the suggestedmodel. Nevertheless,the
Birmingham and Jeanspaper sparkedoff a debateabout what
somesaw as the theoreticallyimpoverishedstateof Australian
historicalarchaeology,
a debatein which two papersby Damaris
Bairstowin 1984 (Bairstow 1984a;1984b),a paperby Tim
Murrayin 1985(Munay 1985),andapaperbyMurray andAllen
in 1986(Murray & Allen 1986)figured prominently.
My own concerns in those years were somewhatmore
pragmatic;in the samejoumal issue as the Birmingham and
JeanspaperI publishedone that has sincebecomeknown, to
the disrespectful at least, as 'Connah on stamp collecting'
(Connah 1983a). In it I identified what I saw as a dilemma
facing Australian historical archaeology,on the one hand the
urgentneedto record rapidly vanishingdata,but on the other
the necessifyto conductproblem-orientedresearchthat might
actually contribute to our understandingof Austalian history.
This paperhad originally beenwritten in I 98 I and,looking back
on it, it seemsto me that what I was seeingat that time was the
beginning of the now-familiar tensionsbetweenarchaeological
scholarshipon the one hand, and archaeologicalconsulting and
cultural resourcemanagementon the other; tensionsthat have
been at least a contributory factor leading to the crisis situation
that I have said now exists. Through the 1980sthe fastest
growing area of archaeological employment was in
archaeologicalconsulting,and it is interestingto note that by
1990 (actually published 1993) we find Judy Birmingbam
waming that 'isolation from mainsteam disciplinary studies'
was the consultant archaeologists' 'most critical occupational
hazard' (Birmingham I 990:20).
It was 1994,however,beforethe situation that now concems
me beganto be really recognized.It was left to Brian Eglofi in
an insightful paper entitled 'From Swiss Family Robinsonto
Sir RussellDrysdale:towards changingthe tone of historical
archaeologyin Australia', to wam that historical archaeology
might'have failed to makea sufficientintellectualcontribution
to issuesof interestto our contemporarysocief ' @gloff1994:a).
'One wonders', wrote Eglof if we needyet anotherheap of
artefacts from a pub, mill or working class neighbourhood if
that materialdoesnot yield informationwhich canbe focussed
upon matters that concern Australians' (Egloff 1994:3-4).
Sigrificantly,Egloffalsoidentifiedtwo of themajorweaknesses
of historicalarchaeologythat concemme in this paper:fust the
amountof archaeological
work that is neverproperlypublished
and,second,whathe called'a restricteduniversitybase'@gloff
1994:3). At aboutthe sametime asthe Egloffpaper therewere
alsoindicationsthat the historianswere gettingrestless.
Two paperspublishedunder the date 1993,but which did
not actually appearuntil 1995, are particularly relevanthere.
One by Sybil Jack commencedwith the threateningsentence:
'The value of historical archaeologyin Australia is currently
subject to new scrutiny' and towards its end warned that:
'Eventually the public will not pay for sheerantiquarianismwhat it wants is something which contributes to our
understandingofhow things arenow' (S.M.Jack1993:124,128).
Interestingly,this paper cited a meagre 17 sources,of which
only two were drawn from Australian historical archaeology,
the very subjectofwhich it was so critical. More importantwas
the secondpaper,by Ian Jack. This openedwith the statement:
'The impactof history on historicalarchaeologyis inescapable'
but went on to criticise historians as well as archaeologists.
Although archaeologists
had 'failed to makesufficientimpression
on the academy',historianswere 'not very aware of what is
being done in Australian historical archaeology'(R.I.Jack
1993:130).
Historical archaeologistswould do well to give careful
attentionto both ofthose papersbut evenmore so to two papers
only recentlypublished,n 1997. Both areby writers who are
now self-confessed
historians,but the fust of these,Qampbell
Macknight, made one of the earliest sipificant conffibutions to
Australian historical archaeologywith his work on Macassan
sites in the far north, and the other, John Mulvaney, has played
such an important role in the development of archaeology
generally in Austalia that many of us will continue to think of
him as p1fua6ily an archaeologist,albeit one with an unusual
breadth of vision. Macknight admitted that 'in general
"Australian history" as it is commonly taught includes little
considerationof archaeologicalevidence'(Macknight 199619)
and questionedwhy archaeologyremainedso marginalto the
study of Australian history both within universities and more
generally. Mulvaney, in his paper, reviewed the growth of
Australianhistoricalarchaeologyin the 25 yearsofexistenceof
the Australasian(formerly Australian) Society for Historical
Archaeologyfrom 1970to 1995. Commentingon the 1983call
by Birmingham and Jeansfor an explicit problem-oriented
approach,he madethe foilowing typically trenchantcomment:
Regrettably,in my opinion, the rising pre-eminenceof
the environmentalimpact statementas employer has
meantthat most fieldwork remainsat the "let's go and
see" level. Frequently that data is containedin
unpublishedreports,but seldomanalysedandpublished
with rigour, becauseconsultanciesdo not cover those
costs.(Mulvaney 1996:4)
All of the papersthat I havementionedso far, areconcemed
with Australian historical archaeology. I confessthat my
knowledgeof the equivalentNew Zealatd literature is sadly
deficient. However,judging from a paperby Ian Smith that is
dated1991but wasactuallypublishedin 1993,therearesimilar
problems in this country. Reviewing the developmentof
historicalarchaeologyin New Zealandfrom l92l to 1990,he
commentedon 'the relatively poor publicationrecord' (Smith
I 991: 10). Ofall thehistoricalarchaeological
excavations
carried
out in New Zealand,Smith found that:
While 78 percentofthe excavationshavebeendescribed
in somepublishedform, only 50 percenthaveanything
like full descriptionsof the artefactsand otherremains
that were recovered.and most of these were sites
investigatedwithin rwo projectsof the late 1960sand
early 1970s.More detailedstudiesof site contentssuch
asspecificartefacttypes,faunalremainsor site features
havebeenexceedingly
rare.(Smith l99l:9)
In addition,he pointedout that:
There have been very few attemptsby New Zealand
historicalarchaeologiststo presenttheir work to the wider
world. Lessthanfour percentofpublicationsin the field
have appearedin internationaljournals,and almost all
ofthesederivedfrom a singleprojecton the archaeology
of Chineseminersin CentralOtago.(Smith 1991:10)
Published
atthesametime asSmith'spaper,wasoneby Neville
Ritchiethat providedan introductionto historicalarchaeology
in
New Zealand. Significantly,he notedhow by the early 1980s
historicalarchaeologywas 'increasinglyfundedby govemment
agenciesfor management,
interpretation,
mitigationobjectivesas
opposedto university-sponsored
researchinvestigations'(Ritchie
1991:3).He also identified'a continuingneedfor detailed
comparativestudiesof artefactsand faunalremains,and further
materialculturestudies',work whichhe describedas'thenutsand
boltsandbuildingblocksofarchaeology'that 'mustproceedapace
with the developmentof new theoreticaland methodological
perspectives'
(Ritchiel99l :4).
Before my rather cavalier gallop through the literature,I
commencedthis paperby claimingthat inmy opinionhistorical
archaeologyis facing a crisis. Living as we do in sucha postmodernage,I shouldperhapstry to identifr at leastthe major
influencesthat may haveshapedthat opinion. I will not inflict
4
on you a detailed analysis of my childhood and cultural
background,as one politically correctspeakerdid at an ASHA
conferencea few yearsago,but I should,I suppose,indicate(to
usecontemporaryidiom) whereI am coming from. Briefly, 1998
will make 50 years since my first involvement with
archaeologicalexcavation,an activity that I have pursuedin
Eutope,Africa, and Australia and on many different types of
site. My first appoinfrnentas a professionalarchaeologist,in a
researchcapacityin Cambridgein 1959,was followed by ten
yearsin Nigeri4 in WestAfric4 where I worked at varioustimes
asa governmentresearchofficer, a museumcurator,a university
researchfellow, and a universityseniorlecturer.By 1971I was
in Australia, where I founded an archaeologydepartrnentat the
University of New England(n 1974),taughtalmosteverysort
of archaeologyimaginable at one time or another, and became
involved first with Australian prehistoricarchaeologicalfield
research,and from the mid 1970s onwards with historical
archaeologicalfield research(Connah 1977). However, I
frequently retum to various parts of Africa and four of my five
principal booksover the yearshavebeenon aspectsofAfrican
(Connah1975;l98l; 1987;1996),with only one
archaeology
being concernedwith Australian historical archaeology(Connah
1988). So, you can seethe situation:I am an excavatorfrom
way back,althoughI amgenerallyopposedto excavationexcept
as a last resort. I am also very much a writer, I even tolerate
editing,andI wasthe foundingeditorof AustralasianHistorical
Archaeologt.
Clearly, with the backgroundthat I have outlined, I regard
archaeologyas basicallya scholarlydiscipline. I am therefore
saddenedby the failure of historicalarchaeologyto makewhat
Ian Jack has called 'sufhcient impressionon the academy'
(R.I.Jack1993:130)andby whatBrian Egloffhasreferredto as
its'restricteduniversitybase'@gloff I 994:3). After nearlythree
decadesof developmentin our two countries,therearestill only
a handful of academicappointmentsin this subject and only a
few undergraduatecoursesbeing offered. In Austalia, La Trobe
University is the only onethat hasgiven the subjectthe attention
it deserves,althoughFlinders and in the near future perhaps
JamesCookalsodeserverecognitionoftheir efforts. Elsewhere,
SydneyUniversity, which was the main pioneer of historical
archaeologyin Australia,will soonhaveno specialistin the field
due to non-replacement
following retirements.The University
of New England is not much better off, and the Australian
National University has nobody who would claim any special
competenceto teachor supervisethe growing numberof students
who want to pursue the subject at both undergraduateand
postgraduatelevel. As for the rest of Australia's universities,
there seemslittle or no interest,althougha scatteringof people
involved in culture history, heritage studies, architecture,
geography,andsomeothersubjects,areactivein cognateareas.
I thoughtthat perhapsthingswere betterin New Zealand,until
I wastold the storyof what becameof an advertisedlectureship
in historicalarchaeologyat oneofits betterknown universities.
Herethen,is thebasisof my claimthathistoricalarchaeology
is facing a crisis. For unlessit can properly establishitselfin
university education,it seemsunlikely to achieve the wide
acceptance
by thetax-payingpublic at largewhich is surelyvital
to its continuance. The questionsthat we must urgently ask
ourselvesare: how has this situation come about and what, if
anything, can we do about it?
First, someblame must inevitably lie with archaeologists
working in otherareasofthe discipline, particularly in prehistoric
archaeology.They have had a tendencyto dismisshistorical
archaeologyas merely descriptivedata collection, lacking in
theory,and generallyunnecessary.In Australia this situation
has,I think, beenmadeworseby the hear,yemphasison huntergathererarchaeology,
which is in many ways a very specialized
field, andtheunhappylocationofsomeprehistoricarchaeologists
in university departmentsdominated by social and cultural
anthropologists.
Becauseofmy own backgroundandexperience,
'*tr
-;
::a.t
-+
=:
-a,:f;
:lF
:ry
a:E .
3e.
:-i
--'4
:
:
ers
]IDB
rd
I
.tni
! nrrr
:I:!:
:TE
::':E
u'&
a6:
-M!
-.
EIil
riE
ed
l'G
d
!@i!
iM
:t
:
:r:
ilbl
:@
ff6i
rufti
nn
r a.
i:&I
:E'0t!
:t' i.
m*
uixl:
E-Jf
--r
::r:n
:e ;
::r:
,:$:::1'
:r:
-4
i:j=
rual
;HA
e (to
.998
Iirh
din
s of
in a
- ten
mes
rsity
't*?s
t the
50rt
ame
Eeld
rical
er. I
fir'e
ican
one
meh
lom
cept
firte
.ical
grd
fore
*tat
m)"
toas
foee
mly
$'a
robe
nion
h2ps
rcre,
rical
6eld
rsity
tlian
rial
l€nts
and
rries,
qle
rure,
r€as.
ontil
ship
ities.
lory
:lf in
*ide
rital
ask
aL if
grsts
toric
rical
in
-u
nion
oteriized
giss
nral
ilce,
which I have outlined, I cannot acceptthe notion that historical
archaeologyand prehistoricarchaeologyare different species,
incapable of interbreeding. Working for so long on the
archaeologyof laterAfrican societies,I am no longerwilling to
draw a line acrosshuman time and call one part 'prehistoric'
and another'historical'. In the African context it is virtually
impossible to do, and sruely we must admit that in Australia
andNew Zealandit is sometimessingularly difficult. In short, I
would like to see archaeologiststake a far more open-minded
view of their disciplineand acceptthat all aspectsof the human
experienceareworth oru attention. In this matterI am apparently
not alone: n a 1997 interview Lewis Binford, renowned since
the 1960sasa theoristin the contextofprehistoricarchaeology,
had the following to say:
ln termsof goals,in terrnsof approaches,I don't think
there is any differencebetweenhistorical archaeology
and any other kind of archaeology. The subject matter
for study is the archaeologicalrecord and the patterning
in the archaeological
recordshoulddefineour problems.
(Thurman1998:54)
In practical terms, it is increasinglynecessarythat
archaeologicalappointnentsin both Austalian andNew Zealand
universitiesbecomefar morerepresentative
of the disciplineas
a whole thanthey are at present.
Someblamemust alsolie with the historians.Accordingto
Ian Jack:'Most teachersof Australianhistoryin theperiodsince
Europeansettlementhave had very little exposureto the use of
non-documentary
sources'@.I.Jack I 993: I 30). Thatbeingthe
case,it is hardly surprisingthat therehasbeenvery little pressure
from historiansfor the creationof academicpostsin historical
archaeolory.It seemsthat many historiansthink that archaeology
hasnothingnew to tell themthat mattersvery much. Indeed,as
I havearguedmorethat oncein print (Connah1986:41;1988:45; 1994:3,53), it is doubtful whether the value of historical
archaeologyshould be assessedmerely on the basis of its
contributionsto history. Important though historical sources
are, in the end our task as archaeologistsshould be to ask
archaeologicalquestionsofarchaeologicaldata,or as Binford
putsit 'look at what the pattemingis in the archaeological
record
and use that to define our problems' (Thunnan 1998:55). We
are surelyjust as entitledto ask what history can tell us about
archaeology,as historiansare to ask what archaeologycan tell
them abouthistory? Binford andothersweremakingthis point
yearsago(e.g.Binford 1983:104).
It is my belief, however,that the greatestpart of the blame
for historical archaeology'sfailure to develop properly as a
scholarlydiscipline must lie with historical archaeologists
themselves.The problem,as I see it, is that in spite of an
increasingamount of archaeologicalactivity, the body of
publishedmaterialin historical archaeologyhasremainedlimited
in both quantity and quality, so that its intellecfualimpact outside
the disciplinehas beeninsufficientto establishit as an areaof
scholarshipmeriting priority in academicappointmentsandother
developments.In a 1984editorialin thethenAustralianJournal
of Historical Archaeologt, I wrote of 'my conviction that a
disciplineconsistsvery largelyof its body ofpublishedmaterial'
and alreadyat that time I was complainingof the increasing
amount of archaeologicalwork, particularly by consulting
archaeologists,
that wasnot gettingpublished(Cormah1984:2).
In fact, it was my concemover this situationthat had led me to
found the Journal in the first place,the year before. I felt that
theprovisionof a quality arurualjoumal would providean outlet
for material that might not otherwise be published (Cormah
1983b:2).I wassimilarlyconcemedthatthefindingsofhistorical
archaeological
researchshouldreacha wider public, andit was
for this reasonthat I urote the booknow calledTheArchaeologt
of Australiab History, a book originally publishedin 1988but
significantlystill in print evenif it has sold more copiesin the
United Statesthan in Australia(Connah1988). Therehave,of
course,beenmany other archaeologists
as well as myself who
havestressedthe importanceof publication. ShanksandTilley,
for instance,have emphasizedthe 'cenfiality of publicationto
the scienceof archaeology'(Shanks& Tilley 1987:17). My
favourite passageon the subject,however, comesfrom a paper
on report writing and publication that Peter White, of the
Universityof Sydney,wrote for my 1983editedbooklzstralian
field archaeologt: A guide to techniques. White had the
following to sayaboutnon-publication:
Researchwhich is not availablefor othersto use does
not exist. The hard work, time and money which went
into the fieldwork and analysishavebeenwasted. Part
of our heritage from the past, along with some present
resoruces,havebeendestroyedas totally and uselessly
as if they had beendlnamited or bulldozedover a cliff.
(White1983:171)
Don't get me wrong here, this is not merely an attackon
non-publishingconsultingarchaeologists,althoughI do think
that they needformalprofessionalregulationand deservebetter
security of employment. There arethose other than consultants
who have (metaphoricallyspeaking)unpublishedskeletonsin
their cupboards,including myself. In fact, I have only ever
known one archaeologist
who could honestlyclaim that he had
publishedeverypieceofresearchthat he had everundertaken,
in the courseof a long and varied career@meritusProfessor
ThurstanShaw,formerly of the University of Ibadan,Nigeria).
Other than him, there must be very few that are guiltless:
publicationtakestime and seriousbacklogscan quickly build
up. My concern here is rather with those who have actually
publishedlittle or nothingat all. All of us, I arn sure,canthink
of instancesof largeprojectsinto which substantialfundingand
other resourceshave gone, without any published outcome
worthy of the name.
So, what can we do to improve the situation? Immediately,
I think that we all haveto increasethe volume of our published
material. [n the economicclimateof the 1990sthis is a publishor-perishsituation,in which historical archaeologyitselfis in
dangerof losingcredibilify,whatevermay happento someof us
asindividuals. To both stimulateresearchactivity andto broaden
the base of the available teaching literature, we need more
researchmonographs, augmentedjournal outlets, and a
systematicprogrammefor publishing relevant postgraduate
theses such as that provided for many years by British
ArchaeologicalReports. However,we alsohaveto take a long
hard look at what we are publishing,bearingin mind someof
the criticisms of our activities to which I have referred. We
would do well, indeed, to question what our efforts are
contributingto scholarshipas a whole, and to seeto it that our
work ls relevantto a wider audience.
Brian Egloff, for instance,has suggestedthat historical
archaeologistsare in a unique position to throw light on the
interactionof both Aboriginal people andEuropeansettlerswith
the Australian environment and with each other, and has cited
the example of work by Tim Murray in northem Tasmaniain
this connection(Egloff I 994:4-6 ; Murray I 993). It must surely
be the casethat the achievementsand failures of the forgotten
ordinarypeopleof AustraliaandNew Zealand,both indigenous
and settler,can only be properly appreciatedfrom the physical
evidencethat they have left us. In addition, the detailed
environmentalchangesofthe last two centuries,in our respective
countries,are anotherareaofhigh relevanceto contemporary
society on which we could provide new information. For
example,matterssuch as soil erosionand vegetationalchange
cannow be investigatedusingthe finer chronologicalresolution
madeavailableby 2r0Pbdating, as was recently doneby Gale,
Haworth.andPisanufor an eastemAustralianlake basin(Gale,
Haworth & Pisanu 1995; Beale 1997). Theseare just two
examplesof someof the many possibilites,for this is hardly the
placeto presenta detailedrecipefor future research.
Finally, researchpublication,howeverabundantandhowever
widely relevant will not be enoughon its own. We need to do
morethanmerelywrite esotericpapersfor intellectual audiences.
We must reach a wider audience,particularly those few of us
who teacharchaeologywithin the universities. In the latter case,
considerableefforts needto be made to seethat departuents do
something more than merely train further archaeologists.
Archaeolog5l,be it historical archaeologyor any other sort, is
just as good an educationalmedium as is history geography,or
philosophy, and departnents teachingthose subjectshave long
realizedthatsocietydoesnot needto be floodedwithprofessional
historians, geogtaphers,and philosophers. However, not only
do we need to teach the subject to as broad an audienceas
possible,including future school teachers,politicians, shopkeepers,and many others, but we need also to reach out to the
public as a whole, with popular books, with videos, with CDs,
on the Internet, by participation in field projects, in every way
that we can conjure up. We have to persuadeour respective
publics that New Zealand and Ausfialian cultural heritage is
actually the businessofarchaeologists and that archaeologyis
not just aboutthings that are very old or far away overseas.We
haveto demonstate in a public way that historical archaeology
cantell us a lot morethan we can leam from historicalrecords,
and can tell us different things, things that are both important
and interesting. According to TheSydneyMorning Herald for
8 September1997, when questionedby the press about the
discoveryofthe remainsofan earlynineteenth-centurydockyard
during building construction in Sydney, Meredith Walker
remarked:'Archaeologyis notjust for archaeologists,
andifit's
worthwhile digging it's worthwhils us 5eeingthat the infomration
discoveredis a public matter' (O'Brien 1997).
Note: This is basically the text of a paper read at the Annual
Conferenceof the Australasian Society for Historical
Archaeology,held at Queenstown,New Zealand,3-6 October
1997. Its length was deterrninedby the limit of twenty minutes
allowedfor eachpaper. The only changesmadein this published
form are someminor alterations to the text and tle addition of
referencesand a bibliography. The author wishes to thank
Neville Ritchie and two unidentified refereesfor their helpful
comments,which were of material assistancein the revision of
the paper.
BIBLIOGRAPI{Y
BAIRSTOW D. 1984a.The SwissFamily RobinsonModel: a
commentand appraisal,Australian Journal of Historical
Archaeologt,2:3-6.
BAIRSTOW, D. 1984b.Historical archaeologyat the crossroads:
an appraisalof theoretical considerations,Australian
Archaeologt, 18:32-9.
BEALE, B. 1997.How a bountiful land was laid bare,Sydney
Morning Herald, 8 March 1997.
BIRMINGIIAM, J. 1990[published1993].A decadeof digging:
Deconstructingurban archaeology,Australian Journal of
Hist orical Archaeologt, 8:13-22.
BIRMINGIIAM, J.M. & Jeans,D.N. 1983.The SwissFamily
Robinsonand the archaeologyof colonisations,Austr al i an
Journal of Historical Archaeologt, l:3-14.
District Historical Society Journal and Proceedings, 20:117-
27.
CONNAH, G. 1981.Threethousandyears in Africa: Man and
his environment in the Lake Chad region of Nigeria,
CambridgeUniversityPress,Cambridge.
CONNAH, G. 1983a. Stamp-collecting or increasing
understanding?The dilemma of historical archaeology,
Australian Journal of Historical Archaeologt, I : l5-21.
CONNAII, G. 1983b.Editori al,Australian Journal of Historical
Archaeologt,l:2.
CONNAI{, G. I 984.Editorial,I zstr ali an J ournal of Hist ori cal
Archaeologt,2:2.
CONNAH, G. 1986.Historical reality: Archaeologicalreality.
ExcavationsatRegentville,Penrith,New SouthWales,I 985,
Australian Journal of Historical Archaeologt, 4:2942.
CONNAH, G. 1987.African civilizations:An archaeological
perspectiveofprecolonial cities and statesin tropical Africa,
CambridgeUniversity Press,Cambridge.(JapaneseJanguage
edition,Kawade Shobo1993.)
CONNAH, G. 1988. 'Of the hut I builded': Thearchaeologtof
Australia b history, CanrbridgeUniversity Press,Cambridge.
(Paperbacke.lition, The archaeologt of Australiab history
lee3.)
CONNAH, G. 1994 [published 1996]. Bagot's Mill: Genesis
and revelation in an archaeologicalresearchproject,
Austr alasi an Hist orical Archaeologt, l2:3 -5 5.
CONNAH, G. 1996. Kibiro: The salt of Bunyoro, Past and
Present, British Institute in Eastem Africa. Memoir 13.
London.
EGLOFF,B.J. 1994.From SwissFamily Robinsonto Sir Russell
Drysdale: Towards changing the tone of historical
archaeologyin Australia,I ustr al i an Archaeologt, 39:l-9.
GALE, S.J.,IIAWORTI{, R.J. and PISANU, P.C. 1995. The
2r0Pbcbronologyoflate Holocenedepositionin an eastem
Australian lake basin, Quaternary Science Reviews
(QuaternaryGeochronologt),l4:395-408.
JACK,R.I. 1993[published1995].Historicalarchaeology
andthe
historian,Austr al asian Hist ori cal Archaeologt, I I : I 30-8.
JACK, S.M. 1993[published1995].Divorce or reconciliation:
History and historicalarchaeology,
AustralasianHistorical
Archaeologt, ll:'124-9.
MACKNIGHT, C.C.1996 [published1997]. Avoice from the
margin? Archaeology, the sea and Australian history,
Austr alasi an Hist ori cal Archaeologt, | 4:9-12.
MULVANEY J. 1996 [published 1997]. 'Musing amidst the
ruins...',Australasian Hist orical Archaeol ogt, I 4:3-8.
MURRAY T. 1985. Historical archaeologylosing its way?
Bairstow at the theoretical crossroads,Australian
Archaeologt, 20:l2l-32.
MURRAY T. 1993.The childhoodof Williarn Lanne: Contact
archaeology and Aboriginality in Tasmania,Antiquity,
67:504-19.
BINFORD, L.R. 1983. In pursuit of the past: Decoding the
archaeologicalrecord,Thamesand Hudson.
MTIRRAY T. & ALLEN, J. 1986.Theory and developmentof
historical archaeologyin Australia,Archaeologt in Oceania,
21:85-93.
CONNAH, G. 1975. The archaeologt of Benin. Excavations
and other researchesin and around Benin City, Nigeria,
ClarendonPress.Oxford.
O'BRIEN, G. 1997.Art museumdig unearthsa rare picture of
our past,SydneyMorning Herald, 8 September7997.
CONNAH, G. 1977. Wool, water and settlement:The
archaeological
landscapeof SaumarezStation,Armidaleand
6
RITCHIE, N.A. 1991 [published1993]. An introductionto
historicalarchaeologyin New Zealand,Australian Journal
of Historical Archaeolog,,,9:3-5.
tl7tod
Tia,
ling
5Fr'
lJ*nl
t'ul
lrv.
pr5,
L
a;ca
?b4
Fge
voI
ifp.
'ary
ESITI
tcct,
to d
r 13,
rscll
rical
:t-9.
. The
tEm
*ws
Jlhe
H.
lim:
]bal
rfte
rbry,
lfte
t
my?
dian
rtact
lm;tv'
atof
rylti4,
rc of
in to
-nal
SHANKS, M. and TILLEY C. 1987. Re-constructing
archaeologt: Theory and Practice, Cambridge University
Press,Cambridge.
SIVIITI! I.W.c. l99l [published 1993]. The developmentof
historical archaeology in New Zealand 192l-1990,
Australian Journal of Historical Archaeologt,9:6-13.
THURMAN, M.D. 1998. Conversationswith Lewis R. Binford
on historical archaeology,Ilis torical Archaeologt, 32Q):2&55.
WHITE, J.P. 1983. Report writing and publication, in Connah,
G. (ed.'S
Australian field archaeologt: A guide to techniques,
Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies,Canberra