unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: ngarrindjeri ... · unravelling gender constructs in...

146
Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri archaeology, fibre culture and masculinist constructions Diana Baric, B.Arch. 2006 Thesis submitted for the degree of Bachelor of Archaeology (Honours) in the Department of Archaeology at Flinders University, South Australia

Upload: buihanh

Post on 19-Jul-2018

230 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri ... · Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri archaeology, fibre culture and masculinist constructions

Unravelling gender constructs in

archaeology: Ngarrindjeri archaeology,

fibre culture and masculinist

constructions

Diana Baric, B.Arch.

2006

Thesis submitted for

the degree of Bachelor of Archaeology (Honours)

in the Department of Archaeology

at Flinders University, South Australia

Page 2: Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri ... · Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri archaeology, fibre culture and masculinist constructions

Table of Contents

Abstract ............................................................................ iv

Acknowledgements ..............................................................vi

Chapter 1 Introduction and Thesis Organisation ...........1

1.1 Thesis aims...................................................................................... 1

1.2 The Ngarrindjeri Nation .................................................................... 5

1.3 Thesis Organisation ......................................................................... 7

1.4 Conclusion ....................................................................................... 9

Chapter 2 Literature Review........................................10

2.1 Introduction .................................................................................... 10

2.2 Before Feminist Archaeology ......................................................... 11

2.3 Feminist Archaeology: An International Perspective ...................... 21

2.4 Feminist Archaeology: An Australian Perspective.......................... 26

2.5 Conclusion ..................................................................................... 31

Chapter 3 Methodology ...............................................34

3.1 Introduction .................................................................................... 34

3.2 Research Methodologies ............................................................... 35

3.3 The Negotiation Process................................................................ 37

3.4 Development of a Focus Group ..................................................... 41

3.5 A Collaborative Approach?............................................................. 43

3.6 Conclusion ..................................................................................... 43

Chapter 4 Archaeological Research in the Lower

Murray and Coorong Regions of South Australia ........45

ii

Page 3: Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri ... · Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri archaeology, fibre culture and masculinist constructions

4.1 Introduction .................................................................................... 45

4.2 Anthropologists and the Ngarrindjeri .............................................. 46

4.3 Archaeology in the Lower Murray region before 1960.................... 53

4.4 Archaeology and the Lower Murray region: post-1960s................. 60

4.5 Collaborative Archaeology in the Lower Murray............................. 68

4.6 Conclusion ..................................................................................... 72

Chapter 5 Discussion...................................................76

5.1 Introduction .................................................................................... 76

5.2 Weaving and the continuation of culture ........................................ 77

5.3 Tindale and early ethnography....................................................... 80

5.4 Professional archaeology ............................................................... 83

5.5 Conclusion ..................................................................................... 85

Reference List..............................................................87

Appendix A Ethics Application...................................119

Appendix B Consent Form and Letter of Introduction136

iii

Page 4: Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri ... · Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri archaeology, fibre culture and masculinist constructions

Abstract

This thesis provides a feminist critique of the methodologies employed by

archaeologists who have worked in the Lower Murray region of South

Australia to understand and interpret the Ngarrindjeri past. It does this

through examining the written archaeological record to determine how

weaving, an important aspect of Ngarrindjeri culture, has been

represented. As this thesis shows, weaving is present in South Australia

not only in the contemporary culture, but also in the post colonial period

and the archaeological record. However, it has not been a priority of

archaeological research.

This thesis shows that the South Australian anthropological record, which

often informs archaeological interpretations, is imbued with masculinist

and colonialist constructions of Ngarrindjeri culture. As a result of these

biases, much of the earlier archaeological research undertaken in South

Australia does not discuss or demonstrate the importance of weaving to

the Ngarrindjeri, and that only through adopting collaborative and

ethnographic approaches will this be rectified.

iv

Page 5: Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri ... · Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri archaeology, fibre culture and masculinist constructions

I certify that this thesis does not incorporate without acknowledgement any

material previously submitted for a degree or diploma in any university;

and that to the best of my knowledge and belief it does not contain any

material previously published or written by another person except where

due reference is made in the text.

Signed………………………………..

Diana Baric

v

Page 6: Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri ... · Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri archaeology, fibre culture and masculinist constructions

Acknowledgements

First and foremost, I would like to thank the Ngarrindjeri people of the

Coorong region for their hospitality and kindness during my many visits to

their country this past year. I am grateful to the members of the

Ngarrindjeri Heritage Committee for allowing me to undertake this project,

in particular Uncle Tom Trevorrow, Uncle George Trevorrow, Uncle Matt

Rigney and Uncle Marshall Carter for their advice, comments and

teaching. I thank Auntie Ellen Trevorrow for speaking with me about

weaving, and for her patience and enthusiasm as a teacher. I also thank

everyone I have met through the Camp Coorong Race Relations and

Cultural Education Centre and the Coorong Wilderness Lodge, as you

have all shown me kindness and made me feel welcome, particularly my

friends Gordon Rigney and Grant Rigney.

Many thanks go to my supervisors, Dr Lynley Wallis and Steve Hemming,

for agreeing to take me on in the first place, and for their support and

advice throughout the year.

Thanks also go to my friends for helping me to relax every once and a

while, and for not getting annoyed when I didn’t get in touch for long

periods of time!

Last but not least, I thank my partner Tim Ormsby, whose unwavering

support and patience really came in handy when I needed to talk (or rant)

about my ideas, and who always believed in me even when I couldn’t.

vi

Page 7: Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri ... · Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri archaeology, fibre culture and masculinist constructions

Chapter 1

Introduction and Thesis Organisation

1.1 Thesis aims Feminist critiques of archaeology, most notably that of Conkey and Spector

(1984), have argued that the notion of women’s invisibility in the

archaeological record is the result of assumptions made about the sexual

division of labour based on androcentric conceptions of the past. Feminist

archaeologists and Indigenous people are critical of such accounts as they

are not inclusive of perspectives and experiences that differ from that of the

traditional Western-male perspective of the archaeologist (Conkey 2005;

Hemming and Trevorrow 2005; Moreton-Robinson 2000; Smith 1999).

Conkey (2005) has argued that feminist and Indigenous archaeologies

intersect, as both advocate collaborative and inclusive approaches to

research that are far more likely to produce accurate representations of the

past than approaches that claim to be “objective”. Lippert (2005:64-65)

supports this view, claiming that while all archaeologists are bounded to

some extent by cultural and political sensitivities, feminist and Indigenous

archaeologists make their situated positions explicit.

South Australia is arguably where “scientific” and “objective” archaeological

research began in Australia, commencing with Hale and Tindale’s (1930)

excavation at Devon Downs on the River Murray. The primary focus during

this excavation was on stone tools, which were seen as markers of cultural

complexity, forming the basis of Tindale’s now debunked “cultural

1

Page 8: Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri ... · Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri archaeology, fibre culture and masculinist constructions

sequences” theory. The importance placed on stone tools during this time

was typical of a more general trend in archaeology, largely due to the fact

that stone tools were often the only thing that survived in the archaeological

record.

Throughout its history, Australian archaeology has been a predominantly

male-dominated discipline, primarily concerned with aspects of culture

“traditionally” perceived as male, most notably hunting and making stone

tools. Prior to the work of Bowdler (1976) and Meehan (1982) concerning

shell middens, women were largely “invisible” in the archaeological record,

as their activities were thought to be primarily associated with perishable

materials, such as plant fibres and food residues (Bird 1993:22-23).

In Australia, archaeologists have utilised early ethnographic and

ethnohistorical material for information regarding Indigenous people in the

past. These accounts were often problematic (McBryde 1978:2-3), as they

reflected contemporary attitudes towards Indigenous people that were racist

(see Meyer 1846) and furthered the colonialist notion that Indigenous

people were a “dying race” (see Berndt et al. 1993). When undertaking

such ethnographic work, early male researchers usually spoke with male

“informants”, as this accorded with the Eurocentric view that men were the

leaders in all aspects of cultural, social and spiritual life. Furthermore,

Indigenous women often could not tell men about certain aspects of their

culture, as gender restrictions prohibited certain types of knowledge being

passed on to members of the opposite sex (Jacobs 1989:76). As there were

2

Page 9: Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri ... · Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri archaeology, fibre culture and masculinist constructions

few female researchers in the early days of the discipline, this furthered the

view that women had nothing to contribute that could not be heard from

males.

Up until the 1980s, archaeological research in Australia was consistently

conducted without the consent or involvement of Indigenous people.

Consequently, many interpretations and representations of Indigenous

cultures and histories have been constructed from the perspective of non-

Indigenous researchers, without consideration of Indigenous views or

perceptions. This led to the traditionalist construction of contemporary

Indigenous people in the settled southeast as “unauthentic” or “without

culture” (Hemming 2002:56). Consequently, archaeology became the

discipline of choice for southern South Australia, as the notion of an

“extinct” culture resulted in an archaeological approach to Indigenous

research and heritage management. “Real” Indigenous people and their

culture were of the past, and could only be located through the

archaeological record. The notion of an “extinct culture” contributed to the

findings of the Hindmarsh Island Bridge Royal Commission, where the

Ngarrindjeri people of South Australia were labelled as “fabricators”

because their accounts regarding certain aspects of women’s culture were

not “supported” by the ethnographic records (Bell 1998; Hemming 1996;

Hemming and Trevorrow 2005; Trevorrow 2003). As a result of having had

no control and little opportunity for input into constructions of Ngarrindjeri

culture in the past, the Ngarrindjeri people were not considered to be

authorities on their own cultural and spiritual lives.

3

Page 10: Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri ... · Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri archaeology, fibre culture and masculinist constructions

This thesis examines whether methodologies used to interpret the

archaeological record in Ngarrindjeri ruwe (country) have been influenced by

masculinist and colonialist constructions. Through the use of Ngarrindjeri

weaving as a case study, it provides a re-interpretation of the archaeological

record by developing a feminist critique of archaeology in the Lower Murray

region in South Australia. The relative absence of Ngarrindjeri weaving from

the archaeological record is discussed in this thesis in relation to its

association with women and women’s tasks as a possible reason for its

omission. A one-on-one conversation with senior Ngarrindjeri woman and

expert weaver Auntie Ellen Trevorrow includes her views regarding weaving

and its importance in Ngarrindjeri culture.

This thesis also assesses potential masculinist and colonialist features of

the research methodologies and interpretations that underpin Australian

archaeology by critiquing the work of archaeologists in the Lower Murray

region, most notably Tindale, Mulvaney, Pretty and Luebbers. Furthermore,

through the process of collaboration and consultation with Ngarrindjeri

people, it contributes a positive example of research that is conducive

towards the improvement of relations between archaeologists and

Ngarrindjeri people. Post-modern, post-colonial and feminist approaches to

archaeological research recognise the need for collaboration between

Indigenous people and archaeologists in order to negotiate projects that will

be relevant to Indigenous communities (Conkey 2005:32-34; Smith

4

Page 11: Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri ... · Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri archaeology, fibre culture and masculinist constructions

1995:69). Collaboration with Indigenous people creates space for

Indigenous knowledge and views to be heard, ensuring a more accurate

representation of their culture.

1.2 The Ngarrindjeri Nation

Fig. 1 (Hemming and Trevorrow 2005:245)

Ngarrindjeri lands encompass a large expanse of territory. From Swanport

along the Murray River to Kingston in the east, and Cape Jervis in the west,

5

Page 12: Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri ... · Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri archaeology, fibre culture and masculinist constructions

the Ngarrindjeri are the Traditional Owners of the Lower Murray region, the

lakes, and the Coorong area of South Australia. Prior to European invasion,

this environment was characterised by rich plant, aquatic and animal

resources, and was conducive to a more sedentary lifestyle than that

experienced by Indigenous groups living in less resource rich areas

(Hemming et al. 1989:1).

Ngarrindjeri people have strong ties to their land, which was created by

their spiritual ancestor Ngurunderi (Hemming 1988:191). Ngurunderi also

established their laws and social practices which the Ngarrindjeri people

strive to uphold even today despite the devastating impact of colonisation

and the subsequent pollution of their lands and waters (Hemming and

Trevorrow 2005:246; Hemming et al. 1989:1).

The Ngarrindjeri first came into contact with European invaders in the

1830s, when overlanders brought sheep and cattle along the River Murray

to the new colony of South Australia. From that time onwards, relations

between Ngarrindjeri people and Europeans were characterised by

violence, displacement and governmental control in the form of ration

stations, missions and discriminatory policies (Hemming et al. 1989:1,

2000:338-39). The loss of their lands and the perceived “weakening” of

Ngarrindjeri culture strengthened the European perception that Indigenous

people were a “dying race” (Berndt 1940:165; Taplin 1879:42-3).

6

Page 13: Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri ... · Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri archaeology, fibre culture and masculinist constructions

Ngarrindjeri men and women have a long history of weaving baskets, mats,

fish traps, coffins and cloaks. At the time of European contact, Ngarrindjeri

people were making a variety of objects from sedges (Cyperus

gymnocaulos) which grew along the riverbanks and swamps of the Murray

River (Hemming et al. 1989:21). Their style of weaving can be described as

“coiled bundle” with a simple blanket or loop stitch (Giles and Everett

1992:46). Today, the Coorong Ngarrindjeri community still practice weaving,

and also teach their technique to groups attending the Camp Coorong Race

Relations and Cultural Education Centre. Renowned Ngarrindjeri weavers

include Ellen Trevorrow and Yvonne Koolmatrie (Parkes 2005).

1.3 Thesis Organisation Chapter 2 consists of a review of international and Australian feminist

archaeological literature. It demonstrates that although feminist archaeology

has influenced the discipline in Australia to a degree, it is not yet fully

integrated within the mainstream. The potential for intersectionality between

Indigenous and feminist archaeologies, as outlined by Conkey (2005:38-

39), is also discussed.

Chapter 3 explains the methodology used to conduct this project. It details

the process of consultation with the Ngarrindjeri Heritage Committee (a

representative body of the Ngarrindjeri community) and the Ngarrindjeri

Governance Working Party, and the preparation and formulation of a focus

group with members of the Ngarrindjeri community. The basis on which

7

Page 14: Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri ... · Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri archaeology, fibre culture and masculinist constructions

materials were selected and analysed for the purpose of background

research are also discussed, as are the limitations of the study.

Chapter 4 discusses previous archaeological work concerning Ngarrindjeri

weaving and basketry. It critiques work by archaeologists and early

anthropologists, as many the latter’s ethnographies have informed

archaeological studies in the region. In particular, this chapter focuses on

gender construction, in relation to the interpretation and presentation of

Ngarrindjeri weaving in archaeological research.

Chapter 5 presents the perspectives of senior Ngarrindjeri woman Auntie

Ellen Trevorrow as put forward during a one-on-one discussion. This

discussion centred on Auntie Ellen’s views as an expert Ngarrindjeri weaver

regarding her experiences in the practice and teaching of weaving, and the

ways in which weaving contributes to Ngarrindjeri concepts of social and

cultural identity. This chapter also determines whether archaeological

interpretations of Ngarrindjeri culture have been affected by masculinist and

colonialist constructions, and how these biases may have influenced

archaeological work in Ngarrindjeri ruwe. Finally, this chapter presents the

conclusions derived from the research process. It discusses the

implications of the results for Indigenous people and the archaeological

discipline, and suggests future directions for research.

8

Page 15: Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri ... · Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri archaeology, fibre culture and masculinist constructions

1.4 Conclusion This chapter has outlined the aims and rationale for a feminist critique of the

methodologies employed by archaeologists to interpret the Ngarrindjeri

archaeological record in the Lower Murray region. In order to determine

whether these methodologies and interpretations have been influenced by

masculinist and colonialist constructions, this thesis uses Ngarrindjeri

weaving as a case study, as this is an important aspect of Ngarrindjeri

culture that has not been a priority in archaeological research in South

Australia.

9

Page 16: Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri ... · Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri archaeology, fibre culture and masculinist constructions

Chapter 2

Literature Review

2.1 Introduction The integration of feminist theory within the discipline of archaeology is

known as feminist archaeology (Beck and Balme 1994:39). The concept of

a feminist archaeology arose from the writings of several female

archaeologists who argued that the theory, methods and practice of

archaeology were imbued with androcentrism, which resulted in gender-

biased interpretations of the past (eg. Lee and DeVore 1968; Thomas 1983;

White and O’Connell 1982). The self-reflexive and inclusive nature of

feminist archaeology was promoted by researchers such as Conkey and

Spector (1984) who argued that feminism could overcome these inherent

problems. Despite wider acceptance abroad, in Australia feminist

archaeology is still in the process of becoming part of mainstream

archaeology; its complete acceptance in Australia is in part hampered by

the predominance of processual theory. In their dealings with

archaeologists, Indigenous Australians are often disadvantaged as a result

of unequal power relations. The perceived status of archaeology as an

authoritative, scientific discipline that provides knowledge of Indigenous

culture and history has been valued more highly than that of Indigenous

people.

10

Page 17: Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri ... · Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri archaeology, fibre culture and masculinist constructions

2.2 Before Feminist Archaeology Prior to the 1960s, archaeological and anthropological research in Australia

was associated almost exclusively with State museums, and was

undertaken predominantly by male amateurs or professionals from other

disciplines such as geology and palaeontology (Bowdler and Clune

2000:27; McBryde 1986:14). The majority of researchers at this time did not

go beyond natural history collectors frames of reference (McBryde

1986:15), and their activities mostly consisted of amassing large

ethnographic collections for their institutions. At the close of the nineteenth

century, anthropology dominated this research space, as questions

concerning the origins of Indigenous Australians were thought to be best

answered by anthropology, rather than through material evidence and

archaeological investigation (McBryde 1986:13). This is in part due to the

fact that archaeology as a discipline was still in its developmental stage in

Australia and everywhere else in the world. Furthermore, McBryde

(1986:14) speculated that the colonialist assumption of Indigenous

Australians as a “dying race” put greater emphasis on anthropological work

to “salvage” knowledge that would otherwise be lost. Although senior

Indigenous people were often “interviewed” for such research due to their

knowledge and their perceived authenticity as “real” Indigenous people (Bell

1998:454-55), they had no control over the direction or the outcomes of

such research, and little or no benefit arose from such research for

Indigenous communities.

11

Page 18: Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri ... · Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri archaeology, fibre culture and masculinist constructions

Throughout the 1930s to the 1950s, archaeological approaches to

understanding the past were developed through the work of museum

curators such as Tindale and McCarthy. Tindale, employed by the South

Australian Museum, conducted the first rigorously scientific excavation in

Australia with Hale in 1929 at Devon Downs along the River Murray in

South Australia (Hale and Tindale 1930). Tindale also conducted extensive

ethnographic research with Indigenous people, on one occasion even

incorporating an Indigenous creation story into his interpretation of the

Kongarati Cave site in South Australia, an approach that was unusual at

this time (Tindale and Mountford 1936). McCarthy, based at the Australian

Museum in Sydney, undertook the first scientific excavation in New South

Wales at a site known as the Lapstone Creek rock shelter (McCarthy 1948).

As did most of their contemporaries in Europe, both identified cultural

groups defined by stratigraphic changes in stone tool typologies, and

invoked migration and diffusion to explain cultural change. Despite the

potential of this research to overturn colonialist perceptions of an

unchanging and static Indigenous population, there was little immediate

response to Tindale and McCarthy’s work (McBryde 1986:14-15; Tindale

1982:97). Most notably, Australia’s only archaeology department,

established in 1948 at the University of Sydney, continued to teach classical

and Near Eastern studies until the 1960s (Murray and White 1981:256). By

contrast, the university had earlier established the first anthropology

department in Australia in 1926 (Mulvaney 1980:96). The exalted position of

first Chair of Anthropology was awarded to Radcliffe-Brown (1926:31),

whose opinions regarding the value of archaeological research no doubt

12

Page 19: Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri ... · Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri archaeology, fibre culture and masculinist constructions

played a part in delaying the teaching of Australian Indigenous archaeology

at a university level:

Research will make little progress until we abandon these attempts at conjectural reconstructions of a past about which we can obtain no direct knowledge in favour of a systematic study of the culture as it exists in the present. (Radcliffe-Brown 1931:370)

During the developmental stages of Australian archaeology, women were

for the most part inconspicuously working in the background. Perhaps the

most well-known and documented female researcher at this time was

Bramell, who was employed by the Australian Museum as a scientific

assistant, a position senior to that of McCarthy. Through conversations held

with Bramell and McCarthy, du Cros (1993:242-43) found that Bramell

worked closely with McCarthy during the 1930s and 1940s as they

undertook extensive recording of archaeological sites; however,

subsequent publication of this work cited only McCarthy as author

(McCarthy 1938, 1940). After her marriage to McCarthy, Bramell retired

from her position in the early 1940s due to public service policies of the time

which prohibited the employment of married women (Bowdler and Clune

2000:29; du Cros 1993:242-43). Bowdler and Clune (2000:29) have

suggested that Bramell’s contribution to early archaeology in Australia was

far greater than has been acknowledged, as she continued to work with

McCarthy in the field even after her resignation from the museum. She also

co-wrote such publications as The Stone Implements of Australia (1946)

with McCarthy and Noone, an important work of its time and a significant

contribution to the classification of stone tool types.

13

Page 20: Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri ... · Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri archaeology, fibre culture and masculinist constructions

Other women conducted anthropological research during this time, most

notably Kaberry’s Aboriginal Women Sacred and Profane (1939), an

ethnographic study that focused on the daily activities and roles of women

within an Indigenous community. Kaberry’s work was unusual for its time,

as it represented one of the earliest attempts at gender study in Australia,

and for many years, remained the only one of its kind. As Bowdler and

Clune (2000:28) pointed out, Kaberry’s study proved to be “grist to the mill

of the later archaeologist”, particularly for those asking questions relating to

gender.

There were few female researchers working in South Australia before the

1960s. Catherine Berndt conducted anthropological research in association

with her husband, Ronald Berndt. Together they undertook ethnographic

fieldwork with members of the Ngarrindjeri community during the 1930s and

1940s, which eventually resulted in the publication of A World That

Was:The Yaraldi of the Murray River and Lakes (Berndt et al. 1993).

Despite Catherine Berndt’s later contributions to feminist anthropology

(Berndt 1965, 1970, 1981), Bell (1998:465-66) argued that her involvement

in the fieldwork undertaken in the Lower Murray region was minimal. Bell

also claimed that Catherine Berndt probably spent very little time with

Pinkie Mack, the only female Ngarrindjeri “informant” that the Berndts spoke

to during this time. As a result, Berndt et al.’s (1993) text contains very little

information concerning women, no doubt a result of masculinist and

14

Page 21: Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri ... · Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri archaeology, fibre culture and masculinist constructions

colonialist perceptions regarding the roles of women in society, and the

nature of gender restricted information (Bell 1998:463-68; Jacobs 1989:76).

A World That Was was used as a “definitive” source during the Hindmarsh

Island Bridge Royal Commission in 1995, during which Commissioner Iris

Stevens disregarded the claims made by members of the Ngarrindjeri

community that the building of a bridge linking Kumarangk (Hindmarsh

Island) to the mainland would be harmful due to the existence of certain

women’s traditions of a sensitive nature (Fergie 1996; Hemming 1996;

Ryan 1996). The Commissioner ruled these claims “fabrications”, as there

was “no evidence” in the anthropological record – including A World That

Was (Berndt et al. 1993) - that Ngarrindjeri women had their own spiritual

and cultural practices associated with Hindmarsh Island (Stevens

1995:299), allowing the building of the bridge to proceed. This ruling

strengthened the colonialist notion that information contained in the

anthropological records was more “reliable” than information from living

Indigenous people such as the Ngarrindjeri, and questioned the

“authenticity” of living Ngarrindjeri people (Hemming and Trevorrow

2005:252). The findings of the Royal Commission were later contradicted in

the Federal Court (Von Doussa 2001), providing a “strong basis for the

public vindication of the Ngarrindjeri” (Hemming and Trevorrow 2005:240).

Archaeologists wishing to understand past lifeways, in particular those of

indigenous peoples throughout the world, often utilise early contemporary

ethnographic works of both amateur and professional anthropologists to

15

Page 22: Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri ... · Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri archaeology, fibre culture and masculinist constructions

help interpret and explain archaeological data. Such early ethnographic

accounts were almost always written by researchers who were male,

middle or upper-class, western and white. As males, these researchers

often had greater access to male rather than female “informants”. They

were also influenced by contemporary notions of gender, in particular their

own situation in life as the “dominant sex” (Conkey and Spector 1984:4;

Moore 1988:2). As a result, such accounts had the effect of emphasising

the role of men in any given society, focusing on “male” activities as being

the most important past-times within any culture. This was best exemplified

by the findings of the Hindmarsh Island Bridge Royal Commission. Texts

such as A World That Was did mention Ngarrindjeri women, but they were

often discussed only in terms of their relationships with or to men (eg. as

wives, sisters, mothers), and were represented as being less important in

terms of subsistence, spirituality and social standing. Due to archaeology’s

reliance on early ethnographic accounts to explain and interpret data,

archaeology has inherited many of the gender biases found in such sources

(Conkey and Spector 1984:3). These biases led to assumptions being

made about the roles of men and women in the past that were stereotypical

and androcentric (Beck and Balme 1994:39).

The late 1950s and the 1960s signified an important stage in the

development of Australian archaeology. Professional archaeologists,

trained overseas at Cambridge, arrived in Australia and took up teaching

positions at various universities, heralding the beginning of the

professionalisation or institutionalisation of the discipline (Murray and White

16

Page 23: Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri ... · Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri archaeology, fibre culture and masculinist constructions

1981:256-57; Smith and du Cros 1993:8-9). Of these new “professionals”,

two of the most influential were Mulvaney and McBryde, who were

appointed to teach “prehistory”1 at the University of Melbourne and the

University of New England, respectively (Bowdler and Clune 2000:29;

McBryde 1986:17). It is important to note that at this time prehistory was

taught within history departments, signifying that the study of Indigenous

Australian culture was associated with the past and not the present. The

appointment of professionally trained archaeologists to universities at this

time represented a shift away from museums as the sole domain of

archaeological research in Australia, and the beginnings of the

standardisation of the discipline in terms of research methods and theory

(Moser 1995:79, 100). Greater financial assistance for the fledgling

discipline was provided by the formation in 1961 of the Australian Institute

of Aboriginal Studies, now the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres

Strait Islander Studies.

Mulvaney’s research during the 1960s centred around identifying cultural

changes and establishing the antiquity of Indigenous occupation in

Australia. Up until this time, colonial ideology and the need to justify

colonisation dictated that Indigenous Australians could only have lived in

Australia for a brief period of time (Smith and du Cros 1995:9). To test this

notion, Mulvaney excavated sites that would potentially yield evidence of

long occupation, mainly rock shelters and caves, such as at Fromm’s

Landing in South Australia (Mulvaney 1960; Mulvaney et al. 1964) and

1 The use of this term is offensive to Indigenous people, as it denies them a place in Australian history (Craven 1996:12).

17

Page 24: Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri ... · Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri archaeology, fibre culture and masculinist constructions

Kenniff Cave in Queensland (Mulvaney and Joyce 1965). Mulvaney’s work

during this period contributed substantially to the broad acceptance of

Indigenous occupation extending back to at least the Pleistocene era,

through the then recent advent of radiocarbon dating (see Mulvaney 1960,

1975; Mulvaney et al. 1964).

At the University of New England during the 1960s, McBryde lectured to

some of the first formally trained archaeologists in Australia. Many of these

early graduates were women, marking the beginnings of an influx of women

into a previously male-dominated discipline (Bowdler and Clune 2000:29).

During this time and throughout the 1970s, McBrydes’s research “blazed a

new trail in Australian archaeology” (Bowdler and Clune 2000:29). Her use

of field surveys and critical use of ethnohistorical research was instrumental

in the development of a more holistic view of social and cultural life in

Indigenous communities, particularly in the New England area of New

South Wales [(eg. McBryde 1974, 1978, 1979) Bowdler and Clune 2000:29-

30; Moser 1995:119, 121]. McBryde was also the first Secretary of the

Australian Archaeological Association formed in 1973, and advocated for

the legislative protection of heritage and research (Bowdler and Clune

2000:30). She also argued for better relations and consultation between

archaeologists and Indigenous people, and went on to train and support

Indigenous students at the Department of Archaeology and Anthropology at

The Australian National University in Canberra (Johnston 2004:8; McBryde

1985).

18

Page 25: Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri ... · Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri archaeology, fibre culture and masculinist constructions

The advent of cultural resource management in the late 1960s and early

1970s emerged from a need to provide better protection for Indigenous and

non-Indigenous sites. Archaeologists such as Sullivan, McBryde, Mulvaney,

Bowdler, Haglund, Birmingham and Bickford were instrumental in the

development of heritage management policies and government legislation

(Bowdler and Clune 2000:30-31; McBryde 1985, 1986:24; Smith and du

Cros 1995:11). In 1980 women such as Haglund were again conspicuous in

the formation of the Australian Association of Consulting Archaeologists,

and were heavily involved in the development of standards of practice

(Bowdler and Clune 2000:31; Haglund 1984; Sullivan 1980).

Australian archaeology in the 1960s and 1970s is often characterised as

the “cowboy era”, a term that referred to the Cambridge trained researchers

and their adventurous explorations of the archaeological record (Jones and

Allen 1978:144; Smith and du Cros 1995:9). The cowboy era coincided with

the introduction of processual theory from the United States, which aimed to

align the discipline of archaeology with the natural sciences by conducting

research that was objective, rigorous and systematic (Smith 1998:42).

Among those who promoted the use of processual theory at this time were

Megaw (1966), Mulvaney (1971) and Jones (1968). Overarching research

questions of universal relevance were developed and addressed in the

archaeological work of this period, relating to the arrival of Indigenous

people in Australia, the extinction of the megafauna and the changes

observed in stone tool technologies (Murray and White 1981:257; Smith

and du Cros 1995:9). Attempts were also made to relate the Australian

19

Page 26: Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri ... · Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri archaeology, fibre culture and masculinist constructions

archaeological record to that of Southeast Asia (Allen et al. 1977). Much of

this work was conducted in outback areas thought likely to yield old dates

and evidence of long occupation. As these areas were often remote and

rugged, they were perceived to be the domain of male researchers (Smith

and du Cros 1995:10), such as Mulvaney and Joyce’s work in northern

Queensland (1965) and Jones’ work in northern Tasmania (1966, 1968).

In 1968 the publication of the influential volume Man The Hunter (Lee and

DeVore 1968a) generated much interest in the study of hunter-gatherer

societies, of which Australia, with its living Indigenous population, was

perceived as being central (McBryde 1986:14). Much criticism has been

levelled at the model presented by Man The Hunter by feminist

archaeologists concerning its projection of contemporary masculinist

ideology onto hunter-gatherer lifeways (Beck and Head 1990:32-33). Lee

and DeVore (1968b:7) expressed the view that the hunting of mammals

was “the characteristic feature of the subsistence of early man”, and that

hunting is universally and consistently a male activity. In contrast, women

were portrayed as being associated with domestic activities that were

carried out close to camp, such as food gathering and child-rearing. The

publication of this volume led to the widely-held assumption that men

hunted and women gathered, and that evidence of men’s activities would

always be more predominant in the archaeological record than that

associated with the activities of women. As hunting is inextricably linked

with the manufacture and use of stone tools, which are archaeologically

ubiquitous, this visible aspect of male culture has been given a great deal of

20

Page 27: Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri ... · Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri archaeology, fibre culture and masculinist constructions

attention. Women’s activities, such as weaving and food preparation, are

linked with perishable materials such as plant fibre and food stuffs, and are

often assumed to be less visible in the archaeological record (Bird 1993:22-

23). However, Conkey and Spector (1984) argued that the difficulty in

locating women in the archaeological record was not due solely to exclusive

use of perishable materials, but rather as a result of false assumptions

made by the majority of male researchers regarding the sexual division of

labour. Archaeologists have found that women did hunt (Watanabe

1968:74) and several studies have shown that they also made stone tools

(Bird 1993:23; Gero 1991:164; Gorman 1995:87). Furthermore, if gender

specific tasks are difficult to identify in the archaeological record, then why

is it a simple matter to allocate tasks such as hunting and stone tool

manufacture to men and not women (Conkey and Spector 1984:6)? It was

the inability of archaeology to engage in meaningful and unbiased

discussion of gender-based issues that led to the necessary inclusion of

feminist theory within archaeology.

2.3 Feminist Archaeology: An International Perspective The inclusion of feminism and gender issues within archaeological theory

occurred in two phases. The first phase has been called the consciousness-

raising phase, where archaeologists - mostly female - concerned

themselves with reassessing existing male-biased models of interpretation,

and suggested the implementation of feminist theory within archaeology to

promote a more balanced and self-critical approach (Dobres 1995:51). The

second phase, dubbed the add women and stir phase by critics, was

21

Page 28: Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri ... · Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri archaeology, fibre culture and masculinist constructions

characterised by the use of gender as a research variable, as opposed to

the implementation of feminist theories to question the gender-biased

assumptions on which archaeology is based (Conkey and Gero 1997:415;

Dobres 1995:51-52; Knapp 1998:33; Spencer-Wood 1998:21).

The consciousness-raising phase was initiated by Conkey and Spector’s

(1984) groundbreaking article ‘Archaeology and the study of gender’, a

work that has often been attributed with inspiring archaeologists to consider

gender as a necessary area of research (Beck and Balme 1994:39; Roberts

1993:16; Wylie 1991:32). Although the impact of this article was not

immediately apparent, by the late 1980s and early 1990s an archaeology of

gender had firmly established itself as a valid area of research in North

America (Claassen 1992:1).

In their paper, Conkey and Spector (1984) were critical of the gender-

biased nature of archaeological interpretation, and used several detailed

case studies to show that women’s roles and contributions had either been

stereotyped or completely ignored. They demonstrated that contemporary

ideas regarding the division of labour had been universally applied to all

cultures - past and present - resulting in interpretations that were largely

androcentric and based entirely on Western and colonial perspectives and

values (Conkey and Spector 1984:4). As will be demonstrated in Chapter 4,

I argue this is also the case in the Lower Murray region.

22

Page 29: Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri ... · Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri archaeology, fibre culture and masculinist constructions

Conkey and Spector (1984:24-25) further urged archaeologists to

reconceptualise gender dynamics through the use of ethnoarchaeology and

a task-differentiation framework, which would cross-culturally highlight

dimensions of male and female activity patterns within social and spatial

parameters. Through this process, the authors wished to correct the

androcentric bias in archaeological theory and practice, and to encourage

archaeologists to be more self-reflexive and self-critical. The authors hoped

this would result in an archaeology that was culturally sensitive and gender-

inclusive, and could create meaningful interpretations of the past (Conkey

and Spector 1984:2).

Throughout the 1990s, archaeological papers utilising feminist theory slowly

began appearing in various countries, including Canada (eg. Moogk 1991),

the USA (eg. Gilmore 2005), West Africa (eg. Casey 1991), Denmark (eg.

Stig Sørensen 1991), New Zealand (eg. Parslow 1993) and Indonesia (eg.

Bulbeck 1998). Generally, work of this nature was published in specialised

books or conference proceedings dealing specifically with the subject of

gender, rather than in the general, journal based literature; even today

(2006) most of the major international journals have only published a small

number of articles written from a feminist perspective [see Conkey and

Gero (1997) for a complete listing].

Despite the widespread influence of Conkey and Spector (1984), the advent

of the second phase in the development of feminist archaeology was

characterised by the “gender attribution” or “add women and stir” approach.

23

Page 30: Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri ... · Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri archaeology, fibre culture and masculinist constructions

Dobres (1995:51-52) was critical of what she saw as a failure within

archaeology to follow the reassessment phase sparked by Conkey and

Spector (1984) with real developments, namely to implement feminist

theory within archaeological frameworks for method and practice. This

assertion was echoed by Wylie (1991:33), who claimed that although

archaeologists now understood the importance of gender-based research,

they had failed to take steps to overcome the methodological limitations

inherent within the discipline in order to address the problem. Feminist

interpretations were often simply applied to existing and typically

androcentric paradigms (Arsenault 1991; Damm 1991; Stig Sørensen

1998), causing some archaeologists to argue that androcentrism had simply

been replaced by gynocentrism (Dobres 1995:52; Knapp 1998:32-33).

A more inclusive and meaningful approach favoured by a number of

feminist archaeologists (eg. Conkey and Gero 1997; Dobres 1995; Moore

1991; Spector 1991; Wylie 1991) is to conduct gender-based research that

involves

“recognising and theorising the ways in which gender is a structuring

principle in the archaeological record” (Moore 1991:407). That is,

whereby feminist theory offers a different perspective to

archaeological research, one that involves a more subject-centred and

socially meaningful interpretation of the past (Dobres 1995:53).

This is best exemplified by Spector’s (1993) book What this Awl Means:

Feminist archaeology at a Wahpeton Dakota village, where Spector

24

Page 31: Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri ... · Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri archaeology, fibre culture and masculinist constructions

departed from a traditional interpretation of an archaeological site and

worked collaboratively with Native Americans to tell a more integrated and

personally detailed account of life as it might have been. Although

highlighting women’s roles and activities, Spector (1991:397-403) also

examined relationships between genders as she constructed a fictitious

account of one artefact, a bone awl, describing its history and symbolism in

relation to a Wahpeton woman who owned and used it. However, whilst

being generally well-received (Spector 1998:54), this creative approach to

archaeological analysis was criticised for encouraging the creation of

interpretations that are nothing more than story-telling, more susceptible to

influence by the writer’s biases than traditional archaeological approaches

(Hope 1998:244). Hope (1998:239) noted that Spector was greatly assisted

by the fact that her chosen site dated to the nineteenth century, and

therefore had an abundance of related written and verbal sources, asserting

that “few archaeologists have the luxury of such a wealth of additional

information”. She argued that the kind of interpretation offered by Spector

could allow archaeologists to make up “elaborate stories”, that may

“underpin many religious, political or nationalistic ideologies” (Hope

1998:239). Such criticisms hold similarities to those previously levelled at

post-processualism (eg. Binford 1989).

Nevertheless, the real importance of Spector’s work lies in her postcolonial

and collaborative approach to working with Native American people,

incorporating their views and knowledge within her interpretation. Spector’s

justification for such an approach was her acknowledgment of the role

25

Page 32: Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri ... · Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri archaeology, fibre culture and masculinist constructions

academic disciplines such as archaeology and anthropology played in

omitting Native American voices from portrayals of their past and that this

could be compared to the experiences of women:

Their exclusion from the production of academic knowledge about Indian histories and cultures resulted in the same types of distortions and stereotyping as the exclusion of women had in terms of understanding gender historically and cross-culturally. (Spector 1991:394)

Thus, by using a feminist approach, Spector demonstrated that working

collaboratively could change the outcome of the research and produce

interpretations that are inclusive of more than one viewpoint. As Klein

(1983:94-95) wrote, collaboration is an interactive process, one “without the

artificial object/subject split between the researcher and researched”, with

the potential to end the exploitation that can occur through so-called neutral

and objective research.

2.4 Feminist Archaeology: An Australian Perspective Indigenous criticisms of archaeological practice (eg. Langford 1983;

Langton 1981; Hemming and Trevorrow 2005; Johnston 2004; Watson

2002) and the advent of self-reflexivity through the introduction of

postprocessual and post-modernist theories have brought about many

changes in Australian archaeology. Archaeologists have learned to

negotiate and work collaboratively with Indigenous communities to ensure

that research is conducted in the interests of the community, and that their

rights to ownership of land, cultural material and intellectual property are

respected at all times (see for example Clarke 2002; Davidson et al. 1995;

26

Page 33: Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri ... · Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri archaeology, fibre culture and masculinist constructions

Field et al. 2000; Greer 1996; Haglund and Associates 2000; Harrison

2002; Hemming et al. 2000; McIntyre-Tamwoy and Harrison 2004; Meehan

1982; Pardoe 1990; Ross et al. 1996; Smith et al. 2003; Somerville et al.

1994; Wallis et al. 2004a, 2004b). They have also learned to accept

Indigenous ownership and control over ancestral remains, or old people

(Pardoe 1990, 1994).

Archaeology is no longer a male-dominated profession, as women

constitute about half of the consultant archaeologists in Australia, and hold

positions at universities and museums, although men still dominate in

senior positions in all areas but cultural resource management (Smith and

du Cros 1995:12). Archaeological research in Australia has shifted away

from “man the hunter” models and focus on stone tools, as epitomised in

publications such as Man The Hunter (Lee and De Vore 1968) and Stone

Tools As Cultural Markers (Wright 1977). In South Australia, the majority of

early archaeological work concerning the Ngarrindjeri has been conducted

by men (Luebbers 1978; Mulvaney 1960; Mulvaney et al. 1964; Pretty

1977; Hale and Tindale 1930; Tindale and Mountford 1936). This research

argued that compared to other regions of Australia, few stone tools were

located in the Lower Murray region, indicating that alternative technologies

must have been employed (Hale and Tindale 1930:204-7; Luebbers

1978:276-308; Mulvaney et al. 1964:491), though this was probably a result

of unrepresentative site sampling. However, research into these alternative

technologies has not been a priority of archaeology. Luebbers (1978)

observed and described wooden tools in his study of coastal and swamp

27

Page 34: Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri ... · Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri archaeology, fibre culture and masculinist constructions

regions of southeast South Australia, and weaving techniques were

discussed in the Swan Reach mission site project (Hemming et al. 2000).

While it has often been argued that plant material does not survive well in

the archaeological record (Beck et al. 1989:3; Bird 1993:22-23), evidence of

plant remains has been found in this region (Hale and Tindale 1930:177-79;

Sheard et al. 1927:173; Tindale and Mountford 1936:489-93).

Like elsewhere in the world, the acceptance of feminist archaeology as a

valid area of research in Australia has been somewhat slow to develop, due

in part to the predominance of male archaeologists until recent times (Beck

and Balme 1994:40; Smith and du Cros 1995:8-9). Despite isolated early

attempts to increase women’s visibility in the archaeological record (eg.

Bowdler 1976; McBryde 1984; Meehan 1982; Schrire 1982), an established

archaeology of gender did not appear within Australia until the 1990s,

largely due to a steadily growing interest in the subject stimulated by

Conkey and Spector’s (1984) influential paper, an influx of women entering

the discipline, and by the negative experiences of many female

archaeologists working in a predominantly male workplace (Beck and

Balme 1994:40; Smith and du Cros 1995:8). These factors prompted the

publication of Beck and Head’s (1990) landmark article ‘Women in

Australian prehistory’, that called for greater interaction between feminism

and archaeological theory and practice, particularly in the area of

Indigenous archaeology.

28

Page 35: Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri ... · Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri archaeology, fibre culture and masculinist constructions

Several feminist archaeologists have argued that feminist research is still

largely excluded from mainstream archaeological debate (eg. Beck and

Balme 1994; Beck and Head 1990; Smith 1998). Smith (1998:42-43) has

attributed this marginalisation to the prevalence of processualism in

Australian archaeology, and its identification as an objective, authoritative

science. Processualist archaeology assumes that “the archaeological

record exists ‘naturally’, rather than as a construct of archaeological

research” (Smith 1998:42) and that the objectivity of scientific enquiry

ensures that no biases, cultural or gender-based, can occur, rendering self-

reflexive analysis and critical self-assessment largely unnecessary (Pardoe

1994:11). The objectivity of processualism is incompatible with the notion of

situated knowledge that is acknowledged by feminist theory (Haraway

1988:592). The authoritative nature of processualist archaeology assures

that its interpretation of the archaeological record will be valued more highly

than any contrary claims made by minority groups, including indigenous

people (Smith 1998:42). It is precisely this authoritative and colonial aspect

of archaeology that Indigenous Australians have criticised as being

damaging to issues of control over their heritage and culture (Langford

1983).

Beck and Head (1990) argued that feminist archaeologists must be aware

of biases within feminism, and that issues raised by white feminists may not

be relevant to black women, for whom issues relating to “race” and ethnicity

may be more pressing than issues of gender:

All our interpretations of Aboriginal activity, whether through archaeological or historical evidence, are embedded as much in the matrix of race relations as that of gender relations. (Beck and Head 1990:31)

29

Page 36: Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri ... · Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri archaeology, fibre culture and masculinist constructions

This criticism of white feminism is repeated by the work of black feminists

such as hooks (1984) who argued that feminist literature has been largely

written by white academic women, claiming to represent the concerns of all

women. In actuality they do not write from the same position as Indigenous

people, and therefore cannot represent the knowledge and experiences of

Indigenous women (hooks 1984:5; Moreton-Robinson 2000:74-75).

Haraway (1988) and Conkey (2005) argued that all knowledge is situated,

and that archaeologists need to be self-reflexive and aware of their position

in life, as this impacts on any form of interpretation. As stated by Smith and

Wobst (2005:5), archaeology is “solidly grounded in Western ways of

knowing the world”, and privileges Western views above those of

Indigenous cultures; this is also true of some forms of feminist theory

(hooks 1984:15; Moreton-Robinson 2000).

Some feminist archaeologists have expressed concern regarding a

perceived minimal response from mainstream Australian archaeology to

issues raised by feminism (Casey 1998:68; Meehan 1993:261; Smith

1998:41; Smith and du Cros 1995:16). These concerns have in part been

answered by the growing number of feminist papers appearing in Australian

archaeological publications. The majority of publications incorporating

feminist archaeology in Australia continue to appear in conference

proceedings, particularly the Women in Archaeology Conference series

(Beck and Balme 1995; Casey et al. 1998; du Cros and Smith 1993).

Feminist articles have appeared in mainstream journals such as Historical

Archaeology (eg. McGrath 1990), Australian Archaeology (eg. Beck and

30

Page 37: Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri ... · Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri archaeology, fibre culture and masculinist constructions

Balme 1994; Bowdler and Clune 2000; McDonald 1992), The Artefact (eg.

Gaughwin 1984; Willis 2003), Aboriginal History (eg. Hallam 1991) and

Australian Feminist Studies (eg. Beck and Head 1990). None to date have

appeared in Archaeology in Oceania, Australian Aboriginal Studies or

Queensland Archaeological Research.

Feminism has had little impact on South Australian archaeology. Much of

the work addressing the Kumarangk issue has discussed colonialist and

masculinist biases within the archaeological and anthropological records in

this state from an anthropological perspective (Bell 1998; Fergie 1996;

Hemming 1996; Hemming and Trevorrow 2005; Lucas 1996). Collaborative

projects have been undertaken between archaeologists and the Ngarrindjeri

community (Anderson 1997; Harris 1996; Hemming et al. 2000; Roberts

2001; Wilson 2005) and whilst not expressly feminist, these projects have

acknowledged and included Ngarrindjeri women. However, more work

needs to be conducted to deconstruct the masculinist and colonialist

ideologies that exist within the framework of archaeological interpretation,

as these have led to the exclusion and misrepresentation of Ngarrindjeri

women, as well as the Kumarangk affair.

2.5 Conclusion As demonstrated by the ever-increasing number of publications discussing

gender issues, there is a growing international awareness of the need for a

more self-reflexive approach towards archaeological theory and practice.

Such self-reflexivity is a main proponent of post-structural and post-modern

feminists theories, and of postcolonial approaches to research. In Australia,

31

Page 38: Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri ... · Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri archaeology, fibre culture and masculinist constructions

feminist theories have had a marked influence on archaeological

approaches to research, but are still not fully part of the accepted

mainstream owing to their incompatibility with the prevalent processualist

approach to archaeology. The authoritative and objective nature of

processualist theory prevents its practitioners from engaging in self-critical

theoretical debate, as processualists argue that the adoption of an objective

stance ensures interpretations of the past that are without bias.

Nevertheless, there is a need for greater self-reflexivity in Australian

archaeology, as many feminist archaeologists and Indigenous people are

critical of accounts of the past that are not inclusive of the beliefs and

experiences of all concerned, be they women, Indigenous, ethnic or anyone

whose perspective differs from that of the traditional Western-male

perspective of the archaeologist. It is precisely this point that feminist

archaeology seeks to address, as a collaborative and inclusive approach is

far more likely to produce an accurate representation of the past than one

that claims to be objective. Therefore, more archaeological work must be

done from a feminist perspective in order to engage mainstream

archaeology in critical debate.

The purpose of this thesis is to contribute to the critical self-analysis of

archaeology advocated by feminist archaeologists aiming to create a more

inclusive discipline that understands the potential for bias. This approach is

particularly relevant in Australia, as Indigenous people are constantly at a

power disadvantage in their dealings with archaeologists, and their voices

32

Page 39: Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri ... · Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri archaeology, fibre culture and masculinist constructions

are often not included in archaeological representations of their culture and

past. The consequences of this imbalance of power are still felt today, as

much of what is publicly known about contemporary Indigenous people

often has its origins in archaeology, and has an impact on relations

between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. Collaborative

research, as advocated by feminist archaeologists, aims to incorporate

Indigenous voices and concerns into views of the past. By working in

collaboration with the Ngarrindjeri people of South Australia, I will conduct a

more inclusive archaeology, and address any biases in the archaeological

record that relate to the history and cultural practice of Ngarrindjeri fibre

work.

33

Page 40: Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri ... · Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri archaeology, fibre culture and masculinist constructions

Chapter 3

Methodology

3.1 Introduction As this thesis provides a feminist critique of archaeological methodologies

used to interpret the Ngarrindjeri past, it is imperative that I clearly identify

my position and my approach to this project. I am a young, female, non-

Indigenous researcher, situated within the Western and scientific discipline

of archaeology. As such, I have had to deconstruct2 a great deal of my

“traditional” archaeological training in order to work in consultation with

Indigenous people. The development of an anti-colonial3 stance has trained

me to be more self-reflexive and self-critical in my thinking and in my

research practices. It has also taught me to be more respectful and

culturally appropriate towards Indigenous people.

The process of deconstruction is presented in this chapter as an underlying

component of the methodology utilised to conduct this project. Methodology

is also described in terms of the research position adopted to review

previous archaeological literature. Finally, the process of negotiation

undertaken with the NHC as a reference group is also discussed,

particularly regarding the protection of Ngarrindjeri knowledge and research

materials and the formation of a focus group, although the focus group

meeting did not eventuate.

2 As used by Smith (1999) and Conkey (2005). 3 An ‘anti-colonial’ approach is often used by Indigenous academics such as Smith (1999) to deconstruct colonial discourse.

34

Page 41: Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri ... · Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri archaeology, fibre culture and masculinist constructions

3.2 Research Methodologies From the developmental stages of this project, it was clear that a critical

and self-reflexive approach was needed in order to address the concerns

expressed by Indigenous peoples regarding the predominantly colonialist

nature of non-Indigenous archaeological research methodologies (Langford

1983; Moreton-Robinson 2000; Smith 1999). Of particular concern is the

inequality of power relations apparent between the researcher and the

researched, which have been described by Smith (1999:14) as paralleling

that of coloniser and colonised.

This thesis is also a critique of the construction of gender in archaeological

representations of Ngarrindjeri culture. As such, previous archaeological

and early anthropological research (including books, journal articles,

reports, etc.) concerning the Ngarrindjeri are critiqued and analysed from a

post-structural feminist perspective. This analysis forms the basis of the

research, as it provides both the historical and contextual framework for this

study. The early anthropological record will also be critiqued from a feminist

perspective, as this thesis argues that gender constructions inherent in the

early ethnography have informed archaeological interpretations of the

Indigenous past.

Post-structural feminist theory emphasises the shifting and complex nature

of power and meaning, stressing that all knowledge is situated and changes

according to context (Beasley 1999:91; Brooker 2003:205; Haraway 1988).

It also seeks to understand power relations between researcher and

35

Page 42: Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri ... · Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri archaeology, fibre culture and masculinist constructions

researched, and how these relations impact on what is “known” about

Indigenous people through archaeology. The dismissal of a centralised

notion of meaning is vital for the deconstruction of archaeological versions

of knowledge, and for the creation of space for Indigenous voices to be

heard in the telling of their history and culture. Post-structuralist feminists,

together with black feminists (ie. those concerned with issues of race and/or

ethnicity), share the view that the accounts and experiences of women

cannot be grouped into a single unified category (Beasely 1999:101). Both

forms of feminist thought recognise diversities of identity and forms of

power, and are therefore inclusive of perspectives that are at odds with

mainstream archaeology. This is in accordance with the aims of this thesis.

Through the combination of post-structural feminism with the perspectives

of senior Ngarrindjeri women, this thesis adopts an intersectional

archaeological approach, as advocated by Conkey (2005). Conkey has

stated that archaeological methodologies and theories need to be

reconceptualized in order for Indigenous people to take control of the

research process, and to ensure the protection of Indigenous knowledge

and material. Potentially, this could correct imbalances of power that exist

between archaeologists and Indigenous peoples (Conkey 2005:39-40).

Such collaborative approaches to Australian based research have become

more frequent in recent years (see for example Clarke 2002; Davidson et

al. 1995; Field et al. 2000; Greer 1996; Harrison 2002; Hemming et al.

2000; McIntyre-Tamwoy and Harrison 2004; Meehan 1982; Pardoe 1990;

36

Page 43: Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri ... · Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri archaeology, fibre culture and masculinist constructions

Ross et al. 1996; Smith et al. 2003; Somerville et al. 1994; Wallis et al.

2004a, 2004b).

3.3 The Negotiation Process As a non-Indigenous researcher, it was imperative that I negotiate a

research agenda that was of use not only to myself and to the discipline of

archaeology, but also to the Ngarrindjeri Nation. Through a process of

consultation with my supervisors and the NHC, I endeavoured to establish

research objectives that reflected the interests of the Ngarrindjeri

community. I also sought to ensure the protection of Ngarrindjeri knowledge

and to be respectful of Ngarrindjeri values at all times.

I was introduced to some of the senior members of the Ngarrindjeri

community by Steve Hemming4 and Dr Lynley Wallis5 during a field trip in

August 2005. After initial discussions with Steve and Lynley, who both

agreed to supervise the proposed thesis, a broad research framework was

developed. These ideas were presented to the NHC for consideration. The

NHC expressed interest in the project and approved of my involvement, on

the basis that I would be co-supervised by Steve, and that a more detailed

presentation of the project would take place once it had undergone further

development.

4 Steve Hemming is a lecturer in English and Cultural Studies at Flinders University. Steve has developed a long-term working relationship with the Ngarrindjeri people. He has worked with the Ngarrindjeri on a number of issues, dealing with archaeology, Native Title and cultural heritage. 5 Dr Lynley Wallis is a lecturer in Archaeology at Flinders University. For several years, she has worked collaboratively with the Woolgar Valley Aboriginal Corporation in northwest Queensland on matters such as archaeology, cultural heritage and Native Title.

37

Page 44: Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri ... · Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri archaeology, fibre culture and masculinist constructions

In order to work ethically with the Ngarrindjeri, Steve and Lynley instigated

a reading group in which relevant journal articles and books were read as

preparation, and then discussed with other members of the group. Apart

from myself and my supervisors, these groups were also attended by Kelly

Wiltshire, a fellow honours student also working with the Ngarrindjeri, and

Chris Wilson, a Ngarrindjeri archaeologist who had recently worked with his

community to complete his honours thesis.

As an honours student with no experience of working with Indigenous

people, one of the goals of these meetings was to re-conceptualise many of

my Western-based notions regarding archaeological method and practice,

and the ways in which archaeology as a discipline affects Indigenous

people. Smith’s Decolonizing Methodologies (1999) was put forward by my

supervisors as an ideal framework by which to achieve this. Although

written specifically for Indigenous researchers, it is nevertheless a valuable

resource for non-Indigenous academics seeking to understand how

Western research methodologies are viewed by Indigenous people.

Also discussed at the meetings was the process of gaining ethics approval

from the Social and Behavioural Research Ethics Committee (SBREC) at

Flinders University. SBREC ethics approval is required of any project

undertaken at the University that involves “human subjects”. Projects that

are likely to involve Indigenous people are further required to submit a copy

of the ethics application to Yungorrendi First Nations Centre for Higher

Education and Research for review.

38

Page 45: Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri ... · Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri archaeology, fibre culture and masculinist constructions

The ethics application was written and re-written several times, as part of

the ongoing process of deconstruction. Much of the language and

terminology used in my previous archaeological writings had to undergo a

process of change. A depersonalised, objective and colonial style of writing,

whilst appropriate from a Western scientific perspective, is inappropriate

from a feminist and anti-colonial perspective. The use of such language

distances the writer from his or her research, and does not identify the

position of the researcher (Haraway 1988:587).

Similarly, some of the language utilised by the SBREC in their ethics

application and consent forms was considered inappropriate and potentially

offensive to Indigenous people. Terms such as “participant” and “subjects”

have colonialist overtones, and were substituted by more culturally sensitive

terms, such as “contributor”. Also altered from the original form was the

term “interview”, as this infers an unbalanced power structure between the

researcher and the Indigenous person. These interactions are best

described as discussions, and were changed accordingly in the ethics

application.

Meetings with the Ngarrindjeri community occurred throughout the duration

of this research. A draft of the ethics application (Appendix A) and a more

detailed outline of the project was presented at a meeting to Uncle George

Trevorrow, Ngarrindjeri Elder and chairperson of the NHC, in March 2006.

In May 2006, a final draft of the ethics application was discussed with

39

Page 46: Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri ... · Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri archaeology, fibre culture and masculinist constructions

members of the NHC. At this meeting, two Elders expressed concerns

regarding the direction of the project. Uncle Matt Rigney spoke of the

separation of “women’s business” and “men’s business” as being

constructions of Western thought, and the consequences this has had for

the Ngarrindjeri people. Uncle Marshall Carter expressed his wish that no

more research would be conducted on the Ngarrindjeri, but that the focus of

research would shift to non-Indigenous people, in order to redress the

imbalance. These concerns were addressed by clarifying the aims of the

project, as I had not initially articulated these clearly.

However, the thoughts expressed by the Elders at this meeting caused me

to fully appreciate my position. As a junior, non-Indigenous researcher, I am

unknown to the Ngarrindjeri community. I do not have a long-term

relationship based on trust with the Ngarrindjeri on which to draw, and

therefore my acceptance in regards to this project is due to the collaborative

nature of the project, and the involvement of my supervisors. The project

must reflect the interests of the Ngarrindjeri, and be useful and beneficial to

the Ngarrindjeri community. Any concerns voiced by members of the

community must be addressed, as it is their culture and their history that is

being discussed.

The experience of meeting and discussing this project face to face with

senior Ngarrindjeri was an important step in the progression towards a self-

reflexive position, and a valuable aspect in the development of an anti-

colonial stance.

40

Page 47: Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri ... · Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri archaeology, fibre culture and masculinist constructions

After this meeting, letters of support were signed by senior members of the

Ngarrindjeri community. The ethics application was submitted, and ethics

approval was granted by the SBREC on the 28th June 2006.

3.4 Development of a Focus Group The term focus group describes a group of people who are brought together

to discuss their feelings regarding particular topics (Bernard 2006:232). In

this instance, the focus group was formulated as a “semi-structured

interview” (more accurately described as a discussion) involving several key

people. A semi-structured approach was the most appropriate as it involves

developing a series of topics that can be discussed, but allows the

contributors greater freedom in their responses, and to follow new leads as

they wish (Bernard 2006:212). This approach also ensures that the typical

imbalance of power between “interviewer” and “interviewee” does not apply,

as the discussion is not directed by one person asking specific questions

(Bernard 2006:212), and allows the positions of senior Ngarrindjeri people

to be respected.

Owing to the numerous activities surrounding a reburial ceremony that took

place in early September the focus group, which was loosely scheduled to

occur at that time, did not eventuate. The reburial ceremony was a time of

emotional upheaval for the Ngarrindjeri people and this, coupled with the

amount of work that such an event required, caused many of the people

with whom I had wished to speak unavailable. An opportunity to speak with

several Ngarrindjeri women occurred just days before the reburial as they

41

Page 48: Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri ... · Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri archaeology, fibre culture and masculinist constructions

sat together making coffins and decorating them with wattle and ti-tree, a

continuation of an important cultural tradition. Unfortunately, I was unable to

be present at this time. However, the meetings with the NHC were a form of

focus group discussion, as I was able to listen to the thoughts and opinions

of Ngarrindjeri people concerning the topic of this project. Several days

after the reburial ceremony, I was able to sit and talk with Auntie Ellen

Trevorrow, a senior Ngarrindjeri woman with extensive knowledge of the

practice and cultural significance of weaving.

Anyone who agreed to contribute to the research was provided with a letter

of introduction introducing myself as the researcher (see Appendix B). They

further received an information sheet outlining the aims of the project, and a

list of topics that would be introduced for discussion in the focus group,

which was then used during my conversation with Auntie Ellen Trevorrow.

As a requirement of the ethics process, a consent form was signed which

gave me permission to record conversations with contributors (see

Appendix B), and allowed me to use the recording and the transcripts/notes

for preparation of this thesis. All contributors were given the opportunity to

check and edit transcripts, notes and recordings prior to inclusion in the

thesis. Those contributors who wished to be named and acknowledged for

their contribution were identified in the thesis.

To ensure that the Ngarrindjeri community would have control over their

own information all of the recordings that were produced, including notes

and transcripts, remain the property of the NHC and the individual

42

Page 49: Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri ... · Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri archaeology, fibre culture and masculinist constructions

contributors. A taped copy of the conversation and transcript were loaned to

me for the purpose of preparing this thesis, and were duly returned upon

completion.

3.5 A Collaborative Approach? Collaborative research is an attempt to engage with the people who are

directly affected by such work, and to create space for different

interpretations and viewpoints to be expressed (Lassiter 2005:96). Although

members of the Coorong Ngarrindjeri community have been involved in this

project, this thesis cannot be described as an example of fully collaborative

archaeology. As Lassiter (2005:94) wrote, there are diverse approaches to

collaborative research, and he divides these into six (not mutually

exclusive) categories: (1) principal consultants as readers and editors; (2)

focus groups; (3) editorial boards; (4) collaborative ethnographer/consultant

teams; (5) community forums; and (6) co-produced and co-written texts. As

has been demonstrated in this chapter, not all of these steps were strictly

adhered to. Members of the NHC were involved in focus group-style

discussions, and a one-on-one conversation was conducted with a member

of the Ngarrindjeri community. However, owing to time constraints (my own

and those of the Ngarrindjeri community), and the small scale of honours

degree projects, not all of the steps outlined by Lassiter could possibly be

adhered to. Therefore, this project can at best be defined as an example of

partial collaboration.

3.6 Conclusion

43

Page 50: Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri ... · Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri archaeology, fibre culture and masculinist constructions

The process of developing an anti-colonial and feminist stance was an

essential aspect of learning to work ethically with Indigenous people. The

involvement of Ngarrindjeri Elders and community members was negotiated

to ensure that the project would represent Ngarrindjeri interests and put

forward Ngarrindjeri perspectives. Their involvement also offered valuable

insight into the effects of scientific archaeological research on Indigenous

people, and the importance of control and protection of knowledge to

Indigenous communities. The control of Indigenous knowledge by

Indigenous people is not accommodated by current ethics approval

processes upheld by the SBREC. This project, whilst not fully collaborative,

is nevertheless a significant attempt to work in association with the

Ngarrindjeri people on issues that concern them, and to value their

perspectives and knowledge at all times.

44

Page 51: Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri ... · Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri archaeology, fibre culture and masculinist constructions

Chapter 4

Archaeological Research in the Lower Murray

and Coorong Regions of South Australia

4.1 Introduction As discussed in Chapter 2, scientific archaeological research arguably

began in the Lower Murray region of South Australia in 1929 with Hale and

Tindale’s (1930) excavations at Devon Downs and Tartanga along the river.

In this early phase of research, Tindale and subsequent archaeologists who

worked in the area focused predominantly on stone tool technology as a

marker of cultural complexity, despite the occasional paucity of stone

material found at sites in the region. The emphasis on stone tools at this

time and over ensuing decades was a central aspect of research, largely

due to the durability of stone in the archaeological record. However, this

thesis argues that other factors also contributed to the significance of stone

tools in archaeological interpretation, namely the general dominance of

males in the discipline for much of its history, and its propensity to focus on

“male” aspects of culture such as hunting.

This chapter provides a post-structuralist feminist critique of archaeological

research conducted in the Lower Murray and Coorong regions, and

demonstrates that South Australian research differed from that conducted in

other states in terms of an absence of female involvement in the

construction of the archaeological record. The early anthropological record

is also critiqued from a feminist perspective, as this thesis argues that

45

Page 52: Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri ... · Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri archaeology, fibre culture and masculinist constructions

gender constructions inherent in the early ethnography have informed

archaeological interpretations of the Indigenous past. In particular, attention

will be drawn to discussions and interpretations of Ngarrindjeri weaving in

the early ethnographic and archaeological records, as weaving is an

important aspect of contemporary Ngarrindjeri culture, and has also

appeared in early post colonial ethnography and in the archaeological

record. The reasons why it has not been a priority of archaeological

research is examined in this chapter.

4.2 Anthropologists and the Ngarrindjeri As demonstrated later in this chapter, archaeologists are often informed by

early ethnohistorical and anthropological written records. One of the first

ethnohistorical accounts of Ngarrindjeri people is that of Lutheran

missionary Heinrich August Edward Meyer. His short pamphlet Manners

and Customs of the Aborigines of the Encounter Bay Tribe Meyer (1846)

provided a brief overview of Ramindjeri6 beliefs and cultural practices.

Meyer’s interest in these topics was motivated by his desire to convert the

Ramindjeri to the Christian religion, and his hostility towards some aspects

of Ramindjeri culture was evident (Bell 1998:432). His recorded

observations generally described activities performed by both men and

women, and Bell (1998:435) noted that Meyer provided the earliest written

reference to ceremonial separation of the sexes.

6 A language group of the Ngarrindjeri (Bell 1998:29).

46

Page 53: Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri ... · Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri archaeology, fibre culture and masculinist constructions

In 1847 artist and naturalist George French Angas, a contemporary of

Meyer, published an account of his travels in Australia and New Zealand.

Angas’ (1847) observations, made during his travels, included information

regarding the gendered roles of men and women in Ngarrindjeri society,

including their respective roles in subsistence and funeral rites. His writing

bore many of the prejudices typical of European colonialists of the time,

such as the idea that women were mistreated by their men, and that the

skulls of Indigenous people, particularly those of women, showed “deficient

reflective capacities” when compared to that of Europeans (Angas 1847:80-

82). Angas (1847:85) also provided descriptions of various types of

basketry and its importance in the performance of various daily activities,

such as the collection of food stuffs and the transportation of infants on their

mothers’ backs by wrapping large woven mats around their shoulders.

The ethnohistorical manuscripts of missionary George Taplin (1878, 1879)

were produced during his years living and working at the Point McLeay

mission (now Raukkan) in the late 1800s. During the 20 years he lived with

the Ngarrindjeri at the mission, Taplin recorded many aspects of

Ngarrindjeri culture, including their language and the various types of

basketry they made (Taplin 1879:105). Like Meyer, Taplin’s position and

prejudices as a religious man in Victorian times is reflected in his writings.

As Bell (1998:455) has pointed out, Taplin’s work has become a standard

reference, yet many aspects of women’s spiritual and cultural lives are

downplayed or omitted from it. Details of men’s spiritual ceremonies are

documented by Taplin (1879:41-42), but women’s ceremonies are not.

47

Page 54: Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri ... · Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri archaeology, fibre culture and masculinist constructions

Women were represented as being given in marriage by male relatives,

insinuating that women were the property of men (Taplin 1879:35). Taplin’s

Victorian and religious assumptions influenced his perception of

Ngarrindjeri women, causing him to view them as powerless and dominated

by men (Bell 1998:456; Hemming 1996).

Taplin, Angas and Meyer all wrote from a gender biased and colonialist

perspective. Meyer’s position as an educated and religious man is reflected

by his descriptions of Ramindjeri social practices as “degraded” and

“immoral” (Meyer 1846:8-10). He also claimed that Ramindjeri medicinal

and spiritual practices were based on “superstition”, and that wives were

little more than “slaves” to their husbands (Meyer 1846:7-12). This notion

was reiterated by Taplin and Angas, who both perceived women as having

less power than men (Angas 1847:80; Taplin 1879:35). The notion that

Indigenous women were mistreated by their men was a common claim

made by colonists during the first half of the nineteenth century (Lydon

2005:214; McGrath 1990:204). Lydon has pointed out that “although

scientific and religious racial theories were often at odds, they coincided in

defining the female sphere as degraded” (Lydon 2005:214). The tone of

masculinist religious moral authority evident in both Meyer’s and Taplin’s

work contributed to the dominant nineteenth century ideal of a “savage” and

“corrupt” people in need of “salvation”, providing both a guiding principle

and an excuse for colonisation (Lydon 2005:229).

48

Page 55: Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri ... · Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri archaeology, fibre culture and masculinist constructions

During the 1930s and 1940s, researchers such as Tindale and the Berndts

faced the popular theory in the wider community that “real” Indigenous

people lived in the north of Australia, and that those living in the south were

less “authentic”. The process of colonisation was not viewed by the

colonists as having impacted northern Indigenous people as devastatingly

as it had Indigenous people in the south (Bell 1998:454; Murray and White

1981:255).

The researchers themselves were to an extent also subject to this view. As

Bell (1998:454) observed, the concept of “culture loss” emerged in the

twentieth century, and the majority of non-Indigenous Australians believed

they were observing the “passing of a way of life”. Researchers made

assumptions about the levels of knowledge held by Ngarrindjeri people,

preferring to work with “authentic” Ngarrindjeri men and women, believing

that only they had knowledge worth recording. For researchers like Tindale

and the Berndts, working with the last “authentic” Indigenous person in a

particular area caused them to be considered “experts” in their fields, as the

information given to them could theoretically never be replicated (Bell

1998:454). The notion that contemporary Ngarrindjeri people were no

longer “authentic” and had no cultural knowledge caused many of the

archaeologists working in the Lower Murray region to rely heavily on these

earlier ethnohistorical accounts, rather than speak to living Indigenous

people, as has been argued by Hemming (2002; Hemming and Trevorrow

2005).

49

Page 56: Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri ... · Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri archaeology, fibre culture and masculinist constructions

The notion that only some Indigenous people were authentic had serious

repercussions for the Ngarrindjeri people during the Hindmarsh Island

Bridge Royal Commission. Hemming, who gave supporting testimony for

the Ngarrindjeri at the Royal Commission, claimed that an “invented”

ethnography had been used to reach these findings (Hemming 1996), and

that the result of the Royal Commission reinforced the notion that “the only

‘real’ Ngarrindjeri culture was now in museum collections or to be

discovered in archaeological sites” (Hemming and Trevorrow 2005:250). As

discussed in Chapter 2, A World That Was (Berndt et al. 1993) was used as

a definitive source during the Commission (Hemming 1996:25). During the

late 1930s and early 1940s, the Berndts spent the majority of their time in

the field speaking to Albert Karloan, a senior Ngarrindjeri man. They also

spoke to Margaret Pinkie Mack, who was said to be the last Ngarrindjeri

woman to have undergone certain women’s initiation rituals (Berndt et al.

1993:215).

While Berndt et al. (1993) does contain information about Ngarrindjeri

women, it is predominantly focused on the activities and rituals associated

with men. As pointed out by Bell (1998), wherever women were mentioned,

they were discussed predominantly in association with marriage and

childbirth. Basket-making techniques were briefly discussed, but the social

and cultural significance of basketry was not explored (Berndt et al.

1993:99-100).

50

Page 57: Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri ... · Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri archaeology, fibre culture and masculinist constructions

Albert Karloan provided most of the information in the book. Given the

nature of gender restricted knowledge that exists in Ngarrindjeri society

(Bell 1998:536; Hemming 1996:22-26), Karloan could not speak about

women’s ceremonies because he was a man. Further, restricted knowledge

cannot be told to members of the opposite sex and hence a Ngarrindjeri

woman such as Pinkie Mack would not have been able to talk to Ronald

Berndt about certain aspects of her culture.

Although Pinkie Mack did speak to Catherine Berndt, Bell (1998:463-67)

argued that Catherine most likely spent very little time with her. Ronald

Berndt had a good relationship with Karloan, and the majority of their

fieldtrips during the 1930s and 1940s were spent with him (Bell 1998:443).

How much of the jointly authored A World That Was actually included

Catherine’s work is debatable according to Bell (1998:465-67), who argued

that despite being the more qualified of the two, Catherine was the junior

partner throughout their work in the Lower Murray.

Tindale conducted the majority of his ethnographic work with senior

Ngarrindjeri men, namely Milerum (also known as Clarence Long), with

whom he had a long-standing working relationship and friendship (Bell

1998:441-42). Unfortunately, most of Tindale’s ethnographic work remains

unpublished. He did, however, acknowledge the restricted nature of some

forms of gendered knowledge. In the late 1930s, he sent a young classics

student named Alison Brookman (nee Harvey) to speak with Pinkie Mack,

in order to determine whether Ngarrindjeri women had secret rituals and

51

Page 58: Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri ... · Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri archaeology, fibre culture and masculinist constructions

ceremonies that were parallel to those of men (Brookman 1995:4570-599).

At the Royal Commission, Brookman (1995:4587) testified that she had

spent no more than two days with Pinkie Mack, who shared little information

with her.

Hence, much of what has been written in the ethnohistorical and

anthropological record has been from a colonialist and masculinist

perspective, which has then been incorporated into archaeological analyses

of the past (eg. Mulveney 1960; Mulvaney et al. 1964; Pretty 1977). Many

researchers did not take the time to understand the nature of gender-

restricted knowledge, and there were few female researchers with whom

Indigenous women could speak. According to Bell (2001:26), the

entrustment of women’s sensitive knowledge to a non-Indigenous

researcher such as herself depended on several factors, not least of which

were gender, her status as a mother and economic self-sufficiency. Given

that few female researchers contributed to the construction of early

ethnographic accounts, it is not surprising that so little of women’s

knowledge was included. It was often assumed by male researchers that

men spoke for society, whereas women could only speak for and about

women (Bell 2001:125; Rose 1996:6). As a result, very little of the spiritual

and social lives of women entered the anthropological record, thereby

contributing to the outcome of the Hindmarsh Island Bridge Royal

Commission.

52

Page 59: Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri ... · Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri archaeology, fibre culture and masculinist constructions

Nevertheless, through her work with the Kaytej women of Warrabri, Bell

(1993) had clearly demonstrated that Indigenous women in the central

desert regions have distinct spiritual practices that were separate yet

complementary to those of men. She argued that the popular perception of

“authentic” Indigenous people in the remote north was drawn upon during

the Royal Commission to infer that Ngarrindjeri women living in the “settled”

south were not “real” Indigenous people:

Ironically the resistance to according women’s words value is often qualified by reference to those ‘remote’ desert people. We all know desert women have sacred sites and ceremonies but not the ‘politicised’ people in the south. (Bell 2001:128)

Bell further maintained that anthropologists who worked with women were

characterised by the Hindmarsh Island Bridge Royal Commission as

“subjective” and therefore “fabricators”, whilst older reports conducted with

men were ”objective” and therefore credible (Bell 2001:126).

4.3 Archaeology in the Lower Murray region before 1960 As demonstrated in Chapter 2, weaving has not been a priority of

archaeological research in Australia, although it has been discussed in the

archaeological literature (see Clarke 1985; Hemming et al. 2000; Tindale

and Mountford 1936; Sheard et al. 1927). Anthropologists such as Bell

(1998) and Hemming (1990) have worked with the Ngarrindjeri on the

subject, and Hamby (2001) researched Yolngu weaving in Arnhem Land. In

order to understand why weaving is not a priority in archaeological

research, it is necessary to examine the underlying causative factors,

foremost of these being the fragility of plant remains and their consequent

53

Page 60: Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri ... · Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri archaeology, fibre culture and masculinist constructions

meagre survival in the archaeological record. My research has found that it

was predominantly female archaeologists who pioneered the study of plant

remains in Australia (Beck et al. 1989; Clarke 1985; Head 1986).

Unfortunately, this research has not generated extensive interest in the

archaeological study of weaving and woven articles.

Much of the early research undertaken by male amateur archaeologists in

the first half of the twentieth century was conducted through State

museums (McBryde 1986:15). Indigenous people and their cultural material

were presented to the public in these institutions as examples of savagery

and objects of study (Byrne 1996:84; Russell 2001:40). During the 1920s,

the prevalent view was that Indigenous people could not have occupied

Australia for any great length of time, as their way of life had no obvious

impact on the land by European standards, a notion that Tindale did not

accept and tried to rectify in his career (Tindale 1982:93). Early researchers

comparing Australian stone tools with European typologies further

strengthened this view, as tools found in Australia did not fit European

typologies. The Euro-centric notion of stone tools as cultural markers

heavily influenced archaeological perceptions of Indigenous cultures in

Australia (Murray and White 1981:255-56; White 1977:25).

The need to develop new classificatory systems for stone tools in Australia

led to competition between researchers determined to devise a new

typology (Mulvaney 1977:264; Murray and White 1981:256). During the first

half of the twentieth century, State museums adopted their own individual

54

Page 61: Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri ... · Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri archaeology, fibre culture and masculinist constructions

typologies as the researchers working for these institutions engaged in

professional rivalry. During the 1930s and 1940s, the two leading

protagonists of typology were McCarthy of the Australian Museum

(Sydney), and Tindale of the South Australian Museum (Adelaide). Tindale

and McCarthy both added significantly to archaeological classificatory

systems, as well as introducing the concept of cultural succession based on

time depth (Mulvaney 1977:264-66). Through Hale and Tindale’s (1930)

excavation at Tartanga and Devon Downs in 1929 and McCarthy’s (1948)

work at Lapstone Creek in 1936 both demonstrated culture change through

a stratified sequence of stone tool types. This in turn led to the

understanding that Indigenous people had lived in Australia for much longer

than early researchers had originally suspected (Murray and White

1981:256; Tindale 1982:93).

The archaeological framework adopted by Tindale and McCarthy during the

1930s and 1940s differed substantially to that of their contemporaries.

Whereas Tindale and McCarthy were influenced by progressive

“prehistorical” studies in Europe involving the comparison of material with

that of other stone-using hunter-gatherer societies, other early researchers

maintained a natural history approach, even into the 1950s (McBryde

1986:15). They amassed large amounts of material for their institutions, but

did not undertake or promote the archaeological study of these collections,

due to the overriding view that Indigenous culture, technology and people

were static and unchanging (McBryde 1986:15; Murray and White

1981:256), and that therefore archaeological study of the past was

55

Page 62: Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri ... · Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri archaeology, fibre culture and masculinist constructions

unnecessary. Due to the general lack of interest in questions concerning

cultural change in Australia, response to Tindale and McCarthy’s work was

limited (McBryde 1986:14-15; Tindale 1982:97). Indigenous people were

not asked to participate in archaeological research during this period, nor

were there any legislative or ethical requirements to negotiate with

Traditional Owners prior to conducting research on their lands, as the denial

of Indigenous ownership of land was central to the interests of colonisation

(Hemming and Trevorrow 2005:251).

Tindale and McCarthy remained prominent figures in Australian

archaeology until the 1960s, when “professionalisation” shifted the focus

from museums to universities as the centre of archaeological research

(McBryde 1986:16). Much of their work and that of some of their colleagues

focused largely on stone tools (Campbell and Noone 1943; Howchin 1934;

McCarthy et al. 1946; Tindale 1965), no doubt due to the durability of stone

in the archaeological record and the importance of stone tools in the work of

their European colleagues (McBryde 1986:15). This preoccupation with

lithics was at least partly aided by the fragility of other materials such as

plant, wood and bone and their consequent paucity in the archaeological

record (Beck et al. 1989:3; Bird 1993:22-23).

Yet, as demonstrated later in this chapter, there were instances in early

South Australian archaeology when materials other than stone did survive

(eg. Hale and Tindale 1930; Sheard et al. 1927; Tindale and Mountford

1936). Woven objects in the form of netted bags or “coffins” had been

56

Page 63: Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri ... · Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri archaeology, fibre culture and masculinist constructions

highlighted previously by Sheard, Mountford and Hackett (1927:173), in a

publication detailing their discovery of a child’s burial in the cliffs of the

River Murray, near Fromm’s Landing. The child’s body had been placed in

a woven open-meshed fibre bag, filled with long grass, and then covered by

a wallaby hide. Included in the article were Tindale’s notes on a similar

burial, found in a rockhole at Wongulla, along the River Murray. The latter

burial was also that of a small child, interred in an open-meshed fibre bag

filled with grasses, and placed in a rock-cleft. Interestingly, Sheard and his

colleagues included a detailed diagram of the type of knot that had been

used to create both open-mesh bags, complete with dimensions, although

this was not followed by any discussion of weaving.

In detailing the materials found during their excavations, Hale and Tindale

(1930) mentioned two different types of plant found in the Devon Downs

deposit: quandong stones and the stems of sedges. Both types of plant

remains were found in the top three layers of the deposit in very small

amounts. This coincided with a decrease in the quantity of stone artefacts in

the top two layers, when compared to the amount of stone found in lower

levels (Hale and Tindale 1930:177-79).

The variation in stone and bone tool technologies and densities throughout

Devon Downs led Hale and Tindale (1930) to posit four culture phases.

Although the notion of cultural succession is no longer appropriate (Smith

1982:109), Hale and Tindale’s theory demonstrated their awareness that

Ngarrindjeri people were not always, if ever, solely reliant on stone for their

57

Page 64: Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri ... · Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri archaeology, fibre culture and masculinist constructions

technology, describing the Pirrian and Mudukian cultures as having utilised

bone as much as they did stone (Hale and Tindale 1930:204-207).

Information derived through ethnography was utilised to describe the

technology of the most recent culture in their succession, the Murundian.

Hale and Tindale (1930:206-207) claimed that the cultural material of the

Murundians at the time of European invasion predominantly consisted of

wooden objects and basketry, rather than stone artefacts, and that this had

been the case for at least 2,000 years. Tindale evidently did talk to living

Ngarrindjeri people about basketry and net-making (see Sutton et al. 1989),

but it was not a priority of his research. As he worked primarily with men,

women’s perspectives and knowledge of basketry were not likely

encountered.

In 1934, Tindale and Mountford (1936) excavated a coastal site known as

Kongarati Cave, situated near Second Valley on the Fleurieu Peninsula.

Here they uncovered the burial of an elderly woman, lying on a kangaroo

skin and draped in woven fish nets. The body had also been covered by a

layer of grass padding tied into knots, then a further layer of marine

sponges, and was finally covered by slabs of slate. The plant material found

in association with the burial was noted by the authors as being “well-

preserved”. In other parts of the same site, chewed fibre, fragments of

netting, shells, a bone awl, several wooden implements, and the remains of

pigface (Carpobrotus aequilaterali) were recorded (Tindale and Mountford

1936:489-93). Although many of the net fragments were “badly decayed”,

eight pieces were preserved well enough to be measured. An abundance of

58

Page 65: Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri ... · Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri archaeology, fibre culture and masculinist constructions

firesticks at the site and the presence of netting led the authors to claim that

Kongarati Cave had been used as a refuge during bad weather, or as a

camping place for fishing parties (Tindale and Mountford 1936:502).

This archaeological report is remarkable in that it includes the Creation or

Dreaming story of Tjilbruke, which is associated with the area in which the

excavation took place, as told by Karloan to Tindale (Tindale and Mountford

1936:500). Further evidence of an ethnographic approach is the authors’

recognition of chewed fibre, surely difficult to identify unless observed in the

field. An awareness of the importance of basket making is also displayed by

the recording of measurements of netting, and by the authors’ expression of

surprise at not finding any evidence of basketry at the site (Tindale and

Mountford 1936:502). The authors compared the draped netting on the

body to mourning practices Hale and Tindale had observed in Princess

Charlotte Bay in Queensland (Tindale and Mountford 1936:499; see Hale

and Tindale 1933:95). Through utilising an ethnographic approach, the

authors were able to identify and interpret aspects of the archaeological

record that may have otherwise have been overlooked. However, the

authors did not speak to women about this site, despite the fact that the

burial was that of a woman. Nor did the layers of sedge lead the

researchers to ask Ngarrindjeri people about weaving activities at this site.

Women’s perspectives and knowledge and the practice of weaving were

not major concerns during Kongarati Cave excavation, as the wider

masculinist trend in archaeology at the time was concerned with men’s

activities and stone tools.

59

Page 66: Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri ... · Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri archaeology, fibre culture and masculinist constructions

4.4 Archaeology and the Lower Murray region: post-1960s With the establishment in 1948 of Australia’s first archaeology department

at the University of Sydney came an emphasis on professionalisation and

formal university training (Murray and White 1981:256; Smith and du Cros

1995:8-9). The late 1950s and 1960s signified a new era of Australian

archaeology with the arrival of professional archaeologists and graduate

students trained at Cambridge University (Murray and White 1981:256-57;

Smith and du Cros 1995:9). The centre of archaeological research in

Australia shifted from museums to universities in the eastern states and

Western Australia with the appointment of many of the Cambridge-trained

professionals to teaching positions (McBryde 1986:19); South Australia

would not have its own archaeology department until 1999 (although

Vincent Megaw founded a Visual Arts course in 1980 that offered

archaeological training). The new band of archaeologists were heavily

influenced by their Eurocentric Cambridge mentors. With the advent of

processual archaeology in the 1960s and 1970s, research was designed to

answer “big questions” of worldwide significance that could contribute to

debates concerning the origins of modern humans. Unconvinced by the

theory that Indigenous people were relatively new arrivals in Australia,

archaeologists investigated sites likely to yield long and undisturbed

occupation sequences (such as rock shelters) to demonstrate the antiquity

of Indigenous culture, relying on the recently developed radiocarbon dating

technique to provide scientific proof (eg. Bowler et al. 1970; Jones 1966;

Mulvaney and Joyce 1965; Mulvaney et al. 1963; White 1967). Analysis of

60

Page 67: Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri ... · Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri archaeology, fibre culture and masculinist constructions

stone tools as determinants of cultural complexity was also a feature of the

Cambridge influence (Balme and Beck 1993:63; Murray and White

1981:257; Smith and du Cros 1995:9-10).

One of the most prominent Cambridge archaeologists of this period was

John Mulvaney, whose work resulted in the acceptance of Indigenous

occupation of Australia to at least the Pleistocene era (see Mulvaney 1960,

1975; Mulvaney et al. 1964). Although based at the University of

Melbourne, Mulvaney worked near Devon Downs during the early 1960s, to

“test the general validity for the area of its cultural sequence” (Mulvaney

1960:55). Such competitiveness was an aspect of masculinist and

“scientific” archaeology, and was evidence of tension between professional

and amateur archaeologists (Smith and du Cros 1995:9-10). Between 1956

and 1963, he excavated two rockshelters at Fromm’s Landing, 18 km

downstream from Devon Downs on the River Murray. The earliest

radiocarbon dates obtained at these sites were 4850 ± 100 years BP for

Shelter 2, and 3450 ± 90 years BP for Shelter 6 (Mulvaney 1960; Mulvaney

et al. 1964). Similarities between the Fromm’s Landing sites and Devon

Downs allowed Mulvaney (1960:73-80) to repudiate Hale and Tindale’s

(1930) cultural sequence.

In his reports, Mulvaney remarked that very little cultural material had been

found at the two rockshelters. Shelter 2 revealed stone and bone tools, and

also the remains of shells. He reported no findings of any plant material, but

it must be noted that the site was severely disturbed by rabbit burrows to a

depth of 3 ft, which could have destroyed fragile fragments of net and other

61

Page 68: Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri ... · Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri archaeology, fibre culture and masculinist constructions

fibre work (Mulvaney 1960:61). Shelter 6 revealed a similar range of cultural

material to Shelter 2, but in addition contained abundant plant material in

the uppermost two levels (Mulvaney et al. 1964:481). The shelter also

revealed two burials, that of a small child and an adult. Mulvaney compared

the child’s burial to the burial found at Kongarati Cave (Tindale and

Mountford 1936), finding there was a large amount of grass and plant

material covering the body, but apparently no form of netted fibre. The adult

burial had traces of sedges associated with it which Mulvaney, consulting

the ethnological record, suggested may have been part of a “bundle”

(Mulvaney et al. 1964:493). Whereas Tindale spoke to Indigenous people in

order to understand what he observed in the archaeological record,

Mulvaney and others did not (eg. Pretty 1977).

The sparseness of cultural material at these two sites led Mulvaney to

conclude that occupation at this location would have been occasional rather

than sustained. He also determined that the small number of stone tools,

coupled with a decreasing “quality of workmanship” in more recent times,

indicated that Ngarrindjeri people had shifted to using organic materials

rather than working in stone. After consulting early ethnographic sources

such as Taplin (1879) regarding the Ngarrindjeri practice of basketry,

Mulvaney argued that the Ngarrindjeri had moved to the riverine

environment after having lived further inland. They had relied on stone tool

technology previously, but with a lack of suitable stone for knapping in the

area, had to adapt to using mostly organic materials for technology. This is

similar in nature to Hale and Tindale’s (1930) assertion that the Murundians

62

Page 69: Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri ... · Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri archaeology, fibre culture and masculinist constructions

had used organic materials for at least 2,000 years. However, Mulvaney et

al. (1964:491) argued that this was a premature assumption, based on little

evidence, and thought it unlikely that utilisation of organic materials could

have spanned two millennia. Tindale’s claim was later supported by

Luebber’s (1978) discovery of wooden artefacts at coastal sites in the lower

southeast that dated back to 2,000-1,300 years BP.

Despite this conjecture, very little discussion of weaving or the significance

of burials containing plant remains ensued in either of these reports, as the

study of plant remains was not a developed area of archaeological research

until the 1980s (eg. Beck et al. 1989; Gott 1982; Schrire 1982). Detailed

descriptions, diagrams and discussions of stone and bone implements were

supplied, but only brief reference was made to written ethnohistorical

sources regarding the making of twine and burial practices involving plant

materials (Mulvaney et al. 1964:492-93). Mulvaney’s reliance on early

ethnohistorical sources rather than ethnography with contemporary

Ngarrindjeri people was typical of archaeological research during this period

(McBryde 1986:21), despite Tindale’s appeal during the 1965 ANZAAS

Congress for archaeologists to return to anthropological concerns and learn

lessons from “living people” (Tindale 1965:162).

A move away from the Cambridge-style preoccupation with stone tools was

marked by a conference held in 1974 entitled ‘Stone tools as cultural

markers’. From this conference came a publication by the same name

(Wright 1977) in which some authors expressed the opposing view that too

63

Page 70: Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri ... · Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri archaeology, fibre culture and masculinist constructions

much emphasis was being placed on stone tools as markers of cultural

complexity. Isaac (1977:11) commented:

It is clear that stone artefacts do provide a rich record of

cultural transmission patterns (culture-history) and that their

characteristics are also related to economy and ecology.

However, archaeology is not well served by unrealistic

attempts to squeeze too much blood from stones alone. We

need to concentrate our efforts on situations where the

stones are only a part of a diverse record of mutually related

traces of behaviour and adaptation.

A similar line of thought was expressed in Pretty’s (1977) paper which

detailed work done in the Lower Murray region at an open site in Roonka

Flat Dune along the River Murray, near Blanchetown. The excavation

yielded such features as cooking structures, food residues, hearths, bone

implements, ochres and stone tools. It also uncovered a burial ground

where around 70 individuals had been interred. The earliest date of

occupation derived at this site was c. 18,000 years BP, while the burials

were thought to have occurred from c. 7,000 to c. 4,000 years BP. Pretty

consulted the ethnographic record in order to interpret his findings, and

found early accounts of Indigenous people fishing, cooking, and making

mats and baskets in the area. Pretty considered these practises to coincide

with the archaeological record, despite not reporting any plant remains or

evidence of basketry. However, he pointed out that there were

64

Page 71: Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri ... · Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri archaeology, fibre culture and masculinist constructions

discrepancies between the ethnographic and archaeological records

concerning burial practices that required further research (Pretty 1977:313).

Pretty (1977) pointed out that rather than work at open sites such as

Roonka, archaeologists had a tendency to choose sites that would most

likely be undisturbed and contain long cultural sequences for dating

purposes, such as rock shelters, in contrast to open sites which usually

yielded less cultural material, and were not easily dated. Unfortunately,

rockshelters often had limited space, and any human activity at these

locations would be intensive, potentially damaging the more fragile

materials in the soil, such as bone, shell, and plant fibre. Furthermore,

Gorecki (1988:159) has pointed out little ethnographic information exists

concerning rock shelter use, leaving archaeologists only cultural material

and geomorphic features from which to piece together human activities. In

such places, stone is the most durable material, leaving archaeologists only

a partial view of the past. Pretty (1977:328-29) argued that stone tools

offered only a partial insight into the past, and that more attention needed to

be paid to other types of site to gain a greater understanding of Indigenous

people in the Lower Murray region.

The focus on rock shelters was typical of archaeological studies throughout

Australia at this time (McBryde 1986:19), yet some archaeologists were

working at open sites and conducting regional surveys. Contemporary with

Pretty’s work at Roonka, Haglund’s (1968, 1976) excavation of a burial

ground at Broadbeach in Queensland was one of the largest of its kind ever

65

Page 72: Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri ... · Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri archaeology, fibre culture and masculinist constructions

undertaken in Australia. The extensive and long term regional surveys of

McBryde (1974) in the New England area of New South Wales and Hallam

(1975) in the Swan Valley region of Western Australia, were aimed at

answering a broader range of questions than those of the more common

short term, site-specific investigations of the time (McBryde 1986:20).

In a similar vein to the work of McBryde (1974) and Hallam (1975),

Luebbers’ (1978) indepth study of coastal and swamp regions in southeast

South Australia examined areas that had not previously been subjected to

archaeological investigation. Luebbers employed a combination of surveys

and excavations to determine how and when marine economies developed

in the region. Although the majority of Luebber’s work was situated outside

of the Lower Murray region and not on Ngarrindjeri lands, he did undertake

surveys in the Kingston and Coorong areas, and consulted ethnographic

sources concerning the Ngarrindjeri to interpret human activity in the

broader area Luebbers (1978:65-75).

Luebbers excavated a series of sites included swamps, inland camps, and

shell middens. These excavations yielded cultural material including such

wooden implements as boomerangs, spears and digging sticks, as well as

stone tools (Luebbers 1978:112-218). Luebbers determined from his

extensive work that technology in the lower southeast underwent dramatic

change during the Holocene period in terms of morphological development

and manufacturing style (Luebbers 1978:241). He proposed that a major

reduction of swampside resources inland had pushed people towards the

66

Page 73: Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri ... · Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri archaeology, fibre culture and masculinist constructions

coast, where they adopted new subsistence strategies, and the subsequent

increase in sedentism had produced technological elaboration and greater

use of organic materials. Luebbers (1978:276-308) concluded that marine

economies had emerged in this area around 2,000-1,300 years BP.

Like other archaeologists of the time (eg. Mulvaney et al. 1964; Pretty 1978;

Luebbers used ethnographic sources to supplement and explain the

archaeological record. His choice to excavate shell middens was somewhat

unusual given the usual preference for rock shelters as sites of excavation

in the state. Given that the publication of Bowdler’s (1976) paper had

already established a link between women’s gathering roles and shell

middens, it is unfortunate that Luebbers made no attempt to incorporate

gender into his work. However, Bowdler’s work and that of Meehan (1982)

were significant at the time, as they marked some of the earliest attempts at

locating women in the Indigenous archaeological record (Beck and Head

1994:37).

The strong Western scientific ethic evident in Australian archaeology until

the 1980s and prevailing colonialist notions of Indigenous authenticity had

significant impact regarding archaeologists’ attitudes towards working with

Indigenous people (Smith and du Cros 1995:11). This had manifested in

failure to negotiate with Indigenous people over access and use of sites,

which led to angry responses from Indigenous people, most notably

Langford (1983). The call for ethnographic approaches to archaeological

67

Page 74: Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri ... · Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri archaeology, fibre culture and masculinist constructions

research was not fully taken up until the 1980s, in work by Flood (1980),

Gould (1980), Meehan (1982) and Meehan and Jones (1988).

4.5 Collaborative Archaeology in the Lower Murray Before the early 1980s, relationships between archaeologists and

Indigenous people were characterised by colonialist ideology and

unbalanced power structures. There was no heritage legislation aimed at

protecting Indigenous material culture in Australia before 1967 (Bowdler

and Clune 2000:31). Indigenous people were generally not consulted

regarding research into their culture and history, and their cultural material

was collected and placed in museums and universities. With no control over

research, Indigenous people were unable to control how their cultures were

represented and perceived by the wider community (Murray and White

1981:260; Smith 1999:1-3).

With the advent of Indigenous political activism in the 1960s and 1970s,

Indigenous people worldwide began demanding control over their past, as a

move towards re-gaining self-determination (Murray and White 1981:260;

Pardoe 1990:208, 1992:132-33). In Australia, the passing of legislation

such as the Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies Act in 1964, and the

growing awareness within the archaeological discipline through such

symposiums as ‘Who owns the past?’7 laid the necessary ground work for

negotiation between archaeologists and Indigenous people (Burke et al.

1994:19). The emergence over time of an anthropological approach to

7 A symposium held in 1983 by the Australian Academy of the Humanities organised by Isabel McBryde.

68

Page 75: Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri ... · Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri archaeology, fibre culture and masculinist constructions

archaeological research (Meehan and Jones 1988:viii) also likely

contributed to the emergence of better working relationships between

Indigenous people and archaeologists. Working with Indigenous people

taught archaeologists to value their rights and perspectives, and to accept

Indigenous control over cultural material, traditional lands and human

remains (Pardoe 1990, 1992; Zimmerman 1989).

In the Lower Murray region, positive relationships began to develop

between archaeologists and Ngarrindjeri people during the 1980s and

1990s, among them Luebbers and Draper (see for example Luebbers 1981;

Draper 1996). Ngarrindjeri people also have greater control over research,

and work in collaboration with anthropologists and archaeologists to ensure

their interests and concerns are represented.

In 1993, a excavation was undertaken at a former mission site at Swan

Reach on the River Murray as part of a broader project aimed at recording

and protecting the Indigenous heritage of the wider mid-Murray region. This

project was co-ordinated by Richard Hunter (a Ngarrindjeri man and

chairperson of the Mannum Aboriginal Progress Association), Colin Cook (a

Ngarrindjeri Elder) and anthropologist Steve Hemming. The mission site

was selected for excavation in answer to a perceived need for more

archaeological research into the period since European invasion “to enable

a better understanding of the connection that contemporary Aboriginal

people have with their ‘past’ and their ‘countries’” (Hemming et al.

2000:331-32). The excavation at the Swan Reach mission site adopted a

multi-disciplinary approach that incorporated oral history, archival research,

69

Page 76: Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri ... · Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri archaeology, fibre culture and masculinist constructions

archaeology and anthropology to develop a broader interpretation of the

site. Members of the local Ngarrindjeri community acted as advisors and

were present at the site during the excavation. Those who had lived at the

mission as children also shared oral histories with the researchers that were

recorded as part of the project (Anderson 1997; Harris 1996; Hemming and

Cook 1994).

With assistance from the former residents, areas of the site were identified

and selected for excavation, including a wurley, the first missionaries’ house

and a shell midden. Areas such as these were chosen as it was thought

they would provide information regarding different types of occupation that

occurred over the years at the site. A variety of artefacts were found during

the excavation, including stone artefacts, animal bone fragments, marbles,

buttons, and the remains of housing such as hessian, linoleum and timber.

Also found were two small pieces of flattened basket sedge fragments

(Hemming et al. 2000:345-50). Dates obtained from the site indicated that

Ngarrindjeri people had lived at the Swan Reach site since 1,700 BP, and

both oral history and ethnographic sources from the early nineteenth

century indicated its use as a camp site prior to the establishment of the

mission (Hemming et al. 2000:338-43). In contrast, Ngarrindjeri people

believe they have always been there (Hemming et al. 2000:331).

Ngarrindjeri people who had knowledge of the site were able to reveal

social aspects of mission life not accessible through archaeological

research alone. For example, torch batteries found at the site were

70

Page 77: Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri ... · Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri archaeology, fibre culture and masculinist constructions

identified as having being used by children as toy grenades (Harris

1996:25).

The use of nylon and metal for fishing tackle, as opposed to the utilisation

of more traditional materials such as chewed fibre and animal sinew

(Tindale and Mountford 1936) was interpreted as evidence of cultural

adaptation, not “assimilation”. Rather than losing their culture, the

Ngarrindjeri continued to fish as they had always done, even whilst living on

the European-controlled mission (Hemming et al. 2000:347). Baskets

continued to be made, mostly by women, who would sell them to tourists to

supplement their income. In fact, missionaries encouraged women to make

baskets, as it was perceived as an “appropriate” activity for women from a

European perspective (Hemming et al. 1989:21). Men also supplemented

their income by carving wooden weapons and selling them (Hemming et al.

2000:350). The continuation of Ngarrindjeri culture through cultural

resistance was well-represented at this site, indicating cultural change as

opposed to cultural loss (Hemming et al. 2000:336).

The collaborative approach taken in this project enabled the deconstruction

of Eurocentric and colonialist constructions that are inherent in

archaeological interpretations of post-colonial Indigenous sites. It has also

ensured that Ngarrindjeri concerns and interests were represented and

respected throughout the research process.

Ngarrindjeri people continue to work in collaboration with archaeologists to

conduct research that is beneficial to their community. Roberts (2003)

71

Page 78: Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri ... · Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri archaeology, fibre culture and masculinist constructions

conducted a series of “interviews” or in-depth discussions over a period of

two years with 16 Indigenous South Australians, including several members

of the Ngarrindjeri community. Her resulting thesis, entitled Knowledge,

Power and Voice: An investigation of Indigenous South Australian

perspectives of archaeology, drew on the contributors’ lived experiences of

archaeological research and recommended that professional archaeological

organisations and institutions needed to work more closely with Indigenous

communities to bring about change in archaeological practice as outlined by

Indigenous people. In doing so, the discipline of archaeology could assist

Indigenous communities in their continuing fight for self-determination.

Ngarrindjeri archaeologist Wilson (2005) completed his honours thesis with

the Ngarrindjeri Heritage Committee, entitled Return of the Ngarrindjeri:

Repatriating Old People Back to Country. This thesis discussed the social

and cultural implications of Ngarrindjeri remains from the perspectives of

the Ngarrindjeri community. It also traced the personal transformation of

Wilson from a student of archaeology to a Ngarrindjeri person/archaeologist

(Wilson 2005:36).

4.6 Conclusion In addition to material during excavations in the Lower Murray region (eg.

Hale and Tindale 1930; Sheard et al. 1927; Tindale and Mountford 1936),

the importance of weaving to Ngarrindjeri culture and society was

suggested in various forms, namely the early ethnohistorical references to

Ngarrindjeri weaving (Angas 1847:85; Taplin 1879:105), a documentary film

72

Page 79: Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri ... · Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri archaeology, fibre culture and masculinist constructions

made for the South Australian Museum of Ngarrindjeri man Milerum

weaving a basket (Sutton et al. 1989), the sizeable collection of baskets

purchased by Tindale for the South Australian Museum (Hemming et al.

1989) and contemporary Ngarrindjeri who were still weaving (Hemming et

al. 2000:350). However, owing to the conventions of the time, and the stone

tools found and collected by early researchers, the significance of weaving

to the Ngarrindjeri was not taken up, even though several archaeologists

acknowledged the wood and fibre-based nature of Ngarrindjeri culture (eg.

Hale and Tindale 1930; Luebbers 1978; Mulvaney et al. 1964; Pretty 1977).

It is a readily acknowledged fact that plant remains rarely survive in the

archaeological record (Bird and Beeck 1988:113). Yet as this chapter has

shown, several archaeological excavations in the Lower Murray region

uncovered botanical materials, including basket fragments, fishing nets and

woven articles associated with burials. Several archaeologists who have

worked in the area have theorised that Indigenous people living in the

Lower Murray region developed technology that was predominantly based

on organic materials rather than stone tools. Despite this, very little has

been written about the wood, shell or fibre technologies of the Ngarrindjeri

people.

Archaeology in Australia has until recently been a male-dominated

discipline. As shown in Chapter 2, feminism did not emerge in

archaeological practice until the 1980. Feminist archaeologists have

questioned the archaeological record, and the widespread influence of

“man the hunter” ideology that has long marked the Australian

73

Page 80: Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri ... · Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri archaeology, fibre culture and masculinist constructions

preoccupation with stone tools as markers of cultural complexity. As

discussed in this chapter, the focus on stone tools was largely brought

about by European influence, both before and after the influx of Cambridge-

trained archaeologists. Stone tools survive extremely well over time, and

are therefore more abundant in the archaeological record. Coupled with the

European social view that women’s activities were less vital than men’s,

and that their tasks were associated with perishable materials, they were

considered “too hard” to find in the archaeological record, and therefore

overlooked.

As previously stated, archaeologists such as Hale and Tindale (1930) and

Mulvaney et al. (1964) recognised that organic materials were utilised more

readily than stone in the Lower Murray region. However, this did not

generate interest into these technologies, largely because they were

considered “women’s tasks”, and therefore overlooked. The prevalence of

male archaeologists in the past created a written record from which women

were largely excluded. The colonialist notion of the “dying race” has

ensured that the view of the academic expert is valued above contemporary

Indigenous people, who are not considered “traditional” or “authentic”.

Together, these factors have created a set of circumstances where the

written record, though biased by colonialist and masculinst constructions, is

valued more highly than living Ngarrindjeri people, as aptly displayed during

the Hindmarsh Island Bridge Royal Commission.

The anthropological and archaeological records in South Australia

concerning the Lower Murray region have been shown to contain

masculinist and colonialist constructions of Ngarrindjeri culture. The

74

Page 81: Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri ... · Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri archaeology, fibre culture and masculinist constructions

information found in these accounts has been shown to be preferred over

knowledge provided by living Ngarrindjeri people. This has serious

implications for Ngarrindjeri people, whose culture has been

misrepresented. This was demonstrated by the Hindmarsh Island affair,

where Ngarrindjeri people were told by “experts” that women’s culture did

not exist, because it was not recorded in the anthropological records.

Collaborative and constructive relationships between researchers and the

Ngarrindjeri people are beginning to address the imbalance and prejudices

inherent in the written record.

75

Page 82: Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri ... · Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri archaeology, fibre culture and masculinist constructions

Chapter 5

Discussion

5.1 Introduction This thesis has analysed archaeological research undertaken in the Lower

Murray region from a feminist perspective. It has demonstrated that despite

the fragility of organic remains, wood and plant materials were found during

several archaeological excavations in the Lower Murray region (Hale and

Tindale 1930; Hemming et al. 2000; Luebbers 1978; Mulvaney et al. 1964;

Sheard et al. 1927; Tindale and Mountford 1936). The wood and fibre-

based nature of Ngarrindjeri culture was acknowledged by researchers from

an early stage (Hale and Tindale 1930:206-207; Luebbers 1978:276-308;

Mulvaney et al. 1964:491), but the potential for research in this area has not

been fully explored.

As an aspect of the collaborative approach adopted for this project,

Ngarrindjeri perspectives are included in this chapter through reference to a

semi-structured discussion held between senior Ngarrindjeri woman Auntie

Ellen Trevorrow and myself. As an expert weaver and cultural teacher at

the Camp Coorong Race Relations and Cultural Education Centre, Auntie

Ellen provided insight into the importance of weaving to herself and to

Ngarrindjeri people, as well as the kinds of responses she has received to

her work. The details of this conversation are discussed below in relation to

archaeological representations of weaving. Furthermore, this chapter

examines the possible reasons why weaving, an important aspect of

Ngarrindjeri culture as expressed by Ngarrindjeri people and acknowledged

76

Page 83: Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri ... · Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri archaeology, fibre culture and masculinist constructions

by archaeologists, has not been a priority in archaeological research

conducted to date in the Lower Murray region. The various methodological

approaches adopted by archaeologists who have worked in this region are

contrasted and compared in order to understand how their approaches

have affected their interpretations of Ngarrindjeri culture.

5.2 Weaving and the continuation of culture Auntie Ellen Trevorrow is descended from a long line of weavers, and she

herself has been weaving for 26 years. She remembers seeing her

grandmother weave baskets as a child, and that her work often provided

the family with a little extra income: “I know that she used to sell, barter and

trade the weaving; it was part of our survival”. Auntie Ellen described

herself as “reminiscing” as she weaves, and calls it her “therapy”. She said

people tell stories to each other as they sit and weave together, and that it

is a time for family togetherness and teaching:

Our young ones help in collecting the rushes for us, but also they all weave. One beautiful thing is if I called them in to do a workshop for me, they’ll come in and help…that’s very valuable to us, to have our young ones alongside of us.

Auntie Ellen said that in the past the old people always wove, and that both

men and women knew how to weave. During the late nineteenth century,

Victorian ideals of women as figures of domesticity were applied to

Indigenous women in terms of the tasks they could perform. As Bell (1998)

and Hemming et al. (2000) have argued, basketry was one aspect of

Ngarrindjeri culture that missionaries encouraged women to undertake, as it

was an “appropriate” task for a woman. However, Ngarrindjeri people and

77

Page 84: Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri ... · Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri archaeology, fibre culture and masculinist constructions

anthropologists inform us that at the time of European invasion, men also

made baskets (Bell 1998:85; Hemming et al. 2000:350; Kleinert and Neale

2000:379; Sutton et al. 1989). Therefore, the notion of basketry being

“women’s work” is a European construction, and not one that accurately

reflects Ngarrindjeri society.

In describing how a “cultural revival” of weaving occurred almost thirty years

ago, Auntie Ellen related that she and other members of her community

were not taught to weave as young children, causing fears that the

traditional weaving techniques would be lost. Although there quite a few

senior Ngarrindjeri people who knew how to weave (Hemming pers. comm.

2006), Auntie Dorrie Kartinyeri specifically wanted to pass her knowledge

on to the next generation, and in 1981 she and staff at the South Australian

Museum (including Hemming) organised a Ngarrindjeri basket weaving

workshop at Meningie in the Coorong. Auntie Ellen and other members of

the Ngarrindjeri community attended this workshop, which marked a

revitalisation of this important aspect of Ngarrindjeri culture. Weaving is now

practised by many Ngarrindjeri people, and Auntie Ellen also teaches it to

members of the public attending the Camp Coorong Race Relations and

Cultural Education Centre.

Auntie Ellen has not worked with any archaeologists on the specific issue of

weaving, nor has she ever been approached to do so. However she did

mention that Roger Luebbers, working in the Coorong during the 1980s as

a consultant, talked to her husband Uncle Tom Trevorrow about weaving.

78

Page 85: Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri ... · Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri archaeology, fibre culture and masculinist constructions

Luebbers developed a good relationship with the Ngarrindjeri community

(Hemming and Trevorrow 2005:256), but may not have been in a position to

talk to Auntie Ellen about weaving, as the Camp Coorong Race Relations

and Cultural Education Centre only opened in 1988 and she was not yet

known in the public eye as a weaver. Auntie Ellen has worked with

anthropologists such as Hemming (1990), Bell (1998) and Wood Conroy

(1997) regarding weaving. In 1991, Hemming was also involved in the

organisation of an exhibition entitled Two Countries, One Weave held at

Tandanya’s Kaurna Gallery in Adelaide. This exhibition included a series of

workshops held jointly between Ngarrindjeri weavers and Maningrida

weavers from the Northern Territory; members of the public were able to

participate in the workshops. Weavers from both regions use a similar style,

although Ngarrindjeri weavers use a coil-bundle closed weave or “blanket”

stitch and Maningrida weavers employ an open weave (Giles and Everett

1992:46). The similarity of style is attributed to the influence of a

missionary, Gretta Matthews, who was taught how to weave by the

Ngarrindjeri people at Swan Reach during the late nineteenth century. She

then went on to work in Goulbourn Island in 1900, and passed on the

technique she had learned to the local Maung people. Eventually, the

technique was passed to Maningrida, through by the movements of the

Maung people (Giles and Everett 1992:44-45).

As well as participating and exhibiting in Two Countries, One Weave,

Auntie Ellen has woven various objects for exhibitions. She wove a sister

basket for Woven Forms: Contemporary basket making in Australia, an

79

Page 86: Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri ... · Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri archaeology, fibre culture and masculinist constructions

exhibition held at the Object Gallery in Sydney in 2005, and proceeded to

tour the country (Parkes 2005). She has exhibited at various museums and

art galleries throughout Australia, but she is most proud of the inclusion of

her work in the National Gallery in Canberra. Auntie Ellen feels that the time

and effort put into her weaving is presented by the various institutions in

which her work is displayed, and that they are always represented as

Indigenous cultural objects. She always receives good responses for her

work from curators and members of the public alike.

By talking to a Ngarrindjeri person about weaving, I have endeavoured to

follow the work of anthropologists such as Hemming (1983; 1989, 1990;

Hemming et al. 2000), Bell (1998) and Wood Conroy (1997) who, by

collaborating with Ngarrindjeri people, were able to relate a more accurate

account of the importance of weaving to their culture than what was

available in the existing ethnographic records.

5.3 Tindale and early ethnography Anthropologists and archaeologists alike have argued that the depiction of

Indigenous people in the early ethnographic record is problematic and

fraught with masculinist and colonialist biases (see Bell 1998, 2001; Byrne

1996; Fergie 1996; Hemming 1996, 2006; Hemming and Trevorrow 2005;

Lydon 2005). In South Australia, the ethnographic record was utilised

during the Hindmarsh Island Bridge Royal Commission to uphold the

colonialist notion that living Ngarrindjeri people were culturally “extinct” and

“unauthentic”, as the only “real” Indigenous people in the urbanised south

80

Page 87: Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri ... · Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri archaeology, fibre culture and masculinist constructions

were those who had lived before the Europeans arrived and were therefore

“authentic”. As Byrne (1996:83) has argued, Europeans saw themselves as

agents of change; Indigenous people were only “authentic” if they

maintained their “primitive” ways.

As demonstrated in the previous chapter, archaeologists working in the

Lower Murray region often referred to the ethnographic record for

assistance in the interpretation of sites (eg. Luebbers 1978; Hemming et al.

2000; Mulvaney 1960; Mulvaney et al. 1964; Pretty 1977). During the 1960s

and 1970s, archaeologists did not undertake ethnographic approaches to

research with the Ngarrindjeri, as this area was part of the “settled” south,

and therefore not a place where “real” Indigenous people lived. As there

were few anthropologists working in southern South Australia at this time,

this helped to validate the construction that Indigenous cultures in this

region were extinct. The only Indigenous culture in this area was

“prehistoric”, contained to sites and interpreted by the “scientific” work of

archaeologists. Hemming (2006) argues that this is still the case within the

South Australian heritage regime.

Despite finding evidence of plant materials (Hale and Tindale 1930;

Hemming et al. 2000; Luebbers 1978; Mulvaney et al. 1964; Sheard et al.

1927; Tindale and Mountford 1936), most researchers who worked in the

Lower Murray region did not talk to Ngarrindjeri people about weaving.

Tindale undertook extensive ethnographic work with particular Ngarrindjeri

people such as Milerum, whom he evidently spoke to about weaving, as he

81

Page 88: Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri ... · Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri archaeology, fibre culture and masculinist constructions

created a film of Milerum making a basket (Sutton et al. 1989). Tindale also

collected a large amount of woven objects for the South Australian Museum

(Hemming et al. 1989), and may have spoken to other Ngarrindjeri people

about weaving whilst collecting, particularly to women who, like Auntie

Ellen’s grandmother, sold baskets and mats for extra income. If this was the

case, Tindale did not publish these conversations, at least not in terms of

basketry or women’s issues . Furthermore, Tindale and Mountford’s (1936)

excavation at Kongarati Cave revealed a large amount of plant material and

woven fishing nets associated with the burial of a woman, and yet they did

not ask any women about the significance of this site. From his insistence

that Harvey (nee Brookman), a woman, go and speak to Pinkie Mack, it is

evident that Tindale understood the gender-restricted aspects of Indigenous

knowledge, and that Indigenous women were unlikely to speak with him

(Bell 1998:460-61). He was interested enough in women’s knowledge to

send Harvey, yet this was a short term endeavour, and there is nothing to

suggest that he sent any other women to conduct long term research. The

lack of female researchers working in the area severely limited the amount

of women’s knowledge that was transmitted, resulting in a biased and

masculinist archaeological and ethnographic record. Although Tindale

employed different methodologies from those of his contemporaries in his

extensive use of ethnography as a source of information, he was still

heavily influenced by the Eurocentric research goals of his time.

82

Page 89: Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri ... · Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri archaeology, fibre culture and masculinist constructions

5.4 Professional archaeology Archaeologists who worked in the Lower Murray region after

“professionalisation” were university based, and as there was no

archaeology department in South Australia until the late 1990s, they

inevitably came from other states. The tension that existed between the

new professional archaeologists and the “amateurs” who worked from the

museums was evident in the Lower Murray region in the work of Mulvaney,

who although based at the University of Melbourne, excavated at Fromm’s

Landing (Mulvaney 1960; Mulvaney et al. 1964). Mulvaney’s research aim

was to test the validity of the claims made by Hale and Tindale (1930) in

their excavations at Devon Downs. This competitiveness was an aspect of

the new objective and “scientific” archaeology, and remained a feature of

archaeological practice during the 1960s and 1970s (Smith and du Cros

1995:9-10).

Mulvaney found plant material at Fromm’s Landing (see Mulvaney et al.

1964), but unlike Tindale, he did not conduct ethnography with Ngarrindjeri

people and therefore did not ask them about its significance. Ethnography

with Indigenous people during this period was rare, and in terms of

southern South Australia, this may have been tied into the notion that no

“authentic” Indigenous people were to be found in the area. Instead, the

ethnographic record was used to interpret and understand the Indigenous

past. Given the propensity to associate “authenticity” with Indigenous

people of the past and not the present, the ethnographic record was

unlikely to have been critically analysed by researchers during this period,

83

Page 90: Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri ... · Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri archaeology, fibre culture and masculinist constructions

meaning that early ethnohistoric accounts by Taplin (1879) and Meyer

(1846) were utilised as objective observations of Indigenous cultures (eg.

Luebbers 1978; Mulvaney 1960; Mulvaney et al. 1964; Pretty 1977).

In comparison with the archaeological work in the state that preceded it, the

methodologies employed at the Swan Reach Mission excavation in 1994

(Hemming et al. 2000) differ greatly in its multi-disciplinary and collaborative

approaches. This project was undertaken in the interests of Ngarrindjeri

people, who were present and involved at every stage, and had control over

how the project would proceed. Plant material found at Swan Reach was

identified and discussed with Ngarrindjeri people, who were able to

describe in detail the weaving of nets for fishing, and a variety of other

activities that demonstrated a continuation of culture through adaptation.

This excavation was far more beneficial and useful for the Ngarrindjeri than

other research previously conducted on their lands, as control over

research furthers the goal of self-determination, and ensures that their

knowledge and concerns are privileged rather than ignored. This project

was influenced by the collaborative and post colonial work of Spector

(1993; see Anderson 1997; Harris 1996) in North America, as here too

there was a commitment to privilege the views of Indigenous people and an

attempt to recognise the intersection between Indigenous and feminist

archaeologies, an argument that has been furthered by Conkey (2005).

Past archaeological work was carried out without Ngarrindjeri involvement

or control, and few benefits have arisen from this work for the Ngarrindjeri

84

Page 91: Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri ... · Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri archaeology, fibre culture and masculinist constructions

people, as there was little communication and no repatriation of cultural

material or old people.

Gender is not “found” in the archaeological record, rather it is a matter of

interpretation. Influential works such as Man the Hunter (1968) put forward

the idea that men were associated with hunting activities and stone tools,

whereas women’s activities were “domestic” and associated with perishable

plant materials and food stuffs. Conkey and Spector (1984) have argued

that the real difficulty in locating women in the archaeological record is not

due to the perishable nature of the materials with which they are

traditionally associated, but a result of false assumptions made by

researchers regarding the sexual division of labour. Given that in Australia,

women have undertaken much of the research into plant material analysis

(eg. Beck et al. 1989; Clarke 1985), it would seem that the study of plants is

not prioritised by male archaeologists.

5.5 Conclusion As stated by Auntie Ellen, and reiterated in the work of anthropologists such

as Bell (1998) and Hemming (1990; Hemming et al. 1989), weaving is an

important aspect of Ngarrindjeri culture. Its importance lies not only in its

practical uses, namely in the making of baskets and other objects, but also

in its social aspects, including the sharing of stories and the transmission of

knowledge. Weaving is evident in the early ethnography, the archaeological

record, the post contact period and in the contemporary culture. South

Australian archaeology has not engaged substantially with the Ngarrindjeri

85

Page 92: Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri ... · Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri archaeology, fibre culture and masculinist constructions

on this aspect of their culture, and it has been the goal of this thesis to

determine the cause of this.

The prevalence of male archaeologists in the past created an

archaeological record from which women were largely excluded. The

colonialist notion of the “dying race” has ensured that the view of the

academic “expert” is valued above contemporary Indigenous people, who

are not considered “traditional” or “authentic”. Together, these factors have

created a set of circumstances where the written record, though biased by

colonialist and masculinst constructions, is adhered to rather than the

perspectives of living Ngarrindjeri people, as demonstrated by the

Hindmarsh Island Bridge Royal Commission.

The anthropological and archaeological records in South Australia

concerning the Lower Murray region have been shown to contain

masculinist and colonialist constructions of Ngarrindjeri culture. In many

instances, early ethnographic accounts provided information regarding

Ngarrindjeri culture. This has serious implications for Ngarrindjeri people,

whose culture has been misrepresented. This was demonstrated by the

Hindmarsh Island affair, where Ngarrindjeri people were told by “experts”

that women’s culture did not exist, because it was not recorded in the

anthropological record. Collaborative and constructive relationships

between researchers and the Ngarrindjeri people are beginning to address

the imbalance and prejudices inherent in the written record.

86

Page 93: Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri ... · Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri archaeology, fibre culture and masculinist constructions

Reference List

Allen, J., Golson, J. and R. Jones. (eds). 1977. Sunda and Sahul:

Prehistoric studies in Southeast Asia, Melanesia and Australia. Academic

Press, London.

Anderson, S. 1997. Aboriginal archaeology, history and oral history at

Swan Reach Mission, South Australia. Unpublished Mlit thesis, University

of New England, Sydney.

Angas, G.F. 1847. Savage life and scenes in Australia and New Zealand:

Being an artist’s impressions of countries and people at the Antipodes. Vol.

1. Smith, Elder and Co., London.

Arsenault, D. 1991. The representation of women in Moche iconography.

In D. Walde and N.D. Willows (eds), The Archaeology of Gender –

Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Conference of the Archaeological

Association of the University of Calgary, pp.313-26. University of Calgary,

Calgary.

Balme, J. and W. Beck. 1993. Archaeology and feminism: Views on the

origins of the division of labour. In H. du Cros and L. Smith (eds), Women

in Archaeology: A Feminist Critique, pp.61-74. Research School of Pacific

and Asian Studies, The Australian National University, Canberra.

Occasional Papers in Prehistory 23.

87

Page 94: Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri ... · Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri archaeology, fibre culture and masculinist constructions

Beasley, C. 1999. What is Feminism? Sage, London.

Beck, W. and J. Balme. 1994. Gender in Aboriginal archaeology: Recent

research. Australian Archaeology 39:39-46.

Beck, W. and J. Balme. (eds). 1995. Gendered Archaeology: The Second

Australian Women in Archaeology Conference. Research School of Pacific

and Asian Studies, The Australian National University, Canberra. Research

Papers in Archaeology and Natural History 26.

Beck, W. and L. Head. 1990. Women in Australian prehistory. Australian

Feminist Studies 11:29-48.

Beck, W., Clarke, A. and L. Head. (eds). 1989. Plants in Australian

archaeology: Archaeology and Material Culture Studies in Anthropology.

Anthropology Museum, University of Queensland, St Lucia. Tempus 1.

Bell, D. 1993. Daughters of the Dreaming. University of Minnesota Press,

Minneapolis.

Bell, D. 1998. Ngarrindjeri Wurruwarrin: A world that is, was, and will be.

Spinifex, Melbourne.

88

Page 95: Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri ... · Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri archaeology, fibre culture and masculinist constructions

Bell, D. 2001. The word of a woman: Ngarrindjeri stories and a bridge to

Hindmarsh Island. In P. Brock (ed.), Words and silences: Aboriginal

women, politics and land, pp.117-38. Allen and Unwin, Crows Nest.

Bernard, H.R. 2006. Research Methods in Anthropology: Qualitative and

quantitative approaches (4th ed.) Altamira Press, New York.

Berndt, R.M. 1940. Some aspects of Jaralde culture, South Australia.

Oceania 11(2):164-85.

Berndt, C.H. 1965. Women and the “secret life”. In R.M. Berndt and C.H.

Berndt (eds), Aboriginal Man in Australia, pp.238-82. Angus and

Robertson, Sydney.

Berndt, C.H. 1970. Digging sticks and spears, or the two-sex model. In F.

Gale (ed.), Women’s role in Aboriginal society, pp.39-48. Australian

Institute of Aboriginal Studies, Canberra.

Berndt, C.H. 1981. Interpretations and “facts” in Aboriginal Australia. In F.

Dahlberg (ed.), Woman the gatherer, pp.153-203. Yale University Press,

New Haven.

Berndt, R.M., Berndt, C.H. and J. Stanton. 1993. The World That Was:

The Yaraldi of the Murray River and lakes, South Australia. Melbourne

University Press, Melbourne.

89

Page 96: Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri ... · Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri archaeology, fibre culture and masculinist constructions

Bickford, A. 1985. Background paper on first Government House site:

Extract from progress report on the first Government House site, 4 March

1984. In First Government House Site, Sydney: Its significance and future,

pp.3-13. Proceedings of Seminar No. 2 held 2 May 1984, Department of

Environment and Planning, Sydney.

Binford, L. R. 1989. Debating Archaeology. Academic Press, New York.

Bird, C.F.M. 1993. Woman the toolmaker: Evidence for women’s use and

manufacture of flaked stone tools in Australia and New Guinea. In H. du

Cros and L. Smith (eds), Women in Archaeology: A feminist critique,

pp.22-30. Department of Prehistory, The Research School of Pacific

Studies, The Australian National University, Canberra. Occasional Papers

in Prehistory 23.

Bird, C. and C. Beeck. 1988. Traditional plant foods in the southwest of

Western Australia: The evidence from salvage ethnography. In B. Meehan

and R. Jones (eds), Archaeology with ethnography: An Australian

perspective, pp.113-22. Department of Prehistory, Research School of

Pacific Studies, The Australian National University, Canberra.

Birdsell, J.H. 1977. The recalibration of a paradigm for the first peopling of

Greater Australia. In R.V.S. Wright (ed.) Stone tools as cultural markers:

90

Page 97: Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri ... · Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri archaeology, fibre culture and masculinist constructions

Change, evolution and complexity, pp.113-67. Australian Institute of

Aboriginal Studies, Canberra. Prehistory and Material Culture Series 12.

Bowdler, S. 1976. Hook, line and dilly bag: An interpretation of an

Australian coastal shell midden. Mankind 10:248-58.

Bowdler, S. and G. Clune 2000. That shadowy band: The role of women in

the development of Australian archaeology. Australian Archaeology 50:27-

35.

Bowler, J.M., Jones, R., Allen, H., and A.G. Thorne. 1970. Pleistocene

human remains from Australia: A living site and human cremation from

Lake Mungo, western New South Wales. World Archaeology 2:39-60.

Brooker, P. 2003. A Glossary of Cultural Theory (2nd ed.). Arnold, London.

Brookman, A. 1995. Evidence. Transcript of the Hindmarsh Island Bridge

Royal Commission. South Australian Government Printer, Adelaide.

Bulbeck, D. 1998. The female visage of Lapita. In M. Casey, D. Donlon, J.

Hope and S. Wellfare (eds), Redefining Archaeology: Feminist

perspectives, pp.90-95. Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, The

Australian National University, Canberra. Research Papers in Archaeology

and Natural History 29.

91

Page 98: Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri ... · Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri archaeology, fibre culture and masculinist constructions

Burke, H., Lovell-Jones, C., and C. Smith. 1994. Beyond the looking-glass:

Some thoughts on sociopolitics and reflexivity in Australian archaeology.

Australian Archaeology 38:13-22.

Byrne, D. 1996. Deep nation: Australia’s acquisition of an Indigenous past.

Aboriginal History 20:83-107.

Campbell, T.D. and H.V.V. Noone. 1943. South Australian microlithic

stone implements. Records of the South Australian Museum 7:281-307.

Casey, J. 1991. One man no chop: Gender roles in the domestic economy

in northern Ghana, West Africa. In D. Walde and N.D. Willows (eds), The

Archaeology of Gender – Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Conference of the

Archaeological Association of the University of Calgary, pp.137-43.

University of Calgary, Calgary.

Casey, M. 1998. Gender in historical archaeology 1991-1995: The impact

of the first Women in Archaeology Conference. In M. Casey, D. Donlon, J.

Hope and S. Wellfare (eds), Redefining Archaeology: Feminist

Perspectives, pp.68-73. Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies,

The Australian National University, Canberra. Research Papers in

Archaeology and Natural History 29.

Casey, M., Donlon, D., Hope, J. and S. Wellfare. (eds). 1998. Redefining

Archaeology: Feminist Perspectives. Research School of Pacific and Asian

92

Page 99: Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri ... · Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri archaeology, fibre culture and masculinist constructions

Studies, The Australian National University, Canberra. Research Papers in

Archaeology and Natural History 29.

Claassen, C. (ed.) 1992. Exploring Gender Through Archaeology.

Prehistory Press, Madison.

Clarke, A. 1985. A preliminary analysis of the Anbangbang 1 site. In R.

Jones (ed.) Archaeological research in Kakadu National Park, pp.77-96.

Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service, Canberra. Special

Publication 13.

Clarke, A. 2002. The ideal and the real: Cultural and personal

transformations of archaeological research on Groote Eylandt, northern

Australia. World Archaeology 34(2):249-64.

Conkey, M.W. 2005. Dwelling at the margins, action at the intersection?

Feminist and Indigenous archaeologies 2005. Archaeologies: Journal of the

World Archaeological Congress 1(1):9-59.

Conkey, M.W. and J. Spector. 1984. Archaeology and the study of gender.

Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory 7:1-37.

Conkey, M.W. and J.M. Gero. 1997. Programme to practice: Gender and

feminism in archaeology. Annual Review of Anthropology 26:411-37.

93

Page 100: Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri ... · Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri archaeology, fibre culture and masculinist constructions

Craven, R. 1996. Using the right words: Appropriate terminology for

Indigenous Australian Studies. School of Teacher Education, University of

New South Wales in association with the Council for Aboriginal

Reconciliation, Sydney.

Damm, C. 1991. From burials to gender roles: Problems and potentials in

post-processual archaeology. In D. Walde and N.D. Willows (eds.), The

Archaeology of Gender – Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Conference of the

Archaeological Association of the University of Calgary, pp.130-35.

University of Calgary, Calgary.

Davidson, I., Lovell-Jones, C. and R. Bancroft. (eds), 1995. Archaeologists

and Aborigines Working Together. University of New England Press,

Armidale.

Dobres, M.A. 1995. Beyond gender attribution: Some methodological

issues for engendering the past. In W. Beck and J. Balme (eds), Gendered

Archaeology: The Second Australian Women in Archaeology Conference,

pp.51-66. Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, The Australian

National University, Canberra: 51-66. Research Papers in Archaeology and

Natural History 26.

Draper, N. 1996. Kumarangk (Hindmarsh Island, South Australia):

Aboriginal Heritage Assessment. Prepared for the South Australian

94

Page 101: Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri ... · Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri archaeology, fibre culture and masculinist constructions

Department of State Aboriginal Affairs, and the Ngarrindjeri Traditional

Owners of the Lower Murray Region.

du Cros, H. 1993. Female skeletons in the closet: A historical look at

women in Australian archaeology. In H. du Cros and L. Smith (eds),

Women in Archaeology: A Feminist Critique, pp.239-44. Research School

of Pacific and Asian Studies, The Australian National University, Canberra.

Occasional Papers in Prehistory 23.

du Cros, H. and L. Smith. (eds) 1993. Women in Archaeology: A Feminist

Critique. Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, The Australian

National University, Canberra. Occasional Papers in Prehistory 23.

Eyre, E.J. 1845. Journals of expeditions of discovery into Central Australia

and overland from Adelaide to King George’s Sound, in the years 1840-41.

Vol 2. Boone, London.

Fergie, D. 1996. Secret envelopes and inferential tautologies. Journal of

Australian Studies 48:13-24.

Field, J., Barker, J., Barker, R., Coffey, E., Coffey, L., Crawford, E., Darcy,

L., Fields, T., Lord, G., Steadman, B. and S. Colley. 2000. ‘Coming Back’:

Aborigines and archaeologists at Cuddie Springs. Public Archaeology 1:35-

48.

95

Page 102: Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri ... · Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri archaeology, fibre culture and masculinist constructions

Flood, J. 1980. The moth hunters: Aboriginal prehistory of the Australian

Alps. Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, Canberra.

Gaughwin, D. 1984. Women in the food quest in western Port Victoria.

The Artefact 9:23-27.

Gero, J. 1991. Genderlithics: Women’s roles in stone tool production. In

M.W. Conkey and J.M. Gero (eds), Engendering Archaeology, pp.163-93.

Basil Blackwell, Oxford.

Giles, K. and P. Everett 1992. Two countries, one weave? Artlink 12(2):44-

6.

Gilmore, K.P. 2005. These boots were made for walking: Moccasin

production, gender and the Late Prehistoric hideworking sequence on the

High Plains of Colorado. In L. Frink and K. Weedman (eds), Gender and

Hide Production, pp.13-36. Altamira Press, New York.

Gorecki, P.P. 1988. Hunters and shelters: The need for

ethnoarchaeological data. In B. Meehan and R. Jones (ed.), Archaeology

with ethnography: An Australian perspective. pp.159-70. Department of

Prehistory, Research School of Pacific Studies, The Australian National

University, Canberra.

96

Page 103: Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri ... · Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri archaeology, fibre culture and masculinist constructions

Gorman, A. 1995. Gender, labour and resources: The female knappers of

the Andaman Islands. In W. Beck and J. Balme (eds), Gendered

Archaeology: The Second Australian Women in Archaeology Conference,

pp.87-91. Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, The Australian

National University, Canberra. Research Papers in Archaeology and

Natural History 26.

Gott, B. 1982. Ecology of root use by the Aborigines of southern Australia.

Archaeology in Oceania 17:59-67.

Gould, R.A. 1980. Living Archaeology. Cambridge University Press,

Cambridge.

Greer, S. 1996. Archaeology, heritage and identity in northern Cape York

Peninsula. In S. Ulm, I. Lilley and A. Ross (eds), Australian Archaeology

‘95: Proceedings of the 1995 Australian Archaeological Association Annual

Conference, pp.103-6. The University of Queensland, St Lucia. Tempus 6.

Haglund, L. 1968. An Aboriginal burial ground at Broadbeach Queensland:

Excavation report. Mankind 6:676-80.

Haglund, L. 1976. An archaeological analysis of the Broadbeach

Aboriginal burial ground. University of Queensland Press, Brisbane.

97

Page 104: Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri ... · Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri archaeology, fibre culture and masculinist constructions

Haglund, L. 1984. Checklists and requirements for consultants’ reports.

Australian Association of Consulting Archaeologists, Sydney.

Hale, H. and N.B. Tindale. 1930. Notes on some human remains in the

Lower Murray valley, South Australia. Records of the South Australian

Museum 4(2):145-218.

Hallam, S.J. 1975. Fire and hearth. Australian Institute of Aboriginal

Studies, Canberra.

Hallam, S.J. 1991. Aboriginal women as providers: The 1830s on the

Swan. Aboriginal History 15(2):38-53.

Hamby, L. 2001. Containers of power: Fibre forms from northeast Arnhem

Land Australia. Unpublished PhD thesis. School of Archaeology and

Anthropology, The Australian National University, Canberra.

Haraway, D. 1988. Situated knowledges: The science question in

feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Feminist Studies

14(3):575-99.

Harris, R. 1996. Artefacts and oral history at Swan Reach Aboriginal

Mission. Graduate Diploma in Archaeology, Flinders University, Adelaide.

98

Page 105: Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri ... · Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri archaeology, fibre culture and masculinist constructions

Harrison, R. 2002. Shared histories and the archaeology of the pastoral

industry in Australia. In R. Harrison and C. Williamson (eds), After Captain

Cook: The archaeology of the recent Indigenous past in Australia, pp.37-58.

Archaeological Computing Laboratory, University of Sydney, Sydney.

Sydney University Archaeological Methods Series 8.

Head, L. 1986. Palaeoecological contributions to Australian prehistory.

Archaeology in Oceania 21:121-29.

Head, L. 1994. Both ends of the candle? Discerning human impact on the

vegetation. Australian Archaeology 39:82-86.

Hemming, S.J. 1988. Ngurunderi: A Ngarrindjeri Dreaming. Records of

the South Australian Museum 22(2):191-93.

Hemming, S.J. 1990. The survival of coiled basketry. In Look at us now:

South Australian Aboriginal artists 1990. Tandanya Survey 1, 8-9. The

Aboriginal Cultural Institute Incorporated, Adelaide.

Hemming, S. 1996. Inventing ethnography. Journal of Australian Studies

48:25-39.

Hemming, S. 2002. Taming the colonial archive: History, Native Title and

colonialism. In M. Paul and G. Gray (eds), Through a smoky mirror:

History and Native Title, pp.49-64. Aboriginal Studies Press, Canberra.

99

Page 106: Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri ... · Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri archaeology, fibre culture and masculinist constructions

Hemming, S. 2006. The problem with heritage: Translation, transformation

and resistance. In G. Worby and L.I. Rigney (eds). Sharing Spaces:

indigenous and non-indigenous responses to story, country and rights.

pp.305-28. API Network, Australian Research Institute, Curtin University of

Technology, Perth.

Hemming, S.J. and C. Cook. 1994. Crossing the river: Aboriginal history in

the Mid-Murray of South Australia. Unpublished report to the Murray Darling

Basin Commission.

Hemming, S. and T. Trevorrow 2005. Kungun Ngarrindjeri Yunnan:

Archaeology, colonialism and re-claiming the future. In C. Smith and H.M.

Wobst (eds), Indigenous Archaeologies: Decolonizing theory and practice,

pp.243-61. Routledge, New York.

Hemming, S.J., Jones, P.G. and P.A. Clarke. 1989. Ngurunderi: An

Aboriginal Dreaming. South Australian Museum, Adelaide.

Hemming, S., Wood, V. and R. Hunter. 2000. Researching the past: Oral

history and archaeology at Swan Reach. In A. Clarke and R. Torrence

(eds), The archaeology of difference: Negotiating cross-cultural

engagements in Oceania, pp.331-59. Routledge, London. One World

Archaeology Series 38.

100

Page 107: Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri ... · Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri archaeology, fibre culture and masculinist constructions

hooks, b. 1984. Feminist Theory: From margin to center. South End

Press, Boston.

Hope, J. 1998. Making up stories: Bias in interpretations of Aboriginal

burial practices in southern Australia. In M. Casey, D. Donlon, J. Hope and

S. Wellfare (eds), Redefining Archaeology: Feminist Perspectives, pp.239-

45. Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, The Australian National

University, Canberra. Research Papers in Archaeology and Natural History

29.

Howchin, W. 1934. The stone implements of the Adelaide tribe of

Aborigines now extinct. Gillingham, Adelaide.

Isaac, G. 1977. Squeezing blood from stones. In R.V.S. Wright (ed.),

Stone tools as cultural markers: Change, evolution and complexity. pp.5-12.

Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, Canberra. Prehistory and Material

Culture Series 12

Jacobs, J.M. 1989. Women talking up big. In P. Brock (ed.), Women:

Rites and sites, pp.76-98. Allen and Unwin, Sydney.

Johnston, D. 2004. Australian Indigenous archaeology: Where’s our mob

at? The Artefact 27:8-10.

101

Page 108: Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri ... · Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri archaeology, fibre culture and masculinist constructions

Jones, R. 1966. A speculative archaeological sequence for north west

Tasmania. Records of the Queen Victoria Museum, Launceston 25.

Jones, R. 1968. Editorial. Mankind 6(11):535-36.

Jones, R. and J. Allen. 1978. Caveat excavator: A sea bird midden on

steep head island, northwest Tasmania. Australian Archaeology 8:142-45.

Kaberry, P.M. 1939. Aboriginal Women Sacred and Profane. George

Routledge, London.

Klein, R.D. 1983. How to do what we want to do: Thoughts about feminist

methodology. In G. Bowles and R.D. Klein (eds), Theories of Women’s

Studies, pp.88-104. Routledge and Kegan Paul, London.

Kleinert, S. and M. Neale. 2000. The Oxford Companion to Aboriginal Art

and Culture. Oxford University Press, Melbourne.

Knapp, A.B. 1998. Boys will be boys: Masculinst approaches to a

gendered archaeology. In M. Casey, D. Donlon, J. Hope and S. Wellfare

(eds), Redefining Archaeology: Feminist Perspectives, pp.32-36. Research

School of Pacific and Asian Studies, The Australian National University,

Canberra. Research Papers in Archaeology and Natural History 29.

102

Page 109: Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri ... · Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri archaeology, fibre culture and masculinist constructions

Langford, R.F. 1983. Our heritage, your playground. Australian

Archaeology 16:1-6.

Langton, M. 1981. Urbanising Aborigines: The social scientists’ great

deception. Social Alternatives 2(2):16-22.

Lassiter, L.E. 2005. Collaborative ethnography and public anthropology.

Current Anthropology 46(1):83-106.

Lee, R.B. and I. DeVore. (eds). 1968a. Man the Hunter. Aldine Publishing

Company, Chicago.

Lee, R.B. and I. DeVore. 1968b. Problems in the study of hunters and

gatherers. In R.B. Lee and I. DeVore (eds), Man the Hunter, pp.3-12.

Aldine Publishing Company, Chicago.

Lippert, D. 2005. Comment on “Dwelling at the margins, action at the

intersection? Feminist and Indigenous archaeologies, 2005”.

Archaeologies: Journal of the World Archaeological Congress 1(1):63-66.

Lucas, R. 1996. The Failure of Anthropology. Journal of Australian

Studies 48:40-51.

103

Page 110: Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri ... · Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri archaeology, fibre culture and masculinist constructions

Luebbers, R. 1978. Meals and menus: A study of change in prehistoric

coastal settlements in South Australia. Unpublished PhD thesis. The

Australian National University, Canberra.

Luebbers, R. 1981. The Coorong report: An archaeological investigation of

the Southern Coorong. Unpublished report of the Department of

Environment and Planning, South Australia.

Lydon, J. 2005. ‘Our sense of beauty’: Visuality, space and gender on

Victoria’s Aboriginal reserves, south-eastern Australia. History and

Anthropology 16(2):211-33.

McBryde, I. 1974. Aboriginal prehistory in New England. Sydney

University Press, Sydney.

McBryde, I. (ed.) 1978. Records of times past: Ethnohistorical essays on

the culture and ecology of the New England tribes. Australian Institute of

Aboriginal Studies, Canberra.

McBryde, I. 1979. Ethnohistory in an Australian context: Independent

discipline or convenient data quarry? Aboriginal History 3:128-51.

McBryde, I. 1984. Kulin greenstone quarries: The social contexts of

production and distribution for the Mount William site. World Archaeology

16:267-85.

104

Page 111: Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri ... · Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri archaeology, fibre culture and masculinist constructions

McBryde, I. (ed.) 1985. Who owns the past? Oxford University Press,

Melbourne.

McBryde, I. 1986. Australia’s once and future archaeology. Archaeology in

Oceania 21:13-28.

McBryde, I. 1997. The cultural landscapes of Aboriginal long distance

exchange systems: Can they be confined within our heritage registers?

Historic Environment 13(3-4):6-14.

McCarthy, F. 1938. The Aboriginal rock engravings of the Sydney district.

Australian Museum Magazine 6:401-409.

McCarthy, F. 1940. Aboriginal material culture: Causative factors in its

composition. Mankind 2(8):241-69.

McCarthy, F.D. 1948. The Lapstone Creek excavation: Two culture periods

revealed in eastern New South Wales. Records of the Australian Museum

22:1-34.

McCarthy, F.D., Bramell, E. and H.V.V. Noone. 1946. The stone

implements of Australia. Memoirs of the Australian Museum 9:1-94.

105

Page 112: Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri ... · Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri archaeology, fibre culture and masculinist constructions

McDonald, J. 1992. The Great Mackerel Rockshelter excavation: Women

in the archaeological record? Australian Archaeology 35:32-50.

McGrath, A. 1990. The white man’s looking glass: Aboriginal-colonial

gender relations at Port Jackson. Australian Historical Studies 24(95):189-

206.

McIntyre-Tamwoy, S. and R. Harrison. 2004. Monuments to colonialism?

Stone arrangements, tourist cairns and turtle magic at Evans Bay, Cape

York. Australian Archaeology 59:31-42.

Meehan, B. 1982. Shell Bed to Shell Midden. Australian Institute of

Aboriginal Studies, Canberra.

Meehan, B. 1993. Epilogue: An end and a beginning. In H. du Cros and L.

Smith (eds), Women in Archaeology: A feminist critique, pp.261-62.

Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, The Australian National

University, Canberra. Occasional Papers in Prehistory 23.

Meehan, B. and R. Jones. (ed.) 1988. Archaeology with ethnography: An

Australian perspective. Department of Prehistory, Research School of

Pacific Studies, The Australian National University, Canberra.

Megaw, V.S. 1966. Australian archaeology – how far have we

progressed? Mankind 6(7):306-12.

106

Page 113: Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri ... · Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri archaeology, fibre culture and masculinist constructions

Meyer, H.E.A. 1846. Manners and Customs of the Aborigines of the

Encounter Bay Tribe, South Australia. South Australia Government Printer,

Adelaide. Republished 2000. Second Edition History, Blackwood.

Moogk, S. 1991. The construction of “woman” in the Nuu-chah-nulth girls’

puberty ceremony in 1910. In D. Walde and N.D. Willows (eds), The

Archaeology of Gender – Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Conference of the

Archaeological Association of the University of Calgary, pp.103-107.

University of Calgary, Calgary.

Moore, H.L. 1988. Feminism and Anthropology. Polity Press, Cambridge.

Moore, H.L. 1991. Epilogue. In M.W. Conkey and J. Gero (eds),

Engendering Archaeology, pp.407-11. Basil Blackwell, Oxford.

Moreton-Robinson, A. 2000. Talkin’ up to the white woman: Aboriginal

women and feminism. University of Queensland Press, St Lucia.

Moser, S. 1995. Archaeology and its disciplinary culture: The

professionalisation of Australian prehistoric archaeology. Unpublished PhD

thesis, University of Sydney.

107

Page 114: Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri ... · Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri archaeology, fibre culture and masculinist constructions

Mulvaney, D.J. 1960. Archaeological excavations at Fromm’s Landing on

the Lower Murray River, South Australia. Proceedings of the Royal Society

of Victoria 72:53-85.

Mulvaney, D.J. 1971. Prehistory from antipodean perspectives.

Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 27:228-52.

Mulvaney, D.J. 1975. The prehistory of Australia. Penguin, Ringwood.

Mulvaney, D.J. 1977. Classification and typology in Australia: The first 340

years. In R.V.S. Wright (ed.) Stone tools as cultural markers: Change,

evolution and complexity, pp.263-68. Australian Institute of Aboriginal

Studies, Canberra. Prehistory and Material Culture Series 12.

Mulvaney, D.J. 1980. Two remarkably parallel careers. Australian

Archaeology 10:96-101.

Mulvaney, D.J. and E.B. Joyce. 1965. Archaeological and

geomorphological investigations of Mount Moffat Station, Queensland.

Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 31:147-212.

Mulvaney, D.J., Lawton, G.H., Twidale, C.R., MacIntosh, N.W.G., Mahoney,

J.A. and N.A. Wakefield. 1964. Archaeological excavation of rock shelter

No. 6 Fromm’s Landing, South Australia. Proceedings of the Royal Society

of Victoria 77:479-516.

108

Page 115: Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri ... · Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri archaeology, fibre culture and masculinist constructions

Murray, T. and J.P. White. 1981. Cambridge in the bush? Archaeology in

Australia and New Guinea. World Archaeology 13:255-63.

Pardoe, C. 1990. Sharing the past: Aboriginal influence on archaeological

practice, a case study from New South Wales. Aboriginal History

14(2):208-23.

Pardoe, C. 1994. W(h)ither archaeology? Australian Archaeology 38:11-

13.

Parkes, B. (ed.), 2005. Woven forms: Contemporary basket making in

Australia. Object: Australian Centre for Craft and Design, Sydney.

Parslow, B. 1993. The identification of gender in Maori archaeology. In H.

du Cros and L. Smith (eds), Women in Archaeology: A feminist critique,

pp.41-45. Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, The Australian

National University, Canberra. Occasional Papers in Prehistory 23.

Pretty, G. 1977. The cultural chronology of Roonka Flat: A preliminary

consideration. In R.V.S. Wright (ed.), Stone tools as cultural markers,

pp.288-331. Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, Canberra.

Radcliffe-Brown, A.R. 1931. The diffusion of culture in Australia. Oceania

1:366-70.

109

Page 116: Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri ... · Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri archaeology, fibre culture and masculinist constructions

Roberts, A.L. 2003. Knowledge, power and voice: An investigation of

Indigenous South Australian perspectives of archaeology. Unpublished

PhD thesis. Department of Archaeology, Flinders University, Adelaide.

Roberts, C. 1993. A critical approach to gender as a category of analysis in

archaeology. In H. du Cros and L. Smith (eds), Women in Archaeology: A

Feminist Critique, pp.16-21. Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies,

The Australian National University, Canberra. Occasional Papers in

Prehistory 23.

Rose, D.B. 1996. Land rights and deep colonising: The erasure of women.

Aboriginal Law Bulletin 85(3):6-13.

Ross, A. and members of the Quandamooka Aboriginal Land Council.

1996. Aboriginal approaches to cultural heritage management: A

Quandamooka case study. In S. Ulm, I. Lilley and A. Ross (eds), Australian

Archaeology ‘95: Proceedings of the 1995 Australian Archaeological

Association Annual Conference, pp.107-12. The University of Queensland,

St Lucia. Tempus 6.

Ryan, L. 1996. Origins of a Royal Commission. Journal of Australian

Studies 48:1-12.

110

Page 117: Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri ... · Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri archaeology, fibre culture and masculinist constructions

Russell, L. 2001. Savage Imaginings: Historical and contemporary

constructions of Australian Aboriginalities. Australian Scholarly Publishing,

Melbourne.

Schrire, C. 1982. The Alligator Rivers: Prehistory and ecology in western

Arnhem Land. Department of Prehistory, Research School of Pacific

Studies, The Australian National University, Canberra. Terra Australis 7.

Sheard, H.L., Mountford, C.P. and C.J. Hackett 1927. An unusual disposal

of an Aboriginal child’s remains from the lower Murray. Transactions of the

Royal Society of South Australia 51:173-76.

Smith, C. and H.M. Wobst. 2005. Decolonising archaeological theory and

practice. In C. Smith and H.M. Wobst (eds), Indigenous Archaeologies –

Decolonising theory and practice, pp.5-16. Routledge, New York. One

World Archaeology Series 47.

Smith, L. 1993. Feminist issues in cultural resource management. In H.

du Cros and L. Smith (eds), Women in Archaeology: A feminist critique,

pp.210-14. Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, The Australian

National University, Canberra. Occasional Papers in Prehistory 23.

Smith, L. 1995. Gender as ‘other’ in postprocessual archaeology. In J.

Balme and W. Beck (eds), Gendered Archaeology: The Second Australian

Women in Archaeology Conference, pp.67-71. Research School of Pacific

111

Page 118: Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri ... · Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri archaeology, fibre culture and masculinist constructions

and Asian Studies, The Australian National University, Canberra. Research

Papers in Archaeology and Natural History 26.

Smith, L. 1998. Sand in our thongs: Feminism, theory and shoelaces. In

M. Casey, D. Donlon, J. Hope and S. Wellfare (eds), Redefining

Archaeology: Feminist Perspectives, pp.41-45. Research School of Pacific

and Asian Studies, The Australian National University, Canberra. Research

Papers in Archaeology and Natural History 29.

Smith, L. and H. du Cros. 1995. Reflections on women in archaeology. In

W. Beck and J. Balme (eds), Gendered Archaeology: The Second

Australian Women in Archaeology Conference, pp.7-27. Research School

of Pacific and Asian Studies, The Australian National University, Canberra.

Research Papers in Archaeology and Natural History 26.

Smith, L., Morgan, A. and van der A. Meer. 2003. Community-driven

research in cultural heritage management: The Waanyi Women’s History

Project. International Journal of Heritage Studies 9(1):65-80.

Smith, L.T. 1999. Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous

peoples. Zed Books, London.

Smith, M.A. 1982. Devon Downs reconsidered: Changes in site use at a

Lower Murray Valley rockshelter. Archaeology in Oceania 17:109-16.

112

Page 119: Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri ... · Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri archaeology, fibre culture and masculinist constructions

Somerville, M., Dundas, M., Mead, M., Robinson, J. and M. Sulter. 1994.

The Sun Dancin’: People and place in Coonabarabran. Aboriginal Studies

Press, Canberra.

Spector, J.D. 1991. What this awl means: Toward a feminist archaeology.

In M. Conkey and J. Gero (eds), Engendering Archaeology, pp.388-406.

Basil Blackwell, Oxford.

Spector, J.D. 1993. What This Awl Means: Feminist archaeology at a

Wahpeton Dakota village. Minneapolis Historical Society, Minneapolis.

Spector, J.D. 1998. Doing feminist archaeology: What difference(s) does it

make? In M. Casey, D. Donlon, J. Hope and S. Wellfare (eds), Redefining

Archaeology: Feminist Perspectives, pp.49-54. Research School of Pacific

and Asian Studies, The Australian National University, Canberra. Research

Papers in Archaeology and Natural History 29.

Spencer-Wood, S.M. 1998. Peeling the androcentric onion in historical

archaeology. In M. Casey, D. Donlon, J. Hope and S. Wellfare (eds),

Redefining Archaeology: Feminist Perspectives, pp.21-31. Research

School of Pacific and Asian Studies, The Australian National University,

Canberra. Research Papers in Archaeology and Natural History 29.

Stevens, I. 1995. Report of the Hindmarsh Island Bridge Royal

Commission. State Print, Adelaide.

113

Page 120: Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri ... · Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri archaeology, fibre culture and masculinist constructions

Stig Sørensen, M.L. 1991. The construction of gender through appearance.

In D. Walde and N.D. Willows (eds), The Archaeology of Gender –

Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Conference of the Archaeological

Association of the University of Calgary, pp.121-29. University of Calgary,

Calgary.

Stig Sørensen, M.L. 1998. Women’s culture in Bronze Age Europe: Social

categories or ‘symbolic capital’. In M. Casey, D. Donlon, J. Hope and S.

Wellfare (eds), Redefining Archaeology: Feminist Perspectives, pp.84-89.

Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, The Australian National

University, Canberra. Research Papers in Archaeology and Natural History

29.

Sullivan, M. 1980. The Australian Association of Consulting

Archaeologists. Australian Archaeology 10:117-18.

Sutton, P., Jones, P. and S. Hemming. 1989. Survival, regeneration and

impact. In P. Sutton (ed.), Dreamings: The art of Aboriginal Australia,

pp.180-212, Viking (Penguin), Melbourne.

Taplin, G. 1878. Grammar of the language “Narrinyeri” tribe. South

Australian Government Printer, Adelaide.

114

Page 121: Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri ... · Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri archaeology, fibre culture and masculinist constructions

Taplin, G. 1879. The folklore, manners, customs and languages of the

South Australian Aborigines. Acting Government Printer, Adelaide.

Thomas, D.H. 1983. Gatecliff shelter. Anthropological Papers of the

American Museum of Natural History 59(1), New York.

Tindale, N.B. 1965. Stone implement making among the Makako,

Ngadadjara and Pitjandjara of the Great Western Desert. Records of the

South Australian Museum 15:131-64.

Tindale, N.B. 1982. A South Australian looks at some beginnings of

archaeological research in Australia. Aboriginal History 6:92-110.

Tindale, N.B. and C.P. Mountford. 1936. Results of the excavation of

Kongarati Cave near Second Valley, South Australia. Records of the South

Australian Museum 5(4):487-502.

Tindale, N.B. and G.L. Pretty. 1978. Role of museums in the preservation

of Indigenous cultures. UNESCO Regional Seminar 1978: Australian

National Commission for UNESCO. South Australian Museum, Adelaide.

Trevorrow, T. 2003. A shocking insult. Overland 171:62-3.

Von Doussa, J. Justice 2001. Chapmans vs Luminis and Ors, Federal

Court of Australia, Summary of Judgement 21 August 2001.

115

Page 122: Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri ... · Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri archaeology, fibre culture and masculinist constructions

Wallis, L.A. 2001. Environmental history of northwest Australia based on

phytolith analysis at Carpenter’s Gap 1. Quaternary International 83-

85:103-17.

Wallis, L.A., Smith, D. and H. Smith. 2004a. Recent archaeological

surveys on Middle Park Station, northwest Queensland. Australian

Archaeology 59:43-50.

Wallis, L.A., Smith, D. and H. Smith. 2004b. Investigations of Aboriginal

hearth sites along the Flinders River, inland northwest Queensland. The

Artefact 27:59-76.

Watanabe, H. 1968. Subsistence and ecology of northern food gatherers

with special reference to the Ainu. In R.B. Lee and I. DeVore (eds), Man the

Hunter, pp.69-77. Aldine Publishing Company, Chicago.

Watson, I. 2002. Aboriginal laws and the sovereignty of Terra Nullius.

Borderlands e-journal 1(2):1-8.

http://www.borderlandsjournaladelaide.edu.au/vol1no2/watson_laws.html

(Accessed 30 August 2006).

White, C. 1967. The prehistory of the Kakadu people. Mankind 6:426-31.

116

Page 123: Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri ... · Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri archaeology, fibre culture and masculinist constructions

White, J.P. 1977. Crude, colourless and unenterprising: Prehistorians and

their views on the stone age of Sunda and Sahul. In J. Allen, J. Golson and

R. Jones (eds). Sunda and Sahul: Prehistoric Studies in Southeast Asia,

Melanesia and Australia, pp.13-30. Academic Press, London.

White, J.P. and J.F. O’Connell 1982. A Prehistory of Australia, New Guinea

and Sahul. Academic Press, Sydney.

Willis, E. 2003. Researching the women of Little Lon. The Artefact 26:3-

10.

Wilson, C. 2005. Return of the Ngarrindjeri: Repatriating Old People Back

to Country. Unpublished Honours thesis. Department of Archaeology,

Flinders University, Adelaide.

Wood Conroy, D. 1997. Both ways: Yolngu and Ngarrindjeri weaving in

Australian arts practice. In S. Rowley (ed.), Craft and Contemporary

Theory, pp.155-70. Allen and Unwin, St Leonards.

Wright, R.V.S. (ed.) 1977. Stone tools as cultural markers: Change,

evolution and complexity. Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies,

Canberra. Prehistory and Material Culture Series No. 12.

117

Page 124: Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri ... · Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri archaeology, fibre culture and masculinist constructions

Wylie, A. 1991. Gender theory and the archaeological record: Why is there

no archaeology of gender? In M.W. Conkey and J. Gero (eds), Engendering

Archaeology, pp.31-54. Basil Blackwell, Oxford.

Zimmerman, L. 1989. Human bones as symbols of power: Aboriginal

American belief systems towards bones and ‘grave-robbing’ archaeologists.

In R. Layton (ed.) Conflict in the Archaeology of Living Traditions, pp.211-

16. Unwin Hyman, London.

118

Page 125: Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri ... · Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri archaeology, fibre culture and masculinist constructions

Appendix A

Ethics Application

119

Page 126: Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri ... · Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri archaeology, fibre culture and masculinist constructions

FLINDERS UNIVERSITY ADELAIDE • AUSTRALIA Social and Behavioural Research Ethics Committee*

APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF SOCIAL OR BEHAVIOURAL

RESEARCH INVOLVING HUMAN SUBJECTS

* Research that is clinical in nature or that involves staff or patients of the Flinders Medical Centre is subject to approval by the Joint Flinders Clinical Research Ethics Committee, the Secretary of which may be contacted on 8204 4507.

Instructions for Applicants 1. Before completing this application, you should refer to the statement of Ethical

Guidelines for Social and Behavioural Research, which is available from the website (http://www.flinders.edu.au/research/office/ethics/index.html/) or the SBREC Secretary, Office of Research (8201 5962). In particular, researchers should be mindful of Ch.1, Principles of Ethical Conduct, that are intended to apply to the interpretation and the use of all other parts of the Statement.

2. This application form and any supporting documentation must be completed electronically or typewritten. As the application kit may be periodically revised, please check that you are using the most current versions of this form and the associated templates – letter of introduction, consent forms etc, which are available electronically from the University’s website or by e-mail from the Secretary.

3. As this form is designed for electronic completion, the space indicated for each question on the hard copy version does not necessarily indicate the suggested length of responses. Please ensure that an appropriate response is made to each item – DO NOT LEAVE ANY ITEM BLANK.

4. Applications from student researchers that have not been signed by the responsible staff member will not be considered.

5. Roughly amended versions of templates provided in the application kit will not be accepted. The Committee will only consider applications that include the version of letters and consent forms that will actually be forwarded to participants. In the case of the Letter of Introduction, this should include the signature of the Supervisor/researcher and an appropriate University letterhead.

6. The application should be worded in plain language for the benefit of lay members of the Committee in particular. If it is necessary to use acronyms please ensure that an explanation is included for the benefit of Committee members who may not be familiar with them.

7. Researchers and SUPERVISORS, in the case of student projects, are asked to carefully check the entire application for errors, especially clumsy expression and spelling errors contained in Letters, Information Statements, Questionnaires and Consent Forms that will be sent to participants. It is not the Committee’s role to correct errors of this kind, yet the Committee is mindful that research participants should receive documents that are informative, clear and properly written. Applications containing significant errors will be returned for editing and re-submission.

8. If it is necessary to arrange translations of material, it is the responsibility of the researcher and/or Supervisor to ensure that the translations accurately reflect the English version translations approved by the Committee.

9. The Committee does not wish to receive copies of lengthy research proposals and lists of references, or documents prepared for other Ethics Committees, with the instruction ‘see attached’. If you do not complete the form electronically and respond to questions with ‘see attachment’, please use the numeric codes and headings present in the application form and give page and paragraph references where the specific information can be found in the attachments.

120

Page 127: Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri ... · Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri archaeology, fibre culture and masculinist constructions

10. The Committee’s concerns are specific to the duties of researchers to their participants, and to other persons that may be affected by the research. It is those matters that must be addressed by researchers in completing the form and accompanying documents prepared for forwarding to participants. It should be borne in mind that details of procedures and researcher activities, which may not necessarily be important to research design, could be significant from the viewpoint of the Research Ethics Committee.

11. Researchers with questions about these or other matters related to preparing applications for ethical approval are invited to contact the Secretary of the Committee or the Chairperson, Prof Phillip Slee, telephone 8201 3243.

12. Please forward ONE copy of the completed application and attachments, single sided and fastened with clips, not staples, to the Committee Secretary, Sandy Huxtable, Room 105, Registry Building, to arrive no later than 14 days prior to the meeting. Applications received after the closing date will be held over to the following meeting. If research involves or impacts upon Indigenous Australians a copy must be forwarded to the Executive Officer, Yunggorendi at the same time it is lodged with the Secretary.

121

Page 128: Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri ... · Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri archaeology, fibre culture and masculinist constructions

FLINDERS UNIVERSITY ADELAIDE • AUSTRALIA Social and Behavioural Research Ethics Committee

Office Use Only Project Number:

IMPORTANT INFORMATION FOR RESEARCHERS

INTENDING TO UNDERTAKE RESEARCH IN SOUTH AUSTRALIAN SCHOOLS.

If you are intending to conduct research in a South Australian school you are required to have undergone a Police check and have been cleared for entry into schools. A set of procedures has been agreed between the University, the Department of Education and Children's Services, Catholic Education Office and Independent Schools Board. For specific information about these procedures please refer to the following web page: http://www.flinders.edu.au/about/police.html

The Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Research) has directed that Flinders’ Human Research Ethics Committees obtain confirmation from researchers who intend to undertake research activities in SA schools that current Police clearances are in place before the application is considered by the Committee. Accordingly, if your application involves activities in a South Australian school, please complete and sign the certification below.

Does your proposed research involve you, or any member of your research team, in undertaking any activities with SA schools?

Yes No √ If Yes, please confirm by ticking the following box that you, and/or any member(s) of the research team who will be conducting these activities in schools, have applied for and been notified that you and/or they have cleared a police check, and that this clearance is current for the life of the proposed study.

Yes I, and/or all personnel on this project who will be conducting these activities in schools, have a current Police clearance.

122

Page 129: Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri ... · Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri archaeology, fibre culture and masculinist constructions

Signed………………………………………. Date…………………

PLEASE DO NOT INCLUDE A COPY OF YOUR CLEARANCE

NB: If you have ticked ‘Yes’ in the first box and not in the second, your application will be returned to you unassessed and without ethics approval

123

Page 130: Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri ... · Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri archaeology, fibre culture and masculinist constructions

FLINDERS UNIVERSITY ADELAIDE • AUSTRALIA Social and Behavioural Research Ethics Committee

Office Use Only Project Number:

APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF SOCIAL OR BEHAVIOURAL

RESEARCH INVOLVING HUMAN SUBJECTS

RESEARCHER INFORMATION A1. Name(s): List principal researcher first, (title, first name, last name)

Status : eg (Staff, Student, Associate)

School / Department / Organisation

Ms Diana Baric Honours Student Department of Archaeology/ School of Humanities

A2. Students Only:

Student Record Number (SRN) Supervisor(s) Supervisor’s School / Department / Organisation

9604891 Dr Lynley Wallis

Department of Archaeology/ School of

Humanities

Steve Hemming Department of English and Cultural Studies

Degree enrolled for Honours in Archaeology

A3. Contact Details: Researchers, Associates, Supervisors

Name Daytime phone number

Fax Email

82449677 [email protected] Ms Diana Baric Postal

Address: Unit 1/1 Brooker Court Woodville Park 5011

Name Daytime phone number

Fax Email

82013520 82012784 [email protected]

Dr Lynley Wallis

Postal Address:

Department of Archaeology Flinders University GPO Box 2100 Adelaide 5001

Name Daytime phone number

Fax Email

82015593 82012784 [email protected]

Steve Hemming

Postal Address:

Department of English and Cultural Studies Flinders University GPO Box 2100 Adelaide 5001

124

Page 131: Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri ... · Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri archaeology, fibre culture and masculinist constructions

PROJECT TITLE & TIMEFRAME

B1. Project Title: Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri archaeology, fibre culture and masculinist constructions.

B2. Plain language, or lay, title: As above.

B3. Period for which approval is sought. Note that approval is valid for a maximum

of 3 years.

Date data collection is to commence: 1 June 2006

Date data collection is expected to be completed: 1 September 2006

Date project is expected to be completed: 22 October 2006 NB: All questions should be answered in the spaces provided (extended as necessary); attachments in lieu of response, with notations to ‘see attached’, are not acceptable.

C. PROJECT DETAILS C1. Brief Outline of (a) project; (b) significance; (c) your research objectives.

a) The aim of this project, entitled “Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri archaeology, fibre culture and masculinist constructions”, is to assess the ways in which non-Indigenous archaeologists have interpreted and presented the Ngarrindjeri archaeological record, and whether or not these interpretations have been affected by gender bias.

b) This thesis will contribute a feminist and Indigenous reading of archaeological research in the Lower Murray Region in South Australia. It will examine potential masculinist biases in research methodologies and interpretations that underpin Australian archaeology.

c) The aims of the project are: • To review previous archaeological research conducted in the River

Murray Region of South Australia, and to form a focus group with female Ngarrindjeri Elders to discuss archaeological representations of Ngarrindjeri culture and the place of fibre in this record.

• To assess the interpretations offered by the South Australian Museum of its collection of Ngarrindjeri woven materials as an example of a non-Indigenous institution

• To develop a feminist and Ngarrindjeri critique of archaeological research conducted in the Lower Murray Region

125

Page 132: Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri ... · Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri archaeology, fibre culture and masculinist constructions

lC2. Medical or health research involving the Privacy Act 1988 (s95 and s95A Guidelines)

Is your research related to medical or health matters? Yes / No

If you answered ‘No’, please go to item C4. If ‘Yes’,

(a) Will personal information be sought from the records of a Commonwealth Agency? Yes / No

If Yes, please also complete Part A of the Appendix ‘Privacy legislation matters’ that relates to compliance with the Guidelines under Section 95 of the Privacy Act 1988.

(b) Will health information be sought from a Private Sector Organisation or a

health service provider funded by the State Department of Health? Yes / No

If Yes, please also complete Part B of the Appendix ‘Privacy legislation

matters’ that relates to compliance with the Guidelines approved under Section 95A of the Privacy Act 1988.

The Appendix ‘Privacy legislation matters’ is available from the SBREC web page, www.flinders.edu.au/research/office/ethics/socialbehavioural.html

If you answered ‘No’ to both (a) and (b) please continue to C4.

C3. Does your project comprise health research involving Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander peoples? If so, please read the NHMRC Values and Ethics: Guidelines for Ethical Conduct in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Research, available from the NHMRC web site www.nhmrc.gov.au Not applicable.

126

Page 133: Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri ... · Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri archaeology, fibre culture and masculinist constructions

C4. Data Please tick more than one box if appropriate

Are data to be obtained primarily quantitative qualitative

(please tick)

Is information to be sought by questionnaire interview

experiment computer

focus group other (please state) ………….

Will participants be video- or tape-recorded? Yes/No video

tape

C5. Outline of the research method, including what participants will be asked to do.

‘Participants’ (more accurately described as contributors) will be sent a hardcopy via post

of an outline of the objectives of the study, including an overview of the nature of the

information that will be sought, as well as a consent form, asking them to take part in

‘semi-structured interviews’ (more accurately described as discussions). Owing to the

sensitive nature of certain aspects of Indigenous knowledge, the limits to which

information can be shared with a non-Indigenous individual will be guided by Ngarrindjeri

people and respected at all times. The Ngarrindjeri community will be responsible for

taping the conversations, and all recordings produced, including notes and transcripts,

will remain the property of the Ngarrindjeri Heritage Committee (NHC) and contributors

on behalf of the Ngarrindjeri Nation. Permission to use any information from taped

conversations in the thesis will be gained from the NHC and contributors prior to its

inclusion.

C6. Briefly describe how the information requested from participants addresses

research objectives. Ngarrindjeri female Elders will be asked to consider archaeological representations of Ngarrindjeri culture and offer their perspectives. A consideration of the roles of women and the importance of fibre culture will be a central concern.

127

Page 134: Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri ... · Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri archaeology, fibre culture and masculinist constructions

D. PARTICIPANT INFORMATION If the research involves or impacts upon Indigenous Australians, a copy of this application must be forwarded to the Executive Officer, Yunggorendi First Nations Centre at the same time that it is lodged with the SBREC.

D1. (a) Who are the participants? What is the basis for their recruitment to the study? Contributors are members of the Ngarrindjeri community who have extensive knowledge of the process and cultural significance of weaving, as well as the significance of the woven materials themselves to the Ngarrindjeri people. They will be selected by the Ngarrindjeri community due to their knowledge and experience in Ngarrindjeri culture. Finally, contributors will be selected on the basis of their willingness and their agreement to discuss this knowledge with a non-Indigenous student. (b) How many people will be approached? Please specify number (or an approximation if exact number is unknown) and the size of the population pool from which participants will be drawn. It is likely that approximately five to ten people will be approached, as the community consists of a number of families, many of whom practice weaving. However, owing to the limited time constraints of this project, only a small focus group will be involved. Senior Ngarrindjeri women will decide the composition. (c) From what source? During undergraduate fieldwork, I was introduced to members of the Coorong Ngarrindjeri community and the Ngarrindjeri Heritage Committee, who were approached by my supervisors to be involved in this project. Through their extensive activities associated with the management of Camp Coorong and the teaching of basketry to visiting groups, these Ngarrindjeri Elders provide teaching to both Indigenous and non-Indigenous people. (d) What (if any) is the researcher’s role with, or relation to, the source organisation? Comment on potential for conflict of interest. As I am not affiliated with the source organization, there is no potential for conflict of interest through this research. (e) If under 18 years, what is the age range? Has the information been presented in a manner and format appropriate to the age group of participants? There are no people involved under 18 years of age, and all information has been presented in a format that is easy to read and understand. (f) Do participants have the ability to give informed consent? All contributors involved have the ability to give informed consent. Contributors will be informed that the information given will be used in my honours thesis, and they have the right and opportunity to advise me of how they wish the information to be used. Contributors have the right at all times to withhold or retract information they do not wish me to use in my thesis.

128

Page 135: Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri ... · Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri archaeology, fibre culture and masculinist constructions

D2. Indicate whether the participant group comprises a specific cultural / religious background, for example Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander, Indonesian, Catholic, Muslim etc…, or, if any such categories are likely to form a significant proportion of the population to be sampled. If the answer is yes and the group/sub-group is of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander background, a copy of this application must be submitted to the Director of Yunggorendi for advice and comment. The project has been discussed with members of the Ngarrindjeri Heritage Committee, who have approved my involvement in this project. A copy of this application has been submitted to the Director of Yunggorendi for advice and comment, and a copy of the NHC’s letter of support is attached. D3. Are there particular issues with language? Do the forms or information need to be presented in a language other than English? If so, how will this be managed? If people other than the researcher will be involved in translating participants’ responses, how will anonymity / confidentiality matters be managed? There are no language issues or barriers, and all people who will be contacted speak English. Elders may assist with interpreting information recorded during focus group discussions. D4. How are participants to be contacted and recruited? If by advertisement, please provide a copy of the ad. If contact is made through an organisation, the Committee expects that the organisation will not provide researchers with contact details of potential participants. The organisation may make the initial approach and invite potential participants to contact the researcher. Contributors will be contacted via the Camp Coorong postal address, through which they are affiliated. D5. What information will be given to participants? Refer to statement of Guidelines and suggested templates for introduction letter, consent forms etc included in the application kit. Copies of relevant documents, questionnaires or list of interview questions, if applicable, must be attached. The objectives of the research and information about any relevant procedures, expected time commitment etc should be clearly stated for participants in language suitable for the lay person. Contributors will be provided with an introductory letter from my supervisor(s), an introductory letter from myself, an informal consent form, and an outline of the research aims of the study. These will be sent to contributors via mail.

129

Page 136: Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri ... · Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri archaeology, fibre culture and masculinist constructions

D6. Indicate confidentiality and anonymity assurances to be given and procedures for obtaining the free and informed consent of participants. Refer to Guidelines and suggested templates for introduction letter, consent forms etc included in the application kit. Copies of relevant documents must be attached. If anonymity is not able to be guaranteed due to the nature of the participant group, or because a participant may be identifiable in relation to their professional capacity or association with an organisation, there should be a clear statement to this effect for the participant. Contributors will be informed via the letter of introduction that no information that identifies them will be published in my thesis without their consent. The Letter of Introduction will also inform contributors that the confidentiality of any information provided by them will be respected. The NHC will be responsible for taping conversations, and all tapes, notes and transcripts will remain the property of the NHC. The free and informed consent of contributors will be gained through the information provided by the letter of introduction and the voluntary signing of the consent form, as these state the purpose of the research, the requirements of involvement, and the rights of the individual to refrain from answering questions or to withdraw from the project altogether whenever they wish. Consent forms will be posted to each individual to be approached, and the completed forms will be collected when I meet the individuals for the purpose of discussion. D7. Indicate any permissions required from or involvement of other people (employers, school principals, teachers, parents, guardians, carers, etc) and attach letters or other relevant documentation as applicable. Not applicable. D8. Indicate any involvement of incidental people (eg in certain professional observation studies you might need to consider how you will inform such people about the research and gain their consent for their incidental involvement. An oral statement to the group incidental to the observation immediately prior to the commencement of the observation may be sufficient). There may be incidental people involved in the informal setting of a focus group. Their consent will be requested prior to any inclusion in the thesis, and all rights of privacy and omission will be respected. D9. Indicate the expected time commitment by participants, and proposed location, if being interviewed or required to complete a survey (include this information in the Letter of Introduction to participants) Contributors will be contacted via telephone for the purpose of organising suitable times for meetings to take place. All conversations conducted for the purpose of the project will occur at Camp Coorong, at times that suit the contributors. It is anticipated that several meetings will be organised, each likely to be an hour in length. In total, throughout the course of the project, approximately 2-3 hours may need to be committed by each contributor, although the amount of time committed does depend on the various types of knowledge and experience that each person has. For some contributors, the time committed to the project could be less or more than 2-3 hours.

130

Page 137: Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri ... · Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri archaeology, fibre culture and masculinist constructions

E. SPECIFIC ETHICAL MATTERS E1. Outline the value and benefits of the project (eg to the participants, your discipline, the community etc…) This project was developed in collaboration with the NHC following discussions with Ngarrindjeri community members about issues that are of direct interest to them. The project was further developed through close discussion with Steve Hemming, who has worked with the NHC for many years, and whose research approach has been strongly focussed around community-based, relevant research. This research will benefit the Ngarrindjeri community, as once completed, it will be a useful teaching resource for the many students who attend the Camp Coorong Race Relations and Education Centre. By examining how Ngarrindjeri woven forms are interpreted within non-Indigenous institutions such as museums and in archaeological literature, this project can suggest a possible framework to promote a more accurate and culturally sensitive portrayal of this aspect of Ngarrindjeri culture to the academic community and the general public. The research will focus on the issue of gender within archaeology, and how interpretations of Ngarrindjeri culture are affected by masculinist research. This information will benefit the discipline by providing it with a case study of a fibre-based culture that was at the centre of the early discipline of archaeology in Australia. E2. Notwithstanding the value and benefits of the project, outline any burdens and/or risks of the project to your research participants and/or other people (eg issues of legal or moral responsibility; conflicts of interest; cultural sensitivities; power differentials; invasion of privacy; physical/mental stress; possible embarrassment). There are no burdens or risks to the contributors. If people do not wish to be identified in my thesis, this will be respected. As knowledge held by Ngarrindjeri weavers may be culturally restricted as directed by the contributors and the NHC, any omissions or restrictions in the knowledge I am permitted to include in my thesis will be adhered to at all times. There always exist power differentials between Indigenous people and non-Indigenous researchers.

E3. If any issues are raised in item E2, detail how the researcher will respond to such risks. If deemed necessary, researchers should be prepared to offer encouragement, advice and information about appropriate professional counselling that is available and/or to encourage participants to report negative experiences to appropriate authorities. If it is envisaged that professional counselling may be recommended, please nominate specific services. Culturally sensitive information will not be sought and will be protected according to Ngarrindjeri protocols. The project’s methodology has been designed to help alleviate power differentials.

131

Page 138: Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri ... · Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri archaeology, fibre culture and masculinist constructions

E4. Describe any feedback or debriefing to be provided to participants that may be relevant to the research. The contributors will be personally thanked for their assistance in the research and informed that they will be provided with a summary of the findings of the research. All contributors will be made aware of this feedback process through the project outline that will be sent to them prior to their participation in the research. As the contributors are all involved in the management and running of the Camp Coorong Race Relations and Education Centre, the results of the research will be presented to this establishment as a resource in the form of a copy of the completed thesis and a display poster. Joint papers will be developed for presentation at conferences and publication (with Ngarrindjeri consent). E5. If participants are required to complete a questionnaire, indicate the arrangements for ensuring the secure and confidential return of the questionnaire to the researcher (eg sealable, addressed envelope; personal collection by the researcher; other). Also indicate how participants will be informed of the arrangement (eg verbal instruction; written instruction in Letter of Introduction or at the end of the questionnaire; other). If information is to be provided via electronic or web-based technology, participants should be reminded in the written documentation and in on-line material that this is not a secure medium. Not applicable.

E6. Indicate any relevant data transcription issues. If interview tapes are to be transcribed by persons other than the researcher, an assurance that such persons will be subject to the same requirements to respect and maintain confidentiality and anonymity of the participant should be included in the Letter of Introduction to the participant. No data transcription issues will be encountered. All taping will be conducted by the Ngarrindjeri Heritage Committee, and all tapes will remain their property. A copy will be provided to me for the purpose of transcription and research, with all notes, transcripts and tapes being returned to the NHC on completion of the project.

E7. Indicate any issues of participant control of data use (a) in the immediate reporting, and (b) in future use of the data; eg will participants have an opportunity to view transcripts of their interview and/or the final report for comment/amendment? The NHC and contributors will have the opportunity to review and edit any tapes, transcripts or notes taken down as a result of conversations pertaining to the research, as they will be the sole-owners of these materials. This is outlined in the letter of introduction. Contributors will be sent draft copies of the thesis and given the opportunity to make any corrections or omissions prior to the completion of the thesis. Any questions regarding the use of the information can be addressed to me at any time before submission of the thesis.

132

Page 139: Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri ... · Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri archaeology, fibre culture and masculinist constructions

E8. DATA STORAGE AND RETENTION Note that data should be retained in accordance with the Joint NHMRC/AVCC Statement and Guidelines on Research Practice (available at the website http://www.health.gov.au/nhmrc/research/general/nhmrcavc.htm) which indicates storage of data in the department or research unit where it originated for at least 5 years after publication (15 years may be appropriate for clinical research). Please tick all boxes that apply to your research. On completion of the project, data will be stored:

In writing √ On computer disk √

On audio tape √ On video tape �

Digital √ Other(please indicate)……All information will be stored on CD

Data will be stored in a de-identified form Yes No √ If No, explain (a) why and (b) how anonymity and confidentiality of participants will be ensured

(a) Intellectual copyrights. (b) NHC will control access to the materials and certain material will be

accessible through specific agreement. NB: Ngarrindjeri tapes and transcripts and associated data will be held by the NHC on behalf of the Ngarrindjeri Nation.

Data will be stored in the Department/School of Flinders University Yes √

Data will be stored for a minimum of 5 years. Yes √ If you have not answered Yes to both the above two questions, please clarify … Copies will be owned and held by the Ngarrindjeri Heritage Committee. It is envisioned that data will be shared digitally and made accessible by agreement with the NHC.

F. REMAINING MATTERS F1. Indicate any other centres involved in the research and other Ethics Committee(s) being approached for approval of this project (if applicable), including the approval status at each. You must forward details of any amendments required by other Ethics Committees and copies of final approval letters received.

The Ngarrindjeri Heritage Committee and the Camp Coorong Race Relations and Cultural

Education Centre approve of this research, and letters of support from these centres are

included with this application.

133

Page 140: Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri ... · Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri archaeology, fibre culture and masculinist constructions

F2. Indicate amounts and sources/potential sources of funding for the research. You must also declare any affiliation or financial interest. Not applicable.

F3. Identification Card Requirements for Research Assistants. Indicate how many accredited interviewer cards will be required for this project (additional to current student or staff identification cards): Number = 0 Note that enrolled students of the University should use their student identity cards supported by a Letter of Introduction from the responsible staff member/supervisor.

F4. Document Checklist. Copies of the following supporting documents, if applicable, must be attached to this application. Some sample template documents are included in the application kit. Please mark the relevant circle. Attached Not

applicable

Letter of Introduction on University letterhead from the staff member (from the Supervisor in the case of undergraduate and postgraduate research projects)

O

Questionnaire or survey instrument O List of interview questions or description of topics/issues to be discussed, as appropriate O Information sheets for participants at any stage of the project O Consent Form(s) for Participation in Research – by Interview O – by Focus Group O – by Experiment O – other (please specify)

O Consent Form for Observation of Professional Activity O Advertisement for recruitment of participants O Debriefing material O Appendix: Privacy legislation matters O

F5. Research involving or impacting on Indigenous Australians:

Yes No

134

Page 141: Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri ... · Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri archaeology, fibre culture and masculinist constructions

Has a copy of this application been forwarded to the Director of

Yunggorendi?

O

G. CERTIFICATION & SIGNATURES

The Researcher and Supervisor whose signatures appear below certify that they have read the Ethical Guidelines for Social and Behavioural Research, and guidelines of any other relevant authority referred to therein, and accept responsibility for the conduct of this research in respect of those guidelines and any other conditions specified by the University’s Ethics Committees.

As a condition of subsequent approval of this protocol, I/we, whose signature(s) appear(s) below, undertake to

(i) inform the Social and Behavioural Research Ethics Committee, giving reasons, if the research project is discontinued before the expected date of completion.

(ii) report anything which might warrant review of ethical approval of the protocol, including: • serious or unexpected adverse effects on

participants; • proposed changes in the protocol; and • unforeseen events that might affect

continued ethical acceptability of the project. (iii) provide progress reports, annually, and/or a final report on completion of the study

outlining • progress to date, or outcome in the case of

completed research; • maintenance and security of data; • compliance with approved protocol; and • compliance with any conditions of approval.

Pro-forma report template may be downloaded from the website http://www..flinders.edu.au/research/office/ethics/index.html/

Principal Researcher’s

Signature:

Date:

Supervisor’s Signature: (for undergraduate and postgraduate student projects)

Date:

135

Page 142: Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri ... · Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri archaeology, fibre culture and masculinist constructions

Appendix B

Consent Form

and

Letter of Introduction

136

Page 143: Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri ... · Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri archaeology, fibre culture and masculinist constructions

CONSENT FORM FOR PARTICIPATION IN RESEARCH (By focus group)

I …............................................................................................................................

(being over the age of 18 years) am willing to contribute as requested in the Letter of Introduction for the research project entitled ‘Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri archaeology, fibre culture and masculinist constructions’.

(c) I have read the information provided.

(d) Details of procedures and any risks have been explained to my satisfaction.

(e) I agree/do not agree* to my knowledge, perspectives and contributions being recorded on audiotape.

4. I am aware that I should retain a copy of the Letter of Introduction and Consent Form for future reference.

5. I understand that: • I may not directly benefit from taking part in this research. • I am free to withdraw from the project at any time and am free to

decline to answer particular questions. • While the information gained through this project will be published

as explained, I will not be identified, and individual information will remain confidential unless I provide permission otherwise.

• I may ask that the recording be stopped at any time, and that I may withdraw at any time from the discussion or the research without disadvantage.

6. I agree that all tape recordings, notes and transcripts pertaining to focus group discussions will remain the property of the Ngarrindjeri Heritage Committee and focus group contributors.

7. I have had the opportunity to discuss taking part in this research with a family member or friend.

Contributor’s signature……………………………………Date…………………...

I certify that I have explained the study to the contributor and consider that she/he freely approves to contribute to this research project.

Researcher’s name………………………………….…………………….

Researcher’s signature…………………………………..Date…………………….

137

Page 144: Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri ... · Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri archaeology, fibre culture and masculinist constructions

8. I, the contributor whose signature appears below, have read a transcript of my contribution and agree to its use by the researcher as explained.

Contributor’s signature……………………………………Date…………………...

9. I, the contributor whose signature appears below, have read the researcher’s report and agree to the publication of my information as reported.

Contributor’s signature……………………………………Date…………………...

138

Page 145: Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri ... · Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri archaeology, fibre culture and masculinist constructions

LETTER OF INTRODUCTION

Dear……………. My name is Diana Baric and I am an honours student in the Department of Archaeology within the School of Humanites at Flinders University. This year, I aim to complete a project in conjunction with the Ngarrindjeri Heritage Committee that will lead to the production of a thesis entitled “Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri archaeology, fibre culture and masculinist constructions”. I would be most grateful if you would agree to contribute your time and knowledge to this project, by agreeing to be part of a focus group discussion, which will touch upon the following aspects of this topic:

The experiences of contributors in the practice and teaching of weaving, and the ways in which weaving contributes to Ngarrindjeri concepts of social and cultural identity

Any knowledge or experience the contributors may have had regarding archaeological research into weaving or woven articles

Any information or experience contributors may have had with non-Indigenous institutions such as museums, and how these institutions present, display or discuss archaeological notions of weaving

Any opinions contributors have and wish to share regarding the depiction and treatment of weaving and woven articles by archaeologists and non-Indigenous institutions, and how these can be improved

In regards to time commitment for involvement with this project, no more than 1-2 hours on 1-2 occasions would be required. Be assured that any information provided will be treated in the strictest confidence and none of the contributors will be individually identifiable in the resulting thesis, if this is their wish. You are, of course, entirely free to discontinue your participation at any time or to decline to answer particular questions. The NHC will be responsible for taping the focus group discussions. A copy of the tape will be provided to me for the purpose of transcription and research, with all notes, transcripts and tapes being returned to the NHC on completion of the project. Each contributor will have the opportunity to review and edit any tapes, transcripts, or notes taken down as a result of conversations pertaining to the project. Contributors will also be sent draft copies of the thesis and given the opportunity to make any corrections or omissions prior to the completion of the thesis. Any questions regarding the use of the information can be addressed to me before submission of the thesis. The attached consent form asks for your permission to use the transcription of the recording in preparing the thesis, on condition that your name or

139

Page 146: Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri ... · Unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: Ngarrindjeri archaeology, fibre culture and masculinist constructions

identity will not be revealed (should you wish), and that the recording will not be made available to any other person. Any enquiries you may have concerning this project should be directed to me at the address given above or by telephone on 0404701969, or e-mail ([email protected]) Thank you for your attention and assistance. Yours sincerely, Diana Baric Honours Student Department of Archaeology School of Humanities, Flinders University

This research project has been approved by the Flinders University Social and

Behavioural Research Ethics Committee. The Secretary of the Committee can be

contacted by telephone on 8201 5962, by fax on 8201 2035 or by email

[email protected].

140