unravelling gender constructs in archaeology: ngarrindjeri ... · unravelling gender constructs in...
TRANSCRIPT
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Appendix A
Ethics Application
119
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Appendix B
Consent Form
and
Letter of Introduction
136
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
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
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
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
140