Kurtonitj stone house: Excavation of a mid‐nineteenth century Aboriginal frontier site from Gunditjmara country, south‐west Victoria

Abstract

This paper provides the first detailed excavation report published for an Aboriginal stone house from south-west Victoria. Stone house sites have generated considerable debate in Australian archaeology in terms of late Holocene intensification and claims for village-scale settlements and sedentism. Fine-grained excavation of KSH-1 within the Budj Bim (stony rises) cultural landscape revealed house construction directly on to lava bedrock. Shallow sediments contained numerous flaked flint and bottle glass artefacts, and a remarkable cache of 34 iron nails. Taphonomic analysis suggests that most, if not all, stone artefacts (including a backed artefact) predate the contact objects and possibly construction of the stone house. Low quantities of cultural materials and large glass artefacts lying horizontally at various levels suggest multiple, short-term occupation events. Dating of metal objects to c.1840-1870 points to occupation during the period of violent resistance to European pastoral invasion in the 1840s and/or during the subsequent period of negotiated resistance while living and working on pastoral properties during the 1850s and 1860s. Key challenges for future excavations are documenting stone houses dating unambiguously to before European contact and determining how their history of use integrates with the development of eel trapping facilities over the past 6600 years. RÉSUMÉCet article offre le premier rapport détaillé des fouilles d'une maison en pierre construite par le peuple indigène du sud-ouest de Victoria. Les sites de maisons en pierre ont suscité un long débat dans l'archéologie australienne concernant l'intensification de l'Holocène tardif, les revendications de peuplementsà l'échelle de villages et la sédentarité. La fouille très détaillée de KSH-1 dans le paysage culturel de Budj Bim (escarpements pierreux) a révélé la construction de maisonsà même le socle rocheux. Les dépôts peu profonds contiennent de nombreux objets de pierre taillée et de verre de bouteille taillé ainsi qu'une remarquable cachette de 34 clous de fer. L'analyse taphonomique suggère que la plupart, sinon tous les objets en pierre (y compris unéclatà dos), précèdent les objets de la période coloniale etéventuellement la construction de cette maison en pierre. Les faibles quantités de matériaux culturels et la présence de grands objets en verre reposant horizontalement sur différents niveaux suggèrent de multiples occupationsà court termes. La datation des objets métalliques aux environs de c.1840-1870 souligne son occupation durant la période de résistance violenteà l'invasion pastorale européenne dans les années 1840, et/ou pendant la période subséquente de résistance négociée tout en vivant et travaillant sur les propriétés pastorales pendant les années 1850 et 1860. Les principaux défis de futures fouilles sont de documenter les maisons en pierre qui datent sans ambiguïté d'avant les contacts européens et de déterminer comment l'histoire de leur utilisation s'intègre au développement des installations de trappesà angu...

The first successful application of Optically Stimulated Luminescence dating to a colonial era (<0.25 ka) archaeological site in Australia

“…Colonial and post-colonial era Indigenous sites have similar issues (e.g. McNiven et al, 2017;Wallis and Collins, 2013;Wallis et al, 2017). Our results, therefore, provide a successful proof of concept for using quartz OSL to date anthropogenic sediments at archaeological sites of the colonial era (i.e.…”

Hidden in plain sight: the archaeological landscape of Mithaka Country, south-west Queensland

“…David & Weisler 2006). The dating of some of these sites (McNiven et al 2017) further complicates the issue, as it indicates a post-contact date for some domestic structures, leading some scholars to argue they may represent a response to European settlement (Frankel 2017).…”

“…Although a number of archaeological sites identified over the last 50 years may fit the 'village' designation (e.g. Kelly 1968;McDonald & Berry 2017;McNiven et al 2017;Wallis et al 2017), there persists a hesitancy among Australian researchers to accept village sites as part of the Australian archaeological record (e.g. David & Weisler 2006).…”

Indigenous built structures and anthropogenic impacts on the stratigraphy of Northern Australian rockshelters: insights from Malarakk 1, north western Arnhem Land

“…The earliest documentation of such structures in the Northern Territory are found in the records of Paul Foelsche , who photographed examples around Darwin in 1890 (Figure 3). Additionally, stone structures from open site contexts have also been seen in the archaeological record, such as the features on High Cliffy Island and Rankin Island off the northwest coast of the Kimberley (O'Connor 1987;O'Connor et al 2007), the ovoid habitation structures on Rosemary Island, Western Australia (McDonald and Berry 2017), Aboriginal stone huts along the Georgina River (Wallis et al 2017), and the semi-circular, C-shaped or U-shaped huts at Lake Condah (Clarke 1994;McNiven et al 2017).…”