The pilot application of geochemical sourcing to an inland Pilbara archaeological landscape in north-western Australia

Ditchfield, Kane; Reynen, Wendy; Rankenburg, Kai; George, Annette D.; Evans, Noreen J.; McDonald, Bradley J.

doi:10.1016/j.jasrep.2021.103104

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For B2020, this included ∼80 separate news articles (e.g., Bradley, 2020; France‐Press, 2020; Michelmore,2020; Pinkstone, 2020; Watson, 2021; Young, 2020) in addition to numerous Twitter feeds and blog posts. The scientific literature has also uncritically referred to B2020's work (e.g., Crabtree et al, 2021; Ditchfield et al, 2021; Hale et al, 2021; Leach et al, 2021; McCarthy et al, 2021; McDonald et al, 2020; Wiseman et al, 2021, p. 154; Lebrec et al, 2022). Here, we explore the original claims.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

RETRACTED: Applying geoarchaeological principles to marine archaeology: A reappraisal of the “first marine” and “in situ” lithic scatters in the Dampier Archipelago, NW Australia

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The absence of known prehistoric underwater cultural heritage (UCH) sites on the Australian inner shelf stands in stark contrast to the thousands of sites revealed elsewhere in the world. Two recent claims—Dortch et al. (D2019) and Benjamin et al. (B2020)—put forward the first in situ (i.e., primary context) UCH sites in the shallow waters of the Dampier Archipelago, North West Australia, each arguing that the stone artefact scatters are at least 7000 years old and are now submerged because of postglacial sea‐level rise. We present new hydrodynamic modelling and data on coastal erosion and bathymetry, and reassess each site's sedimentary setting and archaeological site‐formation history. D2019 and B2020 clearly present lithic cultural artefacts, but the arguments for their sites being of primary context and reflecting early Holocene land surfaces are mistaken. Rather, these sites occur in the intertidal zone, and many or all artefacts are likely to have been reworked. Sites of secondary context, if treated appropriately, can inform our understanding of site‐formation process and change, and may support more powerful contributions to submerged archaeology than attempts to seek the first or the oldest.

show abstract