What's Changing: Population Size or Land-Use Patterns? (Terra Australis 21): The archaeology of Upper Mangrove Creek, Sydney Basin

The demography of the Upper Palaeolithic hunter–gatherers of Southwestern France: A multi-proxy approach using archaeological data

“…For hunter-gatherers, such as those discussed here, the most frequently cited alternative explanation for patterns in the data is that of a change in mobility or land-use strategy (e.g. Attenbrow, 2006;Schmidt et al, 2012).…”

“…A change in mobility strategy is frequently cited as a possible explanation for variations in the types of proxy data used in this study, particularly numbers of archaeological sites (Attenbrow, 2006). Variations in numbers of sites could reflect differences in the ways that people used the landscape and moved around the region, with people possibly; (a) moving between sites more or less frequently; (b) organising their movement differently, or; (c) spending different amounts of time in various stages of group fission/fusion (aggregation and dispersal) as is characteristic of ethnographic hunter-gatherers (Pedersen and Woehle, 1991;Turnbull, 1968Turnbull, , 1972Woodburn, 1968Woodburn, , 1972.…”

“…Data on retouched tool densities were, however, available from both types of site. Despite the robusticity of lithics, estimates based on data from sheltered sites were deemed more reliable due to factors similar to those listed above for the site size analysis, although it should be noted that rock-shelters in the valley floors are susceptible to possible flooding and scouring of occupation deposits (Straus, 1990: 259), and those on slopes can suffer intermittent episodes of slopewash processes and both scouring of deposits and accelerated infill (Attenbrow, 2006: 106; see Roebroeks et al, 2011 for the study region). However, detailed taphonomic studies of many of the sheltered sites included in this analysis are lacking, preventing a more detailed consideration of the impact of differential destruction and preservation both within and between proxies and site types, and across the chronological span of the Upper Palaeolithic.…”

Using a 3-stage burning categorization to assess post-depositional degradation of archaeofaunal assemblages: Some observations based on multiple prehistoric sites in Australasia

“…1: DC, LS), to the north of Sydney, ahead of inundation following dam construction (see Attenbrow, 2006). Burning profiles for each of the three ethnographic samples from Papua New Guinea, using the six-stage categorization system of Stiner et al (1995).…”

Developing a Landscape History as Part of a Survey Strategy: A Critique of Current Settlement System Approaches based on Case Studies from Western New South Wales, Australia

“…In eastern Australia, the assertion that all surface archaeological sites found within the same region were contemporary, and therefore could be summed to give a population estimate at any particular time period, was questioned (e.g., Bird and Frankel 1991a, b;Attenbrow 2006). The issue of differential preservation of more recent archaeological sites relative to older ones was also raised.…”