Discarding the evidence: The place of natural ...

Quaternary International 385 (2015) 177e190

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Quaternary International journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/quaint

Discarding the evidence: The place of natural resources stewardship in the creation of the Peel Island Lazaret Midden, Moreton Bay, southeast Queensland Anne Ross a, *, Shane Coghill b, Brian Coghill b a b

School of Social Science and School of Geography, Planning and Environmental Management, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD 4072, Australia Quandamooka Land and Sea Country, Moreton Bay, South-east Queensland, Australia

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history: Available online 10 June 2015

Middens are created from the discard of natural resources, collected by people for consumptive purposes: mainly subsistence, but also for artefact manufacture (e.g. stone, bone and shell artefacts); warmth and/or shelter (e.g. firewood [charcoal] and timber windbreaks); or for ceremony. Taphonomic processes act on the discarded cultural materials to modify the evidence originally deposited by the creators of the archaeological site as a result of consumptive behaviour. There is nothing particularly new or unusual in this description of the accumulation of midden material. Interpretations of midden deposits in the literature are based around the interaction between consumptive behaviour and taphonomy. However, all archaeological sites also reflect a process other than consumption and taphonomy: discard. In this paper, we argue that a focus on consumption and taphonomy that ignores discard activity may overlook an important aspect of site creation. Using the Peel Island Lazaret Midden as a case study, we demonstrate that an understanding of past discard patterns may generate new understandings of human behaviour as represented in midden deposits. In particular, we argue that the formation of the Peel Island Lazaret Midden is due as much to the creation and stewardship of oyster beds, and to the consequent cultural materials that did not find their way into the midden, as artificial to the collection of shellfish for food consumption. © 2015 Elsevier Ltd and INQUA. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Consumption Discard Resource stewardship Shell middens Peel Island

1. Introduction ‘Middens represent collections of materials left from subsistence and other activities’ Andrus, 2011, p. 2892. It is widely recognised that shell middens in coastal environments have been created from the discard of remains of marine resource exploitation associated with human subsistence behaviour (Waselkov, 1987; Alvarez et al., 2010; Thomas, 2015a, 2015b). In Australia, coastal middens typically contain: shellfish remains; bones of fish and other marine animals (such as dugong and turtle); bones of land animals from coastal and hinterland environments; charcoal from campfires; seeds from local plant foods; and tools made from

* Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (A. Ross). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2015.05.003 1040-6182/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd and INQUA. All rights reserved.

stone, shell, bone, and occasionally wood. Nevertheless, because coastal middens result from the accumulation of materials that result from interactions between coastal environments and human exploitation of marine resources, shell midden content may vary, not only with environmental location and climate variability, but also with contrasting cultural and behavioural activity relating to food choice, resource procurement strategies, and resource scheduling (Waselkov, 1987; Thomas, 2015b), including social and economic exchange and even ritual and ceremonial activities (Claassen, 1998; Sassaman, 2004). In addition, taphonomic processes and archaeological excavation techniques may also impact on the patterning of cultural remains (Waselkov, 1987; Rowland and Ulm, 2012). The general assumption tends to be that human subsistence behaviour provides the principal input material into the midden site, based on ethnographic observations (Meehan, 1982; Waselkov, 1987; Faulkner, 2013), while taphonomic and environmental processes provide the principal determinants of change to the original discard pattern (Andrus, 2011). As Rowland and Ulm (2012, p. 161) synthesise, “[t]he formation of archaeological shell midden sites

178

A. Ross et al. / Quaternary International 385 (2015) 177e190

reflects a complex interplay of local and subregional geomorphic changes, sea-level changes, sediment substrate evolution and human social behaviour and economic scheduling”. Variation in discard patterns over time is generally explained in terms of economic shifts in response to environmental variation (e.g. O'Connor, 1999; Faulkner, 2011, 2013), including seasonality (e.g. Quitmyer et al., 1997); diet choice, including diet breadth (e.g. Meehan, 1982; Nagaoka, 2002; Morrison, 2013); resource scheduling (e.g. Morrison, 2013); patch choice (Nagaoka, 2002); over-predation of resources (e.g. Faulkner, 2009); taphonomic processes (e.g. Alvarez et al., 2010; Andrus, 2011); and contemporary human impacts (e.g. Waselkov, 1987; Rowland and Ulm, 2012). There are, therefore, many factors that can affect the survival of cultural materials in shell middens, thereby producing archaeological deposits that do not always reflect ethnohistorical and/or ethnographic observations of human behaviour (Thomas, 2015b). Most published analyses of the reasons behind a disconnect between ethnographic observation and archaeological discard focus on those factors that may have affected the preservation of discarded materials; the central assumption is that people discarded the remains of the foods they collected onto sites, and it is subsequent human and/or environmental and/or scavenger activity that has destroyed the evidence (Thomas, 2015a). But what if the evidence were not discarded on the site in the first place? What if people had collected a resource, and consumed that resource, but deposited the remnants of the meal in places other than onto midden sites? In this paper we argue that there has been insufficient attention paid to human discard strategies. Archaeologists have generally assumed that collection activities create midden sites (e.g. Meehan, 1982; Waselkov, 1987; Claassen, 1998; Andrus, 2011; Rowland and Ulm, 2012). But clearly, all sites are created as a result of discard behaviour. Using the Peel Island Lazaret Midden, Moreton Bay, southeast Queensland as a case study, we demonstrate that Indigenous Knowledge relating to resources stewardship and consequent discard of the remains of resource consumption and use, needs to be incorporated into the mix of usual explanations for the patterning of shellfish discard seen in the archaeological record. In particular, we demonstrate that the discard strategies associated with oyster stewardship in Moreton Bay may provide a more logical explanation for the variation in oyster shell discard patterns seen in the Peel Island Lazaret Midden than many other explanations based on environmental variation, taphonomic processes, or human shellfish-consumption choices. 2. The Peel Island Lazaret Midden Peel Island is one of over 300 islands that make up Moreton Bay (Fig. 1). It is in the traditional country of Dandrabin-Gorenpul people (Moreton and Ross, 2011). The large barrier islands of Moreton Bay are sand islands, formed as a result of sand mobilisation and accretion as sea-level rose and fell throughout the Pleistocene (Leonard et al., 2013). Peel Island, however, is a rocky land mass, and would have been a high point on the Moreton plain at times of low sea-level, just as it is a prominent island at times of high sea-level. The location of Peel Island in the lee of North Stradbroke Island protects Peel Island from the most violent winds and high seas associated with storms that occasionally lash the south Queensland coast, and provides a range of local resource environments for human exploitation, including mud flats, sandy beaches, and coral reefs. Prior to the arrival of Europeans in Moreton Bay in 1824, Peel Island was used by Dandrabin-Gorenpul Traditional Owners for a range of purposes which have left behind a number of archaeological sites, principally shell middens (Ulm and Hall, 1996; Ulm, 2002). In 1872 Peel Island was set aside as a Quarantine Station

for the accommodation and isolation of people suffering from infectious diseases, and Aboriginal use of the island ceased (Blake, 1993). In 1907 a lazaret for the segregation and treatment of sufferers of Hansen's Disease, more commonly known as leprosy (Prangnell, 2002, 2013), was established on Peel Island. The Peel Island Lazaret closed in 1959, and since this date the island has been managed principally as a national park, and visitors to the island have been kept to a minimum (Blake, 1993). In pre-contact times, Dandrabin-Gorenpul made use of a wide range of resources and resource locations throughout Moreton Bay, including Peel Island. Shell middens were once a common site type on many of the bay islands, but sand mining activities on the larger islands since the 1960s, and the expansion of European settlement throughout the bay, have seen the destruction or disturbance of a large number of middens and other sites (Ponosov, 1965; Durbridge and Covacevich, 1981; Durbridge, 1984). The large shell midden on the north coast of Peel Island, however, has remained intact, due in no small part to the nature of the island's use as a place of isolation and limited public access since 1874. According to Aboriginal knowledge, people have been living in Moreton Bay since the beginning of time (Ross and Coghill, 2000; Moreton and Ross, 2011). Aboriginal knowledge is that occupants of this landscape practised a marine economy, in accordance with traditional Aboriginal Law, as provided by the original creator beings (Moreton and Ross, 2011). Therefore, Aboriginal people believe that the stewardship and exploitation of marine resources, as part of the overall management of the landscape and seascape of the bay, has been a significant component of Aboriginal life forever. Archaeological evidence indicates that Aboriginal people have lived in Moreton Bay for at least 20,000 years (Neal and Stock, 1986; but see Bowdler, 2010 for an alternative view), and evidence from Wallen Wallen Creek on the west coast of North Stradbroke Island is that marine exploitation was likely to have been the dominant subsistence activity for much of the site's occupation (Neal and Stock, 1986). Evidence from other archaeological sites on North Stradbroke Island and elsewhere in Moreton Bay indicates that the Aboriginal subsistence economy in this coastal region was based principally on marine resource harvesting (Hall and Robins, 1984; Walters, 1986, 1989, 1992; Walters et al., 1987; Ulm, 2002). Historical accounts further support the reliance of Moreton Bay Aboriginal people on maritime resources (e.g. Hall, 1982, 1984). In 1995 Ross and the Quandamooka Cultural Resources Management Team, lead by B. Coghill, commenced an excavation programme at the Peel Island Lazaret Midden, which continued to 1999. This project was a collaborative venture between Ross and the Aboriginal people of Moreton Bay (known collectively as the people of Quandamooka [Moreton and Ross, 2011]), including Dandrabin-Gorenpul Traditional Owners. The Quandamooka Cultural Resources Management Team worked with Ross to develop research questions of both academic and Traditional Owner interest, and members of the Quandamooka Cultural Resources Management Team undertook the bulk of the excavation, sorting, and laboratory analysis (Figs. 2 and 3) (Ross and Coghill, 2000; Ross and Tomkins, 2011). One of the aims of the excavation and analysis was to document the evidence for marine resource exploitation over time (Ross and Tomkins, 2011). The Peel Island Lazaret Midden is a large site on the north coast of Peel Island (Fig. 4), directly adjacent to the Peel Island Lazaret complex. The midden is over 400 m long and at least 50 m wide. It extends from the western side of the lazaret to at least 200 m east of the most easterly building on the settlement. Those parts of the midden in proximity to the lazaret settlement have been damaged by a variety of post-contact activities. The eastern portion of the midden, however, shows no visible signs of disturbance and includes intact mounds with shell, stone and bone material exposed through the leaf litter on the surface.


Fig. 1. Moreton Bay and the location of Peel Island within the bay (after Ulm et al., 2009, p. 160).

179

180


Fig. 2. Dandrabin-Gorenpul Traditional Owners, and other members of the Quandamooka community, participate in the excavation of the Peel Island Lazaret Midden (Photo: A. Ross).

Four 50 cm 50 cm pits were excavated in the Lazaret Midden (Fig. 4). Pits were labelled consecutively based on their sequence of excavation (A, then B, etc.). Pit B was expanded after excavation of Pit C commenced. The first pit in the B ‘series’ was re-labelled Pit B1; the next pit excavated at B was labelled B4. This labelling was based on a 1 m 1 m grid being established at locality B with Pit B1 in the NE corner of the 1 m 1 m grid. The other pits in the 1 m 1 m grid were

Fig. 3. Shane Coghill, Dandrabin-Gorenpul Traditional Owner, undertaking laboratory analysis of cultural materials from the Peel Island Lazaret Midden excavation (Photo A. Ross).

Fig. 4. The Peel Island Lazaret Midden and location of archaeological pits.

labelled B1, B2, B3 and B4. Because of time constraints, only Pits B1 and B4 were excavated. Three of the pits (labelled A, B1 and B4) were in the undisturbed eastern part of the site. Pit C was excavated in the open area in front of the lazaret as part of a community information day. The material excavated from this pit has not been analysed; only the evidence from Pits A and B1 are discussed in this paper. The excavation proceeded in arbitrary spits or ‘excavation units’ (XUs) within stratigraphic context (cf. Johnson, 1979). Each XU comprised one bucket (~9.5e10.0 kg) of deposit or 20e25 mm depth of sediment and cultural material. This was a deliberate excavation strategy to accommodate the inexperience of the excavators; by ensuring each XU comprised one bucket of sediment, and 20e25 mm of depth of deposit, any stratigraphic variation could be easily identified by careful assessment, at the completion of each XU, of pit walls and the deposit at the base of each XU. Because all XUs were of a consistent volume, and all comprised a consistent depth of deposit, volume correction to take account of relative abundance variation (Faulkner, 2013, p. 113) was not necessary. Faulkner (pers. comm. February 2015) states that volume correction is only required when there is considerable variation in volume and/or depth for each XU. As a consequence of the consistency of XUs excavated from the Peel Island Lazaret Midden, the documentation of shell weights as g/kg was not required; differences in the abundance of species per XU are not influenced by XU size or volume and XUs have therefore been used as analytical units of comparison in this paper. In all three pits excavated, the shell midden deposit comprises three major stratigraphic divisions (Fig. 5). The top 50e60 mm, stratigraphic Layer I, is a loose shell midden deposit dominated by oyster and whelk. Below Layer I, Layer II ranges from 150 to 300 mm in depth (between 60 mm below ground surface to 350 mm). It is a compact and dense shell layer. The density of the shell in these compact sediments is indicative of the relative integrity of the cultural materials recovered from this part of the midden. There is no evidence for bioturbation of deposits, nor of any apparent vertical or horizontal movement of cultural material. The existence of in-situ hearths in this stratum is further evidence that the compact deposits that make up the bulk of the midden material in Layer II provide a relatively stable depositional environment at the site (for further discussion, see Ulm et al., 2009). In Pit A the upper part of this layer (Layer IIA) is dominated by oyster, whelk and mussel shells. The lower part of Layer II in Pit A (Layer IIB) is comprised of increasingly less dense shell, with more soil content. Below Layer II, in both Pits A and B, Layer III (150e300 mm


181

3. Shellfish remains from the Peel Island Lazaret Midden

Fig. 5. Peel Island Lazaret Midden, Pit B1, South Wall, section diagram showing main stratigraphic layers (Woo et al., in press).

in depth) has a sparse amount of shell in a progressively denser soil matrix, grading to sterile deposits 500e650 mm below ground surface (Fig. 5). In Pit A a dense charcoal lens between Layer IIA and IIB probably represents a fire-place or hearth. All excavated material was retained at the request of the Dandrabin-Gorenpul Traditional Owners. Excavated material was sieved through a 6 mm and 3 mm sieve in the field and the material retained in the sieves was bagged. The material that passed through the 3 mm sieve was also bagged, and samples of this residue were sieved through a 1 mm sieve in the laboratory (Ross and Duffy, 2000).

2.1. Radiocarbon dates Nine radiocarbon dates were obtained from the site. Four were taken from Pit A and five from Pit B (Table 1). Radiocarbon ages were calibrated by using OxCal 4.2 (Bronk Ramsey, 2009) and the IntCal13 and Marine 13 calibration dataset (Reimer et al., 2013) with a local DR value of 9 ± 19 14C years, as recommended by Ulm et al. (2009). The radiocarbon ages for the site indicate that the Lazaret Midden accumulated between 1200 cal BP and the present (for an in-depth discussion of the dating of this site, see Ross and Tomkins, 2011).

Cultural remains recovered from the Peel Island Lazaret Midden include fish bone (Ross and Tomkins, 2011), other animal bone (especially marine animals such as dugong and turtle), charcoal from fireplaces, and stone artefacts; but the dominant cultural material is shellfish. Woo (2013) identified 61 shellfish taxa from XUs 1e6, and 9 of Pit B1 of the Peel Island Lazaret Midden (Woo, 2013; Woo et al., in press: Appendix B). Most of the taxa identified by Woo (n ¼ 46) are represented by fewer than 20 individuals (Woo, 2013: Appendix D). According to Woo, the dominant taxa represented in the site are mussel (Trichomya hirsuta) [64,322 NISPs in the upper XUs of Pit B1 e Woo, 2013: Appendix D] and oyster (Saccostrea sp.) [8026 NISPs in the upper XUs of Pit B1 e Woo, 2013: Appendix D], followed by various bivalves, mostly taxa known by the Traditional Owners as ‘eugaries’ (Atactodea sp. and Donax deltoides) [725 NISPs e Woo, 2013] and ‘whelks’ (Pyrazus ebeninus and Astralium tentoriiforme) [69 NISPs e Woo, 2013]. Although not major elements in the site, ‘quampie’ (pearl oyster e Pinctada sp.) is an important species in Dandrabin-Gorenpul cosmology and this species is also present in the site. The Quandamooka Cultural Resources Management Team was unable to undertake the kind of detailed taxonomic analysis of shellfish taxa achieved by Woo (2013); the members of this team had neither the time nor the experience to perform the level of detailed analysis Woo was able to provide. The aim of the Aboriginal Traditional Owners was to identify the major species exploited by their ancestors, and hence the focus of the laboratory identification of taxa undertaken by the Traditional Owners was restricted to the major species present. The Quandamooka team counted and weighed each of the shellfish families that were subsequently identified by Woo as dominant e viz. mussel (Trichomya hirsuta), oyster (Saccostrea sp), eugaries (Atactodea sp. and Donax deltoides), whelks (Pyrazus ebeninus and Astralium tentoriiforme), and quampies (Pinctada sp.). As a consequence, only these most abundant taxa have been documented for the entire shell midden deposit, and in this paper we restrict our focus to these dominant taxa. Clearly, future research needs to re-identify all the taxa throughout the deposits, following Woo's lead. Most of the shellfish taxa recovered from the Peel Island Lazaret Midden can be collected from the local environments surrounding Peel Island. The oyster taxa at the site, Saccostrea cucullata and Saccostrea sp. (Sydney Rock Oyster), are found in sheltered intertidal regions which have some reef or other rocky substrate available, as the rock oyster spat require a rocky environment on which to attach (Kent, 1992). The reefs around many of the islands of the bay, including Peel Island, provide such an environment. Mussel is also found on the protected muddy coasts around islands, including the northern coast of Peel Island and the nearby west coast of North Stradbroke Island, which is only 2 km to the east of Peel Island. Whelk, like mussel, are found on

Table 1 Radio-carbon dates from the Peel Island Lazaret Midden excavation (from Ross and Tomkins, 2011, p. 139, p. 139). Pit/XU

Depth (mm)

Lab#

Material

Conventional age

A/3 A/10 A/10 A/16 B4/1 B4/12 B4/12 B4/17 B1/25

20 270 270 530 surface 300 300 470 480

Beta-98030 Beta-98032 Beta-98031 Wk-8010 Wk-8012 Wk-8009 Wk-8013 Wk-8014 Wk-8011

shell shell charcoal shell shell charcoal shell shell shell

830 1090 970 1520 480 500 840 1420 1660

± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ±

70 60 60 50 50 50 50 50 60

BP BP BP BP BP BP BP BP BP

Calibrated age BP 1s

Calibrated age BP (2s)

Calibrated age BP (median)

385e516 565e679 796e933 994e1135 0*e134 502e552 421e509 905e1025 1154e1279

292e554 530e754 738e979 930e1190 0*e231 473e644 328e536 823e1095 1059e1321

446 644 866 1065 96 530 461 960 1209

182


intertidal mud flats around islands and are regularly seen on the northern coast of Peel Island and the west coast of North Stradbroke Island. Quampie occurs in the shallow waters around islands, and like oyster prefer a rocky or hard substrate. Eugarie is found on open sandy beaches and is regularly collected today from the southern coast of Peel Island, along Horseshoe Bay beach. The pattern of shellfish discard at the Peel Island Lazaret Midden demonstrates considerable variation in species abundance over time, particularly in the dominance of the two main taxa (oyster and mussel) present in the site. Both Woo's analysis (Woo, 2013; Woo et al., in press), and that undertaken by the Quandamooka Cultural Resources Management Team, demonstrate considerable temporal variation in the abundance of oyster and mussel at the site in both of the pits assessed here. Tables 2 and 3 and Figs. 6e9 set out MNI and weight data, as collected by the Traditional Owners, for the most common and most culturally important taxa present in Pits A and B1. Weights and measurements of each individual specimen identified were not recorded by the Traditional Owners, but total weights per taxon per XU were recorded, along with total NISP counts per taxon per XU. MNI were calculated by counting apertures for gastropods, and left or right valves (whichever was the greater) for bivalves (see Woo et al., in press). NISPs counts were not used in the analysis of data from the excavation because of the highly fragmented nature of much of the recovered material, which is likely to have inflated the counts, especially of non-robust species such as mussels (Faulkner, 2013, pp. 110ff; Woo, 2013; Woo et al., in press).

Table 3 (continued ) XU

Oyster MNI

Oyster weight (g)

Mussel MNI

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29

97 217 100 136 164 198 73 59 80 23 27 29 84 62 44 100 49 7 1 1

1121.5 1093.5 1241.8 1959.7 2691.9 2999.1 993.3 1015.4 788.5 131.0 160.5 212.6 835.7 789.6 752.9 1483.8 349.4 113.6 33.5 0.3

60 67 16 15 2 2 1 3 16 58 70 160 111 58 19 34 3 1 2 1

Mussel weight (g) 273.4 389.7 148.0 59.1 22.5 26.8 4.8 21.2 113.6 217.1 264.5 729.0 459.3 191.5 60.2 100.6 15.1 10.5 6.5 0.2

It is clear from the data presented in Tables 2 and 3 and Figs. 6e9, that there is considerable variation in the abundance of the different shellfish taxa discarded at the Peel Island Lazaret Midden site. The discard pattern seen in shellfish taxa other than oyster and mussel (Figs. 6e9) is relatively consistent, with most taxa other than oyster and mussel making a relatively small contribution to overall shellfish discard. Woo (2013) found similar

Table 2 MNI and Weight for Oyster and Mussel shell retrieved from Pit A of the Peel Island Lazaret Midden. MNI were calculated by counting lids or bases (whichever was the greater) for oysters, and left or right valves (whichever was the greater) for mussels (see Woo et al., in press). ‘?’ indicates that data were not recorded. XU

Oyster MNI

Oyster weight (g)

Mussel MNI

Mussel weight (g)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

? 25 16 12 27 19 37 211 251 146 118 400 302 474 297 51 29 15 ? ?

? 611.1 204.1 148.9 331.9 214.8 415.9 2278.8 2248.8 1138.1 666.9 2913.9 2059.9 2387.2 2149.1 460.6 182.1 146.4 8.1 8.4

? 8 9 10 64 120 135 32 10 38 30 27 122 84 73 8 4 3 ? ?

? 15.8 22.4 29.0 223.5 580.7 733.5 221.8 63.6 135.9 122.3 63.0 600.2 377.5 216.2 102.0 13.3 3.3 2.1 0.4

Fig. 6. Shellfish distribution from Pit A of the Peel Island Lazaret Midden by MNI.

Table 3 MNI and Weight for Oyster and Mussel shell retrieved from Pit B1 of the Peel Island Lazaret Midden. MNI were calculated by counting lids or bases (whichever was the greater) for oysters, and left or right valves (whichever was the greater) for mussels (see Woo et al., in press). ‘?’ indicates that data were not recorded. XU

Oyster MNI

Oyster weight (g)

Mussel MNI

Mussel weight (g)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

52 85 110 68 142 10 31 41 102

438.6 951.9 1476.1 1186.0 1558.0 114.4 85.0 436.8 1256.8

47 74 68 49 138 198 149 80 53

94.2 187.0 173.6 171.1 1011.9 1162.3 872.0 304.0 249.3

Fig. 7. Shellfish distribution from Pit A of the Peel Island Lazaret Midden by weight.


183

biological (Kent, 1992; Jenkins, 2013) factors that impact on the survival of shell and other cultural material at midden sites, often differentially. 4.1. External impacts Erlandson and Rick (2008) and Rowland and Ulm (2012) have argued that, prior to seeking socio-cultural explanations for variation in artefact discard in shell midden sites, it is important that any likely external impacts on the survival of cultural remains are considered. Rowland and Ulm (2012) outline six common external impacts on the survival of shell midden remains, particularly in the tropics of northern Australia: changes to sea-level; climate change; cyclones; storms; tsunamis; and contemporary human impacts such as development or vandalism. Fig. 8. Shellfish distribution from Pit B1 of the Peel Island Lazaret Midden by MNI.

patterns in her more detailed identification of shellfish taxa from the upper levels of Pit B1. Because of the dramatic variation in the abundance of oyster and mussel at the site, in this paper we discuss only the relationship between these two taxa. On first inspection of the graphs in Figs. 6e9, it would appear that oyster and mussel vary such that as oyster discard decreases at the site, mussel generally increases. Upon more detailed analysis, however, it is clear that the pattern is not this simple; we argue that it cannot not be concluded that when oyster declines, mussel replaces oyster in the diet. For example, in Pit A, using both MNI and weight data, oyster and mussel both increase in XUs 12 through 16, and both decline in XUs 10 and 11; mussel seemingly replaces oyster in XUs 5 through 8. Both oyster and mussel contribute little to the shellfish discard seen in the top five XUs of Pit A. In Pit B1 the pattern in both MNI and weight data is less complex than in Pit A; here mussel does generally dominate in those XUs where oyster declines, and vice versa. We now examine many of the usual explanations for the kind of variation in shellfish abundance seen in our data, and assess the validity of each explanation for the Peel Island Lazaret Midden. 4. Explaining oyster and mussel discard patterns at the Peel Island Lazaret Midden Although it is generally recognised that shell midden deposits are created by the accumulation of cultural remains resulting from human behaviour related to subsistence activity (Meehan, 1982; Waselkov, 1987; Alvarez et al., 2010; Andrus, 2011), it is also well documented that there may be a range of external (Waselkov, 1987; Erlandson and Rick, 2008; Ulm, 2011; Rowland and Ulm, 2012) and

Fig. 9. Shellfish distribution from Pit B1 of the Peel Island Lazaret Midden by weight.

4.1.1. Sea-level change Sea-level change not only brings the potential for site inundation as sea-level rises, washing away coastal landforms and associated sites, but inconsistency in sea-level can reduce environmental productivity, making resource abundance and even species availability in different coastal environments inconsistent, and hence sometimes unable to support Aboriginal populations (Ulm, 2006, 2011). Changes to sea-level are unlikely to have caused the dramatic changes to oyster and mussel abundance demonstrated by the variation in the presence of these resources in the Peel Island Lazaret Midden. The Lazaret Midden dates to 1200 cal BP. Leonard et al. (2013), Lewis et al. (2013), and Sloss et al. (2007) have all demonstrated that sea-level on the east coast of Australia, and in Moreton Bay in particular (Lewis et al., 2013), had stabilised at current levels by 2000 BP, almost 1000 years before the establishment of the Peel Island Lazaret Midden. More recent research on Holocene sea-level variation in Moreton Bay by Narayan et al. (2015) supports this assessment. Narayan et al. studied the changes in sea-level and in water quality as recorded in benthic foraminiferal assemblages around Peel Island and at other study sites in Moreton Bay. For Peel Island, the benthic foraminifera demonstrate that reef formation commenced during a static sea-level stand between 7400 BP and 6800 BP. Reef production and sea-level were also relatively stable from 4900 BP and 3300 BP, but there were major changes to both sea-level and the reef ecosystem between 3300 BP and 1700 BP as a result of ~ o-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) activity. At this time increased El Nin sea-level fell, water turbidity increased (which caused a decline in water quality) and reef production ‘turned off’ (Narayan et al., 2015, p. 59). However, all this change occurred before the establishment of the Peel Island Lazaret Midden. Narayan et al. (2015) demonstrate that current sea-levels were established at 1700 BP, and between 1700 BP and 300 BP, which incorporates the time during which the Peel Island Lazaret Midden was accumulating, sea-level and water quality throughout Moreton Bay, and especially in the east of the bay (including around Peel Island) have been stable. Narayan et al. (2015, p. 61) demonstrate that the reefs around Peel Island (and in the eastern parts of Moreton Bay generally) are highly tolerant of a range of stressful water quality conditions. They argue that the long-term resilience of the reef fauna in eastern Moreton Bay demonstrates reef ecosystem consistency throughout the time the midden was occupied. The consequences of these findings are that the coastal resources around Peel Island were well established several hundred years before the midden was first formed c. 1200 BP, so there is little potential for sea-level change, decline in water quality as a result of increased turbidity, or stress in the reef ecosystems around Peel Island, to have caused the variation seen in the shellfish discard patterns seen in the Peel Island Lazaret Midden.

184


4.1.2. Climate change (including increased cyclones, storms and tsunamis) According to Rowland and Ulm (2012, p. 163) ‘Climate change is a regular occurrence and is a persistent factor in cultural changes while also impacting on archaeological site preservation’ (see also Ulm, 2011). Rowland's and Ulm's summary of key data on changes to the ENSO cycle, which has increased in frequency during the latter half of the Holocene (Narayan et al., 2015), suggests that declines in archaeological material between 1300 and 900 BP and between 550 and 250 BP, represent ‘a disruption to critical resources’ (Rowland and Ulm, 2012, p. 164). Much of this disruption to resources has been as a consequence of ENSO-induced increases in cyclonic and storm activity, causing dramatic storm surges (and even occasional tsunamis) and bringing high winds to the coast, with these climatic events adversely affecting coastal resources, including shellfish. For the shellfish resources located in Moreton Bay and close to Peel Island, however, marked ENSO climatic events did not have a significant impact on resource abundance. Although there were ENSO changes in Moreton Bay during the Holocene (Narayan et al., 2015), including during the late Holocene when the Lazaret Midden was occupied, according to Narayan et al. (2015, p. 51), these late Holocene ENSO changes did not produce the marked faunal responses seen in the early Holocene. Narayan et al. (2015) found that the reef fauna of the late Holocene were stable. As a consequence, climate variation is unlikely to be the explanation for variation in oyster and mussel shell discard patterns documented in the Peel Island Lazaret Midden deposits. 4.1.3. Contemporary human impacts Rowland and Ulm (2012) demonstrate that recent development activity, and modern human behaviour, have detrimentally impacted coastal environments, causing the destruction of midden deposits. There is abundant evidence that sand mining on North Stradbroke Island over the past several decades has caused just such an impact (Ponosov, 1965; Durbridge and Covacevich, 1981; Durbridge, 1984). However development and contemporary human impacts are unlikely to have affected the Peel Island Lazaret Midden in a similar way. Peel Island has been essentially isolated from contemporary human impact since 1874, when the island was designated as off-limits to the general public, first as a quarantine station and then as a lazaret. Following the closure of the lazaret in 1959, the island was used exclusively by a Brisbane school as a venue for student camps e where all activities were focused on the open space between the Lazaret Activities Hall and the Lazaret Hospital buildings, well away from the midden. Since 1993 the island has been managed as a national park and visitors may only come to the lazaret on a guided tour, which does not take visitors close to the midden. It is therefore highly unlikely that the shellfish discard patterns seen in the Peel Island Lazaret Midden are a result of recent human interference. 4.2. Shellfish ecology Jenkins (2013) and Kent (1992), amongst others, have demonstrated that the biological and ecological needs of a species can influence resource availability. Seasonal availability, temperature variation, local climatic conditions (such as changes to water turbidity), etc. can all affect the health of resources, especially shellfish (Kent, 1992), and such external environmental influences must be taken into account when developing explanations for variation in the discard of shellfish remains before human/cultural factors can be considered.

4.2.1. Seasonality and other growth conditions Many shellfish species are fussy (Quitmyer et al., 1997). They require specific substrates for their growth, and optimal temperatures for spawning. For oysters, and particularly rock oysters such as Saccostrea, the necessary growth environments are a hard substrate within a muddy environment, clear waters, and optimal sea temperatures (Kent, 1992). As a consequence, Saccostrea grows best on small coral reefs in bays with mud environments, clear waters and warm seas (Kent, 1992). This is very much the environment of Moreton Bay and oysters grow readily on the small coral reefs that are found throughout the bay, including around Peel Island (personal observation). Spawning and optimal growth in oysters both require sea temperatures above 20 C (Kent, 1992). The Australian Bureau of Meteorology (BoM), 2014 (http://www.bom.gov.au/marine/ averages-trends.shtml) has produced a range of diagrams and graphs illustrating variations in sea surface temperatures over the past century. These data demonstrate that sea surface temperatures in Moreton Bay from 1900 to the present have varied by less than 1 C around monthly mean temperatures that range from 20 C in June and July to 27 C in February and March. These sea temperatures are optimal for the growth of oysters all year round in Moreton Bay, at least for the past 100 years. Can these data be extended back in time to the onset of the accumulation on Peel Island Lazaret Midden? The recent research by Narayan et al. (2015) demonstrates that the present day climatic situation in Moreton Bay was established by 1700 BP, well before the formation of the Peel Island Lazaret Midden. It can therefore be assumed with some degree of confidence that oysters are not only likely to have been available almost all year round since BoM records began in 1900, but for the past 1200 years as well. Severe storms and floods can create significant water turbidity that adversely affects the growing environment for oysters (Kent, 1992; Jenkins, 2013). Flooding associated with cyclones and severe tropical storms creates the level of turbidity required to kill sea grass beds and to also have adverse effects on other marine ecosystems, including oyster reefs (Carruthers et al., 2002). Certainly storms on the southeast coast of Queensland have been known to cause significant water turbidity in Moreton Bay such that sea grass beds have been adversely affected; such disturbance could have also affected oyster growing conditions. However, recent remote sensing research in Moreton Bay by Phinn et al. (2006) has demonstrated that water clarity around Peel Island is generally excellent, with visibility extending beyond 6 m, despite occasional storm activity. Phinn et al.’s data, along with the findings of Narayan et al. (2015) that water turbidity in Moreton Bay is likely to have been stable for over 1700 years, and that reef systems in Moreton Bay are highly resilient to poor water quality, indicate that it is unlikely that high levels of water turbidity could have been a regular enough occurrence across the 1200 years of the Peel Island Lazaret Midden occupation to explain the recurring variation in abundance of oysters in the site. 4.2.2. Degradation of oysters Kent (1992) has documented a range of chemical and physical impacts that will adversely affect oyster growth and reproduction. It is important to remove such influences from any resource impact equation before socio-cultural choices can be considered as an explanation for cultural patterning in an archaeological site. Kent (1992) identified two main chemical effects on oysters: conchiolin degradation, which affects the robusticity of oysters, and calcium carbonate reactions causing calcium leaching from the shells. As there is no evidence for either decline in oyster robusticity or calcium leaching in any of the oyster shells excavated from the deposits in the Peel Island Lazaret Midden, it is unlikely that


chemical changes have occurred in the waters of the bay that would have affected oyster survival due to degradation of the oyster shell. There is, therefore, no evidence that chemical impacts brought about the variations in oyster abundance documented in the Lazaret Midden site. According to Kent (1992), there are three major physical effects that can cause oyster degradation: the influences of modern humans, particularly through agricultural activity; freeze/ thaw events; and the presence of invasive parasites that affect oyster health and mortality. Clearly, agricultural impact on the oyster beds around Peel Island has never been an issue, as both prior to European arrival and post European settlement, Peel Island has never been exposed to agricultural production. Similarly, freeze/thaw events are highly unlikely to have occurred in the sub-tropical environments of Moreton Bay over the past 1200 years. There are a number of parasites that occur in Moreton Bay, including ones that affect oysters (Dang et al., 2013). Dang et al. (2013) argue that the parasites that affect both commercially grown oysters and wild oysters do not affect shell growth, but do affect the oyster meat and eventually cause death to the individual oysters that have been infected. Although there is no evidence for the presence of such parasites on the shells found in the Peel Island Lazaret Midden, because the parasites described by Dang et al. (2013) do not leave evidence on the shells, it is possible that at least some of the variation in oyster abundance may have been caused by parasite activity. Nevertheless, given the general consistency in oyster size throughout the deposits (see Table 4 and discussion below), and the absence of any evidence for oyster stress throughout the midden deposits, it is unlikely that parasitic invasion of oyster beds could be the sole cause of the ‘boom and bust’ cycle demonstrated by the oyster discard in the Peel Island Lazaret Midden.

Table 4 Size ranges for oyster and mussel shell excavated from Pits A and B1, Peel Island Lazaret Midden. Size range was measured only on whole shells (lids and bases for oysters, left and right valves for mussels). XU Pit A Oyster size range (mm)

Pit A mussel size Pit B1 Oyster size Pit B1 mussel size range (mm) range (mm) range (mm)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29

? 5e28 10e23 13e26 7e40 10e57 6e58 13e49 6e31 8e54 13e45 14e38 7e35 11e60 7e50 13e31 18e25 11e24 ? ?

? 24e51 13e55 24e53 35e60 7e60 14e69 15e56 12e60 26e65 14e63 10e56 10e58 9e63 7e72 19e58 17e58 12e48 ? ?

11e60 22e64 27e67 29e64 18e71 23e58 10e55 18e58 15e71 20e69 13e80 13e60 22e84 20e80 25e60 18e70 13e65 15e70 15e43 20e50 20e55 22e55 16e60 15e60 25e55 18e55 20e75 ? ?

8e32 11e41 10e51 8e51 8e60 10e61 9e76 10e61 9e55 11e59 8e70 16e56 5e35 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

185

From the above analysis it would appear that the patterning seen in oyster distribution in the Peel Island Lazaret Midden site is unlikely to be due to external environmental influences in terms of sea-level change, climatic variation, cyclones, tsunamis, storm surges, changes to local growing conditions, chemical impacts or physical degradation, apart, perhaps, from the activity of parasites. It is, therefore, time to consider cultural impacts on shellfish discard patterning. 4.3. Cultural effects 4.3.1. Over-exploitation/population collapse One of the most obvious explanations for the variation in oyster discard patterns in the Peel Island Lazaret Midden is overexploitation of oysters, leading to local, temporary population collapse and a consequent shift to the exploitation of alternative taxa, such as mussel. According to Erlandson and Rick (2008), Jenkins (2013), and Thomas (2015b), over-exploitation of oysters and other shellfish resources is usually characterised by a decline in shell size immediately prior to the decline in abundance (although Faulkner (2013) argues that shape is a better measure of population impact through over-harvesting). The rationale for this is that humans will target ‘optimal resources’ (Erlandson and Rick, 2008, p. 9), the largest individuals from a resource locale, but that as the abundance of a species declines, so too will the size of the remaining individuals: Historical data suggest that heavy fishing pressure on many fish and shellfish species often reduces the average size or age of local or regional populations … [C]hanges in the average size or age of individuals from a particular fish or shellfish species are one of the simplest, most common and valuable measures used by archaeologists to reconstruct shifts in human predation pressure and impacts in marine or aquatic ecosystems Erlandson and Rick, 2008, p. 10. Table 4 provides the size ranges for oyster and mussel shells recovered from Pits A and B1 of the Peel Island Lazaret Midden excavation. Size range was measured only on whole shells (lids and bases for oysters, left and right valves for mussels). Size of fragmented shell has not been included, because of the likelihood that fragmentation could have occurred during excavation, transport and storage of shells, rather than at the time of collection, consumption and discard. Ideally, the size of each individual shell would have been measured. However, as indicated above, this excavation was primarily directed by Traditional Owners, and many of the classic measurements on the shellfish retained from the excavation (which, being a 100% sample of the excavated materials, was a huge quantity of shell) were not undertaken, for a range of reasons, including lack of time, lack of interest, and lack of relevance to the major questions being asked by the Traditional Owners. Nevertheless, size range data were collected, and these data can provide some preliminary indications of the likelihood of over-exploitation as an explanation for the decline in oysters over time, and their increase following a period of low discard. Tables 2 and 3, and Figs. 6e9 show the pattern of oyster and mussel variation in Pits A and B1 at the Peel Island Lazaret Midden. Table 2, and Figs. 6 and 7 indicate that oyster discard declines in Pit A in XUs 12e10 and 7e1, using both the MNI and weight data. If decline, and even complete absence of oysters, can be explained by over-exploitation followed by a period of lesser exploitation or even abstinence, to allow for species recovery, we should expect to see the size range for oysters becoming smaller at the time of the

186


decline or just beforehand. We should expect to see the size ranges for oysters becoming smaller in XUs 12 or 13 and again in XUs 7 or 8. The pattern seen in the size range data are not this simple. Throughout the early period of oyster discard (XUs 18 through to 13), oysters are generally large, with minimum sizes from 10 mm to 20 mm, and maximum sizes from 58 to 72 mm. When this first period of high rates of discard slows, in XU 12 and thence into XUs 11 and 10, there is little change in the size range, with minimum sizes being from 10 to 26 mm, and maximum sizes being from 56 to 65 mm. In XUs 7 to 1, when the discard rate for oysters declines considerably, and certainly far more than in XUs 13 to 10, the size range for the oysters actually increases, with the minimum length being from 13 to 24 mm (apart from XU 6, where the minimum length is just 7 mm) and the maximum length is relatively unchanged from that elsewhere in the deposit: 50e60 mm. This pattern, where size variation does not respond directly to discard decline, is not repeated in Pit B1. Table 3, and Figs. 8 and 9 indicate that the decline in oyster discard in Pit B1 appears in XUs 21e19; XU12; XUs 9e6; and XUs 3e1. At each of these declines in discard there is indeed a reduction in both minimum and maximum size classes of oysters (Table 4). Do we see a similar pattern with respect to mussel? In Pit A, mussel increases in XUs 15e13, and again in XUs 7e5 (Table 2 and Figs. 6 and 7). In these high discard XUs, mussel is relatively small (minimum size 5e11 mm and maximum size 35e60 mm for all six peak discard XUs) compared to size ranges at times of mussel discard decline (minimum 11e18 mm and maximum 35e58 mm) (Table 4). In Pit B1 (Table 3; Figs. 8 and 9) mussel peaks in XUs 23e21 and again in XUs 9e5. Unfortunately there are no size data for XUs 23 to 21 in Pit B1, but for XUs 9e5 the minimum size of mussel discarded is relatively unchanged from the minimum sized shells in low discard XUs, although the maximum length is comparatively low at the peak discard: 55e71 mm compared to maximum lengths of 60e84 mm at times of low rates of discard. Clearly, without individual measurements on all shells, it is impossible to draw strong conclusions about the relationship between shellfish size and discard rates, but the data we do have suggest that there is not a simple one to one relationship between the size of shellfish and their rates of discard. There is no clear evidence for shellfish reducing in size immediately prior to a reduction or cessation in discard, such as one would expect if overharvesting were to be the sole, or the major, explanation for the changes in discard rates. The size data from the Peel Island Lazaret Midden, therefore, do not indicate that there has been unequivocal evidence for systematic over-harvesting of oyster (or of mussel). As a consequence, unsustainable oyster use cannot be the sole explanation for the resource exploitation patterning seen in the Peel Island Lazaret Midden, and alternative explanations need to be considered. 4.3.2. Diet choice It is difficult to find explicit evidence for diet choice in the archaeological record (Piotto et al., in press). Nevertheless, there are a number of variables that relate to resource selection which can be used as possible windows into understanding diet choice. These variables include diet breadth (Nagaoka, 2002); patch choice (Nagaoka, 2002); niche production (Faulkner, 2011; Morrison, 2013) and resource scheduling (Morrison, 2013). 4.3.2.1. Diet breadth and patch choice. According to Lupo (2007, p. 146), humans ‘are designed by natural selection to optimize lifetime reproductive success and are capable of rapid adaptive shifts in behavior to contemporary environmental conditions’. Foraging models based on this premise purport to explain resource choice

(diet breadth), patch selection, and resource transportation (Lupo, 2007). ‘Diet breadth’ relates to the range of taxa in the available environment that are exploited by people as part of foraging behaviour (Nagaoka, 2002). Foraging theory states that people will target high ranked species that yield efficient foraging effort (Lupo, 2007). If high ranked resources decline, according to these models, people will select lower ranked species (increased diet breadth), or exploit wider environments (wider patch choice), providing foraging efficiency is not compromised (Nagaoka, 2002). In the Peel Island Lazaret Midden, although Woo (2013) identified over 60 different shellfish taxa in the midden (see above), only oyster and mussel are exploited on a regular basis (Woo, 2013: Appendix D; Woo et al., in press: Appendix B). There is, therefore, limited diet breadth evidenced in the midden deposits, and this situation changes little throughout the deposits in both Pits A and B1. In addition, both Saccostrea sp. and Trichomya hirsuta are found in similar environments, with these patches occurring both locally and throughout the bay. As a consequence, there is little evidence for change in diet breadth or patch choice provided by the Peel Island Lazaret Midden deposits. 4.3.2.2. Niche production and resource scheduling. Morrison (2013) has documented a series of shell mounds from Albatross Bay, Cape York Peninsula, northern Queensland. He argues that the mounds provide evidence for shifting resource exploitation by Aboriginal foragers as shorelines receded and prograded over the past 5000 years in association with sea-level rise and fall. As well as variation in site location over time, Morrison (2013) argues that species variation in the midden mounds reflect changing resource production strategies that attest to highly dynamic and flexible human populations that were able to adapt to the rapid environmental changes of the mid-to-late Holocene. Nevertheless, Morrison also recognises that robust resource environments, such as estuaries, provided stability in times of rapid change. He argues that ‘mounds reflect a production strategy associated with people targeting niche estuarine ecosystems rather than a single resource such as A[nadara] granosa’ (Morrison, 2013, p. 88). He goes on to point out, however, that even robust niche ecosystems, such as estuaries, produce resources that vary across space and time, and he uses this argument to enhance his explanation for variation in species abundance in the shell mounds of Albatross Bay, concluding that ‘shell mound sites are a partial record of Aboriginal people strategically orientating production around the natural variability inherent in niche estuarine ecosystems. These production systems were able to be scaled up or down in line with the shifting character of local resource landscapes’ (Morrison, 2013, p. 89). Although the data from the Peel Island Lazaret Midden similarly emphasise the importance of local niche ecosystems around Peel Island as the locale for shellfish exploitation associated with the accumulation of the midden, the niche ecosystem in Moreton Bay is very different from that in Cape York. The marked climatic seasonality of the tropics is not similarly pronounced in southeast Queensland; we have already demonstrated that oyster is likely to have been available all year round on the rocky reef environments around Peel Island. In addition, because the Peel Island Lazaret Midden dates to the late Holocene when sea-levels in Moreton Bay were stable, the local resource environments of the bay were also well established and stable by this time (Narayan et al., 2015). As a consequence, variation in niche production and resource scheduling is also an unlikely explanation for the variation in species abundance in the Peel Island site. From the above discussion it is clear that over-exploitation of resources, transformations in diet breadth and patch location, and changes to niche production via resource scheduling, which are the


187

usual cultural explanations for variation in food discard behaviour witnessed in archaeological sites, cannot easily explain the patterns in shellfish discard seen in the Peel Island Lazaret Midden. So what other explanations can there be for the shellfish discard pattern in the Peel Island Lazaret Midden, especially with respect to oyster? Our hypothesis is that discard is not a measure of exploitation and consumption. We base this hypothesis on ethnohistorical and oral history information relating to the stewardship of oyster by the Dandrabin-Gorenpul of Quandamooka.

general ravages of time will gradually deflate the artificial reefs. When this occurs, oysters are collected from other growing environments, both natural and artificial, and after the consumption of a meal based on oysters, the spent shells are discarded back onto the reef under the sea (Ross and Quandamooka, 1996a). The consequences of this behaviour for archaeological site patterning are significant. It is clear that oyster collection from natural reefs and from artificial reefs will result in the following behaviours:

5. Dandrabin-Gorenpul stewardship of oyster resources in Moreton Bay

1. Oysters are collected and the flesh eaten; the shells are retained; and 2. Following consumption, oyster shells are discarded at the point of consumption (i.e. onto a shell midden); or 3. Following consumption, oyster shells are collected together and deliberately placed underwater to rebuild deflated mounds or to create new artificial reefs (i.e. not onto a shell midden).

Oral history documents that the Dandrabin-Gorenpul of Quandamooka have relied on marine resources as a significant component of their diet since earliest times (Moreton and Ross, 2011; Ross et al., 2011). Many of the traditional Quandamooka Laws and responsibilities regarding the stewardship of marine resources are still remembered and followed today. According to DandrabinGorenpul, the long reliance on marine foods is based on people's inherited rights and responsibilities to the land and sea, and this has persisted with little change or interruption since earliest times (Moreton and Ross, 2011; Ross et al., 2011). For DandrabinGorenpul Traditional Owners, oysters are one of the main resource species that have been managed in the bay as part of Aboriginal rights and responsibilities handed down through Quandamooka Law (Ross and Quandamooka, 1996a; Ross and Coghill, 2000). Although oysters grow naturally on the reefs and other rocky environments of Moreton Bay, Aboriginal people have expanded the natural range of oysters through the construction of artificial oyster reefs. These artificial reefs have been created by DandrabinGorenpul oyster farmers through the deliberate placement of oyster shells on natural underwater mounds adjacent to deep ‘gutters’, eroded into the sea bed via the swift flow of creeks from the high sand islands. The artificial underwater shell mounds have been built up to a height that allows oyster spat to settle on the shell and to grow to a mature oyster in exactly the same way that oysters naturally propagate and grow on natural reefs. As Kent (1992) points out, oysters grow best on other oyster shells, so the artificial reefs have the potential to produce higher quantities of large, quality oysters than do the natural reefs, particularly since the artificial reefs are regularly managed and maintained. The regular maintenance of the artificial reefs involves a series of management steps, all of which have been handed down to the Dandrabin-Gorenpul Traditional Owners of the reefs by their ancestors, with knowledge retained as part of Quandamooka Law: The reefs are monitored by their owners to ensure that the shell mounds remain well-formed and at the right height below lowtide levels to ensure the continuation of a suitable growing environment for the oyster (cf. Kent, 1992); Oysters will be moved from high levels on the reef, where the spat collect, to lower levels on the reef, where the growing environment encourages the production of large oysters; Small oysters that ‘clump’ onto large oysters, usually as a result of spat attaching to growing oysters, need to be broken off from the large oysters and placed in a growing environment of their own; and Oysters may be moved from one reef to another if one reef is considered to be depauperate in mature oysters while another has plentiful numbers of the shellfish. One of the major maintenance activities involves the occasional rebuilding of the artificial reefs. Storms, large waves, and the

The information on the stewardship of oysters by the Dandrabin-Gorenpul of Quandamooka provides another possible avenue of explanation for the shellfish discard pattern seen in the Peel Island Lazaret Midden. It is very possible that the changing numbers/weights of oyster shells discarded onto the midden site is more a reflection on whether or not the artificial oyster reefs exploited by those occupying the Peel Island Lazaret Midden required maintenance, than of shellfish collection and consumption behaviour. The pattern of oyster shell discard in the Peel Island Lazaret Midden site under these conditions is not, therefore, a pattern relating to the collection and consumption of oysters. It is a pattern relating to the discard of spent oyster shells. We argue that oysters are likely to have been collected and consumed throughout the period of occupation of the Peel Island Lazaret Midden. The general consistency in the size ranges for oysters across 1200 years of site occupation implies that there was little change to oyster populations in terms of size and abundance throughout the period of occupation of the Lazaret Midden site. It is the discard of the shells that has varied over time. The presence of oyster shells in the midden deposits reflects discard behaviour during times of reef stability. The absence of oyster shells in the midden deposits reflects discard behaviour during times of reef instability and consequent reef maintenance requirements. Given the increase in mussel discard during times of low numbers/weights of oyster shell in the Peel Island Lazaret Midden, it is possible, even probable, that oyster collection and consumption declined when artificial reefs needed considerable maintenance, to be replaced temporarily by an increase in mussel (or other species), to allow the oysters growing on the artificial oyster reefs time to recover from maintenance activities, and resource stocks to rebuild. Nevertheless, we argue that it is unlikely that oysters were ever really ‘off the menu’. 6. Discussion We are not the first to recognise that Indigenous people's consumption behaviour is not always reflected in the archaeological record, nor are we the first to recognise Indigenous resource management initiatives visible in the archaeological record. For example, Bird and Bliege-Bird (1997), Bird et al. (2002), Meehan (1982) and Thomas (2015b) have all demonstrated that ‘the molluscs present in large shell accumulations may not reflect either the quantity or the full range of species consumed’ (Thomas, 2015 p. 159). Bird and Bliege-Bird (1997; Bird et al., 2002) demonstrate that in the Torres Strait, differential transport of shellfish can alter the relative abundance of shellfish in an archaeological site, such that the dietary importance of some species is not correctly represented

188


in archaeological deposits as a result of differential field processing and transport of shellfish. Bird et al. (2002, p. 457) conclude that ‘while prey choice is predictable ethnographically, it is not reflected in the midden remains’. In Thomas' recent overview of shell midden studies (2015a, 2015b), he devotes an entire section of his 2015b paper to a summary of ‘management strategies’ associated with shellfish collection as seen largely in ethnographic studies (pp. 161e162). The examples he cites include evidence for people's collection of washed-up shellfish, to take the pressure off growing populations; boat-based foraging to expand the ecosystems exploited for shellfish; avoidance of local shellfish beds to protect local resources from over-exploitation; and allowing shellfish beds to lie ‘fallow’ for several months to encourage regrowth of a previously harvested population. But none of these examples relates to the cultivation of shellfish, in the way the Dandrabijn-Gorenpul have done, possibly for over 1000 years. Management of a range of ecosystems by Indigenous peoples in the past is well known (Ross et al., 2011): the use of fire to manage grasslands (e.g. Jones, 1969, 1975); irrigation systems to manage land- and freshwater-based resources (e.g. Balme and Beck, 1996; Lourandos, 1980, 1997); social and ritual taboos against exploitation of resources at certain times (e.g. Johannes, 1978; Hunn et al., 2003); and so forth. Management and conservation have also extended to marine resources, through the use of fishtraps (e.g. Head, 1989; McNiven, 2004; Rowland and Ulm, 2011); input and output controls on fish harvesting (e.g. Ross and Quandamooka, 1996b; Barker and Ross, 2002); social controls and tenure systems that include marine territory and maritime resource ownership (e.g. Caldwell et al., 2012; Lepofsky and Caldwell, 2013); and the like. Such strategies are often termed ‘management’, but there have been very few studies that have identified evidence for the cultivation of marine shellfish resources by Indigenous peoples, as a deliberate form of shellfish management. One exception to this is the work of Groesbeck et al. (2014), who have documented ‘clam gardening’ in British Columbia, Canada. The clam gardens are intertidal rock walls deliberately constructed by First Nations shellfish gatherers to enhance clam production through the provision of artificial growing environments. Nevertheless, Groesbeck et al.’s study was an experimental study based on ethnographic observations and the existence of surviving garden walls; there was no analysis of associated archaeological data. As a consequence, although the cultivation strategies we document here are not unique in terms of Indigenous knowledge strategies relating to natural resources management, our study is unusual in the documentation of a possible archaeological signature for an ethnographically recorded form of shellfish management. The detailed analysis of the variation in oyster shell discarded at the Peel Island Lazaret Midden presented in this paper highlights a number of important variables that may affect the interpretation of archaeological data: 1. Although clearly humans have always operated within the context of their local and regional environments, there are many factors that affect human behaviour patterns; environment is only one possible determinant of human subsistence behaviour. Food choice may be based on what is locally available (environmental determinism and its expression as diet breadth, patch choice and niche productivity), but is also determined by socio-cultural and socio-economic factors including cultural Laws, rights and responsibilities; resource stewardship obligations; diet preferences; and other economic considerations. Such socio-cultural explanations for subsistence behaviour cannot be fully understood without the involvement of those

with the knowledge of such socio-cultural determinants: the Indigenous Traditional Owners of the sites. 2. Although environment may impact on the survival of cultural materials deposited on a site, the discard of the evidence in the first place is largely determined by cultural, social, economic and resource stewardship obligations, as established in local Law and tradition. The discard of cultural material onto archaeological sites does not always reflect all human activities (Thomas, 2015b). Importantly, it cannot be assumed that evidence for the discard of robust-shelled species such as oyster will necessarily provide archaeologists with a complete picture of collection and consumption behaviour for that species. If the evidence is discarded elsewhere, it will not be visible archaeologically (Bird and Bliege-Bird, 1997; Bird et al., 2002). But absence of a species from archaeological deposits does not always mean that the species was not part of the diet, perhaps even a major part of prey choice. 3. Finally, our analysis has demonstrated the value e nay, the fundamental necessityeof incorporating Indigenous Knowledge into the archaeological analysis and interpretation of the past. In adopting a collaborative approach to understanding the past, we position ourselves squarely in the Indigenous Archaeologies methodology (e.g. McNiven and Russell, 2005; Atalay, 2008; Colwell-Chanthaphonh and Ferguson, 2008; Nicholas et al., 2008). In adopting this paradigmatic approach to understanding the past we do not ‘depart radically from the practice of archaeology as an academic and heritage management discipline’ (McGhee, 2008, p. 591) nor do we ‘strip archaeology of the scientific attributes that make it a particularly powerful narrator of the past’. On the contrary, we concur with the epistemology espoused by Atalay (2008), which valorises ‘an appreciation for a diversity of ideas and multiple ways of understanding cultural knowledge’ (2008, p. 29). In the analysis provided in this paper we believe we have demonstrated the benefits of a sincere collaborative approach to interpreting the past; one that involves the equal sharing of knowledge in a genuine partnership of ways of knowing (cf. McNiven and Russell, 2005; Ross et al., 2011). Recently there has been some criticism of the Indigenous Archaeologies methodology (e.g. McGhee, 2008; Stump, 2013), with critics arguing that Indigenous Knowledge should only be used in archaeological research when that Indigenous Knowledge corresponds with scientific epistemologies. Stump (2013, p. 274), for example, argues that interpretations of the past that are ‘archaeologically invisible’ are ‘highly ambiguous’ and cannot be ‘verified through direct observation’, which he argues lies at the heart of historiographical (and archaeological) rigour. As a consequence, Stump (2013, p. 274) argues, ‘Statements [from Indigenous Knowledge holders] that are incommensurate with the historian's conception of reality have to be treated merely as contextual information rather than as factual statements pertaining to past events'. Clearly we do not agree with this analysis of the relationship between Indigenous Knowledge and archaeological data. As the case study provided here documents, not all material aspects of the past are ‘archaeologically visible’, but we do not claim that the past, from an Indigenous perspective, is solely ‘spiritually and ritually’ constituted, and only relevant ‘as it exists in the present’ (McGhee, 2008, p. 582). We have demonstrated that an amalgamation of both archaeological inquiry and Indigenous Knowledge constructs encourages research that is ‘open to all possible insights’, allowing the construction of a ‘shared authority’ over the interpretation of the past (Colwell-Chanthaphonh, 2008, p. 286).


7. Conclusion In this paper we have demonstrated that shell midden sites are complex locales of human activity in the past. Discard of cultural materials onto middens may not always be determined by superficial relationships between people and the environment, and as a consequence the interpretation of archaeological data via the consideration of what is present in the archaeological record may not always generate the full complement of possible explanations for human behaviour. We have shown here that a focus on consumption patterns within a purely environmentally deterministic paradigm, in consort with an analysis of the preservation of subsistence remains that assumes that absence of evidence is evidence for material removal as a result of taphonomic processes, and that ignores discard activity, may overlook an important aspect of site creation. We have argued that an understanding of discard patterns within an Indigenous Knowledge framework that incorporates the recognition of Aboriginal people's resource stewardship obligations may generate new understandings of human behaviour as represented in midden deposits. Acknowledgements The research that has informed this paper was originally funded by a New Staff Grant from The University of Queensland and subsequently by a grant from the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies (Grant Number G96/5211). All the research was supported by the Quandamooka Aboriginal Land Council. The Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service provided access to resources whilst working on Peel Island. Excavation and laboratory analysis was undertaken by members of the Quandamooka Cultural Resources Management team, comprising Grant N Martin, Grant W Martin, Warren (Nicko) Nixon, Aaron McIver, Mandy Blivet, Suzannne Blivet, Troy Coolwell, Leigh Myers, Josh Perry, Alan Perry, John Tapp and Lee Tippo. Then UQ students Paddy Waterson, Jill Reid, Angie Cook, Melissa Carter, Ryan Duffy, Vanessa Krueger, Toni Kriewaldt and Felicity Bodmin also assisted with excavation and/or laboratory analysis. Dandrabin-Gorenpul Knowledge holders and Moorgumpin-Minjerribah Elders provided information on oyster stewardship and a range of other related matters. We particularly thank Uncle Dennis Moreton, Uncle Cliff Campbell, Uncle Keith Borey, Auntie Joanie Moreton, Auntie Shirley Moreton, Auntie Eileen O'Laughlin, Dale Ruska, Mark Jones, Denise Coghill and Leonie Coghill. We thank Pat Faulkner, Jon Prangnell, Sean Ulm, Ian McNiven, Mike Rowland, and two anonymous referees for discussions and comments on the content and ideas upon which this paper is based, and Sean Ulm for his incredible editing skills! References Alvarez, M., Godino, I.B., Balbo, A., Madella, M., 2010. Shell middens as archives of past environments, human dispersal and resource management. Quaternary International 239, 1e7. Andrus, C.F.T., 2011. Shell midden sclerochronology. Quaternary Science Reviews 30, 2892e2905. Atalay, S., 2008. Multivocality and indigenous archaeologies. In: Habu, J., Fawcett, C., Matsunaga, J.M. (Eds.), Evaluating Multiple Narratives: Beyond Nationalist, Colonialist, Imperialist Archaeologies. Springer eBooks, New York, pp. 29e44. Balme, J., Beck, W., 1996. Earth mounds in southeastern Australia. Australian Archaeology 42, 39e51. Barker, T., Ross, A., 2002. Exploring cultural constructs: the case of sea mullet management in Moreton Bay, south east Queensland, Australia. In: Haggan, N. (Ed.), Putting Fishers' Knowledge to Work. University of British Columbia, Canada, pp. 290e305. Available at: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/ download?doi¼10.1.1.163.1069&rep¼rep1&type¼pdf (accessed April 2015). Bird, D., Bliege-Bird, R., 1997. Contemporary shellfish gathering strategies among the Meriam of the Torres Strait Islands, Australia: testing predictions of a central place foraging model. Journal of Archaeological Science 24, 39e63.

189

Bird, D., Richardson, J., Veth, P., Barham, A., 2002. Explaining shellfish variability in middens on the Meriam Inlands, Torres Strait, Australia. Journal of Archaeological Science 29, 457e469. Blake, T., 1993. The Leper Shall Dwell Alone: Peel Island Lazaret Conservation Plan: a Report for the Department of Environment and Heritage. Department of Environment, Brisbane. Bowdler, S., 2010. The empty coast: conditions for human occupation in southeast Australia during the late Pleistocene. In: Haberle, S., Stevenson, J., Prebble, M. (Eds.), Altered Ecologies: Fire, Climate and Human Influence on Terrestrial Landscapes, Terra Australis No. 32. ANU E Press, Canberra, pp. 177e185. http:// epress.anu.edu.au. Bronk Ramsey, C., 2009. Bayesian analysis of radiocarbon dates. Radiocarbon 51, 337e360. Bureau of Meteorology (BOM), 2014. Bureau of Meteorology Website. Available at: http://www.bom.gov.au/ (accessed 05.08.14.). Caldwell, M., Lepofsky, D., Combes, G., Washington, M., Welch, J.R., Harper, J.R., 2012. A bird's eye view of northern coast Salish intertidal resource management features, southern British Columbia, Canada. Journal of Island and Coastal Archaeology 7, 219e233. Carruthers, T., Dennison, W., Longstaff, B., Waycott, M., Abal, E., McKenzie, L., Lee Long, W., 2002. Seagrass habitats of northeast Australia: models of key processes and controls. Bulletin of Marine Science 71 (3), 1153e1169. Claassen, C., 1998. Shells. Cambridge Manuals in Archaeology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Colwell-Chanthaphonh, C., Ferguson, T., 2008. Introduction: the Collaborative Continuum. In: Colwell-Chanthaphonh, C., Ferguson, T. (Eds.), Collaboration in Archaeological Practice: Engaging Descendant Communities. AltaMira Press, Lanham, pp. 1e32. Dang, C., Cribb, T., Cutmore, S., Chan, J., Henault, O., Barnes, A., 2013. Parasites of QXresistant and wild-type Sydney rock oysters (Saccostrea glomerata) in Moreton Bay, SE Queensland, Australia: diversity and host response. Journal of Invertebrate Pathology 112 (3), 273e277. Durbridge, E., 1984. Aboriginal middens, North Stradbroke Island. In: Coleman, R., Covacevich, J., Davie, P. (Eds.), Focus on Stradbroke: New Information on North Stradbroke Island and Surrounding Areas 1974e1984. Boolarong Publications, Brisbane, pp. 9e15. Durbridge, E., Covacevich, J., 1981. The Social Environment: North Stradbroke Island. Stradbroke Island Management Organisation, Amity Point. Erlandson, J., Rick, T., 2008. Archaeology, marine ecology, and human impacts on marine environments. In: Rick, T., Erlandson, J. (Eds.), Human Impacts on Ancient Marine Ecosystems: a Global Perspective. University of California Press, Berkley, pp. 1e19. Faulkner, P., 2009. Focused, intense and long-term: evidence for granular ark (Anadara granosa) exploitation from late Holocene shell mounds of Blue Mud Bay, northern Australia. Journal of Archaeological Science 36, 821e834. Faulkner, P., 2011. Late Holocene mollusc exploitation and changing near-shore environments: a case study from the coastal margin of Blue Mud Bay, northern Australia. Environmental Archaeology 16, 137e150. Faulkner, P., 2013. Life on the Margins: an Archaeological Investigation of Late Holocene Economic Variability, Blue Mud Bay, Northern Australia. Terra Australis, vol. 38. Australian National University E-Press, Canberra. Groesbeck, A.S., Rowell, K., Lepofsky, D., Salmon, A.K., 2014. Ancient clam gardens increased shellfish production: adaptive strategies from the past can inform food security today. PLoS ONE 9 (3), e91235. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/ journal.pone.0091235. Hall, J., 1982. Sitting on the crop of the bay: an historical and archaeological sketch of Aboriginal settlement and subsistence in Moreton Bay, southeast Queensland. In: Bowdler, S. (Ed.), Coastal Archaeology in Eastern Australia: Proceedings of the 1980 Valla Conference on Australian Prehistory, Occasional Papers in Prehistory 11. Department of Prehistory, Research School of Pacific Studies, Australian National University, Canberra, pp. 79e95. Hall, J., 1984. Fishing with dolphins? Affirming a traditional aboriginal fishing story in Moreton Bay, SE Queensland. In: Coleman, R., Covacevich, J., Davie, P. (Eds.), Focus on Stradbroke: New Information on North Stradbroke Island and Surrounding Areas 1974e1984. Boolarong Publications, Brisbane, pp. 16e22. Hall, J., Robins, R., 1984. A working model of Moreton Island prehistory: MRAP stage 1. Queensland Archaeological Research 1, 85e94. Head, L., 1989. Using Palaeoecology to date Aboriginal Fishtraps at Lake Condah, Victoria. Archaeology in Oceania 24 (3), 110e115. Hunn, E.S., Johnson, D.R., Russell, P.N., Thornton, T.F., 2003. Huna Tlingit traditional environmental knowledge, conservation, and the management of a ‘wilderness’ park. Current Anthropology 44 (suppl.), S79eS103. Jenkins, J., 2013. Truly long-term sustainability: an archaeological analysis of oyster shell. In: The 3rd World Sustainability Forum. Available at: www.sciforum.net/ conference/wsf3/paper/2178/download/pdf (accessed 01.08.14.). Johannes, R.E., 1978. Traditional marine conservation methods in Oceania and their demise. Annual Review of Ecological Systems 9, 349e364. Johnson, I., 1979. The Getting of Data: a Case Study from the Recent Industries of Australia (PhD thesis). Australian National University, Canberra. Jones, R.M., 1969. Fire-stick farming. Australian Natural History 16, 224e228. Jones, R.M., 1975. The Neolithic Palaeolithic and the hunting gardeners: man and land in the antipodes. In: Suggate, R.P., Cresswell, M.M. (Eds.), Quaternary Studies, Bulletin 13Royal Society of New Zealand, Wellington, pp. 21e34. Kent, B.W., 1992. Making Dead Oysters Talk: Techniques for Analysing Oysters from Archaeological Sites. Maryland Historical and Cultural Publications, Maryland.

190


Leonard, N.D., Welsh, K., Zhao, J., Nothdurft, L., Webb, G., Major, J., Feng, Y., Price, G., 2013. Mid-Holocene se level and coral reef demise: U-Th dating of subfossil corals in Moreton Bay, Australia. The Holocene 23 (12), 1841e1852. Lepofsky, D., Caldwell, M., 2013. Indigenous marine resource management on the Northwest Coast of North America. Ecological Processes 2, 1e12. Open Access Journal. http://www.ecologicalprocesses.com/content/2/1/12. Lewis, S.E., Sloss, C., Murray-Wallace, C., Woodroffe, C., Smithers, S., 2013. Postglacial sea-level changes around the Australian margin: a review. Quaternary Science Reviews 74, 115e138. Lourandos, H., 1980. Change or stability? Hydraulics, hunter-gatherers and population in temperate Australia. World Archaeology 11, 245e266. Lourandos, H., 1997. Continent of Hunter-Gatherers: New Perspectives in Australian Prehistory. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Lupo, K.D., 2007. Evolutionary foraging models in zooarchaeological analysis: recent applications and future challenges. Journal of Archaeological Research 15, 143e189. McGhee, R., 2008. Aboriginalism and the problems of indigenous archaeology. American Antiquity 73 (4), 579e597. McNiven, I.J., 2004. Saltwater People: spiritscapes, maritime rituals and the archaeology of Australian indigenous seascapes. World Archaeology 35 (3), 329e349. McNiven, I.J., Russell, L., 2005. Appropriated Pasts: Indigenous Peoples and the Colonial Culture of Archaeology. AltaMira, NewYork. Meehan, B., 1982. Shell Bed to Shell Midden. Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies Press, Canberra. Moreton, D., Ross, A., 2011. Gorenpul knowledge of Moreton Bay. In: Davie, P. (Ed.), Wild Guide to Moreton Bay, second ed. Queensland Museum, Brisbane, pp. 58e67. Morrison, M., 2013. Niche production strategies and shell matrix site variability at Albatross Bay, Cape York Peninsula. Archaeology in Oceania 48, 78e91. Nagaoka, L., 2002. The effects of resource depression on foraging efficiency, diet breadth, and patch use in southern New Zealand. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 21, 419e442. Narayan, R.Y., Lybolt, M., Zhao, J., Feng, Y., Pandolfi, J., 2015. Holocene benthic foraminiferal assemblages indicate long-term marginality of reef habitats from Moreton Bay, Australia. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 420, 49e64. Neal, R., Stock, E., 1986. Pleistocene occupation in the south-east Queensland coastal region. Nature 323, 618e621. Nicholas, G., Welch, J.R., Yellowhorn, E., 2008. Collaborative encounters. In: ColwellChanthaphonh, C., Ferguson, T. (Eds.), Collaboration in Archaeological Practice: Engaging Descendant Communities. AltaMira Press, Lanham, pp. 273e298. O'Connor, S., 1999. A diversity of coastal economies: shell mounds in the Kimberly region in the Holocene. In: Hall, J., McNiven, I. (Eds.), Australian Coastal Archaeology. Australian National University, Canberra, pp. 37e51. Phinn, S., Roelfsema, C., Dekker, A., Brando, V., Anstee, J., Daniel, P., 2006. Remote Sensing for Coastal Ecosystem Indicators Assessment and Monitoring: Maps, Techniques and Error Assessment for Seagrass Benthic Habitat in Moreton Bay. CRC for Coastal Zone Estuary and Waterway Management, Indooroopilly (Brisbane). Piotto, E.L., Ross, A., Ulm, S., Perryman, C., 2015. Understanding Choice: Aboriginal Law and decision-making in the selection of rocks for a stone arrangement. In: Bird, C., Mitchell, M., Ross, A., Hook, F. (Eds.), Aboriginal Stone Arrangements in Australia. Australian Scholarly Publishing E-books (in press). Ponosov, V.V., 1965. Results of an Archaeological Survey of the Southern Region of Moreton Bay and Moreton Island (1963e1964). Department of Psychology, The University of Queensland, Brisbane. Prangnell, J.M., 2002. The archaeology of the Peel Island Lazaret: part 1: survey. Queensland Archaeological Research 13, 31e38. Prangnell, J., 2013. Colonialism and the Peel Island Lazaret: changing the world one story at a time. Historical Archaeology 47 (1), 66e79. Quitmyer, I., Jones, D., Arnold, W., 1997. The sclerochronology of hard clams, Mercenaria spp., from the South-Eastern U.S.A.: a method of elucidating the zooarchaeological records of seasonal resource procurement and seasonality in prehistoric shell middens. Journal of Archaeological Science 24, 825e840. Reimer, P.J., Bard, E., Bayliss, A., Beck, J.W., Blackwell, P.G., Bronk Ramsey, C., Buck, C.E., Cheng, H., Edwards, R.L., Friedrich, M., Grootes, P.M., Guilderson, T.P., , C., Heaton, T.J., Hoffmann, D.L., Hogg, A.G., Haflidason, H., Hajdas, I., Hatte Hughen, K.A., Kaiser, K.F., Kromer, B., Manning, S.W., Niu, M., Reimer, R.W., Richards, D.A., Scott, E.M., Southon, J.R., Staff, R.A., Turney, C.S.M., van der Plicht, J., 2013. INTCAL13 and MARINE13 radiocarbon age calibration curves 0e50,000 years cal BP. Radiocarbon 55, 1869e1887.

Ross, A., Coghill, S., 2000. Conducting a community-based archaeological project: an archaeologist's and a Koenpul man's perspective. Australian Aboriginal Studies (1&2), 76e83. Ross, A., Duffy, R., 2000. Fine mesh screening of midden material and the recovery of fish bone: a case study from Moreton Bay, south east Queensland, Australia. Geoarchaeology 15, 21e41. Ross, A., Quandamooka Land Council, 1996a. Aboriginal approaches to cultural heritage management: a Quandamooka case study. In: Ulm, S., Lilley, I., Ross, A. (Eds.), Australian Archaeology '95: Proceedings of 1995 Australian Archaeological Association Conference. Tempus, vol. 6. The University of Queensland, Brisbane, pp. 107e112. Ross, A., Quandamooka Land Council, 1996b. Quandamooka Perspectives on Cultural Heritage. In Place 2,1 and 5e6. Ross, A., Pickering Sherman, K., Snodgrass, J., Delcore, H., Sherman, R., 2011. Indigenous Peoples and the Collaborative Stewardship of Nature: Knowledge Binds and Institutional Conflicts. Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek. Ross, A., Tomkins, H., 2011. Fishing for data: fine scale analysis of fish bones and consequences for understanding the archaeology of Peel Island, Moreton Bay, Queensland. In: Specht, J., Torrens, R. (Eds.), Changing Perspectives in Australian Archaeology, Records of the Australian Museum On-line Technical Report Series. The Australian Museum, Sydney, pp. 133e151. Rowland, M.J., Ulm, S., 2011. Indigenous fish traps and weirs of Queensland. Queensland Archaeological Research 14, 1e58. Rowland, M., Ulm, S., 2012. Key issues in the conservation of the Australian coastal archaeological record: natural and human impacts. Journal of Coastal Conservation 16, 159e171. Sassaman, K.E., 2004. Complex Hunter-Gatherers in evolution and history: a North American perspective. Journal of Archaeological Research 12, 227e280. Sloss, C.R., Murray-Wallace, C.V., Jones, B.G., 2007. Holocene sea-level change on the southeast coast of Australia: a review. The Holocene 17, 999e1014. Stump, D., 2013. On applied archaeology, indigenous knowledge, and the usable past. Current Anthropology 54 (3), 268e298. Thomas, K.D., 2015a. Molluscs emergent, Part I: themes and trends in the scientific investigation of mollusc shells as resources for archaeological research. Journal of Archaeological Science 56, 133e140. Thomas, K.D., 2015b. Molluscs emergent, Part II: themes and trends in the scientific investigation of molluscs and their shells as past human resources. Journal of Archaeological Science 56, 159e167. Ulm, S., 2002. Reassessing marine fishery intensification in Southeast Queensland. Queensland Archaeological Research 13, 79e96. Ulm, S., 2006. Coastal Themes: an Archaeology of the Southern Curtis Coast, Queensland. Terra Australis 24. The Australian National University E Press, Canberra. Ulm, S., 2011. Coastal foragers on Southern Shores: Marine resource use in Northeast Australia since the Late Pleistocene. In: Bicho, N.F., Haws, J., Davies, L. (Eds.), Trekking the Shore: Changing Coastlines and the Antiquity of Coastal Settlement. Interdisciplinary Contributions to Archaeology. Springer Science and Business Media, E Book, pp. 441e461. Ulm, S., Hall, J., 1996. Radiocarbon and cultural chronologies in southeast Queensland prehistory. In: Ulm, S., Lilley, I., Ross, A. (Eds.), Australian Archaeology ’95: Proceedings of the 1995 Australian Archaeological Association Annual Conference. Tempus 6Anthropology Museum, Department of Anthropology and Sociology, University of Queensland, Brisbane, pp. 45e62. Ulm, S., Petchey, F., Ross, A., 2009. Marine reservoir corrections for Moreton Bay, Australia. Archaeology in Oceania 44 (3), 160e166. Walters, I., 1986. Another Kettle of Fish: the Prehistoric Moreton Bay Fishery (PhD thesis). Department of Anthropology and Sociology, The University of Queensland, Brisbane. Walters, I., 1989. Intensified fishery production at Moreton Bay, southeast Queensland, in the late Holocene. Antiquity 63, 215e224. Walters, I., 1992. Seasonality of marine fishing in south-east Queensland. Queensland Archaeological Research 9, 29e34. Walters, I., Lauer, P., Nolan, A., Dillon, G., Aird, M., 1987. Hope Island: salvage excavation of a Kombumerri site. Queensland Archaeological Research 4, 80e95. Waselkov, G.A., 1987. Shellfish gathering and shell midden archaeology. Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory 10, 93e210. Woo, K., 2013. The Effects of Sampling on Midden Analysis: a Quantitative Approach (Bachelor of Arts (Honours) thesis). The University of Queensland, Brisbane. Woo, K., Faulkner, P., Ross, A., 2015. The effects of sampling on the analysis of archaeological molluscan remains: a quantitative approach. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports (in press).