TY - JOUR
T1 - Framing Australian Pleistocene coastal occupation and archaeology
AU - Ditchfield, Kane
AU - Ulm, Sean
AU - Manne, Tiina
AU - Farr, Helen
AU - O'Grady, Damien
AU - Veth, Peter
N1 - Funding Information:
This research was supported by the ARC Centre of Excellence for Australian Biodiversity and Heritage (project number CE170100015 ) and Australian Research Council Discovery Early Career Researcher Award Fellowships to TM ( DE150101597 ). The authors recognise Traditional Owner groups around Australia and respect their relationship with their ancestral lands and sea country. HF's participation in this research and publication was supported by funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 759677 . PV acknowledges data from the Barrow Island Archaeological Project ARC Discovery Grant (DP130100802) 2013–2015 awarded to Peter Veth, Tiina Manne, Alistair Paterson, Mark Basgall, David Zeanah and Christa Placzek. We would like to thank two anonymous reviewers for their comments which helped improve the paper.
Funding Information:
This research was supported by the ARC Centre of Excellence for Australian Biodiversity and Heritage (project number CE170100015) and Australian Research Council Discovery Early Career Researcher Award Fellowships to TM (DE150101597). The authors recognise Traditional Owner groups around Australia and respect their relationship with their ancestral lands and sea country. HF's participation in this research and publication was supported by funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 759677. PV acknowledges data from the Barrow Island Archaeological Project ARC Discovery Grant (DP130100802) 2013–2015 awarded to Peter Veth, Tiina Manne, Alistair Paterson, Mark Basgall, David Zeanah and Christa Placzek. We would like to thank two anonymous reviewers for their comments which helped improve the paper.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2022 Elsevier Ltd
PY - 2022/10/1
Y1 - 2022/10/1
N2 - There are few archaeological sites that contain records for Pleistocene coastal occupation in Australia, as is the case globally. Two major viewpoints seek to explain why so few sites exist. The first is that the Pleistocene coast was a relatively marginal environment where fluctuating sea levels actively inhibited coastal resource productivity until the mid-to-late Holocene. The second position suggests that the Pleistocene coast (and its resources) was variably productive, potentially hosting extensive populations, but that the archaeological evidence for this occupation has been submerged by sea level rise. To help reconcile these perspectives in Australia, this paper provides a review, discussion, and assessment of the evidence for Australian Pleistocene coastal productivity and occupation. In doing so, we find no reason to categorically assume that coastal landscapes were ever unproductive or unoccupied. We demonstrate that the majority of Pleistocene coastal archaeology will be drowned where dense marine faunal assemblages should only be expected close to palaeo-shorelines. Mixed terrestrial and marine assemblages are likely to occur at sites located >2 km from Pleistocene shorelines. Ultimately, the discussions and arguments put forward in this paper provide a basic framework, and a different set of environmental expectations, within which to assess the results of independent coastal research.
AB - There are few archaeological sites that contain records for Pleistocene coastal occupation in Australia, as is the case globally. Two major viewpoints seek to explain why so few sites exist. The first is that the Pleistocene coast was a relatively marginal environment where fluctuating sea levels actively inhibited coastal resource productivity until the mid-to-late Holocene. The second position suggests that the Pleistocene coast (and its resources) was variably productive, potentially hosting extensive populations, but that the archaeological evidence for this occupation has been submerged by sea level rise. To help reconcile these perspectives in Australia, this paper provides a review, discussion, and assessment of the evidence for Australian Pleistocene coastal productivity and occupation. In doing so, we find no reason to categorically assume that coastal landscapes were ever unproductive or unoccupied. We demonstrate that the majority of Pleistocene coastal archaeology will be drowned where dense marine faunal assemblages should only be expected close to palaeo-shorelines. Mixed terrestrial and marine assemblages are likely to occur at sites located >2 km from Pleistocene shorelines. Ultimately, the discussions and arguments put forward in this paper provide a basic framework, and a different set of environmental expectations, within which to assess the results of independent coastal research.
KW - Australia
KW - Coastal archaeology
KW - Pleistocene
KW - Sea levels
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85136701855&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.quascirev.2022.107706
DO - 10.1016/j.quascirev.2022.107706
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85136701855
SN - 0277-3791
VL - 293
JO - Quaternary Science Reviews
JF - Quaternary Science Reviews
M1 - 107706
ER -