What s Changing Population Size or Land Use

Patterns The Archaeology of Upper Mangrove Creek

Sydney Basin Terra Australis Vol 21 Val
Attenbrow pdf download
https://ebookgate.com/product/what-s-changing-population-size-or-
land-use-patterns-the-archaeology-of-upper-mangrove-creek-sydney-
basin-terra-australis-vol-21-val-attenbrow/

Get the full ebook with Bonus Features for a Better Reading Experience on ebookgate.com
Instant digital products (PDF, ePub, MOBI) available
Download now and explore formats that suit you...

Population Land Use and Environment Research Directions

1st Edition National Research Council

https://ebookgate.com/product/population-land-use-and-environment-
research-directions-1st-edition-national-research-council/

ebookgate.com

Nana Vol 21 Ai Yazawa

https://ebookgate.com/product/nana-vol-21-ai-yazawa/

ebookgate.com

Archaeology of the Land of the Bible 1st Edition Amihay

Mazar

https://ebookgate.com/product/archaeology-of-the-land-of-the-
bible-1st-edition-amihay-mazar/

ebookgate.com

People Population Change and Policies Lessons from the

Population Policy Acceptance Study vol 1 Family Change
European Studies of Population 1st Edition Charlotte Hohn
https://ebookgate.com/product/people-population-change-and-policies-
lessons-from-the-population-policy-acceptance-study-vol-1-family-
change-european-studies-of-population-1st-edition-charlotte-hohn/
ebookgate.com
Keep Out The Struggle for Land Use Control Sidney Plotkin

https://ebookgate.com/product/keep-out-the-struggle-for-land-use-
control-sidney-plotkin/

ebookgate.com

What is media archaeology 1st Edition Jussi Parikka

https://ebookgate.com/product/what-is-media-archaeology-1st-edition-
jussi-parikka/

ebookgate.com

BurdaStyle Modern Sewing Full Figure Fashion 24 Plus Size

Patterns for Every Day Burdastyle Magazine

https://ebookgate.com/product/burdastyle-modern-sewing-full-figure-
fashion-24-plus-size-patterns-for-every-day-burdastyle-magazine/

ebookgate.com

Experimentation and Interpretation the Use of Experimental

Archaeology in the Study of the Past Dana C. E. Millson
(Editor)
https://ebookgate.com/product/experimentation-and-interpretation-the-
use-of-experimental-archaeology-in-the-study-of-the-past-dana-c-e-
millson-editor/
ebookgate.com

English Vocabulary in Use Upper Intermediate and Advanced

No OCR 1st Edition Michael Mccarthy

https://ebookgate.com/product/english-vocabulary-in-use-upper-
intermediate-and-advanced-no-ocr-1st-edition-michael-mccarthy/

ebookgate.com
terra australis 21
Terra Australis reports the results of archaeological and related research within the south and east of Asia, though
mainly Australia, New Guinea and island Melanesia — lands that remained terra australis incognita to generations
of prehistorians. Its subject is the settlement of the diverse environments in this isolated quarter of the globe by
peoples who have maintained their discrete and traditional ways of life into the recent recorded or remembered
past and at times into the observable present.
Since the beginning of the series, the basic colour on the spine and cover has distinguished the regional
distribution of topics as follows: ochre for Australia, green for New Guinea, red for South-East Asia and blue for the
Pacific Islands. From 2001, issues with a gold spine will include conference proceedings, edited papers and
monographs which in topic or desired format do not fit easily within the original arrangements. All volumes are
numbered within the same series.

List of volumes in Terra Australis

Volume 1: Burrill Lake and Currarong: coastal sites in southern New South Wales. R.J. Lampert (1971)
Volume 2: Ol Tumbuna: archaeological excavations in the eastern central Highlands, Papua New Guinea. J.P. White (1972)
Volume 3: New Guinea Stone Age Trade: the geography and ecology of traffic in the interior. I. Hughes (1977)
Volume 4: Recent Prehistory in Southeast Papua. B. Egloff (1979)
Volume 5: The Great Kartan Mystery. R. Lampert (1981)
Volume 6: Early Man in North Queensland: art and archaeology in the Laura area. A. Rosenfeld, D. Horton and
J. Winter (1981)
Volume 7: The Alligator Rivers: prehistory and ecology in western Arnhem Land. C. Schrire (1982)
Volume 8: Hunter Hill, Hunter Island: archaeological investigations of a prehistoric Tasmanian site. S. Bowdler (1984)
Volume 9: Coastal South-west Tasmania: the prehistory of Louisa Bay and Maatsuyker Island. R. Vanderwal and D.
Horton (1984)
Volume 10: The Emergence of Mailu. G. Irwin (1985)
Volume 11: Archaeology in Eastern Timor, 1966–67. I. Glover (1986)
Volume 12: Early Tongan Prehistory: the Lapita period on Tongatapu and its relationships. J. Poulsen (1987)
Volume 13: Coobool Creek. P. Brown (1989)
Volume 14: 30,000 Years of Aboriginal Occupation: Kimberley, North-west Australia. S. O’Connor (1999)
Volume 15: Lapita Interaction. G. Summerhayes (2000)
Volume 16: The Prehistory of Buka: a stepping stone island in the northern Solomons. S. Wickler (2001)
Volume 17: The Archaeology of Lapita Dispersal in Oceania. G.R. Clark, A.J. Anderson and T. Vunidilo (2001)
Volume 18: An Archaeology of West Polynesian prehistory. A. Smith (2002)
Volume 19: Phytolith and starch research in the Australian-Pacific-Asian regions: the state of the art.
D. Hart and L. Wallis (2003)
Volume 20: The Sea People: late-Holocene maritime specialisation in the Whitsunday Islands, central Queensland.
B. Barker (2004)
Volume 21: What’s changing: population size or land-use patterns? The archaeology of Upper Mangrove Creek,
Sydney Basin. V. Attenbrow (2004)
 terra australis 21
What’s Changing: Population Size or Land-Use Patterns?
The archaeology of Upper Mangrove Creek, Sydney Basin

Val Attenbrow
This edition © 2006 ANU E Press

The Australian National University

Canberra ACT 0200 Australia
Email: [email protected]
Web: http://epress.anu.edu.au

National Library of Australia Cataloguing-in-Publication entry

Attenbrow, Valerie, 1942–.

What’s changing: population size or land-use patterns? The archaeology of Upper Mangrove Creek, Sydney Basin.

Bibliography.
ISBN 1 74076 116 2 (pbk).
ISBN 978 1 921313 05 9 (web).

1. Aboriginal Australians — New South Wales — Mangrove Creek — Antiquities. 2. Excavations (Archaeology) — New South Wales — Mangrove
Creek. 3. Mangrove Creek (N.S.W.) — Antiquities. I. Title. II. Title : Archaeology of Upper Mangrove Creek, Sydney Basin. (Series : Terra
Australis ; 21).

994.4201
Cover: Upper Mangrove Creek between Loggers and Black Hands Shelters, August 1979. (Photographer Val Attenbrow).
Back cover map: Hollandia Nova. Thevenot 1663 by courtesy of the National Library of Australia.
Reprinted with permission of the National Library of Australia.
Copyright of the text remains with the contributors/authors, 2006. This book is copyright in all countries subscribing to the Berne convention. Apart
from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study, research, criticism or review, as permitted under the Copyright Act, no part may be reproduced
by any process without written permission. Inquiries should be made to the publisher.

Series Editor: Sue O’Connor

Typesetting and design: Emily Brissenden
To Patricia Vinnicombe
 Foreword

One of the most common problems in archaeology is the publication of excavations —

a problem because it is done cursorily, or by someone else decades later, or not at all. The thrill
of fieldwork past dulls as the enormity of necessary analytical tasks become apparent and the
romance of further fieldwork calls. Those who do produce the results in a timely fashion
should thus be honoured in the profession. Even more praiseworthy is when these results
move beyond a dry catalogue to be presented in the frameworks not only of the original
investigations but also of those which have arisen and developed during the years of analysis.
This monograph is one such publication.
Val Attenbrow’s archaeology in Upper Mangrove Creek was among the first pieces of
research aimed at the scientifically rigorous understanding of an environmentally defined
area. It attempted to sample the area and the sites in a theoretically justifiable way. These data,
the original block of which was from a salvage program carried out by a public utility, were
then enlarged and transformed by Val’s perspicacity and persistence into a larger-scale,
research-oriented PhD thesis. The core problem of the thesis in 1987 was whether a proposed
‘intensification’ of Aboriginal occupation during the later Holocene could be substantiated in
a close-grained analysis of excavated data. The 17 years between thesis and publication have
seen continuing research by consultants and academics. The original proposals concerning
‘intensification’ have been modified and new views and approaches raised. The question is no
longer as simple as it first seemed. Environmental changes, better dating, more sophisticated
technological understanding and a wider range of possible subsistence and land-use patterns
can all now be seen as parts of a larger, more complex prehistory. This monograph not only
discusses all of these aspects, but remains, in my view, Australia’s best data-driven analysis of
this proposal. Val’s results demonstrate how complicated the archaeological record is and how
apparently simple propositions wilt under careful scrutiny.
Val Attenbrow’s archaeological career has been marked, in particular, by a commitment
to regional archaeology. Her Honours and PhD theses were both concerned with areas of New
South Wales. Her earlier employment, as a consultant and then with the National Parks and
Wildlife Service (NSW), continued this focus. Her research since 1989, based at the Australian
Museum, has seen the completion of the large-scale and successful Port Jackson (aka Sydney
Harbour) Project and the beautiful and comprehensive publication, Sydney’s Aboriginal Past
(UNSW Press 2002). These, along with this monograph on Upper Mangrove Creek, establish
her as a profound interpreter of the Sydney region’s archaeological past and as someone who
can contribute substantially to the wider understanding of Australia’s Aboriginal past.

J. Peter White

terra australis 21

7
 Contents

Foreword ix
Acknowledgements xxix

1 Introduction 1
Research aims and context — past and present 2
Research methods — an outline 5
Research area 6
Previous fieldwork in the Upper Mangrove Creek catchment 8

2 Increases and decreases in numbers of sites and artefacts: a review of

interpretations and explanations of the 1970s and 1980s 11
‘Increases’ in the archaeological record 14
Population change 14
General population increase 14
Redistribution of populations at regional and local level 17
Increased ‘intensity of site use’ 20
Intensification and increasing social complexity 22
Further comments on explanations involving population increase 26
Behavioural change 27
Increases in site numbers 27
Increases in the number of stone artefacts accumulated 28
Natural processes 29
Geomorphological processes 29
The rise in sea-level, climatic change and associated environmental changes 29
Decomposition and degradation of materials 30
The formation of palimpsests 30
‘Decreases’ in the archaeological record 30
Population change 31
Redistribution of populations 31
Decreased ‘intensity of site use’ 31
Behavioural change 32
Qualitative changes in artefact assemblages 33
Changes in subsistence strategies/technology 33
Changes in intra-site discard behaviour 34
Discussion 34

terra australis 21

9
 3 Upper Mangrove Creek catchment: fieldwork and analysis: aims and methods 37
Terminology and definitions 37
Location 38
Rockshelters 39
Open rocks 39
Open deposits 39
Archaeological traits 39
Archaeological deposit 41
Images 41
Grinding areas 43
Burials 43
Scarred trees 43
The contents 43
Sites 46
Isolated finds 46
Defining sites 46
Potential habitation shelters and potential archaeological deposits 49
Fieldwork aims 50
Field survey 51
Sampling design 51
Survey fieldwork undertaken 55
Field survey methods 60
Excavation 61
Excavation strategy and methods 61
Excavations undertaken 65
Classification of contents of archaeological deposits 66
Stone artefacts 67
Bone artefacts 69
Wooden objects 69
Faunal remains 70
Plant remains 71
Charcoal 71
Temporal sequence 72
Phase 1 73
Phase 2 74
Phase 3 74
Phase 4 74
Dating the archaeological deposits and periods of habitation 75
Radiocarbon dates: conventional versus calibrated 75

4 Upper Mangrove Creek catchment: random sampling units.

Fieldwork results and evidence from the archaeological deposits 77
Summary of fieldwork results 77
Archaeological deposits 78
The rockshelters 83
The open deposits 83
Area of archaeological deposits 83
Depth of archaeological deposits 86

terra australis 21

10
 Contents of archaeological deposits 86
Stone artefacts 92
Faunal remains 92
Categorisation of archaeological deposits 94
Isolated finds 96
Potential habitation shelters and potential archaeological deposits 96

5 Upper Mangrove Creek catchment: random sampling units.

Possible biases in the archaeological record and data sets 99
Methodological factors — fieldwork 99
Definitions 99
Survey design 100
Sample size 101
Excavation stopped prematurely 101
Observer bias 101
Survey results 102
Excavation results 102
Methodological factors — analyses 103
Calculating artefact accumulation rates 103
Natural processes 103
Visibility 104
Archaeological deposits in rockshelters 104
Open archaeological deposits 104
Grinding areas and engraved images 105
Destruction 105
Archaeological deposits in rockshelters 106
Open archaeological deposits 108
Further comments on visibility 109
Incorporation of older charcoal 110
Focus on rockshelters 111
Discussion 112
Comparison between results from random sampling units,
storage area and the total catchment 112
Archaeological traits 112
Locations 114

6 Temporal distribution: quantitative changes in the Upper Mangrove

Creek catchment 115
The data sets 118
The indices 118
The habitation indices 119
The artefact indices 120
Calculating artefact accumulation rates 120
Growth rates 121
Calculating growth rates 121
Changes in the rates of habitation establishment 122
Phased sequence 122
Growth rates 122

terra australis 21

11
 Millennial sequence 123
Growth rates 124
Comments on rates of habitation establishment 124
Changes in the numbers of habitations used 128
Phased sequence 128
Millennial sequence 128
Growth rates 128
Changes in the habitation indices in each topographic zone by the end of
each successive time period 128
Phased sequence 128
Millennial sequence 131
Changes in the rate of artefact accumulation — individual habitations 132
Phased sequence 138
Millennial sequence 139
Changes in the local rate of artefact accumulation — the catchment 139
Phased sequence 141
Growth rates 141
Millennial sequence 141
Growth rates 141
Comments on local artefact accumulation rates 141
Changes in the rate of artefact accumulation in each topographic zone in
successive time periods 142
Phased sequence 142
Millennial sequence 142
Discussion 144
Typological phases versus millennial divisions 144
Artefact accumulation rates in individual habitations 146
Inter-zonal variability within the catchment 146
Variations over time in the millennial growth rates 147
Relationship between the timing of the quantitative changes and the appearance
of qualitative changes in the stone artefact assemblages 147
Concluding comments 148

7 Quantitative changes in other regions of eastern Australia: a review 151

Changes in the habitation indices 156
Changes in the rate of habitation establishment 158
Changes in the number of habitations used 158
Changes in the rate of known-habitation use 164
Changes in the growth rates for habitation indices 164
Habitation establishment rates 165
Number of habitations used 166
Rate of known-habitation use 168
Changes in the artefact accumulation rates 168
Dramatic decreases in artefact accumulation rates 173
Dramatic increases in artefact accumulation rates 173
Average annual growth rates for the artefact accumulation rates 176
Relationships between the habitation indices and the artefact accumulation rates:
directions and timing 177
Direction of trends 180

terra australis 21

12
 Timing 181
Discussion and conclusions 182
Other Australian regions and sites, and later studies 185

8 A re-examination of interpretations and explanations for changes

in habitation and artefact indices in eastern Australia 187
Population-change explanations 187
Assumptions underlying the population-change explanations 187
Implications of population-change premises 189
Growth rates 191
Population-change conclusions 193
Behavioural change: qualitative changes in stone artefact assemblages 194
Increases in the artefact accumulation rates in the last 5000 or 4000 years BP 195
Introduction of Bondaian assemblages/’Small Tool Tradition’ 195
Transition from Middle to Late Bondaian (Bondaian to Post-Bondaian) 197
Conclusion relating to increases in the artefact accumulation rate 198
Decreases in the artefact accumulation rates in the last 1000 years 198
Typological change 198
Technological change 198
Raw material change 199
Conclusions concerning qualitative changes in the stone artefact assemblages 198
Conclusions and post-1980s studies 200

9 Climatic and environmental change in eastern Australia during the

late Pleistocene and Holocene 203
Climate change 204
Late Pleistocene 206
The Holocene 207
Palaeoenvironmental evidence from the Upper Mangrove Creek catchment 208
Changes in sea-level 210
Changes to country 210
Coastal productivity and resource availability 211
The effect of sea-level change on occupation of the Upper Mangrove Creek
catchment 212
The land 212
Availability of resources 213
Conclusions: correlations between climate and environmental changes and catchment
trends in habitation and artefact indices 214

10 From numbers of sites and artefacts to habitation, subsistence and

land-use patterns 217
Habitation patterns and subsistence organisation 219
Base camps, transit camps and activity locations 219
Identifying base camps, activity locations/transit camps 221
Mobility — residential or logistical? 226
Other measures of mobility patterns 228
Bipolar technology 229
Subsistence methods and equipment 234
Risk minimisation strategies 236

terra australis 21

13
 Technological options 237
Backed artefacts 238
Sources of risk and risk minimisation in the Upper Mangrove Creek catchment 238
Archaeological faunal evidence 239
Backed artefacts 239
Ground-edged implements 241
Unanswered questions and further research 241
Social and territorial organisation 242
Conclusions and future research 243

References 247

Appendices
Appendix 1 277
Upper Mangrove Creek catchment — random sampling units. Distribution of
Artefact Types and Raw Materials in each Archaeological Deposit

Appendix 2 299
Upper Mangrove Creek catchment — random sampling units. Number of
Artefacts in Each Millennium and Estimated Total Number of Artefacts
Accumulated in each Archaeological Deposit

Appendix 3 309
Upper Mangrove Creek catchment — random sampling units.
Part 1. Upper Mangrove Creek catchment. Native animal taxa identified in 310
faunal assemblages from the archaeological deposits.
Part 2. Faunal remains from archaeological sites in the Mangrove Creek 312
Catchment: report no. 3 — The Random Sampling Units. Ken Aplin, 1985.
Part 3. Extracts from Faunal remains from archaeological sites in the Mangrove 324
Creek catchment. A report to National Parks and Wildlife Service of NSW.
Ken Aplin, 1981.
Part 4. Report on analysis of hair samples from four deposits in the Upper 332
Mangrove Creek catchment. Barbara Triggs, 2002.

Appendix 4 333
Review of quantitative changes in other regions of eastern Australia: case studies. 333
A. Habitation indices:
NSW south coast and Sydney 333
South-western Victoria 338
Central Queensland highlands 340
South-eastern Queensland 342
NSW–ACT–Victoria: southern uplands-tablelands 344
The Mallee, north-western Victoria 347
NSW Hunter Valley 350
B. Artefact accumulation rates in individual habitations 354
NSW south coast and Sydney 354
NSW Hunter Valley and adjacent regions 356

terra australis 21

14
 NSW Blue Mountains and adjacent areas 359
South-western Victoria 365
Lower Murray Valley, South Australia 367
Central Queensland highlands 369
South-eastern Queensland 377

List of Figures
1.1 Location of Upper Mangrove Creek catchment, NSW central coast. 3
1.2 Forested land in valley bottom, looking north along Wattle Creek. Easter 1980. 7
1.3 Lower slopes of forested ridgeside with Black Hands Shelter in large boulder 7
in middle distance. Easter 1978.
1.4 Periphery ridgetop on eastern side of catchment with Sunny Shelter. 7
August 1982.
3.1 Loggers: shelter with archaeological deposit dating back to ca 11,000 BP. 39
June 1980.
3.2 Emu Tracks 2: shelter with archaeological deposit. February 1980. 39
3.3 Grinding grooves in headwater tributary of Bucketty Gully. Grooves are 40
at bottom left extending beside deepest part of channel in the sandstone
bedrock where water generally flows. June 1981.
3.4 Black Hands open archaeological deposit. Cleared river flat and colluvial 40
slope adjacent to Mangrove Creek, which is marked by the line of wattle
trees behind the tents. January 1978.
3.5 Loggers Shelter during excavation of Squares E and F. Squares A, B and 42
C at right. August 1978.
3.6 Charcoal images, including emu and other birds, macropod, people 42
(male and female) and snakes (including death adders?) in Boat Cave. 1978.
3.7 Hand stencils, including one with forearm, and black infilled kangaroo 44
head in Black Hands Shelter. August 1978.
3.8 Engraved images in Emu Tracks 2: emu tracks. August 1979. 44
3.9 Grinding grooves at Sharp Gully: note narrow groove on left. Easter 1980. 45
3.10 Ground area adjacent to grinding groove in White Figure Shelter. August 1982. 45
3.11 Scarred tree: one of a series of footsteps made with a metal axe up the 46
tree trunk. The tree was dead when found by loggers adjacent to
Mangrove Creek below its junction with Boomerang Creek. October 1979.
3.12 Distance criteria applied in defining sites. 48
3.13 Upper Mangrove Creek catchment: schematic cross-section of catchment 56
showing topographic zones.
3.14 Upper Mangrove Creek catchment: topographic zones. 57
3.15 Upper Mangrove Creek catchment: location of random sampling units. 59
3.16 Ground-edged artefacts from Kangaroo and Echidna (test pit 2, spit 3): 68
two hatchet heads (top and bottom) and Bulga knife (centre).
3.17 Hafted retouched flake from Loggers Shelter found in lower ceilinged 69
area at rear of shelter (square Lb, spit 1).
3.18 Fragment of red ochred sandstone palette from Sunny Shelter (test pit, spit 6). 69
3.19 Bone artefacts from Loggers Shelters (top: Square Lb, spit 1; and three 69
at right: surface at rear of shelter, square A, spit 3-brown, and square Bk,
spit 1) and Bird Tracks (three at left: from test pit, spit 3).
3.20 Fragment of a possible firestick (base) found on raised section of 70
sandstone floor in Button Shelter.

terra australis 21

15
 3.21 Early Holocene backed artefacts from Mussel (a: square B, spit 20; b: 73
square A, spit 23) and Loggers Shelters (c: square F, spit 7; d: square F, spit 9).
4.1 Upper Mangrove Creek catchment: archaeological sites recorded in the 79
random sampling units.
4.2 Upper Mangrove Creek catchment: random sampling units. Percentage 82
frequency and density of archaeological traits in each topographic zone.
4.3 Upper Mangrove Creek catchment: random sampling units. (A) Estimated total 93
number and (B) density of artefacts accumulated in each topographic zone.
5.1 Upper Mangrove Creek catchment: percentage frequency of each type of (A) 113
archaeological trait and (B) location in the random sampling units (RSUs)
compared with the storage area (SA) and the total catchment (UMCC).
6.1 Upper Mangrove Creek catchment: random sampling units. Rate of habitation 125
establishment in each (A) phase and (B) millennium.
6.2 Upper Mangrove Creek catchment: random sampling units. Number of 129
habitations used in each (A) phase and (B) millennium.
6.3 Upper Mangrove Creek catchment: random sampling units. Distribution of 130
habitations used in each phase.
6.4 Upper Mangrove Creek catchment: random sampling units. Distribution of 133
habitations used in each millennium.
6.5 Upper Mangrove Creek catchment: random sampling units. Rate of artefact 136
accumulation in each phase in individual archaeological deposits. Time is
represented to scale, but frequency is schematic only.
6.6 Upper Mangrove Creek catchment: random sampling units. Rate of artefact 137
accumulation in each millennium in individual archaeological deposits. Time
is represented to scale, but frequency is schematic only.
6.7 Upper Mangrove Creek catchment: random sampling units. Local rate of 140
artefact accumulation in each (A) phase and (B) each millennium.
7.1 Regions reviewed in eastern Australia. 153
7.2 Sites reviewed in eastern Australia. 154
7.3 NSW south coast and Sydney: (A) Rate of habitation establishment in each 159
millennium. (B) Number of habitations used in each millennium.
7.4 South-western Victoria: number of habitations established in each millennium. 160
(A) Redrawn from Lourandos 1983: 86, Fig. 3: basal radiocarbon dates from a
sample of 19 archaeological sites. (B) Redrawn from Williams 1988: Fig. 10.1:
basal radiocarbon dates from a sample of 25 archaeological sites.
7.5 Central Queensland highlands: (A) Rate of habitation establishment in each 161
millennium. (B) Number of habitations used in each millennium.
7.6 South-eastern Queensland: (A) Rate of habitation establishment in each 162
millennium. (B) Number of habitations used in each millennium.
7.7 NSW–ACT–Victorian southern uplands-tablelands: (A) Rate of habitation 163
establishment in each millennium. (B) Number of habitations used in each
millennium.
7.8 The Mallee, north-western Victoria: rate of known-habitation use in each 164
millennium based on radiometrically dated sites, which were assigned to a
millennium on the basis of calibrated radiocarbon dates and TL dates.
7.9 NSW Hunter Valley: number of habitations known to be used. (A) Mount 165
Arthur North and South, Muswellbrook. (B) central lowlands (Singleton area).
7.10 NSW south coast: (A) Burrill Lake, (B) Currarong 1, (C) Currarong 2, (D) 169
Sassafras and (E) Bass Point. Redrawn from Hughes and Lampert 1982, Figs 1 to 5.

terra australis 21

16
7.11 Sandy Hollow, NSW Hunter Valley: rates of artefact accumulation (number 170
per millennium).
7.12 Milbrodale, NSW Hunter Valley: rates of artefact accumulation 170
(number per millennium).
7.13 Bobadeen, Ulan, upper Goulburn River, NSW: rates of artefact accumulation 171
(number per millennium).
7.14 Big L, NSW Hunter Valley (southern rim): rates of artefact accumulation 171
(number per millennium).
7.15 Yango Creek, NSW Hunter Valley (southern rim): rates of artefact accumulation 171
(number per millennium).
7.16 Macdonald River, NSW: rates of artefact accumulation (number per 172
millennium).
7.17 Springwood Creek, NSW Blue Mountains: rates of artefact accumulation 172
(number per millennium).
7.18 Kings Tableland, NSW Blue Mountains: rates of artefact accumulation 173
(number per millennium).
7.19 Walls Cave, NSW Blue Mountains: rates of artefact accumulation 174
(number per millennium).
7.20 Capertee 3 (Square Q13), Capertee Valley, NSW: density of artefacts in 175
each level (number per kilo of deposit). Redrawn from Johnson 1979: Fig. 35.
7.21 Shaws Creek K1, NSW: density of artefacts in each level (number per 175
cubic metre).
7.22 Shaws Creek K2 (Square A), NSW: density of artefacts in each level 176
(number per cubic metre).
7.23 Devon Downs, lower Murray Valley, South Australia: rates of artefact 177
accumulation (number per millennium).
7.24 Native Well 1, central Queensland highlands: rates of artefact accumulation 178
(number per millennium).
7.25 Native Well 2, central Queensland highlands: rates of artefact accumulation 179
(number per millennium).
7.26 Kenniff Cave, central Queensland highlands: rates of artefact accumulation 180
(number per millennium).
7.27 The Tombs, central Queensland highlands: rates of artefact accumulation 180
(number per millennium).
7.28 Maidenwell, south-eastern Queensland: rates of artefact accumulation 181
(number per millennium).
7.29 Gatton, south-eastern Queensland: rates of artefact accumulation 182
(number per millennium).
7.30 Habitations in eastern Australia: summary of changes in the rates of artefact 183
accumulation and changes in growth rates in the artefact accumulation rates.
9.1 Upper Mangrove Creek catchment: comparison between timing of changes in 205
habitation and artefact indices and general climatic shifts and sea-level rise
in south-eastern Australia.
10.1 Upper Mangrove Creek catchment: number of base camps and activity 224
locations/transit camps used in each millennium.
10.2 Upper Mangrove Creek catchment: number and percentage frequency of 225
ground implements and ground fragments in each millennium.
10.3 Upper Mangrove Creek catchment: number and percentage frequency of 226
igneous artefacts in each millennium.

terra australis 21

17
 10.4 Upper Mangrove Creek catchment: number and percentage frequency of 232
bipolar artefacts in each millennium.
10.5 Upper Mangrove Creek catchment: number and percentage frequency of 233
quartz artefacts in each millennium.
10.6 Upper Mangrove Creek catchment: number and percentage frequency of 235
backed artefacts in each millennium.

Figure: Appendix 2
A3–3/1 Loggers Shelter: distribution of bone and shell according to square and 325
depth. Bone weights are adjusted to a standard volume (10cm spit) and are,
therefore, relative density values.

Figure: Appendix 4
A4/1 Native Well 1, central Queensland highlands: rates of implement accumulation. 371
Redrawn from Morwood 1981: Fig. 23.

List of Tables
3.1 Upper Mangrove Creek catchment: terminology and abbreviations used 38
for archaeological evidence.
3.2 Upper Mangrove Creek catchment: description of topographic zones into 55
which catchment was stratified for sampling purposes.
3.3 Upper Mangrove Creek catchment: details of stratified random sample. 58
3.4 Upper Mangrove Creek catchment: details of excavations in sites with 64
archaeological deposit and potential archaeological deposit, and potential
habitation shelters with potential archaeological deposit. Figures rounded
to nearest 0.5cm.
3.5 Upper Mangrove Creek catchment: locations and types of deposit excavated. 66
3.6 Upper Mangrove Creek catchment: cultural phases and duration based on 72
typological and raw-material changes in stone artefact assemblages.
3.7 Upper Mangrove Creek catchment: sequence of typological phases and 72
dating, and correlation with terminology of other researchers.
3.8 Upper Mangrove Creek catchment: diagnostic criteria used as basis for 73
dating typological phases.
4.1 Upper Mangrove Creek catchment: archaeological sites in random 80
sampling units.
4.2 Upper Mangrove Creek catchment: (A) site locations, (B) archaeological 81
deposits and (C) potential habitation shelters in random sampling units.
Number, percentage frequency and density in each topographic zone (density
is number/sq km).
4.3 Upper Mangrove Creek catchment: dimensions and aspects of rockshelters 84
with archaeological deposit.
4.4 Upper Mangrove Creek catchment: random sampling units. Archaeological 85
deposits in rockshelters: area (m ), status and depth of archaeological deposits.
2

4.5 Upper Mangrove Creek catchment: random sampling units. Open 87

archaeological deposits: area (m2) over which artefacts were exposed and
depth of archaeological deposits.

terra australis 21

18
4.6 Upper Mangrove Creek catchment: random sampling units. Contents 87
recorded in/retrieved from the archaeological deposits.
4.7 Upper Mangrove Creek catchment: random sampling units. Artefact 88
types retrieved from archaeological deposits, including artefacts excavated
and collected from surface of deposit outside test pits.
4.8 Upper Mangrove Creek catchment: random sampling units. Mammal remains 89
retrieved from archaeological deposits: number of fragments.
4.9 Upper Mangrove Creek catchment: random sampling units. Non-mammal 90
vertebrate remains retrieved from archaeological deposits: number of fragments.
4.10 Upper Mangrove Creek catchment: random sampling units. Invertebrate 91
faunal remains retrieved from archaeological deposits: number of fragments.
4.11 Upper Mangrove Creek catchment: random sampling units. Summary of 91
total numbers and weights (g) of all faunal remains retrieved from
archaeological deposits.
4.12 Upper Mangrove Creek catchment: random sampling units. Archaeological 95
deposits: number of artefacts retrieved, number of artefacts/square metre, and
estimated total number of artefacts present.
4.13 Upper Mangrove Creek catchment: assemblages grouped according to 95
K-means analysis.
5.1 Upper Mangrove Creek catchment: random sampling units. Archaeological 107
deposits in rockshelters and geomorphological processes.
6.1 Upper Mangrove Creek catchment: random sampling units. Radiocarbon dates, 116
all from full-sized charcoal samples, calibrated using Radiocarbon Calibration
Program Rev 4.3 (Stuiver and Reimer 1993b; Stuiver et al. 1998) and rounded to
nearest five years.
6.2 Upper Mangrove Creek catchment: random sampling units. Archaeological 123
deposits: estimated period of habitation establishment.
6.3 Upper Mangrove Creek catchment: random sampling units. Number of 124
habitations established, rate of habitation establishment and number of
habitations used (A) in each phase and (B) millennium.
6.4 Upper Mangrove Creek catchment: random sampling units. 126
Radiocarbon-dated archaeological deposits only: number of habitations
established, rate of habitation establishment, and number of habitations
used (A) in each phase and (B) each millennium.
6.5 Upper Mangrove Creek catchment: random sampling units. Phased sequence: 126
growth rates for rates of habitation establishment, numbers of habitations
used and local rates of artefact accumulation, based on Table 6.3A.
6.6 Upper Mangrove Creek catchment: random sampling units. Millennial sequence: 127
growth rates for rates of habitation establishment, numbers of habitations
used and local rates of artefact accumulation, plus average annual growth
rates for local rates of artefact accumulation, based on Table 6.3B.
6.7 Upper Mangrove Creek catchment: random sampling units. Number of 131
habitations established in each topographic zone in each phase.
6.8 Upper Mangrove Creek catchment: random sampling units. Number of 131
habitations established, also equals rate of habitation establishment in each
topographic zone in each millennium.
6.9 Upper Mangrove Creek catchment: random sampling units. Number of 132
habitations used in each topographic zone in each phase.

terra australis 21

19
 6.10 Upper Mangrove Creek catchment: random sampling units. Number of 132
habitations used in each topographic zone in each millennium.
6.11 Upper Mangrove Creek catchment: random sampling units. Archaeological 134
deposits: estimated total number of artefacts accumulated in each phase,
rounded to nearest 50.
6.12 Upper Mangrove Creek catchment: random sampling units. Archaeological 135
deposits: rate of artefact accumulation in each phase (number per millennium),
rounded to nearest 50.
6.13 Upper Mangrove Creek catchment: random sampling units. Archaeological 138
deposits: estimated total number of artefacts accumulated in each millennium
and rate of artefact accumulation for millennial sequence, rounded to nearest 50.
6.14 Upper Mangrove Creek catchment: random sampling units. Estimated total 143
number of artefacts accumulated in each phase in each topographic zone,
rounded to nearest 50.
6.15 Upper Mangrove Creek catchment: random sampling units. Rate of artefact 143
accumulation in each phase in each topographic zone, rounded to nearest 50.
6.16 Upper Mangrove Creek catchment: random sampling units. Estimated total 143
number of artefacts accumulated in each millennium in each topographic zone
and rate of artefact accumulation for millennial sequence, rounded to nearest 50.
7.1 Eastern Australian regions used as comparative case studies for habitation 152
indices.
7.2 Eastern Australian regions and sites used in comparative case studies for 152
rates of artefact accumulation.
7.3 Regions in eastern Australia: summary of habitation indices. 157
7.4 Regions in eastern Australia. Millennial growth rates for rates of habitation 166
establishment.
7.5 Regions in eastern Australia. Millennial growth rates for number of 167
habitations used, and for NSW Hunter Valley known-habitation use.
7.6 Regions in eastern Australia. Average annual growth rates (excluding 0% p.a. 167
growth rates) for habitation establishment rates.
7.7 Regions in eastern Australia. Average annual growth rates (excluding 0% p.a. 168
growth rates) for number of habitations used, and for NSW Hunter Valley
known-habitation use.
7.8 Regions in eastern Australia. No of habitations and direction of change in 174
artefact accumulation rates in the most recent/upper levels of habitations
in each region.
10.1 Upper Mangrove Creek catchment: millennial assemblages grouped 222
according to K-means analysis.
10.2 Upper Mangrove Creek catchment: distribution of base camps (BC) and activity 224
locations/transit camps (AL/TC) in each topographic zone in each millennium.
10.3 Upper Mangrove Creek catchment: number and percentage frequency of 225
backed, ground, igneous, bipolar and quartz artefacts in each millennium.
10.4 A habitation, subsistence and land-use model for the Upper Mangrove Creek 230
catchment.
10.5 Upper Mangrove Creek catchment: size of common macropod species in 239
each period.

terra australis 21

20
Tables: Appendix 1
A1/1 Artefact types in surface collections from rockshelters and open locations. 279
A1/2 Raw materials in surface collections from rockshelters and open locations. 280
A1/3 Anadara Shelter: distribution of artefact types. 280
A1/4 Anadara Shelter: distribution of raw materials. 280
A1/5 Black Hands Open Deposit: distribution of artefact types. 281
A1/6 Black Hands Open Deposit: distribution of raw materials. 281
A1/7 Black Hands Shelter (Square F): distribution of artefact types. 281
A1/8 Black Hands Shelter (Square F): distribution of raw materials. 282
A1/9 Boat Cave: distribution of artefact types. 282
A1/10 Boat Cave: distribution of raw materials. 282
A1/11 Boronia Shelter: distribution of artefact types. 283
A1/12 Boronia Shelter: distribution of raw materials. 283
A1/13 Caramel Wave Shelter: distribution of artefact types. 283
A1/14 Caramel Wave Shelter: distribution of raw materials. 284
A1/15 Delight Open Deposit: distribution of artefact types. 284
A1/16 Delight Open Deposit: distribution of raw materials. 284
A1/17 Delight Shelter: distribution of artefact types. 285
A1/18 Delight Shelter: distribution of raw materials. 285
A1/19 Dingo Shelter (Squares Ta and Tb): distribution of artefact types. 285
A1/20 Dingo Shelter (Squares Ta and Tb): distribution of raw materials. 286
A1/21 Elngarrah Shelter: distribution of artefact types. 286
A1/22 Elngarrah Shelter: distribution of raw materials. 286
A1/23 Elongated Figure Shelter: distribution of artefact types. 286
A1/24 Elongated Figure Shelter: distribution of raw materials. 287
A1/25 Emu Tracks 2 Shelter: distribution of artefact types. 287
A1/26 Emu Tracks 2 Shelter: distribution of raw materials. 288
A1/27 Geebung Shelter: distribution of artefact types. 288
A1/28 Geebung Shelter: distribution of raw materials. 289
A1/29 Harris Gully Shelter: distribution of artefact types. 289
A1/30 Harris Gully Shelter: distribution of raw materials. 289
A1/31 Kangaroo and Echidna Shelter: distribution of artefact types. 290
A1/32 Kangaroo and Echidna Shelter: distribution of raw materials. 290
A1/33 Loggers Shelter (Squares E/F): distribution of artefact types. 291
A1/34 Loggers Shelter (Squares E/F): distribution of raw materials. 291
A1/35 Low Frontage Shelter: distribution of artefact types. 292
A1/36 Low Frontage Shelter: distribution of raw materials. 292
A1/37 McPherson Shelter: distribution of artefact types. 292
A1/38 McPherson Shelter: distribution of raw materials. 293
A1/39 Mangrove Mansions Shelter (East and West): distribution of artefact types. 293
A1/40 Mangrove Mansions Shelter (East and West): distribution of raw materials. 293
A1/41 One Tooth Shelter: distribution of artefact types. 294
A1/42 One Tooth Shelter: distribution of raw materials. 294
A1/43 Sunny Shelter: distribution of artefact types. 294
A1/44 Sunny Shelter: distribution of raw materials. 295
A1/45 Ti-tree Shelter: distribution of artefact types. 295
A1/46 Ti-tree Shelter: distribution of raw materials. 295
A1/47 Uprooted Tree Shelter: distribution of artefact types. 296
A1/48 Uprooted Tree Shelter: distribution of raw materials. 296

terra australis 21

21
 A1/49 Venus Shelter: distribution of artefact types. 297
A1/50 Venus Shelter: distribution of raw materials. 297
A1/51 White Figure Shelter: distribution of artefact types. 297
A1/52 White Figure Shelter: distribution of raw materials. 298
A1/53 Wolloby Gully Shelter: distribution of artefact types. 298
A1/54 Wolloby Gully Shelter: distribution of raw materials. 298

Tables: Appendix 2
A2/1 Black Hands Shelter (Square F): number of artefacts accumulated in each 300
millennium and estimated total number of artefacts accumulated in the
archaeological deposit.
A2/2 Boat Cave: number of artefacts accumulated in each millennium and estimated 300
total number of artefacts accumulated in the archaeological deposit.
A2/3 Boronia Shelter: number of artefacts accumulated in each millennium and 301
estimated total number of artefacts accumulated in the archaeological deposit.
A2/4 Caramel Wave Shelter (Squares T1 and T2): number of artefacts accumulated 301
in each millennium and estimated total number of artefacts accumulated in the
archaeological deposit.
A2/5 Delight Shelter: number of artefacts accumulated in each millennium and 301
estimated total number of artefacts accumulated in the archaeological deposit.
A2/6 Dingo Shelter (Square Tb only): number of artefacts accumulated in each 302
millennium and estimated total number of artefacts accumulated in the
archaeological deposit.
A2/7 Elngarrah Shelter: number of artefacts accumulated in each millennium and 302
estimated total number of artefacts accumulated in the archaeological deposit.
A2/8 Elongated Figure Shelter: number of artefacts accumulated in each millennium 302
and estimated total number of artefacts accumulated in the archaeological deposit.
A2/9 Emu Tracks 2 Shelter (Squares T2a and T2b): number of artefacts accumulated 303
in each millennium and estimated total number of artefacts accumulated in the
archaeological deposit.
A2/10 Emu Tracks 2 Shelter (Square T1): number of artefacts accumulated in each 303
millennium and estimated total number of artefacts accumulated in the
archaeological deposit.
A2/11 Harris Gully Shelter: number of artefacts accumulated in each millennium and 304
estimated total number of artefacts accumulated in the archaeological deposit.
A2/12 Kangaroo and Echidna Shelter (Squares T1 and T2): number of artefacts 304
accumulated in each millennium and estimated total number of artefacts
accumulated in the archaeological deposit.
A2/13 Loggers Shelter (Squares E/F): number of artefacts accumulated in each 305
millennium and estimated total number of artefacts accumulated in the
archaeological deposit.
A2/14 Sunny Shelter: number of artefacts accumulated in each millennium and 306
estimated total number of artefacts accumulated in the archaeological deposit.
A2/15 Uprooted Tree Shelter: number of artefacts accumulated in each millennium and 306
estimated total number of artefacts accumulated in the archaeological deposit.
A2/16 White Figure Shelter: number of artefacts accumulated in each millennium and 307
estimated total number of artefacts accumulated in the archaeological deposit.
A2/17 Excavated archaeological deposits where estimated duration is less than 307
1000 years: number of artefacts accumulated in each millennium/square and
estimated total number accumulated in the archaeological deposits
terra australis 21

22
Tables: Appendix 3
A3–2/1 Summary of faunal assemblage by excavation unit for small assemblages. 314
See separate tables for Dingo, Two Moths and White Figure. Weights and
counts exclude hairs and feathers listed in Table A3-2/2.
A3–2/2 Taxonomically diagnostic faunal remains listed by site and excavation unit 315
for small assemblages.
A3–2/3 Dingo Shelter: summary of faunal assemblage by excavation unit. 317
A3–2/4 Dingo Shelter: taxonomically diagnostic faunal remains listed by excavation unit. 318
A3–2/5 Two Moths: summary of faunal assemblage by excavation unit (totals exclude 320
feathers and hairs).
A3–2/6 Two Moths: taxonomically diagnostic faunal remains listed by excavation unit. 320
A3–2/7 White Figure: summary of faunal assemblage by excavation unit (FS = field sort; 322
LS = laboratory sort; Total = FS + LS; see Chapter 5 this monograph).
A3–2/8 White Figure: taxonomically diagnostic faunal remains listed by excavation unit. 323
A3–3/1 Loggers, Black Hands and Geebung: total number and weight of faunal 324
remains (from Aplin 1981: Table 1).
A3–3/2 Loggers Shelter: bone from all squares (from Aplin 1981: Table 2). 324
A3–3/3 Loggers Shelter: shell from all squares (from Aplin 1981: Table 3). 325
A3–3/4 Loggers Shelter: number of identified taxon for each analytical unit in all 328
squares and a site total (from Aplin 1981: Table 4).
A3–3/5 Loggers Shelter: percentage composition of selected fauna (from Aplin 1981: 329
Table 21).
A3–3/6 Black Hands and Geebung Shelters: bone and shell (from Aplin 1981: Table 8). 330
A3–3/7 Black Hands Shelter, Square F: faunal composition (from Aplin 1981: Table 10). 331

Tables: Appendix 4
A4/1 NSW south coast and Sydney: rate of habitation establishment and number of 335
habitations used in each millennium. N = 58, see Table A4/2 for sites included.
A4/2 NSW south coast and Sydney: sites included in Table A4/1 and Figure 7.3, 335
with millennium in which establishment is estimated to have occurred,
radiometric age, geographic location and reference.
A4/3 South-western Victoria: number of habitations established in each millennium 339
based on Lourandos 1983a: Table 2 and Williams 1988: Table 10.1, excluding
Toolondo drainage system and Werribee burial site.
A4/4 South-western Victoria: sites included in Table A4/3 and Figure 7.4, with basal 339
radiocarbon ages from Lourandos 1983a: Table 2, N = 19; Williams 1988:
Table 10.1, N = 25.
A4/5 Central Queensland highlands: rate of habitation establishment and number 341
of habitations used in each millennium. N = 11, see Table A4/6 for sites included.
A4/6 Central Queensland highlands: sites included in Table 45 and Figure 7.5, with 342
radiocarbon ages from Morwood 1984: Table 6.2.
A4/7 South-eastern Queensland: rate of habitation establishment and number of 343
habitations used in each millennium from Morwood 1987: Fig 4. N = 23, see
Table A4/8 for sites included.
A4/8 South-eastern Queensland: sites included in Table A4/7 and Figure 7.6, with 343
radiocarbon and estimated ages from Morwood 1987: Fig. 4. Except where noted,
dated samples were charcoal.
A4/9 NSW–ACT–Victorian southern uplands-tablelands: rate of habitation 345
establishment and number of habitations used in each millennium. Rockshelter
deposits N = 14, open deposits N = 11; see Table A4/10 for sites included.
terra australis 21

23
 A4/10 NSW–ACT–Victorian southern uplands-tablelands: sites included in Table A4/9 345
and Figure 7.7, with radiocarbon and estimated ages for rockshelters and time of
known use for open archaeological deposits, and references.
A4/11 The Mallee, north-western Victoria: sites included in Figure 7.8 with 347
radiometric ages from Ross 1984: 178–80.
A4/12 The Mallee, north-western Victoria: rates of known-habitation use. N = 141. 348
A4/13 The southern Mallee, north-western Victoria: hypothetical distribution of 349
number of known-habitations used in each millennium. N = 121.
A4/14 NSW Hunter Valley (central lowlands — Mt Arthur North and South): 351
number of habitations known to be used and rates of known-habitation use
in each phase. Hiscock’s 1986 open archaeological deposits, N = 15.
A4/15 NSW Hunter Valley (central lowlands — Singleton area): sites included in 352
Table A4/16 and Figure 7.9B with radiometric ages and references. All radiocarbon
ages are from charcoal samples, except where TL noted after laboratory number.
A4/16 NSW Hunter Valley (central lowlands — Singleton area): rates of known- 353
habitation use in each century/millennium. N = 12, see Table A4/15
for sites included.
A4/17 Burrill Lake, NSW south coast: rates of implement accumulation and 355
average annual growth rates based on data from Hughes 1977: Table 2.13.
A4/18 Currarong 1, NSW south coast: rates of implement accumulation and average 355
annual growth rates based on data from Hughes 1977: Table 3.10.
A4/19 Currarong 2, NSW south coast: rates of implement accumulation and average 355
annual growth rates based on data from Hughes 1977: Table 3.11.
A4/20 Bass Point, NSW south coast: rates of implement accumulation and average 355
annual growth rates based on data from Hughes 1977: Table 5.6.
A4/21 Sassafras 1, NSW south coast hinterland: rates of implement accumulation and 355
average annual growth rates based on data from Hughes 1977: Table 4.3.
A4/22 Sandy Hollow, NSW Hunter Valley (Goulburn River): rates of artefact 356
accumulation and average annual growth rates based on data from Moore
1970: 35–7, Table 2.
A4/23 Milbrodale, NSW Hunter Valley (central lowlands): rates of artefact 356
accumulation and average annual growth rates based on data from
Moore 1970: 41–5, Table 4.
A4/24 Bobadeen, Ulan, NSW Hunter Valley (upper Goulburn River): rates of artefact 357
accumulation and average annual growth rates based on data from Moore 1970:
45–9, Table 6.
A4/25 Big L, NSW Hunter Valley (southern rim): rates of artefact accumulation and 357
average annual growth rates based on data from Moore 1981: 398, Table 2.
A4/26 Yango Creek, NSW Hunter Valley (southern rim): rates of artefact 358
accumulation and average annual growth rates based on data from
Moore 1981: 398–401, Table 4.
A4/27 Macdonald River (Squares A–AA–BB–CC), NSW: rates of artefact 358
accumulation and average annual growth rates based on data from
Moore 1981: 401–15, Table 5 and Fig. 4.
A4/28 Springwood Creek, NSW Blue Mountains: rates of artefact accumulation 360
and average annual growth rates based on data taken from Stockton and
Holland 1974: Table 3 and Appendix, and revised radiocarbon ages from
Stockton 1993: 38–9.

terra australis 21

24
A4/29 Kings Tableland, NSW Blue Mountains: rates of artefact accumulation and 360
average annual growth rates based on data from Stockton and Holland 1974:
Table 3 and Appendix; Stockton n.d.; revised radiocarbon ages from
Stockton 1977b: 49; 1993: 33. [1] SUA-157 and SUA-229 averaged for
depth/age curve.
A4/30 Walls Cave (Site B), NSW Blue Mountains: rates of artefact accumulation 361
and average annual growth rates based on depth/age curve for Levels 1 to 3
assuming constant rate of sediment accumulation using data from Stockton and
Holland 1974: Table 3 and Appendix.
A4/31 Shaws Creek K1, NSW: Number and density of artefacts in each level based 364
on data from Stockton 1973 and Johnson 1979: Tables 2 and 4. B indicates
levels with backed artefacts.
A4/32 Shaws Creek K2, NSW: density of artefacts in each unit based on data 364
from Kohen et al. 1984: 67, Table 7.
A4/33 Bridgewater, south-western Victoria: distribution of stone artefacts and 366
faunal remains in Phase (Unit) A and Phase (Unit) C in Pits B, C, F and
F. Rates of artefact accumulation and average annual growth rates, based
on data from Lourandos 1980b: Tables 13.2, 13.3, 13.4 and 13.5.
A4/34 Devon Downs (Trench C), lower Murray Valley, South Australia: rates of artefact 367
accumulation and average annual growth rates based on data from Smith 1982.
A4/35 Fromms Landing 2, lower Murray Valley, South Australia: number of 368
artefacts in each level, radiocarbon dates and approximate length of pit,
based on data from Mulvaney 1960: 65, 70, Table 1, Fig. 3; Mulvaney et al. 1964:
Table 3; Roberts and Pate 1999: Table 1.
A4/36 Fromms Landing 6, lower Murray Valley, South Australia: rates of artefact 369
accumulation and average annual growth rates based on data from
Mulvaney et al. 1964: 490, Table 1.
A4/37 Native Well 1, central Queensland highlands: rates of implement accumulation, 371
rates of artefact accumulation and average annual growth rates based on data
from Morwood 1979 and Morwood 1981: Figure 23 and Table 11.
A4/38 Native Well 2, central Queensland highlands: rates of artefact accumulation and 373
average annual growth rates based on data from Morwood 1979, 1981: Table 15.
A4/39 Kenniff Cave, central Queensland highlands: rates of artefact accumulation 373
and average annual growth rates based on data from Mulvaney and Joyce
1965: Tables 2 and 3; Mulvaney 1975: 155, 288.
A4/40 The Tombs (shelter), central Queensland highlands: rates of artefact 376
accumulation and average annual growth rates, based on data from
Mulvaney and Joyce 1965: Table 5, shelter excavation.
A4/41 Maidenwell, south-eastern Queensland: rates of artefact accumulation and 379
average annual growth rates based on data from Morwood 1986: 92–3, Table 1.
A4/42 Gatton, south-eastern Queensland: rates of artefact accumulation and average 379
annual growth rates based on data from Morwood 1986: 104–7, Table 5.

terra australis 21

25
 Acknowledgements

Since the beginning of my research into the archaeology and prehistory of the Upper
Mangrove Creek catchment in 1979, many people have helped in a variety of ways and at
different times — during the initial salvage program for the Mangrove Creek Dam, during my
PhD research project and, finally, during the transformation of the thesis into a published
monograph. Fieldwork and analyses were carried out during the salvage program as a
consultant to the NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service and as a PhD student in the
Department of Anthropology, University of Sydney. Revision of the text and production of the
monograph have been completed during my employment with the Australian Museum.
At the NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS), I wish to thank the staff of
the (then) Cultural Resources Division — in particular, Helen Clemens, Kate Sullivan and
Sharon Sullivan. I also wish to thank staff in the NPWS Hawkesbury District Office: Brian Vile,
Dave Lambert, Tony Williams and Ian Webb for their interest, help and advice on local
matters.
The NSW Department of Public Works gave permission for me to have access to the
Mangrove Creek Dam catchment so I could continue with my research work once the salvage
project was completed. I wish to thank Alan Griffiths, John Palmer, Kevin Carter, Paul
Gilbertson, Barry Hunt and John Madden for their assistance.
At the University of Sydney, I wish to acknowledge the support, help and assistance of
the members of staff and students of the (then) Department of Anthropology throughout the
course of my research — in particular, I wish to thank J. Peter White for acting as my
supervisor, providing advice on all aspects of my thesis as well as looking after the
administrative side of things; Richard Wright for providing advice on statistical matters;
Roland Fletcher for discussions on theoretical issues and acting as supervisor when Peter
White was away; Roland Fletcher, in association with Helen Clemens of NSW NPWS, for
providing advice on sampling strategies for the catchment site survey; John Clegg for
discussions on matters pertaining to all manner of things, and Ed Roper for equipping me
with knowledge and skills about computers and computer programs.
At the Australian Museum, I particularly wish to thank Betty Meehan, Jim Specht and
other members of the Anthropology Division for their encouragement and assistance in bringing
this monograph to publication stage. In addition, I wish to thank the Museum’s Photography
Department, in particular Carl Bento and James King, for their expert and invaluable assistance
in producing photographs and digitised versions of photographic figures.

terra australis 21

27
 The Australian National University’s Department of Archaeology and Natural History
provided a place for me to work in peace during 1996 and 1997 when I was updating the text
at that time. Particular thanks to Ann Andrews, then of the Publications Department, who
organised these facilities as well as providing an encouraging and positive welcome during
my visits to the department.
During the many site survey and excavation fieldwork periods, many people helped.
I wish to thank them not only for their hard labour, working long hours under sometimes
difficult conditions, but also for the many useful and lively discussions which took place. In
particular, I wish to thank Tessa Corkill, Kathy Perrin and Edna Turvey, who were constant
members of the fieldwork teams. At the time of fieldwork between 1979 and 1982, there were
no Aboriginal organisations or land councils established in the Gosford–Wyong region.
However, several Aboriginal people assisted in the fieldwork at various times; they included
local residents and NPWS site officers: Lindsay Bostock, Wayne Cook, Dallas Donnelly, Jenny
Fraser, Peter Ivanoff, Glen Morris and Aden Ridgeway, as well as Phil Gordon from the
Australian Museum.
Local residents provided advice on the existence of archaeological sites in the
catchment and the general locality, and on many aspects of the local environment — in this
regard I wish to thank Robert Thompson and family, Mark Swinton and Lionel Young.
Reference materials were provided by many people and advice was received during
discussions held with numerous others. I wish to thank these people for the time they spent
and the assistance provided: Peter Hiscock, Eugene Stockton and Dan Witter on stone
artefacts; Robin Torrence and Todd Whitelaw on risk; Harry Lourandos on intensification; Tim
Murray on theoretical issues; Philip Hughes and Marjorie Sullivan on geomorphology; Mike
Barbetti on radiocarbon dating; Dan Lunney and Peter Smith of the NSW NPWS on animal
behaviour; Pat Vinnicombe on potential habitation shelters and information deriving from the
North Hawkesbury study; Mike Williams, then of NSW NPWS, on identification of stone
materials; Ken Aplin and Su Solomon on the origin of faunal remains in archaeological
deposits; Mrs J. Thompson and Doug Benson of the NSW Herbarium on the identification of
plant remains; Brian O’Toole of the University of Sydney Sample Survey Centre on sampling
methods; Anthony and Christopher George (my nephews) on calculating the average annual
growth rates and writing a small computer program for this purpose; and Frank Sinn for
mathematical advice. John Edgar more recently calculated the revised K-means employed in
the final chapter. I wish to thank Roger Luebbers, Richard Robins and Mike Morwood for their
timely responses to my requests for copies of unpublished documents. Peter Roy of the
Coastal Studies Unit, Department of Geography, at the University of Sydney for advice on
changing sea-levels and coastal morphology. Scott Mooney of the School of Biological, Earth
and Environmental Sciences, University of New South Wales for advice on climatic change.
For Chapter 7, data from some excavated sites were reanalysed to produce depth/age curves
so that I could calculate artefact accumulation rates. In doing this, I did not consult with
individual researchers to obtain information beyond that which was available in publications
or public documents because of the number of sites involved. Lack of certain data about the
deposit and stratigraphy in sites may well have led to some incorrect artefact accumulation
rates, and I apologise to researchers who may feel I have misrepresented their data.
Fiona Roberts reproduced line drawings from my revised originals, and I thank her for
her thoroughness and patience in providing the digitised versions.
I would like to give special thanks the late Patricia Vinnicombe, Kate Sullivan, Philip
Hughes and Marjorie Sullivan, who provided much encouragement, stimulation and good
advice, particularly during the formative stages of the project, but also through to the end.
My thanks also to Phillip Hughes and Marjorie Sullivan for providing accommodation and

terra australis 21

28
a stimulating environment in which to retire during visits to Canberra when revising this
monograph.
During the production of the monograph, several people read drafts of the chapters
and provided useful comments and discussions. For their helpful comments and advice,
which helped change my thesis into the present monograph, I wish to thank Sarah Colley,
Richard Fullagar, Phillip Hughes, Margrit Koettig, Ian McNiven, Scott Mooney, Peter Roy, Jim
Specht, Marjorie Sullivan and Robin Torrence.
Funds were provided by several organisations: NSW NPWS for fieldwork and
photographic expenses and for radiocarbon dates; Carlyle Greenwell Bequest (Anthropology
Department, University of Sydney) for radiocarbon dates and fieldwork expenses; the
Australian Museum awarded me grant-in-aid funds for Ken Aplin to undertake the faunal
analysis and, more recently, has paid for additional radiocarbon dates, as well as photographs
and illustrations for the monograph. The last two years of the PhD research in the Department
of Anthropology at the University of Sydney were carried out under a Commonwealth
postgraduate award. NSW NPWS also gave permission for me to use their camping and
excavation equipment as well as a 4WD vehicle during fieldwork periods, and use of their
laboratory for the analysis of materials.
In acknowledging the help of the above people, I hold none responsible for any faults
or omissions in the final product — these are my responsibility alone.
Finally, I wish to thank my husband, Barry Higgins, as well as my family and friends
for their continued support and encouragement in my research endeavours.

terra australis 21

29
 1
Introduction

Often-used indicators of cultural and demographic change include changes over time in
numbers of sites and stone artefacts. They have often been interpreted as indicators of
population increase in continent-wide and regional prehistories in Australia. At a regional or
local scale, variations in numbers of sites and artefacts over space and time have been used as
the basis for proposing changes in land and resource-use patterns which include the
redistribution of populations. In addition, changes in artefact numbers in individual sites have
been used as evidence for the extent to which the use of specific locations varied over time —
often referred to as changes in ‘the intensity of site use’. Unprecedented large-scale increases
in numbers of sites and artefacts were said by some researchers to have occurred about 4000
BP and to have been associated with the introduction of the ‘Small Tool Tradition’.
Furthermore, these quantitative changes have been part of the archaeological evidence used
since 1980 in theories for late Holocene intensification and/or increased sociopolitical
complexity in south-eastern Australia — a theme which became a major focus in Australian
archaeological research.
In this context, the study of quantitative changes in the archaeological record of the
Upper Mangrove Creek catchment has much to contribute. Of particular interest in the
catchment data is the lack of correlation in the timing and direction of dramatic late Holocene
changes in numbers of sites and artefacts. Most conspicuous are the differences in timing in
the dramatic increases in sites and artefacts which occurred in the second and third millennia
BP respectively, and a decrease in artefact accumulation rates in the last 1000 years, which
contrasts strongly with the continuing increase in site numbers. Such trends and patterning
throw doubt on claims that chronological changes in numbers of sites and artefacts reflect
population changes. This study of the catchment data also clearly demonstrates that dramatic
changes in numbers of sites and artefacts do not necessarily coincide in time with the
introduction of the ‘Small Tool Tradition’, or other changes in the stone artefact assemblages,
such as the appearance of backed artefacts, the increasing use of bipolar technology for core
reduction, and variations in the abundance of certain raw materials. Other behavioural
explanations may account for these dramatic changes in sites and artefacts and the ways in

terra australis 21

1
 What’s changing: population size or land-use patterns? The archaeology of Upper Mangrove Creek, Sydney Basin

which they can be interpreted and explained depend on the assumptions that are made. For
example, they could be the result of the reorganisation of habitation patterns and subsistence
strategies, which included the adoption of different mobility patterns and other risk
minimization strategies in the face of environmental change. If so, it is likely that such
processes involved the restructuring of social relationships as well as technological systems.

Research aims and context — past and present

The aim of this study is to investigate ways in which chronological and spatial changes in
numbers of archaeological sites and stone artefacts can be interpreted and explained in terms
of demography and human behaviour, using the Upper Mangrove Creek catchment as a case
study. The original research aim of my doctoral thesis, however, was to investigate pre-
colonial land-use and subsistence strategies in the coastal regions of south-eastern New South
Wales, that is, the land between the Great Dividing Range and its associated ranges and the
ocean shoreline. This strip of land can be divided into two geographical/environmental zones:
the coastal plain associated with the shoreline or maritime zone, and the coastal hinterland.
The central NSW coastal hinterland, except for areas such as the Cumberland Plain and
Hunter Valley lowlands (respectively, to the south and north of the Upper Mangrove Creek
catchment), is predominantly forested hills, ranges and dissected sandstone plateaux, which is
often very rugged country. The Upper Mangrove Creek catchment lies within the coastal
hinterland (Fig. 1.1).
Field-based coastal studies in south-eastern NSW of the 1960s and 1970s focused
principally on the excavation of shell middens in close proximity to the shoreline (e.g., Megaw
1968a, 1968b, 1974; Lampert 1966, 1971a, 1971b; Bowdler 1970, 1971, 1976). The coastal bias in
this excavation work in conjunction with the interpretation of local historical sources led
researchers to the viewpoint that the hinterland (usually referred to as ‘inland’) was used to a
much lesser extent than the ocean and estuarine shoreline zones (Lawrence 1968, 1971; Poiner
1971, 1976; Lampert and Hughes 1974). Poiner and Lawrence proposed that most of the
population was concentrated along the coastal shoreline and subsisted predominantly on
marine resources. They claimed the hinterland regions were used only in times of hardship;
that is, in winter and/or stormy weather when fish and shellfish were difficult to obtain.
Lampert (1971a: 63–4) concluded that the upper deposits at Burrill Lake and Currarong
represented the activities of people with wide-ranging economic interests (land, estuary and
seashore), but with a strong orientation towards seashore resources. Later regional studies for
the NSW far south coast and central coast by Attenbrow (1976) and Ross (1976) respectively
led to models for site distribution and subsistence patterns in which the coastal hinterlands
were occupied to a greater degree than proposed by some of the earlier researchers. These two
literature reviews showed that inhabitants of the coastal hinterlands of these regions belonged
to different clans who spoke different dialects (or, for the Sydney region, Ross claimed
a different language — see also Ross 1988) from the people who lived along the adjacent ocean
coastline. The Upper Mangrove Creek catchment was most likely part of the country of
a hinterland group — a clan of the Darginung (Capell 1970: Map 1; Attenbrow 1981: 16–22).
In 1979, initial results from the Mangrove Creek Dam salvage project indicated that
the catchment was an ideal locality in which to undertake a field investigation into Aboriginal
use of the coastal hinterland. There were numerous sites with various types of archaeological
evidence (e.g., archaeological deposits, pigment and engraved images, grinding grooves and
scarred trees); there were stratified sites with chronological depth to the archaeological record
going back ca 11,000 years; and the length of habitation recorded at individual sites with

terra australis 21

2
 Introduction

archaeological deposits varied (Furey 1978; Attenbrow 1980; Vinnicombe 1980 IX C: 6–11). It
was also known that within the observed time depth, temporal changes occurred in various
aspects of the archaeological record — in the stone artefact types and assemblages, in the
technology, and in the raw materials from which stone artefacts were produced. It was thus
with some knowledge of the catchment’s archaeological record from the salvage excavations
and within the above research context that I began my research project in the Upper Mangrove
Creek catchment.
However, I considered the data obtained from the salvage project, which was
restricted principally to the storage area (i.e., the valley bottom), were a biased sample and
unlikely to be representative of the evidence for Aboriginal use of the total catchment.
Additional fieldwork was therefore undertaken in that part of the catchment which lies above
the storage area. An intensive survey of the upper part of the catchment in a manner similar to

GOULBURN R
Ulan

Singleton
HUNTER R

WOLLOMBI
BROOK
MACDONALD R Newcastle

CAPERTEE R LAKE MACQUARIE

COLO R
Wyong
MANGROVE
CREEK TUGGERAH LAKE
Gosford

HAWKESBURY R BRISBANE WATERS

BROKEN BAY
GROSE R

Cumberland
Upper Mangrove Plain PORT JACKSON
Creek catchment
NEPEAN R Sydney

BOTANY BAY

0 20

km

Figure 1.1 Location of Upper Mangrove Creek catchment, NSW central coast.

terra australis 21

3
 What’s changing: population size or land-use patterns? The archaeology of Upper Mangrove Creek, Sydney Basin

that undertaken for the storage area was not practicable in terms of the finances available and
time constraints, so I designed a survey program to sample the catchment.
During the course of the research project it became clear to me that the nature of the
archaeological evidence available from the catchment would be far more detailed than
anything that was yet recorded for the coastal/maritime zone in the NSW central or south
coasts. Thus comparisons between the two zones (coast and hinterland) could not be made at
the same level. Such comparative work will have to wait until a study comparable to that
undertaken in the Upper Mangrove Creek catchment is carried out in the coastal zone.
It also became apparent during analyses of the data that certain quantitative changes
in the catchment’s archaeological record were relevant to and had consequential implications
for then current research issues relating to the interpretation and explanation of the mid- to
late Holocene archaeological record in Australia (Attenbrow 1982b). These issues involved a
perceived continuing increase in the numbers of sites and artefacts through time in many
regions in eastern Australia, and the belief that dramatic increases in sites and artefacts were
the product of dramatic population increases (e.g., Lampert and Hughes 1974; Hughes and
Lampert 1982; Ross 1981, 1984; Beaton 1983, 1985). These changes also were argued to be
associated with the introduction of the Small Tool Tradition, and were a principal line of
evidence for advocates of intensification and/or increased sociopolitical complexity in the late
Holocene (Lourandos 1983a, 1985a; Ross 1984; Williams 1985, 1987, 1988).
I considered that the chronological changes in the number of habitations established,
the number of habitations used and the numbers of artefacts accumulated which I had
documented in the Upper Mangrove Creek catchment were relevant to the then current
models and hypotheses which incorporated population increase. Of particular relevance was
the late Holocene decrease in the artefact accumulation rates which occurred in the first
millennium BP in the catchment as a whole and in some individual sites. These decreases
occurred during the same period as the numbers of sites inhabited and the numbers of sites
established continued to increase. Changes in numbers of artefacts and sites could thus not
both be indicators of population change. Also of significance was the fact that the documented
quantitative changes did not necessarily all occur at the same time — dramatic increases in
artefact numbers occurred in the third millennium BP, whereas they occurred in site numbers
in the second and first millennia BP. In addition, the timing of these quantitative changes did
not correlate with the timing of qualitative changes in the stone artefact assemblages.
Early in 1985, I altered the focus of my research. Rather than focusing on the
interpretation of site/artefact distribution patterns across the catchment in a regional context,
I began investigating temporal changes in quantitative aspects of the catchment’s archaeological
record and the factors that may have produced such changes. Broader issues which I began to
investigate at this time included how quantitative changes, particularly those pertaining to
numbers of sites and artefacts, had been identified in the past in other regions of eastern
Australia, as well as problems involved in interpreting and explaining the changes. These
investigations highlighted the limited nature of both the data that were then available and our
understanding of the ways in which changes in population numbers and different aspects of
human behaviour are manifested in the archaeological record.
This monograph is based on my doctoral thesis submitted in 1987, however, some
changes have been made. In addition to restructuring the presentation of some information and
discussions, certain sections of the thesis as well as some tables and figures are excluded as they
are not directly relevant to the monograph’s main theme. Thesis Chapter 2, in which I reviewed
previous site and/or artefact distribution studies, is excluded. This chapter illustrated the type of
studies that were based on spatial patterning of sites and artefacts across the land, the type of
investigations that had included or had been based on site and artefact distribution studies in

terra australis 21

4
 Introduction

Australia, and the way in which my study was similar to and/or differed from other Australian
distribution studies. A review of sampling theory and the use of sampling in archaeological
surveys in Australia is also excluded (in thesis Chapter 4), as well as discussions on spatial
distribution patterns within the Upper Mangrove Creek catchment (in thesis Chapter 5).
Additional information has been included in the monograph to acknowledge the
numerous studies that have taken place since 1987. In addition, a further four radiocarbon
dates for sites in the catchment are included in the analyses (Chapter 6), and more recent dates
from studies carried out in regions adjacent to the catchment are referred to (Chapter 7). These
additional studies and radiocarbon dates support the findings of the thesis. The last four thesis
chapters (8 to 11) have been reordered so that the chapter about climatic and environmental
changes, which has been revised to incorporate the findings of current palaeo-ecological
studies, is now Chapter 9. Thesis Chapters 9, 10 and 11 have been rewritten as Chapters 8 and
10. The final chapter (10) now presents behavioural interpretations of the catchment habitation
and artefact indices in terms of changes over time in subsistence and mobility patterns and
risk minimisation strategies — themes that were introduced but not explored in the thesis.

Research methods — an outline

The following lines of investigation were undertaken as part of the research project and have
been presented in subsequent chapters in the following order.
• A review of interpretations and explanations proposed by other researchers during the
1970s and 1980s for quantitative changes in the archaeological record (Chapter 2).
• Archaeological site survey and excavation in the Upper Mangrove Creek catchment. The
aim of the fieldwork program was to retrieve evidence of the length, nature, extent and
intensity of Aboriginal use of the catchment. The fieldwork was designed to obtain an
unbiased (and hopefully representative) set of quantified data relating to spatial and
temporal changes in the archaeological record. The survey was carried out under a
probability sampling scheme — a stratified random sample. All excavatable sites with
archaeological deposits and a purposefully selected sample of potential archaeological
deposits in rockshelters in the random sampling units were excavated (Chapters 3 and 4).
• An examination of factors likely to have affected the archaeological record and the data
sets which form the basis of the analyses. This examination was undertaken to establish
whether the documented spatial and temporal changes were likely to have been biased
by natural (e.g., geomorphological), methodological and/or analytical processes. It was
included so that I would be aware of, and perhaps could control for, at least some of the
biases which may have skewed the results and subsequent conclusions (Chapter 5).
• Analyses of field data from the Upper Mangrove Creek catchment. The analyses were
designed to obtain information on the spatial distribution of archaeological sites and
potential habitation sites in the catchment, as well as the timing of initial habitation and
temporal changes in the contents of each excavated habitation site. To quantify temporal
changes in the numbers of sites inhabited and the numbers of artefacts accumulated,
I calculated three indices: the rate of habitation establishment, the number of habitations
used and the rate of artefact accumulation. The latter was calculated not only for each of
the habitations, but also for the catchment as a whole and for each topographic zone.
When applied to the combined data for the whole catchment, this index is called the
local rate of artefact accumulation (Chapter 6).

terra australis 21

5
 What’s changing: population size or land-use patterns? The archaeology of Upper Mangrove Creek, Sydney Basin

• Examination of the data from several regions in eastern Australia on which explanations
for quantitative changes have been and/or can be based. The reason for this examination
was twofold: firstly, to examine the data on which researchers of the 1970s and 1980s had
based their conclusions and, secondly, to establish whether the temporal trends
documented for the Upper Mangrove Creek catchment were anomalous (Chapter 7).
• A re-examination of population-change and behavioural explanations of the 1970s and
1980s against the archaeological evidence on which they were based. This comparison
indicates that simplistic relationships between numbers of sites/artefacts and numbers
of people, or between artefact numbers and introduction of the ‘Small Tool Tradition’
or Bondaian assemblages, are unlikely to describe the full complexity of a region’s
prehistory (Chapter 8).
• A review of the evidence for climatic and environmental change during the Holocene and
late Pleistocene in eastern Australia. Climatic and environmental change may have
influenced human behaviour and thus may have been an indirect factor in producing the
observed changes in the archaeological record. These discussions concentrate on the period
during which the Upper Mangrove Creek catchment is known, from the archaeological
evidence, to have been inhabited; that is, the last 11,000 years (Chapter 9).
• Interpretation of the Upper Mangrove Creek habitation and artefact indices based on
prior models and theories relating to habitation, subsistence and mobility patterns and
risk minimisation strategies (Chapter 10).

Research area
Mangrove Creek is a southerly flowing creek draining into the Hawkesbury River on the NSW
central coast. The research area is the catchment of Mangrove Creek Dam, which was
constructed between 1978 and 1982 to supply water for the Gosford–Wyong area. The
catchment, which is 101 sq km in area, is about 80km north of Sydney Harbour (Fig. 1.1). It is
north-west of Wyong, approximately 33km from the ocean shoreline and 28km north of the
Hawkesbury River. Geologically, the area is part of the Hornsby Plateau of the Sydney Basin.
It is heavily dissected sandstone country with a maximum elevation of about 200m. The valley
floor at the dam wall has an elevation of about 25m above sea-level. Valleys are steep-sided
with clifflines and small outcrops of sandstone on the ridgesides and along most of the creeks.
Cliffs range up to 8m high.
The catchment was part of McPherson State Forest, except for small cleared areas of
freehold along the wider parts of the valley bottoms and on the northern and eastern
ridgetops adjacent to George Downes Drive. It was thus principally undeveloped land
covered with eucalypt forest and woodland with rainforest species growing along the banks
of less open and steep-sided gullies (Figs 1.2 to 1.4). Except for the area inundated by the dam
waters, the area remains the same today.
Mangrove Creek is estuarine in its lower reaches, but within the dam catchment it is
all fresh water. Estuarine conditions extend almost 10km (as the crow flies) up Mangrove
Creek, i.e., about 18km from the southern end of the catchment. Tributaries in the upper parts
of the catchment have been known to dry up in extremely hot weather, but even in these rare
times water is available from small springs scattered throughout the catchment (pers. comm.,
Robert Thompson, Kulnura 1980). (For a fuller description of the catchment environment and
general region see NSW Department of Public Works 1977; Benson 1978; Vinnicombe 1980;
Attenbrow 1981, 1982a).

terra australis 21

6
 Introduction

Figure 1.2 Forested land in valley bottom, looking north Figure 1.3 Lower slopes of forested ridgeside with Black
along Wattle Creek. Easter 1980. Photographer Val Attenbrow. Hands Shelter in large boulder in middle distance. Easter
1978. Photographer Val Attenbrow.

Figure 1.4 Periphery ridgetop on eastern side of catchment with Sunny Shelter. August 1982.
Photographer Val Attenbrow.
terra australis 21

7
 What’s changing: population size or land-use patterns? The archaeology of Upper Mangrove Creek, Sydney Basin

Previous fieldwork in the Upper Mangrove Creek catchment

The first archaeological work in the Upper Mangrove Creek catchment was undertaken in the
1960s by N. W. G. Macintosh, who recorded the art and excavated the deposit in a rockshelter
known as Dingo and Horned Anthropomorph. The drawings in one part of this rockshelter are
spectacular and in some respects unique (as the site’s name implies). The most interesting find
in the deposit was some dark red ochre, which was said to match the colour of the drawings
and which came from levels dated to 581±120 BP (GX-0070) (Macintosh 1965: 85, 96–7).
The catchment, however, became the focus of major archaeological work in the late
1970s when a dam was being built across the upper reaches of Mangrove Creek. An initial
survey (Collier 1976) confirmed to the NSW NPWS the presence of Aboriginal sites in the
storage area. A salvage program, to record archaeological evidence of the Aboriginal use of the
area to be inundated — an area of 12 sq km — was subsequently implemented under the
management of the NPWS on behalf of the NSW Department of Public Works. The salvage
program included an intensive site survey of the storage (inundation) area directed by Kate
Sullivan, then of the NPWS, and Louise Furey, consulting archaeologist (Furey 1978; Sullivan
1983: 7–9); detailed recording of pigment and engraved images by Ben Gunn (1979) and Leo
Rivett (1980); an inspection of selected shelters with pigment images by Alan Watchman
(1982); and test excavation and excavation of sites with deposits by Pat Vinnicombe and
myself (Vinnicombe 1980: Chap. IX; Attenbrow 1981, 1982a, 1982b, 1982c). Geomorphological
studies were undertaken by Phillip Hughes and Marjorie Sullivan (Hughes and Sullivan 1979;
Hughes 1982), analyses of faunal remains by Ken Aplin and Klim Gollan (Aplin 1981; Aplin
and Gollan 1982), and analyses of stone artefacts from Loggers and Deep Creek by Nicola
Stern (1981, 1982). Subsequent site survey of a small area above the storage area and salvage
excavation of an open archaeological deposit were undertaken by Theresa Bonhomme (1984,
1985) for additional works associated with the dam. Recently, information about all recorded
open archaeological deposits in the catchment has been collated in a single report (Attenbrow
1997 [1998]).
I first became involved in the salvage excavation program in January 1978 as assistant
archaeologist to Patricia Vinnicombe, who was then undertaking the North Hawkesbury
Archaeological Project for NSW NPWS (Vinnicombe 1980). After the initial 1978 fieldwork
seasons, it was realised that the salvage work would exceed that originally envisaged. This
realisation and her existing commitment to the North Hawkesbury Archaeological Project, led
Pat Vinnicombe to relinquish her position as project archaeologist for the excavation
component of the salvage program and I undertook that role from mid-1978.
The salvage program, which was completed in 1982, revealed a wealth of archaeological
data. Thirty-four sites were recorded: nine rockshelters with art and archaeological deposits,
17 rockshelters with archaeological deposits, two rockshelters with art, four axe grinding
grooves, one open campsite and one scarred tree. For the salvage program, major excavations
(between 2 sq m and 13 sq m) were carried out at four sites (Loggers, Black Hands, Mussel
and Wattle Creek). Smaller areas (between 0.25 sq m and 1 sq m) were test excavated in
21 locations, 10 of which were initially recorded as potential habitation shelters; only four of
the rockshelters proved to have sterile deposits.
The salvage excavations showed that use of Loggers Shelter began about 11,000 years
ago. At the other sites with radiocarbon age determinations in the storage area, the age of
initial habitation varies from about 8500 years to 1365 years ago. The type and amount of
archaeological material in the sites also varies. Stone artefacts were present in all sites, but the
number retrieved varied widely, the smallest number being five (from a test pit 0.25 sq m in
area and 60cm deep). The largest number of artefacts was recovered from Loggers, where the

terra australis 21

8
 Introduction

greatest area and volume was excavated. The highest density of artefacts (number/kilo or
number/cu m of deposit), however, came from Mussel, where an area of 1 sq m with a depth
of 140cm produced 14,191 artefacts (Attenbrow 1981: Tables 6.6 and 6.8). Further excavation at
Mussel after submission of the 1981 salvage report showed that the cultural deposit has a total
depth of 180cm and provided an earlier radiocarbon age of 8730±70 BP (SUA-2410).
The research potential of the catchment was realised not long after the salvage
program began and I registered as a part-time postgraduate student at the University of
Sydney in 1979. This was well before the salvage program was finished and, for the next four
years, both the salvage program and the research project were carried out simultaneously
within similar research frameworks. The study area for my postgraduate work, however,
consisted of the total catchment — that is, the land above the storage area as well as the
storage area. To differentiate between the two studies in this monograph, I refer to them as the
‘salvage program’ and the ‘research project’. The study area for the research project is referred
to as ‘the Upper Mangrove Creek catchment’ or ‘the catchment’, and the area inundated by the
Mangrove Creek Dam as the ‘storage area’.
For the salvage excavation reports (Attenbrow 1981, 1982b), data from the storage
area only were presented and conclusions relating to use of the area were drawn on the basis
of those data. In my doctoral thesis (Attenbrow 1987) and this monograph, I concentrate and
base conclusions on the results of a sampling program of the total catchment, which includes
land within as well as above the storage area. Some sites in the storage area also occur in the
catchment sampling units and thus the ‘storage area’ and ‘catchment’ data sets are not
mutually exclusive.

terra australis 21

9
 2
Increases and decreases in numbers of sites
and artefacts: a review of interpretations
and explanations of the 1970s and 1980s

The archaeological record indicates that many aspects of Aboriginal life and culture — tool
kits, technology, use of raw materials, and modes of subsistence — changed throughout the
period of Australian prehistory. In addition, although finding them archaeologically is
difficult, it is acknowledged that changes occurred in the demographic, social, ideological and
political aspects of life throughout this period. Stanner (1965: 4) believed Aboriginal society
and culture were ‘the end-products of millennia of non-linear development’ and ‘were made
up of forms and values far removed and transformed from an adaptive plane’. White and
O’Connell (1982: 133) stated that the many varied life-ways recorded during the 18th and 19th
centuries were ‘the end-result of a long history, but their final form was developed particularly
during the last few thousand years’; and Lampert (1971a: 70) said that the archaeological
record for the past 5000 years in south-eastern Australia shows the formation of ‘culture-areas’
within which similar changes seemed to have occurred.
It is thus accepted that changes in the archaeological record indicate significant social
and cultural changes within hunter-gatherer societies (e.g., Mulvaney 1975: 120–2; McBryde
1977: 225; Bailey 1983a: 185–6; Lourandos 1985a: 385; David and Chant 1995: 513–6). However,
the direct or indirect causal relationships between social and cultural changes and
documented changes in the archaeological record are far from clear, and the nature of the
cultural changes that may have occurred and the reason/s for them have been much debated.
Are economic, technological or demographic shifts being reflected in the archaeological
record, or social, political or ideological changes (e.g., Fletcher 1977a, 1977b: 49, 146–7; Conkey
1978, 1984; Gamble 1982, 1983; Bailey 1983d; Beaton 1983, 1985); or is it a combination of these
various aspects of life which together represent a late Holocene intensification associated with
increasing complexity in sociopolitical organisation, which was accompanied by population
increase (Lourandos 1983a, 1984, 1985a, 1985b, 1987, 1988, 1993, 1997)? The ‘intensification
debate’ (as it is often referred to) has become one of the most contentious debates in recent
Australian archaeology, and has its proponents (e.g., Morwood 1984; Ross 1984; Williams

terra australis 21

11
 What’s changing: population size or land-use patterns? The archaeology of Upper Mangrove Creek, Sydney Basin

1985, 1988; Flood et al. 1987; Barker 1991; David and Chant 1995: 361–3, 437–8; David 1990:
90–1; Ross et al. 1992: 109; Lourandos and Ross 1994) as well as opponents and critics,
especially in terms of the forms of evidence and sources used (e.g., Rowland 1983: 72–4, 1989:
40; Yoffee 1985: 177–80; Hall and Hiscock 1988b: 16–19; Davidson 1990; Bird and Frankel 1991a;
Sutton 1990; Williamson 1998: 144–6; Mulvaney and Kamminga 1999: 270–2; Lilley 2000).
Changing numbers of sites and artefacts are often involved in the proposed
explanatory and interpretive models at a continental, regional or site level. Climatic and/or
environmental changes are often involved in explanations as well, and, in this regard,
regionalisation, risk minimisation and changes in mobility patterns are now used increasingly
as contexts in which alternative models and hypotheses are proposed for changing numbers
of sites and artefacts in association with other archaeological evidence. This chapter focuses on
studies of the 1970s and 1980s in which changing numbers of sites and artefacts were the
principal lines of evidence for claims of dramatic increases in population size (at a continental,
regional or site-specific level), as well as part of the archaeological evidence on which the
concept of late Holocene intensification was formulated.
In analysing archaeological evidence from the Upper Mangrove Creek catchment,
I calculated several indices that document temporal changes in numbers of sites and artefacts.
These indices are referred to as:
1. the rate of habitation establishment;
2. the number of habitations used; and,
3. the rate of artefact accumulation.
I refer to changes in these indices collectively as ‘the quantitative changes in’ or ‘the quantitative
aspects of’ the archaeological record (for methods of calculation, see Chapter 6). These terms
have not been employed by all researchers, and other terms used include changes in the number
of sites occupied, increases through time in numbers of sites and artefacts, changes in the
concentrations of artefacts, changes in discard rates, changes in the intensity of site use, and
changes in intensity of occupation (with more sites, artefacts and people).
Many researchers proposed or accepted that in Australia there was a continuing
increase over time in the number of archaeological sites (especially habitation sites)
established and/or used in various regions, and/or in the number of artefacts accumulated in
individual sites, particularly in the last 5000 years (Johnson 1979: 39; Bowdler 1981; Morwood
1984: 371, 1986, 1987; Ross 1984, 1985: 87; Beaton 1985: 16–18; Fletcher-Jones 1985: 282, 286;
Lourandos 1985a: 393–411, 1985b: 38; White and Habgood 1985; see also discussion in Hiscock
1986). These late-Holocene increases were often relatively dramatic compared with earlier
increases.
Many 1970s and 1980s explanations for these late-Holocene increases were based on
the acceptance or assumption that, after an initial dramatic increase, the indices continued to
increase until British colonisation. However, several researchers documented decreases in the
rates of artefact accumulation at individual sites (e.g., Schrire 1972; Stockton and Holland
1974; Johnson 1979: 94, 111; Kohen et al. 1981; Moore 1981; Smith 1982; Ferguson 1985;
Morwood 1986, 1987; Hiscock 1984, 1988b), while Hiscock (1986) claimed a decline in site
numbers as well as in artefact discard rates. Hughes and Lampert (1982) acknowledged
decreased implement accumulation rates in the last 1000 to 2000 years at some sites on the
NSW south coast, but their conclusions suggest they assumed the general regional or
continent-wide pattern was for implement accumulation rates, and thus population size, to
continue increasing. Most researchers who identified a decrease in the indices put forward
various interpretations and explanations, but general population decrease, as opposed to
redistribution of populations at a local or regional level, was not advocated.

terra australis 21

12
 Increases and decreases in number of sites and artefacts: a review of interpretations and explanations of the 1970s and 1980s

In studies of other parts of the world where examination of temporal changes in the
quantitative aspects of the archaeological record were included, population increase,
climatic/environmental change, intensification and increasing cultural and social complexity
also featured in explanatory and interpretive models. Many overseas studies used quantitative
data to describe processes involved in the change from a hunter-gatherer subsistence mode to a
farming (agriculture/animal domestication) and usually more sedentary lifestyle, or change
within post-hunter-gatherer periods (e.g., Willey 1953, 1956; Schwartz 1956; MacNeish 1964, 1973;
Binford 1968; Barker 1975). Other studies investigated temporal change within the period of
hunter-gatherer subsistence mode in Africa (Mazel 1989a, 1989b), Europe (Mellars 1973: 268–73;
Conkey 1978: 75–80; Gamble 1982, 1983, 1984; Bahn 1983; Bailey 1983b, 1983c, 1983d; Bailey et al.
1983; Clark and Straus 1983; Davidson 1983; Straus and Clark 1983) and America (Streuver 1968;
Bettinger 1977, 1981; M. Hall 1981), but the periods under study in Europe and Africa were at a
much earlier time than in the Americas and Australia. In Europe, they concerned the transition
from the Middle to the Upper Palaeolithic, and in Africa the periods from the time of ‘early tool-
using hominids’ (ca two million years ago) to the late-Holocene.
The following review of Australian studies divides the interpretations and
explanations of quantitative changes in the archaeological record into two main groups:
1. those that are based on the acceptance and/or assumption that the number of sites
and/or artefacts continued to increase until contact;
2. those that are based on the acceptance that there was a decrease in the number of sites
and/or artefacts in the late-Holocene.
Within each of these two groups, the interpretations and explanations proposed by
previous researchers are discussed under three headings:
1. Population change: this refers to changes in the number of people or size of the
population;
2. Behavioural change: changes in behaviour relating, for example, to tool manufacturing
and subsistence practices, and use of space within a site (this excludes explanations
that relate directly to demographic changes involving birth and death rates);
3. Natural processes: including geomorphological and biological processes which may
have affected the archaeological record. These processes have been proposed as
explanations only for the increases in the habitation indices (or to explain the lack of
or low numbers of early sites).
The evidence used by Lourandos for population increase in his model of late-Holocene
intensification is discussed under ‘Increases — population change’.
In the following review and discussions, I take a broad view of the term ‘population
change’ and include not only explanations which proposed general or continent-wide
population change, but also redistribution of regional and local populations, and changes in
the number of people- or person-days spent in a site or region. The population-change
explanations and most of those that come under behavioural change could be said to be based
on two opposing assumptions.
1. The population-change explanations are based on an assumption that the ratio
between the number of people (or number of person-days) and the number of
habitations and/or artefacts remained relatively constant over time, and therefore the
magnitude of the quantitative changes in the archaeological record is indicative of the
magnitude of the changes in population size (national, regional, or site specific).
2. The assumption underlying many of the behavioural-change explanations is that the
quantitative changes are the product of changes in behaviour associated with
habitations and stone artefacts, while the population size remained relatively stable.
That is, the ratio between the number of habitations and/or artefacts and the number
of people changed.
terra australis 21

13
 What’s changing: population size or land-use patterns? The archaeology of Upper Mangrove Creek, Sydney Basin

Smith (1982: 114), in discussing temporal changes in the quantity of occupational

debris within a site, referred to changes in the number of people per unit time (Assumption 1
above) as ‘simple functional change’, and to Assumption 2 as ‘a change in the rate of discard’,
which he called ‘complex functional change’.
The dichotomy is not as extreme as these two assumptions imply. Some of the
population-change advocates said that the magnitude of the changes in the archaeological
record is not necessarily equivalent to the magnitude of the change in the population size;
that is, the ratio between numbers of people and numbers of habitations/artefacts did not
necessarily remain constant over time (e.g., Ross 1984: 235, 1985: 83). If this is the case,
changes in behaviour associated with the use of habitations and/or artefacts must have
occurred at the same time as the number of people increased or decreased. Changes in
behaviour were probably associated with many of the population-change explanations
(particularly those relating to redistribution of populations and ‘intensity of site use’), so
the headings ‘Population change’ and ‘Behavioural change’ should not be taken too
literally.
In some of the studies reviewed, data presented by the researcher do not necessarily
support the trends perceived by the researcher and/or the conclusions they reached.
However, in this chapter I am interested in how perceived trends were interpreted and
explained, and the data used are examined later in Chapters 7 and 8.

‘Increases’ in the archaeological record

Most of the researchers who proposed interpretations and explanations for dramatic or
substantial increases in the quantitative aspects of the archaeological record drew their
conclusions from a specific set of regional data they had studied, although they often drew on
data from other regions for support (e.g., Hughes and Lampert 1982; Lourandos 1983a, 1985a;
1987; Morwood 1984, 1986, 1987). The discussions under each of the following headings are
therefore presented in terms of regions as much as being the conclusions of individual
researchers.

Population change
Explanations involving changes in numbers of people at a continental or regional scale have
been divided into General Population Increase, Redistribution of Populations, Increased
Intensity of Site Use, and Intensification and Increasing Social Complexity.

General population increase

Some of the earliest explanations involving population increase were put forward to account
for greater numbers of excavated sites with Bondaian assemblages than sites with pre-
Bondaian assemblages in south-eastern NSW (Wade 1967; Megaw and Roberts 1974; Tracey
1974). (For terminology and dating of stone artefact assemblages in south-eastern NSW, see
Table 3.6, and Chapter 3, Temporal sequences.) Other researchers postulated increasing
population as the explanation, or part of the explanation, for increases in quantitative aspects
of the archaeological record; the appearance of sites in less favourable and/or marginal areas
in the latter half of the Holocene; and/or an increasing use of offshore islands (e.g., Hallam
1972: 15, 1979: 10–12, 34; Lampert and Hughes 1974; Flood 1976: 32, 1980: 281–2, 1999: 248–9;
Lourandos 1980a, 1980b, 1983a, 1984, 1985a, 1985b, 1987; Ross 1981, 1982, 1984: 267, 1985;
Blackwell 1982; Hall 1982; Hughes and Lampert 1982; Sullivan 1982b: 16; Beaton 1983, 1985;
Morwood 1984: 369, 1987; Ferguson 1985: 453, 498; Williams 1985, 1988).

terra australis 21

14
 Increases and decreases in number of sites and artefacts: a review of interpretations and explanations of the 1970s and 1980s

Wade (1967: 39) was one of the earliest to comment on an increase over time in the
number of inhabited sites in the NSW south coast and Sydney region (I use the term ‘Sydney
region’ to refer to land south of the Hawkesbury River, east of the Blue Mountains and north
of Wollongong). Wade said that in the majority of sites excavated near Sydney, no evidence of
habitation was found earlier than the Bondaian or ‘microlithic phase’. He considered the
increase in site numbers to be ‘indicative of changes in settlement pattern probably due to an
increase in population’. He discounted the argument that the patterning may be due to non-
random selection of sites for excavation, and concluded that:
… the increased number of inhabited sites near Sydney indicates the exploitation of food
resources near these new sites, due to the pressure of population increase. (Wade 1967: 39)

Megaw and Roberts (1974: 9) stated that the evidence tended to suggest that the Bondaian
phase (which they called Phase II) was a key period for maximum population expansion.
Increasing implement and sediment accumulation rates at three sites on the NSW
south and central coasts (Bass Point, Burrill Lake and Curracurrang 1CU5/-) were used by
Lampert and Hughes (1974: 231–4) as a measure of ‘the intensity of site occupation’. Increases
in these two indices were used to support their view that the sites were used more intensively
over time which, in turn, they said, supported their hypothesis of population increase during
the last 7000 to 5000 years along coastal NSW. They argued that the increase in stone-working
coincided with the arrival of the Small Tool Tradition, but at the same time there was an
increase in the rate of human-induced sedimentation. The concurrence of the increase in
sedimentation and stone-working was seen as evidence supporting their hypothesis that the
sites were being used more frequently, rather than the view that the increase in stone-working
was simply due to the introduction of the Small Tool Tradition, that is, to qualitative changes
in the artefact assemblages.
Lampert and Hughes (1974: 231) considered that within the past 7000 to 5000 years,
two factors led to increased availability of marine food resources, which in turn would have
led to the increase in population:
1. changes in coastal morphology resulting from the sea remaining at more or less its
present level throughout the past 7000–5000 years, which extended the inter-tidal and
tidal zone; and,
2. the introduction of new fishing methods.
Lampert and Hughes (1974: 231) hypothesised that if, along the NSW coast, it was generally
true that hunter-gatherer population size was adjusted to the available subsistence resources,
then there was a significant increase in the population of this area within the past 7000–5000
years. They (1974: 233) acknowledged that the archaeological evidence is equivocal with
regard to demographic change, but believed it was outweighed by their ecological evidence.
They concluded, however, that it may have been a purely local rather than a large-scale
demographic episode, or it may simply reflect the arrival of coastal people at the present
shoreline.
In a later paper, Hughes and Lampert (1982: 19, 24–6) used accumulation rates for
implements and sedimentation as measures of the intensity of site occupation for five NSW
south coast sites: Burrill Lake, Bass Point, Currarong 1 and 2 and Sassafras 1. They noted that
it was after the sea reached its present position that the most dramatic increase took place —
a six- to tenfold increase on average in the last 5000 years. At the same time, they noted that
there is variation in the archaeological record at individual sites after 2000 BP:
… all of these sites show a marked intensification of site occupation during Holocene times that
continued at least up until 2000 BP. After that time the trends diverged in that at some sites the

terra australis 21

15
 Another Random Document on
Scribd Without Any Related Topics
 Tolly gave a wild dab at his red mat of stubble, muttered
inarticulately and fled.
“Oh, what made me do it, what? That horror will haunt me for a
week. What is Humphrey made of that he can endure the constant
sight of him? And now I remember, Mrs. Fellowes told me one day,
he nursed that awful thing for three weeks once, because it
whimpered at the thought of a hospital. Imagine that mouth, that
nose, that ghastly whole, in delirium, oh imagine the mere touch of
those flabby paws with their great red knobs—those knobs
fascinated me and, ugh! they have got into my eyes! Without doubt
I have a remarkable man for a husband! I wish, oh, I wish I had my
tea, I am dying for it, I think I must be tired.”
She sank down into a big chair and put her feet out to catch the
heat, then she put her hands up and set to to rub her eyes, in a
foolish futile effort to clear her whirling brain, and then Strange and
the tea came in.
“I have seen Tolly,” she said, giving him some tea.
“In that gown?”
“Yes.”
“Ah, that’s good, it may awaken some sense of religion in the
beggar. I have experimented on him with every variety of church,
and with a most mixed assortment of parsons, without the slightest
effect, but there is a certain divinity about you in that gown that may
appeal to the fellow—be the thin edge of the wedge, and lead to
higher things. It would be a new rôle for you to pose in, Gwen, as
an instrument of grace.”
“I think I should do better as an instrument of wrath,” she said,
with rather a strained smile; she felt a sudden impulse of loathing
against what Strange called her “divinity.”
“It is one of the things which keeps me so remote, so absolutely
aloof,” she thought hurriedly, “what do women want with divinity or
any other superhuman attribute? I believe Rossetti must have
thought of me for his ‘Lilith’.”
 She stood up half absently and looked into a mirror near at hand,
then she moved away suddenly with sneering lips and a quick flush.
“That’s not the fire!” her husband thought, “Oh Lord, what’s up
now?”
After a few minutes she went slowly over to the piano, and began
to play in a vague fitful way. Her husband dropped the paper he had
taken up, and listened. It struck him that her playing had altered, it
used to be mechanical and rather expressionless, no one could
accuse it of want of expression to-night, even if the expression did
limit itself to anger and unrest.
After a time she stopped playing, with one dissatisfied, disordered
chord, then there was a little pause which she broke by singing, first
softly and half humming, then she seemed to awaken with a start,
and she sang on, song after song, with a sort of excited vehemence.
Her voice was a low contralto, there was not a sharp nor a hard tone
in it, but there were some strong harsh ones, like the groans of
men, and some deep guttural ones, like the sighs of women; there
was no passion in her voice, but it was full of consuming soft
tumults of vague sad unrest.
“This is rather a pleasanter modification of her first storms!”
thought Strange. “What possibilities there are in that voice, I wonder
what would happen if I went over and tried to kiss that dead woman
into life! Pygmalion’s task was a fool to mine, what’s marble to an
undeveloped woman!”
He stood behind her and joined in with her song, his bass to her
contralto. The combination gave one rather a shock at first, but it
grew fascinating as they went on.
Gwen stopped suddenly in the middle of a song.
“I could not have believed our two voices could ever mix and
make completeness.”
“It is a ‘sport’.”
“I like explicable things best,” she said, peering out into the semi-
gloom.
 “You go about with a scalpel in your brain, Gwen! What a thing it
is to come of scientific stock!”
“Oh, it’s a diabolical thing for a woman!” said Gwen.
She shut the piano up softly—she never by any chance banged
things—and went upstairs to dress.
“I shall wear that silk that looks like flesh,” she said.
“I put it away your ladyship, you said you did not like it.”
“If you could get at it quite easily, I should like to wear it to-night.”
“That dress suggests good sound flesh and blood, with no remote
divinity about it,” she thought. “Oh, I wish I could let things be, and
stop poking about among mysteries. I will touch him to-night, yes, I
will. I wonder—I wonder—if I can possibly muster up strength for a
kiss.”
 CHAPTER XXX.

Mrs. Fellowes, meanwhile, was having a most unsatisfactory time

with the Park people; it seemed absolutely impossible to dig into
them or to be of any service to them. They were wearing her to skin
and bone, and she was meditating a change somewhere or other,
when one day, crossing the hall just after lunch, she heard a knock
at the door and opened it herself.
She found Mr. and Mrs. Waring standing in their normal attitude
and looking frightfully embarrassed; she saw at a glance that they
looked queerer than usual, and not feeling equal just at that minute
to face them alone, she carried them straight off to the dining-room.
“Ah, the Nineteenth Century, I perceive,” said Mr. Waring as soon
as he found himself in a chair, with his hat grasped in one hand and
the other on the edge of his knee with the fingers stretched out and
feeling nervously in a baulked way.
“In that last article of St. George Mivart’s,” continued Mr. Waring,
“we find a marked evidence of the deteriorating effect of any special
bias on a man’s mind. If this man were not an ardent churchman of
the Romish persuasion I have always thought he might have done
well in literary science, but as it is—it seems to me he has so much
confused the thread of his discourse as to render it comparatively
valueless by weaving into it, with most conscientious persistence,
stray fragments of the deductions he has drawn from his own crude
creed. This demands, on the reader’s part, a searching, sifting
process, which the intrinsic value of the gentleman’s articles to my
mind hardly warrants.”
 “Ah, you like your science neat,” said the rector, “so possibly might
I, if I had time to collect my own facts.”
“Ah, but for work that must last, time and an undivided mind are
necessities, no matter what the cause may be that clouds the brain.”
He looked at his wife, and his floating, near-sighted eyes grew dim
with tender pain, and the tendril-like movement of his fingers
increased.
He forgot St. George Mivart, and all at once it occurred to him why
he had come.
“Poor old boy, his punishment is horribly out of proportion to his
deserts,” thought the rector, as, in the pause that followed, he
caught snatches of the low-toned talk of the women, with Gwen’s
name entering largely into it, and saw Mrs. Waring’s face fixed on his
own wife with pathetic shy yearning, not veering round to her
husband with covert eagerness, as it used to do.
Mr. Fellowes caught himself echoing the other husband’s sigh, and
he laughed as the absurdity of the situation struck him.
“This must be stopped,” he thought, “it grows mawkish. I wonder
if they have forgotten to feed—more than likely. Ruth, have you
asked Mrs. Waring if she has lunched?”
“Indeed I haven’t!” she cried, “I don’t know what I can have been
thinking about.”
“Oh, please, Mrs. Fellowes,” stammered the little woman, then her
eyes turned towards their magnet.
Mr. Waring was at her side and with her hand in his, with a speed
that made Mrs. Fellowes gasp.
“The fact is, Mrs. Fellowes,” he explained heroically, “we were both
a little forgetful, we—we—” he paused painfully and gulped. “Ah!——
I”—
He repented the word sadly, it was the first time his conscience
had forced him to separate the two, and it hurt him. “Yes, I was
much absorbed in my work—and my wife, I think she is not very
well.”
 “I am quite well, dear,” she murmured.
“Ah, dearest, I doubt it. I thought some quinine might be
beneficial, Mrs. Fellowes. In fact, that was the primary motive of our
call.”
“Give her some claret for the present, and make her eat
something, wine and meat are as good as quinine any day.”
Mrs. Waring was the most docile creature breathing, she
swallowed obediently everything set before her, when suddenly a
little tremble ran all down her and shook her gently, and she let her
fork drop with a little clash.
She had caught sight just over the sideboard of one of Brydon’s
sketches of Gwen, that she had sent Mrs. Fellowes.
Her husband had not seen the picture, so he only pressed her
knife hand gently, and murmured, “Nerves!”
She went back obediently to her meal, and if they had given her
the whole of a chicken and a quart of claret, she would have
swallowed both without a murmur, so long as they let her get
finished and go close up to that picture.
Mr. Waring’s meal, on the contrary, was very interesting to him,
and he enjoyed it with a zest that set him playing at a quite new and
charming departure in classification. A graceful pretty house-mother
moving on the field of his vision, and supplying every unspoken want
of his, was a pleasing variation.
“A charming type, this serving woman,” he reflected, regarding her
with gentle favour, “charming. By no means a unique or even an
unusual one, but really quite charming and pleasant to observe. In
that woman the maternal instinct will be found in a very advanced
state of development—and yet, if I recollect aright,” he started,
frowning, and pausing, with a morsel of meat on his fork, he
contemplated her curiously, “Yes, I believe my recollections are
accurate, she has never had any children and probably, after this
lapse of time, will not produce any. Very strange indeed, very
strange, another of those most puzzling instances of Nature’s waste.”
 He sighed and reflected a little on Mrs. Fellowes as she helped his
wife to cream, then he went rather sadly to his tart, feeling a slight
tinge of contempt for Nature’s inconsistency.
When Mrs. Waring had consumed as much nourishment as her
entertainers thought fit for her, Mr. Fellowes went over to the
sideboard, unhooked the sketch, and propped it against the claret
jug.
“The colouring is good, isn’t it?” he said. “Gwen sent it to us last
week.”
Mrs. Waring threw up her head and looked at the rector’s wife,
then her face flooded with pink, and there came a pain into her
heart that she had never felt before. For the first time in her seven-
and-thirty years this little woman was jealous.
“Gwen gave it!” she repeated. “Henry, do you think Gwen would
give us one?”
There was a perceptible choke in her voice, and she put up her
little hand to her throat with a swift movement.
“My love!” he said in a rather frightened way, “we could hardly ask
our daughter for such a very valuable present.”
“I suppose we could not,” she said, with sweet humility.
“My reasonable, my docile one!” he thought, with tender
satisfaction, “better a thousand times than any other female type,
serving or otherwise.”
He might have felt more disturbed if he had had the merest ghost
of a notion as to the causes of her humility, which had less to do
with him than he would altogether have relished. With all this
congestion of novel emotion the woman was losing her pristine
transparency.
“What are your plans for the afternoon?” asked the rector. “You
know that even the ordinary decencies of civilization have to be
shunted in a parson’s life, I must be off in five minutes. Are you on
for a walk, Waring?”
 “I!—Oh, thank you, but, we—I—we—” he caught nervously on to
his wife’s eyes, “we—we are very much engaged just now. We just
called concerning this matter of quinine, and we have already
absorbed too much of your time; untimely visitors are a keen trial—
my wife and I have suffered much from this form of affliction.”
The rector laughed.
“Visitors are a brutal bane, ninety per cent. of them, but you two
are most marked exceptions. We can go as far as the Park, anyway,
for that is on my way, and I know my wife has designs on yours—
you won’t get her back much before dinner time.”
Mr. Waring turned round with a start.
“Is this the case?” he asked blankly.
“I would like to stay,” said Mrs. Waring softly, but she hung her
head and did not look at her husband.
He looked at her, however, and his brows lifted themselves. He
turned with solemnity to Mrs. Fellowes.
“Pray consider this question of quinine,” he said, “and let us know
the result—our experience is quite insufficient to go on.”
“You are quite welcome to all mine,” said Mrs. Fellowes laughing.
He turned to his wife again. “Good-bye, my love. I hope I shall be
able to get on with my work, but—ahem—this upsets one sadly.”
Mrs. Fellowes went to her husband in the hall just then and they
were alone.
“This is quite unusual, love—are you wise to remain?” he said.
Mrs. Waring’s eyes wandered to Gwen’s picture.
“I would like to stay,” she said, then suddenly she bent towards
him and the pink deepened on her cheeks, “but I will go if you like.”
“I wish you to do just as you like yourself, love.”
He loosed his hand gently from her clasp and followed Mrs.
Fellowes into the hall, his fingers twitching.
In an instant she was after him and making for her hat when Mrs.
Fellowes caught her.
 “Come to the door and see them off,” she remarked innocently,
drawing her arm through her own.
When she had seen them off the premises, Mrs. Fellowes shut her
guest up with the picture and went to dress, then she scurried her
off to the village, where they spent a rather remarkable two hours.
Mrs. Fellowes’ companion was first discovered by an urchin who
was making mud pies in a gutter. At the first shock of his find, he
gave a whoop and turned a summersault back into the dust, then he
uplifted himself and fled with the news, despatching scouts to right
and left on his progress.
When the ladies reached the village they found it all agog, every
door was full of faces, and the howls of scrubbing infancy arose from
every yard.
Mrs. Waring looked shy and twitched a good deal, but on the
whole she bore herself gallantly.
The mothers embarrassed her, they seemed to expect
conversation, and this was even the case with the children; she
could just smile at them, however, and be silent. It was among the
babies she shone, not, indeed, in her mode of holding them—she did
that with her fingers, delicately, as if they were pens—but she got so
eager over them, so full of interest, asked so many anxious
questions as to their appetites, and gave such amazing hints
concerning their management that she made an impression on the
village such as astonished the oldest inhabitant, and set the
women’s tongues wagging at a rate to surprise even their husbands.
It was an event, an epoch-making day in the village of Waring,
when the squire’s wife stepped in bodily presence in and out of its
houses, and disseminated useful knowledge concerning the human
infant.
When Gwen heard of it, in the same letter that told her to send
her mother a sketch of herself without delay, she laughed
sarcastically.
“This is dishonest of Mrs. Fellowes!” she cried with a little stamp,
“how dare she make all this fresh phase of lunacy into a pathetic
story? There is a ring of false sentiment through the whole
business.”

END OF VOL. II.

 Messrs. HUTCHINSON & Co’s.

LIBRARY EDITION OF POPULAR NOVELS

BY AUTHORS OF THE DAY.

In cloth, gilt top, 2s. 6d. each.

The Guardian says:—Messrs. Hutchinson’s Popular Library is really a

most promising and remarkable sign of the times. Here we have the
old-established novel docked of its superfluous spaces and margins,
and offered to the reader neatly bound, nicely printed, comfortable
to handle, with plenty of matter and interest, and all for the modest
sum of 2s. 6d.
BY MRS. RIDDELL.
Austin Friars.
Too Much Alone.
The Rich Husband.
Maxwell Drewitt.
Far above Rubies.
A Life’s Assize.
The World in the Church.
Home, Sweet Home.
Phemie Keller.
The Race for Wealth.
The Earl’s Promise.
Mortomley’s Estate.
Frank Sinclair’s Wife.
The Ruling Passion.
My First and My Last Love.
City and Suburb.
Above Suspicion.
Joy after Sorrow.

BY FLORENCE MARRYAT.
Miss Harrington’s Husband.
Mount Eden.
Gerald Estcourt.
Love’s Conflict.
Too Good for Him.
Woman against Woman.
For Ever and Ever.
Nelly Brooke.
Veronique.
Her Lord and Master.
The Prey of the Gods.
The Girls of Feversham.
Mad Dumaresq.
No Intentions.
Petronel.

BY JOSEPH HATTON.
A Modern Ulysses.
By Order of the Czar.
Clytie.
The Tallants of Barton.
In the Lap of Fortune.
The Valley of Poppies.
Not in Society.
Christopher Kenrick.
Cruel London.
The Queen of Bohemia.
Bitter Sweets.

BY J. SHERIDAN LEFANU.
 Checkmate.
All in the Dark.
Guy Deverell.
The Rose and the Key.
Tenants of Mallory.
Willing to Die.
Wylder’s Hand.

BY F. W. ROBINSON.
Christie’s Faith.
Carry’s Confession.
Under the Spell.
The House of Elmore.
Milly’s Hero.
Mr. Stewart’s Intentions.
No Man’s Friend.
Wild Flowers.
Poor Humanity.
Owen, a Waif.
Woodleigh.
A Woman’s Ransom.
Mattie, a Stray.
Slaves of the Ring.
One and Twenty.

BY G. A. SALA.
Quite Alone.

BY HELEN MATHERS.
 Sam’s Sweetheart.

BY SIDNEY S. HARRIS.
The Sutherlands.
Rutledge.
Christine.

BY ANNIE THOMAS.
On Guard.
Walter Goring.

BY M. BETHAM EDWARDS.
Love and Mirage.

BY IZA DUFFUS HARDY.

The Girl he did not Marry.

BY JOHN COLEMAN.
The White Ladye of Rosemount.

BY COLONEL WALMSLEY.
Branksome Dene.
 BY SIR JULIUS VOGEL, K.C.M.G.
A. D. 2000; or, Woman’s Destiny.

LONDON: HUTCHINSON & CO., 34 Paternoster Row.

SELECTIONS FROM

MESSRS. HUTCHINSON’S LIST.

BY W. L. REES.
The Life and Times of Sir George Grey. K.C.B. By
W. L. Rees. With Photogravure Portraits. In demy 8vo. buckram gilt,
2 vols. 32/-. and in one vol. 12/-.
The Daily Telegraph (Leader) says:—“A work of extraordinary
interest.”

BY DOUGLAS SLADEN.
The Japs at Home. With over 50 Full-Page and other
Illustrations. Third edition. In demy 8vo. cloth, 6/-.
The Times says:—“His notes and impressions make capital
reading, and we feel on closing the volume that it is not a bad
substitute for a visit to Japan.”

BY GILBERT PARKER.
Round the Compass in Australia. Demy 8vo. cloth gilt,
fully illustrated, 3/6.
The Pall Mall Gazette says:—“Mr. Parker may fairly claim to have
produced one of the most readable of recent works on Australia.”
 BY MRS. OLIPHANT.
The Cuckoo in the Nest. A Fifth Edition. With Illustrations
by G. H. Edwards. In crown 8vo. cloth gilt, 6s.
The Athenæum says:—“Mrs. Oliphant’s most successful novel.”

BY F. FRANKFORT MOORE.
“I Forbid the Banns.” The Story of a Comedy which was
played seriously. Sixth Edition. Cr. 8vo. cloth gilt, 6/-.
The Athenæum says:—“So racy and brilliant a novel.”

By the author of “I FORBID THE BANNS.”

Daireen. A Novel. Second Edition. In crown 8vo. cloth gilt, 6/-.

BY CLARK RUSSELL.
The Tragedy of Ida Noble. With over Forty full-page and
smaller Illustrations by Everard Hopkins. In crown 8vo. buckram gilt,
gilt top, 6/-.
The Times says:—“Mr. Clark Russell has never written a better
story than ‘The Tragedy of Ida Noble.’”

BY AMELIA E. BARR.
A Singer from the Sea. In crown 8vo. cloth gilt, 5/-.

BY ANNIE S. SWAN.
A Bitter Debt. A Tale of the Black Country. With Illustrations by
D. Murray Smith. In cr. 8vo., cloth gilt, 5/-.
 BY B. L. FARJEON.
The Last Tenant. A Novel. In crown 8vo. cloth gilt, 5/-.
The Globe says:—“In ‘The Last Tenant’ Mr. B. L. Farjeon shows all
his old skill as a plot-weaver, and all his usual ingenuity in the choice
and arrangement of incidents.... ‘The Last Tenant’ is a capital tale.”

BY MRS. W. K. CLIFFORD.
A Wild Proxy. By the Author of “Aunt Anne.” In crown 8vo.,
cloth gilt, 3s. 6d.
The Athenæum says:—“Strikingly original, clever, fresh, cynical,
epigrammatic, stimulating, picturesque.”

BY DICK DONOVAN.
From Clue to Capture. A Series of Thrilling Detective
Stories. With numerous Illustrations by Paul Hardy. In crown 8vo.,
cloth gilt, 3s. 6d.

BY TWENTY-FOUR DISTINGUISHED NOVELISTS

The Fate of Fenella. Fourth Edition. In crown 8vo., cloth
gilt, with over 70 Original Illustrations, 3s. 6d.
The Authors are:—Helen Mathers, Justin H. M’Carthy, Mrs. Trollope,
A. Conan Doyle, May Crommelin, F. C. Phillips, “Rita,” Joseph Hatton,
Mrs. Lovett Cameron, Bram Stoker, Florence Marryat, Frank Danby,
Mrs. Edward Kennard, Richard Dowling, Mrs. Hungerford, Arthur
A’Beckett, G. Manville Fenn, Jean Middlemass, H. W. Lucy, Clo. Graves,
F. Anstey, “Tasma,” Clement Scott, and Adeline Sergeant.
The Academy says:—“An ingenious success.”

By the author of “BY ORDER OF THE CZAR.”

Under the Great Seal. By Joseph Hatton, Third Edition. In
crown 8vo. cloth, 3/6.
The Daily Telegraph says:—“This thrilling story, every salient
incident is more or less tragical.”

BY SEVEN POPULAR AUTHORS.

Seven Christmas Eves. Being the Romance of a Social
Evolution. By Clo. Graves, B. L. Farjeon, Florence Marryat, G.
Manville Fenn, Mrs. Campbell Praed, Justin Huntly McCarthy, and
Clement Scott. With 28 Original Illustrations by Dudley Hardy. In cr.
8vo, cloth gilt, 3s. 6d.

BY H. B. MARRIOT-WATSON.
The Web of the Spider. A Story of New Zealand
Adventure. With Frontispiece by Stanley S. Wood. Cr. 8vo. cloth gilt,
3s. 6d.
The Times says:—“We are quite unable to give any idea of the
thrilling events.... It is magnificent.”
LONDON: HUTCHINSON & CO., 34 Paternoster Row.

Transcriber’s Note

This book uses inconsistent spelling and hyphenation, which were

retained in the ebook version. Ditto marks used to represent
repeated text have been replaced with the text that they represent.
Some corrections have been made to the text, including normalizing
punctuation. Further corrections are noted below:
p. 10: The misery I have to endureit wh servants -> The misery I
have to endure with servants
*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK A YELLOW ASTER,
VOLUME 2 (OF 3) ***

Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions

will be renamed.

Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S.

copyright law means that no one owns a United States
copyright in these works, so the Foundation (and you!) can copy
and distribute it in the United States without permission and
without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, set forth in the
General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to copying and
distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the
PROJECT GUTENBERG™ concept and trademark. Project
Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if
you charge for an eBook, except by following the terms of the
trademark license, including paying royalties for use of the
Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for
copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is
very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such
as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and
research. Project Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and
printed and given away—you may do practically ANYTHING in
the United States with eBooks not protected by U.S. copyright
law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark license, especially
commercial redistribution.

START: FULL LICENSE

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
 PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK

To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the

free distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this
work (or any other work associated in any way with the phrase
“Project Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of
the Full Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or
online at www.gutenberg.org/license.

Section 1. General Terms of Use and

Redistributing Project Gutenberg™
electronic works
1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™
electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand,
agree to and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual
property (trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree
to abide by all the terms of this agreement, you must cease
using and return or destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™
electronic works in your possession. If you paid a fee for
obtaining a copy of or access to a Project Gutenberg™
electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the terms
of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or
entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.

1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only

be used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by
people who agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement.
There are a few things that you can do with most Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works even without complying with the
full terms of this agreement. See paragraph 1.C below. There
are a lot of things you can do with Project Gutenberg™
electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement and
help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™
electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.
1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the
Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the
collection of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the
individual works in the collection are in the public domain in the
United States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright
law in the United States and you are located in the United
States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from copying,
distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative works
based on the work as long as all references to Project
Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope that you will
support the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting free
access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg™
works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for
keeping the Project Gutenberg™ name associated with the
work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement
by keeping this work in the same format with its attached full
Project Gutenberg™ License when you share it without charge
with others.

1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also
govern what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most
countries are in a constant state of change. If you are outside
the United States, check the laws of your country in addition to
the terms of this agreement before downloading, copying,
displaying, performing, distributing or creating derivative works
based on this work or any other Project Gutenberg™ work. The
Foundation makes no representations concerning the copyright
status of any work in any country other than the United States.

1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project

Gutenberg:

1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other

immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must
appear prominently whenever any copy of a Project
Gutenberg™ work (any work on which the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” appears, or with which the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed,
viewed, copied or distributed:

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United

States and most other parts of the world at no cost and
with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it,
give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project
Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at
www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United
States, you will have to check the laws of the country
where you are located before using this eBook.

1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is

derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not
contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of
the copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to
anyone in the United States without paying any fees or charges.
If you are redistributing or providing access to a work with the
phrase “Project Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the
work, you must comply either with the requirements of
paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use
of the work and the Project Gutenberg™ trademark as set forth
in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is

posted with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and
distribution must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through
1.E.7 and any additional terms imposed by the copyright holder.
Additional terms will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™
License for all works posted with the permission of the copyright
holder found at the beginning of this work.

1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project

Gutenberg™ License terms from this work, or any files
 containing a part of this work or any other work associated with
Project Gutenberg™.

1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute

this electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1
with active links or immediate access to the full terms of the
Project Gutenberg™ License.

1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form,
including any word processing or hypertext form. However, if
you provide access to or distribute copies of a Project
Gutenberg™ work in a format other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or
other format used in the official version posted on the official
Project Gutenberg™ website (www.gutenberg.org), you must,
at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a copy,
a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy
upon request, of the work in its original “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or
other form. Any alternate format must include the full Project
Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.

1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,

performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™
works unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or

providing access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™
electronic works provided that:

• You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive
from the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the
method you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The
fee is owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark,
but he has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to
the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty
 payments must be paid within 60 days following each date on
which you prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your
periodic tax returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked
as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation at the address specified in Section 4, “Information
about donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation.”

• You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who

notifies you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt
that s/he does not agree to the terms of the full Project
Gutenberg™ License. You must require such a user to return or
destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium
and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of
Project Gutenberg™ works.

• You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of

any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in
the electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90
days of receipt of the work.

• You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.

1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project

Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different
terms than are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain
permission in writing from the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation, the manager of the Project Gutenberg™
trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3
below.

1.F.

1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend

considerable effort to identify, do copyright research on,
transcribe and proofread works not protected by U.S. copyright
law in creating the Project Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these
efforts, Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, and the medium
on which they may be stored, may contain “Defects,” such as,
but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or corrupt data,
transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual property
infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a
computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be
read by your equipment.

1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except

for the “Right of Replacement or Refund” described in
paragraph 1.F.3, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation, the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark,
and any other party distributing a Project Gutenberg™ electronic
work under this agreement, disclaim all liability to you for
damages, costs and expenses, including legal fees. YOU AGREE
THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT
EXCEPT THOSE PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE
THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY
DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE LIABLE
TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL,
PUNITIVE OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE
NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you

discover a defect in this electronic work within 90 days of
receiving it, you can receive a refund of the money (if any) you
paid for it by sending a written explanation to the person you
received the work from. If you received the work on a physical
medium, you must return the medium with your written
explanation. The person or entity that provided you with the
defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu
of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person
or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second
opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund.
Welcome to Our Bookstore - The Ultimate Destination for Book Lovers
Are you passionate about books and eager to explore new worlds of
knowledge? At our website, we offer a vast collection of books that
cater to every interest and age group. From classic literature to
specialized publications, self-help books, and children’s stories, we
have it all! Each book is a gateway to new adventures, helping you
expand your knowledge and nourish your soul
Experience Convenient and Enjoyable Book Shopping Our website is more
than just an online bookstore—it’s a bridge connecting readers to the
timeless values of culture and wisdom. With a sleek and user-friendly
interface and a smart search system, you can find your favorite books
quickly and easily. Enjoy special promotions, fast home delivery, and
a seamless shopping experience that saves you time and enhances your
love for reading.
Let us accompany you on the journey of exploring knowledge and
personal growth!

ebookgate.com