Archaeological evidence in the De Rose Hill native title claim

Josephine McDonaldJo McDonald Cultural Heritage Management Pty Ltd

Abstract: This paper examines the nature of some of thearchaeological evidence used in the De Rose Hill native titleclaim. The archaeological evidence was not a point ofcontestation in this claim. Archaeological evidence gatheredby the claimants archaeologist and the Crowns archae-ologist was seen as supporting several important componentsof the Native Title Act 1993. The methodological implic-ations of collecting evidence for native title claims arediscussed in terms of the broader ramifications for archaeol-ogical practice.

Introduction

This paper examines the nature of some of thearchaeological evidence used in the De Rose Hillnative title claim. It discusses aspects of the workcommissioned by the Native Title Section of the SouthAustralian Crown Solicitors Office (CSO) (McDonald2000a).1 Both the nature of archaeological evidencesought by the CSO in relation to the claimed land isdiscussed, as is the form that this data collection took.Also considered is the claimants archaeological report(Veth 1998) and the archaeological methodology usedin its construction. The Yankunytjatjara peoples madethis native title claim. This native title case was thefirst heard by the Federal Court of Australia inrelation to a pastoral lease. The first respondent wasthe Crown, the second respondent the pastoralists.

The archaeological evidence was not a point ofcontestation in this claim. The archaeological evidencegathered by the claimants archaeologist and theCrowns archaeologist was seen as supporting severalimportant components of the Native Title Act 1993: There was evidence of an identifiable society or

community in occupation of the claim area at thetime of British acquisition of sovereignty of thatarea.

There was evidence of maintained connectionwith the land, by dint of (as far as practicable)continuing traditional customs, laws and practices.The methodological implications of collecting

evidence for native title claims is discussed in terms ofthe broader ramifications for archaeological practice.At De Rose Hill, the archaeological fieldwork wasclaimant-driven on one side and motivated by avalidation exercise on the other. The claim took placein a region that is well understood archaeologicallyand anthropologically in its broader sense (i.e. theWestern Desert cultural bloc) but in the completeabsence of local contextual research (i.e. previous sitesurvey, recording, excavation and so on).

The absence of contestation in this processthe result of both sides reaching similar conclusionswith regards to the nature of the archaeologicalevidence on the landdemonstrated that testing of

30 Australian Aboriginal Studies 2005/1

Archaeological evidence in the De Rose Hillnative title claim

Australian Aboriginal Studies 2005/1 31

Archaeological evidence in the De Rose Hill native title claimMcDonald

archaeological issues does not have to be counterpro-ductive nor acrimonious. While the Federal Courtsinstructions to native title expert witnesses states thatthis role is not to be seen as adversarial, there aremany examples of this occurringparticularly withanthropological evidenceand particularly wherethe Crown is aggressively contesting native title.

The data collection process on both sides wassometimes at considerable variance to the conventionalmanner in which systematic survey and documen-tation of archaeological evidence is usually collected,be it for research or cultural heritage management.Archaeological research usually aims to purposivelysample and document landscapes in a manner thatallows predictive statements to be made, patterns ofoccupation to be gleaned and falsifiable conclusionsto be drawn. Veths initial recording of the archae-ological evidence was at the behest of the claimants. Itfocused on sites known to the claimantsandlocations that were of contemporary importance tothe claimants (mythological, evidence for residenceand historic association). The claimants targeted sites for which they had knowledge and memory ofuse. The recording exercise by the Crown involvedfinding the claimants sites, and validating the earlierrecordings (usually in the absence of claimants). Thishighlighted that archaeologists, if left to their owndevices, conventionally collect different types of data(assuming levels of competence and vigilance). Forinstance, if interested in open site archaeology, anarchaeologist would not usually record a specificpoint location within an open artefact scatter in theabsence of its broader manifestations (i.e. continualartefact distributions with variable densities and focialong hundreds of metres of creekline). Similarly, in acomplex of rock-art shelters, it would be unconven-tional to record only evidence from one shelter whenthere were five more within close proximityand aclinal evidence of stone artefacts between this and anearby claypan open site. Archaeologists usuallyendeavour to understand an archaeological landscapein terms of its overall presence and interspatialpatterningto understand how a site fits within anetwork of related features.

A random stratified or systematic approach todata collection across a landscape may well result in amore comprehensive documentation of all surfacearchaeological evidence in a broad landscape sense.Arguably what are recorded, however, are thepalimpsests of long-term occupation. On the otherhand, the claimants have selectively identified those

aspects of the archaeological record that are ofimportance to them. The approach taken by theCrowns archaeologistusing GPS tracking techn-ology but initially in the absence of knowledgeabletraditional ownersmeant that sites not recorded bythe claimants archaeologist were often locatedif atthe expense of multiple flat tyres! The claimantsarguably recognise the presence of archaeologicalevidence distributed more widely across the land, butthey were only interested in identifying those aspects that had meaning to them and their claim.Archaeologists often spend many field seasons,excavations and multiple dating exercises attemptingto distinguish, in this manner, sets of contemporaryand interrelated sites in a landscape.

The advent of native title driven archaeologicalresearch means that archaeologists in the 1990s andnew millennium are seeking methodologies andprocesses for dealing with the recent pastthesettlerAboriginal interface. This is a very differenttimeframe from that sought by early Australianarchaeologists where the quest for deep time andhuman arrivals on this continent drove many researchagendas. And it results in a very different archaeologyto the conventional regional syntheses that havedominated archaeological discourse over the last twodecades (Moser 1994).

This focus on the near contemporary is not a newconcept, and there has been a significant increase insettler (contact) and/or community-based archaeol-ogical approaches, theorising and analyses whichcontextualise its import (Beck & Somerville 1995; BirdRose 2000; Birmingham 2000; Clarke 2000; Field et al.2000; Godwin & LOste Brown 2004; Harrison 2000,2004; McIntyre-Tamwoy 2004; Mitchell 2000; Torrence& Clarke 2000; Veth 2000b; Williamson 2004). Clarkeswork on Groote Eylandt in the Northern Territoryencapsulates the manner in which a community-based approach structured her design and conduct offieldwork projects, modifying what she had initiallyintended would be a traditional approach (Clarke2000:1746). Methodologically, native title work isdifferent because of the nature of the process thatrequires its collection (i.e. constrained by time andalready hugely expensive). As a result, archaeologyderiving from this process is fundamentally directedat the documentation of pastoral domains, gover-nment depots, fringe camps, missions and otherremote area settings as the nexus for cross-culturalinteraction (Paterson 2005). This can be done to theexclusion of the basic archaeological frameworks,



which usually provide a chronology of occupation,cultural sequences and evidence for human relation-ships to environmental changes (Clarke 2000:175).

The types of archaeological evidence which areconsidered to have relevance to native title are welldocumented (e.g. Godwin & LOste Brown 2004;Roberts 2001; Veth 2000b:83; Veth & McDonald 2004).As has been pointed out, however, the materialsignature of this time period is often ephemeral(Colley & Bickford 1996; Sadr 2002). The introductionof new material culture into the social and economicrepertoire (e.g. introduced fauna, tin cans, glass andwire) will often have been affected by the powerdynamic of the cross-cultural interaction. Rationing,methods of payment (to stockmen), social arrangementin Aboriginal camps on pastoral stations (isolatedstockmen/shepherds, larger family groupings), thecost of the goods, distance of the station from supplyzones, and so on, will all have affected the likelihoodof archaeological evidence persisting in large enoughquantities to register in the archaeological record.Scarce commodities and recycling of these have alsooften modified the archaeological record and reducedthe archaeological trace. As well as socioeconomicfactors affecting their material remains, taphonomicprocesses similarly conspire to affect the likelysurvival of this type of evidence. Many Aboriginalcamps, especially those close to homesteads, wereoften cleaned with tractors, bulldozers and/or fire(Paterson 2005:287). There is also evidence of entireAboriginal Reserves being removed lock, stock andbarrel to new locations, leaving few surface vestigesattesting that the reserve ever existed (Godwin &LOste Brown 2004:202). The types of evidence thatcan be recorded to document early cross-culturalcontact, and which might assist in the documenting ofclaimant-connected archaeology, may, at best, beephemeral (there are, of course, many large outstationsand depots that are still relatively intact, such asOoldea).

The manner in which archaeological evidence iscollected for native title claims reflects time constraintsand the very specific questions being asked of theevidence by the courts. Is there archaeologicalevidence indicating that Aboriginal people used theclaim prior to sovereignty and at/after contact and isthere evidence that their persistent use of these landsinvolved traditional practice?

In the absence of previous research and/orrecording work within claim areas, the most effic-ient and cost-effective way to collect archaeological

evidence is by targeting sites with contemporarysignificance, with the assistance of claimants. In thisprocess, archaeologists need to also be able to broadentheir focus to identify potentially older sites or siteswhich contain evidence of non-contemporary signifi-cance. This does not necessarily weaken the claimantsevidence; it merely enforces the long-term nature ofoccupation on the land and the way that land usepractices have changed over time.

The way that archaeological evidence was gatheredfor the De Rose native title claim was in some waysunconventional in terms of then standard archaeo-logical practice, in that it focused on selected sites andinvolved recording of surface features only.2 This,however, is now becoming commonplace in nativetitle determinations, and is aided by a burgeoningbroad literature on settler and cross-cultural inter-action. In the absence of detailed archaeologicalresearch, and given the constraints of time, thisapproach is necessary if not totally desirable. The DeRose Hill claim also highlighted the relevance of rockart as archaeological evidence both to this claim andto native title determinations generally (McDonald2000b; Veth & McDonald 2004). This is discussedfurther below.

De Rose Hill archaeological evidence

Because of the absence of systematic archaeologicalwork on the land, both the claimants and therespondents archaeologists had to rely on broaderregional analysis to provide the archaeologicalcontext for the evidence collected on the claim. Theclaim is situated in the arid zone just south of theSouth Australia Northern Territory border. The aridzone has been the subject of archaeological researchsince the late 1970s (Gould 1977; Hayden 1977). MikeSmith (1987, 1988, 1993) in Central Australia andothers working in the broader Western Desert culturalbloc (Cane 1990; Thorley 1998; Veth 1993, 1996, 2000a)have developed models for the colonisation andsubsequent habitation of the arid zone.

Most researchers agree that settlement of even themost forbidding desert environments had occurredbefore the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM), before 20 000 years BP (Veth et al. 2005). It is generallyagreed that the ramified social networks recordedethnographically have functioned for at least 1000years and possibly for as much as 5000 years (Smith2005; Veth 2000a, 2005). The social organisation ofWestern Desert people is anthropologically described



as a large open network of overlapping andinterlocking social affiliations (Berndt 1966, 1972;Sackett 1987; Tonkinson 1991). Anthropologicalstudies have formed the basis for most archaeologicalresearch. This model has been reinforced and refinedby archaeological evidence and research.

Within this well-understood framework foroccupation, the De Rose Hill evidence was appraised.Certain temporal markers were observed at a range ofsites. There is no excavated archaeological evidencefrom the claim area to provide scientific proof as toexactly how long this landscape has been occupied byAboriginal people. At one rockshelter there is evidencefor great antiquity in rock-art production. Thisrockshelter has deeply patinated, pecked circle andtrack engravings that are coated in desert varnish. Atthis and several other rock-art shelters there isevidence for a number of episodes of art production.The range of raw materials was consistent withlocalised resource use as well as the less common useof exotic materials. The patterned distribution of sitesacross the landscape was also predictable in terms ofbroader arid zone patterns.

There is extensive archaeological evidence, in arange of site types, across the De Rose Hill claim area.This provides conclusive evidence for the long-term occupation of the claim area by Aboriginalpeople, prior to sovereignty. This conclusion wasreached by both the claimants and the respondentsarchaeologists.

At a number of sites, elements were identifiedamong the assemblages that indicated continuingtraditional practices after European contact. Theseincluded pastoral elements being incorporated intotraditional site types, such as fencing wire used intraditional wiltje (dome-shaped bough) structures,and metal axes used to produce wooden artefacts.They also included, to a lesser extent, modified glassand pottery and other materials occurring on abackground of traditional camping evidence. Evidenceof this nature included the use of traditional paintingtechniques to depict post-contact subjects, such as thepainting of a man with a gun, on a horse.

The claimants submitted for radiocarbon determi-nation charcoal from hearths they reported usingduring and just before the pastoral period. Three ofthese dates returned indistinguishable-from-modernage determinations. The fourth sample returned adate of c. 430 years BP. The three modern dates providearchaeologically derived evidence that supportscamping on the claim area within living memory. The

older age determination (i.e. beyond living memory)is not a refutation of the claimants memories. Thiscould either indicate the burning of old wood(Barbetti 1996; McDonald et al. 1990), or demonstratethat some camping locations were repeatedly usedover the centuries, as might be reasonably expected.

Both sides of the claim identified and recognisedthe presence of archaeological evidence for continuingtraditional practices incorporating settler materialsand/or graphics. There were identified shortcomingsin the archaeological evidence in terms of providingsupport (or not) for the claim. This involved standardarchaeological dilemmas: the inability of stone tools to demonstrate

exclusive ethnicity; and an absence of regional rock-art analysis disallowing

specific conclusions regarding possible ethnicinformation residing in the local rock-art variabilitywithin the claim area.The fact that the claimants identified 40 sites to

their archaeologist (Veth 1998) was argued by theclaimants as evidence that they knew, owned and hadconnections to the land. This knowledge was notchallenged by the Crown, although the nature of theconnection to the sites was questioned: how does onedistinguish between traditional use and useconnected with pastoral duties throughout this period(cf. Sadr 2002)?

The nature of the claimants archaeological report

Veths (1998) report provided a summary of thearchaeological evidence documenting different attach-ments to the land. The report provides an environ-mental context for the claim area and summarised thearchaeological literature for the Western Desertcultural bloc. The report also documented 40 fieldsites with detailed recordings and photographs. Thereport was based on the results of a single eight-dayfield trip completed in 1998 with approximately 30claimants. The claimants fieldwork had to contendwith an aggrieved pastoralist (e.g. access arranged byCourt order).

The stated aim of the fieldwork was to documentsites known to the claimants in a range of contexts. No previous systematic research had been carried outon the land, and there were no known sites in theSouth Australian state register for this area either(although sites had been recorded on adjacentpastoral leases, and on the Pitjantjatjara Lands locatedon the western boundary of the claim). Veth ordered



his documentation according to seven majorcategories of evidence (representing common lawparticulars of relevance to the Native Title Act 1993): Possession, camping and residence Hunting and gathering food Building and using shelter Using water Digging for and using stones, ochres and minerals Travelling Contemporary connections.

Veth concluded that the archaeological evidencedemonstrated irrefutably pre-contact use of the claimarea by Aboriginal people. This took the form ofhabitation sites (in rockshelters and open contexts),art production, quarry sites, and seed processinglocations. The archaeological evidence presented alsodemonstrated ongoing traditional use of the claimarea, including: the use of pastoral/post-contact materials in

traditional structures; a number of recent (i.e. indistinguishable from

modern) age determinations from charcoal hearthfeatures in designated camping sites around theclaim area; and

traditional fauna (kangaroo) being cooked in oneof these recently used charcoal hearth features onthe claim area.Veth documented that the claimants had full

knowledge of all the field sites visited and docum-ented by him. The claimants had names for these sitesand knew of narratives connecting some of themmythologically.

Producing a respondents report: the nature of vettingVeth

I was initially contacted by the CSO in late 1997. Atthis time they were seeking the services of a suitablyqualified expert witness to assist in the De Rose Hillclaim, and in particular wanted advice on the archae-ological report to be produced by the claimants. Atthis stage no fieldwork/reporting had been completed.My initial response was one of aversion to beingdrawn into an adversarial contest, particularly on theside of a party testing native title. I was assured,however, that the Federal Courts guidelines wereclear: that experts provide evidence to the court, andthat this is not adversarial in nature. On this basis myinvolvement in the claim began.

Three visits were made to the De Rose Hill claimarea during the preparation of my response. The aims

of these visits were to familiarise myself (and theCrowns legal team) with the claim area, to form anopinion about the archaeological evidence across theclaim area and to validate the recordings made by theclaimants archaeologist.

The first visit took place in November 1998, thesecond in June 1999 and the third in August 2000. Itwas originally envisaged that all fieldwork wouldtake place with the claimants being present. This wouldhave been desirable to both observe the claimantsassociations with sites and to document the contem-porary significance of the sites. It is certainly consideredcurrent best practice to involve the traditional ownersof the land when doing archaeological fieldwork.

Before the first trip, it became clear that a visitinvolving all the claimants was going to be extremelydifficult to organise. At this point the locations for all40 claim sites had not been disclosed. It was decidedto make this initial visit primarily a reconnoitre of the claim area. The pastoralist (second respondent)showed us archaeological sites that he knew ofaround the De Rose Hill Station. Members of the legalteam and the CSO accompanied me on this two-dayvisit. Sites were photographed and brief notes taken.We rarely stopped for more than 15 minutes at anyone location, so notes were cursory.

In May 1999, GPS readings for 37 sites in Vethsreport were provided to the CSO. This excludedinformation for three sites that the claimants did notwant us to visit because of their mythologicalsignificance. These readings were mapped onto therelevant 1:250k maps (the best available scale in thatpart of Australia). No photographic material accom-panying Veths field recordings was made available atthis time. The second archaeological field trip tookplace over four days in June. Present this time weremembers of the legal team and CSO and Ken Maddock(anthropologist). The solicitor and anthropologist forthe second respondent were also present for some ofthis time.

A hand-held GPS was used in the relocation of thepreviously recorded sites. The GPS readings providedby the claimants archaeologist were generated by astandard non-differentially corrected GPS. Similarly,the hand-held GPS used in this fieldwork was notconnected to a base station, and thus its accuracy wasalso limited to around 100 metres. Some difficultieswere invariably encountered, particularly in relativelyfeatureless landscapes, in relocating the exact locationof the recorded sites (particularly without photo-graphs for comparison). Certain site types (e.g. open



artefact scatters) were particularly susceptible to theselocational difficulties, especially when not associatedwith distinctive topographic features. Sites whichwere relocated, and which were positively identifiableby their nature and contents (e.g. rockshelters withunique contents and/or recognisable rock-art), hadGPS readings of 200400 metres different from theGPS readings provided. This was not due to inaccurateinformation; rather, it was a product of the theninadequacies of this technology.

Because of this difficulty, and because of thelimited time available, field efforts were concentratedon sites and site complexes in readily identifiablelandscapes (particularly rockshelters or granitemonoliths/inselbergs, and so on). Because of therelocation difficulties, no attempt was made to visitgroups of sites that comprised artefact scatters inindistinct landscape contexts (e.g. dunefields). Asknowledgeable people did not take us to these sites,in our efforts to relocate sites we often encounteredevidence that may not have been shown to and/orrecorded by Veth. There were occasional inconsisten-cies apparent between the earlier recording andcurrent observations, but these were only of minorimport. A number of the sites visited in 1998 werefound to be claimant sites, and were now identifiableas such.

The third archaeological field trip took place overthree days in August 2000. Present were members ofthe legal team and CSO, the legal team for the secondrespondents, representatives of the Aboriginal LegalRights Movement (ALRM) and more than 12claimants. Also present for much of the time was apolice escort from Marla Bore.

As well as the claimants being present, thecomplete Veth report (with descriptions and photo-graphs) was now available to assist in finding thesites. The two main aims of this trip were to ascertainthat the correct locations had been visited for severalof the sites (where inconsistencies in descriptions ledus to believe these may not have been properlyfound), and to establish for the second respondent theexact locations of each of the field sites for thepurposes of a preservation order being sought by theclaimants to protect the sites.

I visited 32 of the field sites recorded by Veth overthe course of these three field visits (Table 1). Anumber of the sites were visited on several occasions.While all the sites recorded by Veth were not visitedby me (several were mythological/restricted cere-monial and excluded from discovery by me), those

seen are considered to be a representative sample ofthe types of sites present across the claim area, and asufficient sample by which to judge the accuracy andveracity of the overall recordings. The geographicspread of the sites across the claim land, in terms oflandscapes within the claim area, was also adequatelycovered. No doubt there are many hundreds moresuch sites occurring across the land.

Occupation evidence

A number of these sites contained evidence ofAboriginal stone tool production and use. Other sitescontained grinding patches or lithic material sourcesassociated with evidence for a range of stone tool-making activities. The rockshelter sites generally hadassociated open campsites, these stretching across thelandscape in eventually decreasing densities.

A range of stone tool types, such as described byVeth (1998:19), were observed across these sites. Thesites varied in size, from sparse (1 artefact/100m2) toextremely dense (e.g. >100 artefacts/m2). They alsovaried in extensiveness (e.g. from isolated findswithin pastoral structures to extending over a numberof hectares). A number of localised features (e.g.around the margins of small claypans) were seen. Arange of raw materials were observed as having beenused in the manufacture of these stone tool assemb-lages: silcrete (a wide variety of colours and qualities),chalcedony (usually white), quartz, chert, quartziteand sandstone. Silcrete and chalcedony dominatedmost assemblages.

Given the arid environment, potable water was no doubt a primary factor in determining site location(Veth 1993, 1998). However, a number of quiteextensive (semi-permanent?) sites were also observedin transit during the various field trips that had noobvious association with an identifiable water source(e.g. along the top of extensive perched dunes).

Pastoral and contact materials

There is a range of archaeological evidence that candocument activities that took place in the post-contactera. The use of glass, pottery and metal (as replace-ments for stone) and the incorporation of pastoralhardware (e.g. metal fencing wire and hinges) in wiltjeconstruction provide insights into the ways in whichAboriginal people have negotiated their existencewith the advent of European settlers.



The use of fencing wire in constructing shelters

would postdate 1932 (the date of first lease here,

granted to Thomas ODonoghue), and may well date

to much later when the large-scale fencing of the

property commenced. It is notable that early sheep

pens were constructed across the claim area using

mulga boughs and trees (not fencing wire). The use of

traditional shelters which incorporate pastoral hard-

ware could therefore be inferentially dated to after

this phase of pastoralism, possibly to the introduction

of cattle. This certainly supports the claimants

recollections (Veth 1998) that the wiltje at one site were

used during Doug Fullers time. One of the sites was

reported to have been used by Peter De Roses family

in the early 1960s, at a time when a number of families

were working the adjacent stock-yards. The hearth

from which charcoal was retrieved returned a modern

date with bomb carbon (Wk-5701), substantiating

evidence for this sites use when claimed.

The depiction of post-contact motifs in rock-art

sites provides easily recognisable evidence for a change

in functioning graphic systems (e.g. Frederick 1997).

Table 1 Summary of site types inspected during fieldwork at De Rose Hill

Site type Number %f

Artefact scatter 5 15.6

Artefact scatter, grinding patches 3 9.4

Habitation structures 2 6.3

Quarry, reduction areas 2 6.3

Shelter with rock-art 2 6.3

Shelter with rock-art/deposit 2 6.3

Artefact scatter, hearth 2 6.3

Artefact scatter, ethnographic 2 6.3

Rockhole, artefact scatter, grinding patches 2 6.3

Artefact scatter, camping residues 1 3.1

Ethnographic, artefact scatter, habitation structure, burial pit 1 3.1

Old sheep yard 1 3.1

Quarry, reduction area, rockshelters 1 3.1

Rockhole, rock-art 1 3.1

Rockshelter with occupation deposit, quarry 1 3.1

Scarred mulga trees 1 3.1

Shelters with rock-art/deposit, open artefact scatter, quarry 1 3.1

Stockyard site 1 3.1

Stone arrangement, artefact scatters 1 3.1

Total 32 100.0

Figure 1Mulga tree with ovoid scar and another notch cut below it with ametal axe. These scarred trees are in close proximity to other treesthat have been cut down to make fence strainers for the nearbystockyards.



At De Rose Hill there is evidence for a number ofpost-contact sites: the presence of glass which appearsto have been flaked, the production of traditionalwooden artefacts using metal tools (scarred trees withmetal axe marks; see Figure 1), the use of fencing wirein wiltje construction, and a man on a horse drawn ina rock-art site.

Rock-art

Eight of the rockshelters (at five locations) and onerock well contain rock-art. Most of this art consists ofpaintings. Design congruence between the sites isevident, with meanders, animal tracks and snakesaccounting for the majority of motifs. These aredepicted in red, yellow, white and black pigment(Figure 2). In several of the sites, trails of macropodtracks, apparently made with paired thumbprints, area design theme.

At one site, there are extremely faded red-paintedbird tracks. While these look much older, it is possiblethat their location in full sun has resulted in thiscondition (Cook et al. 1990). At one of the major artcomplexes, the recent very small, yellow anthropo-morphs are suggestive of a changing design vocabulary(Frederick 1997). A larger sample of art sites isrequired, however, before such a conclusion can bereached. No stencils were recorded at any of the artsites.

Petroglyphs were recorded in three shelters(Figure 3). In two of these sites, pecked and deeplypatinated intaglio engravingscircles, bars and birdand macropod trackswere recorded. Some of thesewere covered in desert varnish. This material ispotentially dateable. These engravings are alsosuperimposed by more recent yellow-painted motifs.In one of these shelters a panel of unpatinated,battered macropod tracks with a fresh appearance

Figure 2Paintings in red, yellow and white include sinuous meanders, trails of paired tracks and more complex designs

were also observed. Interestingly (from a schematicpoint of view), there is a trail of red-painted macropodtrack motifs extending up the wall above this morerecent engraved panel. This provides further sugges-tion of the interrelatedness of design themes withinthe site, potentially spanning considerable timeperiods.

A limited range of motifs occurs across the claimarea. They comprise mostly bird and kangaroo tracks,circles, bars, meanders and snakes. There are only asmall number of iconic designs, namely tracks(McDonald 1993) and some small anthropomorphs.Most of the motifs would generally be described asgeometric or non-figurative. This is entirely inkeeping with previous studies of desert art, althoughproportions of different techniques do vary inlocalised areas (Frederick 1999; Gunn 2000; McDonald2005; Ross 2003). Interestingly, a number of motifsoccur in both painting and engraving techniques,namely bird and roo tracks, circles and bars. This isinteresting because it would appear that the designcongruence spans some considerable timetheengravings are probably quite old, while thepaintings are more likely to be relatively recent.Similar observations have been made elsewhereacross the arid zone (Rosenfeld & Smith 2002).

At one rockshelter there is evidence for greatantiquity in rock-art production. This rockshelter hasdeeply patinated, pecked circle and track engravingswhich are coated in desert varnish. Desert varnish hasbeen dated on other Panaramitee engraving sites to between 10 000 and 30 000 years ago (Dragovich1986; Nobbs & Dorn 1988, 1993although see alsoKrinsley et al. 1990; Watchman 1989). At this andseveral other rock-art shelters there is evidence for anumber of episodes of art production.

Evidence of continuing rock-art production afterEuropean contact is most clearly demonstrated by thedrawing/painting of a man with a gun, sitting on ahorse. This is done in thick (wet?) charcoal (potentiallydateable) with a drawn white outline (Figure 4). Theschema used for the horse suggests a lack offamiliarity with horses as faunathis example has astumpy tail and very short legs. The head size isexaggerated. The human figure is in profile. Only thehead and one arm are shown, but the gun being heldis exaggerated: the man is shown shooting out anddown over the head of the horse. The motif is quitefaded and located high on one of the walls, close tobut not superimposed on dark red-painted tally marks.



Figure 3Panaramitee-style bird and macropod tracks and geometricdesigns. Motifs on horizontal surface are covered with desertvarnish, while these on vertical panels are superimposed withyellow-painted motifs.

Figure 4Charcoal and white painting of a man with a gun, on a horse.Note the nave schema for the horse (stumpy tail, short legs andlarge head).



Incised grooves

An extensive panel of incised grooves is located at oneof the major rock wells. When the limestone rock wellis full, they would be located just above the water line.They appear in groups (like tally marks) but other-wise do not appear to form any recognisable motifs(e.g. bird or kangaroo tracks: see Smith & Rosenfeld1992). Several of them are positioned beneath mud-wasp nests, and are thus potentially dateable (Robertset al. 2000).

Shelters with deposit

Of the five shelter locations visited which containedsurface evidence of occupation deposit, only oneseemed to have potential for stratified deposit. All ofthe other shelters appeared to have a thin veneer ofdeposit perched on bedrock.

Stone arrangements

The stone arrangement recorded by Veth wasinspected. This comprises a series of lines and moundsof silcrete boulders on the northern flanks of a lowhill. Silcrete occurs naturally around three sides of thishill, but extensive arranged lines (some dispersed) areevident on this feature, as is an extensive stone artefactscatter on the adjacent flats and claypan.

Quarries

The use of natural stone outcrops as sources for lithic artefact manufacture were observed at severallocations. Veths quarry sites include silcrete andchalcedony sources. Several additional silcrete quarrysites were identified across the land where there wasevidence for naturally occurring silcrete and initialphases of artefact reduction. Low quantities offinished tools were observed in these vicinities(Hiscock & Mitchell 1993).

Conclusions reached

There is extensive archaeological evidence, in a rangeof site types, across the De Rose Hill claim area. Thepatterning inherent in this evidence provides conc-lusive evidence for the long-term occupation of theclaim area by Aboriginal people, prior to sovereignty.

This archaeological evidence (in itself) cannotdemonstrate associations between named individualsand particular features. The fact that particularclaimants directed Veth to certain features that theyknew existed, however, was not challenged. Thenature of the archaeological evidence available wouldnot assist in clarifying a chronology of recent use bythe claimants around the claim area (i.e. in traditionalpursuits as opposed to fulfilling responsibilitiesinvolved in their employment on the pastoral lease).

There is definitive archaeological evidence (e.g.fencing wire in wiltje construction, the depiction of aman on a horse in a rock-art site, the presence of glasswhich appears to have been flaked, the production oftraditional wooden artefacts using metal tools) thatoccupation of this landscape continued beyond1836the date of white settlement (sovereignty beingasserted) in South Australia. By whom and for whatperiod of time these sites were in use cannot beinferred purely from the archaeological record, eitheras acknowledged in the Veth (1998) report or asconfirmed by my own observations. The fact thatclaimants have specifically taken archaeologists tothese sites, however, and have located sub-surfacehearth features that they have memories of using orbeing used and which having been radiocarbon datedhas verified as being indistinguishable from modern,is strong evidence for the claimants having acontemporary connection to particular locations andwith archaeological evidence.

The use of fencing wire in wiltje constructionwould likely postdate 1932 (the date of first leasehere). The claimants indicate that this particular sitewas used in Doug Fullers time. This would suggestthis sites usage took place sometime between194245 and 1977.

As discussed above, the archaeological evidenceoften extended for some considerable distance awayfrom the designated sites. Some of the sites recordedwere part of larger site complexes not documentedand some significant archaeological features withinsites similarly are not noted in Veth (1998). This is notto say that the claimants did not know of thisadditional evidence: it is more likely that the foci/specific locations described in the Veth report arenodes within cultural palimpsests which havecontemporary significance. Given the time andlogistical constraints, genuine site boundaries couldnot be explored. Given the focus and nature of theevidence collection, the recording exercise was oftennecessarily truncated.

Arid zone rock-art

Working on this native title claim I was particularlyinterested in how an archaeological appraisal of rock-art might assist in the process of a native titledetermination. Art theory indicates that rock-art hasthe potential to demonstrate local group identifyingbehaviour (McDonald 1994; Wiessner 1990; Wobst1977). A number of rock-art researchers have nowinvestigated this type of question in (particularly)Central Australia, though at the time that this claimwas being documented archaeologically thisinformation was relatively new (Frederick 1997, 1999,2000; Galt-Smith 1997; Gunn 1996; McDonald 2000a,2005; McDonald & Veth 2005; Rosenfeld & Smith2002; Ross 2003; Veth & McDonald 2004).

At the time of the claim, I was particularlyinterested in Galt-Smiths work which had investigatedthe patterning evident in art sites and tied this toethnographically documented social groups. Frederick(1997, 1999) had also demonstrated the interconnect-edness of art (or graphic) systems in this aridenvironment due to the widely ramified socialnetworks. Galt-Smiths (1997) work showed distinctpatterning in the pigment rock-art assemblages,which correlated well with the documented totemicclan-based social system. This was in contrast with the patterning shown by pecked engraving(petroglyph) sites, which are homogenous over vastareas of arid Australia and which, it has been argued(e.g. C. Smith 1989), demonstrate broad-scaled groupcohesion over vast areas of the arid zone.

The multivalency of arts role in arid zone societyis recognised, being both secular/casual andsacred/ceremonial (Gunn 2000). The graphic systemsof the Western Desert were an important tool forpromoting and controlling the exchange of inform-ation, functioning at a multitude of levels. This bothidentified and integrated groups as well as demarc-ating social boundaries (Frederick 2000; see also Galt-Smith 1997; Lewis 1988; McDonald 1994, 1999).

The significance of Galt-Smiths research was the fact that the pictographsor pigment artassemblageswere found to be sensitive to ethno-graphically documented social systems in the aridzone. This is the same pattern as has been found inother art analyses, in different environments (e.g. themore fertile coastal region of Sydney: McDonald1994). The pictographic art would appear to be arelatively sensitive indicator at the local group level.This finding has obvious implications for native title

where particular groups are claiming particularcountry (McDonald 2000a). This conclusion hassubsequently been reached in a number of styleprovinces in the central and western deserts(McDonald 2005; McDonald & Veth 2005; Rosenfeld2002; Rosenfeld & Smith 2002; Ross 2003, 2005).

Fredericks (1997) work also explored rock-art inthe processes of change and continuity brought aboutby culture contact, specifically the arrival ofEuropeans in Central Australia. In the area of heranalysisWatarrka (Kings Canyon) National Parkcontact art was characterised by the presence of drycharcoal drawings (intricately structured non-figurative designs) and figurative representations ofhorses, cattle and clothed anthropomorphs. Thecontact assemblage is further characterised by adiversity of graphic designs, most of which arewithout precedent in the graphic vocabulary of thepre-contact tradition (Frederick 2000:9). She alsofound a shift in the distribution pattern of contact artsites, with a contraction in art locations, each of theseshowing a proliferation of art of a different designvocabulary. Frederick argues for a changing socialcontext to the production of art during the contactperiod, as a result of significant changes in resourceuse, residence patterns, networks of exchange, socialstructures and graphic systems. This work hasobvious relevance to studying art evidence in nativetitle claims. At De Rose Hill there is an interestingexample of this phenomenon. There is a concretewater tank at Reicks Bore on De Rose Hill Station thatbears a proliferation of artistic doodles and graffiti,much of which was done by (named) stockmen on thestation (the pastoralist, 1998, pers. comm.). This artclearly includes pastoralist images (a changed graphicstructure) and is differently located from the pre-contact rock-arton a concrete water tank opposed toa rockshelter wall.

This potential evidentiary opportunity existedand was identified at the time of the claim. Theabsence of substantive rock-art research in the DeRose Hill area and broader region (e.g. the PitjantjatjaraLands) meant that determining the localised charac-teristics of the art or its placement in the broaderWestern Desert regional art style was not possible.

Clear differences in technique, motif choice andcolour use can be seen on even a cursory inspection ofthe De Rose Hill material (see Figures 24), in contrastwith documented assemblages from elsewherearound the arid zone (e.g. Frederick 1997; Galt-Smith1997; Gunn 1996; McDonald & Veth 2005; Nobbs 1982;





Smith & Rosenfeld 1992). There has, at this stage,however, been no research upon which to baseconclusions about the De Rose Hill art. The potentialof this type of archaeological evidence to be ethnicallysensitive is demonstrable. Unfortunately, little morecan be said about the art on De Rose Hill, other than: Art has been produced in the claimed area for a

very long period of time (maybe tens of thousandsof years).

The older (pecked and patinated) engraved art isconsistent with art found across vast areas of thearid zone.

The style of the more recent art on the claimedland is internally consistent, indicating a strongcohesion in the graphic system operating acrossthe sites observed.

Several sites show changes in design themes overtime, while others show multiple artistic episodeswith very similar stylistic characteristics.

There is evidence for art being produced up toand possibly beyond contact with Europeans.

There is not good evidence for the development ofa new graphic systemother than the occurrenceof identifiable contact motifsduring the earlycontact period (cf. Frederick 1997 at Watarrka,west of Alice Springs).3

Discussion and conclusions

No systematic fieldwork was completed prior to thisclaim, and both sides spent less than ten days eachon the land. Despite this, archaeological evidence wascollected documenting a range of habitation evidence.Long-term occupation was in evidence based on thepresence of identified temporal markers. And thepresence of settler materials indicated the continuityof certain practices after the declaration of sovereignty.

There was no excavated archaeological materialfrom the claim area to provide scientific evidence as tothe length of time that these lands have been occupiedby Aboriginal people. Based on the regional literature,it is likely that Aboriginal people have lived here forat least 20 000 years.

There is evidence, from elements in the archaeo-logical record (e.g. fencing wire in wiltje construction,the use of metal tools to produce traditional woodenartefacts, flaked glass, and the depiction of a man on a horse in a rock-art site), that occupation of thislandscape continued beyond 1836, the date of

sovereignty being asserted in South Australia.However, by whom and for exactly what period oftime these sites were in use cannot be inferred fromthe archaeological record alone, hence the need to linkclaimant evidence where this is reliable and possible.

The drawing of a man on a horse could date to asearly as 1873, the first documented record of whitepeople in the claim area. Certainly the schema used indrawing the horse (its tail and the proportions of itslegs) suggests an early contact experience (see Clegg1981).

While the claim occurred within the WesternDesert cultural bloc, a region that is generally wellunderstood archaeologically and anthropologically, itoccurred with a complete absence of local contextualresearch. Information that may have assisted indemonstrating the nature of the connection evidence(e.g. temporal change and continuities) were unableto be addressed because of this absence. In particular,broader-scaled rock-art research would have allowedquite useful statements about local group identifyingbehaviour in the De Rose rock-art sites.

Native title evidence requires particular types ofarchaeological data to be collected. Using claimants/traditional owners to identify sites with contem-porary significance and resonance to the claim allowsfor a rapid documentation of archaeological sites thatcan show connection and continuities of practice.Archaeologists engaged in this work, however, stillneed to employ broader regional models/data and toseek the evidence of older sites and site types whichcan contextualise that more recent evidence. As withother types of expert witness evidence, expertise isbased on the evidence to hand. Desktop studies aloneare only going to be appropriate in areas that havebeen extensively studied and previously researched.The accuracy and validity of that evidence willinfluence the degree of primary data collection that isneeded to ensure the appropriate types of archaeo-logical evidence are available and upon which anexpert opinion can be formulated. Conventionalapproaches need to be accommodated within theshort-term, rapid collection period that is necessitatedby the time and financial constraints introduced bythe legal process. This will ensure that the archaeo-logical data collected are appropriately contextualised.It will also ensure ongoing relevance and continuedengagement between native title archaeology andmainstream archaeological discourse.



NOTES

1. Because there was no contestation of this issue, this report was

not presented as evidence and is thus not on the public record

(however, it was discovered by the claimants and addressed in

cross-examination by Veth in response to questions from the trial

judge and counsel for the Crown).

2. Many early regional studies involved archaeologists being take

to known sites (e.g. Schrire 1982, Gould 1977, Meehan 1982), but in

these cases the archaeologists then undertook a range of

archaeological recording and excavation programs to produce more

conventional archaeologies for the respective areas.

3. The small yellow anthropomorphs (associated with a clearly

contact motif) provide only an indication of possible recent changes

in design vocabulary in the art sites visited.

REFERENCES

Barbetti, M 1996, The principles of radiocarbon dating, paper

presented at first Australian Rock-Picture Dating Workshop, Feb.

1996, ANSTO NSW.

Beck, W & Somerville, M 1995, Aboriginal relationship to place, in

I Davidson, C Lovell-Jones & R Bancroft (eds), Archaeologists and

Aborigines working together, University of New England Press,

Armidale, pp. 711.

Berndt, RM 1966, The concept of the tribe in the Western Desert of

Australia, in I Hogbin & LR Hiatt (eds), Readings in Australian

Pacific anthropology, Melbourne University Press, pp. 2656.

1972, The Walmadjeri and Gugadja, in MG Bicchieri (ed.),

Hunters and gatherers today, Holt, Rinehart & Winston, New York,

pp. 177226.

Bird Rose, D 2000, Signs of life on the barbarous frontier:

intercultural encounters in North Australia, in R Torrence & A

Clarke (eds), The archaeology of difference: negotiating cross-cultural

engagements in Oceania, Routledge, London & New York, pp.

21537.

Birmingham, J 2000, Resistance, creolization or optimal foraging at

Kalalpaninna Mission, South Australia, in R Torrence & A Clarke

(eds), The archaeology of difference: negotiating cross-cultural

engagements in Oceania, Routledge, London & New York, pp.

360405.

Cane, S 1990, Desert demography: a case study of pre-contact

Aboriginal densities in the Western Desert of Australia, in B

Meehan & N White (eds), Hunter-gatherer demography, Monograph

39, Sydney University, pp. 14959.

Clarke, A 2000, Time, tradition and transformation: the negotiation

of cross-cultural engagements on Groote Eyelandt, northern

Australia, in R Torrence & A Clarke (eds), The archaeology of

difference: negotiating cross-cultural engagements in Oceania,

Routledge, London & New York, pp. 14281.

Clegg, J 1981, Notes towards mathesis art, Clegg Calendars, Balmain.

Colley, S & Bickford, A 1996, Real Aboriginals and real

archaeology: Aboriginal places and Australian historical

archaeology, World Archaeological Bulletin 7:521.

Cook, N, Davidson, I & Sutton, S 1990, Why are so many ancientrock paintings red? Australian Aboriginal Studies 1:302.

Dragovich, D 1986, Minimum age of some desert varnish nearBroken Hill, NSW, Search 17(56), MayJune, pp. 14950.

Field, J, Barker, J, Barker, R, Coffey E, Coffey L, Crawford, E, Darcy,L, Fields, T, Lord, G, Steadman, B & Colley, S 2000, Coming back:Aborigines and archaeologists at Cuddie Springs, PublicArchaeology 1:3548.

Frederick, U 1997, Drawing in differences: changing social contextof rock art production in Watarrka (Kings Canyon) National Park,central Australia, MA thesis, Australian National University.

1999, At the centre of it all: constructing contact through therock art of Watarrka National Park, central Australia, Archaeology inOceania 34(3):13244.

2000, Keeping the land alive: changing social contexts oflandscape and rock art production, in R Torrence & A Clarke (eds),The archaeology of difference: negotiating cross-cultural engagements inOceania, Routledge, London & New York, pp. 30030.

Galt-Smith, B 1997, Motives for motifs: identifying aggregationand dispersion settlement patterns in the rock art assemblages ofCentral Australia, BA(Hons) thesis, University of New England.

Godwin, L & LOste-Brown 2004, A past remembered: Aboriginalhistorical places in central Queensland, in R Harrison & CWilliamson (eds), After Captain Cook: the archaeology of the recentIndigenous past in Australia, Alta Mira Press, California, 191212.

Gould, RA 1977, Puntutjarpa rockshelter and the Australian desertculture, Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of NaturalHistory 54.

Gunn, RG 1996, Regional patterning in the Aboriginal rock art ofcentral Australia: a preliminary report, Rock Art Research 12:11727.

2000, Spencer and Gillens contribution to Australian rock artstudies, Rock Art Research 17(1):5664.

Harrison, R 2000, Challenging the authenticity of antiquity:contact archaeology and native title in Australia, in I Lilley (ed.),Native title and the transformation of archaeology in the postcolonialworld, Monograph 50, Oceania Publications, Sydney, pp. 3553.

2004, Shared histories and the archaeology of the pastoralindustry in Australia, in R Harrison & C Williamson (eds), AfterCaptain Cook: the archaeology of the recent Indigenous past in Australia,Alta Mira Press, California, 3758.

Hayden, B 1977, Stone tool functions in the Western Desert, in RVSWright (ed.), Stone tools as cultural markers: change, evolution andcomplexity, Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, Canberra, pp.17888.

Hiscock, P & Mitchell, S 1993, Stone artefact quarries and reductionsites in Australia: towards a type profile, Technical Publications SeriesNo. 4, Australian Heritage Commission, Canberra.

Krinsley, D, Dorn, R & Anderson, S 1990, Factors that interfere withthe age determination of rock varnish, Physical Geography11:97119.

Lewis, D 1988, The rock paintings of Arnhem Land, Australia: social,ecological and material culture change in the post-glacial period, BritishArchaeological Reports, International Series 415, Oxford.



McDonald, JJ 1993, The depiction of species in macropod track

engravings at an Aboriginal art site in western New South Wales,

Records of the Australian Museum, Supplement 17:10516.

1994, Dreamtime superhighway: an analysis of Sydney Basin

rock art and prehistoric information exchange, PhD thesis,

Australian National University.

1999, Bedrock notions and isochrestic choice: evidence for

localised stylistic patterning in the engravings of the Sydney

region, Archaeology in Oceania 34(3):14560.

2000a, Comment on the statement of archaeological evidence

in the De Rose Hill native title claim (March 1998) by A/Professor

Peter Veth, report to Native Title Section, South Australian Crown

Solicitors Office.

2000b, Archaeology, rock art, ethnicity and native title, in I

Lilley (ed.), Native title and the transformation of archaeology in the

postcolonial world, Monograph 50, Oceania Publications, Sydney, pp.

5464.

2005, Archaic faces to headdresses: the changing role of rock

art across the arid zone, in Veth et al., Desert peoples, pp. 11641.

McDonald, JJ, Officer, KC, Donahue, D, Jull, T, Head, J & Ford, B

1990, Investigating AMS: dating prehistoric rock art in the Sydney

Sandstone Basin, NSW, Rock Art Research 7(2):8392.

McDonald, JJ & Veth, PM 2005, Rock art and social identity: a

comparison of graphic systems operating in arid and fertile

environments in the Holocene, in I Lilley (ed.), Archaeology of

Oceania: Australia and the Pacific Islands, Blackwell Studies in Global

Archaeology, Blackwell, Oxford. (in press)

McIntyre-Tamwoy, S 2004, Places people value: social significance

and cultural exchange in post-invasion Australia, in R Harrison &

C Williamson (eds), After Captain Cook: the archaeology of the recent

Indigenous past in Australia, Alta Mira Press, California, pp. 17190.

Meehan, B 1982, Shell bed to shell midden, AIAS, Canberra.

Mitchell, S 2000, Guns or barter? Indigenous exchange networks

and mediation of conflict in post-contact western Arnhem Land, in

R Torrence & A Clarke (eds), The archaeology of difference: negotiating

cross-cultural engagements in Oceania, Routledge, London & New

York, pp. 182210.

Moser, S 1994, The archaeological discipline, PhD thesis,

University of Sydney.

Nobbs, MF 1982, Aboriginal rock art in Olary province, South

Australia: on Bimbowrie, Outalpa and Karolta, report done on

Australian Heritage Commission grant.

Nobbs, MF & Dorn, RI 1988, Age determinations for rock varnish

formation within petroglyphs: cation ratio dating for 24 motifs from

the Olary region in South Australia, Rock Art Research 5:10845.

1993, New surface exposure ages for petroglyphs from the

Olary province, South Australia, Archaeology in Oceania 27:199220.

Paterson, A 2005, Hunter-gatherer interactions with sheep and

cattle pastoralists from the Australian arid zone, in Veth et al.,

Desert peoples, pp. 27692.

Roberts, AL 2001, Native title: using archaeology as evidence,

Alternative Law Journal 25(6):4152.

Roberts, R, Walsh, G, Olley, J, Murray, AS, Macphail, MK,Naumann, ID, Jones, R & Morwood, MJ 2000, Rock picturechronologies and palaeo-environmental records from fossil mud-wasp nests: preliminary investigations using optical dating, in GKWard & C Tuniz (eds), Advances in dating Australian rock images:papers from the first Australian Rock-Picture Dating Workshop,Occasional AURA Publication No. 10, AURA, Melbourne, pp. 404.

Rosenfeld, A 2002, Rock art as an indicator of changing socialgeographies in central Australia, in B David & M Wilson (eds),Inscribed landscapes: marking and making places, University of HawaiiPress, Honolulu, pp. 6178.

Rosenfeld, A & Smith, MA 2002, Rock-art and the history ofPuritjarra Rock Shelter, Cleland Hills, Central Australia,Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 68:10324.

Ross, J 2003, Rock art, ritual and relationships: an archaeologicalanalysis of rock art from the central Australian arid zone, PhDthesis, University of New England.

2005, Rock art of the red centre, in M Smith & P Hesse (eds),23S: archaeology and environmental history of the southern deserts,National Museum of Australia Press, Canberra, pp. 21730.

Sackett, L 1987, Indirect exchange in a symmetrical system:marriage alliance in the Western Desert of Australia, in WHEdwards (ed.), Traditional Aboriginal society: a reader, Macmillan,Melbourne, pp. 13852.

Sadr, K 2002, Encapsulated Bushmen in the archaeology ofThamaga, in S Kent (ed.), Ethnicity, hunter-gatherers, and other:association and assimilation in Africa, Smithsonian Institution Press,Washington, DC, pp. 2847.

Smith, CE 1989, Designed Dreaming: assessing the relationshipbetween style, social structure and environment in AboriginalAustralia, BA (Hons) thesis, University of New England.

Smith, MA 1987, Pleistocene occupation in arid central Australia,Nature 328:7101.

1988, The pattern and timing of prehistoric settlement incentral Australia, PhD thesis, University of New England.

1993, Biogeography, human ecology and prehistory in thesandridge deserts of Australia, Archaeology in Oceania 37:3550.

2005, Desert archaeology, linguistic stratigraphy, and thespread of Western Desert languages, in Veth et al., Desert peoples,pp. 22242.

Smith, MA & Rosenfeld, A 1992, Archaeological sites in WatarrkaNational Park: the northern sector of the plateau, report toConservation Commission of the Northern Territory on fieldworkin 1991.

Thorley, PB 1998, Pleistocene settlement in the Australian aridzone: occupation of an inland riverine landscape in the centralAustralian ranges, Antiquity 72:3445.

Tonkinson, R 1991, The Mardu Aborigines: living the dream inAustralias desert, Holt, Rinehart & Winston, New York (2nd edn).

Torrence, R & Clarke, A 2000, Negotiating difference: practicemakes theory for contemporary archaeology in Oceania, in RTorrence & A Clarke (eds), The archaeology of difference: negotiatingcross-cultural engagements in Oceania, Routledge, London & NewYork, pp. 115.



Veth, PM 1993, Islands in the interior: the dynamics of prehistoricadaptations within the arid zone of Australia, InternationalMonographs in Prehistory 3, Ann Arbor, Michigan.

1996, Current archaeological evidence from the Little andGreat Sandy Deserts, in P Veth & P Hiscock (eds), Archaeology ofnorthern Australia: regional perspectives, Tempus, Archaeology andMaterial Culture Studies in Anthropology No. 4, AnthropologyMuseum, University of Queensland, St Lucia, pp. 5065.

1998, Statement of archaeological evidence in the De Rose Hillnative title claim, report for Aboriginal Legal Rights Movement ofS.A. Inc.

2000a, Origins of the Western Desert language: convergencein linguistic and archaeological space and time models, Archaeologyin Oceania 35(1):1119.

2000b, The contemporary voice of archaeology and itsrelevance to native title, in I Lilley (ed.), Native title and thetransformation of archaeology in the postcolonial world, Monograph 50,Oceania Publications, Sydney, pp. 7887.

2005, Cycles of aridity and human mobility: risk minimisationamong Late Pleistocene foragers of the Western Desert, Australia,in Veth et al., Desert peoples, pp. 10015.

Veth, PM & McDonald, J 2004, Can archaeology be used to addressthe principle of exclusive possession in native title? in R Harrison& C Williamson (eds), After Captain Cook: the archaeology of the recentIndigenous past in Australia, Alta Mira Press, California, pp. 12135.

Veth, PM, Smith, M & Hiscock, P (eds) 2005, Desert peoples:archaeological perspectives, Blackwell Publishing, USA.

Watchman, A 1989, Comment on M Nobbs & R Dorn, Agedeterminations for rock varnish formation within petroglyphs,Rock Art Research 6:656.

Wiessner, P 1990, Is there a unity to style? in M Conkey & CHastorf (eds), The uses of style in archaeology, New Directions inArchaeology, Cambridge University Press, pp. 10512.

Williamson, C 2004, Finding meaning in the patterns: the analysisof material culture from a contact site in Tasmania, in R Harrison &C Williamson (eds), After Captain Cook: the archaeology of the recentIndigenous past in Australia, Alta Mira Press, California, pp. 75104.

Wobst, HM 1977, Stylistic behaviour and information exchange, inCE Cleland (ed.), For the director: research essays in honour of JBGriffen, Anthropological Papers No. 61, Museum of Anthropology,University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, pp. 31742.

Jo McDonald is a cultural heritage managementconsultant working mainly in the Sydney Basin. TheSydney regional rock-art corpus was the focus of herdoctoral research. She has also written managementand conservation plans on this rock-art. Her rock-artanalysis was contextualised by the excavation of anumber of decorated rockshelter sites and interpre-tation of these assemblages was based on informationexchange theory. Her current rock-art research focusis in the Western Desert in the Australian arid zone. She has recently (with her erstwhile colleaguePMV) undertaken an assessment of the DampierArchipelagos scientific value for a national estatenomination.

The excavation and strategic management of openAboriginal campsites in western Sydney has been aresearch and management focus over the last decade.This has involved numerous lengthy excavationprograms involving many archaeologists and membersof the Aboriginal community. These excavations havenot only increased our understanding of pre-contactsettlement on the Cumberland Plain but have assistedin the development of sampling methodologies foropen area excavations. McDonalds native title workhas included the De Rose Hill native title claim inCentral Australia and recording rock-art for the Martunative title claim in Western Australia.

[email protected]

Documents

Archaeological evidence in the De Rose Hill native title claim