Introduction

      G’day mate! If you are looking at this blog you might wonder whatever possessed someone in the blog sphere to create such a site on Australian Southeastern Aboriginal burial sites.

      The founders of this site are: Mary Mackenzie, Sebastian Irvine, and myself, Tessah Clark. We are students at the University of Victoria, currently in a terrific class called “Archaeology of Death.” The professor in particular is what makes this class so spectacular.

       We were given free range for a group case study project, and after much deliberation we settled our hearts and minds on sampling aboriginal burial sites in South Eastern Australia.

       Popular belief identifies South East Australian aborigines as simply small bands roaming across the landscape in search of resources. We have found this perception to be groundless. Alternatively, we have discovered aboriginal remains attest to the fact that they were often sedentary hunter-gatherers inhabiting spaces for multiple generations and who developed rich mortuary practices.

**Note from the editors** 

We have laid out this blog in a meticulous and intentional manner. Please read it from top to bottom. Our introduction appears as the most recent posting and our bibliography as the first entry to the blog. 

Our Map

View Southeastern Australia Burial Sites in a larger map


This map was created to document the burial sites pertaining to our study. Please click on the links to view a detailed site report for each point on the map. Keep in mind the descriptions of each site and refer back to the map while reading the rest of our blog.

Landscape and Creation of Persistent Places

The Murray River basin of southeastern Australia spans some 300,000km2 and is comprised of the southern half of the Murray-Darling River systems. To the east of the central region of the Murray River lies the Hay Plain traversed by the Lachlan, Murumbidgee and Murray Rivers and their tributaries and anabranches. To the west, the single river course of the Murray River narrows and flows through the surrounding Aeolian features, or landforms created by wind (Allen and Littleton 2007). The image below outlines the Murray Darling Basin and it’s rivers, tributaries and anabranches.

Location of the Murray Darling Basin in relation to the continent of Australia and the outline of the major rivers and their tributaries and anabranches that comprise the Murray Darling Basin. Image credit:  http://www.millennium-ark.net/NEWS/09_Food_Water/090217.drought.AU.foodbowl.html 

The central region of the Murray River, including the Hay Plain and Murray corridor, is the focus point of our case study as it encompasses the many sites in which Australian Aboriginal burial evidence has been discovered. This burial evidence proves the attachment that Australian Aboriginal hunter-gatherer’s had to particular pieces of land and the subsequent creation of persistent places based on interpretation of multiple burials in close proximity to one another (Allen and Littleton 2007). In Figure II, seen below, the names and locations of the various hunter-gatherer burial sites are shown. There is a clear relationship between the location of burial sites and their proximity to water.

Location of the larger various hunter-gatherer burial sites as evident through the archaeological record in south-eastern Australia. Image credit:

Littleton, J. "From the perspective of time: hunter-gatherer burials in south-eastern Australia." Antiquity. 81 (2007): 1013 - 1028. Print.

Australian Aboriginal burials are attracted to particular landscapes. Nutrient rich land, situated near water was occupied not based on its previous and continuous usage and occupation but because of its available sustainable resources (Littleton 2007). This suggests that hunter-gatherers valued stationary places as they offered a dependable supply of natural resources. Early explorers claim that there was a high population density in the region, made possible by the predictable riverine resources (Littleton and Allen 2007). The river provided a permanent water supply and was a natural resource from which Aboriginal populations were able to gather a wide variety of plant and animal foods including, reptiles, fish, crustaceans, mollusks and water birds (O’ Neill 1994). As suggested by Pardoe, the Central Murray region represented a predictable, stable and productive riverine environment capable of supporting large and dense populations (Allen and Littleton 2007). Hunter-gatherer burial sites are found throughout the central Murray River region along the banks of both rivers and lakes (Allen and Littleton 2007), which represents the strong attachment to particular pieces of land and their recurrent use as places of interment. Pardoe argues that the Central Murray region was,

“Occupied by highly territorial, endogamous groups with well-defended boundaries. The biological outcome of this is an increased genetic distance between neighboring groups and he suggest that this was reflected in a mortuary practice that included cemeteries as visual symbols of land ownership. These processes operate in contrast to surrounding groups of the arid and semi-arid country who occupied the country at low density and formed exogamous populations with large inclusive social networks, the mortuary corollary of this being individual isolated burials (Allen and Littleton 2007).”

The river and the abundance of resources it provided for hunter-gatherers was the key component of the strong relationship that existed between landscape and the creation of persistent places. The river encouraged sedentism and the use of multiple burials symbolized land ownership (Littleton 2007).

As suggested by Pardoe, cemeteries are only found in areas that possess permanent but finite resources.  These resources help to shape a persistent place, which in turn is used as a continual resting place for the dead. The importance of place in the landscape persists while the importance of people does not (Littleton 2007). It is argued that burials are not randomly situated in the landscape. They occur in specific places based on the surrounding landscape with the majority being found close to water sources (Littleton 2007).

Australian climate zones. Diagram credit: learnnc.org

The Peopling of Australia: Human Migration to the Sahul Continent

The questions of how and when the first Humans reached Australia have long been topics of fierce debate. As dating techniques advance in sophistication the available methods for determining the age of habitation sites and human remains become more varied and reliable. Reading through academic literature, one can observe a direct correlation with the age of the publication and the believed oldest habitation age for humans in Australia.  The threshold for the oldest dates obtained seems to be marching back through prehistory, beginning around 8000 BP and now so far advanced that archaeologists believe the Australian continent could have been settled as early as 55000 BP (Turney and Bird 2001) based on dating techniques alone.

Early human migration route. Diagram credit: Hudjashov 2007.

Direction of human migration across the Sahul continent. Image credit: Wikipedia.

Many sites have been sampled to ascertain the pattern and time by which Australia was colonised by humans. In line with the modern scientific knowledge that Homo sapiens emerged from Africa and spread from there along different migratory routes, the location of the earliest human remains in Australia can be guessed at. In the Pleistocene and early Holocene eras, Australia was joined to land masses such as New Guinea to the north and Tasmania to the south, the name for this supercontinent was Sahul. Australia was not however connected with the Eurasian continent, thereby requiring early humans to travel by sea in order to reach Sahul (Bednarik 1997). From the mainland, or other Oceanic islands, it can be guessed that humans would first have landed on the Northern reaches of the Sahul landmass. This assumption of northern colonization first is supported by evidence in the archaeological record, the oldest sites being placed in these northern regions of Australia. According to the most recent studies, the agreed earliest date for human habitation in Australia is 48000 BP (Turney and Bird 2001), with human expansion to all bio-regions by 30-20000 BP (White and O'Conell 1979). It is important to note that there is no evidence that Homo erectus ever inhabited Australia, making Homo sapiens pioneers in adapting to the landscape of the Sahul continent.

Burial Form

Primary burial is the most common form of burial in the central Murray region while evidence for secondary burial is difficult to identify (Littleton). One example of a visible sign of secondary burial processing is the burning of bodily remains and purposefully breaking them into smaller fragments, bundling them with ochre, an earth pigment containing ferric oxide (dictionary) and burying the bundles. Evidence for this practice has been found in the Murray Region (2 cases) and the Hay Plain (1 case). A small proportion of individuals were cremated. The type of cremation and bodily treatment practices varied, some were burned in situ and left uncovered or only lightly covered.

Typical burials in the central Murray region have the majority of heads pointing towards west south west with a small number pointed towards north north east (Pardoe 1993). Littleton has suggested (2007) places with more than one burial tend to copy the orientation and position of the other burials (this especially pertains to neighboring burials). This would be a very simple explanation for the orientation of deceased bodies, but as Littleton noted (2007): “Knowledge of orientation, in particular, is shared only within a small group.”

         
This can explain the variety of body orientation throughout aborigine burials. Yet this does not explain the continuity of children's burial forms, which can be found in the archaeological record.

Rocks and vegetation at the Murray Basin. Image credit: Bill O'Neil flickr.com

Children

As Littleton points out, the burial record reflects a landscape of survival and destruction and the record is neither complete nor representative (2007). Keeping this in mind, children are always found with other burials. No isolated burials of children have been located. This could still be explained by preservation, but at the same time it is an important feature to consider.

Children are often found buried with other children and closely associated with an adult burial (Blackwood & Simpson 1973; Witter et al. 1993; Littleton 2002). For instance, in the Hay Plain the cremated remains particularly of children were interred with the primary burial of an adult suggesting that cremation was part of delaying a burial (Littleton and Allen 2007). The importance of the place and care of children burials becomes extremely evident in a paper written by Musgrave (1930) where a burial practice is described whereby bodies of children who have died were carried by their mothers until an appropriate adult male had died at which time they were buried with him. Musgrave also describes a case in which deceased children’s bodies were treated with ochre and bundled to be placed in an adult burial.  These bundles are found within clusters of burials and further suggest that the body has been returned to a specific location or kept till a particular death.

This specific burial style for children can be interpreted as demonstrating the fact that the hunter-gatherers had the opportunity to choose the manner in which the deceased were buried and impart meaning with the placement, treatment and care of the dead. This further shows the sedentary nature of their lifestyle since they were at leisure to choose where and how exactly to bury their children. It is evident deep thought went in to all child burials as no child is ever left buried alone. If the aborigines were roamers with no bond to specific areas of the land, it is unlikely they would put so much effort into the placement of deceased children’s bodies. 

Southeastern Australia sand dunes. Image credit: Bill O'Neil flickr.com

Gender and Burial

 Littleton finds (at least in some cases) young women and children are the only two age/sex categories that are correlated with a particular set of archaeologically visible practices - practices that have both temporal depth (cremations beyond the Holocene), and wide spatial distribution (2007).


Yet on the Hay Plain, Littleton and Allen found males form a higher proportion of the single isolated burials, women being more frequently buried within groups. In both the Murray corridor and Hay Plain, males are more frequently identified than females however (Littleton and Allen 2007). 

Cliff formation in the Murray Basin. Image credit: Bill O'Neil flickr.com

Markers of Graves

Regional variation exists regarding the visible monuments that demarcate the burials of South Australian Aborigines. Ethnohistoric records show that many burials were marked on the surface (Littleton 2007). Some monuments decayed over time occasionally with assistance, while other grave markers are still evident in the landscape today (Allen & Littleton 2007).

An example of burial monuments that decayed naturally overtime and those which decayed with assistance for example, when the final stage of mourning had been carried out and the death had been avenged are noted in an early ethnohistoric account by Mitchell (1839) as presented by Allen and Littleton in their 2006 article,


“[There were] several graves enclosed in separate parterres [a level space in a garden or yard]…There were three of these parterres all lying due east and west. On one…the ashes of a hut appeared over the grave. On another, which contained two graves, (one of a small child) logs of wood, mixed with long grass, were neatly piled, transversely; and in the third, which was so ancient that the enclosing ridges were barely visible, the grave had sunk into a grassy hollow. I understood from the widow that such tombs were made for men and boys only, and that the ashes over the most recent one where the remains of the hut, which had been burnt and abandoned, after the murder of the person…had been avenged (Mitchell 1839(II): 87 – 88).”

        

Places are attracted as a site for burials based on their particular features. The act of burial typically creates a visible marker, which in turn attracts further burial and often repels settlement at that particular site. As burials accumulate their location becomes more desirable for mortuary purposes (Littleton 2007).

Visible burial makers include scarred or carved trees and artifacts associated with burials, specifically, widows caps of gypsum plaster and kopi eggs (spindle placed gypsum plaster), placed near the grave (Allen & Littleton 2007).

Scarred tree. Image credit: Australian National Museum 

Through the use of markers to delineate gravesites it is clear that the location of interment for an Australian Aboriginal was of importance. The marking of a grave implies that the site will be revisited and isn’t to be forgotten.  The South East Australian Aborigines were adapted to a sedentary hunter-gatherer lifestyle rather than a nomadic one. This is evident through their strong attachment to particular places in the landscape and the lengths in which they went to establish a clearly defined grave marker. External markings denoting a burial demonstrate to those capable of recognizing the signs that there is a grave present (Littleton 2007), ensuring an easy return to and identification of burial site. 

The Lakeshore Cemetery at Gobero: A Cross Cultural Comparison with Saharan Holocene Hunter-Gatherers

Perceptions about hunter gatherer societies are usually coupled with associations of simplistic cultural traditions. This is most likely due to the migratory nature of hunter gatherers and the relative lack of evidence they leave in the Archaeological record. As with Aboriginal Australian cultures, it has been shown that other hunter gatherer groups establish strong connection to localised spaces and develop complex mortuary rituals in association with the land they inhabit.

Grave goods from Gobero. Image credit: projectexploration.org

The inhabitants of Gobero, a site at the edge of a paleolake in modern Niger were able to subsist in a climate almost identical to that of Holocene Australia. Further, the humans living at Gobero practiced a similar form of sedentary hunter-gatherer living to Australian Aborigines. The people living at Gobero ate a diet “based on clams, fish, and savanna vertebrates” (Sereno et al. 2008) much akin to the available foodstuffs in the Murray-Darling River Basin (O'Neill 1994). Gobero is the site of the oldest recorded cemetery in the Sahara, dating from 9700-8200 BP (Sereno et al. 2008). More than 200 individuals have been found in the cemetery here, attesting to the prolonged habitation and continuous use of space a hunter gatherer lifestyle is not typically identified with. The individuals were buried on the banks of what was at the time a lakeshore in dunes just like the dune cemeteries found on the banks of the River Murray region (Pardoe 1988). While the inhabitants of the Holocene Sahara and Australian continent were undoubtedly very different in cultural tradition, the similarities in lifestyle and burial positioning within the landscape provide an interesting comparison with each other. Along with the Murray River sites, Gobero proves that non agricultural societies were capable of creating complex mortuary practices in association with particular spaces in continual use.

Image credit: Google Maps

Aerial view of Gobero excavation site. Image credit: Wikipedia

River Murray. Image credit: Bill O'Neil flickr.com

Human & Environmental Effects on the Archaeological Record

In South Australia the Murray River and its tributaries dominate the landscape. The river forms a deep single channel and turns southwards to drain into the Southern Ocean. In their middle and lower reaches these rivers cross semi-arid country (Littleton 2007). Evaporation exceeds rainfall and the average variability in rainfall is 33 percent (Karoly et al. 2003).

Ploughing, irrigation ditching, sand mining, and erosion have affected the archaeological record of this region. All of these human-induced events have led to the exposure of Aboriginal burials, however (Littleton 2007). Although these behaviors have caused weathering and harm to the archaeological record, they nonetheless led to the discovery of these findings.

The area has experienced high rates of soil loss due to a combination of severe drought, stock and vegetation clearance (Johnston & Littleton 1993) and the rapidity of erosion makes for a highly changeable topography (Littleton 2007). A highly changeable topography is not ideal for preservation of human remains. Consistency would be much more ideal.

The burial record reflects a landscape of survival and destruction and the record is neither complete nor representative (Littleton 2007). Due to the present state of the southeastern Australian mortuary records, and because most of the deposit has gone, assumptions about stratigraphy unfortunately cannot be made at this time.
       

River Murray. Image credit: Bill O'Neil flickr.com

Last Words

The current perception of Australian Aborigines is that they traditionally grouped together into small bands, to roam across the landscape and forage for sustenance and shelter. Our research shows that this belief is not based in archaeological fact.  In contrast to this, we have discovered Aboriginal burial sites and cemeteries with large numbers of interred individuals and an organized burial structure across a wide region. This trend and recurring theme in archaeological excavations around the Murray River prove that Australian Aborigines in the Southeast were often sedentary hunter gatherers who inhabited particular places for extended periods of time allowing the development of rich mortuary practices.

           

Pardoe states that cemeteries are viewed as symbolic markers of group affiliation and through that, land ownership. Pardoe also says that cemeteries are found only where groups and permanent but finite resources coincide. The archaeological sites found throughout the Murray River Basin, in their location and their amount of burials demonstrate and support the principles espoused by Pardoe.

Lake Victoria is indicative of large scale continuous habitation. With almost 10,000 bodies interred it is obvious that the environment in which these people lived, for thousands of years was able to support them while allowing for localised habitation and a ritualised connection to the land.

The many multiple-burial sites present throughout the southeast show that Aboriginal groups continuously used sites establishing persistent connection to place. Complex mortuary activity is also evident in Aboriginal cemeteries. Evidence of burial markings including scarred trees, artifacts associated specifically with graves and burial mounds show that the living meant to revisit those lost to them and create a dedicated space for this purpose. Within the graves, bodies were oriented in one consistent direction and form. For example, in the southeast bodies are aligned with the head facing towards the southwest and in an extended position. Children were always buried with others, there is evidence that mothers carried corpses of children until proper burial location and form could be arranged (Allen and Littleton 2007).

           

The fact that burials were always in resource rich areas, and consistently by a water source demonstrates that care and meaning were attributed to burial practices. Nomadic groups would not have the ability to transport large numbers of dead to specific sites if they were not in continual use of them. If, as is the common belief, Aborigines were nomadic hunter-gatherers there would be no such complex behaviour surrounding mortuary practice and specific locations. They would not have the resources or ability to establish these cultural traits. Cemeteries of sedentary hunter-gatherers mark territory (Pardoe 1988). They symbolize the rights of particular groups to resources.  Australian aboriginal cultures were much more complex than originally believed and the rich archaeological record strongly supports this.

Thanks for visiting the River Murray!

Image credit: Bill O'Neil on flickr.com

Bibliography

Allen, H and J Littleton. "Hunter-gatherer burials and the creation of persistent places in southeastern Australia." Journal of Anthropological Archaeology. 26 (2007): 283 - 298. Print.

Bednarik, R. "The initial peopling of Wallacea and Sahul." Anthropos. 92.4 (1997): 355 - 367. Print.

Blackwood, R. and K.N.G. Simpson. “Attitudes of Aboriginal skeletons excavated in the Murray Valley region between Mildura and Renmark, Australia.” Mem. Nat. Museum of Victoria. 34 (1973): 99 – 150. Print.

Bowdler, S. “Archaeological investigation of a threatened Aboriginal burial site near Robinvale, on the Murray River, Victoria.” Report to the Victorian Archaeological Survey. (1983). Print.

Brown, P. “Coobool Creek: A Prehistoric Australian Hominid Population.” Unpublished phD thesis, Australian National University. (1982). Print.

Clark, P. and J Hope. “Aboriginal burials and shell middens at Snaggy Bend and other sites on the Central Murray River.” Australian Archaeology. 20(1985): 68 – 89. Print.

Hudjashov, G, et al. "Revealing the Prehistoric settlement of Australia by Y Chromosome and mtDNA analysis." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 104.21 (2007): 8726 - 8730. Print.

Littleton, J. "From the perspective of time: hunter-gatherer burials in south-eastern Australia." Antiquity. 81 (2007): 1013 - 1028. Print.

Lourandos, H. "Hunter-gatherer cultural dynamics: long and short term trends in Australian Prehistory." Journal of Archaeological Research. 1.1 (1993): 67 - 87. Print.

Meehan, B. “The form, distribution and antiquity of Australian Aboriginal mortuary practices.” Unpublished MA thesis, University of Sydney. (1971). Print.

O'Neill, G. "Cemetery reveals complex Aboriginal society." Science. 264.5164 (1994): 1403. Print.

Pardoe, C. "The cemetery as symbol. The distribution of Prehistoric Aboriginal burial grounds in southeastern Australia." Archael, Oceania. 23 (1988): 1 - 16. Print.

Pardoe, C. "The Mallee Cliffs burial and population based archaeology." Australian Archaeology. 27 (1988): 45. Print.

Pardoe, C. "Wamba Yadu, A later Holocene cemetery of the Central River Murray." Archael, Oceania. 28 (1993): 77 - 84. Print.

Pretty, G.L. “The cultural chronology of the Roonka Flat. A preliminary consideration.” Stone Tools as Cultural Markers. R.V.S. Wright (ed.) (1977): 288 – 331. Print.

Sereno, P et al. "Lakeside cemeteries in the Saharah: 5000 years of Holocene population and environmental change." PLoS ONE. 3.8 (2008): 1 - 23. Print.

Stirling, E.C. “Preliminary report on the discovery of Native remains at Swanport, River Murray: with an inquiry into the alleged occurrence of a pandemic among the Australian Aboriginals.” Trans. Royal Society of South Australia. 35 ( 1911): 4 – 46. Print.

Sunderlands, S. and L.J. Ray. “A note on the Murray Black collection of Australian Aboriginal skeletons,” Proc. Royal Society of Victoria. 71 (1959): 105 – 141. Print.

Thorne, A.G. “Kow Swamp and Lake Mungo.” Unpublished phD thesis, University of Sydney. (1975). Print.

Turney, C, and M Bird. "Early human occupation at Devils Lair southwestern Australia 50,000 years ago." Quaternary Research. 55.3 (2001): 3 - 13. Print.

White, J, and J O'Connell. "Australian Prehistory: new aspects of antiquity." Science. 203.4375 (1979): 21 - 28. Print.