4.5 Article

Dating Aboriginal stone-walled fishtraps at Lake Condah, southeast Australia

Journal

JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL SCIENCE
Volume 39, Issue 2, Pages 268-286

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jas.2011.09.007

Keywords

Fish traps; Eels; Dating; Gunditjmara; Lake Condah; Western Victoria

Funding

  1. School of Geography and Environmental Science, Monash University
  2. Australian Institute of Nuclear Science and Engineering (AINSE) [AINGRA09007]
  3. Lucas Heights, Sydney
  4. Aboriginal Affairs Victoria
  5. Gunditj Mirring Traditional Owners Aboriginal Corporation, Heywood, Victoria

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Direct dating of stone-walled fishtraps has been a methodological challenge in archaeology and is generally considered insurmountable. Dating is usually associative, linking traps to local archaeological sites and geomorphological features of known age. Limited excavation of sediments burying the lower sections of stone-walled fishtrap features has been previously undertaken with limited success. Recent fine-grained excavation and comprehensive AMS dating and analysis of channel in-fill sediments associated with an elaborate freshwater fishtrap complex at Lake Condah, western Victoria, yields reliable insights into the phased construction and use of the feature. An early phase of basalt bedrock removal to create a bifurcated channel was subsequently in-filled with flood sediments incorporating stone artefacts and charcoal dated to c.6600 cal BP. After a hiatus, basalt blocks were added to the sides of the channel to create multi-tiered walls within the past 600-800 years. This site provides the first direct insights into the antiquity of the elaborate fishtrapping and aquaculture system developed by Aboriginal people in the Lake Condah region, and may represent one of the world's oldest known fishtraps. (C) 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available