Moving past the ‘Neolithic problem’: The development and interaction of subsistence systems across northern Sahul

Abstract

The 'Neolithic problem' refers to forager/farmer interaction in northern Australia, where despite a shared environmental inheritance with their New Guinea neighbours, Indigenous Australians seemingly rejected both the domesticates and the practices of the Melanesian horticultural economy (White, 1971). This ethnographic example is often used to suggest that hunter-gatherers elsewhere may have chosen not to adopt agriculture. However, the premise of the 'Neolithic problem' has been criticised for its overreliance on the ethnographic record and on an anachronistic notion of cultural evolution, which exaggerates the dichotomy between New Guinean agriculturalists and Australian hunter-gatherers. In this paper we review the historical and theoretical treatment of the 'Neolithic problem' and the archaeological evidence for subsistence practices in northern Sahul spanning the past 50e60,000 years. Using niche construction theory (Rowley-Conwy and Layton, 2011) to reexamine the archaeological and ethnohistoric record, it is possible to observe the development and expansion of a variety of subsistence systems. Contrary to the premise of the 'Neolithic problem', the past 50e60,000 years of occupation in Sahul has seen the development of a varied array of food-producing subsistence practices in both New Guinea and Australia. However, the archaeological evidence for the expansion of horticultural practices and cultivars outside of highland New Guinea suggests a spatially and temporally narrow window for the adoption of agriculture by Indigenous populations in Cape York. Instead, the interaction between different subsistence systems in northern Sahul may have centred on the New Guinea lowlands and the Bismarck Archipelago, where, in the late Holocene, local communities interacted with other Melanesian and Austronesian populations. Whilst further archaeological investigation is required, it is clear that the image of culturally-static Indigenous Australian populations often implied in the consideration of forager/farmer interactions belongs to another era of archaeological thought.

Early ground axe technology in Wallacea: The first excavations on Obi Island

“…Increased precipitation in Wallacea at the Pleistocene-Holocene transition [67] may have increased vegetation density on Obi, creating the conditions for the invention of groundstone axes. The groundstone axes of Obi may be a local manifestation of niche construction responses to rapid early Holocene environmental change, which have been documented in a variety of forms across neighbouring Sahul [68].…”

Archaeologies of Island Melanesia: Current approaches to landscapes, exchange and practice

“…Subsequently, Hodder (1990) drew attention to the social and symbolic aspects of the Neolithic, while Thomas (1999) considered the Neolithic to be more a way of 'Being'. Today, in both academic and public discourse, the Neolithic has become a signifier of social complexity, dynamism and progression Florin and Carah 2018).…”

Reconsidering the ‘Neolithic’ at Manim rock shelter, Wurup Valley, Papua New Guinea

“…Subsequently, Hodder (1990) drew attention to the social and symbolic aspects of the Neolithic, while Thomas (1999) considered the Neolithic to be more a way of 'Being'. Today, in both academic and public discourse, the Neolithic has become a signifier of social complexity, dynamism and progression (David and Denham 2006;Florin and Carah 2018).…”