Sea-level stabilization arguments : assessing their explanatory potential

Geomorphological data indicates that the relativenstability of sea-level of the past 6000 years was preceded byn12000 years of rapid sea-level rise. A number ofnarchaeologists have argued that the modern, resource-richncoastal environment did not form until the sea-levelnstabilized. They interpret their archaeological evidence innterms of an qenrichmentq of the coastal environment aftern6000 B.P .. Beaton has suggested that the occupation of thencoast around Australia reflects a pan-continental processnrelated to this enrichment.n In this thesis I examine the potential of sea-levelnstabilization to offer a general explanatory principle fornmid to late Holocene changes in the archaeological change. Inisolate the basic features of the sea-level stabilizationnarguments, then use ecological and geomorphological materialnto assess the effect of sea-level stabilization on thencoastal environment. I argue that while sea-levelnstabilization affected the coastal environment, the effectsnwere complex and variable between regions. I argue that therenwas no general enrichment from sea-level stabilization,nalthough the food base may have changed in specific regions.n I examine Princess Charlotte Bay as a case study, where Indevelop an environmental history by drawing on material innchapter three. The changes in the archaeological record atnPrincess Charlotte Bay do not correlate with changes in thenenvironment. I argue against explaining this with referencento a qtime-lagq, and suggest that the lack of correlationnindicates a lack of direct causal relationship. I arguenthat sea-level stabilization is only one part of the broader process of coastal evolution. I argue against usingncorrelations between sea-level stabilization and changes innthe archaeological record as indicating causal relations.nInstead, I propose that sea-level stabilization should benused in explaining changes in the environment rather thannchanges in the archaeological record. The environmentalnchange should be recognised as complex rather than involvingna simple qenrichmentq of the coastal environment.n I conclude that sea-level stabilization does not offernarchaeology a general explanatory principle. Nor does it innitself explain changes in the archaeological record in thenregions examined. It does, however, provide criticalncontextual data for analysing coastal archaeology.n