Assignment Writing Service http://StudyHub.vip/Australian-Indigenous-Architecture--Its 👈

1. Australian Indigenous Architecture - Its Forms and Evolution
Paul Memmott and Carroll Go-Sam
Aboriginal Environments Research Centre
Department of Architecture, University of Queensland.
Introduction
The modest nature of 'Aboriginal architecture' poses numerous questions concerning the role of
built form in Australian Indigenous cultures. The vernacular construction technology was
misconstrued by colonial immigrants as evidence of' ‘primitive culture', but on the contrary,
there is now an abundance of documentation to indicate that Aboriginal vernacular architecture
is an expression of highly complex relationships between the physical and social environment.
As a field of contemporary vernacular study, Aboriginal 'ethno-architecture' can be defined as
one that has been created and built by the users, adjusted as required to suit their own lifestyle
and changing needs, and supportive of their own social organization and interaction .... all this
being done by the people with their own technologies, their own labour and skills, and drawing
where appropriate on the customary traditions of their pre-contact (or classical) Indigenous
architecture.
Three major periods can be differentiated in the recorded history of Aboriginal
ethno-architecture, these being:
(1) The classical Aboriginal ethno-architecture as practised prior to the arrival of the colonists;
(2) Acculturated ethnoarchitecture of the 19th and 20th centuries which can be subdivided
into (a) pastoral camps, (b) mission camps, (c) government settlement camps, (d) town
camps;
(3) Outstation ethno-architecture during and after the 1970s.
It will be later argued that the architectural character created by the commonalities and
diversities of these period sub-styles constitutes an evolving Aboriginal architecture which offers
an epistemic challenge to non-Aboriginal concepts of architecture. Before examining this
definition, it is first necessary to provide an ethnographical and historical overview of the
principal elements of this architectural typology1
.
Classical Aboriginal Ethno-Architecture
The dominant architecture of Aboriginal settlements prior to the British invasion was domestic,
comprising a considerable range of shelter types used in residential camps. Most tribal or
language groups employed a repertoire of up to seven or eight shelter types one of which was
selected for use under particular circumstances of prevailing weather, availability of local raw
materials, planned purpose and length of stay, and size and composition of the group to be
accommodated. Each shelter type had a regional distribution, particular styles being largely a
function of the available structural and cladding materials and the extent of dominant climatic
influences. The customary settlement patterns were familiar, repetitive and constituted part of
the day-to-day cultural template of domiciliary lifestyle, resulting in a symbiotic design fit
between local shelter design, technology, seasonal usage, and camp behaviour.

2. The mobile hunter-gather lifestyle resulted in occupation of campsites from a single day to
several months with largely impermanent architecture, which was often misread by early
colonists as a confirmation of lack of connection or attachment to place. However, Aboriginal
bands occupied a series of camps in a permanent pattern of seasonal rotation. The modesty of
the camp architecture (as compared to other cultural groups) was supplemented by a highly
structured use of space as well as a complex geography of place.
Camp size varied from a single family up to several hundred people or more. The complex
logistics of spatial organisation were generated and regulated by cultural belief systems which
included behavioural customs and moral codes. For example, in a typical larger-sized
settlement, separate shelters were commonly used for diurnal and nocturnal activities. During
the day, men and women congregated apart, whilst nuclear families resided together at night.
Unmarried men and women slept in separate respective domiciliary groups. Nocturnal
domiciliary groups were spatially segmented into clusters usually based on class identity, tribal
or language group identity as well as close family relationships. Nevertheless clusters were
usually close enough for visual and aural communication. At the same time there were kinship
rules which forbade specific relatives from camping in proximity to one another, generating
unique types of sociospatial behaviour. Movement around camps was also restricted by
prescribed avoidance behaviours and gender-exclusive ceremonial grounds.
A survey of the various cultural regions reveals such technologies as stone wall construction,
grass thatching and plaiting, split bamboo, woven pandanus and coconut palm leaf, clay and mud
plastering, excavated floors, earth platforms, sand-weighted rooves, split cane ties, and the
weaving of foliage between wall rails. The diversity of construction techniques defies the
ethnocentric notion that Aboriginal people did not make a conscious effort to utilise the local
environment. Environmental management was mediated by religious links to sites and areas,
imbuing particular groups with responsibilities to monitor and ensure natural resources were not
depleted, and to facilitate (often ritually) a regeneration of supply stocks.
Other structures beside shelters included hunting hides, rock-wall fisheries, ground ovens, wells,
storage platforms and posts, fish drying racks, ceremonial stone arrangements and circular
mounds, as well as foliage walls, nets, trenches and pitfalls for trapping game. A variety of
structures were used to store the dead: graves with mounds (sometimes inside huts), platforms,
and cylindrical bark coffins in caves.
Domiciliary Architectural Types
In pleasant weather, preference was for open living with minimal structures. A common
continental type for dry cold windy weather was the grass, bark or foliage windbreak, with
warming fires. Shade structures were also widespread, constructed by either implanting leafy
boughs in the ground, erecting a horizontal roof structure, or making a lean-to with a ridge-pole.
Low enclosed shelters provided protection in those many parts of the continent where rain fell
for periods of only several days or weeks. Shelter heights were consistently 1.2-1.5m, for lying
or sitting postures. Shelter forms included domes, cones, cubes, circular walls with low rooves,
and vaulted or arched structures. Wider-span structures (usually domes) were also low and used
for larger domiciliary groups (ritual men's or women's gatherings). Common claddings were
barks, tussock grasses, reeds, palm leaves, and in the arid interior, hummock grass, sometimes
with a coating of sand, mud or clay.

3. In the relatively few areas of prolonged continuous rainfall, sophisticated styles of strong,
weatherproof shelters developed, of height up to three metres, and sited near plentiful resources
to enable sedentary occupation. For example in the north Queensland rain-forest, clusters of
intersecting domes were clad with layers of palm-leaves plaited on to cane frames, covered with
an outer skin of another type of leaf and overlaid with cane sticks for further stability. These
domes were large enough for standing in, and were occupied by several families.
It is now seldom to see examples of classical Aboriginal ethno-architecture which do not
incorporate acculturated components; exceptions being windbreaks and shades. One outstanding
type, still in use in Arnhem Land however, is the stringybark (Eucalyptus tetradontra) vaulted
roof combined with post-and-pole construction for wet season camps. Some time after the wet
season commences, the stringybark can be prised from trunks in lengths up to three metres and
used to construct vaulted forms supported on ridge-poles. To avoid the boggy ground a further
elaboration is a sleeping platform under which fires are burnt to repel mosquitoes. The most
sophisticated of these shelters have two (and even three) platforms, one above the other (possibly
with different functions for different segments of the 'household'), with a roof constructed of
rafters and purlins supported on four, six or more posts which were structurally independent of
the platforms. Sloping poles were used for climbing to higher level platforms.
Cultural Meanings
Traditional shelters were used as tools to shield everyday life from inclement weather. As such
they were pleasurable and secure things for the time they were used. Their life span seldom
exceeded a season and on most of the continent was more often several weeks or less, although
they could be repaired, rebuilt or recycled at a later time. From the available evidence, it seems
that for most Aboriginal groups, symbolism was seldom attached to shelter, nor was it usually
embellished with any decoration. Domiciliary memories and experiences for Aboriginal people
were more regularly associated with the broader environment including specific campsites, and
with the patterns of domiciliary behaviour and shelter design, not with specific shelters which
were too many, too similar and too impermanent to provide a stable connection with the past.
This argument may explain why only a few examples seem to have been recorded in the
ethnographic literature2
of shelter architecture having specific semiotic references that go beyond
the broader functional significations of climatic protection, domiciliary life and territory
(although other reasons may well have been ethnocentrism and a lack of scientific interest in the
past of ethnographic researchers).
In East Arnhem Land there is an exceptional shelter type which displays complex religious
symbolism of a culturally specific nature. Here, the significance of the forked post and ridge-
pole of the vaulted platform dwelling derives from the mythological activities of the Wagilak
sisters, ancestral heroines who built the first vaulted dwelling in the region. There are many
interpretations, but one clan for example, takes the horns of the fork as a personal totem which
represents red noses, fire, blood, and the wet mud of a sacred well from which sacred objects
emerged3
.
In contrast to domestic shelter, the ethnographic literature clearly demonstrates that grave
structures were embellished in different ways with symbolic markers, including feathers, bones,

4. painted wooden structures, conico-cylindrical stones, incised bark, carved tree trunks, the
deceased's possessions, or firewood for use at reincarnation. In this category of
ethno-architecture, complex architectural symbolism was a result of the preoccupation with
cosmology and cosmogony.
Acculturated Ethno-Architecture
The colonial frontier expanded inland slowly for 150 years with widespread impact on
Aboriginal cultures. By the beginning of the 20th century, traditional styles of Aboriginal
architecture were no longer found in the eastern and southern parts of the continent. In the
interior, displaced tribespeople camped near newly-formed towns and pastoral stations and
traditional architecture gradually transformed. Bush materials were replaced with recycled iron
sheets and bars, canvas, milled timber and later, plastic fabrics. In most regions of the continent,
Aboriginal tribespeople were eventually concentrated into government settlements or missions.
Here European administrators replaced traditional shelters with cottage styles, incorporating
such elements as timber piles, split log floors, walls and rooves clad with stringybark sheets or
grass thatch, and later galvanized iron. However the forces of cultural change varied from State
to State and region to region. In certain places, self-constructed architecture persisted, but
incorporated acculturated materials and artefacts, and combined with adapted Aboriginal
behavioural patterns and social organization. In this regard, four self-constructed settlement
types can be readily discerned in the contact era, at least up until the early 1970s, viz pastoral
camps, mission camps, government settlement camps, and town camps.
These settlements displayed the properties of large camps which in the pre and early contact
eras, endured for several weeks or months due to either abundant seasonal foods, or the hosting
of inter-group religious festivals and associated social activities such as ritual, public dancing,
trade, and duelling. This customary origin explains the high degree of external living and the
maintenance of structured shelter layout and spatial behaviour in such acculturated settlements.
Camps on pastoral properties often made the most direct usage of the classical style due to the
lack of interest of pastoral companies in the lifestyle of the residents. Unfortunately there are
negligible architectural case studies of such. An exception is a body of data on Alyawarr camps
on MacDonald Downs and Derry Downs as recorded by the ethnologist W. Denham and the
ethno-archaeologists J. O'Connell and L. Binford in the 1970s. The vernacular architecture and
associated domiciliary behaviour of the Alyawarr of the Sandover River basin are representative
of a number of Central Australian remote groups (eg. the Warlpiri, Anmatyerre, Warumungu),
who provided labour to the cattle industry and resided in self-constructed, semi-sedentary camps
with a transformed economy and material culture, whilst retaining much of their traditional
repertoires of languages, craft skills, knowledge, customs and religion4
.
A second acculturated settlement type was the Mission Camp or Village. During the early 20th
century there was a general lack of mission resources for, or interest in housing adults, by
missionaries but rather a focus on the cultural change of children who were isolated into
dormitories. Thus in many cases a continuation of traditional camps and shelters persisted at
least for adults, into the post-war period, albeit within a process of gradual sedentism as labour
was exchanged for Western goods and foods. Thus many customary behavioural patterns
persisted in mission camps, although missionaries directed some imposed change on household

5. compositions (eg by forbidding polygyny). Poor health arising from the inadequately planned
sedentism eventually triggered programmes of technological reform.
A similar process occurred in many government Aboriginal settlements. These were formed to
service large centralized populations forced together under a variety of political policies. Once
again the emphasis was often on the delivery of education, health and welfare services rather
than housing, and sedentary camps sprung up around administrative centres. Even though
Western style housing has been provided since the 1970s, there are still many remote centres that
contain self-constructed sub-camps of acculturated materials. A recent outstanding case study
has been completed by Keys5
of Warlpiri single women's camps or “jilimi” used in the 1990s,
and constructed of recycled acculturated materials.
The domiciliary spaces of Warlpiri jilimi contain one, or several, of four shelter types, the
combination being dependent on weather conditions, viz (i) the windbreak (yunta), (ii) the
enclosed shelter (yujuku), (iii) the horizontal shade (mulunba) and (iv) the adapted tree shade
(yama-puralji). The spatial behaviour in jilimi was characterized by:-
• 'snake-like' lineal structures oriented north-south and up to 20 metres long used for
sleeping;
• preferred sleeping orientation of head pointing east to facilitate reception of good
dreams and to prevent illness;
• structures designed to facilitate wider visual surveillance in the settlement;
• personalized spaces occurring within these shelters;
• a number of external hearths as the foci of different diurnal activities in particular parts
of the domiciliary
space;
• movement of the camp upon the death of a resident and long-term avoidance of the site
even after a ritual site cleansing.
Fringe Settlements and Town Camps
The fourth type of settlement, town camps, or 'fringe' settlements were once plentiful in rural
Australia, but most have been demolished since the early 1970s by local government authorities.
They had an economic relationship with the town and the wider region, being a source of
pastoral and town labour. The campers in turn sought access to desired services and goods in the
town. Being a short distance from town permitted sufficient social privacy and autonomy to
maintain various aspects of Aboriginal culture and identity, much of which had to be suppressed
in the government settlements and missions eg. ceremonies, public dancing, mortuary rituals,
marriage practices, fights, etc, as well as sociospatial structures and various forms of domiciliary
and spatial behaviour.
Leaving aside sociological and economic definitions of 'fringe dwellers' or Town Campers6
, an
architectural definition of a fringe settlement is as follows. Such settlements were comprised of
self-constructed unserviced 'humpies' or shacks, made of second-hand materials, without the
approval of the local government authority. Not only did the residents design and build their
own humpies, but they also planned their locations and spacing in relation to one another in the
settlement. They were their own town planners. These settlements occupied vacant crown land,
often the town common reserved for the use of pastoral stock being moved by drovers.

6. The visual character of humpy architecture was dominated by the use of second-hand sheet iron,
both flat and corrugated. Its advantages as a cladding material were low maintenance, ease of
shaping, bracing, durability, pliability, re-usability, portability and adaptability (adding rooms or
openings.) Sheets were readily bent, cut and shaped with minimal technology to provide
weather-proof details. Post-to-beam and rafter-to-beam connections were made by drilling holes
with a brace-and-bit and tying members together with galvanized wire, a technique adapted from
fencing technology. Humpy floors were of compacted earth.
Town Camp settlements studied by researchers in the 1970s displayed a strong sense of social
boundedness, not through the use of fences or other territorial markers, but through the
architectural character of the settlement and the distinct lifestyle of its residents, unified through
a social network and a pattern of domiciliary behaviour. The Indigenous identity of such
settlements provided a cultural barrier to most of the town whites. There was a strong sense of
social privacy and mechanisms of control of access. The residents became equipped with a type
of autonomy which, despite their material impoverishment, comprised a social strength in coping
with other aspects of change and a collective force to resist imposed change. These aspects were
certainly not recognized by those Local Authorities who pressed for new housing and the
assimilation of the Aboriginal people into the town.
By the late 1980s (earlier in eastern States), most Town Camps were gone, being the victims of
the assimilation policies and Council bulldozers. Whatever the negative aspects of town camps
were, in terms of health problems, lack of services, amenities, water, drainage etc, these
problems were by and large, no different to those in the institutional Mission and Reserve
settlements of the time. A key difference was that outsiders, including journalists, not allowed
into these latter settlements, whilst Town Camps were in the public eye and thereby attracted
criticism.
A number of architectural researchers have documented the ethno-architecture and domiciliary
lifestyle in Town Camps in N.S.W., Qld and the N.T7
. A Town Camp that remained intact in the
1990s, although diminished in size, is at a modest little town called Goodooga on the Bokhara
River, near the Queensland border. This 'Tin Camp' as it is known locally, was recorded in the
early 1990s8
, and contains a resident 'ethno-architect', who has built 15 or more humpies over
several decades with distinctive design and construction methods. In some of the domiciliary
spaces recorded by Smith, we note a complexity of cellular plan development. This is probably
the consequence of a long uninterrupted period of sedenterized lifestyle from 1950 (when a flood
destroyed previous residences). As a result of this long development period, 'house
improvements" observed in the residences included glass louvres, window curtains, floor
coverings, tyre buffer walls to yard, self-installed electricity and gas, 'carports' and mown lawn.
Outstation Camps
Another type of self-constructed ethno-architecture, that of 'outstations', emerged in the late
1970s. During this period, outstation movements occurred from many remote settlements due to
the government relaxation of centralized residential policies and the desire by groups to restore
their spiritual and managerial connections with their homelands (Coombs et al 1980). Outstation
development was accompanied by some revitalization of traditional forms and technologies

7. combined with acculturated materials and technologies. Unfortunately there are negligible
ethno-architectural studies of such settlements.
During the 1980s and 90s an interesting architectural concept emerged, particularly on
outstations; that of the 'decentralized house'. The decentralized house is generated by upgrading
an acculturated camp to satisfactory health and structural standards using Western construction
and material technology, with the least disruption to the spatial fabric of the camp. This generic
design type has now evolved from a design process which: (1) makes observations on the
subdivision of Aboriginal domiciliary space and behaviour in vernacular settings including
night/day, dry/wet, cold/hot and gender-specific distinctions, and (2) thereby generates the
design outcome of different types of structures, forms, materials, and degrees of enclosure for
different activities at different times. This results in a house as a set of separate structures,
combined with other site elements and services, rather than the conventional concept of the
house as a single structure containing a range of internal subspaces for different activities.
Examples of the successful application of this collaborative approach have been documented for
outstations at Palm Island, Wik homelands, and Barkly Tableland outstations.9
Such architectural developments lead to the idea of 'Collaborative Aboriginal Architecture'
which can be defined as architecture in which Aboriginal people retain conceptual, stylistic and
management control of the project but form a collaborative partnership with other
non-Aboriginal personnel (eg funding agencies, professionals, tradesmen, suppliers) to
implement such a project.
Travellers' camps - towards the idea of minimalist architecture
Perhaps the most striking example of culturally constructed use of domiciliary space which
employs minimal (if any) structure, thereby challenging the conventional concept of
'architecture', is that of a 'travellers' camp'. A travellers' camp is a quickly-made camp,
comprising domiciliary spaces, hearths and artefacts, and sometimes with windbreaks or shades,
that is used overnight or perhaps for only a few hours (such as a 'dinner' or midday camp), by a
group who is travelling through the country. As there is little time to invest in the construction
of shelters, the natural qualities of the chosen camping site are of substantial importance in
enhancing residential comfort.
Although such travellers’ camps continue to be in daily use in many remote parts of Australia,
there are limited numbers of recorded examples of such camps. The following case study of a
travelling camp recorded in 1991 (by Memmott) concerns two Central Australian tribesmen,
Elder P.W. a revered ritual leader, and a younger man, S.B. (P.W.’s nephew).
“P.W.'s preferred campsite location is in mulga woodland. He will be grumpy if there are not
any mulga tree communities available on the late afternoon route at which to camp for the night.
In other types of tree communities, there is more likely to be prickles, burrs, grass and ground
cover which can shelter snakes, centipedes, scorpions or the nests of stinging ants; whereas the
floor of the mulga forest is free of grass and easy to sweep clean of loose dirt and needle leaves
with a branch. Mulga is also a superior wood for cooking and warming fires as it produces long-
burning hot coals. In the mulga camp one notices the whirl of certain fast-flying flocks of birds
that adopt the mulga as their habitat. There is also a constant familiar and secure sound of wind
in mulga.

8. In the evening, P.W. and S.B. cook steak directly on the mulga coals in preference to using a
frying pan. The coals are occasionally hit with a stick to shed the ash from them, so that the
meat is kept clean. No western cooking utensils are required. If available, a fork may be
substituted for a stick to turn over and pick up meat. Little else is necessary in preparing the
meal apart from a billy to boil tea. If a kangaroo, emu turkey is caught during the day, a roasting
pit is employed, dug out from the desert sand with a stick.
P.W. and S.B. sleep side by side with a small mulga fire burning between them. Several mulga
limbs protrude to one side of their sleeping area, and are gradually fed into the fire through the
night. P.W. travels with a 'swag' of two thin frayed blankets - one blanket laid under and one
over him. He always sleeps in his clothes and points his head to the east and feet to the west to
prevent the infiltration of bad spirits during sleep. In the early morning, P.W. warms and smokes
the inside of his hat over the fire; his first activity after sitting up. S.B. blows the embers and fans
them to produce flames for boiling tea.”
Consider the properties of this camp. There are comforts of surface, vegetation, sound, smell,
warmth, security, spatial definition, customary domiciliary behaviours, and connection with
nature. In the circumstance of a strong wind, a windbreak would have been quickly constructed
of mulga limbs. If there was a shower of rain, the fire would have been stoked up, whereas
persistent rain would have possibly resulted in the stretching of a plastic sheet or blanket over a
tree. This is ‘architecture’ at its most minimal, yet the campers retain a certain level of comfort.
Conclusion
The life of the Aboriginal ethno-architect represents a cultural triumph. Camps and outstations
provide settings with sufficient autonomy to maintain and practice Aboriginality. And every so
often, occurs the same task of regenerating the Aboriginal settlement, re-cycling the old building
materials, and re-building the shelters, due to residential mobility, population changes, births and
deaths, climatic shifts, natural calamities or settlement 'fission' resulting from inter-group
conflicts. Not only do the people design and build their own residences, but they also plan their
locations and spacing in relation to one another in the settlement.
One can see in this settlement lifestyle, an experience of a more essential, direct, and demanding
relation with the environment than that of the average Western urban dweller who has little
control over the shaping of his or her environment, and who prefers a safe and sealed retreat
when the elements rage. This lifestyle reveals more clearly something of the essential nature of
Aboriginal humanness and experience, a type of lifestyle that is not concerned with the many
specialisms and technologies that cater for the Western urban dweller, but rather, one which
requires a much more personal confrontation and involvement with each and every problem of
residential survival that impinges in the course of day-to-day natural cycles and events.
This lifestyle context conforms with Oliver’s definition of ‘vernacular architecture’ in his
Encyclopedia of Vernacular Architecture of the World. Oliver writes10
that it is “… a particular
characteristic of vernacular architecture that each tradition is intimately related to social and
economic imperatives; it has developed to meet specific needs with each cultural milieu.” He
adds that ‘vernacular builders’ (note he does not say ‘architects’) are customarily from the
communities which use the structures and are frequently ‘owner-builder-occupiers’. This

9. appears to have been the case within most Aboriginal societies in pre and early contact times,
with every individual being versed in shelter construction. Nevertheless, there is anecdotal
evidence that certain individuals excelled and became occupationally specialized in more
permanent shelter construction. For example amongst the Wongkanguru and Dieri who utilized
a variety of dome forms throughout the arid surrounds of Lake Eyre, certain builders were in
such demand that they were borrowed from one camp to another and recompensed.11
Oliver has no difficulty combining the term ‘architecture’ with ‘vernacular’ traditions, assigning
‘architect-designed architecture’ and ‘vernacular architecture’ (as well as ‘popular architecture’)
into separate categories, without close scrutiny of how these separate traditions may be
commonly defined as sub-branches of architecture. In his definition of vernacular architecture
he does not clearly address the definition of architecture in a cross-cultural sense. Is there a
cross-cultural theoretical position possible on what architecture is? A consideration of the full
range of forms, traditions and properties of ‘vernacular architecture’ must surely inform such a
theory, and a consideration of Australian Indigenous architecture brings a special challenge due
in part to (at least this aspect is emphasized in this paper) its often minimal physical nature.
The 'travellers' camp' introduces the idea of 'minimalist architecture' in achieving a culturally
distinct environmental 'fit', a level of comfort and a phenomenological position in the landscape;
the idea of an 'architecture' without buildings. From this there follows a definition of
'architecture' which is more appropriate for the cultural circumstances of many Aboriginal
people-environment contexts: “Architecture as a selected, arranged and constructed
configuration of environmental properties, both natural and artificial, in and around one or more
activity spaces, combined with patterns of behavioural rules, to result in human comfort and
quality of lifestyle...” This definition fits the minimalist camp model. It can include buildings,
but may not. It does include selected environmental features, mental and behavioural rules,
spatial properties, hearths and artefacts.
Architecture here is then not necessarily based on the manipulation of the configuration of forms
and spaces in creative ways that transcend local cultural traditions, challenging local
architectural phenotypes and re-assessing genotypes, in the same manner that Bill Hillier has
posited in his recent treatise on the difference between ‘architecture’ and ‘building’12
. In the
current authors’ cross-cultural view of architecture, the fundamental elements of residential
design can thus be defined as domiciliary spaces, with subspaces for particular activities and
hearths, and optional shelters, all within preferred site characteristics. The 'architecture' is
initially defined by distinct spatial and cognitive rules and behaviours juxtaposed on the site.
The introduction of structure and buildings is dictated by these rules and behaviours, and
represents a material extension in response to climatic and social factors. Cultural symbols
encoded in physical form may provide another overlay of architectural properties.
It is interesting to note that writers in the ‘cultural studies’ field appear to be reaching a similar
position. Thus Hodge has recently acknowledged that Aboriginal residential camps utilize
‘space as walls’ organized using ‘semiotic strategies (which he defines as ‘signs and laws’ in
relation to ‘centres’). A wider cross-cultural position is taken by Nalbantoglu and Wong who
challenge the primary of visuality that dominates contemporary architectural studies and who are
concerned about the repression or exclusion of the “differential spatialities of often
disadvantaged ethnicities, communities or peoples.”13

10. In much the same way as the Aboriginal art styles of millennia have undergone a change in value
in Western eyes from the so-called 'primitive' to internationally famous labels such as 'Dot Art',
so is the architecture of Aboriginal Australia undergoing a shift in the non-Aboriginal
perception, from 'primitive huts' to 'ethno-architecture', as the qualities of the latter are becoming
better understood. In the 1970s academics wrote on how Aboriginal people maintained a sense
of place without artefacts14
. We can conclude from our understanding of the classically-derived
Aboriginal ethno-architecture, that Aboriginal people were and still are in many cases, able to
maintain an architecture without necessarily having elaborate buildings, or at least utilizing only
minimal structures.
Meanwhile the gap is narrowing between the Indigenous ethno-architecture and mainstream
architecture (as designed by professionally qualified architects) through the execution of
sensitive 'Collaborative Architecture' projects (as defined previously). There is not sufficient
space here to deal with the growing number of such projects but the reader is referred to (i) the
housing of Tangentyere Council in Alice Springs15
, (ii) the self-help houses facilitated by Paul
Haar16
in North Queensland, (iii) the two cultural centres by the architectural firm of Greg
Burgess Pty Ltd, the Brambuk Living Cultural Centre and the Uluru-Kata Tjuta Cultural
Centre17
, and (iv), the projects of the Merrima Aboriginal Design Unit of the NSW Department
of Public Works and Services18
.

11. ENDNOTES
1
As such an overview must be necessarily short, it is not possible to explore the many aspects of
the anthropological, archaeological and behaviour-environment theories that underpin this model
but such theories include economic theories of hunter-gatherer seasonality, scheduling,
exchange, and intensification; environmental ethnoscience; proxemics and territoriality; kinship,
social organization and land tenure; group identity and theory of self; group identity and theory
of self; ethno-archaeology; religion, totemism and semiotics; cultural change theory; ecological
psychology and setting theories. An introduction to this theoretical base can be found in Paul
Memmott, ‘Aboriginal People-Environment Research: A Brief Overview of the last 25 years’ to
be published in PAPER [forthcoming].
2
Paul Memmott, ‘Aboriginal Signs and Architecural Meanings,’ The Architectural Theory
Review, 1, 2, (1996): 79-100; and Catherine Keys, ‘Unearthing Ethno-Architectural Types,’
Transition, 54-55, (1997): 21,22.
3
Joseph Reser, ‘The Dwelling as Motif in Aboriginal Bark Painting,’ in P. J. Ucko (ed), Form in
Indigenous Art: Schematisation in the Art of Aboriginal Australia and Prehistoric Europe,
Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, 1977.
4
Paul Memmott, ‘Alyawarr,’ in P. Oliver (ed), Encyclopedia of Vernacular Architecture of the
World, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997.
5
Catherine Keys, ‘Defining Single Aboriginal Women's Needs in Central Australia: Dealing
with Issues of Culture, Gender and Environment,’ Architectural Theory Review, 1, 1, (April
1996): 69-77; and Catherine Keys, ‘Unearthing Ethno-Architectural Types,’ Transition, 54-55,
(1997): 20-29.
6
Reviewed in Paul Memmott, ‘From the 'Curry to the Weal', Aboriginal Town Camps and
Compounds of the Westem Back Blocks,' Fabrications, 7, (August 1996): 1-50.
7
See Paul Memmott, ‘From the 'Curry to the 'Weal, Aboriginal Town Camps and Compounds of
the Westem Back Blocks’. Fabrications, 7 ,(August 1996): 1-50.
8
Stephanie Smith, The Tin Camp, A Study of Aboriginal Architecture in North-Western NSW,
M.Arch. Thesis, Brisbane: Department of Architecture, University of Queensland, 1996.
9
Paul Memmott, (Guest Editor) ‘Aboriginal and Islander Architecture in Queensland,’ Special
Edition of Queensland Architect. Chapter News and Views, Brisbane: RAIA, (September 1993).
10
P. Oliver, (ed) Encyclopedia of Vernacular Architecture of the World, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1997, p. xii.
11
G. Horne, and G. Aiston, ‘Camp and Camp Life,’ Savage Life in Central Australia , London:
Macmillan, 1924, p. 19.

12. 12
B. Hillier, Space is the machine. A configurational theory of architecture. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1996, pp. 47,48.
13
B. Hodge, ‘White Australia and the Aboriginal Invention of Space,’ in R. Barcan & I.
Buchanan (eds), Imagining Australian Space: Cultural Studies and Spatial Inquiry , Nedlands,
W.A.: University of W.A. Press, 1999; and G.B. Nalbantoglu & C.T. Wong (eds), Postcolonial
Space(s), New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1997, p. 7.
14
Amos Rapoport, ‘Australian Aborigines and the Definition of Place,’ in W.J. Mitchell (ed),
Environmental Design: Research and Practice Proceedings of the 3rd EDRA Conference, 1,
(1972): 3.3.1 to 3.3.14.
15
Paul Memmott, ‘The Development of Aboriginal Housing Standards in Central Australia. The
Case Study of Tangentyere Council,’ in B. Judd & P. Bycroft (eds), Evaluating Housing
Standards and Performance (Housing Issues 4), Canberra: RAIA National Education Division,
1989, pp 115-143.
16
P. Haar in P. Read (ed), Settlement, A History of Australian Indigenous Housing, Canberra:
Aboriginal Studies Press, 1999 [in press].
17
R. Johnson, ‘Brambuk Living Cultural Centre, Winner Sir Zelman Cowen Award,’
Architecture Australia, (November 1990): pp 26-28; M. Tawa, ‘Liru and Kuniya,’ Architecture
Australia, (March/April 1996): pp. 48-55; K. Dovey, ‘Architecture about Aborigines,’ in
Architecture Australia, (July/August 1996): pp. 98-103.
18
D. McDonald, ‘Architecture and Dance’ in Architecture Australia, (July/August 1996): pp.
104-106; D. Kombumerrie and A. Wilson, ‘Lizard Working’ in Architecture Australia,
(May/June 1998): pp. 64-67; Merrima Group, Ngalama Architecture … explores alternative
relationships between people and places. [Catalogue of exhibition held in City Exhibition
Space, Sydney, 3/7 – 19/9/99], Sydeny: City Exhibition Space, 1999.