Australia: The Land Where Time Began |
||||||||||||||
Stone Tool
Manufacturing Methods - Flexibility on the Georgina River, Camooweal,
Queensland Ethnographic observation has well-documented the
highly flexible approach to stone technology that was often
characterised by a high level of flexibility. According to Moore it
appears that in the Australian context the function of a stone was
related only loosely to its form. It has, nevertheless, been recognised
in many ethnographic studies that artefact manufacture was “aimed at”
the production of specific forms (Horne & Aiston, 1924: 92). In this
study Moore has examined the rigidity in the manufacture of artefacts by
an archaeological analysis of a large stone assemblage from Camooweal,
northwest Queensland, Australia. The reduction sequence followed to make
the assemblage was modelled and the rigidity of the various trajectories
that comprised the reduction sequence was used to assess the degree to
which blanks for “aimed at” forms crossed between trajectories. The
technological analysis indicated that blank production for “aimed at”
forms was actually relatively rigid, though it is indicated by the
ethnographic literature
that various categories of artefact tended to be used in an ad hoc
fashion. Moore suggests this is at odds with the sweeping
generalisations concerning the flexibility of Aboriginal lithic
technology. According to Moore the “flexibility” of a lithic
technology can be seen as the degree to which a stone might be used for
multiple purposes. Moore says flexibility is a continuum that has a
hypothetic “inflexible” structure at one end of the continuum, which is
a reflection of the manufacture of a specific type of stone for a
specific use, and at the other end a “hyper-flexible” structure, which
is a reflection of the use of any stone for multiple tasks. Historical
changes in the perspective of Australian scholars of the Aboriginal
toolkit tacks a shift along this continuum. In the early years of
Australian archaeology the models used by archaeologists were borrowed
from paradigms of the Old World and applied assuming a degree of
inflexibility of stone technology, i.e. artefact types that were
archaeologically defined were believed to be a reflection of specific
functions or cultural groupings (Veth et
al., 1998). In more recent
decades the paradigm has shifted towards a consensus that stone tools
were used by Aboriginal People in a manner that was highly flexible and tool
form and function were rarely linked in any systematic way (Hiscock,
1998). Enhanced appreciation of the ethnographic
literature is the main reason for this intellectual shift. The
observations of Daisy Bates of the use of stone tools among Aboriginal People
in the 1920s is an example, inspiring her to rail against the
assumptions of Australian antiquarians. When she was confronted by the
claim that specific function is a reflection of specific types of
artefact, she noted “no stone – except the initiation flint – can be
said to be made for a definite purpose…[they] use their little knives
and flakes for any purpose”
Bates, 1922 in Wright, 1977: 2; emphasis in original). A similar observation was made by George Aiston: “In describing these tools it must always be
remembered that the casual nature of the black does not allow him to
keep any tool for the one purpose. He is just as likely to use his best
stone knife to scrape a weapon as he is to use any flake he may pick up.
At the same time he may get an affection for a certain tool and only
keep it for the purpose for which it was most suitable… This casualness
is what makes it so hard to say specifically that a tool is used for any
one purpose… (Horne & Aiston, 1924: 91-92). Though Aiston concludes “… but in describing them I
have carefully asked [the Aboriginal People] until I could arrive at what was
aimed at in each particular tool, and so have classed them” (Horne &
Aiston, 1924: 91-92). A similar track was taken by other researchers,
using observation and questioning what a stone tool was “aimed at”,
while discovering, often unexpectedly, that the tasks to which the tools
were applied epitomised “casualness and opportunism” (Gould et
al., 1971: 154). Therefore,
Aboriginal people sometimes used large bladed “fighting knives” as adzes
in woodworking (Cane, 1992: 25), “points” to engrave wooden tools
(Davidson, 1935: 162; Kamminga, 1985), “woodworking adzes” as a tool to
butcher animals (Thompson, 1964: 418) and throwing weapons (Davidson,
1935: 160), and axes as knapping hammers (Smythe, 1878: 379).
Aboriginals have also been observed scavenging byproducts of “aimed at”
tool manufacture for use in various tasks. An example is Horne & Aiston
(1924: 87, 101) commenting that flakes produced in the manufacture of
“ideal stones” were scavenged for use as “casual tools”. Flakes that
were struck during manufacture of axe blanks have been described
(Basedow, 1625: 363-4) that were used as-is or retouched into scrapers,
and flakes that were apparently struck in retouching a scraper were
mounted as barbs on the heads of wooden spears (367). Percussion flakes
struck in the manufacture of Kimberley points have been observed (Elkin,
1948: 11) being used for “cutting flesh,” and it was implied by Tindale
(1985: 9) that pressure flakes were used in ceremonies associated with
initiation. It has been noted (Roth, 1904: 16) that the detritus from
the manufacture of large blades might be retouched into scrapers, and it
was indicated (Binford, 1989: 181-2) that sometimes large blades might
be reduced as cores to produce small unmodified cutting tools. In some
parts of Australia “hyperflexibility” is suggested by the manufacture of
complex wooden implements by the use of stone pieces that are minimally
modified or even unmodified (Mountford, 1941; Thomson, 1964: 412-4;
Hayden, 1979; see also Gould et
al., 1971: 163, Gould, 1978: 819). Sometimes even hafted stone tools
that had been carefully crafted consisted of stones that were naturally
occurring with little or no modification were used (e.g. Tindale, 1965:
133, 135, 160; Mountford, 1965: 316). Moore suggests there is a tension in Australian
lithic studies as a result of an apparent contradiction in these
observations. It is clearly indicated in ethnographic studies that the
functions of stone tools were unstructured and highly flexible, though
it appears from archaeological analysis (e.g. Akerman, 1976; Akerman et
al., 2002: 18-20; Hiscock, 1993; Moore, 2003a, b) and ethnographic
evidence (Roth, 1904; Spencer & Gillen, 1904; Elkin, 1948, Baines,
1966), that the sequences of certain stone reduction were quite
structured, or, in a phrase from Aiston, were “aimed at” specific
artefact forms. Therefore, as a result of the overwhelming evidence
supporting the unstructured tool use by Australian Aboriginals, Moore
poses the question just how structured were the approaches to the
manufacture of tools among Aboriginals?
Exploring the source of blanks for the manufacture of “aimed at”
retouched forms through sequence modelling is a way of examining this
question. A reduction sequence model is a way to describe the
manipulations used by a stone knapper to a block of stone. The
presentation of the model can be in the form of a flow chart in which
technological choices are shown as pathways or “trajectories”. Flake
blanks to be used in the manufacture of “aimed at” forms derive from the
culmination of the technological steps within a single reduction
trajectory in a rigid, inflexible structure. In this case technological
structure consists of a set of distinct trajectories that involve a
minimum movement of flake blanks laterally between them, these lateral
movements being referred to in this paper as “crossovers”. When a
technological structure is flexible flake blanks for “aimed at” forms
are derived from any number of trajectories that are highly
interconnected. In this study Moore examined the structural
rigidity of the lithic technology that is reflected in large surface
assemblage recovered on the upper Georgina River, northwest Queensland.
Moore summarised previous studies into this assemblage and described
unpublished elements of the technology. To provide a reduction sequence
model of the lithic technology on the Georgina River various
technological reconstructions have been drawn together. It is suggested
by the results that a relatively rigid structure was used in the
manufacture of stone artefacts. The reduction sequence models for the
upper Georgina River, the Hunter Valley, New South Wales, and Tasmania
(Moore, 2000a, b) were compared and the implications for Australian
lithic studies are discussed in this paper. Conclusion In this study the flexibility of lithic technology
was examined from the standpoint of the production of blanks for “aimed
at” forms. According to Moore there is a high degree of technological
rigidity at Camooweal which Moore says is a bit surprising as the
general characterisation of Aboriginal technology as casual,
opportunistic, and ad hoc (e.g. Gould et
al., 1971). According to
Moore in the upper Georgina River region this characterisation applies
to the function of artefacts rather than to their manufacture. That the
waste flakes produced in the different trajectories were sometimes used
for multiple functions that involved the processing of both animal and
plant materials is indicated by residue analysis that is ongoing (T. Loy
pers. comm. to Moore, 2001; Loy & Nugent, 2002), which accords with the
ethnographic observations discussed earlier. It has been suggested by
residue analysis that incorporating a more realistic portrayal of use
would involve the overlying of an intricate web of arrows linking the
flakes produced at various stages of “aimed at” artefact manufacture, as
well as the forms that are “aimed at”, with many functions. Moore says
this would reflect the high degree of functional flexibility that is
apparently inherent in the upper Georgina River lithic technology. Moore asks the questions, “Why were ‘aimed at’
forms produced in the first place?” The functions for these “aimed at”
stone artefacts are indicated by ethnographic accounts to have had many
functions, and these functions were also accomplished by ad hoc flakes,
as well as non-stone elements of the material culture. E.g.., hardwoods
were worked successfully with unmodified
or minimally modified stones,
tula adzes or
hafted axes (Mountford, 1941); Thomson, 1964: 412-4; Hayden, 1979);
wood, bone or teeth were used to tip spears instead of stone (Davidson,
1934; Kamminga, 1985:8); Digging sticks and large blades were used to
dig and process yams instead of bifaces (O’Connell, 1974); see
discussion in Moore, 2003c); and small flakes and blades were used for
ceremonial fighting, instead of large leilira blades, which were
ostensibly made for the purpose (Aiston, 1928: 129; Horne & Aiston,
1924: 96-7; see discussion i9n Moore, 2003a). White concluded that “…
the majority of stone tool forms were not necessary, in a utilitarian
sense, at all” (1977: 26), resonates, according to Moore, in this
context. It has been suggested by several authors hat the
link between technological and social domains of human existence is a
defining characteristic in the emergence of modern human behaviour about
40,000 years ago in Eurasia (Kuhn & Stiner, 1998; Mithen, 1996a, b).
According to this view, at the start of the Upper Palaeolithic, the
explosion the forms of stone artefacts exploded, which reflects an
expansion and embedding of stone technology from the economic domain
into the social and symbolic realms of culture. There is a large amount
of ethnographic evidence from Australia that indicates stone artefacts
did in fact perform social and symbolic roles; therefore it is
conceivable that the discordance that has been discussed here between
the ad hoc function and rigid technological structure is related to the
phenomenon. Since it possible that Australia was colonised by 50,000 BP,
the study of Australasian stone artefact assemblages offers an important
source of data, which is largely untapped, on the emergence and spread
of modern human behaviour (Foley & Lahr, 1977). Moore suggests that an
understanding of technological structure behind stone artefact
assemblages is an important prerequisite for tapping this potential.
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
Author: M.H.Monroe Email: admin@austhrutime.com Sources & Further reading |