Flexibility of stone tool manufacturing methods on the Georgina River, Camooweal, Queensland

Abstract

The Australian Aboriginal approach to stone technology is often characterised as highly flexible, a phenomenon well-documented by ethnographic observation. In the Australian context, it would appear that a stone's function was only loosely related to its form. Nevertheless, many ethnographic studies recognise that artefact manufacture was "aimed at" producing specific forms (Home and Aiston 1924:92). This study examines the extent of rigidity in artefact manufacture through an archaeological analysis of a large stone assemblage from Camooweal, northwestern Queensland, Australia. The reduction sequence which created the assemblage is modeled and the rigidity of the various trajectories comprising the reduction sequence is assessed by the degree to which blanks for "aimed at" forms crossed between trajectories. While the ethnographic literature indicates that various artefact categories tended to be used in an ad hoc fashion, the results of the technological analysis indicate that blank production for "aimed at" forms was, in fact, relatively rigid. This stands at odds with sweeping generalisations about the flexibility of Aboriginal lithic technology.

Explaining point variability in the eastern Victoria River Region, Northern Territory

“…Only 8.3% of early stage points have this' early alternate retouch as opposed to the 80% that show initial retouch on the dorsal surface. No cases have yet been identified in the study region of the manufacture of bifacial points from tabular blocks of stone (rather than flakes) like those found in the Camooweel district (Moore 2003), suggesting regional variation in point manufacture exists in northern Australia.…”

The significance of Levallois and discoidal technology in the Arcadia Valley, south central Queensland

“…It is possible that one of the reasons Levallois and discoidal methods were employed in Australia was because they were well-suited to lithic material in cobble form. The Levallois methods employed in the Kimberley and at Camooweal, like those of the Arcadia Valley, were focused on the reduction of pebbles and cobbles (Dortch and Bordes 1977:3;Moore 2003a).…”

“…In contrast, Levallois appears to be restricted to the Late Phase in the Kimberley and possibly the Pilbara and Murchison districts of Western Australia (Bordes et al 1983;Dortch 1977:123-125). Moore (2003a) identified the production of Levallois points (which he termed 'blades') as one of five distinct reduction trajectories that characterised core reduction sequences at Camooweal in northwest Queensland. Moore's methods included flake scar analysis of cores and debitage, and knapping experiments to test the feasibility of reconstructions.…”

“…Yet over the last few decades, archaeologists have documented a range of formal core reduction strategies that were employed in particular regions at various times in the past (e.g. Akerman 1976Akerman , 2007Akerman et al 2002;Clarkson 2007;Cochrane 2013;Cundy 1977;Doelman and Cochrane in press;Hiscock 1993;Luebbers 1978;Moore 2000aMoore , 2000bMoore , 2003aMoore , 2003bMoore , 2004Moore , 2010Newman and Moore 2013;Witter 1988Witter , 1992). These studies demonstrate the variability in Aboriginal approaches to lithic reduction.…”

Lithics in the land of the lightning brothers : The Archaeology of Wardaman Country, Northern Territory

“…The first sequence is purely unifacial, while the second diverges at various points into sequence II bifacial point manufacture. No cases have yet been identified in Wardaman Country of the manufacture of bifacial points from blocks of stone rather than flakes (as seen for instance in the Camooweal district of north Queensland [Moore 2003]). There is some evidence for the existence of a potential third sequence involving alternative bifacial reduction from the very earliest stages, although this strategy is very rare (only 8.3% of early stage points, as opposed to 80% that show initial retouch on the dorsal only).…”