Prehistory in a nutshell: a <scp>L</scp>apita‐age nut‐cracking stone from the <scp>A</scp>rawe <scp>I</scp>slands, <scp>P</scp>apua <scp>N</scp>ew <scp>G</scp>uinea

Lentfer, Carol; Matthews, Peter J.; Gosden, Chris; Lindsay, Sue; Specht, Jim

doi:10.1002/arco.5008

Cited by 10 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Prior to the redating program there were 14 dates for Makekur: 10 on plant materials and four on marine shells Lentfer et al 2013;Specht and Gosden 1997: Appendix 1; Summerhayes 2001a: Table 3). These are listed on Table 9.2.…”

Section: Redating Makekurmentioning

confidence: 99%

New dates for the Makekur (FOH) Lapita pottery site, Arawe Islands, New Britain, Papua New Guinea

Specht¹,

Gosden²

2019

Debating Lapita: Distribution, Chronology, Society and Subsistence

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Estimates for the start of Lapita pottery in the Bismarck Archipelago, Papua New Guinea, have ranged from 3550-3450 cal. BP to 3300-3200 cal. BP. These estimates in turn overlap date ranges of 3480-3150 cal. BP and of 3360-3040 cal. BP for the W-K2 volcanic eruption in northern New Britain and reoccupation of the area by people with Lapita pottery (Petrie and Torrence 2008, 95.4 per cent probability). Here we review issues surrounding existing 14 C dates for the start of Lapita pottery throughout the archipelago and present six new dates for the Makekur Lapita site in the Arawe Islands. Based on a non-Bayesian assessment of the dates, we estimate a possible start of Lapita pottery around 3250-3150 cal. BP, at the late end of the ranges for the Witori eruption and reoccupation of the Willaumez Peninsula and close to initial dates for the Lapita expansion into Remote Oceania. Refinement of this estimate for the introduction of pottery to the Bismarck Archipelago through application of Bayesian statistics requires resolution of issues relating to existing dates and pottery analyses, and incorporation of results from current and planned redating programs of Lapita pottery sites within the archipelago. 9. New dates for the Makekur (FOH) Lapita pottery site, Arawe Islands, New Britain, Papua New Guinea 171 terra australis 52 which occurs here only in the palaeosol formed on the W-K2 tephra (Specht et al. 1991:284, 287). These results led Torrence (2016:7) to suggest that the W-K2 event and the start of Lapita pottery were essentially 'synchronous', though they potentially open a wide window between the appearance of pottery in the archipelago and the dispersal into Remote Oceania. A problem with these attempts to define a starting date for Lapita pottery has been a reluctance to apply rigorous 'chronometric hygiene' (Spriggs 1989) to the various date sets. One exception to this was the reassessment of dates for Lapita pottery in the Bismarck Archipelago that excluded all marine shell samples on the grounds that there were too few locality-specific ΔR values to enable meaningful calibrations (Specht 2007: Table 1), though the 26 plant samples used were only lightly vetted. Here we apply more rigorous culling protocols for both marine and terrestrial samples than have been used in previous studies, taking advantage of locality-specific ΔR values for parts of the archipelago (Petchey and Ulm 2012). The study incorporates six new AMS dates on plant materials from the Makekur Lapita site in New Britain (Gosden and Webb 1994). Combining these new dates with the existing ones throughout the Archipelago, this chapter concludes that the starting date for Lapita pottery in the Bismarck archipelago could be younger than existing estimates and close to the initial dates for the settlement of Remote Oceania. Materials and methods Radiocarbon dates used in this chapter have been calibrated in OxCal 4.2.4 (Bronk Ramsey 2009) using the IntCal13 and Marine13 curves (Reimer et al. 2013). Within the main text, age ranges are rounded to t...

show abstract

Section: Redating Makekurmentioning

confidence: 99%

New dates for the Makekur (FOH) Lapita pottery site, Arawe Islands, New Britain, Papua New Guinea

Specht¹,

Gosden²

2019

Debating Lapita: Distribution, Chronology, Society and Subsistence

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…; Lentfer et al . ; Lombard , ; Monnier et al . ; Pawlik & Thissen ; Robertson , , , , ; Robertson & Attenbrow ; Robertson et al .…”

Section: Use‐wear/residue Analytical Methodsunclassified

Residue and use‐wear analysis of non‐backed retouched artefacts from Deep Creek Shelter, Sydney Basin: Implications for the role of backed artefacts

Robertson

Attenbrow

Hiscock

2019

Archaeology in Oceania

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A previous use-wear and residue analysis of backed artefacts from Deep Creek Shelter showed that they had a range of functions and had been used with a variety of raw materials. Were non-backed retouched flakes at Deep Creek used for different purposes? To answer this question, 40 non-backed specimens were selected for microscopic use-wear and residue analysis. Not all of these non-backed artefacts had been used, but we identified that many were scrapers, knives, incisors and saws. These tools were used for bone-working and wood-working, and possibly skin-working and non-woody plant-processing. Some of these non-backed retouched artefacts were hafted. For the first time, these results allow comparison of the tool use of backed and non-backed artefacts in Australia. At Deep Creek, the range of functions for the non-backed component was extremely similar to that of the backed artefacts. Although both artefact categories displayed similar tool use, they are distinguished in one interesting way: non-backed specimens were often single purpose, dedicated to one function, whereas backed artefacts were often multifunctional and multipurpose. These results help us understand the structure of tool use in Australia. RÉSUMÉ Une premièreétude de traces d'usure et de dépôts de résidus sur des outilsà bordémoussé de l'abri de Deep Creek avait montré que ceux-ci remplissaient diverses fonctions et avaientété extraits de matières premières variées. Leséclats retouchés sans bordémoussé de Deep Creek ont-ilsété utilisésà des fins différentes? Afin de répondreà cette question, 40 outils sans bordémoussé ontété sélectionnés pour une analyse microscopique de tracéologie et de dépôts de résidus. Seule une partie de ces outils sans bordémoussé avaientété utilisés, mais nous avons constaté que beaucoupétaient des racloirs, des couteaux, des trancheurs et des scies. Ces outilsétaient employés pour du travail sur l'os et sur le bois, et peut-être pour le traitement des peaux et de plantes non ligneuses. Certains de ces outils noń emoussés retouchés avaientété emmanchés.Ces résultats permettent de comparer pour la première fois l'utilisation d'outils avec et sans bordémoussé en Australie.À Deep Creek, l'éventail des fonctions du composantà bordémousséétait très semblableà celui des outils sans bordémoussé. Bien que les deux catégories d'outil aient eu une utilisation similaire, ils se distinguent par un point intéressant: les spécimens sans bordémousséétaient souvent mono-tâche, dédiésà une seule fonction, alors que les artefactsà bordémousséétaient souvent multifonctionnels et polyvalents. Ces résultats aidentà comprendre le processus d'utilisation des outils en Australie.Mots-clés:éclatsà bordémoussé,éclats sans bordémoussé, analyse de dépôts de résidus et de traces d'usure, Mangrove Creek, microlithique, non-microlithique, analyse tracéologique microscopique

show abstract

“…The surface of many stone hammers and anvils have deliberately produced pits, of varying size, shape and arrangement (e.g., McCarthy, 1976: 47;McCourt, 1975: 139-140;Pardoe et al, 2019;Thorpe, 1932: 305). Artefacts with percussive pits on their surfaces are often referred as 'pitted anvils', 'pitted stones', 'nutting stones', and the formation of pits is commonly interpreted as rejuvenation of the seed grinding surfaces or as a result of either bipolar knapping of stone or cracking nuts (e.g., Goren-Inbar et al, 2002;Lentfer et al, 2013;McCarthy, 1976: 47; see discussions above). The overseas literature includes a limited number of replicative experiments designed to investigate the process of surface modification on tools used for cracking and pounding edible hard-shelled seeds/nuts (e.g., Dubreuil, 2004;Fullagar et al, 2012;Goren-Inbar et al, 2002).…”

Section: Nswcc Artefacts Several Multi-functional Nswccmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Eight GEAs have shallow, circular or oval depressions or incipient pits (cf., Goren-Inbar et al, 2002: 2457 of minimal depth (1-3 mm) (Wear-type 6). These were apparently formed as a result of repetitive percussive impact between the stone surfaces and hard-shelled nuts in order to extract edible kernels (e.g., Goren-Inbar et al, 2002;Lentfer et al, 2013;McCarthy, 1976: 47). Well-defined shallow pits contain dense rough and fine peck marks and some irregular scratches and deep cracks with rounded and levelled edges.…”

Section: Nswcc Artefacts Several Multi-functional Nswccmentioning

confidence: 99%

Microscopic revelations: the forms and multiple uses of ground-edged artefacts of the New South Wales Central Coast, Australia

Attenbrow¹,

Kononenko²

2019

Tech. Rep. Aust. Mus., Online

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Results of an exploratory study, that set out to investigate the types of use-wear that could be observed on ground-edged artefacts from the NSW Central Coast of eastern Australia, are presented. The main findings are the multiple activities for which the hatchets were used and the types of materials which they worked. Some of the activities and materials are not noted in historical accounts for southeastern Australia, and suggestions are raised about possible uses of hatchets by women. Among new results are uses for the unusual ground-edged hammer/pounders which are not recorded in the historical literature and which seem to be almost restricted to the NSWCC. Basic functional data about the actions undertaken and materials worked by the hatchets and hammer/ pounders were obtained using low-and high-power microscopy, and by comparing wear traces recorded in previous use-wear studies and on experimental basalt tools. The use-wear analyses, not only identified activities that created the 'battered' edges, but also revealed a greater multiplicity of uses of the ground-edged artefacts than hitherto identified. Eighteen wear-types document use of ground-edged artefacts for working wood, skin and ochre, abrading and polishing bone, and as hammers and anvils in working stone. Non-woody plant material was processed by both hatchets and hammer/pounders. The activities and processed materials identified by the use-wear analysis, especially those referred to as hammer/pounders, give new insights into understanding the diversity of forms and multiple functions of this class of implement in Australia.

show abstract

Prehistory in a nutshell: a Lapita‐age nut‐cracking stone from the Arawe Islands, Papua New Guinea

Cited by 10 publications

References 31 publications

New dates for the Makekur (FOH) Lapita pottery site, Arawe Islands, New Britain, Papua New Guinea

New dates for the Makekur (FOH) Lapita pottery site, Arawe Islands, New Britain, Papua New Guinea

Residue and use‐wear analysis of non‐backed retouched artefacts from Deep Creek Shelter, Sydney Basin: Implications for the role of backed artefacts

Microscopic revelations: the forms and multiple uses of ground-edged artefacts of the New South Wales Central Coast, Australia

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About