Retouched, rejuvenated, recycled and occasionally hafted as projectiles: stone points of Holocene Australia

Abstract

Macroscopic evidence for projectile use of stone points across the Kimberley region of northern Australia is examined using archaeological assemblages from the mid to late Holocene. There is scant evidence to support more than occasional projectile use. High rates of rejuvenation, recycling and continuous resharpening contribute to the low frequency of impact damage. The extent and location of edge damage, interpreted as probable use-wear, is demonstrated to have distribution patterns consistent with multipurpose functions. Projectile use was merely one, albeit infrequent function of these versatile tools. This study uses use-wear data to engage with technological organisation theory and discusses rates of use, resharpening, rejuvenation and recycling. Standardisation and an emphasis on maintainability provide the best explanation as to why people produced these tools during the Holocene. RESUMELes preuves macroscopiques de l'utilisation de pointes de pierreà l'aide de projectiles dans la région de Kimberley, dans le nord de l'Australie, ontété examinéesà l'aide d'ensembles archéologiques datant de l'Holocène moyenà tardif. Il existe peu de preuves pour appuyer davantage que l'utilisation occasionnelle de projectiles. Les tauxélevés de rajeunissement, de recyclage et de réaffûtage continu contribuentà la faible fréquence des dommages par impact. L'étendue et l'emplacement des dommages sur les bords, interprétés comme une usure probable, présentent des schémas de distribution compatibles avec les fonctions polyvalentes. L'utilisation de projectiles n'était qu'une des fonctions, même si ellesétaient peu fréquentes, de ces outils polyvalents. Cetteétude utilise des données d'usure pour porter sur la théorie de l'organisation technologique et pour discuter des taux d'utilisation, de réaffûtage, de rajeunissement et de recyclage. La normalisation et l'accent mis sur la maintenabilité fournissent la meilleure explication sur la raison pour laquelle les gens ont fabriqué ces outils pendant l'Holocène.

Thirsty work: Testing the risk reduction model of mid- to late-Holocene stone points with distance decay from freshwater in northern Australia

“…One proposition seeking to explain development and proliferation of bifacial point technology at this time, largely draws on shifts recorded in point retouching and tool provisioning, being linked to periods of Holocene aridity – forming a now wide spread model (e.g. Clarkson, 2007; Hiscock, 2011; Maloney, 2020b). Key to these studies, is the relationship between increasing mobility and point reduction; a challenging concept to quantify from archaeological records, yet one which holds promise for direct testing of this pervasive model for technological change in Australia.…”

“…The development of Holocene point assemblages found across northern Australia are now widely argued to have been part of such a technological response to foraging risks (e.g. Clarkson, 2006, 2007; Hiscock, 1994a, 1994b, 2011; Maloney, 2012, 2019, 2020b; Maloney et al, 2017). These points are direct percussion retouched flakes with converging margins, produced on macro blade blank (Figure 1).…”

“…They are found throughout the southern Kimberley after 5500 cal BP (Maloney et al, 2014). Use wear and experimental data suggest projectile use was rare, in favour of multipurpose functions and provisioning strategies (Brindley and Clarkson, 2015; Maloney, 2020b).…”

“…During periods of peak aridity in the late-Holocene throughout the Kimberley (McGowan et al, 2012: 4), point production, retouch intensity and tool recycling were correspondingly found to peak (Maloney, 2019, 2020b; Maloney et al, 2017). Similar trends have been identified in other areas of Australia using points and other stone tools (Clarkson, 2006, 2007; Hiscock, 1994a, 199b; Hiscock and Veth, 1991: 333–334).…”

“…This proliferation period shows a notable temporal correlation with environmental proxy data, predicting extreme aridity (McGowan et al, 2012: 4; see also Whitau et al, 2018) as well as more regional records indicating more significant periodicity in rainfall. With the decrease in the predictability of subsistence resources and freshwater, Maloney (2015, 2019, 2020b) argues that southern Kimberley people probably expanded their foraging range during this time.…”