Kimberley points of Western Australia: Pressure flaking, projections and prestige

Abstract

Kimberley points are pressure flaked bifaces with marginal projections, produced within the last millennium, in north Western Australia. These points were hafted for hunting and fighting in recent times, although there is some suggestion that smaller points tended to be hafted for use in favour of larger points, which were reserved for trade and exchange. Kimberley Points are imbued with strong social signalling and prestige qualities, known from Historic times. This paper examines whether these qualities are reflected archaeologically in their marginal projections produced with pressure flaking; and their morphology and production. Multiple sources of Kimberley Point archaeology, ethnography, and production are critically reviewed. As prestige items, the marginal projections are found to very likely relate to their social value, rather than functional drive, which this study investigates using morphological approaches. Samples from both ethnographic collections and archaeological surface assemblages are analysed. The study finds that biface elongation, length and perimeter length each greatly influenced the number of and size of marginal projections, regardless of raw material. This aspect of production probably reflects the value and social prestige for large serrated points, likely produced by the knapper before an audience in virtuoso displays of pressure flaking. It is conceivable that these complex social practices emerged around 1,000 years ago. This study provides a rare glimpse into the social values of stone tool produces, and links archaeological data to social values in the past.

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

“…Firstly, the three measures of point retouch intensity are each in strong and positive agreement with one another (Table 2). The raw material availability of the study area is not drastically different (Maloney, 2015); which is supported by a lack of significant difference between retouch intensity and raw material types (MU: Z = −0.351, p = 0.725).…”

“…Undated assemblages throughout this study area were also analysed. These sites include the Lennard River sites originally collected by Blundell (1975: 212–213, 218–221, 232–236), and reanalysed by Maloney (2015: 341–349; 2020b), which contain large numbers of points. While undated, these assemblages probably date to within the mid-to-late-Holocene, based on the association of stone points and absence of more recent tool forms (Maloney et al, 2014).…”

“…Raw material availability, in the Andrefsky (1994) sense, throughout this study area is generally established as high abundance and low-quality north of the Fitzroy River; and low abundance and high quality to the south (Maloney, 2015: 42–44). Elsewhere, regional descriptions of raw material availability are provided by Akerman and Bindon (1995: 93), Akerman et al (2002: 17) and Blundell (1975: 597–599) which support this distribution.…”

“…While the Northern Territory and north Queensland sites (Figure 2) have a reasonably established risk reduction model argued to underlie variation in stone points (e.g. Clarkson, 2006, 2007; Hiscock, 1994b, 2011); this model is relatively new to the Kimberley record (Maloney, 2015). At Mount Behn (Figure 2), points peak in discard frequency, reduction intensity and recycling rates between 2602 and 1747 cal BP (Maloney et al, 2017).…”

“…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.…”