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

Clarkson, Chris

doi:10.26530/oapen_459360

Cited by 26 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 134 publications

(221 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Some tool forms such as tula were subject to repeated resharpening retouch. This process was applied less often to typological scrapers in our study area although in other parts of Australia there is much better evidence for scraper resharpening (Clarkson 2002(Clarkson , 2007. Particular raw material types were selected for some tool types, particularly those with greater degrees of retouch such as tula, and less "formal" types tended to be manufactured from larger flakes.…”

Section: Case Study Ii: Retouched Toolsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Twenty-First Century Archaeology of Stone Artifacts

Holdaway

Douglass

2011

J Archaeol Method Theory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Archaeologists today, as in the past, continue to divide their stone artifact assemblages into categories and to give privilege to certain of these categories over others. Retouched tools and particular core forms, for instance, are thought to contain more information than the unretouched flakes and flake fragments. This reflects the assumption that information to be gained from stone artifacts is present within the artifact itself. This study evaluates a continued interest in the final form of stone artifacts by first considering ethnographic accounts of stone artifact manufacture and use in Australia and then by utilizing the patterns observed in these accounts to investigate assemblage patterning within an Australian archaeological case study. Reading the ethnographic accounts provides no indication that Aboriginal people valued more or less complex artifacts, in uniform ways, in every situation. In fact, the opposite is true. Stone artifacts were always valued in some sense but which ones, and in which ways, depended on the situations the people who needed the artifacts found themselves in. Aboriginal people were quite capable of making and using expedient and informal artifacts in complex ways. The significance of these observations is considered for stone artifact studies in general and in relation to a case study from western New South Wales, Australia.

show abstract

Section: Case Study Ii: Retouched Toolsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Twenty-First Century Archaeology of Stone Artifacts

Holdaway

Douglass

2011

J Archaeol Method Theory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…proportions of overhang removal tend to occur during more advanced stages of 329 assemblage reductions, and may relate to the knappers adjusting the core platforms to 330 prepare them for the more difficult blows required to detach flakes from smaller or 331 more awkward cores (Clarkson, 2007;Macgregor, 2005;Marwick, 2008). 332…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Early modern human lithic technology from Jerimalai, East Timor

Marwick

Clarkson

O’Connor

et al. 2016

Journal of Human Evolution

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Jerimalai is a rock shelter in East Timor with cultural remains dated to 42,000 years ago, making it one of the oldest known sites of modern human activity in island Southeast Asia. It has special global significance for its record of early pelagic fishing and ancient shell fish hooks. It is also of regional significance for its early occupation and comparatively large assemblage of Pleistocene stone artefacts. Three major findings arise from our study of the stone artefacts. First, there is little change in lithic technology over the 42,000 year sequence, with the most noticeable change being the addition of new artefact types and raw materials in the midHolocene. Second, the assemblage is dominated by small chert cores and implements rather than pebble tools and choppers, a pattern we argue pattern, we argue, that is common in island SE Asian sites as opposed to mainland SE Asian sites. Third, the Jerimalai assemblage bears a striking resemblance to the assemblage from Liang Bua, argued by the Liang Bua excavation team to be associated with Homo floresiensis. We argue that the near proximity of these two islands along the Indonesian island chain (c.100 km apart), the long antiquity of modern human occupation in the region (as documented at Jerimalai), and the strong resemblance of distinctive flake stone technologies seen at both sites, raises the intriguing possibility that both the Liang Bua and Jerimalai assemblages were created by modern humans. Jerimalai is a rock shelter in East Timor with cultural remains dated to 42,000 years 26 ago, making it one of the oldest known sites of modern human activity in island 27 Southeast Asia. It has special global significance for its record of early pelagic fishing 28 and ancient shell fish hooks. It is also of regional significance for its early occupation 29and comparatively large assemblage of Pleistocene stone artefacts. Three major 30 findings arise from our study of the stone artefacts. First, there is little change in lithic 31 technology over the 42,000 year sequence, with the most noticeable change being the 32 addition of new artefact types and raw materials in the mid-Holocene. Second, the 33 assemblage is dominated by small chert cores and implements rather than pebble tools 34 and choppers, a pattern we argue is common in island SE Asian sites as opposed to 35 mainland SE Asian sites. Third, the Jerimalai assemblage bears a striking resemblance 36 to the assemblage from Liang Bua, argued by the Liang Bua excavation team to be 37 associated with Homo floresiensis. We argue that the near proximity of these two 38 islands along the Indonesian Island chain (c.100km apart), the long antiquity of 39 modern human occupation in the region (as documented at Jerimalai), and the strong 40 resemblance of distinctive flake stone technologies seen at both sites, raises the 41 intriguing possibility that both the Liang Bua and Jerimalai assemblages were created 42 by modern humans. 43 44

show abstract

“…Yet we know of no evidence that suggests prehistoric knappers always applied minimal retouch to flakes. The level of retouch, as well as the nature of retouch, was variable and contingent on many factors (for examples of these complexities see Hiscock, 2004Hiscock, , 2009Clarkson, 2002Clarkson, , 2007. It was specifically to avoid subjective and unwarranted judgments on functionality that our experiments continued until specimens broke (Hiscock and Clarkson, 2005b).…”

Section: Procedures In Reduction Experimentsmentioning

confidence: 98%

The reality of reduction experiments and the GIUR: reply to Eren and Sampson

Hiscock

Clarkson

2009

Journal of Archaeological Science

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a b s t r a c tThere is no ambiguity in the existing empirical support for a GIUR as a robust predictor of mass lost from flakes through unifacial retouching. We demonstrate why the GIUR is a reliable method for inferring mass loss, in appropriate circumstances, and why it is a more powerful predictor of mass loss than touted competitors. We explain why Eren, M.I., Sampson's, G. [2009. Kuhn's geometric index of unifacial stone tool reduction (GIUR): does it measure missing flake mass? J. Archaeol. Sci.] arguments are faulty and why researchers should use the GIUR in preference to other methods of estimating the extent of unifacial retouch.

show abstract

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

Cited by 26 publications

References 134 publications

A Twenty-First Century Archaeology of Stone Artifacts

A Twenty-First Century Archaeology of Stone Artifacts

Early modern human lithic technology from Jerimalai, East Timor

The reality of reduction experiments and the GIUR: reply to Eren and Sampson

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About