Reduction, Recycling, and Raw Material Procurement in Western Arnhem Land, Australia

Abstract

Complex lithic assemblage variation in Arnhem Land, Australia, was initially explained by suggestions that multiple cultural groups had co-existed or that a single group had used different toolkits as they moved seasonally to exploit temporary resources. These models have proved untenable and differences in assemblage composition across the landscape are now explained in terms of procurement economics: as knappers rationed, recycled, and substituted artifacts in response to the varying cost of obtaining replacement stone in each location. The economics of raw material use, and its articulation with technological strategies suited to different contexts of mobility and risk, provides mechanisms that can explain the persistence of geographical differences in artifact assemblages but which can also make sense of temporal subtle changes in technological activities. Unlike earlier archeological theories, we can now conclude that site function and identity of the local residence groups were factors of little significance in the production of assemblage differences.Questions of why lithic assemblages display variation have been central to the explorations of Paleolithic societies on every continent. Increased understanding of lithic technology and more detailed paleoenvironmental reconstructions have, over recent decades, led to revision of many models about the character of assemblage variability and its articulation with past physical and social environments. In the context of Australia, where Paleolithic technology and economies existed until the last few centuries, reconceptualizing prehistoric ways of life involved abandoning linear models of cultural progression and recognizing that Paleolithic economic and technological systems were elaborate and dynamically changing (Hiscock 2008). These qualities are illustrated in new models of Lithic Materials and Paleolithic Societies Edited by Brian Adams and Brooke S. Blades

Still Bay and Howiesons Poort Foraging Strategies: Recent Research and Models of Culture Change

“…In this respect, ethnoarchaeological studies have demonstrated that projectile points are frequently used for non-projectile purposes. Perhaps the closest ethnographic analog with MSA points are the leilira blades, or "men's knives," documented among aboriginal groups in the northern, central and western arid regions of Australia (Binford 1986;Binford and O'Connell 1984;Hayden 1979;Hiscock 1994Hiscock , 2009McCall 2012;see Shea 1997 for a discussion of the similarity of leiliras with Middle Paleolithic points). As Hayden (1979) details, leiliras may be hafted as either knives or spear points and are frequently shifted from one purpose to another.…”

“…Arising at first within North American archaeological circles, a view developed of biface technology as multifunctional, versatile (i.e., capable of being retouched into a number of separate final forms), and efficient in terms of raw material economy (Hiscock 1994(Hiscock , 2009Kelly 1988;Kelly and Todd 1988;Jeske 1989;Odell 1996;Parry and Kelly 1987;Shott 2007;Whittaker 1994). By virtue of these features (and others), bifaces were linked with frequent and/or long-distance residential mobility and have been conceptualized in terms of the curation construct (see Odell 1996 for a review of this line of research).…”

“…While leilira blades are generally large, unretouched triangular flakes produced using pseudo-Levallois techniques (Binford and O'Connell 1984), they were produced using bificial techniques in the terminal Pleistocene and Holocene of northern Australia (Hiscock 1994(Hiscock , 2009). In fact, Hiscock (1994Hiscock ( , 2009 argues that the bifacial technique of leilira production emerged as a risk reduction strategy by virtue of the properties of biface efficiency discussed above. This is a clear case of large bifacial points with many characteristics in common with SB points being hafted and used as both spear points and knives.…”

“…We argue that the bifaces which characterize the SB, although frequently damaged as a result of their use as projectile weapons, were also multifunctional tools, with bifacial reduction functioning as a strategy for the economization of lithic raw materials and the maintenance of tool function. As with bifacial industries in other parts of the world, such as North America (Kelly and Todd 1988;Parry and Kelly 1987), northern Australia (Hiscock 1994(Hiscock , 2009, and the European Solutrean (Montet-White 2002), this technological strategy seems to have been related to a pattern of frequent and/or long-distance residential moves (Jeske 1989;Kelly 1988). In contrast, HP microlithic technology seems to have been related to a pattern of more specialized tool design, modularity in the manufacture of tool components, and reliability (sensu Bleed 1986Bleed , 2002 as a technological strategy.…”

Regime change: an anthracological assessment of fuel selection and management at Madjedbebe (Malakunanja II), Mirarr country, Australia

“…Through a number of publications Hiscock (1996Hiscock ( , 1999Hiscock ( , 2009Hiscock et al 1992) reassessed the proposed lithics sequences and settlement patterns for the region. In 1992…”