Towards Quantifying Teaching and Learning in Prehistory Using Stone Artifact Reduction Sequences

Maloney, Tim

doi:10.1080/01977261.2018.1564855

Cited by 18 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 77 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Both are discussed below. Elsewhere, claims for a reduced investment into the maintainability of direct percussion points, in favour of the production of pressure flaked bifaces, have been made in relation to the past millennium (Maloney 2015, ; Maloney et al . ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The implication is that retooling or rejuvenating damaged points was more economically crucial during times of higher foraging risk and less so within the last millennium. At this time, toolmakers were already innovating and exploring new techniques of production, which garnered social prestige and consumed comparatively more stone than direct percussion points (Maloney : 265, ; Moore ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Direct percussion stone points were first produced across northern Australia between 7000 and 5000 BP (Hiscock & Maloney ). Point production increases between 4000 and 1500 calBP, before in some areas changing or declining within the last millennium (Allen & Akerman : 90; Clarkson ; Maloney ). Pressure flaked bifaces (Kimberley Points) (Figure e), first widely occur around 1000 calBP (Maloney et al .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

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

Maloney

2019

Archaeology in Oceania

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

Maloney

2019

Archaeology in Oceania

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Until recently, manufacture and morphological variability of Kimberley Points was largely inferred from ethnographic and historical observations of parts of the production process (Balfour 1903(Balfour , 1951Basedow 1925: 367-370;Elkin 1948: 110-113;Indriess 1937: 59-62;Kaberry 1939: 16, 165;Love 2009: 93-95;Mitchell 1949: 64;Petri 2011Petri [1954Spencer 1928: 510-511;Tindale 1985: 8-11). Ethnographic observations combined with recent archaeological studies (Akerman & Bindon 1995: 94-95;Akerman et al 2002: 18-20;Maloney 2015: 196-226;2019; Moore 2015) demonstrate a staged or teleological manufacturing process for Kimberley Points. Maloney (2019: 43-45) and Moore (2015: 917) have provided detailed production models, recognizing 5 main production phases.…”

Section: The Kimberley Point Production Processmentioning

confidence: 93%

“…The leading explanation for the innovation and proliferation of Kimberley Points, is an association with prestige and social signalling Moore 2015, not shared with earlier, nonpressure flaked points (e.g., Maloney et al 2017a). It has been further argued that this innovation occurred during a time of reduced foraging risk and increased social interaction, when pressures to maintain longer tool use lives diminished and social connectedness spread (Maloney 2019;Maloney et al 2017a;Hiscock & Maloney 2017). In historic times, the act of highly skilled pressure flaking appeared to be an established and widespread practice of garnering personal prestige (Akerman 1978: 489;Harrison 2002;Spencer 1928: 511;Tindale 1985: 11).…”

Section: Prestige and Projectionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Maloney

2020

JLS

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Inferring cultural reproduction from lithic data: A critical review

Liu

Stout

2022

Evolutionary Anthropology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The cultural reproduction of lithic technology, long an implicit assumption of archaeological theories, has garnered increasing attention over the past decades. Major debates ranging from the origins of the human culture capacity to the interpretation of spatiotemporal patterning now make explicit reference to social learning mechanisms and cultural evolutionary dynamics. This burgeoning literature has produced important insights and methodological innovations. However, this rapid growth has sometimes led to confusion and controversy due to an under-examination of underlying theoretical and methodological assumptions. The time is thus ripe for a critical assessment of progress in the study of the cultural reproduction of lithic technology. Here we review recent work addressing the evolutionary origins of human culture and the meaning of artifact variation at both intra-site and inter-site levels. We propose that further progress will require a more extended and context-specific evolutionary approach to address the complexity of real-world cultural reproduction.

show abstract

Towards Quantifying Teaching and Learning in Prehistory Using Stone Artifact Reduction Sequences

Cited by 18 publications

References 77 publications

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

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

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

Inferring cultural reproduction from lithic data: A critical review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About