|
|||||||
CONCLUSION To resolve the problem of what the variability of stone points in the Top End reveal about stone resource exploitation, it was necessary to deal with two related issues. These were:
These issues were examined within the context of a technological analysis of stone points. By using multiple sites, drawn from a range of environmental circumstances, it was possible to identify variables and influences not recognised in a single site study. In this study, it was found that the most appropriate method of addressing the issue of resource exploitation was to discard the idea of the mental template. Debate in the literature provides sufficient evidence to support the premise that each implement may not necessarily be a finished product. The data collected in this study, and the subsequent analysis, validated the discarding of the mental template concept. By avoiding the use of a mental template, it was not necessary to divine the supposed design intended by the knapper. Thus, through a technological approach, It was determined that rather than stone points being discrete types they were in fact parts of a morphological and technological continuum. There is a region of overlap along this continuum, where a number of points from one extreme, exhibit features from the points at the other extreme. The points in the region of overlap on the continuum are in a state of transition from one form to another. Stone knapping is a subtractive technology. As material is removed from a point, it cannot be added back and thus return the point to an earlier stage along the continuum. Once started along the continuum a unifacial point does not need to move inexorably towards the bifacial extremity of the continuum. The unifacial point can be retouched on the dorsal face only, it can be discarded or otherwise lost to the archaeological record without being modified into a bifacial point. Once bifacial points can no longer be considered a "discrete type" and "typologically regular" the inclusion of it in the "small tool tradition" is doubtful. If stone points can be shown to be a continuum of form then the possibility that the other components of the "small tool tradition", backed blades and tulas, should be re-appraised in a similar way. The level of implement variability found in the study area is a reflection of the morphological and technological continuum of the point type. Stone points could be divided on the basis of technology and/or morphology. Implement variability is not restricted to just the physical morphology and dimensions of the implement. When points are considered as a single implement type, the variability includes the morphological continuum from unifacial to bifacial point. Point variability can be identified on the basis of technological features. Technologically, they can be divided at the most basic requirement of the presence or absence of retouch on the ventral surface. Variability can also be measured on the basis of the intensity of retouch, the alignment of the dorsal surface scars and platform preparation. Morphologically, bifacial points were smaller than unifacial points. These morphological features also varied between sites and raw material type. Previous researchers such as Schrire (1982) had linked the implement type to raw material determinism. This study did not find this determinist link but observed that sampling biases could produce results that could be interpreted as a determinist link. The change to a bifacial technology allowed a more conservative exploitation of the available resources. It can be argued that bifacial points are more efficient than unifacial points and provide a greater length of cutting edge per unit weight. Both attributes are important to a mobile group exploiting an environment where there is uncertainty as to resource location and supply. The level of variability in the stone points of the region reveals an adaptive prehistoric population. This population could modify the strategy utilised for the exploitation of stone resources, in order to compensate for changes in their environment and resource base. During periods of widespread environmental change during the mid-Holocene Period, prehistoric populations would have benefited from a strategy that minimised the risk in obtaining resources. In circumstances of high risk, prehistoric populations are likely to have been relatively mobile and the adoption of a strategy that aided this high mobility would have been advantageous. Bifacial points, rather than being a new implement and technology is the product of an intensive rejuvenation and maintenance strategy. This strategy resulted in the reformation of existing implements, but with several advantageous features. These features include a cutting edge that is longer per unit of weight than unifacial points. Uses for bifacial points were not restricted to just a projectile point, but could be utilised as a scraper or knife as well, a truly multi-purpose tool. The bifacial point also provided several mechanical efficiencies such as a smaller tip angle and a lower efficiency index than unifacial points. The variability of stone points in the region also demonstrated that certain rock types may be targeted as raw materials due to higher levels of durability. Raw materials found in extremely close proximity were not equally represented in the archaeological record. Prehistoric knappers demonstrated a selection bias for the manufacture of raw materials. As was shown, one reason for this selection bias was that with an increased distance from the stone resources, raw materials with certain properties proved to be more able to withstand repeated cycles of rejuvenation and maintenance. In summary, the exploitation of stone resources in the region is a product of strategies such as risk minimisation and changes to the availability of other resources.
Author: Wayne
Roddom, Dept. Archaeology and Anthropology |
|||||||
