Flexibility of stone tool manufacturing methods on the Georgina River, Camooweal, Queensland

Abstract The Australian Aboriginal approach to stone technology is often characterised as highly flexible, a phenomenon well-documented by ethnographic observation. In the Australian context, it would appear that a stone's function was only loosely related to its form. Nevertheless, many ethnographic studies recognise that artefact manufacture was "aimed at" producing specific forms (Home and Aiston 1924:92). This study examines the extent of rigidity in artefact manufacture through an archaeological analysis of a large stone assemblage from Camooweal, northwestern Queensland, Australia. The reduction sequence which created the assemblage is modeled and the rigidity of the various trajectories comprising the reduction sequence is assessed by the degree to which blanks for "aimed at" forms crossed between trajectories. While the ethnographic literature indicates that various artefact categories tended to be used in an ad hoc fashion, the results of the technological analysis indicate that blank production for "aimed at" forms was, in fact, relatively rigid. This stands at odds with sweeping generalisations about the flexibility of Aboriginal lithic technology. ********** The "flexibility" of a lithic technology can be seen as the degree to which a stone might be used for more than one purpose. As such, flexibility is a continuum with a hypothetical "inflexible" structure at one end, reflecting the manufacture of a specific type of stone for a specific use, and a "hyperoflexible" structure at the other end, reflecting the use of any stone for many different tasks. Historical changes in the Australian scholars' perspective of the Aboriginal toolkit tracks a shift along this continuum. In the formative years of Australian archaeology, models borrowed from Old World paradigms were applied that assumed a degree of inflexibility in stone technology; archaeologically defined artefact types were thought to reflect specific functions or cultural groupings (Veth et al. 1998). The paradigm has shifted in recent decades towards a consensus that Aborigines used stone tools in a highly flexible manner and rarely linked tool form and function in any systematic way (Hiscock 1998). This intellectual shift is due largely to enhanced appreciation of the ethnographic literature. For example, Daisy Bates' observations of stone tool use among Aborigines in the 1920s inspired her to rail against the assumptions of Australian antiquarians. When confronted by the position that artefact types reflect specific functions, she noted "no stone--except the initiation flint--can be said to be made for a definite purpose ... [they] use their little knives and flakes for any purpose" (Bates 1922 in Wright 1977:2; emphasis in original). George Aiston made a similar observation: In describing these tools it must always be remembered that the casual nature of the black does not allow him to keep any tool for the one purpose. He is just as likely to use his best stone knife to scrape a weapon as he is to use any flake he may pick up. At the same time he may get an affection for a certain tool and only keep it for the purpose for which it is most suitable ... This casualness is what makes it so hard to say specifically that a tool is used for any one purpose ... (Horne and Aiston 1924:91-2). Nevertheless, Aiston concludes "... but in describing them I have carefully asked [the Aborigines] until I could arrive at what was aimed at in each particular tool, and so have classed them" (Home and Aiston 1924:92). Other researchers have taken a similar tack, determining through observation and questioning what a stone tool was "aimed at," while discovering, often to their surprise, that the tasks to which these tools were applied epitomised "casualness and opportunism" (Gould et al. 1971:154). Hence, Aborigines sometimes used large blade "fighting knives" as woodworking adzes (Cane 1992:25), "points" as wood engraving tools (Davidson 1935:162; Kamminga 1985), "woodworking adzes" as butchering tools (Thomson 1964:418) and throwing weapons (Davidson 1935:160), and "axes" as knapping hammers (Smythe 1878:379). …