ENFOQUE SISTÉMICO

The next step is linking provisioning strategies to technological organisation based on quantitative analysis of the lithic data. In order to do this, assemblage diversity is used as a measure for understanding technological organisation. Identifying variation in assemblage diversity is perhaps the most widely used means for the identification of mobility patterns in lithic assemblages. Andrefsky (2005) explores the literature on measures of diversity in lithic analysis and its implications for mobility studies, which he bases on the Binfordian model of residential and logistical mobility. Drawing on the work of previous studies (Kelly 1983; Price 1978; Shott 1986) he points out that research has demonstrated an inverse relationship between assemblage diversity and residential mobility; that is, as mobility increases, lithic assemblage diversity decreases (Andrefsky 2005:216). However, Andrefsky later goes on to caution against assuming any sort of “universal correlation” between lithic technological organisation and mobility (2009:88), which somewhat tempers his earlier assertions. Perhaps the bridge between these two competing positions is the vital cautionary point that emphasizes the importance of

organizing the analysis “around the contexts of the data”, which means establishing a broad understanding of the archaeological, geographical and geological context surrounding the data, and then selecting artefact classes or measures that are relevant to that particular context and research questions (Andrefsky 2005:223). This is really the critical point about lithic analyses and why it is so difficult to develop broadly applicable analytical frameworks, and why the literature is so dense and varied with many competing frameworks (Andrefsky 2009; Hiscock and Clarkson 2000).

An important feature of Andrefsky’s (2005) framework is that it allows for the dynamic nature of hunter-gatherer mobility patterns and steers away from the duality of a residential vs logistical model:

The forager-collector mobility model predicts different kinds of residences in various combinations. Both foragers and collectors use mobility in differing degrees. The artifact diversity values should vary with assemblages that are recovered from different site types situated in the different mobility strategies (Andrefsky 2005: 218).

Andrefsky goes on to conduct analysis of assemblage diversity based on a range of formal implements and tool types, a method highly applicable in the North American context, which has many formal tools. However, in the Australian research context, tool types are rarely an effective unit of analysis so other measures of diversity that address the amorphous and informal nature of the assemblage are required (Hiscock and Clarkson 2000). In fact, studies that take ethnographic accounts among Australian Aboriginal people into consideration, have demonstrated that people did not necessarily place more value on formal implements than on simple flakes and often favoured simple flake morphologies for various applications (Holdaway and Douglass 2011). Debitage analysis is important because studies that focus only on formal tools or retouched implements neglect the bulk of lithic debris and thus limit the potential for meaningful results (Riel-Salvatore and Barton 2004). Debitage analysis has been applied to a

range of studies focused on amorphous or informal assemblages, particularly in Australia where identifiable tool types are often scarce or absent.

In the Pilbara region of north-west Western Australia, Ryan and Morse (2009) addressed the issue of diversity in surface assemblages through the application of the “Shannon-Weaver information statistic H” which they used to measure the diversity between retouched flakes, unmodified flakes, cores and grind stones (Ryan and Morse 2009: 9). This diversity measure was used in tandem with an analysis of the variation in technological approaches to artefact production based on a series of standard “metrical and technological attributes” (Ryan and Morse 2009: 9) following Holdaway and Stern (2004). The results are combined with a range of other site observations pertaining to geography, resource availability and social factors to understand more about how each of the sites may be understood within the regional settlement pattern, incorporating different strategies of logistical and residential mobility across the landscape. While the particular statistical approach used by Ryan and Morse is not applied in this thesis, technological analysis of surface assemblages that are then interpreted alongside the results of a range of other archaeological observations, makes it a relevant approach for this study.

6.2.3 Linking Theory and Method (Mobility – Provisioning – Technology)

In order to understand more about past mobility (the behaviour), based on archaeological remains, it is necessary to understand more about how different sites were used within those mobility systems. This is done by trying to understand more about the provisioning strategy for that site/assemblage (individual vs place provisioning), which needs to be based on some understanding of how the lithic technology was organized (data analysis). The methodology employed to identify different or opposing technological provisioning strategies is based on the

concepts of assemblage standardisation, formality, and economisation/conservation – and the way researchers have linked these characterizations to specific lithic assemblage measures.

Taking Graf’s table (Table 2) as a starting point, it is necessary to link the technological predictions she makes, with actual points of analysis in the Belinup and Marbaleerup data sets, beginning with toolstone procurement. As discussed in the geology sections of this chapter (sections 6.3.2 and 6.4.2) and in Chapter 2 (section 3.3.2), coastal chert and inland silcrete present an interesting picture for interpretation because there is a clear dichotomy in their availability. Chert is almost continuously available along the Esperance coastline, including around the Belinup precinct, but there are no known sources of it in the Esperance hinterland and this includes in the vicinity of Marbaleerup. No sources of silcrete suitable for knapping are known in Esperance Nyungar country, with the possible exception of the extreme northern periphery adjacent to Ngadju country, with the nearest possible source to Marbaleerup being at least 40km north. Large outcrops of silcrete are available across Ngadju country, the bulk of which are >100km from Marbaleerup. Quartz is available at Belinup and Marbaleerup but appears to be a less favourable choice for tool production, despite its easy availability. This means that all chert and silcrete artefacts at Marbaleerup are likely to be evidence of non-local toolstone procurement, with their sources in opposite directions. Any silcrete found at Belinup is likely to be evidence of non-local toolstone procurement, while all chert artefacts at Belinup are presumed to be local. Thus, the occurrence of chert, silcrete and other raw materials in these assemblages provides a basis for interpretations about toolstone procurement and transportation.

Turning to primary reduction activities, which are the initial or early stages of core reduction, there are a few measures of relevance used in this analysis. Percentage of cortex material on

artefacts, and the proportion of artefacts with cortex provides a means to interrogate how much primary reduction was taking place in a given assemblage, with high rates of cortex suggestive of an assemblage focussed on primary production, and low rates suggesting the opposite (Dibble et al. 2005). Further information may be gleaned from learning what kinds of artefacts have cortex. For example, cores with a lot of cortex left on them suggest raw material conservation may not have been a big concern for the toolmakers and implies heavy, expedient technologies may have been the intended results. Where raw material conservation is important, or if the material is to be transported, more care is likely to be taken in removing the cortex to expose the useable stone, resulting in less cortex occurring in the assemblage (Roth and Dibble 1998:49). However, caution needs to be applied to such assertions through consideration of the geology and toolmaking context. In particular, the relative abundance or scarcity of raw material, and the distance to raw material sources will affect these kinds of interpretations.

In the case of Belinup for example where chert is readily available we would expect to see larger amounts of cortex in the assemblage, because it is likely to have been quarried on-site. On the other hand, at Marbaleerup where chert and silcrete need to be imported, we should expect less cortex because greater amounts of cortex would make it heavier to transport from the source. A further consideration is the properties of particular types of stone and the kind of cortex they form. For example, quartz is an inert rock that forms a thin, brittle cortex little different and sometimes indistinguishable from the interior rock; chert forming in limestone, on the other hand, may retain a soft, chalky exterior reflecting the host rock from which it derives. Quartz artefacts may thus have no apparent cortex as a result of their geological properties, rather than a technological explanation.

Flake and core size is also an important source of information about primary reduction activities. Larger cores have the capacity to produce larger flakes, although flaking technique also has an impact on flake size (Ambrose 2001). Cores are more likely to be larger during primary reduction, close to the stone source. If cores are to be carried any great distance they may be trimmed first to make them smaller, with more immediate tool making utility and greater portability (Nelson 1991:75). Kuhn (1994) argued for an optimal foraging equation that may be applied to stone tools which basically argued that small, well crafted tools provide an optimal ratio of weight to utility. However, Morrow (1996) argued against Kuhn’s assertions on the basis that larger flakes have a greater capacity for resharpening and reuse and therefore have greater use lives. Kuhn (1996) countered that Morrow had confounded the issue of utility

per se with the ratio of utility to weight and maintained that his original assertion had been correct and that at some point increasing weight would outweigh the benefits of greater reuse or resharpening. Nonetheless, Morrow’s argument reminds us of the complex and multifaceted nature of human behaviour and decision-making and the challenges this can create when interpreting human behaviour from lithic artefacts. Others have also warned against assuming a simple correlation between tool size and portability (Nelson 1991:76). While Kuhn’s study applied more specifically to tools, a similar rationale may be broadly applied to portable cores. So large cores with cortex are less likely to be moved long distances, but small pre-prepared cores with cortex removed are more likely to be carried, either as part of a mobile tool kit, or to provision places some distance from the source.

Where nodule size is held constant, flakes produced during early reduction are generally bigger than those produced in secondary reduction so flake size may be used to interpret whether an assemblage favours early or late-stage reduction (Speal 2009). Larger flakes suggest more expedient and heavy technologies. However, the notion that nodule size is a constant is an

assumption that may not be true in this research context. In the case of Marbaleerup for example, it is likely that both chert and silcrete have been imported to the site from multiple different stone sources and these are likely to produce different nodule sizes, which will in turn affect the size of cores and flakes.

The types and abundance of cores within an assemblage are another important source of information (Nelson 1991; Roth and Dibble 1998; Shiner et al. 2005). High proportions of cores within an assemblage suggests greater focus on early reduction (Sullivan and Rozen 1985). Low proportions of cores suggest late stage reduction and may represent a more curated assemblage, focused on lightweight technologies and raw material conservation, although pre- prepared cores can also be part of a curated toolkit (Riel-Salvadore and Barton 2004). Standardisation of reduction techniques is another technological measure that may be analysed. Standardised early-stage reduction should be evident if techniques or forms are repeated a lot throughout the assemblage with measurable similarities (Speal 2009). For example, if there are a number of cores of similar shapes and sizes, made from the same material and particularly if they follow a particular technique, such as bi-polar flaking. An example of standardised early reduction may be observed in assemblages with a prevalence of long, narrow, parallel-sided flakes, suitable for blade production, particularly if there are also cores of corresponding attributes (Clark 1987). Other signs of early stage standardisation are platform preparation techniques such as faceting or overhang removal (Parry and Kelly 1987).

Secondary, or late-stage reduction refers to the steps associated with transitioning flakes to specific forms (tools), or with tool maintenance. Technological indicators of late-stage reduction are generally inverse of those traits discussed above in relation to early stage reduction. Assemblages focussed on late-stage reduction may be expected to have higher ratios

of flakes over cores (Sullivan and Rozen 1985), although other factors such as raw material flaking qualities may also be a factor. Assemblages with little to no cortex, will generally be dominated with smaller sized flakes (Speal 2009), and exhibit evidence of retouch (Sullivan and Rozen 1985). Higher levels of retouch, especially in relatively standardised ways, will suggest more economized and formal secondary reduction (Andrefsky 2005; Law 2005). High ratios of finished or discarded tools in an assemblage may reflect more economized and formal secondary reduction (Shiner et al. 2005).

Returning to Graf’s table, the question of assemblage diversity relates to all the above categories. That is, high assemblage diversity may mean that all stages of reduction (primary and secondary) are present in the assemblage, with a mixture of local and non-local stone, a mixture of expedient and formal characteristics, heavy and light technologies, cores and (retouched) flakes, some with cortex. Low assemblage diversity is more likely to show a clear prevalence toward either primary or secondary reduction, may be only one or two types of stone, either local or imported, with a focus on either heavy or light technologies. Low assemblage diversity may be associated with standardisation and with more formal technologies.

When interpreting lithics, it is critical to remember that analysis is made on aggregate assemblages so it is highly unusual and perhaps impossible, to get pure versions of the categories discussed above. This means that caution must be exercised when assuming any sort of simple A = B relationship where A is lithic data and B is human behaviour. The interplay between different behavioural factors (including mobility) and the associated impacts on lithics assemblages has been demonstrated to be complex and multi-dimensional (Barton and Riel- Salvadore 2014), so caution must be exercised when interpreting mobility through lithic

assemblages. Most of the interpretive assertions made in the text above could be interpreted differently in certain circumstances, so it is critical to organise the interpretation around the context of the data and to recognize that all of the observations and subsequent interpretations are relative, and are embedded in a complex interplay of human action and inter-action with environmental factors. For example, to say an assemblage is comprised of a high ratio of retouched artefacts is not meaningful unless it is compared with other assemblages to provide some sort of index. In the context of this analysis, all of the assemblages are interpreted in relation to one-another as part of a comparative analysis. The interpretations of lithic analyses are also combined with other archaeological, ethnographic and geographical information to support robust and considered interpretations.

6.3

6.3.1 Data Collection

All data collection took place in the field as artefacts were analysed and left on site. Field data was obtained in a standardised manner, based on recording forms (see Appendix 1) that set out a range of measurements and attribute observations, commonly used in recording open scatters around Australia (Holdaway and Stern 2004:107-211). Field recording was undertaken over successive field seasons as part of Gabbie Kylie field programs and field schools. A range of different personnel were engaged in the field crews, based around a core crew of David Guilfoyle (Gabbie Kylie field coordinator), Cat Morgan (Gabbie Kylie archaeologist) and Myles Mitchell. Other people, usually archaeology students, would assist with data collection, following training in the appropriate methods. All participants were formally trained in artefact identification and field recording methods by David Guilfoyle prior to recording any artefacts for these data sets. During training sessions all participants had to demonstrate an understanding

of the required methods before starting recording to ensure that minimum standards were observed. Newer team members always worked in pairs so that a second opinion was always present when decisions about artefact identification and classification were made. This ensures a better standard of recording. Team leaders (Guilfoyle, Mitchell and Morgan) were always on- site during recording sessions to assist with difficult classifications and to generally ensure quality control during data collection. The data were all saved in excel spreadsheets, ready for analysis. No size cut-offs were used so all visible artefacts big and small were recorded. Artefact recording targeted areas of visibility such as granite surfaces, fire breaks, tracks and clearings. Artefact density was recorded through the use of sample squares, but our sampling regime was too strongly influenced by variable visibility for the density data to be very useful. This was particularly true at Marbaleerup where artefacts were recorded in a narrow transect of visibility following a track around the base of the mount. Each artefact was recorded as an individual GPS waypoint so spatial and density analysis may be conducted at a later stage if required.