A short reflection on the past, present and future of stone artefact analysis in Australia

Stone artefacts form a critical baseline for Australian archaeology. In many cases, stone artefacts are the only remnants of past human behaviour at archaeological sites where other organic materials, like wooden or bone artefacts, are no longer preserved. Indeed, many open sites across the continent only contain stone artefacts and this is true for some stratified contexts too. It is fair to say then, that a large proportion of Australia’s human history is dependent on our ability to identify, characterise and analyse stone artefacts. It is within this juncture that the methods used to analyse Australian stone artefacts are critically important for building meaningful reconstructions of past Aboriginal lifeways throughout the Pleistocene and Holocene. As such, it is a good time to reflect on the past, present and future of stone artefact analysis in Australia. In this short paper, I discuss two major themes. The first of these is the past and continuing emphasis on tools (utilised and/or retouched flaked stone implements) in Australian archaeology. The second is sourcing stone artefacts to their geological point of origin. I will also touch on the importance of teaching stone artefact identification and analysis.

An emphasis on retouched and/or utilised formal and informal stone tools dominated much of the early discourse on stone artefacts in Australia. Early textbooks and papers are full of depictions of various retouched tool morphologies where authors attempt to allocate morphological variation into categories (e.g. McCarthy 1967). This preoccupation with categorising formal tool variation eventually coalesced into the major categories that we commonly recognise today (e.g. tula adzes, burren adzes, microliths, ground edge axes, etc.). Essentially, retouched and/or utilised stone tools were one of the major focal points for Australian stone artefact analyses being selectively privileged over their wider assemblage context, the other unmodified flakes, fragments, and cores that make up the assemblage from which these tools derive. In 2012, Holdaway and Douglass gave a detailed account of the issues surrounding tool-focused analyses (see also Dibble et al. 2017), but such tool-focused research can still be common today. It is not my intention to revisit these points or critique tool-focused approaches here. Afterall, stone tool analyses have contributed immeasurably to our current understanding of, and engagement with, Australian archaeology. Rather, I wanted to use this opportunity to highlight one simple aspect of stone artefact research that might elevate these analyses moving forward, and that is assemblage context.

In archaeology, we often say that context is one of the most important attributes; without context, archaeology loses much of its meaning. At this point we could conceivably ask, why is it common practice for formal and non-formal retouched/utilised stone tools to be analysed independently of their assemblage context? Afterall, stone tool use and discard represents only one small facet of assemblage formation, and, without this formative context, it might be difficult to ascertain and place the meaning of stone tools. For example, utilising an ‘assemblage context’, we might ask alternative questions like: Does the reduction intensity for tools match that of complete flakes in the assemblage; do tool lithologies differ from most artefacts represented in the wider assemblage; is tool morphology and edge length different from complete flakes in the assemblage; is the original utility of retouched tools similar to the unspent utility of unused complete flakes? These questions present us with an exciting opportunity because they encourage us to utilise other analytical methods to study non-tool assemblage variation which is then directly comparable to the independent analyses commonly applied to tools. By applying a variety of methods, we can more effectively study the variety of processes that lead to the formation of stone artefact assemblages, providing the critical context for meaningfully understanding tool variation in stone artefact assemblages and its human behavioural connotations. Such an approach may even shed more light on common issues in formal stone tool research such as the spatial and temporal distribution of adze or microlithic technology in Australia. The challenge here is to embrace a multimethod approach to stone artefact analysis, one that is consistently based at the ‘assemblage level’ and not necessarily focused on retouched or utilised stone tools.

Sourcing discarded stone artefacts to their geological point of origin has become a major research theme in global archaeology. Ditchfield et al. (2023) have recently reviewed sourcing work in Australia and have shown that, despite some excellent exceptions, this has yet to take a major hold in Australian archaeology. I would argue that sourcing research is a crucial and exciting but challenging future research direction for Australian archaeology. Sourcing stone artefacts not only provides us with quantitative data to measure mobility or trade and exchange, but it also links transported artefacts with their source locations. Raw material factors like availability, accessibility, quality, size, and shape all play major roles in the formation of stone artefact assemblages (see Ditchfield et al. 2023 for review). As such, it is critical that we know the source locations from which our analysed stone artefacts derive. That is, source locations provide critical context for assessing the impact that raw material factors have on assemblage formation, and, without these data, we risk attributing raw material and source related assemblage variation solely to human behaviour, potentially leading to biased or misleading interpretations about past lifeways. As I have argued elsewhere with colleagues (Ditchfield et al. 2023), the time is ripe to setup major multidisciplinary sourcing programs across Australia. These can use different techniques for characterising source variation to ultimately create a series of regionally specific sourcing databases. Such databases can effectively be added to by consultants, academics and other heritage practitioners who regularly encounter quarries or other secondary source locations. These databases could include important source specific data such as raw material qualities as well as nodule sizes and shapes. Comprehensive databases have already been built for other areas of the world and it is time for Australia to follow suit. This presents Australian archaeology with yet another exciting opportunity. Since so little is known about source locations across Australia, with dedicated sourcing programs, imagine what we can discover about the past movements and connections between groups and their country, across space as well as time.

Finally, I would like to briefly touch on teaching basic stone artefact identification and analysis to students at university level. Given how ubiquitous stone artefacts are across the Australian archaeological record, it is crucial that students and recent graduates are armed with the necessary knowledge to identify and analyse stone artefacts. In many cases their ability to positively identify an archaeological site (e.g. surface scatter consisting of only stone artefacts) depends completely on this skill set. The risk of inadequate training is that heritage sites are missed and may be subsequently destroyed by industry development. I encourage universities, associations, and specialists to continue to emphasise adequate training in stone artefact identification and analysis across Australia, including dedicated courses or workshops. To help in this space, and indeed to actively progress analytical methods across the country, perhaps a working network of Australian stone artefact specialists could be established as opposed to a group of independent specialists. Such a group could host regular workshops and conference sessions. For example, workshops might focus on current methods that are easily applicable to basic research projects or consulting. Effectively, a dedication to teaching stone artefacts at university level and beyond will help to ensure the quality of future archaeologists.

This paper is mostly a reflection on context in stone artefact analysis: contextualising tools and assemblage lithologies. Ultimately, it is an exciting time to be involved in stone artefact research in Australia, as research begins to surge forward, applying new methods in a variety of contexts. Australian archaeology’s most commonly encountered artefact, flaked stone artefacts, still stands to teach us a great deal about the past.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Additional information

Funding

KD is supported by the ARC Laureate grant (FL220100046) ‘Desert People: Australian Perspectives’ awarded to Peter Veth.