Changing Perspectives in Australian Archaeology, part VI. Point production at Jimede 2, Western Arnhem Land

Inferred production patterns and morphological variation in bifacial points have been central to models of prehistoric settlement, territoriality, and economy. In this paper a re-analysis of the Jimede 2 assemblage excavated by Carmel Schrire in Kakadu provides the basis for re-describing the nature of point production in Western Arnhem Land. Hiscock, Peter, 2011. Changing perspectives in Australian archaeology, part VI. Point production at Jimede 2, western Arnhem Land. Technical Reports of the Australian Museum, Online 23(6): 73–82. For more than a decade the reanalysis of artefact assemblages has been a key strategy in efforts to recast our understanding of Australian prehistory. Such reanalyses have repeatedly shown that earlier typological studies of lithic artefacts provided few technological insights while simultaneously allowing new and sophisticated models of artefact manufacture and land use to be tested. Well known examples of the redescription of assemblages from famous sites include Burkes Cave (Shiner et al., 2007), Ingaladdi and nearby sites (Cundy, 1990; Clarkson, 2002a, 2006, 2007), Puritjarra (Law, 2005, 2009), Puntutjarpa (Hiscock & Veth, 1991), Lake Mungo (Hiscock & Allen, 2000; Allen & Holdaway, 2009), Mussel Shelter (Hiscock & Attenbrow, 1998), and Capertee 3 (Hiscock & Attenbrow, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005). Because the original interpretations of these assemblages were important in developing explanatory models of the variability and nature of prehistoric technologies in this continent, the technological re-examinations of them have been fundamental in improving our comprehension of ancient tool manufacture. A series of assemblages from Western Arnhem Land excavated in the 1960s and 1970s formed the basis for extensive debates about the nature, timing and causes of technological change in the region, and the formulation of influential models of spatial and chronological technological change in Australia (Hiscock, 1999, 2009). One of the key sites in the production of archaeological interpretations about human occupation of Western Arnhem Land was Jimede 2 (also written as Jimeri II and Tymede II), a cave excavated by Schrire in 1964–1965 (Fig. 1). The deposit spanned much of the Holocene, with occupation beginning before 7,000 bP. Schrire (1982: 245) characterized the later assemblage as point dominated, and her typological classifications identified 38% of the flaked implement as points and a further 34% as fragments, some of which potentially came from broken points (N = 502). Schrire (1982: 246) argued that there were two different types of points, each with a different manufacturing process, and that the abundance of points in any particular landscape setting indicated either a distinctive seasonal site function or a distinctive identity for the occupants (White, 1967a, 1967b, 1971; White & Peterson, 1969; Schrire, 1972). A number of possible explanations for variations in point abundance has been offered. Initially White (1967b) hypothesized that assemblage differences between lowlands and the escarpment/uplands were a consequence of the long-term co-existence of two cultural groups, each occupying a different part of the landscape. She subsequently offered the alternative interpretation that a single group of people moved seasonally between lowlands and uplands and employed points more frequently in their wet season occupation of the uplands, creating sites like Jimede 2. 74 Technical Reports of the Australian Museum, Online (2011) No. 23 Figure 1. Location of Jimede 2 and plan of site with squares highlighted that were included in this study. Hiscock: Point Production at Jimede 2 75 These models were rejected in later work as the magnitude and continuous nature of spatial variation in assemblages was recognized: Allen and Barton (n.d.) found a point-rich lowland site, while Brockwell (1989, 1996) documented marked differences within lowland assemblages. Seasonal models were still proposed in the 1980s, but they no longer offered plausible explanations for the extreme range of differences in lithic assemblages. To re-invigorate explanations of lithic variability in the region, I recently offered an economic model of the production of tools in western Arnhem Land (Hiscock, 2009). In this model assemblage differences can be explained in terms of changed technological practices at each landscape position as a response to material cost, and a major process creating variation was differential use of lithic materials and extending the use-life of tools made on flakes by maintaining their edges through additional retouching. The effect of procurement economics on point abundance and form in Western Arnhem Land was identified from a number of observations and inferences. • The abundance of quartzite and points generally co-varied across the landscape in a way that is consistent with transportation of quartzite points from sources in the uplands. • The ratio of bifacial to unifacial points varies around the landscape in a way that is consistent with more intensive reduction of points away from the uplands, as foragers maintained points to reduce the cost and inconvenience of obtaining replacements. • As tool maintenance was extended, bifacial points were often transformed into other tool forms, perhaps with different functions, such as the “bifacial ovals” that Schrire had reported (Hiscock, 2009). Given these observations, the model hypothesized that assemblage composition across the landscape was explicable in terms of procurement economics: the patterns of lithic variation emerged as knappers rationed, recycled, and substituted artifacts in response to the varying cost of obtaining replacement stone in each location. The benefit of this approach is that, by understanding that technological behaviours were sensitive to the economic contexts of artifact manufacture and use, it is possible to explain much of the geographical variation in assemblages, and to explain both the persistence of those geographical patterns through time and the existence of temporal changes in the extent of implement reduction (Hiscock, 1999, 2009). Over time, foragers adjusted their technology to changed conditions of tool-use as landscape and climate evolved, but the geographical differences in the costs of tool production and maintenance persisted because these largely reflected unchanged distances to lithic raw material sources. Assemblage differences presented in the recent model of the economics of reduction, recycling, and raw material procurement (Hiscock, 2009) were based largely on the characterization of assemblages offered by earlier researchers, and including the description of point production that had been published for Jimede 2. Technological reexamination of the Jimede 2 therefore offers the potential to enhance our understandings of point variation and reduction. In this paper I present a reanalysis of the points from Jimede 2 which tests and refines existing models of the manufacturing process of points at Jimede 2, with implications for the way economic and land-use models can be framed for western Arnhem Land. The results again illustrate how reanalysis of old assemblages can yield significant new information. Previous analyses of Jimede 2 Schrire’s analysis of Jimede 2 points continued a long debate about the interpretation of stone implements from northern Australia. As explored elsewhere (Hiscock, 1994), the relationship between unifacially and bifacially flaked points in assemblages has been disputed for more than 70 years. One model depicted the two point forms as having been manufactured in different ways, and hence represented the end products of two distinct manufacturing sequences. This “divergence model” was argued by Schrire (1982) to be the best description of the diversity of points at Jimede 2. The alternative model depicted the diversity of points as a continuum from unifacial specimens with limited retouch to extensively retouched bifacial points, thereby presenting different point forms as merely different manufacturing stages. I have previously argued that this “sequence” model was the best description of points at Jimede 2, based on records of the scar superimposition on 48 specimens which indicated that most bifacial points from the site displayed the same order of retouching as unifacial points, with initial retouching onto the dorsal face and ventral retouch occurring subsequently (Hiscock, 1994). While there was a range of retouching patterns visible on the points from Jimede 2, I concluded that in northern Australia bifacial points were generally more extensively reduced than, and transformed from, unifacial points. Subsequently, I employed this conclusion in testing models of land use in the region, by using the ratio of bifacial to unifacial points as one measure of the extent of point reduction and, hence, as an expression of the geographical variation in the cost of accessing replacement material and the extent of point maintenance. Although a range of point manufacturing and recycling procedures was acknowledged, my interpretation of assemblage variability was largely based on the proposition that the majority of points had similar manufacturing histories that could be represented as a linear sequence, as illustrated in Figure 2. In this image bifacial points are presented as being more reduced than unifacial points and “bifacial ovals” as more reduced than bifacial points, in a diverse but directional series. Although the notion that bifacial points were initially unifacial points has been demonstrated empirically for Jimede 2 (Hiscock, 1994), the other elements of this scenario resulting from interpretations of Schrire’s classification and descriptions, particularly the proposition that all bifacial points were more reduced than all unifacial points, had not been determined through examinations of the assemblage. Consequently, the next step in developing a detailed