Australia's Eastern Regional Sequence Revisited: Technology and change at Capertee 3 9781841718361, 9781407328317

Citation preview

BAR  S1397  2005   HISCOCK & ATTENBROW   AUSTRALIA’S EASTERN REGIONAL SEQUENCE REVISITED

Australia’s Eastern Regional Sequence revisited Technology and change at Capertee 3

Peter Hiscock Val Attenbrow

BAR International Series 1397 9 781841 718361

B A R

2005

Australia’s Eastern Regional Sequence Revisited Technology and change at Capertee 3

Peter Hiscock Val Attenbrow

BAR International Series 1397 2005

Published in 2016 by BAR Publishing, Oxford BAR International Series 1397 Australia’s Eastern Regional Sequence Revisited © The authors individually and the Publisher 2005 The authors' moral rights under the 1988 UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act are hereby expressly asserted. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be copied, reproduced, stored, sold, distributed, scanned, saved in any form of digital format or transmitted in any form digitally, without the written permission of the Publisher.

ISBN 9781841718361 paperback ISBN 9781407328317 e-format DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9781841718361 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library BAR Publishing is the trading name of British Archaeological Reports (Oxford) Ltd. British Archaeological Reports was first incorporated in 1974 to publish the BAR Series, International and British. In 1992 Hadrian Books Ltd became part of the BAR group. This volume was originally published by Archaeopress in conjunction with British Archaeological Reports (Oxford) Ltd / Hadrian Books Ltd, the Series principal publisher, in 2005. This present volume is published by BAR Publishing, 2016.

BAR

PUBLISHING BAR titles are available from: BAR Publishing 122 Banbury Rd, Oxford, OX2 7BP, UK E MAIL [email protected] P HONE +44 (0)1865 310431 F AX +44 (0)1865 316916 www.barpublishing.com

Preface This monograph represents a new step in Australian archaeology. It presents a detailed quantitative, technological analysis of flaked stone artefacts, of a kind not published previously in Australia. The detailed nature of the analysis reflects the measurement of a large number of variables on each specimen, as well as the use of those measurements in an extended study of the archaeological patterns. The detail of these analyses can be judged by the fact that the monograph deals with only one archaeological assemblage: the stone artefacts from Capertee 3, a site excavated in the Blue Mountains immediately west of Sydney. This volume develops and tests models of artefact variation and production to an extent not seen before in Australia. More importantly, the analysis of data involves the statistical interrogation of quantitative measurements and is designed to reveal the magnitude and direction of morphological variation within the assemblage. Quantitative expression of size and shape differences between specimens is essential in the exploration of the morphological changes produced throughout the manufacturing process, but also permits an evaluation of the interaction between characteristics produced during retouching. This scale of quantitative investigations of stone artefacts provides illustrations of the new opportunities offered by such quantitative measures. Furthermore, the power of this quantitative approach is magnified by the technological perspective within which it is nested. Founded on materialist goals of describing the material evidence for production histories, this technological perspective makes no significant assumptions about the purpose of ancient knapping, unlike all traditional typologies that have been employed in Australia. Consequently our depiction of artefact manufacture is one that avoids the dangers inherent in the mentalist presumptions of previous typological descriptions, and hence we are not only able to present an alternative image of the ancient knapping activities that took place at Capertee 3, we are able to use that independent image of the production technology to assess and reflect upon the typological approach and its depictions. This technological approach allows us, for the first time in Australian archaeology, to evaluate the nature of changes in the manufacture of retouched flakes in a sequence spanning the entire Holocene. This evaluation enhances our understanding of cultural change in Holocene eastern Australia by allowing us to test a number of propositions about the rate and uniformity of change in archaeological assemblages. In particular these analyses initiate a review of models of the Eastern Regional Sequence (the term given by F. D. McCarthy to the archaeological sequence in the Sydney Basin) by creating a record of the stoneworking processes in one of the key archaeological sites that define the purported Eastern Regional Sequence. Our analyses contain four central revelations. These can be summarized as follows: 1. There are a small number of artefactual classes. Multivariate analyses of morphological and size traits indicate that at Capertee 3 there are only two quantitatively distinguishable categories of retouched flakes. We labeled these backed and non-backed classes of retouched flake. 2. Morphological variation in retouched flakes is related to the amount of reduction. Within each of these retouched classes our technological analyses indicate that morphological variation is largely related to the location and extent of reduction, with the amount of reduction being a potent factor creating differences between specimens. 3. Parallel technological change occurs in different retouching systems. Many parallel trends occurred in the backed and non-backed categories; in their production rates and in the frequencies of traits that assist in extending material use. 4. Technological change is complex and multi-directional. Chronological changes occurred in the abundance and morphology of many retouch characteristics. These alterations did not take place at a single point in time but throughout the entire occupational sequence. Some traits display a uni-directional trend, while many traits change in more than one direction through the sequence: increasing then decreasing, or visa versa.

Acknowledgments We thank the Trustees of the Australian Museum for access to the Capertee collection. We acknowledge the assistance of a number of people in obtaining access to archaeological material, particularly Leanne Brass, Rebecca Conway and Ian Johnson. The bulk of the recording was carried out during September 2000, October 2001, February, July, October, and November 2002, and February, July, and September 2003 at the Australian Museum, which provided laboratory space and facilities. The Australian National University and Australian Museum provided digital cameras used to photograph specimens. Short-term relief from teaching and administration at ANU facilitated Hiscock’s availability during September 2000, and he is pleased to demonstrate he didn’t spend the whole time watching the Olympic games. We thank Chris Clarkson for drawing Figures 61, 62, 81 and 82. The analyses and arguments presented here have been developed over a number of years and they have been refined following discussions with many researchers. In particular we thank Chris Clarkson, Barry Cundy and Simon Holdaway for valuable discussions of the general principles employed here. Authors details Peter Hiscock is a Reader in the School of Archaeology and Anthropology at the Australian National University. He obtained a PhD from the University of Queensland, and is currently a Research Associate of the Australian Museum, and an Honorary Research Fellow of Charles Darwin University. His research specialities include lithic technology and assemblage variation in Australia, western Europe and island Southeast Asia. Val Attenbrow is a Senior Research Scientist in the Anthropology Branch at the Australian Museum in Sydney. She obtained a PhD from the University of Sydney, where she is currently an Honorary Associate in the School of Philosophical and Historical Enquiry. She is also a Visiting Fellow in the School of Archaeology and Anthropology at the Australian National University. Her research interests include subsistence, land and resource use patterns.

Authors contacts Both authors are based in Australia and can be contacted at the following addresses: Hiscock: School of Archaeology and Anthropology, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia, 0200. Email: [email protected]. Attenbrow: Anthropology Branch, Australian Museum, 6 College Street, Sydney, NSW Australia, 2010. Email: [email protected].

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1. TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGE AND AUSTRALIA’S ‘EASTERN REGIONAL SEQUENCE’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 EASTERN REGIONAL SEQUENCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 QUESTIONS ABOUT THE EASTERN REGIONAL SEQUENCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 IMPLEMENTS VERSUS TECHNOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 ASSEMBLAGE CHANGE VERSUS CULTURAL CHANGE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 QUESTIONS ABOUT TECHNOLOGY AT CAPERTEE 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . 11 THE GOAL AND STRUCTURE OF THIS VOLUME . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 CHAPTER 2. CAPERTEE 3 AND THE ‘EASTERN REGIONAL SEQUENCE’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .13 SITE CONTEXT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SITE DESCRIPTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . EXCAVATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . STRATIGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VERTICAL MOVEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ARTEFACT ASSEMBLAGE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHRONOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CAPERTEE 3 AND THE “EASTERN REGIONAL SEQUENCE” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . 13 . . . . . . . 13 . . .. . . . .13 . . . . . . . 15 . . . . . . . 16 . . . . . . . 19 . . . . . . . 25 . . . . . . . 29

CHAPTER 3. CHARACTERISING RETOUCHED FLAKES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .32 ANALYTICAL PERSPECTIVE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 DEFINING AND IDENTIFYING RETOUCHED FLAKES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 SELECTION OF SPECIMENS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 A NOTE ON STATISTICS AND GRAPHS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 BLANK AND RETOUCH ATTRIBUTES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 RAW MATERIAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 FRAGMENTATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 RETOUCHED FLAKE MASS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 RETOUCHED FLAKE DIMENSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 RETOUCHED FLAKE SHAPE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 EDGE ANGLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 RETOUCHED EDGE SHAPE AND LOCATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 EXTENT OF RETOUCHING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 PRELIMINARY STATISTICAL EXPLORATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 CHAPTER 4. EVALUATING CONVENTIONAL CLASSIFICATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .68 STATISTICAL CLASSIFICATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . 68 BIASES IN MCCARTHY’S DEPICTION OF TYPES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 TECHNOLOGICAL CONFUSIONS IN MCCARTHY’S TYPES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 CHAPTER 5. MODELS OF REDUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .85 QUESTIONS OF REDUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BACKING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NON-BACKED DORSAL RETOUCH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SERRATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BURINATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DISTINCTIVE SPECIMENS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VENTRAL RETOUCH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . RE-WORKING AND RECYCLED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

iii

. . . . . . 85 . . . . . . . 85 . . . . . . . 93 . . . . . . 101 . . . . . . 106 . . . . . . 110 . . . . . . 112 . . . . . . 113

HAFTING EVIDENCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 TECHNOLOGICAL OVERVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 CHAPTER 6. TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGE AT CAPERTEE 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .117 RAW MATERIAL CHANGE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120 CHRONOLOGICAL CHANGES IN BACKING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121 CHRONOLOGICAL CHANGES IN NON-BACKED RETOUCHED FLAKES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125 CHRONOLOGICAL CHANGES IN SERRATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127 CHRONOLOGICAL CHANGES IN NOTCHES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130 CHRONOLOGICAL CHANGES IN BURINATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131 RATES AND DIRECTIONALITY OF CHANGE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133 CHAPTER 7. CONCLUSION: IMPLICATIONS OF THE TECHNOLOGICAL ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . .138 1. A SMALL NUMBER OF ARTEFACTUAL CLASSES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138 2. MORPHOLOGICAL VARIATION IN RETOUCHED FLAKES IS RELATED TO AMOUNT OF REDUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139 3. PARALLEL TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGE OCCURS IN DIFFERENT RETOUCHING STRATEGIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141 4. TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGE IS COMPLEX AND MULTI-DIRECTIONAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143 FUTURE RESEARCH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145 REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .147

iv

LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure 1. Map of the Sydney Region showing the location of Capertee 3 in relation to other sites mentioned in the text.

3

Figure 2. Photographs of some implement types identified in the Sydney Basin by McCarthy. (Our classification in brackets). All specimens come from Capertee 3. A = Core (core) ESP 1539. B = Notched scraper (non-backed retouched flake) ESP 1220. C = Saw (serrated non-backed retouched flake) ESP 1208. D = Burin (non-backed retouched flake with burin scar) ESP 1723. E = Tula (tula slug) ESP 1547. Bar length is 1 cm.

4

Figure 3. Photographs of some implement types identified in the Sydney Basin by McCarthy. (Our classification in brackets). All specimens come from Capertee 3. A = Bondi Point (backed artefact) ESP 1147. B = Bondi Point (backed artefact) ESP 1164. C = Elouera (backed artefact) ESP 1535. D = Fabricator (bipolar core) ESP 1539. E = Geometric microlith (backed artefact) ESP 1642. Bar length is 1 cm.

5

Figure 4. Graphical representation of the difference between segmented and continuum models of morphological variation (after Hiscock and Attenbrow 2002).

8

Figure 5. Reproduction of McCarthy’s (1964) illustration of the position of Capertee 1-3.

13

Figure 6. Diagram of McCarthy’s and Johnson’s excavation areas in Capertee 3. Hatched area represents rock wall, grey areas indicate the location of ash-rich sediments. McCarthy’s excavation areas were labelled 1 to 12, while Johnson’s much smaller squares are those labelled Q12 to Q14, and L21 to L020.

14

Figure 7. McCarthy’s (1964) illustration of the stratigraphy he recorded in the eastern section of his trench in Capertee 3.

16

Figure 8. Percentage differences in each weathering category for squares inside (6, 6A, 7, 7A) and outside (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12) the rear concavity.

18

Figure 9. Changes in the frequency of weathering categories through the deposit, outside sample.

19

Figure 10. Battleship curves for McCarthy’s counts of ‘scraper’ and backed categories.

22

Figure 11. A depiction of Johnson’s PCA analysis of typological frequencies at the Capertee sites, excluding cores and unretouched flakes. Johnson’s groupings denoted as follows: 1 = diamonds, 2 = squares, 3 = circles.

22

Figure 12. Scattergrams revealing the relationship of sample size and richness in McCarthy’s data for layers in Capertee 3. A = linear lines of best fine, calculated separately for Capertian and Bondaian levels. B = Non-linear regression line for all layers.

25

Figure 13. Three approaches to age-depth estimation. A = Separate estimates for McCarthy’s and Johnson’s samples. B = Envelope of all radiocarbon samples. C = Regression line for all samples. Bars represent the calibrated age range for each sample.

27

Figure 14. View of Capertee 3 during excavation in 1960 (from Walker 1964)

30

Figure 15. View of workers sieving and sorting sieve residues at Capertee 3 during excavation in 1960 (from Walker 1964)

31

Figure 16. Hiscock’s (in press a) key for the definition and identification of retouched flakes.

34

Figure 17. Specimen classified by McCarthy but which is actually a heat shattered rock. Bar is 1 cm in length.

36

Figure 18. Specimen classified by McCarthy as a “backed blade” but which is actually an unretouched flake with multiple scars on the dorsal face. Bar is 1 cm in length.

37

Figure 19. Examples of the illustration techniques employed in this volume. A = Composite graph of confidence interval, mean and median. B = Stacked histograms. C = Box plots.

40

v

Figure 20. Illustration of breakage classification (from Hiscock 2002). Left and right on longitudinal is recorded from the dorsal surface.

43

Figure 21. Illustration of zones used to record retouch location.

50

Figure 22. Illustration of the frequency of retouch in each zone for backed and non-backed specimens.

52

Figure 23. The measurement of the R5 value, which is employed in calculating the Retouch distalness index.

52

Figure 24. Illustration of a retouched flake from Capertee 3 (ESP1024, Square 9 Level G), showing the calculation of the Index of retouch curvature (R6/R3).

53

Figure 25. Illustration of the variables: notch diameter and notch depth

55

Figure 26. Example of a complex notch

55

Figure 27. Photograph of a specimen ESP1255, a retouched flake with serrations on both lateral margins. (Bar is 1 cm in length).

56

Figure 28. Example of measurement of burin scar width. Arrow indicates direction of burin blow. (Black bar below the specimen is 1 cm in length).

57

Figure 29. Illustration of a retouched flake from Capertee 3 (ESP1024, Square 9 Level G), showing the measurement of retouch intensity. The Average Kuhn reduction index is calculated as (t3/T3 + t2/T2 + t1/T1)/3.

61

Figure 30. Results of Hiscock and Clarkson’s (in press) experimental evaluation of the relationship between the Kuhn index and the percentage of mass lost during retouching.

61

Figure 31. Dendrogram displaying the results of an agglomerative hierarchical cluster analysis. Variables included in the analysis were length, width, thickness, Clarkson’s invasiveness index, the index of retouch curvature, the retouch distalness index, average retouched angle, and the average unretouched angle. An empty circle identifies a non-backed specimen, while a solid circle indicates a backed specimen. Stippled area represents Cluster 5.

63

Figure 32. Dendrogram (continued) displaying the results of an agglomerative hierarchical cluster analysis. Variables included in the analysis were length, width, thickness, Clarkson’s invasiveness index, the index of retouch curvature, the retouch distalness index, average retouched angle, and the average unretouched angle. An empty circle identifies a non-backed specimen, while a solid circle indicates a backed specimen.

64

Figure 33. Hierarchical cluster analysis of selected variables revealing the relationships visible in Capertee 3.

65

Figure 34. Scattergram showing the results of a Principle components analysis of variable employed in the analysis. Empty circles are variables in Group 1 of the cluster analysis; solid circles are variables in Group 2.

66

Figure 35. Bivariate output of a discriminant analysis of size and retouch morphology variables, illustrating the differences between seven major typological groupings recognised by McCarthy (1964). Each data point is an artefact, classified as coded in the key.

69

Figure 36. Discriminant analysis, illustrating the differences between seven major typological groupings recognised by McCarthy (1964). This figure illustrates the location of group centroids, designated by the + sign, for the groups plotted in Figure 35. Broken lines represent a territorial map, defining zones in which one type (indicated by the type name in italics) is dominant and within which this classification is predicted by the function values.

70

Figure 37. Bivariate output of a discriminant analysis of retouch morphology variables, illustrating the differences between seven major typological groupings recognised by McCarthy (1964). Each data point is an artefact, classified as coded in the key.

71

Figure 38. A specimen with characteristics intermediate between McCarthy’s categories of Bondi point and a scraper, having steep backed retouch edges on a large thick flake (Specimen Esp1625).

72

vi

Figure 39. A specimen with characteristics intermediate between McCarthy’s categories of Bondi point and a scraper, having steep backed retouch edges on a large thick flake (Specimen Esp1277).

72

Figure 40. Differences in average retouched edge angle between illustrated and non-illustrated specimens.

74

Figure 41. Differences in the range of retouched edge angles between illustrated and non-illustrated specimens.

76

Figure 42. Differences in number of zones with serrations between illustrated and non-illustrated specimens.

76

Figure 43. Differences in number of retouched zones between illustrated and non-illustrated specimens.

76

Figure 44. Discriminant analysis illustrating the differences between four groups recognised in Capertee 3: illustrated and non-illustrated backed specimens and illustrated and non-illustrated non-backed specimens. Ellipses denote the 95% confidence intervals.

78

Figure 45. Bivariate plot of scar width and specimen weight for retouched flakes and cores with burinlike scars.

80

Figure 46. Bivariate plot of scar width and weight for chert retouched flakes with burin scars. Solid circles were classified as an implement by McCarthy, while hollow circles were classified as cores by McCarthy (1964). Solid line encompasses those data point representing retouched flakes classified as cores.

81

Figure 47. Examples of backed artefacts from Capertee 3. (From top to bottom: ESP1164, ESP1147, ESP1193). Black bars represent centimeter scale for each specimen.

83

Figure 48. Examples of unretouched flakes that were classified as implements in McCarthy’s original analysis of the assemblage. In all cases the ventral surface faces the base of the page.

84

Figure 49. Bivariate plot of platform width and difference between retouched and unretouched edge angles for complete chert retouched flakes from Capertee 3.

86

Figure 50. Distribution of retouch on backed artefacts, calculated using zone counts and contrasting specimens with average Kuhn values >0.6 and 0.6) and the number of zones retouched for complete chert backed artefacts. (Data from Table 56).

88

Figure 52. Distribution of retouch on backed artefacts for specimens with different numbers of retouched zones.

88

Figure 53. Variations in the frequency of bipolar retouch on backed artefacts, calculated using zone counts and contrasting specimens with average Kuhn values >0.6 and 0.6) and low (