Investigating Stone Tool Assemblage in Inland Northwest Queensland - Essay Sample

Introduction

Literature plays a significant role in the recovery and analysis of archaeology, particularly in the case of investigating human occupational history and interaction through stone tool analysis. As the project investigates a stone tool assemblage in inland Northwest Queensland, it provides similar knowledge concerning the evolution in Northwest Australia. However, this section will review the related literature concerning the study and give different gaps in the literature that the study attempts to fill and provide answers.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

Often, archaeologists attempt to describe tool curation based on its efficiency in recovery and analysis. However, such a description fails to deliver the fact that curation could involve complex activities meaning that the different involved aspects could be efficient in different ways. In a particular study by Bamforth, he argues that the distribution and nature of lithic resources critically impact technological efficiency along with the assertion that curation, maintenance, and recycling are responses to the shortages of raw materials. In specific contexts, the scarcity of raw materials could result from behavior patterns hindering access to raw materials along with other regional geological conditions (Bamforth, 1986). Moreover, through this study, Bamforth (1986) provides details concerning efficiency as a notion by outlining that Curation based technologies could result in the making of highly useful tools transported through different locations. In as much as Bamforth, D. (1986) attempts to deliver significant background on technological efficiency and tool curation; it also derives various problems and questions related to technical efficiency, there are many gaps. For instance, the article fails to provide a different suggestion on how to handle the difficulties concerning the single factor approach. Also, it fails to outline applicable information concerning stone tool analysis, which is the base of this study.

Correspondingly, due to abundance and durability, stone artifacts have become a popular research material in archaeology. In the history of human activity, stone artifacts are essential in the survival of human both spiritual and personal since they increase the understanding of prior cultural variabilities, adaptation, along with other critical human structures that define cultural and social patterns. In a study, Clarkson and O'Connor (2013) deliver an introduction to stone analysis by providing the student with principle and guiding them on developing research. In many cases, stone artifacts are usually the most durable shreds of evidence constituting the only surviving trace of people years ago, in this case concerning stone tool analysis from Gledswood Rock shelter. Through the details of this study, it is critical and useful in the research since it clarifies that stone artifacts also play a fundamental role in the shaping of the physical world.

Moreover, it constitutes a vast record of the enormous diversity of strategies people have devised to make a living, communicate, solve social problems, as well as life with each other. Technology is an integral element of the culture variability, change, and adaptability, which through various studies, the symbolic role of stone artifacts in delivering ideological approaches (Clarkson & O'Connor, 2013). The article does an essential job in defining and introducing the stone artifact analysis. However, it fails to answer the various questions raised concerning the validity, alongside other occurrences that could corrupt the accuracy of stone artifacts in defining social structures and human adaptability. There are evident gaps in the study since the authors do not deliver the actual examples concerning the accuracy of stone artifacts since it is based on different theories rather than proper examinations.

In the involvement of the tools and cores dealing with the stone tool analysis, the typological systems play a significant role as well. According to Hiscock (2007), the typological approach represents a classification theory, which is vital in the reduction of variability down to places that chronological changes are apparent. In as much as the strategy relies on the presumption that the involved artifacts were as a result of planned design, Hiscock, P. (2007) focuses on elaborating assemblage. Additionally, Hiscock, P., & Clarkson, C. (2000) provide an analysis of the Australian stone artifacts through the consideration of various methodologies that assist in understanding stone tool analysis. Through the studies, they emphasize the quest for an understanding of motive factors, trends, and constraints about the archaeological investigation over the last 25 years.

In most of the examinations of stone artifact assemblages in Australia, they have been proceeded by the application of a conventional and widely accepted classification. There are numerous classifications; however, given the common intellectual knowledge and lineage of prior classifiers, there could be similarities in the stone tools along with the characteristics involving the tools. It means that the classifications ought to provide data significant to the questions concerning the involved research projects whereby classifications should be designed suited to the needs of the research rather than constrained within traditional and past typologies. Thus, both studies fail to deliver more details concerning the classification in terms of technological tool utilized in the stone artefacts analysis, which creates a research gap. Also, in as much as the authors creatively explore new strategies to measure assemblage composition and variation, they do not offer the specific strategies essential in developing new approaches critical in the classification terminology.

Social structures and human adaptive strategies are amongst the significant aspects in understanding human occupational history. Under the involvement of the assemblage from Gledswood Rock shelter, using Geoarchaeology would play a vital role in understanding it as well. In a research thesis by Keys (2009) he goes into depth concerning the Gledswood shelter one site. As the study applies the multi-techniques investigation approach, it examines the relationship between the material record at Gledswood shelter one site and site formation processes. Depending on the actual location and environmental context that stone artefacts are collected, the geoarchaeological approach comprehends the validity of the tools by providing a perception concerning the user's behavior. In as much as the article proves to be a significant resource since it offers details concerning the examination of the stone artifacts, it fails to deliver specific information and details concerning particular stone tool analysis. Moreover, the research gaps in this study are based on the occurrence that it does not offer substantial information concerning the timing of cultural change when analysis stone artifacts. Also, the critical need for a multitude of the process to determine the timing of cultural change sets new milestones in the utilization of the study.

With the evolution of time and development, there is the changing of stone technologies, site use, and occupational intensities. For instance, in a study on the technical analysis of a lithic assemblage at Fern Cave, it tests various issues associated with increased flaked stone artefacts. The study utilized six methods during the investigation including core rotation, raw material use, heat treatment, bipolar technique, edge damage, and stage of core reduction and provided the different shifts on the utilized methods (Lamb, 1996). There is a vast collection of information along with attributes to the involvement of variations and raw materials; however, there is a gap in the literature since it only delivers an examination of whether the deposition rates of stone artefacts at Fern Cave increased during the peak of the last glacial maximum or not. It creates the need for a broader study concerning the involvement of stone artifact in defining occupational activities.

The Australian Gledswood Rockshelter holds critical archives of human activity; however, most of the literature is based on artifacts and cultural occurrences. According to a study, Lowe, Mentzer, Wallis, and Shulmeister (2018), explore the geoarchaeological and geomorphological approaches in understanding the integration of geochronology to understand the human impact and site formation processes. Primary depositional fabrics, such as laminations and sediment structural development is low, revealing magnetic changes that coincide with the occupational practices of the human due to anthropogenic burning. According to the study, it shows new calibrated dates with a 95.4% confidence level even though the initial radiocarbon measurements were about 28,000 years ago for the site (Lowe et al., 2018). Although the article provides substantial information regarding the research site and does a perfect job in elaborating the stone tool analysis, there are minimal gaps since it is based on empirical examinations.

Different patterns and implications play a significant role in the understanding of archaeological records, particularly in the stone flaking in Australasia. For example, according to study, Moore, M. W. (2013) derives that the archaeological record in the Old World and Australasia reflect a pattern of approaches to stone flaking in the stone tool assemblages which was followed by a later proliferation in diverse methods. In different perception, the Australian proliferation has been termed as a response to the ecological setup; however, the examination does not account for the complex nature of hierarchical reduction sequence. Instead, the demographic modeling linking the emergence of sophisticated stone flaking to population growth delivers an account for the proliferation in Australasia and Old World. In the urge to understand the various approached behind stone tool analysis, it is critical to divide the involved structures into simple and complex. As the article points out and collects reliable information and allows navigation through literature; however, it does not provide the actual information concerning the reduction sequence. Additionally, a report by Shine et al. (2015) summarizes the archaeological research from Kakadu National park providing a more in-depth knowledge of some of the stone and rock artifacts. In as much as the article was a significant reference to the research, it does not deliver involvement with stone tool analysis creating a research gap.

In the technical analysis of a stone tool assemblage, classifications are critical since in most of the cases the stone tools gradually reduce during use. According to a study by Shott, Bradbury, Carr, and Odell (2000), they derive that reduction delivers insight about the curation of a stone tool. Through this, it enhances the understanding concerning the flake size, increasing the possibilities in the attempt to uncover the original size of a tool based on their reduction. As the theory delivered in the report highlights the primary problems associated with stone tool analysis, the study fails to offer precise information concerning the possible improvements to ensuring a credible stone tool analysis.

As this study attempts to outline the different perceptions and involvements in clarifying stone tool analysis, considering human structures is critical. Majorly, compositions range from single standing stones to other sophisticated stone tool and arrangement. Through a study delivered by Wallis and Matthews (2016), they offer description on built structures in Rockshelter terming them as standard archaeological features found in the Pilbara. However, the results from the study deriv...