Skip to main content
placeholder image

Uncertain evidence for weapons and craft tools: functional Investigations of Australian microliths

Chapter


Abstract


  • At least two general hypotheses have been proposed to explain microlith function in Australia. Recent residue studies of Australian microliths, commonly called backed microliths, suggest that these small stone tools were hafted and used in a variety of tasks but lack compelling evidence of use as spear tips or barbs (Hiscock et al. 2011). In contrast, earlier studies have supported Johan Kamminga’s conclusion that, on the balance of evidence, Australian microliths were “primarily the penetrating or lacerating elements of composite spears” (Kamminga 1980: 11). I argue that it is premature to reject either of these hypotheses, and argue that current evidence for microlith function is consistent with a limited range of composite tool forms including elements in spears and multi-purpose knives.

Publication Date


  • 2016

Citation


  • Fullagar, R. (2016). Uncertain evidence for weapons and craft tools: functional Investigations of Australian microliths. In R. Lovita & K. Sano (Eds.), Multidisciplinary Approaches to the Study of Stone Age Weaponry (pp. 159-166). Netherlands: Springer.

International Standard Book Number (isbn) 13


  • 9789401776011

Scopus Eid


  • 2-s2.0-85044930111

Ro Metadata Url


  • http://ro.uow.edu.au/smhpapers/4694

Book Title


  • Multidisciplinary Approaches to the Study of Stone Age Weaponry

Start Page


  • 159

End Page


  • 166

Place Of Publication


  • Netherlands

Abstract


  • At least two general hypotheses have been proposed to explain microlith function in Australia. Recent residue studies of Australian microliths, commonly called backed microliths, suggest that these small stone tools were hafted and used in a variety of tasks but lack compelling evidence of use as spear tips or barbs (Hiscock et al. 2011). In contrast, earlier studies have supported Johan Kamminga’s conclusion that, on the balance of evidence, Australian microliths were “primarily the penetrating or lacerating elements of composite spears” (Kamminga 1980: 11). I argue that it is premature to reject either of these hypotheses, and argue that current evidence for microlith function is consistent with a limited range of composite tool forms including elements in spears and multi-purpose knives.

Publication Date


  • 2016

Citation


  • Fullagar, R. (2016). Uncertain evidence for weapons and craft tools: functional Investigations of Australian microliths. In R. Lovita & K. Sano (Eds.), Multidisciplinary Approaches to the Study of Stone Age Weaponry (pp. 159-166). Netherlands: Springer.

International Standard Book Number (isbn) 13


  • 9789401776011

Scopus Eid


  • 2-s2.0-85044930111

Ro Metadata Url


  • http://ro.uow.edu.au/smhpapers/4694

Book Title


  • Multidisciplinary Approaches to the Study of Stone Age Weaponry

Start Page


  • 159

End Page


  • 166

Place Of Publication


  • Netherlands