Abstract
Archaeologists have long grappled with identifying quartz artefacts in the archaeological record. The particular fracture mechanics of quartz can complicate the distinction between knapped quartz, other types of deliberately broken quartz, and natural occurrences of this mineral. In Australia, the quartz ‘problem’ is compounded on goldfields, where quartz debris from knapping, gold mining and other processes has the potential to co-occur. This paper investigates whether quartz assemblages produced by Aboriginal knappers and post-contact gold prospectors each possess a unique ‘signature’. It compares two quartz assemblages made experimentally using different but commonly used techniques with potential for creating artefacts with similar features: knapping with a hammerstone, and gold prospecting with a pick-axe. The results indicate that most artefacts in each assemblage are amorphous and lack diagnostic markers. Nonetheless, differences between the products of each technique are apparent at the assemblage level. Overall, the results highlight the complexities involved in investigating and classifying quartz artefacts, including on goldfields, and emphasise the importance of a holistic, assemblage-based approach to the study of quartz artefacts from different time periods and manufacturing origins.
Published Version
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call