The Recognition, Description, Classification and Nomenclature of Australian Stone Implements

The Recognition, Description, Classification and Nomenclature of Australian Stone Implements:

The Report of the Stone Implement Committee, 1967

D. A. Casey, I. M. Crawford, R. V. S. Wright

INTRODUCTION

Very few Australian implement types have been thoroughly and adequately described and illustrated, and this has undoubtedly been the main cause of differences of opinion and errors which have arisen. It is perhaps surprising that confusion has not been greater, but most of the types are distinctive, readily recognisable and widely known even though they may never have been properly described. Nevertheless, it is highly desirable that the general standard of description and illustration should be raised, so as to ensure the maximum of factual clarity and the avoidance of any obscurity of ambiguity. Other sources of misapprehension have been failure to recognise just what may be considered to be an implement and what may not, and errors and discrepancies in typological classification and nomenclature. This report refers to all these aspects of the subject. It does not attempt to present a complete dissertation upon any of them, but it does endeavour to point out the underlying general principles involved and to draw attention to important points which do not seem to be widely enough known or appreciated.

THE RECOGNITION OF ARTIFACTS AND IMPLEMENTS

It is sometimes difficult to distinguish between stones fractured by natural causes and simple artifacts. It may be difficult also to distinguish between simple implements and artifacts which are merely by-products of the making of implements, such as waste flakes, unfinished or discarded pieces, core stones, or even stones which have been broken to provide material for implements.

Simple fractured or chipped stones, even if they are flakes and have some secondary chipping or flaking, should only be accepted as artifacts if:

  1. they are found in numbers and in situations which preclude the possibility of their being the result of chance natural causes, or if

  2. they are found only, or mainly, in association with undoubted artifacts or human remains.

If the examples under consideration are undoubted artifacts, they should only be accepted as implements if:

  1. their use has actually been observed, or

  2. they bear clear signs of usage, or

  3. they have been found in numbers, made to a repeated pattern, and are of a form which cannot be recognised as a by-product of any known process or technique for the making of implements, or

  4. they have been systematically and purposely shaped.

Stones or pebbles which have not been fashioned by man in any way, may nevertheless have been used as implements.

They cannot, however, be certainly recognised a such unless, (a) their use has been observed, or (b) they bear clear signs of usage.

These considerations are simple and logical and should be obvious, but they are not always followed. Nondescript fractured stones or isolated examples of artifacts of some fortuitous shape have very often been claimed as implements, without any real justification.

In border-line cases the determination must, of course, remain a matter of judgment, but such judgment should be based upon a sound knowledge of stone implement typology and of the various methods used for the making of implements, and it must be in accordance with the simple principles outlined above. Whatever conclusion is arrived at in any particular case, it is essential to bear clearly in mind whether it is certain, or only probable, or merely possible, and to state this clearly and distinctly when the implements or artifacts are described.

THE DESCRIPTION OF IMPLEMENTS

Description of types of implements or of individual implements should be full, clear, and systematic, and should be accompanied by illustrations. Types should be described under the following headings:

In regard to individual implements the headings should be:

Whenever implements are described or illustrated for the first time, it is always desirable to state where they are, or where they will be, permanently housed, and if they are part of a museum or other collection their registered numbers should be stated.

DESCRIPTIVE TERMS

It is essential that terms used for the description of implements should be clear and unambiguous, and it is highly desirable also that they should be widely accepted and well understood not only in this country but also overseas without the necessity for special explanations or definitions. Simple commonly used terms are preferable to unusual ones and jargon should be avoided wherever possible, even if these considerations involve the use of longer, or of more, words. A few terms, which have been used by some writers, but which have never been widely adopted, and which are consequently not widely understood, are listed below. It is recommended that their use should be avoided.

Terms to be Avoided

Block
In the sense of a thick or heavy flake with steep margins. This meaning can be too easily confused with the normal meaning of the word.

Coroid
There is no need for this term. The meaning is the same as that of the well established and widely used term core implement.

Nucleus
The meaning is the same as that of the well established term core.

Semi-biface and Semi-uniface
These are awkward and confusing terms. Their meaning is not self evident.

Side-blow flake
In the sense of an outer flake with cortex on its surface. This term is not used now at all.

Slice
In the sense of a flake with one thick margin and one thin margin. The term is not wide used or understood.

There are some simple, commonly used words which are imprecise and are often used in an ambiguous or confusing way. Examples are listed below. Whenever these are used, unless their intended meaning is clear from the context, care should be taken that they do not lead to misunderstanding or confusion.

Back
This term should not be used to describe either of the two surfaces of a flake or flake implement, as this may be ambiguous. The two surfaces are normally known as the inner and the outer, the bulbar surface being the inner. Confusion should be guarded against also in regard to the widely used terms backed blade, and the high backed. It should be noted that the back referred to is a different part of the implement in each case.

Face
In the sense of surface. This may be confused with front. It is preferable to use surface.

Front, Side, Top, Bottom, etc.
These are quite imprecise, as they depend upon which aspect of the implement is observed.

Margin, Edge
Margin refers to a part, usually a lateral part, of the periphery of an implement or flake. Edge usually denotes a working edge, a cutting edge, a trimmed edge or a sharp edge, and it is best that this word should be used only with this meaning.

Right and Left
These terms are sometimes applied to the margins of a flake or flake implement. It is recommended that when so used their meaning should conform with that first proposed by Tindale and Noone, which has been followed by several other writers. (Tindale and Noone, 1941:118) That is to say - when a flake is held with the point up and the butt downwards and with the bulbar surface away from the observer the margin towards the observer's right is considered to be the right margin, and vice versa. This convention is not, however, universally known or accepted, and whenever these terms are used for this purpose it is advisable either to define their meaning or to refer to the paper by Tindale and Noone. There is no convention in regard to the use of these terms in connection with any other type of implement.

There are a few words and terms which are sometimes used loosely or incorrectly. Care should be taken when they are used to ensure clarity and avoid misunderstandings. They are:

Adze
The Tula and other such wood working implements are commonly known as adzes. They should not be confused with the ground edge adzes which occur widely in New Guinea and the Pacific Islands and elsewhere, or with the similar implements which are occasionally found, unhafted, in Australia. To avoid confusion these latter should always be referred to as ground edge adzes or as adze-like ground edge implements. The stone component of the Tula and other such implements should be called an adze flake and they should not be referred to loosely, as they sometimes are, as simply adzes. They should not be called adze blades. (See below)

Blade
A blade is a flake which is considerably longer than it is wide, with margins approximately straight and more or less parallel or tapering to a point, and bearing a ridge or ridges resulting from the junction of previous flake scars, upon its outer surface. Length is here taken to mean the overall dimension of the flake along the axis of the bulb of percussion. The term is sometimes applied to any flake, irrespective of its shape, which is merely longer than it is wide, but this usage is confusing and undesirable. The term should not be used at all in other senses, e.g. adze blade, axe blade, etc.

Cleaver, Chopper
These terms are sometimes confused and used loosely or incorrectly. A cleaver is an implement used, or presumed to have been intended for use, for chopping, in which the sharp edge is formed by the intersection of two fracture surfaces. A chopper is an implement with the same function, or presumed function, in which the edge has been formed by flaking, and which is not axe-like in form. That is to say, it is an implement which does not have its working edge at one end of its long axis and in the medial plane.
Both of these terms are general in meaning, and when used by themselves without qualification they refer to groups or classes of implements and not to types. However, in Australia the only implement, so far identified, which may be called a cleaver, is the Worimi.

Flake
This term is occasionally incorrectly applied to any amorphous piece broken off a larger stone It should, however, be confined to its usual archaeological meaning - a piece removed from a larger stone by percussion or pressure applied at one point, and having the characteristic conchoidal fracture.

Flaked Implement, Flake Implement
The distinction between these terms should be noted. The former means an implement formed by flaking, sometimes called a knapped implement, the latter means an implement made from a flake.

Microlith
Some writers use this term to refer to any small implements, whatever their form, while others use it to refer to geometric microliths and microlithic points, and others use it to refer to geometric microliths only. To avoid confusion the intended meaning should always be clearly stated whenever it is not indicated by the context. The term has occasionally been used also to indicate any small flakes without secondary trimming, but this is quite misleading.

Polished
This has been applied to implements which have been ground over more or less the whole of their surface. However, in Australia there is no apparent difference between the type of grinding used for these implements and that used for the grinding of ordinary ground edge axes. For this reason it is recommended that the term be not used in regard to Australian implements.

Saw Knife
This term was first applied to the composite implement, the Taap, and should be retained to describe this implement. It has sometimes been used to describe a serrated flake, and care should be taken that this does not lead to confusion.

Serrated, Dentated, Notched
As applied to a flake or a flake implement, the differences between the meanings of these words may not always be clear. In cases in which this may cause confusion or misunderstanding, writers should ensure that the intended meaning is made clear.

Slug
A term sometimes used for a worn down Tula adze flake. It is, however, also used by some writers to denote quite different types of worn down adze flakes. If the term is used at all, it should be clearly realised that it is not confined to any one type of adze flake.

Specialised
As applied to a type of implement, this word is sometimes used loosely to indicate that the type is separate or distinct from other types. Thus used, the word is redundant. All types are necessarily separate and distinct. Its use in this way should be avoided. The real meaning of the word, as applied to an implement, or to a type or category of implements, is that it is the reverse of generalised in function. Thus the term should imply a single 'special' function.

ILLUSTRATION

Good illustrations are essential to supplement written descriptions of implements. In most cases, where it is desired to show the form of an implement and to bring out clearly details of flake scars, etc., drawings are usually preferable to photographs.

In order to indicate the solid form of an implement it is generally necessary to present views of at least three aspects of it, e.g. side, top, and end. In some cases two aspects will suffice, or even one aspect and one or more cross-sections. It should be noted, however, that if only two aspects are shown, they should not be views of opposite sides, but should be at right angles to each other. A front and a back view, for instance, cannot by themselves give any indication at all of solid form. In each particular case judgment is called for in order to decide just which views and cross-sections are necessary to give an adequate idea of the general shape of the implement and to show its essential features.

All this may be done, of course, with photographs, and cross-sections may be drawn upon them if necessary, although this is a somewhat awkward procedure. To achieve the same degree of clarity, photographs need to be larger than drawings, and unless they are reproduced at a fairly large scale the results are seldom as clear and precise as those which can be obtained with drawings.

In many cases it may not be essential to depict the form fully, and a drawing or a photograph of one view only will suffice. This is so for instance when the general form of the implement is well known, or when illustrations of several examples of the same sort of implement are required in order to show the range of its variations.

In those cases when it is necessary to illustrate an implement as fully and as explicitly as possible, it is probably best to present a photograph of it, at a fairly large scale, in order to show its general appearance and the texture of its surface, as well as drawings to show its form. The drawings may be at a much smaller scale than the photograph, and in many cases they need not be shaded.

The literature of stone implements contains countless examples of drawings which are virtually useless, as they fail to give any idea of the form of the implements which they attempt to portray, although this is clearly called for. This is usually because, through false economy, only one aspect has been shown, or because of failure to appreciate just which views and sections are required and how they should be arranged.

Drawing

Drawings should be straight-forward, full views of the side, top, or end of the long axis of the implement. Oblique views should be avoided. If more than one aspect is shown, these should always be at 90 or 180 degrees to each other. They should be presented in the manner of mechanical drawings, and should be arranged directly alongside or above and below each other. They should normally be connected by lines or dotted lines at both ends so that it can be seen at a glance exactly what their relationships are. These lines may sometimes be omitted, especially in drawings of single implements, but if drawings of several implements are grouped together in one plate or figure, the lines add greatly to the clarity of the presentation. Single lines should not be used for this purpose; they should be reserved for use only with cross sections.

Drawings must be, or must approximate to, true elevations and plans. They should not be perspective views, because if two or more aspects of the same implement are shown they will not strictly agree with one another.

When two opposite sides of an implement are shown, care should be taken that their outlines are exact mirror images of each other, as this is usually the only indication that they are in fact representations of opposite sides.

Cross sections should be presented so that their upper surface corresponds to the surface shown in the adjoining drawing. They should be carefully drawn, so that their outlines conform with any flake scars or irregularities shown in the drawing. A dotted line which crosses the drawing, or appears on both sides should be used to indicate the line of the section, and the drawn section should be placed for preference immediately alongside the drawing and directly in prolongation of the line of the section. Sections should be hatched or otherwise filled in, and simple outlines of implements should never be used in conjunction with drawings as they are too easily mistaken for true cross sections. In shaded drawings, and in photographs, it is conventional that the main lighting should appear to come from the upper left-hand side. While this convention need not always be followed, uniformity in this regard is desirable whenever possible.

In drawings of flakes and flaked implements the shading of bulbs of percussion and flake scars should conform with the conchoidal fracture. The curved shading lines should be centred upon or about the position of the point of percussion whether this point is actually upon the surface of the implement or somewhere outside of it. The shading thus shows the direction of the fracture and helps to indicate the method of manufacture of the implement.

Projectile points and similar implements are usually depicted with the point uppermost, but apart from this there is no agreement as to how illustrations of implements should be oriented. It is, however, desirable that all implements of the same type shown upon any one page, or in any one series of illustrations, should be oriented in a uniform way.

Photography

Inadequate photographs of stone implements are so common that it is well to consider here the attributes of a good photograph. It must, of course, be sharply focused and of good definition, but also should have a bright and clear appearance and show as full a range of tones, from light to dark, as the photographic process is capable of rendering. Over the whole of the range of tones, details and slight changes of tone in the implement should be apparent. There should be no large areas of blank shadow or of blank highlights, nor should there be flat middle tones devoid of detail. These qualities of good gradation depend upon the proper illumination of the subject, correct exposure, and the correct development of the negative and of the print. Photographs of implements should always be taken under conditions which permit the whole process to be under the full control of the photographer, and there should never be any necessity to accept photo prints of anything but the very best quality. But however good the gradation and contrast of the photo print, it should be remembered that the quality of the final illustration depends also upon the skill of the blockmaker, and proofs from the block should always be scrutinised before acceptance for publication.

Backgrounds in photographs should be plain, or of an even texture, and of a tone contrasting with that of the implement, so that the whole margin of the implement is clearly defined and is nowhere of the same tone as the background. There should be no cast shadow of the implement, as this is distracting and may obscure the margin. Shadows may be avoided by illuminating the implement evenly from all sides, but this is apt to result in a dull flat image. Alternatively the implement may be photographed on a sheet of clear glass which is supported on a stand, with the camera mounted vertically above it and a plain white background some way below the glass and separately illuminated. Another method is to place the implement upon a sheet of frosted glass which is separately illuminated from below. In the case of an implement in which the margin varies greatly in tone, it may be difficult to ensure that it does not blend with the background at some point, but if this does occur it can usually be corrected by varying the illumination either upon the implement or upon the background. A black background is seldom suitable for implements, but if such a background is used, black velvet for instance, the shadow cast by the implement will not be visible.

The blocking out of the surroundings of an implement upon the negative in order to achieve a white background in the print should never be done. This results in a sharp-cut profile which looks quite un-photographic and unnatural and which always gives the impression that the margin may perhaps have been cut into in some places. This process, or the even worse one of actually cutting out the image from a print, by cutting along its outline, and sticking it on to a white card mount, is usually only resorted to in order to save the trouble of taking the photograph properly in the first place.

If a scale is included in the photograph, it should be propped up so that it is level with the margin of the implement. If it is merely rested on the surface upon which the implement is lying, it will appear too small, as it will be further away from the lens than is the implement. With an implement of little depth the error is not important, but with a large one it can be considerable.

Sometimes it is not easy to position a scale in this way, and in such cases it may be preferable to draw a scale directly on to the photo print. To do this it is necessary to construct a scale in accordance with the ratio between the length of the implement and the length of its photo image. This can most easily be done by plotting the scale graphically, by the simple geometrical method for dividing a line into any particular number of equal parts.

An alternative is to omit the scale altogether and to state in the caption the factor by which the image has been enlarged or reduced in the final block. When the scale is indicated in this way, either in photographs or in drawings, it should be ensured that the size of the final block is such that the factor is some round number and not an awkward fraction. In the caption the scale is perhaps best expressed by a multiplication sign followed by the factor, and not as a ratio, e.g. x 1/4, or x 2, and not 1 : 4, or 2 : 1. However, every endeavour should be made to include the scale with the implement while it is being photographed. The risk of error or oversight in the various stages between photographer, author, blockmaker and printer is better avoided wherever possible.

Small faults and blemishes on photo prints should always be removed by retouching, but as well as this, shadows may be darkened and highlights emphasised where this is necessary. It is usually considered that retouching of this sort should not be done, but if it improves the quality and clarity of the print without in any way falsifying it, it is fully justified. The retouching of photographs is normally done upon the negative, but in the case of prints for blockmaking, retouching may be more easily and better carried out upon the enlarged print. Prints for blockmaking should be upon the glossy paper as this ensures the maximum brilliance and the longest range of tones. With the glossy print held in the hand the retouching may be quite noticeable to the eye because of the loss of gloss on the retouched parts. But unless it has been done very unskilfully, it will not be apparent in the final illustration because of the flat and even light used by the blockmaker to copy the print.

Size of Illustration

A common cause of failure with photographic illustrations is that they are reproduced at too small a scale. There is no practicable general rule for determining the minimum size of image for any particular size of implement. The larger the image, within reason, the clearer is the detail, but for practical purposes a compromise has to be arrived at between the degree of clarity required and the available space upon the page, and this is a matter for judgment.

A useful method of judging the best size for the block, in the case of any particular implement, is as follows: Mark on the edge of a piece of paper the width, or the height, of the maximum space available for the illustration on the page of the journal or book. Stand the implement up in a good light, some distance away. Hold the paper before the eyes at about reading distance (13 inches), and looking past it at the implement, move backwards or forwards until the implement seems to the eye to comfortably fill the width, or the height, as marked on the paper. The implement will then appear to the eye, in regard to detail and clarity, as the printed image would if it filled the whole space available. By moving backwards it can then be judged just how small the image may be upon the page and still retain adequate detail and clarity.

This procedure, which may sound intricate but which is in fact quite simple, can be used also to determine the optimum size of a drawing or the degree to which any particular drawing may be reduced. In this case the drawing, or a rough draft of it, is set up and observed in the same way, from various distances. The method is particularly useful for judging the best size for lettering, numerals, etc.

In the great majority of cases the solid form of an implement can most easily and adequately be shown by drawings presenting various aspects and cross sections. But to reveal subtle differences of shape and contour with the greatest clarity, stereographic photographs may be needed, and this method is being increasingly used. To indicate form most fully it may, however, be necessary to present drawings as well as stereo photographs, as a single stereo pair can, of course, reveal only one aspect. It cannot show the back as well as the front.

Colour illustrations can convey an impression of patination and of the nature of the material not possible by any other means. Their use, however, is limited by their cost, and colour does little or nothing to help define the detail or the form of an implement. Black and white illustrations will probably always continue to be generally used.

The author of a paper or book is responsible for the accuracy of the illustrations, but drawings should always be signed by the person who made them, and the authorship of photographs should be acknowledged. This is desirable because it gives credit where it is due, encourages a high standard of workmanship and attributes responsibility for interpretations made in the drawings.

CLASSIFICATION

The object of the classification of stone implements is to determine the various distinct kinds, so that these may be more readily recognised and referred to, and so that their typological relationships my be established and their chronology and cultural significance studied.

Implements may be classified according to their function, form, method of manufacture, material, etc., or any combination of these. Classification according to function should be done with discretion, as in many cases function cannot be known for certain, and also because many types of implements had more than one function.

Any system of typological classification must be based upon the assumption that there are certain basic kinds of implements which have the same general form and characteristic features and occur in some numbers. Such categories are general referred to as types of implements.

These categories should be truly basic. The implements within them should differ only in minor ways, such as small variations in size, shape, proportions of material, or in the amount, extent or quality of their flaking, trimming, hammer dressing or grinding. Their differences should thus be differences of degree only and not of kind.

Implement types were not, of course, necessarily static. Morphological features of implements developed or deteriorated, or otherwise changed in the course of time and from place to place. But if similar implements, which vary only in minor ways, are found in some numbers, it is an indication that their characteristic form and features remained relatively static for an appreciable period and that they may be safely accepted as a definite entity. If in the course of change a type either lost or acquired any significant feature, then in accordance with the conception of type outlined above, it must be regarded as a different type.

For the purpose of classification, types may be divided into sub-types or varieties, according to their minor variations. They may also be arranged in larger groups or classes which share some common feature of features. The nature of such larger groups and their classificatory arrangement depends greatly upon the purpose of the classification. They should be logically related and distinctly recognisable, but otherwise their nature and arrangement are matters of convenience.

It should be noted that identity of typological classification does not necessarily mean identity of cultural relationship. It merely indicates that such relationship may exist. It may be reasonably assumed that implements of the same type, which are highly developed morphologically, are in fact culturally related. However, the more simple and crude the implements are, the less safe is this assumption. For instance, simple scrapers, choppers, etc., may well have originated independently in more than one place. Thus examples of them, even though they are of the same type and bear the same name, are not to be taken as necessarily related. Cultural relationship can only be certainly proved by historical or archaeological evidence which shows that the implements come from the same, or contiguous, areas and periods, and that their distribution is reasonable uniform.

It should be noted also that with such comparatively simple things as stone implements, typological features cannot be assessed with any certainty as being either rudimentary, developed, or degenerate, and for this reason typology, by itself, cannot be taken as an indication of relative age. This can only be determined by archaeological stratification or by the association of implements with other dated objects or material.

Unless these two limitations of the significance of typological classification are clearly kept in mind they are very apt to lead to false reasoning and unjustified conclusions.

NOMENCLATURE

Every implement type which has been positively recognised as a separate entity should have a name, or a short descriptive designation, so that it may be referred to and identified easily. Any name or designation is acceptable if:

  1. it has not been used elsewhere.
  2. it has priority of application, or is sanctioned by wide current usage.
  3. it is clear and distinctive.

Descriptive designations should be adequately brief, and they must at the same time be sufficiently distinctive to identify the implement type. Examples are - Central Australian fighting pick, horsehoof implement, uniface pebble implement, serrated flake 'knife'.

In many cases the names which have been applied to implement types are somewhat misleading. Many geographical names do not refer to the area of distribution of the implements, or even to the main area or location in which they occur, but indicate only the locality from which they were first described, and this is generally of little significance. Geographical names, or unfamiliar or little known places, which are, or which happen to sound like, native names, are apt to give the false impression that they are the genuine native names for the implements, and thus to imply that the implements are sufficiently recent for their native names to be known, which is not always the case. Native names for implements, even if they are genuine and correct, are not necessarily the only ones applied to the implements by the Aborigines, and names may differ from tribe to tribe. The names of tribes have sometimes been applied to implements, but these do not always mean that the implements were confined to the one tribal area.

Such discrepancies in regard to the naming of implements are difficult to avoid. They do not, however, greatly matter so long as it is clearly borne in mind that names in general are primarily for identification and convenience of reference, and that they do not otherwise necessarily have precise meaning or significance.

It is generally considered that in cases in which the function of the implement is not definitely known, the use of functional designations is misleading and should be avoided. There is no doubt, however, that the use of such designations is occasionally quite useful. In many cases they are well embedded in the literature, and to abandon them altogether would be unnecessarily pedantic.

To overcome the difficulty it is recommended that in all such cases the terms should be enclosed in inverted commas. In speech, the same idea may be expressed where necessary by the inclusion of the phrase so called. Some functional terms which have been used are grossly incorrect, e.g. 'spokeshave', 'gouge', 'chisel', 'plane'. The implements to which these terms have been applied bear little or no resemblance to carpenters' tools of these names, either in their form or the way in which they could possibly be used, but if the names are in inverted commas there is little danger of confusion.

APPENDIX

In the course of their review of the evidence, members of the Stone Implement Committee felt that there are some names for implement types which have led to doubt, obscurity or confusion in the minds of other archaeologists who have used them. In order to give the benefit of their experience, the following observations are appended.

Implement Types

Arapia
The validity of the Arapia as a type has been questioned. It is considered, however, that it may quite reasonably be accepted as a separate and discrete type. It occurs in some numbers, and is distinct typologically. It is clearly different from the Karta in that it is made from a flake, whereas the Karta is essentially a core implement. In the description of the Arapia, by Tindale, there is a terminological error, which should be noted. It is stated that the flakes were struck from a prepared platform, but it would have been more correct to have said that they were struck from a prepared core (Tindale, 1937:48). This error does not, however, affect the validity of the implement as a type. The Arapia is similar in shape to the Tula adze flake, but it can be distinguished from it by its larger size. It has been proposed that the limiting length between the two should be considered to be four inches, but no such single measurement should be used in this way, as the two types merge into one another and it is not possible to determine just where one stops and the other begins.

An examination of these implements in museum collections shows that although there are many of the larger type and very many of the smaller, there are few of intermediate size. This clearly indicates that there are in fact two separate categories of implements. It is, nevertheless, desirable that a cursory examination of this sort should be followed by a more precise statistical analysis of lengths and numbers. The difference in size is sufficiently great to show that the Arapia could not have been used in the same way as the Tula, and this is confirmed by the fact that they are never found worn down by use and resharpening in the manner of the Tula slug.

Jimari
A type of flake knife from the Mangala tribe, whose territory is inland from La Grange Bay in Western Australia, has been described by Tindale. He claims that these correspond to knives made by the Pintubi tribe of Central Australia and also to certain Tartangan implements from southern Australia. He has applied to all of these the name Jimari, which is the native name for the Mangala knife (Tindale, 1957:12-16).

It is considered that the Pintubi and the Tartangan implements, although they are similar to each other, are typologically different from the Mangala knives, and that the difference is such that they cannot be considered to constitute one type. The Mangala knives are simple flake implements of the 'scraper' sort, in which the working edge is opposite to the bulb of percussion. The flakes from which they were made are from pebbles and they have the pebble cortex on their outer surface. They have no secondary flaking except for the trimming of the working edge. The Pintubi and the Tartangan implements are of a type commonly known as side 'scrapers'. That is to say, their trimmed working edge is on one lateral margin of the flake. As well as the trimming of the margin, these implements have been shaped by considerable secondary flaking which covers all, or the greater part, of their outer surface. The Mangala and the other implements are alike only in having a curved, trimmed working edge, but this similarity is not considered sufficient to justify the placing of all of them in one type. The two types should certainly have separate names or designations, and this would seem to be a matter for the writer who first described them.

Leilira Knife
The name Leilira was originally recorded by Spencer and Gillen, as the native word for the Central Australian flake knife (Spencer and Gillen, 1899:223; 1904:752). It has, however, since been applied as Leilira blade, to the type of blade used for these knives and for the Central Australian fighting picks and spearheads (McCarthy, 1946:31). These blades are not specialised in any way, and if found by themselves they cannot be recognised, with the exception of those used as women's knives, as having been intended for any particular purpose. They cannot even be recognised as implements, as opposed to waste or discarded blades. In all such cases, in which the stone components of a hafted implement are of such a simple form that they cannot by themselves be recognised as implements, members are of the opinion that the hafted implements as a whole should be considered to constitute the implement type, and that their stone components should not be so considered. This applies, as well as to the cases in point, to the Taap saw-knife and to the death spear.

Thus, each of the three Central Australian types of blade implement should be regarded as a separate type. The name Leilira should be retained for the flake knives. The picks might be referred to as Central Australian fighting picks, and the spearheads simply as blade spearheads. The blades themselves need have no particular name, but if a name is applied to them it should not be Leilira.

Small Asymmetrical Points
Bondi points have been divided into three 'sub-types' (McCarthy, 1946:36). It should, however, be noted that according to the conception of type as defined by this Committee (see above: 'classification'), 'sub-types' I and II should be considered to be types rather than sub-types, as they are quite different in form and are made from quite different types of flakes. 'Sub-type' III, however, may well be a variety of 'Sub-type' I.

The Woakwine point (Campbell and Noone, 1943:378) is similar to the Bondi 'Sub-type' I. Both are made from small thin blades which have a ridge or ridges on their outer surfaces. They are both trimmed to a point by trimming done from the inner surface, although in some of the Woakwine points the extreme point is trimmed also from the outer surface. The trimmed part of the margin of the Woakwine points is characteristically straight and not curved and they have been described as oblique points. The straight oblique trimming of the margin was considered by Campbell and Noone as sufficient to distinguish them as a separate type of point. It is considered, however, that the two categories are fundamentally the same, and that the difference between them is only one of degree and not of kind. In order to express this relationship and to indicate that the Woakwine is a variant and not a separate type, it is recommended that the Woakwine point should in future be known as the Woakwine Bondi point. The use here of the name Bondi is recommended because of its priority of application as a general term for all small asymmetrical points (McCarthy, 1943:145) and because of its widely accepted current use in this sense. Where variants are clearly related, it can only be confusing if the nomenclature gives no indication of their relationship.

In the case of the South Eastern Bondi point (Campbell and Noone, 1943:379), the name adequately indicates that it is a variety of Bondi point. It is fundamentally the same as Bondi 'Sub-type' II, but in general is longer and more slender and many of the points have a slight twist about their long axis. Both are made from small flakes which are triangular or wedge shaped in cross section, and are trimmed to a point by trimming done from both the inner and outer surfaces.

The original descriptions of both the Woakwine point and the South Eastern Bondi point are not altogether clear and they could both, with advantage, be more precisely described (Campbell and Noone, 1943). For instance the Woakwine point was described, in one place, as 'an asymmetric trapeze elongated to a fine oblique point', whereas it is not, in fact, essentially trapeze shaped. The illustrations of Woakwine points are also somewhat misleading. The several examples published are predominantly trimmed from both the inner and from the outer surfaces, and this is not characteristic of these points as a whole.

The description of the Bondi point 'Sub-types', and the supporting illustrations (McCarthy, 1946:36), could also, with advantage, be improved and made clearer.

REFERENCES

Campbell, T.D., and Noone, H.V.V., 1943. Some Aboriginal Camp Sites in the Woakwine Range Region of the South East of South Australia. South Australian Museum Records 7.

McCarthy, F.D., 1943. An Analysis of the Knapped Implements from Eight Elouera Industry Stations on the South Coast of New South Wales. Australian Museum Records 21.

McCarthy, F.D., 1946. The Stone Implements of Australia. Australian Museum, Memoir 9.

McCarthy, F.D., 1967. Australian Aboriginal Stone Implements. Australian Museum, Sydney.

Spencer, W.B., and Gillen, F.J., 1899. The Native Tribes of Central Australia. London.

Tindale, N.B., 1937. Relationship of the Extinct Kangaroo Island Culture with Cultures of Australia, Tasmania and Malaya. South Australian Museum Records 6.

Tindale, N.B., 1957. Cultural Succession in South Eastern Australia from Late Pleistocene to the Present. South Australian Museum Records 13.

Tindale, N.B., and Noone, H.V.V., 1941. Analysis of an Aboriginal's Hoard of Knapped Flint. Royal Society of South Australia Transactions 65.

HOME GLOSSARY BIBLIOGRAPHY