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.

摘要

考古学家一直在努力寻找考古记录中的石英文物。石英的特殊断裂力学会使夹杂石英，其他类型的故意破碎的石英与这种矿物的自然存在之间的区别变得复杂。在澳大利亚，石英的“问题”在金矿上更为复杂，从打捞，金矿开采和其他过程中产生的石英碎屑有可能同时发生。本文研究了原住民敲击者和接触黄金后的探矿者生产的石英组件是否各自具有独特的“签名”。它比较了使用不同但常用的技术通过实验制造的两种石英组件，它们具有创造具有类似特征的人工制品的潜力：用锤子敲打和用镐头探金。结果表明，每个组件中的大多数伪像都是无定形的，并且缺乏诊断标记。但是，每种技术的产品之间的差异在组合级别上都是显而易见的。总体而言，研究结果突显了对石英人工制品进行调查和分类（包括在金矿田中）所涉及的复杂性，并强调了采用整体，基于集合的方法研究不同时期和制造来源的石英人工制品的重要性。