This silcrete microblade core was collected during a collaborative research project between archaeologists and Traditional Owners to better understand the deep history of the Mithaka People.
The artefact is on loan to Archaeology and Palaeoanthropology, University New England, catalogue name Brokehimarm Lower, LC11.
This small core of high-quality silcrete was reduced by hard-hammer percussion to provide small microblades. The core was made on a large, thick flake blank, and the blank’s ventral surface served as the main platform. The core was substantially reduced when a problem must have occurred on the core face—probably a step or hinge termination. The core was rotated and the core’s base was removed by a single hard-hammer blow delivered to the core face. Another series of elongated flakes were then removed which propagated into the scar on the core’s base.
See the annotations for technological details about this stone tool.
In archaeological terminology, a ‘blade’ is a flake struck down parallel ridges on a core face, and measures at least twice as long as it is wide. The edges of the blade are approximately parallel. The core face is maintained by prior removals, and blades are struck off in series. If they are struck from one platform, the removals are ‘unidirectional’, and if they are struck from two opposed platforms, they are ‘bidirectional’. Blades were struck by direct percussion (using a hard or soft hammer) or indirect percussion using a punch; or they were pressed off using a pressure technique. This involved placing the end of the indentor onto the platform edge and applying a load—either by hand or using a lever—until the crack initiated. The placement of the indentor and the amount of applied force can be precisely controlled, resulting in extraordinary control of the size and shape of the resulting pressure blades. A common approach was to set up the core so that most of the blades had a trapezoidal cross section; these are called ‘prismatic’ blades.
Flintknappers in Australia made ‘macroblades’, measuring longer than ca. 60 mm long, and ‘microblades’, measuring less than 60 mm long. The size cutoff between the two is an arbitrary convention and the cutoff-point can differ between archaeologists. All macroblade technologies in Australia involved the hard-hammer percussion technique. Most microblades appear to have also been made by hard-hammer percussion, but the small platform sizes and bending initiations seen on some microblades may indicate the use soft-hammer percussion, using a soft stone or wood indentor. The pressure or indirect percussion techniques were not used in Australia to make blades.
In many Australian technologies, the flakes vary morphologically outside the strict archaeological definition of blades. These are considered ‘blade-like’ flakes, or are considered elements of a small-flake microlithic technology. The pattern of striking parallel flakes from the core, and maintaining straight arrises on the core face, are aspects of blade production. Blade technologies were common in Australia by the Late Holocene, after ca. 5000 BP, with some blade or blade-like technologies emerging by the Middle Holocene, ca. 10,000 BP. Microblades and small blade-like flakes served as blanks for backed microliths. Blade technologies were used across eastern, northern and central Australia, but are absent from Tasmania and are uncommon in southwestern Australia.
Brokehimarm Cave is located near Moondah Lake at an elevation of around 80 metres. The site complex has a number of silcrete outcrops on the top of the low relief escarpment, but this artefact was found in an extensive scatter approximately 100 metres long and 20 metres wide immediately below the cave. The material looks very similar to the material in the outcrops above the cave site. There are a number of other features in the landscape nearby including a large stone arrangement, possible initiation circles, knapping floors, earth ovens, and potential gunyah (hut) remains.