Activity Area – Belinup Stone Arrangements

Site-Structuring Predictions

Central to the Belinup complex is a large stone arrangement site. Based on its prominent location above the rivermouth and the presence of stone arrangements (see Chapter 7), this activity area is interpreted as a ceremonial hub within the Belinup complex. Stone artefacts are littered across the area. The precise nature of the ceremonies remains unknown, which makes it difficult to generate a prediction about exactly what activities may have taken place here. However, it is likely to have been a centre of social and perhaps spiritual activities, and therefore is less likely to be associated with domestic/practical activities such as early stone reduction, specialized tool production or gearing up. It is predicted that tools were used here for immediate utility to undertake tasks and activities as required. It is also likely that some tool maintenance and sharpening took place, as well as ‘late stage’ reduction associated with preparing implements for immediate utility. It is predicted that both local and non-local stone will be present as a result of visiting personnel coming to take part in ceremonies.

Results

A total of 237 artefacts were recorded in the stone arrangement artefact scatter, of which 84.4% were made from chert, 6.8% silcrete, 8% quartz, and 0.8% other (one chalcedony and one basalt). The Stone Arrangements site is the only one in the Belinup complex at which silcrete is represented, something not explained by sample size given that the sample from the Stone Arrangements (n=237) is smaller than the other sites combined. Quartz is also notably more common at the Stone Arrangements site than elsewhere in the Belinup complex (Table 10). Unfortunately, a Chi Square Test cannot be run on the data in Table 10 due to the large number

of cells with expected values less than 5. It is possible, however, to compare the abundance of (presumed local) chert and non-chert artefacts in this site (chert = 200, non-chert = 37) with that from the other Belinup sites combined (chert = 358, non-chert = 10). The results suggest statistically significant differences ((χ2_{=33.452, df=1, p<0.001), reflecting significant over-}

representation of non-chert artefacts in the assemblage at the Stone Arrangements site, 43% of which are silcrete.

There are nine cores at this site (3.8%), compared with 4.8% across the Belinup complex as a whole, and 23 retouched flakes (9.7% vs 5.6% in the Belinup complex overall). There are also 44 complete flakes in the sample, 116 broken flakes and 45 fragments (Table 11). As with raw material abundance, variation in artefact classes between all Belinup sites cannot be studied individually with chi-square due to violation of minimum value requirements (not more than 20% of cells to have values less than 5). Again, however, we can compare the Stone Arrangements site to the aggregate data from all other Belinup sites combined. And, again, this suggests statistically significant variation (χ2_{=28.93, df=4, p<0.001). The observed variation is}

thus highly unlikely to have arisen by chance.

Backed artefacts are the only tool type represented at the Stone Arrangements scatter, of which 10 were identified (Table 12). This stands out among a total of twelve in the Belinup complex overall. Again, sample size alone cannot account for this number. If the remaining Belinup assemblages are considered in aggregate, the difference is statistically significant (χ2_=12.646, df=1, p=0.001). Among the 39 chert complete flakes at the Stone Arrangements site, seven have cortex (18%), while seven of the 21 chert cores have cortex (33%). In the three silcrete complete flakes, one has cortex 33%, as does one of the three silcrete cores (Table 13).

Complex Site % Chert % Silcrete % Quartz % Other Belinup Arrangements N=237 84.4 6.8 8.0 0.8

Belinup

Bel Quarry

N=113 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Belinup Bel N=76 Ridge 88.2 0.0 9.2 2.6

Belinup Bel Upper Cr. N=79 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Belinup BEL1 N=41 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Belinup Boyatup N=59 98.3 0.0 1.7 0.0 Belinup BEL-ALL N=605 92.2 2.6 4.5 0.7 ALL (Belinup and Marbaleerup) ALL N=1079 61.6 22.2 10.6 5.7

TABLE10. PERCENTAGE RAW MATERIAL BY AREA (BELINUP)

Complex Site

Core Complete flakes Broken flakes Retouch Fragment

Bel Stone Arr. N=237 4% (N=9) 19% (N=44) 49% (116) 10% (N=23) 19% (N=45)

Bel Quarry N=113 6% (N=7) 13% (N=15) 39% (N=43) 2% (N=2) 41% (N=46)

Bel

Bel Ridge

N=76 3% (N=2) 7% (N=5) 53% (N=40) 12% (N=9) 26% (N=20)

Bel Bel Upper Cr. N=79 11% (N=9) 18% (N=14) 41% (N=32) 0% (N=0) 30% (N=24)

Bel BEL1 N=41 2% (N=1) 17% (N=7) 63% (N=26) 0% (N=0) 17% (N=7) Bel Boyatup N=59 2% (N=1) 10% (N=6) 36% (N=21) 0% (N=0) 53% (N=31) Bel BEL-ALL N=605 5% (N=29) 15% (N=91) 46% (N=278) 6% (N=34) 29% (N=173) BOTH (Marb + Bel) ALL N=1079 5% (N=56) 18% (N=193) 50% _(N=543) 8% (N=81) 20% (N=206)

Complex Site Backed Grindstone tula slug Scraper

Belinup Arrangements N=237 10

Belinup

Bel Quarry

N=113

Belinup Bel N=76 Ridge 2 1

Belinup Bel Upper Cr. N=79

Belinup BEL1 N=41 Belinup Boyatup N=59 Belinup BEL-ALL N=605 12 1 0 0 BOTH (Bel + Marb) ALL N=1079 26 1 2 3

TABLE12. NUMBER OF FORMAL IMPLEMENTS BY AREA (BELINUP)

Complex Site % of Chert Complete Flakes with Cortex % of Chert Cores with Cortex % of Silcrete Complete Flakes with Cortex % of Silcrete Cores with Cortex Belinup Arrangements 18% (N=39) 33% (N=21) 33% (N=3) 33% (N=3)

Belinup Bel Quarry 50% (N=16) 54% (N=13) - -

Belinup Bel Ridge 25% (N=4) 77% (N=9) - -

Belinup Bel Upper Cr. 7% (N=14) 66% (N=9) - -

Belinup BEL1 100% (N=1) 0% (N=1) - -

Belinup Boyatup 17% (N=6) 20% (N=5) - -

Belinup BEL-ALL 24% (N=80) 48% (N=58) 33% (N=3) 33% (N=3)

BOTH (Bel +

Marb) ALL 23% (N=102) 48% (N=61) 28% (N=64) (38%) (N=24) TABLE 13. PERCENTAGE OF ARTEFACTS WITH CORTEX, BY AREA, ARTEFACT CLASS AND RAW MATERIAL TYPE (BELINUP).

Discussion

Raw material composition at the Stone Arrangements site is significantly different to the other sites in the Belinup area, and is the only Belinup assemblage containing silcrete. The presence of silcrete here is interpreted as evidence of stone being brought from the north. This may be the result of visiting personnel or the result of contact/trade with non-local personnel. Alternatively, the presence of silcrete may be the result of Nyungar people accessing this type of stone in the fringing north of their territory, or in neighbouring Ngadju lands. Some of the silcrete sources may have been in shared areas or interactions zones between the neighbouring

groups. The low proportion of cores is also consistent with predictions of technologies focussing on late stage reduction, as are the relatively late stage cortical chert cores and flakes. The high proportion of retouched implements conforms to expectations of provisioning individuals and residential mobility, while the relative abundance of backed artefacts – a light- weight portable tool with immediate utility – appears to suit a mobile tool-kit.

Overall, this assemblage stands out among the Belinup sites and is the only one with technological traits consistent with an interpretation of aggregation, which is largely based on the presence of local and non-local stone. In particular, evidence that may indicate mixed personnel and residential mobility, found in direct association with the stone arrangements, may reflect aggregation activities. It also seems highly likely that other non-aggregation activities took place here too, and these may or may not have been contemporaneous with the stone arrangements presence or use. Overall, the analysis reflects a diverse lithic technology with a range of technological behaviours, which may not necessarily all relate to ceremonial purposes. In this instance, time-averaging associated with palimpsests of different activities at different times would likely be the reason, at least in part, for the pattern appearing more complex than predicted.