Rationales for the production of Kimberley points: a reply to Akerman.

Harrison, Rodney

In a recent issue of this journal, Akerman (2008) offered an extended critique of my paper 'An artefact of colonial desire: Kimberley points and the technologies of enchantment', published in Current Anthropology in 2006. This paper was the third in a series of articles dealing with the function of Kimberley points within Kimberley Aboriginal societies (Harrison 2002a), their chronology (Harrison 2004) and their reception by non-Indigenous collectors, ethnographers and archaeologists in the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries (Harrison 2006). I have already responded to the points raised in his rejoinder to the Current Anthropology article in a subsequent number of that journal (Akerman 2007; Harrison 2007), but offer the following points of clarification in response to his extended critique. In the first instance I would refer any reader to the original papers, which contain the arguments in their initial form, as well as the historical, ethnographic and quantitative archaeological data on which they are based.

Kimberley points as a late nineteenth-century phenomenon

Akerman (2008:70) claims that I argue that Kimberley points are a late nineteenth-century phenomena. I do not do this. I note, on the basis of archaeological evidence, that bifacially pressure-flaked points appear to have originated within the Kimberley region sometime between 1000 and 1400 calBP (Harrison 2004). However, it is important to distinguish between the very finely invasively pressure-flaked biface spear points of up to 20-30 centimetres in length that are common in museum collections and those that are known from prehistoric archaeological sites in the region, which archaeological data demonstrate are more variable in size but generally much shorter (often under five centimetres in length), are often less invasively flaked, and are more variable in shape and treatment of the margins. When one compares the length and degree of invasive bifacial working on points found on pre-contact archaeological sites with those found on particular sorts of post-contact archaeological sites (associated with missions, Aboriginal reserves and pastoral stations, as opposed to contemporary bush camps) and those in museum collections, those found in that particular category of post-contact site and in museum collections are generally longer, more invasively worked and more symmetrical in form (see data in Harrison 2002a and 2004). What I suggest is that these long, very finely bifacially pressure-flaked points are an extreme morphological variation, which appear in response to various changes within Kimberley society (Harrison 2002a) and in response to the demand for a particular point shape from non-Indigenous collectors during the period following about 1885 AD (Harrison 2004, 2006). Contrary to Akerman's assertion, fragments of points do occur in archaeological contexts (both open sites and rock-shelters) in the region, allowing this chronological sequence of changes in point form to be quantified (see Harrison 2002b and 2004).

Kimberley points as spearheads

Akerman (2008:72) claims that I argue that Kimberley points were not used as spearheads. This is not the case. I distinguish, following Akerman (1978; see also Akerman and Bindon 1995 and Akerman et al. 2002), between short points (generally less than five centimetres in length), which would have been halted for use in hunting, and long points, which would have acted as trade objects (either halted or unhafted). However, I do raise the inconsistency of the larger numbers of points that occur on post-contact settlements in the region associated with pastoral properties, missions and Aboriginal reserves where people were receiving rations (contexts in which we would logically expect the manufacture of points for use in hunting to be less important) when compared to similar contemporary sites located away from such areas and where people were not receiving rations (contexts in which we would logically expect the manufacture of points for use in hunting to be more important), in addition to their different morphologies. In Harrison (2002a), I explore a number of social arguments that might help explain this anomaly.

I argued on the basis of Akerman's (1978) account and the accounts of my informants that glass appears to be functionally inferior to the stone raw material sources in the south-east Kimberley region in which I undertook the bulk of my research for the production of spear points for use in hunting. I also recounted the views of my informants that glass was considered to be symbolically inferior for the production of spear points for use in hunting. That large numbers of glass points had an alternate life as hafted spear points 'traded or sent as gifts ... [for use] in various dance performances' is suggested by Akerman's (2008:76) own account. I do not, in any publication, cast doubt on the 'metaphysical' powers of glass points used by Aboriginal people outside of the areas in which they were produced, nor does this part of Akerman's critique have any bearing on the argument that forms the basis of Harrison (2006).

Production of Kimberley points for use as spearheads or collection ?

Based on a limited quantitative analysis of museum deposition dates of points and a consideration of historical data, the most intensive period of collection of Kimberley points by non-Indigenous collectors appears to have occurred between approximately 1900 and 1930 AD (Harrison 2006:70). Akerman's accounts of the lack of popularity of points with collectors in the 1970s seems irrelevant to my argument that the fashion for collection points can be largely correlated with the period in which their manufacture remained a mystery (up until the 1930s). Akerman (2008:77) casts doubt on the numbers of points held in museum collections in Australia. This remains a matter for further research and quantification. Akerman (2008:76-7) compares the number of points held in museums with those that would have been held by 'those using Kimberley points in the 1930s ... on any one day'. This is irrelevant to my argument that the number of Kimberley points held in museum collections, given they were made and used in such a chronologically and spatially limited area, is incommensurately large when compared with other artefact types (Harrison 2006).

In conclusion, I think it important to note once again that I do not present the view that Kimberley points were created primarily to serve a non-Indigenous market. While I believe that the form of these points and the post-contact proliferation of an industry for their production are an artefact of a colonial art market, I explicitly recognise that points were manufactured by Aboriginal men in the Kimberley for other reasons, including hunting and competitive display (Harrison 2002a). My argument remains that the points that appear in museum collections are significantly different in form from those that appear in prehistoric archaeological contexts, and this reflects a series of changes in late nineteenth-century Kimberley Aboriginal societies, as well as the desires of colonial collectors and early ethnographers. To characterise this as an argument between 'theory' and 'data' not only implies a worrying anti-intellectualism, but inaccurately describes my approach as one that is somehow 'data-light'. This is not the case. My argument is rooted in the quantitative analysis of archaeological data and points in museum collections, alongside a consideration of both historical and ethnographic data. This analysis, when examined in the light of recent thinking on the nature of the relationships between objects and humans and the agency of Indigenous people in colonial encounters, suggests innovative and valuable new directions not only for the study of Kimberley points, but also for the study of other artefact types in Australia.

REFERENCES

Akerman, Kim 1978 'Notes on the Kimberley stone-tipped spear, focusing on the hafting mechanism', Mankind 11:486-89.

--2007 'On Kimberley points and the politics of enchantment', Current Anthropology 48 (1): 133.

--2008 '"Missing the point" or "what to believe--the theory or the data": Rationales for the production of Kimberley points', Australian Aboriginal Studies 2008/2:70-9.

Akerman, Kim and Peter Bindon 1995 'Dentate and related stone biface points from northern Australia', The Beagle: Records of the Museums and Art Galleries of the Northern Territory 12:89-99.

Akerman, Kim, Richard Fullagar, and Annelou van Gijn 2002 'Weapons and Wunan: Production, function, and exchange of Kimberley points', Australian Aboriginal Studies 2002/1:13-42.

Harrison, Rodney 2002a 'Archaeology and the colonial encounter: Kimberley spear points, cultural identity and masculinity in the north of Australia', Journal of Social Archaeology 2:352-77.

--2002b Ngarranganni/Ngamungamu/Jalanijarra: 'Lost places', recursiveness and hybridity at Old Lamboo pastoral station, southeast Kimberley, unpublished doctoral thesis, The University of Western Australia.

--2004 'Kimberley points and colonial preference: New insights into the chronology of pressure flaked point forms from the southeast Kimberley, Western Australia', Archaeology in Oceania 39(1):1-11.

--2006 'An artefact of colonial desire? Kimberley points and the technologies of enchantment', Current Anthropology 47:63-88.

--2007 'On Kimberley points and the politics of enchantment: Reply', Current Anthropology 48(1):133-4.

Rodney Harrison

The Open University, United Kingdom <r.harrison@open.ac.uk>