Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T10:42:36.401Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Small Signals: Comprehending the Australian Microlithic as Public Signalling

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2021

Peter Hiscock Open the ORCID record for Peter Hiscock [Opens in a new window]
Peter Hiscock*
Affiliation:
Archaeology University of SydneySydney, NSW2006Australia Email: peter.hiscock@sydney.edu.au
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Signalling is a critical capacity in modern human cultures but it has often been difficult to identify and understand on lithic artefacts from pre-literate contexts. Often archaeologists have minimized the signalling role of lithic tools by arguing for strong form-function relationships that constrained signalling or else imposed ethnographic information on the archaeological patterns with the assumption they assist in defining the signalling carried out in prehistory. In this paper I present a case study for which it can be shown that function does not correlate with form and that the technology fell out of use 1000–1500 years ago. This means that neither presumptions of continuity in social practice nor reference to tool use provide strong explanations for the size, shape standardization and regional differentiation of Australian microliths. Sender-receiver signalling theory is harnessed to motivate a new synthesis of these microliths, and I demonstrate that not only were these artefacts probably key objects used in public signalling but also that sender-receiver frameworks enable us to infer details about the operation of the signalling system.

Type
Special Section: When Materials Speak about Ontology: A Hunter-Gatherer Perspective
Information
Cambridge Archaeological Journal , Volume 31 , Issue 2 , May 2021 , pp. 313 - 324
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Attenbrow, V., Robertson, G. & Hiscock, P., 2009. The changing abundance of backed artefacts in south-eastern Australia: a response to Holocene climate change? Journal of Archaeological Science 36, 2765–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowdler, S., 2011. The dead hand of Jeremy Bentham. Australian Archaeology 72, 69–70.Google Scholar
Clarkson, C., Hiscock, P., Mackay, A. & Shipton, C., 2018. Small, sharp and standardised: global convergence in Backed-Microlith Technology, in Convergent Evolution in Stone-Tool Technology, eds O'Brien, M.J., Buchanan, B. & Eren, M.I.. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press, 175–200.Google Scholar
David, B. & Lourandos, H., 1998. Rock art and socio-demography in northeast Australian prehistory. World Archaeology 30, 193–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flood, J. 1995. Archaeology of the Dreamtime. Sydney: Angus and Robertson,.Google Scholar
Fullagar, R. 2014. Uncertain evidence for weapons and craft tools: functional investigations of Australian microliths, in Multidisciplinary Approaches to the Study of Stone Age Weaponry, eds Iovita, R. & Kastuhiro, H.. Dordrecht: Springer, 159–66.Google Scholar
Fullagar, R., McDonald, J., Field, J.H. & Donlon, D., 2009. Deadly weapons: backed microliths from Narrabeen, New South Wales, in Archaeological Science Under a Microscope: Studies in Residue and Ancient DNA Analysis in Honour of Thomas H. Loy, eds Haslam, M., Robertson, G., Crowther, A., Nugent, S. & Kirkwood, L.. (Terra Australis 30.) Canberra: ANU E Press, 258–70.Google Scholar
Godfrey-Smith, P., 2014. Signs and symbolic behaviour. Biological Theory 9, 78–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Godfrey-Smith, P., 2017. Senders, receivers, and symbolic artifacts. Biological Theory 12, 275–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hiscock, P., 1994. Technological responses to risk in Holocene Australia. Journal of World Prehistory 8, 267–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hiscock, P., 2002. Pattern and context in the Holocene proliferation of backed artefacts in Australia, in Thinking Small: Global Perspectives on Microlithization, eds Elston, R.G. & Kuhn, S.L.. Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association 12(1) (Special issue), 163–77.Google Scholar
Hiscock, P. 2003. Quantitative exploration of size variation and the extent of reduction in Sydney Basin assemblages: a tale from the Henry Lawson Drive Rockshelter. Australian Archaeology 57, 64–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hiscock, P., 2005. Standardized axe manufacture at Mount Isa, in Many Exchanges: Archaeology, history, community and the work of Isabel McBryde, eds Macfarlane, I., Mountain, M. & Paton, R.. Canberra: Australian National University, 287–300.Google Scholar
Hiscock, P., 2006. Blunt and to the point: changing technological strategies in Holocene Australia, in Archaeology in Oceania: Australia and the Pacific Islands, ed. Lilley, I.. London: Blackwell, 69–95.Google Scholar
Hiscock, P., 2008. Archaeology of Ancient Australia. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hiscock, P., 2014. Geographical variation in Australian backed artefacts: trialling a new index of symmetry. Australian Archaeology 79, 124–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hiscock, P. 2015a. Making it small in the Palaeolithic. Bipolar stoneworking, miniature artefacts and models of core recycling. World Archaeology 47, 158–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hiscock, P. 2015b. Dynamics of knapping with bipolar techniques: modelling transitions and the implications of variability. Lithic Technology 40, 342–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hiscock, P., 2018. Horizons of change: entanglement of palaeoenvironment and cultural dynamic in Australian lithic technology, in Lithic Technological Organization and Paleoenvironmental Change: Global and diachronic perspectives, eds Robinson, E. & Sellet, F.. New York: Springer, 79–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hiscock, P. & Attenbrow, V., 2005. Australia's Eastern Regional Sequence Revisited: Technology and change at Capertee 3. (BAR International series 1397.) Oxford: Archaeopress.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuhn, S.L., 2011. Are social and operational explanations incompatible? Australian Archaeology 72, 70–71.Google Scholar
Kuhn, S.L & Stiner, M.C., 2007. Palaeolithic ornaments: implications for cognition, demography, and identity. Diogenes 214, 40–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, D., 1969. Convention. London: Blackwell.Google Scholar
McBryde, I., 1974. Aboriginal Prehistory in New England. Sydney: Sydney University Press.Google Scholar
McDonald, J.J., Donlon, D., Field, J.H., Fullagar, R.L.K., Coltrain, J.B., Mitchell, P. & Rawson, M., 2007. The first archaeological evidence for death by spearing in Australia. Antiquity 81, 877–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McNiven, I.J., 2011. Backed artefacts as a material dimension of social inclusiveness. Australian Archaeology 72, 71–2.Google Scholar
Morwood, M.J., 1986. The archaeology of art: excavations at Maidenwell and Gatton Shelters, S.E. Queensland. Queensland Archaeological Research 3, 88–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morwood, M.J., 1987. The archaeology of social complexity in South-east Queensland. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 53, 337–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robertson, G., Attenbrow, V. & Hiscock, P., 2009. Multiple uses for Australian backed artefacts. Antiquity 83, 296–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robertson, G., Attenbrow, V. & Hiscock, P., 2019. Residue and use-wear analysis on non-backed retouched artefacts from Deep Creek Shelter: implications for the role of backed artefacts. Archaeology in Oceania 54(2), 73–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skyrms, B., 2010. Signals: Evolution, learning, and information. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, P., 2011. Backed artefacts: useful socially and operationally. Australian Archaeology 72, 67–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wobst, H.M., 1977. Stylistic behavior and information exchange, in Papers for the Director: Research essays in honor of J. Griffin, ed. Cleland, C.. (Anthropological Papers 61.) Ann Arbor (MI): University of Michigan, Museum of Anthropology, 317–42.Google Scholar