Peter Hiscock

Last updated

Peter Dixon Hiscock (born 27 March 1957) is an Australian archaeologist. Born in Melbourne, he obtained a PhD from the University of Queensland. Between 2013 and 2021, he was the inaugural Tom Austen Brown Professor of Australian Archaeology at the University of Sydney, [1] having previously held a position in the School of Archaeology and Anthropology at the Australian National University.

Contents

Hiscock specialises in ancient lithic technologies and has worked in Australia, France and Southern Africa. He is a Fellow of the Society of Antiquaries of London, a Fellow of the Australian Academy of the Humanities and an Honorary Fellow of the Australian Museum. His research includes work in lithic technology, archaeology of Indigenous Australia, global dispersion of modern humans and the study of the hominin species Homo neanderthalensis . [2]

Archaeological work

Lithic technology

Hiscock has been an advocate for quantitative, materialist approaches to lithic analysis. [3] [4] He has produced major works developing and refining indices of reduction for retouched flakes. [5] [6]

Australian archaeology

In addition to his work on lithic technology in Australia, Hiscock has contributed to a reinterpretation of the archaeology of Indigenous Australia. His work on colonisation and settlement, with Lynley Wallis, created the "Desert Transformation" model, [7] which proposed that about 50,000 years ago human colonists dispersed across much of the Australian continent at a time when the deserts were less harsh than today. These early settlers then gradually adapted to the onset of harsher environments that occurred after approximately 35,000 years ago.

His work with Val Attenbrow and Gail Robertson re-evaluated the timing, spread and function of backed artefacts within ancestral Indigenous Australian societies, arguing that the proliferation of backed artefacts along the east coast of Australia was a technological response to increasingly variable climatic conditions brought about by the onset of the El Niño-Southern Oscillation during the mid-Holocene. [8] [9] Subsequent work has argued that proliferation of back artefacts is a form of social signalling and that shape variation reflects rehafting events. [10] [11]

His work with Patrick Faulkner also led to a reconsideration of the large Anadara granosa shell mounds of northern Australia. [12] Hiscock was funded with Dr. Alex Mackay for an Australian Research Council post-doctoral fellowship project titled "Technology and behavioural evolution in late Pleistocene Africa, Europe and Australia" (DP1092445) worth more than A$400,000 in 2010. The aim of this project was to focus on excavations in Africa, making comparisons with other areas of the world including Australia. [13]

His major contribution to archaeology of Indigenous Australia has been a new synthesis of the subject, in a book titled Archaeology of Ancient Australia. [14] In that volume he advanced the view that there was little evidence for directional change in ancient Australian societies and that the archaeological evidence was better seen as documenting a long series of adaptive changes, perhaps operating in multiple directions, rather than progress towards "intensification" in the recent past (as espoused by archaeologists such as Harry Lourandos). This view was founded on a strong critique of the value of ethnography in the construction of narratives about the deep past, arguing that ethnographic analogy had often imposed images of the lifestyle of recent Indigenous Australians on the different lives of their distant ancestors. Brian M. Fagan [15] has suggested that in doing so Hiscock has attacked the tyranny of the ethnographic record that has dogged Australian archaeology for generations. In this he has disputed the views of archaeologists such as Josephine Flood, who considers ethnographic information can help understand prehistoric behavior. [16]

Hiscock has written on the development of Aboriginal Australian religious beliefs and the impact that the British invasion of 1788 and the introduction of Christian belief system had on them. [17] [18]

Hiscock's argument also emphasized the likely failure of much of the Pleistocene archaeological record to preserve, arguing that the apparent simplicity of early eras resulted partly from the poverty of the archaeological evidence. Interpreting the available archaeological and genetic evidence from these view points, Hiscock presented a novel narrative of Australian prehistory, in which population sizes fluctuated through time in response to environmental productivity, the physical characteristics of people varied as climate and gene flow altered, and the economic, social, and ideological systems adjusted to accommodate and incorporate the circumstances of each time period. [19]

Other work

Hiscock has also written about the depiction of archaeology and archaeologists in popular media. [20]

Awards

Hiscock received the John Mulvaney Book Award in 2008 from the Australian Archaeological Association for his publication The Archaeology of Ancient Australia, which was acclaimed for its way of dealing "with the archaeological data as free-standing, and the long duree as the basic structure, suitable for the dating methods and accumulative and taphonomic process of most of the Australian record". [21] He also was awarded a Doctor of Science (DSc) honorary degree at the Australian National University.

Selected publications

Books

Articles and chapters

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Microlith</span> Stone tool

A microlith is a small stone tool usually made of flint or chert and typically a centimetre or so in length and half a centimetre wide. They were made by humans from around 35,000 to 3,000 years ago, across Europe, Africa, Asia and Australia. The microliths were used in spear points and arrowheads.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Lithic reduction</span> Process of fashioning stones or rocks into tools and weapons

In archaeology, in particular of the Stone Age, lithic reduction is the process of fashioning stones or rocks from their natural state into tools or weapons by removing some parts. It has been intensely studied and many archaeological industries are identified almost entirely by the lithic analysis of the precise style of their tools and the chaîne opératoire of the reduction techniques they used.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Lithic flake</span> Portion of rock removed from an objective piece by percussion or pressure

In archaeology, a lithic flake is a "portion of rock removed from an objective piece by percussion or pressure," and may also be referred to as simply a flake, or collectively as debitage. The objective piece, or the rock being reduced by the removal of flakes, is known as a core. Once the proper tool stone has been selected, a percussor or pressure flaker is used to direct a sharp blow, or apply sufficient force, respectively, to the surface of the stone, often on the edge of the piece. The energy of this blow propagates through the material, often producing a Hertzian cone of force which causes the rock to fracture in a controllable fashion. Since cores are often struck on an edge with a suitable angle (<90°) for flake propagation, the result is that only a portion of the Hertzian cone is created. The process continues as the flintknapper detaches the desired number of flakes from the core, which is marked with the negative scars of these removals. The surface area of the core which received the blows necessary for detaching the flakes is referred to as the striking platform.

Stone tools have been used throughout human history but are most closely associated with prehistoric cultures and in particular those of the Stone Age. Stone tools may be made of either ground stone or knapped stone, the latter fashioned by a craftsman called a flintknapper. Stone has been used to make a wide variety of tools throughout history, including arrowheads, spearheads, hand axes, and querns. Knapped stone tools are nearly ubiquitous in pre-metal-using societies because they are easily manufactured, the tool stone raw material is usually plentiful, and they are easy to transport and sharpen.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ground stone</span> Prehistoric stone tool

In archaeology, ground stone is a category of stone tool formed by the grinding of a coarse-grained tool stone, either purposely or incidentally. Ground stone tools are usually made of basalt, rhyolite, granite, or other cryptocrystalline and igneous stones whose coarse structure makes them ideal for grinding other materials, including plants and other stones.

In archaeology, lithic analysis is the analysis of stone tools and other chipped stone artifacts using basic scientific techniques. At its most basic level, lithic analyses involve an analysis of the artifact's morphology, the measurement of various physical attributes, and examining other visible features.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Burin (lithic flake)</span> Stone age tool

In archaeology and the field of lithic reduction, a burin is a type of stone tool, a handheld lithic flake with a chisel-like edge which prehistoric humans used for carving or finishing wood or bone tools or weapons, and sometimes for engraving images.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Industry (archaeology)</span> Typological classification of stone tools

In the archaeology of the Stone Age, an industry or technocomplex is a typological classification of stone tools.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Levallois technique</span> Distinctive type of stone knapping technique used by ancient humans

The Levallois technique is a name given by archaeologists to a distinctive type of stone knapping developed around 250,000 to 300,000 years ago during the Middle Palaeolithic period. It is part of the Mousterian stone tool industry, and was used by the Neanderthals in Europe and by modern humans in other regions such as the Levant.

The Hoabinhian is a lithic techno-complex of archaeological sites associated with assemblages in Southeast Asia from the late Pleistocene to the Holocene, dated to c. 10,000–2000 BCE. It is attributed to hunter-gatherer societies of the region whose technological variability over time is poorly understood. In 2016, a rock shelter was identified in Yunnan, China, 40 km from the border with Myanmar, where artifacts belonging to the Hoabinhian technocomplex were recognized, dating from 41,500 BCE.

Retouch is the act of producing scars on a stone flake after the ventral surface has been created. It can be done to the edge of an implement in order to make it into a functional tool, or to reshape a used tool. Retouch can be a strategy to reuse an existing lithic artifact and enable people to transform one tool into another tool. Depending on the form of classification that one uses, it may be argued that retouch can also be conducted on a core-tool, if such a category exists, such as a hand-axe.

In archaeology, lithic technology includes a broad array of techniques used to produce usable tools from various types of stone. The earliest stone tools to date have been found at the site of Lomekwi 3 (LOM3) in Kenya and they have been dated to around 3.3 million years ago. The archaeological record of lithic technology is divided into three major time periods: the Paleolithic, Mesolithic, and Neolithic. Not all cultures in all parts of the world exhibit the same pattern of lithic technological development, and stone tool technology continues to be used to this day, but these three time periods represent the span of the archaeological record when lithic technology was paramount. By analysing modern stone tool usage within an ethnoarchaeological context, insight into the breadth of factors influencing lithic technologies in general may be studied. See: Stone tool. For example, for the Gamo of Southern Ethiopia, political, environmental, and social factors influence the patterns of technology variation in different subgroups of the Gamo culture; through understanding the relationship between these different factors in a modern context, archaeologists can better understand the ways that these factors could have shaped the technological variation that is present in the archaeological record.

The Paleo-Arctic Tradition is the name given by archaeologists to the cultural tradition of the earliest well-documented human occupants of the North American Arctic, which date from the period 8000–5000 BC. The tradition covers Alaska and expands far into the east, west, and the Southwest Yukon Territory.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Flake tool</span> Type of stone tool

In archaeology, a flake tool is a type of stone tool that was used during the Stone Age that was created by striking a flake from a prepared stone core. People during prehistoric times often preferred these flake tools as compared to other tools because these tools were often easily made, could be made to be extremely sharp & could easily be repaired. Flake tools could be sharpened by retouch to create scrapers or burins. These tools were either made by flaking off small particles of flint or by breaking off a large piece and using that as a tool itself. These tools were able to be made by this "chipping" away effect due to the natural characteristic of stone. Stone is able to break apart when struck near the edge. Flake tools are created through flint knapping, a process of producing stone tools using lithic reduction.

The Soanian culture is a prehistoric technological culture from the Siwalik Hills, Pakistan. It is named after the Soan Valley in Pakistan.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Outline of prehistoric technology</span> Overview of and topical guide to prehistoric technology

The following outline is provided as an overview of and topical guide to prehistoric technology.

Valerie Attenbrow is principal research scientist in the Anthropology Research Section of the Australian Museum, a position she has held since 1989.

Melkhoutboom Cave is an archaeological site dating to the Later Stone Age, located in the Zuurberg Mountains, Cape Folded Mountain Belt, in the Addo Elephant National Park, Sarah Baartman District Municipality in the Eastern Cape Province of South Africa.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Kilu Cave</span> Anthropological site in Papua New Guinea

Kilu Cave is a paleoanthropological site located on Buka Island in the Autonomous Region of Bougainville, Papua New Guinea. Kilu Cave is located at the base of a limestone cliff, 65 m (213 ft) from the modern coastline. With evidence for human occupation dating back to 30,000 years, Kilu Cave is the earliest known site for human occupation in the Solomon Islands archipelago. The site is the oldest proof of paleolithic people navigating the open ocean i.e. navigating without land in sight. To travel from Nissan island to Buka requires crossing of at least 60 kilometers of open sea. The presence of paleolithic people at Buka therefore is at the same time evidence for the oldest and the longest paleolithic sea travel known so far.

Lynley A. Wallis is an Australian archaeologist and Associate Professor at Griffith University. She is a specialist in palaeoenvironmental reconstruction through the analysis of phytoliths.

References

  1. ↑ The University of Sydney "Major gifts lead to exciting new professorial appointments"
  2. ↑ Books by Peter Hiscock on Amazon
  3. ↑ Hiscock, P. (2007). Looking the other way: A materialist/technological approach to classifying tools and implements, cores and retouched flakes. In S. P. McPherron (Ed.), Tool versus cores: Alternative approaches to stone tool analysis (pp. 198–222). Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
  4. ↑ Hiscock, Peter; Tabrett, Amy (December 2010). "Generalization, inference and the quantification of lithic reduction". World Archaeology. 42 (4): 545–561. doi:10.1080/00438243.2010.517669. ISSN   0043-8243.
  5. ↑ Hiscock, P., & Clarkson, C. (2005). Measuring artefact reduction—An examination of Kuhn’s Geometric Index of Reduction. In C. Clarkson & L. Lamb (Eds.), Lithics ‘down under’: Australian perspectives on lithic reduction, use and classification (pp. 7–19). Archaeopress.
  6. ↑ Clarkson, Chris; Hiscock, Peter (May 2011). "Estimating original flake mass from 3D scans of platform area". Journal of Archaeological Science. 38 (5): 1062–1068. Bibcode:2011JArSc..38.1062C. doi:10.1016/j.jas.2010.12.001.
  7. ↑ Hiscock, Peter and Wallis, Lynley (2005). "Pleistocene settlement of deserts from an Australian perspective". In P. Veth, M. Smith and P. Hiscock (eds) Desert Peoples: archaeological perspectives. Blackwell. Pp. 34-57.
  8. ↑ Hiscock, Peter; Attenbrow, Val (July 1998). "Early Holocene backed artefacts from Australia". Archaeology in Oceania. 33 (2): 49–62. doi:10.1002/j.1834-4453.1998.tb00404.x. hdl: 1885/41382 . ISSN   0728-4896.
  9. ↑ Robertson, Gail; Attenbrow, Val; Hiscock, Peter (June 2009). "Multiple uses for Australian backed artefacts". Antiquity. 83 (320): 296–308. doi:10.1017/S0003598X00098446. ISSN   0003-598X. S2CID   162566863.
  10. ↑ Hiscock, Peter (May 2021). "Small Signals: Comprehending the Australian Microlithic as Public Signalling". Cambridge Archaeological Journal. 31 (2): 313–324. doi:10.1017/S0959774320000335. ISSN   0959-7743. S2CID   233291854.
  11. ↑ Way, Amy Mosig; Koungoulos, Loukas; Wyatt-Spratt, Simon; Hiscock, Peter (July 2023). "Investigating hafting and composite tool repair as factors creating variability in backed artefacts: Evidence from Ngungara (Weereewa/Lake George), south-eastern Australia". Archaeology in Oceania. 58 (2): 214–222. doi: 10.1002/arco.5292 . hdl: 10072/428642 . ISSN   0728-4896.
  12. ↑ Hiscock, P. and Faulkner, P. (2006) "Dating the dreaming? Creation of myths and rituals for mounds along the northern Australian coastline". Cambridge Archaeological Journal16:209-22.
  13. ↑ "Peter Hiscock awarded new ARC funding Australian National University"
  14. ↑ Hiscock, Peter. (2008). Archaeology of Ancient Australia. Routledge: London. ISBN   0-415-33811-5
  15. ↑ Fagan, Brian (2008) "Book review: Archaeology of Ancient Australia by Peter Hiscock". Australian Archaeology66: 69-70
  16. ↑ Fran Molloy, "Ancient Australia not written in stone", ABC News in Science
  17. ↑ Hiscock, Peter (2 July 2020). "Mysticism and reality in Aboriginal myth: evolution and dynamism in Australian Aboriginal religion". Religion, Brain & Behavior. 10 (3): 321–344. doi:10.1080/2153599X.2019.1678515. ISSN   2153-599X.
  18. ↑ Hiscock, Peter (15 February 2013). "Beyond the Dreamtime: archaeology and explorations of religious change in Australia". World Archaeology. 45 (1): 124–136. doi:10.1080/00438243.2012.759513. ISSN   0043-8243.
  19. ↑ "Review of Archaeology of Ancient Australia", Antiquity Volume 82 Issue 317. September 2008
  20. ↑ Hiscock, Peter (2012). "Cinema, Supernatural Archaeology, and the Hidden Human Past". Numen. 59 (2–3): 156–177. doi:10.1163/156852712X630761. ISSN   0029-5973.
  21. ↑ Australian Archaeological Association, Awards
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.