Slippery and Billy: Intention, Selection and Equifinality in Lithic Artefacts

Citation: Peter Hiscock (2004) Slippery and Billy: Intention, Selection and Equifinality in Lithic Artefacts. Cambridge Archaeological Journal (RSS)
DOI (original publisher): http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0959774304230050
Semantic Scholar (metadata): http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0959774304230050
Sci-Hub (fulltext): http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0959774304230050
Internet Archive Scholar (search for fulltext): Slippery and Billy: Intention, Selection and Equifinality in Lithic Artefacts
Download: http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=226567&fileId=S0959774304230050
Tagged: Anthropology (RSS) lithic analysis (RSS), ethnographic observation (RSS), intention (RSS), chaîne opératoire (RSS), materialist classification (RSS)

Summary

In social science studies the purpose-driven mental template plays an important role for human behavior. The pursuing of prehistoric cognition is an explicit example in archaeology. Stone artifact study, especially for the Paleolithic period since stone artifact is the most accessible, is the center of related research. Archaeologists mainly study retouched specimens, specific unretouched flakes and cores. This strategy of reducing the observe variables, lithic typology in other words, on lithic artifacts provides a framework for scholars as a forum to discuss with each other and also a mean to understand prehistoric cognition. The premise of applying lithic typology as the tool to approach prehistoric mind is that the form of lithic artifacts is created intentionally and there is a blue print for making these stone tools. Archaeologists usually observe morphological attributes, such as repeated shapes, regular form and extensive modification, on lithic artifacts to establish the typology. Archaeologists take the traits above as the material expression of prehistoric artisans, and expand this idea to explain how prehistoric flint knappers hold a normative blue print in mind and follow the step-by-step design to make stone tools. This pre-established and complex sequence is named as Chaîne opératoire in Europe. In short, because of this pre-established sequence, archaeologists are able to reconstruct the whole lithic reduction sequence by observing the end-product and debris of lithic making. In other words, different form of lithic end-product may represent the different intention in the beginning of tool-making. The lithic typology is based on the form of end-product and the forms of these tools infer the different intention of tool-making and using, which concept and study are usually widely accepted. However several research also indicate that prehistoric kannpers’ cared about usability more than specific form of implement morphologies, in other word, different shapes of tool might play the same function, in such condition the conventional morphological lithic typology lost its validity. Here Hiscok provides an example from his own observation of Australia Aboriginal to demonstrate how randomness and dynamic of lithic-making is under certain social context.

In 1978 Hiscock observed the reverse knapping technique of lithic tool-making. Two Aboriginal elders, Slippery Morton and Billy Dempsey, preformed this knapping skill in two days, six hours per day, to make 12 end-product of stone ‘knives’ with resin handle. Due to the position and posture, the knapper who use reverse knapping usually is not able to conceive if the flakes are suitable for use. The identification work often requires another helper to conduct. In this example, the knapper Billy and identifier Slippery often had disagreement with suitable flakes according to Hiscock’s observation. The agreement was settled when either Billy or Slippery yield from argument, we can conceive this as a process of negotiation. Interestingly is, there was one time, Billy and Slippery couldn’t find the right flake at a certain blow and end up with some other flake that they discarded before. The whole core reduction processes filled with such dynamic negotiation, same as flake selection when they tried to find the sufficient flake to haft the handle, Hiscock noted. The core reduction end up with lots of flake, 35 flakes was selected by Billy and Slippery to haft the resin handle. Within these 35 flakes, only 1 was retouched, according to Hiscok, the other 12 retouched flakes were not selected. In other words, lots of retouched flake was discarded without been used. This totally differs with archaeologists’ assumption. The selection process of flake for hafting also showed a ‘haphazard’ negotiation between Billy and Slippery. Rather than re-examine all 35 flakes they brought back, they ended up retrieving some flakes from the top of flake pile in a box.

Many other ethnographic observations show the similar processes and challenge the premise of archaeological typology. There are three implications from those ethnographic observations. The first is a reminder of the potential insufficient that considers retouch as a signature of resharpening without thinking. The second is the selective mechanism of flake which contain randomness and haphazard processes. This reminds archaeologists that the complexity of selective processes, which is not necessary fully economic rationale and can help them to consider alternative explanation. The third reminder is, we can see the dynamic negotiation between knappers through complex social interactions which actually leads to a wide varied shape of stone knives in Hiscock’s example above. The premise of inflexible mental template in lithic research conflicts with these dynamic negotiations.

Theoretical and Practical Relevance

The example in this article provides totally controversial view from the conventional explanation of the transition from Middle to Upper Paleolithic. Conventionally scholars regard the transition demonstrates the development of symbolism and conceptualization in hominid lineage, the distinctive tool sets in Upper Paleolithic is usually considered as the reflection of predefined implement concepts. Prehistoric knappers were simply reproducing some social norms. Instead of mental development, the example above provide an alternation that rather than a reflection of mental development the change of lithic assemblage might indicate the social dynamic in lithic making, from a co-operative activity to a more sole activity. Overall, this article provides substantial reminders into long debating issues. Adding a dynamic view into the potential dynamic prehistoric world. Also Hiscock (2004) proposed the ‘materialist’ classification system to trace the backward history of a stone artifact rather than the implement of the artifact that can lead less ambiguity in certain extent.

Further readings: Hiscock, Peter 2004 Slippery and Billy: intention, selection and equifinality in lithic artefacts. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 14(01):71-77.