A comment on Ward et al.’s ‘Insights into the procurement and distribution of fossiliferous chert artefacts across Southern Australia from the archival record’

IF 1.1 3区 历史学 Q2 ANTHROPOLOGY
C. Bird, J. Dortch, Fiona Hook
{"title":"A comment on Ward et al.’s ‘Insights into the procurement and distribution of fossiliferous chert artefacts across Southern Australia from the archival record’","authors":"C. Bird, J. Dortch, Fiona Hook","doi":"10.1080/03122417.2021.1975714","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The presence of artefacts made from fossiliferous chert in the Perth metropolitan area and broader Swan Coastal Plain, extending from Geraldton to Dunsborough (Figure 1), has been an enigma for more than 40 years. The evidence from archaeology is inconsistent with regional geology and, as a consequence, geologist John Glover postulated the existence of offshore sources drowned by rising sea levels (Glover 1975, 1984; Glover and Cockbain 1971). Ward et al. (2019a; see also O’Leary et al. 2017; Ward et al. 2019b) claimed that new geological evidence makes this explanation untenable and therefore propose that long-distance trade from the Eucla area near the South Australian border be reconsidered as an explanation. However, their argument ignores the substantial archaeological evidence that led Glover to his original conclusion, as well as more recent investigations in southwestern Australia. Glover (1975) originally identified two main types of chert in archaeological contexts in the southwest of Western Australia: opaline and chalcedonic chert (referred to as Plantagenet chert), and fossiliferous chert (sometimes referred to as Bryozoan chert in the literature). Other chert types do occur, but in negligeable quantities. Plantagenet chert is common in archaeological assemblages along the south coast from Albany to Esperance, and is clearly derived from local onshore sources of silicified Plantagenet Group rocks. It is recorded in some inland areas, but there is no evidence that this material travelled as far as the west coast. Fossiliferous chert is found in archaeological sites along the west coast. No local sources are known, but it most closely resembles chert from the Eucla area. However, the large quantities of fossiliferous chert found in some sites suggested that it was unlikely to have travelled long distances, and the percentage of fossiliferous chert shows a fall-off from west to east, suggesting a westerly source. Thus, Glover proposed the hypothesis that fossiliferous chert derived from offshore sources drowned by rising sea levels. The effect of distance from source on the composition and characteristics of archaeological stone assemblages under different scenarios of procurement has been well-investigated. Broadly, the representation of stone in assemblages diminishes as distance from source increases, and in the case of highly-valued materials, particularly where highquality materials are scarce, a range of economising behaviours is normally observed. Assemblages along the south coast of Western Australia show precisely this pattern with respect to local Plantagenet chert. A study of the distribution of chert along a transect inland from Bremer Bay showed that the percentage of Plantagenet chert in assemblages diminishes with distance from coastal sources in a characteristic falloff curve. Assemblages inland of Bremer Bay also showed clear evidence of economising behaviour such as reduced size of artefacts and more intensive reduction of cores and tools (Bird 1985). Similarly, the percentage of chert in assemblages in the Albany area increases with proximity to sources in the east of the study area (Ferguson 1985). By contrast, the distribution of fossiliferous chert in assemblages along the Swan Coastal Plain suggests a westerly source (Figure 1). Although Plantagenet chert is recorded in sites at least 150 km inland, it has not been documented in archaeological assemblages on the Swan Coastal Plain. If large quantities of chert were travelling considerably longer distances westwards, from the Eucla area in the east, as claimed by Ward et al. (2019a), it is surprising that closer south coastal sources of Plantagenet chert were apparently bypassed. Ward et al. note that Eucla chert is found in archaeological sites up to 700 km to the east. However, by the time it reached the limit of its easterly distribution, Eucla chert in archaeological sites shows exactly the sort of evidence for conservation that would be expected (Nicholson and Cane 1991).","PeriodicalId":8648,"journal":{"name":"Australian Archaeology","volume":"87 1","pages":"326 - 329"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australian Archaeology","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/03122417.2021.1975714","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ANTHROPOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The presence of artefacts made from fossiliferous chert in the Perth metropolitan area and broader Swan Coastal Plain, extending from Geraldton to Dunsborough (Figure 1), has been an enigma for more than 40 years. The evidence from archaeology is inconsistent with regional geology and, as a consequence, geologist John Glover postulated the existence of offshore sources drowned by rising sea levels (Glover 1975, 1984; Glover and Cockbain 1971). Ward et al. (2019a; see also O’Leary et al. 2017; Ward et al. 2019b) claimed that new geological evidence makes this explanation untenable and therefore propose that long-distance trade from the Eucla area near the South Australian border be reconsidered as an explanation. However, their argument ignores the substantial archaeological evidence that led Glover to his original conclusion, as well as more recent investigations in southwestern Australia. Glover (1975) originally identified two main types of chert in archaeological contexts in the southwest of Western Australia: opaline and chalcedonic chert (referred to as Plantagenet chert), and fossiliferous chert (sometimes referred to as Bryozoan chert in the literature). Other chert types do occur, but in negligeable quantities. Plantagenet chert is common in archaeological assemblages along the south coast from Albany to Esperance, and is clearly derived from local onshore sources of silicified Plantagenet Group rocks. It is recorded in some inland areas, but there is no evidence that this material travelled as far as the west coast. Fossiliferous chert is found in archaeological sites along the west coast. No local sources are known, but it most closely resembles chert from the Eucla area. However, the large quantities of fossiliferous chert found in some sites suggested that it was unlikely to have travelled long distances, and the percentage of fossiliferous chert shows a fall-off from west to east, suggesting a westerly source. Thus, Glover proposed the hypothesis that fossiliferous chert derived from offshore sources drowned by rising sea levels. The effect of distance from source on the composition and characteristics of archaeological stone assemblages under different scenarios of procurement has been well-investigated. Broadly, the representation of stone in assemblages diminishes as distance from source increases, and in the case of highly-valued materials, particularly where highquality materials are scarce, a range of economising behaviours is normally observed. Assemblages along the south coast of Western Australia show precisely this pattern with respect to local Plantagenet chert. A study of the distribution of chert along a transect inland from Bremer Bay showed that the percentage of Plantagenet chert in assemblages diminishes with distance from coastal sources in a characteristic falloff curve. Assemblages inland of Bremer Bay also showed clear evidence of economising behaviour such as reduced size of artefacts and more intensive reduction of cores and tools (Bird 1985). Similarly, the percentage of chert in assemblages in the Albany area increases with proximity to sources in the east of the study area (Ferguson 1985). By contrast, the distribution of fossiliferous chert in assemblages along the Swan Coastal Plain suggests a westerly source (Figure 1). Although Plantagenet chert is recorded in sites at least 150 km inland, it has not been documented in archaeological assemblages on the Swan Coastal Plain. If large quantities of chert were travelling considerably longer distances westwards, from the Eucla area in the east, as claimed by Ward et al. (2019a), it is surprising that closer south coastal sources of Plantagenet chert were apparently bypassed. Ward et al. note that Eucla chert is found in archaeological sites up to 700 km to the east. However, by the time it reached the limit of its easterly distribution, Eucla chert in archaeological sites shows exactly the sort of evidence for conservation that would be expected (Nicholson and Cane 1991).
对Ward等人“从档案记录中深入了解澳大利亚南部含化石燧石文物的采购和分销”的评论
40多年来,珀斯大都会区和从杰拉尔顿延伸到邓斯伯勒的天鹅海岸平原(图1)都存在由含化石燧石制成的人工制品,这一直是一个谜。考古学的证据与区域地质学不一致,因此,地质学家约翰·格洛弗假设存在被海平面上升淹没的近海来源(格洛弗,19751984;格洛弗和考克拜恩,1971年)。Ward等人(2019a;另见O'Leary等人2017;Ward等人2019b)声称,新的地质证据使这一解释站不住脚,因此建议重新考虑从南澳大利亚边境附近的Eucla地区进行长途贸易作为一种解释。然而,他们的论点忽略了导致格洛弗得出最初结论的大量考古证据,以及澳大利亚西南部最近的调查。Glover(1975)最初在西澳大利亚西南部的考古环境中确定了两种主要类型的燧石:乳白色和玉髓燧石(被称为金雀花燧石),以及含化石的燧石(有时在文献中被称为Bryozoan燧石)。其他类型的燧石确实存在,但数量可忽略不计。金雀花燧石在从奥尔巴尼到埃斯佩兰斯的南海岸考古组合中很常见,并且显然来源于当地硅化金雀花群岩石的陆上来源。在一些内陆地区有记录,但没有证据表明这些材料传播到了西海岸。在西海岸的考古遗址中发现了含化石的燧石。当地没有已知的来源,但它最像欧几里得地区的燧石。然而,在一些地点发现的大量含燧石化石表明,它不太可能长途旅行,含燧石的百分比显示从西向东下降,这表明它来自西部。因此,格洛弗提出了一个假设,即含化石的燧石来源于近海,被海平面上升淹没。在不同的采购场景下,与来源的距离对考古石头组合的组成和特征的影响已经得到了很好的研究。总的来说,石头在组合中的代表性随着与来源距离的增加而减少,在高价值材料的情况下,特别是在缺乏高质量材料的情况中,通常会观察到一系列经济行为。西澳大利亚南海岸的组合正是关于当地金雀花燧石的这种模式。一项关于燧石沿布雷默湾内陆样带分布的研究表明,金雀花燧石在组合中的百分比随着与沿海来源的距离而减小,呈特征性衰减曲线。布雷默湾内陆的组装也显示出节约行为的明确证据,如缩小文物尺寸和更密集地减少核心和工具(Bird 1985)。同样,奥尔巴尼地区组合中燧石的百分比随着研究区域东部来源的接近而增加(Ferguson 1985)。相比之下,含化石燧石在天鹅海岸平原组合中的分布表明其来源为西风(图1)。尽管金雀花燧石在内陆至少150公里的遗址中有记录,但在天鹅海岸平原的考古组合中没有记录。如果像Ward等人(2019a)所声称的那样,大量的燧石从东部的欧几里得地区向西移动了相当长的距离,那么令人惊讶的是,金雀花燧石的更靠近南海岸的来源显然被绕过了。Ward等人注意到,Eucla燧石是在以东700公里的考古遗址中发现的。然而,当它达到向东分布的极限时,考古遗址中的欧几里得燧石正显示出预期的保护证据(Nicholson和Cane,1991年)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
9.10%
发文量
20
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信