Abstract
While lithic objects can potentially inform us about past adaptations and behaviors, it is important to develop a comprehensive understanding of all of the various processes that influence what we recover from the archaeological record. We argue here that many assumptions used by archaeologists to derive behavioral inferences through the definition, conceptualization, and interpretation of both individual stone artifact forms and groups of artifacts identified as assemblages do not fit squarely with what we have learned from both ethnographic sources and analyses of archaeological materials. We discuss this in terms of two fallacies. The first is the fallacy of the “desired end product” in stone artifact manufacture, which also includes our ability to recognize such end products. The second fallacy has to do with the notions that lithic assemblages represent simple accumulations of contemporary behaviors and the degree to which the composition of the depositional units we study reliably match the kinds of activities that took place. Although it is beyond the scope of this paper to offer a comprehensive set of new methodologies and theoretical perspectives to solve these problems, our goal here is to stress the importance of rethinking some of our most basic assumptions regarding the nature of lithic objects and how they become part of the archaeological record. Such a revision is needed if we want to be able to develop research questions that can be addressed with the data we have available to us.
Highlights
It is likely that the vast majority of archaeologists agree that one of our main goals is to use lithic objects, in addition to other sources of information, to inform on and explain the bio-cultural evolution of our hominin ancestors
Our goal in this paper is to present and discuss what we consider to be two critical fallacies in how the analysis of stone artifacts is used by archaeologists to develop interpretations of past human behavior
These fallacies affect our inferences at the scale of individual artifacts all the way up to complete lithic assemblages
Summary
It is likely that the vast majority of archaeologists agree that one of our main goals is to use lithic objects, in addition to other sources of information, to inform on and explain the bio-cultural evolution of our hominin ancestors. Considering individual objects, part of the problem that we will discuss here is the continued reliance on outmoded understandings of the processes that underlie variation in artifact form, regardless of whether or not the definition of our analytical units is based on characteristics of morphology or techniques of manufacture. It is often assumed, for example, that different forms found archaeologically have direct relationships to modes of past use. Much of our discussion is illustrated with examples from the Paleolithic, there are clear implications relevant to lithic industries from all over the world and from virtually all time periods
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.