Technological Efficiency and Tool Curation

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

Archaeologists frequently explain tool curation by its efficiency. Such explanations ignore the fact that curation is a complex activity and that its component parts are efficient in different ways. I argue that the nature and distribution of lithic resources critically affect technological efficiency and I discuss two aspects of curation, maintenance and recycling, asserting that they are responses to raw material shortages. Shortages result from regional geological conditions and from behavior patterns that restrict access to raw material in certain contexts. Ethnographic and archaeological examples support this hypothesis and highlight the relationship between subsistence-settlement organization, raw material distribution, and technology.

Related collections

Most cited references 4

Record: found
Abstract: not found
Article: not found

Organization and Formation Processes: Looking at Curated Technologies

Lewis Binford (1979)

0 comments Cited 287 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Hafting and Retooling: Effects on the Archaeological Record

Lawrence H. Keeley (1982)

Hafting has long been recognized by archaeologists as a process affecting stone tools. However, the effects of this process on the archaeological record have been virtually ignored. Hafting affects the final typological form of tools because hafted tools are usually more extensively and intensively worked than their unhafted counterparts. Ethnoarchaeological and some recent archaeological evidence indicates that functionally equivalent but typologically diverse hafted and unhafted tools may be in use at the same site. Because hafted tools are disposed of as a consequence of the “retooling” of hafts, the context of their disposal may not be equivalent to the context of their use. But, unhafted tools appear to be disposed of more often at or near the focus of use. Indifference to the hafted/unhafted distinction then may seriously distort inferences based upon intrasite spatial analysis. It is also argued that hafting is a strategy that will be differentially employed by any social group at different sites according to circumstances, thereby contributing to interassemblage variability. Finally, some methods of analysis are suggested that will allow the typological and distributional effects of hafting and retooling to be taken into account by lithic analysts.

0 comments Cited 62 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Microwear, Microdrills, and Mississippian Craft Specialization

Richard Yerkes (1983)

Samples of microdrills, microblades, and microcores from the Powell Mound (11-Ms-46) and the Dunham tract (11-S-34/4) of the Cahokia site near St. Louis, and a small number of Jaketown perforators from the Poverty Point site, Louisiana, were examined for microwear traces, using the methods outlined by L. H. Keeley. Many archaeologists have assumed that the microdrills in the Cahokia microlithic industry were used by craft specialists to produce drilled disc beads and other items made from marine and freshwater shell. Microwear analysis of the Cahokia microdrills showed they were specialized tools, used almost exclusively to drill shell material, while the Jaketown perforators were used to drill a variety of materials. This alone does not establish the existence of craft specialization at Cahokia. The distribution of microdrills and shell artifacts at Cahokia and throughout the Cahokia settlement system on the American Bottom indicates shell craft production was not restricted to “guild areas.” The shell beads produced by the microdrills may have served as ritual tokens or currency as well as ornaments, but they were not necessarily produced by full-time specialists who were part of a state-level society.