Many archaeologists have used world-systems analysis in precapitalist settings. Some have criticized it; others have dismissed it out of hand. Critiques include that it was developed for the ''modern'' world, that it is overly economistic, that it neglects individual actors, and that it inappropriately uses modern analyses in ancient settings. Although there is some validity to these charges when applied to Wallerstein's original formulation, most are misdirected. The critiques are rooted in inattention to the last three decades of work on world-systems, especially modifications made with the explicit intention to make world-systems analysis useful in precapitalist settings. Newer comparative versions of world-systems analysis were initially developed to better understand the evolution of world-systems that gave rise to the modern world-system. These new advances are useful for the study of interregional interactions and long-term development. Archaeologists are well placed to contribute to the further development of world-systems analysis; they can shed light on ancient world-systemic processes and the origins of the modern worldsystem, provide empirical backing for hypotheses, and raise new theoretical and empirical questions.

A review of recent research on lithic technology and functional analysis is presented. Our perception of the state of the art is based on a rev&w of the literature published during the past three years and on the topics that were covered at conferences and workshops on lithic analysis. While the goals have essentially remained the same since the turn of the century, concerns with chronology and the classification of lithic artifacts have given way to studies that treat stone implements as products of a dynamic system of human behavior. In order to understand stone artifacts and the people that made and used them, archaeologists must understand the processes involved in the acquisition, production, exchange, and consumption of lithic artifacts. In the past ten years, experimental studies involving the manufacturing and use of stone tools have been integrated with studies of refitted or conjoined lithic artifacts and microwear analysis. The result is a much more dynamic view of the variability in assemblages of lithic artifacts. In this review, we focus on replication and technological analysis of chipped stone artifacts and microwear analysis, and consider the implications of this research. KEY WORDS: lithic technology; lithic artifacts; replication experiments; microwear analysis;Old World; New World. INTRODUCTIONA century ago, W. H. Holmes (1894) described lithic analysis as the study of "the natural history of chipped stone." He noted that lithic analysts were concerned with the following: (1) determining if lithic "artifacts" were made by humans; (2) reconstructing the processes involved in acquiring 1Department of Anthropology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 43210-1364. lithic raw material, shaping stone tools, and using them; (3) outlining the evolution of the form and function of groups or "generations" of stone tools through time; and (4) treating stone tools as historic records that can be used to address questions of time, questions of culture, and questions about the history of peoples.The goals of lithic analysis have not really changed since Holmes' day. Chipped stone artifacts can be viewed as "visiting cards" (Isaac, 1981) that can be used to identify ancient cultural groups and to recognize when these groups were present and where they lived. In addition, lithic artifacts can be used to isolate the activities associated with different groups at multicomponent sites. Archaeologists continue to use chipped stone artifacts as cultural markers, but the concerns with chronology and classification in the "natural history" approach to lithic artifact analysis have given way to behavioral studies with greater emphasis on the "questions of culture" that can be addressed through the study of chipped stone (Henry and Odell, 1989, p. ix). Glynn Isaac (1984, pp. 42-45) noted that during the 1950s and 1960s lithic analysts were still concerned with the creation of clearly defined types of stone artifacts. To help classify lithic artifacts, precise measurements were made of their formal attribute...

No abstract

No abstract

ABSTRACT