Artefact Categories, Artefact Assemblages and Ontological Alterity

Abstract

Joan Gero argued that archaeological interpretation is not the accumulation of truth but rather an ideological construct. Post-colonial studies building on Gero's work critique notions of universal value, that aspects of human cultural heritage hold value for all peoples. However, these studies are not specific about what a post-colonial analysis of the archaeological record might look like, particularly involving material culture categories. What appear as fundamental artefact classes remain and so appeal to a form of universal value. Here we employ a novel application of the ontological turn, specifically Holbraad's method of ontography, to break away from conventional approaches to stone artefact categorization and interpretation. We use Lucas’ discussion of materialization to develop an alternative approach to artefact categories considering two assemblages of artefacts from the North Island of Aotearoa. Both feature large numbers of obsidian artefacts. The obsidian provides the means to investigate levels of historical use, since the material is identifiable to geological source, analysable technologically and retains traces of use. Using the results of obsidian analyses, we investigate the concepts on which archaeologists have based assessments of the relationships among material culture items, suggesting ways in which archaeologists might consider creating space for post-colonial ontologies.

Archaeological site types, and assemblage size and diversity in Aotearoa New Zealand

“…Places with different artefact densities reflect persistent places (Schlanger 1992), those locations that saw greater (or lesser) levels of activity and therefore variability in the nature of persistence. For example, places where people left lots of lithic material become those to which people returned multiple times, in part attracted by the potential for materials to be reused (Holdaway & Phillipps 2020). Place use histories derived from the accumulation of such visits are often the product of many variables, both environmental and cultural, that combine to form the archaeological record as visible in the present.…”

“…Classification of formal lithic types in Aotearoa is largely restricted to adzes, so the “taxonomic integrity” of the types included here warrants future critical discussion embedded in the contemporary discussion of assemblage formation (e.g. Dibble et al., 2017; Holdaway & Phillipps, 2020) although such a discussion is only touched upon here. Faunal analysis is well developed in Aotearoa however there are still inconsistencies in recovery methods and different methods of recording (e.g.…”

“…However, as Shott points out, most assemblages are not the outcome of such linear sequences (see also Holdaway et al., 2014) but rather result from the manufacture, use and reuse of materials multiple times. Fragmented items may be discarded at one time but functional tools at another (Holdaway & Phillipps 2020). It is likely that different types of objects had varying uselives, for example, some adzes may have been repeatedly resharpened and reused.…”

Machine learning for stone artifact identification: Distinguishing worked stone artifacts from natural clasts using deep neural networks

“…Artifact classification is not straightforward as many scholars have pointed out, with objects manufactured, used, and modified many times over prior to discard changing their function (e.g. [ 56 , 57 ]). The ability to identify features that relate to these changes would permit life histories of the objects to be recorded.…”

Exploring the impact of mobility and selection on stone tool recycling behaviors through agent-based simulation

“…Current archaeological proxies do not consider how recycling can rewrite the patterns we rely on for documenting behaviors beyond recycling (but see [40,41]). For example, archaeologists often use raw material transport as an indicator of mobility; if an assemblage contains raw materials from a distant source, we assume long distance movements of the makers of that assemblage.…”