Behavioral Analysis and the Structure of a Prehistoric Industry [and Comments and Reply]

Sheets, Payson; Anthony, B. W.; Breternitz, David A.; Brose, David S.; Chatterjee, Baijayanti; Compton, Carl B.; Cook, Scott; Forbis, Richard G.; Gallus, Alexander; Hester, Thomas R.; Ikawa‐Smith, Fumiko; Kleindienst, Maxine R.; Moberg, Carl-Axel; Müller-Beck, Hansjürgen; Müller, J. W. v.; Rigaud, Jean‐Philippe; Spence, Michael W.; Torrence, Robin; Noten, Francis Van; Winter, Marcus; Witthoft, John

doi:10.1086/201569

Cited by 65 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Magne (1985: 251) took what he described as a "general model of the operations of lithic technologies…" from Collins (1975), also known as a life-history framework (others also worked in a similar manner around the same time, e.g. , Bradley 1975;Schiffer 1976;Sheets 1975), and combined it with experimental work. This experimental work was aimed at providing accurate inferences of the stages of manufacture represented by flake debris, in order to use a behavioral perspective "that assumes the major conditioners of assemblage variations are human activities."…”

Section: Our Foundation In the Organizationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Untitled

2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The history of an organization of technology approach is complicated. Rather than trace specific strands, we examine its paradigm-like nature and connections to skeptical inquiry, as well as discussing the main studies influencing our own work. An examination and modification of a classic diagram of levels of analysis in this approach, especially the addition of a consideration of the life history of lithic artifacts, facilitates application. For such application, the importance and future of experimentation, both flintknapping and simulation, are discussed. Lithic analysts are called to identify a common assemblage which we can use to test our approaches and methods.This special issue is guest edited by Gilbert B. Tostevin (Department of Anthropology, University of Minnesota). This is article #3 of 7. Throughout the development of behavioral research with stone tools, there is an interesting interplay of inductive and deductive reasoning, that is; between questions they ask, in the extreme: What can this stone tool tell us about behavior, and;What are the implications of behavior for stone tools? (Magne 1985: 22) I f the date for the opening quote from Martin Magne was not provided, the language would help place it in the heyday of processual archaeology. In the 1980s, processual archaeologists were interested in developing scientific methods to reconstruct human behavior, especially following Binford's (1981) call to link the static archaeological record with dynamic behavior by building middle range theory. Since that time, processual archaeology has undergone significant critique, theory wars have waged, and today there are a number of theoretical perspectives in contemporary archaeology, including "processual plus;" in some cases, individual archaeologists adopt an eclectic theoretical perspective (Hegmon 2003). Despite these changes, we still see much of use in the processual archaeology paradigm with some modifications, such as working to minimize and make explicit bias. While it is difficult to assess the current state of theory building in archaeology to determine if this constitutes a paradigmatic crisis (sensu T. Kuhn 1970), there remains a sense of normal science in the general activities of archaeologists. This makes for an interesting time to consider the epistemology of our approach to lithic analysis. In exploring this topic, we found ourselves best able to describe our personal involvement with the development of an organization of technology approach (referred to here as a "TO" approach following Cobb 2000) and identify directions for future research.Discussions of epistemology tend to simplify its meaning to how we know what we know. In this vein, Lett (1987: 11) defined epistemology as "the study of the nature and source of knowledge." However, these simplifications belie the actual complexity of explaining how we arrive at knowledge. There are numerous volumes outside of archaeology that address this philosophical issue and plenty of books and articles within the discipline tha...

show abstract

Section: Our Foundation In the Organizationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Untitled

2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Here the impact of modern replication has had a profound impact on the clarification of skill signatures, focusing analysis less on metric variation and more on the predictable kinds of strategic errors that novices make as they learn to work stone. These include such things as stacked step scars, hinge terminations and hammermarks on the core face (Ahler 1989;Andrews 2003;Clark 2003;Sheets 1975;Shelley 1990). Table II summarizes some of the expected characteristics of novice knappers.…”

Section: Archaeological Approaches To Flintknapping Skillmentioning

confidence: 99%

Introduction: Archaeological Approaches to Lithic Production Skill and Craft Learning

Bamforth

Finlay

2008

J Archaeol Method Theory

120

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper introduces the volume by considering what skill is and how archaeologists have looked at issues of skill in stone tool production, along with anthropological and archaeological approaches to the ways in which individuals become skilled craftworkers. Archaeological studies of flintknapping skill tend to be isolated from most larger debates, but both the archaeological and the nonarchaeological literature highlight how intimately skill and craft learning are woven into the fabric of society, although they also highlight significant methodological and interpretive issues.

show abstract

“…That is, the successful knapper must be able to envision the three-dimensional product as well as the general sequence of stages leading to it. Flintknapper Payson D. Sheets notes that because the chipped-stone industry is fundamentally a subtractive one, considerable planning is necessary to arrive at the desired end product (Sheets 1975). Each step in the knapping process should logically lead to the next; thinking ahead is therefore essential (Whittaker 1994: p. 135).…”

Section: Spatial Intelligence Is Important For Flintknappersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does Practice Make Perfect? Craft Expertise as a Factor in Aggrandizer Strategies

Olausson

2008

J Archaeol Method Theory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The focus of this article is on exploring craft expertise and its potential as a factor in aggrandizer strategies. It is argued that there are elements of natural aptitude which enabled certain individuals to excel at flintknapping, allowing them to create objects of exceptional size and beauty in acts of elaborate knapping. Practice alone will enable an individual to reach a certain level of proficiency, but only practice in combination with ability can result in world-class performance. If, as is argued, native ability in some domain is a rare commodity, then harnessing it and developing it through practice would provide an opportunity for a potential aggrandizer to control prestige goods and accrue social capital. In situations where raw material, knowledge, and know-how are ubiquitous, as may have been true for flint technology in southern Scandinavia during the Late Neolithic, this might be one of few means available for a would-be aggrandizer to control prestigious goods.

show abstract

Behavioral Analysis and the Structure of a Prehistoric Industry [and Comments and Reply]

Cited by 65 publications

References 11 publications

Untitled

Untitled

Introduction: Archaeological Approaches to Lithic Production Skill and Craft Learning

Does Practice Make Perfect? Craft Expertise as a Factor in Aggrandizer Strategies

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About