2019
DOI: 10.1002/evan.21772
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Comparative analysis of Middle Stone Age artifacts in Africa (CoMSAfrica)

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
16
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

2
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 28 publications
(16 citation statements)
references
References 14 publications
0
16
0
Order By: Relevance
“…One outcome of this is the difficulty in measuring incremental changes in artifact frequency over time, potentially exaggerating similarities or differences between artifact assemblages. The region still lacks terminological or data reporting standards, although efforts are underway to correct this …”
Section: Moving Forward: Assessing the Timing Tempo And Nature Of Tmentioning
confidence: 91%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…One outcome of this is the difficulty in measuring incremental changes in artifact frequency over time, potentially exaggerating similarities or differences between artifact assemblages. The region still lacks terminological or data reporting standards, although efforts are underway to correct this …”
Section: Moving Forward: Assessing the Timing Tempo And Nature Of Tmentioning
confidence: 91%
“…The region still lacks terminological or data reporting standards, although efforts are underway to correct this. 92 At present, the East African MSA/LSA lithic record is comprised largely of typological descriptions of the kinds of artifacts found (particularly deliberately shaped or retouched tools) or technological studies that ultimately provide at best a superficial, and largely typological description of past production methods, 86,93 such as the recognition of different Levallois approaches (e.g., recurrent, centripetal, unidirectional, etc.) based on core morphology at discard.…”
Section: Better Analytical Approaches In Lithic Analysismentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A recent review [ 12 ], for example, makes it clear that even the ‘characteristic artefacts’ associated with a given industrial complex are neither unique to that complex nor always present in assemblages identified as belonging to that complex. That a recent meeting of leading MSA researchers failed to develop a ‘unified analytical approach’ [ 16 ] also hints at the scale of the problem. The analyses reported below attempt to shift the debate from one focussed on individual artefact types towards the consideration of recurring associations between constellations of technologies that mark genuine, demonstrable divisions in the data.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Despite their potential, interpreting stone tool assemblages remains challenging and controversial. We grapple with outdated and quasi‐narrative explanations and research orientations, imprecisely understood interobserver variability, weak or unclear cross‐disciplinary research aims, and interpretations ungrounded by actualistic or experimental evidence. These issues hamper archaeologists' use of stone tools to address the field's “big questions.”…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%