Prehistoric technology: a cognitive science?

Karlin, Claudine; Julien, Michèle

doi:10.1017/cbo9780511598388.016

Cited by 41 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, Karlin and Julien (1994) note, "The reconstruction of certain chaîne opératoire allows us to arrange the information in a coherent order and, by various analyses, rediscover the processes involved in techniques of production and, beyond that, the conceptual pattern from which they sprang" (1994: 153, emphasis added). Further, Pelegrin's reasoning (1990: 117) given above articulates why a decision hierarchy is an abstraction.…”

Section: The Tyranny Of the Emic Goalmentioning

confidence: 99%

Untitled

2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There are more areas of overlap as well as distinction between the Reduction Sequence and Chaîne Opératoire methods of archaeological analysis than the current debate recognizes. While methodological differences have been acknowledged, high-level theory differs to a greater degree than is currently appreciated, partly due to the social practice of archaeology in different contexts. This paper compares and evaluates examples of reduction sequence and chaîne opératoire research to demonstrate how high-level theory goals impact middle-range theory and even low-level theory practices (i.e., how data are constructed and published). The paper then utilizes the distinction between an emic decision hierarchy and an etic production hierarchy to elucidate how the practitioners of both methods can more successfully integrate their approaches. An alternative to both methods is offered to demonstrate how common epistemological problems can be resolved. As an example of this alternative approach, the paper compares blank production behaviors and tool kit morphologies among Levantine Ahmarian, as well as among Levantine Aurignacian assemblages, from Kebara Cave, Israel. This case study demonstrates that the two Ahmarian assemblages are more different, rather than more similar to each other, in comparison to the Levantine Aurignacian assemblages. This suggests that a typological approach to these assemblages conceals significant behavioral data.

show abstract

Section: The Tyranny Of the Emic Goalmentioning

confidence: 99%

Untitled

2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Karlin and Julien (1994) for example, have, in a study of a number of French Upper Palaeolithic settlements, identified technological and methodological features in lithic assemblages which they have interpreted as work carried out partly by experienced flintknappers and partly by beginners. Through analyses of manufacturing techniques and methods on a refitted assemblage, different levels of proficiency and experience in stone-working were analysed.…”

Section: Identifying Children's Behavior In Lithic Assemblagesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Playing with Flint: Tracing a Child’s Imitation of Adult Work in a Lithic Assemblage

Högberg¹

2008

J Archaeol Method Theory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper examines the potential for identifying play and children's imitation in the archaeological record and reviews cultural constructions of play and cross-cultural behaviour. A case study, using a lithic assemblage from a discrete knapping area for Scandinavian Neolithic axe production in Southern Sweden which identifies a child's activity area, is discussed. The theoretical and methodological assumptions behind play, imitation and its identification as well as its social implications are also examined.

show abstract

“…The knapping process involves constant interplay between the knapper's brain and his or her motor skills (Karlin and Julien 1994;Pelegrin 1990).…”

Section: Spatial Intelligence Is Important For Flintknappersmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The artisan is capable of implementing a number of different strategies to create a particular artifact (Edmonds 1990). The knapper therefore constantly evaluates the current situation and chooses, from the methods at his or her disposal, the one which is preferable and possible, a decision which implies continuous mental assessment of possible consequences (Karlin and Julien 1994;Schlanger 1994).…”

Section: Tool Behavior As Sequence Constructionmentioning

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

Prehistoric technology: a cognitive science?

Cited by 41 publications

References 0 publications

Untitled

Untitled

Playing with Flint: Tracing a Child’s Imitation of Adult Work in a Lithic Assemblage

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About