Untitled

Odell, George H.

doi:10.1023/a:1009439725979

Cited by 69 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 251 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Since the Early Pleistocene-the longest and most defining period of our historytechnology has been characterized by the use of tools made from different materials, such as stone, bone, and antler. Investigating how past hominins produced, designed, and used their tools-including possible variation through time and space-is therefore one of the key areas of research for understanding the evolution of human behavior (Ambrose 2001;Odell 2000). Over the last decades, archeological research has focused on diverse aspects of prehistoric tool-related behaviors of past humans, such as the procurement of raw materials (Andrefsky 1994(Andrefsky , 2009Brantingham 2003), diversification of manufacturing techniques (Kuhn 1992), the manipulation of physical proprieties (e.g., heat treatment) (Domanski et al 1994;Domanski and Webb 1992;Mackay et al 2018;Schmitt et al 2013), and actual tool use (Keeley 1974).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Rethinking Use-Wear Analysis and Experimentation as Applied to the Study of Past Hominin Tool Use

Marreiros

Calandra²,

Gneisinger³

et al. 2020

J Paleo Arch

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In prehistoric human populations, technologies played a fundamental role in the acquisition of different resources and are represented in the main daily living activities, such as with bone, wooden, and stone-tipped spears for hunting, and chipped-stone tools for butchering. Considering that paleoanthropologists and archeologists are focused on the study of different processes involved in the evolution of human behavior, investigating how hominins acted in the past through the study of evidence on archeological artifacts is crucial. Thus, investigating tool use is of major importance for a comprehensive understanding of all processes that characterize human choices of raw materials, techniques, and tool types. Many functional assumptions of tool use have been based on tool design and morphology according to archeologists' interpretations and ethnographic observations. Such assumptions are used as baselines when inferring human behavior and have driven an improvement in the methods and techniques employed in functional studies over the past few decades. Here, while arguing that use-wear analysis is a key discipline to assess past hominin tool use and to interpret the organization and variability of artifact types in the archeological record, we aim to review and discuss the current state-of-the-art methods, protocols, and their limitations. In doing so, our discussion focuses on three main topics: (1) the need for fundamental improvements by adopting established methods and techniques from similar research fields, (2) the need to implement and combine different levels of experimentation, and (3) the crucial need to establish standards and protocols in order to improve data quality, standardization, repeatability, and reproducibility. By adopting this perspective, we believe that studies will increase the reliability and applicability of use-wear methods on tool function. The need for a holistic approach that combines not only use-wear traces but also tool technology, design, curation, durability, and efficiency is also debated and revised. Such a revision is a crucial step if archeologists want to build major inferences on human decisionmaking behavior and biocultural evolution processes.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Rethinking Use-Wear Analysis and Experimentation as Applied to the Study of Past Hominin Tool Use

Marreiros

Calandra²,

Gneisinger³

et al. 2020

J Paleo Arch

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Lithic procurement studies are concerned with processes and products involving the acquisition of minerals and rocks, linking survey, analysis and characterisation of sources with raw material use and circulation (Church 1994;Luedkte 1992;Odell 2000;. The Uruguayan territory, in the South America Southern Cone (see Figures 1 and 2), offers a unique environment for these studies, since it was a very rich and diverse lithic landscape for indigenous artisans, for knapping and grinding.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Studies of indigenous lithic procurement in Uruguay and their implications for Southern Cone archaeology

Batalla

2016

JLS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:Being a territory with several minerals and rocks suitable for knapping and grinding, Uruguay offered a lithic-rich environment for past indigenous cultures in the Southern Cone of South America. In this paper, a history of lithic procurement studies in Uruguay is presented. Three main periods are discriminated, paying attention to authors' theoretical and methodological contributions to the field. Firstly, a period with general mention to raw materials utilised by indigenous groups, including those historically known, is recognised at least since the last decades of the nineteenth century. Secondly, a period involving description of lithic resources available at a national scale as well as the first detailed observations of lithic sources and possible means of procurement can be distinguished between the 1950s and the mid-1980s. Lastly, beginning with salvage archaeology in the eastern region, the current period of research (i.e. the last thirty years) is characterised by contextualising lithic procurement within issues of lithic technological organisation and settlement patterns of indigenous groups. The current period of studies has involved two different approaches: 1) technological analysis of lithic artefacts and comparison of raw material with previously-published geological data; 2) utilisation of field survey data that locate and map lithic resources, and characterisation of visual (macroscopic, microscopic, or both macroscopic and microscopic) and geochemical components of these resources. Within the latter, studies can be further arranged according to the main temporal framework used to contextualise research problems. On the one hand, questions involving lithic procurement of early hunter-gatherers (who arrived ca. 12,000 BP) since the end of the 1990s have included surveys of potential and utilised sources, the first thin-section-based petrographic studies and the distinction of different local, regional and long-distance procurement strategies. On the other hand, cultural changes since the Middle Holocene have framed lithic source survey studies to answer questions of resource accessibility for coastal groups during sea level changes, as well as for other now-diverse groups such as the lowland moundbuilders. Finally, considerations for future research are made by reconsidering recent developments alongside the history of lithic procurement studies in Uruguay.

show abstract

An Introduction to Stone Artifact Analysis

Clarkson,

O'Connor

2013

Archaeology in Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Untitled

Cited by 69 publications

References 251 publications

Rethinking Use-Wear Analysis and Experimentation as Applied to the Study of Past Hominin Tool Use

Rethinking Use-Wear Analysis and Experimentation as Applied to the Study of Past Hominin Tool Use

Studies of indigenous lithic procurement in Uruguay and their implications for Southern Cone archaeology

An Introduction to Stone Artifact Analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About