Accidents of History: Conceptual Frameworks in Paleoarchaeology

Clark, Geoffrey A.

doi:10.1007/978-0-387-76487-0_2

Cited by 30 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 57 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…17,41,42 Three of the more popular methodologies currently being practiced by Paleolithic archeologists can be adapted to this purpose.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…16 Early twentieth-century concerns added to this agenda a growing interest in prehistoric cultural variability. 17 Stone tool assemblages with shared typological characteristics were grouped together into named ''industries'' with relationships to one another that were modeled, more or less, on the kinds of social relationships observed among named ethnohistoric groups. 18 These concerns remain part of the contemporary research agenda in paleolithic archeology, but they are less and less central to the major issues in paleoanthropology.…”

Section: An Historical Perspective On the Problemmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Stone tool analysis and human origins research: Some advice from uncle Screwtape

Shea¹

2011

Evolutionary Anthropology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The production of purposefully fractured stone tools with functional, sharp cutting edges is a uniquely derived hominin adaptation. In the long history of life on earth, only hominins have adopted this remarkably expedient and broadly effective technological strategy. In the paleontological record, flaked stone tools are irrefutable proof that hominins were present at a particular place and time. Flaked stone tools are found in contexts ranging from the Arctic to equatorial rainforests and on every continent except Antarctica. Paleolithic stone tools show complex patterns of variability, suggesting that they have been subject to the variable selective pressures that have shaped so many other aspects of hominin behavior and morphology. There is every reason to expect that insights gained from studying stone tools should provide vital and important information about the course of human evolution. And yet, one senses that archeological analyses of Paleolithic stone tools are not making as much of a contribution as they could to the major issues in human origins research.

show abstract

“…17,41,42 Three of the more popular methodologies currently being practiced by Paleolithic archeologists can be adapted to this purpose.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: An Historical Perspective On the Problemmentioning

confidence: 99%

Stone tool analysis and human origins research: Some advice from uncle Screwtape

Shea¹

2011

Evolutionary Anthropology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The reconstruction of the evolutionary processes in lithic techno-complexes during the Palaeolithic in general and the Middle-Upper Palaeolithic transition in particular has been hindered by the diversity in the methodologies used to approach it (Clark, 2009). Some proposals are even teleologically hostile to the description of transition processes as they use different premises according to whether the ensemble is thought to belong to the Middle Palaeolithic or the Upper Palaeolithic.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Identifying the Signs: The Middle to Upper Palaeolithic Transition in Southwest Europe from the Perspective of the Lithic Record

Arrizabalaga

Rios‐Garaizar

Maíllo‐Fernández

et al. 2014

JLS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…In fact, we believe we can detect an emerging consensus that the factors just noted are important determinants of forager assemblage composition in general (Clark 2002(Clark , 2009Clark and Riel-Salvatore 2006). Since we are likely not dealing with 'culturally diagnostic' artifacts but rather with the range of products of blade technology, we continue to think that the effect of sample size on assemblage diversity is quite significant and needs to be explicitly accounted for (e.g., Grayson and Cole 1998).…”

Section: A Forum For Commentary On Articles and Research Issuesmentioning

confidence: 91%

Untitled

2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

W e wish to take this opportunity to respond to H. Bricker's comment (2010) about our assessment of the case for an Aurignacian-Châtelperronian interstratification at the Châtelperronian 'type site' of Grotte des Fées de Châtelperron (Riel-Salvatore et al. 2008). We are pleased to see that it has generated some interest, and thank Bricker for taking the time to express his concerns.Bricker takes issue with our general approach to typology, which he considers unorthodox, if not downright heretical. His critique boils down to the fact that we used types that, in his view, do not define the Aurignacian as it was traditionally defined by de Sonneville-Bordes and Perrot. The irony is that we largely agree with him and were explicit about this in our study. Why did we resort to creating more inclusive versions of the Aurignacian Index? Quite simply because the only previous typological assessment of the Grotte des Fées Châtelperronian, based on the retouched tools from all five cuts from Level B, yielded a GA value of precisely zero. This value derives from typological data in an unpublished Ph.D. dissertation (Harrold 1978) that Bricker considers "good" (i.e., reliable). Yet, Bricker asserts that "the recent detailed examination of the relevant material by Zilhão and his colleagues should be accepted as correct." Because that study indicates that up to 8.2% of the assemblage from the supposedly interstratified Aurignacian Level B4 consists of Aurignacian diagnostics, it is clear that something is amiss in the typological systematics used to make these assessments. Is it a matter of determining who is the better typologist (see Sackett [1988] for an insightful discussion of this issue)? Or is it more likely that Zilhão et al. (2006Zilhão et al. ( , 2008 and Gravina et al. (2005) simply used a list of Aurignacian diagnostics that is more inclusive than the traditional one devised over half a century ago? We think the latter, and that Bricker does not comment on this fundamental discrepancy effectively vitiates much of his critique.Some of Bricker's remarks also strike us as contradictory. On the one hand, he chastises us for the seemingly uncontroversial observation that mobility patterns and sample size must be taken into account in these assessments. But, after dismissing these concerns as of "dubious relevance," he then asserts that we do not come to "a meaningful conclusion." As for the "putative" Aurignacian tools, we stand by our contention that laminar technologies can generate only a rather limited range of tool morphologies, all of them easily produced by competent flint knappers. This equifinality is, in our view, sufficient to explain the presence of such items in most Châtelperronian assemblages. We are thus puzzled by Bricker's observation that the Châtelperronian at Les Tambourets contains 1.77-2.15%PaleoAnthropology 2010: L10−L11.

show abstract

Accidents of History: Conceptual Frameworks in Paleoarchaeology

Cited by 30 publications

References 57 publications

Stone tool analysis and human origins research: Some advice from uncle Screwtape

Stone tool analysis and human origins research: Some advice from uncle Screwtape

Identifying the Signs: The Middle to Upper Palaeolithic Transition in Southwest Europe from the Perspective of the Lithic Record

Untitled

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About