Identification de chaînes opératoires lithiques du Paléolithique ancien et moyen

Boëda, Éric; Geneste, Jean‐Michel; Meignen, Liliane

doi:10.3406/pal.1990.988

Cited by 384 publications

(199 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

139

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…[43][44][45][46][47] Comparisons of chaînes opératoires emphasize differences in the choices prehistoric toolmakers made at different crucial junctures in tool production, such as the preparation of a core surface or strategies for resharpening broken tools. Chaîne opératoire analyses of Paleolithic tools can be thickly descriptive but, within an evolutionary approach, such thick description is a necessary first step toward hypotheses that strive to explain selective pressures responsible for patterns of lithic variability.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

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

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

Section: Resultsmentioning

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

“…In the context of the MP, many researchers argued that Levallois points present a relatively standardized form, intentionally shaped by a particular reduction process for triangular blanks (e.g., Boëda et al 1990;Goval et al 2015, to name but a few). These artifacts are repeatedly regarded as stone tips of hunting weapons based on their morphology, in tandem with experimentation, DIF patterns, and TCSA/TCSP calculations.…”

Section: A Functional Impassementioning

confidence: 99%

Are Lithics and Fauna a Match Made in (Prehistoric) Heaven?

Hovers

Belfer‐Cohen

2018

J Paleo Arch

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Lithic artifacts and animal bones form the bulk of the material remains of the Paleolithic. This has led archeologists to interpret these two types of finds as tethered components of subsistence systems. Differences observed through time and space in the lithic repertoire were considered as functional adjustments, designed to maximize gains from a diverse faunal resource base. While we do not challenge the general notion that lithic artifacts were used (also) for exploiting faunal (and other) resources, we note that significant lithic technological breakthroughs, clearly directed towards higher efficiency of procurement of faunal resources (e.g., hafting, projectile weapons), are few and far-apart in the evolution of material culture. Based on case studies from the Levantine Middle Paleolithic (MP), we question the degree to which fauna-based subsistence determined lithic variability. Current research focus on functional relationship between lithics and fauna may preclude consideration of other causes for lithic typo-technological diversity. These may include technological traditions, differences in cultural transmission processes, or the level of within-and between-group connectivity, various combinations of which may have operated in the MP.

show abstract

“…Binford argued that archaeology must develop its own epistemological orientation to middle-level theory through the scientific tradition of literature debates on theory as applied to data in practice (1965,1977). In contrast, Leroi-Gourhan put an explicit ban on epistemological discussions of his theory (see Audouze 1999: 168-169) so that archaeologists of his school were limited to innovating low-level theory methods of technological reconstruction, such as refitting, décapage excavation, and lectures (e.g., Boëda et al 1990;Pigeot 1987;Tixier 1980). The further development of what has come to be the dominant middle-and high-level theory in chaîne opératoire practice was thus left in the hands of ethnographers and historians (e.g., Gille 1964;Haudricourt 1987;Lemonnier 1992) who never challenged the emic-level goals on epistemological grounds.…”

Section: The Origins Of Chaîne Opératoirementioning

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

Identification de chaînes opératoires lithiques du Paléolithique ancien et moyen

Cited by 384 publications

References 5 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

Are Lithics and Fauna a Match Made in (Prehistoric) Heaven?

Untitled

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About