Contrasting approaches to lithic assemblages: a view from no man’s land

Cercetări Arheologice 27, 2020, 33-44
https://doi.org/10.46535/ca.27.01



Contrasting approaches to lithic assemblages: a view from no man’s land

Authors: Mircea Anghelinu Loredana Niță Cristina Cordoș

Keywords:

Upper Palaeolithic, theory, methodology, lithic technology, variability

Abstract:

Abundantly preserved in the prehistoric archaeological record, lithic tools enjoyed a preferential focus aimed at understanding Palaeolithic cultural and adaptive variability. However, approaches to lithic variability are often framed in contrasting theoretical and methodological moulds, with the (predominantly analytic) Anglo-American and (preferentially synthetic) French research traditions viewed as providing paradigmatic examples of mutually incompatible perspectives. By stressing the strong points of each research tradition, and using an Upper Palaeolithic case study in Romania, the paper highlights the potential of a more productive, pragmatic stance, in which each type of approach is seen as contributing with equally instructive, complementary information.

Download: PDF

How to cite: Mircea Anghelinu, Loredana Niță, Cristina Cordoș, Contrasting approaches to lithic assemblages: a view from no man’s land, Cercetări Arheologice, Vol. 27, pag. 33-44, 2020, doi: https://doi.org/10.46535/ca.27.01

Bibliography

  1. Andrefsky, Jr., W., Lithics: Macroscopic Approaches to Analysis , Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 2005.
  2.  Anghelinu, M., Evoluția gândirii teoretice în arheologia din România. Concepte și modele aplicate în preistorie, Editura Cetatea de Scaun: Târgoviște, 2003.
  3.  Anghelinu, M., O paleontologie a „omului etern”; arheologia paleoliticului în România, Cercetări Arheologice, XIII, 2006, 135-158.
  4.  Anghelinu, M., Niță, L., La place de la pierre dans l’Âge de la pierre; la perspective de la documentation dans la recherche du Paléolithique, Annales de l’Université Valahia de Târgoviște, XI, 1, 2009, 99-119.
  5. Anghelinu, M., Niță, L., Murătoreanu, G., Le Gravettien et l’Épigravettien de l’Est de la Roumanie: une réévaluation, L’Anthropologie, 122, 2, 2018, 183-219.
  6. Anghelinu, M., Händel, M., Niță, L., Cordoș, E. C., Vereș, D., Hambach U., Murătoreanu, G., Ciornei, A., Mănăilescu, C., Ilie, M., Demay, L., Georgescu, V., in press, From Gravettian to Epigravettian in the Eastern Carpathians: Insights from Bistricioara-Lutărie III, Quaternary International, submitted.
  7. Bar-Yosef, O., Van Peer, P., The Chaîne Opératoire Approach in Middle Paleolithic Archaeology, Current Anthropology, 50, 1, 2009, 103-131.
  8. Barton, C. M., Neeley, M. P., Phantom cultures of the Levantine Epipaleolithic, Antiquity, 70, 267, 1996, 139-147.
  9. Barton, C. M., Riel-Salvatore, J., Late Pleistocene technology, economic behaviour,and land-use dynamics in Southern Italy, American Antiquity, 69, 2, 2004, 257-274.
  10. Barton, C. M., Riel-Salvatore, J., The formation of lithic assemblages, Journal ofArchaeological Science, 46, 2014, 334-352.
  11. Burke, A., Riel-Salvatore, J., Barton, C. M., Human response to habitat suitability during the Late Glacial Maximum in Western Europe, Journal of Quaternary Science, 33, 3, 2018, 335-345.
  12. Clark, G. A., Accidents of history: conceptual frameworks in palaeoarchaeology, in Camps, M., Chauhan, P. (eds.), Sourcebook of Paleolithic Transitions, Springer: New-York, 2009, 19-41.
  13.  Clark, G. A., Lindly, J., Paradigmatic biases and Paleolithic research traditions, Current Anthropology, 32, 1991, 577-587.
  14.  Coudart, A., Is post-processualism bound to happen everywhere? The French case, Antiquity, 73, 279, 1999, 161-167.
  15. Dibble, H., Middle Paleolithic scraper reduction: background, clarification, and review of the evidence to date, Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 2, 1995, 299-368.
  16. Féblot-Augustins, J., Revisiting European Upper Paleolithic raw material transfers: the demise of the cultural ecological paradigm?, in Adams, B., Blades, B. S. (eds.), Lithic Materials and Paleolithic Societies, Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2009, 25-46.
  17. Fitzhugh, B., Risk and Invention in Human Technological Evolution, Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 20, 2001, 125-167.
  18. Gao, X., Paleolithic cultures in China. Uniqueness and divergence, Current Anthropology, 54, 2013, 358-370.
  19. Hayden, B., Insights into early lithic technologies from Ethnography, Philosophical Transactions of Royal Society B, 370, 20140356.
  20. Hiscock, P., Reduction, recycling, and raw material procurement in Western Arnhem land, Australia, in Adams, B., Blades, B. S. (eds.), Lithic Materials and Paleolithic Societies, Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2009, 78-93.
  21. Hiscock 2014 Hiscock, P., Learning in lithic landscapes: a reconsideration of the hominid„toolmaking” niche, Biological Theory, 9, 2014, 27-41.
  22. Högberg, A., Lombard, M., „I can do it” becomes „We do it”: Kimberly (Australia) and Still Bay (South Africa) points through a socio-technical framework lens, Journal of Paleolithic Archaeology, https://doi.org/10.1007/s41982-019-00042-4
  23. Holdaway, S., Douglass, M., A twenty-first century archaeology of stone artifacts, Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 19, 2012, 101-131.
  24. Hovers, E., Belfer-Cohen, A., Are lithics and fauna a match made in (prehistoric) heaven?, Journal of Paleolithic Archeology, https://doi.org/10.1007/s41982-018- 0007-9, 2018.
  25. Hussain, S. T., The French-Anglophone divide in lithic research. A plea for pluralism in Palaeolithic archaeology, Leiden University: Leiden, 2019.
  26. Ioviță, R., McPherron, S. P., The handaxe reloaded: a morphometric reassessment of Acheulian and Middle Paleolithic handaxes, Journal of Human Evolution, 61, 2011, 61-24.
  27. Kelly, R. L., The lifeways of hunter-gatherers. The foraging spectrum, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 2013.
  28. Kohl, P. L., Materialist approaches in prehistory, Annual Review of Anthropology, 10, 1981, 89-118.
  29. Kuhn, S. L., A formal approach to the design and assembly of transported toolkits, American Antiquity, 59, 1994, 426-442.
  30. Kuhn, S.L., Evolutionary perspectives on technology and technological change, World Archaeology, 36, 2004, 561-570.
  31. Kuhn, S. L., Questions of Complexity and Scale in Explanations for Cultural transitions in the Pleistocene: A Case Study from the Early Upper Paleolithic, Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 20, 2013, 194-211.
  32. Kuhn, S. L., Stiner, M. C., The antiquity of hunter-gatherers, in Panter-Brick, C., Layton, R. H., Rowley-Conwy, P. A. (eds.), Another Day, Another Camp: An Interdisciplinary View of Hunter-gatherers, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 2001, 99-142.
  33. Meignen, L., Delagnes, A., Bourguignon, L., Patterns of lithic material procurement and transformation during the Middle Paleolithic in Western Europe, in Adams, B., Blades, B. S. (eds.), Lithic Materials and Paleolithic Societies, Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2009, 15-24.
  34. Moreau, L., Brandl, M., Nigst, P., Did prehistoric foragers behave in an economically irrational manner? Raw material availability and technological organisation at the early Gravettian site of Willendorf II (Austria), Quaternary International , 406, A, 2016, 84-94.
  35. Niță, L., Cordoș, C., Anghelinu, M., Apprenticeship lithic debitage. Examples from a 27.3 ka cal BP Gravettian collection from Bistricioara-Lutărie III (Ceahlău Basin, NE Romania), Studii de Preistorie, 15, 2018, 13-27.
  36. Noiret, P., Le Paléolithique supérieur de Moldavie, ERAUL 121: Liège, 2009.
  37. Olsen, B., After interpretation. Remembering archaeology, Current Swedish Archaeology, 20, 2012, 11-34.
  38. Perlès, C., La technologie lithique, de part et d’autre de l’Atlantique, Bulletin de la Societé préhistorique française, 113 (2), 2016, 221-240.
  39. Pfaffenberger, B., Social Anthropology of Technology, Annual Review of Anthropology, 21, 1992, 491-516.
  40. Renard, C., Ducasse, S., De la rupture typologique à la fracture socio-économique. Implications sur les systèmes de mobilité entre Solutréen récent et Badegoulien dans le Sud-Ouest français (24-21 ka cal. BP), in Naudinot, N., Meignen, L., Binder, D., Querré, G. (eds.), Les systèmes de mobilité de la Préhistoire au Moyen Âge, Éditions APDCA, Antibes, 2015, 193-208.
  41. Richter, J., Social memory among late Neanderthals, Orschiedt, J., Weniger, G. C. (eds.), Neanderthals and Modern Humans – Discussing the Transition. Central and Eastern Europe from 50.000-30.000 B.P., Mettmann: Köln, 2000, 30-41.
  42. Sackett, J. R., Straight Archaeology French Style: The Phylogenetic Paradigm in Historic Perspective, in Clark, G.A. (ed.), Perspectives on the Past: Theoretical Biases in Mediterranean Hunter-Gatherer Research, University of Pennsylvania Press: Philadelphia, 1991, 109-139.
  43. Schmidt, C., Anghelinu, M., Hambach, U., Vereș, D., Lehmkuhl, F., Reassessing the timeframe of Upper Palaeolithic deposits in the Ceahlău Basin (Eastern Carpathians, Romania): Geochronological and archaeological implications, Quaternary Geochronology, 55, 2020, 101020.
  44. Shott, M. J., Size dependence in assemblage measures: essentialism, materialism, and “SHE” analysis in archaeology, American Antiquity, 75, 4, 2010, 886-906.
  45. Torrence, R., Hunter-gatherer technology: macro- and microscale approaches, in Panther-Brick, C., Layton, R. L., Rowley-Conwy, P. (eds.), Hunter-gatherer. An Interdisciplinary Perspective, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 2001, 73-98.
  46. Villa, P., Pollarolo, L., Conforti, J., Marra, F., Biagioni, C., Degano, I., Lucejko, J. J., Tozzi, C., Pennacchioni, M., Zanchetta, G., Nicosia, C., Martini, M., Sibillia, E., Panzeri, L., From Neandertals to modern humans: New data on the Uluzzian, PLoS ONE, 13, 4, 2018, e0196786.
  47. Witmore, C., Archaeology and the New Materialisms, Journal of Contemporary Archaeology, 1.2, 2014, 203-246

Creative Commons Licence
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License