Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-hvd4g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-20T17:45:30.796Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On Tool-Class Use Lives and the Formation of Archaeological Assemblages

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Michael J. Shott
Michael J. Shott*
Affiliation:
Program for Cultural Resource Assessment and Department of Anthropology, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY 40506
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The importance of tool-class use lives in the formation of archaeological assemblages is established both in theory and empirically, and accurate inference from the material record requires that use lives be measured or estimated with confidence. Unfortunately, no method of measuring use lives directly from archaeological remains has been developed. However, this important quantity may be related to elementary properties of tool classes such as size and weight, properties which are themselves directly measurable. Ethnographic data on ceramic vessels, in which use life is related to such properties, is described and analyzed. Using!Kung San and Ingalik data, a similar analysis is performed for a variety of nonceramic tools and objects, although few of the stone-tool classes common to archaeological assemblages are included. There, use life is related most strongly to manufacturing cost and curation rate, an archaeological measure of which is proposed. Neither is an elementary property, but they can be estimated accurately for many tool classes. These results are noteworthy but not definitive, and they underscore the continued value of museum ethnographic collections and ethnoarchaeological research.

Type
Articles
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 54 , Issue 1 , January 1989 , pp. 9 - 30
Copyright
Copyright © Society for American Archaeology 1989

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References Cited

Ammerman, A., and Feldman, M. 1974 On the ‘Making’ of an Assemblage of Stone Tools. American Antiquity 39 : 610–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ascher, R. 1961 Analogy in Archaeological Interpretation. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 17 : 317–325.Google Scholar
Binford, L. R. 1973 Interassemblage Variability— The Mousterian and the ‘Functional’ Argument. In The Explanation of Culture Change : Models in Prehistory, edited by Renfrew, C., pp. 227–253. Duckworth, London.Google Scholar
Binford, L. R. 1977 Forty-Seven Trips : A Case Study in the Character of Archaeological Formation Processes. In Stone Tools as Cultural Markers : Change, Evolution and Complexity, edited by Wright, R., pp. 24–36. Humanities Press, Atlantic Highlands, New Jersey.Google Scholar
Binford, L. R. 1981 Behavioral Archaeology and the ‘Pompeii Premise. ’ Journal of Anthropological Research 37 : 195–208.Google Scholar
Braun, D. P. 1983 Pots as Tools. In Archaeological Hammers and Theories, edited by Moore, J. and Keene, A., pp. 107–134. Academic, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, J. D., and Kurashina, H. 1981 A Study of the Work of a Modern Tanner in Ethiopia and Its Relevance for Archaeological Interpretation. In Modern Material Culture : The Archaeology of Us, edited by Gould, R. and Schiffer, M. B., pp. 303–321. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Damuth, J. 1982 Analysis of the Preservation of Community Structure in Assemblages of Fossil Mammals. Paleobiology 8 : 434–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
David, N. 1972 On the Life Span of Pottery, Type Frequencies, and Archaeological Inference. American Antiquity 37 : 141–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeBoer, W. R. 1985 Pots and Pans Do Not Speak, Nor Do They Lie : The Case for Occasional Reductionism. In Decoding Prehistoric Ceramics, edited by Nelson, B. A., pp. 347–357. Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale.Google Scholar
de la Torre, A., and Mudar, K. 1982 The Becino Site : An Exercise in Ethnoarchaeology. In Houses Built on Scattered Poles : Prehistory and Ecology in Negros Oriental, Philippines, edited by Hutterer, K. and Macdonald, W., pp. 177–146. San Carlos University Press, Cebu City, Philippines.Google Scholar
Dibble, H. L. 1987 The Interpretation of Middle Paleolithic Scraper Morphology. American Antiquity 52 : 109–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Draper, N. 1985 Back to the Drawing Board : A Simplified Approach to Assemblage Variability in the Early Palaeolithic. World A rchaeology 17 : 3–19.Google Scholar
Ebert, J. I. 1979 An Ethnoarchaeological Approach to Reassessing the Meaning of Variability in Stone Tool Assemblages. In Ethnoarchaeology : Implications of Ethnography for Archaeology, edited by Kramer, C., pp. 59–74. Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Fitting, J., and Halsey, J. 1966 Rim Diameter and Vessel Size in Wayne Ware Vessels. Wisconsin Archaeologist 47 : 208–211.Google Scholar
Frison, G. C. 1978 Prehistoric Hunters of the High Plains. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Gallagher, J. P. 1977 Contemporary Stone Tools in Ethiopia : Implications for Archaeology. Journal of Field Archaeology 4 : 407–414.Google Scholar
Goodyear, A. C. 1982 Toolkit Entropy and Bipolar Reduction : A Study of Interassemblage Lithic Variability among Paleo-Indian Sites in the Northeastern United States. Ms. on file, Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of South Carolina, Columbia.Google Scholar
Gould, R. A. 1978 The Anthropology of Residues. American Anthropologist 80 : 815–835.Google Scholar
Gould, R. A., Koster, D., and Sontz, H. 1971 The Lithic Assemblage of the Western Desert Aborigines. American Antiquity 36 : 149–169.Google Scholar
Grimes, J., and Grimes, B. 1985 Flakeshavers : Morphometric, Functional and Life-Cycle Analyses of a Paleoindian Unifacial Tool Class. Archaeology of Eastern North America 13 : 35–57.Google Scholar
Hally, D. J. 1986 The Identification of Vessel Function : A Case Study from Northwest Georgia. American Antiquity 51 : 267–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayden, B. 1977 Stone Tool Functions in the Western Desert. In Stone Tools as Cultural Markers : Change, Evolution and Complexity, edited by Wright, R., pp. 178–188. Humanities Press, Atlantic Highlands, New Jersey.Google Scholar
Hayden, B. 1979 Paleolithic Reflections : Lithic Technology and Ethnographic Excavation among Australian Aborigines. Humanities Press, Atlantic Highlands, New Jersey.Google Scholar
Hearne, S. 1958 A Journey from Prince of Wales Fort in Hudson's Bay to the Northern Ocean in the Years 1769, 1770, 1771 and 1772. Edited by Glover, R.. Macmillan, Toronto.Google Scholar
Henrickson, E., and McDonald, M. 1983 Ceramic Form and Function : An Ethnographic Search and an Archaeological Application. American Anthropologist 85 : 630–643.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hildebrand, J. A. 1978 Pathways Revisited : A Quantitative Model of Discard. American Antiquity 43 : 274–279.Google Scholar
Hoffman, C. M. 1985 Projectile Point Maintenance and Typology : Assessment with Factor Analysis and Canonical Correlation. In For Concordance in Archaeological Analysis : Bridging Data Structure, Quantitative Technique, and Theory, edited by Carr, C., pp. 566–612. Westport Press, Kansas City.Google Scholar
Janes, R. R. 1983 Archaeological Ethnography among Mackenzie Basin Dene, Canada. Technical Paper No. 28. Arctic Institute of North America, University of Calgary, Alberta.Google Scholar
Johnson, J. K. 1981 Lithic Procurement and Utilization Trajectories : Analysis, Yellow Creek Nuclear Power Plant Site, Tishomingo County, Mississippi. Archaeological Papers No. 1. Center for Archaeological Research, University of Mississippi, University.Google Scholar
Lee, R. B. 1979 The IKung San : Men, Women and Work in a Foraging Society. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England.Google Scholar
Longacre, W. A. 1985 Pottery Use-Life among the Kalinga, Northern Luzon, the Philippines. In Decoding Prehistoric Ceramics, edited by Nelson, B., pp. 334–346. Southern Illinois University, Carbondale.Google Scholar
Mallouf, R. J. 1982 An Analysis of Plow-Damaged Chert Artifacts : The Brookeen Creek Cache (41HI86), Hill County, Texas. Journal of Field Archaeology 9 : 79–98.Google Scholar
Mason, R. J. 1981 Great Lakes Archaeology. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Miller, P. A. 1980 Archaic Lithics from the Coffey Site. In Archaic Prehistory on the Prairie-Plains Border, edited by Johnson, A. E., pp. 107–111. Publications in Anthropology No. 12. University of Kansas, Lawrence.Google Scholar
Nissen, K., and Dittemore, M. 1974 Ethnographic Data and Wear Pattern Analysis : A Study of Socketed Eskimo Scrapers. Tebiwa 17 : 67–88.Google Scholar
Odel, G. H. 1981 The Morphological Express at Function Junction : Searching for Meaning in Lithic Tool Types. Journal of Anthropological Research 37 : 319–342.Google Scholar
Odell, G. H., and Cowan, F. 1986 Experiments with Spears and Arrows on Animal Targets. Journal of Field Archaeology 13 : 195–212.Google Scholar
Osgood, C. 1940 Ingalik Material Culture. Publications in Anthropology No. 22. Yale University, New Haven.Google Scholar
Oswalt, W. 1976 An Anthropological Analysis of Food-Getting Technology. Wiley and Sons, New York.Google Scholar
Pauketat, T. R. 1987 A Functional Consideration of a Mississippian Vessel Assemblage. Southeastern Archaeology 6 : 1–15.Google Scholar
Roper, D. C. 1976 Lateral Displacement of Artifacts Due to Plowing. American Antiquity 41 : 372–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schiffer, M. B. 1975 The Effects of Occupation Span on Site Content. In The Cache River Project, edited by Schiffer, M. B. and House, J., pp. 265–269. Arkansas Archaeological Survey, Fayetteville.Google Scholar
Schiffer, M. B. 1976 Behavioral Archaeology. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Schiffer, M. B. 1985 Is There a ‘Pompeii Premise’ in Archaeology? Journal of Anthropological Research 41 : 18–41.Google Scholar
Seeman, M. F. 1984 Craft Specialization and Tool Kit Structure : A Systemic Perspective on the Midcontinental Flint Knapper. In Lithic Resource Procurement : Proceedings from the Second Conference on Prehistoric Chert Exploitation, edited by Vehik, S., pp. 7–36. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Carbondale.Google Scholar
Shapiro, G. 1984 Ceramic Vessels, Site Permanence, and Group Size : A Mississippian Example. American Antiquity 49 : 696–712.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shott, M. J. 1986a Settlement Mobility and Technological Organization among Great Lakes Paleo-Indian Foragers. Ph. D. dissertation, University of Michigan. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
Shott, M. J. 1986b Settlement Mobility and Technological Organization : An Ethnographic Examination. Journal of Anthropological Research 42 : 15–51.Google Scholar
Stevenson, M. G. 1985 The Formation of Artifact Assemblages at Workshop/Habitation Sites : Models from Peace Point in Northern Alberta. American Antiquity 50 : 63–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tindale, N. B. 1965 Stone Implement Making among the Nakako, Ngadadjara and Pitjandjara of the Great Western Desert. Records of the South Australian Museum 15 : 131–164.Google Scholar
Torrence, R. 1983 Time Budgeting and Hunter-Gatherer Technology. In Hunter-Gatherer Economy in Prehistory : A European Perspective, edited by Bailey, G., pp. 11–22. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England.Google Scholar
Van Stone, J. W. 1985 Material Culture of the Davis Inlet and Barren Ground Naskapi : The William Duncan Strong Collection. Fieldiana Anthropology No. 7. Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago.Google Scholar
Vincent, A. S. 1985 Plant Foods in Savanna Environments : A Preliminary Report of Tubers Eaten by the Hadza of Northern Tanzania. World Archaeology 17 : 131–148.Google Scholar
Whallon, R. 1969 Rim Diameter, Vessel Volume, and Economic Prehistory. Michigan Academician 2 : 89–98.Google Scholar
Wilson, T. 1899 Arrowpoints, Spearheads, and Knives of Prehistoric Times. In Report of the United States National Museum for the Year Ending June 30, 1897, pp. 811–988. Washington, D. C. Google Scholar
Yellen, J. 1977 Archaeological Approaches to the Present : Models for Reconstructing the Past. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar