IS THE FUNCTIONAL APPROACH HELPFUL TO OVERCOME THE TYPOLOGY DILEMMA OF LITHIC ARCHAEOLOGY IN SOUTHEAST ASIA

A. Pawlik
{"title":"IS THE FUNCTIONAL APPROACH HELPFUL TO OVERCOME THE TYPOLOGY DILEMMA OF LITHIC ARCHAEOLOGY IN SOUTHEAST ASIA","authors":"A. Pawlik","doi":"10.7152/BIPPA.V29I0.9471","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article is based on the presentation “Typology, technology and function: a use-wear analyst’s perspective” in Session 1C, “Missing types: overcoming the typology dilemma of lithic archaeology in Southeast Asia”, at the Congress of the Indo-Pacific Prehistory Association in Manila in March 2006. A large interest in Palaeolithic archaeology and lithic analysis could be noted during the last IPPA congress in Manila in March 2006. However, is it obvious that Palaeolithic archaeology in Southeast Asia is still in its methodological beginning. Most of all, a useful and applicable classification of lithic artefacts seems to be a difficult undertaking. Since its introduction by Oskar Montelius (1903), typology is the basic analytical method for the classification of artefacts, connecting them to time periods, regions and “cultures”. However, classification into “tool types” is a subjective view from a far distance in time. Until the late 1950s and early 1960s, the decision if an artefact made of stone is a tool was rather simple: Any artificial modification of a blank form, flakes, blades, even shattered pieces would create a “tool”. “Types” were those tools with a characteristic recurring modification (Bordes 1961). The origin and nature of the modification, however, were not further scrutinized. As a result of improving excavation and sampling methods during the second half of the past century, lithic assemblages contained more and more unmodified artefacts and non-formal tools. Consequently, lithic archaeologists shifted to a technology-based analysis, investigating the production methods of their artefacts. The recording and statistic evaluation of a wide range of morphological attributes allowed the recognition of significant differences and strategies of core preparation, core reduction and blank modification. Implemented in technological analysis are the study of fracture mechanics, experimental flint knapping and the reconstruction of reduction strategies by refitting. In the 1980s, a holistic method enhancing the technological analysis of reduction sequences would become popular: the “chaine operatoire” (Geneste 1985). Techniques and strategies of raw material acquisition, core preparation, reduction and modification of usually flaked stone tools were treated and analysed as parts of one manufacturing cycle and, altogether, addressed lithic assemblages more comprehensively (Fig. 1).","PeriodicalId":158063,"journal":{"name":"Bulletin of the Indo-Pacific Prehistory Association","volume":"19 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2009-06-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"28","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Bulletin of the Indo-Pacific Prehistory Association","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7152/BIPPA.V29I0.9471","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 28

Abstract

This article is based on the presentation “Typology, technology and function: a use-wear analyst’s perspective” in Session 1C, “Missing types: overcoming the typology dilemma of lithic archaeology in Southeast Asia”, at the Congress of the Indo-Pacific Prehistory Association in Manila in March 2006. A large interest in Palaeolithic archaeology and lithic analysis could be noted during the last IPPA congress in Manila in March 2006. However, is it obvious that Palaeolithic archaeology in Southeast Asia is still in its methodological beginning. Most of all, a useful and applicable classification of lithic artefacts seems to be a difficult undertaking. Since its introduction by Oskar Montelius (1903), typology is the basic analytical method for the classification of artefacts, connecting them to time periods, regions and “cultures”. However, classification into “tool types” is a subjective view from a far distance in time. Until the late 1950s and early 1960s, the decision if an artefact made of stone is a tool was rather simple: Any artificial modification of a blank form, flakes, blades, even shattered pieces would create a “tool”. “Types” were those tools with a characteristic recurring modification (Bordes 1961). The origin and nature of the modification, however, were not further scrutinized. As a result of improving excavation and sampling methods during the second half of the past century, lithic assemblages contained more and more unmodified artefacts and non-formal tools. Consequently, lithic archaeologists shifted to a technology-based analysis, investigating the production methods of their artefacts. The recording and statistic evaluation of a wide range of morphological attributes allowed the recognition of significant differences and strategies of core preparation, core reduction and blank modification. Implemented in technological analysis are the study of fracture mechanics, experimental flint knapping and the reconstruction of reduction strategies by refitting. In the 1980s, a holistic method enhancing the technological analysis of reduction sequences would become popular: the “chaine operatoire” (Geneste 1985). Techniques and strategies of raw material acquisition, core preparation, reduction and modification of usually flaked stone tools were treated and analysed as parts of one manufacturing cycle and, altogether, addressed lithic assemblages more comprehensively (Fig. 1).
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
功能方法是否有助于克服东南亚石器考古的类型学困境
本文基于2006年3月在马尼拉举行的印度-太平洋史前史协会大会1C分会“缺失的类型:克服东南亚石器考古的类型困境”的报告“类型学,技术和功能:一个使用磨损分析者的观点”。在2006年3月马尼拉举行的IPPA大会上,人们对旧石器时代考古和石器分析产生了浓厚的兴趣。然而,很明显,东南亚的旧石器时代考古学仍处于方法论的起步阶段。最重要的是,对石器文物进行有用和适用的分类似乎是一项艰巨的任务。自从Oskar Montelius(1903)提出类型学以来,类型学是人工制品分类的基本分析方法,将它们与时期、地区和“文化”联系起来。然而,对“工具类型”的分类是一种主观的看法,从遥远的时间角度来看。直到20世纪50年代末和60年代初,决定由石头制成的人工制品是否为工具相当简单:对空白形式、薄片、刀片甚至破碎的碎片进行任何人工修改都可以创造一种“工具”。“类型”是那些具有反复修改特征的工具(Bordes 1961)。然而,修改的来源和性质没有得到进一步的审查。在上个世纪下半叶,由于挖掘和取样方法的改进,岩屑组合中包含了越来越多的未经修改的人工制品和非正式工具。因此,石器考古学家转向以技术为基础的分析,调查他们的人工制品的生产方法。通过对大范围形态学属性的记录和统计评价,可以识别出显著的差异,以及核制备、核还原和空白修饰的策略。在工艺分析中进行了断裂力学研究、试验打火石和改装还原策略的重建。在20世纪80年代,一种增强还原序列技术分析的整体方法开始流行:“chain operatoire”(Geneste 1985)。原材料获取、岩心制备、通常剥落的石器的还原和修改的技术和策略作为一个制造周期的一部分进行处理和分析,总的来说,更全面地解决了岩屑组合(图1)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
THE EXCAVATION OF GUA PAYUNG, SOUTH KALIMANTAN, INDONESIA THE TIMBUL SITE, BALI, AND THE TRANSFORMATIONS PROJECT: MATERIAL REMAINS AND CONSIDERATIONS OF CHRONOLOGY AND TYPOLOGY EARLY HOLOCENE BURIAL PRACTICE AT NIAH CAVE, SARAWAK LATE STONE AGE COMMUNITIES IN THE THAI-MALAY PENINSULA THE HAN PERIOD GLASS DISH FROM LAO CAI, NORTHERN VIETNAM
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1