An experimental evaluation of the principles and frameworks for interpreting the function of archaeological stone artefacts

Abstract

The ability to understand and identify the functions of stone artefacts recovered from archaeological assemblages has been a long term goal of lithic technologists and archaeologists world wide. As one of the primary means by which prehistoric huntergatherers negotiated the environment around them, understanding stone artefact functions is central to understanding and reconstructing the prehistoric subsistence and settlement patterns that depended upon them and, therefore, to meeting the objectives of archaeology as a field. Two broad approaches to inferring stone artefact function currently dominate the literature. The first examines macro- and microscopic use-wear preserved on archaeological specimens, seeking to identify specific artefact functions through analogies with experimental replication of hypothesized prehistoric tasks. The second approach explores stone artefact function within a broader, behavioural context, hypothesizing that tools functioned as a means of increasing efficiency in subsistence strategies by reducing the costs associated with resource procurement, through the organisation of technology. Both approaches have gained widespread acceptance within the discipline and form the basis of countless interpretations of archaeological sites world wide. Yet, to date, neither approach has been systematically evaluated and tested. Such an evaluation forms the basis of the research presented here. Evaluation of the principles underlying each approach reveals their dependence upon a number of untested assumptions about stone artefact function. In particular, the relationship between artefact morphology and function is revealed to be based largely upon assumed, rather than demonstrated, knowledge of stone tool use. Failure to explore the key area of performance in investigations of artefact function and to identify the morphological attributes responsible for stone artefact performance, has contributed to technologists' current inability to explain the relationship between form and function in stone artefacts. The controlled experimental program carried out in this thesis was designed to address these issues, both by systematically testing the interpretive ability of the current frameworks for identifying stone artefact function and also by exploring the relationship between artefact form and function through an understanding of stone artefact performance. The results contradict many previous assumptions, revealing a number of misconceptions in current views on the identification and interpretation of stone artefact function. The inability to identify unique signatures for particular artefact functions in the patterns of usescarring produced through artefact use, demonstrated in this thesis, indicates that a consistent relationship between use and the scarnng-wear produced does not exist. Instead, the features of scars produced through use are shown to be the product of multiple complex interactions between previously untested variables and relate to both use and the morphological features of the working edge. This observation is a direct contradiction of the principles upon which wear analyses are based and, necessarily, calls into question the interpretive value of this technique. Likewise, the illustration that form and function are not uniquely connected challenges current assumptions that equate morphological difference with difference in functional utility. Instead, it is demonstrated that stone artefact manufacture and performance are responsive to a wide range of interactions between use and morphological variables, which allows them to respond to different circumstances by compromising forms, balancing trade-offs and performing a wide range of functions. The emerging view of the relationship between artefact form and function is that of a dynamic and interactive system in which adjustments in one aspect of morphology affect a number of other aspects, each with important consequences for the subsequent use and later interpretation of stone artefact function. The ability for this research to produce results which contradict current approaches to the interpretation of stone artefact function indicates that many of the processes and mechanisms acting upon prehistoric stone artefact manufacture and use have been misunderstood. These misconceptions highlight inadequacies in previous investigations of stone artefact function, emphasise the value of adopting more rigorous theoretical and methodological approaches to the analysis and interpretation of stone artefacts and highlight the need for archaeologists to embrace a more dynamic view of the relationship between stone artefact manufacture and use. Show more