Evaluating Lithic Strategies and Design Criteria

Abstract

One aspect I find particularly interesting about this article is the authors’ focus on constraints on tool design (fig 1 pll) which might be of use to my research for estimating degrees of tool production. The core of their argument centres on the difficulty of demonstrating many of the “buzzwords” of lithic analysis. “Maintainability”, for example, is difficult to demonstrate, as is “reliability” for tools can have traces of both, which undermines Bleed’s (1986) system of differentiating tools (Hayden et al, 1996:13). The main problems with the lithic strategies are: 1. Vague referent for concepts, usually encompassing tool classes or whole assemblages instead of specific examples (Hayden et al, 1996:40) 2. Need to operationalize definitions of criteria so that they can be easily recognized by other researchers. Although some work has been done there is still the strong tendency to rely on overly subjective measures in the place of quantifiable ones (Hayden et al, 1996:41). 3. Models to explain abstract ideas like longevity or curatin are lacking in testability, limiting their use (Hayden et al, 1996:41). I find their wish for a more holistic approach to usewear analysis quite appropriate, and it fits in with the overall discontentment I have with many aspects of use wear analysis. Many researchers appear content to analyze stone tools and then leave it at that, without tying the data to the larger picture of the culture itself, and that needs change.