Stone Tools pp 81-99 | Cite as

Is Curation a Useful Heuristic?

  • Stephen E. Nash
Part of the Interdisciplinary Contributions to Archaeology book series (IDCA)

Abstract

The heuristic value of the concept of “curation” is examined at two levels. First, Binford’s assertion that Middle Paleolithic stone tool assemblages are “largely non-curated” is tested in an analysis of nominal data from five stratigraphically distinct assemblages from Tabun Cave. The data suggest that behavior commonly described as “curation” was, in fact, present during the Middle Paleolithic. This leads to a more theoretical examination of what exactly “curation” has come to mean in archaeological interpretation. A review of the literature suggests that the “curation” concept has been used to describe and explain a great deal of morphological, technological, and assemblage-level variability with little or no standardization achieved in its usage. In fact, it is evident that “curation” now means vastly different things to different archaeologists. Archaeologists should, at the very least, make explicit their use of the term and concept; and archaeology might be better served if some standardization in usage could be achieved.

Keywords

Stone Tool Base Camp American Antiquity Lithic Technology Archaeological Literature 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Anderson-Gerfaud, P. 1990. Aspects of Behavior in the Middle Palaeolithic: Functional Analysis of Stone Tools from Southwest France. In The Emergence of Modern Humans, edited by P. Mellars, pp. 389–418. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh.Google Scholar
  2. Bamforth, D. B. 1986. Technological Efficiency and Tool Curation. American Antiquity 51: 38–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Binford, L. R. 1973. Interassemblage Variability: The Mousterian and the “Functional” Argument. In The Explanation of Culture Change: Models in Prehistory, edited by C. Renfrew, pp. 227–254. Duckworth, London.Google Scholar
  4. Binford, L. R. 1976. Forty-Seven Trips: A Case Study in the Character of Some Formation Processes of the Archaeological Record. In Contributions to Anthropology: The Interior Peoples of Northern Alaska, edited by E. S. Hall, Jr., pp. 299-381. Paper No. 49. National Museum of Canada, Ottawa.Google Scholar
  5. Binford, L. R. 1978. Nunamiut Ethnoarchaeology. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  6. Binford, L. R. 1979. Organization and Formation Processes: Looking at Curated Technologies. Journal of Archaeological Research 35: 255–273.Google Scholar
  7. Binford, L. R. 1980. Willow Smoke and Dog’s Tails: Hunter-Gatherer Settlement Systems and Archaeological Site Formation. American Antiquity 45: 4–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bleed, P. J. 1986. The Optimal Design of Hunting Weapons: Maintainability and Reliability. American Antiquity 51: 737–747.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chase, P. G., and H. L. Dibble. 1987. Middle Paleolithic Symbolism: A Review of Current Evidence and Interpretations. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 6: 263–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dibble, H. L. 1984. Interpreting Typological Variation of Middle Paleolithic Scrapers: Function, Style, or Sequence of Reduction? Journal of Field Archaeology 11: 431–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dibble, H. L. 1987a. The Interpretation of Middle Paleolithic Scraper Morphology. American Antiquity 52: 109–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dibble, H. L. 1987b. Reduction Sequences in the Manufacture of Mousterian Implements of France. In The Pleistocene Old World, edited by O. Soffer, pp. 33–45. Plenum Press, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dibble, H. L. 1988. Typological Aspects of Reduction and Intensity of Utilization of Lithic Resources in the French Mousterian. In The Upper Pleistocene Prehistory of Western Eurasia, edited by H. Dibble and A. Montet-White, pp. 181–197. University Museum Press, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
  14. Draper, N. 1985. Back to the Drawing Board: A Simplified Approach to Assemblage Variability. World Archaeology 17: 3–17.Google Scholar
  15. Frison, G. C. 1968. A Functional Analysis of Certain Chipped Stone Tools. American Antiquity 33: 149–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. G. & C. Merriam Company. 1973. Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary. Springfield, MA.Google Scholar
  17. Gallagher, J. P. 1977. Contemporary Stone Tools in Ethiopia: Implications for Archaeology. Journal of Field Archaeology 4: 407–414.Google Scholar
  18. Gould, R. A., D. A. Koster, and A. H. L. Sontz. 1971. The Lithic Assemblages of the Western Desert Aborigines of Australia. American Antiquity 36: 149–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gramly R. M. 1980. Raw Material Source Areas and “Curated” Tool Assemblages. American Antiquity 45: 823–833.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hayden, B. 1975. Curation: Old and New. In Primitive Art and Technology, edited by J. S. Raymond, B. Loveseth, C. Arnold, G. Reardon, pp. 47–59. University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada.Google Scholar
  21. Holdaway, S. 1989. Were There Hafted Projectile Points in the Mousterian? Journal of Field Archaeology 16: 79–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jelinek, A. J. 1975. A Preliminary Report on Some Lower and Middle Paleolithic Industries from Tabun Cave, Mount Carmel, Israel. In Problems in Prehistory: North Africa and the Levant, edited by F. Wendorf and A. Marks, pp. 297–316. Southern Methodist University Press, Dallas.Google Scholar
  23. Jelinek, A. J. 1982. The Tabun Cave and Paleolithic Man in the Levant. Science 216: 1369–1375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jelinek, A. J. 1988. Technology, Typology, and Culture in the Middle Paleolithic. In The Upper Pleistocene Prehistory of Western Eurasia, edited by H. Dibble and A. Montet-White, pp. 199–212. University Museum Press, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
  25. Jeske, R. J. 1992. Energetic Efficiency and Lithic Technology. American Antiquity 57: 467–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Johnson, J. K. 1989. The Utility of Reduction Trajectory Modeling as a Framework for Regional Analysis. In Alternative Approaches to Lithic Analysis, edited by D. Henry and G. Odell, pp. 119-138. Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association, no. 1.Google Scholar
  27. Kuhn, S. L. 1991. “Unpacking” Reduction: Lithic Raw Material Economy in the Mousterian of West-Central Italy. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 10: 76–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kuhn, S. L. 1992. Blank Form and Reduction as Determinants of Mousterian Scraper Morphology. American Antiquity 57: 115–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Magne, M. P. R. 1989. Lithic Reduction Stages and Assemblage Formation Processes. In Experiments in Lithic Technology, edited by D. S. Amick, and R. P. Maudlin, pp. 15–31. BAR International Series 528, Oxford.Google Scholar
  30. Marks, A. E. 1988. The Curation of Stone Tools during the Upper Pleistocene: A View from the Central Negev. In Upper Pleistocene Prehistory of Western Eurasia, edited by H. Dibble and A. Montet-White, pp. 275–286. University Museum Press, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
  31. Munday F. C. 1976. Intersite Variability in the Mousterian of the Central Negev. In Prehistory and Paleoenvironments in the Central Negev, Israel, Volume I. The Avdat/Aqev Area, edited by A. Marks, pp. 113-140. Institute for the Study of Earth and Man, Southern Methodist University, Dallas.Google Scholar
  32. Munday, F. C. 1977. Nahal Aqev (D35): A Stratified, Open-Air Mousterian Occupation in the Avdat/Aqev Area. In Prehistory and Paleoenvironments in the Central Negev, Israel, Volume II. The Avdat/Aqev Area, edited by A. Marks, pp. 35-60. Institute for the Study of Earth and Man, Southern Methodist University, Dallas.Google Scholar
  33. Nash, S. E. 1991. Curation during the Middle Paleolithic: A Reasonable Research Focus? Master’s Thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Arizona. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
  34. O’Connell, J. F. 1987. Alyawara Site Structure and Its Archaeological Implications. American Antiquity 52: 74–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Otte, M. 1992. The Significance of Variability in the European Mousterian. In The Middle Paleolithic: Adaptation, Behavior, and Variability, edited by H. L. Dibble and P. Mellars, pp. 45–52. University Museum Press, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
  36. Parry, W J., and R. L. Kelly. 1987. Expedient Core Technology and Sedentism. In The Organization of Core Technology, edited by J. Johnson and C. Morrow, pp. 285–304. Westview Press, Boulder.Google Scholar
  37. Pokotylo, D. L., and C. C. Hanks. 1989. Variability in Curated Technologies: An Ethnoarchaeological Case from the MacKenzie Mountains, Northwest Territories, Canada. In Experiments in Lithic Technology, edited by D. Amick and R. Maudlin, pp. 49–66. BAR International Series 528, Oxford.Google Scholar
  38. Sackett, J. R. 1982. Approaches to Style in Lithic Archaeology. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 1: 59–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Shea, J. J. 1988. Spear Points from the Middle Paleolithic of the Levant. Journal of Field Archaeology 15: 441–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Shott, M. J. 1989. On Tool-Class Use Lives and the Formation of Archaeological Assemblages. American Antiquity 54: 9–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Slaughter, M. C., L. Fratt, K. Anderson, and R. V. N. Ahlstrom. 1992. Making and Using Stone Artifacts: A Context for Evaluating Lithic Sites in Arizona. SWCA, Inc., Environmental Consultants, Tucson.Google Scholar
  42. Solecki, R. L. 1992. More on Hafted Projectile Points in the Mousterian. Journal of Field Archaeology 19: 207–212.Google Scholar
  43. Torrence, R. 1983. Time Budgeting and Hunter-Gatherer Technology. In Hunter-Gatherer Economy in Prehistory: A European Perspective, edited by G. Bailey, pp. 11–22. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  44. Toth, N. 1985. The Oldowan Reassessed: A Close Look at Early Stone Artifacts. Journal of Archaeological Science 12: 101–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stephen E. Nash
    • 1
  1. 1.University of ArizonaTucsonUSA

Personalised recommendations