Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Technological Efficiency and Tool Curation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017


Douglas B. Bamforth
Affiliation:
Anthropology Department, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA 93106

Abstract

Archaeologists frequently explain tool curation by its efficiency. Such explanations ignore the fact that curation is a complex activity and that its component parts are efficient in different ways. I argue that the nature and distribution of lithic resources critically affect technological efficiency and I discuss two aspects of curation, maintenance and recycling, asserting that they are responses to raw material shortages. Shortages result from regional geological conditions and from behavior patterns that restrict access to raw material in certain contexts. Ethnographic and archaeological examples support this hypothesis and highlight the relationship between subsistence-settlement organization, raw material distribution, and technology.


Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for American Archaeology 1986

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.

References

Arnold, Jeanne E. 1979 The Crude Bifaces, or Preforms, from Vandenberg Air Force Base, California. Ms. on file, Social Process Research Institute, University of California, Santa Barbara.Google Scholar
Bamforth, Douglas B. 1983 The Chipped Stone Evidence for Prehistoric Land-use Patterns on the San Antonio Terrace, Vandenberg Air Force Base. Social Process Research Institute, University of California, Santa Barbara.Google Scholar
Bamforth, Douglas B. 1985 The Technological Organization of Paleoindian Small-Group Bison Hunting on the Llano Estacado. Plains Anthropologist 30: 243258.Google Scholar
Binford, L. R. 1973 Interassemblage Variability— The Mousterian and the “Functional” Argument. In The Explanation of Culture Change, edited by Renfrew, Colin, pp. 227254. Duckworth, London.Google Scholar
Binford, L. R. 1977 Forty-seven Trips, la Stone Tools as Cultural Markers, edited by Wright, R. V. S., pp. 2436. Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, Canberra.Google Scholar
Binford, L. R. 1979 Organization and Formation Processes: Looking at Curated Technologies. Journal of Anthropological Research 35: 255273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Binford, L. R. 1980 Willow Smoke and Dogs’ Tails: Hunter-gatherer Settlement Systems and Archaeological Site Formation. American Antiquity 45: 117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cowgill, George L. 1977 The Trouble with Significance Tests and What We Can Do about It. American Antiquity 42: 350368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frison, George 1978 Prehistoric Hunters of the High Plains. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Glassow, Michael 1983 Prehistoric Chronology. In Archaeological Investigations on the San Antonio Terrace, Vandenberg Air Force Base, California, in Connection with M-X Facilities Construction, pp. 7. 1-7. 7. Chambers, Consultants and Planners, Stanton.Google Scholar
Grivetti, Mark 1983 Chert Source Identification. In The Chipped Stone Evidence for Prehistoric Land-use Patterns on the San Antonio Terrace, Vandenberg Air Force Base by Bamforth, Douglas B.. Social Process Research Institute, University of California, Santa Barbara.Google Scholar
Holliday, Vance T., and Welty, Curtis M. 1981 Lithic Tool Resources of the Eastern Llano Estacado. Bulletin of the Texas Archaeological Society 52: 201214.Google Scholar
Hudson, Jean 1983 Report on the Analysis of Vertebrate Faunal Remains from M-X Related Archaeological Collections. Social Process Research Institute, University of California, Santa Barbara.Google Scholar
Johnson, Eileen 1985 Lubbock Lake: Late Quaternary Studies on the Southern High Plains. The Center for the Study of Early Man, Orono, Maine, in press.Google Scholar
Keeley, L. H. 1980 Experimental Determination of Stone Tool Uses. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Keeley, L. H. 1982 Rehafting and Retooling: Effects on the Archaeological Record. American Antiquity 47: 798809.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, Chester 1971 Chumash Inter-village Economic Exchange. The Indian Historian 4: 3143.Google Scholar
Landberg, L. C. W. 1975 The Chumash Indians of Southern California. Southwest Museum Papers no. 9. Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Lee, Richard B. 1979 The IKung San. Cambridge University Press, New York.Google ScholarPubMed
Moore, Jerry D., and Snethkamp, Pandora 1982 Prehistoric and Historic Land-use Strategies on the San Antonio Terrace: A Research Design to Guide Archaeological Studies in Support of the M-X Missile Test Facility at Vandenberg Air Force Base, California. Rev. Ed. Chambers, Consultants and Planners, Stanton, California.Google Scholar
Mueller, J. F., and Schuessler, K. F. 1961 Statistical Reasoning in Sociology. Houghton-Mifflin, Boston.Google Scholar
Serena, J. 1983 Analysis of Marine Shellfish Remains from M-X Related Archaeological Collections. Social Process Research Institute, University of California, Santa Barbara.Google Scholar
Snethkamp, Pandora 1981 Prehistoric and Historic Land-use Strategies on the San Antonio Terrace: A Research Design to Guide Archaeological Studies in Support of the M-X Missile Test Facility on Vandenberg Air Force Base, California. Chambers, Consultants and Planners, Stanton, California.Google Scholar
Spanne, Lawrence W. 1975 Preform or Finished Artifact? In Papers on the Chumash. San Luis Obispo County Archaeological Society Occasional Papers no. 9, pp. 4859.Google Scholar
Torrence, Robin 1983 Time Budgeting and Hunter-gatherer Technology. In Pleistocene Hunters and Gatherers in Europe, edited by Bailey, G., pp. 1122. Cambridge University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Yellen, John E. 1977 Archaeological Approaches to the Present. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Yerkes, Richard 1983 Microwear, Microdrills, and Mississippian Craft Specialization. American Antiquity 48: 499518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Full text views

Full text views reflects PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 36 *
View data table for this chart

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 20th January 2017 - 3rd December 2020. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Hostname: page-component-79f79cbf67-n2swh Total loading time: 0.676 Render date: 2020-12-03T08:45:09.800Z Query parameters: { "hasAccess": "0", "openAccess": "0", "isLogged": "0", "lang": "en" } Feature Flags last update: Thu Dec 03 2020 08:06:21 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) Feature Flags: { "metrics": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "peerReview": true, "crossMark": true, "comments": true, "relatedCommentaries": true, "subject": true, "clr": false, "languageSwitch": true }

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Technological Efficiency and Tool Curation
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Technological Efficiency and Tool Curation
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Technological Efficiency and Tool Curation
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *