PCI Archaeology

322

Title *

A return to function as the basis of lithic classificationuse asterix (*) to get italics

Authors *

Radu IovitaPlease use the format "First name initials family name" as in "Marie S. Curie, Niels H. D. Bohr, Albert Einstein, John R. R. Tolkien, Donna T. Strickland"

Year *

2024

Picture *

Abstract *

<p>Complex tool use is one of the defining characteristics of our species, and, because of the good preservation of stone tools (lithics), one of the few which can be studied on the evolutionary time scale. However, a quick look at the lithics literature reveals that, although our natural human tendency is to talk about tools in general primarily in terms of their functions (e.g., hammer, knife, etc.), our stone tool typologies contain a mixture of terms relating to function, manufacturing method, and shape, mixing assumptions of different levels of intentionality and determination. As such, they are unsuitable as units in larger evolutionary analyses. In this paper, I argue based on the psychological literature that function is the primary concept underlying tool concepts in humans and non-human primates. Furthermore, knowing how function is represented and learned in both human and non-human primates offers insights into the reasons why the majority of lithic typologies currently in use throughout the world are insufficient and how the information they contain could be rearranged departing from functional determinations to lead to more meaningful analyses. To that end, I modify F. Sigaut’s tripartite breakdown of function to correspond to the documented psychological concepts to propose a pragmatic and theoretically palatable system for classifying lithics based on a combination of the causality of the tool’s physical properties, the embeddedness in the user’s biological system, and the recorded use history. These can be objectively defined and gleaned from archaeological specimens through the study of wear traces. I discuss the necessary methodological improvements upon which such a classification method is predicated and consider the necessary investments that must be made to realize its potential. </p>

Indicate the full web address (DOI or URL) giving public access to these data (if you have any problems with the deposit of your data, please contact contact@archaeo.peercommunityin.org). In case all raw data are included in the preprint, indicate the DOI or URL of the preprint. *

You should fill this box only if you chose 'All or part of the results presented in this preprint are based on data'. URL must start with http:// or https://

Indicate the full web address (DOI or URL) giving public access to these scripts (if you have any problems with the deposit of your scripts, please contact contact@archaeo.peercommunityin.org). In case all raw scripts are included in the preprint, indicate the DOI or URL of the preprint. *

You should fill this box only if you chose 'Scripts were used to obtain or analyze the results'. URL must start with http:// or https://

Indicate the full web address (DOI, SWHID or URL) giving public access to these codes (if you have any problems with the deposit of your codes, please contact contact@archaeo.peercommunityin.org). In case all raw codes are included in the preprint, indicate the DOI or URL of the preprint. *

You should fill this box only if you chose 'Codes have been used in this study'. URL must start with http:// or https://

Keywords (optional)

None

Methods that require specific expertise (optional)

NonePlease indicate the methods that may require specialised expertise during the peer review process (use a comma to separate various required expertises).

Thematic fields *

Ancient Palaeolithic, Lithic technology, Theoretical archaeology, Traceology

Suggested reviewers - Suggest up to 10 reviewers (provide names and Email addresses). (Optional)

e.g. John Doe john@doe.com

No need for them to be recommenders of PCIArchaeology. Please do not suggest reviewers for whom there might be a conflict of interest. Reviewers are not allowed to review preprints written by close colleagues (with whom they have published in the last four years, with whom they have received joint funding in the last four years, or with whom they are currently writing a manuscript, or submitting a grant proposal), or by family members, friends, or anyone for whom bias might affect the nature of the review - see the code of conduct

Opposed reviewers - Suggest up to 5 people not to invite as reviewers. (Optional)

e.g. John Doe john@doe.com

Submission date

2023-03-14 19:01:40

Recommender

Sébastien Plutniak

Reviewers

or Register
Submit a preprint