In the article, “Core/Biface Ratios, Mobility, Refitting, and Artifact Use-Lives,” Douglas Bamforth and Mark Becker take off where Parry and Kelly left off with the use of core/biface ratios. They analyze another group of southwestern Paleo-Indian sites to show that variability within these groups such a great extent that using core/biface ratios alone will not account for. They restate what Parry and Kelly found, which shows that mobile hunter-gatherers typically have more bifaces while sedentary groups have more cores. Therefore, low core/biface ratios illustrate a highly mobile group, while high core/biface ratios show a more sedentary lifestyle.
They present many arguments against Parry and Kelly’s analysis by showing that assumptions can lead to errors. First, they claim that the assumption that artifacts accurately represent the tool kits used by prehistoric people is very unreliable. Sites with short occupations will leave behind fewer artifacts than groups that stay in one spot. Therefore, highly mobile groups will never leave an accurate portrayal of their tool kit at one site. Also, the use-lives of portable bifaces tend to be longer, leading towards its discard at the site it was used very unlikely. Bamforth and Becker also state that cores tend to pass through sites more often, leading to more instances of expedient reduction sequences.
They also show that there are regional differences between Paleo-Indian sites, even in the southwest Plains area. In their results, they show that higher core/biface ratios occur in the north and east, while lower values occur in the southern and western portions of the western United States. Bamforth and Becker show that this has nothing to do with raw material availability, but rather errors in the method of using cores only. They claim that other production debris should also be considered in the analysis of lithics to determine mobility. This way you can determine the frequencies of retouched pieces in an assemblage.
Bamforth and Becker claim that retouch frequencies are a better proxy for technological change, rather than Parry and Kelly’s core/biface method. When analyzing cores only, it only accounts for changes in sedentism. People can remain in one spot and never change their reduction strategy; however, core/biface ratios will not account for this because of the amounts of lithics that come with staying put in one spot. Therefore, even if this was the case, the core/biface ratios of the cores on site will indicate an expedient reduction regardless of the technological strategy utilized. By analyzing retouched pieces would show an increase in retouched frequencies if a formal strategy is used in a logistical setting. Therefore, retouch frequencies are a better indication of technological change.
Bamforth and Becker show that at the Allen Site in North America, the core/biface ratios show that the site was occupied for a short duration. However, several large bifacial cores as well as knives are available at the site. They also refitted a sequence of lithics which show that higher ratios were calculated then just the recovered artifacts. This shows that including debitage and other production debris is important in the analysis of mobility. Cores will only lead to faulty conclusions since they only represent a small portion of a given assemblage. Bamforth and Becker did an excellent job of pointing out the flaws and errors with the use of cores as a proxy of both technological change and prehistoric land-use strategies. By showing that the variation in Paleo-Indian assemblages can lead to different results when analyzing their lithics, they illustrated the point to never use one sole method to determine prehistoric lifestyles.
Douglas B. Bamforth and Mark S. Becker. Core/biface ratios: Mobility, refitting, and artifact use-lives: A Paleoind. Plains Anthropologist, Aug 2000; 45, 173, 273-290.
No comments:
Post a Comment