William Parry and Robert Kelly offer great insights into core classification with their chapter, “Expedient Core Technology and Sedentism” in the book, The Organization of Core Technology. They begin by explaining how bifacial production leaves patterned traces in the archaeological record. As time passed into the late prehistoric and contact phases, assemblages began to reflect a more expedient core reduction technique. In these contexts, formal cores and retouched elements tend to become rare. They feel this is both a shift in response to a decreased mobility strategy, as well as a major change in technological organization.
They then explain the differences between expedient and formal reduction techniques. Expedient reduction tends to have no secondary retouch, and they are manufactured with a specific task in mind. This differs from formal technology which has a prepared form in mind. Therefore, form selection in groups associated with expedient core technology is not stressed. In this reduction sequence, flakes are struck off randomly from the core which is referred to as bipolar technique. This particularly technique, as Parry and Kelly indicate, requires no previous training or practice whatsoever. It requires little expenditure of time, and very little effort on the knapper’s part. The tools themselves that are flaked from the core are typically only used once and then discarded.
This contrasts with formal techniques, where bifaces are much harder to learn how to manufacture and take a great deal of time to do so. They also are typically used several times for a variety of tasks by retouching the edges to extend its use-life, making their cutting edges much more useful. These cores are typically standardized as well, resulting in a specific tool form. Bifaces also are very portable, allowing highly mobile groups to carry them with ease compared to large cores. This is considered a more efficient use of raw material as well, as expedient reduction is fairly wasteful since the use-lives of tools are typically very short and must be replaced with a new flake.
After describing these types of cores, they show through different groups how mobility can be determined by analyzing this type of lithic technology. The three groups they analyzed were: various North American Paleo-Indian groups (Eastern Woodlands, Plains, and Southwest groups), Mesoamerican cultures (particularly Archaic and Early Formative), and Neolithic European groups. They found that with the Paleo-Indian groups, a change towards expedient core reduction occurred around AD 500 (AD 300 for the Plains, and AD 600 for the Southwest). In some regions, the change was dramatic. In others, it was a long drawn-out process. Regardless of the speed, the shift seemed to correspond with changes in settlement patterns (i.e. – the first large permanent villages). This seemed to be the case with the other groups studied as well. Though very late (1500-1000BC), there is an emphasis on expedient core technology when very large settlements began to sprout in the region. However, the sample is small due to rarity of lithic samples from the area. Also, it has been found that in some areas, such as the Tehuacan Valley, there was an increase in formal tools. Parry and Kelly claim that this is probably a lack of sufficient data or a bias in sampling. And last but not least, the Neolithic period indicates a shift to expedient reduction compared to the Mesolithic preceding it. They claim that this is also indicative of a change in sedentism.
Parry and Kelly offer a great explanation for their results and claims. They show that the changes in core technologies is not related to other technological innovations, local conditions, raw material availability, progress, or even a shift toward agriculture. They found that in all contexts, these scenarios were not applicable. The shift was only in regard to changes in settlement patterns. As people began to become more and more sedentary, they began to change their technology in a way that would best suite their particular lifestyles. Parry and Kelly provide great examples of different groups in different regions that support their arguments.
Parry, W. and R. Kelly. Expedient Core Technology and Sedentism. In: The Organization of Core Technology, edited by J. Johnson and C. Morrow, 285-308. Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado, 1987.
No comments:
Post a Comment