“Prehistoric Technology” 40 years later: functional studies and the Russian Legacy Interpreting Stone Tools (original) (raw)

Clearly what was needed was some way of identifying activities, some concepts with linked definitions that would permit me to recognize a past activity from empirical techniques that could be used for isolating activity areas. I hoped that if we could see such areas then we might be able to develop concepts and definitions sufficient to identify activities (Binford, 1978. Nunamiut Ethnoarchaeology, 6-7) The main goal of archaeology, through the recognition of the fundamental relationship between stone tools production and human behaviour, should be the reconstruction of relationships between the techniques, economies and social dynamics performed by human groups. Despite the application of numerous and diverse types of methods and the development of many typological schemes, the behavioural significance of lithic production variability has remained mostly unsolved, generating lively discussion in the scientific community. Many of the arguments feeding the never-ending “New Archaeology” debate/s, some of which still relevant in Post-processual theoretical framework, had already been discussed at length by S. A. Semenov, as already embedded in his methodological approach. In fact he discovered and elaborated a proper methodology devoted to the investigation of tools functions by means of the experimental-traceological analyses, which was a real breakthrough in archaeology. The publication (1964) of his seminal work entitled “Prehistoric Technology” in English contributed to the world recognition and rapid development of the experimental and use-wear studies in many countries (for historical reviews see: Cook, Dumont, 1987; Levitt, 1979; Olausson; 1978). This work opened for archaeologists a new and very promising research field. Considering the holistic of his approach it should be stressed that Semenov never considered the results of the study of use-wear traces on ancient tools as a final objective of the research. For him these results were just a step towards the solution of different general questions, including such important issues like the reconstruction of technological development and disclosures about the economic and social consequences of technological progress (Bordes, 1967; 1972; Binford, 1978; Crabtree, 1982; O’Connel, 1995; White, Thomas, 1972).