-
8. Tool Use and Technological Choices: An Integral Approach toward Functional Analysis of Caribbean Tool Assemblages
- The University of Alabama Press
- Chapter
- Additional Information
8 Tool Use and Technological Choices An Integral Approach toward Functional Analysis of Caribbean Tool Assemblages Annelou L. van Gijn, Yvonne Lammers-Keijsers, and Iris Briels Introduction and Theoretical Background Archaeological research relies on the material remains of past peoples. Although this may seem obvious, it is remarkable that especially material objects have not always received maximum attention and, during much of the last century, were mainly used as chronological markers. In the last decade interest has shifted toward material culture studies, both in archaeology and in cultural anthropology. We have realized that tools are not only indispensable in subsistence and craft activities , but are also intimately connected with the social and ideational aspects of society. They are not only reflective of the social and cultural identity of their makers, but they also, through their role in daily life, structure and reinforce existing social relationships and play an important role in mediating social changes (DeMarrais et al. 2004; Dobres 2000; Graves-Brown 2000; Meyers 2001; Miller 2005; Schiffer 2001). In the same vein, even apparently insignificant objects made of stone, coral, and shell were not only essential for subsistence and craft activities but may also have structured society by the routine of their daily use. The meaning of objects may also have changed during the course of their use-life. A tool could have been used, resharpened, modified into another object, or placed as a burial gift in a grave. Each tool has therefore its biography: it was made in a specific way particular to the social and cultural traditions of its producers; it was used, maybe modified again, and finally it was rejected or deposited. In order to achieve a better understanding of the social biography of prehistoric implements, we must first understand their function. Use-wear and residue analysis offer a possibility to identify the actual use of stone tools. Experimental studies have shown that using tools made of flint, hard stone, bone, and antler re- 102 / van Gijn, Lammers-Keijsers, and Briels sult in characteristic traces, each linked to specific activities, that can be examined microscopically (Hamon 2004; Keeley 1980; Nieuwenhuis 2002; Van Gijn 1990, 2005).Additionally, identifiable residue may be left behind (Fullagar 1998; Fullagar and Furby 1997; Nieuwenhuis 2002, this volume). This is equally as relevant for distinct tool types, like arrowheads, as for unmodified shell and stone tools. The results of the use-wear analysis of stone, shell, and coral implements thus provide a clue to the past function of these implements. However, just as a kitchen chair and a royal throne are both used to sit on (thus presumably displaying the same traces of wear), their social and ideational function is entirely different. Similarly, a lithic tool like a strike-a-light, can have a direct functional application (to make fire) but may also have an ideational connotation if found in burial context (Van Gijn et al. 2006). It is therefore always very important to examine the results of use-wear and residue analysis in the archaeological context from which they derive. Tables of results are not enough. Not only is it important to examine the archaeological context in which objects were found, we also must understand the technological and functional relationships between tools made of different raw materials. In other words, we must attempt to reconstruct toolkits used for different tasks (Van Gijn in press). Traditionally , functional analyses have focused on stone tools (mostly flint) and have neglected tools made of bone, antler, shell, or coral. Methodological research in use-wear analysis over the past decade has made clear that use-wear analysis also works for these “other” materials (see Kelly and Van Gijn this volume; LammersKeijsers 2007; Maigrot 1997; Van Gijn 2005, in press). The functions of the toolkits in a technological system form a basis to trace the choices past people made in the selection of raw materials, in the production techniques used, and in the selection of tools. Such choices are reflective of the social and cultural identity of the users because of the cultural embedding of technology (Appadurai 1986; Lemonnier 1993a, 1993b). By examining these technological choices in a wider archaeological context, it may be possible to understand the meaning of objects for past people and the role they play in structuring society. Obviously, this approach requires extensive functional studies of a range of different sites, something that has not yet been done on Caribbean find assemblages. Elsewhere, comparative data are available, indicating some remarkable differences in the...