Lithics limited.

Lithics limited. These books belong to the same disciplinary tradition of lithic lith��ic?1?adj.Consisting of or relating to stone or rock.Adj. 1. lithic - of or containing lithium2. lithic - relating to or composed of stone; "lithic sandstone" studies and have complementary values. However, they represent differentcategories of book. The specialized subject of the book edited by BaenaPreysler only appears summarized in the manual by Andrefsky. The Cambridge manual's orientation is left implicit. However,it is rooted in functional and behavioural inference more than inculture-historical knowledge supported by traditional typologies(Preface and chapter 4). Andrefsky offers a manual of processual lithicstudies. Its anthropological allusions (mobility and sedentism, artefact See artifact. use-life, risk minimizing, time optimization, etc.) have a clearlyfunctionalist func��tion��al��ism?n.1. The doctrine that the function of an object should determine its design and materials.2. A doctrine stressing purpose, practicality, and utility.3. , materialist and ecological slant (following Binfordiantheories). Positivist principles are scattered throughout the book: datafree of theory lend themselves to an objective interpretation, multiplelines of evidence provide the foundation for more solid interpretations,non-quantified generalizations are insubstantial, etc. Yet this manual is not representative of processual lithic studies.Absent is an integrated vision of the artefacts in a cultural system.The treatment does not go beyond descriptive empiricism empiricism(ĕmpĭr`ĭsĭzəm)[Gr.,=experience], philosophical doctrine that all knowledge is derived from experience. For most empiricists, experience includes inner experience—reflection upon the mind and its . Nor does itcover corresponding topics such as supply systems, source exploitation(mines and quarries), exchange systems, etc., which relate to othersocio-economic issues (surplus, specialization, social rank, etc.). Inthis sense, the processes and contexts of the artefacts are not, forAndrefsky, defined according to cultural dimensions, but rather inreference to the material phenomena themselves: production as thematerial process of manufacture, context as material circumstances (e.g.raw material availability). Hence the effect of these processes andcontexts is also material: the morphological dynamism of the artefacts(chapter 2). Thus the artefacts are only weakly related to theirsystemic context, and the analytical approach is not problem-oriented.Developed reference to central processual issues is absent, particularlyin the analytical triad of source determination, reconstruction of themanufacturing process and functional study of artefacts. In addition,the macroscopic macroscopic/mac��ro��scop��ic/ (mak?ro-skop��ik) gross (2). mac��ro��scop��icor mac��ro��scop��i��caladj.1. Large enough to be perceived or examined by the unaided eye.2. resolution that the author imposes on the analysis is alimitation for modern lithic studies, since it fails to take advantageof either the scientific applications provided by processual archaeologyor its multi-phased analytical programmes (micro- and other techniquesin addition to macro-). For these reasons, we find only a brief(although up-to-date) review of use-wear analysis, and the bookinstructs us in neither petro-archaeological analysis for provenancestudies, nor technological analysis for reconstructing manufacturingprocesses. The title of chapter 3, 'Lithic raw materials',accurately reflects its content, given that, more than a provenancestudy with its own theoretical problems (supply systems, resourceexploitation) and methodological means (geo- and petro-archaeology),only the lithic resources are classified. In terms ofpetro-archaeological analysis, it is wrong to assign an occasional roleto microscopic as opposed to macroscopic petrography pe��trog��ra��phy?n.The description and classification of rocks.pe��trogra��pher n. and chemicalanalysis. Moreover, the background of petrological classificationoffered in this book raises confusion that limits the scope of itscorrect petrogenic orientation. Thus, for example, in the case of chert chert:see flint. ,a major lithic raw material, the term does not denote quartz but,rather, refers generically to the whole group of neogenetic siliceous siliceousrelating to or made of silica or a silicate. rocks, regardless of their quartz- or opal-based composition. Nor isopal the amorphous mineral of quartz, but of silica. In these stones,the cortex is not a product of weathering (patina) but is a surface ofdiagenetic origin between the siliceous (nodular nodularmarked with, or resembling, nodules.nodular dermatofibrosissee dermatofibrosis.nodular episcleritissee nodular fasciitis (below).nodular fasciitisa firm painless nodular swelling, 0. and bedded cherts) andtheir host rocks. Finally, the technological analysis performed in the core of thebook (chapters 5-7) is a descriptive archaeology suited to currenttechnological typology. Its attributes and analyses are not designed toguide research towards the reconstruction of manufacturing chains; andother topics are omitted (pre-treatment, refitting, replication etc.).The universal validity that Andrefsky assigns to his 'chipped stonetypology' (chapter 4) is reasonable insofar in��so��far?adv.To such an extent.Adv. 1. insofar - to the degree or extent that; "insofar as it can be ascertained, the horse lung is comparable to that of man"; "so far as it is reasonably practical he should practice as it is the sametypology generally used in positivist lithic studies. Yet thisempiricism is not related to behaviour, and the author does not findwell-founded formulae to explain the variability of its materialmanifestations. From summary to summary, no solid behavioural inferenceemerges, thereby leading easily to the ahistorical a��his��tor��i��cal?adj.Unconcerned with or unrelated to history, historical development, or tradition: "All of this is totally ahistorical. considerations at thevery end of the book. Far from a more holistic processual milieu (chapters 8 and 9), thismanual of course does not at all reflect post-processual contributionsto studies of material culture. The processual antithesis thatneo-Marxist and culturalist anthropology develops according topost-positivist science leads us to a radical criticism. Although herewe considered it more pertinent to review the book in relation to itsown academic references, this and other lacks detract from the diversitythat a manual of this type should offer. Lithics is a book of technological typology oriented by aprocessual archaeology of the most classical positivist bent, comparableto the renewed typological approaches of current culture-historicalarchaeology. With this broad academic forum, the readership for thisbook is potentially vast. Its easy reading, happily light onneo-positivist formulae, quantifications and statistics, and itsexcellent graphic documentation, recommendable and instructive toconsult, make this book uncommonly accessible on these technical andarid subjects of description and formal classification of flaked lithicartefacts. The book edited by Baena Preysler treats a specialized subject oflithic studies: flaked lithic technology from experimental simulation.It is an ambitious project which, in 12 chapters and 5 appendices,embraces extensive technical knowledge of topics common in thesestudies: raw materials, pre-treatment, work hygiene and safety, hard andsoft hammers, fracture mechanics, percussion and pressure flaking,retouch, etc. However, beyond the indisputable fruits of savoir tailler,of which this book would be an example, these processual replicationstudies have weak and debatable theoretical foundations. Given that the book is competent throughout, the deficientgeological and petrological background proves disappointing, andinexplicable in view of the processual requirements of experimentalcontrol. It is striking that the classification of the raw materials hasa style more fitting for an inventory of resources for knappers, ratherthan of petrology petrology,branch of geology specifically concerned with the origin, composition, structure, and properties of rocks, primarily igneous and metamorphic, and secondarily sedimentary. and fracture mechanics. Of greater disciplinary scope, the scientism sci��en��tism?n.1. The collection of attitudes and practices considered typical of scientists.2. The belief that the investigative methods of the physical sciences are applicable or justifiable in all fields of inquiry. and empiricism ofthese studies does not match the problem-oriented processual approach.Once situated within this theoretical framework, post-processualculturalism and anti-positivism mark a new scientific direction. Yet theonly formalized debate is typically empiricist, with regard toexperimental control, from which an unfruitful dichotomy results insavoir tailler between scientific and non-scientific contexts (on thispoint, see Andrefsky, p. 6). As in other comparable books, there is noreference to the theoretical debate on contemporary archaeology. Nor dothey present lithic replication on their cognitive map of lithicstudies. The validity of lithic experimental simulation is determined by itsdesign, in relation to socio-cultural and material factors. First ofall, this approach should have theoretical control, whereby the relevantempirical protocol of the experiments can be determined. In this sense,the variables of processual lithic replication (flaking aptness of therock, execution time, waste volume, individual abilities, practicalutility, etc.) may be irrelevant in the post-processual conception ofmaterial-culture production. The socio-cultural dimensions andstructures - such as the supply systems, surplus and specializedproduction as well as expedient and occasional production, regionalexchange, ritual consumption, etc. - are responsible for the complex andirreproducible material phenomena of flaked flint assemblages. They arepolygenic polygenic/poly��gen��ic/ (pol?e-jen��ik) pertaining to or determined by several different genes. pol��y��gen��icadj. puzzles. From this perspective, the empiricist direction isindisputably erroneous. As in similar cases, this is a major source book for learning andspecialized reference in lithic technology and replication, rather thana programmatic proposal for an experimental project. Written in Spanish,the book will be well received in the academic circles of many countriesof the world.