A Formal Approach to the Design and Assembly of Mobile Toolkits

It is widely believed that the design of transported artifacts and toolkits employed by mobile populations is influenced by two main factors, portability and potential utility. Choices about the kinds of artifacts to carry around can be modeled as an optimization problem, in which it is beneficial to obtain the greatest potential utility for the minimum total weight. This study approaches the problem analytically, making a few simple assumptions about artifact geometry and the relations between utility and artifact size. If artifact utility is calculated as a function of potential for renewal, transported toolkits should consist entirely of relatively small finished tools. Moreover, most gains in durability or multifunctionality that require increases in overall size are outweighed by increased transport cost. Inconsistencies between these expectations and ethnographic and archaeological observations point to situations in which artifact functionality is more closely constrained by overall size or mass.

[1]  J. Brannan.  On Modeling Resource Transport Costs: Suggested Refinements , 1992, Current Anthropology.

[2]  R. Gould,et al.  The Lithic Assemblage of the Western Desert Aborigines of Australia , 1971, American Antiquity.

[3]  L. Binford.  Organization and Formation Processes: Looking at Curated Technologies , 1979, Journal of Anthropological Research.

[4]  Robert L. Kelly,et al.  Coming into the Country: Early Paleoindian Hunting and Mobility , 1988, American Antiquity.

[5]  Kevin T. Jones,et al.  Calculating the Cost of Resource Transportation: A Great Basin Example , 1989, Current Anthropology.

[6]  Douglas B. Bamforth,et al.  Technological Organization of Paleoindian Small-Group Bison Hunting On the Llano Estacado , 1985 .

[7]  Lorna Marshall,et al.  15 Sharing, Talking, and Giving: Relief of Social Tensions among the !Kung , 1976 .

[8]  James O. Berger,et al.  Ockham's Razor and Bayesian Analysis , 1992 .

[9]  S. Kuhn.  On Planning and Curated Technologies in the Middle Paleolithic , 1992, Journal of Anthropological Research.

[10]  Douglas B. Bamforth,et al.  Technological Organization and Hunter-Gatherer Land Use: A California Example , 1991, American Antiquity.

[11]  James F. O'Connell,et al.  A prehistory of Australia, New Guinea, and Sahul , 1982 .

[12]  Douglas B. Bamforth,et al.  Technological Efficiency and Tool Curation , 1986, American Antiquity.

[13]  R. Gould,et al.  Yiwara: Foragers of the Australian Desert , 1969 .

[14]  H. S. Morris,et al.  Economic Structive and the Ceremonial Exchange Cycle in Arnhem Land , 1951 .

[15]  Duncan Metcalfe,et al.  A Model for Exploring the Optimal Trade‐off between Field Processing and Transport , 1992 .

[16]  Michael Shott,et al.  Technological Organization and Settlement Mobility: An Ethnographic Examination , 1986, Journal of Anthropological Research.

[17]  R. M. Gramly.  Guide to the Palaeo Indian Artifacts of North America , 1990 .

[18]  Peter Bleed,et al.  The Optimal Design of Hunting Weapons: Maintainability or Reliability , 1986, American Antiquity.

[19]  Robert L. Kelly,et al.  The Three Sides of a Biface , 1988, American Antiquity.

[20]  George C. Frison,et al.  Prehistoric hunters of the High Plains , 1978 .

[21]  G. Frison.  The Casper site : a Hell Gap bison kill on the high plains , 1974 .

[22]  B. Bradley,et al.  Fluting of Folsom Points. In the Agate Basin Site: a Record of the Paleoindian Occupation of the Northwestern High Plains , 1982 .

[23]  S. Kuhn,et al.  Subsistence, Technology, and Adaptive Variation in Middle Paleolithic Italy , 1992 .

[24]  B. Bradley,et al.  Folsom Tools and Technology at the Hanson Site, Wyoming , 1980 .