The world we live in today has continuously evolved from ancient times to the current 21st century. Due to technological advancements, work equipment has advanced with better shapes and utility. Some activities carried out by human beings today require specialized tools for efficiency. In the old stone age, ethnocentric communities made tools from stones, which they used in activities such as mining and farming.
Since different tasks require specific resources, multiple techniques were improvised to output desired results, while some tools were only made from specific stones. According to Hussein and Will (2020), ethnographic studies have not yet incorporated the fact that object-oriented approaches have influenced the growth and development of archaeological theory. This paper is a review of the “Materiality, Agency and Evolution of Lithic Technology: An Integrated Perspective for Palaeolithic Archaeology” article, exploring materiality and the evolution of ethnocentrism technologies in tool making.
The authors’ hypothesis is to conduct a re-assessment of materiality theory and to broadly re-articulate the debate about the evolution of the human species. The main topics of the study include its agency and the study of the evolution of lithic technology. Lithic technologies refer to methods used to make tools from different stones. Some tools are viewed valuable than others, which is the rationale behind the materiality theory. The article writers tested their theories by incorporating ecological, technical, and evolutionary human relations. The methodologies used include literature case studies which helped to collect data about material things and how we can use them to connect to the past.
The article’s conclusion indicates that the authors differ from archaeologists’ beliefs by proving that object-oriented research creates new perspectives and promotes awareness about the prehistory evolution of species. The extraction of raw materials from the landscape resulted in the wide spread of stone resources and other lithic objects (Hussain & Will, 2020). In response to paleolithic records, the authors criticize the fact that they have collapsed many years of human activities by providing survivorship-biased information. Researchers are assumed to cope with available history despite its uncertainties and gaps in past events. The implication of inferior attributes about the records has influenced the prevalence of the perspective that there is a reduced utility of material-hierarchic approaches in paleolithic history.
The authors’ orientation about the deficiency of paleolithic records seems a little confusing to me. I think that the availability of ancient information would be more effective in creating awareness and educating people about lithic technology’s evolution. The authors’ suggestion about the scarcity of information seems biased because only the research-interested people will be enlightened about their past, while the rest of the world remains ignorant about paleolithic archaeology. I chose to review the article because it would help to refine my superstition about the evolution of technical tools that we use today, as well as its relevance to my understanding of this course.
In conclusion, researching the history of material objects and techniques applied in manufacturing industries today creates knowledge about the evolution of lithic technology in a hierarchic approach since the old stone age. I learned that tool making was taboo since the tools were made by professionals and stone specialists. Just like today, professionals practice perfection and expertise in a career for personal and public benefits. The utilization of natural resources is useful in creating effective tools to aid in daily human activities. The article is a good example of scholarly information regarding paleolithic studies and the evolution of lithic technology.
Reference
Hussain, S. T., & Will, M. (2020). Materiality, agency, and evolution of lithic technology: An integrated perspective for Palaeolithic archaeology. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, Vol. 28(2), pp. 617-670. Web.