CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 435Archaeological and Geological StudiesPleistocene-Era Hominins and ArchaeologyLanguage and cultural evolution

A Formal Approach to the Design and Assembly of Mobile Toolkits

Kuhn, Steven L.·1994·American Antiquity
DOI 10.2307/282456
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

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. , ResumenExiste una creencia generalizada que sostiene que el diseño de artefactos y conjuntos de herramientas transportados y empleados por poblaciones móbiles está influenciado por dos factores principales, portabilidad y utilidad potencial. La selección de las clases de artefactos que se transportan puede ser modelada como un problema de optimización, en el cual es provechoso obtener la mayor utilidad potencial por el menor peso total. Este estudio enfoca el problema analiticamente, y utiliza pocos supuestos simples sobre la geometría del artefacto y las relaciones entre utilidad y tamaño del artefacto. Si la utilidad del artefacto se calcula como una función del potencial de renovación, los conjuntos de herramientas transportados consisten enteramente en herramientas acabadas y de tamaño relativamente pequeño. Además, la mayoría de los beneficios en cuanto a durabilidad y funcionalidad múltiple que requieren encrementos de tamaño están limitados por el incremento en el costo de transporte. Inconsistencias entre estos supuestos y las observaciones etnográficas y arqueológicas señalan situaciones en las que la funcionalidad del artefacto está constreñida por su tamaño o masa.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2307/282456

Cites

32 of 32 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 16

  1. Frison, 1974, The Casper Site : A Hell Gap Bison Kill
  2. Binford, 1977, Stone Tools as Cultural Markers, 24
  3. Reher, 1991, Raw Material Economies Among Prehistoric Hunter-Gatherers, 161
  4. Jaubert, 1990, Documents d'Archeologie Francaise No. 27.
  5. Gramly, 1990, Guide to the Paleoindian Artifacts of North America
  6. Torrence, 1983, Hunter-Gatherer Economy in Prehistory, 11
  7. Holen, 1991, Raw Material Economies Among Prehistoric Hunter-Gatherers, 399
  8. Gould, 1980, Living Archaeology
  9. Hitchcock, 1982, Unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology
  10. Marshall, 1976, Kalahari Hunter-Gatherers : Studies of the IKung and Their Neighbors, 349
  11. Kozlowski, 1991, Raw Material Economies Among Prehistoric Hunter-Gatherers, 187
  12. Geneste, 1989, La Grotte Vaufrey a Cenac et Saint-Julien (Dordogne). Paleoenvironnement, chronologie et activites humaines, 441
  13. Rensink, 1991, Raw Material Economies Among Prehistoric Hunter-Gatherers, 141
  14. Ellis, 1989, Eastern Paleoindian Lithic Resource Use, 139
  15. Ebert, 1979, Ethnoarchaeology, 59
  16. Tindale, 1965, Stone Implement Making Among the Nakako, Ngadadjara and Pitjandjara of the Great Western Desert, Records of the South Australian Museum, 15, 131

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Kuhn, S. L.
Affiliations
University of Arizona (US)
Corresponding author
Kuhn, Steven L.
Venue
American Antiquity
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Published
1994-07
Volume
59
Issue
3
Pages
426-442
ISSN
  • 0002-7316 (ISSN-L)
  • 2325-5064
DOI
10.2307/282456
OpenAlex
W2328907567
Cited by
435
References
32
Citations by year
2026: 23 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 30 · 2020: 25 · 2019: 23 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 21 · 2016: 25 · 2015: 31 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 23 · 2012: 12
FWCI
102.85
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.cambridge.org/core/terms (unspecified, 8239 d)
Locations
American Antiquity (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Archeology › Archaeological and Geological Studies
  • Social Sciences › Anthropology › Pleistocene-Era Hominins and Archaeology
  • Social Sciences › Cultural Studies › Language and cultural evolution
Keywords
portability, transportation costs, durability, multifunctionality, tool design, material culture

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review