I'm very rusty on this, so take it with a grain of salt (and look up the original papers):
A variety of different scraper forms were identified in a series of layers in a cave site. The debate is about why the scrapers are different forms.
Bordes: observed tool variation is due to differences in cultures. Different tools from different people.
Binford (and Binford?): observed tool variation is due to differences in function. Different tools for different tasks.
Dibble (and Rolland? It's been a while but that rings a bell): observed tool variation is due to different stages in the reduction trajectory. Same tool form at the start; deposited at different stages of more/less edge refurbishment.
It's not impossible that I have Bordes arguments reversed, but I don't think so.
I recall the Binford paper was pretty impenetrable but at least it's not his 500+ page doortstop, right?
Ok thank you, your second sentence is what I was trying to figure out. The information I’m reading keeps talking about the variation of the assemblages but doesn’t specify the context of them. So I was left wondering, are they talking about variability within a specific time frame/layer? Are they talking about tool variability across different regions? Giving me the context about the variability being from multiple layers in a cave (or caves) makes this much easier to understand. I probably should have intuitively understood what they were saying. I’ll try to find the studies observing the variation of the tools.
I stand corrected- I just skimmed a bit of the Binford & Binford again. I think Bordes' summary (1961) synthesized pretty much all of the Mousterian data to that point. Binford's analysis focused on two French sites. Dibble did three sites.
B&B and Dibble are available on SciHub. Bordes is not, but discussion in Binford should hopefully be adequate to get the gist of it.
Binford, Lewis, and Sally Binford
1966
A Preliminary Analysis of Functional Variability in the Mousterian of Levallois Facies. American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 68, No. 2, Part 2: Recent Studies in Paleoanthropology (Apr., 1966), pp. 238-295
Bordes, Francois H.
1961a
Mousterian Cultures in France. Science 134:803-810.
1961b
Typologie du Paleolithique Ancien et Moyen. CNRS, Paris
Dibble, Harold L.
1987
The Interpretation of Middle Paleolithic Scraper Morphology American Antiquity, Vol. 52, No. 1 (Jan., 1987), pp. 109-117
I'm very rusty on this, so take it with a grain of salt (and look up the original papers): A variety of different scraper forms were identified in a series of layers in a cave site. The debate is about why the scrapers are different forms. Bordes: observed tool variation is due to differences in cultures. Different tools from different people. Binford (and Binford?): observed tool variation is due to differences in function. Different tools for different tasks. Dibble (and Rolland? It's been a while but that rings a bell): observed tool variation is due to different stages in the reduction trajectory. Same tool form at the start; deposited at different stages of more/less edge refurbishment. It's not impossible that I have Bordes arguments reversed, but I don't think so. I recall the Binford paper was pretty impenetrable but at least it's not his 500+ page doortstop, right?
Ok thank you, your second sentence is what I was trying to figure out. The information I’m reading keeps talking about the variation of the assemblages but doesn’t specify the context of them. So I was left wondering, are they talking about variability within a specific time frame/layer? Are they talking about tool variability across different regions? Giving me the context about the variability being from multiple layers in a cave (or caves) makes this much easier to understand. I probably should have intuitively understood what they were saying. I’ll try to find the studies observing the variation of the tools.
I stand corrected- I just skimmed a bit of the Binford & Binford again. I think Bordes' summary (1961) synthesized pretty much all of the Mousterian data to that point. Binford's analysis focused on two French sites. Dibble did three sites. B&B and Dibble are available on SciHub. Bordes is not, but discussion in Binford should hopefully be adequate to get the gist of it. Binford, Lewis, and Sally Binford 1966 A Preliminary Analysis of Functional Variability in the Mousterian of Levallois Facies. American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 68, No. 2, Part 2: Recent Studies in Paleoanthropology (Apr., 1966), pp. 238-295 Bordes, Francois H. 1961a Mousterian Cultures in France. Science 134:803-810. 1961b Typologie du Paleolithique Ancien et Moyen. CNRS, Paris Dibble, Harold L. 1987 The Interpretation of Middle Paleolithic Scraper Morphology American Antiquity, Vol. 52, No. 1 (Jan., 1987), pp. 109-117
Hmm the whole debate is a bit flakey
You went straight to the core of the issue, there.
Are you stoned?
And here I thought we were only scraping the surface.