[잡담] [디노]저장..

[디노]

All of these problems lead to the possibility that Bordes' typology can be interpreted in different ways. Actually, the two authors of this Handbook have different views and assumptions concerning this typology(see Dibble and Debenath 1991). For Debenath, and for Bordes himself (Bordes 1965, 1969; Bordes and de Sonneville-Bordes 1970) most of these types are assumed to reflect intentional end-products that were behaviorally and cognitively meaningful, that is , what the prehistoric flintknapper wanted to make for specific purposes. In this view, variability within individual type categories is seen as deviations from a conscious norm, as errors, ad hoc accommodations to specific circumstances, such as blank morphology, or due to other outside factors, such as the use of raw materials with different flaking qualities. Variability between type categories, on the other hand, is thought to relate to differences in style (different peoples or cultures who make different desired endproducts because of choice) or to reflect different activities that required specific tools.
Dibble, on the other hand, takes the view that while mpst of the tools were deliberately retouched to achieve a desired working edge, variability in overall morphology among many of these types is more continuous in nature. He believes that typology in general represents an arbitrary partitioning of that variability. Thus, for him, the types represent neither modal categories nor intentional endproducts, but more or less arbitrary categorizations of pieces that were reworked and rejuvenated until they were no longer or useful or desired and then discarded. So, while the flakes were undoubtedly delibberately retouched to achieve a suitable working edge, the overall morphology of the final piece is not, in his view, intentional or necessarily desirable.
These are obviously quite different views concerning the interpretation of the typology and they do lead directly to differences in interpretation of assemblage variability. However, it is equally obvious that both of the authors use the same typology and believe it to be important for Paleolithic research. This is because without a standardized typelist, there is simply no possiblity of comparing and intergrating the material from sites that span such a wide geographical and temporal spread. A descriptive typology such as Bordes' addresses that need and so is useful to proponents of both views. Thus, while interpretations of the types may change significantly in the future, this does not in itself mean that the typology itself must be replaced, unless of course, the type distinctions are found to be either completely uninterpretable (in which case the typology may be producing only so much "noise"), or of little relevance to current theoretical problems Hopefully, any such changes would, at the outset, be based on a more thorough understanding of the factors affecting lithic morphological and technological variability. Unfortunately, such an understanding has still to be achieved.

ORGANIZATION AND SCOPE OF THE HANDBOOK

This Handbook departs from Bordes' typology in a number of ways. In particular, it presents many additional types that have have been defined by other authors, especially for some of the Central European material. While not every published type has been included here, an attempt has been made to describe the most commonly recognized ones.
A second, and more subtle, departure is in terms of how the types are presented. For each type, a more or less formal definition is presented, often the original type definition. But as was discussed above, it sometimes seems that some of these Middle and Lower Paleolithic type categories reflect partitions along a continuum of variability, at least insofar as their morphologies are measured according to today's systematics. It is not enough to learn so many ideal forms, or "mental templates" ; it is perhaps more important to learn the boundaries, of cutoffs, between types. These must be internalized to the point that newly encountered objects, each one unique in its morphology, can be correctly (or at least, consistently) classified. Therefore, the presentation of only a few "ideal" examples of each type is inappropriate. Instead, in this Handbook we try to present many examples of each type in order to give an idea of the kinds of intratype variability that one can and does encounter and we also try to offer some guide to the implicit type boundaries by contrasting easily confused types.
Unfortunately, Lower and Middle Paleolithic typology still remains subjective. There are no explicit, objective, or unambiguous criteria given here for differentiating convergent scrapers from Musterian points, or for deciding whether a percoir is typical or atypical. This is because such criteria do not yet exist. This may be confusing to the novice, but it is essential that he or she understands that these sorts of problems exist. And because of this subjectivity it cannot be claimed that this Handbook is anyting more than a starting point for learning the typology. It still requires an enormous amount of experience with actual material to become proficient. A third departure from Bordes' typology is that this Handbook is not intended to be a defense of the "reality" or "accuracy" of the types presented here, but rather to be an introduction to the major aspects of lithic typological variability in the European Lower and Middle Paleolithic as it is currently recognized. where relevant, an attempt is made to introduce students to the current debates over the interpretation of these types, though it is not our intention to argue for or against any particular position. Thus, while many interpretive issues are raised here, most are left unresolved. In large part, this only reflects the current state of Lower and Middle Paleolithic typology.
It is certain that debates over the meaning of Lower and Middle Paleolithic assemblage variability will continue for many years. To be most effective, however, the participants of these debates must all share a standard descriptive vocabulary. The typology represents a major part of this vocabulary and therefore something that must be learned by everyone concerned with these industries or the hominids responsible for them.
This Hand book is divided into two parts. The first, which begins with this Introduction, is intended to provide some background to the study of Paleolithic lithic assemblages. Thus, Chapter 2 presents an overview of how stone tools are made as well as some of the common terms that are used to describe both them and the by-products of their manufactures. Chapter 3 describes some of the techniques and technologies that are often recognized in Lower and Middle Paleolithic industries.
Part II is concerned with the presentation of actual named types, organized primarily according to major typological classes. Chapter 4 presents those types that have been defined not according to the type of retouch they exhibit but rather on the basis of the technology used to produce the blank.
These include such types as Leval‎lois flakes and naturally-backed Knives. Chapter 5 through 9 cover the retouched flake tools, such as scrapers, notches, and points, as well as the various "Upper Paleolithic" types sometimes found in Lower and Middle Paleolithic contexts. Chapter 10 and 11 deal with core tools, such as choppers and bifaces.
There are two appendices. The first offers an overview of what has come to be known as the "Bordian Method" for presenting typological and technological descriptions of Lower and Middle Paleolithic assemblages. This includes not only the presentation of type counts but also the calculation of various indices as well. Appendix II is listing of the sources and proveniences for each of the illustrated tools.

오늘 하루 이 문장들을 해석하며 보냈습니다..

안녕하세요? 디노입니다..
어제밤에 이것들 해석 다 했는데..(Report 제출용..)

오늘 낮에 마지막 몇 문장 남겨두고 졸려서 잤기 때문에..
몇 문장 마저 해석하고 기쁘게 끝내야지.. 라고 생각했는데..

컴터켜고 파일을 열어보니..
해석된 문장이 없는 겁니다..;;

어제 밤에 저장을 안해두고 그냥 잔 모양입니다..
결국 다시 매달려서 2시간 후에 다 해석할 수 있었죠..;;
(오늘 낮 2시에 일어났기 때문에..^^: )

저장하는 습관을 꼭 잊어버리지 않도록 합시다..
대략 낭패라는..;;


이 작은 벤치 위 그리움에 낙서를 하며..

[bluemoon]

저장의비극;;; 이해합니다'-'

[Qoo ~~]

원문 해석한것도 올려줘요..ㅋ

[실버마우스]

ㅎㅎㅎ 저도 전에 피볼뻔 했다는...ㅋㅋㅋㅋ

[peepsky]

뭐야? 책이 엄청 두껍다는 거잖아...?

[디노]

저거 chapter 1 일부분이야.. 그리고 그렇게 두껍지는 않아.. 좀 클 뿐이야..

[실버마우스]

ㅋㅋㅋ 좀 클뿐이야...ㅋㅋ

[빙하속의불꽃]

미리보기 하다가 에러나서 다 날라가는 경우도 있었어~

[스타게이트]

좀 크다라...ㅋㅋㅋ 저런거 한번 날리믄...피눈물인데..ㅎ;;;;디노형 고생했으..ㅎ;;