Lithic Core Reduction Techniques: Modeling Expected Diversity

doi:10.1017/CBO9780511499661.015

14 - Lithic Core Reduction Techniques: Modeling Expected Diversity

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 22 August 2009

Nathan B. Goodale ,

Ian Kuijt ,

Shane J. MacFarlan ,

Curtis Osterhoudt and

Bill Finlayson

Edited by

William Andrefsky, Jr

Show author details

William Andrefsky, Jr: Affiliation:
Washington State University

Book contents

Get access

Summary

Abstract

We define diversity in core reduction systems as the degree of deviation from the most efficient means to proceed from the start to the end product exhibited in a given core reduction system. Because lithic core reduction systems are often characterized along a continuum of high or low degree of diversity, some archaeologists have suggested that assemblage diversity is linked to raw material availability and quality. In this paper we provide a model that predicts when humans would favor less systematic core reduction techniques as opposed to those that are more systematic. The model incorporates three factors influencing diversity in core reduction techniques: raw material availability, raw material quality, and the ratio of producers to consumers. We provide the model and then estimate where several case examples from different archaeological contexts fit within the expectations. This allows us to generate hypotheses about the relationship of producers and consumers who manufactured the assemblages.

INTRODUCTION

The process of lithic core reduction is often described as systematic (nearly uniform) or unsystematic (highly variable) (Bleed 2001; Brantingham et al. 2000; Root 1997). For example, some core reduction systems represent human interaction with raw materials that are much more prone to knapping error and failure rates, whereas others appear to follow very specific chains (for an example of each, see Bleed 1996, 101–2).

Type: Chapter
Information: Lithic Technology
Measures of Production, Use and Curation
, pp. 317 - 336

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511499661.015 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Amick, Daniel S., and Mauldin, Raymond P.. 1997. Effects of Raw Material on Flake Breakage Patterns. Lithic Technology 22:18–32.CrossRef Google Scholar

Andrefsky, William A. Jr. 1994. Raw-Material Availability and the Organization of Technology. American Antiquity 59:21–34.CrossRef Google Scholar

Beck, Charlotte, Taylor, Amanda K., Jones, George T., Fadem, Cynthia M., Cook, Caitlyn R., and Millward, Sara A.. 2002. Rocks Are Heavy: Transport Costs and Paleoarchaic Quarry Behavior in the Great Basin. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 21:481–507.CrossRef Google Scholar

Bleed, Peter. 1996. Risk and Cost in Japanese Microblade Technology. Lithic Technology 21:95–107.CrossRef Google Scholar

Bleed, Peter. 2001. Trees or Chains, Links or Branches: Conceptual Alternatives for Consideration of Stone Tool Production and Other Sequential Activities. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 8(1):101–27.CrossRef Google Scholar

Bock, John. 2005. What Makes a Competent Adult Forager. In Hunter–Gatherer Childhoods, edited by Hewlett, B. and Lamb, M., pp. 109–28. Aldine Transaction, Somerset, NJ.Google Scholar

Brantingham, Jeffrey P., Olsen, John W, Rech, Jason A., and Krivoshapkin, Andrei I. 2000. Raw Material Quality and Prepared Core Technologies in Northeast Asia. Journal of Archaeological Science, 27:255–71.CrossRef Google Scholar

Costin, Cathy Lynne. 1991. Craft Specialization: Issues in Defining, Documenting, and Explaining the Organization of Production. In Archaeological Method and Theory V. 3, edited by Shiffer, Michael B., pp. 1–56. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.Google Scholar

Finlayson, Bill, Kuijt, Ian, Arpin, Trina, Chesson, Meredith, Dennis, Samantha, Goodale, Nathan, Kadowaki, Seji, Maher, Lisa, Smith, Sam, Schurr, Mark, and McKay, Jode. 2003. Dhra', Excavation Project, 2002 Interim Report. Levant 35:1–38.CrossRef Google Scholar

Flinn, M. V. 1996. Culture and the Evolution of Social Learning. Evolution and Human Behavior 18:23–67.CrossRef Google Scholar

Flinn, M. V. 2005. Culture and Developmental Plasticity: Evolution of the Social Brian. In Evolutionary Perspectives on Human Development, edited by Burgess, Robert L. and MacDonald, Kevin, pp. 73–98. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.CrossRef Google Scholar

Foley, R. 1985. Optimality Theory in Anthropology. Man 20(2):222–42.CrossRef Google Scholar

Goodale, Nathan B., Kuijt, Ian, and Finlayson, Bill. 2002. Results on the 2001 Excavation at Dhra', Jordan: Chipped Stone Technology, Typology, and Intra-assemblage Variability. Paléorient 28(1):125–40.CrossRef Google Scholar

Hames, Raymond. 1992. Time Allocation. In Evolutionary Ecology and Human Behavior, edited by Smith, E. A. and Winterhalder, B., pp. 203–35. Aldine de Gruyter, New York.Google Scholar

Kaplan, H., Hill, K., Lancaster, J., and Hurtado, A. M.. 2000. A Theory of Human Life History Evolution: Diet, Intelligence, and Longevity. Evolutionary Anthropology 9(5):1–30.Google Scholar

Kaplan, H. S., and Lancaster, J. B.. 2000. The Evolutionary Economics and Psychology of the Demographic Transition to Low Fertility. In Adaptation and Human Behavior: An Anthropological Perspective, edited by Cronk, Lee, Chagnon, Napoleon, and Irons, William, pp. 283–322. Aldine de Gruyter, New York.Google Scholar

Krebs, J. R., and Davies, N. B., eds. 1997. Behavioral Ecology: An Evolutionary Approach. 4th ed. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford.

Kuhn, Steven L. 1996. Middle Paleolithic Responses to Raw Material Quality: Two Italian Cases. Quaternaria Nova, 6:261–77.Google Scholar

Quintero, Leslie, and Wilke, Philip J.. 1995. Evolution and Economic Significance of Naviform Core-and-Blade Technology in the Southern Levant. Paléorient 21(1):17–33.CrossRef Google Scholar

Root, Matthew J. 1997. Production for Exchange at the Knife River Flint Quaries, North Dakota. Lithic Technology 22:33–50.CrossRef Google Scholar

Shott, Michael J. 1996. Stage versus Continuum in the Debris Assemblage from Production of a Fluted Biface. Lithic Technology 21:6–22.CrossRef Google Scholar

Smith, Eric Alden. 2000. Three Styles in the Evolutionary Analysis of Human Behavior. In Adaptation and Human Behavior, edited by Cronk, Lee, Chagnon, Napoleon, and Irons, William, pp. 27–46. Aldine de Gruyter, New York.Google Scholar

Smith, Eric Alden, and Winterhalder, Bruce. 1992. Natural Selection and Decision Making. In Evolutionary Ecology and Human Behavior: An Anthropological Perspective, edited by Smith, Eric Alden and Winterhalder, Bruce, pp. 25–60. Aldine de Gruyter, New York.Google Scholar

Wilke, Philip J., and Quintero, Leslie. 1994. Naviform Core-and-Blade Technology: Assemblage Character as Determined by Replicative Experiments. In Neolithic Chipped Stone Industries of the Fertile Crescent: Proceedings of the First Workshop on PPN Chipped Lithic Industries, Berlin 1993, edited by Gebel, H. G., and Kozlowski, S. K., pp. 33–60. Free University of Berlin, Berlin.Google Scholar

Winterhalder, Bruce. 1983. Opportunity Cost Foraging Models for Stationary and Model Predators. American Naturalist 122:73–84.CrossRef Google Scholar