Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-x4r87 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T19:54:47.446Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

7 - Perforation with Stone Tools and Retouch Intensity: A Neolithic Case Study

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 August 2009

William Andrefsky, Jr
Affiliation:
Washington State University
Get access

Summary

Abstract

A measure of retouch intensity, the EKCI, was devised based upon function and archaeological context. To arrive at the function of Pre-Pottery Neolithic A el-Khiam points from the Near East, controlled experiments were performed to determine the relative density of the contact material, which could affect use and retouch patterns. It was shown that el-Khiam points were likely used to pierce and scrape soft materials such as leather. The EKCI was then devised, measured, and tested. Experimental replication showed that the EKCI was an accurate measure of retouch intensity, and application of the EKCI to the lithic assemblage at Dhra' reaffirmed the EKCI's utility for analyzing PPNA archaeological assemblages. Although this curation index is effective for el-Khiam points, it may not be applicable to other hafted point types, which highlights the need for independently developed measures of retouch that account for the form, function, and context of the artifacts rather than attempting to generate universal measures of curation.

INTRODUCTION

Archaeological assemblages from the first farming villages in the Southern Levant have produced high-quality and large-quantity lithic data sets that Near Eastern archaeologists rely upon for interpreting the past. This vast resource of prehistoric knowledge has remained relatively untapped as a source of understanding individual decision-making in prehistoric lithic technology, especially from the perspective of artifact life histories and retouch intensity.

Type
Chapter
Information
Lithic Technology
Measures of Production, Use and Curation
, pp. 150 - 174
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.)

References

Andrefsky, William Jr. 1986. A Consideration of Blade and Flake Curvature. Lithic Technology 15(2):48–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andrefsky, William Jr. 2005. Lithics: Macroscopic Approaches to Analysis. 2nd ed. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andrefsky, William Jr. 2006. Experimental and Archaeological Verification of an Index of Retouch for Hafted Bifaces. American Antiquity 71:743–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bar-Yosef, Ofer, and Gopher, Avi, eds. 1997. An Early Neolithic Village in the Jordan Valley. Part 1. The Archaeology of Netiv Hagdud. American School of Prehistoric Research, Peabody Museum, Harvard University Cambridge, MA.
Blades, Brooke S. 2003. End Scraper Reduction and Hunter–Gatherer Mobility. American Antiquity 68:141–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clarkson, Chris. 2002. An Index of Invasiveness for the Measurement of Unifacial and Bifacial Retouch: A Theoretical, Experimental and Archaeological Verification. Journal of Archaeological Science 29:65–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, Z. J., and Shea, J. J.. 1998. Quantifying Lithic Curation: An Experimental Test of Dibble and Pelcin's Original Flake-Tool Mass Predictor. Journal of Archaeological Science 25:603–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dibble, H. L. 1998. Comment on “Quantifying Lithic Curation: An Experimental Test of Dibble and Pelcin's Original Flake-Tool Mass Predictor,” by Z. J. Davis and J. J. Shea. Journal of Archaeological Science 25:611–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dibble, H. L., and Pelcin, A. W.. 1995. The Effect of Hammer Mass and Velocity on Flake Mass. Journal of Archaeological Science 22:429–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dibble, H. L., and Whittaker, J. C.. 1981. New Experimental Evidence on the Relation between Percussion Flaking and Flake Variation. Journal of Archaeological Science 8:283–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eren, Metin I., Dominguez-Rodrigo, Manual, Kuhn, Steven L., Adler, Danial S., Le, Ian, and Bar-Yosef, Ofer. 2005. Defining and Measuring Reduction in Unifacial Stone Tools. Journal of Archaeological Science 32:1190–1206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finlayson, Bill, Kuijt, I., Arpin, T., Chesson, M., Dennis, S., Goodale, N., Kadowaki, S., Maher, L., Smith, S., Schurr, M., and McKay, J.. 2003. Dhra' Excavation Project, 2002 Interim Report. Levant 35:1–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodale, Nathan, Kuijt, Ian, and Finlayson, Bill. 2002. The Chipped Stone Assemblage of Dhra', Jordan: Preliminary Results on Technology, Typology, and Intra-assemblage Variability. Paleorient 28(1): 115–30.Google Scholar
Goodale, Nathan, and Smith, Sam J.. 2001. Pre-pottery Neolithic A Projectile Points at Dhra', Jordan: Preliminary Thoughts on Form, Function, and Site Interpretation. Neo-Lithics 2/01:1–5.Google Scholar
Kuhn, Steven L. 1990. A Geometric Index of Reduction for Unifacial Stone Tools. Journal of Archaeological Science 17:585–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuijt, Ian. 1994. Pre-pottery Neolithic A Settlement Variability: Evidence for Sociopolitical Developments in the Southern Levant. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 7(2):165–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuijt, Ian. 2001. Lithic Inter-assemblage Variability and Cultural–Historical Se quences: A Consideration of the Pre-pottery Neolithic A Period Occupation of Dhra', Jordan. Paleorient 27(1):107–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuijt, Ian, and Finlayson, Bill. 2001. The 2001 Excavation Season at the Pre-pottery Neolithic A Period Settlement of Dhra' Jordan: Preliminary Results. Neo-Lithics 2/01:12–15.Google Scholar
Kuijt, Ian, and Mahasneh, H.. 1995. Preliminary Excavation Results from Dhra' and ‘Ain Waida. American Journal of Archaeology 99:508–11.Google Scholar
Kuijt, Ian, and Mahasneh, H. 1998. Dhra': An Early Neolithic Site in the Jordan Valley. Journal of Field Archaeology 25:153–61.Google Scholar
Pelcin, A. W. 1996. Controlled Experiments in the Production of Flake Attributes. Ph.D. thesis, University of Pennsylvania.
Pelcin, A. W. 1998 The Threshold Effect of Platform Width: A Reply to Davis and Shea. Journal of Archaeological Science 25:615–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shott, Michael J. 1996. An Exegesis of the Curation Concept. Journal of Anthropological Research 52:259–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shott, Michael J., Bradbury, Andrew P., Carr, Philip J., and Odell, George H.. 2000. Flake Size from Platform Attributes: Predictive and Empirical Approaches. Journal of Archaeological Science 27:877–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shott, Michael J., and Sillitoe, Paul. 2005. Use Life and Curation in New Guinea Experimental Used Flakes. Journal of Archaeological Science 32:653–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Sam. 2005. A Comparative Analysis of the Form and Function of Chipped Stone Artefacts from Wadi Faynan 16 and Dhra': Implications for the Description and Interpretation of Early Neolithic Chipped Stone Variability. Ph.D. thesis, University of Reading.

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×