Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Preface and Acknowledgments
- List of Contributors
- PART I INTRODUCTION, BACKGROUND, AND REVIEW
- PART II PRODUCTION, REDUCTION, AND RETOUCH
- 3 Comparing and Synthesizing Unifacial Stone Tool Reduction Indices
- 4 Exploring Retouch on Bifaces: Unpacking Production, Resharpening, and Hammer Type
- 5 The Construction of Morphological Diversity: A Study of Mousterian Implement Retouching at Combe Grenal
- 6 Reduction and Retouch as Independent Measures of Intensity
- 7 Perforation with Stone Tools and Retouch Intensity: A Neolithic Case Study
- 8 Exploring the Dart and Arrow Dilemma: Retouch Indices as Functional Determinants
- PART III NEW PERSPECTIVES ON LITHIC RAW MATERIAL AND TECHNOLOGY
- PART IV EVOLUTIONARY APPROACHES TO LITHIC TECHNOLOGIES
- Index
- References
6 - Reduction and Retouch as Independent Measures of Intensity
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 22 August 2009
Edited by
Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Preface and Acknowledgments
- List of Contributors
- PART I INTRODUCTION, BACKGROUND, AND REVIEW
- PART II PRODUCTION, REDUCTION, AND RETOUCH
- 3 Comparing and Synthesizing Unifacial Stone Tool Reduction Indices
- 4 Exploring Retouch on Bifaces: Unpacking Production, Resharpening, and Hammer Type
- 5 The Construction of Morphological Diversity: A Study of Mousterian Implement Retouching at Combe Grenal
- 6 Reduction and Retouch as Independent Measures of Intensity
- 7 Perforation with Stone Tools and Retouch Intensity: A Neolithic Case Study
- 8 Exploring the Dart and Arrow Dilemma: Retouch Indices as Functional Determinants
- PART III NEW PERSPECTIVES ON LITHIC RAW MATERIAL AND TECHNOLOGY
- PART IV EVOLUTIONARY APPROACHES TO LITHIC TECHNOLOGIES
- Index
- References
Summary
Abstract
This paper presents the argument that common interpretations of “reduction intensity” in fact conflate two different and at times independent processes. Reduction intensity should be restricted to an analysis of technological stages of raw material reduction and blank production, an overall process commonly referred to as the reduction sequence. Retouch intensity, by contrast, reflects changes to finished blanks and technological remnants arising from and related to function and use. The importance of the distinction lies in the identification of separate processes that may reveal elements of mobility, settlement pattern, and social intensification among prehistoric populations. This paper proposes that intensity should be analyzed in a reduction/retouch matrix and presents examples of such analyses.
INTRODUCTION
The “reduction thesis” (Shott 2005) has become the most powerful framework for understanding the most durable material element of the prehistoric archaeological record. The framework has emerged from analysis of varied cultural and temporal contexts by numerous researchers. This research, however, shares a common recognition of lithic reduction as a process of continual material removal that may profoundly affect the shape and size of any stone artifact.
Similarly to other papers in this volume (Andrefsky; Quinn et al.; Wilson and Andrefsky), this paper will argue that the common assessment of what is termed “reduction” intensity most frequently evaluates only one aspect of those effects: retouch or more generally utilization intensity, that is, changes arising from and related to function and use.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Lithic TechnologyMeasures of Production, Use and Curation, pp. 136 - 149Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2008
References
2006. Experimental and Archaeological Verification of an Index of Retouch for Hafted Bifaces. American Antiquity 71:743–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1991. Raw Material Exploitation in the Levantine Epi-Paleolithic. In Raw Material Economies among Prehistoric Hunter-Gatherers, edited by and , pp. 357–97. University of Kansas Publications in Anthropology No. 19, Lawrence.Google Scholar
1980. Willow Smoke and Dogs' Tails: Hunter–Gatherer Settlement Systems and Archaeological Site Formation. American Antiquity 45:4–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2003. End Scraper Reduction and Hunter–Gatherer Mobility. American Antiquity 68:141–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and . 1995. Flake Typologies and Alternative Approaches: An Experimental Assessment. Lithic Technology 20:100–115.Google Scholar
, and . 1999. Examining Stage and Continuum Models of Flake Debris Analysis: An Experimental Approach. Journal of Archaeological Science 26:105–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1994. Technological Organization and Prehistoric Hunter–Gatherer Mobility: Examination of the Hayes Site. In The Organization of North American Prehistoric Chipped Stone Tool Technologies, edited by , pp. 35–44. International Monographs in Prehistory. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
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
1987. The Interpretation of Middle Paleolithic Scraper Morphology. American Antiquity 52:109–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and , 1995. The Effect of Hammer Mass and Velocity on Flake Weight, Journal of Archaeological Science 22:429–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , and . 1995. The Use of Raw Materials at Combe–Capelle Bas. In The Middle Paleolithic Site of Combe–Capelle Bas (France), edited by , , and , pp. 259–87. University Museum Press, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
, , , , , and . 2005. Defining and Measuring Reduction in Unifacial Stone Tools. Journal of Archaeological Science 32:1190–1206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1997. La circulation des matières premières au Paléolithique (two volumes). ERAUL 75, Liège.Google Scholar
1999. La mobilité des groupes paléolithiques. Bulletins et Mémoires de la Société d'Anthropologie de Paris, n.s., 11:219–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and . 1985. Flakeshavers: Morphometric, Functional, and Life-Cycle Analyses of a Paleoindian Unifacial Tool Class. Archaeology of Eastern North America 13:35–57.Google Scholar
1989. Correlations between Reduction Strategies and Settlement Patterns. In Alternative Approaches to Lithic Analysis, edited by , and , pp. 139–55. Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association 1, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
1991. Resharpening Reduction and Lithic Assemblage Variability across the Middle to Upper Paleolithic Transition. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor.
1990. A Geometric Index of Reduction for Unifacial Stone Tools. Journal of Archaeological Science 17:583–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1985. Lithics and Livelihood: Stone Tool Technologies of Central and Southern Interior British Columbia. Archaeological Survey of Canada Paper 13. National Museums of Canada, Ottawa.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1988. The Curation of Stone Tools during the Upper Pleistocene: A View from the Central Negev, Israel. In Upper Pleistocene Prehistory of Western Eurasia, edited by , and , pp. 87–94. University Museum Press, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
, , and . 1991 Raw Material Usage in the Paleolithic. The Effect of Local Availability on Selection and Economy. In Raw Material Economies among Prehistoric Hunter–Gatherers, edited by , and , pp. 127–39. University of Kansas Publications in Anthropology No. 19, Lawrence.Google Scholar
, and . 1989. Investigating Patterning in Debitage from Experimental Bifacial Core Reduction. In Experiments in Lithic Technology, edited by , and , pp. 67–88. British Archaeological Reports International Series 528, Oxford.Google Scholar
1991. Lithic Acquisition, Settlements, and Territory in the Epigravettian of Central Europe. In Raw Material Economies among Prehistoric Hunter–Gatherers, edited by , and , pp. 205–20. University of Kansas Publications in Anthropology No. 19, Lawrence.Google Scholar
, , , and . 1968. The Analysis of Certain Major Classes of Upper Paleolithic Tools. American School of Prehistoric Research Bulletin 26. Peabody Museum, Harvard University, Cambridge.Google Scholar
1977. Intersite Variability in the Mousterian Occupation of the Avdat/Aqev Area. In Prehistory and Paleoenvironments in the Central Negev, Israel, Vol. 1. The Avdat/Aqev Area, Part 1, edited by , pp. 113–40. Southern Methodist University Press, Dallas.Google Scholar
1971. Some Quantitative Experiments in Handaxe Manufacture. World Archaeology 3:85–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2005. The Reduction Thesis and Its Discontents: Overview of the Volume. In Lithics “Down Under”: Australian Perspectives on Lithic Reduction, Use and Classification, edited by , and , pp. 109–25. British Archaeological Reports International Series 1408, Oxford.Google Scholar
, and . 1982. An Analysis and Application of the Size Distribution of Waste Flakes from the Manufacture of Bifacial Stone Tools. World Archaeology 14:84–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2003. A Regional Perspective on Early and Middle Woodland Prehistory in Pennsylvania. In Foragers and Farmers of Early and Middle Woodland Periods in Pennsylvania, edited by , and , pp. 1–33. Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, Harrisburg.Google Scholar
- 4
- Cited by