Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-rkzlw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-10T14:03:58.223Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

6 - Reduction and Retouch as Independent Measures of Intensity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 August 2009

By
Brooke Blades
Edited by
William Andrefsky, Jr
William Andrefsky, Jr
Affiliation:
Washington State University
Get access

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.

Information

Type
Chapter
Information
Lithic Technology
Measures of Production, Use and Curation
 , pp. 136 - 149
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

Andrefsky, William Jr. 2006. Experimental and Archaeological Verification of an Index of Retouch for Hafted Bifaces. American Antiquity 71:743–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bar-Yosef, O. 1991. Raw Material Exploitation in the Levantine Epi-Paleolithic. In Raw Material Economies among Prehistoric Hunter-Gatherers, edited by Montet-White, A. and Holen, S., pp. 357–97. University of Kansas Publications in Anthropology No. 19, Lawrence.Google Scholar
Binford, L. 1980. Willow Smoke and Dogs' Tails: Hunter–Gatherer Settlement Systems and Archaeological Site Formation. American Antiquity 45:4–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blades, B. 2003. End Scraper Reduction and Hunter–Gatherer Mobility. American Antiquity 68:141–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bradbury, A., and Carr, P.. 1995. Flake Typologies and Alternative Approaches: An Experimental Assessment. Lithic Technology 20:100–115.Google Scholar
Bradbury, A., and Carr, P.. 1999. Examining Stage and Continuum Models of Flake Debris Analysis: An Experimental Approach. Journal of Archaeological Science 26:105–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carr, P. 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 Carr, P., pp. 35–44. International Monographs in Prehistory. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
Clarkson, C. 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
Dibble, H. 1987. The Interpretation of Middle Paleolithic Scraper Morphology. American Antiquity 52:109–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dibble, H., and Pelcin, A., 1995. The Effect of Hammer Mass and Velocity on Flake Weight, Journal of Archaeological Science 22:429–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dibble, H., Roth, B., and Lenoir, M.. 1995. The Use of Raw Materials at Combe–Capelle Bas. In The Middle Paleolithic Site of Combe–Capelle Bas (France), edited by Dibble, H., Roth, B., and Lenoir, M., pp. 259–87. University Museum Press, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
Eren, Metin I., Dominguez-Rodrigo, Manual, Kuhn, Steven L., Adler, Daniel 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
Féblot-Augustins, J. 1997. La circulation des matières premières au Paléolithique (two volumes). ERAUL 75, Liège.Google Scholar
Féblot-Augustins, J. 1999. La mobilité des groupes paléolithiques. Bulletins et Mémoires de la Société d'Anthropologie de Paris, n.s., 11:219–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grimes, J., and Grimes, B.. 1985. Flakeshavers: Morphometric, Functional, and Life-Cycle Analyses of a Paleoindian Unifacial Tool Class. Archaeology of Eastern North America 13:35–57.Google Scholar
Henry, D. 1989. Correlations between Reduction Strategies and Settlement Patterns. In Alternative Approaches to Lithic Analysis, edited by Henry, D., and Odell, G., pp. 139–55. Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association 1, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Holdaway, S. 1991. Resharpening Reduction and Lithic Assemblage Variability across the Middle to Upper Paleolithic Transition. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor.
Kuhn, S. 1990. A Geometric Index of Reduction for Unifacial Stone Tools. Journal of Archaeological Science 17:583–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Magne, M. P. R. 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
Marks, A. 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 Dibble, H., and Montet-White, A., pp. 87–94. University Museum Press, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
Marks, A., Shokler, J., and Zilhão, J.. 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 Montet-White, A., and Holen, S., pp. 127–39. University of Kansas Publications in Anthropology No. 19, Lawrence.Google Scholar
Mauldin, R., and Amick, D.. 1989. Investigating Patterning in Debitage from Experimental Bifacial Core Reduction. In Experiments in Lithic Technology, edited by Amick, D., and Mauldin, R., pp. 67–88. British Archaeological Reports International Series 528, Oxford.Google Scholar
Montet-White, A. 1991. Lithic Acquisition, Settlements, and Territory in the Epigravettian of Central Europe. In Raw Material Economies among Prehistoric Hunter–Gatherers, edited by Montet-White, A., and Holen, S., pp. 205–20. University of Kansas Publications in Anthropology No. 19, Lawrence.Google Scholar
Movius, H. L. Jr., David, N., Bricker, H., and Clay, R. B.. 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
Munday, F. 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 Marks, A., pp. 113–40. Southern Methodist University Press, Dallas.Google Scholar
Newcomer, M. 1971. Some Quantitative Experiments in Handaxe Manufacture. World Archaeology 3:85–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shott, M. 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 Clarkson, C., and Lamb, L., pp. 109–25. British Archaeological Reports International Series 1408, Oxford.Google Scholar
Stahle, D., and Dunn, J.. 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
Stewart, R. M. 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 Raber, P., and Cowan, V., pp. 1–33. Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, Harrisburg.Google Scholar

Accessibility standard: Unknown

Accessibility compliance for the PDF of this book is currently unknown and may be updated in the future.

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@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
×