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-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-02T14:48:58.799Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

3 - Comparing and Synthesizing Unifacial Stone Tool Reduction Indices

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 August 2009

By
Metin I. Eren  and
Mary E. Prendergast
Edited by
William Andrefsky, Jr
William Andrefsky, Jr
Affiliation:
Washington State University
Get access

Summary

Abstract

Intensity of stone tool reduction has important implications for understanding hominid behavior, tool use and modification, mobility, and cognitive ability. There are a variety of reduction indices available to the lithic analyst. While each has strengths and weaknesses, different index values obtained on the same stone tools do not necessarily correlate with each other. Significantly different interpretations of an assemblage may be made depending on the analyst's choice of reduction index. In this paper we demonstrate this point by presenting different reduction indices calculated for both an experimental assemblage and a sample from the La Colombière Perigordian assemblage. Additionally, this paper presents models for combining different indices in order to better understand retouch and resharpening on unifacial stone tools.

INTRODUCTION

Archaeological quantification allows comparison between groups or attributes of artifacts that may otherwise be difficult to understand. Additionally, it can organize and simplify data, as well as reveal hidden patterns in the archaeological record. Although quantification of unifacial stone tool retouching and resharpening has received considerable attention over the past twenty years (e.g., Andrefsky 2006; Clarkson 2002; Davis and Shea 1998; Dibble 1995, 1998; Dibble and Pelcin 1995; Eren et al. 2005; Hiscock and Clarkson 2005; Kuhn 1990, 1992; Pelcin 1998; Shott 2005; Shott et al. 2000; see also Clarkson, Hiscock and Clarkson, Quinn et al., all this volume), there remain several unresolved issues.

Type
Chapter
Information
Lithic Technology
Measures of Production, Use and Curation
 , pp. 49 - 85
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. 2006. Experimental and Archaeological Verification of an Index of Retouch for Hafted Bifaces. American Antiquity 71:743–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bamforth, Douglas B. 1986. Technological Efficiency and Tool Curation. American Antiquity 51(1):38–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bar-Yosef, O., and Dibble, H. L.. 1995. The Definition and Interpretation of Levallois Technology. Prehistory Press, Madison.Google Scholar
Binford, Lewis R. 1973. Interassemblage Variability – The Mousterian and the “Functional” Argument. In The Explanation of Culture Change: Models in Prehistory, edited by Renfrew, C., pp. 227–54. Duckworth, London.Google 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
Collins, M. B. 1999. Clovis Blade Technology. University of Texas Press, Austin.Google Scholar
Conard, N. J., and Adler, D. S.. 1997. Lithic Reduction and Hominid Behavior in the Middle Paleolithic of the Rhineland. Journal of Anthropological Research 53(2):147–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, Z. J., and Shea, J. J.. 1998. Quantifying Lithic Curation: An Experimental Test of Dibble and Pelcin's Original Flake-Tool Predictor. Journal of Archaeological Science 25:603–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dibble, H. L. 1995. Middle Paleolithic Scraper Reduction: Background, Clarification, and Review of the Evidence to Date. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 2(4):299–368.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 Zachary J. Davis and John J. Shea. Journal of Archaeological Science 25:611–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dibble, H. L., and McPherron, S. P.. 2006. The Missing Mousterian. Current Anthropology 47(5):777–803.CrossRef
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
Eren, M. I. 2005. “Northeastern North American Paleoindian Uniface Types: Techno-Typological Analyses of Unifacial Stone Tools from Paleo Crossing (33ME274), Ohio.” A.B. thesis, Harvard College, Cambridge, MA.
Eren, M. I., Dominguez-Rodrigo, M., Kuhn, S. L., Adler, D. S., Le, I., and Bar-Yosef, O.. 2005. Defining and Measuring Reduction in Unifacial Stone Tools. Journal of Archaeological Science 32:1190–1201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hiscock, P., and Attenbrow, V.. 2005. Australia's Eastern Regional Sequence Revisited: Technology and Change at Capertee 3. British Archaeological Reports, International Monograph Series 1397. Oxford: Archaeopress.Google Scholar
Hiscock, P., and Clarkson, C.. 2005. Experimental Evaluation of Kuhn's Geometric Index of Reduction and the Flat-Flake Problem. Journal of Archaeological Science 32:1015–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuhn, S. L. 1990. A Geometric Index of Reduction for Unifacial Stone Tools. Journal of Archaeological Science 17:583–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuhn, S. L. 1992. Blank Form and Reduction as Determinants of Mousterian Scraper Morphology. American Antiquity 57(1):115–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Movius, H. L., and Judson, S.. 1956. The Rockshelter of La Colombière: Archaeological and Geological Investigations of an Upper Perigordian Site Near Poncin (Ain). Peabody Museum, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Nash, S. E. 1996. Is Curation a Useful Heuristic? In Stone Tools: Theoretical Insights into Human Prehistory, edited by Odell, G. H., pp. 81–99. Plenum Press, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Odell, G. H. 1996. Economizing Behavior and the Concept of “Curation.” In Stone Tools: Theoretical Insights into Human Prehistory, edited by Odell, G. H., pp. 51–80. Plenum Press, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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
Sellet, F. 1993. Chaîne Opératoire: The Concept and Its Applications. Lithic Technology 18:106–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shott, M. J. 1989. On Tool-Class Use Lives and the Formation of Archaeological Assemblages. American Antiquity 54(1):9–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shott, M. J. 1995. How Much Is a Scraper? Curation, Use Rates, and the Formation of Scraper Assemblages. Lithic Technology 20(1):53–72.Google Scholar
Shott, M. J. 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, BAR International Series 1408, Archaeopress, Oxford.Google Scholar
Shott, M. J., Bradbury, A. P., Carr, P. J., and Odell, G. H.. 2000. Flake Size from Platform Attributes: Predictive and Empirical Approaches. Journal of Archaeological Science 27: 877–894.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peer, Phillip. 1992. The Levallois Reduction Strategy. Prehistory Press, Madison.Google Scholar

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
×