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-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-02T14:56:04.588Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

2 - Lithic Reduction, Its Measurement, and Implications: Comments on the Volume

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 August 2009

By
Michael J. Shott  and
Margaret C. Nelson
Edited by
William Andrefsky, Jr
William Andrefsky, Jr
Affiliation:
Washington State University
Get access

Summary

Some years ago one of us wrote, “A glance at a chipped stone tool is enough to see that stone is a subtractive medium” (Shott 1994: 69). The statement bordered on a truism but was worth making in any event. Flakes, the small pieces of stone struck from larger objective pieces, were the subject then; the context was their abundance and diversity as generated in the production, use, and resharpening of tools. Flake analysis makes no sense without understanding the places that flakes occupy in the reduction process.

But the reductive quality of stone also informs the analysis of objective pieces themselves, not least finished tools. Accordingly, tools also are a legitimate subject of reduction studies. A deceptively profound truism worth stating once is worth rephrasing: a glance at a chipped stone tool is enough to see that it was reduced from a larger piece. But the restatement itself requires elaboration. Trivially, tools were reduced from larger objective pieces in the process of production. No one has doubted this since archaeologists demonstrated human agency in the production of stone tools. Yet many tools were further retouched by resharpening, and so continued to experience reduction during use. This is the “reduction thesis” (Shott 2005), which archaeologists did not always appreciate in the past.

This book is a milestone in the development of reduction analysis. Originating in pioneering studies such as Hoffman's (1985), until recently reduction analysis was conducted in isolation by few archaeologists.

Type
Chapter
Information
Lithic Technology
Measures of Production, Use and Curation
 , pp. 23 - 46
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

Ahler, Stanley A., and Geib, Phil R.. 2000. Why Flute? Folsom Point Design and Adaptation. Journal of Archaeological Science 27:799–820.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andrefsky, William. 1994. The Geological Occurrence of Lithic Material and Stone Tool Production Strategies. Geoarchaeology: An International Journal 9:345–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andrefsky, William. 1997. Thoughts on Stone Tool Shape and Inferred Function. Journal of Middle Atlantic Archaeology. 13:125–44.Google Scholar
Andrefsky, William. 2005. Lithics: Macroscopic Approaches to Analysis. Second edition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andrefsky, William. 2006. Experimental and Archaeological Verification of an Index of Retouch for Hafted Bifaces. American Antiquity 71:743–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arnold, Jeanne E. 1987. Technology and Economy: Macroblade Core Production from the Channel Islands. In The Organization of Core Technology, edited by Johnson, J. K. and Morrow, C. A., pp. 207–37. Westview Press, Boulder, CO.Google Scholar
Ballenger, Jesse A. M. 2001. Dalton Settlement in the Arkoma Basin of Eastern Oklahoma. Sam Noble Oklahoma Museum of Natural History Monographs in Anthropology No. 2, Norman, OK.Google Scholar
Bamforth, Douglas B. 1986. Technological Efficiency and Tool Curation. American Antiquity 51(1):38–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bamforth, Douglas B. 1991. Technological Organization and Hunter-Gatherer Land Use: A California Example. American Antiquity 56(2):216–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Binford, Lewis R. 1973. Interassemblage Variability – The Mousterian and the “Functional” Argument. In The Explanation of Culture Change, edited by Renfrew, Colin, pp. 227–54. Duckworth Press, London.Google Scholar
Binford, Lewis R. 1979. Organization and Formation Processes: Looking at Curated Technologies. Journal of Anthropological Research 35(3):255–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Binford, Lewis R., and Binford, Sally R.. 1966. A Preliminary Analysis of Functional Variability in the Mousterian of Levallois Facies. American Anthropologist 68(2):238–95.Google Scholar
Blades, Brooke S. 2003. End Scraper Reduction and Hunter–Gatherer Mobility. American Antiquity 68:141–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bleed, Peter. 1986. The Optimal Design of Hunting Weapons: Maintainability and Reliability. American Antiquity 51(4):737–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bordes, François, and Sonneville-Bordes, D.. 1970. The Significance of Variability in Palaeolithic Assemblages. World Archaeology 2:61–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buchanan, Briggs. 2006. An Analysis of Folsom Projectile Point Resharpening Using Quantitative Comparisons of Form and Allometry. Journal of Archaeological Science 33:185–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carr, Philip J. (editor). 1994. The Organization of Prehistoric North American Chipped Stone Tool Technologies. International Monographs in Prehistory, Ann Arbor, MI.
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 25:603–10.Google Scholar
Clarkson, Christopher, and Lamb, Lara. 2005. Lithics “Down Under”: Australian Perspectives on Lithic Reduction, Use and Classification. BAR International Series 1408. Oxbow, Oxford.Google Scholar
Cox, Steven L. 1986. A Re-analysis of the Shoop Site. Archaeology of Eastern North America 14:101–70.Google Scholar
Cresson, Jack. 1990. Broadspear Lithic Technology: Some Aspects of Biface Manufacture, Form, and Use History with Insights towards Understanding Assemblage Diversity. In Experiments and Observations on the Terminal Archaic of the Middle Atlantic Region, edited by Moeller, R. W., pp. 105–30. Archaeological Services, Bethlehem, CT.Google Scholar
Davis, Zachary J., and Shea, John 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, Harold L. 1995. Middle Paleolithic Scraper Reduction: Background, Clarification, and Review of Evidence to Date. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 2:299–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dibble, Harold L., and Pelcin, Andrew W.. 1995. The Effect of Hammer Mass and Velocity on Flake Mass. Journal of Archaeological Science 22:429–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, Chris. 1984. “Paleo-Indian Lithic Technological Structure and Organization in the Lower Great Lakes Area: A First Approximation.” Ph.D. diss., Department of Archaeology, Simon Fraser University.
Ellis, Chris. 2004. Understanding “Clovis” Fluted Point Variability in the Northeast: A Perspective from the Debert Site. Canadian Journal of Archaeology 28:205–53.Google Scholar
Eren, Metin, Dominguez-Rodrigo, Manuel, Kuhn, Steven L., Adler, Daniel S., Le, Ian, and Yosef, Ofer Bar. 2005. Defining and Measuring Reduction in Unifacial Stone Tools. Journal of Archaeological Science 32:1190–1201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flenniken, J. Jeffrey, and Wilke, Philip J.. 1989. Typology, Technology, and Chronology of Great Basin Dart Points. American Anthropologist 91:149–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grimes, J. R., and Grimes, B. L.. 1985. Flakeshavers: Morphometric, Functional and Life Cycle Analyses of a Paleoindian Unifacial Tool Class. Archaeology of Eastern North America 13:35–57.Google Scholar
Hayden, Brian. 1977. Stone Tool Functions in the Western Desert. In Stone Tools as Cultural Markers: Change, Evolution, and Complexity, edited by Wright, R., pp. 178–88. Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, Canberra.Google Scholar
Hiscock, Peter. 1996. Transformations of Upper Paleolithic Implements in the Dabba Industry from Haua Fteah (Libya). Antiquity 70:657–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hiscock, Peter. 1999. Revitalising Artefact Analysis. In Archaeology of Aboriginal Australia: A Reader, edited by Murray, T., pp. 257–65. Allen and Unwin, St. Leonards, New South Wales.Google Scholar
Hiscock, Peter, and Attenbrow, Val. 2005. Australia's Eastern Regional Sequence Revisited: Technology and Change at Capertee 3. BAR International Series No. 1397. Oxbow, Oxford.Google Scholar
Hiscock, Peter, and Clarkson, Chris. 2005. Measuring Artefact Reduction: An Examination of Kuhn's Geometric Index of Reduction. In Lithics “Down Under”: Australian Perspectives on Lithic Reduction, Use and Classification, edited by Clarkson, C., and Lamb, L., pp. 7–20. BAR International Series 1408. Oxbow, Oxford.Google Scholar
Hoffman, C. Marshall. 1985. Projectile Point Maintenance and Typology: Assessment with Factor Analysis and Canonical Correlation. In For Concordance in Archaeological Analysis: Bridging Data Structure, Quantitative Technique, and Theory, edited by Carr, C., pp. 566–612. Westport Press, Kansas City, MO.Google Scholar
Hughes, Susan S. 1998. Getting to the Point: Evolutionary Change in Prehistoric Weaponry. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 5:345–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunzicker, David A. 2005. “Folsom Hafting Technology: An Experimental Archaeological Investigation into the Design, Effectiveness, Efficiency and Interpretation of Prehistoric Weaponry.” M.A. thesis, Department of Museum and Field Studies, University of Colorado, Boulder.
Johnson, Jay K., and Morrow, Carol A. (editors). 1987. The Organization of Core Technology. Westview Press, Boulder, CO.
Kelly, Robert L. 1988. The Three Sides of a Biface. American Antiquity 53(4):717–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelly, Robert L., and Todd, Lawrence C.. 1988. Coming into the Country: Early Paleoindian Hunting and Mobility. American Antiquity 53:231–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuhn, Steven L. 1990. A Geometric Index of Reduction for Unifacial Stone Tools. Journal of Archaeological Science 17:583–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuhn, Steven L. 1991. “Unpacking” Reduction: Lithic Raw Material Economy in the Mousterian of West-Central Italy. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 10:76–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meindl, Richard S., Lovejoy, C. Owen, and Mensforth, Robert P.. 1982. Skeletal Age at Death: Accuracy of Determination and Implications for Human Demography. Human Biology 55:73–87.Google Scholar
Morrow, Juliet E. 1997. Scraper Morphology and Use-Life: An Approach for Studying Paleoindian Lithic Technology and Mobility. Lithic Technology 22:70–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, Margaret C. 1991. The Study of Technological Organization. Archaeological Method and Theory 3:57–100.Google Scholar
Parry, William J., and Kelly, Robert L.. 1987. Expedient Core Technology and Sedentism. In The Organization of Core Technology, edited by Johnson, Jay K. and Morrow, Carol A., pp. 285–304. Westview Press, Boulder, CO.Google Scholar
Pelcin, Andrew W. 1996. “Controlled Experiments in the Production of Flake Attributes.” Ph.D. diss., Dept. of Anthropology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Sahnouni, Mohamed, Schick, Kathy, and Toth, Nicholas. 1997. An Experimental Investigation into the Nature of Faceted Limestone "Spheroids” in the Early Palaeolithic. Journal of Archaeological Science 24:701–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shott, Michael J. 1986. Technological Organization and Settlement Mobility: An Ethnographic Examination. Journal of Anthropological Research 42:15–51.CrossRef
Shott, Michael J. 1989a. Diversity, Organization, and Behavior in the Material Record: Ethnographic and Archaeological Examples. Current Anthropology 30:283–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shott, Michael J. 1989b. On Tool-Class Use Lives and the Formation of Archaeological Assemblages. American Antiquity 54(1):9–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shott, Michael J. 1994. Size and Form in the Analysis of Flake Debris: Review and Recent Approaches. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 1:69–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shott, Michael J. 1995. How Much Is a Scraper? Uniface Reduction, Assemblage Formation, and the Concept of “Curation.” Lithic Technology 20:53–72.Google Scholar
Shott, Michael J. 1996a. An Exegesis of the Curation Concept. Journal of Anthropological Research 52:259–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shott, Michael J. 1996b. Innovation and Selection in Prehistory: A Case Study from the American Bottom. In Stone Tools: Theoretical Insights into Human Prehistory, edited by Odell, G., pp. 279–313. Plenum, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shott, Michael J. 1997a. Stones and Shafts Redux: The Metric Discrimination of Chipped-Stone Dart and Arrow Points. American Antiquity 62:86–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shott, Michael J. 1997b. Activity and Formation as Sources of Variation in Great Lakes Paleoindian Assemblages. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 22:197–236.Google Scholar
Shott, Michael 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.Google Scholar
Shott, Michael J., and Ballenger, Jesse A. M.. 2007. Biface Reduction and the Measurement of Dalton Curation: A Southeastern Case Study. American Antiquity, 72: 153–75.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
Shott, Michael J., and Weedman, Kathryn. 2007. Measuring Reduction in Stone Tools: An Ethnoarchaeological Study of Gamo Hidescraper Blades from Ethiopia. Journal of Archaeological Science 34: 1016–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Surovell, Todd A. 2003. “Behavioral Ecology of Folsom Lithic Technology.” Ph.D. diss., Department of Anthropology, University of Arizona, Tucson.
Thomas, David H. 1978. Arrowheads and Atlatl Darts: How the Stones Got the Shaft. American Antiquity 43:461–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, D'Arcy. 1917. On Growth and Form. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tindale, Norman. 1965. Stone Implement Making among the Nakako, Ngadadjara and Pitjandjara of the Great Western Desert. Records of the South Australian Museum 15:131–64.Google Scholar
Torrence, Robin. 1983. Time Budgeting and Hunter–Gatherer Technology. In Hunter-Gatherer Economy in Prehistory: A European Perspective, edited by Bailey, G., pp. 11–22. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Torrence, Robin. 1989. Retooling: Towards a Behavioral Theory of Stone Tools. In Time, Energy, and Stone Tools, edited by Torrence, R., pp. 57–66. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Truncer, James J. 1990. Perkiomen Points: A Study in Variability. In Experiments and Observations On the Terminal Archaic of the Middle Atlantic Region, edited by Moeller, R., pp. 1–62. Archaeological Services, Bethlehem, CT, USA.Google Scholar
VanPool, Todd L. 2006. The Survival of Archaic Technology in an Agricultural World: How the Atlatl and Dart Endured in the North American Southwest. Kiva 71:429–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weedman, Kathryn J. 2002. On the Spur of the Moment: Effects of Age and Experience on Hafted Stone Scraper Morphology. American Antiquity 67:731–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wheat, Joe Ben. 1974. Artifact Life Histories: Cultural Templates, Typology, Evidence and Inference. In Primitive Art and Technology, edited by Raymond, J., Loveseth, B., and Reardon, G., pp. 7–15. University of Calgary Department of Archaeology, Calgary.Google Scholar
Wilson, Jennifer Keeling, and Andrefsky, Jr. William, 2006. The Debitage of Bifacial Technology: An Application of Experimental Data to the Archaeological Record. Paper presented at the 59th Annual Northwest Anthropological Conference, Seattle, WA.

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
×