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-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-02T15:02:17.586Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

11 - Raw Material and Retouched Flakes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 August 2009

By
Andrew P. Bradbury ,
Philip J. Carr  and
D. Randall Cooper
Edited by
William Andrefsky, Jr
William Andrefsky, Jr
Affiliation:
Washington State University
Get access

Summary

Abstract

Lithic analysts are often criticized for not engaging in theory building and for conducting particularistic studies. Such particularistic studies can be linked to theory through an organization-of-technology approach, which has great promise. However, concepts often employed in the approach, such as curation, need further refinement to become operationalized. One way to accomplish this for flake tools is to develop a method for measuring the amount of tool resharpening. One method is to determine the original flake mass and compare this to the mass of the recovered tool to determine the amount of realized use life. Here, a series of experiments in producing retouched flakes using various raw materials and two reduction modes were conducted by two flintknappers to determine how these variables influence the prediction of flake mass. Analysis indicates that raw material type is important for estimating original flake mass, but a tripartite division of quality may be sufficient to account for the variation. No significant differences are evident between the two knappers. Equations used to calculate original flake mass from retouched flakes must be derived with a consideration of raw material.

INTRODUCTION

A decade ago, George Odell discussed the “particularism” that was apparent in lithic studies and the need to link these studies to theory and to prehistoric behavior (Odell 1996a: 2–3). This is something of an echo of the characterization of lithic analysis made by David Hurst Thomas a decade prior as “in danger of chasing rainbows rather than providing archaeology with the theory so obviously lacking” (Thomas 1986: 247).

Type
Chapter
Information
Lithic Technology
Measures of Production, Use and Curation
 , pp. 233 - 254
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. 1994. Raw Material Availability and the Organization of Technology. American Antiquity 59:21–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bamforth, Douglas B. 1986. Technological Efficiency and Tool Curation. American Antiquity 51(1):38–50.CrossRefGoogle 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., 227–54. Duckworth, London.Google Scholar
Bradbury, Andrew P. 1998. The Examination of Lithic Artifacts from an Early Archaic Assemblage: Strengthening Inferences through Multiple Lines of Evidence. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 23(2):263–88.Google Scholar
Carr, Dillion H. 2005. The Organization of Late Paleoindian Lithic Procurement Strategies in Western Wisconsin. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 30(1):3–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carr, Philip J. 1994a. The Organization of Technology: Impact and Potential. In The Organization of North American Chipped Stone Tool Technologies, edited by Carr, P. J., pp. 1–8. International Monographs in Prehistory, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
Carr, Philip J. 1994b. Technological Organization and Prehistoric Hunter–Gatherer Mobility: Examination of the Hayes Site. In The Organization of North American Chipped Stone Tool Technologies, edited by Carr, P. J., pp. 35–44. International Monographs in Prehistory, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
Carr, Philip J., and Bradbury, Andrew P.. 2005. Raw Material and Retouched Flakes: More Complicated Than We Thought. Paper presented at the 70th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Salt Lake City.
Carr, Philip J., and Bradbury, Andrew P.. 2006. Learning from Lithics. Paper presented at the 71st Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, San Juan, Puerto Rico.
Clark, John E. 1999. On Stone Tools: Theoretical Insights into Human Prehistory by G. H. Odell. Lithic Technology 24(2):126–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cobb, Charles R. 2000. From Quarry to Cornfield: The Political Economy of Mississippian Hoe Production. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.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. 1984. Interpreting Typological Variation of Middle Paleolithic Scrapers: Function, Style, or Sequence of Reduction? Journal of Field Archaeology 11(4):431–6.CrossRef
Dibble, Harold 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, Harold L. 1998. Comment on Quantifying Lithic Curation: An Experimental Test of Dibble and Pelcin's Original Flake-Tool Mass Predictor. Journal of Archaeological Science 25:611–13.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
Hayden, Brian, Franco, Nora, and Spafford, Jim. 1996. Evaluating Lithic Strategies and Design Criteria. In Stone Tools: Theoretical Insights into Human Prehistory, edited by Odell, G. H., pp. 9–45. Plenum Press, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hiscock, Peter, and Clarkson, Chris. 2005. Measuring Artifact 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. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford, England.Google Scholar
Kelly, Robert L. 1988. The Three Sides of a Biface. American Antiquity 53:717–34.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, Thomas. 1962. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Morrow, Juliet. 1997. End Scraper Morphology and Use-Life: An Approach for Studying Paleoindian Lithic Technology and Mobility. Lithic Technology 22:70–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nash, Stephen 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
Nelson, Margaret C. 1991. The Study of Technological Organization. In Archaeological Method and Theory, Vol. 3, edited by Schiffer, M. B., pp. 57–100. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.Google Scholar
Odell, George H. 1994. Assessing Hunter–Gatherer Mobility in the Illinois Valley: Exploring Ambiguous Results. In The Organization of North American Chipped Stone Tool Technologies, edited by Carr, P. J., pp. 70–86. International Monographs in Prehistory, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
Odell, George H. 1996a. 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
Odell, George H. 1996b. Introduction. In Stone Tools: Theoretical Insights into Human Prehistory, edited by Odell, G. H., pp. 1–5. Plenum Press, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pelcin, Andrew W. 1998. The Threshold Effect of Platform Width: A Reply to Davis and Shea. Journal of Archaeological Science 25:615–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Redman, Kimberly L. 1998. An Experiment-Based Evaluation of the Debitage Attributes Associated with “Hard” and “Soft” Hammer Percussion. M.A. thesis, Washington State University, Pullman, WA.
Schiffer, Michael B. 1988. The Structure of Archaeological Theory. American Antiquity 53:461–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shott, Michael J. 1989a. On Tool Class Use-Lives and the Formation of Archaeological Assemblages. American Antiquity 54:9–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shott, Michael J. 1989b. Technological Organization in Great Lakes Paleoindian Assemblages. In Eastern Paleoindian Lithic Resource Use, edited by Ellis, C. J. and Lothrop, J. C., pp. 221–38. Westview Press, Boulder.Google 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. 2003. Chaine Operatoire and Reduction Sequence. Lithic Technology 28:95–105.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(10):877–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simek, Jan. 1994. Some Thoughts on Future Directions in the Study of Stone Tool Technological Organization. In The Organization of North American Chipped Stone Tool Technologies, edited by Carr, P. J., pp. 118–22. International Monographs in Prehistory, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
Thomas, David H. 1986. Contemporary Hunter–Gatherer Archaeology in America. In American Archaeology Past and Present, edited by Meltzer, D. J., Fowler, D. D., and Sabloff, J. A., pp. 237–56. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Torrence, Robin. 1994. Strategies for Moving On in Lithic Studies. In The Organization of North American Chipped Stone Tool Technologies, edited by Carr, P. J., pp. 123–31. International Monographs in Prehistory, Ann Arbor.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
×