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
- 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
- 4
- Cited by