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
4 - Exploring Retouch on Bifaces: Unpacking Production, Resharpening, and Hammer Type
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
Measuring retouch amounts on stone tools has been helpful for understanding human organizational strategies. Multiple retouch indices geared toward assessing retouch amounts on flake tools and unifaces have been developed, but few have been developed to evaluate retouch exclusively for bifaces. For this study, a retouch index was developed and evaluated on an experimental assemblage of bifaces. It is shown that reduction activities on bifaces may create extensive amounts of retouch that are contingent upon a number of factors from both the production and resharpening events that must be taken into consideration before understanding a biface's life history.
INTRODUCTION
Tool curation has been defined as the relationship between a tool's potential utility and its actual usage (Andrefsky 2005; Bamforth 1986; Shott 1996), or its “life history” (Eren et al. 2005). This curation concept has been linked to studies of hunter–gatherer organizational strategies in understanding issues of land use, economy, and, mobility. For stone tools, retouch amount has been used as an effective measure to assess the degree to which a tool has been curated (for discussion of curation see Andrefsky 2006; Barton 1988; Binford 1973, 1979; Blades 2003; Clarkson 2002; Davis and Shea 1998; Dibble 1997; Nelson 1991; Shott 1989, 1996).
However, assessing retouch amount may not be as universal as we might initially believe. We define retouch as the deliberate modification of a stone tool edge created by either percussion or pressure-flaking techniques (Andrefsky 2005).
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Lithic TechnologyMeasures of Production, Use and Curation, pp. 86 - 105Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2008
References
- 8
- Cited by