Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-7c8c6479df-p566r Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-19T10:37:40.718Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

4 - Exploring Retouch on Bifaces: Unpacking Production, Resharpening, and Hammer Type

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 August 2009

William Andrefsky, Jr
Affiliation:
Washington State University
Get access

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 Technology
Measures of Production, Use and Curation
, pp. 86 - 105
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. 2005. Lithics: Macroscopic Approaches to Analysis. Second edition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andrefsky, William Jr. 2006. Experimental and Archaeological Verification of an Index of Retouch for Hafted Bifaces. American Antiquity 71:743–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andrefsky, William Jr. 2007. The Application and Misapplication of Mass Analysis in Lithic Debitage Studies. Journal of Archaeological Science 34:392–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bamforth, Douglas B. 1986. Technological Efficiency and Tool Curation. American Antiquity, 51:38–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barton, C. Michael. 1988. Lithic Variability and Middle Paleolithic Behavior. International Series 408. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford.Google Scholar
Binford, Lewis R. 1973. Interassemblage Variability: The Mousterian and the “Functional” Argument. In The Explanation of Cultural Change: Models in Prehistory, edited by Renfrew, C., pp. 227–54. Duckworth, London.Google Scholar
Binford, Lewis R. 1979. Organization and Formation Processes: Looking at Curated Technologies. Journal of Anthropological Research 35:255–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blades, Brooke S. 2003. End Scraper Reduction and Hunter Gatherer Mobility. American Antiquity 68:141–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Callahan, Errett. 1979. The Basics of Biface Knapping in the Eastern Fluted Point Tradition: A Manual for Flintknappers and Lithic Analysts. Archaeology of Eastern North America 7(1):1–180.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
Cotterell, Brian, and Kamminga, Johann. 1987. The Formation of Flakes. American Antiquity 2:675–708.CrossRefGoogle 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. 1997. Platform Variability and Flake Morphology: A Comparison of Experimental and Archaeological Data and Implications for Interpreting Prehistoric Lithic Technological Strategies. Lithic Technology 22:150–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eren, Metin L, Dominguez-Rodrigo, Manuel, Kuhn, Steven L, Adler, Daniel S, Le, Ian, and Bar-Yosef, Ofer. 2005. Defining and Measuring Reduction in Unifacial Stone Tools. Journal of Archaeological Science 32:1190–1201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayden, Brian, and Hutchings, W. Karl. 1989. Whither the Billet Flake? In Experiments in Lithic Technology, edited by Amick, D. S. and Mauldin, R. P.. International Series 528, pp. 235–58. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford.Google Scholar
Hiscock, Peter, and Clarkson, Chris. 2005. Experimental Evaluation of Kuhn's Geometric Index of Reduction and the Flat-Flake Problem. Journal of Archaeological Science 32:1015–22.CrossRefGoogle 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.Google Scholar
Kuhn, Steven L. 1990. A Geometric Index of Reduction for Unifacial Stone Tools. Journal of Archaeological Science 17:585–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, Margaret C. 1991. The Study of Technological Organization. In Archaeological Method and Theory, volume 3, edited by Schiffer, M. B., pp. 57–100. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.Google Scholar
Shott, Michael J. 1989. On Tool-Class Use Lives and the Formation of Archaeological Assemblages. American Antiquity 54:9–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shott, Michael J. 1996. An Exegesis of the Curation Concept. Journal of Archaeological Science 27:653–63.Google Scholar
Whitaker, John C. 1994. Flintknapping: Making and Understanding Stone Tools. University of Texas Press, Austin.Google Scholar
Wilson, Jennifer Keeling, and Andrefsky, Jr. William 2006. The Debitage of Bifacial Technology: An Application of Experimental Data to the Archeological Record. Paper presented at the Fifty-Ninth Annual Northwest Anthropological Conference, March 29–April 1, Seattle, Washington.

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@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
×