Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-8zxtt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-08T14:58:12.878Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On the Utility and Economization of Unretouched Flakes: The Effects of Exterior Platform Angle and Platform Depth

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Sam C. Lin ,
Zeljko Rezek ,
David Braun  and
Harold L. Dibble
Sam C. Lin
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, University of Pennsylvania, 3260 South Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104-6398 (samlin@sas.upenn.edu)
Zeljko Rezek
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, University of Pennsylvania, 3260 South Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104-6398 (samlin@sas.upenn.edu)
David Braun
Affiliation:
Department of Archaeology, University of Cape Town, Rondebosch 7701, South Africa
Harold L. Dibble
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, University of Pennsylvania, 3260 South Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104-6398 (samlin@sas.upenn.edu)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In recent years, lithic studies have emphasized the role of technology in the overall adaptation of past societies to their environments, including the economization of lithic resources. This paper explores how particular characteristics of individual, unretouched flakes can be altered in ways that increase their economy, as reflected in the ratio of edge length to mass. Results of controlled laboratory experiments are presented that identify exterior platform angle and platform depth as being primary independent variables affecting this ratio. These relationships are then tested against a number of archaeological assemblages.

Resumen

Resumen

En los últimos años, estudios Uticos han enfatizado el papel de la tecnologίa en la adaptación total de sociedades del pasado a sus ambientes, incluyendo la economización del recurso lίtico. Este articulo explora la forma en que las caracterίsticas particulares de lascas individuas no retocadas pueden ser alteradas enformas que aumentan su economίa, como se refleja en la relación entre la longitud del filo y la masa de la lasca. Se presentan resultados de experimentos controlados de laboratorio que identifican el ángulo exterior de la plataforma y la profundidad de la plataforma como variables independientes principales que afectan esta relación. Estas relaciones se prueban con una serie de conjuntos arqueológicos.

Type
Articles
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 78 , Issue 4 , October 2013 , pp. 724 - 745
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for American Archaeology 2014

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

References Cited

Andrefsky, William Jr. 1994 Raw-Material Availability and the Organization of Technology. American Antiquity 59:21–34.Google Scholar
Andrefsky, William Jr. 2006 Experimental and Archaeological Verification of an Index of Retouch for Hafted Bifaces. American Antiquity 71:743–757.Google Scholar
Andrefsky, William Jr. 2009 The Analysis of Stone Tool Procurement, Production, and Maintenance. Journal of Archaeological Research 17:65–103.Google Scholar
Bamforth, Douglas B. 1986 Technological Efficiency and Tool Curation. American Antiquity 51:38–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bamforth, Douglas B. 1990 Settlement, Raw Material, and Lithic Procurement in the Central Mojave Desert. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 9:70–104.Google Scholar
Bamforth, Douglas B. 1991 Technological Organization and Hunter-Gatherer Land Use: A California Example. American Antiquity 56:216–234.Google Scholar
Bamforth, Douglas B., and Bleed, Peter 1997 Technology, Flaked Stone Technology, and Risk. In Rediscovering Darwin: Evolutionary Theory in Archaeological Explanation, edited by C. Michael Barton and Geoffrey A. Clark, pp. 109–139. Archaeological Papers No. 7. American Anthropological Association, Washington, D.C. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bar-Yosef, Ofer, and Kuhn, Steven L. 1999 The Big Deal about Blades: Laminar Technologies and Human Evolution. American Anthropologist 101:322–338.Google Scholar
Binford, Lewis R. 1973 Interassemblage Variability: The Mousterian and the “Functional” Argument. In The Explanation of Culture Change: Models in Prehistory, edited by Colin Renfrew, pp. 227–254. Duckworth, London.Google Scholar
Binford, Lewis R. 1977 General Introduction. In For Theory Building in Archaeology: Essays on Faunal Remains, Aquatic Resources, Spatial Analysis, and Systemic Modeling, edited by Lewis R. Binford, pp. 1–10. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Binford, Lewis R. 1977 Forty-Seven Trips: a Case Study in the Character of Archaeological Formation Processes. In Stone Tools as Cultural Markers, edited by Richard V.S. Wright, pp. 24–36. Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, Canberra.Google Scholar
Binford, Lewis R. 1979 Organization and Formation Processes: Looking at Curated Technologies. Journal of Anthropological Research 35:255–273.Google Scholar
Binford, Lewis R. 1980 Willow Smoke and Dog’s Tails: Hunter-Gatherer Settlement Systems and Archaeological Site Formation. American Antiquity 45:4–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Binford, Lewis R., and O’Connell, James F. 1984 An Alyawara Day: The Stone Quarry. Journal of Anthropological Research 40:406–432.Google Scholar
Bleed, Peter 1986 The Optimal Design of Hunting Weapons: Maintainability or Reliability. American Antiquity 52:737–747.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boëda, Eric 1986 Approche Technologique du Concept Levallois et Evaluation de son Champ d’Application. Thése de IIIéme Cycle, Université de Paris.Google Scholar
Boëda, Eric 1994 he concept Levallois: Variabilite des Methodes. Monographic du CRA No. 9. CNRS, Paris.Google Scholar
Boëda, Eric 1995 Levallois: A Volumetric Construction, Methods, and Technique. In The Definition and Interpretation of Levallois Technology, edited by Harold L. Dibble and Ofer Bar-Yosef, pp. 41–68. Prehistory Press, Madison, Wisconsin.Google Scholar
Bordes, François 1961 Typologie du Paléolithique Ancien et Moyen. Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Paris.Google Scholar
Bousman, C. Britt 1993 Hunter-Gatherer Adaptations, Economic Risk and Tool Design. Lithic Technology 18:59–86.Google Scholar
Bousman, C. Britt 1995 Coping with Risk: Later Stone Age Technology Strategies at Blydefontein Rock Shelter, South Africa. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 24:193–226.Google Scholar
Brantingham, P. Jeffrey, and Kuhn, Steven L. 2001 Constraints on Levallois Core Technology: A Mathematical Model. Journal of Archaeological Science 28:747–761.Google Scholar
Brantingham, P. Jeffrey, Olsen, John W., Rech, Jason A., Krivoshapkin, Andrei I. 2000 Raw Material Quality and Prepared Core Technologies in Northeast Asia. Journal of Archaeological Science 27:255–271.Google Scholar
Braun, David R. 2006 Ecology of Oldowan Technology: Koobi Fora and Kanjera South. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey.Google Scholar
Braun, David R., Harris, John W. K., and Maina, David M. 2009 Oldowan Raw Material Procurement and Use: Evidence from the Koobi Fora Formation. Archaeometry 51:26–42.Google Scholar
Braun, David R., Plummer, Thomas, Ferraro, Joseph V., Ditchfield, Peter, and Bishop, Laura C. 2008 Raw Material Quality and Oldowan Hominin Toolstone Preferences: Evidence from Kanjera South, Kenya. Journal of Archaeological Science 36:1605–1614.Google Scholar
Carr, Philip J., and Bradbury, Andrew P. 2001 Flake Debris Analysis, Levels of Production, and the Organization of Technology. In Lithic Debitage: Context, Form, Meaning, edited by William Andrefsky, pp. 126–146. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.Google Scholar
Carr, Philip J., and Bradbury, Andrew P. 2011 Learning from Lithics: A Perspective on the Foundation and Future of the Organization of Technology. PaleoAnthropology 2011:305–139.Google Scholar
Chatters, James C. 1987 Hunter-Gatherer Adaptations and Assemblage Structure. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 6:336–375.Google Scholar
Clarkson, Chris 2002 An Index of Invasiveness for the Measurement of Uni-facial and Bifacial Retouch: A Theoretical, Experimental and Archaeological Verification. Journal of Archaeological Science 29:65–75.Google Scholar
Crew, Harvey L. 1976 The Mousterian Site of Rosh Ein Mor. In Prehistory and Paleoenvironments in the Central Negev, Israel. Volume I: The Avdat/Aqev Area, Part 1, edited by Anthony E. Marks, pp. 75–112. Southern Methodist University Press, Dallas.Google Scholar
Debénath, André, and Dibble, Harold L. 1994 The Handbook of Paleolithic Typology. Volume I: Lower and Middle Paleolithic of Europe. University Museum, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
Dibble, Harold L. 1984 Interpreting Typological Variation of Middle Paleolithic Scrapers: Function, Style, or Sequence of Reduction? Journal of Field Archaeology 11:431–436.Google Scholar
Dibble, Harold L. 1995 Middle Paleolithic Scraper Reduction: Background, Clarification, and Review of the Evidence to Date. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 2:299–368.Google 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 22:150–170.Google Scholar
Dibble, Harold L., and Bar-Yosef, Ofer 2005 The Definition and Interpretation of Levallois Technology. Prehistory Press, Madison.Google Scholar
Dibble, Harold L., Berna, Francesco, Goldberg, Paul, McPherron, Shannon P., Mentzer, Susan, Niven, Laura, Richter, Daniel, Sandgathe, Dennis, Théry-Parisot, Isabelle, and Turq, Alain 2009 A Preliminary Report of Pech de l’Azé IV, Layer 8 (Middle Paleolithic, France). PaleoAnthropology 2009:182–219.Google Scholar
Dibble, Harold L., and Lenoir, Michel 1995 The Middle Paleolithic Site of Combe Capelle Bas (France). The University Museum, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
Dibble, Harold L., and McPherron, Shannon P. 2006 The Missing Mousterian. Current Anthropology 47:777–803.Google Scholar
Dibble, Harold L., and Pelcin, Andrew 1995 The Effect of Hammer Mass and Velocity on Flake Mass. Journal of Archaeological Science 22:249–439.Google Scholar
Dibble, Harold L., and Rezek, Zeljko 2009 Introducing a New Experimental Design for Controlled Studies of Hake Formation: Results for Exterior Platform Angle, Platform Depth, Angle of Blow, Velocity, and Force. Journal of Archaeological Science 36:1945–1954.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dibble, Harold L., and Whittaker, John C. 1981 New Experimental Evidence on the Relation between Percussion Flaking and Flake Variation. Journal of Archaeological Science 8:283–296.Google Scholar
Douglass, Matthew J. 2010 The Archaeological Potential of Informal Lithic Technologies: A Case Study of Assemblage Variability in Western New South Wales, Australia. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Auckland, Auckland.Google Scholar
Elston, Robert G. 1990 A Cost-Benefit Model of Lithic Assemblage Variability. In The Archaeology of James Creek Shelter, edited by Robert G. Elston and Elizabeth E. Budy, pp. 153–163. Anthropological Papers No. 115. University of Utah, Salt Lake City.Google Scholar
Eren, Metin I., Greenspan, Aaron, and Garth Sampson, C. 2008 Are Upper Paleolithic Blade Cores More Productive than Middle Paleolithic Discoidal Cores? A Replication Experiment. Journal of Human Evolution 55:952–961.Google Scholar
Eren, Metin I., and Lycett, Stephen J. 2012 Why Levallois? A Morphometric Comparison of Experimental “Preferential” Levallois Flakes versus Debitage Flakes. PLoS ONE 7:e29273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferring, C. Reid 1977 The Late Upper Paleolithic Site of Ein Aqev East. In Prehistory and Paleoenvironments in the Central Negev, Israel. Volume II: The AwiatlAqev Area, Part 2 and the Har Wan?, edited by Anthony E. Marks, pp. 81–118. Southern Methodist University Press, Dallas.Google Scholar
Frison, George 1968 A Functional Analysis of Certain Chipped Stone Tools. American Antiquity 33:149–155.Google Scholar
Harris, John W. K., and Isaac, Glynn L. 1997 Sites in the Upper KBS, Okote, and Chari members. In Koobi Fora Research Project, edited by Glynn L. Issac, pp. 115–220. Clarendon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
Hayden, Brain 1979 Paleolithic Reflections: Lithic Technology and Ethnographic Excavation among Australian Aborigines. Humanities Press, Atlantic Highlands, New Jersey.Google Scholar
Holdaway, Simon J., and Douglass, Matthew J. 2012 A Twenty-First Century Archaeology of Stone Artifacts. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 19:101–131.Google Scholar
Inizan, Marie-Louis, Reduron, Michéle, Roche, Helene, and Tixier, Jacques 1995 Techologie de la Pierre Taillée. Préhistoire de la Pierre Taillée, Tome 4. CREP, Meudon.Google Scholar
Iovita, Radu 2011 Shape Variation in Aterian Tanged Tools and the Origins of Projectile Technology: A Morphometric Perspective on Stone Tool Function. PLoS One 6:e29029.Google Scholar
Iovita, Radu, and McPherron, Shannon P. 2011 The Handaxe Reloaded: A Morphometric Reassessment of Acheulian and Middle Paleolithic Handaxes. Journal of Human Evolution 61:61–74.Google Scholar
Isaac, Glynn L., and Harris, John W.K. 1997 The Stone Artifact Assemblages: a Comparative Study. In Koobi Fora Research Project, edited by G.L. Isaac, pp. 262–362. Clarendon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
Jeske, Robert 1989 Economies in Raw Material Use by Prehistoric Hunter-Gatherers. In Time, Energy and Stone Tools, edited by Robin Torrence, pp. 34–45. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Kelly, Robert L. 1988 The Three Sides of a Biface. American Antiquity 53:717–734.Google Scholar
Kelly, Robert L., and Todd, Lawrence C. 1988 Coming into the Country: Early Paleoindian Hunting and Mobility. American Antiquity 53:231–244.Google Scholar
Key, Alastair J. M., and Lycett, Stephen J. 2011 Technology Based Evolution? A Biometric Test of the Effects of Handsize versus Tool Form on Efficiency in an Experimental Cutting Task. Journal of Archaeological Science 38:1663–1670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuhn, Steven L. 1990 A Geometric Index of Reduction for Unifacial Stone Tools. Journal of Archaeological Science 17:583–593.Google Scholar
Kuhn, Steven L. 1992 On Planning and Curated Technologies in the Middle Paleolithic. Journal of Anthropological Research 48:185–214.Google Scholar
Kuhn, Steven L. 1994 A Formal Approach to the Design and Assembly of Mobile Toolkits. American Antiquity 59:426–442.Google Scholar
Kuhn, Steven L. 1995 Mousterian Lithic Technology: An Ecological Perspective. Princeton University Press, Princeton.Google Scholar
Leroi-Gourhan, André 1964 Le Geste et la Parole 1. Techniques et Langage. Albin Michel, Paris.Google Scholar
Mackay, Alex 2008 A Method for Estimating Edge Length from Flake Dimensions: Use and Implications for Technological Change in the Southern African MSA. Journal of Archaeological Science 35:614–622.Google Scholar
Marks, Anthony E. 1968 The Khormusanan Upper Pleistocene Industry in Sudanese Nubia. In The Prehistory of Nubia, edited by Fred Wendorf, pp. 315–391. Fort Burgwin Research Center and Southern Methodist University Press, Dallas.Google Scholar
Marks, Anthony E. 1976 Ein Aqev: a Late Levantine Upper Paleolithic Site in the Nahal Aqev. In Prehistory and Paleoenvironments in the Central Negev, Israel. Volume I: the Avcfat/Aqev Area, Part 7, edited by Anthony E. Marks, pp. 227–292. Southern Methodist University Press, Dallas.Google Scholar
Marks, Anthony E. 1977 The Upper Paleolithic Sites of Boker Tachtit and Boker: A Preliminary Report. In Prehistory and Paleoenvironments in the Central Negev, Israel. Volume II: The Avdat/Aqev Area, Part 2 and the HarHarif edited by Anthony E. Marks, pp. 61–80. Southern Methodist University Press, Dallas.Google Scholar
Morrow, Toby A. 1996 Bigger is Better: Comments on Kuhn’s Formal Approach to Mobile Tool Kit. American Antiquity 61:581–590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Munday, Frederick C. 1976 Intersite Variability in the Mousterian Occupation of the Avdat/Aqev Area. In Prehistory and Paleoenvironments in the Central Negev, Israel. Volume 11: The Avdat/Aqev Area, Part 2 and the Har Harif edited by Anthony E. Marks, pp. 113–140. Southern Methodist University Press, Dallas.Google Scholar
Nelson, Margaret C. 1991 The Study of Technological Organization. In Archaeological Method and Theory, Vol. 3, edited by Michael B. Schiffer, pp. 57–100. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.Google Scholar
Odell, George H. 1996 Economizing Behavior and the Concept of “Curation.” In Stone Tools: Theoretical Insights into Human Prehistory, edited by George H. Odell, pp. 51–80. Plenum Press, New York.Google Scholar
Parry William, J., and Kelly, Robert L. 1987 Expedient Core Technology and Sedentism. In The Organization of Core Technology, edited by Jay K. Johnson and Carol A. Morrow, pp. 285–308. Westview Press, Boulder.Google Scholar
Pelcin, Andrew 1997 The Effect of Core Surface Morphology on Flake Attributes: Evidence from a Controlled Experiment. Journal of Archaeological Science 24:749–756.Google Scholar
Potts, Richard 1991 Why the Oldowan? Plio-Pleistocene Toolmaking and the Transport of Resources. Journal of Anthropological Research 47:153–116.Google Scholar
Prasciunas, Mary M. 2007 Bifacial Cores and Hake Production Efficiency: An Experimental Test of Technological Assumptions. American Antiquity 72:334–348.Google Scholar
Rezek, Zeljko, Lin, Sam, Iovita, Radu, and Dibble, Harold L. 2011 The Relative Effects of Core Surface Morphology on Rake Shape and Other Attributes. Journal of Archaeological Science 38:1346–1359.Google Scholar
Rolland, Nicolas, and Dibble, Harold L. 1990 A New Synthesis of Middle Paleolithic Assemblage Variability. American Antiquity 55:480–499.Google Scholar
Roth, Barbara J., and Dibble, Harold L. 1998 Production and Transport of Blanks and Tools at the French Middle Paleolithic Site of Combe-Capelle Bas. American Antiquity 63:47–62.Google Scholar
Sandgathe, Dennis M. 2004 Alternative Interpretation of the Levallois Reduction Technique. Lithic Technology 29:147–159.Google Scholar
Shott, Michael J. 1986 Technological Organization and Settlement Mobility: An Ethnographic Examination. Journal of Anthropological Research 42:15–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shott, Michael J. 1989 On Tool-Class Use Lives and the Formation of Archaeological Assemblage. American Antiquity 54:9–30.Google Scholar
Shott, Michael J. 1996 An Exegesis of the Curation Concept. Journal of Anthropological Research 52:259–280.Google Scholar
Shott, Michael J., and Sillitoe, Paul 2004 Modeling Use-Life Distributions in Archaeology Using New Guinea Wola Ethnographic Data. American Antiquity 69:339–355.Google Scholar
Shott, Michael J., and Sillitoe, Paul 2005 Use life and Curation in New Guinea Experimental Used Flakes. Journal of Archaeological Science 32:653–663.Google Scholar
Sillitoe, Paul, and Hardy, Karen 2003 Living Lithics: Ethnoarchaeology in Highland Papua New Guinea. Antiquity 77:555–566.Google Scholar
Smith, Eric A. 1979 Human Adaptation and Energy Efficiency. Human Ecology 7:53–74.Google Scholar
Speth, John 1981 The Role of Platform Angle and Core Size in Hard-Hammer Percussion Flaking. Lithic Technology 10:16–21.Google Scholar
Tactikos, Joanne C. 2003 A Re-Evaluation of Palaeolithic Stone Tool Cutting Edge Production Rates and Their Implications. In Lithic Analysis in the Millenium, edited by Norah Moloney and Michael J. Shott, pp. 151–162. Left Coast Press, London.Google Scholar
Tixier, Jacques, Marie-Louis, Inizan, and Roche, Hélène 1980 Préhistoire de la Pierre Tattlé. Vol. 1: Terminologie et technologic Cercle de Recherches et d’Etudes Préhistorique, Antibes.Google Scholar
Torrence, Robin 1983 Time-Budgeting and Hunter-Gatherer Technology. In Hunter-Gatherer Economy in Prehistory: A European Perspective, edited by Geoff Bailey, pp. 11é22. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Torrence, Robin 1989 Time, Energy, and Stone Tools. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Torrence, Robin 2001 Hunter-Gatherer Technology: Macro- and Microscale Approaches. In Hunter-Gatherers: An Interdisciplinary Perspective, edited by Catherine Panter-Brick, Robert H. Layton and Peter Rowley-Conwy, pp. 73é99. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Turq, Alain 1989 Approche technologique et économique du faciès Moustérien de type Quina. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française 86:244–256.Google Scholar
Turq, Alain 1992 Raw Material and Technological Studies of the Quina Mousterian in Périgord. In The Middle Paleolithic: Adaptation, Behavior and Variability, edited by Harold L. Dibble and Paul Mellars, pp. 75–85. University Museum Monograph No. 72. University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
Turq, Alain, Dibble, Harold L., Goldberg, Paul, McPherron, Shannon P., Sandgathe, Dennis, Jones, Heather, Maddison, Kerry, Maurielle, Bruno, Mentzer, Susan, Rink, Jack, and Steenhuyse, Alex 2011 Les Fouilles Récentes du Pech de l’Azé IV (Dordogne). Gallia Préhistoire 53:1–58.Google Scholar
Van Peer, Philip 1992 The Levallois Reduction Strategy. Prehistory Press, Madison.Google Scholar
White, J. Peter 1967 Ethno-Archaeology in New Guinea: Two Examples. Mankind 6:409–414.Google Scholar
White, Peter, and White, Carmel 1964 Surface Sites in South Africa. The South African Archaeological Bulletin 19(75):64–66.Google Scholar
White, J. Peter, and Thomas, David H. 1972 What Mean These Stones? Ethno-taxonomic Models and Archaeological Interpretations in the New Guinea Highlands. In Models in Archaeology, edited by David L. Clarke, pp. 275–308. Methuen, London.Google Scholar
Winterhalder, Bruce 2001 The Behavioral Ecology of Hunter-Gatherers. In Hunter-Gatherers: An Interdisciplinary Perspective, edited by Catherine Panter-Brick, Robert H. Layton, and Peter Rowley-Conwy, pp. 13–38. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar