The construction of morphological diversity: A study of mousterian implement retouching at combe grenal

Lithic Technology: Measures of Production, Use, and Curation

Volumn , Issue , 2008, Pages 106-135

  Hiscock, Peter ^a   Clarkson, Chris ^b  

^a AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^b UNIVERSITY OF QUEENSLAND   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 58149332965     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511499661.006     Document Type: Chapter

References (32)

1. Binford, Lewis R. 1973. Interassemblage Variability - The Mousterian and the “Functional” Argument. In The Explanation of Culture Change, edited by C. Renfrew, pp. 227–54. Duckworth, Surrey.
2. Bordes, F. 1968. The Old Stone Age. McGraw-Hill, New York.
3. A Tale of Two Caves. Harper and Row, New York.
4. Bourguignon, L. 1997. Le Moust´erien de type Quina: D´efinition d’une nou-velle entit´e technique. Th`ese de Doctorat de l’Universit´e de Paris X, Nanterre.
5. Bourguignon, L., J.-P. Faivre, and A. Turq. 2004. Ramification des chaˆınes op´eratoires: Une sp´ecificit´e du Moust´erien? Paleo16:37–48.
6. Clarkson, Chris. 2002. An Index of Invasiveness for the Measurement of Unifacial and Bifacial Retouch: A Theoretical, Experimental and Archaeological Verification. Journal of Archaeological Science29:65–75.
7. Debenath, A., and H. L. Dibble. 1994. Handbook of Paleolithic Typology. Volume One. Lower and Middle Paleolithic of Europe. University Museum, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
8. Dibble, Harold L. 1984. Interpreting Typological Variation of Middle Paleolithic Scrapers: Function, Style, or Sequence of Reduction? Journal of Field Archaeology11:431–6.
9. Reduction Sequences in the Manufacture of Mousterian Implements of France. In The Pleistocene OldWorld: Regional Perspectives, edited by O. Soffer, pp. 33–45. Plenum Press, New York.
10. The Interpretation of Middle Paleolithic Scraper Morphology. American Antiquity52(1):109–17.
11. The Interpretation of Middle Paleolithic Scraper Reduction Patterns. In L’Homme de N´eandertal, vol 4, La Technique, Actes du Colloque International de Li´ege, L’Homme de Neandertal, pp. 49–58.
12. Typological Aspects of Reduction and Intensity of Utilization of Lithic Resources in the French Mousterian. In Upper Pleistocene Prehistory of Western Eurasia, edited by H. Dibble and A. Montet-White, pp. 181–94. University Museum, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
13. Rebuttal to Close. Journal of Field Archaeology18:264–9.
14. Middle Paleolithic Scraper Reduction: Background, Clarification, and Review of Evidence to Date. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory2:299–368.
15. Dibble, Harold L., and Nicholas Rolland. 1992. On Assemblage Variability in the Middle Paleolithic of Western Europe: History, Perspectives, and a New Synthesis. In The Middle Paleolithic: Adaptation, Behavior, and Variability, edited by H. L. Dibble and P. Mellars, pp. 1–28. University Museum, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
16. Gordon, D. 1993. Mousterian Tool Selection, Reduction and Discard at Ghar, Israel. Journal of Field Archaeology20:205–18.
17. Hiscock, Peter. 1994. The End of Points. In Archaeology in the North, edited by M. Sullivan, S. Brockwell, and A. Webb, pp. 72–83. North Australia Research Unit, Australian National University.
18. Hiscock, Peter, and Val Attenbrow. 2005. Australia’s Eastern Regional Sequence Revisited: Technology and Change at Capertee 3. British Archaeological Reports. International Monograph Series. Archaeopress, Oxford.
19. Hiscock, Peter, and Chris Clarkson. 2005. Experimental Evaluation of Kuhn’s Geometric Index of Reduction and the Flat-Flake Problem. Journal of Archaeological Science32:1015–22.
20. Retouched Notches at Combe Grenal (France) and the Reduction Hypothesis. American Antiquity72:176–90.
21. Holdaway, S., S. McPherron, and B. Roth. 1996. Notched Tool Reuse and Raw Material Availability in French Middle Paleolithic Sites. American Antiquity61:377–87.
22. Kuhn, Steven L. 1990. A Geometric Index of Reduction for Unifacial Stone Tools. Journal of Archaeological Science17:585–93.
23. Blank Morphology and Reduction as Determinants of Mousterian Scraper Morphology. American Antiquity57:115–28.
24. Mellars, Paul. 1992. Technological Change in the Mousterian of Southwest France. In The Middle Paleolithic: Adaptation, Behavior, and Variability, edited by H. L. Dibble and P. Mellars, pp. 29–43. University Museum, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
25. The Neanderthal Legacy. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
26. Rolland, Nicholas. 1981. The Interpretation of Middle Paleolithic Variability. Man16:15–42.
27. Rolland, Nicholas, and Harold L. Dibble. 1990. A New Synthesis of Middle Paleolithic Assemblage Variability. American Antiquity55:480–99.
28. Thi´ebaut, C. 2003. L’industrie lithique de la couche III du Roc de Marsal: Le probl´eme de l’attribution d’une s´erie lithique au Moust´erien `a Denticul´es. Pal´eo15:141–68.
29. Turq, A. 1989. Approche technologique et ´economique du facies Moust´erien de type Quina: Etude pr´eliminaire. Bulletin de la Soci´et´e Pr´ehistorique Franc¸aise86:244–56.
30. Raw Material and Technological Studies of the Quina Mousterian in Perigord. In The Middle Paleolithic: Adaptation, Behavior, and Variability, edited by H. L. Dibble and P. Mellars, pp. 75–85. University Museum, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
31. Verjux, C. 1988. Les Denticules Mousteriens. In L’Homme de N´eandertal, Vol 4., La Technique, Actes du Colloque International de Li´ege, L’Homme de Neandertal, pp. 197–204.
32. Verjux, C., and D.-D. Rousseau. 1986. La retouche Quina: Une mise au point. Bulletin de la Soci´et´e Pr´ehistorique Franc¸aise11–12:404–15.