Generalization, inference and the quantification of lithic reduction

World Archaeology

Volumn 42, Issue 4, 2010, Pages 545-561

  Hiscock, Peter ^a   Tabrett, Amy ^a  

^a AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

Author keywords

Lithic analysis; Measurement; Palaeolithic; Reduction index; Retouch

Indexed keywords

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK; PALEOLITHIC;

EID: 78149399821     PISSN: 00438243     EISSN: 14701375     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/00438243.2010.517669     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Andrefsky, W. 2006. Experimental and archaeological verification of an index of retouch for haftedbifaces. American Antiquity, 71: 743-57.
2. Andrefsky, W. 2008. An introduction to stone tool life history and technological organization. In Lithic Technology (ed. W. Andrefsky). New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 3-22.
3. Andrefsky, W. 2009. The analysis of stone tool procurement, production, and maintenance. Journal of Archaeological Research, 17: 65-103.
4. Barton, C. M. 1988. Lithic Variability and Middle Paleolithic Behaviour. Oxford: BAR International Series 408.
5. Blades, B. S. 2003. End scraper reduction and hunter-gatherer mobility. American Antiquity, 68: 141-56.
6. Blades, B. S. 2008. Reduction and retouch as independent measures of intensity. In Lithic Technology (ed. W. Andrefsky). New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 136-49.
7. Braun, D. R., Rogers, M. J., Harris, J. W. K. and Walker, S. J. 2008. Landscape-scale variation in hominin tool use: evidence from the Developed Oldowan. Journal of Human Evolution, 55: 1053-63.
8. Burgess, R. J. and Kvamme, K. L. 1978. A new technique for the measurement of artifact angles. American Antiquity, 43: 482-6.
9. Clarkson, C. 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.
10. Clarkson, C. and Hiscock, P. 2008. Tapping into the past: exploring Palaeolithic reduction patterns through experimentation. Lithic Technology, 33: 1-15.
11. Clarkson, C. and Hiscock, P. In press. Estimating original flake mass from 3-D Scans of platform area. Journal of Archaeological Science.
12. Close, A. 1991. On the validity of Middle Paleolithic tool types: A test case from the Eastern Sahara. Journal of Field Archaeology, 18: 256-64.
13. Dibble, H. 1984. Interpreting typological variation of Middle Paleolithic scrapers: function, style, or sequence of reduction? Journal of Field Archaeology, 11: 431-6.
14. Dibble, H. 1987. The interpretation of Middle Paleolithic scraper morphology. American Antiquity, 52: 109-17.
15. Dibble, H. 1995. Middle Paleolithic scraper reduction: background, clarification, and review of the evidence to date. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 2: 299-368.
16. Dibble, H. 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.
17. Dibble, H. and Bernard, M. C. 1980. A comparative study of basic edge angle measurement techniques. American Antiquity, 45: 857-65.
18. Dibble, H. L. and Whittaker, J. C. 1981. New experimental evidence on the relation between percussion flaking and flake variation. Journal of Archaeological Science, 8: 283-96.
19. Eren, M. I. and Prendergast, M. E. 2008. Comparing and synthesizing unifacial stone tool reduction indices. In Lithic Technology (ed. W. Andrefsky). New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 49-85.
20. Eren, M. I. and Sampson, C. G. 2009. Kuhn's geometric index of unifacial stone tool reduction (GIUR): does it measure missing flake mass? Journal of Archaeological Science, 36: 1243-7.
21. Eren, M. I., Dominguez-Rodrigo, M., Kuhn, S. L., Adler, D. S., Le, I. and Bar-Yosef, O. 2005. Defining and measuring reduction in unifacial stone tools. Journal of Archaeological Science, 32: 1190-201.
22. Gordon, D. 1993. Mousterian tool selection, reduction, and discard at Ghar, Israel. Journal of Field Archaeology, 20: 205-18.
23. Hiscock, P. and Attenbrow, V. 2003. Early Australian implement variation: a reduction model. Journal of Archaeological Science, 30: 239-49.
24. Hiscock, P. and Attenbrow, V. 2005. Australia's Eastern Regional Sequence Revisited: Technology and Change at Capertee 3. Oxford: Archaeopress.
25. Hiscock, P. and Clarkson, C. 2005a. Experimental evaluation of Kuhn's geometric index of reduction and the flat-flake problem. Journal of Archaeological Science, 32: 1015-22.
26. Hiscock, P. and Clarkson, C. 2005b. Measuring artefact reduction: an examination of Kuhn's geometric index of reduction. In Rocking the Boat: Recent Australian Approaches to Lithic Reduction, Use and Classification (eds C. Clarkson and L. Lamb). Oxford: Archaeopress, pp. 9-28.
27. Hiscock, P. and Clarkson, C. 2007. Retouched notches at Combe-Grenal (France) and the reduction hypothesis. American Antiquity, 72: 176-90.
28. Hiscock, P. and Clarkson, C. 2008. The construction of morphological diversity: a study of Mousterian implement retouching at Combe-Grenal. In Lithic Technology (ed. W. Andrefsky). New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 106-35.
29. Hiscock, P. and Clarkson, C. 2009. The reality of reduction experiments and the GIUR: reply to Eren and Sampson. Journal of Archaeological Science, 36: 1576-81.
30. Holdaway, S. 1991. Resharpening reduction and lithic assemblage variability across the Middle to Upper Paleolithic Transition, PhD dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
31. Kuhn, S. L. 1990. A geometric index of reduction for unifacial stone tools. Journal of Archaeological Science, 17: 583-93.
32. Kuhn, S. L. 1995. Mousterian Lithic Technology. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
33. Mellars, P. 1996. The Neanderthal Legacy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
34. Rolland, N. and Dibble, H. L. 1990. A new synthesis of Middle Paleolithic assemblage variability. American Antiquity, 55: 480-99.
35. Shott, M. J. 1995. How much is a scraper? Curation, use rates and the formation of scraper assemblages. Lithic Technology, 20: 53-72.
36. Shott, M. J. 1996. An exegesis of the curation concept. Journal of Anthropological Research, 52: 259-80.
37. Shott, M. J. 2005. The reduction thesis and its discontents: overview of the volume. In Rocking the Boat: Recent Australian Approaches to Lithic Reduction, Use and Classification (eds C. Clarkson and L. Lamb). Oxford: Archaeopress, pp. 159-84.
38. Shott, M. J. and Ballenger, J. A. M. 2007. Biface reduction and the measurement of Dalton curation: a southeastern United States case study. American Antiquity, 72: 153-75.
39. Shott, M. J. and Weedman, K. J. 2007. Measuring reduction in stone tools: an ethnoarchaeological study of Gamo hidescrapers from Ethiopia. Journal of Archaeological Science, 34: 1016-35.
40. Shott, M. J., Bradbury, A. P., Carr, P. J. and Odell, G. 2000. Flake size from platform attributes: predictive and empirical approaches. Journal of Archaeological Science, 27: 877-94.
41. Turq, A. 1989. Approche technologique et economique du facies Mousterien de type Quina: etude preliminaire. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française, 86: 244-56.