Flake scar density and handaxe reduction intensity

Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports

Volumn 2, Issue , 2015, Pages 169-175

  Shipton, C ^a   Clarkson, C ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF QUEENSLAND   (Australia)

Author keywords

Acheulean; Biface; Reduction intensity; Resharpening; Scar density index

Indexed keywords

EID: 84922963185     PISSN: 2352409X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jasrep.2015.01.013     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Austin L. The life and death of a Boxgrove biface. Stories in Stone 1994, 119:26.
2. Bergman C., Roberts M. Flaking technology at the acheulean site of Boxgrove (West Sussex, England). Rev. archéologique de Picardie 1988, 1:105-113.
3. Bordes F. Acheulean cultures in southwest France. Studies in Prehistory, Robert Foote Memorial 1966, 49-57.
4. Braun D.R., Rogers M.J., Harris J.W., Walker S.J. Landscape-scale variation in hominin tool use: evidence from the developed Oldowan. J. Hum. Evol. 2008, 55:1053-1063.
5. Clarkson C. Holocene scraper reduction, technological organization and landuse at Ingaladdi Rockshelter, Northern Australia. Archaeol. Ocean. 2002, 79-86.
6. Clarkson C. Measuring core reduction using 3D flake scar density: a test case of changing core reduction at Klasies River Mouth, South Africa. J. Archaeol. Sci. 2013, 40:4348-4357.
7. Clarkson C., Lamb L. Lithics Down Under: Australian Perspectives on Lithic Reduction, Use and Classification 2005, Archaeopress.
8. Dibble H.L. Interpreting typological variation of Middle Paleolithic scrapers: function, style, or sequence of reduction. J Field Archaeol. 1984, 11:431-436.
9. Edwards S.W. A modern knapper's assessment of the technical skills of the Late Acheulean biface workers at Kalambo Falls. Kalambo Falls Prehistoric Site 2001, 3:605-611.
10. Emery K (2010) A re-examination of variability in handaxe form in the British Palaeolithic. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University College London.
11. Goren-Inbar N., Sharon G. Invisible handaxes and visible Acheulian biface technology at Gesher Benot Ya 'aqov, Israel. Axe Age: Acheulian Tool-Making from Quarry to Discard 2006, 111-135.
12. Gowlett J., Crompton R. Kariandusi: Acheulean morphology and the question of allometry. Afr. Archaeol. Rev. 1994, 12:3-42.
13. Iovita R., McPherron S.P. The handaxe reloaded: a morphometric reassessment of Acheulian and Middle Paleolithic handaxes. J. Hum. Evol. 2011, 61:61-74.
14. Kuhn S.L. "Unpacking" reduction: lithic raw material economy in the Mousterian of west-central Italy. J. Anthropol. Archaeol. 1991, 10:76-106.
15. Marder O., Milevski I., Matskevich Z. The handaxes of Revadim Quarry: typo-technological considerations and aspects of intra-site variability. Axe Age: Acheulian Tool-Making from Quarry to Discard 2006, 223-242.
16. McNabb J., Binyon F., Hazelwood L. The large cutting tools from the South African Acheulean and the question of social traditions. Curr. Anthropol. 2004, 45(5):653-677.
17. McPherron S.P. Ovate and pointed handaxe assemblages: two points make a line. Préhistoire Européenne 1999, 14:9-32.
18. McPherron S.P. Handaxes as a measure of the mental capabilities of early hominids. J. Archaeol. Sci. 2000, 27:655-663.
19. McPherron S.P. What typology can tell us about Acheulian handaxe production. Axe Age: Acheulian Tool-Making from Quarry to Discard 2006, 267-285.
20. Merrick H.V., Brown F.H., Nash W.P. Use and movement of obsidian in the Early and Middle Stone Ages of Kenya and northern Tanzania. Soc. Culture Technol. Africa 1994, 29-44.
21. Misra V. The Acheulian Industry of Rock Shelter IIIF-23 at Bhimbetka, Central India-a Preliminary Study. Aust. Archaeol. 1978, 8:63-106.
22. Noll M., Petraglia M.D. Acheulean bifaces and early human behavioral patterns in East Africa and South India. Multiple Approaches to the Study of Bifacial Technologies 2003, 31-53. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia.
23. Nowell A. Coincidental factors of handaxe morphology. Behav. Brain Sci. 2002, 25:413-414.
24. Nowell A., Chang M.L. The case against sexual selection as an explanation of handaxe morphology. Paleoanthropology 2009, 2009:77-88.
25. Pope, MI (2002). The significance of biface-rich assemblages: An examination of behavioural controls on lithic assemblage formation in the Lower Palaeolithic. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Southampton.
26. Roche H., Brugal J.-P., Lefevre D., Ploux S., Texier P.-J. Isenya: état des recherches sur un nouveau site acheuléen d'Afrique orientale. Afr. Archaeol. Rev. 1988, 6:27-55.
27. Roe D.A. British Lower and Middle Palaeolithic handaxe groups. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 1969, 34:1-82.
28. Shipton C. Taphonomy and behaviour at the Acheulean site of Kariandusi, Kenya. Afr. Archaeol. Rev. 2011, 28:141-155.
29. Shipton C., Clarkson C., Pal J., Jones S., Roberts R., et al. Generativity, hierarchical action and recursion in the technology of the Acheulean to Middle Palaeolithic transition: a perspective from Patpara, the Son Valley, India. J. Hum. Evol. 2013, 65:93-108.
30. Shott M.J., Hunzicker D.A., Patten B. Pattern and allometric measurement of reduction in experimental Folsom bifaces. Lithic Technol. 2007, 32:203.
31. White M.J. On the significance of Acheulean biface variability in Southern Britain. Proc. Prehist. Soc. 1998, 64:15-44.
32. White M.J. Axeing cleavers: reflections on broad-tipped large cutting tools in the British earlier Paleolithic. Axe Age: Acheulian Tool-Making from Quarry to Discard 2006, 365-386.