Establishing a new workflow in the study of core reduction intensity and distribution

Abstract

New methodological approaches focused on studying the reduction and use-life of stone tools have emerged in recent years, enabling researchers to move beyond strict technical and technological characterizations and explore specific aspects of occupation dynamics and economic management of resources. Previous studies have shown the importance of reduction distributions of individual measurements rather than averaged values. In this sense, survival analysis, and more specifically Weibull distributions, are one of the main inferential tools used in reduction studies. However, the resolution of Weibull distribution obtained from different methods has not been tested experimentally. In this paper, we present an evaluation of some of the main methods used in the study of core reduction intensity, such as the Volumetric Reconstruction Method, the Scar Density Index, and the non-cortical surface percentage. Our results show 1) strong and positive correlations between these approaches and actual reduction intensity, 2) similar Weibull distributions for non-cortical surface percentage, Volumetric Reconstruction Method, and logarithmic transformation of Scar Density Index. In addition, 3) the results from each method show a similar intra-assemblage variation, with a high percentage of agreement between them.
 As a result, all the evaluated proposals are useful and reliable methods for estimating the degree of reduction. Finally, a workflow is proposed for approaching reduction in archaeological assemblages by integrating different methods in the same study.

Unravelling technological behaviors through core reduction intensity. The case of the early Protoaurignacian assemblage from Fumane Cave.

“…Therefore, considering the discussed sources of error for the VRM and for the SDI, we highlight the importance of combining these three methods (VRM, SDI and non-cortical surface) for more effectively interpreting the archaeological data on reduction intensity, while evaluating and discussing potential discrepancies between them (Dibble, 1995b;Lombao et al, 2023b).…”

“…Reduction intensity is a pivotal element for studying the adaptation of humans group to their environment, such as in terms of management of raw materials in relation to availability, abundance, and proximity of resources, as well as for understanding the different strategies for their acquisition, transport, use, and discard (e.g., Andrefsky, 1994;Blades, 2003;Carr and Bradbury, 2011;Kuhn, 1991;Lombao et al, 2023b;Morales, 2016;Nelson, 1991;Rolland and Dibble, 1990;Shott andSillitoe, 2005, 2004). Furthermore, reduction intensity is a crucial element for parsimoniously exploring technological variability.…”

“…Furthermore, reduction intensity is a crucial element for parsimoniously exploring technological variability. A few authors have already stressed how a typological approach to core classification does not allow exploration of knapping strategies and their relationship with each other within a solid diachronic component, which is at the base of each reductive activity (e.g., Dibble, 1995a;Lombao, 2021;Lombao et al, 2023b;Rabuñal, 2016). A well-framed diachronic approach would allow for a more efficient and reliable reconstruction of the operatory field of human groups, that is, the set of technical strategies and decisions involved in the process of stone tool production (Guilbaud, 1993(Guilbaud, , 1995.…”