Raw Material and Retouched Flakes

The Analysis of Stone Tool Procurement, Production, and Maintenance

“…Such estimates, however, also are subject to great error given the assumptions needed for estimating original blank sizes in some cases (Eren et al 2005;Shott et al 2000). It has been shown that even factors such as variability in lithic raw material composition can influence the effective predictability of original flake blank sizes (Bradbury et al 2008).…”

“…Despite the potential that raw material procurement may have no or very little influence on hunter-gatherer technological organization, which I doubt is the case, recent research indicates that lithic raw materials are important for determining tool and core technological strategies (Ashton and White 2003; Brantingham and Kuhn 2001;Roth and Dibble 1998;Wenzel and Shelley 2001), artifact functional effectiveness (Bamforth 2003;Brantingham et al 2000;Hofman 2003;Sievert and Wise 2001;Terry et al 2008), retouch intensity on tools (Andrefsky 2008c; Bradbury et al 2008;Kuhn 1992;MacDonald 2008;Milliken and Peresani 1998), and aspects of risk management (Baales 2001;Beck et al 2002;Braun 2005;Lee and Lee 2006;Soressi and Hays 2003). If anything, the information gained from lithic raw materials regarding source location, shape, size, durability, and abundance has increased our understanding of stone tool technological organization in the past decade.…”

“…In a study comparing the effectiveness of retouching different stone types, Bradbury et al (2008) found that raw material types fractured with significant differences. They developed analytical models to predict original flake blank mass from retouch debitage; each raw material type required separate equations to predict original blank size because retouch debitage variability was most sensitive to lithic raw material type.…”

Test, Model, and Method Validation: The Role of Experimental Stone Artifact Replication in Hypothesis-driven Archaeology

“…methods for estimating the amount or effects of mass removed from a flake or tool by retouch or resharpening-has received extensive coverage in the literature (Andrefsky 2006;Bradbury, Carr, and Randall Cooper 2009;Braun et al 2010;Clarkson 2002;Davis and Shea 1998;Eren et al 2005; Eren and Prendergast 2008; Eren and Sampson 2009;Hiscock and Clarkson 2005;Horowitz and McCall 2013;Patten 2005;Shott et al 2000Shott et al , 2007Marwick 2008;Morales, Lorenzo, and Vergès 2015;Wilson and Andrefsky 2008), but with some exceptions, it has not been intensive. Rather, researchers have focused on using an experiment for the purpose of proposing new or newly revamped methods rather than for thoroughly vetting methods and validating that they actually work for their asserted purpose (Shott et al 2007:205-206).…”

The role of experimental knapping in empirically testing key themes in the evolution of lithic technology: reduction intensity, efficiency and behavioural complexity

“…These observations were later confirmed, and therefore strengthened, by more archaeologically realistic free-hand knapping (Bradbury et al 2008;Clarkson and Hiscock 2011;Davis and Shea 1998;Muller and Clarkson 2014;Shott et al 2000). This interplay between mechanised and free-hand experimentation offers the most profitable avenue for future experimental study, with the cycle of hypothesis generation and testing being considerably bolstered if this cycle includes both styles of experimentation and is linked to the archaeological record.…”