Retouch (lithics)

Last updated

Retouch is the act of producing scars on a stone flake after the ventral surface has been created. [1] It can be done to the edge of an implement in order to make it into a functional tool, or to reshape a used tool. Retouch can be a strategy to reuse an existing lithic artifact and enable people to transform one tool into another tool. [2] Depending on the form of classification that one uses, it may be argued that retouch can also be conducted on a core-tool, if such a category exists, such as a hand-axe.

Contents

Retouch may simply consist of roughly trimming an edge by striking with a hammerstone, or on smaller, finer flake or blade tools it is sometimes carried out by pressure flaking. Other forms of retouch may include burination, which is retouch that is conducted in a parallel orientation to the flake margin. Retouch is often taken as one of the most obvious features distinguishing a tool from a waste by-product of lithic manufacture (debitage).

The extent of reduction, also known as the retouch intensity, is denoted by a measure of the reduction index. [3] There are many quantitative and qualitative methods used to measure this.

Measuring retouch

Calculating the Geometric Index of Unifacial Reduction (GIUR)
T = overall artefact thickness
t = height of retouch scar
This diagram shows how to calculate the GIUR of a unifacial lithic artefact as described in Hiscock and Clarkson (2005). Each measurement is taken at three points along the reduced edge (denoted here by subscript) and t/T ratios are calculated and averaged to produce the artefact's GIUR value. This value increases proportionally to the amount of reduction. Calculating the Geometric Index of Unifacial Reduction (GIUR).gif
Calculating the Geometric Index of Unifacial Reduction (GIUR)
T = overall artefact thickness
t = height of retouch scar
This diagram shows how to calculate the GIUR of a unifacial lithic artefact as described in Hiscock and Clarkson (2005). Each measurement is taken at three points along the reduced edge (denoted here by subscript) and t/T ratios are calculated and averaged to produce the artefact's GIUR value. This value increases proportionally to the amount of reduction.

Quantitative measurements

There are three indices of retouch that offer significant inferential power in determining the amount of mass lost in the process of retouching. Despite particular weaknesses associated with each method, the following methods have been shown to be the most robust, versatile, sensitive, and comprehensive. [3]

Geometric index of unifacial reduction (GIUR)

This method uses measurements of flake thickness and the height of retouch scars to produce a ratio between 0 and 1 of the index of reduction. In the original publication on GIUR by Kuhn (1990), [5] scars are measured at three points (t) along the retouched edge (usually at proximal, medial, and distal points) and then divided by the overall thickness (T) to produce this ratio. The equation is GIUR= ((t1+t2+t3)/3)/T. However, scholars have recently revised Kuhn's methods by measuring T at each point t is measured. The updated calculation is GIUR= (t1/T1+ t2/T2 + t3/T3)/3. [4] The new method creates more data points and may erase biases caused by high variation in artefact thickness. [6] Typically, higher GIUR values indicate more invasive or extensive retouch. Calipers can be used to measure the height of the retouch scar or a goniometer can be used to measure the angle of the retouch and the height can be calculated with the equation t=D sin(a), where "D" is scar length and "a" is angle of retouch. [6] Limitations of the GIUR are its restriction to use on unifacially retouched flakes and that as values increase, they are less able to accurately represent mass loss, because once retouch meets or succeeds the dorsal spine, t/T ratios decline [7]

Measuring retouch on a stone artifact using the Index of Invasiveness Measuring retouch on a stone artefact using the Index of Invasiveness.gif
Measuring retouch on a stone artifact using the Index of Invasiveness

Invasiveness index

This index divides both the dorsal and ventral surface of a flake into eight sections each and calculates a score of how invasive the retouch is. It is based on adding up individual scores from each of the eight sections (each section gets a score of 0, 0.5, or 1) and dividing the total by the number of sections. This index can be used on both unifacially and bifacially retouched flakes. [8]

Initial-/terminal-mass comparison (ITMC)

This index estimates the initial flake mass through the use of laser scanners and the measurement of platform area and exterior platform angle. The platform must be fully intact in order to use this method. [3]

Other measures of retouch

  • Ratio of ventral area to platform area [3]
  • Hafted biface retouch index [3]
  • Estimated reduction percentage (ERP) [3]
  • Ratio of retouched edge to total perimeter

Qualitative measures of retouch

Retouch morphology

This consists of identifying the scar morphology of the retouch. There may be more than one type of scar morphology on a single flake. There are three types of scar morphology.

1. Scaled retouch scars
These are short, become wider at their distal end, and along the flake edge have an acute angle.

2. Stepped retouch scars
These are short, have stepped terminations at their distal end, and along the flake edge have a higher angle.

3. Parallel retouch scars
These are roughly parallel to one another and run along the flake margin.

Retouch direction

This is essentially the direction in which the retouch was removed. There are five common directions of retouch.

1. Obverse retouch
This is retouch that is struck from the ventral surface, causing scars to show up on the dorsal margin. This happens to be the most commonly present retouch direction.

2. Inverse retouch
This is retouch that is struck from the dorsal surface, causing scars to show up on the ventral margins.

3. Alternate retouch
This is present when obverse retouch is apparent on one flake margin, while inverse retouch is apparent on the opposing flake margin.

4. Alternating retouch
This is when obverse and inverse retouch are both present on the same flake margin, but on differing parts of that margin.

5. Bifacial retouch
This is when obverse and inverse retouch are present on the same area of the same flake margin.

Retouch location

This is quite simply a description of where exactly the retouch is located on the flake. The key here is to be very specific. The retouch extensiveness for each area should also be described. This entails whether the retouch is total or partial. Proper flake terminology should be used in these descriptions.

Ethnographic research

Through ethnographic research in Central Australia, Hiscock found that retouch may be conducted on a flake that is ultimately rejected as a tool for use. This shows that retouch may, in some cases, not be a sign of extending the use life of a tool. It may simply be an attempt to make a tool viable for use in the first place and can indicate that particular tool's unsuitability for use. [9] This calls into question many of the basic assumptions made based on retouch and suggests that archaeologists may need to rethink exactly what retouch may mean.

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Microlith</span> Stone tool

A microlith is a small stone tool usually made of flint or chert and typically a centimetre or so in length and half a centimetre wide. They were made by humans from around 35,000 to 3,000 years ago, across Europe, Africa, Asia and Australia. The microliths were used in spear points and arrowheads.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Hammerstone</span> Prehistoric stone tool

In archaeology, a hammerstone is a hard cobble used to strike off lithic flakes from a lump of tool stone during the process of lithic reduction. The hammerstone is a rather universal stone tool which appeared early in most regions of the world including Europe, India and North America. This technology was of major importance to prehistoric cultures before the age of metalworking.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Lithic reduction</span> Process of fashioning stones or rocks into tools and weapons

In archaeology, in particular of the Stone Age, lithic reduction is the process of fashioning stones or rocks from their natural state into tools or weapons by removing some parts. It has been intensely studied and many archaeological industries are identified almost entirely by the lithic analysis of the precise style of their tools and the chaîne opératoire of the reduction techniques they used.

In lithic analysis, an eraillure is a flake removed from a lithic flake's bulb of force, which is a lump left on the ventral surface of a flake after it is detached from a core of tool stone during the process of lithic reduction. The mechanics of eraillure formation are related to the propagation of a Hertzian cone of force through the cryptocrystalline matrix of the stone, but the particulars are poorly understood. Eraillures usually form only when a hammerstone is used for lithic reduction, and then only occasionally; use of 'soft' hammer fabricators made from bone, antler, and wood produce different flake characteristics but may also produce an eraillure in rare cases.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Lithic flake</span> Portion of rock removed from an objective piece by percussion or pressure

In archaeology, a lithic flake is a "portion of rock removed from an objective piece by percussion or pressure," and may also be referred to as simply a flake, or collectively as debitage. The objective piece, or the rock being reduced by the removal of flakes, is known as a core. Once the proper tool stone has been selected, a percussor or pressure flaker is used to direct a sharp blow, or apply sufficient force, respectively, to the surface of the stone, often on the edge of the piece. The energy of this blow propagates through the material, often producing a Hertzian cone of force which causes the rock to fracture in a controllable fashion. Since cores are often struck on an edge with a suitable angle (<90°) for flake propagation, the result is that only a portion of the Hertzian cone is created. The process continues as the flintknapper detaches the desired number of flakes from the core, which is marked with the negative scars of these removals. The surface area of the core which received the blows necessary for detaching the flakes is referred to as the striking platform.

In lithic analysis, a subdivision of archaeology, a bulb of applied force is a defining characteristic of a lithic flake. Bulb of applied force was first correctly described by Sir John Evans, the cofounder of prehistoric archeology. However, bulb of percussion was coined scientifically by W.J. Sollas. When a flake is detached from its parent core, a portion of the Hertzian cone of force caused by the detachment blow is detached with it, leaving a distinctive bulb on the flake and a corresponding flake scar on the core. In the case of a unidirectional core, the bulb of applied force is produced by an initiated crack formed at the point of contact, which begins producing the Hertzian cone. The outward pressure increases causing the crack to curve away from the core and the bulb formation. The bulb of applied force forms below the striking platform as a slight bulge. If the flake is completely crushed the bulb will not be visible. Bulbs of applied force may be distinctive, moderate, or diffuse, depending upon the force of the blow used to detach the flake, and upon the type of material used as a fabricator. The bulb of applied force can indicate the mass or density of the tool used in the application of the force. The bulb may also be an indication of the angle of the force. This information is helpful to archaeologists in understanding and recreating the process of flintknapping. Generally, the harder the material used as a fabricator, the more distinctive the bulb of applied force. Soft hammer percussion has a low diffuse bulb while hard hammer percussion usually leaves a more distinct and noticeable bulb of applied force. Pressure flake also allowed for diffuse bulbs. The bulb of percussion of a flake or blade is convex and the core has a corresponding concave bulb. The concave bulb on the core is known as the negative bulb of percussion. Bulbs of applied force are not usually present if the flake has been struck off naturally. This allows archaeologists to identify and distinguish natural breakage from human artistry. The three main bulb types are flat or nondescript, normal, and pronounced. A flat or nondescript bulb is poorly defined and does not rise up on the ventral surface. A normal bulb on the ventral side has average height and well-defined. A pronounced bulb rises up on ventral side and is very large.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Lithic core</span> In archaeology, a stone artifact left over from toolmaking

In archaeology, a lithic core is a distinctive artifact that results from the practice of lithic reduction. In this sense, a core is the scarred nucleus resulting from the detachment of one or more flakes from a lump of source material or tool stone, usually by using a hard hammer precursor such as a hammerstone. The core is marked with the positive scars of these flakes. The surface area of the core which received the blows necessary for detaching the flakes is referred to as the striking platform. The core may be discarded or shaped further into a core tool, such as can be seen in some types of handaxe.

A stone tool is, in the most general sense, any tool made either partially or entirely out of stone. Although stone tool-dependent societies and cultures still exist today, most stone tools are associated with prehistoric cultures that have become extinct. Archaeologists often study such prehistoric societies, and refer to the study of stone tools as lithic analysis. Ethnoarchaeology has been a valuable research field in order to further the understanding and cultural implications of stone tool use and manufacture.

In archaeology, lithic analysis is the analysis of stone tools and other chipped stone artifacts using basic scientific techniques. At its most basic level, lithic analyses involve an analysis of the artifact's Morphology (archaeology), the measurement of various physical attributes, and examining other visible features.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Hand axe</span> Stone tool

A hand axe is a prehistoric stone tool with two faces that is the longest-used tool in human history. It is made from stone, usually flint or chert that has been "reduced" and shaped from a larger piece by knapping, or hitting against another stone. They are characteristic of the lower Acheulean and middle Palaeolithic (Mousterian) periods, roughly 1.6 million years ago to about 100,000 years ago, and used by Homo erectus and other early humans, but rarely by Homo sapiens.

In archaeology, a uniface is a specific type of stone tool that has been flaked on one surface only. There are two general classes of uniface tools: modified flakes—and formalized tools, which display deliberate, systematic modification of the marginal edges, evidently formed for a specific purpose.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Racloir</span> Type of flint tool

In archaeology, a racloir, also known as racloirs sur talon, is a certain type of flint tool made by prehistoric peoples.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Blade (archaeology)</span> Type of stone tool

In archaeology, a blade is a type of stone tool created by striking a long narrow flake from a stone core. This process of reducing the stone and producing the blades is called lithic reduction. Archaeologists use this process of flintknapping to analyze blades and observe their technological uses for historical purposes.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Levallois technique</span> Distinctive type of stone knapping technique used by ancient humans

The Levallois technique is a name given by archaeologists to a distinctive type of stone knapping developed around 250,000 to 300,000 years ago during the Middle Palaeolithic period. It is part of the Mousterian stone tool industry, and was used by the Neanderthals in Europe and by modern humans in other regions such as the Levant.

In archaeology, lithic technology includes a broad array of techniques used to produce usable tools from various types of stone. The earliest stone tools to date have been found at the site of Lomekwi 3 (LOM3) in Kenya and they have been dated to around 3.3 million years ago. The archaeological record of lithic technology is divided into three major time periods: the Paleolithic, Mesolithic, and Neolithic. Not all cultures in all parts of the world exhibit the same pattern of lithic technological development, and stone tool technology continues to be used to this day, but these three time periods represent the span of the archaeological record when lithic technology was paramount. By analysing modern stone tool usage within an ethnoarchaeological context, insight into the breadth of factors influencing lithic technologies in general may be studied. See: Stone tool. For example, for the Gamo of Southern Ethiopia, political, environmental, and social factors influence the patterns of technology variation in different subgroups of the Gamo culture; through understanding the relationship between these different factors in a modern context, archaeologists can better understand the ways that these factors could have shaped the technological variation that is present in the archaeological record.

The Paleo-Arctic Tradition is the name given by archaeologists to the cultural tradition of the earliest well-documented human occupants of the North American Arctic, which date from the period 8000–5000 BC. The tradition covers Alaska and expands far into the east, west, and the Southwest Yukon Territory.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Flake tool</span> Type of stone tool

In archaeology, a flake tool is a type of stone tool that was used during the Stone Age that was created by striking a flake from a prepared stone core. People during prehistoric times often preferred these flake tools as compared to other tools because these tools were often easily made, could be made to be extremely sharp & could easily be repaired. Flake tools could be sharpened by retouch to create scrapers or burins. These tools were either made by flaking off small particles of flint or by breaking off a large piece and using that as a tool itself. These tools were able to be made by this "chipping" away effect due to the natural characteristic of stone. Stone is able to break apart when struck near the edge. Flake tools are created through flint knapping, a process of producing stone tools using lithic reduction.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Debitage</span> Archeological term; material produced during the process of lithic reduction

In archaeology, debitage is all the material produced during the process of lithic reduction – the production of stone tools and weapons by knapping stone. This assemblage may include the different kinds of lithic flakes and lithic blades, but most often refers to the shatter and production debris, and production rejects.

Peter Dixon Hiscock is an Australian archaeologist. Born in Melbourne, he obtained a PhD from the University of Queensland. Between 2013 and 2021, he was the inaugural Tom Austen Brown Professor of Australian Archaeology at the University of Sydney, having previously held a position in the School of Archaeology and Anthropology at the Australian National University.

The Vail Pass Camp is a multi-component prehistoric site, situated at the summit of Vail Pass, just below the timberline in Colorado. The camp was occupied for over 7000 years, inhabited by various North American aboriginal groups, and is the first open lithic-scatter site. Thirty-three radiocarbon dates were obtained, ranging from 7320 B.P. to 190 B.P. with most dating to the last 3,000 years. The Vail Pass Camp was most likely discovered in 1887 by T.D.A Cockerell.

References

  1. Hiscock, P., 2007, "Looking the other way: a materialist/technological approach to classifying tools and implements, cores and retouched flakes", In S. McPherron and J. Lindley (eds). Tools or Cores? The Identification and Study of Alternative Core Technology in Lithic Assemblages. Pennsylvania: University of Pennsylvania Museum, p. 198-219.
  2. Pelcin, A., 1998, "The threshold effect of platform width: a reply to Davis and Shea", Journal of Archaeological Science, 25, p. 615-620.
  3. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Hiscock, P., & Tabrett, A. 2010. Generalization, inference and the quantification of lithic reduction. World Archaeology, 42(4), 545–561.
  4. 1 2 Hiscock, P., Clarkson, C., 2005. Experimental evaluation of Kuhn’s geometric index of reduction and the flat-flake problem. J. Arch. Sci. 32, 1015–1022
  5. Kuhn, S. 1990 A geometric index of reduction for unifacial stone tools. Journal of Archaeological Science 17:585-593.
  6. 1 2 Hiscock, P., & Tabrett, A. (2010). Generalization, inference and the quantification of lithic reduction. World Archaeology, 42(4), 545–561. doi:10.1080/00438243.2010.517669
  7. Eren, M. I., & 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(6), 1243–1247. doi:10.1016/j.jas.2009.01.011
  8. 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(1):65-75.
  9. Hiscock, P. "Slippery and Billy: intention, selection and equifinality in lithic artefacts", Cambridge Archaeological Journal, 14(01). p. 71-77.