Beyond the Graver: Reconsidering Burin Function

Barton, C. Michael; Olszewski, Deborah I.; Coinman, Nancy R.

doi:10.2307/530611

Cited by 38 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…"splintered piece" is just that, a description of an object that does not imply a fixed category of meaning. Like burins (Barton et al, 1996), "splintered pieces" may encompass several functional categories of tool and at least one category of industrial debris. The nature of bipolar reduction makes the distinction between core and flake ambiguous at times, an ambiguity obviated by calling the objects "splintered pieces" rather than cores or flakes.…”

Section: Terminologymentioning

confidence: 99%

On Bipolar Reduction and Splintered Pieces

Shott

1999

North American Archaeologist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objects variously called bipolar cores, pièces esquillées and other things are abundant in the record. Some interpret them as the exhausted remnants of bipolar reduction, others as wedges used with antler or bone. I propose that we call them "splintered pieces" to avoid functional connotations. Splintered pieces illustrate the problem of equifinality, different causes producing like consequences. A growing but uncertain consensus regards most splintered pieces as cores. Reviewing the latest expression of a different interpretation, I conclude that experimental, ethnographic, and archaeological data continue to support the view that most-not all-splintered pieces are cores. Nevertheless, the need remains urgent to search ethnographic accounts for support of the wedge view, to conduct further experiments, and to seek conclusive archaeological association of splintered pieces with wedging.

show abstract

Section: Terminologymentioning

confidence: 99%

On Bipolar Reduction and Splintered Pieces

Shott

1999

North American Archaeologist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The notions of 'imposed form' and 'morphological standardization' are typological illusions. Exactly the same kinds of arguments about equifinality of form that Dibble (e.g., 1987) has made so successfully in regard to Middle Paleolithic artefacts can, and have been, made about Upper Paleolithic (e.g., Barton et al 1996) and even Epipaleolithic (Neeley & Barton 1994) artefacts.…”

Section: The Cultural Transition In Retrospectmentioning

confidence: 93%

The middle‐upper paleolithic transition in Europe: An American perspective

Clark

1997

Norwegian Archaeological Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A view of the Middle-Upper Paleolithic transition in Europe is offered from the perspective of Americanist anthropological archaeology. After a brief consideration of how the transition seems to be perceived by many British and Continental workers, patterns in lithic typology and technology, raw material variability, reduction strategies and intensity of site use, blank frequencies; bone, antler and ivory technologies, paleolithic art, subsistence strategies and settlement patterns are reviewed. It is concluded that perceptions of pattern, and what it might mean, are (1) theory-laden and paradigm dependent, and (2) are almost entirely determined by the relative importance of historicist biases in a particular research tradition, and (3) by preconceptions about the nature of the biological transition between archaic and modern humans.

show abstract

“…Consistent inquiries into the nature of burins emerged in the 1990's, challenging the concept of burin on empirical grounds by suggesting that in numerous cases burins served as cores for blade production, specifically in the production of Dufour bladelets, and that their use as tools was often secondary (e.g., Almeida, 2001;Aubry et al, 1995;Barton et al, 1996;Chazan, 2001;Coinman and Clausen, 2000;Hays and Lucas, 2000). These studies argue convincingly that the artifact variability is often a result of adjusting the technique of tool manufacture to blade or flake thickness, rather than an inherent stylistic or functional change.…”

Section: The Burin: Between Typology and Technologymentioning

confidence: 97%

What is a Burin? Typology, Technology, and Interregional Comparison

Tomášková

2005

J Archaeol Method Theory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Classification of artifacts has long marked a significant edge between theory and practice in archaeology. While considering classification to be a necessary methodological device, most practitioners also recognize that it carries with it built-in assumptions. This essay approaches the issue by way of a specific stone tool type from Old World sites: the burin. By asking "what is a burin?" the study shows the need to reconsider typologies to reflect changes in research questions and progress in dating methods, especially when working with museum collections and secondary data between regions and across national traditions, and the need to study whole collections from the perspective of technological choices.

show abstract

Beyond the Graver: Reconsidering Burin Function

Cited by 38 publications

References 0 publications

On Bipolar Reduction and Splintered Pieces

On Bipolar Reduction and Splintered Pieces

The middle‐upper paleolithic transition in Europe: An American perspective

What is a Burin? Typology, Technology, and Interregional Comparison

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About