Distribution patterns of stone-tool reduction: Establishing frames of reference to approximate occupational features and formation processes in Paleolithic societies

Use and Multifactorial Reconciliation of Uniface Reduction Measures: A Pilot Study at the Nobles Pond Paleoindian Site

“…On balance, in Weibull model-fitting, most Nobles Pond endscrapers were depleted after considerable but not exhaustive use, some probably retaining utility when discarded. Morales (2016:236) reported similar results using a single reduction measure in Paleolithic data. Overall, Morrow and Bohush controls pattern mostly as expected, and the Nobles Pond sample falls between the extremes they define.…”

“…Endscrapers are a suitable subject for reduction analysis, experiencing resharpening chiefly on their bits, which results in disproportionate reduction in length compared to other dimensions (Daniel et al 2007:79; Morales 2016:234; Morrow 1997; Sahle and Negash 2016:Table 1; Shott and Weedman 2007). Bearing in mind that original design and patterns of retouch make different measures more or less suitable for different tool types and analytical purposes, the estimation of original size from reduced size uses several properties of tools, including the cross-sectional geometry of retouched flakes (e.g., Brumm and McLaren 2011; Clarkson 2002a; Eren et al 2005; Eren and Prendergast 2007; Goodale et al 2010; Hiscock and Clarkson 2005; Kuhn 1990; Méndez et al 2007:591–592; Morales 2016:234), degree and extent of retouch invasiveness (e.g., Andrefsky 2006; Clarkson 2002b; Li et al 2015), and reduction allometry (e.g., Blades 2003; Braun 2005; Cardillo and Charlin 2009; Goldstein 2014; Iriarte 1995; Lerner 2015; Quinn et al 2008; Seeman et al 2013:Figure 10; Shipton and Clarkson 2015). Allometric reduction variation is demonstrated in the steady decline in endscraper length while width and especially thickness remain more constant, a pattern found in both experimental (Bohush 2013: Appendix B; Morrow 1997; Sahle and Negash 2016:Table 1; Figure 1) and empirical (Eren 2013:Figure 7) data.…”

“…If reduction indices measure, at least indirectly, the amount of utility extracted from tools (Shott 1996), then the shape of their distributions can reveal the major factors that explain that degree of curation. As before (Shott and Seeman 2015; see also Morales 2016; Morales, Soto, et al 2015; Shott 2016), we fitted empirical distributions to the Weibull model. The basic Weibull is a two-parameter model that describes a distribution's scale (α) and form (β).…”

“…Pattern and especially degree of change correlate with duration of use (Dibble 1987; Shott 1995), thus comprising measures of use life. Use life is good to know for its own sake, as perhaps a design attribute of tools (e.g., Beck 1998; Iovita 2010), in behavioral models of tool design and use (e.g., Kuhn 1994; Kuhn and Miller 2015), and to tease out occupation modes and spans in time-averaged accumulations (Morales 2016:235–236; Surovell 2009:191–200; Ugan et al 2003). Use life also affects the rate at which tools are discarded and thereby influences assemblage size and composition (Ammerman and Feldman 1974; Cowgill 1989; Shott 2010).…”

“…Endscrapers, common in Paleolithic and Paleoindian assemblages, are analyzed for their raw materials, technology of production, retouch, and wear on margins and faces as evidence of hafting and use. Increasingly, endscrapers also are studied for the factors and processes by which they enter the archaeological record, particularly how their size and form reveal use life and the allometric change they experienced between first use and discard (e.g., Morales 2016). Use life can be as important a functional attribute of tools as the form, angle, and retouch technology of their used edge.…”