Raw Material Durability, Function, and Retouch in the Upper Paleolithic of the Transbaikal Region, Siberia

Abstract

Stone tool reduction intensity and raw material availability have often been correlated with human organizational strategies. Assemblages from Early, Middle, and Late Upper Paleolithic sites in the Transbaikal region of Siberia were compared and assessed for retouch amount using several techniques. These studies reveal that stone tool functional requirements play an important role in the amount and intensity of retouch in the region. It is also shown that artifact function correlates with raw material selection, where certain kinds of activities, such as scraping, are most effectively accomplished with specific raw material characteristics. Human organizational patterns in the Transbaikal region are only evident when these factors are considered in assessing retouch measures.Lithic Materials and Paleolithic Societies Edited by Brian Adams and Brooke S. Blades

The Analysis of Stone Tool Procurement, Production, and Maintenance

“…This suggests that different lithic raw material types have different fracture properties and different amounts of brittleness and durability. Terry et al (2008) also found that raw material type tended to significantly vary with regard to different tool forms during the Upper Paleolithic in the Transbaikal region of Siberia. Thinking that these raw material differences might be related to raw material effectiveness for task completion, they established a set of experiments to test the effectiveness of scraping and cutting different densities of wood.…”

“…Thinking that these raw material differences might be related to raw material effectiveness for task completion, they established a set of experiments to test the effectiveness of scraping and cutting different densities of wood. They found that extremely glassy cryptocrystalline chert was less effective for heavy-duty scraping than were more coarsely textured igneous rocks (Terry et al 2008). These results strongly suggest that lithic raw material types can be important for different functions and need to be considered in scenarios of technological organization.…”

“…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.…”

Human Dispersal from Siberia to Beringia

“…A few assemblages (Ust' Kova and Derbina 4/5) have bifacial projectile points (Akimova et al 2003;Goebel 2004b;Medvedev 1998b), whereas elsewhere most projectile points were constructed of osseous materials. Processing implements include simple retouched flakes and blades and a variety of other small, functional tools (Derevianko 2005;Graf 2008Graf , 2010Konstantinov 1994;Terry 2010;Terry, Andrefsky, and Konstantinov 2009).…”

Early Epipaleolithic lithics, time-averaging, and site interpretations: Wadi al-Hasa region, Western Highlands of Jordan

“…All other macrotool types in the different occupations at the sites have relatively low frequencies. Some of the macrotool classes, particularly endscrapers and burins, are sometimes used in interpretations for specific activities such as hide scraping and engraving of bone and stone, respectively (Andrefsky, Jr., 2005;Terry et al, 2009;Hinguant et al, 2012;Clarkstone et al, 2015).…”