Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences

, Volume 10, Issue 7, pp 1791–1806 | Cite as

Flake selection and scraper retouch probability: an alternative model for explaining Middle Paleolithic assemblage retouch variability

  • Sam C. LinEmail author
Original Paper


It has been proposed that the relative abundance of retouched objects in Paleolithic assemblages can serve as a measure for artifact transport and by extension a proxy for site occupation duration. This approach is based on the assumption that retouch represents curatory effort for extending the service time of transported artifacts when raw material access is uncertain or limited, a condition that could arise when groups move frequently over long distances across the landscape. This paper proposes an alternative model that explains retouch as a probabilistic outcome of an expedient, on-site flake selection process. A simulation illustrates that the model is capable of producing assemblage retouch configurations akin to those commonly observed in Paleolithic settings. The simulation also indicates that the threshold applied by past individuals for selecting particular artifacts is an important parameter for explaining assemblage retouch variability. Using artifact weight as a proxy for flake selection criteria, several Middle Paleolithic assemblages exhibit patterns that support predictions made from the model simulation. Findings suggest that variation in scraper frequency among the studied assemblages can be accounted for by an interaction between the abundance of artifact production events and shifting artifact selection criteria, without appealing to higher-level behaviors of technological and mobility strategies.


Stone artifact assemblage Retouched artifacts Scrapers Modeling Flake selection Middle Paleolithic 



Many ideas presented here were developed through discussions with Harold Dibble, Dennis Sandgathe, and Alex Mackay. Thanks to Harold Dibble and Shannon McPherron for the permission to use the Roc de Marsal and Pech de l’Azé IV data. R functions for R 2-like effect size, dispersion parameter, and GLMM stability are courtesy of Roger Mundry. Harold Dibble, Shannon McPherron, Matthew Douglass, and Alex Mackay offered valuable comments on early drafts. Comments from two anonymous reviewers helped improve significantly the quality and clarity of the paper.


  1. Aldeias V, Goldberg P, Sandgathe D, Berna F, Dibble HL, McPherron SP, Turq A, Rezek Z (2012) Evidence for Neandertal use of fire at Roc de Marsal (France). J Archaeol Sci 39:2414–2423Google Scholar
  2. Andrefsky W (1994) Raw-material availability and the organization of technology. Am Antiq 59:21–34Google Scholar
  3. Bamforth DB (1986) Technological efficiency and tool curation. Am Antiq 51:38–50Google Scholar
  4. Barr DJ, Levy R, Scheepers C, Tily HJ (2013) Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: keep it maximal. J Mem Lang 68:255–278Google Scholar
  5. Barton CM (1990) Beyond style and function: a view from the Middle Paleolithic. Am Anthropol 92:57–72Google Scholar
  6. Barton CM (1998) Looking back from the world’s end: Paleolithic settlement and mobility at Gibraltar. In: Sanchidrián Torti JL, Simón Vallejo MD (eds) Las culturas del pleistoceno superior en Andalucía. Patronato de la Cueva de Nerja, Málaga, pp 13–22Google Scholar
  7. Barton CM, Riel-Salvatore J (2014) The formation of lithic assemblages. J Archaeol Sci 46:334–352Google Scholar
  8. Barton CM, Riel-Salvatore J, Anderies JM, Popescu G (2011) Modeling human ecodynamics and biocultural interactions in the Late Pleistocene of Western Eurasia. Hum Ecol 39:705–725Google Scholar
  9. Bates D, Maechler M, Bolker BM, Walker S (2015) lme4: linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4. R package version 1:1–8Google Scholar
  10. Bertran P, Lenoble A, Todisco D, Mesrosiers PM, Sørensen M (2012) Particle size distribution of lithic assemblages and taphonomy of Palaeolithic sites. J Archaeol Sci 39:3148–3166Google Scholar
  11. Binford LR (1979) Organization and formation processes: looking at curated technologies. J Anthropol Res 35:255–273Google Scholar
  12. Binford LR (1980) Willow smoke and dogs’ tails: hunter-gatherer settlement systems and archaeological site formation. Am Antiq 45:4–20Google Scholar
  13. Binford LR, O’Connell JF (1984) An Alyawara day: the stone quarry. J Anthropol Res 40:406–432Google Scholar
  14. Bordes F, Kelley J, Cinq-Mars J (1969) Reflections on typology and techniques in the Palaeolithic. Arctic Anthropol 6:1–29Google Scholar
  15. Bourguignon L (1997) Le Moustérien de type Quina: nouvelle définition d’une entité technique. Dissertation, Université de Paris XGoogle Scholar
  16. Brandt SA, Weedman KJ, Hundie G (1996) Gurage hide working stone tool use and social identity: an ethnoarchaeological perspective. In: Hudson G (ed) Essay on gurage language and culture. Harrassowitz, Wiesbaden, pp 35–51Google Scholar
  17. Brantingham PJ, Olsen JW, Rech JA, Krivoshapkin AI (2000) Raw material quality and prepared core technologies in northeast Asia. J Archaeol Sci 27:255–271Google Scholar
  18. Braun DR, Plummer T, Ferraro JV, Ditchfield P, Bishop LC (2009) Raw material quality and Oldowan hominin toolstone preferences: evidence from Kanjera South, Kenya. J Archaeol Sci 36:1605–1614Google Scholar
  19. Brown CT (2001) The fractal dimensions of lithic reduction. J Archaeol Sci 28:619–631Google Scholar
  20. Brumm A, McLaren A (2011) Scraper reduction and “imposed form” at the Lower Palaeolithic site of High Lodge, England. J Hum Evol 60:185–204Google Scholar
  21. Chase PG, Debénath A, Dibble HL, McPherron SP (2009) The cave of Fontéchevade: recent excavations and their paleoanthropological implications. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  22. Clarkson C (2002) Holocene scraper reduction, technological organization and landuse at Ingaladdi Rockshelter, Northern Australia. Archaeol Ocean 37:79–86Google Scholar
  23. Clarkson C, Haslam M, Harris C (2015) When to retouch, haft, or discard? Modeling optimal use/maintenance schedules in lithic tool use. In: Andrefsky W, Goodale N (eds) Lithic technological systems and evolutionary theory. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 117–138Google Scholar
  24. Davies B, Holdaway SJ, Fanning PC (2016) Modelling the palimpsest: an exploratory agent-based model of surface archaeological deposit formation in a fluvial arid Australian landscape. The Holocene 26:450–463Google Scholar
  25. Debénath A, Dibble HL (1994) Handbook of Paleolithic typology vol. 1: the Lower and Middle Paleolithic of Europe. University Museum Press, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  26. Delagnes A, Rendu W (2011) Shifts in Neandertal mobility, technology and subsistence strategies in western France. J Archaeol Sci 38:1771–1783Google Scholar
  27. Dibble HL (1984) Interpreting typological variation of Middle Paleolithic scrapers: function, style, or sequence of reduction. J Field Archaeol 11:431–436Google Scholar
  28. Dibble HL (1987) The interpretation of Middle Paleolithic scraper morphology. Am Antiq 52:109–117Google Scholar
  29. Dibble HL (1991) Local raw material exploitation and its effects on Lower and Middle Paleolithic assemblage variability. In: Montet-White A, Holen S (eds) Raw matrerial economies among prehistoric hunter-gaterers. University of Kansas Press, Lawrence, pp 33–47Google Scholar
  30. Dibble HL (1995) Middle Paleolithic scraper reduction: background, clarification, and review of the evidence to date. J Archaeol Method Th 2:299–368Google Scholar
  31. Dibble HL, Rolland N (1992) On assemblage variability in the Middle Paleolithic of Western Europe. In: Dibble HL, Mellars P (eds) The Middle Paleolithic: adaptation, behavior, and variability. The University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, Philadelphia, pp 1–28Google Scholar
  32. Dibble HL, McPherron SP, Chase PG, Farrand WR, Debénath A (2006) Taphonomy and the concept of Paleolithic cultures: the case of the Tayacian from Fontéchevade. PaleoAnthropol 2006:1–21Google Scholar
  33. Dibble HL, Berna F, Goldberg P, McPherron SP, Mentzer S, Niven L, Richter D, Sandgathe D, Théry-Parisot I, Turq A (2009) A preliminary report on Pech de l’Azé IV, layer 8 (Middle Paleolithic, France). PaleoAnthropol 2009:182–219Google Scholar
  34. Dibble, HL, Holdaway SJ, Lin SC, Braun DR, Douglass MJ, Iovita R, McPherron SP, Olszewski DI, Sandgathe D (2016) Major fallacies surrounding stone artifacts and assemblages. J Archaeol Method Th. doi: 10.1007/s10816-016-9297-8
  35. Discamps E, Jaubert J, Bachellerie F (2011) Human choices and environmental constraints: deciphering the variability of large game procurement from Mousterian to Aurignacian times (MIS 5–3) in southwestern France. Quaternary Sci Rev 30:2755–2775Google Scholar
  36. Douglass MJ, Holdaway SJ, Shiner JI, Fanning PC (2016) Quartz and silcrete raw material use and selection in late Holocene assemblages from semi-arid Australia. Quaternary Int 424:12–23Google Scholar
  37. Elston RG (1990) A cost-benefit model of lithic assemblage variability. In: Elston RG, Budy EE (eds) The archaeology of James Creek Shelter. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, pp 153–163Google Scholar
  38. Faraway JJ (2006) Extending the linear model with R: generalized linear, mixed effects and nonparametric regression models. Taylor & Francis Group, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  39. Fox J, Weisberg S (2011) An R companion to applied regression, 2nd edn. Sage, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  40. Gould RA, Koster DA, Sontz AHL (1971) The lithic assemblage of the Western Desert Aborigines of Australia. Am Antiq 36:149–169Google Scholar
  41. Hayden B (1979) Paleolithic reflections. Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, CanberraGoogle Scholar
  42. Hiscock P (1988) A cache of tulas from the Boulia District, Western Queensland. Archaeol Ocean 23:60–70Google Scholar
  43. Hiscock P (2004) Slippery and Billy: intention, selection and equifinality in lithic artefacts. Camb Archaeol J 14:71–77Google Scholar
  44. Hiscock P (2015) Making it small in the Palaeolithic: bipolar stone-working, miniature artefacts and models of core recycling. World Archaeol 47:158–169Google Scholar
  45. Hiscock P, Clarkson C (2005) Experimental evaluation of Kuhn’s geometric index of reduction and the flat-flake problem. J Archaeol Sci 32:1015–1022Google Scholar
  46. Hiscock P, Turq A, Faivre J, Bourguignon L (2009) Quina procurement and tool production. In: Adams B, Blades BS (eds) Lithic materials and Paleolithic societies. Wiley Blackwell, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  47. Holdaway SJ, Douglass MJ (2012) A twenty-first century archaeology of stone artifacts. J Archaeol Method Th 19:101–131Google Scholar
  48. Holdaway SJ, Douglass MJ (2015) Use beyond manufacture: non-flint stone artifacts from Fowlers Gap, Australia. Lithic Technol 40:94–111Google Scholar
  49. Holdaway SJ, Wandsnider L (2008) Time in archaeology: an introduction. In: Holdaway SJ, Wandsnider L (eds) Time in archaeology: time perspectivism revisited. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, pp 1–12Google Scholar
  50. Holdaway SJ, McPherron SP, Roth BJ (1996) Notched tool reuse and raw material availability in French Middle Paleolithic sites. Am Antiq 61:377–387Google Scholar
  51. Holdaway SJ, Shiner JI, Fanning PC (2004) Hunter-gatherers and the archaeology of discard behavior: an analysis of surface stone artifacts from Sturt National Park, western New South Wales, Australia. Asian Perspect 43:34–72Google Scholar
  52. Iovita R (2014) The role of edge angle maintenance in explaining technological variation in the production of Late Middle Paleolithic bifacial and unifacial tools. Quaternary Int 350:105–115Google Scholar
  53. Jones PR (1980) Experimetal butchery with modern stone tools and its relevance for Palaeolithic archaeology. World Archaeol 12:153–165Google Scholar
  54. Key AJM, Lycett SJ (2014) Are bigger flakes always better? An experimental assessment of flake size variation on cutting efficiency and loading. J Archaeol Sci 41:140–146Google Scholar
  55. Key AJM, Lycett SJ (2015) Edge angle as a variably influential factor in flake cutting efficiency: an experimental investigation of its relationship with tool size and loading. Archaeometry 57:911–927Google Scholar
  56. Kohler TA (2012) Complex systems and archaeology. In: Hodder I (ed) Archaeological theory today. Polity Press, Cambridge, pp 93–123Google Scholar
  57. Kuhn SL (1991) “Unpacking” reduction: lithic raw material economy in the Mousterian of West-Central Italy. J Anthropol Archaeol 10:76–106Google Scholar
  58. Kuhn SL (1992a) On planning and curated technologies in the Middle Paleolithic. J Anthropol Res 48:185–214Google Scholar
  59. Kuhn SL (1992b) Blank form and reduction as determinants of Mousterian scraper morphology. Am Antiq 57:115–128Google Scholar
  60. Kuhn SL (1995) Mousterian lithic technology: an ecological perspective. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  61. Kuhn SL (2004) Middle Paleolithic assemblage formation at Riparo Mochi. In: Johnson AL (ed) Processual archaeology: exploring analytical strategies, frames of reference, and culture process. Praeger, Westport, pp 31–60Google Scholar
  62. Kuhn SL, Clark AE (2015) Artifact densities and assemblage formation: evidence from Tabun Cave. J Anthropol Archaeol 38:8–16Google Scholar
  63. Lemorini C, Bourguignon L, Zupancich A, Gopher A, Barkai R (2016) A scraper’s life history: morpho-techno-functional and use-wear analysis of Quina and demi-Quina scrapers from Qesem Cave, Israel. Quaternary Int 398:86–93Google Scholar
  64. Lin SC, Rezek Z, Braun DR, Dibble HL (2013) On the utility and economization of unretouched flakes: the effects of exterior platform angle and platform depth. Am Antiq 78:724–745Google Scholar
  65. Lin SC, McPherron SP, Dibble HL (2015) Establishing statistical confidence in cortex ratios within and among lithic assemblages: a case study of the Middle Paleolithic of southwestern France. J Archaeol Sci 59:89–109Google Scholar
  66. Lin SC, Douglass MJ, Mackay A (2016a) Interpreting MIS3 artefact transport patterns in southern Africa using cortex ratios: an example from the Putslaagte valley, Western Cape. S Afr Archaeol Bull 71:173–180Google Scholar
  67. Lin SC, Pop CM, Dibble HL, Archer W, Desta D, Weiss M, McPherron SP (2016b) A core reduction experiment finds no effect of original stone size and reduction intensity on flake debris size distribution. Am Antiq 81:562–575Google Scholar
  68. Mackay A (2008) A method for estimating edge length from flake dimensions: use and implications for technological change in the southern African MSA. J Archaeol Sci 35:614–622Google Scholar
  69. McPherron SP, Braun DR, Dogandžić T, Archer W, Desta D, Lin SC (2014) An experimental assessment of the influences on edge damage to lithic artifacts: a consideration of edge angle, substrate grain size, raw material properties, and exposed face. J Archaeol Sci 49:70–82Google Scholar
  70. Meignen L, Delagnes A, Bourguignon L (2009) Patterns of lithic material procurement and transformation during the Middle Paleolithic in Western Europe. In: Adams B, Blades BS (eds) Lithic materials and Paleolithic societies. Wiley Blackwell, New York, pp 15–24Google Scholar
  71. Nelson MC (1991) The study of technological organization. Archaeol Method Th 3:57–100Google Scholar
  72. Niven L, Steele TE, Rendu W, Mallye J-B, McPherron SP, Soressi M, Jaubert J, Hublin J-J (2012) Neandertal mobility and large-game hunting: the exploitation of reindeer during the Quina Mousterian at Chez-Pinaud Jonzac (Charente-Maritime, France). J Hum Evol 63:624–635Google Scholar
  73. Prasciunas MM (2007) Bifacial cores and flake production efficiency: an experimental test of technological assumptions. Am Antiq 72:334–348Google Scholar
  74. Premo LS (2006) Agent-based models as behavioral laboratories for evolutionary anthropological research. Ariz Anthropol 17:91–113Google Scholar
  75. R Core Team (2017) R: a language and environment for statistical computing (ver. 3.3.3). R Foundation for Statistical Computing, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  76. Riel-Salvatore J, Barton CM (2004) Late Pleistocene technology, economic behavior, and land-use dynamics in southern Italy. Am Antiq 69:257–274Google Scholar
  77. Riel-Salvatore J, Barton CM (2007) New quantitative perspectives on the Middle-Upper Paleolithic transition: the view from the Northern Mediterranean. In: Riel-Salvatore J, Clark GA (eds) Transitions great and small: new approaches to the study of Early Upper Paleolithic “transitional” industries in Western Eurasia. Archaeopress, Oxford, pp 61–74Google Scholar
  78. Riel-Salvatore J, Popescu G, Barton CM (2008) Standing at the gates of Europe: human behavior and biogeography in the Southern Carpathians during the Late Pleistocene. J Anthropol Archaeol 27:399–417Google Scholar
  79. Rolland N, Dibble HL (1990) A new synthesis of Middle Paleolithic variability. Am Antiq 55:480–499Google Scholar
  80. Roth BJ, Dibble HL (1998) Production and transport of blanks and tools at the French Middle Paleolithic site of Combe-Capelle Bas. Am Antiq 63:47–62Google Scholar
  81. Rots V (2013) Insights into early Middle Palaeolithic tool use and hafting in Western Europe. The functional analysis of level IIa of the early Middle Palaeolithic site of Biache-Saint-Vaast (France). J Archaeol Sci 40:497–506Google Scholar
  82. Sandgathe DM (2005) An analysis of the Levallois reduction strategy using a design theory. Dissertation, Simon Frasier UniversityGoogle Scholar
  83. Sandgathe DM, Dibble HL, Goldberg P, McPherron SP, Turq A, Schwortz S (2008) Roc de Marsal (Campagne-de- Bugue, Dordogne): Rapport d’Opération pour l’Année 2008. Report on file with the Service Régional de l’Archéologie, BordeauxGoogle Scholar
  84. Sandgathe DM, Dibble HL, Goldberg P, McPherron SP (2011a) The Roc de Marsal Neandertal child: a reassessment of its status as a deliberate burial. J Hum Evol 61:243–253Google Scholar
  85. Sandgathe DM, Dibble HL, Goldberg P, McPherron SP, Turq A, Niven L, Hodgkins J (2011b) On the role of fire in Neanderthal adaptations in Western Europe: evidence from Pech de l’Aze IV and Roc de Marsal, France. PaleoAnthropol 2011:216–242Google Scholar
  86. Semenov SA (1964) Prehistoric technology: an experimental study of the oldest tools and artefacts from traces of manufacture and wear. Adams & Dart, BathGoogle Scholar
  87. Shiner JI, Holdaway SJ, Allen H, Fanning PC (2007) Burkes cave and flaked stone assemblage variability in western New South Wales, Australia. Aust Archaeol 64:35–45Google Scholar
  88. Shott MJ (1989) On tool-class use lives and the formation of archaeological assemblages. Am Antiq 54:9–30Google Scholar
  89. Shott MJ (1995) How much is a scraper? Curation, use rates, and the formation of scraper assemblages. Lithic Technol 2:53–72Google Scholar
  90. Shott MJ (1996) An exegesis of the curation concept. J Anthropol Archaeol 52:259–280Google Scholar
  91. Shott MJ (1997) Activity and formation as sources of variation in Great Lakes Paleoindian assemblages. Midcontinental J Archaeol 22:197–236Google Scholar
  92. Snijders TAB (2005) Fixed and random effects. In: Everitt BS, Howell DC (eds) Encyclopdepia of statistics in behavioral science, vol 2. Whiley, Chicester, pp 664–665Google Scholar
  93. Stern N (1994) The implications of time-averaging for reconstructing the land-use patterns of early tool-using hominids. J Hum Evol 27:89–105Google Scholar
  94. Surovell TA (2012) Toward a behavioral ecology of lithic technology: cases from Paleoindian archaeology. University of Arizona Press, TusconGoogle Scholar
  95. Tindale N (1965) Stone implement making among the Nakako, Ngadadjara and Pitjandjara of the Great Western Desert. Rec S Aust Mus 15:131–164Google Scholar
  96. Turq A (1989) Approche technologique et économique du facies Moustérien de type Quina: etude préliminaire. Bull Soc Préhist Fr 86:244–256Google Scholar
  97. Turq A (1992) Raw material and technological studies of the Quina Mousterian in Perigord. In: Dibble HL, Mellars P (eds) The Middle Paleolithic: adaptation, behavior, and variability. University Museum Press, Philadelphia, pp 75–85Google Scholar
  98. Turq A, Dibble HL, Faivre J, Goldberg P, McPherron SP, Sandgathe D (2008) Le Moustérien du Périgord Noir: quoi de neuf? In: Jaubert J, Bordes J-G, Ortega I (eds) Les Sociétés Paléolithiques d’un grand Sud-Ouest: nouveaux gisements, nouvelles méthodes, nouveaux résultats. Mémoire XLVII de la Société préhistorique française, Paris, pp 83–94Google Scholar
  99. Turq A, Dibble HL, Goldberg P, McPherron SP, Sandgathe DM, Jones H, Maddison K, Maureille B, Mentzer S, Rink J, Steenhuyse A (2011) Les Fouilles Récentes du Pech de l’Azé IV (Dordogne). Gallia Préhist 53:1–58Google Scholar
  100. Turq A, Roebroeks W, Bourguignon L, Faivre J-P (2013) The fragmented character of Middle Palaeolithic stone tool technology. J Hum Evol 65:641–655Google Scholar
  101. Venables WN, Ripley BD (2002) Modern applied statistics with S, 4th edn. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  102. Villaverde V, Aura JE, Barton CM (1998) The Upper Paleolithic in Mediterranean Spain: a review of current evidence. J World Prehist 12:121–198Google Scholar
  103. White JP (1968) Fabricators, Outils écaillés or scalar cores? Mankind 6:658–666Google Scholar
  104. White JP, Thomas DH (1972) What mean these stones? Ethno-taxonomic models and archaeological interpretations in the New Guinea Highlands. In: Clarke D (ed) Models in archaeology. Methuen Publishing Ltd, London, pp 275–308Google Scholar
  105. Wickham H (2009) ggplot2: elegant graphics for data analysis. Springer-Verlag, New YorkGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Archaeological Science, School of Earth and Environmental SciencesUniversity of WollongongWollongongAustralia

Personalised recommendations