Study of Reduction Intensity on the Side-Scrapers of Komishan Cave, Mazandaran

Authors

1 University Student/Tarbiat Modares University

2 Associate Professor of Tarbiat Modares University

Abstract

One of the ways in which life-histories of formal stone tools could be studied is taking advantage of analyses of diverse retouched edge types, patterns of the retouch, its relative continuity and intensity, and mass/volume loss during retouching process. Study of retouch could provide new insights into the reconstruction of subsistence strategies of ancient societies, intensity of activities, technological organization and so forth. Several episodes of edge retouching processes (for making tools, rejuvenating its edges, resharpening, etc) gradually reduce the basic volume/mass of blanks and tools. Therefore, gradual and progressive decline in stone tool’s volume/mass is the fundamental element of the reduction thesis. Reduction thesis states that lithic’s size and shape will change -due to the human activities- from acquisition of raw materials to discard, and this continuous transformation is always in the form of stone tool’s weight/mass loss. In this research, the main focus is on the concept of reduction/retouch intensity on unifacially retouched tools (URTs) recovered from Komishān cave, a prehistoric site located at the southeastern shore of the Caspian Sea. This site is a karstic cave in the northern foothills of the Huto-kash Mountains, a subset of Alborz Mountains. Lithic assemblages of the cave suggest a broad spectrum of activities were performed by its prehistoric inhabitants. Almost 10 types of tools identified among the stone artifacts. The URTs recovered from 2009 excavation of the cave are subjects of this study. These URTs belong to both disturbed and in situ layers. Totally, they add up to 43 pieces in which, 1-30 belong to the disturbed layers and 31-43 associated with in situ (and lower) layers. The most obvious characteristic of Komishān cave assemblages is the abundance of backed pieces with considerable proportion (pieces with retouched edge angles higher than 70° constitute %25.6 of the assemblage. This kind of steep edge is generally called backed edges). Stone artifacts of Komishān generally made on large blanks, suggesting a local accessibility to high quality raw materials. In addition to that, absence of any kinds of uniformity or standardization among the URT assemblage might indicate easy access to the high quality raw materials. In this research, at first, the reduction/retouch intensity of the URTs was calculated, and then tried to relate this relative intensity to probable site function and use during the Mesolithic Age. The method used here is based on geometric and mathematical calculations, and in this regard, authors took advantage of the three geometric reduction indices that are IR, II and ERP. The IR, II, and ERP values probably indicate the variable nature of reduction, so it seems these three indices are complementary to each other, and using the tri-index approach in which each of these indices is getting involved, one can understand about relative reduction/retouch intensity of individual stone tools or lithic assemblages in a given prehistoric site. In sum,  the results indicate that reduction/retouch intensity of Komishān’s URTs is almost moderate, and significant volume loss along the URT’s lateral edges is probably an outcome of uncontrolled percussion retouching and not due to the continuous story of dulling and resharpening. Considering the fact that inhabitants of Komishān cave had access to the high quality raw materials, such reduction strategy might be expected. There are some evidences that suggest Komishān cave was most likely a base camp with long-term occupation at the periphery of the site (low mobility). Among these are the evenness index, the specific ecoregion of the southern shore of the Caspian Sea (rich ecoregion), faunal remains, and reduction/retouch values.

Keywords

References

ماهفروزی، ع، 1382. گزارش مقدماتی بررسی­ها و کاوش­های باستان­شناختی در شرق مازندران (با پیوست هایی از سونیا شیدرنگ، سامان حیدری، الهام قصیدیان، رحمت نادری و مرجان مشکور)، گزارش­های باستان­شناسی 2: 303-263.
وحدتی نسب، ح، 1379. مطالعه و بررسی بیوسیستماتیک، اکولوژی، رفتارشناسی و ژنتیک جوامع انسان های اولیه در خاور میانه و ایران. پایان نامه کارشناسی ارشد، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، واحد تهران شمال (منتشر نشده).
_____. 1388. گزارش فصل اول کاوش در غار کمیشان، اردیبهشت 1388. سازمان میراث فرهنگی، صنایع دستی و گردشگری، پژوهشگاه، پژوهشکده باستان شناسی (منتشرنشده).
وحدتی­نسب، ح، و م، جایز. 1391. "فناوری و گونه­شناسی مجموعه­ی دست­افزارهای سنگی غار کمیشان مازندران (ملاحظاتی بر صنعت تریالتی)". باستان­شناسی و تاریخ 50: 78-56.
 
هاشمی، م، 1392. بررسی آماری شدت کاهش در دست­افزارهای سنگی یک­رویه­ی غار کمیشان و رابطه­ی احتمالیِ آن با کاربری محوطه. پایان نامه­ی کارشناسی ارشد، دانشگاه تربیت مدرس (منتشر نشده).
 
هاشمی، م، و ح. وحدتی­نسب، 1392، "قضیه­­ی کاهش و اهمیت آن در باستان­شناسی (با نگاه به خراشنده­های جانبی)"، مجله­ی پژوهش­های باستان­شناسی مدرس، ش 10 و 9 (سال پنجم): 37-18.
Andrefsky, W. Jr., 1994a. Raw Materian Availability and the Organization of Technology. American Antiquity 59(1): 21-34.
 
_____. 1994b. The Geological Occurrence of Lithic Material and Stone Tool Production Strategies. Geoarchaeology 9 (5): 21-34.
_____. 2005. Lithics: Macroscopic Approaches to Analysis. Second Edition. New York: Cambridge University Press.
_____. 2006. Experimental and Archaeological Verification of an Index of Retouch for Hafted Bifaces. American Antiquity 71:743–57.
_____. 2008. An Introduction to Stone tool Life History and Technological Organization. In: Lithic Technology: Measures of Production, Use And Curation, W. Andrefky Jr. (ed.), pp. 3-22. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Binford, L. R., 1973. Interassemblage Variability: The Mousterian and the “Functional” Argument. In: The Explanation of Culture Change: Models in Prehistory, C. Renfrew (ed.), pp. 227–54. Duckworth, London.
          _____. 1977. Forty–Seven Trips. In: Stone Tools as Cultural Markers, R. S. V. Wright (ed.), pp. 24–36. Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, Canberra.
Blades, B. S., 2008. Reduction and Retouch as Independent Measures of Intensity. In: Lithic Technology: Measures of Production, Use And Curation. W. Andrefky Jr. (ed.). pp. 136-149.  New York: Cambridge University Press.
Bordes, F., 1961. Typologie du Paleolithique Ancient et Moyen. Cahiers du Quaternaire N. 1. Institut de Quaternaire, Universite de Bordeaux, Bordeaux.
Clarkson, C. J., 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.
_____. 2005. Tenuous Types: Scraper Reduction Continuums in the Eastern Victoria River Region, Northern Territory. In: Lithics ‘Down Under’: Australian Perspectives on Lithic Reduction, Use and Classification, C. Clarkson and L. Lamb (eds.), pp. 21–34. BAR International Series 1408. Oxbow, Oxford.
 
Dibble, H. L., 1984. Interpreting Typological Variation of Middle Paleolithic Scrapers: Function, Style, or Sequence of Reduction? Journal of Field Archaeology 11(1): 431-436.
_____. 1991. Rebuttal to Close. Journal of Field Archaeology 18: 264-269.
_____. 1995. Middle Paleolithic Scraper Reduction: Background, Clarification, and Review of Evidence to Date. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 2: 299-368.
Eren, M. I., and M. Dominguez-Rodrigo, S. Kuhn, D. Adler, I. Le, and O. Bar-Yosef. 2005. Defining and Measuring Reduction in Unifacial Stone Tools. Journal of Archaeological Science 32: 1190–1206.
Eren, M. I., and M. E. Prendergast. 2008. Comparing and Synthesizing Unifacial Stone Tool Reduction Indices. In: Lithic Technology: Measures of Production, Use And Curation, W. Andrefky Jr. (ed.), pp. 49-85. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Goodyear, A. C., 1979. A Hypothesis for the Use of Crypto-crystalline Raw Material Among Paleo-Indian Groups of North America. Research Manuscript Series No. 156. Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of South Carolina, Columbia.
Gordon, D., 1993. Mousterian Tool Selection, Reduction and Discard at Ghar, Israel. Journal of Field Archaeology 20: 205–18.
Haydari-Gouran, S., 2004. Stone Raw Material Sources in Iran, Some Case Studies. in: Persien Antike Prach, T. Stollner, R. Slotta and A. Vatandoust (eds.), pp. 124-129. Bergbau, Hadwerk, Archeologie (Katalog der Ausstellung des Bochum: Deustsches Bergbau-Museums Bochum von 28. November 2004 bis 29. Mai 2005). Bochum: Dentsches Bergbau Museum.
Hiscock, P. D., and C. J. Clarkson. 2005. Measuring Artifact Reduction –An Examination of Kuhn’s Geometric Index of Reduction. In: Lithics ‘Down Under’: Australian Perspectives on Lithic Reduction, Use and Classification, C. Clarkson and L. Lamb (eds.), pp. 7–19. BAR International Series 1408. Oxbow, Oxford.
 
Holdaway, S., and S. McPherron, B. Roth. 1996. Notched Tool Reuse and Raw Material Availability in French Middle Paleolithic Sites. American Antiquity 61: 377-387.
Ilkhani, H., 2012. Komishan Cave Preliminary Archaeobotanical Report. University of Nottingham, Unpublished.
Inizan, M. L., and M. Reduron-Ballinger, H. Roche, J. Tixier. 1999. Technology and Terminology of Knapped Stone. Translated by: J. Féblot-Augustins. Nanterre: CREP.
Kelly, R. L., 1988. The Three Sides of a Biface. American Antiquity 53:717–34.
Kipfer, B. A., 2000. Encyclopedic Dictionary of Archaeology. Springer.
Knapp, Z. E., 2012a. Preliminary Assessment of Animal Remains Recovered during Excavation in 2009 at Komishān Cave, Mazandaran, Iran. University of Nottingham: Unpublished.
_____. 2012b. A Zooarchaeological Study of the Epi-Palaeolithic Faunal Assemblage from Komishan Cave, Mazandaran, Iran. Msc Dissertation. University of Nottingham: Unpublished.
Koldehoff, B., 1987. The Cahokia Flake Tool Industry: Socio-Economic Implications for Late Prehistory in the CentralMississippi Valley. In: The Organization of Core Technology, J. K. Johnson, and C. A. Morrow (eds.), pp. 151–86. Westview Press, Boulder, CO.
Kuhn, S. L., 1990. A Geometric Index of Reduction for Unifacial Stone Tools. Journal of Archaeological Science 17: 583–593.
Mellars, P., 1996. The Neanderthal Legacy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Nelson, M. C., 1991. The Study of Technological Organization. In: Archaeological Method and Theory, Vol. 3, M. B. Schiffer (ed.), pp. 57–100. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
Pelcin, A. W., 1998. The Threshold Effect of Platform Width: A Reply to Davis and Shea. Journal of Archaeological Science 25: 615–620.
 
Shea, J. J., 1998. Neandertal and early modern human behavioral variability: A regional-scale approach to the lithic evidence for hunting in the Levantine Mousterian. Current Anthropology 39: S78–S78.
_____. Neanderthals, Competition, and the Origin of Modern Human Behavior in the Levant. Evolutionary Anthropology 12(4): 173-187
_____. 2013. Stone tools in the Paleolithic and Neolithic Near East, A Guide. Cambridge University Press.
Shott, M. J., 1986. Settlement Mobility and Technological Organization: An Ethnographic Examination. Journal of Anthropological Research 42: 15–51.
Shott, M. J., and M. C. Nelson. 2008. Lithic Reduction, It’s Measurement, and Implications: Comments on the Volume. In: Lithic Technology: Measures of Production, Use And Curation, W, Andrefky (ed.), pp. 23-45. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Torrence, R., 1983. Time Budgeting and Hunter–Gatherer Technology. In: Hunter-Gatherer Economy in Prehistory: A European Perspective. G. Bailey (ed.), pp. 11–22. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Vahdati Nasab, H., and M. Jayez, A. Hojabri Nobari, F. Khademi Nadooshan, H. Ilkhani, A. Mahfroozi. 2011. Komishan Cave, Mazandaran, Iran: an Epipalaeolithic and later site on the southern Caspian Sea. Antiquity, Project Gallery.
Vahdati Nasab, H, and M. Vahidi. 2011. Re-evaluation of Scrapers Reduction Model Using Kuhn’s Geometric Index of Reduction, Mr-Tarik Middle Paleolithic Assemblages. Iranian Journal of Archaeological Studies 1(1): 26-34.

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics