8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Time of Activity
Figure 10.4 Dibble & Rolland's hypothetical model of how progressive tool reduction and resharpening can transform an industry from one dominated by notched and denticulated forms to one heavily dominated by racloirs. The model assumes that for each unit of time four flakes are reduced into racloirs, while only one flake is transformed into a denticulate. The model clearly infers a much longer duration of occupation for a racloir-dominated industry than for one dominated by denticulates. After Dibble & Rolland 1992.
in the relative frequencies of racloirs versus notches and denticulates in particular assemblages (Fig. 10.4), possibly creating a shift from a typical Denticulate industry into an assemblage of either Typical Mousterian or even Charentian form (Rolland & Dibble 1990: 485-6; Dibble & Rolland 1992; Rolland 1981: 28). Similarly, further reduction and resharpening of racloirs could lead to progressive increases in the frequencies of transverse or double and convergent racloirs, in relation to simpler, single-edged lateral racloirs (Dibble 1984a, 1987a etc.). The cumulative impact of such transformations could lead to dramatic shifts in the typological structure and composition in which particular lithic assemblages eventually found their way into the archaeological record.
Two basic mechanisms are envisaged by Dibble and Rolland for these transformations
(see Fig. 10.5). The first is the availability of local flint supplies within the immediate catchment area of the sites. According to them, a significant scarcity of local flint supplies would lead to deliberate economizing in the use of available resources, which would inevitably encourage maximum reuse and resharpening of lithic artefacts to extend their use-life (Rolland & Dibble 1990: 486-7; Dibble 1984b; Dibble & Holdaway 1989). The second relates to the intensity or duration of occupation on particular sites. In this case, it is assumed that relatively long and continuous episodes of occupation would encourage frequent reuse and resharpening of tools immediately available on the sites, as opposed to the manufacture of entirely new tools, which could involve additional time and work securing additional flint supplies (Rolland & Dibble 1990: 487-8; Jelinek 1988a:
Was this article helpful?