Lithic Reduction Sequences:

A Glossary and Discussion

BRUCE A. BRADLEY

One of the fundamental problems of dealing with a lithic reduction se-

quence is dividing it into specific stages. Once this is done the interpretive
potentials are greatly increased. A necessary prerequisite is a standardized
terminology. The glossary that follows aims to deal with terms that may
be used in the discussion of lithic reduction sequences.

GLOSSARY

ASSEMBLAGE: all artifacts (including debitage etc.) found in a given layer

at a site (Bordes 1972: 185).
BLANK: any piece of lithic material that has been modified to an intended
stage of a lithic reduction sequence in a specified assemblage. It must be
demonstrable that it is not a finished implement and that it is intended for
further modification. Furthermore it must have the morphological poten-
tial to be modified into more than one implement type within the assem-
blage. The method of its manufacture is not important in its initial iden-
tification.
IMPLEMENT: any piece of lithic material that has been modified to an in-
tended stage of a lithic reduction sequence in a specified assemblage. It
must be demonstrable that it is the final intended stage and is not intended
for further modification (other than by use). The method of its manufac-
ture is not important to its initial identification.
MODIFICATION: the act of morphological alteration of a unit of lithic ma-
terial by a human agent. A core is a modified piece of stone, whereas a
flake struck from the core is a distinct unmodified lithic unit until it is
subsequently altered by human activity.

Unauthenticated
Download Date | 4/4/16 7:52 AM
6 BRUCE A. BRADLEY

MORPHOLOGY: the three dimensional form (size, shape and volume) of any
object.
PREFORM: any piece of lithic material that has been modified to an in-
tended stage of a lithic reduction sequence in a specified assemblage. It
must be demonstrable that it is not a finished implement and that it is
intended for further modification. Furthermore, it must have the morpho-
logical potential of being modified into only one implement type within
the assemblage. The method of its manufacture is not important to its
initial identification.
PRELIMINARY MODIFICATION : the first step or steps that modify a piece of
raw material into any other stage.
PRIMARY CORE: any piece of raw material that has had flakes struck from
it, the desired product being the flakes. A handaxe made directly from a
piece of raw material is not a primary core if it can be demonstrated that
it was the handaxe, not the flakes, that was the intended product.
PRIMARY FLAKE-BLANK: any flake removed from a primary core for the
purpose of further modification.
RAW MATERIAL: any unmodified piece of lithic material that is structurally
and morphologically suitable for modification into implements.
SECONDARY CORE : any primary flake-blank that has had flakes struck from
it, the desired product being the flakes.
SECONDARY FLAKE-BLANK: any flake removed from a secondary core for
the purpose of further modification.
STAGE: a knapper's intended previsualized goal in a lithic reduction se-
quence.
STEP: a change in a knapper's process orientation which may or may not
involve a change of technique. When a knapper is striking flakes from a
core, he has a flake production orientation; however, when he begins to
modify one of these flakes, his process orientation changes. Each of these
changes constitutes a step.

ASSUMPTIONS, EVIDENCE, AND PROCEDURE

When using these terms a certain amount of information must already be

available. It should be demonstrable that a valid sample of a specific as-
semblage is being studied. This assemblage should have an identifiable
implement typology and lithic reduction sequences. Deriving this infor-
mation is not always easy and in some cases virtually impossible. Identifica-
tion of the implements can be approached functionally, typologically, and
ethnologically. Once the implements have been identified, it is possible

Unauthenticated
Download Date | 4/4/16 7:52 AM
Lithic Reduction Sequences: A Glossary and Discussion 7

to deal with the implement and nonimplement evidence separately. Next,

the lithic reduction sequences for each implement type should be recon-
structed. This may be approached in various ways. Carefully controlled
experimental analogy is probably the most useful. This involves careful
examination and quantification of the nonimplement material. Quantifica-
tions of the experimental material can then be used for comparison. This
allows conclusions about techniques, methods, and sequences of reduction
to be made. Once the lithic reduction sequences have been reconstructed,
they may be divided into stages and steps of manufacture.
The stages I suggest are preliminary modification, blank, preform, and
implement. The preliminary modification stage may be subdivided into
four steps: primary core, primary flake-blank, secondary core, and second-
ary flake -blank.This does not include all possible steps. There may be sev-
eral in each of the other stages; however, the scope of this paper will be
limited to those defined in the glossary.
The next, and probably most difficult, task is to demonstrate intent.
When dealing with steps of reduction, this is less difficult if it is assumed
that "...flintknapping was not a haphazard art but, rather, a carefully
planned process of making stone tools..." (Crabtree 1972:2). It is reason-
able to conclude that a change in techniques and process orientation is a
step intended by the flintknapper. The demonstration of intended stages
must be approached differently. Specific kinds of evidence may be used.
If the nonimplement materials are carefully examined it may be possible
to divide them into modified and unmodified categories. The modified
material may then be divided into core and noncore categories. It is the
modified, nonimplement, noncore category that may be used to determine
intended stages. Within this category there may be typological groups
identifiable by clustering of morphological and technological attributes.
Once these groups are defined, the nonmaterial evidence (recovery associa-
tions) may be examined to determine whether or not there is a high correla-
tion between the two. In an archaeological context this is most likely to be
encountered in the form of caches or closely associated (spatially) group-
ings. If there is a statistically valid correlation, it may be inferred that
these groups represent intended stages. These stages may then be classified
as preliminary modification, blank, or preform.

APPLICATION

Two hypothetical assemblages have been constructed as a means of clar-

ifying the way in which these terms can be applied. Below is a description

Unauthenticated
Download Date | 4/4/16 7:52 AM
8 BRUCE A. BRADLEY

of each, including a statement of context, a comprehensive lithic reduction

sequence for each implement type, and a statement of the evidence upon
which assumptions are based.

GUMU-SANA ASSEMBLAGE

Context and Evidence

I propose that the Gumu-sana assemblage (see Figure 1) comes from one
geological layer of a dry cave site in North Africa. The layer is dated at
around 1400 B.C. From the nonlithic evidence it has been concluded that
the site represents a continuous year round occupation of about 150 years.
The lithic evidence has been divided into implement and nonimplement
categories. The implements were identified by functional analysis (wear
patterns) and by observation of hafted specimens. It has thus been estab-
lished that five implement types are present: knives, spear points, arrow
points, scrapers, and drills. The nonimplement material includes a com-
plete range of flakes and debitage and has been sorted and identified, by
experimental analogy, as units of lithic reduction sequences of each imple-
ment type. Several caches of modified nonimplement, noncore objects
were also recovered.

Reconstructed Lithic Reduction Sequences

KNIFE : A primary core was produced from a flint nodule by the removal
of a series of primary flakes with a large hammerstone, using direct per-
cussion with thigh support. One of the primary flakes was then bifacially
modified to an oval shape with a small hammerstone, using direct percus-
sion with freehand support. This object was bifacially modified to a leaf
shape with a bone billet, using direct percussion with thigh support. This
was finally modified to a leaf shape with a horn, using diagonal parallel
pressure flaking with hand support.

SPEAR POINT : A primary core, primary flake-blank, and oval shaped ob-
ject were produced with the same techniques used for the knife. It was
then bifacially modified to a subtriangular shape with a bone billet, using
direct percussion with thigh support. This was finally bifacially modified
to a stemmed subtriangular shape with a horn, using collateral pressure
flaking with grooved block support.

Unauthenticated
Download Date | 4/4/16 7:52 AM
Lithic Reduction Sequences: A Glossary and Discussion 9

ARROW POINT : A primary core and primary flake-blank were produced

as above. A primary flake-blank was bifacially modified to a "disc" with a
small hammerstone, using direct percussion with freehand support. A
large flake was struck from the "disc" (secondary core) with a medium
hammerstone, using direct percussion with freehand support. This second-
ary flake-blank was bifacially modified to a subtriangular shape with a
bone billet, using direct percussion with freehand support. This object
was bifacially modified to a side-notched subtriangular shape with a horn,
using nonpatterned pressure flaking with hand support.

Unauthenticated
Download Date | 4/4/16 7:52 AM
10 BRUCE A. BRADLEY

Figure 2. Stages and steps of lithic reduction sequences in the Kukiksaut assemblage

SCRAPER: A primary core, primary flake-blank, secondary core, and sec-

ondary flake-blank were produced with the same techniques used for the
arrow point. The secondary flake-blank was unifacially modified along
one margin with a bone billet, using direct percussion with freehand sup-
port.

DRILL : A primary core and primary flake-blank were produced with the
same techniques used for the knife. A primary flake-blank was unifacially
modified, producing a series of secondary flake-blanks, with a bone punch,

Unauthenticated
Download Date | 4/4/16 7:52 AM
Lithic Reduction Sequences: A Glossary and Discussion 11

using indirect percussion with foot support. A secondary flake-blank was

unifacially modified to a "T" shape, using serial pressure flaking with
hand support.

KUKIKSAUT ASSEMBLAGE

Context and Evidence

I propose that the Kukiksaut assemblage (see Figure 2) comes from one
geological layer of a dry rock shelter site in eastern Alaska. Various in-
dependent methods of dating the deposit agree with ethnological informa-
tion, which places the occupation of the site at about A. D. 1550. Faunal
evidence suggests that the site was only seasonally occupied, the lithic
evidence has been divided into implement and nonimplement categories.
The implements were identified by functional analysis (wear patterns),
observation of hafted specimens, and ethnological information. It has
been established that six implement types are present; knives, spear points,
hunting arrow points (Type A), fishing arrow points (Type B), scrapers,
and drills. The nonimplement material includes a complete range of flakes
and debitage and has been sorted and identified, by experimental analogy,
as units of lithic reduction sequences of each implement type. Several
closely associated groupings of modified nonimplement, noncore objects
were also recovered.

Reconstructed Lithic Reduction Sequences

All of the implements were produced with the same techniques as their
corresponding types in the Gumu-sana assemblage. Arrow point type A
and were produced with the same techniques.

DISCUSSION

From the evidence described above, it is now possible to determine stages

for each reduction sequence. In the Gumu-sana assemblage there are
groups of modified nonimplement, noncore objects. These can be divided
technologically and morphologically (typologically) into four distinct
categories. Examination of the archaeological evidence demonstrates that
these four categories have a high correlation with the groups recovered in

Unauthenticated
Download Date | 4/4/16 7:52 AM
12 BRUCE A. BRADLEY

caches. First there is a group of bifacially modified oval direct percussion

with freehand support, with a small hammerstone. Within the assemblage
there are two implement types that can be made by further modification
of these objects; the knife and the spear point. By definition, these objects
must be assumed to be blanks. Another group of objects can be identified
as the above defined blank that was bifacially modified to a leaf shape by a
bone billet, using direct percussion with thigh support. These have the
morphological potential of modification to only one implement type, that
is, the knife. By definition, they must be assumed to be preforms. This
same procedure makes it possible to identify a preform for the spear point
and a preform for the arrow point.
In the Kukiksaut assemblage, using the same procedure, it is possible to
identify a blank for the knife and spear point, a preform for the knife, a
preform for the spear point, and a blank for the arrow points (types A and
B).
It will now be noted that there is a group of objects in both assemblages
that share the same characteristics, yet are identified as different stages.
The arrow point preform in the Gumu-sana assemblage is an arrow point
blank in the Kukiksaut. This clearly demonstrates that the identification
of stages must rely upon their context. This conclusion raises an important
point. If the identification of stages is to be of any value in the interpreta-
tion of cultural phenomena, they cannot be defined by typological cha-
racteristics alone. Therefore to define a preform as "... an unfinished,
unused form of the proposed artifact... with deep bulbar scars... irregular
edges and no means of hafting... generally made by direct percussion"
(Crabtree 1972:85) is of little interpretive value. Indeed an object of this
description may be a preform in one assemblage and a blank in another!
As an example, if a cache of modified nonimplement, noncore objects is
recovered without any cultural context, it is not possible to say whether
the cache is of blanks or preforms. It is possible however to make a state-
ment that within the context of the Gumu-sana assemblage it is a cache of
arrow point preforms.

CONCLUSION

Before lithic studies can be of interpretive value of prehistoric culture it is

necessary to construct a standardized vocabulary and a standardized
analytical approach. It is essential to know the interpretive potentials of
lithic assemblages before deciding what questions can and cannot be
answered.

Unauthenticated
Download Date | 4/4/16 7:52 AM
Lithic Reduction Sequences: A Glossary and Discussion 13

I propose that it is possible to identify stages of lithic reduction se-

quences. This, however, can be accomplished only after conclusions about
context, technology, and implement typology have been derived. It is my
contention that the major interpretive value of identification of stages is to
make possible positive statements about specific intention within the
framework of specified assemblages.

REFERENCES

BORDES, F.
1972 A tale of two caves. New York: Harper and Row.
CRABTREE, DON E,
1972 "An introduction to flintworking," in Occasional Papers of the Idaho
State University Museum 28, part two. Edited by Earl H. Swanson, Jr.
and B. Robert Butler. Pocatello, Idaho.

Unauthenticated
Download Date | 4/4/16 7:52 AM
 Unauthenticated
Download Date | 4/4/16 7:52 AM