The reality of reduction experiments and the GIUR: reply to Eren and Sampson

Peter Hiscock*, Chris Clarkson

*Corresponding author for this work

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

    21 Citations (Scopus)

    Abstract

    There is no ambiguity in the existing empirical support for a GIUR as a robust predictor of mass lost from flakes through unifacial retouching. We demonstrate why the GIUR is a reliable method for inferring mass loss, in appropriate circumstances, and why it is a more powerful predictor of mass loss than touted competitors. We explain why Eren, M.I., Sampson's, G. [2009. Kuhn's geometric index of unifacial stone tool reduction (GIUR): does it measure missing flake mass? J. Archaeol. Sci.] arguments are faulty and why researchers should use the GIUR in preference to other methods of estimating the extent of unifacial retouch.

    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)1576-1581
    Number of pages6
    JournalJournal of Archaeological Science
    Volume36
    Issue number7
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - Jul 2009

    Cite this