Examining stage and continuum models of flake debris analysis: an experimental approach
Citation: A.P. Bradbury, P.J. Carr (1999) Examining stage and continuum models of flake debris analysis: an experimental approach. Journal of Archaeological Science (RSS)
Internet Archive Scholar (search for fulltext): Examining stage and continuum models of flake debris analysis: an experimental approach
Download: http://www.sciencedirect.com.offcampus.lib.washington.edu/science/article/pii/S0305440398903090
Tagged: archaeology (RSS), debitage (RSS), flake debris (RSS)
Summary
Context
The research done in this article consisted of flintknapping experiments to create flake debris so as to create and test models to analyze debitage. Specifically they used a continuum approach to analyze their archaeological assemblages.
Methods and Materials
The experiments conducted included freehand core reduction, bifacial core reduction, bipolar core reduction, hard hammer and soft hammer biface production, and uniface (soft hammer and pressure flaking) manufacture. The study sample includes 589 flakes from 13 experiments, which were picked based on having a complete platform. Data such as weight, platform angles, and metric measurements were gathered for the flakes.
Results
Flakes were categorized by early, middle, and late stages, which were used to test their continuum model for analyzing their data. They stress the need for a standardized scale so as to help solve some of the problems inherent in a continuum model, such as overlap between reduction techniques and assemblage mixing between core reduction and tool production. Though they generally conclude the continuum model is sufficiently accurate and a good thing to use, there are still a lot of problems and questions that need to be answered, so more work is, of course, necessary.
Theoretical and Practical Relevance
Connection
Debitage analysis can be very useful, but is often forgotten or ignored, so coming up with a method to analyze it is important but unfortunately difficult. This article builds on the work of Ingbar, Larson & Bradley, and Shott directly in an attempt to solve this difficult problem of debitage analysis. However, there are always problems with methods such as this, especially new ones, as many archaeologists have different opinions on which evidence is important, what the data implies, and the best way to analyze that data. One only has to look at Binford vs. Bordes to see exactly the type of disagreement that is common when it comes to analyzing archaeological data. Not every archaeologist will agree with the conclusions of Bradbury and Carr, but the important part about this article is that it adds to the discussion of debitage analysis, which is something that needs more work.
Judgement
The evidence provided left many more questions being asked than answered when it comes to the reliability of the continuum model, especially if their goal is to try to determine which flakes are from what action (core reduction, tool making, etc), as many problems can arise, which were mentioned, but not sufficiently solved.
