Mass Analysis of Flaking Debris: Studying the Forest Rather Than the Tree

Citation: Stanley A. Ahler (1989) Mass Analysis of Flaking Debris: Studying the Forest Rather Than the Tree. Archeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association (RSS)
DOI (original publisher): 10.1525/ap3a.1989.1.1.85
Semantic Scholar (metadata): 10.1525/ap3a.1989.1.1.85
Sci-Hub (fulltext): 10.1525/ap3a.1989.1.1.85
Internet Archive Scholar (search for fulltext): Mass Analysis of Flaking Debris: Studying the Forest Rather Than the Tree
Download: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1525/ap3a.1989.1.1.85/abstract
Tagged: Anthropology (RSS) lithic debitage analysis (RSS)

Summary

Context

IFA (individual flake analysis) can recover discrete acts of knapping behavior applied to a particular tool/core, in other words, let researchers find what end products are. For example the existence of channel flakes or notching flakes represent direct evidence of Folsom/Clovis projectile production or pressure notching of a hafted stone tool. Also IFA can identify multiple knapping behaviors at a single spatial context in theory. However the author points out five disadvantages of IFA. 1) usually focus on flakes with platform, 2) time consuming, 3) smaller flakes are easily ignore if want to overcome the second weakness, but certain knapping operations produce almost nothing but very small flakes, 4) lack of objectivity when doing classification of flake attributes and types, 5) individual flake attributes and flake types are not good discriminators for estimating different human behaviors. Except weakness 5, which could be solved by carful experiment result, the FAA (flake aggregate analysis) provides solutions point to point to IFA.

Materials and Methods

The author designs a series of ‘replication’ to produce the flake debris, every ‘replication’ share same tools, raw material and tool. Multiple replication form an experiment and multiple experiments form a group. The high the level is, the general, or say, less common is. All these are to assimilate the real knapping condition. KRF (Knife River flint) is used as raw material for knapping. The size-grading process is an important step for mass analysis. The sizes the author apply are (by inch) G1= 1 , G2=0.5 , G3= 0.223, G4=0.1, G5= 0.0465 in sieve. The flakes in G5 are not separated and quantified. Three categories of flakes are recorded: 1) Total weight of flakes, 2) Total count of flakes 3) Count of cortical flakes. Discriminant analysis (by SPSS DISCRIMINANT function) is applied to compare mass analysis data sets for five experimental data groups. The five experimental groups are: 1) freehand percussion cobble testing, 2) hard hammer freehand core reduction, 3) hard hammer bipolar core reduction, 4) hard hammer stage 2 biface edging, and 5) soft hammer stage 3-4 biface thinning.

Results

Lithic assemblages from sites 32DU508 (quarry and adjacent workshop), 32DU452 (workshop and camp) are used to test the validity of mass analysis. Figure 1 shows that the Discriminant analysis indeed provide clear discrimination of quarry site and workshop site. Samples from several other sites also are applied this method and derive clear discriminant results. Especially in a specific function site, such as Legacy site a Late Woodland age camp in the Missouri breaks, associated with bison kill/butchering, the low frequency of cortex and a G4:Gl-3 flake ratio data indicate that a soft hammer small flake tool production, which is similar with experiment result. In sum, the mass analysis can apply to large numbers of artifacts rapidly and objectively. Also the author concludes that flake aggregate analysis has the advantages of being applicable to all flakes and debitage fragments, which are made by all conceivable technological operations, above a given size.

Theoretical and Practical Relevance

Connection

Sullivan III and C Rozen (1985) applies typology that composed of interpretation-free and mutually exclusive debitage categories to overcome the weakness of IFA, but it seems only the ‘subjectivity’ in IFA was solved in Sullivan III and C Rozen’s work. On the other hand, mass analysis by the author provides multiple advantages counter with IFA.