The Threshold Effect of Platform Width: A Reply to Davis and Shea

Citation: Andrew W. Pelcin (1998/07) The Threshold Effect of Platform Width: A Reply to Davis and Shea. Journal of Archaeological Science (RSS)
DOI (original publisher): 10.1006/jasc.1997.0253
Semantic Scholar (metadata): 10.1006/jasc.1997.0253
Sci-Hub (fulltext): 10.1006/jasc.1997.0253
Internet Archive Scholar (search for fulltext): The Threshold Effect of Platform Width: A Reply to Davis and Shea
Download: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305440397902533
Tagged: Controlled Experiment; Flintknapping; Flake Attributes; Platform Width (RSS)

Summary

Andrew’s article is refutation of the method of The Threshold Effect of Platform Width: A Reply to Davis and Shea is refutation by pointing out the mistakes of their hypothesis. Davis and Shea’s article was also review of Andrew’s former study. As well as these two counter-arguments, they had already discussed several times. The main theme they dealt with is reconstructing original flake mass. As well as refutation, he wants to emphasis on misunderstanding of role of platform width in estimating flake mass and importance of using other factors such as theoretical platform thickness and exterior platform angle instead.

In the Davis and Shea’s article (1998), they acclaimed that they could detect exact equation for predicting the original flake mass of case which A dealt with inaccurately before on the basis of hypothesis which means that the possibility of assuming of the original flake mass gets higher with adding platform width in the equation.

Andrew expresses strong opposition about Davis and Shea’s assertion in his article. He insists that their theory is wrong from the basic hypothesis. He thinks that the platform width cannot support the estimation of original flake mass because it is just threshold variable (Dibble & Pelcin 1995) and that notion misused in their article.

Also estimating original flake mass itself is impossible in real experiments. Davis and Shea used Andrew’s problematic former method (1995) in their article not recent one (1996) as they want. In order to demonstrate his argument, he presents the threshold nature by two experiments (1996,1997a). First one illustrates that platform width does not influence on flake mass. Second shows that there is no correlation between flake size and platform angle.

And the most critical opinion against Davis and Shea’s article is that they controlled the experimental environments as they wanted such as using predictable materials. Their equation only enables in artificial condition and could not cover the all kinds of flake. In that point, Andrew proposes own two methods to infer the original flake mass, in the mean time, he also confesses that the method is only for controlled cases.

In terms of Davis and Shea’s opinion about the influence of flake termination to flake mass, Andrew disagrees with them due to the threshold variable. He explains that there are lots of factors changing force so that building a firm value it impossible.

In conclusion, he insists that platform width does not play a role of flake mass equation which should cover all types of flakes and cannot show the original shape of it due to its variability caused by complicated factors.

Theoretical and Practical Relevance

As we are not the original lithic maker, figuring out precise method of making lithic is impossible through observation of the artifacts. Therefore predicting the method, archaeologists usually do a lot of experiments and try to find new way. The experiment and equation in the article is also the one of the attempts.

The relationship between platform width and flake mass quite interesting, however as the author’s insist, I do not think that there is direct correlation enabling to predict initiation shape. There are a lot of variables such as characteristic of materials. Rather, I would like to propose lithic experiments relating with type of materials such as a relationship between materials and size of flakes on the same condition.

And about controlled experiment, I cannot agree with the author’s argument. We cannot reenact totally same situation the artifacts made. If we do not control the experiment environments due to the existence of exceptions and errors, we cannot find out any pattern of making lithic. I think that there were also exceptions and unexpected results in the past.