AcaWiki - User contributions [en]

Examining stage and continuum models of flake debris analysis: an experimental approach

2014-11-20T09:57:03Z

Halveama: Created page with "{{Summary |title=Examining stage and continuum models of flake debris analysis: an experimental approach |authors=A.P. Bradbury, P.J. Carr |url=http://www.sciencedirect.com.of..."

{{Summary
|title=Examining stage and continuum models of flake debris analysis: an experimental approach
|authors=A.P. Bradbury, P.J. Carr
|url=http://www.sciencedirect.com.offcampus.lib.washington.edu/science/article/pii/S0305440398903090
|tags=archaeology, debitage, flake debris
|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.

|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. Borde 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.

|journal=Journal of Archaeological Science
|pub_date=1999
}}

Ethnoarchaeology and the organization of lithic technology

2014-10-15T00:42:45Z

Halveama: Created page with "{{Summary |title=Ethnoarchaeology and the organization of lithic technology |authors=McCall, G.S. |url=http://link.springer.com.offcampus.lib.washington.edu/article/10.1007/s1..."

{{Summary
|title=Ethnoarchaeology and the organization of lithic technology
|authors=McCall, G.S.
|url=http://link.springer.com.offcampus.lib.washington.edu/article/10.1007/s10814-011-9056-z/fulltext.html
|tags=ethnoarchaeology, lithics, lithic technology,
|summary=This was a mostly theory based paper that discussed the importance of organization principles in lithic analysis, specifically for ethnoarchaeology. McCall goes through the significance of ethnoarchaeology and why it is useful, as well as the importance and history of experimental archaeology when it comes to experimental knapping. He then discusses several definitions of curation, ending with his own, which he states is the preserving of tools to be used at a future time. McCall also discusses the design theory framework, which is an important aspect of his organizational approach to lithic technology. This framework views lithic technology as the best response to economic demands. He also stresses the importance of a comparative perspective, which, he argues, should be used as a basis for understanding the causes of stone tool use patterns. To emphasize the importance of a comparative view, he exemplifies a number case studies that are examples of different raw material gathering techniques, social uses of tools, environment, and economic systems. The different cultures he calls upon this example are the Gamo and Konso of southern and central Ethiopia, the Siberian Chukchi, highland New Guinea, highland Maya of Guatemala and Mexico, central, northern, and western arid regions of Australia, the Tjmba of norther Namibia, and the Xeta of Amazonia. No one case can be explained by any one variable, so a comparative view is important for analysis. McCall then describes the chaîne opératoire and explains that it can be useful for the organizational approach. He then dives in to his main case study, which is of Acheulean hand axes. He discusses the strange phenomenon that occurs with these tools, namely that they seem to be either heavily prominent in a site, or missing entirely. Two examples of this from Europe are Boxgrove, which had a dense collection of Acheulean hand axes, and Clacton, which is famous for not having any at all.
|relevance=McCall discussed several ideas put forth by other academics and used them to build on top of and develop his own frameworks and models Namely he uses ethnoarchaeology for a good amount of his case studies, as was as discusses experimental knapping. He also, importantly, discusses the chaîne opératoire and how his organizational approach can build on top of that.
|journal=Journal of Archaeological Research
|pub_date=2012
}}

Ten Principles to Improve the Likelihood of Publication of a Scientific Manuscript

2014-09-29T04:46:06Z

Halveama: Created page with "{{Summary |title=Ten Principles to Improve the Likelihood of Publication of a Scientific Manuscript |authors=J.M. Provenzale |url=http://www.ajronline.org/doi/full/10.2214/AJR..."

{{Summary
|title=Ten Principles to Improve the Likelihood of Publication of a Scientific Manuscript
|authors=J.M. Provenzale
|url=http://www.ajronline.org/doi/full/10.2214/AJR.06.1003
|summary=This review is meant for those that have done good research and know the fundamentals of writing a scientific article, but may need some tips to help get their research published. Most of these tips come into play before the manuscript is even written. Organization is a very important aspect of a published manuscript and comes up in several pieces of advice in the article. The basic organization of the manuscript is important, including the order of the Materials, Methods, and Results section. The article also emphasizes the need to be clear. A good research article will clearly state the research question as well as the rationale of why the study will answer the question and why that is important. Being clear in the Materials and Methods section is also helpful for getting published. Readers of the article need to clearly understand how the study was conducted, which is explained in these sections. These sections should be written so someone else could reproduce the study if they so chose. Being clear is key in a good manuscript, but so is being concise. Readers must understand and be able to digest the information given to them in the article, so being concise is also important. The Discussion section is a particularly important part of the manuscript that should be concise. This section should also be where the researcher explains why their study results are important, but at the same time it’s important not to overstate the significance of their results. Something that may seem hard to do but is just as important to include is the limitations of the study and explain any unexpected results. Finally, taking in the suggestions of readers and making changes accordingly is a necessity, even if those changes are significant.
J.M. Provenzale addresses several key fundamentals in writing a successful scientific research manuscript. In the 10 pieces of advice explained, the reader will hopefully discover ways to help better their chances of getting their research published.
|journal=American Journal of Roetgenology
|pub_date=2007
|doi=10.2214/AJR.06.1003
}}