AcaWiki - User contributions [en]

Distinguishing between artifacts and geofacts: a test case from Eastern England

2014-10-01T22:16:29Z

Jlb2011:

{{Summary
|title=Distinguishing between artifacts and geofacts: a test case from Eastern England
|authors=Peacock, E
|url=http://www.maneyonline.com./doi/abs/10.1179/009346991791548645
|tags=Artifacts;Geofacts
|summary=There has always been debates over the differences (or similarities) between geofacts – naturally occurring lithics which resemble man-made tools – and actual man-made lithic artifacts. This paper discusses a study done to determine the characteristics of artifacts vs geofacts that can be applied to a site in Kirmington eastern England containing possible artifacts. The age of Kirmington has been debated and is located in an interglacial site with deposits starting at 64 feet above current sea levels to top deposits 90 feet above current sea levels. The authenticity of Kirmington artifacts have been questioned so a test study was completed using samples of known artifacts and geofacts from other sites. A random sample of 50 artifacts from two known archaeological sites and a random sample of 50 geofacts from another site were used for the study. Peacock argues that there are general characteristics and local characteristics which can be used to determine an artifact from a geofact. A chi-square value was given to each characteristic to attempt to disprove the null hypothesis.

The general characteristics studied were: prominent bulb of percussion, ripple lines, radial lines (or fissures), bulbar scars, differential weathering of flake scars, faceted platform, cortex on platform, cortex on dorsal surface, two or more flake scars on dorsal surface, dorsal flake scars parallel with medial axis, and negative dorsal bulb. Peacock found the characteristics which can be attributed to authenticate artifacts are the prominent bulb of percussion, radial lines, bulbar scars, absence of cortex on dorsal surface, two or more flake scars on dorsal surface, dorsal flake scars parallel with medial axis, and negative dorsal bulb. Local characteristics are used to determine the differences between geofacts and artifacts at a site. Peacock took into account the raw materials at a site – whether it was exotic materials carried in by man from other sites of origin; if the possible artifacts show any signs of rolling – battered edges and water-worn and patinated surfaces; if the possible artifacts exhibit edge flaking – man-made patterned flaking vs random naturally occurring flaking; if the possible artifact flake surfaces are scratched – man-made flakes could be redeposited allowing for scratching making it hard to distinguish them from geofacts. Scores were assigned to general and local characteristics then combined to create a composite score for the Kirmington samples and Peacock found a large difference between the scores for geofacts and artifacts indicating that a high number of flakes found at the site were indeed artifacts.
|relevance=This study established the criteria needed to distinguish the differences of man-made artifacts from naturally occurring geofacts. I found the results persuasive as the combined scores of the general and local characteristics created a composite score used for the Kirmington site where the researchers found that almost all of the flakes were artifacts. The sample sizes of the artifacts and geofacts were relatively small (50 each). Would a larger sample size indicate the same results?
|journal=Journal of Field Archaeology
|pub_date=1991
}}

Distinguishing between artifacts and geofacts: a test case from Eastern England

2014-10-01T21:38:50Z

Jlb2011:

{{Summary
|title=Distinguishing between artifacts and geofacts: a test case from Eastern England
|authors=Peacock, E
|url=http://www.maneyonline.com./doi/abs/10.1179/009346991791548645
|tags=Artifacts;Geofacts
|summary=There has always been debates over the differences (or similarities) between geofacts – naturally occurring lithics which resemble man-made tools – and actual man-made lithic artifacts. This paper discusses a study done to determine the characteristics of artifacts vs geofacts that can be applied to a site in Kirmington eastern England containing possible artifacts. The age of Kirmington has been debated and is located in an interglacial site with deposits starting at 64 feet above current sea levels to top deposits 90 feet above current sea levels. The authenticity of Kirmington artifacts have been questioned so a test study was completed using samples of known artifacts and geofacts from other sites. A random sample of 50 artifacts from two known archaeological sites and a random sample of 50 geofacts from another site were used for the study. Peacock argues that there are general characteristics and local characteristics which can be used to determine an artifact from a geofact. A chi-square value was given to each characteristic to attempt to disprove the null hypothesis.

The general characteristics studied were: prominent bulb of percussion, ripple lines, radial lines (or fissures), bulbar scars, differential weathering of flake scars, faceted platform, cortex on platform, cortex on dorsal surface, two or more flake scars on dorsal surface, dorsal flake scars parallel with medial axis, and negative dorsal bulb. Peacock found the characteristics which can be attributed to authenticate artifacts are the prominent bulb of percussion, radial lines, bulbar scars, absence of cortex on dorsal surface, two or more flake scars on dorsal surface, dorsal flake scars parallel with medial axis, and negative dorsal bulb. Local characteristics are used to determine the differences between geofacts and artifacts at a site. Peacock took into account the raw materials at a site – whether it was exotic materials carried in by man from other sites of origin; if the possible artifacts show any signs of rolling – battered edges and water-worn and patinated surfaces; if the possible artifacts exhibit edge flaking – man-made patterned flaking vs random naturally occurring flaking; if the possible artifact flake surfaces are scratched – man-made flakes could be redeposited allowing for scratching making it hard to distinguish them from geofacts. Scores were assigned to general and local characteristics then combined to create a composite score for the Kirmington samples and Peacock found a large difference between the scores for geofacts and artifacts indicating that a high number of flakes found at the site were indeed artifacts.
|journal=Journal of Field Archaeology
|pub_date=1991
}}

Distinguishing between artifacts and geofacts: a test case from Eastern England

2014-10-01T20:40:56Z

Jlb2011:

{{Summary
|title=Distinguishing between artifacts and geofacts: a test case from Eastern England
|authors=Peacock, E
|url=http://www.maneyonline.com./doi/abs/10.1179/009346991791548645
|tags=Artifacts;Geofacts
|summary=There has always been debates over the differences (or similarities) between geofacts – naturally occurring lithics which resemble man-made tools – and actual man-made lithic artifacts. This paper discusses a study done to determine the characteristics of artifacts vs geofacts that can be applied to a site in Kirmington eastern England containing possible artifacts. The age of Kirmington has been debated and is located in an interglacial site with deposits starting at 64 feet above current sea levels to top deposits 90 feet above current sea levels. The authenticity of Kirmington artifacts have been questioned so a test study was completed using samples of known artifacts and geofacts from other sites. A random sample of 50 artifacts from two known archaeological sites and a random sample of 50 geofacts from another site were used for the study. Peacock argues that there are general characteristics and local characteristics which can be used to determine an artifact from a geofact. A chi-square value was given to each characteristic to attempt to disprove the null hypothesis.

The general characteristics believed to be attributed to man-made artifacts, as they occur more frequently on those than naturally occurring flakes, are: prominent bulb of percussion, ripple lines, radial lines (or fissures), bulbar scars, differential weathering of flake scars, faceted platform, cortex on platform, cortex on dorsal surface, two or more flake scars on dorsal surface, dorsal flake scars parallel with medial axis, and negative dorsal bulb. Peacock found the characteristics which can be attributed to authenticate artifacts are the prominent bulb of percussion, radial lines, bulbar scars, absence of cortex on dorsal surface, two or more flake scars on dorsal surface, dorsal flake scars parallel with medial axis, and negative dorsal bulb. Local characteristics are used to determine the differences between geofacts and artifacts at a site. Peacock took into account the raw materials at a site – whether it was exotic materials carried in by man from other sites of origin; if the possible artifacts show any signs of rolling – battered edges and water-worn and patinated surfaces; if the possible artifacts exhibit edge flaking – man-made patterned flaking vs random naturally occurring flaking; if the possible artifact flake surfaces are scratched – man-made flakes could be redeposited allowing for scratching making it hard to distinguish them from geofacts. Scores were assigned to general and local characteristics then combined to create a composite score for the Kirmington samples and Peacock found a large difference between the scores for geofacts and artifacts indicating that a high number of flakes found at the site were indeed artifacts.
|journal=Journal of Field Archaeology
|pub_date=1991
}}

Distinguishing between artifacts and geofacts: a test case from Eastern England

2014-10-01T20:30:48Z

Jlb2011: Created page with "{{Summary |title=Distinguishing between artifacts and geofacts: a test case from Eastern England |authors=Peacock, E |summary=There has always been debates over the difference..."

{{Summary
|title=Distinguishing between artifacts and geofacts: a test case from Eastern England
|authors=Peacock, E
|summary=There has always been debates over the differences (or similarities) between geofacts – naturally occurring lithics which resemble man-made tools – and actual man-made lithic artifacts. This paper discusses a study done to determine the characteristics of artifacts vs geofacts that can be applied to a site in Kirmington eastern England containing possible artifacts. The age of Kirmington has been debated and is located in an interglacial site with deposits starting at 64 feet above current sea levels to top deposits 90 feet above current sea levels. The authenticity of Kirmington artifacts have been questioned so a test study was completed using samples of known artifacts and geofacts from other sites. A random sample of 50 artifacts from two known archaeological sites and a random sample of 50 geofacts from another site were used for the study. Peacock argues that there are general characteristics and local characteristics which can be used to determine an artifact from a geofact. A chi-square value was given to each characteristic to attempt to disprove the null hypothesis.

The general characteristics believed to be attributed to man-made artifacts, as they occur more frequently on those than naturally occurring flakes, are: prominent bulb of percussion, ripple lines, radial lines (or fissures), bulbar scars, differential weathering of flake scars, faceted platform, cortex on platform, cortex on dorsal surface, two or more flake scars on dorsal surface, dorsal flake scars parallel with medial axis, and negative dorsal bulb. Peacock found the characteristics which can be attributed to authenticate artifacts are the prominent bulb of percussion, radial lines, bulbar scars, absence of cortex on dorsal surface, two or more flake scars on dorsal surface, dorsal flake scars parallel with medial axis, and negative dorsal bulb. Local characteristics are used to determine the differences between geofacts and artifacts at a site. Peacock took into account the raw materials at a site – whether it was exotic materials carried in by man from other sites of origin; if the possible artifacts show any signs of rolling – battered edges and water-worn and patinated surfaces; if the possible artifacts exhibit edge flaking – man-made patterned flaking vs random naturally occurring flaking; if the possible artifact flake surfaces are scratched – man-made flakes could be redeposited allowing for scratching making it hard to distinguish them from geofacts. Scores were assigned to general and local characteristics then combined to create a composite score for the Kirmington samples and Peacock found a large difference between the scores for geofacts and artifacts indicating that a high number of flakes found at the site were indeed artifacts.
|journal=Journal of Field Archaeology
|pub_date=1991
}}

Me write pretty one day: how to write a good scientific paper

2014-09-29T00:35:05Z

Jlb2011: Created page with "{{Summary |title=Me write pretty one day: how to write a good scientific paper |authors=William A. Wells |url=http://jcb.rupress.org/content/165/6/757.abstract |summary=In his..."

{{Summary
|title=Me write pretty one day: how to write a good scientific paper
|authors=William A. Wells
|url=http://jcb.rupress.org/content/165/6/757.abstract
|summary=In his article, Wells provides the key steps to writing an effective scientific paper. The foundation for any well written paper is a main point, the reason for the paper. Wells suggests the writer have a clear message he or she wants to convey and that it should be repeated throughout the paper. A scientific paper should be written in a manner that is understandable to a general audience, as it may be read by readers not belonging to the field of the writer. Wells advises the writer prevent themselves from getting lost in the minute details and instead layout a plan of getting from A to D by way of B and C. The next important step of an effective paper is the format, how the paper should look. Wells suggests making a map, an outline of how the paper should look, from sentence structure to the placement of images, charts, and graphs. The structure of the paper is vital, beginning with the title which should convey exactly what the paper is about. The Abstract should be a miniature version of the paper with a background, the question(s) being asked/answered, status of the work now and where it continues. The Introduction should set up the question being asked and the Background is the big picture. Wells argues that the Results should be arranged either chronologically or with the most important results first, and that the data be arranged logically with just enough information for the reader to easily follow. The Discussion should not be a copy of the Results or Introduction, but should lead with a short summary of the main point of the paper and the question being asked. It should be organized with the most important findings first, and include any unanswered questions. The language of an effective paper should be clear and concise and not leave the reader wondering what the writer is attempting to say. The flow of the paper should be smooth and that may take the rearranging or cutting out words or entire sentences. The writer will not be able to make their point if the reader is unable follow their logic.
|journal=The Journal of cell biology, 165(6)
|pub_date=2004/06/21
|doi=doi: 10.1083/jcb.200403137
}}