AcaWiki - User contributions [en]

Rocks are heavy: transportation costs and Paleoarchaic quarry behavior in the Great Basin

2014-12-03T16:36:38Z

SeriouslySerious: Created page with "{{Summary |title=Rocks are heavy: transportation costs and Paleoarchaic quarry behavior in the Great Basin |authors=Charlotte Beck, Amanda K. Taylor, George T. Jones, Cynthia..."

{{Summary
|title=Rocks are heavy: transportation costs and Paleoarchaic quarry behavior in the Great Basin
|authors=Charlotte Beck, Amanda K. Taylor, George T. Jones, Cynthia M. Fadem, Caitlyn R. Cook, Sara A. Millward
|tags=lithic analysis, central place foraging model, resource procurement
|summary=Context:

This article is a very in-depth look at, and discussion of adapting principles of optimal foraging theory to lithic assemblage analysis. Specifically, the researchers are looking to discover at what distances it makes more sense for Paleoarchaic knappers to reduce bifaces preforms to what extent. They do this following the theory of central place foraging, wherein it is theorized that certain resources will be reduced to their most important(i.e., usable) constituent parts before being transported, based on how far from a central camp the resources are gathered.

Method:

In order to apply this theory the authors need a staggering amount of data. First, are sites from which to analyze lithic artefacts of which four are chosen: a pair of quarry sites and a pair of habitation sites. The first pair is Cowboy Rest Creek Quarry and the Knudtsen site. These two sites are approximately 9 kilometers apart. Next is the Little Smokey Quarry and the Limtestone Peak site which are 60 kilometers apart from one another. These sites were chosen in order to help the authors control numerous variables that could potentially confound their research. The vast majority of the artefacts from the two habitation sites are made from dacite from the quarries that are associated with them, also both sites are identified as belonging to roughly the same Paleoarchaic tool tradition known for producing stemmed bifacial artefacts. This variable control and the absolutely enormous number of artefacts at all four sites allows the researchers to perform statistical analysis to help answer their research question.

In addition to the sites, control processes and large numbers of data points, the authors chose to use a method to identify the stage of reduction that each biface found in the quarry was at. Using a 0-3 scale ranging from being a general, irregular bifacial shape at 0, to being an almost finished biface at 3, will allow an almost categorical study to be made. As a potential optional way to measure stage of retouch, they also use the Johnston Thinning Index which is based on flake mass and area of the flake in plan view. The intent with the JTI is that the thinner the stone is the less it will weigh, but as it is reduced it loses mostly mass, thickness and width but not length, leaving a higher relative area in plan view, with a greatly reduced weight.
And finally, the authors use the mathematic Central Place Foraging Model, which posits that distance between source and habitation increases, the more energy efficient it is to process these resources in the field. The model is a function of a resources Utility(U) and the increased utility of resource after processing which has a time cost(t). This function when graphed against processing time x, transport time z and a measure of its utility y, then provides a slope to discern a resources value based on distance and difficulty of procurement and processing.

Results:

The researchers define their hypothesis simply: the farther that a group must travel to procure their lithic resources, the more reduction of that material will be visible in the archaeological record. After producing their means for the JTI, and their contiguous 0-3 model of reduction and comparing the four sites statistically though simple T-Tests and K-S tests, what they discovered was that at Little Smokey Quarry the bifaces in the assemblage were considerably more reduced by both measures. Their data clearly shows that the farther a lithic resource must travel to a “central place” or habitation site, the more likely it will be field processed before that journey is made.

|relevance=Another way to think of this model is in terms of risk as well as energy. Thinking back to Robin Torrence’s piece, “Retooling: towards a behavioral theory of stone tools”, the distance involved in at least one of these procurement runs is approximately 60 kilometers a relatively enormous distance for a group to travel to acquire any resources if they are then returning to a habitation site. These journeys were not only long, but dangerous would not be undertaken if the maximum amount of usable resources could not be acquired during the process. Therefor it may not be the distance alone that drives the field reduction process, but the risk-reward factor of the trip itself.

This is a thoroughly well researched and tested paper, and it is always fascinating when statistical and mathematical modeling can be used to test any archeological theory. In the end, a more streamlined approach may have been possible, but their thoroughness only adds to the weight of their research.

|journal=Journal of Anthropological Archaeology
|pub_date=2002
}}

The Effect of Indentor Type on Flake Attributes: Evidence from a Controlled Experiment

2014-09-30T22:01:57Z

SeriouslySerious: Created page with "{{Summary |title=The Effect of Indentor Type on Flake Attributes: Evidence from a Controlled Experiment |authors=Andrew Peclin |url=http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/articl..."

{{Summary
|title=The Effect of Indentor Type on Flake Attributes: Evidence from a Controlled Experiment
|authors=Andrew Peclin
|url=http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305440396901454#
|tags=lithics, expermental archaeology, stone tools
|summary=Andrew Peclin’s paper, The Effect of Indentor Type on Flake Attributes: Evidence from a Controlled Experiment, seeks to clearly identify the effects of soft and hard indentor types on stone flakes that are commonly found as part of the archaeological record. For the sake of this discussion an indentor can be defined as any object used to strike a stone core in the process of flint-knapping. Throughout history and prehistory, hard indentors are traditionally stones that are harder than the material being struck, where as soft indentors are usually bone or antler.
Peclin identifies numerous papers and experiments previously conducted that attempt to identify the kinds of fractures and flake shapes that would be produced by different forms of indentors. He then uses his own controlled experiment to confirm or counter the findings in some of these papers with the intent of clarifying which observable traits of flaked stone can be attributed solely to indentor type.

In order to accomplish this, Peclin used a custom rig to mimic a percussive strike on a controlled plate glass surface. This rig was designed to allow either a steel ball bearing to operate as the hard indentor or an antler sphere of identical size as the soft indentor, to the end of the swinging arm. The weight of the arm was also adjustable to compensate for the missing mass of the less dense antler indentor. The glass plates used to act as the cores were 10 x 10 x 1.27 cm cut to provide uniform striking platforms and outside edges, these plates were also held in a jig designed in such a way as to not interfere with the flaking of the glass as it was struck.

For the experiment itself, the hard or soft indentor was placed on the swinging arm with the appropriate amount of weight(a total of 1500g for both hard and soft) and allowed to swing downward using only gravity towards the glass plates. The data that was too be collected was for flakes from the two kinds of indentor, but also from strikes against various platform widths for each type of indentor. The length, width, and mass of each flake was recorded for each type of indentor and striking platform, as were the specific flake and core attributes particularly bulb lengths, ring cracks and the presence of a lip around the ring crack.

The results presented by the author are quite extensive, with a considerable number of tables providing the data. Taking all of the data into account, the author determined that indentor type was a sole factor only in determining the length and width of a flake, whereas the total mass of a flake remained the same if the striking platforms were of identical size. The size of the striking platform was the only factor that proved to have any direct relation to the thickness of the flake produced. Certain other qualities appeared to have some correlation to indentor type in this highly controlled environment, however the author noted that these factors cannot be directly attributed solely to indentor type. Indeed, any of these qualities can be produced through the differences in technique and skill of the individual making the artefact so these elements cannot be considered diagnostic. Peclin then postulates that the use of soft indentors can be attributed to their ability to create thinner flakes allowing for conservation of materials that could be useful for highly mobile groups or those who occupy areas that have minimal access to acceptable stone resources.

|relevance=These experiments run counter to some arguments placed forth by previous authors and work to further strengthen the position of others within the context of attempting to determine the manner in which lithic artefacts are produced.

This is an exceptionally thorough piece of experimental archaeology being attempting to answer a very difficult question. I applaud the author for admitting the limitation of their experiment in the face of confounding factors inherent in the process of producing lithic assemblages and find the extrapolation of data into economy of resources provided by soft indentors to be quite insightful.

|journal=Journal of Archaeological Science
|pub_date=1997
|doi=10.1006/jasc.1996.0145
|subject=Anthropology
}}

Writing Manuscripts for Peer Review: Your Guide to Not Annoying Reviewers and Increasing Your Chances of Success

2014-09-28T20:46:55Z

SeriouslySerious:

{{Summary
|title=Writing Manuscripts for Peer Review: Your Guide to Not Annoying Reviewers and Increasing Your Chances of Success
|authors=Claire Z. Kalpakjian, Michelle Meade
|url=http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/35261250/writing-manuscripts-peer-review-your-guide-not-annoying-reviewers-increasing-your-chances-success
|summary=Clare Kalpakjian and Michelle Meade writing in Sexuality and Disability, provide wonderful advice for new writers looking to publish their first academic article. Titled, “Writing Manuscripts for Peer Review: Your Guide to Not Annoying Reviewers and Increasing Your Chances of Success,” the first half of the article is a master class in snark, giving ten pieces of fantastically horrible advice for academic writing. With tongues firmly planted in cheeks, we the readers, are treated to advice such as, “Don’t Spellchek” and “A Picture is Worth a Thousand Words…Give or Take” where the reader is advised to fill their papers with as many pictures as possible and to thoroughly explain the data already presented in graphs and charts. This list of advice is clearly not intended to be taken seriously other than imploring the audience to never commit these literary crimes.

Following their playful discussion of what not to do, comes a considerably more comprehensive list of what aspiring academic writers should do in their papers. Here, instead of snark, the readers are treated with a slew of good advice focusing largely on organization, target audiences, consistency and following guidelines relating to citations as well as those of the journal chosen for publication.

Kalpakjian and Meade heavily emphasize organization from the very beginning of the writing process, beginning with number of authors and their roles, particularly that of the head author and their specific role of organizing the entire writing process. Also heavily discussed in the latter half is the choice of journal where the paper will be published, with special attention being paid to writing to the audience, as well as ensuring that the journal is appropriate for the topic in question. Throughout the remainder of the article the pair provide more sound advice aimed at first time publishers, but that in all reality would benefit any individual writing an academic paper or article whether it is to be published in a journal or if it is for a scholastic environment. The crux of the advice given by the authors, centers around organization and attention to detail, two important factors in any academic career at every level and the candor with which the advice is given is refreshing and welcomed.

|journal=Sexuality & Disability
|pub_date=2008/06/25
|doi=10.1007/s11195-008-9090-z
}}