Lithic microdebitage has great archaeological potential to elucidate ancient stone tool production. So far, archaeologists have collected soil samples, separated them into size fractions, and analyzed them manually under a microscope to identify microdebitage. This time- and labor-intensive process has limited the number of samples and introduced intra- and inter-observer errors. Here, we discuss lithic microdebitage analysis with a dynamic image particle analyzer. This machine takes videos of soil particles as they fall from a chute. Software tracks them and measures their dimensions. Since sieving is no longer necessary, microdebitage analysis proceeds more quickly and processes samples within a few minutes. The standardized output allows the objective analysis of lithic microdebitage. We compare the angularity of c. 120,000 particles in an archaeological soil sample with experimental microdebitage. While the distributions show intriguing overlaps, we conclude that the most angular archaeological particles are not microdebitage but reflect a software glitch.
AndrefskyWJr. (1998) Lithics. Macroscopic Approaches to Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
2.
AoyamaK (1999) Ancient Maya State, Urbanism, Exchange, and Craft Specialization. Chipped Stone Evidence from the Copán Valley and the La Entrada Region, Honduras. Estado, Urbanismo, Intercambio, y Especialización Artesanal Entre los Mayas Antiguos. Evidencia de Lítica Menor del Valle de Copán y la Región de La Entrada, Honduras. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh.
3.
BáneszLHromadaJKozłowskiJ, et al. (1995) Site formation processes in loess areas: A case study from Maravany-Žakovska, western Slovakia. Geoarchaeology10: 237–255.
4.
BehmJA (1983) Flake concentrations: distinguishing between flintworking activity areas and secondary deposits. Lithic Technology12: 9–16.
5.
CapB (2012) “Empty” spaces and public places. A microscopic view of Chan’s late classic west plaza. In: RobinC (ed) Chan: An Ancient Maya Farming Community. Gainesville: University Press of Florida, pp.150–170.
6.
CapB (2016) How to know it when we see it: marketplace identification at the classic Maya site of Buenavista del Cayo, Belize. In: KingEM (ed) The Ancient Maya Marketplace: The Archaeology of Transient Space. Tucson: University of Arizona Press, pp.111–127.
7.
CessfordC (2003) Microartifactual floor patterning: the case at Çatalhöyük. Assemblage7, (accessed February 8, 2004).
8.
ClarkJE (1986a) Another look at small debitage and microdebitage. Lithic Technology15: 21–33.
9.
ClarkJE (1986b) From mountains to molehills: A critical review of teotihuacan’s obsidian industry. Economic Aspects of Prehispanic Highland Mexico 2: 23–74.
10.
ClarkJE (1997) Prismatic blademaking, craftsmanship, and production. An analysis of obsidian refuse from Ojo de Agua, Chiapas. Mexico. Ancient Mesoamerica8: 137–159.
11.
ClarkJEBryantDD (1997) A technological typology of prismatic blades and debitage from Ojo de Agua, Chiapas, Mexico. Ancient Mesoamerica8: 111–136.
GéTCourtyM-AMatthewsW, et al. (1993) Sedimentary formation processes of occupation surfaces. In: GoldbergPNashDTPetragliaMD (eds) Formation Processes in Archaeological Context. Madison: Prehistory Press, pp.149–163.
14.
HealanDM (1992) A comment on Moholy-Nagy’s “the misidentification of lithic workshops”. Latin American Antiquity3: 240–242.
15.
HesterTRShaferHJ (1992) Lithic workshops revisited: comments on moholy-nagy. Latin American Antiquity3: 243–248.
16.
HirthKG (2009) Craft production, household diversification, and domestic economy in prehispanic mesoamerica. In: HirthKG (ed) Housework: Craft Production and Domestic Economy in Ancient Mesoamerica. Hoboken: Wiley, pp.13–32.
17.
HodderICessfordC (2004) Daily practice and social memory at Çatalhöyük. American Antiquity69: 17–40.
18.
HullKL (1987) Identification of cultural site formation processes through microdebitage analysis. American Antiquity52: 772–783.
19.
JohnsonPSEberlMMcBrideM, et al. (2021) Using dynamic image analysis as a method for discerning microdebitage from natural soils in archaeological soil samples. Lithic Technology46: 111–118.
20.
JohnsonPSPritchardJCPoplinEC (2016) In much smaller things forgotten: A case for microartifact analysis in cultural resource management. Southeastern Archaeology35: 38–50.
21.
MetcalfeDHeathKM (1990) Microrefuse and site structure: the hearths and floors of the heartbreak hotel. American Antiquity55: 781–796.
22.
Moholy-NagyH (1990) The misidentification of mesoamerican lithic workshops. Latin American Antiquity1: 268–179.
23.
Moholy-NagyH (1992) Lithic deposits as waste management: reply to Healan and to Hester and Shafer. Latin American Antiquity3: 249–251.
24.
NicholsonBA (1983) Comparative evaluation of four sampling techniques and of the reliability of microdebitage as a cultural indicator in regional surveys. Plains Anthropologist28: 273–281.
25.
RainvilleL (2000) Microdebris analysis in early bronze age mesopotamian households. Antiquity74: 191–292.
26.
RosenAM (1986) Cities of Clay: The Geoarcheology of Tells. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
27.
RosenAM (1989) Ancient town and city sites: A view from the microscope. American Antiquity54: 564–578.
28.
RosenAM (1993) Microartifacts as a reflection of cultural factors in site formation. In: GoldbergPNashDTPetragliaMD (eds) Formation Processes in Archaeological Context. Madison: Prehistory Press, pp.141–148.
29.
ShaferHJHesterTR (1983) Ancient Maya chert workshops in northern Belize, Central America. American Antiquity48: 519–543.
30.
SherwoodSC (2001) Microartifacts. In: GoldbergPHollidayVTFerringCR (eds) Earth Sciences and Archaeology. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, pp.327–352.
31.
SimmsSRHeathKM (1990) Site structure of the orbit inn: an application of ethnoarchaeology. American Antiquity55: 797–813.
32.
SonnenburgEPBoyceJIReinhardtEG (2011) Quartz flakes in lakes: microdebitage evidence for submerged great lakes prehistoric (late Paleoindian-early archaic) tool-making sites. Geology39: 631–634.
33.
UllahII (2012) Particles from the past: microarchaeologial spatial analysis of ancient house floors. In: ParkerBJFosterCP (eds) New Perspectives in Household Archaeology. Winowna Lake: Eisenbrauns, pp.123–138.
34.
UllahIIDuffyPRBanningEB (2015) Modernizing spatial micro-refuse analysis: new methods for collecting, analyzing, and interpreting the spatial patterning of micro-refuse from house-floor contexts. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory22: 1238–1262.
35.
VanceED (1986) Microdebitage analysis in activity analysis: an application. Northwest Anthropological Research Notes20: 179–189.
36.
VanceED (1987) Microdebitage and archaeological activity analysis. Archaeology40: 58–59.
37.
WangLSunWTutumluerE, et al. (2013) Evaluation of aggregate imaging techniques for quantification of morphological characteristics. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board2335: 39–49.
38.
WhittakerJCKampKAFordA, et al. (2009) Lithic industry in a Maya center: an axe workshop at El Pilar, Belize. Latin American Antiquity20: 134–156.
