Numerous approaches are currently employed for the analysis of chipped stone debris. These can generally be classified as aggregate and individual flake based methods. Here, elements of these two analyses are combined to produce a simplified form of analysis that allows useful insights into the technological make-up of flake debris assemblages. Specifically, general size data from aggregate analyses are combined with two attributes recorded on individual flakes as a pragmatic way of characterizing flake debris assemblages. Flake debris derived from flintknapping experiments demonstrate that differences between core reduction and tool production are observable for each and general trends in the data are derived through simulating archaeological assemblages. The utility of the method is demonstrated by application to the Bifurcate occupation of the Hart site (15La183) in Lawrence County, Kentucky. It is concluded that this method can be fruitfully applied to archaeological data sets, especially as an exploratory stage of research or when only limited analysis time is available.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AhlerStanley A.1989aMass Analysis of Flaking Debris: Studying the Forest Rather Than the Trees, in Alternative Approaches to Lithic Analysis, HenryD. O. and OdellG. H. (eds.), American Anthropological Association, Archaeological Papers 1, pp. 85–118.
2.
AhlerStanley A.1989bExperimental Knapping with KRF and Midcontinent Cherts: Overview and Application, in Experiments in Lithic Technology, AmickD. S. and MauldinR. P. (eds.), BAR International Series 528, Great Britain, pp. 119–234.
3.
AhlerStanley A. and ChristensenRobert C.1983A Pilot Study of Knife River Flint Procurement and Reduction at Site 32DU508, a Quarry and Workshop Location in Dunn County, North Dakota, Department of Anthropology and Archeology, University of North Dakota, submitted to the State Historical Society of North Dakota, Bismark.
4.
AmickDaniel and MauldinRaymond P.1997Effects of Raw Material on Flake Breakage Patterns, Lithic Technology, 22:1, pp. 18–32.
5.
AndrefskyWilliam2001aLithic Debitage: Context, Form, Meaning, The University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.
6.
AndrefskyWilliam2001bEmerging Directions in Debitage Analysis, in Lithic Debitage: Context, Form, Meaning, AndrefskyWilliam (ed.), The University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, pp. 2–14.
7.
BeckCharlotte and JonesGeorge T.1989Bias and Archaeological Classification, American Antiquity, 54, pp. 244–262.
8.
BradburyAndrew P.1998Multiple Methods for the Examination of Lithic Artifacts from an Early Archaic Assemblage, MidcontinentaI Journal of Archaeology, 23:2, pp. 263–288.
9.
BradburyAndrew P.2001Modern or Prehistoric: Experiments in Distinguishing Between Culturally and Mechanically Produced Chipped Stone Artifacts, North American Archaeologist, 22:3, pp. 231–258.
10.
BradburyAndrew P. and CarrPhilip J.1995Flake Typologies and Alternative Approaches: An Experimental Assessment, Lithic Technology, 20:2, pp. 100–116.
11.
BradburyAndrew P. and CarrPhilip J.1999Examining Stage and Continuum Models of Flake Debris Analysis: An Experimental Approach, Journal of Archaeological Science, 26, pp. 105–116.
12.
BradburyAndrew P. and FranklinJay D.2000Raw Material Variability, Package Size and Mass Analysis, Lithic Technology, 25:1, pp. 42–58.
13.
CarrPhilip J.1994Technological Organization and Prehistoric Hunter-Gatherer Mobility: Examination of the Hayes Site, in The Organization of North American Prehistoric Chipped Stone Tool Technologies, International Monographs in Prehistory, Archaeological Series 7. Ann Arbor, MI.
14.
CarrPhilip J.1995Hunter-Gatherers, Mobility, and Technological Organization: The Early Archaic of East Tennessee, Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville.
15.
CarrPhilip J. and BradburyAndrew P.2000Contemporary Lithic Analysis and Southeastern Archaeology, Southeastern Archaeology, 19:2, pp. 120–134.
16.
CarrPhilip J. and BradburyAndrew P.2001Flake Debris Analysis, Levels of Production and the Organization of Technology, in Lithic Debitage Analysis: Context, Form, Meaning, AndrefskyW.Jr. (ed.), The University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, pp. 126–146.
17.
CarrPhilip J. and BradburyAndrew P.2003Simulating Archaic Stone Toolkits and Types, paper presented at the 60th Annual Meeting of the Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Charlotte, North Carolina.
18.
CarrPhilip J. and BradburyAndrew P.2004Exploring Mass Analysis, Screens, and Attributes, in Aggregate Analyses in Chipped Stone, HallC. T. and LarsonM. L. (eds.), University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, pp. 21–44.
19.
IngbarEric E.LarsonMary Lou, and BradleyBruce A.1989A Nontypological Approach to Debitage Analysis, in Experiments in Lithic Technology, AmickD. S. and MauldinR. P. (eds.), BAR International Series 528, Great Britain, pp. 117–136.
20.
JohnsonJay K.2001Some Reflections on Debitage Analysis, in Lithic Debitage: Context, Form, Meaning, AndrefskyWilliam (ed.), The University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, pp. 15–20.
21.
KuitjIanPrentissWilliam C., and PokotyloDavid L.1995Bipolar Reduction: An Experimental Study of Debitage Variability, Lithic Technology, 20, pp. 100–115.
22.
MagneMartin P. R.1985Lithics and Livelihood: Stone Tool Technologies of Central and Southern Interior B.C., Archaeology Survey of Canada, Mercury Series 133, Ottawa, ON.
23.
MagneMartin P. R.1989Lithic Reduction Stages and Assemblage Formation Processes, in Experiments in Lithic Technology, AmickDaniel S. and MauldinRaymond P. (eds.), BAR International Series 528, Oxford, pp. 15–31.
24.
MagneMartin P. R.2001Debitage Analysis as a Scientific Tool for Archaeological Knowledge, in Lithic Debitage: Context, Form, Meaning, AndrefskyWilliam (ed.), The University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, pp. 21–31.
25.
MauldinRaymond P. and AmickDaniel S.1989Investigating Patterning in Debitage from Experimental Bifacial Core Reduction, in Experiments in Lithic Technology, AmickD. S. and MauldinR. P. (eds.), BAR International Series 528, Great Britain, pp. 89–100.
26.
OdellGeorge H.1989Experiments in Lithic Reduction, in Experiments in Lithic Technology, AmickD. S. and MauldinR. P. (eds.), BAR International Series 528, Great Britain, pp. 163–198.
27.
PrentissWilliam C.1998The Reliability and Validity of a Lithic Debitage Typology: Implications for Archaeological Interpretation, American Antiquity, 63, pp. 635–650.
28.
PrentissWilliam C. and RomanskiEugene J.1989Experimental Evaluation of Sullivan and Rozen's Debitage Typology, in Experiments in Lithic Technology, AmickD. S. and MauldinR. P. (eds.), BAR International Series 528, Oxford, pp. 89–100.
29.
ShottMichael J.1996Stage Versus Continuum in the Debris Assemblage from Production of a Fluted Biface, Lithic Technology, 21, pp. 6–22.
30.
SullivanAlan P. and RozenKenneth C.1985Debitage Analysis and Archaeological Interpretation, American Antiquity, 50, pp. 755–779.
31.
TomkaSteven A.1989Differentiating Lithic Reduction Techniques: An Experimental Approach, in Experiments in Lithic Technology, AmickD. S. and MauldinR. P. (eds.), BAR International Series 528, Great Britain, pp. 137–162.
