Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T07:54:08.887Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Quantification Problem in Stone-Tool Assemblages

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Michael J. Shott
Michael J. Shott*
Affiliation:
Department of Sociology, Anthropology and Criminology, University of Northern Iowa, Cedar Falls, IA 50614-0513, [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

How many tools does a lithic assemblage contain? The question is not as banal as it may seem, because tools were used as wholes but many are found broken. Pottery and faunal analysts have grappled with the problems of counting original wholes from mixed sets of whole and broken objects; lithic analysts lag behind. Assemblage size can change greatly depending on whether we count or ignore tool fragments. To systematize treatment of broken tools, I apply Orton’s pottery quantification method to several lithic assemblages and compare it to Portnoy’s MNT and raw counts. Methods do not agree in all cases, demonstrating that how we count affects our results. Until we know more, both methods should be used to quantify lithic assemblages.

Resumen

Resumen

¿Cuántos instrumentos contiene un conjunto lítico? La pregunta no es tan absurde comoparece, porque se usaron los instrumentos como entidades pew muchos se encuentran rotos. Los analistas de los restos cerámicos y óseos han tratado con los problemas de la cuenta de las unidades enteras procedentes de conjuntos mezclados de objetos enteros y defragmentos; conjuntos líticos merecen el mismo tratamiento. El tamaño de conjuntos puede variar mucho de acuerdo con si contamos o desatendemos los fragments. Para sistematizar el tratamiento de instrumentos rotos, aplicó a unos conjuntos líticos el método de Orton para cuantificar la alfurcría. Además, comparó este método al NMH de Portnoy y a datos crudos. Los métodos no están de acuerdo en todo caso, lo que demuestra que cómo contamos afecta los resultados. Hasta que sepamos más de sus propiedades y comportamiento, debemos usar umbos métodos para cuantificar los conjuntos líticos.

Type
Reports
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 65 , Issue 4 , October 2000 , pp. 725 - 738
Copyright
Copyright © Society for American Archaeology 2000

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References Cited

Baxter, M. J., and Cool, H. E. 1996 Notes on Some Statistical Aspects of Pottery Quantification. Medieval Ceramics 19: 89–98.Google Scholar
Byrd, J. E., and Owens, D. D. 1997 A Method for Measuring Relative Abundance of Fragmented Archaeological Ceramics. Journal of Field Archaeology 24: 315–320.Google Scholar
Cattelain, P., and Perpere, M. 1993 Tir Experimental de Sagaies et de Fleches Emmanchees de Pointes de LaGravette. Archeo-Situla 17-20: 5–28.Google Scholar
Chadelle, J., Geneste, J., and Plisson, H. 1991 Processus Fonctionnels de Formation des Assemblages Technologiques dans les Sites du Paleolithique Superieur: Les Points de Projectiles Lithiques du Solutreen de la Grotte de Combe Sauniere (Dordogne, France). In 25Ans d'Etudes Technologiques en Prehistoire. Xle Rencontres Internationales d'Archeologie et d'Histoire d'Antibes. Editions APDCA, Juan-les-Pins.Google Scholar
Cool., H. E., and Baxter, M. J. 1996 Quantifying Glass Assemblages. Annates du He Congres de I ‘Association Internationale pour I ‘Histoire du Verre, pp. 93–101.Google Scholar
Cowgill, G. L. 1970 Some Sampling and Reliability Problems in Archaeology. In Archeologie et Calculateurs: Problemes Semiologiques et Mathematiques, pp. 161–172. Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Paris.Google Scholar
Curran, M. L. 1984 The Whipple Site and Paleoindian Tool Assemblage Variation: A Comparison of Intrasite Structuring: Archaeology of Eastern North America 12: 5–0.Google Scholar
Davis, Z. J., and Shea, J. J. 1998 Quantifying Lithic Curation: An Experimental Test of Dibble and Pelcin's Original Flake-Tool Mass Predictor. Journal of Archaeological Science 25: 603–610.Google Scholar
Dibble, H. L. 1995 Middle Paleolithic Scraper Reduction: Background, Clarification, and Review of the Evidence to Date. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 2: 299–368.Google Scholar
Dibble, H.L., and Pelcin, A. 1995 The Effect of Hammer Mass and Velocity on Flake Mass. Journal of Archaeological Science 22: 429–139.Google Scholar
Dockall, J. E. and Krupa, M. 1997 Wear Traces and Projectile Impact: A Review of the Experimental and Archaeological Evidence. Journal of Field Archaeology 24: 321–331.Google Scholar
Freeman, L. G., Gonzalez Echegaray, J., Pokines, J., Stettler, H. 1998 Tamisage Ultra Fin et Recuperation de l'Outillage: Observations Realisees a El Juyo (Espagne Cantabrique). UAnthropologic 102: 35–14.Google Scholar
Grayson, D. K. 1984 Quantitative Zooarchaeology: Topics in the Analysis of Archaeological Faunas. Academic Press, Orlando.Google Scholar
Grimes, J, R., and B. G., Grimes 1985 Flakeshavers: Morphometric, Functional and Life-Cycle Analyses of a Paleoindian Unifacial Tool Class. Archaeology of Eastern North America 13: 35–57.Google Scholar
Hiscock, P. 1988 A Cache of Tulas from the Boulia District, Western Queensland. Archaeology in Oceania 23: 60–70.Google Scholar
Hiscock, P. 1996 Transformations of Upper Paleolithic Implements in the Dabba Industry from Haua Fteah (Libya). Antiquity 70: 657–664.Google Scholar
Knecht, H. 1997 Projectile Points of Bone, Antler, and Stone: Experimental Explorations of Manufacture and Use. In Projectile Technology, edited by Knecht, H., pp. 191–212. Plenum, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larson, M. L., and Kornfeld, M. 1997 Chipped Stone Nodules: Theory, Method, and Examples. Lithic Technology 22: 4–18.Google Scholar
Mallouf, R. J. 1982 An Analysis of Plow-Damaged Chert Artifacts: The Brookeen Creek Cache (41HI86), Hill County, Texas. Journal of Field Archaeology 9: 78–98.Google Scholar
Mayer-Oakes, W. J., and Portnoy, A. W. 1993 Paleo-Indian Studies at San Jose, Ecuador. Lithic Technology 18: 28–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moreno-Garcfa, M., Orton, C., and Rackham, J. 1996 A New Statistical Tool for the Comparison of Animal Bone Assemblages. Journal of Archaeological Science 23: 437–153.Google Scholar
Morrow, J. E. 1997 End Scraper Morphology and Use-Life: An Approach for Studying Paleoindian Lithic Technology and Mobility. Lithic Technology 22: 70–85.Google Scholar
Odell, G. H. 1996 Stone Tools and Mobility in the Illinois Valley: From Hunter-Gatherer Camps to Agricultural Villages. International Monographs in Prehistory, Archaeology Series No. 10. Ann Arbor, Michigan.Google Scholar
Orton, C. 1993 How Many Pots Make Five? An Historical Review of Pottery Quantification. Archaeometry 35: 169–184.Google Scholar
Orton, C. R., and Tyers, P. A 1990 Statistical Analysis of Ceramic Assemblages. Archeologia e Calcolatori 1: 81–110.Google Scholar
Orton, C. R., and Tyers, P. A 1993 A User's Guide to Pie-Slice. Unpublished ms. on file, Institute of Archaeology, University College London.Google Scholar
Pelcin, A. A. 1996 Controlled Experiments in the Production of Flake Attributes. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Pennsylvania. Philadelphia.Google Scholar
Portnoy, A. W. 1987 A Formula for Estimating the Minimum Number of Individual Lithic Tools. Paper presented at the 52d Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Toronto. Lessons and Prospects from Nobles Pond. Paper presented at the 59th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Anaheim, California.Google Scholar
Shott, M. J. 1994 Size and Form in the Analysis of Flake Debris: Review and Recent Approaches. Journal ofArchaeological Method and Theory 1: 69–110.Google Scholar
Shott, M. J. 1995 How Much Is a Scraper? Curation, Use Rates, and the Formation of Scraper Assemblages. Lithic Technology 20: 53–72.Google Scholar
Shott, M. J. 1996 An Exegesis of the Curation Concept. Journal of Anthropological Research 52: 259–280.Google Scholar
Shott, M. J. 1997 Activity and Formation as Sources of Variation in Great Lakes Paleoindian Assemblages. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 22: 197–236.Google Scholar
Shott, M. J., A., Bradbury, Carr, P. J., and Odell, G. H. 1999 Flake Size from Platform Attributes: Experimental and Empirical Approaches. Journal of Archaeological Science, in press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simpson, D. N. 1996 Aspects of Weathering of Rhyolite and Typological and Technological Considerations of this Material Based on the Results of Refitting. Norwegian Archaeological Review 29: 79–87.Google Scholar
Weedman, K. 1999 Lithics, Handles, and Site Formation: An Ethnographic Study of Stone Tool Use among the Gamo in Southern Ethiopia. Paper presented at the 64th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Chicago.Google Scholar