Stage Versus Continuum in the Debris Assemblage from Production of A Fluted Biface

AbstractOrdinarily we regard the litic reduction sequence as a series of stages, but it may instead be a continuum. Using the debris assemblage generated in producing a fluted biface broadly of Gainey affinity, in which each flake was numbered in order of removal, this study evaluates stage and continuous approaches as models of reduction. Stages are not evident, despite the use of several methods to identify them. Instead, a multiple regression model identifies dorsal scar count, flake weight, and plat-form width as significant predictors of removal order in the reduction continuum.

[1]  Michael Shott,et al.  Gainey Site: Variability in a Great Lakes Paleo-Indian Assemblage , 1984 .

[2]  Michael Shott,et al.  The Leavitt Site: A Parkhill Phase Paleo-Indian Occupation in Central Michigan , 1993 .

[3]  John W. Burton,et al.  Making sense of waste flakes: New methods for investigating the technology and economics behind chipped stone assemblages , 1980 .

[4]  H. Dibble,et al.  The Effect of Hammer Mass and Velocity on Flake Mass , 1995 .

[5]  P. Fish.  Beyond Tools: Middle Paleolithic Debitage Analysis and Cultural Inference , 1981, Journal of Anthropological Research.

[6]  B. Purdy.  Fractures for the Archaeologist , 1975 .

[7]  P. Fish.  Consistency in Archaeological Measurement and Classification: A Pilot Study , 1978, American Antiquity.

[8]  Errett Callahan,et al.  The basics of biface knapping in the Eastern Fluted Tradition: a manual for flintknappers and lithic analysts (preface) , 1996 .

[9]  Barbara E. Luedtke,et al.  An Archaeologist's Guide to Chert and Flint , 1994 .

[10]  D. Stahle,et al.  An analysis and application of the size distribution of waste flakes from the manufacture of bifacial stone tools , 1982 .

[11]  Leland W. Patterson,et al.  Characteristics of Bifacial-Reduction Flake-Size Distribution , 1990, American Antiquity.

[12]  Marija J. Norusis,et al.  SPSS for Windows Base System User''s Guide , 1992 .

[13]  Martin P. R. Magne,et al.  Lithics and Livelihood: Stone Tool Technologies of Central and Southern Interior British Columbia , 1985 .

[14]  B CollinsMichael,et al.  Lithic Technology as a Means of Processual Inference , 1975 .

[15]  K. R. Fladmark,et al.  Microdebitage analysis: Initial considerations , 1982 .

[16]  L. Raab.  Debitage Graphs and Archaic Settlement Patterns in the Arkansas Ozarks , 1979 .

[17]  Edwin N. Wilmsen,et al.  Lithic Analysis and Cultural Inference: A Paleo-Indian Case , 1971 .

[18]  David L Pokotylo,et al.  A Pilot Study in Bifacial Lithic Reduction Sequences , 1981 .

[19]  Michael Shott,et al.  Size and form in the analysis of flake debris: Review and recent approaches , 1994 .

[20]  E. Callahan.  The basics of biface knapping in the eastern fluted point tradition: a manual for flintworkers and lithic analysts [Reprinted 1990, 1996, 2000] , 1979 .

[21]  A. Sullivan,et al.  Debitage Analysis and Archaeological Interpretation , 1985, American Antiquity.

[22]  James E. Dunn,et al.  Experimental Analysis of the Size Distribution of Waste Flakes from Biface Reduction , 1984 .

[23]  Andrew P. Bradbury,et al.  Flake Typologies and alternative approaches: an experimental assessment , 1995 .

[24]  Daniel S. Amick,et al.  An Evaluation of Debitage Produced by Experimental Bifacial Core Reduction of a Georgetown Chert Nodule , 1988 .