Combining Aggregate and Individual Methods of Flake Debris Analysis: Aggregate Trend Analysis

Abstract

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.

FULL ISSUE Compass (2017) Volume 1, Issue 1, pp.1-65

“…Despite these limitations mass analysis continues to be a commonly used method and has "great potential for aiding our understanding of prehistoric lithic assemblages" (Carr and Bradbury 2004:41). Bradbury and Carr (2004) performed flintknapping experiments to test whether debitage analysis could identify the type of lithic reduction (the process of reducing raw material, such as a core, into something else, such as a tool) occurring. The authors manufactured different cores and tools using various reduction types, including hard and soft hammer percussion, and examined the debitage created from each session (Bradbury and Carr 2004:70).…”

“…The compressed nature of sites like Ahai Mneh does not allow for identification of single components, especially when the debitage counts are in the thousands or even millions. Many researchers who continue to use and study debitage analysis see it as a useful way to quickly and simply learn about the assemblage and the site (e.g., Ahler 1989;Bradbury and Carr 2004;Larson 2004;Magne 1989). Bradbury and Carr's (2004) experiments prove that debitage analysis can be successful in mixed assemblages.…”

“…Many researchers who continue to use and study debitage analysis see it as a useful way to quickly and simply learn about the assemblage and the site (e.g., Ahler 1989;Bradbury and Carr 2004;Larson 2004;Magne 1989). Bradbury and Carr's (2004) experiments prove that debitage analysis can be successful in mixed assemblages. While aggregate analysis of multi-component sites may introduce error due to the long period of use, I believe it is still a valuable tool to study what was recovered from a site.…”

“…Bradbury and Carr's (2004) experiments indicated that assemblages with a high proportion of angular shatter are indicative of a focus on core reduction rather than tool production. I use this finding to determine whether core reduction or tool production was a focus at Ahai Mneh.…”

Hits and misses when throwing stones at mass analysis

“…Criticisms of MA include: 1) replicator variability (Andrefsky, 2007(Andrefsky, , 2009; 2) raw material influences (Ahler, 1989b;Andrefsky, 2007Andrefsky, , 2009Bradbury and Franklin, 2000); and, 3) mixed archaeological assemblages (e.g., Ahler, 1989b;Andrefsky, 2007;Bradbury and Carr, 2004;Larson, 2004;Root, 1997;. We suggest these issues are not restricted to MA, but pertain to any flake debris analysis method to some degree.…”