Expediting and standardizing stone artifact refitting using a computerized suitability model

The Analysis of Stone Tool Procurement, Production, and Maintenance

“…Close (1996Close ( , 2000 advocates refitting at a regional scale to acquire ''hard evidence'' about prehistoric movements. For the most part, refitting can help investigators understand three primary aspects of site assemblages: (1) lithic technological practices that have occurred at a location, (2) taphonomic process at work (site integrity), and (3) spatial associations (Cooper and Qiu 2006;Larson and Ingbar 1992). With regard to lithic technological organization, we are primarily interested in the first aspect.…”

“…These efforts are still some distance from being operational and require sophisticated and expensive computer hardware and software. Another technique has been tested that uses standardized computer software available through GIS packages (Cooper and Qiu 2006). This technique does not actually attempt refitting digital images but instead uses raw material, distance, and artifact characteristics to narrow the field of potential specimens that might be candidates for a successful refit.…”

“…This technique does not actually attempt refitting digital images but instead uses raw material, distance, and artifact characteristics to narrow the field of potential specimens that might be candidates for a successful refit. Cooper and Qiu (2006) note that their GIS suitability model was able to identify known conjoinable pieces 32% of the time, when tested. Even though this does not sound like a very high success rate, it is actually much higher than what is expected through a process of pairwise comparisons of individual pieces.…”

New Developments in the Use of Spatial Technology in Archaeology

“…New computer hardware, image-processing software, and data from a range of sources have facilitated the display of archaeological landscapes as a continuous palimpsest of artifacts, deposits, and architecture. As researchers, this makes us better equipped to tease out a more complete record of past activities through access to larger data sets and a variety of data models that can be used to code contextual information (Cooper and Qiu 2006). As interpreters of the past to the public, these representations hold potential for changing people's preconceived notions that ''sites'' are discrete entities and the only significant parts of the archaeological record.…”

“…Recent research has examined the preservation, taphonomy, and attributes of artifacts (Abe et al 2002;Bird et al 2007;Chapman and Cheetham 2002;Cooper and Qiu 2006;D'Andrea et al 2002;Marean et al 2001;Matthiesen et al 2004;Nigro et al 2003). In addition, as a consequence of advances in spatial technology, there is greater theoretical concern for intrasite spatial patterning on par with the concern for site-level patterns in the spatial archaeology of the 1960s and 1970s (Wheatley and Gillings 2002, p. 236).…”