2021
DOI: 10.1016/j.jasrep.2021.103079
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Outlining the knapping techniques: Assessment of the shape and regularity of prismatic blades using elliptic Fourier analysis

Abstract: An important aspect of prismatic blade production is the choice of a knapping technique. This study tests the utility of elliptic Fourier analysis (EFA) for discriminating between different knapping techniques and offers a new perspective on blade variability. Our results indicate that there is an overlap in the outline shape and symmetry of individual blades produced by direct percussion, indirect percussion, and pressure debitage. Nevertheless, the EFA points out certain group-level differences regarding the… Show more

Help me understand this report
View preprint versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
0
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
3
2

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 74 publications
(100 reference statements)
0
0
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Many archaeologists, especially those analysing stone artefacts, now reject typological approaches as overly subjective uncontrolled mixtures of technological and functional variables that often incorporate untested assumptions about the cognitive abilities and cultural organisation of hominins (see Bisson, 2000;Monnier and Missal, 2014;Riede et al, 2020Riede et al, , 2019Shea, 2014;Wilkins, 2020). In parallel with these critiques, archaeologists have been active developing accessible and reproducible methods for geometric morphometric analysis of artefacts (Cardillo and Charlin, 2018;Cortell-Nicolau et al, 2023;Ivanovaitė et al, 2020a;Matzig et al, 2021;Radinović and Kajtez, 2021;Selden and Dockall, 2023;Wang and Marwick, 2020). These morphometric studies often critique established typologies, accelerating the move towards population thinking in archaeology.…”
Section: Population Thinking and Tree Thinkingmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Many archaeologists, especially those analysing stone artefacts, now reject typological approaches as overly subjective uncontrolled mixtures of technological and functional variables that often incorporate untested assumptions about the cognitive abilities and cultural organisation of hominins (see Bisson, 2000;Monnier and Missal, 2014;Riede et al, 2020Riede et al, , 2019Shea, 2014;Wilkins, 2020). In parallel with these critiques, archaeologists have been active developing accessible and reproducible methods for geometric morphometric analysis of artefacts (Cardillo and Charlin, 2018;Cortell-Nicolau et al, 2023;Ivanovaitė et al, 2020a;Matzig et al, 2021;Radinović and Kajtez, 2021;Selden and Dockall, 2023;Wang and Marwick, 2020). These morphometric studies often critique established typologies, accelerating the move towards population thinking in archaeology.…”
Section: Population Thinking and Tree Thinkingmentioning
confidence: 99%