andrefsky 2006 jas

7/28/2019 Andrefsky 2006 JAS

1/11

The application and misapplication of mass analysis in lithicdebitage studies

William Andrefsky Jr.

Department of Anthropology, Washington State University, Pullman, WA 99164-4910, United States

Received 4 March 2006; received in revised form 25 May 2006; accepted 26 May 2006

Abstract

The technique of debitage mass analysis based upon size grades of debitage populations is shown to be prone to errors when making

interpretations about the kind of tool produced or the kind of lithic reduction technology used. Significant sources of error may originate

from differences in individual flintknapping styles and techniques, raw material size and shape variants, and mixing of debitage from more

than one reduction episode. These sources of error render debitage Mass Analysis ineffective for determining the kind of stone tool reduction

activities practiced at excavated sites. Mass Analysis may be effective for determining artifact reduction sequences if it is used on debitage from

a single reduction episode or part of a reduction episode. However, it is shown that Mass Analysis when used for assessing reduction sequence

information, must also control for the effects of raw material variability, assemblage mixing, and flintknapping styles.

2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Lithic analysis; Experimental archaeology; Mass Analysis; Debitage; Size grades

Lithic artifact debitage may be defined as the by-product of

stone tool production and resharpening. Debitage includes the

chips and debris that have been removed to shape and maintain

stone tools. In 1972, Don Crabtree proclaimed that debitage

composed the finger prints of stone tool production [33].

He rightly meant that debitage could be used to recognize

stone tool production activities even in the absence of the

stone tools themselves being recovered. Since then debitage

has been effectively analyzed to determine the types of artifact

produced [15,23,66,67,74,95], the kind of technology practiced

[5,30,35,36,54,58,72], the stage of tool reduction or production[8,26,50,61,65,76,85], and even the process of site formation

[31,39,49,69,87,88].

The analysis of lithic debitage has become increasingly

important in understanding the activities and tasks that have

taken place on the prehistoric landscape [10,16,57,59,73,92,93,94].

This has helped researchers understand how human mobility

andland-use arelinkedto foraging strategies, andalso howthese

foraging strategies are linked to lithic tool production, use,

maintenance, and discard [14,20,21,32,34,38,47,56,63,91].

A form of debitage analysis known as Mass Analysis

(MA) has been widely adopted by archaeologists to process

large quantities of artifacts to make such inferences

[1,17,18,29,51,62,77,81]. Part of the reason MA has been so

appealing to researchers relates to its relative ease, speed, and

reliability. The advantages of MA over individual specimen

analysis are highlighted by Ahler [1]. He notes that MA:

(1) can be applied to the full range of debitage without regard-

ing fracture or completeness, thereby eliminating potentialbias resulting from exclusion of some debitage forms, such

as broken or shattered pieces;

(2) can be rapid and efficient, even for extremely large debit-

age samples, because it does not require handling and

measuring of individual specimens;

(3) can reduce technological bias based upon debitage size be-

cause different mesh sizes capture a range of different

specimen sizes; and

(4) can be a highly objective technique since the analysis in-

volves size grading, counting, and weighing, and can beE-mail address: [email protected]

0305-4403/$ - see front matter 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.jas.2006.05.012

Journal of Archaeological Science 34 (2007) 392e402http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jas
mailto:[email protected]://www.elsevier.com/locate/jashttp://www.elsevier.com/locate/jasmailto:[email protected]


2/11

conducted by virtually anyone trained in elementary lab

procedures.

There are indeed appealing reasons for archaeologists to

adopt MA. Briefly saying, MA is a form of debitage popula-

tion study that assimilates all debitage within a recognized

population and segregates it into size groups known as sizegrades. Based on the relative proportion of debitage within

each size grade generalizations are made about the technology

used to produce the debitage population. The relative propor-

tion of size grades is established by the count and weight of

specimens in each size grade. The average weight of each

size grade and the percentage of specimens with cortex in

each size grade may also be calculated. These proportions

and average values become the attributes of the debitage pop-

ulation used in MA techniques.

Inferences about the debitage population are generated by

a control group of debitage based upon experimental repli-

cation of various tools or stages of tool production and core

reduction. For instance, the investigator might first replicatea projectile point from a cobble or a flake blank. The debitage

from that replication event is sorted into size grades and rela-

tive amounts of each size grade are calculated based on counts

and weights and/or cortical representation. This control group

is summarized to produce a signature of some type such as

a histogram, ratio measure, or a discriminant function. This

control group signature is then compared to the signature ob-

tained from the excavated collection using the same size

grades. If there is a match the investigator may infer that a

projectile point was manufactured at that location, even if

one was not found there.

A series of replications are then conducted to evaluate allsizes of debitage resulting from the production of different

kinds of stone tools and stages of stone tool reduction. These

experimentally derived debitage signatures are then used as

a reference library for various kinds of tool production or

core reduction activities. For example, a specific debitage sig-

nature has been produced for hard hammer reduction of cob-

bles, for bipolar reduction of pebbles, for projectile point

manufacture, and even for the initial thinning of bifaces

from flake blanks [1,18,68].

The size grades used in MA are easily applied to an assem-

blage of debitage. One of the most popular ways to stratify

debitage into size grades is to sift the debitage through a series

of nested screens. The investigator can save a considerable

amount of time using this technique because she or he is not

required to separate the debitage into whole or broken flakes

or shatter or platform remnant flakes. All debitage is shifted

through the screens regardless of technological variety or com-

pleteness to arrive at size groups or size grades. A fairly

untrained technician can do this sorting. In fact, some labora-

tories stack the nested screens on a mechanical shaker

machine so that the sorting or size grading of debitage requires

no training at all.

A classic MA study might produce a distribution of debit-

age size grades like the one shown in Table 1. In this case each

of the reduction techniques would have eight variables based

upon the proportion of each size grade calculated by weight

and then by count. The percentage of cortical specimens for

each size grade would add an additional four variables that

can also be used in a MA study. These data might then be an-

alyzed to produce a histogram signature that looks like the one

in Figs. 1 and 2 showing the relative proportions of count and

weight, respectively in each size grade for each reduction tech-

nique. In addition, a discriminant function can be calculated

for each experimentally replicated assemblage and that signa-ture can be compared to the signature obtained for the exca-

vated assemblage to make an interpretation [1,41].

In this paper, I contend that MA, although it is relatively

easy to apply and can be used to process very large quantities

of debitage, has been adopted by many practitioners without

stringent analytical constraints and with little concern for the

validity of the results. Instead, I suggest that this popular ana-

lytical technique has been adopted because of its economic

benefits (ease and speed) and has unfortunately or unintention-

ally often resulted in spurious interpretations of the archaeo-

logical record. Below, I review several factors responsible

for the failure of MA, including problems with replicated as-

semblages, raw material influences, and mixed archaeologicalassemblages. I also identify effective applications of MA and

Table 1

Relative proportions of size grades for core reduction techniques by weight

and count

Reduction

technique

Percent weight Percent count

Size 1 Size 2 Size 3 Size 4 Size 1 Size 2 Size 3 Size 4

Hard hammer

flakes

29.0 43.5 21.8 5.7 0.7 5.5 22.5 71.3

Hard hammer

blades

17.5 53.0 24.2 5.3 0.5 7.1 24.1 68.3

Bipolar chips 12.5 34.8 37.6 15.1 0.2 2.1 18.5 79.2

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

HH FLAKES HH BLADES BIPOLAR

Reduction Technique

Relative%ofDebitagebyCount

SIZE 1 CT

SIZE 2 CT

SIZE 3 CT

SIZE 4 CT

Fig. 1. Histogram of relative proportions of count for Mass Analysis of three

reduction types (hard hammer flakes, hard hammer blades, and bipolar debit-

age). Data are taken from Ahler [1].

393W. Andrefsky Jr. / Journal of Archaeological Science 34 (2007) 392e402


3/11

suggest techniques that can help to make this technique a more

productive analytical strategy, such as segregating debitage

into discrete technological production episodes.

Before discussing sources of debitage variability that may

influence results of MA it is important to clarify how I use

the terms production and reduction. I use the term pro-

duction when talking about the manufacturing of tools us-

ing pressure or percussion flaking methods. I use the term

reduction when talking about the removal of detachedpieces from cores. Reduction refers to the process of flake re-

moval for the acquisition of usable detached pieces. Produc-

tion refers to the process of flake removal for the purpose of

making, resharpening, or reshaping a tool. I refer to core re-

duction and to tool production. These are not necessarily

interchangeable terms.

1. Replicator variability

One of the assumptions of MA is that the production of

different kinds of tools or the recognition of tool type stages

result in different amounts of debitage in various size classes.

It is also assumed that the production of the same kinds of

tools by different individuals will result in the same relative

amounts of debitage in each size grade. In other words, if

two individuals each manufacture a projectile point the debit-

age produced by each person should result in relatively iden-

tical distributions of debitage size grades and ultimately

obtain the same signature. A corollary assumption is that ex-

cavated debitage matching the size grade distributions of the

experimentally replicated debitage will have resulted from

the same kinds of artifact production events. Practitioners of

MA assume that the debitage signatures produced by contem-

porary knappers will be the same as the debitage signatures

produced by ancient knappers, provided that the same artifacts

or the same reduction technologies are replicated.

Is this an accurate assumption? In an independent study of

flintknapping experiments, Redman [80] compared the debit-

age produced from three different expert flintknappers mak-

ing the same type of bifaces using the same raw material and

the same kind of percussors. Although she did not evaluatesize groups or size grades, she found that there was a signifi-

cant difference in six debitage characteristics among the

experimental assemblages even though all knappers were

making the same tool type. As a result of being made by dif-

ferent individual knappers, the experimental debitage was sig-

nificantly different in flake curvature, flake length, maximum

width, width at midpoint, platform width, and flake weight.

These data suggest that individual flintknapping abilities,

styles, or techniques may produce significantly different debit-

age size grades. Other researchers have made similar claims

[43,70,89]. Individual variation in tool manufacturing has

obvious implications for MA, which assumes that replicated

debitage assemblages can be used to match excavated assem-blages to make inferences about the kind of production that

has taken place at a site.

Individual variation in the debitage characteristics noted by

Redman [80] could influence the relative proportions of size

grades for each debitage assemblage. I tabulated size grade

data from several independently published sources and also

conducted additional replication experiments to evaluate this

possibility. Fig. 3 shows these tabulated data as relative pro-

portions of weight for four size grades produced from bipolar

technology [1,52,68]. Morrows data were restructured from

his original presentation to conform with Ahlers [1] strategy

for naming the largest size-graded debitage size grade 1and the smallest size size grade 4. Even relatively simple

technology such as bipolar reduction produces significantly

different debitage signatures when using size grade analysis.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

HH FLAKES HH BLADES BIPOLAR

Reduction Techniques

Relative%byDebitag

eWeight

SIZE 1 WT

SIZE 2 WT

SIZE 3 WT

SIZE 4 WT

Fig. 2. Histogram of relative proportions of weight for Mass Analysis of three

reduction types (hard hammer flakes, hard hammer blades, and bipolar debit-

age). Data are taken from Ahler [1].

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

AHLER KALIN MORROW ANDREFSKY

Individual Knappers

%Debitage

Weight

SIZE 1 WT

SIZE 2 WT

SIZE 3 WT

SIZE 4 WT

Fig. 3. Comparison of individual flintknapping debitage by relative proportion

of weight for bipolar reduction.

394 W. Andrefsky Jr. / Journal of Archaeological Science 34 (2007) 392e402


4/11

For example, Kalins experiment produced no size grade 1

debitage while all three other knappers produced at least

some of this largest size debitage. In fact, Morrows experi-

ment and my own produced most debitage in size grade 1.

The highest frequency of debitage from Ahlers bipolar repli-

cations were in size grade 3 while Kalins, Morrows and my

size grade 3 debitage was represented as 5.2%, 13.2%, and10.2%, respectively. Table 2 lists the significance values for

t-tests of all four size grades and demonstrates that the vari-

ability in size grade values is too great for discriminating re-

duction technology using MA, even though each knapper

reduced a nodule using the same reduction technology. These

data show that each replication could not have been drawn

from the same population (have the same manufacturing tech-

nique). However, we know this to be the case as all replica-

tions were the same e bipolar core reductions. This tends to

support Redmans [80] findings that one of the greatest sources

of debitage variability comes as a result of individual knap-

pers style and technique.

In a separate study, Amick and Mauldin [4] compared flakebreakage frequencies in their experiments against data on

breakage compiled by Bradbury and Carr [25]. They found

highly significant differences in flake breakage attributable

to individual knapper reduction practices for both chert core

reduction (X2 54.35, df 3, p< 0.000001) and for chert

bifaces/tool reduction (X2 65.25, df 3, p< 0.000001).

Again, debitage variability is shown to originate with individ-

ual knappers. As such, it is doubtful that contemporary knap-

pers would produce the same debitage size grade signatures as

ancient knappers even if both were making exactly the same

kinds of tools. Such discrepancies make it extremely difficult

to trust results of MA given that MA results are based upon thecomparisons and matching of experimentally generated debit-

age assemblages to ancient debitage assemblages.

2. Raw material size, shape, and composition

Variation in debitage size grades resulting from different

flintknappers is only one potential source of error when using

MA techniques. Variability in blank size and shape as well as

raw material type will also produce different debitage sizes

[2,24,96]. However, this fact appears to be ignored by most

practitioners of MA. Seldom (if ever) are tool-stone sizes

and shapes accounted for when comparing replicated assem-

blages to excavated assemblages. How can we reasonably ex-

pect to obtain the same proportions of debitage size grade

signatures if the tool-stone, to make the replications and to

make the excavated collections, is composed of different sizes

and shapes? One way to evaluate this question is to reduce dif-

ferent objective pieces of different sizes and shapes using the

same reduction techniques and then compare the debitage size

grades using MA.

I conducted such a test by reducing two water worn obsid-

ian pebbles using bipolar reduction technology. Bipolar reduc-tion technology was used because it is a fairly elementary and

uniform technique to open tool-stone. Parry and Kelly [73]

state, Cores are not preformed or prepared in any way. In-

stead, they are struck almost randomly, shattering into pieces

of variable size and shape. Other investigators support this

characteristic of bipolar technology [9,44,45,48]. For my rep-

lications, Pebble #1 was oval and flat on one side with a max-

imum linear dimension of 6.2 cm and a weight of 117 g.

Pebble #2 was more rounded or egg-shaped with a maximum

linear dimension of 8.8 cm and a weight of 339 g. Pebble #2

had approximately twice the mass as Pebble #1, but was

only about 30% (2.6 cm) longer in maximum linear dimen-

sion. The pebbles were opened in an effort to obtain asmany large usable pieces as possible. Table 3 lists the debitage

size grade frequencies for each pebble in standard hardware

cloth square size increments by percent count and percent

weight. The smaller of the two pebbles (Pebble #1), of course,

did not produce any pieces in the largest size grade (2-inch

mesh size). Pebble #2 only produced four debitage pieces in

the 2-inch size grade. However, these four pieces represented

62.5% of the total debitage weight for Pebble #2. This

trend immediately shows how different original tool-stone

package sizes can influence a size grade distribution used

in MA.

The 2-inch mesh size was eliminated from the study to givePebble #1 and Pebble #2 the same number of size grades with

debitage representation (bottom, Table 3). This still resulted in

very different relative percentages of debitage weight in each

of the four remaining size grades even though both pebbles

were opened using the same technology.

Table 2

Students t-test: comparison of four flintknappers bipolar debitage noted in

Fig. 3

Size grades One-sample test Mean

differencet df Sig. (2-tailed)

Size grade 1 2.02 3 0.137 33.85

Size grade 2 2.28 3 0.107 41.90

Size grade 3 2.30 3 0.105 16.55

Size grade 4 1.57 3 0.215 5.28

Table 3

Size grade proportions for count and weight from two bipolar reductions

Size grade mesh (inch) Percent count Percent weight

Pebble #1 with five mesh sizes

1/8 71.4 4.7

1/4 18.5 11.9

1/2 8.3 62.0

1 1.8 21.0

2 0.0 0.0

Pebble #2 with five mesh sizes

1/8 70.1 3.1

1/4 20.5 8.5

1/2 5.7 8.7

1 2.3 17.2

2 1.3 62.5

Pebble #2 with four mesh sizes

1/8 70.1 3.1

1/4 20.5 8.5

1/2 5.7 8.7

1 3.7 79.7



5/11

Other investigators studying the influence of lithic raw ma-

terial on tool manufacturing process have noted similar results.

Bradbury and Franklin [27] explored the effectiveness of MA

as it relates to raw material package sizes. They conclude that

the .raw material influences appear to be most significant

when perceived in terms of the variability in initial nodule

size and shape.

[27]. In a test of flake breakage and ulti-mately flake size, Amick and Mauldin [4] state .breakage

patterns fail to behave consistently with any variables other

than raw material.raw material considerations must provide

the backbone of any debitage analysis.

Clearly, raw material composition and package size are im-

portant factors influencing debitage size grades regardless of

the kind of manufacturing technology practiced. Replication

experiments conducted to produce controlled debitage data

sets for MA must begin with the same tool-stone configura-

tions as the excavated assemblages to make reliable control

groups.

3. Debitage mixing

The most widely recognized problem with using MA is

known as the mixing problem. Simply stated, if we assume

that debitage produced by the production of similar tools re-

sults in similar size grade signatures, and we assume this is

true regardless of who made the tools, and we further assume

that raw material size, shape, and composition are not an issue,

MA must still overcome the problem created when debitage

from two different production events are mixed together, as

is often the case with archaeological assemblages.

For instance, when debitage from the reduction of a biface

is mixed with debitage from the reduction of a platformedcore, the size grade signatures are no longer discernable or di-

agnostic. This problem has been recognized over and over

again [1,2,30,68,82], but few have attempted to control for

it. Even in a controlled reduction context, we cannot use

mixed debitage to identify specific reduction activities. In

other words, even when we know we are mixing together deb-

itage from blade and bipolar core reduction techniques it is not

possible to recognize these two reduction technologies using

MA. This problem is certainly magnified when we begin look-

ing at excavated palimpsest assemblages where many different

kinds and combinations of tool production and resharpening

activities might have taken place over varying periods of

time. In an archaeological context, we may not have the rela-

tively simple mixing of two sets of debitage from two produc-

tion episodes. Archaeological debitage assemblages may

represent several complete or partial production events of var-

ious tool forms that may have been deposited at different times

and in varying amounts.

One way to assess the effects of debitage mixing is to ob-

tain size grade signatures for two different reduction strategies

and then compare those signatures to signatures obtained when

the debitage from both reduction strategies are combined. I

replicated debitage from the production of a large side-

notched hafted biface and the reduction of a bipolar core.

Both were made from the same kind of obsidian. Fig. 4 shows

MA histogram signatures for the production of the hafted bi-

face and bipolar debitage, and demonstrates how those signa-

tures are complicated when those two separate production

events are combined. We no longer obtain diagnostic signa-

tures when differential production data are mixed. This is an

interesting comparison because the replicated hafted biface

began as a flake blank weighing 45.5 g. The final product

weighed 32.6 g, and there was only 12.9 g of debitage pro-

duced during the production process, which sorted into thetwo smallest size grades. This created quite a different signa-

ture than the bipolar core reduction, which resulted in 168 g of

debitage across four size grades. Fig. 5 diagrams this data as

linear graphs and shows that bipolar reduction is potentially

present, but hafted biface technology is not recognized in

the size-graded debitage even though the replicated assem-

blage contains this reduction. This underscores one of the

most important findings of Bradbury and Franklins MA study:

.if the experimental assemblage being used to classify other

data sets lacks all of the reduction types present in the assem-

blage being classified, correct classification rates may drop

significantly [27]. We can add to this and also say that correct

classifications decline when experimental assemblages con-

tain more reduction types than comprising the excavated

assemblage.

4. Diagnostic signatures

There has been an assumption made in the archaeological

literature that MA does work in a controlled experimental con-

text. This has been established many times by researchers

making replicated debitage assemblages [2,3,17,30,74]. Even

when there are problems attempting to match replicated as-

semblages to excavated assemblages, there appears to be

good results for obtaining diagnostic signatures for the

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

BIPOLAR HAFTED PT BOTH

Reduction Techniques

%DebitageWeig

ht

SG1 WT

SG2 WT

SG3 WT

SG4 WT

Fig. 4. Histogram showing size grade signatures for hafted biface production

(HAFTED PT) and bipolar core reduction (BIPOLAR), individually and when

combined.



6/11

replicated debitage populations. In other words, investigators

tend to produce diagnostic signatures for experimental produc-

tion events using size-graded debitage produced in those

manufacturing events. Intuitively, this makes perfect sense be-

cause experimentally replicated assemblages are not mixed or

subjected to the same type of accumulation problems as exca-

vated assemblages. Nor do replicated assemblages have the

problems associated with variation in raw material varietiesbecause this variable can be controlled for in experiments. Un-

fortunately not all experimentally replicated debitage assem-

blages produce diagnostic signatures for different production

events and technologies.

Toby Morrow [68] produced debitage counts and weights

from the replication of a bifacial core, a Clovis point, a blade

core, and a bipolar core. Again, I converted his size grades to

fit Ahlers size grade conventions with size grade 1 as the larg-

est and size grade 4 as the smallest. Fig. 6 compares his data as

relative frequencies of debitage counts by MA size grades. The

debitage from each of these production technologies have al-

most identical signatures. The highest percentage for each of

the four production technologies occurs in size grade 4 and

the lowest for all production technologies occurs in size grade

2. Size grade 3 contains approximately 15% of the debitage by

count and size grade 1 contains less than 10% of the debitage

for all manufacturing technologies. The trends in relative dis-

tributions of weight for the same tool replications show the

same uniform distribution of size grades, as do the counts

(Fig. 7). The reduction of four very different kinds of objective

pieces has produced identical debitage size grade proportions

using both counts and weights. When these data are graphed

linearly (Fig. 8), the similarity is even more pronounced.

Table 4 lists student t-scores on a two-tailed test for each

size grade and suggests that all size-graded data could have

originated from the same reduction technology. Together,

these statistics show that the debitage for each replicated

assemblage could have been drawn from a single population.

However, we know that was not the case. Four very different

kinds of production activities produced each of the replicated

assemblages. Mass Analysis of size grades does not effectively

discriminate amongst these four assemblages. This certainly

suggests serious problems with using MA as a technique forinterpreting excavated assemblages of debitage.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

SG1 WT SG2 WT SG3 WT SG4 WTSize Grades

%DebitageWeight

BIPOLAR

HAFTED PT

BOTH

Fig. 5. Linear graph showing how hafted biface debitage becomes embedded

in bipolar debitage signature when mixing occurs.

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

BIFACE CLOVIS BLADE BIPOLAR

Reduction Technique

%DebitageCou

nt

%CT S1

%CT S2

%CT S3

%CT S4

Fig. 6. Histogram showing relative percentages of size grades by count for

bifacial reduction (BIFACE), Clovis point production (CLOVIS), blade reduc-

tion (BLADE), and bipolar reduction (BIPOLAR). Data are taken from

Morrow [68].

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

BIFACE CLOVIS BLADE BIPOLAR

Reduction Technique

%DebitageWeight

%WT S1

%WT S2

%WT S3

%WT S4

Fig. 7. Histogram showing relative percentages of size grades by weight for

bifacial reduction (BIFACE), Clovis point production (CLOVIS), blade

reduction (BLADE), and bipolar reduction (BIPOLAR). Data are taken from

Morrow [68].



7/11

5. Reduction stage analysis

Investigations aimed at assessing MA have been very gener-

ous in pointing out the usefulness of this method, particularly in

conjunction with other kinds of debitage analysis. Most of

these investigators suggest that MA is most effective when pre-

dicting lithic reduction stages in an experimental context

[25,30,68]. This makes some sense because lithic tool produc-tion and core technology are reductive processes [12]. Regard-

less of the kind of core reduction, lithic technology results in

detached pieces that get progressively smaller as the objective

piece is worked. This trend is clear in the experimentally pro-

duced debitage from Morrows [68] production of a Clovis

point. Fig. 9 shows a scatter plot of the mean flake weight

for each of the eight reduction stages in the Clovis point pro-

duction sequence. Clearly the trend in mean flake weight gets

progressively smaller as the production becomes more com-

plete (mean flake weight 0.3626x 2.8326, r2 0.7631).

An ANOVA shows this to be significant (F 19.325,

p 0.005).

However, inferring reduction sequences using MA is also

sensitive to the same kinds of issues noted above regarding in-

dividual knappers, raw material package size and type, and the

mixing problem. For instance, reduction sequence debitage

from projectile point manufacturing will not necessarily be

analytically visible if it is mixed with reduction sequence

debitage from a bifacial core reduction or platformed core

reduction simply because early stages of projectile point pro-

duction data may be the same size or even smaller than later

stages of core reduction debitage.

Given the information presented above, MA used to deter-mine reduction stages should be cautiously used to infer re-

duction sequences and only after the debitage assemblage is

assessed or stratified to account for factors such as mixing

and raw material variability [11]. Making inferences about re-

duction sequences using MA is only effective if the debitage

assemblage represents a single reduction technology or it is

segregated to represent a single technology. For instance, it

might be effective for determining the kinds of production

techniques that have occurred at a small single use or special

use camp, such as a butchering station or bivouac, where

points were repaired or resharpened, or at a quarry location

where cobbles were primarily tested. As the number of pro-

duction activities and by extension, length of occupation in-

creases at a site location the more problematic MA gives the

complications noted above. Also, some types of reduction

technology do not result in progressively smaller detached

pieces throughout the reduction trajectory. Experiments and

analyses conducted on blade and microblade manufacturing

have shown that detached pieces from prepared blade cores

tend to stay approximately the same size throughout the pro-

duction cycle [22,37,79]. This is because blade core reduction

is selected as a strategy to purposefully obtain regular and

uniform detached pieces. These kinds of technologies will

not be sensitive to reduction sequence assessment using MA

techniques.

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

%WT S1 %WT S2 %WT S3 %WT S4

Size Grades

Relative%ofDebitage

BIFACE

CLOVIS

BLADE

BIPOLAR

Fig. 8. Line graph showing similar relative percentages of debitage size grades

by weight for bifacial reduction, Clovis point production, blade reduction, and

bipolar reduction. Data are taken from Morrow [68].

Table 4

Students t-test: comparison of four debitage size grades by weight in Fig. 7

Size grades One-sample test Mean difference

t df Sig. (2-tailed)

Size grade 1 21.76 3


8/11

6. Discussion

Various forms of MA have been used by lithic researchers

in the past [3,6,7,19,46,74,75,78,93], however, it did not be-

come popular or widespread as a methodology until Ahler

published his 1989 version. Ahler was very careful in applying

MA to his assemblages of debitage. He anticipated and dis-cussed many of the potential problems with using MA cited

here, such as the mixing problem and issues with raw material

variability. Unfortunately many practitioners of MA were not

as careful as Ahler when adopting it for their own research.

I do not believe Ahler would approve of some of the applica-

tions of MA evident in the literature today.

Mass Analysis may be effective for some types of assem-

blages and for gaining insights into some questions and tech-

nological issues. However, the reasons for why it was

originally adopted and has become widely used may no longer

be applicable to this technique. Given the need to stratify deb-

itage assemblages to counter some of the effects of raw mate-

rial variability and mixing technologies before conductingMA, it may not be as time conservative as once thought.

This paper did not explore and evaluate the different tech-

niques available to obtain debitage size grade signatures such

as discriminant function analysis [1], multiple linear regres-

sion analysis [82,90], or fractal analysis [28]. Instead, this

paper focused on the issues surrounding the production of

primary comparative assemblages (replicated assemblages).

Without reliable comparative assemblages, interpretations of

size grade debitage are useless regardless of the technique ad-

ministered to derive the signatures used to compare the exca-

vated assemblage and the replicated assemblage.

It is becoming increasingly clear that debitage assemblagesshould be stratified into as many behaviorally meaningful

groups as possible before MA is performed [11,83]. For in-

stance, it makes little sense to use MA on aggregate assem-

blages comprised of different types of raw materials or

variations of the same raw material type. These different raw

material packages most likely represent different reduction or

production episodes, even if the materials were used to make

the same kinds of tools [53,59,60,86]. The debitage from each

of those episodes should be handled as separate analytical pop-

ulations for MA to be an effective form of aggregate analysis.

In addition to stratification by raw material varieties, evi-

dence for different kinds of lithic production technologies can

be used to stratify debitage assemblages to help reduce the

amount of assemblage mixing before MA is preformed. There

is no reason to expect that MA will produce accurate results if

the debitage from multiple production technologies are com-

bined. Debitage with characteristics diagnostic of specific pro-

duction/reduction technologies (such as bifacial trimming

flakes, notching flakes, prismatic blades, bipolar flakes, etc.)

should be partitioned intoseparate analyticalpopulations before

attempting MA. For instance, if we are able to identify debitage

associated with bifacial production or bipolar reduction, or plat-

formed core reduction, this informationcan be used to help strat-

ify debitage assemblages into specific production episodes to

reduce the mixing problem so often associated with MA. Such

technological information is available to debitage analysts

[12,33,40,42,44,55,64,71,83,95,97].

Because size grade corresponds to uniform and universal

mesh dimensions, many believe MA is a more objective means

of classifying debitage by size [1]. We now realize that size

grades that correspond to mesh sizes may not be as reliable

or as objective as once believed [13,83,84]. When debitageis sorted and passed through the mesh it may get trapped in

the mesh in an unsystematic manner. The same debitage as-

semblage might have different group representation if it is

sorted multiple times simply because of how individual flakes

are oriented when passing through the mesh. Long thin flakes

may pass through a particular mesh size on one occasion but

not the next time simply given the flake orientation. Carr

and Bradbury [30] suggest passing specimens through a screen

by hand to circumvent this potential problem, or passing debit-

age individually through size templates [12].

A recent example underscores how MA can lead to spuri-

ous conclusions. Franklin and Simik [41] conducted artifact-

refitting studies and compared their results to the resultsobtained using MA based upon discriminant function signa-

tures on principal components of size grade attributes. Their

refitting study conclusively established bipolar techniques as

the primary technology used to open and to reduce chert nod-

ules at a rock-shelter in Tennessee. A series of cobble reduc-

tion experiments were conducted to establish comparative

debitage collections (of the same raw materials) for bipolar

reduction, hard hammer cobble testing, hard hammer core re-

duction, and soft hammer tool production. When these control

populations were compared to the excavated assemblage using

MA, bipolar reduction was not recognized. Again, even

though bipolar technology was conclusively recognized by re-fitting cores, MA was not effective in discerning this

manufacturing technology. This is not surprising given the

complications of performing reliable MA as noted above.

There is another issue with MA related to the circularity in

its logic. The potential benefit of using MA for investigators

lies in its ability to make inferences about the kinds of tools

produced or the kinds of reduction activities that have taken

place where debitage is found. However, for MA to be effec-

tive a replicated assemblage must be produced to compare

with the excavated assemblage. How does the investigator de-

termine the kinds of tools or technologies to replicate? This is

a serious circularity problem. If the investigator knows the

kinds of tools made to produce the excavated debitage

assemblage e why conduct a MA if the aim of MA is to

determine the kinds of tools made? If the investigator does

not know the kinds of tools made to produce the excavated

debitage e how can reliable replications of the assemblage

be conducted, particularly given the fact that tool-stone size

and shape, as well as production activities, influence the

size and amount of debitage produced.

7. Conclusion

The results of this study emphasize that size grade pat-

terning of debitage used for MA is subject to multiple



9/11

sources of error. Production debitage is greatly influenced by

replicator variability and it is unlikely that contemporary ex-

perimental assemblages can be expected to match excavated

assemblages, even if the same types of artifacts were manu-

factured. Individual knapping styles have as much influence

on debitage size as does the kind of tool produced. I also

demonstrated how raw material variability, particularly pack-age size and shape, could also influence the size of debitage

produced in replication experiments. Raw material type and

form must be accounted for when comparing excavated as-

semblages to replicated assemblages by size grades. Experi-

mentally replicated debitage that has been mixed does not

accurately reveal the technological activities from which

the debitage was produced. This problem is almost certainly

more pronounced when dealing with excavated assemblages

where multiple lithic production activities may have been

performed. Lastly, I showed how some replicated production

activities do not produce significantly different debitage as-

semblages when making size grade comparisons, even

when very different kinds of tools are produced. All of thesepotential and probable sources of error make using MA

a questionable analytical strategy for interpreting excavated

debitage assemblages unless these factors are adequately

controlled and accounted for.

Clearly, MA of experimentally generated debitage assem-

blages has been an effective heuristic for chipped stone tech-

nological analysis, even if they are difficult to confidently

relate to excavated assemblages. We have learned a great

deal about the sources of debitage assemblage variability as

a result of our explorations into MA. However, as shown

above, MA is not effective for making accurate tool produc-

tion or core reduction interpretations at archaeological sitesunless we can account for the many sources of debitage size

variability.

Acknowledgments

A version of this paper was presented at the 2005 meeting

of the Middle Atlantic Archaeological Conference in Dela-

ware. I thank those organizers and colleagues for providing

a forum and comments to that initial draft. The College of Lib-

eral Arts at Washington State University provided professional

leave time and funding through their Edward R. Meyer Project

Grant to allow me to complete this paper. I am grateful to themand appreciate their contributions. A number of colleagues

have provided valuable editorial comments and suggestions

to the early versions of this manuscript. I acknowledge the

helpful commentary of four anonymous JAS reviewers and

Bill Lipe, Jennifer Keeling, Beth Horton, and especially Karen

Lupo. All have contributed towards helping my less-than-

concise manner of writing.

References

[1] Stanley A. Ahler, Mass analysis of flaking debris: studying the forest

rather than the trees, in: Donald O. Henry, George H. Odell (Eds.),

Alternative Approaches to Lithic Analysis, Archaeological Papers of

the American Anthropological Association No. 1 (1989), pp. 85e118.

[2] Stanley A. Ahler, R.C. Christensen, A Pilot Study of Knife River Flint

Procurement and Reduction as Site 32DU508, A Quarry and Workshop

Location in Dunn County, North Dakota, Department of Anthropology

and Archaeology, University of North Dakota, Bismark, 1983.

[3] Stanley A. Ahler, Julian VanNess, Temporal change in knife river flint

reduction Strategies, in: Susan C. Vehik (Ed.), Lithic Resource Procure-

ment: Proceedings from the Second Conference on Prehistoric Chert

Exploitation (Occasional Papers 4), Center for Archaeological Investiga-

tions, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, 1985, pp. 183e198.

[4] Daniel S. Amick, Raymond P. Mauldin, Effects of raw material on flake

breakage patterns, Lithic Technology 22 (1997) 18e32.

[5] Daniel S. Amick, Raymond P. Mauldin, Steven A. Tomka, An evaluation

of debitage produced by experimental bifacial core reduction of a George-

town chert nodule, Lithic Technology 17 (1988) 26e36.

[6] Albert J. Ammerman, A study of obsidian exchange networks in Cala-

bria, World Archaeology 19 (1979) 95e110.

[7] Albert J. Ammerman, William Andrefsky Jr., Reduction sequences and

the exchange of obsidian in Neolithic Calabria, in: J. Ericson, T. Earle

(Eds.), Contexts for Prehistoric Exchange, Academic Press, New York,

1982, pp. 149e172.

[8] William Andrefsky Jr., A consideration of blade and flake curvature,

Lithic Technology 15 (1986) 48e54.

[9] William Andrefsky Jr., The geological occurrence of lithic material and

stone tool production strategies, Geoarchaeology: An International Jour-

nal 9 (1994) 345e362.

[10] William Andrefsky Jr., Emerging directions in debitage analysis, in:

W. Andrefsky Jr. (Ed.), Lithic Debitage: Context, Form, Meaning, Uni-

versity of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, 2001, pp. 1e14.

[11] William Andrefsky Jr., Partitioning the aggregate: mass analysis and deb-

itage assemblages, in: Christopher T. Hall, Mary Lou Larson (Eds.), Ag-

gregate Analysis in Chipped Stone, University of Utah Press, Salt Lake

City, 2004, pp. 201e210.

[12] William Andrefsky Jr., Lithics: Macroscopic Approaches to Analysis,

second ed., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2005.

[13] William Andrefsky Jr., Lithic studies, in: H.D.G. Maschner,

C. Chippindale (Eds.), Handbook of Methods in Archaeology, vol. II,AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, CA, 2005, pp. 713e770.

[14] William Andrefsky, Jr., Experimental and archaeological verification of

an index of retouch for hafted bifaces, American Antiquity, in press.

[15] Robert J. Austin, Technological Characterization of lithic waste-flake

assemblages: multivariate analysis of experimental and archaeological

data, Lithic Technology 24 (1999) 53e68.

[16] Douglas B. Bamforth, Technological organization and hunter-gatherer

land use: a California example, American Antiquity 56 (1991) 216e

234.

[17] Mark F. Baumler, Leslie B. Davis, The role of small-sized debitage in

aggregate lithic analysis, in: Christopher T. Hall, Mary Lou Larson

(Eds.), Aggregate Analysis in Chipped Stone, University of Utah Press,

Salt Lake City, 2004, pp. 45e64.

[18] Mark F. Baumler, Christian E. Downum, Between micro and macro:

a study in the interpretation of small-sized lithic debitage, in: Daniel S.Amick, Raymond P. Mauldin (Eds.), Experiments in Lithic Technology,

BAR International Series 528, 1989, Oxford, pp. 101e116.

[19] Jeffery A. Behm, Flake concentrations: distinguishing between flint

working activity areas and secondary deposition, Lithic Technology 12

(1983) 9e16.

[20] Brooke S. Blades, End scraper reduction and hunter-gatherer mobility,

American Antiquity 68 (2003) 141e156.

[21] Peter Bleed, The optimal design of hunting weapons: maintainability or

reliability, American Antiquity 51 (1986) 737e747.

[22] Peter Bleed, Cheap, regular, and reliable: implications of design variation

in late pleistocene Japanese microblade technology, in: Robert G. Elston,

Steven L. Kuhn (Eds.), Thinking Small: Global Perspectives on Micro-

lithization, Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological

Organization, Number 12, 2002, Arlington, Virginia, pp. 95e102.



10/11

[23] Peter Bleed, Refitting as aggregate analysis, in: Christopher T. Hall,

Mary Lou Larson (Eds.), Aggregate Analysis in Chipped Stone, Univer-

sity of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, 2004, pp. 184e200.

[24] W.W. Bloomer, Eric E. Ingbar, Debitage analysis, in: R.G. Elston,

C. Raven (Eds.), Archaeological Investigations at Tosawihi, A Great Ba-

sin Quarry, Part I: The Periphery, Intermountain Research, Silver City,

Nevada, 1992, pp. 229e270 (Prepared for the U.S.D.A., Bureau of

Land Management, Elko Resource Area, Elko, Nevada).

[25] Andrew P. Bradbury, Phillip J. Carr, Flake typologies and alternative

approaches: an experimental assessment, Lithic Technology 20 (1995)

100e115.

[26] Andrew P. Bradbury, Phillip J. Carr, Examining stage and continuum

models of flake debris analysis: an experimental approach, Journal of

Archaeological Science 26 (1999) 105e116.

[27] Andrew P. Bradbury, Jay D. Franklin, Material variability, package size

and mass analysis, Lithic Technology 25 (2000) 42e58.

[28] C.T. Brown, The fractal dimensions of lithic reduction, Journal of

Archaeological Science 28 (2000) 619e631.

[29] Philip J. Carr, Andrew P. Bradbury, Flake debris analysis, levels of pro-

duction, and the organization of technology, in: W. Andrefsky Jr. (Ed.),

Lithic Debitage: Context, Form, Meaning, University of Utah Press,


[30] Philip J. Carr, Andrew P. Bradbury, Exploring mass analysis, screens, and

attributes, in: Christopher T. Hall, Mary Lou Larson (Eds.), Aggregate

Analysis in Chipped Stone, University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City,

2004, pp. 21e44.

[31] John E. Clark, Flintknapping and debitage disposal among the Lacandon

Maya of Chiapas, Mexico, in: Edward Staski, L.D. Sutro (Eds.), The

Ethnoarchaeology of Refuse Disposal, Anthropological Research Papers

No. 42, Arizona State University, Tempe, 1991, pp. 63e78.

[32] Chris Clarkson, An index of invasiveness for the measurement of unifa-

cial and bifacial retouch: a theoretical, experimental and archaeological

verification, Journal of Archaeological Science 29 (2000) 65e75.

[33] Don E. Crabtree, An Introduction to Flintworking, Occasional Papers of

the Idaho State Museum 28, 1972, Pocatello.

[34] Zachary J. Davis, John J. Shea, Quantifying lithic curation: an experi-

mental test of dibble and pelcins original flake-tool mass predictor,

Journal of Archaeological Science 25 (1998) 603e

610.[35] Harold L. Dibble, Platform variability and flake morphology: a compari-

son of experimental and archeological data and implications for inter-

preting prehistoric lithic technological strategies, Lithic Technology 22

(1997) 150e170.

[36] Harold L. Dibble, Andrew Pelcin, The effect of hammer mass and veloc-

ity on flake mass, Journal of Archaeological Science 22 (1995) 429e439.

[37] Robert G. Elston, P. Jeffery Brantingham, Microlithic technology in

northern asia: a risk-minimizing strategy of the Late Paleolithic and

Early Holocene, in: R.G. Elston, S.L. Kuhn (Eds.), Thinking Small:

Global Perspectives on Microlithization, Anthropological Papers of the

American Anthropological Organization, Number 12, 2002, Arlington,

Virginia, pp. 103e116.

[38] Metin I. Eren, Manual Dominguez-Rorigo, Steven L. Kuhn, Daniel

S. Adler, Ian Le, Ofer Bar-Yosef, Defining and measuring reduction in

unifacial stone tools, Journal of Archaeological Science 32 (2005)1190e1206.

[39] Knut R. Fladmark, Microdebitage analysis: initial considerations, Journal

of Archaeological Science 9 (1982) 205e220.

[40] J. Jeffery Flenniken, Stone tool reduction techniques as cultural markers,

in: M.G. Plew, J.C. Woods, M.G. Pavesic (Eds.), Stone Tool Analysis:

Essays in Honor of Don E. Crabtree, University of New Mexico Press,

Albuquerque, 1985, pp. 265e277.

[41] JayD. Franklin,Jan F. Simik,Core refitting andthe accuracy of techniques

for aggregate lithic analysis, in: Paper presented at the 2001 Annual Meet-

ing of the Society for American Archaeology, New Orleans, LA, 2001.

[42] George C. Frison, A functional analysis of certain chipped stone tools,

American Antiquity 33 (1968) 149e155.

[43] Amy Gilreath, Stages of bifacial manufacture: learning from experi-

ments, in: Paper presented at the 49th Annual Meeting of the Society

for American Archaeology, Portland, Oregon, 1984.

[44] Albert C. Goodyear, Tool kit entropy and bipolar reduction: a study of

interassemblage lithic variability among Paleo-Indian Sites in the North-

eastern United States, North American Archaeologist 14 (1993) 1e23.

[45] Richard A. Gould, Ethno-archaeology; or, where do models come from?

A closer look at Australian aboriginal lithic technology, in: R.V.S. Wright

(Ed.), Stone Tools as Cultural Markers: Change, Evolution and Complex-

ity, Prehistory and Material Culture Series No. 12, Australian Institute of

Aboriginal Studies/Humanities Press, Canberra/New Jersey, 1977, pp.

162e168.

[46] D.O. Henry, C.V. Haynes, B. Bradley, Quantitative variations in flaked

stone debitage, Plains Anthropologist 21 (1976) 57e61.

[47] Peter Hiscock, Val Attenbrow, Early Australian implement variation: a re-

duction model, Journal of Archaeological Science 30 (2003) 239e249.

[48] Kenneth H. Honea, The Bipolar flaking technique in Texas and New

Mexico, Texas Archaeological Society Bulletin 36 (1965) 259e267.

[49] Kathleen L. Hull, Identification of cultural site formation processes

through microdebitage analysis, American Antiquity 52 (1987) 772e783.

[50] Eric E. Ingbar, Mary Lou Larson, Bruce Bradley, A nontypological ap-

proach to debitage analysis, in: D.S. Amick, R.P. Mauldin (Eds.), Exper-

iments in Lithic Technology, BAR International Series 528, 1989, Great

Britain, pp. 117e136.

[51] Jay K. Johnson, Lithic procurement and utilization trajectories: analysis,

yellow creek nuclear power plant site, Tishomingo County, Mississippi,

In: Archaeological Papers No. 1, vol. II, Center for Archaeological

Research, University of Mississippi, University, 1981.

[52] Jeffrey Kalin, Stem point manufacture and debitage recovery, Archaeol-

ogy of Eastern North America 9 (1981) 134e175.

[53] Edward J. Knell, Late Paleoindian cody period mobility patterns: an ex-

ample from the locality V cody complex at the Hell Gap site, Unpub-

lished MA thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of

Wyoming, Laramie, 1997.

[54] Edward J. Knell, Coarse-scale chipped stone aggregates and technologi-

cal organization strategies at Hell Gap locality V cody complex compo-

nent, Wyoming, in: Christopher T. Hall, Mary Lou Larson (Eds.),

Aggregate Analysis in Chipped Stone, University of Utah Press, Salt

Lake City, 2004, pp. 156e183.

[55] Brian P. Kooyman, Understanding Stone Tools and Archaeological Sites,

University of Calgary Press, Calgary, 2000.[56] Steven L. Kuhn, A geometric index of reduction for unifacial stone tools,

Journal of Archaeological Science 17 (1990) 585e593.

[57] Steven L. Kuhn, Unpacking reduction: lithic raw material economy in

the mousterian of west-central Italy, Journal of Anthropological Archae-

ology 10 (1991) 76e106.

[58] Ian Kuijt, William C. Prentiss, David J. Pokotylo, Bipolar reduction: an

experimental study of debitage variability, Lithic Technology 20 (1995)

116e127.

[59] Mary Lou Larson, Site formation processes in the cody to early plains

archaic levels at the laddie creek site (48BH345), Wyoming, Geoarch-

aeology 7 (1992) 103e120.

[60] Mary Lou Larson, Marcel Kornfeld, Chipped stone nodules: theory,

method, and examples, Lithic Technology 22 (1997) 4e18.

[61] Mary Lou Larson, Judson B. Finley, Seeing the forest but missing the

trees: production sequences and multiple linear regression, in:Christopher Hall, Mary Lou Larson (Eds.), Aggregate Analysis in

Chipped Stone, University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, 2004, pp.

95e111.

[62] Thomas K. Larson, Dori Penny, Ross G. Hilman, Paul H. Sanders, A data

recovery program for sites within the dome unit, Santa Fe National For-

est, Report Prepared by Larson-Tibesar Associates, Laramie, Wyoming

for USDA, Forest Service, Santa Fe National Forest, Santa Fe, New Mex-

ico, 1988.

[63] Mary M.A. MacDonald, Technological organization and sedentism in the

epipalaeolithic of dakhleh oasis, Egypt, The African Archaeological

Review 9 (1991) 81e109.

[64] Martin P. Magne, Lithics and livelihood: stone tool technologies of

central and southern interior British Columbia, Archaeological Survey

of Canada Paper No. 133, National Museum of Man Mercury Series,

Ottawa, 1985.



11/11

[65] Martin P. Magne, David Pokotylo, A pilot study in bifacial lithic reduc-

tion sequences, Lithic Technology 10 (1981) 34e47.

[66] Raymond P. Mauldin, Daniel S. Amick, Investigating patterning in

debitage from experimental bifacial core reduction, in: D.S. Amick,

R.P. Mauldin (Eds.), Experiments in Lithic Technology, BAR Interna-

tional Series 528, 1989, Oxford, pp. 67e88.

[67] Mark W. Moore, Australian aboriginal blade production methods on the

Georgina River, Camooweal, Queensland, Lithic Technology 28 (2002)

35e63.

[68] Toby A. Morrow, A chip off the old block: alternative approaches to deb-

itage analysis, Lithic Technology 22 (1997) 51e69.

[69] Dani Nadel, Indoor/outdoor flint knapping and minute debitage remains:

the evidence from the Ohalo II submerged camp (19.5 KY, Jordan Val-

ley), Lithic Technology 26 (1999) 118e137.

[70] DeborahOlausson, Different strokes for different folks, possible reasons for

variation in quality of knapping, Lithic Technology 23 (1997) 90e115.

[71] Terry L. Osbun, A technological analysis of the lithic assemblage from

the Buttonhole Rochshelter/Quarry Site, Northeastern New Mexico, Un-

published MA thesis, Department of Anthropology, Washington State

University, Pullman, 1987.

[72] William J. Parry, Prismatic blade technologies in North America, in:

P.J. Carr (Ed.), The Organization of North American Prehistoric Chipped

Stone Tool Technologies, International Monographs in Prehistory, Ann

Arbor, 1994, pp. 87e98.

[73] William J. Parry, Robert L. Kelly, Expedient core technology and seden-

tism, in: J.K. Johnson, C.A. Morrow (Eds.), The Organization of Core

Technology, Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado, 1987, pp. 285e304.

[74] Leland W. Patterson, Characteristics of bifacial-reduction flake-size dis-

tribution, American Antiquity 55 (1990) 550e558.

[75] Leland W. Patterson, J.B. Sollberger, Replication and classification of

small size lithic debitage, Plains Anthropologist 23 (1978) 103e112.

[76] Albert M. Pecora, Chipped Stone toolproduction strategies and lithic debris

patterns, in: William Andrefsky Jr. (Ed.), Lithic Debitage: Context, Form,

Meaning, University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, 2001, pp. 173e191.

[77] P.R. Picha, Mark L. Gregg, Chipped stone flaking debris from the Nase

Site, Archaeological Excavations at the Nase Site (32SN246), Report

submitted to U.S.D.I. Bureau of Reclamation, Missouri Basin Region,

Billings, MT, Department of Anthropology, University of North Dakota,Grand Forks, 1987.

[78] L. Mark Raab, R.F. Cande, D.W. Stahle, Debitage graphs and archaic

settlement patterns in the Arkansas Ozarks, Midcontinential Journal of

Archaeology 4 (1979) 167e182.

[79] Jeffery C. Rasic, William Andrefsky Jr., Alaskan blade cores as special-

ized components of mobile toolkits: assessing design parameters and

toolkit organization through debitage analysis, in: W. Andrefsky Jr.

(Ed.), Lithic Debitage: Context, Form, Meaning, University of Utah

Press, Salt Lake City, 2001, pp. 61e79.

[80] Kimberly L. Redman, An experiment-based evaluation of the debitage

attributes associated with hard and soft hammer percussion, Un-

published M.A. thesis, Washington State University, Pullman, WA, 1997.

[81] Matthew J. Root, The knife river flint quarries: the organization of stone

tool production, Ph.D. dissertation, Washington State University. Univer-

sity Microfilms, Ann Arbor, 1992.

[82] Matthew J. Root, Production for exchange at the Knife River flint

quarries, North Dakota, Lithic Technology 22 (1997) 33e50.

[83] Matthew J. Root, Technological analysis of flake debris and the limita-

tions of size-grade techniques, in: Christopher Hall, Mary Lou Larson

(Eds.), Aggregate Analysis in Chipped Stone, University of Utah Press,


[84] S.A. Scott, Problems with the use of flake size in inferring stages of lithic

reduction, Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 13 (1991)

172e179.

[85] Frederic Sellet, Chane operatoire: the concept and its applications,

Lithic Technology 18 (1993) 106e112.

[86] Frederic Sellet, A dynamic view of Paleoindian assemblages at the Hell

Gap site, Wyoming: reconstructing lithic technological systems, Unpub-

lished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Southern Meth-

odist University, Dallas, 1999.

[87] Harry J. Shafer, Late preclassic formal stone tool production at Colha,

Belize, in: T.R. Hester, H.J. Shafer (Eds.), Maya Stone Tools, Prehistory

Press, Madison, 1991, pp. 31e44.

[88] Harry J. Shafer, Thomas R. Hester, Ancient maya chert workshops in

Northern Belize, Central America, American Antiquity 48 (3) (1983)

519e543.

[89] Phillip H. Shelley, Variation in lithic assemblages: an experiment, Jour-

nal of Field Archaeology 17 (1990) 187e193.

[90] Michael J. Shott, Lithic reduction at 13HA365, a middle woodland occu-

pation in Hardin County, Journal of the Iowa Archaeological Society 44

(1997) 109e120.

[91] Michael J. Shott, Paul Sillitoe, Use life and curation in New Guinea

experimental used flakes, Journal of Archaeological Science 32 (2005)

653e663.

[92] April K. Sievert, Karen Wise, A generalized technology for a specialized

economy: Archaic Period chipped stone at kilometer 4, Peru, in:

William Andrefsky Jr. (Ed.), Lithic Debitage: Context, Form, Meaning,

University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, 2001, pp. 188e206.

[93] David W. Stahle, James E. Dunn, An analysis and application of the size

distribution of waste flakes from the manufacture of bifacial tools, WorldArchaeology 14 (1982) 84e97.

[94] Alan P. Sullivan III, Kenneth C. Rozen, Debitage analysis and archaeo-

logical interpretation, American Antiquity 50 (1985) 755e779.

[95] Gene Titmus, Some aspects of stone tool notching, in: Marc G. Plew, Max

G. Pavesic (Eds.), Stone Tool Analysis: Essays in Honor of Don E. Crab-

tree, University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, 1985, pp. 243e264.

[96] Steven A. Tomka, Differentiating lithic reduction techniques: an experi-

mental approach, in: D.S. Amick, R.P. Mauldin (Eds.), Experiments in

Lithic Technology, BAR International Series 528, 1989, Great Britain,

pp. 137e162.

[97] John C. Whittaker, Flintknapping: Making and Understanding Stone

Tools, University of Texas Press, Austin, 1994.


andrefsky 2006 jas

Documents