A Comparative Evaluation of Four Sampling Techniques and of the Reliability of Microdebitage As A Cultural Indicator in Regional Surveys

Nicholson, B. A.

doi:10.1080/2052546.1983.11909173

Cited by 23 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Its presence in soil samples allows archaeologists to reconstruct where and possibly even how stone knappers have produced as well as maintained stone tools (Aoyama, 1999: 47; Behm, 1983; Cessford, 2003; Clark, 1986b; Hodder and Cessford, 2004: 24–27; Hull, 1987: 773; Johnson et al, 2016; Metcalfe and Heath, 1990; Moholy-Nagy, 1990; Rainville, 2000; Rosen, 1986; Rosen, 1989; Rosen, 1993; Sherwood, 2001: 341; Simms and Heath, 1990: 804; Ullah, 2012; Ullah et al, 2015; Vance, 1986; Vance, 1987; Whittaker et al, 2009: 149). In addition, lithic microdebitage can help archaeologists to detect archaeological sites, outline their extension, and evaluate site-formation processes (Bánesz et al, 1995; Behm, 1983; for a critique see Clark, 1986b: 23, 28–31; Fladmark, 1982: 215; Gé et al, 1993: 151; Hull, 1987; Nicholson, 1983; Rosen, 1989; Sonnenburg et al, 2011).…”

Section: Lithic Microdebitage and Its Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Studying lithic microdebitage with a dynamic image particle analyzer

Eberl

Johnson

Aguila

2022

North American Archaeologist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Lithic microdebitage has great archaeological potential to elucidate ancient stone tool production. So far, archaeologists have collected soil samples, separated them into size fractions, and analyzed them manually under a microscope to identify microdebitage. This time- and labor-intensive process has limited the number of samples and introduced intra- and inter-observer errors. Here, we discuss lithic microdebitage analysis with a dynamic image particle analyzer. This machine takes videos of soil particles as they fall from a chute. Software tracks them and measures their dimensions. Since sieving is no longer necessary, microdebitage analysis proceeds more quickly and processes samples within a few minutes. The standardized output allows the objective analysis of lithic microdebitage. We compare the angularity of c. 120,000 particles in an archaeological soil sample with experimental microdebitage. While the distributions show intriguing overlaps, we conclude that the most angular archaeological particles are not microdebitage but reflect a software glitch.

show abstract

Section: Lithic Microdebitage and Its Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Studying lithic microdebitage with a dynamic image particle analyzer

Eberl

Johnson

Aguila

2022

North American Archaeologist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The complimentary nature of different sizes of artifacts has an important implication for the so-called "tests" of the validity of microartifacts, which have compared the distribution of microartifacts with that of macroartifacts (Nicholson, 1983). A correlation between the two might intuitively seem to validate the utility of microartifacts (or vice-versa, though that outcome is not entertained), but this reasoning is defective.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Theoretical issues in the interpretation of microartifacts

Dunnell

Stein

1989

Geoarchaeology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Archaeology is increasingly partitioned into specialities. While this practice is not universally deleterious, frequently it limits the impact of novel concepts to small segments of the discipline. Such is the case with the idea of microartifacts, now treated by only a handful of specialists. After linking the definition of microartifact to techniques of sampling and identification, the unique and valuable information of small artifacts is obvious. Microartifacts, by virtue of their unique transport and deposition properties, compliment the information contained in macroartifacts. Thus, they should be a routine concern in all archaeological research. This implies a stronger integration of geoarchaeology and archaeology.

show abstract

“…While working for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, I drafted a scope-of-work, subsequently implemented, for survey in forested areas that largely replaced shovel-test sampling with other means of subsurface exposure (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1987). Several others already have been identified and evaluated (Kintigh 1988;Nicholson 1983). (MacManamon [1984] also has studied the comparative effectiveness of shovel-test sampling and other techniques, but his study is relevant only to site detection, not intersection.)…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%