Current approaches and new directions in lithic analysis: Defining, identifying and interpreting variability

Lithic variability and raw material exploitation at the Middle Stone Age (MSA) site of Gotera, southern Ethiopia: A combined technological and quantitative approach

“…To reach this goal, it is of primary importance to understand the lithic variability and the causes and modes of such variations. Unfortunately, the MSA analyses have suffered from divergent research traditions, and it has become clear in recent years that a joint effort is needed in order to unify the processing of the technological data (Leplongeon 2017;) in a broader "Middle Range Theory" (Tostevin 2012: 29-31). Quantitative and attribute-based analyses on lithic industries are currently used to analyse a single assemblage and to favour extensive inter-assemblage comparisons (e.g., Andrefsky 2005: 61-84 Clarke 1968Hovers 2009;Nigst 2012: 3-15;Scerri et al 2016;Shott 1994;Tostevin 2012: 90;Tryon and Ranhorn 2020).…”

Event review: Using multivariate analyses to interpret lithic variability: Contributions and limitations

“…The use of multivariate analyses in lithic material studies is not a new trend, but until recently it was mostly put into application by tenants of the 'Anglophone' school of lithic analysis in the frame of attribute analyses, whereas in its initial phase, tenants of the 'French' technological approach did (and to some extent sometimes still do) tend to reject any formal quantification (e.g., Pelegrin 2006;Perlès 2016;Soressi & Geneste 2011; and for a review of the "French-Anglophone divide" see Hussain 2019: chapter 1). What perhaps is relatively new is that quantitative analyses are now increasingly used by proponents of a combined technological approach and attribute analysis (e.g., Hovers 2009;Nigst 2012;Scerri et al 2014Scerri et al , 2016Tostevin 2012), as well as by researchers who were initially trained in a qualitative technological approach (e.g., Hussain 2019: 265;Leplongeon 2017). This renewed -or at least more wide-spread -interest in quantitative analyses, somehow independent from the lithic analysts' research tradition, is particularly marked in studies dealing with data obtained through computer science approaches (such as 2D and 3D imagery techniques) (e.g., Grosman 2016;Shott & Trail 2010).…”

“…Choices made when applying these analyses to lithic data (in the type of analysis, sampling method, variables considered) depend on both characteristics of the lithic assemblages and, of course, research questions and goals. Their application is not always seen in the frame of the (classical) dichotomy qualitative vs quantitative approach, but on the contrary, their complementarity with other approaches is often underlined (e.g., Leplongeon 2017). In this aspect, it is interesting to note that the three papers presented in this volume are led by researchers initially trained in technological and mostly qualitative approaches to lithic artefacts.…”