tmp4AE5 TMP
tmp4AE5 TMP
tmp4AE5 TMP
THE LITHIC STUDIES SOCIETY: The Lithic Studies Society was founded in 1979 and seeks to
advance the international study of lithic industries in the broadest possible context. New members are
welcome and details of the Societys activities may be obtained from the Secretary, Molly Pearce, c/o
Franks House, 3856 Orsman Road, London, N1 5QJ (e-mail: molly.pearce1@virginmedia.com).
Website: http://www.lithics.org
MEMBERSHIP: Applications for membership, subscriptions and changes of address should be sent to
the Membership Secretary, Rob Davis, c/o Lithic Studies Society, British Museum, Franks House, 38
56 Orsman Road, London, N1 5QJ. The annual subscription, due on 1st October, is currently 15, and
payment by annual standing order is the favoured method of payment. Payment can also be made
online via Paypal.
The membership application form and annual standing order form are available on the Lithic Studies
Society website (http://www.lithics.org).
LITHICS: Lithics is the Journal of the Lithic Studies Society. It is published annually and is circulated
free of charge to all members of the Society. Communications concerning papers, letters, notes and
reviews should be sent to the Editor/Book Review Editor, Wei Chu and Lynden Cooper electronically
at lithicseditor@gmail.com. The Committee welcomes contributions, including suggestions for
reviews, from any member of the Society. Submissions should be made solely by electronic copysee
the society website (http://www.lithics.org/lithics/submissions.html) for details. The submission
deadline for papers, notes, letters and book reviews for Lithics 36 is May 31st, 2015.
The officers for the Society for 2014/2015 are:
Chair:
Vice Chair:
Secretary:
Treasurer/Membership:
Events Secretary:
Editor:
Assistant Editor:
Website Officer:
Publicity Officer:
Committee Members:
Olaf Bayer
Laura Basell
Molly Pearce
Rob Davis
Claire Fisher and Hannah Fluck
Wei Chu
Lynden Cooper
Dave Underhill
Robert Banbury
Lynden Cooper
Ella Egberts
Sam Griffiths
Lithics 35
ISSN 0262-7817
Lithic Studies Society and individual authors.
Printed and bound by Fidelity Solutions, Ampthill
LITHICS 35
CONTENTS
Editorial
W. Chu
K. Serwatka
18
R.J. Davis
33
P. Harding
40
F.R. Beresford
54
59
T. Hardaker
65
J. Osborn
67
C. Conneller
69
N. Naudinot
71
F. Foulds
75
Papers
78
81
Errata
82
Lithics 35
EDITORIAL
Welcome to Lithics 35. We hope that you will
read it with interest!
Wei Chu
Cover. A scanning electron microscope photograph of Brandon flint. (Photograph Wei Chu.)
INTRODUCTION
Lithics 35
Figure 1. Location of Eldorado (star) and the Piray Mini and Piray Guaz valleys in southeastern
South America
Lithics 35
Method
We undertook qualitative and quantitative
analysis of the sample (n = 66). The qualitative
analysis consisted of a visual assessment of the
Stage
Description
Initial edging
Bifacial flaking
Initial shaping
Final shaping
Figure 3. Examples of front-back asymmetry in a Stage 2 cleaver (left) and left-right asymmetry
in a broken Stage 5 cleaver (right) from the sample assemblage
Lithics 35
Table 2. The results of the Logistic Regression Analysis performed on each dependent variable
F-value
p-score
(significance level)
R2
7.412
0.00834 **
0.1038
46.61
3.74e-09 ***
0.4214
Symmetry: left-right
20.69
2.46e-05 ***
0.2443
Variable
-08
Symmetry: dorsal-ventral
39.12
3.71e
***
0.3793
28.12
1.51e-06 ***
0.3053
10
Variable
F1,60
23.060
p-score
(significance level)
1.09e-05***
79.913
1.25e-12***
Symmetry: left-right
20.157
3.30e-05***
Symmetry: front-back
32.200
4.26e-07***
6.853
0.0112*
Table 4. The results of the multiple regression analysis. R2: 0.73 F5,60= 32.44 p = 7.32e-16
Variable
0.0345*
1.41e-07***
0.0977
1.37e-05***
Symmetry: front-back
Difference in the number of removals on each face
Finally, to investigate the possibility of
covariance between dependent variables
confounding the results of the logistic
regression; a multiple regression model
(termed the Full Model) was used (Table 4).
The overall result of the Full Model was highly
significant (F5,60 = 32.44, p = 7.32e-16) with an
R2 value of 73%. The multiple regression
model has also allowed us to recognise which,
if any, of the variables have the highest
predictive power that enables the attribution of
an artefact to a given reduction stage. Here, we
will discuss each of the recorded variables in
light of the qualitative analysis. The Full
Model indicated that the amount of cortex on
the domed face and the dorsal-ventral
symmetry are the best predictors for the
reduction stage, which is consistent with our
qualitative interpretation of the chane
opratoire.
0.0112*
11
Lithics 35
Regression Model
Degree of freedom
AIC
Drop 1
Full Model
156.75
156.75
227.92
159.71
199.04
185.47
Symmetry: left-right
216.66
157.79
Symmetry: front-back
203.67
175.72
Difference in removals
211.11
161.89
12
Table 6. Descriptive statistics of the metric analysis of the sample assemblage (units in mm and g)
Min
1st Qu.
Median
Mean
3rd Qu
Max
St. Dev.
Length
45.0
108.8
121.0
119.8
133.0
176.0
24.0335
Width
31.0
47.7
54.0
54.0
61.2
75.0
10.59034
Thickness
21.0
31.0
36.5
36.6
43.0
53.0
8.543805
Weight
29.0
204.2
324.5
303.8
371.0
618.0
135.2815
Metric analysis
of stages by Nami and the current model
match. The results showed that the attribution
of artefacts to his stages and the classification
proposed in this paper differ significantly,
which warrants further evaluation.
13
Lithics 35
Figure 7. The metric analysis broken down by stage of reduction. Sample size for each stage
displayed above each box in top-left plot
CONCLUSIONS
In this paper we used a sample from Misiones
Province, Argentina to conduct a qualitative
reconstruction of the reduction sequence of a
common tool type found in large parts of
14
Figure 8. The absolute difference between the number of removals on each face separated by
production stage
Lithics 35
16
It is worth noting that in this case the name cleaver is typologically incorrect. Cleavers are defined as bifacially worked
tools with either an unworked distal edge (Debnath & Dibble 1994: 170; Inizan et al. 1995: 5556) or with a clear
transversal removal negative at its distal end when the distal part is secondarily treated (Debnath & Dibble 1994: 165).
This is clearly not the case in the vast majority of curved cleavers but the name is nevertheless ubiquitously used.
17