Journal of Archaeological Science 34 (2007) 392e402 http://www.elsevier.

com/locate/jas

The application and misapplication of mass analysis in lithic debitage 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. Signicant sources of error may originate from differences in individual intknapping 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 intknapping styles. 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Lithic analysis; Experimental archaeology; Mass Analysis; Debitage; Size grades

Lithic artifact debitage may be dened 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 nger 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 and land-use are linked to foraging strategies, and also how these foraging strategies are linked to lithic tool production, use,
E-mail address: and@wsu.edu 0305-4403/$ - see front matter 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.jas.2006.05.012

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 regarding fracture or completeness, thereby eliminating potential bias resulting from exclusion of some debitage forms, such as broken or shattered pieces; (2) can be rapid and efcient, even for extremely large debitage samples, because it does not require handling and measuring of individual specimens; (3) can reduce technological bias based upon debitage size because different mesh sizes capture a range of different specimen sizes; and (4) can be a highly objective technique since the analysis involves size grading, counting, and weighing, and can be

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

393

conducted by virtually anyone trained in elementary lab procedures. There are indeed appealing reasons for archaeologists to adopt MA. Briey saying, MA is a form of debitage population study that assimilates all debitage within a recognized population and segregates it into size groups known as size grades. 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 proportion 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 population used in MA techniques. Inferences about the debitage population are generated by a control group of debitage based upon experimental replication of various tools or stages of tool production and core reduction. For instance, the investigator might rst replicate a projectile point from a cobble or a ake blank. The debitage from that replication event is sorted into size grades and relative 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 obtained 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 all sizes 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 specic debitage signature has been produced for hard hammer reduction of cobbles, for bipolar reduction of pebbles, for projectile point manufacture, and even for the initial thinning of bifaces from ake blanks [1,18,68]. The size grades used in MA are easily applied to an assemblage 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 akes or shatter or platform remnant akes. All debitage is shifted through the screens regardless of technological variety or completeness to arrive at size groups or size grades. A fairly untrained technician can do this sorting. In fact, some laboratories 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 debitage size grades like the one shown in Table 1. In this case each of the reduction techniques would have eight variables based

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 43.5 53.0 34.8 21.8 24.2 37.6 5.7 5.3 15.1 0.7 0.5 0.2 5.5 7.1 2.1 22.5 24.1 18.5 71.3 68.3 79.2

Hard hammer 29.0 akes Hard hammer 17.5 blades Bipolar chips 12.5

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 analyzed 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 technique. In addition, a discriminant function can be calculated for each experimentally replicated assemblage and that signature can be compared to the signature obtained for the excavated 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 analytical technique has been adopted because of its economic benets (ease and speed) and has unfortunately or unintentionally often resulted in spurious interpretations of the archaeological record. Below, I review several factors responsible for the failure of MA, including problems with replicated assemblages, raw material inuences, and mixed archaeological assemblages. I also identify effective applications of MA and
90 80

SIZE 1 CT SIZE 2 CT SIZE 3 CT SIZE 4 CT

Relative % of Debitage by Count

70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

HH FLAKES

HH BLADES

BIPOLAR

Reduction Technique
Fig. 1. Histogram of relative proportions of count for Mass Analysis of three reduction types (hard hammer akes, hard hammer blades, and bipolar debitage). Data are taken from Ahler [1].

394
60

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

SIZE 1 WT SIZE 2 WT

50

Relative % by Debitage Weight

SIZE 3 WT SIZE 4 WT

40

30

20

10

HH FLAKES

HH BLADES

BIPOLAR

Reduction Techniques
Fig. 2. Histogram of relative proportions of weight for Mass Analysis of three reduction types (hard hammer akes, hard hammer blades, and bipolar debitage). Data are taken from Ahler [1].

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 inuence results of MA it is important to clarify how I use the terms production and reduction. I use the term production when talking about the manufacturing of tools using pressure or percussion aking methods. I use the term reduction when talking about the removal of detached pieces from cores. Reduction refers to the process of ake removal for the acquisition of usable detached pieces. Production refers to the process of ake removal for the purpose of making, resharpening, or reshaping a tool. I refer to core reduction and to tool production. These are not necessarily interchangeable terms.

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 intknapping experiments, Redman [80] compared the debitage produced from three different expert intknappers making the same type of bifaces using the same raw material and the same kind of percussors. Although she did not evaluate size groups or size grades, she found that there was a signicant 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 different individual knappers, the experimental debitage was signicantly different in ake curvature, ake length, maximum width, width at midpoint, platform width, and ake weight. These data suggest that individual intknapping abilities, styles, or techniques may produce signicantly different debitage 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 assemblages 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 inuence 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 proportions 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 1 and the smallest size size grade 4. Even relatively simple technology such as bipolar reduction produces signicantly different debitage signatures when using size grade analysis.
100
SIZE 1 WT

90 80

SIZE 2 WT SIZE 3 WT SIZE 4 WT

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 debitage produced by each person should result in relatively identical distributions of debitage size grades and ultimately obtain the same signature. A corollary assumption is that excavated 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 contemporary knappers will be the same as the debitage signatures
% Debitage Weight

70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

AHLER

KALIN

MORROW

ANDREFSKY

Individual Knappers
Fig. 3. Comparison of individual intknapping debitage by relative proportion of weight for bipolar reduction.

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

395

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 experiment and my own produced most debitage in size grade 1. The highest frequency of debitage from Ahlers bipolar replications were in size grade 3 while Kalins, Morrows and my size grade 3 debitage was represented as 5.2%, 13.2%, and 10.2%, respectively. Table 2 lists the signicance values for t-tests of all four size grades and demonstrates that the variability in size grade values is too great for discriminating reduction 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 technique). However, we know this to be the case as all replications were the same e bipolar core reductions. This tends to support Redmans [80] ndings that one of the greatest sources of debitage variability comes as a result of individual knappers style and technique. In a separate study, Amick and Mauldin [4] compared ake breakage frequencies in their experiments against data on breakage compiled by Bradbury and Carr [25]. They found highly signicant differences in ake 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 individual knappers. As such, it is doubtful that contemporary knappers 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 difcult to trust results of MA given that MA results are based upon the comparisons and matching of experimentally generated debitage assemblages to ancient debitage assemblages. 2. Raw material size, shape, and composition Variation in debitage size grades resulting from different intknappers 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 assemblages to excavated assemblages. How can we reasonably expect to obtain the same proportions of debitage size grade signatures if the tool-stone, to make the replications and to
Table 2 Students t-test: comparison of four intknappers bipolar debitage noted in Fig. 3 Size grades One-sample test t Size Size Size Size grade grade grade grade 1 2 3 4 2.02 2.28 2.30 1.57 df 3 3 3 3 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.137 0.107 0.105 0.215 Mean difference 33.85 41.90 16.55 5.28

make the excavated collections, is composed of different sizes and shapes? One way to evaluate this question is to reduce different 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 obsidian pebbles using bipolar reduction technology. Bipolar reduction 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. Instead, 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 replications, Pebble #1 was oval and at on one side with a maximum 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 dimension. The pebbles were opened in an effort to obtain as many 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 inuence a size grade distribution used in MA. The 2-inch mesh size was eliminated from the study to give Pebble #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 3 Size grade proportions for count and weight from two bipolar reductions Size grade mesh (inch) Pebble #1 with ve mesh sizes 1/8 1/4 1/2 1 2 Pebble #2 with ve mesh sizes 1/8 1/4 1/2 1 2 Pebble #2 with four mesh sizes 1/8 1/4 1/2 1 Percent count 71.4 18.5 8.3 1.8 0.0 70.1 20.5 5.7 2.3 1.3 70.1 20.5 5.7 3.7 Percent weight 4.7 11.9 62.0 21.0 0.0 3.1 8.5 8.7 17.2 62.5 3.1 8.5 8.7 79.7

396

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

70

Other investigators studying the inuence of lithic raw material 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 inuences appear to be most signicant when perceived in terms of the variability in initial nodule size and shape. [27]. In a test of ake breakage and ultimately ake 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 important factors inuencing 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 congurations 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 results 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 platformed core, the size grade signatures are no longer discernable or diagnostic. 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 specic reduction activities. In other words, even when we know we are mixing together debitage from blade and bipolar core reduction techniques it is not possible to recognize these two reduction technologies using MA. This problem is certainly magnied when we begin looking 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 relatively simple mixing of two sets of debitage from two production episodes. Archaeological debitage assemblages may represent several complete or partial production events of various 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 obtain 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 sidenotched hafted biface and the reduction of a bipolar core. Both were made from the same kind of obsidian. Fig. 4 shows

60

SG1 WT SG2 WT SG3 WT SG4 WT

50

% Debitage Weight

40

30

20

10

BIPOLAR

HAFTED PT

BOTH

Reduction Techniques
Fig. 4. Histogram showing size grade signatures for hafted biface production (HAFTED PT) and bipolar core reduction (BIPOLAR), individually and when combined.

MA histogram signatures for the production of the hafted biface and bipolar debitage, and demonstrates how those signatures are complicated when those two separate production events are combined. We no longer obtain diagnostic signatures when differential production data are mixed. This is an interesting comparison because the replicated hafted biface began as a ake blank weighing 45.5 g. The nal product weighed 32.6 g, and there was only 12.9 g of debitage produced during the production process, which sorted into the two smallest size grades. This created quite a different signature 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 assemblage contains this reduction. This underscores one of the most important ndings 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 assemblage being classied, correct classication rates may drop signicantly [27]. We can add to this and also say that correct classications decline when experimental assemblages contain 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 context. 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 assemblages to excavated assemblages, there appears to be good results for obtaining diagnostic signatures for the

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

70 0.9 0.8 0.7
%CT S1 %CT S2 %CT S3 %CT S4

397

60

BIPOLAR HAFTED PT BOTH

% Debitage Weight

% Debitage Count

50

0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1

40

30

20

10 0 0 SG1 WT SG2 WT SG3 WT SG4 WT BIFACE CLOVIS BLADE BIPOLAR

Reduction Technique
Fig. 6. Histogram showing relative percentages of size grades by count for bifacial reduction (BIFACE), Clovis point production (CLOVIS), blade reduction (BLADE), and bipolar reduction (BIPOLAR). Data are taken from Morrow [68].

Size Grades
Fig. 5. Linear graph showing how hafted biface debitage becomes embedded in bipolar debitage signature when mixing occurs.

replicated debitage populations. In other words, investigators tend to produce diagnostic signatures for experimental production events using size-graded debitage produced in those manufacturing events. Intuitively, this makes perfect sense because experimentally replicated assemblages are not mixed or subjected to the same type of accumulation problems as excavated assemblages. Nor do replicated assemblages have the problems associated with variation in raw material varieties because this variable can be controlled for in experiments. Unfortunately not all experimentally replicated debitage assemblages 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 t Ahlers size grade conventions with size grade 1 as the largest 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 almost 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 distributions 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 for interpreting excavated assemblages of debitage.
1 0.9 0.8

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

% Debitage Weight

0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 BIFACE CLOVIS BLADE BIPOLAR

Reduction Technique
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].

398
1 0.9 0.8

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

4
BIFACE CLOVIS BLADE BIPOLAR AVE WT Linear (AVE WT)

3.5

Relative % of Debitage

0.7

Mean Flake Weight

0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0

2.5 y = -0.3626x + 2.8326 r2 = 0.7631

1.5

0.5 %WT S1 %WT S2 %WT S3 %WT S4

Size Grades
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].

Reduction Stages
Fig. 9. Scatter plot of signicant negatively correlated Clovis point production debitage by reduction stages for mean ake weight. Data are taken from Morrow [68].

5. Reduction stage analysis Investigations aimed at assessing MA have been very generous 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 predicting lithic reduction stages in an experimental context [25,30,68]. This makes some sense because lithic tool production and core technology are reductive processes [12]. Regardless 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 produced debitage from Morrows [68] production of a Clovis point. Fig. 9 shows a scatter plot of the mean ake weight for each of the eight reduction stages in the Clovis point production sequence. Clearly the trend in mean ake weight gets progressively smaller as the production becomes more complete (mean ake weight 0.3626x 2.8326, r2 0.7631). An ANOVA shows this to be signicant (F 19.325, p 0.005). However, inferring reduction sequences using MA is also sensitive to the same kinds of issues noted above regarding individual knappers, raw material package size and type, and the mixing problem. For instance, reduction sequence debitage
Table 4 Students t-test: comparison of four debitage size grades by weight in Fig. 7 Size grades One-sample test t Size Size Size Size grade grade grade grade 1 2 3 4 21.76 5.13 4.71 3.49 df 3 3 3 3 Sig. (2-tailed) <0.0005 0.014 0.018 0.040 0.8338 0.0121 0.0828 0.0513 Mean difference

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 production data may be the same size or even smaller than later stages of core reduction debitage. Given the information presented above, MA used to determine reduction stages should be cautiously used to infer reduction sequences and only after the debitage assemblage is assessed or stratied to account for factors such as mixing and raw material variability [11]. Making inferences about reduction 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 production activities and by extension, length of occupation increases 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 production 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.

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

399

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 become 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 discussed 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 applications of MA evident in the literature today. Mass Analysis may be effective for some types of assemblages and for gaining insights into some questions and technological 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 debitage assemblages to counter some of the effects of raw material variability and mixing technologies before conducting MA, it may not be as time conservative as once thought. This paper did not explore and evaluate the different techniques available to obtain debitage size grade signatures such as discriminant function analysis [1], multiple linear regression 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 administered to derive the signatures used to compare the excavated assemblage and the replicated assemblage. It is becoming increasingly clear that debitage assemblages should be stratied into as many behaviorally meaningful groups as possible before MA is performed [11,83]. For instance, it makes little sense to use MA on aggregate assemblages 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 populations for MA to be an effective form of aggregate analysis. In addition to stratication by raw material varieties, evidence 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 combined. Debitage with characteristics diagnostic of specic production/reduction technologies (such as bifacial trimming akes, notching akes, prismatic blades, bipolar akes, etc.) should be partitioned into separate analytical populations before attempting MA. For instance, if we are able to identify debitage associated with bifacial production or bipolar reduction, or platformed core reduction, this information can be used to help stratify debitage assemblages into specic 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 debitage is sorted and passed through the mesh it may get trapped in the mesh in an unsystematic manner. The same debitage assemblage might have different group representation if it is sorted multiple times simply because of how individual akes are oriented when passing through the mesh. Long thin akes may pass through a particular mesh size on one occasion but not the next time simply given the ake orientation. Carr and Bradbury [30] suggest passing specimens through a screen by hand to circumvent this potential problem, or passing debitage individually through size templates [12]. A recent example underscores how MA can lead to spurious conclusions. Franklin and Simik [41] conducted artifactretting studies and compared their results to the results obtained using MA based upon discriminant function signatures on principal components of size grade attributes. Their retting study conclusively established bipolar techniques as the primary technology used to open and to reduce chert nodules at a rock-shelter in Tennessee. A series of cobble reduction experiments were conducted to establish comparative debitage collections (of the same raw materials) for bipolar reduction, hard hammer cobble testing, hard hammer core reduction, 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 retting 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 benet 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 effective a replicated assemblage must be produced to compare with the excavated assemblage. How does the investigator determine 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, inuence the size and amount of debitage produced. 7. Conclusion The results of this study emphasize that size grade patterning of debitage used for MA is subject to multiple

400

W. Andrefsky Jr. / Journal of Archaeological Science 34 (2007) 392e402 Alternative Approaches to Lithic Analysis, Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association No. 1 (1989), pp. 85e118. 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. Stanley A. Ahler, Julian VanNess, Temporal change in knife river int reduction Strategies, in: Susan C. Vehik (Ed.), Lithic Resource Procurement: Proceedings from the Second Conference on Prehistoric Chert Exploitation (Occasional Papers 4), Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, 1985, pp. 183e198. Daniel S. Amick, Raymond P. Mauldin, Effects of raw material on ake breakage patterns, Lithic Technology 22 (1997) 18e32. Daniel S. Amick, Raymond P. Mauldin, Steven A. Tomka, An evaluation of debitage produced by experimental bifacial core reduction of a Georgetown chert nodule, Lithic Technology 17 (1988) 26e36. Albert J. Ammerman, A study of obsidian exchange networks in Calabria, World Archaeology 19 (1979) 95e110. 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. William Andrefsky Jr., A consideration of blade and ake curvature, Lithic Technology 15 (1986) 48e54. William Andrefsky Jr., The geological occurrence of lithic material and stone tool production strategies, Geoarchaeology: An International Journal 9 (1994) 345e362. William Andrefsky Jr., Emerging directions in debitage analysis, in: W. Andrefsky Jr. (Ed.), Lithic Debitage: Context, Form, Meaning, University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, 2001, pp. 1e14. William Andrefsky Jr., Partitioning the aggregate: mass analysis and debitage assemblages, in: Christopher T. Hall, Mary Lou Larson (Eds.), Aggregate Analysis in Chipped Stone, University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, 2004, pp. 201e210. William Andrefsky Jr., Lithics: Macroscopic Approaches to Analysis, second ed., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2005. 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. William Andrefsky, Jr., Experimental and archaeological verication of an index of retouch for hafted bifaces, American Antiquity, in press. Robert J. Austin, Technological Characterization of lithic waste-ake assemblages: multivariate analysis of experimental and archaeological data, Lithic Technology 24 (1999) 53e68. Douglas B. Bamforth, Technological organization and hunter-gatherer land use: a California example, American Antiquity 56 (1991) 216e 234. 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. 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. Jeffery A. Behm, Flake concentrations: distinguishing between int working activity areas and secondary deposition, Lithic Technology 12 (1983) 9e16. Brooke S. Blades, End scraper reduction and hunter-gatherer mobility, American Antiquity 68 (2003) 141e156. Peter Bleed, The optimal design of hunting weapons: maintainability or reliability, American Antiquity 51 (1986) 737e747. 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 Microlithization, Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Organization, Number 12, 2002, Arlington, Virginia, pp. 95e102.

sources of error. Production debitage is greatly inuenced by replicator variability and it is unlikely that contemporary experimental assemblages can be expected to match excavated assemblages, even if the same types of artifacts were manufactured. Individual knapping styles have as much inuence on debitage size as does the kind of tool produced. I also demonstrated how raw material variability, particularly package size and shape, could also inuence the size of debitage produced in replication experiments. Raw material type and form must be accounted for when comparing excavated assemblages to replicated assemblages by size grades. Experimentally 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 signicantly different debitage assemblages when making size grade comparisons, even when very different kinds of tools are produced. All of these potential 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 assemblages has been an effective heuristic for chipped stone technological analysis, even if they are difcult to condently 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 production or core reduction interpretations at archaeological sites unless 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 Delaware. I thank those organizers and colleagues for providing a forum and comments to that initial draft. The College of Liberal 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 them and 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-thanconcise manner of writing. References
[1] Stanley A. Ahler, Mass analysis of aking debris: studying the forest rather than the trees, in: Donald O. Henry, George H. Odell (Eds.),

[2]

[3]

[4] [5]

[6] [7]

[8] [9]

[10]

[11]

[12] [13]

[14] [15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20] [21] [22]

W. Andrefsky Jr. / Journal of Archaeological Science 34 (2007) 392e402 [23] Peter Bleed, Retting as aggregate analysis, in: Christopher T. Hall, Mary Lou Larson (Eds.), Aggregate Analysis in Chipped Stone, University 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 Basin 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 ake 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 production, and the organization of technology, in: W. Andrefsky Jr. (Ed.), Lithic Debitage: Context, Form, Meaning, University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, 2001, pp. 126e146. [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 unifacial and bifacial retouch: a theoretical, experimental and archaeological verication, 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 experimental test of dibble and pelcins original ake-tool mass predictor, Journal of Archaeological Science 25 (1998) 603e610. [35] Harold L. Dibble, Platform variability and ake morphology: a comparison of experimental and archeological data and implications for interpreting prehistoric lithic technological strategies, Lithic Technology 22 (1997) 150e170. [36] Harold L. Dibble, Andrew Pelcin, The effect of hammer mass and velocity on ake 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, Dening 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] Jay D. Franklin, Jan F. Simik, Core retting and the accuracy of techniques for aggregate lithic analysis, in: Paper presented at the 2001 Annual Meeting 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 experiments, in: Paper presented at the 49th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Portland, Oregon, 1984.

401

[44] Albert C. Goodyear, Tool kit entropy and bipolar reduction: a study of interassemblage lithic variability among Paleo-Indian Sites in the Northeastern 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 Complexity, 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 aked stone debitage, Plains Anthropologist 21 (1976) 57e61. [47] Peter Hiscock, Val Attenbrow, Early Australian implement variation: a reduction model, Journal of Archaeological Science 30 (2003) 239e249. [48] Kenneth H. Honea, The Bipolar aking technique in Texas and New Mexico, Texas Archaeological Society Bulletin 36 (1965) 259e267. [49] Kathleen L. Hull, Identication of cultural site formation processes through microdebitage analysis, American Antiquity 52 (1987) 772e783. [50] Eric E. Ingbar, Mary Lou Larson, Bruce Bradley, A nontypological approach to debitage analysis, in: D.S. Amick, R.P. Mauldin (Eds.), Experiments 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, Archaeology of Eastern North America 9 (1981) 134e175. [53] Edward J. Knell, Late Paleoindian cody period mobility patterns: an example from the locality V cody complex at the Hell Gap site, Unpublished MA thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Wyoming, Laramie, 1997. [54] Edward J. Knell, Coarse-scale chipped stone aggregates and technological organization strategies at Hell Gap locality V cody complex component, 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 Archaeology 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, Geoarchaeology 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 Forest, Report Prepared by Larson-Tibesar Associates, Laramie, Wyoming for USDA, Forest Service, Santa Fe National Forest, Santa Fe, New Mexico, 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.

402

W. Andrefsky Jr. / Journal of Archaeological Science 34 (2007) 392e402 [81] Matthew J. Root, The knife river int quarries: the organization of stone tool production, Ph.D. dissertation, Washington State University. University Microlms, Ann Arbor, 1992. [82] Matthew J. Root, Production for exchange at the Knife River int quarries, North Dakota, Lithic Technology 22 (1997) 33e50. [83] Matthew J. Root, Technological analysis of ake debris and the limitations of size-grade techniques, in: Christopher Hall, Mary Lou Larson (Eds.), Aggregate Analysis in Chipped Stone, University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, 2004, pp. 65e94. [84] S.A. Scott, Problems with the use of ake size in inferring stages of lithic reduction, Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 13 (1991) 172e179. ne ope ratoire: the concept and its applications, [85] Frederic Sellet, Cha Lithic Technology 18 (1993) 106e112. [86] Frederic Sellet, A dynamic view of Paleoindian assemblages at the Hell Gap site, Wyoming: reconstructing lithic technological systems, Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Southern Methodist 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, Journal of Field Archaeology 17 (1990) 187e193. [90] Michael J. Shott, Lithic reduction at 13HA365, a middle woodland occupation 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 akes, 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 akes from the manufacture of bifacial tools, World Archaeology 14 (1982) 84e97. [94] Alan P. Sullivan III, Kenneth C. Rozen, Debitage analysis and archaeological 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. Crabtree, University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, 1985, pp. 243e264. [96] Steven A. Tomka, Differentiating lithic reduction techniques: an experimental 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.

[65] Martin P. Magne, David Pokotylo, A pilot study in bifacial lithic reduction 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 International 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 debitage analysis, Lithic Technology 22 (1997) 51e69. [69] Dani Nadel, Indoor/outdoor int knapping and minute debitage remains: the evidence from the Ohalo II submerged camp (19.5 KY, Jordan Valley), Lithic Technology 26 (1999) 118e137. [70] Deborah Olausson, 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, Unpublished 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 sedentism, 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 ake-size distribution, American Antiquity 55 (1990) 550e558. [75] Leland W. Patterson, J.B. Sollberger, Replication and classication of small size lithic debitage, Plains Anthropologist 23 (1978) 103e112. [76] Albert M. Pecora, Chipped Stone tool production 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 aking 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 specialized 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, Unpublished M.A. thesis, Washington State University, Pullman, WA, 1997.