Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Experimental Improvements to the Volume Ratio and Quantifying Movement Using Stone Artefact Analysis Cover

Experimental Improvements to the Volume Ratio and Quantifying Movement Using Stone Artefact Analysis

Journal of Computer Applications in Archaeology
Volume 5 (2022): Issue 1
By: Stacey Middleton and  Rebecca Phillipps  
Open Access
|Oct 2022

References

  1. 1Agisoft. 2019. Agisoft metashape professional 1.5. St. Petersburg, Russia: Agisoft.
    Back to article
  2. 2Armitage, GC. 1971. The identification of New Zealand obsidians. Unpublished Thesis (Master’s Thesis), Massey University, Auckland.
    Back to article
  3. 3Bamforth, DB. 1986. Technological efficiency and tool curation. American Antiquity, 51(1): 38–50. DOI: 10.2307/280392
    Back to article
  4. 4Binford, LR. 1973. Interassemblage variability: The Mousterian and the “functional” argument. In Renfrew, C (ed.), The explanation of culture change: models in prehistory. pp. 227–54. London: Duckworth.
    Back to article
  5. 5Binford, LR. 1979. Organisation and formation processes: looking at curated technologies. Journal of Anthropological Research, 35(3): 255–273. DOI: 10.1086/jar.35.3.3629902
    Back to article
  6. 6Braun, DR, Tactikos, JC, Ferraro, JV and Harris, JWK. 2005. Flake recovery rates and inferences of Oldowan hominin behaviour: a response to Kimura 1999, 2002. Journal of Human Evolution, 48: 525–531. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhevol.2005.02.002
    Back to article
  7. 7Clarkson, C. 2013. Measuring core reduction using 3D flake scar density: a test case of changing core reduction at Klasies River Mouth, South Africa. Journal of Archaeological Science, 40: 4348–4357. DOI: 10.1016/j.jas.2013.06.007
    Back to article
  8. 8Clarkson, C, Shipton, C and Weisler, M. 2014. Determining the reduction sequence of Hawaiian quadrangular adzes using 3D approaches: a case study from Moloka’i. Journal of Archaeological Science, 49: 361–371. DOI: 10.1016/j.jas.2014.05.031
    Back to article
  9. 9Close, AE. 1996. Carry that weight: the use and transportation of stone tools. Current Anthropology, 37(3): 545–553. DOI: 10.1086/204517
    Back to article
  10. 10Close, AE. 2000. Reconstructing movement in prehistory. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 7(1): 49–77. DOI: 10.1023/A:1009560628428
    Back to article
  11. 11Davies, BJ, Holdaway, SJ and Fanning, PC. 2018. Modelling relationships between space, movement, and lithic geometric attributes. American Antiquity, 83(3): 444–461. DOI: 10.1017/aaq.2018.23
    Back to article
  12. 12Dibble, HL, Holdaway, SJ, Lin, SC, Braun, DR, Douglass, MJ, Iovita, R, McPherron, SP, Olszewski, DI and Sandgathe, D. 2017. Major fallacies surrounding stone artefacts and assemblages. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 24: 813–851. DOI: 10.1007/s10816-016-9297-8
    Back to article
  13. 13Dibble, HL, Schurmans, UA, Iovita, RP and Laughlin, MV. 2005. The measurement and interpretation of cortex in lithic assemblages. Antiquity, 70(3): 545–560. DOI: 10.2307/40035313
    Back to article
  14. 14Ditchfield, K. 2016a. An experimental approach to distinguishing different stone artefact transport patterns from debitage analysis. Journal of Archaeological Science, 65: 44–56. DOI: 10.1016/j.jas.2015.10.012
    Back to article
  15. 15Ditchfield, K. 2016b. The influence of raw material size on stone artefact assemblage formation: an example from Bone Cave, south-western Tasmania. Quaternary International, 1–15. DOI: 10.1016/j.quaint.2016.03.013
    Back to article
  16. 16Ditchfield, K, Holdaway, S, Allen, MS and McAlister, A. 2014. Measuring stone artefact transport: the experimental demonstration and pilot application of a new method to a prehistoric adze workshop, southern Cook Island. Journal of Archaeological Science, 50: 512–523. DOI: 10.1016/j.jas.2014.08.009
    Back to article
  17. 17Douglass, MJ. 2010. The archaeological potential of informal lithic technologies: a case study of assemblage variability in western New South Wales, Australia. Unpublished thesis (PhD), University of Auckland, Auckland.
    Back to article
  18. 18Douglass, MJ, Davies, B, Braun, DR, Faith, JT, Power, M and Reeves, J. 2021. Deriving original nodule size of lithic reduction sets from cortical curvature: an application to monitor stone artefact transport from bipolar reduction. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports, 35(102671): 1–11. DOI: 10.1016/j.jasrep.2020.102671
    Back to article
  19. 19Douglass, MJ and Holdaway, SJ. 2011. Quantifying stone raw material size distributions: investigating cortex proportions in lithic assemblages from western New South Wales. Technical Reports of the Australian Museum Online, 23: 45–57. DOI: 10.3853/j.1835-4211.23.2011.1569
    Back to article
  20. 20Douglass, MJ, Holdaway, SJ, Fanning, PC and Shiner, JL. 2008. An assessment and application of cortex measurement in lithic assemblages. American Antiquity, 73(3): 513–526. DOI: 10.1017/S0002731600046849
    Back to article
  21. 21Douglass, MJ, Lin, SC, Braun, DR and Plummer, TW. 2017. Core use-life distributions in lithic assemblages as a means for reconstructing behavioural patterns. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 25: 254–288. DOI: 10.1007/s10816-017-9334-2
    Back to article
  22. 22Finkel, M and Gopher, A. 2018. Size matters: the role of nodule size in assessing lithic transportation- the case of the Mount Reihan flint extraction and axe/adze workshop, Dishon Basin, Eastern Galilee, Israel. Lithic Technology, 43(3): 186–200. DOI: 10.1080/01977261.2018.1484604
    Back to article
  23. 23Foley, E, Spry, C and Stern, N. 2017. Establishing the integrity and stratigraphic origin of stone artefact scatters on the surface of the Lake Mungo lunette in south-eastern Australia. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports, 13: 547–557. DOI: 10.1016/j.jasrep.2017.05.002
    Back to article
  24. 24Galantucci, LM, Guerra, MG and Lavecchia, F. 2018. Photogrammetry applied to small and micro scaled objects: a review. In Ni, J, Majstorovic, VD and Djurdjanovic, D (eds.), Proceedings of 3rd International Conference on the Industry 4.0 Model for Advanced Manufacturing. pp. 57–77. Cham, Switzerland: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-89563-5_4
    Back to article
  25. 25Holdaway, SJ and Davies, B. 2019. Surface stone artefact scatters, settlement patterns, and new methods for stone artefact analysis. Journal of Palaeolithic Archaeology, 3: 612–632. DOI: 10.1007/s41982-019-00030-8
    Back to article
  26. 26Holdaway, S, Douglass, MJ and Fanning, P. 2012. Landscape scale and human mobility: geoarchaeological evidence from Rutherfords Cree, New South Wales, Australia. In Kluiving, SJ and Guttmann-Bond, EB (eds.), Landscape archaeology between art and science: from a multi to an interdisciplinary approach. pp. 279–294. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. DOI: 10.1017/9789048516070.021
    Back to article
  27. 27Holdaway, S, Douglass, MJ and Fanning, P. 2013. A new ecological framework for understanding human-environment interactions in arid Australia. In Frankel, D, Lawrence, S, Webb, J, Pickering, WSF and Walford, G (eds.), Archaeology in environment and technology: intersections and transformations. pp. 51–68. New York: Routledge.
    Back to article
  28. 28Holdaway, S, Douglass, M and Phillipps, R. 2014. Flake selection, assemblage variability, and technological organisation. In Shott, MJ (ed.), Works in stone: contemporary perspectives on lithic analysis. pp. 46–62. Salt Lake City, UT: The University of Utah Press.
    Back to article
  29. 29Holdaway, SJ, Fanning, PC and Rhodes, E. 2008. Assemblage accumulation as a time-dependent process in the arid zone of western New South Wales, Australia. In Holdaway, SJ and Wandsnider, L (eds.), Time in archaeology: time perspectivism revisited. pp. 110–133. Salt Lake City, UT: The University of Utah Press.
    Back to article
  30. 30Holdaway, SJ, Shiner, J, Fanning, PC and Douglass, MJ. 2008. Assemblage formation as a result of raw material acquisition in western New South Wales, Australia. Lithic Technology, 33(1): 73–85. DOI: 10.1080/01977261.2008.11721061
    Back to article
  31. 31Holdaway, S, Wendrich, W and Phillipps, R. 2010. Identifying low-level food producers: detecting mobility from lithics. Antiquity, 84: 185–194. DOI: 10.1017/S0003598X00099853
    Back to article
  32. 32Li, H, Kuman, K, Leader, GM and Couzens, R. 2018. Hand axes in South Africa: Two case studies in the early and later Acheulean. Quaternary International, 480: 29–42. DOI: 10.1016/j.quaint.2016.08.025
    Back to article
  33. 33Li, H, Kuman, K and Li, C. 2015. Quantifying the reduction intensity of hand axes with 3D technology: a pilot study on hand axes in the Danjiangkou Reservoir Region, Central China. PLoS ONE, 10(9): 1–17. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0135613
    Back to article
  34. 34Lin, SC, Douglass, MJ, Holdaway, SJ and Floyd, B. 2010. The application of 3D laser scanning technology to the assessment of ordinal and mechanical cortex quantification in lithic analysis. Journal of Archaeological Science, 37: 694–702. DOI: 10.1016/j.jas.2009.10.030
    Back to article
  35. 35Lin, SC, Douglass, MJ and Mackay, A. 2016. Interpreting MIS3 artefact transport patterns in southern Africa using cortex ratios: an example from the Putslaagte Valley, western Cape. The South African Archaeological Bulletin, 71(204): 173–180.
    Back to article
  36. 36Lin, SC, McPherron, SP and Dibble, H. 2015. Establishing statistical confidence in cortex ratios within and among lithic assemblages: a case study of the Middle Palaeolithic of southwestern France. Journal of Archaeological Science, 59: 89–109. DOI: 10.1016/j.jas.2015.04.004
    Back to article
  37. 37Lin, SC, Peng, F, Zwyns, N, Guo, J, Wang, H and Gao, X. 2019a. Detecting patterns of local raw material utilisation among informal lithic assemblages at the late Palaeolithic site of Shuidonggou Locality 2 (China). Archaeological Research in Asia, 17: 137–148. DOI: 10.1016/j.ara.2018.11.003
    Back to article
  38. 38Lin, SC, Peng, F, Zwyns, N, Guo, J, Wang, H and Gao, X. 2019b. Persistent local raw material transport at Shuidonggou Locality 2. Archaeological Research in Asia, 20. DOI: 10.1016/j.ara.2019.100142
    Back to article
  39. 39Lombao, D, Cueva-Temprana, A, Mosquera, M and Morales, JI. 2020. A new approach to measure reduction intensity on cores and tools on cobbles: the volumetric reconstruction method. Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences, 12(222): 1–16. DOI: 10.1007/s12520-020-01154-7
    Back to article
  40. 40Lombao, D, Cueva-Temprana, A, Rabuñal, JR, Morales, JI and Mosquera, M. 2019. The effects of blank size and knapping strategy on the estimation of core’s reduction intensity. Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences, 11: 5445–5461. DOI: 10.1007/s12520-019-00879-4
    Back to article
  41. 41McBride, RT. 2019. Obsidian access and procurement during New Zealand’s early colonisation period. Master’s Thesis, University of Auckland, Auckland.
    Back to article
  42. 42Mettler Toledo. 2000. Mettler Toledo 210250/210260 operating instructions. Columbus, OH: Mettler Toledo.
    Back to article
  43. 43Middleton, SE. 2019. Testing the volume ratio and discussing the “complete assemblage” fallacy. Unpublished thesis (Honours Dissertation), University of Auckland, Auckland.
    Back to article
  44. 44Middleton, SE. 2021. The Archaeology of Movement and Land-Use in Te Ika-a-Māui, Aotearoa (North Island, New Zealand): An Application of the Volume Ratio to Stone Artefact Analysis. Unpublished thesis (Master’s Thesis), University of Auckland, Auckland.
    Back to article
  45. 45Moore, PR. 2015. The significance of cortex on Mayor Island obsidian. Archaeology in New Zealand, 58(2): 69–75.
    Back to article
  46. 46Moore, PR, Sheppard, PJ and Prickett, K. Progress towards the characterisation of cherts in northern New Zealand. Unpublished manuscript.
    Back to article
  47. 47Morrow, TM. 1996. Lithic refitting and archaeological site formation processes: a case study from the Twin Ditch Site, Greene County, Illinois. In Odell, GH (ed.), Stone tools: theoretical insights into prehistory. pp. 345–373. Boston, MA: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4899-0173-6_13
    Back to article
  48. 48Nash, SE. 1996. Is curation a useful heuristic. In Odell, GH (ed.), Stone tools: theoretical insights into prehistory. pp. 81–99. Boston, MA: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4899-0173-6_4
    Back to article
  49. 49Odell, GH (ed.). 1996. Economising behaviour and the concept of curation. In Stone tools: theoretical insights into prehistory. pp. 51–80. Boston, MA: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4899-0173-6_3
    Back to article
  50. 50Parker, DJ. 2011. The complexity of lithic simplicity: computer simulation of lithic assemblage formation in western New South Wales, Australia. Unpublished thesis (Master’s thesis), University of Auckland, Auckland.
    Back to article
  51. 51Phillipps, RS. 2012. Documenting socio-economic variability in the Egyptian Neolithic through stone artefact analysis. Unpublished thesis (PhD), University of Auckland, Auckland.
    Back to article
  52. 52Phillipps, RS and Holdaway, SJ. 2016. Estimating core number in assemblages: core movement and mobility during the Holocene of the Fayum, Egypt. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 23: 520–540. DOI: 10.1007/s10816-015-9250-2
    Back to article
  53. 53Porter, ST, Roussel, M and Soressi, M. 2016. A simple photogrammetry rig for the reliable creation of 3D artefact models in the field. Advances in Archaeological Practice 4(1): 1–16. DOI: 10.7183/2326-3768.4.1.1
    Back to article
  54. 54Reeves, RD and Armitage, GC. 1973. Density measurements and chemical analysis in the identification of New Zealand archaeological obsidians. New Zealand Journal of Science 16: 561–572.
    Back to article
  55. 55Sellet, F. 2006. Two steps forwards, one step back: the inference of mobility patterns from stone tools. In Sellet, F, Greaves, R and Yu, PL (eds.), Archaeology and ethnoarchaeology of mobility. pp. 221–239. Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida.
    Back to article
  56. 56Shiner, J, Holdaway, S and Fanning, P. 2018. Flaked stone assemblage variability across the Weipa region of western Cape York Peninsula, Queensland. Queensland Archaeological Research, 21: 1–11. DOI: 10.25120/qar.21.2018.3636
    Back to article
  57. 57Shipton, C and Clarkson, C. 2015a. Flake scar density and handaxe reduction intensity. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports, 2: 169–175. DOI: 10.1016/j.jasrep.2015.01.013
    Back to article
  58. 58Shipton, C and Clarkson, C. 2015b. Handaxe reduction and its influence on shape: An experimental test and archaeological case study. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports, 3: 408–419. DOI: 10.1016/j.jasrep.2015.06.029
    Back to article
  59. 59Shott, MJ. 1996. An exegesis of the curation concept. Journal of Anthropological Research, 52(3): 259–280. DOI: 10.1086/jar.52.3.3630085
    Back to article
  60. 60Sullivan, AP, III. 2016. Theoretical implications of artefact scatter lithic assemblage variability for mobility based models of technological organisation. In Olszewski, D and Sullivan, AP, III (eds.), Archaeological variability and interpretation in global perspective. pp. 125–150. Boulder, CO: University Press of Colorado. DOI: 10.5876/9781607324942.c006
    Back to article
  61. 61Torrence, R. 1983. Time budgeting and hunter-gatherer technology. In Bailey, G (ed.), Hunter-gatherer economy in prehistory: a European perspective. pp. 11–22. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Back to article
  62. 62Turq, A, Roebroeks, W, Bourguignon, L and Faivre, JP. 2013. The fragmented character of Middle Palaeolithic stone tool technology. Journal of Human Evolution, 65: 641–655. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhevol.2013.07.014
    Back to article
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/jcaa.93 | Journal eISSN: 2514-8362
Journal RSS Feed
Language: English
Submitted on: Apr 29, 2022
Accepted on: Oct 2, 2022
Published on: Oct 13, 2022
Published by: Ubiquity Press
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 1 issue per year
Keywords:
Stone Artefacts,
Movement,
Volume Ratio,
Photogrammetry,
Experimental Archaeology

© 2022 Stacey Middleton, Rebecca Phillipps, published by Ubiquity Press
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Previous articleVolume 5 (2022): Issue 1Next article