Hostname: page-component-5db58dd55d-qmkzp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-06-18T19:14:49.570Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Identifying Lithic Reduction Loci with Size-Graded Macrodebitage: A Multivariate Approach

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Dan M. Healan
Dan M. Healan*
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, ulane University, New Orleans, LA 70118
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper presents a method of identifying lithic reduction loci based on size-sorted debitage in the macroscopic size range. Multivariate analysis of decremental size classes of debitage derived from the use of nested screening provides a means of investigating the differential operation of size sorting at various size levels, so that size thresholds for distinguishing deposits of probable primary and secondary refuse can be identified on empirical grounds. The method is used to distinguish refuse dumps from what appear to be lithic reduction loci within an obsidian core/blade workshop excavated at the Early Postclassic city of Tula, Hidalgo, Mexico.

Este artículo presenta un método para la identificación de áreas donde se trabajaban artefactos litácas. Dicho método se basa en el uso de desecho de talla no microscópico recojido por medio de cribas de tamaños variables. Se utiliza análisis defactores en el análisis de los varios tamaños de desecho para investigar la deposición de desecho en sitio como un proceso que varie con respecto al tamaño del desecho. Se usa el método para identificar localidades donde se trabajaban artefactos de obsidiana dentro un taller de la fabricación de núcleos y navajas dentro la ciudad de Tula, Hidalgo, México, procedente de la época posclásico temprano.

Information

Type
Reports
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 60 , Issue 4 , October 1995 , pp. 689 - 699
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for American Archaeology 1995

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

References Cited

Ahler, S. A. 1989 Mass Analysis of Flaking Debris : Studying the Forest Rather than the Tree. In Alternative Approaches to Lithic Analysis, edited by Henry, D. O. and H, G.. Odell. Archaeological Papers No. 1. American Anthropological Association, Arlington, Virginia.Google Scholar
Bartlett, M. S. 1950 Tests of Significance in Factor Analysis. British Journal of Psychology, Statistical Section 3 : 77–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, J. E. 1986 From Mountains to Molehills : A Critical Review of Teotihuacan's Obsidian Industry. In Research in Economic Anthropology, supplement 2, edited by Isaac, B. L., pp. 133–152. JAI Press, Greenwich, Connecticut.Google Scholar
Clark, J. E. 1991 Flintknapping and Debitage Disposal Among the Lacandon Maya of Chiapas, Mexico. In The Ethnoarchaeology of Refuse Disposal, edited by Staski, E. and Sutro, L. D., pp. 63–78. Anthropological Research Papers No. 42. Arizona State University, Tempe.Google Scholar
Davis, J. C. 1973 Statistics and Data Analysis in Geology. John Wiley and Sons, New York.Google Scholar
Dunnell, R. C, and Stein, J. K. 1989 Theoretical Issues in the Interpretation of Microartifacts. Geoarchaeology 4 : 31–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fladmark, K. R. 1982 Microdebitage Analysis : Initial Considerations. Journal of Archaeological Science 9 : 205–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gallagher, J. P. 1977 Contemporary Stone Tools in Ethiopia : Implications for Archaeology. Journal of Field Archaeology 4 : 407–414.Google Scholar
Healan, D. M. 1979 Functional, Technological, and Developmental Aspects of Obsidian Workshop Production at Tula, Mexico. Proposal No. BNS-7924754. Submitted to the National Science Foundation, Washington, D. C. Google Scholar
Healan, D. M. 1986 Technological and Nontechnological Aspects of an Obsidian Workshop Excavated at Tula, Hidalgo. In Research in Economic Anthropology, supplement 2, edited by Isaac, B. L., pp. 133–152. JAI Press, Greenwich, Connecticut.Google Scholar
Healan, D. M. 1992 A Comment on Moholy-Nagy's “The Misidentification of Lithic Workshops. ” Latin American Antiquity 3 : 240–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Healan, D. M. (editor) 1989 Tula of the Toltecs : Excavations and Survey. University of Iowa Press, Iowa City.Google Scholar
Healan, D. M., Kerley, J., and III, G. J. Bey 1983 Excavation and Preliminary Analysis of an Obsidian Workshop at Tula, Hidalgo, Mexico. Journal of Field Archaeology 10 : 127–145.Google Scholar
Hull, K. L. 1987 Identification of Cultural Site Formation Processes through Microdebitage Analysis. American Antiquity 52 : 772–783.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mastache, A. G., and Cobean, R. 1989 The Coyotlatelco Culture and the Origins of the Toltec State. In Mesoamerica After the Decline of Teotihuacan, A. D. 700-900, edited by Diehl, R. A. and Berlo, J. C., pp. 49–68. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington. D. C. Google Scholar
Metcalf, D, and Heath, K. M. 1990 Microrefuse and Site Structure : The Hearths and Floors of the Heartbreak Hotel. American Antiquity 55 : 781–796.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moholy-Nagy, H. 1990 The Misidentification of Mesoamerican Lithic Workshops. Latin American Antiquity 1 : 268–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rathje, W. L., and Schiffer, M. B. 1982 Archaeology. Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, New York.Google Scholar
Rosen, A. M. 1986 Cities of Clay; The Geoarchaeology of Tells. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Rosen, A. M. 1989 Ancient Town and City States : A View from the Microscope. American Antiquity 54 : 564–578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanders, W, Parsons, J., and Santley, R. 1979 The Basin of Mexico; Ecological Processes in the Formation of a Civilization. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Schiffer, M. B. 1972 Archaeological Context and Systemic Context. American Antiquity 37 : 156–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schiffer, M. B. 1983 Toward the Identification of Formation Processes. American Antiquity 48 : 675–706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stahle, D. W., and Dunn, J. E. 1982 An Analysis and Application of the Size Distribution of Waste Flakes from the Manufacture of Bifacial Stone Tools. World Archaeology 14 : 98–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stein, J. K. 1987 Deposits for Archaeologists. Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory 11 : 337–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stein, J. K., and Teltser, P. A. 1989 Size Distributions of Artifact Classes : Combining Macro-and Micro-Fractions. Geoarchaeology 4 : 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vance, E. D. 1987 Microdebitage and Archaeological Activity Analysis. Archaeology 40(4) : 58–59.Google Scholar
Vierra, R. K., and Carlson, D. L. 1981 Factor Analysis, Random Data, and Patterned Results. American Antiquity A(> : 212-2%'i. CrossRefGoogle Scholar