用实验考古学重新定义石器时代的微观缺陷

IF 2.1 2区 地球科学 Q1 ANTHROPOLOGY
Markus Eberl, Phyllis Johnson, Rebecca Estrada Aguila, Michael McBride
{"title":"用实验考古学重新定义石器时代的微观缺陷","authors":"Markus Eberl,&nbsp;Phyllis Johnson,&nbsp;Rebecca Estrada Aguila,&nbsp;Michael McBride","doi":"10.1007/s12520-023-01858-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Lithic microdebitage is “invisible” to the naked eye. Since ancient knappers struggled to remove it from activity areas, its presence can reveal stone tool production and maintenance, as well as site-formation processes. So far, scholars have examined soil samples under a microscope. More angular forms, higher transparency, and other characteristics set microdebitage apart from other soil particles. While intuitive, this definition is subjective and difficult to apply consistently. In our alternative approach, we combine experimental archaeology with dynamic image analysis, statistics, and machine learning. A modern stone knapper who uses traditional raw materials and tools produced 101,298 microdebitage flakes. We compare 38,787 chert and 62,511 obsidian flakes with 23,980 sand and gravel particles. A dynamic image particle analyzer measured each of the 125,278 particles. We discuss seven variables as proxies for Fladmark’s definition of microdebitage. Since they distribute non-normally, we use non-parametric statistical tests to show that microdebitage differs highly significantly from sand and gravel for all seven proxies. Particle-specific data allow us to quantify microdebitage characteristics, propose 0.5–4 mm as size limits, and discuss the robustness of our definition. We conclude that our approach enables an objective analysis of microdebitage.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":8214,"journal":{"name":"Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences","volume":"15 11","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Redefining lithic microdebitage with experimental archaeology\",\"authors\":\"Markus Eberl,&nbsp;Phyllis Johnson,&nbsp;Rebecca Estrada Aguila,&nbsp;Michael McBride\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s12520-023-01858-6\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Lithic microdebitage is “invisible” to the naked eye. Since ancient knappers struggled to remove it from activity areas, its presence can reveal stone tool production and maintenance, as well as site-formation processes. So far, scholars have examined soil samples under a microscope. More angular forms, higher transparency, and other characteristics set microdebitage apart from other soil particles. While intuitive, this definition is subjective and difficult to apply consistently. In our alternative approach, we combine experimental archaeology with dynamic image analysis, statistics, and machine learning. A modern stone knapper who uses traditional raw materials and tools produced 101,298 microdebitage flakes. We compare 38,787 chert and 62,511 obsidian flakes with 23,980 sand and gravel particles. A dynamic image particle analyzer measured each of the 125,278 particles. We discuss seven variables as proxies for Fladmark’s definition of microdebitage. Since they distribute non-normally, we use non-parametric statistical tests to show that microdebitage differs highly significantly from sand and gravel for all seven proxies. Particle-specific data allow us to quantify microdebitage characteristics, propose 0.5–4 mm as size limits, and discuss the robustness of our definition. We conclude that our approach enables an objective analysis of microdebitage.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8214,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences\",\"volume\":\"15 11\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-10-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"89\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12520-023-01858-6\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"地球科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ANTHROPOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"89","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12520-023-01858-6","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"地球科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANTHROPOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

Lithic微缺陷是肉眼“看不见”的。由于古代的小贩们很难将其从活动区移走,因此它的存在可以揭示石器的生产和维护,以及遗址的形成过程。到目前为止,学者们已经在显微镜下检查了土壤样本。更多的棱角形状、更高的透明度和其他特征使微密度与其他土壤颗粒不同。虽然这个定义是直观的,但它是主观的,很难始终如一地应用。在我们的替代方法中,我们将实验考古学与动态图像分析、统计学和机器学习相结合。一位使用传统原材料和工具的现代石匠生产了101298个微碎片。我们将38787块燧石和62511块黑石薄片与23980个砂砾颗粒进行了比较。动态图像颗粒分析仪测量了125278个颗粒中的每一个。我们讨论了七个变量作为Fladmark对微缺陷定义的代理。由于它们的分布是非正态的,我们使用非参数统计测试来表明,对于所有七个代理,微密度与砂砾的差异非常显著。粒子特异性数据使我们能够量化微观尺寸特征,提出0.5–4 mm作为尺寸限制,并讨论我们定义的稳健性。我们得出的结论是,我们的方法能够客观地分析微观缺陷。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Redefining lithic microdebitage with experimental archaeology

Redefining lithic microdebitage with experimental archaeology

Lithic microdebitage is “invisible” to the naked eye. Since ancient knappers struggled to remove it from activity areas, its presence can reveal stone tool production and maintenance, as well as site-formation processes. So far, scholars have examined soil samples under a microscope. More angular forms, higher transparency, and other characteristics set microdebitage apart from other soil particles. While intuitive, this definition is subjective and difficult to apply consistently. In our alternative approach, we combine experimental archaeology with dynamic image analysis, statistics, and machine learning. A modern stone knapper who uses traditional raw materials and tools produced 101,298 microdebitage flakes. We compare 38,787 chert and 62,511 obsidian flakes with 23,980 sand and gravel particles. A dynamic image particle analyzer measured each of the 125,278 particles. We discuss seven variables as proxies for Fladmark’s definition of microdebitage. Since they distribute non-normally, we use non-parametric statistical tests to show that microdebitage differs highly significantly from sand and gravel for all seven proxies. Particle-specific data allow us to quantify microdebitage characteristics, propose 0.5–4 mm as size limits, and discuss the robustness of our definition. We conclude that our approach enables an objective analysis of microdebitage.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences
Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences GEOSCIENCES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
18.20%
发文量
199
期刊介绍: Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences covers the full spectrum of natural scientific methods with an emphasis on the archaeological contexts and the questions being studied. It bridges the gap between archaeologists and natural scientists providing a forum to encourage the continued integration of scientific methodologies in archaeological research. Coverage in the journal includes: archaeology, geology/geophysical prospection, geoarchaeology, geochronology, palaeoanthropology, archaeozoology and archaeobotany, genetics and other biomolecules, material analysis and conservation science. The journal is endorsed by the German Society of Natural Scientific Archaeology and Archaeometry (GNAA), the Hellenic Society for Archaeometry (HSC), the Association of Italian Archaeometrists (AIAr) and the Society of Archaeological Sciences (SAS).
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信