Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-r8qmj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-20T00:37:39.303Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Comparative Study of Basic Edge Angle Measurement Techniques

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Harold L. Dibble  and
Mary C. Bernard
Harold L. Dibble
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721
Mary C. Bernard
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Four methods of edge angle measurements, including one developed by the authors, are applied to a sample of unretouched flakes in order to determine their relative accuracy, reliability, and economy. The authors discuss various statistical analyses which are available and essential in evaluating the significance of variability between and within the different measuring techniques, applying them to the results obtained from this study.

Information

Type
Reports
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 45 , Issue 4 , October 1980 , pp. 857 - 865
Copyright
Copyright © Society for American Archaeology 1980

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

Burgess, Robert J., and Kvamme, Kenneth L. 1978 A new technique for the measurement of artifact angles. American Antiquity 43:482–485.Google Scholar
Fish, Paul 1978 Consistency in archaeological measurement and classification: a pilot study. American Antiquity 43:86–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gould, Richard A., Koster, Dorothy A., and Sontz, Ann H. L. 1971 The lithic assemblage of the Western Desert Aborigines of Australia. American Antiquity 36:149–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jelinek, Arthur A. 1976 Form, function and style in Lithic Analysis. In Cultural change and continuity: essays in honor of James Bennett Griffin, edited by Cleland, C. E., pp. 19–33. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Tringham, Ruth, et al. 1974 Experimentation in the formation of edge damage: a new approach to lithic analysis. Journal of Field Archaeology 1:171–196.Google Scholar
Wilmsen, Edwin 1970 Lithic analysis and cultural inferences: a Paleo-Indian case. Anthropological Papers of the University of Arizona 16.Google Scholar
Zegura, Stephen L. 1978 Components, factors and confusion. Yearbook of Physical Anthropology 21:151–159.Google Scholar