Experimental Design and Experimental Inference in Stone Artifact Archaeology

Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory

Volumn 25, Issue 3, 2018, Pages 663-688

  Lin, Sam C ^a   Rezek, Zeljko ^b   Dibble, Harold L ^b,c,d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WOLLONGONG   (Australia)

^b MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE FOR EVOLUTIONARY ANTHROPOLOGY   (Germany)

^c UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

^d ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Analogy; Experimental archaeology; Experimental inference; Inference validity; Stone artifacts

Indexed keywords

EID: 85028974247     PISSN: 10725369     EISSN: 15737764     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10816-017-9351-1     Document Type: Article

References (168)

1. Abdi, H., Edelman, B., Valentin, D., & Dowling, W. J. (2009). Experimental design and analysis for psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press
2. Ahler, S. A. (1989a). Mass analysis of flake debris: studying the forest rather than the tree. Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association, 1(1), 85–118
3. Ahler, S. A. (1989b). Experimental knapping with KRF and midcontinent cherts: overview and applications. In D. S. Amick & R. P. Mauldin (Eds.), Experiments in lithic technology (pp. 67–99). Oxford: Archaeopress
4. Amick, D. S., & Mauldin, R. P. (1989). Comments on Sullivan and Rozen’s “Debitage Analysis and Archaeological Inerpretation”. American Antiquity, 54(1), 166–168
5. Amick, D. S., Mauldin, R. P., & Tomka, S. A. (1988). An evaluation of debitage produced by experimental bifacial core reduction of a Georgetown chert nodule. Lithic Technology, 17(1), 26–36
6. Amick, D. S., Mauldin, R. P., & Binford, L. R. (1989). The potential of experiments in lithic technology. In D. S. Amick & R. P. Mauldin (Eds.), Experiments in lithic technology (pp. 1–14). Oxford: Archaeopress
7. Andrefsky, W. (2005). Lithics: macroscopic approaches to analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
8. Ascher, R. (1961a). Analogy in archaeological interpretation. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology, 17(4), 317–325
9. Ascher, R. (1961b). Experimental archeology. American Anthropologist, 63(4), 793–816
10. Bailey, G. (1983). Concepts of time in quaternary prehistory. Annual Review of Anthropology, 12, 165–192
11. Barham, L. S. (1987). The bipolar technique in southern Africa: a replication experiment. The South African Archaeological Bulletin, 42(145), 45–50
12. Bartovics, A. F. (1974). The experiment in archaeology: a comparison of two case studies. Journal of Field Archaeology, 1(1–2), 197–205
13. Bar-Yosef, O., & Dibble, H. L. (1995). Preface. In H. L. Dibble & O. Bar-Yosef (Eds.), The definition and interpretation of Levallois technology (pp. ix–xiii). Madison: Prehistory Press
14. Bar-Yosef, O., & Van Peer, P. (2009). The chaîne opératoire approach in middle Paleolithic archaeology. Current Anthropology, 50(1), 103–131
15. Bettinger, R. L. (1987). Archaeological approaches to hunter-gatherers. Annual Review of Anthropology, 16, 121–142
16. Binford, L. R. (1962). Archaeology as anthropology. American Antiquity, 28(2), 217–225
17. Binford, L. R. (1967). Smudge pits and hide smoking: the use of analogy in archaeological reasoning. American Antiquity, 32(1), 1–12
18. Binford, L. R. (1977). General introduction. In L. R. Binford (Ed.), For theory building in archaeology (pp. 1–10). New York: Academic Press
19. Binford, L. R. (1981). Bones: ancient men and modem myths. New York: Academic Press
20. Binford, L. R. (1987). Researching ambiguity: frames of reference and site structure. In S. Kent (Ed.), Method and theory for activity area research: an ethnoarchaeological approach (pp. 449–512). New York: Columbia University Press
21. Bleed, P. (1996). Risk and cost in Japanese microcore technology. Lithic Technology, 21(2), 95–107
22. Bleed, P. (2001). Trees or chains, links or branches: conceptual alternatives for consideration of stone tool production and other sequential activities. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 8(1), 101–127
23. Boëda, É. (1986). Approche technologique du concept Levallois et evaluation de son Champ d’Application: Étude de trois gisements Saaliens et Weichseliens de la France Septentionale. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Université de Paris IX
24. Boëda, É. (1988). Le concept laminaire: Rupture et filiation avec le concept Levallois. In J. K. Kozlowski (Ed.), L’homme de Neandertal: Actes du colloque international de Liege (Vol. 8, La Mutation, pp. 41–59). Liege: Universite de Liege
25. Boëda, É. (1993). Le débitage discoide et le débitage Levalllois recurrent centripète. Préhistorique Française, 90(6), 392–404
26. Boëda, É. (1994). Le concept Levallois: Variabilité des methodés. Paris: CNRS
27. Boëda, É. (1995). Levallois: a volumetric construction, methods, a technique. In H. L. Dibble & O. Bar-Yosef (Eds.), The definition and interpretation of Levallois technology (pp. 41–68). New York: Academic Press
28. Boëda, É., Geneste, J. ­. M., & Meignen, L. (1990). Identification de chaîne opératoire lithiques du Paléolithique ancien et moyen. Paléo, 2, 43–80
29. Bonnichsen, R. (1977). Models for deriving cultural information from stone tools. Ottawa: National Museums of Canada
30. Bradbury, A. P. (1998). Multiple methods for the examination of lithic artifacts from an early archaic assemblage. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology, 23(2), 263–288
31. Bradbury, A. P., & Carr, P. J. (1995). Flake typologies and alternative approaches: an experimental assessment. Lithic Technology, 20(2), 100–116
32. Bradbury, A. P., & Carr, P. J. (1999). Examining stage and continuum models of flake debris analysis: an experimental approach. Journal of Archaeological Science, 26(1), 105–116
33. Bradbury, A. P., & Carr, P. J. (2004). Combining aggregate and individual methods of flake debris analysis: aggregate trend analysis. North American Archaeologist, 25(1), 65–90
34. Bradbury, A. P., & Franklin, J. D. (2000). Raw material variability, package size, and mass analysis. Lithic Technology, 25(1), 42–58
35. Braun, D. R., Tactikos, J. C., Ferraro, J. V., Arnow, S. L., & Harris, J. W. K. (2008). Oldowan reduction sequences: methodological considerations. Journal of Archaeological Science, 35(8), 2153–2163
36. Brunswik, E. (1956). Perception and the representative design of psychological experiments. Berkeley: University of California Press
37. Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Chicago: Rand McNally
38. Carr, P., & Bradbury, A. (2000). Contemporary lithic analysis and southeastern archaeology. Southeastern Archaeology, 19(2), 120–134
39. Carr, P., & Bradbury, A. (2001). Flake debris analysis, levels of production and the organization of technology. In W. Andrefsky Jr. (Ed.), Lithic debitage: context, form, meaning (pp. 126–146). Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press
40. Carr, P., & Bradbury, A. (2004). Exploring mass analysis, screens, and attributes. In C. T. Hall & M. L. Larson (Eds.), Aggregate analyses in chipped stone (pp. 21–44). Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press
41. Carr, P., & Bradbury, A. (2010). Flake debris and flintknapping experimentation. In J. R. Ferguson (Ed.), Designing experimental research in archaeology (pp. 71–92). Boulder: University Press of Colorado
42. Clark, G. A. (1989). Romancing the stones: biases, style and lithics at La Riera. Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association, 1(1), 27–50
43. Clarke, D. L. (1968). Analytical archaeology. London: Methuen & Co. Ltd
44. Clarkson, C., & Hiscock, P. (2011). Estimating original flake mass from 3D scans of platform area. Journal of Archaeological Science, 38(5), 1062–1068
45. Clarkson, C., Haslam, M., & Harris, C. (2015). When to retouch, haft, or discard? Modeling optimal use/maintenance schedules in lithic tool use. In N. Goodale & W. Andrefsky Jr. (Eds.), Lithic technological systems and evolutionary theory (pp. 117–138). New York: Cambridge University Press
46. Cole, J. (1973). Archaeology by experiment. London: Hutchinson
47. Cole, J. (1979). Experimental archaeology. London: Academic Press
48. Comis, L. (2010). Experimental archaeology: methodology and new perspectives in archaeological open air museums. Journal for (Re)construction and Experiment in Archaeology, 7, 9–12
49. Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: design and analysis issues for field settings. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company
50. Cotterell, B., & Kamminga, J. (1987). The formation of flakes. American Antiquity, 52(4), 675–708
51. Cotterell, B., Kamminga, J., & Dickson, F. P. (1985). The essential mechanics of conchoidal flaking. International Journal of Fracture, 29(4), 205–221
52. Crabtree, D. E., & Davis, E. L. (1968). Experimental manufacture of wooden implements with tools of flaked stone. Science, 159(159), 426–428
53. Delagnes, A., & Meignen, L. (2006). Systems during the middle Paleolithic in France: are there any chronological trends? In E. Hovers & S. L. Kuhn (Eds.), Transitions before the transition: evolution and stability in the middle Paleolithic and middle stone age (pp. 85–107). New York: Springer
54. Dibble, H. L. (1984). Interpreting typological variation of middle Paleolithic scrapers: function, style, or sequence of reduction. Journal of Field Archaeology, 11(4), 431–436
55. Dibble, H. L. (1987). The interpretation of middle Paleolithic scraper morphology. American Antiquity, 52(1), 109–117
56. Dibble, H. L. (1995a). Biache Saint-Vaast, level IIA: a comparison of analytical approaches. In H. L. Dibble & O. Bar-Yosef (Eds.), The definition and interpretation of Levallois technology (pp. 93–116). Madison: Prehistory Press
57. Dibble, H. L. (1995b). Middle Paleolithic scraper reduction: background, clarification, and review of the evidence to date. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 2(4), 299–368
58. Dibble, H. L. (1997). Platform variability and flake morphology: a comparison of experimental and archaeological data and implications for interpreting prehistoric lithic technological strategies. Lithic Technology, 22(2), 150–170
59. Dibble, H. L., & Pelcin, A. (1995). The effect of hammer mass and velocity of flake mass. Journal of Archaeological Science, 22(3), 429–439
60. Dibble, H. L., & Rezek, Z. (2009). Introducing a new experimental design for controlled studies of flake formation: results for exterior platform angle, platform depth, angle of blow, velocity, and force. Journal of Archaeological Science, 36(9), 1945–1954
61. Dibble, H. L., & Whittaker, J. C. (1981). New experimental evidence on the relation between percussion flaking and flake variation. Journal of Archaeological Science, 8(3), 283–296
62. Dibble, H. L., Holdaway, S. J., Lin, S. C., Braun, D. R., Douglass, M. J., Iovita, R., McPherron, S. P., Olszewski, D. I., & Sandgathe D. (2017). Major fallacies surrounding stone artifacts and assemblages. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 24(3), 813–851
63. Dogandžić, T., Braun, D. R., & McPherron, S. P. (2015). Edge length and surface area of a blank: experimental assessment of measures, size predictions and utility. PloS One, 10(9), e0133984
64. Domínguez-Rodrigo, M. (2008). Conceptual premises in experimental design and their bearing on the use of analogy: an example from experiments on cut marks. World Archaeology, 40(1), 67–82
65. Douglass, M. J., Lin, S.C., & Braun, D. R. (2017). Core use-life distributions in lithic assemblages as a means for reconstructing behavioral patterns. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 1–35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10816-017-9334-2
66. Dunnell, R. C. (1971). Systematics in prehistory. New York: The Free Press
67. Dunnell, R. C. (1992). The notion site. In J. Rossignol & L. Wandsnider (Eds.), Space, time, and archaeological landscapes (pp. 21–41). New York: Springer
68. Eren, M. I., & Lycett, S. J. (2012). Why Levallois? A morphometric comparison of experimental “preferential” Levallois flakes versus debitage flakes. PloS One, 7(1), e29273
69. Eren, M. I., Lycett, S. J., Roos, C. I., & Sampson, C. G. (2011). Toolstone constraints on knapping skill: Levallois reduction with two different raw materials. Journal of Archaeological Science, 38(10), 2731–2739
70. Eren, M. I., Lycett, S. J., Patten, R. J., Buchanan, B., Pargeter, J., & O'Brian, M. (2016). Test, model, and method validation: the role of experimental stone artifact replication in hypothesis-driven archaeology. Ethnoarchaeology, 8(2), 103–136
71. Evens, J. (1872). The ancient stone implements, weapons, and ornaments of Great Britain. London: Longmans, Green, Reader, & Dyer
72. Faraway, J. J. (2006). Extending the linear model with R: generalized linear, mixed effects and nonparametric regression models. Boca Raton: Taylor & Francis Group
73. Faulkner, A. (1972). Mechanical principles of flint working. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Washington State University
74. Fischer, A., Hansen, P. V., & Rasmussen, P. (1984). Macro and micro wear traces on lithic projectile points. Journal of Danish Archaeology, 3(1), 19–46
75. Flenniken, J. J. (1978). Reevaluation of the Lindenmeier Folsom: a replication experiment in lithic technology. American Antiquity, 43(3), 473–480
76. Flenniken, J. J. (1984). The past, present, and future of flintknapping: an anthropological perspective. Annual Review of Anthropology, 13, 187–203
77. Flenniken, J. J. (1987). The Paleolithic Dyuktai pressure blade technique of Siberia. Arctic Anthropology, 24(2), 117–132
78. Flenniken, J. J., & Raymond, A. W. (1986). Morphological projectile point typology: replication experimentation and technological analysis. American Antiquity, 51(3), 603–614
79. Frison, G. C., & Raymond, A. (1980). Folsom tools and technology at the Hanson site. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press
80. Fritz, J. M., & Plog, F. T. (1970). The nature of archaeological explanation. American Antiquity, 35(4), 405–412
81. Geneste, J.-M. (1985). Analyse lithique d’industries Mousteriennes du Perigord: Une approache technologique du comportement des groupes humaines au Paleolithique Moyen. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Universite de Bordeaux
82. Geribàs, N., Mosquera, M., & Vergès, J. M. (2010). What novice knappers have to learn to become expert stone toolmakers. Journal of Archaeological Science, 37(11), 2857–2870
83. Gifford-Gonzalez, D. (1989). Modem analogues: developing an interpretive framework. In R. Bonnichsen & M. Sorg (Eds.), Bone modification (pp. 43–52). Orono: Center for the Study of the First Americans, University of Maine
84. Gifford-Gonzalez, D. (1991). Bones are not enough: analogues, knowledge, and interpretive strategies in zooarchaeology. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 10(3), 215–254
85. Gould, S. J. (1965). Is uniformitarianism necessary? American Journal of Science, 236(3), 223–228
86. Hawkes, C. (1954). Archaeological theory and method: some suggestions from the Old World. American Anthropologist, 56(2), 155–168
87. Hayden, B. (Ed.). (1979). Lithic use-wear analysis. New York: Academic Press
88. Hempel, C. G. (1965). Aspects of scientific explanation, and other essays in the philosophy of science. New York: The Free Press
89. Henry, D. O., Haynes, C. V., & Bradley, B. A. (1976). Quantitative variations in flaked stone debitage. Plains Anthropologist, 21(71), 57–61
90. Holdaway, S. J., & Douglass, M. J. (2012). A twenty-first century archaeology of stone artifacts. Journal of Archaeological Methog and Theory, 19(1), 101–131
91. Holdaway, S. J., & Wandsnider, L. (2006). Temporal scales and archaeological landscapes from the eastern desert of Australia and Intermontane North America. In G. Lock & B. L. Molyneaux (Eds.), Confronting scale in archaeology: issues of theory and practice (pp. 183–201). New York: Springer
92. Holdaway, S. J., & Wandsnider, L. (Eds.). (2008). Time in archaeology: time perspectivism revisited. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press
93. Holmes, W. H. (1894). Natural history of flaked stone implements. In C. S. Wake (Ed.), Memoirs of the international congress of anthropology (pp. 120–139). Chicago: Schulte Publishing Company
94. Ingersoll, D., & MacDonald, W. (1977). Introduction. In D. Ingersoll, J. E. Yellen, & W. MacDonald (Eds.), Experimental archaeology (pp. xi–xvii). New York: Columbia University Press
95. Johnson, L. L. (1978). A history of flint-knapping experimentation, 1838-1976. Current Anthropology, 19(2), 337–372
96. Kamminga, J. (1980). A functional investigation of Australian microliths. The Artefact, 5, 1–18
97. Keeley, L. H. (1974). Technique and methodology in microwear studies: a critical review. World Archaeology, 5(3), 323–336
98. Key, A. J. M. (2016). Integrating mechanical and orgonomic research within functional and morphological analyses of lithic cutting technology: key principles and future experimental directions. Ethnoarchaeology, 8(1), 69–89
99. Key, A. J. M., & Lycett, S. J. (2011). Technology based evolution? A biometric test of the effects of handsize versus tool form on efficiency in an experimental cutting task. Journal of Archaeological Science, 38(7), 1663–1670
100. Key, A. J. M., & Lycett, S. J. (2014). Are bigger flakes always better? An experimental assessment of flake size variation on cutting efficiency and loading. Journal of Archaeological Science, 41, 140–146
101. Key, A. J. M., & Lycett, S. J. (2015). Edge angle as a variably influential factor in flake cutting efficiency: an experimental investigation of its relationship with tool size and loading. Archaeometry, 57(5), 911–927
102. Kirk, R. E. (2009). Experimental design. In R. E. Millsap & A. Maydeu-Olivares (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of quantitative methods in psychology (pp. 23–45). Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications
103. Kirk, R. E. (2012). Experimental design: procedures for the behavioral sciences (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications
104. Kobayashi, H. (1975). The experimental study of bipolar flakes. In E. H. Swanson (Ed.), Lithic technology: making and using stone tools (pp. 115–128). The Hague: Mouton Publishers
105. Kosso, P. (2011). A summary of scientific method. New York: Springer
106. Kuhn, S. L. (2004). Middle Paleolithic assemblage formation at Riparo Mochi. In A. L. Johnson (Ed.), Processual archaeology: exploring analytical strategies, frames of reference, and culture process (pp. 31–60). Westport: Praeger
107. Lerner, H. (2013). Experiments and their application to lithic archaeology: an experimental essay. In S. Chrisomalis & A. Costopoulos (Eds.), Human expeditions: inspired by Bruce Trigger (pp. 73–89). Toronto: University of Toronto Press
108. Lin, S. C., Rezek, Z., Braun, D. R., & Dibble, H. L. (2013). On the utility and economization of unretouched flakes: the effects of exterior platform angle and platform depth. American Antiquity, 78(4), 724–745
109. Lin, S. C., Pop, C. M., Dibble, H. L., Archer, W., Desta, D., Weiss, M., & McPherron, S. P. (2016). A core reduction experiment finds no effect of original stone size and reduction intensity on flake debris size distribution. American Antiquity, 81(3), 562–575
110. Lycett, S. J., & Chauhan, P. (2010a). Analytical approaches to Palaeolithic technologies: an introduction. In S. J. Lycett & P. Chauhan (Eds.), New perspectives on old stones (pp. 1–22). New York: Springer
111. Lycett, S. J., & Chauhan, P. (2010b). New perspectives on old stones. New York: Springer
112. Lycett, S. J., & Eren, M. I. (2013). Levallois lessons: the challenge of integrating mathematical models, quantitative experiments and the archaeological record. World Archaeology, 45(4), 519–538
113. Magnani, M., Rezek, Z., Lin, S. C., Chen, A., & Dibble, H. L. (2014). Flake variation in relation to the application of force. Journal of Archaeological Science, 46, 37–49
114. Magne, M. (1985). Lithics and livelihood: stone tool technologies of central and southern interior B. C. Ottawa: Archaeology Survey of Canada Mercury Series No. 133
115. Magne, M. (2001). Debitage analysis as a scientific tool for archaeological knowledge. In W. Andrefsky Jr. (Ed.), Lithic debitage: context, form, meaning (pp. 21–31). Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press
116. Magne, M., & Pokotylo, D. (1981). A pilot study in bifacial lithic reduction sequences. Lithic Technology, 10(2/3), 34–47
117. Marsh, E. J., & Ferguson, J. R. (2010). Inroduction. In J. R. Ferguson (Ed.), Designing experimental research in archaeology (pp. 1–12). Boulder: The University Press of Colorado
118. Mathieu, J. R. (2002). Introduction. In J. R. Mathieu (Ed.), Experimental archaeology, replicating past objects, behaviours and processes (pp. 1–12). Oxford: Archaeopress
119. McPherron, S. P. (1999). Ovate and pointed handaxe assemblages: two points make a line. Prihistoire Europienne, 14, 9–32
120. McPherron, S. P., Braun, D. R., Dogandžić, T., Archer, W., Desta, D., & Lin, S. C. (2014). An experimental assessment of the influences on edge damage to lithic artifacts: a consideration of edge angle, substrate grain size, raw material properties, and exposed face. Journal of Archaeological Science, 49, 70–82
121. Meignen, L., Delagnes, A., & Bourguignon, L. (2009). Patterns of lithic material procurement and transformation during the middle Paleolithic in Western Europe. In B. Adams & B. S. Blades (Eds.), Lithic materials and Paleolithic societies (pp. 15–24). New York: Wiley Blackwell
122. Morrow, J. (1997). End scraper morphology and use-life: an approach for studying Paleoindian lithic technology and mobility. Lithic Technology, 22(1), 70–85
123. Mourre, V., Villa, P., & Henshilwood, C. S. (2010). Early use of pressure flaking on lithic artifacts at Blombos cave, South Africa. Science, 330(6004), 659–662
124. Muller, A., & Clarkson, C. (2016). Identifying major transitions in the evolution of lithic cutting edge production rates. PloS One, 11(12), e0167244
125. Newcomer, M. H. (1971). Some quantitative experiments in handaxe manufacture. World Archaeology, 3(1), 85–94
126. Newcomer, M. H. (1975). “Punch technique” and Upper Paleolithic blades. In E. H. Swanson (Ed.), Lithic technology: making and using stone tools (pp. 97–104). The Hague: Mouton Publishers
127. Niiniluoto, I. (1999). Defending abduction. Philosophy of Science, 66, S436–S451
128. Nonaka, T., Bril, B., & Rein, R. (2010). How do stone knappers predict and control the outcome of flaking? Implications for understanding early stone tool technology. Journal of Human Evolution, 59(2), 155–167
129. Odell, G. H. (1975). Micro-wear in perspective: a sympathetic response to Lawrence H. Keeley. World Archaeology, 7(2), 226–240
130. Odell, G. H. (1981). The mechanics of use-breakage of stone tools: some testable hypotheses. Journal of Field Archaeology, 8(2), 197–209
131. Odell, G. H., & Odell-Vereecken, F. (1980). Verifying the reliability of lithic use-wear assessments by ‘blind tests’: the low-power approach. Journal of Field Archaeology, 7(1), 87–120
132. Outram, A. K. (2008). Introduction to experimental archaeology. World Archaeology, 40(1), 1–6
133. Pelcin, A. W. (1997a). The effect of core surface morphology on flake attributes: evidence from a controlled experiment. Journal of Archaeological Science, 24(8), 749–756
134. Pelcin, A. W. (1997b). The formation of flakes: the role of platform thickness and exterior platform angle in the production of flake initiations and terminations. Journal of Archaeological Science, 24(12), 1107–1113
135. Pigeot, N. (1990). Technical and social actors: flint knapping specialist at Magdalenian Etiolles. Archaeological Review from Cambridge, 9(1), 126–141
136. Plog, F. T. (1974). The study of prehistoric change. New York: Academic Press
137. Presnyakova, D., Archer, W., Braun, D. R., & Flear, W. (2015). Documenting differences between early stone age flake production systems: an experimental model and archaeological verification. PloS One, 10(6), e0130732
138. Raab, L. M., & Goodyear, A. C. (1984). Middle-range theory in archaeology: a critical review of origins and applications. American Antiquity, 49(2), 255–268
139. Rezek, Z., Lin, S., Iovita, R., & Dibble, H. L. (2011). The relative effects of core surface morphology on flake shape and other attributes. Journal of Archaeological Science, 38(6), 1346–1359
140. Rezek, Z., Lin, S. C., & Dibble, H. L. (2016). The role of controlled experiments in understanding variation in flake production. In D. I. Olszewski & A. P. Sullivan (Eds.), Assemblage formation and archaeological interpretation in global perspective (pp. 309–322). Boulder: University of Colorado Press
141. Schiffer, M. B. (1975). Archaeology as behavioral science. American Anthropologist, 77(4), 836–848
142. Schiffer, M. B. (1998). The structure of archaeological theory. American Antiquity, 53(3), 461–485
143. Scimelmitz, R., Barkai, R., & Gopher, A. (2011). Systematic blade production at late Lower Paleolithic (400–200 kyr) Qesem Cave, Israel. Journal of Human Evolution, 61(4), 458–479
144. Sellet, F. (1993). Chaîne opératoire: the concept and its applications. Lithic Technology, 18(1–2), 106–112
145. Sheets, P. D., & Muto, G. R. (1972). Pressure blades and total cutting edge: an experiment in lithic technology. Science, 175(4022), 632–634
146. Shott, M. J. (1989). On tool-class use lives and the formation of archaeological assemblages. American Antiquity, 54(1), 9–30
147. Shott, M. J. (1996). Stage versus continuum in the debris assemblage from production of a fluted biface. Lithic Technology, 21(1), 6–22
148. Shott, M. J. (2017). Stage and continuum approaches in prehistoruc biface production: a north American perspective. PloS One, 12(3), e0170947
149. Shott, M. J., & Sillitoe, P. (2005). Use life and curation in New Guinea experimental used flakes. Journal of Archaeological Science, 32(5), 653–663
150. Sollberger, J. B. (1985). A technique for Folsom fluting. Lithic Technology, 14(1), 41–50
151. Sollberger, J. B., & Patterson, L. W. (1976). Prismatic blade replication. American Antiquity, 41(4), 517–531
152. Speth, J. D. (1972). The mechanical basis of percussion flaking. American Antiquity, 37(1), 34–60
153. Speth, J. D. (1974). Experimental investigations of hard-hammer percussion flaking. Tebiwa, 17(1), 7–36
154. Stern, N. (1994). The implications of time-averaging for reconstructing the land-use patterns of early tool-using hominids. Journal of Human Evolution, 27(1–3), 89–105
155. Stiles, D. (1977). Ethnoarchaeology: a discussion of methods and applications. Man, New Series, 12(1), 87–103
156. Stout, D., Toth, N., Schick, K., Stout, J., & Hutchins, G. (2000). Stone tool-making and brain activation: position emission tomography (PET) studies. Journal of Archaeological Science, 27(12), 1215–1223
157. Stout, D., Apel, J., Commander, J., & Roberts, M. (2014). Late Acheulean technology and cognition at Boxgrove, UK. Journal of Archaeological Science, 41, 578–590
158. Turq, A., Roebroeks, W., Bourguignon, L., & Faivre, J.-P. (2013). The fragmented character of middle Palaeolithic stone tool technology. Journal of Human Evolution, 65(5), 641–655
159. Walker, P. L. (1978). Butchering and stone tool function. American Antiquity, 43(4), 710–715
160. Wandsnider, L. (2004). Solving Meno’s puzzle, defeating Merlin's subterfuge: bodies of reference knowledge and archaeological inference. In A. L. Johnson (Ed.), Processual archaeology: exploring analytical strategies, frames of reference, and culture process (pp. 275–305). Westport: Praeger
161. Watson, P. J., LeBlanc, S. A., & Redman, C. L. (1971). Explanation in archaeology: an explicitly scientific approach. New York: Columbia University Press
162. Whittaker, J. C. (1994). Flintknapping: making and understanding stone tools. Austin: University of Texas Press
163. Wilkins, J., Schoville, B. J., Brown, K. S., & Chazan, M. (2012). Evidence for early hafted hunting technology. Science, 338(6109), 942–946
164. Williams, J. P., & Andrefsky, W. (2011). Debitage variability among multiple flint knappers. Journal of Archaeological Science, 38(4), 865–872
165. Williams, E. M., Gordon, A. D., & Richmond, B. G. (2012). Hand pressure distribution during Oldowan stone tool production. Journal of Human Evolution, 62(4), 520–532
166. Wylie, A. (1985). The reaction against analogy. Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, 8, 63–111
167. Wylie, A. (1988). ‘Simple’ analogy and the role of relevance assumptions: implications of archaeological practice. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 2(2), 134–150
168. Wylie, A. (1989). Archaeological cables and tacking: the implications of practice for Berstein’s ‘Options beyond objectivism and relativism’. Philosophy of Social Science, 19, 1–18