Contemporary Lithic Analysis in the Southeast: Problems, Solutions, and Interpretations

Contemporary lithic analysis in the southeast: problems, solutions, and interpretations, edited by Phillip J. Carr, Andrew P. Bradbury and Sarah E. Price, Tuscaloosa, University of Alabama Press, 2012,253 pp., 47 ill., $36.30 (paperback), ISBN-13: 9780817356996Contemporary Lithic Analysis in the Southeast is a collection of lithic case studies meant to address key questions regarding the organization of prehistoric lithic technologies throughout the region. Resulting from a symposium at the 2009 Southeastern Archaeological Conference, the intention of this volume is to discuss the problems afflicting southeastern archaeology due to a lack of adequate lithic analytical techniques and likely solutions to these problems. Although the target audience of this book is southeastern archaeologists, the techniques outlined within this volume can aid archaeologists everywhere.The editors begin with a brief history of lithic analysis in the Southeast, noting their frustrations with traditional methods of recovery and analysis. This dissatisfaction is an overarching theme in the following chapters. The editors explain how various aspects of bias and the organization of technology are unexpected themes in many of the chapters. Several contributors also demonstrate the value of middlerange theory through experimental replication in order to strengthen their arguments.The first set of chapters covers collection and analysis biases. Sarah E. Price's chapter demonstrates the importance of using small-mesh screens for collecting smaller artifacts, especially during Phase III excavations. D. Shane Miller and Ashley M. Smallwood's chapter is on identifying the evidence for discrete stages in the production of Clovis bifaces. They utilize a flaking index to compare the average number of flake scars to the length of the bifacial edge, which indicates the stage of production of a biface. Douglas Sain and Albert C. Goodyear III tackle the problem of distinguishing blades from blade-like flakes in artifact assemblages. They show that they can compute quantified results for more consistent blade definitions useful for comparative purposes by using a blade-score method which identifies and assigns scores to six attributes of blades. In the last chapter on bias, Charlotte D. Pevny addresses the problem of distinguishing taphonomic processes from tool use. Pevny emphasizes that the identification of post-depositional processes in conjunction with use-wear analysis is key to understanding tool use.The second set of chapters covers the organization of technology. Andrew P. Bradbury and Phillip J. Carr argue that the identification of blade and bipolar technologies is difficult due to a lack of definitions and methods of identification. Their study suggests blade technology did not continue throughout the Paleoindian and Archaic, although bipolar knapping methods were relied upon throughout prehistory. Paul T. Thacker, Joel Hardison, and Carolyn Conklin investigate changes in technological organization and raw material use during the Middle Archaic in the Uhwarrie Mountains of North Carolina. …