Introduction to Part II

By Donald O. Henry

Each of these papers by Henry, Ahler, andJohnson presents a method for tracing a reductionsequence within a specific stone tool technology.In the main, these three papers are probably themost technical of those appearing in the volume.Each contains a substantial amount of detailedinformation on how one operationalizes orimplements a specific program of analysis. Andthis practical "how to" tone of the papersapparently caught the interest of the participants asreflected in the "nuts and bolts" discussions thatfollowed their presentations. Readers who areinterested in these issues are referred to Chapter 10for a summary of these discussions.

This set of papers approaches the issue oftracing a reduction stream from (1) a combinationof qualitative and metrical analyses - Henry, (2) amass aggregate analysis Ahler, (3) a qualitativeanalysis focused on biface stages Johnson.

The papers by Henry and Johnson areconcerned mainly with examining how differencesin settlement and in access to raw materials mayhave influenced reduction strategies. Although thespecific techniques employed in tracing thesestrategies differ, the studies share a commonorientation in linking varying lengths of reductionstreams with different degrees of prehistoricmobility. In many ways, the two papers nicely

complement one another as they approach acommon problem in a generally similar fashionusing quite different data-sets. Henry's paperexamines Late Pleistocene assemblages, basedupon a prepared blade core technology, that aredistributed near and distant from in situ flintsources in Jordan. Johnson's study deals with LateHolocene assemblages, based upon a bifacialtechnology, that are distributed near and distantfrom gravel sources in Mississippi. Both studiesidentify the curation of tools and/or blanks and thegreater reduction of raw materials as economizingstrategies employed in those prehistoricsettlements distant from raw material sources.

Ahler s paper centers on describing aprocedure of analysis that identifies specificpatterns of reduction by the distribution of flakesacross size grades (expressed by both count andweight). This approach, termed mass or aggregateanalysis, should be particularly useful forresearchers confronted with extremely large data-sets. Ahler shows how the procedure was appliedand its results interpreted in the analysis ofassemblages from several Plains Village andPlains Woodland sites. Using mass analysis hewas able to identify intra-site and inter-site activitydifferences.