fulltext - Simple search

Bradford Andrews
tain, therefore, that this method is more appropriate for quantifying errors
present in the San Martin surface collection.
Three variables are examined in this analysis (Tab. 1): 1) the percentage
of hinged proximal sections per total number of proximal sections, 2) the
percentage of distal sections with overshot terminations per total number of
distal sections, and 3) the number of hinge scars per core artifact.
The data
Variable 1 Hinged Proximals/ Total Number of Proximals
Variable 2 Overshot distals/Total Number of Distals
Variable 3 Number of Scars/Core Artifact
Table 1. Variables used in the study.
While both blades and bifaces were made at San Martin, my analysis is con
chuca obsidian artifacts to assess the skill of the San Martin craftsmen be
assemblages (Andrews 2002; Spence 1981). In contrast, I use only the gray
Ucareo and Zacualtipan obsidian artifacts to assess skill of the Operation H
blade material (Hirth 2002:83). I have chosen to do this because evidence
suggests that fracture mechanics vary according to raw material; hence, my
at each workshop. Theoretically, it should provide a measure of their highest
levels of respective skill.
Focusing on these data, the errors from the San Martin and Operation
hinged proximals per total number of proximal sections. There are hinge
terminations on 1.9 percent of the San Martin proximal sections and 2.0
percent of the Operation H proximal sections (Tab. 2). Variable 2, the per
centage of overshot terminations per total number of distal sections, there
are overshot terminations on 9.2 percent of the San Martin distal sections,
and 7.3 percent of the Operation H distal sections.
270