Fig 1.
Platform variables considered in this study.
Table 1.
Sample size and summary statistics on experimental assemblage.
Fig 2.
Screen shot from the program used to digitize artifacts.
It takes artifact photos, extracts the scale, artifact outline, takes various measurements of length, width and calculates the edge length and surface area (without the platform).
Fig 3.
Different measurement methods most often used by lithic analysts.
a) Long axis method—Length is recorded from the point of percussion to the farthest distal end of the blank. Width is measured at the midpoint of the length axis and perpendicular to it [92]. b) Box method: Length is the maximum distance from the point of percussion to the distal end, following the axis of percussion (perpendicular to the striking platform width). Width is taken perpendicular to the length, at the mid-point of the length. c) Axial method–Length is a distance represented by the straight line from the point of percussion to the distal end, following the axis of percussion. Width is taken at the midpoint of the length, perpendicular to it. d) Longest measure method for edge length: Maximal length is taken as maximum distance across the flake and not tied to the point of percussion. Length is axial length and width is not the maximum perpendicular to the length as suggested by [32], but same as Box width.
Table 2.
Summary statistics of errors in edge length and surface error estimations with different measurement systems.
Fig 4.
Average errors of edge length (a) and surface area (b) by different measurement methods.
Fig 5.
Plots of observed vs. predicted values of weight and surface area resulting from multiple regression.
Table 3.
Summary statistics of ratio of observed to predicted weight and surface area for flint and hornfels.
Fig 6.
3d plots of multiple regression results with platform thickness and EPA as predictors of different size variables.