Arctic Whaling. Proceedings of the International Symposium: Arctic Whaling, Febuary 1983, edited by H.K. S'Jacob, K. Snoejing and R. Vaughan

Tixier) who were also of the opinion that they were produced with pressure, although none of them were able to reproduce similar ones. The reconstruction is certainly hypothetical, but so are most reconstructions of flint knapping techniques. “Although previous work by the author and others had demonstrated that it was not possible to distinguish intentional from accidental breaks or break method on microblades, Owen again attempts this task for the Umingmak microblades and is unsuccessful.” This is not true. At the time of this analysis (1981), the literature suggested that intentional and accidental breaks could be distinguished (see page 30). As part of the analysis of the Umingmakmicroblades I carried out a series of experiments on breaks. The results showed that it was not possible to distinguish intentional from accidental breaks or break methods. As these experiments were published in detail elsewhere, they were only summarized in this book, but they were a part of the Umingmak analysis .and not previous work. “One problem is that the actual differences are very small, ranging from 0.25mm to 1.25mm.” Note: the differences actually range from 0.25 to 1.5 mm. Microblades from Arctic Small Tool tradition sites, with the exception of some Independence I collections are extremely small. Differences in the size of samples are therefore also very small. Cultural comparisons have nonetheless been based on similarly small differences. I, however, do not suggest that these differences are due to cultural differences. The smallness of the variations is one of my reasons for arguing that the effects of excavation technique on size are of importance. These differences were larger within the IAI area than those between areas (ranging between 0.35 and 4.9 mm). “In addition, the variation in length, which differs the most, is not significant according to the median test, while variation in thickness, which differs the least, is significant.” In testing the significance of variations in measurements between samples, it is not the absolute difference that is important but the relation of the difference to the total range of measurements and their distribution. I suggest that a statistics book be consulted. “Ridge blades, which are thicker and more numerous than “normal” microblades. . . .” Ridge blades are not more numerous than “normal” microblades, but make up only 11.2% of the total Umingmak sample (see pages 19, 96). They do, however, make up a higher percentage of the microblades from IAl. This may partially account for the differences in thickness between the excavation areas of IA1, ID and IA2 as I have stated in the text. It does not, however, play a role within IAI. “If IA2 (1975) and ID (1973) are included, then the decrease in size do s not correspond to year of excavation.” The excavations in ID (1973) were carried out in a manner similar to that of IAI 1975. Comparisons of excavation technique were limited to IA1 to rule out the influence of other factors. In addition, no information was available on the number of cubic meters excavated per day per person from these excavation areas. “In fact, according to chapter 2, excavation technique does not differ as much as recording technique and it is difficult to understand how this type of variation affects the size of artefacts recovered.”The largest size variation is between the artefacts discovered during the TAYLOWMCGHEE survey and those of the later Tiibingen excavations, not within the Tubingen excavations. Unfortunately TAYLOR and MCGHEE did not publish a detailed description of the excavation techniques used in their survey. During their two week survey of the whole Shoron Lake area they did, however, sink 13 large test pits alone at Umingmak (see page 2). MCGHEE has recently told me that he alone sunk the test pits at Umingmak within a few days using a shovel. It is not difficult to understand how artefacts recovered during this quick survey differed in size from those of later excavations. The purpose of a survey is also different from that of an excavation. Excavation technique within the Tubingen excavations did not vary as drastically, but the number of cubic meters of sediment excavated per person per day in IAI was five times higher in 1970 than in 1975 (see pages 34-35 and my comments in paragraph 3 above). “A study to examine usewear under higher magnification (500X ) is planned; inclusion of these results would have been a valuable addition to this investigation.” A usewear analysis of the microblades at higher magnifications was already in progress at the time of publication. Preliminary results were not included in the publication because of problems with post-depositional surface modification on the Umingmak microblades and a growing scepticism of the method. To investigate these matters, I organized and chaired a conference on Technical Aspects of Microwear Analyses with G . Unrath in Tiibingen in February 1985. The papers presented at this Conference (published as Technical Aspects of Microwear Studies on Stone Tools, Linda R. Owen and Giinther Unrath (eds.). Tubingen, 1986) suggest that use-wear studies at higher magnifications are not as reliable as previously assumed. In a multi-analyst blind test of use-wear traces on experimental tools actionhotion was correctly reconstructed in only 55% of all cases (48% specifically and 7% to the group level) and worked material determined 48% of the time (26% specifically, 24% to group level) (“An Evaluation of Microwear Studies: A Multi-Analyst Approach” by Unrath, Owen, van Gijn, Moss, Plisson and Vaughanl. Other articles discuss how chemicals in sediments and post-depositional movement can change and destroy use-wear polishes. I therefore doubt whether at this time a use-wear analysis at higher magnifications would be a valuable addition to the data presented. “No evidence is presented to suggest that other archaeologists have excavated older sites more carefully or with a diffemt technique than more recent sites. Even if the excavation or recording method is responsible for differences in microblade size noted at Umingmak, this conclusion cannot be generalized to he entire Arctic without substantial nvestigation.” As stated on page 5 5 , it was not possible to discuss the excavation techniques used at other Arctic sites as they are generally not included in site reports. Nowhere do I mean to suggest that excavation technique is responsible for all size differences in Arctic microblade samples. Only that comparisons of size attributes should only be made between similarly excavated samples. Further research has been carried out since the completion of the Umingmak manuscript in 1981. On the basis of the analysis I received a two and a half year scholarship from the Volkswagenwerk Foundation to investigate microblade and blade technology and use in the North American Arctic and the Upper Paleolithic of Europe for my doctoral dissertation. The results will be published this year (see also WorldArchaeology 17(1) 1985). In the course of this analysis, I had the opportunity to analyze Arctic collections and to talk to Arctic archaeologists in Ottawa, Edmonton, Fairbanks, Anchorage, Washington D.C. and Copenhagen. 10,000 microblades and blades from over 65 sites were analyzed. In addition, refitting, work on use-wear analysis and experimentation were carried out..Unfortunately this time-consuming work was not possible within the Umingmak analysis. This research has supported the belief that artefact size is easily affected by non-cultural factors of which excavation technique is only one. On the basis of this later research, I also feel that one of the most important findings of the Umingmak analysis was the method of platform edge preparation used in the production of the Umingmak Pre-Dorset microblades. I am always interested in exchanging ideas on microblade and blade technology or on Arctic prehistory in general.