[Nfb-science] another thing about visual information

[cheryl fogle]

I also have a more concrete sense of how my tactile examination of artifacts
differs from visual examination, and so I can now answer a frequent
criticism of my data collection. All stone tools are created by removing
rock until the tool reaches the desired shape. The last flakes to be removed
from a finished artifact leave impressions (flake scars) behind. In some
cases these waste flakes are small enough to pass through window mesh, and
so the impressions are visible and not necessarily tactile. Other waste
flakes are larger depending on whether the flintknapper used a large
hammerstone or a small deer  antler tine, and how much force was applied. I
have been told that I cannot get an accurate count tactually. I know now
that my tactile count of flake scars is 75% accurate, and that when these
tiny scars were visible to my assistant, the visual count was consistently 1
to 3 more than my own count. So now I have a check on future assistants if
they are coming up with lower counts than I am. And I also know the kinds of
shapes an artifact would have when it has the tiny flake scars as compared
to artifacts with shapes where I can expect larger flake scars that are
readily distinguishable by touch. I'm still not sure if my recent experience
will eliminate that criticism because of the attitudes behind it, but at
least I have a better understanding of my abilities now.

 

Unfortunately, I suspect more of us have had similar experiences although
the particular situations differ among scientific disciplines.

 

Cheryl Fogle

Ph.D. Candidate, Department of Anthropology, University of New Mexico

-------------- next part --------------
<!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman";} a:link, span.MsoHyperlink {color:blue; text-decoration:underline;} a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:purple; text-decoration:underline;} span.EmailStyle17 {mso-style-type:personal; font-family:Arial; color:windowtext;} span.EmailStyle18 {mso-style-type:personal-reply; font-family:Arial; color:navy;} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} -->
I also have a more concrete sense of how my tactile examination of artifacts differs from visual examination, and so I can now answer a frequent criticism of my data collection. All stone tools are created by removing rock until the tool reaches the desired shape. The last flakes to be removed from a finished artifact leave impressions (flake scars) behind. In some cases these waste flakes are small enough to pass through window mesh, and so the impressions are visible and not necessarily tactile. Other waste flakes are larger depending on whether the flintknapper used a large hammerstone or a small deer  antler tine, and how much force was applied. I have been told that I cannot get an accurate count tactually. I know now that my tactile count of flake scars is 75% accurate, and that when these tiny scars were visible to my assistant, the visual count was consistently 1 to 3 more than my own count. So now I have a check on future assistants if they are coming up with lower counts than I am. And I also know the kinds of shapes an artifact would have when it has the tiny flake scars as compared to artifacts with shapes where I can expect larger flake scars that are readily distinguishable by touch. I&#8217;m still not sure if my recent experience will eliminate that criticism because of the attitudes behind it, but at least I have a better understanding of my abilities now.
 
Unfortunately, I suspect more of us have had similar experiences although the particular situations differ among scientific disciplines.
 
Cheryl Fogle
Ph.D. Candidate, Department of Anthropology, University of New Mexico