How reliable are traditional methods of assessing handaxes

This project analysed variability in the recording of handaxe metrics, cortex/natural surface, rolling, patination and staining, by masters students and PhD candidates of Palaeolithic archaeology, compared to students of similar academic seniority from other branches of archaeology. Outlying recordings were found not to be related to specialist subject, academic seniority, experience or confidence, but rather that some individuals have a natural propensity to make outlying estimates. Overall, although the measurement of length, breadth and thickness with hand-held callipers was reasonably accurate/precise, the estimation of L1, cortex, rolling and patination/staining was highly variable. Recommendations are made for projects recruiting students to measure lithics, for candidates setting out on a PhD involving the recording of lithics and for organisations who might consider establishing reference collections to enable researchers to standardise the assessments they need to make on handaxes. Full reference: Bingham, P. & McNabb, J. 2013. How reliable are traditional methods of assessing handaxes? Lithics: the Journal of the Lithic Studies Society 34: 5–13. Keywords: Palaeolithic archaeology, biface industry, recording lithics, recruiting students, reference collection