{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01611721611721612, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0014652014652014652, 'mean_word_length': 5.796019900497512, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Using tiny artifacts to answer big questions: Machine learning, microdebitage, and household spaces at Tamarindito

The spatial analysis of microdebitage (measuring less than 6.3 mm) can identify areas where stone tools were knapped at archaeological sites. These tiny artifacts tend to become embedded in the locations where they were first deposited and are less vulnerable to post-depositional movement, making microdebitage an important artifact class for identifying primary areas of stone tool production. Traditional microdebitage analysis, however, can take multiple hours spread over several days to complete. Because of this, microdebitage analysis is typically completed in very small areas of sites due to the intensive time and labor commitment required. Recently, however, my colleagues and I have developed a novel, interdisciplinary method that combines dynamic image analysis and machine learning to analyze microdebitage taken from soil samples at archaeological sites. Analyses of experimental microdebitage demonstrated that microdebitage could be accurately and efficiently identified within archaeological soil samples using this method. In the present study, we apply these methods to soil samples taken from the Maya Capital of Tamarindito in Guatemala to verify whether these methods remain accurate when applied to archaeological contexts.