Yerkes and Kardulias 1993 Lithic Analysis PDF

Journal of Archaeological Research, Vol. 1, No.
2, 1993
Recent Developments in the Analysis of Lithic

Artifacts
R i c h a r d W. Y e r k e s I and P. N i c k K a r d u l i a s 2
A review of recent research on lithic technology and functional analysis is

presented. Our perception of the state of the art is based on a rev&w of the
literature published during the past three years and on the topics that were
covered at conferences and workshops on lithic analysis. While the goals have
essentially remained the same since the turn of the century, concerns with
chronology and the classification of lithic artifacts have given way to studies
that treat stone implements as products of a dynamic system of human
behavior. In order to understand stone artifacts and the people that made and
used them, archaeologists must understand the processes involved in the
acquisition, production, exchange, and consumption of lithic artifacts. In the
past ten years, experimental studies involving the manufacturing and use of
stone tools have been integrated with studies of refitted or conjoined lithic
artifacts and microwear analysis. The result is a much more dynamic view of
the variability in assemblages of lithic artifacts. In this review, we focus on
replication and technological analysis of chipped stone artifacts and microwear
analysis, and consider the implications of this research.
KEY WORDS: lithic technology; lithic artifacts; replication experiments; microwear analysis;
Old World; New World.
INTRODUCTION
A century ago, W. H. Holmes (1894) described lithic analysis as the

study of "the natural history of chipped stone." He noted that lithic analysts
w e r e concerned with the following: (1) determining if lithic "artifacts" w e r e
made by humans; (2) reconstructing the p r o c e s s e s involved in acquiring
1Department of Anthropology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 43210-1364.

2Department of Anthropology and Sociology, Kenyon College, Gambier, Ohio 43022-9623.
89
lO59-o161/93/o6oo-oo895o7.oo/o © 1993 PlenumPublishingCorporation
90 Yerkes and Kardulias
lithic raw material, shaping stone tools, and using them; (3) outlining the
evolution of the form and function of groups or "generations" of stone
tools through time; and (4) treating stone tools as historic records that can
be used to address questions of time, questions of culture, and questions
about the history of peoples.
The goals of lithic analysis have not really changed since Holmes'
day. Chipped stone artifacts can be viewed as "visiting cards" (Isaac, 1981)
that can be used to identify ancient cultural groups and to recognize when
these groups were present and where they lived. In addition, lithic artifacts
can be used to isolate the activities associated with different groups at mul-
ticomponent sites. Archaeologists continue to use chipped stone artifacts
as cultural markers, but the concerns with chronology and classification in
the "natural history" approach to lithic artifact analysis have given way to
behavioral studies with greater emphasis on the "questions of culture" that
can be addressed through the study of chipped stone (Henry and Odell,
1989, p. ix). Glynn Isaac (1984, pp. 42-45) noted that during the 1950s
and 1960s lithic analysts were still concerned with the creation of clearly
defined types of stone artifacts. To help classify lithic artifacts, precise
measurements were made of their formal attributes such as length, width,
thickness, platform length, edge angles, etc. The types were then used to
define lithic industries, which were associated with specific ancient cultures.
It was assumed that the behavior of ancient people could be distilled from
the comparative study of quantitative data on their stone tools. Stages of
development (time-bounded sets of behavior), regional variants (cultural-
geographic entities), and activity facies would emerge from this quantitative
analysis, and these data would provide the basis for understanding techno-
logical development, adaptation, ecology, and culture history.
However, these standardized quantitative analyses produced numbers
rather than understanding, and since the 1960s, much more attention has
been placed on the field context of lithic artifacts and on the mechanics
of stone tool production and use (Gamble, 1987; Henry and Odell, 1989;
Isaac, 1984; Torrence, 1986). Contextual studies have contributed to our
understanding of ancient activities and adaptive strategies, and it is now
common to think of artifacts as products of a dynamic system of behavior.
In order to understand stone artifacts and the people that made and used
them, archaeologists must understand the processes involved in the acqui-
sition, production, exchange, and consumption of lithic artifacts.
To achieve this, experimental studies that involved the manufacturing
and use of stone tools were undertaken (Clark, 1982; Collins, 1975; Flen-
niken and White, 1985; Sheets, 1975; Toth, 1982), and these replication
experiments were integrated with studies of refitted or conjoined lithic ar-
tifacts, and microwear analysis (Cahen et al., 1979; Gijn, 1990; Toth and
Analysis of Lithic Artifacts 91
Schick, 1986; Yerkes, 1987). The result was a much more dynamic view of
the variability in assemblages of lithic artifacts.
Variability in Lithic Artifact Assemblages
The patterned variability in stone tools that archaeologists observe and

interpret has been attributed to technological, stylistic, functional, and ran-
dom processes, but only the first three of these have cultural significance
(Binford and Binford, 1966; Phagan, 1976; Speth, 1972; Wilmsen, 1970). Sty-
listic variability refers to culturally imposed ideas about how a stone imple-
ment should "properly be," while functional variability results from the
actual or intended use of the artifacts. Technological variability results from
the application of distinct manufacturing techniques during the production
of lithic artifacts (Phagan, 1976). Archaeologists often treat these types of
variability as the results of discrete processes, but Carl Phagan (1976) noted
that stylistic expression and functional utility are achieved through techno-
logical activity. Phagan (1976, p. 2) suggests that archaeologists should not
be asking what variability is stylistic, functional, or technological, but should
ask what technological variability has stylistic or functional significance?
In our reviews, we consider recent research and publications on vari-
ous aspects of lithic technology, stone tool form (or style), and functional
analysis. These three aspects of stone artifacts are interrelated but are
treated as separate topics for discussion. Our current perception of the
state of the art in the lithic artifact analysis is based on a review of the
literature published during the past 3 years and on the topics that were
covered at international conferences and workshops on lithic analysis. We
have also considered the topics addressed in symposia and general sessions
presented at national and regional archaeological conferences (see Appen-
dix for a list of these conferences).
Rather than present an encyclopedic summary of the research on lithic
artifact analysis that is currently being conducted, we have decided to focus
on two related topics and to discuss the implications of these two types of
experimental research (cf. Watson, 1986). The topics are "Replication and
Technological Analysis of Chipped Stone Artifacts" and "Microwear Analysis."
REPLICATION AND TECHNOLOGICAL ANALYSIS

OF LITHIC ARTIFACTS
This approach is poorly understood, and is often associated with at-

tempts to rediscover the techniques used to manufacture distinctive stone
tools such as Folsom projectile points (Thomas, 1989, pp. 190-195). However,
there have been broader applications of replicative technological analysis in
a variety of behavioral studies (Clark, 1986; Flenniken, 1981; Flenniken and
White, 1985; Knutsson, 1988a, b; Niquette et al., 1991; Pecora, 1990; Santley
et al., 1986), and it was the focus of a recent workshop and conference or-
ganized by Kenneth Hirth where the benefits and limitations of the approach
in regional archaeological research were discussed (see Appendix). Replica-
tive technological analysis was assailed as outdated, normative, and irrelevant
by Thomas (1986, pp. 247-251) in his "idiosyncratic" review of hunter-gath-
erer studies, and critics of the approach have argued that such studies only
demonstrate how stone tools could have been made and used, not how they
actually were produced and utilized (Gijn, 1990, p. 24, Yerkes, 1983, p. 500).
Thomas (1986, 1989) compared lithic artifact replication studies to
Thor Heyerdahl's adventures on Kon Tiki and claimed that since that voy-
age to Easter Island did not "demonstrate the reality" of the past, lithic
analysts cannot claim to have rediscovered forgotten techniques of lithic
production and utilization even if they can make and use modern replicas
of ancient stone implements. Thomas' glib dismissal of replication experi-
ments fails to recognize the basic difference between Heyerdahl's voyage
and the work of the "anthropological" flintknappers that he disparages,
namely, that experimental control is maintained by comparing the modern
replicas (and the debitage that was produced during their production) with
ancient tools and artifacts. Heyerdahl produced no physical evidence that
vessels like Kon Tiki were constructed in ancient South America for voyages
to the eastern Pacific Islands. He lacked the experimental control that mod-
ern flintknappers can find in the archaeological record.
Replication experiments are not the whimsical chasing of rainbows
that Thomas would have us believe but, rather, are a valid method for
studying the dynamics of lithic production systems. In the absence of eth-
nohistoric and ethnographic data on forgotten methods of stone tool manu-
facturing, replication experiments may provide us with the only available
means to reconstruct ancient lithic reduction sequences and to compare
the "expected" outcomes of these sequences with the "observed" variation
in the archaeological record (Clark, 1986, p. 48). John Clark (1986) noted
that the basic assumptions and requirements of replication experiments are
quite straightforward: If a modern flintknapper reduces a piece of lithic
raw material that is similar in composition, size, and shape to ancient ma-
terial, and if the knapping tools and the basic flintknapping techniques that
are employed are comparable to those employed by the ancient artisans,
then the tools and debitage produced during the experiment should be true
replicas of ancient artifacts produced with the same reduction sequence.
Even if replication experiments cannot totally duplicate archaeological as-
semblages, these studies provide useful information on ancient lithic re-

duction sequences, the activities involved in each stage of manufacturing,
and the distinctive debitage produced during each stage of the reduction
sequence. The replication experiments produce a "baseline" of lithic arti-
fact variability that can be compared to archaeological assemblages and
used to interpret past behavior (Santley et al., 1986, p. 103).
The principal advocates of this approach have been Jeffrey Flenniken
and the late Don Crabtree (see Plew et al., 1985). They outlined their tech-
nological approach and instructed several generations of lithic analysts at
the Flintknapping Field School that has been held in northwestern North
America since the 1960s (originally sponsored by Idaho State University,
later by Washington State University and Lithic Analysts, Inc.). In their
technological approach, it is recognized the flintknapping techniques are
culturally learned behaviors. They are highly variable through time and
space, since specific lithic reduction processes are affected by different vari-
ables in response to different cultural needs. These variables include (but
are not limited to) the degree of settlement mobility, subsistence practices,
levels of flintknapping skill, raw material quality and availability, types of
knapping tools that were employed, and degree of specialization in lithic
production (Collins, 1975; Flenniken, 1984; Pecora, 1990). Since the turn
of the century, lithic analysts have recognized that "each people develops
peculiarities in shaping devices and each region furnishes varieties of
shaped results" (Holmes, 1894, p. 126). More recently, Collins (1975, p.
17) noted that "any particular culture may be expected to manufacture its
chipped stone objects using only a very limited set of the possible combi-
nations of techniques and options" (see also Pecora, 1990, p. 73). Crabtree
(1972) and Flenniken (1981, 1984, 1985) also observed that lithic reduction
techniques (or technologies) could be reconstructed from the byproducts
of stone tool production (e.g., lithic debitage and debris).
As noted above, when replication experiments are conducted using the
archaeological data as an experimental control, virtually identical by-products
will be produced (Flenniken, 1984, 1985; Pecora, 1990). This provides a
means to identify and differentiate between prehistoric groups by recognizing
not only their chipped stone tools (or "type fossils") but also the characteristic
debitage and debris produced by their distinctive method of manufacturing
stone implements. Different occupation zones at multicomponent sites can
be isolated by analyzing the lithic debitage, and "lithic scatters" encountered
during archaeological surveys can be differentiated and tied into settlement
systems (Flenniken, 1984, 1985; Niquett et al., 1991; Pecora, 1990).
Another primary goal of replication experiments is to develop a sys-
tem of lithic reduction that employs the same reduction techniques and
lithic raw material as its prehistoric counterpart. By doing this, the analyst
has a means for relating the experimental data to the prehistoric assem-
blage that is being studied. This allows the analyst to gain greater insights
into the ancient behavior that took place at archaeological sites (such as
the different ways that local and exotic raw materials were used to produce
tools) and to relate this behavior to larger questions about the nature of
the interaction between residents of different sites that are parts of ancient
settlement systems. The emphasis in the approach advocated by Flenniken
and his colleagues is to examine lithic artifact assemblages from a techno-
logical perspective rather than from a perspective where arbitrary attributes
are employed in the classification and interpretation of stone tools. A tech-
nological approach, grounded in experimental replication, can help the
lithic analyst identify the culturally meaningful attributes of stone tools.
Hence, replication technological analysis seeks to discover the "natural or-
der" in artifact variability (cf. Spaulding, 1977).
Procedure
The procedure that Flenniken (1981) outlines for replication and

technological analysis includes (1) selecting the appropriate lithic raw ma-
terial, (2) thermal pretreatment of the raw material (if necessary), (3) re-
duction of the raw material to formed tools, (4) halting of tools (if
appropriate), (5) use of the tools in relevant tasks, (6) rejuvenation or
resharpening of worn or broken tools, (7) further use of the resharpened
or recycled tools, and (8) final discard of the "exhausted" tools. In the
course of this analysis, reduction subsystems can be defined (Fig. 1), and
debitage that is diagnostic of each subsystem (or reduction "stage") can be
identified (Fig. 2, Table I). The result is a classification system for lithic
artifacts (tools, debitage, and debris) that is based on technological attrib-
utes. Comparison between the patterns of variation in the debitage and
tools produced during the replication experiments and archaeological as-
semblages will lead to a clearer understanding of the ancient lithic tech-
nologies. This will also allow the researcher to investigate variability in the
archaeological record from an "emic" perspective.
Flenniken (and his colleagues) have used this procedure in the study
of lithic assemblages from western North America and Australia. In a re-
cent review article, he has reviewed some of this work and the work of
other lithic analysts who have employed replication procedures in lithic ar-
tifact studies (Flenniken 1984). Albert Pecora III adopted Flenniken's pro-
cedure in studies of variability in lithic reduction technologies at Archaic
and Woodland settlements in the Kanawha Valley, West Virginia. Pecora
recognized different reduction strategies in lithic assemblages from features
PRIMARY R E D U C T I O N SUBSYSTEM
Transportand/or
Secondary Reduction
Flake Blanks
debitage debitage
Ra~ Material
SECONDARY REDUCTION SUBSYSTEM
Use
Blank ~ Preform ~ Point
debitage debitage
TERTIARY REDUCTION SUBSYSTEM
~--Breakage---~~--debitage+& Breakage+
Point Broken Point Reworked Point Discarded Point

Fig. 1. Reduction subsystems. Primary reduction: the first stages of preparing lithic raw ma-
terial for further modification. Includes selection of raw material and core preparation. Sec-
ondary reduction: the production of formed tools from blanks and preforms. Tertiary
reduction: activities associated with the rejuvenation and resharpening of formed tools. After
definitions prepared by Jeffrey Flenniken for the Flintknapping Field School.
Primary Decortication Flakes Secondary Decortication Flakes Interior Flakes
Alternate Flake Early Bifacial Thinning Flakes Late Bifacial Thinning l-lake>,
Edge Preparation Flake Margin Removal Flakes Early Late

Pressure Flakes
Fig. 2. Examples of technological debitage categories. See Table I for descriptions.
dated to the Early Archaic and Late Archaic periods at the Glasgow site
(46KA229) and in initial Late Woodland and terminal Late Woodland fea-
tures at the Parkline site (46PU99).
At the Glasgow site, Pecora analyzed 34 tools and 1780 flakes from
the Late Archaic (Brewerton, 4000-1000 B.C.) zone and 42 tools and 4459
flakes from the Early Archaic (Stanly, 6500-6200 B.C.) zone. He found that
in both zones, the manufacture, use, and discard of projectile points were
the main activities, but some unifacial tools were also produced and utilized
(Fig. 3). Pecora noted that while similar bifacial reduction systems were em-
ployed by the Brewerton and Stanly period occupants of the site, the Brew-
Table I. Some Technological Debitage Categories a

Flake Type Definition
Primary decortication flake Produced during the initial removal of cortex. These
flakes have cortex over their entire dorsal surface.
Secondary decortication flake Produced during final stages of cortex removal.
Cortex is present on part of their dorsal surface.
Interior flake Flakes removed from the interior of the core or
cobble. There is no cortex on their surface.
Early-stage bifacial thinning flake Produced by percussion during the primary reduction
of a biface (as a result of making the biface
symmetrical). They have few dorsal surface scars,
are slightly curved or twisted in longitudinal
section, have single-faceted or multifaceted
platforms, and are usually the largest thinning
flakes produced during biface manufacture.
Late-stage bifacial thinning flake Produced by percussion during the final stages of
"roughing out" a biface. They have numerous scars
on their dorsal surface, are almost flat in
longitudinal section, usually exhibit a feathered
termination, and have multifaceted platforms.
Alternate flake Produced as a result of the creation of a bifacial
edge from a square edge on a piece of stone. They
are much wider than they are long and are
triangular in cross section.
Edge preparation flake Removed from the edge of a flake blank in order to
prepare the blank for further reduction. The dorsal
surface of the flake blank serves as the platform
for these flakes.
Margin removal flake Half-moon-shaped fragments of bifacial edge
produced when the biface is struck too hard and
too far from the margin.
Early-stage pressure flake The first series of pressure flakes removed when
bifaces are being "finished." These small flakes
have multiple scars on their dorsal surfaces and are
twisted in longitudinal section, and their platforms
form an oblique angle with the long axis of the flake.
Late-stage pressure flake Produced during the final episode of pressure flaking
on a tool. They are small, parallel-sided and slightly
twisted in longitudinal section and have multifaceted,
abraded platforms and a single dorsal arris.
aAfter categories developed by Jeffrey Flenniken at the Flintknapping Field School. See also
Pecora (1990, pp. 74-76).
erton knappers chose a fine-grained, vitreous variety of the local Kanawha

Black Flink (KBF) to produce their tools, while the Stanly people were less
discriminating in their selection of raw ma.terial (nearly two-thirds of the
chert sample from the Stanly zone consisted of dull, coarse-grained, brittle
varieties of KBF). He also found that the Brewerton people manufactured
narrow, lanceolate bifacial preforms, while the Stanly knappers produced
wider, triangular blanks (Fig. 3). The differences in the size and shapes of
98 Yerkes a n d K a r d u l i a s
X3
U
IJ
.C =
I¸ ~
T
E tz o
=~
mO_m
J
.~
J f T ~
tJ
~o ~_ ~o~
the bifaces from each zone are reflected in the finished projectile points
associated with each zone (e.g., the narrow points that belong to the Brew-
erton cluster and the large triangular-bladed Stanly points), but Pecora also
recognized differences in the late percussion bifacial thinning flakes (Fig. 2,
Table I) found in each zone. The thinning flakes that were removed during
the manufacture of the Brewerton preforms were smaller, narrower, and
curved in cross section, while the thinning flakes found with the Stanly
blanks were larger, were flat in section, and exhibited broad, feathered, distal
terminations (Niquette et aL, 1991, p. 41). In addition, Pecora noted that
the Stanly zone contained prepared cores, flake blanks, and unifacial tools
that represent a reduction sequence designed to produce steep-edged end-
scrapers and thumb-nail scrapers (microwear analysis indicated that these
implements were used to process fresh and dry hide), while the production
of unifacial tools by the Brewerton knappers was more limited.
At the Parkline site, Pecora (1990) was able to reconstruct the re-
duction system associated with the early Late Woodland (Childers Phase,
A.D. 300) and terminal Late Woodland (Parkline Phase, A.D. 750-900)
occupations. He found that in the terminal Late Woodland component, a
different system of bifacial reduction was employed when local KBF was
employed to manufacture tools and in the production of points made of
exotic cherts. A more complete bifacial reduction system is represented in
the KBF artifact samples, while the exotic lithic material came to the
Parkline site in the form of bifacial blanks that were turned into "finished"
tools. In the early Late Woodland component, knapping activities were usu-
ally limited to flake core reduction. The different reduction systems pro-
duced diverse types of debitage, and Pecora (1990) was able to match the
technological patterns in the artifacts found in features at the Parkline site
that could not be dated with patterns observed in the lithic artifacts from
features belonging to one of-the two dated components.
In these studies replication and technological analysis provided de-
tailed insights into the mechanics of stone production and use (for similar
approaches see Clark, 1986; Cotterell and Kamminga, 1990; Dillehay, 1990;
Sheets, 1975; Toth, 1982, 1987) and, also, aided in the interpretation of
the function and occupational history of ancient sites. When the replication
technique is combined with use-wear studies and refitting, detailed inter-
pretations of site activities are possible. With replication, experimentation,
and technological and functional analysis of chipped stone artifacts, archae-
ologists have the means to achieve one of archaeology's basic goals: "re-
constructing past lifeways."
100 Yerkes and KarduUas
MICROWEAR ANALYSIS
Ever since the antiquarians described stone tools as "thunderbolts,"

scholars have pondered the meaning and function of lithic artifacts. Over
the past two decades microwear analysis (also known as use wear analysis
or traceology) has emerged as one of the principal methods of interpreting
the functions of stone tools. Microwear analysis can be used to connect
the static archaeological record with the dynamic cultural context in which
people operated in the past, and consequently it can play a key role in the
construction of middle-range theory (Binford, 1983). We also view mi-
crowear analysis as a method that can help archaeologists attain some of
the goals set forth in the proccessual agenda, namely, understanding the
dynamics of human behavior and studying the processes of culture change.
Examination of wear traces on lithic artifacts forces the analyst to base
interpretations of tool use on the evidence found on the implements them-
selves, precluding unwarranted, overly generalized statements about artifact
function that either are based on formal attributes of tools or are overdrawn
analogies between stone tools and similar-looking metal implements. Mi-
crowear traces are distinct enough to permit the analyst to investigate the
range of variation in stone tool function and to refine the definitions of
functional categories of artifacts. In addition, the systematic use of experi-
mental research designs in microwear studies adds methodological rigor and
enhances the claims of archaeology as science (Binford, 1983).
For this review, we present a brief history of microwear analysis, dis-
cuss some of the current methodological issues, evaluate the contribution
of microwear studies to major anthropological and archaeological ques-
tions, and offer some suggestions for future research.
History
It has been known for some time that distinctive wear traces form
on stone tools when they are used for specific tasks. A century ago, Spurrell
(1892) discussed the "corn gloss" that forms on sickle blades, and Rau
(1869) described the polish that is found on the bits of some "hoes." Later,
Crawford (1935) examined the distinctive sheen that forms on threshing
sledge flints. Early efforts such as these were more macroscopic than mi-
croscopic in nature. Wear traces were observed with a hand lense or the
unaided eye (Juel Jensen, 1988). However, in the 1930s, Sergei A. Semenov
initiated a program of experimental use wear investigations that involved
the microscopic examination of chipped stone and ground stone tools under
low magnification (typically between 20x and 40x). Semenov's exhaustive
experimental program was designed to build a comparative collection of

utilized tools and to recreate ancient Paleolithic and Neolithic technologies
(lithic artifacts, bone implements, and other nonmetal tools were included
in the experiments). The English translation of Semenov's Prehistoric Tech-
nology in 1964 stimulated interest in mierowear studies in the West (Phil-
lips, 1988). Over the next decade, Semenov's method (which relies on the
location and intensity of striations and edge damage on stone tools to infer
their function) won some Western adherents (Tringham et al., 1974), but
a number of researchers found it difficult to recreate the wear traces that
the Russian scholar described (cf. Seltzer Olausson, 1980).
In the 1970s Lawrence H. Keeley (1973) evaluated Semenov's method,
found it deficient in some respects, and developed a new technique based
on various scales of observation, from inspection by eye to optical micros-
copy (including observation under incident light at magnifications between
50× and 500×), with occasional use of the scanning electron microscope
(SEM). This technique has come to be known as the high-power approach
(Juel Jensen, 1988; Olausson, 1990). With Keeley's technique, the function
of a tool is inferred from the characteristic patterns of edge scarring and
rounding, striations, and micropolish that are observed on the working edges
under the microscope. The wear traces on archaeological specimens are
compared to the wear patterns on experimental tools that were used for
specific tasks until the best match between the ancient and the modern im-
plement is found. Keeley was the first to note that microwear polishes dis-
play morphological and textual variation that is characteristics of the
particular worked material (Juel Jensen, 1988; Keeley, 1980), but a large
number of independent researchers have verified his observations and elabo-
rated on his descriptions of wear traces (for some examples of this high-
power microwear research, see Beyries, 1988, 1992; Gijn, 1990; Grfislund et
al., 1990; Juel Jensen, 1988; Olausson, 1990; Sieveking and Newcomer, 1987;
Vaughan, 1985). Over the past 20 years, microwear analysis has emerged
as an important component of lithic studies (Renfrew and Bahn, 1991, pp.
282-283) and has been used in studies of tool assemblages dating from the
Basal Paleolithic to the Bronze Age in the Old World and from the Paleo-
Indian to the Postclassic period in the New World.
Methodological Issues
An ongoing debate in microwear studies has been over the relative

merits of the low-power and high-power techniques. The low-power method
was pioneered by Semenov and practiced by his students in what was the
USSR (in the West, George Odell has been the main practitioner of the
low-power approach). An external light source is used to illuminate the

specimens which are viewed under a stereomicroscope at magnifications
between 10x and 60x (although Odell has employed magnifications of
100x). Patterns of microscopic edge damage and striations are recorded to
infer the general category of worked material (hard, soft, etc.) and the
method of use, or kinematics (cutting, sawing, boring, etc.).
The high-power technique developed by Keeley employs an incident
light source in a metallurgical microscope. Examination is done at magnifi-
cations between 50x and 500x. At these higher magnifications and under
incident light, a series of micropolishes becomes visible that are specific to
the material that was worked (wood, bone, antler, hide, shell, etc.). The con-
junction of micropolish patterns, striations, and edge damage allows the ana-
lyst to identify the used portion of the tool, reconstruct the manner that the
tool was used, and make a more exact identification of the worked material.
With both approaches it is possible to locate the used edges of a tool and
to identify how the tool was used, but with low-power methods specific
worked materials are difficult to identify [(Odell, 1982, p. 20; Olausson, 1990);
but see the work of Soviet/Russian scholars summarized by Phillips (1988);
these Eastern analysts have argued that their methods of low-power analysis
are quite effective for determining the contact material from microwear
traces]. A substantial body of independent research by European, Asian, and
American microwear analysts has demonstrated that the high-power incident
light technique enhances the examiners' ability to determine the worked ma-
terial from use wear traces (see summaries by Bamforth et al., 1990; Beyries,
1992; Gijn, 1990; Gr~islund et al., 1990; Juel Jensen, 1988; Olausson, 1990;
Owen and Unrath, 1989; Seitzer Olausson, 1980; Vaughan, 1985).
Adherents of each approach have extolled the benefits of their
method and pointed out the problems with the other technique [see Olaus-
son (1990) for a summary and comparison of the low-power and high-power
approaches]. In fact, each approach does have specific advantages and limi-
tations. The low-power approach requires minimal specimen preparation,
so analysis can proceed rapidly and the analyst can examine larger samples.
Stereomicroscopes are relatively inexpensive compared to the metallurgical
incident light microscopes needed for the high-power approach. However,
the results from high-power studies have greater reliability due to the finer
resolution of wear traces that the method allows. The high-power approach
requires careful cleaning of artifacts prior to study. This is done in weak
solutions of KOH and HCI, often in an ultrasonic cleaner (Rodon Boras,
1990). This initial processing time and the need to scan the artifacts at
several different magnifications extend the time needed for high-power mi-
erowear analysis and makes sample selection a critical element in such stud-
ies. Only fine-grained cryptocrystalline lithic materials (e.g., flints, cherts,
and some igneous and metamorphic rocks) can be examined with the high-
power technique. Obsidian and quartz artifacts must be examined under
reflected light or with the SEM (Cotterell and Kamminga, 1990; Hurcombe,
1986; Kazarajan, 1990; Knutsson, 1988a, b; Sussman, 1988).
It should be noted that both methods integrate replication experi-
ments into the research design. Lithic artifacts are compared to experimen-
tal replicas of ancient stone tools that have been used in a specified
manner. Most analysts agree that experimental tools with the greatest com-
parative value are those that have been used for specific tasks, rather than
in simple, timed repetitive actions (e.g., it is better to butcher an animal
than to make 100 cuts in a piece of processed meat). Often the experiments
in stone tool use are extensions of the replication and technological analysis
of lithic assemblages (see above), and the information on tool function that
is gained from microwear analysis provides another dimension to the dy-
namics of a behavioral study of lithic artifacts.
Microwear and Lithic Typology
It has become clear that microwear analysis has helped change our
view of lithic typology, especially as it relates to functional categories of
artifacts such as "utilized flakes." Comparative studies have demonstrated
a considerable discrepancy between assessments of tool function based on
formal attributes and those based on macroscopic edge damage and mi-
croscopic wear traces (Lewenstein, 1991; Yerkes, 1987; Young and Bam-
forth, 1990). Reliance on visible traces of "utilization damage" can lead to
grossly incorrect evaluations of artifact function. There are, however, a
number of individuals (including Roger Grace, Mark Newcomer, and their
students at the Institute of Archaeology in London) who dispute the claims
of microwear analysts, especially the contention that one can discriminate
between different types of microwear polish.
To answer these challenges from the "polish police," a number of mi-
crowear researchers have been involved in "blind tests" (Bamforth et al., 1990;
Gendel and Pirnay, 1982; Keeley and Newcomer, 1977; Odell and Odell-
Vereecken, 1980; Unrath et al., 1986). These blind tests have validated mi-
crowear methods in general, but high-power approaches tend to fare better
than low-power techniques in their ability to correctly identify tool function.
Criticisms of microwear analysis continue to appear, and most of the
concerns center on the micropolishes described and interpreted by high-
power analysts. The critics argue that the polishes are described in a sub-
jective manner, and if the micropolishes are discrete and material specific,
then there should be some way to quantify them or describe them in an
objective fashion. Newcomer and his colleagues (1986, 1988; also see Grace
et al., 1985) argue that the determination of worked material by polish iden-
tification is suspect because the mathematical characterization of different
use wear polishes produces results that overlap. That is, the polishes are
not sufficiently distinctive to be separated by their reflective properties.
Rees and others (1991) failed to find any quantifiable differences in cal-
culated fractal dimensions for micropolishes produced when stone tools
were used to work different materials (fractal dimensions are measures of
surface anomalies and shapes). Unger-Hamilton (1989) suggests that there
are multiple causes of microwear traces and that analysts should move be-
yond the narrow focus on micropolishes and consider edge shape and edge
damage as well. Levi-Sala (1986, 1989) believes that postdepositional proc-
esses can alter microwear traces and obscure any discrete pattern.
Most of these criticisms have been rebutted. Hurcombe (1988) agrees
that problems arise from a lack of explicitness in the terminology used by
microwear analysts. She proposed a detailed recording system for microwear
attributes. Hurcombe also noted a number of methodological misconcep-
tions in Newcomer's criticisms. For example, microwear analysts do not con-
centrate on polishes to the exclusion of other types of wear traces (as
suggested by Newcomer et al., 1986). Bamforth (1988) outlined problems
with the image processing techniques that Newcomer and his colleagues
used to quantify microwear traces. Bamforth also decried the poor design
of the London Institute's blind test. He noted that other tests have shown
that duration of tool use and the granularity and background brightness of
lithic raw material are key variables in the interpretation of microwear
traces. In a later article, Bamforth et al. (1990) reported that recent blind
tests have resulted in 77.2% correct interpretations of stone tool function.
It is interesting to note the rigor to which the methods of microwear
analysis have been subjected to assess the validity of the technique. This
evaluation of the method far exceeds what is required in other types of ar-
chaeological analysis. One rarely reads about faunal analysts, paleoethnobo-
tanists, or palynologists subjecting themselves to "blind tests." However,
while the criticisms of microwear analysis continue, most of the practitioners
continue to use microscopic wear traces (including micropolishes) to inter-
pret the function of stone tools and to seek solutions to the problems as-
sociated with the formation of wear traces (Plisson and van Gijn, 1989).
Polish Formation
The precise mechanism for polish formation has received considerable

attention. In their important studies of "sickle sheen," Anderson (1980) and
Meeks et al. (1982) discuss three basic theories of gloss formation: (1) sickle
gloss forms as a result of abrasion between the edge of the stone tool and
soil particle and/or opal phytoliths from plant stems, (2) gloss is an additive
surface accumulation of siliceous plant material, and (3) the sheen results
from a chemical interaction among the stone tool surface, water, and plant
opal phytoliths. Meeks et al., (1982) argue that sickle gloss results from abra-
sive polishing, not from the accumulation of silica on the surface of the
stone tool. However, Anderson (1980) and Unger-Hamilton (1984) argue
that sickle /s an additive surface accumulation. Patricia Anderson-Gerfaud
has even identified some of the phytoliths embedded in sickle gloss deposits
that formed on the edges of stone tools (Anderson, 1980; Anderson-Ger-
faud, 1988). Some recent evidence suggests that one key process involves
the freeing of silica from both the stone tool and the worked material. The
silica combines with water to form a gel that solidifies as a noncrystalline
coating on the working edge (Bamforth et al., 1990).
Experiments by Fullagar (1991) indicate that amorphous silica derived
from plants and stone implements is an especially important polishing agent
in the later stages of micropolishes (or sheen). Fullagar believes that micro-
polish is a reliable indicator of worked material only in the late stages of
tool use. He argues that in earlier stages of use, other microwear traces may
be more diagnostic of the contact material. Unger-Hamilton (1989) suggests
that postdepositional alterations of the surface of stone tools must also be
taken into account. Researchers should concentrate on multiple factors of
microwear polish formation including tool shape and patterns of retouch on
tool edges, as well as the chemical and physical conditions that create the
"microenvironments" under which different patterns of microwear develop.
The Functional Classification of Stone Tools
A series of recent microwear studies has focused on the function of

specific types of chipped stone tools. At Koobi Fora, Kenya, Toth (1987)
found that the primary tools in the Oldowan Industry were the flakes, not
the choppers or chopping tools. High-power microwear analysis showed
that these Basal Paleolithic flake tools were used for butchering animals,
cutting plants, and working wood (Keeley and Toth, 1981). In North Amer-
ica, Smith and Toth (1990) examined some distinctive unifacial tools from
Paleo-Indian assemblages and found that they had been used to work wood.
Gaertner (1990) conducted a high-power microwear study of a collection
of Early Archaic Dalton adzes from northeast Arkansas and found that
they had been used in heavy woodworking tasks that involved charred
wood. Gaertner's study confirmed Dan Morse's interpretation of the func-
tion of the Dalton adze that he had based on a macroscopic examination

and a low-power microwear analysis (Morse and Goodyear, 1973; Morse
and Morse, 1983). In a high-power microwear analysis of adzes from
Bloompaas Cave, South Africa, Binneman and Deacon (1986) found that
those implements also had been used to work charred wood.
Microwear analysis of the Ripalbianca burin, a common tool in Early
Neolithic assemblages from northern Italy, showed that it served as a wood-
working implement (d'Errico 1987). Conversely, a high-power microwear
study by Vaughan and Bocquet (1987) found that only three of 31 Neolithic
tools from Charavines (Is~re) that had been classified as woodworking tools
(on morphological grounds) were actually used on wood. The rest of the
"woodworking" tools have a peculiar combination of wear traces. The sur-
face of one tool edge exhibits a hide working polish, while the opposite
surface of the same edge has a sheen similar to what is found when soft
plant material is cut. This type of "double polish" has also been found on
large keeled burin spalls (or "Frits") found in a variety of central and north-
ern European Neolithic sites. Sliva and Keeley (1992) attribute the double
polish to scraping procedures designed to clean and soften hides that had
been soaked in plant-based solution or wrapped around a "sponge" of
grasses prior to scraping.
Responding to Shott's (1989) contention that nearly all objects called
stone wedges (pi~ces esquill~e) are actually expedient bipolar cores, LeBlanc
(1992) argues that these "scaled pieces" were used as wedges to split bone
and antler, LeBlanc cites Keeley's microwear analysis (as well as ethno-
graphic analogies and contextual studies) in his argument. It should be
noted that other functions have been proposed for the pidce esquillde. For
example, Runnels (1985) conducted a series of replication experiments (but
no microwear analysis) and concluded that pidces esquill~e found at Bronze
Age sites in the Aegean were used as tinder flints (or strike-a-lights)!
Yerkes found microwear traces on a pidce esquill~e from a Dalton site that
indicated that it had been used for light butchering or meat cutting (Yerkes
and Gaertner, 1993). However, this may be an example of the expedient
use of an exhausted bipolar core (see Morse and Morse, 1983).
Ahler (1971) and Ballo (1990) have used low-power microwear analy-
sis to demonstrate that some Archaic and Woodland "projectile points"
were also used as knives. Using the high-power approach, Fischer et al.
(1984) have described the microwear patterns that formed on experimental
arrow points and compared them to the microwear traces they observed
on Mesolithic points from northern Europe. A high-power microwear study
of Dalton points by Yerkes showed that these distinctive dart points served
as projectiles and meat knives (Yerkes and Gaertner, 1993). The microwear
study supported Dan Morse's hypothesis that Dalton points were hafted
on short foreshafts that could be attached to dart shafts and launched with
the atlatl or used bayonet-style as a butcher knife (Morse and Morse, 1983).
It should be noted that replication studies of projectile point manufacturing
and use have led to the identification of impact and bending fracture pat-
terns that can be used to distinguish broken projectile points from broken
stone knives (Woods, 1988). Finally, recent experiments by Owens and Un-
rath (1989) indicate that traces of prehension can be identified on stone
tools. The amount of pressure applied during use, the duration of use, the
"relief" of the surface of the stone tool, and the amount of dirt and hu-
midity present during use all affect the pattern of prehension "wear" (which
resembles meat or hide use wear traces).
The Contribution of Microwear Studies to Anthropological

and Archaeological Questions
While microwear analysis provides information on the function of spe-

cific types of tools, and these data can be used to reconstruct past lifeways,
the method also provides information that can help assess questions con-
cerning social and economic organization and culture change. It is in this
later interpretative context that microwear studies, in conjunction with rep-
lication analysis and lithic refitting studies, can contribute to processual ar-
chaeology. An example of this type of research is Donahue's (1988)
investigations at Paglicci Cave, Italy. He found that although the morphology
of the stone tools in the Final Epigravettian level (4A) in the cave was simi-
lar to assemblages from many other lowland caves, high-power microwear
analysis demonstrated that there was an emphasis on butchering and hide-
working at Paglicci cave. Faunal analysis supported this interpretation, and
these results allowed Donahue to identify the animal processing stations in
a Final Epigravettian settlement system that was logistically organized.
A low-power microwear study by Shea (1988, 1990) provided evidence
that separate points from Middle Paleolithic sites in the Levant were
hafted. Shea argues that these data support the hypothesis that anatomi-
cally modern humans were present in this region at that time since there
are similarities between Middle Paleolithic and Upper Paleolithic lithic
technology. This technological link between Mousterian and Upper Paleo-
lithic tools implies that there may be a phylogenetic link between Nean-
derthals and early Homo sapiens. However, Holdaway (1989, 1990) disputes
Shea's specific claims for hafted Mousterian spears, and Conard (1990)
challenges the notion that changes in Paleolithic tool assemblages are cor-
related with the physical evolution of Homo sapiens. While there have been
some difficulties in conducting microwear studies of Middle Paleolithic
lithic artifacts since the implements are often made of coarse-grained raw
material (Beyries, 1990), use-wear analysis can contribute to our under-
standing of changes in lithic technology and artifact function during the
period when modern humans emerged.
In his advocacy of the low-power microwear approach, Odell (1987)
argues that the larger sample sizes that are feasible with his technique allow
the use of statistical manipulation of the use-wear data base and the ap-
plication of probability theory in studies of artifact function. This capability
allows microwear analysis to go beyond studies of single sites and to be
used on a regional scale. However, Bamforth (1991) has shown that the
high-power technique can also be employed in regional microwear studies.
Bamforth's examination of lithic assemblages from coastal California re-
vealed that there was significant continuity in tool function over time de-
spite substantial evidence for culture change. He concludes that there are
"conditions under which a single technological strategy may fit comfortably
with a wide range of human adaptation" (Bamforth, 1991, p. 230).
Microwear analysis has also been used to examine the transition from
hunting and gathering to food production. Unger-Hamilton (1985) sug-
gested that soil particles loosened by hoe and plow caused the numerous
microscopic striations that are found on experimental sickle blades that had
been used to reap plants in tilled fields. She noted similar wear traces on
polished sickle blades that have been associated with domesticated cereals
at prehistoric sites in the Old World and suggested that these polished
blades may provide independent evidence of early agriculture. Juel Jensen
(1989) noted that the amount and location of sickle sheen on prehistoric
blades may serve as an index of the intensity of cereal cultivation at ancient
sites. At the site of Petriolo III South in Tuscany, ceramics appear in what
is otherwise a typical Mesolithic (foraging) component (Donahue et al.,
1992). Microwear analysis of the lithic artifacts revealed that they were used
for a variety of tasks, but there was no evidence for cereal harvesting (sick-
les) or other agricultural activities. The investigators argue that the mi-
crowear study supports their interaction model for the transition to food
production. They believe that native Mesolithic foraging populations were
in active contact with farmers well before a "wave" of Neolithic colonists
moved into Italy.
Recently, lithic analysts have turned to the issue of specialization in
the production and use of stone tools and have tried to identify the material
correlates of this economic phenomenon. Michaels (1989) summarized the
indicators of specialization in the archaeological record: Macrocontextual
indicators include evidence for a large population that provided economic
support for the specialists, restricted access to knowledge, technology, and
raw materials, and an elite class that maintained the production system
and trade network. Microcontextual indicators would be workshops (with

the residues of production), storage facilities for craft items, differential
production distribution, and evidence for control over critical resources.
Technological indicators include evidence for production efficiency, produc-
tion standardization, low rates of errors in the manufacturing process,
standard techniques for recovering from errors, and standardized tool kits.
Microwear analysis can contribute to the investigation of craft specialization
by allowing the investigator to distinguish between the standardized pro-
duction of distinctive stone tools that are used for a variety of tasks and
standardized production of tools that are used for some specialized activity.
For example, examination of Hopewell bladelets from domestic and
ritual contexts in central Ohio revealed that while the production of the
bladelets was quite standardized, they were used for a variety of expedient
tasks (Yerkes, 1990; research in progress). In contrast, the Cahokia
Microlithic Industry described by Mason and Perino (1961) and Morse
(1974) was designed to produce a chert microdrill that was used almost
exclusively to manufacture marine shell beads and other shell craft products
(Yerkes, 1983, 1991). It should be noted that evidence for a "specialized"
stone tool does not demonstrate that the tool was used by craft specialists.
It must be shown that the "craft" goods were being produced in quantities
that exceeded the demands of individual households, that the goods were
widely distributed, and that there were workshops or production facilities
where craft activities were performed separate from domestic activities.
There does seem to be macrocontextual, microtextual, and technological
evidence for specialization in lithic manufacturing and shell bead produc-
tion at Cahokia (Yerkes, 1991). However, this may not have been the case
at other Middle Mississippian and Upper Mississippian sites. For example,
in a study of Fort Ancient households at the Sunwatch site in Ohio, Nass
(1989) failed to find any evidence for craft specialization.
Microwear analysis and ethnographic and contextual studies by Hay-
den (1990) suggest that incipient specialization in hide-working had
emerged by the Upper Paleolithic in many regions of the world. There is
also technological and contextual evidence for specialization in lithic pro-
duction during the early Neolithic period in Belgium (Keeley and Cahen,
1989). Craft specialization is often listed as an attribute of complex socie-
ties, and microwear studies have been employed to investigate the devel-
opment of this economic practice in early states. Aldenderfer et al. (1989)
have used the high-power approach to examine three functional contexts
for lithic artifacts found at late Classic sites in the central Peten lakes region
of Guatemala. They were able to identify domestic, extractive, and indus-
trial specialists at work at various locations within the settlement system.
They argue that highly standardized and efficient tools should be used in
the large-scale production of commodities. As a result, formal tools in-

volved in this kind of production should have been intensively used. In a
related study, Lewenstein (1987) employed microwear analysis in tests of
various models of craft specialization in stratified societies. She found a
high degree of homogeneity in patterns of tool production and use in late
Preclassic households at Ceros. She concludes that there were no full-time
lithic craft specialists in the settlement. Lewenstein argues that the elite
based their power on trade in forest resources that were gathered and pre-
pared by farmers who acted as part-time specialists in various crafts. In a
similar vein, Kardulias (1993) completed a high-power microwear analysis
of chipped stone tools from an elite quarter of the Proto-Elamite city of
Malyan, Iran, and found that the majority of the implements were used
for agriculture. This reminds us that agrarian activities predominated in
early state societies.
Suggestions for Future Research
As microwear analysis becomes a basic component of lithic artifact

analysis, and investigations include ground stone as well as chipped stone
artifacts (Adams, 1988), we believe that stone implements from more recent
cultural complexes (including historic sites) will prove to be just as useful
in the study of human behavior as earlier prehistoric tools. Unfortunately,
in archaeological assemblages where ceramics and metal objects make up
the majority of the finds, lithic artifacts are often overlooked. In Mediter-
ranean region, stone tools found in historic levels have been treated as
intrusive prehistoric artifacts. We now know that stone tool production and
use lasted well into the historic period in the New World and that these
implements were an important part of the technology of Bronze Age, Iron
Age, and Classical societies in the Old World. For example, the study of
stone tools from Native American sites dating to the period of contact with
Europeans can be used to test the hypothesis that fur processing became
a specialized activity in Native societies (cf. Kardulias, 1990). Microwear
analysis may also play a role in the study of the production and use of
gunflints at historic sites in the New World (Kenmotsu, 1990).
FINAL THOUGHTS
We have been impressed with the scope and variety of studies involv-
ing lithic artifacts that have appeared over the past 3 to 5 years. In this
review we have focused on replication and experimental research where
archaeologists have tried to learn something a b o u t stone tool production

and use by making copies of the ancient implements and using t h e m in
what they think were appropriate tasks. Some have questioned the validity
of these "actualistic" studies and ask if they presume too much about an-
cient behavior. H o w do we know that stone tools were m a d e that way, or
used that way? These criticisms fail to recognize that these replications are
designed to test hypotheses about tool production and use. T h e results of
the experiments, be they debitage and tools produced in replication and
technological studies or utilized implements from microwear investigations,
are c o m p a r e d with archaeological specimens and the hypotheses are re-
jected or supported depending on the results of the comparison.
T h e scientific method has been employed in lithic analysis since the
time of H o l m e s and Semenov, and we believe that it still serves as the best
means of developing a behavioral archaeology that will provide insights into
the lives of ancient people. The studies described here certainly are a tes-
t a m e n t to the effectiveness of that method.
APPENDIX
Table AI. Recent Conferences on Lithic Analysis

Date Theme Location/organizers Publication
1985 Technical aspects of Universitaet Tuebingen 1986 Early Man News
microwear studies 9/10/11, Archaeological
Venatoria, T/ibingen
1986 Industries lithiques: Trac6- CNRS Valbonne Cedex 1988 BAR International
ologie et technologic S. Beyries, J. Tixier Series 411
1987 The application of University of Tulsa 1989 Archaeological
analytical techniques to D. Henry, G. Odell Papers of the
archaeological lithic data American
sets Anthropological
Association, Number 1
1989 The interpretative Uppsala University 1990 AUN 14, Societas
possibilities of K. Knutsson, J. Taffinder Archaeologica
microwear studies Upsaliensis, Uppsala,
Sweden
1990 Experimental and use-wear Trasology Laboratory, Institute was held in
analysis of stone tools Leningrad Branch, Kishinev, Moldavia;
Institute of Archaeology University of Illinois
SSSR was joint sponsor with
LOIA AN SSSR
1990 Les gestes retrouv6s: Universit6 de Liege, 1992 Vol. 50, Colloque
Traces et fonction Belgium international de Libge,
(finding forgotten M. Otte l~ditions ERAUL,
techniques) CNRS
1991 Lithie technology University of Kentucky
K. Hirth
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Kathryn Saul helped prepare the bibliography of recent research in

lithic artifact analysis and provided valuable editorial assistance. Albert Pe-
cora III shared his insights on and experiences with replication and tech-
nological analysis. Helle Juel Jensen reviewed a draft of this paper.
REFERENCES CITED
Adams, J. L. (1988). Use-wear analysis on Manos and hide processing stones. Journal of Field
Archaeology 15: 307-315.
Abler, S. (1971). Projectile Point Form and Function at Rogers Shelter, Missouri, Research Series
No. 8. Missouri Archaeological Society, Columbia.
Aldenderfer, M. S., Kimball, L. R., and Sievert, A. (1989). Microwear analysis in the Maya
lowlands: The use of functional data in a complex society setting. Journal of Field
Anderson, P. C. (1980). A testimony of Prehistoric tasks: Diagnostic residues on stone tool
working edges. World Archaeology 12: 181-194.
Anderson-Gerfaud, P. (1988). Using prehistoric stone tools to harvest cultivated wild cereals:
Preliminary observations of traces and impact. In Beyries, S. (ed.), lndustrie Lithiques:
Tracgologie et Technologie, BAR International Series 411, Oxford, pp. 175-195.
Ballo, G. (1990). Use-wear analysis of six projectile point knives from the shell point site
(8BY89). Florida Anthropologist 43: 71.
Bamforth, D. (1988). Investigating microwear polishes with blind tests: The institute results
in context. Journal of Archaeological Science 15: 11-23.
Bamforth, D. (1991). Technological organization and hunter-gatherer land use: A California
example. American Antiquity 56: 216-234.
Bamforth, D., Burns, G., and Woodman, C. (1990). Ambiguous use traces and blind test
results: New data. Journal of Archaeological Science 17: 413-430.
Beyries, S. (ed.) (1988). Industries Lithiques: Tracdologie et Technologic, BAR International
Series 411, Oxford.
Beyries, S. (1990). Problems of interpreting the functional results for ancient periods. In
Gr/islund, B., Knutsson, H., Knutsson, K., and Taffinder, J. (eds.), The Interpretative
Possibilities of Microwear Studies, AUN 14, Societas Archaeologica Upsaliensis, Uppsala,
pp. 71-76.
Beyries, S. (ed.) (1992). Tracgologie et Fonction: Le Geste Retrouvd, Vol. 50, Colloque
International de Liege, I~ditions ERAUL, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique,
Valbonne Cedex, France.
Binford, L. R. (1983). Working at Archaeology, Academic Press, New York.
Binford, L. R., and Binford, S. R. (1966). A preliminary analysis of functional variability in
the Mousterian of levallois facies. American Anthropologist 68: 238-295.
Binneman, J., and Deacon, J. (1986). Experimental determination of use wear on stone adzes
from Bloomplaas Cave, South Africa. Journal of Archaeological Science 13: 219-228.
Cahen, D., Keeley, L. H., and van Noten, F. L. (1979). Stone tools, toolkits, and human
behavior in prehistory. Current Anthropology 20: 661-683.
Clark, J. E. (1982). Manufacture of mesoamerican prismatic blades: An alternative technique.
American Antiquity 47: 355-376.
Clark, J. E. (1986). From mountains to molehills: A critical review of Teotihuacan's obsidian
industry. In Isaac, B. L. (ed.), Research in Economic Anthropology, Supplement 2:
Economic Aspects of Prehispanic Highland Mexico, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 23-74.
Collins, M. B. (1975). Lithic technology as a means of processual inference. In Swanson, E.

(ed.), Lithic Technology: Making and Using Stone Tools, Mouton, The Hague, pp. 14-34.
Conard, N. J. (1990). Laminar lithic assemblages from the last interglacial complex in
northwestern Europe. Journal of Anthropological Research 46: 243-262.
Cook, J., and Dumont, J. (1987). The development and application of microwear analysis
since 1964. In G. Sieveking, G., and Newcomer, M. H. (eds.), The Human Uses of Flint
and Chert, Proceedings of the Fourth International Flint Symposium held at Brighton
Polytechn& 10-15 April, 1983, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 53-61.
Cotterell, B., and Kamminga, J. (1990). Mechanics of Preindustrial Technology, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
Crabtree, D. E. (1972). The cone fracture principle and the manufacture of lithic materials.
Tebiwa 15(2): 29-42.
Crawford, O. G. S. (1935). A primitive threshing machine. Antiquity 9: 335-339°
d'Errico, F. (1987). Technologie et fonction du burin de ripabianca dans le Cadre Culturel
du N6olithique Ancien de L'Italie Septentrionale. L'Anthropologie 91: 411-432.
Dillehay, T. (1990). Monte Verde: A Late Pleistocene Settlement in Chile, Smithsonian
Institution, Washington, DC.
Donahue, R. E. (1988). Microwear analysis and site function of Paglicci Cave Level 4A. World
Donahue, R. E., Burroni, D. B., Gales, G. M., Colten, R. H., and Hunt, C. D. (1992). Petriola
III South: Implications for the transition to agriculture in Tuscany. Current Anthropology
33: 328-331.
Fischer, A., Hansen, P. V., and Rasmussen, P. (1984). Macro and micro wear traces on lithic
projectile points. Experimental results and prehistoric examples. Journal of Danish
Flenniken, J. J. (1981). Replicative Systems Analysis: A Model Applied to Vein Quartz Artifacts
from the Hoko River Site, Washington State University Laboratory of Anthropology,
Reports of Investigations, No. 59, Pullman.
Flenniken, J. J. (1984). The past, present, and future of flintknapping: An anthropological
perspective. Annual Review of Anthropology 13: 187-203.
Flenniken, J. J. (1985). Stone tool reduction technologies as cultural markers. In Plew, M.
G., Woods, J. C., and Pavesic, M. G. (eds.), Stone ToolAnalysis: Essays in Honor of Don
E. Crabtree, University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, pp. 265-276.
Flenniken, J. J., and White, J. P. (1985). Australian flaked stone tools: A technological
perspective. Records of the Australian Museum 36: 131-151.
Fullagar, R. L. K. (1991). The role of silica in polish formation. Journal of Archaeological
Science 18: 1-24.
Gaertner, L. M. (1990). Microwear Ana~ysis of Dahon "Woodworking Adzes" from Early Archaic
Sites in Northeastern Arkansas, Unpublished (Honors) Thesis, D e p a r t m e n t of
Anthropology, Ohio State University, Columbus.
Gamble, C. (1987). The Paleolithic Settlement of Europe, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
Gendel, P., and Pirnay, L. (1982). Microwear analysis of experimental stone tools: Further
test results. Studia Prehistorica Belgica 2: 251-265.
Gijn, A. L. V. (1990). The Wear and Tear of Flint: Principles of Microwear Analysis Applied to
Dutch Neolithic Assemblages, Analecta Praehistorica Leidensia 22, University of Leiden,
Leiden.
Grace, R., Graham, I. D. G., and Newcomer, M. H. (1985). The quantification of microwear
polishes. World Archaeology 17: 112-120.
Gr~islund, B., Knutsson, H., Knutsson, K., and Taffinder, J. (eds.) (1990). The Interpretative
Possibilities of Microwear Studies, AUN 14, Societas Archaeologica Upsaliensis, Uppsala.
Hayden, B. (1990). The right rub: Hide working in high ranking households. In Grfislund, B.,
Knutsson, H., Knutsson, K., and Taffinder, J. (eds.), The Interpretative Possibilities of
Microwear Studies, AUN 14, Societas Archaeologica Upsaliensis, Uppsala, pp. 89-102.
Henry, D. O., and Odell, G. H. (eds.) (1989). Alternative approaches to lithic analysis.
Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association No. 1, American
Anthropological Association, Washington, DC.
Holdaway, S. (1989). Were there hafted projectile points in the Mousterian? Journal of FieM
Holdaway, S. (1990). Mousterian projectile points---Reply to Shea. Journal of Field Archaeology
17: 114-115.
Holmes, W. H. (1894). Natural history of flaked stone implements. In Wake, C. S. (ed.),
Memoirs of the International Congress of Anthropology, Schulte, Chicago, pp. 120-139.
Hurcombe, L. (1986). Residue studies on obsidian tools. In Owen, L. R., and Unrath, G.
(eds.), Technical aspects of microwear studies on stone tools. Early Man News 9/10/11:
83-90, Archaeologica Venatoria, Tiibingen.
Hurcombe, L. (1988). Some criticisms and suggestions in response to Newcomer et al. (1986).
Journal of Archaeological Science 15: 1-10.
Isaac, G. L. (1981). Stone Age visiting cards: Approaches to the study of early land use
patterns. In Hodder, I., Isaac, G. L., and Hammond, N. (eds.), Patterns of the Past: Studies
in Honour of David Clarke, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 131-155.
Isaac, G. L. (1984). The archaeology of human origins: Studies of the Lower Pleistocene in
East Africa 1971-1981. Advances in World Archaeology 3: 1-87.
Juel Jensen, H. (1988). Functional analysis of prehistoric flint tools by high-power microscopy:
A review of West European research. Journal of World Prehistory 2: 53-88.
Juel Jensen, H. (1989). Plant harvesting and processing with flint implements in the Danish
Stone Age. Acta Archaeologica 59: 131-142.
Kardulias, P. N. (1990). Fur production as a specialized activity in a world system: Native
Americans in the North American fur trade. American Indian Culture and Research
Journal 14: 25-60.
Kardulias, P. N. (1993). Lithics: Reduction sequence and microwear analysis. In Sumner, W.
M. (ed.), Excavations at Malyan 3: Proto-Elamite Civilization in the Land of Anshan, The
University Museum, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia (in press).
Kazarjan, G. (1990). An ethnocultural interpretation of Mousterian tool functions. In
Griislund, B., Knutsson, H., Knutsson, K., and Taffinder, J. (eds.), The Interpretative
Possibilities of Microwear Studies, AUN 14, Societas Archaeologiea Upsaliensis, Uppsala,
pp. 103-112.
Keeley, L. H. (1973). Technique and methodology in microwear studies: A critical review.
World Archaeology 5: 323-326.
Keeley, L. H. (1980). Experimental Determination of Stone Tools: A Microwear Analysis,
University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Keeley, L. H., and Newcomer, M. H. (1977). Microwear analysis of experimental flint tools:
A test case. Journal of Archaeological Science 4: 798-809.
Keeley, L. H., and Cahen, D. (1989). Early Neolithic forts and villages in NE Belgium: A
preliminary report. Journal of Field Archaeology 16: 157-176.
Keeley, L. H., and Toth, N. (1981). Microwear polishes on early stone tools from Koobi Fora,
Kenya. Nature 293: 464-465.
Kenmotsu, N. (1990). Gunflints: A study. Historical Archaeology 24: 92-124.
Knutsson, K. (1988a). Patterns of Tool Use: Scanning Electron Microscopy of Experimental
Quartz Tools, AUN 10, Societas Archaeologica Upsaliensis, Uppsala.
Knutsson, K. (1988b). Making and Using Stone Tools, AUN 11, Societas Archaeologica
Upsaliensis, Uppsala.
Le Blanc, R. (1992). Wedges, pieces esquillies, bipolar cores, and other things: An alternative
to Shott's view of bipolar industries. North American Archaeologist 13: 1-14.
Levi-Sala, I. (1986). Use wear and post-depositional surface modification: A note of caution.
Journal of Archaeological Science 13: 229-244.
Levi-Sala, I. (1989). What can microscopic studies of stone artifacts really tell us?
L'Anthropologie 93: 643-658.
Lewenstein, S. (1987). Stone Tool Use at Cerros: The Ethnoarchaeological and Use-Wear
Evidence, University of Texas Press, Austin.
Lewenstein, S. (1991). Edge angles and tool function among the Maya: A meaningful
relationship? In Hester, T. R., and Shafer, H. J. (eds.), Maya Stone Tools: Selected papers
from the Second Maya Lithic Conference, Monographs in World Archaeology 1, Prehistory
Press, Madison, WI, pp. 207-217.
Mason, R. J., and Perino, G. (1961). Microblades at Cahokia, Illinois. American Antiquity 26:
553-557.
Meeks, N. D., Sieveking, G. de G., Tite, M. S., and Cook, J. (1982). Gloss and use-wear
traces on flint sickles and similar phenomena. Journal of Archaeological Science 9:
317-340.
Michaels, G. H. (1989). Craft specialization in the Early Postclassic of Colha. In McAnany,
P. A., and Isaac, B. L. (eds.), Research in Economic Anthropology, Supplement 4: Prehistoric
Maya Economies of Belize, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 139-183.
Morse, D. F. (1974). The Cahokia microlithic industry. Lithic Technology 3: 15-19.
Morse, D. F., and Goodyear, A. C., III (1973). The significance of the Dalton adze in
northeastern Arkansas. Plains Anthropologist 18(62): 316-321.
Morse, D. F., and Morse, P. A. (1983). Archaeology of the Central Mississippi Valley, Academic
Press, New York.
Nass, J. J. (1989). Household archaeology and functional analysis as procedures for studying
Fort Ancient communities in the Ohio Valley. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 59: 1-13.
Newcomer, M. H., Grace, R., and Unger-Hamilton, R. (1986). Investigating microwear
polishes with blind tests. Journal of Archaeological Science 13: 203-217.
Newcomer, M. H., Grace, R., and Unger-Hamilton, R. (1988). Microwear methodology: A
reply to Moss, Hurcombe, and Bamforth. Journal of Archaeological Science 15: 25-33.
Niquette, C. M., Pecora, A. M., Yerkes, R. W., and Saul, K. J. (1991). Test excavations at
the Glasgow site: A stratified terminal Early and Late Archaic site in Kanawha County,
West Virginia. West l/irginia Archaeologist 43: 27-56.
Odell, G. H. (1987). Functional analysis of use-wear on a regional scale (Illinois).
Odell, G. H., and Odell-Vereecken, F. (1980). Verifying the reliability of lithic use-wear
assessments by "blind tests": The low-power approach. Journal of FieM Archaeology 7:
87-120.
Olausson, D. S. (1990). Edge-wear analysis in archaeology: The current state of research.
Laborativ Arkeologi 4: 5-14, Arkeologiska forskningslaboratoriet, Stockholm.
Owen, L. R., and Unrath, G. (eds.) (1986). Technical aspects of microwear studies on stone
tools. Early Man News 9/10/11, Archaeologica Venatoria, Tfibingen.
Owen, L. R., and Unrath, G. (1989). Microwear traces from prehension. L'Anthropologie 93:
673-688.
Pecora, A. M. (1990). A technological lithic materials analysis. In Niquette, C. M., and Hughes,
M. A. (eds.), Late Woodland Archaeology at the Parkline Site (46PU99) Putnam County,
West Virginia, Contract Publication Series No. 90-93, Cultural Resource Analysts, Inc.,
Lexington, KY, pp. 72-94.
Phagan, C. J. (1976). A Method for the Ana~sis of Flakes in Archaeological Assemblages: A
Peruvian Example, Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Ohio
State University, Columbus.
Phillips, P. (1988). Traceology (microwear) studies in the U.S.S.R. World Archaeology 19:
349-356.
Plew, M. G., Woods, J. C., and Pavesic, M. G. (eds.) (1985). Stone Tool Analysis: Essays in
Honor of Don E. Crabtree, University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.
Plisson, H., and van Gijn, A. (1989). Microwear analysis: Directions for use. L'Anthropologie
93: 631-642.
Rau, C. (1869). A deposit of agricultural flint implements in southern Illinois. Annual Report
of the Smithsonian Institution, 1868, Washington, DC, pp. 401-407.
Rees, D., Wilkinson, G. G., Grace, R., and Orton, C. R. (1991). An investigation of the
fractal properties of flint microwear images. Journal of Archaeological Science 18: 629-640.
Renfrew, C., and Bahn, P. (1991). Archeology: Theories, Methods, and Pract&e, Thames and
Hudson, New York.
Rodon Boras, T. (1990). Chemical process of cleaning in microwear studies: Conditions and
limits of attack. Application to archaeological sites. In Gr/islund, B., Knutsson, H.,
Knutsson, K., and Taffinder, J. (eds.), The Interpretative Possibilities of Microwear Studies,
AUN 14, Societas Archaeologica Upsaliensis, Uppsala, pp. 179-184.
Runnels, C. (1985). Trade and the demand for millstones in southern Greece in the Neolithic
and Early Bronze Age. In Knapp, B., and Stech, T. (eds.), Prehistoric Production and
Exchange: the Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean, Institute of Archaeology, Monograph
25, University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, pp. 30-43.
Santley, R. S., Kerley, J. M., and Kneebone, R. R. (1986). Obsidian working, long-distance
exchange, and the politico-economic organization of early states in central Mexico. In
Isaac, B. L. (ed.), Research in Economic Anthropology, Supplement 2: Economic Aspects
of Prehispanic Highland Mexico, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 101-132.
Seitzer Olausson, D. (1980). Starting from scratch: The history of edge-wear research from
1838 to 1978. Lithic Technology 8: 48-60.
Semenov, S. A. (1964). Prehistoric Technology, (translated by M. W. Thompson), Barnes and
Noble, New York.
Shea, J. J. (1988). Spear points from the Middle Paleolithic of the Levant. Journal of FieM
Shea, J. J. (1990). A further note on Mousterian spear points. Journal of Field Archaeology
17: 114-115.
Sheets, P. (1975). Behavioral analysis and the structure of a prehistoric industry. Current
Anthropology 16: 369-378.
Shott, M. J. (1989). Bipolar industries: Ethnographic evidence and archaeological implications.
North American Archaeologist 10: 1-24.
Sieveking, G. d. G., and Newcomer, M. (eds.) (1987). The Human Uses of Flint and Chert,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Sliva, R. J., and Keeley, L. H. (1992). "Frits" and specialized hide preparation in the Belgian
Early Neolithic. Journal of Archaeological Sc&nce (in press).
Smith, E. E., and Toth, N. (1990). A microwear analysis of Paleoindian "socketed" endscrapers
from southcentral Indiana. Current Research in the Pleistocene 7: 77-80.
Spaulding, A. C. (1977). On growth and form in archaeology. Journal of Anthropological
Research 33: 1-15.
Speth, J. D. (1972). Mechanical basis of percussion flaking. American Antiquity 37: 34-60.
Spurrell, F. (1892). Notes on early sickles. Archaeological Journal 49: 53-59.
Sussman, C. (1988). A Microscopic Analysis of Use-wear and Polish Formation on Experimental
Quartz Tools, BAR International Series 398, Oxford.
Thomas, D. H. (1986). Contemporary hunter-gatherer archaeology in America. In Meltzer,
D. L, Fowler, D. D., and Sabloff, J. A. (eds.), American Archaeology Past and Future,
Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC, pp. 237-276.
Thomas, D. H. (1989). Archaeology, 2nd ed., Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Fort Worth, TX.
Torrenee, R. (1986). Production and Exchange of Stone Tools, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
Toth, N. P. (1982). The Stone Technologies of Early Hominids at Koobi Fora, Kenya: An
Experimental Approach, Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology,
University of California, Berkeley.
Toth, N. (1987). The first technology. Scientific American 256 (April): 112-121.
Toth, N., and Schick, K. D. (1986). The first million years: the archaeology of protohuman
culture. In Schiffer, M. B. (ed.), Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, Vol. 9,
Academic Press, Orlando, FL, pp. 1-96.
Tringham, R., Cooper, G., Odell, G., Voytek, B., and Whitman, A. (1977). Experimentation
in the formation of edge damage: A new approach to lithic analysis. Journal of Field
Unger-Hamilton, R. (1984). The formation of use-wear polish on flint: Beyond the "deposit
versus abrasion" controversy. Journal of Archaeological Science 11: 91-98.
Unger-Hamilton, R. (1985). Microscopic striations on flint sickle-blades as an indication of
plant cultivation: Preliminary results. World Archaeology 17: 121-126.
Unger-Hamilton, R. (1989). Experimental microwear analysis: Some current controversies.

Unrath, G., Owen, L. R., van Gijn, A., Moss, E. H., Plisson, H., andd Vaughan, P. (1986).
An evaluation of use-wear studies: A multi-analyst approach. In Owen, L. R., and Unrath,
G. (eds.), Technical Aspects of Microwear Studies on Stone Tools. Early Man News
9/10/11, Archaeologica Venatoria, Tiibingen, pp. 117-176.
Vaughan, P. (1985). Use-Wear Analysis of Flaked Stone Tools, University of Arizona Press,
Tucson.
Vaughan, P. C., and Bocquet, A. (1987). Premiere t~tude Fonctionnelle d'outils Lithiques
N6olithiques du Village de Charavines, Is6re. L'Anthropologie 91: 399-410.
Watson, P. J. (1986). Archaeological interpretation, 1985. In Meltzer, D. J., Fowler, D. D.,
and Sabloff, J. A. (eds.), American Archaeology Past and Future, Smithsonian Institution
Press, Washington, DC, pp. 439-457.
Wilmsen, E. N. (1970). Lithic analysis and cultural inference: A Paleo-Indian case.
Anthropological Papers of the University of Arizona 16, University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
Woods, J. C. (1988). Projectile point fracture patterns and inferences about tool function.
Idaho Archaeologist 11(1): 3-7.
Yerkes, R. W. (1983). Microwear, microdrills, and Mississippian craft specialization. American
Antiquity 48: 499-518.
Yerkes, R. W. (1987). Prehistoric Life on the Mississippi Floodplain, University of Chicago
Press, Chicago.
Yerkes, R. W. (1989). Lithic analysis and activity patterns at Labras Lake. In Henry, D. O.,
and Odell, G. H. (eds.), The application of analytical techniques to lithic data sets,
Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association No. 1, American
Anthropological Association, Washington, DC, pp. 183-212.
Yerkes, R. W. (1990). Using microwear analysis to investigate domestic activities and craft
specialization at the Murphy site, a small Hopewell settlement in Licking County, Ohio.
In Gr~islund, B., Knutsson, H., Knutsson, K., and Taffinder, J. (eds.), The Interpretative
Possibilities of Microwear Studies, AUN 14, Societas Archaeologica Upsaliensis, Uppsala,
pp. 167-176.
Yerkes, R. W. (1991). Specialization in shell artifact production at Cahokia. In Stoltman, J.
B. (ed.), New Perspectives on Cahokia: Views from the Periphery, Monographs in World
Archaeology 2, Prehistory Press, Madison, WI, pp. 49-64.
Yerkes, R. W., and Gaertner, L. M. (1993). Microwear analysis of Dalton artifacts. In Morse,
D. F. (ed.), The Moan Site, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC (in press).
Young, D., and Bamforth, D. B. (1990). On the microscopic identification of used flakes.
BIBLIOGRAPHY OF RECENT LITERATURE
Amick, D. S., and Mauldin, R. P. (1989). Comments on Sullivan and Rozen's "Debitage
Analysis and Archaeological Interpretation." American Antiquity 54: 675-708.
Amick, D. S., and Mauldin, R. P. (eds.) (1989). Experiments in Lithic Technology, BAR
International Series 528, Oxford.
Ammerman, A. J., Cesana, A., Polglase, C., and Terrani, M. (1990). Neutron activation
analysis of obsidian from two Neolithic sites in Italy. Journal of Archaeological Science
17: 209-220.
Anikovich, M. (1992). Early Upper Paleolithic industries of eastern Europe. Journal of World
Prehistory 6: 205-246.
Bamforth, D. E. (1991). Review of alternative approaches to lithic analysis. American
Anthropologist 93: 732-733.
Banks, L. D. (1990). From Mountain Peaks to Alligator Stomachs: A Review of Lithic Resources
in the Trans-Mississippi South, the Southern Plains, and Adjacent South, Oklahoma
Anthropological Society, Norman.
Barton, C. M. (1990). Beyond style and function: A view from the Middle Paleolithic.
American Anthropologist 92: 57-72.
Beck, C., and Jones, G. T. (1989). Bias and archaeological classification. American Antiquity
54: 244-262.
Borkowki, W., et al. (1991). Possibilities of investigating Neolithic flint economies, as
exemplified by the Banded Flint Economy. Antiquity 65: 607-627.
Brooks, I., and Phillips, P. (eds.) (1989). Breaking the Stony Silence: Papers from the Sheffield
Lithics Conference 1988, BAR British Series 213, Oxford.
Chase, P. G. (1990). Tool making tools and Middle Paleolithic behavior. Current Anthropology
31(4): 443-447.
Curry, D. C. (1991). Review of eastern Paleolndian resource use. American Antiquity 56:
367-368.
Cziesla, E., et aL (eds.) (1990). The Big Puzzle: International Symposium on Refitting Stone
Artifacts, Monrepos, 1987, Studies in Modern Archaeology Vol. 1, Holos, Bonn.
Ellis, C. J., and Lothrop, J. C. (eds.) (1989). Eastern Paleolndian Lithic Resource Use, Westview
Press, Boulder, CO.
Ensor, H. B. (1991). The Lubbub Creek microlithic industry. Southeastern Archaeology 10:
18-39.
Ensor, H. B., and Roemer, E., Jr. (1989). Comments on Sullivan and Rozen's debitage analysis
and archaeological interpretation. American Antiquity 54: 175-178.
Frison, G. (1989). Experimental use of Clovis weaponry and tools on African elephants.
Gould, R. A. (1989). Review of Lithic Studies Among the Contemporary Highland Maya.
Grace, R. (1989). Interpreting the Function of Stone Tools: The Quantification and
Computerisation of Microwear Analysb, BAR International Series 474, Oxford.
Gramly, R. M. (1990). Guide to the Paleo-lndian Artifacts of North America, Persimmon Press,
Buffalo, NY.
Gramly, R. M., and Yahnig, C. (1991). The Adams site (15Ch90) and the Little River,
Christian County, Kentucky, Clovis Workshop Complex. Southeastern Archaeology 10:
134-145.
Holmes, D. L. (1989). The Predynastic Lith& Industries of Upper Egypt: A Comparative Study
of the Lithic Traditions of Badari, Nagada, and Hierakonpolis, BAR International Series
469, Oxford.
Holmes, D. (1990). Review of alternative approaches to lithic analysis. Antiquity 64: 429-431.
Hothem, L. (1990). First Hunters: Ohio's Paleo-lndian Artifacts, Hothem House, Lancaster,
OH.
Hothem, L. (1991). American Indian Axes and Related Stone Artifacts, Collector Books,
Paducah, KY.
Hothem, L. (1992). North American Indian Artifacts: A Collector's Identification and Value
Guide (Fourth ed.). Florence, Alabama: Books Americana.
Hughes, R. E. (1992). Another Look at Hopewell Obsidian Studies. American Antiquity 57:
515-523.
Hyland, D. C., Tersak, J. M., and Adovasio, J. M. (1990). Identification of the species of
origin of residual blood on lithic material. American Antiquity 55: 104-112.
Janes, R. R. (1989). A comment on microdebitage analysis and cultural site-formation
processes among Tipi dwellers. American Antiquity 54: 851-855.
Jefferies, R. W. (1990). A technological and functional analysis of Middle Archaic hafted
endscrapers from the Black Earth Site, Saline County, Illinois. Mid-Continental Journal
of Archaeology 15: 3-36.
Jeske, R. J. (1992). Energetic efficiency and lithic technology: An upper Mississippian example.
Kuhn, S. L. (1990). A geometric index of reduction for unifacial stone tools. Journal of
Archaeological Science 17: 583-593.
Lavin, L., and Prothero, D. R. (1992). Prehistoric procurement of secondary sources: The
case for characterization. North American Archaeologist 13: 97-114.
Lynott, M. J. (1991). Identification of attribute variability in emergent Mississippian and
Mississippian arrow points from southeast Missouri. Mid-Continental Journal of
McAnany, P. A. (1989). Stone-tool production and exchange in the Eastern Maya lowlands:
The consumer perspective from Pulltrouser Swamp, Belize. American Antiquity 54:
332-346.
Morrow, C. A. (1991). Observations on the Baehr Mounds chert "disks": The American
Museum of Natural History collections. Illinois Archaeology 3: 77-92.
Nogaj-Chachaj, J. (1991). The stone-packed graves of the Funnel Beaker Culture in
Karmanowice, Site 35. Antiquity 65: 628-639.
Ohel, M. Y. (1990). Lithic Analysis of Acheulean Assemblages from Avivim sites, Israel, BAR
International Series 562, Oxford.
Pagoulatos, P. (1992). The re-use of thermally altered stone. North American Archaeologist
13: 115-130.
Patterson, L. W. (1990). Characteristics of bifacial reduction flake-size distribution. American
Antiquity 55: 550-558.
Rozen, K. C., and Sullivan, A. P. III (1989a). Measurement, method, and meaning in lithic
analysis: Problems with Amick and Mauldin's middle-range approach. American Antiquity
54: 169-175.
Rozen, K. C., and Sullivan, A. P., III (1989b). The nature of lithic reduction and lithic analysis:
Stage typologies revisited. American Antiquity 54: 179-184.
Sassaman, K. E. (1992). Lithie technology and the hunter-gatherer sexual division of labor.
North American Archaeologist 13: 249-262.
Schroth, P. J. W., and Schroth, A. B. (1989). Lithic raw material prospects in the Mojave
Desert, California. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 11: 146-174.
Sharer, H. J., and Hester, T. R. (1991). Lithic craft specialization and production distribution
at the Maya site of Colha, Belize. World Archaeology 23(June): 79-97.
Sheets, P., Hirth, K., Lange, F., Stross, F., Asaro, F., and Michel, H. (1990). Obsidian sources
and elemental analyses of artifacts in southern Mesoamerica and the northern
intermediate area. American Antiquity 55: 144-158.
Shelley, P. H. (1990). Variation in lithic assemblages: An experiment. Journal of Florida
Smith, H. E. J. (1989). All About Arrowheads and Spear Points, 1st ed., H. Holt, New York.
Torrence, R. (ed.) (1989). Time, Energy, and Stone Tools, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
Towner, R. H., and Warburton, M. (1990). Projective point rejuvenation: A technological
analysis. Journal of Florida Archaeology 17: 311-321.
Wenban-Smith, F. F. (1989). The use of canonical variates for determination of biface
manufacturing techniques at Boxgrove Lower Palaeolithic site and the behavioral
implications of this technology. Journal of Archaeological Science 16: 17-26.

Yerkes and Kardulias 1993 Lithic Analysis PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Yerkes and Kardulias 1993 Lithic Analysis PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Yerkes and Kardulias 1993 Lithic Analysis PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Archaeological Research, Vol. 1, No.

Recent Developments in the Analysis of Lithic

A review of recent research on lithic technology and functional analysis is

A century ago, W. H. Holmes (1894) described lithic analysis as the

1Department of Anthropology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 43210-1364.

Variability in Lithic Artifact Assemblages

The patterned variability in stone tools that archaeologists observe and

REPLICATION AND TECHNOLOGICAL ANALYSIS

This approach is poorly understood, and is often associated with at-

semblages, these studies provide useful information on ancient lithic re-

The procedure that Flenniken (1981) outlines for replication and

SECONDARY REDUCTION SUBSYSTEM

Blank ~ Preform ~ Point

TERTIARY REDUCTION SUBSYSTEM

Point Broken Point Reworked Point Discarded Point

Primary Decortication Flakes Secondary Decortication Flakes Interior Flakes

Edge Preparation Flake Margin Removal Flakes Early Late

Fig. 2. Examples of technological debitage categories. See Table I for descriptions.

Table I. Some Technological Debitage Categories a

erton knappers chose a fine-grained, vitreous variety of the local Kanawha

Ever since the antiquarians described stone tools as "thunderbolts,"

experimental program was designed to build a comparative collection of

An ongoing debate in microwear studies has been over the relative

low-power approach). An external light source is used to illuminate the

Microwear and Lithic Typology

The precise mechanism for polish formation has received considerable

The Functional Classification of Stone Tools

A series of recent microwear studies has focused on the function of

tion of the Dalton adze that he had based on a macroscopic examination

The Contribution of Microwear Studies to Anthropological

While microwear analysis provides information on the function of spe-

and trade network. Microcontextual indicators would be workshops (with

the large-scale production of commodities. As a result, formal tools in-

Suggestions for Future Research

As microwear analysis becomes a basic component of lithic artifact

archaeologists have tried to learn something a b o u t stone tool production

Table AI. Recent Conferences on Lithic Analysis

Kathryn Saul helped prepare the bibliography of recent research in

Collins, M. B. (1975). Lithic technology as a means of processual inference. In Swanson, E.

Unger-Hamilton, R. (1989). Experimental microwear analysis: Some current controversies.

BIBLIOGRAPHY OF RECENT LITERATURE

You might also like