Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, Vol. 12, No.

2, June 2005 (

C 2005)

DOI: 10.1007/s10816-005-5666-4

What is a Burin? Typology, Technology,

and Interregional Comparison
Silvia Tomaskova1,2

Classification of artifacts has long marked a significant edge between theory

and practice in archaeology. While considering classification to be a necessary
methodological device, most practitioners also recognize that it carries with it
built-in assumptions. This essay approaches the issue by way of a specific stone
tool type from Old World sites: the burin. By asking what is a burin? the study
shows the need to reconsider typologies to reflect changes in research questions
and progress in dating methods, especially when working with museum collections
and secondary data between regions and across national traditions, and the need
to study whole collections from the perspective of technological choices.
KEY WORDS: typological classification; technology; tool life history; interregional comparisons.

INTRODUCTION

Typological classification of artifacts has long marked a significant edge

between theory and practice in archaeology. Stone tool classification has been
even more central to Paleolithic archaeology, where most other material remains
are scarce. While seen as a necessary methodological tool crucial to sorting the
most ubiquitous and durable recovered artifacts from archaeological sites (indeed,
not infrequently the only ones), most practitioners in the field also recognize that
classification carries with it the danger of built-in assumptions, channeling inter-
pretations into predictable directions, and thus creating theoretical problems even
in the act of creating order (see Odell, 2001 for a recent review). Yet the practical
necessity of putting a mass of material into some manageable and recognizable
order amenable to analysis usually prevails over any qualms archaeologists may
1 Curriculum in Womens Studies and the Department of Anthropology, 301 Alumni Bldg., CB #3115,
UNC-Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
2 To
whom correspondence should be addressed at Department of Anthropology, 301 Alumni Bldg.,
CB #3115, UNC-Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27599-3115; e-mail: tomas@unc.edu

79
1072-5369/05/0600-0079/0

C 2005 Springer Science+Business Media, Inc.
80 Tomaskova

have over the inevitable theoretical implications that such a methodological step
carries. Despite a century of on-going, often heated, discussions over the meaning
of the assigned stone tool types, the practice of lithic classification using standard
traditional categories ultimately prevails by simply satisfying the immediate needs
of fieldwork. One records a recovered object as an identifiable representative of
an artifact class, and moves ahead, deferring conceptual misgivings.
Archaeologys heavy reliance on classification in methodological practice
notwithstanding, the discipline has had an ambivalent relationship with the sub-
ject from a theoretical standpoint for a long time (Bisson, 2000; Brew, 1946;
Dibble, 1995; Dunnell, 1986; Ford, 1954; Hegmon, 1992; Hill and Evans, 1972;
Spaulding, 1953). The modest amount of the literature that directly addresses
the topic of classification generally treats it as an unexciting if necessary evil
(Binford, 1965; Watson et al., 1984), although some have argued for the critical
importance of classification for the field (Dunnell, 1971; OBrien and Lyman,
2003; Whallon and Brown, 1982). Generally, typology is considered to be a sub-
ject within the domain of methodology with little attention given to the theoretical
issues that underlie the choice of a particular kind of a classificatory system or
the conceptual implications of such a choice (see discussions that make this point
in, e.g., Adams and Adams, 1991; Binford and Sabloff, 1982; Dunnell, 1971,
1986; Gardin, 1980; Klejn, 1982). Yet as Dibble (1984, 1987, 1988, 1990) has
shown in the study of Mousterian scraper morphology, alternative explanations
for stone tool typologies have been long overdue. While his suggestion to consider
reduction sequence as an explanation for scraper types in general may not have
been uniformly embraced (e.g., Kuhn, 1991, 1992), it certainly revitalized discus-
sion of typology by adding dynamic element of technology into the discussion.
Archaeological approaches to technology, whether stone tools, ceramics or met-
allurgy, have grown significantly in sophistication since the 1980s and include
social and symbolic contexts of production, use, and lives of material objects,
including the chane operatoire and performance-based life history approaches
(e.g., Bleed, 2001; Lechtman, 1977, 1984; Lemonnier, 1986, 1992; Moloney and
Shott, 2003; Schiffer, 2001; Schiffer and Skibo, 1997; Sinclair, 1995; Skibo and
Feinman, 1999).
Yet anyone who has worked in non-western contextsin the case of this
study Eastern Europeknows the degree to which typology remains the driv-
ing force behind research questions and most interpretations of local collections.
A combination of factors favor continued reliance on typology, including re-
stricted access to expensive research and dating techniques and a different history
of theoretical approaches and research traditions. Geographical discrepancies in
archaeological practice, however, can take on wider significance as archaeolo-
gists engage in international research and increasingly compare data between
regions. The use and reliance on secondary data sets, recovered and created in
diverse research contexts and subsequently compiled in a search for broader
patterns, is by now the norm, especially in regional or comparative studies (e.g.,
What is a Burin? 81

Feblot-Augustins, 1993). This warrants a word of caution. Museum collections,

while an invaluable resource, need to be approached with the recognition that
the methodology used in their creation might vary considerably from that of
contemporary practice, and that this variance should be taken into considera-
tion when assessing their accepted interpretations. The same principle holds true
when approaching data derived from different national contexts and archaeolog-
ical traditions. While these data likewise represent an invaluable resource, they
may not always reflect the same conventions of collection as those of a more
distant analyst. Not every method is equally out of date everywhere. Greater
awareness of the history of typology and its application in specific research settings
would lead us to exercise caution when incorporating research results into regional
frameworks.

CASE STUDY

This essay approaches the typological issue by way of a specific stone tool that
has played an important role in classifying Paleolithic materials from Old World
sites: the burin. I ask a seemingly elementary questionwhat is a burin?in
order to show that typology of lithic artifacts is neither straightforward nor simple,
and its application is even more fraught with interpretation. As the following dis-
cussion of burins from the Upper Paleolithic central European sites of Pavlov and
Willendorf II shows (Fig. 1), the tool-type concept was applied with a significant
degree of variation in each context, and that variation subsequently incorporated
into the orthodox description of each site. In classifying the recovered materials, a
search for chronology and spatial uniqueness in each locale emphasized the differ-
ence between them (Broglio and Laplace, 1966; Felgenhauer, 1952, 1956, 1995;
Klma, 1959; Svoboda, 1994; Svoboda et al., 1996; Tomaskova, 2000, 2003). The
results of a metric and microscopic study of the two collections from Pavlov and
Willendorf II indicate that objects classified as burins may have multiple possible
origins and uses, including that of being a discarded byproduct of blade produc-
tion (details follow below). The resulting image of a burin is far from that of
an engraving tool, and closer to that of a pocketknife. Moreover, these artifacts
appear to have been used on several different edges, without a simple link be-
tween morphology of artifact production and its function. If so, this pocketknife
would be a tool of improvisation, itself partly improvised. The study suggests
that we ought to re-think our ongoing reliance on typological systems created
under different research paradigms and for different research goals, especially if
we are to use interpretations of materials from historical collections with biases
that we are unable to correct. Furthermore, the study clearly shows the importance
of a research focus on whole collections, rather than typological categories in
isolation. As the discussion of burins from Pavlov and Willendorf suggests, stone
tool categories are quite flexible, context dependent, and variably applied. Inte-
grated research of whole artifact collections with greater attention to technological
82 Tomaskova

Fig. 1. Site location. 1. Pavlov; 2. Willendorf.

choices and artifact life histories appears to be a far more productive research
strategy.

TYPOLOGIES AND THEIR MEANINGS

Most debates that have addressed the meaning of typologies focus on the
second stage of the classificatory process, stone tool category frequencies, evalu-
ating the meaning of presence or absence of a particular stone tool type. One of
the best known, widely publicized, and still read exchanges between Binford and
Bordes on the functional versus cultural meaning of Paleolithic tool types, is a
primary example of such a discussion (Binford, 1973; Bordes, 1961; Bordes and
Sonneville-Bordes, 1970). The starting point of the debate was a mutual agree-
ment about, and recognition of the tool types of Middle Paleolithic France. The
disagreement lay on a higher interpretive level: what different frequencies of stone
tool types might suggest about the prehistoric groups of Paleolithic France. Was
the difference a result of diverse cultural groups frequenting the place (Bordes
position), or was it a result of different activities that were performed with these
implements (Binfords position)? Interesting, and significant in the history of
archaeological theory as this discussion may be, it needs to be stressed that it
retained the basic principle of classificationand the tool types constructed by
itintact and unquestioned. Probably the major theoretical contribution of the
Binford/Bordes debate was the clarity with which the difference in approaches
toward fundamental archaeological questions in Anglo-American and Continental
traditions came to the surface, as well as a generational shift occurring on both
continents. Binfords position, stemming from his major role in New Archaeology,
What is a Burin? 83

pointed out the inadequacy of typology and classification for dealing with issues
of human behavior and cultural processes of the past (see discussion in Conkey
and Hastorf, 1990; Trigger, 1989; Wylie, 1985, 1992). The classificatory approach,
developed in Europe (but adopted with modifications by most archaeological tradi-
tions around the world) for chronological purposes to design a temporal sequence
of cultural groups, was now seen as outdated. Yet the categories themselves were
not questioned, the statistical analyses validated not only the notion that the bound-
aries between categories were real but also that they were measurable which only
further strengthened their perceived existence. The primary analytical step rep-
resented by the classification of artifacts into predetermined categories, and the
formation of these categories themselves, remained invisible beneath the newly
ordered data.
Lithic types, constructed as discrete units, depend on a principle of bound-
edness. Empirical entitiesin this case artifactsare categorized on the basis of
set criteria of recognition that involve a clear-cut separation from other entities.
Ever since the Linnaean classificatory system, there has been a tendency to equate
boundedness with natural types; the sharper the boundary between categories the
more natural and thus, the more real the boundary appeared (Adams and Adams,
1991; Dunnell 1971, 1986; OBrien and Lyman, 2003). Archaeological typology
accepted this premise as a methodological tool but implicitly incorporated it into
explanatory models of prehistoric social systems, structures and behavior, despite
the fact that cultures do not display the sharp lines of identity suggested by the
biological analogy (e.g., Binford, 1973; Chang, 1967). Dunnell has argued that
the problem lies in the confusion of type as an empirical entity and type as a tool
of measurement, designed to make the empirical experience meaningful (Dunnell,
1986, p. 152). Thus, hypothetical models that are built to account for the patterning
of the archaeological record are constrained and bracketed by the categories that
were set up in the process of recovery and analysis. The boundaries are written
into the materials only to be subsequently discovered and explained. When a group
boundary is the research objective, then classification methods are employed to
locate the precise point of disjuncture (Conkey, 1982; Dunnell, 1986; Green and
Perlman, 1985).
Once the general shape of pieces has been determined, closer scrutiny of
retouch and possible function follow, so as to organize the material into typo-
logical categories. The issue that comes to the forefront is that two different but
not mutually exclusive criteriafunction and formare being used in the same
classifying process. An endscraper is described in terms of its shape and retouch,
a blade or a flake with a continuous, non-abrupt retouch at one (or both in case of
a double tool) of its more-or-less round, rarely square, extremities (Bordes, 1961,
p. 39), yet named after its assumed function. A microlith is any small retouched
piece shorter than 5 cm, and narrower than 1.2 cm. A burin, the most ambiguous
of them all, is named after a graving chisel, but described in terms of a bevel from
which a spall was removed (Bordes, 1961, p. 40; Tixier, 1963, pp. 6784; Vaughan,
84 Tomaskova

1985b, p. 488). While Bordes may not have been automatically assigning function
to burins, the subsequent use of the concept and its application suggests that the
function of burin as an engraver became implicit in most uses of the typological
category (see e.g., Movius, 1968 quoted below). The mixed terminologystyle
and functionprovided a generous space for labeling variously shaped pieces as
one category. The functional terms are highly suggestive, and have held a firm grip
on our imagination when inferring tool use. Explicit questioning of such issues has
encouraged a quest for alternative approaches to accepted correlations between
form and function, producing numerous innovative studies (among many see, e.g.,
Boeda et al., 1990; Chazan, 2001; Dobres and Hoffman, 1999; Hays and Lucas,
2000; Odell, 1994a, 1994b; Sliva and Keeley, 1994; Schiffer and Skibo, 1997;
Shott, 1997, 2003; Vaughan, 1985a,b).
Since 1980s the stylistic-functional Mousterian debate has been diverted
in a new direction that stresses use, reduction sequence, and maintenance of lithic
artifacts rather than formal tool types (e.g., Barton, 1989, 1991; Coinman and
Clausen, 2000; Dibble, 1984, 1987, 1988, 1990, 1995; Hays and Lucas, 2000;
Geneste, 1990; Jelinek, 1988; 1991; Knutsson, 1988a, 1988b; Kuhn, 1991, 1992;
Lucas, 1999; Rolland, 1981, 1988; Rollefson, 1988; Stiner and Kuhn, 1992). It
has been suggested that a number of the classic types in fact represent steps in
a reduction sequence, and their variable presence in archaeological collections is
a result of different stages of production or reduction. Since the original studies
(Dibble, 1984, 1987), numerous archaeologists adopted the reduction model,
applying it across time and space to archaeological materials ranging from Middle
Paleolithic to Epi-Paleolithic (e.g., Neeley and Barton, 1994). The underlying
premise and conclusion of these studies has been the universality of rational
decisions regarding raw materials, whether resource availability, organization of
technology, or the relationship to mobility and settlement patterns constituted
the primary research focus of the investigator (e.g., Andrefsky, 1994; Bamforth,
1986, 1990; Kuhn, 1994). Yet detailed studies of technological practice suggest
that techniques involve cultural choices deeply entrenched in local tradition and
history, and that similar problems can give rise to quite different solutions (e.g.,
Edmonds, 1990; Lechtman, 1977, 1984; Lemonnier, 1986; Riddington, 1982;
Schiffer and Skibo, 1997). As Shiffer and Skibo (1997, pp. 2728) note, formal
variability across time and space is no longer explained as a result of stylistic
or functional differences but rather as difference in design, described in terms
of technological choices. The idea of technological choice has been successfully
adapted in the chane operatoire approach that examines the operational sequence
of tool creation, use and discard, and has produced some of the most interesting
work that circumvents typological debates (e.g., Almeida, 2001; Boeda et al.,
1990; Chazan, 2001; Hays and Lucas, 2000; Lemonnier, 1986, 1992; Schiffer,
2001; Schiffer and Skibo, 1997). Recent interest in gender has led to suggestive
studies of formal and expedient tools being in some cultural contexts linked to
men and womens workspaces (Gero, 1991; Sassaman, 1992).
What is a Burin? 85

Thus, it has become increasingly clear that the use of typology in an un-
reflective and mechanical way leads to minimal interpretive consideration about
possible choices that prehistoric peoples may have made when producing and us-
ing their technology. Approaches that concentrate on the life histories of material
objects allow us to discuss artifact variability in a more dynamic way, one that can
recognize differences across space and time. Yet, while this theoretical shift helps
us in developing new research design and methodology, it does not address the
problem of working with comparative collections, museum data, or interregional
comparisons of data that have been developed under different paradigms. The
following discussion illustrates some of the problems and implications of working
with collections where typology defined both the central dating method and the
interpretive frame, yet was applied with a great degree of variation.

THE BURIN: BETWEEN TYPOLOGY AND TECHNOLOGY

Of the three common implements, endscrapers, knife and burin, or graver, of the Upper
Paleolithic, the burin is in several ways the most interesting. It has its value as an index of
culture when forms such as the Noailles, Busque or Bec de Perroquet are found in sufficient
quantity in a level. It presents problems as to its use and occurrence in a great variety of
forms and sizes, whilst it may be said to be the first specialized working tool of all mans
artifacts. Some specimens are outstanding examples of choice material, symmetry and
craftsmanship. Its regular use during so many periods, over so wide an area, makes it one of
the most characteristic implements of what may be called the Western and Mediterranean
complex of Later Stone Age cultures (Noone, 1950, p. 186).

The burin constitutes a central tool category of classic organizations of Pa-

leolithic assemblages. Although defined in terms of function, it is generally rec-
ognized by the technique that produces itthe burin-blow technique which
removes a longitudinal straight spall from an edge of a blade, or a flake (Debenath
and Dibble, 1994; Tixier, 1963; Vaughan, 1985a,b) (Fig. 2). Yet the category
burin, typologically speaking, describes a vast and heterogeneous assortment of
pieces that are not always clearly described, or agreed upon.
The prehistoric stone tool described by the term in archaeological discussions
acquired its name on the basis of its assumed engraving function, but remains an
ambiguous implement. As Movius recounts, the recovery of prehistoric carved art
objects in France at the end of the 19th century propelled the search for a tool that
could have aided in the production: On seeing these [art] objects for the first time,
Leguay states that he never suspected that any of them could have been produced
by other than metal tools. . .. Since each engraving studied by Leguay constituted
a further convincing demonstration of the fact that the working had been executed
by the same process as those employed at present by contemporary engravers, he
concluded that only flint tools similar to the ordinary metal burin could have been
employed (Movius, 1968, pp. 312313). Thus, a tool type came into existence
based on an assumed analogy with metal working, persisting through expanding
20th century classificatory schemes of Paleolithic technology as a classic form.
86 Tomaskova

Fig. 2. Burin, tool and a technique, with a burin spall removed.

Burins, recorded as early as the lower Paleolithic (e.g., some pieces at Olduvai
Gorge, Leakey, 1971, p. 7, 265; Phillipson, 1985, p. 39), described in middle Pa-
leolithic collections, are mainly common in upper Paleolithic sites (Debenath and
Dibble, 1994, pp. 9698). Sackett, following Sonneville-Bordes and Tixier, char-
acterized the Standard Burin Group as consisting of three main typesdihedral,
truncation, and break burins, distinguished by the manner in which the technique
was applied to achieve the chisel shaped edge. The pointed dihedral burin results
from the removal of one or more lamellar spalls from an opposing burinated facet
that has been previously spalled in the same fashion; a truncation burin, by driving
one or more such spalls from an abruptly retouched edge known as a truncation;
and a break burin, by similarly spalling a transversally broken blank (Sackett,
1989, p. 52). Despite Sacketts insistence on the intrinsic typological impor-
tance of the three types, and the general acceptance of this statement, definitions
cited above describe a wide variety of blades and flakes that were retouched in a
certain fashion, without suggesting whether a particular burin is the intended end
product, a step in a reduction sequence, a resharpening of a used edge, or a retouch
of an unsuccessful edge. Any of these actions would have resulted in the same
shape, creating a seemingly uniform category, and one that furthermore appears
quite significant, because of its numerical importance in many collections.
Despite the heterogeneous character of the tool category, the burin came to
be considered one of the representative Paleolithic types, discussed in terms of
its numerous variations rather than questioning the category itself (e.g., Knecht,
1988; Pradel, 1971; Rigaud, 1972; Sackett, 1989). The notion of a well-defined
type has been somewhat shaken since the introduction of new evidence from
microwear analyses of burin edges (e.g., Moss, 1983; Plisson, 1985; Symens,
1986; Vaughan, 1985a). Use-wear studies have stressed the variability, as not only
the tip of burins had traces of use, but also edges, and both proximal and distal
ends. In addition, these studies have shown that engraving bone or antler were not
What is a Burin? 87

the only activities for which a burin could have been used. Keeley (1987) noted
a drilling function, and suggested that the burin edge could have been a result
of resharpening. Vaughan (1985b) and Plisson (1985) went further, and actually
questioned the burin as a type.
Vaughan focused his inquiry on the technique by which a burin was created,
pointing out that all functional studies of the tool, from the earliest Clark and
Thompson (1953) case, to the more recent examples (Hayden, 1979; Newcomer,
1974; Rigaud, 1972), accepted it as a finished product, and then only showed that
which they presumedthat a burin was an efficient tool for engraving (Vaughan
1985b:489). The technique that produced the tool received no attention, and burin
spalls, even when bearing well retouched dorsal ridges, are counted as unretouched
pieces (debitage), although the burin blow could well have eliminated a used edge
(Vaughan, 1985b, p. 489). A use-wear analysis of numerous burins and burin
spalls from Magdalenian sites in France (Cassegros), and Germany (Andernach,
Zigeunerfels) led him to conclude that in all three assemblages there are only
rare examples of burin bevels (tips) that bear definite signs of having been used,
while somewhat more frequent traces appear on the sides and edges unaffected
by the blow. A large portion of the examined assemblage did not show traces
of wear after the removal of the edge. This Vaughan interpreted as evidence of
rejuvenation, or elimination of the used edge, concluding that the burin blow was a
secondary occurrence, a subsequent technique that could have been applied to any
utilized or unused flint from the assemblage (Vaughan, 1985b, p. 494). Vaughans
attempt was to show the multiple utility of a burin, that it was used not only in
numerous ways, but also on various materials, such as bone, antler, wood, hide,
meat, where cutting edge was not necessarily the primary focus (Vaughan, 1985b,
pp. 492494). A similar argument was made by Plisson (1985) in his analysis of
the Pincevent material, where only a portion of burins had any traces of wear at
all, and those significantly varied in terms of used material and performed activity.
Plisson offered several possible interpretations for the form of burins, including
recognizing some of them as unsuccessful production attempts, or as a core residue.
This line of reasoning found resonance in studies that adopted the chane operatoire
approach and viewed artifacts through the lens of a production sequence rather
than as an end product (for a discussion of the approach see e.g., Bleed, 2001;
Boeda et al., 1990; Edmonds, 1990; Roux, 2003; Schiffer and Skibo, 1997).
Consistent inquiries into the nature of burins emerged in the 1990s, chal-
lenging the concept of burin on empirical grounds by suggesting that in numerous
cases burins served as cores for blade production, specifically in the production of
Dufour bladelets, and that their use as tools was often secondary (e.g., Almeida,
2001; Aubry et al., 1995; Barton et al., 1996; Chazan, 2001; Coinman and Clausen,
2000; Hays and Lucas, 2000). These studies argue convincingly that the artifact
variability is often a result of adjusting the technique of tool manufacture to blade
or flake thickness, rather than an inherent stylistic or functional change. As Chazan
shows in his study of the La Ferassie collection, or Hays and Lucas in the case
88 Tomaskova

of Le Flageolet, busqued burins, Vachons burins, muzzled scrapers, and Dufour

bladelets rather than distinct typological categories appear to be elements of the
same technological system (Chazan, 2001; Hays and Lucas, 2000; Lucas, 1999).
Furthermore, as Chazan (2001, p. 25) stresses, studies of Eastern and Central Eu-
ropean collections are needed to test whether similar technological choices were
made in blade production in regions other than Western Europe and the Levant.
The above studies point to a general need to question accepted typologies from
other regions, as this essay also suggests. Considering the strong focus on types
and categories as temporal and space markers that still dominates lithic research
(especially in contexts outside Western Europe); however, it may be some time
before a serious reconsideration of the established methodological approach to
classification occurs, particularly if only interpretive frameworks are viewed as
changing and developing, and data assumed to be timeless.

CASE OUTLINE

The following study illustrates some of the problems in the use of stone
tool typology, and technology outlined above. Between 19901994 I conducted
research across the border between the former Czechoslovakia (at Doln Veston-
ice/Pavlov) and Austria (at Willendorf). Both sites are renowned for some of the
best examples of the early symbolic representations, female and animal clay and
carved figurines, frequently leading to the impression of a united artistic tradi-
tion across geographic space and frequently time as well (e.g., Gamble, 1986;
Marshack, 1972). Yet as the stone tool assemblages from Willendorf and Pavlov
show, the situation is far more complicated and worthy of a detailed analysis. The
Pavlovian, characterized as a separate subgroup of the Gravettian, is defined
as exhibiting a high proportion of burins represented in the lithic collection at
some sites twice as high a frequency as the next category. If we are to accept
the distinctive character of a collection on the basis of a typea distinction that
is meaningful in terms of activities that produced such a differencewe need
to understand what the characteristics of that type are, how the object exhibiting
them came into being, and, at least in some general sense, what it might have been
used for. Thus, the question for this study arose: what is a burin, particularly if it
is to define a prehistoric cultural group?

HISTORY AND BACKGROUND TO THE SITES: PAVLOV

Although the Doln Vestonice site is better known in Western literature, it

is actually the neighboring locality Pavlov that gave name to the archaeolog-
ical culture involved, the Pavlovian (Klma, 1954, 1959, 1967, 1968). This
term was first defined by Klma in 1959 as a specific local variety, or a cultural
phase of what was then known as the Central European, Eastern, or Lower
What is a Burin? 89

AustrianMoravian Gravettian (Felgenhauer, 1952, 1959, 1995; Klma, 1959,

1967). During the 1950s, the main issue in European Paleolithic archaeology was
to refine the chronology of the Aurignacian that marked the transition from the
Middle to the Upper Paleolithic, and to distinguish it from the subsequent Gravet-
tian sequence. Despite Felgenhauers call to accomplish this task also on the basis
of settlement patterns and the economic and social life of the prehistoric popula-
tions, differentiations continued to be based on typological grounds (Felgenhauer,
1952, 1995). In addition, an observed local variation of the Aurignacianthe
presence of leaf shaped points unknown in Western Europe during that time
periodgave grounds for proposing independent cultural evolution in Central
Europe. The Szeletian named after the Hungarian cave Szeleta where a large
number of the leaf points had been found (Allsworth-Jones, 1986, 1990), was
coined in 1953 by Prosek, providing a convenient stepping-stone for a claim of
separate development in East Central Europe (Prosek, 1953). Once Felgenhauer
outlined the concept of the Eastern Gravettian (1952), and Prosek suggested a cen-
tral European variant even in the previous Aurignacian period (1953), it seemed
only natural that local Gravettian groups should be named as well. Klma proposed
that the Eastern Gravettian should be understood as a large, territorially bound,
unified cultural complex that consisted of smaller local units, groups, and types
(Klma, 1959, p. 41). The only remaining task was to choose the eponymous site
that would name the local groups. Despite the fact that the term Aggsbachian,
proposed by the Austrian archaeologist Bayer in 1928, was considered outdated,
the new proposed cultural group generally comprised the same territory, but now
carried the name Pavlovian. It was suggested that Moravia was the center of
the area, and Pavlov, together with Doln Vestonice, had the longest continuous
sequence, in addition to being systematically excavated and well recorded (Klma,
1959, p. 43). Besides Doln Vestonice, Pavlov and Milovice in southern Moravia,
Predmost (one of the largest, and possibly most complex sites), and Petrkovice in
northern Moravia came to be considered as settlements of the Pavlovian culture
(Svoboda, 1994; Svoboda et al., 1996).
The excavations at Pavlov started in 1952, revealing a promising site with a
large number of recovered artifacts and features. As of 1953 systematic research
began, uncovering a large settlement, that within the first season resulted in an
extraordinary 39,142 lithic specimens, and by the end of the excavation (after 21
seasons), rendered over 60,000 catalogued items, and a total of close to a 1,000,000
artifacts (Klma, 1994). As a site, Pavlov was much larger than any of the Doln
Vestonice sites, or most finds from that time-period as a matter of fact, and
unlike the earlier excavations at Vestoniceit had been excavated and to some
degree spatially recorded in a sufficiently systematic fashion that even 40 years
later it could be reconstructed, and analyzed. Up until 1994, however, all published
statements about the nature of the collection, its relationship to other Moravian,
as well as other central European sites, were based on samples generated in the
process of cataloging.
90 Tomaskova

Archaeological layers at Moravian sites under discussion were all formed dur-
ing a long-time span (2920,000 B.P.), with a minimal deposit of loess (Smolkova,
1991). All layers are composed of matter that is mainly a result of anthropogenic
activities, making differentiation between separate occupations rather difficult.
Consequently undisputed contemporaneity, or its absence, is much harder to es-
tablish at the Moravian sites. This contrasts with the situation at Willendorf II,
where the successive cultural layers are separated by thick soil deposits, creating a
very clear stratigraphic sequence. Three samples for C-14 dating were taken from
Pavlov in 1956, producing consistent results (Svoboda, 1994, p. 210; Svoboda
et al., 1996): GrN 1272: 26, 620 230 B.P., GrN 1325 : 25, 020 150 B.P., GrN
4812: 26, 730 250 B.P., (the dates are not calibrated).

WILLENDORF II

The archaeological location Willendorf is a sequence of seven single loess

sites (WIWVII) on the left bank of the river Danube, nested next to each other
in the southnorth direction at the foot of the Nussberg mountain. A clear strati-
graphic sequence was recorded only at Willendorf II where layers 19 were
identified (Felgenhauer, 1959, pp. 914). C-14 dates were obtained from the Au-
rignacian layers 15, ranging from 32,000 to 30,000 B.P. and, for layer 8, the date
of 25, 800 800 B.P. (not calibrated) (Otte, 1990; Haesaerts, 1990). Layers 59
were identified as containing a Gravettian culture of western as well as eastern
types with specific Willendorf culture in layer 9 (Felgenhauer, 1959, p. 211; see
also Broglio and Laplace, 1966; Kozlowski, 1986; Montet-White, 1991).
The Willendorf II collection has been covered and analyzed in detail in
just two major works (Felgenhauer, 1959; Otte, 1981), one typological study
(Broglio and Laplace, 1966), and one comparative study (Tomaskova, 2000); a
number of articles deal with Willendorf II marginally. All the work has been
written in either German (Felgenhauer, 1959; Hahn, 1977) or French (Broglio
and Laplace, 1966; Otte, 1981), and no comprehensive treatment yet exists in
English.
Charcoal samples collected from layer 5 gave a C-14 date 30, 500 900 B.P.
(GrN-11193), a humus sample was dated to 23, 830 190 B.P. (GrN-11194),
although the accuracy of the date is generally doubted (Haesaerts, 1990, p. 211).
Based on sedimentology, climatic conditions in layer 6 are assumed to have been
the same as they were during the occupation in layer 5: tundra like, cold but
relatively humid environment (Haesaerts, 1990, p. 209). Layer 6 contained the
fewest artifacts of the layers under consideration, with a lithic assemblage of only
199 pieces. Although levels 5 and 6 are separated from each other by a distinct
sterile layer, Otte (1990, p. 220) considers them to be a part of the same stage
30,00028.000 B.P., characterized by microliths, and represented not only by the
French site La Gravette, but also Mauern, Geissenklosterle, and Doln Vestonice.
What is a Burin? 91

The time frame proposed for levels 7 and 8 is between 28,000 and 26.000 B.P.
(Otte, 1990, p. 220). New evaluation of the pedogenesis allowed a more detailed
knowledge of the paleoclimate, and Haesaerts suggests that starting with layer 7,
the climate became drier, colder, and more tundra like (Haesaerts, 1990, pp. 207
209). Layer 8, excavated in 1908, 1909, and 1927, was located only 50 cm above
layer 6 (Felgenhauer, 1959, p. 93). Clear definition of the cultural horizon was
originally visible only in the middle section of the sequence, achieving 50 cm in
thickness, disappearing in all other directions (Felgenhauer, 1959, p. 93). A new
profile cut in 1981 allowed a much better distinction of the layer, as well as charcoal
samples for C-14 datingGrN-11191: 25, 800 800 B.P. (as is the case with all
the dates mentioned abovenone were calibrated) (Haesaerts, 1990, p. 211).
Layer 9 was excavated during the 1908, 1909, and 1927 seasons, and new
profiles were created in 1955 and again in 1981 (Felgenhauer, 1959; Haesaerts,
1990). Typologically, the assemblage has been assigned to the central European
variant of the Gravettian. Otte (1990, p. 221) recently re-evaluated the Willendorf
II sequence, and considered layer 9 as a proof of a complete break between western
and eastern European regions based on typological analysis.

METHODOLOGY

My analysis of the lithic collection from each site, Pavlov and Willendorf
II, proceeded in a number of linked steps (for further details of the study see
Tomaskova, 2000). After the initial raw material identification, I recorded and
examined the lithics from both sites. The entire recovered collection from Pavlov
amounted to 52,883 lithic pieces (Klma, 1954). Klma selected, typologically
identified, and entered 5379 pieces into the site catalogue. This catalogue inventory
constituted the basis for the study sample that I analyzed, and out of it I was able
to locate 4081 artifacts, the remaining pieces were presumably lost over the years
in storage (Table I). However, all published accounts of the Pavlov collection that

Table I. Pavlov: Typology Including Debitage

and Cores (After Svoboda, 1994)
Typology Count %

Blade 1620 39.7

Burin 749 18.35
Debitage 660 16.17
Microlith 551 13.5
Point 182 4.46
Endscraper 177 4.34
Scraper 63 1.54
Backed 49 1.2
Core 22 0.54
Combination 8 0.2
Total 4081 100.0
92 Tomaskova

Table II. Pavlov: Formal Typology,

Excluding Debitage and Cores (After
Svoboda, 1994)
Typology Count %

Burin 749 42.1

Microlith 551 30.97
Point 182 10.23
Endscraper 177 9.95
Scraper 63 3.54
Backed 49 2.75
Combination 8 0.45
Total 1779 99.99

refer to proportions of individual tool categories in the collection refer only to the
selection of formal tools, excluding debitage and cores, and this smaller group
of artifacts amounted to 1779 pieces (Table II) (Klma, 1994; Svoboda, 1994;
Svoboda et al., 1996; for a detailed discussion of this selection of formal tool
category as opposed to a study of a collection as a whole see Tomaskova, 2003).
The original Willendorf II collection from layers 59 amounted to 7000
lithic pieces (formal tools and debitage), out of which 2712 pieces were typologi-
cally identified, recorded and published (Broglio and Laplace, 1966; Felgenhauer,
1956). In the storage of the Museum of Natural History in Vienna I was able to
locate 2631 of these lithic (Table III). The remaining pieces were presumed lost
during the many moves in the museum storage facility. Since one of the aims of the
research was to compare the two collections, I recorded the original classification
of each piece as described by Felgenhauer (1956) and Klma (1976). In addition
I aimed to evaluate the effectiveness, reliability, and information value of using
stone tool types as the defining characteristics of any archaeological entity. Thus, I
also examined the internal consistency of categories, as empirically applied in the
organization of materials recovered from each site, constructing a formal typology

Table III. Willendorf II Lithic Collection (total 2631)

Willendorf II 5 5 6 6 7 7 8 8 9 9
Typology Count % Count % Count % Count % Count %

Debitage 245 40.83 83 41.71 51 18.02 200 38.61 440 42.68

Blade 201 33.5 91 45.73 211 74.56 222 42.86 213 20.66
Microlith 64 10.67 2 1.01 4 1.41 37 7.14 68 6.6
Burin 35 5.83 8 4.02 4 1.41 8 1.55 116 11.25
Endscraper 35 5.83 10 5.03 6 2.12 44 8.49 116 11.25
Scraper 10 1.67 1 0.5 5 1.77 5 0.97 16 1.55
Point 7 1.17 3 1.51 2 0.71 1 0.19 45 4.37
Combination 2 0.33 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0.78
Hammer 1 0.17 1 0.5 0 0 1 0.19 7 0.68
Borer 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0.19
Total 600 100.0 199 100.0 283 100.0 518 100.0 1031 100.0
What is a Burin? 93

Table IV. Willendorf II Layers: Formal Typology, Excluding Debitage

Willendorf II 5 5 6 6 7 7 8 8 9 9
Typology Count % Count % Count % Count % Count %

Microlith 64 41.8 2 8.3 4 19.0 37 38.95 68 18.3

Burin 35 22.9 8 33.3 4 19.0 8 8.4 116 31.3
Endscraper 35 22.9 10 41.7 6 28.6 44 46.3 116 31.3
Scraper 10 6.5 1 4.2 5 23.8 5 5.3 16 4.3
Point 7 4.6 3 12.5 2 9.5 1 1.05 45 12.1
Combination 2 1.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 2.2
Borer 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 5
Count 153 100.0 24 100.0 21 99.9 95 100.0 371 99.95

of the Willendorf II material that would be comparable to the Pavlov collection

(Table IV). Following the analysis of the formal attributes, I conducted a use-wear
analysis of all the artifacts, formal tools and debitage.

Use-Wear Methodology

The use-wear analysis proceeded in two stages. First, I used Meopta micro-
scope with an external light source with two magnifications (75 and 200) for
the use-wear examination of the Pavlov collection. The analysis of the Willen-
dorf II materials was carried out with a WILD M32 Kombistereo microscope that
had a working distance of 11 mm. Four external light sources provided illumi-
nation for the observations needed. As with the previous collection, I used two
magnifications60 (field diameter 3.3 mm) and 160 (field diameter 1.3 mm).
These magnifications allow observations of microchipping, striations, edge round-
ing, and polish (following Hayden, 1979; Keeley, 1974, 1980; Moss, 1983; Odell,
1979).

Experimental Study Methodology

Prior to the examination of the archaeological artifacts, I carried out an

experimental project relying on methods in similar studies (e.g., Keeley, 1980;
Knutsson, 1988; Tringham et al., 1974; Vaughan, 1985a,b). Blades made from
cobbles of flint recovered at Pavlov were used in the experimental work, so as
to achieve results most closely resembling those observed in the archaeological
materials. Motions parallel to the edge included cutting, sawing, and slicing. Mo-
tions perpendicular to the used edge included scraping, planing and chopping. In
each case the type of activity was recorded, and carried out for a predetermined
duration, and measured in terms of minutes on a cumulative basis. The initial
observation point was prior to the use of the implement, and was followed by
regular observations, in order to determine developmental patterns. In addition to
94 Tomaskova

the worked materials, I noted all the variability involved in the different activi-
ties, recording edge angle, utilized edge, contact angle, contact surface, and the
mode of action. Worked materials were chosen so as to include a wide range of
potential prehistorically used substances. Soft wood (pine) was selected on the
basis of the palaeoenvironmental evidence for mainly evergreen trees present in
the area. Non-woody plant materials included wild grasses (Gramineae), acorns,
dandelion leaves, and the pith of elder. Butchering was performed on fresh meat
products, long cow bones, and deer antler. The antler was soaked for 5 days prior
to the experiment. Cowhide was scraped and cut in a fresh state. Frozen materi-
als were also subjected to the same type of activities as the fresh materials, and
those in the experiment included hide, bone, and meat. All materials, prior to use,
were exposed to temperatures below 15 C for 5 consecutive days. A total of
50 pieces were incorporated into the experimental study, five each for each cate-
gory: bone, antler, wood, reed, plant matter, meat, hide, frozen hide, frozen meat
and frozen bone.

Use-Wear Attributes

The following microwear attributes were recorded first in the experimental

study, followed by the functional analysis of the artifacts:
1. Discrete utilized portions per individual piecean indicator of use inten-
sity, measured in mm and expressed in percentages.
2. Use-wear tracesdistinguishing four broad categories: microchipping,
striations, micropolish, and edge rounding that correspond to general
categories of worked materials.
3. Location of the use-wear traceslateral, distal, ventral, and dorsal as
indicators of possible functions.
4. Characteristics of the use-wear tracesrelative size, distribution, and ori-
entation of the microchipping, striations, micropolish, and edge rounding
as indicators of possible functions, worked materials, and use intensity.
5. Intensity of wear tracesonly general categories of weak, medium, and
strong were recorded as this attribute served only as a control variable,
since a high frequency of non-use causes was noted. The intensity was
measured by the amount, extent and visibility of polish or edge damage.
The main activities that I focused on were scraping, wood shaving, carving,
cutting, drilling, and battering. In each case the worked material and the suggested
prehistoric activity were recorded. Traces of each assumed prehistoric activity were
corroborated by traces observed in the experimental study, as well as published
results (Keeley, 1974, 1980; Moss, 1983; Odell, 1979, Symens 1986). Distinc-
tions between different activities were based on directions of striations along the
used edge, while worked materials had major impact on polish formation and
What is a Burin? 95

microchipping. Cutting fresh material resulted in rounded edges and a develop-

ment of polish, while hide scraping led to perpendicular striations to the lateral
edges, with occasional damage to the dorsal surface of a blade. Wood shaving re-
sulted in distinct rounding of the used edge and polish that was more pronounced
on the ventral surface. Drilling and carving activities were identified by the lo-
calization of the use-wear mostly at distal ends of blades, and an overall pattern
of rounding in the case of drilling. Carving resulted in distinct microchipping,
highly correlated to the nature of the worked material, predominantly bone and
antler. Battering as an activity appeared on larger pieces and was apparent from
pitting and simultaneous rounding of edges, distal or proximal ends. In addition,
I recorded hafting of the implements, identified by dispersed polish along both
edges and ridges of the blades, accompanied by overall moderate rounding. Sev-
eral backed microliths had traces of resin, presumably to secure the implement to
a handle.
At all points the study followed the catalogue inventory and the formal
typological classification at both sites, as described by their original excavators
in their site reports. The typology that I investigated was created by Felgenhauer
(1956) for Willendorf, and later elaborated and organized by Otte (1981), and
Klima (1967, 1968, 1976) for Pavlov, and it reflects their different approaches to
classification of a large amount of recovered material (for a detailed discussion of
the process and issues involved see Felgenhauer, 1995; Tomaskova, 2003).

QUESTIONS OF TYPOLOGY, TECHNOLOGY, AND USE:

BURINS OF THE PAVLOVIAN

The analyzed Pavlov assemblage contained 749 burins, which was 42.1% of
the formal tools and 18.35% of the overall collection (Svoboda, 1994; Svoboda
et al., 1996) (Tables I and II). In order to evaluate the category, I examined all
749 burins, as well as the 74 burin spalls (a bladelet removed by the burin blow
from the edge of a blade or a flake) present in the collection for use-wear traces.
The majority of the burin spalls were not included in the formal tool assemblage,
as they were viewed by the excavators as debitage. As several recent studies have
shown, however, valuable information about the use of stone tools and stone tool
technology can be gained from these pieces (e.g., Chazan, 2001; Hays and Lucas,
2000; Lucas, 1999).
Among the 749 burins, 28 pieces were microburins where the burin technique
was applied at a notch, presumably to segment a bladelet. All of these notched
pieces were smaller (median length 35 mm, median width 20.5 mm) than the
regular burins, supporting the suggestion that they were byproducts of bladelet
manufacture. The Pavlov collection contained a high proportion of microblades
(551 artifacts identified typologically as microliths), yet only 16 microcores were
accounted for, implying possible other forms of blade segmentation, or locales of
96 Tomaskova

production. Although the microburins were primarily a residue of the modification

of bladelets, they were also used for a number of tasks at hand. Microscopic
examination showed that 12 of them (42.9%) had traces of hafting and/or wear,
all of them on edges adjacent to the burin break, clearly unrelated to the initial
bladelet segmentation (Fig. 3). It appears that available, and still deemed usable
stone pieces were recycled. Judging from the type of damage, the microburins
were probably used in shaving either wood or scraping resistant fresh organic
matter (hides and/or meat). Not one of the microburin implements that had traces
of wear appeared to have been used as a graver. The observations support the
proposition that microburins were primarily remnants of blade production, and
their further use was secondary, recycling, mostly nonspecific, cases of using a
suitable piece of a stone for whatever need occurred, frequently without giving
the tool a finalized shape.
Among the 749 (typologically designated) burins, 319 (42.6%) showed traces
of use and/or hafting. This proportion is consistent with the overall pattern of
use in the Pavlov sample where 40.4% of the collection showed traces of wear.
Furthermore, a number of the burins (37 in all, 11% of the use-wear sample) had
traces of multiple activities on separate edges. It is not possible to determine if
multiple use occurred on the same edge if the traces overlap and are covered by
subsequent use, allowing only a glimpse of the last supper. On the other hand,
the frequency of multiple use on opposite edges hints at the likelihood of repeated
activities with the same implement for various tasks.
Besides the typological burins that had traces of use, a number of artifacts
were broken blades that had traces of hafting, and the use could not be determined.
All of the hafting traces on these particular artifacts were at the burin end of the
implement, suggesting that one of the applications of the burin technique was to
enable hafting. It is not possible to state with certainty the original intention of
the maker, or to assume that a hafted piece was a reworked stone, whose other

Fig. 3. Burin with traces of hafting, no traces of use-wear.

What is a Burin? 97

purposes were exhausted. However, the burin blow on these hafted implements
was predominantly applied to the proximal end of the piece (13 out of the 15
observed cases); it was observed only twice on the distal end, suggesting that
this may have been the intended outcome, or at least that pieces with a reworked
proximal end were selected for hafting. Six of these were dihedral symmetrical
burins that enabled easy and secure hafting, while the remaining pieces all had a
long spall unilaterally removed, providing a suitable hafting tang-like handle.
Hafting was one of the early hypotheses for the function of burins (see Movius,
1968; Noone, 1934, 1950), particularly of combination tools where scrapers at
one end were combined with a burin at the opposite end. Although hafting is not
always easily identifiable (Keeley, 1980, 1987; Odell, 1994b, 2001; Symens 1986),
the burins at Pavlov seemed to show consistent pattern of traces that correlate
with hafting damage. Yet it was not a particular type of burin that was modified
for the purpose of hafting, as six of the suggested hafted pieces were dihedral
symmetrical burins but also seven hafted pieces were asymmetrical unilateral
burins, suggesting a possibility of hafting but not necessarily an intended goal of
burin blow modification (see Fig. 3).
The versatility of purpose, as well as materials processed by burins in the
Pavlov collection was quite impressive. The largest number (41.1%) appeared to
have been used for scraping hides, organic substancesnot only meat or bones
but hard objects as well. In all of these activities both edges adjacent to the
chisel end were used, frequently taking advantage of the straight, unmodified,
but fairly wide edge created by the removal of the burin spall. Shaving wood
was the second most common activity (24.8%), a motion that was the closest
to scraping, taking advantage of the long edges acquired through the burin blow
technique. It appears that the majority of the burins that had observable traces
of use were used in scraping or shaving various types of materials, predomi-
nantly using the long edge of the tool rather than the bevel tip, generally assumed
to have been used for engraving. Typologically assigned scrapers consisted of
only 10% of the formal tool category at Pavlov, yet scraping as an activity in-
terpreted from the traces on the implements observed microscopically accounted
for 42% of all traces, with wood-shaving additional 10%. The wide discrepancy
between formal categories and microscopic evidence suggests that a common ac-
tivity was often practiced with various implements, not necessarily only finalized
designated tools.
Carving was one activity for which the burin bevel appears to have been
used with some frequency (37 pieces, 11.6%). The pointed ends of several burins
bore evidence of wood polish, but others showed also traces of wear from bone,
dry hide, and shells or a similarly resistant material. A few pieces (9) also dis-
played signs of heavy batteringeither in chopping or another forceful action
that left deep pits and scars. All such stones were former edges of a larger stone,
removed either to resharpen it, or to create a new tool. This rejuvenation was
98 Tomaskova

Table V. Pavlov and Willendorf II, Comparison of Burin tool Type and Artifacts Modified
by the Burin Blow Technique
Collection Total Lithics Burin Type % Burin Technique %

Willendorf II-5 600 35 5.83 56 9.33

Willendorf II-6 199 8 4.02 19 9.55
Willendorf II-7 283 4 1.4 24 8.48
Willendorf II-8 518 8 1.54 22 4.25
Willendorf II-9 1031 116 11.25 152 14.74
Pavlov 4081 749 18.35 824 20.2

achieved with a single blow, and a removal of a substantially thicker flake or a

blade.

THE BURIN SPALL

Upon closer examination of the collection, I identified a number of pieces

(74), formally catalogued either as debitage (48), or blades (26), as burin spalls
blades removed by the burin blow from either a core, or a flake (see Fig. 2).
Although the pieces were considered debitage, microwear analysis, combined
with attention to manufacturing techniques, revealed information that allows for a
better understanding of their use-lives, and helps explain the existence of burins in
the collection. The technological standpoint is adopted more readily with regard
to a microburin than in the case of a standard burin: Because microburins were
seldom fabricated into tools, there is no real reason that they should be included
in type lists with retouched pieces over other forms of debitage (e.g., burin spalls)
that were also occasionally fabricated into tools. (Henry, 1974, p. 389).
As a number of the burin spalls showed, one reason for the application of the
burin blow technique was the decision to remove a used edge of a tool, presumably
either because the edge has become functionally inadequate, or because the tool
as a whole was not needed anymore, and by removing the used part, it could
be refashioned into a new implement. Traces of use were present on 21 of the
burin spalls (28.4%), and in all cases the wear was on the edge opposite the burin
edge, confirming the suggestion that the technique was applied to remove a used
edge, rather than to create an edge that was subsequently used. Most frequently
(9 pieces), it seems that the tool was heavily used on hard coarse materials, with
the next most common application (5 pieces) being on plant matter, and some
additional use in working fresh bone, hide, and/or meat. The majority of used
edges had traces of cutting (11 pieces), mostly pronounced marks that implied
heavy use, while scraping left traces on 7 pieces, and heavy battering on 5 burin
spalls. Two of the artifacts exhibited both pronounced traces of wear and multiple
use involving scraping and cutting. This evidence suggests that the tools were used
on a variety of materials, rather than representing the remains of a specialized,
What is a Burin? 99

form-defined activity. The majority of the burin spalls (50 pieces, 67.6%) had no
traces of wear and were either removed as a part of reshaping a core, or as a step
in a blade production sequence. Thus, the burin spalls provide further support to
the hypothesis that the burin technique represents a way of shaping edges (used
as well as unused), serving to eliminate worn out parts of a tool, and as a step
in a production of blades. The relationship between burins and cores is further
underlined by the fact that a great number of reduced cores (50 pieces) were
included in the burin group, with no traces of wear.
The group of tools traditionally labeled as burins appears highly variable in
terms of its origin and stage in a production or reduction sequence. Frequently these
lithic pieces may represent debitage rather than formalized tools, or a byproduct,
which is then used secondarily. In either case their actual use is often independent
of the burin edge, which led to their classification in archaeological collections. The
overview of the burinated pieces from the Pavlov collection suggests a diversity
rather than unity of a tool group, indicating that the typological assignment does
not help in addressing questions of prehistoric activities at the site. The use-wear
pattern of all the stone tools in the Pavlov collection suggested a possibility of
a long-term settlement with numerous activities having taken place (for details
see Tomaskova, 2000). Typological categories did not seem to underlie any of
the patterns observed, a point that will be noted also in relation to the Willendorf
materials.

WILLENDORF II

The use-wear analysis discussed below is separated into collections by in-

dividual layers, as these do appear to be separate depositional events, following
typological studies by Broglio and Laplace (1966), Felgenhauer (1959), and Otte
(1981).

Willendorf II: Layer 5

Layer 5 was technically interesting from several perspectives. Although deb-

itage and unretouched blades were the two most numerous groups in all layers
(40.8% and 33.5%, respectively), formal tools (artifacts with a significant degree
of modification to alter the basic shape of a blade or a flake) contributed 25.7%
of the collection, the second highest proportion after layer 9 (where formal tools
represented 36.7%) (Table II). Microliths dominated the formal tools, and further-
more all the lithics from layer 5 were of a small size (average length 38.5 mm with
a high standard deviation 19.6, and width 15.58 mm, standard deviation 9.3). The
pieces that had discernible traces of use were even smaller (36.48 mm) with the
variation in size increased slightly (standard deviation 20.4), suggesting that very
small and larger pieces were most frequently used.
100 Tomaskova

Burins formed a small portion of the collection only 35 pieces of the total
collection of 600 pieces (5.8% or 22.7% of the formal tools Tables II and III) were
identified as such. On the other hand, after I studied the collection I identified 21
additional pieces, typologically categorized as blades, debitage, or combination
tools, were in this study described as either burin spalls, or were retouched with
the burin blow technique. Thus, 56 pieces (9.3% of all the lithic artifacts in layer
5) were modified by the burin blow technique, compared to the 5.8% of pieces
that were typologically assigned to a burin tool type category in the original
classification (Felgenhauer, 1959).
The rate of use among these 56 artifacts was high as 36 pieces (64.3%) had
traces of wear or hafting, compared to the 48.4% use of all the artifacts in layer
5 (the highest use-rate of all the layers). The burin edge on these pieces was not
utilized in any uniform fashion. Only occasionally it appears to have facilitated
hafting. The most common use of burins appears to have been scraping fresh
material, probably bone and/or hides, closely followed by wood-working. Both
activities involve the same type of motion, and the two groups of worked materials
did not display any particular difference of tool modification. The smaller tools
(average length 44 mm) were observed to more often have traces of scraping, while
the larger pieces (average length 51 mm) were more frequently associated with
traces of wood-shaving. Traces of cutting did not appear on any of the implements,
and no multiple use of any one single artifact was observed.
The multiple patterns of wear, as well as the non-specific character of use
of any segment of the implements supports the suggestion made in the analysis
of the Pavlov collection, namely that a significant number of burins are likely
manufacture byproducts, frequently put to secondary use. Many burins should
be viewed as byproduct resulting from one of the steps in a manufacture or
rejuvenation process, a part of a larger technological system rather than specific
defined types.

Willendorf II: Layer 6

Typologically layer 6 exhibits slight changes compared to layer 5. Blades

and debitage are still the two dominant categories but blades now predominate
and debitage ranks only second (Table III). Only 12.6% (25 pcs.) of the recovered
artifacts from this layer were identified as formal tools and microliths drop signif-
icantly (Table III). The remaining typological categories remain relatively stable,
with only slight changes. Yet when evaluating these shifts, one has to keep in mind
the small number of artifacts in layer 6: a total of 199 pieces and only 25 of them
identified as formal tools.
A total of eight blades were shaped by the burin blow, and were typologically
assigned into the burin category. Additional seven pieces of debitage and four
blades were modified by the same technique that resulted in a burin edge. A total
What is a Burin? 101

Fig. 4. Bipolar burin, edge with traces of use-wear.

of 19 lithic pieces were then modified by the burin blow (9.6%), a proportion
almost identical to the preceding layer (9.3%). There was no pattern as to the
end of the tool chosen for modification, as distal end had a burin retouch in eight
cases, proximal end seven times, and bipolar retouch occurred twice (Fig. 4). The
size of the burinated pieces, median length 65 mm (standard deviation 14.7), and
median width 24 (standard deviation 7.3), was the largest in all of Willendorf II.
Although 11% of the artifacts in layer 6 were made on quartzite, not one of these
was modified by the burin blow, flint being the dominant material (15 out of 19)
with such a retouch.
Out of a total of seven pieces with use-wear traces woodworking (shaving and
carving) seems to have been the most common activity for which burins were used
in this particular layer. The location of use marks along the edges varied with each
piece, suggesting that the resulting burin shape was not a premeditated product.
However, the small sample size in this layer cautions against over-interpretation
of the statistics.

Willendorf II: Layer 7

The assemblage recovered from layer 7 was unique among the analyzed
Willendorf II layers in a number of ways. It had the highest proportion of unmod-
ified blades (74.6%), and by far the lowest proportion of debitage (only 18% of
the recovered lithics). Only 21 artifacts were identified as formal tools (7.4%),
the lowest share among all the analyzed layers (Table III). This may be partly an
artifact of the controversial stratigraphy of this layer, as some researchers who
attempted reconstruction of the sequence questioned the existence of a separate
cultural horizon in layer 7 (Felgenhauer, 1959, p. 93, Haesaerts, 1990, p. 207). Yet
it remains possible that other reasons related to prehistoric behavior, such as short
term, seasonal, or special activity occupation, were responsible for this particular
artifact composition.
102 Tomaskova

Only four pieces were classified as burins, two of them were cores reduced by
the burin blow. An additional 18 blades and 2 pieces of debitage were modified by
the burin blow technique. Out of this total of 24 lithics, 16 had discernible traces of
use and/or hafting. The burin modification on these used artifacts appeared more
patterned than in the previous layers. Ten pieces had the proximal end modified
and five modifications appeared on the distal end, in three cases this was done to
resharpen or modify an existing implement. Eleven of the artifacts with wear traces
appear to have been hafted, in five cases the burin modification of the proximal
end served for this purpose, while no distal end modification seems to have been
put to such use.
All of the observed traces were along the edges adjacent to the burin end,
with patterning that was a result of scraping/processing (8 cases), or cutting (4
cases) fresh, organic matter such as hide and/or bone. Woodworking appeared to
have left traces only on three implements. Layer 7 seems unusual in a number of
respects including the fairly specific implementation of the burin technique, and
the subsequent use of the resulting artifacts. The short-term and specific nature
of occupation seems to be supported by the lack of cores and debitage in the
collection. Although, or perhaps because, the collection consisted of only a small
proportion of formal tools (7.4%) and the highest share of unmodified blades
(74.5%), the largest proportion of burin modified artifacts in all the Willendorf
II layers had traces of use-wear (66.6%). If layer 7 does constitute a separate
occupation, then the technique may have been implemented in order to increase
the usability of the small collection of lithics that were used for a specific task in a
limited time, as creation of formal tools does not appear to have been the primary
activity at the site.

Willendorf II: Layer 8

Layer 8 appeared to be most interesting in terms of techniques used to shape

the lithic artifacts. Although unmodified blades and debitage were still the two
largest groups (42.9% and 38.6%), the modified artifacts differed from the pre-
vious and subsequent layers. This is partly reflected in the significantly higher
occurrence of endscrapers (46.3% of the formal tools), and microliths (38.95% of
the formal tools) (Table IV). Despite the fact that the collection from this particular
layer was quite substantial (518 pieces), only 22 pieces (4.3%) were modified by
the burin blow (as opposed to 8.5% in the previous layer, or 14.7% in the subse-
quent one). Only eight pieces in layer 8 were identified as burins, 13 additional
pieces were burin spallstwo blades and 11 debitage pieces, and one endscraper
showed retouch by the burin blow. Furthermore, only five of these had any traces
of use.
Among the five pieces, two were resharpening burin spalls with pronounced
use traces along the edge opposite the burin retouch, the remaining three lithics
What is a Burin? 103

Fig. 5. Burin blow applied to a blade, no traces of wear.

had traces of scraping along various sections of the artifact. The lack of pattern
in the use of the edges acquired by the burin blow suggests that the technique
was used only as a resharpening strategy, and even then it was applied minimally
without the intention of creating a usable tool. The majority of the burin modified
pieces were reduced cores, flakes, or retouch blades with no obvious marks that
would indicate utilization (Fig. 5). The overall low rate of utilization of artifacts in
this particular layer (39.4% had observable use marks) suggests that the infrequent
application of the burin technique may have been the result of a general lack of
intensity of use of the available raw materials. In other words, without the need to
economize and use all available lithic resources, the burin technique was applied
mainly in the production of blades.

Willendorf II: Layer 9

A significant change in layer 9 appeared in the low number of unretouched

blades (20.7%), a higher presence of debitage (42.7%) than in any of the Willendorf
II layers, and a dramatic increase in the number of typological burins (11.3%) (Otte,
1981, p. 289) (Table III).
The number of burins increased dramatically in layer 9, reaching 116 pieces
as compared to the 8 pieces in the previous layer. A number of these (43 pieces)
appear to have been expended cores. An additional 21 microburins were present
in the collection, all remnants of bladelet segmentation, and only two of them had
any traces of subsequent use as tools.
In the whole group of 152 burin blow modified implements, 71 (46.7%) had
traces that could be interpreted as having been caused by either hafting or use.
Among the 71 lithics that had discernible traces of use, 42 appear to have been
hafted, in 25 cases the burin retouch served to enable this. The same pattern could
also be observed in the pieces that were identified as combination tools (7 pieces),
endscrapers with a burin at the opposite end. In five cases the burin end was used
for hafting (Fig. 6).
104 Tomaskova

Fig. 6. Burin with traces of hafting and scraping.

The artifacts from this particular layer displayed the highest rate of multiple
uses of the burinated edges (10 implements), most often traces of scraping along
one of the edges occurred in combination with marks on the tip of the tool
resulting from carving (Fig. 7). On the other hand, the burin modification was not
applied to resharpen an already used edge, as no traces of utilization appeared
on the edge with the burin retouch. Variation in the portion of used edges and
hafting was substantial, supporting the argument that among other purposes, the
burin technique was applied to modify larger pieces, and the formed edge was
subsequently used for a variety of functions.

DISCUSSION

The study presented above suggests considerable variation in the application

of classificatory methods to support a theoretical claim, such as that of belonging
to a unique cultural techno-complex. Typological categories that describe the

Fig. 7. Burin with traces of hafting and carving.

What is a Burin? 105

collections at Willendorf II and Pavlov were treated differently enough to construct

data sets that reflected those differences, and in turn emphasized the distinctiveness
of each site. The much higher representation of tools in the Pavlov collection (44%)
seems more likely to be the result of a sample bias rather of cultural traits of the
sites prehistoric occupants.
Once the tool types were re-examined, not only in terms of their fit with
standard definitions but also in terms of their production and use, it became
clear that tool typology is too narrow a way of studying archaeological materials
to be particularly insightful about activities, decisions and prehistoric behav-
ior. The outcome of the study stressed the need to consider production, main-
tenance, and reduction techniques rather than rely on numerical representation
of typological categories alone. Furthermore, it became apparent that a signif-
icant proportion of unmodified artifacts may need to be taken on equal terms
with formal tools in undertaking their analysis. Viewing burin blow, rather than
the resulting tool typeburin, as a technique of manufacture, modification, and
resharpening allowed me to examine a much wider group of artifacts besides
those typologically identified as burins in the initial classification (Table V). Fur-
thermore, considering this technique as one of the several technological choices
made by the prehistoric occupants of Pavlov and Willendorf II provided a much
greater insight into prehistoric behavior, especially when combined with use-wear
analysis.
Use-wear traces on artifacts with burin retouch in this part of the Central
European Gravettian suggest that they were used for a range of activities that
included scraping and shaving, but also carving and cutting, and occasionally
battering or drilling. The resulting image of a burin is far from that of an engraving
tool, and closer to that of a pocketknife. Moreover, as we have seen, these artifacts
appear to have been used on several different edges, without a simple link between
morphology of artifact production and its function. This pocketknife, then, would
be both the result of improvisation and a tool for further improvisation.
The evidence presented here does not support the maintenance of a separate
category of the burin as a formal tool. I would argue instead for the existence of a
technique by which blades are removed from either cores, thicker flakes, or used
tools (in agreement with studies by Aubry et al., 1995; Chazan, 2001; Hays and
Lucas, 2000; Lucas, 1999). This blow leaves a remnant with a straight edge (or
several in the case of multiple burins), which may be later used. With regard to the
question whether a burin blow is a creator or an eliminator (Vaughan, 1985a,b),
the answer would be that it is both, and more. A burin blow was applied in the
sample of stones from Pavlov and Willendorf II for several reasons: to detach
blades and bladelets from cores (or other thicker flakes), to remove a used edge
from a tool, and occasionally as one of the initial steps in a tool manufacture that
may not have been completed. In each of these cases, a decision for subsequent use
of the resulting implement was dependent on the prehistoric context that should
ultimately be our goal to investigate.
106 Tomaskova

WHAT TO DO WITH A BURIN?

The results of the analysis provide a basis for questioning the burin as a
type indicative of cultural differences. It appears that a number of steps involved
in manufacture, as well as use, would result in a similar form that has features
traditionally recognized in a burin. The formal category burin seems to represent
a stage in tool production or modification as much as an end in itself. At the same
time, the technique creates an edge occasionally engaged for other activities as
well. Depending on the activity, the materials processed, and most likely other
factors, additional retouch refashioned some of the stones into objects different in
appearance.
Archaeologists have recognized the theoretical thinness of the culture con-
cept in prehistory for some time. As this study illustrates, the burin represents a
particularly heterogeneous category, combining several possible patterns of pro-
duction and consumption. Type, technique and use do not simply reduce into a
single, clear picture. Examining all three permits us to question a stone tool cate-
gory, while creating a more complex set of data to use in site reconstruction and
comparison.
I started this essay by asking: What is a burin? On the basis of the above
analysis, the simplest answer would be that a burin can be a number of things, a de-
gree of variability obscured within a singular, typological point of view. Taking the
category of burin apart leads to a conclusion that any one form may be a result of
several actions, and frequently may not represent the final stage. Rather than sim-
ply explaining burins, then, this essay contributes to a debate that re-examines the
traditional concept of stone tools as discrete, functionally specific forms, finished
according to an accepted, culturally predetermined pattern, and used accordingly.
Recent work focused on the life histories of artifacts with the aim to understand
technological choices is a much welcome development in this direction (e.g.,
Bleed, 2001; Boeda et al., 1990; Roux, 2003; Schiffer, 2001; Schiffer and Skibo,
1997). Most generally of all, however, this study suggests a need to examine col-
lections as a whole rather than separating individual typological groups from each
other, and to consider the contexts in which they were created. Interpretive caution
is particularly crucial when we are dealing with inter-regional comparisons, mu-
seum collections or data sets constructed at the intersections of different methods
and theories than those currently in use.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Funding for the fieldwork part of this project was provided by the Wenner-
Gren Foundation, the Social Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada
and the University of California at Berkeley. The University of North Carolina at
What is a Burin? 107

Chapel Hill provided both research leave and a supportive atmosphere for its even-
tual reworking and conclusion. I am grateful to Walpurga Antl and Jiri Svoboda
for assistance with collections in the Archeologicky Ustav in Doln Vestonice,
Czech Republic and the Naturhistorisches Museum in Vienna, Austria. Discus-
sions with Ofer Bar-Yosef, Michael Bisson and Nigel Gorring-Morris about the
nature of burins and micro-burins in collections from the Levant and Western
Europe were extremely helpful and illuminating. Peter Redfield generously edited
and illustrated several versions of the article. Catherine Cameron and James Skibo
were very accommodating and encouraging through the entire editorial process,
helping with references and improving the clarity of my argument. Five anony-
mous reviewers provided extensive and constructive criticism of the essay, forcing
me to sharpen my discussion, and I am grateful for their time and generosity.
Nevertheless all interpretations and claims remain my own responsibility.

REFERENCES CITED

Adams, W. Y., and Adams, E. W. (1991). Archaeological typology and practical reality, Cambridge
University Press.
Allsworth-Jones, P. (1986). The Szeletian and the Transition from Middle to Upper Paleolithic in
Central Europe, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Allsworth-Jones, P. (1990). The Szeletian and the stratigraphic succession in central Europe and
adjacent areas: Main trends, recent results, and problems for resolution. In Mellars, P. (ed.), The
Emergence of Modern Humans: An Archaeological Perspective, Cornell University Press, Ithaca,
New York, pp. 160242.
Almeida, F. (2001). Cores, tools, or both? Methodological consideration for the study of carinated lithic
elements: The Portuguese Case. In Hays, M. A. and Thacker, P. T. (eds.), Questioning the Answers:
Re-Solving Fundamental Problems of the Early Upper Paleolithic, British Archaeological Reports
International Series 1005, Oxford, pp. 9197.
Andrefsky, W. (1994). Raw-material availability and the organization of technology. American Antiq-
uity 59: 2135.
Aubry, T., Detrain, L., and Kervazo, B. (1995). Les Niveaux intermediaires entre le Gravettien et le
Solutreen de labri Casserole (Les Eyzies de Tayac): Mise en evidence dun mode de production
original de microlithes et implications. Bulletin de la Societe Prehistorique Francaise 92: 296
302.
Bamforth, D. (1986). Technological efficiency and tool curation. American Antiquity 51: 3850.
Bamforth, D. (1990). Settlement, raw material, and lithic procurement in the Central Mojave Desert.
Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 9: 70104.
Barton, M. C. (1989). Beyond style and function: A view from the Middle Paleolithic. American
Anthropologist 92: 5772
Barton, M. C. (1991). Retouched tools, fact or fiction? Paradigms for interpreting Paleolithic chipped
stone. In Clark, G. A. (ed.), Perspectives on the Past, University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadel-
phia, pp. 143163.
Barton, M. C., Olszewski, D. I., and Coinman, N. R. (1996). Beyond the graver: Reconsidering the
burin function. Journal of Field Archaeology 23: 111125.
Baumler, M. F., and Downum, C. E. (1989). Between micro and macro: a study in the interpretation of
small-sized debitage. In Mauldin, R. P., and Amick, D. S. (eds.), Methodological Contributions to
Lithic Analysis, British Archaeological Reports, International Series No. 528. Oxford, England,
pp. 101116.
Binford, L. (1965). Archaeological systematics and the study of culture process. American Antiquity
31: 203210.
108 Tomaskova

Binford, L. (1973). Interassemblage variabilityThe Mousterian and the functional argument. In

Renfrew, C. (ed.), The Explanation of Culture Change, Gerald Duckworth, London, pp. 227
254.
Binford, L., and Sabloff, J. (1982). Paradigms, systematics, and archaeology. Journal of Anthropolog-
ical Research. 38: 137153.
Bisson, M. (2000). Nineteenth century tools for twenty-first century archaeology? Why the Middle
Paleolithic typology of Francois Bordes must be replaced. Journal of Archaeological Method and
Theory 7: 148.
Bisson, M. (2001). Interview with a Neanderthal: An experimental approach for reconstructing scraper
production rules, and their implications for imposed form in Middle Paleolithic tools. Cambridge
Archaeological Journal 11: 16584.
Bleed, P. (2001). Trees or chains, links or branches: Conceptual alternatives for consideration of stone
tool production and other sequential activities. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 8:
101127.
Boeda, E., Geneste, J.-M., and Meignen, L. (1990). Identification de chanes operatoires lithiques du
Paleolithique ancien et moyen. Paleo 2: 4380.
Bonnichsen, R. (1977). Models for deriving cultural information from stone tools. Archaeological
survey of Canada. Paper no. 60. Ottawa.
Bordes, F. (1950). Principes dune methode detude des techniques de debitage et de la typologie du
Paleolithique ancien et moyen. LAnthropologie 54: 129.
Bordes, F. (1957). La signification du microburin dans le Paleolithique superieur. LAnthropologie 41:
57882.
Bordes, F. (1961). Typologie du Paleolithique Superieur et Moyen. Institut de Prehistoire, Universite
de Bordeaux, Bordeaux, Autriche.
Bordes, F. (1965). A propos de typologie. LAnthropologie 69: 369377.
Bordes, F. (1969). Reflections on typology and techniques in the Palaeolithic. Arctic Anthropology 6:
129.
Bordes, F. (1972). On old and new concepts of typology. Reply. Current Anthropology 13: 140141.
Bordes, F., and de Sonneville-Bordes, D. (1970). The significance of variability in Paleolithic assem-
blages. World Archaeology 2: 6173.
Bousman, C. B. (1993). Hunter-gatherer adaptations, economic risk and tool design. Lithic Technology
18: 5986.
Brew, J. O. (1946). The use and abuse of taxonomy. In Brew, J. O. (ed.), Archaeology of Alkali Ridge,
Southeastern Utah, Papers of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology 21,
Harvard University, Cambridge, pp. 4466.
Brink, J. (1978). An Experimental Study of Microwear Formation on Endscrapers. Ottawa, Mercury
Series, National Museum of Man.
Broglio, A., and Laplace, G. (1966). Etudes de typologie analytique des complexes leptolithiques
de lEurope centrale. Les complexes aurignacoides de la Basse Autriche. Rivista di Scienze
Preistoriche 21: 61121.
Chang, K. C. (1967). Rethinking Archaeology. Random House, New York.
Chazan, M. (2001). Bladelet production in the Aurignacian of La Ferrassie (Dordogne, France). Lithic
Technology 26: 1628.
Clark, J. G. D., and Thompson, M. (1953). The groove and splinter technique of working antler in
Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic Europe. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 20: 148160.
Clay, R. B. (1976). Typological classification, attribute analysis, and lithic variability. Journal of Field
Archaeology 3: 303311.
Coinman, N. R., and Clausen, T. G. (2000). Burins revisited: a re-examination of the burins from Ain
al-Buhira (WHS 618). In Coinman, N. R. (ed.), The Archaeology of the Wadi al-Hasa, West-
Central Jordan, Volume 2: Excavations at Middle, Upper, and Epipaleolithic Sites, Arizona State
University Anthropological Research Papers No. 52, Tempe, pp. 183194.
Conkey, M. W. (1982). Boundedness in art and society. In Hodder, I. (ed.), Symbolic and structural
archaeology, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 115128.
Conkey, M. W., and Hastorf, C. (eds.), (1990). The Uses of Style in Archaeology. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge.
Cotterell, B., and Kamminga, J. (1987). The formation of flakes. American Antiquity 52: 675708.
What is a Burin? 109

Cross, J. (1983). Twigs, branches, trees and forests: Problems of scale in lithic analysis. In Moore, J.
A., and Keene, A. S. (eds.), Archaeological Hammers and Theories, Academic Press, London,
pp. 87106.
Cutliffe, R., and Post, S. (eds.) (1989). Context, History and History of Technology. Lehigh University
Press, Bethlehem.
Debenath, A. (1990). A propos de typologie lithique: Inutilite ou ineluctabilite? Bulletin de la Societe
dAnthropologie du Sud-ouest 25: 191200.
Debenath, A., and Dibble, H. (1994). Handbook of Paleolithic Typology. University Museum, Univer-
sity of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Demars, P.-Y., and Laurent, P. (1989). Types dOutils Lithiques du Paleolithique Superieur en Europe.
Cahiers du Quarternaire No 14, Editions du CNRS, Paris.
Dibble, H. (1984). Interpreting typological variation of Middle Paleolithic scrapers: Function, style or
sequence of reduction? Journal of Field Archaeology 11: 431436.
Dibble, H. (1987). The interpretation of Middle Paleolithic scraper morphology. American Antiquity
52: 109117.
Dibble, H. (1988). Typological aspects of reduction and intensity of utilization of lithic resources in
the French Mousterian. In Dibble, H., and Montet-White, A. (eds.), Upper Pleistocene Prehistory
of Western Eurasia, University Museum, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, pp. 181
197.
Dibble, H. (1990). A new synthesis of Middle Palaeolithic variability. American Antiquity 55: 480
499.
Dibble, H. (1991). Local raw material exploitation and its effects on Lower and Middle Paleolithic
assemblage variability. In Montet-White, A., and Holen, S. (eds.), Raw Material Economies
among Prehistoric Hunter-Gatherers, University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas, pp. 33
47.
Dibble, H. (1995). Scraper reduction: background, clarification, and review of the evidence to date.
Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 2: 299368.
Dibble, H., and Montet-White, A., (eds.) (1988). Upper Pleistocene Prehistory of Western Eurasia.
University Museum, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Dibble, H., and Rolland, N. (1992). On assemblage variability in the Middle Paleolithic of Western
Europe. In Dibble, H., and Mellars, P. (eds.), The Middle Paleolithic: Adaptation, Behavior,
and Variability, University Museum Monograph 72, The University Museum, University of
Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, pp. 128.
Dobres, M.-A., and Hoffman, R. (eds.) (1999). The Social Dynamics of Technology. Practice, Politics,
and World Views, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC.
Dunnell, R. C. (1971). Systematics in Prehistory, Free Press, New York.
Dunnell, R. C. (1973). Fire, air, earth, and water: a rational classification. Mankind 9: 127131.
Dunnell, R. C. (1978). Style and function: a fundamental dichotomy. American Antiquity 43: 192202.
Dunnell, R. C. (1982). Science, social science and common sense: The agonizing dilemma of modern
archaeology. Journal of Anthropological Research 38: 125.
Dunnell, R. C. (1986). Methodological issues in Americanist artifact classification. Advances in Ar-
chaeological Method and Theory 9: 149207.
Edmonds, M. (1990). Description, understanding and the chaine operatoire. Archaeological Review
from Cambridge 9: 5570.
Feblot-Augustins, J. (1993). Mobility strategies in the Late Middle Paleolithic of central Europe and
western Europe: Elements of stability and variability. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology
12: 211265.
Felgenhauer, F. (1952). Zur Problematik des spaten Palaeolithikums in Osterreich. Archaeologia
Austriaca 10: 115.
Felgenhauer, F. (195659). Willendorf in der Wachau. Mitteilungen der Prahistorische Kommission
der Osterreichische Akademie der Wissenschaft 4.
Felgenhauer, F. (199596). AggsbachienGravettienPavlovien. Zur Frage nomenklatorischer Pri-
oritaten in der Urgeschichtsforschung. Mitteilungen der Anthropologischen Gesellschaft in Wien
7576: 249257.
Fink, J. (1962). Studien zur absoluten und relativen Chronologie der fossilen Boden in Osterreich.
Archeologia Austriaca 31: 118.
110 Tomaskova

Fish, P. (1981). Beyond tools: Middle Paleolithic id-cont analysis and cultural inference. Journal of
Archaeological Research 38: 374386.
Fladmark, K. R. (1982). Microdebitage analysis: Initial considerations. Journal of Archaeological
Science 9: 205220.
Flenniken, J. J. (1984). The past, present and future of flintknapping: An anthropological perspective.
Annual Review of Anthropology 13: 187203.
Flenniken, J. J., and Wilke, P. (1989). Typology, technology, and chronology of Great Basin dart points.
American Anthropologist 91: 149158.
Ford, J. A. (1954). On the concept of types. American Anthropologist 56: 4254.
Ford, J. A. (1961). In favor of simple typology. American Antiquity 27: 113114.
Gamble, C. S. (1986). The Paleolithic Settlement of Europe, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Gardin, J.-C. (1980). Archaeological Constructs, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Geneste, J. M. (1990). Development des systemes de production lithique au cours du Paleolithique
moyen en Aquitaine septentrionale. In Farizy, C. (ed.), Paleolithique superieur ancien
en Europe, Memoires du Musee de Prehistoire dIlle de Autriche, Nemours, pp. 203
213.
Gero, J. (1991). Genderlithics: Womens roles in stone tool production. In Gero, J. M., and Conkey,
M. W. (eds.), Engendering Archaeology, Basil Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 163194.
Giddings, J. L. (1956). The burin spall artifact. Arctic 9: 229237.
Gramley, R. (1980). Raw material source areas and curated tool assemblages. American Antiquity 45:
82333.
Green, S. W., and Perlman, S. M. (eds.), (1985). The Archaeology of Frontiers and Boundaries.
Academic Press, Orlando.
Haesaerts, P. (1990). Nouvelles Recherches au gisement de Willendorf (Basse Autriche). Bulletin van
het Koninklijk Belgisch Insitut voor Naturrwetenschappen, Aardwetenschappen 60: 203218.
Hahn, J. (1972). Das aurignacien in Mittel-und Osteuropa. Acta Praehistorica et Archaeologica 3:
77107.
Hahn, J. (1977). Aurignacien: das altere Jungpalaolithikum in Mittel- und Osteuropa. Koln: Funda-
menta Reihe A/9.
Hayden, B. (1984). Are emic types relevant to archaeology? Ethnohistory 31: 7992.
Hayden, B. (1987). From chopper to celt: The evolution of resharpening techniques. Lithic Technology
16: 3343.
Hayden, B. (ed.) (1979). Lithic Use-Wear Analysis, Academic Press, New York.
Hays, M., and Lucas, G. (2000). A technological and functional analysis of carinates from Le Flageolet
I, Dordogne, France. Journal of Field Archaeology 27: 455465.
Hegmon, M. (1992). Archaeological research on style. Annual Review of Anthropology 21: 51736.
Henry, D. O. (1974). The utilization of the microburin technique in the Levant. Paleorient 2: 389398.
Henry, D. O., and Odell, G. H. (eds.) (1989). Alternative Approaches to Lithic Analysis. Archaeological
Papers of the American Anthropological Association, no. 1.
Hill, J. N., and Evans, R. K. (1972). A model for classification and typology. In Clarke, D. (ed.),
Models in Archaeology, Methuen, London, pp. 231273.
Ingold, T. (1988). Tools, minds and machines: An excursion in the philosophy of technology. Tech-
niques et Culture 12: 151176.
Ingold, T. (1990). Society, nature and the concept of technology. Archaeological Review from
Cambridge 9: 517.
Jelinek, A. J. (1976). Form, function and style in lithic analysis. In Cleland, C. E. (ed.), Cultural
Change and Continuity: Essays in Honor of James Bennet Griffin, Academic Press, New York,
pp. 1933.
Jelinek, A. J. (1988). Technology, typology, and culture in the Middle Palaeolithic. In Dibble, H. L., and
Montet-White, A. (eds.), Upper Pleistocene Western Eurasia, University Museum, Philadelphia,
pp. 199212.
Jelinek, A. J. (1991). Observations on reduction patterns and raw materials in some Middle Paleolithic
industries in the Perigord. In Montet-White, A., and Holen, S. (eds.), Raw Material Economies
among Prehistoric Hunter-Gatherers, University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas, pp. 731.
Johnson, J. K., and Morrow, C. A. (eds.) (1987). The Organization of Core Technology, Westview
Press, Westview Special Studies in Arch. Research, Boulder, Colorado.
What is a Burin? 111

Keeley, L. (1974). Technique and methodology in microwear studies: A critical review. World Archae-
ology 5: 323336.
Keeley, L. (1980). Experimental Determination of Stone Tool Uses. Chicago University Press, Chicago.
Keeley, L. (1987). Hafting and retooling: Effects on the archaeological record. American Antiquity 47:
79880.
Kelley, H. (1954). Burins levalloisiens. Bulletin de la Societe Prehistorique Francaise 51: 419
428.
Kelley, H. (1955). Burins acheuleens. Bulletin de la Societe Prehistorique Francaise 52: 278283.
Klejn, L. S. (1982). Archaeological Typology. BAR International Series 153.
Klma, B. (1954). Pavlov, nove paleoliticke sidliste na jizni Morave. Archeologicke rozhledy 6: 137
142.
Klma, B. (1959). Zur Problematik des Aurignacien und Gravettien in Mittel-Europa. Archaeologia
Austriaca 26: 3551.
Klma, B. (1963). Doln Vestonice. CSAV, Praha.
Klma, B. (1967). Pavlovien a jeho vztahy ve stredn Evrope. Archaeologicke rozhledy 19: 558.
Klma, B. (1968). Das Pavlovien in den Weinbergholen von Mauern. Quartar 19: 263.
Klma, B. (1976). Die palaolithische station Pavlov II. Prrodovedne prace ustavu CSAV v Brne X/4.
Academia, Praha.
Klma, B. (1994). Dejiny vyzkumu. In Svoboda, J. (ed.), Pavlov 1952-53, ERAUL 66. Monograph
Series in Archaeology, University of Liege, Belgium, pp. 210.
Klma, B. (ed.) (1976). Perigordien et Gravettien en Europe. Nice, U.I.S.P.P., IX Congres, Colloque
XV.
Knecht, H. (1988). Upper Paleolithic Burins: Type, Form and Function. BAR International Series 434.
Knutsson, K. (1988a). Patterns of tool use. Societas Archaeologica Upsaliensis, AUN 10, Uppsala.
Knutsson, K. (1988b). Making and using stone tools. Societas Archaeologica Upsaliensis, AUN 11,
Uppsala.
Kozlowski, J. K. (1986). The Gravettian in Central and Eastern Europe. Advances in World Archaeology
5: 131200.
Kozlowski, J. K. (ed.) (1976). LAurignacien en Europe. Nice, U.I.S.P.P., IX Congres, Colloque XVI.
Krieger, A. (1944). The typological concept. American Antiquity 3: 271288.
Kuhn, S. L. (1991). Unpacking reduction: Lithic raw material economy in the Mousterian of west-
central Italy. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 10: 76106.
Kuhn, S. L. (1992). Blank form and reduction as determinants of Mousterian scraper morphology.
American Antiquity 57: 115128.
Kuhn, S. L. (1994). A formal approach to the design and assembly of mobile toolkits. American
Antiquity 59: 426442.
Layton, E. T. (1974). Technology as knowledge. Technology and Culture 15: 3141.
Leakey, M. D. (1971). Olduvai Gorge: Excavations in beds I and II, 19601963. Cambridge University
Press, London.
Lechtman, H. (1977). Style in technologySome early thoughts. In Lechtman, H., and Merrill, R. S.
(eds.), Material Culture, Styles, Organization, and Dynamics of Technology. West Publishing, St.
Paul, Minnesota, pp. 320.
Lechtman, H. (1984). Andean value systems and the development of prehistoric metallurgy. Technology
and Culture 15: 136.
Lemonnier, P. (1986). The study of material culture today: Towards an anthropology of technical
systems. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 5: 147186.
Lemonnier, P. (1992). Elements for an Anthropology of Technology. Museum of Anthropology, Uni-
versity of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Lucas, G. (1999). Production experimental de lamelles torses: Approche preliminaire. Bulletin de la
Societe Prehistorique Francaise 96: 146151.
Lurie, R. (1990). Lithic technology and mobility strategies: The Koster Site Middle Archaic. In
Torrence, R. (ed.), Time, Energy, and Stone Tools, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
pp. 4656.
Mansur, M. E. (1982). Microwear analysis of natural and use striations: New clues to the mechanism
of striation formation. Studia Praehistorica Belgica 2: 213233.
Marshack, A. (1972). Roots of Civilization, McGraw Hill, New York.
112 Tomaskova

Moloney, N., and Shott, M. J. (eds.) (1999). Lithic Analysis at the Millennium. Institute of Archaeology,
London.
Montet-White, A. (1991). Lithic acquisition, settlements, and territory in the Epigravettian of Central
Europe. In Montet-White, A., and Holen, S. (eds.), Raw Material Economies Among Prehistoric
Hunter-Gatherers, University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas, pp. 205220.
Montet-White, A., and Holen, S. (eds.) (1991). Raw Material Economies among Prehistoric Hunter-
Gatherers. University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas.
Moss, E. (1983). The Functional Analysis of Flint ImplementsPincevent and Pont dAmbon: Two
Case Studies from the French Final Palaeolithic. BAR International Series 177.
Movius, H. (1968). Note on the history of the discovery and recognition of the function of burins as
tools. In Vaufrey, R. (ed.), La Prehistoire, Problemes et Tendences, C.N.R.S., Paris, pp. 311
318.
Neeley, M. P., and Barton, M. C. (1994). A new approach to interpreting late Pleistocene id-contin
industries in Southwest Asia. Antiquity 68: 275288.
Neugebauer-Maresch, Ch. (ed.), (1993). Niederosterreich in Urgeschichte, Wien.
Newcomer, M. (1974). Study and replication of bone tools from Ksar Akil (Lebanon). World Archae-
ology 6: 138153.
Noone, H. V. V. (1934). A classification of flint burins or gravers. Journal of Royal Anthropological
Institute 64: 8192.
Noone, H. V. V. (1950). Notes on flint burins of the Vezere (Dordogne) sites. Proceedings of the
Prehistoric Society 16: 186191.
OBrien, M. J., and Lyman, R. L. (2003). Cladistics and Archaeology, The University of Utah Press,
Salt Lake City.
Odell, G. H. (1979). A new improved system for the retrieval of functional information from mi-
croscopic observation of chipped stone tools. In Hayden, B. (ed.), Lithic Use-Wear Analysis,
Academic Press, New York, pp. 39244.
Odell, G. H. (1982). Emerging directions in the analysis of prehistoric tool use. Reviews in Anthropology
9: 1733.
Odell, G. H. (1988). Addressing prehistoric hunting practices through stone tool analysis. American
Anthropologist 90: 335356.
Odell, G. H. (1994a). The role of stone bladelets in Middle Woodland Society. American Antiquity 59:
102120.
Odell, G. H. (1994b). Prehistoric hafting and mobility in the North American id-continent: Examples
from Illinois. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 13: 5173.
Odell, G. H. (2000). Stone tool research at the end of the millennium: Procurement and technology.
Journal of Archaeological Research 8: 269331.
Odell, G. H. (2001). Stone tool research at the end of the millennium: Classification, function and
behavior. Journal of Archaeological Research 9: 45100.
Otte, M. (1981). Le Gravettien en Europe centrale. Dissertationes Archaeologicae Gandenses 20.
Otte, M. (1990). Revision de la sequence du Paleolithique Superieur de Willendorf (Autriche). Bulletin
van het Koninklijk Belgisch Insitut voor Naturrwetenschappen, Aardwetenschappen 60: 219
228.
Pelegrin, J. (1990). Prehistoric lithic technology: Some aspects of research. Archaeological Review
from Cambridge 9: 116125.
Pelegrin, J., Karlin, C., and Bodu, P. (1988). Chaines operatoires: Un outil pour le prehistorien. In
Tixier, J. (ed.), Technologie Prehistorique, CNRS, Paris, pp. 5562.
Pfaffenberger, B. (1992). Social anthropology of technology. Annual Review of Anthropology 21:
491516.
Phillipson, D. W. (1985). African Archaeology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Plisson, H. (1985). Etude fonctionelle doutillages lithiques prehistorique par lanalyse des micro-
usures: recherche methodologique et archaeologique. These, Science Humaine, Universite de
Paris 1, Paris.
Pradel, L. (1971). A new classification of burins. Current Anthropology 12: 562563.
Prosek, F. (1953). Szeletien na Slovensku. Slovenska archeologia 1: 133164.
Ricklis, R. A. (1993). Examining lithic technological organization as a dynamic cultural subsystem:
The advantages of an explicitly spatial approach. American Antiquity 58: 444461.
What is a Burin? 113

Riddington, R. (1982). Technology, world view and adaptive strategy in a northern hunting society.
Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology 19: 469481.
Riddington, R. (1988). Knowledge, power, and the individual in subarctic hunting societies. American
Anthropologist 90: 98110.
Rigaud, A. (1972). La technologie du burin applique au materiel osseux de la Garenne (Indre). Bulletin
de la Societe Prehistorique Francaise 69: 104108.
Rolland, N. (1981). The interpretation of Middle Paleolithic variability. Man 16: 1542.
Rolland, N. (1988). Observations on some middle Paleolithic time series in southern France. In Dibble,
H., and Montet-White, A. (eds.), Upper Pleistocene Prehistory of Western Eurasia. University
Museum, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, pp. 161180.
Rolland, N., and Dibble, H. (1990). A new synthesis of Middle Paleolithic variability. American
Antiquity 55: 480499.
Rollefson, G. O. (1988). Stratified burin classes at Ain Ghazal: Implications for the Deert Neolithic of
Jordan. In Garrard, A., and Gebel, H. G. (eds.), The Prehistory of Jordan, British Archaeological
Reports International Series, Oxford, 396, pp. 437449.
Roux, V. (2003). A dynamic systems framework for studying technological change: Application to the
emergence of the potters wheel in the Southern Levant. Journal of Archaeological Method and
Theory 10: 130.
Sackett, J. R. (1977). The meaning of style in archaeology: A general model. American Antiquity 42:
369380.
Sackett, J. R. (1981). From de Mortillet to Bordes: A century of French Paleolithic research.
In Daniel, G. (ed.), Towards a History of Archaeology, Thames & Hudson, London,
pp. 8599.
Sackett, J. R. (1982). Approaches to style in lithic archaeology. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology
1: 59112.
Sackett, J. R. (1989). Statistics, attributes, and the dynamics of burin typology. In Henry, D. O., and
Odell, G. H. (eds.), Alternative Approaches to Lithic Analysis, Archaeological Papers of the
American Anthropological Association, no. 1, pp. 5182.
Sackett, J. R. (1991). Straight archaeology French style: The phylogenetic paradigm in historic perspec-
tive. In Clark, G. (ed.), Perspectives on the Past, University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia,
pp. 109139.
Salomon, J.-J. (1990). What is technology? The issue of its origins and definitions. In Bhattacharya,
S., and Redondi, P. (eds.), Techniques to Technology: A French Historiography of Technology.
Sangam Books, Hyderabad, pp. 242284.
Sassaman, K. (1992). Lithic technology and the hunter-gatherer sexual division of labor. North Amer-
ican Archaeology 13: 249262.
Schiffer, M. B. (ed.) (2001). Anthropological Perspectives on Technology, University of New Mexico
Press, Albuquerque.
Schiffer, M. B., and Skibo, J. M. (1997). The explanation of artifact variability. American Antiquity
62: 2750.
Shott, M. J. (1986). Settlement mobility and technological organization: An ethnographic examination.
Journal of Anthropological Research 42: 1551.
Shott, M. J. (1994). Size and form in the analysis of flake debris: Review and recent approaches.
Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 1: 69110.
Shott, M. J. (1997). Activity and formation as a source of variation in Great Lakes Paleoindian
assemblages. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 22: 197236.
Shott, M. J. (2003). Size as a factor in Middle Paleolithic assemblage variation in the Old World:
A North American perspective. In Moloney, N., and Shott, M. J. (eds.), Lithic Analysis at the
Millennium, Institute of Archaeology, London pp. 137149
Siman, K. (1990). Considerations on the Szeletian unity. Feuilles de pierre: les industries a pointes fo-
liacees de Paleolithique superieur europeen, Etudes et recherches archeologiques de lUniversite
de Liege; No. 42, pp. 189198.
Sinclair, A. (1995). The technique as symbol in Late Glacial Europe. World Archaeology 27: 50
62.
Skibo, J., and Feinman, G. (1999). Pottery and People: A Dynamic Interaction. University of Utah
Press, Salt Lake City.
114 Tomaskova

Sliva, R. J., and Keeley, L. H. (1994). Frits and specialized hide preparation in the Belgian Early
Neolithic. Journal of Archaeological Science 21: 9199.
Smolkova, L. (1991). Soil micromorphologic investigation of the section at Doln Vestonice II.
In Svoboda, J. (ed.), Doln Vestonice II Western Slope, ERAUL 54. Monograph Series in
Archaeology, University of Liege, Belgium, pp. 6574.
Spaulding, A. C. (1953). Statistical techniques for the discovery of artifact types. American Antiquity
18: 305314.
Stiner, M. C., and Kuhn, S. L. (1992). Subsistence, technology, and adaptive variation in the Middle
Palaeolithic. American Anthropologist 94: 306339.
Sullivan, A., and Rozen, K. (1985). Debitage analysis and archaeological interpretation. American
Antiquity 50: 755779.
Svoboda, J. (1983). Raw material sources in Early Upper Paleolithic Moravia. The concept of lithic
exploitation areas. Anthropologie 21: 147158.
Svoboda, J. (1989). Middle Pleistocene adaptations in Central Europe. Journal of World Prehistory 3:
3370.
Svoboda, J. (1994). Pavlov site, Czech Republic: Lithic evidence from the Upper Paleolithic. Journal
of Field Archaeology 21: 6981.
Svoboda, J., and Siman, K. (1989). Middle-Upper Paleolithic transition in southeastern central Europe.
Journal of World Prehistory. 3: 283322.
Svoboda, J. (ed.) (1987). Stranska skala. Bohunicky typ v brnenske kotline. Studie AU CSAV Brno
14(1).
Svoboda, J. (ed.) (1991a). Paleolit Moravy a Slezska. CSAV, Archeologicky Ustav Brno.
Svoboda, J. (ed.) (1991b). Doln Vestonice II Western Slope. ERAUL 54. Monograph Series in
Archaeology, University of Liege, Belgium.
Svoboda, J. (ed.) (1994). Pavlov 1952-53. ERAUL 66. Monograph Series in Archaeology, University
of Liege, Belgium.
Svoboda, J., Lozek, V., and Vlcek, E. (1996). Hunters between East and West: The Paleolithic of
Moravia. Plenum Press, New York.
Svobodova, H. (1991). The pollen analysis of Doln Vestonice II, section No. 1. In Svoboda, J. (ed.),
Doln Vestonice II Western Slope, ERAUL 54. Monograph Series in Archaeology, University
of Liege, Belgium, pp. 7588.
Svobodova, H., and Svoboda, J. (1988). La chronostratigraphie et paleoecologie du Paleolithique
superieur morave dapres les fouilles recentes. In Tuffreau, A., Cultures et industries lithiques en
milieu loessique, Revue archeologique de Picardie, Direction des Antiquites, Amiens, pp. 1115.
Symens, N. (1986). A functional analysis of selected stone artifacts from the Magdalenian site at
Verberie. Journal of Field Archaeology 13: 213222.
Tixier, J. (1963). Typologie de LEpipaleolithique du Maghreb. Memoires du Centre de Recherches
Anthropologiques Prehistoriques et Ethnographiques 2. Alger, AMG, Paris.
Tomaskova, S. (1991). Use-wear analysis of the lithic material from Doln Vstonice, Czechoslovakia.
In Svoboda, J. (ed.), Doln Vstonice II Western Slope, ERAUL 54. Monograph Series in
Archaeology, University of Liege, Belgium, pp. 2840.
Tomaskova, S. (2000). The Nature of Difference: History and Lithics at Two Upper Paleolithic Sites
in Central Europe. B.A.R. International Series 880, Archaeopress, Oxford.
Tomaskova, S. (2003). Nationalism, local histories and the making of data in archaeology. Journal of
the Royal Anthropological Institute 9: 485507.
Trigger, B. (1989). A History of Archaeological Thought. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Tringham, R. E., Cooper, G., Odell, G., Voytek, B., and Whitman, A. (1974). Experimentation in the
formation of edge damage: A new approach to lithic analysis. Journal of Field Archaeology 1:
171196.
Valoch, K. (1981). Beitrag zur Kenntnis des Pavlovien. Archeologicke Rozhledy 33: 279298.
Valoch, K. (1986). Les questions du Pavlovien. Antiquites Nationales 18: 5562.
Vaughan, P. C. (1985a). Use-wear Analysis of Flaked Stone Tools. University of Arizona, Tucson.
Vaughan, P. C. (1985b). The burin-blow technique: Creator or eliminator? Journal of Field Archaeology
12: 488496.
Watson, P. J., LeBlanc, S. A., and Redman, C. L. (1984). Archeological Explanation: The Scientific
Method in Archeology. Columbia University Press, New York.
What is a Burin? 115

Whallon, R., and Brown, J. (eds). (1982). Essays in Archaeological Typology. Center for American
Archaeology Press, Evanston.
Wiessner, P. (1983). Style and social information in Kalahari San projectile points. American Antiquity
48: 253276.
Wright, R. V. S. (1991). Technological styles: Transferring a natural material into a cultural object. In
Kingery, W., and S. Luber (eds.), Learning from Things: Working Papers on Material Culture.
Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC, pp. 242269.
Wright, R. V. S. (ed.) (1977) Stone Tools as Cultural Markers. Australian Institute of Aboriginal
Studies, Canberra.
Wylie, A. (1985). The reaction against analogy. In Schiffer, M. B. (ed.), Advances in Archaeological
Method and Theory, Vol. 8, Academic Press, New York, pp. 63111.
Wylie, A. (1992). A hierarchy of purposes: Typological theory and practice. Current Anthropology 33:
486491.
Wynn, T. (1995). Handaxe enigmas. World Archaeology 27: 1024.