Stone Tool Research at The End of The Millenium (Odell, 2001)

Stone Tool Research at the End of the Millennium: Classification, Function, and Behavior
Author(s): George H. Odell

Source: Journal of Archaeological Research, Vol. 9, No. 1 (March 2001), pp. 45-100
Published by: Springer
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41053173
Accessed: 19-11-2015 02:20 UTC
REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/41053173?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Archaeological Research.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 150.135.239.97 on Thu, 19 Nov 2015 02:20:25 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
JournalofArchaeological
Research,Vol.9, No. 7, 2001
StoneTool Researchat theEnd oftheMillennium:

Function,and Behavior
Classification,
GeorgeH. Odell1
Thisis thesecondofthetwopapersthatreviewtheliterature ofarchaeological

lithicanalysisoverthelastdecade. Thispaper concentrates on aspectsofstone
toolresearchthatare notdirectly relatedtotheproduction orprocurement ofthe
toolsthemselves.It is dividedintoclassification,
functional behavioral
analyses,
processes,and approachesto thesubjectcurrently popularamonganalysts.As
withthepreviouspaper,an attempt has beenmadeto be as comprehensive as is
reasonable,thoughavailabilityofsourceshas resultedin an emphasison North
Americanliterature.
analysis,use-wearanalysis,residueanalysis,technological
KEY WORDS: lithicanalysis,functional
lithicclassification.
organization,
INTRODUCTION
In a previouspaperinthisjournal,I reviewed developments inthelastdecade

withinthebroadpurviewof stonetoolproduction, dividingthetopicintoraw
materialsand procurement, flakeexperimentation, technology, and researchon
specifictooltypes.In thispaperI reviewrecentliterature on toolclassification,
functional analyses,behavioralprocesses,andpopularconceptualapproachesas
theyrelatetoarchaeological lithicanalysis.The divisionsamongthesecategories
arebynomeansclear-cut, andfrequent overlapsexist.Ofparticular relevanceis the
factthat, inexpounding on severalofthesubjectsconsidered inthepreviouspaper,
I founditmostparsimonious forthesakeofcontinuity todiscussfunctional issues
together withtechnologicalones.Therefore, manyfunctional issuesthat,strictly
speaking, shouldhavebeendiscussedin thispaperhavealreadybeencoveredin
thelastone;likewise,itemsofa technological naturecreepintothisone.
departmentofAnthropology, ofTulsa,Tulsa,Oklahoma74104.
University
45
© 2001 PlenumPublishing
1O59-O161/O1/O3OO-OO45$19.5O/O Corporation
46 Odell
CLASSIFICATION
GeneralClassification
I feelcompelledto startwiththatfavorite archaeological pastime,artifact

even
classification, thoughrelatively little work has been accomplished within the
lastdecadein developingthisfield.A majorissue thattypologists mustcontin-
uallyconfront is theconsistency withwhichtheirsystemsare applied,butthis
issue also has receivedlittleattention. In perhapstheonlyrelevant recentstudy
of thistype,Whittaker et al (1998), usingSinaguapottery typologiesfromthe
AmericanSouthwest, evaluatetheconsistency withwhichtypologies arelearned
anddisseminated. Theyfoundthatlearning is usuallyaccomplished bymeansof
a masterwhopassestheknowledgealongthrough generations, a processthatcan
resultin relatively homogeneous typologies.
Classification is thesubjectofan important monograph involving a fraternal
collaboration of an archaeologist and a philosopher (Adamsand Adams,1991).
The authors'approachis practicalratherthantheoretical: a typologyshouldbe
constructed fora specificpurpose,selectionis involvedin all typology making,
andtypesshouldpossesstheessentialproperties of identity andmeaning.These
principles are appliedto pottery fromMedievalNubia,wheretheseniorauthor
has workedformanyyears.Thisis themostexhaustive treatise on thesubjectof
classificationto appearforseveralyears.
Othertypologicalsystemsmoredirectly relatedto thelithicdatabase also
have been advancedrecently, one of whichwas offeredwithintherubricof a
lithicmanual(Andrefsky, 1998).Although thisbookis onlypartly concerned with
classification,theauthorpresents a typological systemthatis clearlymeanttobe
a workablemodelforreadyemployment. Rozoy(1991) also providesa specific
typological construct fortheFrenchEpipaleolithic period.Through tightdatingand
typedefinition, theauthoraimedto ascertain theoriginanddirection ofdiffusion
ofvarioustraits.
Theforegoing classificationsystems areessentially paradigmatic instructure,
a qualitythatis notsufficiently precise for Read and Russell (1996). Theyprefer
usingclustering algorithms on measurements of flaketools withobviouswear
underlow-power magnification. Although theirsystem is certainly moreobjective
thanstructures currently being used, it is not without For
problems. example,the
system, which was applied to unretouched flakes,purports toshowhowtoolshape
affectsuse,butshapeis onlyone of a number of variablesthatdetermine howa
toolis heldand utilized.And becauseit is doubtful thattheirlevelof use-wear
determination enabledthemtodistinguish severalcommonformal/functional cat-
egories such as projectiles and tools employing projections (e.g.,gravers, burins),
theirresulting typologyassuredlydoes notdo whattheythinkit does. On the
positiveside,theirquantitative systemis capableof teasingoutassociationsthat
arenotreadilyvisibletointuitive typologists.
StoneTool Researchat theEnd oftheMillennium 47
Formas a DynamicProcess
Backinthedaysofourdiscipline'snaiveandinnocent youth,theconventional
wisdomwas thatprehistoric toolswerefashioned to followtheartisan'smental
template, andthisformwas preserved untildiscovery ofthetoolinmoderntimes
(Dibble,1995a;Thomas,1981,p. 15). However, several linesofevidencesuggest
thatthishas seldombeenthecase. Forinstance, ongoingtaphonomic evaluation,
a fieldinitiatedseveraldecadesago,indicatesthatartifacts mayundergochanges
of condition placementbetweendiscardand discovery(Rowlett
or stratigraphie
andRobbins,1982;Shea, 1999;Villa,1982).Thisissuehas injectedsomemuch-
neededcautionintoarchaeological interpretations.
Also largelyunappreciated is thefactthattoolmanufacture was a dynamic,
notstatic, partofprehistoricculturalsystems. The artifactsthatwe discoveroften
servedas portions oflargerimplements, and forms
their and working edgeswere
occasionallysharpenedand shapedduringtheir use-lives. These modifications
alteredthefinalformoftoolsfoundintheprehistoric recordandmayhavebeenof
sufficient magnitude tochangetheirarchaeological The notionthat
classification.
thisprocessmayhavethepotential to alterarchaeological topologiesblossomed
inthe1980sandcontinued intothe1990s.Battlesarecurrently beingfought over
whether toolmodification
prehistoric rendersourclassificatory systemsinvalid,
orwhether thosechangesarereallyinconsequential andourtypologies areusable
afterall.
GreatBasinProjectilePoints
Onebattleground forthisissuehasbeenprojectile pointtypesintheAmerican

GreatBasin.Earlyantagonists wereFlenniken andRaymond(1986), whoargued
thatmodification processeswereof such magnitude as to alterarchaeological
and Thomas(1986), who disagreed.In morerecentexperiments
classification,
simulating huntingsituationswith92 corner- and side-notched points,Flenniken
andWilke(1989) foundthatbreakageand subsequent reworking led to changes
in 32% of thetypedesignations. Unfortunately, theseassertionsare unverifiable
as (1) modernknappers,notprehistoric people,did thereworking and (2) the
sameresearchers whoreworked thepointsmadethetypeassignments. Additional
were
arguments employedby Bettingeret al (1991), who tested theassumption
that,ifsharpeningeventsweresufficient tocausetypological change,thencertain
specificpointtypes were likely,upon sharpening, to change intocertainother
types.Theydepicted"archetypal" typesthat, upon sharpening, shouldbe made
into"rejuvenated"forms. Theirthesisis that,ifFlenniken andWilkewerecorrect,
thenarchetypal formsdiscoveredon archaeological sitesshouldbe larger,on the
whole, than forms.
rejuvenated Weighing and measuring 6000 pointsfromseveral
localities,theyfound that the supposedrejuvenated forms wereas largeas, or
48 Odell
largerthan,thearchetypal forms,thusrefuting Flenniken andWilke'sargument

(butsee thelatters'rebuttal:
WilkeandFlenniken, A
1991). studyof threeGreat
Basin projectileassemblagesby O'ConnellandInoway(1994) also supports the
"shortchronology" andrefutesFlenniken andWilke'smodel.
Rondeau(1996) recentlyattempted to resolvethedilemmaby conducting
a detailedtechnologicalexamination of Elko corner-notched pointsfromone
GreatBasin site.His resultssuggestsubstantial evidenceforrejuvenation but,
contrary to Flennikenand Wilke'sposition,usuallyof a magnitude insufficient
to necessitatechangesin typedesignation. He arguesthathis data derivefrom
only one siteand thatmoreresearchis neededtoresolvetheissuefully.I suggest
thatone elementthathas been missingfromthisdebateall along is indepen-
dentrejuvenation andtypingofthesameexperimental collectionbydisinterested
parties.
MiddlePaleolithicAssemblages
Theothermajorbattleground concernsMiddlePaleolithic assemblages, par-

ticularlyscrapers.Althoughthediscussionhas notbeenas rancorousas theone
overGreatBasin projectilepoints,theprinciples beingdebatedare similar.The
mainprotagonist in thiscontroversy, HaroldDibble,has argued(likeFlenniken)
thatcertaintypesshouldnotbe considered discrete,butas pointsalonga contin-
uumofvariability, causedbyfrequent sharpening andotherforms ofmodification.
In a recentpaper,Dibble(1995a) proposedandtestedtwomodelsbywhichtypes
changeformin thisway.Supporting thisassertionarestudiesin whichno func-
tionalconsistency was foundwithina scrapertype,andblankformswithinthese
typeswerevariable - though, on a largerscale,he also has indicatedthatMiddle
Paleolithictypological similarities
betweensouthern FranceandtheNearEastare
causedby similarities in blankform,whichinfluence theultimate shapeof tools
(Dibble,1991).Otherstudiessupport thescenariothatnonnormative factorssuch
as intensityofutilization,
differentialratesoftoolreuse,andeconomizing behavior
aredriving forcesinfluencing MiddlePaleolithicassemblagevariability (Dibble,
1995b;Holdawayetal., 1996).
Otherscholars,however,also havetestedtheseprinciples on MiddlePale-
olithicassemblagesandhaveobtaineddifferent results.
Forinstance, Kuhn(1992a)
foundno supportforthe assertionthatsimplescrapersweretransformed into
transverse scrapersat Grotta di Sant'Agostino, He
Italy. agrees thattool form is
responsive to blank form, but maintains thatthe shapes of blanks were most di-
rectlyaffectedbytechniques ofcorereduction, notretouching. Atthenearbycave
of GrottaBreuil,GrimaldiandLemorini(1993) examinedflat-retouched Middle
Paleolithictools.Theyconcludedthatitwas notsharpening thatdetermined final
toolformandtrajectory ofuse,butthesmalldimensions ofthenoduleswithwhich
thepeoplestarted.
Likewise,Gordon(1993) examineda collectionexcavatedseveralyearsago

in Israelto testtheassertionthatcertaintypes,particularly Mousterianpoints,
showcontinuous variation.He foundthat,althoughthesepointsmayappearto
havebeenon thesamereduction as convergent
trajectory ordoublescrapers, they
are muchtoo smallfortheamountof retouchon them.In otherwords,blank
selectionforscraperswas completely differentfromthatforpoints,supporting
theargument thattheMousterian pointwas conceivedas an independent tooltype
witha separatereduction trajectory.The choiceof blankwas moreselectivefor
bothpointsandscrapersthanitwas fornotchedpieces.
The use of microliths and microburins to defineculture-stratigraphicunits
in theEpi-PaleolithicoftheNearEast also has beenchallenged, formanyof the
samereasons,by Neeleyand Barton(1994). If accurate,theircriticisms would
havea devastating effecton theculturehistory of theregion,whichis based on
thesedistinctions.However, theirrationaledoes notappearverystrong, andtheir
ideashavebeenhotlycontested (Fellner,1995;Kaufman,1995).
It appearsthatforMiddleand Epi-Paleolithic assemblages,as withGreat
Basin projectilepoints,modification of a tool forpurposesof sharpening and
shapingchangestheformofthattoolandsometimes The extent
itsclassification.
ofthetypological changes,theexactsituations in whichtheyoccur,andtherole
ofblankselectionin theprocessarestillbeingworkedout.
Style
Researchers of artifactstyleagreethatthisis a devilishlydifficult quality

to putone's fingeron. Freeman(1992) was interested in applyingtheconceptto
a MiddlePaleolithiccontext, butconcludedthattheBordesiantypologythenin
commonusageexcludedthoseattributes mostrelevant indepictingstyleina series
Butevenifthetypological
ofartifacts. construct werenota problem, thenatureof
Middle Paleolithic
assemblages would be, because peoplesimply notencode
did
muchstylistic variabilityon their
stone tools duringthisperiod.In a studythatis
as pessimisticas Freeman's, Barton (1997) definesstylebothas stochasticvaria-
tion(likeDunnell)andas a conveyor information, example, purposesof
of for for
boundary maintenance (likeWobst).Placinghisanalysisinanevolutionary frame-
work,hetestedstochastic and
processeson small largepopulations and concluded
thathistheories don'twork - a refreshingly honestappraisalthatunderscores the
difficultyofrecognizing passivestylein thearchaeological record.
Rick(1996) appliestheconceptofstyletolongsequencesofprojectile points
fromtworockshelters incentral Perubybreaking thetypology intofourhierarchi-
constructs
cal stylistic thatmeasuredifferent degreesofinclusiveness. He was able
to discoverstrongsocial discontinuities,althoughsuchan analysisdid nothelp
himunderstand thedegreeofsocialdifferentiation orthescaleofthegroupsbeing
monitored. LikeFreeman'sexperience withtheBordesiantypology, theamountof
50 Odell
socialinformation beingencodedinPeruvianstonepointsmayhavebeenminimal.
In anycase, JanetteDeacon's (Deacon, 1992) studyofBushmanarrowssuggests
thatritualand beliefsystemshave majoreffects on huntingpractices(and pre-
on
sumably hunting equipment), and thatit is difficult
to predictwhichtypeof
artifactwill carrystylewithsocial overtones. The levelat whicharchaeologists
comprehend thebeliefsystemsofmost ofthe peopletheystudyis so lowthatthey
have troubleunderstanding notonlythemessagesbeingconveyed,butalso the
typesofartifacts conveyingthem.
FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS
Use-Wear Analysis:GeneralConsiderations
The functional analysisofstonetoolshasdevelopedin severaldirections, of

whichthemostavidlyresearched has beenthestudyof tracesof wearfromuti-
lization,or "use-wearanalysis."Fromsomewhatcontentious beginnings during
the1970sand 1980s,thefieldhas stabilizedintopositionsthataremoremutually
supportive. For awhileit appearedthatanalystswouldbe forever labeledas be-
longingto whatI referred to earlieras the"low-power" or "high-power" schools
(Odell andOdell-Vereecken, 1980).
Analystsnowadvocatetheuse ofall availablecluesforfunctional interpre-
tation,notjustone ortwofavoredtypesoftraces(Grace,1996,p. 217; LeMoine,
1997, p. 15; Unger-Hamilton, 1989). Followingthe 1989 Uppsala Use-Wear
Conference, Grace (1993a, p. 385) was able to state,"methodologically a con-
sensusemergedso thatdifferent approaches(high and low power) were not seen
as competingtechniquesbutalternative strategiesdependent on the specificar-
chaeologicalproblem."Although I missed that consensus at Uppsala,Grace's
evaluationis, on thewhole,accurate.
It is becomingmorecommonto readthatbothhigh-andlow-magnification
methodswereemployedin an analysis;afterall,theycan complement eachother
nicely. A recentanalysis of ItalianMousterian assemblages illustratesthispoint:
"theseindustries presented problems with theconservation of microtraces (edge
rounding, polish,andstriations) whichresulted ina lackoffunctional inference -
thiswas partiallycompensatedforby theanalysisof macrotraces (microflake
scars)"(GrimaldiandLemorini,1995,p. 146).Itis disheartening toreadoffailed
blindtestslike thosereported in Fredericksen and Sewell (1991), in whichthe
analysts reported a use duration of only5-15 min/tool- a duration thathadalready
generally been agreed on as too short toproducedevelopedandinterpretable wear
traces(Bamforth, 1988; Lewenstein, 1993;Moss, 1987).In anycase,thecritical
atmosphere of thepasttwodecadeshas led to stronger empiricalsupportforthe
techniquespromotedthanwould have been thecase had less rigoroustesting
methodsbeenapplied.
Reviewsof recentuse-wearliterature have been publishedby Olausson

(1990), Shea (1992), Yerkes and Kardulias (1993), Pawlik(1995), and Grace
A of
(1996). glossary descriptive terms for microscopic fracturinghas beenof-
feredbyProst(1993). AndHurcombe(1992) publisheda generalconsideration of
use-wearon obsidian,a materialwithproperties substantially from
different the
andchertsthattypically
flints formthesubjectofsuchinvestigations.
Testsofcommonly usedanalyticalvariableshavealso begunto appear.For
example, Lewenstein (1991) evaluatedthehypothesis, proposedby Wilmsenin
thelate 1960s, thatcertain tasks were associated with toolspossessingspecific
edge angles.Usingdata fromthe BelizianMaya habitation siteof Cerros,she
concludedthatedgeangleoverlapsactivities drastically onecannotemploy
so that
edgeangletoinferfunction, evenwhenmorphological Andin
classis considered.
a holisticevaluationofcommonly employeddescriptive variables,van den Dries
andvanGijn(1997) quantified 301 experiments to examine possible correlations
betweentoolmotion/worked materialandedgerounding, fracturing,andpolish.
Theirresultsdemonstrate a largeamountoffunctional overlapamongattributes of
bothpolishandfracture. Onthepositiveside,theyestablished definiterelationships
betweencertainfracture attributes and bothmotionand workedmaterial,and
betweencertainpolishattributes and workedmaterial.This is a solid startin
quantifying use-wearvariables, a kindofstudythefieldneedsverymuch.
Use-Wear Issues
GenesisofPolishFormation
Clearly,themostcompelling issueamonghigh-magnification use-wearprac-

titionersthesedaysis thegenesisofpolish.Thisdebatehas beenragingforyears
andis stillnotresolved.Glass polishingis an abrasiveprocessthathas beenre-
searchedandpracticedfora longtime,butithas neverbeenclearwhether flints
acquirepolished surfacesthrough utilizationthesame wayglass does, orwhether
otherprocessesareinvolved.PatriciaAnderson-Gerfaud (1980) threwa monkey-
wrenchintotheexclusivelytribological (abrasive)theorywhenshe notedthat,
duringutilization,plantphytoliths seemed tobe trapped on thesurfaceofflintby
a substancethatshe interpreted to be silica gel (see also Del Bene, 1979). This
interpretationacceleratedthepaceofresearch intothegenesisofpolishformation.
On theothersideoftheissueare scholarswho declarethatpolishis exclusively
an abrasivephenomenon. In recent yearsLevi Sala (1993, 1996) has emphasized
themechanicalremoval of surface asperities,which slideovertheflintand pol-
ish it,also frequentlycausingcomet-shaped pitting thesurface.Wateris not
of
essentialtothisprocess,butpromotes polish formation. Experiments byYamada
(1993), concentrating on one tiny locationon a of
piece progressively utilized
siliceousshale,havesupported He
thisposition. arguedthat, ifthesilicageltheory
52 Odell
is operable,thenthedistribution ofmicrofeatures at thislocale shouldchangeas

polishdevelops; but ifthe abrasive theoryis viable,thenthesefeatures shouldbe
gradually smoothed without changing theirposition. Yamada observed no depo-
sitionofmaterial, andthesurficial pitsthathe was using as markers retained their
integrity through 3350 strokes, the
supporting tribological theory.Grace (1993a,
1996) has agreedwiththesearguments, statingcategorically thatthesilica gel
theory has beenprovenuntenable (Grace,1996,p. 211).
Justas we thought theissuewas resolved,however, up popssomebodywith
evidencetothecontrary. a
Using particle acceleratorand a scanning electron micro-
scope (SEM) connected to an energy-dispersive X-rayspectrometer, Christensen
(1998; Christensen et al, 1992) indicatedthat,duringuse, tinybitsof worked
materialaccumulatein spaceson thesurfaceoftheflint andwithin thelepisphere
lattice.Elementsinthesebitscanbe analyzedbya spectrometer, providing anidea
oftheircomposition. This scenariowas testedon toolsknownto havebeenused
on bone,showingdeposition ofcalciumandphosphorous; andon ivory, whichis
knownto havea largemagnesium component, an elementthatshowsup promi-
nentlyon thespectrometer. Not onlydoes thisadd supportto thedepositional
theory, butitoffers a directmethodforascertaining materials on whichflint tools
wereworked - provided, ofcourse,thatonecanbe certainwhichlittlebitsbelong
totheerstwhile workedmaterial. In addition,Christensen (1998) implanted a tiny
piece of copperon thesurfaceof a tool,whichshe did notsucceedin rubbing
away,suggesting thatabrasionwas nota majorfactorin surfacewearon tools.
But perhapsthesituationis morecomplexthanthis.Perhaps,duringuti-
lization,flintsurfacesare affected by bothdepositional factorsand mechanical
abrasion,or perhapsanothermodelis neededto incorporate additional elements.
One ofthesefactorsis likelyto be amorphous silicafromeithertheworkedma-
terial(e.g., plants)or fromthetool itself.Fullagar(1991), attempting through
experimentation to correlateamountof silica withkindand amountof polish,
demonstrated thatevensmallamountsofamorphous silicamayplaya significant
roleinpolishing, andthatdifferent polishesdevelopatdifferent rates.
The complexity ofthesituation andthepossibility thatbothmechanicaland
chemicalfactorsmaybe at workhave stimulated modelsthatincorporate both.
In one of these,Hurcombe(1997) experimented withabrasivesandthreechem-
ical additiveson obsidiantools.The resultsshowedalterations of striationsby
thechemicals,especiallybyhydrochloric acid. She theorized thatphysicalabra-
sion weakensthesurface,whichis thenfurther attackedthrough chemicalac-
tion.Mansur(1997) has postulatedthepresenceof a similarprocessknownas
Rabinowicz'smoleculartheory, whichinvolvesmechanicalremovalof material
and subsequent chemicalattack,enhancedbywaterand abrasives, resulting in a
thinsurfacefilm.
A principalgoal in all thisresearchis to correlatediscretepolishtypes
withspecificworkedmaterials.Doubtersexist.For example,Rees and his col-
leaguesinvestigated thefractalproperties of flint,
whichtheydefinedas "spatial
distributions
orpatternswhichpossessself-similarity so thatthereexistsa statisti-
cal equivalencebetweensmall-scaleandlarge-scale fluctuationsinthesepatterns"
et
(Rees al, 1991,p. 630). They wanted to ascertainwhether or notmicrowear
polishesare fractal
and ifdifferentcontact substancesproducefractally different
polishes.They found that bothpolished and unpolished surfaces are fractal
and
can be distinguishedfromone another, butthereis no correlation betweenfrac-
taldimensions and specificworkedmaterials. Grace(1993a) arrivedat thesame
conclusion fromanother perspective,thatis,ifpolishis an abrasivephenomenon,
thenlogicallyitshouldnotbe able to be associatedwithanyworkedmaterial.
On thepositiveside,Yamadaand Sawada (1993) defineda seriesof polish
andfoundclearcorrespondence
attributes betweenworkedmaterialtypeand all
Andresearchers
10 attributes. at TohokuUniversity "identified 11 basic typesof
polishon shalethatareprincipally theresultof thematerialworked"(Aoyama,
1995,p. 131). Furtherexperimentation by Aoyama(1995) confirmed thatthese
polishtypescan also be appliedtochalcedony andagate.
PrehensileWear
Therecognition ofprehensiletraceshas beenslowin coming.Analystssuch

as CollinandJardon-Giner (1993) havereported difficulty in interpretinghafting
wear on stone tools.Havingreplicated more than 300 hafted hidescrapers, they
wereabletodistinguish nodefinitive
hafting weartypes,onlygeneraltrends. When
theyhafted thescraperswithresinandwax,theyobservedno hafting tracesatall.
Otheranalysts, have a
however, reported considerably greater occurrence of
prehensiledamage,perhaps caused by differenthaftingpractices or raw material.
OwenandUnrath (1989) conducted a seriesofblindteststodetermine theirability
todiscriminateprehensile wearfromdamage on an activetool edge.Theyasserted
thatprehensile damagewas producedfrequently, it was sometimes mistaken for
softmaterialwear(which,in fact,it is), and manual prehension sometimes pro-
ducestracesthatlooklikebutchery wear.
If thiskindof wearcan be detectedaccurately, it can be a veryusefulat-
Forexample,Odell (1994b) monitored
tribute. prehension through 7500 yearsof
prehistoryintheNorthAmerican that
Midwestandfound hafting tracesincreased
through time,whereasdamagefrommanualprehension decreased. Increasedhaft-
ingpracticesappearto be relatedto changingmobilitystrategies and increased
sedentism, forwhichhafting represented anattempt toproducefail-safe equipment
thatwouldbe moreeffective andlesssubjecttobreakdown (also,see Odell,1998).
ofTrampling
Effects
ofprehistoric
The effects trampling, complicatefunc-
whichcan potentially
In a seriesof
havebeenthefocusofrecentexperimentation.
tionalinterpretation,
54 Odell
blindtests(Shea andKlenck,1993),foursetsoftools,utilizedfor20 minapiece,

wereeitherleftunaltered (1 set)or trampled forvarying lengthsoftime(3 sets).
The analystdepicteduse parameters fortheuntrampled samplequiteaccurately,
butcorrectlyinterpretedonly40% of utilizededgesin trampled sets,havingthe
greatest with
problems implements employed on soft
materials. These experiments
establishedthattrampling damagecan be incorrectly interpreted as use-wear.
McBrearty etal (1998) testedwhether theeffects oftrampling werenegligi-
bleorwhether they mimic retouch.The experimentersfound that manyofthetools
sustainedsubstantial
edgedamage, severalofthem as
qualifying pseudotools such
as notchedpieces and denticulates.Thustrampling damage is a con-
potentially
founding not
influence, only forfunctionalbut evenfor typological interpretations.
ApplicationofUse-Wear Analysis
The fieldof use-wearanalysisis stillnewenoughthatuniqueor unknown

phenomenaare frequently reported.In one such studyof tools fromEgyptian
Nubia,Beckerand Wendorf(1993) detecteda typeof polish,probablyrelated
to a softsubstance,thattheywerenotable to replicate.In a studywitha more
satisfying(thoughnotnecessarily morecorrect)outcome,Gassin(1993) noticed
brightlypolishedflinttoolsfroma NeolithicChasseensitein France.Replicative
experimentation established a visualcorrelation betweenthiswearandwearfrom
cuttingandshapingthesurfacesofclaypots.
Functionalanalyseshave recently been appliedto a largevarietyof situa-
tionsandchronological periodsin theOld World.Forinstance,SchickandToth
(1993) haveconductedan extensiveseriesof experiments to replicatetherange
oftasksin whichimplements of OlduwanandAcheuleanpeoplemayhavebeen
engaged.Concentrating onMousterian tools,Kazaryan(1993) determined thatob-
sidianflakesandconvergent scrapers from two sitesin Armenia were specialized
butchery tools.Theextreme wearon theiredgessuggested economizing behavior.
Andat Mousterian GrottaBreuilin CentralItaly,GrimaldiandLemorini(1995)
encountered a lithicindustry whosenon-Levallois characteristics
wereprobably
causedbythesmallcobbleflint thatthesepeopleusedfortheirtools.Functionally
varied,theGrottaBreuilindustry constitutesan attempttoreconcilethepursuit of
largepreforms withthe of
optimalexploitation large cobbles. Applicationsof these
techniques to Holoceneassemblagesincludean analysisof a NeolithicMichels-
bergvillage(Schreurs,1992)anda functional comparison ofa Mesolithichunting
camp with a Neolithic village(Pawlik,1995).
SeveralNew Worldapplications of use-wearanalysishaveemphasizedthe
working of wood. At theMayan settlement ofCerrosinBelize,Lewenstein (1993)
foundthatwoodworking witha wide variety of toolforms - somehafted,some
not- was themostcommonactivity at thesite.Similarly,a studyof key-shaped
unifacesexcavatedfromtheInterior PlateauofBritishColumbiaestablished that
their
principal taskwaswoodworking (Rousseau,1992).Otherstudiesshowa dom-
inanceofwoodworking a
among multiplicity ofotheractivities. Hudler's(Hudler,
1997)analysis of Clear Forkgouges established thattheirprincipalfunctionwas
forworking woodbutthatthesetoolswereusedforothertasksas well.
Otherapplications demonstrate thatwoodworking was notalwaysdominant.
Storck(1997) foundthatwoodworking was onlyone of severaltasksconducted
withgravers andbeakedscrapersat theFishersitein Ontario.In anotherstudy, a
cacheofftakes and bladesfound innorthTexas was very uniformin both morphol-
ogyandfunction. Mostofthesepreforms weremadeintoendscrapers andshowed
hide-scraping wear,a toolkitthatprobablyservedas insurance gearforoccasional
logisticalforays(Ballenger,1996).Examining tools from thearea aroundModoc
Rocksheiter inIllinois,Ahler(1998) established major differencesbetweenEarly
andMiddleArchaicassemblageson thebasisof functional On theother
diversity.
hand,Bradbury (1998) foundverylittleuse at all on an assemblage fromsouthern
Kentucky, supporting oftheplaceas
hisinterpretation a locationin which theonly
discernible activitywas bifacereduction.
RecentAdvancesin Use-Wear Analysis
Advancesinthisfieldhavebeenmadeon severalfronts. High-magnification

analysesinvolving metallurgical microscopes have benefited fromthedevelop-
mentofNomarski optics(Kay, 1996), and difficulties ofartifactsize (i.e.,observ-
ing artifactstoobig to fit
on the stageor under the lens ofthe microscope) appear
tobe resolvable. Bienenfeld (1995) has shownthat,despiteproblemsofbubbling,
possiblemelting withheat,andbeingtime-consuming, epoxycastsreplicate polish
wellenoughforuse in microwear analysis,even using the scanning electron mi-
croscope. On the stickyissueof artifactpreparation, Coffey (1994) was unable to
the
duplicate degree ofchemical erosion from alkali solutions reported by Plisson
andMauger(1988). He concludedthatthepreviousresearchers musthaveused
heatedsolutions.
Advancesin low-magnification analysishave been slowerin coming,be-
causefewerpeoplehavebeenworking on improving thetechnique. An exception
is Tomenchuk (1997), who has a
developed parametric use-wear method using
engineering principles offracture mechanics on He
edgescarring. recently applied
theseprinciples to twoartifact concentrations at theearlyPaleoindianFishersite
in southern Ontario,concludingthatbothareascontainedthesame suiteof pre-
historicactivities. He also foundthatbeaked,single-spurred, anddouble-spurred
scrapers all had a of
multiplicity uses.
Twootherresearch programs havethepotential toadvancethediscipline. One
involvestopographic measuring techniques, for which Kimball et al (1995) have
employedtheatomicforcemicroscope.Thisequipment is capableof producing
quantitative measuresof surfaceattributes suchas polishand three-dimensional
digitalmapping ofthesefeatures. Anderson etal ( 1998) alsoreported researchwith
56 Odell
topographicanalysisof flintsurfacesto derivequantitative measuresof bearing

area,averagevalley, and so forth.
At thispoint, theauthors can onlyreportthat
area
bearing perimeter increases withuse and thattoolraw materialinfluencesthe
results.
The otherinnovation is thedevelopment of"expertsystems" ofanalysisthat
a
computerize largerange of use-wear attributesderived from low- and high-
magnificationmicroscopes. Although Grace (1993b) has toutedits accuracyand
speed(he even calls itthe "FAST" system),itneverthelessremains quitecomplex,
considerablyslowerthansome alternatives, and applicableonlyto fine-grained
flint.
Yetitconstitutes a realadvanceforcertain kindsofapplicationsandillustrates
therapidchangesthatthisfieldhas undergone duringthepastdecade.A similar
computerized descriptive systemforfunctional analysishas been proposedby
Lohse(1996).
ResidueAnalysis
Inresidueanalysis,theresearcher isolatessubstances
thatadheretothesurface
ofa stonetool.The preferredisolateis,ofcourse,a substance thatwas intimately
associatedwiththattoolduringitsuse-life.Particularly informativearepartsof
thematerialthatwerecontactedbythetoolsuchas a starchgrain,rodenthair,. . .
Uh,rodenthair?Does thisindicatethatourprehistoric forebearswerefileting
rats
withtheireverready ratknives?Hereinlies one of thedifficulties withresidue
analysis:substancesadheringto thesurfaceof a toolare usuallyassumedto be
associatedwiththattool'suse,a logicalleapthatis notwithout Manyother
danger.
problems withresidueanalysisalso exist.Becausethereis abundant evidencethat
peopleprocessedbothplantsandanimalswithstonetools,I consider
prehistoric
each separately.
BloodResidues:PositiveResults
Whenananimalis butchered, someofthebloodfrom thatanimalmaystayon

thebutcher knife.TomLoy first discovered
thiseventualityin themid-1980sand
has beentheprincipaladvocateof bloodresidueanalysiseversince.Borrowing
frommedicallabs, he has typicallyemployedseveraltechniquesfordetecting
blood.
Loy recentlydiscoveredseveralbifaceserodingoutof a roadbedin British
Columbia.On thesetoolshe detectedbisonhair,thoughbisonhavenotinhabited
thisregionformanyyears.His proteinanalysisconsistedof a Hemastixtestto
detecthaemoglobin (Hb) andmyoglobin (Mb),animmunological dot-blotscreen-
ing testformammalian immunoglobin typeG (IgG), andisoelectricfocusingto
identifyhaemoglobin andserumalbumin(SA). He employedfourmethodstode-
termine speciesof origin:radioimmunoassay, isoelectric
focusing,haemoglobin
of
crystallization proteins, and DNA analysis.The presenceof bisonbloodwas
confirmed in theHb crystallization andDNA tests,andAMS datingof a purified

sample of the blood yielded a dateof 2180 ± 160bp (Loy,1993).In similartypes
ofanalysis,Loy andhiscolleagueshaveidentified humanandbovinebloodon a
large stone "altar"in theSkull Building at Neolithic
CayonuTepesi,Turkey(Loy
andWood,1989),as wellas bloodfromseveralmammals(includingmammoth)
on fluted pointsfromeasternBeringia(Loy andDixon,1998).
Otherresearchers also have reportedsuccess usingtechniquesforblood
residueextraction. In an analogtoLoy's bisonbutchering bifaces,Kooymanetal
(1992) testedimplements fromtheHead-Smashed-In bisonkillinAlberta,where
theyclaimedthatbloodresidueshadremained onthetoolsfor5600 years.Further
testing at thatsite(Newmanet al, 1996) yieldedpositivereactionsto bisonand
elkantisera for9 of31 stonetoolsand6 of 16 soil samplestested.AndlikeLoy's
studyoffluted points,Hylandetal ( 1990) testedtoolsfromtheShoopPaleoindian
sitein Pennsylvania. Of the45 artifacts evaluated,13 testedpositivefordeeror
caribou(thesespeciesarecross-reactive).
Grinding orpounding toolsalso havebeenevaluatedbythistechnique. Yohe
et al (1991) established through ethnographic analysisthatanimalmaterialwas
commonly pulverized. Theirimmunological analysisofmillingequipment from
southern California returned positiveindicationsthatthreemanos,a mortar,anda
pestlewereemployed prehistoricallyto grindorpulverizesmallrodents.
Problems
BloodResidues:Persistent
Despitetheloftyclaimsof itsproponents, however, bloodresidueanalysis

has experienceda risingtideof dissatisfaction.A basic lackof agreement exists
betweentheresultsof bloodresidueanalysisand thoseof manyotherkindsof
studies,outlinedin starkdetailinFiedel(1996). From"bovineblood"in Ontario,
whereprehistoric bison bones have neverbeen recovered,to chickensin the
Archaicof Oregon,to a lack of troutin TroutLake- Fiedelrecounteda litany
of inconsistenciesbetweentheresultsof blood residueanalysesand whatwe
thought we knew about theprehistoric record.
Another troubling disagreement internal:
is resultsof thevarioustestsem-
ployed to blood
detect residues frequentlydo not agreewithone another. Downs
andLowenstein (1995) this
illustrated problem with a of
series blind testsof sam-
plesofunknown archaeological residuesfrom North, Central,and South America,
andknownmodern control samples.Although theparticipants reachedtotalagree-
menton thecontrols, therewas "almost totaldisagreement lack ofcompara-
and
bilityamongthethreetechniques inthe few specificidentificationsreported onthe
archaeologicalspecimens" (DownsandLowenstein, 1995,p. 14). In a final
phase
oftheblindtests,residueson six Clovisbladeswereanalyzed.Again,agreement
was reachedon thecontrolsamples,butabsolutelyno agreement was achieved
withthearchaeological material.These resultsare quitefrustrating, becauseno
58 Odell
one willeverknowwhich,ifany,oftheseassaysmighthavebeencorrect. Wallis

andO'Connor(1998) experienced similarinconsistencies betweenHemastixand
immunological techniques whenanalyzing projectile pointsfrom tworockshelters
innorthwest Australia.Thesepointshadretained very little blood buta lotofplant
residues,a finding thatdoes notjibe withethnographic accountsofaboriginal use
ofthesekindsofpointsin theregion.
Alsofrustrating arecasesofdisagreement between theresults ofbloodresidue
anduse-wearanalysis,wherebothhavebeenattempted on thesameassemblage.
A case in pointis a studyof 100 tools fromfoursitesin thePiedmontregion
of northern Virginia(Petragliaet al, 1996). Twentytestedpositiveforblood
residues, 16 hadmicrowear
and traces.Theauthors failedtocomparetheseresults,
butan inspectionof theirTable 4 indicatesthatonlyfourtoolstestedpositive
withbothtechniques, a ratherlow rateofcorrespondence. Utilization traceswere
poorlydeveloped on these tools,a probableresultofexpedient use andchemical
degradation ofpolish.Justas significantly, "Thefactthat80 artifacts didnottest
for
positively immunological resultsalso tendstosupport evidencefordegradation
processes"(Petragliaetal, 1996,p. 134).
Thusresearchers havediscovereda profound difference in accuracyin de-
tectingblood residuesbetweenmodernlab samplesand ancienttools,and that
difference has something to do withdifferential preservation of bloodovertime.
Experiments havebeendevisedtoinvestigate thissituation. Inoneseries,Gurfinkel
andFranklin (1988) buriedglassslideswithandwithout bloodin soilforvarying
lengthsoftime.Theydetecteddegradation in someofthesamplesandconcluded
thatthehaemportion ofbloodwas morestableovertimethantheprotein portion.
Unfortunately, thehaemportionitselfis notsufficient to positively identify the
presenceof blood;proteinmustbe preserved forimmunological reactionsto oc-
cur,thereby enablingspecificidentification (Fiedel,1996,p. 145;Kooymanetal,
1992,p. 265).
In a similarseriesof experiments, Cattaneoet al (1993) buried12 caches
of bloodstainedand unstainedflinttools,along withhumanand animalbone,
in a pit in a gardenin Sheffield, England.Some of thetools wereutilizedon
meatand bone,butonlyfor2 min apiece; additionaltools were stainedwith
blood and retainedin thelaboratory. Usinga sensitiveprocesscalled enzyme-
linkedimmunosorbent assay (ELISA), theresearchers againobtainedwonderful
successwiththelaboratory pieces,butmorenegativethanpositivereactionsfor
theburiedartifacts. The positiveidentification of albuminon a scraperburied
for 1 yearbutnegativereactionson othersimilarly buriedartifacts illustrates
theerraticsurvivalof bloodundertheseconditions. Eisele et al (1995) reported
similarly disappointing resultsfrombotharchaeological samplesand actualistic
experiments coating artifacts with blood and burying them in different environ-
mentsforvarying lengths of time.And in experiments in which freshlyknapped
toolswereusedto cutand scrapeone of 10 different speciesof animalsandthen
submitted directlyto a lab foranalysiswithout burial,Leach andMauldin(1995;

see also Mauldinet al, 1995) reported correctidentificationof only37% of the
specimens.
Justas disturbing as thefalsenegatives on piecesthatusedtohavebloodon
themare thefalsepositivesobtainedfromsoils. Gurfinkel and Franklin(1988)
observedthathaemoglobin bindschemicallyto clay and othersoil particles,a
processthatis difficult to recoverbyliquidextraction. However,Newmanet al
(1993)weresuccessful inrecoveringbloodprotein fromsoiladhering toanartifact.
This maybe a falsepositivereactionbecause,usingchemstrip testsforblood
residues, Custeretal (1988) foundthatfalsepositivereactions can be causedby
manganese oxidein thesoil.
Doubtsthathaemoglobin moleculessurviveintheiroriginalstatesuitablefor
crystallization haveexistedforyears(SmithandWilson,1992).Recently Garling
(1998) conductedanotherseriesof experiments on modernand ancientsamples
fromthe30,000-year old CuddieSpringssitein Australia.Like researchers dis-
cussedpreviously, shenotedinconsistencies inthethreetechniques usedtoidentify
bloodresidues.Moredisturbing yet,shewas unabletoidentify anyoftheresidues
on thesetoolsto thespecieslevel,as theircrystalmorphologies werenotdistin-
guishableusingcriteria thatLoy had establishedforspeciesidentification: "this
studyshowsthatthesimilarity ofcrystalmorphology extendsacrossspeciesthat
aredefinitely unrelated" (Garling,1998,p. 42). She also notedthehighpotential
forconfusing concentration-specific withspecies-specific as wellas thecur-
traits,
rentlack of knowledgeof theligandformof haemoglobin preserved in ancient
bloodresiduesandbonesamples.She concludedthat"positiveresultsineitheror
bothHemastixandimmunoblots werenota reliableindicator ofa sample'sability
to produceconsistent or regularhaeomoglobin or in factof its ability
crystals,
to producecrystals at all. Indeed,negativeresultsappearedto be a morereliable
indicator" (Garling,1998,p. 43).
Ifresearchers areambivalent abouthaemoglobin crystallizationas a diagnos-
ticprocess,thereis also someconcernabouttheamountof bloodthatis likely
to be preserved on a tool.In an experiment to investigatethisparameter, Tuross
etal (1996) butchered a goatwithseventoolsandconcludedthat,ingeneral,very
littlebloodis preserved on a toolfollowing itsutilization.
Archaeologists should
therefore definetheminimum amountof information neededfroma particular
analysis,as sufficient residuemaynotexistto conductall theassaysone might
wish.
It is obviousthatbloodresidueanalysisstillhas massiveproblems.Grace
(1996) observedthatthedevelopment of thisfieldis comparableto thatof use-
wearanalysisabout10yearsago.Indeed,Fiedel's(Fiedel,1996)criticalappraisal
of thisfieldcalledforfurther blindtestingwithless ambiguoussamples,just as
we haveseeninuse-wearanalysis.Iftheseproveunsatisfactory, itwillbe timeto
suspend use ofthe technique.
60 Oddi
PlantResidues:StarchGrains
Animalbloodis nottheonlysurviving typeofresidueona stonetool.Various

kindsofplantresidues,forexample,starchgrains, resins,andphytoliths, also have
beenobservedon prehistoric implements of considerable antiquity. Research on
plant residues has been in
occurring pockets all over the world,especiallyin
Australia.
A preliminary questionis whether starchgrainsrecovered froma particular
soil or stratigraphie level are in primary contextor werewasheddownthrough
overlying sediments. Thisissuewas broachedbyTherin(1998),whoconducted a
seriesofexperiments to determine therateofmovement ofstarchgrainsthrough
sediments, usingsandsofdifferent composition. He foundthat,thegreater thesize
of thegrains,(1) theless theirchanceof becomingmobile,(2) theslowerthey
move,and(3) thelesschanceoftheirbeingtrapped oncemobile.Moreimportantly,
hefoundthata verylowpercentage ofstarch grainsofanysizebecomesmobile.He
also established a relationship withsediment size,thatis, thesmallertheparticle
size of thesediment, thefewerstarchgrainsmovethrough it,thoughirrigation
levelsdo havea positiveeffect on grainmovement. His studyis encouraging, for
it suggeststhat,undermostconditions, starchgrainsare likelyto remainin the
locationat whichtheyweredeposited.
In considering starchgrainsonprehistoric stonetools,itis important toknow
whether thegrainsobservedhavestayedwiththetoolsinceitsutilization orwere
partofthesediment thatadheredtothetool.Thisquestionwasrecently assessedby
Fullagaretal. (1998), whowereanalyzingobsidianimplements fromPapuaNew
Guinea.Although use-wearanalysisonthetoolssuggested theprocessing oftubers
suchas yamortaro,ethnographic studiesindicated thatpeopleinthatregionwere
inclinedto employshellfortheseactivities, notobsidian.The authorsconducted
tuber-processing experiments andtestedthesediments inwhichtheseexperiments
wereperformed. Theyconcludedthatstarchgraindensity wassubstantially greater
in theexperimental sediments thanin sediments in whichtheobsidiantoolshad
beenexcavated,bolstering theirargument thatthestarchgrainson thetoolscame
fromtuberprocessing. Starchgrainsfromprocessing tuberssuchas manioc,yam,
and arrowroot, along withmaize,legumes,and palm,have also recently been
reported on earlyHolocenestoneimplements fromfoursitesin Panama(Piperno
andHoist,1998).
In anotherpilotstudyof a rocksheiter in northern Australia, Atchisonand
Fullagar (1998) observed starch grains on each of three stone poundingtools.
Testsindicatedthatthetoolscontainedgreater densitiesof starchgrainsthanthe
surrounding sediments didandthatlargedifferences existedinthesizesandshapes
ofgrainsbetweenthespitsandthetools.Thesetestsrendered itunlikely thatthe
implements were contaminated by contactwith sediments and substantiatedthe
contention thatthestarchoriginated withprocessingactivities. A similarargu-
mentwas employedbyBartonetal. (1998), whodiscovered significantly greater
toolsorin thesedi-
ofstarchgrainson utilizedtoolsthanon unutilized
quantities
mentsin whichthetoolshadbeenunearthed.
and ResearchNeeds
PlantResidues:Phytoliths
Plantresiduesotherthanstarchgrainson stonetoolshave also been stud-

ied. For instance,Sobolik(1996) inspected55 chertflakes,scrapers,and other
toolsfromMiddleand Late Archaiclevelsat HindsCave, Texas.The mostfre-
quentresidueson theseimplements wereplantphytoliths, followedbyplantfiber
andanimalhair.Plantsidentified weresotol,yucca,agave,andgrass.No correla-
tionbetweentypeofresidueandtypeofuse-wearwas observed,thetoolsbeing
veryunspecializedand used fora varietyof tasks.But in Australia,Kealhofer
etal (1999) conducteda pilotstudyin whichtheycompareduse-wearandphy-
tolithstudiesofthesamegroupofartifacts. The correspondence betweenthetwo
techniques was excellent, providing some assurance thatthey willbe regardedas
complementary and usefulapproaches to similarproblems.
In general,plantresidueanalysishas experienced neither theproblemsnor
thedepthof soul-searching thathas characterized bloodresidueanalysis.Thisis
primarily a resultofthenatureoftheresidues,thatis,plantresiduessuchas phy-
tolithsandstarch grainscanbe individually observedandidentified, whereasblood
residuesrequireimmunological andotherindirect teststodetecttheirpresence.So
problems ofagreement betweenassayshas simplynotoccurredbecause,in most
cases,onlyone test - observation - was applied.If planttracesare observable,
are
they usually identifiable to speciesor genuslevel;iftheyarenotobservable,
thatfactmaybereported, butis rarelypursuedfurther. To myknowledge, theissue
ofdifferential of
preservation plant residues has notbeen studied.
One negativefinding aboutplantresidueshas beenreported, andthisstudy
was conducted notthrough directobservation, butusingcrossoverimmunoelec-
trophoresis (CIEP). Leach (1998) employed19 flakes,manos,and hammersto
cut,scrape,grind, andpulverizedesert-adapted plantssuchas yucca,agave,corn,
and
squash, mesquite. He then boiled the vegetalmaterialin a plainbrownware
pot,dried thetools in and
sunlight, refrigerated themfor1-2 months beforetesting.
In thewordsoftheauthor(Leach, 1998,p. 173),
weredisappointing.
The resultsoftheblind-test In onlyone case, wheremesquitebeans
groundbya manowereidentified werecorrect
as mesquite, resultsobtainedfromanartifact
residuethathadan antiserum
coatedwithan experimental developedforthatplant.
thefailureofCIEP toproduceaccurateresultstoheatingin
Leach attributed
theceramicvessel,whichmayrender undetectable.
theresiduesimmunologically
I
Alternatively, that
suggest thesame problem with
encountered bloodmaybeoper-
thatis,differential
ativewithplantresidues, Because
preservation. immunological
testssuchas CIEP haveseldombeenappliedto plants,questionsofpreservation
haveseldombeenaskedinthisway.Researchers observing
directly residuessuch
62 Oddi
as phytoliths or starchgrainsare inclinedto considerwhattheysee, notwhatis

missing. In other words,theyarenotinclinedtoinquirewhether ToolB, on which
no suchresidueswereobserved, becamethatwaybecausethetoolwas notusedin
thefirstplace,orbecausetheresiduesoriginally presenthavedegraded.Ifthelatter
is thecase,itimpliesthatall thoseanalysesthathavebeenconducted throughdirect
observational methodsmaybe usableonlyto showtheprehistoric presenceof a
particularplant.They cannot be to a
employed provide representative measureof
theactivitiesthatwerepracticed inantiquity,because,withouta lotmore research,
we willneverknowwhichresidueshavedegradedandwhichhavenot.Therefore,
eventhoughitmayappearthatplantresidueanalysisis moreaccuratethanblood
residueanalysis,thisis a falseimpression, as insufficient
researchhas beencon-
ductedso farto be able to assesstheissueofdifferential Use-wear
preservation.
analysismaybe helpfulas a testwithwhichto compareplantresidueresults.
Thisproblemalso appliesto theanalysisof ancientDNA. Although Hardy
et al (1997) have extractedDNA fromstoneimplements fromthe French
Mousterian siteofLa Quina,theyreported thatDNA fromtheseancientsources
is presentonlyin smallfragments. Data fromtheirmodernexperimental series
suggested thatDNA breakdown occursrapidlyafterdeath.Thusalthough theex-
tractionofancientDNA fromsoilsor stonetoolsappearspromising, researchhas
onlybegunto uncoverthecomplexity ofthesituation.
BEHAVIORAL PROCESSES
Evidencefromstonetools,bothindividually and corporately,can provide

valuableinformation the
concerning lifeways of ancientpeople.Theycan inform
on industrial
production, even of
subsistence, transport materials, sometimesover
long But
distances. anotherconceptualplaneexists,one thatinvolvesbehavioral
processesandarticulateswithhigherlevelsofsocietalorganization.
On thislevel
thelithicdatabasehas provenquiterobust,
providing informationon processesas
diverseas mobilityorganization,
gender,andcultural complexity.
TechnologicalOrganization
Establishing Parameters
Mobility
In thelate 1970sandearly1980s,Lewis Binfordpresented hisnow-famous

model
forager-collector ofhunter-gatherer
mobility Thismodelhas
organization.
hadtremendous atleastinNorthAmerica,
influence, onarchaeologicalperceptions
ofhowhunter-gatherer populationsmanagedtheirseasonalmovements. However,
themodelhasbeencriticized forsimplifying
foragingdecisionsintoa dichotomy,
whenmostgroupsprobablyemployeda mixture ofthetwosystems oralternative
solutionsnotadequatelyexpressedin either(Chatters,1987; Nelson,1991). In
addition,Kelly's (Kelly,1983) cross-cultural studyindicatedthatthemobility

strategiesof even one groupmight differ from one yearto thenext.
Butdespiteits shortcomings, Binford'smodelremainsa usefulframework
forstructuring archaeological data.Someofitstenetswererefined byShott(1986)
who,breaking residential into and
mobility frequency magnitude, determined that
technological diversity is related more closely to the former than to the latter.
Severalofthestudiesmentioned herehavetakentheserelationships evenfurther.
Thelithicdatasetis perceivedtobe helpfulin understanding prehistoric mo-
bilityorganization, but what characteristics oftools can help discriminate between
variousformsofmobility? To answerthisquestion,itis usefulto considersome
archaeological implications ofmobility, thatis, kindsof preservable objectsthat
highlymobilepeople wouldbe likely carry to around with them. The ultimate
questiontoa forager, ofcourse,is howtoperform those tasksnecessary survive
to
withtheleastamountoftransport cost.Ever since Kelly's(Kelly,1988)discourse
onbifaceutility, NorthAmericanarchaeologists havetendedtothinkthattheulti-
matesolution tothisproblem wastheuseofbifacesas cores.Thispositionhasbeen
supported through studiessuchas theone byMorrow(1997), whichestablished
thatbifacialfaceting on midwestern Paleoindianendscrapersincreasedwithdis-
tancefromthesourceof toolrawmaterial. Butifthisrelationship is universally
true,thenwhydo we notfindthisstrategy in theEuropeanUpperPaleolithic, or
amongAustralian Aborigines?
Proceedingfromdifferent assumptions, Kuhn(1994) describeda "mobile
toolkit"thatwouldoptimizepotential usefulness withrespecttoweight(portabil-
ity).Perceiving thatthereexistsa pointatwhichlargeincrements in weightbring
minimal gainsinutility, Kuhnillustrated thisas thehighestpointofa utilityimass
ratiographedagainstmultipleof minimum length.The optimalratioresults,on
average,in quitea smalltool,whoselengthis only 1.5 timesits minimum us-
able length.Accordingto thisscenario,it would be moreefficient forhighly
mobileforagers to carryseveralsmallertoolsthanan equivalentweightin larger
tools.
Morrow( 1996) hascriticized Kuhn'smodelas beinglessefficient thanlogical
alternativesincertain circumstances (e.g.,scrapers only1.5 x minimum usefulness
wouldquicklybe reducedto an unusablestatewithout thepossibility ofcreating
larger, moreusabletools).Perhapsa judiciousassortment of smallerflakesand
larger cores,which themselves could be used for a varietyof tasks,wouldprovide
anoptimalsolution. In anycase,theassociationofmobility withdifferent techno-
logicalstrategies suggests thatmore than one solution was possible and thatthe
choicedependedas muchon historic trajectory as on ultimate efficiency.
Toinvestigate potential solutions, itisoftennecessary toapproachtheproblem
froma different angle, as Kuhn did. Cowan (1999) also tooka different tack,
arguing not from the vantage of finished tools but from the debris leftfrom the
manufacture ofthosetools.Concentrating onsmallsitesinnorthwestern NewYork,
he determined fromtheirdebitagethatthetechnological strategies employedby
64 Odell
peoplelivingin theArchaic,EarlyWoodland,andLate Woodlandperiodswere

different.
distinctly
Riskand Stress
Oncea satisfactory leveloftoolefficiency hasbeenachievedbya particular

groupofhunter-gatherers, thesuccessfulstrategy tendstocontinue untilessential
parameters ofthesystem change,rendering thestrategy lessadaptive. A usefulway
toperceivethisis through theconceptofsubsistence risk,defined as theprobability
ofresourceloss andinvolving thecostoffailureandtheavailability ofalternative
sourcesof food.A comprehensive discussionof thisconcepthas beenprovided
byBamforth andBleed (1997) who,on thebasisofdataaccumulated byOswalt
(1976),haveshownworldwide patterns inresourceavailability andprobability of
risk,andhavederiveda heuristic modeloffailurecosts.
Conceptsofriskand stresson a finite resourcebase havebeenemployedto
explainchangesin stonetools.Proceeding fromdiet-breadth modelsderivedfrom
optimalforaging theory, resourcestressshouldbe detectable in thearchaeologi-
cal recordthrough changesin emphasisfrompreferred to second-line resources.
Such a case has been made in thePortuguese Mesolithic,in whicha first-line
resource, reddeer,was apparently depletedandreplacedby a greater varietyof
less desirableresources, including fish.Stresswas reflected in thelithicdatabya
greaterstandardization ofweaponry, thatis, a switch, in theLateMesolithic, toa
uniform, geometric-based microlithic technology manufactured by the microburin
technique. Thisstrategy mayhaveconstituted an attempt toproducemorereliable,
possiblycomposite, toolsofwhichthesemicroliths formed a part.Thistrendwas
accompaniedby an increase in the number of different tool functions and the
greaterutilization ofdebris,as peoplewereforcedto exploita greater varietyof
species to survive (Vierra, 1995).
McDonald(1991) appliedBinfordian modelsofembeddedprocurement and
carrying costs to a series of early Holocene sites at theDakhleh Oasis,Egypt. She
was able todistinguish threetypesof sitesbasedon diversity oftooltypes,range
of lithicrawmaterials, and severalotherfactors.Radiocarbondatesassociated
witha dryphasesuggestthataggregation inthiscase was a responsetoworsening
climaticconditions inthedesert,wheredispersed groupsspentmostoftheirtime.
Similararguments wereadvancedbyYoung(1994) fortheAmericanSouthwest.
In thisregion,shereasonedthat,in timesof stress,peoplewouldrevert to more
mobileresidencestrategies, indicatedbyhigherbifacexoreratios,frequencies of
formal(bifacial)tools,andpreparedstriking platforms. Herthesiswas criticized
by Sullivan(1994), whoproposedfactorsotherthanmobility to accountforthe
changes in thelithic data.
The equationof formal(usuallybifacial)toolswithgreater residential mo-
has
bility pervaded the literature of lithictechnological organization. Bousman
(1993) hasemployed thismodelto contrast latePaleoindiantechnological strate-

giesinvolving projectile
points.He associated frequentlysharpened, maintained,
andreusedPlainview pointswithresidentially mobileforagers andthemorecostly
butreliable,parallel-flaked,
Angostura pointswithcollectorstrategies. Amickand
Carr(1996) alsorevealedthisrelationship among Paleoindian groups theNorth
of
American Southeast. By the Woodland period, Indiansinthis regionwerestockpil-
ing lithic
raw materialand usingexpedient technologies containing fewerbifaces
thanintheArchaic.
Odell(1996b,1998) also notedthedeclinein bifacialtechnologies through-
outtheprehistoric culturalsequenceoftheLowerIllinoisValley,a tendency that
correlatesina generalwaywithincreasedsedentism of
andthedevelopment plant
domestication. Although trendsin mostprehistoric activitiesappearto havebeen
stochastic in nature,use-weartracesattributed to hafting increasedthroughout
theHoloceneperiod,whereasthosefrommanualprehension decreased.These
trendsarealso associatedwiththedevelopment of sedentary andplant
lifestyles
domestication. Because an increasinglygreaterproportion of an individualtool
was committed to thehaftproper,theaveragefrequency of functionalunitsper
toolandofdifferent activitiesandworkedmaterials pertooldeclinedduringthis
period(Odell, 1994b).The needforimplements maintained through sharpening
and reshaping also declinedovertime,thougha slightincreasein averageuti-
lizedpolarcoordinates pertoolsuggeststhatpeopleused theirimplements more
intensely(Odell,1994a,1996b).
Subsistence
Distinguishing Strategies
Specificsubsistence strategies arenotwellunderstood forremoteperiodsof

prehistory. From the earliesthominids through theMiddle Paleolithic,itis often
unclearwhether folkshunted fortheirmeatorscavengedthekillsofotherspecies.
Combinedresearchon thelithicand faunaldatabasesof thecentralItaliancoast
has providedsomeenlightenment on thissituationas it pertainsto theMiddle
Paleolithic. Mostoftheinterpretations of scavenging or hunting havebeenmade
on faunalindicators, forexample,scavengingbeingdistinguished on thebasis
of largeproportion of headparts,smallproportion of limbbones,andrelatively
incomplete faunalassemblages(StinerandKuhn,1992).
Lithicdatacorrelate wellwithfaunalindicesattheseMousterian sites.Scav-
engingassemblages arecharacterized by disc-coreor radialLevallois techniques,
heavymodification oftools,low frequency oflargeflakes,intensive exploitation
ofblanks,andfrequent nonlocalrawmaterial. Hunting assemblagesexhibitmore
efficient parallelcores, smaller and narrower a
flakes, relativelylargequantity of
flakestakenoffeachcore, less toolmodification,and dominance of local raw ma-
terial.Itis apparent thatscavenging populations movedmorefrequently, hadlarger
territories, andmaintained morewidelytransported toolkits.Hunting populations
66 Odell
provisioned a homebase,thatis, broughtcarcassesbackhome,andwereconse-

quentlyless mobileandmore efficientin theirimplements
manufacturing (Kuhn,
1993,1995).
Procurement
Considerations
Technologyis dependenton theprocurement of resourcesappropriate for

makingthetechnology work.Ifthoseresourcesarenotreadilyavailable,procure-
mentbecomesa scheduling problem.The severity oftheproblemis relatedtothe
natureand proximity of theresourceand methodsof extraction. Humangroups
haveseveralwaystoprocureresources, bysendingouttaskforces,long-distance
trading, exchangebetweenneighbors, or embedding procurement in a regularly
scheduledforaysuchas, forhunter-gatherers, a seasonalround.
In consideringmobilityand the procurement of exotic raw materials,
MacDonald (1999) has supplemented theforegoing considerations by stressing
theimportance ofmatingrelations.Havingfoundthatindividuals livingin lower
densitypopulationaggregatestravelfarther to locatematesthanthosein more
denselypopulatedaggregates(MacDonald and Hewlett,1999),he appliedthese
principlesto Folsomgroupsof theNorthern Plains.Low percentages of exotic
materialson thesesitesweremoresupportive of long-distance movement of in-
dividualsthanofentiresocial groups,a specification thatallowedhimtoprovide
meanmatingdistancesforFolsomgroups.
Shackley(1990) approachedtheprocurement scheduling problemforoc-
cupantsof Paleoindianand Archaicsitesin Arizonathrough obsidiansourcing,
establishing thatobsidianin thisregionwas takenlocallyratherthanthrough
long-distance trade.Notinga negativecorrelation betweendistancefromsource
andamountofcortexpresenton theartifacts, he deducedthattheprocurement of
obsidianamonghunter-gatherer groups was an embedded strategy.
Analyzing ob-
sidianfrom morerecentClassicHohokamsitesthrough X-raydiffraction, Mitchell
and Shackley(1995) came to a similarconclusion.Theyfoundan abundanceof
obsidianon sitesveryclosetotheobsidiansourcesanda rapidfall-off rateforsites
further away,indicatingthatobsidian was nottraded but
longdistances, was em-
beddedin a largerpattern ofmobility.In contrast,J.V. Wright (1994),working in
theSt.LawrenceBasinofCanada,foundGaspesilicaonPaleoindian sites800 km
upstream ofitssource,suggestingeitherlong-distance tradeorveryhighmobility.
Seeman's(Seeman,1994) procurement problemwas different. Working on
theNoblesPondPaleoindiancamp,he wantedto knowwhether thematerials in
11 clustersaccumulatedat one timeor sequentially. Despite the availability of
local lithicmaterials,
thedominant onesatthesitecamefromtwodistant quarries.
He reasonedthat,ifdisparategroupspracticedembeddedprocurement, thenthe
clustersshouldbe characterizedbydifferent rawmaterial as thesegroups
spectra,
wouldhavegonethrough differentareas.Butifgroupsthatkeptreturning to the
sitepracticed a moresystematic strategy,thenthe clusters shouldpossess similar
spectra oflithicsubstances. Rawmaterial similarity amongclusters atNoblesPond

supports the second that
scenario, is, people across thesitewere related in some
way and possiblycontemporaneous.
Formostcontinental regions, acquisition ofrawmaterials fromdistant sources
has commonly beenattributed to substantial residentialmobility. This assump-
tiondominated Andrefsky's (Andrefsky, 1995)interpretations ofsurveydatafrom
theLowerSnakeRiverin Washington. Insteadof thecommonassumption that
peoplein thisregionbecamemoresedentary through time,he foundthatrecent
groupsemployedrelatively largequantities of nonlocalrawmaterial, suggesting
thattheywerequiteresidentially mobile.Theserarer,nonlocalsubstanceswere
morelikelyto be madeintoformaltools,whereasthemorecommon,local ones
weremorelikelytobe employed as expedient tools(Andrefsky, 1994).In thisway
theavailability of differentrawmaterialshas an important impacton a people's
technological organization.
Using similarprinciples, Feblot-Augustins (1993) comparedlate Middle
Paleolithicassemblages from Acquitaine, France,withcontemporary assemblages
fromcentral Europe.In bothcases,mostrawmaterial procurement was stableand
local(within 5 km),butcentral Europeanassemblagescontained morematerial that
originated at least20 kmaway.Greaterlong-distance transportprobablyequates
withgreater seasonalmobility in centralEurope,withlargersubsistence and ex-
ploitation In addition,
territories. itsupports theexerciseofplanningandforesight
amongMiddlePaleolithic peoples.
Rawmaterial procurement andorganization oftechnology aremutually code-
pendent. Although previousexampleshaveillustrated theroleofprocurement in
technological organization,thelatter playsanequallyimportant roleindetermining
thecomposition ofspecificrawmaterials ina toolkit.Thismessagewas conveyed
nicelybyIngbar(1994),whopostulated a simplesimulation. A hypothetical hu-
man groupvisitseach of thethreesourceareas in turn,replenishing a certain
percentage ofitstoolkitateacharea.The amountofmaterial gathered ata source
andcarried away tobecome part of a future assemblage usually depends largelyon
theorganizational needsofthegroup,whichis factored intothesimulation. That
is, somekindsof toolswill be replenished and othersmaintained, affecting the
composition of theassemblage removed from each sourcearea and assuring that
thepercentages ofeachofthematerials usedwillbe different depending on where
in thiscycleone samplestheassemblage.Evenin thissimplified representation,
itis obviousthatthereconstruction of a group'smovements is noteasy andis at
leastpartly dependent on itstechnological organization.
Curation
Technological organization toderivefromstonetools,butarchae-

is difficult
inlithicmaterials
ologistsspecializing havealwaysthought thattheyhada leg up
on thisissue,becausesomeof thepiecesin a typicalarchaeological
assemblage
68 Odell
are usuallymodified, whereasothersare not.This has been suchan important

consideration thatourdistantarchaeologicalancestorsusuallyretainedonlythe
modified pieces,whichtheycalled "tools";unretouched flakesbecame"waste,"
as thoughtheywereunlikely evertohavebeenutilized.Todaywe knowbetter, but
mostarchaeologists, forgoodreasons,separatetheirassemblagesintocategories
suchas "tools"or"typecollections," and"debris."
A logicalramification ofthemodificationofstoneis thatsuchpiecesappear
tohavebeentreated differentlyfrom thosethatwere notretouchedorground. The
very factoftheir
modification suggeststhatmore attention
was to
paid them, either
through sharpening, shapingintoa specifictoolform,oralteringspecificportions
in orderto holdthetoolbetter. Thustheidea thatsometoolswere"curated"and
others"expedient" fellonfertileground,as archaeologists
hadsecretly knownthis
all along.
TheproblemwasBinford's(Binford,1973)use oftheterm"curation," which
was notveryspecificor exclusivein thefirstinstanceand becameevenless so
withuse. Thissituation has occasionedextensive criticism
ofarchaeologists'use
of thetermby Hayden (1975) and morerecentlyby Odell (1996a) and Nash
(1996). Odell evaluatedBamforth's (Bamforth, 1986) fivecategoriesofcuration,
usinglithicassemblagesfromtheIllinoisValley.He foundsomeinapplicable and
twoofthemcontradictory, andconcludedthatthetermshouldneverbe employed
without definingitstrictly
attheoutset.Nashwasequallycritical.Usingexcavated
MiddlePaleolithicassemblagesand finding thatthetermmeansdifferent things
to differentpeople,Nash(1996,p. 96) stated,
Giventhattheconceptis nowembeddedin theliterature,
a standardized
lexiconshouldbe
negotiatedtofacilitate
someclarityofcommunication.
In theabsenceofsuchstandardiza-
tion,we shoulddropthetermfromthearchaeologicalliterature
altogether.
Giventhepopularity of theconcept,a smallbutunderstandable backlash,

led byMikeShott(1996), has occurred.Shotthas definedthetermas thedegree
of use or utility
extracted, thatis, thedifferencebetweenthepotential the
utility
toolstartswithversustheamountlefton discard.He also perceivesthetermtobe
applicableto individual toolsratherthanentireassemblages.
Severalaspectsof thecurationconcepthavebeenappliedduringthe1990s.
Forinstance, WalthallandHolley(1997) reported a cacheof 10 Daltontoolsinan
ochre-stained spot in a bell-shapedpit located in theuplandsneartheAmerican
Bottom.Givena lackofevidenceforburialatthislocale,theysuggested thatthese
implements had been produced in advance of use and cachedthere. Because the
majoritywere end and
scrapers ethnographically women aremore associated
firmly
withscraping activitiesthanmenare,theauthors speculated thatthiswasa curated
women'scache.
Close (1996) employedthecurationalconceptof transporting implements
fromonelocaletoanother. PrehistoricoccupantsofsandripplesitesintheSahara
apparently carriedflakesand cores fromone rippleto thenextin a circuitous
pattern.Theyalso recycledthesetoolsand stockpiledthemforthefuture. Tool

recyclingand maintenance also seems to have occurred at theGerman Middle
Paleolithic
WallertheimD site(ConardandAdler,1997). Artifacts werenotpro-
ducedon site,butarrivedtherein alreadyfinished formand weresharpened and
maintained there,suggestingthat thiswas a retoolingcenter.Also workingin
theMiddlePaleolithic,Kuhn(1992b) notedthetransportation ofretouchedtools
and toolblanksforsignificantdistances;however, he differedwithConard and
Adlerin themeaningofthisbehavior. Insteadofconsciouspreplanning, itmight
havebeenonlya temporary hedgeagainstunforeseen thusreflecting
difficulties,
opportunistic
patternsoflanduse.
CulturalComplexity
Lithicartifacts havetraditionallybeenassociatedwithmoretechnologically
primitive stagesof culturaldevelopment. Recently,however,we have started
to understand and appreciatetheprocessesby whichstonetoolscontributed to
movements towardculturalcomplexity, as well as how theywerereplacedby
metal.Stafford's (Stafford,1999) studyof lithicassemblagesspanningthelate
Mesolithic/earlyNeolithictransition in Scandinavia,forexample,demonstrated
thattheprocesstherewas a gradualtransformation ofindigenoussocietiesrather
thansuddenmigrations of Neolithicpeoplefromelsewhere.Also partlyon the
basisoflithicanalysis,Stafford offereda redefinition - fromdo-
oftheNeolithic
mesticated plantsandanimalstotheimportation ofcertainstatusobjectssuchas
polishedstone axes, a that
process represented a symbolic ofnorth
transformation
European culture.Accompanying economic and social were
complexity different
ritualand ceremonialpracticesthanthosethathad existedamongnoncomplex
societies,practicesthatarediscussedlater.
CraftSpecialization
Oneofthehallmarks ofcomplexsocietyis theemergence ofcraftspecializa-

tion.Butas Milliken(1998) hasdocumented, thereexistedatleastpartialcraftspe-
cializationin theUpperPaleolithic, thatis, inAurignacian ivorybeads,Solutrean
foliatepoints,Magdalenianspearthrowers, andtheproducts ofknappers atplaces
suchas Etiollesand Corbiac.Giventhatspecialization is a continuous variable,
therehas beena lotofdiscussionaboutwhatconstitutes truecraftspecialization
andhowto determine itfromthearchaeological record.
At leastmoderatecraftspecializationappearsto have existedat theLate
Neolithic/Chalcolithic villageofEl Malagon,Spain,locatedclosetotheLa Venta
flintmine(Ramos-Millan, 1997).Peopleat thevillagespecializedin theproduc-
tionof bladelets,whichtheyappearto haveexchangedforothercommodities.
Investigations of theeighthutsthatexistedin thelaterperiodindicatedspatial
70 Odell
differencesinlithicproduction amongthem,suggesting thatthefundamental pro-

ductionnodewas thedomesticunit.Ramos-Millanconcludedthatspecialization
andpoliticalcontrolincreasedthrough time,reflected ingreater quantities ofboth
localandexoticminedstone.Professional craftspecialization also appearstohave
existedintheBulgarianEneolithic, evidencedintheextremely longflint bladesas-
sociatedwithhigh-status burialsincemeteries suchas Varna(Manolakakis, 1996).
This scenariodiffers fromone depictedby Rosen (1997a) at theCamel site,an
EarlyBronzeAge pastoralcampin theNegevhighlands. Therehe foundnottrue
craftspecializationinbeadproduction, butcottageindustries thatproduced excess
for in a
goods exchange higher-level economic system.
Shellbeadproduction, usuallyinvolving stonemicrodrills, is also a common
specializationamong coastal A
peoples. majorproject in the Channel Islandsoff
theCalifornia coasthas established a considerable tradeinthiscommodity bythe
Chumashand theirpredecessors (Arnold,1992; Arnoldand Munns,1994). The
exactnatureof thebead tradewas a littlehardto define,butappearsto havein-
volvedperipherally attachedspecialistswhoseproduct distribution wascontrolled
byhighly ranked persons on the mainland. Likewise, shell bead manufacture on
MotuporeIsland,PapuaNew Guinea,constituted an important sourceofincome
throughout thehistory of thatisland.Thereproduction was at a villageleveland
didnotnecessarily implydistinct socialranking (Allenetal., 1997).
MostNewWorldworkon thetopicofspecialization has beenaccomplished
amongtheMaya,whereconclusionshavenotalwaysbeenbasedon thefirmest
datasets.As a case in point,Aoyama(1995) comparedareasin andaroundtwo
structuresat Copan,employinghigh-magnification use-weartechniquesbased
exclusivelyonpolishindicators forflint, andpolishandstriations forobsidian.His
conclusionthatspecializedproduction ofmarineshellornaments occurred infront
of structure10L-16containsan arrayof problems, includingverysmallsample
sizes,activityand workedmaterialtotalsthatdo notmatch,use of a combined
bone/shell/antlercategory insteadofjustshell,andactualdominance ofmeat/hide,
notshell,working.
Fortunately,othercontenders forlithiccraftspecialization intheMayaregion
aresupported bystronger arguments. Forinstance, ClarkandBryant(1991) ana-
lyzedtheproduction ofchertprojectile pointsfroma Maya siteinChiapas.From
thehigherrorrateandlargevariability withinone pointstyle,theyconcludedthat
thiswas nota specializedcraftat thislocale, buta part-time domesticactivity
practicedat thehouseholdlevel.Likewise,use-wearworkbyLewenstein (1993)
atCerrosinBelizeuncovered noevidenceofspecializedproduction ofstonetools.
Andfurther north,thetesting ofthreeareasatthecentralMexicanurbancenterof
XochicalcobyHirth(1995) establishedthatthistownmayhavebeena regional
supplieroffinished obsidiantools,butlittleevidenceexistedforlarge-scale craft
specializationas atTeotihuacan.
But suchspecializationsurelyexistedin theMaya area,as it did in other
regions.A goodcandidateis theflintworkshop siteofColha,whereoval bifaces
andtranchetaxes wereproducedforexportelsewherefromtheMiddlePreclassic
totheTerminalClassicperiod(ShaferandHester,199 1) . Another is theMichoacan
areaof westernMexico, where Darras (1994) has describeda series of obsidian
mines,workshops, andassociatedsettlements. In bothcases,the volume ofdebris
at theworkshops more
suggestssubstantially production than would have been
necessaryforuse withinthe associated village.Likewise,lapidaryproduction at
theeasternedgeof Otumbain theValleyofMexico,describedbyOtisCharlton
(1993),probablyrepresentsspecializedjewelryproduction at thislocale.
Tradeand Exchange
An important elementofincreasing culturalcomplexity amonglaterprehis-

toricsocietieswas theproliferation of tradeand exchangerelationships. Long-
distancetradecan be verydifficult to distinguishfromdown-the-line exchange
(White,1996,p. 203), orfromtheprimary acquisitionofa resourceortradeitem
through embedding itin normalhunter-gatherer seasonalrounds(Wright, 1994).
Withrespectto lithicmaterials, interpretation involvesan intimate knowledgeof
theresourcesin a region.A case in pointis Gibson'sfocuson Poverty Pointex-
change(Gibson,1994). Herein theLowerMississippiValley,a principalsource
fortoolstone was secondarily depositedlocal gravels,whicharerecognizable by
theirbrowncortexual rind.However, thegravelsprobably didnotprovideall ofthe
predominantly grayvarietiesof stonethatappearin PovertyPointassemblages,
anditis difficultto detectanycommodity movingnorthward in exchangeforthe
materialsthatwereprobably entering thearea.Theseproblems affectmanyregions
andwillrequireconsiderable efforttoresolve.
Severalexamplesoftradeorexchangeinlithicitemshavebeenoffered during
thepastdecade.Forexample,Bourque(1994) described theebbsandflowsoftrade
ontheMaritime PeninsulaofeasternNorthAmerica,primarily inexoticstone.Of
particularinterestwereparticipants intrading networks whoevolvednovelstrate-
gies fortakingadvantageof changingculturalclimates.Termed"Tarrentines,"
thesewerenativetraders whoadoptedEuropean-style commercial Fur-
practices.
thersouth,theBasinofMexicoalso possessedindependent merchants whowere
responsible fora highvolumeoftradeduringtheLate Postclassicperiod.Despite
theirexistenceunderthestrong Aztecstate,tradedevelopedthrough market sys-
temsandwasneversubjected tocoercivepoliticalcontrol (Smith,1990).Acrossthe
ocean,Takacs-Biro(1997) has provideda comprehensive analysisof thedistri-
butionof lithictradeitemsin theLate Neolithicof Hungary, includingnorthern
varietiesofflintthatbecameimportant in thelaterpartofthisperiod.
Severalitemsofstonemovedthrough theseexchangesystems: One common
product was obsidian, and that too notjust in Central America. Obsidian also
constituted a keycomponent of exchangesystemsin theAmericanNorthwest,
peakingin intensity at differenttimesin thePlateau(Galm,1994) andin British
72 Oddi
Columbia(Carlson,1994). Specificartifact formswerealso tradedextensively.

In thenortheastern UnitedStates,forexample,a trading network was established
during theMiddle Woodland periodfeaturing Jack'sReef corner-notched points.
Strauss(1992) speculatedthata prehistoric coastaltradenetwork involvedraw
jasper,withfinished pointsbeingtransported up majorriverstotheinterior.
Raw materials also filledthisnichein otherpartsoftheworld.Forinstance,
neitherchertnorobsidianis indigenous totheReefs/Santa CruzIslandsofOceania;
bothwere shippedin fromhundredsof kilometers away duringLapita (early
pottery)times(Sheppard,1993,1996;White,1996).Despitethedistances, stone
fortoolswas nottransported fromthenearestsourcesof thesematerials, nordid
toolusersappeartobe optimizing material,as discardedcoreswerenotexhausted.
Tool usersappearto haverespondedmoreto socialrelationships suchas gifting
thantostrict economics.In another
utilitarian example,thegreenPachucaobsidian
fromTeotihuacan hasbeenfoundon Maya sitesinritualareasandwas madeinto
specializedtoolforms, suggesting thatitsoverallfunction was moresymbolicor
ceremonial thaneconomic(Spence,1996).
The processesbywhichmaterialwas transferred froma producer to a con-
sumersocietyhavebeenelucidatedbyresearch attheMayalithicworkshop siteof
Colhaanditsclientpolities.Twostandardized tools- thetranchet bitaxe andoval
biface- wereproducedin vastquantitiesat Colha,whichwas situatedon large
outcrops ofhigh-quality chertnodules.Thesetoolswereshippedtoconsumer sites
suchas Cuello,Pulltrouser Swamp,andCerros,atwhicharchaeologists havefound
numerous sharpening flakes,butfewcores,ofColhachert(Dockall,1994;Dockall
andShafer,1993;McSwain,1991).Distribution ofColhachertoccurred generally
northwest oftheproducer siteintheLatePreclassicperiod.By theLateClassic,it
occurredin all directionsfromColha,as chertwas shippedfreely throughout the
riversystems(Santone,1997).
Igneousandmetamorphic rockwerealso objectsoflong-distance trade.This
was certainly trueof NeolithicwesternEurope,whereaxes, adzes,and chisels
constitutedimportant constituents of thetoolkit.Working in thewestern Alpine
region,Ricq-deBouardand Fedele (1993) foundthatonlycertainkindsof sub-
stanceswereemployedforthesetoolsandthatspecificrocksourcesweretraded
fromeast to west acrosstheAlps. Pre-Dynastic grinding stonesfromat least
one sitein UpperEgyptweremanufactured fromvolcanicrocksfromperhapsas
muchas 150kmaway,attesting totheexistence ofa widespread materialexchange
network duringthisperiod(MahmoudandBard,1993).AndX-rayfluorescence
analysesofLateBronzeAge-to-Roman periodmillstones andquernsfromCyprus
showedthatmaterials fortheirmanufacture oftenoriginated indistantplaces,such
as theLevantortheAegeanIslands(Williams-Thorpe etal, 1991).
Finally,thepersistence of culturalnormsin thefaceof changingexchange
relationshipshas been documented byJohnson andHayes(1995),whocompared
twononcontemporaneous MiddleWoodlandsitesinthenorthern Yazoo drainage,
Mississippl.Snyders-style points and blade techniques were introduced intothe
earlierFantassemblage,themajority of thetoolsfromwhichwerenonlocaland
dominated by Illinoischertssuch as Cobdenand Burlington. These stylesand
techniqueswere continuedin thelaterOak Grove assemblage,despitethefactthat
mostof theartifactsweremadeof Arkansasnovaculite.In otherwords,despite
a changein procurement fromIllinoisto Arkansas,artifact
or traderelationships
and
styles techniques persisted.
SociopoliticalControl
A questionrelatedto craftspecialization involvesthe kindof regimeun-

derwhichthesecraftswerestructured, thatis, wereproduction or distribution
of lithicmaterialsstrictlycontrolledby a centralpolityor social class, or did
theyremainundertheauthority of smaller,household-or kinship-based units?
In Mesopotamia, Pope and Pollock(1995) comparedtheUrukMoundwithtwo
othertellsoftheEarlyDynasticperiod.All sitesreceivedtoolstonein theshape
of alreadypreformed cores,fromwhichtoolmakers fashionedblades and other
items.The authorsconcludedthat,at all threesites,production anduse werenot
limitedtoa smallnumber ofhouseholds, butwerewidespreadwithinthevillages.
Theyfoundlittleevidenceforeithercentralization oradministrative controlofthe
resource.
A fewrecentstudieshaveuncovered thepossibility control
of sociopolitical
amongNorthAmericanprehistoric groups.For instance,Bayman(1995) noted
thatobsidianproduction andconsumption intheMarañaHohokamcommunity in
theAmerican Southwest wereconcentrated ononelargeplatform mound,whereas
othermoundsonthesitecontained verylittleobsidian.Thisevidencedemonstrated
centralizedredistributionofobsidianandsuggested theexistenceofan emerging
powerelite.Similarly, in thePlumBayoucultureof centralArkansas,Nassaney
(1996) detected concentrationsofquartzcrystal atCoy Moundandin an areaeast
of theplaza at theToltecsite.Quartzcrystalis mostlikelya prestigeitem,and
theseconcentrations mayindicatethepresenceof socialranking.
In noinstance,however, haveI runacrossevidence, uncovered within thepast
decade,ofstrong control
sociopolitical over a lithicresource in theNew World, a
pointexemplified by Olivellashellbeadproduction in California'sChannel Islands
(Arnoldand Munns,1994). The authorsisolatedseveralproduction centerson
theislandsbutnoneon themainland,thoughit is apparentthatpoliticalpower
was centeredon themainland.The mostlikelyscenariois thatmainlandelites
controlled butleftproduction
bead distribution, in thehandsof looselyattached
specialistson theislands.
Even at a highlyspecializedlithicworkshopsuch as Colha in theMaya
lowlands,themostlikelyauthority was lineagebased ratherthanelitecontrol-
led (Shaferand Hester,1991). In addition,thelack of chertworkshopsat large
Mayacenterssuchas TikalandYaxhasuggeststhatproduction ofcherttoolswas
74 Odell
decentralized (Fedick,1991). On theotherhand,Fedicknotedthatredistribution

frommajorcentersdid occur,forthegreater prevalence ofearlyreduction stage
debitage at households located away from major centersis consistentwithcloser
householdshavinggreater access to alreadypreformed tools.
Johnson (1996) constructed a similar in
argument comparing lithicproduc-
tionamongtheMayansat Colha withthatof MiddleArchaicBentonpeopleof
northeastern Mississippl.The discovery ofseveralBentonperiodcachesoffinely
madebifacesandofdiscrete bifaceproduction locionBentonsitessuggests a high
levelof production, for
probably exchange(Sassaman,1994b). Johnson's point
was, if a Bentonperiodsitewerefoundin Belize and attributed to theClassic
period,itwouldbe presented as evidenceforcraftspecializationcontrolled byan
elite,whereasin reality,whatever specializationtherewas,was probablyloosely
controlled andhouseholdbased.The primary specializationamongtheMayans,
and theonlyone controlled by theelite,concernedactivitiesof a ritualnature.
Thusobsidianemployedforbloodletting was producedforritualspecialists,with
surplusrawmaterialgoingto thegeneralpopulation alonglinesofkinship.
Studiescitedabovedemonstrate a generallackof sociopoliticalcontrolover
lithicresources amongprehistoric occupants ofboththeOld andNewWorlds.This
impression has beenstrengthened byPope (1994), whocomparedevidencefrom
twoverydifferent geographical andhistorical contexts:theEarlyDynasticUruk
people in Mesopotamiaand theEmergentMississippianBlack Warrior Valley
cultureof theNorthAmericanSoutheast.In thelatterregionspecializedbead
making occurred,buttheremains ofthisactivitywerewidelydispersed withinsites,
suggesting thatproduction was organizedby householdor kingroup.Similarly
at UrukMound,chippedstonetoolproduction was nota centralized and
activity,
neither techniques norrawmaterialswererestricted once theywereimported to
thesite.
MaterialReplacement
Eventuallystonetoolswerereplacedby metalin mostareasof theworld.

Conventional wisdomsuggeststhatthisreplacement occurred
rapidlythroughout
all tooltypes,butuntilthisdecade,littleresearchhadbeendoneon theprocesses
ofthereplacement. Severalstudiesdemonstrate thattheprocesswas complexand
involvedspecifictooltypesat differenttimes.
Working inmid-lateHoloceneBritain, Edmonds(1995) foundthatmetalbat-
tle axes and axe hammersmadetheirfirstappearancein theEarlyBronzeAge.
Stonewas stillin generaluse atthistime,butknapping controlandtoolformality
haddeclined.Thisprocesscontinued intheMiddleBronzeAge,andknappers in-
creasingly employed local rawmaterials and simplecore-flake
techniques.Metals
becameincreasingly important inthecontext oftrade,as perceptions
oftheuseof
materials and
changed sociopolitical forces creatednew demands anddesires.
The mostdefinitive workon material replacement in theNearEast has been

producedby Rosen (1996, 1997b), whose interest spanstheChalcolithic, Bronze,
and IronAges. In thisregiontheprocessof replacement took3000 yearsand
proceededin stages,first involving stonearrowheads, thenburins,thenaxes and
then
drills, ad hoc and
tools, finally sickle blades. Reasons forreplacement bymetal
weredifferentineachcase.Forexample,established traderouteswereimportant in
promoting copperaxes, whereas the relativecheapness of flint
and well-established
specializationin thismaterial ensuredthatstonesicklebladeswouldcontinueto
be usedlongafter otherlithictooltypeshaddisappeared. Clearly,thereplacement
of stoneby metalwas nota linearprocess,buta highlycomplexone involving
considerablymorethansimpleutility.
Similarcomplexity accompanied replacement inregionsoutsideEuropeand
theNear East. Amongthe Pawnee of the North American Plains,forinstance,
metalknivesquicklyreplaced stone ones, but stone scrapersand abradingtools
continuedinuse longerbecausethey were less likely havesuperior
to metalcoun-
As theirutilitarian
terparts. desirability declined, stone tools eventually assumed
a sacredcharacter, as in implements for curative etc.
bleeding, (Hudson,1993).
Likewise,amongAborigines ofAustralia's northwestern Northern stone
Territory,
wasrapidlyreplacedforutilitarian and
itemssuchas chisels,knives, spearpoints.
However, stonecontinued tobe valuedintheformofprestige objectssuchas large
pointsusedas giftsandforexchange(Head andFullagar,1997).
Symbolismand Ritual
StoneinMythand Ritual
Theuseofstonetoolsfornonutilitarian purposeshasgenerated animpressive

body of in
literature recentyears,partly because archaeologists are moreaware,
through and
postprocessualist other currentsofthought, of theimportant rolethat
socialconsiderations in
play technology (Dobres and Hoffman, 1994). of
Practices
Australian Aborigineshave attracted studybecause, among many of thesegroups,
stoneis regarded in mythical terms.Thatis, mythsrelatedto stoneand quarries
haveemerged overtheyears,as artifacts havebeenembeddedwithsocialandreli-
gious value.This was
point presented effectivelyin RobertPaton's(Paton,1994)
study from northernAustralia of leilirablades of cobblequartzite, whichwere
madefortradeandwhoseuse was accompaniedbya strictcode of conduct.But
wheninspecting habitation sitesat varying distancesfromthequarry, he found
a
nary blade,despite evidence ofquartzite debrisfrom theirmanufacture.Without
of
knowledge Aboriginal behavior generated from elsewhere, one would never
knowwhathadbeenmanufactured atthesesites.McBryde(1997) also madethis
pointforthearea aroundLake Eyrein east-central Australia,a regionof exten-
siveAboriginal trails
connecting ("dreaming tracks")-She employedpétrographie
76 Odell
techniques to linkspecifictoolsto grindstone quarriesin thebasinandwas then

abletoassociatethesematerial distributionstoexchangesystems portrayed inoral
tradition.
Stone was also imbuedwithmythicalcharacteristics amongsome North
AmericanIndiantribessuch as theIroquois,forwhom"Hint"was one of the
creatortwinsand "StoneGiants"figured prominently in anothersetof legends
(Moulton and Abler,1991). Characteristics of a similar naturecan be readinto
certainMaya glyphs associated with stoneimplements as axes andhatchets.
such
"Cauac" signssignifying stone, when accompaniedwithcertainwarrior figures,
seemto havecommemorated a particulartypeof military engagement knownas
"lightningwars"or "axe-wars"(Thompson1996). Stonewas,in theseinstances,
a highlyemotionally chargedmediumcarrying symbolicmeaningsfarbeyondits
utilitarian
purposes.
FurtherbackinNorthAmerican prehistory, thereis evidencethata fewwidely
tradedobjectspossessedsymbolicsignificance. One of thesewas theturkey-tail
point,aroundwhicha Late Archaic/Early Woodlandtrading network was estab-
lishedin theGreatLakes region.Usuallymadeof Wyandotte or Dongolachert
andoftenfoundinassociationwithcopperbeads,thisdistinctive objectmayhave
constituteda formoftraderegulator, liketheshellnecklacesandarmbands inthe
Kula RingoftheTrobriand Islands.The factthatsomeofthepointsweresharp-
enedsupports theiroccasionalemployment as utilitarianobjects,andtheexistence
of cachescontaining well-matched pointssuggeststhattheyweremadebypart-
timespecialists(Krakker, 1997). Anothersuchitem,producedforexchangeand
ceremonial use intheAmericanSoutheast, mayhavebeentheEarlyArchaicKirk
corner-notched point(Sassaman,1994a).
Objectsotherthanprojectilepointsalso probablyserveda special,symboli-
callyimbuedpurposeamongNorthAmericancultures. The simultaneous appear-
anceofpottery andbannerstones intheStailingsculture oftheAmerican Southeast
at about4000 bp appearsto haverepresented a riskabatement strategy amongat
leastsomeofthegroupsatthistime.Sassaman(1998) hastheorized thatmarginal
uplandspeoplesmayhaveproducedand tradedbannerstones to moredominant
pottery-making bandsin orderto cementalliances.Another possibleritualitem,
tradedintheDalton(latePaleoindian)culture inthecentral MississippiValley,was
thewell-madeSloan biface.Possiblyassociatedwithmalehunting ritual,itmay
also havebeenusedtostrengthen tieswithalliedpeoples(Walthall andKoldehoff,
1998).
Trading relations constitute
important evidenceforpostulating socialorritual
significancefor certain artifact
forms, but other typesof evidence have also been
used.Forexample,at theearlyPaleoindianParkhillsitein Ontario,Ellis (1994)
discoveredsevenminiature - mostlytinypointson channelflakes,but
artifacts
also onescraper. He invokedtheirdiscardlocation,clustered closetogether intwo
areasofthesite,toestablishthatthesecouldbe neither utilitarian implements nor
children'stoys. From thisevidence he that
postulated they were ideotechnic items
suchas partsofmedicinebundles, charms, orelementsofwitchcraft, discardedin

areasofintenseactivity.
Sievert(1994) also chosean unconventional conduitforstudying ritualarti-
factsattheSpiroCaddoanceremonial site.Afterinspecting a of
subset Spirotools
forbreakage,use-wear,andresidues,she established thatthesetechniqueswere
viableandcompileda listofcharacteristics thatwerecommonamongceremonial
implements. She conducted a similaranalysisofa rituallyspecializedtoolassem-
blagefromthesacredcenoteatPostclassic Chichén Itzá on theYucatánPeninsula
(Sievert,1992),in whichsherendered a profile whatan assemblage
functional of
ofceremonial stonetoolsmightlooklike.Interestingly, shedetectedconsiderable
impactdamagefromprojectile use anddepicteda specializedritualsignature that
probably involvedbloodletting,sacrifice,andtheuse ofcopal.
ofSymbolsand Language
ToolsintheAcquisition
Languagehas frequently beenenvisioned as a typeof symboling systemre-

quiringcognitive capabilitiessimilarto thosenecessaryforothersymboling sys-
tems.Scholarshavebeenincreasingly interested in investigating theroleofstone
tooltechnique in thedevelopment ofsymboling andlanguage.However,Thomas
Wynn( 1991, 1993)hasformulated a strong argument thatprehistoric toolbehavior
is learnedin substantially different waysthanlanguages.Wynnis a Chomskyan
who arguesforlinguistic learningthrough innatecognitivestructures - a proce-
durethatis radicallydifferent fromlearningstonetool techniquesthrough rote
serialmemorization inan apprenticeship format. He concludesthatthelearning of
prehistoric lithictechniques is unlikely to tellus verymuchabouttheoriginand
evolutionof grammar. He does postulate, however, thattheAcheuleanstageof
bifaceproduction (thoughnottheOlduwan)requiresa constellation ofresponses
thatis a cognitive stageabovechimpbehavior.
Although toolbehavior maynotbe veryhelpfulin studying theoriginoflan-
guage, it can possibly be used to inform on human cognitive abilities forsymboling
behavior (andtherefore, languageacquisition). Severalscholarshavepointedtothe
Middle/Upper Paleolithic transition as sucha cognitive node.Forinstance, Byers
(1994, 1999) that
argued early hominids possessed nonsymbolic action cues that,
through themediation of toolsas "framing devices," hadassumed symbolic content
bytheUpperPaleolithic period.Likewise,DavidsonandNoble(1993) denigrated
theidea thatearlyhominidtoolmakerspossessedthecognitive abilitiesto forma
of a
template specific toolform and then carry out a plannecessary tomanufacture
it,callingthisthe"finished artifact fallacy."In their view, "language arisesfrom
thediscovery thatmeaning is conveyed bysigns" (1993, p. 382; italics inoriginal),
andtheearliestindications ofsuchheightened consciousness arethecolonization
ofAustraliaandthecreationof sculptures andbas reliefsin Europe- bothabout
thetimeoftheMiddle/Upper Paleolithic transition.
78 Odell
A dissentertothisviewis Bednarik( 1995),whoseesthedevelopment ofsym-

boling behavior as As
gradual. evidence he to
points "concept-mediated marking"
onLowerandMiddlePaleolithic objectssuchas mineralized
fossilswithengraved
lines,a largenumber ofbeadsandpendants inassemblages
from"Traditionsfirmly
rootedintheMiddlePaleolithic"(1995,p. 614),andboneswithincisedlinesfrom
sitessuchas Bilzingsleben andStranskaSkala. Aboutthiscontroversy, one thing
is certain:theevidenceforanypositionis so tenuousthatthereis unlikely
tobe a
clearwinneranytimesoon.
CONCEPTUAL APPROACHES
The discussionto thispointhas emphasizedtheresultsof archaeological

endeavor;blueprints used to conceptualizeand generatetheseresultshavebeen
mentioned inpassing,butnotdweltupon.Commonapproaches chronicledabove
includeexperimental, ethnoarchaeological,and ecological,buttheseare notthe
onlyconceptualmodelsemployedby lithicanalysts.HereI briefly discussfour
constructsthathave helpedanalystsputtheirdata in perspective. Theycan be
categorizedas one approach(gender)andthreeconceptual models(designtheory,
culturaltechnology,andselectionist
anthropology).
Gender
To emphasizegenderin lithicanalysisis similarto emphasizing ecological

or social influences - theseare theinfluences thattheanalystthinksare worth
bringingto theforewithinthecontextsbeingconsidered.Stonetool analysis
has traditionally beensucha male-dominated domain,however, thatan emphasis
on genderis an acknowledgment thatseriousbias of mindsethas warpedour
perception ofthearchaeological record.Becausetheconventional wisdomofwho
made and used stonetoolsis based on such weak empiricaland ethnographic
support, itis hightimethatwe questionthesepillarsofknowledge.
Thedominant maleroleinmakingandusingstonetoolswasdulychallenged
by Gero (1991). Establishing through ethnography thatwomenmade and used
stonetoolsinsomesocieties,shepostulated in
that, prehistory,womenwerelikely
to have employedimplements in householdsituationswithinhabitation areas,
wherethestonefromwhichtools weremanufactured was predominantly local
and flaketoolswereutilizedexpediently. She testedtheseideas on assemblages
fromtheHuaricotosettlement in highlandPeru,a sitethatchangedfrombeing
a ritualcenterto a residential village.She foundthat,as thesitechangedfunc-
tion,biface production and amount of retouchdecreased,whereasthequantity
of expedienttoolsand amountof cortexpertoolincreased.Projectilepointsand
bifaces,over-represented inearlierstrataforceremonialsituationsinwhichmales
were
probablydominated, swampednumerically byexpedientflake toolsoflocal
rawmaterials in laterstrataforfemale-dominated householdsituations.
Sassaman(1992) operatedfromsimilarpremises,thatfemaleuse of tools

waslikelytodominate atdomestic whereasmaletooluse woulddom-
habitations,
inatein ceremonialactivitiesandfortheprocurement of certainresources(e.g.,
hunting).He notedthat changes in stoneknapping toward expedienttechnologies
coincidedwithgreater relianceon pottery, assumedto be a female
traditionally
Like Gero,Sassamaninterpreted
activity. theburgeoning ofexpedient
quantities
toolsthrough timeas an increasein thecontributionofwomento stonetoolpro-
curement, anduse at domesticsites.Andalso likeGero's,Sassaman's
reduction,
arguments are toprovedefinitively,
difficult buttheyarelogicallyconstructed and
theyalterour perceptionsof themeaning ofthearchaeologicalrecord.
My perambulations through appeartohavemissedmorerecent
theliterature
related
genderstudiesspecifically tostonetools.However,a fewstudiesdo mention
genderinpassing,among which is theaforementioneddiscoveryofa concentration
of Daltonscrapersin the American Bottom, which Walthalland Holley(1997)
speculatewas a curatedwomen'scache.
DesignTheory
Designtheoryis a wayof approaching datathat"emphasizesvariouscon-

straints in solvinggivenproblems bytechnological means"(Haydenetal., 1996,
p. 10). That is, tooldesign is seen as a strategyfor overcoming in the
difficulties
extraction ofresourcesor in otheractivities; in designsuggestsimi-
similarities
laritiesin adaptiveresponseto thesedifficulties. Designtheory developedwithin
thefieldsofengineering, industry, andarchitecture (Jones,1970;Pye,1964);only
recently has itbeenappliedto archaeological Withinthefieldoflithic
situations.
its
analysis, application was stimulated byBleed's (Bleed, 1986)treatiseon main-
tainableand reliabletools,followedby Nelson's(Nelson,1991) reformulation.
Bousman(1993) has discussedtheseconceptsas theyrelateto hunter-gatherer
considerations suchas scarcity, risk,repairstrategies,andcuration.
At first,Bleed's conceptualization seemedto be a usefulwayto encapsulate
behaviorally essentialqualitiesof entireassemblages.Thenrealitysetin: (1) all
toolsare bothmaintainable andreliable;(2) expressing thesequalitiesprecisely
is verydifficult; and (3) quantifying themforcomparison is evenmoredifficult.
As a consequence,theseconceptshavebeen neitherextensively developednor
applied.
In an interesting ethnographic study, Horsfall(1987) used a designtheoreti-
cal framework toanalyzegrinding stonesfromMayancommunities inGuatemala.
The authorfoundthatvariation ingrinding functions contexts
existsin traditional
and thatvariationin function is mostcloselyrelatedto variationin raw mate-
rial (Horsfall,1987,p. 369). Applyingconceptssuch as maintainability, relia-
bility, and
flexibility, versatility to the chipped stone Keatley Creek assemblage
in interior BritishColumbia,Hayden et al (1996) delineatedseveraltechnolog-
ical strategies thatultimately enabledthemto betterunderstand theassemblage
80 Odell
toolmorphology,
organization, and behavioralresponsesof theoccupantsofthe
settlement.
Designtheoryhasalso beenappliedtotheBritishMesolithic.Eerkens(1998)
believedthatclimaticandresulting
environmental differencesbetweentheearlier
andlaterpartsofthisperiodwouldhavecauseddifferent subsistence to
strategies
havebeenpursued.He reasonedthatthemoreopen,parkland environmentofthe
EarlyMesolithicwouldhaveinducedseasonalintercept-based hunting
strategies,
forwhichreliableweaponswouldhave been necessary.If thisweretrue,these
weapons,including microlithic wouldhavebeenhighlystandardized.
inserts, By
themoreclosed-forested LateMesolithic,reindeerandotherherdanimalswould
havedisappeared, encounter-based
necessitating strategiesformoresolitaryan-
imals suchas deer.Maintainability
of weaponrywouldhave beenmorevalued
undersuchcircumstances, andresultingmicrolithicinsertswouldhavebeenless
standardized.
Statistical of
analyses measured attributes
ofmicrolithsfromseveral
Mesolithicsitesbearouttheserelationships.
CulturalTechnology
"Culturaltechnology" is theway in whicha culturalgrouparticulates its

technology to otherfacetsof itsstructure,
or howtechnology "fitsin" to itscul-
turalpersona.In reconstructing thisparameter,severalarchaeologistsin theOld
World,particularlyFrance,haveturned toa holisticapproachknownas thechaîne
opératoire.As originallyperceivedin itshomeland, thetermconnoted"gesture,"
translatedas "materialaction."Almostmysticalin itsramifications,thisconcept
hasconnections withlanguage,almosta syntax ofaction(see Graves,1994).Oper-
theseideasarenotlikelytogetus veryfar,so a morepracticaldefinition
ationally,
(Seilet,1993,p. 106) mightbe thatit
aims to describeand understand all culturaltransformations
thata specificrawmaterial
had to go through.It is a chronologicalsegmentationoftheactionsand mentalprocesses
requiredinthemanufacture ofan artifact
and in itsmaintenance
intothetechnicalsystem
of a prehistoric
group.The initialstageof thechainis rawmaterialprocurement, andthe
finalstageis thediscardoftheartifact.
Thusthechaîneopératoire seekstoreveala dynamicsystemfromitsinception to

itsplacementin archaeologicalcontext.
Forsomereason,thechaîneopératoire hasbeenequatedbymanyresearchers
with"reduction theconcept
sequence"(e.g., Grimaldi,1998,p. 19). Certainly,
encompasses lithic
reduction sequencesbutitis byno meanslimitedtothisaspect
ofbehavior.
De Bie (1998,p. 91) moreaccuratelydescribes
thechaîneopératoire
as
integrating
knapping methods andtooling,butalsoprocesseslikerawmaterial
procurement,
use, abandonment, etc. Ratherthanmerelydescribingtheartefacts, thegoal is now to
reconstruct
(partlybyreproduction) and to explainthebehaviouralprocessesresponsible
fortheformationofthelithicrecord.
American archaeologistsalso professthesegoals,buttheirefforts aremoreoften

directedtowardspecificelements ofthepuzzleandareless consciouslyinclusive
thanthosewhoactuallyadhereto thechaîne,thatis, thosewhoregarditas more
thanjustfiguring outa reduction sequence.In fact,thechaîneopératoirecomes
closestto Schiffer's
behavioralarchaeology, whichconsidersobjectswithintheir
systemic contexts from procurement to discard (and beyond).Interestingly,de-
spite efforts
to it
bring back, behavioral archaeology is somewhat outof voguein
Americathesedays,eclipsedbyresearchintobroadbehavioralconceptssuchas
theorganization ofmobility andtechnology.
Genesteand Maury(1997) applythechaîneopératoirein theirresearch
on spearthrowers. These authorsdo notjust engagein a fewprojectileexperi-
ments,theyreconstruct an entiretechnology as it wouldhave operatedin, say,
theSolutrean period.In theprocess,theytypically addressquestionsof produc-
tion,blankform,halting,breakage,efficiency, costs,and constraints- in short,
thatwouldhaveimpinged
all thefactors on a Solutreanpersonmakingandusing
thiskindof technology. Thistechnological immersion yieldsa depth
frequently
of understanding morecomprehensive thanthepiecemealstyleof experimen-
tationconductedby mostexperimenters. It is thisimmersion thatdistinguishes
thechaîneopératoire fromothersystems ofanalysis.Unfortunately, manyofthe
scholarswhohavemouthed theiraffectionforthissystem havedonenothing more
thangiveus warmed-over lithicreductionsequences,withoccasionallipserviceto
procurement.
Models
Selectionist
Theoriesoftransmission ofcultural information,manyinvolving someform

ofDarwinianevolution, arecurrently circulatinglike virusesin cyberspace.The
attractionis strong,as thehumanities and social scienceslack a universalthe-
oryofbehavior;theformulation of a theory ofculturaltransmissionwouldhave
tremendous influenceon everyaspectofhumanendeavor.I do notpretendto be
conversant withtherangeof modelsor thenuancesof difference amongthem,
butseveralhaveconspicuously employed lithicdatain theirformulationsandare
thereforeincludedin thisreview.
Theendeavoris difficult. The failedattempt byBarton(1997) todepictstyle
inlithicartifactsbyexamining stochasticprocessesin an evolutionaryframework
has alreadybeen noted.Shott(1997) also attempted to testtheoriesof cultural
transmission on projectilepointsfromtheRange sitein theAmericanBottom.
Only one variable - projectile
length- fittheexpectedpattern, andthisresultmay
havebeencausedbysharpening thepieces.
Otherresearchers haveclaimedto havedemonstrated some sortof cultural
transmission, though their successhas been spotty.FollowingParryand Kelly's
and
(Parry Kelly,1987) seminal synthesis associatingsedentism withexpedient
82 Odell
technologies, Abbottetal (1996) inspectedthechangefrombifacetoflaketech-

nologies in five regions.All manifested thesame directionality, thusrendering
theoperation ofstochastic processesunlikely. Because evolutionary explanations
mustresideoutsidethehumansystem(i.e., theymustbe environmental), the
authorsrejectedthedecreasein residential mobility as a causal that
factor, is,
sedentismwas a product,nota cause. So in searchingforcauses,theauthors
settledon maize agriculture as the agentof change.By thisscenario,seden-
tismand technological changewerebothlinked,by sorting, to selectiveforces
favoring maize production. Thus the authors considered maize agriculture "en-
vironmental." But thesepostulatesmakelittlesense.First,how can maize agri-
culturebe considered"environmental" (i.e., outsidethehumansystem),while
processes of sedentism remained within thatsystem?Second,whereis thecon-
firming evidence thatmaize agriculturerelatedin anywaytoan expedient
is flake
And
technology? third, in order to be causal,maize agriculture had to precede
the shiftto a flaketechnology, butin NorthAmerica,at least,theoppositeis
true.
Bettinger and Eerkens(1997, 1999) haveprovidedmorebelievabletestsof
Neo-Darwinist precepts.Theynotedthatcultural transmission theory that
predicts
sociallytransmitted behavior willvaryinversely withthecomplexity ofthebehav-
ior,thecomplexity ofthecontext inwhichitoccurs,andthenumber ofindividuals
involvedin thetransmission. Testingthistheoryon a collectionof GreatBasin
projectilepoints,theygaugedcomplexity bymeasuring metric dispersion through
thecoefficientofvariation statistic.Indeed,complexshapesshowedless variabil-
itythansimpleones,andarrowheads (representative of a morecomplexdelivery
system)showedless variability thandartpoints.Theyalso appliedthetheory to
thespreadof bow-and-arrow technology in theGreatBasin. Usingweightand
basal widthmeasurements, theycontrasted learningthrough close socialcontact
(indirectbias) withlearningthrough copyingprevailingsocial models(guided
variation).Reasoningthattheformer wouldresultinmoredirectcopyingandless
experimentation, andtherefore morehomogeneous traitsinmanufactured objects,
significantdifferencesin homogeneity of attributes of thesameprojectiletypes
shouldhavebeencausedbydifferences in culturaltransmission. Indeed,theau-
thorsdiscoveredsignificantly greaterattribute homogeneity in arrowheads from
centralNevadathaninthosefromeasternCalifornia. Studiessuchas theselenda
degreeof hopethatthepursuitof culturaltransmission theorywillopenup new
avenuesofinsight in thefuture.
PERSPECTIVES
A substantial
amountofeffort
hasbeenspentintheareasoffunctional
analysis
andbehavioral the
during pastdecade.Less hasbeendirected
approaches tolithic
classification.
HereI summarize
thepointsmadeearlier.
Classification
Themethodological development ofclassificatoryprocedures hasnotbeenat

theforefrontofarchaeological endeavor inthepastfewyears.Themostexhaustive
recentworkis morea philosophical exegesisandpracticalguidetoclearclassifica-
toryprinciplesthan an innovative breakthrough. A subsetof scholars,employing
factoranalysisandclustering algorithms,have branched outfromcommonprac-
ticewithtaxonomic methods thataredesigned touncover quantitative in
structure
formaldata.However,systemssuchas these have been slow to gainacceptance,
as mosttypologies remainintuitive.
Although issuesregarding theclassificationof archaeologicaldatahavenot
beenpopular, issuesinvolving theprehistoricbehavioral phenomena thatproduced
certaintypeshavebeen.A principal questionhereis, do typesreflect theachieve-
mentofformaltemplates in themindsofprehistoric toolmakers,or aretheythe
endresultofa processofuse andsharpening throughout thecomplexuse-lifeofa
tool?Thisissuehas beendebatedintwoarenas:projectile pointsin theAmerican
GreatBasinandMiddlePaleolithicscrapersin EuropeandtheLevant.In neither
case has a definitiveverdictbeenreached,thoughin theAmericancase it does
notappearthatsharpening changedthearchaeological
has significantly typingof
thepointsinvolved.It is probablethatbothforcesinfluenced thefinalformsof
prehistoric anddidso on a case-by-case
artifacts basis.
Ethnicallydistinctivestylehasbeenextremely difficulttocharacterize among
butsomeheadwayhas beenmadethrough
lithicartifacts, classifying projectile
pointswithindifferent levelsof inclusion.It appearsincreasingly doubtfulthat
advancesin stylisticstudieswillbe madeusingBordesiantypologies.
Use-Wear Analysis
Use-wearanalysishas becomemuchless contentious thesedays(and a lot

morefun)because practitioners have concludedthattheymustuse all avail-
able wear tracesin theirassessmentsand thatdifferent techniquesare appro-
priatefordifferentkinds of questions.More people are recognizingprehensile
wearthesedays,a perceptualbreakthrough thatwas long in coming.Perhaps
themosteagerlydebatedissue of the 1990s was the genesisof use-polishes,
whichhas provento be a complexproblem.We haverecently heardfromadvo-
catesof an abrasivemodel,a silica gel model,and a combination of both,and
theend is notin sight.At leastone partisanhas statedthat,if an abrasiveori-
ginofuse-polishprovesto be dominant (which,of course,he maintainswithno
then
reservation), thediscrimination of worked material from polishformation
orimpossible.Suchstatements,
shouldbe difficult ofcourse,cause someconcern
amongthosewhoderivetheirlivelihoodfrompeeringexclusivelyat thistypeof
evidence.
84 Odell
Otherissues haveproveneasierto resolve.For example,a comparison of

edge angles to use-wear has shown too much for
overlap edge angle datato be
veryuseful.In addition,experimentshaveshownthatdamageon stonetoolsfrom
trampling canbe confused withbothuse-wearandretouch. Andthequantification
ofuse-wearvariableshasprogressed somewhat, with
notably Tomenchuk's para-
metricmethod.However,withthistechniqueit stilltakesa longtimetoperusea
singlepieceand,tomyknowledge, nobodybutTomenchuk is practicing
it.Some
workin quantifying experimentalvariableshas begun in theNetherlands.
Advancesin use-wearanalysisincludetheaforementioned development of
parametric methods,employed withlow-magnification microscopes.Highermag-
nificationanalyseshavebeen aided by theimprovement of epoxycasts.These
featureveryhighresolution surfacesand,by lookingat smallersectionsof arti-
factsincastform, theyofferthepossibility
ofanalyzing largerartifacts
thatdo not
fiton thestageofsomemicroscopes. In addition,
theatomicforcemicroscope has
considerablepotentialforuse-wearanalysisthrough itsabilitytodistinguishand
mapoutdifferences in topography.
Finally,thedevelopment ofexpertsystems of
analysis,combining low-andhigh-magnification equipment, has provento be an
accuratemethodforanalyzinga lithicassemblage.
ResidueAnalysis
In contrastwithuse-wearanalysis,whichbouncedbackaftersomedifficult
timesin the1980s,theprognosisforcertaintypesofresiduestudiesis grim.The
problemwithbloodresidueanalysisis notwithitsabilityto distinguish recently
utilizedlaboratoryspecimens, whichitseemstodo quitewell.Theproblem is with
archaeological specimens, someofwhichitis capableofdistinguishing toatleast
a genuslevel,someofwhichitis not.Thisdiscrepancy is themostfrustratingpart,
becausethereis currently no wayofknowingwhichkindsofbloodresidueshave
survivedandwhichhavedeteriorated. Without thisinformation,we haveno idea
howrepresentative of thearchaeologicalsamplea particular assayis. AndI am
sayingall thisassumingthatthereareno falsenegatives orfalsepositives,
though
we knowthatbothhavebeendetectedby analysts.If theseproblemscannotbe
resolved,thensupport forthistypeofanalysiswill,andshould,be curtailed.
plantresidueanalysisappearsto be in bettershape,butwitha
Superficially,
curioustwist.Theprincipal difference
betweenplantandbloodresidueanalysisis
thattheformer oftenreliesontheidentification
ofspecificparticles
adheringtothe
toolsurface,suchas starchgrains,resins,andphytoliths.Ifonecanbe certainthat
differential
preservationoftheseparticles hasnotoccurred,thenthesamplecanbe
assumedtoberepresentative, theresultscanbe usedtocharacterizetheassemblage
fromwhichtheyweretaken, andwecangobeyonda simplepresence-absence level
ofinterpretation.
Buttomyknowledge, onecannotbe certain becauseresearch has
notyetdetermined thepreservability
ofvariousstarchgrainsandphytoliths. Inthe
oneinstancetowhichI canpoint,in whichtechniques ofimmunoelectrophoresis

wereused in theanalysisof plantresidues,thetechniquefaredno betterthan
similarnondirect
techniques didwithbloodresidueanalysis.
On a morepositivenote,researchontuberprocessing, starchgrains,andphy-
has developedat an impressive
toliths rate,which lends confidencethattheprob-
lemsmaybe rectified in thenearfuture. workconductedin Australia
In addition,
on themovement ofstarchgrainsin sediments has demonstrated thatmostgrains
movelittlefromtheiroriginallocusofdeposition; thus,potential
postdepositional
problems maybe minimal.
TechnologicalOrganization
Modelsoftechnological organization, whichhaveemployedconceptsofmo-

bility or
maintainabilityreliability
organization, oftools,curation,expedience,and
so forth,havebeenpopularthroughout the1990s.Some oftheseterms, however,
subsumemorethanonemeaningandhaveoftenbeenlooselyapplied.Whenusing
termslike"curation" and"expediency," ithas beenrecommended thattheauthor
definethetermtightly beforeusingit.
Testingthesemodelsandconceptshasfrequently beenaccomplished through
lithicdata.For instance,arguments of hunter-gatherer mobilityin thesouthern
EuropeanPaleolithichavebeenframedwithrespectto thesize and sharpening
potentialof implements in thelithictool kit.Laterin theMesolithic,changes
in hunting strategy accompaniedbychangesin microlith-tipped
were weaponry.
And in North America,decreasesthrough timein bifacialindustriescorrespond
withsocietalmovements towardincreasedsedentism andrelianceondomesticated
plants.Although most trends
functional are stochasticbecausetheydepicta com-
monsuite of activities
pursuedin all periods, certainones withtrends
do correlate
and
towardsedentism domestication, and with increased of
hafting implements
throughout theHolocene.
Theprocurement oftoolstonewas strongly influenced byrawmaterialavail-
ability of
andtheorganization technology. of
Embedding procurement ina hunter-
gatherer seasonalroundhas been illustrated by a simulationdemonstrating that
theamountofa particular material in an be
assemblagemay dependent on where
in thatseasonalroundtheoccupationoccurred. However,distinguishing whether
a materialarrivedon a sitethrough embeddedprocurement or tradecan be very
difficult.
CulturalComplexity
Lithicstudiesin thepast decade have notbeen constrained by exclusive

to societies;they
application hunter-gatherer havealso been appliedto issuesof
86 Odell
social complexity. One of theseissuesinvolvestheprocessbywhichstonetools

werereplacedby metal.This did nothappenall at once,norwereall tooltypes
replacedat thesame time.The processwas complexand involvedtherelative
usefulnessof eithermaterialfortheintendedtasks.For example,metalmade
substantially moreefficient cuttingand choppingimplements, so stoneknives
and axes werereplacedquicklyin mostcontactsituations. On theotherhand,
stonesicklebladeswerealmostas efficient as theirmetalcounterparts and were
considerably so
cheaper, they remained in theNear Eastern toolkitfora longtime.
In severalsocieties,stonewas replacedforutilitarian but
implements continued
as ritualobjects(e.g.,as sacrificial
knives) or as prestige itemsforexchange.
The role of stonein theemerging process of craft specializationhas been
investigated through severalstudies. It is certain that some specialization in stone
toolmanufacture hasbeenpracticed sincetheUpperPaleolithic, butatwhatlevel?
Mostrecentanalystshavebeenloathto attribute truecraftspecialization forex-
changewhenlocalizedcottageindustries seem morelikely,thoughwhenlarge
industrialized workshops areinvolved,a higherlevelofspecialization is implied.
Long-distance tradehas beendetectedin severalinstancesthough, as noted
above,thiscan be difficult to distinguish fromembeddedprocurement. A variety
of lithicmaterials,includingflint, obsidian,igneousstone,catlinite, and others,
were tradedprehistorically in different partsof theworld.Bothmaterialsand
specificobjects- forexample,sandstonealongthedreaming tracksofAustralia,
obsidianin OceaniaandMesoamerica,turkey-tail pointsinmidcontinental North
America - mayhavebeenimbuedwithsymbolic significance orinvolved ingifting
relations.In manypartsoftheworld,stonein variousformstookon symbolicor
mythic meaningsevenas itwas beingreplacedbymetalobjects.
In no recently reported case of lithiccraftspecialization or tradehas any
scholarofprehistoric culturesdetected strong sociopolitical controloftheresource.
Even at a specializedworkshop villagelikeColha in Belize,toolproduction was
probablyhouseholdorlineagebased.Emerging elites,whosepoweris evidentin
otherwaysatsomeofthesesites,weremorelikelytocontrol objectssuchas ritual
items.
ConceptualApproaches
Lithicanalysishas traditionally
beena male-dominated domain,so it is no
surprisethat stonetools have been almost universallyconsidered to have been
madeand used byprehistoric men.As thegendercomposition of lithicanalysts
changes,so will ourperceptions of who did whatin prehistory. These changes
havealreadystarted to appearin lithicanalysis.A goodcase has beenmadethat,
atleaston laterhabitation
sites,womenused,andprobably also made,stonetools.
In thesesocieties,men'stoolsmayhavebeenconfined to therealmsof hunting
andritual.
Severalconceptual modelshaveaidedtheinterpretation oflithicitems,three

ofwhichhavebeendiscussedinthisreview. in
Designtheory, considering howthe
features tooltypemightbestbe employed,
of a particular is able to demonstrate
structural
advantages andconstraintsthatmayassistinconceptualizing thegeneral
formandpurposeoflithicassemblages. Likewise, the chaîne opératoire, aimedto
recreatetheentiresystem inwhicha technology existed, provides a useful structure
fororganizing research.
Byimmersing oneselfina largertrajectory ofprocurement
through the
discard, archaeologist can derive a more completeunderstanding of
howthepartsofthatsystemarticulate withone another.
Finally,oftheDarwinianmodelscurrently beingplied,cultural transmission
theoryappearsto have more promise than most. At least,in its applicationto
lithicdata,itspremises have been -
supported a farcry from some of theother
evolutionary formulations the
making rounds,which, as far as I can tell,have
remained exclusivelyinthetheoreticalrealm.This theory needs more but
testing,
thistimewe maysee a payoff.
Final Comments
Like mostothersubdisciplines, a
lithicanalysishas developedsporadically,
resultof a combination ofcommunal trendsand individual There
interests. exists
a healthy amountofinformation flow,anda prevailing assuresthatnew
skepticism
ideas will notbe accepted at face value.These are good signs,whichrenderit
likelythatthefieldwillcontinue to and
change growsignificantly throughthenext
decade.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
These tworeviewpapershave benefited greatlyfromcommentsmade on

earlierdraftsbyMikeShottand Mike Collins;andon lateronesbySteveKuhn,
JohnWhittaker, RickYerkes,and an reviewer.
unidentified I appreciatetheiras-
sistance,as wellas theencouragementand assistance
editorial ofGaryFeinman,
Douglas Price,and Linda Nicholas.All of the opinionsexpressedin thesetwo
reviews,particularly ones,remainmyresponsibility.
theharebrained
REFERENCES CITED
Abbott,A. L., Leonard,R. D., and Jones,G. T. (1996). Explainingthechangefrombifaceto flake

technology. In Maschner,H. (ed.),DarwinianArchaeologies, Plenum,NewYork,pp. 33^42.
Adams,W. Y., andAdams,E. W. (1991). Archaeological Typologyand PracticalReality,Cambridge
University Press,Cambridge.
Ahler,S. P. (1998). Earlyand MiddleArchaicsettlement systemsin theModoc locality,southwest
Illinois.IllinoisArchaeology 10: 1-109.
88 Odell
Allen,J.,Holdaway,S., andFullagar,R. (1997). Identifying specialisation,

production andexchange
in thearchaeologicalrecord:The case of shellbead manufacture on MotuporeIsland,Papua.
Archaeology in Oceania 32: 13-38.
Amick,D. S., and Carr,P. J. (1996). Changingstrategies of lithictechnologicalorganization. In
Sassaman,K., andAnderson, D. (eds.),Archaeology oftheMid-HoloceneSoutheast, University
PressofRorida,Gainesville,pp.41-56.
Anderson-Gerfaud, P. (1980). A testimony of prehistorictasks:Diagnosticresidueson stonetool
working edges. WorldArchaeology 12: 181-194.
Anderson, P.,Astrae,L., Vargiolu, R., andZahouani,H. (1998). Contribution ofquantitativeanalysis
of surfacestatesto a multi -methodapproachforcharacterising plant-processingtraceson flint
toolswithgloss.In FunctionalAnalysisofLithicArtefacts: CurrentStateoftheResearch,XIII
International Congressof Prehistoric and Protohistoric Sciences,Workshops, TomeII, ABACO
Edizioni,Forli,Italy,pp. 1151-1160.
Andrefsky, W., Jr.(1994). Raw-material availabilityand theorganization of technology. American
Antiquity 59: 21-34.
Andrefsky, W.,Jr.(1995). Cascade phaselithictechnology: An examplefromtheLowerSnakeRiver.
NorthAmericanArchaeologist 16: 95-1 15.
Andrefsky, W.,Jr.(1998). Lithics:MacroscopicApproachestoAnalysis, Cambridge UniversityPress,
Cambridge.
Aoyama,K. (1995). Microwearanalysisin thesoutheast Maya lowlands:Twocase studiesat Copan,
Honduras.LatinAmerican Antiquity 6: 129-144.
Arnold,J.E. (1992). Complexhunter-gatherer-fishers of prehistoricCalifornia:Chiefs,specialists,
and maritime adaptations oftheChannelIslands.American 57: 60-84.
Antiquity
Arnold,J.E., and Munns,A. (1994). Independent orattachedspecialization: The originofshellbead
production in California. JournalofFieldArchaeology 21: 473-^89.
Atcnison, J.,and rullagar,K. (1998). Starchresidueson poundingimplements fromJinmium rock-
shelter.
In Fullagar,R. (éd.),A CloserLook,Archaeological MethodsSeries6, SydneyUniversity,
Sydney, pp. 109-125.
Ballenger,J. A. M. (lyyb). Ine SouthernPlains crattlithiccache. Plains Anthropologist 41:
297-ÔQ
Bamforth, D. B. (1986). Technological efficiency andtoolcuration. American Antiquity51: 38-50.
Bamforth, D. B. (1988). Investigating microwear polisheswithblindtests:The Institute resultsin
context. JournalofArchaeological Science15: 11-23.
Bamionn,u. a., ana tsieea,k îw/j. leennoiogy, nakedstonetechnology, and risk.In Barton,C.
M, andClark,G. (eds.),Rediscovering Darwin:Evolutionary TheoryandArchaeological Expla-
nation,Archeological PapersoftheAmericanAnthropological Association,No. 7, Washington,
DC, pp. 109-139.
Barton,C. M. (1997). Stonetools,style,and social identity: An evolutionary perspectiveon thear-
chaeologicalrecord.In Barton,C. M., andClark,G. (eds.),Rediscovering Darwin:Evolutionary
TheoryandArchaeological Explanation, Archeological PapersoftheAmerican Anthropological
Association, No. 7, Washington, DC, pp. 141-156.
Barton,H., Torrence, R.,andFullagar,R. (1998). Cluestostonetoolfunction reexamined: Comparing
starchgrainfrequencies on usedandunusedobsidianartefacts. JournalofArchaeological Science
25: 1231-1238.
Bayman,J.M. (1995). Rethinking "redistribution" inthearchaeological record:Obsidianexchangeat
theMarañaplatform mound.JournalofAnthropological Research51: 37-63.
Becker,M., andWendorf, F. (1993). A microwear studyofa latePleistoceneQadanassemblagefrom
southern Egypt.JournalofFieldArchaeology 20: 389-398.
Bednarik,R. G. (1995). Concept-mediated marking in theLowerPaleolithic.Current Anthropology
36: 605-616.
Bettinger,R. L., andEerkens,J.(1997). Evolutionary implications ofmetricalvariation
inGreatBasin
projectilepoints.In Barton,C. M., and Clark,G. (eds.), Rediscovering Darwin:Evolutionary
Theory andArchaeological Explanation, Archeological PapersoftheAmerican Anthropological
Association, No. 7, Washington, DC, pp. 177-191.
Bettinger,R. L., and Eerkens,J. (1999). Pointtypologies, culturaltransmission,and thespreadof
bow-and-arrow technology intheprehistoric GreatBasin.American Antiquity64: 243-263.
Bettinger,R. L., O'Connell,J.F.,andThomas,D. H. (1991). Projectilepointsas timemarkers in the

GreatBasin.American Anthropologist 93: 166-172.
Bienenfeld, P. (1995). Duplicatingarchaeological microwear polisheswithepoxycasts.LithicTech-
nology20: 29-39.
Binford,L. R. (1973). Interassemblage - theMousterian
variability andthe"functional" argument. In
Renfrew, C. (ed.),TheExplanation ofCulture Change:ModelsinPrehistory, Duckworth, London,
pp. 227-254.
Bleed,P. (1986). The optimaldesignof hunting weapons:Maintainability or reliability.American
Bourque,B. J.(1994). Evidenceforprehistoric exchangeon theMaritimePeninsula.In Baugh,T.,
and Ericson,J. (eds.), Prehistoric ExchangeSystemsin NorthAmerica,Plenum,New York,
pp.23^6.
tíousman, (J.tí.( l W3). Hunter-gatherer adaptations, economicnsKana tooldesign,utmc lecnnoiogy
18: 59-86.
Bradbury, A. P.(1998). Theexamination oflithicartifactsfromanbariyArchaicassemblage:btrength-
eninginferences through multiple linesofevidence.Midcontinental JournalofArchaeology 23:
263-288.
Byers,A. M. ( 1994). Symboling andtheMiddle-Upper Paleolithic A theoretical
transition: andmethod-
ologicalcritique.Current Anthropology 35: 369-381.
Byers,A. M. (1999). Communication andmaterial culture:Pleistocenetoolsas actioncues.Cambridge
Archaeological Journal9: 23-41.
Carlson,R. L. (1994). Tradeandexchangeinprehistoric BritishColumbia.In Baugh,T, andEricson,
J.(eds.),Prehistoric ExchangeSystems inNorthAmerica,Plenum,New York,pp. 307-361.
Cananeo,C, Gelsthorpe, K., Philhpos,P., and Sokol,K. J. (1993). tíloodresidueson stonetools:
Indoorandoutdoorexperiments. WorldArchaeology 25: 29-43.
Chatters,J.C. (1987). Hunter-gatherer adaptations andassemblagestructure. JournalofAnthropolog-
ical Archaeology 6: 336-375.
Christensen, M. (1998). Processusde formation et caractérisationphysico-chimique des polis
d'utilisation des outilsen silex.Applications à la technologiepréhistorique de l'ivoire.Bulletin
de la SociétéPréhistorique Française95: 183-201.
Christensen, M., Walter, P.,and Menu,M. (1992). Usewearcharacterisation ofprehistoric with
flints
IBA. NuclearInstruments and MethodsinPhysicsResearchB 64: 488^93.
Clark,J.E., andBryant, D. D. ( 1991). Theproduction pointsat Yerbatíuena,Uiiapas,
orchertprojectile
Mexico.In Hester,T, and Shafer,H. (eds.),Maya StoneTools,Prehistory Press,Madison,WI,
DD.85-102.
Close,A. E. (1996). Carrythatweight:Theuseandtransportation ofstonetools.Current Anthropology
37: 545-553.
Coffey,B. P. (1994). The chemicalalteration ofmicrowear polishes:An evaluationofthePlissonand
Maugerfindings through replicativeexperimentation. LithicTechnology 19: 88-92.
Collin,F.,andJardon-Giner, P. (1993). Travailde la peauavecdesgrattoirs emmanchés. Reflexions sur
des basesexpérimentales etethnographiques. In Anderson, P.,Beyries,S., Otte,M., andPlisson,
H. (eds.),Tracesetfonction:Les gestesretrouvés, ERAUL, No. 50, Liège,pp. 105-117.
Conard,N. J.,andAdler,D. S. ( 1997). Lithicreduction andhominid behaviorintheMiddlePaleolithic
oftheRhineland. JournalofAnthropological Research53: 147-175.
Cowan,F. L. (1999). Makingsense of flakescatters:Lithictechnologicalstrategies and mobility.
American Antiquity 64: 593-607.
Custer,J.K, Ilgenfntz, J.,and Doms, K. K. (1988). A cautionary noteon tneuse or cnemstnps ror
detectionof blood residueson prehistoric stonetools.JournalofArchaeologicalScience 15:
343-345.
Darras,V. (1994). Les mines-ateliers d'obsidiennede la regionde Zinaparo-Prieto, Michoacan,Mex-
ique.Bulletinde la SociétéPréhistorique Française91: 290-310.
Davidson,I., and Noble,W. (1993). löols and languagein humanevolution, m uibson,k. k., and
Ingold,T. (eds.), Tools,Languageand Cognitionin HumanEvolution,CambridgeUniversity
Press,Cambridge, pp. 363-388.
Deacon,J.(1992). Arrowsas agentsofbeliefamongstthe/Xam Bushmen.MargaretShawLecture3,
SouthAfricanMuseum,Cape Town.
90 Odell
De Bie, M. (1998). Late Paleolithictoolproduction strategies:

Technological evidencefromRekem
(Belgium).In Milliken,S., and Peresani,M. (eds.),LithicTechnology: FromRaw MaterialPro-
curement to ToolProduction, Workshop No. 12 oftheXIII InternationalCongressofPrehistoric
andProtohistoric Sciences,Forli,Italy,1996,pp. 91-95.
Del Bene,T. A. (1979). Once upona Striation: Current modelsof striation and polishformation.In
Hayden,B. (ed.),LithicUse-WearAnalysis, AcademicPress,NewYork,pp. 167-177.
Dibble,H. L. (1991). Moustenanassemblagevariability on an interregionalscale.JournalofAnthro-
pologicalResearch47: 239-257.
Dibble,H. L. (1995a). MiddlePaleolithicscraperreduction: Background, andreviewof
clarification,
theevidenceto date.JournalofArchaeological Methodand Theory2: 299-368.
Dibble,H. L. (lyysb). Kaw materialavailability, ol utilization,
intensity and MiddlePaleolithicas-
semblagevariability. In Dibble,H., andLenoir,M. (eds.),TheMiddlePaleolithicSiteofCombe-
CapelleBas (France),University MuseumMonograph 91, UniversityofPennsylvania, Philadel-
phia,pp. 289-315.
Dobres,M.-A.,andHoffman, C. R. (1994). Social agencyandthedynamics ofprehistorictechnology.
Journal ofArchaeological Method and Theory1:21 1-258.
Dockall,J.E. (1994). Oval bifaceceltvariability duringtheMayaLate Preclassic.LithicTechnology
19: 52-68.
Dockall,J.E., andShafer, H. J.(1993). Testingtheproducer-consumer modelforSantaRitaCorozal,
Belize.LatinAmerican Antiquity 4: 158-179.
Downs,E. F., and Lowenstein, J.M. (1995). Identificationof archaeological blood proteins: A cau-
tionary note.JournalofArchaeological Science22: 11-16.
Edmonds,M. (1995). StoneToolsand Society:Working StoneinNeolithicand BronzeAgeBritain,B.
T. Batsford, London.
Eerkens,J.(1998). Reliableand maintainable technologies:ArtifactstandardizationandtheEarlyto
LaterMesolithictransition in northernEngland.LithicTechnology 23: 42-53.
Eisele, J.A., Fowler,D. D., Haynes,G., and Lewis,R. A. (1995). Survivaland detection of blood
residueson stonetools.Antiquity 69: 36^46.
Ellis, C. (1994). MiniatureEarlyPaleo-Indianstoneartifacts fromtheParkhill, Ontariosite.North
American Archaeoloeist 15: 253-267.
Feblot-Augustins, J.(1993). Mobilitystrategies in thelateMiddlePaleolithicof centralEuropeand
westernEurope:Elementsof stability and variability.
JournalofAnthropological Archaeology
12:211-265.
redick, ò. (lyyi). Cherttool productionand consumption among Classic periodMaya house-
holds.In Hester,T, and Shafer,H. (eds.), Maya StoneTools,Prehistory Press,Madison,WI,
pp. 103-118.
Fellner,R. (1995). Technology ortypology? A responsetoNeeleyandBarton.Antiquity 69: 381-383.
Fiedel,S. J. (1996). Blood fromstones?Some methodological and interpretiveproblemsin blood
residueanalvsis.JournalofArchaeological Science23: 139-147.
Flenniken, J.J.,and Raymond,A. W. (1986). Morphological projectilepointtypology: Replication,
experimentation, andtechnological analysis.American Antiquity 51: 603-614.
Flenniken, J.J.,and Wilke,P. J.(1989). Typology, technology,and chronology of GreatBasin dart
points.American Anthropologist 91: 149-158.
Fredericksen, C. F. K., and Sewell,B. (1991). The reliability of flakedtoolfunction studiesin New
Zealandarchaeology. Archaeology ofOceania 26: 123-126.
Freeman,L. G. (1992). Mousterianfaciesin space: New datafromMorinlevel 16. In Dibble,H.,
and Mellars,P. (eds.), TheMiddlePaleolithic:Adaptation, Behavior,and Variability,University
MuseumSymposium Series,Vol.4, University ofPennsylvania, Philadelphia,dd. 113-125.
Fullagar,R. L. K. (1991). The roleofsilicainpolishformation. JournalofArchaeological Science18:
1-24.
Fullagar,R., Loy,T., and Cox, S. (1998). Starchgrains,sediments and stonetoolfunction: Evidence
fromBitokara, PapuaNew Guinea.In Fullagar,R. (éd.),A CloserLook,Archaeological Methods
Series6, SydneyUniversity, Sydney, pp.49-60.
uaim, J. K. (iyy4). hTehistonc tradeand exchangem the Interior Plateauor northwestern North
America.In Baugh,T., and Ericson,J.(eds.),Prehistoric ExchangeSystems in NorthAmerica,
Plenum,New York,pp. 275-305.
Garling,S. J.(1998). Megafaunaon themenu?Haemoglobincrystallisation of blood residuesfrom

stoneartefacts at CuddieSprings.In Fullagar,R. (ed.),A CloserLook,Archaeological Methods
Series6, SydneyUniversity, Sydney, pp. 29-48.
Uassin,B., withuandel, Y. (1993). Des outilsde silexpourla laoncationde la poterie,in Anderson,
P.,Beyries,S., Otte,M., andPlisson,H. (eds.),Tracesetfonction:Les gestesretrouvés, ERAUL,
No. 50, Liège,pp. 189-203.
Geneste,J.-M.,andMaury,S. (1997). Contributions ofmultidisciplinaryexperimentation tothestudy
ofUpperPaleolithicprojectilepoints.In Knecht,H. (ed.), ProjectileTechnology, Plenum,New
York,pp. 165-189.
Gero,J.M. (1991). Genderlithics: Womens rolesin stonetoolproduction, in uero, J.,and uonicey,
M. (eds.),Engendering Archaeology, Basil Blackwell,Oxford, pp. 163-193.
Gibson,J.L. (1994). Empiricalcharacterization of exchangesystemsin Lower MississippiValley
prehistory. In Baugh,T., andEricson,J.(eds.),Prehistoric ExchangeSystemsinNorthAmerica,
Plenum,New York,pp. 127-175.
Gordon,D. (1993). Mousterian toolselection, reduction, anddiscardat Ghar,Israel.Journaloj Field
Archaeology 20: 205-218.
Grace,R. (1993a). New methodsin use-wearanalysis,in Anderson, K, Beyries,ò., une, m., ana
Plisson,H. (eds.), Tracesetfoncion:Us gestesretrouvés, ERAUL, No. 50, Liège,pp. 385-387.
Grace,R. (1993b).Theuseofexpert systems inlithicanalysis.InAnderson, P.,Beyries,S., Otte,M.,and
Plisson,H. (eds.),Tracesetfoncion:Les gestesretrouvés, ERAUL, No. 50, Liège,pp. 389^00.
Grace,R. (1996). Use-wearanalysis:The stateot theart.Archaeometry ¿ö: zuy-zzv.
Graves,P. (1994). My strangequestforLeroi-Gourhan: Structuralism s unwitting hero.Antiquity 68:
457-460.
Grimaldi, S. (1998). Methodological problemsin thereconstruction ofchaînesopératoires in Lower-
MiddlePalaeolithic industries. In Milliken,S., andPeresani,M. (eds.),LithicTechnology: From
Raw MaterialProcurement to Tool Production, WorkshopNo. 12 of the XIII International
CongressofPrehistoric andProtohistoric Sciences,Forli,Italy,1996,pp. 19-22.
Grimaldi, S., andLemorini, C. (1993). Retouchespécialiséeet/ouchainede ravivage?Les "racloirs"
moustériens de la GrottaBreuil(MonteCirceo,Italie).In Anderson,P., Beyries,S., Otte,M.,
and Plisson,H. (eds.), Traces et fonction:Les gestes retrouvés, ERAUL, No. 50, Liège,
pp.67-78.
Grimaldi,S., and Lemorini,C. (1995). Technologyand microwear: Predetermined flakesíromthe
Mousterian siteof GrottaBrueil(MonteCirceo,Italy).In Dibble,H., and Bar-Yosef,O. (eds.),
The Definition and Interpretation of Levallois Technology, Prehistory Press, Madison,WI,
pp. 143-155.
CJurhnkel, D. M., andrrankiin, u. m. (lyiso).a siuayorme reasioiiiiy oi ueiecunguiuuuicmuucuh
artifacts. JournalofArchaeological Science15: 83-97.
Hardy, B. L., Raff,R. A.,andRaman,V.(1997). Recovery oí mammalian dina rromMiddleraieontnic
stonetools.JournalofArchaeological Science24: 601-611.
Hayden,B. (1975). Curation:Old andnew.In Raymond, J.,Loveseth,B., Arnold,C, andReardon,G.
(eds.),Primitive Artand Technology, University ofCalgary,Alberta,Canada,pp. 47-59.
Hayden,B., Franco,N., and Spafford, J. (1996). Evaluatinglithicstrategies and designentena,in
Odell,G. (ed.), StoneTools: Theoretical InsightsintoHumanPrehistory, Plenum,New York,
pp.9^9.
Head,L., andFullagar, R. ( 1997). Hunter-gatherer archaeology andpastoralcontact:Perspectives rrom
thenorthwest Northern Territory, Australia.World Archaeology 28: 418-428.
Hirth,K. G. (1995). The investigation of obsidiancraftproduction at Xochicalco,Morelos.Ancient
Mesoamerica6: 251-258.
Holdaway,S., McPherron, S., andRoth,B. (1996). Notchedtoolreuseandrawmaterialavailability in
FrenchMiddlePaleolithicsites.American Antiquity61: 377-387.
Horsfall,G. A. (1987). Designtheory and grinding stones.In Hayden,B. (ed.), LithicStudiesAmong
theContemporary HighlandMaya,University ofArizonaPress,Tucson,pp. 332-377.
Hudler,D. (1997). Determining Clear ForkToolFunctionthrough Use-WearAnalysis:A Uiscussion
ofUse-WearMethodsand Clear ForkTools,TexasArcheological ResearchLaboratory, Studies
in Archeology 25, University ofTexas,Austin.
Hudson,L. (1993). Protohistonc Pawneelitmceconomy, nains Anthropologist jö: zod-z/ /.
92 Oddi
Hughes,R. E. (1994). Mosaic patterning

in prehistoric - GreatBasinexchange.In Baugh,
California
T., and Ericson,J.(eds.), Prehistoric
ExchangeSystems in NorthAmerica,Plenum,New York,
Hurcombe,L. (1992). Use-WearAnalysisand Obsidian:Theory, Experiments and Results,Depart-

mentof Archaeologyand Prehistory, ArchaeologicalMonograph4, University of Sheffield,
Sheffield.
Hurcombe, L. (1997). The contribution ofobsidianuse-wearanalysisto understanding theformation
and alteration of wear.In Ramos-Millan,A., and Bustillo,M. A. (eds.), SiliceousRocksand
Culture, EditorialUniversidad de Granada,Spain,pp.487^97.
Hyland,D. C, Tersak,J.M., Adovasio,J.M., andSiegel,M. I. (1990). Identification ofthespeciesof
originofresidualbloodon lithicmaterial. American Antiquity 55: 104-112.
Ingbar,h. b. (1994). Lithicmaterial selectionandtechnological organization. In Carr,P. (ed.), TheOr-
ganizationofNorthAmerican Prehistoric ChippedStoneTechnologies, International Monographs
in Prehistory, AnnArbor,MI, pp.45-56.
Johnson, J.K. (1996). Lithicanalysisand questionsofculturalcomplexity: The Maya. In Odell,G.
(ed.),StoneTools:Theoretical InsightsintoHumanPrehistory, Plenum,NewYork,pp. 159-179.
Johnson, J.K., and Hayes,F. L. (1995). Shifting patternsoflong-distance contactduringtheMiddle
Woodlandperiodin thenorthern Yazoo Basin,Mississippl.In Nassaney,M., and Sassaman,K.
(eds.),NativeAmericanInteractions, University ofTennesseePress,Knoxville,pp. 100-121.
Jones,J.(J.(1970). DesignMethods:Seeds ofHumanFutures, JohnWileyandSons,New York.
Kaufman,D. (1995). Microburins and microliths oftheLevantine Epipaleolithic: A comment on the
paperbyNeeleyandBarton.Antiquity 69: 375-381.
Kay,M. (1996). Microwearanalysisof someClovisandexperimental chippedstonetools.In Odell,
G. (ed.), StoneTools: TheoreticalInsightsintoHumanPrehistory, PlenumPress,New York,
pp. 315-344.
Kazaryan,H. (1993). Butchery knivesintheMousterian sitesofArmenia. In Anderson, P.,Beyries,S.,
Otte,M., andPlisson,H. (eds.), Tracesetfonction:Les gestesretrouvés, ERAUL, No. 50, Liège,
DD.79-85.
Kealhofer, L., Torrence, R., and Fullagar,R. (1999). Integrating phytoliths withinuse-wear/residue
studiesofstonetools.JournalofArchaeological Science26: 527-546.
Kelly,R. L. (1983). Hunter-gatherer mobilitystrategies. JournalofAnthropological Research39:
277-306.
Kelly,R. L. (1988). The threesidesofa biface.American Antiquity 53: 717-734.
Kimball,L. R.,Kimball,J.F.,andAllen,P.E. ( 1995). Microwear polishesas viewedthrough theatomic
forcemicroscope. LithicTechnology 20: 6-28.
Kooyman,B., Newman,M. E., andCeri,H. (1992). Verifying thereliability ofbloodresidueanalysis
on archaeological tools.JournalofArchaeological Science19: 265-269.
Krakker,J.J.(1997). Bifacecaches,exchange,andregulatory systems in theprehistoric GreatLakes
region.Midcontinental JournalofArchaeology 22: 1-41.
Kuhn,S. L. (1992a). Blankformand reduction as determinants of Mousterian scrapermorphology.
American Antiquity SI: 115-128.
Kuhn,S. L. (1992b). On planningand curatedtechnologies in theMiddlePaleolithic.Journalof
Anthropological Research48: 185-214.
Kuhn,S. L. (1993). Mousterian technology as adaptiveresponse:A case study. In Peterkin, G.,Bricker,
H.,andMellars,P. (eds.),Hunting andAnimalExploitation intheLaterPaleolithic andMesolithic
ofEurasia,Archeological PapersoftheAmerican Anthropological Association, No. 4, Washing-
ton,DC, pp. 25-3 1.
Kuhn,S. L. (1994). A formalapproachto the designand assemblyof mobiletoolkits.American
Kuhn,S. L. (1995). MousterianLithicTechnology: An EcologicalPerspective, Princeton University
Press,Princeton.
Leach, J.D. A
(1998). briefcommenton theimmunological identification of plantresidueson pre-
historic stonetoolsand ceramics:Resultsofa blindtest.JournalofArchaeological Science25:
171-175.
Leach,J.D., andMauldin,R. P.(1995). Additional comments onbloodresidueanalysisinarchaeology.
Antiquity 69: 1020-1022.
LeMoine,G. M. (1997). Use-WearAnalysison Bone and AntlerToolsoftheMackenzieInuit,BAR

International Series679,Oxford.
Levi Sala, I. (1993). Use-weartraces:Processesofdevelopment andpost-depositional In
alterations.
Anderson, P.,Beyries,S., Otte,M.,andPlisson,H. (eds.),Tracesetfonction: Les gestesretrouvés,
ERAUL,No. 50, Liège,pp.401-416.
LeviSala,I. (1996).A StudyofMicroscopicPolishon FlintImplements, BAR International Series629,
Oxford.
Lewenstein, S. M. (1991). Edgeanglesandtoolfunction amongtheMaya:A meaningful relationship?
InHesterT.,andShafer, H. (eds.),MayaStoneTools,Prehistory Press,Madison,WI,pp.207-217.
Lewenstein, S. M. (1993). Experimentation in theformation and variability of lithicuse-weartraces
on obsidianandchertimplements. In Anderson, P.,Beyries,S., Otte,M., and Plisson,H. (eds.),
Tracesetfonction:Les gestesretrouvés, ERAUL, No. 50, Liège,pp. 287-294.
Lohse,E. S. (1996). A computerized descriptive systemforfunctional analysisofstonetools.Tebiwa
26: 3-66.
Loy,T. H. (1993). Theartifact as site:Anexampleofthebiomolecular analysisoforganicresidueson
prehistoric tools.WorldArchaeology 25: 44-63.
Loy, l. li., ana uixon,c J.(lyyö). tsiooaresidueson nuteapointsrromeasternöenngia.American
Loy,T. R.,andWood,A. R. (1989). Blood residueanalysisatCayonuTepesi,Turkey. JournalofField
Archaeolosy16: 45 1-460.
MacDonald,D. H. (1999).ModelingFolsommobility, technological organization, andmating strategies
intheNorthern Plains.PlainsAnthropologist 44: 141-161.
MacDonald,D. H., and Hewlett,B. S. (1999). Reproductive interestsand foragermobility. Current
Anthropology 40: 501-514.
Mahmoud,A.-M. A., andBard,K. A. (1993). SourcesofthePredynastic grinding stonesin theHu-
Semainehregion,UpperEgypt,andtheircultural context.Geoarchaeology 8: 241-245.
Manolakakis, L. (1996). Production lithiqueetémergence de la hiérarchiesociale:l'industrie lithique
de l'Enéolithiqueen Bulgarie(premièremoitiédu IVe millénaire).Bulletinde la Société
Préhistorique Française93: 119-123.
Mansur,M. E. (1997). Functionalanalysisof polishedstone-tools: Some considerations aboutthe
nature ofpolishing. In Ramos-Millan, A.,andBustillo,M. A.,(eds.),SiliceousRocksand Culture,
EditorialUniversidad de Granada,Spain,pp.465-486.
Mauldin,R. P., Leach,J. D., and Amick,D. S. (1995). On theidentification of blood residueson
Paleoindianartifacts. Current Researchin thePleistocene12: 85-87.
McBrearty, S., Bishop,L., Plummer, T., Dewar,R., and Conard,N. (1998). Tools underfoot: Human
trampling as an agentoflithicartifact edge modification. American Antiquity 63: 108-129.
McBryde,I. (1997). "The landscapeis a seriesof stories."Grindstones, quarriesand exchangein
Aboriginal Australia:A Lake Eyrecase study.In Ramos-Millan, A., and Bustillo,M. A. (eds.),
SiliceousRocksand Culture, EditorialUniversidad de Granada,Spain,pp. 587-607.
McDonald,M. M. A. ( 1991). Technological organization andsedentism intheEpipaleolithic ofDakhleh
Oasis,Egypt.African Archaeological Review9: 81-109.
McSwain,R. (1991). A comparative evaluationoftheproducer-consumer modelforlithicexchange
innorthern Belize,CentralAmerica.LatinAmerican Antiquity 2: 337-351.
Milliken,S. (1998). The ghostof Childeand thequestionof craftspecializationin thePaleolithic.
In Milliken,S., andVidale,M. (eds.), CraftSpecialization:OperationalSequencesand Beyond,
BAR Series720,Oxford,pp. 1-7.
Mitchell,D. R., and Shackley,M. S. (1995). Classic periodHohokamobsidianstudiesin southern
Arizona.JournalofFieldArchaeology 22: 291-304.
Morrow, J.E. (1997). End scrapermorphology and use-lite:An approachtorstudying Faleoindian
lithictechnology andmobility. LithicTechnology 22: 70-85.
Morrow, T. A. (1996). Biggeris better:Commentson Kuhns formalapproachto mobiletool kits.
American Antiquity 61: 581-590.
Moss,E. H. (1987). A reviewof "Investigating microwear polisheswithblindtests."JournalofAr-
chaeologicalScience14: 473-481.
Moulton, A. L., andAbler,T. S. (1991). Lithicbeingsandlithictechnology: References fromnorthern
Iroquoianmythology. Man in theNortheast 42: 1-7.
94 Odell
Nash,S. E. (1996). Is curation a usefulheuristic? In Odell,G. (ed.), StoneTools:Theoretical Insights

intoHumanPrehistory, Plenum,New York,pp. 81-99.
Nassaney,M. S. (1996). The role of chippedstonein thepoliticaleconomyof social ranking.In
Odell, G. (ed.), StoneTools: TheoreticalInsightsintoHumanPrehistory, Plenum,New York,
pp. 181-224.
Neeley,M. P., and Barton,C. M. (1994). A new approachto interpreting latePleistocenemicrolith
industriesin Southwest Asia. Antiquity 68: 275-288.
Nelson,M. C. (1991). The studyoftechnological organization. In Schiffer, M. (ed.),Archaeological
Methodand Theory, University ofArizonaPress,Tucson,pp. 57-100.
Newman,M. E., Ceri,H.,andKooyman, B. (1996). Theuseofimmunological techniques intheanalysis
of archaeologicalmaterials - a responseto Eisele; withreportof studiesat Head-Smashed-In
buffalojump.Antiquity 70: 677-682.
Newman,M. E., Yohe,R. M, II, Ceri,H., and Sutton,M. Q. (1993). Immunological proteinresidue
analysisofnon-lithic archaeological materials.JournalofArchaeological Science20: 93-100.
O'Connell,J.F., and Inoway,C. M. (1994). SurpriseValleyprojectilepointsandtheirchronological
implications.JournalofCaliforniaand GreatBasinAnthropology 16: 162-198.
Odell, O. H. (1994a). Assessinghunter-gatherer mobility in theIllinoisValley:Exploringambigu-
ous results.In Carr,P. (ed.), The OrganizationofNorthAmericanPrehistoric ChippedStone
Technologies, International Monographs in Prehistory, AnnArbor, MI, pp.70-86.
Odell,G. H. (1994b).Prehistoric haltingandmobility intheNorthAmerican Midcontinent: Examples
fromIllinois.JournalofAnthropological Archaeology 13: 51-73.
Odell,G. H. (1996a). Economizingbehaviorand theconceptof "curation." In Odell,G. (ed.), Stone
Tools:Theoretical InsightsintoHumanPrehistory, Plenum,New York,pp. 51-80.
Odell,G. H. (1996b).StoneToolsand Mobility intheIllinoisValley:FromHunting-Gathering Camps
toAgricultural Villages,International Monographs in Prehistory, AnnArbor, MI.
Odell, G. H. (1998). Investigating correlatesof sedentismand domestication in prehistoric North
America.American Antiquity 63: 553-571.
Odell,G. H., and Odell-Vereecken, F. (1980). Verifying thereliability oflithicuse-wearassessments
by"blindtests:"The low-power approach.JournalofFieldArchaeology 7: 87-120.
Olausson,D. (1990). Edge-wearanalysisin archaeology:The current stateof research.Laborativ
Arkeologi 4, Humanistisk-Samhallsvetenskapliga Forskningsradet, Stockholm.
Oswalt,W. (1976). AnAnthropological AnalysisofFood-Getting Technology, Wileyand Sons,New
York.
Otis Charlton,C. L. (1993). Obsidianas jewelry:Lapidaryproduction in Aztec Otumba,Mexico.
AncientMesoamerica4: 231-243.
Owen, L., and Unrath,G. (1989). Microtracesd'usuredues à la préhension. l'Anthropologie 93:
673-688.
Parry,W. J.,and Kelly,R. L. (1987). Expedientcore technology and sedentism. In Johnson, J.K.,
and Morrow, C. A. (eds.), TheOrganization ofCore Technology, Westview Press,Boulder,CO,
pp. 285-304.
Paton,R. (1994). Speakingthrough stones:A studyfromnorthern Australia.WorldArchaeology 26:
172-184.
Pawlik,A. (1995). Die microskopische AnalysevonSteingeraten: Experimente-Auswertungsmethoden-
Artefaktanalyse, Urgeschichtliche Materialhefte 10,VerlagArchaeologica Venatoria, Tubingen.
retragna,M., Knepper,u., uiumac,K, iNewman, M., and bussman,(J.(1996). Immunological and
microwear analysisof chipped-stone artifactsfrompiedmont contexts. AmericanAntiquity 61:
127-135.
Piperno,D. R., and Hoist,I. (1998). The presenceof starchgrainson prehistoric stonetoolsfrom
the humidNeotropics:Indicationsof earlytuberuse and agriculture in Panama.Journalof
ArchaeologicalScience25: 765-776.
Plisson,H., and Mauger,M. (1988). Chemicaland mechanicalalteration ofmicro-wear polishes:An
experimental approach.Helinium28: 3-16.
Pope,M. K. (1994). Mississippian microtools andUrukblades:A comparative studyofchippedstone
production, use,andeconomicorganization. LithicTechnology 19: 128-145.
Pope,M., and Pollock,S. (1995). Trade,tools,and tasks:A studyof Urukchippedstoneindustries.
Researchin EconomicAnthropology 16: 227-265.
Prost,D.-C. (1993). Nouveauxtermespourune description microscopique des retoucheset autres

enlèvements. Bulletinde la SociétéPréhistorique Française90: 190-195.
Pye,D: (1964). TheNatureofDesign,StudioVista,London.
Ramos-Millan, A. (1997). Flintpoliticaleconomyin a tribalsociety.A material-culture studyin the
El Malagonsettlement (Iberiansoutheast).In Ramos-Millan,A., and Bustillo,M. A. (eds.),
Read,D. W.,andRussell,Ci.(1996). A methodtortaxonomic typology constructionandan example:
Utilizedflakes.American Antiquity 61: 663-684.
Rees, D., Wilkinson, G. G., Grace,R., and Orton,C. R. (1991). An investigation of the fractal
properties offlintmicrowear images.JournalofArchaeological Science18: 629-640.
Rick,J.W. (1996). Projectilepoints,style,and social processin thePreceramic of centralPeru.In
Odell,G. (ed.), StoneTools: Theoretical InsightsintoHumanPrehistory, Plenum,New York,
pp.245-278.
Ricq-deBouard,M., and Fedele,F. G. (1993). Neolithicrockresourcesacrossthe westernAlps:
Circulation dataandmodels.Geoarchaeology 8: 1-22.
Rondeau,M. F. (1996). Whenis an Elko? In Odell,G. (ed.), StoneTools: Theoretical Insightsinto
HumanPrehistory, Plenum,New York,pp. 229-243.
Rosen,S. A. (1996). The declineandfallofflint. In Odell,G. (ed.), StoneTools:Theoretical Insights
intoHumanPrehistory, Plenum,New York,pp. 129-158.
Rosen,S. A. (1997a). Beyondmeatandmilk:Lithicevidenceforeconomicspecialization intheEarly
BronzeAge pastoralperiphery intheLevant.LithicTechnology 22: 99-109.
Rosen,S. A. (1997b). Lithic s aftertheStoneAge: A Handbookof StoneToolsfromtheLevant,
AltaMiraPress,WalnutCreek,CA.
Rousseau,M. K. (1992). Integrated LithicAnalysis:The Significance and FunctionofKey-Shaped
FormedUnifaceson the InteriorPlateau of Northwestern NorthAmerica,Department of
Archaeology, PublicationNo. 20, SimonFraserUniversity, Burnaby, BC.
Rowlett,R. M., and Robbins,M. C. (1982). Estimating originalassemblagecontentto adjustfor
post-depositional verticalartifactmovement. World Archaeology 14: 73-83.
Rozoy,J.-G.(1991). Typologieetchronologie. Palèo 3: 207-211.
Santone,L. (1997). Transport costs,consumerdemand,and patterns of intraregionalexchange:A
perspective on commodity production and distribution fromnorthern Belize. LatinAmerican
Antiquity 8: 1'-SS.
Sassaman,K. E. (1992). Lithictechnology and thehunter-gatherer sexualdivisionof labor.North
American Archaeologist 13: 249-262.
Sassaman,K. h. (1994a). Changingstrategies oi Ditaceproduction in tne òoutnmaronnacoastal
plain.In Carr,P. (ed.), The Organization of NorthAmericanPrehistoric ChippedStoneTool
Technologies, InternationalMonographs in Prehistory,AnnArbor,MI, pp.99-1 17.
Sassaman,K. E. (1994b).Production forexchangeintheMid-HoloceneSoutheast: A SavannahRiver
Valleyexample.LithicTechnology 19: 42-5 1.
Sassaman,K. E. (1998). Crafting culturalidentityin hunter-gatherer economies.In Costin,C,
and Wright,R. (eds.), Craftand Social Identity, Archeologicalpapers of the American
Anthropological Association, No. 8. Washington, DC, pp. 93-107.
Schick,K. D., andToth,N. (1993). MakingSilentStonesSpeak: HumanEvolutionand theDawn of
Technology, SimonandSchuster, New York.
Schreurs, J.(1992). The Michelsberg siteMaastricht-Klinkers: A functional interpretation.Analecta
Praehistorica Leidensia25: 129-171.
Seeman,M. F. (1994). Intercluster lithicpatterning at Nobles Pond: A case for"disembedded"
procurement amongEarlyPaleoindiansocieties.American Antiquity 59: 273-288.
Seilet,F. (1993). Chaîneopératoire: The conceptand its applications.LithicTechnology 18: 106-
112.
Shackley, M. S. (1990). EarlyHunter-Gatherer Procurement RangesintheSouthwest: Evidencefrom
ObsidianGeochemistry andLithicTechnology, Ph.D. dissertation, Department ofAnthropology,
ArizonaStateUniversity, Tempe.
Sharer, H. J.,andHester,1. R. (lyyi). Lithiccrartspecialization andproduct aisinoutionat me iviaya
siteofColha,Belize. World Archaeology 23: 79-97.
Shea,J.J.(1992). Lithicmicrowear analysism archaeology. Evolutionary Anthropology 1: 143-1MJ.
96 Oddi
Shea,J.J.(1999). Artifact abrasion,fluvialprocesses,and "livingfloors"fromtheEarlyPaleolithic

siteof 'Ubeidiya(JordanValley,Israel).Geoarchaeology 14: 191-207.
Shea,J.J.,and Klenck,J.D. (1993). An experimental investigation oftheeffects oftrampling on the
resultsoflithicmicrowear analysis.JournalofArchaeological Science20: 175-194.
Sheppard,V.J.(1993). Lapitalithics:Trade/exchange and technology. A viewtromtneKeets/ânta
Cruz.Archaeology in Oceania 28: 12 1- 137.
Sheppard,P. J.(1996). Hardrock:Archaeological implicationsofchertsourcingin nearandremote
Oceania. In Davidson,J.,Irwin,G., Leach, B. F., Pawley,A., and Brown,D. (eds.), Oceanic
CultureHistory, New ZealandJournal ofArchaeology SpecialPublication, pp. 99-1 15.
Short,M. J.(1986). Technological organization andsettlement mobility: Anethnographic examination.
JournalofAnthropological Research42: 15-51.
Short,M. J. (1996). An exegesisof thecurationconcept.JournalofAnthropological Research52:
259-280.
Short,M. J. (1997). Stonesand shaftsredux:The metricdiscrimination of chipped-stone dartand
arrowpoints.American Antiquity 62: 86-101.
Sievert,A. K. (1992). Maya CeremonialSpecialization:LithicToolsfromthe Sacred Cenoteat
ChichénItzá,Yucatán,Prehistory Press,Madison,WI.
Sievert,A. K. (1994). The detectionof ritualtool use throughfunctional analysis:Comparative
examplesfromtheSpiroandAngelsites.LithicTechnology 19: 146-156.
Smith,M. E. (1990). Long-distance tradeunderthe Aztec empire:The archaeologicalevidence.
AncientMesoamerica1: 153-169.
Smith,P. R., and Wilson,M. T. (1992). Blood residueson ancienttool surfaces:A cautionary note.
JournalofArchaeologicalScience19: 237-241.
Sobolik,K. D. (1996). Lithicorganicresidueanalysis:An examplefromtheSouthwestern Archaic.
JournalofFieldArchaeology 23: 461-469.
Spence,M. W. (1996). Commodity orgift:Teotihuacan obsidianintheMayaregion.LatinAmerican
Antiquity 7: 21-39.
Stafford, M. (1999). FromForagertoFarmerin Flint:A LithicAnalysisofthePrehistoric Transition
toAgriculture in Southern Scandinavia,AarhusUniversity Press,Aarhus,Denmark.
Stiner,M. C, and Kuhn,S. L. (1992). Subsistence,technology, and adaptivevariationin Middle
PaleolithicItaly.AmericanAnthropologist 94: 306-339.
Storck,P. L. (1997). The FisherSite: Archaeological,Geologicaland PaleobotanicalStudiesat
an EarlyPaleo-IndianSite in SouthernOntario,Museumof Anthropology, MemoirsNo. 30,
University ofMichigan,AnnArbor.
Strauss,A. E. (1992). Jack's Reef cornernotchedpointsin New England: Site distribution,
raw materialpreference, and implicationsfor trade. NorthAmericanArchaeologist13:
333-350.
Sullivan,A. P.,Ill (1994). Adaptivediversity and limited-activitysitesversuslogisticalmobility and
expedienttechnology:Adriftin normative thought.Journalof Anthropological Research50:
159-167.
Takacs-Biro, K. (1997). Rawmaterial economyoftheLateNeolithicinHungary. InRamos-Millan, A.,
andBustillo,M. A. (eds.),SiliceousRocksand Culture, EditorialUniversidad de Granada,Spain,
pp. 639-660.
Therin,M. (1998). The movement ofstarchgrainsin sediments. In Fullagar,R. (ed.),A CloserLook,
Archaeological MethodsSeries6, SydneyUniversity, Sydney, pp. 61-72.
Thomas,D. H. (1981). How to classifythe projectilesfromMonitorValley,Nevada.Journalof
Californiaand GreatBasinAnthropology 3: 7-43.
Thomas,D. H. (1986). Pointson points:A replyto Flenniken andRaymond.American Antiquity51:
619-627.
Thompson,M. (1996). Correlation ofMaya lithicandglyphicdata.LithicTechnology 21: 120-133.
Tomenchuk, J.(1997). A parametric use-wearstudyofartifacts fromAreasC andC-east.In Storck,
P. (ed.), TheFisherSite,Museumof Anthropology, MemoirsNo. 30, University of Michigan,
AnnArbor,pp. 95-161.
luross,N., Barnes,1.,and Potts,K. (1996). Proteinidentification or bloodresidueson experimental
stonetools.JournalofArchaeological Science23: 289-296.
Unger-Hamilton, R. (1989). Analyseexpérimentale des microtraces d'usure:Quelquescontroverses
actuelles.VAnthropologie 93: 659-672.
vandenDries,M, and vanGijn,A. (1997). The representativity of experimental useweartraces.In

Ramos-Millan, A., andBustillo,M. A. (eds.),SiliceousRocksand Culture, EditorialUniversidad
de Granada,Spain,pp.499-513.
Vierra,B. J.(1995). Subsistence and StoneTool Technology: An Old WorldPerspective, Anthropo-
logicalResearchPapersNo. 47, ArizonaStateUniversity, Tempe.
Villa,P. (1982). Conjoinablepiecesandsiteformation processes.American Antiquity47: 276-290.
Wallis,L., andO'Connor,S. (1998). Residuesona sampleofstonepointsfromtheWestKimberley. In
Fullagar, R. (ed.),A CloserLook,Archaeological MethodsSeries6, SydneyUniversity, Sydney,
pp. 149-178.
Walthall, J.A., and Holley,G. R. (1997). Mobilityand hunter-gatherer toolkitdesign:Analysisof a
Daltonlithiccache.Southeastern Archaeology 16: 152-162.
Walthall, J.A., andKoldehoff, B. (1998). Hunter-gatherer interaction andallianceformation: Dalton
andtheCultoftheLongBlade. PlainsAnthropologist 43: 257-273.
White,J.P. (1996). Rocksinthehead:Thinking aboutthedistribution ofobsidianm NearOceania.In
Davidson,J.,Irwin,G.,Leach,B. F.,Pawley,A., andBrown,D. (eds.),OceanicCultureHistory,
NewZealandJournal ofArchaeology SpecialPublication, pp. 199-209.
Whittaker, J. C, Caulkins,D., and Kamp,K. A. (1998). Evaluatingconsistency in typologyand
classification. JournalofArchaeological Methodand Theory5: 129-164.
Wilke,P. J.,and Flenniken, J. J. (1991). Missingthepoint:Rebuttalto Bettinger, O'Connell,and
Thomas.American Anthropologist 93: 172-173.
Williams-Thorpe, O., Thorpe,R. S., Elliott,C, andXenophontos, C. (1991). Archaeology,geochem-
istry, and tradeof igneousrockmillstonesin CyprusduringtheLate BronzeAge to Roman
periods.Geoarchaeologx 6: 27-60.
Wright, J. V. (1994). The prehistoric transportationof goods in the St. LawrenceRiverBasin. In
Baugh,T, andEricson,J.(eds.),Prehistoric ExchangeSystems inNorthAmerica,Plenum,New
York.nn.47-71.
Wynn,T. (1991). Tools, grammarand the archaeologyof cognition.CambridgeArchaeological
Journal1: 191-206.
Wynn, T. (1993). Layersofthinking intoolbehavior.InGibson,K. R.,andIngold,T. (eds.),Tools,Lan-
guageand Cognition inHumanEvolution, Cambridge University Press,Cambridge, pp.389-406.
Yamada,S. (1993). The formation processof "use-wearpolishes."In Anderson,P., Beynes,S.,
Otte,M., andPlisson,H. (eds.), Tracesetfonction: Les gestesretrouvés, ERAUL, No. 50,Liège,
pp.433^45.
Yamada,S., and Sawada,A. (1993). The methodof description forpolishedsurraces.In Anderson,
P.,Beyries,S., Otte,M., andPlisson,H. (eds.), Tracesetfonction: Les gestesretrouvés,
ERAUL,
No. 50, Liège,pp.447-457.
Yerkes,R. W., and Kardulias,P. N. (1993). Recentdevelopments in theanalysisof lithicartifacts.
JournalofArchaeological Research1: 89-119.
Yohe, R. M., II, Newman,M. E., and Schneider,J. S. (1991). Immunologicalidentification of
small-mammal proteins on Aboriginal millingequipment. American Antiquity56: 659-666.
Young,L. C. (1994). Lithicsand adaptivediversity: An examination sites in
of limited-activity
northeast Arizona.JournalofAnthropological Research50: 141-154.
BIBLIOGRAPHY OF RECENT LITERATURE
Akerman,K. (1998). A suggested function forWestern Arnhem Landuse-polishedflakesandelouras.

InFullagar,R. (ed.),/4CloserLook,Archaeological MethodsSeries6, SydneyUniversity, Sydney,
pp. 179-188.
Amick,D. S. (1994). Technologicalorganization of inference
and the structure in lithicanalysis:
An examination of Folsomhunting behaviorin theAmericanSouthwest. In Carr,P. (ed.), The
Organization of NorthAmericanPrehistoricChippedStoneTool Technologies, International
Monographs in Prehistory, AnnArbor,MI, pp. 9-34.
Amick,L>.S. (lyyy).Kaw materialvariation in roisomsionetool assemoiagesana me divisionoi
laborin hunter-gatherer societies.In Amick,D. (ed.), FolsomLithicTechnology, International
Monographs in Prehistory, AnnArbor,MI, pp. 169-187.
98 Oddi
Andrefsky, W.,Jr.(1991). Inferring trendsin prehistoric settlement behaviorfromlithicproduction

technology in theSouthern Plains.NorthAmerican Archaeologist 12: 129-144.
Andrefsky, W., Jr.(1997). Thoughtson stonetool shape and inferred function. Journalof Middle
AtlanticArchaeology 13: 125- 143.
Bierwirth, S. L. (1996). LithicAnalysisinSouthwestern France:MiddlePaleolithic Assemblages from
theSiteofLa Quina,BAR International Series633,Oxford.
Bosquet,D., and JardonGiner,P. (1999). Etude tracéologiquedu site paléolithiquemoyende
Remicourt-Erc Bia Flo I. NotaePraehistoricae (Namur)19: 21-28.
Boszhardt, R. F.,andMcCarthy, J.(1999). Oneotaendscrapersandexperiments in hidedressing:An
analysisfromtheLa Crosselocality.Midcontinental JournalofArchaeology 24: 177-199.
Brooks,L., andPhillips,P. (eds.) (1989). BreakingtheStonySilence:PapersfromtheSheffield Lithic
s
Conference 1988,BAR BritishSeries,No. 213,Oxford.
Brown,J.A. (1996). TheSpiroCeremonialCenter,Vol.II: TheCollections, MuseumofAnthropology,
MemoirsNo. 29, University ofMichigan,AnnArbor.
Calogero.B. L. A. (1992). Lithicmisidentification. Man in theNortheast 43: 87-90.
Carr,P.J.(ed.) (1994). TheOrganization ofNorthAmerican Prehistoric ChippedStoneToolTechnolo-
gies,International Monographs in Prehistory, AnnArbor,MI.
Clark,J.,andParry, W. J.(1990). Craftspecialization andcultural complexity. ResearchinEconomic
Anthropology 12: 289-346.
Clemente-Conte, I. (1997). Thermalalterations offlint implements andtheconservation ofmicrowear
polish:Preliminary experimental observations. In Ramos-Millan, A., and Bustillo,M. A. (eds.),
Cowan,F. L. (1994). Prehistoric MobilityStrategies in Western New York:A SmallSitesPerspective,
Ph.D. dissertation, Department ofAnthropology, StateUniversity ofNew York,Buffalo.
Dawe, B. (1997). Tinvarrowheads: Tovsin thetoolkit.PlainsAnthroDoloeist 42: 303-318.
Duff,A. I.,Clark,G. A.,andChadderdon, T. J.( 1992). Symbolism intheEarlyPaleolithic: A conceptual
Odyssey. Cambridge Archaeological Journal2: 211-229.
Edmonds,M. (1990). Description, understanding and thechaîneopératoire. Archaeological Review
fromCambridge9: 55-70.
rranco,in. v. (iwm). Maximizacionen el aprovechamiento de los recursosuticos:un caso anal-
izado en el área interserrana Bonaerense.In Lanata,J.,and Borrero, L. (eds.),Arqueologíade
Cazadores-Recolectores; Límites,Casos y Apertures, ArqueologíaContemporánea 5, Edición
Especial,BuenosAires,pp. 75-88.
Fullagar,R. L. K. (1993). Flaked stonetools and plantfoodproduction: A preliminary reporton
obsidiantoolsfromTalasea,WestNew Britain, PNG. In Anderson, P.,Beyries,S., Otte,M., and
Plisson,H. (eds.). Tracesetfonction: Les gestesretrouvés. ERAUL. No. 50. Liège,nn.331-337
Fullagar,R. L. K. (1994a). Objectivesforuse-wearand residuestudies:Viewsfroman Australian
microscope. Helinium34: 210-224.
Fullagar,R. L. K. (1994b).Tracesoftimespast:Stoneartefacts intoprehistory. AustralianArchaeology
39: 63-73.
Fullagar,R., Furby,J.,and Hardy,B. (1996). Residueson stoneartefacts: Stateof a scientificart.
Geneste,J.-M.(1991). Systèmestechniquesde production lithique:Variations techno-économiques
dans les processusde réalisationdes outillagespaléolithiques.Techniqueset Culture17/18:
1-35.
Gibaja,J.F.,andClemente, I. (1997). El tratamiento térmico delsílexysusrepercusiones enla determi-
naciónde los rastrosde uso. Algunosejemplosdel neolíticoen Cataluña.Revistad'Arqueología
dePonentl: 153-160.
Grace,R. (1989). Interpreting theFunctionofStoneTools: TheQuantification and Computerisation
ofMicrowearAnalysis,BAR International Series474, Oxford.
Graves,P. (1994). Flakesandladders:Whatthearchaeological recordcannottellus abouttheorigins
oflanguage.WorldArchaeology 26: 158-171.
Hardy,B., andGarufi, G. T. (1998). Identification ofwoodworking on stonetoolsthrough residueand
use-wearanalyses:Experimental Results.JournalofArchaeological Science25: 177-184.
Hofman,J.L. (1991). Folsomland use: Projectilepointvariability as a keyto mobility. In Montet-
White,A., andHolen,S. (eds.),Raw MaterialEconomiesamongPrehistoric Hunter-Gatherers,
Publications in Anthropology, No. 19,University ofKansas,Lawrence,pp. 335-355.
Hurcombe, L. (1992). L'analysedes tracesd'usuresurl'obsidienne.l'Anthropologie 96: 179-186.

Ingold,T. (1993). Tool-use,socialityand intelligence. In Gibson,K. R., and Ingold,T. (eds.), Tools,
Languageand Cognition inHumanEvolution, Cambridge University Press,Cambridge, pp.429-
445.
Jardon Giner,P.,andSacchi,D. (1994). Tracesd'usageetindicesde réaffutages etd'emmanchements
sur des grattoirsmagdaléniensde la GrotteGazel à Sallèles-Cabardes(Aude-France).
VAnthrovolosie 98: All'-446.
Kimball,L. R. (1994). Microwearanalysis of Late and TerminalArchaic projectilepoints
fromthe Padula site (36NM15), Pennsylvania. Journalof MiddleAtlanticArchaeology10:
169-179.
Korobkova, G. F. (1994). Stonetoolsand thebeginning of agriculturein theNearEast (in Russian).
Archaeological News(St. Petersburg) 3: 166-180.
Korobkova, G. F. (1999). Narzedziawpradziejach:Podstawy badaniafunkcjimetodatraseologiczna,
Uniwersytet MikolajaKopernika, Torun.
Lewenstein, S. M. (1991). Woodworking toolsat Cerros.In Hester,T, and Shafer,H. (eds.), Maya
StoneTools,Prehistory Press,Madison,WI, pp. 239-249.
Lurie,R. ( 1989).Lithictechnology andmobility TheKostersiteMiddleArchaic.InTorrence,
strategies:
R. (ed.), Time,Energyand StoneTools,Cambridge UniversityPress,Cambridge, pp.46-56.
Moloney,N., Raposo,L., and Santonja,M. (eds.) (1996). Non-Flint StoneToolsand thePaleolithic
OccupationoftheIberianPeninsula,BAR International Series649, Oxford.
Nelson,M. C. (1993). Grinding-tool designas conditioned by land-usepattern. AmericanAntiquity
58: 286-305.
Nielsen,A. b. ( 1991). 1rampling thearchaeologicalrecord:Anexperimental study. American Antiquity
56: 483-503.
Odell, G. H. (1993). A NorthAmericanperspective on recentarcheologicalstonetool research.
Palimpsesto (BuenosAires)3: 109-122.
Odell,G. H. (1995). Is anybodylistening totheRussians/LithicTechnology ¿'): 4V-5Z.
Patterson, L. W. (1994). Incidental impactbreakageofarrowpoints.La Tierra21: 30-38.
Patterson, L. W. (1996). Drillingholesin shell.La Tierra23: 10-13.
Patterson, L. W.( 1W /).Hunter-gatherer moDUity: Limitations orinterpretation,noustonArcneoiogicai
SocietyJournal117: 1-8.
Pauketat, T. R. (1994). The Ascentof Chiefs:Cahokiaand MississippianPoliticsin NativeNorth
America, University ofAlabamaPress,Tuscaloosa.
Pawlik,A. F. (1996). Licht-und rasterelektronenmikroskopische Untersuchungen an geschalteten
Steingeraten aus Burgaschisee-Sud. Tübinger Monographien zur Urgeschichte 11: 331-340.
Pawlik,A. F. (1996). Die lichtmikroscopische Gebrauchsspurenanalyse an ausgewählten bteinarterak-
tenvonHenauhof NordII. In Kind,C.-J.(ed.),Die letztenWildbeuter: HenauhofNordII unddas
Endmesolithikum inBaden-Württemberg, MaterialheftezurArchäologie in Baden-Württemberg,
No. 39. pp. 150-178.
Pawlik,A. F. (1998). Die mikroskopische Gebrauchsspurenanalyse der Silexwerkzeuge aus Reute-
Schorrenried. In Mainberger, M. (ed.),Das Moordorf vonReute,TeraquaCAP,pp. 185-198.
Pelegrin, J.(1990). Prehistoric lithictechnology: Some aspectsol research.ArchaeologicalReview
fromCambridge 9: 117-125.
Philibert, S. (1994). L ochreet le traitement des peaux:Revisiond uneconception traditionnelle
par
l'analysefonctionnelle des grattoirs ocrésde la BalmaMargineda(Andorre).l'Anthropologie 98:
447^53.
Prewitt,E. R., andTomka,S. (1993). Whatdo I call thee?Projectilepointtypesand archaeological
interpretations: Perspectives fromTexas.LithicTechnology 18: 49-58.
Rovner, I., andLewenstein, S. (1997). Maya StoneToolsofDzibilchaltun, Yucatán,Becan and Chi-
canna,Campeche,MiddleAmericanResearchInstitute, Publication No. 65, TulaneUniversity,
NewOrleans.
Schultz,J.M. (1992). The use-weargenerated by processing bisonhides.PlainsAnthropologist 37:
333-351.
Shanks,O. C, Kornfeld, M.,andHawk,D. (1999). Protein analysisofBugas-holding tools:Newtrends
inimmunological studies.JournalofArchaeological Science26: 1183-1191.
Shchelinskii, V. E. (1994). On thefunction ofbifacesfromtheMousterian siteZaskalnajaV,Crimea
(inRussian).Archaeological News(St. Petersburg) 3: 16-24.
100 Oddi
Shchelinskii,V. E. (1999). Technologiya kamneobrabativayushchevo srednepaleolitich-

proizvodstva
eskoictoyanki norovoI b priazovie.Archeologicheski Almanack(Donetsk)8: 109-128.
Shea,J.J.(1993). Lithicuse-wearevidenceforhunting in theLevantineMiddlePaleolithic.In An-
derson,P.,Beyries,S., Otte,M., and Plisson,H. (eds.), Tracesetfonction:Les gestesretrouvés,
ERAUL, No. 50, Liège,pp. 21-30.
Shott,M. J.(1995). How muchis a scraper?Curation, use rates,andtheformation ofscraperassem-
blages.LithicTechnology 20: 52-72.
A. K. (1992). Rootandtuberresources:
Sievert, Experimental plantprocessingandresultingmicrowear
onchippedstonetools.In Anderson, P. (ed.),Préhistoire de l'agriculture,
Monographie du CRA,
No. 6, Editionsdu CNRS, Paris,pp. 55-66.
Skakun,N. N. (1994). Agricultural implements andtheproblemofspreading ofagriculturein south-
easternEurope.Helinium24: 294-305.
Stapert,D., and Johansen, L. (1999). Flintand pyrite:Makingfirein theStoneAge. Antiquity 73:
765-777.
Tacon,P. S. C. (1991). The powerof stone:Symbolicaspectsof stoneuse and tooldevelopment in
western Arnhem Land,Australia.Antiquity 65: 192-207.
Tankersley,K. B. (1995). Seasonalityof stoneprocurement: An EarlyPaleoindianexamplein north-
western New YorkState.NorthAmericanArchaeologist 6: 1-16.
vanGijn,A. L. (1990). TheWearand TearofFlint:Principles ofFunctional AnalysisAppliedtoDutch
Neolithic Assemblages, AnalectaPraehistorica Leidensia22, Leiden.

Stone Tool Research at The End of The Millenium (Odell, 2001)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Stone Tool Research at The End of The Millenium (Odell, 2001)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Stone Tool Research at the End of the Millennium: Classification, Function, and Behavior

Author(s): George H. Odell

You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

StoneTool Researchat theEnd oftheMillennium:

Thisis thesecondofthetwopapersthatreviewtheliterature ofarchaeological

In a previouspaperinthisjournal,I reviewed developments inthelastdecade

I feelcompelledto startwiththatfavorite archaeological pastime,artifact

Onebattleground forthisissuehasbeenprojectile pointtypesintheAmerican

largerthan,thearchetypal forms,thusrefuting Flenniken andWilke'sargument

Theothermajorbattleground concernsMiddlePaleolithic assemblages, par-

Likewise,Gordon(1993) examineda collectionexcavatedseveralyearsago

Researchers of artifactstyleagreethatthisis a devilishlydifficult quality

The functional analysisofstonetoolshasdevelopedin severaldirections, of

Reviewsof recentuse-wearliterature have been publishedby Olausson

Clearly,themostcompelling issueamonghigh-magnification use-wearprac-

is operable,thenthedistribution ofmicrofeatures at thislocale shouldchangeas

Therecognition ofprehensiletraceshas beenslowin coming.Analystssuch

blindtests(Shea andKlenck,1993),foursetsoftools,utilizedfor20 minapiece,

The fieldof use-wearanalysisis stillnewenoughthatuniqueor unknown

RecentAdvancesin Use-Wear Analysis

Advancesinthisfieldhavebeenmadeon severalfronts. High-magnification

topographicanalysisof flintsurfacesto derivequantitative measuresof bearing

Whenananimalis butchered, someofthebloodfrom thatanimalmaystayon

confirmed in theHb crystallization andDNA tests,andAMS datingof a purified

Despitetheloftyclaimsof itsproponents, however, bloodresidueanalysis

one willeverknowwhich,ifany,oftheseassaysmighthavebeencorrect. Wallis

submitted directlyto a lab foranalysiswithout burial,Leach andMauldin(1995;

Animalbloodis nottheonlysurviving typeofresidueona stonetool.Various

Plantresiduesotherthanstarchgrainson stonetoolshave also been stud-

as phytoliths or starchgrainsare inclinedto considerwhattheysee, notwhatis

Evidencefromstonetools,bothindividually and corporately,can provide

In thelate 1970sandearly1980s,Lewis Binfordpresented hisnow-famous

addition,Kelly's (Kelly,1983) cross-cultural studyindicatedthatthemobility

peoplelivingin theArchaic,EarlyWoodland,andLate Woodlandperiodswere

Oncea satisfactory leveloftoolefficiency hasbeenachievedbya particular

(1993) hasemployed thismodelto contrast latePaleoindiantechnological strate-

Specificsubsistence strategies arenotwellunderstood forremoteperiodsof

provisioned a homebase,thatis, broughtcarcassesbackhome,andwereconse-

Technologyis dependenton theprocurement of resourcesappropriate for

spectra oflithicsubstances. Rawmaterial similarity amongclusters atNoblesPond

Technological organization toderivefromstonetools,butarchae-

are usuallymodified, whereasothersare not.This has been suchan important

Giventhepopularity of theconcept,a smallbutunderstandable backlash,

pattern.Theyalso recycledthesetoolsand stockpiledthemforthefuture. Tool

Oneofthehallmarks ofcomplexsocietyis theemergence ofcraftspecializa-

differencesinlithicproduction amongthem,suggesting thatthefundamental pro-

An important elementofincreasing culturalcomplexity amonglaterprehis-

Columbia(Carlson,1994). Specificartifact formswerealso tradedextensively.

A questionrelatedto craftspecialization involvesthe kindof regimeun-

decentralized (Fedick,1991). On theotherhand,Fedicknotedthatredistribution

Eventuallystonetoolswerereplacedby metalin mostareasof theworld.

The mostdefinitive workon material replacement in theNearEast has been

Theuseofstonetoolsfornonutilitarian purposeshasgenerated animpressive

techniques to linkspecifictoolsto grindstone quarriesin thebasinandwas then

suchas partsofmedicinebundles, charms, orelementsofwitchcraft, discardedin

Languagehas frequently beenenvisioned as a typeof symboling systemre-

A dissentertothisviewis Bednarik( 1995),whoseesthedevelopment ofsym-

The discussionto thispointhas emphasizedtheresultsof archaeological

To emphasizegenderin lithicanalysisis similarto emphasizing ecological

Sassaman(1992) operatedfromsimilarpremises,thatfemaleuse of tools

Designtheoryis a wayof approaching datathat"emphasizesvariouscon-

"Culturaltechnology" is theway in whicha culturalgrouparticulates its

Thusthechaîneopératoire seekstoreveala dynamicsystemfromitsinception to