Bleed-Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory Volume 8 Issue 1 2001 [Doi...

P1: GCQ

Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory [jamt] PP028-292080 December 29, 2000 12:32 Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999

Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, Vol. 8, No. 1, 2001

Trees or Chains, Links or Branches: ConceptualAlternatives for Consideration of Stone ToolProduction and Other Sequential Activities

Peter Bleed1

Archaeologists construct sequence models to describe the operation of past activ-ities such as production of stone tools. As developed in Japan, France, and NorthAmerican, such models summarize processes, present intermediate steps, and linkformally diverse materials. Some sequence models are teleological in that theypresent actions as predetermined patterns. Others can be considered evolutionaryin that they describe results produced by selected interaction between conditionsand variables. With separate strengths and different goals, both approaches tosequence modeling have archaeological utility.

KEY WORDS: technology;chaıne operatoire; stone tools; tool production.

“Very few real classifications of technological actions can be found in the literature.”

Pierre Lemonnier, 1990, p. 49

Archaeologists hold ancient artifacts in interpretive arrangements with a con-ceptual grout of ideas. Some of these ideas have attracted a great deal of attentionand been extensively discussed whereas others have come into common use with-out much notice. This paper considers a group of archaeological constructs ofthe latter type. They can be described as “sequence models,” and they are mostoften used to study how ancient people made and used stone tools. Citing inter-esting ways by which sequence models have been applied and the ways they haveamplified archaeological analysis would show that they have a great deal of archae-ological utility. This paper takes a greater challenge. Its goal is to present generalcharacteristics of sequence models and, furthermore, to show that the way thesemodels are constructed has implications for the theoretical and practical questionsarchaeologists can address with them.

1Department of Anthropology, University of Nebraska–Lincoln, Nebraska.

101

1072-5369/01/0300-0101$19.50/0C© 2001 Plenum Publishing Corporation

P1: GCQ


102 Bleed

Sequence models have distinctive characteristics that make them differentfrom other archaeological constructs. Unlike unit concepts, types, and other de-scriptive categories that archaeologists use to organize observations, sequencemodels deal with the operation of past systems. Sequence models also differ fromother processual models archaeologists have developed to study the functionalrelationships seen in systems such as settlement patterns, seasonal rounds, tradenetworks, or such social patterns as competitive feasts and interaction spheres.Such systemic models treat operations that may have a history although they arenot temporal events in that they are not primarily about change through time.

The models of interest here deal with the operation of activities that progressthrough time. These operations may take no longer than the time needed to makeand use a stone tool, but they have a specific duration with a beginning, an end,and a temporal direction. Sequence models present conceptual summaries of suchactivities by presenting them—often by means of a literal picture—in terms of sub-divisions that show how they started, what intermediate steps they passed through,and how they ultimately ended. These models are very “archaeological” in thatthey deal with historical events, formal diversity of artifacts, and change throughtime. Because these are issues that resonate with archaeological research whereverit is done, it is not surprising that sequence models have been developed and usedin a number of different archaeological traditions.

The ways sequence model have been developed and used by Japanese, French,and Americanist archaeologists show how they can support archaeological inves-tigations. These examples also show that the models can be built in a couple ofdifferent ways. Finally, use of the models in these three areas shows that the wayssequence models are constructed influence the interpretations they can support.

SEQUENCE MODELS IN JAPAN

The classic Japanese use of sequence models has addressed the reductionsequences used by terminal Paleolithic peoples to produce microblades. Japanesearchaeologists have identified a number of different procedures for producing andusing microcores (Imamura, 1996, p. 35) (Fig. 1). Initially, these analyses werebased on extremely perceptive observation of technological attributes of micro-cores (Yoshizaki, 1961). These observations let researchers reconstruct specificstoneworking procedures that could be described, named, and studied as archaeo-logical entities (Kobayashi, 1970; Chibaet al., 1984). In general, such proceduresare called “giho.” Japanese archaeologists have used thegiho concept to studya number of different kinds of lithic technologies beyond microblade production(e.g., Fujiwara, 1984; Yanagizawa, 1984; Yanagida, 1984).

In translation,giho is invariably equated with the English word “technique.” Ina few cases (e.g., Kobayashi, 1984) the English word in transliteration is even used

P1: GCQ


Trees or Chains: Alternatives for Consideration of Sequential Activities 103

Fig. 1. Steps of various gih¯o used to produce microblades in terminal Pleistocene Japan (Katoand Tsurumaru, 1994, p. 59).

P1: GCQ


104 Bleed

in place of the Japanese term.Giho is not defined in major dictionaries of Japanesearchaeology. Even in a recent dictionary of stone tools (Kato and Tsurumaru,1994, p. 56), where it is used repeatedly, the term itself is not defined or separatelyconsidered. Similarly, in volumes devoted to theoretical and technical analysis ofstone tools, and in both Japanese (e.g., Kato and Tsurumaru, 1980, p. 58ff) andEnglish (e.g., Akazawaet al., 1980, pp. 22–23), Japanese researchers have not feltthe need to explain the term. In other words, Japanese archaeologists’ use of theconcept seems essentially informal and commonsensical.

In actual practice, use of thegihoconcept is highly refined. The term is used todescribe a sequence of linked technical actions associated with highly patternedstone reduction sequences. Japanese researchers treat such sequences as structuredbehaviors carried out as routines. This treatment makes them implicitly similar toroutine patterns that are common in Japanese culture. Traditional Japanese martialarts, for example, is taught in terms of formalized behavior sets, calledkata, that arelearned and carried out as routines. Calligraphy is similarly mastered by Japanesestudents, who are taught to form characters by executing sets of strokes in carefullyprescribed order. In practice, Japanese archaeologists act as ifgiho were behaviorpatterns of this type.

Giho reconstructions that were initially based on typological observationshave been subsequently augmented by refitting analyses (Inada, 1988, pp. 140–141) and even later supported by replications (Inada, pp. 99–104). Archaeologicalresearch in other areas may have contributed to these developments, but sequen-tial thinking about artifacts has deep roots in Japan. Notably, Sugao Yamanouchipopularized use of reconstructed cord markings and sequences of cord marking toclassify Jomon ceramics (Yamanouchi, 1960, pp. 218–220).

As recently expressed by Imamura (1996, p. x), Japanese archaeologists tendto be disinterested in markedly theoretical analyses and prefer to stay very closeto their data. This may explain why they have not explicitly addressed theoreticalaspects of sequence modeling. It is also probably why they have found sequencemodels useful fordescribingrelationships between formally dissimilar artifacts.Such descriptive applications of the models have let Japanese researchers go be-yond typology without using theoretical interpretations they would find specu-lative. Japanese archaeologists treat reconstructed processes as characteristics or“markers” of past societies. They tend to focus on the particular distinctive stepthat is the special characteristic of a “technique” and assume that charting thenamed techniques is a way of tracing the broad-human trends of their islands.

This kind of descriptive use of the models has spread from Japan to otherparts of the North Pacific basin (Andrefsky, 1987) and East Asia (Lu, 1998; Seong,1998) where it informs much of the cultural–historical research. Using sequencemodels in this way is essentially “normative,” and like any normative approach, ittends to hide variation within assemblages and similarities between typologically“different” assemblages. Thus, although Japanese archaeologists find it easy to

P1: GCQ



differentiate namedgiho, and to trace their distribution at different sites, they havefound it hard to use the concept to identify similarities between different—evenslightly different—assemblages.

Beyond that, Japanese archaeologists tend not to focus on the temporal vari-ability represented by the steps of their sequential reconstructions. Examining howthe various steps of their reconstructed techniques are distributed in different sitesand different kinds of sites is not a common research activity. In this regard, it isprobably revealing that Japanese archaeologists often present their reconstructionsas a series of horizontally arranged steps. This contrasts with the stratigraphicallypresented vertical flow charts preferred by North American and French archaeol-ogists.

SEQUENCE MODELS IN FRANCE

A conceptual device developed by French archaeologists, thechaıneoperatoireor “operational sequence,” is certainly the most thoroughly discussedapproach to sequence modeling currently being used by archaeologists. In additionto French sources, discussions and applications ofchaıne operatoiremodels havebeen presented in English by several European and American researchers (e.g.,Bar-Yosefet al., 1992; Dobres, 1992; Edmonds, 1990; Julien and Julien, 1994;Lemonnier, 1992; Schlanger, 1994; Sellet, 1993). In conception and application,however,chaıne operatoire remains distinctively French because, as Schlanger(1994) points out, two intersecting French intellectual traditions contributed tothe development of the modernchaıne operatoire approach. The first of thesewas the replicative work of French archaeologists, such as Bordes and Tixier.The second was the interest of many French anthropologists—notably Mauss andLeroi-Gourhan—in cognitive aspects of behavior.

At base, achaıne operatoiredescribes the technological operations that bringa raw material from a natural state to a manufactured one (Lemonnier, 1992, p. 26).Graphic representations ofchaıne operatoirerange from very simple to higly com-plex (Figs. 2 and 3). The concept has been used to describe tool production pat-terns and other specific behaviors, but especially as it has been presented in recentEnglish language sources, the cognitive behaviors associated with technologicaloperations are a special focus ofchaıne operatoire. For example, Bo¨eda (1995,p. 43) says, “Thechaıne operatoire is the totality of technical stages from the ac-quisition of raw materials through to its discard, and includes the various processof transformation and utilization. . .. Each technical stage reflects specific technicalknowledge.” Similarly, Julien and Julien (1994, p. 15) say, “The reconstruction ofcertainchaıne operatoireallows us. . . to rediscover the process involved in tech-niques of production and, beyond that, the conceptual patterns from which theysprang.” At times, the cognitive component of thechaıne operatoireeven comesto outweigh the operational aspects.

P1: GCQ


106 Bleed

Fig. 2. Diagram of a simple operation sequence (chaıneoperatoire) (Lemonnier, 1992, p. 88).

(T)he chaınes operatoiresbehind what we refer to generically as blade production tech-niques represent designs for producing tool blanks that were invented, abandoned, and rein-vented due to a variety of factors, of which their success or failure in the techno-economicsphere is only one (Bar-Yosef and Kuhn, 1999, p. 330).

Use of thechaıne operatoireconcept has encouraged detailed observations ofartifacts and assemblages and certainly has complemented the typological analysesthat have been a hallmark of French archaeology. In addition, the concept has pre-sented ways of transcribing technical processes and in that way has supported clear,easy to grasp analyses of archaeological materials (see Lemonnier, 1992, pp. 25–36). Finally, thechaıne operatoire approach has encouraged archaeologists andothers to explore technological variability not just in prehistoric assemblages butalso in diverse ethnographic and modern materials. This, in turn, has encouragedgeneral, systematic study of technology (Lemonnier, 1992).

chaıne operatoireare about artifact production, use, and repair. Most oftenthey have been constructed to describe how stone tools were made, but they arenot necessarily limited to lithic technology. Knecht (1991, 1992, 1993) has usedthem to study technical, social, and cognitive aspect of antler tools and art objects,and Lemonnier (1986) has shown that they can be applied to other aspects of tech-nology. In all cases, however, they are intended to address thehumanprocessesthat bring artifacts from raw material through production steps and recycling to

P1: GCQ



Fig. 3. Elaboration of a chaıne operatoire as a “technical scheme” for the production ofMagdalenian blades (Julien and Julien, 1994).

a useable form (Vidaleet al., 1992). They are not set up to deal with natural andpostdepositional “transformations” that may ultimately contribute to how artifactsare presented them to the modern researchers. This restriction makes them differ-ent from archaeological concepts such as behavioral chains proposed by Schiffer(1995), which have different conceptual underpinnings and different theoreticalgoals.

Whatever their roots, at least three factors seem to have contributed to thecurrent popularity of thechaıne operatoireapproach. First, like all sequence models

P1: GCQ


108 Bleed

including the Japanese ideas just discussed, the approach offers a concrete way ofgoing beyond descriptive typology to depict relationships between artifacts thatlook different. Second, the fact that the concept has a name and that it has beenthe subject to both theoretical and practical discussion has also served to givechaıne operatoire form and substance that have increased their utility. Finally,the most distinctive feature of thechaıne operatoireapproach is its emphasis onideational aspects of material systems. It has helped archaeologists recognize thatthe patterned activities that can be reconstructed to link prehistoric materials intotechnological sequences must have been informed by cognitive structures. Thisrealization has given concrete reality to discussion of past thought and thoughtprocesses and, thus, madechaıne operatoirepopular with researchers interestedin cognitive and cognitive aspects of technology (Julien and Julien, 1994).

AMERICANIST SEQUENCE MODELS

Sequence models developed by North American archaeologists have similar-ities to Japanese and French constructs as well as peculiarities informed by theirown intellectual roots. Dynamic replicative research brought to American archae-ology by Crabtree (1966) and pursued by many others certainly created an interestin how tools were made and used (see Callahan, 1979; Collins, 1975; Sheets, 1975)(Fig. 4). The processual focus of New Archaeology presented an intellectual con-text within which those interests could flourish. Behavioral archaeologists, ledby Schiffer (1976) (Fig. 5), further encouraged archaeologists to think about theprocesses responsible for archaeological materials. Schiffer (1975) even offeredspecific models of sequential behaviors, notably the idea of “behavioral chains,”which archaeologists could use to address how artifacts progress from production,through use, to deposition in the archaeological record. Given the broad interest inreplication studies and experimental archaeology, as well as the general material-ist bias of American processual archaeologists, it is not surprising that technologyand material systems have tended to be the special focus of Americanist sequencemodels.

The most commonly used sequence models among Americanist archaeol-ogists are those that schematically present stages in the production of artifacts.In fact, this type of model has very early roots. Holmes’ arrangement of bifaces(Holmes, 1893) in a logical sequence that led from “quarry blank” to “finishedtool” reflected an understanding of stone-working processes from the earliest phaseof North American archaeological research (Fig. 6). In spite of this early start, theimplications of looking at artifact production in sequential terms settled in amongAmerican researchers only after replication of stone tools became a common pro-fessional undertaking.

Most often, Americanist production stage models use arrangement of sche-matic drawings to summarize the steps that marked the creation of specific artifacts

P1: GCQ



Fig. 4. Dendrogram (flow chart) representing the structure of the pre-Columbian chipped-stoneindustry at Chalchuapa, El Salvador (Sheets, 1975).

(Figs. 7 and 8). Most of these models have dealt with either the production(Andrefsky, 1998, pp. 156ff, 180–188; Bradley, 1978; Frison and Bradley, 1980;Morrow, 1995; Neeley and Barton, 1994) or use history (Ahler, 1971; Dibble,1984, 1987, 1995; Goodyear, 1974; Hoffman, 1985) of stone tools. The same es-sential approach has also been applied to production of antler (MacGregor, 1985)and bone artifacts (Bleed, 1991).

Computer simulation of archaeological systems represents another activitythat has encouraged archaeologists to think about the sequential development oftheir data. Most of these simulations have addressed either site (O’Shea, 1978)or assemblage (Aldendorfer, 1981, 1991) formation. Bleed (1996) showed thateven without computer-based manipulations, sequential operations research mod-els, which lie behind such simulations, can support quantitative and qualitative(Bleed and Watson, 1991) analysis of technological systems responsible for arti-fact production and use (see also Spratt, 1982, 1989).

Americanist sequence models have a couple of distinctive characteristics.First, unlike the Japanese case, truly detailed observation of artifacts including re-ally detailed typology has tended to follow rather than precede replication. Folsompoint typology, for example, has flourishedsinceCrabtree’s initial attempts atreplication. Another, and perhaps more interesting, typological development ofAmerican sequence modeling is the common use of typological categories that are

P1: GCQ


110 Bleed

Fig

.5.

Flo

wm

odel

for

preh

isto

ricch

ippe

dst

one

ifth

eC

ache

Riv

erB

asin

,Ark

ansa

s(S

chiff

er,1

976,

p.48

).

P1: GCQ



Fig

.6.

Hol

mes

’rep

rese

ntat

ion

ofth

efli

ntw

orki

ngpr

oces

s(H

olm

es,1

893)

pres

ente

das

“the

elab

orat

ion

ofch

ippe

d-st

one

impl

emen

ts”

inM

ason

(189

5,p.

124f

f).

P1: GCQ


112 Bleed

Fig. 7. Schematic diagram of reduction trajectory for a cobble reduced to a bifacial core, illustratingflake blanks removed and potential flake tools produced (Andrefsky, 1998, p. 157).

P1: GCQ



Fig. 8. Fluted point manufacturing sequence model based on the Ready site (Illinois), 11JY46(Morrow, 1997).

P1: GCQ


114 Bleed

based on sequential thinking. Many researchers, for example, address tool use andproduction without formally defining a production sequence or presenting a spe-cific sequence model. Instead, their analyses are based on manipulation of artifactcategories that, at least implicitly, reflect different production stages. Thus, it iscommon in contemporary technical reports and museum catalogs to see artifactsdescribes as “blanks” and “preforms.” In other cases, categories that are essen-tially typological variations are described with terms such as “pathways” (Closeand Sampson, 1998) to suggest that they result from different technical processes.The sequences being addressed in these instances may be too general or too in-completely understood to be specifically modeled. Sometimes they need not beelaborated to address the topic under discussion. In any case, the facility withwhich American archaeologists now consider production processes as sequencesis a measure of the degree to which sequential thinking has become an intuitivepart of Americanist archaeological thought.

Secondly, although the cultural–historical significance of distinctive reductiontechniques has been recognized by American archaeologists (Flenniken, 1985),with it roots in the New Archaeology, most American sequence modeling hasbeen materialistic in emphasis and explicitly theoretical in application. It has alsomatched well with interests in ecology and settlement patterns. Processual andbehavioral interests of many North American archaeologists have encouragedthem to focus on the temporal ranges inherent to sequence models. As noted earlier,this has encouraged study of how the sequential steps of modeled activities are dis-tributed across different sites (see Nelson, 1991). Sequence models have also beenapparent, at least implicitly, in archaeological discussions of risk (Bamforth, 1986;Bamforth and Bleed, 1997; Myers, 1989; Torrence, 1989), cost (Bleed, 1996), de-sign (Winfrey, 1990), and efficiency (Jeske, 1992) in past technological systems(Fig. 9).

APPLICATIONS OF SEQUENCE MODELS

Although sequence models used by archaeologists in Japan, France, andAmerica appear to have developed independently, they have been used in sim-ilar ways that point out some of their general applications to archaeological re-search. First, sequence models seem to encourage close examination of individualartifacts. They also appear to have encouraged integrative consideration of arti-fact assemblages because they have a straightforward, even intuitive, descriptivequality that transcends morphological typology. Finally, some kind of middle-rangeresearch, usually involving experimentation and replication, seems to be consis-tently associated with these models. At least, the process of replication verifiestheir practicability and gives them graphic representation, which is a major wayof presenting them (e.g., Crabtree, 1966; Flenniken, 1978; Pike-Tay and Knecht,1993).

P1: GCQ



Fig. 9. Presentation of the process of microblade production at the Araya site as an event tree(Bleed, 1996).

Beyond these general applications, archaeological uses of sequence modelshave consistently focused on three issues: typology and classification, cognition,and the organization of activity.

As explained above, sequence models have offered archaeologists a way oftranscending typological classification by showing procedural links between ap-parently different categories of objects. Some archaeologists have taken sequentialanalysis another step and used it to assess typological categories. In a series of ar-ticles Dibble (1984, 1987, 1995) has developed the proposition that “types” ofMiddle Paleolithic scrapers are best understood not as discrete emic categoriesbut rather as stages in the tools’ use-history that includes resharpening and reuse(Figs. 10 and 11). He has supported this interpretation with reasoned discussionof archaeological and ethnographic materials and with graphic presentation thatdemonstrate technological similarities between typologically distinct categories.

Several North American archaeologists have also developed sequence modelsof artifact use-history to clarify the typological variation of stone tools. Notablein this regard was Goodyear’s arrangement of Dalton points from Arkansas in alogical but compelling sequence from preform to exhausted discard. This presen-tation largely “explained” the relationships in the “Dalton” and “McKean” points

P1: GCQ


116 Bleed

Fig. 10. Stages in the continuous reduction of a scraper showing changes in shape, retouch, and edgeangle (Dibble, 1987).

P1: GCQ



Fig. 11. A model of changes in end scraper morphology with progressing resharpening (Morrow,1997).

(Goodyear, 1974). Using similar logic with more specific quantitative observa-tions, Hoffman (1985) showed that a series of different, named projectile-pointtypes from the Southeast form a continuum that seemed best interpreted as the re-sult of continuous resharpening of at most a couple of types of bifaces. In a similarvein, Flenniken and Raymond (1986) used a replication experiment to argue thatsupposedly “time-sensitive” shapes of Great Basin point may reflect nothing morethan changes of normal use-life.

In addition to clarification of use-history, sequence models have augmentedtypological studies by explaining the production steps involved in the manufactureof tools. Used in this way the models present a way of relating formally diversematerials to a single process. They also move typological concerns from objectsto processes. Thus, as noted above, Japanese researchers have found it useful totrace the distributions of different microblade techniques. Similarly, Morrow’sreconstructed manufacturing sequence for midcontinental Clovis points (Fig. 8)indicates that their formal similarities to points from other areas are in fact theresult of rather distinctive manufacturing patterns (Morrow, 1995).

Archaeologists interested in the intellectual behavior of past people have beenattracted to sequence models because they can isolate very regular performancepatterns. Such patterns are easy to interpret as cognitive entities (Schlanger, 1994),

P1: GCQ


118 Bleed

especially given theoretical perspectives that privilege mental phenomena. For thisreason, it is not surprising thatchaıne operatoire methodology, with its roots inFrench cognitive anthropology, takes a special interest in the cognitive basis ofpast technological activities. Bradley’s interpretation of PaleoIndian projectile-point production (Bradley, 1982) shows, however, that issues of cognition andmeaning can arise from sequential analysis outside thechaıne operatoiretradition.In any case, the cognitive bias ofchaıne operatoire approach is not an intrinsicrequirement of all sequence models. As noted, for example, Dibble (1995) usesa sequential approach specifically to call into question supposed “emic” basis oftypological categories (see also Shott, 1996).

To further demonstrate that sequence models do not carry an intrinsicallycognitive bias, one need simply point out that they have been used by a number ofAmericanist processual archaeologists interested in the organization of past cul-tural systems. At base, organizational research builds on ideas presented by Binford(1979) and developed by Nelson (1991). It aims at understanding how people usedseasonal resources and moved across the environment. Sequence models and se-quential approaches to the study of technological systems are central to thesestudies because they are a primary means of assessing what kinds of activitieswere carried out at different kinds of sites. Most often this kind of research hasdealt with the production and use of stone tools such as bifaces (Kelly, 1988) orunifacial scrapers (Morrow, 1997), but site function and mobility patterns havebeen shown to be reflected in faunal assemblages (Gifford-Gonzalez, 1993).

SEQUENCE MODELS AND TECHNOLOGY

Wherever they have been used, sequence models originated and have beenmost often used to consider the production and use of stone tools. The linkagebetween sequence models and lithic technology is so apparent that it deserves tobe considered in detail. It also makes it necessary to ask if sequence modeling hasutility for the consideration of other kinds of technological endeavors.

The utility of sequence models for the study of lithic technology is certainlyapparent. As an irreversible, reductive process that involves a series of inherentlystructured steps, stone-tool making is essentially sequential and precisely the sortof activity that is easy to present and analyze with a sequence model. Technologiessuch as pottery making, fiber production, or woodworking are less inherentlyreductive than making stone tools and would be harder to understand strictly fromthe debris they create.

Beyond this inherent structure, the steps of stone-tool production createresidues that survive well in the archaeological record. In addition to enablinglithic analysts to study tool-making processes, the durability of lithic debitagemay have positively encouraged that interest. In fact, because the bulk of mostlithic assemblages consists of production debris, it would have been hard for lithic

P1: GCQ



specialists to avoid dealing with the sequential aspects of stone tool production.Thus, the success lithic analysts have had using sequence models may say lessabout the linkage between the stone tools and sequence models than it does abouthow lithic technology presents itself in the archaeological record.

Differences in production debris have certainly contributed to the differentkinds of analytical issues that mark the study of different artifact categories. Ce-ramicists have, for example, tended to study pottery with taxonomic approachesand focused on social or cultural patterns rather than technological processes. Thismay well be due to the lack of production debris in the archaeological record.Interestingly, though, ethnoarchaeologcial studies of ceramics have regularly usedflow charts and other sequence models to describe the activities, decisions, andchoices of traditional potters (e.g., Arnold, 1984; Hardin, 1977; Krause, 1985).

Beyond its durability and bulk, lithic debitage has proved rather easy forarchaeologists to analyze. The experiments and replications needed to interpretstone debitage as production debris have been within the easy reach of individualarchaeologist. This has certainly contributed to the popularity of lithic studies andthe progress that has been made in understanding lithic technology. By contrast,analyses necessary to understand production residues of metal working are muchmore complicated so that those processes remain more problematical (Lechtman,1996). Significantly, once again, analysts who have studied metal working in cog-nitive (Keller and Keller, 1996) or historical terms have found a sequence approachuseful. In fact, archaeologists have used sequence analyses to study many kinds oftechnology, including architecture (Cameron, 1991), cuisine (Ellis, 1997), butcher-ing (Gifford-Gonzalez, 1993), bone-tool production (Bleed, 1991), and hunting(Bleed, 1991) (Fig. 12).

These examples give clear indication that in addition to offering a power-ful means of summarizing and analyzing reductive activities such as stone-toolmaking, sequence modelscanbe applied to other technological processes. Non-stone tool applications might reflect the growing popularity of sequence modelsor they may simply indicate that sequence models are well suited for the sum-mary of historical events and processes. Perhaps archaeologists will find ways ofusing sequence models to study other kinds of historical processes and activitiesas Renfrew and Bahn (1996, p. 26) have to describe the history of evolutionarythought within archaeology. The vast majority of archaeological applications ofsequence models have, however, dealt with material culture and technology. Thisfact may be worth savoring. Obviously, material systems constitute much of whatarchaeologists deal with, but the link between sequence models and technologymay be deeper than that. The sphere of human endeavor we call technology maywell involves activities that are more intrinsically sequential than social, intellec-tual, or ideological behaviors (see Burke and Ornstein, 1997). Recognizing thismay be an important step in understanding technology and developing an explicitsocial scientific approach to its study.

P1: GCQ


120 Bleed

Fig. 12. Nuunamiut reindeer hunting presented as an event tree (Bleed, 1991).

THEORETICAL APPROACHES TO SEQUENCE MODELING

At base, all sequence models treat a series of events. In building sequencemodels, however, archaeologists have taken two very different approaches forconceiving and linking these events. To be sure, these alternative approaches areabstractions, but they determine the theoretical and interpretive power the modelshave within archaeological research.

Some archaeologists have presented their sequence models as a series ofactions linked in somepredetermined pattern. This perspective is apparent whenit is suggested that an artifact is the way it is because it follows a “template” (Deetz,1967, p. 43ff) or some other “essential” part of the process of production (O’Brienand Holland, 1992, 1995). It is expressed in statements like the following: “Atthis point, a platform was prepared for the removal of a channel flake from theface that had just been prepared by specialized pressure thining/shaping” (Frisonand Bradley, 1980, p. 47). “This series of steps leaves the flute platform directlyin line with the preform face to be fluted” (Flenniken, 1978, p. 475). “(F)requentresharpening of Reveille phase points. . . suggests that the resharpening. . . was aregular aspect of projectile-point use” (Kelly, 1988, p. 730).

The alternative point of view is presented by archaeologists who treat thesteps that make up their models as a series ofreactions to situations. “Retouchon projectile points or knives was not stylized when thin flake blanks were used,but extremely well controlled parallel-collateral pressure flaking apparently was

P1: GCQ



used to finish points made on thicker, larger flake blanks”(Knudson, 1973, p. viii).“Given that reduction processes are influenced by the type of sources exploited andthe quality of the raw material. . . ” (Pearson, 1998, p. 85). “(T)he working edgeconvexity should decrease as the end scraper is resharpened toward the haft end,which inhibits the creation of a rounded working edge” (Morrow, 1997, p. 77).

The first of these alternatives, treating a sequence as set of internally deter-mined actions that follow one from another and lead to a predetermined goal,can appropriately be called “teleological models.” Models that emphasize the sit-uational qualities of their component steps can be called “evolutionary models”because they describe results that are produced by selected interaction betweenconditions and variables.

Teleological models emphasize results. In these, the relationships betweensteps is forward looking rather than responsive to situational constraints. Becausethey are most often built around marked patterns and strong uniformity, teleologicalmodels tend to be linear. Evolutionary models, on the other hand, are situational.They emphasize the context of actions and the diversity that can exist within asystem and, therefore, are often form a dendritic pattern of branching options.As teleological models are cognitive, evolutionary models are practical, lookingat what artifact makers actually did and at the actions that were actually taken.Teleological models, by contrast, consider the objects that resulted from the pro-cess that was followed. Finally, because they are composed of distinctive actions,decisions, and choices, evolutionary models consider sequences as a subdividedseries of separate steps. The teleological alternative is to consider technologicalactivities as a continuous process made up of activities that blend seamlessly to-gether (Shott, 1996). Teleological models point us toward ideal patterns and theemic study of cultural systems whereas evolutionary models help us understandreal behavior from a perspective that would have to be called etic.

The distinction between evolutionary and teleological models is not a sim-ple one. Rarely do researchers make distinctions that are precisely specific, andsometimes both perspectives are evidenced in the same analysis. Certainly, the twoapproaches do not conform simply to any models described earlier. The cognitivebasis of thechaıne operatoire, for example, carries with it an assumption of an un-derlying plan that informs the overall process. This means that individual steps aswell as entire processes are carried out according to a “plan.” In applying thechaıneoperatoireapproach, however, some analysts have used them to address situationalvariability in technological systems. Lemonnier (1992, pp. 35–36) emphasized thepossibility for diversity and variability within chaine operatiore. Similarly, Bar-Yosef (Bar-Yosefet al., 1992) demonstrates an evolutionary approach by usingthe chaıne operatoire model to evaluate “choices” made by Middle Paleolithicoccupants of Mt. Carmel.

On the other hand, researchers who use sequence models to address processualand behavioral issues, such as the organization of technology or landscape use, mayin fact adopt a teleological approach to their presentation of technical sequences.

P1: GCQ


122 Bleed

This is the case, for example, when analysts simply lay out the steps that made upa production or use sequence or use their models for nothing more than describingwhich steps were practiced at a site.

Evaluating the alternative kinds of sequence models is not easy because theyhave separate and different strengths. Simple experience indicates that there areactivities, some kinds of simple production sequences, for example, that operateas a series of predetermined steps. There are products that are planned outcomesof preordained sequences. Likewise, it is inconceivable that patterned actions oftechnology—even those that seem essentially ad hoc and responsive to immediateconditions—can proceed without some kind of “plan” even if that plan is nothingmore than a vocabulary of known alternatives. The basis of both highly structuredactivities and those that do not follow lock-stepped plans deserve archaeologicalattention. Sequence models that help to understand the underlying bases of humanactivities would be very useful. The challenge to such models is, of course, findingways of constructing and using them without a priori assumptions about cognition,“design,” or any other mental variables. Given the importance of middle-rangeresearch in the development of other sequence models, archaeologists interestedin realizing the teleological potential of sequence models would do well to findways of identifying archaeological correlates of the mental links that must exist toinform sequences. These studies would be comparable to replication studies, butI must admit I think they would be far harder to design.

Evolutionary models carry different potentials and other challenges. Carefullyconstructed sequence models would be very powerful tools for applying Darwinianprinciples to archaeological material for two reasons. Firstly, models of this typecould present the behavioral variability encompassed within past technologicalprocesses. Such models would, secondly, offer a means of studying the adaptivedevelopments of archaeological patterns by showing contexts within which differ-ing options were selected. The first challenge in creating evolutionary models ofthis type is assessing the diversity that existed within the systems we study. Withthis information, the challenge shifts to understanding the context within whichspecific variations were differentially applied. Doing this would have to be a way ofaddressing long-term patterns of survival and change in the archaeological record.

CONCLUSIONS

Sequence models are conceptual devices, but for archaeologists they have agreat deal of practical utility. First, they directly address topics of archaeologicalmoment—artifact diversity, change through time, and historical events. Second,because they deal with the operation of activities, they offer a specific means ofaddressing the static things of the archaeological record in dynamic terms. Finally,they offer a conceptual basis for linking apparently diverse objects into patterns thatcan themselves be studied in behavioral, cultural, or cognitive terms. Recognizing

P1: GCQ



the utility of sequence models will help them to be applied more regularly andeffectively, but refining sequence models to realize their utility may not be easy.

Sequence models have sprung up in several different quarters of our disciplineand grown without plan. For these reasons they have developed no more than infor-mal methodologies and ad hoc procedures. Archaeological sequence models havefew rules and no established methods. Steps that will make sequence models moreconcrete, rigorous, and tangible will make them more accessible to researchers bymaking them easier to learn, grasp, and use. Methodological refinements will alsomake sequence models more effective research tools by making them easier torefine and evaluate. At this point it is not clear what makes onechaıne operatoirebetter than another or how archaeologists might evaluate production sequencesproposed for Clovis points, end scrapers, or microblade cores.

Archaeologists interested in refining sequence models might do well to ex-amine techniques developed by managers, engineers and designers. Without beingspecifically interesting in historical issues, workers in these areas have developedsystemic techniques for presenting relationships between sequential activities (e.g.,Davis, 1983). The logic and conventions of engineering and management model-ing might prove very useful to archaeologists. Even if archaeologists find practicalutility in the conventions developed by system analysts, anthropological under-standing of technological activities will have to remain the focus of archaeologicalinvestigations. The theoretical perspective a researcher brings to an analysis, aswell as their research questions, will influence how models are constructed andinterpreted.

If teleological and evolutionary models have different strengths,both haveroles in modern archaeological research. Certainly, neither is right nor wrong. Tele-ological models emphasize systematic arrangements of action. They can exposecognitive order, customary actions, and other variables of cultural behavior suchas social agency. Where such models help us understand behavioral patterns in thearchaeological record, evolutionary models emphasize diversity of technologicalaction. They do this by documenting actual performance and clarifying reactionsto situations. The strength of both of these kinds of models lies in their power tolead archaeologists to new insights and stronger interpretations.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

A version of this paper was presented at the 1998 Annual Meeting of theSociety for American Archaeology in a session chaired by Erik Kaldahl who,along with Barbara Luedtke, offered useful comments. Prof. Takashi Sutoh, ShohYamada, and Tadashi Mizusaki helped me find and understand Japanese sources.LuAnn Wandsnider and Alan Osborn read draft versions of the paper and madesuggestions that improved both the content and presentation. S. Parks drafted thefigure shown in Fig. 9. I wish to especially acknowledge and thank Marcia-Anne

P1: GCQ


124 Bleed

Dobres for the thoughtful scrutiny she gave to draft versions of this paper. Inthanking these colleagues I must also, of course, absolve them for failings thatremain in the paper.

REFERENCES CITED

Ahler, S. (1971). Projectile form and function at the Rogers Rock Shelter, Missouri.Missouri Archae-ological Society Research Series No. 8, Missouri Archaeological Society, Columbia.

Akazawa, T., Oda, S., and Yamanaka, I. (1980).The Japanese paleolithic: A techno-typological study.Rippu Shobo, Tokyo.

Aldenderfer, M. (1981). Creating assemblages by computer simulation: The development and uses ofABSIM. In Sabloff, J. (ed.),Simulations in Archaeology, School for American Research SeminarSeries, Santa Fe, pp. 67–117.

Aldenderfer, M. (1991). The analytical engine: Computer simulation and archaeological research, InSchiffer, M. B. (ed.),Archaeological Method and Theory, Vol. 3, University of Arizona Press,Tucson, pp. 195–248.

Andrefsky, W. (1998).Lithics: Macroscopic Approaches to Analysis. Cambridge University Press,Cambridge.

Andrefsky, W. (1987). Diffusion and innovation from the perspective of wedge-shaped cores in Alaskaand Japan. In Johnson, J. and Morrow, C. (eds.),The Organization of Core Technology. WestviewPress, Boulder, pp. 13–44.

Arnold, D. E. (1984). Social interaction and ceramic design: Community-wide correlations in Quinua,Peru. In Rice, P. (ed.),Pots and Potters: Current approaches in ceramic Archaeology, MonographXXIV Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles, pp. 133–161.

Bamforth, D. B. (1986). Technological efficiency and tool curation.American Antiquity51: 38–50.

Bamforth, D. B., and Bleed, P. (1997). Technology, flaked stone technology, and risk. In Barton, C. M.,and Clark, G. A. (eds.),Rediscovering Darwin: Evolutionary Theory in Archaeology, Archaeo-logical Papers of the American Anthropological Association, No. 7, American AnthropologicalAssociation, Washington, pp. 109–140.

Bar-Yosef, O., and Kuhn, S. (1999). The big deal about blades: Laminar technologies and humanevolution.American Anthropologist101(2): 322–338.

Bar-Yosef, O., Vandermeersch, B., Arensburg, B., Belfer-Cohen, A., Goldberg, P., Laville, H., Meignen,L., Rak, Y., Speth, J. D., Tchernov, E., Tillier, A-M., and Weiner, S. (1992). Excavations at Kebara,Mt. Carmel.Current Anthropology33: 497–550.

Binford, L. (1979). Organization and formation process: Looking at curated technologies.Journal ofAnthropological Research35: 255–273.

Bleed, P. (1991). Operations research and archaeology.American Antiquity56: 19–35.Bleed, P. (1996). Risk and cost in Japanese microcore technology.Lithic Technology21: 95–107.Bleed, P., and Watson, D. (1991). Frontier flintlocks: A fault-tree analysis of firearm use at contact

period sites on the Great Plains.Great Plains Research1: 233–258.Boeda, E. (1995). Levallois: A volumetric construction, methods, a technique. In Dibble, H., and

Bar-Yosef, O. (eds.),The Definition and Interpretation of Levallois Technology, Prehistory Press,Madison, pp. 41–68.

Bradley, B. (1978). Comments on the lithics of the Casper site materials. In Frison, G. (ed.),The CasperSite, Academic Press, New York, pp. 191–189.

Bradley, B. (1982). Flaked stone technology and typology. In Frison, G., and Stanford, D. (eds.),The Agate Basin Site: A Record of the Paleo-Indian Occupation of the Northwest High Plains,Academic Press, New York, pp. 181–208.

Burke, J., and Ornstein, R. (1997).The Axemaker’s Gift, Tarcher/Putnam, New York.Callahan, E. (1979). The basics of biface knapping in the Eastern Fluted Point tradition: A manual for

flintknappers and lithic analysts.Archaeology of Eastern North America7: 1–180.Cameron, C. M. (1991). Structure abandonment in villages.Archaeological Method and Theory3:

155–194.

P1: GCQ



Chiba, E., Yoshizaki, M., and Yokoyama, E. (1984). Y¯ubetsu gih¯o (The Yubetsu Technique).KokogakuJyanaru229:16–21.

Close, A. E., and Sampson, G. (1998). Recent backed microlith production in central South Africa.Lithic Technology23: 5–19.

Collins, M. (1975). Lithic technology as a means of processual inference. In Swanson E. (ed.),LithicTechnology: Making and Using Stone Tools, Mouton, The Hague, pp. 15–34.

Crabtree, D. E. (1966). A stoneworker’s approach to analyzing and replicating the Lindenmeier Folsom.Tebiwa9: 3–39.

Davis, W. S. (1983).Tools and Techniques for Structured Systems Analysis and Design, Addison-Wesley, New York.

Deetz, J. (1967).Invitation to Archaeology, The Natural History Press, New York.Dibble, H. (1984). Interpreting typological variation in Middle Paleolithic scrapers: Function, style, or

sequence reduction?Journal of Field Archaeology11: 431–436.Dibble, H. (1987). The interpretation of Middle Paleolithic scraper morphology.American Antiquity

52: 109–117.Dibble, H. (1995). Middle Paleolithic scraper reduction: Background, clarification, and review of the

evidence to date.Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory2: 299–368.Dobres, M.A. (1992). Reconsidering venus figurines: A feminist inspired re-analysis. In Goldsmith,

A., Garvie, S., Selin, D., and Smith, J. (eds.),Ancient Images, Ancient Thought: The Archaeologyof Ideology. Proceedings, Chacmool Annual Conference, No. 23, University of Calgary, Calgary,pp. 245–262.

Edmonds, M. (1990). Description, understanding and thechaıne operatoire. Archaeological Reviewfrom Cambridge9: 55–70.

Ellis, Linda Wootan (1997). Hot Rock Technology. In Black, S. L., Ellis, L., Creel, D., and Goode, G.(eds.),Hot Rock Cooking on the Greater Edwards Plateau: Four Burned Rock Midden Sites inWest Central Texas, Texas Archeological Research Laboratory, The University of Texas at Austin,Texas Department of Transportation, Environmental Affairs Department, Archeological StudiesProgram, Studies in Archeology 22. pp. 43–81.

Flenniken, J. (1978). Reevaluation of the Lindenmeier Folsom: A replication experiment in lithictechnology.American Antiquity43: 473–480.

Flenniken, J. (1985). Stone tools reduction techniques as cultural markers. In Plew, M. G., Woods, J. C.,and Pavesic, M. G. (eds.),Stone Tool Analysis: Essays in Honor of Don. E. Crabtree, Universityof New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, pp. 265–276.

Flenniken, J., and Raymond, A. (1986). Replication experimentation and technological Analysis.Amer-ican Antiquity33: 149–155.

Frison, G., and Bradley, B. (1980).Folsom Tools and Technology at the Hanson Site, University ofNew Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

Fujiwara, H. (1984). Komegamori gih¯o (The Komegamori technique).Kokogaku Jyanaru229:30–33.Gifford-Gonzalez, D. (1993). Gaps in the zooarchaeologcial analysis of butchery: Is gender an issue.

In Hudson, J. (ed.),From Bones to Behavior, Occasional Paper No. 21, Center for ArchaeologicalResearch Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, pp. 181–200.

Goodyear, A. (1974).The Brand Site: A Techno-Functional Study of A Dalton Site in NortheastArkansas, Arkansas Archaeological Survey No. 7, Fayetteville.

Hardin, M. A. (1977). Individual styles in San Jose pottery painting: The role of deliberate choice.In Hill, J. N., and Gunn, J. (eds.),The Individual in Prehistory, Academic Press, New York,pp. 109–136.

Hoffman, C. M. (1985). Projectile point maintenance and typology: Assessment with factor analysisand canonical correlation. In Carr, C. (ed.),For Concordance in Archaeological Analysis, WestportPublisher, Kansas City, pp. 566–612.

Holmes, W. H. (1893). Distribution of stone implements in the tide-water country.American Anthro-pologist6: 1–14.

Inada, T. (1988).Kyusekkijin no Seikatsu to- Shudan (Life and Communities of Paleolithic People).Kodansha, Tokyo.

Imamura, K. (1996).Prehistoric Japan: New Perspectives on Insular East Asia. University of Hawai’iPress, Honolulu.

Jeske, R. J. (1992). Energetic efficiency and lithic technology: An Upper Mississippian example.American Antiquity57: 467–481.

P1: GCQ


126 Bleed

Julien, C. K., and Julien, M. (1994). Prehistoric technology: A cognitive science? In Renfrew, C., andZubrow, E. (eds.),The Ancient Mind, Elements of Cognitive Archaeology, Cambridge UniversityPress, Cambridge, pp.152–163.

Kato, S., and Tsurumaru, T. (1980).Sekki no Kiso Chishiki I Sendoki [jo] (Fundamentals of StoneTools(I ). Kashiwa Shob¯o, Tokyo.

Kato, S., and Tsurumaru, T. (1994).Sekki Nyumon Jiten (An Introductory Dictionary of Stone Tools),Kashiwa Shob¯o, Tokyo.

Keller, C. M., and Keller, J. D. (1996).Cognition and tool use: The blacksmith at work. CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge.

Kelly, R. (1988). Three sides of a biface.American Antiquity53: 717–734.Knecht, H. (1991). The role of innovation in changing early Upper Paleolithic organic projectile

technologies.Techniques et Culture17(8): 115–144.Knecht, H. (1992). Splits and wedges: The techniques and technology of early Aurignacian antler

working. In Knecht, H., Pike-Tay, A., and White, R. (eds.),Before Lascaux: The Complex Recordof the Early Upper Paleolithic, CRC Press, Raton Rouge, pp. 137–162.

Knecht, H. (1993). Early Upper Paleolithic approaches to bone and antler projectile technology. InLarsen, G., Bricker, H., and Mellars, P. (eds.),Hunting and Animal Exploitation in Later Paleolithicand Mesolithic Eurasia, Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Associations,American Anthropological Association, Washington, pp. 33–47.

Knudsen, R. (1972).Organizational variables in late paleoindian assemblages.Unpublished Ph.D.dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Washington State University, Pullman.

Kobayashi, H. (1984). Baiporaa tekunikku (The Bipolar Technique).Kokogaku Jyanaru229:2–6.Kobayashi, T. (1970). Microblade industries in the Japanese archipelago.Arctic Anthropology7: 38–58.Krause, R. A. (1985).The Clay Sleeps, an Ethnoarchaeologcial Study of Three African Potters, The

University of Alabama Press, AL.Lechtman, H. (1996). Arsenic bronze: Dirty copper of chosen allow? A view from the Americas,

Journal of field Archaeology23: 477–517.Lemonnier, P. (1986). The study of material culture today: Toward an anthropology of technical systems.

Journal of Anthropological Archaeology5: 147–186.Lemonnier, P. (1992). Elements for an anthropology of technology.Anthropological Papers of the

Museum of Anthropology, No. 88,University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.Lu, L. D. (1998). The Microblade tradition in china: Regional chronologies and significance in the

transition to the neolithic.Asian Perspectives37: 84–112.MacGregor, A. (1985).Bone, Antler, Ivory, and Horn: The Technology of Skeletal Materials Since the

Roman Period, Barnes and Noble, New Jersey.Mason, O. (1895/1966).The Origins of Invention, Scott, London, reprinted by M. I. T. Press, Cambridge.Morrow, J. (1995). Clovis projectile point manufacture: A perspective from the Ready/Lincoln Hills

site,11JY46, Jersey County, Illinois MCJA:Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology20: 167–191.Morrow, J. (1997). End scraper morphology and use-life: An approach for studying Paleoindian lithic

technology and mobility.Lithic Technology22: 70–85.Myers, A. (1989). Reliable and maintainable technological strategies in the Mesolithic of main-

land Britain. In Torrence, R. (ed.),Time, Energy, and Stone Tools, Cambridge University Press,Cambridge, pp. 78–91.

Neeley, M., and Barton, C. (1994). A new approach to interpreting late Pleistocene microlithic industriesin southwest Asia.Antiquity68: 275–288.

Nelson, M. (1991). The study of technological organization.Archaeological Method and Theory3:57–100.

O’Brien, M., and Holland, T. D. (1992) The role of adaptation in archaeological explanation.AmericanAntiquity57: 36–59.

O’Brien, M., and Holland, T. D. (1995). Behavioral archaeology and the extended phenotype, In Skibo,J. M., Walker, W. H., and Nielsen, A. E. (eds.),Expanding Archaeology, University of Utah Press,Salt Lake City, pp. 143–161.

O’Shea, J. (1978). A simulation of Pawnee site development. In Hodder, I. (ed.),Simulation Studies inArchaeology, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 39–46.

Pearson, G. A. (1998). Reduction strategy for secondary sources lithic raw materials at Guardia(Turrialba), 9-FG-T, Costa Rica.Current Research on the Pleistocene15: 84–86.

P1: GCQ



Pike-Tay, A., and Knecht, H. (1993). Uncovering technological, organization, and seasonal strategiesof Paleolithic hunting. In Hudson, J. (ed.),From Bones to Behavior, Occasional Paper No. 21,Center for Archaeological Research Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, pp. 62–81.

Renfrew, C., and Bahn, P. (1996).Archaeology: Theories, Method, and Practice, Thames and Hudson,New York.

Schiffer, M. B. (1975). Behavioral chain analysis: Activities, organization, and the use of space.Fiel-diana Anthropology65: 103–119.

Schiffer, M. B. (1976).Behavioral Archaeology, Academic Press, New York.Schiffer, M. B. (1995).Behavioral Archaeology: First Principles, University of Utah Press, Salt Lake

City.Schlanger, N. (1994). Mindful technology: Unleashing thechaıne operatoire for an archaeology of

the mind. In Renfrew, C., and Zubrow, E. B. (eds.),The Ancient Mind: Elements of CognitiveArchaeology, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 143–151.

Seong, C. (1998). Microblade technology in Korea and adjacent northeast Asia.Asian Perspectives37: 245–278.

Sellet, F. (1993).chaıne operatoire: The concept and its applications.Lithic Technology8: 106–22.Sheets, P. (1975). Behavioral analysis and the structure of a prehistoric industry.Current Anthropology

16: 369–391.Shott, M. J. (1996). Stage versus continuum in the debris assemblages from production of a fluted

biface.Lithic Technology21: 6–22.Spratt, D. A. (1989). Innovation theory made plain. In van der Leeuw, S. E., and Torrence, R. (eds.),

What’s New?Unwin, London, pp. 245–257.Spratt, D. A. (1982). The analysis of innovation process.Journal of Archaeological Science9: 79–84.Torrence, R. (1989). Retooling: Toward a behavioral theory of stone tools. In Torrence, R. (ed.),Time,

Energy, and Stone Tools, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 57–66.Vidale, M., Kenoyer, J., and Bhan, K. (1992). A discussion of the concept of “chaıne operatoire” in the

study of stratified society: Evidence from ethnoarchaeology and archaeology.Ethnoarcheologie:Justification, problemes, limites. XIIth Recontres International d’Archaeologie et d’Histoired’Antibes. Editions APDCA, Juan-les-Pins, pp. 181–194.

Winfrey, J. (1990). An event tree analysis of Folsom point failure.Plains Anthropologist53: 263–272.Yamanouchi, S. (1960).Nihon No Genshi Bijutsu, Vol. 1. Jomon Doki, Kodansha, Tokyo.Yanagida, T. (1984). Setonai gih¯o (The Setonai technique).Kokogaku Jyanaru229:11–15.Yanagisawa, K. (1984). Sekijin gih¯o no ganen teigi (A general definition of the blade technique)

Kokogaku Jyanaru229:7–10.Yoshizaki, M. (1961). Shirataki iseki to Hokkaid¯o no mudoki bunka (The Shirataki site and the prece-

ramic cultures of Hokkaido).Minzokugaku26: 13–23.

Bleed-Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory Volume 8 Issue 1 2001 [Doi...

Documents

Transcript of Bleed-Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory Volume 8 Issue 1 2001 [Doi...