BY R.

Jane Sliva

Introduction to the

S tudy and Analysis of Flaked Stone Artifacts and

Lithic Technology

,.. A ;&ri/~uJ~r ~ u r ~ u r u r ~ u r r

3975 N. Tucson Blvd. Tucson, Aricona 85716 (520) 881 -2244 FAX S81 -0325 -. .- S

An Introduction to the Study and Analvsis of Flaked Stone Artifacts and Lithc Technology

R. Jane Sliva

Center for Desert Archaeology 3975 North Tucson Boulevard, Tucson, Arizona 85716 January 1997 (Revised May 1997)

1 would like to thank Jemy Adams, Lisa Piper, and Peter Brockington for reading and comrnenting on earlier drafts of this volume. Donna Breckenridge handled the editing duties with her usual aplomb. Elizabeth Black formatted the tables. Elizabeth Gray undertook the imrnense task of pasting up the figures and integrating then with the text; this manual owes its good looks to her efforts. I would especiaiiy like to thank Bili Doelle and the Center for Dese* ,4rchaeology for the generous support this undertaking has enjoyed.

TABLE OF CONTENTS -

ListofTables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY AND ANALYSE OF FLAKED STONE ARTIFACTS AND LITHIC ECHNOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . htroduction 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . What are flaked stone artifacts? 1

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Why are flaked stone artifacts significant to archaeologists? 1 How are flaked stone artifacts made? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 How are flaked stone tools uced? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - 7 : : ; " " ' 3

Lithic Technology as Reductive Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 FiakingMechanics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Lithic Artifact Life Histories and Human Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

RawMaterialEffects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Analytical Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

-4rtifact Class and Type Definitions . . \ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Using Fiaked Stone Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Research Themes and Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Current Analytical Approaches: Evaluation and Methodological Implications . . . . . . 27 Usewearhalysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Appendix A: An Illuctrated Guide to Fiaked Stone Artifact Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Appendix B: General Flaked Stone Artifact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

Appendix C: Projectile Point Fom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

Appendix D: Exercises in Flaked Stone Implement Manufacture and Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

LIST OF FIGURES

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. Examples of flaked stone artifacts 2

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. Examples of percussors 4

3. Flakeattributes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

4. Flakeinitiations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

5. Flaketenninations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

6. Degradation of core platform angle with successive flake removals . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

7. Reclamation behaviors (the "redamation loop") and other factors which may . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . intervene in a lithic artifact's life history 8

8. Artifacts, processes, and byproducts involved in primary and secondary core reduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9. Tertiaryreduction 12

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10. Lmplement use, reclamation, and discard 14

11. Forces (human behaviors and natural processes) acting upon flaked stone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . artifacts and potential resultant life histories ; 17

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C.1. Projectile point morphology and metrical attributes 83

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C.2. Projectile point morphological variables 84

LIST OF TABLES

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. Lithic raw material types common to central and southern Anzona 16

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. Flaked stone artifact analysis initial decision table 23

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. Debitage analysis decision table 24

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. Core, core tool, and hammer analysis decision table 24

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 . Unifaaal tool analysis decision table 25

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6. Bifacial tool analysis decision table 25

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B.1. Flaked stone analysis fonn for general artifacts 60

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B.2. Coding numbers for the general flaked stone artifact,fonn 61

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C.1. Flaked stone analysis fonn for projectile points 72

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C.2. Coding numbers for the projectile point fonn 74

AX INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY ALu'D ANALYSIS OF FLAKED STONE

ARTIFACTS AND LITHIC TECHNOLOGY

R. Jane S l i ~ a &ter for Desmt Archaeology

INTRODUCTION

Compared to many other classes of Southwestem artifacts, such as ceramics and ground stone, flaked stone (or "lithic") artifacts can seem rather obscure. Most people can readily recogruze arrowheads, or, more appropriately, "projectile points," but are unfamiliar with the other kinds of artifacts that maice up the vast majority of lithic assemblages. The questions commonly asked about these other artifacts tend to cover seven general, interrelated topics. These topics can be summarized, in no particular order, by the following questions: What are flake stone artifacts? Why are they significant to archaeologists? How were they made? How were they used? How can you tell the difference between a lithic artifact and a natural piece of r d ? How are they analyzed? What kinds of information do flaked stone data provide?

What are flaked stone artifads?

As their name indicates, flaked stone artifacts include any stone items that show signs of human modification (either intentional or unintentional) through the removal of flakes from the curface of some parent material. Although gnnding may help prepare a stone for flaking, stone artifacts modified exdusively by ,&ding are classified as ground stone and are suhect to a different set of analyses. Flaked stone artifacts indude cores of raw material; hammerstunes used to remove flakes from the cores (a process called core reductzon); flakes and cores which have been modified into tools, such as projectile poirits, drills, scrapers, and choppers; and the waste flakes produced

& during core reduction and tool manufacture, h o w n as debitage. Some exñmples of flaked stone artifacts are shown in Figure 1. How the artifacts may have been used, or even if they were

C- used at all, has no bearing on their inclusion in this large, catch-all category. : - -

Why are flaked stone artifacts significant to archaeologists? - ->- -- i

t Flaked stone artifacts have a global spatial and temporal distribution; that is, stone tools occur

T¿- at archaeological sites across the planet and have been used from the dawn of man to the present day. Artifacts from different regions and time periods can be studied in the same ways because the teclinological processes behind their manufacture have remained constant.

Lithics oAen are the most prevalently represented artiiact ciass at prehistoric sittis, this being particularly irue with geater time depth. Ceramics were not intrcduced in the Scuthxrest until approximately A.D. 150; thG, ten thousand years' worth of sites here are dominated by flaked stone. In Europe and Africa, of course, this goes ba& much farther; the oldest surviving artifacts known to have been manufactured by horninids were the simple pebble choppers made by Horno habilis some 2.7 rnillion years ago. Another factor contributing to the predominance of lithic artifacts is the tough material from which they are made. While stone is subject to both physical

Page 2 iManual jbr Fiaked Stam +4mlysis

core

cornposite tool

projectile point

Figure 1. Examples of flaked stone artifacts.

and chemical weathering, it is much more durable than other types of cultural remains, such as wood, bone, leather, and plant fiber. For this reason, except for artifads from a dry cave, tundra, or peat bog settings, stone is the best-represented and perhaps only surviving artifact dass at many sites.

Besides preserving the artifacts for millenia, the physical properties of stone tools also allow researchers to determine how they were manufactured and, under certain conditions, how they were used. Experimentation with different types of tools and different types of lithic raw material can provide a better understanding of the possibilities and limitations provided by

' flaked stone technology. Data from the analysis of flaked stone artifacts can help determine settlement and subsistente pattems, ethnic and/or temporal affiliation, the speci£ic tasks

1 performed at a site, and intrasite spatial organization and fonnation processes (where certain activities took place, and how areas of archaeological sites carne to look a certain way when excavated).

How are flaked stone artifacts made?

I As the name suggests, flaked stone tools are rnanufactured by removing flakes or chips of stone from a piece of parent material. Cobbles or other pieces of raw material ("cores") can be repeatedly stmck with another rock to remove flakes until the desired tool form is achiwed? and the flakes removed from cores can thernselves be shaped by further flaking. Thic is in contrast to ground stone ariifacts, which are prirnarily manufactured by abrading one stone with another until the desired form is achieved.

Generally speaking, a percon who wishes to perform a particular task with a sbne implement has f o u choices. For example, imagine a man faced withithe task of processing a partially butchered animal carcass. He can (1) use an unmodified river cobble to crack bones or open the s k d , or he can strike the edges of that river cobble with another rock, producing several large flakes. He can then either (2) use the struck cobble with its newly formed sharp edge to chop at the joints in the animal's leg, or (3) use the sharp-edged flakes to slice meat from the bones.

Page 3 4

He can &o (4) jnape the edges of the Ilakes to produce more speaalized tool forms, such as a h & e r L d e for c-itting through more n@¿ tissues or a steep-edged scaper for scraping the hicie dean ior tanning. Shouid the edges of the tools become dull through use, he can resharpen them by strikuis them with a hammer to remove more flakes from their edges.

How are flaked stone tools used?

Fiaked stone implements can be used in virtually any application assigned to metal toolc today, wlth their edge confi,gmations selected or retouch-designed for a myriad of tasks, or to mate other tools from wood, bone, or antler. For example, a sharp flake with a senated edge can be used to cut a branch from a tree. A flake with a notch in its edge is then used to shape the branch into a spear shaft, the shaft is tipped with a stone projectile point, and the spear is used to lull a deer. Snarp flake kmves are used to skiil and butcher the deer, and steep-edged £laice scrapers are used to remove íat and subderrnal tissues from the hide and then to soften it &er it is tanned. Knives are used to cut the hide into pieces, and sharp projections on flakes are used to make holes in the hide pieces so that sinews may be passed through them to make clotfüng. Flake gravers can alco be used to make awls and neeciles from the deer's bones or antiers for the same purpose. &

LITHIC TECHXOLOGY AS REDUCTIVE TECHNOLOGY

Flaking Mechanics

! Flakes are removed by applying force to the edge of a piece of litkic material. Force is applied i --- * either directly, by striking the piece with a harnrner (direct percussion flakrng) or pressing a pointed i n s tmen t agaimt the edge (pressuref7&ng), or indirectly, by stnking a punch placed against the piece with a hammer (indirect ;iercmsion flaking). Hammers may be composed of a hard stone (hard hammer) or a soft stone, antler, bone, or wood billet (so3 hammer) (Figure 2). Diffeíent hammer types are used for different kinds of flaking. For example, a hard hammer made from a material such as quartzite can be used to spiit a cobble and remove flakes from it, while a soft hammer biliet made of bone or antier can be used for the finer, more controlled flaking needed to produce a tool from the flakes, particularly when finer raw rnaterials are being used.

Sufficient force must be applied to the core to crack the rock, and the force must be appiied at an angle that causes to exit the rock at the appropriate location to detach a flake of the desired shape and size. The location of the contact area (point of applied ferce) on the stene, the m u n t of force, and the angle at which the force is applied are the determinants of the morphological attributes (size and shape characteristics) of a flake. If the knapper strikes straight down on the center of a core, the force will travel straight down as well, dissipating in the interior of the core, and no flake will be detached. Striking at an angle near the edge of the core, however, allows the force to travel through the rock and out the side, resulting in flake detachment. Skilled knappers can control the size and shape of the flakes they produce by manipulating the amount oi iarce they use and the angie at whiui they strike the cores. Tne applied iorce can also be

_ dire~ted somewhat by pressing the side of t!!e cire from whiS. it will exit - against - +he knapper's leg or hgers .

l The forces involved in flake production are preserved in the flakes themselves at the instant they are created, allowing archaeologists to lnfer details about prehistoric manufacturing processes.

Page 4

--

Manual far FW'~ Stone Ami*

hammerstone

Figure 2. Examples o£ percussors.

These technological attributes are illustrated in Figure 3. Basic flake attributes include the fouowing:

dorsal aspect The exterior surface of a flake. Bears either the original outer surface of the core or scars kom previous flake removals.

bulbar asped The interior surface of a m e , along which fracture (separation kom the core) occurred. Co named because it contains the bulb of percussion for Hertzian flakes (see discussion of flake initiation, below). AIso known as the uentral aspect.

The area of contad with the percussor (the precise spot on the core struck by the hammer).

proximal end The end of the flake which holds the platfonn.

dista1 end The end of the flake opposite the proximal end, containing the flake termination.

lateral margin The edges- of a M e where the dorsal and bulbar surfaces meet

bulb of pmmssion Bulbshaped feature located cEm3i-y below &e platfbl'y~i, yreiei-hg trajectory of applied force through the flaked material. Exclusively associated with Hertzian fracture (see discussion of flake initiation, below). May be pronounced or diffuse, depending on the density of the hammer and the amount of applied force.

Manual ,'o1 FlaKed Stone Analpis Page 5

Proximal end

eraiilure scar

remna iflake s fissures/hackles

., .. . ,. , . ..

Dorsal aspect

Distal end VentraVBulbar aspect -i.

Figure 3. Flake attributes.

éraillure scar

lances

rings of force

Scar left from the detachment of a small flake from the bulb of percusion, c a d by a rotation in fracture plane. Associated with hard hammer percussion (Cotterell and Kamminga 1990:149-150).

Small fissures on the bulbar surface, indicating the diredion of fracture propagation, always perpendicular to the fracture front. Also known asficsures, stress lines, or hackles.

Generally concentric rings centered on the point of applied force, representing the propagation of the fracture front through the material. These are analogous to the ripples produced by dropping a rock into water. They are also known as ripples.

termimtion The dista1 end of a flake, marking the point at which the applied force exited the core, terminating the fracture process.

The logical place to be,@ a discussion of flake attributes is w i t h w initiation, or the point at which the flake begins to separate from the core (Figure 4) Flake initiation takes one of two general forms, depending on the percussor type. Hertzian fradure, ascdated with hard harnmer percussion, occurs at the point of hammer contact and removes the flake with a distinctive partial cclne below tiie platform at this point. This is the same phenomenon that occurs when a BB is shot at a glass v.kdow, and it iiiustrates the manner in Which the applied force expands outwardc as it travels hom the impact point tktough ttie 111aktial. Flakrs initiatd with Hertziaii fractures tend to have prominent bulbs of percussion and indications of secondary flake detadunents at their platfonns (Cotterell and Kamminga 1990:134, 140). 1

Page 6

ge 8 *e .Q 8 B

&?

P i?' y q Herkian fracture Bending fracture

Figure .L Flake initiations. :;

The second type of flake initiation is a bendingfracture, assoaated with soft hammer percussion Billets made of relatively soft materials (wood, bone, antler) usually cannot aeate high enough levels of tensile stress in the contad area to initiate a Hertzian fracture, but rather, they initiate fractures away from the contaa area with bending stress. Because no Hertzian fracture is involved, bending flakes do not have bulbs of percussion (Cotterell and Kamminga 1990:134, 142). A distinctive feature they do frequently bear is a iipped platform, with the iip extending from the platform over the bulbar aspect.

If a flake is initiated with suífiaent force and a proper force application angle, it will propagate and tenninate (Figure 5). Five types of terminations are usually recognized: feather, step, hinge, p l u n p g ("overshot" or "outrépasse"), and axial. Feather and axial terminations are natural continuations of flake propagation, with the fracture front exiting the end of the core at an extremely acute angle in a feather formation, or exiting the side of the core opposite the platform at a n approximate right angle in an axial termination. Step terminations represent an abrupt change in the direction of the fracture front, caused by some interruption in the fracture propagation (such as a flaw in the raw material). Hinge terminations ocnv when the fracture veers outwards to the side of the core. Plunging terminations occur when a fracture veers away from the side of the core into its end, removing the end of the core along with the flake (Cotterell and Kamminga 1990:145-146).

$ e

Flake detachments leave scars on the core that affect the ease with which further reduction may be pursued. A preponderance of hinge and step terminations makes the continued removal of flakes difficult, and may necessitate either the rejuvenation or abandonment of the core. Cores .so need to be rejuvenated O, abandoned when the angle f o m d by the pla,orm and adjacent side exceeds W- degres; steeper angles make the proper apphcation of force diifidt. This

5 platform angle tends to degrade as more flakes are removed (Figure 6). Corec are rejuvenated by striking a large flake from one end that carries all the way across the core, providing anobier platform fmm which flaking can begin anew. - I

I&nuai.-br Flakai Stone .4nalyszs Page 7

bLbL,L -\. c.

...-

feather hinge step overchot a?%d

Figure 5. Flake terminations.

Figure 6. Degradation of core platform angle with successive fhke removals.

4, Lithic Artifact Life Histories and Human Behavior

The life histories of lithic amfach may be described in general temis as hajectories through stages of raw material selection, blank production, and one or more episodes of shaping, use, and discard. The leno@ and direction of an individual artifact's trajectory is determined by a number of factors. These are both intrinsic to the artifact, such as raw material properties, and extrinsic, including depositional environments and, most importantly, the suite of human behaviors which may be brought to bear upon the artifact. At any poúit in its Life hictory, a piece of rock may be used, modified, stored or mated, or discarded. After its initial use, a lithic ?zlp!e,m.ent nizy be irr~~~ediatel;. dkcarded mc! perz?.=cr.~y remcved fron systeric coritext (sencu Schiffer 1987:3-4), or its trajectory may continue as determine¿ by hportant set o: behaviors collectively referred to here as a "reclamation loop" (Figure 7). These include tool

Page 8 Manual for Flaked Stone Amlysis h

Res harpening Reshaping Recyding

Archaeological recovery

Figure 7. Reclamation behaviors (the "redamation loop") and other factors which may intervene in a lithic artifact's life history.

recycling and reshaping, as well as maintenance behaviors su& as edge resharpening. An essential assumption of the reclamation loop is that any given artifact may go through the loop more than once-for example, an endscraper may be used, resharpened, used again, discarded, reclaimed, and reshaped into a no&, and then be used, resharpened, and discarded once again.

This has important implications for the behavior assoaated with lithic technology. One of the ways of describing the value that a flaked stone artifact may have held for a prehistoric te~hologist is the concept of remnant ucelife, or residual utility (Schiffer 198533.34; Kuhn 1989:34; cf. Shott 1989:21-22, 27). This is the assumption that, because lithic technology is reductive, largcr utifacts inherently possess a greater potential for being resharpened, reshaped, or otherwise recycled through further f-laking than do smder az-tifacts. A core is an easily understood example of this construct. Once cores have been reduced to a certain size - for the sake of argument, roughly 40 mrn on a side - further flaking is either impossible or grossly ineffiaent, and the core is considered to be exhausted. Where all else is equal, it is clear that a

- Lh

5 $

Lithic technology is redutive in nature; implements are shaped through the removal of material from cobbles and from the edges of the resulting flakes. Subsequent reduction, which occurs during use and resharpening or reshaping, further reduces the mass of the artifact. Simply put,

7 lithic artifacts generdy get smaller through the course of their life histories and never get larger. , , This constant attrition means that the flintknapper is faced with increasing limitations due to E increasing distance from the begiming of the trajectory; therefore, initial decisions about 'hreduction affect the set of possible choices that can be made later in the artifact's life. Because

every modification to a piece of lithic material results in some amount of the material being removed, lithic technology is considered to be redwtine in nature. That is. through its life @e, a stone tool can never grow larger but is reduced in size ea& time it is used, resharpened, or reshaped.

‘Manual p r F h h d Stone Analysis Page 9

that a core 80 mm on a side is much farther from t5hat threshold of exhaustion than a core measuring only 50 mrn on a side. The Zarser core theref'ore has more remant uselife than the small core, and thereiore more residual utility to an individual who wishes to produce flqakes. The same assumptions apply to other classes of lithic artifacts; the rernnant use iives oí tools such as scrapers and knives can be thought of in terms of the potential number of resharpening episodes they can reasonably be expected to endure before becoming too small to comfortably or efficiently use.

Prima y Reduction (Figure 8)

Reduction of iithic materials is often discussed in terms of three stages: primary, secondary, and tertiary. Primay core reduction refers to the testing of raw materials and the removal of cortex in a process called decorlication or are tnmming. Cortex refers to the exterior "rind" of a cobble or block, and may consist of a different raw material, such as limestone surrounding a nodule of chert, or a weathered wtemal surface such as on a river cobble of rhyolite. Cortex is removed from cores so that they can be tested for general material quality and specific flaws, and because its removal faalitates flaking. This process is analogous to preparing an orange; the orange rind must be removed for the quality of the fruit to be determined, and removing the rind makes separating the orange into sections much easier. ,.

Primary reduction is usually performed by stsiking the piece of raw material with a hammerstone (hard harnmer percwsion) to remove flakes from its exterior. The artifads produced by primary reduction include relatively large cores, which may have substantial amounts of cortex remaining on them, and relatively large flakes with substantial amounts of cortex covering one side. Because these cortical flakes are exclusively associated with this early stage of core reduction, they are often referred to as primay f2akes.

Seconda y Reduction (Figure 8)

Secondary core reduction involves the striking of flakes from the trimmed core. These flakes tend to have much less cortex on their exterior surfaces than flakes produced during decortication. Flakes produced earlier in the reductive process are necessarily larger than hose produced later, when the size of the core has been reduced. Many secondanly reduced cores are devoid of cortex. Fiakes with small amounts of cortex on their dorsal surfaces are assumed by some researchers to be associated with this reduction stage and are referred to as seconday f2akes. However, other research has shown that cortex is commonly present only in very early reduction stages, and only rarely present in others (Magne 1989:17). Additionally, different researchers use different percentages of dorsal cortícal coverage to distingush primary and secondary flakes. For ,&ese reasons, the use of the term "secondary flake," if it must be used at all, should probably be limited to flakes with either none or only a trace of cortical coverage.

The degree to which a core is reduced before it is abandoned, or the intensify of core reduction, depends on a number of fadors, including the quality of the raw material, the reduction strategy employed, and situational needs. In general, cores of highquality material are intensively rehced (fisker =e reagved frgm *.e cores iint;,! Cke cores have become toc smd tc ~roduce usable flakes), perhaps o ~ e r seveid reduciion episoh. Tha: is, t4e cores cm be rised for flake produdion on more than one occasion and stored between hose episodes. In contrast, cores of low-quality material tend not to be as intensively reduced because the effort required to produce more than a few flakes from a lowquality core outstrips the utility of those flakes. Thus, only a small number of flakes might be struck from such a core before it is discarded.

Paje 10

Figure 8. Artifacts, proceses, and byproducts involved in primary and secondary core reduction.

Unaltered Raw Matevid

i hard - - -+ Testmg - - - , mmulddiiw

hammer shatta

Core -+ Ducmd, - - + pcrr

S e l e c t m

hard R-Y mmui &&lb@

hammer, - + (Initrni) - - + shaner

Core

Core Con? U n m o á Z e d Discmd Tool Flakes

Core reáuction strategies depend on the quaiity of the raw material and the needs of the knapper. If raw material conservation is not an important consideration-usually the case when raw materials are p l e n a and/or not of high quality-then a randum cure reduction technique may be employed. With this technique, the knapper strikes flakes from the core in multiple directions, in an opportunistic (unplanned) fashion. This recults in a globular, irregularly shaped

percusor - - - - + Proress- - - - bvpoaiwt

Resultant Praess 4 - - - saof~c Artlfact pmar

Resul tant Artifact

Key to Figures 8-11: Solid arrows indicate the possble life history kajectones of an artifact from gven forms (boldface type) through vanous processes (itaiics) to resultant forms. The iduence of percusons and the creanon of byproducts are mdicated by dashed al-rows.

A

-.

-'.kz-~~j-iOT F l k a S t a e .lnnlysis Page 11

core, and, usuaily, irregularly shaped flakes. It is often diificult to intensively reduce a core u i h g thlC tecbque, because the requisite platform angles are not maintained after random flake removals.

* Single piarform and opposed platfiom core reduction involve more planning. In sinsle platform reduction, flakes are removed sequentially from around the perimeter of one plattorm, whch ic either a naturaily occurring flat sudace on the core or a flat surface a-eated by the iemovai of an initial flake. In this tedinique, the ridges of flake scars (left by previous flake removals) help to p i d e the applied force and thus aid in the removal of additional Bakes. Opposed platform reduction is similar but involves two platfom situated at opposite ends of the core. Because these core reduction strategies allow for the removal of more flakes and also facilitate core rejuvenation (by striking a single flake to a-eate a new platform), they are considered to be raw material conservation techniques. Y

One of the best-known prehistoric examples of single platform reduction is the Mesoamerican prismatic blade technique (see Crabtree 1968; Clark 1982), in which obsidian blades were removed from cores through pressure daking rather than percussion. This extremeiy controiled and planned technique maxirnized the potential ufility of the cores by producing great nurnbers of identical blades from a single core. Bipolar core reduction is another raw material conservation techniqtie, usually employed to remove flakes from cores that are otherwise exhausted. Here, the core is placed on another rock ("anvil") and struck with a harnmerstone, causing force to be applied simultaneously from the hammer and the anvil.

Tertia y Reduction (Figure 9)

Tertiary reduction refers to the manufacture of specialized tools from blanks, which are the flakes produced during primary and secondary core redudion. The intentional, maa-oscopically visible modification to the edge of a blank, in the form of small flake removals, is referred to as retouch and is what separates debitage from took-a general term used here to refer to retouched flake and core implements. An important distindion exists between those artifacts that were retouched and those that were not. ;V1 artifacts that appear to have been used to perfom some task are properly referred to as "implements." The term "tool" is reserved for those artifacts that were retouched, that is, intentionally modified. The reasons for making this distinction are discussed fully in a following section.

j It should be noted that the tenns "primary," "secondary," and "tertiary" are also used in slightly different contexts to describe the leve1 of retouch applied to a blank. Primay retouch may refer to single-step aiteration of a flake's edge, resulting in a simple tool, or the first step in roughing out a more complex tool such as a biface. This type of retouch is usudy performed with a hard - hammer. Seconday retouch is the second step. which may be performed with a hard or soft - hammer, to either finish a unifaaal edge on a tool such as a scraper, or to further thin a bifaaal q 1

edge in preparation for finishing. Tertia y retouch is the final stage in tool manufacture and Ti usuaily irnplies the use of a pressure tlaking technique to finish a biface. although some unifacial : tools were pressure flaked as w d .

Slzi-2í edges are rstouched for f c ~ r iewns: to s h q s r í ari ~ d g ~ , to dul: XL edgs, to chmge hie edge angle (by making it thinner or steeper), and/or to a-eate a s p e d c edge shape such as a notch, deniticulate, or perforator. A freshly produced, unretouched flake edge is always sharper than one which has been retouched. However, such edges may not always be appropriate for - the task at hand. A fresh, thin, sharp edge is ideal for slicing soft materials such as meat, but < [ it wiii be too f r a s e to withstand heavier mttíng tasks. If that edge is retouched, resulting in

Page 12

Core U~nocüíied- Disctud

ihinning hhs

soft or d~irse ( m ~ ~ t l y romomu~) hard - - - + Rdouch

Core Bifrciil TooI Prefom/

Implementr Implements Generai Bifices

b i d thinning f b h

pressure- + - - * n o n d d debitage

RetoUd, broken prefanir

1 ibuidond pdormr

F a m u l Bifrckl hpiements

a

Figure 9. Tertiary reduction.

a steeper angle, it will lose some sharpness but will be sturdy enough to whittle wood without snapping. Another consideration is that a sharp-edged flake rnay cut not only the material being worked but also the finger of the person using it. In this situation, an edge might be intentionally dulied to make it safer and more comfortable to hold. The shape of a flake when it is struck from the core may not be optirnal for its intended use; a convex tool edge is preferable for scraping, while a p r o n o u d concave edge is opümal for shawng an arrow shaft. Unmodified flakes are often the best or mcst efficient implements for many tasks, but retouching easily produces any specific working edge shape and configuration that might be needed.

Retouch is desaibed in t e m of its location on a tool, how extensive it is, and the edge angle it creates. Unfacial retouch refers to flaking on only one as- of the tool (usually the dorsal aspect), while hjúcial retouch refers to f l a h g on both aspects along a common edge. Its location on the edge is discvssed relative to the piadonn Flakes and tools are oriented with the bulbar surface down and .he platíorm towardc the analyst, and the lateral margins are desi-gated left and right as the analyst sees t h m For example, retouch placed on the dorsal aspect of a flake, along the distal edge, is referred to as unifaaal distal retouch.

The process of retouching a flake is technologically identical to that of striking a flake from a core, but at a smaller scale. As such, the methods of applymg force are the same. Hard hammer retouch will result in the removal of thicker flakes, and is primarily assoaated with the production of quickly made, simple tools. Finer retouch is possible with soft hamrner percussion, and the finest flaking is accomplished with pressure flaking. To retouch a flake, &e knapper holds it with the aspect to be retouched facing away from him, and may control the flaking by pressing his fingers or leg tightly agaimt that asped. This serves to both direct the applied force and protect the knapper from being cut by the retouch flakes as they separate from the blank. When pressure flaking, the tool to be retouched is usually held against a leather pad for protection, and smail flakes are popped from the edge with a pointed instrument of bone,

m .'.kc-dl j%r Fhked Stone .inalysis Page 13

mLder, hard wood, copper, or, for extremdv fine flaking, rodent incisors. These same procedues are used ior resharpening tools that become duiled or b r o h duing use.

-Flaked Stone Artifact Llce (Figure 10)

iuiportant ciifference between stone and steel toob is that done tools become d d much more quiddy and break under less stress. Come stone tools resharpen themelves during use as their edges chip away, and others can be quiddy resharpened so that work rnay continue. Because flaking is a reductive technology, though, the number of resharperung episodes a tool can endure is limted by its initial size and edge angle; beyond a certain point, a resharpened tool becomes too small for eficient use, and its edges rnay become ioo steep for further resharpening.

One of the dilemmas facing lithic analysts is distinguishng retouch (intentional modification) I

hom edge dudamage (unintentional modification). There are three different types of edge damage, t al1 caused by different processes. Spo7ítaneous retouch reiers to the removal of extremely small ( f-lakes from the edges of the flake, as a result of the dake pivoting against the core as it separates

c 1 from it. This type of microFJong damage, which resembles 'nibbling," mimics damage incurred 5 1 by use and rnay also be mistaken for intentional retouch. UfJizztion Liamage refers to flaking and

1 abrasion caused to the edge of a flake while it is being used to periorm a task. This damage - , rnay be distinguished from retouch in that retouched flake scars are generally expected to be '?-- 1 more regular in size and appearance. A detded discussion of utilization damage is presented

m another section. Flake edges rnay aiso i n m postdepositional damage after they enter the khaeological record, by being trampled while on the sudace of a floor or the ground (by people

' or large animals), by shifting against each other or other mterials after being buried (through -4, 1 4 solifluction or bioturbation), or by being excavated by archaeologists. Retouch scars are

1 generally considered to have a more regular, consistent appearance than utilization or postdepositional damage, although analysts should be aware that ciistinguishing retouch from other types of modification rnay be impossible in some cases.

- - ' ,A bíany flaked stone implements can be held in the bare hand or wrapped in a piece of leather or 1 other padding for comfort and saíety. Others are hafted (attached) to a handle made of wood,

bone, horn, or antler. The process of replacing broken toois in hafts is cded retooling (Keeley 1982:799). The reasons for hafting a flaked stone irnplement indude the following:

1. The tools are not usefd unhafted (such as projectile points). 2. The tools can be used with greater force, effiaency, or precision hafted than

unhafted ( sud as drillsi hoes, axes, and knives). 3. Hafting allows tools to be aeated with long cutting edges that could not be safely

used unhafted (Keeley 1982:799).

Hafting arrangements fall into three basic types:

1. Jam hafts: the tool is wedged into a hole or slot in the handle, without adhesives or wrapping.

2. T A T ------ rur,~cd kafts: 72-Le tual is tied to *te ktarttlc. - . 3. ~bíustic hafts: The tool is attached to the handle with an acihesive such as glue,

resin, or tar (Keeley 1982:799). - Most prehistoric tools were hafted using a combination of any or all of these three. An example combining all three is a spear point wedged into a slot at the end of a shaft with a dollop of pine pitch, and then wrapped tightly with animal sinew. Each individual hafting technique has

Page 14 Manual,Úr Flnlieá Stone .A-mlysis

Core Unmodiñed Retouched Tool Flrke 7'=-

w-arcshan 1s t e \ - - - - - &e 1 / H + ~

broken implanarr R 0

exhausted impl-a t DlSGZl&+~cc~+rdvce abndoned unplanmo de hctD muse

F Pos-itionnl,

Figure 10. Lmpiemmt use, redamation, and discard.

advantages and disadvantages. The jam haft is the least tirne-consuming to create but d o w s the most movement of the tool in the haft, reducing the efficiency and precision of the work while increasing the likelihood that the tool will break during use. Wrapped hafts, especially when used in combination with a jam haft, are secure but require more effort to both initially assemble and to replace worn out or broken tools. Additionally, humid conditions or working wet material rnay cause the cordage or sinews in the wrapping to stretch, allowing the tool to become loose in the haft. Mastic hafts are very secure; they d o w little tool movement and provide cushioning for the tool, reducing breakage. Most adhesives used with this technique must be softened by heating and perhaps tempered with other materials before they can be used in hafting or retooling, thus requiring more time and effort than the 0th- techniques (Keeley 1982:799-800).

RAW MATERIAL EFFECTS

Rock ty-pes appropriate for the manufacture.of stone tools are limited to those that fracture in a predictable manner when force is applied to t h e a It is more difficult to predict fracture propagation in a coarse-grained material, particularly one with large crystals, than in a fine- grained or noncrystalline material. Therefore, flaking is best when the applied force easily passes through the rock unhindered and not misdireded by large grains, such as with obsidian and a group of sedimentary rocks known as cryptocrystalline siliceous rocks. Obsidian is a volcanic glass, and because it has no crystalline strudure, force passes through it iuiimpeded. Tkius, obsidian is one of the easiest materiais to flake. The ayptoaystallines d u d e chert, flint, jasper, and chalcedony; the name comes from the fact that their crystalline stnidure is so fine as to be invisible to the naked eye. The dictinctions between these materials are largely made on the basis of color rather than geological composition since d are primarily composed of silica dioxide (quartz) (Luedtke 1992:5-9). Cryptocrystalline materials exist at different levels of

quality, and their flaking properties are compromised by large fossil indusions or inápient fractures (interna1 flaws) caused by weathering.

These top-quality materials have a lirnited distribution in the Southwest; prehistoric peopie who wished to obtain them for toolmaking had to travel to the different scurces, or they had to trade for them with other groups. For example, Early A,gicultural period (1200 B.C. - A.D. 150) populations living along the Santa Cruz River in Tucson, Arizona (Mabry 1996) acquired obsidian from six different sources, ranging from 145 km to possibly as much as 400 km away (Shackley 1995). People of the Ohio Hopewell culture (200 B.C. - 4.D. 500) went to even greater lengths, traciing goods all the way to Wyoming for obsidian. The value that obsidian and hish- quality ayptocrystallines held for prehistoric populations is reflected in the fact that it tended to be reserved for projectile points and bifaaal knives high-performance tools that 1) required a sio~ficant amount of time and skill to manufacture and 2) were designed to be easily maintained and resharpened.

Clearly, not al1 of a lithic assemblage could be made from these relatively rare, highquality materials. In contrast to the best cherts and obsidians, rock types with lesser-but stiil adequate-tlalung properties are widely distributed across the landscape in central and southem .Anzona. Among these other raw materiak are volcartic rocks such as rhyolite, andesite, felsite, -

-i- - and dacite, which can range from an extremely finegained variety virtually indistinguishable J

ri from chert to coarsegrained varieties that are diffidt to flake. This category also mdudes basalt, which tends to be medium-gained. Many types of metamorphic rock were also widely used by prehistoric populations, induding finegrained metasediment and quartzite. Like the igneous rocks, quartzite ranges from nearly cryptocrystalline varieties to coarse varieties that are almost impossible to flake. Fine-grained, silicified (metamorphosed) limestone is a common corrlponent of lithic assemblages from sites along the Santa Cruz River in the Tucson Basin (Sliva 1996), and metamorphosed volcanics are widespread in the Tonto Basin of central Arizona. Sedimentary rock types such as sandstone and limestone were occasionally used. Raw material types common to central and southem Arizona are detailed in Table 1.

It should be noted that the geology of southem Arizona is notoriously complex, and that even geologists will frequently disagree about the material type of a given lithic artifact. Examples of rock types that may be easily confuced include black silicified limestone, black metasediment, and black aphanitic igneous rock, all of which share very similar macroscopic appearances, flaking qualities, and availability in the Santa Cruz floodplain. Differences arnong them inciude their nodular (metasediment and igneous rock) or bedded (silicified limestone) forms, the degree to which they contain inapient fractures (for example, the bedded silicified limestone tends to be more prone to flaws from weathering), and flaking quality (the metasediment is slightly superior to the other two). Other material types that may be inadvertently interchanged inciude cryptocrystallines, extremely fine-grained volcanics, and extremely fine-grained quartzites. From a technological standpoint, little practical difference exists between these materials. For that reason, it may be most usefui for beooinning lithic analysts to conceptualize raw material in t e n of flaking characteristics rather than precise geologic identification; that is most certainly how prehistoric knappers approached raw material.

W i l e fla_kinng propertiec are the key issiie f ~ r an introductory study of lithic technology,

6 3 recognizing specific types or dasses of raw materiak is important for understanding prehistoric

+ pattems of raw material procurement. That is, a knowledge of and the ability to recognize the rock types available in different regions allows archaeologists to amwer the question of whether

T populations relied on local sources, or acquired their materiak from exotic locations or other

Page 16 Marmalfor Flnked S t m h l y s i s

Table 1. Lithic raw material types common to central and southem Arizona (adapted from Hudceli 1995, Table 2).

Matenal Description

Basalt Medium-grained volcanic rock, dark grey to black in color. It may have smail vesides, but no maao&opicaily visible phenocrysb.

Rhyolite

Andesite

Daate

Obsidian

Chert

Chalcedony

Jasper

Agate

Very fine- to coarse-grained porphoritic volcanic rock. Groundmass colors M u d e pínk, reddish brown, brown, grey, and black. Phenocrysts are mmmonly white but may also indude black and red. Finer-grained varieties respond well to soft-hammer percussion, and the finest are virtually indistinguishable from chert in tenns of flaking performance.

Medium-grained porphortic volcanic rock with a white to light creamcolored groundmass.

Very he-grained volcanic rock with a lavener to grey pundmass. Very d phenoaysts are common. This material is of very good flaking quality.

Volcanic glass. Color range indudes colorless, grey, black, and brown. These colors may be banded together, or with orange or red. Obsidian has no aystalline stnidure and SO is of superior flaking quaiity. It produces the sharpest edge possible to achieve on this planet but is quite brittle and d d s easiiy.

Gyptoaystaüine sedimentary rock, brown, light to dark grey, or cream colored, occasionaily banded. Of very good to superipr flaking quality, aithough this mav be compromised by fossii indusions or inapient fractures caused by weathering.

Gyptoaysbiiine sedimentaryrodc, dear, white, or paie tan, often banded, at least semi-traducent, occasionally contains a-ystal pockets. Very good to superior flaking quality.

Gyptoaystaüine sedimentary rock, bridc red, salmon, yeiiav, or variegated/banded with red, yeiiow, white, and orange. Very good to superior fiakng quality.

Cryptoqstalline sedimentary rock with two or more colors in a banded or variegated pattern. Vexy good to superior flaking quaiity.

Limestone Medium-grained sedimentary rodc in varius shades of grey, often containing ooiites (foosil indusions). Flaking quality dependent on granularity and size of indusions.

Very fine-grained to coaxse-phed metamorphic rodc Colors indude M e s of white, grey, green, brown, and red. Finer-grained varieties respond weii to soft-harnmer percussion, but coarser-grained varieties rnay be difñcuit to flake.

Metasedimen t Fine-to medium-grained metamorphosed mudstone or siltstone. Colors indude black, brown, and red. Finer-grained varieties are of very good flaking quality.

Siliciíied Limestone Fine-grained metamorphosed lúnestone, with a matte appearance. Colors indude black, dark grey, and greenish grey. Good flaking quality.

goups. For example, chemical or petrographic analyses of raw materials recovered from a given site can be compared with materials from known sources to determine their point of origin. This type of analysis is commonly performed with obsidian and chert.

Lithic Life Histories: Conclusion

Al1 of the reduction stages, uses, and reclamation processes brought to bear on an individual - --&thic _ d a m e íts, l?fe b$tory;_tfwse _^e conihiri~d in Fip-re 11. h e r y juncture of a lithic

artifact's Efe history represente a behavioral decision made by the person who &ufactured or used the artifact. The choices made from the initial selection of raw material, through the numerous loops of manufacture, use, reclarnation, and discard, are preserved in the artifacts themcelves by virtue of the physical properties govemjng lithic technology. Let us now tum to

. ' * ~ K . u ~ > T Flaked Stone Analysis Page 17

t Cníltered Raw Material

i hard, - - - + Tffiting - - - + comcai debicage

hammer l shatier

T Core - D ~ c m d - - - + tated pace

hard- - - -+ m- - + corticai debihge hamrner (Initiaí) shana

core / Tool

Core / Core Unmodified - D u d Tool l /""

ahd thinnkg Olhs

soft or wft - -:S-- - + ~ & Q F * w ~ - hamrner Retoudi duna

hammer

t Core Expediently F o d Bifad Tool Retouched Unifíd Prefonns/

ements G e n 4 Bifaces

b i ñ c Y I r h i n w g ~

-F=f=-

1 - d P = f a -

Bifad

wear m c s irom Iast use - - -

brokm implements

exhausted irnpl-a - D h d - - 7 ireco nbiJ- aLandoned implanents de ha0 rduv

Resharpening

prinitiai Postdepositionai , -0Orwl

*gr

\

Reciamation Archaeololod - Reumpry +- -

Figure 11. Forces @turnan behavioa and natural proceses) actmg upon flaked stone artifactr and potential resultant life histories. Note: h y artifact can bypass use and go directiy to dixard, either as a result of intentionai behavior or through being lost. The entire process for a single artifad may be represented at a single site or at several different sites.

Page 18 Manual for Flaked Stone Analysis

the analytical procedures that allow archaeologists to infer those human behaviors brought to bear upon flaked stone, and how those inferences can lead to a U e r understanding oi the archaeological record.

ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES

The ,giding prinaples behind lithic analysis must be twofold: first, to accurately quantify excavation data so that they may be used to make inferences about the archaeological record, and second, to design and present the analysis in such a way that the resulting information can be easily communicated to and used by other researchers. Lithic analysis is typological; that is, artifacts are dassified into categories based on various combinations of attributes. These artifact categories tend to be hi@y variable among different researchers, however, which can hinder comparisons between assemblages.

To alleviate this problem, it is imperative that artifacts be described and quantified in a replicable, communicable manner. This means that typologies used to classdy the artifacts should be based on objective observations and measurements that will return the carne results

z* for a $ven artifad, regardless of how many different people use the typology. It is also essential that the artifact categories be mutually exdusive, so that a $ven artifact may be ciassified only as one specific type. The best way to ensure that these conditions are met is through a technological approach to analysis, where artifacts are dassified according to manufacture- derived athibutes rather than subjective obsenrations. Under the technological approach, artifact types and categories are based on blank type and retouch attributes.

Artifact Class and Type Definitions

For analysis and disnission, it is useful to construct general artifact classes that encompass specific artifact Wes. Commonly used ciasses include debitage, cores, retouched flake implements, core tools, core hammers, and cobble hammers. This is by no meanc a universal arrangement; many researchers group cores, core tools, and core hammers together or in varios combinations, and some group core tools with flake tools. It is more practical to keep these dasses separate, however, as data presented in that way can still be grouped by hose who wish to do so, but separating data that is presented already grouped can be difficult or impossible.

Appendix A contains illustrations, definitions, and notes.on the various artifact types which comprise the artifact dasses discussed in this section.

Debitage

1 Debitage ic defined as a l l unretouched lithic artifads that were struck from some parent material. Specific debitage types are defined based on whidi attributes the artifacts possess and inciude flakes, blades, and shatter. Speaal debitage types forming subsets of the main types above include bifaaal thinning flakes, core rejuvenation flakes, bipolar flakes, hammer spalls, and potlids.

I Another speaal debitage type that warrants a separate discussion is the utilized f7ake1 which is a non-retouched flake that bears evidence of having been used. This evidence, in the form of edge damage or polishing, is usually referred to as usauear, and the study of this evidence is

J h ! ;%r Z i k a 5 t m Analysis Page 19

b.own as Icsmeer analysis. The study of specifically microscopic wear traces is known as , rzzcrowecr analyszs.

blany archaeologists group utilized flakec with retouched flake implements, referruig to all of them as tools, but such a priori grouping is not recornmended for a number of reasons. Although it has been pointed out that the presence of retouch on an implement does not parantee that it was actually used (Huckell 1990:424), retouch is still the most reliable signature of modification and potential for use that can be recognized quiddy, easily, and macroscopically. Usewear is a more equivocai proposition, however, espeady in the Southwest, where a great deal of the raw materials used for stone implements are relatively coarse and therefore may not develop reliable, diagnostic wear traces. Edge rounding and polishing are robust indicators of use, but edge damage in the form of flaking (or microflaking) is not, since it may be caused by a number oí processes other than utilization This is especially true when most observations of flake edges are conducted with the aid of no more than a 40x binocular miaoscope and often with only a 10x hand lens (Rozen 1984:437; Schiffer 1987:12-13; Young and Bamforth 1990:4W). Because experimentation and biind tests have suggested an accuracy rate of no more than 25% even for experienced archaeologists who attempt to rnake such inferences (Young and Bamforth 1990:404), it is highly advisable to separate artifact types defined by the presence of retouch (an inference that carries a relatively high degree of confidence) from those defined by evidence of utilization , (an inference which often carries a relatively low degree of confidence).

Two potential fauity assumptions that loom whm analysts are too cavalier with the utihed flake designation are that 1) all the flakes idenfified as having been utilized actually were, and that 2) aii the flakes in the assemblage that actuaiiy were utilized have been identified as such. -4 problem is that many tasks are invisible in tenns of usewear, espeaaiiy those expediently performed with unaltered flakes that are immediately discarded rather than kept for repeated use. A few minutes spent slicing a soft rabbit hide or stripping the bark from a few green sticks are not likely to leave traces that are discernible even to a miaowear analyst, much less to an observer with a hand lens. Such tasks will presumably have made up a large portion of the suite of activities for which most of the artifacts witiun an expedient assemblage were employed; it should not be assumed, therefore, that all of the implements which actuaiiy were utilized will be identifiable.

Doubtlessly, some researchers who have spent years experimenting with and observing the effects of stone implement utilization are able to make accurate general inferences about use based on the presence of macroscopically visible wear traces. The rest of us, however, do so at our own peril and to the detriment of the integrity of the data sets we produce. Observing diagnostic wear traces (a combination of polish, striations, alterations of flake miaotopography, and edge rounding and damage) requires the employment of high-power, incident light microscopy and the good fortune to encounter weli-preserved artifacts made of fine-grained cryptoaystalline materials. Even then, years of training and experience are necessary for making reliable inferences. Given this, it is highly unlikely that most people who operate with low magnifications and assemblages dominated by igneous and metarnorphic raw materials will be able to make accurate determinations of use beyond utilized/not utilized, especiaiiy when they daiín to be basing those more detailed inferences on observatior,~ of polish other than sickle gloss or soil sheen. Such great expectations go 'oeyond the limits oí that particular teuinology and technique. Inferences about utilization must therefore proceed with the utmost caution.

Page 20 L M u m i for F W Stone rlmiysis

Cores

Cores are pieces of parent material from which flakes or blades are struck. Specific core types are defined on the basis of the number of platforms present and the directions in which they are oriented. These sppes and include single platform, opposed platfoxm, bidirectionai, multiple platform, and bifacial cores, along with flake cores and tested pieces.

Retouched Flake Implements

Implement is the proposed general term to use instead of "tool." Tmls are traditionally defined by Old World lithic analysts as flakes or blades that have been retouched. In the New World, al1 lithic artifacts that have been utilized, regardless of retouch, are commonly referred to as "tools." To avoid the confusion fostered by this usage, it is suggested that "implementc" be used instead and defined as d retouched and/or utilized artifacts. Flake implements thuc include retouched implements and utilized jakes and are treated separately from m e took. A problem with grouping artifact types under this term is its implication of utilization @y definition, all utilized flakes were utilized, but not al1 retouched implements were utilized). - ---m -- - "-

Retouch Attributes

;

$ @

Because retouch is the basis for distinguishing different types of lithic artifacts, it is important to define retouch attributes that may be identified and combined to classdy artifacis into types. The following retouch attributes were defined by Ken Rozen (1984) and have come into widespread use in the Southwest:

A retouchedjake implement, then, is a flake that has been retouched and is equivalent to the Old World usage for "tool." Retouched implements include f o m l l y retouched i m p l m t s (orfomzal tools) and expediently retouched implernents (or expedient or informal took). A formally retouched implement, or formal tool, is an irnplement with patterned retouch corresponding to a traditionally established, "intuitive" tool type (e-g., projectile point, driU, biface, notch, graver, perforator, endsa-aper, sidesaaper). An expediently retouched implement ( e e n t or informal tool) is characterized by unpattemed, usually nonextensive retouch.

.un facial retouch scars which extend from a given margin onto only one aspect of the implement.

bifacial retouch scars which extend from a common margin onto both aspects of the implement.

irregular two or more noncontiguous (not touching each other) retouch scars, but not more than two contiguo- scars.

continuous three or more contiguous retouch scars.

marginal retouch scars whose lengths do not exceed 10 percent of the maximum ciimension of the implement.

invasive retouch scars whose lengths exceed 10 percent of the maximum dimension of the implement.

I.ll>i.~l !vr Fhkd Stone Anniysis Page 21

nonextmsioe continuous retouch scars whose extent is not greater than 20 percent of the perimeter of the implement.

extensine continuous retouch scars whose extent is greater than 20 percent of the perimeter of the implement.

The following attributes are specific to bifacially retouched impIements:

hafting elernmts modifications to a biface for the purpose of attaching it to a shaft or handie. These include notches, stems, ears, and basa1 concavities.

bit narrow, parallel-sided tip which may be either Iong or short, with a diarnond- to square-shaped cross sedion. A feature of drills.

lenticular cross section relatively thin cross section shaped somewhat like a damshell. Associated with p r o j d e points (as opposed to the thick diamond- to square-shaped cross section of drill bits).

North American fonnal tools are quite '.&fferent in overall appearance from those from the Palaeolithic, Mesolithic, and Neolithic of Europe and the Middie East. The latter tools were made on standardized blanks (blades), which had the effect of homogenizing the appearance of the tool assemblages. h'hile North American (and particularly Southwestem) retouched flake impIements were made on unstandardized blanks (flakes), giving them a quite "informai"

I appearance, the retouched edges themselves are in fact quite standardized. For this reason, Southwestern populations can be considered to have produced formal toois; the retouched edge morphologies, but not the blank morphologies, are the important factor. The edge morphologies of the fonnai, "intuitive" tool types can be defined in tenns of the retouch attributes discussed earlier.

The tool types listed in the bottom rows of the unifacial and biíácial tool anaiysis decision tables are not intended to imply specific functions, but simply to serve as easy to use glosses of the various suites of retouch attributes encompassed by ea& type. That is, refenino .. D .-- to an ..-- artifact as an "endscraper" properly refers only to the nature and location of the retouched edge. It should not be taken to mean that the tool was used only for scraping, or indeed that it was ever used at all.

Core Tools

Core tools, or retouched core implements, are distinguished from flake implements by blank type. This is a technological differentiation; flake implements are made on the byproducts of core reduction, while core tools are made by shaping original cobbles or tablets of raw material into implements through flaking. In general, core tools are larger and heavier than flake tools, but their edge morphologies are analogous. Core tools indude scrapers, choppers, discoids, and composite toois. Other, more rarely encountered, examples include perforators and notches.

Core Xammers

,4 core hammer is a core which shows evidence (battering) of having been used as a hammer. Core hammers are treated separately from core tools because, even though they were utilized as something other than a source for flakes, they were generaily not specially shaped for the

Page 22 Manual for F W Stone Analysis

second function. These and cobble hammers are the oniy flaked stone artifacts defined explicitly in terms oí their intérred function.

Cobble Hammers

A cobble hammer, or hamrnerstone, is an otherwise unmodified cobble which exhibits battering in one or more locations. Agaúi, in the interest of comparative studies, it is preferable to deal with cores, core tools, core hamrners, and cobble hammers separately so that other researchers may group or separate them as they &h.

USING FLAKED STONE DATA

The procedure of assigning a flaked stone artifact to a specific type is best explained through decision tables. The sorting of artifacts into general classes follows the initial decision process illustrated in Table 2. Specific typing of each artifact then proceeds according to the appropriate artifact class decision process (Tables 3-6), and individual artifact attributes are recorded according to the fonns in Appendix B (all artifacts) and C (projectile points).

:A

After al1 of the artifact data have been entered into a database, they may be manipulated in order to discern temporal and spatial pattems in reduction teduiology, tool use, and raw material exploitation, from the regional down to intrasite levelc.

Flaked stone data can be used at the leve1 of the individual artifact-for example, the task in which a particular tool may have been employed-and, more usefully, in the aggegate of an entire class of artifacts or an assemblage. Examples of research themes and questions developed by Patrick D. Lyons to address flaked stone assemblages from Desert Archaeology excavation projects (Sliva 1997; cf. Huckell et al. 1993:l-7, 41-52) are presented below, foilowed by a discussion of vanous models that may be evaluated with flaked stone data.

Research Themes and Questions

Technology and Indwtry

Key research questions that fa11 under this theme are the following:

1) What are the dominant pattem of lithic reduction represented in the assemblage?

2) Do differences in these patterns exist among different time periods?

3) Do important differences exist among sites ascribed to a single time period, and, if so, can these be shown to be related to site fundion?

4) Are these patterns similar to or different from pattems observed at other sites of similar size, function, period, and cultural affiliation?

.LL?nui-r FinkeP Stone Amiysis Page 3

/ l l

I

1 - 1 I i j l l

- = 3 z m

2 2

2-

$ - * - 9 - - .l :: - -

j Q

S . $ - ' '

T - 3" n - - - 5 2

2

'G : P g E - n.

2 1 E l

2 5

6 8 E

u

-?

- ?

2 E 2 - ; 0 c .:!

; 2

2 5

O

3 Y S 7 - .;

0 4 - 2 2

I 5 1 2 5 -

, = P 2

2

I

j. .- c . ; =

3

*? iI

2 n. p .- Y"

n Y O - Z E , c . - : - - 2 % U > a 0 0

: $ 3 % - L .

- ,

1 ; 2 - Z - S - - - - -

* k 5 5 e =

a! Z i P l * i - . -

=zzi - a L S h ? $ u ; $ S % - % -

0 - c

1 2

8

4 = 2

CI, - - - k - 8 7 E 8

-4 d IY)

1

g 3 5

9.

- - Y: 2 n. e B

Y)

al Y c - - 2 = 5 =

r- 2

, - L = ? - - 5 2 Z L - L

r2 Y

21 - = P, - E

Y M, = = 5 % = E 2 %

v3 = 'E - 1 g = n d =

5

Table 3. Debi lnge aiialysis decis ioi i iable.

1 wear trnces abui.111

remninl plallormr on dorsal as)>ecl abvnl I

Lxilh Ialcral edgn prnciil oirc Ialcriil edgr prcxii l lrlenlillablt dorsal and vrnlral arlrecia prcscnl Idciililiablr - I 1 I I I don¿l aiid 1

lcrmiiiatlon 1 Icrnilnrllon

ballrrliig o81 dors¿l aspci

~lreseiil

brllcrlng on dorrrl ar)*ccl ibseiil

plalforin l o rm iculc ingle wlUi dorsal

rwlacc .Id l a lacelcd id

l l~pcd

plallorm prereilt

plrllorm nyi licclcd i i id

l lppd

pl,~llorin abscnl

plailonn l o rm rculr rngle wllh dursal

iurlace rnd Is lictled iid li*d

pllIf0mi MI

lrrelcJ nnd I lppd

compleic flakc proxlnial blhcial

l h i ~ l n g flake l r i ~mer t

Table 4. Core, cure lool, a l i d I i a i n i ~ i e r aiialysis decis ioi i lable. .

one plrilorni lwo plailornii

upposcd plrilorrna plilluriiir iiot opporai

plribrmi shire plr i lonn~ do nul flr l K ~ I ~ur lacn minmun mirgln alare mminon

inardii

rcloucli Mira reI~>ucIi bcrra abaent prrreiil

ringle phllorrn mro

oppororl pl.lli>rm I blplar corr I blhclal core bidircclioi~l corc rnuliiyle cure scraper cornposllc cok )iialkrin mrc 1 cate l w l

corc Iiainilier cure rltul>~xr

I l cui i t~i i i ious rcloiicli 1 ~ i ~ o i i i i i i i i i i i i , retoiicli

i i iargirul reloiicli

extenrlvc reloiich i iuncr leiuivc rcloucli I medli im la,rleep reioiich niedlum l o ~ l e c p rcloucli pro)eclliig rr lui ic l i

convcr or r l ralghl h l g e cuiivex ur coiicavc rliigle 1 :' L,;] el%ncave

c a ~ n b l r u ~ i u n looo;;d :I 1 ac"'c rF baiaring a l cunver, r l i r i p l i l cdge ~>ro]ecIing

-- ... . rlrnlglil,

reloiicli o i i rc lo, idi ui. rcluiich o n rcloitch o n CU'iCaVe'ur

mi i l i lp le edses -- .---

chopper cndscrnpr s i d r m ¿ p ; concnve concive com}msiie denliculale perfuralor expe<lieiit erpedienl notch pr lo ra tur cirdscraper sldcscraper scrnpcr lwl la>l 7'

coiivcx edge

cnlicrvc cdge

nolch

--

reloucli aluiig cnlirc circunilrciice o1 1001

hal l l i ig r lc i i i in l6 a b n n l 1 I

reloucli i i o l o n al1 edgci

I complrle I IrngmrnlAry I complcic I r y m e i i l a r y 1 I

wl lb diamond <ir Iq i ie r t c r o u sccllon prnci8l

no b l l presciil,

Irnlicular cr iar iccl lni i

CDIiV*I. I w l h c d edg8 ~ t r l g ) i l , or

concive edgc

grnerr l bllace driU proicclile dril1

Iragmenl

noncrlei\slvcly rclouched

bllacc

1

dr i l l

Page 26 Manualfor Fhke f i S t a A ~ l y s i s

Technological differences among the lithic assemblages can be measured in terms of reduction patterns and reductive intensity. Reduction pa t tem refer to the techniques used to produce tools and debitage. These include hard hammer direct percussion, soft hammer direct percussion, and pressure fiaking. Redudion patterns can be measured in t e m of the core and tool types present, as well as fiake attributes, including size, presence/absence of cortex, and platform tvpe. Reductive intensity is defined as the relative extent to which cores, flakes, and tools are réduced-through percussion and pressure flaking-before being discarded. Reductive intensity can thus be measured in t e m of mean size of cores, tools, and complete fiakes, mean dmax maximum linear dimension, (cf. Rozen 1981:189) of cores, tools and complete flakes, presence or absence of' cortex on cores, tools, and all debitage, platform types, and percentage of debns.

Exchange, Trade, or Commerce

Two ways that lithic artifacts might be used to address exchange, trade, or cornmerce are the identification and desu-iption of exotic raw material use and the identification of specialized production. The key questions under this heading, then, are the following:

1) Do any of the assemblages exhibit specialized tool, core or debitage types, su& as standardized blankc or preformc that might represent formal manufacturing stages?

2) Do exotic raw materials account for a si,onificant percentage of any of the assemblages?

3) If a significant percentage of exotics does occur, are these materials represented among all lithic dasses (tools, cores, and debitage)?

One of the aspects of prehistoric demography that chipped stone tools can speak to, under optimal conditions, is cultural affiliation. Research questions that address the above topic included the following:

1) Do the tools of any of the assemblages exhibit pattemed formal variability not attríbutable to function? That ic, do tools of the same technological type (e.g., projectile points) display stylistic variability?

2) If stylistic variability is present, can the pattern(s) be correlated with known patterns of geographic and temporal variability (e-g., cultural groups or phases)?

In North America, the dass of flaked stone artifads most useful for making inferences about temporal placement and/or cultural affiliation is projectile points. For example, in the southern Southwest, unifaaal tools and general bifaces are essentially the same throughout time. The only major discernible difference among scrapers, for example, from different time periods may be the raw materials from which they were made. Projecde points, however, have long been used as cultural markers because changes in styles and mznufacturing techniques can be correlated with temporal and, presumably, ethnic differences. Points have been used in this way across

- - the vmrld witfi sitcs md populationc of differcnt ageS (m Weksmr 1983 arrd Szckett 198.1: for a discussion of projedile point styles among ethnographically known hunter-gatherers in the Kalahari).

.bhnuni .?or Fhked Stone .4nai;/sis Page 2-

Projectile point types common to .kizona are illustrated and. described in Xppmdix A. Typicai examples are snown, but some types encompass a greater range of variability than others. The question of whether two similar but different points represent two different styles, su~types oi the same style, or are simply the result oi two oripaily identical points having been resharpened at different rates or in different ways is still the subjed of debate amon,o arcktaeologicts (see Frison 1976; Flennc~en and Rayrnond 1986).

Traditionally, chipped and g~ound stone tools have been used to help infer aspects of the subsistence strategy of prehistoric peoples. In the arid Southwest, however, lithic artifacts take a back seat to plant maaofossils and miaobotanical data, as well as faunal renains and storage and agicultural features. Another irnportant point is that inferences about stone tool functions are prerequisite to inferences about the role of stone tools in the food quest. The most accurate means of determining stone tool function is high-power miaowear analysis (Keeley 1980; also see Vaughan 1985; Yerkes 1987). However, this tedinique requires a skilled analyst and expensive equipment, and it is only appiicable to very fine-grained lithic raw materiais such as cherts. Most Couthwestern lithic assemblages are dominated by coarsegrained metamorphic and volcanic rnaterials that are unamenable to miaowear analysis.

Despite this, general functional inferences can also be derived from the technological attributes of the tools within a $ven assemblage and the distribution of technologically defined Srpes. Thus, the questions guiding research on the role of chipped stone tools in subsistence uiciude the following:

1) How do the reduction techniques and lithic types evident within the assemblages fit with traditionally accepted models of settlement and subsistence adaptations?

2) If the dorninant patterns observed are those typically assoaated with sedentary farmers, which aspects of the assernblage (if any) point toward animal exploitation, and to what degree?

Current Analytical Approaches: Evaluation and Methodological Implications

Until recently, many lithic studies (e-g. Bartlett 1943; Wendorf and Thomas 1951; Martin and Rinaido 1960b; Bradford 1980; all ated in Rozen 1981:159) traditionally focused only on formal tool types, ignoring debitage attributes and the behavioral questiqns such data may illuminate. The primary goal of many analysts was the identification of temporal variation in projeciiie point types in order to establish chronologies.

. . Beprung in the mid-1970s, however, debitage analysis began to play a major role as more studies began to focus on explaining the technological and behavioral processes behind the formation of archaeological assemblages. Cynthia Irwin-Williams (1973) devised a model for hunter-gatherer to sedentary agricidturalist transition in the Arroyo Cuervo region of New :;llexico, pro-ading t ~ o l type desaiphons arid cornments on reduc~on techniques m¿ qua¡ity (although empirid support for statements about quality is not provided) ( R n m t 1981 :161-162). Bruce Huckell appiied a system of differentiating among debitage produced by hard hammer decortication, soft hammer bifaaal thinning, and tool retouch to Archaic assemblages in southeastern Arizona (Huckell 1973a, 1984) and the Tonto Basin (Huckell 1973b, 1978). Richard

Page 28 Mamad for Flnked Stone Amlysis

Ciolek-Torre110 (1987), working in the Mazatzal Piedmont of central Arizona, provided general statements about Archaic lithics, noting in particular the higher proportions of late stage debitage, the geater diversitv of formal tool types than in later periods, and a preference for fine-grained rnaterials for fo-1 tools (Ciolek-TorrelIo 1987273).

In ths environment of new interest in formation processes, two of the more frequently employed approaches to lithic analysis were developed. The formal/expedient "curated"/expedient dichotomy (Chapman 1977; Binford 1979; Parry and Kelly 1986; Lancaster 1993) addresses how mobility is reflected in the lithic record. The Sullivan and Rozen debitage typology (Sullivan 1980; Rozen 1981; Sullivan and Rozen 1985) attempts to provide a basis for distinguishing

! i behveen different technological activities represented by an acsemblage. Whde both models have shortcomings, they did provide the impetus for pushing lithic analysis in new and significant directions. Following are some insights from a review of these previo- attempts at meaningful analysis of the debitage-heavy assemblages produced by semi-sedentary to sedentary populations, as well as from this author's study of lithics from the Santa Cruz River sites (Sliva 1996b).

FormalExpedient Dichotomy Ii'

Mobility has generally been expected to result in ascemblages dominated by bifaces and formal unifacial tool types with a high incidente of curation; greater sedenticm or logistical mobility has " become equated with assemblages charaderized bylexpedient reduction techniques featuring few 27- - formal retouched tools but large amounts of debitage and utilized flakes, and little tool or raw

.I

2 material curation (Parry and Keily 1986; Lancaster 1993:234; Lyons 1994:3). Problems with this orientation include frequent neglect on the part of researchers of raw material factors that rnay

4- directly impact the nature of an assemblage (Andrefsky 1994). Also, (1) allithic artifacts are

5 "curated" to some degree (Riddic and Cox 1993:454; Lyons 19944); (2) evidence exists of curation behaviors having been directed at all types of lithic implements in early farming villages in

& southern Arizona (Sliva 199623); and (3) all groups, regardless of their degree of mobility, may ,3 employ expedient techniques at some point(s) in the life cycle of a lithic assemblage (Lyons

1994:3-4). h sum, while this model is valid at a general level, it can lead to overly simplistic views and interpretations of the dynarnic processes that mate lithic assemblages.

Sullivan-Rozen Debitage Completeness Model

Employed by a number of researchers since its original publication (e.g., Graff 1985; Yarborough 1986; Eppley 1989; Donaldson 1992; Lancaster 1993), the Sullivan and Rozen model (Sullivan and Rozen 1985) attempts to differentiate tool production from core reduction based on relative frequencies of complete and fragmentary waste flakes. Prior to this, Sullivan (1980) used the typology to compare assemblages from ceramic and aceramic sites near Grasshopper (Rozen 1981:160). Rozen (1981), in the TEP St. Johns Project, focused on identúymg the technological characteristics of the assemblage to determine how lithic variability relates to the technology of tool manufacture (Rozen 1981:162). W ' e the typology may be useful for segregating tool production from core reduction in chert assemblages, it has a number of weaknesces. Primary among them is a failure to account for differential raw material properües (Lyons 19944; Hany et al. 1993, Prentiss and Romanski 1989:93-94) and the effects of the formation processes of use, recyding, reuse, and discard (Lyons 19944). Others (Ahler 1989:87, Craig 1992:216) have ated the debitage categones' lack of intrinsic behavioral meaning as a major problem.

Manuai for Fiaked Stone Amipis Page 29

iMcss Cebifage Analysis

Staniey .Mer (1989) developed a method of mas anaiysis of debitage as a way to deal with the usually enormous quantities of debitage at ar~Ciaeolo@cal sites. This technique invoives sueening debitage through graduated screens and then taking raw counts of the numbers of flakes and raw materials present in each size grade. While miss analysis does appear to have considerable promise ior streamlining analytical effiaenq, it should be noted that the data it produces may not be directly comparable with data sets employing standard metrical variables. The debitage size classes used in mass analysic are derived from the sieving of artifacts through a series of graduated saeens, a dynamic process, and thus must be assumed to be based on a median linear dimension. Comparisons of sudi data with size classes based on some combination of standard ilake length, width, and thickness, as rneasured in a procedure where the artifacts are static, must be undertaken with caution.

The objections to Sullivan and Rozen, suntmarized above, have already been discussed in detail in many other publications, and so they do not need to be exhaustively rehashed here. Douglas Craig's (1992) attempt to bring some semblante of inferential relevante to Sullivan and Rozen by combining it with Ahler's (1989) mass analysis procedure is certainly a step forward, but it unfortunately falis victim to some of the same problerns that chmcterize the original model he was trying to improve. The major shortcoming shared by a l I three of these approaches is that they are based solely on data from experimentation with chert or obsidian and therefore may not accmately des&be the non-chert assemblages to which they have been applied. This is of particular concern in the Southwest, where coarser-grained igneous and metamorphic raw materials often form the bu& of recovered assemblages.

Floor Deposit Analysis

Douglas Craig (1992) atternpted an appraisal of floor deposit types in Hohokam pithouses. He size-graded complete flakes based on standard sieve sizes of X', H", and W, following -4hier (1989), and then argued that de facto floor deposits would be dkernible by relatively greater quantities of large rather than small flakes. Unfortunately, this study was based on artifiaaily derived data categories rather than behavioraily significant units, and it points to the need for a discussion of how artifads are best rneasured (see 'Measurement Issues," below). An altemate method for deposit type analysis was developed by the author for assemblages from the Early Agricultural Santa Cruz Bend (AZ AA:12:746) and Stone Pipe (AZ BB:13:425) sites in the Tucson Basin. When examined in terms of remnant uselife, assemblage data from the sites suggest that implement reworking and recycling were important components of the Lithic technology in place at the sites, and that it is possible to differentiate between floor deposits of de facto refuse and feature and fill deposits of secondary refuce on the basis of artifact size (Sliva 1996b). The ,piding assumption of the deposit type analysis is that differential artifact size and context relationships, with larger artifacts consistently located on floors and/or in pits, reflect processes of implement use, storage, and discard conditioned by artífact remnant uselife or residual utility (semu Schiffer 1985:33-34; Kuhn 1989:34; d. Shott 1989:21-22,27). That is, because larger artifacts possess a greater amount of residual utility than smaller artifads, they tended to be recovered irom contexts suggesting that they were being uced (floor context) or stored for future use (storage pit context). The fact that-the smaller artifads (those with little remnant uselife) were overwhelrningly associattd with ~efuse contexts (trash deposits) shows &at ai'dacts were used and rejuvenated until come lower residual utility threshold was reached, at which point they were discarded.

Page 30 Múnual for FoWd Stone ARP!?is

Measurernent Issues

The question arises about which metrical attributes should be measured, how they actuallv are measured, and which measurement techniques are the most valid and replicable. Precision, efficiency, and replicability shouid be the primary goals when measuring metrical variability, and measurements should be taken in the semice of theory. The traditional procedures are to either measure length, width, and thickness, usually relative to the artifact's flaking axh, or to fit artifads into a pnon size dasses, ucually by placing them on a template of nested &des or squares. More recent studies have uíiiized the Ahler method of size grading, and some have measured only the artifact's maximum linear dimension (Tomka 1989160), or "dmax" (Lyons 1994:6; Sliva 1996b:Z; cf. Rozen 1981:189 and 1984:CA). Each of these different methods has dear advantages and disadvantages; some are more precise than others, while some are more 6 a e n t in terms of the amount of time and skiíi required to use t h e a Problems with size grading have been discussed already. Length, width, and thickness are precise but time consumúig, so unless research questions explicitly necessitate taking the three measurements, it may be a waste of time.

Drnax, however, is useful because it is quickly measured, and when it is defined properly, it can serve as a reasonable proxy for flake area. 1 advocate measuring drnax as an artifkct's absolute maximum linear dirnension, regardless of its relationship to the flaking axis. This is essentially what the *d or nested-cirde systems do, but it has the advantage of producing a precise measurement with no additional effort or time and eliminating confusion over how to fit a @ven artifact into a grid (d. Huckeil 1984:94,96).

This model for floor deposit analysis takes an expliatly behavioral approach to artifad size, focusing on lithic discard and m a t e behaviors as a function of remnant uselife. Remnant ucelife, or "residual utility," (sensu Kuhn 198954; cf. Shott 198921-22, 27) deals with the fact that ea& modification and use of a stone tool results in dimlliished size. This means that at some point, the irnplement will be too s m d to use comfortably or effiaentiy, or for reworking to be possible or cost effective. Because larger irnplements generally present the user with more possibilities for use or further reduction, they are considered to have greater remnant uselífe than U smaller implernents. Therefore, the basic assumption is that artífacts will be retained as long as their size is above some situationally dependent minimum threshold, and when they have been

. reduced to a size below that thteshold, they will be discarded. Dmax has proved to be an efficient measure of remnant uselife, and one that demonstrates patterned variability.

Another departure bom many of the previously done lithic studies is that here, incomplete flakes are not eliminated from size analyses. 1 have already argued that atbitrary size grades are artificial, and 1 would further argue that, at some level, eliminating broken fiakes bom a size- based analysis constitutes an artificial distinction as weil. The data bom the Santa Cruz River sites indicate that incomplete flakes were subject to the same curation/discard deasion processes as complete flakes and retouched irnplements, suggesting that, at least there, flake size rather than completeness was the key seiection variable for the prehístoric popuiation. From a behavioral standpoint, a more uceful distinction than sirnply complete/broken would be between flakes broken in manufacture, fiakes broken after manufacture but before discard, and flakes broken through postdepositional processes. However, in almost ali cases su& distinctions are nearly impossibla to make. -- a

?&nual /o, Fhked Stone Ami-is

Usewear Analysis

&e ty-pe of valuable information that can be preserved in stone tools relates to the s p d c tasks they were used to perfom Using a flaked stone tool for a sdficient period of time -dl leave wear traces on its edges that under optimal conditions can be observed and confidently correlated with a specific activity. These traces include miaoflaking, striations, and poiish. The study of these wear traces is generaily known as usewear anaZysis, and study utilizing miaoscopes is known as microwear analysis. The Imo-power approach to microwear analysis uses magnrhcations of less than lOOx and primarily focuses on the nature of the edge damage caused by utilization, and the presence or absence of polish. The high-power approach requires a specialized microscope that provides magnifications between lOOx and 400x and is used to identify specific poiish types, along with flaking and striations on the edge of an implement.

If an implement is made of a certain type of raw material and is used for a sufficient amount of time, diagnostic wear traces will form on the working edge. These can be identified by an analyst using the high-power approach. These identified traces then form the basis for making confident inferences about the type of worked material, the motion of tool use, and how long the tool was used. Because with the low-power approach polishes can only be observed, rather than identified, inferences with that method are limited to the motion of tool use and the relative .- hardness of the worked material.

-Miaowear analysis is a useful but limited tool. Confident fundional inferences can be made only when the wear traces on an artifact are well developed, which means that an implement would have to have been used for a substantial amount of time (at least half an hour for many types of polish). Also, the only discernible wear traces are those created by the implement's most recent use. For example, if a tool was used for an hour to saape wood and then resharpened and used for another task, the evidence of the initial wood scraping is lost and thus invisible to the analyst. Preservational conditions can also adversely affect the condition of wear traces. Long exposure to highly alkaline soils can obliterate poiishes, and all wear traces can be hidden by the patination that forms on artifacts with long-term surface exposures in desert environments.

Despite these iimitations, and the great amount of time and training required by the analysis, miaowear can provide valuable information about patterns of tool function when it is appiied properly. Examples of miaowear studies are listed under "suggested readings" at the end of this manual.

CONCLUSION

This manual is intended to serve as an introdudion to a technological approach to flaked stone analysis. It is important to remember that the practical appiication of the analytical procedures discussed here requires that all data recording be done in seMce of theory and in response to carefuily crafted research questions. These questions must be formulated to maxímize the research potential of the sample to be studied, and should reach beyond simple descriptive boies. :he physics of lithic techncrlogy leave indelible traces o r ~ the artifacts themselves that aJow w to make inferences on severa! !evels about the processes involved in their manufacture, use, and discard. This is where the emphasis of lithic analysis ultirnately iies: on the behavior behind the artifacts, rather than on the artifacts as static entities.

Page 32 Mnnual for F W Stone Annlysis

It is equally important that lithic analysts not become complacent in either their methods or their epistemology. We must continue to ask new questions, seek new ways of manipulating data, (

and continue to test tried-and-true assumptions ín order to achieve the fullest possible understanding of the prehistoric behaviors that were responsible for the assemblages we study.

(

I

APPENDIX A

AN ILLUSTRATED GUIDE TO FLAKED STONE ARTIFACT TYPES

This appendix contains illustrations, definitions, and brief discussions of the various flaked stone artifact types mentioned in the manual. Artifacts are grouped by general type and presented in the same order as the artifact das= in the text. Technological speafications are provided for ea& artifact type, along with iUustrated examples which are intended to demonstrate the range of variability encompassed by each type. Most of the exarnples are from the southem Southwest, but artifacts from other regions of the world are induded as weU for the sake of comparison. Many of the illustrations are of actual artifacts. but in other cases hypothetical examples are provided in the interest of darity. Al archaeological specimens are drawn to scale, and the appropriate site names, time periods, regions, and raw materials are licted along with them. In most of the flake tool illustrations, implements are oriented with the dorsal aspect up and the proximal end at the botton In the other cases, the location of the platform is rnarked with an ' arrow showing the flaking direction. For unifaaally retouched implements, solid lines parailel

to an artifact's edge indicates the location of the retouch.

Page 34

typical flake

typical blade

c. proximal

DEBITAGE

Fiakes are the prirnary blank type found in North Amencan lithic assembiages. They generally have unstandardized shapes and a length-to-width ratio of less than 21. Blades make up smaii portions of assemblages from the Amencan midwest, but they dominate the assemblages of Mesoamencan, European, and Middle Eastem assembiages and are distinguished by straight, parallel sides and a length-to-width ratio usually greater than 2:l. Complete flakes and blades possess al1 of the foliowing attributes: platforms, lateral m a r p , and tenninations.

Fragmenta y FZakes/Blades

Three types of flake/biade fragments are recognized. Flakes possessing a platform but no termination are proxirnal fragihents; those with terminations but no platfonns are dista1 fragments; and those with neither platform nor termination, but with lateral m a r p or an identifiable buibar aspect, are media1 fragments.

Shatter

Debitage that does not possess a platfom, lateral margins, or a tennination, and does not possess an identifiable bulbar aspect, is referred to as shatter, chunks, or unonentable debris.

typical fragmentary flake (1) and blade (r)

rin lllustrated Guiae :o FlaiíeL: .4rtiJact T;qes

typical bifacial thinning flake

m typical bipolar flake

a Vpical h-mer spall

a . *-.

a

typical potlid (1) and potlidded flake (r)

SPECIXL DEE3ITAGE TYPES

These flakes, producd during the manufacture of bifaces, have distinctive piatform and shape attrit>utes. Their platiorms are faceted with Bake scars, are oriented at an acute angle to the dorsal aspea of the hake, and are often lipped. The lateral mar@ frequently expand outward from the platform, giving the fiakes a semi-triangular shape. These flakes are often referred to in shorthand as BTFs (bifacial thúuuigflakes) or FBRs flakes of bifacial retouch).

Core Rejuvenation F k s

These flakes are ctnick kom cores to rejuvenane them (aeate a new platform). These thick flakes represent the enüre top of the core, and so they bear portions of ílake ccars around much or a0 of their perimeters. Core rejuvenation flakes are known in European archaeology as u n e taírlets.

Bipolar Flakes

Bipolar flakes are produced during bipolar core reduction and are distinguished by the absence of buibs of percussion, fairly flat bulbar aspects, rings of force originating from both the proximal and dista1 ends, and, usuaiiy, crushing at both ends.

Hammer Spalk

Hamrner spalls are fiakes that are incidentally knocked off hammerstones or core hammers whiie they are being useci. They are distinguished by substantial amounts of battering, crushing, and abrasion on their dorsal surfaces.

Potlids

Potlids, so narned because they are usually round, pop uom the surfaces of he-grained materials, such as cryptoaystallines, when the materials are subjected to excessive heat While not a byproduct of flaking, potlids are included here because they hre frequently recovered from archaeological sites and may be mistaken for flaked ma terials.

Page 36

Note: Arrows indicate direction of force application.

typical single plaiform core

..... .'"

typical opposed plaiform core

typical bidirectional core

Apperidix .A

CORES

Single-Platforrn Cure

Core with a single striking platform.

Opposed-Pla tfornz Core

Core with two platforms located on opposing surfaces.

Bidirectional Core

Core with two platforms not oriented opposite each other.

Mul tiple-Plrztforrn Cure

Core with flakes removed in random directions from at least three platforms.

.-i..: :iius?iltod GIL& to 3 k e d Stone Artifac: Types Page 57

B \CE: Arrows indicate direction of force appiication.

B B jhammer)

I

typical bifacial core

(anvil)

C E typical bipolar core

C R t 1 B

typical flake are . .

typical tested piecs

... . . . . ... A , :

. . ... .: .'L.,

: . . .... ....... ; . ... t... ;!?: -, . : < .

"Z1' ...i:1 ,.:.-.. y.; u :. ;. .::: 141 .;; .. ' ... - :j.:::. :;.::$ 2, . ; . , : ,?;.::'

, :.. ;y.: . . . . . . . . ..., :,:' ... : . . . - . .a:: ..... ..... t..;.; . . ....;.:..'.,. : - '.' '" .. ..: ..:.A. . ;....:.;.L.'... ';,.. . .: - 0: 2.. ..... ~.~..;.:.;;.;~.::~'' ... .;,. ..... t.- .: ..... .> ,*.. ......

1 CORES

Bifacizl Core

Core with flakes originating from a single margin removed írom two surfaces.

Flake Core

X flake that has been used as a core. It is sometimes diificdt to differentiate between flake cores and fiake tools, and in some cases there may be no real difference betiveen &e two. In general, flake cores are oxpected to be made on exceptionally large flakes and to lack the srnall, regular retoucfi scars that mark flake tools.

Tested Piece .L

Otherwise unaltered piece of raw material hom which one or two flakes have been removed.

Page 36

Epipalaeolithic Abu Noshra I I (Sinai) chert

Middle Archaic Richland County, lllinois chert

typical Late Archaic Santa Cruz valley

. .

Preclacsic Salado AZ U:3:299 metavolcanic

ENDSCRAPERS

Retouch pattem

unifaaal, continuous, invasive, medium to steep, end

Documented fundíons

fresh hide processing dry hide currying plant processing (shredding fibers) woodworking

Temporal distribution in Southwest

Early Archaic through Hohokam.

Temporal variations

No standardized overd tool form or edge morphology. Middle Archaic scrapers tend to be the smallst and Hohokam the largest, although this is likely more a reflection of initial blank (flake) size than of temporal variation in tool technology.

Raw material patterning

In the Southwest, aü uniface raw material patterning depends on mobility patterns and local resources. After the Middle Archaic in the Southwest, relatively coarser materiais tend to be d for these toois, with cryptocrystallins being d oniy rarely. Comrnon materiais indude rnetasediments, siiicified lúnstones, quartzites, and metamorphosed volcanics. These materiais resulted in durable, abrasion-resistant working edges.

.?n Illustrared Suide ro F!aked Stone Arrifact Types

-

Palaeolithic Western Europe, Northern Africa chert (Oakley 1972, Fig. 23b)

Middle Archaic Los Pozos (Ai AA:12:91) rhyolite

Late Archaic Los Pozos (AZ AA:12:91) rnetasedirnent

Page 39

Retouch pattern

unifacial, continuous, invasive, medium to steep, side

Documented functions cc\Q 0

fresh hide processing dry hide currying hide slicing/cutting woodworking

Temporal distribution in Southwest

Early Archaic through Hohokarn.

Temporal variations

'No standardized overall tool form or edge m o r p h o l o ~ . Middle kchaic scrapers tend to be the smallest and Hohokam the largest, although this is likely more a reflection of initial blank (flake) size than of temporal variation in tool tedinology.

Raw material patterning

In the Southwest, all uniface raw material patterning depends on mobility patterns and local resources. After the Middle Archaic in the Southwest, relatively coarser rnaterials tend to be used for these tools, with cryptocrystallines being used only rarely. Common materials indude metasediments, silicified limestones, quartzites, and metamorphosed volcanics. These materials resulted in durable, abrasion-resistant working edges.

Note

It is doubtful that endxrapers and sidescrapers served different íúncíions in the Southwest, where the placement of retouch likely depended on situational needs rather than technological conventions. They are functionally distinct in the Old World, where endscrapers made on blades had fairly steep retouch and tended to be hideworking tools, while sidescrapers on flakes had more acute working edges and served a wider range of functions.

Page 40

Middle Archaic Asana (Peru) jasper

Late Archaic Los Pozos (AZ AA:12:91) silicified Iimestone

Preciassic Salado, AZ U:3:294

metavolcanic

COMPOSITE SCRAPERS

1 Retouch pattern

unifacial, continuous, invasive, medium to steep, multiple edges

1 Documented functions

fresh hide processing dry hide cumying plant processing (shredding fibers) woodworking

Temporal distribution in Southwest

Early Archaic through Hohokam.

Temporal variations

No standardized overd tool form or edge morphology. Middle Archaic scrapers tend to be the smaiiest and Hohokam the largest, although this is likely more a reflection of initial blank (flake) size than of temporal variation in tool technology.

Raw material patteming

In the Southwest, al uniface raw material patteming depends on mobility patterns and local resources. After the Middle Archaic in the Southwest, relatively coarser materiais tended to be used for these tools, with cryptocrystallines being used only rarely. Common materials include metasediments, silicified limestones, quartzites, and metamorphosed volcanics. These rnateriais resulted in durable, abrasion-resistant working edges.

--- - - - -- - - - - - - -- -

An íi'!ujnatd Sude to Fhkz Stone Arkfact Types Page 41

Middle Archaic Los Pozos (A2 AA:12:91) rnetasediment

Late Archaic Los Pozos (A2 AA:12:91) quartzite

SPURRED SCRAPERS

Retouch pattern

unifacial, continuous, invasive, medium to steep, ski- shaped retouched edge

( Possible function

bone working (awl manufacture?)

Temporal distribution in Southwest

1 Mddle and Late Arciaic.

, Temporal variations

Middle Archaic specimens are unifonnly small, while Late Archaic specimenc demonstrate a greater range of sizes.

Raw material patteming

No apparent patterning exisís beyond a preference for cryptocrystalline and he-grained materials.

Note

This is stiil a tentative type, with current examples defined from only two stes.

Page 42

Middle Archaic Los Pozos (AZ AA:12:91) silicified Iimestone

typical Late Archaic Santa Cniz Valley

Preclassic Salado AZ U:3:294 metacediment

Retouch pattern

unifacial, continuous, medium to steep, toothed edge morphology

Documented functions

plant processing (shredding fibers) fresh hide processing (removing fatty tissues and breaking down epide-nis)

Temporal distribution in Southwest

Middle hchaic through Hohokam.

Temporal variations

No standardized overall tool form or edge morphology. Middle Archaic denticulates tend to be the smallest and Hohokam the largest, although this is likely more a reflection of initial blank (flake) size than of temporal variation in tool technology. Some Middle Archaic specimens have pressure-flaked teeth.

Raw material patterning

In the Southwest, all uniface raw material patteming depends on mobility pattems and local resources. After the Middle achaic in the Southwest, relatively coarser materials tended to be used for these tools, with cryptocrystallines being used only rarely. Common materials d u d e metasediments, silicfied limestones, quartites, and metamorphosed volcania. These materials resulted in durable, abrasion-resistant working edges.

Note

Denticulates are essentially endscrapers or sidescrapers with toothed rather than smoth edges. End and side denticulates are not differentiated here since functional variations between the two in the Southwest are highly unlikely. Invasive and marguiai retouch attributes are grouped in this type because they probably represent the same intended function.

Page 43

Upper Palaeolithic Negev Desert chett (from Addington 1986, Fig. 2%)

Late Archaic Los Pozos ( A i h12:91) quartzite

Preclassic Salado AZ U:3:299 metavolcanic

NOTCHES

Retouch pattern

unifacial, continuous, invasive, mediurn to steep, nonextensive, creating rnarked concavity in edge

Documented functions

"spokeshaves" shaft shapers bone and antler working fiber processing

Temporal distribution in Southwest

Early Archaic through Hohokam.

Temporal variations ;;*

Little temporal variation is etident, except for the trend oi larger tools later in time.

Raw material patterning

In the Southwest, al1 umface raw material patterning depends on mobility patterm and local resources. Alter the hfiddle Archaic in the Couthwest, relatively coarser materials tended to be used for these tools, with cryptocrystallines being wed only rarely. Comrnon materiais indude metasediments, silicified limestones, quartzites, and metamorphosed volcanics. These materials resulted in durable, abrasion-resistant workmg edges.

Note

Notches are functionally s i d a r to scrapers, differentiated only by the tightly circumscribed working edge.

Late Archaic

triangular perforator Los Pozos (AA AA: 12:91) rhyolite

Late Archaic typical large flake perforator Santa Cruz Valley

Preciassic Salado small flake perforator AZ U:3:294 chert

Retouch pattem

unifacial, continuous, marginal, medium to steep, fo&g triangular bit

Documented functions

puncturing hide boring wood, bone, and antier gravúig/grooving wood, bone, and antler

Temporal distribution in Southwest

Early Archaic through Hohokam.

Temporal vanations

No standardized overaii tool form or edge morphology. Middle Archaic perforators tend to be s d e r than Late Archaic and Hohokam, although very small examples are associated with al1 time periods.

Raw material patterning

Large flake perforators tend to be made on coarser materiak, whde triangular perforators are usually made of ayptocrystalline or very he-grained materials.

Note

Perforator morphology is highly variable and likely reflects differential function Large flake perforators may have been used both as perforators, with a rotary motion, and gravers, with their bits being used with a longitudinal motion to groove or suatch the worked material.

Middle Archaic denticulatelscraper LOS POZOS (M AA:12:91) metasediment

Late Archaic perforatorlscraper Los Pozos (AZ AA:12:91) fine-grained aphanitic volcanic

Pueblo II perforatorlnotch Pueblo Blanco, New Mexico basalt

Page 45

C0,MPOSITE TOOLS

Retouch pattern

irnifacial, variable; distinct retouch patte-ms on multiple edges

Documented functions

variable; dependent on individual retouch components

Temporal distribution in Southwest

Early -4rchaic through Hohokam.

Temporal variations

No temporal variation apparent.

Xaw material patterning

No raw material variation apparent.

Note

This is a catch-aii category, as demonstrated by the iílustrated exarnples.

Page 46

Middie Archaic L o s Pozos(Ai Acl- 12:9 1 ) chert

Late Archaic Los Pozos (Ai m12:91) rnetasedirnent

Clacsic Salado AZ U:3:297, Locus A rnetasedirnent

EXTEDIENT UNIFACES

Retouch pattem

unifaciai, marginal and/or discontinuous

Documented functions

wide range

Temporal distribution in Southwest

Early Archaic though Hohokam.

Temporal variations

Variation occurs in the proportions of the tool assemblages composed of expedient unifaces, rather than the morphology of the tools themselves. Expedient technology kac traditionaiiy been assumed to correlate with sedentism and dependence on agnculture, but the relationship between subsistence and technology is mudi more complex than that.

Raw material patterning

Expedient tools tend to be made of lower quality raw materials.

Note

Expedient toois are generaiiy assumed to be single-use irnplements, aithough evidence suggests that they were subject to the same curative behaviors as formal tools.

Middle Archaic Richland County, Illinois chert

Middle Archaic South Canyon (A2 EE:2:82) (from Huckell 1984, Fig. 5.15~)

Late Archaic Boatyard (AZ U:3:286) fine-grained aphanitic volcanic

Classic Salado Cline Mesa, Arizona (from Loendorf and Simon 1996, Fig. 11.1 0c)

Page U

GENERAL BIFACFS

Retouch pattern

bifacial, continuous, exte-nsive

Documented functions

They are generally assumed to have been focused on curting and slicing, although thev have ako been considered :o be multiple-purpose toois.

Temporal distribution in Southwest

Early Xrchaic through Hohokam.

Temporal variations

No qua1itati.c-e differences exist other than the use of high qualiq raw material in the Early and Middle Archaic.

Raw material patterning

Cr).ptocrystalline and very fine raw maten& were ovenvhelmingly chosen ior biface manufacture. These materials respond best to the soh hammer percussion and pressure flaking that is optimal for biface manufacture.

General bifaces were probably used both hafted and unhahed.

Late Archaic

short-bit drill Los Pozos (U AA:12:91) rhyolite

Classic Salado straight dril1 Cline Terrace Mound (AZ U:4:33) (from Oliver 1995a, Fig. 9.1 4e)

t-shaped drill Ai U:3:299 chert

DRILLS

Retouch pattern

Bifacial, continuous, extensive, forming bit with diamond to square-shaped cross section. Hafting elements present.

Documented functions

drilling wood, bone, antler, sheii, and cerarnics

Temporal distribution in Southwest

Early Archaic through Hohokam.

Temporal variations

Raw material patterning

As is the case with other bifaces, driiis tend to be made from csrptocrystalline and very h e materials.

Note

Projectile points were frequently used as drills after repeated resharpening le!? them with extreme concave edges that lirnited their efficiency as projectiles.

An i l lust~ated Guide ro Flakai Stone ..?rrcact T y e s

Jay (Tagg 1994,

Lake Mohave (Bayham 1986, Fíg. 10

Fig. 35b)

Long Tapering Ctemrned ( ~ a ~ h a r n 1986, Fig. 10.3b)

Bajada (Wills 1988, Fig. 17a)

/ E-ARLY ARCH.AIC PROJECTILE POI-WS 1 1 J ~ Y

1 siightly tapering stem, convex base, sloping shoulders, item length hequently exceeds blade length

Great Basin northern Southwest 6000-4800 B.C.

' Lake Mohave

contracting stem, pointed base, stem length hequently exceeds blade length, no shoulders

southeastern Caiifomia, southem Great Basin

9000-5000 B.C

Long tapering stemmed

tapering stem,shoulders siight or absent, convex base, stem and blade lengths roughly equal

southern M o n a

830-4500 B.C.

Bajada

straight stern, concave base, prominent shoulders

Great Basin. northern Southwest

4W3200 B.C.

Note

Wills (1988:77-78) argues that no significant temporal or inorphological differences have been demonstrated for Jay and Bajada points.

Sources

Huckell 19M; Rozen 1984; Wiils 1988; Huckell 1993

Paje 50

Pinto (Formby 1986, Fig. 2i).

Chiricahua (Bayham 1986, Fig. 10 .4)

San Jose (Bayham 1986, Fig. 10.2b)

Cortaro (AZ AA1 2:91)

,UIDDLE ARCHAIC PROJECTILE POINTS

Chiricahua

side-notched near base, slightiy to deeply concave base, triangular blade often narrower than stem

Pinto/San Jose

concave-sided expanding stem, concave base, blade often serrated, blade often narrower than stem

southem Califomia, Great Basin, Arizona, Four C o m a area, southwestem New Mexico

triangular blade, short contracting stem, siight prokuding shoulders

Great Basin, central and southeastem Arizona, Four Comers area, southwestem New Mexico, northem Mexico

Cortaro

triangular point without stem or notching, siightly to deeply concave base

southem Arizona, southwestem New Mexico, northem Mexico

Note

The Cortaro style encompasses considerable morphological vanabiiity; many specimens may have functioned as general purpose hafted bifaces rather than projectile points.

S ources

Bostwick 1988; Huckell 1996

iin Kiustra:od &¡de fo F h h d Sfone -4rtifac: 7qes Page 51

cieneia 2 (AZ B8:13:6)

LATE ARCHAICI'EARLY AGRICUL~XJJUEARLY CWXlWC PRO JECTILE POlXTS

San Pedro

side/comer notched, expanding stem, wiae neck, convex base. long triangular biade, rarely serrated

San Pedro p.hase (1200600 B.C.)

central and southem hrizona. nordiem Mexico

Cienega

deeply comer notched, evpanding stem, narrow neck, conxrex base, long triangular blade. may be serrated

Cienega and Agua Caliente phases (600 B.C. - A.D. 550)

central and southem Arizona

Cienega 1

expanding stem, concave blade margins, tapered tips, flaring tangs, reLatively broad comer notches, frequentiy serrated, irequentiy large (>35 mm in length)

early Cienega phase (before c. 400 B.C.)

Cienega 3

expanding s t m , síraight blade margins, relatively narrow comer notches, rarely serrated, wide length range

al1 Cienega and Agua Caliente phases

Cienega 3

expanding stem, straight blade margins, low blade to stem ratio, relatively short tangs, rarely cerrated, uniformiy srnall (<30 mm in length)

late Cienega and Agua Caliente phases (400 B.C. - A.D. 550)

Cienega 4

straiyht stem. straioht hlade míir$n< nccaqiovally serrated, usually small

Cienega and Agua Caliente phases (600 B.C.-A.D. 550)

Colonial barbed (AZ U:3:294)

Colonial sternrned shouldered (AZ U:3:294)

Colonial sternrned tanged (AZ U:3:294)

PRECUSSIC HOHOKAM/SALADO PROJECTILE POINTS

Colonial barbed

narrow, serrated, triangular blade; pairs of lateral barbs near thti base, slightly expanding base

Colonial period (A.D. 750-950)

central and southem Arizona

Colonial shouldered stemmed

triangular blade, contracting stern, lateral shoulders

Gila Butte/Cañada del Oro phase (A.D. 750-850)

central and southern Arizona

Colonial tanged stemmed

triangular blade, contracting stern, oblique tangs

Colonial period (A.D. 750-950)

central and southem Arizona

Sedentary serrated (AZ U:3:352)

Sedentary wide notched (AZ U:3:298)

PRECLASSIC HOHOKAhUSALADO AND PC'EBLO 111111 PROJECTiLE POIKTS

Note l / Type names retlect Hohokam/Salaao nomenclature.

Sedentary intermediate notched (AZ U:3:294)

Sedentary serrated

wrrated triangular blades, straight to concave bases, bases or lowennost teeth wider than blade

Sedentary narrow notched (AZ U:3:298)

1 Sedentary period (A.D. 930-1150)

central and southern Arizona

Sedentary side-notched

triangular blades, side notching low on the point forming a short base, straight to slightly concave bases

Sedentary period (A.D. 950-llSO)/Pueblo 11 /III (A.D. 900-1300)

central and southern Arizona, Colorado Plateau

Sedentary wide-notched

\vide, shallow, contracting side notches; straight to concave bases; relatively broad triangular blades with excurvate to straight sides, tending to be thicker than the narrow-notch variety

early Sedentary period (A.D. 950-1050)/Pueblo II/III (4.D. 900-1300)

central and southern Arizona, Colorado Plateau

Sedentary intermediate-notched

straight-eclged triangular blades; straight to concave bases; wide notched contracting notches but deeper and less wide than those of tlie wide- notched variety, resulting in a narrower neck for the intermediate- b

notched points

Sedentary period (A.D. 950-115O)/Pueblo II/LII (A.D. 900-1300)

central and southern Arizona, Colorado Plateau

Seden tary narrow-no tched

/ deec, nar79n1 side nstcher; thin, !riinpu!-r b!2.1:5 viith ;!rz:ght :r ) incurvate sides; straight to ccncave bases; notches are usua!ly parrillc!

sidea and generaily oriented horizontally rather than obliqueiy

late Sedentary period (A.D. 1050-1150)/Pueblo II/III (A.D. 900-1300)

1 central and southern Arizona, Colorado Plateau

Sources: Tagg 1991; Sliva 1997

Classic flanged (AZ U:3:5)

Classic thin triangular (AZ U:3:297)

CLASSIC PERIOD HOHOKAMISALADO AND PUEBLO III/IV PROJECTILE POINTS

Note

Type names reflect Hohokam/'Salado nomenclature.

Classic flanged

long, triangular blade; concave flanged bases wider than blade; comparably thin with Classic thin triangular and Classic side-notched points

Ash Creek phase (A.D. 1050-1150), Gila phase?

central Arizona

Classic thin triangular

notchless, triangular, straight- to concave-based, differentiated from Classic triangular and Classi~~:long triangular poinh on the basis of their uniform thinness

Asli Creek-Roosevelt phases (A.D. 1050-1350)

A 1 central Arizona

Early Classic side notched (AZ U:3:299)

Middle Classic side notched (AZ U:3:297)

Late Classic side notched (AZU:4:33; Oliver 1995b, Fig. 9.3i)

Classic side-notched

morphologically identical to Classic thin tnangular points, with the addition ot small, shallow side notches located near or slightly below the middle of the points, creating a relatively long base (%5& of total length); concave bases predominate, with few straight and, rarely, convex bases; notches usually contracting or oblique contracting in shape

Early Classic side-notched

notcliing placed above the midpoint; tend to be smaller than average for the side-notched style

Ash Creek phase/Sedentary-Classic transition/Pueblo 11 (A.D. 1050-1150)

central and southern Arizona, Colorado Plateau

Middle Classic side-notched

notch placement from the midpoint to halfway between the midpoint and the base, with notches moving progressively lower through time

Miani/Santan-Roosevelt/Soho/TanqueVerde phases (A.D. 1150- 1350)/Pueblo 111-IV (A.D. 1000-1150)

central and southern Arizona, Colorado Plateau

Late Classic side-notched

notches significantly iieeper and wider than other Classic side-notched variants

Gila/Civano phase (A.D. 1300-1450)/Pueblo 111-IV (A.D. 1000-1450)

central .4rizona. Colorado Plateau

CLASSIC PERIOD HOHOKA-WSALADO AND PUEBLO IIIIIV PROJECTILE POINTS

Note

Type names reflect Hohokam/Salado nomenclature.

Classic concave base triangular (AZ U:3:5)

Classic serrated (AZ U:3:297)

Classic triangular (AZ U:3:5)

Classic long triangular (AZ U:3:297)

Classic concave-base triangular

similar to the Classic triangular point but with a markedly concave base; distinguished from Classic thin triangular poinb by their broader bases and more pronounced tangs; length-to-width ratio is less than 3:l.

Miami-Roosevelt phases (A.D. 1150-1350)/Pueblo I!I-IV (A.D. 1000-1 450)

central Arizona, Colorado Piateau

Classic serrated

very similar to the Classic thin triangular and Classic side-notched style, but distinguished by the presence of serration along the entire length of blade and stern edges

bliarni-Roosevelt phases (A.D. 1150-1350)

central Arizona

Classic triangular

similar to the Classic long triangular se le . but shorter (generallv less than 20 mm in length) and with smaller length-to-width ratios í2:l or less); straight to slightly concave base

Ash Creek/late Sacaton-Roosevelt/Tanque Verde phases (A.D. 1050- 1350)/Pueblo 111-IV (A.D. 1000-1450)

central and southern hrizona, Colorado Plateau

Classic long triangular

triangular, notchless, concave base; thicker than the Classic thin triangular and Classic sidenotched poínts, especially at the tip; long (20 mm or longer) with a high length-to-width ratio (approximately 3:l).

Ash Creek phase (A.D. 1050-1150)/Classic Period (A.D. 1150-1450)/ Pueblo 111-1V (A.D. 1000-1450)

central and southern Arizona. Colorado Plateau

Page 36

Classic bulbous based (AZ U:3:5)

Classic bulbous-base

relatively narrow, subtriangular blade; rounded, flanged base wider than blade; short ( ~ 2 0 rnm in length)

Roosevelt phase (A.D. 1250-1350)

central Arizona

Sources

Keiiy et al. 1978; Huckeii 1981; Bernard-Shaw 1988; Green and Hofíínan 1991; Stone and Bradley 1991; Craig 1992; Rice and Sirnon 1994; Lindeman 1994; Towner 1994; Dart 1995; Oliver 1995a, 199%; SLva 1997

.-in !l!usrrated Guide :o Fhked r ~ n e Art!kcr Tyues

I CORETOOLS

typical scraper

typical chopper

typical discoid

Page 37

Retouch pattem

various; retoud-i pattem determine core t ~ o l type in the same way as they determine flake tool 5-pe

l

Documented functions

various; dependent on retouch type chopping wooci and bone crus hing bone

Note

Core tools tend to be larga and heavier than flake tools and so presurnably were utilized for tasks that required the application oi a great deal of force.

Page 58

typical hammerstone

Retouch pattem

none; arthcts classiiied as harnmers have at least one battered surface or edge marked by crushing and step fractures

Documented functions

production of flaked stone tools pecking ground stone tools crushing bone

Hammers are the only fiaked stone implement class defined exdusively on the basis of usewear radier than retoudL

GENERAL FLAKED STONE ARTIFACT FORM

ARTIFACT A?TRIBLTE EXPLANATIONS

Every artifact is coded uing this form. An additional form for projectile points is presented in Appendix C.

Site is the ASM site number, which can be abbreviated by using the final set of digits, for example, "746" for site -42 M:12:746.

Featnum and strat record the feature number and context from whch the artifact was recovered. Both are assigned in the field.

Prov (provenience), bag, and obs (observation) combine to provide unique numerical designations for each Desert Archaeology artifad. Prov and bag are assigned in the field, and obs is assigned to artifacts f-rom multiple-specimen bags by the analyst.

Rawmat describes raw material and is strudured to allow accurate assessments at varying levels of detail, depending on analyst skill. Fine, medium, and coarse refer to ganularity.

Lithclass identifies the general artifact dass to which the artifact belongs, as defined elsewhere in this manual.

Lithfype denotes the specific artifact type, as defined by the technological attributes discussed in tlus manual.

Pointclass and pointfype are used only for projectile points; these codes are listed in Table C.2.

Dmax refers to the maximum linear dimemion of the artifact, measured to .O1 mrn.

Weight is measured to .O1 g.

Cortex refers to the amount of cortex present on cores or on the dorsal aspect of flake artifacts.

Platfype describes flake platforms, as discussed in this manual.

Platgrind records the presence or absence of grinding of the edge formed where the platform meets the dorsal asped of a flake.

Platlip records the presence or absence of platform lipping. - -

Temz records terrnination type, as discussed in the manual.

Burn records whether an artifact was burned. Buming is indicated by blackening, crazing, potlidding, and/or color changes resulting from oxidation. It does not indude color and texture changes in chert that result from heat treatment.

Page 60 Aweruiix B

Table B.?. Coding n d e r s for the general flaked stone artifact form.

SITE

FEATURE

PROV

BAG

OBS

STRAT

100 medium aphanitic volcanic 198 fine aphanitic volcanic 199 coarse aphanitic volcanic

101 uncpecified basalt 140 basaitic andesite 104 andesite

102 unspecified obsidian 150 Govenunent Mt. obsidian 151 clear colorless obsidian 152 smoky translucent obsidian 153 cdorless/black banded 154 opaque black obsidian (Mule Creek/Cow Canyon) 155 smooth, translucent black obsidian 156 tranclucent grey obsidian (Chihuahua) 157 Apache tear

105 fine porphoritic volcanic 106 medium porphoritic volcanic 107 coarse porphoritic volcanic 108 medium greenish g e y volcanic/white & black phenocrystc

103 unspecified rhyolite 136 black rhyolite/white phenocrysts, fine 137 black rhyolite/white phenocrysts, rnedium 110 black rhyolite/black & white phenocrysts, fine 111 black rhyolite/biack & white phenoaysts, medium 11% black rhyolite/white & red phenocrysts, fine 129 brown rhyolite, with or without white phenocrysts, h e 113 brown rhyolite/white phenoaysts, rnedium (Tucson Mts.) 112 brown rhyolite/white phenocrycts, coarse 125 brown rhyolite/black & white phenocrysts, fine

Page ó2

brown rhyolite/black & white phenocrysts, medium light grey-brown rhyolite, medium grey rhyolite/white phenocrysts, medium grev rhyolite/black & white p h e n q s t s , fine grey rhyolite/black & whte phenocrysts, medium grey rhyolite/large black & whte phenocrysts, medium ashy grey rhyolite or andesite/black & white phenocrysts, fine pink-grey rhyolite, fine (Tuc. Mts.) pink-grey rhyolite, medium (Tuc. Mts.) pink rhyolite/white phenocrysts, fine pink rhyolitel white phenocrys ts, coarse (Tuc. Mts.) pink rhyolite/black & white phenocrpts, h e pink rhyolite/black & white phenocrysts, medium pink rhyolite/black & white phenoaysts, coarse red rhyolite/white phenoqsts, medium red rhyolite/whte phenocrysts, fine red rhyolite/black & white phenocrysts, fine red rhyolite/black & white phenoaysts, medium reddish brown rhyolite, fine

120 fine dacite, lavender to white

unspecified fine metamorphic unspecified medium me tamorphic fine metasediment medium metasediment siiicified limes tone ar@te/mudstone, green/geenish black fine quartzite fine sage- or mint-green quartzite medium quartzite medium sage-green quartzite coarse quartzite unspecified schist

300 unspecified sedimentary 301 sandstone 302 limestone 303 siltstone

400 unspecified uyptocrystalline silicate 402 chert 410 heated chert 411 Canta Cruz River bedload cherts 472 light brown-oranye chert/black flecks 413 Buffs chert 414 Windy Point/Hill chert 415 Chalk Mountain chert

Page 63

brown woodgrain chert chert, lighter than Buff's, mottled white candy-mottled cliert white or cream or very light grey chert, or d of these variegated Tonto Creek bedload diierts like 417 but with a c r e m base, some orange and brown other dark brown chert crearn or light grey/purplish brown variegated chert semi-translucent cream/light grey variegated chert medium grey/light grey variegated chert dark grey/brown variegated chert Light grey chert tanueam/whte chert, with sparkly inclusions grey-green/brown variegated, dark green spedcs, sedimentary or superfine quartzite black or very dark brown chert buff-colored chert

jasper brick red / salmon j asper salmon jasper/specks orange-red/red jasper orange/red / white banded jasper yellow jasper yellow /red/ orange jasper brown jasper

chalcedony translucent orange/ tan/ grey chalcedony translucent chalcedony (not milky) opaque milky chalcedony semi-translucent tan chalcedony translucent milky chalcedony semi-translucent grey chalcedony translucent gnarly tan chalcedony

406 petrified wood 407 agate

501 unspecified volcanic or sedimentary, extremely h e , possible phenocrysts 500 unidentified/ other 600 burned (unidentifiable) 999 not yet identified (pending further research)

LITHCLASS

. -. : debitüge 2 unifacially retouched ivplements 3 bifacially retouched implements 4 cores 5 core tools (P P P I C ~ J ~ ~ m nCcbO 7 pcirut~r de rrint0 8 om

Page S

6 core hamrners 7 cobble hamrners 8 other

complete flake proxirnal flake fragment medial/distal flake fragment split flake complete bifacial thinnú\g flake bifacial thinning flake, proximal fragment bifaaal thining flake, medial/distal h,ment bifaaal thinning flake, longtudínal fragment bipolar flake chunk/shatter core rejuvenation flake thermally fractured fragment utilized flake flake from hammer

endscraper sidescraper composite scraper denticulated endscraper o

denticulated sidesaaper e

denticulated composite scraper 0

concave endscraper concave sidescraper concave composite scraper o

acute ci end acute ci side acute ci composite

214 shouldered long-bit perforator 215 shouldered short-bit perforator 216 triangular perforator 217 small flake perforator 218 large flake perforator

219 backed flake 220 groundsdge flake 221 burin 222 notch l,

223 composite tool

226 steep cmn

Page 63

acute end cine m e d i m end m ~ e steep end CTL~ acute side crne medium side ~ n e steep side cine acute composite m e medium composite crne steep composite ane

acute concave , h e medium concav2 cme steep concave m e acute denticulated end cme medium denticulated end ane steep dentidated end cme acute dentidated side cme medium dentidated side cme Aeep dentidated side cme acute denticulated cornposite ane medium denticulated composite une steep dentidated composite m e

248 acute retouched fragment 249 medium retouched fragment 250 steep retouched fragment

251 acute irregular uniface 252 medium irrepiar uniface 253 steep irregular uniface

nonextensively retouched biface - nonextensively retouched biface fra,ment small irregular biface

-

large irregular biface irreguiar biface fragment general biface general biface, media1 f rapen t general biface, end fragment general biface, longitudinal fragment long-bit dril1 %\':\Ay {\!? k, ; [ql&\

a' short-bit driii projectile point preform projectile point prefonn, base nrnj~ctiip pnint pr~íonn, media¡ h a y i ~ n t

prcjectiie psint prefcnr.!projPcti?e pcint, tip pro]ectde point preform, iongtudinal iragment projectile point

343 wedge (ti$. -

Page 66

f . 399 bifaual flake chopper (WYo & c_hcyFn:r7; ,-i, l, 4 alternate retouch 346 discoid 398 micro-denticulate

single-platf orm core opposed-platform core bidirectional core multiple-platform core bifacial core bipolar core flake core 0

core fragment - tested piece O

501 core scraper/plane LO ,j , lf':, , c a , S , . , ::: : 7- 502 unifaual core chopper '

503 bifacial core chopper 504 composite cor~?. tool 305 core wedge 506 core notch 507 core dentidate

601 core hamrner 602 core hamrner fragment

701 cobble hammer 702 hammer fragment

801 other 802 pendant 803 possible pendant

999 not yet identified (pending further research)

POINTCLASS

Paleoindian Southwestem Early Archaic Southwestern Middle Archaic Southwestem Late .4rchaic/Early Agridtural/Early Ceramic Basketmaker Great Basin (Middle Archaic through historic) Mogollon Hohokam/Salado Pueblo / Sinagua Protohisto1icJhist015c unknown/other

Page 67

01CO unspeciiiea Paleoinciian o101 C~OT.~S 0102 Folsom 01 03 Plainview /Goshen/Belenn (Cady Complex) 0104 Agate Basin 0105 Eden 0106 Hellgap 0199 other named Paleoindian point

0200 unspecified SW Early Archaic 0210 San Dieguito/Yuma (leaf-shaped or lanceolate) 0220 Lake Mohave (long tapering stemmed) 0230 Jay/Ventana-Amargosa (broad tapering stemmed) 0299 other named SW Early Archaic póint

0300 unspecified SW Mddle Archaic 0310 Gypsum/Agustin 0320 unspecified Pinto/San Jose/Chiricahua series 0321 Pinto 0322 San Jose 0323 Chiricahua 0330 Cortaro (also Late Archaic) 0399 other named SW Middle Archaic

0400 unspecified SW Late Archaic/Early Agricuitural/Eariy Ceramic 0410 San Pedro 0420 unspecified Cienega 0421 Cienega 1 0422 Cienega 2 0423 Cienega 3 0424 Cienega 4

0500 unspecified Basketmaker

0600 unspecified Great Basin Archaic 0610 Humboldt series (Middle Archaic) 0611 Humboldt concave base 0612 Humboldt basa1 notched 0620 unspecified Elko series (Middle-Late Archaic) 0621 Elko corner-notched 0622 Elko side-notched 0623 Elko eared Q5L' i J 0 ~ t . e ~ zide-r.ct&.2d '3640 iirwpecifiecl Ros? Spi-Ltg/Co'itc~iw-~u¿~Eastgate sems (X.D. 700 - 11C3) 0641 Roce Spring comer-notched 0642 Roce Spring contracting stem 0643 Cottonwood triangular 0644 Eastgate expanding stem

Page 68

0645 Eastsate split-stem 0650 Desert side notched (late prehistonc, historic)

unspecified Mogollon unspecified San Francisco phase San Francisco barbed

0720 unspecified Hilltop phase 0721 Hilltop comer-notched 0722 Hilltop lanceolate

0800 unspecified Hohokam/Salado 0801 unspecified Preclassic Hohokam/Salado 0820 unspecified Pioneer Hohokam/Salado 0830 unspecified Colonial Hohokam/Salado 0831 Colonial barbed 0832 Colonial tanged sternmed 0833 Colonial shouldered stemmed 0834 Santa Cruz barbed 0840 unspecified Sedentary Hohokam/Salado 0841 Sedentary serrated 0842 Sedentary wide-notched 0843 Sedentary intermediate-notched 0844 Sedentary narrow-notched 0850 unspecified Classic Hohokam/Salado 0851 Early Classic side-notched 0852 Middle Classic side-notched 0853 Late Classic side-notched 0854 Classic serrated 0855 Classic triangular 0856 Classic thin triangular 0857 Classic long triangular 0859 Classic concave-based triangular 0860 Classic bulbous-based 0861 Classic flanged

0900 unspecified Pueblo 0901 unspecified Sinagua

1000 unspecified protohistoric 1001 unspecified historic 1010 Sobaipuri 1020 Apache 1030 Pima 1040 O'odham

9000 unknown type 9001 uikiowri Southwestem rype 9002 unknown Colorado Plateau type 9010 unspecified exotic type 9011 Andice (Big Bend, TX)

G t ~ e r ~ i F k k d Sione An$ac: Form

9012 Shumla (Big Bend, TX)

WEIGHT

1 1OO0/o cortical 2 some cortex present 3 no cortex present

1 cortical 2 plain 3 faceted 4 crushed 5 cortical, faceted (partially prepared) 6 cortical, crushed

PLATGRIND

1 present 2 absent

1 present 2 absent

TERM

1 feather 2 hinge 3 step 4 overshot

1 burned 2 possibly burned O not burned

Page ó9

PROJECTILE POINT FORM

ARTIFACT A m B U T E EXPLANXTIONS

After being entered in the General Flaked Stone Arnfact Form, every projectile point is coded using this form. The codes used are presented in Table C.2.

Cite is the ASM site number, which can be abbreviated by using the final set of digits, for example, "7%" for cite A2 AA:12:746.

Feafnum and strat record the feature number and context from which the artifact was recovered. Both are assiped in the field.

Prov (proveniente), bag, and obs ( o b ~ e ~ a t i o n ) combine to provide unique numerical desiptions for each Desert Archaeology arhfact Prov and bag are assiped in the field, and obs is assigned to artifacts from multiple-spedmen bags by the analyst.

Reg-zon identifies the area withm khe Southwest from which the point was recovered.

Period and phase refer to the temporal placement of the context from which the point was recovered.

Matclass identifies the general raw material category of the point.

Rawrnat describes raw material and is structured to allow accurate assessments at varying levels of detail, depending on analyst skill. Fine, medium, and coarse refer to granularity.

Pointclass identifies the general complex or technological tradition to which the point belongs.

Pointfype denotes the speafic point type.

Condition records the degree of point completeness.

Weight is measured to .O1 g, while al1 metrical ~ariables are measured to .O1 mm. These measurements are explained in Fi,we C.1.

Morphological variables are explained in Figure C.2.

Latgrind and basegn'nd refer to the presence or absence of gnnding on the lateral or basa1 edges of a point.

Bevel records whether one or both blade edges have a resharpened bevel.

Flaketecir-records what flaking technique-permion, pressure, or a combination of h e t w e w a s used to finish the point.

Page 72

Page 74

Table C.2. Coding numbers for the projetile point form.

PROV

BAG

OBS

1 east-central Arizona/westcentral New Mexico 2 central Arizona 3 west-central Arizona 4 southwestem Arizona 5 south-central Arizona 6 southeastem A.rizona/couthwestern New Mexico 7 northwestern Me.uco

PERIOD

PHASE

MATCLASS

1 volcanic 2 metamorphic 3 sedimentary 4 cryptocrystalline siliceous rock, and quartz 5 unidentified

100 medium aphanitic volcanic 198 fine aphanitic volcanic 199 coarse aphanitic volcanic

101 unspecified basalt 140 basaltic andesite 104 andesite

102 unspecified obsidan 150 GovernmeAt-Mt. obei- 151 clear colorless obsidian 152 smoky translucent obsidian 153 colorless/black banded

P-:r~:iie ?oin: 'onn Page 75

iS4 opaque biack obsidian (Muie Creek/Cow Canyon) 155 smooth, translucmt black obsidian 156 translucenr grey obsidian (Chihuahua) 157 Apache tear

105 fine porphontic volcanic 106 medium porphoritic volcanic 107 coarse porphoritic volcanic 108 medium greenish grey volcanic/white & black phenoaycts

unspecified rhyolite black rhyolite/whi te phenocrysts, fine black rhyolite/whte phenocrysts, medium black rhyolite/black & whte phenocrysts, fine black rhyolite/black & white phenocrysts, medium black rhyolite/white & red phenocrysts, fine brown rhyolite, with or without whte phenoaysts, h e brown rhyolite/white phenoaysts, medium (Tucson M&.) brown rhyolite/white phenoaysts, coarse brown rhyolite/black & white phenoaysts, fine brown rhyolite/black & whte phenoaysts, medium light grey-brown rhyolite, medium grey rhyolite/ white phenoaysts, medium grey rhyolite/black & white phenoaysts, h e grey rhyolite/black & white phenocysts, medium grey rhyolite/large black & white phenocrysts, medium ashy grey rhyolite or andesite/black & white phenoqsts, fine pink-grey rhyolite, fine (Tuc. Mts.) pink-grey rhyolite, medium (Tuc. Mts.) pink rhyolite/white phenocrysts, fine pink rhyolite/white phenocrysts, coarse (Tuc. Mts.) pink rhyolite/black & white phenocrysts, fine pink rhyolite/black & white phenocrysts, medium pink rhyolite/black & white phenocrysts, coarse red rhyolite/white phenoaysts, medium red rhyolite/white phenoaysts, fine red rhyolite/black & white phenocrysts, fine red rhyolite/black & white phenoqsts, medium reddish brown rhyolite, fine

120 fine dacite, lavender to white

200 unspeafied fine metamorphic 208 unspeafied medium metarnorphic 201 fine metaseuiment 202 medium metasediment 203 silidied limestorie 206 ar$llite/ mudstone, green/greenish black 210 fine quartzite 212 fine sage- or mint-green quartzite

Page 76

204 medium quartzite 211 medium sag-een quartzite 205 coarse quarttite 220 unspecified cchist

300 unspecified sedimentary 301 sandstone 302 limestone 303 siltstone

unspecified ayptocrystalline silicate chert heated chert Santa Cruz River bedload cherts light brown-orange chert /black flecks Buff s chert Windy Point/Hill chert Chalk Mountain chert brown woodgrain chert chert, lighter than Buff's, mottled white candy-mottled chert white or aeam or very light grey chert, or all of these variegated Tonto Creek bedload cherts like 417 but with a aeam base, some orange and brown other dark brown chert cream or light grey/purplish brown variegated chert semi-translucent aeamllight grey variegated chert medium grey/light grey variegated chert dark grey/brown variegated chert light grey chert tan-aeam/white chert, with sparkly inclusions grey-green/brown variegated, dark geen specks, sedimentary or superfine quartzite black or very dark brown chert buff-colored chert

jasper brick red/salmon jasper salmon jasper/ specks orange-red/red jasper orange/red/white banded jasper yellow jasper yellow/ red/orange jasper brown jasper

405 c?talcedony 430 translucent orange/ tan/grey chaicedony 431 translucent chalcedony (not milky) 432 opaque milky chalcedony

Proieclile Point For?n Page 77

433 semi- translucent tan chalceiony 3 translucent milky chalceciony 435 semi-translucent grey chaicedony 436 translucent pa r l y tan chalcedony-

406 petrified wood 407 agate

501 unspeafied volcanic or sedimenta% extremely h e , possible phenocrysts 500 unidentified/ other 600 burned (unidentifiable) 999 not yet identified (pending further research)

POINTCLASS

Paleoindian Southwestern Early Archaic Southwestern Mddle Ardiaic Southwestem Late Archaic/ Early Agricul tural /Early Ceramic Basketmaker Great Basin (Middle Archaic through historic) Mogollon Hohokam/Salado Pueblo /Sinagua Protohistoric/historic unknown/other

O100 unspecified Paleoindian 0101 Clovis 0102 Folsom 01 03 Plainview/Goshen/ Belenn (Cody Complex) 0104 Agate Basin 0105 Eden 0106 Hellgap 0199 other named Paleoindian point

0200 unspecified SW Early Archaic 0210 San Dieguito/Yuma (leaf-shaped or lanceolate) 0220 Lake Mohave (long tapering stemmed) 0230 Jay/Ventana--4margosa (broad tapering stemmed) 0299 other named SW Early Archaic point

0300 unspeafied SW Middle Archaic 9318 G p s u ~ ~ / A g ~ % t i ' . 0320 uiipecified Pinto / S= :ose / C.hiiicah~a series 0321 Pinto 0322 San Jose 0323 Chiricahua

Page 78

0330 Cortaro (also Late Archaic) 0399 other named SW Middle Archaic

0400 unspecified SW Late -4rchaic/Early Agricultural/Early Ceramic 0410 San Pedro 0420 unspecified Cienega 0421 Cienega 1 0422 Cienega 2 0423 Cienega 3 0424 Cienega 4

0500 unspecified Basketmaker

0600 unspecified Great Basin Archaic 0610 Humboldt series (Midcile Archaic) 0611 Humboldt concave base 0612 Humboldt basal-notched 0620 unspecified Elko series (Middle-Late Archaic) 0621 Elko comer-notched 0622 Elko side-notched S

0623 Elko eared 0630 Northem sidenotched 0640 unspecified Rose Spring/Cottonwood/Eastgate series (A.D. 700 - 1100) 0641 Rose Spring comer-notched 0642 Roce Spring contractin, stem 0643 Cottonwood triangular 0644 Eastgate expanding stem 0645 Eastgate split-stem 0650 Desert side-notched (late prehistoric, historie)

0700 unspecified Mogollon 0710 unspecified San Francisco phase 0711 San Francisco barbed 0720 uncpecified Hilltop phase 0721 Hilltop comer-notched 0722 Hilltop lanceolate

0800 unspecified Hohokam/Salado O801 unspecified Preclassic Hohokam/Salado 0820 unspecified Pioneer Hohokarn/Salado 0830 unspecified Colonial Hohokam/Salado 0831 Colonial barbed 0832 Colonial tangedstemrned 0833 Colonial shoddered-stemmed 0834 Santa Cruz barbed 0843 unspecified Sedentary Hohokam/Saladc 3841 Sedentary serrated 0842 Sedentary widenotched 0843 Cedentary intermediate-notched 0844 Sedentary narrow-notched

?rcGxtile Point F o m Page 79

9850 unspecified Classic Hohokam/Salado 0851 Early Classic side-notdied 0852 h4iddle Classic side-notched 0853 Late Clacsic side-notched 0854 Classic serrated 0855 Classic triangular 0856 Classic thin triangular 0857 Classic long triangular 0859 Classic concave-based triangular 0860 Classic bulbous-based 0861 Classic flanged

0900 unspecified Pueblo 0901 unspecified Sinagua

1000 unspecified Protohistoric 1001 unspecified historic 1010 Sobaipuri 1020 Apache 1030 Pima 1040 O'odham

9000 unknown type 9001 unknown Southwestern type 9002 unknown Colorado Plateau type 9010 unspecified exotic type 9011 Andice (Big Bend, TX) 9012 Shumla (Big Bend, TX)

CONDrnON

1 complete 2 complete, impad fracture at tip/very tip missing/one ear missing 3 proximal fragment 4 media1 fragment 5 dista1 fragment 6 longitudinal fragment 7 very base missing

,Vletrical variables:

WEIGHT

TOTLENGTH

BLDiENGTki

HAFTLENGTH

BLD WIDTH

Page 30

BASEDEPTH

NECKWTDTH

M o ~ h o l ogical variables:

BLDSHAPE blade chape

1 triangular 2 excurvate triangular 3 incurvate triangular 4 parallel 5 excurvate 6 recurvate 7 excurvate/inwate 8 straight/excurvate

SERRA TION

O absent 1 present

DISTALTYPE

1 acute 2 acuminate 3 muaonate 4 obtuse 5 apiculate 6 broad

HAFTTYPE

1 stemmed 2 not&ed 3 straight (stemless, notchless)

Prolectik Point Fom Page SI

1 markedly eqanding 2 slightl y expanding 3 straight 4 slightly contracting 5 markedly contracting

1 symmetricai 2 asymmetrical

2 comer (includes side/comer notching e.g., San Pedro) 3 basai 4 side and basa1 5 other

NOTCHALIGN

1 aligned 2 offset

1 horizontal parallel 2 oblique parallel 3 expanding 4 horizontal contracting 5 oblique contracting 6 oblique parailel/oblique contracting (one of ea&)

NOTCHDEPTH

1 shallow 2 deep

BASETYPE

1 markedly concave 2 slightly concave 3 straight 4 ~:i,h?l.!g Cül?VEX

5 markedly convex 6 pointed

Page 32

O absent/NA 1 present

O absent/NA 1 present

BEVEL

O absent/NA 1 present

O absent 1 present

1 percussion 2 mostly percussion, some pressure 3 equal amounts percussion and pressure 4 mostly pressure, some percussion 5 pressure

1 collateral 2 horizontal transverse 3 oblique transverse 4 random 5 chevron 6 oblique collateral

COMMENTS

Pmjec:ile ?oint Form P a g S3

F.,, , * t b di&\

dista1 iip

1

aximum blade thickness

haít thickness

base (proximal end)

Figure C.1. Projectiie point morphology and metrical attributes.

Page 84 Appendix C

Figure C.2. Projectde point morphological variables.

Figure C.2. Projectiie point morphologicd variables.

~ B L D S H ~ P E (blade shape) 1 trian&ar 2 excurvate triangular 3 incurvate triangular 4 parallel 5 excurvate 6 recurvate 7 excurvate/incurvate 8 straight /excurvate

A. SERILAT'ION (blade serration) 1 present 2 absent

c. DISTALTYPE (shape of distal end) 1 acute 2 acuminate 3 mucronate 1 obtuse 5 apiculate 6 broad

Jd. HAFTTYPE (haft type) 1 stemmed 2 notched 3 straight (stemless, notckless)

i /é STEMTYF'E (stem type-NA for stemless points) 1 markedi; expanding 2 slightly expanding 3 straight 4 slightly contracüng 5 markedly contracüng

f. STEMSYM (stem symmetry) 1 S ymmetrical 2 as ymmetrical

&NOTCHLOCAT (notch location-NA for unnotched points) 1 side IahrnC 2 comer (includes comer /side) 3 base bcc,<-1 + base arici sicie S other

h. NOTCHALIGN (notch ali,ment-for side-notched points only) 1 aligned 3 offset

A. NOTCHSWE (notch shape) 1 horizontal parallel I\Oiix i$ r4[. p l a \ ( \74 7 - oblique parallel \?or\mhi\ o b \ ~ 023

3 expanding 4 horizontal contracting 5 oblique contracting 6 oblique parallel/oblique contracting (one of each)

j. NOTCHDEPTH (notch depth) 1 shallow 2 deep

k. BASETYPE (base type) 1 markedy concave 2 slightiy concave 3 straight 4 slightiy convex 5 markedy convex 6 pointed

1. FLAKEPATT (flaking pattem) 1 horizontal coilateral 2 horizontal transverse 3 oblique transverse 4 random 5 chevron 6 oblique collateral

- - - - -

EXERCISES IN FLAKED STONE IIMPLEMENT MANUFACTURE AND USE

Hands-on experience with lithic materials is essential to gaining an understanding of fiaked stone analysis. To that end, practica1 exerases have been designed for use with several of the following explanatory seciions. As with any scentific endeavor, success depends on replication and comunication-that ís, the more times you perform a given exeruse, and the more you discuss and compare your results with your colleagues, the better the quality of the resultant knowledge for everyone involved.

The purpose of the exerases is to famdiarize you with the ch in of behaviors involved in the creation and use of stone implements. Choices must be made at each stage of a lithic artifact's "life historyn-what raw material shouid be used, which particular cores would provide the best Ilakes, which unaltered flakes would be suitable for a $ven task, which flakes would be likely candidates for retouching and subsequent use as tools, and, during use, which flakes or tools worth resharpening or reshaping as they duli and break and which ones should be discarded. Going through the process ~ourself shouid get you thinking about lithic artifacts from a behavioral standpoint and shouid help you better understand some of the processes involved in their creation.

Each general activity below comes with a list of suggested things to do, some of which shouid be recorded on the accompanying fonns. Follow the instrudions and take some notes about each specific activity so you will be able to write brief answers to the questions that accompany each section. Again, discusing the questions and your responses to them with your coileapes will be beneficial.

Before you begin knapping, a note about safety is warranted. As is to be expected when people bang rocks together, the potential for injury is significant. It is inevitable that everyone who uses flaked stone technology will experience at least a few smashed thumbs, cut fingers, and blistered paims, particuiarly when working with the finer-grained materials that produce very sharp edges. These injuries can be minimized, however, if appropriate precautions are taken:

Protect your hands. The best way to prevent cuts on the hand you are using to hold the core or flake being reduced is to either wear a glove or wrap the core/blank in a glove or leather pad. This is partidarly recomrnended when working with obsidian. When pressure flaking, wearing a glove on your working hand is highly recommended. Aitemately, a hand g ~ a r d can be fashioned by pushing the pressure flaker through a hole in a s m d leather pad. If you do not wish to use a glove or pad, be sure to press your fingers tightly against the surface from which the flake will be removed. Holding the core/flake loosely d o w s the edge of the struck flake to pivot away from the core and cut into y o u skin. After striking each flake, check your ~ s e m p s anci remove sniail svlirtters of rock that wiil utherwise be uounded deeper into your fle$ with siibsequent blows. - Chake debris from your pants legs and-shirt, rather than brushing it away wirh your bare iiands. Handle a fresiily B&d edge as you wouid a sharp knife, as flaice edges may match or exceed the sharpness of a steel blade.

Page S8 W k D

Protect your eyes. If you do not wea? eyeglasses, safety glasses or goggles are strongly recommended. Striking cores with hard hamrners creates shatter along with the larger da-!es, aiI oi whch can tly up and strike you in the face, espeaaily when more brittle raw materials are being used.

Protect your legs and feet. Closed shoes and lona pants are advisable to protect the lower extremities from flying debris. Aprons are useful in this regard as well. Lf you think that any debris may have gotten incide your shoes, remove the shoes and W e them bdore standing up and walking .

Pay attention. Carefully aim your hammerstone blows, so as to avoid striking your fingers or pinckuig your palm. You may find it helpful to lightly tap the spot you want to hit on the core one or two times before striking it with fiiU force, as a means of guiding the blow. Try to have an idea of what will happen when you strike a core or flake, anticipating the effects of the amount of force you plan to use and your striking angle. Being aware of where other people are while you are knapping rninimizes the chance that you will hit them with, or be hit by, flying debris. It is quite possible that you may get cut and not realize it. Inspect your hands and head from time to time to ensure that you have not incurred injuries that should be attended to before continuing. A

Part One: Core Reduction

Goals: familiarity with the effects of different percussor types and striking angles

familiarity with the flaking qualities of different raw material types

understanding changes in core morphology through the course of the reduction process

familiarity with the types of debitage produced during core reduction

comparisons of assemblages produced by different knappers

With these safety tips in mind, pick at least two or three cores of different raw materials and strike several flakes from them. Try to retrieve and examine each flake as you strike i t Locate the platform, bulbar aspect, lateral margins, and termination. Note amountc of cortex on dorsal surfaces and bulbar aspect attributes, such as bulbs of pefcussion, eraillure scars, and lances. Try refitting flakes to the core as you strike them, and refit several flakes in sequence to get an idea of how core morphology changes through the reduction process. Experiment with different percussor types and striking angles, as well as different ways of holding the core as it is struck-with your fingers, against your leg, and on an anvil. Consider the following questions as you reduce your cores:

1. How many flakes were you able to remove before the core was exhausted?

2. What is tlIc n a W of *e assemblageyowhave prduced? For exartyle, . w b t a e the relative frequenaes of complete flakes and flake fragments? What kindc of terminations did you produce? How are the flakes shaped? What do the platfom and bulbs look like?

, Ex~rcises in Flakd S s n e Im~i--nt .hhnujacture ond Uje Page S9

3. What differences in flaking quality did you notice arnong the various raw rnateríals you used? W-ere some easier to ilake tiian others? Were your answers to the questions above different for different raw material Spes?

Xfter you have examined your assemblage and answered the fírst three questiom, trade assemblages with some of your colleagues. Examine a sample oi their cores and debitage, and try to refit flakes to ea& core. Mix up a few diíferent assernblages and try to separate and refit them (the k s t attempt at this will be easiest if different material types are used). Wnen you have finished, answer the following questions:

4. Could you tell a notable difference between your own assemblages and the others, based on the "nature of the assemblage" question #2 above?

5 . How much success did you have in separating and refitting the different assemblages?

Part Two: Tool Production

Goal: understanding the ways in whch blanks may be retouched to produce tools, using hard- and soft-hammer direct percussion and pressure flaking

First, select some of your flakes to retouch (reserving some to be used unaltered in Part Three of the exercises). If you did not produce enough usable flakes, select some of those provided in the boxes. Second, record the raw material Spes and draw outlines, side views, and cross- sectiom of your blankc on the Tool Production Recording Form provided. Thud, produce some tools, experimenting with different percusor Spes, striking angies, and blank prehension techmques (different amounts of pressure with the fingers against the retouched a s e , holding the blank against the leg) to produce different tjpes of retouch. Try both unifacial and bifacial retouch, and try to rnake a variety of tools-a scraper, a notch, a perforator, a cienticulate, etc.-for a variety of tasks (see list under Part Three below). Record the retouch technique(s) used. Fourth, draw outhes, side views, and cross-sections of the tools next to the drawings of the blanks from which they were produced. Consider the following questions as you work, writing down the amwers when you are finished.

5. Did certain percussors seem to work better on different raw material5 than others?

6. If your tools broke during manufacture, could you tell what the problern was, e-g., you hit the blank too hard or at the wrong angle, the material was internally flawed, etc.?

7. How much change do you see between blank and tool, based on the drawings? What dirnension seems to have been altered the most for ea& tool type (outline, edge angle, thickness)?

Part Three: Implement Use

Goal: understanding the deasion process required for performing a task with fiaked stone implements

understanding the effects of utilization on flaked stone tool morphology

, Page 90 Appendix D

Below are Lists of worked materials and motor behaviors (actions). Pair materials and actions from the Lists to create a variety of tasks, sudi as sawing wood, saaping bone, boring hide, etc., and &en select both toois and unretouched flakes that you thmk would be suitable for ea&. List the tasks on the experiment recording form, along with outline and edge angle drawings of the implements to be used. Factors to consider in implement selection include litiuc raw material, edge chape, edge angle, and overall implement morphology. Is it comfortable to hold? Will its edge configuration allow it to be used efficiently?

Worked Material: Motor Habit (action):

green wood soaked antler whitüing dry wood fresh hide slicing fresh bone dry hide sawing dry bone tanned hide suaping fresh antler meat chOpping dry antler shell driing/boring gr ass agave . For ea& experiment, describe the task to be performed on the Experimental Tool Recording Fom. Make the carne type of tool drawings as for Part Two. Examine the flake or tool edge you plan to use, making notes about its appearance. You will compare the appearance of the unused edge with what it looks like after it has been used, so try to record details. If your implement dulls or breaks, try to resharpen or reshape it through retouch, remembering to record what the tool looks like both before and after you retouch it (with drawings and written notes-use as many form as necessary for all of your data). When you have completed a task, record a final set of data on the tool and edge morphologies and any usewear you see, along with the elapsed time and your ohservations about the task you performed. You may wish to try using a few different raw materials or edge angles for the same type of task. Compare used and unused edges, both of the same and different raw materials.

8. Did certain raw materials dull or break more quickly than others?

9. For what tasks did certain raw materials seem to be best suited?

10. Did unaltered flakes perform better for certain tasks than retouched implements, and vice versa?

11. Which of the tasks seemed easiest/hardest?

12. Did you find it necessary to resharpen or othenvise modify any of the implements during a task? If so, what was the task, and were your modifications successful?

13. Based on the before-and-after drawings of the implements, what kinds of worked materials and/or actions caused the greatest degree of alteration to the used edge?

14. Examine the implements used by another person. Can you differentiate between used and unuscd edges, and if so, can you te& what Mks they were used for? Compare tools used for the same task, but for different periods of time, and toois of different raw materials used for the same task. What differences do you see?

E;ercijrj in F!nkeii Stone Irnplernent .Uanufac~hue mi Use Page 91

Summary and Discussion

It mav be interesting to m i t e a bri& su- of your experiences with and general impressions of thése exercises. Consider the opportunities and Iimitations presented to people by flaked stone technology, and how they compare with those presented by the everyday technology with which you are familiar. How wouid your daily life be hfferent if you had to rely upon flaked stone? Do you think about flaked stone any differently than you did prior to completing the exercises?

in Faked Stone In?plem

lsrt Manufm

ture and Use

Page 93

REFERENCES CITED

hkler, Stanley A. 1989 Mass Analysis of Flaking Debris: studying khe forest rather than the ú-ee. In Altemative

Avproaches to Lithic Analysis, D. Henry and G. Odell, eds., pp. 5-118. Archaeological Papers of the Arnerican Anthropological Assoaation No. 1.

/hdrefsky, WA. 1994 Raw-material Availability and the Orgarrization vf Technology. American Antiquity

5921- 35.

Bartlett, K. 1943 A Primitive Stone hdustry of the Little Colorado Valley, Arizona. American Antiquity

8266-268.

Binford, Lewis 1979 Organization and Formation Processes: Looking at Curated Technologies. Joumal of

Anthropological Research 35255-273.

Bostwick, Todd W. 1988 Projectde Point Analysis. h An Inaestigation of Archaic Subsistence ami Settlemnt in the

Harquahala Valiey, Maricopa County, Arizona, edited by T . W. Bostwick, pp. 253-393. Northland Research, Inc., Fiagstaff.

Bradford, J. 1980 The Coronado Projed Archaeological hvestigations. Museum of Northern Arizona

Research Paper 17.

Chapman, R.C. 1977 Analysis of Lithic assernblages. h S e t t h t and Subsistence Along the Lower Chalco River,

ed. by C.A. Reher, pp. 371452. Aibuquerque: University of New Mexico.

Ciolek-Torrello, Richard 1987 Archaeology of the Mazatzal Piedmont, Central Arizona. Museum of N. AZ Research Paper

33, vols. 1 and 2.

Clark, John E. 1982 Manufacture of Mesoamerican Prismatic Blades: h Alternative Teduiique. American

Antiquify 47:355-376.

Lotterall, Brian, and Johan Kamminga 1990 Mechanics of Pre-Industrial Technology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Crabuee, Don E. 1968 Mesoamerican Polyheciral Cores and Prismatic Blades. American Antiquity 33:406-478.

Page 96 Rgfkrolcs Citea

Craig, Douglas B. 1992 Chipped Stone Artifads. In T h Xye Creek Project: ~chaeology in the Uper Tonto Busin, Vol.

2, ed. by M. Elson and D. Craig, Center for Desert Ardiaeology Anthropological Papers No. 11, pp. 315-245.

Donaldson, M. 1992 Lithic halysis. In Archaeological Investigations af Lee Canyon: Kayenta And Fannsteads

in the Upper Basin, Coconino Counfy, Arizona, S. Whittlesey, ed., pp. 91-110. Statistical Research Teduiical Series No. 38.

Eppley, Lisa 1989 Chipped and Ground Stone Analysis. In Archaeological Investigations at the Redtail Site,

AA:12:149 (ASM), in the Northem Tucson Basin, M Bemard-Shaw, ed., pp. 131-150. Center for Desert Archaeology Technical Report No. 89-8.

Flenniken, J. Jeffrey, and h a n W. Rayrnond 1986 Morphological Projectile Point Typology: Replication Experimentation and Technological

halysis. American Antiquity 51:603-614.

Frison, George C. 1976 Fossil Bison and Artifacts from an Early Altithermal Period Arroyo Trap in Wyoming.

American Antiquity 41:28-57.

Graff, C. 1985 Flaked Stone. In Excavations at the Valencia Site: A Preclassic Hohokam Village in the

Southem Tucson Basin, W. Doelle, ed., pp. 161-184. Institute for American Research Anthropological Papers 3.

Harry, Karen, Mark Slaughter, and Alan Denoyer 1993 Experimenting With Raw Materials: How Accurate Are Inferences Derived fÍom Flake

Completeness Categories? Paper presented at the 58th Annual Meeting of the Soaety for American Ilrchaeology, St. Louis, Missouri, April 1993.

Huckell, Bruce B. 1984 The Archaic Occupation of the Rosemont Area, Northem Santa Rita Mountains, Southeastern

Anzona. Archaeological Series No. 147, Vol. 1, Arizona State Museum, Tucson.

1990 Late Preceramic Famer-Foragm in Southem Arizona: A Cultural and Ecolo@ Consideration of the Spread of Agriculture into the Arid Southwestem United States. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Arid Lands Resource Sciences, University of Arizona, Tucson.

1993 The Southwestem Archaic: Scale and Perception of Preceramic Hunter-Gatherers. Paper presented at the 58th Annual Meeting of the Soáety for American Archaeology, St Louis.

1995 Of Marches and Maize: Preceramic Agricultura1 Se t t l emts in the Cienega Valley, Southeastem Arizona. Anthropological Papers No. 59. University of Arizona, Tucson.

1996 Style and Substance: Projectile Points, the Cochise Culture and the Archaic Prehistory of the Southem Deserts of the American West. Paper presented at the 61st Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, New Orleans.

. \knuaipr Flaiíed jione Amiysis Page 97

E~cke l i , Bruce B., Brenda G. Randolph, and Danielle 3esniisse~ux 1993 Phase 2 Arcllaeological Tzsting Report and Phase 2 Data Recovery Proposal fOr the ADCT

Sycamore Creek Project, Tonto Basin, Arizona. Tedinical Report No. 934. Center for Desert ?Lt.chaeology, Tucson.

Lrwui-Wiliiams, Cynthia 1973 The Oshara Tradition: Origins of Anasazi Cultue. E a s t m Nerr Mexico Uniumsity

Contributions in Archaeology 5(1).

/deley, Lawrence H. 1980 Experimental Determination of Stone Tool Uses. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

A 9 8 2 Hafting and Retooling: Effeds on the Archaeological Record. American Antiquity 47(4):798-809.

/kuhn, Steven 1989 Hunter-Gatherer Foraging Organization and Strategies of Artifad Replacement and

Discard. In Expenmnts in Lithic Technology, ed. by D. k c k and R Mauldin, pp. 3347. BAR Lnternational Series 528.

.;?*

Lancaster, Judith 1993 Chpped Stone Analysis for the Tator Hills Project. In Archaic Ocmpt ion on the Santa

Cruz Flats: the Tator Hills Project, edited by C. Halbirt and K. Henderson, pp. 231-278. Flagstaff: Northland Research, Inc.

Loendorf, Chris and Arleyn W. Simon 1996 Flaked- and Carved-Stone Assemblages from the Cline Mesa Sites (draft). In Salado

Residential Settlements on Tonto Creek, Roosevelt Platform Mound Ctudy: RPport on the Cline Mesa Sites, Cline Terrace Complex, edited by Theodore J. Oliver and David Jacobs, Roosevelt Monograph Series 9, Anthropological Field Studies 38, Arizona State University.

Luedtke, Barbara E. 1992 A n Archaeologict's Guide to Chert and Flint. Archaeological Research Tools 7. Institute of

Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.

Lyons, P. 1994 Desaibing and Explaining Lithic Variability at Prehistoric Puebloan Sites. Paper

presented at the 59th Annual Meeting of the Soáety for American Ardiaeology, Anaheim, California.

Lvlabry, Jonathan B. 1996 Archaeological Investigations at Early Village Sites in the Middle Santa Cruz Valley: Analyses

and Syntheses. Anthropological Papers No. 19. Center for Desert Archaeology, Tucson.

&&e. M. P. R. 1959 Lithic Reduction Stages and Assemblage Fomt ion Processos. Ln Expenrnents in Lithrc

Technology, edited by D. Ami& and R. Mauldin, pp. 15-31. British kchaeoiogicd Reporis Intemational Series 528.

Page 98 R@rmces Cited

Martin, P. and J. Rinaldo 1960b Table Rock Pueblo, Arizona. Fieldiana: Anthropology 51(2).

/0akleY, Kenneth P. 1972 Man t k T o o l - d . University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Oliver, Theodore J. 1995b Flaked- and Carved-Stone Assemblages from U:4:33/132. In A Salado Phtfonn Mound on

Tonto Creek. Report on the Cline Terrace Mound, Cline Terrace Cornplex (1995 Draff), ed. by D. Jacobs, pp. 9.1-9.25. Roosevelt Monograph Series 7. Anthropological Field Studies 36. Ofíice of Cultural Resource Management, Arizona State University, Tempe.

h a r r v , W. and Keiiv, R. 1986 Expedient Core Technology and Sedentism. In The Organizution of Core Technology, J.

Johnson and C. Morrow, eds., pp.. 285-304. Boulder: Westview Press.

Prentiss, W. and E. Romanski 1989 Experimental Evaluation of Sullivan and Rozen's Debitage Typology. In Experiments i n

Lithic Technology, ed. by D. Ami& and R. Mauldin, pp. 89-99. British Archaeological Reports International Series No. 528. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.

Jf¿cklis, R.A. and K.A. Cox 1993 Examining Lithic Technological Organization as a Dynamic Cultural Subsystem: the

Advantages of an Expliatly Spatial Approach. Arnerican Antiquiíy 5 8 : W 6 1 .

Rozen, Kenneth C. 1981 Patterned Associations Among Lithic Technology, Site Content, and Time: results of

the TEP St. Johns Project lithic analysis. In Prehictoy of the St. Johm Area, East-Central Arizonar The TEP St. Johns Project, by D.A. Westfaii, pp. 157-232. Arizona State Museum Archaeological Series No. 153.

1984 Flaked Stone. In Hohokam Habitation Sites in t k Northem Santa Rita Mountains, by A. Ferg, K. C. Rozen, W. L Deaver, M D. Tagg, D. A. Phiüips, Jr., and D. A. Gregory, pp. 421-604. Archaeological Series No. 147, Vol. 2, Part 1. Cultural Resource Management Division, Arizona State Museua

Sackett, Jarnes 1984 Style and Ethniaty in the Kalahari: A Reply to Weissner. A d c a n Antiquiíy 50:154-159.

Scluffer, Michael B. 1987 Fonnation Processes of the Archaeological Record. University of New Mexico Press,

Albuquerque.

Shackley, M. Steven 1995 An Energy Dispersive X-Ray Flourescence (EDXRF) Analysis of Obsidian Artifacts from

- Thiee Late Archaic Sites in the Tucson Basin, Arizona AZ AA:12:745, 746, and EB:13:425 (ASM). Ms. on file, Desert Archaeology, Inc., Tucson.

Shott, Michael J. 1989 On Tool-Class Use lives and the Formation of Archaeological Assemblages. American

A n tiquiíy 54:9-30.

.Mnnul for ,=!akd S h e AmlysU Page 99

Ciiva, R. Jane 1996b Flaked Stone Artifacts. In Archaeologzcal Investigations at Early Village Sites in the Midule

Canta Cruz Valley: Analyses and Syntheses, edited by J . B. Mabry. Anthropological Papers 19, Center for Desert Archaeology Tucson.

1997 Temporal, Spatial, and Functional Variability in the Flaked Stone Assernblage. Tn Archaeological Inwstigntions along Tonto Creek, Vol. X: Lithic Ctz~aies, ed. by J. Clark. Anthropological Paper, Center for Desert Archaeology, Tucson, in preparation.

~ u l l i v a n , Alan P., m, and Kenneth C. Roíen 1985 Debitage Analysis and Archaeological Tnterpretation. American Antiquity 50:755-779.

Tagg, Martyn D. 1994 Projectile Points of East-Central Arizona: Forms and Chronology. In Middle Little

Colorado Riuer Archaeology: From the Parks to the People, edited by A. T. Jones and M. D. Tagg, pp. 87-147. The Arizona Archaeologist No. 27. Arizona Archaeological Society, P h o e n .

& d a , Steven A. 1989 Differentiating Lithic Reduction Techniques: an Experimental Approach. In Experirnents

in Lithic Technology, ed. by D. Arnick and R. Mauldin, pp. 127-162. British Archaeological Reports Tnternational Series no. 528. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.

Vaughan, Patrick C. 1985 Use-wear Analysis of Flaked Stone Tools. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Weissner, Poliy 1983 Style &d Social Mormation in Kalahari San Projectile Points. A m . c a n Antiquiiy 48:253-

276.

Wendorf, F. and T. Thomas 1951 Early Man Sites near Concho, Arizona. Arnerican Antiquity 17:107-114.

Wills, Wirt H. 1988 Early Prehistoric Agriculture in the American Southwest. Cchool of American Research Press,

Santa Fe.

Yarborough, C. 1986 The Chipped Stone Assemblage. Tn The 1985 Excavations at the Hodges Site, Pima Counfy,

Arizona, R Layhe, ed., pp. 127-166. Arizona State Museum Archaeological Series No. 170.

Y erkes, Richard W. 1987 Prehistoric Life on the Mississippi Flooaplain: Stone Tool Use, Settlement Organization, and

Subsistente Practices at the Labras Lake Cite, nlinois. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

SUGGESTED READING

Hafting and Retooling

Keeley, Lawrence H. 1982 Hafting and Retooling: Effects on the Archaeological Record. American Antiquity

47(4):798-809.

1987 Hafting and "Retoolirig" at Verberie. In La MaUl et I'Outil: Manches et Emmanchements Prehistonques. Travaux de la Maison de l'orient, No. 15.

Miscellaneous Lithic Technology and Analysis

Addington, Lucille R. 1986 Lithic íllustration: Drawing FIaked Stone Artifncts for Pzlblication. University of Chicago

Press, Chicago.

Bleed, Peter 1986 The Optimal Design of Hunting Weapons: Maintainability or Reliability. Arnerican

Antiquity 51:737-747.

Clark, John E. 1982 Manufacture of Mesoamerican Prismatic Blades: An Altemative Technique. Arneric~zn

Antiquity 42355-376.

Cotterall, Brian, and Johan Kamminga 1979 The Mechanics of Flaking. In Lithic Use-Wear Analysis, edited by Brian Hayden, pp.

97-112.

1990 Mechanics of Pre-Industrial Technology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Crabtree, Don E. 1972 An Introduction to Flintworking. Occasional Papers No. 28. Idaho State University

Museum, Idaho State University Museum, Pocateilo.

Hayden, Brian, and W. Karl Hutchings 1989 Whither the Billet Flake? In Experirnents in Lithic Technology, edited by D. S. Amick

and R. P. Mauldin, pp. 235-258. British Archaeological Reports International Series 528.

Slaughter, Mark (editor) 1992 Making and Using Stone Artifacts: Lithic Sites in Arizona. Archaeological No. Report 92-

5. SWCA-, h., 'Frrcs~n.

Whittaker, John C. 1994 Flintknapping: Making and Understanding Stone Tools. University of Texas Press,

Auctin.

Page 102 Suggested M i n g .

Mobility Patterns and Lithic Technology

Birúord, Lewis R. 1979 Organization and Fomation Processes: Looking at Ciirated Technologies. Iournal of

Anthropologi.ca1 Research 35:255-273.

Kelly, Robert L. 1988 The Three Sides of a Biface. ~merz'can Antiquity 53:717-734.

Parry, W., and R. Kelly. 1986 Expedient Core Technology and Sedentism. In The Organization of Core Technology,

edited by J. Johnson and C. Morrow, pp. 285-304. Westview Press, Boulder.

Torrence, Robin 1983 Time Budgeting and Hunter-Gatherer Technology. In Hmter-Gatherer Economy in

Prehistory, edited by G. Bailey, pp. 11-22. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Palaeolithic Technology

Bordes, Francois 1961 Typologie du Paléolithique. Delmas, Bordean.

1969 Reflections on Typology and Technology in the Palaeolithic. Arctic Anthropology 6:l- 29.

Campbell, J. B. 1978 The Upper Palaeolithic of Britain. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Oakley, Kenneth P. 1972 Mizn the Tool-Maker. University of Chicago Press, Qiicago.

Soffer, Olga A. (editor) 1991 Archaeological Dictionary of Stone Took. Institute of Archaeology an SSSR, Moscow.

May be available from Dr. Soffer, Dept. of Anthropology, University of Iiiinois, 109 Davenport Hail, Urbana, illinois 61801.

Wymer, John 1982 The Palaeolithic Age, Croom Helm, London.

Projectile Point Classification

Flenniken, J. Jeffrey, and Anan W. Raymond 1986 Morphologicai Projectile Point Typology: Replication Experimentation and Technological

Analysis. American Antiquity 51:603-614.

Frison, Gcorge C. -- - -.

1976 Foscil Bison and Artifacts from an Early Altithermai Period Arroyo Trap in Wyoming. American Antiquity 41:28-57.

. i l m ~ i - Ú r Fhka S t m Íinnlysis Page 103

Heizer, Robert F., and Thomas R. Hester 1978 Great Basin Projectile Points: F o m and Chronology. Publications in -4rchaeology,

Etbology and History NO. 10. .Ballena Precs, Socorro, New Mexico.

Gladwin, Harold S., Emil W. Haury, E. B. Sayles, and Nora Gladwin 1965 Excavations at Snaketown: Material Culture. Reprinted. University of m o n a Press,

Tucson. Origmally published 1938, Medallion Papers No. 25, Gila Pueblo, Globe, Arizona.

Jelinek, Arthur J. 1976 Form, Function, and Style in Lithic halysis: In Cultural Change and Cantinuify: Essays

in Honor of James Bennett Gr-ifin, edited by C. E. Qeland, pp. 22-33. Academic Press, New York.

Justice, Noel D. 1987 Stone Age Spear and Arrow Points of the MidcontimtaZ and Eastem United States: A

Modern Survey and Referente. Indiana University Press, Bloomington.

O'Brien, Michael J. and Robert E. Warren 1983 An Archaic Projectile PoidSequence from the Couthern Prairie Peninsula: The Pigeon

Roost Creek Site. In Archaic Hunters and Gatherers in the Amer-ican Midwest, edited by J. L. Phillips and J. A. Brown, pp. 71-98. Academic Press, New York.

Shott, Michael J. 1993 Spears, Darts, and Arrows: Late Woodland Hunting Techniques in the Upper Ohio

Valley. American Antiquity 58:42543.

Thomas, David Hurst 1978 Arrowheads and Atiatl Darts: How the Stones Got the Shaft. Amen'can Antiquity 43:461-

472.

1981 How to Classlfy the Projectile Points from Monitor Valley, Nevada. Journal of Cal<fomia and Great Basin Anthropology 3:7-43.

Raw Material

Camilli, Eileen L. 1998 Lithic Raw Material Selection and Use in the Decert Basins of South-Central New Mexico.

The Kiva 53:147-163.

Hughes, Richard E. (editor) 1984 Obsidian Studies i n the Great Basin. Contributions of the University of California

Archaeological Research Facility No. 45. University of California, Berkeley.

LucUtkc, 3 a l - V ~ ~ E. 1392 A n A Y C ~ O ~ O ~ S ~ ' S Guide to Clzert anb Flit~t. A-hecilogical Rssearch Tmls No. 7. Irotitüts

of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.

Page 104 Suggated Rendnig

-Uadsen, John H. 1993 Geology of the Lower Santa CIUZ River Drainage Basin: A Piiot Study of Prehistoric Stone

Procurement. In The Northem Tucson Basin Survey: Research Drections and Background Studies, edited by J. H. Madsen, P. R. Fish, and S. K. Fish, pp. 59-82. Archaeological Series No. 182. Arizona State Museum, University of Arizona, Tucson.

Mitchell, Douglas, and M. Steven Shackiev 1995 Classic Period Hohokam Obsidian Studies in Southern Arizona: A Review and

Prospectus. Joumal of Field Archaeology 22291-304.

Shackiey, M. Steven 1988 Sources of Archaeological Obsidian in the Southwest: An Archaeological, Petrological,

and Geochemical Study. American Antiquity 53:752-772.

1995 Sources of Archaeological Obsidian in the Greater American Southwest: An Update and Quantitative Analysis. American A n tiquity 60(3).

Style J

Sackett, James 1982 Approaches to Style in Lithic -4rchaeology. Joumal of Anthropological Archaeology 1:59-112.

1984 Style and Ethniaty in the Kaiahar-i: A RepIy to Weissner. American Antzquity 50:154-159.

1985 Style, Function, and Assemblage Variability: A Reply to Binford. Amerícan Antiquity 51:628-634.

1986 Isochrestism and Style: A Clarification. Joumal of Anthropological Archaeology 5:266-277.

1989 Style and Ethniaty in Archaeology: The Case for Isochrestism. In The Use of Style in Archaeology, edited by M. Conkey and C. Hastorf, pp. 3243. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Weissner, Polly 1983 Style &d Social Mormation in Kalahari San Projede Points. American Antiquity 48:253-

276.

Usewear Analysis

Aldenderfer, Mark S., Larry R. Kimball, and April K. Sievert 1989 Miaowear AnaIysis in the Maya Lowlands: The Use of Functional Data in a Complex

Soaety Setting. Joumal of Field Archaeology 16:47-60.

Anderson, Patricia C. - 1986-8 T e s ~ i ~ ~ y of P~dus i~ r i c Taskc: -Diap&Rssldues o r i cmc Tool Working Edges.

World Archaeology 12:181-193.

'Manual for Flnked S t m Ann-is Page 105

BarnfoPA, Douglas B. 1988 Investigating Microwear Polishes with Blind Tests: The Inslituk Results in Context.

Journal of L4rchaeological Science 15:ll-23.

Hayden, Brian (editor) 1979 Lithic Use-Wear Analysis. Academic Press, New York.

Juel Jensen, Helie 1988 Functional Analysis of Prehistoric Flint Tools by High-Power Miuoscopy. A Review of

West European Research. Journal of World Prehistory 2:53-88.

Keeley, Lawrence H. 1980 E-verimental Determination of Stone Tool Uses. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Phillips, James L. 1991 Refitting, Edge-Wear and Chaines Opératoires: A Case Study fmm Sinai. In 75 Ans

df¿tudes Technologzques en Préhistoire. XIe Recontres Internationales d'kchéologie et d'Histoire dlAntibes. Éditions ARDCA, Juan-les-Pins.

Richards, T. H. 1988 Microwear Pa tterns on Experimental Basa1 t Tools. British Archaeological Reports

International Series 460. Oxford.

Semenov, Sergei A. 1964 Prehistoric Technology. Barnes and Noble, New York.

Vaughan, Patrick C. 1985 Use-wear Analysis of Flaked Stone Tools. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Wilmsen, Edwin N. 1968 Functional Analysis of Flaked Stone Artifacts. American Antiquity 33:156-161.

Yerkes, Richard W. 1987 Prehistoric Life on the Mississippi Floodplain: Stone Tool Use, Settlernent Organization, and

Subsistente Practices at the Labras Lake Site, nlinois. University of Chicago, Press Chicago.

Yerkes, Richard W. and P.N. Kardulias 1993 Recent Developments in the Analysis of Lithic Artifacts. Joumal of Archaeological Research

1(2):89-120.

Young, Donald, and Douglas B. Bamforth 1990 On the Macroscopic Identification of Used Flakes. American Antzquify 55:403-409.