Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

What is a Burin? Typology, Technology, and Interregional Comparison

  • Published:
Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adams, W. Y., and Adams, E. W. (1991). Archaeological typology and practical reality, Cambridge University Press.

  • Allsworth-Jones, P. (1986). The Szeletian and the Transition from Middle to Upper Paleolithic in Central Europe, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allsworth-Jones, P. (1990). The Szeletian and the stratigraphic succession in central Europe and adjacent areas: Main trends, recent results, and problems for resolution. In Mellars, P. (ed.), The Emergence of Modern Humans: An Archaeological Perspective, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York, pp. 160–242.

    Google Scholar 

  • Almeida, F. (2001). Cores, tools, or both? Methodological consideration for the study of carinated lithic elements: The Portuguese Case. In Hays, M. A. and Thacker, P. T. (eds.), Questioning the Answers: Re-Solving Fundamental Problems of the Early Upper Paleolithic, British Archaeological Reports International Series 1005, Oxford, pp. 91–97.

  • Andrefsky, W. (1994). Raw-material availability and the organization of technology. American Antiquity 59: 21–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aubry, T., Detrain, L., and Kervazo, B. (1995). Les Niveaux intermédiaires entre le Gravettien et le Solutréen de l’abri Casserole (Les Eyzies de Tayac): Mise en évidence d’un mode de production original de microlithes et implications. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française 92: 296–302.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bamforth, D. (1986). Technological efficiency and tool curation. American Antiquity 51: 38–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bamforth, D. (1990). Settlement, raw material, and lithic procurement in the Central Mojave Desert. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 9: 70–104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barton, M. C. (1989). Beyond style and function: A view from the Middle Paleolithic. American Anthropologist 92: 57–72

    Google Scholar 

  • Barton, M. C. (1991). Retouched tools, fact or fiction? Paradigms for interpreting Paleolithic chipped stone. In Clark, G. A. (ed.), Perspectives on the Past, University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, pp. 143–163.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barton, M. C., Olszewski, D. I., and Coinman, N. R. (1996). Beyond the graver: Reconsidering the burin function. Journal of Field Archaeology 23: 111–125.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baumler, M. F., and Downum, C. E. (1989). Between micro and macro: a study in the interpretation of small-sized debitage. In Mauldin, R. P., and Amick, D. S. (eds.), Methodological Contributions to Lithic Analysis, British Archaeological Reports, International Series No. 528. Oxford, England, pp. 101–116.

  • Binford, L. (1965). Archaeological systematics and the study of culture process. American Antiquity 31: 203–210.

    Google Scholar 

  • Binford, L. (1973). Interassemblage variability—The Mousterian and the ‘functional’ argument. In Renfrew, C. (ed.), The Explanation of Culture Change, Gerald Duckworth, London, pp. 227–254.

    Google Scholar 

  • Binford, L., and Sabloff, J. (1982). Paradigms, systematics, and archaeology. Journal of Anthropological Research. 38: 137–153.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bisson, M. (2000). Nineteenth century tools for twenty-first century archaeology? Why the Middle Paleolithic typology of Francois Bordes must be replaced. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 7: 1–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bisson, M. (2001). Interview with a Neanderthal: An experimental approach for reconstructing scraper production rules, and their implications for imposed form in Middle Paleolithic tools. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 11: 165–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bleed, P. (2001). Trees or chains, links or branches: Conceptual alternatives for consideration of stone tool production and other sequential activities. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 8: 101–127.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boëda, E., Geneste, J.-M., and Meignen, L. (1990). Identification de chaînes opératoires lithiques du Paléolithique ancien et moyen. Paléo 2: 43–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonnichsen, R. (1977). Models for deriving cultural information from stone tools. Archaeological survey of Canada. Paper no. 60. Ottawa.

  • Bordes, F. (1950). Principes d’une méthode d’étude des techniques de débitage et de la typologie du Paléolithique ancien et moyen. L’Anthropologie 54: 1–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bordes, F. (1957). La signification du microburin dans le Paléolithique supérieur. L’Anthropologie 41: 578–82.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bordes, F. (1961). Typologie du Paléolithique Supérieur et Moyen. Institut de Préhistoire, Université de Bordeaux, Bordeaux, Autriche.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bordes, F. (1965). A propos de typologie. L’Anthropologie 69: 369–377.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bordes, F. (1969). Reflections on typology and techniques in the Palaeolithic. Arctic Anthropology 6: 1–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bordes, F. (1972). On old and new concepts of typology. Reply. Current Anthropology 13: 140–141.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bordes, F., and de Sonneville-Bordes, D. (1970). The significance of variability in Paleolithic assemblages. World Archaeology 2: 61–73.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bousman, C. B. (1993). Hunter-gatherer adaptations, economic risk and tool design. Lithic Technology 18: 59–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brew, J. O. (1946). The use and abuse of taxonomy. In Brew, J. O. (ed.), Archaeology of Alkali Ridge, Southeastern Utah, Papers of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology 21, Harvard University, Cambridge, pp. 44–66.

  • Brink, J. (1978). An Experimental Study of Microwear Formation on Endscrapers. Ottawa, Mercury Series, National Museum of Man.

  • Broglio, A., and Laplace, G. (1966). Etudes de typologie analytique des complexes leptolithiques de l’Europe centrale. Les complexes aurignacoides de la Basse Autriche. Rivista di Scienze Preistoriche 21: 61–121.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chang, K. C. (1967). Rethinking Archaeology. Random House, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chazan, M. (2001). Bladelet production in the Aurignacian of La Ferrassie (Dordogne, France). Lithic Technology 26: 16–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, J. G. D., and Thompson, M. (1953). The groove and splinter technique of working antler in Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic Europe. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 20: 148–160.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clay, R. B. (1976). Typological classification, attribute analysis, and lithic variability. Journal of Field Archaeology 3: 303–311.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coinman, N. R., and Clausen, T. G. (2000). Burins revisited: a re-examination of the burins from Ain al-Buhira (WHS 618). In Coinman, N. R. (ed.), The Archaeology of the Wadi al-Hasa, West-Central Jordan, Volume 2: Excavations at Middle, Upper, and Epipaleolithic Sites, Arizona State University Anthropological Research Papers No. 52, Tempe, pp. 183–194.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conkey, M. W. (1982). Boundedness in art and society. In Hodder, I. (ed.), Symbolic and structural archaeology, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 115–128.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conkey, M. W., and Hastorf, C. (eds.), (1990). The Uses of Style in Archaeology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cotterell, B., and Kamminga, J. (1987). The formation of flakes. American Antiquity 52: 675–708.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cross, J. (1983). Twigs, branches, trees and forests: Problems of scale in lithic analysis. In Moore, J. A., and Keene, A. S. (eds.), Archaeological Hammers and Theories, Academic Press, London, pp. 87–106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cutliffe, R., and Post, S. (eds.) (1989). Context, History and History of Technology. Lehigh University Press, Bethlehem.

    Google Scholar 

  • Debénath, A. (1990). A propos de typologie lithique: Inutilité ou inéluctabilité? Bulletin de la Société d’Anthropologie du Sud-ouest 25: 191–200.

    Google Scholar 

  • Debénath, A., and Dibble, H. (1994). Handbook of Paleolithic Typology. University Museum, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Demars, P.-Y., and Laurent, P. (1989). Types d’Outils Lithiques du Paléolithique Supérieur en Europe. Cahiers du Quarternaire No 14, Editions du CNRS, Paris.

  • Dibble, H. (1984). Interpreting typological variation of Middle Paleolithic scrapers: Function, style or sequence of reduction? Journal of Field Archaeology 11: 431–436.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dibble, H. (1987). The interpretation of Middle Paleolithic scraper morphology. American Antiquity 52: 109–117.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dibble, H. (1988). Typological aspects of reduction and intensity of utilization of lithic resources in the French Mousterian. In Dibble, H., and Montet-White, A. (eds.), Upper Pleistocene Prehistory of Western Eurasia, University Museum, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, pp. 181–197.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dibble, H. (1990). A new synthesis of Middle Palaeolithic variability. American Antiquity 55: 480–499.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dibble, H. (1991). Local raw material exploitation and its effects on Lower and Middle Paleolithic assemblage variability. In Montet-White, A., and Holen, S. (eds.), Raw Material Economies among Prehistoric Hunter-Gatherers, University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas, pp. 33–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dibble, H. (1995). Scraper reduction: background, clarification, and review of the evidence to date. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 2: 299–368.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dibble, H., and Montet-White, A., (eds.) (1988). Upper Pleistocene Prehistory of Western Eurasia. University Museum, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dibble, H., and Rolland, N. (1992). On assemblage variability in the Middle Paleolithic of Western Europe. In Dibble, H., and Mellars, P. (eds.), The Middle Paleolithic: Adaptation, Behavior, and Variability, University Museum Monograph 72, The University Museum, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, pp. 1–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dobres, M.-A., and Hoffman, R. (eds.) (1999). The Social Dynamics of Technology. Practice, Politics, and World Views, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunnell, R. C. (1971). Systematics in Prehistory, Free Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunnell, R. C. (1973). Fire, air, earth, and water: a rational classification. Mankind 9: 127–131.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunnell, R. C. (1978). Style and function: a fundamental dichotomy. American Antiquity 43: 192–202.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunnell, R. C. (1982). Science, social science and common sense: The agonizing dilemma of modern archaeology. Journal of Anthropological Research 38: 1–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunnell, R. C. (1986). Methodological issues in Americanist artifact classification. Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory 9: 149–207.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edmonds, M. (1990). Description, understanding and the chaine operatoire. Archaeological Review from Cambridge 9: 55–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Féblot-Augustins, J. (1993). Mobility strategies in the Late Middle Paleolithic of central Europe and western Europe: Elements of stability and variability. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 12: 211–265.

    Google Scholar 

  • Felgenhauer, F. (1952). Zur Problematik des späten Palaeolithikums in Österreich. Archaeologia Austriaca 10: 1–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Felgenhauer, F. (1956–59). Willendorf in der Wachau. Mitteilungen der Prahistorische Kommission der Osterreichische Akademie der Wissenschaft 4.

  • Felgenhauer, F. (1995–96). Aggsbachien—Gravettien—Pavlovien. Zur Frage nomenklatorischer Prioritäten in der Urgeschichtsforschung. Mitteilungen der Anthropologischen Gesellschaft in Wien 75–76: 249–257.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fink, J. (1962). Studien zur absoluten und relativen Chronologie der fossilen Boden in Osterreich. Archeologia Austriaca 31: 1–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fish, P. (1981). Beyond tools: Middle Paleolithic id-cont analysis and cultural inference. Journal of Archaeological Research 38: 374–386.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fladmark, K. R. (1982). Microdébitage analysis: Initial considerations. Journal of Archaeological Science 9: 205–220.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flenniken, J. J. (1984). The past, present and future of flintknapping: An anthropological perspective. Annual Review of Anthropology 13: 187–203.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flenniken, J. J., and Wilke, P. (1989). Typology, technology, and chronology of Great Basin dart points. American Anthropologist 91: 149–158.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ford, J. A. (1954). On the concept of types. American Anthropologist 56: 42–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ford, J. A. (1961). In favor of simple typology. American Antiquity 27: 113–114.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gamble, C. S. (1986). The Paleolithic Settlement of Europe, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gardin, J.-C. (1980). Archaeological Constructs, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geneste, J. M. (1990). Dévelopment des systémes de production lithique au cours du Paléolithique moyen en Aquitaine septentrionale. In Farizy, C. (ed.), Paléolithique supérieur ancien en Europe, Mémoires du Musée de Préhistoire d’Ille de Autriche, Nemours, pp. 203–213.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gero, J. (1991). Genderlithics: Women’s roles in stone tool production. In Gero, J. M., and Conkey, M. W. (eds.), Engendering Archaeology, Basil Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 163–194.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giddings, J. L. (1956). The burin spall artifact. Arctic 9: 229–237.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gramley, R. (1980). Raw material source areas and curated tool assemblages. American Antiquity 45: 823–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Green, S. W., and Perlman, S. M. (eds.), (1985). The Archaeology of Frontiers and Boundaries. Academic Press, Orlando.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haesaerts, P. (1990). Nouvelles Recherches au gisement de Willendorf (Basse Autriche). Bulletin van het Koninklijk Belgisch Insitut voor Naturrwetenschappen, Aardwetenschappen 60: 203–218.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hahn, J. (1972). Das aurignacien in Mittel-und Osteuropa. Acta Praehistorica et Archaeologica 3: 77–107.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hahn, J. (1977). Aurignacien: das ältere Jungpaläolithikum in Mittel- und Osteuropa. Köln: Fundamenta Reihe A/9.

  • Hayden, B. (1984). Are emic types relevant to archaeology? Ethnohistory 31: 79–92.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayden, B. (1987). From chopper to celt: The evolution of resharpening techniques. Lithic Technology 16: 33–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayden, B. (ed.) (1979). Lithic Use-Wear Analysis, Academic Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hays, M., and Lucas, G. (2000). A technological and functional analysis of carinates from Le Flageolet I, Dordogne, France. Journal of Field Archaeology 27: 455–465.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hegmon, M. (1992). Archaeological research on style. Annual Review of Anthropology 21: 517–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henry, D. O. (1974). The utilization of the microburin technique in the Levant. Paléorient 2: 389–398.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henry, D. O., and Odell, G. H. (eds.) (1989). Alternative Approaches to Lithic Analysis. Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association, no. 1.

  • Hill, J. N., and Evans, R. K. (1972). A model for classification and typology. In Clarke, D. (ed.), Models in Archaeology, Methuen, London, pp. 231–273.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ingold, T. (1988). Tools, minds and machines: An excursion in the philosophy of technology. Techniques et Culture 12: 151–176.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ingold, T. (1990). Society, nature and the concept of technology. Archaeological Review from Cambridge 9: 5–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jelinek, A. J. (1976). Form, function and style in lithic analysis. In Cleland, C. E. (ed.), Cultural Change and Continuity: Essays in Honor of James Bennet Griffin, Academic Press, New York, pp. 19–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jelinek, A. J. (1988). Technology, typology, and culture in the Middle Palaeolithic. In Dibble, H. L., and Montet-White, A. (eds.), Upper Pleistocene Western Eurasia, University Museum, Philadelphia, pp. 199–212.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jelinek, A. J. (1991). Observations on reduction patterns and raw materials in some Middle Paleolithic industries in the Perigord. In Montet-White, A., and Holen, S. (eds.), Raw Material Economies among Prehistoric Hunter-Gatherers, University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas, pp. 7–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, J. K., and Morrow, C. A. (eds.) (1987). The Organization of Core Technology, Westview Press, Westview Special Studies in Arch. Research, Boulder, Colorado.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keeley, L. (1974). Technique and methodology in microwear studies: A critical review. World Archaeology 5: 323–336.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keeley, L. (1980). Experimental Determination of Stone Tool Uses. Chicago University Press, Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keeley, L. (1987). Hafting and retooling: Effects on the archaeological record. American Antiquity 47: 798–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelley, H. (1954). Burins levalloisiens. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française 51: 419–428.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelley, H. (1955). Burins acheuléens. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française 52: 278–283.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klejn, L. S. (1982). Archaeological Typology. BAR International Series 153.

  • Klíma, B. (1954). Pavlov, nové paleoliticke sidliste na jizni Morave. Archeologické rozhledy 6: 137–142.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klíma, B. (1959). Zur Problematik des Aurignacien und Gravettien in Mittel-Europa. Archaeologia Austriaca 26: 35–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klíma, B. (1963). Dolní Vestonice. CSAV, Praha.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klíma, B. (1967). Pavlovien a jeho vztahy ve strední Evrope. Archaeologicke rozhledy 19: 558.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klíma, B. (1968). Das Pavlovien in den Weinberghölen von Mauern. Quartär 19: 263.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klíma, B. (1976). Die palaolithische station Pavlov II. Prírodovedné práce ustavu CSAV v Brne X/4. Academia, Praha.

  • Klíma, B. (1994). Dejiny vyzkumu. In Svoboda, J. (ed.), Pavlov 1952-53, ERAUL 66. Monograph Series in Archaeology, University of Liége, Belgium, pp. 2–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klíma, B. (ed.) (1976). Périgordien et Gravettien en Europe. Nice, U.I.S.P.P., IX Congrés, Colloque XV.

  • Knecht, H. (1988). Upper Paleolithic Burins: Type, Form and Function. BAR International Series 434.

  • Knutsson, K. (1988a). Patterns of tool use. Societas Archaeologica Upsaliensis, AUN 10, Uppsala.

  • Knutsson, K. (1988b). Making and using stone tools. Societas Archaeologica Upsaliensis, AUN 11, Uppsala.

  • Kozlowski, J. K. (1986). The Gravettian in Central and Eastern Europe. Advances in World Archaeology 5: 131–200.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kozlowski, J. K. (ed.) (1976). L’Aurignacien en Europe. Nice, U.I.S.P.P., IX Congrés, Colloque XVI.

  • Krieger, A. (1944). The typological concept. American Antiquity 3: 271–288.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, S. L. (1991). ‘Unpacking’ reduction: Lithic raw material economy in the Mousterian of west-central Italy. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 10: 76–106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, S. L. (1992). Blank form and reduction as determinants of Mousterian scraper morphology. American Antiquity 57: 115–128.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, S. L. (1994). A formal approach to the design and assembly of mobile toolkits. American Antiquity 59: 426–442.

    Google Scholar 

  • Layton, E. T. (1974). Technology as knowledge. Technology and Culture 15: 31–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leakey, M. D. (1971). Olduvai Gorge: Excavations in beds I and II, 1960–1963. Cambridge University Press, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lechtman, H. (1977). Style in technology—Some early thoughts. In Lechtman, H., and Merrill, R. S. (eds.), Material Culture, Styles, Organization, and Dynamics of Technology. West Publishing, St. Paul, Minnesota, pp. 3–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lechtman, H. (1984). Andean value systems and the development of prehistoric metallurgy. Technology and Culture 15: 1–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lemonnier, P. (1986). The study of material culture today: Towards an anthropology of technical systems. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 5: 147–186.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lemonnier, P. (1992). Elements for an Anthropology of Technology. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lucas, G. (1999). Production expérimental de lamelles torses: Approche préliminaire. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française 96: 146–151.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lurie, R. (1990). Lithic technology and mobility strategies: The Koster Site Middle Archaic. In Torrence, R. (ed.), Time, Energy, and Stone Tools, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 46–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mansur, M. E. (1982). Microwear analysis of natural and use striations: New clues to the mechanism of striation formation. Studia Praehistorica Belgica 2: 213–233.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marshack, A. (1972). Roots of Civilization, McGraw Hill, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moloney, N., and Shott, M. J. (eds.) (1999). Lithic Analysis at the Millennium. Institute of Archaeology, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Montet-White, A. (1991). Lithic acquisition, settlements, and territory in the Epigravettian of Central Europe. In Montet-White, A., and Holen, S. (eds.), Raw Material Economies Among Prehistoric Hunter-Gatherers, University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas, pp. 205–220.

    Google Scholar 

  • Montet-White, A., and Holen, S. (eds.) (1991). Raw Material Economies among Prehistoric Hunter-Gatherers. University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moss, E. (1983). The Functional Analysis of Flint Implements—Pincevent and Pont d’Ambon: Two Case Studies from the French Final Palaeolithic. BAR International Series 177.

  • Movius, H. (1968). Note on the history of the discovery and recognition of the function of burins as tools. In Vaufrey, R. (ed.), La Préhistoire, Problémes et Tendences, C.N.R.S., Paris, pp. 311–318.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neeley, M. P., and Barton, M. C. (1994). A new approach to interpreting late Pleistocene id-contin industries in Southwest Asia. Antiquity 68: 275–288.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neugebauer-Maresch, Ch. (ed.), (1993). Niederösterreich in Urgeschichte, Wien.

  • Newcomer, M. (1974). Study and replication of bone tools from Ksar Akil (Lebanon). World Archaeology 6: 138–153.

    Google Scholar 

  • Noone, H. V. V. (1934). A classification of flint burins or gravers. Journal of Royal Anthropological Institute 64: 81–92.

    Google Scholar 

  • Noone, H. V. V. (1950). Notes on flint burins of the Vézére (Dordogne) sites. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 16: 186–191.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Brien, M. J., and Lyman, R. L. (2003). Cladistics and Archaeology, The University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

    Google Scholar 

  • Odell, G. H. (1979). A new improved system for the retrieval of functional information from microscopic observation of chipped stone tools. In Hayden, B. (ed.), Lithic Use-Wear Analysis, Academic Press, New York, pp. 39–244.

    Google Scholar 

  • Odell, G. H. (1982). Emerging directions in the analysis of prehistoric tool use. Reviews in Anthropology 9: 17–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Odell, G. H. (1988). Addressing prehistoric hunting practices through stone tool analysis. American Anthropologist 90: 335–356.

    Google Scholar 

  • Odell, G. H. (1994a). The role of stone bladelets in Middle Woodland Society. American Antiquity 59: 102–120.

    Google Scholar 

  • Odell, G. H. (1994b). Prehistoric hafting and mobility in the North American id-continent: Examples from Illinois. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 13: 51–73.

    Google Scholar 

  • Odell, G. H. (2000). Stone tool research at the end of the millennium: Procurement and technology. Journal of Archaeological Research 8: 269–331.

    Google Scholar 

  • Odell, G. H. (2001). Stone tool research at the end of the millennium: Classification, function and behavior. Journal of Archaeological Research 9: 45–100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Otte, M. (1981). Le Gravettien en Europe centrale. Dissertationes Archaeologicae Gandenses 20.

  • Otte, M. (1990). Révision de la séquence du Paléolithique Supérieur de Willendorf (Autriche). Bulletin van het Koninklijk Belgisch Insitut voor Naturrwetenschappen, Aardwetenschappen 60: 219–228.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pelegrin, J. (1990). Prehistoric lithic technology: Some aspects of research. Archaeological Review from Cambridge 9: 116–125.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pelegrin, J., Karlin, C., and Bodu, P. (1988). ‘Chaines opératoires’: Un outil pour le préhistorien. In Tixier, J. (ed.), Technologie Préhistorique, CNRS, Paris, pp. 55–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pfaffenberger, B. (1992). Social anthropology of technology. Annual Review of Anthropology 21: 491–516.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phillipson, D. W. (1985). African Archaeology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Plisson, H. (1985). Étude fonctionelle d’outillages lithiques préhistorique par l’analyse des micro-usures: recherche méthodologique et archaeologique. Thése, Science Humaine, Université de Paris 1, Paris.

  • Pradel, L. (1971). A new classification of burins. Current Anthropology 12: 562–563.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prosek, F. (1953). Szeletien na Slovensku. Slovenská archeologia 1: 133–164.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ricklis, R. A. (1993). Examining lithic technological organization as a dynamic cultural subsystem: The advantages of an explicitly spatial approach. American Antiquity 58: 444–461.

    Google Scholar 

  • Riddington, R. (1982). Technology, world view and adaptive strategy in a northern hunting society. Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology 19: 469–481.

    Google Scholar 

  • Riddington, R. (1988). Knowledge, power, and the individual in subarctic hunting societies. American Anthropologist 90: 98–110.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rigaud, A. (1972). La technologie du burin appliqué au matériel osseux de la Garenne (Indre). Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française 69: 104–108.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rolland, N. (1981). The interpretation of Middle Paleolithic variability. Man 16: 15–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rolland, N. (1988). Observations on some middle Paleolithic time series in southern France. In Dibble, H., and Montet-White, A. (eds.), Upper Pleistocene Prehistory of Western Eurasia. University Museum, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, pp. 161–180.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rolland, N., and Dibble, H. (1990). A new synthesis of Middle Paleolithic variability. American Antiquity 55: 480–499.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rollefson, G. O. (1988). Stratified burin classes at ‘Ain Ghazal: Implications for the Deert Neolithic of Jordan. In Garrard, A., and Gebel, H. G. (eds.), The Prehistory of Jordan, British Archaeological Reports International Series, Oxford, 396, pp. 437–449.

  • Roux, V. (2003). A dynamic systems framework for studying technological change: Application to the emergence of the potter’s wheel in the Southern Levant. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 10: 1–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sackett, J. R. (1977). The meaning of style in archaeology: A general model. American Antiquity 42: 369–380.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sackett, J. R. (1981). From de Mortillet to Bordes: A century of French Paleolithic research. In Daniel, G. (ed.), Towards a History of Archaeology, Thames & Hudson, London, pp. 85–99.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sackett, J. R. (1982). Approaches to style in lithic archaeology. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 1: 59–112.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sackett, J. R. (1989). Statistics, attributes, and the dynamics of burin typology. In Henry, D. O., and Odell, G. H. (eds.), Alternative Approaches to Lithic Analysis, Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association, no. 1, pp. 51–82.

  • Sackett, J. R. (1991). Straight archaeology French style: The phylogenetic paradigm in historic perspective. In Clark, G. (ed.), Perspectives on the Past, University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, pp. 109–139.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salomon, J.-J. (1990). What is technology? The issue of its origins and definitions. In Bhattacharya, S., and Redondi, P. (eds.), Techniques to Technology: A French Historiography of Technology. Sangam Books, Hyderabad, pp. 242–284.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sassaman, K. (1992). Lithic technology and the hunter-gatherer sexual division of labor. North American Archaeology 13: 249–262.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schiffer, M. B. (ed.) (2001). Anthropological Perspectives on Technology, University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schiffer, M. B., and Skibo, J. M. (1997). The explanation of artifact variability. American Antiquity 62: 27–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shott, M. J. (1986). Settlement mobility and technological organization: An ethnographic examination. Journal of Anthropological Research 42: 15–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shott, M. J. (1994). Size and form in the analysis of flake debris: Review and recent approaches. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 1: 69–110.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shott, M. J. (1997). Activity and formation as a source of variation in Great Lakes Paleoindian assemblages. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 22: 197–236.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shott, M. J. (2003). Size as a factor in Middle Paleolithic assemblage variation in the Old World: A North American perspective. In Moloney, N., and Shott, M. J. (eds.), Lithic Analysis at the Millennium, Institute of Archaeology, London pp. 137–149

    Google Scholar 

  • Siman, K. (1990). Considerations on the Szeletian unity. Feuilles de pierre: les industries a pointes foliacées de Paléolithique supérieur européen, Etudes et recherches archéologiques de l’Université de Liége; No. 42, pp. 189–198.

  • Sinclair, A. (1995). The technique as symbol in Late Glacial Europe. World Archaeology 27: 50–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skibo, J., and Feinman, G. (1999). Pottery and People: A Dynamic Interaction. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sliva, R. J., and Keeley, L. H. (1994). Frits and specialized hide preparation in the Belgian Early Neolithic. Journal of Archaeological Science 21: 91–99.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smolíková, L. (1991). Soil micromorphologic investigation of the section at Dolní Vestonice II. In Svoboda, J. (ed.), Dolní Vestonice II –Western Slope, ERAUL 54. Monograph Series in Archaeology, University of Liege, Belgium, pp. 65–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spaulding, A. C. (1953). Statistical techniques for the discovery of artifact types. American Antiquity 18: 305–314.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stiner, M. C., and Kuhn, S. L. (1992). Subsistence, technology, and adaptive variation in the Middle Palaeolithic. American Anthropologist 94: 306–339.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sullivan, A., and Rozen, K. (1985). Debitage analysis and archaeological interpretation. American Antiquity 50: 755–779.

    Google Scholar 

  • Svoboda, J. (1983). Raw material sources in Early Upper Paleolithic Moravia. The concept of lithic exploitation areas. Anthropologie 21: 147–158.

    Google Scholar 

  • Svoboda, J. (1989). Middle Pleistocene adaptations in Central Europe. Journal of World Prehistory 3: 33–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Svoboda, J. (1994). Pavlov site, Czech Republic: Lithic evidence from the Upper Paleolithic. Journal of Field Archaeology 21: 69–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Svoboda, J., and Simán, K. (1989). Middle-Upper Paleolithic transition in southeastern central Europe. Journal of World Prehistory. 3: 283–322.

    Google Scholar 

  • Svoboda, J. (ed.) (1987). Stránská skála. Bohunicky typ v brnenské kotline. Studie AU CSAV Brno 14(1).

  • Svoboda, J. (ed.) (1991a). Paleolit Moravy a Slezska. CSAV, Archeologicky Ustav Brno.

    Google Scholar 

  • Svoboda, J. (ed.) (1991b). Dolní Vestonice II –Western Slope. ERAUL 54. Monograph Series in Archaeology, University of Liége, Belgium.

    Google Scholar 

  • Svoboda, J. (ed.) (1994). Pavlov 1952-53. ERAUL 66. Monograph Series in Archaeology, University of Liége, Belgium.

    Google Scholar 

  • Svoboda, J., Lozek, V., and Vlcek, E. (1996). Hunters between East and West: The Paleolithic of Moravia. Plenum Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Svobodová, H. (1991). The pollen analysis of Dolní Vestonice II, section No. 1. In Svoboda, J. (ed.), Dolní Vestonice II –Western Slope, ERAUL 54. Monograph Series in Archaeology, University of Liege, Belgium, pp. 75–88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Svobodová, H., and Svoboda, J. (1988). La chronostratigraphie et paléoécologie du Paléolithique supérieur morave d’après les fouilles récentes. In Tuffreau, A., Cultures et industries lithiques en milieu loessique, Revue archéologique de Picardie, Direction des Antiquités, Amiens, pp. 11–15.

  • Symens, N. (1986). A functional analysis of selected stone artifacts from the Magdalenian site at Verbérie. Journal of Field Archaeology 13: 213–222.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tixier, J. (1963). Typologie de L’Epipaléolithique du Maghreb. Mémoires du Centre de Recherches Anthropologiques Préhistoriques et Ethnographiques 2. Alger, AMG, Paris.

  • Tomásková, S. (1991). Use-wear analysis of the lithic material from Dolní Vstonice, Czechoslovakia. In Svoboda, J. (ed.), Dolní Vstonice II –Western Slope, ERAUL 54. Monograph Series in Archaeology, University of Liege, Belgium, pp. 28–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tomásková, S. (2000). The Nature of Difference: History and Lithics at Two Upper Paleolithic Sites in Central Europe. B.A.R. International Series 880, Archaeopress, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tomásková, S. (2003). Nationalism, local histories and the making of data in archaeology. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 9: 485–507.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trigger, B. (1989). A History of Archaeological Thought. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tringham, R. E., Cooper, G., Odell, G., Voytek, B., and Whitman, A. (1974). Experimentation in the formation of edge damage: A new approach to lithic analysis. Journal of Field Archaeology 1: 171–196.

    Google Scholar 

  • Valoch, K. (1981). Beitrag zur Kenntnis des Pavlovien. Archeologické Rozhledy 33: 279–298.

    Google Scholar 

  • Valoch, K. (1986). Les questions du Pavlovien. Antiquités Nationales 18: 55–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vaughan, P. C. (1985a). Use-wear Analysis of Flaked Stone Tools. University of Arizona, Tucson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vaughan, P. C. (1985b). The burin-blow technique: Creator or eliminator? Journal of Field Archaeology 12: 488–496.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watson, P. J., LeBlanc, S. A., and Redman, C. L. (1984). Archeological Explanation: The Scientific Method in Archeology. Columbia University Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whallon, R., and Brown, J(eds). (1982). Essays in Archaeological Typology. Center for American Archaeology Press, Evanston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiessner, P. (1983). Style and social information in Kalahari San projectile points. American Antiquity 48: 253–276.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright, R. V. S. (1991). Technological styles: Transferring a natural material into a cultural object. In Kingery, W., and S. Luber (eds.), Learning from Things: Working Papers on Material Culture. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC, pp. 242–269.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright, R. V. S. (ed.) (1977) Stone Tools as Cultural Markers. Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, Canberra.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wylie, A. (1985). The reaction against analogy. In Schiffer, M. B. (ed.), Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, Vol. 8, Academic Press, New York, pp. 63–111.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wylie, A. (1992). A hierarchy of purposes: Typological theory and practice. Current Anthropology 33: 486–491.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wynn, T. (1995). Handaxe enigmas. World Archaeology 27: 10–24.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Curriculum in Women’s Studies and the Department of Anthropology, 301 Alumni Bldg., CB #3115, UNC-Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina

    Silvia Tomáŝková

Authors
  1. Silvia Tomáŝková
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Silvia Tomáŝková.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Tomáŝková, S. What is a Burin? Typology, Technology, and Interregional Comparison. J Archaeol Method Theory 12, 79–115 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10816-005-5666-4

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10816-005-5666-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation