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



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.


typological classification technology tool life history interregional comparisons 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Adams, W. Y., and Adams, E. W. (1991). Archaeological typology and practical reality, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Allsworth-Jones, P. (1986). The Szeletian and the Transition from Middle to Upper Paleolithic in Central Europe, Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  3. 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
  4. 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.Google Scholar
  5. Andrefsky, W. (1994). Raw-material availability and the organization of technology. American Antiquity 59: 21–35.Google Scholar
  6. 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
  7. Bamforth, D. (1986). Technological efficiency and tool curation. American Antiquity 51: 38–50.Google Scholar
  8. Bamforth, D. (1990). Settlement, raw material, and lithic procurement in the Central Mojave Desert. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 9: 70–104.Google Scholar
  9. Barton, M. C. (1989). Beyond style and function: A view from the Middle Paleolithic. American Anthropologist 92: 57–72Google Scholar
  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. 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.Google Scholar
  13. Binford, L. (1965). Archaeological systematics and the study of culture process. American Antiquity 31: 203–210.Google Scholar
  14. 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
  15. Binford, L., and Sabloff, J. (1982). Paradigms, systematics, and archaeology. Journal of Anthropological Research. 38: 137–153.Google Scholar
  16. 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
  17. 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
  18. 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
  19. 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
  20. Bonnichsen, R. (1977). Models for deriving cultural information from stone tools. Archaeological survey of Canada. Paper no. 60. Ottawa.Google Scholar
  21. 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
  22. Bordes, F. (1957). La signification du microburin dans le Paléolithique supérieur. L’Anthropologie 41: 578–82.Google Scholar
  23. Bordes, F. (1961). Typologie du Paléolithique Supérieur et Moyen. Institut de Préhistoire, Université de Bordeaux, Bordeaux, Autriche.Google Scholar
  24. Bordes, F. (1965). A propos de typologie. L’Anthropologie 69: 369–377.Google Scholar
  25. Bordes, F. (1969). Reflections on typology and techniques in the Palaeolithic. Arctic Anthropology 6: 1–29.Google Scholar
  26. Bordes, F. (1972). On old and new concepts of typology. Reply. Current Anthropology 13: 140–141.Google Scholar
  27. Bordes, F., and de Sonneville-Bordes, D. (1970). The significance of variability in Paleolithic assemblages. World Archaeology 2: 61–73.Google Scholar
  28. Bousman, C. B. (1993). Hunter-gatherer adaptations, economic risk and tool design. Lithic Technology 18: 59–86.Google Scholar
  29. 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.Google Scholar
  30. Brink, J. (1978). An Experimental Study of Microwear Formation on Endscrapers. Ottawa, Mercury Series, National Museum of Man.Google Scholar
  31. 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
  32. Chang, K. C. (1967). Rethinking Archaeology. Random House, New York.Google Scholar
  33. Chazan, M. (2001). Bladelet production in the Aurignacian of La Ferrassie (Dordogne, France). Lithic Technology 26: 16–28.Google Scholar
  34. 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
  35. Clay, R. B. (1976). Typological classification, attribute analysis, and lithic variability. Journal of Field Archaeology 3: 303–311.Google Scholar
  36. 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
  37. 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
  38. Conkey, M. W., and Hastorf, C. (eds.), (1990). The Uses of Style in Archaeology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  39. Cotterell, B., and Kamminga, J. (1987). The formation of flakes. American Antiquity 52: 675–708.Google Scholar
  40. 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
  41. Cutliffe, R., and Post, S. (eds.) (1989). Context, History and History of Technology. Lehigh University Press, Bethlehem.Google Scholar
  42. 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
  43. Debénath, A., and Dibble, H. (1994). Handbook of Paleolithic Typology. University Museum, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
  44. 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.Google Scholar
  45. 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
  46. Dibble, H. (1987). The interpretation of Middle Paleolithic scraper morphology. American Antiquity 52: 109–117.Google Scholar
  47. 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
  48. Dibble, H. (1990). A new synthesis of Middle Palaeolithic variability. American Antiquity 55: 480–499.Google Scholar
  49. 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
  50. 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
  51. Dibble, H., and Montet-White, A., (eds.) (1988). Upper Pleistocene Prehistory of Western Eurasia. University Museum, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
  52. 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
  53. 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
  54. Dunnell, R. C. (1971). Systematics in Prehistory, Free Press, New York.Google Scholar
  55. Dunnell, R. C. (1973). Fire, air, earth, and water: a rational classification. Mankind 9: 127–131.Google Scholar
  56. Dunnell, R. C. (1978). Style and function: a fundamental dichotomy. American Antiquity 43: 192–202.Google Scholar
  57. 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
  58. Dunnell, R. C. (1986). Methodological issues in Americanist artifact classification. Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory 9: 149–207.Google Scholar
  59. Edmonds, M. (1990). Description, understanding and the chaine operatoire. Archaeological Review from Cambridge 9: 55–70.Google Scholar
  60. 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
  61. Felgenhauer, F. (1952). Zur Problematik des späten Palaeolithikums in Österreich. Archaeologia Austriaca 10: 1–15.Google Scholar
  62. Felgenhauer, F. (1956–59). Willendorf in der Wachau. Mitteilungen der Prahistorische Kommission der Osterreichische Akademie der Wissenschaft 4.Google Scholar
  63. 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
  64. Fink, J. (1962). Studien zur absoluten und relativen Chronologie der fossilen Boden in Osterreich. Archeologia Austriaca 31: 1–18.Google Scholar
  65. Fish, P. (1981). Beyond tools: Middle Paleolithic id-cont analysis and cultural inference. Journal of Archaeological Research 38: 374–386.Google Scholar
  66. Fladmark, K. R. (1982). Microdébitage analysis: Initial considerations. Journal of Archaeological Science 9: 205–220.Google Scholar
  67. Flenniken, J. J. (1984). The past, present and future of flintknapping: An anthropological perspective. Annual Review of Anthropology 13: 187–203.Google Scholar
  68. Flenniken, J. J., and Wilke, P. (1989). Typology, technology, and chronology of Great Basin dart points. American Anthropologist 91: 149–158.Google Scholar
  69. Ford, J. A. (1954). On the concept of types. American Anthropologist 56: 42–54.Google Scholar
  70. Ford, J. A. (1961). In favor of simple typology. American Antiquity 27: 113–114.Google Scholar
  71. Gamble, C. S. (1986). The Paleolithic Settlement of Europe, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  72. Gardin, J.-C. (1980). Archaeological Constructs, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  73. 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
  74. 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
  75. Giddings, J. L. (1956). The burin spall artifact. Arctic 9: 229–237.Google Scholar
  76. Gramley, R. (1980). Raw material source areas and curated tool assemblages. American Antiquity 45: 823–33.Google Scholar
  77. Green, S. W., and Perlman, S. M. (eds.), (1985). The Archaeology of Frontiers and Boundaries. Academic Press, Orlando.Google Scholar
  78. 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
  79. Hahn, J. (1972). Das aurignacien in Mittel-und Osteuropa. Acta Praehistorica et Archaeologica 3: 77–107.Google Scholar
  80. Hahn, J. (1977). Aurignacien: das ältere Jungpaläolithikum in Mittel- und Osteuropa. Köln: Fundamenta Reihe A/9.Google Scholar
  81. Hayden, B. (1984). Are emic types relevant to archaeology? Ethnohistory 31: 79–92.Google Scholar
  82. Hayden, B. (1987). From chopper to celt: The evolution of resharpening techniques. Lithic Technology 16: 33–43.Google Scholar
  83. Hayden, B. (ed.) (1979). Lithic Use-Wear Analysis, Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  84. 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
  85. Hegmon, M. (1992). Archaeological research on style. Annual Review of Anthropology 21: 517–36.Google Scholar
  86. Henry, D. O. (1974). The utilization of the microburin technique in the Levant. Paléorient 2: 389–398.Google Scholar
  87. Henry, D. O., and Odell, G. H. (eds.) (1989). Alternative Approaches to Lithic Analysis. Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association, no. 1.Google Scholar
  88. 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
  89. Ingold, T. (1988). Tools, minds and machines: An excursion in the philosophy of technology. Techniques et Culture 12: 151–176.Google Scholar
  90. Ingold, T. (1990). Society, nature and the concept of technology. Archaeological Review from Cambridge 9: 5–17.Google Scholar
  91. 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
  92. 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
  93. 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
  94. 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
  95. Keeley, L. (1974). Technique and methodology in microwear studies: A critical review. World Archaeology 5: 323–336.Google Scholar
  96. Keeley, L. (1980). Experimental Determination of Stone Tool Uses. Chicago University Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  97. Keeley, L. (1987). Hafting and retooling: Effects on the archaeological record. American Antiquity 47: 798–80.Google Scholar
  98. Kelley, H. (1954). Burins levalloisiens. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française 51: 419–428.Google Scholar
  99. Kelley, H. (1955). Burins acheuléens. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française 52: 278–283.Google Scholar
  100. Klejn, L. S. (1982). Archaeological Typology. BAR International Series 153.Google Scholar
  101. Klíma, B. (1954). Pavlov, nové paleoliticke sidliste na jizni Morave. Archeologické rozhledy 6: 137–142.Google Scholar
  102. Klíma, B. (1959). Zur Problematik des Aurignacien und Gravettien in Mittel-Europa. Archaeologia Austriaca 26: 35–51.Google Scholar
  103. Klíma, B. (1963). Dolní Vestonice. CSAV, Praha.Google Scholar
  104. Klíma, B. (1967). Pavlovien a jeho vztahy ve strední Evrope. Archaeologicke rozhledy 19: 558.Google Scholar
  105. Klíma, B. (1968). Das Pavlovien in den Weinberghölen von Mauern. Quartär 19: 263.Google Scholar
  106. Klíma, B. (1976). Die palaolithische station Pavlov II. Prírodovedné práce ustavu CSAV v Brne X/4. Academia, Praha.Google Scholar
  107. 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
  108. Klíma, B. (ed.) (1976). Périgordien et Gravettien en Europe. Nice, U.I.S.P.P., IX Congrés, Colloque XV.Google Scholar
  109. Knecht, H. (1988). Upper Paleolithic Burins: Type, Form and Function. BAR International Series 434.Google Scholar
  110. Knutsson, K. (1988a). Patterns of tool use. Societas Archaeologica Upsaliensis, AUN 10, Uppsala.Google Scholar
  111. Knutsson, K. (1988b). Making and using stone tools. Societas Archaeologica Upsaliensis, AUN 11, Uppsala.Google Scholar
  112. Kozlowski, J. K. (1986). The Gravettian in Central and Eastern Europe. Advances in World Archaeology 5: 131–200.Google Scholar
  113. Kozlowski, J. K. (ed.) (1976). L’Aurignacien en Europe. Nice, U.I.S.P.P., IX Congrés, Colloque XVI.Google Scholar
  114. Krieger, A. (1944). The typological concept. American Antiquity 3: 271–288.Google Scholar
  115. 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
  116. Kuhn, S. L. (1992). Blank form and reduction as determinants of Mousterian scraper morphology. American Antiquity 57: 115–128.Google Scholar
  117. Kuhn, S. L. (1994). A formal approach to the design and assembly of mobile toolkits. American Antiquity 59: 426–442.Google Scholar
  118. Layton, E. T. (1974). Technology as knowledge. Technology and Culture 15: 31–41.Google Scholar
  119. Leakey, M. D. (1971). Olduvai Gorge: Excavations in beds I and II, 1960–1963. Cambridge University Press, London.Google Scholar
  120. 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
  121. Lechtman, H. (1984). Andean value systems and the development of prehistoric metallurgy. Technology and Culture 15: 1–36.Google Scholar
  122. Lemonnier, P. (1986). The study of material culture today: Towards an anthropology of technical systems. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 5: 147–186.Google Scholar
  123. Lemonnier, P. (1992). Elements for an Anthropology of Technology. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.Google Scholar
  124. Lucas, G. (1999). Production expérimental de lamelles torses: Approche préliminaire. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française 96: 146–151.Google Scholar
  125. 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
  126. 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
  127. Marshack, A. (1972). Roots of Civilization, McGraw Hill, New York.Google Scholar
  128. Moloney, N., and Shott, M. J. (eds.) (1999). Lithic Analysis at the Millennium. Institute of Archaeology, London.Google Scholar
  129. 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
  130. Montet-White, A., and Holen, S. (eds.) (1991). Raw Material Economies among Prehistoric Hunter-Gatherers. University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas.Google Scholar
  131. 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.Google Scholar
  132. 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
  133. 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
  134. Neugebauer-Maresch, Ch. (ed.), (1993). Niederösterreich in Urgeschichte, Wien.Google Scholar
  135. Newcomer, M. (1974). Study and replication of bone tools from Ksar Akil (Lebanon). World Archaeology 6: 138–153.Google Scholar
  136. Noone, H. V. V. (1934). A classification of flint burins or gravers. Journal of Royal Anthropological Institute 64: 81–92.Google Scholar
  137. Noone, H. V. V. (1950). Notes on flint burins of the Vézére (Dordogne) sites. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 16: 186–191.Google Scholar
  138. O’Brien, M. J., and Lyman, R. L. (2003). Cladistics and Archaeology, The University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.Google Scholar
  139. 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
  140. Odell, G. H. (1982). Emerging directions in the analysis of prehistoric tool use. Reviews in Anthropology 9: 17–33.Google Scholar
  141. Odell, G. H. (1988). Addressing prehistoric hunting practices through stone tool analysis. American Anthropologist 90: 335–356.Google Scholar
  142. Odell, G. H. (1994a). The role of stone bladelets in Middle Woodland Society. American Antiquity 59: 102–120.Google Scholar
  143. 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
  144. 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
  145. 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
  146. Otte, M. (1981). Le Gravettien en Europe centrale. Dissertationes Archaeologicae Gandenses 20.Google Scholar
  147. 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
  148. Pelegrin, J. (1990). Prehistoric lithic technology: Some aspects of research. Archaeological Review from Cambridge 9: 116–125.Google Scholar
  149. 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
  150. Pfaffenberger, B. (1992). Social anthropology of technology. Annual Review of Anthropology 21: 491–516.Google Scholar
  151. Phillipson, D. W. (1985). African Archaeology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  152. 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.Google Scholar
  153. Pradel, L. (1971). A new classification of burins. Current Anthropology 12: 562–563.Google Scholar
  154. Prosek, F. (1953). Szeletien na Slovensku. Slovenská archeologia 1: 133–164.Google Scholar
  155. 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
  156. 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
  157. Riddington, R. (1988). Knowledge, power, and the individual in subarctic hunting societies. American Anthropologist 90: 98–110.Google Scholar
  158. 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
  159. Rolland, N. (1981). The interpretation of Middle Paleolithic variability. Man 16: 15–42.Google Scholar
  160. 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
  161. Rolland, N., and Dibble, H. (1990). A new synthesis of Middle Paleolithic variability. American Antiquity 55: 480–499.Google Scholar
  162. 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.Google Scholar
  163. 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
  164. Sackett, J. R. (1977). The meaning of style in archaeology: A general model. American Antiquity 42: 369–380.Google Scholar
  165. 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
  166. Sackett, J. R. (1982). Approaches to style in lithic archaeology. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 1: 59–112.Google Scholar
  167. 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.Google Scholar
  168. 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
  169. 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
  170. Sassaman, K. (1992). Lithic technology and the hunter-gatherer sexual division of labor. North American Archaeology 13: 249–262.Google Scholar
  171. Schiffer, M. B. (ed.) (2001). Anthropological Perspectives on Technology, University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.Google Scholar
  172. Schiffer, M. B., and Skibo, J. M. (1997). The explanation of artifact variability. American Antiquity 62: 27–50.Google Scholar
  173. Shott, M. J. (1986). Settlement mobility and technological organization: An ethnographic examination. Journal of Anthropological Research 42: 15–51.Google Scholar
  174. 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
  175. 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
  176. 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. 137–149Google Scholar
  177. 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.Google Scholar
  178. Sinclair, A. (1995). The technique as symbol in Late Glacial Europe. World Archaeology 27: 50–62.Google Scholar
  179. Skibo, J., and Feinman, G. (1999). Pottery and People: A Dynamic Interaction. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.Google Scholar
  180. 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
  181. 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
  182. Spaulding, A. C. (1953). Statistical techniques for the discovery of artifact types. American Antiquity 18: 305–314.Google Scholar
  183. Stiner, M. C., and Kuhn, S. L. (1992). Subsistence, technology, and adaptive variation in the Middle Palaeolithic. American Anthropologist 94: 306–339.Google Scholar
  184. Sullivan, A., and Rozen, K. (1985). Debitage analysis and archaeological interpretation. American Antiquity 50: 755–779.Google Scholar
  185. Svoboda, J. (1983). Raw material sources in Early Upper Paleolithic Moravia. The concept of lithic exploitation areas. Anthropologie 21: 147–158.Google Scholar
  186. Svoboda, J. (1989). Middle Pleistocene adaptations in Central Europe. Journal of World Prehistory 3: 33–70.Google Scholar
  187. Svoboda, J. (1994). Pavlov site, Czech Republic: Lithic evidence from the Upper Paleolithic. Journal of Field Archaeology 21: 69–81.Google Scholar
  188. Svoboda, J., and Simán, K. (1989). Middle-Upper Paleolithic transition in southeastern central Europe. Journal of World Prehistory. 3: 283–322.Google Scholar
  189. Svoboda, J. (ed.) (1987). Stránská skála. Bohunicky typ v brnenské kotline. Studie AU CSAV Brno 14(1).Google Scholar
  190. Svoboda, J. (ed.) (1991a). Paleolit Moravy a Slezska. CSAV, Archeologicky Ustav Brno.Google Scholar
  191. Svoboda, J. (ed.) (1991b). Dolní Vestonice II –Western Slope. ERAUL 54. Monograph Series in Archaeology, University of Liége, Belgium.Google Scholar
  192. Svoboda, J. (ed.) (1994). Pavlov 1952-53. ERAUL 66. Monograph Series in Archaeology, University of Liége, Belgium.Google Scholar
  193. Svoboda, J., Lozek, V., and Vlcek, E. (1996). Hunters between East and West: The Paleolithic of Moravia. Plenum Press, New York.Google Scholar
  194. 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
  195. 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.Google Scholar
  196. 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
  197. Tixier, J. (1963). Typologie de L’Epipaléolithique du Maghreb. Mémoires du Centre de Recherches Anthropologiques Préhistoriques et Ethnographiques 2. Alger, AMG, Paris.Google Scholar
  198. 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
  199. 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
  200. Tomásková, S. (2003). Nationalism, local histories and the making of data in archaeology. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 9: 485–507.Google Scholar
  201. Trigger, B. (1989). A History of Archaeological Thought. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  202. 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
  203. Valoch, K. (1981). Beitrag zur Kenntnis des Pavlovien. Archeologické Rozhledy 33: 279–298.Google Scholar
  204. Valoch, K. (1986). Les questions du Pavlovien. Antiquités Nationales 18: 55–62.Google Scholar
  205. Vaughan, P. C. (1985a). Use-wear Analysis of Flaked Stone Tools. University of Arizona, Tucson.Google Scholar
  206. Vaughan, P. C. (1985b). The burin-blow technique: Creator or eliminator? Journal of Field Archaeology 12: 488–496.Google Scholar
  207. 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
  208. Whallon, R., and Brown, J(eds). (1982). Essays in Archaeological Typology. Center for American Archaeology Press, Evanston.Google Scholar
  209. Wiessner, P. (1983). Style and social information in Kalahari San projectile points. American Antiquity 48: 253–276.Google Scholar
  210. 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
  211. Wright, R. V. S. (ed.) (1977) Stone Tools as Cultural Markers. Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, Canberra.Google Scholar
  212. 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
  213. Wylie, A. (1992). A hierarchy of purposes: Typological theory and practice. Current Anthropology 33: 486–491.Google Scholar
  214. Wynn, T. (1995). Handaxe enigmas. World Archaeology 27: 10–24.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, Inc. 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Curriculum in Women’s Studies and the Department of AnthropologyChapel Hill

Personalised recommendations