Advertisement

Stone Tools pp 315-344 | Cite as

Microwear Analysis of Some Clovis and Experimental Chipped Stone Tools

  • Marvin Kay
Part of the Interdisciplinary Contributions to Archaeology book series (IDCA)

Abstract

Stone, bone or ivory implements used to kill and butcher a menagerie of now largely extinct animals are found at late Pleistocene terrestrial big game kills. Tool function of big game kill artifacts is often assumed but not confirmed by reference to artifact form and archaeological context. Experimentally produced microwear traces, however, do provide an empirical basis to judge the likely use of the archaeologically derived artifacts. Microwear on experimental tools and Clovis points from Colby unequivocally show consistent patterns of tool use as projectile points and butchering tools; evidence of site-specific haft binding technique, of tool maintenance, and use-life histories. A further evaluation of the “Keeley method” of identifying micropolishes, how they form and rates of formation, indicates that conventional incident light microscopy is severely limited in its application for microwear studies.

Keywords

Stone Tool American Antiquity Projectile Point Blade Element Wear Trace 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ahler, S. A. 1971. Projectile Point Form and Function at Rodgers Shelter, Missouri. Missouri Archaeological Society, Research Series, Number 8.Google Scholar
  2. Ahler, S. A. 1979. Functional Analysis of Nonobsidian Chipped Stone Artifacts: Terms, Variables, and Quantification. In Lithic Use-Wear Analysis, edited by B. Hayden, pp. 301–328. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  3. Bamforth, D. B. 1988. Investigating Microwear Polishes with Blind Tests: The Institute Results in Context. Journal of Archaeological Science 15: 11–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bamforth, D. B., G. R. Burns, and C. Woodman. 1990. Ambiguous Use Traces and Blind Test Results: New Data. Journal of Archaeological Science 17: 413–430.Google Scholar
  5. Barton, R. N. E., and C. A. Bergman. 1982. Hunters at Hengistbury: Some Evidence from Experimental Archaeology. World Archaeology 14: 237–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bergman, C. A., and M. H. Newcomer. 1983. Flint Arrowheaed Breakage: Examples from Ksar Akil, Lebanon. Journal of Field Archaeology 10: 238–243.Google Scholar
  7. Binford, L. R. 1963. A Proposed Attribute List for the Description and Classification of Projectile Points. In Miscellaneous Studies in Typology and Classification, edited by A. M. White, L. R. Binford, and M. L. Papworth, pp. 193-221. University of Michigan, Museum of Anthropology, Anthropological Papers No. 19.Google Scholar
  8. Cotterell, B., and J. Kamminga. 1990. Mechanics of Pre-industrial Technology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  9. Dumont, J. 1982. The Quantification of Microwear Traces: A New Use for Interferometry World Archaeology 14: 206–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Frison, G. C. 1971. The Buffalo Pound in Northwestern Plains Prehistory. American Antiquity 36: 71–91.Google Scholar
  11. Frison, G. C. 1974. The Casper Site. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  12. Frison, G. C. 1979. Observations on the Use of Stone Tools: Dulling of Working Edges of Some Chipped Stone Tools in Bison Butchering. In Lithic Use-Wear Analysis, edited by B. Hayden, pp. 259–268. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  13. Frison, G. C. 1986a. Human Artifacts, Mammoth Procurement, and Pleistocene Extinctions as Viewed from the Colby Site. In The Colby Mammoth Site, edited by G. C. Frison and L. C. Todd, pp. 91–114. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.Google Scholar
  14. Frison, G. C. 1986b. Mammoth Hunting and Butchering from a Perspective of African Elephant Culling. In The Colby Mammoth Site, edited by G. C. Frison and L. C. Todd, pp. 115–134. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.Google Scholar
  15. Frison, G. C. 1989. Experimental Use of Clovis Weaponry and Tools on African Elephants. American Antiquity 54: 766–784.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Frison, G. C., M. Wilson, and D. J. Wilson. 1976. Fossil Bison and Artifacts from an Early Altithermal Period Arroyo Trap in Wyoming. American Antiquity 41: 28–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Graham, R. W., C. V Haynes, D. C. Johnson, and M. Kay. 1981. Kimmswick: A Clovis-Mastodon Association in Eastern Missouri. Science 213: 1115–1117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hoffman, R., and L. Gross. 1970. Reflected-Light Differential-Interference Microscopy: Principles, Use and Image Interpretation. Journal of Microscopy 91: 149–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hurcombe, L. 1988. Some Criticisms and Suggestions in Response to Newcomer et al. (1986). Journal of Archaeological Science 15: 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hyland, D. C., J. M. Tersak, J. M. Adovasio, and M. I. Siegel. 1990. Identification of the Species of Origin of Residual Blood on Lithic Material. American Antiquity 55: 104–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Keeley, L. H. 1974. Technique and Methodology in Microwear Studies: A Critical Review. World Archaeology 5: 323–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Keeley, L. H. 1980. Experimental Determination of Stone Tool Uses: A Microwear Analysis. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  23. Keeley, L. H. 1982. Hafting and Retooling: Effects on the Archaeological Record. American Antiquity 47: 798–809.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Moss, E. H. 1987. A Review of “Investigating Microwear Polishes with Blind Tests.” Journal of Archaeological Science 14: 473–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Newcomer, M. H., R. Grace, and R. Unger-Hamilton. 1986. Investigating Microwear Polishes with Blind Tests. Journal of Archaeological Science 13: 203–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Newcomer, M. H., R. Grace, and R. Unger-Hamilton. 1988. Microwear Methodology: A Reply to Moss, Hurcombe and Bamforth. Journal of Archaeological Science 15: 25–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Newcomer, M. H., and L. H. Keeley. 1979. Testing a Method of Microwear Analysis with Experimental Flint Tools. In Lithic Use-Wear Analysis, edited by B. Hayden, pp. 195–205. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  28. Odell, G. H. 1990. Brer Rabbit Seeks True Knowledge. In The Interpretive Possibilities of Microwear Studies, edited by B. Graslund, H. Knutsson, K. Knutsson, and J. Taffinder, pp. 125-134. Societas Archaeological Upsaliensis. AUN 14, Uppsala.Google Scholar
  29. Odell, G. H., and F. Cowan. 1986. Experiments with Spears and Arrows on Animal Targets. Journal of Field Archaeology 13: 195–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Phillips, P. 1988. Traceology (Microwear) Studies in the USSR. World Archaeology 19: 349–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Rees, D., G. C. Wilkinson, R. Grace, and C. R. Orton. 1991. An Investigation of the Fractal Properties of Flint Microwear Images. Journal of Archaeological Science 18: 629–640.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Semenov, S. A. 1964. Prehistoric Technology. Cory, Adams and MacKay, London.Google Scholar
  33. Shott, M. J. 1989. On Tool-Class Use Lives and the Formation of Archaeological Assemblages. American Antiquity 54: 9–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Todd, L. C., and G. C. Frison. 1986. Taphonomic Study of the Colby Site Mammoth Bones. In The Colby Site, edited by G. C. Frison and L. C. Todd, pp. 27–90. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.Google Scholar
  35. Vaughan, P. C. 1985. Use-Wear Analysis of Flaked Stone Tools. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.Google Scholar
  36. Witthoft, J. 1968. Flint Arrowpoints from the Eskimo of Northwestern Alaska. Expedition 10: 1–37.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marvin Kay
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of AnthropologyUniversity of ArkansasFayettevilleUSA

Personalised recommendations