Journal of Archaeological Research

, Volume 17, Issue 1, pp 65–103 | Cite as

The Analysis of Stone Tool Procurement, Production, and Maintenance

Article

Abstract

Researchers who analyze stone tools and their production debris have made significant progress in understanding the relationship between stone tools and human organizational strategies. Stone tools are understood to be morphologically dynamic throughout their use-lives; the ever-changing morphology of stone tools is intimately associated with the needs of tool users. It also has become apparent to researchers that interpretations of lithic analysis are more productive when the unique contexts and situations for which lithic artifacts were made, used, modified, and ultimately discarded are considered. This article reviews the recent literature on stone tool production with an emphasis on raw material procurement, manufacturing techniques, and tool maintenance processes as they relate to adaptive strategies of toolmakers and users.

Keywords

Lithic technology Artifact curation Reduction sequences Artifact life history 

References cited

  1. Ahler, S. A. (1989). Mass analysis of flaking debris: Studying the forest rather than the trees. In Henry, D. O., and Odell, G. H. (eds.), Alternative Approaches to Lithic Analysis, Archeological Papers No. 1, American Anthropological Association, Washington, DC, pp. 85–118.Google Scholar
  2. Ahler, S. A., and Christensen, R. C. (1983). A Pilot Study of Knife River Flint Procurement and Reduction as Site 32DU508, A Quarry and Workshop Location in Dunn County, North Dakota, Department of Anthropology and Archaeology, University of North Dakota, Bismarck.Google Scholar
  3. Akridge, D. G., and Benoit, P. H. (2001). Luminescence properties of chert and some archaeological applications. Journal of Archaeological Science 28: 143–151.Google Scholar
  4. Amick, D. S. (1999). Raw material variation in Folsom stone tool assemblages and the division of labor in hunter-gatherer societies. In Amick, D. S. (ed.), Folsom Lithic Technology, International Monographs in Prehistory, Ann Arbor, MI, pp. 169–187.Google Scholar
  5. Amick, D. S., and Mauldin, R. P. (eds.) (1989). Experiments in Lithic Technology, BAR International Series No. 528, Archaeopress, Oxford.Google Scholar
  6. Amick, D. S., Mauldin, R. P., and Tomka, S. A. (1988). An evaluation of debitage produced by experimental bifacial core reduction of a Georgetown chert nodule. Lithic Technology 17: 26–36.Google Scholar
  7. Ammerman, A. J., and Andrefsky Jr., W. (1982). Reduction sequences and the exchange of obsidian in Neolithic Calabria. In Ericson, J., and Earle, T. (eds.), Contexts for Prehistoric Exchange, Academic Press, New York, pp. 149–172.Google Scholar
  8. Andrefsky Jr., W. (1986). A consideration of blade and flake curvature. Lithic Technology 15: 48–54.Google Scholar
  9. Andrefsky Jr., W. (1991). Inferring trends in prehistoric settlement behavior from lithic production technology in the southern Plains. North American Archaeologist 12: 129–144.Google Scholar
  10. Andrefsky Jr., W. (1994a). The geological occurrence of lithic material and stone tool production strategies. Geoarchaeology: An International Journal 9: 345–362.Google Scholar
  11. Andrefsky Jr., W. (1994b). Raw material availability and the organization of technology. American Antiquity 59: 21–35.Google Scholar
  12. Andrefsky Jr., W. (1995). Cascade phase lithic technology: An example for the lower Snake River. North American Archaeologist 16: 95–115.Google Scholar
  13. Andrefsky Jr., W. (1997). Thoughts on stone tool shape and inferred function. Journal of Middle Atlantic Archaeology 13: 125–144.Google Scholar
  14. Andrefsky Jr., W. (ed.) (2001a). Lithic Debitage: Context, Form, Meaning, University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.Google Scholar
  15. Andrefsky Jr., W. (2001b). Emerging directions in debitage analysis. In Andrefsky Jr., W. (ed.), Lithic Debitage: Context, Form, Meaning, University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, pp. 1–14.Google Scholar
  16. Andrefsky Jr., W. (2004). Partitioning the aggregate: Mass analysis and debitage assemblages. In Larson, M. L., and Hall, C. T. (eds.), Aggregate Analysis in Chipped Stone, University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, pp. 201–210.Google Scholar
  17. Andrefsky Jr., W. (2005). Lithics: Macroscopic Approaches to Analysis, 2nd. ed., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  18. Andrefsky Jr., W. (2006). Experimental and archaeological verification of an index of retouch for hafted bifaces. American Antiquity 71: 743–759.Google Scholar
  19. Andrefsky Jr., W. (2007a). The application and misapplication of mass analysis in lithic debitage studies. Journal of Archaeological Science 34: 392–402.Google Scholar
  20. Andrefsky Jr., W. (2007b). Cobble tool or cobble core: Exploring alternative typologies. In McPherron, S. P. (ed.), Tools versus Cores: Alternative Approaches to Stone Tool Analysis, Cambridge Scholars Publishing, Cambridge, pp. 253–266.Google Scholar
  21. Andrefsky Jr., W. (ed.) (2008a). Lithic Technology: Measures of Production, Use and Curation, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  22. Andrefsky Jr., W. (2008b). An introduction to lithic technology and stone tool life history. In Andrefsky Jr., W. (ed.), Lithic Technology: Measures of Production, Use and Curation, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 1–22.Google Scholar
  23. Andrefsky Jr., W. (2008c). Projectile point provisioning strategies and human land-use. In Andrefsky Jr., W. (ed.), Lithic Technology: Measures of Production, Use and Curation, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 195–216.Google Scholar
  24. Ashton, N., and White, M. (2003). Bifaces and raw materials: Flexible flaking in the British Early Paleolithic. In Soressi, M., and Dibble, H. L. (eds.), Multiple Approaches to the Study of Bifacial Technologies, University Museum Monograph 115, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, pp. 109–124.Google Scholar
  25. Audouze, F. (1999). New advances in French prehistory. Antiquity 73: 167–175.Google Scholar
  26. Baales, M. (2001). From lithics to spatial and social organization: Interpreting the lithic distribution and raw material composition at the final Paleolithic site of Kettig (Central Rhineland, Germany). Journal of Archaeological Science 28: 127–141.Google Scholar
  27. Bakewell, E. F. (2003). Evidence for thermal preconditioning in patinated basaltic chipped stone artifacts. Journal of Northwest Anthropology 37: 151–164.Google Scholar
  28. Bamforth, D. B. (1986). Technological efficiency and tool curation. American Antiquity 51: 38–50.Google Scholar
  29. Bamforth, D. B. (1990). Settlement, raw material, and lithic procurement in the central Mojave Desert. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 9: 70–104.Google Scholar
  30. Bamforth, D. B. (1991). Technological organization and hunter–gatherer land use: A California example. American Antiquity 56: 216–234.Google Scholar
  31. Bamforth, D. B. (2002). High-tech foragers? Folsom and later Paleoindian technology on the Great Plains. Journal of World Prehistory 16: 55–98.Google Scholar
  32. Bamforth, D. B. (2003). Rethinking the role of bifacial technology in Paleoindian adaptations on the Great Plains. In Soressi, M., and Dibble, H. L. (eds.), Multiple Approaches to the Study of Bifacial Technologies, University Museum Monograph 115, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, pp. 209–228.Google Scholar
  33. Bamforth, D. B., and Becker, M. S. (2000). Core/biface ratios, mobility, refitting, and artifact use-lives: A Paleoindian example. Plains Anthropologist 45: 273–290.Google Scholar
  34. Banks, L. D. (1990). From Mountain Peaks to Alligator Stomachs: A Review of Lithic Sources in theTrans-Mississippi South, the Southern Plains, and Adjacent Southwest, Oklahoma Anthropological Society, Norman.Google Scholar
  35. Bar-Yosef, O. (1991). Raw material exploitation in the Levantine Epi-Paleolithic. In Montet-White, A., and Holen, S. (eds.), Raw Material Economies Among Prehistoric Hunter-Gatherers, Publications in Anthropology 19, University of Kansas, Lawrence, pp. 235–250.Google Scholar
  36. Barton, C. M. (1988). Lithic Variability and Middle Paleolithic Behavior, BAR International Series No. 408, Archaeopress, Oxford.Google Scholar
  37. Baumler, M. F., and Davis, L. B. (2000). Upon closer examination: Paleoindian behavioral inferences from a Folsom feature lithic assemblage at the Indian Creek occupation site, west-central Montana Rockies. Archaeology in Montana 41: 17–62.Google Scholar
  38. Baumler, M. F., and Davis, L. B. (2004). The role of small-sized debitage in aggregate lithic analysis. In Larson, M. L., and Hall, C. T. (eds.), Aggregate Analysis in Chipped Stone, University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, pp. 45–64.Google Scholar
  39. Baumler, M. F., and Downum, C. E. (1989). Between micro and macro: A study in the interpretation of small-sized lithic debitage. In Amick, D. S., and Mauldin, R. P. (eds.), Experiments in Lithic Technology, BAR International Series No. 528, Archaeopress, Oxford, pp. 101–116.Google Scholar
  40. Bayman, J. M., and Shackley, S. M. (1999). Dynamics of Hohokam obsidian circulation in the North American Southwest. Antiquity 73: 836–845.Google Scholar
  41. Beck, C., Taylor, A. K., Jones, G. T., Fadem, C. M., Cook, C. R., and Millward, S. A. (2002). Rocks are heavy: Transport costs and Paleoarchaic quarry behavior in the Great Basin. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 21: 481–507.Google Scholar
  42. Bettinger, R. L. (1987). Archaeological approaches to hunter-gatherers. Annual Review of Anthropology 16: 121–142.Google Scholar
  43. Bettinger, R. L., Winterhalder, B., and McElreath, R. (2006). A simple model of technological intensification. Journal of Archaeological Science 33: 538–545.Google Scholar
  44. Binford, L. R. (1973). Interassemblage variability: The Mousterian and the “functional” argument. In Renfrew, C. (ed.), The Explanation of Culture Change: Models in Prehistory, Duckworth, London, pp. 227–254.Google Scholar
  45. Binford, L. R. (1977). Forty-seven trips. In Wright, R. S. (ed.), Stone Tools as Cultural Markers, Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, Canberra, pp. 24–36.Google Scholar
  46. Binford, L. R. (1979). Organization and formation processes: Looking at curated technologies. Journal of Anthropological Research 35: 255–273.Google Scholar
  47. Binford, L. R. (1980). Willow smoke and dogs’ tails: Hunter-gatherer settlement systems and archaeological site formation. American Antiquity 45: 4–20.Google Scholar
  48. Binford, L. R. (1985). “Brand X” versus the recommended product. American Antiquity 50: 580–590.Google Scholar
  49. Binford, L. R. (1986). An Alyawara day: Making men’s knives and beyond. American Antiquity 51: 547–562.Google Scholar
  50. Binford, L. R., and Stone, N. M. (1985). “Righteous rocks” and Richard Gould: Some observations on misguided “debate.” American Antiquity 50: 151–153.Google Scholar
  51. Bisson, M. S. (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
  52. Blades, B. S. (2003). End scraper reduction and hunter-gatherer mobility. American Antiquity 68: 141–156.Google Scholar
  53. Bleed, P. (1986). The optimal design of hunting weapons: Maintainability or reliability. American Antiquity 51: 737–747.Google Scholar
  54. 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
  55. Bleed, P. (2002a). Obviously sequential, but continuous or staged? Refits and cognition in three Late Paleolithic assemblages from Japan. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 21: 329–343.Google Scholar
  56. Bleed, P. (2002b). Cheap, regular, and reliable: Implications of design variation in Late Pleistocene Japanese microblade technology. In Elston, R. G., and Kuhn, S. L. (eds.), Thinking Small: Global Perspectives on Microlithization, Archeological Papers No. 12, American Anthropological Association, Arlington, VA, pp. 95–102.Google Scholar
  57. Bleed, P. (2004). Refitting as aggregate analysis. In Larson, M. L., and Hall, C. T. (eds.), Aggregate Analysis in Chipped Stone, University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, pp. 184–200.Google Scholar
  58. Bloomer, W.W., and Ingbar, E. E. (1992). Debitage analysis. In Elston, R. G., and Raven, C. (eds.), Archaeological Investigations at Tosawihi, A Great Basin Quarry, Part I: The Periphery, U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Elko, NV, pp. 229–270.Google Scholar
  59. Boeda, E. (1995). Levallois: A volumetric construction, methods, a technique. In Dibble, H. L., and Bar-Yosef, O. (eds.), The Definition and Interpretation of Levallois Technology, University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, pp. 41–68.Google Scholar
  60. Bradbury, A. P., and Carr, P. J. (1999). Examining stage and continuum models of flake debris analysis: An experimental approach. Journal of Archaeological Science 26: 105–116.Google Scholar
  61. Bradbury, A. P., and Franklin, J. D. (2000). Material variability, package size and mass analysis. Lithic Technology 25: 42–58.Google Scholar
  62. Bradbury, A. P., Carr, P. J., and Cooper, D. R. (2008). Raw material and retouched flakes. In Andrefsky Jr., W. (ed.), Lithic Technology: Measures of Production, Use, and Curation, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 233–256.Google Scholar
  63. Bradley, B. A. (1975). Lithic reduction sequences: A glossary and discussion. In Swanson, E. (ed.), Lithic Technology: Making and Using Stone Tools, Mouton, The Hague, pp. 5-14.Google Scholar
  64. Brantingham, P. J. (2003). A neutral model of stone raw material procurement. American Antiquity 68: 487–509.Google Scholar
  65. Brantingham, P. J., and Kuhn, S. L. (2001). Constraints on Levallois core technology: A mathematical model. Journal of Archaeological Science 28: 747–761.Google Scholar
  66. Brantingham, P. J., Olsen, J. W., Rech, J. A., and Krivoshapkin, A. I. (2000). Raw material quality and prepared core technologies in northeastern Asia. Journal of Archaeological Science 27: 255–271.Google Scholar
  67. Braun, D. R. (2005). Examining flake production strategies: Examples from the Middle Paleolithic of southwest Asia. Lithic Technology 30: 107–125.Google Scholar
  68. Callahan, E. (1979). The basics of biface knapping in the eastern fluted point tradition: A manual for flintknappers and lithic analysts. Archaeology of Eastern North America 7(1): 1–180.Google Scholar
  69. Carr, P. J. (ed.) (1994). The Organization of North American Prehistoric Chipped Stone Tool Technologies, International Monographs in Prehistory, Ann Arbor, MI.Google Scholar
  70. Carr, P. J., and Bradbury, A. P. (2001). Flake debris analysis, levels of production, and the organization of technology. In Andrefsky Jr., W. (ed.), Lithic Debitage: Context, Form, Meaning, University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, pp. 126–146.Google Scholar
  71. Carr, P. J., and Bradbury, A. P. (2004) Exploring mass analysis, screens, and attributes. In Hall, C. T., and Larson, M. L. (eds.), Aggregate Analysis in Chipped Stone, University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, pp. 21–44.Google Scholar
  72. Chatters, J. C. (1987). Hunter-gatherer adaptations and assemblage structure. Journal of Anthropological Research 6: 336–375.Google Scholar
  73. Church, T. (1990). An investigation into prehistoric lithic procurement in the Bearlodge Mountains, Wyoming, unpublished M.A. thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Montana, Missoula.Google Scholar
  74. Church, T. (1994). Lithic Resource Studies: A Sourcebook for Archaeologists, Lithic Technology, Special Publication #3, Tulsa, OK.Google Scholar
  75. Clark, J. E. (1991). Flintknapping and debitage disposal among the Lacandon Maya of Chiapas, Mexico. In Staski, E., and Sutro, L. D. (eds.), The Ethnoarchaeology of Refuse Disposal, Anthropological Research Papers No. 42, Arizona State University, Tempe, pp. 63–78.Google Scholar
  76. Clarkson, C. (2002). An index of invasiveness for the measurement of unifacial and bifacial retouch: A theoretical, experimental and archaeological verification. Journal of Archaeological Science 29: 65–75.Google Scholar
  77. Clarkson, C., and Lamb, L. (eds.) (2006). Lithics “Down Under”: Australian Approaches to Lithic Reduction, Use, and Classification, BAR International Series No. 1408, Archaeopress, Oxford.Google Scholar
  78. Close, A. E. (1991). On the validity of Middle Paleolithic tool types: A test case for the eastern Sahara. Journal of Field Archaeology 18: 256–264.Google Scholar
  79. Close, A. E. (1996). Carry that weight: The use and transportation of stone tools. Current Anthropology 37: 545–553.Google Scholar
  80. Close, A. E. (2000). Reconstructing movement in prehistory. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 7: 49–77.Google Scholar
  81. Cochrane, G. W. (2003). On the measurement and analysis of platform angles. Lithic Technology 28: 13–25.Google Scholar
  82. Collins, M. B. (1975). Lithic technology as a means of processual inference. In Swanson, E. (ed.), Lithic Technology: Making and Using Stone Tools, Mouton, The Hague, pp. 15–34.Google Scholar
  83. Cooper, J., and Qiu, F. (2006). Expediting and standardizing stone artifact refitting using a computerized suitability model. Journal of Archaeological Science 33: 987–998.Google Scholar
  84. Crabtree, D. E. (1972). An Introduction to Flintworking, Occasional Papers No. 28, Idaho State Museum, Pocatello.Google Scholar
  85. Cziesla, E. (1990). On refitting stone artefacts. In Cziesla, E., Eichoff, S., Arts, N., and Winter, D. (eds.), The Big Puzzle: International Symposium on Refitting Stone Artefacts, Studies in Modern Archaeology 1, Holos, Bonn, pp. 9–44.Google Scholar
  86. Davis, Z. J., and Shea, J. J. (1998). Quantifying lithic curation: An experimental test of Dibble and Pelcin’s original flake-tool mass predictor. Journal of Archaeological Science 25: 603–610.Google Scholar
  87. Dibble, H. L. (1987). The interpretation of Middle Paleolithic scraper morphology. American Antiquity 52: 109–117.Google Scholar
  88. Dibble, H. L. (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, Publications in Anthropology 19, University of Kansas, Lawrence, pp. 33–48.Google Scholar
  89. Dibble, H. L. (1995). Middle Paleolithic scraper reduction: Background, clarification, and review of the evidence to date. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 2: 299–368.Google Scholar
  90. Dibble, H. L. (1997). Platform variability and flake morphology: A comparison of experimental and archeological data and implications for interpreting prehistoric lithic technological strategies. Lithic Technology 22: 150–170.Google Scholar
  91. Dibble, H. L. (1998). Comments on “quantifying lithic curation: An experimental test of Dibble and Pelcin’s original flake-tool mass predictor” (Z. J. Davis and J. J. Shea.) Journal of Archaeological Science 25: 611–613.Google Scholar
  92. Dibble, H. L., and Pelcin, A. (1995). The effect of hammer mass and velocity on flake mass. Journal of Archaeological Science 22: 429–239.Google Scholar
  93. Dietrich, D., and Grant, P. R. (1985). Cathodoluminescence petrography of syntectonic quartz fibres. Journal of Structural Geology 7: 541–553.Google Scholar
  94. Eerkens, J. W., and Glascock, M. D. (2000). Northern Fish Lake Valley and the volcanic tablelands of Owens Valley: Description and characterization of two sources of obsidian in the western Great Basin. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 22: 331–342.Google Scholar
  95. Eerkens, J. W., and Rosenthal, J. S. (2004). Are obsidian subsources meaningful units of analysis? Temporal and spatial patterning of subsources in the Coso Volcanic Field, southeastern California. Journal of Archaeological Science 31: 21–29.Google Scholar
  96. Eerkens, J. W., Ferguson, J. R., Glascock, M. D., Skinner, C. E., and Waechter, S. A. (2007). Reduction strategies and geochemical characterization of lithic assemblages: A comparison of three case studies from western North America. American Antiquity 72: 585–597.Google Scholar
  97. Elston, R. G. (1992). The lithic terrane of Tosawihi. In Elston, R. G., and Ravens, C. (eds.), Archaeological Investigations at Tosawihi, A Great Basin Quarry, Part 1: The Periphery, U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Elko, NV, pp. 71–80.Google Scholar
  98. Elston, R. G., and Brantingham, P. J. (2002). Microlithic technology in northern Asia: A risk-minimizing strategy of the Late Paleolithic and Early Holocene. In Elston, R. G., and Kuhn, S. L. (eds.), Thinking Small: Global Perspectives on Microlithization, Archeological Papers No.12, American Anthropological Association, Arlington, VA, pp. 103–116.Google Scholar
  99. Elston, R. G., and Kuhn, S. L. (eds.), (2002). Thinking Small: Global Perspectives on Microlithization, Archeological Papers No. 12, American Anthropological Association, Arlington, VA.Google Scholar
  100. Eren, M., and Prendergast, M. E. (2008). Comparing and synthesizing unifacial stone tool reduction indices. In Andrefsky Jr., W. (ed.), Lithic Technology: Measures of Production, Use, and Curation, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 49–85.Google Scholar
  101. Eren, M., Dominguez-Rorigo, I. M., Kuhn, S. L., Adler, D. S., Le, I., and Bar-Yosef, O. (2005). Defining and measuring reduction in unifacial stone tools. Journal of Archaeological Science 32: 1190–1206.Google Scholar
  102. Ferguson, J. R., and Skinner, C. R. (2005). Bone Cave: A severely disturbed cave site in central Oregon. North American Archaeologist 26: 221–244.Google Scholar
  103. Fitzhugh, B. (2001). Risk and invention in human technological evolution. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 20: 125–167.Google Scholar
  104. Fladmark, K. R. (1982). Microdebitage analysis: Initial considerations. Journal of Archaeological Science 9: 205–220.Google Scholar
  105. Flenniken, J. J. (1985). Stone tool reduction techniques as cultural markers. In Plew, M. G., Woods, J. C., and Pavesic, M. G. (eds.), Stone Tool Analysis: Essays in Honor of Don E. Crabtree, University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, pp. 265–276.Google Scholar
  106. Flenniken, J. J., and Raymond, A. W. (1986). Morphological projectile point typology: Replication experimentation and technological analysis. American Antiquity 51: 603–614.Google Scholar
  107. Flenniken, J. J., and Wilke, P. J. (1989). Typology, technology, and chronology of Great Basin dart points. American Anthropologist 91: 149–158.Google Scholar
  108. Foradas, J. G. (2003). Chemical sourcing of Hopewell bladelets: Implications for building a chert database for Ohio. In Kardulias, P. N., and Yerkes, R. W. (eds.), Written in Stone: The Multiple Dimensions of Lithic Analysis, Lexington Books, Lanham, MD, pp. 87–112.Google Scholar
  109. Franklin, J. D., and Simek, J. F. (2001). Core refitting and the accuracy of techniques for aggregate lithic analysis. Paper presented at the 66th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, New Orleans, LA.Google Scholar
  110. Frison, G. C. (1991). Prehistoric Hunters of the High Plains, 2nd ed., Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  111. Geneste, J. M. (1991). Systemes techniques de production lithique: variations techno-economiques dans les processus de realisatoni des Outillages Paleolithiques. Techniques et Culture 17–18: 1–35.Google Scholar
  112. Gilreath, A. (1984). Stages of bifacial manufacture: Learning from experiments. Paper presented at the 49th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Portland, OR.Google Scholar
  113. Glascock, M. D., Neff, H., Stryker, K. S., and Johnson, T. N. (1994). Sourcing of archaeological obsidian by abbreviated NAA procedure. Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry 180: 29–35.Google Scholar
  114. Goodale, N. B., Kuijt, I., MacFarlan, S., Osterhoudt, C., and Finlayson, B. (2008). Lithic core reduction techniques: A model for predicting expected diversity. In Andrefsky Jr., W. (ed.), Lithic Technology: Measures of Production, Use and Curation, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 317–336.Google Scholar
  115. Goodyear, A. C. (1974). The Brand Site: A Techno-Functional Study of a Dalton Site in Northeast Arkansas, Research Series No. 7, Arkansas Archaeological Survey Publications on Archaeology, Fayetteville.Google Scholar
  116. Goodyear, A. C. (1979). A Hypothesis for the Use of Cryptocrystalline Raw Material among Paleo-Indian Groups of North America, Research Manuscript No. 156, Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of South Carolina, Columbia.Google Scholar
  117. Goodyear, A. C. (1993). Tool kit entropy and bipolar reduction: A study of interassemblage lithic variability among Paleo-Indian sites in the northeastern United States. North American Archaeologist 14: 1–23.Google Scholar
  118. Gould, R. A. (1980). Raw material source areas and “curated” tool assemblages. American Antiquity 45: 823–833.Google Scholar
  119. Gould, R. A. (1985). The empiricist strikes back: A reply to Binford. American Antiquity 50: 638–644.Google Scholar
  120. Gould, R. A., and Saggers, S. (1985). Lithic procurement in central Australia: A closer look at Binford’s idea of embeddedness in archaeology. American Antiquity 50: 117–136.Google Scholar
  121. Gramly, R. M. (1980). Raw material source areas and “curated” tool assemblages. American Antiquity 45: 823–833.Google Scholar
  122. Greiser, S. T., and Sheets, P. D. (1979). Raw materials as a functional variable in use-wear studies. In Hayen, B. (ed.), Lithic Wear Analysis, Academic Press, New York, pp. 289–296. Google Scholar
  123. Grimaldi, S. (1998). Methodological problems in the reconstruction of chaînes opératoire in Lower-Middle Paleolithic industries. In Milliken, S., and Peresani, M. (eds.), Lithic Technology: From Raw Material Procurement to Tool Production, Dipartamento di Scienze Geologiche e Paleontologiche, Universita Degli Studi de Ferrara, Ferrara, Italy, pp. 19–22.Google Scholar
  124. Grimes, J. R., and Grimes, B. G. (1985). Flakeshavers: Morphometric, functional and life-cycle analysis of a Paleoindian unifacial tool class. Archaeology of Eastern North America 13: 35–57.Google Scholar
  125. Grimm L. T., and Koetje, T. A. (1992). Spatial patterns in the Upper Perigordian at Solvieux: Implications for activity reconstruction. In Hofman, J., and Enloe, J. (eds.), Piecing Together the Past: Applications of Refitting Studies in Archaeology, BAR International Series No. 678, Archaeopress, Oxford, pp. 264–286.Google Scholar
  126. Hall, C. T. (2004). Evaluating prehistoric hunter-gatherer mobility, land use, and technological organization strategies. In Hall, C. T., and Larson, M. L. (eds.), Aggregate Analysis in Chipped Stone, University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, pp. 139–155.Google Scholar
  127. Hardy, B. L., Kaye, M., Marks, A. E., and Monigal, K. (2001). Stone tool function at the Palaeolithic sites of Starosele and Buran Kaya III, Crimea: Behavioral implications. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 98: 10972–10977.Google Scholar
  128. Hayden, B. (1993). The cultural capacities of Neanderthals: A review and re-evaluation. Journal of Human Evolution 24: 113–146.Google Scholar
  129. Henry, D. O., Haynes, C. V., and Bradley, B. (1976). Quantitative variations in flaked stone debitage. Plains Anthropologist 21: 57–61.Google Scholar
  130. Hess, S. C. (1996). Chert provenance analysis at the Mack Canyon Site, Sherman County, Oregon: An evaluative study. Geoarchaeology 11: 51–81.Google Scholar
  131. Hiscock, P. (1996). Transformations of Upper Paleolithic implements in the Dabba industry from Haua Fteah (Libya). Antiquity 70: 657–664.Google Scholar
  132. Hiscock, P., and Attenbrow, V. (2003). Early Australian implement variation: A reduction model. Journal of Archaeological Science 30: 239–249.Google Scholar
  133. Hiscock, P., and Attenbrow, V. (2006). Reduction continuums and tool use. In Clarkson, C., and Lamb, L. (eds.), Lithics “Down Under”: Australian Approaches to Lithic Reduction, Use, and Classification, BAR International Series No. 1408, Archaeopress, Oxford, pp. 122–136.Google Scholar
  134. Hiscock, P., and Clarkson, C. (2005). Experimental evaluation of Kuhn’s geometric index of reduction and the flat-flake problem. Journal of Archaeological Science 32: 1015–1022.Google Scholar
  135. Hiscock, P., and Clarkson, C. (2007). Retouched notches at Combe Grenal (France) and the reduction hypothesis. American Antiquity 72: 176–190.Google Scholar
  136. Hiscock, P., and Clarkson, C. (2008). The construction of morphological diversity: A study of Mousterian implement retouching at Combe Grenal. In Andrefsky Jr., W. (ed.), Lithic Technology: Measures of Production, Use and Curation, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 106–135.Google Scholar
  137. Hoard, R. J., Holen, R. A., Glascock, M. D., Neff, H., and Elam, J. M. (1992). Neutron activation analysis of stone from the Chadron Formation and a Clovis site on the Great Plains. Journal of Archaeological Science 19: 655–665.Google Scholar
  138. Hoard, R. J., Bozell, J. R., Holen, S. R., Glascock, M. D., Neff, H., and Elam, J. M. (1993). Source determination of White River group silicates from two archaeological sites in the Great Plains. American Antiquity 58: 698–710.Google Scholar
  139. Hoffman, C. M. (1985). Projectile point maintenance and typology: Assessment with factor analysis and canonical correlation. In Carr, C. (ed.), For Concordance in Archaeological Analysis: Bridging Data Structure, Quantitative Technique, and Theory, Westport Press, Kansas City, MO, pp. 566–612.Google Scholar
  140. Hofman, J. L. (1981). The refitting of chipped-stone artifacts as an analytical and interpretive tool. Current Anthropology 22: 35–50.Google Scholar
  141. Hofman, J. L. (1999). Folsom fragments, site types, and assemblage formation. In Amick, D. S. (ed.), Folsom Lithic Technology, International Monographs in Prehistory, Ann Arbor, MI, pp. 122–143.Google Scholar
  142. Hofman, J. L. (2003). Tethered to stone or freedom to move: Folsom biface technology in regional perspective. In Soressi, M., and Dibble, H. L. (eds.), Multiple Approaches to the Study of Bifacial Technologies, University Museum Monograph 115, University of Pennsylvania Museum, Philadelphia, pp. 229–250.Google Scholar
  143. Hofman, J. L., Amick, D. S., and Rose, R. O. (1991). Shifting sands: A Folsom-Midland assemblage from a campsite in western Texas. Plains Anthropologist 35(129): 221–253.Google Scholar
  144. Hofman, J. L., and Enloe, J. G. (eds.) (1992). Piecing Together the Past: Applications of Refitting Studies in Archaeology, BAR International Series No. 578, Archaeopress, Oxford.Google Scholar
  145. Hofman, J. L., Todd, L., and Collins, M. B. (1991). Identification of central Texas Edwards chert at the Folsom and Lindenmeier sites. Plains Anthropologist 36: 297–308.Google Scholar
  146. Holdaway, S., and Stern, N. (2004). A Record in Stone: The Study of Australia’s Flaked Stone Artifacts, Aboriginal Studies Press, Melbourne.Google Scholar
  147. Holdaway, S., McPherron, S. P., and Roth, B. (1996). Notched tool reuse and raw material availability in French Middle Paleolithic sites. American Antiquity 61: 377–387.Google Scholar
  148. Holmes, W. H. (1894). Natural history of flaked stone implements. In Wake, C. S. (ed.), Memoirs of the International Congress of Anthropology, Schulte, Chicago, pp. 120–139.Google Scholar
  149. Hughes, R. E. (1998). On reliability, validity, and scale in obsidian sourcing research. In Ramenofsky, A. F., and Steffen, A. (eds.), Unit Issues in Archaeology, University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, pp. 103–114.Google Scholar
  150. Hull, K. L. (1987). Identification of cultural site formation processes through microdebitage analysis. American Antiquity 52: 772–783.Google Scholar
  151. Ingbar, E. E., and Hofman, J. L. (1999). Folsom fluting fallacies. In Amick, D. S. (ed.), Folsom Lithic Technology, International Monographs in Prehistory, Ann Arbor, MI, pp. 98–110.Google Scholar
  152. Ingbar, E. E., Larson, M. L., and Bradley, B. (1989). A nontypological approach to debitage analysis. In Amick, D. S., and Mauldin, R. P. (eds.), Experiments in Lithic Technology, BAR International Series No. 528, Archaeopress, Oxford, pp. 117–136.Google Scholar
  153. Inizan, M. L., Roche, H., and Tixier, J. (1992). Technology of Knapped Stone, Cercle de Recherches et d’Etudes Préhistoriques, Meudon.Google Scholar
  154. Jefferies, R. W. (1990). A technological and functional analysis of Middle Archaic hafted endscrapers from the Black Earth site, Saline County, Illinois. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 15: 3–36.Google Scholar
  155. 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, Publications in Anthropology 19, University of Kansas, Lawrence, pp. 7–32.Google Scholar
  156. Jeske, R. J. (1989). Economies in raw material use by prehistoric hunter-gatherers. In Torrence, R. (ed.), Time, Energy, and Stone Tools, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 34–45.Google Scholar
  157. Johnson, J. K. (1989). The utility of production trajectory modeling as a framework for regional analysis. In Henry, D. O., and Odell, G. H. (eds.), Alternative Approaches to Lithic Analysis, Archeological Papers No. 1, American Anthropological Association, Washington, DC, pp. 119–138.Google Scholar
  158. Jodry, M. A. (1992). Fitting together Folsom: Refitting lithics and site formation processes at Stewart’s Cattle Guard site. In Hofman, J., and Enloe, J. (eds.), Piecing Together the Past: Applications of Refitting Studies in Archaeology, BAR International Series No. 678, Arhaeopress, Oxford, pp. 179–209. Google Scholar
  159. Kalin, J. (1981). Stem point manufacture and debitage recovery. Archaeology of Eastern North America 9: 134–175.Google Scholar
  160. Kardulias, N. P., and Yerkes, R. W. (2003). Written in Stone: The Multiple Dimensions of Lithic Analysis, Lexington Books, Lanham, MD.Google Scholar
  161. Kelly, R. L. (1983). Hunter-gatherer mobility strategies. Journal of Anthropological Research 39: 277–306.Google Scholar
  162. Kelly, R. L. (1985). Hunter-Gatherer Mobility and Sedentism: A Great Basin Study, Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
  163. Kelly, R. L. (1988). The three sides of a biface. American Antiquity 53: 717–734.Google Scholar
  164. Kelly, R. L., and Todd, L. C. (1988). Coming into the country: Early Paleoindian hunting and mobility. American Antiquity 53: 231–244.Google Scholar
  165. Knecht, H. (1997). Projectile Technology, Plenum Press, New York.Google Scholar
  166. Knell, E. J. (2004). Coarse-scale chipped stone aggregates and technological organization strategies at Hell Gap Locality V Cody complex component, Wyoming. In Hall, C. T., and Larson, M. L. (eds.), Aggregate Analysis in Chipped Stone, University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, pp. 156–183.Google Scholar
  167. Knell, E. J. (2007). The Organization of Late Paleoindian Cody Complex Land-Use on the North American Great Plains, Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Washington State University, Pullman.Google Scholar
  168. Koldehoff, B. (1987). The Cahokia flake tool industry: Socio–economic implications for late prehistory in the central Mississippi Valley. In Johnson, J. K., and Morrow, C. A. (eds.), The Organization of Core Technology, Westview Press, Boulder, CO, pp. 151–186.Google Scholar
  169. Kooyman, B. P. (2000). Understanding Stone Tools and Archaeological Sites, University of Calgary Press, Calgary, Canada.Google Scholar
  170. Kuhn, S. L. (1990). A geometric index of reduction for unifacial stone tools. Journal of Archaeological Science 17: 585–593.Google Scholar
  171. 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
  172. Kuhn, S. L. (1992). Blank form and reduction as determinants of Mousterian scraper morphology. American Antiquity 57: 115–128.Google Scholar
  173. Kuhn, S. L. (1995). Mousterian Lithic Technology, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.Google Scholar
  174. Kuijt, I., Prentiss, W. C., and Pokotylo, D. J. (1995). Bipolar reduction: An experimental study of debitage variability. Lithic Technology 20: 116–127.Google Scholar
  175. Larson, M. L. (1990). Early Plains Archaic Technological Organization: The Laddie Creek Example, Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Santa Barbara.Google Scholar
  176. Larson, M. L. (1994). Toward a holistic analysis of chipped stone assemblages. In Carr, P. J., (ed.), The Organization of North American Stone Tool Technology, International Monographs in Prehistory, Ann Arbor, MI, pp. 57–69.Google Scholar
  177. Larson, M. L. (2004). Chipped stone aggregate analysis in archaeology. In Hall, C. T., and Larson, M. L. (eds.), Aggregate Analysis in Chipped Stone, University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, pp. 3–17.Google Scholar
  178. Larson, M. L., and Finley, J. B. (2004). Seeing the forest but missing the trees: Production sequences and multiple linear regression. In Hall, C. T., and Larson, M. L. (eds.), Aggregate Analysis in Chipped Stone, University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, pp. 95–111.Google Scholar
  179. Larson, M. L., and Ingbar, E. E. (1992). Perspectives on refitting: Critique and a complementary approach. In Hofman, J. L., and Enloe, J. G. (eds.), Piecing Together the Past: Applications of Refitting Studies in Archaeology, BAR International Series No. 578, Archaeopress, Oxford, pp. 151–162.Google Scholar
  180. Larson, M. L., and Kornfeld, M. (1997). Chipped stone nodules: Theory, method, and examples. Lithic Technology 22: 4–18.Google Scholar
  181. Lee, K. W, and Lee, Y. J. (2006). Organization of lithic technology and raw material availability: An example with Suyanggae and Changnae sites, Korea. Paper presented at the International Paleoanthropological Symposium on Salawusu, Ordors-Inner Mongolia, China.Google Scholar
  182. Leroi-Gourhan, A. (1964). Le geste et la parole I, technique et langage, Albin Michel, Paris.Google Scholar
  183. Luedtke, B. E. (1992). An Archaeologist’s Guide to Chert and Flint, Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
  184. Lurie, R. (1989). 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
  185. Lyons, W. H., Glascock, M. D., and Mehringer, P. J. (2003). Silica from sources to sites: Ultraviolet fluorescence and trace elements identify cherts from Lost Dunes, southeastern Oregon, USA. Journal of Archaeological Science 30: 1139–1159.Google Scholar
  186. MacDonald, D. H. (2008). The role of lithic raw material availability and quality in determining tool kit size, tool function, and degree of retouch: A case study from Skink Rockshelter (46NI445), West Virginia. In Andrefsky Jr., W. (ed.), Lithic Technology: Measures of Production, Use and Curation, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 216–232.Google Scholar
  187. Magne, M. P. (1985). Lithics and Livelihood: Stone Tool Technologies of Central and Southern Interior British Columbia, National Museum of Man Mercury Series, Ottawa.Google Scholar
  188. Magne, M. P., and Pokotylo, D. (1981). A pilot study in bifacial lithic reduction sequences. Lithic Technology 10: 34–47.Google Scholar
  189. Malyk-Selivanova, N., Ashley, G. M., Gal, R., Glascock, M. D., and Neff, H. (1998). Geological-geochemical approach to sourcing of prehistoric chert artifacts, northwestern Alaska. Geoarchaeology 13: 673–708.Google Scholar
  190. Marshall, D. J. (1988). Cathodoluminescence of Geological Materials, Unwin Hyman, Boston, MA.Google Scholar
  191. McCall, G. S. (2007). Behavioral ecological models of lithic technological change during the later Middle Stone Age of South Africa. Journal of Archaeological Science 34: 1738–1751.Google Scholar
  192. McPherron, S. P. (2000). Handaxes as a measure of the mental capabilities of early hominids. Journal of Archaeological Science 27: 655–663.Google Scholar
  193. McPherron, S. P. (2003). Technological and typological variability in the bifaces from Tabun Cave, Israel. In Soressi, M., and Dibble, H. L. (eds.), Multiple Approaches to the Study of Bifacial Technologies, University Museum Monograph 115, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, pp. 55–76.Google Scholar
  194. McPherron, S. P. (ed.) (2007). Tools versus Cores: Alternative Approaches to Stone Tool Analysis, Cambridge Scholars Publishing, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  195. Milliken, S., and Peresani, M. (eds.) (1998). Lithic Technology: From Raw Material Procurement to Tool Production, Dipartimento di Scienze Geologiche e Paleontologiche, Universita Degli Studi de Ferrara, Ferrara, Italy.Google Scholar
  196. Moore, M. W. (2002). Australian aboriginal blade production methods on the Georgina River, Camooweal, Queensland. Lithic Technology 28: 35–63.Google Scholar
  197. Morrow, C. A., and Jefferies, R. W. (1989). Trade or embedded procurement? A test case from southern Illinois. In Torrence, R. (ed.), Time, Energy and Stone Tools, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 27–33.Google Scholar
  198. Morrow, J. (1997). End scraper morphology and use-life: An approach for studying Paleoindian lithic technology and mobility. Lithic Technology 22: 70–85.Google Scholar
  199. Morrow, T. M. (1996). Lithic refitting and archaeological site formation processes: A case study from the twin ditch site, Greene County, Illinois. In Odell, G. H. (ed.), Stone Tools: Theoretical Insights into Human Prehistory, Plenum Press, New York, pp. 345–376.Google Scholar
  200. Morrow, T. M. (1997). A chip off the old block: Alternative approaches to debitage analysis. Lithic Technology 22: 51–69.Google Scholar
  201. Nadel, D. (2001). Indoor/outdoor flint knapping and minute debitage remains: The evidence from the Ohalo II submerged camp (19.5 KY, Jordan Valley). Lithic Technology 26: 118–137.Google Scholar
  202. Nash, S. E. (1996). Is curation a useful heuristic? In Odell, G. H. (ed.), Stone Tools: Theoretical Insights into Human Prehistory, Plenum Press, New York, pp. 81–100.Google Scholar
  203. Negash, A., Shackley, M. S., and Alene, M. (2006). Source provenance of obsidian artifacts from the Early Stone Age (ESA) site of Melka Konture, Ethiopia. Journal of Archaeological Science 33: 1647–1650.Google Scholar
  204. Negash, A., Alene, M., Brown, F. H., Nash, B. P., and Shackley, M. S. (2007). Geochemical sources for the terminal Pleistocene/Early Holocene obsidian artifacts of the site of Beseka, central Ethiopia. Journal of Archaeological Science 34: 1205–1210.Google Scholar
  205. Nelson, M. C. (1991). The study of technological organization. In Schiffer, M. B. (ed.), Archaeological Method and Theory,Vol. 3, University of Arizona Press, Tucson, pp. 57–100.Google Scholar
  206. Nowell, A., Park, K., Mutaxas, D., and Park, J. (2003). Deformation modeling: A methodology for the analysis of handaxe morphology and variability. In Soressi, M., and Dibble, H. L. (eds.), Multiple Approaches to the Study of Bifacial Technologies, University Museum Monograph 115, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, pp. 193–208.Google Scholar
  207. O’Connell, J. F. (1977). Aspects of variation in central Australian lithic assemblages. In Wright, R. V. (ed.), Stone Tools as Cultural Markers: Change, Evolution and Complexity, Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, Canberra, pp. 269–281.Google Scholar
  208. Odell, G. H. (1989). Experiments in lithic reduction. In Amick, D. S., and Mauldin, R. P. (eds.), Experiments in Lithic Technology, BAR International Series No. 528, Archaeopress, pp. 163–198.Google Scholar
  209. Odell, G. H. (ed.) (1996a). Stone Tools: Theoretical Insights into Human Prehistory, Plenum Press, New York.Google Scholar
  210. Odell, G. H. (1996b). Economizing behavior and the concept of “curation.” In Odell, G. H. (ed.), Stone Tools: Theoretical Insights into Human Prehistory, Plenum, New York, pp. 51–80.Google Scholar
  211. Odell, G. H. (2004). Lithic Analysis, Springer, New York.Google Scholar
  212. Olausson, D. (1998). Different strokes for different folks, possible reasons for variation in quality of knapping. Lithic Technology 23: 90–115.Google Scholar
  213. Orr, E. L., Orr, W. N., and Baldwin E. M. (1999). Geology of Oregon, Kendall/Hunt, Dubuque, IA.Google Scholar
  214. Parry, W. J., and Kelly, R. L. (1987). Expedient core technology and sedentism. In Johnson, J. K., and Morrow, C. A. (eds.), The Organization of Core Technology, Westview Press, Boulder, CO, pp. 285–304.Google Scholar
  215. Patterson, L. W. (1990). Characteristics of bifacial-reduction flake-size distribution. American Antiquity 55: 550–558.Google Scholar
  216. Patterson, L. W., and Sollberger, J. B. (1978). Replication and classification of small size lithic debitage. Plains Anthropologist 23: 103–112.Google Scholar
  217. Pecora, A. M. (2001). Chipped stone tool production strategies and lithic debris patterns. In Andrefsky, Jr., W. (ed.), Lithic Debitage: Context, Form, Meaning, University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, pp. 173–191.Google Scholar
  218. Pelcin, A. (1997). The formation of flakes: The role of platform thickness and exterior platform angle in the production of flake initiations and terminations. Journal of Archaeological Science 24: 1107–1113.Google Scholar
  219. Pelcin, A. (1998). The threshold effect of platform width: A reply to Davis and Shea. Journal of Archaeological Science 25: 615–620.Google Scholar
  220. Petraglia, M. D. (1992). Stone artifact refitting and formation process at the Abri Dufaure, an Upper Paleolithic site in southwestern France. In Hofman, J. L., and Enloe, J. L (eds.), Piecing Together the Past: Applications of Refitting Studies in Archaeology, BAR International Series No. 578, Archaeopress, Oxford, pp. 163–178.Google Scholar
  221. Pitblado, B. L. (2003). Late Paleoindian Occupation of the Southern Rocky Mountains: Early Holocene Projectile Points and Land Use in the High Country, University of Colorado Press, Boulder.Google Scholar
  222. Prasciunas, M. M. (2007). Bifacial cores and flake production efficiency: An experimental test of technological assumptions. American Antiquity 72: 334–348.Google Scholar
  223. Prescott, J. R., and Robertson, G. B. (1997). Sediment dating by luminescence: A review. Radiation Measurements 27: 893–922.Google Scholar
  224. Quinn, C. P., Andrefsky Jr., W., Kuijt, I., and Finlayson, B. (2008). Stone tool perforating and retouch intensity: A Neolithic case study. In Andrefsky Jr., W. (ed.), Lithic Technology: Measures of Production, Use and Curation, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 150–174.Google Scholar
  225. Rasic, J. C., and Andrefsky Jr., W. (2001). Alaskan blade cores as specialized components of mobile toolkits: Assessing design parameters and toolkit organization through debitage analysis. In Andrefsky, Jr., W. (ed.), Lithic Debitage: Context, Form, Meaning, University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, pp. 61–79.Google Scholar
  226. Redman, K. L. (1998). An experiment-based evaluation of the debitage attributes associated with “hard” and “soft” hammer percussion, unpublished M.A. thesis, Department of Anthropology, Washington State University, Pullman.Google Scholar
  227. Riel-Salvatore, J., and Barton, C. M. (2004). Late Pleistocene technology, economic behavior, and land-use dynamics in southern Italy. American Antiquity 69: 257–274.Google Scholar
  228. Riel-Salvatore, J., Bae, M., McCartney, P., and Razdan, A. (2002). Paleolithic archaeology and 3D visualization technology: Recent developments. Antiquity 78: 929–930.Google Scholar
  229. Roberts, R. G. (1997). Luminescence data in archaeology: From origins to optical. Radiation Measurements 27: 819–892.Google Scholar
  230. Rolland, N., and Dibble, H. L. (1990). A new synthesis of Middle Paleolithic variability. American Antiquity 55: 480–499.Google Scholar
  231. Root, M. J. (1992). The Knife River Flint Quarries: The Organization of Stone Tool Production, Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Washington State University, Pullman.Google Scholar
  232. Root, M. J. (2004). Technological analysis of flake debris and the limitations of size-grade techniques. In Hall, C. T., and Larson, M. L. (eds.), Aggregate Analysis in Chipped Stone, University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, pp. 65–94.Google Scholar
  233. Roth, B. (2000). Obsidian source characterization and hunter-gatherer mobility: An example from the Tucson Basin. Journal of Archaeological Science 27: 305–314.Google Scholar
  234. Roth, B., and Dibble, H. L. (1998). The production and transport of blanks and tools at the French Middle Paleolithic site of Combe-Capelle Bas. American Antiquity 63: 47–62.Google Scholar
  235. Roux, V., and Bril, B. (2005). Stone Knapping: The Necessary Conditions for a Uniquely Hominid Behavior, McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  236. Sassaman, K. E. (1994). Changing strategies of biface production in the South Carolina coastal plain. In Carr, P. J. (ed.), The Organization of North American Prehistoric Chipped Stone Tool Technologies, International Monographs in Prehistory, Ann Arbor, MI, pp. 99–117.Google Scholar
  237. Schlanger, N. (1994). Mindful technology: Unleashing the chaîne opératoire for an archaeology of mind. In Renfrew, C., and Zubrow, E. (eds.), The Ancient Mind: Elements of Cognitive Archaeology, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 143–151.Google Scholar
  238. Scott, S. A. (1991). Problems with the use of flake size in inferring stages of lithic reduction. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 13: 172–179.Google Scholar
  239. Sellet, F. (1993). Chaîne opératoire: The concept and its applications. Lithic Technology 18: 106–112.Google Scholar
  240. Sellet, F. (1999). A Dynamic View of Paleoindian Assemblages at the Hell Gap Site, Wyoming: Reconstructing Lithic Technological Systems, Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Southern Methodist University, Dallas, TX.Google Scholar
  241. Sellet, F. (2004). Beyond the point: Projectile manufacture and behavioral inference. Journal of Archaeological Science 31: 1553–1566.Google Scholar
  242. Serizawa, C. (1978). The stone age of Japan. Asian Perspectives 19: 1–14.Google Scholar
  243. Shackley, M. S. (ed.) (1998a). Archaeological Obsidian Studies: Method and Theory, Plenum Press, New York.Google Scholar
  244. Shackley, M. S. (1998b). Intrasource chemical variability and secondary depositional processes: Lessons from the American Southwest. In Shackley, M. S. (ed.), Archaeological Obsidian Studies: Method and Theory, Plenum Press, New York, pp. 83–102.Google Scholar
  245. Shackley M. S. (2005). Obsidian: Geology and Archaeology in the North American Southwest, University of Arizona Press, Tucson.Google Scholar
  246. Shafer, H. J. (1991). Late Preclassic formal stone tool production at Colha, Belize. In Hester, T. R., and Shafer, H. J. (eds.), Maya Stone Tools, Prehistory Press, Madison, WI, pp. 31–44.Google Scholar
  247. Shafer, H. J., and Hester, T. R. (1983). Ancient Maya chert workshops in northern Belize, Central America. American Antiquity 48: 519–543.Google Scholar
  248. Shelley, P. H. (1990). Variation in lithic assemblages: An experiment. Journal of Field Archaeology 17: 187–193.Google Scholar
  249. Shott, M. J. (1986). Settlement mobility and technological organization: An ethnographic examination. Journal of Anthropological Research 42: 15–51.Google Scholar
  250. Shott, M. J. (1993). The Leavitt Site: A Parkhill Phase Paleo–Indian Occupation in Central Michigan, Memoirs No. 25, Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
  251. Shott, M. J. (1996). An exegesis of the curation concept. Journal of Anthropological Research 52: 259–280.Google Scholar
  252. Shott, M. J. (2003). Chaîne opératoire and reduction sequence. Lithic Technology 28: 95–105.Google Scholar
  253. Shott, M. J., and Ballenger, J. A. (2007). Biface reduction and the measurement of Dalton curation: A southeastern case study. American Antiquity 72: 153–175.Google Scholar
  254. Shott, M. J., and Sillitoe, P. (2004). Modeling use-life distributions in archaeology using New Guinea Wola ethnographic data. American Antiquity 69: 339–355.Google Scholar
  255. Shott, M. J., and Sillitoe, P. (2005). Use life and curation in New Guinea experimental used flakes. Journal of Archaeological Science 32: 653–663.Google Scholar
  256. Shott, M. J., Bradbury, A. P., Carr, P. J., and Odell, G. H. (2000). Flake size from platform attributes: Predictive and empirical approaches. Journal of Archaeological Science 27: 877–894.Google Scholar
  257. Sievert, A. K., and Wise, K. (2001). A generalized technology for a specialized economy: Archaic period chipped stone at kilometer 4, Peru. In Andrefsky Jr., W. (ed.), Lithic Debitage: Context, Form, Meaning, University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, pp. 188–206.Google Scholar
  258. Simek, J. F. (1994). The organization of lithic technology and evolution: Notes from the continent. In Carr, P. J. (ed.), The Organization of North American Prehistoric Chipped Stone Tool Technologies, International Monographs in Prehistory, Ann Arbor, MI, pp. 118–122.Google Scholar
  259. Soressi, M., and Dibble, H. L. (eds.) (2003). Multiple Approaches to the Study of Bifacial Technologies, University Museum Monograph 115,University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
  260. Soressi, M., and Hays, M. A. (2003). Manufacture, transport, and use of Mousterian bifaces: A case study from the Perigord (France). In Soressi, M., and Dibble, H. L. (eds.), Multiple Approaches to the Study of Bifacial Technologies, University Museum Monograph 115, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, pp. 125–147.Google Scholar
  261. Soriano, S., Villa, P., and Wadley, L. (2007). Blade technology and tool forms in the Middle Stone Age of South Africa: The Howiesons Poort and post-Howiesons Poort at Rose Cottage Cave. Journal of Archaeological Science 34: 681–703.Google Scholar
  262. Stoltman, J. B., and Hughes, R. E. (2004). Obsidian in Early Woodland contexts in the upper Mississippi Valley. American Antiquity 69: 751–760.Google Scholar
  263. Sullivan III, A. P., and Rozen, K. C. (1985). Debitage analysis and archaeological interpretation. American Antiquity 50: 755–779.Google Scholar
  264. Takase, K. (2004). Hide processing of oxen and koryak: An ethnoarchaeological survey in Kamchatka Peninsula, Russia. Material Culture 77: 57–84.Google Scholar
  265. Terry, K., Andrefsky Jr., W., and Konstantinov, M. V. (2008). Raw material durability, function, and retouch in the Upper Paleolithic of the Transbikal region. In Adams, B., and Blades, B. (eds.), Lithic Materials and Paleolithic Societies, Blackwell, Oxford, in press.Google Scholar
  266. Titmus, G. (1985). Some aspects of stone tool notching. In Plew, M. G., Woods, J. C., and Pavesic, M. G. (eds.), Stone Tool Analysis: Essays in Honor of Don E. Crabtree, University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, pp. 243–264.Google Scholar
  267. Tomaskova, S. (2005). What is a burin? Typology, technology, and interregional comparison. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 12: 79–115.Google Scholar
  268. Tomka, S. A. (1989). Differentiating lithic reduction techniques: An experimental approach. In Amick, D. S., and Mauldin, R. P. (eds.), Experiments in Lithic Technology, BAR International Series No. 528, Archaeopress, Oxford, pp. 137–162.Google Scholar
  269. Tomka, S. A. (2001). The effect of processing requirements on reduction strategies and tool form: A new perspective. In Andrefsky Jr., W. (ed.), Lithic Debitage: Context Form Meaning, University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, pp. 207–225.Google Scholar
  270. Torrence, R. (1983). Time budgeting and hunter-gatherer technology. In Bailey, G. (ed.), Hunter-Gatherer Economy in Prehistory, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 11–22.Google Scholar
  271. Tostevin, G. B. (2007). Levels of theory and social practice in the reduction sequence and chaîne opératoire methods of lithic analysis. Paper presented at the 71st Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, San Juan, Puerto Rico.Google Scholar
  272. Truncer, J. J. (1990). Perkiomen points: A study in variability. In Moeller, R. W. (ed.), Experiments and Observations on the Terminal Archaic of the Middle Atlantic Region, Archaeological Services, Bethlehem, CT, pp. 1–62.Google Scholar
  273. Tykot, R. H. (2002). Geochemical analysis of obsidian and the reconstruction of trade mechanisms in the Early Neolithic period of the western Mediterranean. In Jakes, K. (ed.), Archaeological Chemistry: Materials, Methods, and Meaning, American Chemical Society, Washington, DC, pp. 169–184.Google Scholar
  274. Tykot, R. H. (2003). Determining the source of lithic artifacts and reconstructing trade in the ancient world. In Kardulias, P. N., and Yerkes, R. W. (eds.), Written in Stone: The Multiple Dimensions of Lithic Analysis, Lexington Books, Lanham, MD, pp. 59–85.Google Scholar
  275. Ugan, A., Bright, J., and Rogers, A. (2003). When is technology worth the trouble? Journal of Archaeological Science 30: 1315–1329.Google Scholar
  276. Van Peer, P. (1992). The Levallois Reduction Strategy, Prehistory Press, Madison, WI.Google Scholar
  277. Veil, S. (1990). A dynamic model of a Magdalenian settlement by spatial analysis of refitted artifacts. In Cziesla, E., Eichoff, S., Arts, N., and Winter, D. (eds.), The Big Puzzle: International Symposium on Refitting Stone Artefacts, Studies in Modern Archaeology 1, Holos, Bonn, pp. 45–60.Google Scholar
  278. Villa, P. (1982). Conjoinable pieces and site formation processes. American Antiquity 47: 276–290.Google Scholar
  279. Villa, P., and Soressi, M. (2000). Stone tools in carnivore sites: The case of BoisRoche. Journal of Anthropological Research 56: 187–215.Google Scholar
  280. Waechter, S. A. (2002). Report on Phase-II Test Excavations at CA-PLU-131 and CA-PLU-421 near Clio, Southern Plumas County, Far Western Anthropological Research Group, Davis, CA.Google Scholar
  281. Wallace, I. J., and Shea, J. J. (2006). Mobility patterns and core technologies in the middle Paleolithic of the Levant. Journal of Archaeological Science 33: 1293–1309.Google Scholar
  282. Weedman, K. J. (2002). On the spur of the moment: Effects of age and experience on hafted stone scraper morphology. American Antiquity 67: 731–744.Google Scholar
  283. Weedman, K. J. (2006). An ethnoarchaeological study of hafting and stone tool diversity among the Gamo of Ethiopia. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 13: 189–238.Google Scholar
  284. Wenzel, K. E., and Shelley, P. H. (2001). What put the small in the Arctic small tool tradition: Raw material constraints on lithic technology. In Andrefsky Jr., W. (ed.), Lithic Debitage: Context, Form, Meaning, University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, pp. 106–125.Google Scholar
  285. Whittaker, J. C. (1994). Flintknapping: Making and Understanding Stone Tools, University of Texas Press, Austin.Google Scholar
  286. Wiant M., and Hassen, H. (1985). The role of lithic resource availability and accessibility in the organization of technology. In Vehik, S. C. (ed.), Lithic Resource Procurement: Proceedings from the Second Conference on Prehistoric Chert Exploitation, Occasional Paper No. 4, Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, pp. 101–114.Google Scholar
  287. Wilmsen, E. S. (1970). Lithic Analysis and Cultural Inference: A Paleo-Indian Case, Anthropological Papers No. 16, University of Arizona, Tucson.Google Scholar
  288. Wilson, J. K., and Andrefsky Jr., W. (2008). Unpacking production, resharpening and hammer type. In Andrefsky Jr., W. (ed.), Lithic Technology: Measures of Production, Use and Curation, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 86–105.Google Scholar
  289. Wurz, S. (2002). Variability in the Middle Stone Age lithic sequence, 115,000–60,000 years ago at Klasies River, South Africa. Journal of Archaeological Science 29: 1001–1015.Google Scholar
  290. Wurz, S., le Roux, N. J., Gardner, S., and Deacon, H. J. (2003). Discriminating between the end products of the earlier Middle Stone Age sub-stages at Klasies River using biplot methodology. Journal of Archaeological Science 30: 1107–1126.Google Scholar
  291. Young, D. C. (2002). Secondary obsidian sources of the Madeline Plains: paleolandscapes and archaeological implications. In McGuire, K. R. (ed.), Boundary Lands: Archaeological Investigations Along the California-Great Basin Interface, Anthropological Papers No. 24, Nevada State Museum, Carson City, pp. 75–84.Google Scholar

Bibliography of recent literature

  1. Ahler, S. A., and Geib, P. R. (2000). Why flute? Folsom point design and adaptation. Journal of Archaeological Science 27: 799–820.Google Scholar
  2. Ambrose, S. H. (2001). Paleolithic technology and human evolution. Science 291: 1748–1753.Google Scholar
  3. Andrefsky Jr., W. (2005). Lithic studies. In Maschner, H. D., and Chippindale, C. (eds.), Handbook of Methods in Archaeology, AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, CA, pp. 713–770.Google Scholar
  4. Aubry, T., Almeida, M., Neves, M. J., and Walter, B. (2003). Solutrean laurel leaf point production and raw material procurement during the last glacial maximum in southern Europe: Two examples from central France and Portugal. In Soressi, M., and Dibble, H. L. (eds.), Multiple Approaches to the Study of Bifacial Technologies, University Museum Monograph 115, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, pp. 165–182.Google Scholar
  5. Austin, R. J. (1999). Technological characterization of lithic waste-flake assemblages: Multivariate analysis of experimental and archaeological data. Lithic Technology 24: 53–68.Google Scholar
  6. Bamforth, D. B., and Woodman, P. C. (2004). Tool hoards and Neolithic use of the landscape in north-eastern Ireland. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 23: 21–44.Google Scholar
  7. Barton, C. M., Bernabeu, J., Aura, J. E., Garcia, O., and La Roca, N. (2002). Dynamic landscapes, artifact taphonomy, and landuse modeling in the western Mediterranean. Geoarchaeology 17: 155–190.Google Scholar
  8. Bement, L. (2002). Pickin’ up the pieces: Folsom projectile point resharpening technology. In Clark, J. E., and Collins, M. B. (eds.), Folsom Technology and Lifeways, Lithic Technology Special Publication No. 4, University of Tulsa, Tulsa, OK, pp. 135–140.Google Scholar
  9. Binford, L. R. (2001). Where do research problems come from? American Antiquity 66: 669–678.Google Scholar
  10. Blades, B. S. (2001). Aurignacian Lithic Economy: Ecological Perspectives from Southwestern France, Plenum Press, New York.Google Scholar
  11. Brantingham, P. J. (2006). Measuring forager mobility. Current Anthropology 47: 435–459.Google Scholar
  12. Brown, C. T. (2000). The fractal dimensions of lithic reduction. Journal of Archaeological Science 28: 619–631.Google Scholar
  13. Buchanan, B. (2006). An analysis of Folsom projectile point resharpening using quantitative comparisons of form and allometry. Journal of Archaeological Science 33: 185–199.Google Scholar
  14. Centola, L. (2004). Deconstructing lithic technology: A study from the Birch Creek site (35ML181), southeastern Oregon. Unpublished M.A. thesis, Department of Anthropology, Washington State University, Pullman.Google Scholar
  15. Cheshier, J., and Kelly, R. L. (2006). Projectile point shape and durability: the effects of thickness:length. American Antiquity 71: 353–364.Google Scholar
  16. Clarkson, C. (2002). Holocene scraper reduction, technological organization and landuse at Ingaladdi Rockshelter, northern Australia. Archaeology in Oceania 37: 79–86.Google Scholar
  17. Clarkson, C. (2007). Lithics in the Land of the Lightning Brothers: The Archaeology of Wardaman Country, Northern Territory, Terra Australis 25, ANU E Press, Canberra.Google Scholar
  18. Clarkson, C., Vinicius, L., and Lahr, M. M. (2006). Quantifying flake scar patterning on cores using 3D recording techniques. Journal of Archaeological Science 33: 132–142.Google Scholar
  19. Collard, M., Kemery, M., and Banks, S. (2005). Causes of toolkit variation among hunter-gatherers: A test of four competing hypotheses. Canadian Journal of Archaeology 29: 1–19.Google Scholar
  20. Conrad, N. J., Soressi, M., Parkington, J. E., Wurz, S., and Yates, R. (2004). A unified lithic taxonomy based on patterns of core reduction. South African Archeological Bulletin 50: 12–16.Google Scholar
  21. Dag, D., and Goren-Inbar, N. (2000). An actualistic study of dorsally plain flakes: A technological note. Lithic Technology 26: 105–117.Google Scholar
  22. Daniel Jr., I. R. (2001). Stone raw material availability and Early Archaic settlement in the southeastern United States. American Antiquity 66: 237–266.Google Scholar
  23. Delagnes, A., and Meignen, L. (2006). Diversity of lithic production systems during the MP in western Europe: Are there any chronological tendencies? In Hovers, E., and Kuhn, S. L. (eds.), Transitions before the Transition: Evolution and Stability in the Middle Paleolithic and Middle Stone Age, Springer, New York, pp. 85–108.Google Scholar
  24. Dibble, H. L., Schurmans, U. A., Iovita, R. P., and McLaughlin, M. V. (2005). The measurement and interpretation of cortex in lithic assemblages. American Antiquity 70: 545–560.Google Scholar
  25. Edwards, S. W. (2000). Flaked stone basalt technology in the northern Sierra Nevada of California. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 22: 361–374.Google Scholar
  26. Ferguson, J. R. (2003). An experimental test of the conservation of raw material in flintknapping skill acquisition. Lithic Technology 28: 113–131.Google Scholar
  27. Hall, C. T., and Larson, M. L. (eds.) (2004). Aggregate Analyses in Chipped Stone, University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.Google Scholar
  28. Henry, D. O. (2003). Human behavior and the stone tools from Tor Faraj. In Henry, D. O. (ed.), Neanderthals in the Levant, Behavioral Organization and the Beginnings of Human Modernity, Continuum, London, pp. 60–85.Google Scholar
  29. Hiscock, P. (2004). Slippery and Billy: Intention, selection, and equifinality in lithic artefacts. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 14: 71–77.Google Scholar
  30. Hiscock, P. (2006). Blunt and to the point: Changing technological strategies in Holocene Australia. In Lilley, I. (ed.), Archaeology of Oceania: Australia and the Pacific Islands, Blackwell, Malden, MA, pp. 69–95.Google Scholar
  31. Hoffecker, J. F., and Cleghorn, N. (2000). Mousterian hunting patterns in the northwestern Caucasus and the ecology of the Neanderthals. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 10: 369–378.Google Scholar
  32. Hovers, E., and Kuhn, S. L. (eds.) (2006). Transitions before the Transition, Springer, New York.Google Scholar
  33. Hovers, E., and Raveh, A. (2000). The use of a multivariate graphic display technique as an exploratory tool in the analysis of inter-assemblage lithic variability: A case study from Qafzeh Cave, Israel. Journal of Archaeological Science 27: 1023–1038.Google Scholar
  34. Jones, G. T., Beck, C., Jones, E. E., and Hughes, R. E. (2003). Lithic source use and Paleoarchaic foraging territories in the Great Basin. American Antiquity 68: 5–38.Google Scholar
  35. Kuhn, S. L., and Stiner, M. C. (2006). What’s a mother to do? The division of labor among Neanderthals and modern humans in Eurasia. Current Anthropology 47: 953–980.Google Scholar
  36. Lintz, C., and Dockall, J. (2002). The Spreen cache: A case study of a prehistoric curated collection of broken tools from 41RN108, Runnels County, Texas. Lithic Technology 27: 13–37.Google Scholar
  37. Lycett, S. J., von Cramon-Taubadel, N., and Foley, R. A. (2006). A crossbeam co-ordinate caliper for the morphometric analysis of lithic nuclei: A description, test and empirical examples of application. Journal of Archaeological Science 33: 847–861.Google Scholar
  38. Lyons, W. H., Thomas, S. P., and Skinner, C. (2001). Changing obsidian sources at the Lost Dune and McCoy Creek sites, Blitzen Valley, southeastern Oregon. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 23: 273–296.Google Scholar
  39. Marks, A. E., Hietala, H. J., and Williams, J. K. (2001). Tools standardization in the Middle and Upper Paleolithic: A closer look. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 11: 17–44.Google Scholar
  40. Martinez, M. M. (1998). Differential raw material use in the Middle Pleistocene of Spain: Evidence from Sierra de Atapuerca, Torralba, Ambrona and Aridos. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 8: 15–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. O’Brien, M. J., Darwent, J., and Lyman, R. L. (2001). Cladistics is useful for reconstructing archaeological phylogenies: Paleoindian points from the southeastern United States. Journal of Archaeological Science 28: 1115–1136.Google Scholar
  42. 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
  43. Odess, D., and Rasic, J. T. (2007). Toolkit composition and assemblage variability: The implications of Nogahabara I, northern Alaska. American Antiquity 72: 691–718.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Petraglia, M., Korisettar, R., Boivin N., Clarkson, C., Ditchfield, P., Jones, S., Lahr, M. M., Oppenheimer, C., Pyle, D., Roberts, R., Schwenninger, J. L., Arnold, L. and White, K. (2007). Middle Palaeolithic assemblages from the Indian sub-continent before and after the Toba super-eruption. Science 317: 114–116.Google Scholar
  45. Phillips, J. L. (2003). The use of the chaîne opératoire approach in the Upper Paleolithic period of Sinai. In Kardulias, P. N., and Yerkes, R. W. (eds.), Written in Stone: The Multiple Dimensions of Lithic Analysis, Lexington Books, Lanham, MD, pp. 7–16.Google Scholar
  46. Rots, V. (2004). Prehensile wear on flint tools. Lithic Technology 29: 7–32.Google Scholar
  47. Rots, V., Pirnay, L., Pirson, P., and Baudoux, O. (2006). Blind tests shed light on possibilities and limitations for identifying stone tool prehension and hafting. Journal of Archaeological Science 33: 935–952.Google Scholar
  48. Sandgathe, D. M. (2004). Alternative interpretations of the Levallois reduction technique. Lithic Technology 29: 147–159.Google Scholar
  49. Schroth, A., and Yohe II, R. M. (2001). Obsidian use and technological change in Rose Valley: Conclusions based on the analysis of debitage from two sites. Lithic Technology 26: 50–70.Google Scholar
  50. Shea, J. J. (2003). Neanderthals, competition, and the origin of modern human behavior in the Levant. Evolutionary Anthropology 12: 173–187.Google Scholar
  51. Shea, J. J. (2006). The origins of lithic projectile point technology: Evidence from Africa, the Levant, and Europe. Journal of Archaeological Science 33: 823–847.Google Scholar
  52. Shea, J. J., Davis, Z., and Brown, K. (2001). Experimental tests of Middle Paleolithic spear points using a calibrated crossbow. Journal of Archaeological Science 28: 807–816.Google Scholar
  53. Shott, M. J., and Sillitoe, P. (2001). The mortality of things: correlates of use life in Wola material culture using age-at-census data. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 8: 269–302.Google Scholar
  54. Shott, M. J., and Weedman, K. J. (2007). Measuring reduction in stone tools: An ethnoarchaeological study of Gamo hidescrapers from Ethiopia. Journal of Archaeological Science 34: 1016–1035.Google Scholar
  55. Sillitoe, P., and Hardy, K. (2003). Living lithics: Ethnoarchaeology in highland New Guinea. Antiquity 77: 555–566.Google Scholar
  56. Stout, D. (2002). Skill and cognition in stone tool production: An ethnographic case study from Irian Jaya. Current Anthropology 43: 693–722.Google Scholar
  57. Tankersley, K. B. (2000). The effects of stone and technology on fluted-point morphometry. American Antiquity 59: 498–509.Google Scholar
  58. Tsirk, A., and Parry, W. J. (2000). Fractographic evidence for liquid on obsidian tools. Journal of Archaeological Science 27: 987–991.Google Scholar
  59. Villa, P., and Lenoir, M. (2006). Hunting weapons of the Middle Stone Age and the Middle Palaeolithic: Spear points from Sibudu, Rose Cottage and Bouheben. Southern African Humanities 18: 89–122.Google Scholar
  60. Villa, P., Delagnes, A., and Wadley, L. (2005). A late Middle Stone Age artifact assemblage from Sibudu (KwaZulu-Natal): Comparisons with the European Middle Paleolithic. Journal of Archaeological Science 32: 399–422.Google Scholar
  61. Wadley, L., Williamson, B. S., and Lombard, M. (2004). Ochre in hafting in Middle Stone Age southern Africa: A practical role. Antiquity 78: 661–675.Google Scholar
  62. Will, R. T. (2000). A tale of two flint-knappers: Implications for lithic debitage studies in northeastern America. Lithic Technology 25: 101–119.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of AnthropologyWashington State UniversityPullmanUSA

Personalised recommendations