Journal of Archaeological Research

, Volume 20, Issue 2, pp 157–203 | Cite as

Ethnoarchaeology and the Organization of Lithic Technology



Although the modern production and use of stone tools is rare, ethnoarchaeological research on this subject has provided important perspectives on methodological approaches to archaeological lithic analysis. Recent ethnoarchaeological research on lithics frequently takes the form of “cautionary tales,” warning against the primacy of functional variables most commonly invoked by lithic analysts. I argue that lithic ethnoarchaeology would benefit from a comparative organizational framework for explaining variation in patterns of stone tool use that takes into account the predictability and redundancy of the location and timing of technological activities. Understanding the underlying causes of modern patterns of stone tool use, in turn, offers a framework for exploring sources of lithic technological variation in the archaeological record. I also argue that technological analytical perspectives, such as the chaîne opératoire and sequence of reduction approaches, can benefit from the insights gained through lithic ethnoarchaeological research, helping us define important analytical concepts and identify appropriate units of analysis.


Stone tools Ethnoarchaeology Organization of technology Chaîne opératoire Sequence of reduction 

References cited

  1. Akerman, K., Fullagar, R., and van Gijn, A. (2002). Weapons and Wunan: Production, function and exchange of Kimberley Points. Australian Aboriginal Studies 1: 13–42.Google Scholar
  2. Amick, D. S., and Mauldin, R. P. (eds.) (1989). Experiments in Lithic Technology, BAR International Series No. 528, Archaeopress, Oxford.Google Scholar
  3. Andrefsky Jr., W. (1994). Raw material availability and the organization of technology. American Antiquity 59: 21–35.Google Scholar
  4. Andrefsky, W. (2006). Experimental and archaeological verification of an index of retouch for hafted bifaces. American Antiquity 71: 743–757.Google Scholar
  5. Andrefsky, W. (2009). The analysis of stone tool procurement, production, and maintenance. Journal of Archaeological Research 17: 65–103.Google Scholar
  6. Archer, W., and Braun, D. R. (2010). Variability in bifacial technology at Elandsfontein, Western Cape, South Africa: A geometric morphometric approach. Journal of Archaeological Science 37: 201–209.Google Scholar
  7. Arnold, P. J. (2000). Working without a net: Recent trends in ceramic ethnoarchaeology. Journal of Archaeological Research 8: 105–133.Google Scholar
  8. Arthur, J. W. (2006). Living with Pottery: Ethnoarchaeology among the Gamo of Southwest Ethiopia, University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.Google Scholar
  9. Arthur, K. W. (2010). Feminine knowledge and skill reconsidered: Women and flaked stone tools. American Anthropologist 112: 228–243.Google Scholar
  10. 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
  11. Ashton, N. R., Bowen, D. Q., Holman, J. A., Hunt, C. O., Irving, B. G., Kemp, R. A., Lewis, S. G., McNabb, J., Parfitt, S., and Seddon, M. B. (1994). Excavations at the Lower Palaeolithic site at East Farm, Barnham, Suffolk 1989–92. Journal of the Geological Society 151: 599–605.Google Scholar
  12. Audouze, F., Cahen, D., Keeley, L. H., and Schmider, D. (1981). Le site Magdalenien du Buisson Campin Verberie (Oise). Gallia Prehistoire 24: 99–143.Google Scholar
  13. Bamforth, D. B. (1986). Technological efficiency and tool curation. American Antiquity 51: 38–50.Google Scholar
  14. Bamforth, D. B. (1991). Technological organization and hunter–gatherer land use: A California example. American Antiquity 56: 216–234.Google Scholar
  15. 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
  16. 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
  17. Bamforth, D. B., and Bleed, P. (1997). Technology, flaked stone technology, and risk. In Barton, M., and Clark, G. A., (eds.), Rediscovering Darwin: Evolutionary Theory in Archeological Explanation, Archeological Papers No. 7, American Anthropological Association, Washington, DC, pp. 109–139.Google Scholar
  18. Bar-Yosef, O., and van Peer, P. (2009). The chaîne opératoire approach in Middle Paleolithic archaeology. Current Anthropology 50: 103–131.Google Scholar
  19. Barton, C. M. (1997). Stone tools, style, and social identity: An evolutionary perspective on the archaeological record. In Barton, M., and Clark, G. A. (eds.), Rediscovering Darwin: Evolutionary Theory in Archeological Explanation, Archeological Papers No. 7, American Anthropological Association, Washington, DC, pp. 141–156.Google Scholar
  20. Bartram, L. E. (1997). A comparison of Kua (Botswana) and Hadza (Tanzania) bow and arrow hunting. In Knecht, H. (ed.), Projectile Technology, Plenum Press, New York, pp. 322–344.Google Scholar
  21. Beck, M. E. (2006). Midden ceramic assemblage formation: A case study from Kalinga, Philippines. American Antiquity 71: 27–51.Google Scholar
  22. Bettinger, R. L. (1991). Hunter-Gatherers: Archaeological and Evolutionary Theory, Plenum Press, New York.Google Scholar
  23. Beyries, S. (1997). Ethnoarcheologie: un mode d’experimentation. Prehistoire Anthropologie Mediterannees 6: 185–196.Google Scholar
  24. Beyries, S. (2002). Le travail du cuir chez les Tchouktches et les Athapaskans: implications ethno-archeologiques. In Audoin-Rouzeau, F., and Beyries, S. (eds.), Le travail du cuir de la prehistoire a nos jours, Editions APDCA, Antibes, France.Google Scholar
  25. Beyries, S., and Rots, V. (2008). The contribution of ethno-archaeological macro- and microscopic wear traces to the understanding of archaeological hide-working processes. In Longo, L., and Skakun, N. (eds.), Prehistoric Technology 40 Years Later: Functional Studies and the Russian Legacy, BAR International Series 1783, Archaeopress, Oxford, pp. 21–28.Google Scholar
  26. Beyries, S., Karlin, C., and Tchesnokov, Y. (2001). Dans la peau de mon renne: artisanat traditionnel du cuir en Sibérie, 28 minute video, French Institute for Polar Research and Technology (IFRTP), Paris.Google Scholar
  27. Binford, L. R. (1967). Smudge pits and hide smoking: The use of analogy in archaeological reasoning. American Antiquity 32: 1–12.Google Scholar
  28. 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
  29. 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
  30. Binford, L. R. (1978). Dimensional analysis of behavior and site structure: Learning from an Eskimo hunting stand. American Antiquity 43: 330–361.Google Scholar
  31. Binford, L. R. (1979). Organization and formation processes: Looking at curated technologies. Journal of Anthropological Research 35: 255–273.Google Scholar
  32. Binford, L. R. (1980). Willow smoke and dogs’ tails: Hunter-gatherer settlement systems and archaeological site formation. American Antiquity 45: 4–20.Google Scholar
  33. Binford, L. R. (1981). Bones: Ancient Men and Modern Myths, Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  34. Binford, L. R. (1985). “Brand X” versus the recommended product. American Antiquity 50: 580–590.Google Scholar
  35. Binford, L. R. (1986). An Alyawara day: Making men’s knives and beyond. American Antiquity 51: 547–562.Google Scholar
  36. Binford, L. R. (1987). Searching for camps and missing evidence? Another look at the Lower Paleolithic. In Soffer, O. (ed.), The Pleistocene Old World: Regional Perspectives, Plenum Press, New York, pp. 17–32.Google Scholar
  37. Binford, L. R. (2001). Constructing Frames of Reference: An Analytical Method for Archaeological Theory Building Using Ethnographic and Environmental Data Sets, University of California Press, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  38. Binford, L. R., and Binford, S. R. (1966). A preliminary analysis of functional variability in the Mousterian of Levallois facies. American Anthropologist 68: 238–295.Google Scholar
  39. Binford, L. R., and O’Connell, J. (1984). An Alyawara day: The stone quarry. Journal of Anthropological Research 40: 406–432.Google Scholar
  40. 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
  41. Blades, B. S. (2003). End scraper reduction and hunter-gatherer mobility. American Antiquity 68: 141–156.Google Scholar
  42. Bleed, P. (1986). The optimal design of hunting weapons. American Antiquity 51: 737–747.Google Scholar
  43. Bleed, P. (1991). Operations research and archaeology. American Antiquity 57: 19–35.Google Scholar
  44. 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
  45. Bodu, P. (1996). Les chasseurs Magdaleniens de Pincevent: quelques aspects de leurs comportements. Lithic Technology 21: 48–70.Google Scholar
  46. Boëda, 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
  47. Bordaz, J. (1970). Tools of the Old and New Stone Age, Natural History Press, Garden City, NY.Google Scholar
  48. Bordes, F. (1961). Mousterian cultures in France: Artifacts from recent excavation dispel some popular misconceptions about Neanderthal man. Science 134: 803–810.Google Scholar
  49. Bordes, F. (1969). The Corbiac blade technique and other experiments. Tebiwa 12: 1–21.Google Scholar
  50. Boucher de Perthes, M. (1847). Antiquite′s celtiques et antediluviennes, Jung-Treuttel, Paris.Google Scholar
  51. Bourke, J. G. (1890). Vesper hours of the Stone Age. American Anthropologist 3: 55–63.Google Scholar
  52. 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
  53. Brandt, S.A. (1996). The ethnoarchaeology of flaked stone tools use in southern Ethiopia. In Pwiti, G., and Soper, R. (eds.), Aspect of African Archaeology, 10th Congress of the Pan-African Association for Prehistory and Related Studies, University of Zimbabwe Publications, Harare, pp. 733–738.Google Scholar
  54. Brantingham, P. J. (2003). A neutral model of stone raw material procurement. American Antiquity 68: 487–509.Google Scholar
  55. 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: 1–172.Google Scholar
  56. Cameron, D. W. (1993). Uniformitarianism and prehistoric archaeology. Australian Archaeology 36: 42–49.Google Scholar
  57. Chatters, J. C. (1987). Hunter-gatherer adaptations and assemblage structure. Journal of Anthropological Research 6: 336–375.Google Scholar
  58. Churchill, S. E. (1993). Weapon technology, prey size selection, and hunting methods in modern hunter-gatherers: Implications for hunting in the Palaeolithic and Mesolithic. In Bricker, H. M., Mellars, P., and Peterkin, G. L. (eds.), Hunting and Animal Exploitation in the Later Paleolithic and Mesolithic of Eurasia, Archeological Papers No. 4, American Anthropological Association, Washington, DC, pp. 11–24.Google Scholar
  59. Clark, J. D. (1970). The Prehistory of Africa, Praeger, New York.Google Scholar
  60. Clark, J. D., and Kurashina, H. (1981). A study of the work of a modern tanner in Ethiopia and its relevance for archaeological interpretation. In Gould, R. A., and Schiffer M. B. (eds.), Modern Material Culture: The Archaeology of Us, Academic Press, New York, pp. 303–343.Google Scholar
  61. 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
  62. Clarkson, C. J., and Hiscock, P. (2008). Tapping into the past: Exploring the extent of Palaeolithic retouching through experimentation. Lithic Technology 33: 5–16.Google Scholar
  63. 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
  64. Costin, C. L. (2000). The use of ethnoarchaeology for the archaeological study of ceramic production. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 7: 377–403.Google Scholar
  65. Crabtree, D. E. (1966). The stoneworker’s approach to analyzing and replicating the Lindenmeier Folsom. Tebiwa 9: 3–39.Google Scholar
  66. David, N. (1992). Integrating ethnoarchaeology: A subtle realist perspective. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 11: 330–359.Google Scholar
  67. David, N., and Kramer, C. (2001). Ethnoarchaeology in Action, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  68. de la Torre, I., and Mora, R. (2008). Remarks on current theoretical and methodological approaches to the study of early technological strategies in eastern Africa. In Hovers, E., and Braun, D. R. (eds.), Interdisciplinary Approaches to the Oldowan, Springer, Dordrecht, pp. 15–24.Google Scholar
  69. Deal, M., and Hayden, B. (1987). The persistence of pre-Columbian lithic technology in the form of glassworking. In Hayden, B. (ed.), Lithic Studies among the Contemporary Highland Maya, University of Arizona Press, Tucson, pp. 235–331.Google Scholar
  70. Dibble, H. L. (1987). The interpretation of Middle Paleolithic scraper morphology. American Antiquity 52: 109–117.Google Scholar
  71. 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
  72. Dibble, H. L., and Whittaker, J. (1981). New experimental evidence on the relation between percussion flaking and flake variation. Journal of Archaeological Science 8: 283–298.Google Scholar
  73. Dunnell, R. C. (1978). Style and function: A fundamental dichotomy. American Antiquity 43: 192–202.Google Scholar
  74. Enloe, J. G. (2006). Geological processes and site structure: Assessing integrity at a Late Paleolithic open-air site in northern France. Geoarchaeology 21: 523–540.Google Scholar
  75. 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
  76. Eren, M. I., and Sampson, C. G. (2009). Kuhn’s geometric index of unifacial stone tool reduction (GIUR): Does it measure missing flake mass? Journal of Archaeological Science 36: 1243–1247.Google Scholar
  77. Eren, M., Domínguez-Rodrigo, 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
  78. Flenniken, J. J., and Raymond, A. W. (1986). Morphological projectile point typology: Replication experimentation and technological analysis. American Antiquity 51: 603–614.Google Scholar
  79. Frison, G. C. (1989). Experimental use of Clovis weaponry and tools on African elephants. American Antiquity 54: 766–784.Google Scholar
  80. Gallagher, J. P. (1977). Contemporary stone tools in Ethiopia: Implications for archaeology. Journal of Field Archaeology 4: 407–414.Google Scholar
  81. Garrod, D. A. E., and Bate, D. M. A. (1937). The Stone Age of Mount Carmel: Excavations at Wady El-Mughara, Vol. 1, Clarendon Press, New York.Google Scholar
  82. Gould, R. A. (1978). The anthropology of human residues. American Anthropologist 80: 815–835.Google Scholar
  83. Gould, R .A. (1980a). Raw material source areas and “curated” tool assemblages. American Antiquity 45: 823–833.Google Scholar
  84. Gould, R. A. (1980b). Living Ethnoarchaeology, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  85. Gould, R. A. (1985). The empiricist strikes back: A reply to Binford. American Antiquity 50: 638–644.Google Scholar
  86. 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
  87. Gould, R. A., and Watson, P. J. (1982). A dialogue on the meaning and use of analogy in ethnoarchaeological reasoning. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 1: 355–381.Google Scholar
  88. Gould, R. A., Koster, D. A., and Sontz, A. H. L. (1971). The lithic assemblage of Western Desert Aborigines of Australia. American Antiquity 36: 149–169.Google Scholar
  89. Gould, S. J. (1965). Is uniformitarianism necessary? American Journal of Science 263: 223–228.Google Scholar
  90. Greaves, R. D. (1997). Hunting and multifunctional use of bows and arrows: Ethnoarchaeology of technological organization among Pume hunters of Venezuela. In Knecht, H. (ed.), Projectile Technology, Plenum Press, New York, pp. 287–320.Google Scholar
  91. Grosman, L., Smikt, O., and Smilansky, U. (2008). On the application of 3-D scanning technology for the documentation and typology of lithic artifacts. Journal of Archaeological Science 35: 3101–3110.Google Scholar
  92. Gusinde, M. (1931). The Fireland Indians, Vol. 1: The Selk’nam, on the Life and Thought of a Hunting People of the Great Island of Tierra del Fuego, Verlag, Berlin.Google Scholar
  93. Hampton, O. W. B. (1999). Culture of Stone: Sacred and Profane Uses of Stone among the Dani, Texas A & M University Press, College Station.Google Scholar
  94. Hayden, B. (1979). Paleolithic Reflections: Lithic Technology and Ethnographic Excavations among Australian Aborigines, Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, Canberra.Google Scholar
  95. Hayden, B. (1987). Present to past uses of stone tools and their effects on assemblage characteristics in the Maya highlands. In Hayden, B. (ed.), Lithic Studies among the Contemporary Highland Maya, University of Arizona Press, Tucson, pp. 160–234.Google Scholar
  96. Hayden, B., and Nelson, M. C. (1981). The use of chipped lithic material in the contemporary Maya highlands. American Antiquity 46: 885–898.Google Scholar
  97. Healan, D. M., Kerley, J. M., and Bey, G. J. (1983). Excavation and preliminary analysis of an obsidian workshop in Tula, Hidalgo, Mexico. Journal of Field Archaeology 10: 127–145.Google Scholar
  98. Hegmon, M. (2000). Advances in ceramic ethnoarchaeology. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 7: 129–137.Google Scholar
  99. Heizer, R. F. (1962). The background of Thomsen’s three-age system. Technology and Culture 3: 259–266.Google Scholar
  100. Hiscock, P., and Attenbrow, V. (2003). Early Australian implement variation: A reduction model. Journal of Archaeological Science 30: 239–249.Google Scholar
  101. 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
  102. Hiscock, P., and Clarkson, C. J. (2009). The reality of reduction experiments and the GIUR: Reply to Eren and Sampson. Journal of Archaeological Science 36: 1576–1581.Google Scholar
  103. Hitchcock, R., and Bleed, P. (1997). Each according to need and fashion: Spear and arrow use among San hunters of the Kalahari. In Knecht, H. (ed.), Projectile Technology, Plenum Press, New York, pp. 345–370.Google Scholar
  104. Hodder, I. (1977). The distribution of material culture items in the Baringo District, western Kenya. Man 12: 239–269.Google Scholar
  105. Holmes, W. H. (1894). An Ancient Quarry in Indian Territory, Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  106. Horowitz, R. (2010). A comparison of biface reduction and curation indices. In McCall, G. S. (ed.), Pushing the Envelope: Experimental Directions in the Archaeology of Stone Tools, Nova Science Publishers, Hauppage, NY, pp. 132–154.Google Scholar
  107. Horsfall, G. (1987). A design theory perspective on variability in grinding stones. In Hayden, B. (ed.), Lithic Studies Among the Contemporary Highland Maya, University of Arizona Press, Tucson, pp. 332–377.Google Scholar
  108. Inizan, M. L., Roche, H., and Tixier, J. (1992). Technology of Knapped Stone, Cercle de Recherches et d’Etudes Prehistoriques, Meudon.Google Scholar
  109. Isaac, G. L. (1977). Olorgesailie, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  110. Jelinek, A. J. (1977). The Lower Paleolithic: Current evidence and interpretations. Annual Review of Anthropology 6: 11–32.Google Scholar
  111. 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
  112. Keeley, L. H. (1980). Experimental Determination of Stone Tool Uses: A Microwear Analysis, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  113. Keeley, L. H. (1987). Hafting and retooling at Verberie. In Stordeur, D. (ed.), Le main et l’outil: manches et emmanchements prehistoriques, Travaux de la Maison d’Orient 15, Lyon, pp. 89–96.Google Scholar
  114. Kelly, R. L. (1983). Hunter-gatherer mobility strategies. Journal of Anthropological Research 39: 277–306.Google Scholar
  115. Kelly, R. L. (1988). The three sides of a biface. American Antiquity 53: 717–734.Google Scholar
  116. Kelly, R. L. (1995). The Foraging Spectrum, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  117. Kelly, R. L., and Todd, L. (1988). Coming into the country: Early Paleoindian hunting and mobility. American Antiquity 53: 231–244.Google Scholar
  118. Kleindienst, M. R. (1975). Comment on “Behavioral analysis and the structure of a prehistoric industry,” by P. D. Sheets. Current Anthropology 16: 382–383.Google Scholar
  119. Kohn, M., and Mithen, S. (1999). Are handaxes the product of sexual selection? Antiquity 73: 518–526.Google Scholar
  120. Kuhn, S. L. (1990). A geometric index of reduction for unifacial stone tools. Journal of Archaeological Science 17: 585–593.Google Scholar
  121. 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
  122. Kuhn, S. L. (1992). Blank form and reduction as determinants of Mousterian scraper morphology. American Antiquity 57: 115–128.Google Scholar
  123. Kuhn, S. L. (1995). Mousterian Lithic Technology, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.Google Scholar
  124. Laming-Emperaire, A. (1964). Les Xeta, survivants de l’âge de pierre. Objets et Mondes 4: 263–276.Google Scholar
  125. Leakey, M. D. (1971). Olduvai Gorge: Excavations in Bed I and II, 1960–1963, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  126. Lemonnier, P. (1986). The study of material culture today: Toward an anthropology of technical systems. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 5: 147–186.Google Scholar
  127. Leroi-Gourhan, A., and Brézillon, M. (1972). Fouilles de Pincevent: essai d’analyse ethnographique d’un habitat Magdalénien (la Section 36), CNRS Editions, Paris.Google Scholar
  128. MacCalman, N. R., and Grobelaar, B. J. (1965). Preliminary report of two stone-working Ova Tjimba groups in northern Kaokoveld of South West Africa. Cimbebasia 13: 1–39.Google Scholar
  129. MacDonald, D. H. (2009). Understanding decision-making among prehistoric hunter-gatherers via the study of lithic technological organization. Lithic Technology 34: 71–92.Google Scholar
  130. 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
  131. McCall, G. S., and Whittaker, J. W. (2007). Handaxes still don’t fly. Lithic Technology 35: 195–202.Google Scholar
  132. McNabb, J., Binyon, F., and Hazelwood, L. (2004). The large cutting tools from the South African Acheulean and the question of social traditions. Current Anthropology 45: 653–677.Google Scholar
  133. McPherron, S. P. (2000). Handaxes as a measure of the mental capabilities of early hominids. Journal of Archaeological Science 27: 655–663.Google Scholar
  134. Miller, T. O. (1979). Stonework of the Xeta Indians of Brazil. In Hayden, B. (ed.), Lithic Use-Wear Analysis, Academic Press, New York, pp. 401–408.Google Scholar
  135. 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
  136. 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
  137. Newcomer, M. H. (1971). Some quantitative experiments in handaxe manufacture. World Archaeology 3: 85–94.Google Scholar
  138. Nowell, A., and Chang, M. L. (2009). The case against sexual selection as an explanation of handaxe morphology. Paleoanthropology 2009: 77–88.Google Scholar
  139. 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
  140. O’Connell, J. F. (1974). Spoons, knives and scrapers: The function of yilugwa in central Australia. Mankind 9: 189–194.Google Scholar
  141. O’Connell, J. F. (1995). Ethnoarchaeology needs a general theory of human behavior. Journal of Archaeological Research 3: 205–255.Google Scholar
  142. Odell, G. H. (1981). The morphological express at function junction: The search for meaning in tool types. Journal of Anthropological Research 37: 319–342.Google Scholar
  143. Odell, G. H. (1996). Economizing behavior and the concept of “curation.” In Odell, G. H. (ed.), Stone Tools: Theoretical Insights into Human Prehistory, Plenum Press, New York, pp. 51–80.Google Scholar
  144. Oswalt, W. H. (1976). An Anthropological Analysis of Food-Getting Technology, Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
  145. Outes, F. F. (1905). La edad de la piedra en Patagonia. Revista de la Universidad de Buenos Aires 1: 209–219.Google Scholar
  146. 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
  147. Pelegrin, J. (1990). Prehistoric lithic technology: Some aspects of research. Archeological Review from Cambridge 9: 116–125.Google Scholar
  148. Pelegrin J., Karlin C., and Bodu, P. (1988). “Chaînes opératoires”: un outil pour le préhistorien. In Tixier, J. (ed.), Technologie préhistorique, CNRS, Paris, pp. 55–62.Google Scholar
  149. Petrequin, P., and Petrequin, A.-M. (1993). Ecologie d’un outil: la hache de pierre en Irian Jaya (Indonesie), CNRS Editions, Paris.Google Scholar
  150. Peyrony, D. (1930). Le Moustier: ses gisements, ses industries, ses couches géologiques. Revue Anthropologique 15: 49–52.Google Scholar
  151. Rinehart, N. A. (2008). Moving beyond the reduction stage in debitage analysis, with a little help from the pot sherd. North American Archaeologist 29: 383–390.Google Scholar
  152. Roberts, M. B., and Parfitt, S. A. (1999). Boxgrove: A Middle Pleistocene Hominid Site at Earlham Quarry, Boxgrove, West Sussex, English Heritage, London.Google Scholar
  153. Rolland, N., and Dibble, H. L. (1990). A new synthesis of Middle Paleolithic variability. American Antiquity 55: 480–499.Google Scholar
  154. Roth, W. E. (1904). Domestic Arts, Implements, and Manufactures, G. A. Vaughn, Brisbane.Google Scholar
  155. Roux, V. (2007). Ethnoarchaeology: A non-historical science of reference necessary for interpreting the past. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 14: 153–178.Google Scholar
  156. Sacket, J. R. (1982). Approaches to style in lithic archaeology. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 1: 59–112.Google Scholar
  157. Salisbury, R. F. (1962). From Stone to Steel: Economic Consequences of a Technological Change in New Guinea, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  158. Sampson, C. G. (1974). The Stone Age Archaeology of Southern Africa, Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  159. Sandgathe, D. M. (2004). Alternative interpretations of the Levallois reduction technique. Lithic Technology 29: 147–159.Google Scholar
  160. Schick, K. D., and Toth, N. (1993). Making Silent Stones Speak: Human Evolution and the Dawn of Technology, Simon and Schuster, New York.Google Scholar
  161. Schiffer, M. B. (1988). The structure of archaeological theory. American Antiquity 53: 461–485.Google Scholar
  162. Schiffer, M. B., Skibo, J. M., Griffitts, J. M., Hollenback, K. L., and Longacre, W. A. (2001). Behavioral archaeology and the study of technology. American Antiquity 66: 729–737.Google Scholar
  163. Sellet, F. (1993). Chaîne opératoire: The concept and its applications. Lithic Technology 18: 106–112.Google Scholar
  164. Sellet, F. (2004). Beyond the point: Projectile manufacture and behavioral inference. Journal of Archaeological Science 31: 1553–1566.Google Scholar
  165. Sellet, F. (2006). Two steps forward, one step back: The inference of mobility patterns from stone tools. In Sellet, F., Greaves, R., and Yu, P.-L. (eds.), The Ethnoarchaeology and Archaeology of Mobility, University Press of Florida, Gainesville, pp. 221–239.Google Scholar
  166. Sheets, P. D., and Muto, G. R. (1972). Pressure blades and total cutting edge: An experiment in lithic technology. Science 175: 632–634.Google Scholar
  167. Shott, M. J. (1986). Technological organization and settlement mobility: An ethnographic examination. Journal of Anthropological Research 42: 15–51.Google Scholar
  168. Shott, M. J. (1996). An exegesis of the curation concept. Journal of Anthropological Research 52: 259–280.Google Scholar
  169. Shott, M. J. (2003). Chaîne opératoire and reduction sequence. Lithic Technology 28: 95–105.Google Scholar
  170. Shott, M. J. (2007). The role of reduction in lithic studies. Lithic Technology 32: 131–141.Google Scholar
  171. 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
  172. 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
  173. 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
  174. 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
  175. 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
  176. Sillitoe, P., and Hardy, K. (2003). Living lithics: Ethnoarchaeology in highland New Guinea. Antiquity 77: 555–566.Google Scholar
  177. Skibo, J. M. (2009). Archaeological theory and snake-oil peddling: The role of ethnoarchaeology in archaeology. Ethnoarchaeology 1: 27–56.Google Scholar
  178. Skibo, J. M., Graves, M. W., and Stark, M. T. (2007). Archaeological Anthropology: Perspectives on Method and Theory, University of Arizona Press, Tucson.Google Scholar
  179. Spencer, S. B., and Gillen, F. J. (1904). The Northern Tribes of Central Australia, MacMillan, New York.Google Scholar
  180. Stark, M. (2003). Current issues in ceramic ethnoarchaeology. Journal of Archaeological Research 11:193–242.Google Scholar
  181. Stark, M. T., and Skibo, J. M. (2007). A history of the Kalinga ethnoarchaeological project. In Skibo, J. M., Graves, M. W., and Stark, M. T. (eds.), Archaeological Anthropology: Perspectives on Method and Theory, University of Arizona Press, Tucson, pp. 93–110.Google Scholar
  182. Stout, D. (2002). Skill and cognition in stone tool production: An ethnographic case study from Irian Jaya. Current Anthropology 43: 693–722.Google Scholar
  183. Stow, G. W. (1905). The Native Races of South Africa, Swan Sonnenschein, London.Google Scholar
  184. Strathern, M. (1969). Stone axes and flake tools: Evaluations from two New Guinea highlands societies. Prehistoric Society Proceedings 35: 311–329.Google Scholar
  185. Sullivan, A. P. (2008). Ethnoarchaeological and archaeological perspectives on ceramic vessels and annual accumulation rates of sherds. American Antiquity 73: 121–135.Google Scholar
  186. Symens, N. (1986). A functional analysis of selected stone artifacts from the Magdalenian site at Verberie, France. Journal of Field Archaeology 13: 213–222.Google Scholar
  187. Tacon, P. S. C. (1991). The power of stone: Symbolic aspects of stone use and tool development in western Arnhem Land, Australia. Antiquity 65: 192–207.Google Scholar
  188. Takase, K. (2004). Hide processing of oxen and koryak: An ethnoarchaeological survey in Kamchatka Peninsula, Russia. Material Culture 77: 57–84.Google Scholar
  189. Thacker, P. T. (2006). Local raw material exploitation and prehistoric hunter-gatherer mobility. In Sellet, F., Greaves, R., and Yu, P.-L. (eds.), The Ethnoarchaeology and Archaeology of Mobility, University Press of Florida, Gainesville, pp. 240–261.Google Scholar
  190. Tindale, N. B. (1965). Stone implement making among the Nakako, Ngadadjara and Pitjandjara of the Great Western Desert. Records of the South Australian Museum 15: 131–164.Google Scholar
  191. Tixier, J., Inizian, M.-L., and Roche, H. (1980). Prehistoire de la Pierre Taillée, 1: terminologie et technologie, Valbonne, Paris.Google Scholar
  192. 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
  193. Toth, N. (1982). The Stone Technology of Early Hominids at Koobi Fora, Kenya: An Experimental Approach, Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  194. Toth, N. (1985). The Oldowan reassessed: A close look at early stone artifacts. Journal of Archaeological Science 12: 101–120.Google Scholar
  195. Trigger, B. G. (2006). A History of Archaeological Thought, 2nd ed., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  196. Ugan, A., Bright, J., and Rogers, A. (2003). When is technology worth the trouble? Journal of Archaeological Science 30: 1315–1329.Google Scholar
  197. van Peer, P. (1992). The Levallois Reduction Strategy, Prehistory Press, Madison, WI.Google Scholar
  198. Weedman, K. J. (2000). An Ethnoarchaeological Study of Stone Scrapers among the Gamo People of Southern Ethiopia, Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Florida, Gainesville.Google Scholar
  199. 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
  200. 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: 188–237.Google Scholar
  201. White, J. P. (1967). Ethno-archaeology in New Guinea: Two examples. Mankind 6: 409–414.Google Scholar
  202. White, J. P., and Thomas, D. H. (1972). What mean these stones? Ethno-toponomic models of archaeological investigation in the New Guinea highlands. In Clarke, D. (ed.), Models in Archaeology, Muethen, London, pp. 275–308.Google Scholar
  203. Whittaker, J. C. (1994). Flintknapping: Making and Understanding Stone Tools, University of Texas Press, Austin.Google Scholar
  204. Whittaker, J. C. (2004). American Flintknappers, University of Texas Press, Austin.Google Scholar
  205. Whittaker, J. C., and McCall, G. S. (2001). Handaxe hurling hominids: An unlikely story. Current Anthropology 42: 566–572.Google Scholar
  206. Whittaker, J. C., Kamp, K., and Yilmaz, E. (2009). Çakmak revisited: Turkish flintknappers today. Lithic Technology 34: 93–100.Google Scholar
  207. Wiessner, P. (1983). Style and social information in Kalahari San projectile points. American Antiquity 48: 253–276.Google Scholar
  208. Wobst, H. M. (1977). Stylistic behavior and information exchange. In Cleland, C. E. (ed.), For the Director: Research Essays in Honor of James B. Griffin, Anthropological Papers No. 61, Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, pp. 317–342.Google Scholar
  209. Wobst, H. M. (1978). The archaeo-ethnology of hunter-gatherers or the tyranny of the ethnographic record in archaeology. American Antiquity 43: 303–309.Google Scholar
  210. Wylie, A. (1985). The reaction against analogy. Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory 8: 63–111.Google Scholar
  211. Yellen, J. E. (1977). Archaeological Approaches to the Present: Models for Reconstructing the Past, Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar

Bibliography of recent literature

  1. 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
  2. Beaune, S. A., de. (2000). Pour une archeologie du geste: broyer, moudre, piler, des premiers chasseurs aux premiers agriculteurs, CNRS Editions, Paris.Google Scholar
  3. 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
  4. Bettinger, R. L., Winterhalder, B., and McElreath, R. (2006). A simple model of technological intensification. Journal of Archaeological Science 33: 538–545.Google Scholar
  5. Binford, L. R. (2006). Bands as characteristic of “mobile hunter-gatherers” may exist only in the history of anthropology. In Sellet, F., Greaves, R., and Yu, P.-L. (eds.), The Ethnoarchaeology and Archaeology of Mobility, University Press of Florida, Gainesville, pp. 3–22.Google Scholar
  6. Blades, B. S. (2001). Aurignacian Lithic Economy: Ecological Perspectives from Southwestern France, Plenum Press, New York.Google Scholar
  7. Bleed, P. (2004). Refitting as aggregate analysis. In Hall, C .T., and Larson, M. L. (eds.), Aggregate Analysis in Chipped Stone, University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, pp. 184–200.Google Scholar
  8. Brantingham, P. J. (2006). Measuring forager mobility. Current Anthropology 47: 435–459.Google Scholar
  9. Braun, D. R., Tactikos, J. C., Ferraro, J. V., Arnow, S. L., and Harris, J. W. (2008). Oldowan reduction sequences: Methodological considerations. Journal of Archaeological Science 35: 2153–2163.Google Scholar
  10. 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
  11. Buchanan, B., and Collard, M. (2007). Investigating the peopling of North America through cladistic analyses of Early Paleoindian projectile points. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 26: 366–393.Google Scholar
  12. 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
  13. Clarkson, C., and Lamb, L. (eds.) (2006). Lithics “Down Under”: Australian Approaches to Lithic Reduction, Use, and Classification, BAR International Series 1408, Archaeopress, Oxford.Google Scholar
  14. Close, A. E. (2000). Reconstructing movement in prehistory. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 7: 49–77.Google Scholar
  15. Collins, S. (2008). Experimental investigations into edge performance and its implications for stone artefact reduction modelling. Journal of Archaeological Science 35: 2164–2170.Google Scholar
  16. 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
  17. 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
  18. Greaves, R. D. (2006). Forager landscape use and residential organization. In Sellet, F., Greaves, R. D., and Yu, P.-L. (eds.), The Ethnoarchaeology and Archaeology of Mobility, University Press of Florida, Gainesville, pp. 127–154.Google Scholar
  19. 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
  20. Hiscock, P. (2004). Slippery and Billy: Intention, selection, and equifinality in lithic artefacts. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 14: 71–77.Google Scholar
  21. 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
  22. Holdaway, S., and Stern, N. (2004). A Record in Stone: The Study of Australia’s Flaked Stone Artifacts, Aboriginal Studies Press, Melbourne.Google Scholar
  23. Laughlin, J. P., and Kelly, R. L. (2010). Experimental analysis of the practical limits of lithic refitting. Journal of Archaeological Science 37: 427–433.Google Scholar
  24. McCall, G. S. (2006). Multivariate perspectives on change and continuity in the Middle Stone Age lithics from Klasies River Mouth, South Africa. Journal of Human Evolution 51: 429–439.Google Scholar
  25. McCall, G. S. (2010). Refitting rate as a tool for investigating geological and behavioral aspects of site formation: Theoretical and methodological considerations. Lithic Technology 34: 31–41.Google Scholar
  26. Miller, A., and Barton, C. M. (2008). Exploring the land: A comparison of land-use patterns in the Middle and Upper Paleolithic of the western Mediterranean. Journal of Archaeological Science 35: 1427–1437.Google Scholar
  27. 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
  28. Peresani, M. (ed.) (2003). Discoid Lithic Technology, BAR International Series 1120, Archaeopress, Oxford.Google Scholar
  29. 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
  30. Schurmans, U., and De Bie, M. (eds.) (2007). Fitting Rocks: Lithic Refitting Examined, BAR International Series 1596, Archaeopress, Oxford.Google Scholar
  31. 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
  32. Winterhalder, B., and Smith, E. A. (2000). Analyzing adaptive strategies: Human behavioral ecology at twenty-five. Evolutionary Anthropology 9: 51–72.Google Scholar
  33. Yu, P.-L. (2006). From atlatl to bow: Implicating projectile technology in changing systems of hunter-gatherer mobility. In Sellet, F., Greaves, R., and Yu, P.-L. (eds.), The Ethnoarchaeology and Archaeology of Mobility, University Press of Florida, Gainesville, pp. 201–220.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of AnthropologyTulane UniversityNew OrleansUSA

Personalised recommendations