Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 108

Introduction to the

Study and Analysis of

Flaked Stone Artifacts and
Lithic Technology

A ;&ri/~uJ~r ~ur~urur~urr

3975 N. Tucson Blvd. Tucson, Aricona 85716

(520) 881-2244 FAX S81 -0325 -. .- S
An Introduction to the Study
and Analvsis of Flaked Stone
Artifacts and Lithc Technology

R. Jane Sliva

Center for Desert Archaeology

3975 North Tucson Boulevard, Tucson, Arizona 85716 January 1997 (Revised May 1997)
1 would like to thank Jemy Adams, Lisa Piper, and Peter Brockington for reading and
comrnenting on earlier drafts of this volume. Donna Breckenridge handled the editing duties
with her usual aplomb. Elizabeth Black formatted the tables. Elizabeth Gray undertook the
imrnense task of pasting up the figures and integrating then with the text; this manual owes its
good looks to her efforts. I would especiaiiy like to thank Bili Doelle and the Center for Dese*
,4rchaeology for the generous support this undertaking has enjoyed.

ListofTables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix
ARTIFACTS AND LITHIC ECHNOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

htroduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
What are flaked stone artifacts? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Why are flaked stone artifacts significant to archaeologists? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
How are flaked stone artifacts made? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
How are flaked stone tools uced? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - 7 : : ; " " ' 3
Lithic Technology as Reductive Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
FiakingMechanics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Lithic Artifact Life Histories and Human Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
RawMaterialEffects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Analytical Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
-4rtifact Class and Type Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Using Fiaked Stone Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Research Themes and Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Current Analytical Approaches: Evaluation and Methodological Implications . . . . . . 27
Usewearhalysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Appendix A: An Illuctrated Guide to Fiaked Stone Artifact Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Appendix B: General Flaked Stone Artifact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

Appendix C: Projectile Point F o m . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

Appendix D: Exercises in Flaked Stone Implement Manufacture and Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87


1. Examples of flaked stone artifacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

2. Examples of percussors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

3. Flakeattributes ......................................................... 5
4. Flakeinitiations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

5. Flaketenninations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

6. Degradation of core platform angle with successive flake removals . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

7. Reclamation behaviors (the "redamation loop") and other factors which may
intervene in a lithic artifact's life history . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

8. Artifacts, processes, and byproducts involved in primary and secondary core

reduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

9. Tertiaryreduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

10. Lmplement use, reclamation, and discard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

11. Forces (human behaviors and natural processes) acting upon flaked stone
artifacts and potential resultant life histories . . . . . . . . ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

C.1. Projectile point morphology and metrical attributes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

C.2. Projectile point morphological variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84


1. Lithic raw material types common to central and southern Anzona . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

2. Flaked stone artifact analysis initial decision table . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

3. Debitage analysis decision table . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

4. Core, core tool, and hammer analysis decision table . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

5 . Unifaaal tool analysis decision table . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

6. Bifacial tool analysis decision table . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

B.1. Flaked stone analysis fonn for general artifacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

B.2. Coding numbers for the general flaked stone artifact,fonn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

C.1. Flaked stone analysis fonn for projectile points . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
C.2. Coding numbers for the projectile point fonn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

R. Jane S l i ~ a
&ter for Desmt Archaeology


Compared to many other classes of Southwestem artifacts, such as ceramics and ground stone,
flaked stone (or "lithic") artifacts can seem rather obscure. Most people can readily recogruze
arrowheads, or, more appropriately, "projectile points," but are unfamiliar with the other kinds
of artifacts that maice up the vast majority of lithic assemblages. The questions commonly asked
about these other artifacts tend to cover seven general, interrelated topics. These topics can be
summarized, in no particular order, by the following questions: What are flake stone artifacts?
Why are they significant to archaeologists? How were they made? How were they used? How
can you tell the difference between a lithic artifact and a natural piece of r d ? How are they
analyzed? What kinds of information do flaked stone data provide?

What are flaked stone artifads?

As their name indicates, flaked stone artifacts include any stone items that show signs of human
modification (either intentional or unintentional) through the removal of flakes from the curface
of some parent material. Although gnnding may help prepare a stone for flaking, stone artifacts
modified exdusively by ,&ding are classified as ground stone and are suhect to a different set
of analyses. Flaked stone artifacts indude cores of raw material; hammerstunes used to remove
flakes from the cores (a process called core reductzon); flakes and cores which have been modified
into tools, such as projectile poirits, drills, scrapers, and choppers; and the waste flakes produced
during core reduction and tool manufacture, h o w n as debitage. Some exñmples of flaked stone
& artifacts are shown in Figure 1. How the artifacts may have been used, or even if they were
C- used at all, has no bearing on their inclusion in this large, catch-all category.
Why are flaked stone artifacts significant to archaeologists?

Flaked stone artifacts have a global spatial and temporal distribution; that is, stone tools occur
T¿- at archaeological sites across the planet and have been used from the dawn of man to the
present day. Artifacts from different regions and time periods can be studied in the same ways
because the teclinological processes behind their manufacture have remained constant.

Lithics oAen are the most prevalently represented artiiact ciass a t prehistoric sittis, this being
particularly irue with geater time depth. Ceramics were not intrcduced i n the Scuthxrest until
approximately A.D. 150; thG, ten thousand years' worth of sites here are dominated by flaked
stone. In Europe and Africa, of course, this goes ba& much farther; the oldest surviving artifacts
known to have been manufactured by horninids were the simple pebble choppers made by Horno
habilis some 2.7 rnillion years ago. Another factor contributing to the predominance of lithic
artifacts is the tough material from which they are made. While stone is subject to both physical
Page 2 iManual jbr Fiaked Stam +4mlysis

cornposite tool

projectile point

Figure 1. Examples of flaked stone artifacts.

and chemical weathering, it is much more durable than other types of cultural remains, such as
wood, bone, leather, and plant fiber. For this reason, except for artifads from a dry cave, tundra,
or peat bog settings, stone is the best-represented and perhaps only surviving artifact dass at
many sites.

Besides preserving the artifacts for millenia, the physical properties of stone tools also allow
researchers to determine how they were manufactured and, under certain conditions, how they
were used. Experimentation with different types of tools and different types of lithic raw
material can provide a better understanding of the possibilities and limitations provided by
' flaked stone technology. Data from the analysis of flaked stone artifacts can help determine
settlement and subsistente pattems, ethnic and/or temporal affiliation, the speci£ic tasks
1 performed at a site, and intrasite spatial organization and fonnation processes (where certain
activities took place, and how areas of archaeological sites carne to look a certain way when

How are flaked stone artifacts made?

As the name suggests, flaked stone tools are rnanufactured by removing flakes or chips of stone
from a piece of parent material. Cobbles or other pieces of raw material ("cores") can be
stmck with another rock to remove flakes until the desired tool form achiwed?and
the flakes removed from cores can thernselves be shaped by further flaking. Thic is in contrast
to ground stone ariifacts, which are prirnarily manufactured by abrading one stone with another
until the desired form is achieved.

Generally speaking, a percon who wishes to perform a particular task with a sbne implement
has f o u choices. For example, imagine a man faced withithe task of processing a partially
butchered animal carcass. He can (1)use an unmodified river cobble to crack bones or open the
s k d , or he can strike the edges of that river cobble with another rock, producing several large
flakes. He can then either (2) use the struck cobble with its newly formed sharp edge to chop
at the joints in the animal's leg, or (3) use the sharp-edged flakes to slice meat from the bones.
Page 3

He can &o (4) jnape the edges of the Ilakes to produce more speaalized tool forms, such as a
h & e r L d e for c-itting through more n@¿tissues or a steep-edged scaper for scraping the hicie
dean ior tanning. Shouid the edges of the tools become dull through use, he can resharpen
them by strikuis them with a hammer to remove more flakes from their edges.

How are flaked stone tools used?

Fiaked stone implements can be used in virtually any application assigned to metal toolc today,
wlth their edge confi,gmations selected or retouch-designed for a myriad of tasks, or to m a t e
other tools from wood, bone, or antler. For example, a sharp flake with a senated edge can be
used to cut a branch from a tree. A flake with a notch in its edge is then used to shape the
branch into a spear shaft, the shaft is tipped with a stone projectile point, and the spear is used
to lull a deer. Snarp flake kmves are used to skiil and butcher the deer, and steep-edged £laice
scrapers are used to remove íat and subderrnal tissues from the hide and then to soften it &er
it is tanned. Knives are used to cut the hide into pieces, and sharp projections on flakes are used
to make holes in the hide pieces so that sinews may be passed through them to make clotfüng.
Flake gravers can alco be used to make awls and neeciles from the deer's bones or antiers for the
same purpose. &


Flaking Mechanics

! Flakes are removed by applying force to the edge of a piece of litkic material. Force is applied
i ---
* either directly, by striking the piece with a harnrner (direct percussion flakrng) or pressing a pointed
i n s t m e n t agaimt the edge (pressuref7&ng), or indirectly, by stnking a punch placed against the
piece with a hammer (indirect ;iercmsion flaking). Hammers may be composed of a hard stone
(hard hammer) or a soft stone, antler, bone, or wood billet (so3 hammer) (Figure 2). Diffeíent
hammer types are used for different kinds of flaking. For example, a hard hammer made from
a material such as quartzite can be used to spiit a cobble and remove flakes from it, while a soft
hammer biliet made of bone or antier can be used for the finer, more controlled flaking needed
to produce a tool from the flakes, particularly when finer raw rnaterials are being used.

Sufficient force must be applied to the core to crack the rock, and the force must be appiied at
an angle that causes to exit the rock at the appropriate location to detach a flake of the desired
shape and size. The location of the contact area (point of applied ferce) on the stene, the m u n t
of force, and the angle at which the force is applied are the determinants of the morphological
attributes (size and shape characteristics) of a flake. If the knapper strikes straight down on the
center of a core, the force will travel straight down as well, dissipating in the interior of the core,
and no flake will be detached. Striking at an angle near the edge of the core, however, allows
the force to travel through the rock and out the side, resulting in flake detachment. Skilled
knappers can control the size and shape of the flakes they produce by manipulating the amount
oi iarce they use and the angie at whiui they strike the cores. Tne applied iorce can also be
_ dire~tedsomewhat by pressing the side of t!!e cire from whiS. it will exit - against +heknapper's

leg or h g e r s .

l The forces involved in flake production are preserved in the flakes themselves at the instant they
are created, allowing archaeologists to lnfer details about prehistoric manufacturing processes.

Page 4 Manual far FW'~ Stone Ami*


Figure 2. Examples o£ percussors.

These technological attributes are illustrated in Figure 3. Basic flake attributes include the

dorsal aspect The exterior surface of a flake. Bears either the original outer
surface of the core or scars kom previous flake removals.

bulbar asped The interior surface of a m e , along which fracture (separation

kom the core) occurred. Co named because it contains the bulb of
percussion for Hertzian flakes (see discussion of flake initiation,
below). AIso known as the uentral aspect.

The area of contad with the percussor (the precise spot on the core
struck by the hammer).

proximal end The end of the flake which holds the platfonn.

dista1 end The end of the flake opposite the proximal end, containing the flake

lateral margin The edges-of a M e where the dorsal and bulbar surfaces meet

bulb of pmmssion Bulbshaped feature located cEm3i-y below &e platfbl'y~i,yreiei-hg

trajectory of applied force through the flaked material. Exclusively
associated with Hertzian fracture (see discussion of flake initiation,
below). May be pronounced or diffuse, depending on the density
of the hammer and the amount of applied force.
Manual ,'o1 FlaKed Stone Analpis Page 5

Proximal end

eraiilure scar

iflake s fissures/hackles

., .. . ,. , . ..

Dorsal aspect

Distal end VentraVBulbar aspect


Figure 3. Flake attributes.

éraillure scar Scar left from the detachment of a small flake from the bulb of
percusion, c a d by a rotation in fracture plane. Associated with
hard hammer percussion (Cotterell and Kamminga 1990:149-150).

lances Small fissures on the bulbar surface, indicating the diredion of

fracture propagation, always perpendicular to the fracture front.
Also known asficsures, stress lines, or hackles.

rings of force Generally concentric rings centered on the point of applied force,
representing the propagation of the fracture front through
the material. These are analogous to the ripples produced
by dropping a rock into water. They are also known as

termimtion The dista1 end of a flake, marking the point at which the applied
force exited the core, terminating the fracture process.

The logical place to be,@ a discussion of flake attributes is w i t h w initiation, or the point at
which the flake begins to separate from the core (Figure 4) Flake initiation takes one of two
general forms, depending on the percussor type. Hertzian fradure, ascdated with hard harnmer
percussion, occurs at the point of hammer contact and removes the flake with a distinctive
partial cclne below tiie platform at this point. This is the same phenomenon that occurs when
a BB is shot at a glass v.kdow, and it iiiustrates the manner in Which the applied force expands
outwardc as it travels hom the impact point tktough ttie 111aktial. Flakrs initiatd with Hertziaii
fractures tend to have prominent bulbs of percussion and indications of secondary flake
detadunents at their platfonns (Cotterell and Kamminga 1990:134, 140). 1
Page 6

ge 8
*e .Q
8 B

&? i?'

Herkian fracture Bending fracture

Figure .L Flake initiations. ;


The second type of flake initiation is a bendingfracture, assoaated with soft hammer percussion
Billets made of relatively soft materials (wood, bone, antler) usually cannot aeate high enough
levels of tensile stress in the contad area to initiate a Hertzian fracture, but rather, they initiate
fractures away from the contaa area with bending stress. Because no Hertzian fracture is
involved, bending flakes do not have bulbs of percussion (Cotterell and Kamminga 1990:134,
142). A distinctive feature they do frequently bear is a iipped platform, with the iip extending
from the platform over the bulbar aspect.

If a flake is initiated with suífiaent force and a proper force application angle, it will propagate
and tenninate (Figure 5). Five types of terminations are usually recognized: feather, step, hinge,
p l u n p g ("overshot" or "outrépasse"), and axial. Feather and axial terminations are natural
continuations of flake propagation, with the fracture front exiting the end of the core at an
extremely acute angle in a feather formation, or exiting the side of the core opposite the platform
at a n approximate right angle in an axial termination. Step terminations represent an abrupt
change in the direction of the fracture front, caused by some interruption in the fracture
propagation (such as a flaw in the raw material). Hinge terminations ocnv when the fracture
veers outwards to the side of the core. Plunging terminations occur when a fracture veers away
from the side of the core into its end, removing the end of the core along with the flake
(Cotterell and Kamminga 1990:145-146).

Flake detachments leave scars on the core that affect the ease with which further reduction may
$ be pursued. A preponderance of hinge and step terminations makes the continued removal of

e flakes difficult, and may necessitate either the rejuvenation or abandonment of the core. Cores
.so need to be rejuvenated O, abandoned when the angle f o m d by the pla,orm and adjacent
side exceeds W- degres; steeper angles make the proper apphcation of force diifidt. This
platform angle tends to degrade as more flakes are removed (Figure 6). Corec are rejuvenated
by striking a large flake from one end that carries all the way across the core, providing anobier
- platform fmm which flaking can begin anew.
I&nuai.-br Flakai Stone .4nalyszs Page 7

-\. c.


feather hinge step overchot a?%d

Figure 5. Flake terminations.

Figure 6. Degradation of core platform

angle with successive fhke

Lithic Artifact Life Histories and Human Behavior

The life histories of lithic amfach may be described in general temis as hajectories through
stages of raw material selection, blank production, and one or more episodes of shaping, use,
and discard. The leno@ and direction of an individual artifact's trajectory is determined by a
number of factors. These are both intrinsic to the artifact, such as raw material properties, and
extrinsic, including depositional environments and, most importantly, the suite of human
behaviors which may be brought to bear upon the artifact. At any poúit in its Life hictory, a
piece of rock may be used, modified, stored or mated, or discarded. After its initial use, a lithic
?zlp!e,m.ent nizy be irr~~~ediatel;. dkcarded mc! perz?.=cr.~y remcved fron systeric coritext
(sencu Schiffer 1987:3-4), or its trajectory may continue as determine¿ by hportant set o:
behaviors collectively referred to here as a "reclamation loop" (Figure 7). These include tool
Page 8 Manual for Flaked Stone Amlysis h


Archaeological recovery

Figure 7. Reclamation behaviors (the "redamationloop") and other factors which may intervene in a
lithic artifact'slife history.

recycling and reshaping, as well as maintenance behaviors su& as edge resharpening. An

essential assumption of the reclamation loop is that any given artifact may go through the loop
more than once-for example, an endscraper may be used, resharpened, used again, discarded,
reclaimed, and reshaped into a no&, and then be used, resharpened, and discarded once again.

Lithic technology is redutive in nature; implements are shaped through the removal of material
5 from cobbles and from the edges of the resulting flakes. Subsequent reduction, which occurs
$ during use and resharpening or reshaping, further reduces the mass of the artifact. Simply put,
7 lithic artifacts generdy get smaller through the course of their life histories and never get larger.
, This constant attrition means that the flintknapper is faced with increasing limitations due to
E increasing distance from the begiming of the trajectory; therefore, initial decisions about
'hreduction affect the set of possible choices that can be made later in the artifact's life. Because
every modification to a piece of lithic material results in some amount of the material being
removed, lithic technology is considered to be redwtine in nature. That is. through its life @e,
a stone tool can never grow larger but is reduced in size ea& time it is used, resharpened, or

This has important implications for the behavior assoaated with lithic technology. One of the
ways of describing the value that a flaked stone artifact may have held for a prehistoric
te~hologistis the concept of remnant ucelife, or residual utility (Schiffer 198533.34; Kuhn 1989:34;
cf. Shott 1989:21-22, 27). This is the assumption that, because lithic technology is reductive,
largcr utifacts inherently possess a greater potential for being resharpened, reshaped, or
otherwise recycled through further f-laking than do s m d e r az-tifacts. A core is an easily
understood example of this construct. Once cores have been reduced to a certain size - for the
sake of argument, roughly 40 mrn on a side - further flaking is either impossible or grossly
ineffiaent, and the core is considered to be exhausted. Where all else is equal, it is clear that a
‘Manual p r F h h d Stone Analysis Page 9

that a core 80 mm on a side is much farther from t5hat threshold of exhaustion than a core
measuring only 50 mrn on a side. The Zarser core theref'ore has more r e m a n t uselife than the
small core, and thereiore more residual utility to an individual who wishes to produce flqakes.
The same assumptions apply to other classes of lithic artifacts; the rernnant use iives oí tools
such as scrapers and knives can be thought of in terms of the potential number of resharpening
episodes they can reasonably be expected to endure before becoming too small to comfortably
or efficiently use.

Prima y Reduction (Figure 8)

Reduction of iithic materials is often discussed in terms of three stages: primary, secondary, and
tertiary. Primay core reduction refers to the testing of raw materials and the removal of cortex
in a process called decorlication or a r e tnmming. Cortex refers to the exterior "rind" of a cobble
or block, and may consist of a different raw material, such as limestone surrounding a nodule
of chert, or a weathered wtemal surface such as on a river cobble of rhyolite. Cortex is removed
from cores so that they can be tested for general material quality and specific flaws, and because
its removal faalitates flaking. This process is analogous to preparing an orange; the orange rind
must be removed for the quality of the fruit to be determined, and removing the rind makes
separating the orange into sections much easier. ,.

Primary reduction is usually performed by stsiking the piece of raw material with a
hammerstone (hard harnmer percwsion) to remove flakes from its exterior. The artifads produced
by primary reduction include relatively large cores, which may have substantial amounts of
cortex remaining on them, and relatively large flakes with substantial amounts of cortex covering
one side. Because these cortical flakes are exclusively associated with this early stage of core
reduction, they are often referred to as primay f2akes.

Seconday Reduction (Figure 8)

Secondary core reduction involves the striking of flakes from the trimmed core. These flakes
tend to have much less cortex on their exterior surfaces than flakes produced during
decortication. Flakes produced earlier in the reductive process are necessarily larger than hose
produced later, when the size of the core has been reduced. Many secondanly reduced cores
are devoid of cortex. Fiakes with small amounts of cortex on their dorsal surfaces are assumed
by some researchers to be associated with this reduction stage and are referred to as seconday
f2akes. However, other research has shown that cortex is commonly present only in very early
reduction stages, and only rarely present in others (Magne 1989:17). Additionally, different
researchers use different percentages of dorsal cortícal coverage to distingush primary and
secondary flakes. For ,&ese reasons, the use of the term "secondary flake," if it must be used at
all, should probably be limited to flakes with either none or only a trace of cortical coverage.

The degree to which a core is reduced before it is abandoned, or the intensify of core reduction,
depends on a number of fadors, including the quality of the raw material, the reduction strategy
employed, and situational needs. In general, cores of highquality material are intensively
r e h c e d (fisker =e reagved frgm *.e cores iint;,! Cke cores have become toc s m d tc ~ r o d u c e
usable flakes), perhaps o ~ e seveid
r reduciion episoh. Tha: is, t4e cores cm be rised for flake
produdion on more than one occasion and stored between hose episodes. In contrast, cores of
low-quality material tend not to be as intensively reduced because the effort required to produce
more than a few flakes from a lowquality core outstrips the utility of those flakes. Thus, only
a small number of flakes might be struck from such a core before it is discarded.
Paje 10

Raw Matevid

hard -- -+
Testmg - - - ,m m u l d d i i w
hammer shatta

Core +
- Ducmd, - -+ pcrr

hard R-Y mmui &&lb@

hammer, - + (Initrni) - -+ shaner


Core Con? U n m o á Z e d Discmd

Tool Flakes


percusor - - - -+ Proress- -- - bvpoaiwt

Resultant Praess 4 -- - saof~c

Artlfact pmar

Resul tant

Key to Figures 8-11: Solid arrows indicate the possble life history
kajectones of an artifact from gven forms (boldface type) through
vanous processes (itaiics) to resultant forms. The iduence of
percusons and the creanon of byproducts are mdicated by dashed

Figure 8. Artifacts, proceses, and byproducts involved in primary and secondary core

Core reáuction strategies depend on the quaiity of the raw material and the needs of the
knapper. If raw material conservation is not an important consideration-usually the case when
raw materials are p l e n a and/or not of high quality-then a randum cure reduction technique
may be employed. With this technique, the knapper strikes flakes from the core in multiple
directions, in an opportunistic (unplanned) fashion. This recults in a globular, irregularly shaped
F l k a S t a e .lnnlysis
-'.kz-~~j-iOT Page 11

core, and, usuaily, irregularly shaped flakes. It is often diificult to intensively reduce a core
u i h g thlC tecbque, because the requisite platform angles are not maintained after random flake
Single piarform and opposed platfiom core reduction involve more planning. In sinsle platform
reduction, flakes are removed sequentially from around the perimeter of one plattorm, whch
ic either a naturaily occurring flat sudace on the core or a flat surface a-eated by the iemovai of
an initial flake. In this tedinique, the ridges of flake scars (left by previous flake removals) help
to p i d e the applied force and thus aid in the removal of additional Bakes. Opposed platform
reduction is similar but involves two platfom situated at opposite ends of the core. Because
these core reduction strategies allow for the removal of more flakes and also facilitate core
rejuvenation (by striking a single flake to a-eate a new platform), they are considered to be raw
material conservation techniques. Y

One of the best-known prehistoric examples of single platform reduction is the Mesoamerican
prismatic blade technique (see Crabtree 1968; Clark 1982), in which obsidian blades were
removed from cores through pressure daking rather than percussion. This extremeiy controiled
and planned technique maxirnized the potential ufility of the cores by producing great nurnbers
of identical blades from a single core. Bipolar core reduction is another raw material conservation
techniqtie, usually employed to remove flakes from cores that are otherwise exhausted. Here,
the core is placed on another rock ("anvil") and struck with a harnmerstone, causing force to be
applied simultaneously from the hammer and the anvil.

Tertiay Reduction (Figure 9)

Tertiary reduction refers to the manufacture of specialized tools from blanks, which are the flakes
produced during primary and secondary core redudion. The intentional, maa-oscopically visible
modification to the edge of a blank, in the form of small flake removals, is referred to as retouch
and is what separates debitage from took-a general term used here to refer to retouched flake
and core implements. An important distindion exists between those artifacts that were
retouched and those that were not. ;V1 artifacts that appear to have been used to perfom some
task are properly referred to as "implements." The term "tool" is reserved for those artifacts that
were retouched, that is, intentionally modified. The reasons for making this distinction are
discussed fully in a following section.

j It should be noted that the tenns "primary," "secondary," and "tertiary" are also used in slightly
different contexts to describe the leve1 of retouch applied to a blank. Primay retouch may refer
to single-step aiteration of a flake's edge, resulting in a simple tool, or the first step in roughing
out a more complex tool such as a biface. This type of retouch is u s u d y performed with a hard
- hammer.
- hammer, to
Seconday retouch is the second step. which may be performed with a hard or soft
either finish a unifaaal edge on a tool such as a scraper, or to further thin a bifaaal
q 1
edge in preparation for finishing. Tertiay retouch is the final stage in tool manufacture and
Ti: usuaily irnplies the use of a pressure tlaking technique to finish a biface. although some unifacial
tools were pressure flaked as w d .

Slzi-2í edges are rstouched for f c ~ iewns:

r to s h q s r í ari ~ d gto~ dul:
, XL edgs, to chmge hie
edge angle (by making it thinner or steeper), and/or to a-eate a s p e d c edge shape such as a
notch, deniticulate, or perforator. A freshly produced, unretouched flake edge is always sharper
than one which has been retouched. However, such edges may not always be appropriate for
<[ the task at hand. A fresh, thin, sharp edge is ideal for slicing soft materials such as meat, but
it wiii be too f r a s e to withstand heavier mttíng tasks. If that edge is retouched, resulting in
Page 12

Core U~nocüíied- Disctud

ihinning h h s
soft or d~irse( m ~ ~ tromomu~)
hard - - - +Rdouch

Core Bifrciil
TooI Prefom/
Implementr Implements Generai Bifices

b i d thinning f b h
pressure- +
- - * broken prefanir
n o n d d debitage

ibuidond p d o r m r


Figure 9. Tertiary reduction.

a steeper angle, it will lose some sharpness but will be sturdy enough to whittle wood without
snapping. Another consideration is that a sharp-edged flake rnay cut not only the material being
worked but also the finger of the person using it. In this situation, an edge might be
intentionally dulied to make it safer and more comfortable to hold. The shape of a flake when
it is struck from the core may not be optirnal for its intended use; a convex tool edge is
preferable for scraping, while a p r o n o u d concave edge is opümal for shawng an arrow shaft.
Unmodified flakes are often the best or mcst efficient implements for many tasks, but retouching
easily produces any specific working edge shape and configuration that might be needed.

Retouch is desaibed in t e m of its location on a tool, how extensive it is, and the edge angle
it creates. Unfacial retouch refers to flaking on only one as- of the tool (usually the dorsal
aspect), while hjúcial retouch refers to f l a h g on both aspects along a common edge. Its location
on the edge is discvssed relative to the piadonn Flakes and tools are oriented with the bulbar
surface down and .he platíorm towardc the analyst, and the lateral margins are desi-gated left
and right as the analyst sees t h m For example, retouch placed on the dorsal aspect of a flake,
along the distal edge, is referred to as unifaaal distal retouch.

The process of retouching a flake is technologically identical to that of striking a flake from a
core, but at a smaller scale. As such, the methods of applymg force are the same. Hard hammer
retouch will result in the removal of thicker flakes, and is primarily assoaated with the
production of quickly made, simple tools. Finer retouch is possible with soft hamrner
percussion, and the finest flaking is accomplished with pressure flaking. To retouch a flake, &e
knapper holds it with the aspect to be retouched facing away from him, and may control the
flaking by pressing his fingers or leg tightly agaimt that asped. This serves to both direct the
applied force and protect the knapper from being cut by the retouch flakes as they separate from
the blank. When pressure flaking, the tool to be retouched is usually held against a leather pad
for protection, and smail flakes are popped from the edge with a pointed instrument of bone,
m .'.kc-dlj%r Fhked Stone .inalysis Page 13

mLder,hard wood, copper, or, for extremdv fine flaking, rodent incisors. These same procedues
are used ior resharpening tools that become duiled or b r o h d u i n g use.

-Flaked Stone Artifact Llce (Figure 10)

iuiportant ciifference between stone and steel toob is that done tools become d d much more
quiddy and break under less stress. Come stone tools resharpen themelves during use as their
edges chip away, and others can be quiddy resharpened so that work rnay continue. Because
flaking is a reductive technology, though, the number of resharperung episodes a tool can endure
is limted by its initial size and edge angle; beyond a certain point, a resharpened tool becomes
too small for eficient use, and its edges rnay become ioo steep for further resharpening.

One of the dilemmas facing lithic analysts is distinguishng retouch (intentional modification)
hom edge dudamage (unintentional modification). There are three different types of edge damage,
t al1 caused by different processes. Spo7ítaneous retouch reiers to the removal of extremely small
( f-lakes from the edges of the flake, as a result of the dake pivoting against the core as it separates
c 1 from it. This type of microFJong damage, which resembles 'nibbling," mimics damage incurred
5 1 by use and rnay also be mistaken for intentional retouch. UfJizztion Liamage refers to flaking and
-, 1 abrasion caused to the edge of a flake while it is being used to periorm a task. This damage
rnay be distinguished from retouch in that retouched flake scars are generally expected to be
'?-- 1 more regular in size and appearance. A detded discussion of utilization damage is presented
m another section. Flake edges rnay aiso i n m postdepositional damage after they enter the
khaeological record, by being trampled while on the sudace of a floor or the ground (by people
' or large animals), by shifting against each other or other mterials after being buried (through
-4, 1
4 solifluction or bioturbation), or by being excavated by archaeologists. Retouch scars are
1 generally considered to have a more regular, consistent appearance than utilization or
postdepositional damage, although analysts should be aware that ciistinguishing retouch from
other types of modification rnay be impossible in some cases.
- 1
,A bíany flaked stone implements can be held in the bare hand or wrapped in a piece of leather or
other padding for comfort and saíety. Others are hafted (attached) to a handle made of wood,
bone, horn, or antler. The process of replacing broken toois in hafts is c d e d retooling (Keeley
1982:799). The reasons for hafting a flaked stone irnplement indude the following:

1. The tools are not usefd unhafted (such as projectile points).

2. The tools can be used with greater force, effiaency, or precision hafted than
unhafted ( s u d as drillsi hoes, axes, and knives).
3. Hafting allows tools to be aeated with long cutting edges that could not be safely
used unhafted (Keeley 1982:799).

Hafting arrangements fall into three basic types:

1. Jam hafts: the tool is wedged into a hole or slot in the handle, without adhesives
or wrapping.
------ kafts: 72-Le tual is tied to *te ktarttlc.
2. T A Trur,~cd
- . 3. ~bíustichafts: The tool is attached to the handle with an acihesive such as glue,
resin, or tar (Keeley 1982:799).
Most prehistoric tools were hafted using a combination of any or all of these three. An example
combining all three is a spear point wedged into a slot at the end of a shaft with a dollop of pine
pitch, and then wrapped tightly with animal sinew. Each individual hafting technique has
Page 14 Manual,Úr Flnlieá Stone .A-mlysis

Core Unmodiñed Retouched

Tool Flrke

1 rcshan \1
- - - - - &e / H + ~

broken implanarr R
exhausted t DlSGZl&+~cc~+rdvce
abndoned unplanmo de hctD muse


Figure 10. Lmpiemmt use, redamation, and discard.

advantages and disadvantages. The jam haft is the least tirne-consuming to create but d o w s
the most movement of the tool in the haft, reducing the efficiency and precision of the work
while increasing the likelihood that the tool will break during use. Wrapped hafts, especially
when used in combination with a jam haft, are secure but require more effort to both initially
assemble and to replace worn out or broken tools. Additionally, humid conditions or working
wet material rnay cause the cordage or sinews in the wrapping to stretch, allowing the tool to
become loose in the haft. Mastic hafts are very secure; they d o w little tool movement and
provide cushioning for the tool, reducing breakage. Most adhesives used with this technique
must be softened by heating and perhaps tempered with other materials before they can be used
in hafting or retooling, thus requiring more time and effort than the 0th- techniques (Keeley


Rock ty-pes appropriate for the manufacture.of stone tools are limited to those that fracture in
a predictable manner when force is applied to t h e a It is more difficult to predict fracture
propagation in a coarse-grained material, particularly one with large crystals, than in a fine-
grained or noncrystalline material. Therefore, flaking is best when the applied force easily
passes through the rock unhindered and not misdireded by large grains, such as with obsidian
and a group of sedimentary rocks known as cryptocrystalline siliceous rocks. Obsidian is a
volcanic glass, and because it has no crystalline strudure, force passes through it iuiimpeded.
Tkius, obsidian is one of the easiest materiais to flake. The ayptoaystallines d u d e chert, flint,
jasper, and chalcedony; the name comes from the fact that their crystalline stnidure is so fine
as to be invisible to the naked eye. The dictinctions between these materials are largely made
on the basis of color rather than geological composition since d are primarily composed of silica
dioxide (quartz) (Luedtke 1992:5-9). Cryptocrystalline materials exist at different levels of
quality, and their flaking properties are compromised by large fossil indusions or inápient
fractures (interna1 flaws) caused by weathering.

These top-quality materials have a lirnited distribution in the Southwest; prehistoric peopie who
wished to obtain them for toolmaking had to travel to the different scurces, or they had to trade
for them with other groups. For example, Early A,gicultural period (1200 B.C. - A.D. 150)
populations living along the Santa Cruz River in Tucson, Arizona (Mabry 1996) acquired
obsidian from six different sources, ranging from 145 km to possibly as much as 400 km away
(Shackley 1995). People of the Ohio Hopewell culture (200 B.C. - 4.D.500) went to even greater
lengths, traciing goods all the way to Wyoming for obsidian. The value that obsidian and hish-
quality ayptocrystallines held for prehistoric populations is reflected in the fact that it tended
to be reserved for projectile points and bifaaal knives high-performance tools that 1) required
a sio~ficantamount of time and skill to manufacture and 2) were designed to be easily
maintained and resharpened.

Clearly, not al1 of a lithic assemblage could be made from these relatively rare, highquality
materials. In contrast to the best cherts and obsidians, rock types with lesser-but stiil
adequate-tlalung properties are widely distributed across the landscape in central and southem
- .Anzona. Among these other raw materiak are volcartic rocks such as rhyolite, andesite, felsite,
- and dacite, which can range from an extremely finegained variety virtually indistinguishable

ri from chert to coarsegrained varieties that are diffidt to flake. This category also mdudes
basalt, which tends to be medium-gained. Many types of metamorphic rock were also widely
used by prehistoric populations, induding finegrained metasediment and quartzite. Like the
igneous rocks, quartzite ranges from nearly cryptocrystalline varieties to coarse varieties that are
almost impossible to flake. Fine-grained, silicified (metamorphosed) limestone is a common
corrlponent of lithic assemblages from sites along the Santa Cruz River in the Tucson Basin (Sliva
1996), and metamorphosed volcanics are widespread in the Tonto Basin of central Arizona.
Sedimentary rock types such as sandstone and limestone were occasionally used. Raw material
types common to central and southem Arizona are detailed in Table 1.

It should be noted that the geology of southem Arizona is notoriously complex, and that even
geologists will frequently disagree about the material type of a given lithic artifact. Examples
of rock types that may be easily confuced include black silicified limestone, black metasediment,
and black aphanitic igneous rock, all of which share very similar macroscopic appearances,
flaking qualities, and availability in the Santa Cruz floodplain. Differences arnong them inciude
their nodular (metasediment and igneous rock) or bedded (silicified limestone) forms, the degree
to which they contain inapient fractures (for example, the bedded silicified limestone tends to
be more prone to flaws from weathering), and flaking quality (the metasediment is slightly
superior to the other two). Other material types that may be inadvertently interchanged inciude
cryptocrystallines,extremely fine-grained volcanics, and extremely fine-grained quartzites. From
a technological standpoint, little practical difference exists between these materials. For that
reason, it may be most usefui for beooinning lithic analysts to conceptualize raw material in t e n
of flaking characteristics rather than precise geologic identification; that is most certainly how
prehistoric knappers approached raw material.

W i l e fla_kinng propertiec are the key issiie f ~ an

r introductory study of lithic technology,
recognizing specific types or dasses of raw materiak is important for understanding prehistoric
6 3
pattems of raw material procurement. That is, a knowledge of and the ability to recognize the
rock types available in different regions allows archaeologists to amwer the question of whether
populations relied on local sources, or acquired their materiak from exotic locations or other
Page 16 MarmalforFlnked S t m h l y s i s

Table 1. Lithic raw material types common to central and southem Arizona (adapted from Hudceli 1995, Table 2).

Matenal Description

Basalt Medium-grained volcanic rock, dark grey to black in color. It may have smail vesides, but
no maao&opicaily visible phenocrysb.

Rhyolite Very fine- to coarse-grained porphoritic volcanic rock. Groundmass colors M u d e pínk,
reddish brown, brown, grey, and black. Phenocrysts are mmmonly white but may also
indude black and red. Finer-grained varieties respond well to soft-hammer percussion,
and the finest are virtually indistinguishable from chert in tenns of flaking performance.

Andesite Medium-grained porphortic volcanic rock with a white to light creamcolored groundmass.

Daate Very he-grained volcanic rock with a lavener to grey pundmass. Very d
phenoaysts are common. This material is of very good flaking quality.

Obsidian Volcanic glass. Color range indudes colorless, grey, black, and brown. These colors may
be banded together, or with orange or red. Obsidian has no aystalline stnidure and SO is
of superior flaking quaiity. It produces the sharpest edge possible to achieve on this planet
but is quite brittle and d d s easiiy.

Chert Gyptoaystaüine sedimentary rock, brown, light to dark grey, or cream colored,
occasionaily banded. Of very good to superipr flaking quality, aithough this mav be
compromised by fossii indusions or inapient fractures caused by weathering.

Chalcedony Gyptoaysbiiine sedimentaryrodc, dear, white, or paie tan,often banded, at least

semi-traducent, occasionally contains a-ystal pockets. Very good to superior flaking

Jasper Gyptoaystaüine sedimentary rock, bridc red, salmon, yeiiav, or variegated/banded with
red, yeiiow, white, and orange. Very good to superior fiakng quality.

Agate Cryptoqstalline sedimentary rock with two or more colors in a banded or variegated
pattern. Vexy good to superior flaking quaiity.

Limestone Medium-grained sedimentary rodc in varius shades of grey, often containing ooiites (foosil
indusions). Flaking quality dependent on granularity and size of indusions.

Very fine-grained to coaxse-phed metamorphic rodc Colors indude M e s of white,

grey, green, brown, and red. Finer-grained varieties respond weii to soft-harnmer
percussion, but coarser-grained varieties rnay be difñcuit to flake.

Metasediment Fine-to medium-grained metamorphosed mudstone or siltstone. Colors indude black,

brown, and red. Finer-grained varieties are of very good flaking quality.

Siliciíied Limestone Fine-grained metamorphosed lúnestone, with a matte appearance. Colors indude black,
dark grey, and greenish grey. Good flaking quality.

goups. For example, chemical or petrographic analyses of raw materials recovered from a given
site can be compared with materials from known sources to determine their point of origin. This
type of analysis is commonly performed with obsidian and chert.

Lithic Life Histories: Conclusion

Al1 of the reduction stages, uses, and reclamation processes brought to bear on an individual
- --&thic _ d a m eíts, l?fe b$tory;_tfwse _^e conihiri~din Fip-re 11. h e r y juncture of a lithic
artifact's Efe history represente a behavioral decision made by the person who &ufactured or
used the artifact. The choices made from the initial selection of raw material, through the
numerous loops of manufacture, use, reclarnation, and discard, are preserved in the artifacts
themcelves by virtue of the physical properties govemjng lithic technology. Let us now tum to
.'*~K.u~>T Flaked Stone Analysis Page 17

t Cníltered
Raw Material

hard, -- -
+ Tffiting - --+ comcai debicage
l shatier

Core -D ~ c m d - - - + tated pace

- - -+ m-
-+ corticai debihge


/ Core

- D u d

a h d thinnkg Olhs
soft or wft - -:S-- - + ~&QF*w~-
hamrner Retoudi duna

Core Expediently F o d Bifad
Tool Retouched Unifíd Prefonns/
ements G e n 4 Bifaces




wear m c s irom
Iast use -- -

brokm implements
exhausted irnpl-a
aLandoned implanents
- Resharpening
Dhd--7 ireco nbiJ-
de ha0 rduv

Postdepositionai , -0Orwl

- Reciamation Archaeololod
Reumpry +- -

Figure 11. Forces @turnanbehavioa and natural proceses) actmg upon flaked stone artifactr and potential resultant life
histories. Note: h y artifact can bypass use and go directiy to dixard, either as a result of intentionai behavior
or through being lost. The entire process for a single artifad may be represented at a single site or at several
different sites.
Page 18 Manual for Flaked Stone Analysis

the analytical procedures that allow archaeologists to infer those human behaviors brought to
bear upon flaked stone, and how those inferences can lead to a U e r understanding oi the
archaeological record.


The ,giding prinaples behind lithic analysis must be twofold: first, to accurately quantify
excavation data so that they may be used to make inferences about the archaeological record,
and second, to design and present the analysis in such a way that the resulting information can
be easily communicated to and used by other researchers. Lithic analysis is typological; that is,
artifacts are dassified into categories based on various combinations of attributes. These artifact
categories tend to be hi@y variable among different researchers, however, which can hinder
comparisons between assemblages.

To alleviate this problem, it is imperative that artifacts be described and quantified in a

replicable, communicable manner. This means that typologies used to classdy the artifacts
should be based on objective observations and measurements that will return the carne results
z* for a $ven artifad, regardless of how many different people use the typology. It is also essential
that the artifact categories be mutually exdusive, so that a $ven artifact may be ciassified only
as one specific type. The best way to ensure that these conditions are met is through a
technological approach to analysis, where artifacts are dassified according to manufacture-
derived athibutes rather than subjective obsenrations. Under the technological approach, artifact
types and categories are based on blank type and retouch attributes.

Artifact Class and Type Definitions

For analysis and disnission, it is useful to construct general artifact classes that encompass
specific artifact Wes. Commonly used ciasses include debitage, cores, retouched flake
implements, core tools, core hammers, and cobble hammers. This is by no meanc a universal
arrangement; many researchers group cores, core tools, and core hammers together or in varios
combinations, and some group core tools with flake tools. It is more practical to keep these
dasses separate, however, as data presented in that way can still be grouped by hose who wish
to do so, but separating data that is presented already grouped can be difficult or impossible.

Appendix A contains illustrations, definitions, and notes.on the various artifact types which
comprise the artifact dasses discussed in this section.


1 Debitage ic defined as a l l unretouched lithic artifads that were struck from some parent material.
Specific debitage types are defined based on whidi attributes the artifacts possess and inciude
flakes, blades, and shatter. Speaal debitage types forming subsets of the main types above
include bifaaal thinning flakes, core rejuvenation flakes, bipolar flakes, hammer spalls, and

I Another speaal debitage type that warrants a separate discussion is the utilized f7ake1 which is
a non-retouched flake that bears evidence of having been used. This evidence, in the form of
edge damage or polishing, is usually referred to as usauear, and the study of this evidence is
J h ! ;%r Z i k a 5 t m Analysis Page 19

b.own as Icsmeer analysis. The study of specifically microscopic wear traces is known as
, rzzcrowecr analyszs.

blany archaeologists group utilized flakec with retouched flake implements, referruig to all of
them as tools, but such a priori grouping is not recornmended for a number of reasons. Although
it has been pointed out that the presence of retouch on an implement does not parantee that
it was actually used (Huckell 1990:424), retouch is still the most reliable signature of modification
and potential for use that can be recognized quiddy, easily, and macroscopically. Usewear is
a more equivocai proposition, however, espeady in the Southwest, where a great deal of the
raw materials used for stone implements are relatively coarse and therefore may not develop
reliable, diagnostic wear traces. Edge rounding and polishing are robust indicators of use, but
edge damage in the form of flaking (or microflaking) is not, since it may be caused by a number
oí processes other than utilization This is especially true when most observations of flake edges
are conducted with the aid of no more than a 40x binocular miaoscope and often with only a
10x hand lens (Rozen 1984:437; Schiffer 1987:12-13; Young and Bamforth 1990:4W). Because
experimentation and biind tests have suggested an accuracy rate of no more than 25% even for
experienced archaeologists who attempt to rnake such inferences (Young and Bamforth 1990:404),
it is highly advisable to separate artifact types defined by the presence of retouch (aninference
that carries a relatively high degree of confidence) from those defined by evidence of utilization ,
(an inference which often carries a relatively low degree of confidence).

Two potential fauity assumptions that loom whm analysts are too cavalier with the utihed flake
designation are that 1) all the flakes idenfified as having been utilized actually were, and that
2 ) aii the flakes in the assemblage that actuaiiy were utilized have been identified as such. -4
problem is that many tasks are invisible in tenns of usewear, espeaaiiy those expediently
performed with unaltered flakes that are immediately discarded rather than kept for repeated
use. A few minutes spent slicing a soft rabbit hide or stripping the bark from a few green sticks
are not likely to leave traces that are discernible even to a miaowear analyst, much less to an
observer with a hand lens. Such tasks will presumably have made up a large portion of the
suite of activities for which most of the artifacts witiun an expedient assemblage were employed;
it should not be assumed, therefore, that all of the implements which actuaiiy were utilized will
be identifiable.

Doubtlessly, some researchers who have spent years experimenting with and observing the
effects of stone implement utilization are able to make accurate general inferences about use
based on the presence of macroscopically visible wear traces. The rest of us, however, do so at
our own peril and to the detriment of the integrity of the data sets we produce. Observing
diagnostic wear traces (a combination of polish, striations, alterations of flake miaotopography,
and edge rounding and damage) requires the employment of high-power, incident light
microscopy and the good fortune to encounter weli-preserved artifacts made of fine-grained
cryptoaystalline materials. Even then, years of training and experience are necessary for making
reliable inferences. Given this, it is highly unlikely that most people who operate with low
magnifications and assemblages dominated by igneous and metarnorphic raw materials will be
able to make accurate determinations of use beyond utilized/not utilized, especiaiiy when they
daiín to be basing those more detailed inferences on observatior,~of polish other than sickle
gloss or soil sheen. Such great expectations go 'oeyond the limits oí that particular teuinology
and technique. Inferences about utilization must therefore proceed with the utmost caution.
Page 20 L M u m ifor F W Stone rlmiysis


Cores are pieces of parent material from which flakes or blades are struck. Specific core types
are defined on the basis of the number of platforms present and the directions in which they are
oriented. These sppes and include single platform, opposed platfoxm, bidirectionai, multiple
platform, and bifacial cores, along with flake cores and tested pieces.

Retouched Flake Implements

Implement is the proposed general term to use instead of "tool." Tmls are traditionally defined
by Old World lithic analysts as flakes or blades that have been retouched. In the New World,
al1 lithic artifacts that have been utilized, regardless of retouch, are commonly referred to as
"tools." To avoid the confusion fostered by this usage, it is suggested that "implementc"be used
instead and defined as d retouched and/or utilized artifacts. Flake implements thuc include
retouched implements and utilized jakes and are treated separately from m e took. A problem with
grouping artifact types under this term is its implication of utilization @y definition, all utilized
-flakes were utilized,
m --
but not al1 retouched implements were utilized).
- "-

A retouchedjake implement, then, is a flake that has been retouched and is equivalent to the Old
; World usage for "tool." Retouched implements include f o m l l y retouched i m p l m t s (orfomzal
tools) and expediently retouched implernents (or expedient or informal took). A formally retouched
implement, or formal tool, is an irnplement with patterned retouch corresponding to a
$ traditionally established, "intuitive" tool type (e-g., projectile point, driU, biface, notch, graver,
perforator, endsa-aper, sidesaaper). An expediently retouched implement ( e e n t or informal
tool) is characterized by unpattemed, usually nonextensive retouch.

Retouch Attributes

Because retouch is the basis for distinguishing different types of lithic artifacts, it is important
to define retouch attributes that may be identified and combined to classdy artifacis into types.
The following retouch attributes were defined by Ken Rozen (1984) and have come into
widespread use in the Southwest:

.unfacial retouch scars which extend from a given margin onto only one aspect of
the implement.

bifacial retouch scars which extend from a common margin onto both aspects of
the implement.

irregular two or more noncontiguous (not touching each other) retouch scars, but
not more than two contiguo- scars.

continuous three or more contiguous retouch scars.

marginal retouch scars whose lengths do not exceed 10 percent of the maximum
ciimension of the implement.

invasive retouch scars whose lengths exceed 10 percent of the maximum dimension
of the implement.
I.ll>i.~l!vr Fhkd Stone Anniysis Page 21

nonextmsioe continuous retouch scars whose extent is not greater than 20 percent of the
perimeter of the implement.

extensine continuous retouch scars whose extent is greater than 20 percent of the
perimeter of the implement.

The following attributes are specific to bifacially retouched impIements:

hafting elernmts modifications to a biface for the purpose of attaching it to a shaft or handie.
These include notches, stems, ears, and basa1 concavities.

bit narrow, parallel-sided tip which may be either Iong or short, with a
diarnond- to square-shaped cross sedion. A feature of drills.

lenticular cross section relatively thin cross section shaped somewhat like a damshell.
Associated with p r o j d e points (as opposed to the thick diamond- to
square-shaped cross section of drill bits).

North American fonnal tools are quite '.&fferent in overall appearance from those from the
Palaeolithic, Mesolithic, and Neolithic of Europe and the Middie East. The latter tools were
made on standardized blanks (blades), which had the effect of homogenizing the appearance of
the tool assemblages. h'hile North American (and particularly Southwestem) retouched flake
impIements were made on unstandardized blanks (flakes), giving them a quite "informai"
I appearance, the retouched edges themselves are in fact quite standardized. For this reason,
Southwestern populations can be considered to have produced formal toois; the retouched edge
morphologies, but not the blank morphologies, are the important factor. The edge morphologies
of the fonnai, "intuitive" tool types can be defined in tenns of the retouch attributes discussed

The tool types listed in the bottom rows of the unifacial and biíácial tool anaiysis decision tables
are not intended to imply specific functions, but simply to serve as easy to use glosses of the
various suites of retouch attributes encompassed by ea& type. That is, refenino to- -an
.. D . artifact
as an "endscraper" properly refers only to the nature and location of the retouched edge. It
should not be taken to mean that the tool was used only for scraping, or indeed that it was ever
used at all.

Core Tools

Core tools, or retouched core implements, are distinguished from flake implements by blank
type. This is a technological differentiation; flake implements are made on the byproducts of
core reduction, while core tools are made by shaping original cobbles or tablets of raw material
into implements through flaking. In general, core tools are larger and heavier than flake tools,
but their edge morphologies are analogous. Core tools indude scrapers, choppers, discoids, and
composite toois. Other, more rarely encountered, examples include perforators and notches.

Core Xammers

,4 core hammer is a core which shows evidence (battering) of having been used as a hammer.
Core hammers are treated separately from core tools because, even though they were utilized
as something other than a source for flakes, they were generaily not specially shaped for the
Page 22 Manual for F W Stone Analysis

second function. These and cobble hammers are the oniy flaked stone artifacts defined explicitly
in terms oí their intérred function.

Cobble Hammers

A cobble hammer, or hamrnerstone, is an otherwise unmodified cobble which exhibits battering

in one or more locations. Agaúi, in the interest of comparative studies, it is preferable to deal
with cores, core tools, core hamrners, and cobble hammers separately so that other researchers
may group or separate them as they &h.


The procedure of assigning a flaked stone artifact to a specific type is best explained through
decision tables. The sorting of artifacts into general classes follows the initial decision process
illustrated in Table 2. Specific typing of each artifact then proceeds according to the appropriate
artifact class decision process (Tables 3-6), and individual artifact attributes are recorded
according to the fonns in Appendix B (all artifacts) and C (projectile points).
After al1 of the artifact data have been entered into a database, they may be manipulated in
order to discern temporal and spatial pattems in reduction teduiology, tool use, and raw
material exploitation, from the regional down to intrasite levelc.

Flaked stone data can be used at the leve1 of the individual artifact-for example, the task in
which a particular tool may have been employed-and, more usefully, in the aggegate of an
entire class of artifacts or an assemblage. Examples of research themes and questions developed
by Patrick D. Lyons to address flaked stone assemblages from Desert Archaeology excavation
projects (Sliva 1997; cf. Huckell et al. 1993:l-7, 41-52) are presented below, foilowed by a
discussion of vanous models that may be evaluated with flaked stone data.

Research Themes and Questions

Technology and Indwtry

Key research questions that fa11 under this theme are the following:

1) What are the dominant pattem of lithic reduction represented in the assemblage?

2) Do differences in these patterns exist among different time periods?

3) Do important differences exist among sites ascribed to a single time period, and, if
so, can these be shown to be related to site fundion?

4) Are these patterns similar to or different from pattems observed at other sites of
similar size, function, period, and cultural affiliation?
.LL?nui-r FinkeP Stone Amiysis Page 3

1 - 1 Ii
/ j l l1

l ' ' El

l -
S . $ - ,

1; 2
c . ;
3 -



I - ;.

3" *?iI *
-= --5 n 2n.
3 2 .- =

z 2 Y"

-Y: -2= ?1 -2c
, - L

-9 2 52
eB -Z L 8


= r2 4 Y

5= =
- = 2

'G M,
= = -
5 %
= E -

g 2 %

=- 'E
1 g
n 8
d =

-02 24 2

Z E ,
Y O - 6
E c-- .2- %: 8
= U
a 0 0

0 P :$3
.:! a !
% - L .

I 5 12 5 -
2 =
- z zai g
LSh 3

I ;
? $ u
$ S
% - % -
Table 3. D e b i l n g e aiialysis d e c i s i o i i iable.

1 wear trnces abui.111

remninl plallormr on dorsal as)>eclabvnl

brllcrlng on dorrrl ar)*cclibseiil ballrrliig o81
dors¿l aspci
plallorm prereilt pl,~llorinabscnl ~lreseiil

- Lxilh Ialcral edgn prnciil

I 1
oirc Ialcriil edgr prcxiil

1 Icrnilnrllon
lrlenlillablt dorsal and vrnlral arlrecia prcscnl
don¿l aiid 1
plalforin l o r m plrllorm nyi plailonn l o r m pllIf0mi MI
iculc ingle licclcd i i i d rculr rngle lrrelcJ nnd
wlUi dorsal llppd wllh dursal Ilppd
rwlacc .Id l a iurlace rnd Is
lacelcd id lictled iid
ll~pcd li*d

compleic flakc proxlnial

lhi~lng flake

Table 4. Core, c u r e lool, a l i d I i a i n i ~ i e aiialysis

r d e c i s i o i i lable. .

one plrilorni lwo plailornii rcloucli Mira reI~>ucIi

abaent prrreiil
upposcd plrilorrna plilluriiir iiot opporai

plribrmi shire plrilonn~ do nul

flrl K ~ ~I u r l a c n minmun mirgln alare mminon

phllorrn mro
oppororl pl.lli>rm
cok I blplar corr
I blhclal core bidircclioi~lcorc rnuliiyle
)iialkrin mrc 1 cure scraper cornposllc
cate l w l
corc Iiainilier cure rltul>~xr
1 rF
I l
cuiit~iiiiousrcloiicli 1 ~ i ~ o i i i i i i i i i i iretoiicli

iiiargirul reloiicli

extenrlvc reloiich

I iiuncrleiuivc rcloucli

medliim la,rleep reioiich niedlum l o ~ l e c prcloucli

convcr or rlralghl h l g e

--... .
a l cunver,
olood; :I
pro)eclliig rrluiicli

cuiivex u r
coiivcx edge

reloiicli o i i rclo,idi ui. rcluiich o n rcloitch o n

' : el%ncave
chopper cndscrnpr sidrm¿p; concnve concive com}msiie denliculale perfuralor expe<lieiit erpedienl notch prloratur nolch
cirdscraper sldcscraper scrnpcr lwl la>l 7

reloucli aluiig cnlirc circunilrciice o1 1001 reloucli i i o l o n al1 edgci

hallliig rlciiiinl6 a b n n l
1 I

I complrle
I IrngmrnlAry
I complcic Irymeiilary
1 I
no b l l CDIiV*I. I w l h c d edg8
presciil, w l l b diamond ~ t r l g ) i l ,or
Irnlicular <ir I q i i e r t c r o u concive edgc
criar iccllnii sccllon prnci8l

drill grnerrl bllace driU proicclile dril1 noncrlei\slvcly

Iragmenl bllacc
Page 26 Manualfor Fhkefi S t a A ~ l y s i s

Technological differences among the lithic assemblages can be measured in terms of reduction
patterns and reductive intensity. Reduction p a t t e m refer to the techniques used to produce
tools and debitage. These include hard hammer direct percussion, soft hammer direct
percussion, and pressure fiaking. Redudion patterns can be measured in t e m of the core and
tool types present, as well as fiake attributes, including size, presence/absence of cortex, and
platform tvpe. Reductive intensity is defined as the relative extent to which cores, flakes, and
tools are réduced-through percussion and pressure flaking-before being discarded. Reductive
intensity can thus be measured in t e m of mean size of cores, tools, and complete fiakes, mean
dmax maximum linear dimension, (cf. Rozen 1981:189) of cores, tools and complete flakes,
presence or absence of' cortex on cores, tools, and all debitage, platform types, and percentage
of debns.

Exchange, Trade, or Commerce

Two ways that lithic artifacts might be used to address exchange, trade, or cornmerce are the
identification and desu-iption of exotic raw material use and the identification of specialized
production. The key questions under this heading, then, are the following:

1) Do any of the assemblages exhibit specialized tool, core or debitage types, su& as
standardized blankc or preformc that might represent formal manufacturing stages?

2) Do exotic raw materials account for a si,onificant percentage of any of the assemblages?

3) If a significant percentage of exotics does occur, are these materials represented among
all lithic dasses (tools, cores, and debitage)?

One of the aspects of prehistoric demography that chipped stone tools can speak to, under
optimal conditions, is cultural affiliation. Research questions that address the above topic
included the following:

1) Do the tools of any of the assemblages exhibit pattemed formal variability not attríbutable
to function? That ic, do tools of the same technological type (e.g., projectile points) display
stylistic variability?

2) If stylistic variability is present, can the pattern(s) be correlated with known patterns of
geographic and temporal variability (e-g., cultural groups or phases)?

In North America, the dass of flaked stone artifads most useful for making inferences about
temporal placement and/or cultural affiliation is projectile points. For example, in the southern
Southwest, unifaaal tools and general bifaces are essentially the same throughout time. The only
major discernible difference among scrapers, for example, from different time periods may be
the raw materials from which they were made. Projecde points, however, have long been used
as cultural markers because changes in styles and mznufacturing techniques can be correlated
with temporal and, presumably, ethnic differences. Points have been used in this way across
- - the vmrld witfi sitcs md populationc of differcnt ageS (mWeksmr 1983 arrd Szckett 198.1: for
a discussion of projedile point styles among ethnographically known hunter-gatherers in the
.bhnuni .?or Fhked Stone .4nai;/sis Page 2-

Projectile point types common to .kizona are illustrated and. described in Xppmdix A. Typicai
examples are snown, but some types encompass a greater range of variability than others. The
question of whether two similar but different points represent two different styles, su~typesoi
the same style, or are simply the result oi two oripaily identical points having been
resharpened at different rates or in different ways is still the subjed of debate amon,o
arcktaeologicts (see Frison 1976; Flennc~enand Rayrnond 1986).

Traditionally, chipped and g~oundstone tools have been used to help infer aspects of the
subsistence strategy of prehistoric peoples. In the arid Southwest, however, lithic artifacts take
a back seat to plant maaofossils and miaobotanical data, as well as faunal renains and storage
and agicultural features. Another irnportant point is that inferences about stone tool functions
are prerequisite to inferences about the role of stone tools in the food quest. The most accurate
means of determining stone tool function is high-power miaowear analysis (Keeley 1980; also
see Vaughan 1985; Yerkes 1987). However, this tedinique requires a skilled analyst and
expensive equipment, and it is only appiicable to very fine-grained lithic raw materiais such as
cherts. Most Couthwestern lithic assemblages are dominated by coarsegrained metamorphic and
volcanic rnaterials that are unamenable to miaowear analysis.

Despite this,general functional inferences can also be derived from the technological attributes
of the tools within a $ven assemblage and the distribution of technologically defined Srpes.
Thus, the questions guiding research on the role of chipped stone tools in subsistence uiciude
the following:

1) How do the reduction techniques and lithic types evident within the assemblages fit
with traditionally accepted models of settlement and subsistence adaptations?

2) If the dorninant patterns observed are those typically assoaated with sedentary
farmers, which aspects of the assernblage (if any) point toward animal exploitation, and
to what degree?

Current Analytical Approaches: Evaluation and Methodological Implications

Until recently, many lithic studies (e-g. Bartlett 1943; Wendorf and Thomas 1951; Martin and
Rinaido 1960b; Bradford 1980; all ated in Rozen 1981:159) traditionally focused only on formal
tool types, ignoring debitage attributes and the behavioral questiqns such data may illuminate.
The primary goal of many analysts was the identification of temporal variation in projeciiie point
types in order to establish chronologies.
. .
Beprung in the mid-1970s, however, debitage analysis began to play a major role as more
studies began to focus on explaining the technological and behavioral processes behind the
formation of archaeological assemblages. Cynthia Irwin-Williams (1973) devised a model for
hunter-gatherer to sedentary agricidturalist transition i
n the Arroyo Cuervo region of New
:;llexico, pro-ading t ~ o type
l desaiphons arid cornments on reduc~ontechniques m¿ qua¡ity
(although empirid support for statements about quality is not provided) ( R n m t 1981:161-162).
Bruce Huckell appiied a system of differentiating among debitage produced by hard hammer
decortication, soft hammer bifaaal thinning, and tool retouch to Archaic assemblages in
southeastern Arizona (Huckell 1973a, 1984) and the Tonto Basin (Huckell 1973b, 1978). Richard
Page 28 Mamad for Flnked Stone Amlysis

Ciolek-Torre110 (1987), working in the Mazatzal Piedmont of central Arizona, provided general
statements about Archaic lithics, noting in particular the higher proportions of late stage
debitage, the geater diversitv of formal tool types than in later periods, and a preference for
fine-grained rnaterials for fo-1 tools (Ciolek-TorrelIo 1987273).

In t h s environment of new interest in formation processes, two of the more frequently employed
approaches to lithic analysis were developed. The formal/expedient "curated"/expedient
dichotomy (Chapman 1977; Binford 1979; Parry and Kelly 1986; Lancaster 1993) addresses how
mobility is reflected in the lithic record. The Sullivan and Rozen debitage typology (Sullivan

1980; Rozen 1981; Sullivan and Rozen 1985) attempts to provide a basis for distinguishing
behveen different technological activities represented by an acsemblage. Whde both models have
shortcomings, they did provide the impetus for pushing lithic analysis in new and significant
directions. Following are some insights from a review of these previo- attempts at meaningful
analysis of the debitage-heavy assemblages produced by semi-sedentary to sedentary
populations, as well as from this author's study of lithics from the Santa Cruz River sites (Sliva

FormalExpedient Dichotomy

Mobility has generally been expected to result in ascemblages dominated by bifaces and formal
unifacial tool types with a high incidente of curation; greater sedenticm or logistical mobility has
-" become equated with assemblages charaderized bylexpedient reduction techniques featuring few
27-formal retouched tools but large amounts of debitage and utilized flakes, and little tool or raw

2 material curation (Parry and Keily 1986; Lancaster 1993:234; Lyons 1994:3). Problems with this
orientation include frequent neglect on the part of researchers of raw material factors that rnay
directly impact the nature of an assemblage (Andrefsky 1994). Also, (1) allithic artifacts are
"curated" to some degree (Riddic and Cox 1993:454; Lyons 19944); (2) evidence exists of curation
5 behaviors having been directed at all types of lithic implements in early farming villages in
& southern Arizona (Sliva 199623); and (3) all groups, regardless of their degree of mobility, may
,3 employ expedient techniques at some point(s) in the life cycle of a lithic assemblage (Lyons
1994:3-4). h sum, while this model is valid at a general level, it can lead to overly simplistic
views and interpretations of the dynarnic processes that m a t e lithic assemblages.

Sullivan-Rozen Debitage Completeness Model

Employed by a number of researchers since its original publication (e.g., Graff 1985; Yarborough
1986; Eppley 1989; Donaldson 1992; Lancaster 1993), the Sullivan and Rozen model (Sullivan and
Rozen 1985) attempts to differentiate tool production from core reduction based on relative
frequencies of complete and fragmentary waste flakes. Prior to this, Sullivan (1980) used the
typology to compare assemblages from ceramic and aceramic sites near Grasshopper (Rozen
1981:160). Rozen (1981), in the TEP St. Johns Project, focused on identúymg the technological
characteristics of the assemblage to determine how lithic variability relates to the technology of
tool manufacture (Rozen 1981:162). W ' e the typology may be useful for segregating tool
production from core reduction in chert assemblages, it has a number of weaknesces. Primary
among them is a failure to account for differential raw material properües (Lyons 19944; Hany
et al. 1993, Prentiss and Romanski 1989:93-94) and the effects of the formation processes of use,
recyding, reuse, and discard (Lyons 19944). Others (Ahler 1989:87, Craig 1992:216) have ated
the debitage categones' lack of intrinsic behavioral meaning as a major problem.
Manuai for Fiaked Stone Amipis Page 29

iMcss Cebifage Analysis

Staniey .Mer (1989) developed a method of mas anaiysis of debitage as a way to deal with the
usually enormous quantities of debitage at ar~Ciaeolo@calsites. This technique invoives
sueening debitage through graduated screens and then taking raw counts of the numbers of
flakes and raw materials present in each size grade. While miss analysis does appear to have
considerable promise ior streamlining analytical effiaenq, it should be noted that the data it
produces may not be directly comparable with data sets employing standard metrical variables.
The debitage size classes used in mass analysic are derived from the sieving of artifacts through
a series of graduated saeens, a dynamic process, and thus must be assumed to be based on a
median linear dimension. Comparisons of sudi data with size classes based on some
combination of standard ilake length, width, and thickness, as rneasured in a procedure where
the artifacts are static, must be undertaken with caution.

The objections to Sullivan and Rozen, suntmarized above, have already been discussed in detail
in many other publications, and so they do not need to be exhaustively rehashed here. Douglas
Craig's (1992) attempt to bring some semblante of inferential relevante to Sullivan and Rozen
by combining it with Ahler's (1989) mass analysis procedure is certainly a step forward, but it
unfortunately falis victim to some of the same problerns that chmcterize the original model he
was trying to improve. The major shortcoming shared by a l I three of these approaches is that
they are based solely on data from experimentation with chert or obsidian and therefore may
not accmately des&be the non-chert assemblages to which they have been applied. This is of
particular concern in the Southwest, where coarser-grained igneous and metamorphic raw
materials often form the bu& of recovered assemblages.

Floor Deposit Analysis

Douglas Craig (1992) atternpted an appraisal of floor deposit types in Hohokam pithouses. He
size-graded complete flakes based on standard sieve sizes of X', H", and W, following -4hier
(1989), and then argued that de facto floor deposits would be dkernible by relatively greater
quantities of large rather than small flakes. Unfortunately, this study was based on artifiaaily
derived data categories rather than behavioraily significant units, and it points to the need for
a discussion of how artifads are best rneasured (see 'Measurement Issues," below). An altemate
method for deposit type analysis was developed by the author for assemblages from the Early
Agricultural Santa Cruz Bend (AZ AA:12:746) and Stone Pipe (AZ BB:13:425) sites in the Tucson
Basin. When examined in terms of remnant uselife, assemblage data from the sites suggest that
implement reworking and recycling were important components of the Lithic technology in place
at the sites, and that it is possible to differentiate between floor deposits of de facto refuse and
feature and fill deposits of secondary refuce on the basis of artifact size (Sliva 1996b). The
,piding assumption of the deposit type analysis is that differential artifact size and context
relationships, with larger artifacts consistently located on floors and/or in pits, reflect processes
of implement use, storage, and discard conditioned by artífact remnant uselife or residual utility
(semu Schiffer 1985:33-34; K u h n 1989:34; d.Shott 1989:21-22,27). That is, because larger artifacts
possess a greater amount of residual utility than smaller artifads, they tended to be recovered
irom contexts suggesting that they were being uced (floor context) or stored for future use
(storage pit context). The fact that-the smaller artifads (those with little remnant uselife) were
overwhelrningly associattd with ~efusecontexts (trash deposits) shows &at ai'dacts were used
and rejuvenated until come lower residual utility threshold was reached, at which point they
were discarded.
Page 30 Múnual for FoWd Stone ARP!?is

Measurernent Issues

The question arises about which metrical attributes should be measured, how they actuallv are
measured, and which measurement techniques are the most valid and replicable. Precision,
efficiency, and replicability shouid be the primary goals when measuring metrical variability, and
measurements should be taken in the semice of theory. The traditional procedures are to either
measure length, width, and thickness, usually relative to the artifact's flaking axh, or to fit
artifads into a pnon size dasses, ucually by placing them on a template of nested &des or
squares. More recent studies have uíiiized the Ahler method of size grading, and some have
measured only the artifact's maximum linear dimension (Tomka 1989160), or "dmax"(Lyons
1994:6; Sliva 1996b:Z; cf. Rozen 1981:189 and 1984:CA). Each of these different methods has dear
advantages and disadvantages; some are more precise than others, while some are more 6 a e n t
in terms of the amount of time and skiíi required to use t h e a Problems with size grading have
been discussed already. Length, width, and thickness are precise but time consumúig, so unless
research questions explicitly necessitate taking the three measurements, it may be a waste of

Drnax, however, is useful because it is quickly measured, and when it is defined properly, it can
serve as a reasonable proxy for flake area. 1 advocate measuring drnax as an artifkct's absolute
maximum linear dirnension, regardless of its relationship to the flaking axis. This is essentially
what the *d or nested-cirde systems do, but it has the advantage of producing a precise
measurement with no additional effort or time and eliminating confusion over how to fit a @ven
Huckeil 1984:94,96).
artifact into a grid (d.

This model for floor deposit analysis takes an expliatly behavioral approach to artifad size,
focusing on lithic discard and m a t e behaviors as a function of remnant uselife. Remnant
ucelife, or "residual utility," (sensu Kuhn 198954; cf. Shott 198921-22, 27) deals with the fact that
ea& modification and use of a stone tool results in dimlliished size. This means that at some
point, the irnplement will be too s m d to use comfortably or effiaentiy, or for reworking to be
possible or cost effective. Because larger irnplements generally present the user with more
possibilities for use or further reduction, they are considered to have greater remnant uselífe than
smaller implernents. Therefore, the basic assumption is that artífacts will be retained as long as
their size is above some situationally dependent minimum threshold, and when they have been
reduced to a size below that thteshold, they will be discarded. Dmax has proved to be an
efficient measure of remnant uselife, and one that demonstrates patterned variability.

Another departure bom many of the previously done lithic studies is that here, incomplete flakes
are not eliminated from size analyses. 1 have already argued that atbitrary size grades are
artificial, and 1 would further argue that, at some level, eliminating broken fiakes bom a size-
based analysis constitutes an artificial distinction as weil. The data bom the Santa Cruz River
sites indicate that incomplete flakes were subject to the same curation/discard deasion processes
as complete flakes and retouched irnplements, suggesting that, at least there, flake size rather
than completeness was the key seiection variable for the prehístoric popuiation. From a behavioral
standpoint, a more uceful distinction than sirnply complete/broken would be between flakes
broken in manufacture, fiakes broken after manufacture but before discard, and flakes broken
through postdepositional processes. However, in almost ali cases su& distinctions are nearly
impossibla to make. -- a
?&nual /o, Fhked Stone Ami-is

Usewear Analysis

&e ty-pe of valuable information that can be preserved in stone tools relates to the s p d c tasks
they were used to p e r f o m Using a flaked stone tool for a sdficient period of time - dl leave
wear traces on its edges that under optimal conditions can be observed and confidently
correlated with a specific activity. These traces include miaoflaking, striations, and poiish. The
study of these wear traces is generaily known as usewear anaZysis, and study utilizing
miaoscopes is known as microwear analysis. The Imo-power approach to microwear analysis uses
magnrhcations of less than lOOx and primarily focuses on the nature of the edge damage caused
by utilization, and the presence or absence of polish. The high-power approach requires a
specialized microscope that provides magnifications between lOOx and 400x and is used to
identify specific poiish types, along with flaking and striations on the edge of an implement.

If an implement is made of a certain type of raw material and is used for a sufficient amount
of time, diagnostic wear traces will form on the working edge. These can be identified by an
analyst using the high-power approach. These identified traces then form the basis for making
confident inferences about the type of worked material, the motion of tool use, and how long
the tool was used. Because with the low-power approach polishes can only be observed, rather
than identified, inferences with that method are limited to the motion.-of tool use and the relative
hardness of the worked material.

-Miaowear analysis is a useful but limited tool. Confident fundional inferences can be made
only when the wear traces on an artifact are well developed, which means that an implement
would have to have been used for a substantial amount of time (at least half an hour for many
types of polish). Also, the only discernible wear traces are those created by the implement's
most recent use. For example, if a tool was used for an hour to saape wood and then
resharpened and used for another task, the evidence of the initial wood scraping is lost and thus
invisible to the analyst. Preservational conditions can also adversely affect the condition of wear
traces. Long exposure to highly alkaline soils can obliterate poiishes, and all wear traces can be
hidden by the patination that forms on artifacts with long-term surface exposures in desert

Despite these iimitations, and the great amount of time and training required by the analysis,
miaowear can provide valuable information about patterns of tool function when it is appiied
properly. Examples of miaowear studies are listed under "suggested readings" at the end of this


This manual is intended to serve as an introdudion to a technological approach to flaked stone

analysis. It is important to remember that the practical appiication of the analytical procedures
discussed here requires that all data recording be done in seMce of theory and in response to
carefuily crafted research questions. These questions must be formulated to maxímize the
research potential of the sample to be studied, and should reach beyond simple descriptive
b o i e s . :he physics of lithic techncrlogy leave indelible traces o r ~the artifacts themselves that
aJow w to make inferences on severa! !evels about the processes involved in their manufacture,
use, and discard. This is where the emphasis of lithic analysis ultirnately iies: on the behavior
behind the artifacts, rather than on the artifacts as static entities.
Page 32 Mnnual for F W Stone Annlysis

It is equally important that lithic analysts not become complacent in either their methods or their
epistemology. We must continue to ask new questions, seek new ways of manipulating data,
and continue to test tried-and-true assumptions ín order to achieve the fullest possible (
understanding of the prehistoric behaviors that were responsible for the assemblages we study.



This appendix contains illustrations, definitions, and brief discussions of the various flaked stone
artifact types mentioned in the manual. Artifacts are grouped by general type and presented
in the same order as the artifact das= in the text. Technological speafications are provided for
ea& artifact type, along with iUustrated examples which are intended to demonstrate the range
of variability encompassed by each type. Most of the exarnples are from the southem Southwest,
but artifacts from other regions of the world are induded as weU for the sake of comparison.
Many of the illustrations are of actual artifacts. but in other cases hypothetical examples are
provided in the interest of darity. A l archaeological specimens are drawn to scale, and the
appropriate site names, time periods, regions, and raw materials are licted along with them. In
most of the flake tool illustrations, implements are oriented with the dorsal aspect up and the
proximal end at the botton In the other cases, the location of the platform is rnarked with an
' arrow showing the flaking direction. For unifaaally retouched implements, solid lines parailel
to an artifact's edge indicates the location of the retouch.
Page 34


typical flake
Fiakes are the prirnary blank type found in North
Amencan lithic assembiages. They generally have
unstandardized shapes and a length-to-width ratio of
less than 21. Blades make up smaii portions of
assemblages from the Amencan midwest, but they
dominate the assemblages of Mesoamencan, European,
and Middle Eastem assembiages and are distinguished
by straight, parallel sides and a length-to-width ratio
usually greater than 2:l. Complete flakes and blades
possess al1 of the foliowing attributes: platforms, lateral
m a r p , and tenninations.

Fragmenta y FZakes/Blades

Three types of flake/biade fragments are recognized.

Flakes possessing a platform but no termination are
proxirnal fragihents; those with terminations but no
platfonns are dista1 fragments; and those with neither
typical blade platform nor termination, but with lateral m a r p or an
identifiable buibar aspect, are media1 fragments.


Debitage that does not possess a platfom, lateral

margins, or a tennination, and does not possess an
identifiable bulbar aspect, is referred to as shatter,
chunks, or unonentable debris.

c. proximal

typical fragmentary flake (1) and blade (r)

rin lllustrated Guiae :o FlaiíeL: .4rtiJact T;qes


typical bifacial thinning flake

These flakes, producd during the manufacture of bifaces,

have distinctive piatform and shape attrit>utes. Their
platiorms are faceted with Bake scars, are oriented at an
acute angle to the dorsal aspea of the hake, and are often
lipped. The lateral mar@ frequently expand outward
from the platform, giving the fiakes a semi-triangular shape.
These flakes are often referred to in shorthand as BTFs
(bifacial thúuuigflakes) or FBRs flakes of bifacial retouch).

Core Rejuvenation F k s

These flakes are ctnick kom cores to rejuvenane them (aeate

a new platform). These thick flakes represent the enüre top
of the core, and so they bear portions of ílake ccars around
much or a0 of their perimeters. Core rejuvenation flakes are
known in European archaeology as u n e taírlets.

Bipolar Flakes

Bipolar flakes are produced during bipolar core reduction
and are distinguished by the absence of buibs of percussion,
fairly flat bulbar aspects, rings of force originating from both
the proximal and dista1 ends, and, usuaiiy, crushing at both
typical bipolar flake ends.

Hammer Spalk

Hamrner spalls are fiakes that are incidentally knocked off

hammerstones or core hammers whiie they are being useci.
They are distinguished by substantial amounts of battering,
crushing, and abrasion on their dorsal surfaces.

a Vpical h-mer spall

a . *-. Potlids, so narned because they are usually round, pop uom
the surfaces of he-grained materials, such as
a cryptoaystallines, when the materials are subjected to
excessive heat While not a byproduct of flaking, potlids are
included here because they hre frequently recovered from
archaeological sites and may be mistaken for flaked
ma terials.

typical potlid (1) and potlidded flake (r)

Page 36 Apperidix .A

Note: Arrows indicate direction of force application.


Single-Platforrn Cure

Core with a single striking platform.

Opposed-Pla tfornz Core

typical single plaiform core Core with two platforms located on opposing surfaces.

Bidirectional Core

Core with two platforms not oriented opposite each


Mul tiple-Plrztforrn Cure

Core with flakes removed in random directions from at

... least three platforms.

typical opposed plaiform core

typical bidirectional core

.-.i: :iius?iltod GIL& to 3 k e d Stone Artifac: Types Page 57

B \CE: Arrows indicate direction of force appiication. 1 CORES

Bifacizl Core

Core with flakes originating from a single margin

removed írom two surfaces.

Flake Core

X flake that has been used as a core. It is sometimes

typical bifacial core diificdt to differentiate between flake cores and fiake
tools, and in some cases there may be no real difference
betiveen &e two. In general, flake cores are oxpected to
be made on exceptionally large flakes and to lack the
srnall, regular retoucfi scars that mark flake tools.

(anvil) Tested Piece .L

Otherwise unaltered piece of raw material hom which

C one or two flakes have been removed.

E typical bipolar core

R t 1

typical flake are

. .

typical tested piecs

t... ;!?:-,.


, :.. ;y.: ........
: . . .
..... -
. ;.
. ... .a:
;.:::. 141.;; .. ...

t..;.;. . ....;.:..'.,.: - .....

..:.A. . ;....:.;.L.'...
.:...... .....
..... .> ,*..
. .:2.. .....
... t.-

'.' ..:



- :j.:::.:;.:$

Page 36


Epipalaeolithic Retouch pattem

Abu Noshra I I (Sinai)
chert unifaaal, continuous, invasive, medium to steep, end

Documented fundíons

fresh hide processing

dry hide currying
plant processing (shredding fibers)

Temporal distribution in Southwest

Early Archaic through Hohokam.

Temporal variations

No standardized overd tool form or edge morphology.

Middle Archaic Middle Archaic scrapers tend to be the smallst and
Richland County, lllinois Hohokam the largest, although this is likely more a
chert reflection of initial blank (flake) size than of temporal
variation in tool technology.

Raw material patterning

In the Southwest, aü uniface raw material patterning

depends on mobility patterns and local resources. After
the Middle Archaic in the Southwest, relatively coarser
materiais tend to be d for these toois, with
cryptocrystallins being d oniy rarely. Comrnon
materiais indude rnetasediments, siiicified lúnstones,
quartzites, and metamorphosed volcanics. These
materiais resulted in durable, abrasion-resistant working
typical Late Archaic edges.
Santa Cruz valley
. .

Preclacsic Salado
AZ U:3:299
.?n Illustrared Suide ro F!aked Stone Arrifact Types Page 39

Retouch pattern

unifacial, continuous, invasive, medium to steep, side

Documented functions
cc\Q 0
fresh hide processing
dry hide currying
hide slicing/cutting

Temporal distribution in Southwest

Early Archaic through Hohokarn.

Temporal variations

'No standardized overall tool form or edge m o r p h o l o ~ .

Middle kchaic scrapers tend to be the smallest and
Palaeolithic Hohokam the largest, although this is likely more a
Western Europe, Northern Africa reflection of initial blank (flake) size than of temporal
chert variation in tool tedinology.
(Oakley 1972, Fig. 23b)
Raw material patterning

In the Southwest, all uniface raw material patterning

depends on mobility patterns and local resources. After the
Middle Archaic in the Southwest, relatively coarser
rnaterials tend to be used for these tools, with
cryptocrystallines being used only rarely. Common
materials indude metasediments, silicified limestones,
Middle Archaic quartzites, and metamorphosed volcanics. These materials
Los Pozos (AiAA:12:91) resulted in durable, abrasion-resistant working edges.

It is doubtful that endxrapers and sidescrapers served

different íúncíions in the Southwest, where the placement of
retouch likely depended on situational needs rather than
technological conventions. They are functionally distinct in
the Old World, where endscrapers made on blades had
fairly steep retouch and tended to be hideworking tools,
while sidescrapers on flakes had more acute working edges
and served a wider range of functions.

Late Archaic
Los Pozos (AZAA:12:91)
Page 40


1 Retouch pattern

unifacial, continuous, invasive, medium to steep,

multiple edges

Middle Archaic 1 Documented functions

Asana (Peru)
jasper fresh hide processing
dry hide cumying
plant processing (shredding fibers)

Temporal distribution in Southwest

Early Archaic through Hohokam.

Temporal variations

No standardized overd tool form or edge morphology.

Middle Archaic scrapers tend to be the smaiiest and
Hohokam the largest, although this is likely more a
reflection of initial blank (flake) size than of temporal
variation in tool technology.

Raw material patteming

Late Archaic
Los Pozos (AZ AA:12:91) In the Southwest, al uniface raw material patteming
silicified Iimestone depends on mobility patterns and local resources. After
the Middle Archaic in the Southwest, relatively coarser
materiais tended to be used for these tools, with
cryptocrystallines being used only rarely. Common
materials include metasediments, silicified limestones,
quartzites, and metamorphosed volcanics. These
rnateriais resulted in durable, abrasion-resistant working

Preciassic Salado,
AZ U:3:294
- --- - -- - - ----
-- -

An íi'!ujnatd Sude to Fhkz Stone Arkfact Types Page 41

Retouch pattern

unifacial, continuous, invasive, medium to steep, ski-

shaped retouched edge

( Possible function

bone working (awl manufacture?)

Temporal distribution in Southwest

1 Mddle and Late Arciaic.

Middle Archaic , Temporal variations

Los Pozos (A2 AA:12:91)
Middle Archaic specimens are unifonnly small, while
Late Archaic specimenc demonstrate a greater range of

Raw material patteming

No apparent patterning exisís beyond a preference for

cryptocrystalline and he-grained materials.


This is stiil a tentative type, with current examples

defined from only two stes.

Late Archaic
Los Pozos (A2 AA:12:91)
Page 42

Retouch pattern

unifacial, continuous, medium to steep, toothed edge


Middle Archaic Documented functions

Los Pozos (AZ AA:12:91)
silicified Iimestone plant processing (shredding fibers)
fresh hide processing (removing fatty tissues and
breaking down epide-nis)

Temporal distribution in Southwest

Middle hchaic through Hohokam.

Temporal variations

No standardized overall tool form or edge morphology.

Middle Archaic denticulates tend to be the smallest and
Hohokam the largest, although this is likely more a
reflection of initial blank (flake) size than of temporal
variation in tool technology. Some Middle Archaic
specimens have pressure-flaked teeth.

typical Late Archaic Raw material patterning

Santa Cniz Valley
In the Southwest, all uniface raw material patteming
depends on mobility pattems and local resources. After
the Middle a c h a i c in the Southwest, relatively coarser
materials tended to be used for these tools, with
cryptocrystallines being used only rarely. Common
materials d u d e metasediments, silicfied limestones,
quartites, and metamorphosed volcania. These
materials resulted in durable, abrasion-resistant working


Denticulates are essentially endscrapers or sidescrapers

with toothed rather than smoth edges. End and side
denticulates are not differentiated here since functional
variations between the two in the Southwest are highly
unlikely. Invasive and marguiai retouch attributes are
grouped in this type because they probably represent
the same intended function.

Preclassic Salado
AZ U:3:294
Page 43


Retouch pattern

unifacial, continuous, invasive, mediurn to steep,

nonextensive, creating rnarked concavity in edge

Documented functions

shaft shapers
bone and antler working
fiber processing

Temporal distribution in Southwest

Upper Palaeolithic
Negev Desert Early Archaic through Hohokam.
(from Addington 1986, Fig. 2%)
Temporal variations

Little temporal variation is etident, except for the trend

oi larger tools later in time.

Raw material patterning

In the Southwest, al1 umface raw material patterning

depends on mobility patterm and local resources. Alter
the hfiddle Archaic in the Couthwest, relatively coarser
materials tended to be used for these tools, with
cryptocrystallines being w e d only rarely. Comrnon
materiais indude metasediments, silicified limestones,
Late Archaic
quartzites, and metamorphosed volcanics. These
Los Pozos ( A i h12:91)
materials resulted in durable, abrasion-resistant workmg


Notches are functionally s i d a r to scrapers,

differentiated only by the tightly circumscribed working

Preclassic Salado
AZ U:3:299
Retouch pattem

unifacial, continuous, marginal, medium to steep,

fo&g triangular bit

Documented functions
Late Archaic
triangular perforator puncturing hide
Los Pozos (AA AA: 12:91) boring wood, bone, and antier
rhyolite gravúig/grooving wood, bone, and antler

Temporal distribution in Southwest

Early Archaic through Hohokam.

Temporal vanations

No standardized overaii tool form or edge morphology.

Middle Archaic perforators tend to be s d e r than Late
Archaic and Hohokam, although very small examples
are associated with al1 time periods.

Raw material patterning

Large flake perforators tend to be made on coarser

materiak, whde triangular perforators are usually made
Late Archaic
of ayptocrystalline or very he-grained materials.
typical large flake perforator
Santa Cruz Valley

Perforator morphology is highly variable and likely

reflects differential function Large flake perforators
may have been used both as perforators, with a rotary
motion, and gravers, with their bits being used with a
longitudinal motion to groove or suatch the worked

Preciassic Salado
small flake perforator
AZ U:3:294
Page 45


Retouch pattern

irnifacial, variable; distinct retouch patte-ms on multiple


Documented functions

variable; dependent on individual retouch components

Middle Archaic
denticulatelscraper Temporal distribution in Southwest
LOS POZOS( M AA:12:91)
metasediment Early -4rchaic through Hohokam.

Temporal variations

No temporal variation apparent.

Xaw material patterning

No raw material variation apparent.


This is a catch-aii category, as demonstrated by the

iílustrated exarnples.

Late Archaic
Los Pozos (AZAA:12:91)
fine-grained aphanitic volcanic

Pueblo II
Pueblo Blanco, New Mexico
Page 46


Retouch pattem

unifaciai, marginal and/or discontinuous

Documented functions

Middie Archaic wide range

Los Pozos(Ai Acl- 12:9 1)
chert Temporal distribution in Southwest

Early Archaic though Hohokam.

Temporal variations

Variation occurs in the proportions of the tool

assemblages composed of expedient unifaces, rather
than the morphology of the tools themselves.
Expedient technology kac traditionaiiy been assumed to
correlate with sedentism and dependence on
agnculture, but the relationship between subsistence
and technology is mudi more complex than that.

Raw material patterning

Expedient tools tend to be made of lower quality raw


Late Archaic
Los Pozos (Aim12:91)
rnetasedirnent Expedient toois are generaiiy assumed to be single-use
irnplements, aithough evidence suggests that they were
subject to the same curative behaviors as formal tools.

Clacsic Salado
AZ U:3:297, Locus A
Page U


Retouch pattern

bifacial, continuous, exte-nsive

Middle Archaic
Richland County, Illinois Documented functions
They are generally assumed to have been focused on
curting and slicing, although thev have ako been
considered :o be multiple-purpose toois.

Temporal distribution in Southwest

Early Xrchaic through Hohokam.

Temporal variations

No qua1itati.c-e differences exist other than the use of

high qualiq raw material in the Early and Middle
Middle Archaic Archaic.
South Canyon (A2 EE:2:82)
(from Huckell 1984, Fig. 5.15~)
Raw material patterning

Cr).ptocrystalline and very fine raw maten& were

ovenvhelmingly chosen ior biface manufacture. These
materials respond best to the soh hammer percussion
and pressure flaking that is optimal for biface

Late Archaic
Boatyard (AZ U:3:286)
fine-grained aphanitic volcanic General bifaces were probably used both hafted and

Classic Salado
Cline Mesa, Arizona
(from Loendorf and Simon 1996, Fig. 11.10c)

Retouch pattern

Bifacial, continuous, extensive, forming bit with

diamond to square-shaped cross section. Hafting
elements present.

Documented functions

drilling wood, bone, antler, sheii, and cerarnics

Temporal distribution in Southwest

Early Archaic through Hohokam.

Late Archaic
Temporal variations
short-bit drill
Los Pozos (UAA:12:91)

Raw material patterning

As is the case with other bifaces, driiis tend to be made

from csrptocrystalline and very h e materials.


Projectile points were frequently used as drills after

repeated resharpening le!? them with extreme concave
edges that lirnited their efficiency as projectiles.

Classic Salado
straight dril1
Cline Terrace Mound (AZ U:4:33)
(from Oliver 1995a, Fig. 9.14e)

t-shaped drill
Ai U:3:299
An illust~atedGuide ro Flakai Stone ..?rrcact T y e s


1 J~Y
1 siightly tapering stem, convex base, sloping shoulders,
item length hequently exceeds blade length

Jay (Tagg 1994, Fig. 35b) Great Basin northern Southwest 6000-4800 B.C.

' Lake Mohave

contracting stem, pointed base, stem length hequently

exceeds blade length, no shoulders

southeastern Caiifomia, southem Great Basin

9000-5000 B.C

Long tapering stemmed

tapering stem,shoulders siight or absent, convex base,

Lake Mohave (Bayham 1986, Fíg. 10
stem and blade lengths roughly equal

southern M o n a

830-4500 B.C.

straight stern, concave base, prominent shoulders

Great Basin. northern Southwest

4W3200 B.C.


Wills (1988:77-78) argues that no significant temporal or

inorphological differences have been demonstrated for
Long Tapering Ctemrned ( ~ a ~ h a 1986,
r n Fig. 10.3b) Jay and Bajada points.

Huckell 19M; Rozen 1984; Wiils 1988; Huckell 1993

Bajada (Wills 1988, Fig. 17a)

Paje 50



side-notched near base, slightiy to deeply concave base,

triangular blade often narrower than stem

Pinto/San Jose

concave-sided expanding stem, concave base, blade

often serrated, blade often narrower than stem

southem Califomia, Great Basin, Arizona, Four C o m a

area, southwestem New Mexico
Pinto (Formby 1986, Fig. 2i).

triangular blade, short contracting stem, siight

prokuding shoulders

Great Basin, central and southeastem Arizona, Four

Comers area, southwestem New Mexico, northem

Chiricahua (Bayham 1986, Fig. 1 0 . 4 )
triangular point without stem or notching, siightly to
deeply concave base

southem Arizona, southwestem New Mexico, northem


The Cortaro style encompasses considerable
San Jose (Bayham 1986, Fig. 10.2b) morphological vanabiiity; many specimens may have
functioned as general purpose hafted bifaces rather than
projectile points.

S ources
Bostwick 1988; Huckell 1996

Cortaro (AZ AA1 2:91)

iin Kiustra:od &¡de fo F h h d Sfone -4rtifac: 7qes Page 51


San Pedro
side/comer notched, expanding stem, wiae neck,
convex base. long triangular biade, rarely serrated

San Pedro p.hase (1200600 B.C.)

central and southem hrizona. nordiem Mexico


deeply comer notched, evpanding stem, narrow neck,

conxrex base, long triangular blade. may be serrated

Cienega and Agua Caliente phases (600 B.C. - A.D. 550)

central and southem Arizona

Cienega 1
expanding stem, concave blade margins, tapered tips,
flaring tangs, reLatively broad comer notches, frequentiy
serrated, irequentiy large (>35 m m in length)

early Cienega phase (before c. 400 B.C.)

Cienega 3
expanding s t m , síraight blade margins, relatively
narrow comer notches, rarely serrated, wide length

al1 Cienega and Agua Caliente phases

Cienega 3
expanding stem, straight blade margins, low blade to
stem ratio, relatively short tangs, rarely cerrated,
cieneia 2 (AZ B8:13:6) uniformiy srnall (<30mm in length)

late Cienega and Agua Caliente phases (400 B.C. - A.D.


Cienega 4

straiyht stem. straioht hlade míir$n< nccaqiovally

serrated, usually small

Cienega and Agua Caliente phases (600 B.C.-A.D. 550)


Colonial barbed

narrow, serrated, triangular blade; pairs of lateral barbs near thti

base, slightly expanding base

Colonial period (A.D. 750-950)

Colonial barbed (AZ U:3:294) central and southem Arizona

Colonial shouldered stemmed

triangular blade, contracting stern, lateral shoulders

Gila Butte/Cañada del Oro phase (A.D. 750-850)

central and southern Arizona

Colonial tanged stemmed

triangular blade, contracting stern, oblique tangs

Colonial period (A.D. 750-950)

central and southem Arizona

Colonial sternrned shouldered (AZ U:3:294)

Colonial sternrned tanged (AZ U:3:294)

/ Type names retlect Hohokam/Salaao nomenclature.

Sedentary serrated
Sedentary serrated (AZ U:3:352)
wrrated triangular blades, straight to concave bases, bases or lowennost
teeth wider than blade

1 Sedentary period (A.D. 930-1150)

central and southern Arizona

Sedentary side-notched

triangular blades, side notching low on the point forming a short base,
straight to slightly concave bases

Sedentary period (A.D. 950-llSO)/Pueblo 11/III (A.D. 900-1300)

central and southern Arizona, Colorado Plateau

Sedentary wide notched (AZ U:3:298)
Sedentary wide-notched

\vide, shallow, contracting side notches; straight to concave bases;

relatively broad triangular blades with excurvate to straight sides,
tending to be thicker than the narrow-notch variety

early Sedentary period (A.D. 950-1050)/Pueblo II/III (4.D. 900-1300)

central and southern Arizona, Colorado Plateau

Sedentary intermediate-notched
Sedentary intermediate notched (AZ U:3:294)
straight-eclged triangular blades; straight to concave bases; wide notched
contracting notches but deeper and less wide than those of tlie wide-
notched variety, resulting in a narrower neck for the intermediate- b

notched points

Sedentary period (A.D. 950-115O)/Pueblo II/LII (A.D. 900-1300)

central and southern Arizona, Colorado Plateau

Seden tary narrow-no tched

/) deec, nar79n1 side nstcher; thin, !riinpu!-r b!2.1:5 viith ;!rz:ght :r

incurvate sides; straight to ccncave bases; notches are usua!ly parrillc!
sidea and generaily oriented horizontally rather than obliqueiy
Sedentary narrow notched (AZ U:3:298)
late Sedentary period (A.D. 1050-1150)/Pueblo II/III (A.D. 900-1300)

1 central and southern Arizona, Colorado Plateau

Sources: Tagg 1991; Sliva 1997


Type names reflect Hohokam/'Salado nomenclature.

Classic flanged

long, triangular blade; concave flanged bases wider than blade;

comparably thin with Classic thin triangular and Classic side-notched

Classic flanged (AZ U:3:5) Ash Creek phase (A.D. 1050-1150), Gila phase?

central Arizona

Classic thin triangular

notchless, triangular, straight- to concave-based, differentiated from

Classic triangular and Classi~~:long
triangular poinh on the basis of their
uniform thinness
Classic thin triangular (AZ U:3:297)
Asli Creek-Roosevelt phases (A.D. 1050-1350)

A 1 central Arizona

Classic side-notched

morphologically identical to Classic thin tnangular points, with the

addition ot small, shallow side notches located near or slightly below the
Early Classic side notched (AZ U:3:299) middle of the points, creating a relatively long base (%5& of total
length); concave bases predominate, with few straight and, rarely, convex
bases; notches usually contracting or oblique contracting in shape

Early Classic side-notched

notcliing placed above the midpoint; tend to be smaller than average for
the side-notched style

Ash Creek phase/Sedentary-Classic transition/Pueblo 11 (A.D. 1050-1150)

central and southern Arizona, Colorado Plateau

Middle Classic side notched (AZ U:3:297)
Middle Classic side-notched

notch placement from the midpoint to halfway between the midpoint

and the base, with notches moving progressively lower through time

Miani/Santan-Roosevelt/Soho/TanqueVerde phases (A.D. 1150-

1350)/Pueblo 111-IV (A.D. 1000-1150)
Late Classic side notched central and southern Arizona, Colorado Plateau
(AZU:4:33; Oliver 1995b, Fig. 9.3i)
Late Classic side-notched
notches significantly iieeper and wider than other Classic side-notched
Gila/Civano phase (A.D. 1300-1450)/Pueblo 111-IV (A.D. 1000-1450)
central .4rizona. Colorado Plateau


Type names reflect Hohokam/Salado nomenclature.

Classic concave-base triangular

similar to the Classic triangular point but with a markedly concave base;
distinguished from Classic thin triangular poinb by their broader bases
and more pronounced tangs; length-to-width ratio is less than 3:l.

Miami-Roosevelt phases (A.D. 1150-1350)/Pueblo I!I-IV (A.D. 1000-1450)

Classic concave base triangular (AZ U:3:5) central Arizona, Colorado Piateau

Classic serrated

very similar to the Classic thin triangular and Classic side-notched style,
but distinguished by the presence of serration along the entire length of
blade and stern edges

bliarni-Roosevelt phases (A.D. 1150-1350)

central Arizona

Classic triangular
Classic serrated (AZ U:3:297) similar to the Classic long triangular s e l e . but shorter (generallv less
than 20 mm in length) and with smaller length-to-width ratios í2:l or
less); straight to slightly concave base

Ash Creek/late Sacaton-Roosevelt/Tanque Verde phases (A.D. 1050-

1350)/Pueblo 111-IV (A.D. 1000-1450)

central and southern hrizona, Colorado Plateau

Classic long triangular

Classic triangular (AZ U:3:5)
triangular, notchless, concave base; thicker than the Classic thin
triangular and Classic sidenotched poínts, especially at the tip; long (20
mm o r longer) with a high length-to-width ratio (approximately 3:l).

Ash Creek phase (A.D. 1050-1150)/Classic Period (A.D. 1150-1450)/

Pueblo 111-1V (A.D. 1000-1450)

central and southern Arizona. Colorado Plateau

Classic long triangular (AZ U:3:297)

Page 36

Classic bulbous-base

relatively narrow, subtriangular blade; rounded, flanged base wider than

blade; short ( ~ 2 rnm
0 in length)

Roosevelt phase (A.D. 1250-1350)

central Arizona
Classic bulbous based (AZ U:3:5)

Keiiy et al. 1978; Huckeii 1981; Bernard-Shaw 1988; Green and Hofíínan
1991; Stone and Bradley 1991; Craig 1992; Rice and Sirnon 1994;
Lindeman 1994; Towner 1994; Dart 1995; Oliver 1995a, 199%; SLva 1997
.-in !l!usrrated Guide :o Fhked r ~ n Art!kcr
e Tyues Page 37


Retouch pattem

various; retoud-i pattem determine core t ~ o type

l in the
same way as they determine flake tool 5-pe

Documented functions

various; dependent on retouch type

chopping wooci and bone
crushing bone

typical scraper
Core tools tend to be larga and heavier than flake tools
and so presurnably were utilized for tasks that required
the application oi a great deal of force.

typical chopper

typical discoid
Page 58

Retouch pattem

none; arthcts classiiied as harnmers have at least one

battered surface or edge marked by crushing and step

Documented functions

production of flaked stone tools

pecking ground stone tools
crushing bone

typical hammerstone
Hammers are the only fiaked stone implement class
defined exdusively on the basis of usewear radier
than retoudL


Every artifact is coded u i n g this form. An additional form for projectile points is presented in
Appendix C.

Site is the ASM site number, which can be abbreviated by using the final set of digits, for
example, "746" for site -42 M:12:746.

Featnum and strat record the feature number and context from whch the artifact was recovered.
Both are assigned in the field.

Prov (provenience), bag, and obs (observation) combine to provide unique numerical designations
for each Desert Archaeology artifad. Prov and bag are assigned in the field, and obs is assigned
to artifacts f-rom multiple-specimen bags by the analyst.

Rawmat describes raw material and is strudured to allow accurate assessments at varying levels
of detail, depending on analyst skill. Fine, medium, and coarse refer to ganularity.

Lithclass identifies the general artifact dass to which the artifact belongs, as defined elsewhere
in this manual.

Lithfype denotes the specific artifact type, as defined by the technological attributes discussed in
tlus manual.

Pointclass and pointfype are used only for projectile points; these codes are listed in Table C.2.

Dmax refers to the maximum linear dimemion of the artifact, measured to .O1 mrn.

Weight is measured to .O1 g.

Cortex refers to the amount of cortex present on cores or on the dorsal aspect of flake artifacts.

Platfype describes flake platforms, as discussed in this manual.

Platgrind records the presence or absence of grinding of the edge formed where the platform
meets the dorsal asped of a flake.

Platlip records the presence or absence of platform lipping.

Temz records terrnination type, as discussed in the manual.

Burn records whether an artifact was burned. Buming is indicated by blackening, crazing,
potlidding, and/or color changes resulting from oxidation. It does not indude color and texture
changes in chert that result from heat treatment.
Page 60 Aweruiix B
Table B.?. Coding n d e r s for the general flaked stone artifact form.







100 medium aphanitic volcanic

198 fine aphanitic volcanic
199 coarse aphanitic volcanic

101 uncpecified basalt

140 basaitic andesite
104 andesite

102 unspecified obsidian

150 Govenunent Mt. obsidian
151 clear colorless obsidian
152 smoky translucent obsidian
153 cdorless/black banded
154 opaque black obsidian (Mule Creek/Cow Canyon)
155 smooth, translucent black obsidian
156 tranclucent grey obsidian (Chihuahua)
157 Apache tear

105 fine porphoritic volcanic

106 medium porphoritic volcanic
107 coarse porphoritic volcanic
108 medium greenish g e y volcanic/white & black phenocrystc

103 unspecified rhyolite

136 black rhyolite/white phenocrysts, fine
137 black rhyolite/white phenocrysts, rnedium
110 black rhyolite/black & white phenocrysts, fine
111 black rhyolite/biack & white phenoaysts, medium
11% black rhyolite/white & red phenocrysts, fine
129 brown rhyolite, with or without white phenocrysts, h e
113 brown rhyolite/white phenoaysts, rnedium (Tucson Mts.)
112 brown rhyolite/white phenocrycts, coarse
125 brown rhyolite/black & white phenocrysts, fine
Page ó2

brown rhyolite/black & white phenocrysts, medium

light grey-brown rhyolite, medium
grey rhyolite/white phenocrysts, medium
grev rhyolite/black & white p h e n q s t s , fine
grey rhyolite/black & w h t e phenocrysts, medium
grey rhyolite/large black & whte phenocrysts, medium
ashy grey rhyolite or andesite/black & white phenocrysts, fine
pink-grey rhyolite, fine (Tuc. Mts.)
pink-grey rhyolite, medium (Tuc. Mts.)
pink rhyolite/white phenocrysts, fine
pink rhyolitel white phenocrysts, coarse (Tuc. Mts.)
pink rhyolite/black & white phenocrpts, h e
pink rhyolite/black & white phenocrysts, medium
pink rhyolite/black & white phenoaysts, coarse
red rhyolite/white phenoqsts, medium
red rhyolite/whte phenocrysts, fine
red rhyolite/black & white phenocrysts, fine
red rhyolite/black & white phenoaysts, medium
reddish brown rhyolite, fine

120 fine dacite, lavender to white

unspecified fine metamorphic

unspecified medium metamorphic
fine metasediment
medium metasediment
siiicified limestone
ar@te/mudstone, green/geenish black
fine quartzite
fine sage- or mint-green quartzite
medium quartzite
medium sage-green quartzite
coarse quartzite
unspecified schist

300 unspecified sedimentary

301 sandstone
302 limestone
303 siltstone

400 unspecified uyptocrystalline silicate

402 chert
410 heated chert
411 Canta Cruz River bedload cherts
472 light brown-oranye chert/black flecks
413 Buffs chert
414 Windy Point/Hill chert
415 Chalk Mountain chert
Page 63

brown woodgrain chert

chert, lighter than Buff's, mottled
white candy-mottled cliert
white or cream or very light grey chert, or d of these variegated
Tonto Creek bedload diierts
like 417 but with a c r e m base, some orange and brown
other dark brown chert
crearn or light grey/purplish brown variegated chert
semi-translucent cream/light grey variegated chert
medium grey/light grey variegated chert
dark grey/brown variegated chert
Light grey chert
tanueam/whte chert, with sparkly inclusions
grey-green/brown variegated, dark green spedcs, sedimentary or superfine quartzite
black or very dark brown chert
buff-colored chert

brick red / salmon j asper
salmon jasper/specks
orange-red/red jasper
orange/red / white banded jasper
yellow jasper
yellow /red/ orange jasper
brown jasper

translucent orange/ tan/ grey chalcedony
translucent chalcedony (not milky)
opaque milky chalcedony
semi-translucent tan chalcedony
translucent milky chalcedony
semi-translucent grey chalcedony
translucent gnarly tan chalcedony

406 petrified wood

407 agate

501 unspecified volcanic or sedimentary, extremely h e , possible phenocrysts

500 unidentified/ other
600 burned (unidentifiable)
999 not yet identified (pending further research)

. -.
: debitüge
2 unifacially retouched ivplements
3 bifacially retouched implements
4 cores
5 core tools
(P P P I C ~ J m
~ ~ nCcbO

7 pcirut~rde rrint0
8 om
Page S

6 core hamrners
7 cobble hamrners
8 other

complete flake
proxirnal flake fragment
medial/distal flake fragment
split flake
complete bifacial thinnú\g flake
bifacial thinning flake, proximal fragment
bifaaal thining flake, medial/distal h,ment
bifaaal thinning flake, longtudínal fragment
bipolar flake
core rejuvenation flake
thermally fractured fragment
utilized flake
flake from hammer

composite scraper
denticulated endscraper o
denticulated sidesaaper e
denticulated composite scraper 0

concave endscraper
concave sidescraper
concave composite scraper o
acute ci end
acute ci side
acute ci composite

214 shouldered long-bit perforator

215 shouldered short-bit perforator
216 triangular perforator
217 small flake perforator
218 large flake perforator

219 backed flake

220 groundsdge flake
221 burin
222 notch l,

223 composite tool

226 steep cmn

Page 63

acute end cine

m e d i m end m ~ e
steep end CTL~
acute side crne
medium side ~ n e
steep side cine
acute composite m e
medium composite crne
steep composite ane

acute concave ,he

medium concav2 cme
steep concave m e
acute denticulated end cme
medium denticulated end a n e
steep dentidated end cme
acute dentidated side cme
medium dentidated side cme
Aeep dentidated side cme
acute denticulated cornposite a n e
medium denticulated composite une
steep dentidated composite m e

248 acute retouched fragment

249 medium retouched fragment
250 steep retouched fragment

251 acute irregular uniface

252 medium irrepiar uniface
253 steep irregular uniface

nonextensively retouched biface -

nonextensively retouched biface fra,ment
small irregular biface
large irregular biface
irreguiar biface fragment
general biface
general biface, media1 f r a p e n t
general biface, end fragment
general biface, longitudinal fragment
long-bit dril1 %\':\Ay {\!? k, ; [ql&\
short-bit driii
projectile point preform
projectile point prefonn, base
pnint pr~íonn,media¡ h a y i ~ n t
prcjectiie psint prefcnr.!projPcti?e pcint, tip
pro]ectde point preform, iongtudinal iragment
projectile point

343 wedge (ti$. -

Page 66

f .
399 bifaual flake chopper (WYo & c_hcyFn:r7; ,-i, l,
4 alternate retouch
346 discoid
398 micro-denticulate

single-platf orm core

opposed-platform core
bidirectional core
multiple-platform core
bifacial core
bipolar core
flake core0

core fragment
tested piece O
501 core scraper/plane LO ,j , lf':, , c a , S , . , ::: :7-
502 unifaual core chopper '

503 bifacial core chopper

504 composite cor~?.tool
305 core wedge
506 core notch
507 core dentidate

601 core hamrner

602 core hamrner fragment

701 cobble hammer

702 hammer fragment

801 other
802 pendant
803 possible pendant

999 not yet identified (pending further research)


Southwestem Early Archaic
Southwestern Middle Archaic
Southwestem Late .4rchaic/Early Agridtural/Early Ceramic
Great Basin (Middle Archaic through historic)
Pueblo/ Sinagua
Page 67

01CO unspeciiiea Paleoinciian

o101 C~OT.~S
0102 Folsom
0103 Plainview /Goshen/Belenn (Cady Complex)
0104 Agate Basin
0105 Eden
0106 Hellgap
0199 other named Paleoindian point

0200 unspecified SW Early Archaic

0210 San Dieguito/Yuma (leaf-shaped or lanceolate)
0220 Lake Mohave (long tapering stemmed)
0230 Jay/Ventana-Amargosa (broad tapering stemmed)
0299 other named SW Early Archaic póint

0300 unspecified SW Mddle Archaic

0310 Gypsum/Agustin
0320 unspecified Pinto/San Jose/Chiricahua series
0321 Pinto
0322 San Jose
0323 Chiricahua
0330 Cortaro (also Late Archaic)
0399 other named SW Middle Archaic

0400 unspecified SW Late Archaic/Early Agricuitural/Eariy Ceramic

0410 San Pedro
0420 unspecified Cienega
0421 Cienega 1
0422 Cienega 2
0423 Cienega 3
0424 Cienega 4

0500 unspecified Basketmaker

0600 unspecified Great Basin Archaic

0610 Humboldt series (Middle Archaic)
0611 Humboldt concave base
0612 Humboldt basa1 notched
0620 unspecified Elko series (Middle-Late Archaic)
0621 Elko corner-notched
0622 Elko side-notched
0623 Elko eared
Q5L' i J 0 ~ t . zide-r.ct&.2d
'3640 sems (X.D. 700 - 11C3)
iirwpecifiecl Ros? Spi-Ltg/Co'itc~iw-~u¿~Eastgate
0641 Roce Spring comer-notched
0642 Roce Spring contracting stem
0643 Cottonwood triangular
0644 Eastgate expanding stem
Page 68

0645 Eastsate split-stem

0650 Desert side notched (late prehistonc, historic)

unspecified Mogollon
unspecified San Francisco phase
San Francisco barbed
0720 unspecified Hilltop phase
0721 Hilltop comer-notched
0722 Hilltop lanceolate

0800 unspecified Hohokam/Salado

0801 unspecified Preclassic Hohokam/Salado
0820 unspecified Pioneer Hohokam/Salado
0830 unspecified Colonial Hohokam/Salado
0831 Colonial barbed
0832 Colonial tanged sternmed
0833 Colonial shouldered stemmed
0834 Santa Cruz barbed
0840 unspecified Sedentary Hohokam/Salado
0841 Sedentary serrated
0842 Sedentary wide-notched
0843 Sedentary intermediate-notched
0844 Sedentary narrow-notched
0850 unspecified Classic Hohokam/Salado
0851 Early Classic side-notched
0852 Middle Classic side-notched
0853 Late Classic side-notched
0854 Classic serrated
0855 Classic triangular
0856 Classic thin triangular
0857 Classic long triangular
0859 Classic concave-based triangular
0860 Classic bulbous-based
0861 Classic flanged

0900 unspecified Pueblo

0901 unspecified Sinagua

1000 unspecified protohistoric

1001 unspecified historic
1010 Sobaipuri
1020 Apache
1030 Pima
1040 O'odham

9000 unknown type

9001 uikiowri Southwestem rype
9002 unknown Colorado Plateau type
9010 unspecified exotic type
9011 Andice (Big Bend, TX)
G t ~ e r F~ki k d Sione An$ac: Form Page ó9

9012 Shumla (Big Bend, TX)


1 1OO0/o cortical
2 some cortex present
3 no cortex present

1 cortical
2 plain
3 faceted
4 crushed
5 cortical, faceted (partially prepared)
6 cortical, crushed


1 present
2 absent

1 present
2 absent


1 feather
2 hinge
3 step
4 overshot

1 burned
2 possibly burned
O not burned


After being entered in the General Flaked Stone Arnfact Form, every projectile point is coded
using this form. The codes used are presented in Table C.2.

Cite is the ASM site number, which can be abbreviated by using the final set of digits, for
example, "7%"for cite A2 AA:12:746.

Feafnum and strat record the feature number and context from which the artifact was recovered.
Both are assiped in the field.

Prov (proveniente), bag, and obs ( o b ~ e ~ a t i ocombine

n) to provide unique numerical desiptions
for each Desert Archaeology arhfact Prov and bag are assiped in the field, and obs is assigned
to artifacts from multiple-spedmen bags by the analyst.

Reg-zon identifies the area withm khe Southwest from which the point was recovered.

Period and phase refer to the temporal placement of the context from which the point was

Matclass identifies the general raw material category of the point.

Rawrnat describes raw material and is structured to allow accurate assessments at varying levels
of detail, depending on analyst skill. Fine, medium, and coarse refer to granularity.

Pointclass identifies the general complex or technological tradition to which the point belongs.

Pointfype denotes the speafic point type.

Condition records the degree of point completeness.

Weight is measured to .O1 g, while al1 metrical ~ariablesare measured to .O1 mm. These
measurements are explained in Fi,we C.1.

Morphological variables are explained in Figure C.2.

Latgrind and basegn'nd refer to the presence or absence of gnnding on the lateral or basa1 edges
of a point.

Bevel records whether one or both blade edges have a resharpened bevel.

Flaketecir-recordswhat flaking technique-permion, pressure, or a combination of h e t w e w a s

used to finish the point.
Page 7 2
Page 74

Table C.2. Coding numbers for the projetile point form.




1 east-central Arizona/westcentral New Mexico

2 central Arizona
3 west-central Arizona
4 southwestem Arizona
5 south-central Arizona
6 southeastem A.rizona/couthwestern New Mexico
7 northwestern Me.uco




1 volcanic
2 metamorphic
3 sedimentary
4 cryptocrystalline siliceous rock, and quartz
5 unidentified

100 medium aphanitic volcanic

198 fine aphanitic volcanic
199 coarse aphanitic volcanic

101 unspecified basalt

140 basaltic andesite
104 andesite

102 unspecified obsidan

150 GovernmeAt-Mt. obei-
151 clear colorless obsidian
152 smoky translucent obsidian
153 colorless/black banded
P-:r~:iie ?oin: 'onn Page 75

iS4 opaque biack obsidian (Muie Creek/Cow Canyon)

155 smooth, translucmt black obsidian
156 translucenr grey obsidian (Chihuahua)
157 Apache tear

105 fine porphontic volcanic

106 medium porphoritic volcanic
107 coarse porphoritic volcanic
108 medium greenish grey volcanic/white & black phenoaycts

unspecified rhyolite
black rhyolite/whi te phenocrysts, fine
black rhyolite/whte phenocrysts, medium
black rhyolite/black & whte phenocrysts, fine
black rhyolite/black & white phenocrysts, medium
black rhyolite/white & red phenocrysts, fine
brown rhyolite, with or without whte phenoaysts, h e
brown rhyolite/white phenoaysts, medium (Tucson M&.)
brown rhyolite/white phenoaysts, coarse
brown rhyolite/black & white phenoaysts, fine
brown rhyolite/black & whte phenoaysts, medium
light grey-brown rhyolite, medium
grey rhyolite/ white phenoaysts, medium
grey rhyolite/black & white phenoaysts, h e
grey rhyolite/black & white phenocysts, medium
grey rhyolite/large black & white phenocrysts, medium
ashy grey rhyolite or andesite/black & white phenoqsts, fine
pink-grey rhyolite, fine (Tuc. Mts.)
pink-grey rhyolite, medium (Tuc. Mts.)
pink rhyolite/white phenocrysts, fine
pink rhyolite/white phenocrysts, coarse (Tuc. Mts.)
pink rhyolite/black & white phenocrysts, fine
pink rhyolite/black & white phenocrysts, medium
pink rhyolite/black & white phenocrysts, coarse
red rhyolite/white phenoaysts, medium
red rhyolite/white phenoaysts, fine
red rhyolite/black & white phenocrysts, fine
red rhyolite/black & white phenoqsts, medium
reddish brown rhyolite, fine

120 fine dacite, lavender to white

200 unspeafied fine metamorphic

208 unspeafied medium metarnorphic
201 fine metaseuiment
202 medium metasediment
203 silidied limestorie
206 ar$llite/ mudstone, green/greenish black
210 fine quartzite
212 fine sage- or mint-green quartzite
Page 76

204 medium quartzite

211 medium sag-een quartzite
205 coarse quarttite
220 unspecified cchist

300 unspecified sedimentary

301 sandstone
302 limestone
303 siltstone

unspecified ayptocrystalline silicate

heated chert
Santa Cruz River bedload cherts
light brown-orange chert/black flecks
Buff s chert
Windy Point/Hill chert
Chalk Mountain chert
brown woodgrain chert
chert, lighter than Buff's, mottled
white candy-mottled chert
white or aeam or very light grey chert, or all of these variegated
Tonto Creek bedload cherts
like 417 but with a a e a m base, some orange and brown
other dark brown chert
cream or light grey/purplish brown variegated chert
semi-translucent aeamllight grey variegated chert
medium grey/light grey variegated chert
dark grey/brown variegated chert
light grey chert
tan-aeam/white chert, with sparkly inclusions
grey-green/brown variegated, dark geen specks, sedimentary or superfine quartzite
black or very dark brown chert
buff-colored chert

brick red/salmon jasper
salmon jasper/ specks
orange-red/red jasper
orange/red/white banded jasper
yellow jasper
yellow/ red/orange jasper
brown jasper

405 c?talcedony
430 translucent orange/ tan/grey chaicedony
431 translucent chalcedony (not milky)
432 opaque milky chalcedony
Proieclile Point For?n Page 77

433 semi-translucent tan chalceiony

3 translucent milky chalceciony
435 semi-translucent grey chaicedony
436 translucent p a r l y tan chalcedony-

406 petrified wood

407 agate

501 unspeafied volcanic or sedimenta% extremely h e , possible phenocrysts

500 unidentified/ other
600 burned (unidentifiable)
999 not yet identified (pending further research)


Southwestern Early Archaic
Southwestern M d d l e Ardiaic
Southwestem Late Archaic/ Early Agricultural /Early Ceramic
Great Basin (Middle Archaic through historic)
Pueblo /Sinagua

O100 unspecified Paleoindian

0101 Clovis
0102 Folsom
0103 Plainview/Goshen/ Belenn (Cody Complex)
0104 Agate Basin
0105 Eden
0106 Hellgap
0199 other named Paleoindian point

0200 unspecified SW Early Archaic

0210 San Dieguito/Yuma (leaf-shaped or lanceolate)
0220 Lake Mohave (long tapering stemmed)
0230 Jay/Ventana--4margosa (broad tapering stemmed)
0299 other named SW Early Archaic point

0300 unspeafied SW Middle Archaic

9318 Gpsu~~/Ag~%ti'.
0320 uiipecified Pinto / S= :ose / C.hiiicah~a series
0321 Pinto
0322 San Jose
0323 Chiricahua
Page 78

0330 Cortaro (also Late Archaic)

0399 other named SW Middle Archaic

0400 unspecified SW Late -4rchaic/Early Agricultural/Early Ceramic

0410 San Pedro
0420 unspecified Cienega
0421 Cienega 1
0422 Cienega 2
0423 Cienega 3
0424 Cienega 4

0500 unspecified Basketmaker

0600 unspecified Great Basin Archaic

0610 Humboldt series (Midcile Archaic)
0611 Humboldt concave base
0612 Humboldt basal-notched
0620 unspecified Elko series (Middle-Late Archaic)
0621 Elko comer-notched
0622 Elko side-notched S
0623 Elko eared
0630 Northem sidenotched
0640 unspecified Rose Spring/Cottonwood/Eastgate series (A.D. 700 - 1100)
0641 Rose Spring comer-notched
0642 Roce Spring contractin, stem
0643 Cottonwood triangular
0644 Eastgate expanding stem
0645 Eastgate split-stem
0650 Desert side-notched (late prehistoric, historie)

0700 unspecified Mogollon

0710 unspecified San Francisco phase
0711 San Francisco barbed
0720 uncpecified Hilltop phase
0721 Hilltop comer-notched
0722 Hilltop lanceolate

0800 unspecified Hohokam/Salado

O801 unspecified Preclassic Hohokam/Salado
0820 unspecified Pioneer Hohokarn/Salado
0830 unspecified Colonial Hohokam/Salado
0831 Colonial barbed
0832 Colonial tangedstemrned
0833 Colonial shoddered-stemmed
0834 Santa Cruz barbed
0843 unspecified Sedentary Hohokam/Saladc
3841 Sedentary serrated
0842 Sedentary widenotched
0843 Cedentary intermediate-notched
0844 Sedentary narrow-notched
?rcGxtile Point F o m Page 79

9850 unspecified Classic Hohokam/Salado

0851 Early Classic side-notdied
0852 h4iddle Classic side-notched
0853 Late Clacsic side-notched
0854 Classic serrated
0855 Classic triangular
0856 Classic thin triangular
0857 Classic long triangular
0859 Classic concave-based triangular
0860 Classic bulbous-based
0861 Classic flanged

0900 unspecified Pueblo

0901 unspecified Sinagua

1000 unspecified Protohistoric

1001 unspecified historic
1010 Sobaipuri
1020 Apache
1030 Pima
1040 O'odham

9000 unknown type

9001 unknown Southwestern type
9002 unknown Colorado Plateau type
9010 unspecified exotic type
9011 Andice (Big Bend, TX)
9012 Shumla (Big Bend, TX)


1 complete
2 complete, impad fracture at tip/very tip missing/one ear missing
3 proximal fragment
4 media1 fragment
5 dista1 fragment
6 longitudinal fragment
7 very base missing

,Vletrical variables:





Page 30



M o ~ h oogical
l variables:

BLDSHAPE blade chape

1 triangular
2 excurvate triangular
3 incurvate triangular
4 parallel
5 excurvate
6 recurvate
7 excurvate/inwate
8 straight/excurvate


O absent
1 present


1 acute
2 acuminate
3 muaonate
4 obtuse
5 apiculate
6 broad

1 stemmed
2 not&ed
3 straight (stemless, notchless)
Prolectik Point Fom Page SI

1 markedly eqanding
2 slightly expanding
3 straight
4 slightly contracting
5 markedly contracting

1 symmetricai
2 asymmetrical

2 comer (includes side/comer notching e.g., San Pedro)

3 basai
4 side and basa1
5 other


1 aligned
2 offset

1 horizontal parallel
2 oblique parallel
3 expanding
4 horizontal contracting
5 oblique contracting
6 oblique parailel/oblique contracting (one of ea&)


1 shallow
2 deep


1 markedly concave
2 slightly concave
3 straight
4 ~:i,h?l.!g Cül?VEX
5 markedly convex
6 pointed
Page 32

O absent/NA
1 present

O absent/NA
1 present


O absent/NA
1 present

O absent
1 present

1 percussion
2 mostly percussion, some pressure
3 equal amounts percussion and pressure
4 mostly pressure, some percussion
5 pressure

1 collateral
2 horizontal transverse
3 oblique transverse
4 random
5 chevron
6 oblique collateral

Pmjec:ile ?oint Form P a g S3

F., ,*tb di&\

dista1 iip

aximum blade thickness

haít thickness

base (proximal end)

Figure C.1. Projectiie point morphology and metrical attributes.

Page 84 Appendix C

Figure C.2. Projectde point morphological variables.

Figure C.2. Projectiie point morphologicd variables.

~ B L D S H ~ P(blade
E shape)
1 trian&ar
2 excurvate triangular
3 incurvate triangular
4 parallel
5 excurvate
6 recurvate
7 excurvate/incurvate
8 straight /excurvate

(blade serration)
2 absent

c. DISTALTYPE (shape of distal end)

1 acute
2 acuminate
3 mucronate
1 obtuse
5 apiculate
6 broad

Jd. HAFTTYPE (haft type)

1 stemmed
2 notched
3 straight (stemless, notckless)

i/é STEMTYF'E (stem type-NA for stemless points)

1 markedi; expanding
2 slightly expanding
3 straight
4 slightly contracüng
5 markedly contracüng

f. STEMSYM (stem symmetry)

1 Symmetrical
2 asymmetrical

&NOTCHLOCAT (notch location-NA for unnotched points)

1 side IahrnC
2 comer (includes comer /side)
3 base bcc,<-1
+ base arici sicie
S other
h. NOTCHALIGN (notch ali,ment-for side-notched points only)
1 aligned
3 offset

A. N O T C H S W E (notch shape)
1 horizontal parallel I\Oiix i$ r4[. p la\( \74
-7 oblique parallel \?or\mhi\ o b \023~
3 expanding
4 horizontal contracting
5 oblique contracting
6 oblique parallel/oblique contracting (one of each)

j. NOTCHDEPTH (notch depth)

1 shallow
2 deep

k. BASETYPE (base type)

1 markedy concave
2 slightiy concave
3 straight
4 slightiy convex
5 markedy convex
6 pointed

1. FLAKEPATT (flaking pattem)

1 horizontal coilateral
2 horizontal transverse
3 oblique transverse
4 random
5 chevron
6 oblique collateral
- - - - -



Hands-on experience with lithic materials is essential to gaining an understanding of fiaked

stone analysis. To that end, practica1 exerases have been designed for use with several of the
following explanatory seciions. As with any scentific endeavor, success depends on replication
and comunication-that ís, the more times you perform a given exeruse, and the more you
discuss and compare your results with your colleagues, the better the quality of the resultant
knowledge for everyone involved.

The purpose of the exerases is to famdiarize you with the c h i n of behaviors involved in the
creation and use of stone implements. Choices must be made at each stage of a lithic artifact's
"life historyn-what raw material shouid be used, which particular cores would provide the best
Ilakes, which unaltered flakes would be suitable for a $ven task, which flakes would be likely
candidates for retouching and subsequent use as tools, and, during use, which flakes or tools
worth resharpening or reshaping as they duli and break and which ones should be discarded.
Going through the process ~ourselfshouid get you thinking about lithic artifacts from a
behavioral standpoint and shouid help you better understand some of the processes involved
in their creation.

Each general activity below comes with a list of suggested things to do, some of which shouid
be recorded on the accompanying fonns. Follow the instrudions and take some notes about
each specific activity so you will be able to write brief answers to the questions that accompany
each section. Again, discusing the questions and your responses to them with your coileapes
will be beneficial.

Before you begin knapping, a note about safety is warranted. As is to be expected when people
bang rocks together, the potential for injury is significant. It is inevitable that everyone who
uses flaked stone technology will experience at least a few smashed thumbs, cut fingers, and
blistered paims, particuiarly when working with the finer-grained materials that produce very
sharp edges. These injuries can be minimized, however, if appropriate precautions are taken:

Protect your hands. The best way to prevent cuts on the hand you are using to hold the core or
flake being reduced is to either wear a glove or wrap the core/blank in a glove or leather pad.
This is partidarly recomrnended when working with obsidian. When pressure flaking, wearing
a glove on your working hand is highly recommended. Aitemately, a hand g ~ a r dcan be
fashioned by pushing the pressure flaker through a hole in a s m d leather pad. If you do not
wish to use a glove or pad, be sure to press your fingers tightly against the surface from which
the flake will be removed. Holding the core/flake loosely d o w s the edge of the struck flake
to pivot away from the core and cut into y o u skin. After striking each flake, check your
~ s e m p anci
s remove sniail svlirtters of rock that wiil utherwise be uounded deeper into your
fle$ with siibsequent blows.
- Chake debris from your pants legs and-shirt, rather than brushing
it away wirh your bare iiands. Handle a fresiily B&d edge as you wouid a sharp knife, as flaice
edges may match or exceed the sharpness of a steel blade.
Page S8 W k D

Protect your eyes. If you do not wea? eyeglasses, safety glasses or goggles are strongly
recommended. Striking cores with hard hamrners creates shatter along with the larger da-!es,
aiI oi whch can tly up and strike you in the face, espeaaily when more brittle raw materials are
being used.

Protect your legs and feet. Closed shoes and lona pants are advisable to protect the lower
extremities from flying debris. Aprons are useful in this regard as well. Lf you think that any
debris may have gotten incide your shoes, remove the shoes and W e them bdore standing up
and walking .

Pay attention. Carefully aim your hammerstone blows, so as to avoid striking your fingers or
pinckuig your palm. You may find it helpful to lightly tap the spot you want to hit on the core
one or two times before striking it with fiiU force, as a means of guiding the blow. Try to have
an idea of what will happen when you strike a core or flake, anticipating the effects of the
amount of force you plan to use and your striking angle. Being aware of where other people
are while you are knapping rninimizes the chance that you will hit them with, or be hit by,
flying debris. It is quite possible that you may get cut and not realize it. Inspect your hands
and head from time to time to ensure that you have not incurred injuries that should be
attended to before continuing. A

Part One: Core Reduction

Goals: familiarity with the effects of different percussor types and striking angles

familiarity with the flaking qualities of different raw material types

understanding changes in core morphology through the course of the reduction process

familiarity with the types of debitage produced during core reduction

comparisons of assemblages produced by different knappers

With these safety tips in mind, pick at least two or three cores of different raw materials and
strike several flakes from them. Try to retrieve and examine each flake as you strike i t Locate
the platform, bulbar aspect, lateral margins, and termination. Note amountc of cortex on dorsal
surfaces and bulbar aspect attributes, such as bulbs of pefcussion, eraillure scars, and lances.
Try refitting flakes to the core as you strike them, and refit several flakes in sequence to get an
idea of how core morphology changes through the reduction process. Experiment with different
percussor types and striking angles, as well as different ways of holding the core as it is
struck-with your fingers, against your leg, and on an anvil. Consider the following questions
as you reduce your cores:

1. How many flakes were you able to remove before the core was exhausted?

2. What is tlIc n a W of *e assemblageyowhave prduced? For exartyle, . w b t a e the

relative frequenaes of complete flakes and flake fragments? What kindc of terminations
did you produce? How are the flakes shaped? What do the platfom and bulbs look
Ex~rcisesin Flakd S s n e Im~i--nt .hhnujacture ond Uje Page S9

3. What differences in flaking quality did you notice arnong the various raw rnateríals you
used? W-ere some easier to ilake tiian others? Were your answers to the questions above
different for different raw material Spes?

Xfter you have examined your assemblage and answered the fírst three questiom, trade
assemblages with some of your colleagues. Examine a sample oi their cores and debitage, and
try to refit flakes to ea& core. Mix up a few diíferent assernblages and try to separate and refit
them (the k s t attempt at this will be easiest if different material types are used). Wnen you
have finished, answer the following questions:

4. Could you tell a notable difference between your own assemblages and the others, based
on the "nature of the assemblage" question #2 above?

5 . How much success did you have in separating and refitting the different assemblages?

Part Two: Tool Production

Goal: understanding the ways in whch blanks may be retouched to produce tools, using hard-
and soft-hammer direct percussion and pressure flaking

First, select some of your flakes to retouch (reserving some to be used unaltered in Part Three
of the exercises). If you did not produce enough usable flakes, select some of those provided
in the boxes. Second, record the raw material Spes and draw outlines, side views, and cross-
sectiom of your blankc on the Tool Production Recording Form provided. Thud, produce some
tools, experimenting with different percusor Spes, striking angies, and blank prehension
techmques (different amounts of pressure with the fingers against the retouched a s e , holding
the blank against the leg) to produce different tjpes of retouch. Try both unifacial and bifacial
retouch, and try to rnake a variety of tools-a scraper, a notch, a perforator, a cienticulate,
etc.-for a variety of tasks (see list under Part Three below). Record the retouch technique(s)
used. Fourth, draw outhes, side views, and cross-sections of the tools next to the drawings of
the blanks from which they were produced. Consider the following questions as you work,
writing down the amwers when you are finished.

5. Did certain percussors seem to work better on different raw material5 than others?

6. If your tools broke during manufacture, could you tell what the problern was, e-g., you hit
the blank too hard or at the wrong angle, the material was internally flawed, etc.?

7. How much change do you see between blank and tool, based on the drawings? What
dirnension seems to have been altered the most for ea& tool type (outline, edge angle,

Part Three: Implement Use

Goal: understanding the deasion process required for performing a task with fiaked stone

understanding the effects of utilization on flaked stone tool morphology

Page 90 Appendix D

Below are Lists of worked materials and motor behaviors (actions). Pair materials and actions
from the Lists to create a variety of tasks, sudi as sawing wood, saaping bone, boring hide, etc.,
and &en select both toois and unretouched flakes that you thmk would be suitable for ea&. List
the tasks on the experiment recording form, along with outline and edge angle drawings of the
implements to be used. Factors to consider in implement selection include litiuc raw material,
edge chape, edge angle, and overall implement morphology. Is it comfortable to hold? Will its
edge configuration allow it to be used efficiently?

Worked Material: Motor Habit (action):

green wood soaked antler whitüing

dry wood fresh hide slicing
fresh bone dry hide sawing
dry bone tanned hide suaping
fresh antler meat chOpping
dry antler shell driing/boring

grass agave

For ea& experiment, describe the task to be performed on the Experimental Tool Recording
Fom. Make the carne type of tool drawings as for Part Two. Examine the flake or tool edge
you plan to use, making notes about its appearance. You will compare the appearance of the
unused edge with what it looks like after it has been used, so try to record details. If your
implement dulls or breaks, try to resharpen or reshape it through retouch, remembering to
record what the tool looks like both before and after you retouch it (with drawings and written
notes-use as many form as necessary for all of your data). When you have completed a task,
record a final set of data on the tool and edge morphologies and any usewear you see, along
with the elapsed time and your ohservations about the task you performed. You may wish to
try using a few different raw materials or edge angles for the same type of task. Compare used
and unused edges, both of the same and different raw materials.

8. Did certain raw materials dull or break more quickly than others?

9. For what tasks did certain raw materials seem to be best suited?

10. Did unaltered flakes perform better for certain tasks than retouched implements, and
vice versa?

11. Which of the tasks seemed easiest/hardest?

12. Did you find it necessary to resharpen or othenvise modify any of the implements
during a task? If so, what was the task, and were your modifications successful?

13. Based on the before-and-after drawings of the implements, what kinds of worked
materials and/or actions caused the greatest degree of alteration to the used edge?

14. Examine the implements used by another person. Can you differentiate between used
and unuscd edges, and if so, can you te& what Mks they were used for? Compare
tools used for the same task, but for different periods of time, and toois of different raw
materials used for the same task. What differences do you see?
E;ercijrj in F!nkeii Stone Irnplernent .Uanufac~huemi Use Page 91

Summary and Discussion

It mav be interesting to m i t e a bri& su- of your experiences with and general impressions
of thése exercises. Consider the opportunities and Iimitations presented to people by flaked
stone technology, and how they compare with those presented by the everyday technology with
which you are familiar. How wouid your daily life be hfferent if you had to rely upon flaked
stone? Do you think about flaked stone any differently than you did prior to completing the
in Faked Stone In?plemlsrt Manufmture and Use Page 93

hkler, Stanley A.
1989 Mass Analysis of Flaking Debris: studying khe forest rather than the ú-ee. In Altemative
Avproaches to Lithic Analysis, D. Henry and G. Odell, eds., pp. 5-118. Archaeological
Papers of the Arnerican Anthropological Assoaation No. 1.

/hdrefsky, WA.
1994 Raw-material Availability and the Orgarrization vf Technology. American Antiquity
5921- 35.

Bartlett, K.
1943 A Primitive Stone hdustry of the Little Colorado Valley, Arizona. American Antiquity

Binford, Lewis
1979 Organization and Formation Processes: Looking at Curated Technologies. Joumal of
Anthropological Research 35255-273.

Bostwick, Todd W.
1988 Projectde Point Analysis. h An Inaestigation of Archaic Subsistence ami Settlemnt in the
Harquahala Valiey, Maricopa County, Arizona, edited by T . W. Bostwick, pp. 253-393.
Northland Research, Inc., Fiagstaff.

Bradford, J.
1980 The Coronado Projed Archaeological hvestigations. Museum of Northern Arizona
Research Paper 17.

Chapman, R.C.
1977 Analysis of Lithic assernblages. h S e t t h t and Subsistence Along the Lower Chalco River,
ed. by C.A. Reher, pp. 371452. Aibuquerque: University of New Mexico.

Ciolek-Torrello, Richard
1987 Archaeology of the Mazatzal Piedmont, Central Arizona. Museum of N. AZ Research Paper
33, vols. 1 and 2.

Clark, John E.
1982 Manufacture of Mesoamerican Prismatic Blades: h Alternative Teduiique. American
Antiquify 47:355-376.

Lotterall, Brian, and Johan Kamminga

1990 Mechanics of Pre-Industrial Technology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Crabuee, Don E.
1968 Mesoamerican Polyheciral Cores and Prismatic Blades. American Antiquity 33:406-478.
Page 96 Rgfkrolcs Citea

Craig, Douglas B.
1992 Chipped Stone Artifads. In T h Xye Creek Project: ~chaeologyin the U p e r Tonto Busin, Vol.
2, ed. by M. Elson and D. Craig, Center for Desert Ardiaeology Anthropological Papers
No. 11, pp. 315-245.

Donaldson, M.
1992 Lithic halysis. In Archaeological Investigations af Lee Canyon: Kayenta And Fannsteads
in the Upper Basin, Coconino Counfy, Arizona, S. Whittlesey, ed., pp. 91-110. Statistical
Research Teduiical Series No. 38.

Eppley, Lisa
1989 Chipped and Ground Stone Analysis. In Archaeological Investigations at the Redtail Site,
AA:12:149 (ASM), in the Northem Tucson Basin, M Bemard-Shaw, ed., pp. 131-150. Center
for Desert Archaeology Technical Report No. 89-8.

Flenniken, J. Jeffrey, and h a n W. Rayrnond

1986 Morphological Projectile Point Typology: Replication Experimentation and Technological
halysis. American Antiquity 51:603-614.

Frison, George C.
1976 Fossil Bison and Artifacts from an Early Altithermal Period Arroyo Trap in Wyoming.
American Antiquity 41:28-57.

Graff, C.
1985 Flaked Stone. In Excavations at the Valencia Site: A Preclassic Hohokam Village in the
Southem Tucson Basin, W. Doelle, ed., pp. 161-184. Institute for American Research
Anthropological Papers 3.

Harry, Karen, Mark Slaughter, and Alan Denoyer

1993 Experimenting With Raw Materials: How Accurate Are Inferences Derived fÍom Flake
Completeness Categories? Paper presented at the 58th Annual Meeting of the Soaety for
American Ilrchaeology, St. Louis, Missouri, April 1993.

Huckell, Bruce B.
1984 The Archaic Occupation of the Rosemont Area, Northem Santa Rita Mountains, Southeastern
Anzona. Archaeological Series No. 147, Vol. 1, Arizona State Museum, Tucson.

1990 Late Preceramic Famer-Foragm in Southem Arizona: A Cultural and Ecolo@ Consideration
of the Spread of Agriculture into the Arid Southwestem United States. Unpublished Ph.D.
dissertation, Arid Lands Resource Sciences, University of Arizona, Tucson.

1993 The Southwestem Archaic: Scale and Perception of Preceramic Hunter-Gatherers. Paper
presented at the 58th Annual Meeting of the Soáety for American Archaeology, S t Louis.

1995 Of Marches and Maize: Preceramic Agricultura1 S e t t l e m t s in the Cienega Valley, Southeastem
Arizona. Anthropological Papers No. 59. University of Arizona, Tucson.

1996 Style and Substance: Projectile Points, the Cochise Culture and the Archaic Prehistory
of the Southem Deserts of the American West. Paper presented at the 61st Annual
Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, New Orleans.
. \ k n u a i p r Flaiíed jione Amiysis Page 97

E ~ c k e l iBruce
, B., Brenda G. Randolph, and Danielle 3esniisse~ux
1993 Phase 2 Arcllaeological Tzsting Report and Phase 2 Data Recovery Proposal fOr the ADCT
Sycamore Creek Project, Tonto Basin, Arizona. Tedinical Report No. 934. Center for Desert

Lrwui-Wiliiams, Cynthia
1973 The Oshara Tradition: Origins of Anasazi Cultue. E a s t m Nerr Mexico Uniumsity
Contributions in Archaeology 5(1).

/deley, Lawrence H.
1980 Experimental Determination of Stone Tool Uses. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

A 9 8 2 Hafting and Retooling: Effeds on the Archaeological Record. American Antiquity


/kuhn, Steven
1989 Hunter-Gatherer Foraging Organization and Strategies of Artifad Replacement and
Discard. In Expenmnts in Lithic Technology, ed. by D. k c k and R Mauldin, pp. 3347.
BAR Lnternational Series 528.
Lancaster, Judith
1993 Chpped Stone Analysis for the Tator Hills Project. In Archaic Ocmption on the Santa
Cruz Flats: the Tator Hills Project, edited by C. Halbirt and K. Henderson, pp. 231-278.
Flagstaff: Northland Research, Inc.

Loendorf, Chris and Arleyn W. Simon

1996 Flaked- and Carved-Stone Assemblages from the Cline Mesa Sites (draft). In Salado
Residential Settlements on Tonto Creek, Roosevelt Platform Mound Ctudy: RPport on the Cline
Mesa Sites, Cline Terrace Complex, edited by Theodore J. Oliver and David Jacobs,
Roosevelt Monograph Series 9, Anthropological Field Studies 38, Arizona State

Luedtke, Barbara E.
1992 A n Archaeologict's Guide to Chert and Flint. Archaeological Research Tools 7. Institute of
Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.

Lyons, P.
1994 Desaibing and Explaining Lithic Variability at Prehistoric Puebloan Sites. Paper
presented at the 59th Annual Meeting of the Soáety for American Ardiaeology, Anaheim,

Lvlabry, Jonathan B.
1996 Archaeological Investigations at Early Village Sites in the Middle Santa Cruz Valley: Analyses
and Syntheses. Anthropological Papers No. 19. Center for Desert Archaeology, Tucson.

&&e. M. P. R.
1959 Lithic Reduction Stages and Assemblage F o m t i o n Processos. Ln Expenrnents in Lithrc
Technology, edited by D. Ami& and R. Mauldin, pp. 15-31. British kchaeoiogicd Reporis
Intemational Series 528.
Page 98 R@rmces Cited

Martin, P. and J. Rinaldo

1960b Table Rock Pueblo, Arizona. Fieldiana: Anthropology 51(2).

/0akleY, Kenneth P.
1972 Man t k T o o l - d . University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Oliver, Theodore J.
1995b Flaked- and Carved-Stone Assemblages from U:4:33/132. In A Salado Phtfonn Mound on
Tonto Creek. Report on the Cline Terrace Mound, Cline Terrace Cornplex (1995 Draff), ed. by
D. Jacobs, pp. 9.1-9.25. Roosevelt Monograph Series 7. Anthropological Field Studies 36.
Ofíice of Cultural Resource Management, Arizona State University, Tempe.

h a r r v , W. and Keiiv, R.
1986 Expedient Core Technology and Sedentism. In The Organizution of Core Technology, J.
Johnson and C. Morrow, eds., pp.. 285-304. Boulder: Westview Press.

Prentiss, W. and E. Romanski

1989 Experimental Evaluation of Sullivan and Rozen's Debitage Typology. In Experiments i n
Lithic Technology, ed. by D. Ami& and R. Mauldin, pp. 89-99. British Archaeological
Reports International Series No. 528. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.

Jf¿cklis, R.A. and K.A. Cox

1993 Examining Lithic Technological Organization as a Dynamic Cultural Subsystem: the
Advantages of an Expliatly Spatial Approach. Arnerican Antiquiíy 5 8 : W 6 1 .

Rozen, Kenneth C.
1981 Patterned Associations Among Lithic Technology, Site Content, and Time: results of
the TEP St. Johns Project lithic analysis. In Prehictoy of the St. Johm Area, East-Central
Arizonar The TEP St. Johns Project, by D.A. Westfaii, pp. 157-232. Arizona State Museum
Archaeological Series No. 153.

1984 Flaked Stone. In Hohokam Habitation Sites in t k Northem Santa Rita Mountains, by A. Ferg,
K. C. Rozen, W. L Deaver, M D. Tagg, D. A. Phiüips, Jr., and D. A. Gregory, pp. 421-604.
Archaeological Series No. 147, Vol. 2, Part 1. Cultural Resource Management Division,
Arizona State M u s e u a

Sackett, Jarnes
1984 Style and Ethniaty in the Kalahari: A Reply to Weissner. A d c a n Antiquiíy 50:154-159.

Scluffer, Michael B.
1987 Fonnation Processes of the Archaeological Record. University of New Mexico Press,

Shackley, M. Steven
1995 An Energy Dispersive X-Ray Flourescence (EDXRF) Analysis of Obsidian Artifacts from
- Thiee Late Archaic Sites in the Tucson Basin, Arizona AZ AA:12:745, 746, and EB:13:425
(ASM). Ms. on file, Desert Archaeology, Inc., Tucson.

Shott, Michael J.
1989 On Tool-Class Use lives and the Formation of Archaeological Assemblages. American
A n tiquiíy 54:9-30.
.Mnnul for ,=!akd S h e AmlysU Page 99

Ciiva, R. Jane
1996b Flaked Stone Artifacts. In Archaeologzcal Investigations at Early Village Sites in the Midule
Canta Cruz Valley: Analyses and Syntheses, edited by J. B. Mabry. Anthropological Papers
19, Center for Desert Archaeology Tucson.

1997 Temporal, Spatial, and Functional Variability in the Flaked Stone Assernblage. Tn
Archaeological Inwstigntions along Tonto Creek, Vol. X: Lithic Ctz~aies,ed. by J. Clark.
Anthropological Paper, Center for Desert Archaeology, Tucson, in preparation.

~ u l l i v a n Alan
, P., m,and Kenneth C. Roíen
1985 Debitage Analysis and Archaeological Tnterpretation. American Antiquity 50:755-779.

Tagg, Martyn D.
1994 Projectile Points of East-Central Arizona: Forms and Chronology. In Middle Little
Colorado Riuer Archaeology: From the Parks to the People, edited by A. T. Jones and M. D.
Tagg, pp. 87-147. The Arizona Archaeologist No. 27. Arizona Archaeological Society,

&da, Steven A.
1989 Differentiating Lithic Reduction Techniques: an Experimental Approach. In Experirnents
in Lithic Technology, ed. by D. Arnick and R. Mauldin, pp. 127-162. British Archaeological
Reports Tnternational Series no. 528. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.

Vaughan, Patrick C.
1985 Use-wear Analysis of Flaked Stone Tools. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Weissner, Poliy
1983 Style &d Social Mormation in Kalahari San Projectile Points. A m . c a n Antiquiiy 48:253-

Wendorf, F. and T. Thomas

1951 Early Man Sites near Concho, Arizona. Arnerican Antiquity 17:107-114.

Wills, Wirt H.
1988 Early Prehistoric Agriculture in the Amcaeinr Southwest. Cchool of American Research Press,
Santa Fe.

Yarborough, C.
1986 The Chipped Stone Assemblage. T n The 1985 Excavations at the Hodges Site, Pima Counfy,
Arizona, R Layhe, ed., pp. 127-166. Arizona State Museum Archaeological Series No. 170.

Y erkes, Richard W.
1987 Prehistoric Life on the Mississippi Flooaplain: Stone Tool Use, Settlement Organization, and
Subsistente Practices at the Labras Lake Cite, nlinois. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Hafting and Retooling

Keeley, Lawrence H.
1982 Hafting and Retooling: Effects on the Archaeological Record. American Antiquity

1987 Hafting and "Retoolirig" at Verberie. In La MaUl et I'Outil: Manches et Emmanchements

Prehistonques. Travaux de la Maison de l'orient, No. 15.

Miscellaneous Lithic Technology and Analysis

Addington, Lucille R.
1986 Lithic íllustration: Drawing FIaked Stone Artifncts for Pzlblication. University of Chicago
Press, Chicago.

Bleed, Peter
1986 The Optimal Design of Hunting Weapons: Maintainability or Reliability. Arnerican
Antiquity 51:737-747.

Clark, John E.
1982 Manufacture of Mesoamerican Prismatic Blades: An Altemative Technique. Arneric~zn
Antiquity 42355-376.

Cotterall, Brian, and Johan Kamminga

1979 The Mechanics of Flaking. In Lithic Use-Wear Analysis, edited by Brian Hayden, pp.

1990 Mechanics of Pre-Industrial Technology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Crabtree, Don E.
1972 An Introduction to Flintworking. Occasional Papers No. 28. Idaho State University
Museum, Idaho State University Museum, Pocateilo.

Hayden, Brian, and W. Karl Hutchings

1989 Whither the Billet Flake? In Experirnents in Lithic Technology, edited by D. S. Amick
and R. P. Mauldin, pp. 235-258. British Archaeological Reports International Series

Slaughter, Mark (editor)

1992 Making and Using Stone Artifacts: Lithic Sites in Arizona. Archaeological No. Report 92-
5. SWCA-, h., 'Frrcs~n.

Whittaker, John C.
1994 Flintknapping: Making and Understanding Stone Tools. University of Texas Press,
Page 102 Suggested M i n g .

Mobility Patterns and Lithic Technology

Birúord, Lewis R.
1979 Organization and Fomation Processes: Looking at Ciirated Technologies. Iournal of
Anthropologi.ca1 Research 35:255-273.

Kelly, Robert L.
1988 The Three Sides of a Biface. ~merz'canAntiquity 53:717-734.

Parry, W., and R. Kelly.

1986 Expedient Core Technology and Sedentism. In The Organization of Core Technology,
edited by J. Johnson and C. Morrow, pp. 285-304. Westview Press, Boulder.

Torrence, Robin
1983 Time Budgeting and Hunter-Gatherer Technology. In Hmter-Gatherer Economy in
Prehistory, edited by G. Bailey, pp. 11-22. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Palaeolithic Technology

Bordes, Francois
1961 Typologie du Paléolithique. Delmas, Bordean.

1969 Reflections on Typology and Technology in the Palaeolithic. Arctic Anthropology 6:l-

Campbell, J. B.
1978 The Upper Palaeolithic of Britain. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Oakley, Kenneth P.
1972 Mizn the Tool-Maker. University of Chicago Press, Qiicago.

Soffer, Olga A. (editor)

1991 Archaeological Dictionary of Stone Took. Institute of Archaeology an SSSR, Moscow.
May be available from Dr. Soffer, Dept. of Anthropology, University of Iiiinois, 109
Davenport Hail, Urbana, illinois 61801.

Wymer, John
1982 The Palaeolithic Age, Croom Helm, London.

Projectile Point Classification

Flenniken, J. Jeffrey, and Anan W. Raymond

1986 Morphologicai Projectile Point Typology: Replication Experimentation and Technological
Analysis. American Antiquity 51:603-614.

Frison, Gcorge C. -- -

1976 Foscil Bison and Artifacts from an Early Altithermai Period Arroyo Trap in Wyoming.
American Antiquity 41:28-57.
. i l m ~ i - Ú rF h k a S t m Íinnlysis Page 103

Heizer, Robert F., and Thomas R. Hester

1978 Great Basin Projectile Points: F o m and Chronology. Publications in -4rchaeology,
Etbology and History NO. 10. .Ballena Precs, Socorro, New Mexico.

Gladwin, Harold S., Emil W. Haury, E. B. Sayles, and Nora Gladwin

1965 Excavations at Snaketown: Material Culture. Reprinted. University of m o n a Press,
Tucson. Origmally published 1938, Medallion Papers No. 25, Gila Pueblo, Globe,

Jelinek, Arthur J.
1976 Form, Function, and Style in Lithic halysis: In Cultural Change and Cantinuify: Essays
in Honor of James Bennett Gr-ifin, edited by C. E. Qeland, pp. 22-33. Academic
Press, New York.

Justice, Noel D.
1987 Stone Age Spear and Arrow Points of the MidcontimtaZ and Eastem United States: A
Modern Survey and Referente. Indiana University Press, Bloomington.

O'Brien, Michael J. and Robert E. Warren

1983 An Archaic Projectile PoidSequence from the Couthern Prairie Peninsula: The Pigeon
Roost Creek Site. In Archaic Hunters and Gatherers in the Amer-ican Midwest, edited by J.
L. Phillips and J. A. Brown, pp. 71-98. Academic Press, New York.

Shott, Michael J.
1993 Spears, Darts, and Arrows: Late Woodland Hunting Techniques in the Upper Ohio
Valley. American Antiquity 58:42543.

Thomas, David Hurst

1978 Arrowheads and Atiatl Darts: How the Stones Got the Shaft. Amen'can Antiquity 43:461-

1981 How to Classlfy the Projectile Points from Monitor Valley, Nevada. Journal of Cal<fomia
and Great Basin Anthropology 3:7-43.

Raw Material

Camilli, Eileen L.
1998 Lithic Raw Material Selection and Use in the Decert Basins of South-Central New Mexico.
The Kiva 53:147-163.

Hughes, Richard E. (editor)

1984 Obsidian Studies i n the Great Basin. Contributions of the University of California
Archaeological Research Facility No. 45. University of California, Berkeley.

LucUtkc, 3 a l - V E.
~ ~
1392 A n A Y C ~ O ~ Guide ' S anb Flit~t. A-hecilogical Rssearch Tmls No. 7. Irotitüts
O ~ Sto ~Clzert
of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.
Page 104 Suggated Rendnig

-Uadsen, John H.
1993 Geology of the Lower Santa CIUZRiver Drainage Basin: A Piiot Study of Prehistoric Stone
Procurement. In The Northem Tucson Basin Survey: Research Drections and Background
Studies, edited by J. H. Madsen, P. R. Fish, and S. K. Fish, pp. 59-82. Archaeological
Series No. 182. Arizona State Museum, University of Arizona, Tucson.

Mitchell, Douglas, and M. Steven Shackiev

1995 Classic Period Hohokam Obsidian Studies in Southern Arizona: A Review and
Prospectus. Joumal of Field Archaeology 22291-304.

Shackiey, M. Steven
1988 Sources of Archaeological Obsidian in the Southwest: An Archaeological, Petrological,
and Geochemical Study. American Antiquity 53:752-772.

1995 Sources of Archaeological Obsidian in the Greater American Southwest: An Update and
Quantitative Analysis. American A n tiquity 60(3).

Style J

Sackett, James
1982 Approaches to Style in Lithic -4rchaeology. Joumal of Anthropological Archaeology 1:59-112.

1984 Style and Ethniaty in the Kaiahar-i: A RepIy to Weissner. American Antzquity 50:154-159.

1985 Style, Function, and Assemblage Variability: A Reply to Binford. Amerícan Antiquity

1986 Isochrestism and Style: A Clarification. Joumal of Anthropological Archaeology 5:266-277.

1989 Style and Ethniaty in Archaeology: The Case for Isochrestism. In The Use of Style in
Archaeology, edited by M. Conkey and C. Hastorf, pp. 3243. Cambridge University Press,

Weissner, Polly
1983 Style &d Social Mormation in Kalahari San Projede Points. American Antiquity 48:253-

Usewear Analysis

Aldenderfer, Mark S., Larry R. Kimball, and April K. Sievert

1989 Miaowear AnaIysis in the Maya Lowlands: The Use of Functional Data in a Complex
Soaety Setting. Joumal of Field Archaeology 16:47-60.

Anderson, Patricia C.
-1986-8 T e s ~ i of ~ P~~yd u s i ~ rTaskc:
ic -Diap&Rssldues o r i c m c Tool Working Edges.
World Archaeology 12:181-193.
'Manual for Flnked S t m Ann-is Page 105

BarnfoPA, Douglas B.
1988 Investigating Microwear Polishes with Blind Tests: The Inslituk Results in Context.
Journal of L4rchaeologicalScience 15:ll-23.

Hayden, Brian (editor)

1979 Lithic Use-Wear Analysis. Academic Press, New York.

Juel Jensen, Helie

1988 Functional Analysis of Prehistoric Flint Tools by High-Power Miuoscopy. A Review of
West European Research. Journal of World Prehistory 2:53-88.

Keeley, Lawrence H.
1980 E-verimental Determination of Stone Tool Uses. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Phillips, James L.
1991 Refitting, Edge-Wear and Chaines Opératoires: A Case Study fmm Sinai. In 75 Ans
df¿tudes Technologzques en Préhistoire. XIe Recontres Internationales d'kchéologie et
d'Histoire dlAntibes. Éditions ARDCA, Juan-les-Pins.

Richards, T. H.
1988 Microwear Pa tterns on Experimental Basa1t Tools. British Archaeological Reports
International Series 460. Oxford.

Semenov, Sergei A.
1964 Prehistoric Technology. Barnes and Noble, New York.

Vaughan, Patrick C.
1985 Use-wear Analysis of Flaked Stone Tools. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Wilmsen, Edwin N.
1968 Functional Analysis of Flaked Stone Artifacts. American Antiquity 33:156-161.

Yerkes, Richard W.
1987 Prehistoric Life on the Mississippi Floodplain: Stone Tool Use, Settlernent Organization, and
Subsistente Practices at the Labras Lake Site, nlinois. University of Chicago, Press Chicago.

Yerkes, Richard W. and P.N. Kardulias

1993 Recent Developments in the Analysis of Lithic Artifacts. Joumal of Archaeological Research

Young, Donald, and Douglas B. Bamforth

1990 On the Macroscopic Identification of Used Flakes. American Antzquify 55:403-409.

Похожие интересы