Upper Paleolithic Burins: Type, Form and Function 9780860545606, 9781407347172

Table of contents :
Front Cover
Copyright
Acknowledgements
Table of Contents
List of Figures
List of Tables
Chapter 1: Theoretical and Methodological Background: A History of Burin Research
Chapter 2: Research Design: Materials and Methods
Chapter 3: Results
Chapter 4: Type, Form, and Function: Conclusions, Implications, and Suggestions for Future Research
Appendix A:
The Archaeological Sample
Appendix B: Illustrations of the Archaeological Sample
Appendix C: The Experimental Sample
Appendix D: Illustrations of the Experimental Sample
Appendix E: Illustrations of the Polish Occurrences
Appendix F: Plates
References Cited

Citation preview

Upper Paleolithic Burins Type, Form and Function

Heidi .·Knecht

BAR International Series 434

1988

B.A.R. 5, Centremead, Osney Mead, Oxford OX2 ODQ, England.

GENERAL EDITORS A.R. Hands, B.Sc., M.A., D.Phil. D.R. Walker, M.A.

BAR -8434, 1988: 'Upper Paleo lithic Burins' © Heidi Knecht, 1988

The author’s moral rights under the 1988 UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act are hereby expressly asserted.

All rights reserved. No part of this work may be copied, reproduced, stored, sold, distributed, scanned, saved in any form of digital format or transmitted in any form digitally, without the written permission of the Publisher. ISBN 9780860545606 paperback ISBN 9781407347172 e-book DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9780860545606 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library This book is available at www.barpublishing.com

Les typologues ont souvent employé des termes i nathén tatiques ou technologiques et fréquement, par la suite, le nom du type sen ible avoir influence la recherche de la fonction reelle de l 'objet. Le burin est certainement un des meilleurs exemples de cette dén tarche de 11esprit. A .

Rigaud

1 972:104

Acknowledgements

This work was originally presented in the f orm of a master's thesis to the Department of Anthropology, New York University, in 1 986. My most heartfelt thanks go to Dr. Randy White who introduced me to Paleolithic archaeology and, more importantly, to archaeological interpretation. The ideas in this study would not be developed to the extent to which they are were it not for our countless hours of discussion. As with all such projects, this study has benefited from the thoughtful input and technical expertise of several individuals. Dr. Howard Winters read and provided insightful comments on early drafts. Dr. Jean DeRousseau offered helpful suggestions concerning the quantitative techniques used in the morphological analysis. I am grateful to Drs. Irving Brick and Monroe Yoder of the Biology Department of New York University for unlimited instruction and use of the

equipment

in their

laboratories.

The archaeological sample of burins was made available through the generous loan of collections to New York University by the Royal Ontario Museum and the Department of Geology, University of Alberta. Special thanks go to Hildi Hendrickson for her friendship and enthusiastic academic encouragement. Linda Katz was, perhaps unknowingly, a constant source of motivation and support. Finally, I thank Mitch Knecht without whom none of this would have been any fun. This work is dedicated to my grandparents, Sidney and Frieda Steiner, who have taught me the importance of education and knowledge.

1

Table of Contents

List

of Figures

6

List

of Tables

9

Chapter

1 :

Theoretical

and Methodological

A History of What

is

Background:

Burin Research

1 0

a Burin'

1 0

The Recognition of Burins

as

a Class

of Tools

1 5

Burin Typology

1 6

Burin Function

29

A .

Inferred Function

29

B .

Effective

2 9

C .

"Actual"

Chapter 2 :

Function Function

Research Design:

The Archaeological

36 Materials and Methods

Sample

41

Microwear Analysis Types

41

4 2

of Wear

4 3

A .

Striations

4 3

B .

Scarring

4 4

C .

Rounding/Smoothing

4 7

D .

Polishes

4 7

Microwear Analysis:

Methods

5 4

Experimentation

5 7

Morphological Analysis

6 3

2

Chapter

3 :

Results

6 5

Morphological Analysis

6 5

Blank Morphology

6 5

A .

Blank Length

65

B .

Blank Width

6 5

C .

Blank Thickness

6 5

Burin Morphology

7 3

A .

Facet Edge Angle

7 3

B .

Bit Width

81

C .

Bit Angle

81

D .

Symmetry

8 7

Summary of Results

of the Morphological Analysis

Microwear Analysis

9 3 9 4

Polish

9 4

Polish Distribution

95

A .

Ventral Trihedra] .

B .

Dorsal

C .

Bit Width

1 01

D .

Facet Edge

103

Trihedral

Bit Corner Bit Corner

Polish Type

95 100

1 05

A .

Bone Polish

108

B .

Antler Polish

1 08

C .

Wood Polish

1 10

D .

Hide Polish

1 12

3

Rounding

and

Smoothing Trihedral

114

A .

Ventral

B .

Dorsal

C .

Bit Width

116

D .

Facet

118

Trihedral

Bit Bit

Corner

116

Corner

116

Edge

scarring

118

A.

Trihedral

B .

Bit Width

118

C .

Facet Edge

119

Summary

Bit

of the Results

Corners

of

118

the Microwear Analysis

1 21

Experimentation

1 23

Edge Used

1 23

A.

Trihedral

B .

Bit Width

1 23

C .

Facet

1 28

Material

Bit

Corners

1 23

Edge

Worked

1 28

A.

Antler

1 28

B .

Bone

1 29

C .

Wood

1 29

D .

Leather

1 29

Microwear Analysis Summary

of Results

of

of the the

Experimental

Tools

1 30

Experimental Analysis

1 30

Chapter 4 : Type, Form, and Function: Conclusions, Implications, and Suggestions for Future Research

1 32

Appendix A :

The Archaeological

1 37

Appendix

B :

Illustration

Appendix

C :

The Experimental

Sample

of the Archaeological Sample

4

Sample

1 43 161

Appendix

D :

I llustrations

of the Experimental

Appendix E :

I llustrations

of the

Appendix

Plates

F :

References

Sample. . 165

Polish Occurrences..

1 71 1 81

Cited

1 87

5

List

of

Figures

Figure

1-1

Burin Manufacture

1 1

Figure

1-2

Burin Features

1 3

Figure

1-3

Features

of a Burin Bit

1 3

Figure

1-4

Features

of a Burin Facet

1 3

Figure

1-5

Variations

Figure

1-6

Active Parts of Rigaud ( 1972)

in Burin Form a Burin as

1 4 Defined by 3 2

Figure

2-1

Scar Morphology

Figure

2-2

Microwear Analysis

Figure

2-3

Experimentation Data Collection

Figure

3-1

Histogram of Blank Lengths

66

Figure

3-2

Means and Standard Deviations of the Blank Lengths of Dihedral and Truncation Burins

6 7

Means and Standard Deviations of the Blank Lengths of Symmetric and Asymmetric Burins

6 7

Means and Standard Deviations of the Blank Lengths of Symmetric and Asymmetric Dihedral Burins

6 8

Means and Standard Deviations of the Blank Lengths of Symmetric and Asymmetric Truncation Burins

6 8 6 9

Figure

Figure

Figure

3-3

3-4

3-5

46 Data Collection

Forms.

Form

6 3

Figure

3-6

Histogram of

Figure

3-7

Means and Standard Deviations of the Blank Widths of Dihedral and Truncation Burins

70

Means and Standard Deviations of the Blank Widths of Symmetric and Asymmetric Burins

70

Means and Standard Deviations of the Blank Widths of Symmetric and Asymmetric Dihedral Burins

71

Figure

Figure

3-8

3-9

Blank Widths

55

6

F igure

3-10

Means

and Standard

Deviations

Blank Widths of Symmetric Truncation Burins F igure

3-11

Histogram of

F igure

3-12

Means

Figure

Figure

3-13

3-14

3-15

71

Blank Thicknesses

and Standard

Blank Thicknesses Truncation Burins F igure

Deviations of

Dihedral

Figure

Figure

Figure

3-16

3-17

3-18

3-19

7 2 of the and 7 4

Means and Standard Deviations of the Blank Thicknesses of Symmetric and Asymmetric Burins

7 4

Means and Standard Deviations of the Blank Thicknesses of Symmetric and Asymmetric Dihedral Burins

75

Means

and Standard Deviations

B lank Thicknesses of Symmetric Asymmetric Truncation Burins Figure

of the

and Asymmetric

Histogram of Angles

Left

Dorsal

Histogram of Angles

Left Ventral

of the and 75

Facet Edge 76 Facet Edge 7 7

Histogram of Right Angles

Dorsal

Facet Edge

Histogram of Right Ventral

7 8 Facet Edge

Angles

7 9

Figure

3-20

Histogram of All

Figure

3-21

Histogram of

Figure

3-22

Curves of the Histograms of Thicknesses and Bit Widths

Figure

Figure

Figure

3 -23

3-24

3-25

Facet Edge Angles

80

Bit Widths

8 2 Blank 8 3

Means and Standard Deviations of the Bit Widths of Dihedral and Truncation Burins Means and Standard Deviations of the Widths of Symmetric and Asymmetric Burins

8 4 Bit

Means and Standard Deviations of the Bit Widths of Symmetric and Asymmetric Dihedral Burins

7

8 4

8 5

Figure

3-26

Means and Standard Deviations of the Bit Widths of Symmetric and Asymmetric Truncation

Burins

85

Figure

3-27

Histogram of

Figure

3-28

Means and Standard Deviations of the Bit Angles of Dihedral and Truncation Burins

Figure

3-29

Bit Angles

86

Means and Standard Deviations of the Bit Angles of Symmetric and Asymmetric Burins

Figure

3-30

Figure

3-31

3-32

88

Means and Standard Deviations of the Bit Angles of Symmetric and Asymmetric Dihedral

Figure

Burins

89

Means and Standard Deviations of the Bit Angles of Symmetric and Asymmetric Truncation Burins Histogram of

the

Bit Angles

of

Figure

3-33

3-34

Histogram of Burins

89

Dihedral

Burins Figure

88

90 the

Bit Angles

of Truncation 91

Chi-Square Test of the Relationship between Type and Symmetry

8

92

List

Table

i-i

of Tables

de Sonneville-Bordes Burin Types

and Perrot's

21

Table

1-2

Movius et al.'s

Table

1 -3

Burin Types Based on Technique Manufacture

( 1968)

( 1956)

Burin Attributes.. of

26

Table

1 -4

Burin Types

Table

2-i

Microtopography of Various Types Polish

Based on Bit Morphology

4 9

2-2

Experiments

Table

3-i

Polish Occurrences

Table

3-2

Frequencies of Polish Occurrences Ventral Trihedral Bit Corners

on

Frequencies of Polish Occurrences Dorsal Trihedral Bit Corners

on

Frequencies Bit Widths

of

on

Frequencies Facet Edges

of Polish Occurrences

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

3-3

3-4

3-5

3-6

3-7

3-8

3-9

2 8

of

Table

Table

2 3

Performed

6 0 96

9 9

1 02

Polish Occurrences

1 04 on 1 06

Distributions and Frequencies of Unidentified Polish Occurrences

1 07

Distributions and Frequencies Polish Occurrences

of

Bone

Distributions and Frequencies Polish Occurrences

of Antler

Distributions and Frequencies Polish Occurrences

of Wood

1 09

i ll

1 13

Table

3-10

Rounding and Smoothing Occurrences

1 15

Table

3-11

Distributions and Frequencies PLUS Rounding Occurrences

1 17

Table

3-12

Scarring

Table

3-13

Results

on Bit Widths of the Experiments

9

of Polish

1 20 1 24

Chapter

What

1 :

Theoretical and Methodolo Q ical A History of Burin Research

Background:

i s a Burin?

Until quite recently, the study of burins has been dominated by the assumption that the significant attribute of this class of tools is the Furthermore, the bit i s considered analogous to the working aspect of a modern-day carpenter's chisel. Most inquiries into the typological and functional significance of burins as a class of tools have begun with the unquestioned assumption that these tools are in fact burins ( i.e., chisels). In this respect, the nomenclature of this class of tools has dictated the direction of research into the function of the tools. Essential to any successful analysis in which burins are concerned, then, i s close scrutiny of the history of burin research. Burins as a class of stone tools must be defined, burin typologies and their bases must be understood, and previous research of burin function must be explored. For this study, a burin i s defined as any tool from which one or more spalls were removed by the burin blow technique. Although this definition may appear convoluted upon initial inspection, i t seems reasonable once it is understood that a successful burin blow imparts several invariable characteristics onto the blank. Burin manufacture i s basically a two-step procedure ( Figure 1-1). First, a striking platform is prepared or a suitable pre-existing edge i s selected. Then, a sharp blow ( Fr. coup du burin) is struck upon this platform resulting in the removal of a burin spall ( Fr. chute du burin). The negative impression of the burin spall left on the blank i s called the burin f acet. If this piece i s considered the end-product of the manufacturing process, it i s termed a truncation burin ( if the platform was prepared by truncation), or a break burin ( if the platform was a pre-existing plane). If a subsequent burin blow i s struck, using the fracture plane resulting from the f irst removal as the striking platform, removing a second spall from the opposite side of the blank, a dihedral burin The

i s produced.

features

blow are

( Figure

resulting

from

every successful burin

1 -2):

*

a parallel-sided burin

facet and

*

the burin bit or bevel

( Fr.

1 0

biseau).

4 ,

1 . Blade i s truncated to prepare a suitable striking platform.

2 . Burin blow is struck against the platform, resulting in removal of a burin spall. The piece is now a truncation burin.

3 . Another spall may be removed to produce a dihedral burin.

F igure

1 .1

Burin Manufacture

1 1

The burin bit i s f ormed by the intersection of the burin facet and the striking platform. The bit i s generally oriented perpendicular to the plane of the blank, i . e., along the thickness of the piece. It should be noted that on a dihedral burin the bit i s actually the intersection of two burin facets. A burin bit i s characterized by several attributes ( Figure 1 -3). The points at the intersection of the bit and the dorsal and ventral surfaces of the piece are trihedral. The angle of the edge of the bit, herein called the bit angle, i s usually acute. Furthermore, due to the nature of the mechanics of stone fracture, a negative bulb i s formed at the top of the burin f acet causing the bit edge to be s lightly incurvate. The lateral edges of a burin f acet ( Figure 1 -4) always appear straight and unmarred by scars. The quantitative measurement of the angle of the lateral f acet edges, i .e., the angles between the f acet plane and the dorsal and ventral surfaces of the blank, i s dependent upon the direction at which the burin blow was struck. If the f acet i s canted onto either the dorsal or ventral surface, the result will be one acutely angled lateral facet edge and one obtusely angled lateral facet edge. If, however, the f acet is oriented perpendicular to the plane of the blank, the angle of the ventral f acet edge approaches ninety degrees while the angle of the dorsal f acet edge i s s lightly obtuse. There are myriad variations in burin form all of which are controllable by the manufacturing process ( Figure 1-5). The basic truncation, dihedral, and break burins can be further modified by successive removals of additional burin spalls. These removals may be parallel and adjacent to the f irst removal or they may be smaller shorter removals within the plane of the f irst burin facet. In essence: ( 1) the length of the spall removal can be controlled by f ashioning a notch at the desired end-point of the removal before the burin blow i s struck, ( 2) the burin f acet may be canted onto one of the planes of the blank, allowing for control not only of the orientation of the f acet but also of the orientation of the bit, ( 3) the precise location of the bit relative to the central axis of the blank can also be controlled, and ( 4) burin spalls can be removed from different ends or sides of the blank, thereby producing what are known as "multiple" burins.

1 2

b i t

f ace t

Figure

1- 2 .

Burin Features

t r ihedra l b it c o rne rs

A

Figure

1-3.

Features

of

a Burin Bit

f ace t e dges

f ace t p lane

Figure

1-4.

Features

1 3

of

a Burin

Facet

4"

1 .

Multiple

Spall

3 .

Removals

2 .

Variation

Orientation of Spall

4 .

5 .

Figure

1 -5.

in Spall

Removal(s)

O D

Placement of Bit

Multiple

Burins

Variations

1 4

in Burin

Form

Length

The Recognition of Burins

as

a Class of Tools

That Lartet and Christy had recognized dihedral median burins, at least those associated with endscrapers, as a c lass of tools i s apparent in Reliquiae Aquitanicae ( 1875). Numerous burins are i llustrated together in several of the plates ( e. g., Plates I I, VII, VIII, and XVI). I nterestingly, all of the burins shown are median, undoubtedly f acilitating the interpretation of this morphological attribute as a tang for hafting. Only one of the burins i llustrated i s a truncation burin ( Plate VII) and this i s a median burin with f ine truncation retouch which Lartet and Christy attributed to use damage. The caption to P late VII states: A series of Flint Implements, somewhat spatulate in f orm, having one end nearly semicircular, the other tapering, and the sides more or less parallel. . The small end in these implements suddenly tapers to a wedge-shaped point, produced usually by two or more bold l ateral fractures, perpendicular to the f lat f ace, and at an angle to the axis of the f lake. In some specimens the pointed end has been f ormed, or modified, by numerous chippings at the edges. In either case the pointed end i s f it for insertion in a handle. .

The earliest designation of a stone tool as a burin was made by Leguay in 1 877. Having been convinced by Piette that engraved stone objects were associated with a stone tool industry at the Grotte du Gourdan, Leguay set out to determine the precise means of manufacture of engravings in stone, bone, and antler. After c lose examination of Paleolithic objets d 1art on which the stone tools used f or engraving had left strong negative imprints of their shape and of the technique of f abrication, Leguay concluded that both the technique and the tool used f or engraving must have been similar to that of the modern artisan using a metal chisel. Careful study of an " amulette" made in micaceous schist recovered by Riviere at the Grottes de Menton spurred Leguay to a hypothetical description of the tool used for its manufacture: I i devait être assez long pour être fermement tenu dans l a main, et la section perpendiculaire au tranchant, celle qui représente l a cassure du couteau, pouvait racler comme l e ciseau, en meme temps que les deux angle, aux extremites de ce que j 'appelle la cassure, formaient deux angles dièdres qui représentaient de vrais burins ( 1877:287) Most important, this description

L eguay recognized stone tools i n the archaeological material: 1 5

f itting

Si mes deductions étaient r e11es, je n 'avais pas a chercher ailleurs le burin nécessaire pour graver ou scuipter les os ( Ibid.). Leguay manufactured the necessary stone tool and reproduced the schist " amulette." Continuing to experiment, Lequay successfully r eproduced Paleolithic bone engravings s t et touj ours avec ce meme type de couteau en s ilex, pourvu qu'il possede cette pointe q ue je viens d 'appeler Pointe burinante" ( 1877:289). As both Movius ( 1968) and Brezillon ( 1983) have pointed out, although Leguay ( 1877:295) called the working part of his graving tools a " Pointe burinante" and the support pieces " couteaux du type des Evzies", his description of the tools i s c lear enough f or us to be certain that he was referring to dihedral burins.

Burin Typology Extant burin typology was spawned over a period of more than 8 0 years during which burin categories were constantly being elaborated and reshuffled by Paleolithic archaeologists. Changing emphases i n burin typology have mirrored the changing goals and paradigms of archaeology over the past century. There have been three general approaches to establishing burin c lassificatory systems. Traditionally burins have been distinguished on the basis of their total morphology. Since burin f orm i s, in the grossest sense, dictated by the technique of manufacture, i t can be said that these burin types are determined at various burin production stages. From time to time, assuming the bit to be the functional aspect of all burins, archaeologists have a lso attempted to create burin typologies on the basis of bit morphology. The most recent attempts to elicit " meaningful" typologies have largely been based on the notion of the functional significance of variations in tool f orm. The earliest extensive descriptions of burin types are f ound in three publications written by L . Bardon and J . and A . Bouyssonie during the f irst decade of this century. In 1 903, Bardon and the Bouyssonies published their f irst description of truncation burins. They described a type of tool which i s l ike " un c irattoir avec burin lateral" ( 1903:165). The tool i s manufactured on a truncated blade. The end has characteristic scraper retouch and the lateral burin i s obtained by a removal from the side of the scraper of a bladelet parallel to the s ides of the blade. "De cette manière, le grattoir, au l ieu de se continuer comme l 'ordinaire par une l igne courbe et retouchée, s 'arréte brusquement en un biseau a l 'angle de la lame" ( Bardon, Bouyssonie, and Bouyssoniè

a

1 903:165). They continued with a detailed description of the possible variations of the shape of the tool: the l ine of the scraper i s generally oblique to the s ide of 1 6

the blade so that the burin f orms an acute angle with the scraper edge; s ometimes, however, the retouch i s nearly perpendicular so that the intersection of the retouch and the lateral f acet f orms a r ight angle; although the grattoir i s usually concave, i t may sometimes be convex or straight; i f the qrattoir i s strongly oblique to the sides of the blade, the burin bit ( which they call the " arête du burin") loses i ts sharpness and the tool takes the shape of a percoir. They additionally noted that a large number of burins are double tools. In 1 906, Bardon and the Bouyssonies published a description of three more types of burins. In describing the evolution of tool form through time at the Coumbo-del-BouItou ( Corrèze), they attempted to demonstrate the derivation of burins from carinated endscrapers. They posited that, over time, carinated endscrapers become e longated and narrow. Often, the two extremities of the endscrapers display lamellar retouch. To Bardon and the Bouyssonies, the transition to busqued burins i s evident when these tools are small or when the carinated endscraper i s manufactured on the thickness of blades instead of on small chunky pieces of stone. They provided several i llustrations which demonstrated this transition. Si on les regarde de prof i i, i ls présentent le biseau caractéristique du burin: 1 'une des faces du biseau est due aux lamelles de la retouche; 11autre est formée naturellement par le méplat déjà existant sous le grattoir, ou bien eile a éte f abriquée après coup par l 'enlêvement lateral d 'un éclat allongé et plat: "coup du burin" de M . Breuil ( 1906:407) Thus, to Bardon and the Bouyssonies, the original type of burin i s the busqued burin which i s f lat on one side and has elegantly curved convex f acets on the other. Their contention of the evolution of burins was strengthened by their claim that busqued burins tend to disappear with the later periods of the Paleolithic, the inverse of the other two types of burins. The second type of burin described by Bardon and the Bouyssonies in their 1 906 publication i s the burin d 'angle. This includes burins made on corners of truncated blades with the l ine of the truncation oblique or transversal, straight or concave. However, they emphasized that this does not include fortuitous burins f ormed on accidently broken blades " qui se rencontrent assez fréquemment dans les divers niveaux de l 'Age du renne, mais sont sans intér&t" ( 1906:409). When the truncation i s convex and the blade i s thin, the piece tends to become a bec de perroquet. They proceded to show a continuous gradient of the orientation of the retouch on carinated endscrapers from the ventral surface 1 7

to the thickness of the piece. This they claimed as the transition to the burin d 'angle. When the thickness of the piece i s thin, there are f ewer f acets. Over time, the removals no longer project onto the ventral surface. Finally, the retouch i s obtained by a s ingle blow. The f inal type of burin described by Bardon and the Bouyssonies i s the burin en bec de f lüte. They viewed this as a subsequent evolution from the burin busqué ( 1906:410-411) l 'angle terminal s 'accentue, l 'épaisseur de la lame est plus f aible, le nombre des lamelles diminue: par suite la ligne du biseau, tend de courbe devenir rectiligne; en m me temps apparait le " coup du burin" sur l 'autre face du biseau. L 'on arrive n 'avoir plus qu'un seul enl vement de chaque côte: c 'est le burin proprement dit.

a

a

Bardon and the Bouyssonies' publication ( 1910) of their excavation at the Grotte Lacost ( Corréze) includes extensive descriptions of four types of burins. For the f irst time, they delineated the general characteristics common to all types of burins: every burin has a sharp bit ( "biseau") which i s more resistant to breakage than the side of an ordinary blade; this bit i s obtained by the removal of one or more bladelets with a burin blow ( "coup du burin"). The four main categories of burins are defined on the basis of the orientation and number of burin spall removals. The f irst type of burin i s the burin bec de f lute for which they presented a more refined description than in their 1 906 publication: C 'est le burin classique du magdalénien; le plus simple d c tous: le biseau, place a l 'extrémité de la l ame, est forme par deux f aces q ui se rejoignent en un angle diédre assez aigu, dont l 'aréte est perpendiculaire au plan de la lame. I l n 'y a guère qu'un enlevement de chaque côté ( Bardon, Bouyssonie, and Bouyssonie 1 910:31).

a

The second major burin category i s made up of burins f acettes multiples. Bardon and the Bouyssonies reiterate that this category of burins i s derived from the carinated endscraper and the busqued burin. The bit i s generally polygonal and convex. The category i s further subdivided into two types: burins polyédriques which have multiple blade removals f rom two s ides of the bit ( if the bit i s wide these are called burin-ciseaux) and burin nuclélforme or burin prismatique which have lateral f acets manufactured on a thick blade or a small e longated block.

1 8

a

The third major category i s reserved for burins troncature retouchée. These may have a s ingle l ateral removal or multiple l ateral f acets. If the f acets pass onto the ventral surface of the blade, thinning the piece, the tool i s called a burin-plan. The last category of burins i s a catch-all category for " burins tronqués varies, sans retouche sur j , t roncature" ( Bardon, Bouyssonie, and Bouyssonie 1 910:33), i . e., burins manufactured on a break, tools with scalar retouch near the burin, and burins associated with endscrapers.

Bourlon ( 1911) drew from the classification of Bardon and the Bouyssonies ( 1906; 1 910) in establishing his burin typology. However, rather than according primary significance to the morphology of the entire tool, Bourlon f irst divided a ll burins into two groups based on the form of their bits. He called these burins biseau rectiligne and burins A biseau polyqonal. Bourlon compared the rectilineal bit to a chisel and suggested that its function was to make acutely angled grooves. Polygonal burins, on the other hand, he compared to a carpenter's plane which could be used to make round gutters. Bourlon further subdivided these two major groupings according to the position of the bit on the piece and the technique of manufacture of the two edges which intersect to f orm the burin bit. Burins biseau rectiligne could be burins bec de f lute, burins d 'angle, burins sur lame appointee, or bu r ins un seu l coup.

a

‚

a

'

a

Burins biseau polygonal could be burins busqués, burins prismatiques, or burins d 1angle f acettes multiple ( which may be burins-plans).

a

Bourlon's ( 1911) classification was e laborated upon by Burkitt i n 1 920. Writing in English, Burkitt translated Bourlon's two main groupings to be screwdriver type burins, that i s, burins with a straight working edge which would produce a V-shaped gutter, and gouge-like type burins, that i s, burins with a convex gouge-like working edge which would produce a U-shaped gutter. Stating that " in order that the tool should be a true burin it must have a t least one flat surface produced by a burin blow" ( 1920:306), Burkitt subdivided his two main types of burins on the basis of the technique of manufacture of the edge against which the f acet created by the burin blow i s backed. Noone ( 1934) the bit should c lassification.

claimed that the method of production of be the primary consideration in burin He recognized three principal methods of

burin production which are the basis of his main groupings of burins. The Spalled Order i s composed of burins manufactured by the removal of a spall from each of the two sides at one end of a blank. Burins of which the spall i s backed against " a series of small, thin disc-like chips" ( Noone 1 934:82) are assigned to the Scaled Order. The f inal category i s the Fluted Order which consists of burins manufactured by ( usually curved) 1 9

spallettes removed in series of two or more. Noone then divided these orders i nto types on the basis of the direction of each removal relative to the central axis of the blank. He further subdivided these types into varieties which are characterized by the number of spalls removed to form the bit. Apparently in disagreement with Burkitt's ( 1920) contention that a stone tool i s a burin if it had at least one spall removed by a burin blow, Noone ( 1934:91) suggested that burin forms which do not conform to the functional notion of burins as gravers should be considered as a separate c lass of tools. For example, the nucleiform burin, which Noone did not consider to be intended for engraving or carving but for work such as grooving or scraping, could be designated as a "Groover" or a "Groover Burin." In a comparative study of f lintknapping techniques, Bordes ( 1947:10-12) posited two types of burins from the point of view of technique of manufacture: burins troncature retouchée on which the truncation may be convex, concave, straight, or oblique, and burins deux enl vements convergents. If both of these removals are equally inclined to the blade's axis, the tool is a burin droit. If one of the two removals i s actually a break, the tool i s a pseudo-burin deux coups -de -burin. Burins busqu s are obtained from truncations or breaks perpendicular to the axis of the blade. Burins prismatiques are made by detaching several spalls from a single platform formed by the f irst burin blow at different angles relative to the ventral surface of the blade.

a

a

a

In 1 956, two type l ists enumerating several categories of burins were published in the Bulletin de la Societe Préhistorique Francaise. Laplace-Jauretche ( 1956:276-277) simply divided all burins into two classes, burins diadres and burins non diêdres, which were in turn subdivided on the basis of the morphology of the edge against which the burin f acet was backed. The well known type list of de Sonneville-Bordes and Perrot ( 1956), published in the same volume, is much more extensive. From the outset, de Sonneville-Bordes and Perrot segregated two major categories of burins: burins di dres and burins sur troncature retouch e. They then distinguished 1 8 types of burins ( Table 1 -1) on the basis of the method of manufacture and the morphology of the two edges whose intersection f orms the burin bit, the position and orientation of the burin bit on the support piece, and the association of a burin with another burin or another tool type on a s ingle piece. Although the type list established by de Sonneville-Bordes and Perrot continues to be the most widely used system of burin c lassification, attempts to define burin typologies have continued.

2 0

TYPE

#

BURIN TYPE

2 7

burin di dre droit

2 8

burin di dre d jet

29

burin dièdre d 'angle

30

burin d 'angle

31

burin multiple di dre

3 2

burin busqu

3 3

burin bec-de-perroquet

3 4

burin

sur troncature retouch e droite

3 5

burin

sur troncature

retouch e oblique

3 6

burin

sur troncature

retouch e concave

3 7

burin

sur troncature

retouch e convexe

3 8

burin transversal

sur troncature

3 9

burin transversal

sur encoche

40

burin multiple

41

burin multiple mixte

4 2

burin de Noailles

4 3

burin nuc1 iforme

4 4

burin plan

Table

1 -1.

sur cassure

sur troncature

de Sonneville-Bordes ( 1956) Burin Types

21

lat erale

retouchee

and Perrot's

Cheynier ( 1963 as cited i n Brezillon 1 983:171-172) established a c lassificatory system in which he divided a ll burins into s ix large groups: burins en biseau ou pans, burins d 'angle, burins sur m plat, burins coche, burin bec de perroquet, and micro-burins. He further broke these groups i nto categories and then varieties on the basis of the morphology and direction of the spall removals and/or the morphology of the support.

a

In 1 966, Pradel designed a system to be used to classify burins on the basis of hierarchically defined morphological characteristics. Pradel ( 1971:562) strongly emphasized his contention that " in examining any implement, i t i s logical to consider f irst its morphology, for technique i s only a means to that end." Assuming the bit to be the active part of all burins, Pradel stressed the primary significance of the f orm of the bit, including its shape, length, and angle, in burin classification. Significantly, the names . Pradel assigned to his primary burin types, burins arete rectiligne and burins a arete brisée, are strongly reminiscent of those used by Bourlon ( 1911). According to Pradel, these two major burin categories should be further subdivided on the basis of the position of the bit on the piece. The f inal factor Pradel considered in burin classification was the technique of manufacture as it i s indicated by the number of spall removals and whether or not the piece displays truncation retouch.

a

‚

Ronen ( 1966, 1 970) set up a twofold burin classification system. In this system, the two determining characteristics of burin type carry equal weight. Firstly, the tools are c lassified according to their technique of manufacture as dihedral burins, burins on a natural surface, and burins on truncature. The f orm of the burin bit, which can be rectangular, rounded, triangular, semi-rounded, or oblique, i s then given equal consideration. In an attempt to establish a "model of the burin universe [ which] opens the way for a more objective study of burins" ( Movius et a l. 1 968:23), Movius et al reject all burin typologies based on technique of manufacture. However, l ike all of the earlier c lassificatory systems, Movius et al.'s proposed model i s based on the assumption " that the ultimate purpose to which the various techniques of manufacture are directed i s the burin edge [ i.e., the bit]" ( Ibid.:22). Movius et al. present an elaborate l ist of attributes ( Table 1 -2) which they see as occurring in combination to create and characterize the burin bit. Although they expound the virtues of this analytical system and note the use to which i t i s ultimately directed, the authors have made no attempt to apply this unruly system to any sample of burins. .

for

Finally, in 1 975, Gunn attempted to construct a model a functionally oriented burin typology. In his 2 2

1 .

Technique of Manufacture a . truncation b . retouched edge or end c . dihedral d . break e . unretouched edge or end

2 .

Blank a . length b . width c . thickness

3 .

Burin Edge a . angle b . shape 1 . straight 2 . bevelled 3 . angulated 4 . curved 5 . rounded 6 . irregular c . width d . end of blank e . number of spall f . resharpening

removals

4 .

Relationship of Burin Edge to Blank a . obliquity of burin edge 1 . dorsal oblique < 75 2 . lateral 75 -104 3 . oblique 1 05 0 -134 0 4 . high oblique 1 35 0 -154 5 . f lat faced >155 0 b . position of burin edge relative to working axis 1 . lateral left 2 . asymmetrical left NOTE: for truncation 3 . median burins, use only median, 4 . asymmetrical right left, or right 5 . lateral right

5 .

Spall Removal Surface or Platform a . angle b . concavity and convexity

6 .

Other Characteristics a . association of burins b . marginal retouch c . miscellaneous attributes 1 . stop-notches 2 . tranversality of spall removal to bulbar axis 3 . removals which thin the burin edge 4 . wear, damage, and minor damage to burin edge

Table

1-2.

Movius

et

al.'s

2 3

( SRS)

Burin Attributes

intricate attempt to establish the functional significance of variations i n burin form, Gunn posited that systemic i ntegration of f actors relative to the physics of tool manipulation, primitive economy, and obvious functional characteristics i s necessary to generate operationally s ignificant tool c lasses. Formulation of what Gunn termed " dynamic typology" therefore required observation of tool shape, technique of manufacture, and damage patterns resulting from use in order to generate functional hypotheses. Gunn set up a geometric model in which the theoretical environment of tool manipulation i s viewed as a hemisphere of which the ground plane is the conceptual equivalent of the material being worked ( 1975:10). In this model, the operative definition is that of the functional axis of the tool in question. This i s the line from the contact point of the burin with the ground plane of the hemisphere which extends to the dome parallel to the longest edges of the tool. The functional axis i s calculated from three sets of attributes: ( 1) the direction of movement of the tool as determined through microwear analysis; ( 2) ethnographic and experimental observations concerning the physics of tool manipulation; and ( 3) tool morphology. On the basis of several limiting parameters established by the nature of his geometric model, Gunn hypothesized three modes of burin use: * Postern burins, that i s, those used in a manner such that the functional axis i s most nearly parallel to the ground plane of the hemisphere, had the suggested function of planing. * Side burins, that i s, those used in a that the functional axis i s oriented toward the direction of movement with the bit edge the direction of movement, had the suggested grooving.

manner such the side of parallel to function of

* Finally, upright burins, those used in a manner such that the functional axis pointed up toward the top of the hemisphere, had the suggested function of scraping.

Looking at burin morphology, Gunn further hypothesized that the categories of both postern burins and upright burins would be composed of a high proportion of burins on truncations and breaks due to their asymmetrical configuration, while the category of s ide burins would principally be represented by dihedral median burins. Examination of 2 50 burins from Le Malpas-West ( Dordogne) resulted in confirmation of the hypothesized uses of postern burins f or planing and s ide burins for grooving. However, the composition of the hypothesized category of upright burins was not as straightforward. This group seemed to have s ix 2 4

functional subtypes, f our distinct orientations f or scraping, one for cutting, and one for chopping. In the f inal analysis Gunn established f our functional orientation types and several subtypes. Over the years, then, most burin typologies have been directed toward e liciting categories based on technique of manufacture ( Table 1 -3) or bit morphology ( Table 1 -4). The incompatibility of categories of burins delineated by technique of manufacture with those categories segregated by bit morphology seems to indicate that the variation i n the forms of burin bits, i .e., the contour of the bit width, is not dictated by the manufacturing process. As research interests have turned from description of the material store of the Paleolithic to the interpretation of c lasses of Paleolithic objects in a processual framework, burin research has been refocused toward the elicitation of burin function.

2 5

S R P U O I R

T a b l e 1 3 .

A V E C B U R I N L P T E L

N-

B U R I N S

a

P R I S T W t E S

I L d

26

l t " ; *

a . -

U I

0 1

a . a . a .

a

-

Ui

-w

C

-o

C

w a . a . x

a C

R I r -a

C

S C

.0 C

C i

a

h u i D! i

: 2 J

wl 1 A

a..

•

-

•

a .

a .

'

S C

C C

a

a .

C

a . a . a . a . a . a . a .

C

U l

lf l

t U

U I

C

C

C

C

a a

S

•D

S

C

a.

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

c n a . a . a . a . a . a .

a .

L

a .

a .

a .

a .

B U R I N S

T a b l e 1 3

D I E D R E S

a .

27

I—

LU

T a b l e 1 4 .

LU u s 0 1 . 4 4 .

E

I

0 .

U

U S

b e a k e d

T Y P E

B U R I N S

r D t o 4-.

b u r i n ( b u r i n

P R D E L ( 1 9 6 , 1 9 7 1 )

.

S O I J 6 E L I K E

B U R I N S

( 1 9 2 0 )

-

b e d e f l ü t e

S C R E W D R I V E R T Y P E

B I J R K I T .

b u r i n

B O U R L O N ( 1 9 1 )

L i i f l a t s u r f a c e d

LU

c u

v u m . a

B u r i n T y p e s B a s e d o n B i t M o r p h o l o g y

—J

Burin Function Hypotheses of stone tool f unction may be segregated on the basis of the means by which they were generated. Inferred function refers to those hypotheses which are intuitively deduced on the basis of tool morphology and the archaeological context i n which the tools themselves were found. Effective functions, on the other hand, are the output of experimental tool manipulation. Finally, " actual" functions are determined according to hypotheses resulting from the analysis of use traces on the stone tools themselves.

A .

Inferred Function

Most intuitive inferences of burin function have been spurred by their author's adherence to the notion of burins as a c lass of chisel-like tools. These suggestions of burin usage are usually found amongst the l iterature attempting to generate burin typologies. Bardon and the Bouyssonies ( 1910) posited that all types of burins were not made for the same purpose. They c laimed that each category could have i ts own use or even multiple uses. For example, they suggested that busqued burins may have been used to sculpt or groove in the manner of a carpenter's plane ( Bardon, Bouyssonie, and Bouyssonie 1 906). They further submitted the general use of burins to cut grooves in bone, splinter bone, and even to cut thongs of hide. It i s interesting to note at this point that the use of burins to work a soft medium was not again considered until it was suggested by Vaughan's microwear analysis i n 1 981. Noone ( 1934) believed that the large degree of variation in the form of tools designated as burins on the principle of the method of production covers some tools which probably did not f unction as graving instruments. He particularly singled out carinated and busqued f orms and nucleiform burins as being better suited for grooving or scraping, and truncation burins as capable of cutting or scraping. Rust's ( 1937, cited in Clark and Thompson 1 953) f unctional inference seems more substantial than those of his predecessors' in that his hypothesis was embedded in a processual context. Most important, he produced evidence for each stage of the technological process which he was suggesting. In outlining what has since come to be known as the " groove and splinter technique" of bone and antler working, Rust laid the foundation for the beginnings of experimental research of burin f unction.

B .

Effective Function

There are two possible approaches to the experimental determination of the effective f unction(s) of any stone 2 9

tool. Most obviously, a tool can be used to determine i ts efficiency: if i t i s suitable in performing the desired task, it i s effective; i f it i s inefficient in performing the task i f the tool breaks often while in use or i f it does not produce the desired results the hypothesis that it was used in the performance of that task may generally be rejected. The second experimental approach to aid in the e licitation of stone tool function is to examine the characteristics i mparted to the object being worked by a particular type of tool used in a particular manner. If these qualities match those on the prehistoric objects, the functional hypothesis i s upheld. -

-

-

-

With the exception of Leguay's ( 1877) prescient experimentation with burin manipulation, it was with Clark and Thompson's ( 1953) demonstration of the effectiveness of the groove and splinter technique suggested by Rust ( 1937) that i nvestigation of burin function turned toward experimentation. Clark and Thompson's general stance i s i llustrative of the strong association which was f ostered between burins and bone and antler working: The great advance in the working of antler and bone accompanied and no doubt in part explains the appearance of the f lint burin by means of which i t became possible to utilize these materials more effectively.. Among the purposes f or which the burin was adapted was the groove and splinter technique treated in this paper, though it should be recognized that burins were doubtless used f or many other purposes, including the engraving of art which more than anything epitomized the advanced hunting cultures of the blade and burin tradition ( Clark and Thompson 1 953:156). .

However, i t i s interesting to note that Newcomer ( 1977:294) found that z inken ( heavy piercers) actually proved more efficient in terms of time necessary to execute the task and quality of the incision and easier to use than burins i n extracting l ongitudinal blanks from bone and antler ( i.e., groove and splinter). It was not until nearly a century after the recognition of burins as a class of tools that anyone suggested the functional aspects of any burin attributes other than the bit. In 1 965, Bordes experimentally demonstrated the utility of the s ides of burin facets in shaping antler objects. Most significantly, Bordes attempted to perform identical tasks with the edges of burin f acets and with the edges of unretouched blades and f ound the performance of the burin f acet to be f ar superior i n several respects:

3 0

* The edge of a blade i s fragile and chips very quickly, thereafter producing longitudinal scratches on the object being worked. The s ides of a burin facet used in the same manner show practically no macroscopic traces of use and the worked object has a smooth polished

surface. * The edge of a blade i s sharply acute and tends to penetrate too deeply and in an irregular manner into the object being worked causing transversal undulations. The angle of the s ide of a burin f acet i s close to ninety degrees, a characteristic which a llows for control of the thickness of the shaving being removed.

In a much-cited experimental study, Crabtree and Davis ( 1968) manufactured two wood pottery paddles and one wood promontory peg with f laked stone tools. They f ound that " squared burin edges" ( Crabtree and Davis 1 968:426), that i s, the sides of burin facets ( ?)‚ were useful in scraping hard wood with either a pushing or pulling motion. In an elaborate analysis of burin function, Rigaud ( 1972) considered the utility of each attribute of burin morphology. He defined the active part of a tool as that aspect formed by the i ntersection of the two surfaces in contact with an object being worked. Looking at the possible active parts of a dihedral burin therefore shows one terminal dihedral angle, four lateral dihedral angles, and two trihedral angles ( Figure 1 -6). In addition, there are two means of performing any task. A positive cut i s made when the angle of attack between the upper surface of the tool and the worked material i s obtuse. A negative cut i s produced when the angle of attack i s acute. Theoretically, i f one considers that each of the dihedral angles ( the f ive arétes) could be used in either of these two manners, there are at least ten different means of use of a burin. The trihedral aspects of the bit could a lso be used. In his experimental program Rigaud ( 1972) used burins to work leather, antler, soft stone, and bone. He then attempted to achieve the same results with retouched and unretouched blades, endscrapers, and polishing stones. Rigaud verified his hypotheses with reference to bone material from La Garenne. He recorded the precise location of the used aspect of the tool, the ease of manipulation of the tool in various positions, effectiveness of the aspect of the tool in performing different functions on different worked materials, use damage to the tool, and the appearance of the surface of the resultant product. Rigaud's work produced *

examined,

Of

several

i lluminating results:

the 1 00 Paleolithic antler objects which he only one showed traces of work by the terminal 3 1

d ièdres l a téraux ( 4)

Figure

1-6.

Active Parts of a Burin by A . Rigaud ( 1972)

3 2

a s Defined

dihedral angle of a burin. This strongly contradicts the traditional assumption that the bit i s the f unctional aspect of all burins. * Cutting with a whittling-like motion was s ignificantly more efficient with a burin facet edge than with a blade which would quickly become inoperative. The same action performed with either a scraper or the terminal dihedral angle of a burin was completely non-functional. Furthermore, traces produced by use of a burin facet edge i n this manner were f ound on two of the archaeological pieces. * Of all the f orms of decoration and ornamentation with which Rigaud experimented, principally several types of grooving, only U-shaped grooves required the use of the terminal dihedral angle of a burin. V-shaped grooves could be produced with the use of any of the terminal aretes of a burin. Grooves which are asymmetrical at their extremities were f ormed by the use of a trihedral aspect of a burin i n conjunction with a lateral arete.

Rigaud's study led him to generally assert ( 1972:108) that, since there are several sturdy, useable attributes of any burin, i t i s difficult to affirm that the prehistoric artisan preferentially sought to obtain the burin bit. Inversely, in analyzing the worked bone material from La Garenne, Rigaud concluded that the characteristic burin removals were made for the essential purpose of obtaining the dihedral sides of burin f acets in order to work bone. Newcomer ( 1974) used burins, broken blades, truncated blades, endscrapers, and retouched and unretouched blades in attempts to replicate the technique(s) of manufacture of bone tools from Ksar Akil. He found that every type a t f laked stone tool used produced both the longitudinal striations and the chattermarks seen on the Ksar Akil bone tools, whether the stone tool was moved in one direction only, or back and forth. The striations are made by irregularities in the stone tool's edge, which may be present before the tool i s used ( through irregular retouch), or may develop as the tool i s used and i ts edge becomes chipped. The chattermarks seem to be caused by the stone tool bouncing over uneven parts of the bone surface and thus f ailing to maintain contact with the bone throughout its sweep ( Newcomer 1 974:149, emphasis original). .

.

Stordeur ( 1977) f ound that burins were useful at several stages in the manufacture of eyed needles. Her data, l ike Rigaud's ( 1972), are strengthened by the comparison of manufacturing traces on the products of her experiments with those on prehistoric needles. Stordeur found that burins not only performed effectively in accomplishing the f ollowing tasks, but a lso produced 3 3

traces

of

manufacture

s imilar

to

those on Paleolithic

eyed needles. Burins f or detachment matrix. This V-shaped groove *

were used to deepen the groove necessary of the bone blank from the larger bone produced the characteristic asymmetric f ound on the artifactual material.

* The lateral f acet edge of a burin was used in a scraping motion to shape bone blanks into needles. The resultant pieces had the elliptical or circular cross-sections typical of the prehistoric specimens. Like Newcomer ( 1974), Stordeur found that scraping with force produced striated f acets a long the length of the worked piece. Subsequent, more gentle scraping allowed for the removal of the f acets and imparted a polished quality to the worked object. Moreover, some artifactual needles are seen to be f acetted ( both with and without striations), while others may have longitudinal striations running the length of the shaft.

As part of a series of experiments which put several kinds of stone tools to innovative uses, Newcomer ( 1977:295) used a burin on an oblique concave truncation to enlarge the hole ( which was cut out with a piercer) in an antler baton. He found the tool to be effective since both the burin facet and the retouched truncation served as cutting edges. An experimental analysis of burin function was a small part of a larger study of Upper Paleolithic burins performed by Dreiman ( 1979). His analysis resulted in the conclusion of three primary burin functions ( Dreiman 1 979:36-38): splitting, incising, and shaving. Splitting raw bone, cooked bone, or wood was easiest with a median dihedral burin used i n the manner of a chisel. Although any type of burin could be used for i ncising or grooving, lateral truncation or break burins performed this function best. Shaving with a f acet edge was most comfortably performed with a dihedral or truncation burin with a median or asymmetrically positioned bit. However, the only attribute necessary to perform a shaving f unction i s a dihedral edge which i s present on all types of burins. In general, Dreiman concluded that what are considered different technical burin forms all perform equally well i n shaving and incising. The primary differences among the burin f orms are related to the easier manipulation of burins that possess certain bit orientations. In an experimental program designed to analyze i ncision variability i n Upper Paleolithic engravings, White ( 1982) used dihedral burins and truncation burins to work bone and sandstone. In so doing, he distinguished f our modes of burin use ( 1982:131): scraping requires use of the entire width of the burin bit in a direction perpendicular to its plane; graving 3 4

requires use of the entire width of the burin bit in a direction parallel to i ts plane; offset scraping uses only one corner of the burin bit in a direction perpendicular to i ts plane; and shaving requires the use of the side of a burin f acet perpendicular to its l ongitudinal axis. White followed up on his experiments with two types of observations. He analyzed the resultant use wear on the burins and a lso the variation in the morphology of the incisions produced by each mode of burin use: * Scraping resulted in a wear f acet along the entire width of the burin bit with the wear being most pronounced at the corners. Dihedral burins quickly damaged while truncation burins were less susceptible to f laking in this mode. Striations formed parallel to the direction of use, that i s, parallel to the bit. The incisions produced by scraping were f lat, shallow, U-shaped grooves with heterogeneous striations on the

bottom of the groove. *

Graving

a lso

resulted

in a wear

facet along the

entire width of the burin bit but with the wear being most pronounced only on the leading corner. Striations f ormed perpendicular to the bit and nibbling was observed on the lateral edges of the burin f acets where they rubbed against the walls of the incisions. The incisions produced by graving had symmetrical V-shaped grooves marked by chattering where the edges of the burin f acets came into contact with the walls of the groove. The use of dihedral burins resulted in bilateral chattering while burins on truncation produced unilateral chattering. *

Offset

scraping resulted

in wear on only part

of

the bit. Striations f ormed parallel to the bit. The i ncisions produced by offset scraping were asymmetrical V-shaped grooves with the f ace in contact with the burin bit marked by heterogeneous longitudinal striations. * Wear on the -burin f acets was associated with the shaving mode of use. Shaving stone resulted in step scars on the trailing edge of the f acet and grinding on the leading edge. Shaving fresh bone resulted in a few tiny f lake removals from the edges of the f acet and light striations across the entire width of the f acet.

All of the experimental programs outlined above have i n common the f act that the researchers set out to establish the effectiveness of burins in performing particular tasks. With the exception of a few s ignificantly i nnovative uses of burins ( Bordes 1 965; Rigaud 1 972; Newcomer 1 977), these replicative studies were generally directed at grooving and/or incising bone and antler. Most i nstructive have been those experimental studies which not only recorded the functions which burins could/could not perform, but also 3 5

considered the characteristics imparted to the worked material by the burin ( Rigaud 1 972; Newcomer 1 974; Stordeur 1 977; White 1 982). A f ew studies have gone one step further and compared the manufacturing traces on the worked object to those f ound on archaeological bone and antler material ( Rigaud 1 972; Newcomer 1 974; Stordeur 1 977) What remain to be examined are those studies which approach the question of burin f unction through the examination of the use traces on the stone tools themselves. Since the uses suggested in this manner are dictated by the prehistoric tools themselves, they will be called " actual" functions.

C .

"Actual"

Function

In 1 973, Pradel published two papers directed toward the question of burin function. Concerned with establishing a classificatory system based on burin function, Pradel was primarily interested in eliciting information which could lead to the delineation of categories of burin use. To this end, he sought to distinguish several categories of use traces, each of which could be used to objectively define burin function on the basis of type of use trace and location of use trace in conjunction with the morphology of the utilized aspect of the tool. Looking for patterning in the macroscopic traces of use on the Mousterian burins from Fontmaure, Pradel ( 1973a) concluded that the burins were used to work hard materials such as stone, bone, and wood. Furthermore, Pradel c laimed that the traces of use on the retouched aspect of burins on truncation were analogous to those on endscrapers. Pradel concluded that functional experiments designed to produce diagnostic use traces must be performed before a functional classificatory system could be established. In the second of his two papers, Pradel ( 1973b) seems to have been even more convinced that a functional classificatory system i s not only f easible but essential. He c laimed that use traces on burins are data which allow f or more objective study. By extension, he seems to have been advocating a typology based on function; he views function as extractable from the archaeological data, not imposed upon it. In support of his contention that morphological c lassificatory systems are severely limited, Pradel emphasized the f act that traces of use are often f ound on the sides and truncations of burins as well as on the bit ( 1973b:96). To determine burin f unction, Pradel looked at the nature and location of the use traces on some Upper Paleolithic burins and compared these to use traces on experimentally manipulated burins. Although no details of the experimental program or method of observation of 3 6

the archaeological material are i ndicated, Pradel claimed to have looked at the f orm, dimensions, and robustness of the bit, the bit angle, and the characteristics of use traces and reached the f ollowing conclusions: * Burins with curved bits, busqued burins, and carinated burins are better suited for work requiring resistance than precision. This would largely explain the large, abrasive use traces often associated with these forms. * Median dihedral burins with long bits and acute bit angles could have been used to cut bone or ivory. They were probably used for the groove and splinter technique. Use traces frequently show splintering which i s often associated with zones of polishing or abrasion. * Burins with robust, rectilineal bits and s lightly acute bit angles are strongly resistant. To Pradel these forms indicate a graving function which he associates with cave drawings. * Parrot-beak burins, on the other hand, could have been used for the f ine graving associated with portable art objects. Pradel c laims that the polish often noted on the bits of these burins indicates they were used to perform delicate work. * Finally, Pradel c laims that burins which show use traces on one or both of the extremities of the bit are actually a minority. However, these solid trihedral points could have been used to outline on stone or bone.

Stafford ( 1977) performed burin manufacture and use

an

experimental

study of

to differentiate the effects on wear patterns of raw mat r ial, method of manufacture, material util . Lzed, and mode of utilization. Differing methods of manufacture and modes of utilization wer. employed to test the assumed function of burins as being exclusively bone/antler working tools ( Stafford 1 977:235) Stafford manufactured 3 63 burins on different types of raw material. After manufacture but prior to use, she recorded characteristics such as presence/absence of a negative bulb of percussion, undulations, striations, scarring, and the general condition of the edge. The burins were then used to work hard wood, soft wood, dry bone, and soaked bone, and the same characteristics were again observed and recorded. In addition to eliciting correlations between raw material, manufacturing technique, and several of the recorded features, statistical analysis of the recorded patterns of manufacture and utilization characteristics resulted in 3 7

several

significant

( Stafford

1 977:245)

*

Invasive and mode

material

conclusions

concerning burin

function

( feather) fractures vary with raw of use with a high frequency on basalt

and burins used to grave. Hinge fractures vary with raw material and mode of use with a high frequency when working dry bone or scraping and a low frequency when working soaked bone

or graving.

* The general condition of the used edge also varied in relation to both the material being worked and the mode of use. Crushed edges were most frequently associated with working dry bone and scraping and least often resulted from working soft wood. Nibbled edges frequently resulted when working dry bone or scraping. Fresh edges were rarely seen once a tool had been used to work dry bone, but were frequent when soft wood was

worked. Hinge fractures edges used for graving.

were

most often exhibited on

Vaughan's ( 1981) extensive experimental work was principally designed for study of the effects of different variables on the morphology, distribution, and intensity of use wear. Therefore he meticulously recorded his observations at several intervals during each experiment. In his experimental program, Vaughan used the trihedral bit corners of two truncation burins with bit angles of 900 and of one dihedral burin with a bit angle of 800 to groove soaked antler. Vaughan ( 1981: Appendices A and B ) observed that grooving antler was easily accomplished with trihedral bit corners. He noted the

following traces

of use:

* On the one tool on which use scarring would certainly have been discernable ( the dihedral burin), no scarring was found. Truncation retouch may have masked

any

scarring generated by use Striations

*

of the truncation burins.

developed on each case

on the

immediate

edge ( i. e., the edge and contiguous . 05 mm ). Initially, striating was always more pronounced on one aspect ( dorsal or ventral) of the edge, but with continued use the striating developed to the same extent on both dorsal and ventral aspects of the edge. * After only 2 5 strokes, l ight rounding or smoothing was observable on both aspects of the immediate edge. With continued use, the rounding or smoothing increased in intensity.

Use

*

edge

of

all

Basing

polish developed on the

crest

of

the working

three utilized burins. his

analysis

on the

observations

approximately 400 experiments, Vaughan ( 1981) microwear analysis of the Magdalenian 10 "

gleaned

from

performed a stone tool

assemblage from Cassegros. He found use-polish on 1 3 of the 2 8 burins he examined. There was no correlation between material worked and burin type as defined by de Sonneville-Bordes and Perrot ( 1956). Five of the six dihedral burins ( types 2 7 and 2 9), two of the eight break burins ( type 3 0), and two of the eight transversal burins ( types 3 8 and 3 9) showed evidence for use ( Vaughan 1 981:422, Table 5 4). The only burin which exhibited use wear on its bit was a straight dihedral burin which had been used in a transverse motion to work antler ( Vaughan 1 981:271). Eight of the burins had use polish on their facet edges ( Ibid.), four were used to work gritty dry hide and four were used to work bone, antler, or an unspecified hard material. The remaining four used burins had traces of use on portions of the tool other than the aspects which demand their classification as burins. In view of the fact that such a high proportion of the burins on which use-wear was observed were determined to exhibit polish generated by use to work dry hide, it should be noted that 6 0% of the used edges of 1 58 tools in this assemblage were seen to have been used to work dry hide ( Vaughan 1 981: v). Moss ( 1983) performed extensive experimental work followed by microwear analysis based on diagnostic use polishes of Paleolithic stone tools from Pont d 'Ambon and Pincevent. She used dihedral, truncation, and break burins to work antler, shell, wood, bone, hide, and stone. Modes of use included actions performed with the burin bit to groove, bore, drill and ream, grave, and scrape the hard materials, and to bore, cut, and score hide. Burin f acets were used to saw, plane, and scrape antler, bone, and wood. Microwear analysis of 1 7 Paleolithic burins revealed ( Moss 1 983:116-118) 1 0 burins used for bone or antler working which involved the burin bit and/or facets, and 8 burins used for hideworking ( scraping, piercing, and cutting) which was frequently a double use for which the bit was not necessarily employed. There were three truncation burins, one had been used to work wood, one was used for butchering, and one with no use polish. One of the truncation burins may also have been used to cut f ish. Selected stone tools from the Magdalenian site at Verberie have been the subject of microwear analyses performed by Keeley ( Audouze et al. 1 981) and Symens ( 1986). Keeley observed use polishes on several burins indicative of graving bone or antler, as well as polish on one end of a double burin used to grave shell. Dry hide traces along the sides of one burin indicated to Keeley that it had been hafted. Symens also observed hafting traces on a dihedral burin. She observed use polishes on burins which indicate boring and graving bone or antler ( n=24) and bor n wood ( n=2). Inspection of the working aspects of the burin bits led Symens to posit a 3 9

form/function relationship whereby bits with a sharp or acute angle were effective in both boring and graving while more steeply angled burin bits were suitable only for graving ( 1986:218). Analyses of use traces aimed at determining the " actual" function of stone tools have clearly become more rigorous during the past decade. Researchers have moved on from largely inferrential interpretations of macroscopic traces of tool use ( Pradel 1 973a, 1 973b) to the more fruitful analysis of diagnostic microscopic traces of wear ( Vaughan 1 981; Moss 1 983). Approaches to the interpretation of use wear will be discussed and analyzed more fully in Chapter 2 .

40

Chapter 2 :

Research

Desiqn:

Materials

and Methods

Experimental manipulation of stone tools, use-wear analysis of archaeological and experimental tools, and quantitative analysis of morphological attributes of an archaeological sample of burins are used in this study as the means of delineating any correlation(s) between burin type, form, and function. Although these three means of inquiry have been separated to facilitate their performance, presentation, and interpretation, they will be brought together in the f inal analysis.

The Archaeological

Sample

The archaeological sample of burins is a small portion of the Upper Paleolithic collections compiled by Henri-Marc Ami and the Canadian School of Prehistory in France between 1 923 and 1 931. Part of the collection i s from Ami's own excavations at Le Ruth and Abri Cellier in the Véz re Valley, Moulin-du-Milieu and Abri Peyrony in the D parte i nent of Lot-et-Garonne, and at Abri du Roc-Tombe at Les Eyzies. Additionally, Ami systematically collected artifactual material discarded by Denis Peyrony during excavations at La Ferrassie and Laugerie-Haute. The remainder of the material in the collection i s made up of Paleolithic collections which Ami purchased from other archaeologists and private collectors. Ami's collection of over 25,000 artifacts i s now distributed among several institutions in Canada, including the National Museum of Canada in Ottawa ( Archaeological Survey of Canada), the University of Alberta, and the Royal Ontario Museum. A portion of the Ami collection was studied while on loan to New York University from the University of Alberta and the Royal Ontario Museum. Although there are 7 9 individual pieces in the sample, there are actually 8 9 burins. Multiple burins manufactured on a single piece are counted as individual burins since this analysis is concerned with the formal and functional characteristics which allow the assignation of a stone tool to the category of burin. Since the tool produced by the removal of one or more spall(s) with the burin blow technique always has a single bit, the total number of burins in the sample was counted as the number of burin bits. Therefore, if more than one burin bit occurred on a single piece, each bit was counted as a separate burin. Similarly, if a burin bit occurred on a piece with another tool type ( such as an endscraper), the piece was counted as a burin. A list of all the burins in the archaeological sample i s provided in Appendix A . The burins are i llustrated in Appendix B . All

of

the

burins

in

this 41

sample

come

from Upper

Paleolithic s ites ( mostly Magdalenian strata) in southwest France. The s ite from which each piece was recovered i s i ndicated i n Appendix A . At least seven types of raw material are represented in the archaeological sample; there are burins manufactured on argillite and chalcedony as well as Bergerac, Fumel, Maestrichtian, Senonian, and Tursac f lints ( Larick 1 983). The raw material of several pieces was unidentifiable either because the stone was a ltered beyond recognition by patination, or due to l ack of recognition of the particular type of stone.

Microwear Analysis Prior to Semenov's ( 1964) seminal study of microwear on l ithic tools, archaeologists hypothesized the functions of artifactual stone tools by gross morphology ( Bordes 1 969; Bordaz 1 970) and ethnographic analogy ( c f., Deetz 1 967; Gould, Koster, and Sontz 1 971; White and Thomas 1 972). Although gross morphology i s useful for l imiting the possibilities of function and ethnographic analogy i s useful in demonstrating expanded possibilities of function, neither of these two approaches to analysis of stone tool function i s as precise as the determination of function through the examination of microscopic traces of wear on the edges and surfaces of stone implements. Morphological and analogical determinations of use are a lso l imited by both the imagination and the experiences of the researcher. Microwear analysis may lead to unexpected and unanticipated i nterpretations of stone tool function. Although many artifactual implements may actually have functioned as their macromorphological characteristics suggest, until the introduction of microwear analysis, the only means for testing the hypothesized functions of stone tools was through imitative experiment ( Ascher 1 961). A tool would be shaped and used by the archaeologist to simulate the form and function of the artifactual implements. If the method used i n the experiment proved to be an efficient means of performing the specified task, " the imitative experiment [ was] used by the archaeologist to transform a belief about what happened in the past into an inference" ( Ascher 1 961:795). More than twenty years have passed since the English translation of Semenov's work on use-wear analysis was published in 1 964. Initial results of testing necessary to justify the validity and usefulness of various f orms of microwear analysis were encouraging ( see especially Tringham et a l. 1 974; Keeley and Newcomer 1 977; Keeley 1 980; Odell 1 977; and Odell and Odell-Vereecken 1 980). More recent work, however, has highlighted the problems inherent i n i nterpretations based on largely qualitative observations made by individual analysts ( cf. Unrath et 4 2

j .

1986;

Newcomer,

Grace,

and Unger-Hamilton

1 987).

One of the a ims of this study i s to demonstrate that i t is viable to perform microwear analyses of archaeological specimens using the photographs and descriptions provided in the publications of microwear analysts as a basis f or comparison. This is not to say that experimental verification of hypotheses generated as a r esult of any microwear analysis may be discarded. It does not seem practical nor warranted to assume that every archaeologist interested in stone tool function must re-perform the experiments necessary to generate every diagnostic type of microwear.

Types

of Wear

Although the particulars continue to be debated, lithic analysts agree that several types of wear are generated by tool use. Microwear analysts have concerned themselves with f our types of use-wear: striations, scarring, rounding/smoothing, and polish.

A .

Striations

In his study o f microwear on l ithic tools, Semenov ( 1964: 16-21) was concerned primarily with the linear patterning of striations on the used portions of tools. During tool use, f riction i s generated between the tool and the material being worked. Striations are formed on the tool which r egularly reflect the kinematic motion of the hand. Kinematic peculiarities are taken to be representative of the different methods of work. For example, scraping i nvolves a long straight motion while cutting more often involves a short curved motion. If there are only small kinematic differences between particular methods o f work, e .g., work with an axe, adze, or hoe, the position of the tool in relation to the object being worked imparts differentiable characteristics to the striations. These peculiarities are useful in d etermining the method in which the tool was used. Each tool has i ts own disposition of s triation l ines on i ts working part. The l ines may run parallel or at right-angles to the axis of the instrument, or to its blade, or diagonally to either axis or blade. They c an go in one or several directions; that is they can r un parallel or intersect, be s traight o r curved, continuous or i nterrupted. Moreover they have varied f requencies a nd length, as well as other characteristics ( Semenov 1 964:17). Striations,

then,

i ndicate the direction of the movement 4 3

used in working with the tool. If the surface of the tool is not smooth, striations generated by use tend to be less well-defined. However, Semenov f ound that evidence of f unction is still available in micro-plastic changes i n the edges of tiny crevices or holes in the surface of the stone and on the sides of projections. For example, projecting points and edges of hollows on the surface of stone tools used as sickles are a ll worn on one side only, the side f acing the user. This i s indicative of a one-way "towards himself" movement by the user. In contrast, the two-way motion used in sawing tends to produce equal wear on both sides of the bumps and crevices of the stone. Although the kinematic motion of stone tool use is determinable with reference to the directional orientation of striations, Semenov's method of analysis is not effective in making any distinction concerning the material which the stone tool was used to work. Striations indicate little about the material being worked since they are not generated solely by the worked material itself but also by foreign grits or inclusions.

B .

Scarring

The type of use damage most commonly observed by analysts using low power magnification ( up to 5 0x) is microflaking ( also called use-scarring [ Odell 1975] and microscarring [ Tringham et al. 1 974]). Two aspects of scarring are used to elicit information concerning tool function ( Odell 1 975): the frequency of particular types of scarring and the patterns o f these scars along an entire edge or used surface. Odell ( 1977:112) f urther identifies three constituent elements of use-scarring: the shape of the scar, the size of the scar, and the definition of the scar along i ts interior border. The macromorphology of the edge or utilized surface will affect edge damage patterns. Particularly emphasized by both Odell ( 1975) and Tringham et al. ( 1974) are edge curvature and convexity or concavity of the dorsal and ventral surfaces o f the used piece. Furthermore, as edge angle increases, the f orce necessary to generate microscarring on the edge also increases ( Odell and Odell-Vereecken 1 980:107; Tringham et al. 1 974:179-180). Although given different descriptive names in the terminology of different microwear analysts, there are generally three morphological categories of microscarring which are distinguished by the form o f the termination of the detached microflake: f eather s cars ( called scalar scars by Keeley [ 1980]), step scars ( which encompass Odell's [ 1977] trapezoidal and r ectangular categories), and hinge scars. In addition, a ll types of scars 4 4

generated by use may range microscopic to large macroscopic.

i n

size

from

minute

A f eather scar ( or a f eather-terminated removal [ Odell and Odell-Vereecken 1 980]) exhibits no ridge at its distal end ( Figure 2-1a). Although the proximal or beginning point of the f lake scar may be deep, the f orce which generated the f lake gradually moved toward the surface as the f lake was detached, leaving a smooth, gradual transition between the scar and the tool surface ( Brink 1 978). The termination of a step scar i s a right angle break ( Figure 2-1b). The termination of a hinge scar i s concave. An overhang i s visible at the distal end of a fresh hinge scar ( Figure 2-1c). However, with continued use the overhang may be knocked off causing the hinge scar to resemble a step scar. All three types of f lake scars may be configured or distributed in various patterns. A f ew generally occurring patterns may be defined. Scars may occur singly or in groups. They may be scattered over an entire edge or surface, or clustered or concentrated in a particular area. Flake scars making up a cluster are generally randomly distributed, exhibiting no conformity in direction or size. In contrast, stacked f lake scars are arranged one on top of the other and all run in the same direction. A crushed or battered area is heavily scarred, with the individual scars making up the dense concentration being poorly defined at low magnifications. The results of experiments performed by Odell and Odell-Vereecken ( 1980) to test the reliability of lithic use-wear assessment by examination of use-scarring indicate a f airly high reliability ( 79%) in locating the area of use of a stone tool. However, this rate of accuracy i s probably higher than it should be since Odell himself manufactured the tools on which he was assessing the use-wear. Reconstruction of tool movement using low power techniques of examination i s not as accurate as identification using high power magnification techniques. Odell emphasizes the point that low magnification techniques are l imited to describing motions. It i s generally difficult to distinguish between activities such as s licing, cutting, and sawing since these all i nvolve motions longitudinal to the working edge ( Odell and Odell-Vereecken 1 980:98-101). Upon completion of a series of experiments in which the controlled variables were action, worked material, edge angle, and manner of prehension, Tringham et al. ( 1974:195) concluded: At the present stage of controlled testing, i t seems possible to distinguish with confidence those edges which have been activiated l ongitudinally f rom those 4 5

A .

B .

C .

Figure

2-1.

Feather Scar

Step

Hinge

Scar

Scar

Scar Morphology

46

( Cross

Sections)

activated transversally or in a " boring" motion. It seems possible a lso to distinguish those edges used on " soft" materials, from those used on "hard" or "medium" materials. Beyond these general identifications, however, with certain exceptions such as " sickle gloss," i t i s not yet possible to identify action and work material with any of the " precision" demanded by Keeley.

C .

Rounding/Smoothing

Rounding, which i s a lso referred to as abrasion or smoothing, i s a f ine attrition or a wearing down of the rock surface through the gradual removal of f ine particles or single grains, the truncation or smoothing of grains, or a powdering of a portion of the tool while in contact with another object. . The physical observation of rounding rests upon the recognition of a reduction in angularity, especially at edges and along the ridges of f lake scars and other protrusions ( Brink 1 978:47) .

Comparison of the relative degree of rounding on the ventral and dorsal aspects of a utilized edge may be helpful in indicating the kinematic motion involved in the tool's use ( Vaughan 1 981:87-88, 1 25). If the tool was used in a transverse motion, the surface of the edge i n contact with the worked material usually displays greater rounding than the opposing surface. If the contact angle approaches ninety degrees, the rounding will be equal on both the dorsal and ventral surfaces of the edge. A tool used in a longitudinal motion, held roughly perpendicular to the worked material, will also show the same degree of rounding on both aspects of the used edge.

D .

Polishes

The most overwhelmingly successful means of interpreting stone tool function from microscopic traces of use have been the result of what has come to be known as the "high-power technique." Lawrence Keeley ( 1980), using magnifications up to 400x, demonstrated a successful approach to microwear analysis largely dependent on the polish f ound on the utilized portions of stone tools. In an experimental program designed for application to British Lower Paleolithic industries, Keeley used several types of English chalk f lint, all of which appeared microscopically similar in structure and showed no distinctions i n the f ormation or appearance of microwear f eatures ( Keeley 1 980:16). These experiments showed

4 7

that the microwear polishes f ormed by various worked materials have distinctive appearance and are, indeed, distinguishable from one another. It has also been determined that some of these polishes are not merely different, but measurably different. The l ikely consequence of these f acts i s that not only should the methods of use of archeological implements be determinable, but the actual material on which they were used should also be inferable in many or even most cases, given that the artifacts are in a suitable condition f or study ( Keeley 1 980:83) The possibility of determining the actual material worked i s probably the greatest advantage in using polish as the central criterion in microwear analysis. Extensive descriptions of the characteristic polishes generated on stone tools by their use to work various materials have been published by several researchers, all of whom are in general agreement as to the appearance of the microtopography of the different types of polishes ( Table 2-1) Although more recent work has tempered the degree to which polish types are thought to be absolutely distinguishable ( see below ), the general validity of the assessment of use with the high-power technique remains basically sound. The following descriptions of polish types were compiled from the results of the experimental production of use polishes discussed by Keeley ( 1980), Vaughan ( 1981), and Moss ( 1983). These descriptions along with published photographs of use polishes were used as the basis of determination of worked material f or the analysis of use of the burins in this study. Bone Polish: Bone polish i s described by Keeley ( 1980:42-49; Keeley and Newcomer 1 977:41) as bright but rough, pitted, and uneven. Its most distinctive feature i s innumerable tiny pits in the polish surface. Bone polish initially f orms on high points in the microtopography. With continued use, the polish does not spread but becomes more i ntense. It is localized, occurring at a few points along the working edge. Vaughan ( 1981:140-142) found that edges used in a longitudinal motion displayed troughs and grooves parallel to the direction of use running through the larger polished areas. He a lso f ound that edges used to scrape bone developed a bright, wide, f lat, solid polish bevel with characteristic directional i ndicators which he called " comet-tails." Grooving bone a lso produced this bright polish band with comet-tails, although it was not bevelled. Polish produced by working dry bone did not have nearly as many comet-tails. Moss ( 1983:92) adds that bone polish terminates extremely abruptly rather than diminishing gradually away from the main polish 4 8

BONE

POLISH

bright, rough, pitted, uneven innumerable tiny pits localized occurs on high points f irst abrupt termination motion: longitudinal: troughs & grooves parallel to direction of use scraping: bright, wide, f lat, solid bevel with comet-tails grooving: bright polish band with comet-tails; no bevel

ANTLER POLISH A .

B .

Smooth bright, smooth first: similar to wood then: diffuse depressions; snowbank" localized

evenly pockmarked;

"melting

motion: scraping, planing, graving; with grain Rough like bone without micropitting if antler dry: bumpy-rough; scored with perpendicular troughs/grooves motion: sawing; against grain

WOOD POLISH very bright and smooth first: high points gently curved and domed then: domes link-up to form gently undulating surface with troughs/crests parallel to direction of use more widespread and evenly distributed on edge and contiguous areas than bone or antler

Table 2-1. Microtopography of Various Types of Polish ( compiled from Keeley 1 980, Vaughan 1 981, and Moss 1 983)

4 9

DRY HIDE/LEATHER POLISH dull, pitted matt polish occassionally marked by small circular pits widespread and continuous along used edge extensive rounding of edge and boundaries of scars/ridges

WET HIDE

POLISH

slow-forming, bright, greasy similar to meat not smooth as wood; distinguished from wood by micropits low contrast between polished/unpolished areas with much use, bright, smooth, thin polish band on crest of working edge

MEAT

POLISH

like wet hide relatively dull matt texture preserves elevations/depressions the microtopography

Table

2-1.

Microtopography of Various Types ( continued)

5 0

of

of

Polish

areas. Antler Polish: Keeley found that there are two types of antler polish ( Keeley and Newcomer 1 977:42-44; Keeley 1 980:55-60). The f irst i s a very bright, smooth polish produced by scraping, planing, or graving. In its early stages of formation, smooth antler polish may be indistinguishable from wood polish. However, when it i s well developed, the microtopography displays diffuse depressions, giving the polish an evenly pockmarked appearance analogous to that of a "melting snowbank" ( Keeley 1 980:56). Rough antler polish, which is produced by sawing antler, appears somewhat like bone polish but without its characteristic micropitting. Vaughan ( 1981:143) suggests that rough antler polish i s produced by cutting across the grain of the antler while smooth antler polish is produced by working with the grain. He further explains ( Vaughan 1 981:144) that the gently undulating appearance of smooth antler polish ( Keeley's [ 1980] "melting snowbank") is the result of linkage between separate polish areas and extension of polish over previously unpolished areas. "Depending on the degree of linkage in the polish area, some interstitial spaces can remain along with the diffuse depressions, giving "an evenly pockmarked appearance" ( Keeley 1 980:56)" ( Vaughan 1 981:144). Smooth antler polish is usually localized. Vaughan also worked dried antler and found that the resultant polish displayed a "bumpy-rough surface that was very scored with perpendicular troughs and grooves" ( 1981:146). Moss ( 1983:87) stresses that isolated regions of smooth antler polish may be confused with wood polish. Wood Polish: Keeley ( 1980:35-42; Keeley and Newcomer 1 977:41) found that working hardwood, softwood, fresh wood, and seasoned wood always produced the same characteristic wood polish. Wood polish is very bright and smooth. Initially, the high points of the microtopography are gently curved or domed. With continued use, the domes enlarge and eventually link up, producing a gently undulating polish surface with the lines of the " troughs" and " crests" running parallel to the direction of use. Vaughan ( 1981:147) explains that wood polish i s not localized in clumps near the edge like bone or antler polishes, but i s more widespread and more evenly distributed a long an edge and onto contiguous areas. Hide Polish: The type of polish produced by working hide i s largely dependent upon the moisture and fat content of the material worked. Working either dry hide or leather ( Keeley 1 980:49-53; Keeley and Newcomer 1 977:41-42) generates a dull, pitted matte polish which i s occassionally marked by small, circular pits. Due to the f lexibility of the raw material ( Vaughan 5 1

1 981:158-160), dry hide polish is widespread and continuous along the used edge. Extensive rounding of the used edge and of the boundaries of all f lake scars and surface elevations near the edge is typically diagnostic of dry hide polish. At the other end of the spectrum of hide polishes, working wet, fresh hide imparts a s low-forming bright, greasy polish which is very similar to meat polish, and not as smooth as wood polish ( Keeley 1 980:49). Vaughan ( 1981:161) emphasizes the low-contrast level between the polished area and the surrounding f lint surfaces. However, with extensive use, a bright, thin, smooth polish band develops on the crest of the working edge. Moss ( 1983:86) claims that micropits are the distinguishing characteristic when comparing hide polish to wood polish. Meat Polish: For obvious reasons, meat polish is similar to fresh hide polish. Keeley ( 1980:53-55; Keeley and Newcomer 1 977:42) indicates that meat polish i s relatively dull but is distinguishable from the natural stone surface by its matte texture which preserves the minute elevations and depressions of the microtopography of the raw material, but slightly joins them into a semi-continuous surface. Vaughan ( 1981:160-162) makes no distinction between meat polish and fresh hide polish. Moss ( 1983:93), however, distinguishes meat polish from fresh hide polish by its distribution in a band 2-3 mm. from the utilized edge. The difference in the distribution of meat polish described by Moss from that of Keeley and Vaughan may be related to the fact that in the butchering performed in Moss's experimental program, the implement always came into contact with bone, thereby producing bone polish on the edge in question.

At this point it is essential to note that Vaughan ( 1981, 1 985) found that there are two stages in polish development during which the textural qualities of the polished surface are identical regardless of the material worked. He claims that [ t] he initial result of contact with worked materials on edges of f ine and medium-fine grained experimental f lints was a "generic weak polish" that i s a dull, f lat polish with a surface texture which can be described as stucco-rough or l ightly terraced in comparison with the unused f lint surface. Generic weak polish occurred with very limited contact. For example, on the f ine-grained f lints it occurred at 1 00 strokes of cutting rushes, 50 strokes in working wood and soaked antler, and only 1 0 strokes from working bone. The phenomenon was not noticed on medium-coarse grained 5 2

f lints, perhaps because there i s a certain threshold of textural coarseness beyond which generic weak polish cannot form ( Vaughan 1 981:133-134) Furthermore, as f lints used on polish" ( Vaughan

use-polishes continued to develop on all a ll worked materials a " smooth-pitted 1 981:134) f ormed.

The smooth aspect of this polish consists of the individual polish components with smooth surfaces, even though these components may be quite small. The pitted aspect is caused by micropits and pit-depressions in the surfaces of the linkage between polish components, and by incomplete joining up of polish components which leaves dark i nterstitial spaces. Usually the smooth-pitted stage did not last very long at a ll on the experimental f lint edges, as more prolonged contact increased polish development into the third and f inal stage [ i.e., the diagnostic polishes described above) ( Vaughan 1 981:134-135). Much of the most recent work concerned with the identification of use-polishes has been directed toward delineating the reliability of functional determinations based on the high-power technique ( Newcomer, Grace, and Unger-Hamilton 1 986; Unrath et al 1 986; Moss 1 987). It has been repeatedly shown that there are three distinct kinds of information inferred during any microwear analysis: the part of the tool that was used, the motion or activity that was performed, and the material that was worked. It seems that while there i s a good deal of accuracy in the determination of used area and motion, the determination of the actual material worked i s not as straightforward as had been posited by the initial work ( Holley and Del Bene 1 981; Newcomer, Grace, and .

Unger-Hamilton

1 986;

Unrath et al .

1 986).

Significantly, the most i lluminating recent blind test was performed by several of the same researchers whose earlier work had been more optimistic. Results of the multi-analyst blind test of Unrath et al . ( 1986) indicate that there i s a high rate of accuracy in determining the used portion of a tool. Furthermore, i f a tool was used i n a s ingle kind of motion, mode of use was usually successfully determined. However, when a tool had been used to perform multiple tasks, confusion in the interpretations of the microwear analysis resulted. The test a lso i ndicated that there are particular difficulties in the determination of specific worked material on the basis of use polishes. These problem areas will be discussed as they relate to the microwear analysis performed i n the present study.

5 3

Microwear Analysis:

Methods

The i nicrowear analysis presented in Chapter 3 was performed using a WILD M5 stereoscopic incident l ight microscope with magnifications of 60x, 1 25x, 250x, and 500x, and a Bausch and Lomb Zoom 7 stereoscopic incident light microscope with magnifications from l Ox through 1 40x. Lower magnifications were used to view scarring, rounding, and edge and bit contours, while higher magnifications were used rounding, and striation.

for

observation

of

polish,

Observations were recorded on the data collection forms i llustrated in Figures 2-2a and 2-2b. The f irst data collection form was used to record both macroscopic observations and observations requiring low power magnification ( lOx through 1 40x). This information includes characteristics of morphology, scarring, rounding/smoothing, and striation. To facilitate analysis and comparison of data from piece to piece, observations were recorded separately for each aspect of the piece, i . e., support, bit, and facet(s). The second data collection form relating to polish.

was

used

to

record observations

Morphological characteristics of the support such as retouch, associated worked edges, breaks/snaps, and cortex were noted. The general outline of the bit was described and sketched. The morphology, number, and orientation of spall removals was indicated, as was any evidence of prior spall removals. Scarring was recorded according to the morphology of the scar terminations as feather, step, or hinge. The location of the scarring on the piece was noted. The size of the scar(s) was indicated as large ( i. e., visible with the unaided eye), medium ( visible at 1 0-20x), small ( morphology determinable only with magnification greater than 2 0x), and minute ( morphology determinable only with magnification greater than 80x). The distribution of the scar(s) along an edge was recorded as isolated ( in which case the number of scars was indicated), clustered, or stacked. If an area was marred by several minute scars with indeterminable morphology, it was called battered. If the battering resolved into scarring at high magnifications this was indicated. The direction of the termination(s) of the scarring relative to the nearest edge was also recorded. If an edge was marked with a row of small, evenly-spaced scars it was referred to as nibbled.

or more

Rounding i s defined as an actual rounding of an a ridge and is distinguished from smoothing which general

f lattening

of

the

I nicrotopography.

edge i s a Each

piece was examined for rounding and smoothing at 5 0x and at 2 50x. The location, intensity, and extent of the rounding/smoothing were noted. If the rounding/smoothing 5 4

P IECE *

SUPPORT

B IT

FACET(S)

MORPHOLOGY

SCARRING

ROUNDING/ SMOOTHING

STRIATION

Figure

2-2a.

Microwear Analysis ( Page 1 of 2 ) 55

Data

Collection

Form

P IECE

ASPECT

*

BONE

ANTLER SMOOTH ROUGH

WOOD

HIDE DRY

MEAT

UNIDENT

WET

DESCRI PTIONS

Figure

2-2b.

Microwear Analysis ( Page 2 of 2 ) 56

Data

Collection Form

was associated piece, this was

with a polished or scarred portion of the indicated.

Both low and high power magnification were used to observe striations. The orientation, length, and number of striations were recorded. If the striating was associated with polish, this was noted. Each piece was examined for polish using high magnifications. A piece was scanned at 250x. If any polish was f ound, magnification was increased to 5 00x and identification of material worked was attempted. The location and extent of the polish were indicated on a line drawing of the tool. Detailed descriptions of the topography of the polish were recorded. The number of the plate in Keeley 1 980 and/or Moss 1 983 i llustrating the most nearly similar micropolish was also indicated. Microwear analysis of the archaeological sample was performed prior to that of the experimentally used tools. As mentioned above, it i s my intent to demonstrate that the investigation of microwear analysis has reached a level at which i t i s no longer necessary for every analyst to perform extensive, time-consuming experimental programs in order to generate a comparative sample of diagnostic polish types. Since it has been shown that polish morphology i s not affected by the raw material of the stone tool ( Vaughan 1 981:129-131), it i s possible to use published microphotographs of experimentally generated diagnostic polishes as a basis of comparison f or the use-polishes found on archaeological stone tools. It i s of interest to note that in their multiple analyst blind test Unrath et found "that the length of experience and the archaeological background of the analysts did not seem to alter their results as a whole" ( 1986:152).

Experimentation Use-wear analysis in and of itself is not enough to make determinations of the uses of a category of stone tools. Experimentation i s a crucial step in assigning function to categories of stone tools a step that has often been neglected. Microwear analysis must be performed in conjunction with a formal experimental program which i s designed not only to produce characteristic patterns of wear but also to measure the usefulness and efficiency of a particular tool in performing a particular task. Vaughan ( 1981) has labeled these two types of experimental programs direct verification ( from Keeley 1 974:329) and efficiency studies: -

-

In direct verification, the researcher conducts only such tests as are thought necessary to support or disprove a given 5 7

hypothesis about the f unction(s) of a certain class of implement, with the major emphasis being placed on comparison of experimental and prehistoric use-wear patterns. An efficiency study, on the other hand, is designed only to demonstrate whether or not a copy of a prehistoric tool, or an original example, i s capable of efficiently executing the hypothesized task ( Vaughan 1 981:14). When attempting to correlate stone tool form and function, an archaeologist must combine both of these approaches to experimentation. D irect verification i s necessary to reproduce prehistorically generated wear patterns, while efficiency studies are a necessary basis for the formulation of hypotheses which offer explanations for variations i n form. The present experimental program was designed to answer questions concerning the efficiency of using different types of burins in performing specified tasks. The activities performed and the materials worked were selected on the basis of earlier propositions of burin functions, contexts in which Paleolithic burins are found ( i.e., associated materials and possible products of burin use), results of experiments performed by other archaeologists, and results of recent microwear analyses ( see Chapter 1 ). A total of 3 2 burins were manufactured on 2 8 pieces for use in the experimental program. Twenty six pieces were manufactured on Dover chert from Dover, England, the remaining two pieces were manufactured on coarser-grained Coxsackie chert from Coxsackie, New York ( Lavin 1 983). The sample i s made up of 9 dihedral burins, 1 6 truncation burins, and 7 break burins. A list of the experimental burins and their morphological measurements i s provided in Appendix C . The experimental burins are i llustrated in Appendix D . The burins were used to work fresh, boiled, and dry bone; water-soaked and vinegar-soaked antler; green wood; and leather. Experimental activities included grooving ( parallel to the grain of the worked material), incising ( perpendicular to the grain of the worked material), and shaving the hard materials; and cutting, incising, and perforating the leather. Unretouched f lakes/blades were used to perform the same activities as were the burins. A l ist of the experiments performed i s presented in Table 2-2. For each experiment, data were collected in order to indicate the tool that was used, the morphology of the portion of the tool used, the material worked, the activity performed, and the efficiency of the activity in accomplishing the desired results. A sample data collection sheet i s provided in Figure 2-3. Experiments 5 8

were numbered were performed.

consecutively

in

the order

in which they

Prior to use, the morphology of each piece was recorded. The contour of each bit was described and sketched. Each piece was examined with low magnification ( lOx to 7 0x) and any scarring, rounding/smoothing, and/or striations were noted. In general, every f acet edge was identical: sharp ( i.e., not rounded) and unmarred by scarring. When this was not the case, it was noted. After completion of both the experimentation and the microwear analysis of the archaeological sample, microwear analysis of the experimentally used tools was performed. The results of the experiments and the related microwear analysis will be presented in Chapter 3 .

5 9

E X P i T OO L *

T O OL T YPE

MAT E R I AL W ORKED

A C T IV ITY

E DGE U SED

1

1 0 0

u n re touche d f l ake

c orner

1 0 0

u nre touc he d f l ake

a n tler ( w a ter-soake d ) a n tler ( w a ter -so ake d )

g r oove

2

g r oove

c orner

a symm e tr ic d i he dra l b ur in

a n tler ( w ater-so ake d )

g ro ove

b i t : t r ihe dra l

u n re touc he d b l ade

a n t ler ( w a te r-so ake d )

s h ave

c o nve x e d ge

a symme tr ic d i hedra l b ur in

a n tler ( v ine gar-soake d )

g roove

b i t : t r ihe dra l

3

4

4

1 0 1

5

2

6

5

s ymme tr ic d i he dr a l b u r in

b o ne ( f res h ; c h icken )

g r oove

b i t : t r ihe dra l

7

. 5

s ymme tr ic d i he dra l b u r in

b o ne ( f res h ; c h icken )

g roove

b i t: t r ihe dra l

8

5

s ymm e tr ic d i he dra l b u r in

b o re ( f res h ; c h icken )

g r oove

b i t : t r ihe dr a l

9

. 5

s ymme tr ic d i he dra l b ur in

b one ( f resh ; c h icken )

g ro ov e

b i t: t r ihe dr a l

1 0

5

s ymme tr ic d ihe dra l b ur in

b o re ( f res h ; c h icken )

s have

f a ce t e d ge

1

3

a symme tr ic d i he dra l b ur in

b o ne ( f res h ; c h icken )

i n c ise

b i t: w i dt h

1 2

3

a symm e tr ic d i hedra l b ur in

b o ne ( f res h ; c h icken )

i n c ise

b i t : w i dth

a symme tr ic t r unca t ion b ur in

b o ne ( c ooke d ; c h icken )

g r oove

a s ymme tr ic t runc a tion b u r in

b one ( c ooke d ; c h icken )

i n c ise

b i t: w i dt h b i t : w i d th

s ymm e tr ic d ihe dra l b ur in

l e a ther

c u t

b i t : t r ihe dra l

1 3

2 6

1 4

2 6

1 5

2

1 6

2

s ymme tr ic d i he dra l b ur in

l e a ther

i n c ise

b i t : t r ihedra l

1 7

2

s ymme tr ic d ihe dra l b ur in

l e a ther

p e rfor a te

b i t : t r ihe dr a l

1 8

2 4

a symm e tr ic b r eak b u r in

b o ne ( b o ile d ; c h ic ken )

g roo ve

b i t : t r ihe dra l

1 9

2 4

a symme tr ic b reak b ur in

b one ( b o ile d ; c h icken )

i n c ise

b i t : w i dth

2 0

1 2

a symm e tr ic t runca tion b u r in

w oo d ( g reen )

s have

f a ce t e d ge

2 1

1 2

a symme tr ic t runca tion b ur in

w ood ( g reen )

s h ave

f a ce t e dge

2

1 2

a symme tr ic t run ca tion b ur in

w oo d ( g reen )

s have

f a ce t e d ge

2 3

1 2

a symme tr ic t runca tion b u r in

w o od ( g reen )

s have

f a ce t e dge

2 4

2 4

a s ymme tr ic b r eak b u r in

w oo d ( g reen )

s have

f a ce t e dge

2 5

2 4

a symme tr ic b r eak b ur in

w oo d ( g reen )

s have

f a ce t e dge

2 6

2 4

2 7 2 8 2 9 3 0

2 1 8 5 3

a symme tr ic b r eak b u r in

w oo d ( g reen )

s have

f a ce t e dge

s ymme tr ic d i he dra l b u r in

w ood ( g reen )

s have

f a ce t e dge

a symme tr ic b r eak b u r in

w oo d ( g reen )

g r oove

b it:

s ymm e tr ic d ihedra l b ur in s ymme tr ic d ihedra l b u r in

w oo d ( g reen ) w oo d ( g r een )

g roove g ro ove

b i t : t r ihedr a l b i t : t r ihe dra l

t r ihe dra l

3 1

1 7

a symme tr ic t run ca tion b ur in

w ood ( g re en )

g roove

b i t : t r ihedr a l

3 2

1 8

a symme tr ic b reak b u r in

w oo d ( g reen )

g ro ove

3

2 5

a symm e tr ic t runca tion b u r in

l e a ther

i n c ise

b i t: t r ihe dra l b i t : t r ihe dr a l

3 4

2 5

a sym me tr ic t runca tion b ur in

l e a the r

p e rfora te

b i t : t r ihe dra l

3 5

2 5

a symm e tr ic t runca tion b ur in

l e a ther

c u t

b i t : t r ihe dra l

Table

2-2.

Experiments 60

Performed

UP * T O O L * 3 6

6

3 7 3 8

6 6

T O OL T Y PE

M AT E R IA L W O R MED

A C T IV ITY

E D GE U S ED

a s ymme tr ic b r eak b u r in a s ymme tr ic b r eak b u r in a s ymm e tr ic b r eak b u r in

l e a ther

i n c ise p e rfora te c u t i n c ise p e rfora te

b i t: t r ihe dra l b i t : t r ihe dra l

c u t s h ave s h ave

3 9 4 0

1 0 2 1 0 3

u n re touc he a f l ake u n re touc he d f l ake

l e a ther l e a ther l e a ther l e a ther

4 1 4 2 4 3

1 0 3 1 0 4 1 0 4

4

1 0 4

u n re touc he d u n re touc he d u n re touc hed u n re touc he d

l e a ther w o o d ( g reen ) w oo d ( g reen ) w o o d ( g reen )

f l ake f l ake f l ake f l ake

b i t : t r ihe dra l l a tera l e d ge p o in t

a s ymme tr ic d i hedra l b u r in

a n tler ( w a ter-so aked )

s h ave g r oove

p o in t l a tera l e d ge l a tera l e d ge l a tera l e d g e b i t: t r ihedra l

2 6 2 9 3 1 0 5 2

a s ymme tr ic t r unc a tion b u r in a s ymme tr ic b r eak b u r in a s ymme tr ic d i he dra l b u r in u n re touc hed f l ake s y mm e tr ic d i hedra l b u r in

a n tler a n tle r a n tler a n tler a n tler

( w a ter-so ake d ) ( w a ter -so ake d ) ( w a ter-soaked ) ( w a ter-soaked ) ( w a ter-so ake d )

g r oove g r oove g r oove i n c ise i n c ise

b i t: t r ihedr a l b i t : t r ihedra l b i t: t r ihedra l l a tera l e d ge b i t : w i dth

5 1 5 2

4 2 1

a n t ler ( w a ter-so aked ) a n t ler ( w a ter-so ake d )

5 3 5 4

2 0 1 0

a s ymme tr ic d i he dra l b u r in s y mme tr ic t r unca tion b u r in a s ymme tr ic t r unca tio n b u r in a s ymme tr ic b r eak b u r in s y mme tr ic d i he dra l b u r in

i n c ise i n c ise i n c ise i n c ise s h ave

b i t: t r ihedra l b i t : w i d th b i t : w i d th b i t : w i dth f a ce t e d ge

( w a ter-soake d ) ( w a ter-so ake d ) ( w a ter-so ake d ) ( w a ter so ake d ) ( w a ter -soake d )

s h ave s h ave

f a ce t e d ge f a ce t e d ge

g r oove g r oove g r oove

b i t: t r ihe dra l b i t : w i d th b i t: w i dth

s h ave s h ave s h ave

f a ce t e d ge f a ce t e d ge f a ce t e d ge

i n c ise i n c ise

b i t: w i dth l a tera l e d ge

i n c ise i n c ise g r oove i n c ise

b i t : w i dth b i t : w i d th p o in t b i t: w i d th

4 5

3

4 6 4 7 4 8 4 9 5 0

5

1

a n tler ( w a ter-so ake d ) a n tler ( w a ter-so ake d ) a n t le r ( w a ter-soake d )

5 6

2 6

5 7 5 8 5 9 6 0

6 2 2 1 3 0

6 1 6 2 6 3

3 0 3 0 3 2

6 4 6 5

2 1 0 6

s ymme tr ic d i he dra l b u r in u n re touc he d f l ake

a n tler ( w a ter-so aked ) w o o d ( g re en ) w o o d ( g reen ) w o o d ( g reen ) w o o d ( g reen )

6 6 7 6 8 6 9

2 3 3 1 0 6 2

s y mme tr ic t r unca tion b u r in a s ymme tr ic d i he dra l b u r in u n re touc he d f l ake s y mme tr ic d i he dr a l b u r in

w o o d w o o d w o o d w o o d

a s ymm e tr ic t r unca tion b u r in a s ymme tr ic b r eak b u r in s y mme tr ic d i he dra l b u r in s y mm e tr ic t r unca tion b u r in a s ymme tr ic d i hedra l b u r in a s ymme tr ic d i he dra l b u r in a s ymme tr ic d i he dra l b u r in a s ymm e tr ic t r unca tion b u r in

Table

2-2.

a n tler a n t ler a n tler a n tle r a n tler

Experiments 61

( g reen ) ( g reen ) ( g reen ) I g r een )

Performed

( continued)

EXPERIMENT P IECE TOOL

*

* TYPE

RAW MATERIAL AREA OF USE

BEFORE USE EDGE

ANGLE

EDGE

CURVATURE

AFTER USE

MATERI AL WORKED ACTIVITY

MODE OF USE

PRE /MODE

OF

PREHENSION

DURATION OF USE

EASE/DIFFICULTY OF USE

EFFICIENCY

NOTES/OBSERV A T I ONS

EXPERIMENTER

Figure

DATE

2-3.

Experimentation 62

Data

Collection

Form

Morphological Analysis Formal attributes which archaeologists measure as both nominal and ratio scale variables would have been apparent to the prehistoric artisan during tool manufacture and use. Presumably these variables would have been controlled f or by the f lintknapper. If we can e licit the modal tendencies of a group of stone tools, and any discontinuities in the distribution of the data on a series of measurements, a better understanding will be attained of the characteristics which were sought by the prehistoric artisan i n the manufacture and use of the tools

in question.

Comparison of means, modes, and medians are used in this study to i llustrate the range of variation of selected morphological attributes in the archaeological burin sample. Those attributes which were found to be modal were then compared to determine whether there was any correlation between type and attribute measurement. Since the measurements are quantifications of morphology, these tests were used to elicit any relationship between type and form. Once the correlation between f orm and function has been established through the microwear analysis and the experimentation, this information will in turn be used to bring together the relationship between type, f orm, and f unction. Quantitative measurements were taken to describe the morphology of each burin in both the archaeological and experimental samples. Linear measurements were taken with s liding calipers and are indicated in centimeters ( accurate to . 05 cm ). Angular measurements were taken with a goniometer and are indicated in degrees. Since the straight arms of the goniometer could not always lie f lat against the two surfaces of the stone tool whose angle of intersection was being measured, these measurements are only accurate within f ive degrees. Two sets of quantitative measurements were taken from each burin. The f irst describes the morphology of the entire piece: maximum blank length, maximum blank width, maximum blank thickness, and weight ( grams). The second set of measurements describes the morphology of the burin bit and facet(s): bit width, bit angle ( i.e., the angle of i ntersection between the two opposing surfaces which form the bit), and f acet edge angles ( the angles of intersection between the f acet plane and the dorsal and ventral

surfaces).

Several

nominal

scale

variables were also recorded.

The burin type was noted as dihedral, truncation, or break ( as defined i n Chapter 1 ). Each burin was defined as symmetric ( bit i n l ine with the central axis of the piece) or asymmetric ( bit to right or left of the central axis of the piece). The type number of the burin according to de Sonneville-Bordes and Perrot's ( 1956) burin typology was a lso recorded. The end of the piece 6 3

on which was noted.

the burin was manufactured

( proximal

or distal)

The burins in the archaeological sample were numbered sequentially; these are the piece numbers by which the burins are referred throughout this study. The catalog number of each piece belonging to the Ami collection has also been listed for ease of reference. A l ist of the morphological measurements of each burin in the archaeological sample i s presented i n Appendix A . Every burin is i llustrated in Appendix B .

6 4

Chapter Morphological

3 :

Results

Analysis

Blank Morphology Burin blank morphology was analyzed to ascertain any quantitative differences among the blanks on which different burin types and/or symmetries were manufactured. Since there are so few break burins ( n=4) in the archaeological sample, they are not included in the type breakdowns

A .

for the

analysis.

Blank Length

Blank lengths of the pieces in this sample ranged from 4 .40 to 1 3.00 cm with a mean of 6 .88 cm and a standard deviation of 1 .89 cm. A histogram of blank lengths ( Figure 3-1) shows a unimodal distribution which peaks at 5 .00-5.99 cm ( range B ) and is skewed to the left. Although there i s much variation in the blank length of the burins in this sample, 76% ( n=60) of the pieces cluster between 5 .00 and 7 .99 cm in length. Considering the large standard deviations around the mean blank length for burins of each type/symmetry category, it i s not possible to ascribe differences in blank length to burin type and/or symmetry. Figures 3-2, 3-3, 3-4, and 3-5 show the means and standard deviations of the blank lengths and the results of two-tailed t-tests. In other words, no correlation was found between the length of the blank selected by the prehistoric artisan and the type and symmetry of the burin s /he manufactured.

B .

Blank Width

The blank from 1 .60 to

widths of the burins in this sample range 5 .30 cm with a mean of 2 .63 cm and a

standard deviation of 0 .73 widths ( Figure 3-6) shows

cm. that

A histogram of blank this trait is unimodal

with a peak in the 2 .50-2.99 cm range. The blank widths of the majority of the pieces in this sample ( 76% n=60]) are between 1 .50 and two-tailed t-tests do

2 .99 cm. not reveal

blank width by burin type 3-8, 3-9, and 3-10)

C .

As with blank length, any difference in mean

and/or symmetry

( Figures

3-7,

Blank Thickness The

thickness

of

the

blanks

on which the burins

in

this sample were manufactured range from 0 .42 to 2 .05 cm with a mean of 0 .98 cm and a standard deviation of 0 .37 cm. A histogram of blank thickness ( Figure 3-11) reveals the unimodal nature of blank thickness with the curve 6 5

8 C 0 E F 6 H

B LAN X L ENGTH C M 4 . 00 -4 .99 5 .0 -5 .99 6 . 00-6 .99 7 . 00-7 .99 8 . 00 -8 .99 9 . 00-9 .99 1 0 .0010 .99 1 .0011 .99

C O UNT 5 2 3 1 9 1 8 4 4 1 3

1 J

1 2 .0012 .99 1 3 .0013 .99

0 2

A

B LANK L ENGTH 24 22 20

-

O x

-

i ß-

C ,

I

B

D

E

F

G

H

BLANK L ENGTH

Figure

3-1.

Histogram of

66

Blank

Lengths

I

I

t :1 .09 ; P> 0 .2

D ihedra l

0

7 .0712 .10

T runcat ion 6 .60! 1 .23

4

Figure

3-2.

I

I

I

I

I

5

6

7

8

9

1 0 cm

Means and Standard Deviations of the Blank Lengths of Dihedral and Truncation Burins

t :1 .24 ; p>0 .2

I

Sy m metr ic

I .

Asy m metr ic

0

7 . 1011 .74

0

6 .61±1 .94

I

4

Figure

3 -3.

5

6

7

I

I

8

9

I

1 0 cm

Means and Standard Deviations of the Blank Lengths of Symmetric and Asymmetric Burins

6 7

t :0 .33 ; p>0 .3

Sy m metr ic D ihedra l

0

7 . 13 ! 1 .89

Asy m metr ic D ihedra l

6 .93! 2 .50

4

Figure

3-4.

I

I

I

I

I

5

6

7

8

9

1 0 cm

Means and Standard Deviations of the Blank Lengths of Symmetric and Asymmetric Dihedral Burins

t1 .22 ; p>0 .2

Sy m metr ic T runcat ion

I

0

6 .9611 .15

Asy m metr ic T runcat ion

6 .3711 .23

4

Figure

3-5.

5

I

I

I

6

7

8

9

1 0 cm

Means and Standard Deviations of the Blank Lengths of Symmetric and Asymmetric Truncation Burins

6 8

B L ANK W I DTH C M

C O UNT

B C D E

1 . 50 1 .99 2 . 00-2 .49 2 . 50 -2 .99 3 . 00 -3 .49 3 . 50 -3 .99

1 6 1 9 2 5 1 0 5

F 6 H

4 . 00-4 .49 4 . 50-4 .9 9 5 . 00-5 .49

3 0

B LANK W IDTH 26 24 22

-

-

20 , i s-

1 4 1 2 1 0

6 4 2 0 A

D

E

BLANK W IDTH

Figure

3-6.

Histogram of

6 9

(

Blank Widths

t0 .51; p >0 .5

I

D ihedra l

0

2 .64!0 . 8 1

I

T runcat ion

0

2 .56±0 .52

I

1

Figure

3-7.

2

I

3

4 c

Means and Standard Deviations of the Blank Widths of Dihedral and Truncation Burins

t :0 .90 ; p '0 .3

S y m metr ic

0

2 .56±0 .65

I

Asy m metr ic

0

2 .70±0 .8 1

I

1

Figure

3-8.

I

2

I

3

I

4

c

Means and Standard Deviations of the B lank Widths of Symmetric and Asymmetric Burins

70

t .0 .98; P>0 .3

Sy m metr ic D ihedra l

0

2 .57!0 .69

Asy m metr ic D ihedra l

2 .80! 1 .01

I

1

Figure

3-9.

I

2

3

4

c

Means and Standard Deviations of the Widths of Symmetric and Asymmetric Dihedral Burins

Blank

t0 . 10; P>0 .9

Sy m metr ic T runcat ion

2 .57!0 .52

Asy m metr ic

0

T runcat ion

2 .55!0 .52

I

1

Figure

3-10.

I

I

2

I

3

I

4

c

Means and Standard Deviations of the Widths of Symmetric and Asymmetric Truncation Burins

71

Blank

B L AN K T H ICKNESS C N . 4 0.49

C O IJ 4T 3

B C 0 E F 6 H

. 5 0.59 . 6 0.69 . 7 0.79 . 8 0.89 . 9 0.99 1 . 001 .09 1 . 101 .19

5 8 1 0 1 4 9 4 9

I J K

1 . 201 .29 1 . 301 .39 1 . 401 .49

3 2 2

L

1 . 50 1 .59 1 . 601 .69

2

N

1 . 701 .79

1

0 P O

1 . 80 1 .89 1 . 901 .99 2 . 00-2 .09

1 1 2

3

BLANK TH ICKNESS 14 13 1 2 1 1 10

7 /

7-

7 7 I

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

K

L

M

N

BLANK TH ICKNESS

Figure

3-11.

Histogram of

72

Blank Thicknesses

being skewed to the left. That i s, blank thicknesses greater than the mode ( 0.80-0.89 cm) trail-off much more gradually than blank thicknesses less than the mode. Again, as i s the case f or both blank length and blank width, two-tailed t-tests show no distinction between the mean measures of blank thickness f or burins of different types and/or symmetries ( Figures 3-12, 3-13, 3-14, and 3 -15)

Burin Morphology Those attributes unique to burins as a class of tools ( i.e., the bit and the f acet(s)) were examined for any quantitative distinctions between burins of different types and/or symmetries. Results were compared to those of other researchers whenever possible. In this respect i t should be noted that although several of Dreiman's ( 1979) measurements are problematic ( i.e., they are not reproducable, at least from his published descriptions and definitions) and although I do not concur with many of his conclusions, his raw data for some of the morphological attributes of burins seem reliable and will be used for comparative purposes.

A .

Facet Edge Angle

Facet edge angles were found to range from 55 0 to 1 50 0 . As would be expected, since few of the facet removals on the burins in this sample were planar, the distribution of the ventral facet angles is skewed to the left in comparison to dorsal f acet edge angles ( see Figures 3 -16, 3-17, 3-18, and 3 -19). However, since the f acet edge angles, or, more accurately, the direction of the f acet removals relative to the central axis of the piece are determined by the artisan and not the manufacturing process itself, i t i s viable to combine dorsal and ventral, and right and left facet edge angles f or this morphological analysis. Also, since the f acet edge angle i s independent of burin type ( i.e., a burin spall may be removed in any direction and at any angle relative to the central axis of the piece regardless of burin type and symmetry), the edge angles of all of the f acet edges on the burins in the archaeological sample will be combined. The mean of the f acet edge angles in the archaeological sample i s 1 04 0 with a standard deviation of 1 7 . A histogram of all f acet edge angles ( Figure 3 -20) i s unimodal peaking at 9 00 99 0 ( range E ). Seventy f our percent of the f acet edge angles cluster between 8 0 0 and 1 19 0 .

7 3

t :0 .73 ; p >0 .4

D ihedra l 0 .97!0 .39

I

T runcat ion

0

0 .91 t O .26

I

0 .5

Figure

3-12.

I

1 . 5 cm

1 .0

Means and Standard Deviations of the B lank Thicknesses of Dihedral and Truncation Burins

t =1 .02; p>0 .2

Sy m metr ic

0 .93±0 .35

I

Asy m metr ic

I

0

1 .01±0 .38

I

I

I

0 .5

Figure

3-13.

I

1 . 0

I

I

I

I

I

1 . 5 cm

Means and Standard Deviations of the Blank Thicknesses of Symmetric and Asymmetric Burins

7 4

t = 1 .28 ; P>0 .2

Sy m metr ic D ihedral

0 .93±0 .37

Asy m metr ic 0

D ihedra l

1 .07±0 .40

0 .5

Figure

3-14.

.

I . cm

1 0

Means and Standard Deviations of the Blank Thicknesses of Symmetric and Asymmetric Dihedral Burins

tO . 19; p>0 .6

Sy m metr ic T runcation

0 .92±0 .28

Asy m metr ic T runcat ion

0 .90±0 .25

I

0 .5

Figure

3-15.

1 . 0

I

1 . 5 cm

Means and Standard Deviations of the Blank Thicknesses of Symmetric and Asymmetric Truncation Burins

75

F ACET E DGE A NGLES ( LEFT DORSAL ) 14

0

13 1 21 1 10 -

0z 0 0

8-

765-

43-

211/

0 E

F

G

F ACET E DGE A NG LE

Figure

3-16.

Histogram of

Left

76

Dorsal

H

U 1
' I t

‚ a ' ,

106

I K

5 L a

2 -

CU Cu

c .

‚ a' , N-

—. ‚ a ' ,

—

‚ a ' ,

4.

a ; CU

P o l i s h N = 2 5

C o u n t

As y m e t r i c D i h e d r a l

CU

C u

S .

L)

o

5 1 3 a l

I D 5 4-

U I C>

w

D

-

I-

U

U I

5 -

5 -

U I 0

U

4-

-

4-

w

-

U c y l

4-

U I 0

4-

•

U

S I O -

U I 5 -

—

-

0 1

U I

-

9

0

1 07

=1

-

M

D i s t r i b u t i o n s a n d F r e q u e n c i e s o f U n i d e n t i f i e d P o l i s h O c u r e n c e s

S y m e t r i c D i h e d r a l

F r e q u e n c y

N 6

C o u n t

S ym e t r i c T r u n c a t i o n

— —

N)

W

g W t 7A

0 0 CU

-

L AD

0

-4 -

v

• .

4-

. . • T S

u J

-

U I D U

T a b l e 3 6 .

D i s t r i b u t i o n

F r e q u e n c y

N = 6

C o u n t

As y m e t r i c T r u n c a t i o n

F r e q u e n c y

N = 5

C u Cu

N)

c u

5 —

4-

*

L 1

ID

I D S -

DI

c n

A .

Bone Polish

There were eight positive and two tentative identifications of bone polish on nine burins. S ix of these polish occurrences were associated with ventral trihedral bit corners; two were localized on ventral trihedral bit corners, two were on ventral trihedral bit corners and contiguous f acet edges, and two were on ventral trihedral bit corners and a contiguous portion of the bit width. Bone polish was seen on one dorsal trihedral bit corner. The only occurrences of bone polish on facet edges and bit widths are those that were a lso on the ventral trihedral bit corners ( two of each). The remaining three occurrences of bone polish were f ound on edges not unique to burins: one on an unretouched edge, one on a retouched edge, and one on a truncation. Not including those polish occurrences found on edges which were not defined by the burin manufacturing process, bone polish was f ound on seven of the 31 ( 22%) dihedral burins. It should be noted that one of these polish occurrences ( 40A) may be smooth antler polish. None of the e leven truncation burins displayed bone polish. Of the dihedral burins with bone polish, six were symmetric and one was asymmetric. That is, bone polish was found on 1 9% of the symmetric burins and on 9% of the asymmetric burins. The distribution of bone polish on burins of each of the type/symmetry combinations is shown in Table 3 -7. Every bone polish occurrence included some polish distributed on a trihedral bit corner of a dihedral burin. Bone polish accounts for 3 3% of the polish occurrences on the ventral trihedral bit corners of dihedral burins. The significance of the bone polish occurrences will be discussed more fully along with the analysis of antler polish.

B .

Antler Polish

There were four positive and three tentative identifications of polish occurrences as smooth antler polish and one tentative identification of a polish occurrence as rough antler polish. The rough antler polish was on a f acet edge of an asymmetric dihedral burin. Of the smooth antler polish, two occurrences were localized on ventral trihedral bit corners and three were on ventral trihedral bit corners and f acet edges. The remaining two smooth antler polish occurrences were on an unretouched and a retouched edge. Smooth antler polish was found on portions of the bit and/or facet edges on 1 3% ( n=4) of the dihedral burins ( however, one of these occurrences [ 40A] may be bone polish). Including the rough antler polish, evidence for antler working i n the f orm of polish was f ound on 1 6% of 1 08

P o l i s h

D i s t r i b u t i o n

I W

o L)

•

U i 5 Cu

W

U i En

u i U

-

S .

_

4.

U i

4-

cn

4.

d o

5 -

.

4.

5 . -

109

5 -

5 .

. 5 :

5 :

• j

D i s t r i b u t i o n s a n d F r e q u e n c i e s o f B o n e P o l i s h O c u r e n c e s

Cu

.5 :

. 4-

Ui

DI

U i

•

-

r 5 1 L L-

T a b l e 3 7 .

C o u n t

S y m e t r i c D i h e d r a l N = 2 5

F r e q u e n c y

A s y m e t r i c D i h e d r a l

F r e q u e n c y

N 6

C o u n t

S y m e t r i c T r u n c a t i o n

F r e q u e n c y

N = 6

A s y m e t r i c T r u n c a t

4-

" S it

' A lt

vt

4..

C.

Cu

—

Ui

4.

U . .

U i 0

E n

F r e q u e n c y

N 5

io r

the dihedral burins. Only one ( 9%) of the truncation burins showed smooth antler polish. All of the burins exhibiting smooth antler polish were symmetric. Therefore, antler polish was found to occur on 1 6% of the symmetric burins. The only antler polish occurrence on an asymmetric burin was the one occurrence of rough antler polish ( 9%). Antler polish was f ound in equal frequencies on symmetric dihedral, asymmetric dihedral, and symmetric truncation burins ( Table 3 -8). Since the f ew antler polish occurrences are scattered across the possible polish distributions and type/symmetry combinations it i s difficult to make any general statement about the use of different burin attributes in antler working. However, taking into consideration the similarities of the products of Paleolithic bone and antler working and combining these two types of polish for the sake of analysis, the frequency of the occurrences of use-polish on the trihedral bit corners and/or the f acet edges indicate the extensive use of both of these burin attributes in bone and antler working. Bone and antler polishes account f or 4 2% ( n=11) of the 26 polish occurrences on ventral trihedral bit corners and 4 5% ( n=5) of the polish occurrences on facet edges. Discounting the unidentified polish occurrences, bone and antler polish represent 6 1% of the 1 8 identified polish occurrences on trihedral bit corners and 6 2% of the identified polish occurrences on f acet edges.

C .

Wood Polish

Wood polish occurrences were positively identified in 1 5 cases and tentatively identified i n three cases. Eight of the wood polish occurrences were on unretouched or retouched edges and one was on the dorsal plane of a tool. The remaining nine wood polish occurrences were distributed as f ollows: three on ventral trihedral bit corners, two on ventral trihedral bit corners and contiguous f acet edges, one on a ventral trihedral bit corner and contiguous portion of the bit width, one localized on the width of a bit, and two localized on areas of f acet edges. Of the wood polish occurrences on portions of bits and/or f acet edges, one was f ound on the ventral facet edge of the symmetric break burin. Wood polish was found on 1 8% ( n=2) of the truncation burins. There were six wood polish occurrences on four dihedral burins; 1 3% of the dihedral burins displayed wood polish. There was only one wood polish occurrence on an asymmetric burin ( 9%), while there was wood polish on 1 9% ( n=6) of the symmetric burins. Wood

polish was

f ound on symmetric dihedral 1 10

burins

on

F r e q u e n c y N 5 A s y m e t r i c T r u n c a t i o n

I l e

C )

Co

dr a l

C o u n t

S y m e t r i c T r u n c a t i o n

N = 6

F r e q u e n c y

vt

F r e q u e n c y

P 4 = 6

C.

A s y m e t r i c D i h e

C

C.

C.

C.

—.

C.

C.

N 2 5

F r e q u e n c y

CU

C.

S y m e t r i c D i h e d r a l

C

—

I OU

C.

rm

5 5 C ) 5 3

U i rn

C ) W

0 ) 0 0 )

w

U I

-

c _ i to

• .-

u_

L i

•0

•0

r o

U i

I—

P o l i s h D i s t r i b u t i o n

5 -

C 0 )

5 . 4 C 0 )

0 )

5 C U i

a

111

tu

5 -

I D U I

I—

I = C )

0 )

T a b l e 3 8 .

5 -

U I

Dl

I _ i _ i

_-

Vu

U I 5 . 0 C.

-

. -

U I 5 _ i t o

T O f l L S

to

5 . .

all of the possible polish locations except f or the dorsal trihedral bit corner. The frequency of wood polish occurrences i s about equal f or symmetric dihedral, symmetric truncation, and asymmetric truncation burins, but it i s not possible to reliably compare the use of burins of different type/symmetry combinations because the individual cell counts are so low ( Table 3-9). Wood polish accounts f or roughly the same proportion of identified polish occurrences on ventral trihedral bit corners and f acet edges ( 31% and 3 8% respectively) as do bone polish and antler polish. This i s particularly significant when interpreting the processual context in which burins were used considering the post-depositional decay of wood objects which were presumably produced at Paleolithic sites. At the time of the performance of this microwear analysis in 1 985, published results of experiments and blind tests of the reliability of determinations of worked materials on the basis of diagnostic polishes, while indicating that there may be some difficulty in distinguishing antler and wood polishes ( Keeley and Newcomer 1 977:55; Keeley 1 980:56; Moss 1 983:91), nevertheless seemed to . confidently document distinctive characteristics of wood polish. More recent work has documented a serious confusion of antler and wood polishes. In summarizing the results of not only their multi-analyst blind test but a lso those of earlier blind tests, t Jnrath et al. ( 1986:183) found some worked materials presented more problems than others. Edges used on wood presented a problem in all the tests ( i.e., Keeley and Newcomer 1 977, Gendel and Pirnay 1 982; Unrath et al. 1 986). In a ll cases, there was difficulty in distinguishinq between tools used to work wood and those used on antler or bone ( emphasis added). In l ight of these f indings it would seem that the use polishes on the burins in this study interpreted as indicative of woodworking should i n no way be considered definitive.

D .

Hide Polish

Some evidence of both wet hide polish and dry hide polish was found on the analyzed burins. Compared to the f indings of both Vaughan ( 1981) and Moss ( 1983), the frequency of hide polish occurrences on the burins i n the archaeological sample i s surprisingly low. Vaughan ( 1981:271) observed hide polish on 1 4% ( n=4) of the 2 8 burins he examined; Moss ( 1983:116-118) observed hide polish on 4 7% ( n=8) of the 1 7 burins she examined.

1 12

0

> 0

o

-

0

—

cr

a j

5 _ . I Z t E ] I

IL

F r e q u e n c y C o u n t

S y m e t r i c T r u n c a t i o n

N = 6

N-

.-.

c _ i

r

U

F r e q u e n c y

5 -

U -

dr a l

C o u n t

L n

C D

v t

. 4 _

. 4 .

S y m e t r i c D i h e

C u

—

—

—.

c 3

U -

U ch X 3 LU

4 -.

v

c _ i 4. •

*

D i s t r i b u t i o n s a n d F r e q u e n c i e s o f W o d P o l i s h O c u r e n c e s

4.

I

N = 2 5

F r e q u e n c y

. 4 .

U 0 L . L-

L

d e l

-

P o l i s h

4.

C U

a ,

U

to

5 • C -

I— — , a 5 -

. 4.

C U

s _

I—

5 —

. •.

a ,

5 .

-

C

c h

-C

a ,

k n 5 -

• C

4 -

' C 3

--

U

LU 4.

4.

a t ci

LL

a ,

113

T a b l e 3 9 .

I—

S •

T O T A L S

D i s t r i b u t i o n

a i

-C •

5 -

There was one wet hide polish occurrence ( 22B) on the burins in the archaeological sample. This was f ound on the endscraper opposite a symmetric dihedral burin. The ventral trihedral bit corner of this same piece exhibited wood polish ( 22A). Dry hide polish was found on two raised portions of the central dorsal ridge of a symmetric truncation burin ( 66A and 6 6B). It was also exhibited on the ventral trihedral bit corners of two of the burins, one of which was a symmetric dihedral burin ( 18A ) and the other a symmetric break burin ( 57A).

Rounding and Smoothing In

addition

to

the

rounding/smoothing

typically

associated with the use-polishes, there were several cases of rounding and/or smoothing of ventral trihedral bit corners, dorsal trihedral bit corners, bit widths, bit widths and corners, and f acet edges on the burins in the archaeological sample which were independent of polish occurrences. Although Brink ( 1978) c laims that rounding and smoothing are never found without polish, his definition of polish i s different than that used here.

To Brink

( 1978:48),

polish usually refers to a reflective quality of a part of a stone tool where there i s an enhanced luster or sheen relative to adjoining, unaffected parts of the tool. Polish i s thus defined and i dentified on the basis of reflected l ight, not on the basis of micro-morpholoqv

( emphasis added).

In addition, Brink ( 1978:28) used only low magnifications ( up to 5 0x) f or his examination of microwear. These differences in both definition and method most probably account f or my f indings of rounding and smoothing independent of polish. On the basis of its definition, smoothing ( a wearing down of the high points in the i n icrotopography of the stone's surface) would not be distinguishable on the altered surface of patinated f lint. Rounding was observed on patinated, patinating, and non-patinated pieces. On some of the patinated pieces, every edge and ridge appeared rounded. This was considered to be a product of the process of patination and i s not i ncluded in the f ollowing discussion. A l ist of the rounding and smoothing occurrences i s presented in Table 3-10. Although rounding and smoothing are not diagnostic of the material worked with a stone tool, they are reliable i ndicators that a particular edge of a tool was used. Therefore it i s of i nterest f or this study to add these data to analysis. use-polish

the The and

i nformation g leaned from the polish frequencies of the occurrences of rounding/smoothing on burins of the 1 14

B U R IN *

R O (J 4 D IN6 /SMOOTH ING D I STR IBU T ION

B U R IN T Y PE

S YMMETRY

v e n tra l t r ihedra l &b i t w i d th v en tra l t r ihe dra l b i t c o rner v e n tra l t r ihedra l b i t c o rner

d i hedra l d i he dra l d i he dra l

s y mme tr ic s ymme tr ic a s ymme tr ic

9 1 4

b i t w i d th b i t w i d th &c orners

d i he dra l d i he dra l

s y mme tr ic a s ymme tr ic

1 5 1 6

v e n tr a l b i t w i d th v en tra l t r ihedra l b i t c orner

d i he dra l d i he dra l

s yme tr ic s ymme tr ic

2 0 2 7 2 8

v en tra l t r ihedra l b i t c o rner d is ta l &v en tra l o f b i t w i d th v e n tra l t r ihe dra l b i t c o rner

d i he dra l d i he dra l t r unc a t ion

s y mme tr ic a s ym me tr ic s y me tr ic

3 5 3 5 3 6 3 6 4 2

v en tra l t r ihedra l b i t c orne r v en tra l f a ce t e d ge v e n tra l t r ihe dra l b i t c orne r d orsa l t r ihe dra l b i t c o rner v e n tra l t r ihe dra l b i t c o rne r

d i he dra l d i he dra l t r unca tion t r unca tion d i he dra l

a s ymme tr ic a s ymme tr ic a s ymme tr ic a s ymme tr ic s y mme tr ic

4 7 5 2 5 4 5 4

v e n tra l v e n tra l v en tra l v e n tra l

t r ihe dra l b i t c orner t r ihedra l b i t c o rner t r ihe dra l b i t c o rner f a ce t e d ge

d i he dra l d i hedra l d i he dra l d i he dra l

s ymme tr ic s ym me tr ic a s ymme tr ic a s ymme tr ic

5 9

v e n tr a l t r ihe dra l b i t c o rner

d i he dra l

s y mme tr ic

O 6 4 6 7

v en tr a l f a ce t e d ge v e n tra l t r ihedra l b i t c orner b i t w i d th

d i he dra l t r unca tion t r unca tion

s y mme tr ic a s ymme tr ic s ym e t r ic

7 4 7 6

b i t w i dth v e n tr a l t r ihedra l b i t c orner

d i he dr a l d i he dra l

a s y e tr ic s y mme tr ic

5 7 8

Table

3-10.

Rounding

and

115

Smoothing Occurrences

various type/symmetry Table 3-11.

A .

Ventral

Trihedral

combinations

are

i llustrated

in

B it Corner

Combining the burins with rounded ventral trihedral bit corners and the burins with use-polish on their ventral trihedral bit corners provides evidence for use of the ventral trihedral bit corners of 5 4% ( n=31) of the 5 7 dihedral burins and of 2 8% ( n=8) of the 2 8 truncation burins in the archaeological sample. Comparing the frequencies of these indicators of use f or burins with different bit orientations shows rounding and polish on the ventral trihedral bit corners of 5 5% ( n=28) of the 51 symmetric burins and on 2 9% ( n=ll) of the 3 8 asymmetric burins in the archaeological sample. A further breakdown of the burins with rounding/ smoothing or polish on their ventral trihedral bit corners into the various type/symmetry combinations provides the counts and frequencies shown in Table 3-11. This evidence continues to support the conclusions which resulted from the polish analysis. In addition, with the larger sample sizes ( patinated and patinating burins are now included in the sample) the differences between the frequencies of use of the ventral trihedral bit corners of dihedral ( 54%) and truncation ( 28%) burins, and symmetric ( 56%) more apparent.

B .

Dorsal

and

Trihedral

asymmetric

( 31%)

burins have become

B it Corner

In addition to the three symmetric dihedral burins with use-polish on their dorsal trihedral bit corners, there is one asymmetric truncation burin ( #36) with a rounded dorsal trihedral bit corner. Unlike the relatively acute bit angles on the symmetric dihedral burins with use-polish on their dorsal trihedral bit corners, the bit angle of burin 3 6 i s 850. However, the bit i s straight and, moreover, the dorsal trihedral bit corner protrudes from the dorsal plane of the piece.

C .

Bit Width

The bit widths of seven of the burins in the archaeological sample were f ound to be rounded or smoothed. Therefore, polish on and/or rounding/smoothing of the bit width was observed on 1 3% ( n=12) of the burins in the archaeological sample. Polish on and/or rounding of the bit width i s evidenced on 1 8% ( n=lO) of the dihedral burins and 7 % ( n=2) of the truncation burins, and on 1 6% ( n=8) of the symmetric burins and 1 1% ( n=4) of the asymmetric burins. As was the case with the bit widths displaying use-polish, the bit morphology of all 1 16

117

D i s t r i b u t i o n s a n d F r e q u e n c i e s o f P o l i s h P L U S R o u n d i n g O c u r e n c e s

F r e q u e n c y

N 1 7

1 4 3

cu

— cu

cc —

T a b l e 3 1 .

F —

F a c e t E d g e

C o u n t

A s y i m e t r i c T r u n c a t i o n

—.

L

[— F r e qu e n c y

N = 1

0

B i t W i d t h

cu

D o r a 1 T r i h e d r a l B i t C o r n e r

C o r n e r

w i t

V e n t r a l T r i h e d r a l B i t

C o u n t

o

F r e q u e n c y

S y n e t r i c T r u n c a t i o n

-

3 1

L A-

cc —

4. L A

c u

of the burins with rounded bit widths straight.

D .

i s either convex or

Facet Edge

Two f acet edges of the burins in the archaeological sample were f ound to be rounded. The rounded f acet edge on burin 3 5 has an edge angle of 900, while that on burin 5 4 has an edge angle of 8 8 0 . Both of these edge angles fall within the range of f acet edge angles described for f acet edges exhibiting use-polish.

Scarring Not all of the scarring f ound on the burins in the archaeological sample can be attributed to use. Post-excavation scarring or " drawer-wear" i s fairly obvious on patinated pieces s ince the interior of the raw material looks different than the patinated surface. This i s true even if the interior of the piece i s patinated. Although post-deposition scarring is not as readily distinguished on pieces whose surface i s unaltered, it i s usually randomly distributed on each piece and, therefore, most likely would not show up as patterning on a sample of the s ize used in this study. Post-excavation scarring and scarring on edges other than those defined by the burin manufacturing process will not be included in the discussion which follows. Single, i solated scars will also be disregarded as they cannot be ascribed to use with any degree of certainty. Moreover, since the attribution even of relative " hardness" of material worked on the basis of use-scarring i s extremely problematic, it i s not necessary to this analysis to e laborate on every use-scar which was observed on the burins in the archaeological sample. Scarring l ikely to have resulted from use was f ound on 6 7% of the burins in the archaeological sample. The recurring patterns of scarring will be discussed.

A .

Trihedral

Bit Corners

The ventral trihedral bit corners of burins 5 2 and 8 9 are scarred. The dorsal trihedral bit corners of burins 5 4 and 7 6 are battered. Since scarring was observed on the trihedral bit corners of so f ew ( 4%) of the burins in the archaeological sample, no patterning i s discernable.

B .

Bit Width

The bit widths of 5 6% ( n=50) of the burins in the archaeological s ample are scarred, nibbled, or battered. Looking at the frequency of a ll kinds of scarring on the 1 18

bit widths of burins of different types and symmetries shows scarring on 6 0% ( n=34) of the dihedral burins and 5 0% ( n=14) of the truncation burins, and on 5 5% ( n=28) of the symmetric burins and on 6 0% ( n=23) of the asymmetric burins. The frequency of scarring on the bit widths of burins of the various type/symmetry combinations i s shown in Table 3 -12. The scarring of the bit widths was not necessarily generated by use. Sheets ( 1973) has demonstrated that this type of "wear" may be produced by abrading or grinding an edge a task which may have been performed to decrease the fragility of an edge. It should be noted that the bit width of every patinated burin i s nibbled or battered, while the bit widths of only 40% ( n=22) of the non-patinated pieces were scarred, nibbled, or battered. This may be indicative of a greater susceptibility of the softer patinated stone to post-depositional a lteration especially on acute edges. -

C .

-

Facet Edge

Scarring which may have been generated by use was found on f acet edges of only 3 % ( n=3) of the burins in the archaeological sample. Ten f acet edges on nine burins ( 10%) were nibbled and one ( 1%) was battered. In total, some f orm of scarring was observed on the facet edges of 1 3% ( n=12) of the burins in the archaeological sample. The angles of the scarred f acet edges ranged from 6 5 0 to 1 20 0 .

1 19

N 3 9

F r e q u e n c y

T a b l e 3 1 2 .

C . ,

c o

1 . Va

S c a r i n g o n B i t W i d t h s

C o u n t

I

F r e q u e n c y

o

F r e q u e n c y

-

C o u n t

I .-

C o u n t

S y m e t r i c D i h e d r a l As ym e t r i c T r u n c a t i o n N = 1 7

a,

I C )

Cs a -.

0

1 20 I t ) I -

Z

I t)

-.

-.

a .

In

C V)

aj

Summary of the Results ( 1)

Ventral

Trihedral

of the Microwear Analysis Bit Corner

( a) Use polish was found on the ventral trihedral bit corner of more than half ( 56%) of the burins in the analyzed sample. There was no major difference in the f requency of occurrences on burins of different types, but the ventral trihedral bit corners of many more symmetric than asymmetric burins ( 59% and 3 8% respectively) exhibited use polish. ( b) One third of the polish occurrences on ventral trihedral bit corners were produced by boneworking, 9% were produced by antlerworking, and 3 1% were produced by working wood. The remaining six polish occurrences on ventral trihedral bit corners were unidentified. ( c) evidence observed

Considering rounding to be diagnostic of use, for use of the ventral trihedral bit corner was on 5 4% of the dihedral burins and 2 8% of the

truncation burins. Separating the burin sample on the basis of bit position shows evidence for use of the ventral trihedral bit corners of 5 6% of the symmetric burins and 31% of the asymmetric burins.

( 2%) ( 2)

( d) The ventral trihedral bit corners of only two of the burins were scarred. Dorsal

Trihedra] .

Bit Corner

( a) Use polish was found on the dorsal trihedral bit corner on only three ( 7%) of the analyzed burins. All three of these burins are symmetric dihedral burins with bits perpendicular to the central axis of the support and bit angles close to 55 0• ( b) The one identified polish occurrence on a dorsal trihedral bit corner was bone polish. (C) One additional ( asymmetric truncation) burin displayed evidence for use of its dorsal trihedral bit corner in the form of rounding.

( 2%)

( d) The dorsal trihedral of the burins were scarred.

bit corners of only two

( e) All of the dorsal trihedral bit corners on which any form of use wear was observed protrude noticeably from all contiguous surfaces and edges. ( 3)

Bit Width

( a) Use polish was f ound on the bit widths of only f ive ( 12%) of the 4 3 analyzed burins. Four of these occurrences were on symmetric dihedral burins while one was

on

an

asymmetric

truncation burin. 1 21

The two burins

with bits. were

use polish localized on their bit widths have convex The other three polish occurrences on bit widths seen to extend to/from the ventral trihedral bit

corner. ( b)

Bone,

antler,

and wood polishes were observed on

bit widths. ( c) As with use polish, the l imited evidence ( n=7) of use of the bit widths of the burins in the archaeological sample was confined to burins with straight or convex bits. Combining evidence of polish and rounding, the bit widths of only 1 3% of the burins displayed traces

of use.

( d) The bit widths of 5 6% ( n=50) of the burins in the archaeological sample are scarred, nibbled, or battered. However, this "wear" may have been produced during manufacture ( 4)

( see above).

Facet Edge

( a) displayed explained range

The facet edge(s) of 2 3% of the analyzed burins use polish. With the logical exceptions above, the f acet edge angles of these burins

from 8 7 0 to

( b)

Bone,

1 06 0 with a mean of 9 70 . antler,

and wood polish were observed on

f acet edges.

The

( c) edge

Only two f acet edges were found to be rounded. angles of the rounded f acet edges measured 8 80

and 90 ° . ( d) No patterning observed on the f acet archaeological sample.

was discerned edges of the

in the scarring burins in the

The degree of reliability to be expected when inferring ( a) part used and ( b) worked material from microwear must be taken into account when considering the results of this analysis. In sum, i t seems reasonable to suggest that the functional aspects of the burins in this sample, most specifically the ventral trihedral bit corners and their associated edges, were used by the prehistoric artisan(s) i n working hard materials such as antler,

bone,

and wood.

1 22

Experimentation The experiments performed and their results are presented in tabulated f orm in Table 3 -13. All of the data have been coded f or ease of reference. The results of the experimentation will be discussed for each type of edge used, material worked, and activity performed.

Edge Used A .

Trihedral

Bit Corner

The trihedral bit corners of burins of different type/symmetry combinations and points or corners of unretouched f lakes were used to groove and incise antler; incise bone; cut, incise, and perforäte leather; and groove wood. A trihedral bit corner of a burin i s more efficient than a point of an unretouched f lake for grooving the hard materials. Unretouched f lakes tend to f lake during use and, therefore, dull very quickly, while trihedral bit corners are stable and, therefore, more durable. The relative ease or difficulty of manipulation of the trihedral bit corners of different burins was largely determined by the position and orientation of the bit relative to the central axis of the piece. Since I am right-handed, i t was extremely difficult for me to manipulate the ventral trihedral bit corners of asymmetric burins with bits to the right of the central axis of the support. The relative efficiency of a trihedral bit corner in grooving or incising the hard materials was largely dependent upon the morphology of the bit corner. Since the groove or incision produced always appears as a negative impression of the bit corner, acutely angled bit corners which protrude from the bit width and the intersecting plane of the blank produce narrower, more regular grooves or incisions than do obtusely angled bit corners or bit corners which lie f latter in relation to the bit width or the intersecting plane of the blank.

B .

Bit Width

The bit widths of burins of the different type/symmetry combinations were used to groove and incise bone, antler, and wood. In general, incising across the grain of these hard materials was more easily accomplished than grooving a long the grain. The cutting edge seemed to " grasp" the material worked more easily when the tool was moved against the grain. Both grooving and incising were always simple and effective when symmetric dihedral burins were used. It was moderately difficult to groove or incise with 1 23

Table

3 -13.

Results

of the Experiments

Legend

Tool 1 2 3 4 5 6

= = = = = =

Type

Raw Material

unretouched f lake/blade symmetric dihedral burin asymmetric dihedral burin symmetric truncation burin asymmetric truncation burin asymmetric break burin

1 2

= =

Dover f lint Coxsackie chert

Edge Used

Edge Curvature

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4

= = = = =

point/corner of f lake lateral edge of f lake trihedral bit corner bit width facet edge

= = = =

convex straight concave point

Material Worked

Activity

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 2 3 4 5 6

= = = = = = =

water-soaked antler vinegar-soaked antler fresh bone cooked bone boiled bone leather green wood

= = = = = =

groove shave incise ( hard mtrl) cut incise ( soft mtrl) perforate

Mode of Use 1 2 3 4 5

= = = = =

pull tool toward operator push tool away from operator pull and push tool move worked material against stationary tool twist tool

Ease/Difficulty of Manipulation 1 2 3 4

= = = =

easily manipulated manipulated with s light difficulty moderate difficulty encountered great difficulty encountered

1 24

Table

3-13.

Results

Legend

of the Experiments

( continued)

Efficiency 1

=

2

=

3

=

4

=

performs

to perfection

effective but as efficiency

result 1

i s

irregular or not

as

initial strokes perform well, but task then abandoned because no longer effective ineffective

1 25

"neat"

E X P *

T O O L *

T O OL T Y PE

R A W M T RL

E D GE U S ED

1 100 2 1 0 0

1 1

1 1

1 1

3 4 4 10 1 5 2

3 1 3

1 1 1

6 7 8

5 5 5

2 2 2

9 1 0

5 5

1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5

E DG E A N GLE

E D GE C t J RV

M T R L W O RK

A C T ! V I TY

M O DE U S E

!O F E A SE S T RK M A N IP

E F F IC I EMY

2 3 7 3

4 4

1 1

1 1

3 285 1 4 0

3 3

3 3

3 2 3

6 0 48 8 0

4 1 4

1 1 2

1 2 1

1 5 7 2 30 1 7 0

1 4 3

1 4 2

1 1 1

3 3 3

7 2 7 2 7 2

4 4 4

3 3 3

1 1 1

1 1 1

7 0 8 6 4 0

2 1 1

1 1 1

2 2

1 1

3 5

7 2 8 1

4 5

3 3

1 2

1 5 4 43

2 1

1 1

3 3 26 26 2

3 3 5 5 2

1 1 1 1 1

4 4 4 4 3

8 0 8 0 7 1 7 1 5 8

2 2 2 2 4

3 3 4 4 6

3 3 1 3 4

2 6 2 1 0 5 3 27 2 95 1 1 5 0

1 1 4 1 1

1 1 4 2 1

1 6

2

2

1

3

5 8

4

6

5

1

5 0

1

1

1 7 1 8 1 9

2 2 4 24

2 6 6

1 1 1

3 4 4

5 8 6 66

4 4 2

6 5 5

6 1 3

5 2 3

5 4 0 65

1 2 3

1 2 2

2 0

1 2

5

1

5

93

3

7

2

2 200

1

1

2 1

1 2

5

1

5

93

3

7

2

2 225

1

1

2 2 3 2 4 2 5

1 2 1 2 24 2 4

5 5 6 6

1 1 1 1

5 5 5 5

93 9 3 7 4 7 4

3 3 3 3

7 7 7 7

2 2 2 2

2 152 2 6 5 2 100 2 6 0

1 1 2 1

1 1 2 1

2 6 2 7

24 2

6 2

1 1

5 5

74 1 2 2

3 1

7 7

2 2

2 300 3 4 0

2 4

1 4

2 8 2 9 3 0

1 8 5 3

6 2 2

1 1 1

3 3 3

7 72 80

4 4 4

7 7 7

1 1 1

3 3 3

4 0 20 40

2 2 4

1 2 4

3 1 3 2

1 7 1 8

5 6

1 1

3 3

7 2 7

4 4

7 7

1 1

3 3

2 0 3 0

4 1

4 1

3 3 4 3 5

2 5 25 25

5 5 5

1 1 1

4 3 3

7 2 72 7 2

1 4 4

6 6 6

5 6 4

1 5 1

1 5 1 0 1 5

1 4 3

1 4 2

Table

3-13.

Results

of

the

Experiments

( continued)

E X P

T O O L

T O O L

R AW

E D GE

E D GE

E D GE

M T RL

A C T

M O DE

*O F

E A SE

E F F IC

*

*

T Y PE

$ T R L

U S ED

A N GLE

C t J RV

W O R K

V I TY

U S E

S T RK

M A N IP

J E NCY

6 6 6

1 1 1

3 3 3

6 2 6 2 6 2

4 4 4

6 6 6

5 6 4

1 5 1

2 0 1 0 2 5

4 4 3

2 4 2

3 9 1 0 2 4 0 103

1 1

1 1

2 1

3 5 7 5

2 4

6 6

5 6

1 2 5 5 12

3 3

2 2

4 1 103 4 2 104

1 1

1 1

1 7 0 2 40

4 1

6 7

4 2

1 2 5 2 300

1 1

1 1

4 3 104 4 104

1 1

1 1

2 2

42 40

2 1

7 7

2 2

2 1 0 0 2 200

1 1

2 1

4 5

3

1

4

8 0

2

1

1

3

5 0

3

2

5

1

3

7 1

4

1

1

3

3 5

2

3

3 6 3 7 3 8

6 6 6

3

4 6

2 6

4 7

2 9

6

1

3

8 3

4

1

1

3

2 5

1

2

3

3

1

3

8 0

4

1

1

2

2 5

3

2

4 9 105 5 0 2

1 2

1 1

2 4

35 5 8

1 1

1 1

3 3

1 1

5 0 5 0

1 1

1 1

4 8

3

1

3

6 9

4

1

3

3

2 0

3

2

5 2 5 3

5 1

2 1 2 0

4

4 5

1 1

4 4

5 9 6

1 2

1 1

3 3

1 1

5 0 3 5

3 1

2 1

5 4

10

6

1

4

78

1

1

3

5

1

2

1

5

86

2

1

2

5 6 5 7

2 6 6

5 6

1 1

5 7 1 5 128

2 1

1 1

2 2

5 8

2

1

1 5

3

3

7 0

2

2

1 3 0 3 10

2 4

1 4

2 / 4

2

1

3

5 8

4

1

1

1

5 0

2

1

5 9 6 0

2 1 3 0

4 3

1 2

4 4

5 9 8 1

1 3

1 1

1 1

3 3

3 5 3 0

4 3

2 4

6 1 6 2

30 3 0

3 3

2 2

5 5

82 6 4

1 1

1 7

2 2

3 2

20 2 5

4 1

4 1

6 3

3 2

4

4

1 1

1 1

5

2

5

1 0 8

2

7

2

3

6 4 2 6 5 106

2 1

1 1

4 2

5 8 50

1 1

7 7

3 3

1 1

6

2 3

4

1

4

6

1

7

3

3

5

2

2

6 7 6 8

3 1 0 6

3 1

1 1

4 1

8 0 2 5

2 4

7 7

3 1

3 1

2 0 4

4 1

2 3

6 9

2

2

1

4

5 8

1

7

3

1

1 0

1

1

Table

3-13.

Results

of

the

Experiments

5 1 2 1 5

( continued)

asymmetric dihedral burins s ince the tool must usually be held in an awkward position so that the bit width i s parallel to the direction of the desired cut. The grooves and i ncisions produced with truncation and break burins were never as symmetric as those produced with dihedral burins. However, i f cuts which angle into the worked material are desired, truncation burins with acute bit angles perform the task well as long as the truncation retouch does not i nterfere with the penetration of the bit into the material being worked. Bit widths of asymmetric break burins were the least efficient f or grooving and incising hard materials.

C .

Facet Edge

Facet edges and unretouched f lakes with various edge angles were used to shave antler, bone, and wood. Facet edges are extremely durable; they were found to be capable of withstanding large amounts of pressure without f laking or scarring. It was possible to shave with any f acet edge with an edge angle l ess than 950, but the task was most efficient when performed with a f acet edge with an edge angle less than 800. With the more acute f acet edge, it i s possible to perform the task with the plane of the ventral surface of the tool nearly parallel to the worked material and, thereby exert force more directly a long the length of the piece being worked. Long shavings can be removed in this f ashion. Additionally, i t i s possible to a lter the angle of contact between an acute f acet edge and the object being shaved. The depth of penetration, and therefore the thickness of the shavings removed, is controllable in this manner.

Material Worked A .

Antler

None of the antler used in these experiments was fresh. The dry red deer antler was soaked in either water or vinegar before working. It was f ound that the antler soaked in vinegar became rubbery. It was awkward to work the vinegar-soaked antler because of its e lastic quality. Water-soaked antler did become softer than the dry antler and was workable. For reasons which are not clear it was easier to work the water-soaked tines than the trunk of the red deer antler. Incising across the width of the antler was a lways easier than grooving a long the length of the grain. Shaving was only possible on the water-soaked antler tines, but on these i t was accomplished with l ittle pressure. As has been reported by both Newcomer ( 1974) and Stordeur ( 1977), shaving with f acet edges produced striated f acets along the length of the antler.

1 28

B .

Bone

Since bone i s not as hard as the antler used in these experiments, i t was much easier to perform any activity on bone than on antler. Attempts to work fresh bone, cooked bone, and boiled bone, proved the superior "workability" of fresh bone. Boiled bone, l ike vinegar-soaked antler, became rubbery. Cooked bone became hard and friable. However, it was quite easy to groove, incise, and shave fresh bone. Using any type of burin, it was possible to perform these tasks by exerting relatively l ittle pressure. Since the resultant grooves or incisions in the bone appear as negative impressions of the shape of the bit, one side of every groove or incision produced with a truncation burin i s frayed or jagged.

C .

Wood

Wood, being softer than both antler and bone, was the easiest to work of a ll the hard materials worked in these experiments. Shaving wood with a facet edge was the most satisfying of a ll the experiments performed. The length, width, and depth of every shaving was completely controllable. it i s possible to use f acet edges to shave down knots and protrusions in the wood with absolutely no difficulty. it i s not exaggerating to say that shaving wood with facet edges performs the task to perfection. Incising with the edge of an unretouched f lake cut deeply into the wood but did not produce an incision with any visible width. On the other hand, incising across the grain of the wood with trihedral bit corners or bit widths of burins was simple and effective only with burins with the most acute ( less than 7 00) bit angles. Burin bits which more nearly approached 9 0 0 tended to grab onto the wood and splinter it rather than cut i t.

D .

Leather

Leather was stretched taut for the performance of all of the leather working experiments. The trihedral bit corners of dihedral burins were ideal for cutting, incising, and perforating leather. Although i t was possible to perform these tasks with points on unretouched f lakes, the depth of incisions and the diameter of holes was largely uncontrollable. It was the position of the edges adjacent to the trihedral bit corners of the break burins and the truncation burins which hindered their efficiency in cutting and perforating leather. These tools were equally as efficient for incising l eather as were the dihedral burins since this task does not require the penetration of the edge into the worked material.

1 29

Microwear Analysis

of the Experimental

Tools

Although the microwear analysis of the experimental tools was performed more than a month after the completion of the experiments, the high frequency of correctly identified use polishes i s most l ikely biased by the f act that I performed both the experiments and the microwear analysis. However, especially since many of the experimental tools were used to perform several tasks and to work more than one material, the results of the microwear analysis of the experimental sample do indicate that successful microwear analyses may be performed using the published descriptions and microphotographs of other l ithic analysts ( cf. Keeley 1 980; Moss 1 983; Vaughan 1 985). Use polish was observed on eight of the twenty utilized burins and on one of the seven utilized unretouched f lakes/blades. The edges on which polish occurrences were observed were a ll edges which had been used. Five of the nine polish occurrences were unidentified ( experimental tools 1 2, 1 8, 2 4, 26, and 2 9). The worked material which generated the polish on experimental tools 5 and 1 03 were correctly identified as bone and dry hide respectively. Two of the polish occurrences were misidentified. The polish on tool 4 was tentatively identified as wood polish but i s actually smooth antler polish, while the polish on tool 3 was judged to be smooth antler polish but i s wood polish. This confusion i s understandable considering that " smooth antler polish can be virtually indistinguishable from wood polish, particularly in the early stages of formation" ( Keeley 1 980:56). Both of the edges on which these polish types were misinterpreted were used for less than eighty strokes.

Summary of the Results of the Experimental Analysis ( 1)

Trihedral

Bit Corner

( a) The efficiency of a trihedral bit corner in performing a task was l argely dependent on two aspects of i ts morphology: ( 1) the associated bit angle and ( 2) the position of the bit corner relative to the bit width and the adjacent plane of the support. ( b) Burin manipulating the particular tasks.

symmetry affected the ease/difficulty of trihedral bit corner while performing

( c) It was possible to groove parallel to the grain of and i ncise perpendicular to the grain of antler, bone, and wood with trihedral bit corners.

1 30

( d) Trihedral bit corners were markedly more efficient for cutting, i ncising, and perforating leather than were points or corners of unretouched f lakes/blades. ( e) The rounding observed on the experimentally utilized trihedral bit corners was identical to the rounding observed on the trihedral bit corners of many of the burins in the archaeological sample. ( 2)

Bit Width

( a) The bit widths of symmetric dihedral burins were notably better suited f or producing grooves and incisions in bone, antler, or wood than were the bit widths of burins of any other type/symmetry combination. ( b) the bit frayed.

One s ide of grooves or incisions produced with widths of truncation burins i s a lways jagged or

( c) Even when the entire bit width was used to make a groove or i ncision, it was usually the leading trihedral bit corner which did the actual cutting into the material being worked. ( 3)

Facet Edge

( a) Facet edges are extremely working the hardest materials.

durable even when

( b) The edge angle of a f acet edge affects relative utility i n shaving a particular material.

its

(C) The l ength, width, and thickness of shavings removed with a f acet edge are easily controllable.

( d) The relative ease and efficiency of shaving antler, bone, and wood - with f acet edges was determined by the hardness of the material worked. ( e) The l ow incidence of use polish and rounding observed on even the heavily utilized f acet edges reiterates the need to emphasize that absence of use wear does not indicate that an edge was not used.

1 31

Chapter

4 :

Type,

Form,

and

Function:

Conclusions, Implications, and Suggestions f or Future Research

This study used a three part procedure that incorporated morphological analysis, i uicrowear analysis, and experimentation in an attempt to contribute to an understanding of the relationship between the type, form, and function of Upper Paleolithic burins. The initial step in the analysis was to divide the sample of tools being analyzed into categories. Differences in the manufacturing process seemed to be the most viable distinctions since ( 1) they are morphologically distinguishable and ( 2) they represent decisions made by the prehistoric artisan while producing the tools. The range of variation among the entire group of burins undergoing analysis was discerned through the analysis of both ratio and nominal scale variables. The variation in the morphology of the entire group of tools as well as each of its subdivisions was delimited by the use of simple quantitative procedures. As additional samples of burins are analyzed within the same diagnostic framework, the resultant data can be pooled. What will be of interest is to see if the patterning becomes stronger as the collective sample size is increased. The agreement in the general morphological characteristics measured by Dreiman ( 1979) and those used in this study is encouraging. It is posited that the relationship between the variables of type, form, and function can be interpreted since type is related to form, and form is related to function. Although only a tiny proportion of all Paleolithic burins was analyzed in this study, the results expressed in relative frequencies and percentages should be indicative of patterning represented in the archaeological record. It would be instructive to accumulate a sample large enough to break down these observations by cultural period. The morphological analysis was used to elicit the relationship between type and form. The two classes of burins which were analyzed in this study, dihedral burins and truncation burins, are morphological variants which are determined by the burin manufacturing process. As discussed in Chapter 1 , most burin typologies have distinguished burin types on the basis of either ( 1) manufacturing technique, ( cf. Bardon, Bouyssonie, and Bouyssonie 1 903, 1 906, and 1 910; Noone 1 934; Bordes 1 947; Laplace-Juaretche 1 956; de Sonneville-Bordes and Perrot 1 956; Cheynier 1 963; and Ronen 1 970) or ( 2) bit morphology ( cf. Bourlon 1 911; Burkitt 1 920; and Pradel 1 966). In light of the results of both the microwear analysis of the archaeological sample and the 1 32

experimental analysis, i t would seem that burin typologies founded in differences i n manufacturing technique will prove of greater utility than those which distinguish burin types on the basis of bit morphology. In the f irst place, burin typologies which use bit morphology as the primary distinguishing criteria of type are founded in the implicit assumption that the bit width i s the functional attribute common to all burins. This has been demonstrated not to be so. Furthermore, the contour of the bit seems to be a non-patterned attribute. The variables which affect bit morphology during manufacture, prior to use, during use, and after deposition need to be analyzed further. The variables which were used in this study to indicate the form of the burin blank ( blank length, blank width, and blank thickness) suggest a tendency on the part of the prehistoric artisans to select blanks which cluster within a f airly small range. In the future, it will be essential to compare the blank s izes of burins as a class of tools with other classes of tools to determine whether this restriction in blank s ize i s a product of the blade production sequence or whether blanks of these sizes were selected for from among blanks with a wider range of variation. It was found that a lthough the position of the bit relative to the central axis of the blank could be either symmetric or asymmetric on both dihedral and truncation burins, there was a high correlation between symmetry and dihedral burins, and between asymmetry and truncation burins. Furthermore, there was a significant difference between the means of the bit angles of dihedral burins and truncation burins. Bit angles of dihedral burins tend to be more acute than those of truncation burins. A significant difference was also found between the means of the bit angles of symmetric burins and the means of the bit angles of asymmetric burins. However, considering the relationship between type and symmetry, the segregation of the means of the bit angles of symmetric and asymmetric burins i s probably a redundant measure of the same distinction which i s suggested by the difference in the means of the bit angles of dihedral and truncation burins. That there i s no s ignificant difference between the means of the bit angles of symmetric dihedral burins and asymmetric dihedral burins, or between symmetric truncation burins and asymmetric truncation burins, supports this hypothesis. When considering the relationship between form and function, one must attempt to address al l of those functions which a particular f orm may be used to perform. These tasks may be suggested by ( 1) morphological analogy, ( 2) ethnographic analogy, ( 3) experimental manipulation, and ( 4) microwear analysis. The range of possible f unctions may be narrowed down through consideration of ( 1) associated archaeological 1 33

materials, ( 2) manipulative relative efficiency of the tool f orms.

possiblities, and ( 3) the form in comparison to other

The results of the microwear analysis and the experimental program performed f or this study indicate that the relationship between burin form and function i s discernable. Burins seem to have been used to work a wide range of materials. In addition to the abundant evidence presented in this study f or the use of burins to work bone, antler, and wood ( see also Audouze et a l. 1 981, Moss 1 983, Symens 1 986), the microwear analyses performed by other researchers suggest that burins were also used to work hide ( Vaughan 1 981; Moss 1 983) and shell ( Keeley in Audouze et al. 1 981). The microwear analysis revealed that the prehistoric artisan took advantage of the utility of the unique characteristics of the edges produced by burin manufacture. That the ventral trihedral bit corner was a regularly used edge i s strongly evident. Not only was there a high frequency of polish occurrences on the ventral trihedral bit corners of the burins in the archaeological sample, but the experimental manipulation of the ventral trihedral bit corners proved the strength of this edge and demonstrated the wide range of tasks which the ventral trihedral bit corner could be used to perform. The rounding observed on the ventral trihedral bit corners of so many of the burins in the archaeological sample was reproduced on the trihedral bit corners of the experimentally manipulated burins which were used to groove and incise bone, antler, and wood. It i s curious that the dorsal trihedral bit corners of so few of the burins in the archaeological sample offered any evidence for use. At this point, the only explanation I can offer for the difference in the frequency of use of ventral and dorsal trihedral bit corners i s the position of the extremities of the bit width relative to the contiguous edges and planes of the burin. In general, dorsal trihedral bit corners appear to l ie f latter in relation to the dorsal surface than do ventral trihedral bit corners i n relation to the ventral surface. The few dorsal trihedral bit corners of the burins in the archaeological sample which appear to have been used a ll protrude noticeably from the contiguous dorsal surface, bit width, and f acet edges. Although relatively f ew polish occurrences were observed on f acet edges, the marks observed on Paleolithic bone and antler objects ( Newcomer 1 974 and Stordeur 1 977) are identical to those produced by shaving these materials with f acet edges. In addition, f acet edges are more durable than unretouched edges, particularly when working hard materials. Even those f acet edges which were the most extensively used in the experimental analysis displayed no use polish. However, 1 34

the rate of polish f ormation has not been determined to be related to the morphology of a utilized edge. This phenomenon needs to be explored further. It would be instructive to compare the results of work performed with facet edges to that performed with retouched edges like those found on scrapers. Newcomer ( 1974) has begun work in this direction. The dearth of polish occurrences across the bit widths of the burins in this sample is of interest. As discussed in Chapter 1 , i t was the assumption that the bit width was the f unctional edge represented by burins as a class of tools which generated an entire century of burin research. To produce grooves or incisions identical to those observed on Paleolithic bone and antler artifacts, one need only use the trihedral bit corners of a burin. Moreover, unless the contour of the bit width i s extremely convex, it i s difficult to manipulate the bit parallel to the direction of use in such a manner that i t i s the bit width rather than the trihedral bit corner that i s doing the cutting. Although the use of the width of the bit perpendicular to its plane has been suggested, and the use of the bit width of truncation burins has been demonstrated to function efficiently in a scraping motion ( White 1 982), there i s no evidence to suggest that the burins in this archaeological sample were used in such a manner. The patterned results of the microwear analysis performed for this study, in association with the results of recent blind test of the reliability of the high-power approach to use wear analysis, would seem to support the stance that the procedure has been developed to a point at which it may be used by researchers with comparatively l ittle experience in polish i dentification. Although the nature of the information obtained directly from microwear analysis may be l imited in both its absolute qualities ( e.g., i t ' may be possible to define worked materials only by categories of relative hardness) and by the non-recognition of many utilized portions of a tool ( i.e., the extent of use may be underrepresented), the procedure can be used i n i ncorporation with other methods of analysis to decipher the function(s) of prehistoric stone tools. The determination of stone tool function can in turn be used to i lluminate the technological network within which the prehistoric artisan was operating. More general i nterpretations of archaeological material will be possible i f the results of analyses such as those outlined i n this study are incorporated into wider bodies of archaeological data. As the relations between type, f orm, and f unction of various c lasses of tools are outlined, the i nformation may be integrated into study of such things as the processual interpretation of s ite use. For example, recent studies of i ntrasite spatial analysis have demonstrated 1 35

patterning in the differential distribution of all artifacts and of individual c lasses of tools ( cf. Simek 1 984; Koetje 1 987; P igeot 1 987) based on statistical techniques of c luster analysis or spatial association indicated by l ithic refitting. Knowledge of the uses of the classes of tools present i n these analytically defined clusters would enhance our conceptual understanding of the differential use of space within a s ite. Specialized techniques and procedures are being individually developed and tested by archaeologists. it seems that these avenues of i nquiry should be addressed in combination, rather than developed in i solation, to f acilitate a dialectical approach f or the analysis of archaeological data. The interpretive framework developed in this thesis incorporates three analytical procedures: ( 1) morphological analysis; ( 2) microwear analysis; and ( 3) experimentation. The successful synthesis of these techniques can shed light on hypotheses concerning the relationships between stone tool type, form, and function.

1 36

Appendix A The Archaeological

1 37

Sample

Legend

# :

number of the burin as this study

CATALOG

TYPE:

# :

TYPE

# :

i s

referenced throughout

number of the piece in the Ami collection; burins 1-55 are from the Royal Ontario Museum; burins 5 6-89 are from the University of Alberta; NOTE: burin 89 was arbitrarily assigned Catalog # 999 since it did not have a University of Alberta catalog number

the type of the process: 1 = dihedral 2 = truncation 3 = break

SYMMETRY:

i t

burin based on the manufacturing

the position of the bit relative to the central axis of the piece: 1 = symmetric 2 = asymmetric

burin type as defined by de Sonneville-Bordes and Perrot's ( 1956) burin typology; if there are multiple burins on a piece or if a burin occurs in association with another worked edge ( e. g., an endscraper), the type # of the burin if it were to occur alone i s indicated in parentheses ( ) ; for example, type # 40(35) indicates the piece i s defined as a burin multiple sur troncature retouchee ( type # 40), but the individual bit is a burin sur troncature retouchee oblique ( type # 35)

BIT ANGLE:

the angle of surfaces which

BIT WIDTH:

the maximum length along the axis of the bit; since most bits are curved, this is usually the length of a chord

FACET EDGE ANGLES:

BLANK LENGTH:

intersection of the two opposing form the bit

the angle of i ntersection of the facet plane and the adjacent surface of the piece LV = left ventral RV = right ventral LD = left dorsal RD = right dorsal left and right are determined for each burin with the bit held distally and the dorsal surface upward; on truncation and break burins there is one side without facet removals, this measurement i s therefore not applicable ( N/A )

maximum

length of the piece

1 38

( cm)

BLANK WIDTH:

maximum width of the piece

BLANK THICK:

maximum thickness

WEIGHT: END:

weight of the piece

( cm)

of the piece

( cm)

in grams

- the piece on which the burin was manufactured: end of 1 = proximal 2 = distal 3 = indeterminable

MATERIAL

PATINA:

( MTRL ):

raw material on manufactured: 1 = argillite 5 2 = Bergerac f lint 6 3 = chalcedony 7 4 = Fumel f lint 8

condition

of the

surface

which = = = =

the

burin

Maestrichtian f lint Senonian f lint Tursac unknown

of the

raw material

burin: 1 = pat m ated 2 = "patinating" 3 = not patinated SITE:

site from which the piece was recovered 1 0 = La Madeleine 1 = Bad egou 1e 1 1 = Le Moustier i nbe Capelle 2 = Co 1 2 = La Quina 3 = Cr0 Magnon 1 3 = La Rebiere L es E y zies 4 = 1 4 = Le Roc L a F errassie 5 = 1 5 = Soucy G avaudun 6 = 1 6 = Tourtoirac 7 = Gour de l ' Arche 1 7 = Vedelles 8 = Laugerie Haute 1 8 = unknown L ausse l 9 =

1 39

i s

of the

B I T *

C A TALOG * T Y PE

B I T

S Y M T Y PE * A NG LE W I DTH

F A CET E D GE A N GLES L V

L D

R V

B L AN K

B L AN K

B LAN K

R D L E NGTH

W I DTH

T H ICK W E IGHT

E N D M T RL P A T INA S I TE

I 9 2 5 .45 .28P

2

2 4 0 (35 )

7 9

0 . 42

N / A

N IP

9 6

1 2 0

7 . 10

2 .20

0 . 85

1 3 .60

1

8

1

9

2 9 2 5 .45 .280 3 9 2 6 .45 .2 9 PR

2 2

2 4 0 (37 ) 2 4 1 (36 )

8 5 6 7

0 .42 0 .35

N / A N / P

N / A N / P

6 8 1 3 2

1 2 3

7 . 10

2 . 20 2 • 9 0

0 . 85 0 . 95

1 3 .60 2 .95

2 1

8 8

1 1

9 9

4 9 2 6 .45 .2 9 PL

2

2 4 1 (36 )

7 0

0 .65

1 3 5

8 5

N / A

N / A

8 . 50

2 . 90

0 . 95

2 .95

1

8

1

9

5 9 2 6 .45 .29 D

1

1 4 1 (28 )

5 4

0 . 55

1 0 4

1 8

1 0 0

1 0 6

8 . 50

2 .90

0 . 95

2 .95

2

8

1

9

6 9 2 6 .45 .30 7 9 2 6 .45 .3 1 8 9 2 6 .45 .32

1 1 2

7 1 6 7 5 1

0 . 70 0 .75 0 .40

1 2 7 8 1 1 0 0

1 0 8 1 9 1 0

1 0 3 1 4 7 5

9 8 9 6 9 4

1 0 .85 6 . 00 4 . 80

2 . 80 2 . 45 2 . 10

1 . 15 0 . 80 0 . 62

3 5 .90 1 .80 7 . 10

2 2 2

8 8 2

1

1 1

2 2

9 9 5

1

2 8 2 7 2 8

9 0

8 . 50

9 9 2 6 .45 .33

1

1

2 9

7 4

0 .33

1 0 5

8 1

8 4

1 2 5

9 . 90

2 .60

0 . 85

1 4 .90

2

8

1

9

1 0 9 2 6 .45 .35

2

2

2 7

8 3

1 . 30

7 9

1 0 4

N I P

N I A

6 . 05

3 . 30

1 . 4 0

2 7 .10

2

8

1

9

1 9 2 6 .45 .65 1 2 9 2 9 .2 1 .40 6 1 3 9 2 9 .29 .2 18

2 1 1

2 3 6 2 1 7 (28 ) 2 2 9

7 7 3 6 5

0 .25 0 .40 0 . 65

N IA 1 0 7 1 2 3

N / A 9 6 1 4

9 6 6 5 1 2 3

1 6 1 2 1 1 8

4 . 55 7 . 50 5 . 80

2 . 50 4 . 30 3 . 10

0 . 68 1 0 .10 0 . 85 3 7 .90 1 . 20 2 .90

2 3 2

2 6 2

2 2 2

5 1 1 5

1 4 9 2 9 .2 9 .272 1 5 9 29 .29 .275

1 1

2 1

7 6 7 6

0 . 18 1 . 05

9 1 5

6 8 9 6

1 3 3 9 3

7 0 1 3 1

6 . 30 7 . 30

3 . 35 4 . 05

0 . 95 1 . 65

2 2

2 2

2 2

1 5 1 5

2 8 2 7

1 6 .70 4 6 .30

1 6 9 29 .29 .296

1

1

2 7

5 8

1 . 05

1 2

1 0 5

8 5

1 3 0

6 . 10

2 . 10

1 . 05

1 2 .80

2

6

2

1 5

1 7 9 2 9 .29 .298

1

1

2 7

5 6

0 .92

9 8

1 2 5

1 0 0

1 0

6 . 20

2 .90

1 . 80

2 8 .00

2

2

2

1 5

1 8 9 2 9 .29 .299 1 9 9 2 9 .29 .30 1 2 0 9 2 9 .29 .30 7

1 1 1

1 2 7 1 2 7 1 1 7 (2 7 )

4 4 7

0 . 42 0 . 80 0 . 40

9 0 9 2 9 5

1 0 1 2 7 9 0

9 5 1 0 6 9 3

1 3 1 2 1 1 1

5 . 90 5 . 80 5 . 90

1 . 85 1 . 75 2 . 35

0 . 72 0 . 85 0 . 62

8 .20 7 .2 0 7 . 70

2 2 2

2 2 4

2

2 1

1 5 1 5 1 4

2 1 9 2 9 .29 .329 2 9 2 9 .29 .336 2 3 9 2 9 .29 .4 10 2 4 9 2 9 .29 .4 18P 2 5 9 2 9 .29 .4 18D

1 1 1 1 2

1 2 7 1 1 7 (27 ) 1 2 7 1 4 1 (27 ) 1 4 1 (35 )

5 6 7 5 3 5 3 7 6

0 .95 0 .70 0 .60 0 .48 0 .08

7 1 0 3 8 3 9 2 N / A

1 4 2 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 8 N / A

9 7 8 5 1 2 8 7 8 2

1 4 0 1 4 0 8 0 1 8 1 2 8

1 .70 7 . 05 6 . 05 6 . 50 6 .5 0

2 . 50 2 .50 2 .90 2 . 10 2 . 10

1 . 10 1 . 20 0 . 70 0 . 50 0 . 50

3 0 .05 1 8 .50 1 2 .10 7 . 50 7 .50

2 3 1 1 2

2 2 2 6 6

2 2 2 2 2

1 5 1 5 1 5 6 6

2 6 2 7 2 8

9 2 9 .29 .447 9 2 9 .29 .448 9 2 9 .29 .449

1 1 2

1 2 1

2 7 2 9 3 6

6 4 8 8 1

0 . 70 0 .59 0 .42

1 0 1 1 0 0 N / A

1 2 5 1 2 5 N / A

9 5 9 0 9 4

1 5 0 7 2 9

1 .20 9 . 55 7 . 05

2 . 30 1 . 70 2 . 80

0 . 93 2 5 .80 1 . 10 1 9 .10 0 .7 0 1 5 .80

2 2 2

2 2 2

2 2 2

1 5 1 5 1 5

2 9 9 2 9 .29 .459 3 0 9 2 9 .29 .465

1 1

2 1

2 8 2 7

6 3 5 3

0 .88 0 . 40

8 2 1 0 4

1 7 9 7

9 7 8 4

8 5 1 0 3

6 . 00 6 . 25

3 . 20 1 . 90

1 . 10 0 . 70

1 5 .70 7 . 80

2 2

4 6

1 2

1 4 1 5

3 1 9 2 9 .29 .497 3 2 9 2 9 .29 .5 13

1 1

2 2

2 8 2 7

8 9 6

1 . 12 0 . 83

9 8 8 6

1 3 6 1 2 5

1 0 5 1 0 5

1 0 1 0 5

1 3 .00 4 . 50

3 . 95 1 . 80

1 . 60 1 . 15

6 7 .50 1 2 .30

2 2

8 8

1 2

1 7 1 5

3 3 4

9 2 9 .29 .529 9 2 9 .8 1 .34

1 2

1 2

2 7 3 5

5 4 1 0 3

0 . 7 1 0 . 18

9 5 N / A

1 4 N / A

9 6 9 3

8 9 1 2 1

6 . 80 7 . 00

2 . 75 2 . 10

1 . 10 0 . 80

1 9 .90 1 0 .05

2 2

6 2

2 2

1 5 1 0

3 5

9 2 9 .8 1 .36

1

2

2 8

4 6

0 . 80

9 0

1 4 5

1 4

1 2 2

1 3 .0 0

3 . 40

1 . 72

6 1 .40

2

7

2

1 0

3 6 9 2 9 .8 1 .39 3 7 9 2 9 .8 1 .148 3 8 9 2 9 -8 1 .15 1

2 1 2

2 2 2

3 7 2 9 3 6

8 5 7 0 8 0

0 . 15 0 . 44 0 .3 9

N / A 1 0 6 N / A

N / A 1 0 2 N / A

9 7 9 5 9 0

1 5 1 0 0 1 2 0

7 . 95 7 . 70 6 . 00

2 . 30 3 . 30 1 . 75

0 . 64 1 . 95 0 . 70

1 3 .00 3 5 .50 7 . 20

2 2 2

7 7 7

2 2 2

1 0 5 5

3 9 4 0

2 1

1 1

3 7 2 7

1 0 5 6 9

0 .20 0 . 48

N / A 1 2 5

N / A 1 5

9 5 9 7

1 1 8 7

7 . 65 8 . 9 5

2 . 15 2 . 80

0 . 72 0 . 75

1 3 .60 1 8 .80

2 2

2 8

2 2

5 1 6

9 2 9 .8 1 .165 9 2 9 .8 1 .168

1 40

B I T * 4 1

C A TALO G * T Y PE

B I T

S Y I I T Y PE * A N G LE W I DTH

F A CET E D GE A N GLES L V

L D

B L AN K

B L ANK

B LAN K

R V

R D L E NGTH

W I DTH

T H ICK W E IGHT

E N D P u RL P A T INA S I TE

9 2 9 .8 1 .1 7 3

2

2

4

6 5

0 . 5 4

1 3 0

8 0

N / A

N / A

5 . 00

3 . 65

1 . 15

2 0 .50

3

1

2

8

4 2 9 2 9 .8 1 .18 1 4 3 9 2 9 .8 1 .182

1 2

1 1

2 7 3 5

6 7 6

0 . 50 0 . 70

1 0 3 N / A

1 3 3 N / A

9 5 9 0

1 2 5 1 0

7 . 35 5 . 20

3 . 65 2 . 50

1 . 43 0 . 92

3 .70 1 3 .50

2 2

8 8

2 2

8 8

4

9 2 9 .8 1 .183

2

2

3 6

6 4

0 . 78

N / A

N / A

1 0 2

1 8

6 . 50

2 . 85

0 . 95

1 8 .50

2

2

2

8

4 5

9 2 9 .8 1 .184

1

1

2 7

7 0

0 . 7 1

1 2

1 2

1 0 5

1 1

5 . 65

2 . 70

0 . 98

1 6 .80

2

2

2

8

4 6 4 7 4 8 4 9 5 0

9 6 8 .35 1 .24 9 6 8 .35 1 .29 9 6 8 .35 1 .5 6 9 6 8 .35 1 .79A 9 6 8 .35 1 .79B

2 1 1 2 1

2 1 7 (44 ) 1 2 7 1 2 7 2 4 1 (37 ) 1 4 1 (27 )

7 9 5 7 5 1 2 6 4

1 . 2 1 0 . 3 5 0 . 7 1 0 . 40 0 . 45

1 3 5 8 5 9 8 N /A 8 0

1 0 5 1 2 0 1 3 N / A 8 3

N / A 7 2 7 0 8 4 9 0

N / A 1 5 0 1 0 5 1 2 3 1 0 8

5 . 60 6 . 65 8 . 35 5 . 60 5 . 60

3 . 25 1 . 80 3 . 30 2 .50 2 . 50

1 . 50 0 . 65 0 . 87 0 .8 8 0 . 88

2 6 .40 6 . 60 1 3 .65 1 0 .90 1 0 .90

2 1 1 3 3

8 8 8 8 8

1 2 1 2 2

1 8 1 5 9 9 9

5 1 9 6 8 .35 1 .82 5 2 9 6 8 .35 1 .102

1 1

1 1

2 7 2 8

7 1 6 1

0 . 60 0 . 39

1 0 2 1 0

1 8 1 0 8

1 0 0 1 0 2

1 2 4 8

5 . 70 6 . 63

2 .9 0 2 . 6 1

0 . 80 0 . 85

1 8 .10 1 2 .90

1 3

6 6

2 2

8 8

5 3

9 6 8 .35 1 .10 7

1

1

2 8

5 7

0 . 22

9 5

7 5

1 2

8 5

5 . 20

2 . 65

0 . 80

8 . 90

2

8

1

5 4 %8 .3 5 1 .1 6 5 9 6 8 .35 1 .120

1 1

2 1

2 8 2 7

7 4 9

0 . 13 0 . 3 0

8 9 5

1 3 2 9 0

1 0 8 8 6

9 7 9 0

4 . 60 5 . 00

1 . 60 2 . 65

0 . 42 0 . 57

3 . 20 6 . 35

2 3

5 2

2 2

1 8 7 5

5 6 5 7 5 8 5 9

1 4 5f l 1 4 58 1 8 8 1 9 0

1 3 1 1

1 3 1 (27 ) 1 3 1 (27 ) 2 2 8 1 2 7

5 8 6 5 4 8 8 0

0 . 69 0 . 74 0 . 49 0 . 89

9 6 1 0 6 8 0 1 0 4

1 0 3 8 5 1 4 0 1 2 8

9 N /A 8 0 1 4 3

1 7 N / A 1 0 7 3

7 . 25 7 . 25 7 .30 5 . 10

2 . 00 2 . 00 5 . 30 1 . 70

1 . 00 1 . 00 1 . 60 0 . 99

5 . 50 5 . 50 5 8 .60 7 . 60

3 3 2 2

8 8 5 8

2 2 2 1

1 5 1 5 5 1 3

6 0

2 1

1

1

2 7

7 1

0 . 79

9 0

1 0

1 4 5

5

7 . 85

2 . 6 1

0 . 85

1 7 .50

1

6

2

5

6 1

2 4 9

2

2

3 4

7 6

0 . 60

1 3 1

7

N / A

N / A

5 . 80

2 . 75

1 . 05

1 8 .20

2

8

1

5

6 2 6 3 6 4 6 5

2 5 1 2 5 9 2 8 70 2 8 7P

1 1 2 2

2 2 9 2 2 8 2 4 0 (35 ) 1 4 0 (35 )

6 9 8 1 8 1 9 3

0 .54 0 . 50 0 .20 0 . 20

9 1 5 N / A N /A

9 3 1 0 9 N / A N / A

1 0 5 7 5 8 5 8 3

9 8 1 0 6 1 0 0 8 0

5 . 05 5 .80 5 . 40 5 . 40

1 . 68 2 . 65 2 . 30 2 . 30

1 . 05 0 .80 0 . 75 0 . 75

5 . 00 1 2 .35 1 0 .30 1 0 .30

2 2 2 1

8 8 8 8

1 1 2 2

1 5 5 5 5

6 2 9 0 6 7 3 2 3 6 8 33P 6 9 33 D 7 0 35

2 2 2 1 2

1 1 7 (36 ) 1 3 7 2 4 1 (36 ) 1 4 1 (27 ) 1 3 7

6 5 8 5 6 4 5 9 7 2

0 . 92 0 . 55 0 . 15 0 . 2 1 0 . 5 1

N / A 8 9 N / A 8 7 1 0

N / A 1 3 7 N / A 8 1 0 4

9 5 N /A 9 0 9 N / A

1 2 7 N / A 1 0 0 9 7 N / A

7 . 10 9 . 55 4 . 40 4 . 40 7 . 10

2 . 85 2 . 40 1 . 90 1 . 9 0 3 . 3 5

1 . 12 1 . 38 0 . 55 0 . 55 1 . 35

2 3 .15 2 3 .60 3 . 90 3 . 90 3 2 .00

1 2 1 2 2

8 8 8 8 6

2 1 1 1 2

1 2 9 1 8 9 5

7 1

3 4 6P

2

1 4 1 (35 )

5 9

0 . 25

N / A

N / A

9 0

1 0 2

6 . 65

2 . 00

0 . 66

9 . 80

1

3

2

1 5

7 2 3 4 60 7 3 3 4 7

3 1

2 4 1 (30 ) 1 2 7

8 3 7 1

0 . 43 0 . 35

N / A 9 6

N / A 7 5

9 5 9 3

8 5 1 2

6 . 65 7 . 45

2 . 00 1 . 65

0 . 66 0 . 60

9 . 80 8 . 10

2 2

3 8

2 1

1 5 4

7 ' 3 5 1 7 5 3 9 9

1 1

2 1

2 8 2 8

7 1 7

0 . 56 0 . 39

9 1 6

1 0 0 1 3

1 0 9 N /A

1 2 N / A

7 . 65 5 . 05

2 . 85 2 . 90

0 . 90 0 . 45

2 1 .35 6 . 60

2 2

6 8

2 I

5 5

7 6 7 7 8

4 0 6 4 0 7P 4 0 70

1 1 1

1 2 7 1 3 1 (28 ) 1 3 1 (27 )

8 4 7 5 6 4

0 . 67 1 . 05 0 . 80

1 0 3 1 2 9 1 4

1 3 0 7 8

u S

9 8 1 3 2 1 1

1 3 5 1 9 1 0 5

1 .20 9 . 40 9 . 40

2 . 90 4 . 40 4 . 40

2 . 05 1 . 50 1 . 50

5 2 .20 4 8 .00 4 8 .00

1 1 2

8 2 2

1 2 2

3 3 3

7 9 8 0

4 3 5 4 5 5

3 3

2 3 0 2 1 7 (43 )

8 5 8 1

0 . 59 0 .50

1 2 5 1 0 3

9 6 1 3 5

N / A N / A

N / A N / A

6 . 35 5 . 0 0

3 . 25 3 . 55

1 . 19 2 . 00

2 7 .40 2 9 .55

2 1

8 8

1 1

4 1 8

1 41

B IT #

C ATA LOG * T Y PE

B IT

ST h T YPE * A NGLE W IDTH

F ACET E DGE A NGLES L V

L D

R V

R D

B LAN K

B LANK

B LANK

L ENGTH

W IDTH

T H ICK W E IGH T

E N D M T RL P A T INA S ITE

8 1 8 2

4 56 4 75

2 2

1 1 7 (37 ) 1 3 5

8 4 8 6

0 .45 0 .59

8 2 1 2 5

1 2 2 9 1

N /A N /A

N /A N / A

8 .00 6 .35

3 .70 2 . 15

1 . 20 0 .85

3 2 .10 1 2 .00

1 2

8 8

1 1

8 2

8 3 8 4

5 03 5 6 1

1 1

2 2

2 8 2 9

6 3 7 8

0 .45 0 .50

8 2 1 2

8 7 1 2 7

7 6 N /A

1 0 6 N /A

5 .40 5 . 83

1 . 60 2 .2 1

0 .70 0 .6 1

3 .90 7 . 40

2 2

8 8

1 1

4 1

8 5

5 62

1

1

2 7

5 6

0 .3 8

1 3 0

7

1 1

%

5 .40

1 . 75

0 .54

4 . 10

2

8

1

1

8 6

5 75

2

2

3 7

1 4 0

0 .28

1 1

1 0 4

N /A

N /A

7 .30

2 .00

0 .7 3

8 .80

2

8

1

8 7

5 8 1

1

1

2 7

7 1

0 .32

9 0

1 0 8

8 7

12

6 . 15

1 . 80

0 .42

5 .00

2

7

2

1 8

8 8 9

5 83 9 9 9

1 1

2 1 7 (28 ) 1 2 7

7 4 4 3

0 .69 0 .35

1 2 5 1 0 0

1 0 4 1 0 0

N /A 10

N /A 9 2

5 .00 6 .50

2 .35 1 . 90

0 .90 0 .55

1 .05 6 .80

3 2

7 7

2 2

1 5

142

Appendix B Illustrations of the Archaeological Sample (All drawings are actual size.)

143

1( p rox ima l) 2( d is ta l)

t

3( p rox ima l r i gh t)

t

4( p rox ima l l e ft ) 5( d is ta l )

u4 1

7

6

1 44

8

A ol

1 0

9

4

1

1 45

1 2

1 3

1 4

1 46

1 6 1 5

1 7

1 8

1 47

1 9

20

2 1

I "

2 2 2 3

1 48

2 4( p rox ima l ) 2 5( d is ta l)

26

2 7 28

1 49

I '

2 9

3 1

3 0

3 2

150

3 3

3 4

i t

3 6

3 5 151

4

3 8 3 7 3 9

4 ,

4 1

4 0

1 52

4 3

4 2

4 5

44

153

4 1

46

47

48

I ' 49 ( prox ima l ) 50 ( d is ta l)

5 1 I NV 52

54 53

1 54

5 5

; qK r I

5 6 ( p rox ima l ) 5 7 ( d is ta l )

5 8

155

59

4 ,

6 1

60 I k

62

67 63 66

I'

64 ( d is ta l) 65 ( prox ima l)

1 56

68 ( prox ima l ) 69 ( d is ta l)

7 1 ( p rox ima l ) 7 2 ( d is ta l ) 70

7 5

7 3

74

1 57

l I'

7 7 ( p rox i ma l ) 7 8 ( d is ta l ) 76

4 ,

80

79

1 58

w e

83 8 2 8 1

8 5

8 4

159

8 7

8 6

I '

8 8 8 9

160

Appendix C The Experimental

1 61

Sample

Legend

# :

number of the burin as this study

TYPE:

the type of the process: 1 = dihedral 2 = truncation 3 = break

SYMMETRY:

TYPE

# :

it

i s

referenced throughout

burin based on the manufacturing

the position of the bit relative to the central axis of the piece: 1 = symmetric 2 = asymmetric

burin type as defined by de Sonneville-Bordes and Perrot's ( 1956) burin typology; if there are multiple burins on a piece or if a burin occurs in association with another worked edge ( e. g., an endscraper), the type # of the burin if it were to occur alone is indicated in parentheses ( ) ; for example, type # 40(35) indicates the piece i s defined as a burin multiple sur troncature retouchee ( type # 40), but the individual bit is a burin sur troncature retouchee oblique ( type # 35)

BIT ANGLE:

the angle of surfaces which

BIT WIDTH:

the maximum length along the axis of the bit; since most bits are curved, this i s usually the length of a chord

FACET EDGE ANGLES:

BLANK LENGTH:

intersection of the two opposing form the bit

the angle of intersection of the f acet plane and the adjacent surface of the piece LV = left ventral RV = right ventral LD = left dorsal RD = right dorsal left and right are determined for each burin with the bit held distally and the dorsal surface upward; on truncation and break burins there i s one side without facet removals, this measurement i s therefore not applicable ( N/A)

maximum

length

of the piece

BLANK WIDTH:

maximum width

BLANK THICK:

maximum thickness

WEIGHT:

weight

of

the piece

of the piece

( cm)

of the piece

in grams

1 62

( cm)

( cm)

END:

end of the manufactured: 1 = proximal 2 = distal

MATERIAL

( MTRL ):

piece

on

which

raw material on manufactured: 1 = Dover chert 2 = Coxsackie chert

1 63

which

the

the

burin

burin

was

is

*

T Y PE

B I T B I T G Y M T Y PE * A N GLE W I DTH

L D

F A CET E D GE A N GLE L V R D R V

B L ANK L E NGTH

B L AN K B L ANK W I DT H T H ICK

E IGHT

E N D M T R L

1 2 3

1 1 1

I 2

2 8 2 8 2 9

7 0 5 8 8 0

0 . 65 1 . 10 0 . 15

6 7 1 2 5 1 0 5

1 0 6 8 7 9 3

7 5 7 5 9 0

8 6 1 3 1 7 4

8 . 65 6 . 85 6 . 05

3 . 90 4 . 10 2 . 15

2 .02 1 . 70 0 . 67

6 8 .50 4 0 .00 7 . 60

2 2 2

1

4 5

1 1

2 1

2 9 2 7

6 9 7 2

0 . 35 0 .35

7 6 8 5

9 6 9 0

1 3 1 9 0

7 4 9 0

4 . 65 4 . 15

3 . 90 2 . 80

1 . 02 0 . 92

1 8 .50 1 0 .40

2 2

1 1

6 7 8

3 3 2

23 1 (30 ) 23 1 (30 ) 2 3 6

6 2 7 7 1

0 . 25 0 .30 0 . 59

N / A 1 2 2 7

N / A 1 0 4 1 2 8

1 2 8 N / A N / A

8 9 N / A N / A

5 . 00 5 . 00 5 . 25

4 . 00 4 . 00 3 . 20

1 . 9 0 1 . 90 1 . 11

3 8 .40 3 8 .40 2 0 .10

2 2 2

1 1 1

9 1 0

2 2

2 2

4 3 5

7 7 8

0 .30 0 . 50

8 1 1 5

1 4 4 6 9

N / A N / A

N / A N / A

5 . 30 4 . 70

2 . 70 2 . 10

0 . 90 0 . 88

1 2 .60 9 . 80

1 2

1 1

1 1 2

3 2

2 3 0 24 0 (36 )

9 4 8 4

0 .45 0 .50

1 0 9 N /A

l O O N / A

N I A 9 3

N / A 9 0

4 . 70 5 . 20

2 . 50 3 . 35

1 . 00 1 . 0 1

1 .90 1 8 .50

2 2

1 1

2

1 1

1 3

2

24 0 (36 )

7 2

0 . 35

4 0

1 3 0

N / A

N / A

5 . 20

3 . 35

1 . 0 1

1 8 .5 0

2

1

1 4 1 5

3 2

2 2

3 0 3 5

7 5 7 0

0 . 40 0 .30

N / A N /A

N /A N /A

1 2 3 1 2

8 9 2

4 . 15 4 . 80

2 . 00 2 . 20

1 . 09 0 . 52

9 . 10 5 . 50

2 2

1 1

1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0

1 2 3 2

2 2 2 2 2

2 8 3 6 3 0 3 5 3 6

6 9 7 2 7 8 0 6

0 . 25 0 .25 0 . 35 0 . 32 0 . 33

1 3 5 7 6 1 0 4 N / A 7

8 0 1 8 7 5 N / A 1 3 4

1 3 0 N / A N /A 9 N i P

9 3 N / A N / A 9 7 N / A

5 . 35 4 . 40 5 . 50 5 . 10 5 . 40

3 . 10 3 . 05 2 . 70 2 .5 0 2 .8 0

1 . 02 1 . 00 0 . 78 1 . 11 1 . 28

1 9 .40 1 3 .90 9 . 90 1 .90 2 1 .50

2 1

2

1

3 6

5 9

0 .48

N /A

N /A

9 5

1 2 8

5 . 70

3 . 80

1 . 69

3 2 .90

1

1

2 2 3 2 4 2 5

1 2 3 2

2 1 2 2

2 7 3 5 3 0 3 6

8 0 6 6 7 2

0 . 72 0 . 62 0 . 30 0 . 15

1 2 5 9 8 N / A 7 8

9 5 1 0 3 N / A 1 2

1 2 7 N / A 1 3 3 N /A

8 3 N /A 7 5 N /A

5 . 70 6 . 90 3 . 90 4 . 80

3 . 80 3 . 70 3 . 55 2 . 40

1 . 69 1 . 88 1 . 00 0 .50

3 2 .90 4 3 .00 1 3 .50 5 . 70

2 2 1 2

1 1 1 1

2 6 2 7

2 2

2 2

3 5 3 6

7 1 7 9

0 . 25 0 . 42

N / A 6 7

N / A 1 2 9

7 1 N / A

1 0 7 N / A

4 . 70 4 . 25

2 . 15 2 . 90

0 . 75 0 .99

4 . 50 1 .70

2 2

1

2 8 2 9

1 3

2 2

2 9 3 0

8 5 8 3

0 . 23 0 .25

N /A N / A

N / A N / A

1 2 7 1 2

7 5 7 6

3 . 50 3 . 40

2 . 75 2 .55

0 . 5 1 0 . 60

4 . 50 7 . 10

1 2

1 1

3 0

1

2

2 8

8 1

0 . 44

8 2

1 0 4

1 3 7

6 4

4 . 50

2 . 40

0 . 68

6 . 50

2

2

3 1 3 2

2 2

24 0 (36 ) 24 0 (36 )

8 0 7 6

0 .50 0 . 65

N / A 8 7

N / A 1 0 8

8 7 N / A

1 3 7 N / A

7 . 55 7 . 55

3 . 70 3 . 70

1 . 10 1 . 10

3 1 .80 3 1 .80

2 2

2 2

2

164

2

1 2 1 1

1 1 1 1 1

Appendix D I llustrations of the Experimental

( All drawings are actual

1 65

Sample

size.)

A e

3

1

I 4

I '

2 5

166

6( r ight )

8

7( l e ft)

1

1 0 9

4 ,

4 ,

4 4 ,

1 4

1 2 ( r ight ) 1 3 ( l eft)

1 67

i l

1 5

1 6

1 7 1 8

1 9 20

168

1 4

2 4

2 1 ( p rox ima l ) 2 2( d is ta l )

2 5

2 3 2 6

169

2 7 2 8

29

3 1 ( r igh t ) 3 2( l e f t )

30

1 70

Appendix E I llustrations of the Polish Occurrences

( All

drawings are actual

1 71

size.)

List of the

Polish Occurrences

smooth antler or wood

Burin

#11:

A =

Burin

#13:

A = unidentified;

Burin

#14:

A = rough antler

Burin

#15:

A = unidentified

Burin

#17:

A =

Burin

# 18:

Burin

#19:

A

Burin

# 21:

A ,

Burin

# 22:

A

=

wood

Burin

# 23:

A

=

smooth antler;

Burins

# 24

B & C

( ?);

smooth antler;

B

wood

=

B & C

wood

=

unidentified

=

dry hide smooth antler

=

C ,

& 25:

& D

=

wood;

( ?);

A & B

=

B

=

# 27:

A & B

Burin

# 28:

A

=

bone

Burin

# 32:

A

=

unidentified

Burin

# 33:

A

=

bone

Burin

# 39:

A

=

smooth antler

Burin

# 40:

A

=

bone

Burin

# 41:

A & B

Burin

# 43:

A

=

unidentified

Burin

# 44:

A

=

wood;

Burin

# 45:

A

=

bone

# 49

& 50:

A

Burins

# 56

& 5 7:

A C

bone

wet hide B & C

unidentified

=

bone

=

Burins

=

wood

Burin

=

B

or smooth antler; unidentified;

=

= =

B

=

( ?);

wood

bone;

B

C

=

unidentified

=

=

wood

C

=

bone

( 7)

unidentified

dry hide; B , D , unidentified

1 72

B

& E

=

wood;

List

of the

Polish Occurrences

Burin

# 58:

A

Burin

# 66:

A & B

Burin

# 78:

A

=

bone

Burin

# 87:

A

=

smooth antler

=

wood =

dry hide

( ?)

1 73

( continued)

1

1 3

1 4

1 5

1 74

4 1j

1 8

1 7

1 9

2 1

1 75

2 3 2 2

4 .

25

24 2 7

1 76

1A i r

3 2

2 8

i t

3 3 3 9

1 77

4 ,

4 1

40

I '

43

44

1 78

5 7 45

50

56

4 9

1 79

5 8

7 8

66

W l l

77

8 7

180

4 1

Appendix Plates

181

F

List

of

Plates

Plate

1 :

Polish Edge.

occurrence

4 4A.

Wood

polish.

Facet

Plate

2 :

Polish Edge.

occurrence

21A.

Wood

polish.

Facet

Plate

3 :

Polish occurrence 25A. trihedral bit corner.

Wood polish.

Ventral

Plate

4 :

Polish occurrence 2 4B. trihedral bit corner

Wood polish.

Ventral

Plate

5 :

Polish occurrence Retouched edge

Smooth antler polish.

Plate

6 :

Polish occurrence 3 9A. Smooth antler polish. Ventral trihedral bit corner.

Plate

7 :

Polish occurrence 40A. polish. Facet edge.

Bone or

Plate

8 :

Polish occurrence Retouched edge.

Wet hide polish.

2 3A.

2 2B.

1 82

smooth antler

Plate

1

P late

2

1 83

Plate

3

Plate

4

184

Plate

5

Plate

6

1 85

Plate

Plate

1 86

7

8

References

Cited

Abbreviations: BSPF CNRS

Ascher, 1 961

= =

Bulletin de la Societe Prehistorique Française Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique

R Experimental Anthropologist

archaeology. 6 3:793-816.

American

Audouze, F ., D . Cahen, L . H. Keeley, and B . Schmider 1 981 Le site magdal nien du Buisson Campin Verberie ( Oise). Gallia Pr histoire 2 4:99-143.

a

Bardon, 1 903

L ., A . and J . Bouyssonie Un nouveau type de burin. Revue de l 'Ecole d 'Anthropologie de Paris 1 3:165-168. Grattoir caréné et ses derives la coumbo-del-boujtou ( Corrèze). Revue de 1 'Ecole d ' Anthropologie 1 6:401-411. La Grotte Locaste, prés Brive ( Corrèze). Revue Anthropologique 20:28-40.

a

1 906

1 910

Bordaz,

J .

1 970

Tools of the Old and New Stone Age. Natural History Press.

Bordes,

F .

1 947

Etude comparative des différentes techniques de la taille du silex et des roches dures. L 'Anthropologie 51:1-29. Utilisation possible des cites des burins. Funderichte aus Schwaben 1 7:3-4.

1 965 1 969

Reflections Paleolithic.

Bourlon, 1 911

on typology and techniques Arctic Anthropology 6 : 1-21.

in the

M . Essai de d 'avivage.

Brezillon, 1 983

New York:

classification des burins. Leurs modes Revue Anthopologique 21:267-278.

M . N.

La Denomination des Objets de Pierre Taillee: Materiaux pour un vocabulaire des préhistoriens de langue Fran9aise. lye Supplement Gallia Pr histoire. Third edition; first edition ( 1968). Paris: CNRS.

a

Brink, 1 978

J . W. An experimental study of i nicrowear formation on endscrapers. Archaeological Survey of Canada Paper No. 8 3.

1 87

Burkitt, 1 920

M . C. Classification of burins or gravers. of the Prehistoric Society 3 :306-310.

Cheynier, 1 963

Clark, 1 953

A .

Les burins. Brezillon 1 983). J . G. D.

and M .W .

BSPF

60:791-805

( as

cited

in

Thompson

The groove and splinter technique of working antler in Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic Europe, with special reference to the material from Star Carr. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 1 2:148-160.

Crabtree, D .E. and E . L. Davis 1 968 Experimental manufacture with tools of f laked stone. Deetz, 1 967

Proceedings

J . Invitation to History Press.

Archaeology.

of wooden implements Science 5 9:426-428.

New

York:

Natural

Dreiman, R . N. 1 979 Methods in artifact analysis: a study of Upper Paleolithic burins. Contributions of the University of California Archaeological Research Faculty No. 4 2. Gendel, 1 982

P . A. and L . Pirnay Microwear analysis of experimental stone tools: further test results. Studia Praehistorica Belgica 2 :251-265.

Gould, R . A., D . A. Koster, and A . H. L. Sontz 1 971 The lithic assemblage of the western desest aborigines of Australia. American Antiquity 3 6:149-169. Gunn, J . 1 975 Dynamic typology: a model for functional typing of stone tools with an application to French Paleolithic burins. Newsletter of Lithic Technology 4 (2) : 9-17. Holley, 1 981

G . A. and T . A. Del Bene An evaluation of Keeley's microwear approach. Journal of Archaeological Science 8 :337-352.

Keeley, 1 974

L . H. Technique and methodology in microwear studies: a critical review. World Archaeology 5 :323-336. Experimental Determination of Stone Tools Uses: a microwear analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

1 980

1 88

Keeley, 1 977

L . H.

and M .

Microwear

H .

analysis

test case. 4 :29-62. Koetje, 1 987

Larick, 1 983

of

Typologie lames et

a

statistique et evolution des lamelles. BSPF 5 3:127-139.

Circulation

of

E .

and H .

Solutrean

Foliate

Point

Mobility in the Perigord. State University of New York

Christy Aquitanicae.

Patterns Groups

London:

of Chert Acquisition within the Delaware

Lithologic Approach. York University. Leguay, 1 877

Williams

and

Ph. D.

among Woodland Watershed: A

Dissertation,

New

L . Les procédés employes pour la gravure et la sculpture des os avec le silex. Bulletin de la Société d 'anthropologie de Paris, 2e serie, 1 2:280-296.

E .H .

1 983

1 987

The functional analysis of f lint implements. Pincevent and Pont d ' Ambon: two case studies from the French Final Palaeolithic. BAR International Series 1 77. A review of " Investigating microwear polishes with blind tests." Science 1 4:473-481.

Movius, 1 968

complexes

L .

1 983

Moss,

a

Science

R .

Reliquiae Norgate.

Lavin,

f lint tools:

Archaeological

G .

Cherts: Residential Ph. D. Dissertation, at Binghamton.

1 875

of

Spatial Patterns in Magdalenian Open Air Sites from the Isle Valley, Southwestern France. BAR International Series 3 46.

The

Lartet,

experimental

Journal

T . A.

Lap lace-Jauretche, 1 956

Newcomer

H . L.

Journal

of Archaeological

Jr.

Note on the history of the discovery and recognition of the function of burins as tools. In D . de Sonneville-Bordes ( ed.), La Préhistoire: Probl i nes et Tendances, pp. 311-318. Paris: Editions du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique.

1 89

Movius, 1 968

I L L., N . C. David, H . M. Bricker, and R . B. Clay The analysis of certain major classes of Upper Paleolithic tools. Bulletin of the American School of Prehistoric Research No. 26.

Newcomer, M . H. 1 974 Study and replication of bone tools from Ksar Akil. World Archaeology 6 :138-153. 1 977 Experiments in Upper Paleolithic bone work. In Methodologie Appliquee a 1 'Industrie de l 'Os Prehistorique, pp. 293-301. Paris: CNRS. Newcomer, N . H., . Grace, and . Unger-Hamilton 1 986 Investigating microwear polishes with blind tests. Journal of Archaeological Science 1 3:203-217. Noone, 1 934

H . V. V. A classification of f lint burins or gravers. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 6 4:81-92.

Odell, G . 1 975 Micro-wear in perspective: a sympathetic response to Lawrence H . Keeley. World Archaeoloqv 7 :226-240. 1 977 The Application of Micro-Wear Analysis to the Lithic Component of an Entire Prehistoric Settlement: Methods, Problems, and Functional Reconstructions. Ph. D. dissertation, Harvard University. Odell, 1 980

Pigeot, 1 987

G . and F . Odell-Vereecken verifying the reliability of lithic use-wear assessments by ' blind tests': the low-power approach. Journal of Field Archaeoloqy 7 :87-120. N . Magda14niens organisation Prehistoire.

-

d 'Etiolles: 4conomie de d bitage et sociale. XXveme Supplement a Gallia Paris: CNRS.

Pradel, 1 966

L . Classification des burins avec notation chiffr e. BSPF 6 3:485-500. 1 971 A new classification of burins. Current Anthropology 1 2:562-563. 1 973a Stigmates d 'accomodation et d 'usage sur les burins Moust riens de Fontmaure. BSPF 70:26-31. 1 973b Traces d 'usage sur les burins du Pal olithique superieur. BSPF 70:90-96.

Rigaud, 1 972

A . La technologie du burin appliquee au materiel osseux de la Garenne ( Indre). BSPF 6 9:104-108.

1 90

Ronen, A . 1 966 Observations sur 1 'Aurignacien. L ' Anthropologie 6 9:465-485. 1 970 The burins of Vogelherd Aurignacien ( Germany) and those of the French Aurignacien: a comparison. Quartar 21:47-55. Rust, A . 1 937 Das altsteinzeitliche Meiendorf. Neumunster ( as Thompson 1 953).

Renntierjagerlager cited in Clark and

Se lnenov, S . A . 1 964 Prehistoric Technology: an experimental study of the o ldest tools and artefacts from traces of manufacture and wear. Bath: Adams and Dart. Sheets, 1 973

Simek, 1 984

P . D. Edge abrasion American Antiquity

during biface 3 8:215-218.

manufacture.

J .F . A K-means Approach to the Analysis of Spatial Structure in Upper Paleolithic Habitation Sites: Le Flageolet I and Pincevent Section 36. BAR International Series 205.

de Sonneville-Bordes, D . and J . Perrot 1 956 Lexique typologique du Paleolithique superieur: Outillage lithique IV Burins. BSPF 5 3:408-412. -

Stafford, B . D. 1 977 Burin manufacture and experimental study. Journal 4 :235-246.

of

utilization: an Field Archaeology

Stordeur, D . 1 977 La fabrication des aiguilles a chas. et experimentation. Methodologie 1 'Industrie de 110s Prehistorique, Paris: CNRS. Symens, 1 986

Observation Appliquee a pp. 251-256.

N . A functional analysis of selected stone artifacts from the Magdalenian site of Verberie, France. Journal of Field Archaeology 1 3:213-222.

Tringham, R ., G . Cooper, G . Odell, B . Voytek, and A . Whitman 1 974 Experimentation in the formation of edge damage: a new approach to lithic analysis. Journal of Field Archaeology 1 :171-196.

1 91

t Jnrath, H . 1 986

G ., L . R. Owen, A . van Gijn, E . H. Moss, Plisson, and P . Vaughan An evaluation of use-wear studies: a multianalyst approach. Early Man News 9-11:117-176.

Vaughan, P . 1 981 Lithic Microwear Experimentation and the Functional Analysis of a Lower Magdalenian Stone Tool Assemblage. Ph. D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania. 1 985 Use-Wear Analysis of Flaked Stone Tools. Arizona: University of Arizona Press. White, R . 1 982 The manipulation of notation. Canadian 2 :129-135. White, 1 972

J . P ., What

burins Journal

and D . H . Thomas mean these stones?:

in of

incision and Anthropoloc iv

Ethno-taxonomic models

and archaeological interpretations in the New Guinea Highlands. In David L . Clarke ( ed.), Models in Archaeology, pp. 275-308. London: Methuen and Company.

1 92