Maya Stone Tools: Selected Papers from the Second Maya Lithic Conference. Thomas R. Hester and Harry J. Shafer, editors. Monographs in World Archaeology No. 1. Prehistory Press, Madison, 1991. 304 pp., 122 figures, 45 tables, references. $30.00 (paper). - Maya Ceremonial Specialization: Lithic Tools from the Sacred Cenote at Chickén Itzá, Yucatán. April Kay Sievert. Monographs in World Archaeology No. 12. Prehistory Press, Madison, 1992. 162 pp., 53 figures, 46 tables, appendix, references. $28.50 (paper).

1995 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 189-191
Author(s):  
Rebecca McSwain
Keyword(s):  
Stone Tools ◽  
World Archaeology ◽  
Lithic Tools

Technology of the manufacture of Mesolithic Bone Arrowheads on the Upper Volga

1998 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 149-176 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mickle G. Zhilin
Keyword(s):  
Stone Tools ◽  
Secondary Treatment ◽  
Fine Dust ◽  
Upper Volga ◽  
Lithic Tools ◽  
High Degree ◽  
Tubular Bones

Excavations of stratified peat sites, carried out by the author on the Upper Volga during recent years, yielded a large number of varied bone projectile heads. Among these, arrowheads are most numerous. Half-finished artifacts of this group were also found together with lithic tools used for boneworking. Traceological studies enabled the author to identify various features left by lithic tools on the surface of the bone artifacts. A programme of experiments helped in the understanding of the operational chain during their manufacture, and what tools were used for each stage.Long tubular bones were used to make the majority of the arrowheads. They were either broken into long pieces with a hammerstone or use was made of the ‘groove and splinter’ technique. Direct percussion with hammerstones was used for other bones. Secondary treatment included more accurate flaking and retouch, cutting, planing, scraping, sawing with the help of stone tools, usually flint burins, knives, scrapers and saws. Abrasive slabs were used for grinding, while fine polishing was achieved with the help of leather, sometimes, with fine dust-like abrasive agents.The operational chain for the manufacture of arrowheads was the following: (1) obtaining a splinter of bone; (2) removal of unnecessary mass of bone with the help of burin and scraper to create a pre-form; (3) cutting of slots for inserts (for composite arrowheads); (4) planing of the surface with a knife, carving of details and, engraving of ornamentation. Many arrowheads were then polished, except for their bases. Specific variants of secondary treatment were observed on some arrowheads. The study showed a high degree of development of boneworking, with standardization of designs and technological operations, especially during Boreal times. Later, many arrowheads were crudely made, though wear traces and resin at their bases indicate that these are finished tools which were used.

Bigger is Better: Comments on Kuhn's Formal Approach to Mobile Tool Kits

1996 ◽  
Vol 61 (3) ◽  
pp. 581-590 ◽  
Author(s):  
Toby A. Morrow
Keyword(s):  
Stone Tools ◽  
Transport Cost ◽  
Archaeological Record ◽  
Potential Utility ◽  
Mass Ratio ◽  
Formal Approach ◽  
Erroneous Conclusion ◽  
Current Thinking ◽  
Alternative Formula ◽  
Lithic Tools

Kuhn (1994) argues that small lithic tools provide an optimal means of reducing the weight of mobile tool kits while maximizing potential utility. This assertion contradicts much of the current thinking about mobility and the organization of lithic technology and is at odds with the archaeological record. A flaw in Kuhn's equation for calculating the utility/mass ratio of retouched tools leads him to this erroneous conclusion. Problems with Kuhn's utility/mass ratio equation are described and an alternative formula is offered. The corrected formula indicates that larger stone tools maximize utility at a lower transport cost. Experimental evidence for additional advantages of larger stone tools is also provided.

scholarly journals Function and behaviour: use-wear evidence from Upper Paleolithic tools in southern Shanxi Province, North China

2016 ◽  
Vol 43 ◽  
pp. 499-506 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hong Chen ◽  
Yiren Wang ◽  
Chun Chen
Keyword(s):  
Low Power ◽  
North China ◽  
Stone Tools ◽  
Upper Paleolithic ◽  
Shanxi Province ◽  
Lower Percentage ◽  
Use Patterns ◽  
Wear Analysis ◽  
Use Wear ◽  
Lithic Tools

Lithic use-wear analysis has become a principal approach for interpreting the function of stone tools and inferring human behaviour. This study presents the results of use-wear analysis on lithic tools excavated from the Upper Paleolithic sites of Xiachuan and Chaisi in the southern part of Shanxi Province, North China. In this study, microblades and so-called core-like tools from these two sites were selected for examination by low-power techniques to identify their use patterns. The results suggest that approx. 30% of microblades might have been used mainly to process animal substances, and a lower percentage for vegetal substances. Based on the use-wear evidence, items classified as core-like tools should be regarded as microblade-cores, since they exhibit few traces of utilisation.

Maya Resistance, Maya Resolve: The tools of autonomy from Tipu, Belize

1995 ◽  
Vol 6 ◽  
pp. 135-146 ◽  
Author(s):  
Scott E. Simmons
Keyword(s):  
Stone Tools ◽  
Colonial Period ◽  
Projectile Point ◽  
Spanish Conquest ◽  
Projectile Points ◽  
Lithic Tools ◽  
Bow And Arrow ◽  
Maya Site ◽  
Different Sources ◽  
Small Side

AbstractThis paper summarizes the results of an analysis of the formal stone tools from the Maya site of Tipu, Belize. The lithic tools are dominated by one form, the small, side-notched projectile point. These tools were recovered from Colonial-period contexts at the site. These points were manufactured from prismatic blade and flake blanks and were fairly uniform in terms of their size and method of manufacture, although distinct base styles were observed. A brief discussion of both quantitative and qualitative attributes and a description of the technology used in the manufacture of these points are presented. Also, several ideas on how researchers may be able to see ethnic or subethnic expressions of style in Colonial-period tools is offered. The possible functions of these projectile points is discussed using information from different sources. The use of these small projectile points, a component of bow-and-arrow technology, will be discussed in light of the often hostile nature of the Spanish Conquest, and in particular, the conquest and reconquest of the Tipu area.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document