Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T01:59:42.185Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

1 - An Introduction to Stone Tool Life History and Technological Organization

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 August 2009

By
William Andrefsky Jr.
Edited by
William Andrefsky, Jr
William Andrefsky, Jr
Affiliation:
Washington State University
Get access

Summary

It is relatively easy for most people to understand differences in life histories with organisms such as dragonflies and mollusks, because these organisms undergo dramatic morphological transformations during their life histories. However, if we did not know that glochidia living in the gills of fish were the larval phase of mussels, we might classify them as totally different organisms because of their different appearance and different habitat. However, biologists have followed the life histories of these and countless other organisms and have demonstrated the metamorphoses that have taken place. Archaeologists working as taxonomists do not have the benefit of observing the life histories of stone tools. We find and record artifacts in a static state. However, as a result of replication experiments, renewed ethnographic observations, and detailed lithic analytical strategies, it has become apparent to researchers that lithic tools often undergo a series of transformations from the time they are produced or drafted into service until the time they are ultimately discarded. Such transformations relate to all manner of social and economic situations of the tool users. Tools are sharpened when they become dull. They are reconfigured or discarded when they are broken. They are modified to suit a certain task in a certain context. Their uses are often anticipated and they are produced in anticipation of those uses. These and countless other examples of tool transformations can be characterized as part of the life histories of lithic tools.

Type
Chapter
Information
Lithic Technology
Measures of Production, Use and Curation
 , pp. 3 - 22
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ahler, Stanley A. 1989. Mass Analysis of Flaking Debris: Studying the Forest Rather than the Trees. In Alternative Approaches to Lithic Analysis, edited by Henry, Donald O. and Odell, George H., pp. 85–118. Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association No. 1. Washington. D.C.Google Scholar
Amick, Daniel S., and Mauldin, Raymond P.. 1989. Experiments in Lithic Technology. International Series 528, British Archaeological Reports, Oxford.Google Scholar
Amick, Daniel S., and Mauldin, Raymond P.. 1997. Effects of Raw Material on Flake Breakage Patterns. Lithic Technology 22:18–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amick, Daniel S., Mauldin, Raymond P., and Tomka, Steven A.. 1988. An Evaluation of Debitage Produced by Experimental Bifacial Core Reduction of a Georgetown Chert Nodule. Lithic Technology 17:26–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ammerman, Albert J., and Andrefsky, Jr. William 1982. Reduction Sequences and the Exchange of Obsidian in Neolithic Calabria. In Contexts for Prehistoric Exchange, edited by Ericson, J. and Earle, T., pp. 149–72. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Andrefsky, William Jr. 1986. A Consideration of Blade and Flake Curvature. Lithic Technology 15:48–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andrefsky, William Jr. 1991. Inferring Trends in Prehistoric Settlement Behavior From Lithic Production Technology in the Southern Plains. North American Archaeologist 12:129–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andrefsky, William Jr. 1994a. Raw Material Availability and the Organization of Technology. American Antiquity 59:21–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andrefsky, William Jr. 1994b. The Geological Occurrence of Lithic Material and Stone Tool Production Strategies. Geoarchaeology: An International Journal 9:345–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andrefsky, William Jr. 2001. Lithic Debitage: Context, Form, Meaning. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.Google Scholar
Andrefsky, William Jr. 2005. Lithics: Macroscopic Approaches to Analysis. Second edition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andrefsky, William Jr. 2006. Experimental and Archaeological Verification of an Index of Retouch for Hafted Bifaces. American Antiquity 71:743–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Audouze, F. 1999 New Advances in French Prehistory. Antiquity 73:167–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baales, Michael. 2001. From Lithics to Spatial and Social Organization: Interpreting the Lithic Distribution and Raw Material Composition at the Final Palaeolithic Site of Kettig (Central Rhineland, Germany). Journal of Archaeological Science 28:127–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bamforth, Douglas B. 1986. Technological Efficiency and Tool Curation. American Antiquity 51:38–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bamforth, Douglas B. 1991. Technological Organization and Hunter–Gatherer Land Use: A California Example. American Antiquity 56:216–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bamforth, Douglas B. 2000. Core/Biface Ratios, Mobility, Refitting, and Artifact Use-Lives: A Paleoindian Example. Plains Anthropologist 45:273–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bamforth, Douglas B., and Bleed, Peter. 1997. Technology, Flaked Stone Technology, and Risk. In Rediscovering Darwin, edited by Barton, C. M. and Clark, G., pp. 109–140. Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association No. 7, Arlington.Google Scholar
Bettinger, Robert. L. 1987 Archaeological Approaches to Hunter-gatherers. Annual Review of Anthropology 16:121–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Binford, Lewis R. 1973. Interassemblage Variability: The Mousterian and the “Functional” Argument. In The Explanation of Culture Change: Models in Prehistory, edited by Renfrew, C., pp. 227–54. Duckworth, London.Google Scholar
Binford, Lewis R. 1977. Forty–Seven Trips. In Stone Tools as Cultural Markers, edited by Wright, R. S. V., pp. 24–36. Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, Canberra.
Binford, Lewis R. 1979. Organization and Formation Processes: Looking at Curated Technologies. Journal of Anthropological Research 35:255–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bleed, Peter. 1986. The Optimal Design of Hunting Weapons: Maintainability or Reliability. American Antiquity 51:737–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bradbury, Andrew P., and Carr, Phillip J.. 1999. Examining Stage and Continuum Models of Flake Debris Analysis: An Experimental Approach. Journal of Archaeological Science 26:105–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bradbury, Andrew P., and Franklin, Jay D.. 2000. Material Variability, Package Size and Mass Analysis. Lithic Technology 25:42–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bradley, Bruce A., and Sampson, C. Garth. 1986. Analysis by Replication of Two Acheulian Artefact Assemblages from Caddington, England. In Stone Age Prehistory: Studies in Memory of Charles McBurney, edited by Bailey, G. N. and Callow, P., pp. 29–45. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Brantingham, P. Jeffrey, and Kuhn, Steven L.. 2001. Constraints on Levallois Core Technology: A Mathematical Model. Journal of Archaeological Science 28:747–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brantingham, P. Jeffrey, Olsen, John W., Rech, Jason A., and Krivoshapkin, Andrei I.. 2000. Raw Material Quality and Prepared Core Technologies in Northeastern Asia. Journal of Archaeological Science 27:255–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braun, David R. 2005. Examining Flake Production Strategies: Examples from the Middle Paleolithic of Southwest Asia. Lithic Technology 30:107–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Callahan, Errett. 1979. The Basics of Biface Knapping in the Eastern Fluted Point Tradition: A Manual for Flintknappers and Lithic Analysts. Archaeology of Eastern North America 7(1):1–180.Google Scholar
Carr, Philip J., and Bradbury, Andrew P.. 2001. Flake Debris Analysis, Levels of Production, and the Organization of Technology. In Lithic Debitage: Context, Form, Meaning, edited by Andrefsky, Jr. W., pp. 126–46. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.Google Scholar
Carr, Philip J., and Bradbury, Andrew P.. 2004. Exploring Mass Analysis, Screens, and Attributes. In Aggregate Analysis in Chipped Stone, edited by Hall, Christopher T. and Larson, Mary Lou, pp. 21–44. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.Google Scholar
Chatters, James C. 1987. Hunter-Gatherer Adaptations and Assemblage Structure. Journal of Anthropological Research 6:336–75.Google Scholar
Clarkson, Chris. 2002. An Index of Invasiveness for the Measurement of Unifacial and Bifacial Retouch: A Theoretical, Experimental and Archaeological Verification. Journal of Archaeological Science 29:65–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cochrane, Grant W. G. 2003. On the Measurement and Analysis of Platform Angles. Lithic Technology 28:13–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collard, Mark, Kemery, Michael, and Banks, Samantha. 2005. Causes of Toolkit Variation among Hunter-Gatherers: A Test of Four Competing Hypotheses. Journal of Canadian Archaeology 29:1–19.Google Scholar
Daniel, I. Randolph Jr. 2001. Stone Raw Material Availability and Early Archaic Settlement in the Southeastern United States. American Antiquity 66:237–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, Zachary J., and Shea, John J.. 1998. Quantifying Lithic Curation: An Experimental Test of Dibble and Pelcin's Original Flake-Tool Mass Predictor. Journal of Archaeological Science 25:603–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dibble, Harold L. 1987. The Interpretation of Middle Paleolithic Scraper Morphology. American Antiquity 52(1):109–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dibble, Harold L. 1997. Platform Variability and Flake Morphology: A Comparison of Experimental and Archeological Data and Implications for Interpreting Prehistoric Lithic Technological Strategies. Lithic Technology 22:150–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dibble, Harold L., and Pelcin, Andrew. 1995. The Effect of Hammer Mass and Velocity on Flake Mass. Journal of Archaeological Science 22:429–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dixon, E. James, Manley, William F., and Lee, Craig M.. 2005. The Emerging Archaeology of Glaciers and Ice Patches: Examples from Alaska's Wrangell–St. Elias National Park and Preserve. American Antiquity 70:129–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, Christopher J. 1997. Factors Influencing the Use of Stone Projectile Tips: An Ethnographic Perspective. In Projectile Technology, edited by Knecht, Heidi, 37–78. Plenum Press, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elston, Robert G. 1986. Prehistory of the Western Area. In Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 11: Great Basin. Edited by D'Azevedo, Warren L.. (volume editor), pp. 135–48. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Elston, Robert G. and Brantingham, P. Jeffrey. 2002. Microlithic Technology in Northern Asia: A Risk-Minimizing Strategy of the Late Paleolithic and Early Holocene. In Thinking Small: Perspectives on Microlithization, edited by Elston, R. G. and Kuhn, S. L., pp. 104–17. Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association, No. 12, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Eren, Metin I., Dominguez-Rodrigo, Manual, Kuhn, Steven L., Adler, Daniel S., Le, Ian, and Bar-Yosef, Ofer. 2005. Defining and Measuring Reduction in Unifacial Stone Tools. Journal of Archaeological Science 32:1190–1206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flenniken, J. Jeffrey, and Raymond, Anan W.. 1986. Morphological Projectile Point Typology: Replication Experimentation and Technological Analysis. American Antiquity 51:603–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geneste, Jean-Michel, and Maury, Serge. 1997. Contributions of Multidisciplinary Experiments to the Study of Upper Paleolithic Projectile Points. In Projectile Technology, edited by Knecht, Heidi, pp. 165–89. Plenum Press, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gould, Richard A. 1980. Raw Material Source Areas and “Curated” Tool Assemblages. American Antiquity 45:823–33.Google Scholar
Gould, Richard A. 1985. The Empiricist Strikes Back: A Reply to Binford. American Antiquity 50:638–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gould, Richard. A., and Saggers, S.. 1985. Lithic Procurement in Central Australia: A Closer Look at Binford's Idea of Embeddedness in Archaeology. American Antiquity 50:117–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gramly, R. Michael, 1980. Raw Material Source Areas and “Curated” Tool Assemblages. American Antiquity 45:823–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greaves, Russel D. 1997. Hunting and Multifunctional Use of Bows and Arrows: Ethnoarchaeology of Technological Organization among Pume' Hunters of Venezuela. In Projectile Technology, edited by Knecht, Heidi, pp. 287–320. Plenum Press, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayden, Brian. 1975. Curation: Old and New. In Primitive Art and Technology, edited by Raymond, J. S., Loveseth, B., Arnold, C., and Reardon, G., 47–59. University of Calgary, Calgary.Google Scholar
Hiscock, Peter, and Attenbrow, Val. 2003. Early Australian Implement Variation: A Reduction Model. Journal of Archaeological Science 30:239–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hiscock, Peter, and Clarkson, Chris. 2005. Experimental Evaluation of Kuhn's Geometric Index of Reduction and the Flat-Flake Problem. Journal of Archaeological Science 32:1015–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoffman, C. Marshall. 1985. Projectile Point Maintenance and Typology: Assessment with Factor Analysis and Canonical Correlation. In For Concordance in Archaeological Analysis: Bridging Data Structure, Quantitative Technique, and Theory, edited by Carr, C., pp. 566–612. Westport Press, Kansas City.Google Scholar
Holmes, William H. 1894. Natural History of Flaked Stone Implements. In Memoirs of the International Congress of Anthropology, edited by Wake, C. S., 120–39. Schulte, Chicago.Google Scholar
Inizan, M.-L., Roche, H., and Tixier, J.. 1992. Technology of Knapped Stone. CREP, Meudon.Google Scholar
Kalin, Jeffrey. 1981. Stem Point Manufacture and Debitage Recovery. Archaeology of Eastern North America 9:134–75.Google Scholar
Kay, Marvin. 1996. Microwear Analysis of Some Clovis and Experimental Chipped Stone Tools. In Stone Tools: Theoretical Insights into Human Prehistory, edited by Odell, George, pp. 315–44. Plenum Press, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelly, Isabel T., and Fowler, Catherine S.. 1986. Southern Paiute. In Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 11: Great Basin. Edited by D'Azevedo, Warren L. (volume editor), pp. 368–97. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Kelly, Robert L. 1988. The Three Sides of a Biface. American Antiquity 53:717–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knecht, Heidi. 1997. Projectile Points of Bone, Antler, and Stone: Experimental Explorations of Manufacture and Use. In Projectile Technology, edited by Knecht, Heidi, pp. 191–212. Plenum Press, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knell, Edward. 2004. Coarse-Scale Chipped Stone Aggregates and Technological Organization Strategies at Hell Gap Locality V Cody Complex Component, Wyoming. In Aggregate Analysis in Chipped Stone, edited by Hall, Christopher T. and Larson, Mary Lou, pp. 156–83. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.Google Scholar
Koldehoff, Brad. 1987. The Cahokia Flake Tool Industry: Socio-Economic Implications for Late Prehistory in the Central Mississippi Valley. In The Organization of Core Technology, edited by Johnson, Jay K. and Morrow, Carrol A., pp. 151–86. Westview Press, Boulder, CO.Google Scholar
Kuhn, Steven L. 1990. A Geometric Index of Reduction for Unifacial Stone Tools. Journal of Archaeological Science 17:585–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuhn, Steven L. 1991. “Unpacking” Reduction: Lithic Raw Material Economy in the Mousterian of West–Central Italy. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 10:76–106.CrossRef
Kuhn, Steven L. 1992. Blank Form and Reduction as Determinants of Mousterian Scraper Morphology. American Antiquity 57:115–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuijt, Ian, Prentiss, William C., and Pokotylo, David J.. 1995. Bipolar Reduction: An Experimental Study of Debitage Variability. Lithic Technology 20:116–27.Google Scholar
Larson, Mary Lou, and Kornfeld, Marcel. 1997. Chipped Stone Nodules: Theory, Method, and Examples. Lithic Technology 22:4–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Magne, Martin P. 1989. Lithic Reduction Stages and Assemblage Formation Processes. In Experiments in Lithic Technology, edited by Amick, D. S. and Mauldin, R. P., pp. 15–32. International Series 528, British Archaeological Reports, Oxford.Google Scholar
Morrow, Juliet. 1997. End Scraper Morphology and Use-Life: An Approach for Studying Paleoindian Lithic Technology and Mobility. Lithic Technology 22:70–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nash, Stephen E. 1996. Is Curation a Useful Heuristic? In Stone Tools: Theoretical Insights into Human Prehistory, edited by Odell, G. H., pp. 81–100. Plenum Press, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, Margaret C. 1991. The Study of Technological Organization. In Archaeological Method and Theory, Vol. 3, edited by Schiffer, M. B., pp. 57–100. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.Google Scholar
Nowell, April, Park, Kyoungju, Mutaxas, Dimitris, and Park, Jinah. 2003. Deformation Modeling: A Methodology for the Analysis of Handaxe Morphology and Variability. In Multiple Approaches to the Study of Bifacial Technologies, edited by Soressi, Marie and Dibble, Harold L., pp. 193–208. University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
O'Connell, James F. 1977. Aspects of Variation in Central Australian Lithic Assemblages. In Stone Tools as Cultural Markers: Change, Evolution and Complexity, edited by Wright, R. V. S., pp. 269–81. Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, Canberra.Google Scholar
Odell, George H. 1989. Experiments in Lithic Reduction. In Experiments in Lithic Technology, edited by Amick, D. S. and Mauldin, R. P., pp. 163–98. International Series 528, British Archaeological Reports, Oxford.Google Scholar
Odell, George H. 1996. Economizing Behavior and the Concept of “Curation.” In Stone Tools: Theoretical Insights into Human Prehistory, edited by Odell, G. H., pp. 51–80. Plenum, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Odell, George H., and Cowan, Frank. 1986. Experiments with Spears and Arrows on Animal Targets. Journal of Field Archaeology 13(2):195–212.Google Scholar
Parry, William J., and Kelly, Robert L.. 1987. Expedient Core Technology and Sedentism. In The Organization of Core Technology, edited by Johnson, J. K. and Morrow, C. A., pp. 285–304. Westview Press, Boulder, CO.Google Scholar
Pecora, Albert M. 2001. Chipped Stone Tool Production Strategies and Lithic Debris Patterns. In Lithic Debitage: Context, Form, Meaning, edited by Andrefsky, Jr. William, pp. 173–91. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.Google Scholar
Pelcin, Andrew. 1997. The Formation of Flakes: The Role of Platform Thickness and Exterior Platform Angle in the Production of Flake Initiations and Terminations. Journal of Archaeolgoical Science 24:1107–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rasic, Jeffery C., and Andrefsky, Jr. William 2001. Alaskan Blade Cores as Specialized Components of Mobile Toolkits: Assessing Design Parameters and Toolkit Organization through Debitage Analysis. In Lithic Debitage: Context, Form, Meaning, edited by Andrefsky, Jr. Wm., pp. 61–79. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.Google Scholar
Rolland, Nicolas, and Dibble, Harold L.. 1990. A New Synthesis of Middle Paleolithic Variability. American Antiquity 55:480–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roth, Barbara, and Dibble, Harold. 1998. The Production and Transport of Blanks and Tools at the French Middle Paleolithic Site of Combe-Capelle Bas. American Antiquity 63:47–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sellet, Frederic. 1993. Chaîne opératoire: The Concept and Its Applications. Lithic Technology 18:106–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shea, John J. 1993. Lithic Use-Wear Evidence for Hunting by Neanderthals and Early Modern Humans form the Levantine Mousterian. In Hunting and Animal Exploitation in the Later Paleolithic and Mesolithic of Eurasia, edited by Peterkin, Gail Larson, Bricker, Harvey M., and Mellars, Paul, pp. 189–98. Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association, Number 4.Google Scholar
Shott, Michael J. 1986. Settlement Mobility and Technological Organization: An Ethnographic Examination. Journal of Anthropological Research 42:15–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shott, Michael J. 1993. The Leavitt Site: A Parkhill Phase Paleo-Indian Occupation in Central Michigan. Memoirs No. 25, University of Michigan Museum of Anthropology, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
Shott, Michael J. 1996. An Exegesis of the Curation Concept. Journal of Anthropological Research 52:259–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shott, Michael J. 2003. Chaîne opératoire and Reduction Sequence. Lithic Technology 28:95–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shott, Michael J., and Ballenger, Jesse A. M.. 2007. Biface Reduction and the Measurement of Dalton Curation: A Southeastern Case Study. American Antiquity 72:153–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shott, Michael J., Bradbury, Andrew P., Carr, Philip J., and Odell, George H.. 2000. Flake Size from Platform Attributes: Predictive and Empirical Approaches. Journal of Archaeological Science 27:877–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shott, Michael J., and Sillitoe, Paul. 2005. Use Life and Curation in New Guinea Experimental Used Flakes. Journal of Archaeological Science 32:653–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sievert, April K., and Wise, Karen. 2001. A Generalized Technology for a Specialized Economy: Archaic Period Chipped Stone at Kilometer 4, Peru. In Lithic Debitage: Context, Form, Meaning, edited by Andrefsky, Jr. William, pp. 188–206. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.Google Scholar
Titmus, Gene. 1985. Some Aspects of Stone Tool Notching. In Stone Tool Analysis: Essays in Honor of Don E. Crabtree. edited by Plew, Marc G. and Pavesic, Max G., 243–64. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.Google Scholar
Tomka, Steve A. 2001. The Effect of Processing Requirements on Reduction Strategies and Tool Form: A New Perspective. In Lithic Debitage: Context, Form, Meaning, ed. Andrefsky, Jr. William, pp. 207–24. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.Google Scholar
Torrence, Robin. 1983. Time Budgeting and Hunter–Gatherer Technology. In Hunter–Gatherer Economy in Prehistory, edited by Bailey, G., pp. 11–22. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Truncer, James J. 1990. Perkiomen Points: A Study in Variability. In Experiments and Observations on the Terminal Archaic of the Middle Atlantic Region, edited by Moeller, R. W., pp. 1–62. Archaeological Services, Bethlehem, CT.Google Scholar
Ugan, Andrew, Bright, Jason, and Rogers, Alan. 2003. When Is Technology Worth the Trouble? Journal of Archaeological Science 30:1315–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wallace, Ian J., and Shea, John J.. 2006. Mobility Patterns and Core Technologies in the Middle Paleolithic of the Levant. Journal of Archaeological Science 33:1293–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weedman, Kathryn J. 2006. An Ethnoarchaeological Study of Hafting and Stone Tool Diversity among the Gamo of Ethiopia. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 13:189–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, J. Peter. 1968. Fabricators, Outils Ecailles, or Scalar Cores? Mankind 6:658–66.Google Scholar
Whittaker, John C. 1994. Flintknapping: Making and Understanding Stone Tools. University of Texas Press, Austin.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×