8 Function of tool types

K. Polley

Table of contents:

1. Introduction and historical developments
2. Functions of Various Lithic Tool Types- A General Discussion
3. Summary

Learning Objectives

• To know about the historical development related to lithics industry
• To know about the functions of different lithic tools
• To be able to differentiate between the use of different tools at different periods of time in the past

1. Introduction and Historical Developments

Stone tools, which is considered as the “fossilized human behavior patterns” can be studied and interpreted by using various approaches, which ranges from the simple typological classification of the stone tools to the analysis of stone raw materials by various geochemical techniques, microscopic analysis of tools to find out the evidences of use wear and organic residues, refitting study of the stone tools and debitages etc. Age of lithic research can be dated back to 1797, when John Frere found stone tools in a brick earth quarry near the English town of Hoxne. However, real scientific study and interpretation of stone tools can be dated back to the end of the eighteenth century. William Henry Holmes (1894) was one of the first archaeologists to attempt a systematic analysis of lithic artifacts. In his work Holmes described the goals and contributions of lithic analysis; these included using stone tools as chronological markers, understanding the evolution in form and function of stone tools, and understanding the processes of stone tool production and use. These are still goals for archaeologists interested in stone tool analysis today. From before the twentieth century through to the present, stone tool analysis has followed the lead of Holmes. Chronologies have been constructed using lithic tool styles as diagnostic traits in most parts of the world. Archaeologists have also characterized the function of prehistoric sites based upon the inferred function of stone tools (Andrefsky, 2005).

One of the most significant developments in archaeology that had a major impact on lithic analysis was the replication of stone tool forms by craftsmen such as Francois Bordes and Don Crabtree in the 1950s and 1960s. Such replication studies stimulated interest in the investigation of lithic tool production techniques. At about the same time that replication studies were being explored in archaeology the microscopic analysis of used stone tool edges was also being carried out. This work was first given serious scientific consideration in the 1930s by Russian scientist Sergei Semenov. Significantly, his work suggested that overall stone tool morphology might not always coincide with stone tool function, and that it was possible to conduct direct functional analysis of stone tools by magnification of worked edges.

Until Semenov‟s pioneering work in microwear analysis of stone tools there was no independent way to determine the function of lithic artifacts. Since Semenov, a great many archaeologists have been able to determine effectively the function of lithic artifacts by microwear analysis. However, it should be realized that blind tests that evaluate the effectiveness of microwear analysis have not always produced satisfactory results. Some microwear studies have produced contradictory results and several have specifically compared morphological artifact types with function and, for the most part, established that various morphological shapes of stone artifacts are functionally heterogeneous (Andrefsky, 2005). Keeping all these pros. and cons. of the functional analysis of lithic tools in mind a brief discussion of the probable function of various lithic tool types are given in the following section of this discussion.

2.    Functions of Various Lithic Tool Types- A General Discussion

Studies on the hafted and non-hafted bifaces show that the shapes of these bifaces don‟t help archaeologists any pre-assumptions regarding their actual function. Lewenstein (1987, cited in Andrefsky, 2005) and Odell (1981, cited in Andrefsky, 2005) have examined some of these forms of artifacts. Lewenstein conducted a functional analysis on a sample of 1449 chipped stone artifacts from Cerros in Belize. Her formal categories corresponded to many types recognized in several different parts of the world. She identified three different kinds of nonhafted bifaces: oval (n = 27), thin (n = 33), and nonstandard (n= 135). Her functional analysis revealed that chopping and pounding were the two most common functions for oval bifaces; other functions for oval bifaces included sawing, scraping, scraping/planing, abrading, and use as an adze. Thin bifaces were predominantly used to cut and slice, but also for sawing, scraping, scraping/planing, and butchering. The non-standardized bifaces were found to have had thirteen different functions; however, scraping was by far the most common function for nonstandard bifaces. Lewenstein‟s analysis provides some idea of the diverse uses of non-hafted bifaces (Andrefsky, 2005). One of the most commonly mentioned examples of form equating to function is the bifacial projectile point or hafted biface. This morphological type is often ascribed as having the function of a projectile. Projectile points are often assumed to be the tip or armature for a spear, dart, or arrow. Many recent studies have found that some hafted bifaces were used as projectile tips of some kind. However, it should also be noted that microwear functional analysis has demonstrated that hafted bifaces have been used as cutting and butchering tools in addition to their use as projectiles.

Another artifact form, controversial for proper understanding of its function is end scraper. Many researchers have ascribed the function of animal skin working or scraping to the endscraper and this function has been observed in the ethnographic record. These stone tools are usually hafted, and were held nearly parallel to the skin surface, with the scraper blade both drawn toward and pushed away from the worker, so that wear occurred on both the dorsal and ventral surfaces. The end scraper cutting edge or bit approximates an angle of between 70 and 90 degrees, and makes the edge effective for scraping but not acute enough to accidentally slice or cut the material being worked (Andrefsky, 2005). The wide edge angle on end scrapers is probably one of the reasons most researchers ascribe a scraping function to this tool form.

End scrapers are found in almost all parts of the world and in practically all periods when stone tools were primarily used. Meltzer (1981, cited in Andrefsky, 2005) conducted a discriminant analysis to assess whether end scraper form was the result of function or style, and concluded that the form or shape of end scrapers was attributed to end scraper function. However, his analysis did not determine the type of function for which end scrapers were used. Dumont (1983, cited in Andrefsky, 2005)) specifically evaluated the function of end scrapers recovered from Star Carr, England. He found that end scrapers were used for working hide, bone, wood, and antler, and his results contradict the popular notion that end scrapers were used solely as hide working tools. Another functional study of end scrapers looked specifically at the action or mode of use for this form of artifact. Using microwear analysis on lithic tools from a Dutch Mesolithic site, George Odell (1981, cited in Andrefsky, 2005) compared classic morphological types with observed functional wear, and found that end scrapers were used in many activities other than scraping. End scraper activities identified in Odell‟s study include scraping, graving, boring, chopping, and use as a projectile. Other classic morphological types such as side scrapers and burins were also found to have been used for several different functions.

Microliths from the Mesolithic period were long believed to have been used as hunting tools on projectiles. Microliths with three sides or „„triangles‟‟ were believed to have been used as point tips and as point barbs. Triangular microliths found in Africa and southwest Asia has also been interpreted as barbs or points for projectiles. Four-sided microliths have been interpreted as inserts for projectiles. Microblades from the Arctic have traditionally been interpreted as projectile point components. The Arctic microblades are believed to have been used as side or lateral inserts along the length of a smooth bone shaft that had been slotted to accept the microblades (Andrefsky, 2005). Although evidence is mounting that microliths and microblades were used as projectile tips, barbs, and side inserts, there is also evidence that they were used for other functions as well. Garrod and Bate (1937, cited in Andrefsky, 2005) report the recovery in the Levant of a plant-harvesting sickle or scythe with microlith inserts. Additionally, Curwin (1930, cited in Andrefsky, 2005) illustrates several examples of sickles excavated from various locations in Europe and the Middle East; these sickles have rectangular and triangular microliths inserted along the inner curved edge of wooden handles or blades. Both Odell (1994, cited in Andrefsky, 2005)) and Yerkes (1983, 1990, cited in Andrefsky, 2005) have used microscopic techniques of analysis to determine the function of bladelets. Independently, they determined that bladelets were used in a variety of activities that included cutting, graving, drilling, shaving, and use as projectiles (Andrefsky, 2005). Beside formal tool forms studies of unretouched flakes have put forward that without exception that these artifacts, regardless of form, have multiple functions. For example, Keeley‟s (1980, cited in Andrefsky, 2005) analysis of flake stone tools from the Golf Course site (Essex, England) revealed the functions of wood whittling, wood scraping, wood sawing, wood chopping, meat cutting, bone boring, and bone graving, among others. From Keeley‟s work alone it appears that flake tools were used for almost any function (Andrefsky, 2005).

Ethnographic observations on the relations between tool form and function brings forward that it is quite impossible to make a correlation between tool‟s size and shape and presumable function. Works of several ethnoarchaeologists like Gould (1968), Heider (1967), White and Thomas (1972) brings forward some doubt regarding the assertion that artifact morphology conforms to a particular function. Essentially, it can be said that various forms of stone tools may have several different functions, and that no artifact function can be ascribed to a particular form in all cases. It is also important to remember that when the function of a tool has been determined with a high degree of certainty, the multifunctional character of the tool must then also be considered. Most stone tools were probably used for several different functions and the degree to which a tool was specialized or used for a single functions or became generalized and multifunctional probably varied with individual tools. The multifunctional character of individual stone tools relates to aspects such as availability of raw materials for tool production, efficiency of tool design relative to task performance, and particular cultural or individual preferences for task performance. Additionally, many activities carried out by tool makers and users probably required different kinds of tools in different degrees so that any activity may have required various combinations of tools for variable amounts of work (Andrefsky, 2005).

3. Summary

Stone tools can be studied by using various approaches which ranges from the simple typological classification of the stone tools to the analysis of stone raw materials by various geochemical techniques, microscopic analysis of tools to find out the evidences of use wear and organic residues, refitting study of the stone tools and debitages etc. Micro wear analysis is one approach of lithic analysis, which determines probable function of lithic tool types with some certainty. Functional analyses of various lithic tool forms have revealed that that the shapes of lithic artifacts don‟t help archaeologists any pre-assumptions regarding their actual function. One example to the above statement may be given regarding actual function of hafted bifaces. Hafted bifaces were presumed to be used as projectile tips of some kind by various archaeologists. Microwear functional analysis has demonstrated that hafted bifaces have been used as cutting and butchering tools in addition to their use as projectiles. Ethnographic observations on the relations between tool form and function brings forward that it is quite impossible to make a correlation between tool‟s size and shape and presumable function. It is also important to remember that when the function of a tool has been determined with a high degree of certainty, the multifunctional character of the tool must then also be considered. The multifunctional character of individual stone tools relates to aspects such as availability of raw materials for tool production, efficiency of tool design relative to task performance, and particular cultural or individual preferences for task performance.

References Cited

• Andrefsky Jr, W. (2005). Lithics: Macroscopic approaches to analysis. Cambridge University Press.