Stone Tools, Toolkits, and Human Behavior in Prehistory [and Comments and Reply]

• Published in: Current anthropology Vol. 20; no. 4; pp. 661 - 683
• Main Authors: Cahen, D., Keeley, L. H., Van Noten, F. L., Behm, Jeffery A., Busby, Colin I., Dunnell, Robert C., Hayden, Brian, Johnson, L. Lewis, Katz, Paul, Mohapatra, G. C., Movius, Hallam L., Narr, Karl J., Newcomer, Mark, Newell, Raymond R., Odell, George H., Ohel, Milla Y., Paddayya, K., Pittioni, R., Roe, Derek A., Tomenchuk, John, Wynn, Thomas G.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: University of Chicago Press 01-12-1979
• Subjects: Antlers; Bones; Burins; Excavations; Flint; Material culture; Paleoanthropology; Scrapers; Stone tools
• ISSN: 0011-3204; 1537-5382
• DOI: 10.1086/202371

Stone artefacts are usually privileged witnesses, and often the sole preserved witnesses, of prehistoric man and his activities. The study of artefacts is ordinarily restricted to typology, i.e., description, classification, and comparison of these artefacts clustered into assemblages with a view to defining industries and, hence, prehistoric cultures. This approach is somewhat limited, as it registers differences or resemblances between the assemblages provided by the excavations without being able to explain them. It has been argued that an assemblage of stone tools represents the activities which have taken place on a particular site and that typological differences reflect different activities. The validity of the assumptions on which this "functional argument" relies has, however, never been verified. This article illustrates the possibilities afforded by some recent research approaches applied to the study of a prehistoric site. Palaeotographical study allows the delineation of some archaeological structures the relations of which in space and time are established by the refitting of the lithic industry. This latter method also makes possible the reconstruction of all the stages of the evolution of stone tools, from their conception to their rejection. Finally, the analysis of microwear traces leads to the identification of the function of prehistoric tools. It has been possible to recognize specialized toolkits for hide working and for the preparation of bone and antler implements and to determine the activities performed in various areas of the occupation. floor. The combination of these three methods provides some new keys for the decoding of the archaeological record and constitutes a dynamic approach to prehistoric man through his relics.