Kelly 1988

Society for American Archaeology

The Three Sides of a BifaceAuthor(s): Robert L. KellySource: American Antiquity, Vol. 53, No. 4 (Oct., 1988), pp. 717-734Published by: Society for American ArchaeologyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/281115Accessed: 14/09/2008 09:24

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available athttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unlessyou have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and youmay use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained athttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sam.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printedpage of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with thescholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform thatpromotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Society for American Archaeology is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toAmerican Antiquity.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/stable/281115?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sam

THE THREE SIDES OF A BIFACE

Robert L. Kelly

Three different sorts of bifacial tools-by-products of the shaping process, cores, and long use-life tools-are used to consider the role mobility plays in producing variability in hunter-gatherer lithic technologies. The relations among tool roles, raw- material distribution, and mobility as well as the archaeological consequences of the different roles are key factors. An examination of temporal trends in the use of bifacial implements in the Carson Sink of western Nevada shows how the proposed perspective on lithic technology can help to elucidate change in mobility strategies. A shift from the use of bifaces as cores to an infrequent use of bifaces as tools suggests a shift from logistical to short-term residential use of the raw-material-poor Carson Sink; a later shift to the use of small, frequently unifacial, nonresharpenable points may indicate a shift to target-specific hunting strategies.

Ever since Binford and Bordes argued over the meaning of variability in Mousterian assemblages, archaeologists have debated the roles played by style, function, and raw material in influencing stone tool shape and manufacture. While style may account for particular shapes of tools, it may not account for gross technological differences (Binford 1986). While tool function also plays an obvious role in lithic technology, use-wear studies show few consistent relations between morphological tool types and specific functions (e.g., Bamforth 1985; Odell 1981). And while others have pointed to the effects of differences in the distribution and type of raw material on lithic technology (e.g., Bamforth 1986; Wiant and Hassan 1985), these variables cannot account for temporal in situ changes in the shape and use of stone tools.

In response to these challenges, archaeologists are developing a field of study which is described most generally as the organization of technology (cf. Binford 1979; Wiant and Hassan 1985). Here, the term "organization" refers to the spatial and temporal juxtaposition of the manufacture of different tools within a cultural system, their use, reuse, and discard, and their relation not only to tool function and raw-material type and distribution, but also to behavioral variables which mediate the spatial and temporal relations among activity, manufacturing, and raw-material loci. Research on the organization of technology aims to elucidate how technological changes reflect large-scale behavioral changes in a prehistoric society. Critical to this approach is the development of middle- range theory relating stone tool shape and use to those aspects of cultural behavior affecting them. This paper is concerned with interpreting hunter-gatherer stone tool manufacture and use in terms of this perspective.

Others already have discussed some aspects of the organization of lithic technologies. Bleed (1986), for example, makes an interesting distinction between reliable and maintainable technologies. Re- liable tools are those which can be counted on to work when needed, while maintainable tools can be modified so that they will be functional even if broken or not particularly suited to the task at hand. Bamforth (1986) assesses the concept of curation, as defined by Binford (1977, 1980), and finds that the concept does not refer to a single aspect of tool manufacture and use, but includes tool maintenance and recycling. Bamforth notes that the degree to which stone tools will be maintained or recycled is a function not only of the settlement system of which they are part, but of the regional distribution of raw material as well.

However, taking both raw-material type and distribution, and tool function, into account, it is likely that mobility plays a large part in determining the organization of hunter-gatherer lithic technology. Mobility refers to the way in which hunter-gatherers move across a landscape during their seasonal round, and largely is related to the structure of food resources in a region (Binford

Robert L. Kelly, Department of Anthropology, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY 40292

American Antiquity, 53(4), 1988, pp. 717-734. Copyright ? 1988 by the Society for American Archaeology

717

AMERICAN ANTIQUITY

1980; Kelly 1983b). There is no necessary relation between the locations of food and lithic resources; therefore, a stone tool must solve the problem of spatial and temporal differences between the locations of raw material and the locations of stone tool use while meeting the functional needs of the task(s) for which the tool is used. Stones weigh too much for a mobile people to carry more than needed, yet tool needs cannot always be anticipated precisely; therefore, mobility simultaneously dictates tool needs and access to raw material. In this paper, I discuss one class of stone tools- bifaces-and show how an organizational perspective on technology allows us to see three different "kinds" of bifacial tools and their relation to hunter-gatherer mobility strategies. Temporal trends in the production and use of bifacial implements in the Carson Sink of western Nevada are presented as an example of how the proposed perspective on lithic technology can elucidate temporal change in mobility strategies archaeologically.

POTENTIAL ROLES OF BIFACES

In general, a biface is a flake or core blank that has been reduced on both faces from two parallel but opposing axes through percussion, and, frequently, pressure flaking, and is shaped into a specific form (though not all tools with specific forms are bifacial). The relatively high-energy investment in a bifacial tool indicates that it is not to be discarded quickly and that its shape is important to its role. But what is the specific role of a biface? Australian aborigines made almost no use of

the use of bifaces among hunter-gatherers. The position taken here is that while all bifacial tools are shaped deliberately, there may be at least three different reasons to do so; in other words, bifaces can play one or more of three different organizational roles in a technology.

First, large bifaces can be used as cores as well as tools (cf. Goodyear 1979). The flakes driven off a biface are thin and sharp, and, depending on the size of the biface, may be small but still useful. More usable flake edge can be produced from a biface than from a percussion core of similar weight because each flake from a biface has a high edge-to-weight ratio (Goodyear 1979). The use of bifaces as cores indicates that hunter-gatherers need to prepare for a variety of tasks requiring stone tools, but can anticipate not knowing exactly how many such tasks will be conducted in the future and that raw material may not be available where the group or individual intends to go. Using large bifaces as cores maximizes the amount of tool edge carried while minimizing the amount of stone, and, by carrying all tools as one solid biface, one can assure that flakes struck from it will have sharp, undamaged edges.

Second, the "bifacialness" of some tools gives them the potential to be long use-life tools. A bifacially flaked edge can have a fair amount of cutting power (though less than an unretouched flake of the same material) yet the less acute angle of a biface's edge makes it more durable than an unretouched flake. A completely flaked bifacial tool has a similar microtopography along all its edges; should the tool edge break or become dulled, it can be resharpened relatively easily and continue to be useful. Within limits set by the raw material, a bifacial form simultaneously gives a tool sharpness, durability, and the potential to be resharpened. Additionally, the generalized form of a biface allows it to be modified into other tools, such as scrapers.

Lastly, a tool may become bifacial largely as a by-product of stylistic or shaping concerns, an epiphenomenon of creating a tool which is distinctive to its manufacturer or its manufacturer's social group (although this does not mean that all morphological types can be equated with different social groups). Such tools could include some projectile points or drills, and may be produced by specialists (see, e.g., Loeb 1926:179). Similarly, a stone may be worked bifacially in order to fit it to a preexisting haft (Allchin 1966:21; Keeley 1982:801). Keeley (1982) notes that most hafts, fashioned from organic materials, are more difficult and time-consuming to manufacture than the stone tools which they hold (see, e.g., a description of arrow-shaft manufacture in Fowler and Matley [1979]); consequently, the stone must be fit to the haft rather than vice versa. Not all hafted stone tools are bifacial (e.g., see Flenniken 1981), but for those stone tools which have become bifacial as a function of their having been shaped to fit a haft, their bifacialness is not as necessary to their intrinsic function as it is for the other two sorts of bifaces.

718 [Vol. 53, No. 4, 1988

THREE SIDES OF A BIFACE

In sum, bifaces can be manufactured to play one or more of three different organizational roles:

(1) as cores, although this does not preclude the biface itself from being used as a tool; (2) as long use-life tools, in which a tool's bifacialness is necessary to its anticipated role, which is

to be resharpenable and usable for its function even if broken (these might come under Bleed's [1986] concept of maintainable tools);

(3) as a by-product of the shaping process, in which a tool's bifacialness is not an explicit intention of the maker; instead the tool is manufactured to fit a preexisting haft (these may fall under Bleed's [1986] concept of reliable tools).

All of these tool types may be curated to some extent; however, they will be curated for different purposes, and as Bamforth (1986) points out, they can be curated in different ways.

MOBILITY AND BIFACES

Bifacial tools fulfilling these different roles are incorporated into hunter-gatherer systems in different ways. Stone tool production and use are not responsive to logistical and residential (sensu Binford 1980; Kelly 1983b) mobility per se, but to a set of conditions concerning tool needs and raw-material availability. Thus it is possible that a set of conditions affecting tool production and use during logistical forays in a system of low residential mobility can be similar to the conditions affecting tool use in base camps of a system of high residential mobility. In other words, there is no direct correlation between mobility and the organization of a technology (Bamforth 1986). My purpose here is to make some initial speculations about possible systematic relations among stone tools, raw material, and hunter-gatherer mobility.

Bifaces as Cores/Variable- Use Tools

In general, among groups with high residential and low logistical mobility, consumers are brought to the location of food resources. Daily food-searching forays are generalized search-and-encounter hunting and gathering forays with a simple structure, involving a limited set of activities (Kelly 1983b). Ethnographic data indicate that in systems of high residential and low logistical mobility (Binford's [1980] foragers) there are few bifacial tools (Oswalt 1973; Torrence 1983), and tool needs often are fulfilled expediently. This suggests that the type and distribution of local raw material is the primary factor affecting the lithic technology of foragers. When raw material is abundant and of adequate sharpness there is no temporal or spatial difference in the location of raw material and the location of stone tool use; in effect, stone tools have no role to play, and we can expect groups living under such circumstances to employ an expedient flake technology, with little use of bifaces as cores. For example, O'Connell (1977) found that among the Alyawara of central Australia many morphological tool types were determined by the locally available material, either chert stream cobbles or outcrops of quartzite; this also is true of several other highly residentially mobile Aus- tralian and Tasmanian hunter-gatherers (e.g., Gould et al. 1971; Roth 1890; Spencer and Gillen 1927:25-26; White and O'Connell 1982:162-163).

As raw material becomes more scarce, or of poorer quality, foragers must put more effort into the production of tools designed to overcome the spatial differences between raw material and activity locations. For the Ngadadjara of Australia, for example, where lithic resources are more localized than for the Alyawara, curated tools such as tula adzes (hafted onto atlatls) and hafted flake knives are fashioned from high-quality material and transported long distances (Gould 1980: 123-124; Gould and Saggers 1985). It also is in such areas that previously discarded tools may be scavenged from archaeological deposits and reworked (e.g., Home and Aiston 1924:89).

Along a gradient of increasing raw-material scarcity, it is likely that there is a threshold at which hunter-gatherers can presume that no raw material will be available where it is needed. Given that stone tools are required for the tasks to be conducted, and given that residentially mobile hunter- gatherers must occupy an area of low raw-material density for an extended period of time, we can expect bifaces to be used as cores, since they will maximize the total amount of stone cutting edge while minimizing the amount of stone carried. The protohistoric Pawnee, for example, left their

Kelly] 719

AMERICAN ANTIQUITY

winter villages during the summer and moved about the plains hunting bison and antelope, during which time they were highly residentially mobile and, being on the plains, had no steady access to stone tool raw material (see Holen 1983). The lithic assemblages at these summer encampments contain evidence of bifacial reduction and are dominated by jasper, a strong but highly workable material (Holen 1983). The Pawnee apparently "geared up" for the summer hunt at quarries near their winter villages by making bifaces to be used as efficient cores.

Bifaces also may be used as cores during logistical forays, and probably will be used most heavily during long logistical forays, where there is, as in the Pawnee residential example above, a need to minimize the gear carried, and in which either the presence of local raw material cannot be anticipated and/or the destination(s) or task(s) of the logistical party are not known entirely. Hunter-gatherers who make relatively short logistical forays, such as the Australian aborigines or !Kung San (Allchin 1966:19; Balfour 1951; Gould 1968; Tindale 1965) carry only a small amount of gear with them on forays, including a few flake tools. Hunter-gatherers who make longer forays, such as the Inuit, often carry a substantial amount of sophisticated, complex gear (e.g., Binford 1977; Murdoch 1892: 173-263). In general, the longer the logistical foray the greater the likelihood that a variety of tasks requiring stone tools will have to be performed, particularly if the group must remain out overnight. The primary difference between this case and the case in which bifaces are used as cores in residential camps is that the latter is conducted under conditions of actual or supposed raw-material scarcity while the former is conducted where raw-material scarcity is one of the possible foray conditions.

Horizon Two at Gatecliff Shelter in central Nevada (Thomas 1983) provides an example of the logistical use of bifaces as cores. Horizon Two (ca. 650 B.P.) contains a late fall to early spring bighorn sheep kill of about two dozen individuals. The pattern of refuse disposal on the living floor argues against a residential use of the shelter (Thomas 1983:353-386). Taphonomic analysis of the faunal material indicates that the sheep were skinned and butchered for transport or caching (Thomas 1983:353-367), suggesting that it was some distance back to the residential camp.

The lithic assemblage of Horizon Two is dominated by evidence of bifacial reduction, with relatively few instances of simple flake-tool production and bipolar reduction (Kelly 1985:149-150). Small biface-retouch flakes and larger, utilized biface-reduction flakes suggest that bifaces were used as both tools and cores at the site.

Bifaces as Long Use-Life Tools

Whether or not a tool is designed to have a long use life depends on its anticipated context of use. Raw-material scarcity is a precondition of the use of bifaces as long use-life tools. A general condition of raw-material scarcity can be exacerbated by a condition of low residential mobility since imported lithic material will be exhausted periodically. Raw-material acquisition will have to be embedded into a logistical foray, or forays must be undertaken solely to acquire raw material. Under conditions of extreme raw-material scarcity and low residential mobility, and when a particular bifacial tool is necessary to activities being conducted at or from the residential location, we can expect some bifaces to be used as cores, but, moreover, we can expect to see extensive, repeated rejuvenation of bifacial tools.

The site of Alta Toquima, a village site located at 1 1,000 feet (3066 m) atop Mount Jefferson in central Nevada (Thomas 1982), provides an example of the use of bifaces as long use-life tools. Alta Toquima contains a number of substantial stone house rings which appear to date after 650 B.P., and are suggestive of a longer period of use than is characteristic of other Great Basin residential sites. These structures, along with a considerable amount of refuse and a number of milling stones, suggest that entire residential groups lived for extended periods in the village. Logistical mobility may have been used to procure bighorn sheep.

There is no easily knapped stone atop Mount Jefferson. The assemblage from one house (House I-A) contains a high percentage of biface-reduction flakes, with a few instances of tool scavenging and bipolar flaking (Kelly 1985:141). Many bifaces at the site are made of obsidian, a material

highly suited to resharpening, and valuable in increasing a tool's use life; however, it is not available within many kilometers of Mount Jefferson, so it is evident that those who occupied the village

720 [Vol. 53, No. 4, 1988


"geared up," like the Pawnee, before occupying the mountain. Many of the bifaces and projectile points are resharpened and recycled thoroughly (Thomas 1982), as if their makers had stretched to the limit the use lives of their tools.

A tool also may be manufactured to have a long use life if it is expected to be used under a variety of conditions. However, a tool designed for use on logistical forays, such as a projectile point, may be related much less to the distribution of raw material than tools designed for use in residential sites, since it may be much less certain where a logistical foray, as opposed to a residential movement, may be expected to take a hunter-gatherer. In particular, tools designed for use on long search-and- encounter (as opposed to target-specific) logistical forays will be under greater pressure to be designed to meet a variety of needs and tasks as, e.g., cutting or scraping tools) and thus will need to be bifacial. This requirement can be relaxed for the equipment of target-specific forays (see below).

Bifaces as sBy-products

Bifaces manufactured as by-products point to the importance of the haft to which the stone tool is attached. A class of tools manufactured under such conditions may contain a relatively high frequency of unifacial instances of a morphological tool type which for another time period or region usually is bifacial. Using ethnographic data, Torrence (1983) notes that tools with many components are designed for the logistical acquisition of a specific resource which is available for only a short period of the year. More complex gear requires the working of organic materials, which are, of course, more malleable than stone. Thus, if the occurrence of bifaces as by-products suggests the greater importance of the organic haft, perhaps it also indicates a primarily logistical acquisition of particular food resources, involving, to use Bleed's (1986) terms, a reliable technology. It is worth noting that bifaces which are fit to hafts might be more frequently maintained or replaced in residential sites where the necessary stone or organic materials might be kept, rather than out at logistical sites (cf. Binford [1977] on curated tools). This has some important implications for identifying different kinds of hunter-gatherer sites.

ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONSEQUENCES

The use of bifaces in different roles results in different distributions of and associations between the remains of biface manufacture and use across a landscape; some hypothetical associations are suggested here. While these merit testing, the data necessary to do so are lacking since there are no modern stone-tool-using hunter-gatherers and few sites where accurate interpretations of site function can be made from nonstone tool data. Testing of the patterns suggested below is a task for the future.

Al. The production and use of bifaces as cores in residential sites should result in: (1) a positive correlation between measures of the frequency of bifacial-flaking debris, utilized

biface flakes, or biface fragments and measures of the total amount of lithic debris; (2) a high percentage of utilized biface flakes relative to unretouched flake tools; (3) a low incidence of simple percussion cores, especially unprepared or "casual" cores; and (4) evidence of "gearing up" at quarries: a low incidence of flakes with much cortex on their

dorsal surface in residential sites and a use of high-quality raw material, such as fine-grained cryptocrystallines, possibly from distant sources.

A2. The production of bifaces in residential sites which then are used as cores in logistical sites should result in: (1) a division of sites into two basic categories, one in which there is a high, and another in

which there is a low incidence of utilized biface-reduction flakes, the former being logistical and the latter residential sites; bifacial tools would be produced and maintained in residential sites, whereas they would be used as tools and/or cores in logistical sites;

(2) likewise, residential sites should display a higher rate of increase (i.e., a higher slope of a regression curve) than logistical sites between biface fragments and measures of the fre-

Kelly] 721

AMERICAN ANTIQUITY

CARSON-STILLWATER

FC^^arson Lake. .;;.. .... ARCHAEOLOGICAL PROJECT

4386 transect

quadrat (enlarged) TN

0 km 10

Figure 1. Survey area with locations of transects and quadrats: (1) Lovelock Cave; (2) Humboldt Cave; (3) Hidden Cave (elevation in feet).

quency of biface knapping as a function of tool maintenance and replacement (see Binford

1977); and

(3) residential sites should contain a higher frequency of utilized simple flake tools as opposed to utilized flakes removed from a biface.

B. The use of bifaces as long use-life tools should result in:

(1) infrequent unifacial examples of the tool type (e.g., projectile points); these rare unifacial cases may be instances of expedient tool production;

(2) a pattern of tool production in residential sites similar to C (below), with a high correlation

722 [Vol. 53, No. 4, 1988


Table 1. Cultural Chronology and Time Markers.

Phase Temporal Period Projectile Point Types

Yankee Blade 650-100 B.P. Desert side notched Cottonwood triangular Cottonwood leaf shaped

Underdown 1450-650 B.P. Rosegate Reveille 3250-1450 B.P. Elko comer notched

Elko eared Devil's Gate 4950-3250 B.P. Gatecliff contracting stem

Gatecliff split stem

between bifacial debris and tool fragments, but these fragments should show evidence of rejuvenation and resharpening;

(3) a high frequency of resharpened or recycled instances of the tool type relative to (a) other tool types or (b) the same tool type from other areas or time periods;

(4) evidence in logistical sites of the tool having been resharpened, resulting in a low rate of increase in biface fragments relative to biface flaking debris, as in A2.3, but with few of the biface-reduction flakes having been utilized; and

(5) possibly evidence of haft manufacture and maintenance in residential sites as in C.4 (below). C. The manufacture of bifaces as a by-product of the shaping process should result in:

(1) a concentration of bifacial-flaking debris in residential sites, especially very small bifacial- retouch flakes, and a positive correlation between biface fragments and bifacial-flaking debris;

(2) a low incidence of the use of biface-reduction flakes as tools; (3) a relatively high incidence of unifacial instances of a normally bifacial tool type (contrast

with B. 1); and (4) an archaeological record at residential sites indicating the maintenance of hafted tools,

including stone tools used for the manufacture of organic items, e.g., flake tools, burins, gravers, spokeshaves, and scrapers (see Keeley [1982] for further discussion).

APPLICATION TO THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF THE CARSON SINK

As an example of how the approach outlined here can elucidate prehistoric change in mobility strategies, the archaeology of the Carson Sink and Stillwater Mountains of western Nevada (Figure 1) is examined briefly.

The Carson Sink is a wide valley, its southern half covered by low, partially stabilized to unsta- bilized sand dunes, with a light cover of greasewood, saltbrush, and budsage. The northern half is an extensive alkaline plain. The Sink contains a large marsh, and formerly contained two lakes that today appear only during years of exceptional winter runoff. There is no stone-tool raw material on the valley floor.

The northern Stillwater Mountains are covered by pinyon and juniper at higher elevations; in the south, the range is lower in elevation and supports only a sagebrush community. The Stillwater Mountains are not high, but are quite rugged, and contain no streams and few reliable springs. There are many sources of chert in the mountains, particularly in the northern half, and other knappable stone occurs almost ubiquitously as nodules in colluvium and alluvium. Based on projectile point temporal types (Thomas 1981), occupation covers the time span from 5000 to 100 B.P. in four cultural phases (Table 1).

Fieldwork in the study area consisted of survey, intensive surface collections, and limited test excavations (Kelly 1985). The valley was sampled with 15 100-m-wide transects, covering about 7 percent of the valley floor (256 km total). The northern half of the Stillwater Range was surveyed at a sampling fraction of 5 percent and the southern half at 1 percent with 57 500 x 500-m quadrats. All sites (defined as four pieces of cultural material within 50 m2) and isolated material were collected;

Kelly] 723

AMERICAN ANTIQUITY

161 sites were found, of which 107 were on the valley floor. Four transects and nine quadrats, representing 64 sites, have been analyzed to date and form the data base used here.

Analysis focused on the stone tools and their production techniques, partly because the sites on the valley floor (but not the mountains) have been looted intensely for decades, but also so that associations between tool fragments and the debitage from the reduction of cores and the production of tools could be observed (pothunters mainly collect whole projectile points and bifaces; fragments of these tools, amorphous cores, and chippage are not collected; see Kelly [1983a]). As close to a 100 percent collection of the surface material as possible was made from each site; test pits and screening of the sandy surface of valley sites controlled for the existence of immediately subsurface materials. In only a few cases was evidence of subsurface material found; in no case was it substantial in the valley sites since nearly all had been deflated severely.

Tools, cores, and debitage from each site were first sorted into raw-material types (e.g., chert, obsidian, rhyolite) and then sorted according to whether or not flakes were derived from the same core or tool. This latter categorization was based on attributes of color, grain, inclusions, banding, and heat treatment (cf. Leach 1984). Justification of this sorting procedure is discussed elsewhere (Kelly 1985:165-173). Each cluster of chippage then was examined to determine which types of reduction strategies were used to produce the chippage. Several reduction categories were recorded, which have been collapsed into four basic categories here: simple percussion-flake production, early stage biface reduction, late-stage biface reduction, and bipolar reduction/recycling. It was noted whether a reduction strategy was evidenced by one or by more than one flake. In this way, the number and diversity of reduction episodes were recorded for each site (tool fragments alone did not constitute a reduction episode). A very conservative approach was taken and if it was unclear what reduction strategy was used in producing a cluster of flakes, it was relegated to the unknown category.

Instances of simple percussion-flake production consisted of flakes with none or a few (1-2) flake scars on the platform, with no lipping or faceting, and flakes with more than 10 percent of the dorsal surface covered by cortex. In some cases, the wasted core was present with its associated chippage. Bipolar reduction/recycling contained two different though related reduction strategies. Instances of bipolar reduction contained flakes with crushed platforms, sheared bulbs, and rippled ventral surfaces; frequently the bipolar core or fragments of it were present with the chippage (a decision to record an instance of bipolar knapping on the basis of a single flake was rare, since bipolar flakes can be produced through the use of other reduction strategies). Frequently, a cluster of chippage bore evidence of tool scavenging, such as the bipolar reduction of a biface fragment or the reflaking of a weathered percussion core; these were taken to be instances of tool recycling and/or scavenging and were lumped with the bipolar category, as they both probably indicate reduction strategies occurring under conditions of limited raw material.

Instances of early-stage biface reduction on sisted of sidestruck flakes and/or flakes with two to three facets on their striking platforms; the lack of cortex also was used as a distinguishing but not sufficient or necessary characteristic. Some of these flakes have a ground edge and a slightly lipped platform (for comparative purposes, see Magne's [1983] Middle and Late Stage flake categories). Instances of late-stage biface reduction consist of flakes which usually are twice as long as they are

wide, terminate in feather fractures, and have lipped platforms (perhaps indicative of soft-hammer reduction) which often are ground or worn from edge preparation and/or use. Late-stage biface- reduction flakes also may have a complex pattern of previous flake-removal scars and no cortex on the dorsal surface (see Magne's [1983] bifacial flake category).

Flake utilization was based on macroscopic (10 x) edge damage and recorded only in terms of its presence or absence. Since the edges of flakes, especially those from surface sites and particularly biface-reduction flakes, can break easily and appear to have been utilized (Keeley 1980:26-27, 165),

very conservative use-wear determinations were made and it is likely that the number of utilized flakes are systematically underrepresented. More fine-grained use-wear analyses of surface materials unfortunately are not realistic.

Little evidence was found of biface knapping on the valley floor, where evidence of simple flake- tool production dominates; however, the situation is quite different in the mountains (Table 2),

724 [Vol. 53, No. 4, 1988


Table 2. Occurrence of Different Lithic-Reduction Techniques in Valley Versus Mountain Sites.

Reduction Technique

Early Site Recycled/ Simple Stage Late-Stage

Location N Bipolar Flake Biface Biface Total

Valley 40 478 (39) 589 (47) 36 (3) 132(11) 1,235 Mountain 24 45 (5) 257 (36) 116(17) 277 (40) 695

Note: Numbers in parentheses indicate percentages, multiple- and single- flake instances combined, all raw materials.

where biface-reduction debitage is common. Among the mountain sites, there is a dichotomy between those sites where bifaces were maintained and/or produced and those sites where bifaces were used as cores (Figure 2), indicative of a system where bifaces were produced in residential sites for use as cores in logistical sites (see A2.1).

If the interpretation of this dichotomy is correct, then we should see a greater frequency of utilized biface flakes relative to simple utilized flakes in the logistical as opposed to residential sites (A2.3). As shown in Table 3, this does appear to be true if one of the sites (32-1) is removed from analysis (in which case, chi-square = 12.19, df= 1, p < .001, Yule's Q = .31; only numbered sites in Figure 2 were included). Unlike the other mountain sites, site 32-1 contains evidence of having been occupied during three phases and, prior to the analysis described here, was determined to be a complex mix of different types of occupations (Kelly 1985:279).

Figure 2 suggests that mountain sites were the focus of both residential and logistical mobility, and that individuals were preparing for relatively long logistical forays during some periods of occupation by manufacturing long use-life or multifunctional bifacial tools and cores in the residential

32-1 25- - -

MOUNTAIN SITES 40-2

/

20 41-2 / CORE CURVE

15- */12 -1 *41-3 LU

u / 99-2

v / 40-3 3 _L, /* -041-1

10- 43 - 2 / 43-140-

/ 32-3/ PRODUCTION/ MAINTENANCE N

/ CURVE J / 99-3

5- 32-4-,

*32 -5

@41- 32-2 l) 44-10 0

-0 ** 5-1

0 9 18 27 36 45 INSTANCES OF BIFACE KNAPPING

Figure 2. Plot of utilized biface flakes versus instances of biface knapping (counts) for 24 mountain sites showing the use of bifaces as cores (logistical sites) and the production/maintenance of bifaces (residential sites).

725 Kelly]

AMERICAN ANTIQUITY

Table 3. Occurrence of Utilized Biface-Reduction Flakes Versus Utilized Flakes for Core Curve Sites Versus Production/

Maintenance Curve Sites.

Utilized Biface- Other

Number of Reduction Utilized Sites Flakes Flakes Total

Core curve (with 32-1) 5 92 171 263 .......................... .........................................................................................

Core curve (w/o 32-1) 4 67 78 145

Production/maintenance curve 14 97 217 314

camps. However, since there is an abundance of raw material in the mountains it seems odd that logistical groups would have relied on transported bifacial tools at the locus of logistical tasks instead of expediently produced ones. Possibly, logistical use of the mountains was made by groups who were not aware of the distribution of lithic material in the mountains, or the mountains may have been occupied during the winter, when raw materials, covered by ice and snow, would have been hard to find. Unfortunately, further analysis of the mountain sites at this time is hampered by the low sample sizes from single-phase sites; most of those in Figure 2 contain evidence of occupation during two temporal phases.

Not only was biface knapping an infrequent activity on the valley floor, it may not have occurred in conjunction with other knapping activities. For example, instances of bifacial reduction do not correlate with assemblage size (measured by the total number of known or "interpretable" instances of knapping) as they do for the mountain sites (Table 4). Chi-square tests between instances of recycled/bipolar and late-/early stage biface reduction show that for two of the transects, biface- reduction flakes are more common in isolated material than in sites (Table 5). (Earlier tests, which still showed a significant difference between site and isolated material, showed no difference in the

frequency of instances of simple flake production [Kelly 1985].) Since the valley sites are largely a product of deflation, the distinction between the sites and

isolated categories actually is a distinction between material which usually was deposited in conjunction with other debris versus material which usually was deposited singularly (Kelly 1988). The lack of a difference between the collection units of transects 4386 and 4385 could be a function of the fact that the early stage biface-reduction category was not recorded during analysis of 4386;

Table 4. Correlation Coefficients Between the Occurrence of Reduction Techniques and Total Number of Instances of

Knapping in a Site, Valley Versus Mountain Sites.*

Valley Mountain

Reduction Number of Number of Technique Sites r Sites r

Recycled 40 .93 24 .45a Bipolar 40 .76b 24 Simple flake 40 .90 24 .86 Early stage biface 25c .42 24 .81 Late-stage biface 40 .47 24 .92

Note: All raw materials, multiple- and single-flake instances combined. a Bipolar and recycled counts combined. b Without site 86-13, r = .81. c Not recorded for transect 4386. *p < .01 for all cases.

726 [Vol. 53, No. 4, 1988


Table 5. Chi-Square Tests Between Site and Isolated Collections for Four Valley Transects, Recycled/Bipolar Versus Biface

Categories.

Late-/ Recy- Early cled/ Stage

Transect Unit Bipolar Biface x2 p Q

4366 Site 87 50 25.3 <.001 .32 Isolated 34 75

4385 Site 30 19 .003 N.S. Isolated 48 31

4386 Site 260 69 .33 N.S. Isolated 159 37

4390 Site 97 21 19.8 <.001 .26 Isolated 88 67

Note: df = 1 in all cases; multiple- and single-flake instances of knapping combined, all raw materials.

moreover, both transects cross an area which has undergone less deflation than those areas crossed by 4390 and 4366; consequently, much of the "isolated" material still may be buried (Kelly 1988).

The chi-square and regression analyses also suggest that when a biface flake was dropped it often was not accompanied by other debris, for if it had been, it should have been incorporated into debris "clumps," which would have been collected as sites rather than as isolated remains. Fur- thermore, if other debris was deposited along with every biface flake, then bifacial debris would have been deposited in a context which would have increased assemblage size proportionately, and thus now would be more closely correlated with it. Many of the isolated biface flakes appear to have been utilized (Kelly 1988), suggesting a use of bifaces as cores; however, since the bifacial debris was not deposited in clumps, bifaces, for the most part, probably were not used as cores in residential sites. This suggests that, in general, when the valley floor was occupied it was not occupaied for extended periods by residentially mobile groups; otherwise, bifaces would have been used as cores, as among the Pawnee. The isolated utilized biface flakes probably were deposited through logistical mobility, but these bifaces largely were not being produced or maintained in valley-floor sites. However, the distribution of bifacial debris on the valley floor has additional and more subtle distributions.

Figure 3 shows the distribution of bifacial tool (including projectile-point) fragments plotted against the number of instances of late-stage biface knapping for the 40 valley-floor sites. The curves in this diagram have not been fit statistically to the points, but represent interpretations of this scatterplot based on three of the above expectations (A2.3, B.4, and C.1). In the lower curve of Figure 3, only sites 86-10 and 86-2 (Devil's Gate phase sites) contain many utilized late-stage biface- reduction flakes, suggesting the existence of two kinds of logistical encampments. Site 86-13 contained many smashed biface fragments and bipolar cores and may be evidence of an extreme instance of raw-material scavenging; however, the site's mobility context is unknown (Kelly 1985:246-247). Sites 90-2 and 86-11 may be residential sites, while the others may be logistical sites (A2.3 and B.4). 86-11 contains site-structural evidence of having been produced by a long occupation and does not appear to have been reoccupied (Kelly 1985:247-248, 1988). It also contains a higher than expected number of instances of core/tool recycling, and an exceptionally high number of bipolar cores (32; the next highest site count is 14), both of which suggest a long-term occupation, given that there are no lithic resources on the valley floor. 86-11 also contains debris primarily from obsidian and high quality chert-material which is highly reducible and indicative of "gearing up" for a long-term stay on the valley floor. 86-11 only contains evidence of a Yankee Blade occupation and, within the present sample, is the only dated evidence of a possibly sedentary occupation of the valley floor.

To determine temporal change in mobility patterns in the region, assemblages were lumped

Kelly] 727

AMERICAN ANTIQUITY

60

*86 -13

SCAVENGING?

50

O

U 40- / 86-11l

CD : 90-2 2

o'

E.- 0 30- \

J / - /

20-

Q / /

10-| * ? 0 10'9~~~~~~ 0 * ~~LOGISTICAL

*?/~~~ ^ ~86-100

1 ?: ; @86-16 86-2@

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15

INSTANCES OF LATE STAGE BIFACE KNAPPING

Figure 3. Plot of bifacial tool fragments versus instances of late-stage biface knapping (counts) for 40 valley sites showing possible residential versus logistical sites.

together according to whether they contained projectile points indicative of only one temporal phase (Table 6); this excludes analysis of Underdown phase sites. While deflation and looting make it

likely that these sites also contain remains of occupations made during several time periods, this

approach is at present the only way whereby temporal change in the valley can be observed. Analysis of data presented in Table 6 shows a significant difference between Devil's Gate and Reveille phase sites in terms of recycled/bipolar, simple flake production, and late-stage biface reduction (chi- square = 15.14, df = 2, p < .01, coefficient of contingency = .20), but not between Reveille and Yankee Blade assemblages (chi-square = .47, df= 2, p < .90); it appears that bifaces were reduced more frequently during the Devil's Gate phase than during the rest of the occupation of the valley. Moreover, there is a significantly higher incidence of utilized biface-reduction flakes compared to simple flake tools in sites with evidence only of Devil's Gate phase occupations than those with

Table 6. Combined Occurrence of Different Reduction Techniques in Single-Component Sites.

Reduction Strategies

Number of Recycled/ Simple Late-Stage Phase Sites Bipolar Flake Biface Total

Yankee Blade 8 110 169 31 310 Reveille 4 82 134 20 236 Devil's Gate 4 33 52 24 106

Note: Counts represent the number of instances of use of a particular reduction strategy. However, a reduction strategy can be evidenced by more than one flake, thus counts do not represent the total number of flakes.

728 [Vol. 53, No. 4, 1988


Table 7. Combined Occurrence of Utilized Biface Flakes Versus Other Utilized Flakes for Sites of Different Phases.

Utilized Flakes

Number of Late-Stage Simple Phase Sites Biface Flake Total

Yankee Blade 8 18 169 187 Reveille 4 16 97 113 Devil's Gate 4 13 25 38

evidence only of Reveille phase occupations (chi-square = 7.36, df= 1, p < .01, Yule's Q = -.51; Table 7); there is no significant difference between Reveille and Yankee Blade phase sites (chi-square = 1.47, df= 1, p < .25).

It is possible that there is more bifacial material in sites which were produced during the Devil's Gate phase because those sites have existed longer than others and have had more time to accumulate biface-reduction flakes dropped in isolation. On the other hand, given the above interpretation of patterns in the distribution of bifacial-flaking debris on the valley floor, the bifacial material associated with Devil's Gate phase projectile points also may indicate that during this phase the Carson Sink largely was used as a focal point of logistical-mobility strategies, with a change to residential mobility during the Reveille and Yankee Blade phases (see below).

Data on projectile-point manufacture and use provide an interesting addition to this reconstruc- tion. While there is no statistical difference between the points of different time periods (site and isolated contexts), there appears to be a trend toward an increasing frequency of unifacial points through time, particularully for the Yankee Blade phase (Table 8). This may suggest that the property of bifacialness was most important for Reveille and Devil's Gate phase projectile points. Post- Reveille points may have been bifacially flaked solely as a function of shaping or hafting consid- erations.

In this regard, it is interesting that for projectile points found on the valley floor (Table 9) there is a significant difference between Reveille and Underdown phase points in terms of the frequency of resharpening (chi-square corrected for continuity = 12.09, df = 1, p < .001, Yule's Q = -.S2), but not between Underdown and Yankee Blade phase points (chi-square corrected for continuity = .26, df = 1, p < .75). Reveille phase points were resharpened more frequently than those of the Yankee Blade or Underdown phases. The same pattern appears to be true for points found in the mountains (difference between Reveille and Underdown, chi-square = 5.24, df= 1, p < .025, Yule's Q = -.67; difference between Underdown and Yankee Blade phase points cannot be computed due to low cell frequencies; projectile points from the valley and mountains are analyzed separately to control for possible effects of looting on the valley floor). Data from valley-floor projectile points suggest, however, that Devil's Gate phase points were resharpened less frequently than Reveille phase points (chi-square = 4.19, df= 1, p < .05, Yule's Q = .68). The difference between Reveille

Table 8. Occurrence of Bifacial Versus Unifacial Projectile Points of Different Phases From the Valley Floor and Mountains.

Valley Mountains Bifa- Bifa-

Phase cial Unifacial Total cial Unifacial Total

Yankee Blade 50 10(16) 60 23 8 (25) 31 Underdown 30 7 (19) 37 22 1(4) 23 Reveille 38 3 (7) 41 22 2 (8) 25 Devil's Gate 15 2 (12) 17 6 0 (0) 6

Note: Numbers in parentheses indicate percentages.

Kelly] 729

AMERICAN ANTIQUITY

Table 9. Occurrence of Resharpened Versus Unresharpened Projectile Points of Different Phases for Valley-Floor and

Mountain Sites.

Valley Mountains

Unresharp- Unresharp- Phase Resharpened ened Resharpened ened

Yankee Blade 6 45 0 28 Underdown 3 28 3 17 Reveille 13 12 11 12 Devil's Gate 2 10 0 5

and Devil's Gate points from the mountains cannot be computed due to low cell frequencies; however, it is worth noting that a third of the Devil's Gate phase points recovered from nearby Hidden Cave (N = 153) were resharpened, some repeatedly (Pendleton 1985:185-188); thus it is possible that the low number of Devil's Gate phase points in this sample masks the true resharpening frequency of the points.

While Underdown and Yankee Blade phase points tend to be smaller than Devil's Gate and Reveille phase points, perhaps because of a post- 1500 B.P. shift from use of the atlatl to the bow and arrow (Thomas 1978), Underdown phase points still are large enough to be resharpened. The fact that pre-Underdown phase points were attached to atlatl darts does not necessarily explain why they were large and resharpened frequently.

DISCUSSION

The changing use of bifacial tools in the Carson Sink is indicative of temporal change in the general mobility organization of prehistoric hunter-gatherer society in the western Great Basin. More frequent use of bifaces as cores during the Devil's Gate phase is suggestive of a logistical use of the Sink. This is supported by Thomas's (1985b:374) claim that Hidden Cave (Figure 1), which primarily was used during the late Devil's Gate phase (ca. 3710 B.P.), served "(1) as a complex, multifunctional node for storage and (2) also as an extremely limited logistic outpost." Logistical use of the cave and the Sink may have been primarily for hunting, as the caches in Hidden Cave, unlike those in other caves occupied later in the area (see below), contained more hunting equipment than other kinds of gear.

A decrease in the use of bifaces as cores during the Reveille phase suggests a use of the Sink through short-term residential mobility. Since the Sink is an area of scarce lithic resources, hunter- gatherers occupying the area for short periods of time should have used expediently produced flake tools and occasionally used bipolar flake and scavenged tools. In-depth analysis of Reveille phase sites on the valley floor matches this prediction (Kelly 1985:243-245). The frequent resharpening of Reveille phase points in the mountains suggests that the resharpening of points in the Sink was a regular aspect of projectile-point use, and was not related to the lack of lithic resources on the valley floor.

The sites of Lovelock Cave (Heizer and Napton 1970; Loud and Harrington 1929) and Humboldt Cave (Heizer and Krieger 1956), located north of the survey area overlooking the Humboldt Sink (Figure 1), shed light on the nature of the Reveille phase occupation of the Carson Sink. Sometime around 2000 B.P. (the mid-Reveille phase) the caves were used to cache gear such as duck decoys, fish hooks, and nets used in exploiting the marshes of the Humboldt Sink. Each cave primarily was used for caches, as a "safe deposit box" (Heizer and Krieger 1956:5), and there is little evidence the caves were used for habitation (Heizer and Napton 1970:43; Kelly 1985:4647). If the Humboldt and Carson Sinks were used for brief periods (seasonally?) during the Reveille phase (as the analysis suggests), then it would make sense to cache gear in the caves. Since marsh resources are in general less cost-efficient than other Great Basin food resources (see Kelly 1985; Simms 1984), they probably

730 [Vol. 53, No. 4, 1988


would have been exploited through residential mobility to offset the high costs of logistical trans- portation of the marsh resources (see Kelly 1983b).

Use of the Carson Sink probably shifted after 1500 B.P., but whether this shift occurred just after 1500 B.P. or not until 650 B.P. is not known since the Underdown phase occupation cannot be analyzed with the present data set. There is evidence of a continuation of the post-Devil's Gate shift away from the use of bifaces as cores in the Sink, although in addition there is evidence that projectile points were not being designed to have long use lives. This interpretation agrees with Elston's (1982:198) conclusion that the curation rate of stone tools decreased in the western Great Basin after 1500 B.P. Bettinger and Baumhoff(1982) suggest that there was a shift in aboriginal adaptive strategy around 700 B.P. (the beginning of the Yankee Blade phase), which they attribute to the migration of a new ethnic group, speakers of the Numic language, into the Great Basin. A critique of their argument is beyond the scope of this paper; however, discussion here is relevant to one aspect of their argument.

Bettinger and Baumhoff suggest that long-distance hunting of large game decreased in importance after 700 B.P., while the utilization of a diversity of lower-ranked resources, grass seeds in particular, increased. A shift away from tool curation in general, and projectile points in particular, might support this thesis. However, a decrease in the use of projectile points as long use-life tools may reflect directly only a change in the way hunting was organized into the overall mobility strategy between Reveille and Yankee Blade phases. The resharpenable bifacial points used prior to 1500 B.P. may have been useful when the exact length or conditions of a hunt were unknown, so that the point could be reused should hunting conditions prove better than expected, or used as a tool other than a projectile point. Use of smaller, nonresharpenable points after 1500 B.P. may indicate that hunts were conducted under circumstances in which the conditions of the hunt were known and carefully planned for; such might have been the case if hunting were carried out under tightly delimited conditions, rather than in forays of varying length around the residential camp. Under the postulated post-1500 B.P. conditions, and as Torrence (1983) has argued, tools should become more resource specific and complex, with a concomitant decrease in the importance of the lithic component of tools. In Bleed's (1986) terms, post-1500 B.P. hunting weapons might have had to become more reliable, rather than maintainable, weapons. This may indicate a shift to target-specific hunting, although whether it indicates a decrease in the contribution of meat to the diet is a matter for future consideration.

CONCLUSION

It has been suggested that bifaces can be used in three different roles: as cores; as resharpenable, long use-life tools; or as shaped, function-specific tools which are part of a reliable technology. It also was suggested that use of a biface in each of these roles is related to a combination of raw- material distribution and a group's mobility strategy. The use of bifacial implements in different roles has implications for the distributions of and associations among different classes of the remains of biface manufacture and use. The ideas about biface roles and their archaeological correlates presented in this paper remain to be tested; the objective has been to point out how interpretations of the archaeological record in terms of hunter-gatherer mobility strategies may be enhanced by taking an organizational perspective on stone tool, specifically biface, technology. For the particular raw-material distribution of the Carson Sink and Stillwater Mountains, a shift from the use of bifaces as cores to an infrequent use of bifaces is suggestive of a shift from logistical to residential use of the Carson Sink. A later shift to the use of small, frequently unifacial, nonresharpenable projectile points was interpreted as a shift to target-specific hunting.

Archaeologists need to understand stone tool technology as a set of activities which had to be integrated into the organization of prehistoric peoples' lives, rather than simply as an art or craft (cf. Thomas 1985a). The use of reduction sequences to identify different gross categories of sites (e.g., base camps, task-specific sites) may be misleading if the organizational role of the tool whose reduction sequence is being modeled is ignored. Reduction sequences are produced most commonly

Kelly] 731

AMERICAN ANTIQUITY

for bifacial tools, but, as has been suggested here, not all bifaces are alike, though they may leave similar evidence of reduction sequences behind.

Archaeologists need to develop the methods which will allow the detection and interpretation of patterns indicative of the use of a particular class of tools in a particular role. But methodologically we are limited in the development of such arguments concerning stone tools because there are no modern hunter-gatherers who routinely use stone tools as even a fraction of their technology. This means that there are few situations in which we can observe relations among behavior, raw-material distributions, and tool production, use, and discard. Using modern hunter-gatherers or horticul- turists as examples may mean extrapolating from the use of metal tools to stone tools, involving several obvious sources of error, since the use of metal changes not only the technological value of tools but their social value as well. One alternative is to use archaeological cases in whih a site's

organizational context can be interpreted from some other source of data, such as faunal remains, location, or artifact spatial distributions. This approach has been used here by employing the archaeology of several sites to exemplify biface roles. This is a difficult and tenuous approach, but may be our only option. While the ideas proposed here need testing, refinemen, and elaboration, the perspective behind them provides a new way to interpret prehistoric shifts in the technology of

hunter-gatherer societies.

Acknowledgments. I would like to thank Douglas Bamforth, Eric Ingbar, Margaret Nelson, Lonnie Pippin, John Speth, David Hurst Thomas, and two and two anonymous American Antiquity reviewers for their comments on drafts of this paper; they are responsible only for its strengths. Fieldwork in the Carson Sink was supported generously by the American Museum of Natural History, an American Museum-Lounsbery Predoctoral Grant, a Rackham Graduate School (University of Michigan) Dissertation Grant, and the Bureau of Land Management, Carson City District.

REFERENCES CITED

Allchin, B. 1966 The Stone- Tipped Arrow. Phoenix House, London.

Balfour, H. R. 1951 A Native Tool Kit from the Kimberly District, Western Australia. Mankind 4:273-274.

Bamforth, D. 1985 The Technological Organization of Paleo-Indian Small-Group Bison Hunting on the Llano Estacado.

Plains Anthropologist 30:243-258. 1986 Technological Efficiency and Tool Curation. American Antiquity 51:38-50.

Bettinger, R. L., and M. A. Baumhoff 1982 The Numic Spread: Great Basin Cultures in Competition. American Antiquity 47:485-503.

Binford, L. R. 1977 Forty-Seven Trips. In Stone Tools as Cultural Markers, edited by R. V. S. Wright, pp. 24-36. Australian

Institute of Aboriginal Studies, Canberra, Australia. 1979 Organization and Formation Processes: Looking at Curated Technologies. Journal of Anthropological

Research 35:255-273. 1980 Willow Smoke and Dogs' Tails: Hunter-Gatherer Settlement Systems and Archaeological Site For-

mation. American Antiquity 45:4-20. 1986 An Alyawara Day: Making Men's Knives and Beyond. American Antiquity 51:547-562.

Bleed, P. 1986 The Optimal Design of Hunting Weapons: Maintainability or Reliability. American Antiquity 51:737-

747. Elston, R.

1982 Good Times, Hard Times: Prehistoric Culture Change in the Western Great Basin. In Man and Environment in the Great Basin, edited by D. B. Madsen and J. F. O'Connell, pp. 186-206. SAA Papers No. 2. Society for American Archaeology, Washington, D.C.

Flenniken, J. J. 1981 Replicative Systems Analysis: A Model Applied to the Vein Quartz Artifactsfrom the Hoko River Site.

Reports of Investigations No. 59. Laboratory of Anthropology, Washington State University, Pullman. Fowler, D. D., and J. F. Matley

1979 Material Culture of the Numa: The John Wesley Powell Collection, 1867-1880. Smithsonian Contri- butions to Anthropology 26. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

732 [Vol. 53, No. 4, 1988


Goodyear, A. C. 1979 A Hypothesis for the Use of Cryptocrystalline Raw Materials Among Paleo-Indian Groups of North

America. Research Manuscript Series No. 156. University of South Carolina, Columbia. Gould, R. A.

1968 Chipping Stones in the Outback. Natural History 77:42-49. 1980 Living Archaeology. Cambridge University Press, New York.

Gould, R. A., D. A. Koster, and A. H. L. Sontz 1971 The Lithic Assemblage of the Western Desert Aborigines of Australia. American Antiquity 36:149-

169. Gould, R. A., and S. Saggers

1985 Lithic Procurement in Central Australia: A Closer Look at Binford's Idea of Embeddedness in Ar- chaeology. American Antiquity 50:117-136.

Heizer, R. F., and A.D. Krieger 1956 The Archaeology ofHumboldt Cave, Churchill County, Nevada. Publications in American Archaeology

and Ethnology 47. University of California, Berkeley. Heizer, R. F., and L. K. Napton

1970 Archaeology and the Prehistoric Great Basin Lacustrine Subsistence Regime as Seen from Lovelock Cave, Nevada. Contributions of the University of California Archaeological Research Facility No. 10, Los Angeles.

Holen, S. R. 1983 Lower Loup Procurement Strategy at the Gray Site, 25Cxl. Unpublished Master's thesis, Department

of Anthropology, University of Nebraska, Lincoln. Home, G., and G. Aiston

1924 Savage Life in Central Australia. Macmillan, London. Keeley, L. H.

1980 Experimental Determination of Stone Tool Uses: A Microwear Analysis. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

1982 Hafting and Retooling: Effects on the Archaeological Record. American Antiquity 47:798-809. Kelly, R. L.

1983a An Examination of Amateur Collections from the Carson Sink, Nevada. Technical Report No. 10. Bureau of Land Management, Carson City, Nevada.

1983b Hunter-Gatherer Mobility Strategies. Journal of Anthropological Research 39:277-306. 1985 Hunter-Gatherer Mobility and Sedentism: A Great Basin Study. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, De-

partment of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. 1988 Hunter-Gatherer Land Use and Regional Geomorphology: Implications for Archaeological Survey.

American Archeology, in press. Leach, H. M.

1984 Jigsaw: Reconstructive Lithic Technology. In Prehistoric Quarries and Lithic Procurement, edited by J. E. Ericson and B. A. Purdy, pp. 107-118. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Loeb, E. M. 1926 Pomo Folkways. Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 19. University of California,

Berkeley. Loud, L. L., and M. R. Harrington

1929 Lovelock Cave. Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 25. University of California, Berkeley.

Magne, M. P. R. 1983 Lithics and Livelihood: Stone Tool Technologies of Central and Southern Interior British Columbia.

Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver. Murdoch, J.

1892 Ethnological Results of the Point Barrow Expedition. In Ninth Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology, pp. 19-441. Washington, D.C.

O'Connell, J. F. 1977 Aspects of Variation in Central Australian Lithic Assemblages. In Stone Tools as Cultural Markers,

edited by R. V. S. Wright, pp. 269-281. Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, Canberra, Australia. Odell, G. H.

1981 The Morphological Express at Function Junction: Searching for Meaning in Lithic Tool Types. Journal of Anthropological Research 37:319-342.

Oswalt, W. H. 1973 Habitat and Technology. Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, New York.

Pendleton, L. S. A. 1985 Material Culture: Artifacts of Stone. In The Archaeology of Hidden Cave, Nevada, edited by D. H.

Thomas, pp. 183-218. Anthropological Papers 61. The American Museum of Natural History, New York. Roth, H. L.

1890 The Aborigines of Tasmania. Kegan, Paul, Trench, and Trubner, London.

Kelly] 733

AMERICAN ANTIQUITY

Simms, S. 1984 Aboriginal Great Basin Foraging Strategies: An Evolutionary Analysis. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,

Department of Anthropology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City. Spencer, B., and F. J. Gillen

1927 The Arunta. Macmillan, London. Thomas, D. H.

1978 Arrowheads and Atlatl Darts: How the Arrows Got the Shaft. American Antiquity 43:461-472. 1981 How to Classify the Projectile Points from Monitor Valley, Nevada. Journal of California and Great

Basin Archaeology 3:7-43. 1982 The 1981 Alta Toquima Village Project: A Preliminary Report. Technical Report Series No. 27. Desert

Research Institute Social Sciences Center, Reno. 1983 The Archaeology of Monitor Valley: 2. Gatecliff Shelter. Anthropological Papers 59. The American

Museum of Natural History, New York. 1985a Contemporary Hunter-Gatherer Archaeology in America. In American Archaeology Past and Present,

edited by D. J. Meltzer, D. D. Fowler, and J. A. Sabloff, pp. 237-276. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

1985b The Archaeology of Hidden Cave, Nevada. Anthropological Papers 61. The American Museum of Natural History, New York.

Tindale, N. B. 1965 Stone Implement Making Among the Nakako, Ngadadjara and Pitjandjara of the Great Western Desert.

Records of the South Australian Museum 15(1): 131-164. 1985 Australian Aboriginal Technique of Pressure-Flaking Stone Implements: Some Personal Observations.

In Stone Tool Analysis: Essays in Honor of Don E. Crabtree, edited by M. G. Plew, J. C. Woods, and M. G. Pavesic, pp. 1-34. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

Torrence, R. 1983 Time Budgeting and Hunter-Gatherer Technology. In Hunter-Gatherer Economy in Prehistory, edited

by G. Bailey, pp. 11-22. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. White, J. P., and J. F. O'Connell

1982 The Archaeology of Australia, New Guinea, and Sahul. Academic Press, New York. Wiant, M. D., and H. Hassan

1985 The Role of Lithic Resource Availability and Accessibility in the Organization of Lithic Technology. In Lithic Resource Procurement: Proceedings from the Second Conference on Prehistoric Chert Exploitation, edited by S. C. Vehik, pp. 101-114. Occasional Publications 4. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale.

734 [Vol. 53, No. 4, 1988

Documents

Kelly 1988