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.

Abstract

Measuring retouch location and intensity on hafted bifaces is shown to be an effective technique for assessing artifact function. Unlike other areas of North America, where dart technology is replaced by arrow technology, Coalition Period occupations on the Pajarito Plateau of New Mexico contain both hafted biface forms used simultaneously. A stylistic analysis of dart points shows that hafted biface forms found in Coalition Period contexts were recycled from Middle and Late Archaic surface scatters. Furthermore, retouch location and intensity show that Coalition Period dart points were used for cutting and sawing activities and not as projectile technology.

INTRODUCTION

In the American Southwest, and throughout North America, dart-sized hafted bifaces identified as projectile points, normally associated with sites dating to the Paleoindian and Archaic time periods, are regularly found on sites dating to the past thousand years (cf. Kohler 2004; Turnbow 1997). Late period points were likely small and designed to be attached to the smaller arrow foreshaft. Although researchers have noted the presence of dart-sized points in settings where the bow and arrow were likely used, few have addressed the question of the context of manufacture or use of these larger hafted bifaces. In the Northern Rio Grande, the presence of Scottsbluff, Jay, Bajada, and other large dart points dating to the Late Paleoindian and Archaic in Coalition and Classic period sites rarely elicits more than a description as a “curated” item or “heirloom,” or as a knife replicating an older style.

Abstract

Measuring retouch amounts on stone tools has been helpful for understanding human organizational strategies. Multiple retouch indices geared toward assessing retouch amounts on flake tools and unifaces have been developed, but few have been developed to evaluate retouch exclusively for bifaces. For this study, a retouch index was developed and evaluated on an experimental assemblage of bifaces. It is shown that reduction activities on bifaces may create extensive amounts of retouch that are contingent upon a number of factors from both the production and resharpening events that must be taken into consideration before understanding a biface's life history.

INTRODUCTION

Tool curation has been defined as the relationship between a tool's potential utility and its actual usage (Andrefsky 2005; Bamforth 1986; Shott 1996), or its “life history” (Eren et al. 2005). This curation concept has been linked to studies of hunter–gatherer organizational strategies in understanding issues of land use, economy, and, mobility. For stone tools, retouch amount has been used as an effective measure to assess the degree to which a tool has been curated (for discussion of curation see Andrefsky 2006; Barton 1988; Binford 1973, 1979; Blades 2003; Clarkson 2002; Davis and Shea 1998; Dibble 1997; Nelson 1991; Shott 1989, 1996).

However, assessing retouch amount may not be as universal as we might initially believe. We define retouch as the deliberate modification of a stone tool edge created by either percussion or pressure-flaking techniques (Andrefsky 2005).