Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-x24gv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-20T00:40:55.561Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

New Clues to Stone Tool Function: Plant and Animal Residues

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Frederick L. Briuer
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Microscopic identification and chemical reagents are used to identify organic use residues on stone tools. A basic distinction is made between plant and animal residues on stone tools from prehistoric sites in east central Arizona. Morphological identification undertaken in a crime lab independently supports the chemical technique. Other possible techniques and controls are discussed, as well as the implications for further research.

Type
Reports
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 41 , Issue 4 , October 1976 , pp. 478 - 484
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for American Archaeology 1976

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

Briuer, Frederick L. 1975 Cultural and noncultural deposition processes in Chevelon Canyon. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Department of Anthropology, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
DeGarmo, Glenn 1975 Coyote Creek, site 01: a methodological study of a prehistoric pueblo population. Unpublished Ph.D dissertation. Department of Anthropology, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Frison, George C. 1968 A functional analysis of certain chipped stone took. American Antiquity 33:149-55.Google Scholar
Hester, T. R., Gilbow, D., and Albee, A. D. 1973 A functional analysis of Clear Fork artifacts from Rio Grande Plain, Texas. American Antiquity 39:90-96.Google Scholar
Keeley, Lawrence H. 1974 Technique and methodology in microwear studies: a critical review. World Archaeology 5:323-36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLean, R. C, and Cook, W. R. I. 1941 Plant science formulae; a reference book for plant science laboratories. Macmillan, London.Google Scholar
Nance, J. D. 1970 Lithic analysis: implications for the prehistory of central California. University of California, Los Angeles, Department of Anthropology, Archaeological Survey Annual Report 12:62-103.Google Scholar
Nance, J. D. 1971 Functional interpretation from microscopic analysis. American Antiquity 36:361-66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nickolls, L. C. 1956 The scientific investigation of crime. Butter-worth, London.Google Scholar
Rawlins, T. E., and Takahashi, W. N. 1952 Technics of plant histochemistry and virology. National Press, Millbrae, CA.Google Scholar
Semenov, J. A. 1964 Prehistoric technology. Cory, Adams and Mackay, London.Google Scholar
Singer, C. A., and Gibson, R. 1970 The Medea Creek village site, a functional lithic analysis. University of California, Los Angeles, Department of Anthropology, Archaeological Survey Annual Report 12:18 8-203.Google Scholar
Smith, B. N., and Epstein, S. 1970a Biogeochemistry of the stable isotope of hydrogen and carbon in salt marsh biota. Plant Physiology 46:73842.Google Scholar
Smith, B. N., and Epstein, S. 1970b Two categories of 13C/12C ratios for higher plants. Plant Physiology 47:380-84.Google Scholar
Stevens, W. C. 1924 Plant anatomy. Fourth edition. P. Blakiston’s, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
Wilmsen, E. N. 1970 Lithic analysis and cultural inference: a paleo-Indian case. University of Arizona Anthropological Papers 16.Google Scholar