Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-gtxcr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-16T08:05:08.768Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Towards an understanding of hafting: the macro- and microscopic evidence

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Veerle Rots
Veerle Rots*
Affiliation:
Laboratory for Prehistory, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Redingenstraat 16, 3000 Leuven, Belgium
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

How were stone tools hafted? Based on experimental evidence the author shows how hafting arrangements can be recognised from macro-and microwear traces on the stone objects.

Keywords

stone toolshaftingprehensionmicrowearuse cycle
Type
Method
Information
Antiquity , Volume 77 , Issue 298 , December 2003 , pp. 805 - 815
Copyright
Copyright © Antiquity Publications Ltd. 2003

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

Anderson-Gerfaud, P. C. 1981. Contribution méthodologique à l’analyse des micro-traces d’utilisation sur les outils préhistoriques. Thèse de 3e cycle, n. 1607, Institut du Quaternaire, Université de Bordeaux I, Talence.Google Scholar
Binford, L. R. 1973. Interassemblage Variability—the Mousterian and the « Functional » Argument, in Renfrew, C. (ed.) The Explanation of Culture Change: 227–54. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
Binford, L. R. 1977. Forty-seven Trips: a Case Study in the Character of Archaeological Formation Processes, in Wright, R. V. S. (ed.) Stone Tools as Cultural Markers: Change, evolution, and complexity: 24–36. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.Google Scholar
Binford, L. R. 1979. Organization and Formation Processes: Looking at Curated Technologies, Journal of Archaeological Research 35: 255–73.Google Scholar
Bleed, P. J. 1986. The Optimal Design of Hunting Weapons: Maintainability and reliability, American Antiquity 45: 4–20.Google Scholar
Chase, P. 1991. Symbols and Palaeolithic Artifacts: Style, Standardization and the Imposition of Arbitrary Form, Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 10: 193–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gould, R. A. 1978. The Anthropology of Human Residues, American Anthropologist 80: 815–35.Google Scholar
Kamminga, J. 1982. Over the Edge: Functional Analysis of Australian Stone Tools, Occasional Papers in Anthropology 12. University of Queensland Anthropology Museum.Google Scholar
Keeley, L. H. 1980. Experimental Determination of Stone Tool Uses: a Microwear Analysis. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Keeley, L. H. 1982. Hafting and Retooling: Effects on the Archaeological Record, American Antiquity 47: 798–809.Google Scholar
Levi-Sala, I. 1986. Use Wear and Post Depositional Surface Modification: A Word of Caution, Journal of Archaeological Science 13, 3: 229–44.Google Scholar
Levi-Sala, I. 1996. A Study of Microscopic Polish on Flint Implements, BAR International Series 629, Oxford.Google Scholar
Odell, G. H. 1977. The Application of Micro-wear Analysis to the Lithic Component of an entire Prehistoric Settlement: Methods, Problems, and Functional Reconstructions. Unpublished PhD thesis, Harvard University, Cambridge (Mass.).Google Scholar
Odell, G. H. 1980. Toward a more Behavioral Approach to Archaeological Lithic Concentrations, American Antiquity 45, 3: 404–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Odell, G. H. 1981. The Morphological Express at Function Junction: Searching for Meaning in Lithic Tool Types, Journal of Anthropological Research 37: 319–42.Google Scholar
Odell, G. H. 1994. Prehistoric Hafting and Mobility in the North American Midcontinent: Examples from Illinois, Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 13: 51–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Odell, G. H. 1996. Economizing Behavior and the Concept of « Curation », in Odell, G. H. (ed.) Stone Tools. Theoretical Insights into Human Prehistory: 51–80. New York and London.Google Scholar
Petrequin, P. & Petrequin, A. M.. 1993. Ecologie d’un outil: la hache de pierre en Irian Jaya (Indonésie), Monographie du CRA 12, CNRS éditions, Paris.Google Scholar
Rots, V. 2002a. Hafting Traces on Flint Tools: Possibilities and Limitations of Macro- and Microscopic Approaches. Unpublished PhD thesis. Katholieke Universiteit Leuven.Google Scholar
Rots, V. 2002b. Bright Spots and the Question of Hafting, Anthropologica et Praehistorica 113: 61–71.Google Scholar
Rots, V., Pirnay, L., Pirson, P., Baudoux, O. & Vermeersch, P. M.. 2001. Experimental Hafting Traces. Identification and Characteristics, Notae Praehistoricae 21: 129–37.Google Scholar
Schiffer, M. B. 1972. Archaeological Context and Systemic Context, American Antiquity 37: 156–65.Google Scholar
Schiffer, M. B., Downing, T. E. & McCarthy, M.. 1981. Waste Not, Want Not: An Ethnoarchaeological Stufy of Reuse in Tucson, Arizona, in Gould, R. A. and Schiffer, M. B. (eds) Modern Material Culture: The Archaeology of Us: 67–86. New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shott, M. 1986. Technological Organization and Settlement Mobility: An Ethnographic Examination, Journal of Anthropological Research 42: 15–52.Google Scholar
Shott, M. 1995. How much is a scraper ? Curation, Use Rates, and the Formation of Scraper Assemblages, Lithic Technology 20: 53–72.Google Scholar
Tringham., R., Cooper, G., Odell, G. H., Voytek, B., Whitman, A.. 1974. Experimentation in the Formation of Edge-damage: a New Approach to Lithic Analysis, Journal of Field Archaeology 1: 17196.Google Scholar
Ungrath, G., Owen, L. R., Van Gijn, A., Moss, E. H., Plisson, H., Vaughan, P.. 1986. An Evaluation of Use-wear Studies: a Multi-Analyst Approach, Early Man News 9/10/11: 117–75.Google Scholar
Vaughan, P. 1985. Use-wear Analysis of Flaked Stone Tools. Tueson.Google Scholar