Paper No.

: 03 Archaeological Anthropology
Module : 08 Function of tool types

Development Team

Principal Investigator Prof. Anup Kumar Kapoor

Dr. Manoj Kumar Singh

Dr. K. Polley, Department of Anthropology, Haldia

Prof. Anup Kumar Kapoor

Archaeological Anthropology
Anthropology
Function of tool types
 Description of Module

Subject Name Anthropology

Paper Name 03 Archaeological Anthropology

Module Name/Title Function of tool types

Module Id 08

Archaeological Anthropology
Anthropology
Function of tool types
 Table of contents:

1. Introduction and historical developments

2. Functions of Various Lithic Tool Types- A General Discussion

3. Summary

Learning Objectives

 To know about the historical development related to lithics industry

 To know about the functions of different lithic tools

 To be able to differentiate between the use of different tools at different periods of time
in the past

Archaeological Anthropology
Anthropology
Function of tool types
 1. Introduction and Historical Developments

Stone tools, which is considered as the “fossilized human behavior patterns” can be studied and
interpreted by using various approaches, which ranges from the simple typological classification of the
stone tools to the analysis of stone raw materials by various geochemical techniques, microscopic
analysis of tools to find out the evidences of use wear and organic residues, refitting study of the stone
tools and debitages etc. Age of lithic research can be dated back to 1797, when John Frere found stone
tools in a brick earth quarry near the English town of Hoxne. However, real scientific study and
interpretation of stone tools can be dated back to the end of the eighteenth century. William Henry
Holmes (1894) was one of the first archaeologists to attempt a systematic analysis of lithic artifacts. In
his work Holmes described the goals and contributions of lithic analysis; these included using stone
tools as chronological markers, understanding the evolution in form and function of stone tools, and
understanding the processes of stone tool production and use. These are still goals for archaeologists
interested in stone tool analysis today. From before the twentieth century through to the present, stone
tool analysis has followed the lead of Holmes. Chronologies have been constructed using lithic tool
styles as diagnostic traits in most parts of the world. Archaeologists have also characterized the
function of prehistoric sites based upon the inferred function of stone tools (Andrefsky, 2005).

One of the most significant developments in archaeology that had a major impact on lithic analysis was
the replication of stone tool forms by craftsmen such as Francois Bordes and Don Crabtree in the
1950s and 1960s. Such replication studies stimulated interest in the investigation of lithic tool
production techniques. At about the same time that replication studies were being explored in
archaeology the microscopic analysis of used stone tool edges was also being carried out. This work
was first given serious scientific consideration in the 1930s by Russian scientist Sergei Semenov.
Significantly, his work suggested that overall stone tool morphology might not always coincide with
stone tool function, and that it was possible to conduct direct functional analysis of stone tools by
magnification of worked edges.

Until Semenov‟s pioneering work in microwear analysis of stone tools there was no independent way
to determine the function of lithic artifacts. Since Semenov, a great many archaeologists have been
able to determine effectively the function of lithic artifacts by microwear analysis. However, it should
be realized that blind tests that evaluate the effectiveness of microwear analysis have not always
produced satisfactory results. Some microwear studies have produced contradictory results and several
have specifically compared morphological artifact types with function and, for the most part,
established that various morphological shapes of stone artifacts are functionally heterogeneous
(Andrefsky, 2005). Keeping all these pros. and cons. of the functional analysis of lithic tools in mind a
brief discussion of the probable function of various lithic tool types are given in the following section
of this discussion.
4

Archaeological Anthropology
Anthropology
Function of tool types
 2. Functions of Various Lithic Tool Types- A General Discussion

Studies on the hafted and non-hafted bifaces show that the shapes of these bifaces don‟t help
archaeologists any pre-assumptions regarding their actual function. Lewenstein (1987, cited in
Andrefsky, 2005) and Odell (1981, cited in Andrefsky, 2005) have examined some of these forms of
artifacts. Lewenstein conducted a functional analysis on a sample of 1449 chipped stone artifacts from
Cerros in Belize. Her formal categories corresponded to many types recognized in several different
parts of the world. She identified three different kinds of nonhafted bifaces: oval (n = 27), thin (n = 33),
and nonstandard (n= 135). Her functional analysis revealed that chopping and pounding were the two
most common functions for oval bifaces; other functions for oval bifaces included sawing, scraping,
scraping/planing, abrading, and use as an adze. Thin bifaces were predominantly used to cut and slice,
but also for sawing, scraping, scraping/planing, and butchering. The non-standardized bifaces were
found to have had thirteen different functions; however, scraping was by far the most common function
for nonstandard bifaces. Lewenstein‟s analysis provides some idea of the diverse uses of non-hafted
bifaces (Andrefsky, 2005). One of the most commonly mentioned examples of form equating to
function is the bifacial projectile point or hafted biface. This morphological type is often ascribed as
having the function of a projectile. Projectile points are often assumed to be the tip or armature for a
spear, dart, or arrow. Many recent studies have found that some hafted bifaces were used as projectile
tips of some kind. However, it should also be noted that microwear functional analysis has
demonstrated that hafted bifaces have been used as cutting and butchering tools in addition to their use
as projectiles.

Another artifact form, controversial for proper understanding of its function is end scraper. Many
researchers have ascribed the function of animal skin working or scraping to the endscraper and this
function has been observed in the ethnographic record. These stone tools are usually hafted, and were
held nearly parallel to the skin surface, with the scraper blade both drawn toward and pushed away
from the worker, so that wear occurred on both the dorsal and ventral surfaces. The end scraper cutting
edge or bit approximates an angle of between 70 and 90 degrees, and makes the edge effective for
scraping but not acute enough to accidentally slice or cut the material being worked (Andrefsky, 2005).
The wide edge angle on end scrapers is probably one of the reasons most researchers ascribe a scraping
function to this tool form.

End scrapers are found in almost all parts of the world and in practically all periods when stone tools
were primarily used. Meltzer (1981, cited in Andrefsky, 2005) conducted a discriminant analysis to
assess whether end scraper form was the result of function or style, and concluded that the form or
shape of end scrapers was attributed to end scraper function. However, his analysis did not determine
5

Archaeological Anthropology
Anthropology
Function of tool types
 the type of function for which end scrapers were used. Dumont (1983, cited in Andrefsky, 2005))
specifically evaluated the function of end scrapers recovered from Star Carr, England. He found that
end scrapers were used for working hide, bone, wood, and antler, and his results contradict the popular
notion that end scrapers were used solely as hide working tools. Another functional study of end
scrapers looked specifically at the action or mode of use for this form of artifact. Using microwear
analysis on lithic tools from a Dutch Mesolithic site, George Odell (1981, cited in Andrefsky, 2005)
compared classic morphological types with observed functional wear, and found that end scrapers were
used in many activities other than scraping. End scraper activities identified in Odell‟s study include
scraping, graving, boring, chopping, and use as a projectile. Other classic morphological types such as
side scrapers and burins were also found to have been used for several different functions.

Microliths from the Mesolithic period were long believed to have been used as hunting tools on
projectiles. Microliths with three sides or „„triangles‟‟ were believed to have been used as point tips
and as point barbs. Triangular microliths found in Africa and southwest Asia has also been interpreted
as barbs or points for projectiles. Four-sided microliths have been interpreted as inserts for projectiles.
Microblades from the Arctic have traditionally been interpreted as projectile point components. The
Arctic microblades are believed to have been used as side or lateral inserts along the length of a smooth
bone shaft that had been slotted to accept the microblades (Andrefsky, 2005). Although evidence is
mounting that microliths and microblades were used as projectile tips, barbs, and side inserts, there is
also evidence that they were used for other functions as well. Garrod and Bate (1937, cited in
Andrefsky, 2005) report the recovery in the Levant of a plant-harvesting sickle or scythe with microlith
inserts. Additionally, Curwin (1930, cited in Andrefsky, 2005) illustrates several examples of sickles
excavated from various locations in Europe and the Middle East; these sickles have rectangular and
triangular microliths inserted along the inner curved edge of wooden handles or blades. Both Odell
(1994, cited in Andrefsky, 2005)) and Yerkes (1983, 1990, cited in Andrefsky, 2005) have used
microscopic techniques of analysis to determine the function of bladelets. Independently, they
determined that bladelets were used in a variety of activities that included cutting, graving, drilling,
shaving, and use as projectiles (Andrefsky, 2005). Beside formal tool forms studies of unretouched
flakes have put forward that without exception that these artifacts, regardless of form, have multiple
functions. For example, Keeley‟s (1980, cited in Andrefsky, 2005) analysis of flake stone tools from
the Golf Course site (Essex, England) revealed the functions of wood whittling, wood scraping, wood
sawing, wood chopping, meat cutting, bone boring, and bone graving, among others. From Keeley‟s
work alone it appears that flake tools were used for almost any function (Andrefsky, 2005).

Ethnographic observations on the relations between tool form and function brings forward that it is
quite impossible to make a correlation between tool‟s size and shape and presumable function. Works
of several ethnoarchaeologists like Gould (1968), Heider (1967), White and Thomas (1972) brings

Archaeological Anthropology
Anthropology
Function of tool types
 forward some doubt regarding the assertion that artifact morphology conforms to a particular function.
Essentially, it can be said that various forms of stone tools may have several different functions, and
that no artifact function can be ascribed to a particular form in all cases. It is also important to
remember that when the function of a tool has been determined with a high degree of certainty, the
multifunctional character of the tool must then also be considered. Most stone tools were probably used
for several different functions and the degree to which a tool was specialized or used for a single
functions or became generalized and multifunctional probably varied with individual tools. The
multifunctional character of individual stone tools relates to aspects such as availability of raw
materials for tool production, efficiency of tool design relative to task performance, and particular
cultural or individual preferences for task performance. Additionally, many activities carried out by
tool makers and users probably required different kinds of tools in different degrees so that any activity
may have required various combinations of tools for variable amounts of work (Andrefsky, 2005).

3. Summary
Stone tools can be studied by using various approaches which ranges from the simple typological
classification of the stone tools to the analysis of stone raw materials by various geochemical
techniques, microscopic analysis of tools to find out the evidences of use wear and organic residues,
refitting study of the stone tools and debitages etc. Micro wear analysis is one approach of lithic
analysis, which determines probable function of lithic tool types with some certainty. Functional
analyses of various lithic tool forms have revealed that that the shapes of lithic artifacts don‟t help
archaeologists any pre-assumptions regarding their actual function. One example to the above
statement may be given regarding actual function of hafted bifaces. Hafted bifaces were presumed to
be used as projectile tips of some kind by various archaeologists. Microwear functional analysis has
demonstrated that hafted bifaces have been used as cutting and butchering tools in addition to their use
as projectiles. Ethnographic observations on the relations between tool form and function brings
forward that it is quite impossible to make a correlation between tool‟s size and shape and presumable
function. It is also important to remember that when the function of a tool has been determined with a
high degree of certainty, the multifunctional character of the tool must then also be considered. The
multifunctional character of individual stone tools relates to aspects such as availability of raw
materials for tool production, efficiency of tool design relative to task performance, and particular
cultural or individual preferences for task performance.

Archaeological Anthropology
Anthropology
Function of tool types