Hostname: page-component-6bf8c574d5-mggfc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-22T04:43:15.013Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Hafting and Retooling: Effects on the Archaeological Record

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Lawrence H. Keeley
Lawrence H. Keeley*
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, University of Illinois-Chicago, Chicago, IL 60680
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Hafting has long been recognized by archaeologists as a process affecting stone tools. However, the effects of this process on the archaeological record have been virtually ignored. Hafting affects the final typological form of tools because hafted tools are usually more extensively and intensively worked than their unhafted counterparts. Ethnoarchaeological and some recent archaeological evidence indicates that functionally equivalent but typologically diverse hafted and unhafted tools may be in use at the same site. Because hafted tools are disposed of as a consequence of the “retooling” of hafts, the context of their disposal may not be equivalent to the context of their use. But, unhafted tools appear to be disposed of more often at or near the focus of use. Indifference to the hafted/unhafted distinction then may seriously distort inferences based upon intrasite spatial analysis. It is also argued that hafting is a strategy that will be differentially employed by any social group at different sites according to circumstances, thereby contributing to interassemblage variability. Finally, some methods of analysis are suggested that will allow the typological and distributional effects of hafting and retooling to be taken into account by lithic analysts.

Type
Reports
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 47 , Issue 4 , October 1982 , pp. 798 - 809
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for American Archaeology 1982

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

References Cited

Binford, L. 1973 Interassemblage variability: the Mousterian and the ‘functional’ argument. In The explanation of culture change, edited by Renfrew, C., pp. 227-254. Duckworth, London.Google Scholar
Cahen, D., and Keeley, L. 1980 Not less than two, not more than three. World Archaeology 12:166–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cahen, D., Keeley, L., and Van Noten, F. 1979 Stone tools, toolkits and human behavior in prehistory. Current Anthropology 20:661–683.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, J. D., Phillips, J. L., and Staley, P. 1974 Interpretations of prehistoric technology from ancient Egyptian and other sources: Part I. Paleorient 2:323–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, M. 1975 Lithic technology as a means of processual inference. In Lithic technology: making and using stone tools, edited by Swanson, E. H., pp. 15-34. Mouton, The Hague.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, M. 1981 The use of petroleum by Late Archaic and Early Woodland peoples in Jefferson County, Kentucky. Journal of Field Archaeology 8:55–64.Google Scholar
Driver, H. E., and Massey, W. C. 1957 Comparative studies of North American Indians. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 47:165–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drucker, P. 1940 The Tolowa and their southwest Oregon kin. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology Vol. 36:221-300. Berkeley.Google Scholar
DuBois, C. 1940 Wintu ethnography. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 36:1-148. Berkeley.Google Scholar
Gould, R. 1978 The anthropology of human residues. American Anthropologist 80:815–835.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gould, R. 1980 Living archaeology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Gramly, Richard M. 1980 Raw material source areas and ‘curated’ tool assemblages. American Antiquity 45:828–833.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grinnell, George B. 1923 The Cheyenne Indians. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln.Google Scholar
Keeley, L. H. 1978 Preliminary microwear analysis of the Meer assemblage. In Les Chasseurs de Meer, F. Van Noten, pp. 73-86. De Tempel, Brugge.Google Scholar
Kniffen, F. B. 1940 Pomo geography. University of California PubJications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 36:353-400. Berkeley.Google Scholar
Lee, Richard 1979 The .'Kung San. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Nelson, Edward N. 1899 The Eskimo about the Bering Strait. 18th Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology. Johnson Reprint Corp., New York.Google Scholar
Odell, George 1980 Toward a more behavioral approach to archaeological lithic concentrations. American Antiquity 45: 404–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Odell, G., and Odell-Vereecken, F. 1980 Verifying the reliability of lithic use-wear assessments by blind tests: the low-power approach. Journal of Field Archaeology 7:87–120.Google Scholar
Radcliffe-Brown, A. R. 1933 The Andaman Islanders (second ed.J. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (reprinted 1964, Free Press, New YorkJ.Google Scholar
Robertson, J. 1980 Chipped stone and socio-cultural interpretation. Unpublished M.A. thesis, University of Illinois-Chicago Circle.Google Scholar
Schiffer, M. 1972 Archaeological context and systemic context. American Antiquity 37:156–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schiffer, M. 1976 Behavioral archaeology. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Van Noten, F. 1978 Les Chasseurs de Meer. Dissertationes Archaeologicae Gandenses 18. De Tempel, Brugge.Google Scholar
Whallon, Robert 1978 The spatial analysis of Mesolithic occupation floors: a reappraisal. In The early post-glacial settlement of Northern Europe, edited by Mellars, P., pp. 27-35. Duckworth, London.Google Scholar
Wheat, Margaret M. 1967 Survival arts of the primitive Paiutes. University of Nevada Press, Reno.Google Scholar
Yellen, John 1977 Archaeological approaches to the present. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar