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.

2. Function 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 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 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. Summery
i. 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.
ii. Micro wear analysis is one approach of lithic analysis, which determines probable
function of lithic tool types with some certainty.
 iii. 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.
iv. One example to the above statement may be given regarding actual function of hafted
bifaces.
v. hafted bifaces were presumed to be used as projectile tips of some kind by various
archaeologists.
vi. Microwear functional analysis has demonstrated that hafted bifaces have been used as
cutting and butchering tools in addition to their use as projectiles.
vii. 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.
viii. 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.
ix. 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.

4. References Cited
 Andrefsky Jr, W. (2005). Lithics: Macroscopic approaches to analysis. Cambridge
University Press.

5. Questions

1. Who first conducted Systematic Studies on Stone tools?

2. What do you mena by the term „Functional Analysis‟ of lithic tools?
3. Who is the pioneer of microwear analysis of lithic tools?
4. What do you mean by the term multifunction tools?
5. What are the various factors affecting multifunction characters of stone tools?
6. What do you mean by the term „microblades‟?
7. Is there any relation between stone tool‟s size and shape and presumable function? Justify
your answer.
8. What can be probable functions of prehistoric projectile points? Support your answer
with recent works on the functional analysis of projectile points.

___________________________________