Society For American Archaeology

Society for American Archaeology
Broken Bones, Bone Expediency Tools, and Bone Pseudotools: Lessons from the Blast Zone
around Mount St. Helens, Washington
Author(s): R. Lee Lyman
Source: American Antiquity, Vol. 49, No. 2 (Apr., 1984), pp. 315-333
Published by: Society for American Archaeology
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/280021 .
Accessed: 20/06/2014 21:20
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Society for American Archaeology is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
American Antiquity.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 195.34.79.253 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 21:20:35 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
BROKEN BONES, BONE EXPEDIENCY TOOLS, AND BONE
PSEUDOTOOLS: LESSONS FROM THE BLAST ZONE
AROUND MOUNT ST. HELENS, WASHINGTON
R. Lee Lyman
Criteriafor recognizingtechnologicaland use-wearmodificationshave been usedto identify"boneexpediency

tools" by archaeologistswho analyze bone assemblagesrecoveredfrom sites wherebutcheringof animals took
place. These criteriaare here reviewedand then used to identifybone pseudotoolsin cervidbone assemblages
completelyformed by non-humanprocessesand recoveredfrom the blast zone around the Mount St. Helens
volcanoin Washington.The proceduresfor identifyingstone tools and bone tools share similar strengthsand
weaknessesthat seem to originatewiththe logical criteriausedfor recognizingmodificationsto the objectsunder
study. Less equivocalinferentialidentificationsof bone objectsas "tools"can be facilitated by turningto the
problemof constructingtestablehypothesesabout the waypatternsof use-wear modificationsto bone tools can
be expectedto appearin the archaeologicalrecord.
The detailed study of animal bones recovered from archaeological sites has resulted in the rec-
ognition of roughly-formed bone objects that are believed to represent tools. Many of the criteria
employed to identify bone tools have been questioned (e.g., Binford 198 1), and the literature contains
assertions and rebuttals concerning the validity of particular identifications of bone tools (e.g.,
Bonnichsen 1981; Guthrie 1980, 1981). In this paper, I review the criteria used to identify one
category of bone tools. In order to test the validity of the criteria, they are employed to identify
bone objects in two bone assemblages having formational histories that do not involve humans.
However, the test yields an identification of these objects as pseudotools (objects modified by natural
processes that result in items that look like tools; e.g., Brain [1967]). Therefore, the criteria and
techniques currently used to identify stone artifacts are also reviewed, and the similarities and
differences between these and the techniques used to identify bone tools are noted. Finally, sugges-
tions are presented for a more valid approach to the problem of identifying bone tools.
CRITERIA FOR BONE TOOL IDENTIFICATION

Basically, two lines of evidence are used to identify as tools particular bones in a bone assemblage
recovered from an archaeological site. These lines of evidence are derived from the context and
modification of the particular bones. Since context provides a different kind of evidence from
modification, and some bone objects not discovered in an archaeological context have been identified
as tools, context will be considered separately in a later section of this paper. Here, discussion will
be restricted to the kinds of bone modifications that have been used as criteria to define the category
of tools known as "bone expediency tools."
Eileen Johnson states that
The expediencyconcept now applied to these bone butcheringtools is defined within a technological,not
functional,framework.Expediencytools were made quickly and efficientlyregardlessof their performance.
These tools were made duringbutcheringactivities from bones of animalsbeing processed,were used in the
processing,and then were discardedwith the rest of the faunaldebris. The concept reflectslocalized manu-
facture.Withsucha readilyabundantsourceof tool material,only tool productionknowledgeneed be brought
to each kill [Johnson 1980:83-84].
R. Lee Lyman, DepartmentofAnthropology,OregonState University,Corvallis,OR 97331
AmericanAntiquity,49(2), 1984, pp. 315-333.

Copyright?) 1984 by the Society for AmericanArchaeology
315

316 AMERICANANTIQUITY [Vol. 49, No. 2, 1984
BONE
I I
INAPPROPRIATE APPROPRIATE
2 2
PURPOSEFUL FORTUITOUS
FRACTURE FRACTURE
3 4 5 6
USABLE NON-USABLE USABLE

BREAK BREAK BREAK
7 8
I D DISCARD
10 \
MANUFACTURE 10
112
X~~U FSE
113
WEAR
114
DI SCARD
Figure 1. Flow chart depictingpossible stages in the conjecturaluse-historyof bone expediencytools. See
the text for discussion.
Bone objects that have been identified as "bone expediency tools" have been found in many sites
covering the Paleoindian through later periods and in numerous geographic localities (see references
cited below).
The criteria employed to identify a bone as an expediency tool are derived from a model concerning
the use-history of tools. Although the use-history is partly conjectural, criteria have been derived
from the model, and employed as though definitive, to make possible the identification of "bone
expediency tools." A flow chart depicting the conjectural, possible use-histories of bone expediency
tools has been derived from the literature (Frison 1970, 1971, 1973, 1974, 1978, 1982; Johnson
1978, 1980, 1982; Johnson and Holliday 1980, 1981; Sadek-Kooros 1972, 1975; Wheat 1979,
1982), and is presented in Figure 1. This flow-chart depiction of the possible use-histories is,

Lyman] BROKEN BONES 317
necessarily, ad hoc, and thus may be imprecise to some degree. The flow chart does, however, reflect
my perception of the published discussions. Each step in the flow chart will now be discussed, and
the modifications to the bones represented there will be summarized. Keep in mind that these are
precisely the modifications that have been used as criteria to identify bone expediency tools.
1. Only bones of appropriate structure, weight, and strength were employed as expediency tools.
While no formal list of "appropriate" bones is presented in the literature examined, a cursory review
of bison bone objects identified as "bone expediency tools" suggests that all bones of a skeleton
could be employed as expediency tools, with the exception of the carpals, tarsals, phalanges, ver-
tebrae, and most cranial bones. The literature examined suggests these exceptions were excluded
from use as expediency tools because they lack appropriate strength, thickness, shape and balance,
and size and weight (e.g., Frison 1973, 1974; see Corbin [1975] and MacGregor and Currey [1983]
for examples in other contexts). Weight and balance requirements may be met, however, by using
a joint that includes several articulated bones. Therefore, any bone may be a part of a bone expediency
tool. Appropriate bones thus "include about any bone with a desireable edge on one end and a
proper handle on the other" (Frison 1973:34).
2. The literature suggests that bones were broken, either "purposefully" for eventual use as tools,
or "fortuitously" (e.g., Frison 1973:34). While the examined literature is not entirely clear on the
entailments of this distinction, it appears that "fortuitous" fractures include those fractures that
occurred in the course of activities like butchering and/or marrow extraction; i.e., activities not
directed specifically toward the production of bone tools. There are two problems in this distinction
of "fortuitous" and "purposeful" fracture. First, if a bone is broken to extract marrow (e.g., Noe-
Nygaard 1977) or as part of the meat extraction process (e.g., Lyman 1978), the bone has been
purposefully (not fortuitously) broken, albeit not with the intent of making a bone tool. The ter-
minology employed in the distinction is ambiguous. The second problem is that the criteria used
to distinguish purposeful (also called "deliberate" [Frison 1970, 1973] and "controlled" [Johnson
1982; Wheat 1982]) from fortuitous breakage seem to be controversial. For example, Frison (1974)
suggests that fractures resulting from marrow extraction will display multiple flake scars on the
fracture edge of the long bone diaphysis, while a single flake scar indicates purposeful fracture
directed toward obtaining a bone expediency tool. Bonnichsen and Will (1980), Johnson (1982) and
Stanford (1979) seem to imply exactly the opposite when they suggest that multiple flake scars
indicate purposeful breakage of bones to be used as tools. These problems of contradictory definitive
criteria and ambiguous terminology are not of great moment, however, because of the third step in
the conjectural use-history of bone expediency tools.
3. "Breaks serve as the working edge" (Frison 1971:272). When a bone is fractured, a usable
break, generally considered to be a spiral fracture with a point or sharp edge, may result (Frison
1982; Johnson 1982; Wheat 1982). Such a fracture might be thought of as the first step in tool
manufacture if the bone was broken to make a tool, or was purposefully broken as a part of the
tool manufacturing process. Fortuitous fractures (see Step 2 above) can, however, also result in
broken edges that are usable as tools. Such incidental breaks should not be considered results of
manufacturing processes because they did not result from tool production related breakage. Most
breakage related to bone tool production "was similar to breakage which occurred while opening
long bones for marrow" (Frison 1982:160), and the literature correctly recognizes that "controlled
breakage alone is not evidence of tool use" (Johnson 1982:147).
4. Even though a bone is purposefully fractured in an attempt to produce a tool, the result may
be a non-usable break. The literature examined does not clearly indicate what a non-usable break
may be, but by implication it would seem to consist of a non-spiral fracture or a spiral fracture with
a non-usable edge morphology, such as the lack of a point or sharp edge. Such non-usable fracture
edges may display no evidence of use as a tool (see Step 9 below).
5. Because fracturing of bones may not be directed towards producing bone tools (i.e., can be
"fortuitous"), fracture incidental to activites other than tool production may regularly result in non-
usable breaks in the bones, but this is not known with any certainty.
6. Fracture unrelated to tool production may result in a usable broken edge morphology (Frison

1974:41). "Long bones broken for marrow that fractured properly could have been used" (Frison
1982:166). In sum, however, as noted in Step 2, controlled breakage "can be the result of either or
both marrow processing and tool manufacture. On long bones, either event is very likely and the
primary function of the break is difficult to decide or defend" (Johnson 1982:147).
7. Bones with non-usable breaks may be simply discarded (Wheat 1979, 1982).
8. Bones broken for reasons other than tool production, even though they may have good, usable
break morphologies, may have been simply discarded without further modification because these
bones were not needed. All of the examined literature implies that a bone must be broken to be
used as an expediency tool, but not all broken bones were so used.
9. Bones with non-usable breaks may be modified by tool manufacturing activities, and a usable
edge and/or point produced. "A manufactured expediency tool is an item that was intentionally
shaped before use" (Johnson 1982:147). Such manufacturing modification may occur as the result
of need for additional tools or some other reason, but this is not specified in the examined literature.
Archaeological evidence of manufacturing activity has been described as consisting of chipped
fracture edges (chipped to sharpen the edge), ground fracture edges (ground to obtain a desired
shape), seriated fracture edges (seriated to sharpen the edge) and the accumulation of "detritus"
(Frison 1973:34; Johnson 1980:84, 1982:147; Wheat 1979:138). Precisely what "detritus" might
consist of is not specified (but see Stanford et al. [1981] and references therein for some possibilities).
10. Bones with usable breaks may be used without additional manufacturing modifications. "The
manufacturing of bone butchering tools involved only bone breakage" (Frison 1982:160). "A utilized
item is an element that was unmodified before use, simply taking advantage of broken edge" (Johnson
1982:147). Archaeologically visible traces of use-wear modification have been described as polish,
rounding, smoothing, and microflaking of edges and points, and striations (Frison 1974:56; Johnson
and Holliday 1980:95; Wheat 1979:138). Such modifications may be restricted to the fracture edge
or edges; they may be only on or near the point of the spiral fracture; and/or they may extend
beyond the fracture edge onto the diaphysis. Striations may be perpendicular or parallel to the
working edge. As with stone tools, bone tools may be broken by use, resharpened, and used again
(Wheat 1979:138). "The fact that resharpening took place shows that these were a valued tool"
(Wheat 1979:143).
11. Bones with usable breaks may be modified by manufacturing activities prior to their use.
"Some bone tools bear evidence of light to moderate grinding to give definite shapes to the working
edge while others utilize a broken edge with no modification" (Frison 1970:26).
12. Bones which have been broken and then modified by manufacturing activities are used as
tools. "Working edge preparation by deliberate abrasion against rough surfaces with wear super-
imposed can be detected on some bone surfaces, while others manifest only wear patterns over the
breaks on the bone" (Frison 1973:34).
13. Use of the bone expediency tools may produce use-wear modifications of various types on
the working ends and/or edges. "Major criteria are wear polish, damage use flake scarring, and
rounded or worn surfaces along the working edge. These characteristics appear in various combi-
nations with each other" (Johnson 1982:147). "The kind of use to which a chopping tool of bone
was subjected in butchering seldom resulted in the development of noticeable wear patterns. Sat-
isfactory evidence of use is present in only a small number of tools" (Frison 1982:165).
A variable of importance equal to that of "kind of use" is duration or intensity of use. "Any bone
collected in antiquity for use as an implement but abandoned or lost before sufficient use to work
up a sheen might be interpreted as unused butchering refuse" (Gilbert 1979:196). The problem of
sufficient artificial modification to an object to permit the unequivocal identificaiton of that object
as humanly modified permeates all aspects of archaeology (see below). Another type of modification
to a bone used as a tool occurs in relation to the handling of the bone during use. "Holding the
bone tool resulted in a polish over the parts of the tool used as a handle" (Frison 1982:164). Gilbert
(1979:184-185) recognized a similar phenomenon in a faunal assemblage from the Near East and
suggested "handling of bone tools would likely create a sheen in proportion to the length of time
the tool was used." He goes on to point out that this handle-polish would only be distributed over
exposed periosteal bone surfaces.
14. The bone expediency tool is discarded essentially in the location of its manufacture and use;

Figure 2. Spirally fracturedmetatarsalfrom Mount St. Helens Site 2. Note the roundingof the point.
that is, it is discarded with the rest of the faunal debris when it is no longer needed, or when it is
".16wornout" (Johnson 1980). Opinion differs as to whether bone expediency tools were ever curated
(Binford 1979). Some archaeologists believe that these tools were made from the bones of animals
being processed (e.g., Bonnichsen and Young 1980; Johnson 1982; Wheat 1982) while others believe
that these tools were either brought in to the butchery site or were derived from bones of animals
killed during previous hunts at the same site (Frison 1982). This issue will be considered further in
the CONTEXT discussion below.
Many of the traces of manufacture and use-wear modification mentioned above have been se-
riously questioned (Binford 198 1). Further, systematic methods for distinguishing modifications
made to bones through manufacture from modifications made through use are only in the devel-
opmental stages (Geniesse 1982). The utility of the conj'ectures embodied in the flow chart depicting
the potential use-histories of bone expediency tools (Figure 1) for the identification of such tools is
therefore suspect. To assess the criteria that are derived from the model and used to identify bone
expediency tools, our discussion will now turn to the employment of those criteria to identify bone
objects in samples of bones with formational histories that do not involve people.
THE MOUNT ST. HELENS CERVID BONES

Recent research around Mount St. Helens, a strato-volcano in south-central Washington, provides
data relevant to the issue of identifying bone expediency tools. The May 18, 1980 eruption of this
volcano resulted in the death of many cervids living within a 15-km distance to the north of the
volcano. Remains of these cervids were collected in the late summer and early autumn of 198 1,
while human access to the area devastated by the eruption -the "blast zone" -was still restricted
(Taber et al. 1982). Numerous bones of deer (Odocoileushemionus)and elk (Cervuselaphus)were
collected and have been analyzed from a taphonomic perspective (Lyman and Livingston 1983).
The bones recovered from two loci will be considered here.
The Assemblagesand the Pseudotools

An assemblage consisting of 343 post-natal elk bones and 5 foetal elk bones was recovered from
the locus known as "Site 2," and 94 post-natal elk bones and 13 foetal elk bones were recovered
from the locus designated "Site 4." The minimum number of individuals is one foetus and six post-

320 ANTIQUITY
AMERICAN [Vol. 49, No. 2, 1984
of thefractureedge
tibiafromMountSt. HelensSite 2. Notethemicro-flaking
Figure3. Spirallyfractured
adjacentto the point.
natal individuals at Site 2, and two foetuses and one post-natal individual at Site 4. Carnivore
gnawingis apparenton some of the bones, but overall the damageto the bones that is attributable
to carnivoresis neither extensive nor intensive (see Lyman and Livingston [1983] for a complete
discussion), particularlywhen comparedto published studies where prey mortalitywas attritional
(e.g., Haynes 1980).
Eleven long bones in the Site 2 assemblage and four long bones in the Site 4 assemblageare
spirallyfractured.(Note that the definition of a "spiralfracture"is presentlybeing evaluated;see
Morlan [1980:45-49] and Shipman [1981]. I have, for the purposes of this paper, adopted the
definition of spiral fracturepresentedby Haynes [1983:104].) The bones that are spirallyfractured
are one humerus,three radii, three metacarpals,two femora,four tibiae, and two metatarsals.These
are all "appropriate"bones accordingto the criteriaderived from the conjecturaluse-history of
bone expediencytools. Further,some of the fracturesresultedin pointed ends and others resulted
in sharp fractureedges, and these, too, match the criteriaderived from the model.
Post-fracturemodificationsto several fractureedges are apparent.One proximalmetatarsalfrag-
ment from Site 2 has a point on the diaphysisfragmentthat is markedlyrounded,and the edges of
the fractureadjacent to the point are also smoothed and rounded (Figure 2). The point on the
proximaldiaphysealfragmentof a tibia from Site 2 has microflakingalongthe adjacentedges(Figure
3). A fragmentof humerus from Site 4 also shows extensive flakingon the fracturemargin of the
distal diaphysis (Figure 4). The three specimens just described display evidence congruentwith
criteriaderived from the use-history model for bone expediency tools, and they closely resemble
specimens previously taken from archaeologicalsites and identified as "bone expediency tools"
(e.g., Frison 1982; Johnson [1982] and referencestherein).In the case of the bones recoveredfrom
the Mount St. Helens blast zone, it certainlywas not human interventionthat createdthe modifi-
cations to the fracturededges. None of the available evidence suggeststhat the modificationswere
a majorresultof the activities of scavengingcarnivores(Lymanand Livingston 1983). The probable
causes of the modificationswill be consideredbelow.
It has been argued elsewhere that finding the broken point of, for example, a "tibia chopper
expediencytool" embedded in the medullarycavity of, say, a femur,would constituteevidence for
the correct identification of bone expediency tools (Frison 1974, 1978). The metacarpalof the

Figure4. SpirallyfracturedhumerusfromMount St. Helens Site 4. Note the micro-flakingalong the "work-
ing edge" of the fracture.
mature elk at Mount St. Helens Site 4 was spirally fractured, and parts of the diaphysis were
embedded in the medullary cavity (Figure 5). Some of these fragments ofdiaphysis would be classified
as "unidentifiable long bone" if they did not so readily fit onto the fracture edge of the metacarpal
diaphysis. This specimen emphasizes, nonetheless, an important point. Diaphyseal fragments of a
bone can become embedded in the medullary cavity of that bone without human intervention. The
broken points of suspected bone choppers should, therefore, be closely and carefully identified, and
can perhaps only be considered possible bone tools if they represent a skeletal element different
from that in which they are embedded.
Taphonomy
The taphonomic history of the Mount St. Helens cervids is quite probably as follows: The cervids
constituting sites 2 and 4 were exposed to the explosive shock wave of the volcanic eruption. This
shock wave literally hurled the cervids to their recovery locations, along with trees and other debris.
Fracture of the cervid bones was caused by the shock wave, falling timber, falling pumice blocks,
and/or the impact of the carcasses on the ground surface. The apparent polishing and rounding of
the fracture edges may have been caused by abrasion from shifting volcanic ash particles (cf. Brain
1967; Shipman and Rose 1983). Trowels used for excavation in the blast zone were dulled more
rapidly by the volcanic ash in which the bones lay than by any sand or silt of an archaeological site.
There is no evidence suggesting that carnivore gnawing created rounding or flaking along fracture
edges. The microflaking of the fracture edges and embedding ofdiaphyseal fragments in the medullary
cavity probably occurred as a result of the twisting of fracture edges of the same bone against one
another as the carcass hurtled through the air and/or as a result of the carcass impacting the ground.
Similar kinds of fracture processes and features (e.g., one piece of a broken object removing flakes
from another piece of that object by rubbing and crushing together) have recently been proposed
for lithic projectile points damaged and broken upon impacting a target (Bergman and Newcomer
1983). That the Mount St. Helens specimens described here closely resemble some bone specimens
from bison kill sites that have been identified as "bone expediency tools" suggests that the particular
characteristics of fracture type and fracture edge modifications now used as criteria to identify these
tools may result naturally from the events culminating in a bison kill, particularly at jump sites.

322 AMERICAN
ANTIQUITY [Vol. 49, No. 2, 1984
Figure5. Spirallyfractured
metacarpal. The fragmentsof diaphysisembedded
in the medullary
cavityare
thatreadilyfit the fractureedgeshown.
partsof this metacarpal
OtherCriteria
It might be arguedthat some kinds of butcheryor tool marks provide another line of evidence
to consider (Frison 1978, 1982). Many of the kinds of damage to bones that have been attributed
to human butcherypracticesin general,and to the use of bone expediencytools for butcheringin
particular,have, however,been shownto resultfrom carnivoreactivity as well (forexample,compare
Figure 6 in Haynes [1980] to Figure 8.6 in Frison [1978] and Figure 3 in Frison [1982]). Some of
the damageto the Mount St. Helens cervid bones can be attributedto scavengingcarnivores(Lyman
and Livingston 1983). No such damagecan be relatedto the fractureedge modificationsdescribed
above, and none of the carnivore-relateddamageis similarto reporteddamagepatternsattributable
to humanbutcheringactivities (Binford 1978, 1981). The possibilitydoes exist, therefore,that some
marks on bones from archaeologicalsites do representtool marks and can be shown to represent
tool marks in an unequivocal manner (see Lyman [1984], Shipman [1981], Shipman and Rose
[1983], and Walkerand Long [1977] for first approximations).
Anotherline of evidencethat mightbe calledupon to argueforhumaninterventionis the frequency
of spirallyfracturedbones in an assemblage(e.g., Bonnichsen 1979). What is assumed here is that
bone assemblages affected by human activities will have higher frequenciesof spirally fractured
bones than assemblagesnot so affected(see Bonnichsen[1979] and Haynes [1983] for more complete
discussions).If this assumption is valid, the Mount St. Helens sites 2 (N spiral fractures= 11) and
4 (N spiral fractures= 4) may contain too few spiral fracturesrelative to the total bone counts to
be considered "archaeological"and might, instead, be considered "paleontological."Indeed, the
mere presence,let alone frequency,of spirally fracturedbone is an equivocal indicator of human
intervention(see Haynes [1983] and Myers et al. [1980] and referencestherein).Researchis con-
tinuallyrefiningour understandingof bone fracturingas finerand finerdetailsof fracturemorphology
are studied (e.g., Morlan 1980; Shipman 1981), and it is clear that many assumptionsin bone tool
analysis are too simplistic.
CONTEXT
Frison (1973:85) suggeststhat "many bone expediencytools were so crudethat in many contexts
they would have been unrecognizedas tools altogether."He elaborates:"use of bone expediency
tools is difficultto demonstrate indisputablyin contrast to the stone tools whose use is accepted

because of context" (rison 1974:52). That stone objects are at least occasionally identified as tools
or artifacts on the prih ary basis of "context" is exemplified by the following statement by Glynn
Isaac (quoted in Simpson [1980:19]) concerning the Calico Hills lithic objects, which will be con-
sidered further below: "A\great many of the objects would arouse no comment if they were found
in normal archaeological situations."
As has been shown in the preceding sections of this paper, bone expediency tools "have been
difficult to recognize because they lack the evidence of manufacture that results from cutting, grooving
and abrading seen on the more familiar types of tools such as awls and needles" (Frison 1982:160).
It was only after a knowledge of the specific butchery tasks that had to be undertaken became
available (derived from butchery experiments) that bone expediency tools were recognized as a
possible archaeological phenomenon. They were subsequently identified in archaeological contexts
(Frison 1982; Johnson 1982; Wheat 1982). I have shown above that the admissibility of certain
types of bone modification as criteria definitive of bone expediency tools is highly suspect. The one
line of evidence called upon to argue for the presence of bone expediency tools which has not yet
been considered is, of course, "context."
Context, in the quotations above, means archaeological context. Context denotes an object's spatial
location and that object's association with other objects, which may include both cultural materials
such as artifacts, and natural materials such as sediments. An archaeological context is produced
by a combination of natural and cultural processes operating in a delimited geographic area over
some specifiable temporal span (e.g., Schiffer 1972; Wildesen 1973). Consequently, an archaeological
context is regularly treated as a unique phenomenon in an otherwise natural landscape, and is
considered as being equivalent to a "site." Of course, one of the most easily recognized indications
of an archaeological context, or site, is the presence of artifacts (an object owing any of its attributes
to human activity). When unquestionable artifacts are discovered, the immediate inference is that
the location of the discovery represents an archaeological context, and therefore a site. When
unquestioned artifacts are found, non-artificial or natural attributes that might distinguish an ar-
chaeological context from a natural context are seldom investigated systematically. A primary
definitive criterion of an archaeological context, and consequently a site, is, then, the presence of
artifacts, most often lithic artifacts. If the site is defined, so is the context-it is an archaeological
context. It seems, therefore, that the presence of (stone) artifacts is often used to define an archae-
ological context, and such a context is in turn used to define the artifactual status of other objects
(e.g., bone expediency tools) (see also Binford [1981:4-8]).
The preceding statement describes a circular pattern of reasoning and borders on tautology. It is
no doubt an oversimplification. However, it introduces factors that must be considered, particularly
when unquestioned stone tools are rare or absent. Stone tools do seem to be quite rare relative to
the number of bones recovered from kill sites (Table 1). Bone expediency tools are even rarer than
stone tools in such contexts. Statistical analyses of the ratios of bones, bone tools, and stone tools
are not possible, however, because exact frequencies of bone and stone tools have not been published
in comparable form, and because many of the values given in Table 1 are approximations. It is
nonetheless interesting to note that, in general, as the number of identified bones increases, so do
the numbers of stone tools and bone expediency tools. This might be expected. When there is more
meat to butcher, more tools may be required to get the job done. Further, it is possible that when
bone assemblages are small, no stone tools may be found due to their curation; rather, only bone
expediency tools may be found. This fits well with the technological conception of bone expediency
tools: one of their advantages is that the tools themselves need not be carried to the butchery site,
only the knowledge of how to make them (Bonnichsen and Young 1980; Johnson 1982).
Opinions differ regarding the notion that "bone butchering tools could have been made from the
limb bones of animals undergoing processing" (Bonnichsen and Young 1980:126). On the basis of
butchering experiments, Frison has recently concluded that
these bone tools were most likely broughtto the butcheringsite along with the rest of the butcheringtool
assemblage. It is difficult to remove a tibia, for example, from one animal and prepare it for immediate use
on the next animal. The bone needs to be cleaned of flesh and muscle and somehow dried sufficiently to
provide a tool that can be handled properly. A tibia that has been laid to dry for a few days, weeks, or even

324 AMERICAN
ANTIQUITY [Vol.49, No. 2, 1984
Table 1. Frequencies of Stone Tools, Bones (number of identified specimens; NISP), Individual
Animals (minimum number of individuals; MNI), and Bone Expediency Tools Recovered from
Selected Sites.
Number
of Number of "Bone
Stone Expediency
Site Tools NISP MNI Tools" Reference
Jurgens Area 1 1,550+ 2,526 31 common (31+)

Area 2 410+ 179 2 rare-occasional Wheat 1979, 1982
Area 3 80+ 3,028 35 (13+)
Hawken 71 - 100? 4+ Frison, Wilson and Wilson 1976
Bonfire Shelter, 21 756 120+ 12 Dibble and Lorrain 1968,
Bonebed 2 Johnson 1982
Casper 100+ 5,385 77 37? Frison 1974
Lubbock Lake 10 500? 6 4 Johnson and Holliday 1980
60 170+ 7 1 Johnson and Holliday 1981
St. Helens 2 0 348 7 5+ this paper
St. Helens 4 0 107 3 2+ this paper
a year can be very easily transformed into a tool. Bones from previous kill events should have been plentiful
and available [1982:166].
In direct contrast, experimental butchering carried out by Stanford, Bonnichsen and Morlan (1981:
439) led them to suggest that "the adaptive advantage of bone tools is that they may be made rapidly
at the butchering station from the bones of the animal undergoing processing by the same principles
that are used for working stone" (emphasis added). While their experiments indicated that bone
tools were inadequate for performing some butchery tasks such as cutting through the hide, bone
tools were found to be highly effective for other butchery tasks. Similar conclusions were reached
by Frison (1982). Such differences of opinion on the locational and material origins of bone expe-
diency tools in sites point out some of the difficulties inherent in constructing a conjectural use-
history for these tools and deriving definitive criteria from such a use-history.
The differences of opinion are just that-differences of opinion based on limited experimental
data. None of the authors involved has suggested how either opinion might become a working
hypothesis or what archaeologically visible test implications of such an hypothesis might entail. I
suggest that the construction of articulation nets (Schild 1976) could help distinguish which "opinion"
might be reflected in a particular archaeological site. For example, matching a bone object identified
as a bone expediency tool with the detritus resulting from its manufacture may tell us much about
the locational origins of the bone object (cf. Johnson 1982). Another line of evidence to explore
involves identifying the taxon of animal represented by bone tools. If the bone tool represents, say,
a camel, and was found in a mammoth kill site (cf. Frison 1982), then the obvious inference is that
the tool was brought to the kill site. The scope of this paper precludes further elaboration of this
issue, but I suspect that much potential information has not been fully exploited.
The point of the above considerations of context and frequency of "bone expediency tools" is
simple. The criteria used to identify bone tools are equivocal, particularly with reference to bone
assemblages that lack associated stone tools. Assemblages of bones like those from Old Crow
(Bonnichsen 1979; Morlan 1980) will therefore continue to have debatable significance concerning
human prehistory. It remains to consider how stone objects are identified as tools, and to develop
a more valid technique for the recognition of bone tools.
THE IDENTIFICATION OF TOOLS

Bone Expediency Tools
The conjectural use-history of bone expediency tools depicted in Figure 1, and the criteria ex-
trapolated from that use-history, are employed to identify bone expediency tools in the archaeological
record within a taphonomic framework (cf. Bonnichsen 1982). It is perhaps because both the model

and the criteria address the processes through which these tools are formed that the criteria can be
used to identify bone expediency pseudotools in non-archaeological bone assemblages such as those
constituting the Mount St. Helens cervid bone assemblages.
The basis of the problem lies in the definition of bone expediency tools. Given a set of definitive
criteria for bone expediency tools (derived from Figure 1), whenever an object displays these criteria,
that object-by definition-is a bone expediency tool. This is tautological. For example, Sadek-
Kooros (1972:370), in an early effort to recognize bone tools, offered the following "hypothesis":
Bone broken throughnaturalagencies or throughrandom human breakingdoes not accidentallyresult in
formalcategories;suchcategoriesreflectpurposefulfracturingof bone with the objectiveof producingspecific
shapes. The cause of a patternedbreakageis thus the intentionalfracturingof bone by people.
Because she was able to specify formal categories of experimentally broken bones, Sadek-Kooros
believed she had confirmed her hypothesis. The hypothesis was then used as a definition for the
purpose of identifying bones found in an archaeological context as having been broken by people.
The definitive criterion-formal categories of fragments-is illogical because it misuses principles
of systematics (e.g., Dunnell 1971). More importantly, given the definitive criterion, specimens from
many assemblages of naturally broken bones could be identified as broken by people simply because
the broken bones could be placed in formal categories. The problem in Sadek-Kooros's work is
identical to that found in the identification of "bone expediency tools." Definitive criteria for a
category of phenomena are specified, the criteria are used to identify objects, and the objects
displaying the definitive criteria are said to be members of the defined category of phenomena,
which, of course, they are by definition.
Stone Tools
The logical parallels between the establishment of criteria for the identification of stone and bone
tools respectively make it instructional to review briefly the approaches to identification of stone
tools commonly used by archaeologists. Ascher and Ascher (1965:243) pointed out nearly 20 years
ago that
Stone is ubiquitousin the world;purposefully[human]shapedstone, as comparedto stone shapedby natural
agencies,is rare.The fartherbackin time, the more unsophisticatedand the closerto naturalformsthe forms
createdby man are likely to be. How to recognizethe very rare purposefullyshaped stone in the midst of
stones shapedby naturalagenciesis an unsolved problemfor those seekingtracesof early man.
There are two key elements anticipated in this statement and elaborated on in the remainder of the
Aschers' paper. First, stones shaped by people are "purposefully" shaped; that is, flaking, for instance,
is "repetitive, systematic, planned and controlled" (Ascher and Ascher 1965:244-245). The second
key element concerns what I will here term primitiveness, and involves both the sophistication and
degree of modification to the stone object. As the Aschers correctly point out, the less the degree
of sophistication of the modification, the more tenuous the identification of a stone object as a tool.
These issues (purposefulness and sophistication of modification) are at the heart of the problem of
recognizing stone tools (e.g., Brewer 1973; Haynes 1973a, 1973b; Wade 1973), and are also, to a
significant degree, the basis for defining what we call "sites" (e.g., Foley 1981; Isaac 1981; Wildesen
1973). Binford (1981:4-8) has provided an historical overview of the use of the purposefulness and
sophistication ("redundant patterning producing a result to a design or plan") arguments in ar-
chaeology.
Purposeful shaping of an object prior to its use as a tool is here termed manufacturing modification
(MM). That MM occurs in varying degrees can be illustrated by comparing a Clovis-style projectile
point to a lithic "instant tool" (Gould 1978). The former object displays patterned flake scars (relative
to location) that have been purposefully created in order to produce a tool; the object displays a
high degree of MM. Lithic instant tools are created when the need for a stone tool arises and raw
materials are immediately at hand. Lithic instant tools may or may not undergo MM prior to use,
and may or may not be manufactured or worn by use into distinctive shapes (Gould 1978); these
objects display a low degree of MM. This last statement brings up several important points. First,
MM is not always required prior to the use of a stone object as a tool (here, lithic instant tools are

quite similar to bone expediency tools; in fact, Figure 1 could probably apply with equal credibility
to lithic instant tools and bone expediency tools). What I will here term use-wear modification
(UWM) is not purposeful modification in the sense of MM, but rather is the incidental result of an
object's being used as a tool. Finally, neither MM nor UWM need result in patterned or sophisticated
modification of an object. A tool may, therefore, appear quite "primitive"; that is, it may lack a
significant degree of modification even though it was made (MM) and used (UWM) by people.
Whenever a tool appears "primitive," context is used as a definitive criterion (cf. Binford 1981:6,
8).
The debate over the identification of the pre-Wisconsinan Calico Hills site (Simpson 1978) hinges
on the validity of the identification of stone objects from that locality as tools (cf. Brewer 1973;
Haynes 1973a, 1973b; Wade 1973). Arguments center around the patterning of modifications to
the stones, the types of lithic materials that display evidence of modification, and the distribution
(context and association) of the objects involved (e.g., Leakey et al. 1968; Simpson 1980, 1982). It
is clear from the arguments-and is admitted by both sides (e.g., Haynes 1973b; Wade 1973)-that
"opinion" plays a large role in the identification process. This is a consequence of the fact that
"there appears to be a gradual transition between what are considered to be artifacts, probable
artifacts, possible artifacts, and non-artifacts" (Haynes 1973a:307). What are lacking are distinctive,
definitive criteria for determining which objects are to be subsumed under the "possible artifact"
category.
Two recent studies of the Calico Hills lithic objects attempt to resolve the issue of what probabilistic
signature criteria might be. Duvall and Venner (1979) emphasize that morphological attributes,
both individually and in sets, differentiate kinds of objects. They measured seven attributes of two
samples of Calico Hills lithics, one sample consisting of objects reported to have been modified by
people and the other sample consisting of lithics believed to have been modified only by natural
processes. Payen (1982; Taylor and Payen 1979:264-274) measured only the flake angle (angle
between the platform and ventral face of the specimen) on 54 samples of lithics, some of which
were humanly modified and others which consisted of naturally modified lithics. He compared these
samples statistically to samples of lithic objects from Calico Hills. Both studies clearly showed that
the Calico Hills specimens more closely resemble naturally modified than humanly modified lithic
objects. Duvall and Venner (1979:462) conclude that "the Calico Tools are members of the pop-
ulation of naturally flaked rocks" (emphasis added). Payen (1982:201; Taylor and Payen 1979:273)
cautions that his approach "suggests the Calico specimens are geofacts" (emphasis added) and
encourages further testing of the validity of his technique of artifact identification. While the con-
clusions of the two studies are similar, they differ in the degree of faith the investigators placed in
their statistically defined, or probabilistic, signature criteria. Neither study demonstrates that the
Calico Hills lithic objects are not tools, but only that these objects more strongly resemble the
control samples of naturally broken rocks than the control samples of artifacts. As Bell (1982:67)
notes, "purely correlative relations are normally confined to application over a given range of data
and, if they are also statistical, allow for improbable but possible exceptions" (see also Willer and
Willer [1973]).
Gruhn and Young (1980) correctly point out that simply because the Calico "tools" are not like
a sample of other lithic objects generally accepted to be tools does not mean the Calico lithics are
not tools. Patterson (1980:376) elaborates on this and notes that "there can be a variety of reasons
why attributes of flakes in Calico and Paleoindian assemblages are statistically different, none of
which are related to the question of manufacture by man." These criticisms reduce to asking if
variables relevant to determining whether or not humans modified the Calico lithics were used in
Payen's (1982) and Duvall and Venner's (1979) analyses (Patterson 1980). While Patterson's (1983)
recent paper on choosing variables relevant to the identification of stone tools is worthy of serious
attention, it must be emphasized that he commits the same errors he criticizes. In particular,
Patterson (1983) advocates a set of variables with no substantive justification for their relevancy;
he does not outline techniques by which his variables may be objectively measured and evaluated,
and he dismisses alternative variables suggested by other archaeologists by expressing opinions of
the original intestigators' (lack of) professional competency.

Approaches to Tool Identification

Individual stones are identified as tools when they display modifications that can be attributed
to human activity (MM or UWM). Debate over the accuracy of possible identifications hinges on
the definitive criteria employed to make the identification. It is here-in the establishment of
relevant, distinctive definitive criteria-that problems are encountered. Specifically, equifinality-
"the property of allowing or having the same effect or result from different events" (Merriam 1961:
761)-must be controlled.
Ascher and Ascher (1965) distinguish three approaches to identifying stone tools. These are
observation of natural and cultural (ethnoarchaeology) agencies and processes, simulation of natural
processes, and imitative experiments of cultural processes. Bonnichsen (1982) lists four approaches
to producing identifications of bone tools and distinguishing these from bone objects that are not
tools. The four are observation of naturally occurring modified bones (e.g., Behrensmeyer 1978),
simulation of natural and cultural processes by experiment (e.g., Bonnichsen 1973; Miller 1969,
1975), making inferences from modem bone assemblages (e.g., some data in Binford [1981]), and
making inferences based on prehistoric assemblages (e.g., Briuer 1977; Gilbow 1981; McGuire 1980).
All seven of the above listed approaches are actualistic in nature and have roots in the uniformi-
tarianist paradigm of the nineteenth century (Gould 1965, 1967, 1979; Hooykaas 1970; Rudwick
1971; Simpson 1970). Actualistic approaches are followed today in geology (Watson 1969) and take
various forms in archaeology (Dunnell 1982), the most common involving ethnographic analogy
(Ascher 1961) and ethnoarchaeology (Gould 1980, ed. 1978).
The procedures for tool identification involve the use of criteria derived from actualistic research
(e.g., forlithics: Patterson [1983]; forbones: Binford [1981], Bonnichsen [1973, 1979], Frison [1982],
Johnson [1982], Sadek-Kooros [1972, 1975], and Wheat [1982]). Often, however, when several sets
of actualistic data are examined, sets of similar "definitive" criteria may be derived even though
they may originate from the observation of different processes. Controversy then ensues as to which
set of criteria is to be considered the more "definitive"; that is, which set of criteria provides the
most correct identification (see Binford [1967, 1972] and Munson [1969] for a classic example in
ethnographic analogy; see Binford [1978, 1981] for examples concerning bones). This problem-
equifinality- has been discussed at length by several people (Binford 1981; Gifford 1981; Grayson
1982; Shipman 1981). It is apparent, on the basis of the analysis of the Mount St. Helens cervid
bones presented above, that equifinality has not been adequately dealt with by those who identify
"bone expediency tools." It is with this fact in mind that I offer the following discussion.
DISCUSSION
Bonnichsen (1982:141) cautions against the uncritical acceptance of "what if" arguments that
purport to invalidate the identification of bone objects as tools (see Brewer [1973] for a clever
characterization of "what if' arguments concerning the Calico Hills stone objects). To paraphrase
Haynes (1983:113), I have not disproven the identifications of "bone expediency tools" in bison
kill sites as such; I have, however, illustrated that equifinality is insufficiently controlled as yet, and
that published identifications of "bone expediency tools" should be viewed as only one possible
interpretation of particular bone objects.
"What if' arguments arise regularly by virtue of the lack of distinctive, truly definitive criteria.
Bonnichsen (1982) therefore urges that future attempts to identify bone tools must be geared towards
establishing truly definitive and distinctive criteria. Binford (1981 :26) labels these criteria "signature
patterns" (see also Gould [1980]), and defines them as follows: "a diagnostic signature criterion is
one that is constant and unique and that discriminates one modifying agent or set of agents from
another." He goes on to point out that, regularly, even when "signature criteria" are available, only
"an inference of high probability" concerning the identification of the agent(s) of modification is
possible (1981:27). It should be noted that when the inference is but highly probable, no signature
patterns, as defined, have been established. This may be why Binford's (1981) interpretations of the
Olduvai Gorge materials are questionable (cf. Bunn 1982); Binford fails to produce the "if and only
if" statements (Grayson 1982) of which signature patterns must consist by definition.

There are two interrelated alternatives to diagnostic signature patterns of the "if and only if" type
for postulating the identification of an agent or object. Binford (1981:83) discusses arguments from
elimination, in which "(a) all the potential causes or agents are known and listed and (b) all but one
of those listed are not the cause of the phenomenon in question." Binford points out the similarities
between argument from elimination and multiple working hypotheses (the second alternative), the
latter of which has been advocated by Bonnichsen (1982). As Binford (1981) demonstrated, argument
from elimination has logical difficulties (see Bunn [1982], Grayson [1982] and Will [1982]). Such
difficulties arise because of the virtual impossibility of listing all the potential causes; it is nearly
always possible to find an additional "what if" situation, or one more "working hypothesis." Of
course, some possible answers will be more probable or produce stronger inferences (Platt 1964),
but it remains unclear how to evaluate several mutually strong inferences (Willer and Willer 1973).
I suspect that the difficulties in the arguments from elimination and multiple working hypotheses
arise, at least in part, from attributes of the phenomena in question. Why else would archaeologists
be so ready to accept the identification of a stone object as, for instance, a Clovis-style projectile
point? The object has been modified in such a manner that no reasonable combination of conceivable
agents other than people could have produced it. Bone objects that have undergone a similar degree
of modification are also accepted as artifacts because only people could have produced such a
"formalized" (Wheat 1982:169) object. However, when one is dealing with more primitive (my
term, see above) objects, displaying less sophistication and/or formalization of modification, such
as those from Calico Hills or those labeled "bone expediency tools"-the "possible artifact" category
of Haynes (1 973a)-neither arguments from elimination nor multiple working hypotheses work well
because of the uncontrolled problem of equifinality.
A POSSIBLE SOLUTION
The bone expediency tool concept is intriguing. It makes sense, and is perhaps a significant insight
into the ways in which people may have adapted to and manipulated their environment. Yet, at
present, it lacks a firm methodological basis that allows these tools to be regularly and systematically
identified, and the validity of such identifications to be rigorously and objectively tested. Similar
problems exist with the recognition and identification of some "primitive" stone tools (see Patterson
[1983] and references therein).
The issue of identification of bone expediency tools might be refocused by developing reasonable
expectations concerning how such tools should "behave" in the archaeological record. Refocusing
analytic techniques from a technological or use-history perspective (Figure 1) to a functional per-
spective may circumvent the logical difficulties of identifying these tools using criteria derived from
Figure 1. Frison (1982) has, for example, noted that bone choppers do not always occur in the same
relative abundance and in the same sites as toothed fleshers that are made from bones. He suggests
that this may reflect cultural or ethnic differences, or it may reflect differences in the availability of
raw materials for tool manufacturing. The second alternative seems unlikely to me, particularly at
kill sites where all the bony elements of the skeleton are at least initially present and available.
While an explanation based upon cultural or ethnic differences may be accurate, an equally likely
(if not more probable) explanation is that the differences in "bone expediency tool" assemblages
between sites result from different contingencies which affect particular episodes of butchering (e.g.,
Binford 1978). Choppers may be used more frequently in the winter and fleshers in the summer;
such contingencies have yet to be systematically considered.
The potential morphological variability of bone expediency tools is limited by the finite number
of shapes of skeletal elements. Further, some tools are broken and the represented skeletal element
cannot be determined. Stone tools are not always classified according to the type of stone from
which they are made, and I suspect that we need not consider the type of bone from which a bone
expediency tool is made, at least initially, because the purpose of the classification I outline is to
detect functional differences, not technological differences (see papers in Whallon and Brown [1982]).
I recommend that classification of bone objects suspected to be "bone expediency tools" be based
on both the type and distribution of UWM (see Sadek-Kooros [1975] for an initial attempt). This

suggestion is consistent with that offered several years ago by Myers et al. (1980). This approach
assumes that different tasks will produce different wear patterns; therefore, ifbone expediency tools
were used for varied tasks, UWM patterns should vary between sites. It is well documented that
butchery is a highly variable and contingency-bound activity (Binford 1978; Frison 1978), and such
diverse contingencies will result in different frequencies and types of particular classes of UWM
between sites. Expectations may be formulated concerning variations in UWM patterns on bone
expediency tools from site to site, from situation to situation, and butchery task to butchery task.
This kind of approach has been applied with some success to UWM patterns on lithic tools (e.g.,
Dunnell 1978), and may prove equally successful in studies of bone tools. The approach will at
least provide an independent test of identifications of "bone expediency tools" based on the con-
jectural use-history.
There are two potential difficulties in analyses of UWM patterns on bone tools. First, only small
samples of bone tools are recovered from many sites. Variations in UWM patterns between sites
must be demonstrably attributable to factors other than sample sizes. There are statistical techniques
for assessing the effects of sample sizes on archaeofaunal data (Grayson 1981) which might be
adapted to bone tool analysis. The second difficulty is that various natural agencies and processes
can produce modifications not unlike UWM patterns. It is becoming apparent, however, that car-
nivores (e.g., Haynes 1980, 1982) and other natural agents and processes (e.g., Haynes 1983; Shipman
and Rose 1983) modify bones in particular ways that result in patterns that are different from UWM
patterns. While equifinality is becoming better controlled in this case, it is still not under complete
control. Nonetheless, the patterns of modification created naturally can be used as a guide to the
reasonableness of postulated "behaviors" of UWM patterns. Further, such naturally created patterns
of modification should occur in ways that are different from those of UWM patterns in the ar-
chaeological and fossil records. When the patterns of modification observed in the archaeological
record conform to our expectations for UWM patterns, and when the observed patterns occur
differently from what is expected of naturally created modificatiion patterns, a strong inference can
be made that the objects under scrutiny are tools.
While I have perhaps been overly critical in my remarks, I tend to agree with Bell (1982) that
"criticizable explanations" are one strong point of our discipline. Weaknesses in explanations, when
pinpointed, will motivate a search for alternatives and, ultimately, the design of better explanations.
Our explanations should be testable and refutable in the empirical realm. To enhance these char-
acteristics of our explanations, we should not only clarify the problems we wish to solve, but construct
methods for solving these problems in such a manner as to allow their evaluation and improvement.
It was with these thoughts in mind that I wrote this article. I believe there will always be a "gray
area" into which can be placed objects which could be tools but may not be tools. Development of
methods for explaining and correctly identifying such objects in order to reduce the population of
the "gray area" will prove to be challenging, but not, I suspect, impossible if our methods are
regularly and consistently evaluated.
Acknowledgments. Researchin the Mount St. Helens blast zone was supportedin partby a grantfrom the
GiffordPinchot National Forest to Dr. R. D. Taber, College of Forest Resources,University of Washington.
MarvinJones of the Centralia,Washington,WeyerhauserOfficeprovidedmuch needed physicaland logistical
support.Fieldworkin the blastzone was accomplishedby the author,StephanieLivingston,and VirginiaButler.
StephanieLivingstonand KimberlyKornbacherhelped with the lab work. I thankStephaniefor her help with
all of the taphonomicaspectsof the St. Helens "crispyelk" project.RichardMorlan,Robson Bonnichsen,Dena
Dincauzeand Joseph W. Martinmade many helpfulsubstantiveand editorialcomments on earlierversions of
this paper.I alone must be held responsiblefor the content of this paper.
REFERENCES CITED
Ascher, Robert
1961 Analogy in Archaeological Interpretation. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 17:317-325.
Ascher, Robert, and Marcia Ascher
1965 Recognizing the Emergence of Man. Science 147:243-250.
Behrensmeyer, Anna K.
1978 Taphonomic and Ecologic Information from Bone Weathering. Paleobiology 4:150-162.

Bell, Jim
1982 Archaeological Explanation: Progress Through Criticism. In Theory and Explanation in Archaeology,
edited by Colin Renfrew, Michael J. Rowlands, and Barbara Abbott Seagraves, pp. 65-72. Academic Press,
New York.
Bergman, C. A., and M. H. Newcomer
1983 Flint Arrowhead Breakage: Examples from Ksar Akil, Lebanon. Journal of FieldArchaeology 10:238-
243.
Binford, Lewis R.
1967 Smudge Pits and Hide Smoking: The Use of Analogy in Archaeological Reasoning. American Antiquity
32: 1-12.
1972 Archaeological Reasoning and Smudge Pits-Revisited. In An Archaeological Perspective, by Lewis R.
Binford, pp. 52-58. Academic Press, New York.
1978 Nunamiut Ethnoarchaeology. Academic Press, New York.
1979 Organization and Formation Processes: Looking at Curated Technologies. Journal ofAnthropological
Research 35:255-273.
1981 Bones: Ancient Men and Modern Myths. Academic Press, New York.
Bonnichsen, Robson
1973 Some Operational Aspects of Human and Animal Bone Alteration. In Mammalian Osteo-Archaeology:
North America, by B. Miles Gilbert, pp. 9-24. Missouri Archaeological Society, Columbia.
1979 Pleistocene Bone Technology in the Beringian Refugium. National Museum of Man Mercury Series,
Archaeological Survey of Canada Paper No. 89. Ottawa.
1981 The Old Crow Discussion: Inference and Illusion. Comments on R. D. Guthrie's "The First Americans?
The Elusive Arctic Bone Culture." Quarterly Review of Archaeology 2(2): 17-18.
1982 Bone Technology as a Taphonomic Factor: An Introductory Statement. Canadian Journal of Anthro-
pology 2:137-144.
Bonnichsen, Robson, and Richard T. Will
1980 Cultural Modification of Bone: The Experimental Approach in Faunal Analysis. In Mammalian Os-
teology, by B. Miles Gilbert, pp. 7-30. Privately published, Laramie.
Bonnichsen, Robson, and David Young
1980 Early Technological Repertoires: Bone to Stone. Canadian Journal of Anthropology 1:123-128.
Brain, C. K.
1967 Bone Weathering and the Problem of Bone Pseudo-Tools. South African Journal of Science 63:97-99.
Brewer, Frederic
1973 Artifacts or Geofacts? Science 181:1202-1204.
Briuer, Frederick L.
1977 Plant and Animal Remains from Caves and Rockshelters of Chevelon Canyon Arizona: Methods for
Isolating Cultural Depositional Processes. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles. Uni-
versity Microfilms, Ann Arbor.
Bunn, Henry T.
1982 Animal Bones and Archeological Inference. Science 215:494-495.
Corbin, James E.
1975 Aniganigaruk: A Study in Nunamiut Eskimo Archaeology. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Depart-
ment of Anthropology, Washington State University, Pullman.
Dibble, David, and Dessamae Lorrain
1968 Bonfire Shelter: A Stratified Bison Kill Site, Val Verde County, Texas. Texas Memorial Museum
Miscellaneous Paper No. 1. Austin.
Dunnell, Robert C.
1971 Systematics in Prehistory. Free Press, New York.
1978 Archaeological Potential of Anthropological and Scientific Models of Function. In Archaeological
Essays in Honor of Irving B. Rouse, edited by Robert C. Dunnell and Edwin S. Hall, Jr., pp. 41-73. Mouton,
New York.
1982 Science, Social Science, and Common Sense: The Agonizing Dilemma of Modern Archaeology. Journal
of Anthropological Research 38:1-25.
Duvall, James G., and William T. Venner
1979 A Statistical Analysis of the Lithics from the Calico Site (SBCM 1500A), California. Journal of Field
Archaeology 6:455-462.
Foley, Robert
1981 Off-site Archaeology: An Alternative Approach to the Short-sited. In Pattern of the Past: Studies in
Honour of David Clarke, edited by Ian Hodder, Glynn Isaac, and Norman Hammond, pp. 157-183.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Frison, George C.
1970 The Glenrock Buffalo Jump, 48C0304: Late Prehistoric Period Buffalo Procurement and Butchering.
Plains Anthropologist Memoir 7.
1971 Shoshonean Antelope Procurement in the Upper Green River Basin, Wyoming. Plains Anthropologist
16:258-284.

1973 The Wardell Buffalo Trap, 48SU301: Communal Procurement in the Upper Green River Basin, Wy-
oming. Anthropological Papers No. 48. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
1974 Archaeology of the Casper Site. In The Casper Site: A Hell-Gap Bison Kill on the High Plains, edited
by George C. Frison, pp. 1-111. Academic Press, New York.
1978 Prehistoric Hunters of the High Plains. Academic Press, New York.
1982 Bone Butchering Tools in Archaeological Sites. Canadian Journal of Anthropology 2:159-167.
Frison, George C., Michael Wilson, and Diane J. Wilson
1976 Fossil Bison and Artifacts from an Early Altithermal Period Arroyo Trap in Wyoming. American
Antiquity 41:28-57.
Geniesse, Susan C.
1982 A Study of Manufacture and Wear on Bone Artifacts. Unpublished M.A. paper, Department of An-
thropology, University of Washington, Seattle.
Gifford, Diane P.
1981 Taphonomy and Paleoecology: A Critical Review of Archaeology's Sister Disciplines. In Advances in
Archaeological Method and Theory, vol. 4, edited by Michael B. Schiffer, pp. 365-438. Academic Press,
New York.
Gilbert, Allan S.
1979 Urban Taphonomy of Mammalian Remains from the Bronze Age of Godin Tepe, Western Iran. Ph.D.
dissertation, Columbia University. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor.
Gilbow, Delbert W.
1981 Inferences of Human Activity from Faunal Remains. Unpublished M.A. thesis, Department of An-
thropology, Washington State University, Pullman.
Gould, Richard A.
1978 The Anthropology of Human Residues. American Anthropologist 80:815-835.
1980 Living Archaeology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Gould, Richard A. (editor)
1978 Explorations in Ethnoarchaeology. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.
Gould, Stephen J.
1965 Is Uniformitarianism Necessary? American Journal of Science 263:223-228.
1967 Is Uniformitarianism Useful? Journal of Geological Education 15:149-150.
1979 Agassiz's Marginalia in Lyell's Principles, or The Perils of Uniformity and the Ambiguity of Heroes.
Studies in the History of Biology 3:119-138.
Grayson, Donald K.
1981 The Effects of Sample Size on Some Derived Measures in Vertebrate Faunal Analysis. Journal of
Archaeological Science 8:77-88.
1982 Review of Bones: Ancient Men and Modern Myths by Lewis R. Binford. American Anthropologist 84:
439-440.
Gruhn, Ruth, and David Young
1980 The Burial of Calico is Premature: A Critique of Duvall and Venner. Journal of Field Archaeology 7:
499-500.
Guthrie, R. Dale
1980 The First Americans? The Elusive Arctic Bone Culture. Quarterly Review of Archaeology 1(1):2.
1981 Mid-Wisconsinan Beringian Man: Elusive or Illusive? Quarterly Review of Archaeology 2(2): 18-19.
Haynes, Gary
1980 Evidence of Carnivore Gnawing on Pleistocene and Recent Mammalian Bones. Paleobiology 6:341-
351.
1982 Utilization and Skeletal Disturbances of North American Prey Carcasses. Arctic 35:266-281.
1983 Frequencies of Spiral and Green-bone Fracture on Ungulate Limb Bones in Modern Surface Assem-
blages. American Antiquity 48:102-114.
Haynes, Vance
1973a The Calico Site: Artifacts or Geofacts. Science 181:305-310.
1973b Artifacts of Early Man in the New World. Science 182:1371-1372.
Hooykaas, R.
1970 Catastrophism in Geology, Its Scientific Character in Relation to Actualism and Uniformitarianism.
North Holland, Amsterdam.
Isaac, Glynn
1981 Stone Age Visiting Cards: Approaches to the Study of Early Land Use Patterns. In Pattern of the Past:
Studies in Honour of David Clarke, edited by Ian Hodder, Glynn Isaac, and Norman Hammond, pp. 131-
155. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Johnson, Eileen
1978 Paleo-Indian Bison Procurement and Butchering Patterns on the Llano Estacado. In Bison Procurement
and Utilization: A Symposium, edited by Leslie B. Davis and Michael Wilson, pp. 98-105. Plains Anthro-
pologist Memoir 14.
1980 Updating Comments on "Paleo-Indian Bison Procurement and Butchering Patterns on the Llano
Estacado." Plains Anthropologist 25:83-85.

332 AMERICAN
ANTIQUITY [Vol.49, No. 2, 1984
1982 Paleoindian Bone Expediency Tools: Lubbock Lake and Bonfire Shelter. Canadian Journal of An-
thropology 2:145-157.
Johnson, Eileen, and Vance T. Holliday
1980 A Plainview Kill/Butchering Locale on the Llano Estacado-The Lubbock Lake Site. Plains Anthro-
pologist 25:89-111.
1981 Late Paleo-Indian Activity at the Lubbock Lake Site. Plains Anthropologist 26:173-193.
Leakey, L. S. B., Ruth D. Simpson, and Thomas Clements
1968 Archaeological Excavations in the Calico Mountains, California: Preliminary Report. Science 160:
1022-1023.
Lyman, R. Lee
1978 Prehistoric Butchering Techniques in the Lower Granite Reservoir, Southeastern Washington. Tebiwa
13. Papers of the Idaho State University Museum of Natural History, Pocatello.
1984 Archaeofaunas and Butchery Studies: A Taphonomic Perspective. In Animal Remains from Archae-
ological Sites, edited by D. Gentry Steele and B. Miles Gilbert. Center for the Study of Early Man, University
of Maine, Orono, in press.
Lyman, R. Lee, and Stephanie D. Livingston
1983 Taphonomy of Cervids Killed by the 18 May 1980 Volcanic Eruption of Mount St. Helens, Washington,
U.S.A. Ms. on file, Department of Anthropology, Oregon State University, Corvallis.
MacGregor, A. G., and J. D. Currey
1983 Mechanical Properties as Conditioning Factors in the Bone and Antler Industry of the 3rd to 13th
Century A.D. Journal of Archaeological Science 10:71-77.
McGuire, Kelly R.
1980 Cave Sites, Faunal Analysis, and Big-Game Hunters of the Great Basin: A Caution. Quaternary
Research 14:263-268.
Merriam, G. & C., Co.
1961 Webster's Third New International Dictionary. Springfield, Massachusetts.
Miller, George J.
1969 A Study of Cuts, Grooves, and Other Marks on Recent and Fossil Bones: 1. Animal Tooth Marks.
Tebiwa 12:20-26. Papers of the Idaho State University Museum of Natural History, Pocatello.
1975 A Study of Cuts, Grooves, and Other Marks on Recent and Fossil Bones: 2. Weathering Cracks,
Fractures, Splinters, and Other Similar Natural Phenomena. In Lithic Technology: Making and Using Stone
Tools, edited by Earl H. Swanson, Jr., pp. 211-226. Aldine, Chicago.
Morlan, Richard E.
1980 Taphonomy and Archaeology in the Upper Pleistocene of the Northern Yukon Territory:A Glimpse of
the Peopling of the New World. National Museum of Man Mercury Series, Archaeological Survey of Canada
Paper No. 94. Ottawa.
Munson, Patrick J.
1969 Comments on Binford's "Smudge Pits and Hide Smoking: The Use of Analogy in Archaeological
Reasoning." American Antiquity 34:83-85.
Myers, Thomas P., Michael R. Voorhies, and R. George Corner
1980 Spiral Fractures and Bone Pseudotools at Paleontological Sites. American Antiquity 45:483-490.
Noe-Nygaard, Nanna
1977 Butchering and Marrow Fracturing as a Taphonomic Factor in Archaeological Deposits. Paleobiology
3:218-237.
Patterson, Leland W.
1980 Comments on a Statistical Analysis of Lithics from Calico. Journal of Field Archaeology 7:374-377.
1983 Criteria for Determining the Attributes of Man-Made Lithics. Journal of Field Archaeology 10:297-
307.
Payen, Louis A.
1982 Artifacts or Geofacts at Calico: Application of the Barnes Test. In Peopling of the New World, edited
by Jonathon E. Ericson, R. E. Taylor, and Rainer Berger, pp. 193-201. Ballena Press Anthropological Papers
No. 23. Los Altos, California.
Platt, John R.
1964 Strong Inference. Science 146:347-353.
Rudwick, Martin J. S.
1971 Uniformity and Progression: Reflections on the Structure of Geological Theory in the Age of Lyell. In
Perspectives in the History of Science and Technology, edited by D. Roller, pp. 209-227. University of
Oklahoma Press, Norman.
Sadek-Kooros, Hind
1972 Primitive Bone Fracturing: A Method of Research. American Antiquity 37:369-382.
1975 Intentional Fracturing of Bone: Description of Criteria. In Archaeozoological Studies, edited by A. T.
Clason, pp. 139-150. North Holland, Amsterdam.
Schiffer, Michael B.
1972 Archaeological Context and Systemic Context. American Antiquity 37:156-165.

Lyman] BROKENBONES 333
Schild, Romuald
1976 The Final Paleolithic Settlements of the European Plain. Scientific American 234(2):88-99.
Shipman, Pat
1981 Applications of Scanning Electron Microscopy to Taphonomic Problems. In The Research Potential
of Anthropological Museum Collections, edited by Anne-Marie Cantwell, James B. Griffin, and Nan A.
Rothschild, pp. 357-385. Annals of the New York Academy of Science 376. New York.
Shipman, Pat, and Jennie Rose
1983 Early Hominid Hunting, Butchering, and Carcass-Processing Behaviors: Approaches to the Fossil
Record. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 2:57-98.
Simpson, George C.
1970 Uniformitarianism: An Inquiry into Principle, Theory and Method in Geohistory and Biohistory. In
Essays in Evolution and Genetics in Honor of Theodosius Dobzhansky, edited by M. K. Hecht and W. C.
Steer, pp. 43-96. Appleton, New York.
Simpson, Ruth D.
1978 The Calico Mountains Archaeological Site. In Early Man in America from a Circum-Pacific Perspective,
edited by Alan L. Bryan, pp. 218-220. Occasional Papers No. 1, Department of Anthropology, University
of Alberta, Edmonton.
1980 The Calico Mountains Site: Pleistocene Archaeology in the Mojave Desert, California. In Early Native
Americans, edited by David L. Browman, pp. 7-20. Mouton, The Hague.
1982 The Calico Mountains Archaeological Project: A Progress Report. In Peopling of the New World, edited
by Jonathon E. Ericson, R. E. Taylor, and Rainer Berger, pp. 181-192. Ballena Press Anthropological Papers
No. 23. Los Altos, California.
Stanford, Dennis
1979 The Selby and Dutton Sites: Evidence for a Possible Pre-Clovis Occupation of the High Plains. In Pre-
Llano Cultures of the Americas: Paradoxes and Possibilities, edited by Robert L. Humphrey and Dennis
Stanford, pp. 101-123. Anthropological Society of Washington, Washington, D.C.
Stanford, Dennis, Robson Bonnichsen, and Richard E. Morlan
1981 The Ginsberg Experiment: Modern and Prehistoric Evidence of a Bone-Flaking Technology. Science
212:438-440.
Taber, Richard D., Kenneth J. Raedeke, and Dwayne K. Paige
1982 Wildlife-Forest Interactions: Mt. St. Helens Blast Zone, 1981-82. Report submitted to the Gifford
Pinchot National Forest, Vancouver, Washington.
Taylor, R. E., and Louis A. Payen
1979 The Role of Archaeometry in American Archaeology: Approaches to the Evaluation of the Antiquity
of Homo sapiens in California. In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, vol. 2, edited by Michael
B. Schiffer, pp. 239-283. Academic Press, New York.
Wade, M. P. M.
1973 Artifacts of Early Man in the New World. Science 182:1371.
Walker, Phillip L., and Jeffrey C. Long
1977 An Experimental Study of the Morphological Characteristics of Tool Marks. American Antiquity 42:
605-616.
Watson, Richard A.
1969 Explanation and Prediction in Geology. Journal of Geology 77:488-494.
Whallon, Robert, and James A. Brown (editors)
1982 Essays on Archaeological Typology. Center for American Archaeology, Evanston, Illinois.
Wheat, Joe Ben
1979 The Jurgens Site. Plains Anthropologist Memoir 15.
1982 Bone Technology at Jurgens, Olsen-Chubbuck and Little Box Elder. Canadian Journal ofAnthropology
2:169-177.
Wildesen, Leslie E.
1973 A Quantitative Model of Archaeological Site Development. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Depart-
ment of Anthropology, Washington State University, Pullman.
Will, Richard T.
1982 Review of Bones: Ancient Men and Modern Myths by Lewis R. Binford. Zooarchaeological Research
News l(l):7-8.
Willer, David, and Judith Willer
1973 Systematic Empiricism: Critique of a Pseudoscience. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs.


Society For American Archaeology

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Society For American Archaeology

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Society for American Archaeology

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.253 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 21:20:35 PM

Criteriafor recognizingtechnologicaland use-wearmodificationshave been usedto identify"boneexpediency

CRITERIA FOR BONE TOOL IDENTIFICATION

AmericanAntiquity,49(2), 1984, pp. 315-333.

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.253 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 21:20:35 PM

USABLE NON-USABLE USABLE

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.253 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 21:20:35 PM

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.253 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 21:20:35 PM

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.253 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 21:20:35 PM

THE MOUNT ST. HELENS CERVID BONES

The Assemblagesand the Pseudotools

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.253 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 21:20:35 PM

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.253 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 21:20:35 PM

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.253 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 21:20:35 PM

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.253 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 21:20:35 PM

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.253 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 21:20:35 PM

Jurgens Area 1 1,550+ 2,526 31 common (31+)

THE IDENTIFICATION OF TOOLS

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.253 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 21:20:35 PM

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.253 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 21:20:35 PM

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.253 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 21:20:35 PM

Approaches to Tool Identification

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.253 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 21:20:35 PM

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.253 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 21:20:35 PM

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.253 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 21:20:35 PM

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.253 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 21:20:35 PM

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.253 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 21:20:35 PM

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.253 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 21:20:35 PM

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.253 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 21:20:35 PM

You might also like