Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-bkrcr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-22T03:06:14.645Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Functional Interpretations from Microscopic Analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

J. D. Nance
J. D. Nance*
Affiliation:
Department of Archaeology, University of Calgary
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

For many years, small, serrated, obsidian artifacts characteristic of late central California cultural manifestations (Late Horizon), have been regarded as projectile points (arrow and dart points). A functional analysis of a number of these tools based on examination with a binocular microscope revealed evidence of wear patterns including striations which makes it quite clear that these artifacts were used for other purposes. This brings the projectile point interpretation up for serious questioning, at least for the area under consideration. It is suggested that further investigation of artifact assemblages, using similar methods, will in all likelihood alter many existing ideas regarding the functional significance of many artifact types. It is further pointed out that many times discrepancies exist between ethnographic accounts and other sources of data relative to the functional significance of artifacts.

Information

Type
Reports
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 36 , Issue 3 , July 1971 , pp. 361 - 366
Copyright
Copyright © Society for American Archaeology 1971

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Beardsley, R. K. 1954 Temporal and areal relationships in central California archaeology. University of California Archaeological Survey, Reports 24 and 25.Google Scholar
Bordes, F. 1969 Reflections on typology and technology in the Palaeolithic. Arctic Anthropology 6:1–29.Google Scholar
Fenenga, F. 1953 The weights of chipped stone points: A clue to their function. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 9:309–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frison, G. C. 1968 A functional analysis of certain chipped stone tools. American Antiquity 33:149–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, R. N. 1940 The serrated points of central California. American Antiquity 6:167–170.Google Scholar
Nance, J. D. 1969 Lithic technology of 4-SAC-43: Microscopic examination. Unpublished M.A. thesis. Department of Anthropology, University of California, Davis.Google Scholar
Semenov, S. A. 1964 Prehistoric technology, translated by M. W. Thompson. Cory, Adams and Mackay.Google Scholar
Willey, G. R. 1966 An introduction to American archaeology, Vol. 1: North and Middle America. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.Google Scholar
Wilmsen, E. N. 1968 Functional analysis of flaked stone artifacts. American Antiquity 33:156–161.Google Scholar
Witthoft, J. 1967 Glazed polish on flint tools. American Antiquity 32:383–388.Google Scholar