No abstract

Many of the chipped-stone bifaces so common in the archaeological record functioned as the hafted points of darts or arrows. For archaeologists, these artifacts possess two salient properties: (1) they formed only part of a larger apparatus; but, (2) because perishables decompose, they ordinarily are the only part preserved. Consequently, the identity of that apparatus-i.e., whether dart or arrow-is not readily apparent. For various reasons, we may wish to know if stone bifaces functioned as dart or arrow points. Often we rely on reasonable assumptions, but Thomas's (1978) discriminant analysis is a more reliable way to distinguish the possibilities. This study extends Thomas's approach by increasing the dart sample and the rate of successful classification. Shoulder width is the most important discriminating variable. An independent test on a set of arrows also strengthens confidence in the results.

No abstract

The importance of tool-class use lives in the formation of archaeological assemblages is established both in theory and empirically, and accurate inference from the material record requires that use lives be measured or estimated with confidence. Unfortunately, no method of measuring use lives directly from archaeological remains has been developed. However, this important quantity may be related to elementary properties of tool classes such as size and weight, properties which are themselves directly measurable. Ethnographic data on ceramic vessels, in which use life is related to such properties, is described and analyzed. Using!Kung San and Ingalik data, a similar analysis is performed for a variety of nonceramic tools and objects, although few of the stone-tool classes common to archaeological assemblages are included. There, use life is related most strongly to manufacturing cost and curation rate, an archaeological measure of which is proposed. Neither is an elementary property, but they can be estimated accurately for many tool classes. These results are noteworthy but not definitive, and they underscore the continued value of museum ethnographic collections and ethnoarchaeological research.

No abstract