Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-vvkck Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T20:13:43.444Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Rethinking Stone Drill Manufacture

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 February 2023

William Engelbrecht Open the ORCID record for William Engelbrecht [Opens in a new window]
William Engelbrecht*
Affiliation:
William Engelbrecht, Professor Emeritus, Department of Anthropology, SUNY Buffalo State, Buffalo, NY, USA
*
Corresponding author: William Engelbrecht, email: engelbwe@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Drills and projectile points from a site often share a similar shaped base, and it is typically assumed that these drills are reworked hafted points. Measurements of triangular-shaped drills and triangular arrow points from an Iroquoian site indicate that, on average, these drills had narrower bases and were thicker than points. Additionally, most preserved point foreshafts from the western United States are too short if used as a simple drill shaft, and most dart and arrow shafts are too long to serve as convenient drill shafts if used with a strap or bow drill. These data call into question the assumption that drills were reworked hafted points at Iroquoian and possibly other sites.

Résumé

Résumé

Les perçoirs et pointes de projectiles provenant de sites archéologiques ont souvent des extrémités proximales semblables; il est donc fréquemment supposé que les perçoirs sont en fait des pointes emmanchées et retouchées. Les mesures de perçoirs et de pointes de projectiles triangulaires provenant d'un site iroquoien indiquent que les perçoirs étaient plus épais que les pointes. Puisque la transformation de pointes en perçoirs implique un processus de réduction de la matière, il apparaît alors peu probable que ces perçoirs soient des pointes transformées. De plus, la plupart des préhampes de projectiles qui se sont préservées sont trop courtes pour permettre leur utilisation comme préhampes de perçoirs, et la plupart des hampes de lances ou de flèches sont trop longues pour servir adéquatement de hampes de perçoirs, lorsque utilisés avec une courroie ou un archet. Ces constats remettent en question la croyance que les perçoirs étaient des pointes emmanchées et retouchées, tant sur les sites Iroquoiens qu'ailleurs.

Keywords

stone drillsIroquoian lithicsFrison Effecttool use lifelithic technological organizationperçoirslithique iroquoienEffet Frisondurée de vieorganisation technologique lithic
Type
Report
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 88 , Issue 1 , January 2023 , pp. 99 - 106
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Society for American Archaeology

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References Cited

Ellis, Chris J., Wortner, Stanley, and Fox, William. 1991. Nettling: An Overview of an Early Archaic “Kirk Corner-Notched Cluster” Site in Southwestern Ontario. Canadian Journal of Archaeology 15:1–34.Google Scholar
Engelbrecht, William. 2014. Unnotched Triangular Points on Village Sites. American Antiquity 79:353–367.10.7183/0002-7316.79.2.353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engelbrecht, William. 2015. Interpreting Broken Arrow Points. American Antiquity 80:760–766.10.7183/0002-7316.80.4.760CrossRefGoogle Scholar
William, Engelbrecht, Bradbury, Andrew P., and Kwoka, Joshua J.. 2020. Rethinking Iroquoian Stone Endscraper Use. Iroquoia 6:69–90.Google Scholar
Engelbrecht, William, Bradbury, Andrew P., and Salisbury, Roderick B.. 2021. Patterning in a Large Sample of Retouched Unifacial Tools. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 40(Part B):103226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2021.103226.Google Scholar
Frison, George C. 1968. A Functional Analysis of Certain Chipped Stone Tools. American Antiquity 33:149–155.10.2307/278516CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frison, George C. 1978. Prehistoric Hunters of the High Plains. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Goodyear, Albert C. 1974. The Brand Site: A Techno-Functional Study of a Dalton Site in Northeast Arkansas. Research Series No. 7. Arkansas Archeological Survey, Fayetteville.Google Scholar
Hayden, Brian, Franco, Nora, and Spafford, Jim. 1996. Evaluating Lithic Strategies and Design Criteria. In Stone Tools: Theoretical Insights into Human Prehistory, edited by Odell, George H., pp. 9–45. Plenum Press, New York.10.1007/978-1-4899-0173-6_2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howard, Calvin D. 1995. Projectile Point and Hafting Design Review. North American Archaeologist 16:291–301.10.2190/7FHR-TJJG-YC1Y-FBL4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jelinek, Arthur J. 1976. Form Function, and Style in Lithic Analysis. In Cultural Change and Continuity: Essays in Honor of James Bennett Griffin, edited by Cleland, Charles E., pp. 19–33. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Keeley, Lawrence H. 1982. Hafting and Retooling: Effects on the Archaeological Record. American Antiquity 47:798–809.10.2307/280285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kent, Barry C. 1984. Susquehanna's Indians. Anthropological Series No. 6. Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, Harrisburg.Google Scholar
Lennox, Paul A., and Fitzgerald, William R.. 1990. The Culture History and Archaeology of the Neutral Iroquoians. In The Archaeology of Southern Ontario to A.D. 1650, Occasional Publication of the London Chapter No. 5, edited by Ellis, Chris J. and Ferris, Neal, pp. 405–456. Ontario Archaeological Society, London, Ontario, Canada.Google Scholar
Lerner, Harry. 2000. Static Types to Dynamic Variables: Re-Assessing the Methods of Prehistoric Huron Chipped Stone Tool Documentation and Analysis in Ontario. Master's thesis, Department of Anthropology, McGill University, Montreal.Google Scholar
Martin, Paul S. 1934. The Bow Drill in North America. American Anthropologist n.s. 36:94–97. https://anthrosource.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1525/aa.1934.36.1.02a00080, accessed October 19, 2022.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGuire, Joseph Deakins. 1894. A Study of the Primitive Method of Drilling. Report of the US National Museum for 1894, pp. 623–756. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. Electronic document, https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=hvd.32044042063917&view=1up&seq=60, accessed July 24, 2022.Google Scholar
Miller, G. Logan, and Redmond, Brian G.. 2016. Smudge Pits and Stone “Drills”: The Use of Chipped Stone Tools at Burrell Orchard. Lithic Technology 41:164–178. https://doi.org/10.1080/01977261.2016.1168145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgan, Lewis Henry. 1962 [1851]. League of the Ho-De-No-Sau-Nee, Iroquois. Corinth Books, New York City.Google Scholar
Morrow, Toby A. 2016. Stone Tools of Minnesota. Wapsi Valley Archaeology, Anamosa, Iowa.Google Scholar
Pope, Saxton. 1923. Hunting with the Bow and Arrow. G. P. Putnam's Sons, New York.Google Scholar
Poplawski, Piotr, Kwoka, Joshua J., and Engelbrecht, William. 2012. Rethinking Palisades in the Northeast: Evidence from the Eaton Site. Northeast Anthropology 77–78:71–87.Google Scholar
Poulton, Dana R. 1985 An Analysis of the Draper Site Chipped Lithic Artifacts. Research Report 15. Museum of Indian Archaeology, London, Ontario, Canada.Google Scholar
Roets, Michael, Engelbrecht, William, and Holland, John D.. 2014. Gunflints and Musket Balls: Implications for the Occupational History of the Eaton Site and the Niagara Frontier. Northeast Historical Archaeology 43:189–204.10.22191/neha/vol43/iss1/10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salisbury, Roderick B., and Engelbrecht, William. 2018. Broken Points and Social Cohesion in Iroquois Villages: A Point Refit Study. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 51:104–112.10.1016/j.jaa.2018.06.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smallwood, Ashley, Pevny, Charlotte Donald, Jennings, Thomas, and Morrow, Juliet. 2020. Projectile? Knife? Perforator? Using Actualistic Experiments to Build Models for Identifying Microscopic Usewear Traces on Dalton Points from the Brand Site, Arkansas, North America. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 31:102337. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2020.102337.Google Scholar
Speck, Frank. 1911. Notes on the Material Culture of the Huron. American Anthropologist n.s. 13:208–228. https://anthrosource.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1525/aa.1911.13.2.02a00020, accessed October 19, 2022.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stothers, David M., and Abel, Timothy J.. 1993. Archaeological Reflections of the Late Archaic and Early Woodland Time Periods in the Western Lake Erie Basin. Archaeology of Eastern North America 21:25–109.Google Scholar
Thomas, David Hurst. 1978. Arrowheads and Atlatl Darts: How the Stones Got the Shaft. American Antiquity 43:461–472.10.2307/279405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winters, Howard Dalton. 1969. The Riverton Culture: A Second Millennium Occupation in the Central Wabash Valley. Illinois Archaeological Survey, Springfield; Illinois State Museum, Springfield.Google Scholar
Wright, Milton J. 1977. The Walker Site. Master's thesis, Department of Anthropology, MacMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.Google Scholar
Yerkes, Richard W. 1983. Microwear, Microdrills, and Mississippian Craft Specialization. American Antiquity 48:499–518.10.2307/280558CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zeanah, David W., and Elston, Robert G.. 2001. Testing a Simple Hypothesis Concerning the Resilience of Dart Point Styles to Hafting Element Repair. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 23:93–124.Google Scholar