LITHIC TECHNOLOGY

VOLUME NUMBER November

CONTENTS

Evolutionary Perspectives on Bipolar TechnologyJUSTIN PARGETER AND HILARY DUKE

ARTICLES

A Qualitative Guide to Recognize Bipolar Knapping for Flint and QuartzPALOMA DE LA PENA

“Dissecting”Quartzite and Basalt Bipolar Flake Shape: A Morphometric Comparison of Experimental Replicationsfrom Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania

ALIA N. GURTOV, BRIGGS BUCHANAN, AND METIN I. EREN

Dynamics of Knapping with Bipolar Techniques: Modeling Transitions and the Implications of VariabilityPETER HISCOCK

Weaving Simple Solutions to Complex Problems: an Experimental Study of Skill in Bipolar Cobble-splittingHILARY DUKE AND JUSTIN PARGETER

Microwear Analysis of Bipolar Tools from the Crescent Bay Hunt Club Site (JE)ROBERT J. JESKE AND KATHERINE M. STERNER-MILLER

Diversity Under the Bipolar UmbrellaMICHAEL SHOTT AND GILBERT TOSTEVIN

MICROWEAR ANALYSIS OF BIPOLAR TOOLS FROM THECRESCENT BAY HUNT CLUB SITE (JE)

ROBERT J. JESKE AND KATHERINE M. STERNER-MILLER

Department of Anthropology, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, N. Downer Ave, Milwaukee,WI , USA

Previous microwear analysis of a sample of artifacts from the Crescent Bay Hunt Club site has demonstrated that, ingeneral, morphofunctional typology has limited value for the assessment of tool function at that site. The site is asmall Oneota village (AD –) near Lake Koshkonong in southeasternWisconsin. Multiple data sets indicatea year round occupation, a subsistence regimen of maize agriculture and exploitation of a wide variety of plants,large and small mammals, birds, reptiles, fish, and shellfish. Mortuary data indicate significant levels of interperso-nal violence. This analysis is an attempt to determine if lithic manufacturing techniques are correlated with tool useat the site. The analysis incorporates low power and high power microscopy of morphofunctionally defined bipolarcores and/or pièces esquillées, as well as triangular arrow points. These tools were made using both bipolar and freehand knapping techniques; the analysis was designed to determine if a bipolar manufacturing origin is related tospecific functions. Results indicate that both the bipolar cores and triangular points were used on a variety ofmaterials, including hide, plant matter, and wood. From this we infer that a bipolar manufacturing origin is notpredictive of subsequent tool use at the site.

Les analyses précédentes de micro-usure d’un échantillon des artéfacts d’origine Crescent Bay Hunt Club, ontmontrées que, en général, la typologie morphofunctionnelle a de valeur limitée pour évaluer la fonction desoutils dans ce site. Le site est un petit village Oneota (AD -) situé près du Lac Koshkonong dans lesud-est de Wisconsin. Plusieurs ensembles des données indiquent une habitation pendant toute l’année, unrégime de subsistance qui consiste en l’agriculture de maïs et l’utilisation d’une grande variété de plantes, degrands et petits mammifères, oiseaux, reptiles, poissons et fruits de mer. Les données de morgue indiquent desniveaux signifiants de violence interpersonnelle. Cette analyse est un essai pour déterminer si les techniques lithiquesde production ont un rapport direct avec l’utilisation des outils au site. L’analyse incorpore la microscopie aupouvoir bas et haut des nucleus bipolaires par définition morphofunctionnelle et/ou les pièces esquillées, aussibien que les points triangulaires des flèches. Ces outils étaient faits par tous deux les techniques de taille surenclume bipolaire et à main levée ; le dessin de l’analyse est déterminer si un origine bipolaire de production serelie aux fonctions spécifiques. Les résultats indiquent que tous deux les nucleus bipolaire et les points triangulairesétaient utilisés sur une variété des matériaux, incluant la peau, la fibre végétale, et le bois. De ceci, nous avons déter-miné qu’une origine de production bipolaire ne prédit pas la manière d’emploi des outils sur ce site.

KEYWORDS: Oneota, Bipolar technology, Lithics, Microwear analysis

The relationship between form and function ofstone tools has long been an important matter toarchaeologists. Multiple approaches have beenused to determine individual tool use, includingmacroscopic, microscopic, and chemical methodsof analysis. Each approach has strengths andweaknesses. A multi-pronged approach is likelynecessary to contextualize tool function withinany specific lithic technological system. Thiscontext includes the understanding of tool pro-duction as it relates to the physical use of a tool.In this regard tool production is integrated into

multiple aspects of culture, including social, ideo-logical, and biological requirements. Unlike achaîne opératoire model of technology, tool pro-duction and tool use are not seen as steps in achain of actions but are connected to each other,and to all other aspects of lithic technology, in aweb of relations that bind together resources,needs, producers, and consumers (cf. Dobres; Jeske ; Shott ; Tostevin ).Exploring tool reduction techniques and theirrelationship to tool use is one way to recognizethat methods of tool production will vary based

© W. S. Maney & Son Ltd DOI: ./Y. Lithic Technology , Vol. No. , –

on a multitude of circumstances. It is the inherentimmediacy of the relationship among the variablesthat results in the life cycle of any tool. Rawmaterial acquisition can only be seen in light ofexpected tool function, relative accessibility ofmultiple raw materials, and the economic, politi-cal, social and ideological constraints on energyexpenditures for making tools at any time orplace within any particular culture. Likewise, pro-duction methods, use, reuse, recycling, and depo-sition of tools depend on the interplay of thesesame factors, as well as the choice of raw material.In this paper we examine how a particular

chipped stone tool technique, the bipolar tech-nique, relates to other aspects of lithic technology.Specifically we examine bipolar tools from theCrescent Bay Hunt Club site, a c. AD –Oneota village near Lake Koshkonong insoutheastern Wisconsin. Both low power andhigh power microscopy are used on morpho-logical variants of bipolar cores and/or piècesesquillées to determine if a bipolar manufacturingorigin is correlated with tool function at the site.We also examine triangular tools (aka MadisonPoints [Justice ]), many of which are pro-duced using a bipolar technique and finishedwith varying amounts of free hand percussionand pressure flaking, to determine if theirassumed functional designation as arrow point iswarranted.

PROJECT BACKGROUND

For much of the middle to late th century, theexistence, let alone meaning, of bipolar lithic tech-nology was a contentious issue among NorthAmerican archaeologists (Barham ; Binfordand Quimby ; Hardaker ; Hayden; Honea ; Kobayashi ; Leaf ;Patterson ; Shott , , ; Sollber-ger and Patterson ). Bipolar is distinguishedfrom other block-on-anvil techniques in that theobjective piece (i.e., core) is held on top of astone anvil and struck with a hammer at or verynear a ° angle; a blow perpendicular to theanvil. The contact sends force into the core fromtwo opposing points: from the point of hammerimpact and from the point of impact with theanvil. Other reduction techniques using anvilsexist: for example, the passive anvil techniqueused by Bordes to replicate levallois cores andflakes (Bordes ). Bordes demonstrated thatrelatively large blocks of high quality stone couldbe swung onto an anvil to remove flakes in a

well-controlled fashion, replicating levallois coresand tools found in many Mousterian assemblages.Our current research, the use of bipolar technol-ogy in the late prehistoric of the U.S. westernGreat Lakes region, varies significantly fromBordes’ replication experiments.Binford and Quimby’s () seminal article set

the stage for a vigorous exchange of views aboutbipolar technology in the Great Lakes region: ifit was ever used, if it was used only in a restrictedarea or time, if it was used only under extreme cir-cumstances, or if it was used to produce particularartifact forms designed to function as specializedtools. Explanations for bipolar techniques weremany: lack of skill (Patterson ), lack ofgood quality raw material (Binford and Quimby), small cobble size (Flenniken ; Salzer), and reuse of bifaces by highly mobilegroups (Goodyear ) were common themesin the literature. It seemed that the “confusion inthe bipolar world” (Hayden ) was thatbipolar technology “was a multidimensionalproblem that varied greatly due to local geologic,geographic, and demographic situations” (Jeskeand Lurie :).In an attempt to unravel one part of this multi-

dimensional problem, Jeske and Lurie conducteda set of experiments designed to investigate ifarchaeologists could ascertain with certainty ifprehistoric knappers used bipolar technology toproduce any particular lithic assemblage (Jeskeand Lurie ; Joslin-Jeske and Lurie ).They focused not on tools, but on the flakes anddebris from knapping cores. The blind-studyexperimental evidence demonstrated that bipolartechnology as a reduction sequence left a clear sig-nature in debitage assemblages. The data alsoshowed that recognizing any single piece of lithicdebris as bipolar was not possible statistically. Itwas the patterning of the assemblages that madeprediction possible. Both bipolar and free handhammer techniques produced the same types offlakes and debris, but in different proportions.Jeske and Lurie only examined debris, not tools.

The problem of bipolar tool function remained.The tool type “wedge” had been identified atseveral Middle Archaic sites in the Lower IllinoisRiver Valley (e.g., Cook ; Stafford ),but beyond morphofunctional description, thesetools were not considered in any detail. On theother hand, in the forests of Wisconsin and Michi-gan, these so-called wedges were common andconsidered by many to be wood or boneworking tools. In the far north, wedges were

MICROWEAR ANALYSIS OF BIPOLAR TOOLS FROM THE CRESCENT BAY HUNT CLUB SITE (JE)

Lithic Technology , Vol. No. , –

commonly made of quartz or other less than desir-able material for chipping into shape. Wedgeswere separated from bipolar cores as early as (McPherron ). In addition, groundstone artifacts dubbed “anvils” were also foundin these northern sites (Salzer :), whileother ground stone artifacts with cuppeddepressions were often referred to as “nuttingstones” (Egan ; Talalay et al. :).Paradoxically, the notion that the productionand function of bipolar tools were readily identifi-able was well established among non-lithic special-ists at the same time it was contentious within theflintknapping community.Two particular morphofunctionally defined

artifact forms found in Late Prehistoric periodsof the Upper Midwest and Great Lakes, theMadison Triangular projectile point and theso-called Humpback knife or scraper (Brown; Munson and Munson ), were adefinite problem for understanding tool useamong Langford and Oneota sites in northernIllinois (Jeske ). There was general consen-sus that thin triangular bifaces were arrowpoints (Madison Points), but the function of thethicker triangular bifaces with humped dorsalsurfaces was contested. Archaeologists invokedmultiple functions based on tool morphologysuch as “point” (Bluhm and Liss ), “unfin-ished point” (Fowler ), “knife” (Brown), and “scraper” (Munson and Munson). Using a combination of assemblage com-position, low-power microscopic data, and amuch smaller high-power microwear data set(Hohol ), Jeske argued that MadisonPoints and Humpbacks were neither one tooltype nor another, but were better thought of asa continuously variable morphology resultingfrom minimal retouching of flakes producedusing a bipolar technique. Morphological vari-ation in the tool was the result of variation inflake blank thickness inherent in bipolarreduction, and was not the result of functionalconsiderations. What analysts called MadisonTriangular projectile points were actuallythinner versions of the Humpbacked Knife orScraper and there was little to no evidence forfunctional differentiation. Yet, the lack of system-atically recovered functional data made it imposs-ible for Jeske to discuss any particular functionfor these tools at all, aside from some contextualevidence in skeletal elements that triangular toolsdid function as arrow or dart tips in some cases(e.g., Langford ).

New and improved methods for recognizing thefunction of tools have provided a new warrant forthe reexamination of bipolar tools from the GreatLakes region. We suggest that tools that were pro-duced using a bipolar technique were probablyused in a wide range of activities, including wood-working, hide scraping, cutting, and flake pro-duction. In this case we have a large sample ofwell provenienced tools that we can examineusing both low power and high powermicroscopy. In addition blood residue analysishas also provided another line of evidence tosuggest tool function on a few of these tools.

SITE BACKGROUND

The Crescent Bay Hunt Club is located on a ridgeabove a large lake in southeastern Wisconsin,approximately km west of Lake Michigan(Figure ). The regional environment is rich andvaried, but outcrops of usable chert are rare.Initially identified by avocational archaeologistsat the turn of the th century (Stout andSkavlem ), the site was the focus of limitedexcavations by David Baerreis of UW Madison in. The work was documented with limitedfield notes, an unpublished analysis of ceramicand lithic artifacts (Gibbon ), and at leastone master’s thesis (Fortier ). Excavated byUW Milwaukee over the course of nine fieldseasons since , Crescent Bay has yielded hun-dreds of storage and processing features, hearths,burials, and evidence for both wigwam and long-house style houses (Edwards IV ; FoleyWinkler ; Jeske et al. ; Moss ).More than radiocarbon dates place the mainoccupation during the th and th centuries(Jeske ), with a small but intriguing numberof food residue dates suggest that occupationmay have occurred as early as the late thcentury. Approximately ceramic vessels, allbut one of which fits the definition of Oneota,have been recovered (Schneider ; ).Faunal and floral data indicate year round habi-tation of the site, with a meat diet that included awide variety of large and small mammals, includ-ing bison, elk, white-tail deer, raccoon, and squir-rel. Other animals utilized include turtles, fish,mollusks, and waterfowl (Edwards ; Hunter). Plant use included cultivated maize, andthe collection and/or cultivation ofwild rice, goose-foot, sunflowers, and a wide variety of wild seeds,nuts, and fruits (Olsen ). The very broad sub-sistence regime incorporated upland grassland,

ROBERT J. JESKE AND KATHERINE M. STERNER-MILLER

Lithic Technology , Vol. No. , –

deciduous forest, wetland, savanna, riverine, wet-lands, and open lake environments. The utilizationof these highly varied environments and broadspecies utilization suggests a toolkit that had tobe flexible and generalized, with some highlyspecialized procurement and processing tools.The chipped stone assemblage is typical of late

prehistoric sites in the region: relatively smalltools produced on locally available cobbles ofchert. Formal tool types are almost entirely triangu-lar pieces — sometimes bifacial, sometimes simplyedge-retouched pieces — and steeply edged uni-faces, along with wedge-shaped or columnar

multifacial pieces usually called bipolar cores,wedges, or piéces esquillées. Informal edge-retouched piecesmake up the bulk of the remainderof the assemblages. The site has a very low debitageto tool ratio of only :, based on . mm screenrecovery (Sterner ). The chipped stone assem-blage is complemented by awide variety of ground-stone, bone, shell, and copper tools.

METHODS

For this study, we focused on only two morpho-functionally defined forms: triangular points and

FIGURE . Location of the Crescent Bay Hunt Club site (Je) (Edwards ).

MICROWEAR ANALYSIS OF BIPOLAR TOOLS FROM THE CRESCENT BAY HUNT CLUB SITE (JE)

Lithic Technology , Vol. No. , –

bipolar cores/pièces esquillées. To examine thetools we used both high power and low poweruse-wear analysis in order to extrapolate the great-est amount of functional information from thetools. This combination of techniques is the mostcommon approach in recent analyses (Beyin; Brass ; Clemente and Gibaja ;Jeske ). Two microscopes were utilized forthis project: the Amscope SE-AZ-P binocularstereomicroscope was used for low power analysisand the Olympus BH- upright microscope withreflected light fluorescence attachment was usedfor high power analysis.Tools were prepared for analysis by washing

them in an ultrasonic bath of warm water withdish detergent for minutes. Artifacts wereexamined at × and × magnification to identifytraces of wear such as rounding and microchip-ping. Differential rounding or microchipping onthe dorsal or ventral side of an edge is typicallyinterpreted to signify that the tool was used in atransverse motion such as scraping. Equalamounts of rounding and microchipping on boththe dorsal and ventral sides of the functionaledge are usually a sign that the tool was used ina longitudinal motion such as cutting (Kamminga; Odell , ).The tools were then examined at × and ×

magnification in order to identify micropolishes.Photomicrographs were taken of polish on thearchaeological tools and compared to our refer-ence collection of experimental tool polishes. Thecomparative tools were used for activities includ-ing bone scraping, limb disarticulation, hideremoval, wet and dry hide scraping, meat cutting,wood whittling on both hard and soft wood, andslicing of vegetal matter such as potatoes andgrass. Comparative tools used for this analysiswere utilized for a minimum of minutes inorder to allow sufficient polish to develop. Polisheswere identified based on the brightness of polish,surface area covered, linkage and pitting (Bam-forth , ; Evans and Donahue ;Rots andWilliamson ; Vaughan ). Diag-nostic worked material polishes which have beenidentified in previous analyses of archaeologicalstone tools from the Crescent Bay Hunt Club siteinclude bone polish, antler polish, wet and dryhide polish, meat polish, plant polish, and reedpolish (Sterner ). In many cases, a diagnosticpolish may not be identifiable due to a number ofvariables including a lack pressure placed on thetool, short time of use, or post-depositional pro-cesses. In the case of the two former circumstances,

intermediate “smooth pitted” polish or “genericweak” polish may be apparent, which provides evi-dence that the tool was used, although a specificworked substance may not be identifiable(Vaughan :). “Grit” polishes may alsodevelop on tools as part of the productionprocess or as a result of post-depositionalprocesses (Vaughan :). Resharpening ofthe tool may result in the removal of use evidencefrom the edge of the tool, although in some casesonly partial removal or the polished edges and/orsurfaces may occur.In the current study, per cent of examined tri-

angular tools displayed polish diagnostic of aspecific worked material (Figure ) and percent of multifacial pieces showed recognizablepolish. Additional information about the functionof three triangular tools was derived from a pre-vious cross-over immnoelectrophoresis (CIEP)blood residue analysis of the tools which identifiedone dog residue, one bison, and one probable deer(Sterner et al. ).

TRIANGULAR TOOLS

A total of triangular tools were examined forthis analysis (Figure ). All but one of themshowed some evidence of use; nine demonstratedpolish while the other three showed microflaking,rounding and/or striations along an edge.

NO WEAR

Tool is a triangular tool that was split on ananvil. No wear was seen on the edges, but some gritpolish is evident. No function can be assigned. Tool is a crude triangular tool that has been brokenlongitudinally. No wear is recognizable on the newedge. The microflaking present on the lateralmargins of the tool appears to be from production,not use.

STRIATIONS

Tool yields striations perpendicular to thelateral margin of the tool, but no definitive wear.The striations and equal rounding on both thedorsal and ventral sides of the tool provide conflict-ing interpretations of motion it was used in. Typi-cally striations are the best indicator of motionand suggest that this tool was used in a transversemotion, but on what material we cannot say.

ROBERT J. JESKE AND KATHERINE M. STERNER-MILLER

Lithic Technology , Vol. No. , –

WOOD POLISH

Tools and show wood polish on the prox-imal edge. Tool also shows wood polish on itsdorsal hump. We interpret these patterns as likelydue to hafting wear. Tool showed a smallamount of moderately developed polish on thelateral portions of the distal edges. Combinedwith microflaking and some rounding, thispattern suggests incidental contact with wood,perhaps in the context of slicing meat or othersoft material. A similar interpretation of severaltools was reported in early experiments byCahen et al. ().

PLANT POLISH

Tool shows no edge work at all, but plantpolish on the hump. This polish may haveresulted from contact with cordage used inhafting. We have not yet replicated this exactscenario experimentally, so our interpretationremains speculative.

HIDE POLISH

Fully per cent of triangular tools show evi-dence of hide polish. Of these, tools , ,and show hide polish on their proximal por-tions and/or humps, indicating hafting wear. Tool is a very crude triangular that was sub-sequently split longitudinally on an anvil after

being unhafted. Tool is especially interestingin that it was heavily retouched on all three edgeswith flake scars ending at the hump, and then wasapparently discarded. The traces of hide wearremain on the front portion of the hump itself.Two triangular tools have fresh hide polish on

their lateral distal portions, and also show thedifferential rounding and microflaking patternsthat indicate scraping. Blood residue analysis indi-cates tool was used on bison and tool wasused on deer.

MULTIFACIAL PIECES

A total of multifacial pieces were examinedusing microscopy (Figure ). Of these, eight (per cent) demonstrated evidence of use.

NO WEAR

Six (or per cent) multifacial pieces show pro-duction microflaking, battering, and edge chatter-ing characteristic of bipolar production, but noother use wear or polish. Five of these are thelozenge or pillow shaped forms contradictorilyreferred to as either bipolar cores or pièces esquil-lées in the literature (tool numbers PE, PE, PE,PE, and PE). One is a columnar piece (toolnumber ). All of these fit the category ofbipolar debitage or cores.

FIGURE . Archaeological use-wear from bipolar tools at x magnification; (a) microflaking and parallel striations, (b) hidepolish, (c) plant polish, (d) wood polish.

MICROWEAR ANALYSIS OF BIPOLAR TOOLS FROM THE CRESCENT BAY HUNT CLUB SITE (JE)

Lithic Technology , Vol. No. , –

WOOD POLISH

Four multifaces ( per cent) yielded evidence forwood polish (tool numbers , , , and). Two of these tools are lozenge shaped.One shows wear on its lateral margins and theother has polish only on the hump. Tool is acolumnar piece with wear on its lateral margin.The combination of flake damage and polishdata suggests strongly that these tools functionedas wedges or slotting tools.Tool is a great example of creative reuse. A

bifacial tool with a broken tip was split using abipolar strike across its body, forming it into amultifacial piece. The ° angled edge formed bythe new break and one original face was thenused in a scraping motion across wood.

PLANT POLISH

Tool is a lozenge shaped piece that showsplant polish along the distal edge, suggesting usein scraping fibrous materials such as the innerportion of bark or other plants.

DRY HIDE

Somewhat surprisingly, three multifaces ( percent) show dry hide polish. Tool is alozenge that shows polish on its lateral margin.PE is a columnar piece with polish on itslateral margin, while PE is a columnar piecethat yields hide polish along a dorsal ridge andadjacent surfaces.

FIGURE . Triangular tools from the Crescent Bay Hunt Club site. From upper left to lower right, tool numbers: , , ,, , , , , , , , and .

ROBERT J. JESKE AND KATHERINE M. STERNER-MILLER

Lithic Technology , Vol. No. , –

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

We take several conclusions from these results.The first is that the use of a bipolar technologyto produce or rework tools is not predictive ofsubsequent tool function. The edge damage andpolishes exhibited on our sample of the CrescentBay Hunt Club bipolar tools indicates a widerange of materials and motions — someexpected, and others puzzling. Scraping, chop-ping, and slicing motions are evident. Freshhide, dry hide, plant, and wood are all clearly

apparent on this very small sample of tools. Itis highly likely that an even wider array ofmaterial polishes will be detected as we increaseour sample size.Second, once again, it is clear that tool form

does not necessarily follow function, or viceversa. At least for late prehistoric Native Ameri-can produced assemblages in the southern GreatLakes region, using a morphofunctional typologyas an explanatory framework for tool or sitefunction has little utility at best. At worst, it

FIGURE . Multifacial tools from the Crescent Bay Hunt Club site. From upper left to lower right, tool numbers: PE, PE, PE,PE, PE, PE, PE, , , , , , , , and .

MICROWEAR ANALYSIS OF BIPOLAR TOOLS FROM THE CRESCENT BAY HUNT CLUB SITE (JE)

Lithic Technology , Vol. No. , –

will most probably be misleading. Nonetheless itis still common for archaeologists to continue tocling to the idea that form and function are sys-tematically related — to the detriment of ourunderstanding of lithic technology. Certainly thecontinued use of terms such as knife to describeasymmetric bifaces or point for bifaces withapparent hafting elements (e.g., thinned distaledges, stems, or notches) demonstrates anunreflective approach to recognizing variation inchipped stone assemblages.Finally, we must also recognize that chipped

stone tools, often given privileged status in ana-lyses because of their ubiquity, were often usedin conjunction with groundstone, bone, wood,and metal tools. The tasks indicated by a func-tional analysis of only the chipped stone toolassemblage from a site do not necessarily equateto the significance of those tasks in the dynamicculture that produced the tools. The variety ofactivities indicated in this analysis will be greatlyenhanced once equivalent analyses are completedfor the tool assemblages made from non-siliceousmaterials. Only a multi-pronged approach toassessing tool assemblages — macroscopic ana-lyses of debitage and tools to determine choicesin raw material acquisition and modification,tool reuse and discard rates, microwear identifi-cation of tool motion and materials processed, aswell as chemical techniques such as bloodresidue, starch grain, and phytolith analyses toobtain species level identification of materials pro-cessed — can provide any basis for a realisticunderstanding of the role of stone tools in theeconomy of everyday life.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We thank Jean Hudson and the UWM Experimental Archae-ology Working Group for providing a nurturing environmentfor experimental use wear studies. We thank John Fagan andCam Walker (Archaeological Investigations Northwest, Inc.),for their work on the blood residue analysis. Many thanks toJustin Pargeter and Hilary Duke for organizing the Society forAmerican Archaeology session and this volume. Finally wevery much appreciate Gilbert Tostevin and Michael Shottfor their comments, as well as the comments from two anon-ymous reviewers for Lithic Technology.

REFERENCES

Bamforth, Douglas B. Investigating Microwear Polisheswith Blind Tests: The Institute Results in Context. Journalof Archaeological Science ():–.

Barham, L. S. The Bipolar Technique in SouthernAfrica: A Replication Experiment. South AfricanArchaeological Bulletin :–.

Beyin, Amanuel Use-wear Analysis of Obsidian Artifactsfrom Later Stone Age Shell Midden Sites on the Red SeaCoast of Eritrea, with Experimental Results. Journal ofArchaeological Science :–.

Binford, Lewis. R. and George I. Quimby Indian Sitesand Chipped Stone Materials in the Northern LakeMichigan Area. Fieldiana-Anthropology :–.

Bluhm, Elain A. and Allen Liss The Anker Site. InChicago Area Archaeology, edited by E. Bluhm, pp. –. Bulletin. vol. . Illinois Archaeological Survey,Urbana.

Bordes, François Le debitage Levallois et ses variants.Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française :–.

Brass, Leanne Modern Stone Tool Use as a Guide toPrehistory in New Guinea Highlands. In A Closer Look:Recent Australian Studies of Stone Tools, edited by R.Fullagar, pp. –. vol. Archaeological Methods Series. Sydney University, Sydney, Australia.

Brown, James A. The Zimmerman Site: A Report onExcavations at the Grand Village of the Kaskaskia.Report of Investigations . Illinois State Museum,Springfield.

Cahen, D., L. H. Keeley and F. L. Van Noten StoneTools, Toolkits, and Human Behavior in Prehistory.Current Anthropology ():–.

Clemente, Ignacio and Juan F. Gibaja WorkingProcesses on Cereals: an Approach through MicrowearAnalysis. Journal of Archaeological Science :–.

Cook, Thomas G. Koster: An Artifact Analysis of TwoArchaic Phases in Westcentral Illinois. PrehistoricRecords Vol. . Northwestern Archeological Program,Evanston.

Dobres, Marcia-Anne Technology and Social Agency.Outlining a Practice Framework for Archaeology.Blackwell Publishers, Oxford.

Edwards IV, Richard W. Oneota Settlement Patternsaround Lake Koshononing in Southeast Wisconsin: AnEnvironmental Catchment Analysis Using GISModeling. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Department ofAnthropology, University of Wisconsin Milwaukee,Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

Egan, Kathryn C. Middle and Late ArchaicPhytogeography and Floral Exploitation in the UpperGreat Lakes. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology ():–.

Evans, Adrian A. and Randolph E. Donahue LaserScanning Confocal Microscopy: A Potential Techniquefor the Study of Lithic Microwear. Journal ofArchaeological Science ():–.

Flenniken, J. Jeffrey Replicative Systems Analysis: AModel Applied to the Vein Quartz Artifacts from theHoko River Site. Reports of Investigations . Laboratoryof Anthropology, Washington State University, Pullman.

Foley Winkler, Kathleen M. Oneota and LangfordMortuary Practices from Eastern Wisconsin andNortheast Illinois Anthropology, Unpublished Ph.D. dis-sertation, Department of Anthropology, University ofWisconsin-Milwaukee, Milwuakee.

ROBERT J. JESKE AND KATHERINE M. STERNER-MILLER

Lithic Technology , Vol. No. , –

Fortier, AndrewC.Fish Bone and ScaleAnalysis from theCrescent Bay Hunt Club Site (JE), Jefferson County,WI. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Anthropology,University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison.

Fowler, Melvin The Robinson Reserve Site. Journal ofthe Illinois State Archaeological Society (–):–.

Gibbon, Guy Je-: The Crescent Bay Hunt Club Site.Notes on file, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee,Milwaukee.

Goodyear, Albert C. Tool Kit Entropy and BipolarReduction: A Study of Interassemblage Lithic Variabilityamong Paleo-Indian Sites in the Northeastern UnitedStates. North American Archaeologist ():–.

Hardaker, Chris Dynamics of the Bipolar Technique.Flintknappers Exchange ():–.

Hayden, Brian Confusion in the Bipolar World: BashedPebbles and Splintered Pieces.Lithic Technology ():–.

Hohol, April A Microwear Analysis of HumpbackBifaces. Paper Presented at the th Annual Meetings ofthe Midwest Archeological Conference, East Lansing,Michigan.

Honea, Kennth H. The Bipolar Flaking Technique inTexas and New Mexico. Bulletin of the TexasArchaeological Society :–.

Hunter, Chrisie L. A Comparative Study of Oneota andLangford Traditions. M.S., University ofWisconsin-Milwaukee, Milwaukee.

Jeske, Robert J. Energetic Efficiency and LithicTechnology: An Upper Mississippian Example.American Antiquity :–.

Jeske, Robert J. Crescent Bay Hunt Club: RadiocarbonDates and Research Summary. In Program in MidwesternArchaeology (Southeastern Wisconsin ArchaeologyProgram): –, edited by R. J. Jeske, pp. –.Archaeological Research Laboratory Report ofInvestigations. vol. . University ofWisconsin-Milwaukee, Milwaukee.

Jeske, Robert J. The Langford Occupation at the LaSalleCounty Home Site in the Upper Illinois River Valley.Wisconsin Archeologist ():–.

Jeske, Robert J. Lithic Procurement and Use withinMississippian Social Networks. In Theory, Method, andPractice in Modern Archaeology, edited by R. J. Jeskeand D. K. Charles, pp. –. Praeger Press,Westport, Connecticut.

Jeske, Robert J. and Rochelle Lurie The ArchaeologicalVisibility of Bipolar Technology: A Blind Test.Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology ():–.

Jeske, Robert J., KathleenM. Foley Winkler, Timothy Dahlenand Louise Lambert Continuing Investigations atCrescent Bay Hunt Club Site (-Je-), JeffersonCounty. Lake Koshkonong /:ArchaeologicalInvestigations at Three Sites in Jefferson County,Wisconsin Reports of Investigation . University ofWisconsin-Milwaukee, Milwaukee.

Joslin-Jeske, Robert and Rochelle Lurie Seeing Bipolar:A Blind Test. Paper Presented at the Annual meetings ofthe Society for American Archaeology, Pittsburgh,Pennsylvania.

Kamminga, Johan Over the Edge: Functional Analysisof Australian Stone Tools. Occasional Papers in

Anthropology Vol. . Anthropology Museum,University of Queensland, Queensland.

Kobayashi, Hiroaki The Experimental Study of BipolarFlakes. In Lithic Technology: Making and Using StoneTools, edited by E. Swanson, pp. –. MoutonPress, The Hague.

Langford, George The Fisher Mound Group, SuccessiveAboriginal Occupations Near the Mouth of the IllinoisRiver. American Anthropologist ():–.

Leaf, Gary R. Variation in the Form of Bipolar Cores.Plains Anthropologist :–.

McPherron, Alan L. The Juntenen site and the LateWoodland Prehistory of the Upper Great Lakes Area.Anthropological Papers, Museum of Anthropology .University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Moss, James D. Intrasite Feature Analysis of theCrescent Bay Hunt Club Site (JE), An Oneota Sitein Southeastern Wisconsin. Master’s Thesis, Departmentof Anthropology, University of Wisconsin Milwaukee,Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

Munson, Cheryl Ann and Patrick J. Munson UnifinishedTriangular Projectile Points or ‘Humpbacked’ Knives?Pennsylvania Archaeologist ():–.

Odell, George H. The Mechanics of Use-Breakage ofStone Tools: Some Testable Hypotheses. Journal ofField Archaeology ():–.

Odell, George H. Lithic Analysis. Springer Science &Business Media, New York.

Olsen, M. Lee Agriculture, Domestication and OneotaSubsistence in Southern Wisconsin: The Crescent BayHunt Club Site. M.S. thesis, Anthropology, Universityof Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

Patterson, L. W. Additional Comments on BipolarFlaking. Flintknapper’s Exchange ():–.

Rots, Veerle, and Bonny S. Williamson Microwear andResidue Analyses in Perspective: The Contribution ofEthnoarchaeological Evidence. Journal ofArchaeological Science ():–.

Salzer, Robert J. An Introduction to the Archaeologyof Northern Wisconsin. PhD dissertation, Departmentof Anthropology, Southern Illinois Univesity,Carbondale.

Schneider, Seth A. Oneota Interaction between ThreeLocalities in Eastern Wisconsin: Ceramic Analysis of SixOneota Pottery Assemblages. Paper Presented at theMidwest Archaeological Conference, East Lansing,Michigan.

Schneider, Seth A. Oneota Ceramic Production andExchange: Social, Economic, and Political Interactionsin Eastern Wisconsin between A.D. –.Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University ofWisconsin-Milwaukee, Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

Shott, Michael J. Bipolar Industries: EthnographicEvidence and Archaeological Implications. NorthAmerican Archaeologist ():–.

Shott, Michael J. Status and Role of Formation Theoryin Contemporary Archaeological Practice. Journal ofArchaeological Research ():–.

Shott, Michael J. On Bipolar Reduction andSplintered Pieces. North American Archaeologist ():–.

MICROWEAR ANALYSIS OF BIPOLAR TOOLS FROM THE CRESCENT BAY HUNT CLUB SITE (JE)

Lithic Technology , Vol. No. , –

Shott, Michael J. Chaîne opératoire and reductionsequence. Lithic Technology ():–.

Sollberger, J. and L. Patterson The Myth of BipolarFlaking Industries. Newsletter of Lithic Technology ():–.

Stafford, Barbara D. Central Illinois ExpresswayArcheology: Floodplain Archaic Occupations of theIllinois Valley Crossing. Technical Reports Vol. .Center for American Archeology, Kampsville, Illinois.

Sterner, Katherine M. Oneota Lithics: A Use-WearAnalysis of the Crescent Bay Hunt Club Assemblagefrom the Excavations. Master’s Thesis,Department of Anthropology, University ofWisconsin-Milwaukee, Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

Sterner, Katherine M., Robert J. Jeske and Sara A. Shuler Results of Blood Residue Analysis andMicrowear of Suspected Arrow Points and Scrapingtools from the Crescent Bay Hunt Club Site(Je). Paper Presented at the th AnnualMeeting of the Midwest Archaeological Conference,Columbus, Ohio.

Stout, A. B. and H. L. Skavlem The Archaeology ofthe Lake Koshkonong Region. Wisconsin ArcheologistOS ().

Talalay, Laurie, Donald R. Keller and Patrick J.Munson Hickory Nuts, Walnuts, Butternuts, and Hazelnuts:Observations and Experiments Relevant to TheirAboriginal Exploitation in Eastern North America. InExperiments and Observations on Aboriginal FoodUtilization in Eastern North America, edited by PatrickJ. Munson, pp. –. Prehistory Research Series .Indiana Historical Society, Indianapolis.

Tostevin, Gilbert B. Levels of Theory and Social Practicein the Reduction Sequence and Chaîne OpératoireMethods of Lithic Analysis. Proceedings of theReduction Sequence, Chaîne Opératoire, and OtherMethods: The Epistemologies of Different Approachesto Lithic Analysis. Electronic Symposium held at thest Annual Meeting of the Society for AmericanArchaeology, San Juan, Puerto Rico, April, –.

Vaughan, Patrick C. Use-Wear Analysis of Flaked StoneTools. University of Arizona Press, Tuscon, Arizona.

NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS

Robert J. Jeske is a Professor of Anthropology, and directs the Archaeological Research Laboratory, at the University ofWisconsin Milwaukee. He is also an Adjunct Curator of Anthropology at the Milwaukee Public Museum. His research islargely concentrated on lithic analysis, mortuary analysis, site formation processes and the prehistory of the western GreatLakes region of North America.

Correspondence to: Robert J. Jeske, Department of Anthropology, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, WI , USA.Email: jeske@uwm.edu.

Katherine Sterner-Miller is a doctoral candidate in the Anthropology Department at the University ofWisconsin-Milwaukee. Shehas done fieldwork in England, Mexico, and the Midwestern United States. Her current research interests are microwear andblood residue analysis, Oneota studies, Great Lakes archaeology, and experimental archaeology.

ROBERT J. JESKE AND KATHERINE M. STERNER-MILLER

Lithic Technology , Vol. No. , –