The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 5 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
A Functional Analysis of Certain Chipped Stone Tools
Open accessAbstract
Abstract A Late Prehistoric period buffalo kill and butchering site in northern Wyoming (Site 48 JO 312) produced a large number of stone tools. Flakes removed in sharpening stone tools provided much of the interpretation of the activity that occurred at the site and in addition gave a number of ideas concerning tool use and sharpening.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
Analysis of retouch ("sharpening") flakes from the Late Prehistoric Piney Creek bison kill and butchering site (48 JO 312) in northern Wyoming shows that five identifiable categories of flakes record stylized resharpening of bifaces, side scrapers, and end scrapers, and that these flakes often yield more information about site activities than the discarded tools themselves. Measurements of striking platforms allow estimates of how much tool width was lost per use-and-resharpening cycle and how many cycles a given tool underwent.
Key findings
- Five categories of retouch flakes were identified in the Piney Creek material: flakes of bifacial retouch; three categories of side-scraper retouch flakes (including flakes struck from the flat side of side scrapers, and subsequent conventional resharpening flakes); and end-scraper retouch flakes.
- By actual measurement, 100 flakes of bifacial retouch (all metamorphosed shales, the most common material at the site) had striking platforms of an average and median width of 2.2 mm; experiments suggested about 2.0 mm was the average width one biface edge was reduced per sharpening, with wear estimated at 1.0–2.0 mm, giving a total of 3.0–4.0 mm lost per edge per use-and-resharpening cycle.
- One biface (Fig. 2g) was estimated at about 75–80 mm wide when first broken and 46 mm wide when broken the last time and discarded; each blade edge was reduced between 14 and 17 mm, suggesting each edge may have been resharpened four or five times.
- At the site, "as much or more information, concerning activities performed there, was derived from the retouch flakes as from the tools"; in the kill area there was very little evidence of tool use in the form of actual tools, but retouch flakes demonstrated tool use commensurate with the operation.
Methods
- Excavation during the summers of 1964 and 1965 of a buffalo kill and butchering area along Piney Creek on the eastern flanks of the Big Horn Mountains, northern Wyoming; approximately 200 bison (*Bison bison*) were driven over a steep slope, with the kill area at the base and a butchering area about 300 ft. away. The operation is dated to around the latter part of the 16th century and represents a one-year operation, probably several drives within a drive season.
- Microscopic examination of unworked flakes, drawing on Bordes's (1961) concept of flakes of bifacial retouch, Semenov's (1964) ideas on use-wear traces, and Jelinek's (1965) notes on hard and soft hammer percussion; flakes were matched back into their flake scars on tools.
- Quantitative comparison of striking-platform widths of retouch flakes with experimental and observational estimates of edge reduction from wear and sharpening, applied to measurements of individual tools.
Limitations
- Stated by the paper: microscopic analysis is time consuming and the ability to recognize evidence of tool use is acquired with difficulty; straightforward interpretations may often be shown on only a small percentage of the total specimens; it is "as yet difficult to assign tool wear on a working edge to any specific function except within broad limits"; evidence is often difficult to photograph or otherwise preserve so that it can be seen and confirmed by others; and such analysis requires some background in the mechanics and use of simple tools.
- Stated by the paper: few end-scraper retouch flakes were recovered "due to the mesh size of the screens used in excavation," so that category is underrepresented in the sample.
- Evident from the text: the quantitative estimates of wear (1.0–2.0 mm) and of edge reduction per sharpening (about 2.0 mm) rest on experiments and comparisons rather than direct observation, and the paper itself notes the evidence comes from "a rather limited context," though it argues the results can be generalized.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
20 Own interpretation · 18 Own result · 8 No basis given · 3 Sources not found · 2 No full text of the sources · 2 Own method
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Approximately 200 buffalo (Bison bison) were killed by driving them over a steep slope along a stream called Piney Creek.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The collection of retouch flakes is of a homogeneous nature which suggests several things.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A Late Prehistoric period buffalo kill and butchering site in northern Wyoming (Site 48 JO 312) produced a large number of stone tools.”
- Also stated in: § Abstract · plain
“During the summers of 1964 and 1965, a buffalo kill and butchering area was excavated in northern Wyoming along the eastern flanks of the Big Horn Mountains (Frison 1967).”
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § Abstract · plain
In the paper
“The first category is what Bordes (1961: 6) would call flakes of bifacial retouch which were removed from biface tools, lenticular in transverse cross section, that became dull through use.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Bordes (1961: 6)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“By actual measurement, 100 flakes of bifacial retouch, all of metamorphosed shales (the most common material at the site), have striking platforms of an average and median width of 2.2 mm.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The side-scraper retouch flakes were different from and distinguished from the first category by the fact that the striking platforms are part of the flat inner flake faces and constitute one side of the tools (Fig. 3a) and are usually at nearly a right angle to the adjacent portion of the back of the flake, which is the dulled edge of the tool (Fig. lb).”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Occasionally a ground edge or a polish or gloss that partially obscured the scalar retouch appeared, which suggests different functions of the tools in the category from which these flakes were removed.”
hedgedcorrelationalSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“At the Piney Creek site, as much or more information, concerning activities performed there, was derived from the retouch flakes as from the tools.”
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Within certain limits, there are five categories of retouch flakes or sharpening flakes that can be readily identified in the Piney Creek material and into which most of the unworked flake collection can be placed: One includes retouch flakes from bifaces; three include different retouch flakes from side scrapers; and one includes end-scraper retouch flakes.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Experiments suggested that about 2.0 mm. was the average width that one edge of a biface tool was reduced through removal of retouch flakes in a single sharpening process.”
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Stone tools become dull rather quickly but are surprisingly effective if kept sharp and if their structural limitations are kept in mind.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 22
- Probably not a substantial claim. 4
- The quote only partly states this claim. 1
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Another (Fig. 2/) was reduced in size after having been broken one time; but, after being broken at a later time, the largest piece of the tool was changed into an end scraper.”
plaindirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A third and much smaller category of retouch flakes are those that were removed from the flat side of side scrapers, which technically changed the side scraper into a biface tool but did not change its function.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Two other tools are side scrapers (Fig. 2i, k) which were broken at an early stage, and continued use and resharpening reduced them in size but with little change in shape indicated.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The striking platforms of these flakes are usually faceted, and ridges between flake scars appear for they include a small part of one side of the biface tool (Fig. la).”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the kill area there was very little evidence of tool use in the form of actual tools, but, by using the evidence from the retouch flakes, an amount of tool use commensurate with what would be expected from such an operation could be demonstrated.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Retouch flakes had no further utilitarian value and therefore remained where they were removed.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There is good evidence to suggest that nearly every carcass was carefully butchered, and all bones that contained any significant amount of grease were broken.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Retouch flakes were found in the kill area; the broken tool was recovered in the butchering area.”
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“All working edges of tools in their separate categories were at about the same stage of dullness when they were resharpened, indicating that a recognized point existed when it was necessary to sharpen a tool rather than continue with a dull one.”
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Stone tools become dull rather quickly but are surprisingly effective if kept sharp and if their structural limitations are kept in mind.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Often a fine scalar retouch is common on the working edges, but wear striations at right angles to the working edges are usually also visible under magnification.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In general, end scrapers in this collection were not as thick as the^gide scrapers; the flakes removed in the sharpening process were narrower and shorter, and they demonstrated smaller striking platforms than the other retouch flakes mentioned.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The amount the same edge of the tool was reduced through wear was estimated at from 1.0 to 2.0 mm., which suggests a total of 3.0 to 4.0 mm. that one edge of a biface tool was reduced in width through one cycle of use and resharpening.”
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Stone tools become dull rather quickly but are surprisingly effective if kept sharp and if their structural limitations are kept in mind.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It can be demonstrated (Fig. lc) that removal of a series of flakes from the flat side of side scrapers did not reduce the width of a tool and actually resulted in gaining one cycle in the use and sharpening process, provided the tool was thick enough to withstand thinning and not be structurally weakened in the process.”
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In both the kill and butchering areas of this site, known as the Piney Creek site (48 JO 312), nearly all the unworked flakes were relatively small, and they did not appear to have been the result of tool manufacture.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Materials used for manufacture of end scrapers are noticeably superior to those of other tools, and this could reflect different functions and also a greater tool value resulting from the added work of hafting.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“everything together suggests that, under the conditions that existed, the manufacturers were maximizing the amount of use in their tools and performing the job of butchering and preserving meat in such a way that choices were necessary, at points during the operation, which were made in the best interests of completing the job with the least expenditure of effort at the level of technology that”
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It is as yet difficult to assign tool wear on a working edge to any specific function except within broad limits!”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“After removal of this series of retouch flakes, however, the tool was used to the extent that it was again dull and was ready to be resharpened when it was probably broken.”
hedgeddirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The next explanation was that they were somehow related to the activities performed at the site.”
hedgedcorrelationalSingle case- Asserted: fails — The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The tools, features, and bones in the butchering area suggest the purpose of this operation was to obtain, process, and preserve meat, probably for use during periods when food was scarce.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In other words, in this particular context, the tools themselves did not provide a basis for a valid interpretation, which the retouch flakes did provide.”
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Retouch flakes had no further utilitarian value and therefore remained where they were removed.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The site represents a one-year operation, but the number of animals killed probably represents several different drives during the drive season.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There were evidently cycles of use, and resharpening by very stylized processes.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
- Rests on an assumption: Stone tools become dull rather quickly but are surprisingly effective if kept sharp and if their structural limitations are kept in mind.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Tools such as side scrapers, end scrapers, knives, and drills were continually modified throughout their lifetime of functional utility, and at the time when they were discarded or became nonfunctional, they were usually quite different than when originally completed.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The working edge of the retouch flake as shown under magnification (Fig. 3i) was dulled, apparently through use, and in this case there is a suggestion that removal of a conventional side-scraper retouch flake would have narrowed the tool excessively.”
hedgedconditionalSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Obviously, speculation such as this could go on indefinitely, but the fact remains that the information offered by retouch flakes can result in better interpretations concerning tool use; and this will undoubtedly have its effects in other areas of interest as well.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“An Early Middle period bison kill in the Powder River Basin of Wyoming produced retouch flakes that gave a more valid interpretation of the activities at the site than the tools were able to offer (Frison 1968).”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Frison 1968 source
plaincorrelationalSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The paper relies on this without support.
Stone tools become dull rather quickly but are surprisingly effective if kept sharp and if their structural limitations are kept in mind.
“Stone tools become dull rather quickly but are surprisingly effective if kept sharp and if their structural limitations are kept in mind.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Retouch flakes had no further utilitarian value and therefore remained where they were removed.
“The retouch flakes remained where they were removed as they had no further utilitarian value.”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Abstract
“The second category of retouch flakes includes those classified as side-scraper retouch flakes.”
§ Abstract
“Figure: FIG. 3. a, enlarged view of striking platform of typical side-scraper retouch flake of category one;”
Citations
Cites
Toth, N. P., Blades, B. S., Wright, R. P., & Killick, D. J. (2015) · AccessScience · doi:10.1036/1097-8542.543250 · Cited by 399
The Piney Creek sites, Wyoming
Frbon, G. C. (1967) · Cited by 27
Lithic Technology Conference, Les Eyzies, France
Jelinek, A. J. (1965) · American Antiquity · doi:10.2307/2694000 · Cited by 22
Site 48SH312: An Early Middle Period Bison Kill in the Powder River Basin of Wyoming
Frison, G. C. (1968) · Plains Anthropologist · doi:10.1080/2052546.1968.11908483 · Cited by 13
Self-citation
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Bordes, 1961, Publications de I’Institut de I’Université de Bordeaux, Mémoire
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 101–200 of 218
Variabilidade tecnológica nos sítios líticos da região do Lajeado, Médio Rio Tocantins
Bueno, L. D. M. R. (2016) · Revista do Museu de Arqueologia e Etnologia Suplemento · doi:10.11606/issn.2594-5939.revmaesupl.2007.113483 · Cited by 16
On Making of Micoquian Bifacial Backed Tools at Pietraszyn 49a, SW Poland
Wiśniewski, A., Chłoń, M., Weiß, M., Pyżewicz, K., & Migal, W. (2020) · Journal of Paleolithic Archaeology · doi:10.1007/s41982-020-00069-y · Cited by 15
Late Archaic Occupation of the Upper Bajada: Excavations at AZ AA: 12:84 (ASM), Tucson Basin
Roth, B. J. (1995) · KIVA · doi:10.1080/00231940.1995.11758303 · Cited by 15
Why the Ice-Free Corridor Is Still Relevant to the Peopling of the New World
Freeman, A. (2016) · University Press of Colorado eBooks · doi:10.5876/9781607324539.c003 · Cited by 15
Notes on Uniface Retouch Technology
Shafer, H. J. (1970) · American Antiquity · doi:10.2307/278121 · Cited by 15
Australian Aboriginal biface reduction techniques on the Georgina River, Camooweal, Queensland
Moore, M. W. (2003) · Australian Archaeology · doi:10.1080/03122417.2003.11681746 · Cited by 14
Experimental bison butchery using replica hafted Clovis fluted points and large handheld flakes
Eren, M. I., Bebber, M. R., Mukusha, L., Wilson, M. C., Boehm, A. R., Buchanan, B., Miller, G. L., Skoglund, M., Hayes, J., Barta, M., et al. (2024) · Journal of Archaeological Science Reports · doi:10.1016/j.jasrep.2024.104480 · Cited by 14
Projectile Point Reworking: An Experimental Study of Arrowpoint Use Life
Loendorf, C. R., Rogers, T., Oliver, T. J., Huttick, B. R., Denoyer, A., & Woodson, M. K. (2019) · American Antiquity · doi:10.1017/aaq.2018.87 · Cited by 14
Parts and Wholes: Reduction Allometry and Modularity in Experimental Folsom Points
Shott, M., & Otárola‐Castillo, E. (2021) · American Antiquity · doi:10.1017/aaq.2021.62 · Cited by 14
The Hot Tubb Folsom-Midland Site (41CR 10), Texas
Meltzer, D. J., Seebach, J. D., & Byerly, R. M. (2006) · Plains Anthropologist · doi:10.1179/pan.2006.012 · Cited by 14
Towards an understanding of retouch flakes: A use-wear blind test on knapped stone microdebitage
Chan, B., Gibaja, J. F., Díaz, V. G., Hoggard, C., Mazzucco, N., Rowland, J. T., & van Gijn, A. (2020) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0243101 · Cited by 13
Ellen, R. F., & Muthana, A. (2010) · Journal of Cognition and Culture · doi:10.1163/156853710x531221 · Cited by 12
The Ventana Complex: New Dates and New Ideas on Its Place in Early Holocene Western Prehistory
Huckell, B. B., & Haynes, C. V. (2003) · American Antiquity · doi:10.2307/3557084 · Cited by 12
Tecnología de cazadores-recolectores subandinos: análisis funcional y organización tecnológica
Gnecco, C., & Mohammed, A. (1994) · Revista Colombiana de Antropología · doi:10.22380/2539472x.1569 · Cited by 12
The Bordes-binford Debate: Transatlantic Interpretive Traditions In Paleolithic Archaeology
Wargo, M. C. (2009) · UTA ResearchCommons (University of Texas Arlington) · Cited by 11
EXCAVATIONS AT SKIPPER'S RIDGE, OPITO BAY, COROMANDEL PENINSULA, NORTH ISLAND OF NEW ZEALAND
Bellwood, P. S. (1969) · ANU Open Research (Australian National University) · doi:10.1002/j.1834-4453.1969.tb00092.x · Cited by 11
Using spatial context to identify lithic selection behaviors
Clark, A. (2019) · Journal of Archaeological Science Reports · doi:10.1016/j.jasrep.2019.03.011 · Cited by 11
Bone “Awls” and Utilized Antler Tines From Arnold Research Cave, 23Cy64, Missouri
Chomko, S. A. (1975) · Plains Anthropologist · doi:10.1080/2052546.1975.11908724 · Cited by 11
González-Varas, M., Lourdeau, A., Gonçalves, L., de Souza, R. L., Mendes, D. T., de Oliveira, T. B., Silva, G. F., Forestier, H., Paredes, R. R., & Pérez-Balarezo, A. (2025) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0315746 · Cited by 10
The dichotomy of human decision-making: An experimental assessment of stone tool efficiency
Nora, D., Marreiros, J., Gneisinger, W., Pedergnana, A., & Pereira, T. (2025) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0327215 · Cited by 10
Muñiz, M. P. (2004) · Plains Anthropologist · doi:10.1179/pan.2004.018 · Cited by 10
Context and spatial organization of the Clovis assemblage from the Topper site, South Carolina
Smallwood, A. M. (2015) · Journal of Field Archaeology · doi:10.1179/0093469014z.000000000106 · Cited by 10
North American Biface Production Trajectory Modeling in Historic Perspective
Johnson, J. K. (1993) · Plains Anthropologist · doi:10.1080/2052546.1993.11931674 · Cited by 10
Lycett, S. J. (2016) · Interdisciplinary evolution research · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-25928-4_4 · Cited by 10
The Functional Analysis of Scrapers: Problems, New Techniques and Cautions
CANTWELL, A. E. (1979) · Lithic Technology · doi:10.1080/01977261.1979.11721105 · Cited by 10
Jefferies, R. (1990) · Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology · Cited by 10
Hunting social networks on the Salish Sea before and after the bow and arrow
Rorabaugh, A. N. (2018) · Journal of Archaeological Science Reports · doi:10.1016/j.jasrep.2018.11.040 · Cited by 9
Hominin Evolution and Stone Tool Scavenging and Reuse in the Lower Paleolithic
Brumm, A., Pope, M., Leroyer, M., & Emery, K. (2019) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780190854614.003.0008 · Cited by 9
Twigs, Branches, Trees, and Forests: Problems of Scale in Lithic Analysis
Cross, J. R. (1983) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-505980-0.50011-2 · Cited by 9
Rots, V. (2018) · Barkhuis eBooks · doi:10.2307/j.ctt2272864.14 · Cited by 8
Garefalakis, C., Panagopoulou, E., & Harvati, K. (2018) · Quaternary International · doi:10.1016/j.quaint.2017.12.049 · Cited by 8
Archaeological Investigations at Five Prehistoric Sites at Lewisville Lake, Denton County, Texas
Ferring, C. R., & Yates, B. C. (1998) · Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC) · doi:10.21236/ada352106 · Cited by 8
James, L. B., Joyce, K., Magargal, K., & Codding, B. F. (2021) · Journal of Archaeological Science · doi:10.1016/j.jas.2021.105518 · Cited by 7
Lenardi, M. J., & Merwin, D. E. (2010) · Lecture notes in earth sciences · doi:10.1007/978-3-540-95853-6_13 · Cited by 7
Evaluating indices of curation for Archaic North American bifacial projectile points
Horowitz, R. A., & Mccall, G. S. (2013) · Journal of Field Archaeology · doi:10.1179/0093469013z.00000000063 · Cited by 7
Preliminary Archeological Survey of Illinois Uplands and Some Behavioral Implications
Carmichael, D. (1977) · Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology · Cited by 7
An Analysis of Waste Flakes from Sites in the Upper Knife-Heart Region, North Dakota
Schneider, F. E. (1972) · Plains Anthropologist · doi:10.1080/2052546.1972.11908620 · Cited by 7
Knell, E. J. (2021) · Journal of Archaeological Science Reports · doi:10.1016/j.jasrep.2021.103314 · Cited by 6
Nakazawa, Y., Iwase, A., Yamahara, T., & Kitazawa, M. (2017) · Quaternary International · doi:10.1016/j.quaint.2017.10.049 · Cited by 6
Reckin, R., & Todd, L. C. (2019) · Plains Anthropologist · doi:10.1080/00320447.2019.1611022 · Cited by 6
Use-Wear Analysis of Clovis Bifaces from the Gault Site, Texas
Smallwood, A. M., & Jennings, T. A. (2016) · University Press of Colorado eBooks · doi:10.5876/9781607324539.c005 · Cited by 5
Functional Perspectives on Lithic Standardization
Taipale, N., & Rots, V. (2023) · Lithic Technology · doi:10.1080/01977261.2023.2190670 · Cited by 5
The conjoin sequence diagram: a method of describing conjoin sets
Hiscock, P. D. (1986) · Queensland Archaeological Research · doi:10.25120/qar.3.1986.186 · Cited by 5
Paixão, E., Marreiros, J., Pereira, T., Gibaja, J. F., Cascalheira, J., & Bicho, N. (2018) · Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences · doi:10.1007/s12520-018-0621-y · Cited by 5
Reckin, R., & Todd, L. C. (2019) · Journal of Anthropological Archaeology · doi:10.1016/j.jaa.2019.101119 · Cited by 5
Background to the Archaeology of Chaparrosa Ranch, Southern Texas
Hester, T. R. (1978) · Index of Texas Archaeology Open Access Grey Literature from the Lone Star State · doi:10.21112/ita.1978.1.20 · Cited by 5
A Functional Analysis of “Projectile Points” from Yellowjacket, Colorado
Zier, C. J. (1978) · Plains Anthropologist · doi:10.1080/2052546.1978.11908878 · Cited by 5
Nora, D., Buller, A. M., Gasparyan, B., Petrosyan, A., & Frahm, E. (2025) · Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory · doi:10.1007/s10816-025-09754-0 · Cited by 4
Zwyns, N., Bolorbat, T., Paine, C. H., Flas, D., Odsuren, D., Allshouse, A. F., Gantumur, A., Galfi, J., Smith, K. N., & Gunchinsuren, B. (2024) · Journal of Paleolithic Archaeology · doi:10.1007/s41982-024-00182-2 · Cited by 4
Mammoth Potential: Reinvestigating the Union Pacific Mammoth Site, Wyoming
Prasciunas, M. M., Haynes, C. V., Nials, F. L., McNees, L. M., Scoggin, W. E., & Denoyer, A. (2016) · University Press of Colorado eBooks · doi:10.5876/9781607324539.c008 · Cited by 4
Smith, M. F. (2023) · PaleoAmerica · doi:10.1080/20555563.2023.2283670 · Cited by 4
Tracking the First People of Mexico: A Review of the Archaeological Record
Sánchez, G., & Carpenter, J. (2016) · University Press of Colorado eBooks · doi:10.5876/9781607324539.c004 · Cited by 4
Small tool production in the Howiesons Poort: a view from Montagu Cave, South Africa
Watson, S., Dogandžić, T., Zhang, P., Steele, T. E., & Zwyns, N. (2023) · Azania Archaeological Research in Africa · doi:10.1080/0067270x.2023.2260666 · Cited by 3
Schürch, B., Rots, V., & Conard, N. J. (2025) · Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory · doi:10.1007/s10816-025-09728-2 · Cited by 3
Bison Utilization at the Amvrosievka Campsite, Ukraine
Krotova, O. O., Snizhko, I., & Logvynenko, V. (2016) · University Press of Colorado eBooks · doi:10.5876/9781607324539.c013 · Cited by 3
van der Walt, J., & Bradfield, J. (2018) · Antiquity · doi:10.15184/aqy.2018.170 · Cited by 3
Dibble’s Reduction Thesis: Implications for Global Lithic Analysis
Shott, M. (2024) · Journal of Paleolithic Archaeology · doi:10.1007/s41982-024-00178-y · Cited by 3
Lin, S. C. H. (2014) · Scholarly Commons (University of Pennsylvania) · Cited by 3
Sedentism, Lithic Technology, and Debitage: An Intersite Debitage Analysis
Seddon, M. T. (1992) · Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology · Cited by 3
Excavations at 41LK67 a Prehistoric Site in the Choke Canyon Reservior, South Texas
Brown, K. M., Potter, D. R., Hall, G. D., & Black, S. L. (1982) · Index of Texas Archaeology Open Access Grey Literature from the Lone Star State · doi:10.21112/ita.1982.1.4 · Cited by 3
Soils and Stratigraphy of the Lindenmeier Site
Holliday, V. T. (2016) · University Press of Colorado eBooks · doi:10.5876/9781607324539.c007 · Cited by 3
Differential use of space: An analysis of the Aubrey Clovis site.
Witt, B. A. (2005) · doi:10.12794/metadc4828 · Cited by 3
Stone Driveline Construction and Communal Hunting Strategies at the Ross Site, Alberta, Canada
Brink, J. W. (2016) · University Press of Colorado eBooks · doi:10.5876/9781607324539.c012 · Cited by 2
Patterning in a large sample of retouched unifacial tools
Engelbrecht, W. E., Bradbury, A. P., & Salisbury, . B. (2021) · Journal of Archaeological Science Reports · doi:10.1016/j.jasrep.2021.103226 · Cited by 2
Changing Settlement Organization in the Late Pleistocene of the Wadi al-Hasa, West-Central Jordan
Neeley, M. P., & Clark, G. A. (2024) · Journal of Paleolithic Archaeology · doi:10.1007/s41982-024-00174-2 · Cited by 2
The Zagros Mousterian in the Zagros, Caucasus, and Armenian Highlands
Golovanova, L. V., Doronichev, V. B., & Владимировна, Д. Е. (2025) · European Journal of Archaeology · doi:10.1017/eaa.2025.11 · Cited by 2
Peretti, R., & Mingo, A. (2000) · Espacio Tiempo y Forma Serie I Prehistoria y Arqueología · doi:10.5944/etfi.13.2000.4696 · Cited by 2
Režek, Ž. (2015) · ScholarlyCommons (University of Pennsylvania) · Cited by 2
Confessions of a Clovis Mafioso
Fiedel, S. J. (2016) · University Press of Colorado eBooks · doi:10.5876/9781607324539.c002 · Cited by 2
Folsom Bison Hunting on the Southern Plains of North America
Bement, L. C., & Carter, B. J. (2016) · University Press of Colorado eBooks · doi:10.5876/9781607324539.c010 · Cited by 2
What Is Food, and Why Do Archaeologists Study It?
Twiss, K. C. (2019) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108670159.001 · Cited by 2
Prentiss, A. M., Foor, T. A., Ryan, E., Hampton, A., & Walsh, M. J. (2020) · Journal of Archaeological Science Reports · doi:10.1016/j.jasrep.2020.102562 · Cited by 2
The other side of the mountain
Dersam, S. W., Dersam, S. B., Lapoint, H., & Bergstrom, M. (2019) · Hunter Gatherer Research · doi:10.3828/hgr.2019.12 · Cited by 2
Moss, J. M., Windes, T. C., Duff, A. I., Doleman, W. H., & Shackley, M. S. (2023) · KIVA · doi:10.1080/00231940.2023.2210479 · Cited by 2
Functional Analysis of Three Unusual Assemblages from the Cape Dorset Area, Baffin Island
Arundale, W. H. (1980) · ARCTIC · doi:10.14430/arctic2578 · Cited by 2
Beyond Prestige: A Ritual Production Model for Stone Tool Specialization in Naqada Period Egypt
Skarzynski, E. (2017) · doi:10.18130/v38d2p · Cited by 2
Twiss, K. C. (2019) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108670159.004 · Cited by 1
Refitting the Great Plains: A Long Distance Stone Tool Refit from Western Kansas
Hofman, J. L., & Ryan, S. R. (2013) · Plains Anthropologist · doi:10.1179/pan.2013.58.226.004 · Cited by 1
Bison by the Numbers: Late Quaternary Geochronology and Bison Evolution on the Southern Plains
Johnson, E., & Lewis, P. J. (2016) · University Press of Colorado eBooks · doi:10.5876/9781607324539.c011 · Cited by 1
Analysis of flaked stone lithics from Virgin Anasazi sites near Mt. Trumbull, Arizona Strip
Martin, C. M. (2020) · Digital Scholarship - UNLV (University of Nevada Reno) · doi:10.34917/1383454 · Cited by 1
Late Holocene Geoarchaeology in the Bighorn Basin, Wyoming
Finley, J. B. (2016) · University Press of Colorado eBooks · doi:10.5876/9781607324539.c009 · Cited by 1
How Do Archaeologists Study Food?
Twiss, K. C. (2019) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108670159.002 · Cited by 1
Identity: Food, Affiliation, and Distinction
Twiss, K. C. (2019) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108670159.006 · Cited by 1
In Memoriam: Remembering the Scientists We Lost in 2020
Goebel, T., González, S., Kornfeld, M., Larson, M. L., & Aleksei, T. (2021) · PaleoAmerica · doi:10.1080/20555563.2021.1904165 · Cited by 1
Lithic Analysis of a Controlled Surface Collection from a Site in Western Montana
Hester, T. R., Albee, A. D., & Willer, C. A. (1977) · Plains Anthropologist · doi:10.1080/2052546.1977.11908811 · Cited by 1
Notes on the Lowe Flared Base Projectile Point
Kline, G. W., & Apfelstadt, G. A. (1974) · Proceedings of the Indiana Academy of Science
Álvarez, A. M., & Barba, J. (2001) · Espacio Tiempo y Forma Serie I Prehistoria y Arqueología · doi:10.5944/etfi.14.2001.4726
Stones, Bones, and Profiles: Archaeology and Geoarchaeology of C. V. Haynes Jr. and George C. Frison
Kornfeld, M., & Huckell, B. B. (2016) · University Press of Colorado eBooks · doi:10.5876/9781607324539.c001
Pruetz, R. (2017) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9781351179140-22
Twiss, K. C. (2019) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108670159.007
Archaeology, Food, and the Future
Twiss, K. C. (2019) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108670159.008
Twiss, K. C. (2019) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108670159.005
Larson, M. L., & Kornfeld, M. (2021) · Journal of Anthropological Research · doi:10.1086/715407
Twiss, K. C. (2019) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108670159.003
(2019) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108670159.009
Obituary, George Carr Frison (1924–2020)
Francis, J. (2022) · Plains Anthropologist · doi:10.1080/00320447.2022.2031503
(1982) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-523980-6.50033-5
Kornfeld, M., & Huckell, B. B. (2016) · University Press of Colorado eBooks · doi:10.5876/9781607324539.c014
Metadata
- Authors
- Frison, G. C.
- Affiliations
- University of Wyoming (US)
- Corresponding author
- Frison, George C.
- Venue
- American Antiquity
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 1968-04
- Volume
- 33
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 149-155
- ISSN
- 0002-7316 (ISSN-L)
- 2325-5064
- OpenAlex
- W2040220597
- Semantic Scholar
- e567a0bdba7004a12437a8c9bdc6846b9bb50490
- Cited by
- 218
- References
- 4
- Citations by year
- 2025: 6 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 20 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 3
- FWCI
- 24.75
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- American Antiquity (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation
- University of Michigan
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Anthropology › Pleistocene-Era Hominins and Archaeology
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Archeology (arts and humanities) › Archaeological and Geological Studies
- Social Sciences › Archeology › Archaeology and ancient environmental studies
- Keywords
- chipped stone tools, stone flakes, tool sharpening, butchery, Late Prehistory, lithic technology, tool use
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-11-08, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-11-08 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
