Citation
Expediency and projectile resharpening

Material Information

Title:
Expediency and projectile resharpening
Creator:
Baker, Ele A
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
xi, 95 leaves : illustrations ; 29 cm

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Projectile points -- West (U.S.) ( lcsh )
Projectile points ( fast )
United States, West ( fast )
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references (leaves 67-71).
General Note:
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree, Master of Arts, Department of Anthropology.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Ele A. Baker.

Record Information

Source Institution:
|University of Colorado Denver
Holding Location:
Auraria Library
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
22692880 ( OCLC )
ocm22692880
Classification:
LD1190.L43 1990m .B34 ( lcc )

Full Text
EXPEDIENCY AND PROJECTILE RESHARPENING
by
Ele A. Baker
B.S., University of New Mexico, 1967
A thesis submitted to the
Faculty of the Graduate School of the
University of Colorado in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree of
Masters of Arts
Department of Anthropology
1990


This thesis for the Master of Arts degree by
Ele A. Baker
has been approved for the
Department of Anthropology
by
Duane D. Quiatt
Date
/4


Baker, Ele A. (M.A., Anthropology)
Expediency and Projectile Resharpening
Thesis directed by Associate Professor Janet R. Moone.
Three independent analyses were performed to test the
observation that the resharpened lithic projectile exhibits poorer
workmanship than the original. Resharpening is defined as the
restoration of the distal end by the group that was responsible for
its first manufacture. Proximal end restoration was not considered
in these analyses.
The data for the analyses consisted of 983 projectiles from
numerous cultures. Each analysis focus on a single characteristic
and how it might vary between a resharpened projectile and an
original. The characteristics analyzed were: 1) distal end
morphology, 2) number of flake scars and 3) projectile thickness.
Some of the conclusions reached were: 1) the resharpened projectile
exhibits a greater variety of shapes at the distal end than the
original; 2) the flakes removed in the resharpening process are
smaller than those created during the original's manufacture; 3) a
resharpened projectile is thicker than an original of equal size;
and 4) larger projectiles were more likely to have been resharpened.
These conclusions are not culture specific because the
projectiles analyzed were not culture specific. They apply to the
typical or average projectile and not every projectile. Previous
work concerning the projectile's thickness arrived at similar
conclusions and, therefore, the thickness analysis in this work is
redundant. However, this redundancy provides support for the
conclusions reached from the other two analyses.


The conclusions reached support the concept that the
projectile was constructed to a mental template while it was
resharpened in an expedient manner which led to poorer workmanship.
The form and content of this abstract are approved. I recommend its
publication.
Signed
Janet R. Moone


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I want to thank Ele Baker, my father, for my non-
institutionjal education and guidance in archaeology. The majority
of ideas arid concepts presented in this thesis were first learned
i
from him ot were developed between the two of us. Additionally, he
was one of three who critiqued this text at its completion.
I Want to thank Mr. Allen Marks of the University of Texas
of the Permian Basin for his early on, invaluable suggestions
concerning the statistics in this thesis. He took his time and
helped a stranger knowing full well that I was not a student at his
institution. I also want to thank Mr. Rick Schneider and Mrs.
Marian L. True, both friends and fellow workers, who also gave
freely of their time to critique the text.
Finally, I want to thank my professors at the University of
Colorado at Denver for the tenet that archaeology is anthropology
and not an
end itself.
E.A.B.


CONTENTS
CHAPTER
I. INTRODUCTION.
Ejefinition of Resharpening
Statement of Problem ....
III.
Statement of Methodology .................
II. CHARACTERISTICS OF PROJECTILES................
Physical Attributes.......................
I
Mental Template...........................
PRE\|lOUS WORK...............................
{lassification Systems ...................
dentification of Resharpened Projectiles.
IV. METHODOLOGY...................................
Analysis No. I Variation in Distal End Morphology.
Analysis No. II Number of Flake Scars.............
Analysis No. Ill Projectile Thickness.............
V. CONCLUSIONS ............................................
Statement of Conclusions ...........................
Comments on Conclusions.............................
Critique of Methodology.............................
jggested Future Work...............................
REFERENCES CITED .............................................
^uc
PAGE
1
2
2
3
6
6
9
13
13
16
19
20
41
49
53
53
62
64
66
68


Vll
APPENDIX
A. DERIVATION OF THE THICKNESS EQUATION FOR A SLAB . .
iERIVA
B. d:
GRAM
ITS
TION of maximum thickness and flake SCARS PER
RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN AN ORIGINAL PROJECTILE AND
[RESHARPENED SELF................................
C. LIST OF PROJECTILES AND ANCILLARY DATA.
72
73
75


TABLES
Table Page
1. Subdivisions of the Proximal End Classification System . 21
2. Frequency Distribution of Projectiles by General Shape
of Proximal End......................................... 23
3. Frequency Distribution of Projectiles by Proximal Edge
Shape................................................... 24
4. Frequency Distribution of Projectiles with Basal
Grinding................................................ 25
5. Frequency Distribution of Projectiles in the Proximal
End Classification System............................... 26
6. Subdivisions of the Distal End Shape Index............. 27
7. Frequency Distribution of Projectiles by Center Line
Symmetry of Distal End.................................. 30
8. Frequency Distribution of Projectiles by Lateral Edge
Knees of Distal End..................................... 31
9. Frequency Distribution of Projectiles by Lateral Edge
Shapes of Distal End.................................... 32
10. Frequency Distribution of Projectiles by Cross-Sectional
Shape of Distal End..................................... 32
11. Frequency Distribution of Projectiles in the Distal End
Shape Index............................................. 34
12. Chi-Square Analyses of Distal End Shape Indexes for
Various Proximal End Categories......................... 40
13. R2 Values for Actual Weight, Whole Weight and Percent
of Whole. 983 Projectiles............................... 44
14. Frequency Distribution of Projectile Fragment Size
Expressed as a Percent of Whole...................... 45 15
15. R2 Values for Combinations of Flake Scars per Gram and
Whole Weight, plus Percent of Whole and Resharpened
Condition. 983 Projectiles.............................. 46


ix
Table
16.
17.
18.
R2 Values for Combinations of Flake Scars per Gram and
Whole Weight, plus Percent of Whole and Resharpened
Condition. Whole and Fragments (50% or more intact)
856 Projectiles.....................................
Contrast of Frequency Distributions by Whole Weight of
Original and Resharpened Projectiles for the Complete
(983) and Reduced (856) Data Bases..................
R2 Values for Combinations of Thickness and Whole
Weight, plus Percent of Whole and Resharpened Condition
Whole and Fragments (50% or more intact)
856 Projectiles.....................................
Page
47
48
50


FIGURES
Figure Page
1. Proximal End Shapes of Projectiles: Basal Notch, Side-
Notch, Corner-Notch, Stemmed and Straight.............. 22
2. Proximal Edge Shapes: Concave, Convex, and Straight . 24
3. Distal End Shape Index.................................... 28
4. Distal End Center Line Symmetry: Symmetrical and
Asymmetrical.............................................. 29
5. Distal End Lateral Edge Knees: None, Symmetrical, and
Asymmetrical.............................................. 30
6. Distal End Lateral Edge Shapes: Concave, Convex,
Straight and Mixed........................................ 31
7. Distal End Cross-Section Shapes: Symmetrical, Beveled,
and Mixed................................................. 33
8a. Distal End Shape Indexes
All Side-Notch Projectiles
Wt. <= 3 Grams & Unground, Concave Bases.............. 36
8b. Distal End Shape Indexes
Original Side-Notch Projectiles
Wt. <= 3 Grams & Uhground, Concave Bases.................. 36
8c. Distal End Shape Indexes
Resharpened Side-Notch Projectiles
Wt. <= 3 Grams & Unground, Concave Bases.................. 36
9a. Rearranged Figure 8b
Original Side-Notch Projectiles
Wt. <= 3 Grams & Unground, Concave Bases.............. 37
9b. Rearranged Figure 8c
Resharpened Side-Notch Projectiles
Wt. <= 3 Grams & Unground, Concave Bases.............. 37 10
10. Flake Scars per Gram Prediction vs Projectile Weight
and Resharpened Condition ................................ 55


xi
Figure Page
11. Maximum Thickness Prediction (mm) vs Projectile Weight
and Resharpened Condition .......................... 58


CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Metal tools in our culture become dull with use and require
resharpening to restore their function. Lithic projectiles also
became dull or broken and the archaeological record indicates they
were also resharpened. In fact, as demonstrated by this study, the
process was common and practiced by many different groups through
time.
In contrast, the archaeological literature on the
resharpened projectile is scarce. When it is discussed, one of the
subjects is its overall shape. Measurements of length, width and
thickness have demonstrated that the resharpened projectile is
shorter and thicker than its original (Agenbroad 1978:67-80; Bradley
1974:191-198; Bradley and Prison 1987:199-232; Prison et al.
1976:28-57). Another subject is the poorer workmanship associated
with the resharpened portion. Bradley has suggested this lesser
quality is due to the expedient manner of resharpening (Bradley
1987:personal communication). Words such as "noticeably different"
(Prison 1974:71), "haphazard retouch" (Wilmsen and Roberts
1984:109), "qualitatively different" or "pressure flakes less
carefully spaced" (Bradley 1982:197) are descriptive examples of the
workmanship. However, this poorer workmanship has not been
quantified.


2
Definition of Resharpening
Resharpening is defined in this study as: the restoration of
the distal end of a projectile to its original function of piercing
and cutting. Projectiles resharpened by people of a culture other
than the original manufacturers are not included in this definition.
Additionally, distal and mid-sectional fragments rejuvenated by
adding new bases and points are excluded from the definition. Other
terms such as rejuvenating, repointing, and retrimming are used in
the literature to define the subject process. However, following
the lead of Agenbroad (1978), Goodyear (1974) Howard (1943) and
Miller (1980) the terminology resharpening will only be used in this
paper.
Statement of Problem
The archaeological literature implies that the
identification of a resharpened projectile is intuitive. This
suggests there are obvious differences between an original and a
resharpened projectile which should be measurable. As stated above,
overall shape has been guantified. However, the poorer workmanship
associated with the resharpened portion has not. Can it be
quantified? Are there other differences between the original and
the resharpened projectile that can be quantified?


3
Statement of Methodology
The methodology employed to answer these questions can be
divided into four distinct phases, plus the writing of the study.
These phases were observation, classification, data collection and
analysis. This is also their order of occurrence.
The observation phase was the longest in duration and began
many years before the conception of this study. It consisted of the
gradual recognition of the resharpening process as many projectiles
were handled and observed. Concurrently and independent of the
literature, a theory developed. This theory was that the
resharpened projectiles lack uniformity in distal end shape, within
a single type, when contrasted with the originals. This lack of
uniformity is an expression of poorer workmanship.
The classification phase began with the decision to make
this study. This phase consisted of classifying the author's
collection of projectiles into the dichotomous groups of original
and resharpened. Unlike most classification processes, it was not
performed by following rigorous rules but by spontaneous
recognition.
The third phase was the data collection. Initially, only
the variation in distal end morphology was to be investigated in
this study. This required the assigning of a descriptive label to
the various distal end shapes. During the initial stages of
assigning this label, it was observed that the resharpened
projectile appeared to have two distinct flake scar patterns. One
was associated with the original portion and the second with the
resharpened portion. In an attempt to verify this observation, the


4
study's scope was expanded and additional data were obtained. These
data were artifact weight and number of flake scars on the entire
artifact. Additionally, the maximum thickness was measured and
recorded. The latter was obtained as a curiosity. To see if the
previous work, concerning the thickness of the resharpened
projectile, could be repeated.
The forth and final phase of the methodology was the
analysis of the data. Briefly stated, this consisted of answering
the question, "Is the poorer workmanship on the resharpened
projectile quantitatively different from the original?" To answer
this question two analyses were performed. The first concerned the
variation in the distal end morphology and the second concerned the
flake scar pattern. To perform the first, all projectiles were
divided into groups by weight and proximal end characteristics.
This resulted in sub-groups within the major two divisions of
original and resharpened projectiles. Labels were assigned to the
distal end shape and chi-square values were calculated for the
distribution of these labels. The chi-square values were used as a
measure of variation.
The second analysis concerned the observable difference in
the flake scar pattern. To perform this analysis, the number of
flake scars on an artifact were normalized (divided) by the
artifact's weight. Next, two linear regression models were
developed. One was for the original projectile and a second was for
the resharpened projectile. In each, the dependent variable was the
number of flake scars per gram and the independent variable was the
projectile's weight. (The weights of the artifact and the


5
projectile are different if the artifact is a fragment of the whole
projectile.) Student's "T" was used to test the significance of the
two models.
A third and final analysis concerning the maximum thickness
was performed. This did not help answer the above question, but
added credibility to the entire study. It consisted of also
developing linear regression models for the original and the
resharpened projectile. The maximum thickness was the dependent
variable and the projectile's weight was the independent variable.
Student's ,rT" again was used to test for significance.
In conclusion, two comments are important. First, the data
base consisted of projectiles from many New World cultures that
existed over the last 10,000 years. This, plus the methodology
dictates that this study's findings are generic and not culture
specific.
Second, the testing for differences in maximum thickness
between the original and the resharpened projectile represents a
repeat of previous work. The methodology was different but the
findings were the same. The repetition is valuable in itself.
However, the real value to this study is that the repeated results
add credence to the author's ability to distinguish the resharpened
projectile from the original.


CHAPTER II
CHARACTERISTICS OF PROJECTILES
An artifact by definition is a product of human work.
Therefore, its parts or characteristics are also a result of human
work or the acceptance of nature's work. Lithic projectiles are
artifacts and they have numerous characteristics. Some of these
characteristics are physical in form and can be measured or counted.
Others are less tangible as is the mental template which is the
arrangement of the physical attributes. This chapter is a
discussion of physical attributes, followed by a discussion of the
mental template.
Physical Attributes
The physical attributes can be divided into those that are
present on all projectiles and those that may or may not be present.
This is the order of discussion. Additionally, those that are
discussed do not represent an exhaustive list, but are only those
pertinent to this study.
The most essential components of all lithic projectiles is
the distal and proximal ends. The distal or pointed end has the
purpose of puncturing the intended target. The proximal end or base
has the purpose of being the male half of the union of the
projectile to the shaft or foreshaft. Without these two


7
characteristics the traditional projectile would not exist.
Another characteristic of all lithic projectiles is the
overall slab shape. This is the same general shape as the blade of
a steel knife with the length and width being several folds greater
than the thickness. The exceptions are a few lithic types with
cross sections that are more rhombohedral than slab shape; however,
there exist no round cross sections as found on projectiles made
from bone and ivory (Cotter 1937:6-9; Frison and Stanford 1982:162;
Jenks 1941:314-319).
Associated with shape is the attribute of size which is a
basic characteristic of all matter including the projectile. Size
is expressed in units of volume, but when objects of the same
material and shape are considered, it is sometimes convenient to
substitute the units of mass. In mass units, the size of lithic
projectiles varies from a fraction of a gram to values approaching
100 grams. This represents a variation of approximately 1000 fold
which is a significant attribute when classifying projectiles.
The last attribute in this list of common characteristics is
workmanship or the flake scar pattern. Various patterns (Cambron
and Hulse 1964: introduction) have been identified by archaeologists
and most projectiles have workmanship that falls into one of the
categories. However, the concern of this study is not pattern type
but whether the pattern exhibits a change. Ibis concern also
applies to flake scar size. A change in either pattern or size is
indicative of the projectile being modified or resharpened by a
different individual with different skills or the original
manufacturer employing a different technique.


8
Of the characteristics that are not common to all
projectiles, the most obvious one is that of notches. These occur
on the proximal end of the projectile and they function as a
mechanism by which the projectile is attached to the shaft. They
are also excellent cultural indicators and give the traditional,
generic description to the projectile. These descriptions are
comer-notched, side-notched and basal notched.
Additional attributes of the proximal end are the shape of
the proximal edge and basal grinding. The proximal edge exists as
one of three basic shapes: convex, straight or concave. Basal
grinding or smoothing is either present or it is not. And if
present, it is located on the proximal edge or lateral edge or both.
Both the proximal end shape and the existence of basal grinding are
cultural indicators.
The last attributes to be discussed are bilateral and cross
sectional symmetry. The first represents symmetry about a
longitudinal line drawn from the projectile tip to the center of the
proximal end. The second represents the symmetry of a cross section
about a line drawn through the lateral edges. Most original
projectiles there are exceptions exhibit both symmetries,
however, when the projectile is resharpened, one or both of these
symmetries are often destroyed. For example, resharpened
projectiles often exhibit cross sectional symmetry on the proximal
end and not on the distal end. Bilateral symmetry can not be
partitioned. If the distal end is asymmetrical, the entire
projectile is asymmetrical.


9
In summary, the physical attributes of concern in this study
can be divided into two groups: those that are common to all
projectiles and those that are not. The latter tend to be cultural
indicators and most often reside on the proximal end (Dibble and
Lorrain 1968:37; Goodyear 1974:19 and Judge 1974:126). Ihe distal
end, by definition, is the location of the resharpening process and
the focus of this study.
Mental Template
The mental template is the arrangement of an artifact's
physical attributes that permits the archaeologist to associate it
with a cultural group. For example, in 1895 W. W. Homes recognized
the association of the Mayan culture and a pyramid stair rail made
in the design of a colossal serpent (191). In 1902 Otis T. Mason
recognized the association of lattice-twined weaving with the Porno
Indians of the Kulanapan family, residing on the Russian River,
California (257). In 1944 Alex D. Krieger suggested that these
associations were cultural traits "... acquired by one human being
from another..." and referred to them as mental patterns (272). In
1960, Irving Rouse referred to them as modes constructed of "...
attributes which conform to a community's standards, which express
its concepts, or which reveal its customary ways of manufacturing
and using artifacts" (314). J. B. Wheat, in 1975, referring only to
projectiles termed the "standardized product" a result of the
"cultural template." Others have used the term "mental template"
and it will be used in this study (Purdy 1981:6; Sackett 1966:382;
Willey and Sabloff 1980:140).


10
The word template implies tolerances which are the
variations from the norm that are permitted in the final product.
If the tolerances are small, there is a non-random association of
attributes and the final products appear identical. Conversely, if
they are large, the final products can differ considerably. It is
the mental template with its tolerances that permits the
archaeologist to place similar, but not exact, artifacts in the same
group. This is also the foundation for Clarke's polythetic model
(1978:13) which will be discussed in the section on classification
systems.
J. B. Wheat (1975) stated that the projectile was
constructed to a mental template. The author agrees and suggests
that the projectile is possibly the only chipped lithic in the
Native North American tool kit that is. The morphologies of the
other tools for example, scrapers (Sackett 1966:382), drills,
burins, denticulates, etc. vary to the extent that they cannot be
associated with certain cultures and, therefore, have little dating
value. Another possibility is that these other tools are also
constructed to mental templates with larger tolerances than
projectiles. This would explain the greater variation. However,
the result is the same. They are not diagnostic and therefore, they
are not culture specific.
A projectile need only consist of a tip for piercing, a base
for halting and a body to connect the tip to the base (Wheat
1975:7). These are the essential, functional attributes. However,
there exists many different projectile types and this suggests their
attributes have value other than function. Logically then, a


11
projectile is not only a combination of utilitarian attributes, but
also non-utilitarian ones.
Initially, archaeologists seldom consider a projectile's
attribute as being non-utilitarian. For example, the Folsom flute
has baffled the experts since the projectile was first discovered.
In 1939 H. M. Wormington in her first edition of Ancient Man in
North America offered the following utilitarian explanations for its
existence:
The three theories that have been most often advanced are: (1)
the grooves were designed to lighten the point so that it would
carry farther; (2) they were made to facilitate hafting; (3)
they were designed on the same principle as the bayonet, which
permits a greater flow of blood from a wound than would an
ungrooved blade (1939:7).
The following paragraph was added in her fourth edition:
One might also consider the possibility that the grooving of
projectile points was not functional and that it represents no
more than a fashion. We do know that many people expended far
more trouble on the production of certain stone artifacts than
was necessary to make them effective (1957:29).
As discussed above, the mental template causes the
projectile's attributes to be patterned in a non-random fashion.
This is obvious because of the existence of cultural types.
However, when a projectile is resharpened the mental template
appears to be broken because the resharpened attributes are
different. Instead there now exist abrupt changes in thickness and
lateral edges. The new flake scars are erratic and truncate the
original at odd angles. And the symmetry occurs less often
(Agenbroad 1978:72; Bradley 1982:196; Bradley and Frison 1987:225;
Wheat 1975:9; Wilmsen and Roberts 1984:108). The resharpened
projectile has a different morphology than its original and can
easily be mistaken for something it is not. This is demonstrated by


12
the resharpened Firstview initially being identified as a different
projectile and named a San Jon (Roberts 1942), the resharpened
Plainview being classified as a Meserve (Judge 1974:128), or the
controversy between J. J. Flenniken and Anan Raymond (1986) and
David H. Thomas (1986) on the usability of Thomas' Great Basin
Projectile Point Type Key as a temporal model.
In summary, the projectile is the only culture specific,
lithic tool that is consistently present in the archaeological
record. It is culture specific because it was constructed to
conform to a mental template with close tolerances. However, when
the projectile is resharpened, the mental template appears to be
broken because the result is of another character. The resharpened
portion lacks the non-random patterning of physical attributes which
suggests it was done in an expedient manner.


CHAPTER III
PREVIOUS WORK
Classification Systems
A dictionary definition of a classification system is the
"arrangement according to some systematic division into classes or
groups." For example, Willey and Sabloff divided the history of
archaeological classification into three periods. The earliest is
the pre-1915 period which is concerned with "descriptive taxonomy."
This is followed by "historical taxonomy" which is the concern of
the years of 1915 to 1940. The post 1940 period is last and it is
concerned with "context and function" (1980:101).
The birth of the archaeological discipline began with a
classification system. In 1836 C. J. Thomsen introduced the Three
Age System which divided prehistory into the technological eras of
stone, iron and bronze (in Clarke 1978:30).
Today archaeologists arrange attributes or traits to form
artifacts. They arrange artifacts to form types, types to form
assemblages, assemblages to form cultures, and cultures to form
cultural groups (Clarke 1978:35). Additionally, many archaeologists
subdivide attributes into modes and non-modes. Modes are the result
of the mental template, for example, the notches on a projectile.
Non-modes, such as the "personal idiosyncrasies of the artisan," are
not part of the mental template (Rouse 1960:314).


14
Classification systems are one of the basic tools of
archaeology and their purposes are many. For example, Irving Rouse
identifies seven purposes (1960:117-120) and omits the purpose of
communication (Wormington 1957:3). D. H. Thomas suggests the
purposes are only identification and group forming (1971:119) which
are two of Rouse's seven.
D. L. Clarke argues that classification systems are models
and their purposes are to represent "...a simple, largely accurate,
predictive framework for the structuring and investigating
archaeological data" (1978:30-31). He also maintains there are two
kinds of models, the monothetic model and the polythetic model. The
first is "...a group of entities so defined that the possession of a
unique set of attributes is both sufficient and necessary for
membership" (1978:35). The second is "... a group of entities such
that each entity possesses a large number of the attributes of the
group, each attribute is shared by large numbers of entities and no
single attribute is both sufficient and necessary to the group
membership" (1978:36). The monothetic model is equivalent to
Thomas' identification purpose. His polythetic model is Thomas'
group forming purpose.
Regardless of the many purposes, classification systems do
form groups and the concern of this study is the projectile group.
As an artifact type, archaeologists have always agreed they should
be "...identified as such, not through any inherent quality which
they possess, but because similar forms are known from their use in
observable contexts" (Deetz 1970:121-122). It is the classifying of
them into types that has resulted in the disagreement. There are


15
"...those predisposed to see the artifact type as something imposed
on the data and those who saw it as something to be discovered
within the data" (Willey and Sabloff 1980:140). In different words,
the disagreement is whether the projectile is suitable as a cultural
marker.
The author has already positioned himself as a typologist
and a cultural marker advocate in the section on the mental
template. This is the popular position because projectile typology
has been firmly established in New World archaeology since the
1930's. H. M. Wormington's first edition (1939) of Ancient Man in
North America is a testimonial to this as it has only grown in size
in the following three editions. Subsequent to this is G. C.
Prison's (1978) Prehistoric Hunters of the High Plains which is also
structured on typology.
The mental template is responsible for the numerous
projectile types that exist in the archaeology record. The
archaeologist armed with the tool of classification has discovered
these types and learned to associate them with dates and cultures.
The mental template and the classification system are analogous to
the earth's magnetic poles and the mariner's compass. The
archaeologist would be lost on a sea of lithic artifacts without
these two items.


16
Identification Of Resharpened Projectiles
A premise of this study is that the identification of a
resharpened projectile is almost as easy as identifying an artifact
as a projectile. However, J. J. Flenniken and A. W. Raymond would
disagree. They demonstrated that a replicated Elko projectile can
be classified incorrectly after being purposely damaged and
resharpened. They concluded "archaeologists cannot assume that
patterns of morphological attributes have clear-cut chronological
significance when simple alteration of shape during use-life may
change the temporal assignment of that point by thousands of years"
(1986:609).
The author disagrees with Flenniken and Raymond's
conclusion. They also state that "each salvageable (replicated)
point fragment was reworked by pressure flaking employing the same
flint knapping technique as originally used to produce ... (the)
Elko points" (608). The author maintains that the majority and
maybe all projectiles were not resharpened with the same techniques.
This is evident by the number of resharpened projectiles identified
in the literature (Agenbroad 1978:72; Bradley and Prison 1987:199-
232; Dribble and Lorrain 1968:55; Frison 1974:82; Frison and
Stanford 1982:80; Goodyear 1974:19; Howard 1943:234; Johnson et al.
1962:19,58,62; Miller 1980:107; Wheat 1975:8; Wilmsen and Roberts
1984:108). Additionally, this is supported by statements and
implications similar to the following by B. A. Bradley's concerning
the Agate Basin Projectile.


17
Much of the suspected reworking is demonstrated by the removal
of pressure flakes that are qualitatively different from the
initial shaping and retouch pressure-flake scars. ... There is
physically no reason why reworking could not have been
accomplished with the same skill and care as shown in the
original point, ... (1982:197).
To identify a resharpened projectile as such, one must be
aware that projectiles were resharpened. One must also be aware of
the morphological changes that can occur. The following is a list
of these changes. Each is introduced by describing the
characteristic of the original and comparing it to that of the
resharpened projectile.
1) On an original projectile, the distal and proximal end
workmanship is the same. A resharpened projectile may exhibit a
different type of workmanship on the tip compared to the base
and mid-section (Bradley 1982:196; Prison and Stanford 1982:71;
Wheat 1975:9; Wilmsen and Roberts 1984:109).
2) On an original projectile, the distal and proximal end
cross-sections are identical in shape. A resharpened projectile
can have a different cross-section in the area of resharpening
(Bradley 1982:196; Prison et al. 1976:43; Wheat 1975:13).
3) On an original projectile, the lateral edges are
symmetrical. Thus, both edges are straight, convex or maybe
concave. A resharpened projectile can have asymmetrical lateral
edges (Bradley 1982:196; Frison et al. 1976:46; Wilmsen and
Roberts 1984:109).


18
4) On an original projectile, the lateral edge lines can be
expressed by one continuous mathematical function- The edges do
not have abrupt changes in outline. A resharpened projectile
can have abrupt changes in the lateral edges (Bradley 1982:196;
Prison 1976:43; Wheat 1975:13).
A projectile that exhibits all of the above original
characteristics is usually considered an original. Conversely, if a
projectile lacks any of the above, it is considered resharpened.
This logic is based on the assumption that it is not possible to
resharpen a projectile, as defined in Chapter I, and it still retain
the above original characteristics.
The classification between original and resharpened
projectiles performed in this study occurred before the above
characteristics were formalized. Therefore, during the
classification process these distinctions were unconsciously
employed. It was the process of writing this study that forced
their formal presentation.


CHAPTER IV
METHODOLOGY
The objective of this study was to quantify the poorer
workmanship that has been associated with the resharpened
projectile. This initially consisted of comparing the variation in
the distal end morphology between original and resharpened
projectiles. In the process of gathering data for this analysis, it
was observed that the resharpened projectile appeared to have two
distinct flake scar patterns. Therefore, a second comparison of
flake scar count was included. Finally, a third comparison of
maximum projectile thickness was added to the study's scope. This
was done to see if previous results could be repeated (Agenbroad
1978:67-80; Bradley 1974:191-198; Bradley and Prison 1987:199-
232; Prison et al. 1976:28-57). Maximum thickness, therefore,
becomes a control within this study. If previous results could be
repeated, it would add creditability to this study's findings.
To perform a quantitative analysis, data must be available.
To arrive at conclusions that are representative of the universe,
the data must be representative of the universe. The projectile
data used in this study are in total from the author's personal
collection. This data base is believed to be representative of the
archaeological record because it contains artifacts from the Paleo,
Archaic and Classic sequences. Additionally, the artifacts are from


20
the states of Colorado, Missouri, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas and
Wyoming.
Every projectile and projectile fragment in the author's
collection were included in the data base if its "resharpened
condition" could be determined. Resharpened condition is the state
of being resharpened or not. A fragment is defined as any
projectile that is not totally intact. Quantitatively, the data
base consists of 983 projectiles of which 257 are originals and 726
are resharpened. Also, 287 are complete and 696 are fragments.
Appendix C is a complete listing of all the projectiles and
ancillary data.
The storing, manipulating and processing of data plus the
writing of the paper was performed with an IBM compatible personal
computer. The software utilized were dBase III Plus, Symphony,
SPSS/PC+ and WordStar.
Analysis No. I Variation in Distal End Morphology
In Chapter II, it was demonstrated that the lithic
projectile was constructed to a mental template that was culture
specific. Therefore, the morphology of a single projectile has
minimal variation between projectiles of the same type. In
contrast, the resharpened projectile has been observed by the author
and others to lack uniformity at the distal end. If this is
correct, its morphology should vary more than the original and this
should be measurable. This analysis is then an attempt to contrast
the distal end variability of original projectiles to resharpened
projectiles.


21
The analysis required classifying all the projectiles in the
data base within two independent systems. First, the Proximal End
Classification System, was used to group projectiles by base
morphology and size. The second system, referred to as the Distal
End Shape Index, was used to assign a label that was associated with
its Distal End Shape. Statistical procedures employing chi-square
were then used to measure variability in the two groups of original
and resharpened projectiles.
Proximal End Classification System
The Proximal End Classification System consists of four
classifiers. Three are concerned with the proximal end and are the
source of its name. The forth is weight and its value is derived
from the entire projectile. Referring to Table 1, the classifiers
are general shape, proximal edge shape, grinding and whole weight.
Table 1 Subdivisions of the Proximal End Classification System______
Classifier Subdivision
General Shape Basal Notch Side-Notch Comer-Notch Stemmed Straight
Proximal Edge Concave
Shape Straight Convex
Grinding Yes
No
Whole Wt. <=3.0 grams
Weight 3.0 < Wt. <=8.5 grams 8.5 grams < Wt.


22
General shape. The General Shape is the shape of the
proximal end or the hafting portion of the projectile. It is
subdivided into five subdivisions which are common archaeological
delineators used in classifying projectiles. They are basal notch,
side-notch, comer-notch, stemmed and straight. Figure 1 depicts
these shapes. Additional figures can be found in the Handbook of
Alabama Archaeology (Cambron and Hulse 1964: Introduction).
Figure 1 Proximal End Shapes of Projectiles: Basal Notch,
__________Side-Notch, Comer-Notch, Stemmed and Straight


23
Table 2 is the distribution of the projectiles within these
five subdivisions of General Shape. The reader should note the
presence of a sixth subdivision entitled "missing data." This
subdivision contains fragments that are missing the diagnostic
proximal end.
Table 2 Frequency Distribution of Projectiles by
___________________General Shape of Proximal End______
Subdivision Number
Basal Notched Projectiles 20
Side-Notched Projectiles 124
Comer-Notched Projectiles 364
Stemmed Projectiles 266
Straight Based Projectiles 68
Missing Data 141
Total 983
Proximal edge shape. The proximal edge is the edge farthest
from the pointed end of the projectile. Generally, if this edge is
straight, then it is also perpendicular to the center line of the
projectile. Other common configurations of the proximal edge are
concave or convex. These three edge shapes are the three
subdivisions of this category. See Figure 2. The distribution of
the data within this category is tabulated in Table 3.


24
Figure 2 Proximal Edge Shapes: Concave, Convex, and Straight
Table 3 Frequency Distribution of Projectiles by
________________________Proximal Edge Shape____________
Subdivision Number
Concave 289
Convex 199
Straight 226
Missing Data 269
Total 983
There are 128 more projectiles in the missing data
subdivision than in the previous category. This is because this
category requires the presence of the proximal edge to make the
group determination. Its presence is not always required to make
the determination for the General Shape Category.


25
Grindin?. This is a dichotomous category consisting of the
presence or absence of basal grinding or smoothing. The actual
location can be on either the lateral edges or the proximal edge or
both. It is a common trait of the Paleo-Indian and early Archaic
cultures and is almost never associated with small, recent
projectiles. Table 4 is the frequency distribution for this
category.
Table 4 Frequency Distribution of Projectiles with
Basal Grinding
Subdivision Number
With Grinding 176
Without Grinding 562
Missing Data 245
Total 983
Whole weight. This is the weight of the complete
projectile. For fragments, the whole projectile weight could not be
measured and, therefore, it was estimated. A detailed discussion of
the estimating procedure is in the next section of flake scar count.
There are three subdivision of this category: projectiles
weighing less than or equal to 3.0 grams, projectiles weighing
greater than 3.0 grams but less than or equal to 8.5 grams, and
projectiles weighing greater than 8.5 grams. These weight ranges
are arbitrary and chosen only to divide the 983 projectiles evenly.
Summary. The Proximal End System with its four categories
and various subdivisions has a possible 90 different combinations.
Projectiles without missing data total 709 and 65 of the 90


26
combinations contain at least one projectile. The largest one
contains 46 artifacts. It is "stemmed projectiles with ground,
concave bases and a weight between 3.0 and 8.5 grams." The average
number of projectiles is eleven for combinations with projectiles.
Table 5 is a summary of the distribution of projectiles into the
various groups of the Proximal End Classification System.
Table 5 Frequency Distribution of Projectiles in
_______________the Proximal End Classification System
WHOLE WEIGHT wt<=3.Ogms 3.08.5gms
BASAL GRINDING W/0 W/__________W/O W/________W/0 W/
Comer-Notch with concave base
Comer-Notch with convex base
Comer-Notch with straight base
Side-Notch with concave base
Side-Notch with convex base
Side-Notch with straight base
Basal Notch with concave base
Basal Notch with convex base
Basal Notch with straight base
Stemmed with concave base
Stemmed with convex base
Stemmed with straight base
Straight with concave base
Straight with convex base
Straight with straight base
Totals
22 1 23 7 7 2
32 1 33 0 29 1
34 3 35 2 28 3
31 0 10 6 2 1
21 0 6 0 5 0
27 0 5 0 2 0
0 0 1 0 1 0
0 0 0 0 4 1
0 0 1 0 7 2
8 14 11 46 24 25
7 2 22 0 18 9
3 1 21 5 16 14
4 8 11 7 9 6
0 0 0 0 5 2
1 2 1 0 8 3
190 32 180 73 165 69
Distal End Shape Index
The Distal End Shape Index is concerned with the pointed end
of the projectile. This classification system was developed for
this study and designed to examine the resharpening process. It,
like the Proximal End Classification System, has four main


27
classifiers with additional subdivisions. Unlike the Proximal End
Classification System, the Distal End Shape Index is a four-digit
number derived by adding the numerical values associated with the
various subdivisions. This numerical system was chosen to de-
emphasize an order of importance that might be assigned to the
various classifiers. Table 6 is a listing of the various
subdivisions and associated index numbers. Figure 3 is a graphical
presentation of the same. The remainder of this section is a
detailed discussion of the various categories.
Table 6______Subdivisions of the Distal End Shape Index_____________
Classifier Subdivision Index Number
Center Line Symmetry Symmetrical 1000
Asymmetrical 2000
Lateral Edge Knees No Knees 100
Symmetrical Knees 200
Asymmetrical Knees 300
Lateral Edge Shape Convex 10
Concave 20
Straight 30
Mixed 40
No Beveling 1
Beveled 2
Mixed Beveling 3
Cross-Sectional Shape


28
Figure 3 Distal End Shape Index
CENTER LINE SYMMETRY
I
1000
Symmetry
2000
Asymmetry
LATERAL EDGE KNEES
Asymmetrical Knees
LATERAL EDGE SHAPES
CROSS-SECTIONAL SHAPES
______1 2 _____________3_______
No Bevelling Bevelling Mixed Bevelling
Distal End Shape Index =
Center Line Symmetry + Lateral Edge Knee
+ Lateral Edge Shape + Cross-Sectional Shape


29
Center line symmetry. Center line symmetry, as indicated in
Figure 4, is dichotomous: symmetrical and asymmetrical. It is
concerned with the shape of the lateral edges of the distal end and
not the cross section of the projectile. This symmetry can be
easily determined by laying the projectile on a straight line with
the line passing through the center of the base and the point of the
projectile. If equal amounts of the projectile lie on either side
of the line, then it is classified as symmetrical. Otherwise it is
asymmetrical. This procedure was exclusively employed in this study
and Table 7 is the distribution of projectiles it produced.
Figure 4 Distal End Center Line Symmetry:
__________Symmetrical and Asymmetrical


30
Table 7 Frequency Distribution of Projectiles by
_________________Center Line Symmetry of Distal End
Index Number Number
1000 (symmetrical) 496
2000 (asymmetrical) 472
Missing Data 15
Total 983
Lateral edge knees. Many projectiles exhibit a knee or
abrupt change in the outline of the blade. In different words, the
lateral edge cannot be expressed by a single continuous mathematical
function. There are three subdivisions within this category and
these are no knees (100), symmetrical knees (200), and asymmetrical
knees (300). Figure 5 depicts these subdivisions and Table 8 is a
frequency distribution of the projectiles.
Figure 5 Distal End Lateral Edge Knees:
__________None, Symmetrical, and Asymmetrical
l-'IGURE 5 LATERAL EDGE KNEES


Table 8 Frequency Distribution of Projectiles by
__________________Lateral Edge Knees of Distal End
Index Number Number
100 (no knees) 242
200 (symmetrical knees) 323
300 (asymmetrical knees) 376
Missing Data 42
Total 983
31
Lateral edge shapes. The overall shape of the distal or
blade edges of the projectile is the concern of this category.
There are four subdivisions and they are designated as convex,
concave, straight, and mixed. Figure 6 represent the various
subdivisions and Table 9 is the frequency distribution.
Figure 6 Distal End Lateral Edge Shapes:
___________Concave, Convex, Straight, and Mixed


Table 9
Frequency Distribution of Projectiles by
Lateral Edge Shapes of Distal End
32
Index Number Number
10 (convex) 408
20 (concave) 86
30 (straight) 270
40 (mixed) 177
Missing Data 42
Total 938
Cross-sectional shape. The distal end cross-section can be
symmetrical, beveled or some other complex geometry. This category
is subdivided into these three groups and the distribution of
projectiles in the variolas groups can be found in Table 10. See
Figure 7 for actual examples.
Table 10 Frequency Distribution of Projectiles by
_________________Cross-Sectional Shape of Distal End________________
______Index Number_________________Number
1 (no beveling symmetrical) 638
2 (beveled asymmetrical) 231
3 (mixed beveling) 83
Missing Data 31
Total
938


33
Figure 7 Distal End Cross-Section Shapes:
__________Symmetrical, Beveled, and Mixed
In summary, the Distal End Shape Index is the numerical sum
of the four individual index numbers. For example, a projectile
with a symmetrical distal end has an index number of 1000. If there
is an absence of lateral edge knees, this is an index number of 100.
If the lateral edges are straight, the index number is 30. Finally,
if there is symmetrical beveling, the index number is 2. The sum of
1000, 100, 30, and 2 is 1132 and this is the Distal End Shape Index
for the projectile.


34
Summary of Distal End Morphology Analysis
There are 72 different combinations possible within this
system and the projectiles in the data base were able to populate 62
of them. Fifteen of the combinations contain at least 20 or more
projectiles and the most common index number is 1111 followed by
1131. Table 11 is the frequency distribution of the various Distal
End Shape Indexes.
Table 11 Frequency Distribution of Projectiles
___________________in the Distal End Shape Index
Index Number Count Index Number Count Index Number Count Index Number Count
1111 85 1233 2 2121 1 2241 12
1112 4 1241 12 2131 10 2242 21
1113 3 1242 5 2132 2 2243 6
1121 19 1243 4 2133 4 2311 72
1122 1 1311 30 2141 4 2312 24
1131 80 1312 13 2143 4 2313 5
1132 1 1321 5 2211 31 2321 17
1133 2 1331 19 2212 23 2322 3
1211 52 1332 2 2213 3 2323 3
1212 24 1333 2 2221 6 2331 39
1213 10 1341 15 2222 6 2332 15
1221 7 1342 7 2223 1 2333 2
1222 9 1343 3 2231 11 2341 47
1223 1 2111 7 2232 11 2342 23
1231 22 2112 1 2233 6 2343 13
1232 25 2113 2
These two classification systems, the Proximal End and the
Distal End systems, permit a method of analyzing the distal end
morphology associated with resharpening. For example, in the
proximal end category of "Side-Notch Projectiles with Unground,
Concave Bases & Weight <= 3.0 grams" there are 31 projectiles of
which 29 are sufficiently intact to permit a determination of the


35
Distal End Shape Index. These 29 are divided into 14 originals and
15 resharpened projectiles. The frequency distributions for the
total group and the two subdivisions are depicted in Figures 8a, 8b
and 8 c.
Visually the distribution of Shape Indexes for original
projectiles in Figure 8b appears less random that the resharpened
projectiles in Figure 8c. This is intuitive because in the original
group there are 5 different Shape Indexes for an average of 2.8
projectiles per Index. In the resharpened group there is only one
additional projectile in the total count but there are 10 Shape
Indexes with an average of 1.5 projectiles per Index.


Figure 8a Distal End Shape Indexes
All Side-Notch Projectiles
Wt. <* 3 Grams & Unground, Concave Bases
36
bbbbBibBbBb
1 1 1 1 12222222
222231 1 12233
1 13433341414
231131311211
Distal End Shape Indexes
Figure 8b Distal End Shape Indexes
Original Side-Notch Projectiles
Wt. <= 3 Grams & Unground, Concave Bases
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
1 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 1 1 1 2 2 3 3
1 3 1 1 1 3 4 3 3 3 4 1 4 1 4
1 1 1 2 3 1 1 3 1 3 1 1 2 1 1
Distal End Shape Indexes
Figure 8c Distal End Shape Indexes
Resharpened Side-Notch Projectiles
Wt. <= 3 Grams & Unground, Concave Bases
N


Figure 9a Rearranged Figure 8b
Original Side-Notch Projectiles
Wt. <= 3 grams & Unground, Concave Bases
2 2 1 1 2
1 1 1 1 1
3 3 3 1 4
3 1 1 1 1
Distal End Shape Indexes
Figure 9b Rearranged Figure 8c
Resharpened Side-Notch Projectiles
Wt. <= 3 grams & Unground, Concave Bases
1 12 12 12 2 1 1
2222322332
14 4 11114 3 3
3 12 2 11113 1
Distal End Shape Indexes


38
If the data are rearranged as in Figure 9a and 9b, the two
subdivisions appear to form a normal distribution. The resharpened
projectiles have a flatter bell shape curve which is again
indicative of greater variation within the population. However, the
Distal End Shape Index is a creation of the author. There is no
order to the values and no evidence that these data are normally
distributed. Therefore, parametric statistical methods are not
applicable and nonparametric methods were employed to properly
analyze the Distal End Shape Index (Thomas 1976:262).
Chi-square is a nonparametric statistic and can be used as a
measure of randomness or variation. Coupled with the Yates'
Correction for Continuity, because of the small sample size, it is
ideal for this study (Thomas 1976:279). For example, when applied
to the subject group, the originals yield a significance of 0.202.
This means there is a 20.2% chance that these data are from a random
distribution. Similarly, the resharpened projectiles have a
significance of 0.966+ or there is a 96.6+ percent chance that the
resharpened projectiles are from a random distribution.
Chi-square can also be employed in a two way test to
determine if the originals and the resharpened projectiles are from
the same distribution. For the subject data the significance is
0.01 or a one percent chance that these data are from the same
distribution. Therefore, it can be argued that the original
projectiles are from a different distribution than the resharpened
projectiles. Additionally, the original's distribution is less
random or has less variation than the distribution for the
resharpened projectiles.


39
Similar Chi-square analyses were performed on 18 additional
Proximal End groups and the results are presented in Table 12. A
discussion of the conclusions reached from this work will be
presented in the section on conclusions.


Table 12
Chi-Squared Analyses of Distal End Shape Indexes
______for Various Proximal End Categories________
40
NUMBER of
PROXIMAL END GROUPS PROJECTILES Total/cell avq. Oriq. Resh. CHI-SQUARE w/ YATES' CORRECTION Random Test Independence Test Oriq. Resh. Oriq. vs Resh.
weight <=3.0 grams
side notch, concave. unground 14/2.8 15/1.5 0.202 0.995+ 0.011
side notch. convex. unground 7/2.3 12/1.3 0.279 0.995+ 0.061
side notch, straight, unground 8/1.6 18/1.3 0.687 0.995+ 0.100
corner notch, concave, unground 7/2.3 13/1.6 0.652 0.995 0.029
corner notch. convex, unground 13/2.2 18/1.5 0.531 0.995+ 0.024
corner notch. straight. unground 14/2.0 19/1.7 0.016 0.992 0.011
stemmed, concave, unground 3/1.0 5/1.2 0.696 0.977 0.238
stemmed, convex, unground 3/1.5 4/1.3 0.995+ 0.968 0.136
3.0 grams < weight <= 8.5 grams
corner notch, concave, unground 2/1.0 16/1.6 0.487 0.995+ 0.082
corner notch, convex, unground 3/1.0 27/1.9 0.696 0.949 0.018
corner notch, straight, unground 3/1.5 30/1.6 0.995 0.595 0.034
stemmed. convex, unground 4/1.0 18/1.1 0.620 0.995+ 0.414
straight, concave, unground 2/1.0 8/1.0 0.487 0.959 0.350
weight >8.5 grams
basal notch. straight, unground 2/1.0 3/1.0 0.487 0.696 0.287
corner notch, convex, unground 3/1.5 25/1.5 0.995+ 0.995+ 0.062
corner notch, straight, unground 3/1.0 20/1.5 0.696 0.995+ 0.084
stemmed, concave, ground 6/3.0 14/1.2 0.231 0.995+ 0.095
stemmed, convex. unground 2/1.0 16/1.3 0.487 0.995+ 0.158
stemmed, straight. ground 2/1.0 11/1.2 0.487 0.995+ 0.224
average 5/1.6 15/1.4 0.565 0.951 0.127


41
Analysis No. II Number of Flake Scars
The manufacturing of a lithic projectile is a reduction
process identical to that of creating a stone sculpture or wood
carving. Flakes are removed from a large core of material to reveal
the projectile that resides within. Large flakes are first removed
followed by smaller flakes that cut into and sometimes totally erase
the larger flake scars. Finally on some projectiles a fine retouch
flaking is added along the edges of the projectile.
The final flake scar pattern is a result of the craftsman's
technique and the mental template associated with his cultural
group. It is constant over a single projectile and has little
variation from projectile to projectile. However, the resharpened
projectile is different. It has two distinct patterns, the original
and the one on the reworked portion. A projectile with two flaking
patterns should have a different number of scars than its original
self. If the number is different, then the difference can be
quantified which is the purpose of this study.
Intuitively, the number of flake scars should vary with
projectile size. A quick observation does not prove this is correct
because the scars are smaller on smaller projectiles. However, it
does prove that projectile size has to be considered when the number
of flake scars are being analyzed.
Size has the units of volume and on irregular objects this
is a difficult measurement to make. To obtain it directly, each
projectile has to be immersed in a liquid and the displaced liquid
volume measured. To obtain it indirectly, the displaced liquid has


42
to be weighed and converted to a volume by dividing by the liquid's
specific gravity.
A simpler procedure and the one employed in this analysis is
to weigh the projectile directly and forgo the actual conversion to
volume. Since the specific gravity of most projectiles is
approximately the same 2.5 for opals and more commonly 2.65 for
the chalcedonys, agates, jaspers and flints (Kraus et al. 1936:268-
271) a direct weight measurement is proportional to volume or
size.
The actual determination of the number of flake scars on
each projectile was made by counting. This was performed under a 3X
power, lighted magnifying glass and was the most time consuming of
all the data gathering. As a consequence, the flake scars on a
single projectile were counted only one time. A check, to verify
the count, was made by comparing the total from each side of the
projectile. Early on, it had been observed that the number of
flakes removed from each side tended to be the same. Therefore, a
large discrepancy in the total count from each side was an indicator
of a counting error.
If the data base had only consisted of complete projectiles,
the analysis would have been straight forward. A simple comparison
between original and resharpened projectiles of the same weight
could have been performed. However, the data base consisted of 71%
fragments and this presented two obstacles. First, how does one
estimate the number of flake scars on a projectile that is
represented by a fragment? Second, how does one estimate the total
weight of a projectile from a fragment?


43
The first obstacle was overcome with the assumption that the
number of flake scars patterned on a unit of surface area was a
constant for the projectile. However, surface area, similar to
volume, is difficult to measure on an irregular object. Therefore,
instead of surface area, artifact weight was chosen as the
normalizing parameter and the analysis was conducted on the
parameter "flake scars per gram." The substitution of artifact
weight for surface area has merit if the projectile is considered to
have a slab shape. This is discussed in more detail in the third
analysis and Appendix A.
The second obstacle was removed with the introduction of a
new parameter. This parameter was termed "percent of whole" and is
the percentage the artifact represents of the whole projectile. It
can not be measured and is based solely on the author's judgment of
the fragment. If estimated correctly, it permits a method of
calculating the weight of the whole projectile. For example, if a
fragmented artifact weighs 2.4 grams and it is estimated to
represent 60% of the projectile, then the whole projectile's weight
would be 4.0 grams. This is obtained by dividing the artifact's
weight by the percent of whole, expressed as a decimal.
This procedure of estimating the whole projectile's weight
from a fragment's weight is not exact, but the errors it introduces
are small. Referring to Table 13, R2 values (Correlation of
Determinations) for the actual fragment weight, whole weight and
percent of whole were calculated using all 983 projectiles. R2 is
the "...measure of the goodness of fit of a linear model..." or
"...is the proportion of the variation in the dependent variable


44
'explained' by the (linear) model" (Norusis 1986:B201-B203).
Table 13 R2 Values for Actual Weight, Whole Weight
and Percent of Whole
983 Projectiles
Actual Weight Whole Weight Percent of Whole
Actual Weight 100.0% 71.6% 0.8%
Whole Weight 100.0% 9.5%
Percent Of Whole 100.0%
From Table 13, it is possible to state that variation in the
percent of whole is random in relation to the actual artifact
weight. This statement is made because the R2 value between the two
is only 0.8%. Also, it is noted that 9.5% of the variance in the
calculated whole weight is explained by percent of whole. In
comparison, 71.6% of this variance is explained by the actual weight
of the artifact. This is not surprising because the majority of
projectiles were represented by nearly complete fragments and the
larger the value of percent of whole the less influence it has on
the calculated whole weight. Table 14 is a frequency distribution
of the percent of whole.


45
Table 14 Frequency Distribution of Projectile Fragment Size
Expressed as a Percent of Whole
Fragment Size Number of Projectiles Percent of Total
<25% whole 14 1.4%
>=25% whole and < 50% whole 113 11.5%
>= 50% whole and <75% whole 196 20.0%
>=75% whole <90% whole 121 12.3%
>=90% whole 539 54.8%
totals 983 100.0%
At this point, the author would like to restate that the
purpose of this analysis was to compare the number of flake scars
per gram between original and resharpened projectiles. This
analysis required two weight variables. First, the artifact's
weight was used to normalize the flake scar count. Second, the
calculated whole weight was used to equate projectiles of equal
size. If a projectile was complete, the artifact weight was equal
to the calculated whole weight.
To determine if the flake scars per gram varied between the
original and resharpened projectiles a second Coefficient of
Determination Table was prepared. Table 15 presents a portion of
that Table and re-introduces the "resharpened condition" parameter.
This represents the dichotomous states of being resharpened or being
an original.


46
Table 15 R2 Values for Combination of Flake Scars per Gram and
Whole Weight, plus Percent of Whole and Resharpened Condition
__________________________983 Projectiles________________________
Scars /Gram Log of Scars/Gram Log of Whole Weight Whole Weight Resharpened Condition % of Whole
Scars per Gram 100.0% 77.2% 23.5% 67.7% 13.1% 0.8%
Log of Scars/Gram 100.0% 54.6% 88.1% 10.5% 1.0%
Whole Weight 100.0% 66.1% 1.5% 9.5%
Log of Whole Weight 100.0% 6.8% 7.8%
Resharpened Condition 100.0% 2.4%
Percent of Whole 100.0%
Referring to Table 15, the parameter percent of whole has
little influence on the variation in the flake scars per gram or its
logarithm. However, as stated earlier, it does have some
interaction with whole weight (R2=9.5%). Additionally, it has a
slight interaction with the resharpened condition (R =2.4%). To
reduce these interactions, a second analysis, presented in Table 16,
was prepared for whole projectiles and fragments representing 50% or
more of the whole projectile. This reduced the data base to 856
projectiles and simultaneously reduced the two interactions to 1.9%
and 1.8%, respectively.


47
Table 16 R Values for Combination of Flake Scars per Gram and
Whole Weight, plus Percent of Whole and Resharpened Condition
Whole and Fragments (50% or more intact) 856 Projectiles
Scars /Gram Log of Scars/Gram Log of Whole Weight Whole Weight Resharpened Condition % of Whole
Scars per Gram 100.0% 77.9% 25.4% 69.4% 16.9% 0.0%
Log of Scars/Gram 100.0% 57.0% 90.0% 13.5% 0.0%
Whole Weight 100.0% 67.4% 2.4% 1.9%
log of Whole Weight 100.0% 11.8% 1.2%
Resharpened Condition 100.0% 1.8%
Percent of Whole 100.0%
Table 17 is a comparison between the reduced data base and
the original. The three weight subdivisions are the same
subdivisions developed in the Distal End Morphology Analysis which
evenly divided the data base. The reader should note there are only
minor differences in the ratio of original and resharpened
projectiles. Of more interest, is the disproportional number of
original projectiles in the smaller weights. Chi-square indicates
there is a 0.05 percent probability that this is by chance.
Discussion of this observation will continue in the section on
conclusions.


48
Table 17 Contrast of Frequency Distributions by Whole Weight
of Original and Resharpened Projectiles
________for the Complete (983) and Reduced (856) Data Bases_________
Complete Data Base Reduced Data Base
Subdivision________Original Resharpened Original Resharpened
wt. <=3.0 grams 139 (44%) 175 (56%) 133 (44%) 170 (56%)
3.0< Wt.<- 8.5 grams 53 (16%) 280 (84%) 37 (12%) 260 (88%)
Wt. >8.5 grams 65 (19%) 271 (81%) 39 (15%) 217 (85%)
Total 257 (26%) 726 (74%) 209 (24%) 647 (76%)
Returning to the main concern of flake scar count, Table 16
implies that 13.5% of the variation in the log of flake scars per
gram is explained by resharpened condition. Similarly, the Table
implies that the log of whole weight explains 90.0% of the variation
in the log of flake scars per gram. Obviously, the sum 103.5%
(13.5% + 90.0%), is not the total variation explained. By linear
regression the total explained is only 90.5%. The difference in
these two numbers is the interaction between the resharpened
condition and the log of the whole weight.
The selection of a linear regression model relating flake
scar count per gram to whole weight and resharpened condition was
made after examining twenty-five different combinations of
equations. The actual equations selected are of the form of the
Power Function (Swokowski 1983:355) and are:
FS/G = 65.33 (W-0,738) for originals
FS/G = 55.78 (W--738) for resharpened projectiles
where FS/G = flake scars per gram
W = whole weight (grams)


49
I
An inspection of these equatioris reveals there is a
difference between an original and a resharpened projectile in the
number of flake scars per gram. Since both whole weight and
resharpened condition have T scores with significance levels of less
than 0.0001, this difference is significant. Its existence and
possible reasons why will be further discussed in the conclusion of
the paper.
Analysis No. Ill Projectile Thickness
The thickness of a projectile is the smallest of its three
dimensions. The other two dimensions are length and width. In this
analysis the thickness is defined as the maximum thickness between
the two faces. This definition was required to create a measurement
capable of being repeated from analysis to analysis because the
thickness varies at different locations on the projectile.
The thickness was measured with a vernier caliper that read
to 1-tenth of a millimeter. The measurement was made once with no
attempt to repeat it. The maximum thickness measured on a fragment
was assumed to be the maximum thickness of a whole projectile. This
assumption did not introduce any errors, especially after the data
base was reduced to 856 artifacts. This reduced data base consisted
of whole projectiles and fragments representing 50% or more of the
projectile. Refer to Analysis No. 2 for additional details.
Intuitively, the thickness of the projectile should vary
with its size. For example, a knife has a similar geometry and the
thickness of a bayonet is greater than the thickness of a pen knife.
This concept has not been emphasized in the previous work. It also


50
was not overlooked. In previous studies, the projectiles were of
the same culture and, therefore, they were approximately the same
size. Additionally, any thickness variation resulting from size was
normalized by ratios of width to thickness or the reciprocal.
In this analysis the projectiles represented many different
sizes and, therefore, the resulting thickness variation due to size
had to be consciously considered. This was accomplished by
permitting size, expressed as whole weight, to be an independent
variable. This made whole weight as important as the resharpened
condition in the regression analysis.
To determine the actual variation in thickness associated
with the resharpened condition and the whole weight, a Coefficient
of Determination Table was prepared. This is the same procedure
used in Analysis No 2. Table 18 presents a portion of that Table
with some of the more pertinent variables.
Table 18 R2 Values for Combination of Thickness and Whole Weight,
plus Percent of Whole and Resharpened Condition
Whole and Fragments (50% or more intact) 856 Projectiles
Thickness Log of Thickness Log of Whole Weight Whole Weight Resharpened Condition % of Whole
Thickness 100.0% 95.1% 55.9% 77.8% 11.0% 0.0%
Log of Thickness 100.0% 46.6% 81.3% 14.4% 0.0%
Whole Weight 100.0% 67.4% 2.4% 1.9%
Log of Whole Weight 100.0% 11.8% 1.2%
Resharpened Condition 100.0% 1.8%
Percent of Whole 100.0%


51
This Table implies that the resharpened condition explains
14.4% of the variation in the log of thickness. Additionally, the
Table implies that the log of whole weight explains 81.3% of the
variation in the log of thickness. However, because there is also
an interaction between the resharpened condition and the log of
whole weight, it is not possible to state that their sum of 95.7% is
the variation they explained. The total variation in the log of
thickness explained by the two is 82.2%. This was derived from the
linear regression model that was selected to related the three
variables together. Identical to Analysis No. 2, the Power Function
explained the greatest variation in the thickness and, therefore, it
was selected. The following are the final equations produced from
the Power Function:
T = 3.356 (W0*304) for originals
T = 3.701 (w0,304) for resharpened projectiles
where T = thickness (millimeters)
W = whole weight (grams)
Both of the two independent variables, whole weight and
resharpened condition, have a T score large enough to produce
significance levels of less than 0.00005. This means the difference
in thickness between the original and the resharpened projectile is
significant and this coincides with previous work. Obviously, it
also means the parameter of whole weight is significant. Plus, it
influences the thickness to a much greater extent than the
resharpened condition. This is to be expected considering the wide
range of projectile sizes in the data base.


52
A geometrical shape similar to a projectile or a knife is a
slab. If one assumes the slab's three dimensions remain in constant
proportion as the size varies, the following equation can be derived
for the thickness:
T = constant (w0*333)
This equation is of the same form as the projectile
thickness equations developed in this analysis. Also, the exponents
are very similar. This suggests that the slab can be used as a
mathematical model for a projectile. Appendix A is a derivation of
this slab equation. Further discussion on the slab as a
mathematical model for a projectile can be found in the next chapter
on conclusions.


CHAPTER V
CONCLUSIONS
Statement of Conclusions
This study's purpose was to attempt to quantify differences
between the resharpened projectile and the original. To accomplish
this, analyses were performed on the following three attributes: 1)
variation in distal end morphology, 2) flake scar count per gram,
and 3) thickness to weight ratio. Each of the three analyses
proved that the resharpened projectile is measurably different from
the original. This agrees with the findings of previous work where
ratios of width to length and thickness to width were analyzed
(Agenbroad 1978:67-80; Bradley 1974:191-198; Bradley and Prison
1987:199-232; Prison et al. 1976:28-57). Additionally, this study's
analyses ignored cultural types while previous works were culture
specific.
The first of the three analyses consisted of contrasting the
random nature of the distal end morphology of the resharpened
projectile to the original. This was performed on nineteen
different groups that were defined by projectile weight and proximal
end morphology. These groups represented one or more cultures and,
therefore, were not culture specific. However, the groups did not
crosscut cultures.


54
For each of the nineteen groups chi-square values were
developed for both the resharpened projectiles and originals.
Seventeen of the nineteen groups or 89% contained resharpened
projectiles that had higher chi-square values than the originals. A
large chi-square value is indicative of a random condition.
Therefore, this analysis is a strong indication that the distal end
morphology of a resharpened projectile is more random than that of
the original. The reader should refer to Table 12.
The analysis of flake scar count per gram was based on 856
whole projectiles and selected fragments. The fragments had to
represent 50% or more of the whole projectile to be considered. One
of the findings of the analysis was that 90.5% of the variation in
the flake scar count could be explained by two equations, one for
the original and one for the resharpened projectile. These
equations are independent of culture and predict the resharpened
projectile has fewer flake scars per gram than the original. If the
weights of an original and a resharpened projectile are the same,
then they predict the resharpened projectile will have fewer flake
scars. Figure 10 is a graphical presentation of the two equations
and their mathematical expressions can be found in the Methodology
Chapter.


CO o 03 1- CO Q. CD - 0 >- CO £ C0003'-CO Q. CD >- 0 >- CO £
Figure 10 Flake Scars per Gram Prediction
vs Projectile Weight And Resharpened Condition
55
(full weight range)
Projectile Weight (grams)
(expanded weight range)


56
Examining these equations in detail, an original projectile
of 0.7 grams is predicted to have 85 flake scars per gram or 60
scars in total (0.7 grams X 85 scars/gram). This weight is
representative of a small projectile similar to a Pueblo P-2. A
resharpened projectile of 0.7 grams is predicted to have 73 flake
scars per gram or 51 scars in total. This resharpened projectile
has 34 fewer flake scars than the original. At the other end of the
size spectrum, an original projectile weighing 40 grams, similar to
a Nebo Hill, is predicted to have 4.3 scars per gram or 172 in
total. A resharpened projectile of an equivalent weight is
predicted to have 3.7 scars per gram or 147 flake scars. This is 25
fewer than the original.
The equations can also be used in reverse to estimate the
size of the original before the resharpening. For example, the
resharpened projectile from the previous example weighs 0.7 grams
and has 73 flake scars per gram. An original would have to weigh
0.87 grams to have the same flake scar count. This means the
original would have been 24% larger than the resultant resharpened
projectile of 0.7 grams. Comparatively, a 3.7 flake scars per gram,
resharpened projectile weighing 40.0 grams is predicted to weigh
50.0 grams as an original. This again is 24% larger. The nature of
the equations makes the number of 24% a constant for all projectile
weights. It is an indication that resharpened projectiles
originated for original projectiles that were approximately 24%
larger.


57
The third and final analysis concerned the maximum
thickness. It was also performed on the same 856 projectiles as the
flake scar per gram analysis. As above, a set of equations, one for
an original and one for a resharpened projectile, were developed.
They predict the maximum thickness as a function of weight. These
equations were able to account for 82.2% of the variation in the
thickness and predict it will increase with increasing projectile
weight or size. Additionally, these equations predict a resharpened
projectile will be thicker than an original of equal weight. Figure
11 is a graphical presentation of these equations and their
mathematical expression can be found in the Methodology Chapter.


58
Figure 11 Maximum Thickness Prediction (mm)
vs Projectile Weight and Resharpened Condition


59
Considering the same hypothetical projectiles as used in the
flake scars per gram analysis, an original projectile of 0.7 grams
is predicted to have a maximum thickness of 3.0 millimeters. A
resharpened projectile of the same weight is predicted to be 3.3
millimeters thick. Comparatively, an original projectile weighing
40 grams is predicted to have a maximum thickness of 10.3
millimeters. A resharpened projectile of the same weight should be
11.4 millimeters thick. These equations are of the same form as
those in the flake scars per gram analysis and, therefore, they can
also be utilized to predict a size reduction caused by the
resharpening process. They predict the original was 38% larger than
the resharpened projectile. This is to be compared to the 24% that
was predicted by the flake scars per gram equations.
In reality, projectiles were resharpened numerous times
(Bradley 1974:194-7; Goodyear 1974:26-30). The projectiles in the
data base can logically be assumed to have been treated the same way
and, as a consequence, each probably was reduced a different amount.
Therefore, the conclusions reached about size reduction pertain to
the average for the data base and not each projectile. On the other
hand, the data base is large enough to suggest that the results of
the analyses represent the average for the archaeological record.
If this is assumed, what is the meaning of the two different values
of 24% and 38%? Which one, if either, is representative of the
archaeological record?


60
An answer to these questions can be found by considering a
third question. Which parameter, thickness or the number of flake
scars per gram is most representative of the original projectile?
When one considers the statements concerning the workmanship on a
resharpened projectile that allows it to be identified as such,
there is no doubt that the flake scar count is not of the original
(Agenbroad 1978:72; Bradley 1982:196-7; Bradley and Prison 1987:225;
Frison 1974:71; Prison et al. 1976:42; Wheat 1975:9; Wilmsen
1978:109; Wilmsen and Roberts 1984:108). It represents an average
of both the original and the resharpening work. Contrary to this,
the maximum thickness cannot be an average of both workmanships. It
is either a result of the original manufacture or the resharpening
process. Since the maximum thickness associated with the original
projectile occurs near the maximum width, which is generally located
on the proximal half to two-thirds of the projectile, dulling has a
small chance of removing it. If it is lost in the dulling process,
the remaining fragment was probably too small for resharpening.
Based on the above logic, the maximum thickness of a
resharpened projectile is anticipated to be that of the original
projectile. It follows, then, that the 38% larger is closer to the
correct value for the size of the original. Assuming this is so, it
can be demonstrated mathematically that the resharpening process was
performed by a method that removed more flakes per gram than the
manufacture of the original projectile. If there were more flakes
per gram removed during the resharpening process, it means they were
smaller and more likely to have been made by pressure flaking.
Appendix B presents the associated mathematics.


61
An unanticipated conclusion of this study was made during
the flake scars per gram analysis. Table 17 was prepared to
contrast the reduced data base to the initial one. This Table
illuminated the fact there were fewer resharpened projectiles in the
smaller weights or sizes. There are several possible explanations
for this; however, only one appears logical. Small projectiles are
more difficult to resharpen because when damaged there is less
material remaining to recreate a pointed projectile. Additionally,
because of the thinness of the smaller projectile, many are broken
or crushed up to the shaft which leaves very little projectile to be
resharpened. A greater percentage of large projectiles can receive
damage to the distal end and still retain enough material to permit
the creation of a sharp point.
To summarize the conclusions that were reached during this
study, the following list was prepared. It is brief and arranged in
an order that associates each conclusion with its parent analysis.
From the distal end morphology analysis:
1) Resharpened distal ends of resharpened projectiles are more
randomly shaped than that of originals.
From the flake scars per gram analysis:
2) Flake scars per gram decrease with increasing projectile
size. This does not mean the total number of flake scars
per projectile decreases with size.
3) Resharpened projectiles have fewer flake scars per gram than
originals of the same size.
4) In the archaeological record, resharpened projectiles occur
more often in the larger sizes.
From the thickness analysis:
5) Projectile thickness increases with size.
6) Resharpened projectiles are thicker than originals.


62
From the combined analyses of flake scars per gram and thickness:
7) Resharpened projectiles appear to have been created from
originals that were on the average 38% larger.
8) The resharpening process removes more flakes per gram than
the manufacture of the original projectile. Therefore, the
resharpening process was mostly pressure flaking.
Comments on Conclusions
The conclusions reached in the previous section are not new
to archaeologists who are familiar with projectiles. However, this
is the first time they have been documented together with supporting
data. Of greater importance are the possible behaviors that can be
inferred from the observed differences between the original and the
resharpened projectile. For example, a simple explanation is that
projectiles were resharpened while attached to the shaft. As a
result, the process of resharpening to the standards of the mental
template would have required more time and effort than a simple
expedient resharpened.
This explanation is not totally satisfactory if examined in
more detail. Referring to Table 17, the number of resharpened
projectiles in the data base is approximately 75% percent. This
number is so large that one has to assumed some were resharpened in
the camp under leisure conditions. Why did the individual not spend
a little more time and effort and remove it from the shaft and do it
right? Or, why not leave it in the shaft and do it right? An
obvious answer is that they were lazy. However, this is not
consistent with the fact that they were not lazy when it was first
manufactured.


63
A different explanation is that the projectiles were
manufactured by a single craftsman within the band or group
(Goodyear 1974:26; Rivers 1912:531). This individual's projectiles
conformed to the mental template of his ancestors and exhibited the
highest quality workmanship possible for the group. However, the
craftsman did not resharpen the projectiles. Each user performed
this task and the user's objective was only to return the projectile
to functional status. There was no concern for pride of workmanship
or a mental template.
The second explanation is more internally consistent than
the first. However, it accuracy is not known and may never be
known. What is important is that the question was asked and a
satisfactory explanation was offered. Of equal importance are some
other questions. For example, why was the original constructed to a
mental template that partially consisted of non-functional
attributes? Why was the projectile the only lithic tool that was
constructed in this manner? Is the answer to these questions the
same as the answer to the question "why is art?" Is the projectile
a work of art?
The author does not have answers to these questions.
However, they need to be ask and they need to be ask by archaeology
because they come from archaeological data. The answers, however,
belong to all disciplines. Archaeology, regardless of its knowledge
of the answers, is obligated to ask questions that arise from its
data. If the questions are not ask, the answers can not follow, and
without answers our understanding of human behavior will be
incomplete.


64
Critique of Methodology
This study did answer the questions raised in the Statement
of Problem. The methodology used to answer the questions can be
judged from two perspectives. One is concerned with the techniques
of data gathering and is a micro-perspective. The other is the
integration of the three independent analyses and is a macro-
perspective.
From the micro-perspective, the procedures employed in this
study could have been expanded to insure the findings. The
measuring and counting could have been repeated several times. If
repeated a second time, a second individual could have performed the
tasks. This repetitive effort would have improved the data
acquired; however, it is unlikely the effort would have altered the
findings. This statement is based on the assumption that the errors
associated with a single observation would have only introduced
additional variation to the data's real variation. It is improbable
that these errors would have introduced false patterns into the
data.
To reiterate the above point, the statistical difference in
thickness between and original and a resharpened projectile, of the
same weight, is not a result of poor measurement. It is a real
difference. Similarly, the difference observed in the number of
flake scars per gram is also real for the same reasons.
The finding associated with the distal end morphology
analysis is, however, more questionable. The separation of the
projectiles into the original and resharpened groups was based on


65
visual differences. Visual differences were also used to conclude
that resharpened projectiles exhibit more variation in distal end
morphology than original projectiles. This can be interpreted as
circular logic and, as stated above, makes the finding of this
analysis questionable.
From a macro-perspective, the finding of this analysis is
not as equivocal. Each of the three analyses used the identical
groups of original and resharpened projectiles. Thus, a resharpened
projectile in one analysis was also a resharpened projectile in the
other two analyses. If the differences in the thickness and number
of flake scars per gram are real, it follows that the two groups of
original and resharpened projectiles are also real. Ihe acceptance
of the two groups as real, and independent of any analysis, removes
the circular nature of distal end morphology analysis. Ihe observed
greater variation associated with the resharpened projectile is also
real. It is not a result of the author's categorizing procedures.
This multiple analyses approach is similar to symbiosis in
biology. The three independent analyses support each other for a
greater credibility than the sum of the individual analyses. As a
result, the study's findings are also strengthened. Ihe author
recommends this methodology be employed whenever possible.


66
Suggested Future Work
An important guestion asked throughout this study is why
were projectiles resharpened with less care than the originals were
manufactured. The presence of a craftsman or a single individual
who manufactured all the projectiles for the group is a plausible
answer. Future work could statistically test for this individual.
One would have to establish the amount of variation a single
craftsman, using a variety of materials, would impart to a group of
projectiles. If an assemblage exhibited less variation than this, a
single manufacturer could be possible. However, establishing the
variation caused by a single individual is much easier to suggest
than to do. By itself, it would be a significant accomplishment.
Another approach to the same problem is to associate a
unique manufacturing trait with a single individual. This would be
similar to a signature and it would make the problem much simpler.
However, the author does not know if these unique traits exist.
This also is a study in itself.
Assuming the craftsman concept is correct, the researcher
must also be cognizant of the possibility of two or more craftsmen's
products being present in a single assemblage. This possibility can
be reduced by first studying only small sites. A large site is more
likely to represent several groups, each with their own craftsman,
visiting the site either synchronically or dichronically.
Ultimately, larger sites should be tested for the presence of two or
more craftsmen and hopefully a single individual's presence could be
identified at several different sites.


67
A second direction of research is a literature search of the
ethnological material for other examples of the mental template.
The ceramics of the Southwest, the beadwork of the Northeast, or the
creature art of the Northwest appear to be similar. Were they
manufactured with the same intent as the lithic projectile? Is the
behavior of manufacturing some cultural artifacts, to the standards
of a mental template, common to all human groups? Do any animals
exhibit this behavior?
A third direction for future research is a study of the
thickness equations for a projectile that were developed in Analysis
No. III. As pointed out earlier, these are similar to the thickness
equation of a slab which is derived in Appendix A. This similarity
suggests that the civil engineering knowledge concerning ceramic
slabs may be applicable to projectiles. If this is true, it would
lead to a better understanding of the lithic projectile during its
manufacture and use.


REFERENCES CITED
Agenbroad,
1978
Bradley, B
1974
1982
1987
Bradley, B
1987
Cambron, J
1964
Clarke, D.
1978
Cotter, J.
1937
Deetz, J.
1970
L. D.
The Hudson-Meng Site: An Alberta Bison Kill in the
Nebraska High Plains. Washington, D.C.: University Press
of American.
. A.
Comments on the Lithic Technology of the Casper Site
Materials. In Ihe Casper Site: A Hell Gap Bison Kill
on the Great Plains, edited by G. C. Prison, New York:
Academic Press. Pp. 191-198.
Flaked Stone Technology and Typology. In Ihe Agate
Basin Site, by G. C. Frison and D. J. Stanford, New
York: Academic Press. Pp. 181-208.
Personal communication.
. A., and G. C. Frison
Projectile Points and Specialized Bifaces from the
Homer Site. In The Homer Site, edited by G. C. Frison
and L. C. Todd, New York: Academic Press. Pp. 199-231.
. W., and D. C. Hulse
The Handbook of Alabama Archaeology. Tuscaloosa:
Archaeological Research Association of Alabama, Inc.
L.
Analytical Archaeology. New York: Columbia University
Press.
L.
The Occurrence of Flints and Extinct Animals in Pluvial
Deposits near Clovis, New Mexico. Part IV,Report on
Excavation at the Gravel Pit, 1936. Proceedings of the
Academy Of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia. Vol.
LXXXIX: 1-16.
Archaeology as a Social Science. Bulletins of the
American Anthropological Association 3:115-125.


69
Dibble, D. S., and D. Lorrain
1968 Bonfire Shelter: A Stratified Bison Site, Val Verde
County, Texas. Miscellaneous Papers No. 1. Texas
Memorial Museum, The University of Texas at Austin.
Flenniken, J. J., and A. W. Raymond
1986 Morphological Projectile Point Typology: Replication
Experimentation and Technological Analysis. American
Antiquity 51:603-614.
Frison, G. C.
1974 The Casper Site. New York: Academic Press.
1978 Prehistoric Hunters of the High Plains. New York:
Academic Press.
Frison, G. C., M. Wilson, and D. J. Wilson
1976 Fossil Bison and Artifacts from an Early Altithermal
Period Arroyo Trap in Wyoming. American Antiquity 41:28-
57.
Frison, G.
1982
C., and D. J. Stanford
The Agate Basin Site. New York: Academic Press.
Goodyear, A.
1974 The Brand Site: A Techno-Functional Study of a Dalton
Site in Northeast Arkansas. Fayetteville: Arkansas
Archaeology Survey Research Series No. 7.
Homes, W. H.
1895 Archaeological Studies among the Ancient Cities of
Mexico. Field Museum of Natural History,
Anthropological Series 1,19-52. In Source Book in
Anthropology, edited by A. L Kroeber and T. T. Waterman
1931 p.189. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company.
Howard, E. B.
1943 Discovery of Yuma Points, in Situ, near Eden Wyoming.
American Antiquity 3:224-235.
Jenks, A. E.
1941 Beveled Artifacts in Florida of the Same Type as
Artifacts Found Near Clovis, New Mexico. American
Antiquity 4:314-319.
Johnson Jr., L., D. A. Suhm, and D. D. Tunnell
1962 Salvage Archeology of Canyon Reservoir. Austin: Texas
Memorial Museum. Bulletin No. 5.
Judge, W. J.
1974 Projectile Point Form and Function in Late Paleo-Indian
Period Assemblages. In History and Prehistory of the
Lubbock Lake Site, edited by Craig C. Black. Lubbock:
West Texas Museum Association.


70
Kraus, E. H., F. H. Hunt, and L. S. Ramsdell
1936 Mineralogy. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc.
Krieger, A. D.
1944 The Typological Concept. American Antiquity 3:271-288.
Mason, 0. T.
1902 Aboriginal American Basketry. U.S. National Museum Report for 1902 171-548. In Source Book in Anthropology, edited by A. L. Kroeber and T. T. Waterman 1931 p.249- 266. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company.
Miller, P. A.
1980 Archaic Lithics from the Coffey Site. In Archaic Prehistory on the Prairie-Plains Border, edited by A. E. Johnson, pp. 107-111. University of Kansas Publications in Anthropology no. 12.
Norusis, M. J.
1986 SPSS/PC+. Illinois: SPSS Inc.
Purdy, B. A.
1981 Florida's Prehistoric Stone Technology. Gainesville:
University Presses of Florida.
Rivers, W. H. R.
1912 The Disappearance of Useful Arts. In Source Book in Anthropology, edited by A. L Kroeber and T. T. Waterman 1931 p. 524-534. New York: Har court, Brace and Company, Inc.
Roberts, Jr., F. H. H.
1942 Archaeological and Geological Investigations in the San
Rouse, I. 1960 Jon District, Eastern New Mexico. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, vol. 103, no. 4. The Classification of Artifacts in Archaeology. American Antiguity 3:313-323.
Sackett, J. R.
1966 Quantitative Analysis of Upper Paleolithic Stone
Tools. American Anthropologist 68:356-394.
Swokowski, E. W.
1983 Calculus with Analytic Geometry. Boston: Prindie, Weber
& Schmidt.


71
Thomas, D. H.
1971 Prehistoric Subsistence-Settlement Patterns of the Reese
River Valley, Central Nevada. Davis: University of
California.
1976 Figuring Anthropology. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and
Winston.
1986 Points on Points: A Reply to Flenniken and Raymond.
American Antiquity 51:619-627.
Tylor, E. B.
1960 Anthropology. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan.
Wheat, J. B.
1975 Artifact Life Histories: Cultural Templates, Typology,
Evidence and Inference. In Primitive Art and
Technology, edited by J. S. Raymond, B. Loveseth, and G.
Reardon. Calgary: Chacmool, the Archaeological
Association, University of Calgary.
Willey, G. R., and J. A. Sabloff
1980 A History of American Archaeology. London: Thames and
Hudson Ltd.
Wilmsen, E. N., and F. H. H. Roberts, Jr.
1984 Lindenmeier, 1934-1974. Smithsonian Contributions to
Anthropology No. 24.
Wormington, H. M.
1939 Ancient Man in North America. Denver: The Colorado
Museum of Natural History.
1957 Ancient Man in North America. Denver: Denver Museum of
Natural History, (4th ed).


APPENDIX A
DERIVATION OF THE THICKNESS EQUATION FOR A SLAB
Given: 1 = c'(T)
w = c" (T)
WT = (SG) (V)
where: 1, w, T are the three dimensions of a slab
V is the volume of the slab
WT is the weight of the slab
SG is the specific gravity of the slab
c' & c" are proportionally constants
The volume of a slab can be expressed as:
V = (1) (w) (T) = (c'T) (c"T) (T) = (c'HC'JCT3)
or
(SG) (V) = (SG) (c') (c") (T3) = WT
or
T3 = [l/((SG)(c')(c"))](WT)
if it is assumed the proportionally constant C equals
C = [1/ ((SG) (c') (c")) ] *333
then
T = C(WT0*333)


APPENDIX B
DERIVATION OF MAXIMUM THICKNESS
AND FLAKE SCARS PER GRAM RELATIONSHIPS
BETWEEN
AN ORIGINAL PROJECTILE AND ITS RESHARPENED SELF
Given: TQ = 3.356 (Wo0*304) FS/G0 = 65*33 (Wo_0'738)
Tr = 3.701 (Wr0-304) FS/Gp = 55.78 (Wr0*738)
where: TQ = maximum thickness for the original projectile
Tr = maximum thickness for the resharpened self
FS/Gq = flake scars per gram for the
original projectile
FS/Gr = flake scars per gram for the
resharpened self
WQ = whole weight for the original projectile
Wr = whole weight for the resharpened self
The relationship of the weight for an original projectile to its
resharpened self can be expressed as:
WQ (Tq/3.356)C1/0 *304)
Wr (Tr/3.701) 3047
If it is assumed the maximum thickness is not altered in the
resharpening process then:
Tq = Tr and WQ/Wr = (3.701/3.356) (1/0-304) = 1.38
or
WQ = 1.38 Wr
Then the original's weight is 1.38 times greater than that of its
resharpened self.


74
The relationship of the flake scars per gram for an original
projectile to its resharpened self can be expressed as:
FS/Gq 65.33 (WQ-0*738
FS/Gr 55.78 (wr-8*738;
If it is assumed that WQ = 1.38 Wr is correct, then:
FS/Gq 65.33 ((1.38 Wr)-0*738)
FS/Gr 55.78 (Wr-0*738)
or
FS/Gq = 0.923 FS/Gr
Or the number of flake scars per gram on an original are 8% fewer
than those of its resharpened self.


APPENDIX C
LIST OF PROJECTILES AND ANCILLARY DATA
DISTAL NUMBER
PROXIMAL END SHAPE PROXIMAL EDGE SHAPE BASAL GRIND -ING RESHARP. CONDITION END SHAPE INDEX FRAGMENT TYPE % OF WEIGHT WHOLE (qram) THICK -NESS (rrni) OF FLAKES SCARS CATALOG NUMBER
BASAL NOTCH RESHARPEN 1231 DISTAL 85 10.8 5.7 97 GS-61-1
BASAL NOTCH RESHARPEN 2211 MIDSECT. 40 19.6 9.1 107 GS-81-15
BASAL NOTCH RESHARPEN 2311 DISTAL 90 25.4 10.0 112 GS-81-19
BASAL NOTCH CONCAVE NO RESHARPEN 2311 PROXIMAL 55 25.5 10.6 76 GS-81-17
BASAL NOTCH CONCAVE NO RESHARPEN 2311 DISTAL 90 6.9 6.9 77 GS-84-22
BASAL NOTCH CONVEX NO RESHARPEN 1001 PROXIMAL 20 4.6 8.6 56 GS73-16
BASAL NOTCH CONVEX NO ORIGINAL 1111 PROXIMAL 50 12.9 7.3 119 16-2-5
BASAL NOTCH CONVEX NO RESHARPEN 1211 COMPLETE 100 25.1 9.1 171 GS-76-3
BASAL NOTCH CONVEX NO RESHARPEN 2200 PROXIMAL 40 12.2 9.8 52 GS-73-7
BASAL NOTCH CONVEX YES RESHARPEN 1000 PROXIMAL 40 25.2 11.1 77 GS-75-15
BASAL NOTCH STRAIGHT NO ORIGINAL 1131 PROXIMAL 50 17.7 9.4 66 GS-62-59
BASAL NOTCH STRAIGHT NO ORIGINAL 1133 PROXIMAL 65 12.3 7.5 94 GS-83-8
BASAL NOTCH STRAIGHT NO RESHARPEN 1211 DISTAL 95 34.8 9.5 197 GS-74-4
BASAL NOTCH STRAIGHT NO RESHARPEN 2011 PROXIMAL 80 3.1 5.3 89 GS-25-44
BASAL NOTCH STRAIGHT NO RESHARPEN 2100 PROXIMAL 50 30.9 9.6 125 GS-69-10
BASAL NOTCH STRAIGHT NO RESHARPEN 2211 PROXIMAL 45 29.6 10.9 84 GS-81-20
BASAL NOTCH STRAIGHT NO RESHARPEN 2300 PROXIMAL 25 8.8 6.9 94 GS-75-12
BASAL NOTCH STRAIGHT NO RESHARPEN 2312 COMPLETE 100 29.4 10.9 133 GS-80-15
BASAL NOTCH STRAIGHT YES RESHARPEN 1311 PROXIMAL 45 23.6 11.9 83 GS-81-16
BASAL NOTCH STRAIGHT YES RESHARPEN 2212 PROXIMAL 30 11.9 10.8 61 GS-81-5
CORNER NOTCH ORIGINAL 0011 MIDSECT. 50 5.4 6.3 46 GS-13-5
CORNER NOTCH ORIGINAL 1021 DISTAL 50 .5 2.3 57 GS-25-13
CORNER NOTCH ORIGINAL 1023 MIDSECT. 60 3.1 5.6 43 85-1-1
CORNER NOTCH ORIGINAL 1031 MIDSECT. 40 2.1 4.2 56 30-4-6
CORNER NOTCH ORIGINAL 1031 MIDSECT. 60 .4 2.6 40 GS-25-2
CORNER NOTCH ORIGINAL 1111 DISTAL 90 1.0 3.8 70 GS-17-4
CORNER NOTCH ORIGINAL mi DISTAL 50 .8 3.7 39 GS-18-2
CORNER NOTCH ORIGINAL nil DISTAL 85 .2 2.0 43 GS-25-8
CORNER NOTCH ORIGINAL nil DISTAL 80 14.4 7.4 91 GS-71-11
CORNER NOTCH ORIGINAL nil DISTAL 85 2.7 4.3 77 GS-9-3
CORNER NOTCH ORIGINAL 1112 DISTAL 95 .7 3.1 93 GS-54-4
CORNER NOTCH ORIGINAL 1121 DISTAL 85 .7 2.6 82 13-1-1
CORNER NOTCH ORIGINAL 1121 DISTAL 95 .4 2.9 52 GS-25-11
CORNER NOTCH ORIGINAL 1121 DISTAL 80 .5 2.9 54 GS-25-12
CORNER NOTCH ORIGINAL 1121 MIDSECT. 75 .5 2.9 56 GS-25-14
CORNER NOTCH ORIGINAL 1121 MIDSECT. 90 .4 2.4 47 GS-25-15
CORNER NOTCH ORIGINAL 1121 DISTAL 95 .6 3.0 62 GS-25-19


76
DISTAL NUMBER
PROXIMAL END SHAPE PROXIMAL EDGE SHAPE BASAL GRIND RESHARP. -ING CONDITION END SHAPE INDEX FRAGMENT TYPE % OF WEIGHT WHOLE (qram) THICK -NESS (nm) OF FLAKES SCARS CATALOG NUMBER
CORNER NOTCH ORIGINAL 1121 DISTAL 95 .4 2.4 92 GS-25-21
CORNER NOTCH ORIGINAL 1121 DISTAL 90 .6 2.8 61 GS-25-22
CORNER NOTCH ORIGINAL 1121 DISTAL 90 .8 3.2 65 GS-25-25
CORNER NOTCH ORIGINAL 1121 MIDSECT. 95 .6 2.8 76 GS-25-26
CORNER NOTCH ORIGINAL 1121 MIDSECT. 97 .8 3.4 73 GS-25-27
CORNER NOTCH ORIGINAL 1121 MIDSECT. 93 1.1 3.9 86 GS-25-28
CORNER NOTCH ORIGINAL 1121 MIDSECT. 85 .4 2.5 48 GS-25-3
CORNER NOTCH ORIGINAL 1121 DISTAL 85 .4 2.9 56 GS-51-2
CORNER NOTCH ORIGINAL 1122 DISTAL 90 6.0 6.6 119 GS-28-1
CORNER NOTCH ORIGINAL 1131 MIDSECT. 85 4.3 6.5 67 1-7-12
CORNER NOTCH ORIGINAL 1131 DISTAL 75 1.1 4.1 61 82-1-2
CORNER NOTCH ORIGINAL 1131 MIDSECT. 45 1.8 3.7 35 91-1-1
CORNER NOTCH ORIGINAL 1131 MIDSECT. 65 .9 2.8 51 96-1-2
CORNER NOTCH ORIGINAL 1131 DISTAL 90 .4 2.4 54 GS-25-10
CORNER NOTCH ORIGINAL 1131 DISTAL 95 .5 2.5 61 GS-25-17
CORNER NOTCH ORIGINAL 1131 MIDSECT. 75 .6 2.7 52 GS-25-20
CORNER NOTCH ORIGINAL 1131 MIDSECT. 45 5.5 5.7 68 GS-25-41
CORNER NOTCH ORIGINAL 1131 DISTAL 90 .5 2.8 43 GS-25-9
CORNER NOTCH ORIGINAL 1131 MIDSECT. 50 1.6 4.2 40 GS-39-23
CORNER NOTCH ORIGINAL 1131 MIDSECT. 40 .4 2.4 44 GS-43-1
CORNER NOTCH ORIGINAL 1131 MIDSECT. 70 .5 2.5 31 GS-50-3
CORNER NOTCH ORIGINAL 1131 MIDSECT. 90 .4 2.1 51 GS-50-4
CORNER NOTCH ORIGINAL 1131 DISTAL 80 1.0 3.2 70 GS-72-8
CORNER NOTCH ORIGINAL 1131 MIDSECT. 60 6.7 5.4 120 GS-75-11
CORNER NOTCH RESHARPEN 1211 DISTAL 80 2.7 3.9 90 GS-1-11
CORNER NOTCH RESHARPEN 1213 DISTAL 85 2.6 4.0 80 GS-71-13
CORNER NOTCH ORIGINAL 1231 MIDSECT. 75 2.7 5.0 66 123-2-1
CORNER NOTCH RESHARPEN 1231 DISTAL 85 3.3 4.1 83 GS-16-4
CORNER NOTCH RESHARPEN 1231 MIDSECT. 60 3.1 6.0 82 GS-84-11
CORNER NOTCH RESHARPEN 1311 DISTAL 75 .2 1.6 23 12-1-1
CORNER NOTCH RESHARPEN 1311 DISTAL 75 9.6 9.0 87 GS-58-5
CORNER NOTCH ORIGINAL 1311 MIDSECT. 65 2.1 5.0 49 GS-MS-10
CORNER NOTCH RESHARPEN 1312 DISTAL 85 2.3 4.2 57 GS-30-12
CORNER NOTCH RESHARPEN 1331 MIDSECT. 50 1.4 3.4 64 1-8-4
CORNER NOTCH RESHARPEN 1331 MIDSECT. 75 3.4 4.6 79 30-2-2
CORNER NOTCH RESHARPEN 1331 DISTAL 75 1.3 3.1 95 GS-84-5
CORNER NOTCH RESHARPEN 1333 MIDSECT. 65 27.8 10.0 72 GS-67-51
CORNER NOTCH ORIGINAL 2131 DISTAL 75 .5 2.0 46 90-1-5
CORNER NOTCH ORIGINAL 2143 DISTAL 95 .4 3.3 45 GS-54-14
CORNER NOTCH RESHARPEN 2202 MIDSECT. 50 5.0 7.6 45 GS-30-13
CORNER NOTCH RESHARPEN 2211 DISTAL 90 3.9 5.6 62 GS-25-35
CORNER NOTCH RESHARPEN 2211 MIDSECT. 80 49.1 10.1 124 GS-67-52
CORNER NOTCH RESHARPEN 2221 MIDSECT. 50 7.7 6.3 78 GS-71-28
CORNER NOTCH RESHARPEN 2231 DISTAL 96 .5 2.4 44 GS-25-16
CORNER NOTCH RESHARPEN 2232 DISTAL 75 1.7 3.8 64 GS-10-5
CORNER NOTCH RESHARPEN 2233 DISTAL 90 1.4 4.1 53 GS-5-8
CORNER NOTCH RESHARPEN 2311 DISTAL 75 5.9 6.9 74 1-10-3
CORNER NOTCH RESHARPEN 2311 MIDSECT. 95 2.4 5.1 74 GS-10-9
CORNER NOTCH RESHARPEN 2311 MIDSECT. 85 .6 2.3 52 GS-45-3


77
DISTAL NUMBER
PROXIMAL END SHAPE PROXIMAL EDGE SHAPE BASAL GRIND RESHARP. -ING CONDITION END SHAPE INDEX FRAGMENT TYPE % OF WEIGHT WHOLE (qram) THICK OF -NESS FLAKES (nrn) SCARS CATALOG NUMBER
CORNER NOTCH RESHARPEN 2311 MIDSECT. 75 34.0 12.2 131 GS-78-20
CORNER NOTCH RESHARPEN 2311 PROXIMAL 60 2.1 4.4 72 GS-MS-17
CORNER NOTCH RESHARPEN 2312 DISTAL 80 3.5 6.1 79 GS-54-2
CORNER NOTCH RESHARPEN 2313 DISTAL 90 12.2 7.0 108 GS-67-53
CORNER NOTCH RESHARPEN 2321 DISTAL 75 2.0 3.9 74 11-2-3
CORNER NOTCH RESHARPEN 2321 MIDSECT. 50 3.8 6.3 73 110-1-11
CORNER NOTCH RESHARPEN 2321 MIDSECT. 50 1.1 4.4 38 90-1-3
CORNER NOTCH RESHARPEN 2321 DISTAL 90 .6 2.8 46 GS-39-11
CORNER NOTCH RESHARPEN 2323 DISTAL 85 3.2 5.7 100 1-5-2
CORNER NOTCH RESHARPEN 2331 MIDSECT. 50 .7 2.8 47 100-1-1
CORNER NOTCH RESHARPEN 2331 MIDSECT. 50 1.6 3.6 40 100-1-3
CORNER NOTCH RESHARPEN 2331 MIDSECT. 70 1.5 3.6 57 84-5-1
CORNER NOTCH RESHARPEN 2331 MIDSECT. 75 1.4 4.8 53 91-2-2
CORNER NOTCH RESHARPEN 2331 DISTAL 80 .4 2.5 31 GS-25-4
CORNER NOTCH RESHARPEN 2331 DISTAL 90 5.0 5.0 98 GS-62-39
CORNER NOTCH RESHARPEN 2331 DISTAL 80 4.2 6.0 70 GS-65-4
CORNER NOTCH RESHARPEN 2331 DISTAL 75 .3 2.6 56 GS-MS-2
CORNER NOTCH RESHARPEN 2343 MIDSECT. 50 3.7 5.0 47 106-3-14
CORNER NOTCH NO ORIGINAL 1111 MIDSECT. 98 1.2 4.5 37 GS-42-5
CORNER NOTCH NO ORIGINAL 1111 COMPLETE 100 1.8 4.5 71 GS-62-18
CORNER NOTCH NO ORIGINAL mi DISTAL 90 .6 2.8 57 GS-62-4
CORNER NOTCH NO ORIGINAL 1131 DISTAL 97 1.2 3.9 62 GS-29-1
CORNER NOTCH NO ORIGINAL 1231 MIDSECT. 85 1.5 4.2 77 90-1-2
CORNER NOTCH NO RESHARPEN 1232 DISTAL 80 3.4 5.5 78 GS-64-3
CORNER NOTCH NO RESHARPEN 1232 PROXIMAL 85 1.4 3.7 67 GS-89-2
CORNER NOTCH NO RESHARPEN 1312 DISTAL 95 4.9 6.8 95 1-7-10
CORNER NOTCH NO RESHARPEN 1312 MIDSECT. 60 5.5 5.6 61 2-126-7-3
CORNER NOTCH NO ORIGINAL 1331 MIDSECT. 80 1.1 2.2 45 GS-24-6
CORNER NOTCH NO RESHARPEN 2311 MIDSECT. 60 3.5 5.6 59 96-1-88
CORNER NOTCH NO ORIGINAL 2311 PROXIMAL 50 1.0 4.0 52 GS-33-3
CORNER NOTCH NO RESHARPEN 2313 MIDSECT. 25 2.0 4.3 75 96-1-51
CORNER NOTCH NO RESHARPEN 2331 PROXIMAL 55 7.7 6.1 78 GS-84-29
CORNER NOTCH NO RESHARPEN 2342 MIDSECT. 65 .7 3.3 46 123-2-4
CORNER NOTCH CONCAVE RESHARPEN 1311 PROXIMAL 85 2.7 4.4 84 GS-75-3
CORNER NOTCH CONCAVE RESHARPEN 2341 DISTAL 80 3.0 6.0 52 96-1-86
CORNER NOTCH CONCAVE NO RESHARPEN 0222 PROXIMAL 35 11.8 9.1 72 GS-70-8
CORNER NOTCH CONCAVE NO ORIGINAL 1011 PROXIMAL 50 .4 2.2 49 12-1-2
CORNER NOTCH CONCAVE NO ORIGINAL 1013 PROXIMAL 35 2.9 4.8 54 2-125-5-2
CORNER NOTCH CONCAVE NO ORIGINAL 1031 PROXIMAL 30 2.1 6.4 33 GS-18-6
CORNER NOTCH CONCAVE NO ORIGINAL 1041 PROXIMAL 70 2.1 3.9 72 117-4-36
CORNER NOTCH CONCAVE NO ORIGINAL mi PROXIMAL 90 1.7 4.5 92 GS-1-2
CORNER NOTCH CONCAVE NO ORIGINAL nil PROXIMAL 85 .7 3.2 41 GS-62-7
CORNER NOTCH CONCAVE NO ORIGINAL nil COMPLETE 100 1.2 4.2 95 GS-71-18
CORNER NOTCH CONCAVE NO ORIGINAL nil PROXIMAL 70 1.0 3.1 61 GS-91-5
CORNER NOTCH CONCAVE NO ORIGINAL 1131 PROXIMAL 97 1.9 4.0 73 100-1-4
CORNER NOTCH CONCAVE NO ORIGINAL 1131 PROXIMAL 55 2.9 6.9 54 96-1-55
CORNER NOTCH CONCAVE NO ORIGINAL 1131 PROXIMAL 95 1.2 4.1 59 GS-75-1
CORNER NOTCH CONCAVE NO RESHARPEN 1202 PROXIMAL 60 3.4 5.5 61 GS-65-6
CORNER NOTCH CONCAVE NO RESHARPEN 1211 COMPLETE 100 .9 3.6 44 GS-62-11


78
DISTAL NUMBER
PROXIMAL END SHAPE PROXIMAL EDGE SHAPE BASAL GRIND -ING RESHARP. CONDITION END SHAPE INDEX FRAGMENT TYPE % OF WEIGHT WHOLE (qram) THICK -NESS (nrn) OF FLAKES SCARS CATALOG NUMBER
CORNER NOTCH CONCAVE NO RESHARPEN 1211 COMPLETE 100 .6 3.5 35 GS-62-2
CORNER NOTCH CONCAVE NO RESHARPEN 1211 PROXIMAL 75 .7 3.9 46 GS-MS-6
CORNER NOTCH CONCAVE NO RESHARPEN 1212 PROXIMAL 75 .8 4.1 44 GS-62-1
CORNER NOTCH CONCAVE NO RESHARPEN 1222 COMPLETE 99 7.1 7.5 86 GS-75-6
CORNER NOTCH CONCAVE NO RESHARPEN 1231 PROXIMAL 60 6.2 6.2 52 GS-65-19
CORNER NOTCH CONCAVE NO RESHARPEN 1231 DISTAL 95 3.9 5.0 100 GS-84-14
CORNER NOTCH CONCAVE NO RESHARPEN 1232 PROXIMAL 97 2.5 4.7 76 98-2-1
CORNER NOTCH CONCAVE NO ORIGINAL 1311 PROXIMAL 65 4.0 4.5 109 GS-18-20
CORNER NOTCH CONCAVE NO RESHARPEN 1331 COMPLETE 95 5.5 8.6 98 GS-MS-22
CORNER NOTCH CONCAVE NO ORIGINAL 2131 PROXIMAL 50 1.0 3.4 47 GS-83-1
CORNER NOTCH CONCAVE NO RESHARPEN 2200 PROXIMAL 50 3.1 5.0 54 84-6-17
CORNER NOTCH CONCAVE NO RESHARPEN 2211 PROXIMAL 65 3.8 6.3 67 84-6-13
CORNER NOTCH CONCAVE NO RESHARPEN 2211 PROXIMAL 90 6.5 7.2 126 GS-72-3
CORNER NOTCH CONCAVE NO RESHARPEN 2212 COMPLETE 100 1.6 4.6 55 GS-62-31
CORNER NOTCH CONCAVE NO RESHARPEN 2241 PROXIMAL 97 4.5 5.8 108 GS-62-36
CORNER NOTCH CONCAVE NO RESHARPEN 2242 PROXIMAL 55 2.0 5.2 47 GS-23-2
CORNER NOTCH CONCAVE NO RESHARPEN 2243 COMPLETE 100 2.2 5.0 63 GS-62-16
CORNER NOTCH CONCAVE NO RESHARPEN 2243 COMPLETE 100 2.2 5.3 46 2-125-8-1
CORNER NOTCH CONCAVE NO RESHARPEN 2300 PROXIMAL 50 3.0 5.0 51 98-1-22
CORNER NOTCH CONCAVE NO RESHARPEN 2311 COMPLETE 100 6.3 5.9 41 GS-59-16
CORNER NOTCH CONCAVE NO RESHARPEN 2311 COMPLETE 100 7.0 5.4 144 GS-68-2
CORNER NOTCH CONCAVE NO RESHARPEN 2311 PROXIMAL 90 8.4 6.6 120 GS-84-26
CORNER NOTCH CONCAVE NO RESHARPEN 2311 COMPLETE 100 16.7 10.1 106 GS-85-1
CORNER NOTCH CONCAVE NO RESHARPEN 2312 DISTAL 95 2.1 3.7 62 100-3-4
CORNER NOTCH CONCAVE NO RESHARPEN 2312 PROXIMAL 95 3.0 5.4 81 3-1-43
CORNER NOTCH CONCAVE NO RESHARPEN 2312 PROXIMAL 60 3.0 5.0 89 GS-72-9
CORNER NOTCH CONCAVE NO RESHARPEN 2312 DISTAL 75 5.7 5.9 83 2-125-6-4
CORNER NOTCH CONCAVE NO RESHARPEN 2321 PROXIMAL 75 13.6 7.6 85 GS-82-6
CORNER NOTCH CONCAVE NO RESHARPEN 2323 PROXIMAL 90 4.2 6.5 77 21-5-1
CORNER NOTCH CONCAVE NO RESHARPEN 2331 COMPLETE 100 1.9 4.6 67 121-1-1
CORNER NOTCH CONCAVE NO RESHARPEN 2331 PROXIMAL 60 10.8 7.7 83 GS-82-5
CORNER NOTCH CONCAVE NO RESHARPEN 2341 PROXIMAL 85 .4 2.5 61 11-2-1
CORNER NOTCH CONCAVE NO RESHARPEN 2341 COMPLETE 100 3.2 4.6 87 89-4-3
CORNER NOTCH CONCAVE NO RESHARPEN 2341 COMPLETE 100 .6 3.4 46 GS-39-13
CORNER NOTCH CONCAVE NO RESHARPEN 2341 COMPLETE 100 23.6 8.4 133 GS-62-68
CORNER NOTCH CONCAVE NO RESHARPEN 2341 PROXIMAL 85 1.3 4.4 72 GS-71-17
CORNER NOTCH CONCAVE NO RESHARPEN 2341 COMPLETE 100 8.2 6.9 79 GS-78-4
CORNER NOTCH CONCAVE NO RESHARPEN 2341 PROXIMAL 95 4.4 5.4 86 GS-79-2
CORNER NOTCH CONCAVE YES ORIGINAL 1113 PROXIMAL 60 10.0 6.9 102 GS-86-2
CORNER NOTCH CONCAVE YES RESHARPEN 1201 PROXIMAL 75 5.2 5.6 81 2-125-6-5
CORNER NOTCH CONCAVE YES RESHARPEN 1211 COMPLETE 100 3.8 5.8 68 GS-1-8
CORNER NOTCH CONCAVE YES RESHARPEN 1341 PROXIMAL 75 3.2 5.7 76 4-2-14
CORNER NOTCH CONCAVE YES RESHARPEN 2241 COMPLETE 100 3.0 7.0 78 GS-54-11
CORNER NOTCH CONCAVE YES RESHARPEN 2242 PROXIMAL 90 3.2 5.0 48 GS-26-1
CORNER NOTCH CONCAVE YES RESHARPEN 2300 PROXIMAL 60 5.4 5.7 72 GS-MS-28
CORNER NOTCH CONCAVE YES RESHARPEN 2332 PROXIMAL 75 2.5 4.9 67 GS-1-3
CORNER NOTCH CONCAVE YES RESHARPEN 2342 DISTAL 96 3.6 6.6 62 2-125-6-17
CORNER NOTCH CONCAVE YES RESHARPEN 2342 COMPLETE 100 3.4 5.5 82 2-127-1-2
CORNER NOTCH CONVEX NO RESHARPEN 0000 PROXIMAL 50 2.4 4.9 54 81-1-4


79
DISTAL NUMBER
PROXIMAL END SHAPE PROXIMAL EDGE SHAPE BASAL GRIND RESHARP. -ING CONDITION END SHAPE INDEX FRAGMENT TYPE % OF WEIGHT WHOLE (qram) THICK -NESS (rim) OF FLAKES SCARS CATALOG NUMBER
CORNER NOTCH CONVEX NO ORIGINAL 1000 PROXIMAL 50 3.0 4.9 47 84-6-20
CORNER NOTCH CONVEX NO ORIGINAL 1030 PROXIMAL 50 .3 2.7 35 GS-25-7
CORNER NOTCH CONVEX NO ORIGINAL 1111 PROXIMAL 95 2.0 4.0 75 1-5-6
CORNER NOTCH CONVEX NO ORIGINAL 1111 PROXIMAL 97 5.9 5.7 no 4-1-2
CORNER NOTCH CONVEX NO ORIGINAL mi COMPLETE 100 .8 3.6 78 GS-62-3
CORNER NOTCH CONVEX NO ORIGINAL nil DISTAL 50 9.2 6.3 82 GS-62-45
CORNER NOTCH CONVEX NO ORIGINAL nil PROXIMAL 95 1.1 3.8 71 GS-65-2
CORNER NOTCH CONVEX NO ORIGINAL nil PROXIMAL 55 13.0 6.9 97 GS-92-29
CORNER NOTCH CONVEX NO ORIGINAL nil DISTAL 98 2.1 4.6 111 GS-MS-18
CORNER NOTCH CONVEX NO ORIGINAL nil PROXIMAL 95 2.8 4.6 98 2-126-6-3
CORNER NOTCH CONVEX NO ORIGINAL 1112 COMPLETE 97 9.6 7.9 87 GS-58-6
CORNER NOTCH CONVEX NO ORIGINAL 1121 COMPLETE 100 5.5 4.8 108 GS-11-46
CORNER NOTCH CONVEX NO ORIGINAL 1121 MIDSECT. 95 .9 3.5 66 GS-39-17
CORNER NOTCH CONVEX NO ORIGINAL 1131 DISTAL 90 3.8 4.6 133 1-1-3
CORNER NOTCH CONVEX NO ORIGINAL 1131 PROXIMAL 96 .5 2.9 55 GS-25-23
CORNER NOTCH CONVEX NO ORIGINAL 1131 DISTAL 96 .7 3.2 55 GS-25-24
CORNER NOTCH CONVEX NO ORIGINAL 1131 DISTAL 97 .6 3.4 60 GS-42-2
CORNER NOTCH CONVEX NO ORIGINAL 1131 COMPLETE 100 2.2 4.6 90 2-126-6-1
CORNER NOTCH CONVEX NO RESHARPEN 1211 COMPLETE 100 10.7 7.1 137 GS-65-20
CORNER NOTCH CONVEX NO RESHARPEN 1211 PROXIMAL 95 18.5 8.6 108 GS-77-14
CORNER NOTCH CONVEX NO RESHARPEN 1212 COMPLETE 100 9.3 9.0 78 GS-62-87
CORNER NOTCH CONVEX NO RESHARPEN 1221 DISTAL 100 .7 3.7 40 GS-62-9
CORNER NOTCH CONVEX NO RESHARPEN 1221 PROXIMAL 75 4.5 6.4 83 GS-84-13
CORNER NOTCH CONVEX NO RESHARPEN 1232 DISTAL 95 3.4 5.0 89 GS-19-31
CORNER NOTCH CONVEX NO RESHARPEN 1232 PROXIMAL 45 4.2 7.1 28 GS-35-14
CORNER NOTCH CONVEX NO RESHARPEN 1232 COMPLETE 100 5.3 6.8 105 GS-62-52
CORNER NOTCH CONVEX NO RESHARPEN 1232 PROXIMAL 97 .8 3.4 66 GS-92-1
CORNER NOTCH CONVEX NO RESHARPEN 1233 DISTAL 95 2.2 4.1 54 GS-25-34
CORNER NOTCH CONVEX NO RESHARPEN 1311 DISTAL 80 6.2 5.6 78 21-2-8
CORNER NOTCH CONVEX NO RESHARPEN 1311 PROXIMAL 85 4.3 5.6 83 GS-60-1
CORNER NOTCH CONVEX NO RESHARPEN 1311 PROXIMAL 100 11.7 6.8 90 GS-62-50
CORNER NOTCH CONVEX NO RESHARPEN 1311 COMPLETE 100 13.1 7.7 102 GS-71-24
CORNER NOTCH CONVEX NO RESHARPEN 1311 DISTAL 95 .3 2.9 32 GS-91-1
CORNER NOTCH CONVEX NO RESHARPEN 1311 DISTAL 90 6.3 5.9 72 GS-92-15
CORNER NOTCH CONVEX NO RESHARPEN 1321 PROXIMAL 99 20.6 8.0 147 GS-62-67
CORNER NOTCH CONVEX NO RESHARPEN 1341 COMPLETE 100 1.5 4.8 60 GS-29-2
CORNER NOTCH CONVEX NO RESHARPEN 1341 COMPLETE 100 33.2 11.6 148 GS-80-19
CORNER NOTCH CONVEX NO RESHARPEN 1341 PROXIMAL 80 1.9 4.6 67 GS-84-2
CORNER NOTCH CONVEX NO RESHARPEN 1342 PROXIMAL 95 14.6 7.2 123 GS-MS-44
CORNER NOTCH CONVEX NO RESHARPEN 1343 COMPLETE 100 36.7 10.8 102 GS-67-54
CORNER NOTCH CONVEX NO RESHARPEN 1343 COMPLETE 100 23.8 10.1 137 GS-73-18
CORNER NOTCH CONVEX NO ORIGINAL 2121 DISTAL 95 1.0 4.3 61 GS-91-4
CORNER NOTCH CONVEX NO ORIGINAL 2131 DISTAL 100 .5 3.0 52 GS-43-3
CORNER NOTCH CONVEX NO RESHARPEN 2132 DISTAL 95 1.2 4.0 44 GS-3-3
CORNER NOTCH CONVEX NO RESHARPEN 2211 COMPLETE 100 4.8 7.1 71 1-6-1
CORNER NOTCH CONVEX NO RESHARPEN 2211 COMPLETE 100 12.6 9.3 101 120-1-9
CORNER NOTCH CONVEX NO RESHARPEN 2211 COMPLETE 100 1.1 3.0 108 GS-11-14
CORNER NOTCH CONVEX NO RESHARPEN 2211 PROXIMAL 98 2.1 4.1 63 GS-12-2
CORNER NOTCH CONVEX NO RESHARPEN 2211 COMPLETE 100 2.8 5.5 67 GS-45-15
i


80
DISTAL NUMBER
PROXIMAL END SHAPE PROXIMAL EDGE SHAPE BASAL GRIND -ING RESHARP. CONDITION END SHAPE INDEX FRAGMENT TYPE % OF WHOLE WEIGHT (qram) THICK -NESS (nm) OF FLAKES SCARS CATALOG NUMBER
CORNER NOTCH CONVEX NO RESHARPEN 2212 DISTAL 95 6.6 7.4 100 GS-62-40
CORNER NOTCH CONVEX NO RESHARPEN 2221 DISTAL 95 4.5 6.0 78 GS-84-16
CORNER NOTCH CONVEX NO RESHARPEN 2231 DISTAL 96 22.3 5.1 65 GS-12-1
CORNER NOTCH CONVEX NO RESHARPEN 2232 PROXIMAL 93 3.6 6.2 86 1-3-6
CORNER NOTCH CONVEX NO RESHARPEN 2232 COMPLETE 98 1.8 5.0 79 GS-89-3
CORNER NOTCH CONVEX NO RESHARPEN 2233 COMPLETE 100 7.6 7.9 98 GS-92-12
CORNER NOTCH CONVEX NO RESHARPEN 2242 PROXIMAL 97 15.1 8.6 111 GS-71-1
CORNER NOTCH CONVEX NO RESHARPEN 2242 COMPLETE 100 23.2 8.7 193 GS-71-35
CORNER NOTCH CONVEX NO RESHARPEN 2300 PROXIMAL 50 8.1 6.6 86 GS-62-46
CORNER NOTCH CONVEX NO RESHARPEN 2301 PROXIMAL 25 3.5 7.2 45 GS-83-4
CORNER NOTCH CONVEX NO RESHARPEN 2302 PROXIMAL 75 5.2 6.6 59 GS-12-6
CORNER NOTCH CONVEX NO RESHARPEN 2311 COMPLETE 100 5.0 6.5 102 1-5-3
CORNER NOTCH CONVEX NO RESHARPEN 2311 PROXIMAL 90 4.8 6.4 60 89-4-4
CORNER NOTCH CONVEX NO RESHARPEN 2311 PROXIMAL 60 3.5 5.1 49 98-1-7
CORNER NOTCH CONVEX NO RESHARPEN 2311 COMPLETE 100 18.6 9.8 86 GS-59-18
CORNER NOTCH CONVEX NO RESHARPEN 2311 COMPLETE 100 7.1 7.7 113 GS-62-51
CORNER NOTCH CONVEX NO RESHARPEN 2311 PROXIMAL 55 6.0 7.2 54 GS-81-2
CORNER NOTCH CONVEX NO RESHARPEN 2311 COMPLETE 100 5.6 6.0 136 GS-84-17
CORNER NOTCH CONVEX NO RESHARPEN 2311 PROXIMAL 40 10.4 8.0 80 GS-84-34
CORNER NOTCH CONVEX NO RESHARPEN 2311 COMPLETE 100 15.0 7.9 109 GS-84-35
CORNER NOTCH CONVEX NO RESHARPEN 2312 COMPLETE 100 5.4 5.7 125 1-3-5
CORNER NOTCH CONVEX NO RESHARPEN 2312 COMPLETE 98 4.2 6.2 111 GS-71-12
CORNER NOTCH CONVEX NO RESHARPEN 2321 COMPLETE 85 .8 3.4 44 GS-62-8
CORNER NOTCH CONVEX NO RESHARPEN 2321 DISTAL 95 4.5 5.4 99 GS-83-5
CORNER NOTCH CONVEX NO RESHARPEN 2321 COMPLETE 100 20.0 8.9 111 GS-83-9
CORNER NOTCH CONVEX NO RESHARPEN 2321 PROXIMAL 85 1.0 3.1 66 GS-90-2
CORNER NOTCH CONVEX NO RESHARPEN 2331 PROXIMAL 90 2.3 4.6 73 1-12-6
CORNER NOTCH CONVEX NO RESHARPEN 2331 PROXIMAL 98 4.2 5.3 84 16-2-3
CORNER NOTCH CONVEX NO RESHARPEN 2331 COMPLETE 100 5.7 6.8 72 16-2-4
CORNER NOTCH CONVEX NO RESHARPEN 2331 PROXIMAL 80 .6 3.1 35 30-2-10
CORNER NOTCH CONVEX NO RESHARPEN 2331 PROXIMAL 95 2.7 4.8 50 GS-MS-16
CORNER NOTCH CONVEX NO RESHARPEN 2331 PROXIMAL 65 3.1 5.6 69 2-125-6-15
CORNER NOTCH CONVEX NO RESHARPEN 2331 PROXIMAL 70 1.6 4.1 69 2-126-1-2
CORNER NOTCH CONVEX NO RESHARPEN 2332 DISTAL 98 2.2 4.8 61 84-6-10
CORNER NOTCH CONVEX NO RESHARPEN 2333 PROXIMAL 95 10.3 7.0 93 GS-92-23
CORNER NOTCH CONVEX NO RESHARPEN 2341 PROXIMAL 95 5.0 5.1 99 GS-62-49
CORNER NOTCH CONVEX NO RESHARPEN 2341 COMPLETE 100 7.0 6.9 96 GS-83-7
CORNER NOTCH CONVEX NO RESHARPEN 2341 COMPLETE 100 12.5 7.2 126 GS-92-30
CORNER NOTCH CONVEX NO RESHARPEN 2342 PROXIMAL 90 4.1 5.2 80 98-1-6
CORNER NOTCH CONVEX NO RESHARPEN 2342 COMPLETE 100 9.6 6.4 64 GS-62-89
CORNER NOTCH CONVEX NO RESHARPEN 2342 PROXIMAL 90 3.4 5.4 59 GS-65-5
CORNER NOTCH CONVEX NO RESHARPEN 2342 COMPLETE 100 16.6 9.0 123 GS-72-12
CORNER NOTCH CONVEX NO ORIGINAL 2343 PROXIMAL 95 2.0 4.4 43 GS-62-26
CORNER NOTCH CONVEX NO RESHARPEN 2343 PROXIMAL 97 .8 2.8 56 GS-77-3
CORNER NOTCH CONVEX YES RESHARPEN 1341 PROXIMAL 70 17.7 8.6 134 GS-62-58
CORNER NOTCH CONVEX YES RESHARPEN 2331 PROXIMAL 98 2.1 5.4 55 2-126-6-2
CORNER NOTCH STRAIGHT NO RESHARPEN 0000 PROXIMAL 25 20.0 9.4 58 GS-82-9
CORNER NOTCH STRAIGHT NO RESHARPEN 0021 PROXIMAL 35 7.1 8.7 50 GS-71-33
CORNER NOTCH STRAIGHT NO ORIGINAL 1111 PROXIMAL 60 3.1 6.0 44 GS-18-9


81
DISTAL NUMBER
PROXIMAL END SHAPE PROXIMAL EDGE SHAPE BASAL GRIND RESHARP. -ING CONDITION END SHAPE INDEX FRAGMENT TYPE % OF WEIGHT WHOLE (qram) THICK -NESS (im) OF FLAKES SCARS CATALOG NUMBER
CORNER NOTCH STRAIGHT NO ORIGINAL 1111 COMPLETE 100 1.2 3.7 57 GS-24-4
CORNER NOTCH STRAIGHT NO ORIGINAL 1111 COMPLETE 100 8.1 7.1 86 GS-62-47
CORNER NOTCH STRAIGHT NO ORIGINAL mi COMPLETE 100 19.4 10.0 125 GS-62-95
CORNER NOTCH STRAIGHT NO ORIGINAL 1121 PROXIMAL 99 1.0 3.8 80 GS-72-6
CORNER NOTCH STRAIGHT NO ORIGINAL 1131 PROXIMAL 60 .8 3.3 46 16-1-1
CORNER NOTCH STRAIGHT NO ORIGINAL 1131 COMPLETE 100 1.1 3.7 72 GS-10-1
CORNER NOTCH STRAIGHT NO ORIGINAL 1131 COMPLETE 100 .9 3.2 51 GS-13-1
CORNER NOTCH STRAIGHT NO ORIGINAL 1131 DISTAL 95 .7 3.0 73 GS-25-18
CORNER NOTCH STRAIGHT NO ORIGINAL 1131 DISTAL 75 .4 2.3 38 GS-25-6
CORNER NOTCH STRAIGHT NO ORIGINAL 1131 PROXIMAL 85 .9 3.3 80 GS-62-13
CORNER NOTCH STRAIGHT NO ORIGINAL 1131 PROXIMAL 90 .5 3.2 44 GS-62-5
CORNER NOTCH STRAIGHT NO ORIGINAL 1131 COMPLETE 100 1.3 3.3 no GS-71-21
CORNER NOTCH STRAIGHT NO ORIGINAL 1131 PROXIMAL 90 7.6 6.0 148 GS-71-8
CORNER NOTCH STRAIGHT NO ORIGINAL 1131 PROXIMAL 97 9.1 6.2 129 GS-78-7
CORNER NOTCH STRAIGHT NO RESHARPEN 1211 PROXIMAL 90 1.1 4.6 32 GS-18-3
CORNER NOTCH STRAIGHT NO RESHARPEN 1211 DISTAL 90 15.1 9.6 104 GS-62-48
CORNER NOTCH STRAIGHT NO RESHARPEN 1211 PROXIMAL 55 23.1 10.7 91 GS-62-96
CORNER NOTCH STRAIGHT NO RESHARPEN 1211 COMPLETE 100 2.6 5.5 65 GS-71-22
CORNER NOTCH STRAIGHT NO RESHARPEN 1211 PROXIMAL 55 2.1 6.0 62 GS-73-9
CORNER NOTCH STRAIGHT NO RESHARPEN 1212 DISTAL 98 4.8 5.5 133 GS-71-9
CORNER NOTCH STRAIGHT NO RESHARPEN 1212 COMPLETE 100 20.3 9.7 130 GS-75-14
CORNER NOTCH STRAIGHT NO RESHARPEN 1221 PROXIMAL 95 3.7 5.6 74 8-2-2
CORNER NOTCH STRAIGHT NO RESHARPEN 1231 COMPLETE 100 3.3 5.3 84 GS-62-30
CORNER NOTCH STRAIGHT NO RESHARPEN 1232 COMPLETE 100 1.3 3.7 65 GS-62-15
CORNER NOTCH STRAIGHT NO RESHARPEN 1232 COMPLETE 100 10.5 6.6 139 GS-62-65
CORNER NOTCH STRAIGHT NO RESHARPEN 1232 PROXIMAL 85 3.0 5.5 89 GS-74-1
CORNER NOTCH STRAIGHT NO RESHARPEN 1241 COMPLETE 100 1.6 4.6 87 GS-10-4
CORNER NOTCH STRAIGHT NO RESHARPEN 1241 DISTAL 100 34.3 11.4 138 GS-67-49
CORNER NOTCH STRAIGHT NO RESHARPEN 1241 COMPLETE 99 3.9 5.2 101 GS-76-1
CORNER NOTCH STRAIGHT NO RESHARPEN 1311 DISTAL 96 2.4 4.2 57 GS-34-1
CORNER NOTCH STRAIGHT NO RESHARPEN 1311 PROXIMAL 90 18.1 7.8 131 GS-80-14
CORNER NOTCH STRAIGHT NO RESHARPEN 1311 PROXIMAL 98 31.6 9.8 136 GS-MS-56
CORNER NOTCH STRAIGHT NO RESHARPEN 1312 COMPLETE 100 3.5 6.1 89 GS-62-35
CORNER NOTCH STRAIGHT NO RESHARPEN 1321 PROXIMAL 96 3.8 6.5 93 GS-92-7
CORNER NOTCH STRAIGHT NO RESHARPEN 1331 PROXIMAL 60 3.9 5.9 75 GS-25-39
CORNER NOTCH STRAIGHT NO RESHARPEN 1341 PROXIMAL 65 4.9 5.7 103 GS-71-15
CORNER NOTCH STRAIGHT NO RESHARPEN 1341 PROXIMAL 90 6.2 6.1 82 GS-81-3
CORNER NOTCH STRAIGHT NO RESHARPEN 2000 PROXIMAL 50 5.0 6.4 93 GS-71-14
CORNER NOTCH STRAIGHT NO RESHARPEN 2012 PROXIMAL 75 4.1 5.4 72 2-125-5-4
CORNER NOTCH STRAIGHT NO ORIGINAL 2100 PROXIMAL 50 .8 2.9 42 90-5-19
CORNER NOTCH STRAIGHT NO ORIGINAL 2111 DISTAL 97 2.3 5.2 48 GS-30-9
CORNER NOTCH STRAIGHT NO ORIGINAL 2113 COMPLETE 100 10.9 11.2 61 GS-59-15
CORNER NOTCH STRAIGHT NO ORIGINAL 2131 COMPLETE 100 .6 2.5 65 GS-62-10
CORNER NOTCH STRAIGHT NO ORIGINAL 2133 COMPLETE 95 .7 2.9 42 GS-38-12
CORNER NOTCH STRAIGHT NO ORIGINAL 2143 PROXIMAL 98 2.7 6.2 67 30-4-5
CORNER NOTCH STRAIGHT NO RESHARPEN 2211 COMPLETE 100 27.7 11.5 141 GS-63-5
CORNER NOTCH STRAIGHT NO RESHARPEN 2211 PROXIMAL 99 3.5 6.0 89 GS-92-6
CORNER NOTCH STRAIGHT NO RESHARPEN 2213 PROXIMAL 95 3.3 5.0 31 GS-38-19
CORNER NOTCH STRAIGHT NO RESHARPEN 2222 COMPLETE 100 1.1 4.9 41 GS-64-1


82
DISTAL NUMBER
PROXIMAL END SHAPE PROXIMAL EDGE SHAPE BASAL GRIND -ING RESHARP. CONDITION END SHAPE INDEX FRAGMENT TYPE % OF WEIGHT WHOLE (qram) THICK -NESS (mm) OF FLAKES SCARS CATALOG NUMBER
CORNER NOTCH STRAIGHT NO RESHARPEN 2222 PROXIMAL 30 15.0 7.9 62 GS-65-21
CORNER NOTCH STRAIGHT NO RESHARPEN 2231 PROXIMAL 75 .8 3.1 65 93-2-1
CORNER NOTCH STRAIGHT NO RESHARPEN 2231 COMPLETE 100 1.2 3.3 77 GS-62-14
CORNER NOTCH STRAIGHT NO RESHARPEN 2232 PROXIMAL 65 4.4 6.4 93 GS-81-1
CORNER NOTCH STRAIGHT NO RESHARPEN 2241 COMPLETE 100 9.6 6.4 133 GS-62-41
CORNER NOTCH STRAIGHT NO RESHARPEN 2241 COMPLETE 100 7.1 7.3 65 GS-71-34
CORNER NOTCH STRAIGHT NO RESHARPEN 2241 PROXIMAL 93 4.8 5.5 108 GS-82-1
CORNER NOTCH STRAIGHT NO RESHARPEN 2241 PROXIMAL 80 3.9 5.8 54 2-125-5a-5
CORNER NOTCH STRAIGHT NO RESHARPEN 2242 COMPLETE 100 12.4 9.2 106 GS-62-66
CORNER NOTCH STRAIGHT NO RESHARPEN 2242 PROXIMAL 95 6.1 7.1 103 GS-71-30
CORNER NOTCH STRAIGHT NO RESHARPEN 2242 PROXIMAL 75 3.8 6.9 74 GS-74-7
CORNER NOTCH STRAIGHT NO RESHARPEN 2300 PROXIMAL 80 2.5 3.9 78 GS-12-3
CORNER NOTCH STRAIGHT NO RESHARPEN 2300 PROXIMAL 40 7.6 6.7 73 GS-74-2
CORNER NOTCH STRAIGHT NO RESHARPEN 2300 PROXIMAL 70 9.0 7.1 75 GS-84-32
CORNER NOTCH STRAIGHT NO RESHARPEN 2311 PROXIMAL 85 5.8 7.8 55 21-2-7
CORNER NOTCH STRAIGHT NO RESHARPEN 2311 PROXIMAL 55 .9 4.2 51 4-2-4
CORNER NOTCH STRAIGHT NO RESHARPEN 2311 PROXIMAL 97 1.4 3.8 50 84-6-24
CORNER NOTCH STRAIGHT NO RESHARPEN 2311 PROXIMAL 98 2.5 5.4 59 GS-29-3
CORNER NOTCH STRAIGHT NO RESHARPEN 2311 COMPLETE 100 4.9 6.1 98 GS-62-29
CORNER NOTCH STRAIGHT NO RESHARPEN 2311 COMPLETE 100 6.6 6.8 112 GS-62-34
CORNER NOTCH STRAIGHT NO RESHARPEN 2311 COMPLETE 99 16.0 8.8 141 GS-80-10
CORNER NOTCH STRAIGHT NO RESHARPEN 2311 COMPLETE 100 38.2 12.5 133 GS-80-18
CORNER NOTCH STRAIGHT NO RESHARPEN 2311 PROXIMAL 85 12.4 8.5 100 GS-81-12
CORNER NOTCH STRAIGHT NO RESHARPEN 2311 PROXIMAL 25 4.3 6.9 64 GS-84-15
CORNER NOTCH STRAIGHT NO RESHARPEN 2311 COMPLETE 100 5.1 6.4 102 GS-84-20
CORNER NOTCH STRAIGHT NO RESHARPEN 2311 PROXIMAL 80 3.3 5.7 81 GS-84-6
CORNER NOTCH STRAIGHT NO RESHARPEN 2311 PROXIMAL 75 3.3 5.7 78 GS-84-7
CORNER NOTCH STRAIGHT NO RESHARPEN 2311 DISTAL 90 5.0 6.8 78 GS-86-1
CORNER NOTCH STRAIGHT NO RESHARPEN 2312 COMPLETE 100 9.7 7.8 113 GS-11-53
CORNER NOTCH STRAIGHT NO RESHARPEN 2312 DISTAL 95 21.0 9.0 131 GS-92-35
CORNER NOTCH STRAIGHT NO RESHARPEN 2321 DISTAL 95 6.0 6.9 78 GS-90-3
CORNER NOTCH STRAIGHT NO RESHARPEN 2322 COMPLETE 98 11.0 7.7 105 GS-81-11
CORNER NOTCH STRAIGHT NO RESHARPEN 2331 DISTAL 70 1.0 3.8 62 4-2-5
CORNER NOTCH STRAIGHT NO RESHARPEN 2331 PROXIMAL 50 1.2 4.0 40 78-4-1
CORNER NOTCH STRAIGHT NO RESHARPEN 2331 PROXIMAL 80 1.8 4.2 33 91-1-2
CORNER NOTCH STRAIGHT NO RESHARPEN 2331 PROXIMAL 65 .9 3.3 36 96-1-39
CORNER NOTCH STRAIGHT NO RESHARPEN 2331 PROXIMAL 75 2.4 5.0 67 GS-62-12
CORNER NOTCH STRAIGHT NO RESHARPEN 2332 COMPLETE 100 1.6 4.6 57 GS-34-2
CORNER NOTCH STRAIGHT NO RESHARPEN 2341 PROXIMAL 45 1.2 3.7 59 118-4-1
CORNER NOTCH STRAIGHT NO RESHARPEN 2341 PROXIMAL 90 .9 2.9 53 21-4-1
CORNER NOTCH STRAIGHT NO RESHARPEN 2341 COMPLETE 100 12.6 8.5 82 GS-62-94
CORNER NOTCH STRAIGHT NO RESHARPEN 2341 COMPLETE 100 5.4 6.5 122 GS-69-4
CORNER NOTCH STRAIGHT NO RESHARPEN 2341 PROXIMAL 80 7.9 7.5 80 GS-80-4
CORNER NOTCH STRAIGHT NO RESHARPEN 2341 DISTAL 95 4.1 5.8 90 GS-89-4
CORNER NOTCH STRAIGHT NO RESHARPEN 2343 COMPLETE 100 .6 3.0 48 GS-77-1
CORNER NOTCH STRAIGHT YES ORIGINAL 1111 DISTAL 95 10.9 6.9 143 GS-54-1
CORNER NOTCH STRAIGHT YES ORIGINAL 1131 PROXIMAL 90 11.0 7.0 167 6-1-1
CORNER NOTCH STRAIGHT YES ORIGINAL 1131 COMPLETE 100 1.4 4.3 66 GS-7-2
CORNER NOTCH STRAIGHT YES RESHARPEN 2212 COMPLETE 100 4.0 6.4 65 2-125-9-1


83
DISTAL NUMBER
PROXIMAL END SHAPE PROXIMAL EDGE SHAPE BASAL GRIND -ING RESHARP. CONDITION END SHAPE INDEX FRAGMENT TYPE % OF WEIGHT WHOLE (qram) THICK -NESS (m) OF FLAKES SCARS CATALOG NUMBER
CORNER NOTCH STRAIGHT YES RESHARPEN 2241 PROXIMAL 85 .9 4.1 54 GS-7-1
CORNER NOTCH STRAIGHT YES RESHARPEN 2312 PROXIMAL 98 3.5 6.1 98 GS-84-8
CORNER NOTCH STRAIGHT YES RESHARPEN 2331 DISTAL 97 1.4 4.7 63 91-3-1
CORNER NOTCH STRAIGHT YES RESHARPEN 2331 PROXIMAL 98 22.7 10.0 107 GS-62-43
SIDE NOTCH RESHARPEN 0021 DISTAL 65 3.6 5.5 50 30-1-3
SIDE NOTCH ORIGINAL 1111 DISTAL 90 .4 2.9 53 GS-38-6
SIDE NOTCH ORIGINAL 1131 MIDSECT. 45 .6 2.9 33 20-2-2
SIDE NOTCH ORIGINAL 1131 DISTAL 95 .8 3.0 51 GS-45-11
SIDE NOTCH ORIGINAL 1311 MIDSECT. 95 6.8 4.2 135 GS-62-37
SIDE NOTCH RESHARPEN 1331 MIDSECT. 65 .8 4.0 51 GS-90-1
SIDE NOTCH NO ORIGINAL 1131 MIDSECT. 85 .4 2.3 39 GS-39-4
SIDE NOTCH CONCAVE NO RESHARPEN 0001 PROXIMAL 30 2.2 6.2 55 GS-84-4
SIDE NOTCH CONCAVE NO RESHARPEN 1031 PROXIMAL 50 .5 2.9 43 GS-38-5
SIDE NOTCH CONCAVE NO ORIGINAL 1031 PROXIMAL 70 .8 3.7 40 GS-41-4
SIDE NOTCH CONCAVE NO ORIGINAL 1111 COMPLETE 100 1.1 2.9 95 4-1-1
SIDE NOTCH CONCAVE NO ORIGINAL ini COMPLETE 100 1.0 2.5 48 91-1-3
SIDE NOTCH CONCAVE NO ORIGINAL nil PROXIMAL 96 1.0 3.1 80 96-1-41
SIDE NOTCH CONCAVE NO ORIGINAL nil PROXIMAL 85 2.9 5.9 47 96-1-58
SIDE NOTCH CONCAVE NO ORIGINAL nil COMPLETE 100 5.3 6.4 73 GS-7-6
SIDE NOTCH CONCAVE NO ORIGINAL nil COMPLETE 98 12.4 8.2 105 GS-80-7
SIDE NOTCH CONCAVE NO ORIGINAL 1131 PROXIMAL 75 .7 3.7 35 4-2-6
SIDE NOTCH CONCAVE NO ORIGINAL 1131 DISTAL 95 1.9 4.8 83 GS-2-2
SIDE NOTCH CONCAVE NO ORIGINAL 1131 DISTAL 90 .7 2.4 88 GS-37-2
SIDE NOTCH CONCAVE NO ORIGINAL 1131 MIDSECT. 55 .9 4.0 31 GS-38-10
SIDE NOTCH CONCAVE NO ORIGINAL 1131 PROXIMAL 65 .7 3.3 36 GS-38-11
SIDE NOTCH CONCAVE NO ORIGINAL 1131 PROXIMAL 65 1.0 3.4 38 GS39-12
SIDE NOTCH CONCAVE NO ORIGINAL 1131 PROXIMAL 97 1.3 4.8 57 GS-77-2
SIDE NOTCH CONCAVE NO RESHARPEN 1211 PROXIMAL 90 .6 2.9 37 GS-24-2
SIDE NOTCH CONCAVE NO RESHARPEN 1211 DISTAL 96 .8 4.0 47 GS-39-14
SIDE NOTCH CONCAVE NO RESHARPEN 1211 PROXIMAL 95 .7 2.9 38 GS-39-9
SIDE NOTCH CONCAVE NO RESHARPEN 1212 COMPLETE 100 2.7 5.0 67 GS-25-42
SIDE NOTCH CONCAVE NO RESHARPEN 1212 PROXIMAL 96 .8 2.8 53 GS-38-13
SIDE NOTCH CONCAVE NO RESHARPEN 1213 DISTAL 95 1.6 4.6 66 GS-17-7
SIDE NOTCH CONCAVE NO RESHARPEN 1231 PROXIMAL 96 .7 3.6 33 GS-39-8
SIDE NOTCH CONCAVE NO RESHARPEN 1241 PROXIMAL 85 .4 3.2 36 GS-39-2
SIDE NOTCH CONCAVE NO RESHARPEN 1311 PROXIMAL 90 13.9 8.9 77 GS-92-36
SIOE NOTCH CONCAVE NO RESHARPEN 1331 COMPLETE 100 7.2 6.9 88 GS-84-21
SIDE NOTCH CONCAVE NO RESHARPEN 1333 PROXIMAL 96 .9 3.2 57 GS-39-16
SIDE NOTCH CONCAVE NO RESHARPEN 2000 PROXIMAL 60 2.5 4.9 58 GS-84-9
SIDE NOTCH CONCAVE NO ORIGINAL 2131 COMPLETE 100 .9 3.3 27 GS-62-17
SIDE NOTCH CONCAVE NO ORIGINAL 2131 DISTAL 95 .6 2.9 59 GS-89-1
SIDE NOTCH CONCAVE NO ORIGINAL 2133 COMPLETE 100 .3 3.0 45 GS-44-1
SIDE NOTCH CONCAVE NO ORIGINAL 2141 PROXIMAL 99 2.0 3.7 85 75-3-1
SIDE NOTCH CONCAVE NO RESHARPEN 2211 COMPLETE 100 2.6 4.6 63 GS-18-13
SIDE NOTCH CONCAVE NO RESHARPEN 2211 COMPLETE 100 .9 3.6 56 GS-37-3
SIDE NOTCH CONCAVE NO RESHARPEN 2211 COMPLETE 100 7.2 8.4 102 GS-92-9
SIDE NOTCH CONCAVE NO RESHARPEN 2222 PROXIMAL 70 2.6 5.6 83 GS-71-23
SIDE NOTCH CONCAVE NO RESHARPEN 2242 DISTAL 96 .3 2.7 37 GS-38-1
SIDE NOTCH CONCAVE NO RESHARPEN 2242 COMPLETE 100 4.1 5.9 80 GS-75-4


84
DISTAL NUMBER
PROXIMAL END SHAPE PROXIMAL EDGE SHAPE BASAL GRIND RESHARP. -ING CONDITION END SHAPE INDEX FRAGMENT TYPE % OF WEIGHT WHOLE (qram) THICK -NESS 1 (rim) OF -LAKES SCARS CATALOG NUMBER
SIDE NOTCH CONCAVE NO RESHARPEN 2311 DISTAL 96 .6 2.5 57 84-6-22
SIDE NOTCH CONCAVE NO RESHARPEN 2311 PROXIMAL 60 1.8 4.9 64 96-1-46
SIDE NOTCH CONCAVE NO RESHARPEN 2311 PROXIMAL 60 2.3 5.4 54 96-1-96
SIDE NOTCH CONCAVE NO RESHARPEN 2313 MIDSECT. 90 4.1 5.6 85 GS-1-10
SIDE NOTCH CONCAVE NO RESHARPEN 2341 COMPLETE 100 .4 2.9 31 GS-41-1
SIDE NOTCH CONCAVE YES ORIGINAL 1111 DISTAL 95 6.0 7.9 80 GS-59-10
SIDE NOTCH CONCAVE YES ORIGINAL mi PROXIMAL 55 4.4 7.8 50 GS-62-62
SIDE NOTCH CONCAVE YES RESHARPEN 1211 PROXIMAL 80 13.2 7.5 121 GS-71-27
SIDE NOTCH CONCAVE YES RESHARPEN 1312 COMPLETE 100 4.2 6.8 83 GS-62-61
SIDE NOTCH CONCAVE YES RESHARPEN 1341 COMPLETE 100 5.2 7.8 114 GS-88-1
SIDE NOTCH CONCAVE YES RESHARPEN 2211 DISTAL 98 4.1 6.1 75 GS-63-1
SIDE NOTCH CONCAVE YES RESHARPEN 2321 PROXIMAL 65 5.0 6.9 90 GS-88-2
SIDE NOTCH CONVEX NO RESHARPEN 0031 PROXIMAL 60 5.2 6.4 57 2-126-5-4
SIDE NOTCH CONVEX NO ORIGINAL 1031 PROXIMAL 50 1.4 3.2 24 GS-19-9
SIDE NOTCH CONVEX NO ORIGINAL 1031 PROXIMAL 60 .6 3.7 35 GS-50-2
SIDE NOTCH CONVEX NO ORIGINAL 1112 PROXIMAL 93 4.1 5.9 101 69-3-2
SIDE NOTCH CONVEX NO ORIGINAL 1131 PROXIMAL 75 .9 4.6 44 GS-45-2
SIDE NOTCH CONVEX NO ORIGINAL 1131 PROXIMAL 90 .7 2.6 45 GS-45-4
SIDE NOTCH CONVEX NO ORIGINAL 1131 PROXIMAL 65 .7 2.7 50 GS-45-5
SIDE NOTCH CONVEX NO ORIGINAL 1131 PROXIMAL 98 .3 2.4 70 GS-50-1
SIDE NOTCH CONVEX NO ORIGINAL 1131 DISTAL 98 .4 2.9 61 GS-MS-3
SIDE NOTCH CONVEX NO RESHARPEN 1223 DISTAL 98 2.7 6.5 59 21-4-2
SIDE NOTCH CONVEX NO RESHARPEN 1231 PROXIMAL 98 1.0 2.9 28 GS-30-6
SIDE NOTCH CONVEX NO RESHARPEN 1231 PROXIMAL 90 1.0 3.6 50 GS-45-12
SIDE NOTCH CONVEX NO RESHARPEN 1231 PROXIMAL 40 7.3 7.1 58 GS-84-27
SIDE NOTCH CONVEX NO RESHARPEN 1243 COMPLETE 100 2.1 4.1 52 GS-35-5
SIDE NOTCH CONVEX NO RESHARPEN 1331 COMPLETE 100 3.4 4.9 81 GS-26-2
SIDE NOTCH CONVEX NO RESHARPEN 1341 DISTAL 97 .5 2.9 55 GS-42-1
SIDE NOTCH CONVEX NO ORIGINAL 2111 COMPLETE 100 .6 2.8 41 GS-62-6
SIDE NOTCH CONVEX NO ORIGINAL 2131 COMPLETE 100 .9 3.4 59 GS-45-9
SIDE NOTCH CONVEX NO RESHARPEN 2211 PROXIMAL 95 1.4 4.8 55 21-3-1
SIDE NOTCH CONVEX NO RESHARPEN 2211 COMPLETE 100 1.9 5.5 50 GS-54-10
SIDE NOTCH CONVEX NO RESHARPEN 2212 COMPLETE 100 4.6 6.4 67 GS-11-34
SIDE NOTCH CONVEX NO RESHARPEN 2221 COMPLETE 100 6.7 8.7 42 GS-78-2
SIDE NOTCH CONVEX NO RESHARPEN 2232 DISTAL 97 5.3 6.3 111 GS-89-5
SIDE NOTCH CONVEX NO RESHARPEN 2242 COMPLETE 100 15.7 9.3 93 GS-62-56
SIDE NOTCH CONVEX NO RESHARPEN 2242 COMPLETE 100 10.3 6.5 118 GS-62-64
SIDE NOTCH CONVEX NO RESHARPEN 2311 PROXIMAL 25 2.6 4.8 57 82-2-1
SIDE NOTCH CONVEX NO RESHARPEN 2321 COMPLETE 100 .8 3.3 78 GS-MS-5
SIDE NOTCH CONVEX NO RESHARPEN 2332 COMPLETE 100 2.7 5.6 52 2-125-5-1
SIDE NOTCH CONVEX NO RESHARPEN 2341 PROXIMAL 60 1.5 3.2 63 1-5-4
SIDE NOTCH CONVEX NO RESHARPEN 2341 COMPLETE 100 4.0 5.4 87 84-3-1
SIDE NOTCH CONVEX NO RESHARPEN 2341 PROXIMAL 85 .8 3.2 36 GS-45-6
SIDE NOTCH CONVEX NO RESHARPEN 2343 PROXIMAL 95 2.1 5.0 58 GS-8-4
SIDE NOTCH STRAIGHT RESHARPEN 2211 DISTAL 95 2.2 5.4 49 GS-54-6
SIDE NOTCH STRAIGHT NO ORIGINAL 1031 PROXIMAL 50 .8 3.5 42 GS-65-3
SIDE NOTCH STRAIGHT NO ORIGINAL mi PROXIMAL 95 .8 2.4 63 GS-30-3
SIDE NOTCH STRAIGHT NO ORIGINAL 1121 PROXIMAL 85 .6 3.0 53 GS-72-5
SIDE NOTCH STRAIGHT NO ORIGINAL 1131 PROXIMAL 65 1.2 3.6 74 5-1-3


85
DISTAL NUMBER
PROXIMAL END SHAPE PROXIMAL EDGE SHAPE BASAL GRIND -ING RESHARP. CONDITION END SHAPE INDEX FRAGMENT TYPE % OF WEIGHT WHOLE (qram) THICK -NESS () OF FLAKES SCARS CATALOG NUMBER
SIDE NOTCH STRAIGHT NO ORIGINAL 1131 DISTAL 96 .6 3.6 52 GS-30-2
SIDE NOTCH STRAIGHT NO ORIGINAL 1131 PROXIMAL 70 .5 3.3 60 GS-33-2
SIDE NOTCH STRAIGHT NO ORIGINAL 1131 PROXIMAL 96 .7 2.9 61 GS-35-2
SIDE NOTCH STRAIGHT NO ORIGINAL 1131 COMPLETE 95 3.1 5.4 105 GS-80-1
SIDE NOTCH STRAIGHT NO ORIGINAL 1133 COMPLETE 100 .7 2.8 40 GS-30-5
SIDE NOTCH STRAIGHT NO RESHARPEN 1231 PROXIMAL 90 .6 3.7 47 14-1-1
SIDE NOTCH STRAIGHT NO RESHARPEN 1232 COMPLETE 100 1.9 4.8 71 90-2-1
SIDE NOTCH STRAIGHT NO RESHARPEN 1232 DISTAL 75 .5 3.0 56 GS-MS-7
SIDE NOTCH STRAIGHT NO RESHARPEN 1233 PROXIMAL 90 1.0 4.6 54 GS-37-4
SIDE NOTCH STRAIGHT NO RESHARPEN 1242 COMPLETE 100 2.8 6.9 58 GS-70-1
SIDE NOTCH STRAIGHT NO RESHARPEN 1312 COMPLETE 100 4.2 6.5 94 GS-80-2
SIDE NOTCH STRAIGHT NO RESHARPEN 1331 DISTAL 97 4.9 7.0 82 GS-62-63
SIDE NOTCH STRAIGHT NO RESHARPEN 1331 COMPLETE 100 1.1 3.6 59 GS-84-1
SIDE NOTCH STRAIGHT NO ORIGINAL 2131 PROXIMAL 70 .8 3.4 34 GS-41-3
SIDE NOTCH STRAIGHT NO RESHARPEN 2200 PROXIMAL 45 2.7 5.5 48 96-1-84
SIDE NOTCH STRAIGHT NO RESHARPEN 2202 PROXIMAL 50 6.7 7.8 85 GS-69-1
SIDE NOTCH STRAIGHT NO RESHARPEN 2211 DISTAL 95 1.3 5.1 53 GS-51-4
SIDE NOTCH STRAIGHT NO RESHARPEN 2212 COMPLETE 100 2.6 4.3 80 GS-16-7
SIDE NOTCH STRAIGHT NO RESHARPEN 2221 PROXIMAL 80 2.4 6.0 116 23-1-1
SIDE NOTCH STRAIGHT NO RESHARPEN 2221 PROXIMAL 98 .3 2.5 42 GS-2-1
SIDE NOTCH STRAIGHT NO RESHARPEN 2231 DISTAL 95 .3 2.3 36 GS-25-5
SIDE NOTCH STRAIGHT NO RESHARPEN 2231 PROXIMAL 65 4.2 6.4 73 GS-84-12
SIDE NOTCH STRAIGHT NO RESHARPEN 2232 PROXIMAL 80 .7 3.4 65 GS-74-6
SIDE NOTCH STRAIGHT NO RESHARPEN 2241 PROXIMAL 98 .5 2.3 70 8-2-1
SIDE NOTCH STRAIGHT NO RESHARPEN 2311 PROXIMAL 70 1.6 5.3 62 GS-1-5
SIDE NOTCH STRAIGHT NO RESHARPEN 2331 PROXIMAL 95 .6 2.8 56 21-2-1
SIDE NOTCH STRAIGHT NO RESHARPEN 2331 COMPLETE 100 .5 2.3 59 GS-91-2
SIDE NOTCH STRAIGHT NO RESHARPEN 2341 PROXIMAL 100 2.3 5.4 53 GS-72-7
SIDE NOTCH STRAIGHT NO RESHARPEN 2341 COMPLETE 98 9.9 7.5 100 GS-81-9
SIDE NOTCH STRAIGHT NO RESHARPEN 2341 DISTAL 98 .7 2.9 59 GS-MS-8
STEMMED ORIGINAL 1100 PROXIMAL 30 1.2 3.7 47 98-1-1
STEMMED ORIGINAL 1111 COMPLETE 100 2.2 4.4 59 GS-53-17
STEMMED ORIGINAL 1131 MIDSECT. 55 7.5 8.1 74 GS-MS-31
STEMMED RESHARPEN 1212 DISTAL 95 3.1 5.5 76 GS-10-10
STEMMED RESHARPEN 1232 DISTAL 100 7.1 5.8 154 GS-71-5
STEMMED RESHARPEN 2212 DISTAL 75 11.9 6.7 130 GS-73-3
STEMMED RESHARPEN 2213 MIDSECT. 90 11.5 8.9 103 GS-77-9
STEMMED RESHARPEN 2311 COMPLETE 100 8.6 7.9 88 GS-58-2
STEMMED RESHARPEN 2311 MIDSECT. 65 10.6 6.7 88 GS-92-25
STEMMED RESHARPEN 2312 DISTAL 70 5.6 8.9 51 21-2-6
STEMMED ORIGINAL 2342 COMPLETE 100 .7 3.8 40 GS-38-9
STEMMED RESHARPEN 2343 COMPLETE 100 18.0 8.0 117 GS-71-29
STEMMED NO RESHARPEN 1211 MIDSECT. 75 2.8 5.0 62 117-7-3
STEMMED NO RESHARPEN 1211 DISTAL 95 13.8 10.1 72 GS-65-17
STEMMED NO RESHARPEN 1222 MIDSECT. 55 4.1 7.3 56 GS-92-5
STEMMED NO RESHARPEN 1311 MIDSECT. 80 3.4 7.6 48 20-1-2
STEMMED NO RESHARPEN 2012 MIDSECT. 75 12.6 8.9 30 GS-19-55
STEMMED NO RESHARPEN 2312 MIDSECT. 90 2.9 4.8 100 1-1-6
STEMMED NO RESHARPEN 2331 DISTAL 95 5.9 6.2 57 GS-92-10


86
DISTAL NUMBER
PROXIMAL END SHAPE PROXIMAL EDGE SHAPE BASAL GRIND -ING RESHARP. CONDITION END SHAPE INDEX FRAGMENT TYPE % OF WEIGHT WHOLE (qram) THICK -NESS (Hin) OF FLAKES SCARS CATALOG NUMBER
STEMMED YES RESHARPEN 1311 DISTAL 95 24.1 10.4 117 GS-66-4
STEMMED CONCAVE NO ORIGINAL 1111 PROXIMAL 95 8.6 6.2 60 23-1-2
STEMMED CONCAVE NO ORIGINAL 1111 PROXIMAL 95 .4 3.0 33 GS-38-2
STEMMED CONCAVE NO ORIGINAL 1113 COMPLETE 100 2.3 6.6 43 GS-19-8
STEMMED CONCAVE NO ORIGINAL 1131 DISTAL 95 2.7 6.6 56 21-3-2
STEMMED CONCAVE NO RESHARPEN 1211 DISTAL 98 3.7 6.4 89 4-1-3
STEMMED CONCAVE NO RESHARPEN 1211 PROXIMAL 90 9.8 7.9 106 GS-69-5
STEMMED CONCAVE NO RESHARPEN 1212 COMPLETE 100 17.6 7.7 122 GS-68-4
STEMMED CONCAVE NO RESHARPEN 1221 COMPLETE 100 10.9 9.1 78 GS-19-53
STEMMED CONCAVE NO RESHARPEN 1222 PROXIMAL 60 8.8 5.7 87 GS-84-24
STEMMED CONCAVE NO RESHARPEN 1232 COMPLETE 100 3.4 6.4 64 GS-10-13
STEMMED CONCAVE NO RESHARPEN 1241 PROXIMAL 90 6.1 7.9 59 GS-11-33
STEMMED CONCAVE NO RESHARPEN 1241 COMPLETE 100 10.3 6.7 69 GS-62-78
STEMMED CONCAVE NO RESHARPEN 1241 PROXIMAL 60 13.7 6.9 97 GS-78-12
STEMMED CONCAVE NO RESHARPEN 1241 PROXIMAL 96 16.5 8.0 169 GS-80-12
STEMMED CONCAVE NO RESHARPEN 1243 COMPLETE 100 9.8 8.8 81 GS-70-7
STEMMED CONCAVE NO RESHARPEN 1311 COMPLETE 100 11.9 7.3 112 GS-78-10
STEMMED CONCAVE NO RESHARPEN 1311 COMPLETE 100 7.2 6.6 77 GS-84-19
STEMMED CONCAVE NO RESHARPEN 1312 COMPLETE 100 13.0 8.9 76 GS-62-83
STEMMED CONCAVE NO RESHARPEN 1312 PROXIMAL 98 13.1 9.9 161 GS-62-90
STEMMED CONCAVE NO RESHARPEN 1331 COMPLETE 100 8.4 10.2 85 GS-11-35
STEMMED CONCAVE NO RESHARPEN 2200 PROXIMAL 80 3.1 6.6 48 GS-10-14
STEMMED CONCAVE NO RESHARPEN 2211 DISTAL 96 12.3 11.3 66 GS-23-9
STEMMED CONCAVE NO RESHARPEN 2211 COMPLETE 100 17.8 10.6 101 GS-62-82
STEMMED CONCAVE NO RESHARPEN 2212 PROXIMAL 97 3.1 5.4 50 90-5-3
STEMMED CONCAVE NO RESHARPEN 2212 DISTAL 95 5.9 7.6 78 GS-62-72
STEMMED CONCAVE NO RESHARPEN 2212 PROXIMAL 95 12.3 9.6 100 GS-62-91
STEMMED CONCAVE NO RESHARPEN 2212 COMPLETE 100 10.1 8.2 108 GS-91-6
STEMMED CONCAVE NO RESHARPEN 2213 PROXIMAL 65 .4 3.1 21 GS-39-1
STEMMED CONCAVE NO RESHARPEN 2222 COMPLETE 100 23.9 9.6 121 GS-62-85
STEMMED CONCAVE NO RESHARPEN 2222 PROXIMAL 95 12.0 10.6 77 GS-MS-48
STEMMED CONCAVE NO RESHARPEN 2232 PROXIMAL 75 8.7 8.5 101 GS-80-6
STEMMED CONCAVE NO RESHARPEN 2242 PROXIMAL 73 13.4 8.7 93 GS-72-10
STEMMED CONCAVE NO RESHARPEN 2300 PROXIMAL 25 2.9 6.0 49 93-1-2
STEMMED CONCAVE NO RESHARPEN 2302 PROXIMAL 60 2.8 6.1 36 GS-25-30
STEMMED CONCAVE NO RESHARPEN 2321 COMPLETE 100 10.8 9.9 81 GS-82-3
STEMMED CONCAVE NO RESHARPEN 2321 PROXIMAL 75 23.8 11.4 95 GS-83-11
STEMMED CONCAVE NO RESHARPEN 2323 COMPLETE 100 1.3 3.6 0 122-1-3
STEMMED CONCAVE NO RESHARPEN 2332 PROXIMAL 98 2.3 5.1 71 84-7-4
STEMMED CONCAVE NO RESHARPEN 2332 COMPLETE 100 .9 4.2 37 GS-54-7
STEMMED CONCAVE NO RESHARPEN 2341 MIDSECT. 85 3.4 5.9 69 118-1-3
STEMMED CONCAVE NO RESHARPEN 2341 PROXIMAL 90 11.5 7.2 75 GS-MS-43
STEMMED CONCAVE NO RESHARPEN 2342 PROXIMAL 97 5.3 7.9 74 21-3-3
STEMMED CONCAVE NO RESHARPEN 2343 COMPLETE 100 2.4 5.1 55 118-4-2
STEMMED CONCAVE YES RESHARPEN 0232 PROXIMAL 60 10.2 8.1 56 GS-11-52
STEMMED CONCAVE YES ORIGINAL 1000 PROXIMAL 25 3.8 5.3 85 82-2-10
STEMMED CONCAVE YES ORIGINAL 1011 PROXIMAL 65 4.9 6.4 59 GS-16-8
STEMMED CONCAVE YES ORIGINAL 1101 PROXIMAL 20 2.3 6.0 26 GS-1-6
STEMMED CONCAVE YES ORIGINAL mi PROXIMAL 60 11.1 9.3 77 GS-10-25


87
DISTAL NUMBER
PROXIMAL END SHAPE PROXIMAL EDGE SHAPE BASAL GRIND -ING RESHARP. CONDITION END SHAPE INDEX FRAGMENT TYPE % OF WEIGHT WHOLE (qram) THICK -NESS (nm) OF FLAKES SCARS CATALOG NUMBER
STEMMED CONCAVE YES ORIGINAL 1111 PROXIMAL 55 4.9 8.3 58 GS-17-12
STEMMED CONCAVE YES ORIGINAL 1111 PROXIMAL 55 10.6 8.9 66 GS-23-10
STEMMED CONCAVE YES ORIGINAL 1111 PROXIMAL 55 4.0 5.7 68 GS-27-2
STEMMED CONCAVE YES ORIGINAL nil PROXIMAL 95 7.9 9.1 95 GS-58-1
STEMMED CONCAVE YES ORIGINAL nil COMPLETE 100 14.5 7.4 143 GS-62-75
STEMMED CONCAVE YES ORIGINAL nil COMPLETE 100 14.6 7.3 152 GS-MS-53
STEMMED CONCAVE YES ORIGINAL nil PROXIMAL 45 2.9 4.3 62 2-125-3-1
STEMMED CONCAVE YES ORIGINAL 1131 PROXIMAL 70 1.5 3.6 55 GS-39-21
STEMMED CONCAVE YES ORIGINAL 1131 PROXIMAL 65 8.6 6.2 115 GS-71-42
STEMMED CONCAVE YES RESHARPEN 1211 PROXIMAL 80 4.4 6.2 62 GS-1-14
STEMMED CONCAVE YES RESHARPEN 1211 DISTAL 95 1.4 5.0 50 GS-11-3
STEMMED CONCAVE YES RESHARPEN 1211 COMPLETE 100 7.7 7.9 54 GS-11-38
STEMMED CONCAVE YES RESHARPEN 1211 COMPLETE 100 8.0 8.6 54 GS-11-43
STEMMED CONCAVE YES RESHARPEN 1211 DISTAL 95 4.3 8.2 69 GS-19-20
STEMMED CONCAVE YES RESHARPEN 1211 PROXIMAL 95 5.4 6.7 67 GS-19-36
STEMMED CONCAVE YES RESHARPEN 1211 COMPLETE 100 1.8 5.5 59 GS-40-2
STEMMED CONCAVE YES RESHARPEN 1211 COMPLETE 100 8.4 5.7 95 GS-62-53
STEMMED CONCAVE YES RESHARPEN 1211 COMPLETE 100 9.0 7.1 99 GS-62-79
STEMMED CONCAVE YES RESHARPEN 1212 DISTAL 95 6.7 10.0 88 GS-10-16
STEMMED CONCAVE YES RESHARPEN 1212 PROXIMAL 98 5.9 6.8 85 GS-11-36
STEMMED CONCAVE YES RESHARPEN 1212 PROXIMAL 85 14.3 8.2 116 GS-11-51
STEMMED CONCAVE YES RESHARPEN 1213 COMPLETE 100 3.7 8.8 66 GS-10-11
STEMMED CONCAVE YES RESHARPEN 1213 COMPLETE 100 5.3 7.4 58 GS-11-30
STEMMED CONCAVE YES RESHARPEN 1213 PROXIMAL 75 2.9 6.1 45 GS-11-7
STEMMED CONCAVE YES RESHARPEN 1213 PROXIMAL 90 2.5 5.1 54 GS-19-19
STEMMED CONCAVE YES RESHARPEN 1213 COMPLETE 100 17.9 8.5 138 GS-66-3
STEMMED CONCAVE YES RESHARPEN 1222 PROXIMAL 99 3.4 5.3 59 GS-19-13
STEMMED CONCAVE YES RESHARPEN 1222 PROXIMAL 55 11.3 8.4 106 GS-84-33
STEMMED CONCAVE YES RESHARPEN 1231 COMPLETE 100 4.0 6.2 62 GS-11-31
STEMMED CONCAVE YES RESHARPEN 1231 PROXIMAL 90 5.6 7.3 48 GS-11-41
STEMMED CONCAVE YES RESHARPEN 1231 COMPLETE 100 1.7 4.3 77 GS-MS-15
STEMMED CONCAVE YES RESHARPEN 1232 PROXIMAL 98 2.7 5.1 87 GS-1-9
STEMMED CONCAVE YES RESHARPEN 1232 COMPLETE 100 5.6 6.9 67 GS-10-18
STEMMED CONCAVE YES RESHARPEN 1232 COMPLETE 100 2.6 6.9 63 GS-19-15
STEMMED CONCAVE YES RESHARPEN 1232 COMPLETE 100 3.9 7.2 56 GS-19-16
STEMMED CONCAVE YES RESHARPEN 1232 PROXIMAL 95 6.1 8.0 50 GS-19-35
STEMMED CONCAVE YES RESHARPEN 1232 COMPLETE 100 4.7 7.0 50 GS-9-5
STEMMED CONCAVE YES RESHARPEN 1241 COMPLETE 100 6.0 6.1 73 GS-11-42
STEMMED CONCAVE YES RESHARPEN 1242 PROXIMAL 85 2.9 6.9 73 GS-1-4
STEMMED CONCAVE YES RESHARPEN 1311 PROXIMAL 97 8.6 7.0 117 GS-77-8
STEMMED CONCAVE YES RESHARPEN 1311 COMPLETE 100 27.3 7.8 205 GS-80-16
STEMMED CONCAVE YES RESHARPEN 1321 PROXIMAL 95 7.8 7.8 85 GS-19-42
STEMMED CONCAVE YES RESHARPEN 1331 PROXIMAL 96 8.5 7.8 86 GS-19-51
STEMMED CONCAVE YES RESHARPEN 1331 COMPLETE 100 1.8 4.3 59 GS-42-6
STEMMED CONCAVE YES RESHARPEN 1341 DISTAL 93 2.7 4.8 86 1-2-8
STEMMED CONCAVE YES ORIGINAL 2000 PROXIMAL 30 4.9 7.0 60 96-1-60
STEMMED CONCAVE YES RESHARPEN 2202 PROXIMAL 85 6.8 9.1 71 GS-10-17
STEMMED CONCAVE YES RESHARPEN 2203 PROXIMAL 80 4.2 8.6 50 GS-19-17
STEMMED CONCAVE YES RESHARPEN 2211 COMPLETE 100 6.9 6.9 56 GS-19-44


88
DISTAL NUMBER
PROXIMAL END SHAPE PROXIMAL EDGE SHAPE BASAL GRIND -ING RESHARP. CONDITION END SHAPE INDEX FRAGMENT TYPE % OF WEIGHT WHOLE (qram) THICK -NESS (nm) OF FLAKES SCARS CATALOG NUMBER
STEMMED CONCAVE YES RESHARPEN 2212 COMPLETE 100 7.1 7.1 71 GS-10-22
STEMMED CONCAVE YES RESHARPEN 2212 COMPLETE 100 4.1 8.1 63 GS-11-32
STEMMED CONCAVE YES RESHARPEN 2212 COMPLETE 100 9.3 4.0 71 GS-11-40
STEMMED CONCAVE YES RESHARPEN 2212 DISTAL 95 12.1 8.6 79 GS-62-84
STEMMED CONCAVE YES RESHARPEN 2221 PROXIMAL 70 8.7 8.3 77 GS-84-25
STEMMED CONCAVE YES RESHARPEN 2222 PROXIMAL 70 5.8 6.7 63 GS-72-4
STEMMED CONCAVE YES RESHARPEN 2232 COMPLETE 100 4.0 6.5 60 GS-10-12
STEMMED CONCAVE YES RESHARPEN 2232 PROXIMAL 80 7.1 9.1 57 GS-10-23
STEMMED CONCAVE YES RESHARPEN 2233 COMPLETE 100 4.0 8.7 70 GS-11-29
STEMMED CONCAVE YES RESHARPEN 2233 PROXIMAL 90 1.8 5.2 59 GS-16-2
STEMMED CONCAVE YES RESHARPEN 2242 PROXIMAL 95 4.3 6.0 99 9-1-2
STEMMED CONCAVE YES RESHARPEN 2242 PROXIMAL 97 5.3 7.8 53 GS-11-28
STEMMED CONCAVE YES RESHARPEN 2243 COMPLETE 100 4.8 8.5 60 GS-1-13
STEMMED CONCAVE YES RESHARPEN 2243 PROXIMAL 98 11.0 7.9 123 GS-63-4
STEMMED CONCAVE YES RESHARPEN 2300 PROXIMAL 30 10.7 8.0 90 GS-MS-50
STEMMED CONCAVE YES RESHARPEN 2311 PROXIMAL 98 2.2 6.6 43 GS-19-14
STEMMED CONCAVE YES RESHARPEN 2311 COMPLETE 100 6.5 6.7 80 GS-62-81
STEMMED CONCAVE YES RESHARPEN 2312 COMPLETE 100 3.6 6.7 54 GS-19-22
STEMMED CONCAVE YES RESHARPEN 2312 PROXIMAL 80 6.4 7.9 47 GS-19-40
STEMMED CONCAVE YES RESHARPEN 2312 COMPLETE 100 2.5 6.4 48 GS-54-9
STEMMED CONCAVE YES RESHARPEN 2313 PROXIMAL 97 4.5 7.2 53 GS-19-28
STEMMED CONCAVE YES RESHARPEN 2322 COMPLETE 100 4.3 5.9 74 GS-17-13
STEMMED CONCAVE YES RESHARPEN 2331 PROXIMAL 90 3.2 7.2 72 GS-11-27
STEMMED CONCAVE YES RESHARPEN 2331 PROXIMAL 90 2.7 4.9 85 GS-23-6
STEMMED CONCAVE YES RESHARPEN 2332 COMPLETE 100 2.6 6.3 71 GS-19-11
STEMMED CONCAVE YES RESHARPEN 2340 PROXIMAL 60 4.8 7.2 75 GS-1-16
STEMMED CONCAVE YES RESHARPEN 2341 COMPLETE 100 6.4 8.6 62 GS-16-11
STEMMED CONCAVE YES RESHARPEN 2341 PROXIMAL 85 21.2 9.9 93 GS-92-34
STEMMED CONCAVE YES RESHARPEN 2342 COMPLETE 100 7.8 9.6 59 GS-19-38
STEMMED CONCAVE YES RESHARPEN 2342 COMPLETE 100 3.3 5.6 63 2-125-6-3
STEMMED CONCAVE YES RESHARPEN 2343 PROXIMAL 90 7.9 7.1 61 GS11-44
STEMMED CONVEX NO RESHARPEN 1111 COMPLETE 100 3.5 5.8 87 1-8-3
STEMMED CONVEX NO ORIGINAL 1111 PROXIMAL 95 1.0 3.3 74 4-1-9
STEMMED CONVEX NO ORIGINAL mi COMPLETE 100 5.5 6.0 133 GS-71-2
STEMMED CONVEX NO ORIGINAL nil COMPLETE 100 21.9 8.6 168 GS-71-6
STEMMED CONVEX NO ORIGINAL nil PROXIMAL 75 1.0 3.2 91 2-125-6-1
STEMMED CONVEX NO ORIGINAL 1131 COMPLETE 100 2.8 5.2 67 GS-1-15
STEMMED CONVEX NO ORIGINAL 1131 PROXIMAL 35 6.8 6.9 48 2-125-5-48
STEMMED CONVEX NO RESHARPEN 1211 COMPLETE 100 6.8 6.7 76 GS-10-26
STEMMED CONVEX NO RESHARPEN 1211 COMPLETE 100 28.0 9.9 156 GS-62-44
STEMMED CONVEX NO RESHARPEN 1211 DISTAL 90 10.4 7.8 91 GS-62-71
STEMMED CONVEX NO RESHARPEN 1212 COMPLETE 100 1.8 5.9 48 20-6-1
STEMMED CONVEX NO RESHARPEN 1213 COMPLETE 100 1.8 4.7 81 GS-51-3
STEMMED CONVEX NO RESHARPEN 1213 COMPLETE 100 7.1 6.1 151 GS-75-8
STEMMED CONVEX NO RESHARPEN 1213 COMPLETE 100 8.5 7.0 126 GS-77-6
STEMMED CONVEX NO RESHARPEN 1222 DISTAL 70 4.4 8.5 46 GS-38-18
STEMMED CONVEX NO RESHARPEN 1241 COMPLETE 100 6.6 6.0 85 GS-62-57
STEMMED CONVEX NO RESHARPEN 1311 PROXIMAL 65 17.3 8.1 147 GS-68-3
STEMMED CONVEX NO RESHARPEN 1312 COMPLETE 100 7.8 8.0 120 GS-62-27


89
DISTAL NUMBER
PROXIMAL END SHAPE PROXIMAL EDGE SHAPE BASAL GRIND -ING RESHARP. CONDITION END SHAPE INDEX FRAGMENT TYPE % OF WEIGHT WHOLE (qram) THICK -NESS (nm) OF FLAKES SCARS CATALOG NUMBER
STEMMED CONVEX NO RESHARPEN 1331 PROXIMAL 90 9.7 8.1 80 GS-92-20
STEMMED CONVEX NO RESHARPEN 1341 COMPLETE 100 8.2 6.9 82 GS-62-80
STEMMED CONVEX NO ORIGINAL 2111 COMPLETE 100 6.4 12.3 46 GS-55-2
STEMMED CONVEX NO ORIGINAL 2131 PROXIMAL 65 2.0 4.4 76 2-126-5-3
STEMMED CONVEX NO ORIGINAL 2143 COMPLETE 100 6.7 10.2 60 GS-55-1
STEMMED CONVEX NO RESHARPEN 2211 PROXIMAL 95 4.3 5.3 93 1-5-1
STEMMED CONVEX NO RESHARPEN 2211 COMPLETE 100 12.6 8.2 118 GS-62-55
STEMMED CONVEX NO RESHARPEN 2211 PROXIMAL 50 9.5 5.8 94 GS-82-4
STEMMED CONVEX NO RESHARPEN 2212 COMPLETE 95 32.0 10.4 128 GS-67-55
STEMMED CONVEX NO RESHARPEN 2212 PROXIMAL 65 10.4 8.5 66 GS-71-44
STEMMED CONVEX NO RESHARPEN 2223 COMPLETE 100 5.8 9.6 67 GS-59-7
STEMMED CONVEX NO RESHARPEN 2231 DISTAL 85 3.9 5.1 80 1-10-1
STEMMED CONVEX NO RESHARPEN 2231 PROXIMAL 98 13.0 8.1 98 GS-65-12
STEMMED CONVEX NO RESHARPEN 2311 PROXIMAL 96 3.8 6.6 56 20-2-1
STEMMED CONVEX NO RESHARPEN 2311 PROXIMAL 60 8.2 8.6 44 GS-11-22
STEMMED CONVEX NO RESHARPEN 2311 PROXIMAL 100 7.7 9.1 72 GS-25-40
STEMMED CONVEX NO RESHARPEN 2311 PROXIMAL 96 10.0 9.3 68 GS-92-11
STEMMED CONVEX NO RESHARPEN 2312 DISTAL 60 8.3 8.0 49 GS-19-43
STEMMED CONVEX NO RESHARPEN 2313 COMPLETE 98 6.5 5.9 92 GS-75-9
STEMMED CONVEX NO RESHARPEN 2321 PROXIMAL 45 9.6 6.7 74 GS-84-31
STEMMED CONVEX NO RESHARPEN 2331 PROXIMAL 98 3.6 7.5 66 1-5-5
STEMMED CONVEX NO RESHARPEN 2331 PROXIMAL 85 19.4 9.3 81 GS-78-13
STEMMED CONVEX NO RESHARPEN 2341 COMPLETE 100 1.0 3.6 38 21-2-2
STEMMED CONVEX NO RESHARPEN 2341 PROXIMAL 75 1.8 4.0 25 78-1-1
STEMMED CONVEX NO RESHARPEN 2341 COMPLETE 100 5.2 5.7 108 GS-62-32
STEMMED CONVEX NO RESHARPEN 2341 COMPLETE 100 13.5 7.6 93 GS-72-13
STEMMED CONVEX NO RESHARPEN 2342 PROXIMAL 96 3.7 6.4 72 GS-51-6
STEMMED CONVEX NO RESHARPEN 2343 PROXIMAL 90 2.9 5.7 81 97-2-5
STEMMED CONVEX NO RESHARPEN 2343 COMPLETE 95 8.2 8.6 115 GS-73-19
STEMMED CONVEX YES RESHARPEN 1211 COMPLETE 100 11.4 8.2 100 GS-15-7
STEMMED CONVEX YES RESHARPEN 1211 COMPLETE 100 10.0 6.4 124 GS-62-60
STEMMED CONVEX YES RESHARPEN 1211 COMPLETE 97 11.0 5.9 151 GS-80-8
STEMMED CONVEX YES RESHARPEN 1331 PROXIMAL 85 9.0 7.4 88 GS-92-19
STEMMED CONVEX YES RESHARPEN 1343 COMPLETE 100 9.2 8.9 73 GS-58-3
STEMMED CONVEX YES RESHARPEN 2200 PROXIMAL 50 8.9 7.7 69 GS-73-4
STEMMED CONVEX YES RESHARPEN 2233 PROXIMAL 40 10.1 9.0 66 GS-92-24
STEMMED CONVEX YES RESHARPEN 2311 DISTAL 97 10.9 8.0 98 GS-92-22
STEMMED CONVEX YES RESHARPEN 2331 PROXIMAL 85 9.9 9.8 90 GS-19-50
STEMMED CONVEX YES RESHARPEN 2332 DISTAL 98 2.9 6.0 82 13-3-1
STEMMED CONVEX YES RESHARPEN 2342 COMPLETE 100 2.7 7.3 41 GS-19-7
STEMMED STRAIGHT NO ORIGINAL 1111 DISTAL 98 22.5 8.9 157 GS-71-40
STEMMED STRAIGHT NO ORIGINAL 1111 PROXIMAL 50 18.5 8.2 130 GS-72-11
STEMMED STRAIGHT NO ORIGINAL mi PROXIMAL 65 8.5 5.3 90 GS-78-5
STEMMED STRAIGHT NO RESHARPEN 1211 DISTAL 80 3.8 7.1 62 8-3-5
STEMMED STRAIGHT NO RESHARPEN 1211 COMPLETE 100 1.7 4.4 50 GS-49-1
STEMMED STRAIGHT NO RESHARPEN 1211 COMPLETE 100 4.8 5.1 120 GS-62-28
STEMMED STRAIGHT NO RESHARPEN 1211 COMPLETE 100 21.6 11.1 126 GS-80-11
STEMMED STRAIGHT NO RESHARPEN 1212 COMPLETE 100 8.1 8.0 117 GS-75-7
STEMMED STRAIGHT NO RESHARPEN 1212 COMPLETE 98 12.0 7.9 91 GS-80-9