Microanalysis and functional typology of the Hogup Cave chipped stone tools

One thousand prehistoric chipped stone tools from Hogup Cave, Utah were analyzed microscopically for use-wear evidence. The study sample included all whole, identifiable tools plus a representative portion of the utilized flake and unutilized or "waste" flake categories originally recovered from the site. These materials include such descriptive tool forms as projectile points, scrapers, biface blades, crude unifaces and crude bifaces, spokeshaves and choppers. They range in age from 8300 to 500 years B.P. (6400 B.C. - A.D. 1470) and relate to the Desert Archaic, Fremont and Shoshonian occupations of the site. The tool microwear observed was interpreted by comparison with experimentally reproduced and tested tool specimens. Nine specific types of tool activity were recognized along with their probable contact materials. These include: hard scraping of wood and bone; soft scraping of hides; carving of wood and meat; sawing of wood and bone; chopping of wood and bone; adzing of wood; projectile impact with soil, stone and animal bone; drilling of wood; and awling of hides. Of these, the dominant component in the Hogup Cave functional complex is sawing(50%), followed by soft scraping(20%) and carving(10%). The remaining functions are less common and in the aggregate constitute less than one-fifth of all microwear observed in the collection. Thirteen tentative functional tool types are suggested and defined. Based on observed microwear and descriptive criteria, they are offered in an attempt to add a new dimension to the traditional view of artifact classification. They include: Flake Saw/Knives(80), Flake Hide-scrapers(71), Biface-blade Saw/Knives(62), Hide-scraper/Saws(35), Biface Blanks(23), Adzes(19), Drills(17), Simple Hard Scrapers(16), Hogup Saws(7), Choppers(6), and Awl/Perforators(1). Seventy-four per cent of the 1,000 artifacts analyzed are conveniently categorized by this system, and the remaining 252 pieces are without wear or are nondiagnostic with respect to form or function. This study concludes that tool function cannot always be correctly inferred from stylistic criteria alone, and a system of tool classification based solely on morphology is less meaningful if functional criteria are not utilized.