Preface

Summary

As a boy I remember my brother and I roaming the fields and woods along the creeks and rivers that empty into the Chesapeake Bay, and finding my first “arrowhead.” Such treasures were interpreted by us as “missed shots” by prehistoric hunters, or the spot where a wounded warrior died in battle. However, most of the artifacts were discovered at a site where hundreds of stone artifacts could be found. I often wondered why perfectly good stone artifacts were left at such locations. On a good day sometimes dozens of “arrowheads” could be found at the same place. Did prehistoric people store these artifacts at the site and never return for them? Were stone age people so absent-minded that they would lose dozens of “arrowheads” around their camps? Perhaps the artifacts we found were rejects?

To this day, I still wonder why stone tools which appear to be perfectly functional and useful are left at sites. The more I look at them, the more I realize that many different factors influence their final disposition. Some lithic tools are rejects, others are lost, and still others may not be tools and instead are the by-products of tool production. Stone tools may have different values depending upon the amount of effort expended in their production or the availability of raw materials. The context within which a stone tool is made and used is important for determining how it will be discarded or preserved.