ANDEAN PAST - Latin American Studies Program - Cornell University

use involved a complex combination of consid~erations including tool type, edge angle, rawmaterial type, action, and material beingworked. Because of the many tool types presentin the NLT, the microscopic analysis could onlyinclude a few specimens of each type. Thesample was further diminished by the fact thatif an attribute wasnot recorded fora specimen,it was dropped from the crosstabulation. Evenwhencrosstabulationsinvolvedfewercategoriesand greater frequencies, as with raw materialtype,the overallsmallsampleofmicroscopically.examined edges allows some tentative conclu~sions. Despite the limitations, someinterestingpatterns are worth discussing and suggestionsmaybe made concerning the complexinterplayof various tool use factors.Dillehay& Rossen: NanchocUthic Traditionsemilunar) tools appear to be specialized inestimated material use, but generalizedin termsof action. All three Type 7 specimens withdetermined use~edgesdisplayed some evidenceof plant polish, and two specimens had plantfiber residues, while a third had the white sub~stance on its edge. However, action of thesesame specimens varied, with one each showingsigns of sawing, scraping, and cutting. Con~versely,Type 12 (pentagonal) tools appear to begeneralized in estimated material use but spe~cialized in action. The fiveType 12 specimensfor which action could be determined wereplaced into only two categories, cutting (n=3)and scraping (n=2), but action for this typevaried from medium~to..hard (n=2) to meat!hide (n=l) and soft wood (n=l)..Cross~tabulationof raw materialtypewithaction and estimated material use suggeststhatthere existed certain material preferences forparticular actions but not for use on particularmaterials (Tables 10 and 11). Common basaltappears to have been heavilyfavoredforcuttingaction, as indicated by the presence of 12 suchspecimens in the microscopically..analyzedsample. In terms of estimated material use,however, basalt was used on the entire range ofmaterials. Conversely, finer~grainedmaterialssuch as local rhyolite and exotic silex (or chert)werepreferred forboring and sawingtasks,againon a wide range of materials. .Crosstabulations of tool type with action,estimated material use, and residue indicatethat, from strictly typologicaldata, qoth special~ized and generalized tools are present in theNLT (Tables 12 to 14). Type 14 unmodifiedflakes are associated with four different actionsand five different estimated material uses (ex~cludingthe indeterminate and unknowncatego~ries). This suggests the wide variety of usesthese untrimmed flakeshad, and reinforcestheirprevious categorization as expedient.Specific edge~trimmed tool types may beidentified as either generalizedor specializedinterms of microscopic use~wear. Type 7 (thick. Larger pentagonal forms, Type 17, followthesame general pattern as their smaller counter~parts, with two of .three determined actionspecimens having been used for cutting (anadditional edge on one was used for scoring).Estimated material uses for Type 17 tools varygreatly, with bone en=l) , soil (n=2), soft en=l)and soft~to~medium (n=l), all represented.Type 16elongated rectangular formsare similarin microscopicpattern to pentagonal forms. Allthree specimens from which action could bedetermined were for cutting or scraping, whilematerial use was extremely variable, with softplant (n=l), meat/hide (n=l) , freshmeat (n=l)soft en=l), and hard~medium en=l) repre~sented.The above examples serve to illustrate someproblemsin categorizinga tool typeasexpedientor curated, generalized or specialized, or inutilizingany conceptual dichotomy at all. Tools'may fit one descriptive category for one area ofanalysis and another category for other attrib..utes. In the case of the NLT, it is possible,though far fromconclusivelydemonstrated, thatsemilunar forms were designed primarilyfor avariety of activities involving plants, whilepentagonal and rectangular formsweredesignedspecificallyfor scraping and cutting on a varietyof materials.