Journal of Archaeological Science 57 (2015) 32e41
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Archaeological Science
journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jas
Stone pipe-making tools in ancient North America
P.B. MacLaren Law de Lauriston a, *, George H. Odell b, 1,
Timothy Lambert-Law de Lauriston a
a
School of Geography, Archaeology, and Environmental Studies, Faculty of Science, University of the Witwatersrand, Origins Centre, Private Bag 3,
Johannesburg, WITS 2050, South Africa
b
Department of Anthropology, University of Tulsa, 800 S. Tucker Drive, Tulsa, OK 74104, USA
a r t i c l e i n f o
a b s t r a c t
Article history:
Received 4 March 2014
Received in revised form
4 February 2015
Accepted 9 February 2015
Available online 18 February 2015
Several types of smoking pipes have been manufactured and used throughout later prehistoric and
historic times around the world. Although substantial information exists on the styles of these pipes,
little is known about their methods of manufacture or the types of sites on which they were made. This
study focuses on testing a postulated model of pipe manufacture through the experimental replication of
an artifact type known as the Florence/Windom pipe, made of soft red argillite (pipestone), and the usewear analysis of chipped stone artifacts, representative of stone tools found in association with these
pipes.
Results of analyses showed that certain tool types, such as reamers, drills, tabular tools, scrapers, and
gouges, were integral parts of the manufacture process. Other types, such as punches and awls, proved
not to have been employed in this activity. While our model was applied to a regionally specific pipe style
and raw material, we suggest that our methods and approach can easily be used generally and more
broadly in the analyses of similar archaeological assemblages worldwide.
© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords:
Use-wear
Lithic analysis
Stone pipes
Ritualistic smoking
Experimental archaeology
1. Introduction
‘Tobacco, which was found among the Indians of Louisiana,
seems also to be a native of the country, seeing their ancient
tradition informs us, that from time immemorial they have, in their
treaties of peace and in their embassies, used the pipe, the principal
use of which is that the deputies shall all smoke therein’ (Page du
Pratz 1774: 171e172). By the time of M. le Page du Pratz, Overseer
of Plantations in lower Louisiana from 1718 to 1734, the smoking of
pipes among native North Americans had attained some antiquity;
although the origin of pipe smoking remains uncertain.
The earliest pipes known in North America appeared in the
northern Rockies and the Plateau. Bone smoking pipes occurred in
level 30 at Mummy Cave, Wyoming (Husted and Edgar, 2002),
dated to 4420 ± 150 BP (3085 BC). Unfortunately, the residue
contained inside one of the bone pipes at Mummy Cave has never
* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ27 (0)84 367 4662.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (P.B.M. Law de Lauriston),
[email protected] (T. Lambert-Law de Lauriston).
1
Deceased October 2011.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2015.02.014
0305-4403/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
been analyzed. Stone pipes occurred in the Western Idaho Archaic
Burial Complex, in roughly the same time period (Pavesic, 1985).
The earliest direct evidence for tobacco, thus far, is later: Late
Archaic in the Southwest (McBride, 2008) and Middle Woodland in
the Midwest (Goldstein, 1983; Haberman, 1984; Rafferty and Mann,
2004; Wagner, 1998). The Midwestern tobacco is probably a
domesticate and the Southwestern seeds wild, and the question
raised two decades ago by David Asch (1994:47) remains unanswered: ‘Did smoking and tobacco use in North America originate
in the West, with both the use of pipes and a western species of
Nicotiana spreading eastward about 3500 years ago?’ However,
Native Americans smoked a wide variety of plant substances other
than tobacco (Ford, 1981; Jones, 1944; Yarnell, 1964). Among
several tribal groups, smoking was conducted in various contexts
and in an array of different ceremonies (Bolton, 1987:159e165;
Hudson, 1976:318, 395e396).
Through time, various human populations created a wide variety of tobacco pipes, both of stone and ceramics (McGuire, 1899;
West, 1934; Winter, 2000), but the way these pipes were made
has not been thoroughly researched. We are left with early accounts such as the following, first published in 1775, of pipe making
among the Cherokee: ‘They easily form them with their tomahawks, and afterward finish them in any desired form with their
P.B.M. Law de Lauriston et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science 57 (2015) 32e41
33
knives’ (Adair, 1986:455). Observations such as this raise more
questions than they answer, and serve to remind us of the limited
extent of our knowledge in this area.
If Native Americans used pipes as much as the literature indicates, they must have made them somewhere, probably
employing durable implements that survived the depredations of
time and the elements. In fact, tools of the trade may exist in
considerable quantity, but we scarcely know what to look for. We
present here a study aimed at clarifying some of the issues involved
in the production of stone pipes. Our proximate goal is to ascertain
how one particular type of stone pipe, the Florence/Windom pipe,
was made, and which tool types were used in its manufacture.
However, given the nature and particular constraints of the
manufacture of any stone pipe, we suggest that these principles can
be generalized to a large proportion of instances of pipe making
throughout the world. (For additional case studies on pipe
manufacturing see: Haddon, 1947 [New Guinea]; Kinahan, 1986
[Namibia]; Shaw, 1960 [Africa, Europe, & America]; and
Stoyanova et al. 2008 [Bulgaria].)
1.1. Mediating Wichita ritual
The cultural body of immediate interest here is the Wichita, a
cover-all term for a large group of affiliated tribal units that occupied the Southern Plains in the Late Prehistoric period. There was a
series of changes in these groups around AD 1450 that has been
interpreted as evidence of a coalescence of peoples (Drass, 1998;
Perkins and Baugh, 2008; Vehik, 1976, 2002; Wedel,
1959:632e633). Perkins and Baugh (2008:384) have proposed
that the Protohistoric period begins for the Wichita at this
approximate date and continues to 1846; we will continue their use
of the term ‘Protohistoric’ in this sense.
A principal locus of this coalescence was central Kansas, in a
cultural florescence known as the Little River focus of the Great
Bend Aspect (Blakeslee and Hawley, 2006). Much is known about
the Great Bend Aspect, as a result of Waldo Wedel's excavations
over four decades (see Wedel, 1959, 1967, 1970). There is no lack of
evidence for ritual or ceremony in central Kansas. At Tobias and
other sites, Wedel uncovered low mounds surrounded by a series of
shallow depressions and associated curvilinear structures that have
been termed council circles. Three of these were found to have
solstice alignments. On a prominent ridge in Rice County, KS, is an
intaglio of a giant serpent, apparently associated with the council
circles e one of three in the Great Bend region. Stone cairns and
petroglyphs seemingly associated with this cultural group have also
been recognized (Blakeslee and Hawley, 2006:168e169; Vehik,
2002; Wedel, 1959). These structures imply a rich ceremonial
context for the lives of the people who lived on these settlements.
It is probable that a major component of the ceremonies that
took place in these locales involved the use of pipes for smoking.
Much has been written about the calumet ceremony, which was
used in mediating relations between tribes (Blakeslee, 1975;
Brown, 1989; Turnbaugh, 1979). The typical calumet pipe bowl
was plain but highly polished. It was a right-angle elbow pipe with
a projecting prow (Blakeslee, 1981:763), and was often ornately
decorated.
Other pipe forms (e.g. disk, bulbous bowl, L-shaped) are associated with Great Bend sites; however, a more commonly known
form is simpler in style than the calumet (Rohrbaugh, 1984; Wedel,
1959), initially called ‘Florence’ and more recently dubbed
‘Windom’ (Blakeslee, 2012: 323) (herein referred to as the Florence/
Windom pipe). It typically has a short stem and tall bowl, at a
juncture of less than 90 (Fig. 1). The Florence/Windom pipe is not
large, and several miniatures have been discovered. Decoration is
Fig. 1. Finished Florence/Windom pipes from central Kansas (Image courtesy Blakeslee
2011).
usually sparse, and when present, it is usually at the top of the bowl
or the mouth of the stem.
Most Florence/Windom pipes were manufactured from a soft
argillite, or pipestone, that is similar to catlinite, but not identical.
This particular variety is called Kansas pipestone; it and similar
materials are found in glacial drift in northeastern Kansas and parts
of adjoining states (Gundersen, 1988, 1993; Gundersen and Tiffany,
1986; Sigstad, 1970). The nearest source of this material, then, is a
substantial distance from the Great Bend region, suggesting the
necessity of medium-distance transport or trade.
Two additional features are of interest. The first is that, after
their initial use as pipes, they were sometimes recycled into other
objects, often pendants. The second is that virtually all the sites on
which Florence/Windom-style pipes have been found are interpreted to have been of proto-Wichita affiliation e i.e., Great Bend,
as well as the Pratt, Wheeler, Neosho, and Fort Coffee complexes of
Kansas and Oklahoma. Only three have been reported from outside
these complexes, and only one has been found on later Wichitaaffiliated sites such as Deer Creek or Bryson-Paddock in Oklahoma (Keller, 1961:Fig. 78a). By the time the Florence/Windom pipe
form was dying out on the Plains, the calumet pipe and ceremony
were getting into full swing, by about the mid-17th century
(Blakeslee, 1981:761e762). These considerations may lead to the
interpretation of Florence/Windom pipes as internal regulators,
mediating relationships within the Wichita communities, and
substantially different in function from the later calumet pipes.
2. Production of Florence/Windom pipes
If Florence/Windom pipes were a specifically Wichita-related
phenomenon, then the chances are good that they were manufactured at some of the sites on which they have been found. An
important nexus of ceremony and ritual was central Kansas, in
which Waldo Wedel conducted extensive archaeological excavations. Wedel was instrumental in pointing out the uniqueness of
the pipes he found on these sites, but neither his nor subsequent
excavations have been specifically geared toward examining pipe
production. Indeed, it is not intuitively obvious what kinds of tools
would be needed for such an endeavor, and the systematic,
microscopic study of stone tools for traces of utilization was in its
nascent stages. Thus to our knowledge, no analysis of Florence/
34
P.B.M. Law de Lauriston et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science 57 (2015) 32e41
Windom pipe-making tools has ever been conducted, and studies
of the manufacture of pipes of other traditions are rare. Without a
thorough knowledge of the region in which such pipe manufacture
occurred, it would be difficult to know where to begin.
Don Blakeslee has conducted a program of local Kansas
archaeology for years, and has maintained close relations with
several collectors and amateur archaeologists in the region. A
collection that is particularly germane to this issue has been
amassed by the Robb family of McPherson County. Most objects
were collected by C. Vance Robb, beginning in 1917, with a much
smaller number collected by his wife and son. They picked up even
the smallest pieces of pipestone, as well as associated tools. Other
surface collections from this region have produced additional examples of pipes and associated artifacts.
The combination of debris from pipe manufacture and a large
number of tools that appeared to exhibit wear from use on finegrained stone allowed Blakeslee to propose a model of pipe
manufacture. However, his model has not been formulated within a
context of a microscopic study of either the pipes or the tools
associated with them. It appeared that Blakeslee's model was on
the right track, but needed corroboration through a use-wear
analysis of the tools associated with the pipestone. The
remainder of this paper will explore the issue of Florence/Windom
pipe manufacture from the perspective of use-wear analysis, using
the Robb Collection from central Kansas as our database.
2.1. The model
Blakeslee's model supposes that the manufacture of Florence/
Windom pipes was accomplished primarily with stone tools. Some
of the tools found in association with pipestone show characteristics of pipestone wear that can be minimally assessed without a
microscope. Several of these implements are of the right size and
shape to postulate their use in such an activity.
Briefly summarizing the model: the sequence begins with a
piece of Kansas pipestone, from which a blank is created by cutting,
graving and snapping, and then develops into a preform through
slicing, rubbing, and abrading. Decorating is done at this point, as
pressures on an already hollowed-out bowl might cause breakage.
Hollowing of bowl and stem are conducted first by drilling
increasingly larger holes with ever thicker drill bits. The bowl is
then hollowed out by reaming, or gouging, until the desired wall
thickness is achieved.
Tools for such an enterprise would have to be appropriate for the
various tasks involved, but would not necessarily conform to the
expectations of modern tool users or archaeologists. Shaping the
outside of the blank and preform would require robust cutting and
scraping implements. Creating holes in the bowl and stem would
require drill bits of various sizes, while one would need gouging
and reaming tools to widen the hole at the bottom, and scraping
tools to thin the sides. Decorating was accomplished through
incising the outside of the pipe, using graving tools if necessary.
From these considerations, we formulated the following basic
research questions: 1) was pipe manufacturing occurring on the
sites where pipe bowls were found? 2) What sorts of tool motions
can be documented for this activity? 3) What types of tools were
used for which kinds of jobs? And 4) is use-wear analysis an
appropriate technique for providing this kind of information?
our existing comparative collection of over 200 stone tools to
distinguish variability and patterning of wear traces resulting from
different contact materials. Additionally, we manufactured a
specialized comparative collection of tools used in stone-on-stone
experiments as a baseline from which to interpret the artifact
collection. Experiments were performed on Kansas pipestone,
Minnesota pipestone and California soapstone, all of which resulted
in similar types of wear.
A dual-strand experimental scheme was designed and executed.
Initially, 8 chert and 4 obsidian tools were manufactured and utilized on Kansas pipestone, in motions associated with pipe
manufacture: sawing (1 obsidian, 2 chert), drilling (1 obsidian, 3
chert), drilling and scraping (1 chert), scraping (1 obsidian), graving
(1 chert), and reaming (1 obsidian, 1 chert). Four chert and 2
obsidian tools were retouched; the remaining 6 tools were unretouched. Of these, 1 retouched and 1 un-retouched chert tool
were hafted and used in drilling motions. The second phase consisted of the manufacture and use of an additional 8 chert tools to
experimentally replicate a Florence/Windom pipe. (For details of
this second phase, in which two of us, G.H.O. and T.L-LdL, were
involved, see Chandlee et al. 2014.)
Highlights of experimental results are as follows: Irrespective of
the activity or tool raw material, tool edges tended to fracture
quickly, typically resulting in a series of step scars e notably on a
single surface (i.e. ventral or dorsal) if scraping, or on both surfaces
if cutting or sawing. Fracturing continued until the edge stabilized,
or became thick enough to withstand the pressure exerted upon it.
By this point, the edges were fairly thick with overlapping step
scars, often distributed longitudinally along the used edge. (For
similar experimental results see Alvarez et al. 2001.) During this
process, minute particles were frequently dislocated from the edge,
creating a pock-marked surface referred to here as ‘comminutions’.
A rough surface or contact produced more comminutions, whereas
smoother contact produced a finely abraded surface, rounding the
edge and causing polish to appear.
To illustrate this process, consider Fig. 2, a macroscopic photograph of a knife used experimentally to cut pipestone. The wear is
easily visible to the naked eye and consists primarily of large,
bifacial step and hinge fractures. Also visible are residues of reddish
material embedded in edges that had direct contact with pipestone.
In this case, the tool edge is robust and the wear has reached a stage
at which it is only beginning to stabilize. Compare this with Fig. 3,
3. Tool wear on pipestone
To our knowledge, few use-wear experiments have been conducted on stone working stone (though see Alvarez et al.
2001:460e462; Lewenstein, 1987:61e64), and none on working
Kansas pipestone. In order to aid in artifact analysis, we analyzed
Fig. 2. Bifacial fracturing of edge, experimental tool used for cutting pipestone.
Embedded reddish residue (indicated by arrow). (For interpretation of the references
to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
P.B.M. Law de Lauriston et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science 57 (2015) 32e41
Fig. 3. Heavy rounding of edge (indicated by arrows), experimental tool for cutting
pipestone.
also a tool used for cutting pipestone, the working edge of which is
considerably thinner and more fragile than the edge on the previous tool. Here, fracturing quickly gave way to abrasive wear, shown
magnified 60. The heavy rounding of this edge is characteristic of
pipestone wear in general; it is often accompanied by polished
surfaces. If such a tool is held at the same angle for a prolonged
period, the edge will appear faceted. Striations oriented according
to the motion of the tool may form over the rounding, if large
abrasives are included in the mix or large particles are dislocated
from the tool during use.
In summary, pipestone, while softer than other stones, is still a
very hard material, and it wreaks havoc on tool edges of chert or
obsidian. It does so, however, in very predictable ways. The substantial degree of rounding, abrasion, and step scarring/comminutions produced is quite visible, tangible in some cases, and
diagnostic of the worked material. Traces of this robust activity can
be noted even in extreme circumstances in which more subtle
traces are covered over or destroyed. The element of robustness
will become increasingly important when interpreting the Robb
Collection, which contains numerous examples of surface polish
and rounding caused by natural effects not related to use-wear.
With this worked material, tool motion is usually determined by
the direction of striations, the location on the tool of severe
rounding or faceting, and the overall configuration of scars, if not
entirely eliminated by abrasion. The combination of these traits
described in this report is referred to as ‘pipestone wear’.
4. The Robb collection
The tools gathered by the Robb family constitute a typical surface collection. We were glad to have access to it, but it came with
its own particular biases and interpretive problems. First, having
been recovered from a plowed field, the artifacts lack exact provenience. Individual pieces may not have moved far from their
original point of deposition (Lewarch, 1979; Lewarch and O'Brien,
1981; Odell and Cowan, 1987), but their spatial integrity was
certainly compromised. Second, their deposition in the plow zone
made them susceptible to damage from farm machinery, notably
plowing and disking. In the Robb Collection this effect appears
minimal, as we noticed few or no plow scars or metallic surface
scrapes while observing the pieces under a microscope.
Finally, years of kicking around in surficial deposits subjected
the artifacts to numerous chemical forces that affect the surfaces of
35
flint. Known as post-depositional surface modification, or PDSM,
these effects can include patina, polish, discoloration, edge
rounding, edge fracturing or all of these. Although several aspects
of PDSM have been studied intensively (Law de Lauriston, 2014;
Levi Sala, 1986, 1993; Plisson and Mauger, 1988; Shea and Klenck,
1993; Stapert, 1976), there is no good way to counteract its effects, other than to disallow certain forms of evidence, accommodate one's interpretations in other ways, or avoid the assemblage
altogether.
Robb Collection artifacts exhibit evidence of PDSM in the form of
edge rounding and polish. Artifacts that have been affected exhibit
bright polish all over the surface, and all of the edges are rounded.
This universal quality of PDSM renders it relatively easy to observe
which artifacts exhibit it and which do not. We did not formally
quantify this variable, but estimate that at least half of the collection is affected. For the affected artifacts, neither polish nor edge
rounding could be employed as use-wear indicators.
For many of the research questions for which lithic use-wear
analysis is relevant, the existence of PDSM would have scuttled
the entire study. For instance, if one wished to know the proportions of specific activities in a sample, so as to better interpret
overall human behavior at a site, one would have to withdraw
analysis from that part of the sample that was affected, because
many of the relevant functional indicators are subtle and would
simply be lost. And without knowing why that portion of the
sample was affected, there would be no control for biases. It is clear
that chemical surface alterations have something to do with the
local conditions in which the artifacts resided, but we have no idea
how local these are or what caused them. Thus if a prehistoric activity area happened to coincide with an area of local chemical
effects, the sample would certainly not reflect the prehistoric
behavioral situation. No matter the use-wear approach preferred e
high-power, low-power, scanning electron microscopy e all would
be adversely influenced by these phenomena.
Fortunately, our research questions are more restrictive than the
example given. They require examining one activity e pipe
manufacture e using a suite of use traces of which most have
survived the destructive forces of PDSM. Pipestone wear is robust
and generally distinguishable from PDSM, so the latter was noted as
a complicating factor, but it did not impede the analysis.
4.1. The analysis
In the Robb Collection, there were 337 prehistoric stone tools
that were likely employed in the manufacture of stone pipes. All
were retouched, several extensively, and no un-retouched debris
was included. These tools were divided into seven type groups
according to morphological and technological attributes and
retained throughout analysis.
We were interested in whether or not the tools in each type
group showed pipestone wear and, if so, what the nature of that
wear was. Thus we needed to be sure that each type group was
sufficiently represented in order to understand how it functioned, if
applicable, within the manufacture process. From the two smallest
type groups e punches and tabular tools e we chose all of the
pieces loaned to us. For the remaining 5 type groups, we employed
optimal random stratified sampling to select a sample large enough
to accurately determine functional variability, yet small enough to
allow comprehensive analysis of the loaned collection in the time
available. This sample constituted 78 pieces (23.15% of the total 337
tools, statistically sufficient for >90% confidence), recorded by type
in Table 1.
Figs. 4e6, representative of the Robb Collection artifacts
analyzed, correspond to the type groups presented in Table 1.
36
P.B.M. Law de Lauriston et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science 57 (2015) 32e41
Table 1
Type groups, samples, and definitions. No ¼ original sample; Na ¼ sample analyzed.
Type group
Awl
Punch
Pipe drill
End scraper
Pipe gouge
Reamer
Tabular tool
Total
No
Na
20
9
6
76
33
158
32
12
337
6
15
9
18
9
12
78
Definition
Contains a prominent projection a third or more the length of the piece. Projections are thoroughly retouched but thin and parallel-sided, i.e.,
typically do not taper much from the base, which can be either shaped or left unaltered.
Similar to awl but has at least one thin projection that tapers from the base, which is either shaped or unmodified.
Longer and thicker than awl or punch, its bit is parallel-sided or slightly tapering; usually lacks a base.
Rectangular or ovoid in shape, it always possesses at least one unifacially retouched bit end. Sides also usually retouched, but not invasively.
Small, bifacially retouched and elongate. Usually club-shaped, with one end larger than the other.
Small, narrow and elongate, but usually unifacially retouched, resembling a small scraper. Typically retains original flake surface.
Rectangular or ovoid shape and bifacially and invasively retouched. Technically a biface, but usually smaller and narrower.
Our study employed low power microscopic analysis using a
stereoscopic microscope (a Nikon SMZ 745-T), which allowed wear
traces to be observed from <10 e 200 magnifications. Reflective
lighting was used (a separate light source with articulating arms) to
enhance shadow effects and depth of field necessary for interpreting topographic features stereoscopically (Law de Lauriston,
2014). This method additionally affords a 3D view of the artifact
which further aids in the interpretation of topographic features.
Piece-specific attributes such as type, raw material and heat
alteration were recorded, as well as important wear attributes. Use
of stone tools will usually result in microscopic wear (e.g. striations,
scarring, crushing, rounding, polish) on the edge, surface and part
of the tool that made contact with the material being worked.
Observations of traces around tool edges can provide information
about which part of the tool made contact with worked material.
The orientation of striations can indicate motion (how the tool was
prehended and used) (Law de Lauriston, 2014; Odell, 1981). However, crushing, rounding and/or the pattern of scarring observed on
both dorsal and ventral edge perspectives provide the best
information on tool use (Law de Lauriston, 2014; Odell, 1981; Odell
and Odell-Vereecken, 1980).
The assessed material worked was recorded as soft (e.g., vegetal,
flesh, hide), medium (e.g., wood), hard organic (e.g., bone, antler),
hard inorganic (stone), and indeterminate (Odell, 1981; Odell and
Odell-Vereecken, 1980). Attributes were recorded on datasheets
by piece and by functional unit, or the specific area on the piece that
was used. This area was oriented according to an 8-polar coordinate partitioning system (Odell, 1979).
4.1.1. Quantitative results
Frequency of use in the sample is summarized by type group in
Table 2. At least three-quarters of every group exhibited nonprehensile wear on some substance, and the overall use proportion is 87%. Given the nature of the sample, this result was not
unexpected e indeed, it might have been higher without extensive
PDSM. Awls and reamers show the most haft damage, though
conditions and sample sizes warrant caution in stating anything
definitive.
Fig. 4. Awls (left) and punches (right).
Fig. 5. Pipe Drills (top left), Pipe Gouges (top right) and Reamers (bottom).
P.B.M. Law de Lauriston et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science 57 (2015) 32e41
37
Fig. 6. Endscrapers (left) and tabular tools (right).
Table 2
Assessment by piece for each type group based on evidence of use, of hafting, or no
discernible wear.
Type group
Used
Hafted
Not used
Total
% used
End scrapers
Pipe drills
Tabular tools
Reamers
Pipe gouges
Awls
Punches
Total
9
12
12
7
16
7
5
68
1
2
0
3
1
4
1
12
0
3
0
2
2
2
1
10
9
15
12
9
18
9
6
78
100%
80.0%
100%
77.8%
88.9%
77.8%
83.3%
let us consider the pieces in each type group that show use-wear on
inorganic hard materials (Table 4).
Five of the seven groups show high proportions of use-wear on
pipestone e between 56% and 100%. In contrast, the remaining two
types e punches and awls e show almost no use on pipestone at all.
Only one piece, a punch, was assessed to have pipestone wear, and
that piece is considerably larger than the rest, making it an aberration. Let us now consider each of the tool classes separately and
show how each was used.
5. Individual tool use
5.1. End scrapers
Table 3 shows the assessed tool motions and worked materials
by type group using the basic unit of analysis, the functional unit.
The sample is dominated by four activities: cutting (22.9%),
scraping (41.8%), drilling (10.0%), and gouging (18.8%), augmented
by some shaving, projectile, and indeterminate utilization. Worked
materials are dominated (83.5%) by the hard inorganic category, or
stone.
As one of our research questions involves determining which
lithic type groups were most often involved in pipe manufacture,
Table 3
Assessed tool motions and worked materials, by functional unit, for each of the type
groups.
Type group
Motion
Worked material
Total
Soft Medium Hard
Hard
Indeterorganic inorganic minate
End scrapers Cut
Scrape
Pipe drills
Cut
Scrape
Gouge
Drill
Tabular tools Cut
Scrape
Gouge
Drill
Projectile
Reamers
Cut
Scrape
Gouge
Projectile
Pipe gouges Scrape
Gouge
Drill
Awls
Cut
Shave
Drill
Indeterminate
Punches
Cut
Scrape
drill
Indeterminate
Totals
1
1
1
1
2
1
9
12
6
6
4
6
11
18
10
2
1
1
6
2
5
5
29
11
2
1
2
1
2
1
3
1
8
1
1
1
1
4
142
1
1
1
2
13
10
15
6
6
5
6
13
18
11
2
1
6
2
5
5
29
11
2
2
2
3
1
2
1
4
2
170
End scrapers are the largest individual tools in the collection.
They were also universally utilized on pipestone, and were
employed exclusively for cutting and scraping activities. On materials this hard, substantial portions of the tool edge are typically
ground down with use, an effect that rounds the edge and often
confounds directionality indicators of scarring and polish, making it
difficult to tell the difference between cutting and scraping (Fig. 7).
Thus, some of the tools that we have assessed for a scraping
function may also have been used for cutting, and vice versa.
This may be a false dichotomy in this case, as the work of making
a pipe often involves using an edge in both ways; indeed, we
sometimes witnessed striations both parallel and perpendicular to
the edge, on the same edge. That said, the majority of directional
indicators of these scraper edges suggests scraping rather than
cutting.
Hinge scarring formed initially, but was truncated by rounding
as the edge stabilized, and only the terminations of the scars can
now be seen. In fact, it appears that this edge was held at a constant
angle to the pipestone, as the rounding is actually flattened, or
faceted.
The heaviest wear occurs on the sides of the scrapers, not the
end. The ends often show the same kinds of wear, but less of it. This
suggests that a primary activity was shaping the outside of the
bowl, which involved both cutting and scraping motions. Scrapers
may have also been used for reaming out the inside of the bowl but
only in the latter stages, as previous to this, the bowl would not
Table 4
Pieces (Na) by type group used to work inorganic hard (I.H.) material (pipestone).
Type group
Na
I.H.
Percentage
End scrapers
Pipe drills
Tabular tools
Reamers
Pipe gouges
Awls
Punches
Total
9
15
12
9
18
9
6
78
9
11
11
5
16
0
1
53
100%
73.3%
91.7%
55.6%
88.9%
0%
16.7%
38
P.B.M. Law de Lauriston et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science 57 (2015) 32e41
Fig. 7. Endscraper used to cut and/or scrape (wear indicated by arrows).
have been large enough for most of these scrapers to fit into. End
scrapers were thus employed in the initial stages of pipe manufacture, i.e., cutting out the blank, regularizing the preform by
cutting the stone into shape, and scraping the outside of the bowl.
There is wear all over these scrapers and little evidence for hafting,
so we surmise that most of them were hand-held.
Fig. 8. Typical wear on a drill used on pipestone, showing step scarring (A) and edge
rounding (B).
the preponderance of cutting and scraping traces, it appears that
the pipe drills were used not only in a rotary motion, but also in a
scraping, and occasionally, in a cutting mode.
Of the 15 drills examined, the bit was utilized on 12 of them, not
used at all on 3, and only on 2 was there evidence of hafting. We
suggest that many of these drills were used to widen a narrow hole,
as well as to cut and scrape the sides of the bowl.
5.2. Tabular tools
5.4. Pipe gouges
Another type predominantly utilized on pipestone was the
tabular tool. This is a homogeneous class: all of them were utilized,
almost always on hard inorganic materials. They were cutting and
scraping tools, probably used in ways similar to the end scrapers.
Their sides and ends are very rounded, with striations usually
perpendicular to the edge when visible, but sometimes diagonal or
parallel to it. The corners were often used as reaming tools for
gouging the bottom of the bowl, often showing striations perpendicular or diagonal to the edge. Smaller than end scrapers, they
were probably used to fashion the insides of the bowl once the
opening had become large enough to get the tool inside it. These
tools are abraded all over and manifest no hafting traces, strongly
indicating that they were hand-held.
5.3. Pipe drills
Some of the pipe drills were, indeed, drills, but they were
equally scrapers, gouges, and knives. It is useful here to describe
what, for us, constitutes drilling wear. First, the tip should show
distinctive rounding or crushing oriented at the tip, i.e., not just a
continuation of edge wear. Second, striations, if they are visible,
should radiate around the tip, that is, perpendicular to the sides
that comprise the tip region. Third, ridge crests close to the tip
should be abraded. Finally, opposing edges around the tip should
show heavy rounding and fine abrasion, not just a comminuted
surface. These characteristics can be seen on an experimental drill
bit (Fig. 8), which shows a heavily step scarred edge that stabilized,
resulting in abrasive rounding and polish confined to the area
around the tip. Not all of these indicators need be present in every
instance of drilling, but the more of them that occurred, the more
certain we were of the inference.
Although following these criteria not all the pipe drills were
‘drills’. They were however pipe fashioning tools. Distinguishing
features of these objects are that they are long and rather large;
they possess wear down both sides and frequently at the tip. From
Pipe gouges are small, elongate, bifacially retouched pieces,
typically with one end pointed, the other more bulbous. Although
pieces of this class do not show much haft damage, the more
pointed end tends to be the lesser utilized, and it is possible that
several of these were hafted by their thinner end.
These were exclusively pipestone-working implements, used
for gouging and scraping. The edges were used predominantly for
scraping, probably the inside of the pipe bowl. The ends e primarily
the larger bit end e also often had scraping wear, without the facets
commonly seen on the reamers. These ends appear to have been
utilized in a fashion similar to the reamers, but in a scraping motion
on the bottom of the bowl, rather than in a pushing motion. The
corners of these pieces were particularly heavily utilized. It appears
that these tools were employed for scraping and reaming the pipe
bowl after the initial hole had been drilled, to make it wider.
Typical wear on the end of a gouge is shown on the artifact in
Fig. 9. In this case, stabilization occurred well before discard, and
only the terminations of the step scars can be seen. The last part of
the fracturing process apparently resulted in a crumbling of that
edge, or comminutions, vestiges of which can still be seen. These
were abraded into the heavily rounded aspect seen in the photograph. The instructive thing to notice about this gouge end is its
corner, which was apparently especially heavily utilized, even to
the point of faceting.
5.5. Reamers
Reamers are small, like gouges, but thinner and not retouched at
the tip, as drills and many of the gouges are. They are delicate,
elongate, and unifacially worked, and they never functioned as
drills (in our sample, at least). However, a few of them show traces
of having been employed as projectile points. Of the four pieces in
our sample, two possessed only projectile traces, while the other
two exhibited both projectile and pipestone-working damage.
P.B.M. Law de Lauriston et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science 57 (2015) 32e41
Fig. 9. Artifact showing step terminations and comminutions (A), faceting of the
corner (B), and heavy rounding (C).
Reamers in the collection have slightly more haft damage than
other types of tools, possibly because they often doubled as
projectiles.
In a pipe-making capacity, the ends of reamers were often
employed for gouging out the bottom of the pipe. This frequently
results in a bevel on the flat ventral surface (Fig. 10), accompanied
by striations diagonal to the edge, indicating that the maker was
pushing, or planing, material from deep within the hole.
Sides show predominantly cutting wear, often with striae parallel to the edge, traces that could have resulted from intentionally
cutting the bowl or from unintentionally making contact with the
side of the bowl as the end was hitting the bottom. Reaming out the
interior of the pipe bowl took place shortly after the center was
drilled out.
5.6. Awls and punches
These two tool types were included in the sample as controls
because they exhibited the kind of wear suspected from the
manufacture of pipes. Of the sample of 15 of these tools studied,
only one exhibits pipestone wear, and it is very different from the
others in size. The most frequently conducted tool motion for both
types is drilling (Table 3), a result consistent with their dominant
feature, which is a retouched projection or graver bit. Their use
39
profile is quite variable: tool motions include cutting, shaving and
scraping, as well as drilling; and worked materials include soft,
medium and hard materials in equal measure. The collective term
‘perforator’ might be appropriate for these two type groups.
Interesting patterns emerge when one separates these types
into their logical constituent parts: the bit, or projection (think ‘drill
bit’); and base, or flatter portion, usually part of the original flake.
Table 5, which considers these two parts functionally (whether
used, unused, hafted, or not present), documents interesting
functional differences between these types. For awls, when the bit
was utilized, the base shows evidence of hafting; when the bit was
unused, the base often shows non-hafting use-wear. It may be that
the latter specimens are utilized flakes that were later made into
perforators by flaking a bit.
For punches, when the bit was used, the base was usually also
used (and thereby unhafted); when the base was used, the bit was
either also utilized or hafted. Although these two types do not look
very different from one another, they may have functioned quite
differently. It is certain that, except for the occasional aberration,
neither of these types was employed for working pipestone.
6. Conclusion
Smoking pipes are effective social devices in many parts of the
world. In North America, the calumet pipe and ceremony were
often employed for mediating intercultural relationships. In central
Kansas, inhabitants of the region during the late prehistoric Great
Bend Aspect manufactured a special item known as the Florence/
Windom pipe. The same style of pipe has been found in settlements
of the Pratt, Neosho, Wheeler and Ft. Coffee complexes, all of which
are associated with the Wichita tribe (see Law de Lauriston, 2011),
and the pipe has seldom been found outside this association. The
presence of these pipes has led to a series of questions concerning
their manufacture. For instance, were the pipes manufactured on
the sites on which they were found? By which means were they
made, and using which tools? To answer these questions a suite of
functional experiments was conducted using Kansas pipestone to
document the types of wear produced through a variety of tool
motions.
An optimal random, stratified sample of 78 tools from the Robb
Collection was selected and analyzed using low-magnification usewear techniques. Because of the destructive effects of PDSM on tool
surfaces, not all wear traces on the Robb tools were dependable.
However, pipestone wear turned out to be both diagnostic of this
material and robust enough to be spared the ravages of soil
chemistry. What emerged from this study: 1) pipestone wear is
interpretable in context; and 2) it can be effectively studied through
use-wear techniques, in spite of the effects of PDSM.
Five of the type groups analyzed were employed in the manufacture of stone pipes: end scrapers, tabular tools, pipe drills, pipe
gouges, and reamers. Larger tools, such as many of the scrapers,
were probably used for shaping the outsides of the pipe bowls.
Drilling of the bowl and stem was necessary e initially using a
Table 5
Functional comparison of morphological features of awls and punches.
Fig. 10. Beveled edge of reamer (wear indicated by brackets).
Features
Awls
Punches
Bit used/base used
Bit used/base unused
Bit used/base hafted
Bit unused/base unused or not present
Bit unused/base used
Bit hafted/base used
Total
0
0
4
2
3
0
9
3
1
0
1
0
1
6
40
P.B.M. Law de Lauriston et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science 57 (2015) 32e41
small-diameter drill bit, and then increasingly larger bits until
drilling became counter-productive. Drilling was accomplished
with the pipe drills for the larger-diameter holes, and smaller
elongate tools, such as pipe gouges, for the initial drilling. The size
of the hole in the pipe bowl was enlarged by gouging and scraping,
using a series of drills, tabular tools, reamers, gouges, and possibly
end scrapers.
An important outcome of this study is the demonstration of the
value of use-wear analysis. The use-wear on the specimens indicates, perhaps not too surprisingly, that most of them were used
in a variety of ways, and for gouges and reamers, not quite in the
way that may have been originally envisioned, based on overall tool
morphology.
Awls and punches were, for the most part, not pipe
manufacturing tools. They were used in several ways, on a variety of
materials considerably less resistant than pipestone. Sometimes
the projecting bit was employed for an activity such as drilling or
piercing, but other times it was hafted and the base was used for
cutting or scraping. There may have been a real prehistoric functional difference between these two tool types, but it would take a
larger sample than was available from the Robb collection to ferret
out these differences.
Studies of stone pipe manufacture are infrequent, but informative. Knowing that pipes were manufactured on specific sites can
establish the overall functional significance of those sites and place
them in cultural perspective. This study has attempted to depict the
types of tools employed in pipe making, and to clarify the manufacture process through wear traces on the tools engaged in the
activity.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank the Robb Family for the loan of artifacts,
through the intermediary of Donald Blakeslee, for the purpose of
analysis. His communications assisted us in our work. A debt of
gratitude is owed to George H. Odell for his decades of service to the
archaeological and academic communities, his pioneering efforts in
the field of use-wear, and his mentorship and friendship. We regret
that he did not live to see this study in publication. We thank Frieda
Odell-Vereecken for her support of our work, for a lifetime of
encouraging George's efforts, and for her generosity in sharing her
much missed husband with us. Former University of Tulsa postgraduate anthropology students Colleen Bell, Sarah Chandlee,
Eden Hemming and Elizabeth Peterson, most of whom have now
moved on to different institutions around the world, are thanked
for their various contributions as budding lithicists under George's
tutelage. We also appreciate and acknowledge our University of
Tulsa, Fall 2010 use-wear course students, who, through their own
work, challenged us to keep open minds and reminded us that
there is ‘more than one way to skin a cat’.
References
Adair, James, 1986. In: Williams, Samuel Cole (Ed.), Adair's History of the American
Indians. Promontory Press, New York.
n Castillo, 2001. The
Alvarez, Myrian, Fiore, D
anare, Favret, Eduardo, Guerra, Ramo
use of lithic artefacts for making rock art engravings: observation and analysis
of use-wear traces in experimental tools though optical microscopy and SEM.
J. Archaeol. Sci. 28, 457e464.
Asch David, 1994. Aboriginal specialty-plant cultivation in eastern North america:
illinois prehistory and the Post-Contact perspective. In: Green, W. (Ed.), Agricultural Origins and Development in the Midcontinent. Office of the State
Archaeologist, Iowa City, pp. 25e86. Report 19.
Blakeslee, Donald J., 1975. The Plains Interband Trade System: an Ethnohistoric and
Archaeological Investigation. Department of Anthropology, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee (PhD dissertation).
Blakeslee, Donald J., 1981. The origin and spread of the Calumet ceremony. Am.
Antiq. 46, 759e768.
ratoire analysis. Plains
Blakeslee, Donald J., 2012. The Windom pipe: a chaîne ope
Anthropol. 57, 299e323.
Blakeslee, Donald J., Hawley, Marlin F., 2006. The Great Bend aspect. In: Hoard, R.J.,
Banks, W.E. (Eds.), Kansas Archaeology. University of Kansas Press, Lawrence,
pp. 165e179.
Bolton, Herbert Eugene, 1987. The Hasinais: Southern Caddoans as Seen by the
Earliest Europeans. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.
Brown, Ian W., 1989. The Calumet ceremony in the southeast and its archaeological
manifestations. Am. Antiq. 54, 311e331.
Chandlee, Sarah N., Bell, Collen A., Lambert-Law de Lauriston, Timothy, 2014. Pipe
manufacture on the Plains and experimental archaeology: not just blowing
smoke. Lithic Technol. 39, 122e128.
Drass, Richard R., 1998. The southern plains villagers. In: Wood, W.R. (Ed.),
Archaeology on the Great Plains. University of Kansas Press, Lawrence,
pp. 415e455.
Ford, Richard I., 1981. Gardening and farming before A.D. 1000: patterns of prehistoric cultivation North of Mexico. J. Ethnobiol. 1, 6e27.
Goldstein, Lynne G. (compiler), 1983 Current research: Great Lakes. Am. Antiq. 48:
617e626.
Gundersen, James Novotny, 1988. Pipestones of the St. Helena phase. In:
Blakeslee, D.J. (Ed.), St. Helena Archaeology: New Data Fresh Interpretations,
vol. 39. J&L Reprint Company, Lincoln, NE, pp. 79e97. Reprints in Anthropology.
Gundersen, James Novotny, 1993. “Catlinite” and the spread of the Calumet Ceremony. Am. Antiq. 58, 560e562.
Gundersen, James N., Tiffany, Joseph A., 1986. Nature and provenance of red pipestone from the Wittrock site (130B4), Northwest Iowa. North Am. Archaeol. 7,
45e67.
Haberman, Thomas W., 1984. Evidence for aboriginal tobaccos in eastern North
america. Am. Antiq. 49, 269e287.
Haddon, Alfred C., 1947. Smoking and Tobacco Pipes in New Guinea. Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society. Series B 232.
Hudson, Charles, 1976. The Southeastern Indians. University of Tennessee Press,
Knoxville.
Husted, Wilfred M., Edgar, Robert, 2002. The Archaeology of Mummy Cave,
Wyoming: an Introduction to Shoshonean Prehistory. Midwest Archaeological
Center. Special Report no. 4; and Southeast Archaeological Center Technical
Report, Series no. 9.
Jones, Volney H., 1944. Was tobacco smoked in the Pueblo region in pre-Spanish
times? Am. Antiq. 9, 451e456.
Keller, Gordon N., 1961. The Changing Position of the Southern Plains in the Late
Prehistory of the Great Plains Area. Department of Anthropology, University of
Chicago (PhD dissertation).
Kinahan, John, 1986. The archaeological structure of pastoral production in the
Central Namib Desert. South Afr. Archaeol. Bull. Goodwin Ser. 5, 69e82.
Law de Lauriston, P.B. MacLaren, 2011. Analysis of the Three Fingers Bay Site: a
Paleo-archaic through Pre-caddoan Site in Northeastern Oklahoma. Department of Anthropology, Univeristy of Tulsa (MA thesis).
Law de Lauriston, P.B. MacLaren, 2014. The Effects of Contact with Farmers on
Hunter-Gatherers’ Lithic Assemblages: Use-wear Analysis of Stone Tools from
Holkrans, North West Province, South Africa. Faculty of Science, University of
the Witwatersrand (PhD dissertation).
Levi Sala, Irene, 1986. Use wear and post-depositional surface modification: a word
of caution. J. Archaeol. Sci. 13, 229e244.
Levi Sala, Irene, 1993. Use-wear traces: processes of development and postdepositional alterations. In: Traces et function: les gestes retrouv
es. Colloque
ge, Editions ERAUL 50, pp. 401e416.
international de Lie
Lewarch, Dennis E., 1979. Effects of tillage on artifact patterning: a preliminary
assessment. In: O'Brien, M.J., Warren, R.E. (Eds.), Cannon Reservoir Human
Ecology Project e a Regional Approach to Cultural Continuity and Change. Division of Archaeological Research, University of Nebraska e Lincoln,
pp. 101e149. Technical Report 79-14.
Lewarch, Dennis E., O'Brien, Michael J., 1981. Effect of short-term tillage on aggregate provenience surface pattern. In: O'Brien, M.J., Lewarch, D.E. (Eds.), Plowzone Archaeology: Contributions to Theory and Technique. Vanderbilt
University, Nashville, TN, pp. 7e49. Publications in Anthropology, no. 27.
Lewenstein, Suzanne M., 1987. Stone Tool Use at Cerros: the Ethnoarchaeological
and Use-wear Evidence. University of Texas Press, Austin.
McBride, Pamela J., 2008. Carbonized Plant Remains from Ten Sites on Albuquerque's West Side (LA 80883, LA 80886, LA 80887, LA 99696, LA 99697, LA
99698, LA 99700, LA 99701, LA 99702, and LA 99708), Sandoval County, New
Mexico. Rio Grande Consultants, Inc., Albuquerque. Ms. On file.
McGuire, Joseph D., 1899. Pipes and Smoking Customs of the American Aborigines.
Annual Report of the United States National Museum, 1896e1897. Washington,
D.C.
Odell, George H., 1979. A new and improved system for the retrieval of functional
information from microscopic observations of chipped stone tools. In:
Hayden, B. (Ed.), Lithic Use-wear Analysis. Academic Press, New York,
pp. 329e344.
Odell, George H., 1981. The mechanics of use-breakage of stone tools: some testable
hypotheses. J. Field Archaeol. 8, 197e209.
Odell, George H., Cowan, Frank, 1987. Estimating tillage effects on artifact distributions. Am. Antiq. 52, 456e484.
Odell, George H., Odell-Vereecken, Frieda, 1980. Verifying the reliability of lithic
use-wear assessments by ‘Blind tests:’ the low-power approach. J. Field
Archaeol. 7, 87e120.
P.B.M. Law de Lauriston et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science 57 (2015) 32e41
le Page du Pratz, M., 1774. The History of Louisiana, or of the Western Parts of
Virginia and Carolina: Containing a Description of the Countries that Lie on
Both Sides of the River Mississippi: With an Account of the Settlements, Inhabitants, Soil, Climate, and Products (Translated from the French). T. Becket,
London.
Pavesic, Max G., 1985. Cache blades and Turkey tails: piecing together the Western
Idaho archaic burial complex. In: Plew, M., Woods, J., Pavesic, M. (Eds.), Stone
Tool Analysis: Essays in Honor of Don E.Crabtree. University of New Mexico
Press, Albuquerque, pp. 55e89.
Perkins, Stephen M., Baugh, Timothy G., 2008. Protohistory and the Wichita. In:
Baugh, T.G., Perkins, S.M. (Eds.), Land of Our Ancestors: Studies in Protohistoric
and Historic Wichita Cultures, Plains Anthropologist 53, pp. 381e394. Memoir
40.
Plisson, Hugues, Mauger, Manuelle, 1988. Chemical and mechanical alteration of
microwear polishes: an experimental approach. Helinium 28, 3e16.
Rafferty, Sean, Mann, Rob, 2004. Smoking and Culture: the Archaeology of Tobacco
Pipes in Eastern North America. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville.
Rohrbaugh, Charles L., 1984. Arkansas valley caddoan: Fort Coffee and Neosho Foci.
In: Bell, Robert E. (Ed.), Prehistory of Oklahoma. Academic Press, Orlando,
pp. 265e285.
Shaw, Thurstan, 1960. Early smoking pipes: in Africa, Europe, and America. J. R.
Anthropol. Inst. G. B. Irel. 90 (2), 272e305.
Shea, John J., Klenck, Joel D., 1993. An experimental investigation of the effects of
trampling on the results of lithic microwear analysis. J. Archaeol. Sci. 20,
175e194.
Sigstad, John S., 1970. A field test for catlinite. Am. Antiq. 35, 377e382.
Stapert, Dick, 1976. Some natural surface modifications on flint in the Netherlands.
Palaeohistoria 18, 8e41.
41
Stoyanova, Rossita, Vitov, Oleg, Marinova, Irina, 2008. Study of the composition of a
stone tobacco pipe from the archaeological reserve “Pautalia-VelbudzhdKyustendil”, Bulgaria. In: Kostov, R.I., Gaydarska, B., Gurova, M. (Eds.), Geoarchaeology and Archaeomineralogy: Proceedings of the International Conference, 29e30 October 2008, Sofia. St. Ivan Rilski, Sofia, pp. 141e146.
Turnbaugh, William A., 1979. Calumet ceremonialism as a nativistic response. Am.
Antiq. 44, 685e691.
Vehik, Susan C., 1976. The Great Bend aspect: a multivariate investigation of its
origin and southern Plains relationships. Plains Anthropol. 21, 199e205.
Vehik, Susan C., 2002. Topics, themes and theories in Little River focus archeology:
research after Udden. Kans. Anthropol. 23, 35e44.
Wagner, Gail E., 1998. Tobacco. In: Gibbon, G. (Ed.), Archaeology of Prehistoric
Native America: an Encyclopedia. Garland Publishing, New York, pp. 840e841.
Wedel, Waldo, 1959. An Introduction to Kansas Archeology. Bureau of American
Ethnology, Bull. 174. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
Wedel, Waldo, 1967. The council circles of central kansas: were they solstice registers. Am. Antiq. 32, 54e63.
Wedel, Waldo, 1970. Antler tine scraper handles from the central plains. Plains
Anthropol. 15, 36e45.
West, George A., 1934. Pipes and Smoking Customs of the American Indian. Public
Museum of Milwaukee, Bulletin no. 17, Milwaukee.
Winter, Joseph C., 2000. Tobacco Use by Native North Americans: Sacred Smoke and
Silent Killer. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.
Yarnell, Richard A., 1964. Aboriginal Relationships Between Culture and Plant Life in
the Upper Great Lakes Region. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Anthropological Papers, no. 23.