Ethnography proved to be a very important source for various data for archeological researches. Ethnographic observations may shed light on numerous “gaps” in the study of Prehistoric times. Data obtained during ethnographic surveys may also raise numerous questions and refute some commonly accepted theories which turn to be quite doubtful. Many remarkable ethnographic works contribute to the development of the overall study. For instance, the works by Arthur or Silitoe and Hardy provide data which, by all means, should be taken into consideration by archeologists. Thus, Arthur observes, Xauta women, a group of a Kongo modern community, whereas Silitoe and Hardy Wola community of New Guinea. Both researches focus on the use of lithic tools and raise some important questions to be answered by archeologists. The two works under consideration study the role of lithics as working tools and the influence of the working tools on the distribution of social roles in the society. The authors research the use of stone by modern communities which may shed light on the role of the development of stone tools in Prehistoric times. These works research the labor patterns of people, they depict some details of the ways people in modern communities work. The authors focus on different aspects of the issue, and both of them make somewhat unexpected conclusions. Thus, Arthur concentrates on the role of women in the use of lithics and the role of females in the development of Prehistoric communities, whereas Sillitoe and Hardy study the use of stone tools and their role in the Prehistoric period. Interestingly, Silitoe and Hardy suggest that archeologist should rethink “the place of stone tools within society and material culture” (Silitoe & Hardy 563). The data obtained by Silitoe and interpreted by Hardy testify that the modern community Wola uses more than two hundred kinds of raw materials to produce different tools, however, lithic materials are the most lasting ones, i.e. stone tools can be preserved for centuries while other materials vanish in several years (Silitoe & Hardy 563). These findings prove that archeologist should take into account the development of modern communities in reconstructing the past. Likewise, Arthur casts doubt on the commonly accepted theories in archeology, however, the author is concentrated on the role of women in Prehistoric communities and offers “an alternative to the man-the-toolmaker model and redefining Western “naturalized” gender roles (Arthur 228). Thus, the survey provides data that testify that women reveal quite sophisticated skills in tools making and, despite the widespread theory that women are not scrupulous in raw materials use, proves that females “prefer high-quality stone raw materials to ensure the quality” of their products (Arthur 238). So, the ethnographic observations revealed in the studies under consideration provide archeologists with new data which can shed light on many historic issues. These new perspectives contribute to the development of the middle-range theory. Of course, archeologists have very few details to construct the trustful theories about the life in Prehistoric times. They only have remains of some tools which can lead to distorted facts (Silitoe & Hardy 563). Fortunately, ethnographic observations may lead to deep understanding of the behavior of prehistoric people. For instance, Silitoe and Hardy dwell upon the types of work done by males and females, and worki