PREHISTORIC STONE ARTEFACT ANALYSIS MA MODULE (15 Credits): ARCL0101 MODULE HANDBOOK 2019-20

Home , Lithic, Lithic analysis, Lithic reduction, Lithic technology

INSTITUTE OF ARCHAEOLOGY PREHISTORIC STONE ARTEFACT ANALYSIS MA MODULE (15 credits): ARCL0101 MODULE HANDBOOK 2019-20

Tuesday 9 am – 11 pm, Term 2 Room 410 and Lithics Lab, Institute of Archaeology

Deadlines for coursework for this module: 1st report: 27th April 2020 2nd report: 12th June 2020

Target dates for return of marked coursework to students: 1st report: 18th May 2020 2nd report: 10th July 2020

Co-ordinator: Dr Tomos Proffitt Email: [email protected] Room 206

Please see the last page of this document for important information about submission and marking procedures

1 OVERVIEW

Short description

This series of lectures, practical work and discussion provides an introduction to basic and advanced analytical techniques and addresses some of the methodological and interpretative approaches used in the study of lithic assemblages. It is twofold in its approach: 1) it addresses technologies characteristic of the Old Stone Age/Palaeolithic and Neolithic periods; 2) it considers ways that lithic artefacts and lithic analysis can contribute towards an understanding of past human cognition, behaviour and the interpretation of human material culture. There is an emphasis on practical handling and study as this is the best way to learn about struck stone artefacts.

Module schedule

Lecture (all lectures in Practical (most practicals in Lecturer Date Room 410) Room 410 or Lithics Lab) Week 1 Approaches to lithic analysis Labelling and curation, raw material T. Proffitt 14-Jan identification (Lithics Lab) Week 2 Origins of stone tool technology Artefact categories, core and flake T. Proffitt 21-Jan attributes (Room 410) Week 3 Stone tool experimental Experimental knapping T. Proffitt 28-Jan flaking (in the IoA basement) Week 4 Acheulean technology Analysis of knapping experiments + T. Proffitt 4-Feb Acheulean handaxes (Room 410) Week 5 Lithic use wear analysis Microscopy (SEM lab, basement) T. Proffitt 11 Feb Week 6 **Reading week (no teaching)** **Reading week** 410 will be open **Reading week** 17-Feb Week 7 Illustration of stone tools Hand, digital and high magnification T. Proffitt 25-Feb imaging of stone tools (Lithics Lab) Week 8 Middle Palaeolithic technology Middle Palaeolithic stone tools T. Proffitt 3-Mar (Room 410) Week 9 Upper Palaeolithic technology Upper Palaeolithic stone tools T. Proffitt 10-Mar (Room 410) Week 10 Neolithic lithic technologies Neolithic artefacts (Room 410) Ulrike Sommer 17-Mar

Week 11 Refitting of stone tools Refitting (Room 410) C. Martin-Ramos 24 Mar Data analysis of lithic assemblages T. Proffitt (Room 410)

In addition to these contact hours on Tuesdays 9-11 am, you can use the Lithics Lab (on the 2nd floor) to prepare your reports every Tuesday afternoon 12 pm – 5pm in Term 2. Also, room 410 is booked all week 9 am to 5 pm during Reading Week (Week 6). If there is any issue (e.g., the door is locked), you can ask Judy Medrington in Room 411A or Fiona McLean in Reception to open the door for you.

If you find that you need more time to complete your report, please contact the course co-ordinator and additional time slots can be arranged in the Lithics Lab.

2 | P a g e

TEXTBOOKS

There are a number of books that provide a good introduction to lithic technology, terminology, and methods of analysis. If you have to choose only one, read Inizan et al. (which is the best and is free for downloading). For those of you who wish to try your hand at flint knapping, then Whittaker is a useful reference.

*** Highly recommended

Andrefsky, Jr., W. 2005. Lithics: Macroscopic Approaches to Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Manuals in Archaeology.

Holdaway, S. and Stern, N. 2004. A Record in Stone: the study of Australia's Flaked Stone Artefacts. Melbourne: Museum Victoria; Canberra: Aboriginal Studies Press

*** Inizan, M.-L., Roche, H. and Tixier, J. 1992. Technology and Terminology of Knapped Stone. Meudon: CREP.

In French: http://www.mae.u- paris10.fr/prehistoire/IMG/pdf/Technologie_de_la_pierre_taillee.pdf

In English: http://www.mae.u- paris10.fr/prehistoire/IMG/pdf/Technology_and_Terminology_of_Knapped_Stone.pdf

Odell, G.H. 2004. Lithic Analysis. New York/ London: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.

Shea, John, J. 2013. Stone tools in the Paleolithic and Neolithic Near East. A Guide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Whittaker, J.C. 1994. Flintknapping: Making and Understanding Stone tools. Austin University of Texas Press.

The following articles give a good overview of, and references about the topic:

Andrefsky, W. Jr. 2009. The analysis of stone tool procurement, production and maintenance. Journal of Archaeological Research 17, 65-103.

Nelson, M.C., 1991. The Study of Technological Organization, in: Schiffer, M.B. (Ed.), Archaeological Method and Theory, Vol. 3nº1. University of Arizona Press, Tucson, pp. 57-100.

Odell, G. H. 2000. Stone Tool Research at the end of the Millennium: procurement and technology. Journal of Archaeological Research 9(1), 45-100.

3 | P a g e

METHOD OF ASSESSMENT AND COURSEWORK

This module is assessed by means of two reports (Report #1: 1500 words. Report #2: 2500 words), which together total 4000 words (see below for further details). Each report counts for 50% of the mark.

TEACHING METHODS

This 15-credit module is taught through a series of lectures, practical handling and discussion. Classes will follow a two-part format of lecture and practical + discussion.

WORKLOAD

There will be 20 hours of lectures and practical handling and discussion for this module. Students are expected to spend about 40 hours undertaking background reading for the lectures, and about 90 hours in preparation for coursework, adding up to a total workload of 150 hours for the module.

PREREQUISITES

It is useful, but not essential, to have some background experience in Palaeolithic studies (e.g. from an undergraduate course or part of a course, through professional experience).

2 AIMS, OBJECTIVES AND ASSESSMENT

AIMS

The aims of the module are: • To increase understanding of past lithic technologies • To promote a comprehensive understanding of the type of information that lithic artefacts can provide about past human behaviour. • To explore the range of analytical techniques, methods and theoretical perspectives employed in the study of stone tool assemblages

OBJECTIVES

On successful completion of this module a student should: • Recognise and understand lithic technologies characteristic of the Stone Age/Palaeolithic and Neolithic periods • Be familiar with the analytical and theoretical approaches used in lithic analysis. • Understand the ways in which lithics as a form of material culture inform us about the human past. • Be able to critically evaluate interpretations of lithic assemblages. • Be familiar with a range of case studies related to specific aspects of lithic analysis.

LEARNING OUTCOMES

On successful completion of the module students should have developed: • Observational skills and critical reflection • The ability to apply acquired knowledge of a topic

4 | P a g e

COURSEWORK - ASSESSMENT TASKS

The module will be assessed by two lithic reports. Each report accounts for 50% of the final mark.

The first lithic report will focus on the recognition of the main technological features of experimental and/or archaeological stone tools. In this assignment, students will be asked to identify techno- typological groups and describe taphonomic, technological and typological attributes of the main categories.

The second lithic report will be on the analysis and interpretation of a stone tool database. Results should then be placed within a local and wider geographical context.

Both reports should include a technological, morphometric and typological description and discussion of the lithics studied. The reports should be accompanied by forms, diagrams, tables, illustrations and photographs of some of the pieces studied. Detailed guidelines on the preparation of each report are provided separately.

It is advisable to start work on the practical analysis of the reports as soon as you can. If you are unclear about the report or have any other questions you can discuss them with Tomos Proffitt.

The nature of the assignments and possible approaches to them will be discussed in class, in advance of the submission deadline. However, if students are unclear about the nature of an assignment, they should discuss this with the module coordinator (Tomos Proffitt).

Students are not permitted to re-write and re-submit essays in order to try to improve their marks. However, students may be permitted, in advance of the deadline for a given assignment, to submit for comment a brief outline of the assignment.

The Module Co-ordinator is willing to discuss an outline of the student's approach to the assignment, provided this is planned suitably in advance of the submission date.

SUBMISSION OF FIRST LITHIC REPORT IS MONDAY 27TH APRIL 2020.

SUBMISSION OF SECOND LITHIC REPORT IS FRIDAY 12TH JUNE 2020.

Return of coursework by:

1st report: 18th May 2020

2nd report: 10th July 2020

Please note that in order to be deemed to have completed and passed in any module, it is necessary to submit all assessments.

Word counts The following should not be included in the word-count: title page, contents pages, lists of figures and tables, abstract, preface, acknowledgements, bibliography, lists of references, captions and contents of tables and figures, and appendices.

5 | P a g e

CHECK WORD COUNT

Word count Lithic report #1 1,425-1,575 Lithic report #2 2,375-2,625

Penalties will only be imposed if you exceed the upper figure in the range. There is no penalty for using fewer words than the lower figure in the range: the lower figure is simply for your guidance to indicate the sort of length that is expected.

In the 2019-2020 session penalties for overlength work will be as follows:

• For work that exceeds the specified maximum length by less than 10% the mark will be reduced by five percentage marks; but the penalised mark will not be reduced below the pass mark, assuming the work merited a Pass. • For work that exceeds the specified maximum length by 10% or more, the mark will be reduced by 10 percentage points, but the penalised mark will not be reduced below the pass mark, assuming the work merited a Pass.

Coursework submission procedures

• All coursework must normally be submitted both as hard copy and electronically. unless instructed otherwise (However, bulky portfolios and lab books are normally submitted as hard copy only). • • You should staple the appropriate colour-coded IoA coversheet (available in the IoA library and outside room 411a) to the front of each piece of work and submit it to the red box at the Reception Desk (or room 411a in the case of Year 1 undergraduate work) • All coursework should be uploaded to Turnitin by midnight on the day of the deadline. This will date-stamp your work. It is essential to upload all parts of your work as this is sometimes the version that will be marked. • Instructions are given below.

• . Please note that the procedure has changed for 2019-20, and work is now submitted to Turnitin via Moodle. 1. Ensure that your essay or other item of coursework has been saved as a Word doc., docx. or PDF document. Please include the module code and your candidate number on every page as a header. 2.. Go into the Moodle page for the module to which you wish to submit your work. 3. Click on the correct assignment (e.g. Essay 1), 4. Fill in the “Submission title” field with the right details: It is essential that the first word in the title is your examination candidate number (e.g. YGBR8 Essay 1), Note that this changes each year. 5. Click “Upload”.

6 | P a g e

6 Click on “Submit” 7 You should receive a receipt – please save this. 8 If you have problems, please email the IoA Turnitin Advisers on ioa- [email protected], explaining the nature of the problem and the exact module and assignment involved. One of the Turnitin Advisers will normally respond within 24 hours, Monday-Friday during term. Please be sure to email the Turnitin Advisers if technical problems prevent you from uploading work in time to meet a submission deadline - even if you do not obtain an immediate response from one of the Advisers they will be able to notify the relevant Module Coordinator that you had attempted to submit the work before the deadline .

7 | P a g e

TEACHING SCHEDULE

Lectures and most practicals will be held on Tuesday from 9 to 11 am in room 410. The first hour will normally include a short introduction to the topic, followed by a description of stone tool attributes. The second hour will be a practical where the lecturer will discuss artefact characteristics and help the students to recognise the main attributes.

Most hands-on work will be in room 410, but some practicals will be held in the Lithics Lab (204A) or the IoA basement.

COURSE SYLLABUS

The following is an outline for the module as a whole, and identifies essential and supplementary readings relevant to each session. Information is provided as to where in the UCL library system individual readings are available; their location and Teaching Collection (TC) number, and status (whether out on loan) can also be accessed on the eUCLid computer catalogue system. Readings marked with an * are considered essential to keep up with the topics covered in the module. Copies of individual articles and chapters identified as essential reading are in the Teaching Collection in the Institute Library (where permitted by copyright) or are available online.

Session 1: January 14th

Lecture: Approaches to Lithic Analysis

Tomos Proffitt

In the first part of this session we will introduce the module, review the history of the discipline, discuss theoretical perspectives, and present methods of lithic analysis, with a focus on the value and reason for employing particular methods.

Essential reading

Isaac, G. L. 1977. Squeezing blood from stones. In (R. V. S. Wright, Ed.) Stone tools as cultural markers: change, evolution, and complexity. New Jersey: Humanities Press, 5-12.

Tostevin, G.B., 2011. Levels of Theory and Social Practice in the Reduction Sequence and Chaîne Opératoire Methods of Lithic Analysis. PaleoAnthropology 2011, 351-375.

Further reading

Binford, L.R., 1973. Interassemblage variability - the Mousterian and the functional argument, in: Renfrew, C. (Ed.), The Explanation of Culture Change: Models in Prehistory. Duckworth, London, pp. 227-254.

Bisson, M. S. 2000. Nineteenth Century Tools for Twenty-First Century Archaeology? Why the Middle Paleolithic Typology of François Bordes Must Be Replaced. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 7, 1-48.

Boëda, E., Geneste, J. M. & Meignen, L. 1990. Identification de chaînes opératoires lithiques du Paléolithique ancien et moyen. Paléo 2, 43-80.

8 | P a g e

Debenath, A. & Dibble, H. L. 1993. Handbook of Palaeolithic Typology. Vol 1: Lower & Middle Palaeolithic of Europe. Philadelphia: Univ. Pennsylvania Press.

Delage, C. (2017). Once upon a time...the (hi)story of the concept of the chaîne opératoire in French prehistory. World Archaeology 49, 158-173.

Dibble, H.L., Holdaway, S.J., Lin, S.C., Braun, D.R., Douglass, M.J., Iovita, R., McPherron, S.P., Olszewski, D.I., Sandgathe, D., 2017. Major Fallacies Surrounding Stone Artifacts and Assemblages. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 24, 813-851.

Geneste, J.-M. 1991. L´approvisionnement en matières premières dans les systemes de production lithique: la dimension spatiale de la technologie. In (R. Mora, X. Terradas, A. Parpal & C. Plana, Ed.) Tecnología y cadenas operativas líticas. Barcelona: Treballs d´Arqueologia, 1, Universidad Autónoma de Barcelona, 1-36.

Nelson, M.C., 1991. The Study of Technological Organization, in: Schiffer, M.B. (Ed.), Archaeological Method and Theory, Vol. 3nº1. University of Arizona Press, Tucson, pp. 57-100.

Pelegrin, J., 1990. Prehistoric Lithic Technology: Some Aspects of Research. Archaeological Review from Cambridge 9, 116-125.

Shott, M.J., 2003. Chaîne Opératoire and Reduction Sequence. Lithic Technology 28, 95-105.

Schlanger, N. 2005. The Chaîne opératoire. In (C. Renfrew & P. Bahn, Ed.) Archaeology. The Key Concepts. London and New York: Routledge, 25-31.

Soressi, M., Geneste, J.-M., 2011. The History and Efficacy of the Chaîne Opératoire Approach to Lithic Analysis: Studying Techniques to Reveal Past Societies in an Evolutionary Perspective. PaleoAnthropology 2011, 334-350.

Torre, I. de la & Mora, R. 2009. Remarks on the current theoretical and methodological approaches to the study of early technological strategies in Eastern Africa. In E. Hovers and D. R. Braun, (eds.) Interdisciplinary Approaches to the Oldowan. Dordrecht: Springer, 15-24. Pdf available online

Practical: Labelling and curation, raw material identification

First, we will review protocols for processing of stone tool collections, including washing, labelling and curation of lithics. Then we will focus on the identification of main raw materials used in stone tool production, including both macroscopic and microscopic approaches.

Readings on labelling and curation

Martínez-Moreno, J., González Marcén, P., Mora Torcal, R., 2011. Data matrix (DM) codes: A technological process for the management of the archaeological record. Journal of Cultural Heritage 12, 134-139. de la Torre, I. et al. 2014. Archaeological field techniques in Stone Age sites. Some case studies. Treballs d’Arqueologia 20, 21-40.

Stone Age Archaeology Group (unpublished): Laboratory protocols for finds processing in archaeological research. Unpublished document, UCL-Institute of Archaeology, available in Moodle.

9 | P a g e

Readings on raw material identification

Inizan, M.-L., Roche, H. and Tixier, J. 1992. Technology and Terminology of Knapped Stone. Meudon: CREP. Chapter 1.

Kearey, P., 2001. Dictionary of Geology. Penguin, London.

Luedtke, B.E., 1992. An Archaeologist´s Guide to Chert and Flint. University of California, California.

MacKenzie, W.S., Adams, A.E., 1994. A Colour Atlas of Rocks and Minerals in Thin Section. Manson Publishing, London.

Session 2: January 21st

Lecture: Origins of stone tool technology

Tomos Proffitt

We will discuss potential primate precursors for the origins of lithic flaking, and the archaeological evidence for the earliest stone tool technology from 3.3 Ma. These include the newly discovered Lomekwi technology from West Turkana (Kenya), and Oldowan flake production in the Early Stone Age. We will consider the presence, nature and meaning of variation during this time period.

Reading for the emergence of stone tool technology

Carvalho, S. et al. 2008. Chaînes opératoires and resource-exploitation strategies in chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) nut cracking. Journal of Human Evolution 55, 148-163.

Harmand, S., et al. 2015. 3.3-million-year-old stone tools from Lomekwi 3, West Turkana, Kenya. Nature 521, 310-315. Panger, M.A., et al. 2002. Older Than the Oldowan? Rethinking the emergence of hominin tool use. Evolutionary Anthropology 11, 235-245

Proffitt, T., et al. 2016. Wild monkeys flake stone tools. Nature 539(7627), 85-88.

Viewings: Capuchin tool making: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0jqJUF1nOs Chimpanzees: http://langint.pri.kyoto-u.ac.jp/ai/en/bossou.html

Reading for Oldowan technologies

Braun, D.R., et al. 2008. Oldowan reduction sequences: methodological considerations. Journal of Archaeological Science 35, 2153-2163.

Delagnes, A. and Roche, H. 2005. Late Pliocene hominid knapping skills: The case of Lokalalei 2C, West Turkana, Kenya. Journal of Human Evolution 48, 435-472.

10 | P a g e

Stout, D. et al. 2005. Raw material selectivity of the earliest stone toolmakers at Gona, Afar, Ethiopia. Journal of Human Evolution 48, 365-380.

Toth, N. 1985. The Oldowan reassessed: a close look at early stone artifacts. Journal of Archaeological Science 12, 101-120.

Toth, N., Schick, K., 2009. The Oldowan: The Tool Making of Early Hominins and Chimpanzees Compared. Annual Review of Anthropology 38, 289-305.

Torre, I. de la, 2011. The origins of stone tool technology in Africa: a historical perspective. Phil. Trans. of Royal Society B 366, 1028-1037.

Torre, I. de la, Mora, R., 2018. Oldowan technological behaviour at HWK EE (Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania). Journal of Human Evolution 120, 236-273.

Practical: Artefact categories, core and flake attributes

We will review the technological characteristics of knapped stone, as well as the basic definitions and terminology. We will learn the main attributes defining debitage and flaked artefacts.

Reading

Andrefsky, Jr., W. 1998. Lithics: Macroscopic Approaches to Analysis. (ch. 2. Basics of stone tool production; ch.5 Flake debitage attributes). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Manuals in Archaeology.

Laplace, G., 1972. La typologie analytique et structurale: Base rationnelle d'étude des industries lithiques et osseuses. Colloques nationaux du Centre National de la Recherche scientifique. Banques de données aechéologiques 932, 91-143.

Mora, R., Martínez, J., Terradas, X., 1991. Un proyeto de análisis: el Sistema Lógico Analítico (SLA), in: Mora, R., Terradas, X., Parpal, A., Plana, C. (Eds.), Tecnología y cadenas operativas líticas. Treballs d´Arqueologia, 1, Universidad Autónoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, pp. 173-199.

Inizan, M.-L., Roche, H. and Tixier, J. 1992. Technology of Knapped Stone. Meudon: CREP.

Whittaker, J.C. 1994. Flintknapping: Making and Understanding Stone tools (ch. 2. Flintknapping: basic principles). AustIn University of Texas Press.

11 | P a g e

Session 3: January 28th

Lecture: Stone tool experimental flaking

Tomos Proffitt

Experimental knapping is essential to a correct understanding of mechanical, technical and mental processes involved in stone tool production. We will briefly discuss the contribution of experimental knapping in lithic studies, although this session will be almost exclusively practical (experimental!).

Reading

Amick, D. S., Mauldin, R. P. (eds.) 1989. Experiments in Lithic Technology. Oxford: BAR International Series 528.

Aubry, T., Bradley, B., Almeida, M., Walter, B., Neves, M.J., Pelegrin, J., Lenoir, M., Tiffagom, M., 2008. Solutrean laurel leaf production at Maîtreaux: an experimental approach guided by techno- economic analysis. World Archaeology 40, 48-66.

Dibble, Harold. 1978. A history of flintknapping experimentation 1838-1976. Current Anthropology 19, 337-372

Jones, P.R., 1994. Results of experimental work in relation to the stone industries of Olduvai Gorge, in: Leakey, M.D., Roe, D.A. (Eds.), Olduvai Gorge. Volume 5. Excavations in Beds III, IV and the Masek Beds, 1968-1971. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 254-298.

Toth, N., Schick, K.D., Savage-Rumbaugh, E.S., Sevcik, R.A., Rumbaugh, D.M., 1993. Pan the Tool-Maker: Investigations into the Stone Tool-Making and Tool-Using Capabilities of a Bonobo (Pan paniscus). Journal of Archaeological Science 20, 81-91.

Whittaker, J.C. 1994. Flintknapping: Making and Understanding Stone tools. Austin University of Texas Press.

Viewing

Handaxe production: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbxbLjydK9s&t=303s

Levallois: Recurrent method https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGkU2lXtQ0Y Levallois point https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HfwXXqK1eU

Prismatic core: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6pAWhuCtAk

Danish dagger: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFr_MJ7w-L8

Things you can do with glass: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MsjON0YBkp0&t=271s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SfMN3BVISmQ

12 | P a g e

Session 4: February 4th

Lecture: Acheulean technology

Tomos Proffitt

We will review the origins and development of Acheulean technologies in the Old World, with special emphasis on the technological aspects involved in the production of handaxes. A discussion will follow on different perspectives in the study of these artefacts, from the classic approaches of Bordes and Roe to current methodologies using morphometrics and ‘biographic’ readings of handaxes.

Readings on the Acheulean record

Goren-Inbar, N., Sharon, G. (Eds.) 2006. Axe Age. Acheulian Toolmaking from Quarry to Discard. Equinox, London.

Moncel, M.-H., Ashton, N., Lamotte, A., Tuffreau, A., Cliquet, D., Despriée, J., 2015. The Early Acheulian of north-western Europe. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 40, 302-331.

Lycett, S.J., 2008. Acheulean variation and selection: does handaxe symmetry fit neutral expectations? Journal of Archaeological Science 35, 2640-2648.

Pappu, S., Gunnell, Y., Akhilesh, K., Braucher, R., Taieb, M., Demory, F., Thouveny, N., 2011. Early Pleistocene Presence of Acheulian Hominins in South India. Science 331, 1596-1599.

Torre, I.de la, 2016. The origins of the Acheulean: past and present perspectives on a major transition in human evolution. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences 371, 20150245.

Vallverdú, J., et al. 2014. Age and Date for Early Arrival of the Acheulian in Europe (Barranc de la Boella, la Canonja, Spain). PLoS ONE 9, e103634.

Readings on Acheulean technology and typology

Debenath, A. & Dibble, H. L. 1993. Handbook of Palaeolithic Typology. Vol 1: Lower & Middle Palaeolithic of Europe. Philadelphia: Univ. Pennsylvania Press.

Hallos, J., 2005. "15 Minutes of Fame": Exploring the temporal dimension of Middle Pleistocene lithic technology. Journal of Human Evolution 49, 155-179.

McNabb, J., 2017. Journeys in space and time. Assessing the link between Acheulean handaxes and genetic explanations. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 13, 403-414.

Iovita, R., McPherron, S.P., 2011. The handaxe reloaded: A morphometric reassessment of Acheulian and Middle Paleolithic handaxes. Journal of Human Evolution 61, 61-74.

Lycett, S.J., 2008. Acheulean variation and selection: does handaxe symmetry fit neutral expectations? Journal of Archaeological Science 35, 2640-2648.

13 | P a g e

McPherron, S.P., 2000. Handaxes as a Measure of the Mental Capabilities of Early Hominids. Journal of Archaeological Science 27, 655-663.

***Sharon, G., 2009. Acheulian Giant-Core Technology. A Worldwide Perspective. Current Anthropology 50, 335-367.

Torre, I. de la, Mora, R., 2018. Technological behaviour in the early Acheulean of EF-HR (Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania). Journal of Human Evolution 120, 329-377.

Torre, I. de la, Mora, R., Arroyo, A., Benito-Calvo, A., 2014. Acheulean technological behaviour in the Middle Pleistocene landscape of Mieso (East-Central Ethiopia). Journal of Human Evolution 76, 1-25.

Wynn, T., Gowlett, J., 2018. The handaxe reconsidered. Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues, News, and Reviews 27, 21-29.

Viewing:

Making stone cleavers: slicing into ancient minds”. https://youtu.be/nmWML9h1HMw

Session 5: February 11th

Lecture and practical: Lithic use wear analysis

Tomos Proffitt

Usewear/ microwear analysis has had its peaks and troughs of popularity through the years, moving between episodes of optimism and pessimism. We will consider the methods and objectives of such analysis, and then look at some artefacts under the microscope.

Reading

Borel, A. et al. 2014. Scanning Electron and Optical Light microscopy: Two complementary approaches for the understanding and interpretation of usewear and residues on stone tools. Journal of Archaeological Science 48, 46-59.

Dubreuil, L., Savage, D., Delgado-Raack, S., Plisson, H., Stephenson, B., Torre, I.de la., 2014. Current Analytical Frameworks for Studies of Use-Wear on Ground Stone Tools, in: Marreiros, J.M., Gibaja, J.F., Bicho, N. (Eds.), Use-Wear and Residue Analysis in Archaeology. Springer, Manuals in Archaeological Method, Theory and Technique 10, pp. 105-158.

Fullagar R. 2006. Residues and Use–wear. In J. Balme and A Paterson (eds) Archaeology in Practice. A Student Guide to Archaeological Analysis. Malden: Blackwell Publishing.

Evans, A.A. and Donahue, R.E. 2008. Laser scanning confocal microscopy: a potential technique for the study of lithic microwear. Journal of Archaeological Science 35, 2223-2230.

14 | P a g e

Evans, A.A., Lerner, H.J., Macdonald, D.A., Stemp, W.J., 2014. Lithic Microwear Method: Standardisation, Calibration and Innovation. Journal of Archaeological Science, 48, 1-170.

Keeley, L.H. 1980. Experimental Determination of Stone Tool Uses: A Microwear Analysis. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

Marreiros, J. M. e., Gibaja Bao, J. F. e., Bicho, N. F. e., Bao, J. F. G. & Gibaja, J. F. (2015). Use-wear and residue analysis in archaeology / João Manuel Marreiros, Juan F. Gibaja Bao, Nuno Ferreira Bicho, editors. Cham Switzerland: Springer.

Odell, G.H. 2004. Lithic Analysis (ch. 5. Tool Function). New York/London: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.

Ollé, A. and Vergés, J.M. 2014. The use of sequential experiments and SEM in documenting stone tool microwear. Journal of Archaeological Science 48, 60-72.

Semenov, S. 1964. Prehistoric Technology: an Experimental Study of the Oldest Tools and Artefacts from Traces of Manufacture and Wear. London: Cory.

Stevens, N.E., Harro, D.R. and Hicklin, A. 2010. Practical quantitative lithic use-wear analysis using multiple classifiers. Journal of Archaeological Science 37, 2671-2678.

Van Gijn, A.L. 2014. Science and interpretation in microwear studies. Journal of Archaeological Science 48, 166-169.

Practical: Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM Lab, IoA basement)

Week 6: READING WEEK (February 17th)

Session 6: February 25th

Illustration of stone tools

Tomos Proffitt

When we illustrate tools, we are forced to look at them carefully, to ‘read’ them. By ‘reading’ them we begin to understand more clearly how they were made, and what has happened to them. This helps in the practical study of the tools themselves, and in understanding lithic illustrations in publications. Artistic proficiency is not a requirement; you need to draw what you see.

Reading

Addington, L.R. 1986. Lithic Illustration. Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press.

Bretzke, K. and Conard, J. 2012. Evaluating morphological variability in lithic assemblages using 3D models of stone artifacts. Journal of Archaeological Science 39, 3741-3749.

15 | P a g e

Inizan, M.-L., Roche, H. and Tixier, J. 1992. Technology and Terminology of Knapped Stone. Meudon: CREP. Chapter 7.

Martingell, H. and Saville, A. 1988. The Illustration of Lithic Artefacts. London: Association of Archaeological Illustrators & Surveyors. Lithic Studies Society Occasional Paper, no. 3.

Shott, M. and Trail B.W. 2010. Exploring new approaches to lithic analysis: laser scanning and geometric morphometrics. Lithic Technology 35(2): 195-220.

Session 7: March 3rd

Middle Palaeolithic technology

Tomos Proffitt

The advent of the Middle Stone Age (Africa) and Middle Palaeolithic (Eurasia) sees the appearance of new hominin types (Modern humans in Africa and Neanderthals in Eurasia) and associated changes in human behaviour and technology. Mode 3 technologies were most likely hafted rather than handheld as in the Acheulean. They are often (but not always) characterised by a technologically distinctive set of forms produced through use of Levallois techniques, providing a range of predetermined flakes, points and, occasionally, blades. Many products, whether Levallois products or not, were subsequently retouched into a variety of types giving rise to regional diversity.

Reading for Mode 3 and Middle Palaeolithic

Hovers, E. and S. Kuhn (eds), 2007. Transitions before the Transition: Evolution and stability in the Middle Paleolithic and Middle Stone Age. New York: Springer

Kuhn, S. and Hovers, E. (eds), 2013. Alternative Pathways to Complexity: Evolutionary Trajectories in the Middle Paleolithic and Middle Stone Age. Current Anthropology, 54, S8.

McBrearty, S. and Brooks, A. 2000. The revolution that wasn’t: a new interpretation of human behavior. Journal of Human Evolution 39, 453-563.

Readings on Middle Palaeolithic technology and typology

Boëda, E. 1995. Levallois: a volumetric construction, methods and technique. In H.L Dibble, and O. Bar-Yosef, (eds) The definition and Interpretation of Levallois Technology. Madison, Wisconsin: Prehistory Press, 41-68.

Debenath, A. & Dibble, H. L. 1993. Handbook of Palaeolithic Typology. Vol 1: Lower & Middle Palaeolithic of Europe. Philadelphia: Univ. Pennsylvania Press.

Dibble, H.L. and Bar-Yosef, O. (eds) (and articles therein) 1995. The definition and Interpretation of Levallois Technology. Madison, WisconsIn Prehistory Press.

Peresani, M. 2003. Discoid Lithic Technology. Advances and implications. BAR International Series 1120, Oxford.

16 | P a g e

Turq, A. et al. 2013. The fragmented character of Middle Palaeolithic stone tool technology. Journal of Human Evolution 65, 641-655.

Viewing: Production of a preferential Levallois flake: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=saAU_OJrk2E&t=175s

Session 8: March 10th

Upper Palaeolithic technology

Tomos Proffitt

We will consider the defining features of Upper Palaeolithic technology and its evolutionary and chronological context. We will make use of the teaching collection to address the fundamental nuts and bolts of Upper Palaeolithic technology (characterized by laminar production) and typology (where standardized tool types diversify and can often be considered as “fossils directeurs”.

Reading for Upper Palaeolithic

Bordes, F. and Sonneville-Bordes, D. de. 1970. The significance of variability in Palaeolithic assemblages. World Archaeology 2, 61-73

Conard, N. and Bolus, M. 2003. Radiocarbon dating the appearance of modern humans and timing of cultural innovations in Europe: new results and new challenges. Journal of Human Evolution 44, 331-371

Féblot-Augustins, J., 2009. Revisiting European Upper Paleolithic Raw Material Transfers: The Demise of the Cultural Ecological Paradigm?, in: Adams, B., Blades, B.S. (Eds.), Lithic Materials and Paleolithic Societies. Blackwell Publishing, pp. 25-46.

Mellars, P. 1994. The Upper Palaeolithic Revolution. In Cunliffe, B. (ed) The Oxford Illustrated Prehistory of Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 42-78.

Straus, L.G., 1995. The upper Paleolithic of Europe: An overview. Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues, News, and Reviews 4, 4-16.

Reading for Upper Palaeolithic technology

Desrosiers, P. M. (ed.) 2012. The Emergence of Pressure Blade Making. From Origin to Modern Experimentation. New York: Springer. Available onlne.

Pelegrin, J., 2000. Les techniques de débitage laminaire au Tardiglaciaire: critères de diagnose et quelque réflexions, L’Europe Centrale et Septentrionale au Tardiglaciaire: confrontation des modèles régionaux de peuplement. Mémoires du Musée de Préhistoire d’Ile de France, Paris, pp. 73–86.

17 | P a g e

Piel-Desruisseaux, J-L. 1998. Outils Préhistoriques. Paris, Dunod

Pigeot, N., 1990. Technical and social actors. Flintknapping specialists and apprentices at Magdalenian Etiolles. Archaeological Review from Cambridge 9, 127-141. de Sonneville-Bordes, D., Perrot, J., 1954-1956. Lexique typologique du Paléolithique supérieur. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française Vol. 51, pp. 327-335, Vol. 52, pp. 76-79, Vol. 53, pp. 408-412, 547-559.

Viewing: Blade production: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yc0QcA_eVI Bladelet production (pressure): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4Ppvb-I6sA

Session 9: March 17th

Neolithic Lithic Technologies

Ulrike Sommer

The Early-Middle Holocene saw fundamental changes not only in global climate and environment but also in human demography and subsistence. New lithic technologies and new types of tools that appeared in this period are called ‘Neolithic’. They reflect humans’ adaptation to new ecological conditions and subsistence needs, and also indicate new modes of technological knowledge transmission between toolmakers under conditions of increasing population and interaction. This session will concentrate in the Southeast and Central European Neolithic. We are going to look at some tool types that are typical for this period, and the development of knapping techniques.

Reading

General Whittaker, J. C. 1994. Flintknapping. Making and understanding stone tools. Austin, University of Texas Press.

Terminology Brézillon, M. 1983. La dénomination des objets de pierre taillée. IVe supplement de Gallia Préhistoire. Paris, Centre National de la recherche scientifique. (THE guide to terminology)

Inizan, M.-L., Roche, H. and Tixier. J. 1992. The technology of knapped stone: followed by a multilingual vocabulary arabic, english, french, german, greek, italian, russian, Spanish. Préhistoire de la pierre taillée 3. Meudon, (extremely useful!)

Piel-Desruisseaux, J.-L. 1998/1986. Outils préhistoriques: forme, fabrication, utilisation. Paris, Masson.Piel-Desruisseaux, J.-L. Outils préhistoriques. Du galet taillé au bistouri d'obsidienne. Paris, Dunnod.

18 | P a g e

Technology Newcomer, M. 1974. "Punch technique“ and Upper Palaeolithic blades. In E. Swanson (ed.) Lithic technology. Mouton, Den Haag, 97-102.

Pitts, M. W. 1978. On the shape of waste flakes as an index of technological change in lithic industries. Journal Archaeological Science 5, 17-37.

Owen, L. 1989. Blade core reduction strategies: selected examples. Early Man News 14, 71- 89.

Pelegrin, J. 1991. Sur une recherche experimentale des techniques de débitage laminaire. In: Archéologie experimentale 2, La terre, Actes coll. Int. Beaune: Experimentation en archeologie: bilan et Perspectives. Paris, 118-128.

Speth, J. D. 1974. Experimental investigations of hard-hammer percussion flaking. Tebiwa 17/1, 7-35.

Speth, J. D. 1977. Experimental investigations of hard hammer percussion flaking. In: D. Ingersoll et al (eds.), Experimental archaeology. New York, Columbia University Press 3-37.

Tixier, J. 1984. Le débitage par pression. In: Tixier, J. (ed), Préhistoire de la pierre taillé 2. Paris, 57-70.

Tuohy D. R. 1987. A comparison of pressure and percussion debitage from a Crabtree obsidian stoneworking demonstration. Tebiwa 23, 23-30. van Gijn, A. 2010. Flint in focus: lithic biographies in the Neolithic and Bronze Age. Leiden, Sidestone.

Southeast Europe

Budziszewski, J. 2006. Flint economy in Chalcolithic societies of East-Central Europe. In Körlin, G. and Weisgerber, G. (eds.) Stone Age-Mining Age. Bochum, Deutsches Bergbaumuseum, 315-328. (useful overview)

Gatsov, I. 2003. The latest results from the technological and typological analysis of chipped stone assemblages from Ilipinar, Pendik, Fikir tepe and Mentes. Documenta Praehistorica 30, 53-60.

Gatsov, I. 2000. Chipped stone assemblages from Southern Bulgaria and Northwest Turkey. Epipalaeolithic, Mesolithic and Neolithic. In Nikolova, L. (ed.) Technology, Style and Society: Contributions to the Innovations between the Alps and the Black Sea in Prehistory. Oxford Archaeopress, BAR international series 854, 1-28.

Gatsov, I. and Gurova, M. 2001. Some remarks on the chipped stone industry of the earliest Neolithic cultures in Bulgaria. In Ginter, B. (ed.), Problems of the stone age of the Old World. Kraków, Uniwersytet Jagielloński, Instytut Archeologii, 249-264.

19 | P a g e

Gurova, M. 2014. Neolithic flint assemblages from Bulgaria, an overview. Самарский научный вестник 3(8), 94-107. https://www.academia.edu/9235664/Neolithic_flint_assemblages_from_Bulgaria_an_overvie w

Kozłowski, J. K. 1989. The lithic industry of the Eastern Linear Pottery culture in Slovakia. Slovenská Archeologia 37(2), 377-410.

Kozłowski, J. K. and Kozłowski, S. K. 1984. Chipped Stone industries from Lepenski Vir, Yugoslavia. Preistoria Alpina 19, 259-293.

Kozłowski, J. K. and Kaczanowska M. 1990. Chipped Stone Industry of the Vinca Culture. In: Srejović, D. and N. Tasić (eds.), Vinca and its World. International Symposium The Danubian Region from 6000 to 3000 B.C., Beograd, Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts, Centre for Archaeological Research of the Faculty of Philosophy.

Manolakakis, L. 2005. Les industries lithiques énéolithiques de Bulgarie. Internationale Archäologie 88. Marie Leidorf Rahden/Westf.

Mateiciucová, I. 2004. Mesolithic traditions and the origin of the Linear Pottery culture (LBK)). In: Lukes, A. and Zvelebil, M. (eds.) LBK dialogues, studies in the formation of the linear pottery culture. BAR International Series 1304, 91-108. Oxford: Archaeopress,

Starnini, E. 1994. Typological and technological analysis of the Körös culture stone assemblages of Méhtelek Nádas (North East Hungary), a preliminary report. A Nyíregyházi Jósa Andras Múzeum Évkönyve 36, 101-110.

LBK Allard, P. and Burnez-Lanotte, L. 2006. Surplus production in the Belgian Linearbandkeramik: blade debitage at Verlaine "Oetit Paradis" (Verlaine, Hesbaye, Belgium). In Körlin, G. and Weisgerber, G. (eds.) Stone Age-Mining Age. Bochum, Deutsches Bergbaumuseum, 37-54.

Burnez-Lanotte, L. (ed.) 2003. Production and Management of Lithic Materials in the European Linearbandkeramik. Gestion matériaux lithiques dans le Rubané européen. Oxford, BAR International Series 1200.

Cahen, D. 1984. Technologie de la débitage laminaire. In: Otte, M. (ed.) Les fouilles de la Place Saint-Lambert à Liège. ERAUL 18, 171-198.

Cahen, D. 1986. Deux modes de débitage laminaire de Rubané de Belgique. Bulletin. Societé Préhistoire Française 83, 70.

Caspar, J.-P. et al. 1989. Chipped stone industries of the linearband pottery culture (LBP): techniques, morphology and function of the implements in Belgian and Polish assemblages. Helinium 39(2), 157-205.

De Grooth, M. 1987. The organisation of flint tool manufacture in the Dutch Neolithic. Analecta Praehistoria Leidensia 20, 27-51.

De Grooth, M. 1988. In search of Bandkeramik specialist flintknappers. In: Cahen, D. and Otte, M. (eds.), Rubané et Cardial. Actes Coll. Liège 1988. ERAUL 39, 1990, 89-93.

20 | P a g e

De Grooth, M. 1990. Technological and socio-economic aspects of Bandkeramik flint-working. In: E. Cziesla et al. (eds.), The Big Puzzle. Bonn, Holos, 197-210. de Grooth, M. 2007: Flint: procurement and distribution strategies; technological aspects, in: P. van de Velde (red.): Excavations at Geleen-Janskamperveld 1990/1991. Analecta Praehistorica Leidensia 39.

Gronenborn, D. 1990. Mesolithic-Neolithic interactions. The lithic industries of the earliest bandceramic site at Friedberg-Bruchenbrücken, Wetteraukreis (West Germany). In: Vermeersch, P. (ed.), Contributions to the Mesolithic in Europe. Leuven, Leuven University Press 173-182.

Kaczanowska, M. and Lech, J. 1977. The flint industry of Danubian communities North of the Carpathians. Acta Arch. Carpathica 17, 5.28.

Pavlů, I. and J. Rulf 1991. Stone industry from the Neolithic site of Bylany. Pamatky Archeologické 82(2), 277-365.

Zimmermann, A. 1987. Some aspects of the formation of flint assemblages. In: J. Kozłowski and S. K. Kozłowski (eds.), Chipped stone industries of the early farming cultures in Europe. Int. Symp. Kraków. Warszawa, Uniwersyteta Warszawskiego 187-201.

Late Neolithic and Bronze Age Pelegrin, J. 2002. La production des grandes lames de silex du Grand Pressigny. In: J. Guilaine, Matériaux, productions, circulations du Néolithique à l'âge du Bronze. Paris, Errance, 131-150.

Stafford, M. 1988. In search of Hindsgavl: experiments in the production of Neolithic Danish flint daggers. Antiquity 72, 338-49. van Gijn A. L. 2015, The cultural biography of the Scandinavian daggers in the northern Netherlands. In: Frieman C. J, Eriksen B. V. (eds.) Flint daggers in prehistoric Europe. Oxford: Oxbow, 76-82

Whittakker, J. and Ramano, A. 1996. Some prehistoric copper flaking tools in Minnesota. The Wisconsin Archaeologist 77(1), 3-10. (try through Google) see also Wulf Hein, https://www.academia.edu/9961267/Making_a_Flint_Axe

British Isles

Butler, C. 2005. Prehistoric Flintwork (Ch. 6 Early Neolithic flintwork; Ch. 7. Neolithic Axe Production; Ch. 8 Later Neolithic and early Bronze Age flintwork). Stroud: Tempus M. Pitts 1980. Later Stone implements. Princes Risborough, Shire.

Green, St. H. 1980. The flint arrowheads of the British Isles: a detailed study of material from England and Wales with comparanda from Scotland and Ireland. Oxford, BAR British Series 75.

21 | P a g e

Lech, J. and Longworth, I. 2006. The Grimes Graves flint mine site in the light of two late Neolithic workshop assemblages: a second approach. In: Körlin, G. and Weisgerber, G. (eds.) Stone Age - mining Age. Bochum, Deutsches Bergbaumuseum, 413-422.

Saville, A. 1988. Grimes Graves, Norfolk: excavations 1971-72, Vol.2, The flint assemblage. London: H.M.S.O.

Near East

Bettinger, R.L. 2001. Holocene Hunter-Gatherers. In: G. M. Feinman and T. D. Price (eds.), Archaeology at the Millennium: A Sourcebook: New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, 137-195.

Close, A.E. 2002. Backed bladelets are a foreign country. In: R. G. Elston and S. L. Kuhn (eds.), Thinking Small: Global Perspectives on Microlithization: Arlington: The American Anthropological Association, 31-44.

Kelterborn, P. 1984. Towards replicating Egyptian Predynastic flint knives, Journal of Archaeological Science 11: 433-53.

Rosen, S.A. 2012. Lithic industries during the Holocene period. In: Potts, D.T. (ed.), A Companion to the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East. Oxford: Blackwell, 236-260.

Shea, J.J. 2013. Lithic Modes A-I: A new framework for describing global-scale variation in stone tool technology illustrated with evidence from the Eastern Mediterranean Levant. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 20: 151-186.

Shea, John, J. 2013. Stone tools in the Paleolithic and Neolithic Near East. A Guide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (Chapter 7).

Shirai, N. 2010. The Archaeology of the First Farmer-Herders in Egypt: New Insights into the Fayum Epipalaeolithic and Neolithic. Leiden: Leiden University Press.

Shirai, N. 2011. A missing chapter of The Desert Fayum: Fayum lithic artefact collection in the Allard Pierson Museum, Amsterdam, Archéo-Nil 21: 115-146.

Shirai, N. 2016. The Desert Fayum at 80: revisiting a Neolithic farming community in Egypt. Antiquity, 90, 1181-1195.

Session 10: March 24th

Refitting of stone tools

Carmen Martin-Ramos

By definition, refitting (sometimes referred to as conjoining) is the fitting together of pieces in their original position to gain as complete a vision of the whole object as possible. Like a three-dimensional puzzle, refitting is employed in archaeology on different types of material, such as lithic, bone and pottery. The refitting of lithic reduction sequences allows us to examine potential changes in reduction strategies and thus, their implications for hominid

22 | P a g e behavioural evolution. Moreover, sometimes refitting allows us to detect intra-site activity areas.

Reading

Cziesla, E. 1990. On refitting of stone artefacts. In E. Cziesla, et al. (eds.), The Big Puzzle: International Symposium on Refitting Stone Artefacts, Monrepos, 1987. Bonn: Holos, 9-44.

Cziesla, E. and Eickhoff, S. 1990. The Big Puzzle: International Symposium on Refitting Stone Artefacts, Monrepos, 1987. Bonn: Holos.

Pigeot, N., 1990. Technical and social actors. Flintknapping specialists and apprentices at Magdalenian Etiolles. Archaeological Review from Cambridge 9, 127-141.

Proffitt, T., de la Torre, I., 2014. The effect of raw material on inter-analyst variation and analyst accuracy for lithic analysis: a case study from Olduvai Gorge. Journal of Archaeological Science 45, 270-283.

Schurman, U and De Bie, M (eds.) 2007. Fitting Rocks: Lithic Refitting Examined. Oxford: Archaeopress, BAR Int Ser. 1596.