Chris Clarkson and Sue O’Connor 6 An Introduction to Stone Artifact Analysis Introduction Lithic analysis is a fundamental and often key component of contemporary archaeological practice of relevance to any region or time period where stone tools were employed in past technologies. For this reason, acquiring familiarity with the identification and analysis of stone artifacts is an important compo- nent of archaeological training and can be an important professional skill. Needless to say, there are numerous approaches to analyzing stone artifacts tailored to the vast range of topics being researched, and the one presented in this chapter may differ from those in use in some parts of the world or for particular time periods or assemblage types. Rather than review the huge diver- sity of approaches to lithic analysis, this chapter aims to arm the student of lithic technology with a set of principles to guide the construction of their research design, alert them to the philosophical underpinnings of various kinds of stone analysis, point to some simple but frequently overlooked issues of data management, provide an overview of some common laboratory techniques and analyses, and provide case studies and suggested readings that offer insight into both the process of actually doing stone analysis as well as drawing mean- ingful conclusions from the results. It takes a question-and-answer format in the hope that some frequently asked questions might be addressed in a straight- forward manner. There are many good reasons why archaeologists study stone artifacts. Primary An overview among them is the fact that stone artifacts are typically the most abundant and durable traces of past human activity of any of the artifactual remains archae- Why study stone ologists have available to study. In many cases, stone artifacts actually constitute artifacts? the only surviving traces of the behavior of people and our hominin ancestors Archaeology in Practice: A Student Guide to Archaeological Analyses, Second Edition. Edited by Jane Balme and Alistair Paterson. Ap © 2013 John Wiley & Sons Inc. Published 2013 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Balme—Archaeology in Practice Balme_7164_c06_main.indd 151 5/16/2013 10:15:36 AM that lived hundreds, thousands, and even millions of years ago (Semaw et al. 1997; McPherron et al. 2010). Stone tools continued to be used by some human groups until very recently or indeed to the present day (Sillitoe & Hardy 2003; Weedman 2006), and stone tools were often not immediately replaced by the introduction of metals due to the advantages they possessed as easily obtained and highly functional tools (Lechtman 1984; Rosen 1996; Greenfield 1999). Because stone artifacts survive under conditions that typically destroy most other human creations and castoffs, stone artifacts are ubiquitous in the landscape. Another reason for studying stone artifacts is that for most of human history, stone tools played a vital role in our day-to-day survival, in shaping the physical world to our various needs, and in signifying to others our identity and place in the world. They therefore constitute a vast and invaluable record of the diversity of strategies people devised to make a living, to solve problems, to communicate, and to live and compete with one another. As this chapter deals mainly with methodological issues and laboratory techniques, it offers little discussion of the sorts of theoretical frameworks that might employ lithic assemblages to answer some of the “big questions” in archaeology. Nevertheless, a great deal of thought has been given to such ques- tions, including the place of technology as an integral aspect of cultural vari- ability, adaptation and change (Lemonnier 1986; Pfaffenberger 1992; Bleed 1997; Schiffer & Skibo 1997), and the social, demographic, and evolutionary mechanisms giving rise to technological innovation (van der Leeuw & Tor- rence 1989; Bamforth & Bleed 1997; Shennan 2001; Kline & Boyd 2010). Like- wise, much research is directed at understanding the behavioral and physical factors governing variation within individual artifacts (e.g., fracture mechanics and the effects of reduction intensity) (Dibble & Whittaker 1981; Cotterell & Kamminga 1987; Dibble & Pelcin 1995; Pelcin 1997a, 1998; Shott et al. 2000; Macgregor 2005) as well as whole assemblages (such as patterns of artifact procurement, transport, use and discard) (Binford 1979; Shott 1989; Torrence 1989a; Nelson 1991; Kuhn 1995; Clarkson 2007). Another ongoing focus of research is the cognitive and selective underpinnings of technological evolution (Kohn & Mithen 1999; Hallos 2005; Stout et al. 2008), as well as the role of skill (Stout 2002, 2005; Finlay 2008; Nonaka et al. 2010; Eren et al. 2010a) and cultural transmission (Shott 1997; MacDonald 1998; Bettinger & Eerkens 1999, 2008). Numerous researchers have also explored the symbolic role of stone in com- municating social, political, and ideological relationships or differences (Wiess- ner 1983; Ingold 1990; Sinclair 1995; Wurz 1999; Harrison 2002), the role of social agency in stone artifact manufacture and use (Dobres 2000; Sinclair 2000), as well as stone artifacts as markers of gender (Gero 1991; Sassaman 1992; Dobres 1995; Walthall & Holley 1997). Much thought has also been given to the technological signatures of various mechanisms of trade and exchange (Renfrew et al. 1968; Ericson & Earle 1982; Zeitlin 1982; Torrence 1986; Peter- son et al. 1997; Torrence & Summerhayes 1997 among many more) as well as the markers and dynamics of lithic craft specialization (Charlton et al. 1991; Kenoyer et al. 1991; Shafer & Hester 1991; Hiscock 2005). Archaeologists have recently begun to explore technological variability using formal optimality Ap models drawn from evolutionary ecology (Bright et al. 2002; Brantingham 2003; 152 ChrIS ClArkSon And Sue o’Connor Balme—Archaeology in Practice Balme_7164_c06_main.indd 152 5/16/2013 10:15:36 AM Ugan et al. 2003; Clarkson 2007; Surovell 2009b; Clarkson et al., in press). Many of these studies are moving toward the development of new and innovative approaches to explaining assemblage variation. A stone artifact is any piece of rock modified by human behavior, whether What are stone artifacts? intentionally or unintentionally. Although this definition could be applied to extreme and even ridiculous cases such as humanly modified landscapes, aque- ducts, or open-cut mines, it is most often used to signify portable, chipped, ground, or pecked stone objects created by a single or small group of individu- als, and usually in the context of hunter–gatherer, pastoralist, early agricultural, early metal-using, or other nonindustrialized societies. Most people are familiar with the simplest form of stone artifact manufacture How are they made? commonly portrayed in depictions of our early ancestors banging two rocks together. While this is, generally speaking, the way most stone artifacts were made, there is nothing simple about controlling the process to the degree that allows artifacts of specific shapes to be accurately and repeatedly produced from a block of stone, as was achieved by prehistoric artisans with sometimes startling finesse. The symmetry and regularity of some of the highest known forms of flintknapping can be astounding, as seen for instance in the fluted Folsom points of North American Paleo-Indians, the Solutrian points of Upper Paleolithic Europe, the flint daggers of the Danish Neolithic, the Gerzian ripple-flaked knives of Late Stone Age Egypt, or the obsidian eccentrics and polyhedral blades of Mayan and Aztec artisans (Figure 6.1). In reality though, most stoneworking tends to be far less sophisticated than these examples suggest (in terms of the precision and investment of labor), and literally involved the striking of flakes of varying shapes and sizes from a block of stone (a core), using a stone pebble (hammerstone) or some hard object (an indentor) such as a piece of bone, antler, or hard wood. Removing a flake from a block of stone creates a positive scar or ventral surface, on the flake, and leaves behind a negative flake scar on the core. The opposite side to the ventral surface on the resulting flake is called the dorsal surface. Cores are artifacts that possess only negative flake scars. Flakes that have had other flakes removed from their surfaces after they were struck from the core are called retouched flakes. Because flakes can be removed from the dorsal surface of a flake before or after it is struck from a core, the term retouched flake is reserved only for artifacts that show clear signs of flakes having been detached after the creation of the ventral surface, and hence scars must either derive from or modify the ventral surface in some way to be treated as retouch. The term nucleus will be used in the following discussion to refer to any stone from which flakes have been removed, whether flakes or cores. The process of fracture propagation that underlies flaked stone artifact manufacture is complex, and the effects of various core morphologies on the fracture path are not well understood. Yet it is the fracture path that ulti- Ap mately determines the morphology of flakes and cores, and archaeologists An IntroduCtIon to Stone ArtIfACt AnAlySIS 153 Balme—Archaeology in Practice Balme_7164_c06_main.indd 153 5/16/2013 10:15:36 AM (a) (b) (c) (d) 2 cm 2 cm (e) 2 cm 2 cm (f) 2 cm 2 cm Figure 6.1. examples of some of the highest achievements in prehistoric stone artifact manufacture: (a) a fluted folsom point; (b) an