INSTITUTE OF ARCHAEOLOGY
MA COURSE (15 credits): ARCLG113
LITHIC ANALYSIS
COURSE HANDBOOK 2014
MONDAY 2 - 4 pm
Co-ordinator: Dr. Norah Moloney
Email: n.moloney@ucl.ac.uk
Room 204A Lithics Lab. Telephone: 020-7679-4928
INTRODUCTION
This series of lectures, seminar presentations, discussion and practical sessions explores a variety
of themes that are of major interest in the field of lithic studies. The course 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 Palaeolithic, Neolithic, and Bronze Age periods; 2) it
considers ways that lithic artefacts and lithic analysis can contribute towards an understanding of
past human 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 lithics.
SCHEDULE
Week 1: Jan 13
Methods of analysis
Practical
Norah Moloney
Week 2: Jan 20
Raw material procurement
Practical
Norah Moloney
Week 3: Jan 27
Lower and Middle Palaeolithic technologies
Practical
Norah Moloney
Week 4: Feb. 3
Upper Palaeolithic and Mesolithic technologies
Practical
Matt Pope
Week 5: Feb 10
Post Palaeolithic lithic technologies of Egypt
Practical
Noriyuki Shirai
Week 6: Feb 17
READING WEEK
Week 7: Feb 24
Ground stone analysis
Practical
Karen Wright
Week 8: Mar 3
Practical observations and illustration
Norah Moloney
Week 9: Mar 10
Functional analysis of stone tools
Seminar and Discussion
Norah Moloney
Week 10: Mar 17
Experimental approaches to stone tools
Seminar and discussion (course evaluation)
Norah Moloney
Week 11: Mar 24
Site Formation Processes
Seminar and Discussion
Norah Moloney
2|Page
TEXTBOOKS
There are a number of books that provide a good introduction to lithic technology, terminology, and
methods of analysis. If you are interested in lithic analysis, the Andrefsky, Holdaway and Stern,
Inizan et al., Odell, and Shea are good. For those of you who wish to try your hand at flint knapping,
then Whittaker is a useful reference.
Andrefsky, Jr., W. 2005. Lithics: Macroscopic Approaches to Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge Manuals in Archaeology. IOA ISSUE; KA AND
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 IOA ISSUE; DAA
HOL
Inizan, M.-L., Roche, H. and Tixier, J. 1992. Technology of Knapped Stone. Meudon: CREP. IOA
ISSUE; DA INI http://www.arkeotek.org/ebooks/TerminologyKnappedStone.pdf (this takes a while
to download)
Odell, G.H. 2004. Lithic Analysis. New York/London: Kluwer Academic/Plenum. IOA ISSUE; KA
ODE
Shea, John, J. 2013. Stone tools in the Paleolithic and Neolithic Near East. A Guide. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press. IOA DBA 100 SHE; IOA ISSUE
Whittaker, J.C. 1994. Flintknapping: Making and Understanding Stone tools. AustIn University of
Texas Press. IOA ISSUE; KA WHI
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. ONLINE JOURNALS
Odell, G. H. 2000. Stone Tool Research at the end of the Millennium: procurement and technology.
Journal of Archaeological Research 9/1, 45-100. ONLINE JOURNALS
Odell, G. H. 2001. Stone Tool Research at the end of the Millennium: classification, function and
behavior. Journal of Archaeological Research 9/1, 45-100. ONLINE JOURNALS
METHOD OF ASSESSMENT AND COURSEWORK
Turnitin password: IoA1314 (case sensitive)
Turnitin ID: 594937
This course is assessed by means of a short (950-1050 words) commentary on a seminar topic and
a longer (2850-3150 words) lithic report, which together total 3,800-4,200 words:
The short commentary (950-1050 words) will be on a seminar topic covered in the sessions after
Reading Week (see below for further clarification);
b) The lithic report (3800-4200 words) will be on an assemblage of lithics (a sample of 75) from IoA
collections.
TEACHING METHODS
This 15 credit course is taught through a series of lectures, seminar presentations, discussion, and
practical work. Many of the classes will follow a two-part format of lecture and practical. However,
some will follow a seminar format based on particular themes in which a member of staff will give a
short introduction to each theme, which will then be developed through a PowerPoint presentation
3|Page
prepared by a group of students, followed by group discussion and practical work. Student
presenters are encouraged to include a practical element associated with their topic where possible.
WORKLOAD
There will be 20 hours of lectures/seminars/practicals for this course. Students are expected to
spend about 80 hours undertaking background reading for the lectures and seminars, and about 50
hours in preparation for coursework, adding up to a total workload of 150 hours for the course
PREREQUISITES
It is useful, but not essential, to have some background experience in lithics (e.g. from an
undergraduate course or part of a course, through professional experience).
AIMS, OBJECTIVES AND ASSESSMENT
AIMS
The aims of the course 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 course a student should:
• Recognise and understand lithic technologies characteristic of the main Palaeolithic and
post-Palaeolithic 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 course students should have developed:
• Observational skills and critical reflection
• Oral presentation skills
• The ability to apply acquired knowledge of a topic
COURSEWORK - ASSESSMENT TASKS
Three seminar presentations are scheduled for the final three sessions of term. Each week a group
of students will give a PowerPoint presentation and will prepare and lead the subsequent
discussion on the topic. Each member of the group has to produce a written commentary on the
topic he/she presented. A draft commentary needs to be prepared for the day the topic is scheduled
and must be shown to Norah Moloney on that day. However, the commentary can be modified as a
result of the presentation and discussion. Those not presenting a topic will be expected to have
done some background reading in order to participate fully in discussion.
The lithic report (3800-4200 words) will be on an assemblage of lithics (a sample of 75) from IoA
collections. A selection of assemblages will be available from which you can choose one to study.
It is advisable to start work on the practical analysis as soon as you can. If you are unclear about
the report or have any other questions you can discuss it with Norah Moloney.
4|Page
The report should include a technological and typological description and discussion of the lithics
studied, as well as an attempt to place them within a local and wider geographical context. The
report should be accompanied by diagrams, tables, illustrations and photographs of some of the
pieces studied,
SUBMISSION OF COMMENTARIES IS BY 5PM ON FRIDAY MARCH 28TH 2014. The
PowerPoint presentation will not be assessed.
SUBMISSION OF LITHIC REPORT IS BY 5PM ON FRIDAY MAY 2ND2014
WORD LENGTH
Strict new regulations with regard to word-length were introduced UCL-wide with effect from
2013:
Penalties for over length coursework
For submitted coursework, where a maximum length has been specified, the following
procedure will apply:
i) The length of coursework will normally be specified in terms of a word count
ii) Assessed work should not exceed the prescribed length.
iii) For work that exceeds the specified maximum length by less than10% the mark will be
reduced by ten percentage marks; but the penalised mark will not be reduced below the pass
mark, assuming the work merited a pass.
iv) For work that exceeds the specified maximum length by 10% or more, a mark of zero will
be recorded.
vii) In the case of coursework that is submitted late and is also overlength, the lateness
penalty will have precedence.
Word counts
The following should not be included in the word-count: title page, contents pages, lists of
figure and tables, abstract, preface, acknowledgements, bibliography, lists of references,
captions and contents of tables and figures, appendices, and wording of citations in the text.
Lithic report
Commentary
Word count 3,000 1,000 Range 2,850-3,150 950-1,050 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.
Submission procedures
Students are required to submit hard copy of all coursework to the course co-ordinators
pigeon hole via the Red Essay Box at Reception by the appropriate deadline. The
coursework must be stapled to a completed coversheet (available from the web, from outside
Room 411A or from the library)
Students should put their Candidate Number on all coursework. This is a 5 digit
alphanumeric code and can be found on Portico: it is different from the Student Number/ ID.
Please also put the Candidate Number and course code on each page of the work.
It is also essential that students put their Candidate Number at the start of the title line
on Turnitin, followed by the short title of the coursework.. – eg YBPR6 Commentary
5|Page
Please note the stringent UCL-wide penalties for late submission given below. Late
submission will be penalized in accordance with these regulations unless permission has
been granted and an Extension Request Form (ERF) completed.
Date-stamping will be via ‘Turnitin’ (see below), so in addition to submitting hard copy,
students must also submit their work to Turnitin by the midnight on the day of the deadline.
Students who encounter technical problems submitting their work to Turnitin should email the
nature of the problem to ioa-turnitin@ucl.ac.uk in advance of the deadline in order that the
Turnitin Advisers can notify the Course Co-ordinator that it may be appropriate to waive the
late submission penalty.
If there is any other unexpected crisis on the submission day, students should telephone or
(preferably) e-mail the Course Co-ordinator, and follow this up with a completed ERF
Please see the Coursework Guidelines on the IoA website (or your Degree Handbook) for
further details of penalties.
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/archaeology/administration/students/handbook/submission
The Turnitin 'Class ID' is 594937 and the 'Class Enrolment Password' is IoA1314 Further
information is given on the IoA website.
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/archaeology/administration/students/handbook/turnitin
Turnitin advisers will be available to help you via email: ioa-turnitin@ucl.ac.uk if needed.
UCL-WIDE PENALTIES FOR LATE SUBMISSION OF COURSEWORK
UCL regulation 3.1.6 Late Submission of Coursework
Where coursework is not submitted by a published deadline, the following penalties will apply:
i) A penalty of 5 percentage marks should be applied to coursework
submitted on the calendar day after the deadline (calendar day 1).
ii) A penalty of 15 percentage marks should be applied to coursework submitted on calendar
day 2 after the deadline through to calendar day 7.
iii) A mark of zero should be recorded for coursework submitted on calendar day 8 after the
deadline through to the end of the second week of third term. Nevertheless, the assessment
will be considered to be complete provided the coursework contains material than can be
assessed.
iv) Coursework submitted after the end of the second week of third term will not be marked
and the assessment will be incomplete.
vii) Where there are extenuating circumstances that have been recognised by the Board of
Examiners or its representative, these penalties will not apply until the agreed extension
period has been exceeded.
viii) In the case of coursework that is submitted late and is also over length, only the lateness
penalty will apply.
Timescale for return of marked coursework to students.
You can expect to receive your marked work within four calendar weeks of the official
submission deadline. If you do not receive your work within this period, or a written
explanation from the marker, you should notify the IoA’s Academic Administrator, Judy
Medrington.
Keeping copies
Please note that it is an Institute requirement that you retain a copy (this can be electronic)
of all coursework submitted. When your marked essay is returned to you, you should return
it to the marker within two weeks.
6|Page
Citing of sources
Coursework should be expressed in a student’s own words giving the exact source of any
ideas, information, diagrams etc. that are taken from the work of others. Any direct
quotations from the work of others must be indicated as such by being placed
between inverted commas. Plagiarism is regarded as a very serious irregularity which
can carry very heavy penalties. It is your responsibility to read and abide by the
requirements for presentation, referencing and avoidance of plagiarism to be found in the IoA
‘Coursework Guidelines’ on the IoA website
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/archaeology/administration/students/handbook
AVOIDING PLAGIARISM
The term “plagiarism” means presenting material (words, figures etc.) in a way that
allows the reader to believe that it is the work of the author he or she is reading, when it is in
fact the creation of another person.
In academic and other circles, plagiarism is regarded as theft of intellectual property.
UCL regulations, all detected plagiarism is to be penalized and noted on the student’s
record, irrespective of whether the plagiarism is committed knowingly or unintentionally. The
whole process of an allegation of plagiarism and its investigation is likely to cause
considerable personal embarrassment and to leave a very unpleasant memory in addition to
the practical consequences of the penalty. The penalties can be surprisingly severe and may
include failing a course or a whole degree. It is thus important to take deliberate steps to
avoid any inadvertent plagiarism.
Avoiding plagiarism should start at the stage of taking notes. In your notes, it should
be wholly clear what is taken directly from a source, what is a paraphrase of the content of a
source and what is your own synthesis or original thought. Make sure you include sources
and relevant page numbers in your notes.
When writing an essay any words and special meanings, any special phrases, any
clauses or sentences taken directly from a source must be enclosed in inverted commas and
followed by a reference to the source in brackets. It is not generally necessary to use direct
quotations except when comparing particular terms or phrases used by different authors.
Similarly, all figures and tables taken from sources must have their origin acknowledged in
the caption. Captions do not contribute to any maximum word lengths.
Paraphrased information taken from a source must be followed by a reference to the
source. If a paragraph contains information from several sources, it must be made clear what
information comes from where: a list of sources at the end of the paragraph is not sufficient.
Please cite sources of information fully, including page numbers where appropriate, in order
to avoid any risk of plagiarism: citations in the text do not contribute to any maximum word
count.
To guard further against inadvertent plagiarism, you may find it helpful to write a plan
of your coursework answer or essay and to write the coursework primarily on the basis of
your plan, only referring to sources or notes when you need to check something specific
such as a page number for a citation.
COLLUSION, except where required, is also an examination offence. While discussing
topics and questions with fellow students is one of the benefits of learning in a university
environment, you should always plan and write your coursework answers entirely independently
Please note that students should put their Candidate Number, not their name on all
coursework. They should also put their Candidate number and course code on each page of their
work.
Presentation of coursework
Coursework must be word-processed (unless otherwise specified) and should be printed on one
side of the paper, using 11 point font, and one-and-a-half line spacing. Adequate margins
should be left for written comments by the examiner. Students are encouraged to use drawings,
7|Page
illustrations, diagrams and/or tables where appropriate, especially for the Lithic Report. These
should be clearly referred to at the appropriate point in the text, and if derived from another source,
this must be clearly acknowledged. Students should adhere to word limits on essays; they are
intended to help ensure equality of workloads between courses as well as to encourage the useful
transferable skills of clearly structured argumentation and succinct writing.
GRADING
The grading system for coursework is set out in the MA/MSc Handbook. Allowing for vacations,
every effort will be made to return assessed work within four weeks of the submission date. The
mark given by the initial examiner (prior to return) is a provisional assessment for the student's
guidance, and may be modified after assessment by the second internal examiner or by the
External Examiner.
COMMUNICATION
The primary channel of communication within the Institute of Archaeology is email. If you wish to
be contacted on your Personal or work email address, please arrange for email sent to your UCL
address to be forwarded to your other address, since staff and other students will expect to be able
to reach you through your College email - which they can find on the UCL web-site. Students must
consult their email regularly, as well as the student pigeon-holes in the Basement Common Room
for written communications. Please also ensure that the Institute has an up-to-date telephone
number for you, in case you need to be contacted.
ATTENDANCE
It is a College regulation that attendance at lectures, seminars and practicals be monitored, and a
register will be taken. A 70% minimum attendance at all scheduled sessions is required (excluding
absences due to illness or other adverse circumstances). Attendance is reported to College,
becomes part of the student's academic record, and will be reported to their funding agency if this
information is requested. Students should also be aware that potential employers seeking
references often ask about attendance and other indications of reliability. Please notify Norah
Moloney if you cannot attend a session.
LIBRARIES AND OTHER RESOURCES
The Library of the Institute of Archaeology and online resources should adequately cover students'
needs. A few readings under the Further Reading heading may not be available at UCL, but are
useful for future reference.
FEEDBACK
In trying to make this course as effective as possible, we welcome feedback during the course of
the year. Students will be asked to fill-in Progress Forms at the end of each term which include
space for comment on each of their courses, which the Degree Co-ordinator will discuss with them.
At the end of each course all students are asked to give their views on the course in an anonymous
questionnaire, which will be circulated at one of the last sessions of the course. These
questionnaires are taken seriously and help in the development of the course. The summarised
responses are considered by the Institute's Staff-Student Consultative Committee, Teaching
Committee, and by the Faculty Teaching Committee.
If students are concerned about any aspect of this course we hope they will feel able to talk to the
the co-ordinators, but if they feel this is not appropriate, they should consult their Degree Coordinator, Personal Tutor, or the Graduate Tutors. They may also consult the Academic
Administrator (Judy Medrington), the Chair of Teaching Committee (Dr. Karen Wright), or the
Director (Professor Steven Shennan).
8|Page
HOW TO UPLOAD YOUR WORK TO TURNITIN
Note that Turnitin uses the term ‘class’ for what we normally call a ‘course’.
1.
Ensure that your essay or other item of coursework has been saved properly, and that
you have the Class ID for the course (available from the course handbook) and
enrolment password (this is IoA1314 for all courses this session - note that this is
capital letter I, lower case letter o, upper case A, followed by the current academic
year)
2.
Click on http://www.submit.ac.uk (NB not www.turnitin.com, which is the US site) or
copy this URL into your favourite web browser
3.
Click on ‘Create account’
4.
Select your category as ‘Student’
5.
Create an account using your UCL email address. Note that you will be asked to
specify a new password for your account - do not use your UCL password or the
enrolment password, but invent one of your own (Turnitin will permanently associate
this with your account, so you will not have to change it every 3 months, unlike your
UCL password). In addition, you will be asked for a “Class ID” and a “Class
enrollment password” (see point 1 above).
6.
Once you have created an account you can just log in at http://www.submit.ac.uk and
enrol for your other classes without going through the new user process again. Simply
click on ‘Enroll in a class’. Make sure you have all the relevant “class IDs” at hand.
7.
Click on the course to which you wish to submit your work.
8.
Click on the correct assignment (e.g. Essay 1).
9.
Double-check that you are in the correct course and assignment and then click
‘Submit’
10.
Attach document as a “Single file upload”
11.
Enter your name (the examiner will not be able to see this)
12.
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 In what
sense can culture be said to evolve?), and not your name.
13.
Click “Upload”. When the upload is finished, you will be able to see a text-only version
of your submission.
14
Click on “Submit”
If you have problems, please email the Turnitin Advisers on ioa-turnitin@ucl.ac.uk,
explaining the nature of the problem and the exact course 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
9|Page
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 Course Co-ordinator that you attempted to
submit the work before the deadline.
10 | P a g e
TEACHING SCHEDULE
Classes will be held from on Monday from 2-4 pm in room 410. Please be punctual.
COURSE SYLLABUS
The following is a session outline for the course as a whole, and identifies essential and
supplementary readings relevant to each session. Electronic journal and scanned readings are
available through the online Reading List and on Moodle. Location of books in the library is
indicated. Recommended readings are considered essential to keep up with topics covered in the
course sessions, and it is expected that students will have read these prior to the session under
which they are listed.
Week 1: Jan 13
METHODS OF ANALYSIS
Norah Moloney (UCL)
In this session we will discuss methods of lithic analysis, with a focus on the value and reason for
employing particular methods. We will review the technological characteristics of knapped stone,
as well as the basic definitions and terminology.
Reading
You will find any of the following useful:
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. IOA ISSUE; KA AND
Holdaway, S. and Stern, N. 2004. A Record in Stone: the study of Australia's Flaked Stone
Artefacts, (ch. 3. Attributes used in describing flakes; ch. 4. Attributes used in describing tools; ch.
5. Attributes used in describing cores). Melbourne: Museum Victoria; Canberra: Aboriginal Studies
Press IOA ISSUE; DAA HOL
Inizan, M.-L., Roche, H. and Tixier, J. 1992. Technology of Knapped Stone (ch. 3.
Knapping). Meudon: CREP. IOA ISSUE; DA INI
http://www.arkeotek.org/ebooks/TerminologyKnappedStone.pdf (this takes a while to
download)
Odell, G.H. 2004. Lithic Analysis (ch. 3, 45-74, Tool manufacture). New York/London: Kluwer
Academic/Plenum. IOA ISSUE; KA ODE
Shea, John, J. 2013. Stone tools in the Paleolithic and Neolithic Near East. A Guide (ch. 2, 17-46
Lithics basics) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. IOA DBA 100 SHE; IOA ISSUE
van Gijn, A.L. 2010. The biography of flint tools: methods of study. In: Flint in Focus: Lithic
biographies in the Neolithic and Bronze Age. Leiden: Sidestone Press, 11-34. IOA KA GIJ
Whittaker, J.C. 1994. Flintknapping: Making and Understanding Stone tools (ch. 2. Flintknapping:
basic principles). AustIn University of Texas Press. IOA ISSUE; KA WHI
Further reading
Cotterell, B. And Kamminga, J. 1979. The mechanics of flaking. In B. Hayden (ed), Lithic UseWear Analysis. New York/London: Academic Press, 97-111. IOA KA HAY
11 | P a g e
Cotterell, B. And Kamminga, J. 1987. The formation of flakes. American Antiquity 52(4), 675-708 .
ONLINE JOURNALS
Crabtree, D. 1967. Notes on experiments in flintknapping: 4. Tools used for making flaked stone
artefacts. Tebiwa 10(1), 60-71. IOA PERS
Dibble, H. 1980. A comparative study of basic edge angle measurement techniques. American
Antiquity 45, 857-865 ONLINE JOURNALS
Dibble, H. and Pelcin, A. 1995. The effect of hammer mass and velocity on flake mass. Journal of
Archaeological Science 22, 429-439 ONLINE JOURNALS
Dibble, H. and Whittaker, J. 1981. New experimental evidence on the relation between percussion
flaking and flake variation. Journal of Archaeological Science 8, 283-296. ONLINE JOURNALS
Edmonds, M. 2001. Lithic exploitation and use. In D.R. Brothwell and A.M. Pollard (eds),
Handbook of Archaeological Sciences. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons Ltd., 461-470. IOA AJ
BRO
Erena, M.I., Greenspan, A., Sampson, C.G., 2008. Are Upper Paleolithic blade cores more
productive than Middle Paleolithic discoidal cores? A replication experiment. Journal of Human
Evolution 55(6), 952-961. ONLINE JOURNALS
Harrison, R. 2010. Stone tools. In D. Hicks and M.C. Beaudry (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of
Material Culture Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press. IOA AH HIC
Inizan, M.-L., Roche, H. and Tixier, J. 1992. Technology of Knapped Stone. (ch. 3. Knapping).
Meudon: CREP. IOA ISSUE; DA INI
Kuhn, S. 1990. A geometric index of reduction for unifacial tools. Journal of Archaeological
Science 17, 583-593. ONLINE JOURNALS
Pelcin, A. 1997. The formation of flakes: the role of platform thickness and exterior platform angle
in the production of flake initiations and terminations. Journal of Archaeological Science 24, 11071113. ONLINE JOURNALS
Shott, M. 1994. Size and form in the analysis of flake debris: review of recent approaches. Journal
of Archaeological Method and Theory 1. 69-110. ONLINE JOURNALS
Week 2: Jan 20
RAW MATERIAL STUDIES
Elizabeth Bloxam (UCL)
The extraction of key raw materials for products such as tools, building elements and
ornamental objects, is the beginning of a long sequence of events that creates an ancient
production landscape. This lecture will discuss approaches to the visualisation of the often
complex material remains that can constitute these archaeological landscapes (quarries and
mines) in Egypt. We will consider how technologies of stone extraction can be interpreted
from the archaeological record and its implications in how we understand the social context
and organisation of these activities. This lecture will be followed by a practical object
handling session.
12 | P a g e
Reading
Bloxam, E. 2011. Ancient quarries in mind: pathways to a more accessible significance.
World Archaeology Vol 43(2), 149-166. ONLINE JOURNALS
Bloxam, E. 2011. Visualising the invisible: re-discovering the ancient grinding stone
quarries of the Aswan West Bank, Egypt. In D. Peacock and D. Williams (eds) Bread for
the People: The Rome Colloquium. Oxford: Archaeopress.43-53. INST ARCH HC Qto
WIL. Pdf available from N. Moloney
Bloxam, E., Harrell, A., Kelany, A., Moloney, N., El-Senussi, A. and Tohamey, A. 2014.
Investigating the Predynastic origins of greywacke working in Wadi Hammamat. Archeo-Nil
24. ONLINE JOURNALS
Bloxam, E. G., Storemyr, P. and Heldal, T. 2009. Hard Stone Quarrying in the Egyptian Old
Kingdom (3rd millennium BC): re-thinking the social organisation. In Y. Maniatis (ed)
ASMOSIA VII, The Study of Marble and Other Stones in Antiquity – Proceedings of the 7th
International Conference of the Association for the Study of Marble and Other Stones in
Antiquity, BCH Suppl. 51, 187-201. INST ARCH KA MAN
Bloxam, E., Heldal, T., and Storemyr, P. (eds) 2007. Characterisation of Complex Quarry
Landscapes: An Example From The West Bank Quarries, Aswan. QuarryScapes report,
Trondheim, Geological Survey of Norway (downloadable from www.quarryscapes.no).
Bloxam, E. and Heldal, T. 2007. The Industrial Landscape of The Northern Faiyum Desert
as a World Heritage Site: Modelling ‘Outstanding Universal Value’ of 3rd Millennium BC
Stone Quarrying in Egypt. World Archaeology 39(3), 305-323. ONLINE JOURNALS
Bloxam, E. 2006. Miners and Mistresses: Middle Kingdom mining on the margins. Journal of
Social Archaeology, 6(2), 277-303. ONLINE JOURNALS
Bloxam, E.G. and Storemyr, P. 2002. Old Kingdom Basalt Quarrying Activities at Widan elFaras, Northern Faiyum Desert. Journal of Egyptian a88, 23-36. ONLINE JOURNALS
Boivin, N. 2004. From Veneration to Exploitation: Human Engagement with the Mineral
World. In Soils, Stones and Symbols: Cultural Perceptions of the Mineral World (eds N.
Boivin and M. A. Owoc). London: UCL Press, 1-29. INST ARCH BA 11 BOI
Bradley, R. and Edmonds, M. 1993. Interpreting the Axe Trade. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press. INST ARCH DAA 140 BRA
Edmonds, M. 1999. Ancestral Geographies of the Neolithic: Landscapes, Monuments and
Memory. London: Routledge. INST ARCH DAA 140 EDM
Heldal, T., Storemyr, P., Bloxam, E. G., Shaw, I and Salem, A. 2009. GPS and GIS
Methodology in the Mapping of Chephren’s Quarry, Upper Egypt: A Significant Tool for
Documentation and Interpretation of the Site. In Y. Maniatis (ed) ASMOSIA VII, The Study of
Marble and Other Stones in Antiquity – Proceedings of the 7th International Conference of
the Association for the Study of Marble and Other Stones in Antiquity, BCH Suppl. 51, 22741. INST ARCH KA MAN
Spence, M.W., Kimberlin, J. and Harbottle, G. 1984. State controlled procurement and the
obsidian workshops of Teotihuacan, Mexico. In J.E. Ericson and B.A. Purdy (eds) Prehistoric
Quarries and Lithic Production. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 97-105. KA ERI
13 | P a g e
Stout, D., Quade, J., Semaw, S., Rogers, M., Levin, N. 2005. Raw material selectivity of the
earliest stone toolmakers at Gona, Afar, Ethiopia. Journal of Human Evolution 48/4, 365-380.
ONLINE JOURNALS
Taçon, P.S.C., 1991. The power of stone: symbolic aspects of stone use and tool
development in western Arnhem Land, Australia. Antiquity 65,192-207. ONLINE JOURNALS
Further reading
Adams, B. and Blades, Brooke S. (eds) 2009. Lithic Materials and Paleolithic Societies. Chichester:
Blackwell Publishing. IOA KA ADA
Adler, D., Belfer-Cohen, A. and Bar-Yosef, O. 2006. Between a rock and a hard place:
Neanderthal-Modern Human interaction in the southern Caucasus. In N.J. Conard (ed) When
Neanderthals and Modern Humans Met. Tübingen: Kerns Verlag, 165-188. IOA ISSUE; BB1 CON
Andrefsky, W. Jr. 1994. Raw-material availability and the organization of technology. American
Antiquity 59/1, 21-34. ONLINE JOURNALS
Binford, L.R. and O’Connell, J.F. 1984. An Alywara day: the stone quarry. Journal of
Anthropological Research 40, 406-32. ONLINE JOURNALS
Bradley, R. and Ford, S. 1986. The siting of Neolithic stone quarries – experimental archaeology at
Great Langdale, Cumbria. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 5, 123-128. ONLINE JOURNALS
Carter, T., Poupeau, G., Bressy, C. and Pearce, N.J.G. 2006. A new programme of obsidian
characterization at Çatalhöyük, Turkey. Journal of Archaeological Science 33, 893-909. ONLINE
JOURNALS
Cooney, G. and Mandal, S. 1995. Getting to the core of the problem: petrological results from the
Irish Stone Axe Project. Antiquity 69, 969-80. ONLINE JOURNALS
Crabtree, D. 1967. Notes on experiments in flintknapping: the flintknapper’s raw materials.
Tebiwa 10, 8-24. IOA STORES
Edmonds, M. 1995. Stone Tools and Society. London: Batsford. IOA ISSUE; DAA EDM
Ericson, J.E. and Purdy, B.A. 1984. Prehistoric Quarries and Lithic Production.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. KA ERI
Féblot-Augustins, J. 2009. Revisiting European Upper Paleolithic raw material Transfers: the
demise of the cultural ecological paradigm? In Adams, B. and Blades, Brooke S (eds) Adams, B.
and Blades, Brooke S. (eds) Lithic Materials and Paleolithic Societies. Chichester: Blackwell
Publishing, 25-46. IOA KA ADA
Ford, A., Stross, F.l, Asaro, F. and Michel, H.V. 1997. Obsidian procurement and distribution in the
Tikal-Yaxha intersite area of the central Maya lowlands. Ancient Mesoamerica 8, 101-110.
ONLINE JOURNALS
Gale, N. 1981. Mediterranean obsidian source characterisation by strontium isotope analysis.
Archaeometry 23, 41-51. ONLINE JOURNALS
Gould, R.A. and Saggers, S. 1985. Lithic procurement in Central Australia: a closer look at
Binford’s idea of embeddedness in archaeology. American Antiquity 50, 117-136. ONLINE
JOURNALS
14 | P a g e
Harmand, S. 2009. Patterns of lithic raw material procurement and transformation during the Middle
Paleolithic in Western Europe. ? In Adams, B. and Blades, Brooke S (eds) Adams, B. and Blades,
Brooke S. (eds) Lithic Materials and Paleolithic Societies. Chichester: Blackwell Publishing, 15-24.
IOA KA ADA
Healen, D.M. 1997. Pre-Hispanic quarrying in the Ucareo-Zinapecuaro obsidian source area.
Ancient Mesoamerica 8, 77-100. ONLINE JOURNALS
Inizan, M.-L., Roche, H. and Tixier, J. 1992. Technology of Knapped Stone. (ch. 1. Knapped Stone,
15-21). Meudon: CREP. IOA ISSUE; DA INI
Jones, G.T., Beck, C., Jones, E. and Hughes, R. 2003. Lithic source use and Paleoarchaic
foraging territories in the Great Basin. American Antiquity 68, 5-38. ONLINE JOURNALS
Knecht, H. 1997. Projectile Technology. London: Plenum Press. HB KNE
Larsson, L. 2000. The passage of axes: fire transformation of flint objects in the Neolithic of
southern Sweden. Antiquity 74, 602-610. ONLINE JOURNALS
Luedtke, B. E. 1992. An Archaeologist’s Guide to Chert and Flint. Los Angeles: Institute of
Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles, Archaeological Research Tools 7. KA LUE
Mitchell, D. R. 1995. Classic period Hohokam obsidian studies in Southern Arizona. Journal of
Field Archaeology 22, 291-304. ONLINE JOURNALS
Russell, M. 2001. Flint Mines in Neolithic Britain. Oxford: Tempus Publishing. DAA 140 RUS
Spence, M.W., Kimberlin, J. and Harbottle, G. 1984. State controlled procurement and the
obsidian workshops of Teotihuacan, Mexico. In J.E. Ericson and B.A. Purdy (eds) Prehistoric
Quarries and Lithic Production. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 97-105. KA ERI
Stout, D., Quade, J., Semaw, S., Rogers, M., Levin, N. 2005. Raw material selectivity of the
earliest stone toolmakers at Gona, Afar, Ethiopia. Journal of Human Evolution 48, 365-380.
ONLINE JOURNALS
Torrence, R. 1984. Monopoly or direct access. Industrial organization at the Melos obsidian
quarries. In J.E. Ericson and B.A. Purdy (eds) Prehistoric Quarries and Lithic Production.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 49-64. KA ERI
Torrence, R. 1982. The obsidian quarries and their use. In C. Renfrew and M. Wagstaff (eds)
Island Polity: the Archaeology of Exploitation in Melos. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
193-221. IOA ISSUE DESK; DAG 10 REN; YATES Qtos REN
Vermeersch, P.M., Paulissen, E., Stokes, S., Van Peer, P., De Bie, M., Steenhoudt, F., Missotten, S.
1997. Middle palaeolithic chert mining in Egypt. In A. Ramos-Millán and M.A. Bustillo (eds)
Siliceous Rocks and Culture. Granada: Universidad de Granada, 173-193. KA RAM
15 | P a g e
Week 3: Jan. 27 - LOWER AND MIDDLE PALAEOLITHIC TECHNOLOGIES
Norah Moloney (UCL)
We will discuss the Early Stone Age/Lower Palaeolithic technologies known from 2.60 to c. 0.25 Ma.
These include Mode 1 flake production and Mode 2 shaping of Large Cutting Tools. We will
consider the presence, nature and meaning of variation during this time period.
The Mode 3 technologies, the Middle Palaeolithic of Europe and Middle Stone Age of Africa, are
characterised by distinctive set of forms produced by the Levallois technique, a planned method for
obtaining predetermined flakes, blades and points.
Reading for the Mode 1 and Mode 2 technologies
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. ONLINE JOURNALS
Lycett, S. and Gowlett, J., 2008. On questions surrounding the Acheulean 'tradition'. World
Archaeology 40, 295-31. ONLINE JOURNALS 5
Shea, John, J. 2013. Stone tools in the Paleolithic and Neolithic Near East. A Guide. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press. (Chapter 3) IOA DBA 100 SHE; IOA ISSUE
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.
IOA DCD HOV; Article available as pdf from N. Moloney (courtesy of I. de la Torre)
Toth, N. 1985. The Oldowan reassessed: a close look at early stone artifacts. Journal of
Archaeological Science 12, 101-120. ONLINE JOURNALS
Further readings for Mode 1 and 2 technologies
Chapters in The Oldowan: Case Studies into the Earliest Stone Age, 2006, Nicholas Toth and
Kathy Schick (eds). Stone Age Institute Press. DCD Qto TOT
Belfer-Cohen, A. and Goren-Inbar, N. 1994. Cognition and communication in the Levantine Lower
Palaeolithic. World Archaeology 26, 144-57. ONLINE JOURNALS
Braun, D.R., Plummer, T., Ditchfield, P., Ferraro, J.V., Maina, D., Bishop, L.C., Potts, R., 2008.
Oldowan behavior and raw material transport: Perspectives from the Kanjera Formation. Journal of
Archaeological Science 35, 2329-2345. ONLINE JOURNALS
Braun, D.R., Tactikos, J.C., Ferraro, J.V., Arnow, S.L., Harris, J.W.K., 2008b. Oldowan reduction
sequences: methodological considerations. Journal of Archaeological Science 35, 2153-2163.
ONLINE JOURNALS
Clark, J.D., 1994. The Acheulian Industrial Complex in Africa and Elsewhere. In Corruccini, R.S.,
Ciochon, R.L. (Eds.) Integrative Paths to the Past: Paleoanthropological Advances in Honor of F.
Clark Howell. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 451-469. SCIENCE LIBRARY ANTHROPOLOGY B
34 COR
Edwards, S. W. 2001. A modern knapper's assessment of the technical skills of the Late
Acheulean biface workers at Kalambo Falls. In J.D. Clark (ed), Kalmbo Falls Prehistoric Site,
Volume III. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 605-611. DCD CLA
16 | P a g e
Gamble, C. and Marshall, G. 2001. The shape of handaxes, the structure of the Acheulian world.
In S. Miliken and J. Cook (eds), A very remote period indeed: Papers on the Palaeolithic Presented
to Derek Roe. Oakville, CT: Oxbow Books, 19-27. BC 120 QTO MIL
Goren-Inbar, N., 2011. The technology of significance of the Acheulian giant cores of Gesher
Benot Ya'aqov, Israel. Journal of Archaeological Science 38, 1901-1917. ONLINE JOURNALS
Goren-Inbar, N., 2011. Culture and cognition in the Acheulian industry: a case study from Gesher
Benot Ya'aqov. Phil. Trans. of the Royal Society B 366, 1038-1049. ONLINE JOURNALS
Isaac, Glynn. 1986. Foundation stones: early artefacts as indicators of activities and abilities. In G.
N. Bailey and P. Callow (eds), Stone Age Prehistory: Studies in Honor of Charles McBurney.
London: Cambridge University Press, 221-41. IOA ISSUE, BC 100 BAI
Jones, Peter. 1979. Effects of Raw Materials on Biface Manufacture, Science 204, 835-836.
ONLINE JOURNALS
Ludwig, B.V. and Harris, J.W.K. 1998. Towards a technological reassessment of East African pliopleistocene lithic assemblages. In M. Petraglia and R. Korisetter (eds), Early Human Behavior in
the Global Context: The Rise and Diversity of the Lower Paleolithic Period. New York: Routledge,
84-107. BC 120 PET
Lycett, S.L. and Gowlett, J.A.J. 2008. On questions surrounding the Acheulean Tradition. World
Archaeology 40, 295-315. ONLINE JOURNALS
Marke, M.W. 2005. Who made stone tools? In V. Roux and B. Bril (eds), Stone knapping: the
Necessary Conditions for a Uniquely Hominin Behaviour. Edited by V. Roux and B. Bril, Oxford:
Oxbow Books, McDonald Institute Monograph, 243-256. IOA ISSUE, KA ROU
Mora, R. and de la Torre, I. 2005. Percussion tools in Olduvai Beds I and II (Tanzania):
implications for earlty human activities. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 24, 179-192.
ONLINE JOURNALS
Newcomer, Mark H. 1971. Some qualitative experiments in handaxe manufacture, World
Archaeology 3, 85-94. ONLINE JOURNALS
Norton, C.J., Bae, K., Harris, J.W.K. and Leen, H.. 2006. Middle Pleistocene handaxes from the
Korean Peninsula. Journal of Human Evolution 5, 527-536. ONLINE JOURNALS
Norton, C.J., Bae, K., Harris, J.W.K. and Leen, H.. 2006. Middle Pleistocene handaxes from the
Korean Peninsula. Journal of Human Evolution 5, 527-536. ONLINE JOURNALS
Petraglia, M.D. and Shipton, C. 2008. Large cutting tool variation west and east of the Movius Line.
Journal of Human Evolution 55, 962-966. ONLINE JOURNALS
Schick, K.D. 1994. The Movius Line reconsidered: Perspectives on the earlier Paleolithic of
Eastern Asia. In R. S. Corruccini and R. L. Ciochon (eds) Integrative paths to the past:
Paleoanthropological advances in honor of F. Clark Howell., pp. 569-96. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall, 569-596. SCIENCE LIBRARY ANTHROPOLOGY B 34 COR
Schick, K., Toth,N., Garufi, G., Savage-Rumbaugh, E.S., Rumbaugh, D. and Sevcik, R. 1999.
Continuing investigations into the stone tool-making and tool-using capabilities of a bonobo (Pan
paniscus). Journal of Archaeological Science 26, 821-32. ONLINE JOURNALS
17 | P a g e
Semaw, S. 2000. The worlds oldest stone artifacts from Gona, Ethiopia: Their implications for
understanding stone technology and patterns of human evolution between 2.6-1.5 million years ago.
Journal of Archaeological Science 27, 1197-1214. ONLINE JOURNALS
Sharon, G., Alperson-Afil, N. and Goren-Inbar, N. 2011. Cultural conservatism and variability in the
Acheulian sequence of Gesher Benot Ya'aqov. Journal of Human Evolution 60, 387-397. ONLINE
JOURNALS
Shimelmitz, R., Barkai, R. and Gopher, A. 2011. Systematic blade production at late Lower
Paleolithic (400-200 kyr) Qesem Cave. Journal of Human Evolution 61, 458-479. ONLINE
JOURNALS
Spikins, P. 2012. Goodwill hunting? Debates over the 'meaning' of Lower Palaeolithic handaxe
form revisited. World Archaeology 44(3), 378-392. ONLINE JOURNALS
Stout, D. and Chaminade, T. 2007 The evolutionary neuroscience of tool-making.
Neuropsychologia 45, 1091-1100. ONLINE JOURNALS
Stout, D., Quade, J., Semaw, S., Rogers, M., Levin, N. 2005. Raw material selectivity of the
earliest stone toolmakers at Gona, Afar, Ethiopia. Journal of Human Evolution 48, 365-380.
ONLINE JOURNALS
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. ONLINE JOURNALS
Torre, I.de la., Mora, R., Martínez-Moreno, J., 2008. The early Acheulean in Peninj (Lake Natron,
Tanzania). Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 27, 244-264. ONLINE JOURNALS
Torre, I.de la., Mora, R., Dominguez, Rodrige, M., de la Luquue, L. and Alcala, L. 2003. The
Oldowan industry of Peninj and its bearing on the reconstruction of the technological skills of lower
Pleistocene hominids. Journal of Human Evolution 44, 203-24. ONLINE JOURNALS
Wynn, T. 2002. Archaeology and cognitive evolution. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 25, 389-438.
ONLINE JOURNALS
Wynn, T. and McGrew, W. 1989. An ape's view of the Oldowan. Man 24, 383-98. ONLINE
JOURNALS
Reading for Mode 3, Middle Palaeolithic techologies
Boëda, E. 1995. Levallois: a volumetric construction, methods and tecnique. In H.L Dibble,
and O. Bar-Yosef, (eds) The Definition and Interpretation of Levallois Technology. Madison,
WisconsIn Prehistory Press, 41-68. KA DIB
Debenath, A. & Dibble, H. L. 1993. Handbook of Palaeolithic Typology. Vol 1: Lower & Middle
Palaeolithic of Europe. Univ. Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. IOA ISSUE DESK; BC 120 HAN
Dibble, H.L. and Bar-Yosef, O. (eds) (and articles therein) 1995. The Definition and
Interpretation of Levallois Technology. Madison, WisconsIn Prehistory Press. (An excellent
source) KA DIB
Inizan, M. L.; Roche, H. & Tixier, J. 1992. Technology of Knapped Stone. CREP, Meudon. IOA
ISSUE DESK; KA INI http://www.arkeotek.org/ebooks/TerminologyKnappedStone.pdf (this
takes a while to download)
18 | P a g e
Peresani, M. 2003. Discoid Lithic Technology. Advances and implications. BAR International
Series 1120, Oxford. KA Qto PER (dip into)
Shea, John, J. 2013. Stone Tools in the Paleolithic and Neolithic Near East. A Guide. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press. (Chapter 4) IOA DBA 100 SHE; IOA ISSUE
Further readings
Bar-Yosef, O and Meignen, L. 1992. Insights into Levantine Middle Paleolithic cultural
variability. In D.L. Dibble and P. Mellars (eds) The Middle Palaeolithic: Adaptation, Behaviour,
and Variability,. Pennsylvania: University Museum, University of Pennsylvania, 163-180. KA
DIB
McBreaty, S. and A. Brooks. 2000. The revolution that wasn’t: a new interpretation of human
behavior. Journal of Human Evolution 39, 453-563. ONLINE JOURNALS
Peresani, M. 2003. Discoid Lithic Technology. Advances and implications. BAR International
Series 1120, Oxford. KA Qto PER
Sellet, F, 1995. Levallois or not Levallois: Does it really matter? Learning from the African
case. In H.L Dibble, and O. Bar-Yosef, (eds) The Definition and Interpretation of Levallois
Technology. Madison, WisconsIn Prehistory Press, 25-40. KA DIB
Van Peer, P. 1995. Current issues in the Levallois problem. In H.L Dibble, and O. Bar-Yosef,
(eds) The Definition and Interpretation of Levallois Technology.
Madison, WisconsIn
Prehistory Press, 1-10. KA DIB
Week 4: Feb 3.
UPPER PALAEOLITHIC AND MESOLITHIC TECHNOLOGIES
Matt Pope (UCL)
We will make use of the teaching collection to address the fundamental nuts and bolts of
Upper Palaeolithic and Mesolithic technology. We will consider the defining features of Upper
Palaeolithic technology, its evolutionary and chronological context. Consideration will also be
given to the possibility of Neanderthal upper Palaeolithic technologies. Then we will look at
the basic characteristics of Transitional and Mesolithic Industries. The lecture will focus on
North West Europe, with more general consideration of variation elsewhere.
Reading
Bordes, F. and Sonneville-Bordes, D. de. 1970. The significance of variability in Palaeolithic
assemblages. World Archaeology 2, 61-73. ONLINE JOURNALS
Caspar, J.-P. and de Bie, M. 1996. Preparing for the hunt in the late Palaeolithic camp at
Rekem, Belgium. Journal of Field Archaeology 23, 437-460. ONLINE JOURNALS
Churchill, S. E. and Smith, F. H. 2000. Makers of the early Aurignacian of Europe. Yearbook
of Physical Anthropology 43, 61–115. ONLINE JOURNALS
.
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. ONLINE JOURNALS
19 | P a g e
Hublin, J.-J., Spoor, F., Braun, M., Zonneveld, F. and Condemi, S. 1996. A late
Neanderthal associated with Upper Palaeolithic artefacts. Nature 381, 224–22 . ONLINE
JOURNALS
Jacobi, R.. 2004: The Late Upper Palaeolithic lithic collection from Gough’s Cave, Cheddar,
Somerset and human use of the cave. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 70, 1-92. IOA
PERS
d’Errico, F. et al 1998. Neanderthal acculturation in western Europe? A critical review of the
evidenceand its interpretation. Current Anthropology 39, S1-S44. ONLINE JOURNALS
d’Errico, F. 2003. The invisible frontier: A multiple species model for the origin of behavioural
modernity. Evolutionary Anthropology 12, 188-202. ONLINE JOURNALS
McBreaty, S. and A. Brooks. 2000. The revolution that wasn’t: a new interpretation of human
behavior. Journal of Human Evolution 39, 453-563. ONLINE JOURNALS
Mellars, P.A. 1999. The Neanderthal Problem Continued. Current Anthropology 40, 341-350.
ONLINE JOURNALS
Smith, C. 1992. The Late Stone Age Hunters of the British Isles. London, Routledge. IOA
ISSUE; DAA 100 SMI
Piel-Desruisseaux, J-L. 1998. Outils Préhistoriques. Paris: Dunod IOA ISSUE; KA PIE
Shea, John, J. 2013. Stone tools in the Paleolithic and Neolithic Near East. A Guide. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press. (Chapter 5) IOA DBA 100 SHE; IOA ISSUE
Tixier, J. 1963. Typologie de l'Epipaléolithique du Maghreb. Mémoires du Centre de
Recherches Anthropologiques Préhistoriques et Ethnographiques Alger. II. Paris. DCC TiX
Tixier, J. (trans M. Newcomer) 1974. Glossary for the Description of Stone Tools with
Special Reference to the Epipalaeolithic of the Maghreb . Newsletter of Lithic Technology:
Special Publication Number 1 - December 1974 DC 100 TIX
Zilhão, J. and d’Errico, F. 1999. The Chronology and Taphonomy of the Earliest Aurignacian
and its Implications for the Understanding of Neanderthals Extinction. Journal of World
Prehistory 13, 1- 68. ONLINE JOURNALS
Mesolithic
Caspar, J.-P. and de Bie, M. 1996. Preparing for the hunt in the late Palaeolithic camp at
Rekem, Belgium. Journal of Field Archaeology 23, 437-460. ONLINE JOURNALS
Jacobi, R.. 2004: The Late Upper Palaeolithic lithic collection from Gough’s Cave, Cheddar,
Somerset and human use of the cave. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 70, 1-92.
ONLINE JOURNALS
Jochim, M. et al 1999. The Magdalenian colonization of Southern Germany. American
Anthropologist 101, 129-142. ONLINE JOURNALS
Jochim, M. 1976. Hunter-Gatherer Subsistence and Settlement: A Predictive Model. London,
Academic Press. DAD 100 JOC
20 | P a g e
Karlin, C., Ploux, S., Bodu, P. and Pigeot, N. 1993. Some socio-economic aspects of the
knapping process amongst groups of hunter-gatherers in the Paris Basin area. In A.
Berthelet and J. Chavaillon (eds) The Use of Tools by Human and Non-Human Primates.
Oxford: Clarendon Press. BB3 BER
Finlay, N. 2003. Microliths and Multiple Authorship. In Lars Larsson (ed.) Mesolithic on the
Move. Papers presented at the Sixth International Conference on the Mesolithic in Europe,
Stockholm 2000. Oxford: Oxbow, 169-176. DA Qto LAR
Mellars, P. (ed.) 1978. The Early Post-glacial Settlement of Northern Europe.London:
Duckworth. DA 130 MEL
Price, T.D 1987. The Mesolithic of Western Europe. Journal of World Prehistory 1, 225-305.
ONLINE JOURNALS
Reynier, M. 2005. Mesolithic BritaIn Origins, Development and Directions. London:
Archaeopress. DAA Qto Series BRI 393
Shea, John, J. 2013. Stone tools in the Paleolithic and Neolithic Near East. A Guide. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press. (Chapter 6) IOA DBA 100 SHE; IOA ISSUE
Week 5: Feb. 10
POST PALAEOLITHIC LITHIC TECHNOLOGIES OF EGYPT
Noriyuki Shirai (UCL)
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. The lecture will focus on the Fayum in northern Egypt,
where there is good information about the transition from the Epipalaeolithic to Neolithic and
the cultural transmission between the Levant and Egypt, and discuss how new lithic
technologies and new types of tools appeared and developed. The lecture will be followed by
handling of Fayum Epipalaeolithic and Neolithic tools.
Reading
Bettinger, R.L. 2001. Holocene Hunter-Gatherers, in G.M. Feinman and T.D. Price (eds.),
Archaeology at the Millennium: A Sourcebook: 137-195. New York: Kluwer
Academic/Plenum Publishers. IOA AH FEI
Caton-Thompson, G. and Gardner, E.W. 1934. The Desert Fayum. London: The Royal
Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland. IOA EGYPTOLOGY Qtos E 100 THO;
IOA DCA Qto CAT
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: 31-44. Arlington: The
American Anthropological Association. IOA KA ELS
21 | P a g e
Rosen, S.A. 2012. Lithic industries during the Holocene period, in D.T. Potts (ed.), A
Companion to the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East: 236-260. Oxford: Blackwell
Publishing. IOA DBA 100 POT; VIEW ONLINE
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. ONLINE JOURNALS
Shea, John, J. 2013. Stone Tools in the Paleolithic and Neolithic Near East. A Guide. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press. IOA DBA 100 SHE; IOA ISSUE
Shirai, N. 2010. The Archaeology of the First Farmer-Herders in Egypt: New Insights into the
Fayum Epipalaeolithic and Neolithic. Leiden: Leiden University Press. IOA EGYPTOLOGY
B11 SHI
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. ONLINE JOURNALS
Week 6: Feb. 17
Week 7: Feb. 24
READING WEEK
GROUNDSTONE TECHNOLOGY
Karen Wright (UCL)
Ground stone artefacts are any artefacts in which abrasion of stone played a key role in
manufacture. They have received much less attention than chipped stone artefacts. Many basic
questions about technology and analysis are still being worked out. However, ground stone
artefact analysis involves many of the same issues that apply to chipped stone. Raw material
sources, manufacturing sites and debitage have all been found, whilst ground stone assemblages
display chaînes opératoires and other elements well known to lithic analysts generally. In this
session we illustrate some of the basic methodologica issues using examples from the Middle East
as case studies.
Reading
Roubet, C. 1989. Methods of analysis of grinding implements. In F. Wendorf, R. Schild and A.
Close (eds) The Prehistory of Wadi Kubbaniya (Egypt), Vol.3 Dallas: Southern Methodist
University Press, 470-472. IOA ISSUE ; Egyptology Quartos E7 WEN
Roubet, C. 1989. Report on Site E-82-1. In F. Wendorf, R. Schild and A. Close (eds) The
prehistory of Wadi Kubbaniya (Egypt), Vol.3 Dallas: Southern Methodist University Press, 588-610.
IOA ISSUE; EGYPTOLOGY Qtos E7 WEN
Wright, K. 1992. A classification system for ground stone tools from the prehistoric Levant.
Paleorient 18, 53-81. ONLINE JOURNALS
Further reading
Adams, J. 1988. Use-wear analysis on manos and hide-processing stones. Journal of Field
Archaeology 15, 307-315. ONLINE JOURNALS
22 | P a g e
Bellina, B. 2003. Beads, social change and interaction between India and South-east Asia.
Antiquity 77, 285-297. ONLINE JOURNALS
Sugiyama, Y. and Koman, J. 1979. Tool using and making in wild chimpanzees at Boussou,
Guinea. Primates 20, 513-524. ONLINE JOURNALS
Weinstein-Evron, M, Kaufman, D. and Bird-David, N. 2001. Rolling stones: basalt implements as
evidence for trade/exchange in the Levantine Epipalaeolithic. Mitekufat Haeven 31, 25-42. IOA
PERS
Wright, K. 2000. The social origins of cooking and dining in early villages of Western Asia.
Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 66, 89-121. IOA PERS
Wright, K. 1998. Dhuweila: ground stone. In A.V.G. Betts (ed) The Harra and the Hamad:
Excavations and Surveys in Eastern Jordan. Vol 1, 121-134. Sheffield: Sheffield Archaeological
Monographs 9. DBE 100 QTO BET
Wright, K. 1994. Ground stone tools and hunter-gatherer subsistence in southwest Asia:
implications for the transition to farming. American Antiquity 59, 238-263. ONLINE JOURNALS
Wright, K. 1993. Early Holocene ground stone assemblages in the Levant. Levant 25, 93-111.
ONLINE JOURNALS
Wright, K. 1992. A classification system for ground stone tools from the prehistoric Levant.
Paleorient 18, 53-81. ONLINE JOURNALS
Wright, K. and Garrard, A. 2003. Social identities and the expansion of stone bead-making in
Neolithic Western Asia: new evidence from Jordan. Antiquity 77, 267-284 . ONLINE JOURNALS
Week 8: Feb 24
LITHIC ILLUSTRATION AND PRACTICAL OBSERVATION
Norah Moloney (UCL)
When we draw 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. You
will have more practise in drawing during the preparation of the lithic report to be.
Reading (for reference)
Addington, L.R. 1986. Lithic Illustration. Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press. AL 30
Qto ADD
Adkins, L. And Adkins R.A. 1989. Archaeological Illustration. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge Manuals in Archaeology. AL ADK
Martingell, H. and Saville, A. 1988. The Illustration of Lithic Artefacts. London: Association of
Archaeological Illustrators & Surveyors. Lithic Studies Society Occasional Paper, no. 3. IOA
AL MAR
23 | P a g e
Week 9: March 3
EXPERIMENTATION IN LITHIC STUDIES / SEMINAR
Norah Moloney (UCL)
Experimentation, whether formal or “experiential”, is essential to understanding lithic technology
and may be used to inform research on issues ranging from production to use, discard, and entry
into the archaeological record. Here we will focus on knapping techniques and learning behaviour,
discussing controlled experiments in flake detachment, and replication of archaeological materials
as well as more general experience with knapping that can be useful in hypothesis generation and
archaeological interpretation.
Experimental archaeology in general
Callahan, E. 1999. What is Experimental Archaeology. In Westcott, D. (ed.), Primitive
Technology: Book of Earth Skills. Salt Lake City: Gibbs Smith, 4-6. IOA ISSUE DESK
Ferguson, J. E. (ed.) 2010. Designing Experimental Research in Archaeology:
Examining Technology Through Production and Use. Boulder, University Press of
Colorado. IOA AH FER
Kelterborn, P. 2004. Principles of experimental research in archaeology. euroREA 2/2005, 119120. IOA PERS
Lammers-Keijsers, Y. M. J. 2004. Scientific experiments: a possibility? Presenting a general
cyclical script for experiments in archaeology. euroREA 2/2005, 18-24. IOA PERS
Malina, J. 1983. Archaeology and experiment. Norwegian Archaeological Review 16, 69-85.
IOA PERS
Mathieu J. R. 2002. Introduction. In J. R. Mathieu (ed.), Experimental Archaeology. Replicating
Past Objects, Behaviours, and Processes. BAR INT 1035. Oxford, 1-12. IOA AH Qto MAT
Outram, A. 2008. Introduction to experimental archaeology. World Archaeology 40, 1-6.
ONLINE JOURNALS
Paardekooper, R. P. 2008. Experimental archaeology. In Pearsall, D. M., Encyclopedia of
Archaeology. Oxford: Academic Press, 1345-1358. IOA AG PEA
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleListURL&_method=list&_ArticleListID=85135
0983&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000010182&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=125795&md5
=f66e8f7932c97eef0ce6dee2a361cdc6
Reynolds, P. J. 1999. The nature of experiment in archaeology. In A. E Harding (ed.),
Experiment and Design: Studies in Honour of John Coles. Oxford: Oxbow. IOA DA Qto HAR
Seetah, K. 2008. Modern analogy, cultura ltheory and experimental replication: a merging point
at the cutting edge of archaeology. World archaeology 40, 135-150. ONLINE JOURNALS
Shimada, I. 2005. Experimental Archaeology. In H. D. G. Maschner, C. Chippindale (eds.),
Handbook of Archaeological methods1, Lanham: Altamira Press, 603-642. IOA AH MAS
Tichy, R. 2004. Presentation of archaeology and archaeological experiment. euroREA 2/2005,
113-119. IOA PERS
24 | P a g e
Lithic technologyick, D. S. and Mauldin, R. P. 1989. The potential of experiments in lithic
technology. In In D.A. Amick and R.P. Mauldin (eds), Experiments in Lithic Technology. Oxford:
BAR Int Ser 528, 1-14. KA 3 QTO AMI
Dibble, Harold L. and Pelcin, A. 1995. The effect of hammer mass and velocity on flake mass.
Journal of Archaeological Science 22, 429-39. ONLINE JOURNALS
Dibble, Harold. 1978. A history of flintknapping experimentation 1838-1976. Current
Anthropology 19, 337-372. ONLINE JOURNALS
Toth, N. 1991. The importance of experimental replicative and functional studies in Palaeolithic
archaeology. In G.D. Clark (ed.), Cultural Beginnings: Approaches to understanding early hominid
life-ways in the African. Bonn: Habelt, 109-124 DC 100 CLA
Further reading
Adams, J.L. 1989. Methods for improving ground stone artifact analysis: Experiments in mano wear
patterns. In D.A. Amick and R.P. Mauldin (eds),Experiments in Lithic Technology. Oxford: BAR Int
Ser 528, 259-276. IOA KA 3 QTO AMI
Aubry, T., Bradley, B., Almeida, M., Walter, B., Neves, M.J., Pelegrin, J. Lenoir, M. and Tiffagom, M.
2008. Solutrean laurel leaf production at Maîtreaux: an experimental approach guided by technoeconomic analysis. World Archaeology 40, 48-66. ONLINE JOURNALS
Blacking, J. 1953. Edward Simpson, alias 'Flint Jack'. A Victorian Craftsman. Antiquity 27,
105-113. ONLINE JOURNALS
Bradley, B. and Sampson, C. G. 1986. Analysis by replication of two Acheulian artefact
assemblages. In G. N. Bailey and P. Callow (eds), Stone Age Prehistory. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press. BC 100 BAI
Braun, D.R., Pobiner, B.L. and Thompson, J.C. 2008. An experimental investigation of cut mark
production and stone tool attrition. Journal of Archaeological Science 35, 1216-1223. ONLINE
JOURNALS
Callahan, E. 1979. The basics of biface knapping in the Eastern Fluted Point Tradition: A manual
for flintknappers and lithic analysts. Archaeology of Eastern North America 7, 1-172. IOA STORES
Edwards, S. 2001. A modern knapper's assessment of the technical skills of the Late Acheulean
biface workers at Kalambo Falls. In J. D. Clark (ed) Kalmbo Falls Prehistoric Site, Volume III.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 605-11. IOA DCD CLA
Ferguson,J. R. 2008. The when, where, and how of novices in craft production. Journal of
Archaeological Method and Theory 15, 51-67. ONLINE JOURNALS
Finlay, N. 2008. Blank concerns: issues of skill and consistency in the replication of Scottish later
Mesolithic blades. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 15, 68-90. ONLINE JOURNALS
Kelterborn, P. 1984. Towards replicating Egyptian predynastic flint knives. Journal of
Archaeological Science 11, 433-453. ONLINE JOURNALS
Machin, A. J., Hosfield, R. T. & Mithen, S. J. 2007. Why are some handaxes symmetrical? Testing
the influence of handaxe morphology on butchery effectiveness. Journal of Archaeological Science
34, 883-893. ONLINE JOURNALS
25 | P a g e
Newcomer, M. H. 1971. Some quantitative experiments in handaxe manufacture. World
Archaeology 3 (1), 85-104. ONLINE JOURNALS
Pelegrin, J. 2005. Remarks about archaeological techniques and methods of knapping: elements
of a cognitive approach to stone knapping. In V. Roux and B. Bril (eds),Stone Knapping: the
Necessary Conditions for a Uniquely Hominin Behaviour. Oxford: Oxbow Books, McDonald Institute
Monograph, 23-33. IOA ISSUE DESK; ROU KA ROU
Roux, V., Bril, B. and Dietrich, G. 1995. Skills and learning difficulties involved in stone knapping.
World Archaeology 27, 63-87. ONLINE JOURNALS
Toth, N. 1987. Behavioral inferences from Early Stone Age artifact assemblages: an experimental
model. Journal of Human Evolution 16, 763-787. ONLINE JOURNALS
Whittaker, J.C. 1994. Flintknapping: Making and Understanding Stone tools. AustIn
University of Texas Press. IOA ISSUE DESK; KA WHI
Week 10: March 10 FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS OF STONE TOOLS /SEMINAR
Norah Moloney (UCL)
COURSE EVALUATION
Usewear analysis has had its peaks and troughs of popularity in the last 20 years moving between
episodes of optimism and pessimism. We will consider the methods and objectives of use-wear
analysis, and then concentrate on how usewear is able to contribute to studies of human behaviour
using a selection of case studies.
Reading
Odell, G.H. 2004. Lithic Analysis (ch. 5. Tool Function). New York/London: Kluwer
Academic/Plenum. ISSUE; KA ODE
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. AH BAL
Piperno D.R., Weiss, E., Holst, I and Nadel, D. 2004. Processing of wild cereal grains in the Upper
Palaeolithic revealed by starch grain analysis. Nature 43, 670-673. ONLINE JOURNALS
Tringham, R., Cooper, G., Odell, G., Voytek, B., & Whitman, A. 1974. Experimentation in the
Formation of Edge Damage: A New Approach to Lithic Analysis. Journal of Field Archaeology,1,
171-196. ONLINE JOURNALS
van Gijn, A.L. 2010. The biography of flint tools: methods of study. In: Flint in Focus: Lithic
Biographies in the Neolithic and Bronze Age. Leiden: Sidestone Press, 11-34
Further reading
Burroni, D., Donahue, R.E., and Pollard, A.M. 2002. The surface alteration features of flint artefacts
as a record of environmental processes. Journal of Archaeological Science 29. 1277-128. ONLINE
JOURNALS
Caspar, P-P. and De Bie, M. 1996. Preparing for the hunt in the Late Paleolithic camp at Rekem,
Belgium. Journal of Field Archaeology, 23, 437-460. ONLINE JOURNALS
26 | P a g e
Denham T., Haberle, S., Lentfer, S. Fullagar, R., Field, J. Therin, M., Porch, N. and Winsborough, B.
2003. Origins of Agriculture at Kuk Swamp in the Highlands of New Guinea Science 301,189-193.
ONLINE JOURNALS
Craig O.E. and Collins, M. 2002. The Removal of protein from mineral surfaces: Implications for
residue analysis of archaeological materials. Journal of Archaeological Science 29, 1077-108.
ONLINE JOURNALS
Donahue, R.E. and Burroni, D.B. 2004. Lithic microwear analysis and the formation of
archaeological assemblages. In E.Walker, F. Wenban-Smith and F. Healy (eds) Lithics in Action.
Oxford: Oxbow Books, Lithic Studies Society Occasional Paper, no. 8,141-148. KA QTO WAL
Dubreuil, L. 2004. Long-term trends in Natufian subsistence: a use-wear analysis of ground stone
tools. Journal of Archaeological Science 11, 1613-1630. ONLINE JOURNALS
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. ONLINE
JOURNALS
Evans, A.A. and Macdonald, D. 2011. Using metrology in Early Prehistorick stone tool research:
further work and a brief instrument comparison. Scanning, 33, 294-303. ONLINE JOURNALS
Faulks, N.R., Kimball, L.R., Hidjrati, N. and Coffey, T.S. 2011. Atomic Force Microscopy of
microwear traces on Mousterian tools from Myshtylagty Lagat (Weasel Cave), Russia. Scanning 33,
304-315. ONLINE JOURNALS
Fiedel, S.J. 1996. Blood from stones? Some methodological and interpretive problems in blood
residue analysis. Journal of Archaeological Science, 23, 139-147. ONLINE JOURNALS
Grace, R. 1990. The limitations and applicactions of use-wear analysis. In B. Graslund, K.
Knutsson, H. Knutsson, J. Taffinder and E. Stina (eds) The Interpretative Possibilities of Microwear
Studies. Uppsala: Societas Archaeologica Upsaliensis, 9-14. KA QTO GRA
Hardy, B.L. and Raff, R.A. 1997. Recovery of mammalian DNA from Middle Palaeolithic stone
tools. Journal of Archaeological Science 24, 601-611. ONLINE JOURNALS
Ibáñez, J. and González, J. 1996. From tool-use to site function: A new methodological strategy
applied to Upper Paleolithic sites in the Basque Country. British Archaeological Report, International
Series, 658. Tempus Reparatum, Oxford. STORE 06-1109
Ibáñez, J.J. and González, J.E. 2003. Use-wear in the 1990s in western Europe: potential and
limitations of a method. In N. Moloney and M.J. Shott (eds) Lithic Analysis at the Millennium.
London: Institute of Archaeology, UCL, 163-172. IOA ISSUE; KA Qto MOL
Jahren, A. Toth, N., Schick, K. Clark, J.D. and Amundson, R. 1997. Determining stone tool use:
Chemical and morphological analyses of residues on experimentally manufactured stone tools.
Journal of Archaeological Science 24:245-250. ONLINE JOURNALS
Jensen, H. J. 1988. Functional analysis of prehistoric flint tools by high-power microscopy: a review
of West European research. Journal of World Prehistory, 2(1), 53-88. ONLINE JOURNALS
Jensen H. J. 1994. Flint Tools and Plant Working. Aarhus University Press. KA JEN
27 | P a g e
Kealhofer, L, Torrence, R. and Fullagar, R. 1999. Integrating phytoliths within use-wear/residue
studies of stone tools. Journal of Archaeological Science 26, 527-546. ONLINE JOURNALS
Keeley, L.H. 1980. Experimental Determination of Stone Toos Uses: a Microwear Analysis.
Chicago: Chicago University Press. KA KEE
Keeley, L. H. and Toth, N. 1981. Microwear polishes on early stone tools from Koobi For a, Kenya.
Nature 293, 464-465. ONLINE JOURNALS
Keeley, L.H. and Newcomer, M.H. 1977. Microwear analysis of experimental flint tools: a test case.
Journal of Archaeological Science, 4, 29-62 ONLINE JOURNALS
Kooyman, B., Newman, M.E. and Ceri, H. 1992. Verifying the reliability of blood residue analysis
on archaeological tools. Journal of Archaeological Science, 19, 265-269. ONLINE JOURNALS
Lemorini, C., Gopher, A., Shimelmitz, R., Stiner, M. and Barkai, R. 2006. Use-wear analysis of an
Amudian laminar assemblage from Acheuleo-Yabrudian Qesem Cave, Israel. Journal of
Archaeological Science 33, 921-934. ONLINE JOURNALS
Lombard, M. 2008. Finding resolution of the Howiesons Poort through the microscope: micro
residue analysis of segments from Sibudu Cave, South Africa. Journal of Archaeological Science
35, 26-41. ONLINE JOURNALS
Loy, T.H. and Dixon, E.J. 1998. Blood residues on fluted points from eastern Beringia. American
Antiquity 63, 21-46. ONLINE JOURNALS
Moss, E. 1983. Some comments on edge damage as a factor in functional analysis of stone
artefacts. Journal of Archaeological Science 10, 231-242. ONLINE JOURNALS
Newcomer, M. 1986. Investigating microwear polishes with blind tests. Journal of Archaeological
Science 13, 203-217. ONLINE JOURNALS
Owen L.R. 1993. Material worked by hunter and gatherer groups of northern North America:
implications for use-wear analysis. In Anderson P. et. al. (eds.) Traces et Fonction: les Gestes
Retrouvés. Actes du Colloque International de Liège, 8-9-10 Décembre 1990. ERAUL:50, Liège;
Université de Liège. KA AND.
Owen, L.R. 2000. Lithic Functional Analysis as a means of Studying Gender and Material Culture
in Prehistory. In M. Donald and L. Hurcombe (eds) Gender and Material Culture in Archaeological
Perspective. London: Macmillan Press Inc. IAH DON
Perry, L., Sandweiss, D.H., Piperno, D.R., Rademaker, K., Malpass, M.A., Umire, A. and de la
Vera, P. 2006. Early maize agriculture and interzonal interaction in southern Peru Nature 440, 7679. ONLINE JOURNALS
Piperno D. 2006. Phytoliths: A comprehensive Guide for Archaeologists and Paleoecologists.
Lanham, Md: AltaMira Press. BB 5 PIP
Piperno, D. R. and Holst, I. 1998. The presence of starch grains on prehistoric stone tools from the
humid neotropics: indications of early tuber use and agriculture in Panama. Journal of
Archaeological Science 25, 765-776. ONLINE JOURNALS
28 | P a g e
Ranere, A.J., Holst, I. and Hansell, P. 2000. Starch grains reveal early root crop horticulture in the
Panamanian tropical forest. Nature 407, 894 – 897. ONLINE JOURNALS
Sala, I.L. 1986. Use wear and post-depositional surface modification: a word of caution Journal of
Archaeological Science, 13, 229-244. ONLINE JOURNALS
Sala, I. L. 1996. A Study of Microscopic Polish on Flint Implements. Oxford: BAR Int Ser, 629. KA
SAL
Samuel D. 1996. Investigation of ancient Egyptian baking and brewing methods by correlative
microscopy. Science 273, 4888-4890. ONLINE JOURNALS
Semenov, S. 1964. Prehistoric Technology: an Experimental Study of the Oldest Tools and
Artefacts from Traces of Manufacture and Wear. London: Cory. K SEM
Shea, J.J. and Klenck, J.D. 1993. An experimental investigation of the effects of trampling on the
results of lithic microwear analysis. Journal of Archaeological Science 20, 175-194. ONLINE
JOURNALS
Sobolik, K.D. 1996. Lithic organic residue analysis: an example from the Southwestern Archaic.
Journal of Field Archaeology 23, 461-469. ONLINE JOURNALS
Stemp, J.W., Lerner, H>J. and Kristant E.H. 2013. Quantifying microwear on experimental
Mistassini quartzite scrapers: preliminary results of exploratory research using LSCM and ScaleSensitive Fractal Analysis. Scanning 35, 28-39. ONLINE JOURNALS
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. ONLINE JOURNALS
Torrence R. and Barton, H. 2006. Ancient Starch Research. California: Left Coast Press. BB 51
TOR
Unger-Hamilton, R. 1988. Method in Microwear Analysis. Oxford: BAR Int Ser 435. DBD 10 UNG
Van Gijn A. 1998. Craft Activities in the Dutch Neolithic: a Lithic Viewpoint. In M. Edmonds and C.
Richards (eds.) Understanding the Neolithic of North Western Europe. Cruithne Press. Glasgow.
DA 140 EDM
Vaughan, P. C. 1985. Use-Wear Analysis on Flaked Stone Tools (p. 204). University of Arizona
Press KA Qto VAU
Week 11: March 24
SITE FORMATION PROCESSES / STUDENT SEMINAR
Norah Moloney (UCL)
Understanding context is paramount before the accurate assessment of lithic material from a
technological Perspective can be undertaken. This session will cover basic approaches to the
processes underpinning the formation of lithic assemblages as encountered in the archaeological
record. It aims to show how a close reading of sedimentary context and the application analytical
techniques borrowed from faunal taphonomic and geological studies can elucidate the processes at
work in forming an assemblage. Aspects of in-situ, disturbed and palimpsest signatures will be
explored and practical applications of the following techniques undertaken in the class.
29 | P a g e
•
•
•
•
Size Class Distribution: Assesses the relative proportions of different size-classes of
artifact. In undisturbed scatters smaller material will always be more abundant than larger
pieces in numerical terms. Comparison of size-class distribution curves from excavated
assemblages with experimental samples will show if material has been winnowed from, or
introduced to, an assemblage by water action
Surface Trend Analysis. Spatial separation of different size classes of artefact shows
disturbance of knapping scatters by natural or human agents.
Artifact orientation: Undisturbed scatters will show no preferred orientation. If any is
found it can indicated the scale and direction of fluvial or colluvial movement.
Refitting. In knapping artifacts rarely move more than a couple of meters from the tool
maker. Excessive refit distances and preferred orientation of refits can indicate disturbance.
Reading
Ashton, N., Lewis, S.G. and Parfitt, S.A. (eds). 1998. Excavations at the Lower Palaeolithic site at
East Farm, Barnham, Suffolk, 1989-1994. London: British Museum Occasional Paper Number 125.
(Site formation chapters). IOA DAA 410 QTO ASH
Austin,L. 1994. Life and death of a Boxgrove biface. In N.Ashton and A.David. (eds) Stories in
Stone. Lithic Studies Society Occasional Paper No.4. London: Lithic Studies Society, 119-125.
IOA KA QTO ASH
Bergman, C.A.,.Roberts, S.N.Collcutt, S.N. and Barlow, P. 1990. Refitting and spatial analysis of
artifacts from Quarry 2 at the Middle Pleistocene Acheulean site of Boxgrove, West Sussex,
England. In E.Cziesla, S.Eickhoff N.Arts and D.Winter (eds) The Big Puzzle. Bonn: Holos: 265-281.
IOA KA BIG
Bergman, C.A. and Roberts, M.B. 1988. Flaking technology at the Acheulean site of Boxgrove,
West Sussex ,England. Revue Archaeologique de Picardie. 1-2 numero special: 105-113. IOA
PERS
Isaac, G. Ll. 1981. Stone age visiting cards: approaches to the study of early land use patterns. In
I Hodder, G.Ll.Isaac and N. Hammond (eds) Pattern of the Past: studies in honour of David Clarke..
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 131-55. IOA ISSUE DESK; AH HOD
Roberts, M.B. and S.A. Parfitt 1999. Boxgrove: a Middle Pleistocene hominid site at Eartham
Quarry, Boxgrove, West Sussex. London: English Heritage. IOA ISSUE DESK; DAA 410 QTO
ROB
Sahnoumi, M. 1998. The Lower Palaeolithic of the Magreb. Oxford: Archaeopress. IOA DCCA
Qto SAH
Schick, K. 1986. Stone Age Sites in the Making. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports,
International Series 319. IOA AH QTO SCH
Schick, K.D. 1992. Geoarchaeological Analysis of an Acheulean site at Kalambo Falls, Zambia.
Geoarchaeology .7, 1-26 . ONLINE JOURNALS
Schurmans, U. and De Bie, M. (eds). 2007. Fitting Rocks: Lithic Refitting Examined. Oxford: BAR
International Series 1596 (dip into articles in the volume) IOA KA Qto SCH
30 | P a g e
Further reading
Blumenschine, R.J. and Masao, F.T. 1991. Living Sites at Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania? Preliminary
landscape archaeology results in the basal Bed II lake margin zone. Journal of Human Evolution.
21, 451-462. ONLINE JOURNALS
Isaac, G. Ll. 1977. Olorgesailie: Archaeological Studies of a Middle Pleistocene lake basin.
Chicago, University of Chicago Press. IOA ISSUE DESK; DCD ISA
Isaac, G. Ll. 1983a. Bones in contention: competing explanations for the juxtaposition of Early
Pleistocene artifacts and faunal remains. In J. Clutton-Brock and C. Grigson (eds) Animals and
Archaeology: Hunters and Their Prey. Oxford: BAR International Series 163. IOA ISSUE DESK;
BB3 QTO CLU
Schick, K.D. 1987a. Modelling the formation of Early Stone Age Artifact concentrations. Journal of
Human Evolution 16, 789-806. ONLINE JOURNALS
Schick, K.D. 1987b. Experimentally derived criteria for assessing hydraulic disturbance of
archaeological sites. In D.Nash and M.D.Petraglia (eds) Natural Formation Processes and the
Archaeological Record. Oxford: BAR International Series 352, 86-107. IOA AJ Qto NAS
Schick, K.D. and N.Toth 1993. Making Silent Stones Speak. Human Evolution and the Dawn of
Technology. New York: Simon and Schuster. IOA BC 120 SCH
Shott, M. 2003. Size as a factor in Middle Palaeolithic assemblage variation in the Old
World: a North American Perspective. In N. Moloney and M.J. Shott (eds) Lithic Analysis at
the Millennium. London: Institute of Archaeology, UCL, 137-149. IOA ISSUE; KA Qto MOL
Villa, P. 1990. Torralba and Aridos: Elephant exploitation in Middle Pleistocene
Spain. Journal of Human Evolution 19, 299-309. ONLINE JOURNALS
Wenban-Smith, F.F. 1989. The use of canonical variates for determination of biface manufacturing
technology at Boxgrove Lower Palaeolithic site and the behavioural implications of this technology.
Journal of Archaeological Science 16, 17-26. ONLINE JOURNALS
31 | P a g e