Institute of Archaeology 2016
Reduction and the production of symmetry on a Boxgrove handaxe. (M. Leyroyer 2015).
ARCL 3046: LITHIC TECHNOLOGY
Handbook
Year 2/3 option. 0.5 Unit
Turnitin password: IoA1516 Turnitin code: 2970204
Co-ordinator & teacher: Mark Roberts mark.roberts@ucl.ac.uk
Room 307
Tel: 0207 679 7535 (London): Tel: 01903 773915(Sussex)
COURSE SYLLABUS
Lecturer:
Week 1
13th Jan
Week 2
20th Jan
Mark Roberts
Lecture: Introduction, raw materials and the dynamics of fracture
mechanics. The Glynn Isaac statement.
Practical: The IoA’s 410 lithic collection.
Lecture: Terminology, technology and typological attributes of stone
tools.
Practical: Handling session. Identifying lithics and their diagnostic
characteristics.
Week 3
27th Jan
Lecture: The Chaîne Opératoire and further lithic typology.
Practical: Handling session. An examination of the pre-handaxe
industries of the Oldowan and Clactonian followed by Acheulean
handaxes.
Week 4
Lecture: The Middle Palaeolithic.
3rd Feb
Practical: Discussion of the Chaîne Opératoire diagram and a Levallois
and Middle Palaeolithic handling session
Week 5
10th Feb
Lecture: Syn-depositional and post-depositional factors affecting lithic
assemblages.
Practical: Handling session. Upper Palaeolithic stone tools and
technology.
Week 6
15th -19th February READING WEEK
Week 7
Lecture: The Upper Palaeolithic and beyond.
24th Feb
Practical: Test 1 (Runs in four groups from 12.15-15.45).
Week 8
Lecture: Indirect percussion and pressure flaking.
2nd Mar
Practical: Handling session. Pressure flaked lithics and debitage.
Discussion of the first test.
Week 9
Lecture: Discussion between MBR and knapping expert.
9th Mar
Practical: Knapping demonstration.
Week 10
Lecture: Later prehistoric tools from the Neolithic to the Iron Age and
ground-stone artefacts.
Practical: Lithic reports.
16th Mar
Week 11
23rd Mar
Lecture: Excavating and recording strategies for lithic assemblages
and a brief introduction to the concept of style.
Practical: Test 2 (Runs in four groups from 12.15 – 15.45).
2
ASSESSMENT
The course is assessed by two in-class observation/written tests each worth 25% of the final mark,
and a critical analysis of a published lithic report, worth 50% of the final mark. The report should
be 2500 words in length (see appendix).
Test 1 will be on Wednesday 24th February 2016.
Test 2 will be on Wednesday 23rd March 2016.
The final piece of assessed work for the course takes the form of a critical report:1/. Go to a journal containing a paper on an excavation with a substantial lithic report and
critically assess the report. You will need to consider points such as:- How well does it stand
on its own? How well does it integrate with the rest of the report? Is the information contained
in it put over clearly and readily understood? Is it simply descriptive or does it develop the
study of the stone tools, using intra and inter site data? Consider the illustrations and tables
and how they contribute to both the lithic and overall report.
Hand in date Wednesday April 27th 2016.
Turnitin password: IoA1516
Turnitin code: 2970204
Attendance
A register will be taken at each class. If you are unable to attend a class, please notify the
lecturer by email.
Departments are required to report each student’s attendance to UCL
Registry at frequent intervals throughout each term. Students are expected to attend at least
70% of classes.
Information for intercollegiate and interdepartmental students
Students enrolled in Departments outside the Institute should collect hard copy of the Institute’s
coursework guidelines from Judy Medrington’s office (411A).
Dyslexia
If you have dyslexia or any other disability, please make your Course Co-ordinators aware of
this fact and discuss with them whether there is any way in which they can help you. Students
with dyslexia are reminded to indicate this on each piece of coursework.
Feedback
3
In trying to make this course as effective as possible, we welcome feedback from students
during the course of the year. 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 the co-ordinator to develop 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 Course Co-ordinator, but if they feel this approach is not appropriate, they should consult
their Personal Tutor, the Academic Administrator (Judy Medrington), or the Chair of Teaching
Committee.
Health and safety
The Institute has a Health and Safety policy and code of practice which provides guidance on
field work, site visits, laboratory work etc. This policy is revised annually and the new edition
will be issued in due course. All work undertaken in the Institute is governed by these
guidelines, and students have a duty to be aware of them and to adhere to them at all times.
This is particularly important in the context of the laboratory/field/placement work which will
be undertaken as part of this course. Specific information pertaining to activities associated
with this course shall be given prior to their undertaking.
INTRODUCTION TO THE COURSE
This course will train the student to recognise the characteristics of humanly modified lithics, to
understand and interpret the techniques of their manufacture, and to comprehend their various
uses. The course also studies stone tool assemblages from the perspective of the excavator and
analyst, taking into account methodologies for extraction and interpretation and by looking at the
taphonomic history of artefact assemblages. Finally, we shall examine the different ways we
might interpret past human behaviour from the analysis of stone artefacts. Stone artefacts
dominate the prehistoric archaeological record, are a significant component of the material
cultural repertoire of later prehistoric and early historic societies, and are an extremely important
and interesting area of archaeological research. We shall concentrate on ways in which we can
approach the analysis and understanding of prehistoric technologies in particular but will also
consider typological, functional, contextual and cognitive analysis of stone artefacts, and
4
examine the different ways we can build an understanding of past human behaviour from the
analysis of flaked stone and to a lesser extent ground stone tool assemblages. The Institute has
extensive stone tool reference material and we shall utilise prehistoric assemblages from Britain,
Europe and Africa, although material from other regions will be introduced when appropriate.
Aims
The specific aims of the course are to introduce you to:
 Methodological approaches used in the identification and analysis of stone artefacts.
 Ways in which stone artefacts can be and have been used to interpret the dynamic
human past.
 The importance of stone artefacts as a source of information about past human
behaviour.
Objectives
On successful completion of this course you should: Understand the basic elements of the fracture mechanics of stone.
 Be aware of the range of information lithic assemblages provide on past human
behaviour.
 Be familiar with the different approaches used in lithic stone analysis.
 Be able to illustrate lithic artefacts for study purposes.
 Be able to produce a report on or critique a lithic assemblage.
Learning Outcomes
On successful completion of the course students should have developed:
 Observational skills and critical reflection.
 The ability to apply acquired knowledge of a topic.
 Demonstrate a good understanding of the principles and methods by which lithic data
are acquired and analysed.
 Show an awareness of the issues involved in planning, designing, and executing a
specialist post-excavation report.
Course Information
The handbook contains the basic information about the content and administration of the course.
If necessary, additional subject-specific reading lists and individual session handouts will be
given out at appropriate points in the course. If you have queries about the objectives, structure,
content, assessment or organisation of the course, please contact me (MBR). This handbook is
also available on the Institute web-site & the course Moodle page.
Teaching Methods
The course is taught on a weekly basis in Term 2 by lectures and practical handling sessions.
Practical sessions have been incorporated into the scheduled sessions and follow on from the
lecture that runs between 11.00 and 12.00, with one group attending between 12.00 and 13.00
and the next group between 13.00 and 14.00.
5
Workload
There will be 20 hours of lectures and practical handling sessions in this course. The total
workload for the course is 180 hours: you will be expected to undertake about 80 hours of reading
for the course, plus about 80 hours preparing for and producing the assessed work.
Key readings
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 Holdaway and Stern,
Andrefsky, Odell and Inizan are good. For those of you who wish to try your hand at flint
knapping, then Whittaker is a useful reference.
Andrefsky, Jr., W. 1998. Lithics: Macroscopic Approaches to Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge Manuals in Archaeology. IOA ISSUE DESK: KA AND.
Butler, C., 2005. Prehistoric Flintwork. Stroud: Tempus Publishing Ltd. (focus on British
lithics). IOA ISSUE DESK.
Holdway, S. and Stern, N. 2004. A Record in Stone. Victoria, NSW: Aboriginal Studies Press.
IOA ISSUE DESK: DDA HOL.
Inizan, M.-L., Roche, H. and Tixier, J. 1992. Technology of Knapped Stone. Meudon: CREP.
IOA ISSUE DESK: DA INI.
Odell, G.H., 2004. Lithic Analysis. New York/London: Kluwer Academic/Plenum. IOA ISSUE
DESK: IOA KA ODE.
Turner, R., 2013. Flint knapping: a guide to making your own Stone Age toolkit. Stroud: The
History Press.
Whittaker, J.C., 1994. Flintknapping: Making and Understanding Stone tools.
University of Texas Press. IOA ISSUE DESK: KA WHI.
Week 1
13th Jan
Austin:
Lecture: Introduction, raw materials and the dynamics of fracture
mechanics. The Glynn Isaac statement.
Practical: The Institute’s lithic collection in Room 410.
Rocks vary in the manner in which they fracture and their suitability as raw material for stone
tool manufacture, points that knappers in the past understood well. We will concentrate
primarily on flint and other crypto-crystalline rocks, and the structural properties that make
them highly suitable for knapping purposes. We will consider ways in which we can source the
location of raw materials and what that information can tell us about past human behaviour.
We will also study evidence for quarrying and transport of stone, and consider whether the type
of stone available affected the manufacturing process. We will then identify the visible
characteristics of knapped stone artefacts. We shall then consider the meaning of Glynn Isaac’s
famous statement on Stone tools made back in 1977 and discuss its relevance today.
“Most Palaeolithic archaeologists ... tend to believe that the assemblages of humanly flaked
stones that we recover in quantities from sites such as Olorgesailie preserve a great deal of
valuable information about the craft traditions, the cultural affinities, and the economic life of
6
the hominids who made them. This belief is in part a matter of faith, and there is a danger that
in our enthusiasm we may overextend the exegesis of stone artifacts. It sometimes appears
that all of us treat stone artifacts as infinitely complex repositories of palaeocultural
information and assume that it is only the imperfections of our present analytical systems that
prevent us from decoding them. But is this really so?" (Glyn Issac. Olorgesailie, 1977:207)
See the papers given on the Moodle site.
Isaac, G.Ll., 1977. Olorgesailie: Archaeological Studies of a Middle Pleistocene Lake Basin in
Kenya. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Week 2
Lecture: Terminology, technology and typological attributes of stone tools.
20th Jan
Practical: Identifying lithics and their diagnostic characteristics.
Louis Leakey famously referred to stone tools as “fossilized human behaviour.” In order to
reconstruct ancient behaviour from these material remains it is necessary to collect detailed and
accurate information about technologically relevant aspects of artefact typology, frequency,
morphology and size. These include both qualitative and quantitative attributes. This lecture
will introduce basic concepts and methods in lithic analysis, with special attention to the
relevance of particular attributes to different research questions. In the practical the students will
handle a range of raw materials ranging from obsidian to conglomerates, we shall then identify
the visible characteristics of knapped stone artefacts.
Essential Reading
Andrefsky, Jr. W., 1998. Lithics: Macroscopic Approaches to Analysis (Ch.5 Flake debitage attributes).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Manuals in Archaeology. IOA ISSUE DESK: KA
AND.
Holdaway, S. and Stern, N., 2004. A Record in Stone. (Chs. 3, 4, 5. Attributes used in describing flakes.
Attributes used in describing tools. Attributes used in describing cores). Melbourne Museum Victoria;
Canberra: Aboriginal Studies Press. IOA ISSUE DESK: DAA HOL.
Inizan, M.-L., Roche, H. and Tixier, J., 1992. Technology of Knapped Stone. (Ch.5 Debitage; Ch.6.
Retouching). Meudon: CREP. IOA ISSUE DESK: DA INI
Further Reading
Debénath, A. and Dibble, H. L., 1994. Handbook of Paleolithic Typology. Vol. I: Lower and Middle
Paleolithic of Europe (Ch. 3 Paleolithic techniques and technologies). Philadelphia: The University
Museum. IOA ISSUE DESK; BC 120 HAN
Goren-Inbar, N., 1993., Methodology. In O. Bar-Yosef and N. Goren-Inbar The Lithic Assemblages of
Ubeidiya: a Lower Palaeolithic site in the Jordan Valley. Jerusalem: The Hebrew University, Quedem
Monographs of the Institute of Archaeology, 34, 69-93. IOA ISSUE DESK: DBE Series QED 34.
Odell, G.H., 2004., Lithic Analysis (Ch.2 Tool manufacture). New York/London: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.
IOA ISSUE DESK: KA ODE.
7
Rosen, S., 1997. Lithics After the Stone Age (Ch. 2. Analytic approaches, 21-32). Walnut Creek/London:
Altamira Press. IOA ISSUE DESK: KA ROS.
Week 3
Lecture: The Chaîne Opératoire and further lithic typology.
27th Jan
Practical: An examination of the pre-handaxe industries of the Oldowan
and Clactonian followed by Acheulean handaxes.
The concept of Chaîne Opératoire will be introduced and discussed. The course so far has
enabled us to identify the various stages of a lithic reduction sequence. The sequence from
start to finish is known as the Chaîne Opératoire and applies to any reduction sequence
regardless of its technology, age or complexity. Within the Chaîne Opératoire, we have learnt
about what types of raw material make the most effective stone tools and how to describe the
physical attributes of both the end object of reduction (façonnage) and the waste products
(débitage): related concepts of reduction sequence and tool histories will also be considered.
The technology of manufacture through percussion - direct and applied which creates the
physical attributes has been examined as has the typological subdivision of stone tools. We
have discussed the problems of using typology as a dating method, with relation to diachronous
geographical distribution of technologies and tool types; together with simple technique and
type repetition within a more limited spatial distribution.
Outside of the class, students will draw-up the links in a chaîne opératoire, where the category
boxes are given for different types of artefact: Next week in the practical class we shall go
through the diagram and discuss the challenges of reconstructing life histories from excavated
tools. In the practical we shall look at technological and typological attributes of stone tools
across a wide temporal spectrum from the Oldowan to the Acheulian, examining the concept
of Mode 1 and 2 industries. We shall also touch upon the often neglected subject of debitage,
examining a variety of flake types and cores.
Essential reading for the Chaîne Opératoire
Andrefsky, W., 2009. The analysis of stone tool procurement, production and maintenance. Journal of
Archaeological Research 17, 65-103.
Bar-Yosef, O.and van Peer, P., 2009. The Chaîne Opératoire Approach in Middle Paleolithic archaeology.
Current Anthropology 50(1), 103-131.
Bleed, P., 2001. Trees or chains, links or branches: conceptual alternatives for consideration of stone tool
production and other sequential activities. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 8/1, 101-127.
(Available through online journals).
Geismar, H., 2007 http://www.materialworldblog.com/2015/07/unleashing-the-chaine-operatoire-studentsexperimentation-with-an-old-methodology/
Sellet, F., 1993. Chaîne opératoire: the concept and its applications. Lithic Technology 18 (1 & 2), 106-112.
IOA TC 3545.
Shott, M.J., 2003. Chaîne Opératoire and reduction sequence. Lithic Technology 28/2: 95-105. IOA TC 3544.
Further reading for the Chaîne Opératoire
Edmonds, M., 1990. Description, understanding and the Chaîne Opératoire. Cambridge Archaeological
Review 9/1, 55-70. IOA Pers.
8
Grace,
R.,
The
chaîne
opératoire
http://www.hf.uio.no/iakk/roger/lithic/opchainpaper.html
approach
Odell, G.H., 2004. Lithic Analysis (ch. 4. Assemblage Variability).
Academic/Plenum. IOA ISSUE DESK: KA ODE.
to
lithic
analysis.
New York/London: Kluwer
Pelegrin, J., 1990. Prehistoric lithic technology: some aspects of research. Archaeological Review from
Cambridge 9(1), 116-125. IOA Pers.
Pigeot, N., 1990. Technical and social actors: flintknapping specialists at Magdalenian Etiolles.
Archaeological Review from Cambridge 9(1), 126-141. IOA TC.
Schlanger, N., 1994. Mindful technology: unleashing the Chaîne Opératoire for an archaeology of the mind.
In C. Renfrew and E. Zubrow (eds.) .Elements of Cognitive Archaeology, 143-151. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press. IOA ISSUE DESK. AH REN.
Week 4
The Middle Palaeolithic.
3rd Feb
Practical: Discussion of the Chaîne Opératoire diagram and a Levallois
and Middle Palaeolithic handling session
The lithic technologies of 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. We shall study the technique and identify the
different Levallois reduction strategies. The Levallois is also a technique whose presence or absence
defines the Mousterian Industries of the Middle Palaeolithic; we shall take a look at the classic
Charentian, Quina, Denticulate and Acheulian tradition industries of this time period. The question
of the variability in these industries which has taxed archaeologists and students alike for over forty
years will be examined. The lecture will close with a consideration of the Châtelperronian, and
examine the claims from Arcy-sur-Cure, that this material was made by the Neanderthals. In the
practical we shall get our first look at Upper Palaeolithic tools, with an emphasis on the production
of blades and bladelets. (Please also see the papers posted on the Moodle site). The practical session
today will involve examining Levallois and Mousterian material from the Institute’s collections. We
shall examine the techniques required to prepare cores for the removal of Levallois flakes and
examine Bordes’s classic division of the Mousterian industries in France.
Essential reading
Binford, S.R. and Binford, L.R., 1969. Stone tools and human behavior. Scientific American, 220/4: 70-84.
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.
Bordes, F. and Sonneville-Bordes, D. de., 1970. The significance of variability in Palaeolithic assemblages.
World Archaeology, 2/1: 61-73.
Debénath, A. and Dibble, H. L., 1994. Handbook of Paleolithic Typology. Vol. I: Lower and Middle
Paleolithic of Europe. Philadelphia: The University Museum. IOA ISSUE DESK; BC 120 HAN
Dibble, H.L., 1995. Raw material availability, intensity of utilization, and Middle Paleolithic assemblage
variability. In H.L.Dibble and M. Lenoir (eds.) The Middle Paleolithic site of Combe-Capelle Bas (France).
Philadelphia: University Museum, University of Pennsylvania. DAC 22 DIB
9
Dibble, H.L., and Rolland, N., 1992. On assemblage variability in the Middle Paleolithic of Western Europe.
In: H. Dibble and P. Mellars (eds.) The Middle Paleolithic: Adaptation, Behavior and Variability.
Philadelphia: The University Museum, 1-28. IOA ISSUE DESK; BC 120 DIB
Inizan, M. L.; Roche, H. & Tixier, J., 1992. Technology of knapped stone. CREP, Meudon. IOA ISSUE
DESK; KA INI
Kuhn, S., 1995. Mousterian lithic technology: an ecological perspective. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
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.
White, M.J. and Pettit, P.B., 2011. The British Late Middle Palaeolithic: an interpretive synthesis of
Neanderthal occupation at the north-western edge of the Pleistocene world. Journal of World Prehistory.
24 (1), 24-97.
White, M.J., Scott, R. and Ashton, N.M., 2006. The British Early Middle Palaeolithic in Britain:
archaeology, settlement history and human behaviour. Journal of Quaternary Science 21, 525-542.
Further reading
Andrefsky, Jr., W., 1998. Lithics: Macroscopic Approaches to Analysis (chs. 4 & 5). Cambridge Manuals in
Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. IOA ISSUE DESK: KA AND.
Boëda, E., 1995. Levallois: a volumetric construction, methods and technique. In H.L Dibble and O. BarYosef (eds.) The definition and Interpretation of Levallois Technology. Madison, Wisconsin: Prehistory
Press, 41-68.
Piel-Desruisseaux, J.-L., 1998. Outils Préhistoriques. Paris: Dunod. IOA ISSUE DESK; KA PIE (first
edition). (for those who read French). Informative illustrations.
Scott, R., 2010. Becoming Neanderthal. Oxford: Oxbow.
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.
Wadley, L, Hodgkiss, T. and Grant, M., 2009. Implications for complex cognition from the hafting of tools with
compound adhesives in the Middle Stone Age, South Africa. PNAS 106 (24), 9590-9594.
Week 5
Lecture: Syn-depositional and post-depositional factors affecting lithic
assemblages.
10th Feb
Practical: Handling session. Upper Palaeolithic stone tools and
technology.
Both in the lectures and practicals to date, we have had a brief look at the types of taphonomic
processes that can affect lithic assemblages. Today we shall take this further by studying these
processes in more detail. We shall consider syn-depositional alteration of artefacts and
assemblages in conjunction with post-depositional process that affect lithics. It is important to
examine how these effects might be apparent in the archaeological record, as the net results of
these processes are the assemblages that are collected, excavated and interpreted by
archaeologists. In the practical session we shall start to come to terms with the increasing
complexity and specialisation that is found in the Upper Palaeolithic lithic industries.
10
Essential reading
Ashton, N.M et al.. 1992. High lodge: excavations by G de G. Sieveking 1962-68 and J. Cook 1988. London:
BM Publications. (See chapter by Ashton and McNabb on the interpretation and context of the industries.)
Ashton, N.M et al.. 1994. Excavation at the Lower Palaeolithic site at East Farm, Barham. Journal of the
Geological Society 151, 599-605.
Barton, .R.N.E. and Bergman, C.A., 1982. Hunters at Hengistbury: some evidence from experimental
archaeology. World Archaeology 14 (2), 237-248.
Dolan, B., 2006 Lambay Lithics: the taphonomy of a non-plough zone surface scatter. K. Cleary & G.
McCarthy (eds.) Proceedings of the Association of Young Irish Archaeologists Annual Conference 2006.
Cork: AYIA 1-12.
Ferguson, J.R., (ed.) 2010. Designing experimental research in archaeology: examining technology through
production and use. Colorado: University of Colorado Press.
Hosfield, R. and Chambers, J., 2000 - 2004. The Afon Ystwyth Expermental Archaeology Project.
http://www.reading.ac.uk/archaeology/research/Projects/arch-RH-Afon-Ystwyth.aspx
Karlin,C. and Newcomer,M.H., 1982. Interpreting Flake Scatters: an example from Pincevent. Studia
Praehistorica Belgica 2, 159-165.
Wilhelmsen, K., 1999. Quarry 2 Area A: Microartefact Project. In Roberts, M.B. and Parfitt,
S.A. 1999. Boxgrove: A Middle Pleistocene Hominid Site at Eartham Quarry. Boxgrove, West
Sussex. London: English Heritage Monograph Series Archaeological Report 17, 362-372.
Further reading
You should also use your electronic journal access to look through some recent issues of the Journal of
Taphonomy.
Week 6
15th -19th February READING WEEK
Week 7
Lecture: The Upper Palaeolithic and beyond.
24th Feb
Practical: Test 1 (Runs in four groups from 12.15-15.45).
In comparison with what has gone before, the Upper Palaeolithic lithic assemblages show
increasing technological and typological complexity. We shall start by considering again the
Châtelperronian, a controversial industry that many archaeologists believe was made by the
Neanderthals. The controversy revolves not just around which species of hominin was
responsible for the tools but whether this was a natural evolution in Neanderthal lithic technology
or an imitation of the lithics and other artefacts made by their modern human, Aurignacian,
neighbours, and this is the topic we shall discuss today. We shall then look at the other key
European UP industries; the Aurignacian, Gravettian, Solutrian and Magdalenian, whilst also
considering a couple of sites from further east in Eurasia. The Upper Palaeolithic/ Later Stone
Age usually refer to blade technology and standardized retouched tools. The Mesolithic is
characterised by microlithic technology, bifacial and ground stone technology. We will review
the most typical tool types from each period in order to understand similarities and differences
between them. (Please also see the papers posted on the Moodle site).
11
Essential reading
Anikovich, M.V. et al., 2007. Early Upper Palaeolithic in Eastern Europe and implications for the dispersal
of modern humans. Science 315, 223-226.
Bar-Yosef, O. and Bordes, J-G., 2010. Who were the makers of the Châtelperronian culture? Journal of
Human Evolution 59, 586-593.
Bleed, P., 2008. Skill matters. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 15, 154-166.
Caron, F., d’Errico, F., Del Moral, P., Santos, F. and Zilhão, J., 2011. The reality of Neanderthal symbolic
behaviour at the Grotte du Renne, Arcy-sur-Cure, France. PLoS ONE 6(6), e21545. Doi:
10.1371/jpurnal.pone.0021545
Hiscock, P., 1996. Transformations of Upper Palaeolithic implements in the Dabba industry from Haua
Fteah (Libya). Antiquity 70, 657-664.
Pituko, V.V. et al., 2004. The Yana RHS site: humans in the Arctic before the Last Glacial Maximum. Science,
52-56.
Soulier, M-C. and Mallye, J-B., 2012. Hominid subsistence strategies in the South-West of France: A new
look at the early Upper Palaeolithic faunal material from Roc-de-Combe (Lot, France). Quaternary
International 252, 99-108.
Tomášková, S., 2005. What is a burin? Typology, technology and interregional comparison. Journal of
Archaeological Method and Theory 12 (2), 79-115.
Further reading
Aubrey, Th., Bradley, B., Almeida, M., Walter, B., Neves, M.J., Pelegrin, J., Lenoir, M. and Tiffagon, M.,
2008. Solutrean laurel leaf production at Maîtreaux: an experimental approach guided by techno-economic
analysis. World Archaeology 40 (1): 48-66.
Finlayson, C. and Carrión, J.S., 2007. Rapid ecological turnover and its impact on Neanderthal and other
human populations. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 22 (4), 213-222.
Tolksdorf, J.F. et al., 2009. The Early Mesolithic Haverbeck site, Northwest Germany: evidence for Preboreal
settlement in the Western and Central European Plain. Journal of Archaeological Science 36, 1466-1476.
Zwyns, N., Rybin, E.P., Hublin, J-J and Derevianko, A.P., 2011. Burin-core technology and laminar reduction
sequences in the initial Upper Palaeolithic from Kara-Bom (Gorny-Altai, Siberia). Quaternary International
259, 33-47.
Week 8
Lecture: Indirect percussion and pressure flaking.
2nd Mar
Handling session. Pressure flaked lithics and debitage. Discussion of the
first test.
Most of the lithic material we have studied to date is the result of direct percussion, either by
hard or soft hammer. Today we consider the concept of indirect percussion, from the simplest
bipolar anvil technique, through to its most advance manifestation in the form of pressure
flaking. Also under consideration will be the use of the punch technique, which is particularly
relevant to the production of blades and bladelets (lamellar industries). In the practical that
follows we shall handle a variety of types of cores, flakes/blades and tools produced by indirect
percussion, across a wide temporal range. The readings for this section are largely contained
12
within those for fracture mechanics and the Upper Palaeolithic section from Week 7, some of
the articles are available for download from the Moodle site.
Lynn, M., 2008. Pressure flaking. http://www.craftsmanshipmuseum.com/White.htm
Week 9
Lecture: Discussion between MBR and Karl Lee on knapping.
9th Mar
Practical: Karl Lee’s knapping demonstration.
A practical session with flintknapper Karl Lee. The lecture will take the form of a discussion
between Mark and Karl, where we shall explore the nuances of learning how to knap and
discuss the connection between knapping and information transfer in the past. We shall also
consider and discuss, complexity, form, function and style, which we shall cover in depth in
the last lecture of the course.
Have a look at Karl's work on his Primitive Technology website at:http://www.primitive-technology.co.uk
Week 10
Lecture: Later prehistoric tools from the Neolithic to the Iron Age and
ground-stone artefacts.
16th Mar
Practical: Lithic reports.
Lithic industries undergo a reversal in complexity during the Late Bronze Age as metal arrives
in significant quantity, this is most manifest in the Iron Age when lithics return to a pre-Acheulian
simplicity. We shall take a look at the increasing specialisation of the knapper, whereby lithic
production passes from many to the few and the professional knapper appears. Examination will
be made of other new developments such as the imitation of metalwork by lithic knappers, the
ceremonial discard of lithics and the production of stone tools as weapons for use against other
humans. Ground stone artefacts are any artefacts in which abrasion of stone played a key role in
manufacture. John Lubbock originally defined the Neolithic as the Age of polished (and ground)
stone. The main artefact classes are ground stone axes and querns. Beads and stone-ornaments
were also produced by grinding. While some types of stone can be shaped by knapping, followed
by grinding, others are worked by pecking, drilling and sawing. In the practical we shall address
lithic reports, both as stand-alone articles and as a component part of site reports. The practical
will lay the ground for the third assessed piece of work in the course, which is a critical appraisal
of a lithic report, which will include a consideration of the manner in which lithic artefacts are
illustrated in books and papers, and consider the changes that cheap colour publishing and digital
photography have had on the way lithic illustrations are published.
Essential reading
Adams, J., 1988. Use-wear analysis on manos and hide-processing stones. Journal of Field Archaeology 15,
307-315.
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.
13
Ballin Bjarke, T., 2012. “State of the Art” of British gunflint research, with special focus on the gunflint
workshop at Dun Eistean, Lewis. Post Medieval Archaeology 46 (1), 116-142.
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) IOA KA Qto KOR
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 IOA KA BUT.
Crabtree, D.E., 1975. Grinding and smoothing of stone artifacts. Tebiwa 18, 1-5. IOA Pers.
Madsen, B., 1984. Flint axe manufacture in the Neolithic: an experiment with the grinding and polishing of
thin-butted axes. Journal of Danish Archaeology 3, 47-62. IOA Pers.
Martingell, H. and Saville, A., 1988. The Illustration of Lithic Artefacts. London: Association of
Archaeological Illustrators & Surveyors. Lithic Studies Society Occasional Paper, no. 3.
Orton, J., 2008. Later Stone Age ostrich eggshell bead manufacture in the northern Cape, South Africa.
Journal of Archaeological Science 35 (7), 1765-1775.
Pitts, M., 1980. Later Stone Implements. Princes Risborough, Shire. IOA DAA 100 PIT
Pitts, M., 1996. The stone axe in Neolithic Britain. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 61, 311-371. IOA
Pers.
Vanhaeren, M., d’Errico, F., Stringer, C.B., James, S.L., Todd, J.A. and Mienis, H.K., 2006. Middle
Palaeolithic shell beads in Israel and Algeria. Science 312 (5781), 1785-1788.
Watts, S.R., 2014. The life and death of querns: the deposition and use of querns in south-western England
from the Neolithic to the Iron Age. Southampton Monographs in Archaeology New Series No 3. Southampton:
The Highfield Press.
Wright, K., 1993. Early Holocene ground stone assemblages in the Levant. Levant, 25, 93-111. IOA Pers.
Wright, K., 1994. Ground stone tools and hunter-gatherer subsistence in southwest Asia: implications for the
transition to farming. American Antiquity 59/2, 238-263.
Further reading
Biro, K., 1998. Lithic implements and the circulation of raw materials in the Great Hungarian Plain during
the late Neolithic period. Budapest, Hungarian National Museum. (not in UCL).
Högberg, A., 2006. A technological study of flake debitage attributes from the production of Neolithic squaresctioned axes from Scania, South Sweden. In G. Körlin, G. Weisgerber, (eds.) Stone Age - mining Age.
Bochum: Deutsches Bergbaumuseum, 387-394. IOA KAQto KOR.
Pelegrin, J., 002. La production des grandes lames de silex du Grand Pressigny. In: J. Guilaine (ed.)
Matériaux, productions, circulations du Néolithique à l'âge du Bronze. Paris: Errance, 131-150. IOA BC 100
GUI.
Week 11
Lecture: Excavating and recording strategies for lithic assemblages and a
brief introduction to the concept of style.
23rd Mar
Practical: Test 2 (Runs in four groups from 12.15-15.45)
14
In Week 5, we examined syn-depositional and post-depositional processes that might potentially
affect lithic scatters; these can be the result of human and subaerial activity and/or a combination
of both (see earlier references). Today we consider the topic in more depth and link it to the
selection of pertinent excavation and recording strategies. Hominin/human alteration of knapped
lithic assemblages can take many forms; from the simple collection and dumping of
accumulations of lithics, through removing elements of the assemblage for other tasks, to
overprinting with other activities. Sub-aerial processes include weathering, erosion and redeposition of parent soils/sediments and various forms of bioturbation. It is worth considering
however that in strictly sedimentological terms hominin/human activity is just another form of
bioturbation.
Having taken the above processes into consideration we now turn to the third main variable that
affects our understanding and reconstruction of past deposited lithic technology: the way in
which it is excavated and recorded. The methodology applied by archaeologists is affected by
various factors, which include some of the following:The perceived mode and environment of deposition of the parent sediment body.
Density of lithics with the sediment body.
The association of lithics with other archaeological and palaeoenvironmental elements such as
faunal remains and features.
Time and financial constraints.
Excavation and recording methods should be commensurate with the integrity of the lithics. For
secondary or residual sites this is obviously going to be less detailed than for sites where there is
in situ preservation. Excavation and recording methods impose control on the sediment bodies
and archaeological material therein, this is most obvious in the imposition of three dimensional
co-ordinates, which are usually derived from national grid reference and sea level data sources.
Following on from the recording of 3D co-ordinates other variables might include long axis
orientation, or the angle of dip of the object. In any reduction event it is important to know
whether the full range of debitage is still present at or around the assemblage and therefore it is
germane to consider sampling for the finer lithic elements or spalls. Cut-off size parameters
between flakes and spalls are arbitrary and will be dependent upon the type of site and the
resources available to the excavator, somewhere around 20mm is the norm. It is axiomatic that
a lot of information about the assemblage(s) will only become apparent during post-excavation
analyses, for example a significant number of large flakes might be missing; sedimentological
analysis tells us that the only way they can have been removed from the scatter is through
selection by humans. A reduction area at another part of the site which leaves a broken
convergent side-end scraper then needs to be investigated to see if this area and its stone tools
provide the solution to the whereabouts of the missing flakes. Although a lot can and will be
learnt in the post excavation process it is absolutely vital and the sine qua non of this type of
work that the archaeologist has extracted the absolute maximum of information from their time
in the field because in most instances when the post-excavation analysis begins it is too late to
go back.
There is no ideal set text for lithic excavation and recording. I suggest you look at some
excavation and project reports and examine the methodology sections. I would recommend site
reports on Abri Pataud, Pincevent, Wallertheim, Swanscombe, Boxgrove, High Lodge and Rob
Hosfield’s work on residual assemblages (http://www.reading.ac.uk/secondarycontexts/archintro.htm and references therein).
15
To conclude today’s lecture we shall introduce the concept of style in the production of lithic
artefacts, considering style in relation to artefact form and function. When can style be said to
appear in the artefact record and how does it manifest itself? Does style become a progressively
more important concept in lithic industries through time?
There will be no practical today as we shall be holding our second and final test.
Bowdler, S and Smith, J., 1999. Identifying style in Australian stone artefacts: an attempt to provide a
theoretical basis. Australian Archaeology 49, 1-6.
Chase, P.G., 2008. Form, function and mental templates in lithic analysis. Paper presented at the symposium
From the Pecos to the Paleolithic: Papers in Honor of Arthur J. Jelinek, Society for American Anthropology
Meetings. Vancouver, BC.
Close, A.E., 1978. The identification of style in lithic artefacts. World Archaeology 10 (2), 223-227.
Hiscock, P., 1985. The need for a taphonomic perspective in stone artefact analysis.
Archaeological Research 2, 82-95.
Queensland
Jelineck, A.J. 1976. Form, function and style in lithic artefacts. In Cultural change and continuity: essays
in honor of James Bennett Griffin (1976). New York: Academic Press. 19-33.
Sackett, J., 1982. Approaches to style in lithic archaeology. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 1
(1), 59-112.
APPENDIX A: POLICIES AND PROCEDURES 2015-16 (PLEASE READ
CAREFULLY)
This appendix provides a short précis of policies and procedures relating to courses. It is not a
substitute for the full documentation, with which all students should become familiar. For full
information on Institute policies and procedures, see the following website:
http://wiki.ucl.ac.uk/display/archadmin
For UCL policies and procedures, see the Academic Regulations and the UCL Academic
Manual:
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/srs/academic-regulations ; http://www.ucl.ac.uk/academic-manual/
GENERAL MATTERS
ATTENDANCE: A minimum attendance of 70% is required. A register will be taken at each
class. If you are unable to attend a class, please notify the lecturer by email.
DYSLEXIA: If you have dyslexia or any other disability, please discuss with your lecturers
whether there is any way in which they can help you. Students with dyslexia should indicate it
on each coursework cover sheet.
COURSEWORK
SUBMISSION PROCEDURES: You must submit a hardcopy of coursework to the Coordinator's pigeon-hole via the Red Essay Box at Reception (or, in the case of first year
undergraduate work, to room 411a) by stated deadlines. Coursework must be stapled to a
completed coversheet (available from IoA website; the rack outside Room 411A; or the
Library). You should put your Candidate Number (a 5 digit alphanumeric code, found on
16
Portico. Please note that this number changes each year) and Course Code on all coursework.
It is also essential that you put your Candidate Number at the start of the title line on
Turnitin, followed by the short title of the coursework (example: YBPR6 Funerary
practices).
LATE SUBMISSION: Late submission is penalised in accordance with UCL regulations,
unless permission for late submission has been granted. The penalties are as follows: i) A
penalty of 5 percentage marks should be applied to coursework submitted 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.
GRANTING OF EXTENSIONS: New UCL-wide regulations with regard to the granting of
extensions for coursework have been introduced with effect from the 2015-16 session. Full
details will be circulated to all students and will be made available on the IoA intranet. Note
that Course Coordinators are no longer permitted to grant extensions. All requests for
extensions must be submitted on a new UCL form, together with supporting documentation,
via Judy Medrington’s office and will then be referred on for consideration. Please be aware
that the grounds that are now acceptable are limited. Those with long-term difficulties should
contact UCL Student Support and Wellbeing to make special arrangements.
TURNITIN: Date-stamping is via Turnitin, so in addition to submitting hard copy, you must
also submit your work to Turnitin by midnight on the deadline day. If you have questions
or problems with Turnitin, contact ioa-turnitin@ucl.ac.uk
RETURN OF COURSEWORK AND RESUBMISSION: You should receive your marked
coursework within four calendar weeks of the submission deadline. If you do not receive your
work within this period, or a written explanation, notify the Academic Administrator. When
your marked essay is returned to you, return it to the Course Co-ordinator within two weeks.
You must retain a copy of all coursework submitted.
17
WORD LENGTH: Essay word-lengths are normally expressed in terms of a recommended
range. Not included in the word count are the bibliography, appendices, tables, graphs,
captions to figures, tables, graphs. You must indicate word length (minus exclusions) on the
cover sheet. Exceeding the maximum word-length expressed for the essay will be penalised in
accordance with UCL penalties for over-length work. There is no penalty for going under the
word limit.
1
5,000
4,500
4,000
3,500
3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
2
4,750-5,250
4,275-4,725
3,800-4,200
3,325-3,675
2,850-3,150
2,375-2,625
1,900-2,100
1,425-1,575
950-1,050
CITING OF SOURCES and AVOIDING PLAGIARISM: Coursework must be expressed
in your own words, citing the exact source (author, date and page number; website address
if applicable) of any ideas, information, diagrams, etc., that are taken from the work of others.
This directive applies to all media (books, articles, websites, images, figures, etc.). Any direct
quotations from the work of others must be indicated as such by being placed between
quotation marks. Plagiarism is a very serious irregularity, which can carry heavy penalties.
It is your responsibility to abide by requirements for presentation, referencing and avoidance
of plagiarism. Make sure you understand definitions of plagiarism and the procedures and
penalties
as
detailed
in
UCL
regulations:
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/currentstudents/guidelines/plagiarism
RESOURCES
MOODLE: Please ensure you are signed up to the course on Moodle. For help with Moodle,
please contact Charlotte Frearson, Room G4 (c.frearson@ucl.ac.uk ).
18