The 'chaîne opératoire' approach to lithic analysis

Roger Grace

Universititet i Oslo, Sosial antropologi institut, postboks 1091, Blindern, 0317 Oslo, Norway. r.d.grace@sai.uio.no

Cite this as: Grace, R. (1997). The `chaîne opératoire approach to lithic analysis. Internet Archaeology, (2). Council for British Archaeology. doi:10.11141/ia.2.3

Summary

Table of Contents | This article is Open Access

Chaîne opératoire, translated as operational sequence, has been described as "the different stages of tool production from the acquisition of raw material to the final abandonment of the desired and/or used objects. By reconstructing the operational sequence we reveal the choices made by ... humans." (Bar-Yosef et al. 1992, 511). Excepting that the individuals in a group have a number of raw materials and techniques available to them; "identification of the most frequently recurring of these choices enables the archaeologist to characterize the technical traditions of the social group" (ibid).

Considering the lack of correlation of the environment with stone tools and/or social structure, the role of 'human choice' has become more important in understanding stone age sites. One way of studying 'human choice' is through the chaîne opératoire approach. The operational sequence is from raw material procurement to primary reduction techniques (the reduction of nodules to cores), secondary reduction (the removal of blanks from cores and the manufacture of tools with retouch), the use of tools and the discard of the artifacts.

schematic diagram of the chaîne opératoire

 The essential difference between this approach and a typological approach is that it encompasses the whole process of the life history of the lithic material, from basic nodules to the remains that archaeologists excavate. As Stringer and Gamble comment, "The typology of stone tools has been largely superseded by models of behaviour that concentrate more on the 'biography' of the implement - how it was made, used, resharpened, recycled, changed shape and finally thrown away." (Stringer & Gamble1993, 143). An extension to this operational chain is the post-depositional disturbance of the site and even excavation strategy, as these will have an effect on our understanding of the human choices that were made throughout the operational sequence. Cultures, in terms of groups that were ethnically or traditionally similar, are expressed by these choices.

Archaeological sites are the product of dynamic interaction between individuals within the social group, rather than static structures to be simply classified by typological lists or by measurement of debitage. This dynamic interaction can be studied with the chaîne opératoire approach that allows for a greater understanding of the complex human behaviour that lies behind the archaeological data.

Go to the article Table of Contents

Features

o This article will particularly appeal to: those interested in lithic analysis and human interaction with stone tools.

o Keywords: archaeology; artefacts; stone tools; lithic analysis; chaîne opératoire; human choice; production

o Find more related publications in the British and Irish Archaeological Bibliography (BIAB)

List of Illustrations

o Figure 1  Map showing sites discussedo Figure 2  Microliths: a) Star Carr; b) Howiesen's Poorto Figure 3  Amount of cortex: a) Farsund; b) Kvernepolleno Figure 4  Amount of cortex: a) Raunds; b) Tronsetao Figure 5  Technological reduction sequenceo Figure 6  Raw materials: a) Farsund; b) Kvernepolleno Figure 7  Flint technology: a) Farsund; b) Kvernepollen; c) Raundso Figure 8  Flint blanks: a) Farsund; b) Kvernepollen; c) Raundso Figure 9   Used flint blanks: a) Farsund; b) Kvernepollen; c) Raundso Figure 10   Functional configuration: Kvernepolleno Figure 11  Functional configuration: Farsundo Figure 12   Tools used for adzing/chopping wood: Three Ways Wharfo Figure 13   All used tools: Three Ways Wharfo Figure 14  Kvernepollen-distribution of quartziteo Figure 15  Kvernepollen-distribution of flinto Figure 16   Farsund distribution of all lithicso Figure 17  Kvernepollen-distribution of used pieceso Figure 18  Farsund-distribution of all lithics and used pieceso Figure 19  chaîne opératoireo Figure 20  chaîne opératoire (Kvernepollen and Farsund compared)

The 'chaîne opératoire' approach to lithic analysis

1. Introduction

Chaîne opératoire, translated as operational sequence, has been described as, "the different stages of tool production from theacquisition of raw material to the final abandonment of the desired and/or used objects. By reconstructing the operational sequence we reveal the choices made by ... humans." (Bar-Yosef et al. 1992, 511).Excepting that the individuals in a group have a number of raw materialsand techniques available to them; "identification of the most frequently recurring of these choices enables the archaeologist to characterize thetechnical traditions of the social group" (ibid). Culture is expressed in these choices that are made throughout the operational sequence. This approach contrasts with the typological approach that concentrates on the end product alone as opposed to the whole process of lithic exploitation.

Typology automatically produces a limited sample as only a very small percentage of pieces are retouched. This is particularly the case with small Norwegian sites. The two sites that will be used as examples are Kvernepollen 9, from the Kollsnes project, situated on the West coast (Nærøy1994), and Farsund (Lundevågen 17 in Ballin& Jensen  1995 )

situated on the southern extremity of the west coast(see Figure 1). Kvernepollen is dated to the early Bronze Age by typological dating because of the presence of bifacial leaf-shaped points   (overflateretusjerte spisser, see Nærøy1994, 198) and Farsund is a Mesolithic site carbon dated to c. 7800BP (Ballin & Jensen 1995, 36). Both sites were totally excavated and the analysis presented here is based on all pieces greater than 10mm in any dimension (i.e. omitting the splinter in Norwegian terminology).

 Figure 1: Map showing sites discussed

At Kvernepollen there are 12 retouched pieces (7 bifacialpoints, 3 sidescrapers , 1 endscraper, 1 backed flake) among the 838 pieces analysed. At Farsund there are 20 retouched pieces(12 scrapers, 4 retouched bladelets, 1 retouched blade, 1 retouched flake,1 piercer, 1 broken tanged piece)among the 1235 pieces analysed. These 'tools' represent entire episodes of occupation. 

Types of tools have been interpreted as being made according to some mentaltemplate so that they were made to a preset form expressing ethnicity. Thereforewhen the same types of tools are found at different sites this representsoccupations by the same culture group. This is the basis of space-time systematics,that is the placing of sites in chronological sequence and geographical location and inferring the relationships between them. 

With the development of New Archaeology and the attempt to express humanbehavior in terms of scientific laws, it became the fashion to relate stonetools to environment. Stone tools became the mechanism by which humans adaptedto changing environmental conditions, following

the model of Darwinian evolutionism,and hopefully following laws similar to genetics in animal species. Though the search for laws of human behavior, following this model, appears to have been abandoned, the assumed correlation between the environment and stone tools continues within the evolutionary paradigm. However this correlation has become increasingly difficult to sustain.

For example, there was the idea of a very rapid change from Upper Palaeolithic industries to Mesolithic industries as a result of the climatic and environmental changes during the transition to the post-glacial period. In order to adapt to these changing environmental conditions, Mesolithic technology was adopted to facilitate hunting in more forested environments. Though environmental adaptation plays a part in the transition from Palaeolithic to Mesolithic it is only one factor. The transition began before the end of the last glaciation as microliths are found in the Magdelanian and the Azilian during the Upper Palaeolithic, although in some areas it did not occur until after these environmental changes took place (epi-Gravettian in Italy). Microliths typologically and technologically indistinguishable from North European types (as found at Star Carr, Clark 1954), are found in Howieson's Poort assemblages (Mellars 1989) at the tip of Southern Africa and dated to at least 40,000 years ago.

 Figure 2: microliths

Also the early sites in Norway have a Mesolithic technology and typology and yet the environment was similar to the late Upper Palaeolithic in southernEurope, which had an Upper Palaeolithic typology. Therefore Mesolithic toolscannot be seen simply as an environmental adaptation.

The ecological approach has been taken a stage further in saying that thoughstone tools may not be correlated with changing environmental conditions,social structure is. This theory, propounded by people such as Gamble(1986), is that prior to the Upper Palaeolithic, human groups did nothave the social structure that would enable them to adapt to

'marginal' environments, whether this was the dense forest of full interglacial periods or the steppe/tundraconditions of colder periods. This would mean that no occupation of Norway took place prior to the post-glacial priod. However, a recent paper (Roebroekset al. 1992) has demonstrated that there are a number of sites occupied in similar marginal conditions during the Middle Palaeolithic, demonstrating that Neanderthals did indeed occupy such areas. Of course subsequent ice action would have eradicatedevidence of such occupation in Norway. One only has to imagine the effect of ice sheets moving over the kinds of sites that are excavated in Norwayto realize that nothing would survive such conditions, unless there were exceptional circumstance.

Considering the lack of correlation of the environment with stone toolsand/or social structure, the role of 'human choice' has become more important in understanding stone age sites. One way of studying 'human choice' is through the chaîne opératoire approach. The operational sequence is from raw material procurement to primary reduction techniques (the reduction of nodules to cores), secondary reduction (the removal of blanks from cores and the manufacture of tools with retouch), the use of tools and the discard of the artifacts.

The essential difference between this approach and a typological approach is that it encompasses the whole process of the life history of the lithic material, from basic nodules to the remains that archaeologists excavate. As Stringer and Gamble comment, "The typology of stone tools has been largely superseded by models of behaviour that concentrate more on the 'biography'of the implement - how it was made, used, resharpened, recycled, changed shape and finally thrown away." (Stringer &Gamble1993, 143). An extension to this operational chain is the post-depositional disturbance of the site and even excavation strategy, as these will have an effect on our understanding of the human choices that were made throughout the operational sequence. Cultures, in terms of groups that were ethnically or traditionally similar, are expressed by these choices.

2. Raw material procurement

Turning to Norwegian sites, raw material procurement is obviously an importantfactor as a variety of raw materials were used and often found on the samesite. These included not just flint but quartz,quartzite, rhyolite, rockcrystal, slate, etc. Someof these non flint materials have specific sources, as in the case of rhyolitecoming from the island of Bølmo in Western Norway. In terms of humanchoice, why did they choose to exploit rhyolite? This involved travellingto the source by boat, and transporting it as nodules or finished productsthroughout its distribution in Western Norway. Is the choice of rhyolitean ethnic marker in that a specific material was associated with a particulartribe? Does

possession of rhyolite proclaim their origin in Western Norwayas opposed to groups originating in Eastern Norway?

It could be argued that there is no choice involved, in that a scarcityof flint determined that rhyolite would be exploited, but why not use, forexample, quartzite, which was much easier to obtain. Looking at the next linkin the chaîne opératoire, does rhyolite have any particularknapping properties that recommend it so that the choice is technological?Does rhyolite have advantages over other materials functionally, in thatit is more efficient than, say, quartzite for specific tasks? This wouldbe revealed by the uses of the tools at that phase of the operational sequence.

There are also choices in the means of raw material exploitation. The materialcan be processed at source, transported as nodules, pre-formed cores oras finished products. The two sites from Kvernepollen and Farsund can becontrasted in this aspect.

Though both are coastal sites, exploiting similarenvironmental resources, there is a difference in that pre-formed coreswere transported into Kvernepollen, whereas nodules were taken onto thesite at Farsund. This can easily be illustrated by looking at the cortical element of the debitage (Fig. 3). The pattern from Farsund is typical ofknapping from cortical nodules. The pattern from Kvernepollen illustratesa lack of cortex that indicates primary reduction took place elsewhere.

Figure 3: amount of cortex a:Farsund, b:Kvernepollen

Also there were 10 primary flakes (flakes with 100% cortex) at Farsund and some of the cores are merely nodules with a few flakes removed. The knapper appears to have been testing the nodules for suitability and in some cases rejected them at that stage. This would suggest that there was a local source of flint. The pattern from Farsund is similar to the English Mesolithic site of Raunds where cortical nodules were also being

knapped (Fig. 4). It could be suggested that these different patterns are a result of scarcity of flint in the later period when Kvernepollen was occupied.

However, the site of Tronsetra, which is dated c.7250 BP, has a similar patternto Kvernepollen. Transporting pre-formed cores would seem a preferable strategyat Tronsetra, which is located in the mountains at c.800m above sea leveland 100 kilometres from the coast.

Figure 4: amount of cortex a: Raunds b: Tronsetra

The significance is that the differences are not necessarily related to time, but also to choice. Other sites (for example from Songa, Telemark, in Coulson 1986) in the mountains have corticalnodules, so not taking them to Tronsetra was from choice, not necessity.

Quartzite was extensively used at Kvernepollen (see Fig.6), whereas it was virtually absent at Farsund,even though quartzite is available locally in both areas and throughoutthe chronological period. Is this from scarcity of flint or from choice? In other words, where flint was available, was it the preferred material over quartzite? Alternatively,if the social dynamics and subsistence strategy involved small, highly mobile,groups (such as on hunting expeditions), the choice was to take flint aspre-formed cores and use quartzite as required, as opposed to occupyingsites where flint was available. This choice of raw material procurementstrategy may be a cultural marker rather than a necessity forced on thepeople by the availability of flint. Sites are found where flint is broughtin as nodules and where quartzite is used (Songa, Telemark), suggestingthat different strategies of raw material procurement are chosen, ratherthan simply determined by available resources.

3. Technology

Technology is divided into primary reduction, secondary reduction and typology. Primary reduction techniques are concerned with the reduction of nodules to cores, the kind of cores produced and the technology involved, for example the use of anvil technique to produce bi-polar cores. Secondary reduction techniques are those involved in producing blanks from cores and include such aspects as blade and flake technology, use of hard or soft hammer and micro-burin technique for the production of microlith blanks. Typology is concerned with tool production and the techniques of retouch, including such aspects as pressure flaking, burin technique and the differences in retouch; both of placement (direct, inverse, etc.), and type (abrupt, invasive, etc.). Figure 5 illustrates this reduction sequence. In the example, primary reduction is by direct percussion to remove the cortex and shape the core. Secondary reduction is by punch technique to produce blades. Tool production is by pressure flaking to produce, for example, a bifacial lanceolate point (see Helskog et al. 1976, 33).

 Figure 5: technological reduction sequence

For a comparison of technologies between Farsund and Kvernepollen, the discussion will be limited to flint because the presence of a significant amount of quartzite at Kvernepollen (17%) as opposed to its absence at Farsund (Fig. 6), affects the overall technology. The technology used with quartzite is affected by the nature of the raw material so that comparison between technologies on different raw materials is less reflective of cultural choices. For example, it is difficult to use blade technology with quartzite, so blade technology is less likely to be 'chosen'.

The technologies used are similar a with a slight preference for blade technology at Farsund (Fig. 6) and both sites have 2crested bladelets   (ryggflekke) demonstrating the deliberate preparation of cores for bladelet production. Carefully made conical and cylindrical bladelet cores   were found at Farsund whereas only core fragments were found at Kvernepollen (complete cores perhaps being removed for later use).

 Figure 6: raw materials- a:Farsundand b:Kvernepollen

Figure 7: flint technology a: Farsund b: Kvernepollen c: Raunds

Blade technology simply means the deliberate production of blades. A 'technological' blade must be at least twice as long as it is wide (i.e. the definition of a blade blank). In addition it must have parallel sides and parallel dorsal ridges and (if the platform is intact) a prepared platform. The parallel dorsal ridges mean that it is within the process of reduction of a number of blades rather than being a 'one off'. Broken pieces, if they have the above technological criteria but are not twice as long as they are wide, are considered as broken 'technological blades'. Flake technology can produce blanks with a length:breadth ratio >2, and

therefore are blade blanks, but if they do not have the above technological features they are a product of flake technology even though they are blade blanks. This avoids using such cumbersome terms as blade-like flakes. Such a piece wouldbe a blade blank made with flake technology. These criteria are appliedby the use of an expert system (Grace 1993),so that the amount of blade technology at different sites is directly comparable, and not influenced by any a priori expectations of what kind of technology should be found at a site of a particular period. Blade production can be carried out in a number of ways; by direct percussion with hard or soft hammer, indirect percussion,punch technique (see Fig. 5),etc. Often a combination of these techniques is used to accommodate the vagaries of individual stone nodules. Technological comparison is limited to secondary reduction techniques because of the lack of complete cores at Kvernepollen and the small numbers of typological tools at both sites (Kvernepollen n =12, Farsund n = 20).

Considering blank types, more blades/bladelets were produced at the Mesolithic site of Farsund as might be expected (Fig. 7).

Figure 8: flint blanks- a: Farsund b: Kvernepollen c: RaundsThis pattern continues when considering which blanks were chosen for use (Fig. 9).

Figure 9: used flint blanks- a: Farsund b: Kvernepollen c: Raunds

The choice here is that though both groups possess the same technological capability, the knappers at Kvernepollen chose to produce proportionately more flakes and show an even more marked preference in choosing flakes for use. Perhaps this sequence merely reflects the time difference between a Mesolithic site and a Bronze Age site following the general trend to produce larger flake tools in the Bronze Age, rather than the production and use of blades/bladelets in the Mesolithic.

However, the Raunds Mesolithic site has a very similar technological configuration to Kvernepollen (Fig. 7), although the Raunds Mesolithic site uses the same technology as Farsund to produce more bladelets (Fig. 8). When choosing which blanks to use the people at Raunds chose blades (as opposed to bladelets) and flakes,that is, the larger blanks in a similar way to the people at Kvernepollen, but different to the people at Farsund who choose relatively more bladelets as opposed to flakes to use (Fig. 9).

So though all three sites have similar technologies they use those technologies in different ways to produce different blanks and then choose different blanks to use. These choices are not related to chronological period.

It has been assumed that technologies developed in chronological sequence. In the post-glacial period, the Mesolithic is considered synonymous with bladelet production, followed by flake production in the Neolithic and Bronze Ages. The example of Kvernepollen demonstrates that blade production was also carried out in the Bronze Age as well as in the Mesolithic. Also flake technology is used throughout the post-glacial period. For the three sites mentioned here, the relative amount of flake technology remains consistent (Farsund 30%, Kvernepollen 30%, Raunds 31%). There may be a general trend towards flake production but a simple linear technological sequence is not the case.

4. Function

The next stage in the operational sequence is site function, including the specific use of tools, both of motion and worked materials (scraping bone,whittling wood, etc.), the identification of activities (hunting, hide processing,etc.), and the interpretation of site type (hunting camp, home base, etc.).

At Kvernepollen, 21 pieces had recognisable use-wear and Farsund had 48. In terms of site use it is interesting that there is a difference between Farsund and Kvernepollen even though both sites are coastal and exploiting similar natural resources. Kvernepollen has a limited range of activities (Fig. 10), consisting of processing wood and fish. It is suggested that the projectile points were not used in conjunction with the site (i.e. it isnot a kill site), because of the distribution of the projectile points (see section 5). Farsund has a wide range of activities including processing woodand fish but also working bone, antler, hide and one case of scraping shell.This produces a different functional configuration (see Grace 1990), to Kvernepollen (Fig. 11).

 Figure 10 Functional configuration:Kvernepollen

 Figure 11: Functional configuration: FarsundTools are displayed as being used on soft, medium and hard materials foreach major motion category.

Farsund is interpreted as a temporary home base because of the representation of a spread of activities. From this and the size of the site it was probably occupied by an extended family group. Kvernepollen represents a small group, possibly only one or two individuals, occupying the site for a short periodduring a hunting expedition.

5. Discard

The final stage is the discard of the material seen in knapping concentrations and clearance of areas with accompanying 'dump' areas. Curation of tools would be included at this stage in that the removal of material from the site, for use elsewhere, constitutes a form of discard.

By incorporating use-wear analysis into the chaîne opératoire, activity areas can be located from the discard of used tools, These activity areas can be used to interpret the use of space on the site which can indicate such things as social differentiation within the group. For example, the location of specific activity areas is a prerequisite for the assignment of gender roles. With undisturbed sites such activity areas can be isolated. The early Mesolithic site of Three Ways Wharf in England has a concentration of tools used for adzing/chopping wood (Fig. 12), and can only be an activity area as the pieces used for adzing/chopping wood are of various types consisting of: 1 broken axe, 2 axe/adze re-sharpening flakes, 8 flake end scrapersand 1 blade end scraper.

 Figure 12: tools used for adzing/chopping wood:Three Ways Wharf (Key: shaded areas are unexcavated; numbers refer to metre grid squares; North is vertical to drawing)

Other tools of these types are distributed throughout the site and either have other functions or are unused, so that the concentration is only related to the activity of adzing and chopping wood. The adzing/chopping wood concentration is clearly separate when seen in contrast to the distribution of all used pieces from the site (Fig. 13 and see Lewis, in press).

 Figure 13: all used tools: Three Ways Wharf (Key: shaded areas are unexcavated; numbers refer to metre grid squares; North is vertical to drawing).

The spatial distribution of material at Kvernepollen shows clear concentrations of knapping debris with a separation between the quartzite (Fig. 14) and flint (Fig. 15), possibly representing separate knapping episodes.

 Figure 14: Kvernepollen-distribution of quartzite

 Figure 15: Kvernepollen-distribution of flint

These concentrations imply that no clearance has taken place. The Farsund site has no such concentrations (Fig. 16), which could be due either to post-depositional movement or by being spread about by prehistoric activity, which would imply longer occupation than the 'undisturbed' concentrations at Kvernepollen.

 Figure 16: Farsund distribution of all lithics (Key: numbers refer to metre grid squares; North is vertical to the drawing; there were no features)

The most striking aspect of the distribution of the used pieces at Kvernepollen is that the majority of the projectile points are outside the main concentration, some being several metres away (Fig. 17).

 Uses of stone tools: p = proj. point ? = unidentified material w = wood f = fish Figure 17: Kvernepollen-distribution of used pieces

The 'discarded' nature of the projectile point distribution, with the absence of butchery, suggests re-tooling. That is, replacement of projectile points and the repair and/or manufacture of arrow shafts. The presence of considerable flint knapping perhaps represents the manufacture of new projectile points in flint that were then taken away as new arrows from the site. This would partially explain the amount of knapping and the lack of used pieces. The remaining used pieces are near the centre of the concentration adjacent to the hearth and probably constitute a single activity area.

At Farsund there is no significant difference between the distribution of the used pieces and the distribution of all lithics (Fig. 18).

Uses of stone tools: p = proj. point ? = unidentified material w = wood f = fish a = antler h=hide m=meat b=boneFigure 18: Farsund-distribution of all lithics and used pieces (Key: numbers refer to metre grid squares; North is vertical to the drawing; there were no features)

6. Conclusions

The 'chaîne opératoire' approach provides a more complete picture of differences and similarities among human groups, rather than concentrating on single elements. With these sites, typological analysis results in a very small data base, technology shows no significant difference, and spatial analysis is difficult to compare because of the lack of patterns at Farsund. However, by combining all these elements within the framework of the operational sequence a greater understanding of the cultural differences can be sought.

Figure 19 summarizes the 'chaîne opératoire' approach. The four basic links are raw material procurement, technology (separated into primary and secondary reduction and typology), use and discard.

Figure 19: chaîne opératoire

However the sequence includes feed-back loops in that, for example, the intended use of tools will affect the choice of technology and raw material. If the intent was to make projectile points for hunting this could influence the choice of technology. For example, tanged A points (see Helskog et al. 1976, 26), are made on blades, so that blade technology would have been chosen to produce the suitable blanks. Also function need not be limited to utilitarian use. If the intention was to make a flint copy of a bronze dagger   for a status or ritual function, the procurement of raw material might be by trade, in order to obtain large pieces of good quality flint with which to make such a dagger. Thus the intended function of the tool can influence technology and the method of raw material procurement.

The dotted lines in Figure 19 indicate the kind of interpretations that can be made from the various elements of the operational sequence. Figure 20 indicates and compares the interpretations from Kvernepollen and Farsund.

Figure 20:chaîne opératoire (Kvernepollen and Farsund compared)

These differences may reflect varying social structures and subsistence strategies employed during different periods. If one assumes a higher population in the Bronze Age then a pattern emerges of larger base sites from which small groups (or individuals) go out on hunting/fishing expeditions, as opposed to small family groups moving around together. These different strategies are chosen as the preferred means of exploiting similar environmental resources, rather than being adaptations to different environments. Basing ethnic or chronological divisions on typology and/or technology alone is a crude device that ignores much of the evidence of choice that reflects the social structure of human groups. Archaeological sites are the product of dynamic interaction between individuals within the social group, rather than static structures to be simply classified by typological lists or by measurement of debitage. This dynamic interaction can be studied with the chaîne opératoire approach which allows for a greater understanding of the complex human behaviour that lies behind the archaeological data.

The analysis presented in this paper is the product of the author's own research and does not necessarily agree with the excavators of the sites. The methods used for the lithic analysis are explained fully in Grace 1989   and Grace 1993.

Glossary 1 - Types

Axe

Definition and terminology in accordance with Andersen et al. 1975: 16-19. The surface of most core axes is fully covered by negative removals.Core axes may be made on flakes and have parts of the flake's original surface, but if so, this is not part of the edge of the artifact. In the opposite case the artifact is classified as a flake axe. The edges of core axes must be made by edge removals and/or removals from the edge towards the neck.

Dagger

Daggers are often made to resemble bronze daggers - and probably used as ritual or status objects rather than as tools or weapons. Evidence from use-wear analysis suggests this (see Grace 1990).

Endscrapers

Scrapers that are made on the end of a flake or blade. The retouched end may be the proximal end or the distal end, but the vast majority of end scrapers are made on the distal end, as this does not require the removal of the bulb of percussion.End scrapers are further defined by the shape of the retouched end, being either concave, straight or convex.

When an end scraper has been made on a flake that is wider than it is long, it is sometimes referred to as a transverse scraper.

convex end scraper

An end scraper which has a retouched end that is convex in form.

endscrapers on flakes

 endscraper on a blade

Side scrapers

Scrapers that are made on the side of a flake or blade. The retouched side may be the left edge or the right edge, or even on both in which case it would be called a double side scraper. Side scrapers are further defined by the shape of the retouched edge, being either concave, straight or convex. Side scrapers may be made on blanks that are blades or flakes.

Bifacially retouched points

Bifacially retouched points are projectile points that are retouched on both surfaces, often with invasive retouch covering most of both surfaces. They are divided into types by shape, e.g. bifacial leaf-shaped point,bifacial, triangular point, bifacial lanceolate point. They may be tanged or have barbs, or both, as in a bifacial barbed and tanged point.

bifacial leaf-shaped point

Bifacial leaf-shaped points are bifacial projectile points that are retouched on both surfaces and shaped like a leaf.

Tanged point

Tanged points are projectile points that have a tang at one end to facilitate hafting. A tang is made by retouching one or, more usually, both edges, in order to create a projection that is thinner than the width of the blank. This projection is then fitted into the arrowshaft.

Tanged point - A1 are projectile points that are made from naturally pointed blade blanks that have little or no retouch, except for the tang which is created by direct retouch (see Helskog et al. 1976: 26)

Glossary 2 - Materials

Slate

Colour: Black and shades of blue, green, brown and buff.Texture: fine-grained.Structure: By definition, slates are characterized by a single, perfect cleavage (slaty cleavage), enabling it to be split into parallel-sided slabs. On the cleavage surfaces sedimentary structures such as bedding and graded bedding can often be seen. Fossils may be preserved but are invariably distorted. Folds are often apparent in the field.Mineralogy: Too fine-grained to distinguish with the naked eye. Pyrite porphyroblasts often occur, usually as cubes.Field relations: Slates are produced by low-grade regional metamorphism of pelithic sediments (shales, mudstones) or fine-grained tuffs. They may be associated with other metamorphic sedimentary or volcanic rocks Hamilton et al. (1976: 150)

 slate point

Quartzite

Colour: White, grey, reddish.Texture: Medium-grained; usually of a granoblastic texture. Structure: Usually massive but primary sedimentary features may be preserved, such as bedding, graded bedding or current bedding. Mineralogy: Essentially composed of tightly interlocking grains of quartz. A little feldspar or mica may also be evident. White varieties are distinguished from marble by their greater hardness.Field relations: Quartzites are metamorphosed quartz sandstones and are found in association with other metamorphosed sedimentary rocks such as phyllite, schist and marble (Hamilton et al.1976: 188).

 quartzite flakes

Quartz

Quartz is composed mainly by SiO2, and its structure is crystalline. Quartz occurs in many varieties. Rock crystal   is colourless quartz and sub-varieties include ghost quartz in which growth stages are marked by inclusions, and rutilated quartz (sagenite), which contains hair-like rods of rutile. Amethyst is purple; milk quartz is white; rose quartz is rose-red or pink, and is usually found massive rather than as crystals. Citrine is

yellow and transparent and resembles topaz. Smoky quartz (sometimes called cairngorm) is smoky brown to nearly black. Some quartzes contain impurities that not only impart a colour but render them opaque. Ferruginous quartz is an example of this and is commonly brick-red or yellow.

Distinguishing features: Crystal form, conchoidal fracture, vitreous lustre, hardness.Occurrence: Quartz is one of the most widely distributed minerals (Hamilton et al. 1976: 128   ).

Rock crystal

Rock crystal is quartz in crystalline form and is translucent. It has conchoidal fracture and therefore ideal for making tools.

Flint

Colour: Blue-grey, grey, to nearly black when fresh, but weathers to a whiteish, powdery crust (patina). Texture: Very fine-grained and smooth; conchoidal fracture. Rough on weathered surface. Structure: Flint and chert form rounded nodules of widely differing forms, but chert also forms massive beds. Flint nodules are often hollow

and may contain a fossil, such as a sponge or echinoid. Mineralogy : Composed of silica, mainly the variety chalcedony. Some authors distinguish flint and chert compositionally but the differences, if any, are slight. Field relations: Flint and chert nodules occur typically in limestone and chalk. They are usually patchily distributed but often concentrated along one bedding plane. Their origins are not fully understood; but some appear to be secondary replacements of the host rock, whilst others may represent primary deposition on the sea bed of colloidal silica Hamilton et al. 1976: 204).

Glossary 3 - techniques

direct percussion

Direct percussion or simple percussion takes place when the hammer, which can be hard or soft, is applied directly to the piece being worked. This does not necessarily result in rough or crude flaking. As has been demonstrated by experimentation a skilled knapper can produce well-formed and even elaborate artifacts using this production technique (example, Newcomer 1975: 99-101).

 

indirect percussion

Indirect percussion is a technique which involves striking a punch-like object with a hammer or percussor. The tip of the punch is placed on the platform of the core at the point intended to receive the blow. It is important to keep the core immobile during the striking process. When using this technique it is also advisable to prepare the core platform to prevent the punch from slipping.

"In indirect percussion a punch of antler or wood or other hard material is placed on the platform and struck with a hammer, instead of striking the stone directly with the hammer. This allows the force to be directed very precisely, an important factor in making blades, which require a carefully prepared core with an even platform and regular ridges for the blades to follow." Whittaker 1994: 33.

 

pressure flaking

Pressure flaking is the process of forming an artifact by removing surplus material, in the form of chips and flakes, by a pressing force rather than by percussion (Crabtree 1982:49).

"Pressure flaking involves removing flakes from the edge of a tool by pressing against it, usually with an antler or bone tool, instead of striking it. Pressure flaking is generally used for the final retouch on tools that were begun by other techniques." (Whittaker 1994: 33).

hard hammer

"Hard hammer percussion - that is, striking the tool with another stone to remove flakes." (Whittaker 1994: 27).

The following are indications of the use of a hard hammer or percussor (see Ohnuma & Bergman 1983):

o unlipped and often large butt and pronounced bulb of percussion.o a clear cone and marked point of percussion.o pronounced conchoidal fracture marks on the bulb.o clear concentric percussion rings and fissures.

soft hammer

The following are indications of the use of a soft hammer or percussor: Owen (1988: 218; see Ohnuma & Bergman 1983).

o vague cones of percussion and diffuse bulbs of percussion.o narrow butts which are often punctiform or with a lip. Lipped butts

have a small overhang on the ventral surface at the edge of the butt

It should also be noted that a hard hammer can become softened from repeated use until it has the same qualities as a soft hammer.

Glossary 4 - Cores

Cylindrical bladelet core

A cylindrical blade core has two opposing platforms. One end often serves as the main platform for the removal of blades - the opposing platform is frequently used only to straighten the face of the core and correct knapping errors. Removals are taken from around the full circumference of the platform. Frequently, preparation flakes are removed from the platform to adjust the angle of detachment (Coulson 1986 21).Although this core type is considered to be primarily for the manufacture of blades, numbers of flakes are also produced during the core preparation and correction stages.

Crested blade

A straight ridge is necessary to guide the removal of the first blade from a core. If a natural ridge is not present, one can be produced by flaking on the core face. Such a ridge is created by extensive flaking perpendicular to the length axis of the core. The removal of this primary ridge blade, or crested blade, leaves straight scars on the core face which serve as guides for further blades (see Owen 1982, 3).

Crested blades have also been described as follows:

"First blade removed from a core. Bears bi-directional flake scars on the dorsal surface, the result of the worker preparing a ridge to guide the blade" (Crabtree 1982,, 41).

BibliographyA B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z

A

Andersen, S., Cullberg, C., Rex, K., og Wigforss,J. 1975 Sorteringsschema för kärn- och skivyksor av flinta. Antikvarisktarkiv 58. Stockholm

B

Ballin, T. B. & Jensen, O. L. 1995 Farsundprosjektet- stenalderbopladser på Lista. Varia 29. UniversitetetsOldsaksamling

Bar-Yosef, O., Vandermeersch, B., Arensburg,B., Belfer-Cohen, A., Goldberg, P., Laville, H., Meignen, L., Rak, Y., Speth,J. D., Tchernov, E.,

Tillier, A-M., and Weiner, S. 1992. The Excavations in Kebara Cave, Mt. Carmel. Current Anthropology 33, no. 5, 497-550. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/204112

C

Clark, J. G .D. 1954Excavations at Star Carr. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge

Coulson, S. 1986Refitted flint nodules from Songa, Telemark. Universitetets Oldsaksamling Årbok 1984/1985. Oslo 1986

Crabtree, Don E. 1982.An Introduction to Flint working. Occasional Papers of the Idaho Museum of Natural History, Number 28. Second Edition.. Pocatello, Idaho.

G

Gamble, C. 1986The Palaeolithic settlement of Europe. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press.

Grace, R. 1989. Interpreting the Function of Stone Tools: The quantification and computerisation of microwear analysis. British Archaeological Reports International Series 474.

Grace, R., 1990. The limitations and applicationsof functional analysis. in The Interpretative Possibilities of Microwear Studies. Proceedings ofthe International Conference on Lithic Use-wear Analysis, 15th-17th February1989, (eds. Gräslund, B., Knutsson, H., Knutsson, K., and Taffinder,J.) Aun, 14, 9-14.

Grace, R. 1993. The use of expert systems in lithic analysis. Traces et fonction: les gestesretrouvés' Eraul 50, vol. 2, 389-400. Liege 1993

H

Hamilton, W.R., Woolley, A.R., Bishop, A.C. 1976 The Hamlyn Guide to Minerals, Rocks and Fossils. Hamlyn. London

Helskog, K., Indrelid, S., and Mikkelsen, E. 1976. Morfologisk klassifisering av slåtte steinartefakter. Særtykkfra Universitetets Oldsaksamling årbok 1972-1974 Helskog et al. 1976

L

Lewis, J.S.C. in press.A late glacial and early post glacial site at Three Ways Wharf, Uxbridge,Middx, England.

M

Mellars, P. 1989Major Issues in the Emergence of Modern Humans. Current Anthropology 30no. 3, 349-385

N

Newcomer, M. H., 1975"Punch Technique" and Upper Palaeolithic Blades in Lithic Technology:Making and Using Stone Tools. World Anthropology, (ed. Earl Swanson), Mouton Publishers, The Hague, pp.97-102.

Nærøy, A. J. 1994 Troll-Prosjektet: Arkeologiske undersøkelser på Kollsnes, ØygardenK,Hordaland, 1989-1992. Arkeologiske Rapporter 19. Arkeologisk Institutt,Universitetet i Bergen

O

Ohnuma, Katsuhiko and Bergman, Christopher. 1983 Experimental Studies in the Determination of Flaking Mode. Bulletin of the Institute of Archaeology 19 1982, 161-170. London

Owen, Linda, 1982 An Analysis of Experimental Breaks on Flint Blades and Flakes. Studiea PraehistoricaBelgica 2, 1982, pp. 77-87.

Owen, Linda R.,1988 Blade and Microblade Technology. Selected Assemblages from the North AmericanArctic and Upper Paleolithic of Southwest Germany. British Archaeological Reports International Series441, Oxford

R

Roebroeks, W., Conard, N. J., and van Kolfschoten,T. 1992 Dense Forests, Cold Steppes, and Palaeolithic Settlement of Northern Europe. Current Anthropology 33, no.

5,

S

Stringer, C. & Gamble, C. 1993 In Search of the Neanderthals. Thames and Hudson.

W

Whittaker, J.C. 1994. Flint knapping: making and understanding stone tools. University of TexasPress, Austin.