INSTITUTE OF ARCHAEOLOGY
MA COURSE (15 credits): ARCLG113
PREHISTORIC STONE ARTEFACT ANALYSIS
COURSE HANDBOOK 2017
THURSDAY 10 am – 1 pm
Room 410 Institute of Archaeology
Co-ordinator: Dr. Norah Moloney
Email: [email protected] Lithics Laboratory, Room 204A
Telephone: 020-7679-4928
INTRODUCTION
This series of lectures, practical work and discussion provides an introduction to basic and
advanced analytical techniques and addresses some of the methodological and interpretative
approaches used in the study of lithic assemblages. It is twofold in its approach: 1) it addresses
technologies characteristic of the Old Stone Age/Palaeolithic, 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 struck stone artefacts.
Course schedule
Thursday 10 am – 1 pm
Week 1: January 12th
Methods of analysis
Raw material procurement
Practical
Norah Moloney
Week 2: January 19th
Pre-Oldowan and Early lithic technologies
Tomos Proffitt
Week 3: January 26th
Middle Stone Age and Middle Palaeolithic lithic technologies
Norah Moloney
Week 4: February 2nd
Upper Palaeolithic and Mesolithic lithic technologies
Practical
Week 5: February 9th
Approaches to the illustration of stone tools
Practical
Week 6: February 16th
Matthew Pope
Angeliki Theodoropoulou /
Norah Moloney
READING WEEK
Week 7: February 23
Neolithic lithic technologies
Practical
Ulrike Sommer
Week 8: March 2nd
Ground stone technologies
Practical
Ulrike Sommer
Week 9: March 9th
The role of refitting in stone tool analysis
Carmen Martin Ramos
Week 10: March 16th
Functional analysis of stone tools
Norah Moloney
Week 11: March 23rd
Experimental approaches to stone tools
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.
Holdaway, S. and Stern, N. 2004. A Record in Stone: the study of Australia's Flaked Stone
Artefacts. Melbourne: Museum Victoria; Canberra: Aboriginal Studies Press
Inizan, M.-L., Roche, H. and Tixier, J. 1992. Technology of Knapped Stone. Meudon:
CREP. www.mae.u-paris10.fr/prehistoire/IMG/PDF/Technology_of_Knapped_Stone.pdf
Odell, G.H. 2004. Lithic Analysis. New York/London: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.
Shea, John, J. 2013. Stone tools in the Paleolithic and Neolithic Near East. A Guide. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press. PDF AVAILABLE ONLINE
Whittaker, J.C. 1994. Flintknapping: Making and Understanding Stone tools. AustIn University of
Texas Press.
The following articles give a good overview of, and references about the topic:
Andrefsky, W. Jr. 2009. The analysis of stone tool procurement, production and maintenance.
Journal of Archaeological Research 17, 65-103.
Odell, G. H. 2000. Stone Tool Research at the end of the Millennium: procurement and technology.
Journal of Archaeological Research 9(1), 45-100.
METHOD OF ASSESSMENT AND COURSEWORK
Turnitin password: IoA1617(case sensitive)
Turnitin ID: 3225948
This course is assessed by means of a short (950-1050 words) essay and a longer (2850-3150
words) lithic report, which together total 3,800-4,200 words (see below for further details).
TEACHING METHODS
This 15 credit course is taught through a series of lectures, practical handling and discussion.
Classes will follow a two-part format of lecture and practical + discussion.
WORKLOAD
There will be 10 hours of lectures and 20 hours of practical handling and discussion for this course.
Students are expected to spend about 60 hours undertaking background reading for the lectures,
and about 60 hours in preparation for coursework, adding up to a total workload of 150 hours for
the course
3|Page
PREREQUISITES
It is useful, but not essential, to have some background experience in the study and handling of
lithic artefacts (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 Stone Age/Palaeolithic
and Neolithic/Bronze Age 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
• The ability to apply acquired knowledge of a topic
COURSEWORK - ASSESSMENT TASKS
The course will be assessed by a short essay of 950-1050 words and a longer lithic report of 28503150 words. The essay accounts for 25% of the final mark and the lithic report accounts for 75% of
the final mark
The short essay should be a critical evaluation and discussion of one of the topics covered in the
course.
The lithic report will be on an assemblage of lithics (a sample of 75) from the IoA collections. A
selection of assemblages will be available from which you can choose one to study. 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. It
is advisable to start work on the practical analysis of the report as soon as you can. If you are
unclear about the report or have any other questions you can discuss them with Norah Moloney.
The nature of the assignments and possible approaches to them will be discussed in class, in
advance of the submission deadline. However, if students are unclear about the nature of an
assignment, they should discuss this with the Course-Co-ordinator (Norah Moloney).
4|Page
Students are not permitted to re-write and re-submit essays in order to try to improve their marks.
However, students may be permitted, in advance of the deadline for a given assignment, to submit
for comment a brief outline of the assignment.
SUBMISSION OF ESSAYS IS BY 5PM ON FRIDAY MARCH 24TH 2017.
SUGGESTED DATE OF SUBMISSION OF LITHIC REPORT IS CLASS BY 5PM ON FRIDAY
MAY 2ND2017, BUT THIS WILL BE DISCUSSED IN CLASS.
In the 2016-2917 session penalties for overlength work will be as follows::
• 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 five 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
figures and tables, abstract, preface, acknowledgements, bibliography, lists of references,
captions and contents of tables and figures, appendices, and wording of citations in the text.
CHECK WORD COUNT
Lithic report
Commentary
Word count 3000 1000 Range 2850-3150 950-1050 Penalties will only be imposed if you exceed the upper figure in the range. There is no
penalty for using fewer words than the lower figure in the range: the lower figure is simply for
your guidance to indicate the sort of length that is expected.
In the 2016-2917 session penalties for overlength work will be as follows:
•
•
For work that exceeds the specified maximum length by less than10% the mark will
be reduced by five percentage marks; but the penalised mark will not be reduced
below the pass mark, assuming the work merited a pass.
For work that exceeds the specified maximum length by 10% or more, the mark will
be reduced by 10 percentage points, but the penalised mark will not be reduced
below the pass mark, assuming the work merited a Pass.
Submission procedures
Coursework submission procedures
• All coursework must normally be submitted both as hard copy and electronically.
(The only exceptions are bulky portfolios and lab books which are normally submitted
as hard copy only.)
5|Page
•
•
•
You should staple the appropriate colour-coded IoA coversheet (available in the IoA
library and outside room 411a) to the front of each piece of work and submit it to the
red box at the Reception Desk (or room 411a in the case of Year 1 undergraduate
work)
All coursework should be uploaded to Turnitin by midnight on the day of the
deadline. This will date-stamp your work. It is essential to upload all parts of
your work as this is sometimes the version that will be marked.
Instructions are given below.
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 as a
Word doc., docx. or PDF document, and that you have the Class ID for the course
(available from the course handbook) and enrolment password (this is IoA1617 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.turnitinuk.com/en_gb/login
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 6 months,
unlike your UCL password). In addition, you will be asked for a “Class ID” and a
“Class enrolment password” (see point 1 above).
6.
Once you have created an account you can just log in at
http://www.turnitinuk.com/en_gb/login and enrol for your other classes without
going through the new user process again. Simply click on ‘Enrol 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?),
13.
Click “Upload”. When the upload is finished, you will be able to see a textonly version of your submission.
14
Click on “Submit”
.
If you have problems, please email the IoA Turnitin Advisers on [email protected],
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 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 Coordinator that you had
attempted to submit the work before the deadline
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)
6|Page
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.
7|Page
TEACHING SCHEDULE
Classes will be held from on Thursday from 10 am to 1 pm in room 410.
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. Books are in the Institute of Archaeology
Library. 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: January 12th
METHODS OF ANALYSIS + RAW MATERIAL STUDIES
Norah Moloney (UCL)
Methods of Analysis
In the first part of 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.
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.
Inizan, M.-L., Roche, H. and Tixier, J. 1992. Technology of Knapped Stone. Meudon:
CREP. www.mae.u-paris10.fr/prehistoire/IMG/PDF/Technology_of_Knapped_Stone.pdf
Odell, G.H. 2004. Lithic Analysis (ch. 3, 45-74, Tool manufacture). New York/London: Kluwer
Academic/Plenum.
Shea, John, J. 2013. Stone tools in the Paleolithic and Neolithic Near East. A Guide. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press. Pdf available online
de la Torre, I. et al. 2014. Archaeological field techniques in Stone Age sites. Some case studies.
Treballs d’Arqueologia 20, 21-40.
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.
Whittaker, J.C. 1994. Flintknapping: Making and Understanding Stone tools (ch. 2. Flintknapping:
basic principles). AustIn University of Texas Press.
8|Page
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.
Cotterell, B. And Kamminga, J. 1987. The formation of flakes. American Antiquity 52(4), 675-708.
Crabtree, D. 1967. Notes on experiments in flintknapping: 4. Tools used for making flaked stone
artefacts. Tebiwa 10(1), 60-71.
Dibble, H. 1980. A comparative study of basic edge angle measurement techniques. American
Antiquity 45, 857-865.
Dibble, H. and Pelcin, A. 1995. The effect of hammer mass and velocity on flake mass. Journal of
Archaeological Science 22, 429-439.
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.
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.
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.
Harrison, R. 2010. Stone tools. In D. Hicks and M.C. Beaudry (eds), The Oxford Handbook of
Material Culture Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kuhn, S. 1990. A geometric index of reduction for unifacial tools. Journal of Archaeological
Science 17, 583-593.
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.
Reti, J.S. 2016. Quantifying Oldowan stone tool production at Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania. Plos One
1-24.
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.
Torre, I. de la & Mora, R. 2009. Remarks on the current theoretical and methodological approaches
to the study of early technological strategies in Eastern Africa. In E. Hovers and D. R. Braun, (eds.)
Interdisciplinary Approaches to the Oldowan. Dordrecht: Springer, 15-24. Pdf available online
Raw material studies
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 cover strategies of raw material acquisition and use
9|Page
by Early hominins in Africa, modern humans of the Upper Palaeolithic in central Spain, and
later periods in Egypt.
Reading
Bloxam, E. 2011. Ancient quarries in mind: pathways to a more accessible significance.
World Archaeology Vol 43(2), 149-166.
Edmonds, M. 1999. Ancestral Geographies of the Neolithic: Landscapes, Monuments and
Memory. London: Routledge.
Harmand, S. 2009. Patterns of lithic raw material procurement and transformation during the Middle
Paleolithic in Western Europe. In Adams, B. and Blades, B. (eds), Lithic Materials and Paleolithic
Societies. Chichester: Blackwell Publishing, 15-24. (Pdf available online)
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.
Stout, D. et al. 2005. Raw material selectivity of the earliest stone toolmakers at Gona, Afar,
Ethiopia. Journal of Human Evolution 48(4), 365-380.
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.
Turq, A. et al. 2013. The fragmented character of Middle Palaeolithic stone tool technology.
Journal of Human Evolution 65, 641-655.
Vermeersch, P.M. et al. 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.
World Archaeology 2011 volume 2. Papers in this volume address aspects of quarrying and mining
Further reading
Adams, B. and Blades, B. (eds) 2009. Lithic Materials and Paleolithic Societies. Chichester:
Blackwell Publishing. PDF available online
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)
Neanderthals and Modern Humans Met. Tübingen: Kerns Verlag, 165-188.
When
Andrefsky, W. Jr. 1994. Raw-material availability and the organization of technology. American
Antiquity 59(1), 21-34.
Binford, L.R. and O’Connell, J.F. 1984. An Alywara day: the stone quarry. Journal of
Anthropological Research 40, 406-32.
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.
10 | P a g e
Bloxam, E. 2006. Miners and Mistresses: Middle Kingdom mining on the margins. Journal of
Social Archaeology 6(2), 277-303
Boivin, N. 2004. From Veneration to Exploitation: Human Engagement with the Mineral
World. In N. Boivin and M.A. Owoc (eds), Soils, Stones and Symbols: Cultural Perceptions
of the Mineral World London: UCL Press, 1-29.
Bradley, R. and Edmonds, M. 1993. Interpreting the Axe Trade. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
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
Carter, T. et al. 2006. A new programme of obsidian characterization at Çatalhöyük, Turkey.
Journal of Archaeological Science 33, 893-909.
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
Crabtree, D. 1967. Notes on experiments in flintknapping: the flintknapper’s raw materials.
Tebiwa 10, 8-24.
Edmonds, M. 1995. Stone Tools and Society. London: Batsford.
Ericson, J.E. and Purdy, B.A. 1984. Prehistoric Quarries and Lithic Production.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Eren, M.I. et al. 2014. The role of raw material differences in stone tool shape variation: An
experimental assessment. Journal of Archaeological Science 49, 472-487.
Féblot-Augustins, J. 2009. Revisiting European Upper Paleolithic raw material transfers: the
demise of the cultural ecological paradigm? In Adams, B. and Blades, S (eds), Lithic Materials and
Paleolithic Societies. Chichester: Blackwell Publishing, 25-46.
Ford, A. et al. 1997. Obsidian procurement and distribution in the Tikal-Yaxha intersite area of the
central Maya lowlands. Ancient Mesoamerica 8, 101-110.
Gale, N. 1981. Mediterranean obsidian source characterisation by strontium isotope analysis.
Archaeometry 23, 41-51.
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
Healen, D.M. 1997. Pre-Hispanic quarrying in the Ucareo-Zinapecuaro obsidian source area.
Ancient Mesoamerica 8, 77-100.
Inizan, M.-L., Roche, H. and Tixier, J. 1992. Technology of Knapped Stone. (ch. 1. Knapped Stone,
15-21). Meudon: CREP.
www.mae.u-paris10.fr/prehistoire/IMG/PDF/Technology_of_Knapped_Stone.pdf
Jones, G.T. et al. 2003. Lithic source use and Paleoarchaic foraging territories in the Great Basin.
American Antiquity 68, 5-38.
11 | P a g e
Knecht, H. 1997. Projectile Technology. London: Plenum Press.
Larsson, L. 2000. The passage of axes: fire transformation of flint objects in the Neolithic of
southern Sweden. Antiquity 74, 602-610.
Luedtke, B. E. 1992. An Archaeologist’s Guide to Chert and Flint. Los Angeles: Institute of
Archaeology, University of California, Archaeological Research Tools 7.
Meignen, L. et al. 2009. Patterns of lithic raw material procurement and transformation during the
Middle Paleolithic in Western Europe. In Adams, B and Blades B. Lithic Materials in Paleolithic
Societies. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 15-24.
Mitchell, D. R. 1995. Classic period Hohokam obsidian studies in Southern Arizona. Journal of
Field Archaeology 22, 291-304.
Russell, M. 2001. Flint Mines in Neolithic Britain. Oxford: Tempus Publishing.
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.
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.
Vermeersch, P. et al. 1984. 33,000-yr old chert mining site and related Homo in the Egyptian Nile
Valley. Nature, 309 (5967), 342-344.
Week 2: January 19th
PRE-OLDOWAN AND EARLY LITHIC TECHNOLOGIES
Tomos Proffitt
We will discuss the archaeological evidence for the earliest stone tool technology in the Early Stone
Age of East Africa known from 3.3 to c. 0.25 Ma. These include the newly discovered Lomekwi
technology from West Turkana (Kenya), Mode 1 or Oldowan flake production and Mode 2 or Early
Acheulean shaping of Large Cutting Tools. We will consider the presence, nature and meaning of
variation during this time period.
This will be followed by a discussion of current theories on the initial emergence of hominin stone
tool technology and what role, if any, current studies of modern tool-using primates have in
expanding our understanding of the emergence of hominin technology and behavioural patterns.
Reading for the emergence of stone tool technology
Arroyo, A. et al. 2016. Nut cracking tools used by captive chimpanzees (Pan troglogytes) and their
comparison with Early Stone Age percussive artefacts from Olduvai Gorge. PLoS ONE 11(11):
e0166788.doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0166788
Carvalho, S., Matsuzawa, T., McGrew, W.C., 2013. From pounding to knapping: how
chimpanzees can help us to model hominin lithics, In C.M. Sanz, J. and C. Boesch (eds.),
12 | P a g e
Tool use in animals. Cognition and ecology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 226241.
Carvalho, S. et al. 2008. Chaînes opératoires and resource-exploitation strategies in
chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) nut cracking. Journal of Human Evolution 55, 148-163.
Fragaszy, D. et al. 2004. Wild capuchin monkeys (Cebus libidinosus) use anvils and stone
pounding tools. American Journal of Primatology 64, 359-366.
Panger, M.A., et al. 2002. Older Than the Oldowan? Rethinking the emergence of hominin tool use.
Evolutionary Anthropology 11, 235-245
McGrew, W.C., 1992. Chimpanzee Material Culture: Implications for Human Evolution.
Cambridgel Cambridge University Press.
Mercader, J. et al., 2007. 4,300-year-old chimpanzee sites and the origins of percussive
stone technology. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of
America 104, 3043-3048.
Mercader, J., Panger, M.A., Boesch, C., 2002. Excavation of a chimpanzee stone tool site in
the African rainforest. Science 296, 1452-1455.
Mora, R. and I. de la Torre. 2005. Percussion tools in Olduvai Beds I and II (Tanzania):
Implications for early human activities. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 24(2), 179192.
Proffitt, T., et al. 2016. Wild monkeys flake stone tools. Nature 539(7627), 85-88.
Torre, I. de la, et al. 2013. Experimental protocols for the study of battered stone anvils from
Olduvai Gorge (Tanzania). Journal of Archaeological Science 40(1), 313-332.
Reading for 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.
Leakey, M. D. 1971. Olduvai Gorge. Vol. 3, Excavations in Beds I and II, 1960-63.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lycett, S. and Gowlett, J., 2008. On questions surrounding the Acheulean 'tradition'. World
Archaeology 40, 295-31.
Semaw, S., et al. 1997. 2.5-million-year-old stone tools from Gona, Ethiopia. Nature
385(6614): 333-336.
Shea, John, J. 2013. Stone tools in the Paleolithic and Neolithic Near East. A Guide. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press. (Chapter 3). Pdf available online
Torre, I. de la & Mora, R. 2009. Remarks on the current theoretical and methodological
approaches to the study of early technological strategies in Eastern Africa. In E. Hovers and
D. R. Braun, (eds), Interdisciplinary Approaches to the Oldowan. Dordrecht: Springer, 15-24;
Pdf available online
13 | P a g e
Toth, N. 1985. The Oldowan reassessed: a close look at early stone artifacts. Journal of
Archaeological Science 12, 101-120.
Further readings for Mode 1 and 2 technologies
Toth, N. and Schick (eds) 2006. The Oldowan: Case Studies into the Earliest Stone Age. Stone
Age Institute Press.
Belfer-Cohen, A. and Goren-Inbar, N. 1994. Cognition and communication in the Levantine Lower
Palaeolithic. World Archaeology 26, 144-57.
Braun, D.R. et al. 2008. Oldowan behavior and raw material transport: Perspectives from the
Kanjera Formation. Journal of Archaeological Science 35, 2329-2345.
Braun, D.R., et al. 2008b. Oldowan reduction sequences: methodological considerations. Journal of
Archaeological Science 35, 2153-2163.
Clark, J.D., 1994. The Acheulian Industrial Complex in Africa and elsewhere. In Corruccini, R.S.
and Ciochon, R.L. (eds), Integrative Paths to the Past: Paleoanthropological Advances in Honor of
F. Clark Howell. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 451-469.
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.
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.
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.
Goren-Inbar, N., 2011. Culture and cognition in the Acheulian industry: a case study from Gesher
Benot Ya'aqov. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 366, 1038-1049.
Isaac, G. 1986. Foundation stones: early artefacts as indicators of activities and abilities. In Bailey,
G.N. and Callow, P. (eds), Stone Age Prehistory: Studies in Honor of Charles McBurney. London:
Cambridge University Press, 221-41.
Jones, P. 1979. Effects of Raw Materials on Biface Manufacture, Science 204, 835-836.
Ludwig, B.V. and Harris, J.W.K. 1998. Towards a technological reassessment of East African pliopleistocene lithic assemblages. In Petraglia, M. and Korisetter, R. (eds), Early Human Behavior in
the Global Context: The Rise and Diversity of the Lower Paleolithic Period. New York: Routledge,
84-107.
Lycett, S.L. and Gowlett, J.A.J. 2008. On questions surrounding the Acheulean Tradition. World
Archaeology 40, 295-315.
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. Oxford: Oxbow Books, McDonald Institute
Monograph, 243-256.
14 | P a g e
Mora, R. and Torre, I. de la. 2005. Percussion tools in Olduvai Beds I and II (Tanzania):
implications for early human activities. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 24, 179-192.
Newcomer, M. H. 1971. Some qualitative experiments in handaxe manufacture, World Archaeology
3, 85-94.
Norton, C.J. et al. 2006. Middle Pleistocene handaxes from the Korean Peninsula. Journal of
Human Evolution 5, 527-536.
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.
Schick, K.D. 1994. The Movius Line reconsidered: Perspectives on the earlier Paleolithic of
Eastern Asia. In Corruccini, R.S. and Ciochon, R.L. (eds), Integrative Paths to the Past:
Paleoanthropological Advances in Honor of F. Clark Howell. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall,
569-596.
Schick, K. et al. 1999. Continuing investigations into the stone tool-making and tool-using
capabilities of a bonobo (Pan paniscus). Journal of Archaeological Science 26, 821-32.
Semaw, S. 2000. The world’s 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.
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.
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.
Spikins, P. 2012. Goodwill hunting? Debates over the 'meaning' of Lower Palaeolithic handaxe
form revisited. World Archaeology 44(3), 378-392.
Stout, D. and Chaminade, T. 2007 The evolutionary neuroscience of tool-making.
Neuropsychologia 45, 1091-1100.
Stout, D. et al. 2005. Raw material selectivity of the earliest stone toolmakers at Gona, Afar,
Ethiopia. Journal of Human Evolution 48, 365-380.
Torre, I.de la.,2011. The origins of stone tool technology in Africa: a historical perspective. Phil.
Trans. of Royal Society B 366, 1028-1037.
Torre, I.de la., Mora, R., Martínez-Moreno, J., 2008. The early Acheulean in Peninj (Lake Natron,
Tanzania). Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 27, 244-264.
Torre, I.de la. et al. 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.
Wynn, T. 2002. Archaeology and cognitive evolution. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 25, 389-438.
Wynn, T. and McGrew, W. 1989. An ape's view of the Oldowan. Man 24, 383-98.
15 | P a g e
Week 3: January 27th
MIDDLE STONE AGE AND MIDDLE PALAEOLITHIC TECHNOLOGIES
Norah Moloney (UCL)
The advent of the Middle Stone Age (Africa) and Middle Palaeolithic (Eurasia) sees the appearance
of new hominin types (Modern humans in Africa and Neanderthals in Eurasia) and associated
changes in human behaviour and technology. Mode 3 technologies are primarily flake-based rather
than the core-based products of the Acheulean. They are often (but not always) characterised by a
technologically distinctive set of forms produced through use of Levallois techniques, providing a
range of predetermined flakes, blades and points. Many products, whether Levallois products or
not, were subsequently retouched into a variety of types giving rise to regional diversity.
Reading for Mode 3, Middle Palaeolithic technologies
Boëda, E. 1995. Levallois: a volumetric construction, methods and technique. In H.L Dibble,
and O. Bar-Yosef, (eds) The definition and Interpretation of Levallois Technology. Madison,
Wisconsin: Prehistory Press, 41-68.
Debenath, A. & Dibble, H. L. 1993. Handbook of Palaeolithic Typology. Vol 1: Lower & Middle
Palaeolithic of Europe. Philadelphia: Univ. Pennsylvania Press.
Dibble, H.L. and Bar-Yosef, O. (eds) (and articles therein) 1995. The definition and
Interpretation of Levallois Technology. Madison, WisconsIn Prehistory Press. (An excellent
source)
Inizan, M. L.; Roche, H. & Tixier, J. 1992. Technology of knapped stone. CREP, Meudon.
www.mae.u-paris10.fr/prehistoire/IMG/PDF/Technology_of_Knapped_Stone.pdf
Peresani, M. 2003. Discoid Lithic Technology. Advances and implications. BAR International
Series 1120, Oxford. (dip into)
Shea, John, J. 2013. Stone tools in the Paleolithic and Neolithic Near East. A Guide. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press. (Chapter 4) Pdf available online
Further readings
Bar-Yosef, O and Meignen, L. 1992. Insights into Levantine Middle Palaeolithic 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.
Bar-Yosef, O and Van Peer, Ph. 2009. The Chaîne Opératoire approach in Middle Paleolithic
archaeology. Current Anthropology 50, 103-131.
Culley, E.V., Popescu, G., and Clark, G.A. 2013. An analysis of the compositional integrity of
the Levantine Mousterian facies. Quaternary International 300, 213-233.
Delanges, A. and Meignen, L., 2007. Diversity of lithic production systems during the Middle
Paleolithic in France. In, E. Hovers and S. Kuhn (eds), Transitions before the Transition:
Evolution and stability in the Middle Paleolithic and Middle Stone Age. New York: Springer, 85107. Pdf available online
16 | P a g e
Dibble, H. et al. 2013. On the industrial attributions of the Aterian and Mousterian of the
Maghreb. Journal of Human Evolution 64, 194-230.
Eren, M.I., Greenspan, A. and Sampson, C.G. 2008. Are Upper Paleolithic blade cores more
productive than Middle Paleolithic discoidal cores? A replication experiment. Journal of Human
Evolution 55, 952-961.
Groucett, H.E. et al. 2015. Stone tool assemblages and models for the dispersal of Homo
sapiens out of Africa. Quaternary International 382, 8-30.
Martínez-Moreno, J., Mora, R. and Torre, I. de la. 2010. The Middle-to-Upper Palaeolithic
transition at Cova Gran (Cataluyna, Spain). Journal of Human Evolution, 58, 211-226.
McBreaty, S. and Brooks, A. 2000. The revolution that wasn’t: a new interpretation of human
behavior. Journal of Human Evolution 39, 453-563
Meignen, L. 2000. Early Middle Palaeolithic blade technology in Southwestern Asia. Acta
Anthropologica Sinica, 19, 158-168.
Olszewski, D. et al. 2010. Nubian Complex strategies in the Egyptian high desert. Journal of
Human Evolution 50, 188-201.
Peresani, M. 2003. Discoid Lithic Technology. Advances and implications. Oxford: BAR
International Series 1120.
Rose, J. et al., 2011. The Nubian complex of Dhofar, Oman: An African Middle Stone Age
industry in Southern Arabia. PLoS One 6(11), 1-22.
Reynolds, T. 2013. The Middle Palaeolithic of Cyrenaica: Is there an Aterian at the Haua Fteah
and does it matter? Quaternary International 300, 171-181.
Scerri, E.M.I. 2013. The Aterian and its place in the North African Middle Stone Age.
Quaternary International 300, 111-130.
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, Wiscons: Prehistory Press, 25-40.
Shea, J.J. 2014. Sink the Mousterian? Named stone tool industries (NASTIES) as obstacles to
investigating hominin evolutionary relationships in the Late Middle Paleolithic Levant.
Quaternary International 350, 169-179.
Shea, J.J. 2013. Spear points from the Middle Paleolithic of the Levant. Journal of Field
Archaeology 441-450.
Shea, J.J. 2003. The Middle Paleolithic of the East Meditteranean Levant. Journal of World
Prehistory 17 (4), 313-394.
Shea, J.J. 2001. The Middle Paleolithic: Early modern humans and Neandertals in the Levant.
Near Eastern Archaeology 64 (1/2), 38-64.
17 | P a g e
Soriano, S., Villa, P., and Wadley, J. 2007. Blade technology and tool forms in the Middle
Stone Age of South Africa: The Howiesons Poort and post-Howieson’s Poort at Rose Cottage.
Journal of Archaeological Science 34, 681-703.
Turq, A. et al. 2013. The fragmented character of Middle Palaeolithic stone tool technology.
Journal of Human Evolution 65, 641-655.
Tryon, C.A. et al. 2005. Levallois lithic technology from the Kapthurin Formation, Kenya:
Acheulean origin and Middle Stone Age diversity. African Archaeological Review 22 (4), 199229.
Usik, V. I. 2013. Nubian Complex reduction strategies in Dhofar, Southern Oman. Quaternary
International 350, 169-179.
Van Peer, Ph. 2007. Refitting of lithic reduction sequences, formal classification systems,
and Middle Palaeolithic individuals at work. In U. Schurmans and M. De Bie (eds.), Fitting
Rocks: Lithic Refitting Examined. Oxford: Archaeopress, BAR Int. Ser. 1596, 91-103.
Van Peer, P. 1998. The Nile Corridor and the Out-of-Africa model. Current Anthropology,
Supplement, S115-S140.
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.
Van Peer, P.1991. Interassemblage variability and Levallois styles: The case of the Northern
African Middle Palaeolithic. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 10, 107-151.
Vaquero, M. et al. 2001. Neanderthal behaviour at the Middle Palaeolithic site of Abric Romaní,
Capellades, Spain. Journal of Field Archaeology 28, 93-114.
Villa, P., Delanges, A. and Wadley, J. 2005. A Late Middle Stone Age artifact assemblage from
Sibudu (KwaZulu-Natal): Comparisons with the European Middle Paleolithic. Journal of
Archaeological Science 32 (3), 399-422.
Week 4: February 2nd
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 for Upper Palaeolithic
Bordes, F. and Sonneville-Bordes, D. de. 1970. The significance of variability in Palaeolithic
assemblages. World Archaeology 2, 61-73
18 | P a g e
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
Churchill, S. E. and Smith, F. H. 2000. Makers of the early Aurignacian of Europe. Yearbook
of Physical Anthropology 43, 61–115
.
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
Hublin, J.-J. et al. 1996. A late Neanderthal associated with Upper Palaeolithic artefacts.
Nature 381, 224–22
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.
d’Errico, F. et al. 1998. Neanderthal acculturation in western Europe? A critical review of the
evidence and its interpretation. Current Anthropology 39, S1-S44
d’Errico, F. 2003. The invisible frontier: A multiple species model for the origin of behavioural
modernity. Evolutionary Anthropology 12, 188-202
McBreaty, S. and Brooks, A. 2000. The revolution that wasn’t: a new interpretation of human
behavior. Journal of Human Evolution 39, 453-563
Mellars, P.A. 1999. The Neanderthal Problem Continued. Current Anthropology 40, 341-350.
Smith, C. 1992. The Late Stone Age Hunters of the British Isles. London, Routledge.
Piel-Desruisseaux, J-L. 1998. Outils Préhistoriques. Paris, Dunod
Shea, J.J. 2013. Stone tools in the Paleolithic and Neolithic Near East. A Guide. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press. (Chapter 5). Pdf available online.
Tixier, J. 1963. Typologie de l'epipaléolithique du Maghreb. Mémoires du Centre de
Recherches Anthropologiques Préhistoriques et Ethnographiques Alger. II. Paris: Arts et
Metiers Graphiques.
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
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
Reading for 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
19 | P a g e
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.
Jochim, M. et al 1999. The Magdalenian colonization of Southern Germany. American
Anthropologist 101, 129-142
Jochim, M. 1976. Hunter-Gatherer Subsistence and Settlement: A Predictive Model. London,
Academic Press.
Karlin, C. et al. 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.
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.
Mellars, P. (ed.) 1978. The Early Post-glacial Settlement of Northern Europe. London:
Duckworth.
Price, T.D 1987. The Mesolithic of Western Europe. Journal of World Prehistory 1, 225-305
Reynier, M. 2005. Mesolithic BritaIn Origins, Development and Directions. Oxford:
Archaeopress.
Shea, John, J. 2013. Stone tools in the Paleolithic and Neolithic Near East. A Guide.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (Chapter 6). Pdf available online.
Week 5: February 9th
LITHIC ILLUSTRATION
Angeliki Theodoropolou and 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.
Reading (for reference)
Addington, L.R. 1986. Lithic Illustration. Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press.
Adkins, L. and Adkins R.A. 1989. Archaeological Illustration. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge Manuals in Archaeology.
Martingell, H. and Saville, A. 1988. The Illustration of Lithic Artefacts. London: Association of
Archaeological Illustrators & Surveyors. Lithic Studies Society Occasional Paper, no. 3.
Reading for 3D scanning
20 | P a g e
Bretzke, K. and Conard, J. 2012. Evaluating morphological variability in lithic assemblages
using 3D models of stone artifacts. Journal of Archaeological Science 39, 3741-3749.
McPherron, S. P. et al. 2009. Structured light scanning for high-resolution documentation of in
situ archaeological finds. Journal of Archaeological Science 36, 19-24.
Olson, B.R. et al. 2014. Experimental three-dimensional printing of a Lower Palaeolithic
handaxe: an assessment of the technology and analytical value. Lithic Technology 39(3): 162172.
Riel-Salvatore, J. et al. 2002. Palaeolithic archaeology and 3D visualization technology: recent
developments. Antiquity 76, 929-930.
Shott, M. and Trail B.W. 2010. Exploring new approaches to lithic analysis: laser scanning and
geometric morphometrics. Lithic Technology 35(2): 195-220.
Week 6: February 16th
READING WEEK
Week 7: February 23rd
NEOLITHIC LITHIC TECHNOLOGIES
Ulrike Sommer (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. This session will concentrate in the Southeast and
Central European Neolithic. We are going to look at some tool types that are typical for this
period, and the development of knapping techniques.
Reading
General
Whittaker, J. C. 1994. Flintknapping. Making and understanding stone tools. Austin, University
of Texas Press.
Terminology
Brézillon, M. 1983. La dénomination des objets de pierre taillée. IVe supplement de Gallia
Préhistoire. Paris, Centre National de la recherche scientifique. (THE guide to terminology)
Inizan, M.-L., Roche, H. and Tixier. J. 1992. The technology of knapped stone: followed by a
multilingual vocabulary arabic, english, french, german, greek, italian, russian, Spanish.
Préhistoire de la pierre taillée 3. Meudon, (extremely useful!)
www.mae.u-paris10.fr/prehistoire/IMG/PDF/Technology_of_Knapped_Stone.pdf
21 | P a g e
Piel-Desruisseaux, J.-L. 1998/1986. Outils préhistoriques: forme, fabrication, utilisation. Paris,
Masson.Piel-Desruisseaux, J.-L. Outils préhistoriques. Du galet taillé au bistouri d'obsidienne.
Paris, Dunnod.
Technology
Newcomer, M. 1974. "Punch technique“ and Upper Palaeolithic blades. In E. Swanson (ed.)
Lithic technology. Mouton, Den Haag, 97-102.
Pitts, M. W. 1978. On the shape of waste flakes as an index of technological change in lithic
industries. Journal Archaeological Science 5, 17-37.
Owen, L. 1989. Blade core reduction strategies: selected examples. Early Man News 14, 7189.
Pelegrin, J. 1991. Sur une recherche experimentale des techniques de débitage laminaire. In:
Archéologie experimentale 2, La terre, Actes coll. Int. Beaune: Experimentation en archeologie:
bilan et Perspectives. Paris, 118-128.
Speth, J. D. 1974. Experimental investigations of hard-hammer percussion flaking. Tebiwa
17/1, 7-35.
Speth, J. D. 1977. Experimental investigations of hard hammer percussion flaking. In: D.
Ingersoll et al (eds.), Experimental archaeology. New York, Columbia University Press 3-37.
Tixier, J. 1984. Le débitage par pression. In: Tixier, J. (ed), Préhistoire de la pierre taillé 2.
Paris, 57-70.
Tuohy D. R. 1987. A comparison of pressure and percussion debitage from a Crabtree
obsidian stoneworking demonstration. Tebiwa 23, 23-30.
van Gijn, A. 2010. Flint in focus: lithic biographies in the Neolithic and Bronze Age. Leiden,
Sidestone.
Southeast Europe
Budziszewski, J. 2006. Flint economy in Chalcolithic societies of East-Central Europe. In Körlin,
G. and Weisgerber, G. (eds.) Stone Age-Mining Age. Bochum, Deutsches Bergbaumuseum,
315-328. (useful overview)
Gatsov, I. 2003. The latest results from the technological and typological analysis of chipped
stone assemblages from Ilipinar, Pendik, Fikir tepe and Mentes. Documenta Praehistorica 30,
53-60.
Gatsov, I. 2000. Chipped stone assemblages from Southern Bulgaria and Northwest Turkey.
Epipalaeolithic, Mesolithic and Neolithic. In Nikolova, L. (ed.) Technology, Style and Society:
Contributions to the Innovations between the Alps and the Black Sea in Prehistory. Oxford
Archaeopress, BAR international series 854, 1-28.
Gatsov, I. and Gurova, M. 2001. Some remarks on the chipped stone industry of the earliest
Neolithic cultures in Bulgaria. In Ginter, B. (ed.), Problems of the stone age of the Old World.
Kraków, Uniwersytet Jagielloński, Instytut Archeologii, 249-264.
22 | P a g e
Gurova, M. 2014. Neolithic flint assemblages from Bulgaria, an overview. Самарский
научный вестник 3(8), 94-107.
https://www.academia.edu/9235664/Neolithic_flint_assemblages_from_Bulgaria_an_overvie
w
Kozłowski, J. K. 1989. The lithic industry of the Eastern Linear Pottery culture in Slovakia.
Slovenská Archeologia 37(2), 377-410.
Kozłowski, J. K. and Kozłowski, S. K. 1984. Chipped Stone industries from Lepenski Vir,
Yugoslavia. Preistoria Alpina 19, 259-293.
Kozłowski, J. K. and Kaczanowska M. 1990. Chipped Stone Industry of the Vinca Culture. In:
Srejović, D. and N. Tasić (eds.), Vinca and its World. International Symposium The Danubian
Region from 6000 to 3000 B.C., Beograd, Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts, Centre for
Archaeological Research of the Faculty of Philosophy.
Manolakakis, L. 2005. Les industries lithiques énéolithiques de Bulgarie. Internationale
Archäologie 88. Marie Leidorf Rahden/Westf.
Mateiciucová, I. 2004. Mesolithic traditions and the origin of the Linear Pottery culture (LBK)). In:
Lukes, A. and Zvelebil, M. (eds.) LBK dialogues, studies in the formation of the linear pottery
culture. BAR International Series 1304, 91-108. Oxford: Archaeopress,
Starnini, E. 1994. Typological and technological analysis of the Körös culture stone
assemblages of Méhtelek Nádas (North East Hungary), a preliminary report. A Nyíregyházi
Jósa Andras Múzeum Évkönyve 36, 101-110.
LBK
Allard, P. and Burnez-Lanotte, L. 2006. Surplus production in the Belgian Linearbandkeramik:
blade debitage at Verlaine "Oetit Paradis" (Verlaine, Hesbaye, Belgium). In Körlin, G. and
Weisgerber, G. (eds.) Stone Age-Mining Age. Bochum, Deutsches Bergbaumuseum, 37-54.
Burnez-Lanotte, L. (ed.) 2003. Production and Management of Lithic Materials in the
European Linearbandkeramik. Gestion matériaux lithiques dans le Rubané européen. Oxford,
BAR International Series 1200.
Cahen, D. 1984. Technologie de la débitage laminaire. In: Otte, M. (ed.) Les fouilles de la Place
Saint-Lambert à Liège. ERAUL 18, 171-198.
Cahen, D. 1986. Deux modes de débitage laminaire de Rubané de Belgique. Bulletin. Societé
Préhistoire Française 83, 70.
Caspar, J.-P. et al. 1989. Chipped stone industries of the linearband pottery culture (LBP):
techniques, morphology and function of the implements in Belgian and Polish assemblages.
Helinium 39(2), 157-205.
De Grooth, M. 1987. The organisation of flint tool manufacture in the Dutch Neolithic. Analecta
Praehistoria Leidensia 20, 27-51.
De Grooth, M. 1988. In search of Bandkeramik specialist flintknappers. In: Cahen, D. and Otte,
M. (eds.), Rubané et Cardial. Actes Coll. Liège 1988. ERAUL 39, 1990, 89-93.
23 | P a g e
De Grooth, M. 1990. Technological and socio-economic aspects of Bandkeramik flint-working.
In: E. Cziesla et al. (eds.), The Big Puzzle. Bonn, Holos, 197-210.
de Grooth, M. 2007: Flint: procurement and distribution strategies; technological aspects, in:
P. van de Velde (red.): Excavations at Geleen-Janskamperveld 1990/1991. Analecta
Praehistorica Leidensia 39.
Gronenborn, D. 1990. Mesolithic-Neolithic interactions. The lithic industries of the earliest
bandceramic site at Friedberg-Bruchenbrücken, Wetteraukreis (West Germany). In:
Vermeersch, P. (ed.), Contributions to the Mesolithic in Europe. Leuven, Leuven University
Press 173-182.
Kaczanowska, M. and Lech, J. 1977. The flint industry of Danubian communities North of the
Carpathians. Acta Arch. Carpathica 17, 5.28.
Pavlů, I. and J. Rulf 1991. Stone industry from the Neolithic site of Bylany. Pamatky
Archeologické 82(2), 277-365.
Zimmermann, A. 1987. Some aspects of the formation of flint assemblages. In: J. Kozłowski
and S. K. Kozłowski (eds.), Chipped stone industries of the early farming cultures in Europe. Int.
Symp. Kraków. Warszawa, Uniwersyteta Warszawskiego 187-201.
Late Neolithic and Bronze Age
Pelegrin, J. 2002. La production des grandes lames de silex du Grand Pressigny. In: J.
Guilaine, Matériaux, productions, circulations du Néolithique à l'âge du Bronze. Paris, Errance,
131-150.
Stafford, M. 1988. In search of Hindsgavl: experiments in the production of Neolithic Danish flint
daggers. Antiquity 72, 338-49.
van Gijn A. L. 2015, The cultural biography of the Scandinavian daggers in the northern
Netherlands. In: Frieman C. J, Eriksen B. V. (eds.) Flint daggers in prehistoric Europe.
Oxford: Oxbow, 76-82
Whittakker, J. and Ramano, A. 1996. Some prehistoric copper flaking tools in Minnesota. The
Wisconsin Archaeologist 77(1), 3-10. (try through Google)
see also
Wulf Hein, https://www.academia.edu/9961267/Making_a_Flint_Axe
British Isles
Butler, C. 2005. Prehistoric Flintwork (Ch. 6 Early Neolithic flintwork; Ch. 7. Neolithic Axe
Production; Ch. 8 Later Neolithic and early Bronze Age flintwork). Stroud: Tempus
M. Pitts 1980. Later Stone implements. Princes Risborough, Shire.
Green, St. H. 1980. The flint arrowheads of the British Isles: a detailed study of material from
England and Wales with comparanda from Scotland and Ireland. Oxford, BAR British Series 75.
24 | P a g e
Lech, J. and Longworth, I. 2006. The Grimes Graves flint mine site in the light of two late
Neolithic workshop assemblages: a second approach. In: Körlin, G. and Weisgerber, G. (eds.)
Stone Age - mining Age. Bochum, Deutsches Bergbaumuseum, 413-422.
Saville, A. 1988. Grimes Graves, Norfolk: excavations 1971-72, Vol.2, The flint assemblage.
London: H.M.S.O.
Near East
Bettinger, R.L. 2001. Holocene Hunter-Gatherers. In: G. M. Feinman and T. D. Price (eds.),
Archaeology at the Millennium: A Sourcebook: New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum
Publishers, 137-195.
Close, A.E. 2002. Backed bladelets are a foreign country. In: R. G. Elston and S. L. Kuhn
(eds.), Thinking Small: Global Perspectives on Microlithization: Arlington: The American
Anthropological Association, 31-44.
Kelterborn, P. 1984. Towards replicating Egyptian Predynastic flint knives, Journal of
Archaeological Science 11: 433-53.
Rosen, S.A. 2012. Lithic industries during the Holocene period. In: Potts, D.T. (ed.), A
Companion to the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East. Oxford: Blackwell, 236-260.
Shea, J.J. 2013. Lithic Modes A-I: A new framework for describing global-scale variation in
stone tool technology illustrated with evidence from the Eastern Mediterranean Levant.
Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 20: 151-186.
Shea, John, J. 2013. Stone tools in the Paleolithic and Neolithic Near East. A Guide. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press. (Chapter 7).
Shirai, N. 2010. The Archaeology of the First Farmer-Herders in Egypt: New Insights into the
Fayum Epipalaeolithic and Neolithic. Leiden: Leiden University Press.
Shirai, N. 2011. A missing chapter of The Desert Fayum: Fayum lithic artefact collection in
the Allard Pierson Museum, Amsterdam, Archéo-Nil 21: 115-146.
Shirai, N. 2016. The Desert Fayum at 80: revisiting a Neolithic farming community in Egypt.
Antiquity, 90, 1181-1195.
Week 8: March2nd
GROUNDSTONE TECHNOLOGY
Ulrike Sommer (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
25 | P a g e
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.
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.
Wright, K. 1992. A classification system for ground stone tools from the prehistoric Levant.
Paleorient 18, 53-81
Further reading
Adams, J. 1988. Use-wear analysis on manos and hide-processing stones. Journal of Field
Archaeology 15, 307-315
Bellina, B. 2003. Beads, social change and interaction between India and South-east Asia.
Antiquity 77, 285-297
Sugiyama, Y. and Koman, J. 1979. Tool using and making in wild chimpanzees at Boussou,
Guinea. Primates 20, 513-524.
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.
Wright, K. 2000. The social origins of cooking and dining in early villages of Western Asia.
Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 66, 89-121.
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.
Wright, K. 1994. Ground stone tools and hunter-gatherer subsistence in southwest Asia:
implications for the transition to farming. American Antiquity 59, 238-263
Wright, K. 1993. Early Holocene ground stone assemblages in the Levant. Levant 25, 93-111
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
Week 9: March 9th
REFITTING AS A TOOL IN STONE TOOL ANALYSIS
Carmen Martin Ramos (UCL)
26 | P a g e
By definition, refitting (sometimes referred to as conjoining) is the fitting together of pieces in
their original position to gain as complete a vision of the whole object as possible. Like a
three-dimensional puzzle, refitting is employed in archaeology on different types of material,
such as lithic, bone and pottery. Refitting of lithic artefacts has been an important part of lithic
analysis for more than a century. The refitting of lithic reduction sequences allows us to
examine potential changes in reduction strategies and thus, their implications for hominid
behavioural evolution. Moreover, sometimes refitting allows us to detect intra-site activity
areas. There is debate on the cost-effectiveness of lithic refitting and it is still perhaps
underutilized due to the vast amount of time required for the process against perceived
benefits in knowledge.
Although practised since the 19th century, refitting has become increasingly important since
the 1970s and is now became a standard practice for the analysis of any site containing lithic
artefacts. While procedures of conjoining artefacts have remained essentially the same since
the 19th century, new techniques have added to the classic methodology of lithic refitting,
among them, 3D modelling and scanning and metrology.
Reading
Cziesla, E. 1990. On refitting of stone artefacts. In E. Cziesla, et al. (eds.), The Big Puzzle:
International Symposium on Refitting Stone Artefacts, Monrepos, 1987. Bonn: Holos, 9-44.
Cziesla, E. and Eickhoff, S. 1990. The Big Puzzle: International Symposium on Refitting
Stone Artefacts, Monrepos, 1987. Bonn: Holos. Many excellent papers in this volume.
Hofman, Jack L. 1992. Putting the pieces together: an introduction to refitting. In Jack L.
Hofman and James G. Enloe (eds), Piecing together the past: Applications on refitting
studies in Archaeology. Oxford: Tempus Reparatum, BAR International Series, 1-20.
Larson, M. L and Ingbar, E. E. 1992. Perspectives on refitting: critique and a complementary
approach. In Jack L. Hofman and J. G. Enloe (eds), Piecing together the past: Applications
on Refitting Studies in Archaeology. Oxford: Tempus Reparatum, BAR International Series
578, 151-62.
Schurman, U and De Bie, M (eds.) 2007. Fitting Rocks: Lithic Refitting Examined. 1596.
Oxford: Archaeopress, BAR Int Ser. 1596.7-23. Many excellent papers in this volume.
Further reading
Almeida, F. 1995. 'O Método das Remontagens Líticas: Enquadramento Teórico e
Aplicações.', Trabalhos de Arqueologia da EAM, 3, 1-40.
Bodu, P., Karlin, C. and Ploux, S. 1990. Who’s who? The Magdelenian flintknappers of
Pincevent (France). In E. Cziesla, et al. (eds), The big puzzle: International Symposium on
Refitting Stone Artefacts, Monrepos, 1987. Bonn: Holos, 143-163.
Bordes, François 1980. Question de comtemporanéité: l'illuson des remontages. Actualité
scientifique. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française, 77(5), 132-33.
Bordes, François 1980. Savez-vous remonter les cailloux à la mode de chez nous. Actualité
scientifique. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française, 77(8), 232-234.
Cahen, D,l 1980. Question de contemporanéité: L'apport des remontages'. Actualité
scientifique. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française, 77(8), 230-232.
27 | P a g e
Cahen, D. 1987. Refitting stone artefacts: why bother?' In G. De G. Siekeving and M. H.
Newcomer (eds.), The human uses of flint and chert: Proceedings of the Fourth International
Flint Symposium Held at Brighton Polytechnich 10-15 April 1983. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1-9.
Cahen, D., Keeley, L., and Van Noten, F. 1979. Stone Tools, Toolkits and Human Behaviour
in Prehistory. Current Anthropology, 20(4), 661-83.
Cooper, J. R. and Qiu, Fang. 2006. Expediting and standardizing stone artifact refitting using
a computerized suitability model. Journal of Archaeological Science, 33(7), 987-98.
De Bie, Marc 2007. Benefiting from refitting intra-site analysis. Lessons from Rekem
(Belgium). In Schurman, U and De Bie, M (eds.) Fitting Rocks: Lithic Refitting Examined.
Oxford: Archaeopress, BAR International Series 1596, 31-44.
De Loecker, Dl. et al. 2003. A refitter’s paradise: on the conjoing of artefacts at MaastrichtBelvédère (The Netherlands). In Moloney, N. and Shott, M. (eds,) Lithic Analysis at the
Millenium. London: University College London, 113-136
Delagnes, A. and Roche, H. 2005, Late Pliocene hominid knapping skills: The case of
Lokalalei 2C, West Turkana, Kenya. Journal of Human Evolution 48(5), 435-472.
Gilead, I. and Fabian, P. 1987. Conjoinable artefacts from the Middle Palaeolithic open air
site Fara II, Northern Negev, Israel: a preliminary report. . In E. Cziesla, et al. (eds), The Big
Puzzle: International Symposium on Refitting Stone Artefacts, Monrepos, 1987. Bonn: Holos,
101-112.
Hofman, J. 1992. Putting the pieces together: an introduction to refitting. In J. Hofman and G.
Enloe (eds) Piecing Together the Past: Applications of Refitting Studies in Archaeology.
Oxford: Tempus Reparatus, BAR International Series 578,1-20.
Laughlin, J.P. and Kelly, R. L. 2010. Experimental analysis of the practical limits of lithic
refitting, Journal of Archaeological Science, 37, 427-33.
Petraglia, M.D. 1992. Stone artifact refitting and formation processes at the Abri Dufaure, an
Upper Paleolithic site in southwest France. In J. Hofman and G. Enloe (eds.) Piecing
Together the Past: Applications of Refitting Studies in Archaeology. Oxford: Tempus
Reparatus, BAR International Series. 578, 163-78.
Schlanger, N. 1996. Understanding Levallois: Lithic Technology and Cognitive Archaeology.
Cambridge Archaeological Journal, 6(2), 231-54
Schurmans, U. 2007. Refitting in the Old and New Worlds. In U. Schurmans and M. De Bie
(eds.), Fitting Rocks: Lithic Refitting Examined. Oxford: Archaeopress, BAR International
Series 1596, 7-23.
Torre, I.de la, Martínez-Moreno, J, and Mora, R, 2012. When Bones are not enough: Lithic
refits and occupation dynamics in the Middle Palaeolithic Level 10 of Roca dels Bous
(Catalonia, Spain). In Krish, S and Gravina, B. (eds.). Bones for Tools – Tools for Bones.
The Interplay between Objects and Objectives, Cambridge: McDonald Institute for
Archaeological Research, 13-23.
Turq, A. et al. 2013. The fragmented character of Middle Palaeolithic stone tool technology.
Journal of Human Evolution 65, 641-655.
Van Peer, Ph. 2007. Refitting of lithic reduction sequences, formal classification systems,
28 | P a g e
and Middle Palaeolithic individuals at work. In U. Schurmans and M. De Bie (eds.), Fitting
Rocks: Lithic Refitting Examined. Oxford: Archaeopress, BAR International Series 1596, 91103.
Weiner, D. 1990. ‘The refitters failure’. Some criteria concerning the duration of settlement
through refitting. In E. Cziesla, et al. (eds.), The big puzzle: International Symposium on
Refitting Stone Artefacts, Monrepos, 1987. Holos: Bonn, 477-492.
Yerkes, R.W. and Kardulian, P.N., 1993. Recent developments in the analysis of lithic
artifacts. Journal of Archeological Research 1(2), 89-119.
Week 10: March 16
COURSE EVALUATION
FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS OF STONE TOOLS (USEWEAR/MICROWEAR)
Norah Moloney (UCL)
Usewear/microwear analysis has had its peaks and troughs of popularity through the years, moving
between episodes of optimism and pessimism. We will consider the methods and objectives of
such analysis, and then, using a selection of case studies, we will concentrate on how
usewear/microwear 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.
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.
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
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, 171196.
Van Gijn, A.L. 2014. Science and interpretation in microwear studies. Journal of Archaeological
Science 48, 166-169.
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
Adams, J.L. 1988. Use-Wear analysis on mano and hide-processing stones. Journal of Field
Archaeology 15(3), 307-315.
Adams, J. et al. 2009. Functional analysis of macro-lithic artefacts: a focus on working surfaces. In:
Costa, L.J., Eigeland, L., and Sternke, F. (eds), Non-flint Raw Material Use in Prehistory: Old
29 | P a g e
Prejudices and New Directions. Proceedings of the XV Congress of the U.I.S.P.P. Oxford:
Archaeopress, BAR International Series 1939, 43-66.
Bofill, M., 2012. Quantitative analysis of use-wear patterns: a functional approach to the
study of grinding stones. In: Borrel, F., et al. (Eds.), Broadening Horizons 3. Conference of
Young Researchers Working in the Ancient Near East. Bellaterra: Servei de Publicacions,
Congressos 8, Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona, 63-84.
Borel, A. et al. 2014. Scanning Electron and Optical Light microscopy: Two complementary
approaches for the understanding and interpretation of usewear and residues on stone tools.
Journal of Archaeological Science 48, 46-59.
Burroni, D., Donahue, R.E., and Pollad, A.M. 2002. The surface alteration features of flint artefacts
as a record of environmental processes. Journal of Archaeological Science 29. 1277-1287
Byrne, L. et al. 2006. Under the hammer: residues resulting from production and microwear on
experimental tools. Archaeometry 48(4), 549-564.
Caspar, P-P. and De Bie, M. 1996. Preparing for the hunt in the Late Paleolithic camp at Rekem,
Belgium. Journal of Field Archaeolog, 23, 437-460
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, 1077-1082
Denham T. et al. 2003. Origins of Agriculture at Kuk Swamp in the Highlands of New Guinea
Science 301,189-193.
Dockall, J.E. 1997. Wear traces and projectile impact: A review of the experimental and
archaeological evidence. Journal of Field Archaeology 24(3), 321-331.
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.
Dubreuil, L. 2004. Long-term trends in Natufian subsistence: a use-wear analysis of ground stone
tools. Journal of Archaeological Science 11, 1613-1630
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.
Evans, A.A. and Macdonald, D. 2011. Using metrology in Early Prehistoric stone tool research:
further work and a brief instrument comparison. Scanning 33, 294-303.
Faulks, N.R. et al. 2011. Atomic Force Microscopy of microwear traces on Mousterian tools from
Myshtylagty Lagat (Weasel Cave), Russia. Scanning 33, 304-315.
Fiedel, S.J. 1996. Blood from stones? Some methodological and interpretive problems in blood
residue analysis. Journal of Archaeological Science 23, 139-147.
Grace, R. 1990. The limitations and applicactions of use-wear analysis. In B. Graslund et al. (eds)
The Interpretative Possibilities of Microwear Studies. Uppsala: Societas Archaeologica Upsaliensis,
9-14.
30 | P a g e
Hamon, C. 2008. Functional analysis of stone grinding and polishing tools from the earliest
Neolithic of north-western Europe. Journal of Archaeological Science 35, 1502-1520.
Hardy, B.L. and Garufi, G.T. 1998. Identification of woodworking on stone tools through residue and
use-wear analysis: experimental results. Journal of Archaeological Science 25, 177-184.
Hardy, B.L. and Raff, R.A. 1997. Recovery of mammalian DNA from Middle Palaeolithic stone
tools. Journal of Archaeological Science 24, 601-611
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. Oxford: Tempus Reparatum, Oxford, British
Archaeological Report, International Series 658.
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.
Jahren, A. et al. 1997. Determining stone tool use: Chemical and morphological analyses of
residues on experimentally manufactured stone tools. Journal of Archaeological Science 24, 245250
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.
Jensen H. J. 1994. Flint tools and plant working. Aarhus University Press.
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
Keeley, L.H. 1980. Experimental Determination of Stone Toos Uses: A Microwear Analysis.
Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Keeley, L. H. and Toth, N. 1981. Microwear polishes on early stone tools from Koobi Fora, Kenya.
Nature 293, 464-465
Keeley, L.H. and Newcomer, M.H. 1977. Microwear analysis of experimental flint tools: a test case.
Journal of Archaeological Science, 4, 29-62
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
Lemorini, C. et al. 2006. Use-wear analysis of an Amudian laminar assemblage from AcheuleoYabrudian Qesem Cave, Israel. Journal of Archaeological Science 33, 921-934
Liu, L. et al. 2011. A functional analysis of grinding stones from an early Holocene site at Donghulin
North China. Journal of Archaeological Science 37, 2630-2639.
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.
31 | P a g e
Lombard, M. and Wadley, L. 2007. The morphological identification of micro-residues on stone
tools using light microscopy: progress and difficulties based on blind tests. Journal of
Archaeological Science 34, 155-165.
Loy, T.H. and Dixon, E.J. 1998. Blood residues on fluted points from eastern Beringia. American
Antiquity 63, 21-46.
Moss, E. 1983. Some comments on edge damage as a factor in functional analysis of stone
artefacts. Journal of Archaeological Science 10, 231-242.
Newcomer, M. Grace, R. and Unger-Hamilton, R. 1986. Investigating microwear polishes with blind
tests. Journal of Archaeological Science 13, 203-217.
Ollé, A. and Vergés, J.M. 2014. The use of sequential experiments and SEM in documenting stone
tool microwear. Journal of Archaeological Science 48, 60-72.
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. Liège; Université de
Liège, ERAUL 50.
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.
Perry, L.et al. 2006. Early maize agriculture and interzonal interaction in southern Peru Nature 440,
76-79.
Piperno D. 2006. Phytoliths: A comprehensive guide for archaeologists and Paleoecologists.
Lanham, Md: AltaMira Press.
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.
Prinsloo, L. Wadley, L. and Lombard, M. 2014. Infrared reflectance spectroscopy as an analytical
technique for the study of residues on stone tools: potential and challenges. Journal of
Archaeological Science 41, 732-739.
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.
Revedin, A., et al. 2010. Thirty thousand-year-old evidence of plant food processing. Proceedings
of the National Academy of Sciences 107, 18815-18819.
Šajnerová-Dušková, A., Fridrich, J., Fridrichová-Sýkorová, I., 2009. Pitted and grinding
stones from Middle Palaeolithic settlements in Bohemia: a functional study, in: Sternke, F.,
Costa, L.J., Eigeland, L. (eds), Non-flint Raw Material Use in Prehistory: Old Prejudices and
New Directions. Proceedings of the XV Congress of the U.I.S.P.P. Oxford: Archaeopress,
BAR Int. Ser.1939, 145-151.
Sala, I.L. 1986. Use wear and post-depositional surface modification: a word of caution. Journal of
Archaeological Science, 13, 229-244.
32 | P a g e
Sala, I. L. 1996. A Study of Microscopic Polish on Flint Implements. Oxford: BAR International
Series 629.
Samuel D. 1996. Investigation of ancient Egyptian baking and brewing methods by correlative
microscopy. Science 273, 4888-4890.
Semenov, S. 1964. Prehistoric Technology: an Experimental Study of the Oldest Tools and
Artefacts from Traces of Manufacture and Wear. London: Cory.
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.
Sobolik, K.D. 1996. Lithic organic residue analysis: an example from the Southwestern Archaic.
Journal of Field Archaeology 23, 461-469.
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 Scale-Sensitive
Fractal Analysis. Scanning 35, 28-39.
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.
Torrence R. and Barton, H. 2006. Ancient Starch Research. California: Left Coast Press.
Unger-Hamilton, R. 1988. Method in Microwear Analysis. Oxford: BAR Int Ser 435.
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.
Vaughan, P. C. 1985. Use-Wear Analysis on Flaked Stone Tools (p. 204). University of Arizona
Press
Wadley, L and Lombard, H. 2007. Small things in perspective: the contribution of our blind tests to
micro-residue studies on archaeological stone tools. Journal of Archaeological Science 34, 10011010.
Wadley, L., Lombard, H. and Williamson, B. 2004. The first residue analysis and blind tests: results
and lessons learnt. Journal of Archaeological Science 31, 1491-1501.
Week 11: March 24
EXPERIMENTAL APPROACHES IN THE STUDY OF STONE TOOLS
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.
33 | P a g e
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.
Ferguson, J. E. (ed). 2010. Designing experimental research in archaeology: examining
technology through production and use. Boulder: University Press of Colorado.
Outram, A. 2008. Introduction to experimental archaeology. World Archaeology 40, 1-6.
Paardekooper, R. P. 2008. Experimental archaeology. In Pearsall, D. M. (ed) Encyclopedia of
Archaeology. Oxford: Academic Press, 1345-1358.
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.
Seetah, K. 2008. Modern analogy, cultural theory and experimental replication: a merging point
at the cutting edge of archaeology. World Archaeology 40, 135-150
Shimada, I. 2005. Experimental Archaeology. In H. D. G. Maschner, C. Chippindale (eds),
Handbook of Archaeological methods 1, Lanham: Altamira Press, 603-642.
Tichy, R. 2004. Presentation of archaeology and archaeological experiment. euroREA 2/2005,
113-119.
Lithic and ground stone technology
Adams, J., 2014. Ground stone use-wear analysis: a review of terminology and experimental
methods, Journal of Archaeological Science 48, 129-138.
Amick, 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 International Series
528, 1-14.
de la Torre, I. et. al. 2013. Experimental protocols for the study of battered stone anvils from
Olduvai Gorge (Tanzania). Journal of Archaeological Science 40(1), 313-332.
Dibble, Harold L. and Pelcin, A. 1995. The effect of hammer mass and velocity on flake mass.
Journal of Archaeological Science 22, 429-39
Dibble, Harold. 1978. A history of flintknapping experimentation 1838-1976. Current
Anthropology 19, 337-372
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
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
International Series 528, 259-276.
Asryan, L., Ollé, A., Moloney, N., 2014. Reality and confusion in the recognition of postdepositional alterations and use-wear: an experimental approach on basalt tools, Journal of
Lithic Studies 1, 9-32.
34 | P a g e
Aubry, T. et al. 2008. Solutrean laurel leaf production at Maîtreaux: an experimental approach
guided by techno-economic analysis. World Archaeology 40, 48-66
Blacking, J. 1953. Edward Simpson, alias 'Flint Jack'. A Victorian craftsman. Antiquity 27,
105-113
Bradley, B. and Sampson, C. G. 1986. Analysis by replication of two Acheulian artefact
assemblages. In Bailey, G.N. and Callow, P. (eds), Stone Age Prehistory. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
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
Byrne, L., Ollé, A., Vergès, J.M., 2006. Under the hammer: residues resulting from
production and microwear on experimental stone tools, Archaeometry 48, 549-564.
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.
Derndarsky, M., Ocklind, G., 2001. Some preliminary observations on subsurface damage on
experimental and archaeological quartz tools using CLSM and Dye. Journal of
Archaeological Science 28, 1149-1158.
Diez-Martin, F. et al. 2011. An experimental study of bipolar and freehand knapping of Naibor
Soit quartz from Olduvai Gorge (Tanzania), American Antiquity 76, 690-708.
Edwards, S. 2001. A modern knapper's assessment of the technical skills of the Late Acheulean
biface workers at Kalambo Falls. In Clark, J.D. (ed) Kalmbo Falls prehistoric site, volume III.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 605-11.
Ferguson,J. R. 2008. The when, where, and how of novices in craft production. Journal of
Archaeological Method and Theory 15, 51-67
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.
Herzlinger, G. et al. 2015. A note on handaxe knapping products and their breakage taphonomy:
An experimental view. Journal of Lithic Studies 2(1), 65-82.
Jones, P.R., 1994. Results of experimental work in relation to the stone industries of Olduvai
Gorge, in: Leakey, M.D. and Roe, D.A. (Eds.), Olduvai Gorge. Excavations in Beds III, IV and
the Masked Beds, 1968-1971. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 254-298.
Kelterborn, P. 1984. Towards replicating Egyptian predynastic flint knives. Journal of
Archaeological Science 11, 433-453
Ollé, A., Vergès, J.M., 2014. The use of sequential experiments and SEM in documenting
stone tool microwear, Journal of Archaeological Science 48, 60-72.
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
35 | P a g e
Newcomer, M. H. 1971. Some quantitative experiments in handaxe manufacture. World
Archaeology 3 (1), 85-104
Pelegrin, J. 2005. Remarks about archaeological techniques and methods of knapping: elements
of a cognitive approach to stone knapping. In Roux, V. and Bril, B. (eds), Stone Knapping: the
Necessary Conditions for a Uniquely Hominin Behaviour. Oxford: Oxbow Books, McDonald Institute
Monograph, 23-33.
Reeves Flores, Jodi (ed), 2014. Experiments past: histories of experimental archaeology.
Leiden: Sidestone Press
Roux, V., Bril, B. and Dietrich, G. 1995. Skills and learning difficulties involved in stone knapping.
World Archaeology 27, 63-87
Sahnouni, M., Schick, K., Toth, N., 1997. An experimental investigation into the nature of
faceted limestone "spheroids" in the Early Palaeolithic, Journal of Archaeological Science 24,
701-713.
Toth, N. 1987. Behavioral inferences from Early Stone Age artifact assemblages: an experimental
model. Journal of Human Evolution 16, 763-787
Whittaker, J.C. 1994. Flintknapping: Making and Understanding Stone tools. AustIn
University of Texas Press.
36 | P a g e