Download Analysis of Lithic - Oregon State University

ANTH 421/521: Analysis of Lithic Technologies
(4 CR—meets four hours a week in the classroom; Days/Time)
Dr. Loren Davis, Instructor
Waldo 216
(541) 737-3849
[email protected]
Office hours: Mondays 9:00-10:00 or by appointment
Course Content
This class is designed to give students an in-depth exposure to the principles, procedures,
and purpose of archaeological lithic analysis. This class will emphasize the study of
chipped stone technologies practiced among prehistoric hunter-gatherers. Some hands-on
activities will involve the practice of stone tool manufacture techniques; however, more
of our class time will be spent discussing topics addressed in course readings and learning
modern analytical techniques. Students are encouraged to practice their flintknapping
skills outside of class. PREREQS: ANTH 230
Measurable Student Learning Outcomes
As a result of this class, ANTH 421 students will be able to:
•Define terms associated with lithic technology and its analysis
•Categorize lithic artifacts into typological groups
•Identify distinct morphological features on lithic artifacts and relate them to human
behavior
•Perform tasks associated with standard methods of lithic technological analysis
In addition, ANTH 521 students will be able to:
•Articulate how archaeological analysis of lithic artifacts can be related to specific and
general human behaviors
•Conceive of the linkages between the processes of lithic technological production and its
artifactual patterns
•Design a plan of research with an appropriate integration of method and theory
•Evaluate the theoretical orientation and operationalization of published archaeological
research
Evaluation of student performance
Class time will be divided between discussions and practical sessions that focus on
various aspects of lithic tool production and analysis. A final project, the analysis of a
lithic collection and presentation of results, will combine all these aspects of the class—
theory, practice, and explanation.
Discussions (10% of the grade)
In teams of two, class members will be assigned to lead discussion of course readings in
most classes. ALL class members should read the assigned materials before class so that
they can participate in the discussion.
Practical Sessions (50% of the grade)
Students will participate in twenty practical sessions, which always involve a planned
activity and often involve a short write-up of results (10 written assignments). The
practical sessions cover the following topics:
Week Session and topic
2
1. Hard hammer core reduction I
2. Hard hammer core reduction II (written assignment)
3
3. Hard hammer biface reduction I
4. Hard hammer biface reduction II
5. Hard hammer biface reduction III
4
6. Soft hammer reduction I
7. Soft hammer reduction II
8. Soft hammer reduction III
5
9. Pressure flaking I
10. Pressure flaking II
11. Pressure flaking III
6
12. Debitage typologies I
13. Debitage typologies II
14. Debitage typologies III
7
15. Mass analysis I
16. Mass analysis II
8
17. Butchering project at the Clark Meat Center
18. Use wear activity I
19. Use wear activity II
9
20. Fracture patterns of hafted tools
21. Hafted tool use life
Lithic Analysis Project (20% of the grade)
ANTH 421 Students will have the choice of (1) designing, performing, and reporting the
results of an experiment on butchering associated with a class barbeque at the end of the
term or (2) designing, performing, and reporting the results of an experiment or analysis
of a debitage assemblage conducted on your own. Written project reports will be due in
class on [date]. Detailed instructions on the final project will be provided.
ANTH 521 students will conduct an independent analysis of a prehistoric lithic collection
(to be provided), present their results to the class in summary form, and submit a written
paper on their analysis, due in class on [date]. Detailed instructions on the final project
will be provided.
Essay (20% of the grade)
Students will provide answers to a series of essay questions related to topics covered in
class discussions, practica, and readings. The essay questions will be provided during
Week 9. This assignment will be due by 12:00 pm on [date].
Learning Resources
Required texts:
•Andrefsky, W., Jr. (2005). Lithics: Macroscopic Approaches to Analysis, 2nd Ed.
•Odell, G.H. (2004). Lithic Analysis. (Required for ANTH 521 only)
•An additional reading packet will be available for purchase in the Anthropology office.
Students will also need the following items for the practicum sessions. Note: you will
need these for much of the term and cannot participate in some practical sessions without
these objects. You will need these every day we are flintknapping:
•Graph paper (metric)
•Ruler (metric)
•Mechanical pencil
•Black Sharpie felt pen
•A 4” wide paint brush
•Clothing that you can get dirty. Long pants and shoes are required. Sandals or other open
footwear are not allowed.
•A pair of clear plastic lab glasses for use while flintknapping
•3 hammer-stones of different size (think of large = large softball, med = baseball,
and small = golfball)
•2 wooden or antler billets (one measuring ca. 10-12” long and 1.5-2” in diameter and the
other measuring ca. 6-8” long and 1-1.5” in diameter)
•1 copper or antler tine pressure flaker
•1 container of large heavy-duty ziplock bags
•1 whet stone for grinding (this can be natural sandstone or other abrasive stone)
•1 pair cloth/leather gloves (optional but recommended)
•1 heavy duty dish towel or palm-sized piece of leather for flintknapping
•1 bath towel for apron (or an apron will do)
•Some Band-Aids
•A bag, backpack or container to store your equipment
Statement Regarding Students with Disabilities
Accommodations are collaborative efforts between students, faculty and Disability
Access Services (DAS). Students with accommodations approved through DAS are
responsible for contacting the faculty member in charge of the course prior to or during
the first week of the term to discuss accommodations. Students who believe they are
eligible for accommodations but who have not yet obtained approval through DAS
should contact DAS immediately at 541-737-4098.
Link to Statement of Expectations for Student Conduct:
http://studentlife.oregonstate.edu/studentconduct/offenses-0
Weekly Course Schedule
Week 1: First principles
Tues: Introduction to course
Thurs: Physics of fracture, basic concepts and terms
ALL: Andrefsky (2005) Ch. 1
SD: Cotterell and Kamminga (1987) The formation of flakes
Week 2: Lithic reduction as a continuum
Tues: Strategies, stages, processes, and products
ALL: Andrefsky (2006) Ch. 2-3
SD: Close (2006) The concept of the Chaîne Opératoire in context.
ALL: Bleed (2001) Trees of chains, links or branches: Conceptual alternative for
consideration of stone tool production and other sequential activities
SD: Bradbury and Carr (1999) Examining stage and continuum models of
flake debris analysis: An experimental approach
Thurs: Video and demonstration
Week 3: Flintknapping
Tues: Practicum 1: Hard hammer core reduction
ALL: Andrefsky (2005) Chapter 5; Whittaker (1994) Flintknapping: making and
understanding stone tools: Chapters 5, 6, 8. READ PRIOR TO CLASS
Thurs: Practicum 2: Hard hammer biface reduction
Week 4: Flintknapping
Tues: Practicum 3: Soft hammer reduction
PRACTICA 1 & 2 REPORTS DUE IN CLASS
Thurs: Practicum 4: Pressure flaking
Week 5: Variation in artifacts and assemblages
Tues: Variation in artifacts
ALL: Andrefsky (2005) Chapter 4
SD: Jelinek (1976) Form, function, and style in lithic analysis
SD: Frison (1968) A functional analysis of certain chipped stone tools
ALL: Nelson (1991) The study of technological organization
PRACTICA 3 & 4 REPORTS DUE IN CLASS
Thurs: Variation in assemblages
ALL: Andrefsky (2005) Chapter 8
SD: Carr and Bradbury (2001) Flake debris analysis, levels of production, and the
organization of technology.
SD: Newman (1994) The effects of distance on lithic material reduction
technology
Week 6: Classification and typology I
Tues: Discussion
ALL: Bordes (1969) Reflections on typology and techniques in the paleolithic
SD: Flenniken and Wilke (1989) Typology, technology, and chronology of
Great Basin dart points
SD: Thomas (1981) How to classify the projectile points from the Monitor
Valley, Nevada
Thurs: Practicum 5: Debitage Typologies
ALL: Andrefsky (2005) Chapters 4 & 6; Sullivan and Rosen (1985). READ
PRIOR TO CLASS
Week 7: Classification and typology II
Tues: Practicum 6: Mass Analysis
ALL: Ahler (1989) Mass analysis of flaking debris: studying the forest
rather than the tree. READ PRIOR TO CLASS
PRACTICUM 5 REPORT DUE IN CLASS
Thurs: Practicum 7: Morphological Attributes of Debitage
ALL: Andrefsky (2005) Chapter 5. REREAD PRIOR TO CLASS
Week 8: Style and function
Tues: Style
All: Barton (1997) Stone tools, style, and social identity: an evolutionary
perspective on the archaeological record
SD: Morrow and Morrow (1999) Geographic variation in fluted projectile
points: A hemispheric perspective
SD: Taçon (1991) The power of stone: symbolic aspects of stone use and
tool development in western Arnhem Land, Australia
Thurs: Function
SD: Bleed (1986) The optimal design of hunting weapons: Maintainability or
reliability
ALL: Shott (1996) Innovation and selection in prehistory: a case study from the
American Bottom
SD: Young and Bamforth (1990) On the macroscopic identification of used
flakes
PRACTICA 6 & 7 REPORTS DUE IN CLASS
[DATE]
ANTH 421 BUTCHERY AND BBQ PROJECT
Week 9: Technological organization and Intrasite organization
Tues. Technological organization
SD: Bamforth and Becker (2000) Core/biface ratios, mobility, refitting, and
artifact use-lives: A Paleoindian example
ALL: Morrow (1996) Lithic refitting and archaeological site formation
processes: a case study from the Twin Dutch site, Greene County, Illinois
SD: Pecora (2001) Chipped stone tool production strategies and lithic debitage
patterns
ALL: Kelly (1988) The three sides of a biface
Thurs. Intrasite patterning
SD: Cahen and Keeley (1980) Not less than two, not more than three
ALL: Hull (1987) Identification of cultural site formation processes through
microdebitage analysis
SD: Odell (1999) The organization of labor at a protohistoric settlement in
Oklahoma
ESSAY ASSIGNMENT HANDED OUT IN CLASS
Week 10: Regional scale organization
Tues. Mobility
ALL: Andrefsky (2005) Chapters 9-10
SD: MacDonald (1999) Modeling Folsom mobility mating strategies, and
technological organization in the Northern Plains
SD: Rasic and Andrefsky Jr. (2001) Alaskan blade cores as specialized
components of mobile toolkits: assessing design parameters and toolkit
organization through debitage analysis
Thurs. Settlement
LITHIC ANALYSIS PROJECT PAPER DUE IN CLASS
GRADUATE STUDENT PRESENTATIONS
ALL: Odell (1998) Investigating correlates of sedentism and domestication in
prehistoric North America
ALL: Daniel (2001) Stone raw material availability and Early Archaic
settlement in the Southeastern United States
ALL: Parry and Kelly (1987) Expedient core technology and sedentism
ESSAY ASSIGNMENT DUE ON TUESDAY, [date] BY 12:00 PM
Class Bibliography
Ahler, S. A. (1989). Mass analysis of flaking debris: studying the forest rather than the
tree. Alternative approaches to lithic analysis. D. O. H. a. G. H. Odell, Archaeological
Papers of the American Anthropological Association Number 1: 85-118.
Andrefsky, W. (2005). Lithics : macroscopic approaches to analysis, 2nd Ed. New York,
Cambridge University Press.
Bamforth, D. B. and M. S. Becker (2000). “Core/biface ratios, mobility, refitting, and
artifact use- lives: A Paleoindian example.” Plains Anthropologist 45(173): 273-290.
Barton, C. M. (1997). Stone tools, style, and social identity: an evolutionary perspective
on the archaeological record. Rediscovering Darwin: Evolutionary Theory in
Archaeological Explanation. C. M. Barton and G. A. Clark. Washington, D.C., American
Anthropological Association. 7: 141-156.
Bleed, P. (2001). “Trees of chains, links or branches: Conceptual alternative for
consideration of stone tool production and other sequential activities.” Journal of
Archaeological Method and Theory 8(1): 101-127.
Bleed, P. (1986) The optimal design of hunting weapons: Maintainability or reliability.
American Antiquity 51(4):737-747.
Bordes, F. (1969). “Reflections on typology and techniques in the paleolithic.” Arctic
Anthropology 6(1): 1-29.
Bradbury, A. P. and P. J. Carr (1999). “Examining stage and continuum models of flake
debris analysis: An experimental approach.” Journal of Archaeological Science 26(1):
105-116.
Cahen, D. and L. H. Keeley (1980). “Not less than two, not more than three.” World
Archaeology 12(2): 166-180.
Carr, P. J. and A. P. Bradbury (2001). Flake debris analysis, levels of production, and the
organization of technology. Lithic Debitage: Context, Form, Meaning. W. Andrefsky Jr.
Salt Lake City, University of Utah Press: 126-146.
Close, A.E. (2006). The concept of the Chaîne Opératoire in context. In, A.E. Close,
pp. 1-12 Finding the People who Flaked the Stone at English Camp (San Juan Island).
University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.
Cotterell, B. and J. Kamminga (1987). “The formation of flakes.” American Antiquity
52(4): 675-708.
Daniel, I. R. (2001). “Stone raw material availability and Early Archaic settlement in the
Southeastern United States.” American Antiquity 66(2): 237-265.
Flenniken, J. J. and P. J. Wilke (1989). “Typology, technology, and chronology of Great
Basin dart points.” American Anthropologist 91(1): 149-158.
Frison, G. C. (1968). “A functional analysis of certain chipped stone tools.” American
Antiquity 33(2): 149-155.
Hull, K. L. (1987). “Identification of cultural site formation processes through
microdebitage analysis.” American Antiquity 52(4): 772-783.
Jelinek, A. J. (1976). Form, function, and style in lithic analysis. Cultural change and
continuity. C. E. Cleland. New York, Academic Press: 19-35.
Kelly, R. L. (1988). “The three sides of a biface.” American Antiquity 53(4): 717-734.
MacDonald, D. H. (1999). “Modeling Folsom mobility mating strategies, and
technological organization in the Northern Plains.” Plains Anthropologist 44(168): 141161.
Morrow, J. E. and T. A. Morrow (1999). “Geographic variation in fluted projectile
points: A hemispheric perspective.” American Antiquity 64(2): 215-230.
Morrow, T. M. (1996). Lithic refitting and archaeological site formation processes: a case
study from the Twin Dutch site, Greene County, Illinois. Stone tools theoretical insights
into human prehistory. G. H. Odell. New York, Plenum Press: 345-373.
Nelson, M. C. (1991). “The study of technological organization.” Archaeological Method
and Theory 3: 57-100.
Newman, J. R. (1994). “The Effects of distance on lithic material reduction technology.”
Journal of field archaeology 21(4): 491.
Odell, G. H. (1998). “Investigating correlates of sedentism and domestication in
prehistoric North America.” American Antiquity 63(4): 553-571.
Odell, G. H. (1999). “The organization of labor at a protohistoric settlement in
Oklahoma.” Journal of Field Archaeology 26(4): 407-421.
Parry, W. J. and R. L. Kelly (1987). Expedient core technology and sedentism. The
Organization of Core Technology. J. K. Johnson and C. A. Marrow. Boulder and
London., Westview Press: 284-304.
Pecora, A. M. (2001). Chipped stone tool production strategies and lithic debitage
patterns. Lithic debitage : context, form, meaning. W. Andrefsky Jr. Salt Lake City,
University of Utah Press: 173-190.
Rasic, J. and W. Andrefsky Jr. (2001). Alaskan blade cores as specialized components of
mobile toolkits: assessing design parameters and toolkit organization through debitage
analysis. Lithic debitage : context, form, meaning. W. Andrefsky Jr. Salt Lake City,
University of Utah Press: 61-79.
Sullivan III, A.P. and K.C. Rozen (1985). Debitage analysis and archaeological
interpretation. American Antiquity 50(4): 755-779.
Taçon, P. S. (1991). “The power of stone: symbolic aspects of stone use and tool
development in western Arnhem Land, Australia.” Antiquity 65(247): 192.
Thomas, D. H. (1981). “How to classify the projectile points from the Monitor Valley,
Nevada.” Journal California and Great Basin Anthropology 3: 7-43.
Whittaker, J. C. (1994). Flintknapping: making and understanding stone tools. Austin,
University of Texas Press.
Young, D. and D. B. Bamforth (1990). “On the macroscopic identification of used
flakes.” American Antiquity 55(2): 403-409.