Works in Stone: Contemporary Perspectives on Lithic Analysis [1 ed.] 9781607813835, 9781607813828

Citation preview

Works in Stone

Works in Stone Contemporary Perspectives on Lithic Analysis

Edited by

Michael J. Shott

The University of Utah Press Salt Lake City

Copyright © 2015 by The University of Utah Press. All rights reserved. The Defiance House Man colophon is a registered trademark of the University of Utah Press. It is based on a 4-­ft-tall Ancient Puebloan pictograph (late PIII) near Glen Canyon, Utah. 19 18 17 16 15     1 2 3 4 5 CIP data on file with the Library of Congress. Printed and bound by Sheridan Books, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan.

Contents

List of Figures  vii List of Tables  xi 1. Works in Stone: Contemporary Perspectives on Lithic Analysis  1 Michael J. Shott 2. The Problems with Flake Types and the Case for Attribute Analysis of Debitage Assemblages 11 Jim A. Railey and Eric J. Gonzales 3. Timescales and Variability in Hominin Technological Strategies in the Jordan Rift Valley: What Difference Does 1.3 Million Years Make?  33 John J. Shea 4. Flake Selection, Assemblage Variability, and Technological Organization  46 Simon Holdaway, Matthew Douglass, and Rebecca Phillipps 5. Comparing Forager and Pastoralist Technological Organization in the Central Namib ­Desert, Western Namibia  63 Grant S. McCall and Rachel A. Horowitz 6. Hafted Woodworking Tools from an Upper Paleolithic Site in Northern China: Prehensile Wear Experiments and Archaeological Implications  78 Chen Shen, Xiaoling Zhang, Jingfang Zhao, Yanhua Song, Hong Chen, and Xing Gao 7. Toward a More Behavioral Approach: The Contribution of Wear Studies  96 Veerle Rots 8. Function and Value in Sickle Segment Analysis: Odellian Perspectives  116 Steven A. Rosen, Aaron Shugar, and Jacob Vardi 9. “There Is the Tool and the Way of Using It”: Quina Scrapers and Their Retouches  131 Sylvie Beyries and Philippe Walter 10. Dynamic Variables and the Use-­Related Reduction of Southern Huron Projectile Points  143 Harry J. Lerner

v

Contents 11. Artifactual and Environment-­Related Variations in Fuego-­Patagonia (Argentina): Assessing the Role of Different Factors  162 Marcelo Cardillo, Judith Charlin, and Karen Borrazzo 12. The Evolution of Old Cordilleran Core Technology  178 Anna M. Prentiss, James C. Chatters, Randall R. Skelton, and Matthew Walsh 13. Squeezing Life from Stones: The Human Side of Replication Experiments  197 John E. Clark and James C. Woods List of Contributors  213 Index 215

vi

Figures

2.1. Map of New Mexico showing sites and projects from which the debitage assemblages in the case study were collected. 15 2.2. Adjusted chi-­square residuals for the three nonmetric flake attributes, with assemblages grouped by settlement-­ subsistence mode.  22 3.1. Flake measurements discussed in the text. 36 3.2. Relationship between striking platform width/striking platform thickness, or “cost,” and flake surface area/flake thickness, or “benefit,” among flakes of varying shapes.  36 3.3. Map of the Jordan Rift Valley showing the locations of Ubeidiya and Ar Rasfa. 37 3.4. Flakes from Ubeidiya.  38 3.5. Flakes from Ar Rasfa.  39 3.6. Scattergram showing striking platform width/striking platform thickness and flake surface area/flake thickness values of flakes from Ubeidiya.  40 3.7. Scattergram showing striking platform width/striking platform thickness and flake surface area/flake thickness values of flakes from Ar Rasfa.  40 3.8. Scattergram showing striking platform width/striking platform thickness and flake surface area/flake thickness values of noncortical and minimally cortical flakes from Ubeidiya.  41 3.9. Scattergram showing striking platform width/striking platform thickness and

flake surface area/flake thickness values of noncortical and minimally cortical flakes from Ar Rasfa.  41 4.1. Predicting or retrodicting reduction sequences of resharpened artifacts.  52 5.1. Location of the Erb Tanks archaeological site in Namibia.  64 5.2. Map of Erb Tanks rockshelter and its vicinity. 64 5.3. Profile of sediment stratigraphy from the south wall of the M5 excavation unit. 65 5.4. Mean mass of whole flakes from the Later Stone Age levels.  69 5.5. Mean lengths and widths for whole flakes from the Later Stone Age levels. 69 5.6. Frequencies of platform morphologies for whole and broken flakes from the Later Stone Age levels.  70 5.7. Frequencies of raw material types for the Later Stone Age levels.  70 5.8. Possible ≠goubs granary at Arandis Dams. 71 5.9. Frequencies of animal bone specimens of various lengths.  72 5.10. Map of the Nyae Nyae Conservancy, northeastern Namibia.  74 6.1. Map of China showing locations of archaeological sites mentioned in the text. 79 6.2. Experimental replicas of flakes in hafting. 81 6.3. Variants of hafting arrangements for experimental flakes.  81 vii

Figures 6.4. Hafting experiment binding methods. 83 6.5. Experimental tools indicating segments in primary contact with the hemp strings and in primary contact with the wooden shaft.  84 6.6. Unused experimental tool USE058 exhibiting shallow snap-­off breakage scars along the ridge where the hafting unit contacted the wooden shaft.  85 6.7. Experimental tool USE070 exhibiting continuous small scars with snap terminations and light rounding where it contacted the string hafting.  85 6.8. Unifacially retouched adze-­shaped object from Hutouliang compared with a Neolithic ground-­stone adze.  87 6.9. Distribution of wear on Hutouliang adze-­shaped objects.  88 6.10. ASO P5084 showing three spots of hafting prehensile wear.  89 6.11. ASO P5048 showing the used edge associated with two prehensile wear segments on the lateral edges.  89 6.12. Unifacial ASO P5042 showing use-­wear and hafting prehensile wear.  90 6.13. Microblade hafted to a carved bone device recovered from the Donghuling site, near Beijing.  90 6.14. Two used hafted adze-­shaped objects, recovered from different locations surrounding the hearths, refitted together. 92 7.1. Polish spot on the butt of exp. 19/3A due to indirect percussion with an inter­mediate antler piece.  99 7.2. Percussion circle on the butt of exp. 34/8 due to direct contact with a quartzite hammer. 99 7.3. Incipient circular fracture associated with striations on the butt of exp. 34/39 due to direct contact with a sandstone hammer. 100 7.4. Striations within the incipient circular crack on the butt of exp. 34/72 due to direct contact with a basalt ­hammer.  100 7.5. Striations on the butt of exp. 30/53 due to direct contact with a bone hammer.  101

7.6. Fine and long striations on the butt of exp. 31/42 due to direct contact with an antler hammer.  101 7.7. Striations on the butt of exp. 30/53 due to direct contact with a bone h ­ ammer.  102 7.8. Striations on the butt of exp. 33/23 due to direct contact with a wooden h ­ ammer.  102 7.9. Prehension (antler) polish on the dorsal proximal butt of exp. 19/5C.  103 7.10. Well-­developed prehension (antler) polish on the ventral medial right edge of exp. 19/3C used for grooving a­ ntler.  104 7.11. Prehension scarring on the ventral proximal right edge of exp. 19/1C.  104 7.12. Continuous wood haft polish on the dorsal medial ridge of exp. 1/1.  105 7.13. Evenly sized feather-­terminating scalar hafting scars with wide initiations on the proximal part of the central medial left edge of exp. 10/23.  106 7.14. Hafting bright spot within a scar on the ventral proximal edge of exp. 10/23.  106 8.1. Map of the sites whose assemblages are analyzed in the text.  117 8.2. Basic sickle segment types reviewed in the text.  118 8.3. Microtopographic scanning of a Large Geometric sickle segment from Tell Jemmeh. 119 8.4. Environmental scanning electron microscope micrographs of a cross section of a Large Geometric sickle segment from Tell Jemmeh.  120 8.5. X-­ray photoelectron spectroscopy survey scans of the glossy edge and nonglossy interior of a blade.  121 8.6. Environmental scanning electron microscope micrographs of the ventral surface of a Large Geometric sickle segment from Tell Jemmeh.  122 8.7. Scale of retouch intensity.  124 8.8. Bar graph of retouch indices from different sites and horizons.  126 9.1. Theoretical scheme of the branched reduction process.  132 viii

Figures 9.2. 9.3. 9.4. 9.5.

Functioning of Quina scrapers.  132 Flakes without microwear.  133 Debris used as a drill on wood.  133 Scraper with woodworking traces and ochre residues.  134 9.6. Scraper with bone-­working traces on retouch, with the direction of the polish showing a longitudinal gesture.  134 9.7. Scraper with important abrasion of retouch resulting from contact with mineral. 135 9.8. Scraper with residues of manganese in retouch. 135 9.9. Elementary mapping indicating the presence of hematite.  136 10.1. Location of the Keffer site.  144 10.2. Settlement patterns at the Keffer village site. 145 10.3. Illustration of lateral edge angle and maximum thickness using a photo of a projectile point from Keffer in cross section and a schematic rendering.  147 10.4. Illustration of tip angle, maximum length, midpoint width, and base width using a photo of a point from Keffer and a schematic rendering.  147 10.5. Scatter plot of maximum length vs. tip angle for unnotched points.  149 10.6. Scatter plot of maximum thickness vs. mean lateral edge angle for unnotched points. 150 10.7. Scatter plot of midpoint width vs. mean lateral edge angle for all unnotched points and unnotched points without outliers. 151 10.8. Box plot of maximum length for all five point code categories.  152 10.9. Box plot of tip angle for all five point code categories.  153 10.10. Box plot of maximum thickness for all five point code categories.  153 10.11. Box plot of mean lateral edge angle for all five point code categories.  154 10.12. Box plot of midpoint width for all five point code categories.  154 10.13. Box plot of base width for all five point code categories.  155 10.14. Box plot of the midpoint width/base

width ratio for all five point code categories. 156 10.15. Scatter plot of maximum length vs. tip angle for the three recognized point forms. 156 10.16. Scatter plot of midpoint width vs. base width for the three recognized point forms. 157 10.17. Projectile point life history flow chart scenarios. 158 11.1. Research areas within Fuego-­ Patagonia. 163 11.2. Moran’s I spatial correlograms explaining global-­scale and more local-­scale spatial patterns.  169 11.3. Environmental loadings of the two first principal components of the principal components analyses.  170 1 1.4. Distance-­Based Redundancy Analysis on tool type proportion and the environmental axis.  170 11.5. Tool type proportion scores related to the discriminant axis.  171 1 1.6. Distance-­Based Redundancy Analysis on tool type occurrence and the environmental and spatial axes.  172 11.7. Tool type occurrence scores related to the discriminant axes.  172 12.1. Study area with the contexts of the Paleoarctic and Old Cordilleran traditions. 179 12.2. Archaeological cultures associated with the greater Old Cordilleran.  180 1 2.3. Branching hypothesis.  181 1 2.4. Blending hypothesis.  182 12.5. Paleoarctic sites Dyuktai Cave and Dry Creek with associated examples of cores. 184 12.6. Old Cordilleran sites with examples of cores. 185 12.7. Unweighted Pair Group Method with Arithmetic Mean cluster analysis, first data set.  187 12.8. Parsimony analysis, first data set.  187 1 2.9. Neighbor-­joining phylogram (Euclidean distance), first data set.  188 1 2.10. Neighbor-­joining phylogram (Jaccard distance), first data set.  188 ix

Figures 12.11. SplitsTree4 Neighbornet network, first data set.  189 12.12. SplitsTree4 Neighbornet network with superimposed Neighbor-­joining tree, first data set.  189 12.13. Unweighted Pair Group Method with Arithmetic Mean cluster analysis, all sites. 190 12.14. Parsimony cladogram, all sites.  190 1 2.15. Neighbor-­joining phylogram (Euclidean distance), all sites.  190

12.16. SplitsTree4 Neighbornet network, all sites. 191 12.17. Plot of branching order by effective temperature. 191 13.1. Chert bifaces, hafted chert-­tipped axes, and hafted picks used in quarry experiments at Nakbe, Guatemala, in 1996. 202 13.2. Prehistoric chert eccentric and obsidian replicas attempted in 2001 by Jim Woods and Gene Titmus, respectively.  204

x

Tables

2.1. Flake Type Classifications from a Selection of Projects in the Four Corners Area of the American Southwest.  12 2.2. Characteristics Associated with Pre­ ceramic Debitage Assemblages Included in the Case Study.  16 2.3. Characteristics Associated with Pueblo-­ Period Farmers’ Debitage Assemblages Included in the Case Study.  16 2.4. Debitage Totals for the Flake Assemblages Included in the Case Study.  17 2.5. Temporal Period, Settlement-­ Subsistence Mode, and Expected Patterns Based on Explanations Linking the Shift to Expedient Technologies with Reduced Mobility and/or F ­ arming.  19 2.6. Sample Size, Mean, and Range of Collected Flake Data.  21 3.1. Lithic Samples from Ubeidiya and Ar Rasfa. 39 3.2. Cost vs. Benefit Statistics for All Whole Flakes from Ubeidiya and Ar Rasfa.  40 3.3. Cost vs. Benefit Statistics for “Non-/ Minimally Cortical” Flakes from Ubeidiya and Ar Rasfa.  41 4.1. Cortex Ratio for Selected Assemblages from Western New South Wales, Australia, and Fayum, Egypt.  55 5.1. Frequencies of Cores, Core Fragments, Retouched Tools, and Debitage from the Later Stone Age Levels.  67 5.2. Frequencies of Backed Bladelets, Scrapers, Other Retouched Tools, and Bipolar Fragments from the Later Stone Age Levels.  67

5.3. Mean Sizes of Whole Flakes from the Later Stone Age Levels.  68 5.4. Frequencies of Platform Morphologies for Whole and Broken Flakes from the Later Stone Age Levels.  68 5.5. Frequencies of Raw Material Types for the Later Stone Age Levels.  68 5.6. Frequencies and Masses of Ground-­ Stone Fragments from the Later Stone Age Levels.  72 6.1. Hafting Tool Experiments at the Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology, Beijing.  82 6.2. Hutouliang Adze-­Shaped Object Measurements. 87 8.1. Microprobe X-­Ray Photoelectron Spectroscopy Analysis of a Lithic Sickle Blade from Tell Jemmeh.  120 8.2. Gloss Intensity vs. Retouch Intensity from Tell Jemmeh, According to Technotype. 123 8.3. Edge Retouch Intensity Data by Site and Technology. 127 9.1. Analysis of the Color Residues on the Studied Scrapers.  137 9.2. Inventory of the Blocks of Coloring from Combe Grenal Stored in the Museé national de Préhistoire.  138 11.1. Frequency and Percentage of Tool Types Within the Research Areas.  166 11.2. Stone Tool Scores by the First Discriminant Axis in the Two Models.  168 12.1. Paleoarctic and Old Cordilleran Sites and Sources.  186 12.2. Data Used in the First and Second Analyses. 186 xi

CHAPTER 1

Works in Stone Contemporary Perspectives on Lithic Analysis Michael J. Shott

Stone tools have existed for nearly as long as people have. Stone is abundant and durable, can take on myriad forms, and is suited to a wide range of purposes. Tools and the debris generated in the process of making and maintaining them are imperishable, at least over time spans relevant to archaeology. Their popularity in prehistory and their persistence in the archaeological record make stone tools arguably archaeology’s most abundant and undeniably its most enduring category of evidence. As a result, lithic analysis can address questions that range from the evolution of human cognition to pragmatic action to labor organization to symbolic manipulation. Human behavior, cultural organization, and craft tradition are written in stone better and over vastly longer time spans than in any other medium. Naturally, stone tools and their analysis figured prominently in critical early stages of archaeology’s own intellectual development, in Europe from Boucher de Perthes’s establishment of human antiquity and association with Pleistocene fauna to Thomsen’s three-­age system. Later, stone tools were equally critical to establishing the depth of New World prehistory. Since then, of course, archaeologists have continued to study stone tools, but it is difficult to sustain any longer the proposition that lithic analysis is as central to archaeology, no matter its actual importance, as it once was.

In the past 40 years, lithic analysis vastly expanded its inferential scope and methodologi­ cal repertoire. Where previously stone tools were crude markers of time and cultural affinity, t­ oday subjects of study include the technological processes by which tools were made (whether we call them reduction sequences or the currently fashionable chaîne opératoire) and their implications for the makers’ cognitive faculties; the literally minute details of how and on what they were used; and, more recently still, how long they were used and what caused their discard. In the process, the archaeologists who study stone tools have applied an impressive range of theory, most admittedly materialist, to their subject’s analysis. Clearly, lithic analysis has the capacity to support a wide range of cultural inferences. Purpose and Scope Their ubiquity makes stone tools among archaeology’s most popular subjects and accommodates a spectrum of analytical and interpretive approaches to their study. But most archaeologists, lithic analysts and others, tend to focus narrowly on their own specializations. As a result, the analytical diversity that characterizes stone tool research often is experienced by archaeologists in disconnected fragments that do not impart a sense of a coherent field of study. No collection can remedy this situation. Instead of trying, this collection showcases some 1

Michael J. Shott of the most recent and best lithic analyses. In the process, it engages stone tool and other evidence from a broad time-­space range. Contributions span the Americas and range to western Europe, the eastern Mediterranean, sub-­Saharan Africa, and East Asia. In time, they engage a lithic record that extends from the Lower Paleolithic to the late Holocene. The collection’s analytical scope is equally broad, encompassing everything from the technology of production to tool design and use and the formation and analysis of assemblages. In the process, chapters illustrate the testing of theoretical models that themselves range from technological organization to symbolism to evolutionary archaeology. As a group, then, the chapters demonstrate the relevance of lithic studies to a range of theoretical approaches in contemporary archaeology. The uses of lithics in modern archaeology are as broad as their uses in ancient cultures.

copious flake debris generated in their manufacture. Yet the shared appreciation for the importance of the evidence has not yielded consensus on analytical standards and methods for the inference of reduction processes from it. This is not to suggest rote performance of analytical protocols, merely due concern for standards of proof. Archaeologists continue to describe reduction products and by-­products in disparate ways and to infer different kinds and amounts of reduction from similar evidence. Besides common analytical standards in reduction analysis, we must resolve the question of whether or when reduction is a continuous process or a sequence of discrete stages (e.g., Bradbury and Carr 1999; Shott et al. 2011; ­Tostevin 2011). The answer is apt to be yes, in the sense that there is good evidence for both in different lithic records. Yet the assumption that reduction necessarily is staged, not continuous, remains pervasive, despite the considerable evidence for continua, and may sometimes predetermine the conclusions that archaeologists reach. We require controlled experiments that involve a range of materials, cobble sizes and forms, percussors, and reduction modes, ideally in which the product of each hammer blow is identified separately, and careful analysis of the resulting evidence to determine when and under what conditions reductions are best understood in continuous or discrete terms. In the process, lithic analysts will continue to confront the superabundance of flake ­debris, which is at once the chief virtue and vice of lithic analysis. This is not the place to discourse upon the information that resides in the serious analysis of flake debris, which has been explored at length elsewhere (e.g., Ahler 1989; Andrefsky 2001; Hall and Larson 2004; Mourre et al. 2006; Shott 1994). Yet, as Railey and Gonzales demonstrate here, standards for flake analysis remain underdeveloped (or certainly unmet) after nearly 30 years of research. There is no easy solution to this problem, but there are many paths toward it. They include, as Railey and Gonzales show, further comparisons of measurement and coding methods (e.g., of degree of cortex cover) for their replicability and validity, as well as controlled blind tests of the

Some Current Issues in Lithic Analysis

A collection can sample but not encompass the full range of issues that confronts contemporary lithic studies — ​neither can an even briefer survey of some issues of current concern in the analysis of stone tools and debris. Yet this survey might help place the collection in perspective and establishes some context for the issues that its contributions engage. It is ordered via the reduction process from earliest to final steps and culminates in an assessment of the current status of lithic analysis in the academy. The Study of Reduction Sequences

The patterned ways in which raw cobbles are reduced to usable tools is known as “reduction sequence” in American practice and chaîne opératoire in the European tradition. Where once archaeologists studied only tools themselves, for decades now they have appreciated the importance of knowing how tools were made and the processes or steps that separate raw material from the finished product. Today, no lithic analyst doubts the importance of reduction sequences. The evidence for reduction processes comes from the tools that were their objective and the 2

Works in Stone flake typologies that remain popular for their apparent ease of use yet may suffer from grave replicability problems. They also include more studies of the effect of nodule size and form on kind and amount of flake debris generated, holding other factors (e.g., reduction mode, percussors, size and number of intended tools) constant. They include more controlled experiments to document the relationship between attributes and dimensions of flake platforms (e.g., exterior angle, area) and flake size (e.g., area, mass).

ical Truth. This Golden Age ended with the disappointment, even despair in some quarters, that followed the famous Institute of Archaeology tests of the mid-­1980s (Newcomer et al. 1986). Yet the reaction overreacted; use-­wear analysis did not fail, but its limitations were more clearly understood. All analytical approaches have limitations, trivially, but the use-­wear community recovered by the late 1990s. Today it retains a prominent methodological position in lithic analysis, always mindful of its limitations. Rosen et al.’s chapter here demonstrates the tactical use of both low- and high-­power methods applied at various scales to a single research question; Rots lays out the basis for prehensile use-­wear analysis; and, in a useful application, Shen et al. examine prehensile wear in Chinese Paleolithic assemblages. Yet of course there remains room for improvement. As in flake debris studies, we require large, diverse, and systematic reference collections, as both Rots and Shen et al. advocate here. Accurate digital imagery of pattern, type, and degree of wear and polish is required, carefully calibrated to worked material, kinetics, and length of use. Unresolved problems in use-­ wear analysis include the effects of time of use independent of kinetics and worked material and the fact that use-­wear found on retouched tools records last use only, which may or may not be representative of earlier uses.

Actualistic Experiments

Nodules reduced to varying kinds and n ­ umbers of intended tools in ways thought to resemble prehistoric practice correlate kind and amount of debris to reduction modes (e.g., Ahler 1989). Yet the vast range of raw materials, nodule sizes and forms, and reduction modes is not exhausted by the existing corpus of e­ xperimental data. Another goal of lithic debris analysis should be yet more experiments that vary systematically in material, nodule, reduction mode, and intended product. The debris resulting from actualistic experiments should be permanently curated as reference collections in museums and universities around the world. We must develop minimal recording standards (e.g., Shott 1994:79–81) for these experimental sets (when possible, collecting debris that results from each hammer blow or at least aggregating d ­ ebris by fixed, short time intervals; sorting debris through some mini­ mal number and interval of size classes; coding individual flakes for presence or degree of cortex cover, for platform type and faceting, for exterior-­surface faceting) and distribute resulting databases electronically for the widest distribution and analysis possible.

Reduction and Curation

In the course of use, stone tools that were retouched to resharpen dulled edges were reduced in size and changed in proportion and shape. If retouch was sustained over many cycles of use and edge-­dulling, then the amount of reduction in size and corresponding change in shape is both significant and a form of allometry that differs from its biological equivalent in acting in reduction, not growth. In recent years archaeologists have exploited reduction trajectories for their typological implications (e.g., Dibble 1987) and the insight they provide into the practice of curation (e.g., Shott 2010a; Shott and Sillitoe 2005). As this line of research advanced, archaeologists realized that no single reduction measure suited all kinds of

Use-­Wear Analysis

Following Semenov’s (1964) pioneering studies, in the 1970s enthusiasm for and optimism about the analytical potential of use-­wear analysis abounded. Most practitioners, George Odell prominent among them (e.g., 1978, 1979, 1981a), documented the developing field’s ability to improve inference of the cultural past, while some enthusiastic if less critical advocates proclaimed use-­wear analysis the short road to archaeolog3

Michael J. Shott tools and all contexts. Owing to specimen geometry, degree of elaboration in manufacture, and pattern and type of use and retouch, different measures are appropriate for different types. In bifaces, retouch invasiveness is a common reduction measure (e.g., Andrefsky 2006). Here, Rosen et  al. show how use-­wear data reflect degree and, by extension, length of use. Lerner applies both allometric and geometric measures to late prehistoric triangular arrowpoints from the North American Great Lakes, adding to the tools of reduction analysis. Thus, Rosen et al. show evidence of length of use or age in polish that accumulates on tools, and Lerner, in pattern and degree of retouch that removed mass and material from tools. Yet reduction analysis confronts further challenges, one concerning its boundary conditions. Beyries and Walter’s chapter argues that Quina scraper retouch was an attribute of design, not a by-­product of use and resharpening, and Holdaway et  al. infer organizational strategies that involve core, not flake, reduction. At the same time, Rosen et al. see evidence for progressive reduction of Levantine sickle segments. Besides the development and testing of additional measures, challenges to reduction analysis include determining the correspondence between different measures applied to the same tools.

Assemblage Analysis

Once stone tools and debris are discarded to enter the material record, they accumulate in assemblages. In the 1960s, one of archaeology’s great debates concerned the composition of stone tool assemblages. Then, assemblage composition was thought to express either social norms (Bordes 1961) or activity patterns (Binford and Binford 1966). This “functional” argument’s protagonists could agree on neither the empirical nature and degree of variation in Paleolithic assemblages nor the meaning of the patterns of assemblage that they claimed. The functional argument engaged important questions but at the same time revealed the low standards of assemblage analysis, because similar data were invoked to support very different explanations. Since then we have learned that many types defined among stone tools are merely arbitrary subdivisions of complex continua of metric and formal variation (e.g., Dibble 1987) and that the size of assemblages influences their composition independently of either norm or activity (e.g., Shott 2003, 2010b). Yet, nearly a half century on, lithic analysis and archaeology at large lack fixed standards of assemblage definition and analysis and continue to assimilate highly complex patterns of assemblage variation to s­ implistic ethno­graphic vignettes. Assemblage analysis is one area where lithic analysis lags seriously, engaging little current archaeological thought. In this volume, Cardillo and colleagues interpret Patagonian assemblage variation in environmental or functional terms using sophisticated measures, while Prentiss et al. derive historical explanations from assemblage data using equally sophisticated techniques, demonstrating the relevance of such evidence to questions not previously addressed in assemblages.

Artifact Discard

Trivially, stone tools were made to be used. From an archaeological perspective, it is not trivial that after use they somehow entered the material record. Every tool that we study was made and used but also discarded (or lost or abandoned) before becoming our subject of study. Compared with the effort invested in the study of tool manufacture and use, discard is neglected. The longevity of tools and the processes that govern their discard are knowable (e.g., Shott 2010a; Shott and Sillitoe 2005) if not yet well known. Surovell’s (2009) innovative study demonstrates the value of this knowledge as part of a larger program in the explicit theoretical modeling of stone tool design and use. Discard or failure analysis is a nascent but crucial issue in lithic studies.

Integrating Analysis of Function and History in Stone Tools

Nowhere is the further potential of lithic analysis greater than in historical studies. In principle archaeology studies culture processes of the longest duration, including those that register in stone tools, yet in practice it continues to accommodate evidence and interpretations to an4

Works in Stone thropology’s short time scales and synchronic scenarios. We have the evidence and methods to study truly long-­term culture processes, including those produced by inheritance. A notable recent trend in lithic studies is the resurgence of historical analysis in the form of Darwinian or evolutionary archaeology. These trends redress an imbalance in the older, functional tradition that favored synchronic adaptation, partly in response to its critique of the culture-­history paradigm that in some respects was evolutionism’s ancestor. But the newly revived historical perspective and the older functionalism do not always engage each other’s data or approaches directly. Functionalism and the technological organization and behavioral ecology that are among its later expressions emphasize synchronic adaptation almost to the exclusion of historical process, while evolutionary archaeology privileges historical relationship and descent in sometimes blithe disregard of adaptive constraints. Evolutionary archaeology first emphasized ceramic data but in the past decade has encompassed stone tool studies (e.g., Buchanan 2006; O’Brien and Lyman 2003; Shott 2008). Organization, adaptation, and history register in various realms of lithic evidence. Types or modes of reduction (e.g., Levallois) may pattern in time and perhaps in culture and can be learned. To the extent that reduction reflects tradition and inheritance, and controlling for the independent effects of material, nodule, percussor, context, number and type of intended products, and other factors, it is a legitimate subject of historical analysis (Geib 2002). Yet, as above, methods of reduction analysis remain underspecified and therefore not necessarily replicable, and lithic analysis lacks a theory of how reduction modes are transmitted and changed through time. Regarding finished implements, around the world most are flake tools and unifaces that bear the least modification necessary for prehension and use. Bifaces, in contrast, are extensively retouched for hafting and function and perhaps for signaling. To make them requires relatively elaborate production sequences that must be learned

and may be transmitted. Bifaces are superabundant in the New World, particularly in North America, and the broad patterns of various types’ time-­space distribution are established. As a result, nowhere in the world is there greater prospect for the study of patterns of historical transmission of lithic form and technique than in the study of North American bifaces. In finished tools as in reduction trajectories, however, archaeology lacks any theory to explain variation in its subject, in this case theory of form, or the tempo and mode of its change through time. As a result, the essential but productive tension between functionalism and evolutionism remains unresolved. Contributions here from Cardillo et al., Holdaway et al., McCall and Horo­ witz, and Shea represent functionalism, technological organization, or behavioral ecology; Prentiss and colleagues alone take an evolutionary approach. Separately, each approach illustrates the intelligent application of theory and method to lithic evidence. Challenges, however, remain in the integration of synchronic behavior and diachronic process into comprehensive explanations. One way among others to integrate function and history involves the analysis of three-­ dimensional digital images of tools, notably bifaces. Digital models can be analyzed for the linear dimensions (e.g., length, width) common in conventional approaches but also for a range of other quantitative attributes (e.g., volume, section form, and area). But the use of landmarks gives access to the powerful analytical methods of geometric morphometrics (e.g., Buchanan 2006; Lycett 2010; Shott and Trail 2010). This approach, equally suitable for functional and historical studies, can help lithic analysis demonstrate archaeology’s ability to document the tempo and mode of long-­term change in material culture. At the same time, no matter the size of museum collections of North American stone tools, they are vastly exceeded by the artifacts held in thousands of private collections. This corpus of evidence is inaccessible to academic archaeology unless we make the effort to engage collectors in its documentation and analysis. In many parts 5

Michael J. Shott of North America, no matter how thorough our own surveys and excavations, they cannot include the artifacts, numerous beyond measure, held in private hands. We must seek them out. Otherwise, not knowing the true size and composition of tool assemblages across the landscape (as opposed to the assemblages that we find in our limited investigations), we will never know how (in)complete and (un)representative our samples are. This is a major challenge both for lithic analysis and for management of the archaeological record.

teemed in American academic archaeology. Contract practice may differ because, in North America at least, stone is so commonplace and conspicuous that meaningful engagement there with lithic evidence cannot be avoided. In the vastness of Latin America, an equally vast lithic record is understudied in so-­called nuclear areas, except in service to research on craft and labor specialization. It is no coincidence that some of the most original and stimulating recent Latin American lithic research has taken place in the Southern Cone (e.g., Cardillo 2009; Castiñeira et al. 2011; Suarez 2011), which lacks an overlay of its lithic record by dense sherd scatters and the urban ruins of complex polities. In North America, disproportionate archaeological emphasis is placed on the later prehistories of the Southwest (pretty pottery, cliff dweller ruins, evocative scenery) and mid-­South (cities, large-­ scale architecture, pottery typologies of baroque complexity) in which, obsidian notched arrowpoints and Ramey knives notwithstanding, the lithic record is considered less informative or at least less glamorous than other materials. The situation of lithic analysts in Europe and elsewhere apparently differs. In important countries such as France, lithic analysis was crucial to the rise of prehistory over two centuries ago. The French countryside is littered with places, including but not limited to deeply stratified rockshelters, where 200,000 years or more of hunter-­gatherer prehistory played out. What is more, Paleolithic archaeology in Europe and particularly in East Africa, which Europeans dominate despite a considerable representation for North Americans, is unusual among hunter-­ gatherer subjects for the high esteem in which it is held in the academy. Prominent American institutions employ Paleolithic archaeologists but much less often those who study the lithic evidence of North American hunter-­gatherers. If anthropology romanticizes the Other, American archaeology undeniably glorifies the Somewhere Else, as opposed to the Right Here. Denying nothing about the value of Elsewhere, American academic archaeology should become more serious about the study of Here, particularly through its abundant lithic record.

Status of Lithic Analysis

Whatever challenges the field confronts in the further development of traditional lines of analysis or the integration of functional and historical approaches, lithic analysis confronts an equally grave challenge of status within the academy, where much of it resides. Paradoxically, modern lithic analysis matured both in theoretical scope and in methodological rigor as it simultaneously declined in importance within archaeology at large. Partly this d ­ ecline owes to the intellectual fragmentation of a field that now has thousands of practitioners applying dozens of theoretical or methodological approaches to the widest possible range of evidence in the broadest time-­space contexts. Partly it owes to the tyranny of the recent, archaeologists’ tendency to gravitate to the study of comparatively recent times and the complex polities that inhabited them, where the wider range of evidence makes stone less important merely by proportion and the symbolic and political dimensions of culture make stone seem less involved in their development. Partly it may owe to a perceived lack of glamor or gravitas in such a commonplace material or the (imagined, not real) poor ability of stone to reflect the cultural organization and process that interest archaeologists. Whatever the explanation, as lithic analysis makes increasingly important contributions to our understanding of the cultural past, it fades deeper into the background of academic p ­ ractice. However abundant and informative is the lithic record, its study is not uniformly es6

Works in Stone Contributors to the Volume Besides the intrinsic scholarly appeal of this collection’s chapters, the list of contributors itself is noteworthy for the number of distinguished and internationally recognized scholars that it includes. Beyries is recognized internationally as one of archaeology’s foremost use-­wear analysts. Clark and Woods are doyens of replication studies and have done innovative research on the signature that craft specialization leaves in the lithic record. Holdaway is among New Zealand’s best-­known archaeologists, pioneered in-­ field recording and analytical techniques for very fine-­grained data recording, and coauthored the authoritative text on Australian stone tools. Prentiss, as well as having compiled an exceptional record in lithic analysis, is pioneering new applications of evolutionary studies with her colleague Chatters. Rosen has a long record of accomplishment in the Levant and wrote beautifully of the changing role of stone following the advent of metal technology in that region. (His colleague Shugar has conducted extensive metallurgical research around the world.) Shea is among the foremost Paleolithic authorities in the Near East, applying his skill in replication, controlled experiment, and detailed artifact analysis to a lithic record that spans hundreds of thousands of years. As a prominent contract practitioner, Railey has mastered the discipline of rigorous analysis on tight deadlines, including thoughtful handling of flake debris data against the sometimes mechanical treatment it receives. His strong scholarly record includes research on bow and arrow origins and on core technology. Separately and together, Prentiss and Chatters have carried out theoretically sophisticated research (e.g., Chatters and Prentiss 2005). Their chapter (in part with Skelton, a physical anthropologist with a long record of archaeological research) traces historical descent through patterns of similarity and difference, a rare example of evolutionary theory applied to assemblage data. Any thriving field includes promising newcomers as well as established authorities. Here too the collection delivers by including some of the brightest of new lithic analysts. Phillipps

and Douglass have extensive experience in the nonsite archaeology of interior Australia. Shen and colleagues represent a generation of Chinese scholars who are applying Western methods and theoretical approaches to a record traditionally isolated from Western influence. Lerner’s research in several North American regions was recognized in a prestigious postdoctoral fellow­ship at Laval. Cardillo and colleagues are emerging as prominent lithic analysts of Argentine Patagonia. They are also central to a growing network of Argentine and other Southern Cone scholars who are among the most innovative anywhere in the use of morphometric and cladistic methods. McCall, a recent Ph.D., and Horowitz are conducting pioneering organizational research in a neglected region, southwestern Africa; McCall also serves as editor of Lithic Technology. Walsh already has a substantial research record on evolutionary approaches to Plateau and Northwest Coast prehistory. Vardi and Rots fall somewhere between éminence grise and promising newcomer. Vardi has published extensively on Bronze Age lithic industries of the Levant. Rots has a long record of accomplishment for such a comparatively young scholar, in both low- and high-­power use-­wear studies, and recently published Prehension and Hafting Traces on Flint Tools with Leuven University Press. (Walter falls in this group as well, with expertise in chemical analysis of pigments.) A Scholar’s Works in Stone This collection originated in a symposium at the seventy-­sixth annual meeting of the Society for American Archaeology in 2011. The symposium’s purpose was to recognize George Odell’s contributions to lithic analysis as he stepped down from the editorial direction of Lithic Technology. Because presentations were of nearly uniformly high quality, we immediately contemplated their publication as further testimonial to George’s impact upon the field. Sadly, George died suddenly the following September. A symposium held as a testimonial became a collection of research papers that would serve as a festschrift. This is not the place, nor am I the person, to write George Odell’s professional obituary. It 7

Michael J. Shott suffices to say that George was an early champion of low-­power microscopy in the study of lithic use-­wear (Odell 1978, 1979, 1981a; Tringham et al. 1974) and, over the years, became its most accomplished practitioner. He applied his impressive expertise to the archaeological record of the Belgian Neolithic (Odell 1978, 1980), to an Illinois Valley record that spanned millennia (Odell 1987, 1996), and to the southern Plains. Along the way, George made major substantive contributions in, for instance, the exploration of form–function correspondences (Odell 1981b), the origins of bow and arrow technology in North America (Odell 1988), and technological organization (Odell 1994). He also organized two important conferences whose resulting publications were highly influential (Henry and Odell 1989; Odell, ed. 1996). Toward the end of his career, George wrote a comprehensive synthesis of lithic analysis (Odell 2003). Yet George Odell cannot be pigeonholed as a narrow lithic analyst, and an equally important facet of his career should not be overlooked in the understandable focus on stone tools: his contribution to the broader study of prehistory. In the process, he made important contributions to survey methods (Odell and Cowan 1987) and to site testing (Odell 1992). Among other important contributions, George excavated a major proto­ historic settlement in eastern Oklahoma and authored a comprehensive volume on the site (Odell 2002). Most of us can only regard this record with the mixture of awe and envy that it inspires. In the aggregate, it is more than enough to secure George Odell a prominent place in the history of archaeological lithic analysis. Yet George made an equally important contribution when, in 1993, he revived Lithic Technology, which had ceased publication several years before. Improving its layout and format, George transformed Lithic Technology into an influential forum of lithic analysis and guided it with a steady editorial hand for nearly 20 years. (The journal is now in

the capable hands of Grant McCall.) Recalling (again) the superabundance of lithic evidence, it is remarkable how few journals are dedicated to its systematic study. Without George’s sustained efforts, the first among those few journals would not exist. George’s path crossed mine in the early 1990s. Thereafter, we stayed in frequent contact on matters of common interest. By circumstance, George and I were not close friends, but I like to think that we were fairly good professional colleagues. Among his manifest qualities, two stand out (besides his fondness for lame puns, as McCall and Horowitz remind us). First was George’s unfailing good nature. He was as serious about the field as any archaeologist I know, but George was rarely met without a smile on his face and a kind word on his lips. Anyone who has traveled the thickets of academe in the past 25 years knows how rare and can appreciate how refreshing such personal qualities are in a prominent researcher. Second was George’s unfailing scholarly civility. As active researchers, he and I disagreed as much as we agreed — ​not least about when bow and arrow technology first reached the Americas and by what evidence that appearance was demonstrated (Odell 1988; Shott 1993) — ​but always constructively. This quality too was both rare and welcome in a field where, sadly, civil discourse is not always the rule in ­debate. In sum, George Odell was an archaeologist of the highest personal and professional caliber, who demonstrated great expertise in important areas of analysis, notably use-­wear analysis, and broad interest in the intelligent study of the cultural past. The rest of us can aspire to George’s standards of scholarship and, perhaps on our best days, approach them. This book represents some of the best days of two generations of lithic analysts. However imperfect it may be, we offer it in heartfelt tribute to a man who exemplified the highest standards of lithic analysis.

8

Works in Stone References Cited

Scraper Morphology. American Antiquity 52:109–117. Geib, Phil R. 2002 Basketmaker II Horn Flaking Tools and Dart Point Production: Technological Change at the Agricultural Transition. In Traditions, Transitions, and Technologies: Themes in Southwestern Archaeology, edited by S. Schlanger, pp. 272–306. University Press of Colorado, Boulder. Hall, Christopher T., and Mary Lou Larson (editors) 2004 Aggregate Analysis in Chipped Stone. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Henry, Donald O., and George H. Odell (editors) 1989 Alternative Approaches to Lithic Analysis. Archeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association, No. 1. Washington, D.C. Lycett, Stephen J. 2010 Cultural Transmission, Genetic Models and Palaeolithic Variability: Integrative Analytical Approaches. In New Perspectives on Old Stones: Analytical Approaches to Palaeolithic Technologies, edited by S. Lycett and P. Chauhan, pp. 207–234. Springer/Kluwer, New York. Mourre, Vincent, Arnaud Lenoble, Antoine Barré, Jean-­Guillaume Bordes, and Pascal Bertran 2006 Fabrique d’amas de débitage: Données expérimentales. Bulletin de la Societé Préhistorique Française 103:33–47. Newcomer, Mark H., Roger Grace, and R. Unger-­ Hamilton 1986 Investigating Microwear Polishes with Blind Tests. Journal of Archaeological Science 13:​ 203–217. O’Brien, Michael J., and R. Lee Lyman 2003 Cladistics and Archaeology. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Odell, George H. 1978 Préliminaries d’une Analyse Fonctionelle des Pointes Microlithiques de Beergumer­ meer (Pays-­Bas). Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française 75:37–49. 1979 A New and Improved System for the Retrieval of Functional Information from Microscopic Observations of Chipped Stone Tools. In Lithic Use-­Wear Analysis, edited by B. Hayden, pp. 329–344. Academic, New York. 1980 Toward a More Behavioral Approach to Archaeological Lithic Concentrations. American Antiquity 45:404–431.

Ahler, Stanley A. 1989 Mass Analysis of Flaking Debris: Studying the Forest Rather than the Trees. In Alternative Approaches to Lithic Analysis, edited by D. Henry and G. Odell, pp. 85–118. Archeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association No. 1. Washington, D.C. Andrefsky, William 2006 Experimental and Archaeological Verification of an Index of Retouch for Hafted Bifaces. American Antiquity 71:743–758. Andrefsky, William (editor) 2001 Lithic Debitage: Context, Form, Meaning. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Binford, Lewis R., and Sally Binford 1966 A Preliminary Analysis of Functional Variability in the Mousterian of Levallois Facies. American Anthropologist 68:238–295. Bordes, François 1961 Typologie du Paléolithique Ancien et Moyen. Delmas, Bordeaux. Bradbury, Andrew P., and Philip J. Carr 1999 Examining Stage and Continuum Models of Flake Debris Analysis: An Experimental Approach. Journal of Archaeological Science 26:105–116. Buchanan, Briggs 2006 An Analysis of Folsom Projectile Point Resharpening Using Quantitative Compari­ sons of Form and Allometry. Journal of Archaeological Science 33:185–199. Cardillo, Marcelo 2009 Temporal Trends in the Morphometric Variation of Lithic Projectile Points During the Middle Holocene of Southern Andes (Puna Region): A Coevolutionary Approach. In Questions Théoretiques et Méthodologiques en Archéologie Évolutive: Vers un Paradigme Darwinien Unifié, edited by H. Muscio and G. López, pp. 13–20. BAR International Series 1915. Archaeopress, Oxford. Castiñeira, C., M. Cardillo, J. Charlin, and J. Baeza 2011 Analisis de morfometría geométrica en puntas cola de pescado del Uruguay. Latin American Antiquity 22:335–358. Chatters, James C., and W. C. Prentiss 2005 A Darwinian Macro-­Evolutionary Perspective on the Development of Hunter-­Gatherer Systems in Northwestern North America. World Archaeology 37:46–65. Dibble, Harold L. 1987 The Interpretation of Middle Paleolithic 9

Michael J. Shott 1981a The Mechanics of Use-­Breakage of Stone Tools: Some Testable Hypotheses. Journal of Field Archaeology 8:197–209. 1981b The Morphological Express at Function Junction: Searching for Meaning in Lithic Tool Types. Journal of Anthropological Research 37:319–342. 1987 Analyse Fonctionnelle des Traces d’Usure Effectuée à une Échelle Régionale (l’Illinois). L’Anthropologie 91:381–398. 1988 Addressing Prehistoric Hunting Practices Through Stone Tool Analysis. American Anthropologist 90:335–356. 1992 Bewitched by Mechanical Site Testing Devices. American Antiquity 57:692–703. 1994 Prehistoric Hafting and Mobility in the North American Midcontinent: Examples from Illinois. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 13:51–73. 1996 Stone Tools and Mobility in the Illinois Valley: From Hunter-­Gatherer Camps to Agricultural Villages. International Monographs in Prehistory, Ann Arbor. 2002 La Harpe’s Post: A Tale of French–Wichita Contact on the Eastern Plains. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. 2003 Lithic Analysis. Springer, New York. Odell, George H. (editor) 1996 Stone Tools: Theoretical Insights into Human Prehistory. Plenum, New York. Odell, George H., and Frank Cowan 1987 Estimating Tillage Effects on Artifact Distributions. American Antiquity 52:456–484. Semenov, S. A. 1964 Prehistoric Technology: An Experimental Study of the Oldest Tools and Artefacts from Traces of Manufacture and Wear. Translated by M. Thompson. Cory, Adams and Mackey, London. Shott, Michael J. 1993 Spears, Darts, and Arrows: Late Woodland Hunting Techniques in the Upper Ohio Valley. American Antiquity 58:425–443. 1994 Size and Form in the Analysis of Flake Debris: Review and Recent Approaches. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 1:​69–110. 2000 Geographic Emphases in American Archaeological Practice. SAA Bulletin 18(2):22–27. 2003 Size and Palaeolithic Assemblage Variation in the Old World: A New World Perspective. In Lithic Analysis at the Millennium, edited by Norah Moloney and Michael Shott, pp. 137–150. Archaeopress, London.

2008 Darwinian Evolutionary Theory and Lithic Analysis. In Cultural Transmission and Archaeology: Issues and Case Studies, edited by M. O’Brien, pp. 146–157. Society for American Archaeology Press, Washington, D.C. 2010a Stone-­Tool Demography: Reduction Distributions in North American Paleoindian Tools. In New Perspectives on Old Stones: Analytical Approaches to Palaeolithic Technologies, edited by S. Lycett and P. Chauhan, pp. 275–293. Springer/Kluwer, New York. 2010b Size-­Dependence in Assemblage Measures: Essentialism, Materialism, and “SHE” Analysis in Archaeology. American Antiquity 75:886–906. Shott, Michael J., Geoffrey Clark, and John M. Lindly 2011 Continuous Modeling of Core Reduction: Lessons from Refitting Cores from WHS623x, an Upper Paleolithic Site in Jordan. Paleoanthropology 2011:320–333. Shott, Michael J., and Paul Sillitoe 2005 Use Life and Curation in New Guinea Experimental Used Flakes. Journal of Archaeological Science 32:653–663. Shott, Michael J., and Brian W. Trail 2010 Exploring New Approaches to Lithic Analysis: Laser Scanning and Geometric Morphometrics. Lithic Technology 35:195– 220. Suarez, Rafael 2011 Arqueología durante la Transición Pleistocene Holoceno: Componentes Paleoindios, Organización de la Tecnología y Movilidad de los Primeros Americanos en Uruguay. BAR International Series 2220. Archaeopress, Oxford. Surovell, Todd 2009 Toward a Behavioral Ecology of Lithic Technology: Cases from Paleoindian Archaeology. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Tostevin, Gilbert B. 2011 The Epistemologies of Different Approaches to Lithic Analysis. Levels of Theory and Social Practice in the Reduction Sequence and Chaîne Opératoire Methods of Lithic Analysis. Paleoanthropology 2011:351–375. Tringham, R. L., G. C. Cooper, George H. Odell, Barbara L. Voytek, and A. Whitman 1974 Experimentation in the Formation of Edge Damage: A New Approach to Lithic Analysis. Journal of Field Archaeology 1:​ 171–196. 10

C H A PE R 2

The Problems with Flake Types and the Case for Attribute Analysis of Debitage Assemblages Jim A. Railey and Eric J. Gonzales

Waste debris from the manufacture of flaked-­ stone tools is perhaps the most abundant of archaeological remains, or at least those ­dating from before the replacement of stone tools with metal. Typically referred to as debitage, or flake debris (sensu Shott 1994:70), this class of artifacts includes both flakes, which have recognizable interior and exterior surfaces, and those items that lack such surfaces and are commonly referred to as “shatter.” There are essentially two approaches to the analysis of debitage: individual and mass analyses. Mass analysis received wide attention following an article by Ahler (1989), and although its implementation is not without its critics (e.g., Andrefsky 2007), it is a legitimate approach. Within individual analysis are two approaches. One focuses on attributes, or what Rozen and Sullivan (1989a) refer to as “formal variables.” These are more or less objectively definable and include such measures as length, thickness, weight, percent of cortex, platform type, and other variables. The other approach involves inferential typologies, or what Shott (1994) refers to as “formal analysis.” Unlike most attribute-­based methods, debitage typologies infer the origin of each specimen with respect to specific reduction stages or modes of production. Ever since lithic analysts started paying serious attention to debitage several decades ago, both attribute-­based and typological methods

have been employed, and both are still widely used today. Sometimes both methods are combined in analyses, and oftentimes particular attributes are used to identify flake types or certain technological modes. However, there are critical problems with debitage typologies that render them much less effective than the attribute-­based approach in producing comparable data sets. This critique is nothing new (e.g., Ahler 1989; Ingbar et al. 1989; Morrow 1997:51; Shott 1994; Sullivan 2001; Sullivan and Rozen 1985), and another negative evaluation of inferential flake typologies risks offering little more than a worn-­ out refrain. But previous critiques have had only a partial impact on the practice of debitage analysis, and the use of inferential flake typologies is as widespread as ever, especially in North America. Given this situation, and the collective state of poor science that this habit continues to perpetuate, the critique merits persistent reitera­ tion. But critique itself is, of course, only a half measure on the way to addressing a widespread problem. Accordingly, this chapter focuses on a case study drawn from several archaeological debitage assemblages from prehistoric sites in New Mexico, which uses debitage attribute data to examine long-­term trends in flaking tech­ nology. Before proceeding, it should be stressed that it is not the intention here to point fingers at any particular analysts or classification systems. 11

TABLE 2.1. Flake Type Classifications from a Selection of Projects in the Four Corners Area of the American Southwest.

Reference(s)

Flake Types

Acklen et al. 1991

Core Biface Retouch Shatter/angular debris Hammerstone spall Unclassifiable fragments

Brown et al. 1992

Core Biface Retouch Pecking stone spall Indeterminate fragments Shatter

Drake 2007 Stages

Technological types

Primary (>76% cortex) Secondary (1–75% cortex) Tertiary (no cortex) Percussion Biface thinning Pressure Blade Overshot Burin spall Bipolar Core rejuvenation Hinge termination Fragment Indeterminate late stage

Elstien 1991, 1999, 2000

Cortical (some cortex on dorsal surface) Tertiary (no cortex)

Fetterman and Honeycutt 1982; Honeycutt and Fetterman 1994

Primary Secondary Tertiary

Fetterman and Honeycutt 1995

Core vs. biface thinning Primary, secondary, and tertiary

Fetterman et al. 2001

Biface thinning, late-stage pressure Core reduction Core rejuvenation Completely cortical natural platform Partially cortical natural platform Partially cortical platform absent Noncortical natural platform Noncortical platform absent

Moore 1983

Microflake Blade Length > width Width > length

Potter and Gilpin 2002 Level 1

Level 2

Percussion Thinning Pressure Core rejuvenation Primary decortication (>75% exterior cortex) Secondary decortication (some exterior cortex + noncortical flake scars Tertiary (no cortex)

The Problems with Flake Types and the Case for Attribute Analysis of Debitage Assemblages Rather, our objective is to illustrate a widespread problem and to show that most inferential flake types — ​even when defined by rather explicit criteria — ​are poor analytical units that undermine the scientific integrity of lithic analyses. There is also no attempt here to systematically compare typological vs. attribute-­based approaches to debitage analysis. Such an attempt could require applying both approaches to a single assemblage, and might be appropriate for a thesis, but is beyond the scope of this chapter. Moreover, the shortcoming of typological approaches is not necessarily that they lead to wrong interpretations but, rather, that they do not lend themselves well to systematic data comparisons.

flake,” etc.) are inconsistent between different analysts and analytical schemes. Third, inferential flake types are often not defined in an objectively measurable way and sometimes are not defined at all. Taken together, these problems invite a potentially large degree of interobserver error and make replication and direct comparison of analysis results difficult or impossible. Despite the many problems with flake typologies, and the repeated critiques of this approach, they are still widely used by many lithic analysts. This situation stems from several sources, including force of habit and simple inertia among analysts accustomed to using flake typologies. Assigning flakes to specific types (be they derived from reduction stage or technological classifications) is also faster and, hence, cheaper than measuring multiple attributes, especially in the perpetually hurried, “assembly-­ line” atmosphere that prevails throughout much of contract archaeology. Yet the problem is not restricted to contract archaeology, as even texts devoted to lithic analysis also sometimes perpetuate this practice (e.g., Andrefsky 2005:114–115). In contrast to typological approaches, attribute-­based debitage analyses are potentially more consistent, more systematic, and based on measures that are defined more objectively than those for most flake types. Such “interpretation-­ free” approaches (Sullivan and Rozen 1985) steer clear of making a priori inferences about individual flakes in the process of classifying them, thus avoiding the fundamental problems with inferential flake types. Interpretations are based on assemblage patterning and tendencies, derived from statistical analyses of the attribute data. One challenge accompanying attribute-­ based approaches is deciding which attributes to focus on. Among the more commonly measured attributes are length, width, thickness, weight, percent exterior cortex, scar count, platform a­ ngle, platform classes, condition, and raw material (see Shott 1994). But some of these are much more easily measured than others. Metric attributes (length, width, thickness, and weight) can be measured efficiently and reliably, tend to covary rather closely, and are suitable to ratio-­ level analyses. On the other hand, nonmetric variables are prone to interobserver error (­Amick

Typological and Attribute Approaches in Debitage Analysis

Inferential flake typologies are based on one of two classification approaches: (1) reduction stages and (2) technology-­based types. Reduction stage models have a primary focus on the manufacture and classification of bifacial tools (Callahan 1979; Collins 1975; Crabtree 1973; Frison and Bradley 1980; Holmes 1894; Muto 1971; Newcomer 1971; Sharrock 1966), and these models have been adapted to the analysis of debitage (e.g., Amick et al. 1988; Bradbury and Carr 2004; Magne 1985; Morrow 1997; Pecora 2001; Raab et al. 1979). Oftentimes cortex is used as the sole indicator for placing flakes in one stage or another, as in “triple cortex” typologies (White 1963; see Sullivan and Rozen 1985:756 and Andrefsky 2005:115–118 for reviews of this p ­ ractice). Technology-­based classifications rely on inferences concerning the specific kind of flaking activity that generated a particular piece of debitage (such as core reduction, biface flaking, fluting, notching, etc.) or particular percussion modes (i.e., hard and soft hammer and pressure flaking, which are obviously analogous to reduction stages). Both approaches to flake classification, however, suffer from the same three shortcomings. First, there is a myriad of typological schemes that involve different analytical units and combinations thereof (e.g., Table 2.1). Second, definitions of some specific analytical units (e.g., “primary flake,” “secondary flake,” “bifacial thinning 13

Jim A. Railey and Eric J. Gonzales and Mauldin 1997:21–22; Bradbury and Carr 1995:​101–102; Douglass et al. 2008; Gnaden and Holdaway 2000; Lin et al. 2010). Recent studies have suggested methods to control for interobserver error in measuring cortex (e.g., Douglass et al. 2008; Gnaden and Holdaway 2000; Lin et al. 2010). The use of three-­dimensional scanning holds promise for accurately measuring platform variables (e.g., Clarkson and Hiscock 2011), and conventional graphics software can be used to precisely measure percent of cortex (Railey and Gonzales 2012:105). But these methods and techniques may not be practical within the scheduling and budget constraints of a given analysis. Interobserver error can be mitigated by simplifying certain attribute states. For example, cortex can be measured as a simple presence/absence variable, rather than coding percentage intervals or even more precise (and time-­consuming) percentage measures. Similarly, platform classes can be coded as single- or multifaceted instead of attempting to count the number of facets. Flake condition can also be recorded as either complete or broken, rather than using multiple categories as proposed by Sullivan and Rozen (1985). Flexibility is advised in selecting which attributes to measure, and analytical workarounds could be employed, for example, in comparing assemblages where cortex intervals vary (as long as each has a category for no cortex). Similar workarounds could be employed for platform class, wherein one analyst may code flakes with flat (single-­facet) platforms as one category, while another may divide flat platforms into cortical and noncortical ones. The resulting data could still be directly compared, by pooling the two categories used by the second analyst.

approach has been employed on a number of projects by SWCA Environmental ­Consultants’ Albuquerque office. The assemblages in the analysis presented here were recovered from nine large-­scale excavation projects and were selected because all involve substantial, subsurface assemblages with good to excellent chronological associations (Figure 2.1). Collectively they cover a wide range of time periods and settlement-­subsistence modes, divisible into (1) hunter-­gatherers, (2) Basketmaker II (BM II) early farmers, and (3) Pueblo-­period farmers (Tables 2.2 and 2.3). Attributes and Analysis Method

Although different analysts recorded flake attributes in the lab, a consistent method was employed for each of the nine assemblages highlighted here. Each analyst was carefully trained in recognizing and recording the various attributes. When technicians did the recording, each was monitored at least in the initial stage of the data recording, and supervision was readily available when coding questions arose. Unlike with some debitage analyses — ​even those using attributes rather than flake types (e.g., Shott 1997) — ​the objective of the analysis presented here was not to try and identify specific reduction stages, technological activities, flintknapping tool types, or production goals for each individual flake or assemblage. Such goals are at best difficult to achieve when dealing with most archaeological assemblages, especially those derived from multiple (if not a multitude of ) flintknappers and flaking episodes. Rather, the goal was to identify overall patterns and tendencies in the debitage assemblages and to interpret these in terms of raw material and behavioral factors. Thus, although attribute recording was carried out on individual flakes, pattern analysis takes place at the population level, and the population units can be manipulated depending on the question(s) being addressed. In the absence of experimental data or detailed information on available raw materials (which is more often than not the case in contract projects), explanations of the observed patterns typically remain tentative, preliminary, and

Case Study The usefulness of an attribute-­based approach for individual debitage analysis can be demonstrated on a collection of excavated ­assemblages from New Mexico. Established by Lance Lundquist (2002, 2004a, 2004b, 2005; Higgins and Lundquist 2004:263–272; Van Hoose and Lundquist 2002), and inspired by Shott’s (1994) call for attribute-­based analyses of debitage, this 14

The Problems with Flake Types and the Case for Attribute Analysis of Debitage Assemblages

FIGURE 2.1. Map of New Mexico showing sites and projects from which the debitage assemblages

in the case study were collected.

subject to debate. But the important point is that the method described here is standardized and replicable and thus offers much greater potential for making broad and detailed comparisons than is possible from data generated by an array of inferential flake typologies. The attributes recorded in these analyses — ​ length, thickness, weight, cortex, platform type, and raw material texture — ​are relatively straightforward, easily measured, and among those least subject to interobserver error (see Shott 1994). As such, recording these attributes is sufficiently easy to teach so that even an inexperienced tech-

nician can quickly learn the system and conduct the attribute recording in a consistent and replicable manner. Once recorded, the attribute data are amenable to manipulation using a wide range of quantitative methods. Interpretation is then maintained as a completely separate (and subsequent) step in the process. Length and thickness were measured with digital-­display calipers. Length was measured as the maximum facial dimension of all specimens, complete and fragmentary, regardless of orientation to the platform and bulb of percussion (which, of course, were not always present 15

Stratigraphically sealed One or small campsites under dune sands Early–Late Surface/near-surface Palimpsest of many Archaic ­campsites (mostly small); no cultigens Mostly Middle Surface/near-surface Multiple sites, ­including and Late ­remains of mostly limited-­ Archaic activity camps; no cultigens Basketmaker II Stratigraphically sealed Hamlet with maize and within a sand dune squash

Late Archaic

Site Type

Structures and Features

Late Formative

Late Formative

LA 457

LA 152319

Stratified within alluvial fan deposits Surface/near-surface on alluvial fan

Surface/near-surface

Pueblo III–IV

Hokona

Geomorphic Context

Surface/near-surface

Time Period

Eul Overlook Late Pueblo I– early Pueblo II

Site/Project

Small, sedentary ­settlement Relatively sedentary village Short-term, limited-­ activity camp

Sedentary farming hamlet

Site Type

Formal surface and subsurface structures Square houses with adobe walls and formal features No structures preserved; one ­possible hearth feature

Large (~11 m), substantial ­pithouse and extramural pit features

Structures and Features

Local siliceous limestone gravels on alluvial fan Chert

Coarse-grained igneous rock river cobbles, more distant chalcedony and obsidian Local and nonlocal chert

Sullins and Railey 2009

Carlson 2008

Schwendler 2008

Railey, ed. 2010

Reference

Local (but not abundant) petrified wood Chalcedony, basalt, Railey 2011 chert, obsidian

Local chalcedony, chert, petrified wood

Schwendler and Railey 2009 Lundquist 2005; Railey and ­Lundquist 2014 Railey 2008

Chert, petrified wood, chalcedony

Reference(s)

Railey 2012

Chalcedony

Dominant Raw Material(s)

Dominant Raw Material(s)

Three small, shallow pit structures Quail No structures preRanch served; many shallow pit ­features Mariposa A few small, shallow pit structures, but most sites have only shallow pit features Medium-sized pit­ Sandy Rise houses with shallow, nonformal features I-25 Basketmaker II Stratigraphically sealed Base camp, hamlet or vil- Medium-sized pithouses (LA 123291) under dune sands lage with maize and gourd with storage features

Holiday

Geomorphic Context

TABLE 2.3. Characteristics Associated with Pueblo-Period Farmers’ Debitage Assemblages Included in the Case Study.

Basketmaker II early farmers

Archaic mobile hunter-gatherers

Settlement-­ Subsistence Mode Site/Project Time Period

TABLE 2.2. Characteristics Associated with Preceramic Debitage Assemblages Included in the Case Study.

The Problems with Flake Types and the Case for Attribute Analysis of Debitage Assemblages TABLE 2.4. Debitage Totals for the Flake Assemblages Included in the Case Study.

Subsurface Debitage Individually Analyzed

SettlementSubsistence Mode

Assemblage

Mobile hunter-gatherers Quail Ranch Mariposa Holiday Basketmaker II early Sandy Rise farmers (­Basketmaker II only) LA 123291 Pueblo-period farmers Eul Overlook Hokona LA 457 LA 152391 Total

Excluding Flakes