7 Introduction to Tools and Technology

D. K. Bhattacharya

Anthropology studies man in time and space. That is to say, parameters of man existing anywhere in the world today as also men of yester years are as much a concern of anthropology. Man is the only animal in the animal kingdom who does not have a species specific behaviour. This means that a dog or any other animal behaves the same way everywhere but a man does not. Consequently man needs to be studied separately for his biological parameters and behavioural traits. In living population the former is the concern of Physical Anthropologists and the latter the concern of Cultural Anthropologists. The definition of anthropology is not completely taken care of unless these two branches are also extended to past men. Since past is reconstructive one needs to develop separate methodologies to study them. While the study of Physical anthropology of the past is called Human Palaeontology, the cultural anthropology of past is called Prehistoric Archaeology.

Prehistoric Archaeology studies the culture of man from the time he evolved into our genus i.e., Homo. All evidences available till date suggest that this must have happened around 2.2 million years ago. This study extends upto the time history begins i.e., about 1000 B.C., because it is generally accepted that after 1000 B.C. history begins. Since archaeology refers to the study of antiquities which are products of past cultures, one can also have antiquities belonging to historical period. Such antiquities come under the purview of historical archaeology. Consequently antiquities like Qutub Minar or Taj Mahal are studied by Historians or Historical Archaeologists.

Prehistoric archaeology has the difficult task of identifying antiquities, classify them and then interpret the possible cultural behaviours of which the antiquities can be argued as the product. The road map of reconstructing past cultures being only through the study of antiquities an archaeologist needs to understand what is cultural behaviour. For instance all human kind eats, sings, cries and do millions of other things which are common activities. As supposed to these a group may have a specific set of activities which are common only within the group and are also repeated identically in every generation. Such behaviours are identified as cultural or ethnic behaviour. Thus it is the archaeologist who filters out ethnicity from activities. Obviously for fine tuning of this process a rigorous methodology needs to be constructed. The most important among these is identifying and defining cultural markers. Such markers in prehistoric archaeology are called tool types. Initially these types were given names borrowed from modern tool kit like hammer, pick, chisel etc. Once archaeology enters as formal discipline of university education it was realized that such names used in the romantic period has a great flaw. In living cultures object names always refer to both structure and function. For instance, a hammer has to have a structure and function which is quite different from say what is meant by the term chisel. These types of terms are called cognitive types because these are learnt by us during enculturation. Consequently no matter even if a child is entirely unlettered it does not bring a hammer when it is asked to bring a chisel. If one adopts the practice of using cognitive types to name prehistoric antiquities one falls in the trap of assuming the presence of modern functions in the past as well. It may soon lead us to identify prehistoric boots, prehistoric tables and chairs or even prehistoric computers. Thus, for archaeology we construct tool types which are entirely defined by morphology and technique of manufacture.

These types are defined by us for our convenience of description, classification, analysis and hence are called Analytical types. One might argue at this point that if culture refers to behaviour as expressed through activities how can one afford to have a methodology which deliberately divorces function. The answer to this may be that for the sake of objectivity one needs to develop a structural description at empirical level. But this needs to be followed by possibilistic functions of a tool or a range of tools at an interpretative level. Thus structural methodology can be used universally but functional method can change with every ethnic group.

Analytical types require ones understanding the technique of fabrication by experimenting first in the laboratory and then comparing the results with prehistoric antiquities. This rigorous exercise has enabled us to develop terms for all those features which helps us understand a technique. When a pebble hammer is brought in an arc to impart force on a core a flake is detached. The flake will have an elevated bulb like feature on the flat scar of detachment. The bulb is created right below the point where the hammer hit it. Corresponding to this a depression is seen in the core flake scar exactly opposite to the positive bulb of percussion on the flake. Though this is a depression it has been called negative bulb of percussion, perhaps to mean that this is the negative depression left because of the positive bulb having been removed from here. Primary fabrication or the basic method of detaching a flake from a core can be the following types.

I.     Primary Fabrication Techniques

a) Free flaking: In this method the flake removed is always triangular in shape. The positive bulb of percussion is moderate in size and is situated near the apex of the Triangle.

b) Block-on-Block technique: If one needs to flake a heavy or massive core it is always convenient to hit it on a fixed anvil on the ground. This gives the advantage of the weight of the stone also adding to the force implanted by the tool maker. Such flake or flake scars are slightly elongated and have a pronounced bulb of percussion if it is a flake and negative bulb of percussion if it is a core.

c) Bipolar technique: It is usually used to split a medium to small pebble, but is not a very common technique. This involves placing the pebble to be split on an anvil and then hitting the top of it with another stone hammer. The direct force of the hammer takes out a flake and another flake is detached from exactly opposite end which is resting on the anvil, because of rebound of the top force. If one finds two negative bulbs exactly opposite to each other on a single scar such a scar is taken to have been flaked by Bipolar technique.

The three techniques described above are grouped as uncontrolled flaking techniques. Given below are three other techniques which are grouped as controlled flaking techniques.

d)   Resolved flaking or step flaking technique: This technique sharpens a border of a core in such a manner that the force becomes zero after travelling a distance. A crack develops on the surface at the points where force radials had become zero. Consequently a flake is detached like a cap from the surface. This creates two scars with one blow-one scar is what the force has created, the other lies exactly opposite in a vertical manner across this scar. The second scar is the result of a fracture and hence will have no bulb of percussion. Since the total result of this technique – looks like a step it is also called step flaking technique.

e) Cylinder hammer or soft hammer technique: This is one of the final working techniques because this cannot be used to remove large chunks of mass. It is argued that one can create chiseling effect in the scar removal in the manner of a spoon rubbed over a slab of butter. Antler heads or seasoned long bones of large mammals are used as hammers and this takes out slices of flakes which have parallel borders and diffused bulb of percussion. Thick blades can be removed using antler as a puncher and hitting a stone hammer on top of this. This is called punching technique and this seems to be the principal method of upper Paleolithic blade detachment. Advanced tool types are often given a series of nibbling along a border to specifically sharpen them. These are called retouching and these are best affected by cylinder hammer technique. The process of making advanced tool is to first deliver a series of primary scars (usually with stone hammer) to give it a shape. Secondary scars are removed by cylinder hammer technique to smoothen the scooping effect left by the primary scars. Finally retouchings work specifically at the borders.

f) Pressure flaking technique: Normally it is difficult to believe that stones can be fractured by the continuous application of pressure. Some authors argue that this is similar to the way we cut a wood pencil tip. For this, fine grained rocks like chalcedony were first heated and then subjected to the pressure. American Indians prepare arrow heads on flints to sell to the tourists exactly in the manner shown. That is the core is held on the ground by the toes and a rod with a cross-bar across the chest is used to put pressure with the whole body. Generally a small bulb of percussion may appear at the point of contact but since the hammer, in this case, is in contact with the stone until a blade is detached there are multiple ripple- like features which develop on the flake scar. This method can detach very thin and tiny blades which are usually referred to as microliths.

II.  Combination techniques

a)    Clactonian technique: A core can yield a very limited number of flakes because as soon as the direction of force becomes vertical the core shatters into several chips because of reaction of rigidity.Clactonian technique attempts to overcome this limitation by changing the point on which the hammer strikes every time a new flake is removed. That is first a massive flake is removed from one surface by using block-on-block technique. For the removal of the second flake the flake scar of the first flake is used as the platform. For the removal of the third flake the flake scar of the second flake is used as the platform. The process is repeated until the entire core is exhausted. Usually these flakes are massive in size, have high flake angle and do not have a specially prepared platform. If the platform on which the hammer lands has more than one scar such a platform is called specially prepared or facetted platform. Clactonian flakes have no such platforms.

b)   Levalloisian technique: This is a technique which shows that flakes used are not merely byproducts of core tool preparation. It shows that the flakes were first conceived and then given birth to. Generally cylinder hammer technique is used for the final blow. A suitable core is taken and few flakes are taken off its surface in a centrally directed manner. Subsequently a facetted platform is created by giving horizontal blows. Once the platform is prepared a blow is given on it so that a flake is produced which will have the truncated end of the previously prepared flake scars. A Levalloise flake is usually of moderate size and has the following characters. i) The flake angle is usually 90°. ii) The striking platform has at least two scars to be considered as facetted and finally iii) at least two flake scars on the dorsal surface of the flake do not have their points of impact (because these points of impacts are left on the core). That is, these are truncated. The core from which these flakes are taken out are called Levalloisian core or Tortoise core. Lavalloies technique is also called prepared core technique by some.

c) Fluting technique: It is a technique by which series of blades are prepared by pressure flaking The other method of flake detachment has already been described as punching technique. The cores from which these blades are removed look exactly like the fluted pillars of Greek architecture in miniature form, hence the name fluting technique. A suitable core is taken and along its length small nibbling is done from both the sides. This results into a crest like feature on which pressure flaking is easier to execute than on smooth pebble surface. The first blade so prepared is called a Crest Guiding blade. This has no specific function except for demonstrating how this technique was successfully used.

References and Suggested readings

• An outline of Indian Prehistory. Delhi: Palaka Prakashan. Bhattacharya, D.K. (2006).
• Prehistory of India. Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers Pvt. Ltd. Sankalia, H. D. (1977).
• An Introduction to Prehistoric Archaeology. New York: Hold, Rinehart and Winston, INC. Hole, H. and R.F. Heizer. (1969).