6 Understanding Material Culture Remains – Lithic Technology -I

Prakash Sinha

Introduction

Kenneth P. Oakley has rightly pointed out that:

In process of evolution man avoided any such specialization, and retained the plaint five fingered hands which were so useful to his small tree-dwelling ancestors. When the immediate forerunners of man acquired the ability to walk upright habitually, their hands became free to make and manipulate tools – activities which were in the first place dependent on adequate powers of mental and bodily coordination, but which in turn perhaps increased those powers …

Employment of tools appears to be his chief biological characteristic, for considered functionally they are detachable extensions of the forelimb.

Longest period of human behavioural and cultural history has had been documented on lithics, the most abundant form of artefacts. Because of their physical properties they have withstood the inroads of environmental and human perturbation, such as erosion, decay, and landscape development and finally resulted into what archaeologist usually designate archaeological landscape. Moreover, they symbolize in many parts of the world the only form that signifies presence of hominines and his activities. Obviously, lithic artefacts represent one of the most important clues to understand prehistoric lifeways, behavioural development and cognitive process that would have led to the development of cognitive ecosystem.

A number of analytical procedures having different perspectives and approaches have been developed and followed in different parts of the world to understand meaning behind prehistoric lithic artefacts. Mention may be made of typological procedure, technological procedure, typo-technological procedure functional procedure, chaine opratoire (operational chain), provenance procedure and statistical procedure. A holistic approach to these analytical procedures, indeed has had been helpful to construct prehistoric society.

It is important, perhaps, to conceptualize why man made tools, unlike his close cousins? Evolutionary advance, however, alienated men from other animals. Anatomically, man was built neither to match the speed nor the strength of other animals. He did not possess even their sharp aggressive appendages and, therefore, had to depend entirely on his cunning for survival. Such issues have been discussed in detailed elsewhere and suggested that plausibly, his first need would have been means to defend himself and his children and that he made artefacts on stone, firstly to protect and defend, and not for hunting.

The advantages the vertical body position provided and two well-developed forelimbs made it possible for the ancient anthropoid apes to make use of such objects as stones, bones, etc, more and more frequently in defending themselves from their terrible enemies, in hunting and searching for food.

2.   Objectives

It is difficult to describe precisely how man started making lithic tools. Indeed, the idea of making/flaking stone pieces might well have come to him due to interaction with the environment and learning through observation about happenings in the surroundings. He might have observed that when a stone boulder/block (like hammer) fell to the ground from a height it often got broken when it landed on hard rock or another boulder (like core or object to be fashioned). He might also have observed that when he threw a stone at an animal and his missile missed the mark and, instead, struck another hard material it often gets broken. When he looked at the chipped pieces (flakes, flake-blade, blade), he might have noticed that they usually have sharp lateral edges, which are good to cut meat or plants. These are some of the possibilities, which could have played an instrumental role in giving man the idea of breaking stones to produce tools. In the following sections, we will try to understand the development of lithic technology in the Palaeolithic cultures – Lower, Middle and Upper Palaeolithic.

3.   Basics

When a hammer made of stone, bone, wood or antler hits on a stone of any size, if other conditions fulfilled, a chip comes out of stone; such chip off piece is called flake. If this process is repeated several times we get more flakes and a number of negative scars on the surface of the stone, such piece with negative scars is called core. Hence, to manufacture stone flakes we need two things – hammer or fabricator and stone or core.

Raw Material: Palaeolithic tools are made on hard rock having conchoidal fracture property like, flint, quartzite, chert, chalcedony, agate, jasper, carnelian, limestone, dolerite, basalt, etc. The common raw material used to manufacture stone artefacts are flint chalk, obsidian, quartzite (coarse or fine) polished/glossy standstone, basalt or other fine-grained igneous rock, schist indurated (horny?) and sometimes even granite.

Flake and Blade: A flake is that piece of flint or other rock, which is detached from the core by a blow from a hammer. If this flake is completely shapeless, without a clearly defined flaking surface, it becomes waste material/chips. If this flake is elongated, such that its length is twice its breadth or more (flake- blades) and if lateral sides are nearly parallel and has at least one ridge on the dorsal face it is then a true blade. The length is measure along the extension of the axis of percussion; the breadth, perpendicular to this.

Attributes of the Flake or the Blade: The flake or the blade consists of several parts – the back or the upper surface (dorsal face); the lower surface or the main flake surface (ventral face), which carries the core, and the bulb or percussion. The butt is found at the proximal/near end of the flake, the other extremity forms the distal/far end. The main flake surface is the plane/line of fracture, which forms under the effect of the blow of the hammer, within the core, which separates the flake from the core. On this striking surface can be seen– the cone of percussion not always well marked (but sometimes multiple), the bulb of percussion which is a continuation of this, and often the ripple marks whose concavity is always turned towards the cone of percussion. These are the wave-like traces resulting from the blow, which allow for correct orientation of the flake, even if the butt is missing. A well-developed cone of percussion generally indicates the use of a hard hammer. Sometimes a part of the bulb found removed by one or more parasitic/useless flake – called erailleur scar or bulbar scar. When the flaking is done with a hard hammer, the bulb will often bear the trace of the point of percussion or impact, as one or several small circles that are traces of the shattering of the cone or percussion. The dorsal face of the flake will have (be it the cortex of a flint nodule or a pebble surface), if it is a question of a primary flake, traces or earlier flaking, with or without the negative bulbar scars of previously remove flakes.

Striking Platform: Prehistoric men worked with a ‘natural’ hammer or “percuter”, and with a blow detached from a block of primary material or core, a flake or a blade. That part of the core, which is struck, is called the striking platform, and that part of the striking platform, which is detached by the blow, forms the butt (proximal end) of the flake. It is, therefore, incorrect to speak of the striking platform of the flake.

Types of Striking Platform: The butt or proximal end or striking end can be plain or faceted. It is faceted, if it bears traces of preparation/working on the striking platform, made by a series or little flakes, juxtaposed in the same plane; it is convex if the facets of the preparation found on two planes forming a dihedral. One therefore speaks in terms of a flake with facetted butt and not retouched striking platform, because the facets are made prior to the detachment of the flake and not subsequently – as would be implied by the word ‘retouch’. A butt on which the cortex remains will be considered as un-worked, which is to say smooth. However, in a number of cases, it is difficult to determine the type of butt or striking platform.

Axis of flake or tool: The axis of the flake is an imaginary line which proceeds along the axis of percussion, passes through the point of impact and separates the cone and the bulb into two more or less equal parts. The axis of the tool will be placed according to the line/plane or maximum symmetry of the tool.

Orientation of the tool: By convention, artefacts are oriented by placing the butt or proximal end at the base. However, there are some exceptions e.g. a point made on a flake in such a way that the butt is placed laterally to the axis of the tool; or a point made on a butt, where the pointed part should be placed at the top – if the butt has secondary thinning or is destroyed by retouch.

Retouch: Except the very Lower Palaeolithic tools like pebble tools – chopper/chopping and handaxes, almost all the tools of the subsequent periods show that after the flake/blades was removed from the core or the parent body, the edges of the flake or the core itself have been marked by further chipping. This is described in the archaeological literature as ‘retouch’ or secondary working. It is believed to have been carried out in order to sharpen or strengthen the edge. This may be marginal, semi invasive or invasive and of different types like – feather, scalar, parallel, sub-parallel, triangular, step, etc. When flake scars because of retouching are present on the edge(s) of dorsal face it is called normal retouch and in the case of flake scars present on the edge(s) of ventral face it is known as inverse retouch.

Unifacial and Bifacial: If flakinging has been done either on dorsal or ventral face, it is called unifacial flaking and when it is done on both the faces of the edge is referred as bifacial flaking.

4.    Flint Knapping Techniques:

4. 1 Technology:

Lithic technology, like other crafts, is a combination of two factors. The first is the method, the use of the mind, and the second is the technique, the use of the hand. A change or variety in either or both usually causes variability in the assemblage(s) and or site. Experiments and ethno-archaeological data have demonstrated that there are primarily two techniques, percussion and pressure. However, prior to getting down to make any tool or artefact, its morphological features and the technique that can be adopted to shape must be conceived in the mind, otherwise, one would not be able to make the desired tool type or artefact. Thus, before making something, there is present in the mind, the shape of the tool and the technique to be adopted. Therefore, if one is making a precise tool type it means that one wants to use the tool for some particular end.

4.2   Basics of Lithic Techniques:

There are two basic techniques, percussion and pressure to get flakes or blades from stone cores. In the percussion technique, either the object or the hammer is in motion; in the pressure technique, neither is in motion. However, in archaeological literature a number of techniques have been mentioned such as anvil technique, free hand-held technique, bipolar technique, inverse technique, clactonian technique, levalloisian technique, mousterian technique, grinding technique, fluted core technique, micro -bruin technique, flake-cleaver technique, etc. All these are innovations and improvisations on basic tool techniques. Besides technique per se, other factors also play a significant role in fabricating tools, such as the types of manufacturing tools, the raw material, and the degree of skill with which the fabricator can coordinate hand, fingers, thumb and brain. Man had been perfecting his technology through experience, empirical knowledge. When he noticed that, the stone hammer created deep scars because of pointed impact he changed to antler/wood/bone hammers. With the help of such types of tools, commonly known as soft hammers in archaeological literature, he started getting diffused scars on the flakes and fabricated tools, which ultimately helped him to fabricate still finer artefacts with nearly straight working edges (soft hammers used in the later stages of Lower Palaeolithic and in the Middle Palaeolithic).

Fabricators: The objects, which help in detaching flakes or blade are fabricators. Based on medium of hammer stones or fabricators, manufacturing techniques divided into two main types – hard hammer and Soft hammer. If stone has been used as a hammer, it is called hard hammer technique; and soft hammer technique, if wood, bone or antler has been used as a hammer.

Hard Hammer: The butt is generally large more or less oblique to the main flake surface. Usually cone is often present and prominent. Bulb is well developed. Ripple marks often distinct on the main flake surface, are rather strong and spread out, often with less distinct intermediary ripple marks.

Soft Hammer: The butt is generally narrow, often sloping/concave on the main flake surface. A poorly represented point of impact, and no cone. The bulb of percussion is weak and flattish.

4.2.1    Direct Percussion Technique:

The percussion technique requires a fabricator or hammer, which can impart sufficient force to exceed the elastic limits of the stone and cause fracture. Both types of hammers, hard and soft, can execute the application of the percussion technique. The hard or soft hammer controls the interval of contact. If the hammer is of antler, wood or bones (sof t hammers) then the interval of contact prolonged while with the stone hammer (hard hammer) shorten. Relatively, soft hammers contact a larger area than hard hammers. This causes the cone of force to have a larger truncation and the flakes to have a diffus ed bulb of percussion. Percussion technique can be of either the hard hammer or the soft hammer type. Not all of the diverse variations of this technique will probably ever be known, but it prevailed during the entire Stone Age until metal implements becam e common. However, one of the most important variants of this technique is known as the indirect percussion technique or punch technique.

4.2.2    Indirect Percussion Technique or Punch Technique

In this technique, a punch is placed on a well-prepared platform of a core and the hammer imparts the force through a punch, hence indirectly. Because of this variant, the former percussion technique is usually referred to as direct percussion technique. Indirect percussion technique is more accurate than direct percussion and detaches straighter and more uniform flakes and blades with small platforms. The punch is a semi-pointed or blunt rod-like object of tenacious stone, bone, antler, horn, ivory or hard wood. For good results, two persons are required for working the punch technique, one to hold the stone tool or core and the other to hold the punch and deliver the blow. However, the maker can also hold the working object between his feet leaving his hands free for holding the punch by one hand and give the blow by the other. Indirect percussion technique or punch technique was used frequently to manufacture blades and bladelets right from the period when lithic industries began to manufacture on blades/ bladelets i.e. from the Upper Palaeolithic and continued up to blade industries of Iron Age through Copper-bronze Age.

4.2.3    Pressure Technique

In the pressure technique, blades/flakes can be removed from a core by using the chest or shoulder crutch or a staff held in both hands. The main feature, which distinguished the pressure technique from the percussion and especially from the indirect percussion technique, is that the hammer remained in direct contact with the stone core or flake and was pressed hard till a narrow blade or flake was detached. Thus, a constant force for a longer duration was involved in this case in contrast to the swings of the hammer in the percussion technique. Generally, pressure flakes/blades are small and thin as compared to those made by percussion or indirect percussion techniques. For obvious reasons, this technique would have been used more in making tools through retouching and backing techniques than in manufacturing blades/flakes. Along with Indirect percussion technique or punch technique, the pressure technique was used frequently to manufacture blades and bladelets right from the period when lithic industries began to manufacture on blades/bladelets i.e. from the Upper Palaeolithic and continued up to blade industries of Iron Age through Copper-bronze Age.

4.3  Specialized Techniques or Prepared Core Technique

Besides these basic techniques, there are some specialized techniques or core preparation or pre-planned – visualizing final end product. Mention may be made of most common specialized techniques like Levalloisian, flake-cleaver, Mousterian, Fluted Core, Backing, micro-burin, etc.

4.3.1    Levalloisian Technique

This technique was first noticed at Levalloise Perret, a suburb of Paris, France, hence its name. Levalloise Flakes are different types of flakes detached from prepared core. Beginning with the rough trimming of the sides of the core, the technique involved knocking off upper surface flakes in such a manner that the flake scars usually meet in the centre, centripetal flakes. Thus, obtaining a surface, which resembles, broadly, the back of a tortoise? A striking platform is prepared at one end, either by small facets or by a big flake, this being almost perpendicular to the flattened plane of the core. A blow struck with a stone hammer on this platform determines a flake surface which cuts again the surface of the first centripetal flakes of the preparation and gives an oval flake, having nearly the form of the core and presents on the upper surface the traces of the centripetal flakes of the preparation. The cores dressed for the detachment of Levalloisian flakes are called tortoise cores because of their vague similarity with the back of a tortoise. This technique is reported from later Lower Palaeolithic (Late Acheulian) and early Middle Palaeolithic cultures.

4.3.2    Flake-cleaver Technique

Flake-cleavers are those cleavers, which are made on flakes, with or without a transverse blow forming the cleaver edge. In India, most of the flake-cleavers are without transverse blows forming the cleaver edge. Through this technique flake-cleavers are made by the intersection of the distal portion of the flake scar (s) of earlier removed flake (s) and the primary flake surface of the flake-cleaver. This technique is reported from Lower Palaeolithic culture.

4.3.3    Mousterian Technique

This technique derived its name from the site of Le Moustier, France. It is comparable with the Levalloisian technique and is also known as the discoid core technique. For this technique man must have selected either large flakes with a flat surface on one side or a pebble/ nodule with at least one side flat. Continuous blows were struck in removing centripetal flakes, sometimes alternately on both the faces of the core. The final product is a discoidal core. This technique is reported from the Middle Palaeolithic culture.

4.3.4    Fluted Core Technique

This technique was applied in making blades. Under this technique, the core is generally cylindrical, with one end slightly tapering. The core is prepared first to produce a single ridge, crested-guided-ridge, by alternately flaking along the length of the core. Thereafter, an oblique stroke is imparted through a punch on the ridge. After the removal of this ridge blade, two ridges form on the core representing the negative scar of detached blade on the core. These ridges are used again to produce blades and the repetition of this process creates a number of ridges and furrows n the core. This is why this technique is called the fluted core technique. This technique is reported from the Upper Palaeolithic culture and in succeeding cultures.

4.3.5    Backing Technique

The intentional dulling of one margin of a flake or blade by detaching a series of flakes at right angle from the lateral margin opposite the sharp edge or the edge to be used is termed backing. In some instances, prehistoric man took advantages of natural backing, such as cortex, to serve as the same dulling medium right from the Lower Palaeolithic period in making tools like knives.

5. Discussion:

Overall, retouching shares the characteristics of flaking and trimming. When the hammer used for retouching is of a hard material, the retouch is deep-like that of a chisel. When a wooden hammer is used, the retouching is shallower. But, in addition to the characteristics attributable to the hammer, there are others which are the product of the technique employed. Some of them are as follows.

Abbevilian and Early Acheulian: It is extremely simple and consists of taking a nodule of flint and striking it with a hard hammer to detach flakes, each flake removal surface of the flake on the core, serving in its turn as a striking, then has a globular shape. Flaking stops when it is no longer possible to remove flakes with an adequate angle for striking. Sometimes it can be uniform, more or less pyramidal, even prismatic. The bifacial flakes of the Abbevilian and early Acheulian, made with a stone hammer are often impossible to distinguish from the flakes removed from the core. However, they bear more often than ordinary flakes, butts that carry two or several facets traces of previous removal at the time of the flaking of the other side of the biface.

Clactonean: There is little basic difference in this method with that above. Such flakes show all the traits of anvil type flaking: a well-developed cone, sometimes rounded sometimes multiple, a prominent bulb, undulations on main flake surface, bulbar scars.

Levallois Flaking: This is the worst understood technique. It has given the biggest confusion in terminology of Middle Palaeolithic. The only definition, which is correct for a Levallois flake, is – a flake with predetermined form by a special preparation of the core before the removal of this flake. In order to produce a Levallois flake of classic type, one takes of a lithic pebble, preferably flat, oval which one dresses on the margins. Using now these scars as the successive striking platforms one peels off the upper surface of the core by centripetal flakes, thus obtaining a surface, which resembles broadly the back of a tortoise. A striking platform is prepared at one end, either by small facets or by a big flake, this striking platform being almost perpendicular to the flattened plane of the core. A blow given with a stone hammer on this platform determines a flake surface, which cuts again the surface of the first centripetal flakes of the preparation, and gives an oval flake, having nearly the form of the core and presents on the upper surface the traces of the centripetal flakes of the preparation. If a single flake has made the striking platform of the core, this flake must have a flat butt, without ceasing to be a Lavallois flake.

Mousterian Flaking: The flake is first prepared as if is matter of a Levallois core but instead of removing a big flake after the preparation of a privileged platform, one continues in removing centripetal flakes, sometimes alternately on the two faces of the core. The final product is discoidal core.

Conclusions:

The Primacy of Typology over Technique: The study of Palaeolithic industries had demonstrated that for their understanding, typology has greater importance than the technique of manufacture of artefacts, which is not to say, however, that the latter aspect is without significance or interest. But it is appropriate to remember that, in prehistoric times, just as today – technique is only a means, while the tool, defined by its morphology and function, is the end (in itself).

Reductive Process: Primarily, lithic technology is a reductive process, unlike other prehistoric technologies such as pottery production or house construction. Mass of stone is always removed to produce a tool and never added. Cores are always systematically reduced to produce usable blades or flakes. Lithic technology, however, may be classified as a reductive process until composite tools or gears are not made. The function of artefact may change as the artefact form is changed. The form, size and other technical attributes of lithic artefacts may change or modified because of a number of factors like heat treated objective stone, prolong use, abundance or scarcity of raw material close to the site, reutilization, retouching, etc. Hence, the dynamics of stone tool morphology is essential for lithic analysts to understand.

Why we witness so much change in the lithic technology? What were its consequences and impact on social, economy and cultural life? You may get some idea and explanations in Prakash Sinha publications on lithic technology in prehistoric India.

Web links

• http://www.indiana.edu/~geol105/images/gaia_chapter_4/milankovitch.htm
• http://www.britannica.com/science/Quaternary
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stadial
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interglacial
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brunhes%E2%80%93Matuyama_reversal
• http://australianmuseum.net.au/the-geological-time-scale
• http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/dinosaurs/glossary/Geologictimeperiods.shtml)

Bibliography

• Barbara A. Maher and Roy Thompson Ed. 1999 Quaternary Climates, Environments and Magnetism. Cambridge University Press, UK
• Clive Gamble 1999 The Palaeolithic Societies of Europe (Cambridge World Archaeology) Second Edition
• Eric Delson, Ian Tattersall, John A. Van Couvering Ed. 2000 Encyclopedia of Human Evolution and Prehistory, Second Edition. Garland Publishing, New York
• John Lowe and Mike Walker 2014 Reconstructing Quaternary Environments Third Edition. Routledge Upinder Singh 2009. A history of Ancient and Early Medieval India. Pearson, India