7 Understanding Material Culture Remains: Lithic Technology II

Prakash Sinha

Introduction

During the 1960s F. Bordes and Don Crabtree brought flint-knapping to the attention of lithic artefact researchers. Thereafter, many archaeologists became flint-knappers. Because much of that production variability was not controlled systematically in experiments, replication studies were criticized as non-scientific. The more controlled experiments shifted the emphasis of analysis away from the finished products of lithic tool production to the by-products of production. Because of this shift, lithic replication experiments gained new acceptance in the archaeological community as controlled scientific experiments that could provide important behavioral information to lithic analysis. Additionally, refitting or conjoining studies of excavated lithic assemblages have supported the findings of replication analysis associated with lithic tool reduction sequences.

The techniques of preceding periods of Stone Age cultures continued in the Mesolithic and Neolithic cultures, indeed with appropriate addition and modifications in the basic flint-knapping methods and techniques. It is because of the fact that there are mainly two ways to produce stone tools, flakes and or blades by breaking stone nodules or chunks, as explained and discussed in the preceding lesson, namely percussion and pressure techniques. However, some specialised techniques like Levallosian, Mousterian, etc., lost their significance. It is, therefore, traces of such specialised techniques are nearly absent in the cultural deposits of the Mesolithic and the Neolithic periods. The specialised prepared core technique – fluted core technique, which was developed to produce controlled flakes called blades having at least one ridge on the dorsal face with nearly parallel later sides and length twice the width, continued not only in these two Stone Age cultures under study but also in succeeding periods such as Chalcolithic and Iron Age. However, the length and width of the blades in the Mesolithic culture have reduced; and length reduced to 30 mm on an average, hence called microliths; and such blade based lithic industry is known as microlithic industry. Again long and broad blades re-appeared in the succeeding cultures of Copper-bronze Age and Iron Age along with the continuation of microlithic character of blade industry of the Mesolithic culture. The Neolithic culture witnessed the appearance of new types of tools called Neoliths or Polished Stone Tools in addition to microlithic tools of the preceding culture, the Mesolithic culture.

2.   Objectives

In this lesson, we will try to understand lithic techniques used in the last two Stone Age archaeological-cultures, namely the Mesolithic and Neolithic cultures of the Holocene period. The students are advised to see lesson on Palaeolithic stone tool technology for basics of lithic technology and specialised techniques of the preceding Stone Age archaeological-cultures. We will study lithic techniques used to manufacture blades, microliths and polished stone tools.

3.   Basic Concepts of Technology

Lithic technology, like other crafts, is a combination of two factors. The first is the method, i.e. the use of the mind, and the second is technique, i.e. the use of the hand. A change or variation 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. But prior to getting down to making any tool or artefact, its morphological features and the technique that can be adopted to shape them 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 particular tool type it means that one wants to use the tool for some particular end.

4. Flint Knapping Techniques

4.1 Direct and Indirect Percussion Technique:

In the percussion technique, either the object or the hammer is in motion; in the pressure, technique neither is in motion. 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. 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 diffused bulb of percussion. One of the most important variants of this technique is known as the 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.

4.2 Punch: 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.

4.3 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 forte 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.

4.4 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 technique is called fluted core technique.

4.5 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.

4.6 Micro-burin Technique: This is a method of serving blades to make geometrical microliths or non-geometrical microlith like truncated blades, percoir, etc. The technique requires first weakening the blade by marginal notching and then breaking it at the notch.

4.7 Grinding and Polishing Technique: The top surface of the lithic tools up to the Mesolithic culture, whether big or small, is usually uneven and coarse because of flaking scars. However, the lithic industry of Neolithic culture consists of tools made on blades and tools having polish or grinded surface. Such grinded / polished artefacts are called polished stone tools or neoliths in general. Some polished stone tools are fully grinded/ polished while some bear grinding or polish only on the working edge(s). The most common material exploited to manufacture polished stone tools are dolerite, basalt, Archean schist, diorite, porphyritic trap and sandstone. Ethnographic parallels and experiments demonstrated that there are at least three stages, namely Flaking, Pecking and Grinding in manufacturing such tools if not four – polishing, , before it finally appears as finished ground or polished tool.

4.7.1 First Stage- Flaking: When the original pebble or nodule is of a soft material, like sandstone, and its shape and size close to the tool he or she wanted to fashion, obviously not much flaking exercise was required. A pebble or nodule of any fine grained rock is fashioned roughly into the desired shape of the tool viz. triangular or rounded axe by block-on-block or direct percussion technique with a stone hammer. The resultant product may look like an Abbevillian handaxe with a number of negative scars developed on the surface of the stone piece because of flaking.

4.7.2 Second Stage- Pecking: Stone object prepared in the first stage has naturally many uneven surfaces- ridges and depressions. In this stage, an attempt is made to remove the ridges developed on the surface because of flaking. This is usually done by hitting or smashing the ridges with a cylindrical or pointed stone hammer. The aim of this stage is prepare the surface of the object as even as possible to cut down time and energy of the next stage. Because of hitting or smashing activities in this stage, this is technically called ‘pecking’, battering, or hammering stage.

4.7.3 Third Stage – Grinding: After pecking stage, the tool is grinded. For further removing the remaining pecked or crushed ridges to make whole surface or working edge smooth without any unevenness grinding is done. For this purpose, generally a large concave or basin-shaped boulders or stones are chosen and with the help of sand or similar coarse material and a little water serving as abrasive, the tool is moved up and down in the groove. The smooth surfaces on the available tool as well as the grooved boulders definitely indicate that at a time only a small portion of the tool was ground. This was usually the edge portion. Finally, the tool is prepared and ready to use (Figure 14). This is a time-consuming process. Consequently, in any collection one finds only a few fully ground tools.

4.7.4 Fourth Stag- Polishing: Usually, polishing is not regarded as a separate stage, nor are the tools called by this term. However, some scholars are of the view that there are some tools with very shining surfaces or surfaces which reflect light and therefore suggest that perhaps in some cases, some material was also added in the final stage which resulted in such a reflective or polished surface. Normally, however, for describing the industry the term ‘Grinding’ or ‘Ground Stone Industry’ or ‘Polished Stone Industry’ is sufficient and appropriate.

5. Discussion:

Every ‘blade’ is a flake but not all flakes are blades. A blade by its very connotation is thin and slender as opposed to thick or broad. In the Clactonean, Levalloisian and Mousterian methods of producing flakes it was pointed out that the cores were usually flat, the platforms wide and faceted and the flakes round, oval, or triangular. However, in the case of blade and bladelets the situation is different. In the blade techniques, the cores are generally cylindrical and fluted; the flakes (blades) are long, narrow, parallel sides with ridge(s) on dorsal face and minute faceted platforms. The blade cores of the Mesolithic culture are quite different in shape and size from those of the earlier periods. Probably cores were not struck directly, but a semi-pointed wood, bone, antler or stone punch was used for in-direct percussion or pressure technique to get a thin, narrow, parallel flake/ blades.

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., and sometimes proximal end or butt end is chipped off or flaking is done to prepare tang for hafting.

All these stone tools not only indicate the new techniques of preparation of the tool, but the new mode of life of the man who made them. Most likely, the axes, adzes, and the ring-stones were hafted in various ways. There is high probability that with the help of such grinded/ polished tool, man began taking steps in deforestation, agriculture, carpentry, mining and quarrying. The axe, adze and chisel, perhaps, were primarily used on timber. Thus, not only these tools are the direct forerunners or prototypes of our metal tools, but also they paved the way for the next stage of man’s material advance, viz. metallurgy.

Conclusions

The development of human behaviour is not unilateral rather multi-structural, multilateral and spiral in time and space. At a more pragmatic level, it implies that there is some complex structural thinking process which links the possible visual patterns. An increasingly complex mixture of interdisciplinary knowledge has been required to keep pace.

One of the aims of archaeology has had been to understand dynamic context of archaeological context in time and space. Vico had rightly opined that we can know history because man created history. Most of the Philosophers of the history have opined that the development of history is towards progress of human society to achieve complete freedom and/ or communalism. It is also believed that history is a continuous process and an unending dialogue between the past and the present. A basic question obviously comes to our mind – why all societies and communities in time and space could not progress and prosperous equally and simultaneously. Some societies even today are in primitive stage, if we accept division of the history with reference to development of societies from remote times as suggested by a number of social scientist. Does this support the well known theory of ‘Challenge and Response’ propounded by Toynbee? The fundamental question here is – how to develop dialogue with archaeological evidence?

There is always some meaning behind normal human action. To understand rationale behind his/ her action one should understand the process of cultural constructs through contextual archaeological evidence in time and space.

Why prehistoric man reduced the size of blades to microlithic size? Why they took so much pain in removing ridges and making grounded/ polished tools? You may get some idea and explanations in Prakash Sinha’s publications.

Web links

• http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/behavior
• http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/origins/oldowan_stone_tools.php
• http://www.stoneagetools.co.uk/index.htm
• Making Stone Tools | Big History Project ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrvPOkMs4U4 )
• Beginners Flintknaping series – Part 1 ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wyzNIa-U5Nc )
• Beginners Flintknaping series – Part 2 ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ME2uzXik83A )
• Beginners Flintknaping series – Part 3 ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ktQOJ0pu5sg )
• Beginners Flintknaping series – Part 4 ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOLJ4V1QGwY )
• Acheulean Handaxe – Flintknapping (GhVaUY)
• Blade Core Basics Part 1 ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TclZkQA0G8 )
• Blade Core Hammerstone Preform Part 2 ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3HSMGLmolL4)
• Blade Core Pressure Blading Part 3 ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgKC_fNsbFw )
• Blade Core Pressure Blading Part 4 ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9ugfvVosgE )
• Levallois Core Reduction ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGkU2lXtQ0Y )

Bibliography

• Andrefsky, W.,Jr. 2005. Lithics Macroscopic Approaches to Analysis. Cambridge University Press.
• Cambridge. Bhattacharya, D. K. Old Stone Age Tools. New Delhi
• Bordes, F. 1961. Typologie of Lower and Middle Paleolithic. (English translation of Original French text, by V.N. Misra)
• Crabtree, Don E. 1972. An Introduction to Flintworking. Occasional Papers of the Idaho State University Museum, Number 28.
• Hall, Christopher T. and M. L. Larson (eds.) 2004. Aggregate Analysis in Chipped Stone. The University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.
• Oakley, K. P. 1975. Man the Tool-maker. Trustees of the British Museum (Natural History). London
• Sankalia, H. D. 1982. Stone Age Tools, Their Techniques, Names and Probable Functions. Building Cenetary and Silver Jubilee Series:1. Deccan College, Poona.
• Sinha, P. 1984. Method and Technique of Manufacturing Flake-cleavers. Man & Environment, VIII, pp.117-20.
• Sinha, P. 1994. A Dialogue with Prehistoric Tools. Paper presented in the Seminar on Formation of Indian Culture & Civilization: Historiographic Perspective, Allahabad.
• Sinha, P. 1999. Prehistoric Technology. In G. C. Pande (ed.) The Dawn of Indian Civilization upto 600 BC. Volume 1, Part 1. 139-173. Centre for Studies in Civilizations. New Delhi.
• Sinha, P. 2015. Why Man Made Tools: A Cognitive Development. In K. K. Naik and E. S. N. Reddy (eds.) Cultura Contours of History and Archaeology. Volume-1 Archaeology. 39-42. B. R. Publishing Corporation. Delhi.
• Toth, N. and K. Schick (eds) 2006. The Oldowan: Case Studies Into the Earliest Stone Age. Stone Age Institute Publication Series Number 1. Stone Age Institute Press.Gosport.
• Walker, E. A., F. Wenban-Smith and F. Healy (eds.) 2004. Lithics in Action. Oxbow Books. Oxford.
• Whittaker, J. C. 2009. Flintknapping Making & Understanding Stone Tools. University of Texas Press. Austin