INSTITUTE OF ARCHAEOLOGY

MA COURSE (15 credits): ARCLG113

PREHISTORIC STONE ARTEFACT ANALYSIS
COURSE HANDBOOK 2017-18

FRIDAY 9 – 11 am, Term 1

Room 410 and Lithics Lab, Institute of Archaeology

Turnitin Class ID: 3545510

Turnitin password: IoA1718
Deadlines for coursework for this course: 1st report: 29 January
2nd report: 19 February

Co-ordinator: Prof Ignacio de la Torre

Email: i.torre@ucl.ac.uk Room 204B
Telephone: 020-7679-4721

Please see the last page of this document for important information about submission and marking
procedures
 1 OVERVIEW

Short description

This series of lectures, practical work and discussion provides an introduction to basic and advanced
analytical techniques and addresses some of the methodological and interpretative approaches used
in the study of lithic assemblages. It is twofold in its approach: 1) it addresses technologies
characteristic of the Old Stone Age/Palaeolithic and Neolithic periods; 2) it considers ways that lithic
artefacts and lithic analysis can contribute towards an understanding of past human cognition,
behaviour and the interpretation of human material culture. There is an emphasis on practical
handling and study as this is the best way to learn about struck stone artefacts.

Course schedule

Lecture (all lectures in Practical (most practicals in Lecturer Date

Room 410) Room 410 or Lithics Lab)
Week 1 Approaches to lithic analysis Labelling and curation, raw material Prof I. de la Torre 06-Oct
identification (Lithics Lab)
Week 2 Origins of stone tool technology Artefact categories, core and flake Prof I. de la Torre 13-Oct
attributes (Room 410)
Week 3 Stone tool experimental Experimental knapping Dr Tomos Proffitt 20-Oct
flaking (in the IoA basement)
Week 4 Acheulean technology Analysis of knapping experiments + Prof I. de la Torre 27-Oct
Acheulean handaxes (Room 410)
Week 5 Refitting of stone tools Refitting (Room 410) Dr Amelia Bargallo 03-Nov
Week 6 **Reading week (no teaching)** **Reading week** **Reading week** 10-Nov

Week 7 Illustration of stone tools Hand, digital and high magnification Prof I. de la Torre 17-Nov
imaging of stone tools (Lithics Lab)
Week 8 Middle Palaeolithic technology Middle Palaeolithic stone tools Prof I. de la Torre 17-Nov
(Room 410)
Week 9 Upper Palaeolithic technology Upper Palaeolithic stone tools Prof I. de la Torre 01-Dec
(Room 410)
Week 10 Neolithic lithic technologies Neolithic artefacts (Room 410) Dr Ulrike Sommer 08-Dec
Week 11 Lithic use wear analysis Microscopy (SEM lab, basement) Prof I. de la Torre 15-Dec
Data crunching of lithic assemblages
(Room 410)

In addition to these contact hours on Fridays 9-11 am, you can use classrooms 410 and 209 to
prepare your reports on the following times:

Room 410 Room 209

All Mondays 9-11 am until 28th February 8 November all day
All Tuesdays 4-6 pm until 28th February (tbc) 10 November all day
All Fridays 9-11 am until 28th February
13, 14, 15 and 16 February: all day

Rooms 209 and 410 is reserved for you during these slots. If there is any issue (e.g., the door is
locked), you can ask Judy Medrington in Room 411A (for Room 410) or Fiona McLean in Reception
(for Room 209) to open the door for you.

2|Page
If you find that you need more time to complete your report, please contact the course co-ordinator
and time slots will be arranged in the Lithics Lab.

TEXTBOOKS

There are a number of books that provide a good introduction to lithic technology, terminology, and
methods of analysis. If you have to choose only one, read Inizan et al. (which is the best and is free
for downloading). For those of you who wish to try your hand at flint knapping, then Whittaker is a
useful reference.

*** Highly recommended

Andrefsky, Jr., W. 2005. Lithics: Macroscopic Approaches to Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press, Cambridge Manuals in Archaeology.

Holdaway, S. and Stern, N. 2004. A Record in Stone: the study of Australia's Flaked Stone
Artefacts. Melbourne: Museum Victoria; Canberra: Aboriginal Studies Press

*** Inizan, M.-L., Roche, H. and Tixier, J. 1992. Technology and Terminology of Knapped
Stone. Meudon: CREP.

In French: http://www.mae.u-
paris10.fr/prehistoire/IMG/pdf/Technologie_de_la_pierre_taillee.pdf

In English: http://www.mae.u-
paris10.fr/prehistoire/IMG/pdf/Technology_and_Terminology_of_Knapped_Stone.pdf

Odell, G.H. 2004. Lithic Analysis. New York/ London: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.

Shea, John, J. 2013. Stone tools in the Paleolithic and Neolithic Near East. A Guide. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.

Whittaker, J.C. 1994. Flintknapping: Making and Understanding Stone tools. Austin University of
Texas Press.

The following articles give a good overview of, and references about the topic:

Andrefsky, W. Jr. 2009. The analysis of stone tool procurement, production and maintenance.
Journal of Archaeological Research 17, 65-103.

Nelson, M.C., 1991. The Study of Technological Organization, in: Schiffer, M.B. (Ed.),
Archaeological Method and Theory, Vol. 3nº1. University of Arizona Press, Tucson, pp. 57-100.

Odell, G. H. 2000. Stone Tool Research at the end of the Millennium: procurement and
technology. Journal of Archaeological Research 9(1), 45-100.

3|Page
METHOD OF ASSESSMENT AND COURSEWORK

Turnitin password: IoA1718 (case sensitive) Turnitin ID: 3545510

This course is assessed by means of two lithic reports (Report #1: 1500 words. Report #2: 2500
words), which together total 4000 words (see below for further details). Each report counts for 50%
of the mark.

TEACHING METHODS

This 15 credit course is taught through a series of lectures, practical handling and discussion.
Classes will follow a two-part format of lecture and practical + discussion.

WORKLOAD

There will be 20 hours of lectures and practical handling and discussion for this course. Students
are expected to spend about 40 hours undertaking background reading for the lectures, and about
90 hours in preparation for coursework, adding up to a total workload of 150 hours for the course.

PREREQUISITES

It is useful, but not essential, to have some background experience in Palaeolithic studies (e.g. from
an undergraduate course or part of a course, through professional experience).

2 AIMS, OBJECTIVES AND ASSESSMENT

AIMS

The aims of the course are:

• To increase understanding of past lithic technologies
• To promote a comprehensive understanding of the type of information that lithic artefacts
can provide about past human behaviour.
• To explore the range of analytical techniques, methods and theoretical perspectives
employed in the study of stone tool assemblages

OBJECTIVES

On successful completion of this course a student should:

• Recognise and understand lithic technologies characteristic of the Stone Age/Palaeolithic
and Neolithic periods
• Be familiar with the analytical and theoretical approaches used in lithic analysis.
• Understand the ways in which lithics as a form of material culture inform us about the
human past.
• Be able to critically evaluate interpretations of lithic assemblages.
• Be familiar with a range of case studies related to specific aspects of lithic analysis.

LEARNING OUTCOMES

On successful completion of the course students should have developed:

• Observational skills and critical reflection
• The ability to apply acquired knowledge of a topic

4|Page
COURSEWORK - ASSESSMENT TASKS

The course will be assessed by two lithic reports. Each report accounts for 50% of the final mark.

The first lithic report will focus on the recognition of the main technological features of experimental
stone tools. In this assignment, students will be asked to identify techno-typological groups and
describe taphonomic, technological and typological attributes of the main categories.

The second lithic report will be on a selection of archaeological pieces from the IoA collections, and
the analysis and interpretation of a stone tool database. Results should then be placed within a
local and wider geographical context.

Both reports should include a technological, morphometric and typological description and
discussion of the lithics studied. The reports should be accompanied by forms, diagrams, tables,
illustrations and photographs of some of the pieces studied. Detailed guidelines on the preparation
of each report are provided separately.

It is advisable to start work on the practical analysis of the reports as soon as you can. If you are
unclear about the report or have any other questions you can discuss them with Ignacio de la Torre.

The nature of the assignments and possible approaches to them will be discussed in class, in
advance of the submission deadline. However, if students are unclear about the nature of an
assignment, they should discuss this with the Course coordinator (Ignacio de la Torre).

Students are not permitted to re-write and re-submit essays in order to try to improve their marks.
However, students may be permitted, in advance of the deadline for a given assignment, to submit
for comment a brief outline of the assignment.

SUBMISSION OF FIRST LITHIC REPORT IS MONDAY 29 JANUARY.

SUBMISSION OF SECOND LITHIC REPORT IS MONDAY 19 FEBRUARY.

Return of coursework by:

1st report: 14 February (return is less than four weeks after the submission deadline to provide
feedback before submission of the 2nd report)

2nd report: 19 March

Please note that in order to be deemed to have completed and passed in any
course, it is necessary to submit all assessments.

Word counts
The following should not be included in the word-count: title page, contents pages, lists of
figures and tables, abstract, preface, acknowledgements, bibliography, lists of references,
captions and contents of tables and figures, and appendices.

5|Page
CHECK WORD COUNT

Word count Range

Lithic report #1 1500 1,425-1,575
Lithic report #2 2500 2,375-2,625

Penalties will only be imposed if you exceed the upper figure in the range. There is no
penalty for using fewer words than the lower figure in the range: the lower figure is simply for
your guidance to indicate the sort of length that is expected.

In the 2017-2018 session penalties for overlength work will be as follows:

• For work that exceeds the specified maximum length by less than 10% the mark will
be reduced by five percentage marks; but the penalised mark will not be reduced
below the pass mark, assuming the work merited a Pass.
• For work that exceeds the specified maximum length by 10% or more, the mark will
be reduced by 10 percentage points, but the penalised mark will not be reduced
below the pass mark, assuming the work merited a Pass.

Coursework submission procedures

• All coursework must normally be submitted both as hard copy and electronically.
(The only exceptions are bulky portfolios and lab books which are normally submitted
as hard copy only).
• You should staple the appropriate colour-coded IoA coversheet (available in the IoA
library and outside room 411a) to the front of each piece of work and submit it to the
red box at the Reception Desk (or room 411a in the case of Year 1 undergraduate
work)
• All coursework should be uploaded to Turnitin by midnight on the day of the
deadline. This will date-stamp your work. It is essential to upload all parts of
your work as this is sometimes the version that will be marked.
• Instructions are given below.

Note that Turnitin uses the term ‘class’ for what we normally call a ‘course’.
1. Ensure that your essay or other item of coursework has been saved as a
Word doc., docx. or PDF document, and that you have the Class ID for the course
(available from the course handbook) and enrolment password (this is IoA1718 for
all courses this session - note that this is capital letter I, lower case letter o, upper
case A, followed by the current academic year)
2. Click on http://www.turnitinuk.com/en_gb/login
3. Click on ‘Create account’
4. Select your category as ‘Student’
5. Create an account using your UCL email address. Note that you will be
asked to specify a new password for your account - do not use your UCL password
or the enrolment password, but invent one of your own (Turnitin will permanently
associate this with your account, so you will not have to change it every 6 months,
unlike your UCL password). In addition, you will be asked for a “Class ID” and a
“Class enrolment password” (see point 1 above).
6. Once you have created an account you can just log in at
http://www.turnitinuk.com/en_gb/login and enrol for your other classes without

6|Page
 going through the new user process again. Simply click on ‘Enrol in a class’. Make
sure you have all the relevant “class IDs” at hand.
7. Click on the course to which you wish to submit your work.
8. Click on the correct assignment (e.g. Essay 1).
9. Double-check that you are in the correct course and assignment and then
click ‘Submit’
10. Attach document as a “Single file upload”
11. Enter your name (the examiner will not be able to see this)
12. Fill in the “Submission title” field with the right details: It is essential that
the first word in the title is your examination candidate number (e.g. YGBR8
In what sense can culture be said to evolve?),
13. Click “Upload”. When the upload is finished, you will be able to see a text-
only version of your submission.
14 Click on “Submit”
.
If you have problems, please email the IoA Turnitin Advisers on ioa-
turnitin@ucl.ac.uk, explaining the nature of the problem and the exact course and
assignment involved.

One of the Turnitin Advisers will normally respond within 24 hours, Monday-Friday
during term. Please be sure to email the Turnitin Advisers if technical problems
prevent you from uploading work in time to meet a submission deadline - even if you
do not obtain an immediate response from one of the Advisers they will be able to
notify the relevant Course Coordinator that you had attempted to submit the work
before the deadline

7|Page
TEACHING SCHEDULE

Lectures and most practicals will be held on Friday from 9 am to 11 am in room 410. Some
practicals will be held in the Lithics Lab (204A) or the IoA basement.

COURSE SYLLABUS

The following is a session outline for the course as a whole, and identifies essential and
supplementary readings relevant to each session. Electronic journal and scanned readings are
available through the online Reading List and on Moodle. Books are in the Institute of Archaeology
Library. Recommended readings are considered essential to keep up with topics covered in the
course sessions, and it is expected that students will have read these prior to the session under
which they are listed.

Session 1: October 6th

Lecture: Approaches to Lithic Analysis

Ignacio de la Torre

In the first part of this session we will introduce the course, review the history of the discipline,
discuss theoretical perspectives, and present methods of lithic analysis, with a focus on the value
and reason for employing particular methods.

Essential reading

Isaac, G. L. 1977. Squeezing blood from stones. In (R. V. S. Wright, Ed.) Stone tools as cultural
markers: change, evolution, and complexity. New Jersey: Humanities Press, 5-12.

Tostevin, G.B., 2011. Levels of Theory and Social Practice in the Reduction Sequence and Chaîne
Opératoire Methods of Lithic Analysis. PaleoAnthropology 2011, 351-375.

Further reading

Binford, L.R., 1973. Interassemblage variability - the Mousterian and the functional argument, in:
Renfrew, C. (Ed.), The Explanation of Culture Change: Models in Prehistory. Duckworth, London,
pp. 227-254.

Bisson, M. S. 2000. Nineteenth Century Tools for Twenty-First Century Archaeology? Why the
Middle Paleolithic Typology of François Bordes Must Be Replaced. Journal of Archaeological
Method and Theory 7, 1-48.

Boëda, E., Geneste, J. M. & Meignen, L. 1990. Identification de chaînes opératoires lithiques du
Paléolithique ancien et moyen. Paléo 2, 43-80.

Debenath, A. & Dibble, H. L. 1993. Handbook of Palaeolithic Typology. Vol 1: Lower & Middle
Palaeolithic of Europe. Philadelphia: Univ. Pennsylvania Press.

Geneste, J.-M. 1991. L´approvisionnement en matières premières dans les systemes de production
lithique: la dimension spatiale de la technologie. In (R. Mora, X. Terradas, A. Parpal & C. Plana,

8|Page
Ed.) Tecnología y cadenas operativas líticas. Barcelona: Treballs d´Arqueologia, 1, Universidad
Autónoma de Barcelona, 1-36.

Nelson, M.C., 1991. The Study of Technological Organization, in: Schiffer, M.B. (Ed.),
Archaeological Method and Theory, Vol. 3nº1. University of Arizona Press, Tucson, pp. 57-100.

Pelegrin, J., 1990. Prehistoric Lithic Technology: Some Aspects of Research. Archaeological
Review from Cambridge 9, 116-125.

Shott, M.J., 2003. Chaîne Opératoire and Reduction Sequence. Lithic Technology 28, 95-105.

Schlanger, N. 2005. The Chaîne opératoire. In (C. Renfrew & P. Bahn, Ed.) Archaeology. The Key
Concepts. London and New York: Routledge, 25-31.

Soressi, M., Geneste, J.-M., 2011. The History and Efficacy of the Chaîne Opératoire Approach to
Lithic Analysis: Studying Techniques to Reveal Past Societies in an Evolutionary Perspective.
PaleoAnthropology 2011, 334-350.

Torre, I. de la & Mora, R. 2009. Remarks on the current theoretical and methodological approaches
to the study of early technological strategies in Eastern Africa. In E. Hovers and D. R. Braun, (eds.)
Interdisciplinary Approaches to the Oldowan. Dordrecht: Springer, 15-24. Pdf available online

Practical: Labelling and curation, raw material identification

First, we will review protocols for processing of stone tool collections, including washing, labelling
and curation of lithics. Then we will focus on the identification of main raw materials used in stone
tool production, including both macroscopic and microscopic approaches.

Readings on labelling and curation

Martínez-Moreno, J., González Marcén, P., Mora Torcal, R., 2011. Data matrix (DM) codes: A
technological process for the management of the archaeological record. Journal of Cultural
Heritage 12, 134-139.

de la Torre, I. et al. 2014. Archaeological field techniques in Stone Age sites. Some case studies.
Treballs d’Arqueologia 20, 21-40.

Stone Age Archaeology Group (unpublished): Laboratory protocols for finds processing in
archaeological research. Unpublished document, UCL-Institute of Archaeology, available in
Moodle.

Readings on raw material identification

Inizan, M.-L., Roche, H. and Tixier, J. 1992. Technology and Terminology of Knapped
Stone. Meudon: CREP. Chapter 1.

Kearey, P., 2001. Dictionary of Geology. Penguin, London.

Luedtke, B.E., 1992. An Archaeologist´s Guide to Chert and Flint. University of California,
California.

MacKenzie, W.S., Adams, A.E., 1994. A Colour Atlas of Rocks and Minerals in Thin Section.
Manson Publishing, London.

9|Page
Session 2: October 13th

Lecture: Origins of stone tool technology

Ignacio de la Torre

We will discuss potential primate precursors for the origins of lithic flaking, and the archaeological
evidence for the earliest stone tool technology from 3.3 Ma. These include the newly discovered
Lomekwi technology from West Turkana (Kenya), and Oldowan flake production in the Early Stone
Age. We will consider the presence, nature and meaning of variation during this time period.

Reading for the emergence of stone tool technology

Carvalho, S. et al. 2008. Chaînes opératoires and resource-exploitation strategies in

chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) nut cracking. Journal of Human Evolution 55, 148-163.
Harmand, S., et al. 2015. 3.3-million-year-old stone tools from Lomekwi 3, West Turkana,
Kenya. Nature 521, 310-315.
Panger, M.A., et al. 2002. Older Than the Oldowan? Rethinking the emergence of hominin tool use.
Evolutionary Anthropology 11, 235-245

Proffitt, T., et al. 2016. Wild monkeys flake stone tools. Nature 539(7627), 85-88.

Viewings: Capuchin tool making: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0jqJUF1nOs

Chimpanzees: http://langint.pri.kyoto-u.ac.jp/ai/en/bossou.html

Reading for Oldowan technologies

Braun, D.R., et al. 2008. Oldowan reduction sequences: methodological considerations. Journal of
Archaeological Science 35, 2153-2163.

Delagnes, A. and Roche, H. 2005. Late Pliocene hominid knapping skills: The case of Lokalalei
2C, West Turkana, Kenya. Journal of Human Evolution 48, 435-472.

Stout, D. et al. 2005. Raw material selectivity of the earliest stone toolmakers at Gona, Afar,
Ethiopia. Journal of Human Evolution 48, 365-380.

Toth, N. 1985. The Oldowan reassessed: a close look at early stone artifacts. Journal of
Archaeological Science 12, 101-120.

Toth, N., Schick, K., 2009. The Oldowan: The Tool Making of Early Hominins and Chimpanzees
Compared. Annual Review of Anthropology 38, 289-305.

Torre, I.de la., 2011. The origins of stone tool technology in Africa: a historical perspective. Phil.
Trans. of Royal Society B 366, 1028-1037.

10 | P a g e
Practical: Artefact categories, core and flake attributes

We will review the technological characteristics of knapped stone, as well as the basic definitions
and terminology. We will learn the main attributes defining debitage and flaked artefacts.

Reading

Andrefsky, Jr., W. 1998. Lithics: Macroscopic Approaches to Analysis. (ch. 2. Basics of stone tool
production; ch.5 Flake debitage attributes). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Manuals in Archaeology.

Laplace, G., 1972. La typologie analytique et structurale: Base rationnelle d'étude des
industries lithiques et osseuses. Colloques nationaux du Centre National de la Recherche
scientifique. Banques de données aechéologiques 932, 91-143.

Mora, R., Martínez, J., Terradas, X., 1991. Un proyeto de análisis: el Sistema Lógico Analítico
(SLA), in: Mora, R., Terradas, X., Parpal, A., Plana, C. (Eds.), Tecnología y cadenas operativas
líticas. Treballs d´Arqueologia, 1, Universidad Autónoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, pp. 173-199.
Inizan, M.-L., Roche, H. and Tixier, J. 1992. Technology of Knapped Stone. Meudon:
CREP.

Whittaker, J.C. 1994. Flintknapping: Making and Understanding Stone tools (ch. 2. Flintknapping:
basic principles). AustIn University of Texas Press.

Session 3: October 20th

Lecture: Stone tool experimental flaking

Tomos Proffitt

Experimental knapping is essential to a correct understanding of mechanical, technical and mental

processes involved in stone tool production. We will briefly discuss the contribution of experimental
knapping in lithic studies, although this session will be almost exclusively practical (experimental!).

Reading

Amick, D. S., Mauldin, R. P. (eds.) 1989. Experiments in Lithic Technology. Oxford: BAR
International Series 528.

Aubry, T., Bradley, B., Almeida, M., Walter, B., Neves, M.J., Pelegrin, J., Lenoir, M., Tiffagom, M.,
2008. Solutrean laurel leaf production at Maîtreaux: an experimental approach guided by techno-
economic analysis. World Archaeology 40, 48-66.

Dibble, Harold. 1978. A history of flintknapping experimentation 1838-1976. Current

Anthropology 19, 337-372

Jones, P.R., 1994. Results of experimental work in relation to the stone industries of Olduvai
Gorge, in: Leakey, M.D., Roe, D.A. (Eds.), Olduvai Gorge. Volume 5. Excavations in Beds III, IV
and the Masek Beds, 1968-1971. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 254-298.

11 | P a g e
Toth, N., Schick, K.D., Savage-Rumbaugh, E.S., Sevcik, R.A., Rumbaugh, D.M., 1993. Pan the
Tool-Maker: Investigations into the Stone Tool-Making and Tool-Using Capabilities of a Bonobo
(Pan paniscus). Journal of Archaeological Science 20, 81-91.

Whittaker, J.C. 1994. Flintknapping: Making and Understanding Stone tools. Austin University of
Texas Press.

Viewing

Handaxe production: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbxbLjydK9s&t=303s

Levallois: Recurrent method https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGkU2lXtQ0Y

Levallois point https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HfwXXqK1eU

Prismatic core: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6pAWhuCtAk

Danish dagger: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFr_MJ7w-L8

Things you can do with glass: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MsjON0YBkp0&t=271s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SfMN3BVISmQ

Session 4: October 27th

Lecture: Acheulean technology

Ignacio de la Torre

We will review the origins and development of Acheulean technologies in the Old World, with
special emphasis on the technological aspects involved in the production of handaxes. A discussion
will follow on different perspectives in the study of these artefacts, from the classic approaches of
Bordes and Roe to current methodologies using morphometrics and ‘biographic’ readings of
handaxes.

Readings on the Acheulean record

Goren-Inbar, N., Sharon, G. (Eds.), Axe Age. Acheulian Toolmaking from Quarry to Discard.
Equinox, London.

Moncel, M.-H., Ashton, N., Lamotte, A., Tuffreau, A., Cliquet, D., Despriée, J., 2015. The Early
Acheulian of north-western Europe. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 40, 302-331.
Lycett, S.J., 2008. Acheulean variation and selection: does handaxe symmetry fit neutral
expectations? Journal of Archaeological Science 35, 2640-2648.

Pappu, S., Gunnell, Y., Akhilesh, K., Braucher, R., Taieb, M., Demory, F., Thouveny, N., 2011.
Early Pleistocene Presence of Acheulian Hominins in South India. Science 331, 1596-1599.

Torre, I.de la, 2016. The origins of the Acheulean: past and present perspectives on a major
transition in human evolution. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B:
Biological Sciences 371, 20150245.

12 | P a g e
Vallverdú, J., et al. 2014. Age and Date for Early Arrival of the Acheulian in Europe (Barranc de la
Boella, la Canonja, Spain). PLoS ONE 9, e103634.

Readings on Acheulean technology and typology

Debenath, A. & Dibble, H. L. 1993. Handbook of Palaeolithic Typology. Vol 1: Lower & Middle
Palaeolithic of Europe. Philadelphia: Univ. Pennsylvania Press.

Hallos, J., 2005. "15 Minutes of Fame": Exploring the temporal dimension of Middle Pleistocene
lithic technology. Journal of Human Evolution 49, 155-179.

McNabb, J., 2017. Journeys in space and time. Assessing the link between Acheulean handaxes
and genetic explanations. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 13, 403-414.

Iovita, R., McPherron, S.P., 2011. The handaxe reloaded: A morphometric reassessment of
Acheulian and Middle Paleolithic handaxes. Journal of Human Evolution 61, 61-74.

Lycett, S.J., 2008. Acheulean variation and selection: does handaxe symmetry fit neutral
expectations? Journal of Archaeological Science 35, 2640-2648.

McPherron, S.P., 2000. Handaxes as a Measure of the Mental Capabilities of Early Hominids.
Journal of Archaeological Science 27, 655-663.

***Sharon, G., 2009. Acheulian Giant-Core Technology. A Worldwide Perspective. Current

Anthropology 50, 335-367.

Torre, I. de la, Mora, R., Arroyo, A., Benito-Calvo, A., 2014. Acheulean technological
behaviour in the Middle Pleistocene landscape of Mieso (East-Central Ethiopia). Journal of
Human Evolution 76, 1-25.

Viewing:

Making stone cleavers: slicing into ancient minds”.

https://youtu.be/nmWML9h1HMw

Session 5: November 3rd

Refitting of stone tools

Amelia Bargallo

By definition, refitting (sometimes referred to as conjoining) is the fitting together of pieces in

their original position to gain as complete a vision of the whole object as possible. Like a
three-dimensional puzzle, refitting is employed in archaeology on different types of material,
such as lithic, bone and pottery. The refitting of lithic reduction sequences allows us to
examine potential changes in reduction strategies and thus, their implications for hominid
behavioural evolution. Moreover, sometimes refitting allows us to detect intra-site activity
areas.

13 | P a g e
Reading

Cziesla, E. 1990. On refitting of stone artefacts. In E. Cziesla, et al. (eds.), The Big Puzzle:
International Symposium on Refitting Stone Artefacts, Monrepos, 1987. Bonn: Holos, 9-44.

Cziesla, E. and Eickhoff, S. 1990. The Big Puzzle: International Symposium on Refitting
Stone Artefacts, Monrepos, 1987. Bonn: Holos.

Pigeot, N., 1990. Technical and social actors. Flintknapping specialists and apprentices at
Magdalenian Etiolles. Archaeological Review from Cambridge 9, 127-141.

Proffitt, T., de la Torre, I., 2014. The effect of raw material on inter-analyst variation and
analyst accuracy for lithic analysis: a case study from Olduvai Gorge. Journal of
Archaeological Science 45, 270-283.

Schurman, U and De Bie, M (eds.) 2007. Fitting Rocks: Lithic Refitting Examined. 1596.
Oxford: Archaeopress, BAR Int Ser. 1596.7-23.

Further reading

Bodu, P., Karlin, C. and Ploux, S. 1990. Who’s who? The Magdelenian flintknappers of
Pincevent (France). In E. Cziesla, et al. (eds), The big puzzle: International Symposium on
Refitting Stone Artefacts, Monrepos, 1987. Bonn: Holos, 143-163.

Bordes, François 1980. Question de comtemporanéité: l'illuson des remontages. Actualité

scientifique. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française, 77(5), 132-33.

Delagnes, A. and Roche, H. 2005, Late Pliocene hominid knapping skills: The case of
Lokalalei 2C, West Turkana, Kenya. Journal of Human Evolution 48(5), 435-472.

Fischer, A. (1990). A Late Palaeolithic 'school' of flint-knapping at Trollesgave,

Denmark. Results from refitting. Acta Archaeologica 60, 33-49.
Torre, I. de la, Martínez-Moreno, J, and Mora, R, 2012. When Bones are not enough: Lithic
refits and occupation dynamics in the Middle Palaeolithic Level 10 of Roca dels Bous
(Catalonia, Spain). In Krish, S and Gravina, B. (eds.). Bones for Tools – Tools for Bones.
The Interplay between Objects and Objectives, Cambridge: McDonald Institute for
Archaeological Research, 13-23.

Vaquero, M., Fernández-Laso, M. C., Chacón, M. G., Romagnoli, F., Rosell, J. & Sañudo, P.
(2017). Moving things: Comparing lithic and bone refits from a Middle Paleolithic site. Journal
of Anthropological Archaeology 48, 262-280.

Week 6: READING WEEK (10th November)

14 | P a g e
Session 6: 17th November

Middle Palaeolithic technology

Ignacio de la Torre

The advent of the Middle Stone Age (Africa) and Middle Palaeolithic (Eurasia) sees the appearance
of new hominin types (Modern humans in Africa and Neanderthals in Eurasia) and associated
changes in human behaviour and technology. Mode 3 technologies were most likely hafted rather
than handheld as in the Acheulean. They are often (but not always) characterised by a
technologically distinctive set of forms produced through use of Levallois techniques, providing a
range of predetermined flakes, points and, occasionally, blades. Many products, whether Levallois
products or not, were subsequently retouched into a variety of types giving rise to regional diversity.

Reading for Mode 3 and Middle Palaeolithic

Hovers, E. and S. Kuhn (eds), 2007. Transitions before the Transition: Evolution and stability in
the Middle Paleolithic and Middle Stone Age. New York: Springer

Kuhn, S. and Hovers, E. (eds), 2013. Alternative Pathways to Complexity: Evolutionary

Trajectories in the Middle Paleolithic and Middle Stone Age. Current Anthropology, 54, S8.

McBrearty, S. and Brooks, A. 2000. The revolution that wasn’t: a new interpretation of
human behavior. Journal of Human Evolution 39, 453-563.

Mellars, P. 1994. The Upper Palaeolithic Revolution. In Cunliffe, B. (ed) The Oxford
Illustrated Prehistory of Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 42-78.

Readings on Middle Palaeolithic technology and typology

Boëda, E. 1995. Levallois: a volumetric construction, methods and technique. In H.L Dibble,
and O. Bar-Yosef, (eds) The definition and Interpretation of Levallois Technology. Madison,
Wisconsin: Prehistory Press, 41-68.

Debenath, A. & Dibble, H. L. 1993. Handbook of Palaeolithic Typology. Vol 1: Lower & Middle
Palaeolithic of Europe. Philadelphia: Univ. Pennsylvania Press.

Dibble, H.L. and Bar-Yosef, O. (eds) (and articles therein) 1995. The definition and Interpretation
of Levallois Technology. Madison, WisconsIn Prehistory Press.

Peresani, M. 2003. Discoid Lithic Technology. Advances and implications. BAR International
Series 1120, Oxford.

Turq, A. et al. 2013. The fragmented character of Middle Palaeolithic stone tool technology.
Journal of Human Evolution 65, 641-655.

Viewing:

15 | P a g e
Production of a preferential Levallois flake:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=saAU_OJrk2E&t=175s

Session 7: 24th November

Illustration of stone tools

Ignacio de la Torre

When we illustrate tools, we are forced to look at them carefully, to ‘read’ them. By ‘reading’
them we begin to understand more clearly how they were made, and what has happened to
them. This helps in the practical study of the tools themselves, and in understanding lithic
illustrations in publications. Artistic proficiency is not a requirement; you need to draw what you
see.

Reading

Addington, L.R. 1986. Lithic Illustration. Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press.

Bretzke, K. and Conard, J. 2012. Evaluating morphological variability in lithic assemblages

using 3D models of stone artifacts. Journal of Archaeological Science 39, 3741-3749.

Inizan, M.-L., Roche, H. and Tixier, J. 1992. Technology and Terminology of Knapped
Stone. Meudon: CREP. Chapter 7.

Martingell, H. and Saville, A. 1988. The Illustration of Lithic Artefacts. London: Association of
Archaeological Illustrators & Surveyors. Lithic Studies Society Occasional Paper, no. 3.

Shott, M. and Trail B.W. 2010. Exploring new approaches to lithic analysis: laser scanning and
geometric morphometrics. Lithic Technology 35(2): 195-220.

Session 8: 1st December

Upper Palaeolithic technology

Ignacio de la Torre

We will consider the defining features of Upper Palaeolithic technology, its evolutionary and
chronological context. We will make use of the teaching collection to address the
fundamental nuts and bolts of Upper Palaeolithic technology (characterized by prismatic
flaking) and typology (where standardized tool types diversify and can often be considered
as “fossils directeurs”.

Reading for Upper Palaeolithic

Bordes, F. and Sonneville-Bordes, D. de. 1970. The significance of variability in Palaeolithic

assemblages. World Archaeology 2, 61-73

16 | P a g e
Conard, N. and Bolus, M. 2003. Radiocarbon dating the appearance of modern humans and
timing of cultural innovations in Europe: new results and new challenges. Journal of Human
Evolution 44, 331-371

Féblot-Augustins, J., 2009. Revisiting European Upper Paleolithic Raw Material Transfers:
The Demise of the Cultural Ecological Paradigm?, in: Adams, B., Blades, B.S. (Eds.), Lithic
Materials and Paleolithic Societies. Blackwell Publishing, pp. 25-46.

Mellars, P. 1994. The Upper Palaeolithic Revolution. In Cunliffe, B. (ed) The Oxford
Illustrated Prehistory of Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 42-78.

Straus, L.G., 1995. The upper Paleolithic of Europe: An overview. Evolutionary

Anthropology: Issues, News, and Reviews 4, 4-16.

Reading for Upper Palaeolithic technology

Aubry, T., Bradley, B., Almeida, M., Walter, B., Neves, M.J., Pelegrin, J., Lenoir, M.,
Tiffagom, M., 2008. Solutrean laurel leaf production at Maîtreaux: an experimental approach
guided by techno-economic analysis. World Archaeology 40, 48-66.

Pelegrin, J., 2000. Les techniques de débitage laminaire au Tardiglaciaire: critères de

diagnose et quelque réflexions, L’Europe Centrale et Septentrionale au Tardiglaciaire:
confrontation des modèles régionaux de peuplement. Mémoires du Musée de Préhistoire
d’Ile de France, Paris, pp. 73–86.

Piel-Desruisseaux, J-L. 1998. Outils Préhistoriques. Paris, Dunod

Pigeot, N., 1990. Technical and social actors. Flintknapping specialists and apprentices at
Magdalenian Etiolles. Archaeological Review from Cambridge 9, 127-141.

de Sonneville-Bordes, D., Perrot, J., 1954-1956. Lexique typologique du Paléolithique

supérieur. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française Vol. 51, pp. 327-335, Vol. 52, pp.
76-79, Vol. 53, pp. 408-412, 547-559.

Viewing:
Blade production: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yc0QcA_eVI

Session 9: 8th December

Neolithic Lithic Technologies

Ulrike Sommer

The Early-Middle Holocene saw fundamental changes not only in global climate and
environment but also in human demography and subsistence. New lithic technologies and
new types of tools that appeared in this period are called ‘Neolithic’. They reflect humans’
adaptation to new ecological conditions and subsistence needs, and also indicate new
modes of technological knowledge transmission between toolmakers under conditions of
increasing population and interaction. This session will concentrate in the Southeast and
Central European Neolithic. We are going to look at some tool types that are typical for this
period, and the development of knapping techniques.

17 | P a g e
Reading

General
Whittaker, J. C. 1994. Flintknapping. Making and understanding stone tools. Austin, University
of Texas Press.

Terminology
Brézillon, M. 1983. La dénomination des objets de pierre taillée. IVe supplement de Gallia
Préhistoire. Paris, Centre National de la recherche scientifique. (THE guide to terminology)

Inizan, M.-L., Roche, H. and Tixier. J. 1992. The technology of knapped stone: followed by a
multilingual vocabulary arabic, english, french, german, greek, italian, russian, Spanish.
Préhistoire de la pierre taillée 3. Meudon, (extremely useful!)

Piel-Desruisseaux, J.-L. 1998/1986. Outils préhistoriques: forme, fabrication, utilisation. Paris,

Masson.Piel-Desruisseaux, J.-L. Outils préhistoriques. Du galet taillé au bistouri d'obsidienne.
Paris, Dunnod.

Technology
Newcomer, M. 1974. "Punch technique“ and Upper Palaeolithic blades. In E. Swanson (ed.)
Lithic technology. Mouton, Den Haag, 97-102.

Pitts, M. W. 1978. On the shape of waste flakes as an index of technological change in lithic
industries. Journal Archaeological Science 5, 17-37.

Owen, L. 1989. Blade core reduction strategies: selected examples. Early Man News 14, 71-
89.

Pelegrin, J. 1991. Sur une recherche experimentale des techniques de débitage laminaire. In:
Archéologie experimentale 2, La terre, Actes coll. Int. Beaune: Experimentation en archeologie:
bilan et Perspectives. Paris, 118-128.

Speth, J. D. 1974. Experimental investigations of hard-hammer percussion flaking. Tebiwa

17/1, 7-35.

Speth, J. D. 1977. Experimental investigations of hard hammer percussion flaking. In: D.

Ingersoll et al (eds.), Experimental archaeology. New York, Columbia University Press 3-37.

Tixier, J. 1984. Le débitage par pression. In: Tixier, J. (ed), Préhistoire de la pierre taillé 2.
Paris, 57-70.

Tuohy D. R. 1987. A comparison of pressure and percussion debitage from a Crabtree

obsidian stoneworking demonstration. Tebiwa 23, 23-30.

van Gijn, A. 2010. Flint in focus: lithic biographies in the Neolithic and Bronze Age. Leiden,
Sidestone.

18 | P a g e
Southeast Europe

Budziszewski, J. 2006. Flint economy in Chalcolithic societies of East-Central Europe. In Körlin,

G. and Weisgerber, G. (eds.) Stone Age-Mining Age. Bochum, Deutsches Bergbaumuseum,
315-328. (useful overview)

Gatsov, I. 2003. The latest results from the technological and typological analysis of chipped
stone assemblages from Ilipinar, Pendik, Fikir tepe and Mentes. Documenta Praehistorica 30,
53-60.

Gatsov, I. 2000. Chipped stone assemblages from Southern Bulgaria and Northwest Turkey.
Epipalaeolithic, Mesolithic and Neolithic. In Nikolova, L. (ed.) Technology, Style and Society:
Contributions to the Innovations between the Alps and the Black Sea in Prehistory. Oxford
Archaeopress, BAR international series 854, 1-28.

Gatsov, I. and Gurova, M. 2001. Some remarks on the chipped stone industry of the earliest
Neolithic cultures in Bulgaria. In Ginter, B. (ed.), Problems of the stone age of the Old World.
Kraków, Uniwersytet Jagielloński, Instytut Archeologii, 249-264.

Gurova, M. 2014. Neolithic flint assemblages from Bulgaria, an overview. Самарский

научный вестник 3(8), 94-107.
https://www.academia.edu/9235664/Neolithic_flint_assemblages_from_Bulgaria_an_overvie
w

Kozłowski, J. K. 1989. The lithic industry of the Eastern Linear Pottery culture in Slovakia.
Slovenská Archeologia 37(2), 377-410.

Kozłowski, J. K. and Kozłowski, S. K. 1984. Chipped Stone industries from Lepenski Vir,
Yugoslavia. Preistoria Alpina 19, 259-293.

Kozłowski, J. K. and Kaczanowska M. 1990. Chipped Stone Industry of the Vinca Culture. In:
Srejović, D. and N. Tasić (eds.), Vinca and its World. International Symposium The Danubian
Region from 6000 to 3000 B.C., Beograd, Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts, Centre for
Archaeological Research of the Faculty of Philosophy.

Manolakakis, L. 2005. Les industries lithiques énéolithiques de Bulgarie. Internationale

Archäologie 88. Marie Leidorf Rahden/Westf.

Mateiciucová, I. 2004. Mesolithic traditions and the origin of the Linear Pottery culture (LBK)). In:
Lukes, A. and Zvelebil, M. (eds.) LBK dialogues, studies in the formation of the linear pottery
culture. BAR International Series 1304, 91-108. Oxford: Archaeopress,

Starnini, E. 1994. Typological and technological analysis of the Körös culture stone
assemblages of Méhtelek Nádas (North East Hungary), a preliminary report. A Nyíregyházi
Jósa Andras Múzeum Évkönyve 36, 101-110.

LBK
Allard, P. and Burnez-Lanotte, L. 2006. Surplus production in the Belgian Linearbandkeramik:
blade debitage at Verlaine "Oetit Paradis" (Verlaine, Hesbaye, Belgium). In Körlin, G. and
Weisgerber, G. (eds.) Stone Age-Mining Age. Bochum, Deutsches Bergbaumuseum, 37-54.

19 | P a g e
Burnez-Lanotte, L. (ed.) 2003. Production and Management of Lithic Materials in the
European Linearbandkeramik. Gestion matériaux lithiques dans le Rubané européen.
Oxford, BAR International Series 1200.

Cahen, D. 1984. Technologie de la débitage laminaire. In: Otte, M. (ed.) Les fouilles de la Place
Saint-Lambert à Liège. ERAUL 18, 171-198.

Cahen, D. 1986. Deux modes de débitage laminaire de Rubané de Belgique. Bulletin. Societé
Préhistoire Française 83, 70.

Caspar, J.-P. et al. 1989. Chipped stone industries of the linearband pottery culture (LBP):
techniques, morphology and function of the implements in Belgian and Polish assemblages.
Helinium 39(2), 157-205.

De Grooth, M. 1987. The organisation of flint tool manufacture in the Dutch Neolithic. Analecta
Praehistoria Leidensia 20, 27-51.

De Grooth, M. 1988. In search of Bandkeramik specialist flintknappers. In: Cahen, D. and Otte,
M. (eds.), Rubané et Cardial. Actes Coll. Liège 1988. ERAUL 39, 1990, 89-93.

De Grooth, M. 1990. Technological and socio-economic aspects of Bandkeramik flint-working.

In: E. Cziesla et al. (eds.), The Big Puzzle. Bonn, Holos, 197-210.

de Grooth, M. 2007: Flint: procurement and distribution strategies; technological aspects, in:
P. van de Velde (red.): Excavations at Geleen-Janskamperveld 1990/1991. Analecta
Praehistorica Leidensia 39.

Gronenborn, D. 1990. Mesolithic-Neolithic interactions. The lithic industries of the earliest

bandceramic site at Friedberg-Bruchenbrücken, Wetteraukreis (West Germany). In:
Vermeersch, P. (ed.), Contributions to the Mesolithic in Europe. Leuven, Leuven University
Press 173-182.

Kaczanowska, M. and Lech, J. 1977. The flint industry of Danubian communities North of the
Carpathians. Acta Arch. Carpathica 17, 5.28.

Pavlů, I. and J. Rulf 1991. Stone industry from the Neolithic site of Bylany. Pamatky
Archeologické 82(2), 277-365.

Zimmermann, A. 1987. Some aspects of the formation of flint assemblages. In: J. Kozłowski
and S. K. Kozłowski (eds.), Chipped stone industries of the early farming cultures in Europe. Int.
Symp. Kraków. Warszawa, Uniwersyteta Warszawskiego 187-201.

Late Neolithic and Bronze Age

Pelegrin, J. 2002. La production des grandes lames de silex du Grand Pressigny. In: J.
Guilaine, Matériaux, productions, circulations du Néolithique à l'âge du Bronze. Paris, Errance,
131-150.

Stafford, M. 1988. In search of Hindsgavl: experiments in the production of Neolithic Danish flint
daggers. Antiquity 72, 338-49.

20 | P a g e
van Gijn A. L. 2015, The cultural biography of the Scandinavian daggers in the northern
Netherlands. In: Frieman C. J, Eriksen B. V. (eds.) Flint daggers in prehistoric Europe.
Oxford: Oxbow, 76-82

Whittakker, J. and Ramano, A. 1996. Some prehistoric copper flaking tools in Minnesota. The
Wisconsin Archaeologist 77(1), 3-10. (try through Google)

see also
Wulf Hein, https://www.academia.edu/9961267/Making_a_Flint_Axe

British Isles
Butler, C. 2005. Prehistoric Flintwork (Ch. 6 Early Neolithic flintwork; Ch. 7. Neolithic Axe
Production; Ch. 8 Later Neolithic and early Bronze Age flintwork). Stroud: Tempus
M. Pitts 1980. Later Stone implements. Princes Risborough, Shire.

Green, St. H. 1980. The flint arrowheads of the British Isles: a detailed study of material from
England and Wales with comparanda from Scotland and Ireland. Oxford, BAR British Series 75.

Lech, J. and Longworth, I. 2006. The Grimes Graves flint mine site in the light of two late
Neolithic workshop assemblages: a second approach. In: Körlin, G. and Weisgerber, G. (eds.)
Stone Age - mining Age. Bochum, Deutsches Bergbaumuseum, 413-422.

Saville, A. 1988. Grimes Graves, Norfolk: excavations 1971-72, Vol.2, The flint assemblage.
London: H.M.S.O.

Near East

Bettinger, R.L. 2001. Holocene Hunter-Gatherers. In: G. M. Feinman and T. D. Price (eds.),
Archaeology at the Millennium: A Sourcebook: New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum
Publishers, 137-195.

Close, A.E. 2002. Backed bladelets are a foreign country. In: R. G. Elston and S. L. Kuhn
(eds.), Thinking Small: Global Perspectives on Microlithization: Arlington: The American
Anthropological Association, 31-44.

Kelterborn, P. 1984. Towards replicating Egyptian Predynastic flint knives, Journal of

Archaeological Science 11: 433-53.

Rosen, S.A. 2012. Lithic industries during the Holocene period. In: Potts, D.T. (ed.), A
Companion to the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East. Oxford: Blackwell, 236-260.

Shea, J.J. 2013. Lithic Modes A-I: A new framework for describing global-scale variation in
stone tool technology illustrated with evidence from the Eastern Mediterranean Levant.
Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 20: 151-186.

Shea, John, J. 2013. Stone tools in the Paleolithic and Neolithic Near East. A Guide. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press. (Chapter 7).

Shirai, N. 2010. The Archaeology of the First Farmer-Herders in Egypt: New Insights into the
Fayum Epipalaeolithic and Neolithic. Leiden: Leiden University Press.

21 | P a g e
Shirai, N. 2011. A missing chapter of The Desert Fayum: Fayum lithic artefact collection in
the Allard Pierson Museum, Amsterdam, Archéo-Nil 21: 115-146.

Shirai, N. 2016. The Desert Fayum at 80: revisiting a Neolithic farming community in Egypt.
Antiquity, 90, 1181-1195.

Session 10: December 15th

Ignacio de la Torre

*Course evaluation*

Lecture and practical: Functional analysis of stone tools

Usewear/ microwear analysis has had its peaks and troughs of popularity through the years,
moving between episodes of optimism and pessimism. We will consider the methods and
objectives of such analysis, and then look at some artefacts under the microscope.

Reading

Borel, A. et al. 2014. Scanning Electron and Optical Light microscopy: Two complementary
approaches for the understanding and interpretation of usewear and residues on stone tools.
Journal of Archaeological Science 48, 46-59.

Dubreuil, L., Savage, D., Delgado-Raack, S., Plisson, H., Stephenson, B., Torre, I.de la., 2014.
Current Analytical Frameworks for Studies of Use-Wear on Ground Stone Tools, in: Marreiros, J.M.,
Gibaja, J.F., Bicho, N. (Eds.), Use-Wear and Residue Analysis in Archaeology. Springer, Manuals
in Archaeological Method, Theory and Technique 10, pp. 105-158.

Fullagar R. 2006. Residues and Use–wear. In J. Balme and A Paterson (eds) Archaeology in
Practice. A Student Guide to Archaeological Analysis. Malden: Blackwell Publishing.

Evans, A.A. and Donahue, R.E. 2008. Laser scanning confocal microscopy: a potential technique
for the study of lithic microwear. Journal of Archaeological Science 35, 2223-2230.

Keeley, L.H. 1980. Experimental Determination of Stone Tool Uses: A Microwear Analysis.
Chicago: Chicago University Press.

Marreiros, J. M. e., Gibaja Bao, J. F. e., Bicho, N. F. e., Bao, J. F. G. & Gibaja, J. F. (2015).
Use-wear and residue analysis in archaeology / João Manuel Marreiros, Juan F. Gibaja
Bao, Nuno Ferreira Bicho, editors. Cham Switzerland: Springer.

Odell, G.H. 2004. Lithic Analysis (ch. 5. Tool Function). New York/London: Kluwer
Academic/Plenum.

Ollé, A. and Vergés, J.M. 2014. The use of sequential experiments and SEM in documenting stone
tool microwear. Journal of Archaeological Science 48, 60-72.

22 | P a g e
Semenov, S. 1964. Prehistoric Technology: an Experimental Study of the Oldest Tools and
Artefacts from Traces of Manufacture and Wear. London: Cory.

Stevens, N.E., Harro, D.R. and Hicklin, A. 2010. Practical quantitative lithic use-wear analysis
using multiple classifiers. Journal of Archaeological Science 37, 2671-2678.

Van Gijn, A.L. 2014. Science and interpretation in microwear studies. Journal of Archaeological
Science 48, 166-169.

Practical: Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM Lab, IoA basement)

Data crunching of lithic assemblages- Coursework assessment

We will use a case study (reference below) to discuss attributes, categories and data that
should be compiled, compared and interpreted in the study of any lithic assemblage,
irrespectively of the chronology, context or cultural period.

Torre, I. de la, 2011. The Early Stone Age lithic assemblages of Gadeb (Ethiopia) and the
Developed Oldowan / early Acheulean in East Africa. Journal of Human Evolution 60, 768-
812.

23 | P a g e
4 ONLINE RESOURCES

Moodle
The handbook and all course information is available in Moodle.

5 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

Libraries and other resources

The Library of the Institute of Archaeology is the best repository of books and journals relevant
to this course. YouTube contains many demonstrations of flint knapping.

There are some dedicated journals, such as Lithic Technology and Journal of Lithic Studies,
which are worth checking regularly. If you read French, the journal ‘Paleo’ publishes excellent
monographic studies on lithic technology.

If you want to see some of modern flintknapping masters in action, Youtube videos are
probably the best way to do it (type flint knapping and a number will come up).

Information for intercollegiate and interdepartmental students

Students enrolled in Departments outside the Institute should obtain the Institute’s
coursework guidelines from Judy Medrington (email j.medrington@ucl.ac.uk), which will also
be available on Moodle.

Health and safety (if applicable)

The Institute has a Health and Safety policy and code of practice which provides guidance on
laboratory work, etc. This is revised annually and the new edition will be issued in due course.
All work undertaken in the Institute is governed by these guidelines and students have a duty
to be aware of them and to adhere to them at all times. This is particularly important in the
context of the laboratory/field/placement work which will be undertaken as part of this course.

INSTITUTE OF ARCHAELOGY COURSEWORK PROCEDURES

General policies and procedures concerning courses and coursework, including submission
procedures, assessment criteria, and general resources, are available on the IoA Student
Administration section of Moodle: https://moodle.ucl.ac.uk/course/view.php?id=40867
. It is essential that you read and comply with these. Note that some of the policies and
procedures will be different depending on your status (e.g. undergraduate, postgraduate
taught, affiliate, graduate diploma, intercollegiate, interdepartmental). If in doubt, please
consult your course co-ordinator.

GRANTING OF EXTENSIONS: Note that there are strict UCL-wide regulations with regard
to the granting of extensions for coursework. Note that Course Coordinators are not
permitted to grant extensions. All requests for extensions must be submitted on a the
appropriate UCL form, together with supporting documentation, via Judy Medrington’s office
and will then be referred on for consideration. Please be aware that the grounds that are
acceptable are limited. Those with long-term difficulties should contact UCL Student
Disability Services to make special arrangements. Please see the IoA Student
Administration section of Moodle for further information. Additional information is given here
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/srs/academic-manual/c4/extenuating-circumstances/

24 | P a g e