Introduction to Archaeology: SPRING 2023
Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.8
Lecture 17: How Did They Make Use of
Tools? Technology.
Notes and images compiled by Gregory Mumford (© 2023)
Contents:
8. How did they make use of tools? Technology.
1. Introduction:
Survival of the evidence:
Are they artifacts at all?
Interpreting the evidence: ethnographic analogy
5
8
11
13
2. Unaltered materials: stone.
Extraction: mines and quarries
How was stone transported?
How were stones worked and fitted
Stone tool manufacture
Identifying the function of stone tools: microwear
Identifying function: further experiments
Assessing the technology of Stone Age art
16
18
25
32
38
57
69
73
3. Other unaltered materials:
Bone, antler, shell, and leather
Wood
Plant and animal fibres
81
82
94
117
Contents:
8. How did they make use of tools? Technology.
4. Synthetic materials:
Firing and pyrotechnology
Pottery
Faience and glass
122
123
128
141
5. Archaeometallurgy:
Non-ferrous materials : copper technology evolution
Alloying
Casting
Silver, lead, and platinum:
Fine metalwork
Plating
Iron and steel:
144
145
152
154
162
166
169
172
6. Summary:
178
7. Case Study-1: Pharaonic stone working.
8. Case Study-2: Pharaonic metallurgy.
9. Case Study-3: Early Bronze Technology EH, EC, EM
Instructor tips for lectures, etc.:
(1). Attend class regularly (& listen) …
→ Many clarifications, tips, announcements,
reinforcement & reviews of materials/concepts.
(2). Take notes on lectures, etc. …
→ The act of writing down notes, even with
most course materials and instructions online,
serves as an invaluable aid to one focusing on
a class topic and retaining information better.
(3). Complete the required textbook
readings, and/or review the ppt.,
prior to the specific class day …
→ This will provide greater clarity and
comprehension of the material, and will enable
asking focused questions where something
may be less clear (in the textbook or lecture).
(4). Ask questions during the class if
you are confused/wish more data
→ The class is an ideal place to ask for more
clarity or further information not contained in
the textbook, ppt., and/or lecture (If nobody
asks questions, the lecture proceeds …).
(5). Complete optional materials:
→ Additional reinforcement, studying & bonus?
https://howtostudyincollege.com/how-to-get-good-grades/note-taking-strategies/
Renfrew and Bahn
2019 (8th. Ed.)
Chapter 8:
How did they make use
of tools?
Technology.
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.8
8. How Did They Make Use of Tools? Technology.
1.1. Introduction:
• Humanity = often defined by
tool-making abilities.
Progression:
Stone →AE → Fe → computers
This chapter assesses:
• How artifacts = made & used
Different approaches:
a. Archaeological
b. Scientific analysis
c. Ethnographic
d. Experimental
• Each artifact’s manufacturing
process & application =
best understood by closest
modern manufacturer & user
of a similar technology & item
→ Industrial archaeology.
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.8
8. How Did They Make Use of Tools? Technology.
1.1. Introduction:
• Humanity = often defined by
tool-making abilities.
Progression:
Stone →AE → Fe → computers
This chapter assesses:
• How artifacts = made & used
Different approaches:
a. Archaeological
b. Scientific analysis
c. Ethnographic (ethnoarchaeology)
d. Experimental
• Each artifact’s manufacturing
process & application =
best understood by closest
modern manufacturer & user
of a similar technology & item
→ Industrial archaeology.
Dr. H. L. Gates
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.8
8. How Did They Make Use of Tools? Technology.
1.2. Survival of the evidence:
• Biased preservation may affect
the surviving artifacts/technology
• E.g., Palaeolithic:
- Stone tools survive mostly
- Few wood & bone items survive
- Except wet, cold, & dry sites,
sometimes imprints, hollows,
soil discolorations, etc.
• E.g., A “pseudomorph” (hollow) at
a Middle Paleolithic site in NE
Spain (Abru Romani) → yielded
a hollow from a pointed wooden
Ukraine:
stick (1 m long) ca. 50,000 BP.
Palaeolithic
• Some ancient depictions = tools: Gontsy
E.g., Boomerangs in Australia
mammoth
bone hut
• Other evidence from:
E.g., Sword-cuts; pick marks; etc. site
Medieval fish basket
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.8
8. How Did They Make Use of Tools? Technology.
1.2. Survival of the evidence:
• Biased preservation may affect
the surviving artifacts/technology
• E.g., Paleolithic:
- Stone tools survive mostly
- Few wood & bone items survive
- Except wet, cold, & dry sites,
sometimes imprints, hollows,
soil discolorations, etc.
• E.g., A “pseudomorph” (hollow)
at a Middle Paleolithic site in NE
Spain (Abru Romani) → yielded
a hollow from a pointed wooden
stick (1 m long) ca. 50,000 BP.
• Some ancient depictions = tools:
E.g., Boomerangs in Australia
• Other (indirect) evidence from:
E.g., Sword-cuts; pick marks; etc.
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.8
8. How Did They Make Use of Tools? Technology.
1.2. Survival of the evidence:
• Biased preservation may affect
the surviving artifacts/technology
• E.g., Paleolithic:
- Stone tools survive mostly
- Few wood & bone items survive
- Except wet, cold, & dry sites,
sometimes imprints, hollows,
soil discolorations, etc.
Roman period chisel
• E.g., A “pseudomorph” (hollow)
at a Middle Paleolithic site in NE
Spain (Abru Romani) → yielded
a hollow from
a pointed
wooden
Pointed
chisel
marks
and
stick (1 m long) ca. 50,000 BP.
impressions on white marble
• Some ancient depictions = tools:
E.g., Boomerangs in Australia
• Other (indirect) evidence from:
E.g., Sword-cuts; pick marks; etc.
Incised grooves from blade/edge
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.8
8. How Did They Make Use of Tools? Technology.
1.3. Are they artifacts at all?
• Archaeologists need to determine
whether each item found
= purposefully made/used? OR
= by-product of manufacture?
- Paleolithic flakes = less obvious!
- “Eoliths” human-made vs. natural.
Analysis of stone tool production
→ revealed “bulb of percussion” =
left on “human-made tools”
- Nature leaves irregular scars,
fracturing (heat; frost; falls) →
Eoliths = NATURAL.
- Earliest tools = harder to discern
from natural items (see context)
- Now know some animals use tools
(e.g., Chimpanzees) → no longer
defines humanity (isolated finds =?)
Pedra Furada
rock shelter
(NE Brazil):
Controversial
pebble “tool”
dating back to
30,000 BP vs.
15,000 BP for
New World.
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.8
8. How Did They Make Use of Tools? Technology.
1.3. Are they artifacts at all?
• Archaeologists need to determine
whether each item found
= purposefully
Rock fall made/used? OR
= by-product of manufacture?
→
- Paleolithic
“flakes”flakes = less obvious!
- “Eoliths”
human-made vs. natural.
(like “tools”)
Analysis of stone tool production
→ revealed “bulb of percussion”
left on “human-made tools”
- Nature leaves irregular scars and
fracturing (heat; frost; falls) →
Eoliths = NATURAL.
- Earliest tools = harder to discern
from natural items (see context)
- We now know some animals use tools
(e.g.,chimpanzees) → tools no longer
Chimpanzee tool use
define humanity (isolated finds =?)
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.8
8. How Did They Make Use of Tools? Technology.
1.4. Interpreting the evidence:
Using ethnographic analogy:
• Careful use of ethnography &
ethnoarchaeology aids in assessing
ancient technologies:
- Generally people use readiest materials
for daily, ordinary work (e.g., transitory tools).
- Many people expend time & labour
on long-term tools (e.g., hardier, quality tools)
• Rel. % of artifacts = various meanings:
- Abundant items may = cheap items
- Uncommon items may = valuable
• Assessing meaning:
- 16th Cent. AD Tairona Indian pendants
= polished stone → may = decorative?
- Kogi Indian descendants now
use them
Relative
value:
as rattles/tinklers in dances!Material access
-Same use? Versus ChangedTool
use?
complexity
Common
items
• Experimental archaeology:
prod. & use
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.8
8. How Did They Make Use of Tools? Technology.
1.4. Interpreting the evidence:
Kogi Indians
Using ethnographic analogy:
• Careful use of ethnography &
ethnoarchaeology aids in assessing
ancient technologies:
Pre-Columbian
- gen. people use readiest
materials
Tairona
Indian
for daily, ordinary work.
Necklace with
- gen. people expend time & labor
on long-term tools. greenstone beads
& frog pendant
• Rel.% of artifacts = various meanings:
- Abundant items may = cheap items
- Uncommon items may = valuable
• Assessing meaning:
- 16th Cent. AD Tairona Indian pendants
= polished stone → may = decorative?
- Kogi Indian descendants now use them
differently(?), as rattles/tinklers in dances!
Elsewhere: Same use versus changed use?
• Experimental archaeology: prod. & use
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.8
8. How Did They Make Use of Tools? Technology.
1.4. Interpreting the evidence:
Using ethnographic analogy:
• Careful use of ethnography &
ethnoarchaeology aids in assessing
ancient technologies:
- gen. people use readiest materials
for daily, ordinary work.
- gen. people expend time & labor
on long-term tools.
• Rel.% of artifacts = various meanings:
- Abundant items may = cheap items
- Uncommon items may = valuable
E.g., Early Iron Age ceramic project
• Assessing meaning:
- 16th Cent. AD Tairona Indian pendants
= polished stone → may = decorative?
- Kogi Indian descendants now use them
as rattles/tinklers in dances!
The Duyfken sailing near Fremantle (1999). Early Neolithic wood technology
-Same use? Versus Changed use?
(Austria): stone axe to fell trees
• Experimental archaeology: =prod. & use
TECHNOLOGY:
unaltered materials
a. STONE
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.8
8. How Did They Make Use of Tools? Technology.
2.1. Unaltered Materials: Stone.
• Most common artifacts surviving from
ca. 3.3 million → 14,000 BP = stone.
Lake
Turkana, Kenya:
2.2. Extraction:
mines & quarries.
Australopithecus
afarensis
or
• Stone from surface,
streambeds,
etc.
Kenyanthropus
platyops tool use
• Also mines & quarries.
N. Europe Neolithic flint mines:
- Open cast & shaft mining following
desired seams:
Recent: 3.3 million-year-old stone tools
- Rijckholt region has 60 mine shafts
found, predating early humans …
10-16 m deep with side galleries.
- Region may have had 5000? Shafts
producing 153 million axeheads.
- Shaft shored up by plaited branches.
- Rope traces for raising nodule loads.
- 15,000 axes used in cutting galleries.
?- Mine
→ produced 2.5 million axe heads.
- 5 axes per cubic metre of chalk.
- Some heating to fracture rock face.
TECHNOLOGY:
a. STONE
Extraction techniques
(mines & quarries)
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.8
8. How Did They Make Use of Tools? Technology.
2.1. Unaltered Materials: Stone.
• Most common artifacts surviving from
ca. 2.5 million → 14,000 BP = stone.
2.2. Extraction: mines & quarries.
• Stone from surface, streambeds, etc.
• Stone also from mines & quarries.
N. Europe Neolithic flint mines:
- Open cast & shaft mining following
desired seams:
- Rijckholt region has 60 mine shafts
10-16 m deep with side galleries.
- Region may have had 5,000+? shafts
producing 153 million axeheads.
- Shaft shored up by plaited branches.
- Rope traces for raising nodule loads.
- 15,000 axes used in cutting galleries.
- Mine produced 2.5 million axe heads.
- 5 axes per cubic metre of chalk.
- Some heating to fracture rock face.
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.8
8. How Did They Make Use of Tools? Technology.
Quarries:
• Study abandoned/unfinished items:
- Easter Island statue quarry:
Shape drawn → fully carved statues
Experiments: 6 carvers produced
a 5 metre high statue in one year.
- Aswan granite quarry (Egypt):
A 42 metre long obelisk (1,168 tons)
Dolerite balls → 5 mm depth per hour
= takes 400 workers 15 months
(Dyn.18, Thutmose III, ca. 1450 BC)
Easter Island moai / statue production
“Walking” to site (part of ritual)
- Rumiqolqa quarry in Peru (Inca):
Hard stone hammers used to shape
250 blocks found in a 100 m long pit.
More to the moai than previously thought
Various theories regarding transport …
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.8
8. How Did They Make Use of Tools? Technology.
Quarries:
• Study abandoned/unfinished items:
- Easter Island statue quarry:
Shape drawn → fully carved statues
Experiments: 6 carvers produced
a 5 metre high statue in one year.
- Aswan granite quarry (Egypt):
A 42 metre long obelisk (1,168 tons)
Dolerite balls → 5 mm depth per hour
= takes 400 workers 15 months
(may date: Dyn.18, Thutmose III, ca. 1450 BC)
- Rumiqolqa quarry in Peru (Inca):
Hard stone hammers used to shape
250 blocks found in a 100 m long pit.
STONE
QUARRIES
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.8
8. How Did They Make Use of Tools? Technology.
Quarries:
• Study abandoned/unfinished items:
- Easter Island statue quarry:
Shape drawn → fully carved statues
Experiments: 6 carvers produced
a 5 metre high statue in one year.
- Aswan granite quarry (Egypt):
A 42 metre long obelisk (1,168 tons)
Dolerite balls → 5 mm depth per hour
= takes 400 workers 15 months
(Dyn.18,
Thutmose
III, ca. 1450 BC)
Inca
stone
quarrying
- Rumiqolqa quarry in Peru (Inca):
Hard stone hammers used to shape
250 blocks found in a 100 m long pit.
TECHNOLOGY:
a. STONE
Transportation techniques
(from mines & quarries)
and installation …
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.8
8. How Did They Make Use of Tools? Technology.
2.3. How was stone transported?
• Sufficient evidence may remain to
answer such questions:
- Kachiqhata granite quarry (Inca)
has slides & ramps.
- Wear pattern study reveals drag
marks on one face of blocks.
- Dragging details remain unknown
- Elsewhere: 140 ton block req. 2,400 men
- BUT ramp = 8 metres wide
→ needs experimentation.
- Egypt: Dyn.12, 7-m high statue of
Djehutihotep: 58-60 tons with 90 men!/?
- Experiments in transport & placement
→ 10 persons in 3 days raised stones
of several tons using fat lubricant.
- Stonehenge; Easter Island (8 tons);
Grand Menhir Brise (32 tons -20 men)
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.8
8. How Did They Make Use of Tools? Technology.
2.3. How was stone transported?
• Sufficient evidence may remain to
answer such questions:
- Kachiqhata granite quarry (Inca)
has slides & ramps.
- Wear pattern study reveals drag
marks on one face of blocks.
- Dragging details remain unknown
- 140 ton block req. 2400 men
- BUT ramp = 8 metres wide
→ needs experimentation.
- Egypt: Dyn.12, 7-m high statue of
Djehutihotep: 58-60 tons with 90 men!/?
- Experiments in transport & placement
→ 10 persons in 3 days raised stones
of several tons using fat lubricant.
- Stonehenge; Easter Island (8 tons);
Grand Menhir Brise (32 tons -20 men)
Dyn.12: Deir el-Bersheh Tomb of nomarch Djehutyhotep
• Private statuary and the relative status and power of some nomarchs in
relation to the king.
• Only evidence = actually this illustration (otherwise = circumstantial evid.)
• Approximately 58 ton statue moved by 172 men (is the drawing realistic?)
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.8
8. How Did They Make Use of Tools? Technology.
2.3. How was stone transported?
• Sufficient evidence may remain to
answer such questions:
- Kachiqhata granite quarry (Inca)
has slides & ramps.
- Wear pattern study reveals drag
marks on one face of blocks.
- Dragging details remain unknown
- 140 ton block req. 2400 men
- BUT ramp = 8 metres wide
→ needs experimentation.
- Egypt: Dyn.12, 7-m high statue of
Easter
Island: statue
attached
keel
Djehutihotep:
58-60still
tons
with 90via
men!/?
- Experiments in transport & placement
→ 10 persons in 3 days raised stones
of several tons using fat lubricant.
- E.g., Stonehenge; Easter Island (8 tons);
Grand Menhir Brise (32 tons -20 men)
8 ton
Topknot
installed.
Experimental
Archaeology:
- Hypothetical techniques
for erecting the trilithons
and capping them with
lintels (at Stonehenge).
- Multiple options exist(!)
Stonehenge
Hypothetical technique
Experimental archaeology:
Transporting a 3-ton blue stone from Wales
TECHNOLOGY:
a. STONE
Working and fitting
(design & production
process)
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.8
8. How Did They Make Use of Tools? Technology.
2.4. How were stones worked & fitted?
Protzen’s experiments reveal var. ways
to duplicate Inca stonework (Peru).
- Hammering & dressing stone blocks,
shaping one face in 20 min.
- Preparing bedding for upper course
block-by-block
- 90 minutes to obtain a good fit.
Haselberger found architect’s drawings
in 4th Cent. BC Apollo Temple (Didyma).
- Full sized & scaled down incised plans
- Other temples with similar plans
AD 120 Roman Pantheon:
- Part of its plan found incised in paving
beside Mausoleum of Augustus.
Egyptian architect’s plans of Tomb of
Ramesses IV (12th cent BC) on papyrus:
- Including placement of interior shrines.
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.8
8. How Did They Make Use of Tools? Technology.
2.4. How were stones worked & fitted?
Protzen’s experiments reveal var. ways
to duplicate Inca stonework3-d
(Peru).
view:
- Hammering & dressing stone Apollo
blocks,
shaping one face in 20 min.
Temple,
- Preparing bedding for upper course
Didyma
block-by-block
- 90 minutes to obtain a good fit.
Haselberger found architect’s drawings
in 4th Cent. BC Apollo Temple (Didyma).
- Full sized & scaled down incised plans
- Other temples with similar plans
AD 120 Roman Pantheon:
- Part of its plan found incised in
paving
Plan
view:
beside Mausoleum of Augustus.
Apollo
Egyptian architect’s plans of Tomb
of
Temple,
Ramesses IV (12th cent BC) on
papyrus:
Didyma
- Including placement of interior shrines.
Apollo Temple, Didyma
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.8
8. How Did They Make Use of Tools? Technology.
2.4. How were stones worked & fitted?
Protzen’s experiments reveal var. ways
to duplicate Inca stonework (Peru).
- Hammering & dressing stone blocks,
shaping one face in 20 min.
- Preparing bedding for upper course
block-by-block
- 90 minutes to obtain a good fit.
Haselberger found architect’s drawings
in 4th Cent. BC Apollo Temple (Didyma).
- Full sized & scaled down incised plans
- Other temples with similar plans
Roman Pantheon
AD 120 Roman Pantheon:
- Part of its plan found incised in paving
beside Mausoleum of Augustus.
Egyptian architect’s plans of Tomb of
Ramesses IV (12th cent BC) on papyrus:
- Including placement of interior shrines.
Mausoleum of Augustus
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.8
8. How Did They Make Use of Tools? Technology.
2.4. How were stones worked & fitted?
Protzen’s experiments reveal ways
to duplicate Inca stonework (Peru).
- Hammering & dressing stone blocks,
shaping one face in 20 min.
- Preparing bedding for upper course
block-by-block
- 90 minutes to obtain a good fit.
Haselberger found architect’s drawings
in 4th Cent. BC Apollo Temple (Didyma).
- Full sized & scaled down incised plans
- Other temples with similar plans
AD 120 Roman Pantheon:
- Part of its plan found incised in paving
beside Mausoleum of Augustus.
Egyptian architect’s plan of the Tomb of
Ramesses IV (12th cent BC) on papyrus:
- Including placement of interior shrines.
Designing the royal tomb (Ramesside example).
Ancient Egyptian plan of R. IV’s tomb (on papyrus)
TECHNOLOGY:
a. STONE
Stone tool manufacture
process …
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.8
8. How Did They Make Use of Tools? Technology.
2.5. Stone tool manufacture.
a. Flake off exterior nodule →obtain
desired core/interior shape:
b. Primary flakes bear surface/cortex
c. Trim interior flakes (fine-tuning)
d. Remove var. tiny flakes (retouch)
Evolution of stone tools:
a. Oldowan choppers & flakes
Break → sharp edges (5 cm edge)
b. Acheulian handaxe bifacial flaking
(20 cm worth of blade edge)
c. Levallois technique (100,000 BP):
Preparing core → standard flake
(100 cm worth of blade edge)
d. Upper Paleolithic (35,000 BP)
Hammer + punch → many parallel
sided blanks → scrapers, burins,
borers (minimized wastage)
(300-1200 cm worth of blade edge)
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.8
8. How Did They Make Use of Tools? Technology.
2.5. Stone tool manufacture.
a. Flake off exterior nodule → obtain
desired core shape:
b. Primary flakes bear surface/cortex
c. Trim interior flakes (fine-tuning)
d. Remove var. tiny flakes (retouch)
Evolution of stone tools:
a. Oldowan choppers & flakes
Break → sharp edges (5 cm edge)
b. Acheulian handaxe bifacial flaking
(20 cm worth of blade edge)
c. Levallois technique (100,000 BP):
Preparing core → standard flake
(100 cm worth of blade edge)
d. Upper Paleolithic (35,000 BP)
Hammer + punch → many parallel
sided blanks → scrapers, burins,
borers (minimized wastage)
(300-1200 cm worth of blade edge)
Evolution of stone tool technology
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.8
8. How Did They Make Use of Tools? Technology.
e. Mesolithic (10,000 BP):
→ microlithics dominate assemblage
(= tiny blades used in composite tools)
Manufacturing process:
- Ideally study all waste materials in
one spot & anc. Flint knapping areas.
- Taku (Japan): cluster of 40 sites beside
stone source (ca. 15,000-10,000 BP).
Each site facilitated a diff. stage in the
manufacturing process.
- Most finished artifacts are found away
from stone sources.
- Different sites → different tool types.
E.g., Hunting camp vs. settlement
- Hafting traces 80,000 BP+ (Germany).
- Modern Australian Aborigines are still
producing stone tools.
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.8
8. How Did They Make Use of Tools? Technology.
e.
Mesolithic
(10,000
BP):
Oldowan
through
Mesolithic:
→ Maximizing
microlithics investment
dominate assemblage
i.e.,
(labour / effort
(tiny
blades
used in to
composite
tools)…
/ time)
in relation
final product
Manufacturing process:
- Ideally study all waste materials in
one spot & ancient flint knapping areas.
- Taku (Japan): cluster of 40 sites beside
stone source (ca. 15,000-10,000 BP).
Each site facilitated a diff. stage in the
manufacturing process.
- Most finished artifacts are found away
from stone sources.
- Different sites → different tool types.
E.g., Hunting camp vs. settlement
- Hafting traces 80,000 BP+ (Germany).
- Modern Australian Aborigines are still
producing stone tools.
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.8
8. How Did They Make Use of Tools? Technology.
e. Mesolithic (10,000 BP):
→ microlithics dominate assemblage
(tiny blades used in composite tools)
Manufacturing process:
- Ideally study all waste materials in
one spot & anc. Flint knapping areas.
- Taku (Japan): cluster of 40 sites beside
stone source (ca. 15,000-10,000 BP).
Each site facilitated a diff. stage in the
manufacturing process.
- Most finished artifacts are found away
from stone sources.
- Different sites → different tool types.
E.g., Hunting camp vs. settlement
- Hafting traces 80,000 BP+ (Germany).
- Modern Australian Aborigines are still
producing stone tools. = study resource!
replica
Egypt MK industry:
Making flint blades.
• Materials (flint etc.)
• Skilled flint-knapper
(apprenticeship)
• Market & usage:
butcher, hunter,
various industries,
home (still using
flints in Roman per)
TECHNOLOGY:
a. STONE
Working and fitting
(design & production
process)
i. Replication (experiment)
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.8
8. How Did They Make Use of Tools? Technology.
2.5.a. Stone tool replication.
• Making duplicate copies of ancient
stone tools using past technology
to assess probable prod.-processes:
- Requires many years of practice
E.g., Francois Bordes.
- N. Toth produced full tool range for
Koobi Fora, Kenya (2-1.5 mill. BP):
Hammerstones, choppers, scrapers
flakes → believes flakes = main tool
(former belief core = objective)
- D. Crabtree discovered one technique
to produce N. American folsom points
(11,000-10,000 BP)
17th Cent. AD Spanish text on Aztecs
- G. Frison experimented with replica
clovis points in hunting: he could
penetrate elephant hide from 20 m.
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.8
8. How Did They Make Use of Tools? Technology.
2.5.a. Stone tool replication.
• Making duplicate copies of ancient
stone tools using past technology
to assess prob. prod.-processes:
- Requires many years of practice
E.g., Francois Bordes.
- N. Toth produced full tool range for
Koobi Fora, Kenya (2-1.5 mill. BP):
Hammerstones, choppers, scrapers
flakes → believes flakes = main tool
(former belief that core = objective)
- D. Crabtree discovered one technique
to produce N. American folsom points
(11,000-10,000 BP)
17th Cent. AD Spanish text on Aztecs
- G. Frison experimented with replica
clovis points in hunting: he could
penetrate elephant hide from 20 m.
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.8
8. How Did They Make Use of Tools? Technology.
2.5.a. Stone tool replication.
• Making duplicate copies of ancient
stone tools using past technology
to assess prob. prod.-processes:
- Requires many years of practice
E.g., Francois Bordes.
- N. Toth produced full tool range for
Koobi Fora, Kenya (2-1.5 mill. BP):
Hammerstones, choppers, scrapers
flakes → believes flakes = main tool
Crabtree
(former
belief core = objective)
-D. Crabtree discovered one technique
to produce N.American folsom points
(11,000-10,000 BP)
17th Cent. AD Spanish text on ‘Aztecs’
- G. Frison experimented with replica
‘Aztecs’
= various cultural groups
clovis points in hunting: he could
…
penetrate elephant
hide from 20 m.
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.8
8. How Did They Make Use of Tools? Technology.
2.5.a. Stone tool replication.
• Making duplicate copies of ancient
stone tools using past technology
to assess prob. prod.-processes:
- Requires many years of practice
E.g., Francois Bordes.
- N. Toth produced full tool range for
Koobi Fora, Kenya (2-1.5 mill. BP):
Hammerstones, choppers, scrapers
flakes → believes flakes = main tool
(former belief core = objective)
- D. Crabtree discovered one technique
to produce N. American folsom points
(11,000-10,000 BP)
17th Cent. AD Spanish text on Aztecs
- G. Frison experimented with replica
clovis points in hunting: he could
penetrate elephant hide from 20 m.
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.8
8. How Did They Make Use of Tools? Technology.
• Flints heated:
- Heating Florida cherts
→ pinkish colour at 240C/464F
→ lustrous at 350-400 C/662-752F
(= shiny surface).
20-40% > compressive strength
45% < in breakage resistance.
Augmenting
flint
points by
heat
• Electron Spin
resonance
(ESR)
and Thermoluminescence (TL):
- Reveals defects in lithics
E.g., Heated flint has a signature
Heating chert enables the
chert
Heated chert
production
of largerHeated
flakes via
pressure flaking.
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.8
8. How Did They Make Use of Tools? Technology.
• Flints heated:
- Heating Florida cherts
→ pinkish colour at 240C/464F
→ lustrous at 350-400 C/662-752F
(= shiny surface).
20-40% > compressive strength
45% < in breakage resistance.
•
Heating up chert in quarry
• Electron Spin resonance (ESR)
and Thermoluminescence (TL):
- Reveals defects in lithics
E.g., Heated flint has a signature:
Heating chert enables the
production of larger flakes via
pressure flaking.
TECHNOLOGY:
a. STONE
Working and fitting
(design & production
process)
ii. Refitting (backtracking)
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.8
8. How Did They Make Use of Tools? Technology.
2.5.b. Refitting of stone tools.
• Initiated in 1880 by F.C.J. Spurrell
• Reactivated by A. Leroi-Gourhan
→ Refitting tools/flakes from debitage:
E.g., Late Upper Paleolithic tool
originally part of a stone reduced
into 124 pieces (some blades = 30 cm)
• Refitting enables accurate reconstr.
of flint-knapping process, activity
patterns, & dispersal at prod.-site.
• BUT, conjoined pieces are also
dispersed in other ways(!).
• Tool function interpretation = aided
by ethnographic observation.
• Experimenting in use can reveal its
possible to probable applications.
• Some tools=multipurpose: A-handaxe
• Function also revealed by microwear
Separate activity
areas at Rekem:
Conjoining pieces from tools:
- What does the dispersal of conjoined
pieces of tools being worked suggest?
(a). Multiple stages in lithic production;
(b). The raw material and in-progress
tool = going through different work
stations (& different specialists?)
(c). A production line &/or diff stages?
E.g., Re-fitted stone flakes …
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.8
8. How Did They Make Use of Tools? Technology.
2.5.b. Refitting of stone tools.
• Initiated in 1880 by F.C.J. Spurrell
• Reactivated by A. Leroi-Gourhan
→ Refitting tools/flakes from debitage:
E.g., Late Upper Paleolithic tool
originally part of a stone reduced
into 124 pieces (some blades 30 cm)
• Refitting enables accurate reconstr.
of flint-knapping process, activity
patterns, & dispersal at prod.-site.
• BUT, conjoined pieces are also
dispersed
in otherhunting
ways. kit
Aborigine
• Tool function interpretation = aided
by ethnographic observation.
• Experimenting in use can reveal its
possible to probable applications.
• Some tools=multipurpose: A-handaxe
• Function also revealed by microwear
Acheulian
handaxe
TECHNOLOGY:
a. STONE
Identifying function …
TECHNOLOGY:
a. STONE
Identifying function(s):
i. Microwear analysis …
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.8
8. How Did They Make Use of Tools? Technology.
2.6. Identifying the function of
stone tools: microwear studies.
• Late 1800s: microwear analysis began
• 1957: S. Semenov launched microwear
He found wear traces on all stone types
i.e., = Striations & polish marks
• R. Tringham assessed micro-flaking
caused through usage.
• L. Keeley: scanning electron microscope
applied to improve microwear studies.
• Experimental archaeology correlated
wear marks with diff. usages: 6 types
1. on wood
2. on bone
3. on hide
4. on meat
5. on antler
6. on non-woody plants
ALSO traces of piercing, cutting, scraping.
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.8
8. How Did They Make Use of Tools? Technology.
2.6. Identifying the function of
Edge damage:
stone tools: microwear studies.
• Late 1800s: microwear analysis began
• 1957: S. Semenov launched microwear
Found wear traces on all stone types
i.e., Striations & polish marks
• R. Tringham assessed micro-flaking
caused through usage.
• L. Keeley: scanning electron microscope
applied to improve microwear studies.
• Experimental archaeology correlated
wear marks with diff. usages: 6 types
1. on wood
2. on bone
3. on hide
4. on meat
5. on antler
6. on non-woody plants
ALSO traces of piercing, cutting, scraping.
Attested via
microflaking
visible along
edge
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.8
8. How Did They Make Use of Tools? Technology.
2.6. Identifying the function of
stone tools: microwear studies.
• Late 1800s: microwear analysis Scraper
began
• 1957: S. Semenov launched microwear
microFound wear traces on all stone types
wear:
i.e., Striations & polish marks via use
• R. Tringham assessed micro-flaking
on hides
caused through usage.
• L. Keeley: scanning electron microscope
(SEM) applied to improve microwear studies.
• Experimental archaeology correlated
wear marks with diff. usages: 6Electron
types
1. on wood
micro2. on bone
scope:
3. on hide
High-res
4. on meat
image
5. on antler
of wear
6. on non-woody plants
in molar
ALSO traces of piercing, cutting, (gorilla)
scraping.
Electron microscope
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.8
8. How Did They Make Use of Tools? Technology.
2.6. Identifying the function of
stone tools: microwear studies.
• Late 1800s: microwear analysis began
Motza:
• 1957: S. Semenov launched
microwear
Tranchet
Found wear traces on all stone
types
axe with
i.e., Striations & polish marks
wear from
• R. Tringham assessed micro-flaking
woodcaused through usage.
working
• L. Keeley: scanning electron
microscope
applied to improve microwear studies.
Distal end of unifacial endscraper:
Heavy wear from use on a dry hide
• Experimental archaeology correlated
wear marks with diff. usages: 6 types …
1. on wood
2. on bone
3. on hide
4. on meat
5. on antler
6. on non-woody plants
ALSO traces of piercing, cutting, scraping. Natural flint with no wear
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.8
8. How Did They Make Use of Tools? Technology.
Microwear studies (cont.’):
- E.g., Lower Paleolithic S. England:
Tools used on meat, wood, hide, bone …
Side-scrapers applied to hides → wear
- E.g., Boomplaas Cave (S. Africa):
Stone adzes used in woodworking.
- E.g., S. Okazaki studied the density &
direction of striations on stone tools:
Obsidian yielded no polish.
Diff. striations for cutting vs. scraping.
- E.g., Rekem (Belgium): Tools & waste
often concentrate around hearths.
Sometimes cores move between
hearths → diff. manufacturing (burins)
Microdebitage:
- Wet-sieving → assessing minute debris
from flint knapping (under 1 mm).
- Locating stone-working areas.
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.8
8. How Did They Make Use of Tools? Technology.
Microwear studies (cont.’):
- E.g., Lower Paleolithic S. England:
Tools stone
used onadzes
meat, wood,
hide, bone
E.g.,
with hafts
Side-scrapers applied to hides
- E.g., Boomplaas Cave (S. Africa):
Stone adzes used in woodworking.
- E.g., S. Okazaki studied the density &
direction of striations on stone tools:
Obsidian yielded no polish.
Diff. striations for cutting vs. scraping.
- E.g., Rekem (Belgium): Tools & waste
often concentrate around hearths.
Sometimes cores move between
hearths → diff. manufacturing (burins)
Microdebitage:
- Wet-sieving → assessing minute debris
from flint knapping (under 1 mm).
Polynesian
stone
adze
- Locating
stone-working
areas.
SEE https://sites.utexas.edu/tarl/2015/03/18/finding-microwear-patterns-on-stone-tools-marilyn-shoberg-tarl-microwear-analyst/
Marilyn Shoberg, Microwear Analyst, Texas Archeological Research Laboratory
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.8
8. How Did They Make Use of Tools? Technology.
Microwear studies (cont.’):
- E.g., Lower Paleolithic S. England:
Tools used on meat, wood, hide, bone
Side-scrapers applied to hides
- E.g., Boomplaas Cave (S. Africa):
Stone adzes used in woodworking.
- E.g., S. Okazaki studied the density &
direction of striations on stone tools:
Obsidian yielded no polish.
Different striations for cutting vs. scraping.
SEE http://ic.ucsc.edu/~dianegg/anth184/IM/hum.html
http://www.texasbeyondhistory.net/gault/clovis.html
- E.g., Rekem (Belgium): Tools & wasteMarilyn
Shoberg
often concentrate around hearths.
Sometimes cores move between
hearths → diff. manufacturing (burins)
Microdebitage:
- Wet-sieving → assessing minute debris
from flint knapping (under 1 mm).
- Locating
stone-working
areas. hide scraper
Mission
San Bernardo:
chipped-stone
Gault clovis: polish & striations from meat cutting
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.8
8. How Did They Make Use of Tools? Technology.
Microwear studies (cont.’):
- E.g.,
Lower
Paleolithic S. England:
J.
B. White:
http://www.texasbeyondhistory.net/jbwhite/toolmaking.html
Tools used on meat, wood, hide, bone
Side-scrapers applied to hides
- E.g., Boomplaas Cave (S. Africa):
Stone adzes used in woodworking.
- E.g., S. Okazaki studied the density &
direction of striations on stone tools:
Obsidian yielded no polish.
Diff. striations for cutting vs. scraping.
- E.g., Rekem (Belgium): Tools & waste
often concentrate around hearths.
Sometimes cores move between
hearths → diff. manufacturing (burins)
Microdebitage:
- Wet-sieving → assessing minute debris
from flint knapping (under 1 mm).
- Locating stone-working areas.
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.8
8. How Did They Make Use of Tools? Technology.
Microwear studies (cont.’):
- E.g., Lower Paleolithic S. England:
Tools used on meat, wood, hide, bone
Side-scrapers applied to hides
- E.g., Boomplaas Cave (S. Africa):
Stone adzes used in woodworking.
- E.g., S. Okazaki studied the density &
direction of striations on stone tools:
Obsidian yielded no polish.
Diff. striations for cutting vs. scraping.
- E.g., Rekem (Belgium): Tools & waste
oftenmicro
concentrate
around
hearths.
Flint
debitage
(plus
smaller bits)
Sometimes
cores1-2
move
Scale
approx.:
cmbetween
large pieces
hearths → diff. manufacturing (burins)
Micro-debitage:
- Wet-sieving → assessing minute debris
from flint knapping (under 1 mm). *Flotation!
Core processing: debitage production
- Locating stone-working areas.
TECHNOLOGY:
a. STONE
Identifying function(s):
ii. Other analysis …
experiments
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.8
8. How Did They Make Use of Tools? Technology.
2.7. Identifying function: further
Experiments with stone tools.
• Replicating & experimenting with
stone tools aids in interpretation:
E.g., axes; sickle blades; projectiles
- Initially, Lower Paleolithic handaxes
= believed to be multi-purpose. BUT →
a professional butcher applied Acheulian
handaxe very efficiently to a deer carcass.
- Upper Paleolithic stone “lamps” were
analyzed revealing 24% = definite lamps.
Experiments with replicas left similar
residues (trying all fuel types).
Modern Eskimo lamps = similar.
- E. Haury examined tiny beads from
pueblos in Arizona: 1 10-m necklace
produced 15,000 beads (2 mm diam).
Replication → 15 minutes per bead
http://makingflakes.blogspot.com/2014/03/handaxes-and-san-pedro-shootout.html
= 480 workdays value.
Experiment with Acheulian handaxe
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.8
8. How Did They Make Use of Tools? Technology.
2.7. Identifying function: further
Experiments with stone tools.
• Replicating &
experimenting
Eskimo
stone lamp:with
1800-1850
stone tools aids in interpretation:
E.g., axes; sickle blades; projectiles
- Initially, Lower Paleolithic handaxes
= believed to be multi-purpose.
→ A professional butcher applied a
handaxe efficiently to a deer carcass.
- Upper Paleolithic stone “lamps” were
analyzed revealing 24% = definite lamps.
Experiments with replicas left similar
residues (i.e., trying all fuel types).
Modern Eskimo/Inuit lamps = similar.
- E. Haury examined tiny beads from
pueblos in Arizona: 1 10-m necklace
produced 15,000 beads (2 mm diam).
Replication → 15 minutes per bead
= 480 workdays value.
Replica lamp experiment
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.8
8. How Did They Make Use of Tools? Technology.
2.7. Identifying function: further
Experiments with stone tools.
• Replicating & experimenting with
stone tools aids in interpretation:
E.g., axes; sickle blades; projectiles
- Initially, Lower Paleolithic handaxes
= believed to be multi-purpose.
→ A professional butcher applied a
handaxe efficiently to a deer carcass.
- Upper Paleolithic stone “lamps” were
analyzed revealing 24% = definite lamps.
Experiments with replicas left similar
residues (trying all fuel types).
Modern Eskimo lamps = similar.
- E. Haury examined tiny beads from
pueblos in Arizona: a 10-m necklace
produced 15,000 beads (2 mm diam).
Replication → 15 minutes per bead
= 480 workdays’ value.
SW (Pueblos) drilled turquoise beads
TECHNOLOGY:
a. STONE
Identifying technology
of Stone Age art:
Using diverse studies
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.8
8. How Did They Make Use of Tools? Technology.
2.8. Assessing the technology
of Stone Age art:
• Analyzing Stone Age paintings
& pigments:
- Black = manganese dioxide
= charcoal
- Red = Iron oxide
• Binder = Talc or gypsum
= Animal fat
= Plant oil
• Detecting different layers & other
ocher pigments & impurities:
Infrared film (seeing through red).
• Replicating compositions
to determine time expended:
1 hour for a simple frieze
32 hours for Spotted Horse frieze
(probably completed in four stages)
Lascaux cave painting
Pigments used in Cave Paintings
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.8
8. How Did They Make Use of Tools? Technology.
2.8. Assessing the technology
of Stone Age art:
• Analyzing Stone Age paintings
& pigments:
- Black = manganese dioxide
= charcoal
- Red = Iron oxide
• Binder = Talc or gypsum
= Animal fat
= Plant oil
• Detecting different layers & other
ochre pigments & impurities:
Infrared film (seeing through red).
• Replicating compositions
to determine time expended:
1 hour for a simple frieze
32 hours for Spotted Horse frieze
(probably completed in four stages)
Ancient through modern art analyses
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.8
8. How Did They Make Use of Tools? Technology.
2.8. Assessing the technology
of Stone Age art:
• Analyzing Stone Age paintings
& pigments:
- Black = manganese dioxide
= charcoal
- Red = Iron oxide
• Binder = Talc or gypsum
= Animal fat
= Plant oil
• Detecting different
layers & other
Replication
assessment:
ocher pigments
& impurities:
- Professional
artist
= 32 hours
Infrared film (seeing through red).
• Replicating compositions
to determine time expended:
1 hour for a simple frieze
32 hours for Spotted Horse frieze
(probably completed in four stages)
Michel Lorblanchet replicating frieze
from Pech Merle Cave (France)
Replicating various past art compositions:
i.e., To understand better how they were likely produced, time spent, etc.
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.8
8. How Did They Make Use of Tools? Technology.
• Analyzing engraved Stone Age art:
- Binocular microscope:
Reveals the stone tool types, tool sizes,
sequence of application, & techniques.
- E.g., La Marche Cave (France): Viewing
silicone imprint of engraved art shows
a harness = added later to horse head.
• Replicas and various analyses
reveal the sequence of production in
engraving.
• Scanning
now allows direct analysis of delicate
surfaces (without harm).
Binocular microscope
Generic image
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.8
8. How Did They Make Use of Tools? Technology.
• Analyzing engraved Stone Age art:
- Binocular microscope:
reveals the stone tool types, tool sizes,
sequence of application, & techniques.
- E.g., La Marche Cave (France): Viewing
silicone imprint of engraved art shows
a harness = added later to horse head.
Generic
image
of stages
In art
• Replicas and various analyses →
reveal the sequence of production in
engraving.
• Scanning
now allows direct analysis of delicate
surfaces (without harm).
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.8
8. How Did They Make Use of Tools? Technology.
• Analyzing engraved Stone Age art:
- Binocular microscope:
reveals the stone tool types, tool sizes,
sequence of application, & techniques.
- E.g., La Marche Cave (France): Viewing
silicone imprint of engraved art shows
a harness = added later to horse head.
macro-X-ray fluorescence scanning
• Replicas and various analyses
reveal the sequence of production in
engraving.
Scanning artwork of all types
•Laser scanning engraved art:
→ High precision recording / replica
→ No damage to original surface
•
• Scanning
now allows direct analysis of delicate
surfaces (without harm).
X-ray scanning beneath art
TECHNOLOGY:
unaltered materials
b. BONE,
ANTLER, SHELL
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.8
8. How Did They Make Use of Tools? Technology.
3. Other Unaltered Materials:
3.1. bone, antler, shell & leather.
• “Self-explanatory origin” of materials
• Now analyzing production method
and function.
• Need to confirm whether they are
natural or human-made implements.
• BUT, even unmodified items can be
used as tools (need wear analysis).
E.g., Different bones used in butchery
at North American Bison kill sites.
• Shell “perforations” may be natural,
depending on perforation location,
but = still often used for necklaces.
• Replicating perforation techniques:
a. Scratching; b. Sawing; c. Grinding
(gouging & hammering = problematic)
• Rely on context
for final
Dismembered
sheep bone
withdetermination
cut marks
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.8
8. How Did They Make Use of Tools? Technology.
3. Other Unaltered Materials:
3.1. bone, antler, shell & leather.
• Self-explanatory origin of materials
• Now analyzing production method
and function.
• Need to confirm whether they are
natural or human-made implements.
• BUT, even unmodified items can be
used as tools (need wear analysis).
E.g., Different bones used in butchery
at North American
Bison killshell
sites.perf.
Experimental
archaeology:
• Shell “perforations” may be natural,
depending on perforation location,
BUT = still often used for necklaces.
• Replicating perforation techniques:
a. Scratching; b. Sawing; c. Grinding
(gouging & hammering = problematic)
• Rely on context for final determination
TECHNOLOGY:
b. Bone, antler, shell, leather
i. Deducing manufacture
process …
Ethnography, etc.
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.8
8. How Did They Make Use of Tools? Technology.
3.1.a. Deducing techniques of
manufacture.
- Occasionally prod.-techniques = clear:
- AD 950 at Kasteelberg (S. Africa):
Bone tool production area using eland
& hartebeest foot bones (metapodials):
a. Hammer & punch removing bone ends
b. Grooving bone shaft
c. Grinding & polishing shaft → splinters
d. Stones shaping splinters (much waste)
e. Grinding & polishing projectile points.
= like modern Kalahari Bushmen points
- Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM)
& experimental archaeology reveals
production processes for bone tools.
→ Different tools leave detectable marks
similar to Prehistoric tools
→ Also detecting polishing.
Southwest Africa: Khoisan tribes
Eland
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.8
8. How Did They Make Use of Tools? Technology.
3.1.a. Deducing techniques of
manufacture.
- Occasionally prod.-techniques = clear:
- AD 950 at Kasteelberg (S. Africa):
Bone tool production area using eland
& hartebeest foot bones (metapodials):
a. Hammer & punch removing bone ends
b. Grooving bone shaft
c. Grinding & polishing shaft → splinters
d. Stones shaping splinters (much waste)
e. Grinding & polishing projectile points.
= like modern Kalahari Bushmen points
- Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM)
& experimental archaeology reveals
production processes for bone tools.
→ Different tools leave detectable marks
similar to Prehistoric tools
→ Also detecting polishing.
E.g., Deer metapodials
Eland
Hartebeest
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.8
8. How Did They Make Use of Tools? Technology.
3.1.a. Deducing techniques of
manufacture.
- Occasionally prod.-techniques = clear:
- AD 950 at Kasteelberg (S. Africa):
Bone tool production area using eland
& hartebeest foot bones (metapodials):
a. Hammer & punch removing bone ends
b. Grooving bone shaft
c. Grinding & polishing shaft → splinters
d. Stones shaping splinters (much waste)
e. Grinding & polishing projectile points.
= like modern Kalahari Bushmen points
- Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM)
& experimental archaeology reveals
production processes for bone tools.
→ Different tools leave detectable marks
similar to Prehistoric tools
→ Also detecting polishing.
TECHNOLOGY:
b. Bone, antler, shell, leather
ii. Deducing function(s)
of tools …
Experiment & wear patterns
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.8
8. How Did They Make Use of Tools? Technology.
3.1.b. Deducing function.
- Using experimental archaeology &
wear pattern analyses:
E.g., European Upper Paleolithic:
- Debated function of perforated antler
batons.
a. Ethnography suggests arrow shaft
straighteners
b. 40+ theories: tent pegs → harness!
- Andre Glory studied wear patterns →
rope/thong abrasions (reduced poss.)
- He suggested antlers = sling handles
E.g., 9000 BP Mugharet El-Wad Israel
- Wear analysis and experimentation on
perforated deer shoulder-blades →
supports idea of wooden shaft
straightener.
Hunkpapa 1870:
Arrow shaft
straightener
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.8
8. How Did They Make Use of Tools? Technology.
3.1.b. Deducing function.
- Using experimental archaeology &
wear pattern analyses:
E.g., European Upper Paleolithic:
- Debated function of perforated antler
batons.
Deer
shaft
a. Ethnography suggests arrow
shoulder
straighteners
blades
b. 40+ theories: tent pegs → harness!
- Andre Glory studied wear patterns →
rope/thong abrasions (reduced poss.)
- He suggested antlers = sling handles
E.g., 9000 BP Mugharet El-Wad Israel
- Wear analysis and experimentation
on perforated deer shoulder-blades →
supports idea of wooden arrow shaft
straightener.
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.8
8. How Did They Make Use of Tools? Technology.
Deducing function (cont.’):
- Experimenting with replicas
- E.g., Using projectile points against
animal carcasses indicated that tiny
barbed points = toggle harpoons.
- E.g., Replica & use of Irish Bronze
Age shield revealed leather =
superior to metal shields after
hardening by hot water & beeswax.
- Leather absorbs & deflects blows
- Metal shields = cut to shreds.
- Suggests that bronze shields were
ceremonial & ritual offerings.
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.8
8. How Did They Make Use of Tools? Technology.
Deducing function (cont.’):
- Experimenting with replicas
- E.g., Using projectile points against
Replica
animal carcasses indicated that tiny
Celtic
barbed points = toggle harpoons.
-
leather
shield
E.g., Replica & use of Irish Bronze
Age shield revealed leather shield =
superior to metal shields after
hardening by hot water & beeswax.
- Leather absorbs & deflects blows
- Metal shields = cut to shreds.
- Suggests that bronze shields → =
ceremonial & ritual offerings.
Celtic
ceremonial
shield
Ornate Celtic shields & function:
2019: Paula Ware and other
Archaeologists found an Iron Age
chariot burial of a 46+ year old
Celtic warrior (in Yorkshire,U.K.)
accompanied by weapons,
provisions, and his horses.
The presence of a sword? puncture
hole, and repair work, on an
elaborate, “ornamental” metal
shield (in early La Tene style: 320174 BC) revealed that such shields
were used in battle sometimes,
and contradicted earlier notions
that ornate metal shields had been
restricted to status items for ritual
offerings and ceremonial usage.
See also Melanie Giles, University
of Manchester.
SPECIAL THANKS to one of my students who brought this discovery to my attention
during the Spring 2021 offering of this course (Anth.106: Introduction to Archaeology)
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/celtic-chariot-grave-found-england-includes-horses-andelaborate-shield-180973730/
TECHNOLOGY:
unaltered materials
c. WOOD &
VEG-MATERIALS
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.8
8. How Did They Make Use of Tools? Technology.
Stone axe
3.2. Wood:
usage.
• Wood is a major material used for
tools, but = generally not preserved.
• Preserved pieces reveal marks from
different shaping tools, versus
natural marks (e.g., beaver teeth).
• Analysis of beaver teeth marks →shows
some “anc. lumber” = actually natural.
• Special conditions, such as dry sites,
preserve wood farming tools,
Beavers
furniture, weaponry, etc. (e.g., Egypt). at work
E.g., Rakes, hoes, grain scoops,
sickles, chairs, boxes, bows, staves,
chariots, coffins, shrines, statues, etc.
• Depictions of such tools may reveal
their function & techniques of use.
• Beaver
Models also
in analysis
teethaid
marks
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.8
8. How Did They Make Use of Tools? Technology.
3.2. Wood:
• Wood is a major material used for
tools, but = generally not preserved.
Farming
• Preserved pieces reveal marks from
hoe from
different shaping tools versus
Ancient
natural marks (e.g., beaver teeth).
Egypt
• Analysis of beaver teeth marks →
shown some anc. lumber = natural.
• Special conditions, such as dry sites,
preserve wood farming tools,
furniture, weaponry, etc. (e.g., Egypt).
E.g., Rakes, hoes, grain scoops,
sickles, chairs, boxes, bows, staves,
chariots, coffins, shrines, statues, etc.
• Depictions of such tools may reveal
their function & techniques of use.
• Models also aid in analysis
• Texts may discuss such things too(!)
Dyns.17-18 virtually intact tombs:
Daily life items placed in burials:
Furniture in Ancient Egypt:
• Furniture appears in many tombs,
reflecting an important funerary item.
• The wealthiest burials included items
of furniture.
• Poor burials sometimes included a
simple headrest.
• The main items consisted of furniture
for sleeping on and sitting on:
i.e., 1+ chairs/seats, a bed, headrest
• The individual pieces of furniture
varied in form, materials, & decoration
depending upon the burial owner’s
wealth/status.
E.g., Ornate gilded and inlaid furniture
E.g., Simple stools.
Daily life furniture from a NK tomb/burial
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.8
8. How Did They Make Use of Tools? Technology.
• Waterlogged sites produce the
best assemblage of wooden items:
- E.g., 6000-3500 BC Somerset:
Wood working techniques = studied
in trackways:
Stone axes: dish-shaped marks
Bronze axes: stepped, sharper cuts
Each axe: leaves its own signature
E.g., 10 axes made 1 trackway.
- Other items preserved:
Tree trunk coffins
Mortuary structures
Bridges
Waterfront docks/quays
Housing
Vehicles (various types)
Etc.
Experimental
Archaeology:
Assessing how the
trackway = made:
Woodworking …
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.8
8. How Did They Make Use of Tools? Technology.
• Waterlogged sites produce the
best assemblage of wooden items:
- E.g., 6000-3500 BC Somerset:
Wood working techniques studied
in trackways.
Stone axes: dish-shaped marks
Bronze axes: stepped, sharper cuts
Each axe: leaves its own signature
E.g., 10 axes made 1 trackway.
- Other items preserved:
Tree trunk coffins
Mortuary structures
Bridges
Waterfront docks/quays
Housing
Vehicles (various types)
Etc.
Cambridgeshire: Bronze Age wheel
Pre-Columbian model from Veracruzl: revealing knowledge of wheel
-- alebeit not used in vehicles
until post 1492 AD …
TECHNOLOGY:
c. Wood & vegetative materials
i. Investigating
watercraft (boats; rafts+)
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.8
8. How Did They Make Use of Tools? Technology.
3.2.a. Investigating watercraft.
• Wood has been used for most
watercraft (prior to 1800s).
• = a specialized field of study.
• E.g., Underwater archaeology:
1960s: 4th cent. BC Greek ship
near Kyrenia, Cyprus.
Hull planking: mortise-&-tenons.
• E.g., 14th cent. BC shipwreck near
Ulu Burun (Kas, Turkey).
Bass found similar construction.
• Ship specialist J.R. Steffy uses
1/10th scale replicas of all planking
& excav. plans → refit anc. Hulls.
• Hag Ahmed Youssef spent 14 yrs
rebuilding Khufu’s dismantled ship
(4,500 years old; Dyn.4, Egypt).
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.8
8. How Did They Make Use of Tools? Technology.
3.2.a. Investigating watercraft.
• Wood has been used for most
watercraft (prior to 1800s).
• Specialized field of study.
• E.g., Underwater archaeology:
1960s: 4th cent. BC Greek ship
near Kyrena, Cyprus.
Hull planking: mortise-&-tenons.
• E.g., 14th cent. BC shipwreck near
Ulu Burun (Kas, Turkey).
Bass found similar construction.
• Ship specialist J.R. Steffy uses
1/10th scale replicas of all planking
& excav. plans → refit anc.Mortise
Hulls.
and
• Hag Ahmed Youssef spenttenon
14 yrs
rebuilding Khufu’s dismantled
ship
construction
(4,500 years old; Dyn.4, Egypt).
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.8
8. How Did They Make Use of Tools? Technology.
3.2.a. Investigating watercraft.
• Wood has been used for most
Steffy’s
son(prior to 1800s).
watercraft
• Specialized field of study.
• E.g., Underwater archaeology:
1960s: 4th cent. BC Greek ship
near Kyrena, Cyprus.
Hull planking: mortise-&-tenons.
• E.g., 14th cent. BC shipwreck near
Ulu Burun (Kas, Turkey).
Bass found similar construction.
• Ship specialist J.R. Steffy used
1/10th scale replicas of all planking
& excav. plans → refit anc. hulls.
• Hag Ahmed Youssef spent 14 yrs
rebuilding Khufu’s dismantled ship
(4,500 years old; Dyn.4, Egypt).
J. R. Steffy
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.8
8. How Did They Make Use of Tools? Technology.
3.2.a. Investigating watercraft.
• Wood has been used for most
Khufu
watercraft (prior to 1800s).
• Specialized field of study.
boat
pit
• E.g., Underwater archaeology:
1960s: 4th cent. BC Greek ship
near Kyrena, Cyprus.
Hull planking: mortise-&-tenons.
• E.g., 14th cent. BC shipwreck near
Ulu Burun (Kas, Turkey).
Bass found similar construction.
• Ship specialist J.R. Steffy uses
1/10th scale replicas of all planking
& excav. plans → refit anc. Hulls.
• Hag Ahmed Youssef spent 14 yrs
rebuilding Khufu’s dismantled ship
(4,500 years old; Dyn.4, Egypt).
Khufu boat model
Khufu’s ship: ca.4,500 yrs. BP
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.8
8. How Did They Make Use of Tools? Technology.
• Assessing sailing capabilities:
→ building scale replicas for
testing on rivers / at sea.
• E.g., 1984-1986 Viking knarr/cargo
ship built & sailed around world.
• E.g., 1987: J.F. Coates & J.S.
Morrison built a Greek trireme
revealing much data on its
possible construction & usage.
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.8
8. How Did They Make Use of Tools? Technology.
• Assessing sailing capabilities:
→ building scale replicas for
testing on rivers / at sea.
• E.g., 1984-1986 Viking knarr/cargo
ship built & sailed around world.
• E.g., 1987: J. F. Coates & J. S.
Morrison built a Greek trireme
revealing much data on its
possible construction & usage.
TECHNOLOGY:
c. Wood & vegetative materials
Plant & animal fibers:
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.8
8. How Did They Make Use of Tools? Technology.
3.3. Plant & animal fibers:
• Such materials are normally
not preserved.
• They do appear in exceptional
conditions: in wet & dry sites.
E.g., baskets, cordage, etc.
• Waterlogged sites:
- 10th Cent. AD Viking York (UK)
- Extensive data on var. industries.
- Dyestuffs: madder root, woad, &
greenweed residues.
- Confirmed by analyzing textiles.
- Vikings preferred reds (vesus
British Romans love of purples).
-E.g.,
Animal
fibers = wool &Bronze
silk. Age
Cambridgeshire:
site → excellent
preservation
- wet
Vegetable
fibers = flax
(linen)
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.8
8. How Did They Make Use of Tools? Technology.
3.3. Plant & animal fibers:
• SuchYork
materials
are waterlogged
normally
Viking
(Jorvik):
site
not preserved.
• They do appear in exceptional
conditions: wet & dry sites.
E.g., baskets, cordage, etc.
• Waterlogged sites:
- 10th Cent. AD Viking York (UK)
- Extensive data on var. industries.
- Dyestuffs: madder root, woad, &
greenweed residues.
- Confirmed by analyzing textiles.
- Vikings preferred reds (versus
British Romans’ love of purples).
- Animal fibers = wool & silk.
- Vegetable fibers = flax (linen)
TECHNOLOGY:
c. Wood & vegetative materials
Plant & animal fibers:
i. Analyzing textiles …
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.8
8. How Did They Make Use of Tools? Technology.
3.3.a. Analyzing textiles:
• Investigating prod.-techniques
materials
Pre-Columbian New World:
- E.g., Moche pottery (Peru):
Depictions of weaving factories
- Weaving tools (looms, etc.) found
in Peruvian desert.
- Peruvian textiles:
3000 BC cotton textiles produced
animal fibres (e.g., camelids)
190 different colour tones in dyes
S. Broadbent: weaving techniques
- E.g., Ancient Egypt:
Looms & textiles (Kahun/Lahun)
- Model weaving workshops (Dyn.11)
- Illustrated workshops (var. periods)
- Dyes from wool (red; blue; etc.)
- Textiles (flax → linen = popular)
Ancient Peruvian textiles
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.8
8. How Did They Make Use of Tools? Technology.
3.3.a. Analyzing textiles:
• Investigating prod.-techniques
materials
Pre-Columbian New World:
- E.g., Moche pottery (Peru):
Depictions of weaving factories
- Weaving tools (looms, etc.) found
in Peruvian desert.
- Peruvian textiles:
3000 BC cotton textiles produced
Animal fibers (camelids)
190 diff. color tones in dyes
S. Broadbent: weaving techniques
- E.g., Ancient Egypt:
Looms & textiles (Kahun/Lahun)
- Model weaving workshops (Dyn.11)
- Illustrated workshops (var. periods)
- Dyes from wool (red; blue; etc.)
- Textiles (flax → linen = popular)
Dyns.17-18 virtually intact tombs:
Daily life items placed in burials:
Other personal items:
• Various personal items occur in tombs.
• Staves and sandals tend to indicate
mid-high status, but are quite common.
Staves/staff:
- In or on male and female coffins
- Reflect social status; role in afterlife?
- Usually have a forked or lotiform head
Sandals:
- Very common.
- Rare in poorest tombs (middle class)
https://museumcrush.org/some-of-the-worlds-oldest-textiles-bolton-museums-ancient-egyptian-textiles-collection/
Clothes/linen:
- Mainly tunics, dresses, loin-cloths.
- Only appears in a few tombs from
various social backgrounds.
- Possibly much linen had been robbed.
- Some tombs had large quantities.
TECHNOLOGY:
c. Wood & vegetative materials
Plant & animal fibers:
ii. Microwear analysis …
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.8
8. How Did They Make Use of Tools? Technology.
3.3.b. Microwear analysis of fibers:
• Damage & wear appears variously
in textiles of different types:
- Tearing versus long-term wear
- Cutting = quite distinct
• Analyzing garment/textile use:
- New items placed in tomb
- Worn items placed in tomb
- Discarding old item (e.g., midden)
- Loss of relatively new item (street)
- Reuse of other items (e.g., sailcloth
as linen bandages for mummies).
Other traces:
- Impressions left by fabrics in
baked clay, bitumen on mummies,
human bone, etc.
Tutankhamun embalming cache
Sem-priest outfit
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.8
8. How Did They Make Use of Tools? Technology.
3.3.b. Microwear analysis of fibers:
• Damage & wear appears variously
in textiles of different types:
- Tearing versus long-term wear
- Cutting = quite distinct
Analyzing garment/textile use (cont):
- New items placed in tomb
- Worn items placed in tomb
- Discarding old item (midden)
- Loss of relatively new item (street)
Tutankhamun:
- Reuse of other items (e.g., sailcloth
New linen bandages
as linen bandages for mummies).
Other traces:
- Impressions left by fabrics in
baked clay, bitumen on mummies,
human bone, etc.
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.8
8. How Did They Make Use of Tools? Technology.
3.3.b. Microwear analysis of fibers: Plant fibre impressions from Dolní Věstonice
• Damage & wear appears variously
in textiles of different types:
- Tearing versus long-term wear
- Cutting = quite distinct
• Analyzing garment/textile use:
- New items placed in tomb
- Worn items placed in tomb
- Discarding old item (midden)
- Loss of relatively new item (street)
- Reuse of other items (e.g., sailcloth)
as linen bandages for mummies.
Other traces:
- Impressions left by fabrics in
baked clay, bitumen on mummies,
human bone, etc.
Arabia: Woven reed pattern (in bitumen)
TECHNOLOGY:
synthetic materials
d. ANCIENT
PYROTECHNOLOGY
TECHNOLOGY:
d. Firing & pyrotechnology
i. Pyrotechnology
& its applications:
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.8
8. How Did They Make Use of Tools? Technology.
4. Synthetic Materials:
Swartkrans Cave: Burnt bone
4.1. Firing & pyrotechnology:
• Many ancient Industries relied on
fire/heating applications.
• Earliest known use of fire occurs
ca. 1.5 million BP (Swartkrans Cave)
*ca. 1+ million BP Wonderwerk Cave
Wonderwerk Cave: cooking
Traces of “human-controlled fire”
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.8
8. How Did They Make Use of Tools? Technology.
4. Synthetic Materials:
4.1. Firing & pyrotechnology:
• Many anc. Industries relied on
fire/heating applications. Firehardened
• Earliest known use of fire occurs
wood
spear
ca. 1.5 million BP (Swartkrans
Cave)
• Prehistoric applications of fire:
- Cooked food (e.g., meat)
- Heat-worked flint
- Fire-hardened wood
- Baked clay figurines (26,000 BP in
Czech Republic: 500-800C (832-1472F))
Fire for warmth, cooking, etc.
• Neolithic (10,000 BP) and later (NE):
- Parching grain (aiding threshing)
- Baking bread (fuel chamber → bread)
- Pots in fire→kilns 1000-1200C (1832-2192F)
- 1083C (1981F) = copper’s melting point
- 800-1100C (1472-2012F) Iron smelting
- 1540C (2804F) = cast iron (China 500 BC) Open fire; grilling / spitting
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.8
8. How Did They Make Use of Tools? Technology.
4. Synthetic Materials:
Replica: Neolithic bread baking
4.1. Firing & pyrotechnology:
• Many anc. Industries relied on
Neolithic grain parching (Avgi, Kastoria)
fire/heating applications.
• Earliest known use of fire occurs
ca. 1.5 million BP (Swartkrans Cave)
• Prehistoric applications of fire:
- Cooked food (e.g., meat)
- Heat-worked flint
- Fire-hardened wood
- Baked clay figurines (26,000 BP in
Czech Republic: 500-800C (832-1472F)
• Neolithic (10,000 BP) and later (NE):
- Parching grain (aiding threshing)
- Baking bread (fuel chamber → bread)
- Pots in fire→kilns 1000-1200C (1832-2192F)
- 1083C (1981F) = copper’s melting point
- 800-1100C (1472-2012F) Iron smelting
- 1540C (2804F) = cast iron (China 500 BC)
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.8
8. How Did They Make Use of Tools? Technology.
Smelting iron (bloom)
4. Synthetic Materials:
4.1. Firing & pyrotechnology:
• Many anc. Industries relied on
fire/heating applications.
• Earliest known use of fire occurs
ca. 1.5 million BP (Swartkrans Cave)
• Prehistoric applications of fire:
- Cooked food (e.g., meat)
- Heat-worked flint
- Fire-hardened wood
- Baked clay figurines (26,000 BP in
Czech Republic: 500-800C (832-1472F)
• Neolithic (10,000 BP) and later (NE):
Replicating
smelting
- Parching graincopper
(aiding threshing)
- Baking bread (fuel chamber → bread)
- Pots in fire→kilns 1000-1200C (1832-2192F)
- 1,083 C (1981F) = copper’s melting point
- 800-1100 C (1472-2012F) Iron smelting
- 1,540 C (2804F) = cast iron(China 500 BC)
TECHNOLOGY:
d. Firing & pyrotechnology
ii. Pottery:
-
Temper
Manufacture
Firing
Ethnography
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.8
8. How Did They Make Use of Tools? Technology.
4.2. Pottery:
• Paleolithic lifestyle was not
conducive to carrying pottery:
Nomads cannot carry as much
• More settled Neolithic lifestyle
witnessed the development of
pottery.
• Pottery fabrics reveal:
- Data on clay sources
- Data on clay components
- Pottery production techniques
- Pottery firing temperatures
E.g., Open fire firing of
handmade Neolithic pottery
and Bronze Age (in Europe) Neolithic Europe: handmade Beaker pottery
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.8
8. How Did They Make Use of Tools? Technology.
4.2. Pottery:
• Paleolithic
not
Various
types oflifestyle
Beaker was
pottery/culture:
conducive to carrying pottery.
• More settled Neolithic lifestyle
witnessed the development of
pottery.
•
•
• Pottery fabrics reveal:
- Data on clay sources
- Data on clay components
- Pottery production techniques
- Pottery firing temperatures
Video clip: Beaker firing (beakerfolk amesbury archer)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4YmFQdfzVbg
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.8
8. How Did They Make Use of Tools? Technology.
4.2.a. Pot tempers:
Temper:
- Inclusions in clay → providing
strength against breakage and
shrinkage in kilns.
- Usually consisting of crushed
shell, rock & potsherds [grog];
sand; grass; straw; sponge frags.
Qualities of temper:
- Crushed burnt shell enables the
pot to resist heat better
- Fine sand is also quite good for
heat resistance.
- Finer grained temper creates
the best strength in pottery.
E.g., Crushed potsherds
= added to clay as temper
→ stronger pottery vessel.
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2012 (6th ed.): 2019 (
8. How Did They Make Use of Tools? Technology.
4.2.a. Pot tempers:
Temper:
- Inclusions in clay providing
strength against breakage and
shrinkage in kilns.
- Usually consisting of crushed
shell, rock & potsherds [grog];
sand; grass; straw; sponge frags.
Qualities of temper:
- Crushed burnt shell enables the
pot to resist heat better
- Fine sand is also quite good for
heat resistance.
- Finer grained temper creates
the best strength in pottery.
Sandtempered
pottery
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.8
8. How Did They Make Use of Tools? Technology.
4.2.b. How were pots made?
• Initially pottery vessels = made by
building up the body using coils
or slabs → smoothed into walls.
• Also pressed-pottery (bowl made in
hollow or over a small mound).
• 3400 BC Mesopotamia introduces
slow wheel/turntable-made pottery
• Wheel-made pottery normally
displays parallel ridges
• The distinctness and regularity
of these ridges also depends upon
the nature of the potter’s wheel
(i.e., slow; fast; kick-wheel).
• Hand-made pottery reveals
irregular finger marks, or paddlesmoothing.
Hump-moulded pottery bowl
E.g., basin
wall built
by slabs …
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.8
8. How Did They Make Use of Tools? Technology.
4.2.b. How were pots made?
• Initially pottery vessels = made by
building up the body Slow
usingturn-wheel
coils
or slabs → smoothed into walls.
• Also pressed-pottery (bowl made in
hollow or over a small mound).
•
- 3,400 BC Mesopotamia introduces
slow wheel/turntable-made pottery
• Wheel-made pottery normally
displays parallel ridges
• The distinctness and regularity
of these ridges also depends upon
the nature of the potter’s wheel
i.e., slow wheel; fast wheel; kick-wheel ...
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.8
8. How Did They Make Use of Tools? Technology.
4.2.b. How were pots made?
• Initially pottery vessels = made by
building up the body using coils
or slabs → smoothed into walls.
• Also pressed-pottery (bowl made in
hollow or over a small mound).
•
Faster kick
wheel
- 3400 BC Mesopotamia introduces
slow wheel/turntable-made pottery
• Wheel-made pottery normally
displays parallel ridges
• The distinctness and regularity
of these ridges also depends upon
the nature of the potter’s wheel
i.e., slow wheel; fast wheel; kick-wheel ...
Uniform,
parallel
ridges
= wheel
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.8
8. How Did They Make Use of Tools? Technology.
4.2.b. How were pots made?
• Initially pottery vessels = made by
building up the body using coils
or slabs → smoothed into walls.
• Also pressed-pottery (bowl made in
hollow or over a small mound).
• 3400 BC Mesopotamia introduces
slow wheel/turntable-made pottery
• Wheel-made pottery normally
displays parallel ridges
• The distinctness and regularity
of these ridges also depends upon
the nature of the potter’s wheel
Handmade
= NO parallel ridging
(i.e., slow;pottery:
fast; kick-wheel).
• Hand-made pottery reveals
irregular finger marks,
or paddle-smoothing.
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.8
8. How Did They Make Use of Tools? Technology.
4.2.c. How were pots fired?
• Kilns/firing of pottery:
- 900 C (1652 F)+ → vitrifies/gazes
surface of pot.
- High temperatures → complete
oxidization of pottery:
Uniform color & organic materials
= completely burnt out.
- Low temperatures or short firing:
core is dark (grey/black)
- Open
firing:
→ surface discolorations
e.g.,
grey
core
(blotchy appearance).
- Re-heating pottery vessels to detect
e.g., solid red core
their original firing temperature
(i.e., the point of change).
e.g., kilns
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.8
8. How Did They Make Use of Tools? Technology.
4.2.c. How were pots fired?
• Kilns/firing of pottery:
Open-fire
- 900C (1652F)+ → vitrifies/gazes
fired pottery
surface of pot.
- High temperatures → complete
oxidization of pottery:
Uniform color & organic materials
= completely burnt out.
- Low temperatures or short firing:
core is dark (grey/black)
- Open firing: → surface discolorations
(blotchy appearance).
- Re-heating pottery vessels to detect
their original firing temperature
(i.e., the point of change).
Raise
firing
until
uniform
= same
heat
Test sherds: heated to diff. degrees…
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.8
8. How Did They Make Use of Tools? Technology.
4.2.d. Evidence from ethnography:
• D. Lathrap studied Shipibo-Conibo
Indians in Upper Amazon (E. Peru).
• First millennium AD: techniques =still
in use.
• Most females = potters producing
pots for their household
(cooking; storage).
• Clays & some temper = local
• Some imported temper & pigments
• Pottery = coil-built mostly in dry
season (May-October).
Ethnographic studies should be
done in the region/area of study,
and can help understand some aspects
of past pottery production (Caution!).
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.8
8. How Did They Make Use of Tools? Technology.
4.2.d. Evidence from ethnography:
• D. Lathrap studied Shipibo-Conibo
Indians in Upper Amazon (E. Peru).
• First millennium AD techniques still
in use.
• Most females = potters producing
pots for their household
(cooking; storage).
• Clays & some temper = local
• Some imported temper & pigments
• Pottery = coil-built mostly in dry
Don’t
use(May-October).
totally different regions …
season
Ethnographic studies should be
done in the region/area of study,
and can help understand some aspects
of past pottery production (Caution!).
http://www.tripadvisor.com/LocationPhotoDirectLink-g1816343-d320379-i17404435Kizhi_State_Open_Air_Museum_of_History_Architecture_and_Ethnography-Kizhi.html
TECHNOLOGY:
d. Firing & pyrotechnology
iii. Faience
and glass:
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.8
8. How Did They Make Use of Tools? Technology.
4.3. Faience and glass:
• Vitreous/glassy materials appeared
later (at “end” of Prehistory: N.East).
Pre-Glass / Faience:
• Powdered quartz / silica (sand)
• Late Predynastic (pre-3000 BC)+
Egypt had beads and pendants.
• Later some faience tiles & vessels
• Composition reveals source (NAA)
Glass: Activation Analysis (NAA) lab.
Neutron
• Melting sand (silica) & cooling: glass
• Ca. 2500 BC in Mesopotamia
• Late Bronze Age (Dyn.18 Egypt)
• Glass made round clay core; moulds.
• Silica melts at 1723C (3133F)
• Adding soda/potash → 850C (1562F)
= poor quality glass.
• Best: 75% silica; 15% soda; 10% lime
• Glass blowing 50 BC+ (Romans)
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.8
8. How Did They Make Use of Tools? Technology.
4.3. Faience and glass:
• Vitreous/glassy materials appeared
later (at “end” of Prehistory: N.East).
Pre-Glass / Faience:
• Powdered quartz / silica (sand)
• Late Predynastic (pre-3000 BC)+
Egypt had beads and pendants.
• Later some faience tiles & vessels
• Composition reveals source (NAA)
Glass:
• Melting sand (silica) & cooling: glass
• Ca. 2500 BC in Mesopotamia
• > Late Bronze Age (Dyn.18 Egypt)
• Glass made round clay core; moulds.
• Silica melts at 1,723 C (3,133 F)
• Adding soda/potash → 850C (1562F)
= poor quality glass.
• Best: 75% silica; 15% soda; 10% lime
• Glass blowing 50 BC+ (Romans)
TECHNOLOGY:
synthetic materials
e. ARCHAEOMETALLURGY …
TECHNOLOGY:
d. Archaeometallurgy:
i. Non-ferrous
Materials, esp. Cu
- Technology …
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.8
8. How Did They Make Use of Tools? Technology.
5. Archaeometallurgy:
5.1. Non-ferrous materials:
• Copper = most important metal in
antiquity; copper + tin → bronze.
• Gold & silver = high value metals
• Lead; tin & antimony (additives).
Copper technology evolution:
1.Shaping native copper (nuggets):
Hammering, cutting, polishing, etc.
2.Annealing native copper:
Heating & hammering
Cassiterite tin ore
(hammering only → brittle metal)
3.Smelting oxide & carbonate ores:
Silver
4. Melting & casting copper:
ore
Open mould → two-piece moulds
5.Alloying copper with tin →bronze
6. Smelting from sulphide ores
More complex.
Native
/ raw
copper
7. E.g.,
Lost-wax
(“cire
perdue”)
process
Gold nugget
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.8
8. How Did They Make Use of Tools? Technology.
5. Archaeometallurgy:
5.1. Non-ferrous materials:
• Copper = most important metal in
antiquity; copper + tin → bronze.
• Gold & silver = high value metals
• Lead; tin & antimony (additives).
Copper technology evolution:
1.Shaping native copper (nuggets):
Hammering, cutting, polishing, etc.
2.Annealing native copper:
Heating & hammering
(hammering only → brittle metal)
3.Smelting oxide & carbonate ores:
4. Melting & casting copper:
Open mould → two-piece moulds
5.Alloying copper with tin →bronze
6. Smelting from sulphide ores
More complex.
7. Lost-wax (“cire perdue”) process
Lost wax
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.8
8. How Did They Make Use of Tools? Technology.
Melting points:
• Lead:
327C (620F)
• Lead from ores: 800C (1472F)
• Copper:
1,083C (1981F)
• Silver:
960C (1760F)
• Gold:
1,063C (1945F)
Composition of metals:
• Laboratory detection methods
• Trace element analysis
• Optical emission spectrometry (OES)
• Atomic absorption spectrometry
• X-ray fluorescence (XRF)
Metallo-graphic examination:
• Microscopic view of an item’s structure
• May answer whether it is coldhammered, annealed, cast, etc.
Bronze Age copper furnace
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.8
8. How Did They Make Use of Tools? Technology.
Melting points:
• Lead:
327C (620F)
• Lead from ores: 800C (1472F)
• Copper:
1083C (1981F)
• Silver:
960C (1760F)
• Gold:
1063C (1945F)
Composition of metals: determining by
• Laboratory detection methods
• Trace element analysis
• Optical emission spectrometry (OES)
• Atomic absorption spectrometry
• X-ray fluorescence (XRF)
Metallo-graphic examination:
• Microscopic view of Microan item’s structure
• May answer whetherphotograph
it is coldhammered, annealed, cast, etc.
of bronze
nail …
Trace element
analysis on pottery
from Oaxaca
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.8
8. How Did They Make Use of Tools? Technology.
Melting points:
• Lead:
327C (620F)
• Lead from ores: 800C (1472F)
• Copper:
1083C (1981F)
• Silver:
960C (1760F)
• Gold:
1063C (1945F)
Composition of metals:
• Laboratory detection methods
• Trace element analysis
• Optical emission spectrometry (OES)
• Atomic absorption spectrometry
• X-ray fluorescence (XRF)
Metallo-graphic examination:
• Microscopic view of an item’s structure
• May answer whether it is coldhammered, annealed, cast, etc.
TECHNOLOGY:
d. Archaeometallurgy:
ii. Non-ferrous
Materials, esp. Cu
- Alloying …
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.8
8. How Did They Make Use of Tools? Technology.
5.2. Alloying:
• Alloying = major advances in
metallurgy:
- Copper + tin (*10%)
= bronze
- Copper + arsenic (*10%) = bronze
→ Bronze is harder & less brittle
= excellent for weaponry.
- Can have naturally occurring
arsenical copper (= like bronze)
Ca. 3,000 – 1,600 BC:
-25% - 33% of all metal in
Mesopotamia = arsenical copper
TECHNOLOGY:
d. Archaeometallurgy:
ii. Non-ferrous
Materials, esp. Cu
- Casting …
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.8
8. How Did They Make Use of Tools? Technology.
5.3. Casting:
• Atifacts often reveal data on
casting technology (mould marks)
E.g., surface traces of casting =
sometimes left.
• Cire perdue (lost wax technique)
a. Item detail modelling in wax
b. Item coated in clay → baked
c. Wax escapes through hole(s)
d. Metal cast through one hole
(air hole(s) needed).
e. Mould broken open
f. Mould marks removed
• Evidence:
- Some texts detail it
- Casting casings left
- Study of item cast.
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.8
8. How Did They Make Use of Tools? Technology.
5.3. Casting:
• Atifacts often reveal data on
casting technology (mould marks)
E.g., surface traces of casting =
sometimes left.
•
Cire perdue (lost wax technique)
a. Item detail modelling in wax
b. Item coated in clay → baked
c. Wax escapes through hole(s)
d. Metal cast through one hole
(air hole(s) needed).
e. Mould broken open
f. Mould marks removed
• Evidence:
- Some texts detail it
- Casting casings left
- Study of item cast.
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.8
8. How Did They Make Use of Tools? Technology.
Casting cont.’:
• Hammering & annealing sometimes
yield similar results to casting.
• Unfinished items sometimes are
incompletely cast.
• May have vertical line from the seam
between the two mould halves.
Moulds:
• Usually of stone
• Sometimes have an air-escape hole
(reduce/remove bubbling)
Slags:
• Identify type of slag (copper; iron)
• Test for sulphur (i.e., sulphur ore)
• Crucible slag = higher % copper
Smelting furnaces:
• By-products: ingots, slag, moulds,
crucible frags., broken castings, scrap
metal, tuyeres (furnace pipe-nozzles)
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.8
8. How Did They Make Use of Tools? Technology.
Casting cont.’:
• Hammering & annealing sometimes
yield similar results to casting.
• Unfinished items sometimes are
incompletely cast.
• May have vertical line from the seam
between the two mould halves.
Moulds (for casting):
• Usually of stone
• Sometimes have an air-escape hole
(reduce/remove bubbling)
Slags:
• Identify type of slag (copper; iron)
• Test for sulphur (i.e., sulphur ore)
• Crucible slag = higher % copper
Smelting furnaces:
• By-products: ingots, slag, moulds,
crucible frags., broken castings, scrap
metal, tuyeres (furnace pipe-nozzles)
Pouring molten metal into the mould
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.8
8. How Did They Make Use of Tools? Technology.
Casting cont.’:
• Hammering & annealing sometimes
yield similar results to casting.
• Unfinished items sometimes are
incompletely cast.
• May have vertical line from the seam
between the two mould halves.
Moulds:
• Usually of stone
• Sometimes have an air-escape hole
Bronze Age: Copper slag
(reduce/remove bubbling)
Experiment: Iron slag …
Slags (… from casting):
• Identify type of slag (copper; iron)
• Test for sulphur (i.e., sulphur ore)
• Crucible slag = higher % copper
http://warehamforgeblog.blogspot.com/2008_06_01_archive.html
Smelting furnaces:
• By-products: ingots, slag, moulds,
crucible frags., broken castings, scrap
metal, tuyeres (furnace pipe-nozzles)
slag
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.8
8. How Did They Make Use of Tools? Technology.
Casting cont.’:
Ox-hide ingot
• Hammering & annealing sometimes
yield similar results to casting.
• Unfinished items sometimes are
incompletely cast.
• May have vertical line from the seam
between the two mould halves.
Moulds:
• Usually of stone
• Sometimes have an air-escape hole
(reduce/remove bubbling)
Slags:
• Identify type of slag (copper; iron)
• Test for sulphur (i.e., sulphur ore)
• Crucible slag = higher % copper
Smelting furnaces:
• By-products: ingots, slag, moulds,
crucible frags., broken castings, scrap
metal, tuyeres (furnace pipe-nozzles)
TECHNOLOGY:
d. Archaeometallurgy:
iii. Silver, lead &
platinum …
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.8
8. How Did They Make Use of Tools? Technology.
5.4. Silver, lead & platinum:
Lead:
- 327 C (620 F) = lead smelting point
- Easily manipulated
- Some figurines, clamps,
- BUT = too soft for most uses
- Often found near silver mines.
Silver:
- 1000-1100C (1832-2077F) smelting
- Cupellation = oxidizing lead to litharge
→ to extract silver.
- Litharge = removed or enters hearth
- Silver/gold = left separated
Platinum:
- 1800C
of platinum
Lead
seal(3277F)
usage =smelting
AD earlypoint
1300s
- 1724
nd
th
- 2 Cent 4BCcent.
smelting
in Ecuador
AD lead
coffin
- 16th Cent AD used in Europe
- 1870s smelting platinum in Europe
Carolingian
Lead figurines
8th – 10th
Centuries AD
(France)
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.8
8. How Did They Make Use of Tools? Technology.
5.4. Silver, lead & platinum:
Lead:
- 327C (620F) = lead smelting point
late 13th cent. BC:
- Easily manipulated
Tutankhamun’s
silver
- Some figurines,
clamps,
trumpet
- BUT = too soft
for most uses
- Often found near silver mines.
Silver tetradrachm Nerva AD 97-98
Silver:
- 1,000 – 1,100 C (1832-2077 F) smelting
- Cupellation = oxidizing lead to litharge
→ to extract silver.
- Litharge = removed or enters hearth
- Silver/gold = left separated
Platinum:
3IP (10th
- 1800C (3277F) smelting point cent
of platinum
BC):
nd
- 2 Cent BC smelting in Ecuador
solid silver
th
- 16 Cent AD used in Europe coffin
- 1870s smelting platinum in Europe
(Tanis)
Silver bowl, Gudestrup,
Denmark 100 BC – AD 1
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.8
8. How Did They Make Use of Tools? Technology.
5.4. Silver, lead & platinum:
Lead:
La Tolita
- 327C (620F) = lead smelting
point
(Ecuador):
- Easily manipulated
- Some figurines, clamps, Masks with
platinum
- BUT = too soft for most uses
within them …
- Often found near silver mines.
Silver:
- 1000-1100C (1832-2077F) smelting
- Cupellation = oxidizing lead to litharge
→ to extract silver.
- Litharge = removed or enters hearth
Platinum eyes
- Silver/gold = left separated
Platinum:
- 1,800 C (3277 F) smelting point of platinum
- 2nd Cent BC smelting in Ecuador (!)
- 16th Cent AD used in Europe
- 1870s smelting platinum in Europe
Gold mask:
platinum eyes
La Tolita 5th Cent. BC (or later!!!)
TECHNOLOGY:
d. Archaeometallurgy:
iv. Fine metalwork & working
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.8
8. How Did They Make Use of Tools? Technology.
5.5. Fine metalwork:
1500 BC+ (LB Age) → broad range
of metal-working techniques in the
Mediterranean – Near East.
a. Sheet metal working
b. Stamping
c. Engraving
d. Repousse work (relief)
e. Filigree (wire & soldering
open work) 3rd mill. BC+
f. Granulation (attached
to background)
Etruscan 1300 BC
• Ethnographic
research in N. Africa
& Middle East where
traditional metallurgical techniques survive.
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.8
8. How Did They Make Use of Tools? Technology.
5.5. Fine metalwork:
• 1500 BC+ (LB Age) → broad range
of metal-working techniques in the
Mediterranean – Near East.
a. Sheet metal working
b. Stamping
c. Engraving
d. Repousse work (relief)
e. Filigree (wire & soldering
open work) 3rd mill. BC+
f. Granulation (attached
North
Africa: traditional metalworking.
to background)
• Ethnographic
research in N. Africa
& Middle East where
traditional metallurgical techniques survive.
• Other fine metal working
Adagez, Niger
TECHNOLOGY:
d. Archaeometallurgy:
v. Metal plating
(joining techniques)
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.8
8. How Did They Make Use of Tools? Technology.
5.6. Plating:
• Plating joins metals together by
various means
• E.g., Peruvians evidently used
a form of electrochemical
plating to join valuable metals
in early centuries AD (early Moche)
• Apparently heat had been used to
join gold to copper surfaces on some
figurines, masks, & ornaments.
• It is superficially similar to modern
electroplating.
• BUT, an aqueous solution of
minerals and salts indigenous to
Peru had apparently been boiled
(5 min at 650-800C) to enable
bonding between the surfaces.
• Otherwise, electroplating appears in
late Medieval/Renaissance Europe.
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.8
8. How Did They Make Use of Tools? Technology.
5.6. Plating:
• Plating joins metals together by
various means
• E.g., Peruvians evidently used
a form of electrochemical
plating to join valuable metals
in early centuries AD (early Moche)
• Apparently heat had been used to
join gold to copper surfaces on some
figurines, masks, & ornaments.
• It is superficially similar to modern
electroplating.
1853 AD electroplated medallion
• BUT, an aqueous solution of
minerals and salts indigenous to
Peru had apparently been boiled
(5 min at 650-800C) to enable
bonding between the surfaces.
• Otherwise, electroplating appears in
late Medieval/Renaissance Europe.
TECHNOLOGY:
d. Archaeometallurgy:
v. Iron and steel
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.8
8. How Did They Make Use of Tools? Technology.
5.7. Iron and steel:
Iron becomes popular in Near East
ca. 1000 BC+
It is absent in Americas prior to
Columbus (nb: *Meteoric iron in Arctic).
Meteoric iron occurs naturally and
is known early throughout Near East.
Iron = harder to reduce than copper,
but begins at 800C (1472F), with a
melting temperature at 1540C (2804F)
Many minerals need to be extracted
from iron ores (by slagging):
Late 13th cent. BC: Tutankhamun’s
Iron working areas:
iron dagger
1. Bowl furnaces (brick-lined pits):
Bellows increase temperatures.
2. Forging iron at smithy site
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.8
8. How Did They Make Use of Tools? Technology.
5.7. Iron and steel:
Jamestown iron smelting
•
Iron becomes popular in Near East
ca. 1000 BC
• It is absent in Americas prior to
Columbus.
• Meteoric iron occurs naturally and
is known early throughout Near East.
•
Iron = harder to reduce than copper,
but begins at 800C (1472F), with a
melting temperature at 1540C (2804F)
• Many minerals need to be extracted
Sub-Saharan Africa iron working
from iron ores (by slagging):
Iron Age Africa …
Iron working areas:
1. Bowl furnaces (brick-lined pits):
Bellows increase temperatures.
2. Forging iron at smithy site
Fitchburg iron furnace
BaFipa natural draft furnace
(Tanzania)
The Haya (Tanzania)
AD 1 – 500 (via C14 dating of charcoal)
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.8
8. How Did They Make Use of Tools? Technology.
Cast iron:
• A more complex furnace installation
is required.
• Some examples appear in 6th cent
BC Greece
• Cast iron = a brittle alloy of iron
• It has a lower melting point
• It has 1.5% - 5% carbon content
Steel:
E.g., cast iron
•Buddha
Steel is
iron with 0.3% - 1.2% carbon
statues
• It is easily worked
• It hardens with cooling
• True steel appears in the Roman
period.
• Carburizing → made a similar
product.
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.8
8. How Did They Make Use of Tools? Technology.
Cast iron:
• A more complex furnace installation
is required.
• Some examples appear in 6th cent
BC Greece
• Cast iron = a brittle alloy of iron
• It has a lower melting point
• It has 1.5% - 5% carbon content
Steel:
• Steel is iron with 0.3% - 1.2% carbon
• It is easily worked
• It hardens with cooling
• “True steel” appears in the Roman
period.
• Carburizing → made a similar
product.
Damascus steel
SUMMARY:
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.8
8. How Did They Make Use of Tools? Technology.
6. Summary:
• Archaeologists can recover and extrapolate much information on ancient
technology by excavation, analysis in laboratories, ethnographic data, and
experimenting (e.g., reconstructing items, events, etc.).
• The archaeological context and ethnography may suggest the function(s) of
an artifact, while microwear analysis reveals likely past usage(s).
• Microwear analysis relies on running experiments to see what usages leave
specific traces on a given tool type and material.
• Ethnographic studies are still invaluable for living crafts persons using similar
technologies for comparing known living technologies with past similar ones.
• Such ethnographic studies help mainly in assessing how ancient technologies
MAY have functioned, using similar items, materials, and contexts.
• The absence of more definite information from past textual-pictorial records
leaves archaeologists with having to reconstruct a range of possibilities to
probabilities using a broad range of evidence: excavation, analysis,
ethnography, and experimentation.
CASE STUDY-1:
PHARAONIC
TECHNOLOGY:
i.e., Ancient Egypt stone-working
-Blocks arrive at site roughly hewn
-Smoothed in location prior to
addition of each wall course.
-Column and wall exteriors
smoothed & inscribed after
construction.
- Ramps and
scaffolding of
solid mudbrick
are used to
raise blocks
(see Karnak
Temple for
in-situ mudbrick
ramp).
Old Kingdom:
Producing rock-cut statuary
Techniques in Painting,
Relief work, & Statuary:
Wall-face:
• Plaster uneven surface with mud
and a fine gypsum plaster wash.
Walls & Statuary:
• Preparation of wall-face or block
using guide-lines / squared grids.
- Square = proportional to a fist
- Usually for major figures.
• Initial outline of figure in red
• Correction of master artist in black
Statuary:
• Cut excess stone away from the
outlined figure (5-6 planes).
Equipment:
• Hammers, copper chisels, drills,
and saws (with sand abrasive)
OK: Deshasheh mallet
MK industry:
Making flint blades.
• materials (flint etc.)
• Skilled flint-knapper
(apprenticeship)
• Market: butcher,
hunter, various
industries, home.
CASE STUDY-2:
PHARAONIC
TECHNOLOGY:
i.e., Ancient Egypt metal-working
NEGEV: Southern Arabah
Gulf of Aqaba (Elat):
Site 582:Ramesses III rock-text
near well at Borot Roded.
TIMNA Site 212 Copper mine.
• Sophisticated shaft-and-gallery mining system.
-some Chalcolithic - Early Bronze Age activity
-mostly Ramesside activity.
• shafts up to 35+ m deep cutting through various
rock formations (conglomerates, etc.)
• Copper ores in cupriferous white sandstone.
• Galleries 70 cm wide x 1 m high –can broaden.
• New Kingdom pottery and stone & metal tools.
ventilation
system
above
galleries.
TIMNA Site 2 Area D-K:
Egyptian copper smelting site
• Two Egyptian Dyn.19 scarabs
Note Area B:
• A 10 x 7.5 m installation for
reducing Acacia wood into
charcoal for smelting fuel.
• Adjacent furnace → Cu pellets
(melted in small crucibles)
• Small workshop (5 x 4 m) for
crushing copper bearing ore.
FUEL
Dicotyledons:
-Broad-leafed flowering plants
providing hard-wood lumbers.
Acacia species
(Leguminosae-Mimosoidaea)
-Characteristically flat-topped trees
-Yellow/white flowers; fruit = pods
-Occurs in hot deserts
Wood-type:
-Heartwood = red, hard and durable
-In antiquity, acacia charcoal = used
for smelting.
Flowering twig
of acacia & pod
TIMNA Site 2 Area D-K
Casting
workshop
Large stonelined storage
pit for ores
Workshop &
living quarters
Small oven
Storage pits
Working+storage
complex:
Courtyard:
-Smelting charge
prepared here,
-Ore store pits.
-Stone-paved
platform for
crushing Cu ore.
-Many crushing &
grinding tools &
crushed Cu ore.
Casting workshop
-smelting furnaces
-much wood ash
-charcoal dust
-copper pellets
-copper slag
-slagged crucible
fragments.
-large storage pit
Timna Site 2 Area C:
Copper-smelting furnace.
Two smelting furnaces (Fu 3-4)
• Smelting hearth: hole in ground
-45 cm diameter
-40 cm deep
-Lined with thick clay → dome
-Slag adhering to walls
-Slag-tapping pit in front of
furnace (stone lining)
-Tapping hole in furnace side.
-Clay tube opposite tapping
hole (= for tuyere)
New Kingdom: Copper smelting at Timna explained via NK art:
TT39 Puyemra: metal-working.
TT100 Rekhmire: metal-working.
Handling crucible
using wood strips
Handling crucible
using wood strips
E.g., Moulds for axe blades
• Open casting.
Metal-working:
• Smelting copper, gold, etc.
• Casting ingots or finished products
• Cooling molten metal using water
Hammering out sheets
Early Bronze Age: Early Helladic / Early Cycladic / Early Minoan.
CASE STUDY-3:
EARLY BRONZE
TECHNOLOGY:
i.e., Helladic, Cycladic & Minoan
Early Bronze Age: Early Helladic / Early Cycladic / Early Minoan.
Early Minoan gold bee-pendant from Chrysolakkos cemetery at Mallia.
Early Bronze Age: Early Helladic / Early Cycladic / Early Minoan.
Early Cycladic, Keros-Syros culture, ca.2,700 – 2,200 BCE
Jewelry: Silver torque and silver bracelets from Antiparos.
Early Bronze Age: Early Helladic / Early Cycladic / Early Minoan.
Early Cycladic, Keros-Syros culture, ca. 2,700 – 2,200 BCE:
Copper wood-working tools from Naxos: axes, adzes, and various chisels.
Early Bronze Age: Early Helladic / Early Cycladic / Early Minoan.
Obsidian core & 4 blades from Antiparos, ca. 3,000 – 2,000 BCE.
Early Bronze Age: Early Helladic / Early Cycladic / Early Minoan.
Early Cycladic Grotta-Pelos culture
Ca. 3,200 – 2,800 BCE.
Pottery vessel:
• Collared jar from Antiparos.
• Vertically incised herring-bone design
around lower body.
• Horizontal band of herringbone design
around lower part of neck.
Footed
example
Flat-based example
Early Bronze Age: Early Helladic / Early Cycladic / Early Minoan.
Early Cycladic, Keros-Syros culture (ca. 2,700 – 2,200 BCE):
Conical pottery cups, from Chalandriani on island of Syros.
Early Bronze Age: Early Helladic / Early Cycladic / Early Minoan.
Early Cycladic period: entryway to a marble quarry at Paros.
Early Bronze Age: Early Helladic / Early Cycladic / Early Minoan.
Early Cycladic period: Grotta-Pelos culture: marble kandila-beaker type vases;
Antiparos culture: marble kandila-beaker type vases (from Antiparos).
Early Bronze Age: Early Helladic / Early Cycladic / Early Minoan.
Different types of Early Cycladic marble
figurines:
Top row:
Grotta-Pelos culture
3,200 – 2,800 BCE
- Plastiras
- Louros
Middle row:
Keros-Syros culture
2,700 – 2,500 BCE
- Kapsala
- Spedos
- Dokathismata
- Chalandri
Bottom row:
Phylakopi culture
Early Bronze Age: Early Helladic / Early Cycladic / Early Minoan.
Early Cycladic period:
Grotta-Pelos culture.
ca.3,200 - 2,800 BC
Marble figurines from Antiparos.
Sculpted & violin-shaped figures
Early Bronze Age: Early Helladic / Early Cycladic / Early Minoan.
Early Cycladic, Plastiras culture,
ca. 3,000 – 2,800 BCE
(a). Grave D Kapros cemetery, Amorgos
(b). Figure from MMA.
Early Bronze Age: Early Helladic / Early Cycladic / Early Minoan.
Early Cycladic period:
Grotta-Pelos culture spanning
into Keros-Syros culture:
Ca. 2800 – 2600 BCE
Marble seated harpist figure
(Metropolitan Museum of Art)
Early Bronze Age: Early Helladic / Early Cycladic / Early Minoan.
Early Cycladic, Spedos-type marble
female figurines ca.2,700 – 2,500 BC.
NOTE:
Huge
example
=
140 cm
in
length
Early Bronze Age: Early Helladic / Early Cycladic / Early Minoan.
Early Cycladic period:
Late Spedos-culture
Ca. 2,600 – 2,400 BCE.
Marble female figurines; 1 = pregnant.
Early Bronze Age: Early Helladic / Early Cycladic / Early Minoan.
Early Cycladic
Dokathismata-type marble figure
ca. 2,500 – 2,300 BC
Early Bronze Age: Early Helladic / Early Cycladic / Early Minoan.
Early Cycladic
Drawing of Goulandris-like male
marble figurines (now lost).
2,400 – 2,200 BCE
Early Bronze Age: Early Helladic / Early Cycladic / Early Minoan.
Early Cycladic period, late Spedos-culture, ca. 2,600 – 2,400 BCE:
FUNCTION: Marble pregnant female designed to recline on back.
Early Bronze Age: Early Helladic / Early Cycladic / Early Minoan.
Early Cycladic, Keros-Syros culture 2,800 – 2,200 BC:
Model ship in lead, narrow prow; flat stern; from Island of Naxos.
Early Bronze Age: Early Helladic / Early Cycladic / Early Minoan.
Seals & seal impressions in clay:
i.e., Marks of authority/ownership
impressed into wet clay.
E.g., Lead seal from Tsoungiza
dating to EH IIA.
E.g., Clay impressions from seals
from Level III at Lerna (in
the “House of Tiles”), with
some geometric designs,
dating to EH II.
Early Helladic IIA lead seal
from Tsoungiza