 |
 |
Thank you Sally, and Phil, for that very clear introduction to this, the second of three main parts of this afternoon's session. You will be pleased to know that I've tried to weed out some references such as "incorrect"
and "plain wrong" in favour of gentler terminology. And I'm sure you can point the finger at someone else concerning the lithics object terms. I see this conference and these lithics contributions as part of the ongoing process of improvement, and although
it may be heated on the way, I'm sure improvement will result.
I'm afraid these final sessions are very lithics-focussed, although some principles may be more widely applicable to other types of remains. In this second part I want to briefly review how lithic artefacts are
currently covered in the existing thesauri, and to highlight some specific omissions, confusions and mistakes for discussion. The focus of this e-session is therefore partly (a) to highlight some specific errors and suggest some improvements, but most importantly
then (b) in the subsequent final part of this afternoon's session, to discuss how an improved lithic artefact terminology could be developed and better incorporated in EH thesauri. The rest of session 3 will therefore focus on these areas in turn, as well
as pursuing any relevant points that arise.
This lithic artefact terminology session of this E-conference has developed from presentations and discussions at the HER Forum held in London on 9th July 2014, and the Palaeolithic and Mesolithic HER
Enhancement Seminar held in London on 20th January 2014, in particular in subsequent collaboration with Peter Watkins of Norfolk County Council concerning problems with, and possible improvements to, lithic terminology for use in HERs.
After the introductory para below, there are listed eight specific examples of where it is suggested that improvement is needed. Comments/suggestions on any or all of these are welcome, indeed much desired, but
we beg you to be specific about which item you are talking about by reference to its numeric identifier in the list below.
Introduction. Lithic artefacts are a significant part of the archaeological record, particularly of earlier prehistoric periods for which they form the
main, and usually only, tangible evidence. References to lithic artefacts are therefore ubiquitous in HERs - Historic Environments Records - across the country, as the main evidence for Palaeolithic and Mesolithic periods, and a significant part of the evidence
for Late Prehistoric periods (Neolithic and Bronze Age). However the current EH - English Heritage - thesauri provide a limited range of terms and definitions for referring to lithic artefacts.
Furthermore, terms for lithic artefacts are distributed across seven classes of objects within the group of thesauri for "Archaeological Objects", namely: Agriculture and Subsistence, Armour and Weapons, Food Preparation
and Consumption, Heating and Lighting, Manufacture and Processing, Tools and Equipment, and Unassigned. These classes of thesauri seem designed to challenge conventional material-focused categorisation in favour of more functional and interpretive categorisation.
However, it is questionable whether this serves any useful purpose. Rather, it is counter-productive since most lithic artefacts are (a) of uncertain or contested function, and (b) are likely to have had multiple functions, or to have changed functionality
throughout their use-life. Furthermore, the scope note definitions of many of the lithic artefact terms that are scattered throughout these thesauri are often incomplete or misleading, and occasionally plainly incorrect.
Some specific omissions, confusions and mistakes:
3.2.1 - There needs to be the general term "lithic artefact". It is often unclear whether an artefact is a tool, or waste of some sort, eg. whether a
core, a lump of broken waste debitage or a rough core-tool. The recognition of human working on an artefact is the matter of greatest archaeological importance, and it would be helpful to have a catch-all term for this in the HER. Suggested scope note: "A
piece of flint or other stone showing clear signs of human modification". NB - this is clearly distinct from the existing term "Lithic implement" in the "Unassigned" thesaurus, since "implement" carries the connotation of having been a tool, as distinct from
the majority of lithic artefacts that are waste debitage or cores (qv).
3.2.2 - Use of the term "axe" for "celt" needs to be reconsidered, as well as its sub-division into narrower categories of "Axe (tool)" and "Axe (weapon)".
Firstly, the term "axe" incorporates both the shaft and the head, therefore almost all archaeological finds are likely to be "axehead" rather than "axe", a term that features in the "Tools and Equipment" thesaurus, but not in the "Armour and Weapons" thesaurus.
The definition of "axe" needs to be amended to exclude its use for "celt", and that of "axehead" to include its use for "celt".
3.2.3 - Distinction of "axe" and "adze". Firstly, in light of the point above, we should mostly be talking about "axeheads" and "adzeheads". Secondly,
these are usually going to be hard to distinguish, so a new term is recommended, perhaps: "axehead/adzehead" or "core-tool"; or it needs to be specified in the scope-note for "axehead" that it includes possible adzeheads.
3.2.4 - For narrower categories of "axehead", all currently part of "Tools and Equipment", the terms and definitions "core axehead" and "flaked axehead"
need discussion/improvement. The former is currently defined as "a stone axe in which the surface is fully covered by negative removals. Core axes may be made on flakes and have part of the flake's original surface but this cannot be part of the edge otherwise
use FLAKED AXE". It is questionable whether this is a useful distinction, and if so, then the term "flaked axe" needs improvement. It is recommended to discontinue this distinction, and to have the single term "Core axehead" defined as "a knapped stone/flint
axehead in which the surface is fully or mostly covered by negative removals; core axeheads may be made on flakes".
3.2.5 - Definition and types of "Handaxe" need reconsideration. Suggested scope note revision: "An unhafted Palaeolithic core-tool of flint or other
stone, usually worked bifacially; can be made on a large flake-blank". Then, it is worth specifying some of the major handaxe types as narrower terms: "cleaver (handaxe)", "bout coupé" and "ovate" perhaps.
3.2.6 - Use of the term "Roughout" needs reconsideration. At the moment, the term is included in the "Manufacture and Processing" thesaurus as "An initially
worked object, prepared to be made into a final product" with the narrower term of "axehead roughout" defined as "An unfinished, roughly shaped axehead", also to be used for "handaxe roughout". It would be better to replace all this with the terms "core-tool
roughout" or "Lithic implement roughout", and "handaxe roughout", to cover situations where one had a roughed-out lithic core-tool that one might or might not be confident was Palaeolithic.
3.2.7 - The current hierarchies of narrower terms for "Lithic implements" need major revision, as well as incorporation of terms such as "handaxe" and
"laurel leaf" that are floating elsewhere, "burin" that is (misleadingly) grouped under "marking equipment" with terms such as "branding iron" and "scriber", and "flake-tool" that doesn't exist at all. This exemplifies the difficulties with trying to apply
a functional interpretation to lithic artefacts whose function is uncertain, and which often have names with wider meanings when applied to non-lithic objects. In this specific instance, one could distinguish lithic and metal burins in their terms and scope
notes, and group them separately. It is also wrong to regard "denticulate" as a narrower term for a type of "scraper".
3.2.8 - It isn't intended to go through every single problem with lithic terms in the existing thesauri, merely an exemplary few, before moving on to
a discussion on the wider more general issue of how to approach making improvements (below). To finish with though, perhaps the worst aspect of the current thesauri is the confusion between "Cores" and "Debitage" in the thesaurus for "Manufacture and Processing",
and the categorisation of "Flakes" and "Blades" as "Cutting equipment" in the thesaurus for "Tools and Equipment" rather than "Debitage" in a more appropriate thesuarus. Currently, "Debitage" is listed as a narrower term of "tool by-product", itself a narrower
term of "By-product", and it is defined as "Waste flakes and cores produced in the manufacture of stone implements". It is clearly fundamentally wrong to include cores as debitage, and other aspects of the scope note could be improved, ie. "flakes and blades
of all sizes (usually of flint, although can be of other flakeable lithic material) produced during reduction of cores, or production of core-tools or flake-tools". Following from this, there should be a re-organisation of the terms that are included under
"debitage", eg. to include "Blade", "Burin spall" "Micro-burin" etc.
Homepage:
www.soton.ac.uk/~ffws/New_ffws/index.html
Francis Wenban-Smith (Dr)
Department of Archaeology (CAHOR
- Centre for Applied Human Origins Research)
University of Southampton (Avenue Campus)
Southampton, Hants
SO17 1BF
02380-596 864 (direct)
07771-623 096 (mobile)