Lithic Analysis in Archaeology

This video introduces some of the most basic aspects of observing and making measurements on the products of flintknapping, with emphasis on debitage (the flakes removed from a core). It also introduces the chaîne opératoire as a theoretical and conceptual tool for the analysis of lithic and other technologies.
My book, The Archaeologist's Laboratory:
link.springer.com/book/10.100...
#archaeology #thearchaeologistslaboratory #lithics #stonetools #measurement

[@sachintiwary2022]

Great lecture and awesome examples...

[@thearchaeologistslaborator6591]

Many thanks!

[@LindaHolman_Meditations]

Thank you for a very clear explanation

[@thearchaeologistslaborator6591]

Glad it was helpful!

[@jaybandoesrealestate]

Gooooooood work big man

[@thearchaeologistslaborator6591]

Thanks!

[@jasonsavage2865]

Very well done sir

[@thearchaeologistslaborator6591]

Thank you kindly!

[@kristianshreiner6893]

Excellent overview

[@thearchaeologistslaborator6591]

Thanks!

[@wmickinley]

Please do this for an actual rock like granite, sandstone, quartz, or gneiss.

[@ThomasSmith-os4zc]

What do you think of snapped flakes?

[@thearchaeologistslaborator6591]

Snapping was a method sometimes used to shorten ("truncate") a blade or bladelet to reduce it to the length required for a particular type of tool, usually prior to retouching it. However, snapping can also occur accidentally, either through knapping errors or when somebody steps on a flake.

[@Paleoman]

I have been thinking about that site.c I will describe some of the differenceswhich make think its far older than anything else in california. first, its not at eye level its at ground level, one looks down at it. the symbols are more varied whirls, etc. There are portions that are severly eroded. The size, 30 by 35 ft (i think) now I was going to mention it reminds me of panels found in the UK Britany, Normandy. with that in mind, it could be a fake from the late 1800's because that area had an influx of settlers, farmers from the UK due to the potatoe famine in the mid 1800's. I have not ever read anything alluding to its authenticity but a knapper i know has a few pieces in museums where he managed to fool the curators. So there is the posibility it is not genuine.

[@Paleoman]

I am curios as how you go about proving or supporting these theories. Do these transcend 100,000 y rs 100 yrs or all time. And what culture s do your ideas apply to, all? re: scrapers. Do these ideas apply to scraper production? I believe most scrapers were made by women or kids. who used them? same people who made the clothing. who raised children? Women, right? I find it hard to believe they would employ a myriad of strategies to make a scraper they are going to toss as soon as the hide is dehaired and the flesh and fat is removed. Where i live arrowheads are few and far between. Scrapers can be found anywhere there was occupation (pre contact ). I can knap, I can also flute my clovis replicas but I have never figured out how to make a domed scraper. They range from the size of your thumbnail to the size of a box turtle.

[@mrcrimpster]

I would like to discuss many things with you.I believe many of the Palo petroglyphs have been misinterpreted...your observations seem correct. The oldest story on 🌎 are Palo petroglyphs.. I value your opinion on observations.ive made.. if possible may I ask a few questions ?regarding my findings ...to possible misinterpreted petroglyphs symbols and signals.?

[@mrcrimpster]

I can make Clovis or Folsom points...I grew up next to an obsidian outcropping chalk hill Sonoma county California .we just rolled or threw large pieces off a cliff n.they shattered at the bottom.... maybe 70-80 foot drop off... after a few of them smashed perfect pieces "sometimes" as long as my forearm....all they needed was fluitting...I found other obsidian outcroppings around the area.

[@angelsinthearchitecture7106]

You can flute a clovis but you can't make a turtleback? I started making turtlebacks and then moved forward to being able to flute.

[@Paleoman]

@@angelsinthearchitecture7106 i wish i had some way showing the kind of scraper i am refering to. But no, knocking out one of those has eluded me............

[@thearchaeologistslaborator6591]

Presumably, in most cultures, a lot of lithics were made by women, and some by young people. Archaeologists often call tools that require very little effort to make (sometimes virtually no retouch flaking) "expedient tools," and both men and women would have made them and then tossed them right after use. However, a skilled or experienced knapper of either sex can make even some "formal" tools fairly quickly, depending on how complex it is. Hafting the tool probably took a lot more time, and carefully-made, hafted tools would most often be "curated" rather than tossed. Most kinds of scrapers fall into the category of formal tools that are not that difficult to make, as you only need to take a fairly flat flake or blade and quickly do some unifacial flaking along one or more margins to form the use edge. So scrapers weren't necessarily curated. Many tools, including scrapers, would also have been resharpened periodically if they were used for more than a short while. This involved making further flake removals along the edge, and would eventually shorten the tool to the point that it wasn't very effective anymore. Consequently, some of the tools archaeologists find are ones that are worn out.

[@slapshot1x]

Awesome analysis. Its too bad archaeologists cannot recognize anything beyond flaked tools.

[@slapshot1x]

@@anthonygrey321 Indeed Anthony you are probably correct.

[@drgnarm]

You must be looking in the wrong places. We regularly look for non-flaked tools, but they're not usually considered lithics.

[@slapshot1x]

@@drgnarm there are thousands of artifacts buried all over that are extremely obviously worked, designed by a human that archaeology refuses to recognize. The over use of geofact, pareidolia, natural, plow marks, etc. is beyond comprehension. We all have thousands of examples and get the same response again and again. The true test of denial is fired clay artifacts. Of the hundreds of these types of artifacts we find-none of them could possibly be natural-clay does not fire itself. Flint does not pressure flaked itself, 25 rocks carved and shaped as mammoths found in same site could not possibly be geofacts. I could go on and on for a decade but it’s pointless.

[@robertayoder2063]

@@anthonygrey321 what our you talking about?

[@robertayoder2063]

@@anthonygrey321 yeah sure i guess i asked what you! We're talking about. So not sure all the dumb comments i dont even care. Apparently you have no idea what your commenting on at all

[@csluau5913]

Lithics analysis is probably the second most boring job in archaeology. The first is soil composition analysis. I would much rather go out and excavate or do field walking or actually make tools doing experimental archaeology. But somebody’s Gotta do it. It’s a dirty job :-)

[@thearchaeologistslaborator6591]

It's certainly not for everyone, and is very detail-oriented. Personally, I like to do archaeological survey most of all. You get exercise and see something different every day.

[@csluau5913]

@@thearchaeologistslaborator6591 Me too! I’ve recently found some items and artifacts which were much older than I originally thought. Unfortunately, it seems that in the United States a lot of the regular classically trained archaeologists do not seem to be ready to accept that there are things that are much older than what we have all been previously taught. So, after doing an experiment myself by taking in several things that I knew were not artifacts and mixing them in with artifacts that I had already had identified it’s called the honesty test. You find out what the archaeologist is all about and whether they are biased and willing to be truthful and honest with you to give you a factual assessment rather than using their own preconceived ideas. That being said, I will just wait until the right time to have these things examined and assessed and analyzed by the correct person. Until then they are in storage. The option has been given to the local tribe to have these things for themselves and re-bury them if they wish but at this time they have declined. We need to find out who the items belong to and who made them and how long ago Hearst. I have opinions that are not very popular sometimes would be regular anthropologists and archaeologists because they have been taught some ways that are not correct.

[@Jigger2361]

god you lost the plot, dude

[@Jigger2361]

I'd hate to be the "correct person" you find. It sounds like interacting with you would be nightmarish lol @@csluau5913

[@csluau5913]

@@Jigger2361 says the nobody who knows nothing about archaeology or anthropology or lithology. Go troll somebody else please. If you don’t understand, just say so.