2.5: Ancient Technologies- Analyzing the Artifacts of the Past

Jacob Skousen, PhD, Western Illinois University

Jennifer M. Johnson Zovar, PhD, Whatcom Community College

Katrina Worley, MA, American River College

Learning Objectives

• Describe the development of a variety of ancient technologies
• Identify appropriate methods of archaeological analysis for stone, ceramic, bone, metal, textile, and other artifacts
• Evaluate the kinds of questions archaeologists can address through artifact analysis
• Describe how experimental archaeology and ethnoarchaeology can help archaeologists to better understand the technologies of the past

The most popular image of an archaeologist may be of Indiana Jones racing from a collapsing temple, clutching a golden idol in his hands. By now you probably recognize that this image is not accurate. That is an example of a looter, not an archaeologist. He is stealing one valuable object as an entire archaeological site collapses around him, and he has clearly not consulted the local Indigenous community. Nevertheless, the idea that archaeology is about finding cool artifacts for display in museums or other contexts persists in the public imagination and in popular media (see the Pseudoarchaeology chapter). One of the most common questions archaeologists are asked is, “What’s the most interesting thing you’ve ever found?” This is a difficult question to answer because the artifact itself is not what is interesting to the archaeologist. What is interesting to the archaeologist is what an artifact can teach us about how people lived in the past.

In this chapter, you will learn about a variety of ancient technologies and see how archaeologists study them to learn about past societies. We are focusing in this chapter on the analysis of artifacts, portable objects that were made and used by human beings. The analysis of ecofacts and features is discussed in other chapters of the text (see “Ancient Foodways” and “Bioarchaeology.”) Here, we review the methods different archaeological specialists use to study a variety of tool types. We conclude with a reflection on the roles of experimental archaeology and ethnoarchaeology in artifact analysis.

Figure 1 – The earliest tools were probably like those used by chimpanzees—simple twigs or other natural items used to access food. Source: Young chimpanzee sitting in the grass by Tambako the Jaguar is used under a CC BY-ND 2.0 license.

First, however, let’s reflect on what we mean when we talk about tools in the archaeological record. A tool is something that is made for a specific purpose. That purpose was often practical—to skin an animal, carry water, or warm a body—but some tools were made for decorative or religious purposes. Toolmaking is sometimes called a defining characteristic of human beings, although we now know that chimpanzees and other primates (and even some birds) will sometimes make and use simple tools (Figure 1). For example, Jane Goodall famously observed chimpanzees preparing sticks to harvest termites from a termite mound, and they have even been seen making spears to hunt bush babies. However, it is true that tool manufacture and use is an essential part of being human. Some scholars have even suggested that the evolution of human language may have taken place in part because our ancestors needed to be able to talk about their tools and teach each other how to make them (e.g., Morgan et al., 2015).

It is likely that early hominin toolmakers would have made simple tools similar to those of the chimpanzees, but they would have decomposed and would not have been preserved in the archaeological record. Instead, the oldest tools we see are stone tools, what archaeologists refer to as lithics. Other common tool types include pottery and other ceramics and tools and other objects made of bone or shell. Depending on the cultural context, archaeologists may recover metal artifacts, and they may find textiles and other perishables if the conditions for preservation are good.

The first step in any analysis begins by dividing the collected artifacts into a rough typology based on material—separating stone, ceramics, textiles, and so forth. (See Additional Exercises at the end of this chapter for an opportunity to practice creating your own typology.) Because different techniques are used to analyze different types of materials, archaeologists tend to specialize. In this chapter, Jacob Skousen is our specialist on lithic analysis, Jennifer Zovar is our specialist on ceramic analysis, and Katrina Worley is our specialist on textile analysis.

Lithic Analysis

Figure 2 – Oldowan chopping tool. Source: “Chopping tool” by Jose-Manuel Benito Alvarez is used under a CC BY-SA 2.5 license.

Lithic tools and their by-products are among the most commonly recovered artifacts from archaeological sites, in large part because these artifacts are imperishable. As a result, lithic artifacts are also the oldest known artifacts in the world (Figure 2). The earliest lithic artifacts are Oldowan tools (Sahle & Gossa, 2019).

Special Topics: The Earliest Stone Tools

Humans and their immediate ancestors have been using stone tools for millions of years. The oldest widely accepted tradition of making stone tools, which dates to about 2.6 million to 1.5 million years ago, is called Oldowan, named after the Olduvai Gorge in modern-day Tanzania, where these tools were first identified (Sahle & Gossa, 2019). Oldowan tools consist of minimally flaked stone cobbles (often called choppers), flakes, and cobbles with no modification (see Figure 2). Use-wear studies show that the choppers and the flakes that came from them were used for cutting and scraping a variety of animal and plant material (Lemorini et al., 2014). Archaeologists are not certain which hominin species made and used these tools, since many hominins existed during this time period. A few possibilities include Australopithecus africanus, Australopithecus garhi, Homo habilis, and Homo erectus/ergaster.

Figure 3 – An Achuelean handaxe. Source: Paleolithic Handaxe 1 by Wessex Archaeology is used under a CC BY-NC-SA 2.0 license.

A new stone toolmaking tradition, called Acheulean (named for the town of Saint-Acheul in France), developed around 1.76 million years ago (Lepre et al., 2011). The most distinctive Acheulean tools are large stone bifaces (tools flaked on both sides), better known as handaxes (Figure 3). Other Acheulean tools include scrapers, choppers, and cleavers. Acheulean handaxes are shaped like a teardrop, are more symmetrical than Oldowan tools, and are sharp on all edges. All of these features indicate that making these tools took a greater degree of planning than making Oldowan tools did. Some of the earliest Acheulean tools are found in the same locations as Oldowan-style tools, but it is unclear whether the Acheulean tradition developed from the Oldowan tradition or originated elsewhere. Acheulean tools continued to be used after the Oldowan tradition fell out of use, or until about 250,000 years ago. Use-wear studies indicate that Acheulean handaxes were used for a variety of purposes, including butchering (Zupancich et al., 2018). Homo erectus/ergaster were likely the primary makers of Acheulean tools, although it is possible that later hominin species also made and used these tools.

Figure 4 – Mousterian flake tools. Source: Paleolithic Tools by Dunechaser is used under a CC BY-NC-SA 2.0 license.

Around 250,000 years ago, as the Acheulean tradition waned, the Mousterian stone tool tradition (named after the Le Moustier Cave site in France) developed. Neanderthals made and used Mousterian tools, which are found throughout Europe and western Asia (Biagi & Starnini, 2014). Mousterian tools are far more refined than tools from earlier traditions. These tools were made from flakes produced using what archaeologists call the Levallois technique — a particular way of preparing cores that produced flakes of a predetermined size and shape (Figure 4). Mousterian tools are variable in shape and function, leading archaeologists to consider the Mousterian tradition as a flexible tool kit (Turq et al., 2013). The Mousterian tradition disappeared around 40,000 years ago, about the same time Neanderthals became extinct, after which rapidly spreading groups of Homo sapiens all around the world developed unique types, styles, and traditions of stone tools that were distinctive to particular regions and time periods (Shea, 2015).

Figure 5 – Core, hammerstone, and flake. Source: Image adapted by B. Jacob Skousen.

Archaeologists generally divide stone tools into two types: flaked stone tools and groundstone tools. Flaked stone tools are made from chert or obsidian, or other fine-grained lithic materials that have a predictable fracture pattern. When a chunk of this material (called a core) is struck in a particular way with a stone or a piece of antler or wood (called a hammer), a flake is produced (Figure 5). Flakes could used as tools due to their sharp edges or were further modified into other tools. Sometimes the core was also shaped into a particular tool. Two of the most recognizable flaked stone tools are spear or arrow points that were hafted onto the ends of sticks or canes.

Figure 6 – Mano and metate from a precontact Native American site in Arizona. Source: Illinois State Archaeological Survey. Used by permission.

Groundstone tools, on the other hand, are made from sedimentary, igneous, or metamorphic rock and are shaped by pecking or grinding. Some groundstone tools were used to grind or pound seeds, nuts, and other plant material or minerals for pigments or paints; others were shaped into axes, plummets, or ornaments. Common groundstone tools in the Americas are the mano and the metate, which were used together to grind seeds or maize (Figure 6).

How to Analyze Stone Tools

Archaeologists who analyze lithic artifacts begin by sorting them into flaked and groundstone objects. They then further divide the two subgroups of artifacts into different artifact types. The two most basic types of flaked stone artifacts are débitage (pronounced deb-eh-taj) and tools, categories that are then further broken down into more specific subcategories. Subcategories of débitage include flakes, cores, and shatter; subcategories of these tools include arrow or spear points, knives, and scrapers. Specific types of groundstone artifacts are generally more varied. Some more common types are manos, metates, abraders, hammerstones, anvils, and fire-cracked rock. When the artifacts in an assemblage are divided into the desired groups, they are further classified by material type and then are counted and weighted. Other more detailed analyses are often performed, some of which are described below.

Débitage Analysis

Figure 7 – The morphology of a flake. Photograph by B. Jacob Skousen.

A common type of flaked tool analysis is examining débitage, or the waste produced when making a flaked stone tool. Débitage can help archaeologists determine the kinds of tools that were made at a particular archaeological site. Common types of débitage include flakes, shatter, and cores. A flake is thin piece of lithic material with certain morphological characteristics such as a bulb of percussion, a striking platform, and sharp edges (Figure 7). Shatter refers to the blocky fragments of stone material created from the hammer crushing the parent material during the flaking process. Cores are the original nodules of parent material from which tools were created.

Stylistic Analysis

Figure 8 – A Clovis point. Note the characteristic flute. Photo by Thomas J. Loebel. Used by permission.

Identifying styles or types of stone tools requires grouping stone tools with similar attributes. Styles are typically associated with a time period, a geographical region, and/or a function. Stylistic analysis is regularly conducted on spearheads and arrowheads. Most archaeologists, for example, know that a Clovis point (Figure 8), a particular fluted point found throughout North America, dates from roughly 12,000 BCE to 11,000 BCE (Smallwood and Jennings 2015).

Microwear Analysis

Microwear (or use-wear) analysis is a way to understand exactly how flaked stone tools were used. This process involves replicating the flaked stone tool, using it in specific ways (e.g., cutting, scraping, piercing, or drilling) on specific materials (e.g., wood, bone, plants, or animal hide or meat), examining microscopic wear patterns on the used edge of the tool, and comparing the use wear on the replicated tool to the evidence of wear on tools recovered from archaeological contexts (Keeley 1980).

Sourcing Lithic Material

Figure 9 – Mortar and pestle from a precontact Native American site in Arizona. Source: Illinois State Archaeological Survey. Used by permission.

Lithic analysts almost always try to identify the geographic location, or source, from which lithic material was obtained to make stone tools. Sometimes this can be done by macroscopic comparisons of the material type to raw sources obtained from certain locations. In other cases, a microscopic analysis of the crystals or a chemical analysis of the composition of a material is necessary to determine its source.

What Can We Learn from Stone Tools?

Figure 10 – A Maya eccentric flint from the site of El Palmar, Campeche, Mexico. Photo by Jorge Pérez de Lara.

Archaeologists learn numerous things from lithic artifacts. They can learn how past people procured and processed food. Some lithic tools, for instance, were used for hunting (arrow or spear points) or fishing (net weights), while others were used for cutting meat (knives), pounding and grinding seeds or grain (mano and metate, mortar and pestle [Figure 9]), or breaking open nuts (nutting stone and anvil). Lithic tools can also tell archaeologists about ancient technologies. For example, hammerstones and anvils were used to make other flaked tools and sandstone abraders were used to shape bone and shell implements. The material stone tools were made from can shed light on where certain lithic materials were procured and the movements of the people who obtained and distributed them. Certain types and styles of stone tools can provide information about the chronology of a site. For example, Clovis points date to the Paleoindian period (Smallwood and Jennings, 2015). Some stone tools can even provide information on group identity, status differences, and religious practices. Classic period Maya eccentric flints (Figure 10) were probably made by specialists, and some were used as symbolic weapons to protect sacred places and buildings from supernatural threats (Fasquelle et al., 2016).

Bone and Shell Artifacts

Figure 11 – Examples of simple bone and antler tools found at the site of Pukara de Khonkho, Bolivia. Photos by Jennifer Zovar.

After lithics, bone tools are the oldest found in the archaeological record, dating back at least 1.5 million to 2 million years ago. (See Bone Tools for an example of a tool from Africa that is 1.5 million years old.) The Ancient Foodways chapter discusses how archaeologists examine the animal remains that have survived from ancient meals, but here we focus only on the bone and shell items that have been shaped into tools. Bone and shell can be chipped, cut, ground, or polished into a number of different forms. Common bone tools include hoes and other agricultural implements; scrapers or other tools for processing food; fishhooks; weaving tools, awls, needles, or other sewing equipment; musical instruments (e.g., flutes); and jewelry, beads, or other adornments (Figure 11).

Analyzing Bone and Shell Artifacts

There are two parts to analyzing artifacts made of shell and bone. First, an archaeologist considers the same sorts of attributes that are recorded for any artifact—the size and shape of the tool, the techniques used to manufacture the tool, the style or type of the tool, and any microwear. These data can help us better understand the technology of tool production and the context of its use. For example, more than 60 bone tools that were found in the Contrebandiers Cave in Morocco show evidence of being used for clothing manufacture approximately 120,000 years ago. Archaeologists made this determination because the style and use wear are consistent with tools used for working with leather and fur in other contexts (Hallett et al., 2021). Likewise, studies of the marks on bone tools dating to about 35,000 years ago from the Kimberley region in Australia show that they were used for a variety of purposes, including crafting items from plant fiber and resin and for hunting and fishing (Langley et al., 2021).

Figure 12 – Example of a bone fishhook. Can you tell what species this is from? Not without additional information. Source: Neolithic Bone Fishhook by Gary Lee Todd, PhD, is in the public domain.

In addition to analyzing tool technology, archaeologists also examine the bone itself. They try to identify the skeletal element (specific bone) from which the tool is made as well as the species of the animal it came from. If there is minimal modification (as with the scapula of a large mammal used as a hoe), it may be relatively easy to ascertain the species. However, if the bone has been extensively shaped and polished (as with a point, needle, or fishhook), it may be nearly impossible to identify the species from visual examination alone (Figure 12). Newer techniques can analyze biomarkers in the bone to identify the species of origin (Bradfield et al., 2018). When some species are overrepresented or underrepresented in the tool assemblage, that may provide information about crafting choices or ritual associations between particular tools and particular animals. Likewise, if a bone or shell artifact is made from a species that is not local, this can inform archaeologists’ understanding of travel and/or trade routes. For example, the presence of marine shell beads, gorgets, shell cups, and other prestige artifacts in higher-status households and ritual contexts at the site of Cahokia (in what is the state of Illinois today) show that high-status people there were connected to the Gulf Coast through complex trade routes (Trubitt, 2005).

Ceramic Analysis

Unlike stone and bone tools, ceramics are not found in the archaeological record until after the evolution of modern Homo sapiens. However, once they appear in the record, they are often among the most common artifacts. Archaeologically, ceramic refers to any material that humans made out of clay and fired (Sinopoli, 1991). Ceramics are uniquely useful to archaeological investigations because pots and other fired-clay objects are found around the world and preserve remarkably well. Although they break, they do not decompose, and broken potsherds are not often collected by looters (Rice, 1987). Moreover, because they are ordinary, daily-use artifacts, ceramics are found in a variety of contexts and thus can inform archaeologists about many activities related to how they were used and made.

Special Topics: A (Very) Short History of Ceramics

Figure 13 – A side view of the ceramic Venus of Dolní Vĕstonice figurine. Source: Venus von-dolnivestonice-1945 by Don Hitchcock is marked with a CC BY-SA 3.0 license.

Surprisingly, the earliest ceramics were not practical tools but ritual objects or works of art. Venus figurines, which have been found across Europe from approximately 35,000–20,000 years ago, were made out of a variety of materials, including soft stone, bone, and fired clay. The oldest known ceramic artifact is the Venus of Dolní Vĕstonice, a small statue (less than 4.5 inches in height) that was discovered in 1924 in what is Czechia (previously known as the Czech Republic) today. This statuette dates to approximately 31,000–27,000 years ago (Figure 13). In addition to the Venus, there were clay figurines of animals, including mammoths and lions, at the site.

As demonstrated by the Venus and other figures, people clearly knew that clay could be fired to create a hardened material much earlier than when we begin seeing pottery in the archaeological record. In fact, the oldest known pottery was not found until significantly later. Xianrendong Cave, in Jiangxi Province in China, was occupied by a population of hunters and gatherers who used the resource throughout the Ice Age. The oldest sherds, which date to approximately 20,000 years ago, showed signs of burning, suggesting that they were likely used for cooking (Wu et al., 2012). Other early pottery was found in East Asia, especially in what is today China and Japan, long before the advent of agriculture.

Nevertheless, pottery did not become common anywhere in the world until about 10,000 years ago, when people began experimenting with the domestication of plants and animals. This is likely because pottery was not very practical for hunting-and-gathering communities, which tended to be nomadic. Baskets and bags made of animal skins (which are more likely to decompose and disappear from the archaeological record) were far lighter and more efficient for transporting goods than ceramics.

Figure 14 – Later-period Hassuna pottery was covered with a cream slip and painted with red linear designs. This bowl dates to approximately 5500 BCE. Source: Hassuna redware bowl by the United States Agency for International Development is in the public domain.

However, in many different parts of the world, people started interfering with natural plants and animals about 10,000 years ago. Domestication, sometimes referred to as the Neolithic Revolution, was linked with increased sedentism and with the need to store crops for later consumption. In this context, pottery was a good way to store surplus food and protect it from rodents or other pests who might eat it. Pottery also provided a way to help process new food products, as seen through the discovery of early ceramic cheese sieves (McClure et al., 2018).

It was at this stage that a variety of different types of pottery began to appear as different cultures developed their own styles and decorative techniques. In Mesopotamia, some of the earliest pottery was made in the Hassuna style (Figure 14), which dates to approximately 7,000–9,000 years ago, shortly after some of the earliest domestication.

Pottery Manufacture and Technology

For a potter in ancient times, the first step to making pottery was finding and preparing the clay. Although clay occurs naturally, in order to make a high-quality pot, it is necessary to remove unwanted particles and add in more desirable additives, known as temper. A skilled potter knows that different kinds and quantities of temper prepare the clay for different uses (Rye, 1981). For example, a pot for cooking may be created with a rougher temper, which allows it to heat and cool more effectively without cracking.

Figure 15 – A potter throws a vase on a wheel. It is unclear when or where the first pottery wheel was invented. There have been claims from Mesopotamia, Egypt, China, and the Indus Valley, all dating to approximately 5,000–6,000 years ago. While the use of the wheel spread rapidly through Eurasia and Africa, it was not used in the Americas until after colonization. Source: Craft: Throwing Clay and Making Vases by Elbereth Elflein is licensed under CC BY 2.0.

Clay can be molded in a variety of different ways: by pinching a ball into the desired shape, using the coil method, using a mold, building with slabs, and so forth. Different techniques for forming the vessel may be practical, but they can also reflect cultural or stylistic preferences. Likewise, changes may result from the introduction of new technology such as the pottery wheel (Figure 15). Once the basic form of a vessel is made, secondary or decorative forming techniques may be added before it is fired. Techniques may include beating, scraping, smoothing, burnishing, and polishing. Decorative motifs may be cut, carved, or molded onto the vessel. The surface may be covered with slip, glaze, or painted decoration.

Figure 16 – a) Pots that are fired at a low temperature are more porous and are known as earthenware. Chinese Jar, Neolithic Period, painted earthenware, HAA by Hiart is in the public domain.) b) Pots fired at a medium temperature are stoneware. Jar, Han dynasty, stoneware with glaze, Honolulu Museum of Art 1865.1 by Hiart is in the public domain. c) Pots fired at a temperature hot enough that most of the clay has vitrified (turned to glass) and appears translucent are porcelain. Hardpasteporcelain by VAWebteam is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.

Firing techniques also vary by cultural group and chronological period. If you have taken a ceramics class, you probably fired your pieces in an enclosed kiln, which provides a controlled, even heating environment. However, it is possible to create pottery without a kiln. In an open-fire method, the pots are mixed with the fuels on the surface of the ground or in a small pit and then burned. Because it is more difficult to control the atmosphere, careful placement prior to firing is necessary to ensure an even heating environment. Even under ideal conditions, some pots will crack, break, collapse, or fire unevenly, depending on the combination of the heating atmosphere, the rate of heating, and the maximum temperature (Figure 16).

How to Analyze Ceramics

An understanding of the basics of pottery manufacture helps archaeologists analyze the resulting ceramics. The ceramics that have survived in the archaeological record are often broken or have been deposited in a refuse pit. Archaeologists work back from the discarded artifact to better understand the context of its use and creation. Different approaches to archaeological analysis include an analysis of form and function, a stylistic analysis, or a characterization study. The kinds of analyses an archaeologist employs depend on the particular research question she is asking. Many investigations require multiple analyses.

Analysis of Form and Function

The shape and form of an artifact can give us some clues about its function or how it was used. In some cases this may seem obvious—a pitcher is clearly used for pouring liquid, while a large pot with burn marks must have been used for cooking. In other cases, however, the function of a vessel is not as clear. What hypotheses do you have about the uses of the pots pictured in Figure 17?

Figure 17 – Selected pots from the site of Pukara de Khonkho, Bolivia. What do you think each pot might have been used for? Photos by Jennifer Zovar.

The first step in this sort of analysis is to create a typology, grouping like objects together with like. This is the sort of thing you probably do without thinking about it when you organize dishes in a kitchen: you put the plates on one shelf, the cups on another, and so forth. However, the sorting process becomes trickier when you are organizing items for which you lack cultural context. The people who used the pottery may have had a different classification system than the archaeologists who are studying it. For example, in a recent study, researchers found that there were significant differences in how archaeologists and Indigenous potters sorted a collection of ceramic sherds; the potters often noted specific characteristics that the archaeologists did not recognize (Borck et al., 2020). In addition, it’s important to remember that the same pot may have been used for different purposes over the course of its use life, making simple categorization even more difficult.

Even so, it is usually possible to roughly divide any collection into vessels used for storage, for cooking or food processing or for serving or for transfer. From there, additional sorting will depend on the collection. Archaeologists consider a number of attributes, including the shape of the rim, the base, or the handles; the dimensions of the rim or base; the thickness of the vessel walls; the compactness of the clay; the color; the firing environment; the presence of specific paste inclusions; the type of finish; the presence of glaze or wash; and any signs of use wear.

Analysis of Style

In addition, archaeologists may consider stylistic attributes that do not contribute to the function of the vessel. Style is often seen as a proxy for cultural identity. Shared styles may indicate a close social relationship among cultures, while abrupt stylistic changes may indicate some sort of change in social or political organization. Archaeologists may record specific elements or motifs that appear on different pots and consider how they change over time and between sites.

At the same time, an old archaeological adage warns against confusing pots for people. It means that we need to be careful about methodological approaches that focus only on the artifact without considering what the people who created it were trying to communicate. For example, while Iron Age ceramic styles in southern Africa were traditionally interpreted primarily as markers of ethnicity, ethnohistoric and ethnoarchaeological studies show that pottery is more complex when considered through the various lenses of production, distribution, and engagement with different social networks (Pikirayi & Lindahl, 2013). Archaeologists need to recognize that pots and other ceramic vessels are mobile objects and that their styles are a form of communication over both time (as novice potters learn from their elders and from experimentation) and space (as people move, vessels are traded, and pots are used in different contexts over their use life).

Characterization Study

While analyses of form, function, and style consider the design of a pot, characterization studies focus on the clay itself. This can be important for identifying the source of the clay as well as the technical choices potters made in preparing the material. Characterization studies draw on techniques from the physical sciences and focus on the internal microstructure of the clay. This may include mineralogical studies such as petrography as well as chemical characterization.

Special Topics: Archaeological Chemistry and Artifact Analysis

Archaeology increasingly draws on techniques from the physical sciences to aid in data collection and analysis. Archaeological chemistry is often used to help identify the material composition of an artifact or to help determine where it came from. Processes such as instrumental neutron activation analysis (INAA), inductively coupled plasma—mass spectrometry (ICP–MS), or X-ray fluorescence (XRF) may be used to identify chemical composition groups that can be matched to a specific geological provenience. While the instrument for each of these processes uses a different technology, they all break down the chemical elements present in different materials.

Items from a particular class of material (ceramics, different kinds of metal, and various stones and minerals, etc.) will be somewhat similar in terms of their major elements but may differ greatly in terms of their trace elements. For example, any ceramic material is primarily composed of silica (SiO₂) but will have different amounts of other elements. Pots that are made from the same clay source, however, will be more similar to each other. By using a statistical technique called discriminant analysis, it is possible to identify groups in a selected sample by comparing the presentation of selected elements (Figure 18). For example, using INAA, one group of researchers was able to distinguish authentic high-quality Zisha stoneware (produced during the Ming dynasty from clays near Yixing, China) from imitations that were created later in various European countries, a distinction that is difficult to make from visual observation alone (Zhu et al., 2019).

Figure 18 – Results of a discriminate function analysis showing all three chemical characterization groups from Zovar’s ceramic characterization study of the site of Pukara de Khonkho, Bolivia (Zovar, 2012). Note that most of the samples belonged to the core group.

While INAA has a longer history of use in the investigation of ceramic materials, ICP-MS has become increasingly popular, in part because it is cheaper and somewhat less destructive (Kennett et al., 2002, p. 444). One of our authors, Jennifer Zovar, chose to use ICP-MS to investigate pottery from Bolivia’s southern Titicaca basin with the support of the Field Museum’s Elemental Analysis Facility. She wanted to see whether pottery from the site of Pukara de Khonkho was produced locally or remotely, information that would help clarify the role of trade and other interactions related to ceramic production during the period right before the Inca came into the region. The results showed that most of the tested pottery from Pukara de Khonkho and surrounding sites fell into the same chemical characterization group, suggesting that they were all produced with local clays, and that that pattern did not change after the Inca incursion (Zovar, 2012).

Figure 19 – Stonework at the site of Tiwanaku, Bolivia. Photo by Jennifer Zovar.

Characterization studies can also be useful in ascertaining the provenience of stone artifacts. For example, XRF tests were used to determine the provenience of some of the obsidian flakes found at Pukara de Khonkho (Zovar, 2012). Ryan Williams and John Janusek have also worked together to determine the source of Tiwanaku’s famous monoliths and other stonework (Figure 19). They found that the sandstone and andesite came from various quarries in the surrounding mountains, which local people see as sacred (Janusek & Williams, 2016).

What Can We Learn from Ceramics?

Archaeologists first became interested in pottery to help establish chronologies of archaeological sites. Since pottery styles change slowly over time, the presence of particular styles can help provide dates for site occupation. In fact, ceramic styles are often used as shorthand for specific archaeological periods. (For example, the Jōmon period of ancient Japan, which spans the entire Holocene to approximately 300 BCE, is named for a specific type of pottery.) In addition, ceramics can be directly dated through thermoluminescence dating. (See Dating Methods in Archaeology.) The use of ceramics to establish dates and to investigate change over time is still important, but analyses of ceramic material provide far more than a simple catalog of pottery types and technical specifications. Even the most unassuming potsherds contain a wealth of information about subsistence, technology, economy, and identity—as long as archaeologists ask the right questions.

People new to archaeology are often surprised at how much information archaeologists can glean from some simple potsherds. There is much more than identifying the cultural group, time period, and basic function of a vessel. Below are just a few (of many) examples of what we can learn from pots.

We can investigate practices of food consumption and preparation by analyzing the residue left on the inside of a pot. This touches not only on what was being prepared but also on who was doing the preparation of the food. Early generations of archaeologists often overlooked this sort of study because food preparation was assumed to be the work of women, domestic servants, or others with little power in society (Graff, 2020). Also, lipids, proteins, and/or microbes that seep into the ceramics can give information about the specific ingredients that were used and how they were prepared. For example, an analysis of lipids found on pottery at the site of Durrington Wells (near Stonehenge) helped demonstrate that meat (pork and beef) and dairy products tended to be prepared and consumed in different parts of the site, using different vessels (Craig et al., 2015). Additional examples of residue studies can be explored in How Pottery Offers Glimpses Into Ancient Foodways.

We can also look at the process of manufacture to address the division of labor and patterns of trade. Pottery made by individuals for their own household use will leave a different archaeological signature than pottery made by specialists for the purpose of trade. Specialized ceramic workshops at sites in the Indus Valley, for example, suggest that elites controlled the ceramic trade there, while the widespread distribution of Roman amphorae across Europe demonstrates the strength of the Roman trade network (Sinopoli, 1991, pp. 107–114).

Similarly, the presence or absence of high-quality pottery from a site (or from a certain part of a site) may reflect social organization and social hierarchy. In the Classic Maya period, for example, artistic polychrome vases (likely commissioned by royal patrons) were painted with images of the sacred ballgame, Maya rulers, deities, and other intricate images. They are exclusively associated with royal palaces and other elite contexts (Reents-Budet, 1994). See Ancient Maya Painted Ceramics for more discussion and some beautiful pictures.

Archaeometallurgy

The study of metal in archaeological contexts is known as archaeometallurgy. While metal artifacts are relatively rare at older sites, they became increasingly important over time. Metal technologies have traditionally been used to categorize past societies, although some of these typologies can be problematic, as the special topics box below illustrates.

Special Topics: Decolonizing the Three-Age System

Many nonarchaeologists are familiar with the Three-Age System, which divides human history into three major periods based on the sequential development of technology: the Stone Age, the Bronze Age, and the Iron Age. This model is most often attributed to C. J. Thomsen, a 19th-century antiquarian (a person who studies antiquities) who proposed the chronology based on his work in Scandinavia, and it is broadly applicable across much of Europe and even into parts of the Middle East. The Three-Age System is not regularly used in the Americas, Africa, or much of Asia because the chronological sequence of metal use is not the same in these regions. In addition, the system is often linked with problematic assumptions of evolutionary progress that do not match the evidence. See It’s Time to Replace “Prehistory” with “Deep History” for a discussion on why traditional understandings are overly simplistic.

For example, although Southeast Asia is often overlooked in discussions of technological development, very early bronze work has been recorded in village sites such as Ban Chiang, Thailand, including spear points, adzes, and ornaments dating to about 4,000 years ago. (See Bronze from Ban Chiang, Thailand.) The use of iron and bronze appears to be locally variable across Southeast Asia, and there is little connection between the use of specific metal technologies and patterns of social or political organization. In these contexts, the uncritical application of the Three-Age System can confuse understandings of chronology and archaeological histories (Kanjanajuntorn, 2020).

Figure 20 – A golden Inca llama. Source: Golden Llama by Kaptain Kobold is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 2.0.

Likewise, the chronology is problematic in the Americas, where iron was never smelted prior to colonization. However, a variety of highly technologically complex metallurgy traditions developed in the Americas in that period (Lechtman, 2014). In South America, the Moche smelted gold, silver, and copper into decorative pieces associated with elite members of society. (See “Moche Metallurgy.”) Metalwork became even more complex with the Inca, who crafted bronze tools as well as intricate golden treasures (Figure 20).

In contrast, in much of Africa, iron making was the first metal technology to be widely developed. People of the Nok culture in what is Nigeria today built large furnaces for smelting iron around 2,500 years ago (e.g., Rackham et al., 2017), and iron artifacts were important for trade at the site of Jenné-jeno, in what is Mali today. Metalwork was also an important component of trade in the later southern African kingdoms of Mapungubwe and Great Zimbabwe (e.g., Kim & Kusimba, 2008).

The oldest metal artifacts that archaeologists have recovered were made from native metals that were formed into decorative bangles, necklaces, bracelets, and other ornamental objects, either through cold hammering or by melting the metal and shaping it with a mold. At the site of Varna, in what is Bulgaria today, gold artifacts have been identified that were used to designate a social hierarchy approximately 6,500 years ago. (See Mystery of the Varna Gold.)

Figure 21 – Bronze and Iron Age metals from England. Source: Bronze Age and Iron Age Objects by the Portable Antiquities Scheme is licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0.

Metal alloys were later independently developed in many different locations across the world to serve a variety of different purposes. Bronze, for example, is a copper alloy, which is harder and stronger than copper alone. The first alloys mixed copper with arsenic, but true bronze requires tin. The earliest known tin bronze was found in what is Serbia today and dates to about 6,500 years ago; other early tin bronze is found across the Near East that dates to about 5,000 years ago (Radivojević et al., 2013). Bronze artifacts include axes and spears as well as artistic and/or ritual objects. In Europe and the Near East there was a shift to iron beginning around 3,000 years ago—and earlier in some regions—as new technology enabled furnaces to get hot enough to effectively reduce iron ore into iron metal.

Analyzing Metal Artifacts

Just as with any other material, an archaeologist studying metal artifacts would record their basic attributes—size, shape, weight, use wear, and so forth. However, archaeometallurgists are also specifically interested in determining the specific type of metal that was used. This may begin with a visual examination, looking at aspects such as weight, density, hardness, color, corrosion, and magnetism. For example, iron is magnetic but silver is not, and aluminum is lighter than many other metals. However, more precise investigation may require chemical analysis such as X-ray spectroscopy or mass spectrometry. Elemental analysis of the chemical composition of the metal can help to determine the precise composition of alloys as well as the source of the metals.

This can be important in developing understandings of the technological process that different metalworkers followed at different times and in different places and can also be used to investigate systems of trade and exchange of ideas. For example, in her research into the complex metallurgical technologies of the South American Andes, Heather Lechtman has used elemental analysis to identify the geographical sources used in Andean bronzewear and to investigate changes over time and space (Lechtman, 2014).

Textile Analysis

While lithics are the earliest items of human manufacture that have survived in the archaeological record, most archaeologists recognize that the earliest tools used by our ancestors would have been made of organic materials such as leaves, twigs, shells, or bone. Organic materials are perishable by nature, and they typically don’t survive except under unusual circumstances. One of the groups of perishable artifacts least likely to survive in the archaeological record is textiles.

Textiles can be made from a wide variety of materials, but these fall into two main groups: cellulose fibers from plants and protein fibers from animals. Fibers can be found in the stem, bark, or seeds of a plant. Those found in the stem are called bast fibers. These are found in the stems of flax, hemp, dogbane, milkweed, and nettle. Cotton is the most common seed fiber in both the modern and ancient worlds, but string can be made from the fibers surrounding other seeds. Fibers that come from animals include wool and hair from sheep, goats, llamas, camels, and a wide variety of other mammals, as well as silk fibers from the cocoon of the silk moth. Leather and hides also come from animals, but they are usually a by-product of hunting or slaughtering livestock for meat. Wool and hair fibers don’t require that the animal be killed. Originally the wool would have been collected from naturally shedding animals. Shearing the animals is a process that comes with domestication.

The manufacture of a textile typically begins with a strand of a flexible or semi-flexible material. This might be a relatively unmodified strip of bark or a stalk of grass or it might be a strand of fibers that have been processed. Items made from unmodified grass or bark fibers are not very foldable because in their natural states they are relatively stiff. To make the resulting fabric more flexible, the fibers are split, beaten, crushed, steamed, or otherwise processed. This separates the individual fibers from the woody matrix and makes them softer and more flexible. However, such processing means that the fiber will decay more quickly. Animal fibers such as wool from sheep need only be shorn from the animal or collected if the animal sheds its wool naturally. Twisting the softer, more processed fibers creates a flexible cord or string, and a fabric structure created from these processed fibers is more flexible. Some structures have rigid elements in one direction but flexible elements in the other direction. This allows the item to have a degree of rigidity but still be folded or rolled for storage or transportation.

Making String

Figure 22 – “S” and “Z” twists. These twist directions apply to string and cordage as well as elements in basketry and other structures. Author unknown.

Both cordage and spun thread are made by twisting the fibers. The difference is in how the short fibers are joined to make longer lengths. Cordage has spliced joins (bundles of fibers that are overlapped in groups), while yarn has a continuous overlap of fibers. However, those details are difficult to see, especially when looking at fragmentary artifacts. The fibers can be twisted together in two directions, referred to as “S” and “Z” (Figure 22). These initial strands can then be used as is or they can be twisted around each other to form plied yarns. The number of plies can vary significantly, but most archaeological textiles are made either with single strands or with two or three plies of fiber that are twisted for strength. Careful examination of a textile (or a cast of the textile in mud or clay) can help determine the structure of the yarn or cord used to make it.

Special Topics: Textile Structures

Figure 23 – On the left is a tape woven in plain cloth with warp elements running lengthwise and weft elements crossing at right angles from edge to edge. On the right is plaited twill fabric in which each element travels in a zigzag pattern across the fabric. Both plain cloth and twills can be produced by either weaving or plaiting. The edge showing the turning of the elements is key to determining which method was used. Taken by Katrina Worley.

Once the cordage/yarns/threads are made, they can be manipulated into a variety of simple and complex structures. Woven fabrics have two systems of threads; one set runs the length of the fabric (the warp), the other from side to side at right angles (the weft, or “woof” in the older terminology). Twined fabrics have two or more wefts that are twisted around each other as they cross the width of the warp or sets of warps that are twisted as the wefts are passed through. Plaited fabrics have a single system of threads: each thread moves on a diagonal from one side to the other, then turns at the edge and crosses back in a zigzag path along the length of the plait/braid. If an edge of the fabric where the element turns has survived, the difference between a woven fabric and a plaited one can easily be seen (Figure 23).

Figure 24 – Clockwise from upper left: Nalbinding, knitting, and crochet samples against a background of felted wool. Nalbinding is done with a single-eyed needle of bone or wood, knitting is done with two or more straight needles, and crocheting is done with a single hook. All three techniques are used to produce flexible items such as socks and mittens. Felt is made with loose wool that is distributed in an even layer and then subjected to heat, moisture, and agitation in the presence of an alkaline substance such as soap. Felt can be made in sheets and cut to shape or it can be formed around molds and patterns to create three-dimensional items such as boots or shoes. Taken by Katrina Worley.

Other textile structures are produced using a single technique that forms knots or stitches. Knotted and looped nets are used for a variety of items, from carrying bags and hammocks to hunting and fishing nets. Nalbinding was used to create a fabric that was warm, flexible, and comfortable for hats, socks, mittens, and similar items. Knitting and crocheting are much more recent techniques and are used for similar purposes as nalbinding. Sprang is a form of plaiting or braiding that is created on a loom using only warp threads; it is used to create elastic fabrics for hairnets and similar items. Felt is made from compressing wool fibers with heat and in alkaline conditions to form a sheet of interlocking fibers (Figure 24).

Textiles in the Archaeological Record

Figure 25 – Impressions in clay. Center: two- and three-ply cordage. Clockwise from top: knotted netting, looped netting, woven basket, a basket woven with wider material, a coiled basket base, and a twined basket base. In the archaeological record, pots may be formed inside a basket, leaving impressions in the clay, or a basket or bag may be left on wet ground that leaves an impression behind. These impressions can be analyzed to determine the type of textile that made them. Taken by Katrina Worley.

A tiny fragment of a three-ply cord associated with a Neanderthal Levallois flake has recently been found in a context dated 41,000–52,000 years ago (Hardy et al., 2020). This is one of the earliest pieces of direct evidence for textiles. Indirect evidence can be seen in wear patterns on bone or shell ornaments (indicating that they were suspended and used as a bead). Because of their fragile nature, textiles rarely survive to be found in the archaeological record. Most that are found are highly fragmentary.

Figure 26 – A group of spindles of varying sizes and shapes. Each has a fired clay whorl and a wooden shaft. The shafts rarely survive, but the whorls are among the most common pieces of evidence for textile manufacture in the archaeological record. Smaller, lighter spindles are typically used for finer threads and heavier spindles for coarser threads. Some of the smallest clay whorls used to spin very fine threads can be mistaken for ornamental beads. Taken by Katrina Worley.

The ideal conditions for textile preservation are cool, dark, and dry (such as a tomb or a dry cave), but textiles can occasionally preserve in a variety of relatively extreme situations. These include anaerobic wet conditions, freezing temperatures, or sites with specific chemical profiles. Textiles from flax and other bast fibers have been found in the sediments at the bottom of lakes and in marshy sites, while protein fibers (wool, hair, silk, and leather) have been found in the highly acidic conditions of peat bogs. Textiles can also survive when partially burned (carbonized), when encased in salts from the corrosion of metal, or when the soils that surround an item are particularly high in salts. Fabrics made of two different fibers (such as flax and wool) can have “voids” where one of the fibers preserves and the other decays. Depending on circumstances, this can either help or hinder the interpretation.

Figure 27 – Tools can be evidence of textile work even when the textiles themselves aren’t present. Many textile craftspeople used a random variety of “pointy sticks” to separate and arrange threads, and these can develop telltale wear marks and patina indicating their use in textile work. Tools made of bone, wood or shell were less likely than metal to damage or abrade threads while working so were generally preferred. Modern versions of these tools may be made of plastic or other materials, but their shape and function are often remarkably unchanged over time. Taken by Katrina Worley.

Trace evidence can be studied even when the fabrics themselves have disappeared. Impressions of fabric structures can be found pressed into mud floors or clay pots that later hardened, preserving a record of the structure (Figure 25). These impressions can be studied for clues to the structures of the fabrics. Other evidence of textiles can be found in the tool kits of the makers. Spindle whorls have been found in many sites around the world. These are bead-like weights for the spindles that are used to spin yarn. They come in a wide variety of sizes, shapes, and materials and can be reflective of that kind of thread or yarn that was being produced (Figure 26). Some whorls are made of repurposed broken pottery, while others are clearly made as spindle whorls. Weights made of fired clay or stone indicate the use of a warp-weighted loom. As with spindle whorls, the loom weights vary in size, shape, and weight and can provide hints about the fabric woven on the loom. Because loom weights can be similar to weights used for other purposes such as fishing, they are usually identified from context. Bone awls for poking holes in hides or other materials, bone or wood needles for sewing or nalbinding, and a variety of beaters to manipulate threads on a loom can all be used to demonstrate the presence of textiles even when the textiles themselves don’t survive (Figure 27).

What Can We Learn from Textiles?

Textile analysis is a relatively rare specialization within archaeology in part because of the lack of preservation in most archaeological contexts. That said, given that perishable items would have made up the majority of artifacts for most cultural groups, there is much to be learned from the traces that remain – technology, trade, fashion, ritual, etc.

Finally, there can be an important link between the artisans of today and their ancestors. Suquamish elder and master basketmaker Ed Carriere has worked closely with archaeologist Dale Croes to study traditional basketmaking in the Salish Sea region (Carriere & Croes, 2017)

Experimental Archaeology and Ethnoarchaeology

Whether studying lithics, bone tools, ceramics, textiles, foodways, or metals, archaeologists use a variety of techniques to help test their hypotheses. One approach is to look at the ethnographic record for accounts of technologies in action. This is known as ethnoarchaeology. By comparing the evidence left behind by living peoples engaged in these techniques to peoples alive today and across cultural groups, it is possible to better interpret the archaeological record. Another method is to attempt to replicate the technologies seen in the archaeological record and compare the results with evidence from archaeology. This is experimental archaeology.

Ethnoarchaeology

Ethnoarchaeology studies how living peoples interact with their environments and uses that knowledge to help interpret the past. Keep in mind, though, that living cultures are not some kind of “primitive” relic of the past. While different peoples have developed different technologies, we are all equally human. All human cultures change and adapt to their current situations, and no human culture is any more developed than any other, a fact that must be remembered when creating a research design.

That said, ethnoarchaeology has the potential to contribute to archaeological understanding as long as archaeologists are careful and reflexive. Sometimes, ethnoarchaeology leads to unexpected discoveries, and sometimes it simply serves as a reminder that not everything will show up in the archaeological record. For example, in her work with the Pumé people of Venezuela, Pei-Lin Yu found that sting-ray spines had ritual uses that would be hard to predict by archaeologists who simply found the item at a site. (See Ethnoarchaeology video.)

Experimental Archaeology

Figure 28 – Historical reenactment and experimental archaeology: Katrina Worley working as a history interpreter at Sutter’s Fort in Sacramento, California. Spending long periods of time in historic clothing while engaged in traditional activities allows for a deeper understanding of the interconnectedness of material culture with everyday life. The interpretive programs at historic sites such as Sutter’s Fort have long focused on the white Euro-American presence, but more recently such programs have shifted toward a more complete story that includes the perspectives of marginalized groups that were previously ignored. Photo courtesy of Katrina Worley.

Experimental archaeology is a way of understanding the past through the replication of artifacts and the techniques used to construct them. Experimental archaeologists analyze and interpret technologies from the archaeological past and attempt to recreate and use them to answer specific questions. They look at the process of manufacture and the waste products that result from that manufacture. They also look at how the artifact is used and analyze wear and breakage patterns. Public outreach in archaeology, which can include television programs, historical reenactments, and living-history interpretations, often include an element of experimental archaeology (Figure 28). In these contexts, the term “experimental archaeology” is rarely used. Instead, the practice is often described as “hands-on history” or “bringing the past to life” (although both of these terms are misleading).

Experimental Approaches

There are two main aspects of experimental archaeology. The first has to do with the replication of artifacts or (in some cases) entire structures or sites. This involves developing an understanding of the techniques used to acquire the materials and to manufacture an artifact or to construct a site. The second is to use the artifact or site to better understand its function. This allows better interpretation of archaeological finds through analyses of breakage and wear patterns. For instance, an experimental archaeologist may start by creating a replica of a flint blade found at an archaeological site. This provides a basic understanding of the specific artifact and its construction. To better understand stone blades as an artifact type, the next step would be to make a number of replicas and use them to cut a variety of materials. This allows the experimenter to develop an understanding of how the shape of the tool affects its effectiveness. By then examining the wear on the cutting edges of the artifact and the replicas, it may be possible to determine the function of the original artifact.

Kevin Smith and colleagues followed a similar research strategy in their investigation of tools used to make abalone-shell fishhooks on San Nicolas Island in California. After recreating various tools from local stones, Smith used them to create replica fishhooks. By comparing the marks left on the experimental stone tools and shell fishhooks, the researchers were able reconstruct the sequence of operations in creating the technology. (See How an Archaeological Experiment Revealed California’s Ancient Past.)

Artifact Replication

Ideally, artifact replication would use appropriate techniques and materials for the entire project. However, few modern people have the skills needed or the access to necessary tools and materials to replicate artifacts. There are also time constraints to be considered. Sourcing, gathering, and preparing the materials and making the tools needed to make the artifact all add to the time required to replicate an item. In the past, some parts of the process may have been performed by other specialists. For instance, a clay spindle whorl might not have been made by the spinner who used the spindle to make thread. Instead, the whorl might have been made by someone who was familiar with working and firing clay and then sold to or traded the whorl with those who used it. Most replications inevitably end up being a compromise between accuracy and expediency. Replicas often are made using substitute materials and/or modern tools for at least a part of the process. As long as the substitutes are chosen with care and are clearly documented, the results are still valid.

Interpreting the Past

Experimental archaeology and ethnoarchaeology, in sum, are simply ways to help archaeologists test, think through, and imagine how tools, features, and other remains were made and used.

Conclusion

In this chapter, we have shown the different ways archaeologists use objects to better understand the people of the past. Whether archaeologists are focused on artifacts made from stone, bone, ceramic, metal, or textile, they begin with detailed observations. Some analyses require no specialized equipment, while others draw on techniques from chemistry or other physical sciences. As with any study, the specific data that is collected depends on the research questions that are being asked. Hypotheses may be tested through experimental archaeology or ethnoarchaeology. While many of the objects archaeologists analyze may not be the kinds of priceless treasures desired by Indiana Jones, through proper investigation, they all have the potential to teach us a little more about what it means to be human.

Discussion Questions

1. When did the earliest stone, bone, ceramic, metal, and fabric technologies develop, and how do archaeologists know that information?
2. What are some of the similarities and differences in analyzing different types of artifacts?
3. What kinds of questions can archaeologists address through investigations of stone, bone, ceramic, metal, or fabric artifacts? What was your favorite example referenced in the text, and why?
4. What are the benefits and drawbacks of using experimental archaeology and/or ethnoarchaeology to learn about the past?

About the Authors

Jacob Skousen is an assistant professor of anthropology at Western Illinois University. He has been a professional archaeologist for nearly 15 years, and while most of this experience has been in the North American Midwest, he has archaeological experience in the Great Basin and Southwest in North America, in Central America, and in the Middle East. His research focuses on the Mississippian period, the precontact city of Cahokia, pilgrimage, and identity formation. In the rare moments when he is not doing archaeology, Jacob enjoys being outside, taking walks, exercising, gardening, and playing the piano.

Jennifer Johnson Zovar is a Professor of Anthropology at Whatcom Community College in Bellingham, Washington. Her academic research has focused in the Bolivian Andes, where she investigated an archaeological site that was occupied just before the Inca came into the region (and after the collapse of the earlier Tiwanaku polity). She is continually inspired by how archaeological analysis of the smallest details can lead us to a more complete understanding of the lives of human beings in the past. In addition to her experience in Bolivia, she has worked on archaeological projects in Guatemala and across the United States. When she is not researching or teaching anthropology, she loves camping and exploring with her kids and a series of loyal dogs – Chica, Hank, and Sierra.

Katrina Worley is a Professor of Anthropology at American River College in Sacramento, California. She learned how to spin as a child when her mother inherited her grandmother’s spinning wheel. When she was learning to spin on her great-grandmother’s wheel, Katrina asked her mother what people did before they had spinning wheels and was told to “go look it up.” So she did. That led to experimenting with spindles of various kinds, with homemade looms, and ultimately to degrees in anthropology and archaeology. Her thesis work was on the structures of California Indian textiles other than baskets and included samples of the techniques identified in the archaeological and ethnographic collections she studied. Because textiles are part of a broader pattern of interrelated technologies, she has also dug clay, made spindle whorls and loom weights and fired them in a bonfire, and knapped flint and obsidian blades to work with textile fibers. When not working in archaeological techniques, Katrina spins on an electric spinning wheel, weaves on a floor loom, and enjoys baking.

References

Biagi, P., & Starnini, E. (2014). The Levallois Mousterian assemblages of Sindh (Pakistan) and their relations with the Middle Paleolithic of the Indian subcontinent. Archaeology Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia, 42, 18–32.

Borck, L., Athenstädt, J. C., Cheromiah, L. A., Aragon, L. D., Brandes, U., & Hofman, C. L. (2020). Plainware and polychrome: Quantifying perceptual differences in ceramic classification between diverse groups to further a strong objectivity. Journal of Computer Applications in Archaeology, 3(1), 135–150. http://doi.org/10.5334/jcaa.37

Bradfield, J., Forssman, T., Spindler, L., & Antonites, A. (2019). Identifying the animal species used to manufacture bone arrowheads in South Africa. Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences, 11, 2419–2434. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12520-018-0688-5

Carriere, E. & Croes, D. R. (2017) Reawakening Ancient Salish Sea Basketry: Fifty Years of Basketry Studies in Culture and Science. Journal of Northwest Archaeology Memoir 15.

Craig, O. E., Shillito, L., Albarella, U., Viner-Daniels, S., Chan, B., Cleal, R., Ixer, R., Jay, M., Marshall, P., Simmons, E., Wright, E., & Parker-Pearson, M. (2015). Feeding Stonehenge: Cuisine and consumption at the Late Neolithic site of Durrington Walls. Antiquity, 89(347), 1096–1109. https://doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2015.110

Fasquelle, R. A., Sheets, P., & Taube, K. A. (2016). Protecting sacred space: Rosalila’s eccentric chert cache at Copan and eccentrics among the Classic Maya. Precolumbia Mesoweb Press.

Graff, S. R. (2020). Archaeology of cuisine and cooking. Annual Review of Anthropology, 49, 337–354.

Hallett, E., Marean, C., Steele, T., Álvarez-Fernández, E., Jacobs, Z., Cerasoni, J. N., Aldeias, V., Scerri E., Olszewski, D., El Hajraoiu, M. A., & Dibble, H. (2021). A worked-bone assemblage from 120,000–90,000-year-old deposits at Contrebandiers Cave, Atlantic Coast, Morocco. iScience, 24(9). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isci.2021.102988

Hardy, B. L., Moncel, M.-H., Kerfant, C., Lebon, M., Bellot-Gurlet, L. & Mélard, N. (2020) Direct evidence of Neanderthal fibre technology and its cognitive and behavioral implications. Scientific Reports, 10(4889). https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-61839-w.

Janusek, J. W., & Williams, P. R. (2016). Telluric techné and the lithic production of Tiwanaku. In C. L. Costin (Ed.), Making value, making meaning: Techné in the pre-Columbian world (pp. 95–128). Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection.

Kanjanajuntorn, P. (2020). The three-age system: A struggle for southeast Asian prehistoric periodisation. SPAFA Journal, 4. https://doi.org/10.26721/spafajournal.v4i0.623

Keeley, L. H. (1980). Experimental determination of stone tool use: A micro-wear analysis. University of Chicago Press.

Kennett, D. J., Sakai, S., Neff, H., Gossett, R., & Larson, D.O. (2002). Compositional characterization of prehistoric ceramics: A new approach. Journal of Archaeological Science, 29, 443–455.

Kim, N. C., & Kusimba, C. M. (2008). Pathways to social complexity and state formation in the southern Zambezian region. African Archaeological Review, 25, 131–152. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10437-008-9031-3

Langley, M. C., Balme, J., & O’Conner, S. (2021). Bone artifacts from Riwi Cave, South-Central Kimberley: Reappraisal of the timing and role of osseous artifacts in northern Australia. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1002/oa.2981

Lechtman, H. (2014). Andean metallurgy in prehistory. In B. Roberts & C. Thornton (Eds.), Archaeometallurgy in Global Perspective (pp. 361–442). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-9017-3_15
Lemorini, C., Plummer, T., Braun, D., Crittenden, A., Ditchfield, P., Bishop, L., Hertel, F., Oliver, J., Marlowe, F., Schoeninger, M., & Potts, R. (2014). Old stones’ song: Use-wear experiments and analysis of the Oldowan quartz and quartzite assemblage from Kanjera South (Kenya). Journal of Human Evolution, 72, 10–25.

Lepre, C., Roche, H., Kent, D., Harmand, S., Quinn, R., Brugal, J., Texier, P., Lenoble, A., & Feibel, C. (2011). An earlier origin for the Acheulean. Nature, 477, 82–85.

McClure, S. B., Magill, C., Podrug, E., Moore, A. M. T., Harper, T. K., Culleton, B. J., Kennett, D. J., & Freeman, K. H. (2018). Fatty Acid Specific δ¹³C values reveal earliest Mediterranean 7,200 years ago. PLoS ONE, 13(9), e0202807. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0202807

Morgan, T., Uomini, N., Rendell, L., Chouinard-Thuly, L., Street, S., Lewis, H., Cross, C., Evans, C., Kearney, R., de la Torre, I., Whiten, A., & Laland, K. (2015). Experimental evidence for the co-evolution of hominin tool-making teaching and language. Nature Communications, 6, article 6029. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms7029

Pikirayi, I., & Lindahl, A. (2013). Ceramics, ethnohistory, and ethnography: Locating meaning in southern African Iron Age ceramic assemblages. African Archaeological Review, 30(4), 455–473. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10437-013-9145-0

Rackham, A. F., Franke, G., Junius, H., Männel, T. M., & Beck, C. (2017). Early West African iron smelting: The legacy of Taruga in light of recent Nok research. African Archaeological Review, 34, 321–343. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10437-017-9262-2

Radivojević, M., Rehren, T., Kuzmanovic-Cvetkovi, J., Jovanovic, M., & Northover, J. P. (2013). Tainted ores and the rise of tin bronzes in Eurasia, c. 6,500 years ago. Antiquity, 87, 1030–1045.Reents-Budet, D. (1994). Painting the Maya universe: Royal ceramics of the Classic Period. Duke University Press.Rice, P. (1987). Pottery analysis: A sourcebook. University of Chicago Press.

Rye, O. (1981). Pottery technology: Principles and reconstructions. Taraxacum, Inc.

Sahle, Y., & Gossa T. (2019). More data needed for claims about the earliest Oldowan artifacts. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(41), 20259–20260. www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1911658116.

Shea, J. (2015) Stone tools in the Paleolithic and Neolithic Near East: A guide. Cambridge University Press.

Sinopoli, C. (1991) Approaches to archaeological ceramics. Plenum Press.

Smallwood, A. M., & Jennings, T. A. (Eds.). (2015). Clovis: On the edge of a new understanding. Texas A&M University Press.

Trubitt, M. B. (2005). Crafting marine shell prestige goods at Cahokia. North American Archaeologist, 26(3): 249–266.

Turq, A., Roebroeks, W., Bourguignon, L., & Faivre, J. (2013) The fragmented character of Middle Palaeolithic stone tool technology. Journal of Human Evolution, 65(5), 641–655.

Wu, X., Zhang, W., Goldberg, P., Cohen, D., Pan, Y., Arpin, T., & Bar-Yosef, O. (2012). Early pottery at 20,000 years ago in Xianrendong Cave, China. Science 336(6089), 1696–1700. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1218643

Zhu, J., MacDonald, B. L., Hang, T., Zhu, Z., & Glascock, M. D. (2019). Compositional characterization of Zisha clay from the Yixing area (Jiangsu, China) by neutron activation analysis. Microchemical Journal, 147, 1117–1122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.microc.2019.04.031

Zovar, J. (2012). Post-collapse constructions of community, memory, and identity: An archaeological analysis of Late Intermediate period community formation in Bolivia’s Desaguadero Valley. [Doctoral dissertation, Vanderbilt University]. Vanderbilt University Institutional Repository. https://etd.library.vanderbilt.edu/etd-08012012-131813

Zupancich, A., Solodenko, N., Rosenberg-Yefet, T., & Barkai, R. (2018) On the function of Late Acheulean stone tools: New data from three specific archaeological contexts at the Lower Palaeolithic site of Revadim, Israel. Lithic Technology, 43, 255–268.

Further Exploration

This list includes publicly available resources referenced in or relevant to this chapter, which may be of interest to readers who want to learn more. The URLs are typed out below as a courtesy for those who are reading a print version of the text. Please keep in mind that links may break over time and may not be immediately updated. Instructors should use discretion when assigning materials from this list. While the chapter itself has been checked for web accessibility, the editors do not vouch for the accessibility of all supplementary linked resources.

Ancient Maya Painted Ceramics – James Doyle – The Met, April 2017, https://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/mayac/hd_mayac.htm

Bone Tools – Smithsonian Museum of Natural History – https://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/behavior/getting-food/bone-tools

Bronze from Ban Chiang, Thailand: A View from the Laboratory – Elizabeth Hamilton – Expedition Magazine 43, no. 2 (2001), https://www.penn.museum/sites/expedition/bronze-from-ban-chiang-thailand/

Elemental Analysis Facility – Field Museum – https://www.fieldmuseum.org/department/elemental-analysis-facility

Ethnoarchaeology – video – Boise State Explore – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wj3rX8Nqv3c

How an Archaeological Experiment Revealed California’s Ancient Past – Anna Goldfield – Sapiens, August 14, 2018, https://www.sapiens.org/archaeology/experimental-archaeology-california-ancient-past/

How Pottery Offers Glimpses into Ancient Foodways – Carolyn Wilke – Sapiens, September 8, 2021, https://www.sapiens.org/archaeology/pottery-ancient-food/

It’s Time to Replace “Prehistory” with “Deep History” – Stephen Acabado, Marlon Martin, Piphal Heng, Earl John C. Hernandez, and Mylene Q. Lising – Sapiens – December 3, 2024 – https://www.sapiens.org/archaeology/prehistory-deep-history-southeast-asia/

Moche Metallurgy – Museo Chileno de Arte Precolumbino – https://precolombino.cl/wp/en/exposiciones/exposicion-permanente-america-precolombina-en-el-arte/andes-centrales/vitrina-metalurgia-moche/

Mystery of the Varna Gold – Andrew Curry – Smithsonian Magazine, April 18, 2016, https://www.smithsonianmag.com/travel/varna-bulgaria-gold-graves-social-hierarchy-prehistoric-archaelogy-smithsonian-journeys-travel-quarterly-180958733/

Virginia Postrel, “What Was the Venus de Milo Doing with Her Arms?,” Slate, May 1, 2015, http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/culturebox/2015/05/the_venus_de_milo_s_arms_3d_printing_the_ancient_sculpture_spinning_thread.html

Tool Use – Video – Jane Goodall Institute – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MlytL6JSik

INSTRUCTOR RESOURCE – Additional Exercises

1. Typology Exercise: You can conduct an easy typology exercise with any collection of items that have some things in common. Jennifer Zovar has done this with a random sample of children’s toys, a bag of mismatched buttons, and a large collection of National Geographic magazines. Use whatever you have on hand. Give student groups a random collection of whatever item you’ve brought in and ask the students to divide the items into groups based on whatever traits they think are most important. After the exercise, compare and contrast the different typologies that different student groups have created. What traits were chosen and why? How might different typologies lead to different interpretations of the material?
2. Ceramic Analysis Exercise: Even if you are working in a college without access to a collection of ceramic artifacts, you can create your own relatively cheaply by buying a few old dishes from a thrift store and breaking them with a hammer. Then, encourage your students to analyze them, using some of the following questions:
   • Count the ceramic pieces in your bags. Separate rims, bases, and body sherds and provide a count of each.
   • How many different vessels do you think are represented in this bag? What do you think each looked like? Can you refit any of the sherds in your collection?
   • Choose one or more individual sherds and record the following information:
     • Kind of sherd (body, rim, base, neck, etc.)
     • Thickness (use calipers)
     • Color (Munsell number and color name)
     • Is the paste coarse, medium, or fine?
     • Is there glaze or any sort of surface treatment? If so, describe it.
     • Is there any decoration? If so, describe it.
     • Do you notice any use wear (e.g., burning, sooting, scraping)? If so, describe it.
     • Do you see anything else interesting about the sherd?
     • Can you make a guess as to the form or function of the vessel that this sherd belonged to? What information are you basing this assessment on?
   • Using a ceramic diameter sheet, measure at least one base and one rim from your collection. (You can try more if you have time.) Provide a description of the sherd you chose to measure and the rim/base measurement in centimeters.
   • Sketch a profile drawing of the rim and base sherds you measured in your collection. (What does it look like in a side view?) In addition, sketch at least one drawing of a decorated sherd. Be as accurate and detailed as possible. (It often helps to start off by tracing and then adding detail.)
   • Working with your group, reflect on the process. How could the information you recorded be useful in archaeological research? How could it inform our understanding of human activity in the past? What additional information would you like to know about each artifact in order to find out more? What additional tests might you perform?