Chaîne opératoire, translated as operational sequence, has
been described as, "the different stages of tool production from the
acquisition of raw material to the final abandonment of the desired and/or
used objects. By reconstructing the operational sequence we reveal the choices
made by ... humans." (Bar-Yosef et. al. 1992,511).
Excepting that the individuals in a group have a number of raw materials
and techniques available to them; "identification of the most frequently
recurring of these choices enables the archaeologist to characterize the
technical traditions of the social group" (ibid). Culture is expressed
in these choices that are made throughout the operational sequence. This
approach contrasts with the typological approach that concentrates on the
end product alone as opposed to the whole process of lithic exploitation.
Typology automatically produces a limited sample as only a very small percentage
of pieces are retouched. This is particularly the case with small Norwegian
sites. The two sites that will be used as examples are Kvernepollen 9, from
the Kollsnes project, situated on the West coast (Nærøy
1994), and Farsund (Lundevågen 17 in Ballin
& Jensen 1995) situated on the southern extremity of the west coast
(see Map). Kvernepollen is dated to the early Bronze age by typological
dating because of the presence of bifacial
leaf shaped points (overflateretusjerte spisser, see Nærøy
1994, 198) and Farsund is a Mesolithic site carbon dated to c. 7800
BP (Ballin & Jensen 1995, 36). Both sites
were totally excavated and the analysis presented here is based on all pieces
greater than 10mm. in any dimension (i.e., omitting the splinter in Norwegian
terminology).
At Kvernepollen there are 12 retouched pieces (7 bifacial
points, 3 sidescrapers,
1 endscraper, 1 backed flake)
among the 838 pieces analysed. At Farsund there are 20 retouched pieces
(12 scrapers, 4 retouched bladelets, 1 retouched blade, 1 retouched flake,
1 piercer, 1 broken tanged piece)
among the 1235 pieces analysed. These 'tools' represent entire episodes
of occupation.
Types of tools have been interpreted as being made according to some mental
template so that they were made to a preset form expressing ethnicity. Therefore
when the same types of tools are found at different sites this represents
occupations by the same culture group. This is the basis of space-time systematics,
that is the placing of sites in chronological sequence and geographical
location, and inferring the relationships between them.
With the development of New Archaeology and the attempt to express human
behavior in terms of scientific laws, it became the fashion to relate stone
tools to environment. Stone tools became the mechanism by which humans adapted
to changing environmental conditions, following the model of Darwinian evolutionism,
and hopefully following laws similar to genetics in animal species. Though
the search for laws of human behavior, following this model, appears to
have been abandoned, the assumed correlation between the environment and
stone tools continues within the evolutionary paradigm. However this correlation
has become increasingly difficult to sustain.
For example, there was the idea of a very rapid change from Upper Palaeolithic
industries to Mesolithic industries due to the climatic and environmental
changes during the transition to the post glacial period. In order to adapt
to these changing environmental conditions, Mesolithic technology was adopted
to facilitate hunting in more forested environments. Though environmental
adaptation plays a part in the transition from Palaeolithic to Mesolithic
it is only one factor. The transition began before the end of the last glaciation
as microliths are found in the Magdelanian and the Azilian during the Upper
Palaeolithic, and in some areas did not occur until after these environmental
changes took place, (epi-Gravettian in Italy). Microliths typologically
and technologically indistinguishable from North European types (as found
at Star Carr, Clark 1954), are found in Howieson's
Poort assemblages (Mellars 1989) at the tip
of Southern Africa and dated to at least 40,000 years ago.
Also the early sites in Norway have a Mesolithic technology and typology
and yet the environment was similar to the late Upper Palaeolithic in southern
Europe, which had an Upper Palaeolithic typology. Therefore Mesolithic tools
cannot be seen simply as an environmental adaptation.
The ecological approach has been taken a stage further in saying that though
stone tools may not be correlated with changing environmental conditions,
social structure is. This theory, propounded by people such as Gamble
(1986), is that prior to the Upper Palaeolithic, human groups did not
have the social structure that would enable them to adapt to 'marginal'
environments. Either the dense forest of full interglacial periods or steppe/tundra
conditions of colder periods. This would mean that no occupation of Norway
took place prior to the post glacial period. However a recent paper (Roebroeks
et al. 1992) has demonstrated
that there are a number of sites occupied in similar marginal conditions
during the Middle Palaeolithic, demonstrating that Neanderthals did indeed
occupy such areas. Of course subsequent ice action would have eradicated
evidence of such occupation in Norway. One only has to imagine the effect
of ice sheets moving over the kinds of sites that are excavated in Norway
to realize that nothing would survive such conditions, unless there were
exceptional circumstances.
Considering the lack of correlation of the environment with stone tools
and/or social structure, the role of 'human choice' has become more important
in understanding stone age sites. One way of studying 'human choice' is
through the chaîne opératoire approach. The operational sequence
is from raw material procurement to primary reduction techniques (the reduction
of nodules to cores), secondary reduction (the removal of blanks from cores
and the manufacture of tools with retouch), the use of tools and the discard
of the artifacts.
The essential difference between this approach and a typological approach
is that it encompasses the whole process of the life history of the lithic
material, from basic nodules to the remains that archaeologists excavate.
As Stringer and Gamble comment, "The typology of stone tools has been
largely superseded by models of behaviour that concentrate more on the 'biography'
of the implement - how it was made, used, resharpened, recycled, changed
shape and finally thrown away." (Stringer &
Gamble 1993, 143). An extension to this operational chain is the post-depositional
disturbance of the site and even excavation strategy, as these will have
an effect on our understanding of the human choices that were made through
out the operational sequence. Cultures, in terms of groups that were ethnically
or traditionally similar, are expressed by these choices.
Raw material procurement
Turning to Norwegian sites, raw material procurement is obviously an important
factor as a variety of raw materials were used and often found on the same
site. Not just flint but quartz,
quartzite, rhyolite, rock
crystal, slate, etc. Some
of these non flint materials have specific sources, as in the case of rhyolite
coming from the island of Bølmo in Western Norway. In terms of human
choice, why do they choose to exploit rhyolite? This involves traveling
to the source by boat, and transporting it as nodules or finished products
throughout its distribution in Western Norway. Is the choice of rhyolite
an ethnic marker in that a specific material was associated with a particular
tribe? Does possession of rhyolite proclaim their origin in Western Norway
as opposed to groups originating in Eastern Norway?
It could be argued that there is no choice involved, in that a scarcity
of flint determined that rhyolite would be exploited, but why not use, for
example, quartzite that was much easier to obtain. Looking at the next link
in the chaîne opératoire, does rhyolite have any particular
knapping properties that recommend it so that the choice is technological?
Does rhyolite have advantages over other materials functionally, in that
it is more efficient than, say, quartzite for specific tasks? This would
be revealed by the uses of the tools at that phase of the operational sequence.
There are also choices in the means of raw material exploitation. The material
can be processed at source, transported as nodules, pre-formed cores or
as finished products. The two sites from Kvernepollen and Farsund can be
contrasted in this aspect. Though both are coastal sites, exploiting similar
environmental resources, there is a difference in that pre-formed cores
were transported into Kvernepollen, whereas nodules were taken onto the
site at Farsund. This can easily be illustrated by looking at the cortical
element of the debitage (Fig. 2). The pattern from Farsund is typical of
knapping from cortical nodules. The pattern from Kvernepollen illustrates
a lack of cortex that indicates primary reduction took place elsewhere.
Also there were 10 primary flakes (flakes with 100% cortex) at Farsund
and some of the cores are merely nodules with a few flakes removed. The
knapper appears to have been testing the nodules for suitability and in
some cases rejected them at that stage. This would suggest that there was
a local source of flint. The pattern from Farsund is similar to the English
Mesolithic site of Raunds where cortical nodules were also being knapped
(Fig. 3). It could be suggested that these different patterns are a result
of scarcity of flint in the later period when Kvernepollen was occupied.
However, the site of Tronsetra which is dated c.7250 BP has a similar pattern
to Kvernepollen. Transporting pre-formed cores would seem a preferable strategy
at Tronsetra, which is located in the mountains at c.800m above sea level
and 100 kilometres from the coast.
The significance is that the differences are not necessarily related
to time, but also to choice. Other sites (for example from Songa, Telemark,
in Coulson 1986) in the mountains have cortical
nodules, so not taking them to Tronsetra was from choice, not necessity.
Quartzite was extensively used at Kvernepollen (see Fig.
5), whereas it is virtually absent at Farsund,
even though quartzite is available locally in both areas and throughout
the chronological period. Is this from scarcity of flint or a choice? The
choice being not to use quartzite if sufficient flint is available. Alternatively,
if the social dynamics and subsistence strategy involved small highly mobile
groups (such as on hunting expeditions), the choice was to take flint as
pre-formed cores and use quartzite as required, as opposed to occupying
sites where flint was available. This choice of raw material procurement
strategy may be a cultural marker rather than a necessity forced on the
people by the availability of flint. Sites are found were flint is brought
in as nodules and where quartzite is used (Songa, Telemark), suggesting
that different strategies of raw material procurement are chosen, rather
than simply determined by available resources.
Technology
Technology is divided into primary reduction, secondary reduction and typology.
Primary reduction techniques are concerned with the reduction of nodules
to cores, the kind of cores produced and the technology involved, for example
the use of anvil technique to produce bi-polar cores. Secondary reduction
techniques are those involved in producing blanks from cores and include
such aspects as blade and flake technology, use of hard or soft hammer and
micro-burin technique for the production of microlith blanks. Typology is
concerned with tool production and the techniques of retouch, including
such aspects as pressure flaking, burin technique and the differences in
retouch; both of placement (direct, inverse, etc.), and type (abrupt, invasive,
etc.). Figure 4 illustrates this reduction sequence. In the example, primary
reduction is by direct percussion
to remove the cortex and shape the core. Secondary reduction is by punch
technique to produce blades. Tool production is by pressure
flaking to produce, for example, a bifacial lanceolate point (see Helskog
et al. 1976, 33).
For a comparison of technologies, between Farsund and Kvernepollen, the
discussion will be limited to flint because the presence of a significant
amount of quartzite at Kvernepollen (17%) as opposed to its absence at Farsund
(Fig. 5), effects the overall technology. The technology used with quartzite
is effected by the nature of the raw material so that comparison between
technologies on different raw materials is less reflective of cultural choices.
For example, it is difficult to use blade technology with quartzite, so
blade technology is less likely to be 'chosen'.
The technologies used are similar a with a slight preference for blade technology
at Farsund (Fig. 6) and both sites have 2 crested
bladelets (ryggflekke) demonstrating the deliberate preparation of cores
for bladelet production. Carefully made conical and cylindrical
bladelet cores were found at Farsund whereas only core fragments were
found at Kvernepollen (complete cores perhaps being removed for later use).
Blade technology simply means the deliberate production of blades. A
'technological' blade must be at least twice as long as it is wide (i.e.,
the definition of a blade blank). In addition it must have parallel sides
and parallel dorsal ridges and (if the platform is intact) a prepared platform.
The parallel dorsal ridges mean that it is within the process of reduction
of a number of blades rather than a being a 'one off'. Broken pieces, if
they have the above technological criteria but are not twice as long as
they are wide, are considered as broken 'technological blades'. Flake technology
can produce blanks with a length:breadth ratio >2, and therefore are
blade blanks, but if they do not have the above technological features they
are a product of flake technology even though they are blade blanks. This
avoids using such cumbersome terms as blade-like flakes. Such a piece would
be a blade blank made with flake technology. These criteria are applied
by the use of an expert system (Grace 1993),
so that the amount of blade technology at different sites is directly comparable,
and not influenced by any a priori expectations of what kind of technology
should be found at a site of a particular period. Blade production can be
carried out in a number of ways; by direct percussion with hard
or soft hammer, indirect percussion,
punch technique (see Fig. 4),
etc. Often a combination of these techniques is used to accommodate the
vagaries of individual stone nodules. Technological comparison is limited
to secondary reduction techniques because of the lack of complete cores
at Kvernepollen and the small numbers of typological tools at both sites
(Kvernepollen n =12, Farsund n = 20).
Considering blank types, more blades/bladelets were produced at the Mesolithic
site of Farsund as might be expected (Fig. 7).
This pattern continues when considering which blanks were chosen for
use (Fig. 8).
The choice here is that though both groups
possess the same technological capability, the knappers at Kvernepollen
choose to produce proportionately more flakes and show an even more marked
preference in choosing flakes for use. Perhaps this sequence is merely reflecting
the time difference between a Mesolithic site and a Bronze age site following
the general trend to produce larger flake tools in the Bronze age, rather
than the production and use of blades/bladelets in the Mesolithic.
However, the Raunds Mesolithic site has a very similar technological configuration
to Kvernepollen (Fig. 6), but the Raunds Mesolithic
site uses the same technology to produce more bladelets as with Farsund
((Fig. 7).. When choosing which blanks to use
the people at Raunds chose blades (as opposed to bladelets) and flakes,
that is, the larger blanks in a similar way to the people at Kvernepollen,
but different to the people at Farsund who choose relatively more bladelets
as opposed to flakes to use (Fig. 8).
So though all three sites have similar technologies they use those technologies
in different ways to produce different blanks and then choose different
blanks to use. These choices are not related to chronological period.
It has been assumed that technologies developed in chronological sequence.
In the post glacial period the Mesolithic is considered synonymous with
bladelet production, followed by flake production in the Neolithic and Bronze
ages. The example of Kvernepollen demonstrates that blade production was
also carried out in the Bronze Age as well as in the Mesolithic. Also flake
technology is used throughout the post glacial period. For the three sites
mentioned here, the relative amount of flake technology remains consistent
(Farsund 30%, Kvernepollen 30%, Raunds 31%). There may be a general trend
towards flake production but a simple linear technological sequence is not
the case.
Function
The next stage in the operational sequence is site function, including the
specific use of tools, both of motion and worked materials (scraping bone,
whittling wood, etc.), the identification of activities (hunting, hide processing,
etc.), and the interpretation of site type (hunting camp, home base, etc.).
At Kvernepollen, 21 pieces had recognisable use-wear and Farsund had 48.
In terms of site use it is interesting that there is a difference between
Farsund and Kvernepollen even though both sites are coastal and exploiting
similar natural resources. Kvernepollen has a limited range of activities
(Fig. 9), consisting of processing wood and fish. It is suggested that the
projectile points were not used in conjunction with the site (i.e., it is
not a kill site), because of the distribution of the projectile points (see
below). Farsund has a wide range of activities including processing wood
and fish but also working bone, antler, hide and one case of scraping shell.
This produces a different functional configuration (see Grace
1990), to Kvernepollen (Fig. 10).
Farsund is interpreted as a temporary home base because of the representation
of a spread of activities. From this and the size of the site it was probably
occupied by an extended family group. Kvernepollen represents a small group,
possibly only one or two individuals, occupying the site for a short period
during a hunting expedition.
Discard
The final stage is the discard of the material seen in knapping concentrations
and clearance of areas with accompanying 'dump' areas. Curation of tools
would be included at this stage in that the removal of material from the
site, for use elsewhere, constitutes a form of discard.
By incorporating use-wear analysis into the chaîne opératoire,
activity areas can be located from the discard of used tools, These activity
areas can be used to interpret the use of space on the site which can indicate
such things as social differentiation within the group. For example, the
location of specific activity areas is a prerequisite for the assignment
of gender roles. With undisturbed sites such activity areas can be isolated.
The early Mesolithic site of Three Ways Wharf in England has a concentration
of tools used for adzing/chopping wood (Fig. 11), and can only be an activity
area as the pieces used for adzing/chopping wood are of various types consisting
of; 1 broken ax, 2 axe/adze re-sharpening
flakes, 8 flake end scrapers and
1 blade end scraper.
Other tools of these types are distributed throughout the site and either
have other functions or are unused, so that the concentration is only related
to the activity of adzing and chopping wood. The adzing/chopping wood concentration
is clearly separate when seen in contrast to the distribution of all used
pieces from the site (Fig. 12 and see Lewis, in
press).
The spatial distribution of material at Kvernepollen shows clear concentrations
of knapping debris with a separation between the quartzite (Fig. 13) and
flint (Fig. 14), possibly representing separate knapping episodes.
These concentrations imply that no clearance has taken place. The Farsund
site has no such concentrations (Fig. 15), which could be due either to
post depositional movement or by being spread about by prehistoric activity,
which would imply longer occupation than the 'undisturbed' concentrations
at Kvernepollen.
The most striking aspect of the distribution of the used pieces at Kvernepollen
is that the majority of the projectile points are outside the main concentration,
some being several metres away (Fig. 16).
The 'discarded' nature of the projectile point distribution, with the
absence of butchery, suggests re-tooling. That is, replacement of projectile
points and the repair and/or manufacture of arrow shafts. The presence of
considerable flint knapping perhaps represents the manufacture of new projectile
points in flint that were then taken away as new arrows from the site. This
would partially explain the amount of knapping and the lack of used pieces.
The remaining used pieces are near the centre of the concentration adjacent
to the hearth and probably constitute a single activity area.
At Farsund there is no significant difference between the distribution of
the used pieces and the distribution of all lithics (Fig. 17).
Conclusions
The 'chaîne opératoire' approach provides a more complete picture
of differences and similarities among human groups, rather than concentrating
on single elements. With these sites typological analysis results in a very
small data base, technology shows no significant difference, spatial analysis
is difficult to compare because of the lack of patterns at Farsund. However
by combining all these elements within the framework of the operational
sequence a greater understanding of the cultural differences can be sought.
Figure 18 summarizes the 'chaîne opératoire' approach. The
four basic links are raw material procurement, technology (separated into
primary and secondary reduction and typology), use and discard.
However the sequence includes feed-back loops in that, for example, the
intended use of tools will affect the choice of technology and raw material.
If the intent was to make projectile points for hunting this could influence
the choice of technology. For example, tanged
A points (see Helskog et al. 1976,
26), are made on blades, so that blade technology would have been chosen
to produce the suitable blanks. Also function need not be limited to utilitarian
use. If the intention was to make a flint
copy of a bronze dagger for a status or ritual function, the procurement
of raw material might be by trade, in order to obtain large pieces of good
quality flint with which to make such a dagger. Thus the intended function
of the tool can influence technology and the method of raw material procurement.
The dotted lines in Figure 16 indicate the kind of interpretations that
can be made from the various elements of the operational sequence. Figure
19 indicates and compares the interpretations from Kvernepollen and Farsund.
These differences may reflect different social structures and subsistence
strategies employed during different periods. If one assumes a larger population
in the Bronze age then a pattern emerges of larger base sites from which
small groups (or individuals) go out from on hunting/fishing expeditions,
as opposed to small family groups moving around together. These different
strategies are chosen as the preferred means of exploiting similar environmental
resources, rather than being adaptations to different environments. Basing
ethnic or chronological divisions on typology and/or technology alone is
a crude devise that ignores much of the evidence of choice that reflects
the social structure of human groups. Archaeological sites are the product
of dynamic interaction between individuals within the social group, rather
than static structures to be simply classified by typological lists or by
measurement of debitage. This dynamic interaction can be studied with the
chaîne opératoire approach that allows for a greater understanding
of the complex human behaviour that lies behind the archaeological data.
The analysis presented in this paper is the product of the author's own
research and does not necessarily agree with the excavators of the sites.
The methods used for the lithic analysis are explained fully in Grace
1989 and Grace 1993.
Andersen, S., Cullberg, C., Rex, K., og Wigforss,
J. 1975
Sorteringsschema för kärn- och skivyksor av flinta. Antikvariskt
arkiv 58. Stockholm
Ballin, T. B. & Jensen, O. L. 1995
Farsundprosjektet- stenalderbopladser på Lista. Varia 29. Universitetets
Oldsaksamling
Bar-Yosef, O., Vandermeersch, B., Arensburg,
B., Belfer-Cohen, A., Goldberg, P., Laville, H., Meignen, L., Rak, Y., Speth,
J. D., Tchernov, E., Tillier, A-M., and Weiner, S. 1992. The Excavations
in Kebara Cave, Mt. Carmel.
Current Anthropology, vol. 33, no. 5, 497-550.
Clark, J. G .D. 1954
Excavations at Star Carr. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge
Coulson, S. 1986
Refitted flint nodules from Songa, Telemark. Universitetets Oldsaksamling
Årbok 1984/1985. Oslo 1986
Crabtree, Don E. 1982.
An Introduction to Flint working. Occasional Papers of the Idaho Museum
of Natural History, Number 28. Second Edition.. Pocatello, Idaho.
Gamble, C. 1986
The Palaeolithic settlement of Europe. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press.
1986
Grace, R. 1989.
Interpreting the Function of Stone Tools: The quantification and computerisation
of microwear analysis. B.A.R. International series 474.
Grace, R., 1990, The limitations and applications
of functional analysis.
in The Interpretative Possibilities of Microwear Studies. Proceedings of
the International Conference on Lithic Use-wear Analysis, 15th-17th February
1989, (eds. Gräslund, B., Knutsson, H., Knutsson, K., and Taffinder,
J.) Aun, 14, 9-14.
Grace,R. 1993.
The use of expert systems in lithic analysis. Traces et fonction: les gestes
retrouvés' Eraul 50, vol. 2, 389-400. Liege 1993
Hamilton, W.R., Woolley, A.R., Bishop, A.C. 1976
The Hamlyn Guide to Minerals, Rocks and Fossils. Hamlyn. London
Helskog, K., Indrelid, S., and Mikkelsen, E.
1976.
Morfologisk klassifisering av slåtte steinartefakter. Særtykk
fra Universitetets Oldsaksamling årbok 1972-1974 Helskog et al. 1976
Lewis, J.S.C. in press.
A late glacial and early post glacial site at Three Ways Wharf, Uxbridge,
Middx, England.
Mellars, P. 1989
Major Issues in the Emergence of Modern Humans. Current Anthropology v.30
no. 3 June 1989 pp. 349-385
Newcomer, M. H.,1975
"Punch Technique" and Upper Palaeolithic Blades. Lithic Technology
Making and Using Stone Tools. World Anthropology, ed. Earl Swanson, pp.
97-102. Mouton Publishers, The Hague.
Nærøy, A. J. 1994
Troll-Prosjektet: Arkeologiske undersøkelser på Kollsnes, Øygarden
K,
Hordaland, 1989-1992. Arkeologiske Rapporter 19. Arkeologisk Institutt,
Universitetet i Bergen
Ohnuma, Katsuhiko and Bergman, Christopher. 1983
Experimental Studies in the Determination of Flaking Mode. Bulletin of the
Institute of Archaeology, Number 19, 1982, pp. 161-170. London
Owen, Linda, 1982
An Analysis of Experimental Breaks on Flint Blades and Flakes. Studiea Praehistorica
Belgica 2, 1982, pp. 77-87.
Owen, Linda R.,1988
Blade and Microblade Technology. Selected Assemblages from the North American
Arctic and Upper Paleolithic of Southwest Germany. BAR International Series
441, 1988. Great Britain
Roebroeks, W., Conard, N. J., and van Kolfschoten,
T. 1992
Dense Forests, Cold Steppes, and Palaeolithic Settlement of Northern Europe.
Current Anthropology vol. 33, no. 5, December 1992
Stringer, C. & Gamble, C. 1993
In Search of the Neanderthals. Thames and Hudson.
Whittaker, J.C. 1994.
Flint knapping: making and understanding stone tools. University of Texas
Press, Austin.