Internship at the Prehistory Research Project: Lithic & Faunal Analysis
During the Spring semester of 2016, I interned at the Prehistory Research Project. The Prehistory Research Project is the Gault School of Archaeological Research (GSAR) project headquarters at Texas State University. GSAR is a nonprofit created in 2006 in an effort to conserve and properly excavate the infamous Gault site in Bell County, Texas (Wernecke 2016). The Gault site, while poor in faunal and floral remains, has provided a formidable wealth of diagnostic stone flakes and tools (Collins 2007:59). GSAR and the Prehistory Research Project are dedicated to the study of the earliest peoples and lithic technologies of the Americas. Having concluded my internship, I intend to share my experiences and findings within this report.
When my internship at The Prehistory Research Project first began, I was largely unaware of the applications and practicalities of authentic archaeology. I had no prior field experience, and my courses provided limited hands-on components. I had been briefly exposed to biological anthropology and the study of cultural lithics throughout my coursework at Texas State University. I had found both subjects intriguing and wanted to explore them further; particularly in a processual context. Fortunately, The Prehistory Research Project arranged an internship which focused on both lithic and faunal analysis.
Faunal Analysis & the Zooarchaeological Process
Lithic analysis was by far the dominant aspect of my internship, considering the wealth of stone tools and flakes recovered from the Gault site. The site is approximately 800 meters long and 200 meters wide, and has provided lithic debitage which spans the entirety of the Central Texas prehistoric record (Collins 2002:31). In addition to working with these ancient materials, I was provided with the opportunity to observe and participate in the analysis of faunal remains from the Devil’s Hollow Canyon site in Mystic Shores, Texas. The archaeological study of faunal remains is referred to as zooarchaeology (O’Connor 2008).
The osteological assemblage from Devil’s Hollow Canyon consisted largely of small animal bone fragments. Under the supervision of the brilliant Erin Keenan (MSc Zooarchaeology, University of York), I was able to learn firsthand how faunal remains are identified and analyzed within a lab. This aspect of my internship was conducted at the Vertebrate Paleontology Lab within the J.J. Pickle Research campus in Austin.
The first step in faunal analysis is to determine which faunal samples to identify. After preparing these samples, the zooarchaeologist must determine from which part of the skeleton the fragments originated (Klein and Cruz-Uribe 1984:21). For instance, is the osteological fragment axial (from the central column of the body) or appendicular (from the limbs and extensions of the body)? Can the specific bone of origin be identified?
After identifying which part of the skeleton the fragment came from, the zooarchaeologist will then attempt to decipher from which animal it belonged. This is done by comparing the fragment to the reconstructed and disarticulated skeletons of various animal specimens within a reliable reference collection. If the fragment is too small or compromised to be confidently attributed to specific species, the scientific family should be approximated. Sex and age should be assessed, if possible (Klein and Cruz-Uribe 1984).
The identification and analysis of any cultural, geological or biological modifications of the bone is also important. (Gilbert 1990). The presence of butchering marks from humans, or teeth marks from animals, can reveal significant information about a site and its human habitants.
The time I spent in the Vertebrate Paleontology Lab, though limited, was revealing and rewarding. Faunal analysis allows archaeologists to determine human behavior through the interpretation of osteological assemblages (Gilbert 1990:3). I am very grateful to have been able to intern under a zooarchaeologist as talented and supportive as Erin Keenan. My experiences with faunal analysis have inspired me to pursue a MSc in Zooarchaeology. It is unlikely that I would have chosen to do so had I not interned at The Prehistory Research Project.
Paleoindian Debitage, Flint Knapping & Fracture Mechanics
The true focus of my internship, however, was lithic analysis. Under the supervision of several highly qualified and experienced GSAR staff members, I received thorough training in the identification, analysis, and statistics of cultural lithics. An essential component of lithic analysis is the ability to properly “read” flakes. This requires an understanding of what physically takes place when a flake is intentionally manufactured.
When a hammerstone strikes a flake from a core (a large chunk of stone), it leaves distinguishing features. A projection of stone is typically prepared and isolated in advance by the knapper. This is an intended point of contact for the hammerstone to strike and remove a flake from the core, and is known as a platform (Inizan 1999:151). Platforms exhibit a variety possible characteristics, which I will discuss at length later. The force that travels through the flake from the platform leaves creates a raised and rounded feature known as a bulb of percussion (Inizan 1999:131). These bulbs can vary greatly depending on the force and method involved in the flint knapping (the intentional fracturing of stone) (Collins 199:193).
The termination of a flake can also take on a variety of forms, depending on how the force travelled through the flake. Hinging occurs when then the force rolls up towards the surface (Inizan 1999:143). Feathering occurs when the force travels directly and unobstructed, gradually terminating in a sharp, fine edge. Overshot flakes are the result of excess force that rolls over the opposite edge of the flake. Alternatively, flakes damaged by nature, time, and/or archaeological methods are often recovered in an incomplete state, with broken off terminations. By taking note of these features, archaeologists can determine how a flake was manufactured (Amick and Maudlin 1989: 139).
The flakes produced in an effort to create unifaces/bifaces are known as lithic debitage. Archaeologists analyze lithic debitage in order to learn more about the people, behavior, and technology of the ancient past (Butler 2005:194). There are several methods of stone tool manufacture, or knapping, which result in cultural lithic debitage. These include direct percussion, indirect percussion, and pressure flaking (Inizan 1999:148).
Direct percussion involves striking a core with either a hammerstone or an antler, often called a billet. Indirect percussion refers to striking the core with a medium; that is, aligning a billet with the intended platform, and striking the opposite end of the billet with a hammerstone. Pressure flaking requires the pushing of microflakes off the intended biface with a billet (Collins 1999:193). This is typically a later stage technique which removes small flakes and creates an ideal edge.
Part of my internship with the Prehistory Research Project involved learning how to apply these techniques and knap stone. Under the instruction and guidance of lithic specialists Dr. Robert Lassen (PhD Archaeology, the University of Tennessee) and Sergio Ayala (BS Anthropology, Texas State University), I learned how to knap both chert (flint) and obsidian. Stone knapping, while satisfying and meditative, also provides an excellent avenue of exploration and acquaintance with fracture mechanics (Collins 1999:27). Fracture mechanics refers to the physics and methodology of separating flakes from a core (Whitaker 1994).
Learning how to knap stone was essential to my understanding of lithic analysis. Creating flakes allowed me an insight and multi-dimensional awareness that simply observing flakes could not have. My understanding of lithic analysis has been augmented by opportunities to both handle flakes from the Gault site and manufacture flakes my own.
Archaeology & Lithic Analysis
The Prehistory Research Project has advocated an innovative approach to lithic analysis. Historically, archeologists have tended to focus on the final products of stone tool crafting- unifaces and bifaces. The flakes produced in the manufacture of stone tools have traditionally been ignored and even discarded. The archaeological appreciation of lithic debitage is a recent trend (Butler 2005:193). The lithic specialists at the Prehistory Research Project have recognized and asserted the actual value of these stone flakes.
Through the lithic analysis of cultural debitage, archaeologists can better determine and understand the stages, methodologies and intentions behind the production of certain types of ancient stone technology (Andrefsky 2001: 129). The learning process of stone knapping itself can be observed and studied. My own research study at The Prehistory Research Project will contribute to the chronological delineation of Texas stone knapping techniques. The inclusion of stone flakes in the archaeological pursuit is an exciting and promising development. I am very grateful to have learned the basics of stone flake analysis from some of the world’s leading lithic experts and visionaries.
The ability to interpret lithic debitage on a fundamental level afforded me the opportunity to initiate the aforementioned research study. This study is part of an ongoing effort to interpret the overwhelming lithic finds from the Gault site. A concise explanation of how the study was organized and directed requires the address of certain archaeological procedures; specifically, the methodology of archaeological excavation.
Archaeological Field Methodology
Prior to my internship, I had little knowledge of realities of archaeological digging. Though the excavation of the Gault site in Bell County had ceased in 2013, I was able to participate in two volunteer GSAR field projects. After excavating under the supervision of Sergio Ayala in Wimberley, TX and Dr. Steven Howard in Goldthwaite, TX, I was able to familiarize myself with how excavations are conducted.
Areas that are deemed optimal for digging are numbered and divided into separate units within the area. These units are measured and set with definite boundaries, with an attempt to create distinct lines and surfaces from top to bottom. These units are then excavated and recorded in levels, which are known individually as lots (Hester at al. 1997:80). Level division is often determined by soil variation, color changes, and artifact density (among other factors). Alternatively, units characterized by messy stratigraphy can be divided into levels of fixed depths, such as 15 cm. Archaeologists then collect any osteological and/or cultural material findings. These artifacts/fragments/etc. are then labeled according to the area, unit and lot from which they were recovered.
Archaeological Research Study
My research study was focused on the cultural lithics recovered from Area 15 of the Gault Site. Working from the top down, the goal of my study was to record and analyze the morphological characteristics, metrics, and methodological changes of sampled stone flakes recovered from Area 15. Area 15 is significant for being the only known area in Gault spared from the extensive looting which mars the site’s history (Rodrigues et al. 2016). While I did not have nearly enough time to analyze Area 15 in its entirety, I was able to analyze stone flakes from six of the lots within it. My study will be picked up and continued by future interns/staff.
My first task in this study was to examine the flakes recovered from Lots 5130, 5516, 5294, 5140, 5322, and 5230. These lots represent, in descending order, the upmost levels of Area 15. The largest of these lots (5130) had provided over 16,000 flakes; primarily thermally damaged microflakes from the Archaic period. The study required the extraction of flakes with intact and measurable platforms, as platforms are crucial to understanding how flakes were manufactured (Andrefsky 2001: 132). I was also instructed to avoid thermally damaged flakes and flakes under 20 mm in length, as they do not provide much information (and are likely too compromised to be reliable) (Amick and Maudlin 1989: 101).
I sorted through some 50,000 flakes from Area 15, separating those with platforms from those without. This exercise allowed me to develop an intimacy with flake analysis that would not have naturally occurred otherwise. Handling and examining these flakes was incredibly beneficial, and I am hard-pressed to think of an archaeological site other than Gault which has yielded hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of stone flakes. This is yet another example of the remarkable opportunities afforded by the Prehistory Research Project.
Though I have learned much during my internship, I feel it is important to note that my understanding of lithic analysis elementary at best. The collective knowledge of the GSAR and Prehistory Research Project faculty is truly formidable. They are not only among Texas’s foremost archaeologists; they are among the world’s leading experts of lithic analysis.
Under the guidance of these lithic specialists, I was able to isolate 1,800 ideal flakes from the 50,000 I was working with. The next step was to narrow these 1,800 flakes into a practical sample size for my research study. I reexamined the flakes, with a new criteria and a new eye. Based on platform morphology and flake quality I set aside 200 flakes from the original 1,800. This exercise gave me insight into how to sample for a research study. I am confident that these series of sample reducing exercises have prepared me for intensive research both inside and outside the scope of archaeology.
Once I had narrowed my sample size to 200 flakes (approximately 50 per lot), I began recording information about them. I measured their platform lengths and depths, as well as their overall lengths/widths/thicknesses. I recorded relevant morphological information about their platforms, such whether or not they contained cortex (the outer surface of hard stone) or subcortex. Additionally, I analyzed the flakes by platform type. For the purposes of my study, these included straight, concave, convex, dihedral, and multifaceted. Platform types provide critical information regarding the techniques and materials implemented in their manufacture (Hall and Larson 2004:65-66).
Archaeology & Statistical Analysis
The compilation of such data is only part of a conducting research study. It is necessary to then statistically analyze the resulting data; in my case using programs such as Excel. It was at this point that I was initiated into the quantitative side of archaeology. My supervisors at The Prehistory Research Project instructed me in the utilization of certain statistical software. I am particularly indebted to Dr. Thomas Williams (PhD Archaeology, University of Exeter).
Dr. Thomas showed me how to plot data and run the appropriate algorithms in order to expose relevant patterns and approximations. Statistical analysis of archaeological data allows us to better understand and interpret the archaeological record (Shennan 1988:5). I had no prior experience with statistical analysis, and am very grateful for the time taken by the project staff to instruct me in the proper methods.
The results of my study are relatively inconsequential in their current state. They are likened to a small piece of a larger puzzle. It will be through the efforts of future interns and archaeologists who will continue the study that significant results will be revealed, and conclusions determined. I have every confidence in The Prehistory Research Project to complete the study to its fullest potential and establish a reliable timeline of methodological changes within Texas’s earliest stone tool producing peoples.
Conclusion
My internship at The Prehistory Research Project has been an incredibly enriching and educational experience. Through the patient efforts of my supervisors, I have been shown what it means to be archaeologist both in the field and in the lab. I have learned the fundamentals of faunal and lithic analysis, how to participate in an excavation, how to conduct a research study, how to statistically analyze data, and even how to create my own bifaces. I have been encouraged and inspired to pursue further education, and feel confident entering a graduate program with the new experiences and skills I have amassed. I am extremely grateful for the training and opportunities provided to me by The Prehistory Research Project and GSAR, and fully encourage any aspiring interns to reach out to them.
Gault debitage with intact platform
References
Amick, Daniel S., and Raymond P. Mauldin.
1989 Experiments in Lithic Technology. Oxford, England: British Archaeological Reports.
Andrefsky, William.
2001 Lithic Debitage: Context, Form, Meaning. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.
Butler, Chris.
2005 Prehistoric Flintwork. Stroud: Tempus.
Collins, Michael B. 2002 The Gault Site, Texas, and Clovis Research. Athena Review: Quarterly Journal of Archaeology, History, and Exploration 3(2): 31-41. 2007 Discerning Clovis Subsistence from Stone Artifacts and Site Distributions on the Southern Plains Periphery. In Foragers of the Terminal Pleistocene in North America.
Renee B. Walker and Boyce N. Driskell. 59-87. Lincoln: University of Nebraska, 2007.
Collins, Michael B., and Marvin Kay. 1999 Clovis Blade Technology: A Comparative Study of the Keven Davis Cache, Texas. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Gilbert, B. Miles.
1990 Mammalian Osteology. Missouri Archaeological Society.
Hall, Christopher T. and Mary Lou Larson.
2004 Aggregate Analysis in Chipped Stone. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.
Hester, Thomas R. with Robert F. Heizer, John Allen Graham, and Robert F. Heizer. 1975 Field Methods in Archaeology. Palo Alto, CA: Mayfield Publishing.
Klein, Richard G., and Kathryn Cruz-Uribe.
1994 The Analysis of Animal Bones from Archaeological Sites. Chicago: University of Chicago Publishing.
Inizan, Marie-Louise with Michèle Reduron-Ballinger, Hélène Roche, and Jehanne Féblot-Augustins. 1999 Technology and Terminology of Knapped Stone: Followed by a Multilingual Vocabulary Arabic, English, French, German, Greek, Italian, Portuguese, Spanish.
Nanterre: Cercle De Recherches Et D’Etudes Préhistoriques.
O’Connor, Terrence Patrick.
2008 The Archaeology of Animal Bones. College Station: Texas A&M University Press
Rodrigues, K. with W.J. Rink, M.B. Collins, T.J. Williams, A. Keen-Zerbert, and G. I. Lopez. 2016 OSL Ages of the Clovis, Late Paleoindian, and Archaic Components at Area 15 of the Gault Site, Central Texas, U.S.A. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 7: 94-
103.
Shennan, Stephen.
1988 Quantifying Archaeology. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Wernecke, D. Clark, Dr.
2016 Gault Site History. MS, Texas State University, San Marcos.
Unpublished Manuscript
Whitaker, John C.
1994 Flintknapping: Making & Understanding Stone Tools. Austin: University of Texas Press.