Lithic artefacts - typology, technology and morphometrics

THE STONE: TECHNIQUE AND TECHNOLOGY Edited by A. Wiœniewski, T. P³onka and J.M. Burdukiewicz Wroc³aw 2006, p.11-22 Lithic artefacts - typology, technology and morphometrics Jan Micha³ Burdukiewicz Since the beginning of archaeology, classification of archaeological finds was one of the most important targets. F. Bordes in his well-known book Typologie du Paléolithique ancient et moyen wrote "La typologie paléolithique est la science qui permet de reconnaître, de définier et de classer les différentes variétés d'outils se rencontrant dnas les gisements de cette longue période de évolution de l'humanité" (Bordes 1961). Bordes believed in existence of types, which is still one of the most disputable problems of archaeology. types, their proximity, etc. (Hill, Evans 1972; Whallon, Brown 1982). The archaeologists who developed their classifications did not develop their own methods. These methods were usually borrowed from biology, geology or other sciences. According to Wikipedia. The Free Encyclopedia "in archaeology a typology is the result of the classification of things according to their characteristics". We cannot also agree with F. Bordes "typology is a science", because it is only a method of classification, common for all variety of knowledge. Mystery of type as a term resulted probably from unclear definitions in numerous dictionaries and philosophical background connected with Plato's metaphysics. Such approach is called essentialism. Plato believed in existence of ideal types of things in opposite to unclear "shadows" observed by humans. However, recent humanists are usually far from Plato' concepts they are still essentialists. For example, numerous archaeologists accept division of things into K.L. Pike (1982) separation of "emic" and "etic" (Minta-Tworzowska 1994: 52), "profound reality", etc. (Hodder 1986). Typology Broader analysis of types in archaeology and general in a whole culture was made by Russian humanists in a small book Types in culture. Methodological problems of classification, systematic and typology in socio-historical and anthropological sciences (Klejn 1979). In Polish archaeology, D. Minta-Tworzowska summarized classification problems in her book Classification in archaeology as a means of expressing research results, hypotheses and archaeological theories (1994). It is rather a summary of various approaches in archaeology and history. Unfortunately, she did not evaluate if differences between various approaches were real or just apparent. There was also missing statement of diversity between classification and typology. Archaeologists or humanists in general repeat usually general idea of German philosophers W. Dilthey and W. Windelband or M. Weber (1968) that idiographic or respectively typological approach is basic for humanistics in opposite to nomothetic purpose of science (Leszczak 2001). It is quite easy to recognize that archaeologists, in opposite to their declarations, continue or slightly improve old classification systems built already in 19th century. Of course, there are differences in methods used to establish classes or Classification theory, including typology is a domain of logic and logicians established what typology is already in the first part of 20th century by C.G. Hempel and P. Oppenheim (1936). In a few words, typology is an ordered classification and nothing more. However, methods of ordering should be different and they depend on measurement methods. Traditional typology is usually intuitive but methods that are more recent enable exact calculation like in taxonomy or other numeric methods (Sokal, Sneath 1963). It is worth to stress that some logicians go back to symbolic classification methods (Gatnar 1998). Strong opposition against essentialism in classification or "typology" was well articulated in the evolutionary 11 JAN MICHA£ BURDUKIEWICZ biology. E. Mayr (1962) argued that a "populationist" approach is completely opposite to the "typologist" approach. He stressed in particular that every life form is unique and common description of a population must be statistical. There is a misunderstanding, because typology as an ordered classification does not depend on essentialism. Every biological systematics is an ordered classification - it means typology. The difference is lying only in an ordering scale (Paw³owski 1977: 72). Similar circumstances are in the humanities in general and in archaeology in particular, which use traditionally intuitive or weak scale of ordering in opposite to well-defined ordering in numerical taxonomy used in biology. is possible refitting of artefacts and reconstruction of technological modus operandi including analysis of flaking directions on both flake sides, type of dorsal side, types of butts, flaking angle, general shape, shape of transversal and longitudinal sections, etc. Operating base of dynamic technological classification are list of artefacts and list of taxonomic units. For example, in Middle Palaeolithic assemblages as separate groups should be distinguished flaking technologies, like discus core or Levallois technologies with quantitative characteristics (Wendorf, Schild 1974: 57). Further development of dynamic technological classification led to technological analysis, what was necessary in case of Lower Palaeolithic microlithic assemblages. There standardisation of artefacts is less evident than in later ones. In that case, usage of additional morphometric analysis is necessary, because size of artefacts is so diagnostic (Burdukiewicz et al. 1979; 1982; Burdukiewicz 1993). Technological ordering Archaeologists following geology use still "type fossils" as main scheme of classification archaeological units. Archaeological "type fossils" are some selected artefacts used as diagnostic forms for these units, like paleontological organisms characteristic for certain geological periods. Such approach was later strongly criticized because artefacts are not living organisms. Dynamic technological analysis is competitive or supplementary to the concept of chaîne opératoire (operational chain or sequence method) developed in France in fact since eighties of 20th century (Pélegrin et al. 1988; Grace 1997a; 1997b). This method is rather popular in Western Europe and it will be useful to compare with dynamic technological analysis. Chaîne opératoire is expansion of an older idea of M. Mauss and A. Leroi-Gourgan (Julien 1992: 174). First part or sequence is raw material procurement with stressed choice criteria of lithic nodules, called sometimes "raw material economy". In chaîne opératoire method should be distinguished two aspects. One of them is going to recognize technological sequences (core preparation, blank processing, rejuvenation, etc.) and the second one is directed into unintentional changes (like techniques of tool alterations or accidental changes) showing proficiency of craftsmen, teaching experience, etc. concept of operational sequences is a base of ordering classification including temporal and spatial associations. In opposite to "type fossils" analysis of the lithic assemblages should be made on technological principle as result of human activity. Such method of artefact classification was developed in Poland by S. Krukowski (1939-1948: 80). Krukowski's technological ordering artefacts according followed processing sequences with fitting morphological classification. As a basic unit was seen lithic concentration (krzemienica in Polish) - all artefacts left by isolated human group living short time in limited area (few square meters). Technological analysis allowed to S. Krukowski to distinguish domestic and workshop facies. Similar lithic concentrations were seen as "industries" - second classification level. Afterwards similar industries were grouped into "cycles" - third classification level. Krukowski's method was later developed into comprehensive dynamic technological classification of lithic assemblages (Schild 1980; Wendorf, Schild 1974). All elements found in lithic concentration are analyzed in this method according to processing sequences from raw material procurement, preparation and early stage of core exploitation, advanced core exploitation, final core exploitation and retouched tools with waste from their production. First step is detailed study of all cores, flakes, blades, tools and wastes. The next step Human factor influencing into realization of operational sequences is a way of acting and understanding, which resulted as "conceptual scheme" of all chaîne opératoire (Pelegrin et al. 1988). A sum of remains after usage of "operational sequences" is seen as archaeological assemblage, what enables an archaeologist to distinguish "types" or general chaîne opératoire. This way an assemblage can be characterized in 12 LITHIC ARTEFACTS - TYPOLOGY, TECHNOLOGY AND MORPHOMETRICS, technological (methods and techniques of processing), functional and social terms (Pelegrin et al. 1988). consists of "size" and "shape", although it should be expressed rather by intuitive way (fig. 1). The specialists discussing basic morphometric terms indicate that shape should be defined as "...surrogate for size, so that as the choice of size measure changes, so does the definition of shape" (Richtsmeier et al. 2002: 67). Morphometric features are very important for archaeologists, because in several cases differences between archaeological units can be seen in size or shape. Recent morphometric analysis in archaeology is rather simple but archaeological data is very suitable for more sophisticated methods, which are used in geometric morphometrics. Important part of chaîne opératoire is refitting method and experiments. First one enables recognizing of detailed flaking techniques (lithic biography) and the second one is useful when some refittings are missing. For example, E. Boëda (1991) argued that experiments enabled better understanding Levallois technique or "trifacial technique". Further analysis is focused on "blank economy" and selection of blanks for retouch. It enabled including traditional typology of lithic artefacts into chaîne opératoire. Another important method is microwear analysis used to establish real usage traces supported also by experiments (Grace 1987b). Microwear analysis is also very helpful to establish activity areas in an encampment or even personal experience of individuals inhabiting such encampment. There will be shown an example of application of morphometric criteria in the archaeological analysis. It is a case of microlithic assemblages in Lower Palaeolithic. The main trait of these assemblages is small size of artefacts comparing with other Lower Palaeolithic assemblages like Acheulean ones. In addition, several archaeologists consider these assemblages as almost amorphic, without any standardisation of artefact shape or size (Peretto 1994). Somewhat small size and variability of shapes of these artefacts can make impression of chaos. Application of morphometric methods and statistic analysis enabled ordering of these artefacts according to technological sequences. Both approaches, dynamic technological analysis and chaîne opératoire are very similar, however, a main advantage of the first one is broader application of statistical methods in opposite chaîne opératoire which is more descriptive. In addition, dynamic technological analysis is more useful and efficient in searching of taxonomic clusters and facial differentiation (Burdukiewicz 2000). Anyway, dynamic technological analysis and chaîne opératoire cannot be seen as opposite approach than typological one - again it is a problem of ordering scale. Fast development of computer databases and application of statistical methods is very helpful in all these approaches. One the most interesting questions was looking for criteria of intentional choice of blanks for retouched tools in Lower Palaeolithic microlithic assemblages. The decisive factors of blank selection for retouched tools are not easy to establish for us. The most objective method is an examination of relation between size of cores, flakes and retouched tools as well as reliance of their shapes (longitudinal and transversal sections). Such analysis was done for Lower Palaeolithic microlithic assemblages in Bilzingsleben (Germany) (Burdukiewicz et al. 1979; 1982), Rusko 33, Rusko 42, Trzebnica 2 lower and upper horizons (Poland) (Burdukiewicz 1993; 2003). Morphometric approach Quantitative methods are well known in archaeology since its beginning. However, morphometric methods were mostly developed in biology to solve questions of systematics in botany, zoology or biological anthropology. Morphometric features were used by biologists to follow "which biological forms varied from one another, to establish the correspondence between form and function, and to quantify the description of characteristic traits used in the identification of species" (Richtsmeier et al. 2002: 64). Morphometric analysis allowed establishing a degree of standardisation of lithic processing in Lower Palaeolithic assemblages. These assemblages cannot be seen as "chaotic" or "opportunistic" (Peretto 1994; Longo et al. 1997), however, their standardisation is obviously lower than in case of Middle Palaeolithic Levallois technology or Upper Palaeolithic blade technology. Additional arguments for standardisation should be given by analysis of technological sequences: Archaeologists do mostly morphologic or stylistic analysis and technological one. Morphometrics enable to extend analysis by quantitative study of form. R. Corruccini (1995) and other biologists argued that "form" 13 JAN MICHA£ BURDUKIEWICZ I. Raw material procurement II. Preparation and early core exploitation III. Advanced core exploitation IV. Final core exploitation V. Tool production. Lower Palaeolithic cores is presence of numerous percussion points. Sometime on striking platform or butt are present from one to five percussion points. The most numerous are two or three points. Such points indicate unsuccessful blows. Cores with changed orientation in this sequence are three times more frequent as single platform cores with quite low (10%) participation of double platform cores in Trzebnica 2LH as well as in Bilzingsleben. A tendency in flaking performance in the Lower Palaeolithic microlithic assemblages started from single platform cores and changing striking direction was the most favourable method of core rejuvenation. This assessment was supported by high amount of prepared butts on flakes from sequence III. These artefacts make from 7% in Trzebnica 2UH to 25% in Rusko 33. All artefacts were classified according to hierarchical list of artefact categories arranged by technological shape and metrical attributes (Burdukiewicz et al. 1979; 1982; Burdukiewicz 1993; 2003). Then artefacts were included into appropriate technological sequence according to their attributes, including cores, flakes, tools and wastes. Such investigation we call dynamic technological analysis (DTA). Comparative analysis was done by statistical methods (fig. 2). The sequence I consists more or less of flint nodules and chunks with rare presence of chert or hornstone. They were collected in neighbourhood of every site and brought to encampment. Amount of nodules and chunks is quite high and varied about 22 to 26% in Bilzingsleben and Trzebnica 2UH. Rusko assemblages were somewhat redeposited and not contain nodules and chunks in secondary position. In Bilzingsleben the most numerous (42%) was raw material 21 to 30 mm long. Several archaeologists believe that small size of microlithic artefacts was limited by absence of enough large nodules of flint or other used raw material (Keates 2003; Zeidner 2003). Such explanation seems to be false, because in the area of presence of microlithic assemblages are known other Lower or Middle Palaeolithic sites with much bigger artefacts (Burdukiewicz 2003: 84; Burdukiewicz, Ronen 2003). Products of sequence IV, final core exploitation, are the most abundant. There are residual cores, core remains and various flake fragments, which represent from 29% of whole assemblage in Bilzingsleben, 48% in Trzebnica 2UH up to 56% in Rusko 33 and 76% in Rusko 42. Residual cores not numerous and they are usually smaller and more exploited than cores from earlier sequences of exploitation. Between residual cores the most numerous are pieces with changed orientation, what was a main method of core rejuvenation in Lower Palaeolithic. Another indication of advanced exploitation is lower presence of cortex or natural surface. Percussion cones, scars and wavy rings were considered as diagnostic features of core exploitation technique. Higher abundance of cores fragments should be explained as possible effect of application of direct percussion by hard hammer or just bipolar technique. Such flaking limits checking of percussion precision and it results in higher amount of wastes. In Bilzingsleben collection should be stressed high amount of chunks, which resulted by testing of raw material. Numerous chunks were suitable for core processing. Sometime these chunks were also used for tool production. The next sequence of preparation and early core exploitation is represented by initial cores, cortical and in partly cortical flakes. Lower Palaeolithic cores are quite simple and it is difficult to distinguish early exploitation from platform preparation, etc. Initial cores are quite numerous, from 7% in Bilzingsleben up to 30% in Trzebnica 2LH. Third part of them has prepared platforms. In opposite to the cores, prepared flake butts are more numerous, up to 50% in average. Artefacts in this sequence make from 3.6% in Rusko 42 up to 9% in Rusko 33 and Trzebnica 3LH of all specimens. The sequence V is connected with manufacture of retouched tools. There are included all retouched tools and wastes from their production. In case of Lower Palaeolithic microlithic assemblages' designation of retouch is sometime not clear, because some flakes from core processing are so small as chips produced during retouch. Several these specimens were not finished, broken or reused. This way main aim of the dynamic technological analysis was evaluation of mo- Advanced core exploitation sequence consist of cores with more than three removals and flakes covered less then 50% by cortex or natural surface on dorsal face and non-cortical flakes. The most important feature of advanced cores is prepared platform, but core edge preparation is much rarer. Quite interesting feature of 14 LITHIC ARTEFACTS - TYPOLOGY, TECHNOLOGY AND MORPHOMETRICS, dification degree of every retouched blank together with the statistical extent of this modification. nica 2LH 16.9 mm. The median of retouched tools is more diversified: in Rusko 42 - 19.1 mm and in Trzebnica 2UH - 26.8 mm. Artefacts from other sites are located between ranges of above-mentioned sites. The thickness of flakes is the most similar. The median of flake thickness varied from 3.6 mm in Rusko 42 up to 5.6 mm in Trzebnica 2UH. However, median thickness of retouched tools is twice bigger for Rusko 42 6.1 mm and for Trzebnica 2UH - 8.9 mm. Other sites are closer the last one. The artefacts of sequence V are not numerous. In the study of Palaeolithic assemblages is quite frequent calculation of ratio of cores, flakes and tools. In the examined Lower Palaeolithic microlithic assemblages' tools, meaning retouched artefacts, made up no less than 15% all lithic artefacts in Bilzingsleben, nearly 13% in Trzebnica 2 LH, 10% in Rusko 33, 8% at Trzebnica 2UH and a mere 4% in Rusko 42 (fig. 3). Evaluation of blank selection for further modification was done according to correlation of size of cores, flakes and retouched tools and change in the frequency of flake shapes comparing to tool shapes. In general, median of retouched tool length, width and thickness of Lower Palaeolithic microlithic assemblages is clearly bigger than median of ordinary flakes. For an evaluation of differences between means of length, width and thickness of flakes and tools (fig. 10-11) was used Student t test for independent samples. Received values show significant differences in length, width and thickness, which are bigger for tools. It means that only some blanks were chosen for retouch. Moreover, retouching did them smaller by removing some parts of flakes. Such regular differences in size of flakes and retouched tools should be seen as an argument for intentional choice of blanks for retouch and suitable resizing, which is observable in all analysed populations of the Lower Palaeolithic microlithic assemblages. Size of blanks and tools is rather homogeneous. Median length of ordinary flakes varied from 15 mm in Bilzingsleben to 17.7 mm in Trzebnica 2LH and 18.1 mm in Trzebnica 2UH (fig. 4). Median length of retouched tools is proportionally bigger comparing to the flakes. It makes 20.4 mm in Bilzingsleben up to 24.2 mm in Trzebnica 2LH (fig. 5). Similar relations can be observed in case of flake and tool width; however, they are more homogenous from this point of view. In Rusko 42 median width of flakes is 14.3 mm and in Trzebnica 2LH is 16.9 mm (fig. 6). Median of width of retouched tools is somewhat bigger, from 19.1 mm in Rusko 42 up to 26.8 mm in Trzebnica 2UH (fig. 7). Median of flake thickness is even more homogenous with extreme values 3.6 mm in Rusko 42 up to 5.6 mm in Trzebnica 2UH and other sites in between (fig. 8). Median of tool thickness is usually as twice bigger as by flakes: 6.1 mm in Rusko 42 up to 8.9 mm in Trzebnica 2UH (fig. 9). Median of three important dimensions of retouched tools is bigger than median of blanks prepared for further modification, especially in case of tool thickness. Such recurring differences can be explained as tendency in intentional choice of flakes for further modification. An additional analysis was done by comparing of shape of ordinary flakes and retouched tools. Some differences are visible in frequency of certain shapes. It is necessary to stress that retouch was used to modify shape of flakes. There are quite interesting differences between analysed sites. In Bilzingsleben the most numerous are irregular flakes (31%). In other sites more numerous are divergent flakes - up to 31% in Rusko 42 and 42% in Trzebnica 2UH. Irregular flakes are usually in second position according to their frequency. In third place are convergent or parallel flakes. Quite sparse are oval and segment flakes. The shapes of retouched tools allow distinguishing two groups of assemblages. One of them: group of Bilzingsleben and Rusko 33 is dominated by convergent tools. The second one: Rusko 42, Trzebnica 2LH and Trzebnica 2UH is characterised by majority of divergent tools. Anyway, retouch was used to modify artefact shape, what is clearly visible in differences between frequencies certain shapes of blanks and tools (fig. 13). Such features as intentional choice of raw material, flaking techniques and secondary shape mo- Size of blanks and retouched tools give us an idea how homogenic they are. The median of flake length varied from 15 mm in Blizingsleben to 17.7 mm in Trzebnica 2LH and 18.1 mm in Trzebnica 2UH. The median of retouched tools is evidently superior up to 20.4 mm in Bilzingsleben and 24.2 in Trzebnica 2LH. Comparable dependence can be observed between width of flakes and retouched tools. Even the median flake width is less spread: in Rusko 42 - 14.3 mm and Trzeb- 15 JAN MICHA£ BURDUKIEWICZ dification (retouch) are evident arguments against "opportunistic approach" of early hominids to stone processing what suggested C. Peretto (1994) and L. Longo with team (1997). of those of us, who dispute still inexplicable philosophical questions. Archaeological data have quantitative character and need suitable methods of ordering. However, artefacts as results of human activity have additional properties, which should be taken into consideration. Ending remarks Further development of ordering of archaeological data needs an explanation of used methods. Numerous researchers did an opposition between "traditional" and "new" archaeology showing important differences in classification systems (Binford 1965; Clarke 1968). Misunderstandings in evaluation of classification methods are more connected with their philosophical background than with their own rules. General methodological differences between humanistic and scientific approaches play important role in recent debate about status of modern archaeology. It should be nomothetic (processual) or idiographic and hermeneutic (postprocessual). Such opposition is quite false, because "postprocessual" approach cannot offer any scientific explanation and its final result is usually reduction of archaeology into "raise questions" without any reasonable answers or just epistemological pessimism (Hodder 1986). However, "postprocessual" ideas should be seen as quite constructive in so-called context of discovery of scientific research (Popper 1972). Typological method is not an opposition to populational or technological ones. Traditional typology is usually seen as a method with intuitional or week scale of ordering. What's more, it is not characteristic method for idiographic or descriptive humanistics. Ordering systems in archaeology should be built in the most effective way, like numerous scientific achievements in our knowledge about human origin and development of human culture during last fifty years. Natural sciences, biology and geology, especially some fields of biology: systematics, ecology and genetics extend archaeological methods of research and their epistemological background. Potential of archaeology needs to turn theoretical debate into constructive way with respecting common scientific principles instead of philosophic speculations. Archaeology is not obliged to share all theoretical difficulties with narrative history in searching the past. Another possibility for archaeologists is to pursue epistemological approach of palaeontologists and geologists, which investigate the past (including origin of cognition) very closely with archaeologists or instead 16 LITHIC ARTEFACTS - TYPOLOGY, TECHNOLOGY AND MORPHOMETRICS, Dunnell R.C. 1986, Methodological issues in Americanist artifact classification, In: M.B. Schiffer (ed.), Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, Academic Press, New York, p. 3599. Gatnar E. 1998, Symboliczne metody klasyfikacji danych, Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN, Warszawa. Grace R. 1997a, The 'chaîne opératoire' approach to lithic analysis, Internet Archaeology 2. - 1997b, Chaos in Prehistory. A Speculative Paper on the Potential of Complexity Theory for the Conceptual Study of Palaeolithic Archaeology, University of Oslo, Oslo. Hempel C.G. & P. Oppenheim 1936, Der Typusbegriff im Lichte der neuen Logik; wissenschaftstheoretische Untersuchungen zur Konstitutions-forschung und Psychologie, A.W. Sijthoff's Uitgeversmaatschappij n. v., Leiden. Hill J.N. & R.K. Evans 1972, A model for classification and typology, In: D.L. Clarke (ed.), Models in Archaeology, Methuen, London, p. 231274. Hodder I. 1986, Reading the Past, Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge, Cambridge. Julien M. 1992, Du fossile directeur a la chaîne opératoire, In: J. Garanger (ed.), La préhistoire dans le monde, Presses Universitaires de France, Paris, p. 163-193. Keates S.G. 2003, The role of raw material in explaining tool assemblage variability in Palaeolithic China, In: J.M. Burdukiewicz & A. Ronen (eds.), Lower Palaeolithic Small Tools in Europe and the Levant, BAR International Series 1115, Oxford, p. 149-168. Kleyn L.S. (ed.) 1979, Tipi v kul'ture, Izdatelstvo Leningradskogo Universiteta, Leningrad. Krukowski S. 1939-1948, Paleolit. Prehistoria ziem polskich, In: S. Krukowski, J. Kostrzewski & R. Jakimowicz (eds.), Encyklopedia polska 4 (1), Section V, PAU, Kraków, p. 1-117. Leszczak O.W. 2001, Szkic typologiczny metodologii nauk humanistycznych, The Peculiarity of Man 6, p. 617-636. Longo L., C. Peretto, M. Sozzi & S.Vannucci 1997, Artefacts, outils ou supports épuisés? Une nouvelle approche pour l'étude des industries du Paléolithique ancien: le cas d'Isernia La Pineta (Molise, Italie Centrale), L'Anthropologie 101 (4), p. 579-596. Mayr E. 1970, Populations, Species and Evolution, References: Binford L.R. 1965, Archaeological systematics and the study of cultural process, American Antiquity31, p. 203-210. Boëda E. 1991, La conception trifaciale d'un nouveaumode de taille paléolithique, In: E. Bonifay & B.Vandermeersch (eds.), Les premiers Européens,Editions du C.T.H.S, Paris, p. 251263. Bookstein F.L. 1982, Foundations of morphometrics, Annual Reviews of Ecology and Systematics 13, p. 451-470. Bordes F. 1961, Typologie du Paléolithique ancien et moyen, Publications de l'Institut de Préhistoire de l'Université de Bordeaux, Mémoires1, Delmas, Bordeaux. Burdukiewicz J.M. 1993, Osadnictwo dolnopaleolityczne w Trzebnicy, Studia Archeologiczne 24, p. 5-32. - 2000, Problematyka paleolitu dolnego i œrodkowego w œwietle badañ archeologów polskich, In: M. Kobusiewicz & S. Kurnatowski (eds.), Archeologia i prahistoria polska w ostatnim pó³wieczu, Wydawnictwo Poznañskiego Towarzystwa Przyjació³ Nauk, Poznañ, p. 27-37. - 2003, Technokompleks mikrolityczny w paleolicie dolnym œrodkowej Europy, Uniwersytet Wroc³awski Instytut Archeologii, Wroc³aw. Burdukiewicz J.M., D. Mania & T. Weber 1979, Die Silexartefakte von Bilzingsleben. Zur ihrer morphometrische Analyse, EthnographischArchäologische Zeitschrift 20, p. 682-702. Burdukiewicz J.M. & A. Ronen 2003, Research problems of the Lower and Middle Palaeolithic small tool assmblages, In: J.M. Burdukiewicz & A. Ronen (eds.), Lower Palaeolithic Small Tools in Europe and the Levant, BAR International Series 1115, Oxford, p. 235-239. Burdukiewicz J.M., P. Falicki, A. Kocon, D. Mania & T. Weber 1982, Artefakty krzemienne Homo erectus z Bilzingsleben (NRD). Metoda komputerowej analizy morfometrycznej, Studia Archeologiczne 11, p. 3-40. Clarke D.L. 1968, Analytical Archaeology, Methuen & Co Ltd., London. Corruccini R. 1987, Shape in morphometrics: comparative analyses, American Journal of Physical Anthropology 73, p. 289-303. - 1995, Of ratios and rationality, American Journal of Physical Anthropology 96, p. 189-191. 17 JAN MICHA£ BURDUKIEWICZ Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass. Minta-Tworzowska D. 1994, Klasyfikacja w archeologii jako sposób wyra¿ania wyników badan, hipotez oraz teorii archeologicznych, Wydawnictwo Naukowe UAM, Poznañ. Paw³owski T. 1977, Metody i pojêcia wspó³czesnej humanistyki, Ossolineum, Wroc³aw. Pélegrin J., C. Karlin & P. Bodu 1988, Chaîne opératoire: un outil pour le préhistorien, Technologie préhistorique, Mongraphies techniques, 25, p. 55- 62. Peretto C. (ed.) 1994, Le industrie litiche del giacimento paleolitico di Isernia La Pineta: la tipologia, le tracce di utilizzazione, la seprimentazione,Cosmo Iannone Editore, Isernia. Pike K.L. 1982, Linguistic Concepts: An Introduction to Tagmemics. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln. Popper K.R. 1972, Objective Knowledge: An Evolutionary Approach, Oxford Univeristy Press, Oxford. Richtsmeier J.T., V. Burke Delon & S.R. Lele 2002, The promise of geometric morphometric, Yearbook of Physical Anthropology 45, p. 63-91. Schild R. 1980, Introduction to dynamic technological analysis of chipped stone assemblages, In: R. Schild (ed.), Unconventional Archaeology. New Approaches and Goals in Polish Archaeology, Ossolineum, Wroc³aw, p. 57-85. Sokal R.R. & P.H.A. Sneath 1963, Principles of Numerical Taxonomy, Freeman, San Francisco. Weber M. 1968, Methodologische Schriften, S. Fischer Verlag, Frankfurt am Main. Wendorf F. & R. Schild 1974, A Middle Stone Age Sequence from the Central Rift Valley, Ethiopia, Ossolineum, Wroc³aw. Whallon, R. & J.A. Brown (eds.) 1982, Essays on Archaeological Typology, Center for American Archaeology Press, Evanston. Zaidner Y. 2003, The use of raw material at the Lower Palaeolithic site of Bizat Ruhama, Israel, In: J.M. Burdukiewicz & A. Ronen (eds.), Lower Palaeolithic Small Tools in Europe and the Levant, BAR International Series 1115, Oxford, p. 121-131. Author’s address: Jan Micha³ Burdukiewicz Institute of Archaeology University of Wroc³aw ul. Szewska 48 50-139 Wroc³aw Poland 18 LITHIC ARTEFACTS - TYPOLOGY, TECHNOLOGY AND MORPHOMETRICS, Fig. 1. Change in form is intuitively thought of as the result of a combination of change in size and change in shape (after Richtsmeier et al. 2002) Fig. 2. Frequency of technological sequences in the Lower Palaeolithic microlithic assemblages of Central Europe: I - Sequence of raw material procurement, II - Sequence of preparation and early core exploitation, III - Sequence of advanced core exploitation, IV - Sequence of final core exploitation, V - Sequence of tool production. 19 JAN MICHA£ BURDUKIEWICZ Fig. 3. Frequency of main artefact groups in Lower Palaeolithic microlithic assemblages. Fig. 4. Median of length of flakes in Lower Palaeolithic microlithic assemblages. Fig. 5. Median of length of tools in Lower Palaeolithic microlithic assemblages. Fig. 6. Median of width of flakes in Lower Palaeolithic microlithic assemblages. Fig. 7. Median of width of tools in Lower Palaeolithic microlithic assemblages. 20 LITHIC ARTEFACTS - TYPOLOGY, TECHNOLOGY AND MORPHOMETRICS, Fig. 8. Median of thickness of flakes in Lower Palaeolithic microlithic assemblages. Fig. 9. Median of thickness of tools in Lower Palaeolithic microlithic assemblages. Fig. 10. Comparison of mean length of flakes and tools in Lower Palaeolithic microlithic assemblages. Fig. 11. Comparison of mean width of flakes and tools in Lower Palaeolithic microlithic assemblages. 21 JAN MICHA£ BURDUKIEWICZ Fig. 12. Comparison of mean thickness of flakes and tools in Lower Palaeolithic microlithic assemblages. Fig. 13. Differentiation of flake shapes (A) and tool shapes (B) in Lower Palaeolithic microlithic assemblages. 22