11

Lithic artefacts - typology, technology and morphometrics

Jan Micha³ Burdukiewicz

THE STONE: TECHNIQUE AND TECHNOLOGY

Edited by A. Wi�niewski, T. P³onka and J.M. Burdukiewicz Wroc³aw 2006, p.11-22

Since the beginning of archaeology, classification ofarchaeological finds was one of the most importanttargets. F. Bordes in his well-known book Typologiedu Paléolithique ancient et moyen wrote "La typo-logie paléolithique est la science qui permet de recon-naître, de définier et de classer les différentes variétésd'outils se rencontrant dnas les gisements de cette lon-gue période de évolution de l'humanité" (Bordes 1961).Bordes believed in existence of types, which is stillone of the most disputable problems of archaeology.

Typology

Broader analysis of types in archaeology and generalin a whole culture was made by Russian humanists ina small book Types in culture. Methodological pro-blems of classification, systematic and typology insocio-historical and anthropological sciences(Klejn 1979).

In Polish archaeology, D. Minta-Tworzowska summa-rized classification problems in her book Classifica-tion in archaeology as a means of expressing rese-arch results, hypotheses and archaeological the-ories (1994). It is rather a summary of various appro-aches in archaeology and history. Unfortunately, shedid not evaluate if differences between various appro-aches were real or just apparent. There was also mis-sing statement of diversity between classification andtypology. Archaeologists or humanists in general re-peat usually general idea of German philosophers W.Dilthey and W. Windelband or M. Weber (1968) thatidiographic or respectively typological approach is ba-sic for humanistics in opposite to nomothetic purposeof science (Leszczak 2001). It is quite easy to reco-gnize that archaeologists, in opposite to their declara-tions, continue or slightly improve old classification sys-tems built already in 19th century. Of course, there aredifferences in methods used to establish classes or

types, their proximity, etc. (Hill, Evans 1972; Whallon,Brown 1982).

The archaeologists who developed their classificationsdid not develop their own methods. These methodswere usually borrowed from biology, geology or othersciences. According to Wikipedia. The Free Encyc-lopedia "in archaeology a typology is the result of theclassification of things according to their characteri-stics". We cannot also agree with F. Bordes "typologyis a science", because it is only a method of classifica-tion, common for all variety of knowledge. Mystery oftype as a term resulted probably from unclear defini-tions in numerous dictionaries and philosophical back-ground connected with Plato's metaphysics. Such ap-proach is called essentialism. Plato believed in existenceof ideal types of things in opposite to unclear "sha-dows" observed by humans. However, recent huma-nists are usually far from Plato' concepts they are stillessentialists. For example, numerous archaeologistsaccept division of things into K.L. Pike (1982) separa-tion of "emic" and "etic" (Minta-Tworzowska 1994: 52),"profound reality", etc. (Hodder 1986).

Classification theory, including typology is a domain oflogic and logicians established what typology is alre-ady in the first part of 20th century by C.G. Hempeland P. Oppenheim (1936). In a few words, typology isan ordered classification and nothing more. However,methods of ordering should be different and they de-pend on measurement methods. Traditional typologyis usually intuitive but methods that are more recentenable exact calculation like in taxonomy or other nu-meric methods (Sokal, Sneath 1963). It is worth tostress that some logicians go back to symbolic classi-fication methods (Gatnar 1998).

Strong opposition against essentialism in classificationor "typology" was well articulated in the evolutionary

12

biology. E. Mayr (1962) argued that a "populationist"approach is completely opposite to the "typologist"approach. He stressed in particular that every life formis unique and common description of a population mustbe statistical. There is a misunderstanding, becausetypology as an ordered classification does not dependon essentialism. Every biological systematics is an or-dered classification - it means typology. The differen-ce is lying only in an ordering scale (Paw³owski 1977:72). Similar circumstances are in the humanities ingeneral and in archaeology in particular, which use tra-ditionally intuitive or weak scale of ordering in opposi-te to well-defined ordering in numerical taxonomy usedin biology.

Technological ordering

Archaeologists following geology use still "type fos-sils" as main scheme of classification archaeologicalunits. Archaeological "type fossils" are some selectedartefacts used as diagnostic forms for these units, likepaleontological organisms characteristic for certaingeological periods. Such approach was later stronglycriticized because artefacts are not living organisms.

In opposite to "type fossils" analysis of the lithic as-semblages should be made on technological principleas result of human activity. Such method of artefactclassification was developed in Poland by S. Krukow-ski (1939-1948: 80). Krukowski's technological orde-ring artefacts according followed processing sequen-ces with fitting morphological classification. As a ba-sic unit was seen lithic concentration (krzemienica inPolish) - all artefacts left by isolated human group li-ving short time in limited area (few square meters).Technological analysis allowed to S. Krukowski to di-stinguish domestic and workshop facies. Similar lithicconcentrations were seen as "industries" - second clas-sification level. Afterwards similar industries were gro-uped into "cycles" - third classification level.

Krukowski's method was later developed into com-prehensive dynamic technological classification of li-thic assemblages (Schild 1980; Wendorf, Schild 1974).All elements found in lithic concentration are analyzedin this method according to processing sequences -from raw material procurement, preparation and earlystage of core exploitation, advanced core exploitation,final core exploitation and retouched tools with wastefrom their production. First step is detailed study of allcores, flakes, blades, tools and wastes. The next step

is possible refitting of artefacts and reconstruction oftechnological modus operandi including analysis offlaking directions on both flake sides, type of dorsalside, types of butts, flaking angle, general shape, sha-pe of transversal and longitudinal sections, etc.

Operating base of dynamic technological classifica-tion are list of artefacts and list of taxonomic units.For example, in Middle Palaeolithic assemblages asseparate groups should be distinguished flaking tech-nologies, like discus core or Levallois technologies withquantitative characteristics (Wendorf, Schild 1974: 57).Further development of dynamic technological classi-fication led to technological analysis, what was neces-sary in case of Lower Palaeolithic microlithic assem-blages. There standardisation of artefacts is less evi-dent than in later ones. In that case, usage of additio-nal morphometric analysis is necessary, because sizeof artefacts is so diagnostic (Burdukiewicz et al. 1979;1982; Burdukiewicz 1993).

Dynamic technological analysis is competitive or sup-plementary to the concept of chaîne opératoire (ope-rational chain or sequence method) developed in Fran-ce in fact since eighties of 20th century (Pélegrin et al.1988; Grace 1997a; 1997b). This method is rather po-pular in Western Europe and it will be useful to com-pare with dynamic technological analysis. Chaîneopératoire is expansion of an older idea of M. Maussand A. Leroi-Gourgan (Julien 1992: 174). First part orsequence is raw material procurement with stressedchoice criteria of lithic nodules, called sometimes "rawmaterial economy". In chaîne opératoire method sho-uld be distinguished two aspects. One of them is goingto recognize technological sequences (core prepara-tion, blank processing, rejuvenation, etc.) and the se-cond one is directed into unintentional changes (liketechniques of tool alterations or accidental changes)showing proficiency of craftsmen, teaching experien-ce, etc. concept of operational sequences is a base ofordering classification including temporal and spatialassociations.

Human factor influencing into realization of operatio-nal sequences is a way of acting and understanding,which resulted as "conceptual scheme" of all chaîneopératoire (Pelegrin et al. 1988). A sum of remainsafter usage of "operational sequences" is seen as ar-chaeological assemblage, what enables an archaeolo-gist to distinguish "types" or general chaîne opérato-ire. This way an assemblage can be characterized in

JAN MICHA£ BURDUKIEWICZ

13

technological (methods and techniques of processing),functional and social terms (Pelegrin et al. 1988).

Important part of chaîne opératoire is refitting me-thod and experiments. First one enables recognizingof detailed flaking techniques (lithic biography) and thesecond one is useful when some refittings are mis-sing. For example, E. Boëda (1991) argued that expe-riments enabled better understanding Levallois tech-nique or "trifacial technique". Further analysis is focu-sed on "blank economy" and selection of blanks forretouch. It enabled including traditional typology of li-thic artefacts into chaîne opératoire. Another impor-tant method is microwear analysis used to establishreal usage traces supported also by experiments (Gra-ce 1987b). Microwear analysis is also very helpful toestablish activity areas in an encampment or even per-sonal experience of individuals inhabiting such encamp-ment.

Both approaches, dynamic technological analysis andchaîne opératoire are very similar, however, a mainadvantage of the first one is broader application ofstatistical methods in opposite chaîne opératoirewhich is more descriptive. In addition, dynamic tech-nological analysis is more useful and efficient in sear-ching of taxonomic clusters and facial differentiation(Burdukiewicz 2000). Anyway, dynamic technologi-cal analysis and chaîne opératoire cannot be seen asopposite approach than typological one - again it is aproblem of ordering scale. Fast development of com-puter databases and application of statistical methodsis very helpful in all these approaches.

Morphometric approach

Quantitative methods are well known in archaeologysince its beginning. However, morphometric methodswere mostly developed in biology to solve questions ofsystematics in botany, zoology or biological anthropo-logy. Morphometric features were used by biologiststo follow "which biological forms varied from one ano-ther, to establish the correspondence between formand function, and to quantify the description of cha-racteristic traits used in the identification of species"(Richtsmeier et al. 2002: 64).

Archaeologists do mostly morphologic or stylistic ana-lysis and technological one. Morphometrics enable toextend analysis by quantitative study of form. R. Cor-ruccini (1995) and other biologists argued that "form"

consists of "size" and "shape", although it should beexpressed rather by intuitive way (fig. 1). The specia-lists discussing basic morphometric terms indicate thatshape should be defined as "...surrogate for size, sothat as the choice of size measure changes, so doesthe definition of shape" (Richtsmeier et al. 2002: 67).Morphometric features are very important for archa-eologists, because in several cases differences betweenarchaeological units can be seen in size or shape. Re-cent morphometric analysis in archaeology is rathersimple but archaeological data is very suitable for moresophisticated methods, which are used in geometricmorphometrics.

There will be shown an example of application ofmorphometric criteria in the archaeological analysis.It is a case of microlithic assemblages in Lower Pala-eolithic. The main trait of these assemblages is smallsize of artefacts comparing with other Lower Pala-eolithic assemblages like Acheulean ones. In addition,several archaeologists consider these assemblages asalmost amorphic, without any standardisation of arte-fact shape or size (Peretto 1994). Somewhat smallsize and variability of shapes of these artefacts canmake impression of chaos. Application of morphome-tric methods and statistic analysis enabled ordering ofthese artefacts according to technological sequences.

One the most interesting questions was looking forcriteria of intentional choice of blanks for retouchedtools in Lower Palaeolithic microlithic assemblages.The decisive factors of blank selection for retouchedtools are not easy to establish for us. The most objec-tive method is an examination of relation between sizeof cores, flakes and retouched tools as well as relian-ce of their shapes (longitudinal and transversal sec-tions). Such analysis was done for Lower Palaeolithicmicrolithic assemblages in Bilzingsleben (Germany)(Burdukiewicz et al. 1979; 1982), Rusko 33, Rusko42, Trzebnica 2 lower and upper horizons (Poland)(Burdukiewicz 1993; 2003).

Morphometric analysis allowed establishing a degreeof standardisation of lithic processing in Lower Pala-eolithic assemblages. These assemblages cannot beseen as "chaotic" or "opportunistic" (Peretto 1994;Longo et al. 1997), however, their standardisation isobviously lower than in case of Middle PalaeolithicLevallois technology or Upper Palaeolithic blade tech-nology. Additional arguments for standardisation sho-uld be given by analysis of technological sequences:

LITHIC ARTEFACTS

- TYPOLOGY, TECHNOLOGY AND MORPHOMETRICS,

14

I. Raw material procurementII. Preparation and early core exploitationIII. Advanced core exploitationIV. Final core exploitationV. Tool production.

All artefacts were classified according to hierarchicallist of artefact categories arranged by technologicalshape and metrical attributes (Burdukiewicz et al. 1979;1982; Burdukiewicz 1993; 2003). Then artefacts wereincluded into appropriate technological sequence ac-cording to their attributes, including cores, flakes, toolsand wastes. Such investigation we call dynamic tech-nological analysis (DTA). Comparative analysis wasdone by statistical methods (fig. 2).The sequence I consists more or less of flint nodulesand chunks with rare presence of chert or hornstone.They were collected in neighbourhood of every siteand brought to encampment. Amount of nodules andchunks is quite high and varied about 22 to 26% inBilzingsleben and Trzebnica 2UH. Rusko assembla-ges were somewhat redeposited and not contain no-dules and chunks in secondary position. In Bilzingsle-ben the most numerous (42%) was raw material 21 to30 mm long. Several archaeologists believe that smallsize of microlithic artefacts was limited by absence ofenough large nodules of flint or other used raw mate-rial (Keates 2003; Zeidner 2003). Such explanationseems to be false, because in the area of presence ofmicrolithic assemblages are known other Lower or Mid-dle Palaeolithic sites with much bigger artefacts (Bur-dukiewicz 2003: 84; Burdukiewicz, Ronen 2003).

The next sequence of preparation and early core explo-itation is represented by initial cores, cortical and inpartly cortical flakes. Lower Palaeolithic cores are quitesimple and it is difficult to distinguish early exploitationfrom platform preparation, etc. Initial cores are quitenumerous, from 7% in Bilzingsleben up to 30% inTrzebnica 2LH. Third part of them has prepared plat-forms. In opposite to the cores, prepared flake buttsare more numerous, up to 50% in average. Artefactsin this sequence make from 3.6% in Rusko 42 up to9% in Rusko 33 and Trzebnica 3LH of all specimens.

Advanced core exploitation sequence consist of coreswith more than three removals and flakes covered lessthen 50% by cortex or natural surface on dorsal faceand non-cortical flakes. The most important featureof advanced cores is prepared platform, but core edgepreparation is much rarer. Quite interesting feature of

Lower Palaeolithic cores is presence of numerous per-cussion points. Sometime on striking platform or buttare present from one to five percussion points. Themost numerous are two or three points. Such pointsindicate unsuccessful blows. Cores with changed orien-tation in this sequence are three times more frequentas single platform cores with quite low (10%) partici-pation of double platform cores in Trzebnica 2LH aswell as in Bilzingsleben. A tendency in flaking perfor-mance in the Lower Palaeolithic microlithic assem-blages started from single platform cores and chan-ging striking direction was the most favourable me-thod of core rejuvenation. This assessment was sup-ported by high amount of prepared butts on flakes fromsequence III. These artefacts make from 7% in Trzeb-nica 2UH to 25% in Rusko 33.

Products of sequence IV, final core exploitation, arethe most abundant. There are residual cores, core re-mains and various flake fragments, which representfrom 29% of whole assemblage in Bilzingsleben, 48%in Trzebnica 2UH up to 56% in Rusko 33 and 76% inRusko 42. Residual cores not numerous and they areusually smaller and more exploited than cores fromearlier sequences of exploitation. Between residualcores the most numerous are pieces with changedorientation, what was a main method of core rejuve-nation in Lower Palaeolithic. Another indication ofadvanced exploitation is lower presence of cortex ornatural surface. Percussion cones, scars and wavyrings were considered as diagnostic features of coreexploitation technique. Higher abundance of cores frag-ments should be explained as possible effect of appli-cation of direct percussion by hard hammer or justbipolar technique. Such flaking limits checking of per-cussion precision and it results in higher amount ofwastes. In Bilzingsleben collection should be stressedhigh amount of chunks, which resulted by testing ofraw material. Numerous chunks were suitable for coreprocessing. Sometime these chunks were also usedfor tool production.

The sequence V is connected with manufacture ofretouched tools. There are included all retouched to-ols and wastes from their production. In case of Lo-wer Palaeolithic microlithic assemblages' designationof retouch is sometime not clear, because some flakesfrom core processing are so small as chips producedduring retouch. Several these specimens were not fi-nished, broken or reused. This way main aim of thedynamic technological analysis was evaluation of mo-

JAN MICHA£ BURDUKIEWICZ

15

dification degree of every retouched blank togetherwith the statistical extent of this modification.

The artefacts of sequence V are not numerous. In thestudy of Palaeolithic assemblages is quite frequentcalculation of ratio of cores, flakes and tools. In theexamined Lower Palaeolithic microlithic assemblages'tools, meaning retouched artefacts, made up no lessthan 15% all lithic artefacts in Bilzingsleben, nearly13% in Trzebnica 2 LH, 10% in Rusko 33, 8% at Trzeb-nica 2UH and a mere 4% in Rusko 42 (fig. 3). Evalu-ation of blank selection for further modification wasdone according to correlation of size of cores, flakesand retouched tools and change in the frequency offlake shapes comparing to tool shapes.

Size of blanks and tools is rather homogeneous. Me-dian length of ordinary flakes varied from 15 mm inBilzingsleben to 17.7 mm in Trzebnica 2LH and 18.1mm in Trzebnica 2UH (fig. 4). Median length of reto-uched tools is proportionally bigger comparing to theflakes. It makes 20.4 mm in Bilzingsleben up to 24.2mm in Trzebnica 2LH (fig. 5). Similar relations can beobserved 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 inTrzebnica 2LH is 16.9 mm (fig. 6). Median of widthof retouched tools is somewhat bigger, from 19.1 mmin Rusko 42 up to 26.8 mm in Trzebnica 2UH (fig. 7).Median of flake thickness is even more homogenouswith extreme values 3.6 mm in Rusko 42 up to 5.6 mmin Trzebnica 2UH and other sites in between (fig. 8).Median of tool thickness is usually as twice bigger asby flakes: 6.1 mm in Rusko 42 up to 8.9 mm in Trzeb-nica 2UH (fig. 9). Median of three important dimen-sions of retouched tools is bigger than median of blanksprepared for further modification, especially in caseof tool thickness. Such recurring differences can beexplained as tendency in intentional choice of flakesfor further modification.

Size of blanks and retouched tools give us an idea howhomogenic they are. The median of flake length va-ried from 15 mm in Blizingsleben to 17.7 mm in Trzeb-nica 2LH and 18.1 mm in Trzebnica 2UH. The me-dian of retouched tools is evidently superior up to 20.4mm in Bilzingsleben and 24.2 in Trzebnica 2LH. Com-parable dependence can be observed between widthof flakes and retouched tools. Even the median flakewidth is less spread: in Rusko 42 - 14.3 mm and Trzeb-

nica 2LH 16.9 mm. The median of retouched tools ismore diversified: in Rusko 42 - 19.1 mm and in Trzeb-nica 2UH - 26.8 mm. Artefacts from other sites arelocated between ranges of above-mentioned sites. Thethickness of flakes is the most similar. The median offlake thickness varied from 3.6 mm in Rusko 42 up to5.6 mm in Trzebnica 2UH. However, median thick-ness of retouched tools is twice bigger for Rusko 42 -6.1 mm and for Trzebnica 2UH - 8.9 mm. Other sitesare closer the last one.

In general, median of retouched tool length, width andthickness of Lower Palaeolithic microlithic assembla-ges is clearly bigger than median of ordinary flakes.For an evaluation of differences between means oflength, width and thickness of flakes and tools (fig.10-11) was used Student t test for independent sam-ples. Received values show significant differences inlength, width and thickness, which are bigger for to-ols. It means that only some blanks were chosen forretouch. Moreover, retouching did them smaller byremoving some parts of flakes. Such regular differen-ces in size of flakes and retouched tools should beseen as an argument for intentional choice of blanksfor retouch and suitable resizing, which is observablein all analysed populations of the Lower Palaeolithicmicrolithic assemblages.

An additional analysis was done by comparing of sha-pe of ordinary flakes and retouched tools. Some diffe-rences are visible in frequency of certain shapes. It isnecessary to stress that retouch was used to modifyshape of flakes. There are quite interesting differen-ces between analysed sites. In Bilzingsleben the mostnumerous are irregular flakes (31%). In other sitesmore numerous are divergent flakes - up to 31% inRusko 42 and 42% in Trzebnica 2UH. Irregular flakesare usually in second position according to their frequ-ency. In third place are convergent or parallel flakes.Quite sparse are oval and segment flakes.

The shapes of retouched tools allow distinguishing twogroups of assemblages. One of them: group of Bil-zingsleben and Rusko 33 is dominated by convergenttools. The second one: Rusko 42, Trzebnica 2LH andTrzebnica 2UH is characterised by majority of diver-gent tools. Anyway, retouch was used to modify arte-fact shape, what is clearly visible in differences be-tween frequencies certain shapes of blanks and tools(fig. 13). Such features as intentional choice of rawmaterial, flaking techniques and secondary shape mo-

LITHIC ARTEFACTS

- TYPOLOGY, TECHNOLOGY AND MORPHOMETRICS,

16

dification (retouch) are evident arguments against "op-portunistic approach" of early hominids to stone pro-cessing what suggested C. Peretto (1994) and L. Lon-go with team (1997).

Ending remarks

Further development of ordering of archaeological dataneeds an explanation of used methods. Numerous re-searchers did an opposition between "traditional" and"new" archaeology showing important differences inclassification systems (Binford 1965; Clarke 1968).Misunderstandings in evaluation of classification me-thods are more connected with their philosophical back-ground than with their own rules. General methodolo-gical differences between humanistic and scientificapproaches play important role in recent debate aboutstatus of modern archaeology. It should be nomothetic(processual) or idiographic and hermeneutic (postpro-cessual). Such opposition is quite false, because "post-processual" approach cannot offer any scientific expla-nation and its final result is usually reduction of archa-eology into "raise questions" without any reasonableanswers or just epistemological pessimism (Hodder1986). However, "postprocessual" ideas should be seenas quite constructive in so-called context of discoveryof scientific research (Popper 1972).

Typological method is not an opposition to populationalor technological ones. Traditional typology is usuallyseen as a method with intuitional or week scale ofordering. What's more, it is not characteristic methodfor idiographic or descriptive humanistics. Orderingsystems in archaeology should be built in the most ef-fective way, like numerous scientific achievements inour knowledge about human origin and developmentof human culture during last fifty years. Natural scien-ces, biology and geology, especially some fields of bio-logy: systematics, ecology and genetics extend archa-eological methods of research and their epistemologi-cal background.

Potential of archaeology needs to turn theoretical de-bate into constructive way with respecting commonscientific principles instead of philosophic speculations.Archaeology is not obliged to share all theoretical dif-ficulties with narrative history in searching the past.Another possibility for archaeologists is to pursue epi-stemological approach of palaeontologists and geolo-gists, which investigate the past (including origin ofcognition) very closely with archaeologists or instead

of those of us, who dispute still inexplicable philoso-phical questions. Archaeological data have quantitati-ve character and need suitable methods of ordering.However, artefacts as results of human activity haveadditional properties, which should be taken into con-sideration.

JAN MICHA£ BURDUKIEWICZ

17

References:

Binford L.R. 1965, Archaeological systematics andthe study of cultural process, American Anti-quity31, p. 203-210.

Boëda E. 1991, La conception trifaciale d'un no-uveaumode de taille paléolithique, In: E. Bo-nifay & B.Vandermeersch (eds.), Les premiersEuropéens,Editions du C.T.H.S, Paris, p. 251-263.

Bookstein F.L. 1982, Foundations of morphometrics,Annual Reviews of Ecology and Systematics 13,p. 451-470.

Bordes F. 1961, Typologie du Paléolithique ancienet moyen, Publications de l'Institut de Préhisto-ire de l'Université de Bordeaux, Mémoires1, Del-mas, Bordeaux.

Burdukiewicz J.M. 1993, Osadnictwo dolnopaleoli-tyczne w Trzebnicy, Studia Archeologiczne 24,p. 5-32.

- 2000, Problematyka paleolitu dolnego i �rodko-wego w �wietle badañ archeologów polskich,In: M. Kobusiewicz & S. Kurnatowski (eds.),Archeologia i prahistoria polska w ostatnimpó³wieczu, Wydawnictwo Poznañskiego Towa-rzystwa Przyjació³ Nauk, Poznañ, p. 27-37.

- 2003, Technokompleks mikrolityczny w paleoliciedolnym �rodkowej Europy, Uniwersytet Wro-c³awski Instytut Archeologii, Wroc³aw.

Burdukiewicz J.M., D. Mania & T. Weber 1979, DieSilexartefakte von Bilzingsleben. Zur ihrermorphometrische Analyse, Ethnographisch-Archäologische Zeitschrift 20, p. 682-702.

Burdukiewicz J.M. & A. Ronen 2003, Research pro-blems of the Lower and Middle Palaeolithicsmall tool assmblages, In: J.M. Burdukiewicz& A. Ronen (eds.), Lower Palaeolithic SmallTools in Europe and the Levant, BAR Inter-national Series 1115, Oxford, p. 235-239.

Burdukiewicz J.M., P. Falicki, A. Kocon, D. Mania &T. Weber 1982, Artefakty krzemienne Homoerectus z Bilzingsleben (NRD). Metoda kom-puterowej analizy morfometrycznej, Studia Ar-cheologiczne 11, p. 3-40.

Clarke D.L. 1968, Analytical Archaeology, Methuen& Co Ltd., London.

Corruccini R. 1987, Shape in morphometrics: com-parative analyses, American Journal of Physi-cal Anthropology 73, p. 289-303.

- 1995, Of ratios and rationality, American Journalof Physical Anthropology 96, p. 189-191.

Dunnell R.C. 1986, Methodological issues in Ame-ricanist artifact classification, In: M.B. Schif-fer (ed.), Advances in Archaeological Methodand Theory, Academic Press, New York, p. 35-99.

Gatnar E. 1998, Symboliczne metody klasyfikacji da-nych, Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN, Warsza-wa.

Grace R. 1997a, The 'chaîne opératoire' approachto lithic analysis, Internet Archaeology 2.

- 1997b, Chaos in Prehistory. A Speculative Paperon the Potential of Complexity Theory for theConceptual Study of Palaeolithic Archaeolo-gy, University of Oslo, Oslo.

Hempel C.G. & P. Oppenheim 1936, Der Typusbe-griff im Lichte der neuen Logik; wissenscha-ftstheoretische Untersuchungen zur Konsti-tutions-forschung und Psychologie, A.W. Sij-thoff's Uitgeversmaatschappij n. v., Leiden.

Hill J.N. & R.K. Evans 1972, A model for classifica-tion and typology, In: D.L. Clarke (ed.), Mo-dels in Archaeology, Methuen, London, p. 231-274.

Hodder I. 1986, Reading the Past, Press Syndicateof the University of Cambridge, Cambridge.

Julien M. 1992, Du fossile directeur a la chaîneopératoire, In: J. Garanger (ed.), La préhisto-ire dans le monde, Presses Universitaires deFrance, Paris, p. 163-193.

Keates S.G. 2003, The role of raw material in expla-ining tool assemblage variability in Palaeoli-thic China, In: J.M. Burdukiewicz & A. Ronen(eds.), Lower Palaeolithic Small Tools in Eu-rope and the Levant, BAR International Series1115, Oxford, p. 149-168.

Kleyn L.S. (ed.) 1979, Tipi v kul'ture, Izdatelstvo Le-ningradskogo Universiteta, Leningrad.

Krukowski S. 1939-1948, Paleolit. Prehistoria ziempolskich, 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 metodolo-gii nauk humanistycznych, The Peculiarity ofMan 6, p. 617-636.

Longo L., C. Peretto, M. Sozzi & S.Vannucci 1997,Artefacts, outils ou supports épuisés? Une no-uvelle approche pour l'étude des industriesdu Paléolithique ancien: le cas d'Isernia LaPineta (Molise, Italie Centrale), L'Anthropo-logie 101 (4), p. 579-596.

Mayr E. 1970, Populations, Species and Evolution,

LITHIC ARTEFACTS

- TYPOLOGY, TECHNOLOGY AND MORPHOMETRICS,

18

Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass.Minta-Tworzowska D. 1994, Klasyfikacja w arche-

ologii jako sposób wyra¿ania wyników ba-dan, hipotez oraz teorii archeologicznych,Wydawnictwo Naukowe UAM, Poznañ.

Paw³owski T. 1977, Metody i pojêcia wspó³czesnejhumanistyki, Ossolineum, Wroc³aw.

Pélegrin J., C. Karlin & P. Bodu 1988, Chaîne opéra-toire: un outil pour le préhistorien, Technolo-gie préhistorique, Mongraphies techniques, 25,p. 55- 62.

Peretto C. (ed.) 1994, Le industrie litiche del giaci-mento paleolitico di Isernia La Pineta: la ti-pologia, le tracce di utilizzazione, la sepri-mentazione,Cosmo Iannone Editore, Isernia.

Pike K.L. 1982, Linguistic Concepts: An Introduc-tion to Tagmemics. University of NebraskaPress, Lincoln.

Popper K.R. 1972, Objective Knowledge: An Evo-lutionary Approach, Oxford Univeristy Press,Oxford.

Richtsmeier J.T., V. Burke Delon & S.R. Lele 2002,The promise of geometric morphometric, Year-book of Physical Anthropology 45, p. 63-91.

Schild R. 1980, Introduction to dynamic technolo-gical analysis of chipped stone assemblages,In: R. Schild (ed.), Unconventional Archaeolo-gy. New Approaches and Goals in Polish Ar-chaeology, Ossolineum, Wroc³aw, p. 57-85.

Sokal R.R. & P.H.A. Sneath 1963, Principles of Nu-merical Taxonomy, Freeman, San Francisco.

Weber M. 1968, Methodologische Schriften, S. Fi-scher Verlag, Frankfurt am Main.

Wendorf F. & R. Schild 1974, A Middle Stone AgeSequence from the Central Rift Valley, Ethio-pia, Ossolineum, Wroc³aw.

Whallon, R. & J.A. Brown (eds.) 1982, Essays onArchaeological Typology, Center for Ameri-can Archaeology Press, Evanston.

Zaidner Y. 2003, The use of raw material at the Lo-wer Palaeolithic site of Bizat Ruhama, Israel,In: J.M. Burdukiewicz & A. Ronen (eds.), Lo-wer Palaeolithic Small Tools in Europe andthe Levant, BAR International Series 1115,Oxford, p. 121-131.

Author�s address:Jan Micha³ Burdukiewicz

Institute of ArchaeologyUniversity of Wroc³aw

ul. Szewska 4850-139 Wroc³aw

Poland

JAN MICHA£ BURDUKIEWICZ

19

Fig. 1. Change in form is intuitively thought of as the result ofa combination of change in size and change in shape(after Richtsmeier et al. 2002)

Fig. 2. Frequency of technological sequences in the LowerPalaeolithic microlithic assemblages of CentralEurope: I - Sequence of raw material procurement,II - Sequence of preparation and early coreexploitation, III - Sequence of advanced coreexploitation, IV - Sequence of final core exploitation,V - Sequence of tool production.

LITHIC ARTEFACTS

- TYPOLOGY, TECHNOLOGY AND MORPHOMETRICS,

20

Fig. 3. Frequency of main artefact groups in Lower Palaeolithic microlithic assemblages.

Fig. 4. Median of length of flakes in Lower Palaeolithic microlithicassemblages.

Fig. 5. Median of length of tools in Lower Palaeolithic microlithicassemblages.

Fig. 6. Median of width of flakes in Lower Palaeolithic microlithicassemblages.

Fig. 7. Median of width of tools in Lower Palaeolithic microlithicassemblages.

JAN MICHA£ BURDUKIEWICZ

21

Fig. 8. Median of thickness of flakes in Lower Palaeolithic microlithicassemblages.

Fig. 9. Median of thickness of tools in Lower Palaeolithic microlithicassemblages.

Fig. 10. Comparison of mean length of flakes and tools inLower Palaeolithic microlithic assemblages.

Fig. 11. Comparison of mean width of flakes and tools inLower Palaeolithic microlithic assemblages.

LITHIC ARTEFACTS

- TYPOLOGY, TECHNOLOGY AND MORPHOMETRICS,

22

Fig. 12. Comparison of mean thickness of flakes and tools in Lower Palaeolithic microlithicassemblages.

Fig. 13. Differentiation of flake shapes (A) and tool shapes (B) in Lower Palaeolithic microlithicassemblages.

JAN MICHA£ BURDUKIEWICZ