Lithic Technology

ISSN: 0197-7261 (Print) 2051-6185 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ylit20

Some Comments on Classification

Martin W. Boksenbaum

To cite this article: Martin W. Boksenbaum (1977) Some Comments on Classification, Lithic
Technology, 6:3, 28-30, DOI: 10.1080/01977261.1977.11754435

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/01977261.1977.11754435

Published online: 25 Aug 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1

View related articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ylit20
to contend that bipolar can not be technically advantageous.
In sum, bipolar core reduction may be unpredictable
when compared to other technologies, yet it is apparent from
the analysis conducted to date that it is possible to produce a
specific flake type (Orange Peel Flake) which possess certain
functional advantages (backing and size).
References
Doyel, D.
1974 Excavations in the Escalante Ruin Group ,
Southern Arizona. Arizona State Mu seum ,
University of Arizona.
Goodyear, A.
1974 The Brand Site: A Techno-functional study
of a Dalton site in northeast Arkansas. Ark-
ansas Archaeological Research Series No . 7.
Hay nes, G.
1977 Repl y to: The myth of bipolar flaking indus-
tri es. J. Sollberger and L. Patte rson. News-
letter of Lithi c Technology V( 3) :40 , 1976.
Schiffer, M.
1976 Behavioral Archaeology. Academic Press,
New York.
Stafford, C. R.
n.d . Bipolar Technology at the Escalante Ruin
Group : Flake production and utili za tion. In
preparation.
White, J . P.
1977 Reply to: The myth of bipolar flaking indus-
tries. J. Sollberger and L. Patterson. News-
letter of Lithic Technology V(3): 40, 1976.
C. RUSSELL STAFFORD, Department of Anthropology, Ari-
zona State University , Tempe, Arizona 85281.
ARTICLES
SOME COMMENTS ON CLASSIFICATION
Abstract
The absence of any critical evaluation in the pages of
Lithic Technology of Tixier's glossary may be indicative of the
failure among lithic analysts to recognize the importance of
words as tools. Indeed, there may be, among various archaeo-
logical traditions, a "glossary syndrome" in which analysts
name and describe categories of morphological variation but
do so without showing much concern for the interpretability
of the categories. It therefore seems both opportune and
necessary to comment critically about Tixier 's glossary, such
discussion serving as a vehicle for more general comments on
/ithic terminology.
Lithic Technology published a translation of Tixier's
Glossary for the Description of Stone Tools in 1974 . Neither
in conjunction with nor subsequent to its publication has there
been any critical evaluation of it in Lithic Technology. The
absence of any critical evaluation of Tixier's glossary may be
indicative of the failure among analysts of lithic collections to
recognize the importance of words as tools. Has one merely to
establish a "glossary" (that some may use and others not) that
elaborates on this or that morphological variation to have con-
tributed to the understanding of stone working? I think not.
28
Analysis of de bitage is not simply a matter of establishing and
employing some standard set of terms. Whil e standardization is
important for communication and replicability of analyses,
models for lithic anal ysis should serve interpretive functions as
well. Tixier's approach , it seems to me, follows an analy tical
tradition which pays littl e attention to the isolation of manu-
facturing or use variables. It is a tradition which rests heavil y
on descriptive convenience for its units of analysis and termin·
ology. Are there, perhaps, other competing lithic studies tradi-
tions which employ other sets of terms but which suffer from
a si milar problem, namely that of having got into the habit
of using some set of uninterpreted " trial " categories on a per-
manent basis? Conven tion can petrify past terminological con -
veniences, makin g what should have been trial perceptions into
rather imperish able paradigm s. Such uncritically acce pted cate-
gories make poor analytic tools. If the "glossary sy ndrome " is
as widespread as I fear, then it see ms both opportune and
necessary to comment criti call y about Tix ier's glossary, such
discussion serving as vehicle for a more general commentary on
lithic terminology, conventions, and words as tools.
First, if one is interested in establishing paradigm s for
lithic anal ysis, Tix ier's attitude and methodological approach
to classification requires critical examination . What is Tixier's
approach? Let us take his discussion of the di stin ction be-
tween a bl ade an d a bladelet (1974 :5-9). He states that hi s
classificatory goal " is an easy to use and practical limit be-
tween blades and bl adelets" and that such a " practical limit " is
defin ed by the ability of typologists to replicate each other's
findings:
(A sample of 133 whol e pieces from Wadi Cher-
chara were) presented to several typologists
with experience in the study of indu stries with
blades and bladelets. The ty pologists were
asked to separate the pieces into three groups
- blades, bladelets, and borderline cases -
without using any m easuring tools. The results
of these classifications were then (compared
with a plot of the actual measurem ents) . . .
(The results) are very homogeneou s and . . .
particularly convincing ... There are of course
som e overlaps; some pieces considered blades
by one typologist are called bladelets by an-
other. But these cases are not frequent, and the
object of this exercise is to abolish this minor
confusion by establishing a metrical limit be-
tween blade and bladelet.
What Tixier has done is test the replicability of measurement
(classification is a type of measurement) . That is, he confirmed
that the observations of one observer could be matched by
other observers. He then used their agreement as the basis for a
"metrical" limit between blades and bladelets. While this is all
well and good, a further aspect needs to be tested , namely , the
measurement's validity (cf. Brim and Spain 1974:19-26). Is
the measuring one carries out relevant for the theoretical vari-
able being investigated? Or, more bluntly put, is the measure-
ment interpretable? What meaning is to be given to " blades" as
opposed to "bladelets"?
To answer that question, which I hold to be of pri-
mary significance, one might consider variation within an as-
semblage as a way of defining interpretable variables (cf. Wash-
burn's 1951 discussion of the different attitudes toward m ea-
surement embodied by the "old" physical anthropology, on
the one hand, and "new" physical anthropology, on the
other). For example, in the American Arctic, typologists have
been trying to ascertain if one can distinguish blades from
microblades on the basis of the frequency distribution of the
various width sizes. That is, if one plotted width against the
number of specimens of each width, then this plot of the
frequency distribution could serve either to indicate or fail to
 indicate · that larger blades ("blades") should be distinguished
from smaller blades ("bladelets" or "microblades") . They
would be distinguishable if the distribution were bimodal (had
two peahs, that is, two widths were the modal values of two
subgroups); they should not be distinguished if there is a uni-
modal distribution. Thus, Wyatt has commented (1970:100):
Width has been used to determine a dividing
line between microblades and blades. Taylor
(1962) discovered a bimodal distribution of
widths at the Arnapik site ... It might be hypo-
thesized that a marked bimodality ... indicates
the existence of two modes of blade or micro-
blade production ...
However, was Taylor's bimodality measure valid? Did it indeed
distinguish two artifact groups (blades · and microblades) at
other American Arctic sites? Wyatt found little support for its
validity in his study (which, by the way, included the site
Taylor had originally studied):
In our study, samples from Kobuk, Onion Port-
age Proto-Denbigh, Lower Bench, Sima, and
Arnapik showed some tendency toward bimo-
dality . . . but in no case was the tendency
marked. Although discrimination of collections
and traditions by width has been successful
elsewhere . . . it did not prove possible in our
study.
The point is, analysis of variation should be one way of esta-
blishing typologies (classifications, categories, measurement
units, etc.), that is, of defining interpretable units of analysis.
Tixier's approach does not appear to be concerned with such
matters.
What kind of models result from Tisier's work (or
from the tradition he is part of)'' What happens when replic-
ability is the major criterion of model building? Let us con·
sider, as one instance, a diagrammatic convention.
A diagrammatic convention used by Tixier has flakes
standing on their heads, so to speak. Lithic Technology's (then
NLTJ cover for the translation of Tixier's glossary proudly
depicts such a diagram, a flake (blade) with the platform rem-
" nant on the bottom. This is in accord with Bordes' (1961:6)
statement or the convention :
Par convention, les pieces sont orientees avec le
talon, ou extrimiti proximale, placee vers le
bas. (my translation: By convention, flakes are
oriented with the heel (butt), or proximal end,
placed at the bottom.)
Such an arbitrary descriptive convention is misleading if one is
interested In understanding manufacturing processes.
For most manufacturing techniques, the core is
oriented so that the platform is the top surface, not the
bottom, since force is usually applied from above. This would
mean that the platform remnant on the flake was on top in the
manufacturing procedure (indeed, Bordes' identification of
this platform remnant as the "extremite pro.ximale ", or near
end, of the Oake tends to support the idea of its being a top,
rather than a bottom, element). Hence, it would seem that
convention should require that diagrams show flakes with
proximal ends up, to aid in orienting researchers' perceptions.
The present convention certainly is confusing to students try-
ing to learn about ·lithic technology. Diagrams should clarify
problems. This diagrammatic convention has a contrary effect.
· I suspect that a descriptive analogy led to the original
convention. I~ seems to me plausible (although I have not the
documentation for it) that a descriptive analogy between the
semi-circular outline or some platform remnants with the out-
line of a shoe's "heel" began _it. Namely, by calling any plat-
::orm remnant "l,e talon" (heel or butt), It followed that flakes
mould be shown heel down. It would have been a happier
state or affairs it the generic name for platform remnants had
29
been based on the name for platform remnants of a different
outline, namely "le chapeau du gendarme" (gendarme's hat) ,
for then flakes could be shown top end up .
The naming of artifacts and attributes is another is-
sue. Names identify variables and their values. They are mental
labels or tags, and, to be most useful for analyzing specimens,
the words used as names should help orient the researcher's
perceptions, be concise, and be sufficiently distinct from other
names so as to avoid confusion or ambiguity. As example of
how confusing we can make things, consider the terms thus far
used to name the platform remnant.
One set of terms is based on the concept of a "plat-
form": striking platform, striking platform remnant, platform,
platform remnant. I agree with those who have argued that the
qualifier "striking" be excluded unless one can determine that
the flake was indeed produced by percussion flaking. I also
agree with Bordes (1961:5) that a distinction should be made
between the "platform" of the parent body and the portion of
it detached with the flake:
II est done incorrect de parler du plan de frappe
d'un eclat. (My translation: It is therefore in·
correct to speak of the striking platform of a
flake.)
Thus one might decide upon the phrase "platform remnant".
However, besides being a lengthy name, this phrase incorpor-
ates the notion of a "platform" against which force is applied,
and this notion is problematic. Namely, in percussion flaking
using a "soft" hammer (Newcomer 1971) and in the pressure
flaking used in retouching artifacts (Sheets 1973), force is ap-
plied to an edge rather than to a surface. In such cases, the
surface which might be labeled the "platform remnant" would
not be a remnant of a platform but merely a portion of the
top surface of the parent body. Preparation of the real "plat-
form" might consist of abrading an edge. Hence one might
limit the term "platform" (for both cores and flakes) to those
situations in which a surface, rather than an edge, was the
target for the application of force, and use another more non-
committal term for the general designation of the top surface
of a flake. Past alternatives have been "butt" and "Proximal
end".
The first, "butt," Tixier's choice, is cm ...:ise and un-
ambiguous, but, as discussed before, implies the bottom or
base rather than the top. "Proximal end" has the correct orien·
tation, does discriminate between core and flake , is noncom-
mittal as to whether the force was applied to a surface or to an
edge, and is noncommittal as to whether it was percussion or
pressure flaking. However, it is not as unambiguous as one
would hope. First, the phrase "proximal end" has been use d
by Tixier and the phrase "proximal segment" by Aigner
(1970:78) to refer to the entire top portion of a flake, includ-
ing the bulbar area and what Sanger, McGhee and Wyatt
(1970) refer to as the "area of battering" (another problematic
name). Even more confusing, however, one might use the
phrase "proximal end" to refer to the top ends of flake frag-
ments missing th!! proximal segment altogether. Thus "'proxi-
mal end" could refer to the hinge fracture at the top end of a
broken flake.
Since past terms appear to hinder rather than help
understanding, a new term should be devised, one that indi·
cates the appropriate orientation, is appropriately noncommit·
ta!, is concise, and does not suffer from ambiguity (I use the
term "cap"). The point is that one should not be bound by
conventional labels if they muddle conceptualization.
Some researchers seem to have the idea that descrip·
tion or artifacts, names, diagrammatic conventlon.s, and all
other such descriptive devices are minor concerns that are sim·
ply to be gotten over with as quickly as possible so as to be
able to get on to interpretation. Who carei; what one calls ~his
or that, or how the diagram is drawn? Let's get on with the
important interpre tive questions, they might say. However I
think it important that researchers recognize that their wor'ds
are their tools, just as the stone artifacts th ey study were the
tools of past peoples. I argue that the cate gories one esta-
blishes, the labels given those categories, th e diagrammatic
conventions u sed, all of these are interpretive issues th em -
selves, they are all parts of the analytic models one uses and
ultimately , tl:!e interpre ti ve syntheses are based upon them .
would hope we all have an inte rest in devisi ng sharp anal ytic
tools and in building coge nt interpretive mode ls.
References
Aigner, Jean S.
1970 The Unifacial , Core and Blade Site on Anan -
gula Island, Al eutians. Arctic A nthropology,
7 (2): 59-88.
Bordes, Franc;ois
1961 Typologi e du Paleolithiqu e: Ancien et
Moyen. Publications de L 'Jnstitut de Prehis-
loire de l'Universite de Bordeaux, Memoire
No. 1. Bordeau x: Imprimeri es Delmas.
Brim , John A.; David H. Spain
1974 Research Design in An thropology: Para-
digms and Pragm etics in th e Tes ting of
Hypoth eses. NY : Holt, Rin ehart and Win-
ston.
Newcom er, M. H.
1971 Some quantitative experim ents in handaxe
manufa cture. World Archaeology, 3( 1 ) :
85-94.
Sanger, David ; Robert McGh ee; David Wyatt
1970 Blade description. A relic A nthropology,
7(2) : 115-11 7.
Sheets, Payson D.
1973 Edge abrasion durin g biface manufacture.
American A ntiquity, 38(2) : 215-218 .
Taylor, W. E.
1962 A distinction betwee n blades and micro-
blades in the Ameri can Arctic. American An-
tiquity , 27 : 425-426 .
Tixier, J .
1974 Glossary for the descri ption of stone tools.
Translated by M. H. Newcomer. Newsletter
of Li/hie Technology: Special Publication
Number 1.
Washburn, Sherwood L.
1951 The new physical anthropology . Transac-
tions of the New York Academy of Sciences,
Series II, 13: 298-304.
Wyatt, David
1970 Microblade attribute patterning: a statistical
examination. Arctic Anthropology, 7(2):
97-105.
MARTIN W. BOKSENBAUM, Department of Anthropology,
Queens College, C.U.N.Y., Flushing, New York 11367_
.q.
A MACROCORE IN THE REGIONAL MUSEUM IN
TUXTLA G UTIE RREZ, CHIAPAS , MEXICO *
In a rece nt article, Heste r (1972) describes four
macrocores from various areas in Mesoamerica . Such cores
have also bee n note d by Tolstoy ( 1971 ), Graha m and Heize r
( 1968) , an d Sidrys (1976 ). Sheets has noted that such co res
i are fo rm ed by perc ussion and represen t the preliminary stages
of the core- blade reduction process (1972 , 1975a, b). As such
th ey were pre formed at the qu arry site by removal of large
Oakes. Nex t, large blade cores or m acroco res probably were
ex ported without further alte ration to other sites where local
craftsmen used them to produ ce macroblade s and late r pri s-
matic blades (Heste r 1972 , Sheets 197 2, 197 5a, b). The pur-
pose of this articl e is to describe such a core stored in t he
Regional Museum in Tuxtla Guti errez, Chiapas. Th e museum
catalog number for the macrocore is 2-364 , 8-4-3.
Unfortunately , no proven ience information is avail -
able for this specim en. Howeve r, it is highl y probabl e that it
was found somewhere in the Tuxtla area. If this is tru e it
would imply obsidian trade of macrocores into the Central
Depression of Chiapas. Information available from Ch iapa de
Corzo would fur t he r impl y that if such a trade in m ac rocores
was presen t that it was probabl y limited to the Prec lassic per-
iod. The form of th e imported obsi dian changed in limited to
th e Preclassic period . The form of the imported o bsidian
chan ged in th e later periods to the importation of sm all er
co res.
The macrocore is m ade from a dark gray to black
obsidi an ; the colo r vary in g because of diffe rin g concentration s
of gray and blac k bands whi ch run throughout the entire
pi ece . No trace-elem ent analysis has been perform ed to deter-
mine th e qu arry so urce of thi s core.
Th e Tuxtla macrocore is omewhat different than th e
co res reported by Heste r in that it is not as well shaped. Th e
core is somewhat rectangular in shape instead of conical or
py ramidal. This is possibly because th e distal e nd has been
re moved ; also , a large flak e has bee n removed from one side of
the core making one large fac e completely n at. The m a.x imum
le ngth of the core is 22 cm. The maximum width of th e plat-
form is 17 cm .; the minimum width is 13.5 cm . The core is
wides t at th e platform. As can be see n in Fig. la and c it tapers
very slightly toward the distal e nd.
Th ere are 11 nu tes or negative Oake and blade scars
on the core ; 2 are from the removal of large flakes and the
other 9 are from the removal of large blades or macroblades.
The largest nake re moved left a negative scar 11 cm_ wide and
22 cm. long. The negative bulb of percussion of this macro-
flake has almost obliterated by overhang removal. The maxi -
mum width s of th e other large blade scars are given below . The
le ngths are all just under 22 cm .
4 cm_ 4. 5 cm. 2.5 cm.
4 cm . *5.5 cm. 2.5 cm.
3.5 cm. *6.0 cm. *6 .5 cm. (tapers to a point)
The widths with asterisks indicate that the negative
scar represents the total width of the removed macroblade .
The oth er nu tes represent only part of the original negative
scar, the oth er portion having been removed during the se-
quence of macroblade removal.
The platform of the macrocore is a natural cortex
surface. This is the major difference between this and the
other previously reported specimens (Hester 1972). Some
small flakes have been removed around the perimeter of the
platform shown in Fig. lb . This may have bee n an attempt to
remove the natural concave surface of the core thereby creat-
ing a flatter platform.
One large flake and two smaller flakes have been re-
moved from the distal end of the core. The large one is 11.5
30