ANT 100 Tutorial – Archaeology Lab – Ceramics

Introduction:

Archaeologists often determine how old sites are based on artifact form. Over time,
particular types of artifacts become more or less common. Knowledge of these changes in
frequency can be used to date other sites. For this lab activity, you will be analyzing some
pot sherds (fragments of ceramic pots) produced by ancestors of the Huron-Wendat in
southern Ontario.

An archaeological survey team has found five archaeological sites in the Stratford, Ontario
region. At each site, they excavated a “test pit”, and recovered a small sample of ceramic
fragments. What they really need to know is: how old are the five sites? Ceramics can help
answer this question, because over the centuries, the women who made the pots altered
various aspects of the decoration, in a sequence which has been well dated on nearby sites.

For this lab activity, each group will analyze the pottery fragments from one site. All of the
fragments are “rim sherds”, meaning they come from the uppermost part of the pot, which
usually exhibits decoration.

Procedure:

A) Gently spread your pot sherds out on the mat provided.

B) Look for sherds with castellations. Castellations are raised, often “pointed” structures
along the rim of the pot (see diagram). Admire the beauty of these sherds, and then set
them aside.

C) For the remainder of the sherds, fill out the table on the reverse of this page. For each
sherd:
i) Assess whether it has any decoration on the lip (the uppermost edge of the rim).
Lip decoration usually consists of short lines perpendicular to the pot’s edge.

ii) Look at the collar (the uppermost band on the exterior of the pot, directly below
the lip). Is the collar decorated with horizontal lines (running around the pot),
diagonal lines, or some other design?

Interpretation:

Ontario archaeologists have named different ceramic “types”, with each type based on a set
of decorative attributes. Those with incised decoration on the lip of the vessel, and
diagonal lines on the collar, are known as “Bieber Incised”. Based on other archaeological
sites with radiocarbon dates, we know that Bieber Incised pottery became more common
over time. In addition, castellations became less common over time.

Be prepared to contribute two quantified aspects of your sample at the end of class: 1) the
number of castellations; and 2) the number of Bieber Incised sherds. The samples will be
compared, in order to figure out in which order the five sites were occupied.
SHERD Lip decoration Collar decoration Is this sherd Bieber Incised?
NO. Present Absent horizontal diagonal other (lip decoration present;
lines lines pattern collar decorated with
diagonal lines) – yes or no
53W3 X X

5W45 X X X NO

100L5 X X X NO

100L35 X X NO

305L25 X X NO

Total Number in column 7 (Bieber Incised): _________________________________.

Total Number of castellations: ______________________________________.

 ANT 100 Tutorial – Archaeology Lab – Stone Tools
For this lab activity, students will identify and discuss two sets of stone tools. Tutorials will be
divided into six groups. Each group will spend 12 minutes identifying either Kit 1 or Kit 2, and will
switch to the other kit for a further 12 minutes.

Based on the descriptions on page 2 of this handout, identify each tool type. You may remove the
tools from the box and bubble pack, but keep them on the foam pad. During the identification
process, discuss the criteria on which you are basing your decisions, and use the terms in the glossary
below whenever possible. In addition, discuss how you think the tools may have been made and used.

After the two 12-minute identification sessions, push tables together into three groups, each of
which has one Kit 1 and one Kit 2. On the foam pads, arrange the tools in order from early to late, in
the following five Tool Traditions: Oldowan, Acheulean, Mousterian, Upper Palaeolithic, and
Mesolithic. Once they are arranged, discuss the development of stone tools over time, through this
sequence. Structure your discussion around the following three questions:
1) How specialized are the tools? How many different functional types are there in each
Tradition? (Note: these kits do not contain all tool types from any Tradition, but they do give
an overall impression of the numbers of types).
2) How complex is the technology - how many steps do you think it took to make the various
tools?
3) This question applies to the production of flakes, blades, and microblades: How efficient is
each Tradition in terms of maximizing the amount of useful cutting edge from a given amount
of stone? In other words, if each of the five Traditions had a 1 kilogram block of flint, would
there be differences in how much useful cutting edge they could get out of it, given the
different ways they produce flakes or blades?

Glossary:

Backing Deliberate blunting of a sharp edge of a stone tool, seen as a series of very small flake
scars, so the tool can be more easily gripped or attached to a haft.
Blade A linear flake at least twice as long as it is wide.
Core An artifact from which flakes are removed. The core itself may be made into a tool, or it may
only be used as the source for flakes.
Cortex The exterior surface of a nodule of stone, before it is flaked. The cortex often has a
different appearance than the interior of a stone.
Flake A lithic artifact detached from a core, usually thin and flat.
Flake scar The negative impression left on a core after a flake is removed.
Haft A handle into which a blade or other working edge is inserted.
Microblade A small blade, usually less than 5 cm long.
Platform Position on a core or flake where force was applied to remove the flake.
Prepared Core A type of core from which a series of initial flakes is removed in order to allow the
later removal of a flake with specific dimensions.
Retouch The removal of small flakes from one or several edges of a flake, in order to produce a
specific shape or type of working edge.
Symmetry Correspondence in size and shape on opposite sides of a dividing line.
 Kit 1: Lower and Middle Palaeolithic
Oldowan:
Pebble tool. A rounded stone cobble with several flakes removed along one margin. May have been
used for working wood or animal butchery, or simply as a core to produce flakes.
Chopper. A larger cobble with flakes removed along one or several margins. May have been used
for cutting or chopping, or as a core to produce flakes.
Flake. A thin, sharp stone flake without any retouch. Used for a variety of cutting tasks.

Acheulean and equivalent:

Abbevillian handaxe. A large core tool from which multiple flakes have been removed to produce a
symmetrical implement, usually in the shape of a pointed oval. Often has cortex on the wider end.
Likely served as a core as well as performing many cutting and chopping functions.
Acheulean handaxe. Thinner, more symmetrical version of a handaxe. Likely served as a core as
well as performing many cutting and chopping functions.

Mousterian:
Levallois core and flake. This prepared core has multiple flakes removed from around the margins
on both faces. The thin, quite symmetrical flake has been removed from a platform at one end. The
flake could be used “as is” for cutting, or could be retouched into other tool forms.
Mousterian side scraper. A thick flake with steep retouch along one curved margin. Used for skin
scraping or wood working.
Mousterian backed knife. A sharp flake with fine retouch along one margin. Used for various
cutting tasks.

Kit 2: Upper Palaeolithic and Mesolithic

Upper Palaeolithic:
Blade. A large, thin, straight-edged linear flake. Used “as is” for cutting, or retouched into a
variety of other tool types.
Blade core. A core from which several blades have been removed.
Burin (there are two burins in this tray). A blade from which small flakes have been removed along
one margin to make a squared edge (note: you’ll have to look closely at the margins!). Burins were
used to work bone, antler, ivory, and wood.
Endscraper. One end of a blade has been finely retouched to make a steep working edge.
Endscrapers were likely used to scrape skins.
Gravette point. Very sharp, thin blade with backing on one edge and at the base, for hafting. May
have been used as a projectile point (weapon) or as a knife.
Shouldered point. Finely retouched projectile point with a “shoulder”, which appears as a barb or
projection from one edge. Used as a projectile point or knife.
Perforator on a blade. Blade with one end retouched into a sharp, triangular point. Used to cut or
bore holes in a variety of materials, including skins.

Mesolithic:
Microblade core and microblades. Very small blades intended to be hafted into grooved handles;
used for a variety of tasks.
Backed microliths. Small blades were broken into sections, backed, and retouched into specific
shapes to fit into grooved handles. They were used for a variety of tasks.
 ANT 100 Tutorial – Archaeology Lab - Ceramics

A pot sherd (left) and complete pot (right), indicating features needed for the ceramics lab assignment.