Tears of Sanguis: Essay: Archaeological Materials

INTRODUCTION
Over the course of two days, four samples of lithic materials, three samples of ceramics, and two ground stones were analyzed. The ceramic samples had all of their items evaluated while the lithic material samples specified to choose a representative variety from what was offered. The ground stone station had many metates, grinding substances, and manos to choose two of each from to evaluate.

PROCEDURE

On day one, Camron and I went to the lithic materials and ceramic stations and took pictures of the artifacts presented in the different bags. He lined up two rulers to be an x-axis and y-axis then arranged the items so that they were all within those boundaries then I took a picture. Due to the condensed sections that the different stations were at and the number of other students at these tables, this took almost the full lab time to do so the ground stone station was left for later. It was noted that most groups that were drawing the artifacts had only managed one station. The measurements outlined on page 136 (Kelly) for lithics are obvious to view in the photos.

On day two, Kacey, Liz, and I picked a ground stone, measured it, and ground wheat berries, commenting on the process. Then, we chose a second ground stone and repeated the process with quick cook barley. With the last 15 minutes of class that remained, Liz and I looked up definitions in the textbook and completed the calculations.

CERAMICS

For set 1, the linear punctate and the two stamped designs present were likely to be made with hand tools. None of the potsherds were shiny or had an indication of a finish so the pottery that these sherds came from was more likely built for daily function rather than decoration or occasional use. It is also probable that several of the potsherds belong to the same vessel. The textured pieces would belong on the body and the plain at the base for functionality and appearance purposes. Since the pieces all relatively have the same slope when lying flat, it is unlikely that any of the pieces belong to the rim where a steeper slope is more likely present.

For set 2, the parallel lines were likely to be done by hand since the distance between lines varies slightly from line to line. Since the remnants of paint are clustered, it is also likely that the sherds were hand painted. Since the breaks for these sherds are similar to each other and the coloring is consistent between them, it is likely that these sherds belong to the same vessel, further indicated by an apparent likeness in material. Due to the cracks in the sherds, the paint, and their indicated interior placement, it is likely that these sherds were part of a vessel that held liquids. The paint would have acted as a barrier to preserve the material and the cracks show its use. These sherds have been indicated to be interior pieces due to their coloration and texture. Based on their slopes and markings, these pieces would be in the body of the ceramic since base pieces would be flat and rim pieces would have received more sun exposure in addition to having more design.

For set 3, the sherds are a variety of sizes, thickness, and shape. The designs on three of the sherds are all distinguished and utilize varying color so it is unlikely that the collection of sherds belong to the same vessel. The edges of these sherds also differ from each other: the cylinder piece is smooth but other sherds have jagged edges, smooth edges, or a combination. Due to the durability of the designs on the sherds, the pottery was fired after it was painted. The cylinder piece may have been part of a handle or lid while the painted pieces were likely part of the body of the vessel. The plain pieces look burnt and are fairly flat so they are expected to be part of a vessel base. Due to the wide variation of the sherds presented, functionality is harder to determine. The area that they were found was likely a place that needed many vessels.

The ceramic samples came from blending sites in Utah. Since we only looked at three samples it is unlikely that the selection represents a regional pattern given the limited quantity and variation amongst the items. Ceramics are often dated with thermoluminescence to determine the amount of time since the materials were heated or exposed to sunlight. Dating ceramics is important because knowing the time when the material was last fired is a strong indicator of when the item was in use. Generally, pottery is clay that has been molded into shape, dried, then fired with a finish. By examining the intentional texture and decoration of the pieces, how the ceramic was molded can be determined. These hypotheses could be tested by attempting to assemble the sherds into a ceramic object, performing chemical analysis on the components, and assessing the fragments within the site universe instead of analyzing them out of context.

LITHIC MATERIALS
The lithic materials viewed were all from Logan, Utah. Due to the sheer number in the collection sets and the variety expressed in size, shape, and color it is likely that these materials formed a regional pattern. Lithic materials are often dated using Carbon 14 but other methods can be used depending on the material. (Kelly, page 122) If only a quarter of the lithic materials can be dated, then a representative sample in terms of type, material, and size should be taken and dated. The three quarters not dated can then be matched against the average date and compared to the ones similar that were dated.

In set 1, the artifacts were projectile points of large size of varying material. In set 2, the artifacts were projectile points of small size of varying material. In set 3, the artifacts were large bifaces of varying material. In set 4, the artifacts were scrapers of varying material. Attributes are characteristics that distinguish artifacts from each other (Kelly, page 358) but criteria are the standards by which something is measured. For example, the criteria for set 1 is to be a projectile point of a certain size but the attributes would be the material, color, jaggedness of edges, etc. In this way, it is important that artifacts should be considered in terms of type (criteria) first then materials (attributes).

GROUND STONE

A metate is a large, flat stone that is used to grind certain substances while a mortar is a cup shaped object in which substances are ground therefore, the ground stones used were metates and their supplemental stones were manos. In order to create the depth, a ruler and a tape measure were used simultaneously; the ruler to show an even decline and the tape measure to show the distance. This process was fairly quick.

For the first metate, there was an obvious location where continual grinding had taken place. In order to grind on the surface, the side with a short width was rested upon a leg in order to make the top flat. The wheat berries were hard to grind and often rolled off the stone so it was easier and faster to stab them with the mano. It was concluded that grinding the wheat berries was easiest when their was a large pile of them on the metate instead of just a few.

For the second metate, there was also an obvious location where continual grinding had taken place. Since the metate was fairly consistent in height, it laid on the ground while used to grind. The quick cook barley was a lot easier to grind than the wheat berries and stabbing them as we did with the previous substance was actually harder to do so the barley was rubbed into the rock instead. We did not conclude which ground stone was easier to use.

SUMMARY

The ceramic station was rather limited in what could be stated and hypothesized since the potsherds did not make up a full ceramic item and the number of shards found was limited. In contrast, the lithic materials station held a vast variety of objects that even incomplete could be distinguished and missing parts could be deduced since the majority of the shape remained intact. Since the lithic materials station had a higher quantity and quality by the reasons above, the conclusions drawn would have more of an impact on larger areas and future items compared with the ceramic station. The ground stone station was more towards understanding methodology and use compared to analyzing physical structure and drawing conclusions about relationships between artifacts. As such, retrieving the viewed items from an archaeological dig would give the greatest indication about their stone and tool habits while providing insight into their pottery and domestic situation.

Lithic Materials 1, 2, 3, 4