Prolegomena to a Grammatical Theory of Lithic Artifacts

Author(s): Fekri A. Hassan

Source: World Archaeology, Vol. 19, No. 3, New Directions in Palaeolithic Archaeology
(Feb., 1988), pp. 281-296
Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd.
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/124602
Accessed: 23-08-2016 14:54 UTC
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms

Taylor & Francis, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to World
Archaeology

This content downloaded from 200.49.224.88 on Tue, 23 Aug 2016 14:54:27 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

Prolegomena to a grammatical theory of

lithic artifacts
Fekri A. Hassan

There I begin to shape the old handle

With the hatchet, and the phrase
First learned from Ezra Pound

Rings in my ears!

'When making an axe handle

the pattern is not far off.'

'Axe Handles', Gary Snyder

Introduction

The study of lithic artifacts is at a dead-lock. Attempts to resolve the problems of

typology remain inconclusive (Whallon and Brown 1986). The promise of a resolution
through quantitative typology has faded (Brown 1982: 187). Experimental replication
(Flenniken 1984), though offering new insights into flint-knapping technology, remains
to be fully integrated within the goals of contemporary, not to mention, traditional
archaeology (Thomas 1986). In this essay, I provide a preliminary sketch of a theoretical
direction that promises to place artifacts within the appropriate domain of human action
and thought. I suggest that artifacts are to be regarded not simply as products of
manufactural techniques fashioned for some utilitarian or symbolic function, but more
properly as exemplification of [structured] cognitive processes. Identification of relevant
attributes and the formulation of a set of rules or a grammar, based on empirical

investigations, leads to a recognition of cognitive and behavioral modalities. The

elucidation of the uniformity, disruption, or change of these modalities - within the

context of a generative grammar theory - is likely to enrich our understanding of
prehistoric peoples and culture well beyond what typological and stylistic studies can
offer.

In the following brief sketch I am prohibited from a lengthy critique or review of

pertinent literature. I am also unable to provide a more elaborate discussion of the
grammar and its full implications. Let me just state that the notion of 'grammar' has been

in the air for some time (Clarke 1968; Holloway 1969) and that the ideas expressed by

Deetz (1967), Isaac (1967), Muto (1973), Bonnichson (1974), Young and Bonnichson
World Archaeology Volume 19 No. 3 New Directions in Palaeolithic Archaeology
? R.K.P. 1988 0043-8243/88/1903/000 $1.50/1

This content downloaded from 200.49.224.88 on Tue, 23 Aug 2016 14:54:27 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

282 Fekri A. Hassan

(1985), Wynn (1977), Gowlett (1982, 1984, 1986), Carr (1985b) and Chippindale (
herald, support, or amplify some of the notions presented here. This work also
upon my previous exploration of a theory of lithic artifacts (Hassan 1974, 1976,
1986b). However, the emphasis here is on cognition and grammar which I will
immediately below. In the remainder of the paper, I give an account of a prelim
and a partial, grammatical analysis of tools from two late Palaeolithic assemblage
the Nile Valley.

The cognitive matrix

It can hardly be contested that the manufacture of lithic artifacts involves thin

addition, the transmission of artifact manufactural technology, style or function fro

generation to another and from one artisan to another either within or across a

boundary involves thinking and learning. Even if we restrict our discussion to 'im

we have to concede that the design and manufactural procedure for produ

arrowhead or Levallois core do not take place by mental casting, but by learning
coordinate ideas with sensory-motor behavior with the aim of achieving an end-p
That the archaeological record suggests that lithic artifacts exhibit both spat
temporal patterned change within and between cultures indicates that there is so
of order in the production of lithic artifacts. This order cannot be explained so
terms of purely mechanical principles or functional/adaptive goals. There are oc
where major changes in subsistence and settlement were not associated with sig
changes in lithic artifacts (Elston 1986: 66). Even when there is a linkage between

in lithic artifacts and 'adaptive' processes, the role of cognition as the basis for behav

responses cannot be ignored. Mechanics and robotics would also fail to acco

learning and creativity. It is strongly asserted here that the role of cognition, and m

-of ideas and design - is essential for the making of lithic artifacts. Discussion
meaning of variability in artifacts have so far been inconclusive and unsuccessful
they overlooked this fundamental issue.
The whole discussion of variability got off on the wrong foot when it uncri
accepted the concept of 'type' as traditionally defined. Attempts to save ty
through quantification have also floundered, except when they began to addre
theoretical flaws of traditional typological thinking (e.g., Whallon 1982; Read 19
a better understanding of variability we need to 'deconstruct' assemblages and ty
a minimal number of elements and to search for a grammar by which such eleme
be combined to create artifacts. Sackett (1982: 67) has come very close to this thr
when he stated that 'certain basic motor habits, and modes of execution may cons
substratum of patterning that lies too deep within an assemblage to be monitored
level of detail at which most artifact classifications are constructed.' He w
prevented from proceeding further by continuing to deal with 'style' at the level of

and by overlooking the role of cognitive processing and memory. The linkage b

types and culture is ambiguous and poorly known; the higher constructs b

traditional typology cannot be interpreted in unequivocal or clear cultural term

I advance in this paper the view that an understanding of cultural variability i

This content downloaded from 200.49.224.88 on Tue, 23 Aug 2016 14:54:27 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

Prolegomena to a grammatical theory of lithic artifacts 283

artifacts cannot be adequately achieved without a consideration of artifacts as the

material transforms of a structured, conceptual combination of design elements.
Artifacts from a certain perspective may be thus regarded as information, a view already

held by other authors, albeit in different contexts (Plog 1980; Wiessner 1983). As
information, it is suggested here that artifacts may be understood somewhat better by a

restricted analogy to language (Deetz 1967; Holloway 1969). I am cognizant of the major
differences between lithic artifacts and language, and the reader therefore is warned
against assuming that the term grammar as used here is identical to that of linguists.
Analogy with language is restricted here to those domains where there is an overlap
based on structural similarities. Language and artifacts are different on many levels
(Elston 1986: 98-103). Some of the main differences result from the difference in the
material modulated, namely air vs. stone (compare with Rosenwald 1975: 217 and Colby
1975). This difference is also manifest in the case of sign language (Poizner, Klima, and
Bellugi 1987). There is also a major difference which resides in the different pragmatic
and semantic fields of artifacts and language.

The notion of grammar

Grammar, as used here, deals with the deep order that economically accounts for
recurrent, structured combinations of formal elements of lithic artifacts. I do not wish to
burden this working definition here with any allusions to semantics (meaning or symbols)

or an evaluative judgement about 'correct combinations' often encountered in language

grammar. In this respect I am in support of the position already articulated by

Chippindale and Boast (1986). I do not at the same time rule out the significance of
'symbolic' or semantic studies of artifacts, whether they are those dealing with ethnic or

societal signals/icons (e.g., Wobst 1977; Wiessner 1983) or deep symbolism (e.g., Hall

1984; Donley 1982; Shanks and Tilley 1982). On the contrary, I believe that the
grammatical approach yields a powerful tool for breaking symbolic and semantic codes.
Nevertheless, the initial methodological strategy, as a means of 'breaking into' data (cf.
Carr 1985; Hassan 1986c) begins with an empirical analysis of formal elements of lithic
artifacts.

A 'formal element' refers to any distinctive morphological attribute which is likely to

transmit manufactural, functional, or cultural information, e.g. notching, fluting, striking

platform, or regularity of flake scars. A formal element may assume different states on
the basis of variations in its own morphology, e.g., various states of the striking platform.

The states of an element are either nominal or continuous and may be defined on the
basis of the methodology elaborated by Read (1974). The selection of elements and their
states is often a result of convention, convenience, or scale of measurement or
description. It would be best if this selection is guided by ethnographic, historical, and
experimental knowledge. Such knowledge is regrettably still vastly underdeveloped.
It is presumed here that a grammar represented by a system of rules that describe
common formal elements and their structured combinations can be constructed. This

grammar can (1) account economically for the great diversity of lithic artifacts (oft
defying any single typological scheme) on the basis of a few rules and a finite, sm

This content downloaded from 200.49.224.88 on Tue, 23 Aug 2016 14:54:27 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

284 Fekri A. Hassan

number of elements, (2) demonstrate how new lithic artifacts (which may be regarde

archaeologist or an artisan as a type unlike another previously known) are produ

(3) provide a key for deciphering the manufactural, functional or social, iconic m
The grammar envisioned here is both expositional and generative; i.e., it involves
descriptive methodology to expose or unmask the deep order in lithic artifact
theoretical construct that explains how novel artifacts can be created. Howeve

grammar does not fully explain variability. This can only be achieved by

grammatical rules in the inferential contextual constructs based on other archa

remains and knowledge bases.
The concept of grammar used here also benefits from the traditional distinct
linguistics, following de Saussure, between langue and parole. We thus differe
between competence and performance as in Chomsky's grammar (1965). Comp

refers here to the ability of the flint-knappers in a group to produce an indefinite n

of different lithic artifacts. That an indefinite number can potentially be prod

based on a theory of lithic artifacts as surface manifestations of combinations of ele

according to a system of rules. The rules belong to different domains; sy

manufactural, and functional (both manufactural and functional rules may be referr

as pragmatic). Syntactic rules refer to the rules by which all information nee
conceptual design, manufactural, and functional elements of an artifact are in
Manufactural rules constrain the manufactural representation of syntactically f
artifacts. Functional rules provide a further constraint. These are rules that dict
optimal and acceptable range of designs for a specified function or functions (c
1985b).

The syntactic (base) rules are embedded in still deeper [universal] cogniti

psychological rules. Manufactural rules, in turn at a still deeper level, may be g

in rules of sensory-moto; behavior. One can also posit here that there are semantic rules

(both iconic and symbolic). Both semantic and functional rules are most likely situational
and tactical, working at a level of cognition shallower and more flexible than either the

syntactic or sensory-motor levels.

Of all syntactically and manufacturally feasible designs, certain designs are produced

as emblematic icons. Such artifacts may or may not be of utilitarian function; e.g., the
San arrowheads (Wiessner 1984) and some variants of rippled knives in Predynastic
Egypt (Kelterborn, In. Lit. 1987). Artifacts may also be produced on the basis of
'subconscious' symbolic order; e.g., a contrast between different types on the basis of
symbolically significant colors or kinds of flint or stone.

From an evolutionary perspective, the capabilities for cognitive processing and

memory, as well as sensory-motor abilities, set the limits and range of syntactic grammar
and flint-knapping aptitude. Within the possible domains of cognitive and sensory-motor

competence, artifacts are likely to vary as a result of stochastic, pragmatic, and cladistic
factors.

At this point, I refrain from any further elaboration of grammatical rules in order to
limit the scope of this incipient work. In the discussion below I will adopt a simple
grammatical order analogous to that of 'phrase structure'. However, this is mostly to

avoid complicating the presentation by repeated reference to (1) the rules by which
elements of artifact are constructed (e.g., a denticulated edge from a succession of

This content downloaded from 200.49.224.88 on Tue, 23 Aug 2016 14:54:27 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

Prolegomena to a grammatical theory of lithic artifacts 285

notches and a blank from the detachment of a flake, and a burin facet by removing
lamellar spalls) not necessarily in a correct order, and (2) 'transformational' rules by
which the elements are arranged (or rearranged) either before or during manufacture

(subject to Markovian constraints), which again are subjected to (3) rules of

manufacture, (4) function, and (5) semantics.

Toward a grammatical analysis of Nilotic late Palaeolithic assemblages

The typological studies of assemblages from the Nile Valley follow closely the scheme
devised originally by Tixier (1963) for the Epipalaeolithic of the Maghreb. This scheme
has been adopted by many investigators in North Africa and the Near East. It consists of
a list of types which made it easy for other prehistorians to classify their collections and to

construct comparative charts of relative frequence. Typological or 'phenetic' similarities

have often been translated into statements about 'cladistic' relationships (common lines
of descent), diffusion and movements of social groups. Tixier's typological scheme is
based on shared technomanufactural and morphological attributes (ibid., p. 18). He also
recognized variations and combinations of certain attributes. We owe to Tixier the clarity
by which types were defined and the useful range of attributes which were employed for

creating the scheme.

Let us illustrate the grammatical approach by a study of the class of tools referred to as

'backed bladelets'. According to Tixier, they are small blades (rarely exceeding 20 mm)
which are trimmed on one side (backed) by either steep or fine (ouchtata) retouch. They
approach a crescent or a triangle in shape but are rarely truly geometric (i.e., do not fall
in the simple recognizable shape of a triangle, crescent or a trapeze as we recognize such
shapes). Tixier created 24 types based on the frequency of certain combinations of
backed bladelets with abrupt retouch. These included one type from fragments. In

taxonomic studies these types are given equal importance when judging phenetic
distance. I suggest that this may distort phenetic distances since some of the types may
simply consist of an accidental derivative of a basic 'type', which must be given much
greater importance in judging taxonomic affinities. Moreover, the typological scheme is
closed. The types are numbered and finite. It is noteworthy that other workers (Philips
1974; Lubell 1974) found that they had to split some of the types and invent others. Using
the grammatical method, this difficulty is overcome by considering artifacts as a result of

rule-based combinations of a set of formal elements. In the case of backed bladelets (Bk)

these consist of a blank (B) and backing as the principal modifier of the blank (R)
together forming a unit (BR), as well as secondary modifiers (M), such as additional
retouch or truncation. The modifiers may be further described in terms of their location,

completeness (C), shape or any other characteristic. Backing that extends along a whole
side of a bladelet is referred to as 'complete' in contrast with partial backing. The blank
(B) in Tixier's scheme is a bladelet (including burin spalls), but work in the Nile Valley
revealed that microflakes were also utilized. The class perhaps should be named backed
microliths. Also a formal element in backed bladelets is the termination (T) of the
backed tip (straight/pointed, arched, blunt/obtuse). The blank modifier can be one or

This content downloaded from 200.49.224.88 on Tue, 23 Aug 2016 14:54:27 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

286 Fekri A. Hassan

more of certain states (e.g., restricted butt, blunted base, lateral hump, tip retouch,

truncation, etc.).
The grammatical structure adopted here is based on the assumption that [form

consist primarily of an intentional modification of a blank (the word 'implement' m

used as a term for either intentionally modified or natural or unmodified object

perform a task). The modifications of the blank are considered either as esse
accessory. The recognition of essential (principal or primary) modifiers chosen
those recognized by Tixier (1967: 19) as elaborate modifications that significant
the form of the blank (e.g., modifications producing what is referred to as 'sc
truncations, or backing) or those that are produced by a special technique (e.g
faceting). These principal modifiers presumably correspond to the generic fu

utility of the tool or a major change in form that may be of pragmatic or iconic fu

Accessory or secondary modifiers involve subtle and less striking modification

too may be of functional or iconic significance. We may recall here that

Rosenthal (1986) suggest that highly visible attributes are likely to be involved
conscious boundary maintenance between groups. They also suggest that within
signs or icons need not be visible from a great distance.
Given this approach to grammatical structure, we may thus characterize the g
of backed microliths as follows:

Bk -> BR + (M)
BR -- B + R

R -C + T

The element in parentheses () is optional. Although the lexicon of blanks,

completeness of retouch, lateral extension, and termination is limited, the number of
states of modification (M) is at least 9, which provide the possibility of a very large
number of designs (or potential types). This range, however, may be restricted by
manufactural rules; e.g., it may not be feasible to manufacture a hump back on a very
narrow bladelet or create an arch backed bladelet on a burin spall. Of all manufacturally
feasible designs certain artifacts may not be favoured because they are not functionally
optimal or just because they do not conform to a favoured design.

We may thus consider artifacts in terms of a conceptual 'pivot', 'token', or a

'prototypic' design (cf. Kempton 1981; Tyler 1978: 275 ff.). The prototype may be
viewed as a structured combination of the most common formal elements. The

substitution of 'equivalent' variables or variable states leads to a few pivot

(compare with the development of grammatical strucure in children in De
65-71 and passim). Artifacts similar to the pivot design(s), are likely to be le
and may be considered as members of design family or a schemata. This a
'classes' of artifacts is a common feature of folk taxonomy (Kempton 1981)
a flexible system of categorization accommodating the cognitive shuffling
element that does not abide by inviolate templates (Rosch 1976, 1978; Tyler
1985).
Artifact types in Tixier's classification may thus be considered as members of

of designs. Possible designs may be arranged graphically on the basis

transmutation (Fig. 1). Certain designs can be transmuted to others by the

This content downloaded from 200.49.224.88 on Tue, 23 Aug 2016 14:54:27 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

Prolegomena to a grammatical theory of lithic artifacts 287

65

UJ62 V67J.68 /

47

49

48

46

64

I634

Nl

55 56

61 | 59

Figure 1 Types of backed bladelets after Tixier (1963) arranged according to d

deletion of an element. For example, an arch-backed bladelet (Tixier

transmuted into an arch-backed bladelet with a rounded base (# 57) and v

addition or deletion of the rounded base. A straight-backed bladele

truncation (# 68) is not a member of that family of design. If all feasib

equally probable, and assuming for the moment that there is no gross modif

frequency of certain designs as a result of differential deposition or po

processes, the potential artifact types corresponding to the designs sh

represented. That this is not often the case suggests only a finite number of

fact produced. I have in fact discovered in most of the cases I have exam
tens of possible designs, only a few designs emerge as the most dominant or

and that other designs represented are often members of the same desig
phenomenon is analogous to that described by Isaac (1967) as a 'morpho
dominated by a design target with fringe varieties.
I suggest therefore that artisans have a flexible, mental conception of a
or a prototype. This should not be confused with a 'mental template' w
rigid pattern. The mental design may be regarded as an image or a set of
stored, perhaps as bits of information, in an 'iconic memory' as psych
reveal (Baddeley 1976: 162-234). This memory is subject to decay and di
visual information can be recalled, and perhaps assembled, by visual or

This content downloaded from 200.49.224.88 on Tue, 23 Aug 2016 14:54:27 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

288 Fekri A. Hassan

(drawing of a projectile point) or a name code (Scottsbluff). The iconic memory,

with other kinds of memory, guides the selection and evaluation of raw materia
sequence of manufactural steps. However, the artisan has certain standards for what is

being produced. Any deviation from a 'prototype', or a schemata of related prototypes,

as the stone is being worked, which cannot be remedied, may be discarded. However, in
some cases, a wide range of variation in the final product or some of its elements may be
tolerated. Still in other cases, a deviation from the prototype at a stage may lead the
artisan to make something else other than what was originally intended.
It should be also noted that the grammatical structure adopted here does not
necessarily reflect the procedural sequence involved in the materialization of a design.
This 'materialization' follows transformational rules and is best approached by a study of

the manufactural sequence as revealed by kinds and patterns of scars, as well as the

production of experimental analogs (Young and Bonnichsen 1985; Hassan 1986b).

Two late-Palaeolithic sites

The collection from a late Palaeolithic site in Upper Egypt, called Site 12 (Phillips 197
or E71K12 (Phillips 1972; Wendorf and Schild 1976: 261-268, 60-62) shows that the
modal design family consists of a partially or complete straight backed bladelet with
retouched tip or truncated base. This clearly contrasts with the modal design in a

collection in a nearby site, called Site 13 (Phillips 1973) in which the modal design family
consists of obtuse, partially backed bladelets.
The backed bladelets from Site 12 can be also described in terms of the frequency by

which certain design elements were represented (the frequency is represented as a

fraction obtK.ned by dividing the frequency of all artifacts characterized by a certain state
by the frequency of all artifacts sharing the same element). The frequency can be used to
judge the similarities between collections as if one is comparing the texts by different

authors on the basis of how often they employ certain words. One may also assume that
texts by the same author at different times in his life or in different contexts (technical

report vs. poems) will contain different frequencies of words.

It may be also noted here before going any further with our analysis, that the list of
attributes and their states used here are those that can be extracted from the Tixier

system. Unfortunately the criteria for various states of an element are not consi
e.g., 'rounded base' refers to shape, whereas 'basal retouch' refers to a manufactural
element.

This inconsistency aside, the modal grammatical performance for backed bladelets can
be expressed as follows (see Table 1 for symbols):
Site

12

Site

13

Bk - (M) + BR Bk -(M) + BR
BR->

R+B

BR

-R+B

B -> Bladelet B -> Bladelet

R - 0.81 Co + 0.9 Ts R -> 0.73 Cp + 0.9 To

M -> 0.56 Mbt + 0.3 Mt M -> 0.77 Mbb

This content downloaded from 200.49.224.88 on Tue, 23 Aug 2016 14:54:27 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

Prolegomena to a grammatical theory of lithic artifacts 289

There are manifest differences between the modal prototype of a backed bladelet in
these two collections. However, one cannot simply translate this into a statement about
ethnicity or funcitonal differences without further scrutiny.

Let us begin such an additional examination by looking at the manufactural rules

involved in backed bladelets from Site 12. The tools are manufactured on bladelets by
steep retouch and are modified by basal truncations or/and tip retouch. The modifiers
and morphology of backing apparently aimed at producing bladelets with a pointed tip
and a dull base (basal dulling by truncation or retouch accounts for 0.65 and tip retouch
for 0.33, on a scale from zero to 1). In the production of backed bladelets in Site 13, basal
truncation was not as a rule employed. The majority of the modifications were for dulling

the base, by basal blunting or basal retouch. The prevalence of basal modification in both
sites suggests that the backed bladelets were hafted. The emphasis on straight, retouched
tips in site 12 suggests that backed bladelets were used as projectile points. At site 13,
the prevalence of obtuse tip suggests either a functional or stylistic difference. It is
known that Ancient Egyptians hafted certain 'tools' to serve as projectile points with an
obtuse edge as the tip of an arrowhead (Clark, Phillips, and Staley 1974). An obtuse tip
may create a bigger wound and if hafted obliquely cannot slip out as easily as a pointed
tip would. We note here that in this approach the design grammar serves to provide a
basis for generating hypotheses that can be evaluated empirically from contextual data or
other information.

It must also be added that if backed bladelets are believed to be those of two different

functional categories it does not automatically follow that they were produced by the
same or related artisans. One cannot also, on the basis of this kind of evidence alone,

conclude that they belong to different groups of artisans. Such inferences require a
grammatical investigation of other tool classes and of the archaeological context of the
artifacts.

A study of one class of tools is likely to lead to a very partial view of the grammar of
lithic production. Typological and stylistic studies based on single tool classes also fail to
provide a reliable measure of the overall phenetic or taxonomic affinity or distance
between assemblages. Assemblages may differ functionally or stylistically in one or more
of their tool classes. From differences in the affinities between two classes one may learn

about the specific nature of contact or genetic relationship between assemblages. We will
illustrate here how we can learn more about the grammatical differences between the
artifact assemblages from sites 12 and 13 from an examination of three additional tool
classes -truncations, burins, and endscrapers.

Grammatical analysis of truncations (TN), a class of tools characterized by steep

retouch that significantly alters the original outline of a blank, indicates that the
truncations from the two sites (Table 2) were similarly designed as far as the choice of
blank (bladelet or a flake), the location of truncation (basal or distal), and the obliquity
and shape of the truncation (oblique, straight, concave). The modal prototypes for both
sites is approximated by:
TN -- BR

BR-> B +R

B -0 0.75 Bit
R > 0.9TNd + .6TNo

This content downloaded from 200.49.224.88 on Tue, 23 Aug 2016 14:54:27 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

290 Fekri A. Hassan

Table 1 States of elements of backed bladelets from Sites 12 and 13
Site

Principal Retouch
Completeness

12

Site

13

(R)

Partial (Cp) 0.19 0.73

Complete (Co) 0.81 0.27
Termination/morphology

Straight (Ts) 0.89 0.028

Arched (Ta) 0.07 0.075
Obtuse (To) 0.02 0.897
Modifiers

(M)
Tip retouch (Mt 0.330

Basal retouch (Mbr) 0.015 0.032

Basal blunting (Mbb) 0.770
Basal trunc. (Mbt) 0.556
Rounded base (Mrn) 0.050
Restricted butt (Ms) 0.033 0.032
Shouldered (Mz) 0.012 0.016

Lateral retouch (Ml) 0.003

Humped (Mh) 0.002

where
A

Bit

is

for

grammatical

one

difference

were

mostly

belonged

The

to

bladelet,
study

in

the

artifacts

of

of

TNd
of

of

similar

endscrapers

ES -> (M) + BR

B -> *Bf

Table 2 States of elements of truncations from Sites 12 and 13

Site 12 Site 13
Blank

Flake

(Blt)

(Bf)

0.77

0.23

0.74

0.26

Location

Distal
Basal

(TNd)

(TNb)

0.89

0.11

dista

0.91

0.09

Obliquity

Oblique (TNo) 0.55 0.67

Straight (TNs) 0.25 0.13
Concave (TNv) 0.18 0.19

This content downloaded from 200.49.224.88 on Tue, 23 Aug 2016 14:54:27 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

al

end-scrape

endscrapers

BR -> R + B

Bladelet

for

endscrapers

design

simple

schemata

0.148

on

design

in

eit

wit

both

si

Prolegomena to a grammatical theory of lithic artifacts 291

R -> Rt

M -- *Rt

Where an asterix (*) denotes dominance; ES, endscraper; Bf, flake; a

A study of burins shows marked similarities (Table 4), but there are
in the frequency by which certain design states were represented. Th
prototypes in both assemblages can be described as:
Bu -> BR

B -' fBf
R -D

I*S

ID

[TNot

+ TNs
TNv J

Table 3 States of elements of endscrapers from Sites 12 and 13

Site 12 Site 13
Blank

Flake (Bf) 0.58

Blade (Bb) 0.39
Core (Bc) 0.03
Secondary

0.69
0.14
0.17

modification

Unmodified (Mu) 0.84 0.79

Retouch (Mr) 0.09 0.21
Backing (Mb) 0.06
Denticulation (Md) 0.09 0.34

Table 4 States of elements of burins from sites 12 and 13

Site 12 Site 13
Blanks

Flake
Blade

(F)
(B)

0.70
0.30

0.45
0.55

Multiplicity

single (S) 0.56 0.70

Dihedral (D) 0.34 0.11
Multiple (Ml) 0.09 0.19

Truncation

Oblique (TNo) (0.375) 0.54

Straight (TNs) (0.125) 0.178
Concave (TNv) (0.500) 0.214
Convex (TNx) -0.071

This content downloaded from 200.49.224.88 on Tue, 23 Aug 2016 14:54:27 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

of

flak

292 Fekri A. Hassan

The overall similarities in most major classes, other than backed bladelets, sugg
the collections from the two sites do not seem to have resulted from different

sites where different functions were performed. Both sites consist of tens of thousa

artifacts indicating that they represent multiple occupations over a fairly long p
time. Tools were manufactured at both sites as indicated by large amounts of de

and discarded cores. Blanks were produced by similar technology as one can judg

similarities in core attributes, ratio of various debitage to cores, and of similarities in

attributes of debitage. However, there are significant quantitative differences

choice of raw materials, in preparing platforms, and in the preference of certain hab

manipulating cores (e.g., greater representation of opposed double platform cores

13 compared with 12).
We may thus conclude on the basis of grammatical and ancillary data that th
represent accumulations of artifacts by artisans with similar if not identical t
manufactural competence and that the artisans responsible for the tools in the t

as a whole shared many design elements and followed similar design rules

production of most artifacts, though with distinct minor differences. In one ca

back bladelets - the two sets of artisans were demonstrably at variance with eac

in the way they designed and produced this kind of artifact. The differences in
bladelets may be functional. They may also be simply differences in the way the
backed-bladelets, which may or may not have had iconic-emblematic significanc
artisans certainly belong to two related by not the same information network,
some may translate to 'social group'. It is also important to note that the two si
within 70 meters of each other. Also, the artifacts in the two sites occur on r

eroding surface and in the tops of consolidated dune. Stratigraphic position relat
paleosol suggests that Site 13 was occupied slightly later than Site 12 (Phillips 197

seems thus that the differences exhibit a change over a short span of tim

inhabitants of Site 13 apparently inherited their ideas and manufactural practice

their predecessors who had previously lived in the same region. The marked diff
in backed bladelets may have resulted from 'retooling' to improve function or t
backed bladelets to another function. If the difference were due to 'stylistic' dr
would expect to find sites with intermediate design, which we now lack.

Concluding remarks

I advance in this essay, the notion of grammar as a theory for the study of lithic art

One of the primary features of this notion is the emphasis on a cognitive substratum

the production of artifacts following base and transformational rules. This ap

provides a basis for ordering artifacts in a manner that facilitates interpreting the s

for similarity or variability between assemblages. The concepts of a token des

prototype, and design schemata as a model for describing assemblages in terms o
and fundamental designs provide an alternative to traditional 'types'.
The grammatical approach as presented here focuses on tools and attempts t
within the constraints of existing archaeological data. This has the distinct advan

not dispensing with the bulk of our knowledge of the late Palaeolithic of North Afri

This content downloaded from 200.49.224.88 on Tue, 23 Aug 2016 14:54:27 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

Prolegomena to a grammatical theory of lithic artifacts 293

it now stands. However, a more detailed grammatical study would require a

consideration of certain formal elements that may not be available for many collections.
Also, a more comprehensive grammatical analysis should aim to unveil the structure of
the set of rules that govern the selection of raw materials, blank production, and tool
making. To do this, both experimental analogs and interpretation of the depositional and

post-depositional assemblage formation process (Jelinek 1976) must be available.

Grammatical studies can also focus on the detailed sequence of manufacture of a specific
tool design (Young and Bonnichsen 1985; Hassan 1986b). This is a powerful technique
and can reveal subtle differences between otherwise very similar artifacts.

It must be also clear that the grammatical approach provides a basis for an analytical
method to disclose an order that serves as a guide for formulating informed hypotheses.
Given this approach one can deal with various components of the assemblage which may
have been subject to social, formative, or cognitive processes peculiar to them. This
provides a means for dealing with assemblages in terms of a dynamic cultural and social
system in which a change in one component may not be directly or synchronously linked
with a change in other components. Elucidation of a grammar also serves as a starting
point for discussing form, function, or style without any a priori assertions about the
identity of attributes.
Washington State University

Pullman, Wa.

References

Baddeley, Alan D. 1976. The Psychology of Memory. New York: Basic Books.
Brown, J. A. 1982. On the structure of artifact typologies, Essays on Archaeological Typology,
(eds. Whallon, R. and Brown, J. A.). Kampsville: Ctr. American Archeology, pp. 176-189.

Bonnichsen, Robson. 1974. Models for Deriving Cultural Information from stone tools. Ph.D.
Dissertation, University of Alberta, Edmonton.
Bonnichsen, Robson. 1977. Models for Deriving Cultural Information from Stone Tools. National
Museum of Man. Mercury Series, Archaeological Survey of Canada, Paper 60, Ottawa.

Carr, C. 1985a. Getting into data: philosophy and tactics for the analysis of complex data

structures. For Concordance in Archaeological Analysis, (ed. Carr, C.). Westport, pp. 18-43.

Carr, C. 1985b. Toward a synthetic theory of artifact design. A paper presented to the 50th Annual

Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology.

Carr, C. and Rosenthal, B. 1986. Determinancy in artifact style analysis: hierarchy, meaning, and
context. Paper presented at the 1986 Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology.

Chippindale, C. and Boast, R. 1986. A shape grammar approach to form in artefacts and
architecture. Unpublished.
Chippindale, C. 1986. Archaeology, design theory, and the reconstruction of prehistoric design
systems. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 1986: 445-485.
Clark, J. D., Phillips, J. L. and Staley, P. S. 1974. Interpretations of Prehistoric Technology from
Ancient Egyptian and Other Sources, Part 1: Ancient Egyptian Bows and Arrows and Their
Relevance for African Prehistory. Paleorient, 2: 323-88.

Clarke, David L. 1968. Analytical Archaeology. London: Methuen.

This content downloaded from 200.49.224.88 on Tue, 23 Aug 2016 14:54:27 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

294 Fekri A. Hassan

Colby, B. N. 1975. Culture grammars. Science, 187: 913-19.

Deese, James. 1970. Psycholinguistics. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Deetz, James. 1967. Invitation to Archaeology. New York: Natural History Press.

Donley, Linda W. 1982. House power: Swahili space and symbolic markers. Symb
Structural Archaeology, (ed. Hodder, I.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press pp.

Elston, Robert G. 1986. The Structural analysis of Lithic Production Systems. Ph.D. Dis
Washington State University.

Flenniken, J. J. 1984. Past, present, and future of flintknapping: an anthropological p

Annual Review of Anthropology, 13: 187-203.

Gowlett, J. A. J. 1982. Procedure and form in Lower Palaeolithic industry: stoneworking at

Kilombe, Kenya. Studia Praehistorica Belgica, 2: 213-17.
Gowlett, John A. J. 1984. Mental abilities of early man: a look at some hard evidence. Hominid
Evolution and Community Ecology, (ed. R. A. Foley) Academic Press, London: 167-192.

Gowlett, J. A. J. 1986. Culture and conceptualisation: The Oldowan-Acheulian Gradient. Stone

Age Prehistory, (eds. G. N. Bailey and Callow, P.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
pp. 243-260.
Hall, Robert L. 1984. Cognitive cores and flint flakes. A paper presented at the 83rd Annual
Meeting of the American Anthropological Association, Denver, Colorado.
Hassan, Fekri A. 1974. The Archaeology of Dishna Plain. Papers of the Geological Survey of
Egypt, 59.
Hassan, Fekri A. 1976. The study of lithic artifacts: an analytical model and two case studies,
Primitive Art and Technology (eds. Raymond, J. S., Loveseth, B., Arnold, C., and Reardon, G.).
Calgary: University of Calgary, pp. 27-46
1Hassan, Fekri A. 1986a. Design rules of lithic artifact shapes: The microlith geometrics of North
Africa. Unpublished Collected Papers for the Symposium Form and Design in Archaeology: A
Grammatical Approach (ed. C. Chippindale). Society for American Archaeology Meeting, New
Orleans.

Hassan, Fekri A. 1986b. Temporal design grammar in the manufactural sequence of lithic artifacts.

Unpublished Collected Papers for the Symposium Form and Design in Archaeology: A

Grammatical Approach (ed. C. Chippindale). Society for American Archaeology Meeting, New

Orleans.

Hassan, Fekri A. 1986c. Logic of Archaeological numbers. Quarterly Review of Archaeology,

14-16.

Holloway, Ralph L., Jr. 1969. Culture: a human domain. Current Anthropology, 10 (4): 326-47.
Isaac, G. Ll. 1967. Some experiments in quantitative methods for characterising assemblages of
Acheulian artefacts. Actes du Vie Congres Panafricain de Prehistoire (ed. Hugot, H.) Dakkar.

Jelinek, Arthur J. 1976. Form, function, and style in lithic analysis. Cultural Change and
Continuity: Essays in Honor of James Bennet Griffin (ed. Charles E. Clevland), pp. 19-33.
Kempton, W. 1981. The Folk Taxonomy of ceramics. a Study of Cognitive Prototypes. New York:
Academic Press.

Lubell, D. 1971. The Fakhurian, a Late Palaeolithic Industry fromn Upper Egypt, and its p
Nilotic Prehistory. Ph.D. Dissertation, Columbia University, New York.

Miller, Daniel. 1985. Artefacts as Categories: A Study of Ceramic Variability in Central

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Muto, Guy R. 1973. Attributes of technology vs. artifacts of culture. Paper presented at th
Annual Meeting of the Society of American Archaeology, San Francisco.

This content downloaded from 200.49.224.88 on Tue, 23 Aug 2016 14:54:27 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

Prolegomena to a grammatical theory of lithic artifacts 295

Phillips, James L. 1972. North Africa, the Nile Valley, and the Problem of the Late Paleolithic.
Current Anthropology, 13: 587-90.
Phillips, J. L. 1973. Two Final Palaeolithic sites in the Nile Valley and their External Relations. The
Geological Survey of Egypt, Paper No. 57.

Poizner, H., Klima, E. S., and Bellugi, U. 1987. What hands reveal about the Brain. Cambridge,
Mass.: MIT Press.

Read, D. W. 1982. Toward a theory of archaeological classification. Essays on archaeo

typology (eds. Whallon, R. and Brown, J. A.), pp. 56-92.

Rosch, Eleanor. 1978. Principles of categorization. Cognition and Categorization. Eds.

and Lloyd, B. B., Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawerence Erlbaum, pp. 28-49.

Rosenwald, George C. 1975. Epilogue: reflections on the universalism of structure. Stru

Transformation (eds. Riegal, K. F. and Rosenwald, G. C.), New York: Wiley an

pp. 215-20.

Sackett, James R. 1982. Approaches to style in lithic archaeology. Journal of Anthropological

Archaeology, 1: 59-112.

Shanks, M. and Tilley, C. 1982. Ideology, symbolic power and ritual communication: a
reinterpretation of Neolithic mortuary practices. Symbolic and structural archaeology (ed.
Hodder, I.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 129-154.
Tixier, J. 1963. Typologie de l'epipaleolithique du Maghreb. Alger, Mem. C.R.A.P.E.
Thomas, D. H. 1986. Points on points: a reply to Flenniken and Raymond. American Antiquity, 51

(3): 619-627.
Tyler, Stephen A. 1978. The Said and Unsaid. Mind, Meaning, and Culture. New York: Academic
Press.

Wendorf, F. and Schild, R. 1976. Prehistory of the Nile Valley. New York: Academic Press.
Wiesner, Polly 1983. Style and social information and social information in Kalahari San projectile
points. American Antiquity, 48: 253-76.

Wobst, H. Martin 1977. Stylistic behavior and information exchange. Papers for the Director:
Research Essays in Honor of James B. Griffin, (ed. Cleland, C. C.) Anthropology Papers, 61,
317-42. Ann Arbor: Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan.
Whallon, R. 1982. Variables and dimensions: the critical step in quantitative typology. Essays on
archaeological typology (eds. Whallon, R. and Brown, J. A.), pp. 127-61.
Whallon, R. and Brown, J. A. 1982. Essays on archaeological typology. Evanston, Illinois: Center
for American Archaeology Press.

Wynn, T. 1979. The intelligence of late Acheulian hominids. Man, 14: 371-91.
Young, David E. and Bonnichsen, R. 1985. Cognition, behavior, and material culture. Stone tool

analysis: Essays in honor of Don E. Crabtree (eds. Plew, M. G., Woods, J. C., and Pavesic,

M. G.). Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, pp. 91-129.

Acknowledgement

I owe the materialization of the ideas expressed here to C. Chippindale and J. Gowlett. I
have immensely benefited from the symposium on 'Form and Design in Archaeology: A

Grammatical Approach' during the 1986 Meeting of the Society for American
Archaeology. To the participants and to C. Chippindale and R. Boast who were mostly

This content downloaded from 200.49.224.88 on Tue, 23 Aug 2016 14:54:27 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

296 Fekri A. Hassan

responsible for making it all happen I am most grateful. I also benefited from

my ideas with B. Barich, J. A. Brown, J; Bower, I. Caneva, C. Carr, G.

A. Close, J. Deetz, R. G. Elston, J. J. Flenniken, G. Gamble, F. Hole, R. Halland,
D. L. Holmes, T. Kohler, M. Kleindienst, W. Lipe, R. Littlewood, A. E. Marks,

D. W. Read, and R. Wenke. Their encouragement and criticisms are both most
appreciated. I am especially indebted to G. Gamble, F. Hole, W. Lipe, and R. Littlewood for incisive comments on a version of this manuscript.

I was also most gratified to re-discover, following the completion of my paper, the

seminal work by G. LI. Isaac published in 1967. It is regrettable that Isaac's radical
proposal about prototypes in that work was not more fully developed during the last two

decades. To his memory, and in recognition of his brilliance and warmth, I dedicate this
paper.

Abstract

F. A. Hassan

Prolegomena to a grammatical theory of lithic artifacts

Lithic artifacts may be regarded as the material transforms of design schemata, gui

pivot, token or prototypic designs and subject to manufactural and pragmatic

functions. The designs are flexible and merge through substitution, modifica
deletion of elements. A grammar can be constructed to describe the set of rules

in the production of the designs. This grammatical approach provides a b

interpreting similarities and differences between assemblages as an altern
traditional typology and unstructured attribute analysis.

This content downloaded from 200.49.224.88 on Tue, 23 Aug 2016 14:54:27 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms