Terisa Green, Ph.D. Freelance Writer
If you're looking for
the Tattoo Web Site
CLICK HERE.
Articles
Books
Newsletters
Technical Reports
Illustration Tutorial
Writing Credits
Resumé
Interviews
E-mail Terisa
Home
by Terisa Green, Ph.D.
(including all illustrations)
Introduction
There is no more ubiquitous or ancient type of tool than the stone tool and probably no culture that did not make some use of lithic technology. It comes as no surprise then that the need to include lithic assemblages in publications is widespread. But the lithic illustration is not simply for publication or a pretty picture -- it is an analytic tool.
Figure 1. Ovate Hand Axe, Acheulian, ca. 400,000 BP, East Anglia, England.
Lithic illustration, perhaps like no other type of archaeological illustration, is a means to convey more than the form of the artifact. Combination drawing and schematic, it conveys information about the manufacture and use of the tool through the use of conventions and symbols. The illustration is key in communicating the diagnostic features of the artifact and the illustrator must understand both the identification of those features and the use of conventions to represent them.
Wouldn't it be quicker and more accurate to photograph, scan, or otherwise digitize artifacts? Not necessarily. Although an illustration is always done as if illumination is to the upper left at 45 ° (more on this later), the artifact is actually examined from every angle, with the unaided eye and under magnification, in order to interpret all the diagnostic features. Certainly no single image would suffice. Possibly many images, some at very high resolution, from different angles, with different lighting, would convey the same information as a proper illustration.
Figure 2. - Projectile Point.
Click to enlarge.
One needn't be a competent artist to perform technically competent lithic illustration. It certainly helps in producing an artistic and aesthetically pleasing finished product. However, the correct and accurate encoding of information is the key to a successful illustration. These take a practiced eye and the ability to use measuring tools.
In some instances, an illustration can serve as a replacement for the artifact. A researcher should be able to look at the illustration and understand the diagnostic elements, the evidence of manufacture and use. The illustration might be used to create a typology or even have measurements taken from it -- except for weight.
In addition to all of the functions that it needs to fulfill, we also need to be able to produce a lithic illustration in the field. With practice, it is not unreasonable to expect to be able to produce the penciled version of a simple chipped tool, say a utilized flake, in about fifteen minutes. When we stop thinking of the illustration as an art specimen and focus on encoding information, our task becomes less daunting, more approachable, and hopefully easier. Our goal is to convey information that can only be obtained by examining the artifact from various angles, attempting to reconstruct a sequence of manufacture and use in which a particular artifact can take its proper place. Certainly, the most complex lithic tools, a Maya eccentric for example, might take a number of days to complete. Even so, the process of illustration is identical.
Figure 3. Eccentric Flint, Guatemalan Lowlands, Late Classic Maya, AD 600-900.
Click to enlarge.
This chapter is intended as a practical guide for those of us with excavation, presentation and publication deadlines. Our goal is simply to produce accurate and descriptive illustrations of lithic tools. Resources on lithic illustration, which deal with the topic in-depth and provide exhaustive examples (e.g., Addington 1986), are provided at the end of the chapter.
The Tools
Illustration tools change over time, as technology changes, and they also vary with individual preference. There are, however, a few immutable constants, just as with other types of illustration. The illustrator requires a medium on which to record the illustration, a measuring tool, a pencil, an eraser, and an indelible pen. The following is a more detailed list of the tools that I've found useful.
Clipboard - Even when working on a table, I've found a clipboard useful for manipulating the orientation of the drawing to ease the position of my hand. It substitutes for a table in the field.
Paper - Many different types of medium will work but I've tended to use paper products that are 100% cotton (which is acid free), translucent, with a non-photo blue grid on the underside (which does not reproduce in Xeroxes). These papers are made by Clearprint and are called Fade-out Calculation and Sketch pads. I've also illustrated on mediums ranging from parchment to plastic but find that for erasing, controlling the flow of ink onto the surface, and the amount of humidity and dirt (and other abuse) that it can take, the Fade-out paper works well. Unless the illustration is to be completely re-traced at a later time, it's important to pick a paper from the start that will Xerox, scan, or Xerox and then scan, well.
Pencil - There are two kinds of people in the world: those that use the hardest and lightest colored lead and those that use the softest and darkest. Those that favor the harder leads don't worry about smudging their penciled lines but may have more trouble erasing them, perhaps even having remaining indentations, depending on the pressure required. Those that favor the softer leads can use less pressure and achieve a very dark line but will have to worry about smudging their lines through inadvertent placement of hands or fingers, an errant eraser, and sometimes even the use of a drafting brush. Lead ranges from B (soft) to HB (medium) to H (hard). The maximum hardness is 4H. It used to be that illustrators learned techniques of holding wooden pencils and rotating them while drawing to keep the lead sharp. Mechanical pencils have done away with those techniques. Although a wooden pencil won't malfunction and you always know how much lead you have, I prefer the mechanical pencil, with backups and extra lead. I use a width of 0.5 mm and B lead.
Eraser - Soft white erasers that don't abrade or discolor the paper are the most common choice. An eraser shield probably saves time in the long run, yet I rarely use one. I also tend to chop them into wedges to help support artifacts that I'm drawing.
Calipers - These tools are used to measure widths (interior and exterior) and depths. They are available in several models (plastic or metal, inches or metric, dial or vernier) but the most inexpensive (plastic, vernier) are easily up to the task of illustration. In fact, I rarely need to read the measurements, instead just transferring the tool to the paper and marking the correct proportion.
Ruler - Although I prefer the calipers, the ruler can perform the same function. There is slightly less accuracy in measuring an artifact with a ruler, unless it's completely flat. The dimensions of most interest are the widths and lengths at various points and the distance of features on the artifact surface from the edges of the artifact.
Pens - This is probably the tool that has seen the most change. For many years mechanical pens, such as the Koh-I-Noor Rapidographs (000 - 0.25 mm, 00 - 0.30 mm, 0 - 0.35 mm,1 - 0.50 mm), were the standard. I tended to use the 00 model most often. However, the recent advent of disposable, indelible, and very fine tip pens has lessened the need for mechanical pens, with their required maintenance. I use the felt tip pens now and choose pen widths according to the scale at which I'm working and the size of the artifact. For the very fine direction lines of chipped stone artifacts, I use the Rapidograph 4x0 (0.18 mm).
Triangles - Triangles serve to provide a right angle (90°) reference and are especially useful if your paper doesn't have a grid. They can also be used to provide visual references when measuring an artifact. I've also used them as a table when necessary and find that the either the 45° or 30°/60° triangles are good choices.
Light source - In a pinch, of course, the sun will do. But it's sometimes helpful to have a single, unmoving, directional light source, positioned at top left. Because this is the convention for any type of archaeological artifact illustration (light coming from the upper left at 45°), it helps to actually see the highlights and shadows that fall on the artifact from a light source in that position.
Tape - I use drafting tape, which looks like masking tape but is not a permanent adhesive, to fix the illustration in progress to the clipboard so that the illustration doesn't move, crease or wrinkle. It peels off easily.
Drafting Brush - A soft bristled drafting brush will remove unwanted eraser bits or any debris that happen upon the illustration. Using your hand to brush off the illustration may smudge or dirty it.
Magnifier - A loop, a hand-held magnifying glass, or a magnifying lamp are helpful in making out the small details that, even if not illustrated, are helpful in assessing the manufacture and use of the artifact.
Figure 4. Illustration in progress, with tools nearby.
Click to enlarge.
General Conventions
No matter the artifact, there are certain broad illustration conventions that apply as well as specific ones for certain tool types. The proper use of these conventions is a prerequisite to accurately encoding information. Unfortunately, there is no one standard to which we can refer. Illustrations tend to subscribe to some broad rules, but many times the views and techniques are simply done according to the training of each illustrator. Nevertheless, there are some guidelines to the illustration of lithic material in general that can be applied.
Lighting - No matter how the illustrator actually illuminates the artifact in order to inspect or draw it, it is always drawn as if a light source were positioned in the upper left corner of the illustration, at an angle of 45°. It's a convention that comes from the wider field of illustration but one that serves our purposes well in illustrating artifacts. There is no ambiguity regarding where shadows fall and whether they are meant to portray protrusions or depressions.
Figure 5. Relationship of light source to artifact.
Click to enlarge.
Orientation - The "working" part of an artifact (e.g., tip of a projectile point or the scraping part of an end scraper) is shown at the top of an illustration. This orientation is preferred since, according to the lighting convention, the top of the drawing and hence the features of most interest receive the best lighting. For example, although the bulbar (proximal) end of a projectile point is typically oriented at the bottom of an illustration, it is placed at the top if the tip of the projectile point happens to be made at the bulbar end. However, in this case, a small barred arrow is used to indicate the location of the bulb. In an exception to the rule, however, the convention for pestles is an orientation with the working end down. The most conservative approach to knowing how to orient an artifact for illustration is to check existing artifact drawings of a particular tool type in order to determine if there is a standard.
Figure 6. Sand Dollar Pendant, Oriented as It Would Have Hung.
Click to enlarge.
Customary Views - The minimum views required to show the three-dimensional shape of an artifact and the diagnostic features include the dorsal (front) surface and one profile (an outline of the artifact which is taken from a second point of view at right angles to the first). This assumes that the dorsal view shows the diagnostic features. For many artifact types, the dorsal view is by definition inclusive of these features. In chipped stone artifacts, for example, the dorsal surface is defined as the outer surface with respect to the core from which the original flake was produced. A chipped stone dorsal surface is identified by the presence of flake scars or cortex, key diagnostic features. If important diagnostic features can not all be shown with one view, as in the case of a bifacially worked tool, then additional views are necessary. All edge modification should be illustrated. As a rule of thumb, when in doubt, I add another view.
A dashed line is placed between dorsal, ventral (back), profile and cross-section views, but not between distal and proximal (top) views. Additional views, profiles and cross-sections are all placed relative to the primary view, typically the dorsal. Side views are placed to the side but, more specifically, they are placed next to the side that they illustrate. Top views are placed above and views of the bottom of the artifact are placed below the primary view. Cross sections are placed to the side if taken on a vertical plane and placed above or below the primary view if the cross section is taken on a horizontal plane. The finished illustration, with all views, should always include a metric scale for reference and provenience data.
Figure 7. Finished Illustration.
Click to enlarge.
Material - In general, grinding tools (e.g., mortars, pestles, grinding stones, grinding slabs) are made of course materials and are illustrated with dot stippling in order to convey their morphological and diagnostic attributes. Chipped stone artifacts (e.g., flakes, blades, cores, projectile points) are typically manufactured from amorphous and crypto-crystalline materials, which are smooth and glassy in appearance. Chipped stone artifacts are typically illustrated with lines of various lengths, widths, and curvature. Occasionally, a chipped stone artifact will have some cortex remaining or perhaps be heavily abraded or patinated. In these instances, dot stippling is used to illustrate these particular features. In the case of groundstone artifacts, areas can become smooth or highly polished and there may also be evidence of chipping. In smooth areas, the use of stippling is restrained and very light. In chipped areas of groundstone artifacts, a solid outline separates the ground from the chipped area but flake scars are stippled, as with abraded chipped stone artifacts, since the material is very likely coarse and not glassy.
Surface and Edge Conventions
Solid lines - The outline of the artifact has the thickest, though not the only, solid black line drawn in any lithic artifact illustration. Flake scars, separations between different materials on an artifact, broken edges, or areas of markedly different color or texture are also drawn with a solid black line, sometimes with the same thickness, sometimes slightly thinner. Direction lines, used to depict the direction of the force of removal, the curvature of a flake scar and shading, are generally the thinnest lines. This is not to imply, however, that a thick line for an outline is always best. In fact, just the converse is true. In order to achieve an illustration that is aesthetically pleasing and will be less problematic during reduction for publication, use the thinnest line possible that still carries enough weight to provide a clear edge to the artifact, delineates its different areas, and allows you to use even thinner widths for the direction lines.
Figure 8. A Simple Outline.
Click to enlarge.
Stippling - Frequently groundstone artifacts, even when chipped, flaked, or battered are illustrated solely with dot stippling to portray features. Dot stippling is applied directly over a pencilled line (later erased), in a nearly solid and unbroken single row of dots. This type of stippling presents the eye with an apparent line but the end effect is a softer and less distinct look, truer to the appearance of groundstone artifacts. Indeed, much of artifact illustration is providing the right cues to the eye since we only use black ink or a white medium to convey a shaded, three-dimensional object.
As noted above, stippling is used to indicate cortex, patina, course material, ground and also polished surfaces. Varying the density of the stippling indicates the nature of the surface. The more dense the stippling or the more varied the density of the stippling (resulting in a mottled appearance), the courser the material. The lighter stippling treatment shows the smoothest areas.
Direction lines - Chipped stone artifacts have flake scars that are illustrated by using direction lines. These direction lines are curved, as are the real ripples in a flake scar, but they are not reproductions, per se, of these ripples. They are a convention that serves several purposes. They create shading and a three-dimensional effect by variations in the curvature, length, thickness, and density of lines used in any particular flake scar. They show how the flake was removed by indicating the direction in which the flake removal force traveled - like the ripples emanating out from a point at which a stone is dropped in water. Direction lines generally begin at the left side of the flake scar and arc toward the right, not reaching it. They are thickest and most dense in the shadow of a flake scar, near the upper left since the scar is concave. They are thinnest, shortest, and the least dense as the flake scar nears its end and feathers off, if the end of the scar is still present on the artifact.
Figure 9. A Single Flake Scar Shaded.
Click to enlarge.
Broken edge - In general, shading the surface of a broken edge provides no diagnostic information although it makes for a more aesthetically pleasing illustration. In the case of the mortar fragment example below, asphaltum is present on the surface of the broken edge, a remnant of repair. Thus, in order to illustrate the asphaltum and its placement, I illustrated the broken edge as well. When not illustrated, I prefer to leave the broken edge blank, as in a profile. A solid black filling can be distracting to the eye and perhaps confused with black coloring.
Retouch - Evidence of sharpening, tool recycling, and other modifications are illustrated in the same way as any other diagnostic feature, with lines or stippling. The morphological differences in the appearance of pecking, for example, on the surface of a grinding stone is enough to inform the viewer of its origin. There are no special conventions that need be applied if the features of the artifact are rendered accurately.
Figure 10. Illustration of a Mano. The black broken edge is distracting. The pecking, used to "sharpen" the tool, is illustrated in the same way as the rest of the artifact.
Click to enlarge.
Symbols
In addition to the conventions and typical illustration techniques above, the following symbols are occasionally used for specific purposes. Some tool types have their own set of symbols. As with tool orientations above, the best approach to using tool-specific symbols is to review other illustrations of that particular tool.
Dashed Lines - This symbol is used to show that the edges of a broken artifact would have continued if the artifact were whole. Extend dashed lines from the edges of the break to indicate the direction in which the artifact would probably have continued.
Link Mark or Hyphen - A single dash is used between multiple views of a piece to show that they are all related to the same artifact. However, views placed above, below or oblique to the principal view do not require a link mark.
Ticks - Similar to the link mark, but not exactly the same, are tick marks which show where cross-section views are made. Cross-section views become necessary when the width or depth of an artifact varies widely over the length.
Dots - Apart from the stippling noted above, dots are sometimes used outside an outline in order to show the location of abrasion at the edge. Unlike stippling, these dots are actually very small circles, with the size of the dot corresponding to the degree of abrasion.
Barred Arrow - Used with the dorsal (front) view of a chipped stone artifact to show the position of the bulb of percussion and the axis of detachment when those features aren't at the bottom of the illustration or are not visible in the view.
Groundstone - Step by Step
Definition
Groundstone, for our purposes here, refers to a range of stone tools which are not necessarily produced as implements for grinding (e.g., manos - grinding stones, metates - grinding slabs, mortars, or pestles) nor as a result of grinding in the manufacturing process (e.g., axes or adzes) although it does include these. Instead, the illustration techniques in this section also apply to tools (e.g., hammerstones, anvils, spindle whorls, or net sinkers) which don't particularly fit into these other definitions but still fall into a general de facto category of "groundstone" since they are not chipped stone.
Overview
In terms of the illustration process, groundstone is rendered primarily with dot stippling and the majority of time is spent in that process. Initially, however, after deciding on the best views, the artifact outlines are created and inked. Any features worth noting, that will receive particular attention in the illustration, are outlined in pencil. In addition, the general shading of the entire tool is pencilled as well as any protruding or recessed features. The final process involves dot stippling these areas to lesser and greater degrees in order to indicate relative light and dark areas and a sense of depth.
Step 1 - Analyze the Artifact
Each individual artifact, no matter the type of tool, has its own unique requirements for illustration in order to present the features of greatest archaeological and interpretive interest. Our primary interest lies in showing these features. There is frequently one view that will show most, perhaps even all, of the pertinent features. However, we examine the artifact from all angles, with different directional light, in order to understand its use and to find interesting features. If interesting features (evidence of manufacture, use, or breakage) are present in locations that cannot all be rendered in one view, then multiple views are necessary.
Step 2 - Choose the Orientation and Views
Conventions for the orientation of groundstone artifacts are less well defined than those for chipped stone. In general, the working part of any tool needs to receive the most light and the most illustration. The artifact is thus oriented so that this end is placed at the top of the illustration. The pestle used in this example, however, is an exception to that rule. Precisely because there can be exceptions, it's always best to seek out other illustration examples of a particular tool type.
Figure 11. Pestle with two illustrations.
Click to enlarge.
Some tool types will require more than one view. A metate or grinding slab provides the most information when viewed from the top. A completely illustrated side view would provide little extra information. A side profile, however, with a dashed line showing the depth of the grinding cavity, would allow the viewer to understand the actual shape of the artifact and also provide some data on the use of the tool.
Symmetric artifacts (tubular stone beads, for example) typically only need a top view and a cross-section. In the pestle example, although this is not typical for pestles, I've added another view since the pestle was not actually symmetric. At least one profile was necessary in order to convey the actual three-dimensional shape. After examining the artifact, however, I realized that I could show a hairline fracture in the material if it were illustrated and not just profiled. Similarly, I added a view of the distal end (bottom) of the pestle (rather than just a cross-section -- which is typical) so that I could show the pecking/damage/use-wear at the bottom.
Step 3 - Create an Outline
After deciding which view or views will be necessary, we create an outline of the tool for the primary view. In general, when the artifact is amenable (small enough or flat enough), the outline can be directly traced. Begin by placing the artifact on the paper and using a right triangle (horizontal edge on the paper, vertical edge in contact with the artifact) to create small tick marks spaced at regular intervals to show where the outline falls on the paper. The frequency of the tick marks depends on the complexity and size of the artifact.
Figure 12. Mortar with triangle and outline.
Click to enlarge.
The next step is to connect the tick marks. I typically leave the artifact laying on the paper and look down directly on the edge to be traced such that the edge and the tick marks line up. The pencil should never come into contact with the artifact. If the artifact is flat enough such that tracing an outline puts the pencil in contact with the artifact, draw the outline a fixed distance away from the artifact. I watch the gap between the pencil and the artifact edge and draw the outline freehand, attempting to match the contour of the edge as closely as possible until the next tick mark. If there is difficulty in matching the contour, adding more tick marks helps to ensure accuracy.
I tend to rotate the artifact and paper as the outline progresses, rather than changing my viewing position, coming all the way back to the beginning. I then check the outline with a triangle in various spots. As a double check, I'll use a set of calipers or a ruler to measure the artifact and the drawing. Correct dimensions are critical for the outline, since all other measurements and feature relationships will be taken with respect to it.
Step 4 - Ink the Outline
Because the outline is as accurate as possible and unchanging in how it is executed, I ink it to prevent accidental erasure. When pencilling the features and shading, I will sometimes erase and redraw until I'm satisfied. If the outline is inked, I don't need to be careful around it when erasing. However, the inking of the solid lines can begin at different stages, according to the experience and skill of the illustrator. Experienced lithic illustrators may begin inking very early. I prefer to ink the outline only and pencil the rest. Other illustrators may prefer to pencil the entire illustration before inking, which is particularly apt when illustrating in the field. Many illustrators fall in-between the pencilling and inking extremes by pencilling and inking key features as fits their own procedure. I tend to ink the artifact outline before pencilling anything else, as follows.
When satisfied that the outline is accurate, ink the outline. Select a pen width which is easily readable but not so heavy as to be distracting. In the mortar and pestle examples provided here, a pen width of 00 (Y&C Permawriter II) was used for the outline. In many areas, stippling will be present in close proximity to the outline and will make the line seem thicker than it actually is. A thick line will also not allow for minute details in the contour to be rendered. If absolutely necessary, a thin line can later be made thicker. For most groundstone, the outline and areas of breakage are the only solid lines in the illustration, unless the artifact has been intentionally chipped or perhaps modified by another material (the asphaltum on the mortar for example and the broken edge).
Figure 13. Mortar illustration with outline and pencilled features.
Click to enlarge.
Step 5 - Pencil the Features and Shading
Once the outline has dried, erase the original pencil over which it was drawn. Using the calipers or ruler, with the edges of the artifact as reference, identify the location of specific features that need to be illustrated. Transfer these locations to the illustration and pencil them in. Because most artifacts are three-dimensional and shown in a three-dimensional perspective, measurements do not necessarily translate directly. For example, a feature may be a 3 cm arc distance away from the edge of a 9 cm wide artifact but because of the curvature, the feature is not drawn 3 cm from the outline but less due to perspective foreshortening. Therefore measurements need to be taken in a flat plane. Here again, placing the artifact down and observing from directly above can help. Place tick marks off to two sides of the outline, at 90° to one another, that both correspond to the feature -- an x-y location so to speak. Remove the artifact and use the triangle to find where two lines extending into the interior of the outline from these two tick marks would cross. This crossing defines the location of that feature in the drawing.
In addition, in this pencil stage, indicate the overall general shading of the artifact as if it were illuminated from the upper left at 45°. Of course, seeing this shading is easiest if you can place a light source in that position. But, in general, light will be the brightest at the top left (less stippling) and darkest at the bottom right (more stippling). The overall shadow on a spherical object will be circular in curvature, for a cylindrical object it will be a nearly vertical line, for a conical object (such as the pestle) it will be a line that parallels the outline, and for a nearly flat object it will be a diagonal line. As you view the artifact and imagine the light falling from upper left, pencil a line that traces the edge of the shadow. In the example of the pestle, the conical shape gives a line that moves from upper left to lower right while the end of the pestle gives a shadow that is circular.
Figure 14. Pestle illustration with outline and pencilled features.
Click to enlarge.
Step 6 - Stipple the Features
Lightly stipple the features and shading that we have just pencilled and erase the pencil. Eventually, virtually all areas of a groundstone artifact will be have some stippling but we don't want to overly stipple a feature in a well lit part of the artifact. We begin with dots spaced as widely apart as possible, while still indicating the outlines of the features. We will darken these outlines later.
Stipple the inside of these features. Even these features can be given a three-dimensional look. The features are visible is this light precisely because they are producing a shadow. Like the overall shadow for the artifact, the feature shadows are also gradated to some extent. In the case of a depression, they are darkest closer to the light source at left, just under the left lip of the depression. In the case of a protuberance, the shadow becomes darkest at right, furthest from the light source. Stipple the features lightly with these differences in shading, placing more dots in the areas with the most shadow.
Figure 15. Pestle with features stippled.
Click to enlarge.
Move the pen up and down with some precision so that small tails aren't left on the dots. These cause the dots to seem bigger and also impart a false sense of direction when there isn't any. Use the same pressure as well so that the dots are fairly uniform in size. Although the placement of dots is varied, it is not entirely random. Dots that are roughly equidistant provide a constant shading effect. The dots begin spaced widely apart in the lightest areas and grow steadily more dense in the darkest areas at bottom right. Be careful not to inadvertently place one dot over another, resulting in an enlarged dot. The sense of uniform shading is decreased by those small errors and a small feature might be conveyed if overlapping happens too frequently, in close proximity. Move slowly and steadily.
Figure 16. Mortar with asphaltum outlined, features outlined.
Click to enlarge.
Step 7 - Stipple the General Shading
Err on the lighter side of stippling, since reproduction and reduction will contribute to the stippling becoming more dense. Leave areas that are smoothest nearly free of stippling but not blank. I frequently begin with a very sparse coat of stippling over the entire artifact and then stipple the darkest overall area at bottom right. Using the shadow lines that we lightly stippled above, I stippled darker to the right and lower side of shadow lines and lighter or not at all to the left and upper side. I stippled the area between the darkest and the lightest, the area of the shadow line, with a density of dots in between the two extremes, following the shadow line but attempting to blend it between the two areas such that the transition is not artificially abrupt.
Figure 17. Mortar with asphaltum outlined, features outlined, general shading begun.
Click to enlarge.
In the mortar and pestle examples, I also used the 00 pen width for stippling. A first attempt with a thicker pen failed and produced a look that was too course. With the thicker pen, each single dot seemed to change the look of the features that I was initially stippling. Stippling, however, should be a gradual change achieved with multiple passes. When the pen is fine enough, and the pattern random and sparse to begin with, stippling should be a gradual process of seeing the three-dimensional shape emerge. Done with precision and a deliberate speed, it is difficult to err. The first stippling passes do not result in a three-dimensional look, so don't be disappointed not to see one. Only multiple passes that blend from less dense areas to more dense overall, while keeping features clearly delineated, make for a successful stippling illustration.
Figure 18. Mortar with more general shading.
Click to enlarge.
As the overall shading darkens, some of the first features that we stippled in the dark region may become obscure. Before they are lost, stipple them again. They must be more densely stippled than the surrounded area. In the darkest areas at right, these features may be reduced to suggestive shadows. If the features in the dark region are important, consider making the darkest overall shadow region light enough so that they can be seen or consider showing them in a different view.
Figure 19. Pestle with features stippled, darkest shading done.
Click to enlarge.
Step 8 - Stipple Additional Features
In this step, we assess the overall effect of the illustration. Overall three-dimensional portrayal of the morphology of the artifact should have been achieved. Original features should still stand out from surrounding shading. Now we check to see whether or not the texture of artifact is conveyed. Widespread pecking and striations may be in evidence, from manufacture, use, or damage. Illustrating each of these is not particularly informative and can actually detract from an illustration. However, representative pecking or grooves can be placed at a few places in the illustration in order to convey the sense of the surface and the coarseness of the material. Stippling a small amount of shading for imperfections at the edges of the outline also helps to convey this type of information. In the mortar example, the additional feature of asphaltum (used as an adhesive in the repair process) is still present on the broken edges. This different material is shaded in solid black and an explanation is provided on the illustration. In stippling, less is more. Stop short of where you might think the stippling is dark enough and set the illustration aside. When you come back to it, try to view it with a fresh eye, even attempt a reduction if possible.
Figure 20. Finished mortar, primary view.
Click to enlarge.
Figure 21. Finished pestle, primary view.
Click to enlarge.
Step 9 - Profile or Cross-section
The above steps complete a single view of the artifact. Full additional views, if necessary, are done in the same way. If, however, a simple profile or cross-section without shading, will suffice to convey the overall shape of the artifact, these are accomplished in the same manner as the outline in step three above. An outline for the profile or cross section views is created with a combination of tracing and measurement. I will typically use white erasers, cut to fit, to temporarily prop the artifact in position. In the finished illustration, these profiles and cross-sections are placed relative to the primary view with a hyphen as noted in the section above on conventions.
Figure 22. Finished mortar.
Click to enlarge.
Figure 23. Finished pestle.
Click to enlarge.
Chipped Stone - Step by Step
Definition
Chipped stone, for our purposes here, refers to a range of stone artifacts which are produced with either core and anvil, hard hammer, soft hammer, punch, or pressure flaking techniques and combinations of these. Not all chipped stone artifacts are tools though. Cores and debitage are by-products of the reduction process. However, the illustration techniques in this section apply to all of these artifacts since they all are similar in appearance and technology. From cores and debitage to blades and projectile points, this group of tools are generally manufactured from amorphous and crypto-crystalline materials that have a smooth, glassy appearance. The illustration of these materials is the same no matter the morphology of the artifact. In certain circumstances, we will encounter artifacts that still retain cortex, are heavily patinated, heavily abraded, or simply flaked from a material that is somewhat coarse. In these cases, a combination of stippling and line technique can be used.
Overview
In terms of the illustration process, chipped stone is rendered primarily with solid black lines of varying curvature, thickness and length. The majority of illustration time is spent in the pencil stages, where all of the features of the artifact are rendered. Initially, after deciding on the best views, the artifact outline of the primary view is created. Flake scars and areas of different material or texture are then illustrated within the outline. Each flake scar is shaded and given curvature using direction lines, which also represent the ripples in the scar that resulted from the blow that removed the flake. The final process involves inking the finished pencilled drawing and creating other views if necessary.
Step 1 - Analyze the Artifact
Like groundstone, each individual chipped stone artifact has its own unique features, no matter the artifact type. Our primary interest still lies in showing these features. However, chipped stone manufacture is typically achieved through a reduction process, from nodule or core to finished tool -- a removal of outer or peripheral material which leaves tell-tale marks at every stage. Unlike the analysis of groundstone, the analysis of chipped stone attempts to reconstruct this overarching sequence of manufacture and the particular place in that sequence for the artifact being illustrated. We examine the artifact from all angles, with different directional light, in order to find evidence of this manufacture as well as evidence of artifact usage. If diagnostic features are present in locations that cannot all be rendered in one view, then multiple views are necessary.
The archaeological analysis and interpretation of chipped stone artifacts is not a subject which can be treated briefly. In this description of illustration, only those terms and analytic methods critical to illustration are used. Resources for information on lithic analysis and feature identification are given at the end of the chapter (e.g., Andrefsky 1998).
Figure 24. Progression of obsidian knife illustrations - artifact manufactured by Dr. Tom Wake.
Click to enlarge.
Step 2- Choose the Orientation and Views
Conventions for the orientation of chipped stone artifacts are more codified than those for groundstone. In general, as with groundstone, the working part of any tool needs to receive the most light and the most illustration. The artifact is oriented so that this end is placed at the top of the illustration. The manufacturing process for chipped stone artifacts leaves one particularly tell-tale feature that relates directly to assessing the process and also the orientation of many chipped tools -- the bulb of percussion. The bulb of percussion, with few exception, is oriented down, at the bottom of the illustration.
The bulb of percussion is located just under the striking platform. As a flake is removed from a nodule or core, the force of percussion (from an anvil, hard hammer, soft hammer or punch) produces shock waves that travel through the material. The shock wave emanates from the point of percussion, in a cone shape. In an ideal and uniform material, (say a plate of glass) a direct blow perpendicular to a flat surface (say from a small metal pellet) would produce a cone-shaped hole. In a nodule or core, the blow is struck at an oblique angle in order to detach a flake. The resulting bulb of percussion, a circular or oval protrusion near the end of a flake, is actually part of a conic section and is the remnant of a shock wave.
The bulb of percussion and the matching scar of percussion, the circular or oval cavity created by the absence of the bulb, are key in determining the orientation of the artifact and which surface of a tool was closer to the exterior of the core. Many times the bulb of percussion, because it is thicker, is not the working end of the tool and is located at the distal end. Unless the bulb is at the working end of the tool, the artifact is oriented with the bulb of percussion at the bottom of the illustration.
Cores, from which flakes are struck, are usually oriented with the striking platform at the top, such that the force of detaching blows would travel downward. The orientation of the bulb down for flakes is thus somewhat counterintuitive since, although the bulb is produced at the striking platform, it is oriented down, opposite of the core. The reasoning in both cases is the same though -- the area of most interest and the "working" end of the artifact are placed at the top of the illustration where they receive the most light.
As with groundstone material, there are certain artifacts with their own illustration conventions. Before beginning an illustration, it's best to know if there are any such conventions for the artifact type that you are illustrating. Some artifacts typically require more than one view (e.g., a biface), while others are usually rendered with one view and a profile or cross section (e.g., utilized flake). Others typically include an end view (e.g., end scraper).
Figure 25. Progression of obsidian prismatic blade.
Click to enlarge.
Step 3 - Create an Outline
After deciding which view or views will be necessary, we create an outline of the tool for the primary view. In general, when the artifact is amenable (small enough or flat enough), the outline can be directly traced. Begin by placing the artifact on the paper and using a right triangle (horizontal edge on the paper, vertical edge in contact with the artifact) to create small tick marks spaced at regular intervals to show where the outline falls on the paper. The frequency of the tick marks depends on the complexity and size of the artifact.
The next step is to connect the tick marks. I typically leave the artifact laying on the paper and look down directly on the edge to be traced such that the edge and the tick marks line up. The pencil should never come into contact with the artifact. If the artifact is flat enough such that tracing an outline puts the pencil in contact with the artifact, draw the outline a fixed distance away from the edge of the artifact. I watch the gap between the pencil and the artifact edge and draw the outline freehand, attempting to match the contour of the edge as closely as possible until the next tick mark. If there is difficulty in matching the contour, adding more tick marks helps to ensure accuracy (see Figure 26 below).
I tend to rotate the artifact and paper as the outline progresses, rather than changing my viewing position, coming all the way back to the beginning. I then check the outline with a triangle in various spots. As a double check, I'll use a set of calipers or a ruler to measure the artifact and the drawing. Correct dimensions are critical for the outline, since all other measurements and feature relationships will be taken with respect to it.
Step 4 - Pencil Features
The principal features of chipped stone artifacts are their flake scars -- moderately concave areas where material has been removed. Each flake scar has its own outline. As with groundstone, the location of the features in a drawing are most reliably done with much the same procedure as in creating the outline. Each flake scar is a feature, no matter if the flakes removed are long and travel the length or width of the piece or if they are terminated abruptly, perhaps being no more than small chips. Within a flake scar, there may be other features as well: a natural cleavage, the scar or bulb of percussion, or an imperfection of some type.
Using the calipers or ruler, with the edges of the artifact as reference, identify the location of specific features that need to be illustrated. Transfer these locations to the illustration and pencil them in. Because most artifacts are three-dimensional and shown in a three-dimensional perspective, measurements do not necessarily translate directly. For example, a feature may be a 1 cm arc distance away from the edge of a 3 cm wide artifact but because of the curvature, the feature is not drawn 1 cm from the outline but less, due to perspective foreshortening. Therefore measurements need to be taken in a flat plane. Here again, placing the artifact down and observing from directly above can help. Place tick marks off to two sides of the outline, at 90° to one another, that both correspond to the feature -- an x-y location so to speak. Remove the artifact and use the triangle to find where two lines extending into the interior of the outline from these two tick marks would cross. This crossing defines the location of that feature in the drawing.
Figure 26. Flake with tick marks and with crosses.
Click to enlarge.
Draw solid lines that define each flake scar or features within a flake scar. In addition, if the artifact has areas of markedly different texture, frequently located at the edge of a flake scar, or some additional material (perhaps an adhesive used in hafting) outline these as well. Areas of different texture or material will receive a different shading treatment than the flakes scars.
Figure 27. Flake outline with pencilled features and crosses still visible.
Click to enlarge.
If the piece is complex or the direction lines of the flake scars aren't clearly implied by the shape of the flake scars, I will add a small pencilled arrow within a flake scar to show the direction of force. Direction lines drawn in the next step will arc across this arrow. If time is of the essence, especially in a field situation, the information contained in the illustration up to this point characterizes the artifact. If it were necessary, the rest of the illustration could actually be done without the artifact, however some representative direction lines with curvature to show the depth of the scar would be very helpful.
Figure 28. Pencilled arrows in flake scars.
Click to enlarge.
Figure 29. Pencilled arrows in flake scars.
Click to enlarge.
Step 5 - Pencil Direction Lines
This is the step which most directly reflects the analysis of Step 1. Each flake scar has a direction, a depth, and a degree of shading. The curvature and placement of the direction lines are determined by the direction of the force that removed the flake and the depth of the flake scar.
Direction lines curve outward from the point of impact or pressure, like ripples in water. Each arc begins on the left or upper side of the flake and approaches the right or lower side of the flake, never reaching it. Direction line lengths are purposely varied to approximate the non-uniform look of the ripples that they emulate. They are spaced close together in areas that are darkest and most shadowed and furthest apart in the lightest areas. They are longest in shadowed areas and shortest in the lightest areas. In addition, each feature is given greater and lesser numbers of direction lines depending on its location in the artifact overall -- fewer lines in the lighter parts (upper left of the artifact) and more lines in the darker areas (lower right of the artifact).
A minimal curve, sometimes nearly a straight line in extreme cases, is used to portray a flake scar that is shallow. A very curved, even "u" or elliptical, direction line indicates a very deep or pronounced flake scar. In a sort of recipe book fashion, if these conventions are applied to each flake and then to the overall artifact, the illustration begins to take on the three-dimensional view of lithic material to which we are accustomed. In other words, decide on the spacing of the direction lines according to the location of the flake scar on the artifact -- farther apart at top left of artifact, closer together at bottom right. Decide on spacing and length of direction lines according to their location within the flake scar - closer and longer at upper left (under the lip of the convex depression) and farther apart and shorter at lower right. Use nearly straight lines for a shallow flake scar and elliptical direction lines for a deep flake scar.
Figure 30. Progression of illustrations of a flake.
Click to enlarge.
I might also note that I usually like to ink the artifact and flake scar outlines before pencilling the direction lines, although this is not necessary. Because the outlines are as accurate as possible and unchanging in how they are executed, I ink them to prevent accidental erasure. When pencilling in the direction lines, I will sometimes erase and redraw curves until I'm satisfied with their curvatures, their lengths, and their density. If the outlines are inked, I don't need to be careful around them. As with the groundstone artifacts, I used a felt tip permanent ink pen equivalent to the 00 size (.30 mm) for inking the outlines.
Step 6 - Ink the Solid Lines
As alluded to above, the inking of the solid lines can begin at different stages, according to the experience and skill of the illustrator. Experienced lithic illustrators may not pencil the direction lines at all, for example, preferring to directly ink them. I prefer to ink the outlines only and pencil all direction lines first. Other illustrators may prefer to pencil the entire illustration before inking and some fall in-between by pencilling and inking key features as fits their own procedure.
The key to producing an aesthetically pleasing illustration, if the features and direction lines have been accurately rendered, lies ultimately in the inking process. Direction lines are tightly nested in the best illustrations, perhaps as little as 1mm apart, although this depends on the amount of shading desired. As in stippling dots, these lines are not spaced randomly, although they are not uniform either. Direction lines that are close to one another are frequently evenly spaced. By watching the gap between the line that is being inked and the one just done, instead of watching the inking, it's easier to maintain the same gap for the entire line. Spacing between lines is varied in order to achieve a sense of shading. If a particular flake scar is large or long, the most shadowed part of the scar will have lines that are closer together than those in the lightest part of the scar. In general, though, I try to leave this variation in spacing between direction lines to differences between flake scars, not differences within.
Figure 31. Pointing out different spaced direction lines.
Click to enlarge.
Direction lines are not all the same length. Identical lengths would impart a sort of rigid, plastic, and unreal look to the finished piece. Lines of varying lengths give the impression that the flake is subject to variations in its appearance and form, as in reality. Indeed direction lines are not attempts to reproduce ripple lines. They impart information on the direction of the force and the degree of curvature. The length of the lines is used to impart differing curvature, depth, and shading as well. A shorter line and hence a greater amount of white space is used in the lighter areas and longer lines are best used in the darker areas of a flake scar, near the upper or left edge.
Figure 32. Pointing out different length direction lines.
Click to enlarge.
Inking the direction line with as fine a pen tip as possible contributes to the aesthetic quality of an illustration. The directions lines are the thinnest lines in a lithic illustration. In the examples here, I used a Koh-I-Noor 4x0 (0.18 mm) mechanical pen to achieve the thin direction lines and nest them closely together. I was also able to achieve the same thin line by using a Hunt's metal nib 108. This type of pen is dipped in ink (always permanent black ink, no matter the pen type). The pressure and angle at which the Hunt's nib pen is held change the width of the line. Using this type of pen, it's possible to feather an individual direction line from thicker to thinner, trailing off to almost nothing. This type of effect is virtually impossible to achieve with mechanical pens precisely because they are designed to provide a uniform line. The quill nib and inkwell, however, require much practice -- in how much of the nib to dip, how much ink to wipe away, and the amount of pressure required. The lines achieved can also become so thin, that the smallest wobble of the hand is evident. My preference is to leave this masterly tool to professional illustrators.
The same types of thin-line effects can be gained by working at a larger scale. When working at a scale of, say, 2:1, every measurement for the outline and features is doubled. A thicker pen can be used for both outline and features since the relative size of artifact to line thickness is now artificially large, creating the effect of a thin line in the finished illustration. A larger scale is also appropriate for smaller artifacts such as a microblade or microdrill. In such a situation, of course, it is crucial to note the scale.
Step 7 - Ink the Stippled Areas
Dot stippling in chipped stone is reserved for illustrating cortex, course material, or heavily weathered artifacts. The stippling used for cortex is identical to that for the stippling of groundstone described above. Shading and imperfections of features are done as indicated in that section.
Figure 33. Obsidian flake with cortex.
Click to enlarge.
Stippling for coarse or weathered material is slightly different however. In this case, it's very helpful to have pencilled all of the flake scar outlines and direction lines. But, rather than inking them with solid lines, we stipple them with a single row of dots, placed closely enough together to give the impression of a line or ridge, while at the same time leaving a bit of softness more reflective of the less distinct texture of the features. As with solid direction lines, their spacing varies with the depth of shadow desired and is controlled by all of the same conventions noted above. The fine control of stippling also allows for the dots to be spaced further apart at the end of a single direction line as if the line were becoming lighter and ending gradually.
Figure 34. Quartz projectile point progression of illustrations.
Click to enlarge.
Step 8 - Profile or Cross-section
The above steps complete a single view of the artifact. Full additional views, if necessary, are done in the same way. If, however, a simple profile or cross-section without shading will suffice to convey the overall shape of the artifact, these are accomplished in the same manner as the outline in step three above. An outline for the profile or cross section views is created with a combination of tracing and measurement. With chipped stone artifacts I will generally hold the artifact on edge and look directly down to trace one side of the profile. I then use the calipers to measure the thickness of the piece at several places and place tick marks at these locations on the illustration. I'll also use the existing primary view illustration of the artifact to mark the edges of flake scars at the center of the profile. In the finished illustration, these profiles and cross-sections are placed relative to the primary view with a hyphen as already noted above.
Figure 35. Finished obsidian knife.
Click to enlarge.
Figure 36. Finished quartz projectile point.
Click to enlarge.
Figure 37. Finished obsidian prismatic blade.
Click to enlarge.
Final Illustration Preparation
In the past, the final steps in preparing an illustration for publication typically involved some sort of paste-up activity with rubber cement or some other adhesive, non-photo blue pencils, Letraset rub-on letters, and Chartpak decorative border tape. The illustrations for this chapter, however, were each drawn on separate sheets of paper or film, scanned on a flatbed scanner (at 300 or 600 dpi), and composited together into finished multi-view illustrations with Adobe Photoshop. The scales were created from scratch in Photoshop, as was all the lettering.
Resources
The following list of resources are meant to aid the illustrator by providing examples of lithic illustration and conventions, descriptions of lithic manufacture, and information on lithic analysis.
Addington, Lucile R.
1986 Lithic Illustration: Drawing Flaked Stone Artifacts for Publication. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Adkins, Lesley and Roy A. Adkins
1989 Archaeological Illustration. Cambridge University Press.
Adrefsky, William, Jr.
1998 Lithics: Macroscopic Approaches to Analysis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Brodribb, Conant
1970 Drawing Archaeological Finds for Publication. John Baker, London.
Dillon, Brian D.
1985 The Student's Guide to Archaeological Illustrating. Second, revised edition. University of California, Los Angeles.
Piggott, Stuart
1978 Antiquity Depicted: Aspects of Archaeological Illustration. Thames and Hudson, New York.
Whittaker, John C.
1994 Flintknapping: Making and Understanding Stone Tools. University of Texas Press, Austin.
Anne Lamott,
I Am Not
(my blog)
Books on Writing
Download the PDF
Illustrating Lithics
Printer Friendly
37 MB
I totally recommend my ISP. They're so much better than Earthlink.