J ournal of Archaeological Science(1996) 23, 455458

Archaeological Paradigms, Provincialism, andSemantics:

A ReplytoBecksComments
Kenneth B. Tankersley
Department of Anthropology, StateUniversity of NewYork, Brockport, NY 14420, U.S.A.
(Received 7 March 1995, accepted 14 April 1995)
Becks comments are semantic arguments based on a provincial view of material culture and a misunderstanding of
archaeological paradigms. 1996 Academic Press Limited
Keywords: MASTI C, AMBER, UPPER PALAEOLI THI C, CLOVI S, FOSSI L RESI N, TAR, PI TCH, HAFTI NG,
HOYT SI TE.
Introduction
I
n the essay Comments on a Supposed Clovis
Mastic (earlier in this issue) C. W. Beck be-
fuddles a suiteof data, methods, and conclusions.
His suppositions are provincially biased and based
entirely on semantics. While Becks comments are
understandable from the perspective of a chemist or
engineer, theyareunreasonablefromanarchaeological
or anthropological point of view. Thefocusof hisessay
is paradigmatically misconstrued and illustrates a sig-
nicant problem of carrying on a multidisciplinary
analysis of material culture as opposed to conducting
interdisciplinary archaeological research.
Semantics
As Mark Twain oncestated get your facts rst, then
you can distort themas you please.
Becks initial assertion is that the term mastic
should not be used as a general synonym of adhe-
sive. I n chemistry, mastic refers to a resin (or gum)
that exudes from a specic group of trees such as
Pistacialentiscus, Burseragummifera, Schinusmolle, or
Sideroxylon mastichodendron. I t also pertains to a
Mediterraneanalcoholicliquor madefromgrainspirits
or grape juice and mixed with an extract of gum
mastic. I n engineering, mastic is used to describe a
cement used by builders to make joints and water-
proong. However, neither of theseusagesareinferred
nor implied in the article Clovis Mastic and its
Hafting I mplications (Tankersley, 1994).
I ndeed, the article in question is neither a paper
about chemistry nor engineering; rather, it is an ar-
chaeological essay. By archaeology, I mean thesubdis-
ciplineof anthropology currently taught and practiced
at major universities and museums around the globe
(Thomas, 1989). Anthropology, like other disciplines,
has its own lexicon. The term mastic is used by
anthropological archaeologists and Palaeoindian
specialists as a synonym for glues and cements. As
an example, Haynes (1982: 390) suggests that Clovis
peoples may have used a mastic in conjunction with
wrapping and sinew to complete the scarf joint of
bevel-basecylindrical boneor ivory points. Such usage
is sanctioned by themost reputableEnglish dictionar-
ies. For example, TheOxfordEnglishDictionary states
that mastic may be used to describe various pasty
materials used as cement (Simpson & Weiner, 1989:
451). Websters Third NewI nternational Dictionary of
the English Language Unabridged also asserts that
mastic is any of various pasty compounds used as
cements (Grove, 1981: 1390). Therefore, Becks state-
ment that the practice is quite widespread among
English speaking anthropologists should not be
surprising.
Beckssecondallegation isbasedon theusageof the
terms of amber, fossil, resin, and pitch. As previously
stated (Tankersley, 1994: 118), I usetheword amber in
a broad meaningto refer to fossil resins. I n this vein, I
amusingthewordamber to refer to arelativelystable,
water-insolubletreeresin that has lost certain volatile
hydrocarbons and has been buried in theground long
enough to reach this state. This process may take a
year, a thousand years, or more than a million years
(Frondel, 1968: 371). Like other archaeologists, an-
thropologists, botanists, and geologists, I do not re-
strict theword amber to an individual species of plant,
a particular geographic area, or a specic geological
period of time.
By fossil, I mean theremainsor tracesof prehistoric
life preserved in the earth. Prehistoric means before
recorded history; thus, it is a time-transgressive term.
Becks presumption that fossil implies an age of the
order of a million years is palaeontologically and
archaeologically erroneous. As an analogue, to not
455
0305-4403/96/030455+04 $18.00/0 1996 Academic Press Limited
consider theremains of a mammoth (Mammuthus sp.)
fromUpper Palaeolithic sitesin Eurasiaor Mastodont
(Mammut sp.) bones from Clovis sites in North
Americafossilsbecausetheyarenot ontheorder of a
million years old is preposterous.
Beck is correct that thetermpitchis restricted in its
usageby chemists and material scientists to describea
substance obtained in the distillation of organic sub-
stances. I n North America, however, archaeologists
usethetermasasynonymfor anytreeresinthat canbe
used to produce an adhesive (e.g. Frison, 1991: 107).
Such usage by Palaeoindian specialists is acceptable.
For example, in Frisons (1989) experimental use of
Clovis weaponry and tools on African elephants, he
bound a stone projectile point to the foreshaft with
sinewand pitch. Frison (1989: 770) further comments
that several species of trees produce pitch such as
ponderosa and limber-pine.
Provincialism
AsDrummondRennienotedthereseemsto be. . . no
argument too circular, no conclusions too triing or
too unjustied, and no grammar and syntax too oen-
sive for a paper to end up in print (after Thomas,
1989: 18).
Becks comments on material properties arepro-
vincially circular and based on unsupportableassump-
tions. Hecorrectlyarguesthat optical microscopyisan
insucient test to showthat thematerial is a resin, a
pitch, or amber. However, optical microscopy was
not usedto identifythesematerialsonthehaft element
of aClovispoint fromtheHoyt site; rather, it wasused
to describethetextureof thesubstance. Thecombina-
tion of texture and location of the material on the
biface suggest that it is a mastic (i.e. an adhesive)
(Tankersley, 1994: 117).
Likewise, X-ray diractometry was not used to
identify thematerial as a resin, pitch, or amber. I t was
used to test for the presence of inorganic crystalline
compounds (Tankersley, 1994: 117). Theresultsdem-
onstrated that crystallinematerial is absent fromthe
surface of the artefact. While X-ray diraction has
been used to detect crystalline components in Baltic
amber (Frondel, 1968), that was neither my intent nor
was it ever stated as such.
Back-scatter scanningelectron microscopy was used
to examine microtopographic features of the artefac-
tual compound. Electron micrographs of resinous ma-
terial ontheClovispoint fromtheHoyt sitearesimilar
to heated amber (i.e. fossil resin) in the presence and
sizeof micropores. Given that micropores of any kind
are absent in heated bitumen (also known as natural
asphalt, asphaltum, asphaltite, gilsonite, and gra-
hamite), this material was eliminated as a possible
match.
I n his discussion of solubility and reaction to heat,
Beck implies that the physical data for amber pre-
sentedinTankersley(1994: 119) areinaccurate. Unfor-
tunately, his statements are provincially dependent
uponBalticamber asapoint of reference. For Beck,
theAmber ResearchLaboratory, gem-dealersandjew-
ellers(Rice, 1993: 277) trueamber (i.e. Balticamber) is
a fossil resin that contains a cross-linked polymer of
communic acid and communol. However, amber is
a more generic term used to refer to any fossil tree
resin. Amber is not a singleorganic compound. More
specically, it is a complex mixture of several com-
pounds in varying proportions, most signicantly
isoprene units linked together forming more complex
terpenoid compounds (Rice, 1993: 142). Furthermore,
some ambers may contain inorganic inclusions such
as carbonates or sulphides.
The exact chemical composition of amber varies
fromone plant species to another, fromone geologic
stratumto another, and even fromone sample to the
next. Amber is created by theloss of volatiles through
time-related processessuch asoxidation and polymeri-
zation (Frondel, 1968: 371). I f the chemical composi-
tion of amber is variable, then it is logical to assume
that its physical properties (e.g. reaction to heat and
solubility) also vary. Nevertheless, it is illogical to
assumethat an11,000year oldamber fromonespecies
of plant hasthesamechemical and physical properties
asa60,000year old amber fromanother plant species.
Furthermore, it is untenable that a c. 60,000 year old
amber fromtheBaltichastheexact samechemical and
physical properties as a c. 50,000,000 year old North
American amber from Washington, a c. 125,000,000
year old amber fromtheBlack Hills of South Dakota,
or a c. 300,000,000 year old amber from Montana.
Becks comments are based wholly on Baltic amber,
the only kind whose chemical composition is well
established.
Amber fromtheHigh Plains of North America be-
comessoft (i.e. it melts) at temperaturelessthan250C
(authors experimental data). When slowly heated, it
gives o a coniferous smell and has an epoxide-like
consistency. I f obsidian, chert, or chalcedony are
slowly heated to a comparabletemperature, hot fossil
resin can be applied and will adhere to amorphous
stonesurfaces. Anadmixtureof particulatecarbon(i.e.
wood charcoal) reduces crazing upon cooling. This
phenomenon should not be surprising when we con-
sider that many contemporary treeresins (e.g. spruce,
pine, birch) can beheated and used as an adhesivein
thehaftingof aked-stonetools. Essentially, amber isa
treeresin that has lost someof its volatiles.
With regard to the preservation of amber on
archaeological sites in eastern North America, Beck is
correct that it should be perfectly preserved in bogs.
Wetlands are indeed one of the few environmental
settings whereplant remains arepreserved. Otherwise,
heis unconditionally wrong. Thereareonly two other
circumstances where the uncarbonized remains of
plants are likely to be preserved in eastern North
America, dry caves or rockshelters and in thepresence
456 K. B. Tankersley
of certain mineral salts (Watson, 1974; Tankersley
et al., 1994). Both of these environmental settings are
extremely rarein this region of theworld.
Beck concludes that compositional analysis using
gas chromatographymass spectrometry (GC/MS)
hasbeenusedsuccessfullyintherecognitionof organic
residues. I ndeed, GC/MC is ideally suited to identify
ngerprints in the lower molecular weight organic
composition of ancient plant resins such as amber.
However, if we assume that the resin was heated to
produce an adhesive, then many of these distinctive
compounds may belost.
To illustratethis point, I used GC/MS to analysea
specimenof amber (i.e. fossil resin) fromnorthcentral
Colorado. A 1mg sample of amber was partially
dissolvedin approximately 20ml of toluene. This solu-
tion (1ml) was then injected into a 5890 Series GC
connected to a 5970A (HP) Series MS with a 15ml by
025m J & W Scientic column. The temperature
programme ran between 60C and 375C, heating the
sample at a rate of 15C min
1
. The resulting gas
chromatogram(Figure1) illustratesasuiteof complex
lower molecular weight organic compounds including
terpenes. For thesakeof thisdiscussion, theindividual
compounds represented in the gas chromatogramare
irrelevant. Subsequently, a10mgsampleof amber was
placed in an open petri dish and carefully heated until
the sample became sticky, a consistency similar to
recent coniferous treeresins. Upon cooling, theamber
tightly adhered to the smooth glass surface. A
stainless-steel dental pick was used to scrape away a
1mg sample. This specimen was prepared and pro-
cessed by thesameprocedureused to analysetheraw
amber material. The resultant gas chromatogram is
illustrated in Figure 2. Comparing Figures 1 and 2 it
can be seen that unfortunately, characteristic lower
molecular weight hydrocarbons found in fossil resins
may belost when they aresubjected to heat.
Archaeological Paradigms
I nthewordsof Henri Poincare, Scienceisfacts; just as
housesaremadeof stone, soissciencemadeof facts; but
apileof stonesisnot ahouseandacollectionof factsis
not necessarily science (after Thomas, 1989: 537).
The focus of Becks comments reects a paradig-
matic dichotomy between a multidisciplinary analysis
of material cultureandinterdisciplinaryarchaeological
research. Becks multidisciplinary approach to ar-
chaeological research has been to positively identify
Baltic amber from archaeological contexts and un-
equivocally distinguish it from non-Baltic European
resins (cf. Beck et al., 1971). This research is object-
oriented and theunderlying paradigmis fromchemis-
try not archaeology. I n interdisciplinary archaeology,
our ultimateobjectiveis thestudy, interpretation, and
understandingof humankind. Weaccomplish thistask
through cross-cultural studies. Therefore, it is neither
important nor germanewhether or not fossil resinfrom
theLindenmeier siteinColoradoor Upper Palaeolithic
sites in the Ukraine meet a gem-dealers or jewellers
denition of true amber. The archaeological signi-
canceisthat amber (i.e. fossil resin) isasharedcultural
trait between North American Palaeoindian and Old
World, Upper Palaeolithic cultures.
As an analogue, let us consider another shared trait
betweentheCloviscultureandUpper Palaeolithicsites
in eastern Siberia, central Asia, and eastern Europe
(Haynes, 1987). Red ochre is an archaeological term
that refers to a red iron-based pigment (Roper, 1991).
Red ochremay beferric oxide(Fe
2
O
3
) in theformof
earthyhematiteor it maybegroundspecular hematite.
14
4.00e+07
0.00e+00
4
Ti me (mi n)
A
b
u
n
d
a
n
c
e
3.00e+07
2.00e+07
1.00e+07
6 8 10 12
Figure1. A gas chromatogramof amber.
16
2.80e+07
0.00e+00
4
Ti me (mi n)
A
b
u
n
d
a
n
c
e
2.40e+07
2.00e+07
1.60e+07
8 20 12
1.20e+07
8.00e+06
4.00e+06
24 28
Figure2. A gas chromatogramof heated amber.
Archaeological Paradigms, ProvincialismandSemantics 457
Red ochre also refers to heat altered goethite or
limonite(iron hydroxide, HFeO
2
). Theexact chemical
composition or mineralogical origin of red ochreis an
esotericpoint incross-cultural archaeological research.
I t is moreimportant to investigations of rawmaterials
availablein particular regions of theworld.
Please note that I amnot arguing that provenience
studies are not important aspects of interdisciplinary
archaeological research. Provenience is a crucial vari-
able in palaeoeconomic studies of the processes of
production, consumption, distribution, and exchange
of goods that sustained or reproduced human liveli-
hood (e.g. Tankersley & I saac, 1990). However,
ClovisMastic and itsHaftingI mplications isnot an
essay on palaeoeconomics.
Recently, Graves (1994) expressed concern that
some archaeologists have retreated fromarchaeologi-
cal theory and moved into the domain of technical
expertise and instrumentation. An unfortunate out-
comeof this endeavour is a failureto understand each
other (Graves, 1994: 6). Becks Comments on a
Supposed Clovis Mastic clearly represent this point.
Essentially, Becksviewof archaeology isparadigmati-
cally seen through amber-coloured glasses.
Acknowledgements
Thisinvestigationwasaccomplishedinthelaboratories
of the Departments of Anthropology and Chemistry,
StateUniversity of NewYork at Brockport. Research
was supported by a SUNY Scholarly I ncentiveGrant.
The help and cooperation of Kendra Schlecht,
Kenneth Schlecht, J enny Tankersley, and William
Todd is gratefully appreciated.
References
Beck, C. W., Adams, A. B., Southard, G. C. & Fellows, C. (1971).
Determination of the origin of Greek artifacts by computer-
classication of infrared spectra. I n (R. H. Brill, Ed.) Scienceand
Archaeology. Cambridge, MA: MI T Press.
Frison, G. C. (1989). Experimental useof Clovisweaponryandtools
on African elephants. American Antiquity 54, 766784.
Frison, G. C. (1991). Prehistoric Hunters of the High Plains. New
York, NY: Academic Press.
Frondel, J . W. (1968). Amber facts and fancies. Economic Botany
22, 4.
Graves, M. W. (1994). Newdirections in Americanist Archaeology.
American Antiquity 59, 58.
Grove, P. B., Ed. (1981). Websters Third New I nternational Dic-
tionary of the English Language Unabridged. Springeld, MA:
Merriam-Webster I nc.
Haynes, C. V. (1982). WereClovisprogenitorsinBeringia?I n(D. M.
Hopkins, J . V. Matthews, C. E. Schweger & S. B. Young, Eds)
Paleoecology of Beringia. New York, NY: Academic Press,
pp. 383398.
Haynes, C. V. (1987). Clovis origin update. TheKiva 52, 8393.
Rice, P. C. (1993). Amber: TheGoldenGemof theAges. NewYork,
NY: TheKosciuszko Foundation.
Roper, D. C. (1991). A comparison of contexts of red ochre use
in Paleoindian and Upper Paleolithic sites. North American
Archaeologist 12, 289301.
Simpson, J . A. & Weiner, E. S. C., Preparers (1989). The Oxford
English Dictionary. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Tankersley, K. B. (1994). Clovis mastic and its haftingimplications.
J ournal of Archaeological Science21, 117124.
Tankersley, K. B. & I saac, B. L., Eds (1990). Early Paleoindian
Economies of Eastern North America. Greenwich: J AI Press.
Tankersley, K. B., Frushour, S. S., Nagy, F., Tankersley, S. L. &
Tankersley, K. O. (1994). The archaeology of Mummy Valley,
Salts Cave, Mammoth Cave National Park, Kentucky. North
American Archaeologist 15, 129145.
Thomas, D. H. (1989). Archaeology: Second Edition. Fort Worth:
Holt, Rinehart, and Winston I nc.
Watson, P. J . (1974). Archaeology of theMammothCaveArea. New
York, NY: Academic Press.
458 K. B. Tankersley