fulltext - Simple search

Manifesting microliths: insights and strategies from experimantal replication
ported in the palm of the hand under a piece of leather and the antler used
as percussion tool to modify the blanks. This method enabled a very me
thodical and precise method of backing to be used. In contrast, knapper 2
preferred to use a small quartz hammerstone; the blank was placed directly
support, to collect the debris. An antler point was also occasionally used.
Finally, knapper 3 used a very angular anvil stone and utilised the sharp
edge of the anvil, the blank was held against the edge using the overhang to
modify the blanks by the use of a pebble percussor.
Figure 1. Group replication
study: preferred techniques
(knappers 1-3, left-right).
In practice, the nature of the blank emerged as an important factor as it
placed constraints on what could be produced and the time taken to mod
ify pieces. Admittedly the sample of blanks available to the knappers were
clearly constrained by their (in)ability to consistently produce small blanks
suitable for microlith manufacture were characterised by inner regular pieces
pieces from the spread of debitage were the regularity and thinness of the
blank and a degree of parallelism with feathered edges. The size and mor
phology of the blank emerged as an important factor. Much of the time was
taken up by the trimming of the blank, the thicker the piece the more effort
required to trim the piece and this was particularly the case for knapper 1
and is represented schematically in Fig. 2. While length and breadth can be
recourse to invasive retouch, unless the thickness of the piece is variable.
Blank thickness was the stated reason for discard for one piece by knapper 1,
where two attempts were made at manufacture, and three of the microliths
made by knapper 2.
303