23.04.2013 Views

fulltext - Simple search

fulltext - Simple search

fulltext - Simple search

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

Manifesting microliths: insights and strategies from experimantal replication<br />

Slight differences in the method of manufacture could be discerned on<br />

the end products. However, it was not possible to differentiate between knap<br />

<br />

sure supported by an anvil, even though there were slight differences in their<br />

<br />

by knapper 1 is very regular and even, whereas that for knapper 2 is slightly<br />

<br />

<br />

the extra time spent by knapper 1 and her more methodical trimming of the<br />

blank. Despite the use of a supporting anvil, enclume retouch is only present on<br />

one piece by knapper 2, which was made using an antler point.<br />

<br />

In order to explore the implications of subtle differences in technique and<br />

develop methodologies for recording variation, a separate programme of<br />

experimental replication was conducted by the author. Discussion will be<br />

based on the experiences of producing around 100 microliths as a discrete<br />

replication programme. The informal group replication outlined above re<br />

vealed that subtle differences were employed by these knappers who were all<br />

engaged in the same task of producing microliths. A range of techniques was<br />

adopted: the use of both stone and antler retouchers with the blank resting<br />

on an anvil stone. There is another method of executing the retouch and<br />

<br />

or chunk to modify the blank. This produces retouch that is akin to that<br />

produced by using a stone on an anvil. By supporting the blank in the hand<br />

it results in less breakage due to the fact that contact with the stone was more<br />

even than when resting on an anvil. Three techniques were used to make mi<br />

croliths, 67% were made using a stone to execute the retouch, 22% with an<br />

<br />

percussor is the quickest and easiest method, the natural bevelled end of the<br />

<br />

<br />

removed from the surface of the anvil to prevent breakage. Enclume retouch<br />

was only present on one in ten blanks. The use of an antler tine produced<br />

retouch that could not be macroscopically distinguished from that produced<br />

by stone. The size of the point enables more precision but it was much slower<br />

to execute. Finally, simply scraping the blank along a stone produced quite<br />

<br />

the hand, as the piece had to be kept level. Notching was not possible un<br />

305

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!