Technology and Terminology of Knapped Stone - IRIT

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Fig. 54 — Schematic representation of an object: descriptive drawing of a flake and diacritic diagram of the same flake, Acheulean, phonolite, Isenya (Kenya). 3. Descriptive view s Does the layout of views correspond to the "French system" or to the "American system"? In either case, are the views consistent with the system used? When only one view is represented, it is often view A (the principal view). When more than one view is represented, are the lengths of views A (front view), D (back view), B and C (right and left views) identical? If they are dissimilar, it is to be suspected that orthogonal projection was not used and that the drawings therefore lack accuracy. 4. Removal s Is the order of flake removal perfectly clear? One should examine the direction lines. Do they highlight the negative bulbs ? If they do not, is this technologically possible ? If they do, are the negative bulbs consistent with the other removals ? One should also examine the removals. Are the hackles portrayed? Can one understand how the removals relate to one another on the different faces of the artefact? Is it possible to produce a diacritic diagram from the drawings ? 5. Symbol s Are they explicit? Is their choice judicious? 6. Style o f drawin g What do the outlines look like ? Are they slackly drawn ? Do they show a few angles or none at all ? Is the delineation accurate (small convexities and concavities) or approximative ? In the latter case, the outlines have probably been drawn with a single circular sweep of the pencil. The initial lack of accuracy makes for a faulty final drawing. Is the relief adequately rendered? The thickness of the objects is gauged from the side views or the sections, and then compared with the relief of the principal view. Do the drawings lack relief? Has relief been over-emphasized? It is possible by such means to assess the degree of care and realism with which the morphology of the objects has been portrayed. 125
Schematizing 1. Schematic representatio n o f an objec t The diacritic diagram, devised by M. Dauvois (1976), is a schematic drawing of the object. Its purpose is to show with economy of graphical means the final sequence of actions in the manufacture of the artefact (fig. 54). It consists in a full scale outline drawing, which leaves out both direction lines and relief, and involves only one view, generally view A or view D. The usual techniques of orthogonal projection are applied. The direction, the orientation and the chronology of removals are Fig. 55 — Schematic representation of a chaîne opératoire. 1 to 5 : detachment of wide thick flakes by means of the exploitation of a block of raw material according to alternatively secant and subparallel debitage planes. 6 : spent core. 126
Page 1 and 2:
Technology and Terminology of Knapp
Page 3 and 4:
In the same collection Préhistoire
Page 5 and 6:
Authors Marie-Louise Inizan*, Mich
Page 7 and 8:
Chapter 4 : Debitage 59 The core De
Page 9 and 10:
List o f illustration s Fig. 1 Raw
Page 12:
Foreword Many students and research
Page 15 and 16:
Why? Technology has its place withi
Page 17 and 18:
In blade debitage 17 , for instance
Page 20 and 21:
Chapter 1 Raw material s Knapped ha
Page 22 and 23:
2. Knappin g suitability o f hard r
Page 24 and 25:
• A single block of raw material
Page 26 and 27:
Raw material procuremen t strategie
Page 28:
unmodified block roughed ou t or pr
Page 31 and 32:
Knapping, shaping, flaking, retouch
Page 33 and 34:
could not be reached with such othe
Page 35 and 36:
ipples, hackles (see p. 142). Parad
Page 37 and 38:
• Languette 31 breaks occurring o
Page 39 and 40:
- distinguish intentional from unin
Page 41 and 42:
Fig. 9 — Blade debitage carried o
Page 44 and 45:
Chapter 3 Shaping We use the term s
Page 46 and 47:
to another in the course of roughin
Page 48 and 49:
Fig. 13 — Example of bifacial sha
Page 50 and 51:
aspects be from now on taken into c
Page 52 and 53:
Polyhedral and spheroidal shaping a
Page 54 and 55:
Fig. 18 — Preforms. 1 : experimen
Page 56 and 57:
(fig. 18 : 3), using indirect percu
Page 58:
As a rule, the part played by shapi
Page 61 and 62:
study should not be dissociated fro
Page 63 and 64:
Fig. 21 62 1 — Relatively simple
Page 65 and 66:
Fig. 22 — Volumetric representati
Page 67 and 68:
66 Fig. 23 — Levallois debitage o
Page 69 and 70:
1. Recurrent unipolar Levallois met
Page 71 and 72:
0 1 2 3 9 Fig. 26 — Various examp
Page 73 and 74:
72 Fig. 28 — Phonolite cleaver on
Page 75 and 76: In the repeated production of blade
Page 77 and 78: Indirect percussion Strangely enoug
Page 79 and 80: Fig. 31 — Pressure debitage of bl
Page 81 and 82: method was invented in a Sibero-Mon
Page 83 and 84: These seven characteristics, as wel
Page 85 and 86: If the microburin blow has removed
Page 87 and 88: Fig. 34 — Various examples of spe
Page 90 and 91: Chapter 6 Technology a s a means to
Page 92 and 93: 1. Observation o f surface conditio
Page 94 and 95: 3. Framework fo r th e readin g o f
Page 96 and 97: Fig. 36 — Refitting. Centripetal
Page 98 and 99: hammer, the stability of the core o
Page 100 and 101: Only the major milestones in the co
Page 102 and 103: Chapter 7 0 I ~"~2 3 4 o Graphic re
Page 104 and 105: 103 Fig. 37 — Acheulean handaxe,
Page 106 and 107: Fig. 39 — Pressure-flaked bladele
Page 108 and 109: Fig. 41 — Examples of orientation
Page 110 and 111: 1 I Fig. 43 — Two layouts of view
Page 112 and 113: 4. Graphi c desig n an d techniqu e
Page 114 and 115: Fig. 46 — Tracing the outline and
Page 116 and 117: Fig. 47 — Uncompleted laurel leaf
Page 118 and 119: Fig. 48 — Graphical treatment of
Page 120 and 121: Fig. 50 — Large convex Mousterian
Page 122 and 123: 6. Symbol s Although multiple views
Page 124 and 125: Clean breaks are indicated by two s
Page 128: indicated by numbered arrows. The p
Page 131 and 132: ANVIL. A block of relatively hard s
Page 133 and 134: produced at the very moment the fla
Page 135 and 136: Fig. 60 — Inclination of a burin
Page 137 and 138: Fig. 62 — Various types of butts.
Page 139 and 140: If the morphology of the raw materi
Page 141 and 142: 7 8 9 11 1 2 13 1 4 1 5 Fig. 65 —
Page 143 and 144: - or from a cobble, a slab, a core,
Page 145 and 146: INVERSE. A term defining a position
Page 147 and 148: distinguish the types of certain to
Page 149 and 150: Fig. 72 — The stone-knapper's set
Page 151 and 152: 5 Fig. 74 — Various examples of p
Page 153 and 154: 1 2 3 Fig. 75 — Position of remov
Page 155 and 156: 0 1 cm Fig. 78 — Proximal fragmen
Page 157 and 158: conventionally applied to "the fash
Page 160 and 161: AKAZAWA T., ODA S., YAMANAKA I. 198
Page 162 and 163: CRABTREE D.E. 1966 A stone worker's
Page 164 and 165: LAPLACE G. 1964 Essai de typologie
Page 166 and 167: SEMENOV S. A. 1964 Prehistoric tech
Page 168: Multilingual vocabulary
Page 171 and 172: pressure platfor m : proximal: f i
Page 173 and 174: ENGLISH : FRENCH abrasion : abrasio
Page 175 and 176: Levallois (méthode, éclat, etc.)
Page 177 and 178:
punctiform : punktförmi g refittin
Page 179 and 180:
ENGLISH : GREEK translated by A. Mo
Page 181 and 182:
epiklinήV (epexergasίa) : low ang
Page 183 and 184:
punch : punzone punctiform : puntif
Page 185 and 186:
ENGLISH : PORTUGUESE translated by
Page 187 and 188:
face : fac e faceta: buri n face t
Page 189 and 190:
pressure platform : plano de presi
Page 192:
LOUIS-JEAN avenue d'Embrun, 05003 G
show all

Technology and Terminology of Knapped Stone - IRIT

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?