Technology and Terminology of Knapped Stone - IRIT

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Chapter 2 Knapping Intentional knappin g The purpose of knapping is to make tools, in the broader sense of the term. Knapping will always leave similar scars on stone artefacts, irrespective of whether they are the work of the earliest hominids, or elaborate Bronze Age dagger blades from Denmark. Even if they are almost modern, like the many tinderboxes recently discovered on late Islamic sites, the scars will not differ. The technological interpretation of any worked stone artefact will therefore be specific to that artefact, and based on the precise observation and recognition of those scars. A stone artefact can only be defined as such by removal scars, both positive and negative. Resulting from either pressure or percussion, such scars obey physical laws and are identical whether knapping is intentional or not. The diagnosis of intentional knapping is best vindicated when the artefacts are discovered in a well defined archaeological context. In the case of chance discoveries or surveys, the main criteria for recognizing intentional knapping is the organization of removals. Caution is required when flakes or even "pebble-tools" are found on a beach, for they may well result from natural phenomena; to the contrary, the discovery of a single handaxe or a single Levallois core can prove intentional knapping : the organization of removals follows so specific a sequence that the possibility of chance "knapping" due to random impacts can be dismissed. The number of pieces found and their geological position provide additional information concerning the context and further help to establish the possible presence of a site. However, one must bear in mind that it is not always easy to distinguish intentional from unintentional knapping, and the question often arises as to whether the modifications reflect intent or accident. 29
Knapping, shaping, flaking, retouchin g Whichever way the stone-knapper goes about his work, he must use a set of tools, and these are presented in the appended lexicon (fig. 72 and fig. 73). The term "knapping" has a general meaning, and applies to any type of action aiming at intentionally fracturing raw material. Knapping encompasses shaping, retouching and debitage (or flaking), which are each used in a more restrictive sense. These terms describe precise actions, and are dealt with in separate chapters. The word knapping is used when a more accurate one cannot be applied. This happens when the use and purpose of a knapped artefact cannot be clearly defined : for instance, is a chopper a core, an actual tool, or both ? Knapping methods and technique s The importance of distinguishing between these two terms was pointed out as early as 1965 during an international symposium 31 . By definition, knapping methods and techniques concern shaping, flaking and retouching. Method refers to any carefully thought out sequence of interrelated actions, each of which is carried out according to one or more techniques. More often than not, the term method implies an elaborate conceptual scheme leading to the manufacture of predetermined products, whether by shaping or by flaking. Clearly, what must be identified is predetermination. The main methods currently acknowledged are defined in chapters 3, 4 and 5. Physical actions - a deft flip of the hand, the use of a hard or soft hammer, the interposition of a punch - are all examples of techniques. Thanks to major breakthroughs in experimentation, knapping techniques are now well identified. The criteria used derive from observations made on archeological assemblages, which are then substantiated by experimentation. Special retouching techniques are treated in chapter 5. Technical procedures are short systematic sequences of actions involved in any kind of preparation, such as : the abrasion of an overhang, the preparation of an edge prior to removal by a burin blow, the facetting of a striking or pressure platform, the preparation of a spur. The main technique s 1. Percussio n Application of force to fracture raw materials. Direct percussion • Direct percussion with a stone hammer (hard or soft stone) (fig. 4) and, theoretically, its symmetrical opposite, percussion of an artefact on an anvil, are the main expressions of this technique. Various knapping techniques were invented through the ages, but the first undoubtedly was direct percussion with a hard hammerstone. For hundreds of thousands of years, it was the only technique applied, and its use endured throughout the history of stone-knapping. It can therefore never be used as a chronological argument. Direct percussion with a soft hammerstone is suitable for the shaping of bifacial preforms and for the removal of moderately regular blades 32 . The materials chosen for this type of hammer include soft sandstones or cornstones, which tend to crumble on impact. Comparable results 31 We draw attention to the unwarranted use of the term "technological" where "technique" or "method" are more appropriate. A symposium organized by the Wenner-Gren foundation was held at Burg Wartenstein (Austria), during which several prehistorians discussed those problems of terminology (e.g. Balout, 1967 and Tixier, 1967). 32 Crabtree, 1972; Madsen, 1983 ; Pelegrin, 1991a. 30
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 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 126 and 127:
Fig. 54 — Schematic representatio
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?