(fig. 18 : 3), using indirect percussion by counter-blow (p. 32). The preform has the main geometrical characteristics <strong>of</strong> the future bead, which can be square, circular, egg-shaped, cylindrical, etc., in cross-section, <strong>and</strong> its fashioning requires the use <strong>of</strong> a different iron rod (more pointed) <strong>and</strong> <strong>of</strong> a lighter mallet. It is then abraded, polished, pierced, <strong>and</strong> finally lustred. The rotary power needed for boring is still obtained with a bow-drill, which is already documented in the Neolithic. The cleaver : a very specifi c too l The cleaver owes its specificity to two main characteristics. • It can be obtained either by debitage alone, or by debitage followed by shaping. We have therefore deemed it apposite to discuss this tool at the end <strong>of</strong> the chapter dealing with shaping, just before that dealing with debitage. • Its cutting edge, the cleaver bit, must necessarily be unretouched. Bifacial pieces with a sharp bit achieved by shaping or by lateral tranchet blow technique actually are h<strong>and</strong>axes with a tranverse (or terminal) cutting edge (biface a biseau tranversal ou terminal), <strong>and</strong> not cleavers at all. The cleaver is almost exclusively confined to the Acheulean. It is only very occasionally documented in the Middle Palaeolithic. "It is clear that the manufacture <strong>of</strong> a cleaver is governed by a leading principle, that <strong>of</strong> obtaining a terminal cutting edge... This cutting edge, which is always intact, i.e. devoid <strong>of</strong> any intentional retouch, is the result <strong>of</strong>... the intersection <strong>of</strong> two planes : that <strong>of</strong> the fracture face <strong>and</strong> one <strong>of</strong> the planes <strong>of</strong> the upper face, which is the very definition <strong>of</strong> a flake tool... The removal <strong>of</strong> the flake whereby the cutting edge <strong>of</strong> the future tool is prepared is, from a cognitive viewpoint, a fundamental operation in the manufacture <strong>of</strong> a cleaver" 56 . Notwithst<strong>and</strong>ing this very accurate description, published in the mid-fifties <strong>and</strong> complemented by a morphotechnical classification, cleavers are still heavily misinterpreted. Very common in some Acheulean industries, they are more <strong>of</strong>ten than not held to be h<strong>and</strong>axes <strong>and</strong> classified as such, in spite <strong>of</strong> the fact that their manufacture is dependant upon the debitage <strong>of</strong> a large flake (the blank <strong>of</strong> the cleaver-to-be). The blank is therefore strongly predetermined, whereas the part played by shaping is eminently variable. Owing to its particular mode <strong>of</strong> manufacture, one <strong>of</strong> the cleaver's morphological characteristics <strong>of</strong>ten is asymmetry, both bifacial <strong>and</strong> bilateral. Some cleavers proceed from debitage alone, thus implying a high degree <strong>of</strong> predetermination in the production <strong>of</strong> the blank. This applies to cleavers made on flakes achieved by Levallois (p. 68 <strong>and</strong> ff.), Kombewa (p. 61 <strong>and</strong> fig. 28) or Tabelbala (p. 38 <strong>and</strong> p. 69) methods, but can also occur when the blanks are ordinary flakes. The edges may sometimes be made more regular by retouching. On the other types <strong>of</strong> cleavers, with the exception <strong>of</strong> the proto-cleaver whose upper face is entirely cortical, the cleaver bit is the result <strong>of</strong> "the deliberately induced intersection <strong>of</strong> two surfaces : the lower face <strong>of</strong> the blank <strong>and</strong> the negative <strong>of</strong> a previous predetermining removal" 57 . Once the blank is obtained, any degree <strong>of</strong> modification is possible, ranging from the summary paring down <strong>of</strong> the base <strong>of</strong> the blank (to thin or remove the bulb-<strong>and</strong>-butt part) <strong>and</strong>/or the trimming <strong>of</strong> the edges (to achieve greater regularity), to the entire bifacial shaping <strong>of</strong> the piece - with, <strong>of</strong> course, the exception <strong>of</strong> the cleaver bit, which always remains unmodified. 56 "Le principe dominant qui a dirigé la fabrication d'un hacher eau est, on le sait, l'obtention d'un tranchant terminal... Ce tranchant, qui est toujours naturel, c'est-à-dire exempt de retouches intentionnelles, est obtenu... par la rencontre de deux plans : plan de la face d'éclatement, et un des plans de la face supérieure, ce qui impose immuablement un outil sur éclat... L'enlèvement d'un éclat représentant la préparation du tranchant du futur outil est, psychiquement, l'acte essentiel dans l'obtention du hachereau". Tixier, 1956 : 914-923. 57 "...[résulte de] l'intersection volontairement provoquée de deux surfaces : la face inférieure de l'éclat support [qui] vient recouper le négatif laissé par le détachement préalable d'un éclat prédéterminant". Texier, 1989 : 4. 55
56 Fig. 19 — Phonolite cleaver, Acheulean, Isenya, Kenya.
- 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 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