Technology and Terminology of Knapped Stone - IRIT

The term "object" is deliberately used, and applies to each and every element of a lithic
assemblage; it also refers to any lump of rock that is assumed to have been handled or used by
prehistoric people.
Various processes are involved in the study of a knapped object. For instance, in chapter
1, questions were broached that touched on the quality, abundance and form of raw materials,
which condition the manufacture of the final tools. As detailed in the present chapter, the
assessment of the type of blank (cobble, block, slab, flake, etc.) is actually sometimes included
in the very process of studying the surface conditions of an object. Moreover, besides natural
phenomena, knapping itself is liable to mask altogether the nature of the blank : such is the case
with all entirely retouched bifacial pieces, from the handaxe to the arrowhead, as well as with
cores that no longer possess a natural surface.
And last but not least, any attempt to decipher the knapper's intentions involves three
successive steps in the reading of a stone artefact.
Initial perception, with a built-in hypothesis, is supplemented by a series of observations,
which lead to a biography of the object.
Perception, in which sight plays a major role, and almost simultaneous overall identification,
result in a global and sometimes syncretic recognition. The overall indentification is all
the more rapid if the observer has long experience and practise in the dialogue between
prehistorian and knapped stone. It consists in an almost unconscious registering of countless
visual images and tactile sensations, perceived in a fraction of a second : the outline, relief and
colour, the play of light on the facets, the perception of the volume of the object, and the
immediate registering of technological traits and their sequence.
The next step consists in checking the initial hypothesis. This entails deciphering the
different marks according to their chonological order, in order to discover the successive
intentions, whether successfully carried out ot not.
A knapped stone is always a three dimensional object, which cannot be completely
understood if it has not been examined from every angle, if it has not been comprehensively read.
Such reading cannot be performed haphazardly in its observations and deductions; a set of rules
orders their succession, and there can be only one such set for each category of object (bifacial
piece, core, flake, etc.).
Take for instance a flake-tool.
Paradoxically enough, or so it seems, reading must begin with the recognition and study
of the lower face and the bulb-and-butt part. If the latter is no longer present, the orientation of
the flake can, in the last resort, be determined by taking into account the hackles (fig. 5), which
are the only totally trustworthy clues. It is the "birth" of the blank that must be brought to light.
Indeed, the reading of the prior technical events - debitage and traces of preparation on the core
before the removal of the blank - can only be done in relation to the lower face.
Only then does reading involve the identification of retouching, of the events subsequent
to the debitage of the blank; in this respect, the modification of the lower face (the fracture face)
is the only indisputable proof that the piece has been "re-touched". In complex cases, it is
necessary to puzzle out the series of retouches, breaks, notches, burin blows, etc., according to
their chronological sequence.
The last step corresponds to the mental reconstruction of the different events, of the
different actions of the prehistoric knapper (or knappers in the case of pieces with a double
patina) : on the core itself, during debitage, and after the removal of the blank. This chronological
reconstruction, which takes into account the meaning of all the visible marks and the assumptions
that some of them give rise to, will come into being through deduction, becoming the "history
of the tool".
It is a matter of convention that the tool subsequently receives a particular designation,
either pseudo-functional (burin), morphological (laurel-leaf), geometrical (trapeze), geographical
(Levallois), or anthroponymic (Krukowski), and that a number is attached to it for purposes of
inventory or quantitative study. However, the examination of the piece, the recognition of its
technological significance, cannot be a matter of choice. It is immutable and remains the
fundamental process. It is therefore possible to speak of an objective reading, the process being
identical for all observers.
90