Technology and Terminology of Knapped Stone - IRIT

hammer, the stability of the core or blank, etc., thereby fulfilling the conditions for a statistical
exploitation of the results. We thus imagined that plausibility could be reached by accumulating
the assumptions by which a possibility can be validated. In actual fact, parameters have proved
so numerous and so "fluctuating" that the statistical exploitation of experiments has almost been
given up.
Experimentation should always be carried out in the light of archaeological information.
It can only bring us nearer to the prehistoric knapper without actually reaching him, because the
motivations are different. Nevertheless, although it is impossible to assess the exact relationship
between prehistoric people and their artefacts, even where Homo sapiens fossilis is concerned, it
is incontrovertible that prehistory can never again disregard experimental knapping, the main
objectives of which are presented hereafter.
The destruction of myths
For instance, Acheulean man stubbornly fashioning his tools or weapons for hours on
end. As a matter of fact, it only takes about a quarter of an hour to shape a handaxe using a soft
hammer, and only a few seconds to retouch a scraper.
The testing of raw materials
When raw materials have been sourced, it is important to test them (or have them tested)
in order to answer a few preliminary questions. This is essential to the study of a lithic
assemblage, insofar as a material should never be deemed "suitable" or "unsuitable" for knapping
before it has been worked.
In the case of a given type of rock (fig. 2):
- could the prehistoric knappers have produced more or better quality artefacts ?
- could they have manufactured much larger or much smaller tools (considering the
dimensions and quality of the rock) ?
- what were the limits of the possible techniques and methods ?
- what were the physical properties of the rock?
Such questions will only be mildly relevant in the case of sites yielding large quantities
of fine tools manufactured on high-grade local raw material, but much more so when the
assemblages seem rather crude. Before passing judgment on the skill or "archaism" of the
prehistoric knappers, it is essential to test the materials in order to appreciate their genuine
suitability for knapping in relation to the various techniques applied. Thus, the extraction of
blades proves difficult on some quartzites (such as the silicified arenites of Brazil), and it is not
easy to avoid breaking thin blades during debitage. There is no way that even an experienced
stone-knapper could tell this at first sight. Some Japanese sanukites also illustrate this point.
These rocks are very easy to knap, but absolutely not suitable for systematic blade debitage. The
development of an original method for the production of certain elongated tools necessarily
ensued. The Japanese Upper Palaeolithic Setouchi knives with backed edges 91
were thus often
manufactured from flakes that were intentionally more broad than long. These were removed,
one above the other, from a convex lower flake-surface (the first therefore being a Kombewa
flake, see p. 68).
The rediscovery of bygone methods and techniques
An accurate assessment of techniques is vital, especially where innovations are concerned.
The reliability of an assessment depends on experimental tests, and if it finally proves
impossible to identify the technique used, one can at least define some limits (which may
subsequently be challenged): it is already possible to distinguish the application of pressure from
the use of a punch by highlighting significant characteristics.
Reliability will also depend on the amount of archaeological material : a larger sample
will allow a wider range of observations to be made. Any credible assessment must nevertheless
91 Akazawa a/., 1980.
97