Knapping traces

L

ike the use of domestic tools or projectiles, flake extraction from blocks of siliceous rock and their subsequent retouching lead to the formation of specific traces, the nature and characteristics of which are largely determined by the technique used. Depending on their nature, these traces can be observed either with the naked eye or with the help of a microscope.

The analysis of knapping wear enriches our knowledge of the skills and technical traditions of prehistoric societies, the evolution of these skills over time, and the appearance and diffusion of innovations related to knapping and the production of stone tools.

Research on prehistoric knapping techniques has been mainly based on experimental collections set up by researchers specialised in knapping of siliceous rocks, and has made it possible to identify combinations of characteristics and traces relevant to the recognition of the techniques employed by prehistoric populations (e.g. Pelegrin 2000; Rots 2010).

At TraceoLab, the study of knapping traces is based on a methodological approach that integrates macroscopic and microscopic observations and builds on experimentation. Experiments are not only designed to create an extensive library of knapping traces corresponding to various prehistoric techniques, but also to better understand the conditions under which these traces form.

In our archaeological research, we have thus far identified hammer residues in an Aterian context, investigated the overlap between production and impact-related damage in the cases of bipolar knapping of quartz in the South African MSA and the manufacture of laterally hafted projectile armatures in the French Final Gravettian, explored the variability in production traces on Early Gravettian tanged points to increase the reliability of hafting wear interpretations, and used production traces as an additional argument to distinguish between individual knappers of Levallois sequences from a Nubian production site in Northeast Africa.

Further reading

• Byrne L., Ollé A. & Vergès J.M., 2006 – Under the hammer: residues resulting from production and microwear on experimental stone tools. Archaeometry 48(4): 549-564
• de la Peña P., Taipale N., Wadley L. & Rots V., 2018 – A techno-functional perspective on quartz micro-notches in Sibudu’s Howiesons Poort indicates the use of barbs in hunting technology. Journal of Archaeological Science 93: 166-195
• Pelegrin J., 2000 – Les techniques de débitage laminaire au Tardiglaciaire: critères de diagnose et quelques réflexions. In: Valentin B., Bodu P. & Christensen M. (eds.), L’Europe centrale et septentrionale au Tardiglaciaire, actes de la table-ronde internationale de Nemours (14-16 mai 1997). Nemours: APRAIF (Mémoires du musée de Préhistoire d’Île-de-France, 7): 73-86
• Pelegrin J., 2004 – Sur les techniques de retouche des armatures de projectile. In: Pigeot N. (dir.), Les derniers Magdaléniens d’Étiolles. Perspectives culturelles et paléohistoriques (l’unité d’habitation Q31). Paris: CNRS (Suppléments à Gallia Préhistoire, 37): 161-166
• Pelegrin J., 2012 – New experimental observations for the characterization of pressure blade production techniques. In: Desrosiers P. M., The Emergence of Pressure Blade Making. Boston: Springer: 465-500
• Rots V., 2010 – Un tailleur et ses traces. Traces microscopiques de production: programme expérimental et potentiel interprétatif. Bulletin des Chercheurs de la Wallonie, hors-série 2: 51-67
• Rots V., 2012 – Trace formation, strike-a-lights, and the contribution of functional analyses for understanding Palaeolithic contexts. In: Niekus M.J.L.T., Barton R.N.E., Street M. & Terberger T. (eds.), A mind set on flint. Studies in honour of Dick Stapert. Groningen: Barkhuis: 149-162
• Rots V., Lentfer C., Schmid V.C., Porraz G. & Conard N.J., 2017 – Pressure flaking to serrate bifacial points for the hunt during the MIS5 at Sibudu Cave (South Africa). PLoS ONE 12(4): e0175151
• Taipale N. & Rots V., 2021 – Every hunter needs a knife: hafted butchering knives from Maisières-Canal and their effect on lithic assemblage characteristics. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 36: 102874
• Taipale N., Chiotti L. & Rots V., 2022 – Why did hunting weapon design change at Abri Pataud? Lithic use-wear data on armature use and hafting around 24,000-22,000 BP. PLoS ONE 17(1): e0262185
• Takakura J., 2021 – Towards improved identification of obsidian microblade and microblade-like debitage knapping techniques: a case study from the Last Glacial Maximum assemblage of Kawanishi-C in Hokkaido, Northern Japan. Quaternary International 596: 65-78
• Tixier J., 1967 – Procédés d'analyse et questions de terminologie dans l'étude des ensembles industriels du Paléolithique récent et de l'Epipaléolithique en Afrique du Nord-Ouest. In: Bishop W. W. & Clark J. D. (eds.), Background to evolution in Africa. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press: 771-820
• Tsirk A., 2014 – Fractures in knapping. Oxford: Archaeopress, 261 p.
• Tomasso S. & Rots V., 2020 – Toolkits in the Aterian technocomplex: new insights based on a use-wear analysis of the assemblages from Ifri n’Ammar. In: Gibaja J., Clemente I., Mazzucco N. & Marreiros J. (eds.), Hunter-gatherers’ tool-kit: a functional perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing: 309-329
• Van Peer P., Rots V., 2010 – L'apport de l’expérimentation dans l’identification des tailleurs paléolithiques. Bulletin des Chercheurs de la Wallonie, hors-série 2: 93-105
• Vergès J.M. & Ollé A., 2011 – Technical microwear and residues in identifying bipolar knapping on an anvil: experimental data. Journal of Archaeological Science 38: 1016-1025