Differentiation between different soft hammers stigmats, quantitative and traceological approach
Jean-Thomas Vie, zixuan shen
Abstract
Many studies in archaeology focus on the traces associated with stone knapping during prehistory, debating their correlation with the techniques used (Clément, 2021; Pelegrin, 2000). However, it is important to note that these traces are intimately linked to the physical qualities of the rock, as well as its response to the gesture, force, and experience of the knapper. These criteria can lead to a diversity of marks but can also introduce biases into the analysis, especially as the sensitivity of some rocks varies when struck. Thus, the complexity of interpreting knapping traces intensifies when adopting a qualitative approach, highlighting the multitude of factors to consider for precise analysis.
Furthermore, the historical approach to the analysis of soft percussion use has primarily focused on specific regions such as Europe (Roussel et al., 2009), North Africa (Sari, 2016), the Middle East (Pelegrin and Inizan, 2013), and the United States. These analyses have largely relied on locally available materials, such as limestone, deer antler, or boxwood. Consequently, they offer a limited perspective and may not necessarily generalize results to other geographical or ecological contexts. Additionally, while the use of different soft percussors and their identity have been established in areas where deer are found, many questions remain regarding the identity of the soft percussor in historically deer-free ecological zones. Acquiring soft percussors from animal wood is not possible, but the use of other materials such as hard vegetal wood may have played a similar role.
Through experimental flake production and the traceological study of marks on the platforms of these productions resulting from soft percussion, it would be possible to determine specific traces associated with vegetal soft percussion.
Therefore, we try to compare knapping by different percussors (three soft hammers and one hard hammer) on different raw materials, and observe their dimensional data and technical characteristics.
Before start
Be sure to conduct this experimentation in a controlled environment to avoid any contamination of archaeological sites.
Attachments
INFO EXPE .pdf Experiment record.xlsx some test results.pptx
Steps
Camera setting
Place the camera in front of the experimentator
run the carmera and the experimentator explain what do he want to produce
Selection of a specific raw material
Select Raw material : Sandstone quartzite, Quartzite, Flint, Quartz
Preparation of the elongated flake core：
Preparation of a bifacial preform while opening somes striking platforms (optional)
Choosing the suitable hammer：1 Boxwood percussor、2 Deer antler percussor、3 Soft rock percussor such as sandstone or limestone、 4 bone hammer
Knapping with different hammers in order to produce flakes
Use hammer from low to high hardness to produce flakes :
Soft rock percussor, volcanic rock percussor.
We plan to knap in the order of Sandstone quartzite, Quartzite, Flint, Quartz. For each raw material, we use the hammer in order to get 10 flakes (i.e., for each raw material, we will get 40 flakes totally）
please use only tangential gesture
first produce 10 flakes with Boxwood percussor
Store each flake with a paper explaining the type of hammer the raw material the gesture of production position in the dicritical schema with a number or on the excel document
10 flakes with bone percussor
Store each flake with a paper explaining the type of hammer the raw material the gesture of production position in the dicritical schema with a number or on the excel document
10 flakes with Deer antler percussor
Store each flake with a paper explaining the type of hammer the raw material the gesture of production position in the dicritical schema with a number or on the excel document
10 flakes with soft rock percussor
Store each flake with a paper explaining the type of hammer the raw material the gesture of production position in the dicritical schema with a number or on the excel document
you can also store the core used to produce the flakes
Data record
Macro Mesurments
technological Leght of the piece
Bulb scar
angle de
chasse (dorsal talus angle)
flaking angle (ventral talus angle)
presence of point of impact
widness of the flake
thickness of the flake
widness of the talus
thickness of the talus
Hackel
morphology of the bulb
lip
ripples
Micro trace (micro ware on talus)
smached residue and strations
Take a picture if there is one and describe it
craks
hertzian cone 40x 50x zoom
angle of the cone
size of the cone
smached crack
scar small removal retouchings
stration
Data analysis
mean comparaison test
max and min size
boxplot
see the size of the flakes
qualitative approcha
