Production expérimentale de lamelles torses : approche préliminaire

Abstract

Résumé Dans le cadre d'un programme d'étude sur le débitage lamellaire aurignacien, une expérimentation de taille exécutée par Jacques Tixiera été entreprise afin de comprendre l'origine de la torsion des lamelles aurignaciennes, en particulier celles rencontrées au Flageolet I. Deux hypothèses ont été testées : la localisation de l'enlèvement lamellaire sur le front et le décalage du bulbe par rapport à l'axe longitudinal de la lamelle.

What is a Burin? Typology, Technology, and Interregional Comparison

“…I would argue instead for the existence of a technique by which blades are removed from either cores, thicker flakes, or used tools (in agreement with studies by Aubry et al, 1995;Chazan, 2001;Hays and Lucas, 2000;Lucas, 1999). This blow leaves a remnant with a straight edge (or several in the case of multiple burins), which may be later used.…”

“…These studies argue convincingly that the artifact variability is often a result of adjusting the technique of tool manufacture to blade or flake thickness, rather than an inherent stylistic or functional change. As Chazan shows in his study of the La Ferassie collection, or Hays and Lucas in the case of Le Flageolet, busqued burins, Vachons burins, muzzled scrapers, and Dufour bladelets rather than distinct typological categories appear to be elements of the same technological system (Chazan, 2001;Hays and Lucas, 2000;Lucas, 1999). Furthermore, as Chazan (2001, p. 25) stresses, studies of Eastern and Central European collections are needed to test whether similar technological choices were made in blade production in regions other than Western Europe and the Levant.…”

“…Since 1980's the stylistic-functional "Mousterian debate" has been diverted in a new direction that stresses use, reduction sequence, and maintenance of lithic artifacts rather than formal tool types (e.g., Barton, 1989Barton, , 1991Coinman and Clausen, 2000;Dibble, 1984Dibble, , 1987Dibble, , 1988Dibble, , 1990Dibble, , 1995Hays and Lucas, 2000;Geneste, 1990;Jelinek, 1988;Knutsson, 1988aKnutsson, , 1988bKuhn, 1991Kuhn, , 1992Lucas, 1999;Rolland, 1981Rolland, , 1988Rollefson, 1988;Stiner and Kuhn, 1992). It has been suggested that a number of the classic types in fact represent steps in a reduction sequence, and their variable presence in archaeological collections is a result of different stages of production or reduction.…”

“…The majority of the burin spalls were not included in the formal tool assemblage, as they were viewed by the excavators as debitage. As several recent studies have shown, however, valuable information about the use of stone tools and stone tool technology can be gained from these pieces (e.g., Chazan, 2001;Hays and Lucas, 2000;Lucas, 1999).…”

Technological perspectives on the upper paleolithic

“…A series of technological analyses of bladelet production at Aurignacian sites in France has demolished this view. [23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36] With the exception of blades with Aurginacian retouch, all of the typologically diagnostic tools of the Aurignacian are now understood to be the interrelated elements of an exquisite system of bladelet production (Box 2). The carinated scra-…”