Abstract:

Laminar remains and pressure flaking technique are landmarks of the Upper Paleolithic. Keeping track of areas where pressure flaking technique was present is valuable for discussing the crucial issues in Paleolithic archaeology, such as migration, environmental adaption, etc. Researchers used to believe that some laminar remains, e.g., bladelets and microblades, are the product of pressure flaking technique. However, modern flint-knappers proved that laminar remains could also be produced by percussion flaking technique. Tracing pressure flaking technique solely by laminar remains is no longer acceptable. In light of this, researchers have tried to propose certain criteria to distinguish pressure laminar remains based on lithic replication experiments.

This paper questions the reliability of such criteria. Based on analyzing the rationality and effectiveness of lithic replication experiment in pressure laminar, we raise concern about differentiated conclusions reached by replication experiments. Then, the reliability of existing criteria is denied by revealing such conflict between four classic experimental cases. These discussions also make clear that the attempt to construct universal distinguishing criteria is hard to realize because the conclusions of replication experiments lack generalizability. Therefore, it is necessary to conduct contextualised replication experiments to determine the production of given laminar remains. While the reasons for lacking of universality deserves to be discussed because it helps to improve subsequent replication experiments.

Newcomer’s trichotomy of replication experiments’ design, namely method, mode and technique, indicates that the physical property of pressure flaking tools influences the production of laminar products and finally, the viewpoints about distinguishing criteria. But it is critically recognized that his negligence in assigning pressure into mode reflects academics’ common unawareness of the variability of pressure flaking tools. Previous researches on fracture mechanism of flaking demonstrated how pressure flaking tools affect pressure replication experiments. Hence, these researches suggest that replication experiments are not finished by simply imitating the appearance of remains. For more reliable experimental results, researchers should pay attention to pressure flaking tools in archaeological context.

Two referential methods are presented for reconstructing archaeological pressure flaking tools: Listing usable local resources for pressure tools and analyzing the use-wear of laminar remains or cores. However, it is acknowledged that solely retrospecting the pressure laminar remains distinguishing studies from the perspective of sample production is not enough. More reflection is needed.

Key words: experimental archaeology, pressure flaking technique, lithic replication experiment