The identification of individuals remains a marginal field of research in prehistoric archaeology. Since the 19th century, our discipline has sought to recognize characteristic objects within archaeological assemblages—first to establish a relative chronology of prehistory, and then to identify archaeological cultures. As a result, these objects - often stone tools - have primarily been understood as technical markers of a given period or culture, rather than as the products of individual craftsmanship.
However, in the 1970s, North American archaeology identified the individual as one of the main factors behind the variability of prehistoric artefacts, alongside technical traditions, functional properties of tools, and the raw materials used—thus placing the individual at the core of research. This phenomenon later resonated in France, where, in the 1980s, several studies highlighted the influence of individual variability in flintknapping, particularly in blade production.
Following these pioneering studies, certain research themes - such as learning processes and the recognition of skill levels - continued to generate significant interest. However, the identification of individuals has not really taken off, although studies have continued to be published on the subject at more or less regular intervals, especially in recent years in the field of lithic industries.
Approximately 50 years after J.N. Hill and J. Gunn paved the way (The Individual in Prehistory, 1977, Academic Press), it seems timely to take stock of the current state of research. From the Palaeolithic to the Metal Ages, considering the full range of available materials, how can we attempt to identify individuals through the various types of remains at our disposal? What methods can we employ for this purpose? What
are their conditions of application, their levels of resolution, and more generally, their advantages and limitations? By using these approaches, what insights can we hope to gain about the social and economic organizations of past societies? Finally, how can we envision the future of this ambitious but undoubtedly complex research theme?
