Content deleted Content added
m Date maintenance tags and general fixes |
Jade Knight (talk | contribs) m →Levallois Core Reduction: switching to main article |
||
Line 23:
===Levallois Core Reduction===
[[Image:Levallois Point-Animation.gif|thumb|The making of a Levallois Point]] The recognition of [[Levallois technique|''Levallois'']] as a distinct core reduction strategy dates to the late 19th Century. The term was used to describe specific flakes with certain surface attributes <!-- (de Mortillet 1883) --> that were recovered during that period in northern France. These early descriptions were purely typological and based on the morphology of the flake products themselves. However, there was never a great deal of consensus among scholars, which typological attributes could be used to identify ''Levallois'' products. Gradually, more and more emphasis was put on the idea that ''Levallois'' flakes were the products of a particular method or process of production. Indeed, F. Bordes <!-- (e.g., 1980) --> emphasised that ''Levallois'' was essentially a method and not a particular product. However, the shape and character of a ''Levallois'' blank is also thought to be "predetermined" by the elaborate ''Levallois'' core preparation process <!-- (e.g., Van Peer 1992, 1995, 1995) -->. While a shape control system undoubtedly exists for the ''Levallois'' cores, there remain a number of significant problems. Indeed, how applied force will propagate through a specific core is determined by a number of variables and not only by the will or the desire of the Middle Palaeolithic [[flintknapper]]. Fracture mechanic variables include size, shape and internal structure of a particular flint nodule, but also the mass and resilience of the hammer stone and finally the angle and force of the blow and the shape of the core's striking platform. Given the imprecision of hand-eye co-ordination <!-- (Baumler 1995) -->, a rather high probability for only partial core reduction success is very real. Not only are there a number of significant problems with defining ''Levallois'' on the basis of predetermined blanks, but there is also considerable disagreement over what set of attributes should be used to characterise a ''Levallois'' product. Furthermore, it has also been demonstrated that very different core reduction strategies can produce seemingly diagnostic ''Levallois'' blanks<!-- (e.g., Marks & Volkman 1983; Van Peer 1992, 1995, 1998; Bringmans et al. 2003, 2004) -->.
Line 28 ⟶ 29:
There are thus serious problems and implications of the now widely accepted processual definition of the ''Levallois'' method<!-- (e.g., Marks & Volkman 1983; Boëda 1988, 1995; Van Peer 1992, 1995; Bringmans et al. 2003, 2004) -->. The presence of the ''Levallois'' criteria on a blank or a core do no longer necessarily guarantee the real ''Levallois'' character of a specific core reduction. So, we should not only study flakes and cores, since blanks and cores cannot be identified as ''Levallois'' by their own morphology. We should thus also try to reconstruct the dynamic reduction process by refitting. However, many Middle Palaeolithic assemblages do not allow these extensive reconstructions. So, analysis based on discarded cores and flakes can be problematic, since most of the flaking patterns that preceded a core's discard are simply not observable on them. But, if we cannot be sure of the status of a seemingly diagnostic "Levallois" product, can we then be sure of the ''Levallois'' or non-''Levallois'' intent of the core reduction process? The centripetal or radial core reduction scheme, which is used in this study, functions independently of the other characteristics, which define the ''Levallois'' method. In ''Levallois'' and non-''Levallois'' centripetal core reduction, flakes are struck from the perimeter of the core towards the centre. This is the only attribute, which both reduction strategies have in common. Three major variants within the centripetal core reduction strategy are distinguished: (1) unipolar [one striking platform], (2) bipolar [two opposed striking platforms] and (3) centripetal [two or more adjacent striking platforms]. The preparation of these cores is thus always centripetal. However, the removal of the major flakes can be unipolar, bipolar or centripetal. The term ''Levallois'' only refers to specimens, which clearly bear evidence of the production of a limited number of large central-positioned flakes on the core, which have been struck off from individual proximal striking platforms, and which were usually prepared several times. ''Levallois'' thus only refers to preferential or linear (recurrent or not) centripetal core reduction. Only a very small percentage of the centripetal cores and flakes will thus be classified as true ''Levallois'' products, by virtue of the presence of a single flake scar covering more than 60% of the reduction surface <!-- (Crew 1975) -->. Core reduction strategies are by necessity dynamic processes, since they must manage an ever-decreasing amount of raw material. Variability in centripetal core reduction strategies can be explained by dynamic adjustments made during the process of core reduction. Indeed, flintknappers always had to respond to the often-unpredictable nature of stone fracture.
▲{{see|Levallois technique}}
==References==
| |||