Content deleted Content added
Randy Kryn (talk | contribs) add template 'Prehistoric technology' |
|||
Line 25:
{{Unreferenced section|date=January 2010}}
[[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) -->.
The generally accepted criteria for a prepared-core to be categorized as a Levallois core are as follows: (1) core is organized in terms of two intersecting flaking surfaces; (2) the flaking surfaces have a hierarchical relationship, striking platform and primary reduction surface; (3) the shape of the primary reduction surface is such that the flake morphology is predetermined; (4) the fracture plane is sub-parallel to the intersection of the two previously mentioned surfaces; and (5) the striking platform is adjusted for removal of flakes that are parallel to the fracture plane, this is usually done through retouch and faceting. <ref>{{cite journal|last1=Brantingham|first1=Jeffrey|last2=Kuhn|first2=Steve|title=Constraints on Levallois Core Technology: A Mathematical Model|journal=Journal of Archaeological Science|date=2001|volume=28|issue=7|page=747|pages=761}}</ref>
The fact of the matter is that the ''Levallois'' Method is a term, which has a different meaning according to context. <!--For Boëda (1988, 1995) --> The ''Levallois'' Method concerns the productivity of a Levallois surface, which can be exploited according to a "lineal" or "preferential" method with the production of a single ''Levallois'' product, or which can be exploited according to a recurrent method with the production of several ''Levallois'' products. The lineal or preferential Levallois method corresponds best to the classic definition of ''Levallois'' <!-- (e.g., Bordes 1980) -->. The recurrent ''Levallois'' method <!-- (Boëda 1988, 1995) --> can be unipolar, with only one striking platform, bipolar, with opposed striking platforms, or centripetal, with two or more adjacent striking platforms. The unipolar, bipolar or centripetal recurrent ''Levallois'' technique is marked by the detachment of a series of large ''Levallois'' flakes, such that the preceding removals ready the surface for the subsequent ones, thus eliminating the need for extensive repreparation. The centripetal recurrent ''Levallois'' technique also includes pseudo-''Levallois'' points and sometimes side-struck pieces as well. <!--For Bordes (1961a,b, 1980) and Van Peer (1992, 1995) --> In some contexts, on the other hand, the ''Levallois'' Method denotes the specific organisation of scars and ridges on a ''Levallois'' surface, with one method focusing on the production of flakes and the other method focussing on the production of points. Contrary to Boëda <!-- (1998, 1995) -->, Van Peer <!--(1992)--> further concludes that the recurrent bipolar and centripetal ''Levallois'' methods do not exist. Only the notion of one preferential striking platform is the most essential characteristic of the true ''Levallois'' reduction strategy. Van Peer <!--(1992)--> also claims that a separate ''Levallois'' method for blade reduction does not exist either.
| |||