Content deleted Content added
Line 30:
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>
[[File:Preferential Levallois method.jpg|thumbnail|An example of Preferential Levallois flake and core.]]▼
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.
▲[[File:Preferential Levallois method.jpg|thumbnail|An example of Preferential Levallois flake and core.]]
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.
| |||