On the origins and significance of European Levallois. A view from Britain.

[Jacques Cinq-Mars]

Also worth reading. I particularly like the reference the authors make to the possibility of [geographycally] "extensive social networks" and its likely significance in terms of behaviour.

Jacques Cinq-Mars

Mark White and Nick Ashton. 2003. Lower Palaeolithic Core Technology and the Origins of the Levallois Method in North-Western Europe. CA 44(4):598-609.

Introductory paragraph:

The appearance of Levallois technology ca. 300,000–250,000 years ago (oxygen isotope stage 8) is commonly used to define the Lower-to-Middle Palaeolithic boundary in Europe (see Ronen 1982) and arguably represents the only major innovation in lithic practices during the entire Middle Pleistocene of that continent (White and Pettitt 1995, Gamble 1999). Given the 300,000 years of stasis that precede it, this example of culture change is an event of singular importance that goes beyond lithic technology and may herald the emergence of more profound changes in hominid social, behavioural, and cognitive structures. Despite this, the origins of Levallois technology have of late been a remarkably neglected area of research.

(End of the Conclusion):

 Most important, the examples cited give a strong impression of continuity rather than abrupt change in technical practices in Europe and a suite of associated changes that are progressive rather than abrupt. This does not, of course, refute Foley and Lahr’s suggestion of an exclusive African origin, but it leads us to question the arrival in Europe of a fully developed system in the hands of a group of dispersing hominids equipped with the skill and knowledge to practice it. It is, however, interesting to note that when it finally takes hold the Levallois method appears to occur almost simultaneously across Europe, the Near East, and Africa. This may well be a problem with the resolution of our dating, which through time averaging often contemporarizes events that are in reality separated by tens of thousands of years, but if real it shows that even if hominids were not moving, ideas and techniques were being transmitted through extensive social networks of the supposedly small and isolated human populations. The origins of Levallois technology and the changes that accompanied it have remained a neglected area of research that has cognitive, behavioural, and social implications and clearly warrants a global program of multidisciplinary investigation.

2003 by The Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research.
All rights reserved 0011-3204/2003/4404-0009$1.00

For the full article, CLICK HERE.

[Daryl Habel]

Hi Jacques and all,

I've had the pleasure of reading White & Ashton (2003) "Lower Palaeolithic core technology and the origins of the Levallois Method in Northwestern Europe" (CA 44.4:598-609), and I'd recommend this to all who have sometimes pondered over the definition(s) of Levallois technology.  The authors note that "...the origins of Levallois technology have of late been a remarkably neglected area of research."

Well I know some of us are interested in these "origins".

In this paper the authors make observations on the technological origins of  Levallois by analyzing the core technology of the Botany Pit assemblage at Purfleet (an abandoned meander of the Thames), England, dated variously to ~300 kyr BP.

Noting "a dramatic shift in emphasis in the past 20 years (Boeda 1986, 1995; Chazan 1997; Ashton 1992, 1998), moving from an essentially typological approach (study of final form) to an explicit concern with technology (study of process)." especially evident in the study of "the Levallois Method", they inform me that although there are divisions over several issues, "the technological school has nevertheless succeeded in identifying a set of clear and replicable criteria for recognizing the Levallois concept that potentially avoids the major interanalyst variation and ambiguity that plague the typological approach" (p.599).

Here's cheering for "potentially".

Is there Levallois at Botany Pit? (p. 601)

They adopt the technological approach to describe the Botany Pit core reduction as "proto-Levallois" (p. 606), in that it does not meet all six of the explicit criteria specified for identifying the Levallois method, but does show "a degree of intentionality in the sense of a specific plan of action designed to produce a series of large flakes but not predetermination through the shaping of the surface of cores (criterion 3) to produce one or more privileged or standardized flakes" (p.603).

Asking whether Levallois exists at Botany Pit,  the "clear and replicable criteria for recognizing Levallois" are detailed as they can be applied to the Botany Pit assemblage, as well as to other assemblages, such as the Pontian MP assemblages of Latium, Italy, analyzed by Kuhn (1995) who wrote of "prepared platform cores" that fulfilled some criteria of the Levallois concept but not others (p.602).  

The discussion and conclusion which follows were a delight to read.   And, for those who participated,  applicable to furthering the earlier discussion here of Kozlowski's origin of blades.  

Cheers,
Dar