Toolstone constraints on knapping skill: Levallois reduction with two different raw materials

Lithic raw material constraints are widely assumed to be a determining factor of flaked stone tool morphology, but this assumption remains largely untested. We conducted a controlled experiment to determine whether a knapper’s growing replication skills would be hindered if the toolstone used was switched from large flakes of an easily worked chert to nodules of less tractable one. Two batches of Preferential Levallois cores were knapped, an earlier series made from standardised large flakes of sediments dominated by chalcedonic quartz followed by a more challenging one using variably-shaped, cortical nodules of microcrystaline quartz that varies in the completeness of quartz replacement of calcite and dolomite. Skill level markers were designed to measure the knapper’s ability to achieve a series of set goals. These were quantified and subjected to statistical testing. In all but one test, significant increases in skill could be detected from the earlier to the later batch of reductions, despite the drop in toolstone quality. Significant improvements in the consistency of the knapper’s output could also be detected. However, the switch to a more challenging, nodular chert did require extra shaping, which resulted in more waste. This masked visible progress towards producing a less costly core. Overall, our results do not support the assumed primacy of toolstone constraints over other factors in influencing the morphology of flaked stone tools.

[1]  Todd A. Surovell Toward a Behavioral Ecology of Lithic Technology: Cases from Paleoindian Archaeology , 2009 .

[2]  Mary M. Prasciunas Bifacial Cores and Flake Production Efficiency: An Experimental Test of Technological Assumptions , 2007, American Antiquity.

[3]  P. Jeffrey Brantingham,et al.  Raw Material Quality and Prepared Core Technologies in Northeast Asia , 2000 .

[4]  John Evans,et al.  The Ancient Stone Implements, Weapons, and Ornaments of Great Britain , 2007, Nature.

[5]  John C. Whittaker,et al.  Flintknapping: Making and Understanding Stone Tools , 1994 .

[6]  Barbara E. Luedtke,et al.  An Archaeologist's Guide to Chert and Flint , 1994 .

[7]  O. Bar‐Yosef,et al.  Definition and interpretation of Levallois technology , 2022 .

[8]  G. Sieveking,et al.  The scientific study of flint and chert : proceedings of the Fourth International Flint Symposium held at Brighton Polytechnic, 10-15 April 1983 , 1989 .

[9]  Peter Ditchfield,et al.  Raw material quality and Oldowan hominin toolstone preferences: evidence from Kanjera South, Kenya , 2009 .

[10]  Dennis Sandgathe,et al.  Examining the Levallois reduction strategy from a design theory point of view , 2005 .

[11]  H. Dibble,et al.  The Effect of Hammer Mass and Velocity on Flake Mass , 1995 .

[12]  J. Pittman Silica in Edwards Limestone, Travis County, Texas , 1959 .

[13]  David L. Clarke,et al.  Models in archaeology , 1972 .

[14]  M. Petraglia,et al.  Acheulean bifaces and early human behavioral patterns in East Africa and South India , 2003 .

[15]  C. J. Norton,et al.  Middle Pleistocene handaxes from the Korean Peninsula. , 2006, Journal of human evolution.

[16]  P. V. Peer,et al.  The Levallois Reduction Strategy , 1992 .

[17]  J. Jeffrey Flenniken,et al.  Morphological Projectile Point Typology: Replication Experimentation and Technological Analysis , 1986, American Antiquity.

[18]  Chris Clarkson,et al.  Regional diversity within the core technology of the Howiesons Poort techno-complex , 2010 .

[19]  Charlotte D. Pevny,et al.  A biface and blade core efficiency experiment: implications for Early Paleoindian technological organization , 2010 .

[20]  J. Cook,et al.  A Very Remote Period Indeed: Papers on the Palaeolithic presented to Derek Roe , 2001 .

[21]  H. Dibble Raw-Material Variation in Levallois Flake Manufacture , 1985, Current Anthropology.

[22]  R. V. S. Wright,et al.  Stone Tools As Cultural Markers: Change, Evolution and Complexity , 1978 .

[23]  Metin I. Eren,et al.  Experimental Evaluation of the Levallois “Core Shape Maintenance” Hypothesis , 2009 .

[24]  Harold L. Dibble,et al.  Multiple approaches to the study of bifacial technologies. , 2003 .

[25]  David J. Cohen,et al.  Were bamboo tools made in prehistoric Southeast Asia? An experimental view from South China , 2012 .

[26]  David R. Braun,et al.  Variability in bifacial technology at Elandsfontein, Western cape, South Africa: a geometric morphometric approach , 2010 .

[27]  M. Chazan Redefining Levallois. , 1997, Journal of human evolution.

[28]  Steven L. Kuhn,et al.  Blank Form and Reduction as Determinants of Mousterian Scraper Morphology , 1992, American Antiquity.

[29]  Michael J. Shott,et al.  Stone-Tool Demography: Reduction Distributions in North American Paleoindian Tools , 2010 .

[30]  J. McNabb,et al.  Bifaces in perspective , 1994 .

[31]  P. Jones Effects of Raw Materials on Biface Manufacture , 1979, Science.

[32]  P. Renne,et al.  Diachronous dawn of Africa's Middle Stone Age: New 40Ar/39Ar ages from the Ethiopian Rift , 2008 .

[33]  Nathan Schlanger Understanding Levallois: Lithic Technology and Cognitive Archaeology , 1996, Cambridge Archaeological Journal.

[34]  M. Eren,et al.  Are Upper Paleolithic blade cores more productive than Middle Paleolithic discoidal cores? A replication experiment. , 2008, Journal of human evolution.

[35]  August G. Costa,et al.  A Geometric Morphometric Assessment of Plan Shape in Bone and Stone Acheulean Bifaces from the Middle Pleistocene Site of Castel di Guido, Latium, Italy , 2010 .

[36]  Metin I. Eren,et al.  Middle Paleolithic Skill Level and the Individual Knapper: An Experiment , 2011, American Antiquity.

[37]  M. Orne On the social psychology of the psychological experiment: With particular reference to demand characteristics and their implications. , 1962 .

[38]  J. Woods,et al.  Stone Tool Analysis, Essays in Honor of Don E. Crabtree , 1985 .

[39]  S. Lycett,et al.  New perspectives on old stones : analytical approaches to Paleolithic technologies , 2010 .

[40]  Nicola Stern,et al.  A Record in Stone: The Study of Australia's Flaked Stone Artefacts , 2004 .

[41]  P. Jeffrey Brantingham,et al.  Constraints on Levallois Core Technology: A Mathematical Model , 2001 .

[42]  Stephen J. Lycett,et al.  The Movius Line controversy: the state of the debate , 2010 .

[43]  George C. Frison,et al.  A Functional Analysis of Certain Chipped Stone Tools , 1968, American Antiquity.

[44]  Mary Ellen Goodman,et al.  The Physical Properties of Stone Tool Materials , 1944, American Antiquity.

[45]  Harold L. Dibble,et al.  The relative effects of core surface morphology on flake shape and other attributes , 2011 .

[46]  Mark J. White,et al.  On the Significance of Acheulean Biface Variability in Southern Britain , 1998, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society.

[47]  Gonen Sharon,et al.  The impact of raw material on Acheulian large flake production , 2008 .

[48]  Stephen J. Lycett,et al.  A comparative 3D geometric morphometric analysis of Victoria West cores: implications for the origins of Levallois technology , 2010 .