Journal of Archaeological Science 40 (2013) 1508e1517
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
Journal of Archaeological Science
journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jas
A 3D morphometric analysis of surface geometry in Levallois cores: patterns
of stability and variability across regions and their implications
Stephen J. Lycett*, Noreen von Cramon-Taubadel
Department of Anthropology, University of Kent, Canterbury, Kent CT2 7NR, United Kingdom
a r t i c l e i n f o
a b s t r a c t
Article history:
Received 17 September 2012
Received in revised form
5 November 2012
Accepted 6 November 2012
Levallois cores and products were manufactured by hominin populations distributed across wide regions
of Africa and Eurasia. Levallois technology remains an important focus for research in Palaeolithic
archaeology, yet quantitative morphological comparisons of Levallois core morphology from different
regions remain rare. Here, utilizing Levallois cores from Africa, the Near East, Europe, and the Indian
subcontinent, patterns of morphological variability in the shape of the Levallois flaking surface and core
outline (margin) shape were examined for patterns of variability and stability across regions using 3D
geometric morphometrics. The multivariate statistical shape analyses undertaken revealed a clear
pattern: that is, the greatest levels of shape variability in Levallois cores is evident in the form of their
outline (planform) shape. Conversely, the geometrical relationship between the margin of the Levallois
cores and their topological surface morphology was relatively uniform. This pattern of variability was
evident in terms of variation both across regions and between cores from the same locality. These results
indicate that the outline form of such cores was a less important variable than the geometric/topological
properties of the surface morphology and, in particular, the relationship between the margin of the core
and those variables. These results have implications for why it has been reported that replicating such
cores in modern experiments is a particularly difficult task. The specific interrelationship between the
geometric properties of the core and the core margin provide further evidence that Levallois core
technology would be unlikely to emerge from the context of opportunistic migrating platform reduction
strategies (such as those seen in many Mode 1 industries). If, as is widely suggested, Levallois cores
were deliberate products in Pleistocene contexts, these results also hint that relatively sophisticated
means of social transmission (i.e. teaching) may have been required to sustain their production over time
and space.
Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords:
Levallois
Geometric morphometric analysis
Core variation
1. Introduction
The study of stone artefacts represents e whether we like it or
not e our primary opportunity to study the behaviour of extinct
hominins (Isaac, 1986; Gowlett, 2010; Shea, 2010). Oldowan artefacts, as the oldest currently known examples of stone technology,
understandably continue to form an important focus of study in
this regard (e.g., Semaw, 2006; Braun et al., 2009; Toth and Schick,
2009; Wynn et al., 2011). Likewise, the handaxe and cleaver artefacts of the so-called ‘Acheulean’ also continue to inspire new
research efforts designed to extract insights into the cognitive and
cultural capacities of extinct hominins, as they have done for many
decades (e.g., Archer and Braun, 2010; Yravedra et al., 2010; Faisal
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: [email protected] (S.J. Lycett).
0305-4403/$ e see front matter Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2012.11.005
et al., 2010; Wang et al., 2012). Outside of the Lower Palaeolithic,
however, specific cores and flakes from the Middle Stone Age and
Middle Palaeolithic referred to collectively as ‘Levallois’, have also
formed an important focus of debate among palaeoanthropologists
for over a century (e.g., Commont, 1909; Smith, 1911; Bordes, 1950,
1980; Kelley, 1954; Hayden, 1993; Mellars, 1996).
Artefacts classified by archaeologists as ‘Levallois’ were made
over wide areas of the Old World including Africa, Europe and large
parts of Asia (see e.g., Dibble and Bar-Yosef, 1995 and chapters
therein). Although several different hominin taxa were probably
responsible for their manufacture (Hublin, 2009; Eren and Lycett,
2012), a particular association with Neanderthals (Homo neanderthalensis) perhaps explains something of their enduring
involvement in prominent debates. Indeed, Levallois artefacts are
frequently suggested to mark a particular watershed in lithic
technologies, and argued to provide important insights into the
cognitive and social capacities of their makers (e.g., Gamble, 1999;
S.J. Lycett, N. von Cramon-Taubadel / Journal of Archaeological Science 40 (2013) 1508e1517
Pelegrin, 2005; Wynn and Coolidge, 2010). If anything, and somewhat like the Acheulean (Gowlett, 2011), interest in Levallois
technologies may have seen something of a resurgence in recent
years. For instance, Levallois artefacts and reduction strategies have
been embroiled in recent debates concerning behavioural and
social evolution (e.g., Gamble, 1999; Tryon et al., 2006; Hovers,
2009; Wilkins et al., 2010; Moncel et al., 2011; Scott, 2011), skill
learning (Eren et al., 2011a), technological convergence (Lycett,
2009; Sharon, 2009), predetermination, planning and cognition
(Wynn and Coolidge, 2004, 2010; Pelegrin, 2005; Eren and Lycett,
2012) as well as issues of raw material variation and economies
of reduction (Brantingham and Kuhn, 2001; Sandgathe, 2005;
Brantingham, 2010; Eren et al., 2011b). Although many of these
topics are continuations of themes that have long held the attention
of archaeologists, this recent work evinces the continued interest in
Levallois.
Despite the long-term and widespread interest in Levallois,
however, quantitative examinations of core forms from across wide
geographic areas are surprisingly rare. In a now classic study of
Levallois cores and flakes, Van Peer (1992) undertook quantitative
analyses of Levallois cores, but his analyses were limited to artefacts
from the Egyptian Nile Valley. In an earlier study, Van Peer (1991)
had also compared Levallois flakes from a wider area of North
Africa, but cores were not included in these analyses. Examples of
morphometric analyses of Levallois cores that do exist, tend to
include a variety of different core forms, where the main purpose of
the analyses is not strictly to examine Levallois technology specifically (e.g., Clarkson, 2010; Haslam et al., 2010). This lack of dedicated cross-regional comparisons of Levallois core form is perhaps
all the more conspicuous given that there has, over recent years,
been an increased tendency (following Boëda, 1988, 1995) by many
workers to conceive of Levallois cores as conforming to a specific
geometric or ‘volumetric’ arrangement (e.g., Van Peer, 1992;
Schlanger, 1996; Brantingham and Kuhn, 2001; Wynn and
Coolidge, 2004, 2010; Pelegrin, 2005; Wilkins et al., 2010), suggesting that patterns of shape similarity and dissimilarity across
regions might provide novel insights. Moreover, considering the
behavioural and cognitive debates that surround Levallois, this
situation is also surprising given that several cross-regional
comparisons of Acheulean handaxe forms have been undertaken,
where behavioural, cultural, and cognitive factors are also prominent elements in the issues surrounding such artefacts (e.g., Wynn
and Tierson, 1990; Vaughan, 2001; Norton et al., 2006; Lycett and
Gowlett, 2008; Petraglia and Shipton, 2009; Wang et al., 2012). A
primary aim of the study presented here, therefore, was to examine
patterns of shape variability and stability in Levallois cores from
different regions.
2. Examining patterns of Levallois core shape variability and
stability across regions via geometric morphometrics
The form and shape of cores holds a prominent place in
discussions of Levallois (e.g., Van Peer, 1992; Boëda, 1995;
Schlanger, 1996; Pelegrin, 2005). On the basis of mathematical
modelling, Brantingham and Kuhn (2001) argued that the shape
and organisation of Levallois cores represents a particularly effective reduction strategy in terms of raw material economy and
cutting edge productivity, which, they argue, would explain the
widespread adoption of ‘Levallois’ style cores across a broad
geographic range by different hominin populations. Complementary to this, Eren and Lycett (2012) recently used size-adjusted
morphometric data to determine whether the surface of experimentally replicated classic ‘lineal’ Levallois cores resulted in the
production of flakes (i.e. ‘Levallois’ flakes) which were statistically
distinguishable from other flakes from the same core, even when
1509
size-adjusted. Moreover, a specific aim of their analyses was to
determine if the properties that statistically distinguished the
putative ‘Levallois’ flakes from others (if any) could logically be tied
to current knowledge regarding the functional utility of flake form.
In other words, their analyses asked whether the flakes struck from
classically shaped Levallois cores were not only statistically
distinguishable from other flakes, but distinguishable specifically in
such a way that might, on functional grounds, have made them
logically ‘preferable’ to the makers of Levallois cores, as is so often
suggested. These experiments determined that so-called ‘Levallois
flakes’ struck from ‘classic’ or ‘lineal’ style Levallois cores were
indeed statistically distinguishable from other flakes, and could be
classified as a consistent and coherent group in statistically robust
terms. The properties most responsible for this statistical pattern
were the possession of a moderate thickness that is evenly
distributed across a broad cross-section of the flake, and also, on
average, a greater degree of overall symmetry. Importantly, such
properties represent functionally desirable features in flake tools,
such as greater capacity for retouch, robustness of working edge,
and an evenness of weight distribution during use (Eren and Lycett,
2012).
If, as Eren and Lycett (2012) suggest, the geometrical surface
properties of Levallois cores resulted in the removal of flakes that
possessed a relative evenness of thickness across their surface
areas, then, it can be predicted that the removal of such regulated
flakes from the surface of Levallois cores should have resulted in
a restricted geometric/topographical (i.e. shape) relationship
between the extremities of the core’s outline (core margin) and the
resultant flake scar. Indeed, it would be reasonable to predict that if
Levallois cores were indeed intended to remove flakes with specific
relative thickness properties, then Levallois cores should show
a relatively restricted range of variation in the geometrical properties of their surface morphologies. That is, there should be less
variation in the shape properties of their surface morphologies than
overall outline (i.e. planform) shape, which would have been
a subservient variable to the topological/geometrical properties of
the core surface under these conditions. In other words, from
a knapper’s viewpoint, the outline shape of the core (planform)
would have been of far less importance than the topology of the
primary Levallois flaking surface. One specific purpose of the
present study, therefore, is to assess the relative levels of shape
variation in the surfaces of archaeological samples of Levallois
cores, against their overall planform variation.
Geometric morphometrics offers a particularly appropriate
framework to examine such relative levels of shape variation in
Levallois cores. Far more than just ‘scanning’ (which in-and-ofitself is, like photography, merely an image capturing technique,
not an automatic method of analysis) geometric morphometrics is
a set of statistical methods for studying the relative shape and size
of collections of objects in an explicit mathematical framework, the
properties of which are now well understood (Dryden and Mardia,
1998; O’Higgins, 2000; Slice, 2007). Unlike size, which is essentially
a univariate property of an object and can adequately be described
by a single unit such as mass or volume, shape is inherently
a multivariate phenomenon. Geometric morphometric (GM) techniques utilize analyses of landmark configurations, and facilitate
comparative studies of shape due to their mathematical ability to
separate out the properties of shape and size while still preserving
the geometrical properties of each original object (O’Higgins,
2000). ‘Shape’ in this analytical context is defined explicitly as the
geometric properties of a specimen excluding the effects of
isometric scale (or ‘size’), which will be expressed in terms of
a series of quantitative variables (Slice, 2007). Such techniques thus
provide an important means of quantifying aspects of shape variation, and enable visualization of these shape differences in
1510
S.J. Lycett, N. von Cramon-Taubadel / Journal of Archaeological Science 40 (2013) 1508e1517
a framework that is independent of differences in size between
objects. The quantified shape data produced are then amenable to
multivariate statistical techniques of analysis. Moreover, examples
of GM studies in physical anthropology have demonstrated that
landmark-based methods are a highly flexible approach to
morphometric analysis, and can facilitate the analysis of specific
localized regions or discrete parts of objects such as individual
cranial bones (e.g. Lockwood et al., 2002; von Cramon-Taubadel,
2009). Although geometric morphometric methods began to be
applied to the study of stone artefacts only a few years ago, the use
of such methods has already started to appear in analyses of lithic
material from a wide range of geographical and chronological
contexts (e.g., Lycett et al., 2006, 2010; Archer and Braun, 2010;
Buchanan and Collard, 2010a, 2010b; Cardillo, 2010; Costa, 2010;
, 2010, 2011; Monnier and McNulty, 2010; Shott and Trail,
Ioviţa
2010; Thulman, 2012; Wang et al., 2012).
(Bookstein, 1991; Dryden and Mardia, 1998). Landmarks may be
defined simply as “a point of correspondence on an object that
matches between and within populations” (Dryden and Mardia,
1998: 3). In the present study, 51 geometrically defined 3D coordinates (or ‘semilandmarks’) were recorded on each Levallois
core using a Crossbeam Co-ordinate Caliper (Lycett et al., 2006).
Semilandmarks are conceptually homologous in terms of being
geometrically correspondent across different shapes in a given
analysis (O’Higgins, 2000; MacLeod, 2001). The full landmark
configuration of x-, y-, z-co-ordinates used in the analyses is shown
in Fig. 1. It is important to note that given the aims of the present
study, the landmark configuration employed specifically captures
the shape of the core’s margin (planform) as well as the 3D topology
of the flake removal surface. Further details regarding the semilandmarking protocol, orientation of artefacts, and definitions of all
landmarks can be found in Lycett et al. (2006) and Lycett (2007a).
3. Materials and methods
3.2.2. Geometric morphometric analyses
In their raw form, configurations of landmark co-ordinates
merely represent the overall form (i.e. size þ shape) of objects,
and thus conflate information concerning shape with that of size. In
order to scale all co-ordinate data to the same unit, landmark
configurations were subjected to generalized Procrustes analysis
(GPA) using the freely available morphometrics software Morphologika version 2.5 (O’Higgins and Jones, 2006). GPA proceeds by
removing variation between landmark configurations due to
isometric scale (i.e. ‘size’) by reducing all configurations to unit
centroid size, which is defined as the square root of the summed
squared Euclidean distances from each landmark to the centroid of
the configuration (Niewoehner, 2005). Following this step, GPA
then implements least-squares criteria to minimize residual
differences between configurations due to translation and rotation
(Gower, 1975; Chapman, 1990). Thereafter, remaining patterns of
variation between homologous landmark positions (or what are
3.1. Materials
Examples of Levallois cores from Africa, Europe, the Near East,
and the Indian subcontinent from a total of nine different localities
were examined in the analyses (Table 1). Here, Levallois cores were
identified on the basis of adherence to Boëda’s (1994, 1995) volumetric definition of Levallois core morphology, and several other
features widely recognised (e.g. Van Peer, 1992: 10; Pelegrin, 2005)
to characterise cores typically classified as ‘Levallois’. That is, the
cores were all essentially bifacial in form and possessed a plane of
intersection produced between the two faces at the margin of each
core. Each core also possessed a disproportionately large negative
flake scar, or scars, on their superior surface (50% of total surface
area) when compared on a relative basis to other negative flake
scars on the same surface. In accordance with Boëda (1995), the
axis of this flake removal was broadly parallel to the plane of
intersection. Moreover, cores exhibited some remnant of the distal
and lateral convexity possessed by the core prior to the removal of
the final flake, such that the removal of this final flake visibly
truncated earlier flake removals on the same surface (Van Peer,
1992: 10). In focusing on ‘classic’ preferential (lineal) Levallois
cores, we accept that we may not be examining all of the variability
that could potentially be included under the term ‘Levallois’. An
important future extension of the study we report here may,
therefore, be to determine if other forms of Levallois exhibit similar
patterns in their variability.
3.2. Methods
3.2.1. Landmark configuration
The basis of geometric morphometrics is the identification and
quantification of data in the form of a configuration of landmarks
(i.e. in 3D, a series of x-, y-, z-co-ordinates defining n landmarks)
Table 1
Levallois cores used in the analyses (total n ¼ 152).
Locality
n
Raw material
Baker’s Hole, Kent, UK
Bezez Cave (Level B), Adlun, Lebanon
El Arabah, Abydos, Egypt
El Wad (Level F), Israel
Fitz James, Oise, France
Kamagambo, Kenya
Kharga Oasis (KO6e), Egypt
Muguruk, Kenya
Soan Valley, Pakistan
23
28
16
27
11
13
11
12
11
Chert
Chert
Chert
Chert
Chert
Quartzite, chert
Chert
Lava
Quartzite
Fig. 1. The configuration of 51 landmarks used in the 3D geometric morphometric
analyses.
S.J. Lycett, N. von Cramon-Taubadel / Journal of Archaeological Science 40 (2013) 1508e1517
termed ‘Procrustes residuals’) can be interpreted as shape differences between the objects, as represented by the landmark
configurations in each case.
Following GPA, Procrustes residuals were projected into a linear
shape space tangent to the non-Euclidean shape space and subjected to principal components analysis, again using Morphologika.
Principal component analysis (PCA) enables the major shape variation between individual Levallois cores to be examined in a hierarchical fashion, whereby the first PC describes the major axis of
shape variation (size having already been controlled for), the
second PC describes the second major axis of variation, with each
succeeding PC describing sequentially less of the overall variation
between objects in this fashion. In other words, the first principal
component (PC1) will identify which aspects of shape variation are
primarily responsible for the variations in shape across all Levallois
cores in the analysis.
A particular aim of the current analyses was to determine if
levels of topological shape variation in the surfaces of Levallois
cores are relatively restricted compared to variation in planform
variability of core outline shape (see above). If this prediction is to
be supported, PC1 should exhibit the greatest variation in terms of
outline form rather than in terms of the 3D topological variation of
the Levallois surface. In order to determine the character of major
variations of shape in the Levallois cores, as identified by the
principal components analysis, two different but complementary
and intuitive visual methods were employed. The first method
involved the use of ‘wireframes’, which link together the individual
landmarks of a configuration, thus enabling a visual representation
of the major shape variations along the axis of an individual PC
(O’Higgins and Jones, 1998). The wireframes represent hypothetical
specimens at the extreme range of a PC according to the shape data
that characterise variation along that particular component. An
alternative means of graphically representing the major shape
differences along each PC is to combine the wireframe diagrams
with deformation grids based on the thin plate spline (tps) interpolation function (Bookstein, 1989). Simply, these are Cartesian coordinate grids that visually represent the shape changes associated
with hypothetical specimens placed at the extremities of PCs. The
grids are ‘deformed’ versions of the average of all specimens whose
data is represented at the centroid (0.00) of all PCs. In essence, tps
deformation grids approximate (in this case in 3D) the visual means
of representing shape changes via alteration (transformation) of
Cartesian co-ordinate grids, as classically described by D’Arcy
Thompson (1917; see also Clarke, 1968: 528e529). Wireframe
diagrams and tps deformation grids were produced using Morphologika version 2.5.
4. Results
The results of the principle components analysis demonstrate
that the first three PCs account for 29.91%, 17.9%, and 10% of the
variation in Levallois core shape respectively (Table 2). Cumulatively, PCs 1e3 account for over 57.8% of the total variation in shape
differences between Levallois cores; all remaining PCs each account
for less than 10% of overall variation (Table 2). Fig. 2 plots the first
two PCs from the principal components analysis. The wireframe
diagrams indicate the shape changes associated with each PC. The
wireframe diagrams (Fig. 2) indicate that the shape changes associated with PC1 are most strongly accounted for by differences in
the outline forms of cores rather than in terms of topological
variation in the surface morphology of cores. The wireframes
associated with PC2 also indicate that variation along that PC is
dominated by differences in the outline shape of cores. It is also
evident from the distribution of cores from individual localities
within the PC1ePC2 shapeespace plot (Fig. 2), that variability in
1511
Table 2
Results of principal components analysis for first 16 PCs (>95% total variance
explained).
PC
PC
PC
PC
PC
PC
PC
PC
PC
PC
PC
PC
PC
PC
PC
PC
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Eigen value
Percentage variance
explained
Cumulative variance
explained
0.007612
0.004554
0.002546
0.001963
0.001540
0.001341
0.000873
0.000749
0.000651
0.000510
0.000444
0.000378
0.000350
0.000327
0.000196
0.000156
29.91
17.90
10.00
7.72
6.05
5.27
3.43
2.94
2.56
2.01
1.75
1.48
1.38
1.28
0.77
0.61
29.91
47.81
57.81
65.52
71.58
76.85
80.28
83.22
85.78
87.78
89.53
91.02
92.39
93.68
94.44
95.06
outline form accounts for both a high degree of the variability in
core morphology between cores from the same locality, as well as
across different localities. Fig. 3 plots PC1 against PC3 where variation along PC3 appears to be accounted for by a combination of
variation in both outline form and surface topology. Collectively,
these results indicate that the greatest levels of variation in the
shapes of Levallois cores are driven by differences in the outline
shape of individual cores, with markedly less of the variation being
explained by differences in the 3D surface topology of cores.
Examination of the thin plate spline (tps) deformation grids for
the first three PCs confirms these results (Figs. 4e6). Fig. 4 shows
the tps deformation grids at the centre (0.00) and extremities of
PC1 (i.e. 0.24 and 0.24) in xey planform view (upper grid), xez
planform view (middle grid), and xez section view (lower grid).
Examination of these deformation grids clearly demonstrates that
the shape changes which account for the greatest variation
between cores, as represented by the quantitative shape data of
PC1, is variation in outline form rather than in terms of topological
variation in surface morphology (Fig. 4). This can be seen in the fact
that the xey and xez planform grids exhibit considerable twisting
deformation relative to the average (squared) grid. In contrast, in
the lower xez section grid representing surface topology, there is
no twisting or distortion of the vertical and horizontal arrangement
of the grid structure (Fig. 4). The deformation grids associated with
PC2 (Fig. 5) also demonstrate that variation along this second axis
of shape variation is dominated by deformation representing
variation in outline form rather than surface topology. The deformation grids associated with PC3 (Fig. 6) indicate that a combination of both outline shape and surface topology account for
variation along this third PC. Again, collectively, the tps deformation grids clearly indicate that the greatest difference in the shapes
of the Levallois cores is that associated with variation in outline
shape, with markedly less of the overall variation between cores
being explicable in terms of variation in the 3D surface topology of
cores.
5. Discussion
Cores represent a discrete subset of the lithic detritus produced
by hominin populations, but they preserve tangible evidence of the
reduction strategies and organizational principles of reduction
used by extinct hominins (Baumler, 1995; Brantingham and Kuhn,
2001; Clarkson, 2010). Here, Levallois cores from Africa, Europe,
the Near East and the Indian subcontinent were subjected to
1512
S.J. Lycett, N. von Cramon-Taubadel / Journal of Archaeological Science 40 (2013) 1508e1517
Fig. 2. Principal components plot of PC1 against PC2. The dorsal and lateral view wireframe diagrams indicate the major aspects of shape variation associated with PC1 (29.91% of
variance) and PC2 (17.9% of variance).
Fig. 3. Principal components plot of PC1 against PC3. The dorsal and lateral view wireframe diagrams indicate the major aspects of shape variation associated with PC1 (29.91% of
variance) and PC3 (10% of variance).
S.J. Lycett, N. von Cramon-Taubadel / Journal of Archaeological Science 40 (2013) 1508e1517
1513
Fig. 4. Deformation grids representing shape variation of cores along PC1. The average form is shown in the centre (0.00) and the relative differences in specimens close to the
extremities of the PC range are shown left and right of this (i.e. at 0.24 and 0.24). Upper grid represents xey planform view of core, middle grid represents xez planform view, and
lower grid represents xez section view through core.
comparative shape analysis via a geometric morphometrics
framework.
The comparative multivariate analyses undertaken here
revealed a clear pattern. That is, the greatest level of variability in
the surface morphology of Levallois cores is evident in the form of
their outline shape. Conversely, the geometrical (i.e. shape) relationship between the margin of the Levallois cores and their
topological surface morphology was relatively uniform across
different sites and regions. These results are thus consistent with
the suggestion that the geometrical properties of Levallois cores
were designed to produce flakes with specific properties relating to
relative thickness (Eren and Lycett, 2012), and that manipulation of
the geometrical relationship between the margin of the core and
the geometrical properties of its surface morphology were used to
manage Levallois reduction in a controllable and potentially
predictable manner (e.g., Van Peer, 1992; Brantingham and Kuhn,
2001; Eren and Bradley, 2009). In other words, the pattern that
emerges from the analyses is that if, as many have argued (e.g., Van
Peer, 1992; Schlanger, 1996; Brantingham and Kuhn, 2001;
Pelegrin, 2005; Wynn and Coolidge, 2004; Eren and Lycett, 2012),
Levallois cores were deliberately created products designed to
organize core reduction in specific ways, then from the viewpoint
Fig. 5. Deformation grids representing shape variation in cores along PC2.
1514
S.J. Lycett, N. von Cramon-Taubadel / Journal of Archaeological Science 40 (2013) 1508e1517
Fig. 6. Deformation grids representing shape variation in cores along PC3.
of the hominin knappers responsible for their creation, the outline
form of such cores was a less important variable than the
geometric/topological properties of the surface morphology and, in
particular, the relationship between the margin of the core and
those variables.
Several salient implications arise from recognition of these
patterns of stability and variability in Levallois core morphology.
The difficulty of accurately replicating Levallois core morphology in
modern experimental contexts has frequently been noted by
commentators on the topic (e.g., Callahan, 1982; Hayden, 1993: 118;
Wynn and Coolidge, 2004: 474; Pelegrin, 2005; Eren et al., 2011a).
The results reported here suggest why it is regarded so difficult to
produce convincing replicas of such artefacts. The production of
such cores is mediated by factors such as the production of distal
and lateral convexities, as noted by others (e.g., Boëda, 1988, 1995;
Van Peer, 1992). However, only through control of the very specific
and finite geometrical/topological relationship between the margin
of the core and the shape of its upper surface would the restricted
range of morphology represented in the Levallois cores examined
here emerge. Geometrically, the challenge of removing a Levallois
flake is akin to chopping the top off an egg; albeit a stone egg, laying
on its side1 (Fig. 7). This specific and characteristic ‘Levallois
geometry’ must be consistently imposed by the knapper and
cannot be cheated; if it is incorrect, the physics does not work, and
the restricted range of geometrical relationship between the
margin of the core and the surface topology left by removal of the
‘Levallois’ flake(s) seen in the archaeological examples examined
here would not emerge.
1
This is a schematic model designed to illustrate the geometrical relationships of
key variables to each other, particularly the core margin and its relationship to
other variables. It does not imply that Levallois cores were perfectly elliptical, nor
that their upper surfaces were identical to their lower surfaces. Indeed, a distinctive
feature of Levallois is the hierarchical relationship of the core surfaces (Boëda,
1995).
The constraint on Levallois geometry with regard to the core
margin and its relationship to surface and platform variables,
suggests that if there is any ‘free-play’ in Levallois core form,
which might lead to regionally or temporally distinct traditions,
then this is most likely to be exhibited in terms of outline
(planform) variables. It is notable in this regard that one of the
strongest lines of evidence for a regionally distinct Levallois
‘tradition’ are cores assigned to the MSA Nubian technocomplex of
Northeast/East Africa, which are distinctive in terms of their
triangular/sub-triangular shapes (Guichard and Guichard, 1965;
Van Peer, 1992; Van Peer and Vermeersch, 2007; Olszewski et al.,
2010). Such issues may be important given claims that recognition
of this technocomplex has implications for the dispersal of
hominins into the Arabian Peninsula (e.g., Rose et al., 2011; Usik
et al., in press).
These results also support repeated suggestions that Levallois
core reduction schemes developed directly out of the reduction
strategies used in the production of Acheulean handaxes (e.g.,
Leroi-Gourhan, 1966; Copeland, 1995; Rolland, 1995; Tuffreau and
Antoine, 1995; Schick, 1998; DeBono and Goren-Inbar, 2001;
Lycett, 2007b). The specific control elements required, including
control of the relative position of the core margin and its relationship to other shape variables would be unlikely to emerge from
‘opportunistic’ Mode 1 technologies that rely on migrating platforms, rather than the reduction strategies required to produce
bifacial handaxes. In the case of Levallois reduction it is the margin
of the core that must be established and managed, just as the
bifacial edge of an effective handaxe cutting tool must be established and managed by its maker. In this sense, the emergence of
Levallois reduction e in building on earlier schemes of control in
reduction seen in handaxes e would represent a clear instance of
technological ‘ratcheting’ (sensu Tomasello, 1999).
Learning how to impose and control, however, the very specific
and finite geometrical/topological relationship between the margin
of the core and the shape of its upper surface, might imply
particularly effective mechanisms of social transmission in hominin
S.J. Lycett, N. von Cramon-Taubadel / Journal of Archaeological Science 40 (2013) 1508e1517
1515
Fig. 7. Schematic representation of the geometric relationship between the core margin and other features of Levallois cores. The results highlight the restricted range of variation
associated with the margin of the core and its organisation and arrangement relative to these other features. (NB. This does not imply that Levallois cores are elliptically shaped, but
it schematically illustrates the geometrical relationships between elements of Levallois core geometry, as highlighted by the analyses.)
populations responsible for Levallois reduction.2 Given the difficulty of learning Levallois, it is reasonable to ask whether direct
teaching may have been involved over and above more simple
observational learning mechanisms such as emulation and/or
imitation. As Wynn and Coolidge (2010: 97) note, a conservative
response to such a question might always reasonably lead to the
conclusion that social learning via observation and inference of goal
alone could lead to the accurate learning of such techniques since
much can be learnt via mechanisms of emulation and imitation
(Whiten et al., 2004). Indeed, in the case of stone toolmaking e
which leaves material traces of behavioural actions e much might
potentially be learnt via observation of another individual’s material products alone in a form of ‘plagiaristic cultural transmission’,
rather than via any direct agenteagent interaction. Ironically,
mechanisms of social learning do not, in fact, always require agente
agent interaction or direct behavioural observation (Byrne and
Russon, 1998: 669). However, recent mathematical models have
indicated that teaching is more likely to evolve where any costs
associated with teaching are outweighed by the inclusive fitness
benefits that result from the instructor’s kin being more likely to
acquire the valuable information (Fogarty et al., 2011). Importantly,
these models also suggest that teaching is more likely to evolve in
these circumstances when novices cannot easily learn the information for themselves or via observational learning alone (i.e. the
tasks required are relatively difficult). There is evidence to suggest
that the adoption of Levallois reduction schemes by Middle Pleistocene hominins offered potential fitness benefits such as the
economisation of raw material relative to the production of available cutting edge (Brantingham and Kuhn, 2001), as well as via the
production of flakes that are predictably beneficial in terms of
reduction potential, robustness of working edge, and overall
balance (Eren and Lycett, 2012). There are ethnographically recorded examples of restricted opportunities for the social transmission
of important and difficult to learn information due to direct costs
imparted to potential teachers. For instance, adult male Tsimané
hunters of the Bolivian Amazon are reluctant to take young novices
with them on hunting trips due to the dangers of novices inadvertently making any noise that would spoil hunting opportunities
(Reyes-García et al., 2009: 283). In contrast to this situation,
2
Here it is perhaps also important to note that the sheer number of variables that
a knapper is required to instigate and manage simultaneously in successfully
replicating a ‘classic’ Levallois core and flake removals (i.e. distal and lateral
convexities, their relationship to the core margin, managing the migration of the
margin as core reduction progresses, and the relationship of those variables, in turn,
to platform depth of the large flake(s) [see e.g., Pelegrin, 2005]), presents challenges
even beyond handaxe manufacture.
knapping is a noisy activity, which although requiring concentration, would not irrevocably be disturbed by deliberate acts of
instruction, either through visual or verbal gestures while undertaking the task. The results of the present study cannot, of course,
settle the issue, but as a candidate for a directly taught piece of
material culture, rather than one learnt solely through imitation
and emulation, then Levallois represents an outstanding nominee
on consideration of all these collective criteria. Independent test
criteria will, however, be required to further substantiate this
contention, and it is perhaps here that the greatest challenges await
future research.
Acknowledgements
We thank Metin Eren for helpful discussions and comments, as
well as Richard Klein and two anonymous reviewers for constructive comments on an earlier version of this paper. We are also
grateful to staff at the British Museum, London and the University
of Cambridge (CUMAA) for hospitality during data collection.
References
Archer, W., Braun, D.R., 2010. Variability in bifacial technology at Elandsfontein,
Western cape, South Africa: a geometric morphometric approach. Journal of
Archaeological Science 37, 201e209.
Baumler, M.F., 1995. Principles and properties of lithic core reduction: implications
for Levallois technology. In: Dibble, H.L., Bar-Yosef, O. (Eds.), The Definition and
Interpretation of Levallois Technology. Prehistory Press, Madison, Wisconsin,
pp. 11e23.
Boëda, E., 1988. Le concept laminaire: rupture et filiation avec le concept levallois.
In: Otte, M. (Ed.), L’homme de Néanderthal. Etudes et Recherches Archéologiques de l’Université de Liège 35, pp. 41e49.
Boëda, E., 1994. Le Concept Levallois: Variabilité des Méthodes. Centre de la
Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), Paris.
Boëda, E., 1995. Levallois: a volumetric construction, methods, a technique. In:
Dibble, H.L., Bar-Yosef, O. (Eds.), The Definition and Interpretation of Levallois
Technology. Prehistory Press, Madison, Wisconsin, pp. 41e68.
Bookstein, F.L., 1989. Principal warps: thin-plate splines and the decomposition of
deformations. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence
11, 567e585.
Bookstein, F.L., 1991. Morphometric Tools for Landmark Data: Geometry and
Biology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Bordes, F., 1950. Principes d’une method d’étude des techniques de debitage et de la
typologie du Paléolithique acient et moyen. L’Anthropologie 54, 19e34.
Bordes, F., 1980. Le débitage Levallois et ses variants. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française 77, 45e49.
Brantingham, P.J., Kuhn, S.L., 2001. Constraints on Levallois core technology:
a mathematical model. Journal of Archaeological Science 28, 747e761.
Brantingham, P.J., 2010. The mathematics of chaînes opératoires. In: Lycett, S.J.,
Chauhan, P.R. (Eds.), New Perspectives on Old Stones: Analytical Approaches to
Palaeolithic Technologies. Springer, New York, pp. 183e206.
Braun, D.R., Plummer, T., Ferraro, J.V., Ditchfield, P., Bishop, L.C., 2009. Raw material
quality and Oldowan hominin toolstone preferences: evidence from Kanjera
South, Kenya. Journal of Archaeological Science 36, 1605e1614.
1516
S.J. Lycett, N. von Cramon-Taubadel / Journal of Archaeological Science 40 (2013) 1508e1517
Buchanan, B., Collard, M., 2010a. An assessment of the impact of resharpening on
Paleoindian projectile point blade shape using geometric morphometric techniques. In: Lycett, S.J., Chauhan, P.R. (Eds.), New Perspectives on Old Stones:
Analytical Approaches to Palaeolithic Technologies. Springer, New York,
pp. 255e273.
Buchanan, B., Collard, M., 2010b. A geometric morphometrics-based assessment of
blade shape differences among Paleoindian projectile point types from western
North America. Journal of Archaeological Science 37, 350e359.
Byrne, R.W., Russon, A.E., 1998. Learning by imitation: a hierarchical approach.
Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21, 667e721.
Callahan, E., 1982. An interview with flintknapper Jaques Pelegrin. Contract
Abstracts 3, 62e70.
Cardillo, M., 2010. Some applications of geometric morphometrics to archaeology.
In: Elewa, A.M.T. (Ed.), Morphometrics for Nonmorphometricians. Springer,
New York, pp. 325e344.
Chapman, R.E., 1990. Conventional Procrustes approaches. In: Rohlf, F.J.,
Bookstein, F.L. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Michigan Morphometrics Workshop
Special Publication No. 2. University of Michigan Museum of Zoology, Ann
Arbor, pp. 251e267.
Clarke, D.L., 1968. Analytical Archaeology. Methuen, London.
Clarkson, C., 2010. Regional diversity within the core technology of the Howiesons
Poort techno-complex. In: Lycett, S.J., Chauhan, P.R. (Eds.), New Perspectives on
Old Stones: Analytical Approaches to Paleolithic Technologies. Springer, New
York, pp. 43e59.
Commont, V., 1909. L’industrie moustérianne dans la région du Nord de la France.
Congès Préhistorique de France 5ème session. Bureaux de la Société Préhistorique de France, Paris, 115e157.
Copeland, L., 1995. Are Levallois flakes in the Levantine Acheulian the result of
biface preparation? In: Dibble, H.L., Bar-Yosef, O. (Eds.), The Definition and
Interpretation of Levallois Technology. Prehistory Press, Madison, Wisconsin,
pp. 171e183.
Costa, A.G., 2010. A geometric morphometric assessment of plan shape in bone and
stone Acheulean bifaces from the Middle Pleistocene site of Castel di Guido,
Latium, Italy. In: Lycett, S.J., Chauhan, P.R. (Eds.), New Perspectives on Old
Stones: Analytical Approaches to Paleolithic Technologies. Springer, New York,
pp. 23e41.
DeBono, H., Goren-Inbar, N., 2001. Note of a link between Acheulian handaxes and
the Levallois method. Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 31, 9e23.
Dibble, H.L., Bar-Yosef, O. (Eds.), 1995. The Definition and Interpretation of Levallois
Technology. Prehistory Press, Wisconsin.
Dryden, I.L., Mardia, K.V., 1998. Statistical Shape Analysis. Wiley, London.
Eren, M., Bradley, B., 2009. Experimental evaluation of the Levallois “core shape
maintenance” hypothesis. Lithic Technology 34, 119e125.
Eren, M.I., Lycett, S.J., 2012. Why Levallois? A morphometric comparison of experimental ’preferential’ Levallois flakes versus debitage flakes. PLoS ONE 7
(e29273), 1e10.
Eren, M.I., Bradley, B., Sampson, C.G., 2011a. Middle Paleolithic skill-level and the
individual knapper: an experiment. American Antiquity 76, 229e251.
Eren, M.I., Lycett, S.J., Roos, C., Sampson, C.G., 2011b. Toolstone constraints on
knapping skill: Levallois reduction with two different raw materials. Journal of
Archaeological Science 38, 2731e2739.
Faisal, A., Stout, D., Apel, J., Bradley, B., 2010. The manipulative complexity of Lower
Paleolithic stone toolmaking. PLoS ONE 5 (e13718), 1e11.
Fogarty, L., Strimling, P., Laland, K., 2011. The evolution of teaching. Evolution 65,
2760e2770.
Gamble, C., 1999. The Palaeolithic Societies of Europe. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
Gower, J.C., 1975. Generalised Procrustes analysis. Psychometrika 40, 33e50.
Gowlett, J.A.J., 2010. The future of lithic analysis in Palaeolithic Archaeology: a view
from the Old World. In: Lycett, S.J., Chauhan, P.R. (Eds.), New Perspectives on
Old Stones: Analytical Approaches to Palaeolithic Technologies. Springer, New
York, pp. 295e309.
Gowlett, J.A.J., 2011. The Empire of the Acheulean strikes back. In: Sept, J.,
Pilbeam, D. (Eds.), Casting the Net Wide: Papers in Honor of Glynn Isaac and His
Approach to Human Origins Research. American School of Prehistoric Research,
Cambridge, MA, pp. 93e114.
Guichard, J., Guichard, G., 1965. The Early and Middle Paleolithic of Nubia:
a preliminary report. In: Wendorf, F. (Ed.), Contributions to the Prehistory of
Nubia. Fort Burgwin and Southern Methodist University Press, Dallas, pp. 57e
116.
Haslam, M., Clarkson, C., Petraglia, M.D., Korisettar, R., Jones, S., Shipton, C.,
Ditchfield, P., Ambrose, S., 2010. The 74 ka Toba super-eruption and southern
Indian hominins: archaeology, lithic technology and environments at Jwalapuram Locality 3. Journal of Archaeological Science 37, 3370e3384.
Hayden, B., 1993. The cultural capacities of Neandertals: a review and re-evaluation.
Journal of Human Evolution 24, 113e146.
Hovers, E., 2009. The Lithic Assemblages of Qafzeh Cave. Oxford University Press,
Oxford.
Hublin, J.J., 2009. The origin of Neandertals. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences USA 106, 16022e16027.
Isaac, G.L., 1986. Foundation stones: early artefacts as indicators of activities and
abilities. In: Bailey, G.N., Callow, P. (Eds.), Stone Age Prehistory. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, pp. 221e241.
Ioviţ
a, R.P., 2010. Comparing stone tool resharpening trajectories with the aid of
elliptical Fourier analysis. In: Lycett, S.J., Chauhan, P.R. (Eds.), New Perspectives
on Old Stones: Analytical Approaches to Palaeolithic Technologies. Springer,
New York, pp. 235e253.
, R., 2011. Shape variation in Aterian tanged tools and the origins of projectile
Ioviţa
technology: a morphometric perspective on stone tool function. PLoS ONE 6
(e29029), 1e14.
Kelley, H., 1954. Contribution à l’étude de la technique de la taille levalloisienne.
Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Francaise 51, 149e169.
Leroi-Gourhan, A., 1966. La Préhistoire. Universitaires de France, Paris.
Lockwood, C.A., Lynch, J.M., Kimbel, W.H., 2002. Quantifying temporal bone
morphology of great apes and humans: an approach using geometric
morphometrics. Journal of Anatomy 201, 447e464.
Lycett, S.J., 2007a. Is the Soanian techno-complex a Mode 1 or Mode 3 phenomenon? A morphometric assessment. Journal of Archaeological Science 34,
1434e1440.
Lycett, S.J., 2007b. Why is there a lack of Mode 3 Levallois technologies in East Asia?
A phylogenetic test of the MoviuseSchick hypothesis. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 26, 541e575.
Lycett, S.J., 2009. Are Victoria West cores “proto-Levallois”? A phylogenetic
assessment. Journal of Human Evolution 56, 175e191.
Lycett, S.J., Gowlett, J.A.J., 2008. On questions surrounding the Acheulean ’tradition’.
World Archaeology 40, 295e315.
Lycett, S.J., von Cramon-Taubadel, N., Foley, R.A., 2006. A crossbeam co-ordinate
caliper for the morphometric analysis of lithic nuclei: a description, test and
empirical examples of application. Journal of Archaeological Science 33,
847e861.
Lycett, S.J., von Cramon-Taubadel, N., Gowlett, J.A.J., 2010. A comparative 3D
geometric morphometric analysis of Victoria West cores: implications for the
origins of Levallois technology. Journal of Archaeological Science 37, 1110e1117.
MacLeod, N., 2001. Landmarks, localization, and the use of morphometrics in
phylogenetic analysis. In: Adrain, J.M., Edgecombe, G.D., Lieberman, B.S. (Eds.),
Fossils, Phylogeny, and Form: An Analytical Approach. Kluwer/Plenum, New
York, pp. 197e233.
Mellars, P., 1996. The Neanderthal Legacy: an Archaeological Perspective from
Western Europe. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
Moncel, M.H., Moigne, A.M., Sam, Y., Combier, J., 2011. The emergence of Neanderthal technical behavior: new evidence from Orgnac 3 (Level 1, MIS 8),
southeastern France. Current Anthropology 52, 37e75.
Monnier, G.F., McNulty, K.P., 2010. Questioning the link between stone tool standardization and behavioral modernity. In: Lycett, S.J., Chauhan, P.R. (Eds.), New
Perspectives on Old Stones: Analytical Approaches to Palaeolithic Technologies.
Springer, New York, pp. 61e81.
Niewoehner, W.A., 2005. A geometric morphometric analysis of late Pleistocene
human metacarpel 1 base shape. In: Slice, D.E. (Ed.), Modern Morphometrics in
Physical Anthropology. Kluwer, New York, pp. 285e298.
Norton, C.J., Bae, K., Harris, J.W.K., Lee, H., 2006. Middle Pleistocene handaxes from
the Korean Peninsula. Journal of Human Evolution 51, 527e536.
O’Higgins, P., 2000. The study of morphological variation in the hominid fossil
record: biology, landmarks and geometry. Journal of Anatomy 197, 103e120.
O’Higgins, P., Jones, N., 1998. Facial growth in Cercocebus torquatus: an application of
three-dimensional geometric morphometric techniques to the study of
morphological variation. Journal of Anatomy 193, 251e272.
O’Higgins, P., Jones, N., 2006. Tools for Statistical Shape Analysis. Hull York Medical
School.
Olszewski, D.I., Dibble, H.L., McPherron, S.P., Schurmans, U.A., Chiotti, L., Smith, J.R.,
2010. Nubian Complex strategies in the Egyptian high desert. Journal of Human
Evolution 59, 188e201.
Pelegrin, J., 2005. Remarks about archaeological techniques and methods of
knapping. In: Roux, V., Bril, B. (Eds.), Stone Knapping: the Necessary Conditions
for a Uniquely Hominin Behaviour. McDonald Institute Monographs, Cambridge, pp. 23e33.
Petraglia, M.D., Shipton, C., 2009. Large cutting tool variation west and east of the
Movius Line. Journal of Human Evolution 57, 326e330.
Reyes-García, V., Broesch, J., Calvet-Mir, L., Fuentes-Peláez, N., McDade, T.W.,
Parsa, S., Tanner, S., Huanca, T., Leonard, W.R., Martínez-Rodríguez, M.R., 2009.
Cultural transmission of ethnobotanical knowledge and skills: an empirical
analysis from an Amerindian society. Evolution and Human Behavior 30, 274e
285.
Rolland, N., 1995. Levallois technique emergence: single or multiple? A review of
the Euro-African record. In: Dibble, H.L., Bar-Yosef, O. (Eds.), The Definition and
Interpretation of Levallois Technology. Prehistory Press, Madison, Wisconsin,
pp. 333e359.
Rose, J.I., Usik, V.I., Marks, A.E., Yamandu, H., Hilbert, Y.H., Christopher, S.,
Galletti, C.S., Ash Parton, A., Jean Marie Geiling, J.M., Cerný,
C., Morley, M.W.,
Roberts, R.G., 2011. The Nubian complex of Dhofar, Oman: an African middle
stone age industry in southern Arabia. PLoS ONE 6 (11), e28239.
Sandgathe, D.M., 2005. Examining the Levallois Reduction Strategy from a Design
Theory Point of View. In: BAR International Series 1417. British Archaeological
Reports, Oxford.
Schick, K., 1998. A comparative perspective on Paleolithic cultural patterns. In:
Akazawa, T., Aoki, K., Bar-Yosef, O. (Eds.), Neandertals and Modern Humans in
Western Asia. Plenum Press, New York, pp. 449e460.
Schlanger, N., 1996. Understanding Levallois: lithic technology and cognitive
archaeology. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 6, 231e254.
Scott, B., 2011. Becoming Neanderthals: the Earlier British Middle Palaeolithic.
Oxbow Books, Oxford.
S.J. Lycett, N. von Cramon-Taubadel / Journal of Archaeological Science 40 (2013) 1508e1517
Semaw, S., 2006. The oldest stone artifacts from Gona (2.6e2.5 Ma), Afar, Ethiopia:
implications for understanding the earliest stages of stone knapping. In:
Toth, N., Schick, K. (Eds.), The Oldowan: Case Studies into the Earliest Stone Age.
Stone Age Institute Press, Bloomington, Indiana.
Sharon, G., 2009. Acheulian giant-core technology. Current Anthropology 50,
335e367.
Shea, J.J., 2010. Stone Age visiting cards revisited: a strategic perspective on the
lithic technology of early hominin dispersal. In: Fleagle, J.G., Shea, J.J., Grine, F.E.,
Baden, A.L., Leakey, R. (Eds.), Out of Africa 1: the First Hominin Colonization of
Eurasia. Springer, New York, pp. 47e64.
Shott, M., Trail, B., 2010. Exploring new approaches to lithic analysis: laser scanning
and geometric morphometrics. Lithic Technology 35, 195e220.
Slice, D.E., 2007. Geometric morphometrics. Annual Review of Anthropology 36,
261e281.
Smith, R.A., 1911. A Palaeolithic industry at Northfleet, Kent. Archaeologica 62, 512e
532.
Tomasello, M., 1999. The Cultural Origins of Human Cognition. Harvard University
Press, Cambridge, MA.
Thomson, D’.W., 1917. On Growth and Form. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
Thulman, D.K., 2012. Discriminating Paleoindian point types from Florida using landmark geometric morphometrics. Journal of Archaeological Science 39, 1599e1607.
Toth, N., Schick, K., 2009. The Oldowan: the tool making of early hominins and
chimpanzees compared. Annual Review of Anthropology 38, 289e305.
Tryon, C.A., McBrearty, S., Texier, J.P., 2006. Levallois lithic technology from the
Kapthurin formation, Kenya: Acheulian origin and Middle Stone Age diversity.
African Archaeological Review 22, 199e229.
Tuffreau, A., Antoine, P., 1995. The earliest occupation of Europe: continental
northwestern Europe. In: Roebroeks, W., van Kolfschoten, T. (Eds.), The Earliest
Occupation of Europe. University of Leiden and European Science Foundation,
Leiden, pp. 147e163.
Usik, V.I., Rose, J.I., Hilbert, Y.H., Van Peer, P., Marks, A.E. Nubian Complex reduction
strategies in Dhofar, southern Oman. Quaternary International, in press.
Van Peer, P., 1991. Interassemblage variability and Levallois styles: the case of the
northern African Middle Palaeolithic. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology
10, 107e151.
1517
Van Peer, P., 1992. The Levallois Reduction Strategy. Prehistory Press, Madison,
Wisconsin.
Van Peer, P., Vermeersch, P., 2007. The place of northeast Africa in the early history
of modern humans: new data and interpretations on the Middle Stone Age. In:
Mellars, P., Boyle, K., Bar-Yosef, O., Stringer, C. (Eds.), Rethinking the Human
Revolution. McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, Cambridge,
pp. 187e198.
Vaughan, C.D., 2001. A million years of style and function: regional and temporal
variation in Acheulean handaxes. In: Hurt, T.D., Rakita, G.F.M. (Eds.), Style and
Function: Conceptual Issues in Evolutionary Archaeology. Bergin & Garvey,
Westport, Connecticut, pp. 141e163.
von Cramon-Taubadel, N., 2009. Congruence of individual cranial bone morphology
and neutral molecular affinity patterns in modern humans. American Journal of
Physical Anthropology 140, 205e215.
Wang, W., Lycett, S.J., von Cramon-Taubadel, N., Jin, J.J.H., Bae, C.J., 2012. Comparison
of handaxes from Bose Basin (China) and the western Acheulean indicates
convergence of form, not cognitive differences. PLoS ONE 7 (e35804), 1e7.
Whiten, A., Horner, V., Litchfield, C.A., Marshall-Pescini, S., 2004. How do apes ape?
Learning & Behavior 32, 36e52.
Wilkins, J., Pollarolo, L., Kuman, K., 2010. Prepared core reduction at the site of Kudu
Koppie in northern South Africa: temporal patterns across the Earlier and
Middle Stone Age boundary. Journal of Archaeological Science 37, 1279e1292.
Wynn, T., Tierson, F., 1990. Regional comparison of the shapes of later Acheulean
handaxes. American Anthropologist 92, 73e84.
Wynn, T., Coolidge, F.L., 2004. The expert Neandertal mind. Journal of Human
Evolution 46, 467e487.
Wynn, T., Coolidge, F.L., 2010. How Levallois reduction is similar to, and not similar
to, playing chess. In: Nowell, A., Davidson, I. (Eds.), Stone Tools and
the Evolution of Human Cognition. University Press of Colorado, Boulder,
pp. 83e103.
Wynn, T., Hernandez-Aguilar, R.A., Marchant, L.F., McGrew, W.C., 2011. "An ape’s
view of the Oldowan" revisited. Evolutionary Anthropology 20, 181e197.
Yravedra, J., Domínguez-Rodrigo, M., Santonja, M., Pérez-González, A., Panera, J.,
Rubio-Jara, S., Baquedano, E., 2010. Cut marks on the Middle Pleistocene
elephant carcass of Áridos 2 (Madrid, Spain). Journal of Archaeological Science
37, 2469e2476.