Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Prepared-core technique

The prepared-core technique is a prehistoric method of stone tool production in which a lithic core is systematically shaped through sequential flaking to create a predetermined platform and surfaces, enabling the removal of flakes or blades with specific, anticipated forms and sizes, thereby reflecting advanced planning and technical skill among early hominins.^[1]^[2] This technology first emerged in the Early Pleistocene, with the earliest evidence in Africa dated to approximately 1.5 million years ago at the Nyabusosi 18 site in Uganda.^[3] The earliest evidence in Eurasia is dated to approximately 1.1 million years ago at the Cenjiawan site in China's Nihewan Basin, where assemblages include refit cores demonstrating multi-stage reduction sequences for standardized tools such as points and borers.^[1] Additional early examples from around 0.8–1.1 million years ago have also been identified at Canteen Kopje in South Africa, associated with the Early Acheulean and featuring Victoria West cores that produced large flakes for handaxes and cleavers.^[2] By the Late Acheulean, around 500,000–300,000 years ago in the Levant, prepared-core methods became more prevalent, as seen in proto-Levallois and discoid cores at sites like Revadim and Jaljulia, marking a transitional phase toward fully developed Middle Paleolithic technologies.^[4] Central to the technique are hierarchical core configurations, typically involving a lower striking platform and an upper flaking surface shaped to maintain convexities for controlled flake detachment, often using direct percussion with hard hammerstones.^[4]^[2] The most iconic variant, the Levallois method, entails preparing a core with a high-mass zone on one face and a supportive platform on the other to strike off elongated, triangular, or oval flakes, which could then be retouched into tools like scrapers or points.^[5] This process demanded precise force application and mental templating, distinguishing it from simpler opportunistic flaking in earlier Mode 1 technologies.^[1] The prepared-core technique signifies a pivotal cognitive leap in human evolution, evidencing abstract thinking, foresight, and cultural transmission among hominins, including early Homo species, and challenging prior assumptions of technological conservatism in regions like East Asia.^[1]^[2] Its widespread adoption across Africa, Europe, and western Asia from the Middle Pleistocene onward facilitated more efficient tool standardization and adaptability, influencing subsequent blade-based industries.^[4]^[5]

Overview and Definition

Core Concept

The prepared-core technique is a lithic reduction strategy employed in prehistoric stone tool production, involving the systematic shaping of a stone core, or nucleus, through preliminary flaking to facilitate the removal of flakes possessing predetermined morphology, shapes, and sizes.^[6] This method emphasizes anticipatory planning, where the knapper envisions and prepares the core's geometry in advance to control the characteristics of the detached products, setting it apart from simpler direct percussion or freehand knapping approaches that lack such premeditated core modification.^[2] The technique reflects advanced cognitive abilities, including mental templating and sequential problem-solving, enabling efficient production of standardized tools from raw stone blocks.^[2] Central to the prepared-core technique are its basic components: the core itself, serving as the prepared block from which flakes are struck; platforms, which are specialized striking surfaces formed by prior removals to optimize the angle and force of subsequent blows; and the resulting flakes or blades, which often exhibit uniform edges and forms suitable for further modification into tools such as scrapers, points, or cutting implements.^[7] These elements allow for hierarchical organization in the reduction process, where initial preparation phases create conditions for targeted flake detachment, maximizing raw material use and tool versatility.^[2] This conceptual framework highlighted the shift toward more controlled and predictable lithic production compared to earlier traditions.

Key Characteristics

The prepared-core technique is distinguished by specific morphological traits in the resulting cores, which enable archaeologists to identify its application in lithic assemblages. Cores are systematically shaped to create platforms and surfaces that enable controlled flake removal, often featuring convexities and guiding ridges; in the Levallois variant, this results in a characteristic domed upper surface and striking platform. Scarring patterns on these cores often exhibit centripetal preparation on the upper surface to maintain geometry, or bidirectional removals across surfaces to refine the core's volume, reflecting a deliberate volumetric management unlike the irregular scars seen in unprepared core methods such as simple block-on-block percussion.^[1]^[2] Flakes produced via this technique possess attributes indicative of predetermination and standardization, setting them apart from opportunistic flaking products. These flakes commonly have predetermined edges achieved through prior core shaping, parallel ridges on the dorsal surface from sequential removals along the core's prepared face, and uniform thickness resulting from the controlled angle and force of detachment. Outlines are frequently triangular or rectangular, with flat ventral surfaces and sub-parallel dorsal scars that underscore the technique's emphasis on repeatable, high-quality blanks suitable for further tool production.^[1] Technological markers further highlight the sophistication of prepared-core reduction, revealing a hierarchical sequence in artifact production. Initial preparation flakes, often irregular and focused on shaping the core's surfaces and platforms, differ markedly from the final predetermined product flakes, which are more regular and goal-oriented. Evidence of platform preparation, such as faceting through small, angled removals to create a stable striking angle and prevent platform collapse, is a key diagnostic feature, demonstrating foresight in maintaining core productivity over multiple removals.^[8] This technique is most effectively applied to fine-grained stones like flint or chert, which allow for precise control and minimal fracturing during knapping due to their homogeneity and conchoidal fracture properties. However, it demonstrates adaptability to coarser or lower-quality materials, such as quartzite or flawed chert, where knappers adjust strategies to compensate for material limitations while still achieving structured reduction sequences.^[8]

Historical Context

Origins and Chronology

The prepared-core technique represents one of the earliest innovations in lithic technology, with its origins traced to the Lower Paleolithic period in Africa. The earliest known examples are Victoria West cores from sites in South Africa, such as Canteen Kopje, dated to approximately 1.0 million years ago, though related prepared-core features appear as early as 1.5 million years ago in East African assemblages, such as at Nyabusosi 18 in Uganda.^[2]^[9] These proto-Levalloisian cores indicate an initial stage of controlled flake production through core shaping, marking a shift from simpler Oldowan methods. In Eurasia, evidence of the technique emerges contemporaneously with African developments. At the Cenjiawan site in the Nihewan Basin of northern China, prepared cores dated to 1.1 million years ago provide the earliest confirmed occurrence in the region, demonstrating that hominins—likely Homo erectus—had dispersed advanced knapping skills across Asia by the Early Pleistocene.^[1] The technology subsequently spread westward to Europe, with platform preparation techniques evident in handaxe production at Boxgrove, England, around 500,000 years ago, signaling its integration into local Acheulean traditions.^[10] Africa remained the primary center of development and dominance for the prepared-core technique during the Middle Stone Age (MSA), where it became widespread from approximately 300,000 years ago, overlapping with the Late Acheulean and replacing large cutting tools in many assemblages.^[11] Globally, the technique dispersed further, appearing in the Near East by 400,000–300,000 years ago as part of late Acheulean industries at sites like Revadim and Jaljulia, and in India at the Attirampakkam site around 385,000 years ago, where Levallois flakes and points reflect migrations of Homo erectus and possibly early Homo sapiens populations.^[4]^[12] Chronologically, the technique can be divided into phases: an early phase in the Lower Paleolithic (>500,000 years ago), characterized by nascent forms like Victoria West; a developed phase in the Middle Paleolithic and MSA (300,000–50,000 years ago), featuring refined Levallois and discoid methods as a hallmark of these periods; and late variants during Upper Paleolithic transitions, where it persisted alongside blade technologies among Neanderthals and modern humans.^[13]

Discovery and Recognition

The prepared-core technique, encompassing methods like the Levallois reduction strategy, received early hints of recognition through 19th-century collections of lithic artifacts from East Africa. British explorer Henry Seton-Karr documented and collected flint tools during expeditions in Somaliland (modern-day parts of Ethiopia and surrounding regions) in the 1890s and early 1900s, describing them as Paleolithic implements, though without formal classification as prepared cores.^[14] These finds represented some of the first European encounters with African stone tool assemblages potentially indicative of prepared-core methods, predating systematic typological studies.^[15] In the early 20th century, French prehistorian Henri Breuil advanced the understanding of prepared-core technologies through his studies of Levalloisian industries, particularly in the 1910s. Breuil's excavations and analyses in Europe and Africa identified recurrent flake production patterns in Middle Paleolithic contexts, linking them to deliberate core preparation and attributing them to Neanderthal or archaic Homo sapiens populations.^[16] Similarly, British archaeologist Dorothy Garrod's excavations in the Levant during the 1920s, including sites like the Mount Carmel caves (e.g., Tabun and Skhul), uncovered Mousterian assemblages with prepared cores directly associated with Neanderthal remains, establishing a clear connection between the technique and Middle Paleolithic hominins in the region.^[17] These works built a foundational association between prepared-core methods and Neanderthal toolkits.^[18] The technique's formal classification emerged in the mid-20th century through François Bordes' typological framework for Middle Paleolithic industries. In his seminal 1961 publication Typologie du Paléolithique ancien et moyen, Bordes systematically categorized prepared-core flakes and cores as key elements of Mousterian and related assemblages, emphasizing their volumetric preparation and predetermination of flake morphology.^[19] This typology became a standard reference for distinguishing prepared-core techniques from simpler reduction methods.^[20] Methodological progress in the 1970s and 1980s further refined recognition of the technique via refitting studies and experimental archaeology. Eric Boëda's pioneering work on lithic reduction sequences, including refitting of flakes to reconstruct core preparation, demonstrated the volumetric and hierarchical aspects of prepared-core methods, shifting focus from typology to chaîne opératoire analysis.^[21] Organizations like the Lithic Studies Society promoted experimental knapping to replicate prepared-core processes, validating archaeological interpretations through controlled simulations of ancient techniques.^[22] Debates on nomenclature intensified in the 1980s, with scholars distinguishing the broader "prepared-core" category from the specific Levallois subset, formalizing the former as a volumetric concept encompassing diverse reduction strategies beyond Levallois' preferential flaking.^[23] Recent re-evaluations of early Pleistocene sites have sparked debates on whether proto-prepared elements appear earlier than traditionally thought, though their classification remains contested.

Technical Aspects

Core Preparation Methods

The prepared-core technique begins with the careful selection of raw material, typically nodules or cobbles of siliceous rocks such as flint, chert, or quartzite, chosen for their suitability in knapping.^[4] This selection is crucial for achieving the volumetric control inherent in the method, as materials with isotropic fracture properties enable the creation of predetermined flake geometries.^[24] The shaping sequence commences with rough trimming using hard hammer percussion, where a stone hammer strikes the core to establish a flat ventral face by removing large cortical flakes, thereby exposing fresh surfaces for further work. Subsequent steps involve convexing the dorsal surface through a series of controlled removals, creating a domed or "tortoise" profile that maintains peripheral and lateral convexities to guide flake propagation during later production. This hierarchical preparation establishes two intersecting surfaces: the superior flaking surface and the inferior platform surface, forming the core's volumetric structure.^[24] Platform creation follows, involving abrading or faceting the core's edges with finer strikes to angle the striking platform at approximately 90 degrees relative to the flaking surface, optimizing the initiation and control of flake detachment by directing force along the core's axis.^[25] Tools progress from hard stone hammers for initial heavy reduction to softer organic percussors, such as wood or bone, for precise edge preparation and to minimize platform damage.^[26] Throughout preparation, waste products consist primarily of irregular cortical or preparation flakes, which differ markedly from the final predetermined products in shape and utility; these debitage often comprise a significant portion of the core's total reduction volume, highlighting the method's emphasis on setup over immediate yield.^[27]

Flake Production and Removal

The flake production phase in the prepared-core technique involves the final knapping actions to detach preformed blanks from the core, relying on the prior establishment of a hierarchical relationship between the striking platform and the production surface to control fracture propagation.^[28] Striking typically employs direct percussion with a hard hammerstone, delivering precise force at an angle that initiates a fracture from the prepared platform and extends it across the core's volume in a controlled manner; indirect percussion using an intermediate tool can also be applied for finer control in some variants. This mechanic ensures the fracture follows the predetermined geometry, minimizing unpredictable terminations.^[27] The primary products are Levallois flakes, which are characteristically flat and thin with parallel lateral edges, a pointed distal end, and faceted butts from the prepared platform, enabling versatile use as tool blanks.^[29] In elongated variants, such as recurrent blade production, longer, narrower blades with triangular cross-sections are detached preferentially from targeted zones of the core.^[28] Predetermining flakes, including éclats débordants for edge maintenance, are removed alongside these to sustain core convexity without altering the overall volume significantly. Core maintenance during production entails rotating or flipping the core to access multiple platforms and surfaces, allowing sequential removals from different angles while preserving the volumetric structure.^[28] Exhaustion occurs when the core's geometry flattens or the platform angle becomes too acute, preventing further controlled detachments and leaving a residual core that is often discarded or recycled.^[27] Efficiency in this technique is evidenced by yields of approximately 8–11 scars on the production surface per core, corresponding to 5–20 usable flakes depending on initial core size and raw material quality, with preparation reducing error rates such as hinge fractures to under 10% through optimized convexity and platform angles.^[28]^[27] Following removal, the detached flakes typically undergo minimal retouching to sharpen edges or create specific tool forms, contrasting with more intensive bifacial shaping in other lithic traditions, as the predetermined morphology already provides functional sharpness and symmetry.^[29]

Levallois Variant

The Levallois technique represents the most iconic variant of prepared-core reduction, characterized as a method for producing predetermined flakes or blades through meticulous core preparation that establishes a hierarchical structure of removal surfaces. In this approach, the core is shaped to create a convex flaking surface and a prepared striking platform, allowing for the controlled detachment of flakes whose morphology is largely dictated by the pattern of prior dorsal scarring on the core. This recurrent strategy enables multiple flake removals from a single platform while maintaining predetermination, distinguishing it as a volumetric reduction system where the core's geometry is managed bifacially to sustain productivity.^[28] Levallois encompasses several subtypes based on the directionality and focus of flaking. The classic or preferential subtype involves unidirectional preparation for a single primary flake removal, often resulting in a "tortoise core" with a single dominant product. In contrast, the recurrent subtype allows for bidirectional or centripetal removals of multiple flakes from the same prepared surface, maximizing core efficiency. A point-focused variation adapts the method for producing pointed blanks suitable for tool tips, emphasizing convergence in the flaking pattern to yield elongated, sharp forms. These subtypes share a common reliance on establishing lateral and distal convexities during preparation to guide flake propagation.^[28]^[30] Diagnostic features of Levallois products are highly distinctive, facilitating identification in archaeological assemblages. Levallois flakes typically exhibit a faceted or dihedral platform with a "hatched" appearance from preparatory removals, a pronounced bulb of percussion indicating hard-hammer percussion, and dorsal surfaces marked by centripetal or parallel scars from prior core shaping that impart symmetry and even thickness distribution. Cores display layered hierarchies, with an upper production surface showing sequential flake scars and a lower striking platform often prepared through marginal trimming, resulting in asymmetrical profiles and reduced volume over time. Morphometrically, these flakes show lower variability in thickness compared to simple debitage, underscoring their standardized form.^[29]^[28] The technique reached its temporal peak during the Middle Paleolithic in Europe and the Middle Stone Age in Africa, spanning approximately 200,000 to 40,000 years ago, though earlier precursors appear in the Late Acheulian around 300,000–500,000 years ago in the Levant and Africa. It was geographically widespread, employed by Neanderthals and early modern humans across Eurasia, Africa, and parts of Asia, reflecting its adaptability to diverse raw materials and environments.^[28]^[29]^[30] Among its advantages, Levallois reduction promoted high standardization of blanks, enabling the production of interchangeable tools that could be easily hafted into composite implements like spears or knives, thus enhancing functional versatility and resource efficiency. This level of predetermination and planning also suggests advanced cognitive capacities for anticipating reduction sequences, marking a significant evolution in lithic technology over simpler prepared-core methods.^[28]^[30]

Other Prepared-Core Methods

The Victoria West technique represents an early form of prepared-core technology, characterized by proto-prismatic cores designed to produce large, thin flakes suitable for handaxe blanks. This method involved initial shaping of a nodule into a pyramidal form with a single striking platform, followed by peripheral trimming to create a convex flaking surface, allowing for the detachment of proto-Levallois flakes. Excavations at Canteen Kopje in South Africa have yielded Victoria West cores dated to approximately 1 million years ago, indicating its role as a precursor to more advanced Levallois methods.^[2]^[31] Discoidal preparation, another non-Levallois approach, entails radial or centripetal flaking from a central platform on a disc-shaped core, resulting in fan-shaped or triangular flakes often used for scrapers and other tools. This technique was prevalent during the transition from Acheulean to Mousterian industries in Europe and Africa, where cores were prepared by trimming edges to maintain convexity for repeated flake removals. Unlike more structured methods, discoidal cores allowed for opportunistic reduction sequences, adapting to variable raw material quality.^[4]^[32] The Kombewa method involves striking flakes from the ventral face of a previously detached large flake, utilizing the bulb of percussion as a natural platform to create secondary striking platforms and produce thin, elongated blanks efficiently. Originating in Africa, this technique facilitated quick tool production without extensive core preparation, making it suitable for mobile hunter-gatherers. Sites in eastern Africa, such as Isinya in Kenya, document its use from the Early Pleistocene onward, with evidence dated to around 1.2 million years ago, often yielding flakes for handaxes and cleavers.^[33]^[34] In the Levant, preferential flaking on prepared cores emphasized selective removals from one preferred surface, yielding asymmetrical flakes in Middle Paleolithic assemblages. These variants reflect localized responses to raw material availability and environmental constraints.^[4] Compared to the Levallois technique, these other prepared-core methods exhibit less hierarchical reduction sequences, typically producing fewer but larger products per core, and served transitional roles between simple Oldowan flaking and more standardized Paleolithic technologies.^[34]^[32]

Archaeological and Cultural Significance

Major Sites and Assemblages

In Africa, key sites documenting early prepared-core technologies include Kathu Pan 1 in South Africa, where Levallois cores and flakes from stratum 4a, dated to approximately 500,000 years ago via optically stimulated luminescence (OSL), represent one of the earliest clear examples of this technique in the Middle Stone Age (MSA).^[35] At Sai Island in Sudan, site 8-B-11 yields MSA assemblages with prepared-core variants, including Levallois elements, dated to around 150,000 years ago using OSL, associated with fauna such as bovids and equids indicative of a riverine environment.^[36]^[37] European sites highlight Neanderthal use and proto-forms of prepared cores. La Ferrassie in France, a rockshelter site, contains Mousterian assemblages with Levallois cores comprising 14–30% of the lithic inventory, dated to approximately 40,000–54,000 years ago through radiocarbon and OSL methods, alongside Neanderthal burials and fauna like reindeer and horses.^[38]^[39] In England, Swanscombe's Rickson's Pit locality preserves proto-Levallois cores in brickearth deposits dated to approximately 400,000 years ago via biostratigraphy and uranium-series, linked to early Homo heidelbergensis occupations with associated large mammal remains such as straight-tusked elephant.^[40] In the Levant, sites like Revadim and Jaljulia in Israel document Late Acheulean prepared-core methods, including proto-Levallois and discoid cores, dated to 500,000–300,000 years ago using OSL and paleomagnetic methods, associated with faunal remains from wooded and open landscapes.^[4] In Asia, the Nihewan Basin in China provides the earliest Eurasian evidence at the Cenjiawan site, where prepared cores dated to 1.1 million years ago using paleomagnetism and stratigraphic correlation demonstrate hierarchical flaking strategies by Homo erectus, accompanied by choppers and fauna including deer and carnivores.^[1] At Attirampakkam in India, stratified layers reveal Levallois prepared cores and points from 385,000 to 172,000 years ago, determined by cosmic ray exposure and OSL dating, associated with Homo erectus-like populations and faunal elements such as wild cattle.^[41] Across these sites, prepared cores typically represent 10–30% of lithic assemblages, with the remainder consisting of flakes, blades, and retouched tools, often in contexts yielding fauna from diverse ecological niches like savannas and woodlands; dating relies heavily on OSL for sediments and uranium-series for carbonates to establish chronologies spanning the Lower to Middle Paleolithic.^[39]^[4] Preservation varies significantly: open-air sites such as Kathu Pan 1 and Attirampakkam suffer taphonomic biases from erosion and fluvial redeposition, leading to fragmented core recovery and potential underrepresentation of small flakes, whereas cave or shelter contexts like La Ferrassie mitigate surface weathering but introduce biases from trampling and selective discard.^[42]

Cognitive and Evolutionary Implications

The prepared-core technique, exemplified by methods like Levallois, demands a high degree of mental templating and foresight, as knappers must envision and execute a hierarchical sequence of actions to shape the core for predetermined flake removal. This process typically involves multiple sequential steps, including initial core selection and establishment of a striking platform, followed by iterative flaking to create convex surfaces and maintain geometry, often spanning several phases of preparation and exploitation. Evidence from experimental replications shows that successful Levallois reduction requires anticipating future removals while correcting errors, such as adjusting platforms after mis-hits, which underscores the need for long-term working memory and adaptive problem-solving.^[23] The adoption of prepared-core techniques marked a shift from ad-hoc flaking to standardized production, enhancing technological efficiency by maximizing raw material use and producing versatile blanks suitable for diverse tools. This standardization facilitated specialization among hominins, allowing for the transport of prepared cores or flakes over longer distances, which supported increased group mobility in varied environments. Such efficiency is evident in assemblages where cores yield higher flake counts per unit of stone compared to earlier methods, enabling trade or exchange of tools within social networks.^[43] In evolutionary terms, prepared-core technology first appeared over 1 million years ago with early hominins like Homo erectus but served as a key marker of advanced cognition in later species like Homo heidelbergensis and Neanderthals, with more refined applications around 500,000 years ago, reflecting capabilities for abstract planning and hierarchical thinking. It likely contributed to behavioral modernity by preceding blade technologies in the Upper Paleolithic, bridging Middle and Upper Paleolithic innovations and indicating progressive brain reorganization for complex motor skills. For Neanderthals, mastery of these techniques highlights expert-level cognition, comparable to modern skilled crafts, and supports their role in early symbolic or innovative behaviors.^[44] Socially, the complexity of prepared-core knapping implies structured knowledge transmission through apprenticeships, where novices learned via observation and guided practice, fostering intergenerational skill transfer essential for group survival. Ethnographic analogies from traditional societies suggest possible gender or role divisions, with women often producing informal flakes for domestic tasks while men focused on formal tools, though both contributed to overall lithic economies. These dynamics likely reinforced social cohesion and cultural continuity.^[45]^[46] Debates persist on whether prepared-core techniques signify deeper symbolic thinking—such as mental representation of ideals—or merely practical innovations driven by environmental pressures. Some scholars argue the hierarchical structure parallels linguistic recursion, hinting at proto-symbolic cognition, while others critique this as overinterpretation, emphasizing functional adaptation without Eurocentric assumptions of "progress." These discussions highlight the need for integrating cognitive archaeology with experimental data to avoid biases in assessing hominin intelligence.^[47]

References

[1]
Earliest Prepared core technology in Eurasia from Nihewan (China)
Mar 4, 2024 · Prepared core reduction lithic technologies are characterized by organized methods of flaking end products that require in-depth planning, ...
[2]
The Victoria West: earliest prepared core technology in ... - Journals
Jun 28, 2017 · Prepared core technology illustrates in-depth planning and the presence of a mental template during the core reduction process.
[3]
Lower Paleolithic Winds of Change: Prepared Core Technologies ...
The Levallois method is a distinctive blank production method for manufacturing flakes/blades of predetermined shape and size. Careful preparation of the core ...Introduction · Materials and Methods · Results · Discussion<|control11|><|separator|>
[4]
Levallois Method - Museum of Stone Tools
Archaeologists refer to this as a 'prepared core' technology because the core was carefully prepared by prior anticipatory flaking before striking off the ...
[5]
Middle Stone Age Tools - The Smithsonian's Human Origins Program
One of the main innovations was the application of 'prepared core technique,' in which a core was carefully flaked on one side so that for a flake of ...Missing: definition | Show results with:definition
[6]
Reduction patterns and assemblage of the Levallois technology
Marked by the pre-shaping of cores and the generation of specialized flake varieties, Levallois technology held sway in the Mousterian industrial complex.
[7]
Raw Material Quality and Prepared Core Technologies in Northeast ...
Levallois-like and other prepared core forms based on large flake blanks are conspicuous in the Lower Grotto assemblage, despite the poor quality of raw ...
[8]
[PDF] Late Acheulean technology and cognition at Boxgrove, UK
prepared core, blade, and bifacial point technologies. In principle, however, “platform preparation” might refer to any process intended to alter core ...
[9]
Technological Trends in the Middle Stone Age of South Africa ...
The range of technological elements that marks the Middle Stone Age originated more than 300000 years ago and formed the basic tool kit for an extended ...
[10]
https://scholarblogs.emory.edu/stoutlab/files/2013/07/Stout-et-al-2014.pdf
[11]
The Emergence, Diversity and Significance of Mode 3 (Prepared ...
The emergence of prepared core or Mode 3 technologies (Clark, 1969) arguably represents the only major technological innovation of the Lower and Middle ...
[12]
https://oxfordre.com/anthropology/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780190854584.001.0001/acrefore-9780190854584-e-28
[13]
Ancient Egyptian Mummies, Statues, Burial Practices and Artefacts 1
Seton-Karr in 1896 who conducted two expeditions and subsequently distributed his numerous surface finds to museum collections world-wide. He already ...
[14]
Henri Breuil | Encyclopedia.com
Breuil was lecturer in prehistory and ethnography at the University of Fribourg (1905-1910), professor of prehistoric ethnography at the Institut de ...
[15]
Nubian Levallois technology associated with southernmost ...
Feb 15, 2021 · ... Neanderthal occupations of the Levant ... Dorothy Garrod's excavations in the late mousterian of shukbah cave in palestine reconsidered.Missing: prepared | Show results with:prepared
[16]
Reply to: 'No direct evidence for the presence of Nubian Levallois ...
Jan 24, 2022 · Garrod's excavation notes and publications on Shukbah indicate that finer stratigraphic diversity was recognised within the breccia deposits, ...
[17]
Typologie du paleolithique: ancien et Moyen - Google Books
Author, Francois Bordes ; Edition, 2 ; Publisher, Institut de Prehistoire de L'universite de Bordeaux, 1961 ; Length, 85 pages.Missing: prepared core
[18]
Typologie du Paléolithique Ancien et Moyen. By François Bordes ...
Typologie du Paléolithique Ancien et Moyen. By François Bordes. Mémoire No. 1. 15 × 11. Pp. 85 + 11 figs. + 108 plates. Publications de l'Institut de ...
[19]
(PDF) Alternative Interpretation of the Levallois Reduction Technique
Aug 9, 2025 · 9, pp 275-79. Boëda, Eric. 1995 Levallois: A Volumetric Construction ... studies investigating increases and decreases in lithic technological ...
[20]
View of New evidences for core processing of non-flint, lithic ...
In the Late Palaeolithic and Mesolithic core processing in Poland was dominated by flint raw materials. The present paper considers the occurrence of non-flint ...
[21]
Why Levallois? A Morphometric Comparison of Experimental ...
Jan 23, 2012 · What our results suggest, however, is that predetermination via the multi-phase volumetric construction of a Levallois/tortoise core (sensu ...
[22]
Earliest human occupations at Dmanisi (Georgian Caucasus) dated ...
Jun 6, 2011 · Here we present archaeological and geologic evidence that push back Dmanisi's first occupations to shortly after 1.85 Ma and document repeated use of the site.Missing: 1.8 | Show results with:1.8
[23]
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3264556/
[24]
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/284656987_Levallois_A_volumetric_construction_methods_a_technique
[25]
https://www.flickr.com/photos/lithic/4332600975
[26]
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/social-sciences/levallois-technique
[27]
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2013.01.016
[28]
https://doi.org/10.3389/feart.2022.847358
[29]
Victoria West - A Highly Standardized Prepared Core Technology
Cores belonging to this tradition were ﬁrst identiﬁed by F. J. Jansen (1926) at sites in and around the town of Victoria West (Figure 1). This prepared core ...
[30]
Distinguishing Discoid and Centripetal Levallois methods through ...
Dec 23, 2020 · In this paper, we apply Machine Learning (ML) algorithms to study the differences between Discoid and Centripetal Levallois methods.
[31]
an Acheulean assemblage with Kombewa method from the Eastern ...
Mar 23, 2021 · Outside the Eastern Saharan Africa, the Kombewa method has been documented from Eastern Africa [83, 97, 98], the Middle East [72] and lately ...
[32]
Acheulian Giant‐Core Technology : A Worldwide Perspective
... technology, to describe Acheulian giant‐core technology. Frequently used synonymous terms are “prepared core” and the less well‐defined term “proto ...
[33]
The eastern Asian 'Middle Palaeolithic' revisited: a view fromKorea
Sep 15, 2016 · The prepared core technology that defines the Middle Palaeolithic is absent from the eastern Asian archaeological record until very recently ( ...
[34]
[PDF] New radiometric ages for the Fauresmith industry from Kathu Pan ...
The site Kathu Pan 1 lies within a marshland (vlei) which, until modern pumping commenced, had a water table some 2–3 m below the present land surface. The ...Missing: technique | Show results with:technique
[35]
Early to Middle Stone Age Transition, Modern Human Behaviour
The Early to Middle Stone Age Transition and the Emergence of Modern Human Behaviour at site 8-B-11, Sai Island, Sudan ... Prepared core technology from the Early ...Missing: technique | Show results with:technique
[36]
Full article: The Middle Stone Age in the Eastern Desert. EDAR 135
MSA artefacts from Site 8-B-11 on Sai Island, Sudan, are a good example. Found in layers above an OSL date of 150 ± 10 kya, they are described as having ...<|separator|>
[37]
The new 14C chronology for the Palaeolithic site of La Ferrassie ...
Aug 24, 2020 · The grand abri at La Ferrassie (France) has been a key site for Palaeolithic research since the early part of the 20th century.
[38]
Mousterian Industry & Levallois techniques
This sort of technology is known as the 'prepared core technique' and appears to have developed independently in a number of locations during the latter ...
[39]
[PDF] Early Levallois core technology between Marine Isotope Stage 12 ...
Nov 12, 2020 · under the umbrella of 'prepared core technology' in the UK. ... of Archaeological Method and Theory 23, 379-398. 889. Falguères, C., Shen, G ...
[40]
Early Middle Palaeolithic culture in India around 385–172 ... - Nature
Feb 1, 2018 · At Attirampakkam, the gradual disuse of bifaces, the predominance of small tools, the appearance of distinctive and diverse Levallois flake ...Missing: Levallois | Show results with:Levallois
[41]
Exploring the formation processes on open-air palaeolithic sites
Taphonomic and site formation process analyses are fundamental for the comprehensible study of any Palaeolithic site, especially in those associated with ...
[42]
A Formal Approach to the Design and Assembly of Mobile Toolkits
efficient flake production technology can increase the utility of cores per unit weight. Similarly, preparation of cores at the point of procurement can ...<|control11|><|separator|>
[43]
The Victoria West: earliest prepared core technology in the ...
Jun 28, 2017 · Prepared core technology illustrates in-depth planning and the presence of a mental template during the core reduction process.
[44]
Teaching to make stone tools: new experimental evidence ... - Nature
Oct 31, 2017 · Our study supports the hypothesis of co-evolution between lithic technology and social learning, which could have favoured the emergence of verbal language.
[45]
[PDF] GENDER AND STONE TOOLS: AN ETHNOGRAPHIC STUDY OF ...
Yet, women's roles continue to be marginalized in the. Stone Age, because of the enduring focus on men as the sole producers of formal stone tools. One of the ...
[46]
(PDF) Understanding Levallois: Lithic Technology and Cognitive ...
The Levallois technique has attracted much 'cognitive' attention in the past decades. Many archaeologists argue that both the products and the procedure of ...<|separator|>