Hostname: page-component-6dbcb7884d-hdw28 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-14T04:43:57.010Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Understanding Levallois: Lithic Technology and Cognitive Archaeology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 December 2008

Nathan Schlanger
Nathan Schlanger
Affiliation:
St Anne's College University Of Oxford OxfordOxfordOX2 6HS
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The Levallois technique has attracted much ‘cognitive’ attention in the past decades. Many archaeologists argue that both the products and the procedure of this Palaeolithic technique have been clearly predetermined by the prehistoric flintknappers. Attempts have recently been made to challenge this notion of predetermination by reference to raw material and ‘technological’ constraints. The aim of this article is to assess the grounds on which these claims have been advanced, and then work towards a better establishment of the cognitive implications of Levallois manufacture. Latest developments in the technological understanding of Levallois are presented in their context, and then put to work through a detailed case study: the analysis, in quantitative and qualitative terms, of a comprehensively refitted Levallois core from the 250,000 year-old site of Maastricht Belvédère, in the Netherlands. By reconstructing and following the sequence of work on this highly productive core, it can be shown that its knapping did not simply entail the execution of a pre-set program, nor did it respond in an adventitious manner to external constraints. Rather, it is argued that the course of action was a structured and goal-oriented one, a generative interplay between the mental and material activities of the ancient flintknapper.

Type
Articles
Information
Cambridge Archaeological Journal , Volume 6 , Issue 2 , October 1996 , pp. 231 - 254
Copyright
Copyright © The McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Audouze, F., 1985. L'apport des sols d'habitat à l'étude de 1'outillage lithique, in Otte, (ed.), 57–8.Google Scholar
Balout, L., 1953. L'intelligence des hommes préhistoriques. Lybica 1, 241–70.Google Scholar
Balout, L., 1967. Procédés d'analyse et questions de terminologie dans l'étude des ensembles industriels du paléolithique inférieur en Afrique du Nord, in Bishop, (ed.), 701–35.Google Scholar
Baumler, M., 1988. Core reduction, flake production, and the Middle Palaeolithic industry of Zobiste (Yugoslavia), Upper Pleistocene Prehistory of Western Eurasia, eds. Dibble, H. & Montet-White, A.. Philadelphia (PA): University of Pennsylvania, 255–74.Google Scholar
Belfer-Cohen, A. & Goren-Inbar, N., 1994. Cognition and communication in the Levantine Lower Palaeolithic. World Archaeology 26(2), 144–57.Google Scholar
Bergson, H., 1907. L'evolution créatrice. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
Bishop, W. (ed.), 1967. Background to Evolution in Africa. Chicago (IL): Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Boëda, E., 1986. Approche technologique du concept Levallois et évaluation de son champ d'application. Étude de trois gisements saaliens et weichséliens de la France septentrionale. Unpublished Doctoral Thesis, Université de Paris X.Google Scholar
Boëda, E., 1988a. Le concept Levallois et évolution de son champ d'application, in Otte, (ed.), 13–26.Google Scholar
Boëda, E., 1988b. Analyse technologique du débitage duniveau IIa, in Le gisement paléolithique moyen de Biache Saint-Vaast (Pas-de-Calais), vol. I: Stratigraphie, environement, étude archéologique (lére partie), eds. Tuffreau, A. & Sommé, J.. (Mémoires de la Société Préhistorique Française 21.) Paris: Société Préhistorique Française, 185–214.Google Scholar
Boëda, E., 1991. Approche de la variabilité des systèmes de production lithiques des industries du Paléolitique inférieur et moyen: chronique d'une variabilité attendue. Techniques et Culture 17/18, 37–79.Google Scholar
Boëda, E., 1993. Le débitage discoïde et le débitage Levallois récurrent centripète. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française 90, 392–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boëda, E., 1994. Le concept Levallois; variabilité des méthodes. (Monographie du CRA 9.) Paris: CNRS.Google Scholar
Boëda, E., Geneste, J.-M. & Meignen, L., 1990. Identification des chaînes opératoires lithiques au Paléolithique inférieur et moyen. Paléo 2, 43–80.Google Scholar
Bordaz, J., 1958. Tools of the Old and New Stone Age. New York (NY): American Museum of Natural History.Google Scholar
Bordes, F., 1947. Etude comparative des différentes techniques de taille du silex et des roches dures. L'Anthropologie 51, 1–29.Google Scholar
Bordes, F., 1949. Sur un nucléus Levallois mimant les ‘livres de beurre’. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française 46, 112–13.Google Scholar
Bordes, F., 1950. Principes d'une méthode d'étude des techniques de débitage et de la typologie du Paléolithique ancient et moyen. L'Anthropologie 54, 19–34.Google Scholar
Bordes, F., 1953. Levalloisien et Mousterin. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française 50, 226–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bordes, F., 1955. Observations sur la note de M.H. Kelley sur la technique de taille ‘Levalloisienne’. Bulletin de la Sociétée Préhistorique Française 52, 113–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bordes, F., 1961. Typologie du Paléolithique ancien et moyen. Bordeaux: Delmas [1988 edition, Paris: CNRS].Google Scholar
Bordes, F., 1967. Considérations sur la typologie et les techniques dans le Paléolithique. Quartar 18, 25–55.Google Scholar
Bordes, F., 1968. The Old Stone Age. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.Google Scholar
Bordes, F., 1970. Réflextions sur I'outil au Paléolithique. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française 67, 199–202.Google Scholar
Bordes, F., 1971. Physical evolution and technological evolution in man: a parallelism. World Archaeology 3, 1–5.Google Scholar
Bordes, F., 1980. Le débitage Levallois et ses variantes. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française 77, 45–9.Google Scholar
Bordes, F. & Bourgon, M., 1951. Le complexe Moustérien: Moustériens, Levalloisien et Tayacien. L'Anthropologie 55, 1–23.Google Scholar
Bordes, F., Rigaud, J.-Ph. & De Sonneville-Bordes, D., 1972. Des buts, problémes et limites de l'archéologie préhistorique. Quaternaria 16, 15–34.Google Scholar
Boule, M., 1923. Les hommes fossiles — éléments de paléontohgie humaine. Paris: Masson.Google Scholar
Bourgon, M., 1957. Les industries moustériennes et prémoustériennes du Périgord. (Archives de I'Institut de Paléontologie Humaine, memoire 27.) Paris: I'Institut de Paléontologie Humaine.Google Scholar
Bradley, B., 1977. Experimental Lithic Technology with Special Reference to the Middle Palaeolithic. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, University of Cambridge, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Bradley, B.& Sampson, C.G., 1986. Analysis by replication of two Acheulian artefact assemblages, in Stone Age Prehistory. Studies in Memory of Charles McBurney, eds. Bailey, G. & Callow, P.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 29–45.Google Scholar
Breuil, H., 1937. Quarante ans de préhistoire. Discours présidentiel prononcé à la séance de 28 Janvier 1937 de la Sociétée Préhistorique Française. Bulletin de la Société Préhistoriqiie Française 34, 52–67.Google Scholar
Breuil, H. & Lantier, R., 1951. Les hommes de la pierre ancienne (paléolilhique et mésolithique). Paris: Payot.Google Scholar
Brézillon, M., 1968. La dénomination des objets de pierre taillée. Matériaux pour un vocabulaire des préhistoriens de la langue française. (Gallia Préhistoire, suppl. IV.) Paris: CNRS.Google Scholar
Burkitt, M., 1933. The Old Stone Age: a Study of Palaeolithic Times. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Byers, A.M., 1994. Symboling and the Middle–Upper Palaeolithic transition. Current Anthropology 35(4), 369–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Byrne, R.W., 1995. The Thinking Ape: Evolutionary Origins of Intelligence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cahen, D., Karlin, C., Keeley, L. & Van Noten, F., 1980. Méthodes d'analyse technique, spatiale et fonctionnelle d'ensembles lithiques. Helinium 20, 209–59.Google Scholar
Clark, G., 1961. World Prehistory: an Outline. CambridgeCambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Commont, V., 1909. L'industrie moustérienne dans la région du Nord de la France, in Congès Préhislorique de France, 5èeme session. Paris: Bureaux de la Société Préhistorique de France, 115–57.Google Scholar
Copeland, L., 1983. Levallois/non-Levallois determinations in the Early Levant Mousterian: problems and questions for 1983. Paléorient 14, 95–105.Google Scholar
Cotterell, B. & Kamminga, J., 1987. The formation of flakes. American Antiquity 52, 675–708.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coutier, L., 1929. Expériences de taille pour rechercher les anciennes techniques paléolithiques. Bulletin de la Sociétée Préhistorique Française 26, 172–4.Google Scholar
Crew, H., 1975. An Examination of the Variability of the Levalloisian Method; its Implications for the Internal and External Relationships of the Levantine Mousterian. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, University of California, Davis.Google Scholar
Cziesla, E., 1990. On refitting stone artefacts, in Cziesla, et al. (eds.), 9–44.Google Scholar
Cziesla, E., Eickhoff, S., Arts, N. & Winter, D., 1990. The Big Puzzle: International Symposium on Refitting Stone Artefacts. Bonn: Holos.Google Scholar
Dauvois, M., 1976. Précis de dessin dynamique el structural des industries lithiques préhistoriques. Périgueux: Fanlac.Google Scholar
Dauvois, M., 1981. De la simultanéité des concepts Kombewa et Levallois dans l'Acheulien du Maghreb et du Sahara Nord-Occidental, in Roubet, et al. . (eds.), 313–21.Google Scholar
Davidson, I. & Noble, W., 1993. Tools and language in human evolution, in Tools, Language and Cognition in Human Evolution, eds. Gibson, K. & Ingold, T.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 363–88.Google Scholar
Delagnes, A., 1990. Analyse technologique de la méthodede de débitage de l'abri Suard (La Chaise-de-Vouthon, Charente). Paléo 2, 81–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Heinzelin, J., 1962. Manuel de typologie des industries lithiques. Bruxelles: Patrimoine de l'lnstitut Royal des Sciences Naturelles de Belgique.Google Scholar
de Loecker, D., 1992. Site K: a Middle Palaeolithic site at Maastricht-Belvédére (Limburg, The Netherlands). Archeologisches Korrespondenzblatt 22, 449–60.Google Scholar
de Loecker, D., 1993. A Sallian riverside settlement; Maastricht-Belvédére site K (Limburg, The Nether-lands). Notae Praehistoricae 12, 7–14.Google Scholar
de Mortillet, G. & de Mortillet, A., 1881. Musée préhistorique. Paris: Reinwald.Google Scholar
Delagnes, A., 1992. L'organisation de la production lithique au Paléolithique Moyen — approche technologique à partir de l'étude des industries de la Chaise-de-Vouthon (Charente). Unpublished Doctoral Thesis, Université de Paris X.Google Scholar
Dibble, H., 1983. Variability and change in the Middle Palaeolithic of Western Europe and the Near East, in The Mousterian Legacy, ed. Trinkhaus, E.. (BAR International Series 164.) Oxford: BAR, 53–71.Google Scholar
Dibble, H., 1985. Raw material variation in Levallois flake manufacture. Current Anthropology 26(3), 391–3.Google Scholar
Dibble, H., 1989. The implications of stone tool types for the presence of language during the Lower and Middle Palaeolithic, in The Human Revolution: Behavioural and Biological Perspectives on the Origin of Modern Humans, eds. Mellars, P. & Stringer, C.. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 415–32.Google Scholar
Dougherty, J. & Keller, C., 1982. Taskonomy: a practical approach to knowledge structures. American Ethnologist 9, 763–74.Google Scholar
Festinger, L., 1983. The Human Legacy. Columbia (NY): Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Gazzaniga, M., 1985. The Social Brain: Discovering the Networks of the Mind. New York (NY): Basic Books.Google Scholar
Geneste, J.-M., 1985. Analyse lithique d'industries moustériennes du Périgord: une approche technologique du comportement des groupes humains au Paléolithique moyen. Unpublished Doctoral Thesis, Universitè de Bordeaux.Google Scholar
Goren-Inbar, N., 1990. Quneitra: a Mousterian Site on the Golan Heights. (Qedem Monographs of the Institute of Archaeology.) Jerusalem: The Hebrew University.Google Scholar
Guichard, J. & Guichard, G., 1965. The Early and Middle Palaeolithic of Nubia: a preliminary report, in Contributions to the Prehistory of Nubia, ed. Wendorf, F.. Dallas (TX): Southern Methodist University, 57–116.Google Scholar
Hayden, B., 1993. The cultural capacities of Neandertals; a review and re-evaluation. Journal of Human Evolution 24(2), 113–46.Google Scholar
Holloway, R.L., 1969. Culture: a human domain. Current Anthropology 10, 395–412.Google Scholar
Johnson, L.L., 1978. A history of flintknapping experimentation. Current Anthropology 19(2), 337–72.Google Scholar
Karlin, C. & Julien, M., 1994. Prehistoric technology: a cognitive science?, in Renfrew, & Zubrow, (eds.), 152–64.Google Scholar
Karlin, C, Bodu, P. & Pelegrin, J., 1991. Processus techniques et chaînes opératoires. Comment les préhistoriens s'approprient un concept élaboré par les ethnologues, in Observer I'action technique; des chaînes opératoires, pour quoi faire?, ed. Balfet, H.. Paris: Editions du CNRS, 101–17.Google Scholar
Kelley, H 1954. Contribution à l'étude de la technique de la taille levalloisienne. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française 51, 149–69.Google Scholar
Kelley, H., 1957. A propos des ‘pseudo-pointes’ levalloisiennes. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française 54, 9–12.Google Scholar
Knowles, F.H.S., 1953. Stone-Worker's Progress: a Study of Stone Implements in the Pitt Rivers Museum. (Occasional Paper on Technology 6.) Oxford: Oxford University Press for Pitt Rivers Museum, University of Oxford.Google Scholar
Lave, J., 1988. Cognition in Practice: Mind, Mathematics and Culture in Everyday Life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Leakey, L.S.B., 1934. Adam's Ancestors: an Up-To-Date Outline of What is Known About the Origins of Man. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Leakey, L.S.B., 1947. Proceedings of the Pan African Congress on Prehistory, Nairobi. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Leroi-Gourhan, A., 1952. Homo faber - Homo sapiens. Revue de Synthèse 30, 79–102.Google Scholar
Leroi-Gourhan, A., 1964. Le geste et la parole, I: Techniques et langage. Paris: Albin Michel.Google Scholar
Leroi-Gourhan, A., 1965. Le geste et la parole, II: La mémoire et les rythmes. Paris: Albin Michel.Google Scholar
Lieberman, P., 1975. On the Origins of Language; an Introduction to the Evolution of Human Speech. New York (NY): Macmillan.Google Scholar
Lieberman, P., 1984. The Biology and Evolution of Language. Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Luedtke, B.E., 1992. An Archaeologist's Guide to Chert and Flint. (Archaeological Research Tools 7.) Los Angeles (CA): Institute of Archaeology, University of California.Google Scholar
Mellars, P., 1991. Cognitive changes and the emergence of modern humans in Europe. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 1(1), 63–76.Google Scholar
Norman, D., 1988. The Design of Everyday Things. New York (NY): Basic Books.Google Scholar
Oakley, K., 1949. Man the Tool Maker. London: British Museum.Google Scholar
Otte, M. (ed.), 1985. La signification culturelle des industries lithiques. (British Archaeological Report International Series 239.) Oxford: BAR.Google Scholar
Otte, M. (ed.), 1988. L'Homme de Néanderlal, vol. 4: La Technique. Liege: ERAUL.Google Scholar
Parker, S., 1985. Higher intelligence and adaptation for social and technological strategies in early Homo sapiens, in Evolution and Developmental Psychology, eds. Butterworth, G., Rutkowska, J. & Scaife, M.. Brighton: The Harvester Press, 83–101.Google Scholar
Parker, S. & Gibson, K., 1979. A model of the evolution of language and intelligence in early hominids. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 2, 367–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pelegrin, J., 1985. Réflexions sur le comportement technique, in Otte, (ed.), 72–91.Google Scholar
Pelegrin, J., 1990. Prehistoric lithic technology — some aspects of research. Archaeological Review from Cambridge 9(1), 116–25.Google Scholar
Pelegrin, J., Karlin, C. & Bodu, P., 1988. Chaînes opératoires: un outil pour le préhistorien, in Technologie préhistorique, ed. Tixier, J.. (CRA, Notes et monographies techniques 25.) Paris: CNRS, 55–62.Google Scholar
Perpère, M., 1981. A propos de quelques nucléus Levallois africains, in Roubet, et al. (eds.), 301–11.Google Scholar
Perpère, M., 1986. Apport de la typométrie à la définition des éclats Levallois: 1'exemple d'Ault. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française 83, 115–18.Google Scholar
Perpère, M., 1989. Les frontières de débitage Levallois: typométrie des éclats. L'Anthropologie 95, 837–50.Google Scholar
Pigeot, N., 1987. Magdaléniens d'Étiolles: économie de débitage et organisation sociale. (Gallia Préhistoire supp. 25.) Paris: CNRS.Google Scholar
Pigeot, N., 1991. Réflexions sur I'histoire technique de I'homme: de I'évolution cognitive à I'evolution culturelle. Paléo 3, 167–200.Google Scholar
Plisson, H., 1988. Technologie et tracéologie des outils lithiques moustériens en Union Soviétique: les travaux de Shchelinskiï, V.E., in Otte, (ed.), 121–68.Google Scholar
Reboux, M., 1867. Silex taillés associés à des ossements fossiles dans les terrains quaternaires des environs de Paris, in Congrès international d'anthropologie et archéologie préhistoriques, 2ème session. Paris: Reinwald, 103–9.Google Scholar
Moir, J. Reid, 1919. Pre-Palaeolithic Man. Ipswich: Harrison, W.E.; London: Simpkin & Co..Google Scholar
Reinach, S., 1889. Antiquités nationales. Description raisonnée du musée de Saint-Germain-en-Laye, I: Époque des alluvions et des cavernes. Paris: Librairie de Firmin - Didot.Google Scholar
Renfrew, C. & Zubrow, E., 1994. The Ancient Mind: Elements of Cognitive Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Brown, K. Robson, 1993. An alternative approach to cognition in the Lower Palaeolithic: the modular view. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 3 (2), 231–45.Google Scholar
Roebroeks, W., 1986. Archaeology and Middle Pleistocene stratigraphy; the case of Maastricht-Belvédère. Bulletin de I'Association Française pour l'Etude du Quaternaire supp. 26, 81–8.Google Scholar
Roebroeks, W., 1989. From Find Scatters to Early Hominid Behaviour: a Study of Middle Palaeolithic Riverside Settlements at Maastricht-Belvédère (The Netherlands). (Analecta Praehistorica Leidensia 21.) Leiden: University of Leiden.Google Scholar
Roebroeks, W. & Hennekens, P., 1990. Transport of lithics in the Middle Palaeolithic: conjoining evidence from Maastricht-Belédère, in Cziesla, et al. (eds.), 283–96.Google Scholar
Rolland, N., 1975. The Antecedents and Emergence of the Middle Palaeolithic Industrial Complex in Western Europe. A Study of Early Man Behaviour based on Quantitative and Morphological Analysis of Early Palaeolithic Industries of Riss and Early Würm Times, with Special Reference to Evidence from Southwestern and Mediterranean France. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, University of Cambridge, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Roubet, C., Hugot, H. & Souville, G. (eds.), 1981. Préhistoire africaine, Mélanges offerts au Doyen L. Balout. Paris: A.D.P.F..Google Scholar
Schlanger, N., 1994a. Mindful technology: unleashing the chaîne opératoire for an archaeology of mind, in Renfrew, & Zubrow, (eds.), 143–51.Google Scholar
Schlanger, N., 1994b. Flintknapping at the Belvédère: Archaeological, Technological and Psychological Invesigations at the Early Palaeolithic site of Maastricht-Belvédère (Limburg, The Netherlands). Unpublished Ph.D. Disseration, University of Cambridge, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Schlanger, N., 1994c. Piaget et Leroi-Gourhan-deux conceptions biologiques des connaissances et des techniques, in De la préhistoire au missiles balistiques. L'intelligence sociale des techniques, eds. Latour, B. & Lemonnier, P.. Paris: La Decouverte, 165–83.Google Scholar
Schlanger, N., in press. ‘Suivre les gestes, éclat par éclat’ — la chaîne opératoire de Leroi-Gourhan, in Geste technique, parole, mémoire. Actualité scientifique et philosopique de Leroi-Gourhan eds. Audouze, F. & Stiegler, B..Google Scholar
Schlanger, N. & de Loecker, D., 1992. Techno en typologische analyse van Midden-Paleolilische Vuursteencomplexen. Leiden: Institut voor Pre- en Protohistorie, Rijksuniversiteit Leiden.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R.R., 1936. The Dawn of the Human Mind: a Study of Palaeolithic Man. London: Sidgwick & Jackson.Google Scholar
Stapert, D., 1990. Middle Palaeolithic dwellings: fact or fiction? Some applications of the ring and sector method. Palaeohistoria 32, 1–19.Google Scholar
Suchman, L., 1987. Plans and Situated Action: the Problem of Human-Machine Communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
J., Tixier, 1967. Procédés d'analyse et questions de terminologie concernant l'étude des ensembles industriels du Paléolithique récent et de l'Épipaléolithique dans l'Afrique du Nord-Ouest, in Bishop, (ed.), 771–820.Google Scholar
Tixier, J., (ed.), 1980. Préhistoire et technologie lithique. (URA 28 du CRA.) Paris: CNRS.Google Scholar
Tixier, J., Inizan, M.-L. & Roche, H., 1980. Préhistoire de la pierre taillée, 1: Terminologie et technologie. Valbonne: C.R.E.P.Google Scholar
Tixier, J., Inizan, M.-L. & Roche, H., 1992. Technology of Knapped Stone. Valbonne: C.R.E.P.Google Scholar
Van Gijn, A., 1989. A functional analysis of the Belvédère flints, Appendix I, in Roebroeks, 151–7.Google Scholar
Van Kolfechoten, T. & Roebroeks, W. (eds.), 1985. Maastricht-Belvédère: Stratigraphy, Palaeoenvironments, and Archaeology of the Middle and Late Pleistocene Deposits. (Analecta Praehistorica Leidensia 18.) Leiden: University of Leiden.Google Scholar
Van Peer, P., 1991. Interassemblage variability and Levallois styles: the case of the Northern African Middle Palaeolithic. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 10, 107–51.Google Scholar
Van Peer, P., 1992. The Levallois Reduction Strategy. (Monographs in World Archaeology 13.) Madison (WI): Prehistory Press.Google Scholar
Van Riet Lowe, C., 1936. Nomenclature of Palaeolithic finds. Man 36, 199–200.Google Scholar
Van Riet Lowe, C., 1945. The evolution of the Levallois technique in Africa. Man 45, 49–59.Google Scholar
Villa, P., 1982. Conjoinable pieces and site formation processes. American Antiquity 47, 276–90.Google Scholar
Villa, P., 1991. From debitage chips to social models of production: the refitting method in Old World archaeology. The Review of Archaeology 12(2), 24–30.Google Scholar
Volkman, , Ph., 1983. Boker Tachtit: core reconstructions, in Prehistory and Paleoenvironmenls in the Central Negev, Israel, vol. Ill, ed. Marks, A.Dallas (TX): Southern Methodist University, 127–90.Google Scholar
Whittaker, J.C., 1994. Flintknapping: Making and Understanding Stone Tools. Austin (TX): University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Wynn, T., 1985. Piaget, stone tools and the evolution of human intelligence. World Archaeology 17, 32–43.Google Scholar
Wynn, T., 1989. The Evolution of Spatial Competence. (Illinois Studies in Anthropology 17.) Urbana (IL): University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Wynn, T., 1991. Tools, grammar and the archaeology of cognition. Cambridge Arcliaeological Journal 1(2), 191–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar