Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-42gr6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T15:45:31.528Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Middle Paleolithic Skill Level and the Individual Knapper: An Experiment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Metin I. Eren ,
Bruce A. Bradley  and
C. Garth Sampson
Metin I. Eren
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, Southern Methodist University, Campus P.O. Box 750336, Dallas, TX 75275-0336 (meren@smu.edu)
Bruce A. Bradley
Affiliation:
Department of Archaeology, University of Exeter, Exeter (b.a.bradley@exeter.ac.uk)
C. Garth Sampson
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, Texas State University, San Marcos, TX 78666 (cs48@txstate.edu)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

It has been proposed that Paleolithic studies should abandon their focus on groups and turn instead to the individual. If individuals are to emerge from the lithics-dominated Middle Paleolithic record, the best chance of success is to identify the products of learner knappers from those of their mentors. To do so we need a framework of knapping standards by which to measure Middle Paleolithic skill level. Selected measurements on a sequence of 100 subcircular Levallois tortoise core reductions by a knapper of intermediate skill were compared with 25 reductions by his highly experienced instructor. Four measures emerge as potential markers of skill level: total stone consumption during initial core preparation, consumption from the upper and lower core surface, symmetry of the first detached Levallois flake, and failure rate of that detachment by overshooting the core's rim. These markers allow us to discriminate between the work of a modern learner and his mentor, but > 30 percent were misclassified. The learning trajectory is more complex than the mere honing of skills through practice and is punctuated by increasing numbers of mentor-like reductions. It follows that skill-level measures on their own are imperfect discriminators. Personal markers other than those of skill level must be found by which to seek individuals in the Middle Paleolithic record.

Resumen

Resumen

Se ha propuesto que los estudios del Paleolítico deberían centrarse en el individuo y no en el grupo social. Una manera de conseguir que el individuo surja del registro arqueológico del paleolítico medio, que es predominantemente lítico, es a través de la diferenciación entre productos de talla lítica del aprendiz y del maestro. Para ello, es necesario construir un marco referencial de estándares de talla que mida el nivel de destreza requerido durante el paleolítico medio. En este trabajo se han realizado las medidas correspondientes en una secuencia de 100 reducciones de nùcleo Levallois de tortuga subcircular lievadas a cabo por un individuo con un nivel intermedio de experiencia. Estas medidas fueron comparadas con 25 reducciones realizadas por el instructor de dicho individuo, quien contaba con un alto nivel de experiencia. Como resultado, se obtuvieron cuatro medidas como marcadores del nivel de experiencia: el consumo total de la piedra durante la preparación inicial del núcleo, el consumo de la superficie superior e inferior dei núcleo, la simetría de la primera lasca levallois y la tasa de error de dicha extracción ai sobrepasar ei borde del núcleo. Estos marcadores nos permiten discriminar entre el trabajo de un principiante y su maestro en la actualidad; sin embargo > 30% de los materiales quedaron fuera de esta clasificación. La trayectoria de aprendizaje tiende a mayor complejidad que al mero perfeccionamiento de habilidades mediante la práctica, manifestándo se a través de un aumento en el número de extracciones del experto. De ello se deduce que las medidas del nivel de destreza por sí solas son discriminantes imperfectas para identificar al individuo. Para llegar a reconocer al individuo en el registro del paleolitico medio se deben reconocer marcadores personales adicionales aparte del nivel de destreza.

Type
Articles
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 76 , Issue 2 , April 2011 , pp. 229 - 251
Copyright
Copyright © Society for American Archaeology 2011

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

References Cited

Andrews, Bradford 2003 Measuring Prehistoric Craftsman Skill. In Mesoamerican Lithic Technology: Experimentation and Interpretation, edited by Kenneth Hirth, pp. 208–219. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.Google Scholar
Apel, Jan 2008 Knowledge, Know-How, and Raw Material—The Production of Late Neolithic Flint Daggers in Scandinavia. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 15:91–11.Google Scholar
Bamforth, Douglas B., and Finlay, Nyree 2008 Introduction: Archaeological Approaches to Lithic Production Skill and Craft Learning. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 15:1–27.Google Scholar
Bamforth, Douglas B., and Hicks, Keri 2008 Production Skill and Paleoindian Workgroup Organization in the Medicine Creek Drainage, Southwestern Nebraska. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 15:132–153.Google Scholar
Bleed, Peter 2008 Skill Matters. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 15:154–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boeda, Eric 1995 Levallois: A Volumetric Construction, Methods, a Technique. In The Definition and Interpretation of Levallois Technology, edited by Harold Dibble and Ofer Bar-Yosef, pp. 41–68. Monographs in World Archaeology No. 23. Prehistory Press, Madison.Google Scholar
Bordes, François 1961 Typologie du Paléolithique ancien et moyen. Delmas, Bordeaux.Google Scholar
Bradley, Bruce 1977 Experimental Lithic Technology with Special Reference to the Middle Paleolithic. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Archaeology, University of Cambridge.Google Scholar
Brantingham, P. Jeffrey, and Kuhn, Steven L. 2001 Constraints on Levallois Core Technology: A Mathematical Model. Journal of Archaeological Science 28:747–761.Google Scholar
Chazan, Michael 1997 Redefining Levallois. Journal of Human Evolution 33:719–735.Google Scholar
Close, Angela E. 1989 Identifying Style in the Stone Artefacts: A Case Study from the Nile Valley. In Alternative Approaches to Lithic Analysis, edited by Donald Henry and George Odell, pp. 3–26. University of Tulsa, Tulsa.Google Scholar
Costin, Cathy L., and Hagstrum, Melissa B. 1995 Standardization, Labor Investment, Skill, and the Organization of Ceramics Production in Late Prehistoric Highland Peru. American Antiquity 60:619–639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dibble, Harold L., and Bar-Yosef, Ofer (editors) 1995 The Definition and Interpretation of Levallois Technology. Monographs in World Archaeology No. 23. Prehistory Press, Madison.Google Scholar
Dobres, Marcia-Anne 2000 Technology and Social Agency. Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar
Eren, Metin I., and Bradley, Bruce A. 2009 Experimental Evaluation of the Levallois “Core Shape Maintenance” Hypothesis. Lithic Technology 34(2), Fall: 119–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eren, Metin I., Greenspan, Aaron, and Garth Sampson, C. 2008 Are Upper Paleolithic Blade Cores More Productive than Middle Paleolithic Discoidal Cores? A Replication Experiment. Journal of Human Evolution 55:951–961.Google Scholar
Ferguson, Jeffrey 2003 An Experimental Test of the Conservation of Raw Materials in Flintknapping Skill Acquisition. Lithic Technology 28(2): 11–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferguson, Jeffrey 2008 The When, Where, and How of Novices in Craft Production. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 15:51–67.Google Scholar
Finlay, Nyree 1997 Kid Knapping: The Missing Children in Lithic Analysis. In Invisible People and Processes: Writing Gender and Childhood into European Archaeology, edited by Jenny Moore and Eleanor Scott, pp. 203–212. Leicester University Press, London.Google Scholar
Finlay, Nyree 2008 Blank Concerns: Issues of Skill and Consistency in the Replication of Scottish Later Mesolithic Blades. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 15:68–90.Google Scholar
Gamble, Clive, and Porr, Martin 2005 From Empty Spaces to Lived Lives: Exploring the Individual in the Palaeolithic. In The Hominid Individual in Context: Archaeological Investigations of Lower and Middle Palaeolithic Landscapes, Locales, and Artefacts, edited by Clive Gamble and Martin Porr, pp. 1–12. Routledge, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grimm, Linda 2000 Apprentice Flintknapping: Relating Material Culture and Social Practice in the Upper Palaeolithic. In Children and Material Culture, edited by Joanna S. Derevenski, pp. 53–71. Routledge, New York.Google Scholar
Hawcroft, Jennie, and Dennell, Robin 2000 Neanderthal Cognitive Life History and Its Implications for Material Culture. In Children and Material Culture, edited by Joanna Sofaer Derevenski, pp. 89–99. Routledge, New York.Google Scholar
Hill, James N., and Gunn, Joel 1977 Introducing the Individual in Prehistory. In The Individual in Prehistory: Studies of Variability in Style in Prehistoric Technologies, edited by James Hill and Joel Gunn, pp. 1–12. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Hogberg, Anders 2008 Playing with Flint: Tracing a Child’s Imitation of Adult Work in a Lithic Assemblage. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 15:112–131.Google Scholar
Hopkinson, Terry, and White, Mark J. 2005 The Acheulean and the Handaxe. In The Hominid Individual in Context: Archaeological Investigations of Lower and Middle Palaeolithic Landscapes, Locales, and Artefacts, edited by Clive Gamble and Martin Porr, pp. 13–28. Routledge, New York.Google Scholar
Johansen, Lykke, and Stapert, Dick 2008 Stone Age Kids and Their Stones. In Technology in Archaeology. Proceedings of the SI LA Workshop: The Study of Technology as a Method for Gaining Insight into Social and Cultural Aspects of Prehistory, the National Museum of Denmark, Copenhagen, November 2–4, 2005, edited by Pierre Desrosiers and Mikkel Sorensen, pp. 15–39. Publications from the National Museum, Studies in Archaeology and History, Vol. 14. National Museum of Denmark, Copenhagen.Google Scholar
Lyman, R. Lee, VanPool, Todd L., and O’Brien, Michael J. 2008 Variation in North American Dart and Arrow Points When One or Both Are Present. Journal of Archaeological Science 35:2805–2812.Google Scholar
Machin, Anna 2009 The Role of the Individual Agent in Acheulian Biface Variability: A Multi-Factorial Model. Journal of Social Archaeology 9:35–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milne, S. Brooke 2005 Palaeo-Eskimo Novice Flintknapping in the Eastern Canadian Arctic. Journal of Field Archaeology 30:329–345.Google Scholar
Newcomer, Mark H. 1971 Some Quantitative Experiments in Handaxe Manufacture. World Archaeology 3:85–94.Google Scholar
Noble, William, and Davidson, Iain 1996 Human Evolution, Language, and Mind: A Psychological and Archaeological Inquiry. Cambridge University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Ohnuma, Katsuhiko 1995 Analysis of Debitage Pieces from Experimentally Reduced “Classical Levallois” and “Discoidal” Cores. In The Definition and Interpretation of Levallois Technology, edited by Harold Dibble and Ofer Bar-Yosef, pp. 257–266. Monographs in World Archaeology No. 23. Prehistory Press, Madison.Google Scholar
Olausson, Deborah J. 2008 Does Practice Make Perfect? Craft Expertise as a Factor in Aggrandizer Strategies. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 15:28–50.Google Scholar
Petraglia, Michael D., Shipton, Ceri, and Paddayya, K. 2005 Life and Mind in the Acheulean: A Case Study from India. In The Hominid Individual in Context: Archaeological Investigations of Lower and Middle Palaeolithic Landscapes, Locales, and Artefacts, edited by Clive Gamble and Martin Porr, pp. 197–219. Routledge, New York.Google Scholar
Plog, Fred 1977 Archaeology and the Individual. In The Individual in Prehistory: Studies of Variability in Style in Prehistoric Technologies, edited by James Hill and Joel Gunn, pp. 13–21. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Porr, Martin 2005 The Making of the Biface and the Making of the Individual. In The Hominid Individual in Context: Archaeological Investigations of Lower and Middle Palaeolithic Landscapes, Locales, and Artefacts, edited by Clive Gamble and Martin Porr, pp. 68–80. Routledge, New York.Google Scholar
Proctor, Robert W., and Dutta, Addie 1995 Skill Acquisition and Human Performance. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks.Google Scholar
Read, Dwight 2006 Tasmanian Knowledge and Skill: Maladaptive Imitation or Adequate Technology? American Antiquity 71:164–184.Google Scholar
Redman, Charles L. 1977 The “Analytical Individual” and Prehistoric Style Variability. In The Individual in Prehistory: Studies of Variability in Style in Prehistoric Technologies, edited by James Hill and Joel Gunn, pp. 41–53. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Rick, John 1996 Projectile Points, Style, and Social Process in the Preceramic of Central Peru. In Stone Tools: Theoretical Insights into Human Prehistory, edited by George Odell. pp. 245–278. Plenum Press, New York.Google Scholar
Roux, Valentine, Bril, Blandine, and Dietrich, Gregory 1995 Skills and Learning Difficulties Involved in Stone Knapping: The Case of Stone-Bead Knapping in Khambhat, India. World Archaeology 27:63–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sandgathe, Dennis M. 2004 Alternative Interpretation of the Levallois Reduction Technique. Lithic Technology 29:147–159.Google Scholar
Sandgathe, Dennis M. 2005 Examining the Levallois Reduction Strategy from a Design Theory Point of View. BAR International Series 1417. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford.Google Scholar
Schick, Kathy D. 1994 The Movius Line Reconsidered: Perspectives on the Earlier Palaeolithic of Eastern Asia. In Integrative Paths to the Past: Paleoanthropological Advances in Honor of F. Clark Howell, edited by Robert S. Corruccini and Russell L. Ciochon, pp. 569–595. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.Google Scholar
Schlanger, Nathan 1996 Understanding Levallois: Lithic Technology and Cognitive Archaeology. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 6:231–254.Google Scholar
Sellet, Frederic 1995 Levallois or Not Levallois, Does It Really Matter? Learning from an African Case. In The Definition and Interpretation of Levallois Technology, edited by Harold Dibble and Ofer Bar-Yosef, pp. 25–39. Monographs in World Archaeology No. 23. Prehistory Press, Madison.Google Scholar
Shea, John J. 2006 Child’s Play: Reflections on the Invisibility of Children in the Paleolithic Record. Evolutionary Anthropology 15:212–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shelley, Phillip H. 1990 Variation in Lithic Assemblages: An Experiment. Journal of Field Archaeology 17:187–193.Google Scholar
Sinclair, Anthony, and McNabb, John 2005 All in a Day’s Work: Middle Pleistocene Individuals, Materiality and the Lifespace at Makapansgat, South Africa. In The Hominid Individual in Context: Archaeological Investigations of Lower and Middle Palaeolithic Landscapes, Locales, and Artefacts, edited by Clive Gamble and Martin Porr, pp. 176–196. Routledge, New York.Google Scholar
Stahl, Jenny 2008 Who Were the Flintknappers? A Study of Individual Characteristics. Lithic Technology 33(2), Fall: 161–172.Google Scholar
Stapert, Dick 2007 Neanderthal Children and Their Flints. PalArch’s Journal of Archaeology of Northwest Europe 1–2:15–39.Google Scholar
Sternke, Farina, and Sorensen, Mikkel 2009 The Identification of Children’s Flint Knapping Products in Mesolithic Scandinavia. In Mesolithic Horizons: Papers Presented at the Seventh International Conference on the Mesolithic of Europe, Belfast 2005, edited by Sinead McCartan, Rick Schulting, Graeme Warren, and Peter Woodman, pp. 722–729. Oxbow Books, Oxford.Google Scholar
Stout, Dietrich 2002 Skill and Cognition in Stone Tool Production: An Ethnographic Case Study from Irian Jaya. Current Anthropology 43:693–722.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Peer, Phillip 1992 The Levallois Reduction Strategy. Monographs in World Archaeology No. 13. Prehistory Press, Madison.Google Scholar
Vaquero, Manuel 2008 The History of Stones: Behavioural Inferences and Temporal Resolution of an Archaeological Assemblage from the Middle Paleolithic. Journal of Archaeological Science 35:3178–3185.Google Scholar
Weedman, Kathryn 2002 On the Spur of the Moment: Effects of Age and Experience on Hafted Stone Scraper Morphology. American Antiquity 67(4):731–744.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wenban-Smith, Francis F. 1996 The Palaeolithic Archaeology of Baker's Hole: A Case-Study for Focus in Lithic Analysis. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Archaeology, University of Southampton.Google Scholar
Whittaker, John C. 1987 Individual Variation as an Approach to Economic Organization: Projectile Points at Grasshopper Pueblo, Arizona. Journal of Field Archaeology 14:465–479.Google Scholar
Whittaker, John C. 1994 Flintknapping: Making and Understanding Stone Tools. University of Texas Press, Austin.Google Scholar
Wiessner, Polly 1983 Style and Social Information in Kalahari San Projectile Points. American Antiquity 48(2):253–276.Google Scholar
Winton, Vicky 2005 An Investigation of Knapping-Skill Development in the Manufacture of Palaeolithic Handaxes. In Stone Knapping: The Necessary Conditions for a Uniquely Hominin Behavior, edited Valentine Roux and Blandine Bril, pp. 109–116. McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, Oxford.Google Scholar