The Definition and

Interpretation of
Levallois Technology

EX LIBRIS
Ivor
Karavanic

Harold L. Dibble and

Ofer Bar-Yosef

Monographs in World Archaeology No. 23

1^ PREHISTORY PRESS
Madison Wisconsin
Chapter 4
Levallois: A Volumetric Construction,
Methods, A Technique
Eric Boeda
Universite de Paris X, Nanterre
F
or over a decade the criteria used by Bordes for
defining Levallois knapping have proven to be
incapable of accounting for the range of discov-
eries and do not allow for the totality of the lithic mate-
rial which makes up an industry. Founded on a typo-
logical approach, Bordes' definition emphasized only a
limited number of products judged to be characteristic
of a particular form of technical investment. The model
for the production of predetermined flakes in a Leval-
lois system was deduced on the basis of a few cores and
the definition of Levallois technology was based only on
the last negative scar visible on the core and the corre-
sponding product.
Problems of Identification
The article by Copeland entitled "Levallois or not
Levallois?" (Copeland 1981) clearly conveys the diffi-
culty some prehistoriaris have had in identifying the
range of products found in a single industry. The
problem is as follows: the same lithic assemblage
includes both products which typologically are classi-
fied as Levallois pieces and other products which
cannot be classifieded typologically as Levallois. Some
of the " typologically non-Levallois" products in the
eyes of the prehistorian cannot simply be dismissed as
41
simple knapping debris because if they were found in
other contexts they would be seen as predetermined
products. The most common examples of such products
are blades with one or two parallel ridges (Figure 4.1).
Faced with this situation there are three possibilities:
1. All the material from a single archeological
level was actually produced within Leval-
lois operational schemas. Only one schema
consisting of Levallois cores, predetermined
Levallois blanks, and predetermining Lev-
allois blanks was used for production.
However, this situation, essentially based
on typological determination, selects only
a limited number of pieces. This selection
is due to a classic definition which is insuf-
ficient, limiting and incapable of account-
ing for the entirety of an assemblage
(Figure 4.2).
2. All of the material in an archaeological
assemblage is not the result of Levallois
flaking but certain pieces are typologically
Levallois. In this case, the criteria used to
define Levallois flaking are inadequate, as
they are applicable to other systems of
knapping as well (Figure 4.3).
42 The Definition and Interpretation of Levallois Variability

"^sss£> O <CP
o Figure 4.1. Hummal, Syria,
Hummalian level; excavation
by Hours et al.

3. The material corresponds to two recognized non-Levallois knapping. This "non-recogni-

conceptions of knapping: one Levallois, the
other non-Levallois. The non-Levallois con-
ception has no name and is defined uniquely
on the basis of its non-Levallois characteris-
tics. This illustrates the limitations of typo-
logical definitions of Middle Paleolithic oper-
ational schemas for lithic production because
in using such an approach we are faced with
a binary situation: Levallois knapping or
tion" is confirmed by the absence of indices
other than Levallois (IL) in the typological
list of Bordes. The absence of "non-Levallois"
definitions has absurd implications as it
leads us to believe that prehistoric knappers
were faced with a binary technical situation,
with the cognitive implications that we can
imagine (Figure 4.4).
 Levallois: A Volumetric Construction, Methods, A Technique
Figure 4.2. Frettes, France; excavation by G. Huguenin.
Technological Analysis
Technological analysis is a global approach. The
totality of products from a single industry is taken into
account allowing for the differentiation of the various
technical stages which can then be situated within an
operational sequence, or chaine operatoire. The chaine
operatoire, then, is the totality of technical stages from
the acquisition of the raw material through to its dis-
card, and includes the various processes of transfor-
mation and utilization. The technological analysis of
lithics also allows the technical knowledge (connais-
sance) and know how (savoir faire) necessary for the
proper achivement of the operational sequence to be
determined. Each technical stage reflects specific tech-
nical knowledge. The notion of operational schemas
thus expresses the ways of doing things particular to
each cultural group.
43
<^S0^
Experimental Analysis
At the same time, experimental analysis of the dia-
critical schemas of different lithic pieces has clearly
demonstrated that a single object, of any type, can be
obtained in different ways. Experimentation must dis-
tinguish between the technical constants inherent in the
working of hard rocks and the technical constraints due
to the technical rules of the group—thus to cultural
choices.
Consequently, the formula, following the definition
of Bordes in which every object identified as Levallois
is the result of Levallois knapping, is erroneous and
should not be considered as a valid rule. Even though a
Levallois operational schema which produces prede-
termined blanks labelled as Levallois, it is also true that
blanks which typologically resemble Levallois products
44
Figure 4.3. Hummal, Syria, Hummalian level; excavation by Hours et al.
are not necessarily the result of a Levallois operational
schema (Figure 4.5:a,b). k
Take, for example, the notion of a typologically Lev-
allois flake. This type of flake can indeed result from
Levallois flaking, but it can also result from an opera-
tion of shaping (fagonnage) with the goal of producing
a biface.
If one identifies a flake that is produced from the
shaping of a biface as Levallois, this directly implies
that there exits an operational schema of flaking asso-
ciated with an operational schema of shaping. One real-
izes from this example the consequences of such con-
fusion because one is led to create "from any piece" an
operational schema which never existed. We thus
argue that a simple typological determination can lead
to a confusion at the level of conceptions of knapping
between shaping and blank production (debitage)
(Figure 4.6:a,b).
 Levallois: A Volumetric Construction, Methods, A Technique
Take, for example, the notion of a typologically Lev-
allois point which is defined as a triangular product,
with a triangle on the proximal end of the dorsal face
and a single ridge at the distal end. This definition is
applied regardless of the morphology of the object (i.e.,
whether it is elongated, short, wide-based, etc.) and
regardless of the period to which this object remains a
Levallois point (which implies that it is the result of
Levallois flaking) (Figure 4.7). In fact, "Levallois
points" can be produced using a large number of oper-
ational schemas belonging to conceptions of knapping
other than Levallois. The pyramidal cores from Aus-
tralia known as Leiliras produce magnificent Levallois
points although the debitage is not Levallois (Figure
4.8). Cores labled discoids can also produce a number
of Levallois points (Figure 4.9). And finally, cores
which are conceived of in the same manner as those
found in certain periods of the Upper Paleolithic in
Europe and in the Neolithic are quite capable of pro-
ducing Levallois points (e.g., Boker Tachtit, level 1)
(Figure 4.10). Conversely, Levallois cores can produce
points of different morphologies (Figure 4.11:a,b). The
point is that a Levallois point can result from concep-
tions of knapping which have nothing whatsoever to
do with Levallois flaking.
Once one examines a number of conceptions of
flaking it becomes clear that for the same volumetric con-
struction of a core—pyramidal, Upper Paleolithic type,
or Levallois—it will or will not be possible to obtain
these points depending on the particular methods of
production. There is no determinism in the form of the
core. Only the choice of the methods applied to these
volumes allows the Levallois points to be obtained.
45
Figure 4.4. Riencourt les Bapaumes,
France, level Ca; excavations by
A. Tuffreau. Left: Hummal site, hum-
malian level. Typology, Levallois Point;
Technology, Hummalian debitage non
Levallois. Right: Barbas site, France, level
C'3. Typology, Levallois flake; Tech-
nology, flake from the bifacial shaping.
A second point to emphasize is that for the same vol-
umetric conception of a core, depending on the
methods employed, it will or will not be possible to
obtain a Levallois point (Figure 4.12:a,b). Consequently,
a Levallois point can result from a large number of dif-
ferent operational schemas and from different methods
belonging to the same schema. How then can one infer
based on a Levallois point how it was produced?
The fact is, a typological approach can never detect
the operational processes. A car can result from arti-
sanal production or from a robotic process. That which
characterizes the car will be above all the totality of
technical knowledge and know how necessary for the
realization of this object (Figure 4.13).
Definition Of Levallois Debitage
Levallois flaking involves a particular conception of
the treatment of the material which has as a goal the
production of objects with edges that will or will not be
transformed in order to create tools. The objects are
obtained from a block called the core, which corre-
sponds to a particular, non-aleatory, volumetric con-
ception. The core is a form which integrates and hier-
archizes a group of technical properties (convexity,
striking platforms, etc.). These characteristics result in a
defined volumetric construction. The core, then, is a
form characterized by the totality of the hierarchical
and functional relations of the technical characteristics,
such that the first technical property may relate to the
second and the sixth, while the third technical property
may relate only the fourth, and the fourth may relate
to the fifth, and so on.
46 The Definition and Interpretation of Levallois Variability

Laminar debitage

Figure 4.5. (a) Typology: Levallois point; Technology: Hummalian non-Levallois

debitage; (b) Typology: Levallois flake; Technology: bifacial preparation flake.

Levallois Volumetric Conception 2. The two surfaces are hierarchicaly related:

The Levallois core is characterized by the interaction
of six technical criteria:
1. The volume of the core is conceived in the
form of two assymetrical convex secant sur-
faces. The intersection of these surfaces
defines a plane (Figure 4.14).
one produces defined and varied blanks that
are predetermined, and the other is con-
ceived of as a surface of striking platforms
for the production of predetermined blanks.
In the course of a single production sequence
of predetermined blanks, the role of the two
planes cannot be reversed (Figure 4.15).
 LevaUois: A Volumetric Construction, Methods, A Technique 47

Figure 4.6. a: Biache-Saint-Vaast, level Ila: Levallois debitage. b: Barbas: C'3, fashioning of bifacial piece.
48 The Definition and Interpretation of Levallois Variability

C1/C2
UMM EL TLEL
CIV 2 BETA
AMUD

Figure 4.7. Some examples of morpho-technological variability of triangular flakes in the

Near East, a: Kebara (Israel), ensemble IX, X; b: Umm El Tlel (Syria), S.4 CB; c: Umm El
Tlel (Syria), CIV 2 Delta; d: Tabun (Israel); e: Umm Tel Tlel (Syria), C2 Base; f: Umm El Tlel
(Syria), CIV 2 Beta; g: Hummal (Syria), Hummalian level.

The flaking surfaceds maintained in such a
fashion that the products obtained off of it
will be predetermined. The technical char-
acters of predetermination consist of main-
tenace of the lateral and distal convexities
which serve to guide the shock wave of each
predetermined blank (Figure 4.16).
The fracture plane of the predetermined
blanks are parallel to the plane of intersec-
tion of the two surfaces (Figure 4.17).
The surface for the preparation of striking
platforms is maintained in such a fashion
that the "predetermining" and "predeter-
mined" blanks respond to fixed objectives.
The maintenance of this surface depends on
 Levallois: A Volumetric Construction, Methods, A Technique 49

Figure 4.8. Pyramidal core from which elongated tri-

angular flakes are produced.

Figure 4.9. Discoid core from which triangular flakes with large bases are produced.

Figure 4.10. Core from Boker Tachtit, level 1.

50 The Definition and Interpretation of Levallois Variability

era

LO

Figure 4.11. Levallois cores, a: Bagarre, France; b: Kebara, Israel, ensemble IX,X.

Figure 4.12. Volumetric conception of the Upper Paleolithic, a: Method with only blades
produced. PPNB. b: Method where both blades and points produced. Boker Tachtit.
 Discoid conception of debitage 51
Discoid
core

different
methods

o
a,
/J a
<
a
u
•H
Si
*> Core of Upper Levallois
Palaeolithic type core

different different
•^ methods methods ^^

Pyramidal
core

Pyramidal conception of debitage

Figure 4.13. Variability of operational schemas in the production of triangular flakes which, fol-
lowing Bordes' typology, are called Levallois points. A Levallois point can be produced by both
Levallois and non-Levalllois schemas.

Figure 4.14. Levallois concept. Criterion 1:

PLANE OF INTERSECTION intersection of surfaces.
52 The Definition and Interpretation of Levallois Variability
non interchangeable surfaces
CONVEXITIES
distal
convexity
parallel plane
left lateral right lateral
convexity convexity
Figure 4.16. Levallois concept. Criterion 3: lateral and
distal convexities.
the method chosen for the detachment of
predetermined blanks, but they always
share one characteristic—the surface of
striking platforms which is to receive the
percussion for the removal of predeter-
mined blanks must always be oriented in
relation to the flaking surface so that the line
created by the intersection of these two sur-
faces is perpendicular to the flaking axis of
the predetermined blanks. This line created
at the intersection bf the planes is called the
hinge (Figure 4.18).
6. Only one technique of flaking is used with
Levallois operational schema: direct percus-
sion with a hard hammer. The percussion
takes place a few millimeters from the hinge
on the surface of striking platforms and not
Figure 4.15. Levallois concept. Criterion 2:
hierarchically related surfaces. A: Surface of
debitage. B. Surface of striking platforms.
Figure 4.17. Levallois Concept. Criterion 4: fracture
plane of predetermined blank.
on the hinge. The consequence of this char-
acteristic is that the axis of percussion must
be perpendicular to the hinge. A non-per-
pendicular axis does not allow for the con-
trol of the force of percussion (Figure 4.19).
This is how we have defined the six technical criteria
which in combination create the rules for maintaining
a Levallois conception of volume, along with their con-
straints and advantages. If any criterion is lacking or
modified the roles of maintenance will change creating
new constraints and new advantages (Figure 4.20).
Constraints
For a Levallois core the exploitable volume, that is
the volume from which the predetermined blanks will
be produced, is limited to the area between the flaking
 Levallois: A Volumetric Construction, Methods, A Technique
MODE AND MOVMENT OF PERCUSSION
surface and the plane of intersection between the two
surfaces (Figure 4.21).
Why is this so? The answer is that it is not possible
to exploit the edges of the core as a flaking surface
because the flaking surface is circumscribed from the
start due to the strict fit between the hinge created by
the two surfaces and the type of gesture used. Such a
gesture can only be effective if the axis of percussion is
perpendicular to the hinge. Thus, it is impossible to
move to the lateral surface without a reorientation of
the hinge and such a reorientation would require the
abandonment of the existing flaking surface. Thus, if
one would want to return to work this flaking surface
it would be necessary to again reorient the surface of
the striking platform. The only possibility for exploiting
the edges of the core consists of producing core-edge
flakes, or eclats debordants (Figure 4.22). But this is a lim-
ited exploitation. So, once the exploitable volume has
been exhausted it is necessary to recreate the technical
criterion of convexity which were utilized by the pro-
53
hinge
Figure 4.18. Levallois concept. Crite-
rion 5: axes of percussion are perpen-
dicular to the hinge.
Figure 4.19. Levallois concept. Criterion
6: direct, hard hammer percussion.
ceeding predetermined blanks. Therefore, a reprepara-
tion is necessary (Figure 4.23).
Advantage of this Volumetric Conception
The flaking of the exploitable volume varies
according to the methods used, by which we mean the
technical knowledge learned, applied, and taught by a
group which is considered by the members of the
group to be the only possible solution(s) for arriving at
objectives. In other words, methods refer to the media-
tion between the abstract representation of the objec-
tive and its realization. This technical knowledge makes
up the techno-cultural heritage of a group which testi-
fies to the successive acquisitions transmitted from gen-
eration to generation. Each method utilized operates
according to pre-established rules which shape each
structure. In effect, every method has no real existence
unless it is conceived in order to attain objectives
through following a set of rules.
54 The Definition and Interpretation of Levallois Variability

i
i

Figure 4.20. Levallois concept, with volumetric representation of a core and its deb-
itage. The Levallois concept resides essentially in the volumetric conception of the
core to which is added the following technical criteria: maintenance of lateral and
distal convexities, and a fracture plane of the predetermined blank (2a,2b) which is
parallel to the intersection of the two surfaces. The number of predetermined blanks
produced (S) is limited by the volume existing between the Levallois preparation sur-
face and the plane of intersection.
 Levallois: A Volumetric Construction, Methods, A Technique 55

SURFACE OF DEBITAGE

i p l o i t a b l a voluna^v

Figure 4.21. Volume producing predetermined

blanks.

y90'"gcj^t d^borrfant"

Figure 4.22. The volumetric conception does not allow the edges of a core to be
exploited, except in the case of eclats debordants.

Figure 4.23. A core can provide several useful

volumes in succession. Once a volume is
exploited, the surface is reprepared.

exportation of successive surfaces

56 The Definition and Interpretation of Levallois Variability
Variabilty of Methods: Quantitative
and Qualitative Expression
Quantitative Expression
Based on the quantitative objectives two large groups
of methods can be distinguished. The exploitable
volume can be used to produce one or several prede-
termined blanks.
Preferential Method
When the goal is to produce a single blank we refer
to it as a method with a preferential blank. The objec-
tive corresponds to the production of a single blank per
prepared surface. That is, the totality of the technical
criteria have as their only purpose the exploitation—
assuming that all goes well—of the flaking surface by
a single blank. If one wants to produce another blank,
of the same or different morpho-technical characteris-
tics, it will be necessary not only to reprepare the
flaking surface with all of technical criteria of predeter-
mination but also to reprepare the surface of the
striking platform which has also been prepared for the
production of a single blank (Figure 4.24).
Recurrent Method
When the goal is to produce several blanks from a
single flaking surface we refer to the method as recur-
rent. The predetermined blanks are causally related in
that each removal is necessary for the subsequent
removal. Since every blank from a recurrent series is a
result of the proceeding blanks, they are each prede-
Figure 4.24. Preferentiel Levallois debitage.
termined in that they utilize the criteria of predetermi-
nation and predetermining in that their detachment
recreates these criteria. Several successive series can be
produced. In effect, either one sequence was produced
on a core corresponding to the exploitation of a single
flaking surface or the same flaking sequence is
repeated several times, which corresponds to the
exploitation of successive flaking surfaces. These suc-
cessive flaking surfaces are interspersed with the
repreparation of the flaking surface and the striking
platform surface. The organization of the successive
surfaces can remain identical along the same flaking
axis. However, it is also possible, to the extent that this
is anticipated from the start, to change the type of orga-
nization or the flaking axis after each stage of exploita-
tion (Figure 4.25).
Qualitative Expression
Depending on the desired type of blanks, the flaking
surfaces will be maintained using different technical cri-
teria and exploited according to different rules of orga-
nization. We can distinguish first a phase of initializa-
tion of the core which consists on the one hand of
putting into place the Levallois technical criteria
defined above but which also configures the flaking
surface in such a fashion that it will be possible to
realize the desired morphological, technical and met-
rical criteria for the predetermined blanks. This is fol-
lowed by a phase of consumption or realization which
consists of applying the method of producing the
desired blank or blanks (Figure 4.26).
PREFERENTIAL LEVALLOIS
FLAKE DEBITAGE
lsc surface
surface
 Levallois: A Volumetric Construction, Methods, A Technique 57

RECURRENT LEVALLOIS DEBITAGE

1st surface
face
1 s t plane
2nd plan

Figure 4.25. Recurrent Levallois debitage.

raw
stage 0 material

phase 1 methods of
'initialization; initialization

f—-1'—"'fJ" '•'—'•

stage 1 configurated core

U phase 2 f - ; *
*| c o n s u m p t i o n | methods of consumption

\ :J>
r T:
stage 2 support exploited core
^ • ••'

'j phase 3
' making
.." I..: :.:: -H ....',.

m methods of making

4$
Champlitte work-shop 1990

F i g u r e 4.26. O p e r a t i o n s c h e m a s of p r o d u c t i o n .
58 The Definition and Interpretation of Levallois Variability

Here, too, preferential methods are distinguished Internal Variability of a Method

from recurrent ones. In the case of the former,
depending on the morphological, technical and metrical
characteristics desired for the blanks, the flaking sur-
face will be maintained in a specific fashion. For
example, to produce rectangular, oval, or triangular
flakes, or wide-based versus elongated points, one
chooses different methods of initialization (Figure 4.27).
We have also distinguished several different recurrent
methods for the production of the array of desired pre-
determined blanks. These include unidirectional parallel,
unidirectional convergent, bidirectional parallel, bidi-
rectional divergent, and centripetal (Figures 4.28-4.31).
Following this first level of analysis we are led to dis-
tinguish within each of these methods a phase of initial-
ization and a phase of exploitation. For example, a phase
of the configuration of the core can be executed using
unidirectional, bidirectional, or centripetal removals.
This is followed by a phase of exploitation using a uni-
directional parallel method which produces predeter-
mined blanks. For the same method of exploiting the
core, depending on the method of configuration used,
the array of predetermined objects will possess different
morphotechnical characteristics (Figure 4.32).

Figure 4.27. Preferentiel methods, a: quadrangular; b: triangular; c: oval.

Levallois Levallois Levallois

blank type 1 blank type 2 blank type 3

Figure 4.28. Levallois recurrent unidirectional and bidirectional parallel methods. Biache-Saint-Vaast, level Ila.
Figure 4.28 (continued)
60 The Definition and Interpretation of Levallois Variability

-O

Levallois Levallois Levallois

blank type 1 blank type 2 blank type 3

Figure 4.29. Levallois recurrent unidirectional convergent method. Umm El Tlel, C I V 2

Delta a; excavation by E. Boeda and S. Muhesen.

•**- • • •

Figure 4.30. Levallois recurrent centripetal method.

 Levallois: A Volumetric Construction, Methods, A Technique
Levallois
blank type 1
Figure 4.31. Levallois recurrent centripetal method; excavation by A. Tuffreau.
Other Volumetric Conceptions
The analytical grid thus developed now allows us
to individualize different operational schemas of
flaking, each of which is characerized by a volumetric
conception and one or more conceptions stemming
from this conception.
Volumetric conceptions other than Levallois include
discoidal conception, pyramidal conception, blade con-
ception of the Hummal type, blade conception of the
Rocourt type, "Upper Paleolithic" type conception
(which is not limited to the Upper Paleolithic as it is
found in the Middle Paleolithic and the Neolithic),
Clactonian conception, trifacial conception, etc.
Discoid versus Levallois
Volumetric Conceptions
Consider several of the technical criteria of this
method and their consequences:
1. In both of these conceptions the volume of
the core is concieved as two convex assymet-
rical secant surfaces the intersection of which
defines a plane of intersection (Figure 4.33).
2. However, in the discoid conception the two
surfaces are not hierarchically related: One
is conceived as a flaking surface, the other as
a surface of striking platforms, but their
roles can be inverted within a single opera-
61
Levallois
blank type 2 I "enlevement
d6bordant"
tional sequence. On the other hand, in the
Levallois volumetric conception the two sur-
faces are hierarchicaly related: one produces
defined and varied blanks—which are pre-
determined—the other is conceived of as a
surface of striking platforms for the produc-
tion of predetermined blanks. In the course
of a single production sequence of predeter-
mined blanks, the role of the two planes
cannot be reversed (Figure 4.33).
3. In both conceptions the flaking surfaces are
mantained so that certain products will be
predetermined. In the case of the discoidal
conception, the technical criterion of prede-
termination consist of the maintenance of a
peripheral convexity. This unique and gen-
eralized convexity serves to control the lat-
eral and distal detachment of each predeter-
mined blank. In Levallois, the technical
characters of predetermination consist of the
maintenance of the lateral and distal con-
vexities which serve to guide the shock wave
of each predetermined blank (Figure 4.33).
4. In the discoidal volumetric conception the
fracture plane of the predetermined and pre-
determining blanks are at an angle (secant)
to the plane of intersection of the two sur-
faces. In the Levallois volumetric concep-
tion, the fracture plane of the predetermined
62 The Definition and Interpretation of Levallois Variability

LEVALLOIS RECURRENT UNIDIRECTIONAL METHOD

bidirectional method multidirectional method

of initialization of initialization

Configurated
Levallois
core

unidirectional method unidirectional method

of exploitation of exploitation

Figure 4.32. Variability inherent in the phases of initialization and exploitation for the same
method of realizationT

v
 Levallois: A Volumetric Construction, Methods, A Technique 63

blanks are parallel to the plane of intersec- ferent cases the exploitation can take place from either
tion of the two surfaces (Figure 4.33). two opposed platforms which are not in the same axis
where the intersection of the two flaking surfaces cre-
The discoid volumetric conception allows for the ates the necessary convexity (e.g. Hummal PPNB); or
production of an uninterupted series of predetermined from two adjacent striking platforms. In the latter case
blanks. This recurrence is due to the interaction of the these platforms are secant and not on the same plane.
different technical criteria employed. In contrast to the The intersection of the two flaking surfaces creates the
Levallois volumetric conception which requires the necessary convexity (e.g. Hummal; Riencourt les
restoration of the technical criterion of predetermina- Bapaume; Chatelperronien).
tion after every series of blanks, the discoidal volu- The Hummal volumetric conception is clearly dis-
metric conception allows a continuous exploitation of tinct from the Levallois conception and is essentially a
the core without a restoration of the criteria. The flaking of volume like the discoidal method (Figures
exploitable volume of a discoid core is almost equal to 4.37 and 4.38).
the volume of the core. This capacity for exploitation
allows us to establish a contrast with the Levallois core
and allows us to state that discoidal flaking is a flaking
Conclusions
of a volume whereas Levallois flaking is a flaking of a We want to conclude by saying that a lithic assem-
surface (Figures 4.34 and 4.35). blage can only be analyzed in its totality. The determi-
nation of the technical knowledge and the know-how
Hummal Type Volumetric Construction used to produce tools is essential as they are essential
to establishing the extent of the technical cultural char-
The Hummal type of volumetric construction of the acteristics of each group. To deny these differences
core has as a goal the production of a continuous series
of what are essentially blade removals. This metrical Figures 33 to 35 on the following pages.
exclusivity—blanks twice as long as wide—requires the
combination of technical characters which interact to
create a particular volume with particular rules of
exploitation. Other volumetric constructions could
allow the production of the same array of predeter-
mined products, specifically the pyramidal conceptions
and the Upper Paleolithic type conceptions.
The Hummal type of volumetric construction is
characterized by:
1. Two or three flaking surfaces which intersect
in pairs. The function of the intersection of
two surfaces is to create a convexity—in
general very steep—which allows a regu-
larity in the flaking of blades.
2. Each of the flaking surfaces has a corre-
sponding striking platform surface. The
striking platform surfaces are never on the
same planes and thus several distinct hinges
are created.
3. The techniqe is the same found for discoidal
and Levallois flaking, i.e., direct percussion
with a hard hammer about 5 mm from the
hinge.
This extremely particular volumetric construction is
found in the blade production of Riencourt les
Bapaume (the excavations of A. Tuffreau), as well as in
the Chatelperronian knapping (in this case the tech-
nique is different as the contact is made on the hinge)
and the Neolithic of Hummal (Figure 4.36).
Depending on the technical rules we observe a Figure 4.36. Volumetric conception of blades with
degree of morphological variability in the cores. In dif- two or three flaking surfaces which intersect in pairs.
64 The Definition and Interpretation ofLevallois Variability
PLANE OF INTERSECTION PLANE OF INTERSECTION

HIERARCHICAL ORGANIZATION SURFACES HIERARCHICAL ORGANIZATION SURFACES

interchangeable surfaces
non i n t e r c h a n g e a b l e s u r f a c e s
A/B
A

A : s u r f a c e of d e b i t a g e
B : s u r f a c e of s t r i k i n g p l a t f o r m s Fa /f\ A : surface of debitage
B : surface of striking platforms

CONVEXITIES
distal
convex it

periphical convexity

left lateral H right lateral

convexity convexity

FRACTURE PLANE FRACTURE PLANE

parallel plane
plane at an angle

Figure 4.33. Comparison between discoidal and Levallois concepts.

Figure 4.34. Levallois recurrent centripetal core from Frettes. Surface exploitation of core; the exploitable volume
We can say that the exploitable volume is equivalent to the surface of debitage. a; first series of several predeterm
ti on of the flaking surface, second series of several predetermined blanks; c: third series, after a new repreparati
66 The Definition and Interpretation of Levallois Variability

\/

K A

\ Y \ 1
\

Figure 4.35. Discoid core of Kiilna, Czech Republic, K. Valoch, excavation. Volumetric exploita-
tion of core: the exploitable volume is identical at the core's volume. The discoid volumetric
conception allows a continuous exploitation of the core without a restoration of the criteria.
 Levallois: A Volumetric Construction, Methods, A Technique
debitage surfaces
at an angle
Contiguous
striking
platforms
Figure 4.37a. The Hummal method of core exploita-
tion. a: unidirectional; b: bidirectional.
would be a serious epistomological error as it would
implicitly deny these people the right to the diversity
of expression. On the other hand, typological analysis,
due to its incapacity to comprehend the object in terms
of its creation and technical reality, removes the artifact
from the technical operational context—it is like seeing
the trees without seeing the forest.
Technological analysis allows us to stiow that any
given object or array of objects can be produced by
applying different operational schemas. These schemas
are organized based on the volumetric conception
(which is composed of a group of interactive technical
characteristics which create the specific rules of exploita-
tion) and the methods and techniques that were utlized.
This approach has also shown us that, depending on the
type of desired object or array of objects, the volumetric
conception of the core will be different and that for each
67
debitage surfaces
at an angle
opposed
striking
platforms
Figure 4.37b. The Hummal method of core exploita-
tion. b: bidirectional.
volumetric conception there is a certain number of cor-
responding methods. These methods can produce the
same or different type of object, the same or different
array of objects. Finally, for each volumetric conception
and associated methods there is a certain number of
techniques which will or will not determine the type
and quantity of products. Thus, Levallois flaking repre-
sents only one among a number of possibilities and the
number of methods associated with the Levallois con-
ception is large, with a correspondingly very large
degree of variability in the quantitative and qualitative
characteristics of the product.
Acknowledgment
Thanks to Michael Chazan for the translation of this
article.
68 The Definition and Interpretation of Levallois Variability

Figure 4.38. Hummal site, Hummalian level: core with 2 exploited surfaces.

References Cited
Copeland, L. Kowm, Syria). Comison V, X Congresso, Union
1981 Levallois or Non-Levallois? Reflections on International de Ciencias Prehistoricas, Mexico
some technical features of Hummal Level IA (El- City, pp. 1-25.