What lies in between: Levallois, discoid and intermediate methods
Lithic artefacts are usually associated with the different knapping methods used in their production. Flakes exhibit metric and technological features representative of the flaking method used to detach them. However, lithic production is a dynamic process in which discrete methods can be blurred, a...
| Main Authors: | , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
University of Edinburgh
2023-05-01
|
| Series: | Journal of Lithic Studies |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://journals.ed.ac.uk/lithicstudies/article/view/7132 |
| _version_ | 1797736033321746432 |
|---|---|
| author | Guillermo Bustos-Pérez Javier Baena Manuel Vaquero |
| author_facet | Guillermo Bustos-Pérez Javier Baena Manuel Vaquero |
| author_sort | Guillermo Bustos-Pérez |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Lithic artefacts are usually associated with the different knapping methods used in their production. Flakes exhibit metric and technological features representative of the flaking method used to detach them. However, lithic production is a dynamic process in which discrete methods can be blurred, and in which features can vary throughout the process. An intermediate knapping method between the discoid and Levallois is commonly referred to under an umbrella of terms (the present research uses the term hierarchical discoid), and is associated with a broad geographical and chronological distribution throughout the Early and Middle Palaeolithic. This intermediate knapping strategy exhibits features of both the discoid and Levallois knapping methods, raising the question of the extent to which flakes from the three knapping methods can be differentiated and, when one is mistaken for another, the direction of confusion. An experimental assemblage of flakes detached by means of the three methods was used along with an attribute analysis and machine learning models in an effort to identify the knapping methods employed. In general, our results were able to very effectively differentiate between the three knapping methods when a support vector machine with polynomial kernel was used. Our results also underscored the singularity of flakes detached by means of Levallois reduction sequences, which yielded outstanding identification values, and were rarely erroneously attributed to either of the other two knapping methods studied. Mistaking the products of the discoid and hierarchical discoid methods was the most common direction of confusion, although a good identification value was achieved for discoid flakes and an acceptable value for hierarchical discoid flakes. This shows the potential applicability of machine learning models in combination with attribute analysis for the identification of these knapping methods among flakes. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-12T13:07:42Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-d21c49f0ddb9445ba72ceead5b1529c5 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2055-0472 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-12T13:07:42Z |
| publishDate | 2023-05-01 |
| publisher | University of Edinburgh |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Journal of Lithic Studies |
| spelling | doaj.art-d21c49f0ddb9445ba72ceead5b1529c52023-08-28T14:08:26ZengUniversity of EdinburghJournal of Lithic Studies2055-04722023-05-0110232 p.32 p.10.2218/jls.71327132What lies in between: Levallois, discoid and intermediate methodsGuillermo Bustos-Pérez0Javier Baena1Manuel Vaquero2Universidad Autónoma de Madrid (Spain), Institut Català de Paleoecologia Humana i Evolució Social (IPHES) & Universitat Rovira i VirgiliUniversidad Autónoma de MadridInstitut Català de Paleoecologia Humana i Evolució Social (IPHES) & Universitat Rovira i VirgiliLithic artefacts are usually associated with the different knapping methods used in their production. Flakes exhibit metric and technological features representative of the flaking method used to detach them. However, lithic production is a dynamic process in which discrete methods can be blurred, and in which features can vary throughout the process. An intermediate knapping method between the discoid and Levallois is commonly referred to under an umbrella of terms (the present research uses the term hierarchical discoid), and is associated with a broad geographical and chronological distribution throughout the Early and Middle Palaeolithic. This intermediate knapping strategy exhibits features of both the discoid and Levallois knapping methods, raising the question of the extent to which flakes from the three knapping methods can be differentiated and, when one is mistaken for another, the direction of confusion. An experimental assemblage of flakes detached by means of the three methods was used along with an attribute analysis and machine learning models in an effort to identify the knapping methods employed. In general, our results were able to very effectively differentiate between the three knapping methods when a support vector machine with polynomial kernel was used. Our results also underscored the singularity of flakes detached by means of Levallois reduction sequences, which yielded outstanding identification values, and were rarely erroneously attributed to either of the other two knapping methods studied. Mistaking the products of the discoid and hierarchical discoid methods was the most common direction of confusion, although a good identification value was achieved for discoid flakes and an acceptable value for hierarchical discoid flakes. This shows the potential applicability of machine learning models in combination with attribute analysis for the identification of these knapping methods among flakes.http://journals.ed.ac.uk/lithicstudies/article/view/7132lithic technology; experimental archaeology; levallois; discoid; middle palaeolithic; machine learning |
| spellingShingle | Guillermo Bustos-Pérez Javier Baena Manuel Vaquero What lies in between: Levallois, discoid and intermediate methods Journal of Lithic Studies lithic technology; experimental archaeology; levallois; discoid; middle palaeolithic; machine learning |
| title | What lies in between: Levallois, discoid and intermediate methods |
| title_full | What lies in between: Levallois, discoid and intermediate methods |
| title_fullStr | What lies in between: Levallois, discoid and intermediate methods |
| title_full_unstemmed | What lies in between: Levallois, discoid and intermediate methods |
| title_short | What lies in between: Levallois, discoid and intermediate methods |
| title_sort | what lies in between levallois discoid and intermediate methods |
| topic | lithic technology; experimental archaeology; levallois; discoid; middle palaeolithic; machine learning |
| url | http://journals.ed.ac.uk/lithicstudies/article/view/7132 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT guillermobustosperez whatliesinbetweenlevalloisdiscoidandintermediatemethods AT javierbaena whatliesinbetweenlevalloisdiscoidandintermediatemethods AT manuelvaquero whatliesinbetweenlevalloisdiscoidandintermediatemethods |