The beginnings and diversity of Levallois methods in the early Middle Palaeolithic of Central Europe

Abstract

The origin of Levallois technology and its diversity has been one of the key issues of late Middle Pleistocene archaeology for a long time. This is due to the fact that this technological mode is associated with profound changes in the cognitive ability, the mobility, and the social organization of Palaeolithic hunters and gatherers.

The aim of this paper is to raise a few questions related to the origins of the Levallois technology in Central Europe. It is essential to answer the question concerning when Levallois methods appeared in this part of the continent. The next question concerns the diversity of Levallois methods in Central Europe. Are we dealing with a number of schemes used independently, or rather with one or two ideas that were flexible and allowed for different technical changes? The paper also attempts to answer the question regarding the potential sources for the Levallois strategy in Central Europe. Was its sole propagator the Acheulean groups of hunters and gatherers, or might there have been other sources?

Current studies indicate that the Levallois technology within the early Middle Palaeolithic sites of Central Europe is as diverse as in Western Europe. The reasons for this can be seen in both the distribution of stone raw materials as well as the impact of different mental patterns, the activity range, and the structural features of the technical system. Current analyses show that the Levallois technology was more widely promoted in the northern zone of Central Europe, where outcrops of high quality raw materials occurred. The studies also suggest that the Levallois technology in Central Europe may have come from different sources. A large part of the materials is related to the Acheulean milieu, which is commonly regarded as the main promoter of the idea of predetermined technology (the Elbe valley). Some Central European sites with early signals of Levallois technology (Silesian Lowlands, Kraków–Częstochowa Upland and the Bohemian Massive or the Carpathians) are located, however, outside the dense Acheulean settlement area. These sites are linked to sources in south or southeast Europe. There is no evidence of local, Central European origins of predetermined technology.

Considering the chronology of the appearance of the Levallois technology, two periods can be distinguished. The first period is characterized by the incidental appearance of signs of the small-scale use of predetermined methods in separated places (to MIS9). The second period, which begins either in MIS8 or MIS7 and 6, is characterized by the rapid spread of the technology in question in various forms. Traces from Central Europe are known only from the second period. The later appearance of the Levallois technology in Central Europe probably results from the fact that this area was not visited as often as other territories because of its proximity to the glacial centres.

Introduction

Levallois technology is associated with the development of mobility strategies, profound changes in mentality and social organization (e.g. Hayden, 1993, Davidson, 2002, Wynn and Coolidge, 2004, Eren and Lycett, 2012). Hence, it is not surprising that the issues of the origin of Levallois technology as well as the causes of its diversity attract researchers' special interest. One of the key questions is the number of sources of Levallois' innovation (Tuffreau, 1995, Kozlowski, 2003, White and Ashton, 2003, Hopkinson, 2007 and others). Can we still talk about one source of Levallois technology (so-called monocentric model) (e.g. Foley and Lahr, 1997), or should we assume the involvement of several sources, corresponding to different eco-cultural units (the polycentric model) (e.g. Hublin, 2009).

Another issue concerns the mechanism of the emergence of Levallois innovation. If we assume the monocentric model, the origin should be sought, according to the traditional scheme, within the Acheulean industry, in the process, for example, of the alteration of a handaxe to a core (Copeland, 1995, Tuffreau, 1995, etc.). This concept is based on recognizing a number of similarities between flakes from bifaces' shaping and flakes from the reduction of Levallois cores. Key features are represented by regular flakes' edges and butt configuration as well as the pattern of negatives on the dorsal side. Moreover, the similarities can be seen in the configuration of Levallois cores in relation to the base parts of handaxes (see Copeland, 1995). If we choose the polycentric model, we must take into account a variety of mutations that contained a wide range of predetermined products (White and Ashton, 2003) even outside the Acheulean industry (Kozlowski, 2003).

The next problem is the chronology of the implementation of the Levallois methods. The proponents of the gradual development seek its origin at sites dated to the beginning of the Middle Pleistocene or even earlier (e.g. Copeland and Hours, 1993). Walker and his colleagues believed that the first occurrence of reduction similar to Levallois technology could be dated to the late Early Pleistocene. This idea is based on the redating of finds from Cueva Negra del Estrecho del Río Quípar, Murcia, Spain (Walker et al., 2013). The consequence of this is the assumption of the use of the innovative technology by both Homo heidelbergensis as well as Neanderthals (Endicott et al., 2010). Some researchers believe, however, that the implementation of the Levallois technology happened a little later and that it was a fast process (Foley and Lahr, 2003).

The aim of this paper is to answer a few questions related to the origins and diversity of the Levallois technology in Central Europe (CE). It is essential to answer the question concerning when it was used and what kind of Levallois methods were in use in this part of the continent. Are we dealing here with several patterns used independently, or rather a concept or concepts that allowed for variability and flexibility in the mode of production? A question concerning the potential sources of the Levalloisian in CE was also raised. Were the Acheulean groups of hunters and gatherers its only promoters, or should other sources also be considered?

The author was prompted to undertake this subject by the possibility of the artefacts' reconsideration in natura. Assemblages with greater numbers of artefacts were studied, including finds from the sites of Markkleeberg and Zwochau. Smaller assemblages were also the subject of study, such as those from Kůlna cave (Czech Republic), Biśnik cave (Poland) and Hôrka Ondrej (Slovakia). The aforementioned sites are dated to between MIS8 and MIS6. It is thought that they are connected with appearance of the Levallois technique in Central Europe (Cyrek et al., 2010). Clarifying the chronological data of some sites with evidence of use of the Levallois technology, as well as the recent discovery of new sites contained well preserved clusters of artefacts were very encouraging in this respect. Without doubt, a significant role was played by progress in work on the issue of technologies that has occurred in the last two decades, when attributes of the Levallois, discoidal, Quina and other methods were re-defined (Van Peer, 1991, Van Peer, 1992, Boëda, 1994, Boëda, 1995a, Boëda, 1995b, Peresani, 2003).

This all contributed to the opportunity to present new results. Among other findings, it was concluded that at the oldest CE sites the Levallois technology is diverse, not only due to raw material constraints or the impact of environmental factors, but also to the technical capacity of the system. Studies also suggest that the Levallois technology in CE may have come from different sources. This confirms only partially the validity of the classic idea that Acheulean was the source of the distribution of the Levallois technology. A number of the CE sites with early manifestations of the use of the Levallois technology are located outside the dense Acheulean settlement zone. It is possible that the Levallois technology known from the Vistula basin or Carpathians arrived from the southern or southeastern part of Europe or western Asia. No arguments in favour of the local evolution in CE have been found yet.

Considering the chronology of the emergence of the Levallois technology in Europe, two periods can be distinguished. The first period is characterized by the incidental appearance of signs of the small-scale use of predetermined methods in different places. The second period, which begins either in MIS8, or even in MIS7 and 6, is characterized by the rapid and widespread of the technology in question in various forms. The slightly later appearance of the Levallois technology in CE probably results from the fact that this area was not visited as often as the other territories because of its proximity to the glacial centres.

In this article, data from sites excavated both systematically and temporarily in the eastern part of Germany, Poland, the Czech Republic and the Slovak Republic were considered (Table 1; Fig. 1). Some have been dated by means of radiometric methods or conventional stratigraphy to the end of the Middle Pleistocene, covering MIS8–MIS6. In the study of artefacts' assemblages, the commonly used methodology of the technical attributes of Levallois products and waste descriptions were applied, which resulted from the experiments of different authors and my own.