Cambridge Archaeological Journal 6:2 (1996), pp. 231-54
Understanding Levallois: Lithic Technology and Cognitive
Archaeology
Nathan Schlanger
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 techno-
logical 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-
Belvedere, 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 preset 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.
Talk of a Levallois mystique may be exaggerated,
but there is no denying the prominent place occu-
pied by this flintknapping technique in the archaeo-
logical imagination. Innumerable indeed are the
prehistorians and palaeoanthropologists who believe
that the Levallois technique, whose desired product
has been 'predetermined by special preparation prior
to its detachment from the core' (Bordes 1950, 21;
1961), is one that required of its makers — and there-
fore can reveal to us — exceptional cognitive abili-
ties. On the force of such conviction, this Lower and
Middle Palaeolithic flintknapping technique has been
repeatedly enlisted in reconstructions of human in-
tellectual evolution, and discussed as a possible in-
dicator of conceptualization, abstraction, intelligence,
language, etc., among its pre-Homo sapiens practi-
tioners.
These propositions sound familiar enough, and
indeed many feel a certain embarrassment in dis-
cussing them. How they came to acquire such a con-
ventional status is an interesting question in its own
right, but there is no doubting the consequence; be-
cause these cognitive claims are frequently iterated
and upheld as incontrovertible truisms (or well-worn
cliches), there is a natural tendency to take their
specific establishment for granted, and concentrate
instead on their wider implications. In doing so, how-
ever, there may be a risk of putting the cart ahead of
the horse. Profitable and gratifying as it is to engage
in broad-scale speculations, it might be worthwhile
to start by assessing the grounds on which such
claims are advanced and adhered to. A critical-his-
torical examination of this kind could help us cor-
roborate or confirm those claims, and also lead us to
a better-grounded understanding of technical and
intellectual aspects of human prehistory. With this
231

Nathan Schlanger
aim in mind, I propose in this article to highlight a
difficulty surrounding cognitive claims for Levallois,
and then work towards a solution.
The difficulty, succinctly put, is that many such
cognitive claims effectively imply or presuppose a
separation between thought and action in flint-
knapping. This is the case with what I will call here
'standard' claims, where the Levallois knapper is
attributed a clear mental image of the product and
the procedure to be realized. It also underpins more
recent 'reactionary' claims, where the Levallois
knapper is considered to be responding, case by case,
to changing external circumstances and constraints.
An examination of the literature shows that these
contrasting claims are very often promoted in the
wake of the classic definition of Levallois, and in
function of the evolutionary scenario in which they
are enlisted. Having presented the difficulty in these
terms, a solution becomes more readily perceptible:
by setting aside traditional archaeological preoccu-
pations, even if temporarily, room should be made
for a dedicated technological understanding of
Levallois, one which could in turn be brought to
bear on the cognitive activities involved in the proc-
ess of its manufacture.
This is not to say that such flintknapping proc-
esses were not known and described in the litera-
ture. It is rather that they often failed to be adequately
problematized and disseminated, and thus remained
somewhat under-valued and auxiliary in archaeo-
logical research. In recent years various practical and
theoretical developments have contributed to change
this state of affairs, and our knowledge of the
Levallois technique has considerably increased, no-
tably with the work of E. Boeda. These technological
advances are discussed here in some detail, and then
put to work through an informative case-study: the
analysis of a comprehensively refitted Levallois core
from the early Middle Palaeolithic site of Maastricht-
Belvedere (Netherlands). Besides illustrating aspects
of controlled predetermination, variability and pro-
ductivity in Levallois, this analysis makes it pos-
sible to follow the actual sequence of work on the
core and then identify an overarching principle by
which it has been repeatedly prepared. Without be-
ing scripted in advance or oblivious to external cir-
cumstances, this principle acts as an enabling image
that structures the emergent course of action: its iden-
tification in a concrete archaeological example makes
it possible to overcome the above noted separation
between action and thought, and thus help us un-
derstand the interplay between mental and material
activities in flintknapping Levallois.
'Standard' and 'reactionary' claims
The earliest and by far most common cognitive claims
to be made with regard to Levallois are those I have
labelled 'standard': they are indeed those that spring
to mind with the very mention of the term 'Levallois'.
In assessing these claims it should be recalled that
while they are thoroughly conventional nowadays,
they are actually of fairly recent origin. The Levallois
technique has been described at least since the later
half of the nineteenth century,1 and yet for long,
seekers of prehistoric intellectual phenomena con-
centrated almost exclusively on aesthetically pleas-
ing handaxes, as well as evidence of fire, and, of
course, parietal and mobiliary art (cf. Bergson 1907;
Boule 1923; Schmidt 1936; Oakley 1949). It can be
said that the Levallois technique acquired its present
cognitive connotations only with the work of Francois
Bordes. In comparison with previous discussions
(Commont 1909; Breuil 1937; Breuil & Lantier 1951;
Burkitt 1933; Van Riet Lowe 1945) Bordes' contribution
was double. He defined the Levallois technique —
'predetermination by special preparation' — on the
basis of his own flintknapping experience, and, in
the same 1950 article, he included Levallois products
in his Lower and Middle Palaeolithic type list. The
implications of these steps will be presently dis-
cussed, but so far as Bordes is concerned it was only
in the late 1960s that he turned to flesh out the 'stand-
ard' cognitive claim on Levallois.
'There can be no doubt', he asserted in his popu-
lar book TJie Old Stone Age, 'that the men of this [pre-
Neanderthal] time had a perfectly clear mental image
of the object to be made before they set about mak-
ing it'. All the more so in the case of Levallois, which
presupposes 'not only a conception of the tool's final
form but also of the various successive stages re-
quired and the difficulties to be encountered' (1968,
137). Indeed the preparation of the core is but a
preliminary stage, and what is desired is actually the
shape of the flake to be detached (1970, 199-200).
'Not only is there a cutting edge in the stone; not
only can one shape at will this cutting edge; but one
can predetermine its shape before striking it out of
the flint' (1971, 3). The shapes thus predetermined
are both standardized and variable, being — accord-
ing to the preparation of the core — either flakes in
the strict sense, points, or blades (e.g. 1961; 1980).
With or without explicit reference to Bordes, argu-
ments whereby Levallois flintknappers had a clear
mental image of the product and of the procedure
have been reiterated in numerous Anglo-Saxon pub-
lications from the 1970s onwards. Serving to address
232