This paper re-examines earlier Palaeolithic core technology from British sites assigned to MIS 11, 9, and 7 using primarily a châine opératoire approach, with the objective of better understanding the earliest occurrence and distribution of Levallois and other prepared-core technologies across the Old World. Contrary to previous interpretations (White and Ashton in Current Anthropology, 44 : 598–609, 2003), we find no evidence for a true Levallois concept in MIS 11 or MIS 9 in Britain. Cores previously described as ‘simple prepared cores’ or ‘proto-Levallois’ cores show neither evidence of core management nor predetermination of the resulting flakes. They can instead be explained as the coincidental result of a simpler technological scheme aimed at exploiting the largest surface area of a core, thereby maximising the size of the flakes produced from it. This may be a more widespread practice, or a local solution derived from existing principles. Levallois appears fully formed in Britain during terminal MIS 8/initial MIS 7. Consequently, Britain does not provide evidence for an in situ evolution of Levallois, rather we argue it was introduced by new settlers after a glacial abandonment: the solution to the emergence and significance of Levallois lies in southern Europe, the Levant and Africa.
Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.
CITATION STYLE
White, M., Rawlinson, A., Foulds, F., Dale, L., Davis, R., Bridgland, D., … Ashton, N. (2024). Making a U-turn on the Purfleet Interchange: Stone Tool Technology in Marine Isotope Stage 9 Britain and the Emergence of the Middle Palaeolithic in Europe. Journal of Paleolithic Archaeology, 7(1). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41982-024-00177-z