Journal of Archaeological Science 37 (2010) 11101117

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Archaeological Science

journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jas

A comparative 3D geometric morphometric analysis of Victoria West cores: implications for the origins of Levallois technology
Stephen J. Lycett a, b, *, Noreen von Cramon-Taubadel a, b, John A.J. Gowlett b
a b

Department of Anthropology, University of Kent, Canterbury, CT2 7NR, UK British Academy Centenary Research Project, SACE, University of Liverpool, Liverpool L69 3BX, UK

a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history: Received 11 September 2009 Received in revised form 30 November 2009 Accepted 4 December 2009 Keywords: Geometric morphometrics Levallois Acheulean handaxes Victoria West Prepared core technology

a b s t r a c t
The Victoria West is a Lower Paleolithic industry from South Africa, which includes prepared cores and has previously been noted to bear strong morphological resemblances with later Middle Paleolithic prepared core technologies (i.e. Levallois cores). Indeed, from the earliest commentaries on the Victoria West, it has frequently been thought of as a large Levallois variant. The hypothesis that VW cores are accurately characterised as large Levallois is tested here using a comparative 3D geometric morphometric (GM) methodology. GM methods are powerful statistical tools for shape analysis that offer many advantages over traditional means of shape quantication and comparison. The use of landmarks to capture shape variation allows for the preservation of the full geometry, as well as enabling the more precise description of shape versus size. Moreover, biological studies have shown that the use of landmarks allows for a exible approach to comparing specic aspects of overall morphology. Here, we employ GM to analyse differences in core surface morphology in a range of Lower and Middle Palaeolithic artefacts, including Victoria West examples (total n 639 artefacts). In comparison with cores from non-handaxe Mode 1, Acheulean handaxes, and Levallois cores, the Victoria West share shape afnities with both Acheulean handaxes and Levallois cores. However, when compared directly with a group of large Middle Palaeolithic Levallois cores from Bakers Hole (UK), the Victoria West were found to more closely resemble handaxes, while the Bakers Hole set are simply isometrically-scaled Levallois cores. These analyses show that, despite broad technological and qualitative morphological similarities with Levallois cores, Victoria West cores are morphologically more similar to Lower Palaeolithic artefact forms, such as handaxes, and are in some respects distinct from Middle Palaeolithic Levallois cores. In line with other recent analyses, our results support suggestions that the Victoria West technique is an extension of longstanding Acheulean traditions for the preparation of biface blanks, but with its own distinct characteristics. 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction 1.1. The Victoria West The Victoria West, as originally dened, is a Lower Palaeolithic prepared core industry from South Africa, named after the Karooregion town where it was originally discovered during the early part of the twentieth century (Smith, 1919; Van Riet Lowe, 1929; Goodwin, 1926, 1929). Cores attributed to this industry were rst discovered ca.1915 by the then local magistrate F.J. Jansen (see Smith, 1919), who later wrote a short paper on his nds (Jansen,

* Corresponding author. Department of Anthropology, University of Kent, Marlowe Building, Canterbury, CT2 7NR, UK. Tel.: 44 779 11 33 593. E-mail address: S.J.Lycett@Kent.ac.uk (S.J. Lycett). 0305-4403/$ see front matter 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.jas.2009.12.011

1926). Subsequently, the term Victoria West has been attributed to cores from a series of assemblages from sites in central South Africa, especially along the Vaal River (Goodwin, 1934; Van Riet Lowe, 1945; Rolland, 1995; Clark, 2001; Sharon and Beaumont, 2006). From their initial discovery, cores attributed to the Victoria West phenomenon drew comparisons with Middle Palaeolithic Levallois prepared cores from Europe and the African Middle Stone Age (MSA) (Smith, 1919; Van Riet Lowe, 1929; Breuil, 1930; Goodwin, 1934; Leakey, 1936). As Goodwin (1934, p. 120) noted, in a manner similar to Levallois cores, they exhibit preparation of upper-face and the removal of a large ake from the upper surface. However, due to the large size of the cores, as well as their frequent association with Acheulean handaxes and cleavers (manufactured from their large ake products) the Victoria West was attributed to the Lower Palaeolithic (Goodwin, 1934; Van Riet Lowe, 1945).

S.J. Lycett et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science 37 (2010) 11101117

1111

Clark (1959, p. 125) provided an informative description of the reduction procedure resulting in the cores at Victoria West, which consisted of roughing out from a small boulder what at rst sight appears to be a crude handaxe with one face much atter than the other. He further describes the preparation of a striking platform on one side, and the release of the large, comparatively at, ake which was subsequently worked into a handaxe, cleaver, or sidescraper (Clark, 1959, pp. 125126). Despite the general comparability with Levallois cores, this constructional link with large Acheulean handaxes was also noted by others (Goodwin, 1934; Leakey, 1936). This similarity was perhaps most explicitly stated by Leakey (1936, p. 85), albeit using certain terminology that is now obsolete: it is decidedly noticeable that among the forms of unstruck Victoria West cores there are many that have more than a resemblance to large, clumsy Chelleantype hand-axes. However, it is their comparability with large Levallois cores that has drawn most attention in the literature, to the extent that they have often been regarded as a proto-Levallois core form (Breuil, 1930; Goodwin, 1934; Van Riet Lowe, 1945; Clark, 1959; Bordes, 1968). As Van Riet Lowe (1929, p. 389) put it, the shape of Victoria West cores is not unlike a magnied and slightly distorted Levallois of Europe. In some instances, direct comparisons between the South African Victoria West and artefacts as far away as India have been made (Cammiade and Burkitt, 1930). However, while it is generally accepted that the Levallois technique can occur anywhere, without any connection to the original ndspot, in the case of Victoria West the case for reapplying an original industry label to a widespread technique is not nearly so clear-cut. Indeed, Sharon (2009) has recently argued that the Victoria West may represent one of several different Lower Palaeolithic industries involving the production of large ake blanks, each of which may be convergent. Meanwhile, phylogenetic analyses have suggested that properties shared between Middle Palaeolithic Levallois cores and those from Victoria West are the product of technological convergence (Lycett, 2009a). 1.2. Geometric morphometrics framework Here, the hypothesis that Victoria West cores are accurately characterised as large Levallois is tested directly using a comparative 3D geometric morphometric (GM) methodology. GM (landmark-based) methods are particularly appropriate for addressing these questions due to the mathematical capability to separate out the properties of shape and size. Shape in this context refers explicitly to the geometric properties of an object, excluding the effects of isometric scale (or size) (Slice, 2005). Isometric scaling refers to the uniform magnication or reduction of an object without altering its shape. Therefore, in the comparative analysis of shape, a size parameter must rst be identied such that the effects of isometric scaling can be removed from the analysis. It should be emphasised that adjusting for scale in this manner does not automatically assume that size is not an important aspect of variation in stone tools. Indeed, analyses of linear dimensions in Acheulean handaxes have shown allometric relationships between length and thickness, which has been interpreted as a design reconciliation between increasing size and weight (Crompton and Gowlett, 1993; Gowlett and Crompton, 1994). Meanwhile, Buchanans (2006) study of Folsom projectile points, and Shott and Weedmans (2007) study of scrapers, demonstrate that allometric analyses are also a useful means of investigating models of technological organization in wider contexts. Here, we wish to emphasise shape parameters and so control for isometric scale. In geometric morphometrics, the most commonly used size measure is centroid size, which is dened as

the square root of the summed squared Euclidean distances from each landmark to the centroid (Niewoehner, 2005). By scaling all landmark congurations to the same (unit) centroid size, the effects of scaling are removed, allowing for the direct comparison of differences in shape. Moreover, studies in physical anthropology have shown that the use of landmark-based methods allows for a highly exible approach to morphometric analysis, and can accommodate the analysis of specic localised regions such as individual cranial bones (e.g. Lockwood et al., 2002; von CramonTaubadel, 2009). In the analyses undertaken here, we deliberately focus on dorsal surface morphology. It is often suggested that aspects of dorsal core surface morphology (e.g., distal and lateral convexity, removal of prepared akes) are key components of Levallois cores (e.g., Boeda, 1995; Van Peer, 1992). They are properties that are shared both with Victoria West cores (e.g., Van Riet Lowe, 1929, 1945; Rolland, 1995) and Acheulean handaxes, thus facilitating a comparative analysis, and suggestive of technological links in these different artefact forms (e.g. Schick, 1998; DeBono and Goren-Inbar, 2001). Thus, a study of dorsal surface morphology is particularly relevant to the morphometric comparison of Victoria West cores, Levallois cores, and potentially related technological forms such as handaxes.

2. Materials and methods 2.1. Materials Table 1 lists the assemblages used in the comparative morphometric analyses. Here, the artefacts are assigned to the extremely broad taxonomic category of Clarks (1969) Modes (where broadly Mode 1 a simple core and ake industry; Mode 2 a biface industry, and Mode 3 a prepared core industry). We are aware of the limitations of this scheme, but here it constitutes a conservative approach to the morphological variation represented in these artefacts for the purposes of the comparative analyses (Lycett, 2007). It takes no account of the chronological or regional variants that may emerge within these broadly dened technological distinctions (Lycett and Gowlett, 2008). Thus, applying this scheme, the sample here includes examples of Mode 1 cores, Mode 2 handaxes and Mode 3 (Middle Palaeolithic) Levallois cores (total n 639 artefacts). Included alongside this material are 36 Victoria West cores, all of which represent struck examples. These latter artefacts have particular characterization value as they were collected by F.J. Jansen, the original discoverer of the Victoria West industry (Jansen, 1926), from a hillside adjacent to the town of Victoria West in the Karoo region of South Africa (Smith, 1919; Goodwin, 1926, 1929; Van Riet Lowe, 1929, 1945). Hence, it is this material that subsequently lent its name to the entire Victoria West phenomenon. Included within the Mode 3 (Levallois) sample is a group of cores (n 23) from Bakers Hole (Northeet), United Kingdom (Table 1). The Levallois cores from Bakers Hole have drawn specic attention due to their relatively large size in comparison with many typical Middle Palaeolithic Levallois assemblages (Smith, 1911, p. 523; Roe, 1981, p. 80; Robinson, 1986, p. 20). Moreover, both Smith (1919, p. 102) and Goodwin (1929, p. 66) drew direct comparisons between Victoria West cores and the Levallois cores from Bakers Hole (Northeet) in their early descriptions of the Victoria West. Indeed, Goodwin (1929, p. 66) went as far as stating specically that Victoria West cores represented a tortoise core similar in type to those discovered at Northeet (England). Hence, inclusion of material from Bakers Hole allows us to test directly the

1112

S.J. Lycett et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science 37 (2010) 11101117

Table 1 Taxonomic units employed in analyses (total n 639 nuclei). Taxonomic unit number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Locality Barneld Pit, Kent, UK Barnham St. Gregory, Suffolk, UK Lion Point, Clacton, Essex, UK Olduvai Gorge (Lower Bed II), Tanzania Olduvai Gorge (Middle/Upper Bed II), Tanzania Soan Valley, Pakistan Zhoukoudian, Locality 1, China Zhoukoudian, Locality 15, China Attirampakkam, India Bezez Cave (Level C), Adlun, Lebanon Elveden, Suffolk, UK Kariandusi, Kenya Kharga Oasis (KOl0c), Egypt Lewa, Kenya Olduvai Gorge (Bed II), Tanzania Morgah, Pakistan St. Acheul, France Tabun Cave (Ed), Israel Bakers Hole, Kent, UK Bezez Cave (Level B), Adlun, Lebanon El Arabah, Abydos, Egypt El Wad (Level F), Israel Fitz James, Oise, France Kamagambo, Kenya Kharga Oasis (KO6e), Egypt Muguruk, Kenya Soan Valley, Pakistan Victoria West n 22 30 18 11 26 25 14 11 30 30 24 30 17 30 13 21 30 30 23 28 16 27 11 13 11 12 11 36 Raw material Chert Chert Chert Lava, chert, quartz Lava, chert, quartz Quartzite Sandstone, quartz, limestone Sandstone, quartz Quartzite Chert Chert Lava Chert Lava Quartz, lava Quartzite Chert Chert Chert Chert Chert Chert Chert Quartzite, chert Chert Lava Quartzite Lava (Dolerite) Nuclei type/mode Ml Ml Ml Ml Ml Ml Ml Ml M2 (Handaxe) M2 (Handaxe) M2 (Handaxe) M2 (Handaxe) M2 (Handaxe) M2 (Handaxe) M2 (Handaxe) M2 (Handaxe) M2 (Handaxe) M2 (Handaxe) M3 M3 M3 M3 M3 M3 M3 M3 M3 Para-Levallois

hypothesis that Victoria West cores are accurately characterised as a large Levallois variant.

2.2. Methods 2.2.1. Landmark conguration The basis of geometric morphometrics is the identication and quantication of homologous landmarks, dened as a point of correspondence on an object that matches between and within populations (Dryden and Mardia, 1998, p. 3; OHiggins, 2000). However, in the case of stone tools, large numbers of readily dened points of correspondence (i.e. homologous landmarks) are not easily located (Lycett et al., 2006; Lycett, 2009b). One way around this problem is to use what are termed semilandmarks (Bookstein, 1997; Buchanan, 2006; Lycett et al., 2006). Terminologically, Bookstein (1991, pp. 6366) originally identied three categories of landmark. Type I landmarks were those readily identiable points (e.g., cranial suture junctions) that required no geometric denition in relation to other aspects of the specimen. Type II landmarks were identied as morphologically isolated points or extremities (e.g., the tips of extrusions or invaginations). Type III landmarks were regarded as geometrically dened points, and thus are identied instrumentally. An important point here is that homology is not necessarily an inherent or conveniently identiable property, but something that may emerge from a clear but operationally specied denition (OHiggins, 2000). Subsequently, Bookstein (1997) thus renamed Type III landmarks as semilandmarks. Semilandmarks can conceptually be thought of as homologous in the sense of being geometrically correspondent across forms. Hence, via the use of explicit geometric protocols for their identication, the locations of semilandmarks are driven by the observed morphology, thus effectively capturing morphological similarities and disparities across specimens.

In the case of the present study, 51 geometrically dened 3D coordinates (i.e. semilandmarks) were recorded using a Crossbeam Co-ordinate Caliper (Lycett et al., 2006). The resulting landmark conguration is shown in Fig. 1. Full details regarding the semilandmarking protocol, orientation of artefacts, and denitions of all landmarks can be found in Lycett et al. (2006). In the case of bifaces, the dorsal surface was dened as that exhibiting the most extensively worked face. In ambiguous cases this was identied as that exhibiting least amount of cortex and/or the face exhibiting the largest number of ake scars (1 cm in length x  0.5 cm in width). The logic underlying this protocol is that the most intensively aked surface will be that more extensively modied by hominin agency. 2.2.2. Shape analysis For each analysis undertaken, landmark congurations were subjected to generalized Procrustes analysis (GPA) using the morphometrics software Morphologika 2.3.1. (OHiggins and Jones, 2006). GPA proceeds by removing variation between landmark congurations due to isometric scale by reducing all congurations to unit centroid size, and then implements least-squares criteria to minimize residual differences between congurations due to translation and rotation (Gower, 1975; Chapman, 1990). Any remaining variation between homologous landmark positions (Procrustes residuals) can be interpreted as shape differences between congurations. Thereafter, the Procrustes residuals are projected into a linear shape space tangent to the nonEuclidean shape space and subjected to principal components analysis (PCA). PCA allows the major shape variation between individual objects (in this case lithic nuclei) to be examined in a hierarchical fashion, whereby the rst PC describes the major axis of shape variation (size having already been controlled for), the second PC describes the second major axis of variation, and so on. PCA was therefore employed here to examine the shape afnities of the Victoria West cores relative to the broad sample

S.J. Lycett et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science 37 (2010) 11101117

1113

these cores will occupy the same shape space as the Levallois (Mode 3) cores. The second analysis compares Victoria West and Bakers Hole cores directly. This second PCA analysis thus aims to examine the relationship between Victoria West cores, Mode 2 handaxes and Mode 3 Levallois cores, including those from Bakers Hole. The prediction in this analysis is that if Victoria West is simply a large isometric variant of Levallois in a manner analogous to that of Bakers Hole then the Victoria West cores should occupy the same shape space as Bakers Hole, and both should occupy the same shape space as the smaller Levallois cores. 3. Results 3.1. Comparison of centroid sizes in Victoria West and Bakers Hole cores Table 2 shows the average centroid size for each taxonomic unit analysed, including the Victoria West assemblage. Co-efcient of variation (CV) statistics are also provided to illustrate that in general, the Mode 1 cores showed greater variability in size than Mode 2 handaxes and Mode 3 cores (Table 2). In accordance with predictions made, the Bakers Hole and the Victoria West specimens were on average larger than all other Mode 3 assemblages assessed. MannWhitney U tests also showed that there is no statistically signicant difference in size between the Victoria West (288.57) and the Bakers Hole (289.47) cores (p 0.852). Indeed, the Victoria West were found to be signicantly larger than all other Mode 3 assemblages compared, except for those from Bakers
Table 2 Centroid size variation among assemblages. Fig. 1. Conguration of 51 landmarks used in the 3D geometric morphometric analyses. Taxonomic Unit Mode 1 Barneld Olduvai B1 Zoukoudian L1 Olduvai B2 Barnham Zoukoudian L15 Lion Point Soan Average centroid size 253.56 211.37 205.62 201.46 197.12 196.34 174.67 170.61 CV 23.45 21.24 30.38 20.91 29.17 42.36 17.72 23.90 26.14 Lewa Olduvai B2 Kariandusi Morgah Kharga ATPKM Elveden Bezez St. Acheul Tabun 305.62 294.08 287.35 227.99 226.51 220.65 212.89 202.74 193.50 166.14 13.85 19.46 10.51 19.98 17.60 19.35 17.42 20.31 18.51 12.60 16.96 Bakers Hole Muguruk Fitz James El Arabah Soan Kamagambo Bezez Kharga El Wad 289.47 229.38 212.54 162.90 161.06 144.48 141.94 131.53 123.00 20.36 23.23 24.56 21.55 16.85 21.54 18.37 9.39 25.15 20.11 Victoria West 288.57 15.12

of core assemblages from the Lower and Middle Paleolithic described in Table 1. 2.3. Analyses conducted 2.3.1. Comparison of centroid sizes in Victoria West and Bakers Hole cores Differences in size between the different assemblages were examined via the statistical comparison of centroid sizes. To reiterate, centroid size is dened as the square root of the summed squared Euclidean distances from each landmark to the conguration centroid (Niewoehner, 2005). Centroid sizes for each individual artefact were calculated as part of the morphometric analysis in Morphologika. These data were subsequently exported to SPSS v.16 for statistical comparison. As the centroid size data were not normally distributed (KolmogorovSmirnov test, p 0.20), a non-parametric test of mean size differences was employed (MannWhitney U test). Given the qualitative assessment that the Victoria West might be considered a large Levallois assemblage similar to the Bakers Hole assemblage, we predict that if this hypothesis is correct, the centroid sizes of Victoria West and Bakers Hole cores will be larger on average than other Levallois cores, but not statistically different from each other. 2.3.2. Comparison of core shapes Using PCA, we examine the shape afnities of the Victoria West in relation to a large sample of Paleolithic nuclei. First, we examined the shape of Victoria West cores in relation to nuclei from Mode 1, Mode 2 and Mode 3. The prediction in this analysis is that if the Victoria West is accurately characterised as a large Levallois form,

Average CV Mode 2

Average CV Mode 3

Average CV

1114

S.J. Lycett et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science 37 (2010) 11101117

Table 3 Comparison of centroid sizes between Victoria West and all Mode 3 assemblages. Taxonomic unit comparison Bakers Hole Muguruk Fitz James El Arabah Soan Kamagambo Bezez Kharga El Wad Mann-Whitney U 402 (p 0.852) 82 (p 0.001) 59 (p < 0.0001) 11 (p < 0.0001) 4 (p < 0.0001) 3 (p < 0.0001) 5 (p <0.0001) 0 (p < 0.0001) 4 (p < 0.0001)

Hole (Table 3). Hence, this comparison highlights not just the large size of the Victoria West, but the highly distinctive nature of Bakers Hole amongst European Levallois assemblages (Roe, 1981, p. 80; Robinson, 1986; Wenban-Smith, 1995). 3.2. Comparison of core shapes Fig. 2 plots the rst two principal components (PCs) from the shape analysis of all 30 assemblages including the Victoria West. PC1 (29.2% of variance) separates the Mode 1 cores from the Mode 2, Mode 3 and Victoria West cores. The dorsal- and lateral-view wireframe diagrams illustrate the major shape changes associated with PC1. Mode 1 cores (negative PC1) are associated with an irregular outline in dorsal view and a highly domed morphology when viewed from the lateral aspect. Conversely, positive values of PC1 are associated with a highly symmetrical teardrop plan form shape and a much attened shape in lateral aspect. This combination of shape variables is predominantly associated with Victoria West cores, which occupy the shape space at the extreme positive end of PC1. PC2 (18.1% variance) separates the Mode 2 and Mode 3 cores. Mode 2 handaxes (negative PC2) are associated with a highly symmetrical teardrop shape in plan form and a relatively domed surface morphology. In contrast, the Mode 3 cores are characterised by a symmetrical round outline shape and a much attened surface

morphology, relative to Mode 2. Victoria West cores share shape space with both Mode 2 and Mode 3 cores, but do not overlap in shape variation with Mode 1 core forms. However, the results of this PCA analysis also indicate that Victoria West cores are somewhat distinct in shape from both Mode 2 and Mode 3 cores, with some cores occupying a unique position in shape space, not shared with other core forms. Hence, in sum, this rst shape analysis does not support the contention that Victoria West cores are simply a large (isometrically scaled) Levallois variant. Fig. 3 plots the rst two principal components (PCs) from the shape analysis of Mode 2, Mode 3 and Victoria West assemblages. PC1 (36.3% variance) separates Mode 3 cores from Mode 2 handaxes. The shape differences associated with this distinction are illustrated by the wireframe diagrams, which show the Mode 3 cores are rounder in outline shape and atter in lateral aspect, compared with the more pointed outline shape and domed surface morphology of the Mode 2 handaxes. PC2 (17.1% variance) captures the shape variance within Mode 2 and Mode 3 assemblages, which ranges from more domed and elongated forms (positive PC2) to atter, less elongated forms (negative PC2). The Bakers Hole cores share the same shape space as other Mode 3 cores (Fig. 3). Indeed, the Bakers Hole cores occupy all of the shape space occupied by Mode 3 cores, as opposed to being limited to a single portion of Mode 3 shape space. Moreover, the Bakers Hole do not overlap with the Mode 2 handaxes to any greater extent than the other (smaller) Mode 3 cores. Therefore, on the basis of this analysis, we can be condent that the large size of the Bakers Hole cores has not caused a differentiation in their shape, relative to other Levallois core assemblages. In contrast, the Victoria West cores share shape space with both the Mode 2 and Mode 3 cores. Indeed, they share more shape afnities with Mode 2 handaxes, as over half of the Victoria West cores (22 out of 36) occupy positive positions on PC1. Hence, this second shape analysis also does not support the contention that Victoria West cores are simply an isometrically-scaled large variant of Levallois core equivalent to those from Bakers Hole. Rather, the Victoria West cores share greater shape afnities with Acheulean handaxes than do any of the Levallois assemblages.

Fig. 2. Plot of the rst two principal components of shape variation among the total sample of cores analysed. The dorsal- and lateral-view wireframe diagrams illustrate the major shape changes associated with PC1 (29.2% of total variation) and PC2 (18.1% of total variation).

S.J. Lycett et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science 37 (2010) 11101117

1115

Fig. 3. PCA plot showing the shape afnities of the Bakers Hole and the Victoria West assemblages relative to a sample of Mode 2 handaxes and Mode 3 Levallois cores. PC1 most strongly differentiates between Mode 2 and Mode 3 cores. Bakers Hole cores overlap predominantly with the Mode 3 Levallois cores on PC1, while the Victoria Cores overlap predominantly with Mode 2 handaxes. The dorsal- and lateral-view wireframe diagrams illustrate the major shape changes associated with PC1 (36.3% of total variation) and PC2 (17.1% of total variation).

4. Discussion 4.1. Is the Victoria West a large Levallois? The Victoria West is a Lower Palaeolithic prepared core industry found in central South Africa (Northern Cape region) (Rolland, 1995; McNabb, 2001; Kuman, 2001; Sharon and Beaumont, 2006; Lycett, 2009a; Sharon, 2009). From its initial discovery, this phenomenon was regarded as a large and somewhat crude protoLevallois technology (Smith, 1919; Van Riet Lowe, 1929, 1945; Breuil, 1930; Goodwin, 1929, 1934). Some even drew direct comparisons between the Victoria West and examples of large Middle Palaeolithic Levallois cores from Bakers Hole (Northeet), United Kingdom (e.g., Smith, 1919, p. 102; Goodwin, 1929, p. 66). Here, the contention that Victoria West cores are accurately characterised as a large Levallois variant was tested directly using a series of 3D geometric morphometric (GM) analyses. Two sets of analyses were conducted. In our rst analysis, we examined size variation in Victoria West cores statistically, against a comparative sample of Middle Palaeolithic Levallois assemblages. This included a series of Levallois cores from the Middle Palaeolithic locality of Bakers Hole (UK). Given the qualitative assertions that the Victoria West might be considered a large Levallois assemblage similar to the Bakers Hole assemblage, we predicted that if this hypothesis is correct, the centroid sizes of Victoria West and Bakers Hole cores will be larger on average than other Levallois cores, but not statistically different from each other. In congruence with these predictions, it was found that the Bakers Hole and the Victoria West were signicantly (p  0.001) larger than all other Levallois assemblages assessed, yet the Bakers Hole and the Victoria West assemblages were statistically indistinguishable on the basis of size. Hence, this rst analysis supported the contention that in terms of size alone the Victoria West are larger than the majority of Middle Palaeolithic Levallois cores, but comparable to those from Bakers Hole.

Our second set of analyses examined shape variation specically. The rst shape analysis compared Victoria West cores against a series of Mode 1 cores, Mode 2 handaxes and Mode 3 Levallois cores. The prediction in this analysis was that if the Victoria West is accurately characterised as a large Levallois form, these cores will occupy the same shape space as the Levallois cores. The second shape analysis compared Victoria West and Bakers Hole cores directly. The prediction in this analysis was that if Victoria West is simply a large (isometrically-scaled) variant of Levallois, in a manner analogous to that of Bakers Hole, then the Victoria West cores should occupy the same shape space as Bakers Hole, and both should occupy the same shape space as the smaller Levallois cores. The results of these two shape analyses did not support the contention that Victoria West cores are accurately characterised as a large Levallois variant. The Victoria West cores were found to share shape space with both Mode 2 and Mode 3 cores. However, the results of this analysis also indicated that Victoria West cores are somewhat distinct in shape from both Mode 2 and Mode 3 cores, with some cores occupying a unique position in shape space, not shared with other core forms. Moreover, in our second shape analysis, the Bakers Hole cores were found to share the same shape space as other Mode 3 (Levallois) suggesting that they can accurately be characterised as a large (isometrically scaled) variant of Levallois technology. However, the Bakers Hole were found not to overlap with the Mode 2 handaxes to any greater extent than the other (statistically smaller) Mode 3 cores. Conversely, the Victoria West cores were found to share markedly more shape space with Mode 2 (handaxe) assemblages compared with those from Bakers Hole, and indeed, the other Levallois cores. Hence, this second shape analysis also did not support the hypothesis that Victoria West cores are simply an isometrically-scaled large variant of Levallois core, equivalent to those from Bakers Hole. In sum, our 3D geometric morphometric analyses demonstrated that although the Victoria West are broadly comparable in terms of

1116

S.J. Lycett et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science 37 (2010) 11101117

size to a comparative sample of large Levallois cores (i.e. those from Bakers Hole), on average, their upper surface morphology is markedly different in terms of shape. Indeed, in contrast to the Levallois cores used in the comparative analyses, it appears that the Victoria West share, on average, a greater shape afnity with Mode 2 Acheulean handaxes. Hence, these analyses suggest that conceptualizing the Victoria West as a large Levallois variant, is not an accurate characterization. Indeed, our analyses quantitatively conrm Sharons (2009, p. 349) recent statement that [t]o describe the Victoria West . as nothing more than Levallois cores would result in the loss of many signicant details. Of course, it remains possible that other aspects of Victoria West and Levallois core morphology not measured here (e.g. the underside of the cores) share a much greater morphometric afnity; however, such a nding would not contradict our main conclusion that the dorsal surface of Levallois cores and Victoria West cores exhibit quantiable differences. 4.2. Rethinking the Victoria West The nding that Victoria West cores have a distinctive aspect to their shape has important implications for debates surrounding this prepared core industry, especially when considered alongside other recent analyses. Qualitatively, there are many similarities between Victoria West cores and Middle Palaeolithic Levallois cores. Indeed, as noted by some authors (e.g., Kuman, 2001; McNabb, 2001, Sharon, 2009) these cores are broadly congruent with Boedas (1995) volumetric denition of Levallois cores, which states that the volume of the core is comprised of two distinct asymmetrical faces, one of which serves as the source of predetermined akes, and another that provides a series of striking platforms for the removal of such akes. Recognition of such similarities by early commentators provided a source for suggestions that the Victoria West constituted an ancestral proto-type for Middle Palaeolithic prepared cores, or proto-Levallois technology (Breuil, 1930; Goodwin, 1934; Van Riet Lowe, 1945; Bordes, 1968, p. 69). Such a role for Victoria West core industries was perhaps most elaborately detailed by Van Riet Lowe (1945, pp. 5758) who, in the style of the culture-historical approach of the day, outlined a unilinear evolutionary scheme going from proto-Levallois cores, through to African Levallois cores, right up to comparable European forms. Despite such frequent reference to the idea that Victoria West cores represented a proto-Levallois industry, an early word of caution came from Louis Leakey (1936, p. 85) who stated that although there was denitely a resemblance to the Levallois technique . The question is whether this was a case of parallel evolution or whether the techniques are more closely related. Interestingly, in more recent years, two distinct origins for Middle Palaeolithic Levallois core techniques have been suggested. One of these lies in the so-called giant-core traditions of large ake manufacture, the ake products of which formed blanks for Acheulean bifaces such as cleavers and handaxes (Gowlett, 1996; Madsen and Goren-Inbar, 2004). A range of different Acheulean giant-core techniques have been identied of which the Victoria West represents a localised southern African example (see Sharon, 2007, 2009 for reviews). Sharon (2009) has recently suggested that several of these large core techniques may represent convergent solutions to the technological problem of producing large ake blanks. The alternative putative origin for Middle Palaeolithic Levallois core techniques lies in Acheulean handaxes, whereby it is suggested that Levallois core production has close technological afnities with techniques involved in the process of Acheulean biface production and renement (e.g.,

Leroi-Gourhan, 1966; Copeland, 1995; Rolland, 1995; Tuffreau, 1995; Tuffreau and Antoine, 1995; Schick, 1998; DeBono and Goren-Inbar, 2001). Recently, Lycett (2009a) conducted cladistic (parsimony) analyses designed to assess Louis Leakeys (1936) question of whether morphological similarities evident in Victoria West cores and Levallois cores are the result of ancestordescendant relationships (i.e. that such similarities are phylogenetically homologous) or whether they could, more parsimoniously, be interpreted as a result of convergent evolution within the Acheulean. Lycett (2009a) tested this assertion using a series of Mode 3 Levallois cores and Mode 2 Acheulean handaxe assemblages, as well as a series of Victoria West cores. Results of the cladistic analyses demonstrated that, most parsimoniously, similarities between Victoria West cores and Levallois cores are not due to direct ancestor-descendant relationships, but are the product of convergent technological evolution. The analyses further found some support for the hypothesis that the origins of Levallois ake production lay in the bifacial knapping routines of handaxe production. Hence, (contra Kuman, 2009) Lycetts (2009a) phylogenetic analyses do not contradict an Acheulean origin for Middle Palaeolithic Levallois core traditions. Far from it. Rather, what these analyses clarify is the nature of the connectivity between the Lower and Middle Palaeolithic. Hughs and Chapman (2001, p. 29) have stated that when approaching questions concerning ancestry in biological settings: Judicious combinations of morphometric and phylogenetic approaches permit exploration of the context of patterns of morphological variation. We contend that similar insights can be gained in the case of the Victoria West when consideration of Lycetts (2009a) phylogenetic analyses are combined with the morphometric analyses reported in the present study. That is, our 3D geometric morphometric analyses provide further evidence that Victoria West cores are distinctive from Middle Palaeolithic Levallois cores, even Levallois cores that are statistically comparable in terms of size. Interestingly, Sharons (2009, p. 348) recent examination of a series of large boulder core assemblages (including examples from the Victoria West) led him to conclude that akes removed from such cores are derived from debitage surfaces very different from those for the relatively small Levallois points or blades. Our morphometric analyses concur with these conclusions. Lycetts (2009a) cladistic analyses meanwhile, suggest that such similarities which Victoria West cores do share with Levallois cores are, most parsimoniously, the product of convergent evolution. It thus appears that although the Victoria West is part of a series of Acheulean large boulder-core technological traditions some of which may themselves be convergent innovations (Sharon, 2009) it is neither simply a large Levallois variant nor a proto-Levallois tradition. The manufacturers of Acheulean handaxes, Levallois cores and Victoria West cores all demonstrate a clear capability to organise operations as strategically controlled series of events (i.e. complex operational chains). However, different needs could lead to these being combined in different ways. The Victoria West is a exible way of making large akes, in which the outcome has the potential to be a handaxe, cleaver, or large scraper, as required. In contrast, later Levallois is directed toward an alternative set of end products (Rolland, 1995). We thus suggest that the Victoria West should be seen as a derived variant of the deeply-rooted large boulder core traditions of the Acheulean itself (Gowlett, 1996), rather than the origin of Middle Palaeolithic Levallois core traditions. As a result of these combined considerations, we also propose that Bordes (1961, p. 16) term of para-Levallois is more appropriate when referring to Victoria West cores, rather than the term proto-Levallois.

S.J. Lycett et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science 37 (2010) 11101117

1117

Acknowledgements For helpful comments we thank Metin Eren, Mike OBrien and two further anonymous reviewers. We gratefully acknowledge nancial support from the British Academy Centenary Research Project, Lucy to Language. We are also grateful to staff at the Cambridge University Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, and the British Museum for their hospitality and assistance.

References
Boeda, E., 1995. Levallois: a volumetric construction, methods, a technique. In: Dibble, H.L., Bar-Yosef, O. (Eds.), The Denition and Interpretation of Levallois Technology. Prehistory Press, Madison, Wisconsin, pp. 4168. Bookstein, F.L., 1991. Morphometric Tools for Landmark Data: Geometry and Biology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Bookstein, F.L., 1997. Landmark methods for forms without landmarks: morphometrics of group differences in outline shape. Medical Image Analysis 1, 225243. Bordes, F., 1961. Typologie de Paleolithique Ancien et Moyen. Delmas, de lUniversite de Bordeaux 1, Bordeaux. Bordes, F., 1968. The Old Stone Age. Weideneld and Nicolson, London. ` Breuil, H., 1930. Premieres impressions de voyage sur la prehistoire Sud-Africaine. LAnthopologie 40, 209223. Buchanan, B., 2006. An analysis of Folsom projectile point resharpening using quantitative comparisons of form and allometry. Journal of Archaeological Science 33, 185199. Chapman, R.E., 1990. Conventional Procrustes approaches. In: Rohlf, F.J., Bookstein, F.L. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Michigan Morphometrics Workshop Special Publication No. 2. University of Michigan Museum of Zoology, Ann Arbor, pp. 251267. Clark, G., 1969. In: World Prehistory: A New Outline, second ed. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Clark, J.D., 1959. The Prehistory of Southern Africa. Penguin, London. Clark, J.D., 2001. Variability in primary and secondary technologies of the Later Acheulian in Africa. In. In: Milliken, S., Cook, J. (Eds.), A Very Remote Period Indeed: Papers on the Palaeolithic Presented to Derek Roe. Oxbow Books, Oxford, pp. 118. Copeland, L., 1995. Are Levallois akes in the Levantine Acheulian the result of biface preparation? In: Dibble, H.L., Bar-Yosef, O. (Eds.), The Denition and Interpretation of Levallois Technology. Prehistory Press, Madison, Wisconsin, pp. 171183. Crompton, R.H., Gowlett, J.A.J., 1993. Allometry and multidimensional form in Acheulean bifaces from Kilombe, Kenya. Journal of Human Evolution 25, 175199. DeBono, H., Goren-Inbar, N., 2001. Note of a link between Acheulian handaxes and the Levallois method. Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 31, 923. Dryden, I.L., Mardia, K.V., 1998. Statistical Shape Analysis. Wiley, New York. Goodwin, A.J.H., 1926. South African stone implement industries. South African Journal of Science 23, 784788. Goodwin, A.J.H., 1929. The Victoria West industry. In: Goodwin, A.J.H., Lowe, V.R. (Eds.), The Stone Age Cultures of South Africa. Annals of the South African Museum, pp. 5369. Goodwin, A.J.H., 1934. Some developments of technique during the earlier Stone Age. Transactions of the Royal Society of South Africa 21, 109123. Gower, J.C., 1975. Generalised Procrustes analysis. Psychometrika 40, 3350. Gowlett, J.A.J., 1996. Mental abilities of early Homo: elements of constraint and choice in rule systems. In: Mellars, P., Gibson, K. (Eds.), Modelling the Early Human Mind. McDonald Institute, Cambridge, pp. 191215. Gowlett, J.A.J., Crompton, R.H., 1994. Kariandusi: Acheulean morphology and the question of allometry. The African Archaeological Review 12, 342. Hughs, N.C., Chapman, R.E., 2001. Morphometry and phylogeny in the resolution of paleobiological problems unlocking the evolutionary signicance of an assemblage of silurian trilobites. In: Adrain, J.M., Edgecombe, G.D., Lieberman, B.S. (Eds.), Fossils, Phylogeny and Form: An Analytical Approach. Kluwer/Plenum, New York, pp. 2954. Jansen, F.J., 1926. A new type of stone implement from Victoria West. South African Journal of Science 23, 818825. Kuman, K., 2001. An Acheulean factory site with prepared core technology near Taung, South Africa. South African Archaeological Bulletin 56, 822. Kuman, K., 2009. Comment on Acheulian giant-core technology. Current Anthropology 50, 359. Leakey, L.S.B., 1936. Stone Age Africa: An Outline of Prehistory in Africa. Humphrey Milford, London. Leroi-Gourhan, A., 1966. La Prehistoire. Universitaires de France, Paris.

Lycett, S.J., 2007. Why is there a lack of Mode 3 Levallois technologies in East Asia? A phylogenetic test of the MoviusSchick hypothesis. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 26, 541575. Lycett, S.J., 2009a. Are Victoria West cores proto-Levallois? A phylogenetic assessment. Journal of Human Evolution 56, 175191. Lycett, S.J., 2009b. Quantifying transitions: morphometric approaches to Palaeolithic variability and technological change. In: Camps, M., Chauhan, P.R. (Eds.), Sourcebook of Palaeolithic Transitions: Methods, Theories, and Interpretations. Springer, New York, pp. 7992. Lycett, S.J., von Cramon-Taubadel, N., Foley, R.A., 2006. A crossbeam co-ordinate caliper for the morphometric analysis of lithic nuclei: a description, test and empirical examples of application. Journal of Archaeological Science 33, 847861. Lycett, S.J., Gowlett, J.A.J., 2008. On questions surrounding the Acheulean tradition. World Archaeology 40, 295315. Lockwood, C.A., Lynch, J.M., Kimbel, W.H., 2002. Quantifying temporal bone morphology of great apes and humans: an approach using geometric morphometrics. Journal of Anatomy 201, 447464. Madsen, B., Goren-Inbar, N., 2004. Acheulian giant core technology and beyond: an archaeological and experimental case study. Eurasian Prehistory 2, 352. McNabb, J., 2001. The shape of things to come. A speculative essay on the role of the Victoria West phenomenon at Canteen Koppie, during the South African Earlier Stone Age. In: Milliken, S., Cook, J. (Eds.), A Very Remote Period Indeed: Papers on the Palaeolithic Presented to Derek Roe. Oxbow Books, Oxford, pp. 3746. Niewoehner, W.A., 2005. A geometric morphometric analysis of late Pleistocene human metacarpel 1 base shape. In: Slice, D.E. (Ed.), Modern Morphometrics in Physical Anthropology. Kluwer, New York, pp. 285298. OHiggins, P., 2000. The study of morphological variation in the hominid fossil record: biology, landmarks and geometry. Journal of Anatomy 197, 103120. OHiggins, P., Jones, N., 2006. Tools for Statistical Shape Analysis. Hull York Medical School. Robinson, P., 1986. An introduction to the Levallois Industry at Bakers Hole (Kent), with a description of two ake cleavers. In: Collcutt, S.N. (Ed.), The Palaeolithic of Britain and Its Nearest Neighbours: Recent Trends. Department of Archaeology & Prehistory, University of Shefeld, Shefeld, pp. 2022. Roe, D.A., 1981. The Lower and Middle Palaeolithic Periods in Britain. Routledge & Kegan Paul, London. Rolland, N., 1995. Levallois technique emergence: single or multiple? A review of the Euro-African record. In: Dibble, H.L., Bar-Yosef, O. (Eds.), The Denition and Interpretation of Levallois Technology. Prehistory Press, Madison, Wisconsin, pp. 333359. Schick, K., 1998. A comparative perspective on Paleolithic cultural patterns. In: Akazawa, T., Aoki, K., Bar-Yosef, O. (Eds.), Neandertals and Modern Humans in Western Asia. Plenum Press, New York, pp. 449460. Sharon, G., 2007. Acheulian large ake industries: technology, chronology, and signicance. British Archaeological Reports. In: International Series 1701. Archaeopress, Oxford. Sharon, G., 2009. Acheulian giant-core technology. Current Anthropology 50, 335367. Sharon, G., Beaumont, P., 2006. Victoria West a highly standardized prepared core technology. In: Goren-Inbar, N., Sharon, G. (Eds.), Acheulian Tool-making from Quarry to Discard. Equinox, London, pp. 181199. Axe Age. Shott, M.J., Weedman, J.J., 2007. Measuring reduction in stone tools: an ethnoarchaeological study of Gamo hidescrapers from Ethiopia. Journal of Archaeological Science 34, 10161035. Slice, D.E., 2005. Modern morphometrics. In: Slice, D.E. (Ed.), Modern Morphometrics in Physical Anthropology. Kluwer, New York, pp. 145. Smith, R.A., 1911. A Palaeolithic industry at Northeet, Kent. Archaeologica 62, 512532. Smith, R.A., 1919. Recent nds of the stone age in Africa. Man 19, 100106. Tuffreau, A., 1995. The variability of Levallois technology in northern France and neighboring areas. In: In, Dibble H.L., Bar-Yosef, O. (Eds.), The Denition and Interpretation of Levallois Technology. Prehistory Press, Madison, Wisconsin, pp. 413427. Tuffreau, A., Antoine, P., 1995. The earliest occupation of Europe: continental northwestern Europe. In: Roebroeks, W., van Kolfschoten, T. (Eds.), The Earliest Occupation of Europe. University of Leiden and European Science Foundation, Leiden, pp. 147163. Van Peer, P., 1992. The Levallois Reduction Strategy. Prehistory Press, Madison, Wisconsin. Van Riet Lowe, C., 1929. Fresh light on the Prehistoric archaeology of South Africa. Bantu Studies 3, 385393. Van Riet Lowe, C., 1945. The evolution of the Levallois technique in South Africa. Man 45, 4959. von Cramon-Taubadel, N., 2009. Congruence of individual cranial bone morphology and neutral molecular afnity patterns in modern humans. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 140, 205215. Wenban-Smith, F.F., 1995. The Ebbseet Valley, Northeet (Bakers Hole) (TQ 615735). In: Bridgland, D.R., Allen, P., Haggart, B.A. (Eds.), The Quaternary of the Lower Reaches of the Thames. Quaternary Research Association, Durham, pp. 147164.