I think, if you’re going to do it, good form on LW is to put it in a collapsible section.
Here’s an edited version of what Microsoft Copilot says about the amount of planning involved in some lithic technologies:
Acheulean Handaxes (~1.7 – 0.3 Ma)
Characterized by bifacially flaked “handaxes” with broadly symmetrical shapes.
Crafting a handaxe required the knapper to visualize a final form, select an appropriate flint or chert nodule, and execute a sequence of removals to achieve symmetry and thinness.
Used mainly by H. neanderthalensis and H. sapiens.
The Levallois method involves preparing a tortoise-shaped core in several hierarchical stages so that a single, predetermined flake detaches as the final step.
Achieving that predetermined flake shape demands extensive forward planning—mapping core geometry, platform angles, and flake dimensions before any major removal.
Experimental studies show Levallois knapping is more intricate than discoid or basic handaxe manufacturing, requiring deliberate sequences and precision that attest to advanced cognitive organization.
Homo sapiens popularized prismatic blade production: long, standardized flakes struck from carefully prepared cores.
Blade knapping ranks highest in required dexterity, precision, and hierarchical planning, as each blade relies on strict core geometry and a series of carefully controlled blows.
Some late Acheulean sites hint at intermediate “proto-Levallois” strategies around 500 ka, suggesting a gradual cognitive shift rather than a sudden leap. Moreover, experimental archaeology today uses metrics like deliberation time, platform precision, and flake‐to-core ratios to quantify the cognitive demands of each technique—offering a window into the planning capabilities of our ancestors (1).
Stout, D. & Semenov, V. N. “Flake-to-Core Ratio and Efficiency in Levallois and Blade Knapping: Experimental Perspectives.” Journal of Archaeological Science, 33(6): 782–796. (2006)
Nadel, D. & Cochrane, E. “Timing and Planning in Lithic Reduction: A High-Speed Video Analysis of Stone-Tool Making.” Cambridge Archaeological Journal, 17(2): 233–242. (2007)
Rots, V. “Facet Count and Platform Precision in Prehistoric Knapping: A 3D-Scanning Study of Levallois and Blade Cores.” Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 18(4): 345–362. (2011)
Clarkson, C. “Quantifying Sequence Complexity in Lithic Reduction: Blade Versus Point Production.” Antiquity, 83(319): 998–1015. (2009)
Rots, V. & Fischer, A. “Error Rates and Correction Strategies in Prehistoric Knapping: Experimental Insights from Mousterian and Aurignacian Contexts.” Journal of Human Evolution, 73: 65–79. (2014)
I think, if you’re going to do it, good form on LW is to put it in a collapsible section.
Here’s an edited version of what Microsoft Copilot says about the amount of planning involved in some lithic technologies:
Acheulean Handaxes (~1.7 – 0.3 Ma)
Characterized by bifacially flaked “handaxes” with broadly symmetrical shapes.
Crafting a handaxe required the knapper to visualize a final form, select an appropriate flint or chert nodule, and execute a sequence of removals to achieve symmetry and thinness.
Prepared-Core (Levallois) Flake-Making Techniques (~300 – 100 ka)
Used mainly by H. neanderthalensis and H. sapiens.
The Levallois method involves preparing a tortoise-shaped core in several hierarchical stages so that a single, predetermined flake detaches as the final step.
Achieving that predetermined flake shape demands extensive forward planning—mapping core geometry, platform angles, and flake dimensions before any major removal.
Experimental studies show Levallois knapping is more intricate than discoid or basic handaxe manufacturing, requiring deliberate sequences and precision that attest to advanced cognitive organization.
Upper Paleolithic Blade Technologies (~50 – 10 ka)
Homo sapiens popularized prismatic blade production: long, standardized flakes struck from carefully prepared cores.
Blade knapping ranks highest in required dexterity, precision, and hierarchical planning, as each blade relies on strict core geometry and a series of carefully controlled blows.
Some late Acheulean sites hint at intermediate “proto-Levallois” strategies around 500 ka, suggesting a gradual cognitive shift rather than a sudden leap. Moreover, experimental archaeology today uses metrics like deliberation time, platform precision, and flake‐to-core ratios to quantify the cognitive demands of each technique—offering a window into the planning capabilities of our ancestors (1).
Rots, V. & Fischer, A. “Error Rates and Correction Strategies in Prehistoric Knapping: Experimental Insights from Mousterian and Aurignacian Contexts.” Journal of Human Evolution, 73: 65–79. (2014)Learning to think: using experimental flintknapping to interpret prehistoric cognition. https://core.tdar.org/document/395518/learning-to-think-using-experimental-flintknapping-to-interpret-prehistoric-cognition [Text unavailable, but you can find references to her later work on this topic at https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Nada-Khreisheh]
Stout, D. & Semenov, V. N. “Flake-to-Core Ratio and Efficiency in Levallois and Blade Knapping: Experimental Perspectives.” Journal of Archaeological Science, 33(6): 782–796. (2006)
Nadel, D. & Cochrane, E. “Timing and Planning in Lithic Reduction: A High-Speed Video Analysis of Stone-Tool Making.” Cambridge Archaeological Journal, 17(2): 233–242. (2007)
Rots, V. “Facet Count and Platform Precision in Prehistoric Knapping: A 3D-Scanning Study of Levallois and Blade Cores.” Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 18(4): 345–362. (2011)
Clarkson, C. “Quantifying Sequence Complexity in Lithic Reduction: Blade Versus Point Production.” Antiquity, 83(319): 998–1015. (2009)