Is the Soanian techno-complex a Mode 1 or Mode 3 phenomenon? A morphometric assessment
Citation: Stephen J. Lycett (2007) Is the Soanian techno-complex a Mode 1 or Mode 3 phenomenon? A morphometric assessment. Journal of Archaeological Science, Volume 34, 1434-1440 (RSS)
DOI (original publisher): 10.1016/j.jas.2006.11.001
Semantic Scholar (metadata): 10.1016/j.jas.2006.11.001
Sci-Hub (fulltext): 10.1016/j.jas.2006.11.001
Internet Archive Scholar (search for fulltext): Is the Soanian techno-complex a Mode 1 or Mode 3 phenomenon? A morphometric assessment
Download: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305440306002378
Tagged: Anthropology
(RSS)
Summary
Context
This paper looks at the Soanian techno-complex and discusses an experiment that aims to determine if Soanian technology is part of Mode 1 or Mode 3 technology. In the past, Soanian technology was associated with Mode 3 Levallois-style core reduction, but recently this association with Mode 3 tools has been ignored and Soanian technology has been associated with Mode 1 technology. The goal of this experiment is to confirm the presence of Mode 3 Levallois-style core reduction within Soanian technology. This is important so that we can accurately create a chronology of stone tools.
Methods and Materials
This experiment was performed using data collected from Lower-Middle Paleolithic Old World nuclei representing 27 taxonomic units. These taxonomic units consisted of Mode 1 nuclei, Mode 2 hand axes, and Mode 3 Levallois core. The morphometric data of the total 564 nuclei that were collected was measured using a Crossbeam Co-ordinate Caliper, which provided 60 variables. Within the 564 nuclei, there were 11 nuclei that were termed ‘Soan?’ for the purpose of analysis.
The Discriminate Function Analysis (DFA) was used to sort the four groups (Mode 1, Mode 2, Mode 3 (Levallois), and Soan?). The DFA works by providing weightings that effectively categorizes the groups that have already been previously defined. With DFA it is possible to make two predictions with the results. The first prediction is that the ‘Soan?’ group centroid should be closer to the Mode 3 group centroid, and the second is that the ‘Soan?’ assemblage should overlap with variation. If both of these predictions are fulfilled, then the hypothesis can be confirmed. If one or neither are fulfilled, a second DFA is conducted where the taxonomic units are treated as 27 different groups. The results from the second DFA would confirm or reject the hypothesis.
Results
The results of the first DFA fulfilled both the predictions. The ‘Soan?’ group’s centroid was closer with the Mode 3 group’s centroid than any other group. Thus showing that the Soanian techno-complex contains a Mode 3 Levallois core component. Even though the first DFA was successful, there was a second DFA performed, and it also confirmed the hypothesis. Although this experiment confirmed the hypothesis, the author notes that further research should be performed in order to clearly mark the chronology of these stone assemblages.
