We documented nine cores in plan, as well as multiple views of two cores in SI Fig.2 that visibly meet the four criteria set out by11, the parameters of which we used to identify the presence of Nubian Levallois technology in the Shukbah D assemblage. Hallinan and colleagues3 critique our predominant presentation of artefacts in plan (78%). Our approach is consistent with contemporary reporting of Nubian technology from Arabia by Usik and colleagues11, in the Levant by Goder-Goldberger and colleagues12,13, and in South Africa by Hallinan and Shaw14, where 6595% of cores are only illustrated in plan. The broadest range of definitions of Nubian Levallois technology share focus on description of flaking surface scar patterns1, which are best observed in plan.

Hallinan and colleagues3 assert both the distinct form of Nubian Levallois reduction and a consensus in the criteria for its definition, following Usik and colleagues11. This overlooks considerable debate in the literature1. Usik and colleagues11 identify discrete modes of preparation of the flaking surface for Type 1, 1/2, and 2 Nubian Levallois cores, that Crassard and Hilbert15 suggest unnecessarily formalises plasticity, given that cores examined today are static elements of a past dynamic system. Goder-Goldberger and colleagues12 highlight that a definition that maintains the distinctness of Nubian technology is critical to its use as an archaeological missing link12, yet Usik and colleagues11 indicate that as distal flaking surfaces become flatter Nubian cores can be seen as grading into bidirectional cores or recurrent cores, Hallinan & Shaw14 identify cores with Nubian affinity but not enough to confidently identify them as Nubian, and Rose and colleagues16 identify that there is overlap between Nubian Type 2 core preparation and some preferential point-producing Levallois reduction systems in the Levantine Mousterian. Given this broad recognition that Nubian Levallois technology can grade into other Levallois approaches, some appraisal must be made of how and where to divide this spectrum of variability, as well as why.

No comparative basis to identify the categories chosen to define Nubian Levallois technology are set out by Usik and colleagues11, nor do they demonstrate them to be discrete from other Levallois methods. For instance, it is not established that there is a discrete distribution of distal flaking surface angle of Nubian and other Levallois cores that can be simply divided at 120 degrees, and in practice this quantitative threshold is exceeded elsewhere by Hallinan and co-authors13,14 in identification of Nubian cores. Nevertheless, to answer the Hallinan and colleagues3 critique the distal ridge angles on ten cores from Shukbah D stored at UCL have been measured. The angles range from 83 to 120, with a mean of 102.4,meaning that they are consistent with the particular descriptions set out by Usik and colleagues11 and favoured by Hallinan and colleagues3. Likewise, Hallinan and Shaw14 identify the difficulty in applying the shape categories, arguing instead for the need for quantitative analyses, which again should be established through comparative study if argued to be distinct features of Nubian Levallois technology. This remarkable absence of comparative studies prohibits acceptance that Nubian Levallois technology is inherently discrete from other Levallois methods.

Hallinan and colleagues3 contest whether Nubian Levallois end products can be identified, although they are commonly identified in the recent literature. For instance, Rose and colleagues indicate that Nubian Levallois reduction results in the signature Nubian Levallois point16, Goder-Goldberger and colleagues indicate Other recognizable artifacts associated with the Nubian reduction sequence are the specific core shaping blades and the end-products12 and that "the Nubian flaking system is unique and includes identifiable cores, preparation blanks and end products"13, whilst Hallinan and Shaw identify Nubian products from "various reduction strategies including Type 2, 1/2 and, to a lesser extent, Type 1 Nubian methods" from an appraisal of dorsal scar patterns14. Indeed, the need for quantitative study between Nubian and other Levallois points was highlighted as a "major limitation in the study of Nubian technology"14. Our identification of Nubian Levallois products is comparable to that set out by Hallinan and Shaw14 and provides a testable hypotheses for further analyses: that the use of Nubian Levallois reduction schemes has no significant impact upon the key metric attributes we studied in comparison to other Levallois points.

Continue reading here:

Reply to: 'No direct evidence for the presence of Nubian Levallois technology and its association with Neanderthals at Shukbah Cave' | Scientific...