Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-03T16:06:16.916Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A new approach to interpreting late Pleistocene microlith industries in southwest Asia

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Michael P. Neeley  and
C. Michael Barton
Michael P. Neeley
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, Box 872402, Arizona State University, Tempe AZ 85287-2402, USA
C. Michael Barton
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, Box 872402, Arizona State University, Tempe AZ 85287-2402, USA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Archaeologists have long assumed that morphological variability in microliths primarily reflects cultural differences among the makers. This forms the basis for differentiating major cultural/temporal traditions in the late Epipalaeolithic of southwest Asia. An alternative explanation for morphological variability is proposed which emphasizes the dynamic aspects of lithic technology in hunter-gatherer societies and questions current explanations of culture change.

Type
Papers
Information
Antiquity , Volume 68 , Issue 259 , June 1994 , pp. 275 - 288
Copyright
Copyright © Antiquity Publications Ltd. 1994

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bamforth, D.B. 1986. Technological efficiency and tool curation, American Antiquity 51: 38–50.Google Scholar
Bamforth, D.B. 1991. Technological organization and huntergatherer land use: a California example, American Antiquity 56: 216–34.Google Scholar
Barton, C.M. 1990. Beyond style and function: a view from the Middle Paleolithic, American Anthropologist 92: 57–72.Google Scholar
Barton, C.M. 1991. Retouched tools: fact or fiction? Paradigms for interpreting chipped stone, in Clark (1991): 143–63.Google Scholar
Bar-Yosef, O. 1991. Stone tools and social context in Levantine prehistory, in Clark (1991): 371–95.Google Scholar
Bar-Yosef, O. & Goring-Morris, A.N. 1977. Geometric Kebaran A occurrences, in Bar-Yosef & Phillips (1977): 115–48.Google Scholar
Bar-Yosef, O. & Phillips, J.L. (ed.). 1977. Prehistoric investigation in Gebel Maghara, northern Sinai Jerusalem: Hebrew University, Qedem 7. Monographs of the Institute of Archaeology.Google Scholar
Bar-Yosef, O. & Valla, F.R. 1979. L’énvolution du Natoufien: nouvelles suggestions, Paléorient 5: 145-52.Google Scholar
Bordes, F. 1957. La signification du microburin dans le Paléolithique supérieur, L’Anthropologie 61: 578–82.Google Scholar
Byrd, B.F. 1987. Beidha and the Natufian: variability in Levantine settlement and subsistence. (Ph.D dissertation, University of Arizona, Tucson (AZ).) Ann Arbor (MI): University Microfilms. Google Scholar
Byrd, B.F. 1989. The Natufian encampment at Beidha: Late Pleistocene adaptation in the southern Levant. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press. Jutland Archaeological Society Publication 23: 1.Google Scholar
Byrd, B.F. & Rollefson, G.O. 1984. Natufian occupation in the Wadi el Hasa, Southern Jordan, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 28: 143–50.Google Scholar
Clark, G.A. 1987. From the Mousterian to the metal ages: long-term change in the human diet of Cantabrian Spain, in Soffer, O. (ed.), The Pleistocene Old World: regional perspectives: 293–316. New York (NY): Plenum.Google Scholar
Clark, G.A. 1991. (Ed.). Perspectives on the past: theoretical biases in Mediterranean hunter-gatherer research. Philadelphia (PA): University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Clark, G.A. & Lindly, J.M. 1991. On paradigmatic biases and Palaeolithic research traditions, Current Anthropology 32: 577–87.Google Scholar
Clarke, D.L. 1976. Mesolithic Europe: the economic basis, in Sieveking, G.de G. et al. (ed.), Problems in economic and social archaeology: 449–81. London: Duckworth.Google Scholar
Coinman, N.R. 1990. Rethinking the Levantine Upper Paleolithic. (Ph.D dissertation, Arizona State University, Tempe (AZ).) Ann Arbor (MI): University Microfilms.Google Scholar
Dibble, H.L. 1987. The interpretation of Middle Paleolithic scraper morphology, American Antiquity 52: 109–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edwards, P.C. 1987. Late Pleistocene occupation in Wadi al-Hammeh, Jordan Valley. (Ph.D dissertation, University of Sydney.)Google Scholar
Gilead, I. & Marder, O. 1989. Geometric Kebaran sites in Nahal Rut area, western Negev, Israel, Paléorient 15: 123–37.Google Scholar
Goring-Morris, A.N. 1987. At the edge: ‘Terminal Pleistocene hunter-gatherers in the Negev and Sinai. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. International series S361.Google Scholar
Goring-Morris, A.N. & Avner, U. 1985. An Epipaleolithic occurrence in Eastern Sinai, Haj I, and some observations on the use of the microburin technique, Mitekufat Haeven 19: 58–65.Google Scholar
Henry, D.O. 1973. The Natufian of Palestine: its material culture and ecology. (Ph.D dissertation, Southern Methodist University, Dallas (TX).) Ann Arbor (MI): University Microfilms.Google Scholar
Henry, D.O. 1974. The utilization of the microburin technique in the Levant, Paléorient 2: 389–98.Google Scholar
Henry, D.O. 1989. From foraging to agriculture: the Levant at the end of the Ice Age. Philadelphia (PA): University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Hours, F. 1974. Remarques sur l’utilisation de liste-types pour l’étude du Paléolithique supérieur et de l’Epipaléolithique du Levant, Paléorient 2: 3–18.Google Scholar
Jelinek, A.J. 1976. Form, function, and style in lithic analysis, in Cleland, C.E. (ed.), Cultural change and continuity: 19–35. New York (NY): Academic Press.Google Scholar
Kuhn, S.L. 1991. ‘Unpacking’ reduction: lithic raw material economy in the Mousterian of west-central Italy, Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 10: 76–106.Google Scholar
Marks, A.E & Larson, P.A. JR 1977. Test excavations at the Natufian site of Rosh Horesha, in Marks, A.E. (ed.), Prehistory and paleoenvironments in the Central Negev, Israel 2: 91–232. Dallas (TX): SMU Press.Google Scholar
McCorriston, J. & Hole, F. 1991. The ecology of seasonal stress and the origins of agriculture in the Near East, American Anthropologist 93: 46–69.Google Scholar
Moore, A.M.T. & Hillman, G.C. 1992. The Pleistocene to Holocene transition and human economy in southwest Asia: the impact of the Younger Dryas, American Antiquity 57: 482–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olszewski, D.I. 1986a. A reassessment of average lunate length as a chr onological marker, Paléorient 12: 39–44.Google Scholar
Olszewski, D.I. 1986b. The North Syrian Late Epipaleolithic. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. International series S309.Google Scholar
Olszewski, D.I. 1993a. Subsistence ecology in the Mediterranean forest: implications for the origin of cultivation in the Epipaleolithic southern Levant, American Anthropologist 95: 420–35. Google Scholar
Olszewski, D.I. 1993b. Zarzian microliths from Warwasi rocksheiter, Iran: scalene triangles as arrow components, in Larsen-Peterkin, G. et al. (ed.), Hunting and animal exploitation in the later Paleolithic and Mesolithic of Eurasia: 199–205. Washington (DC): American Anthropological Association. Archaeological Papers 4.Google Scholar
Phillips, J.L. & Mintz, E. 1977. The Mushabian, in BarYosef & Phillips (ed.): 149–83.Google Scholar
Sackett, J.R. 1982. Approaches to style in lithic archaeology, Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 1: 59–112.Google Scholar
Tixier, J. 1974. Glossary for the description of stone tools with special reference to the Epipaleolithic of the Maghreb, Newsletter of Lithic Technology: Special Publication 1.Google Scholar
Valla, F.R. 1984. Les industries de sílex de Mallaha (Eynan). Paris: Association Paléorient. Mémoires et Travaux du Centre de Recherche Français de Jerusalem 3.Google Scholar
Wiessner, P. 1983. Style and social information in Kalahari San projectile points, American Antiquity 48: 253–76.Google Scholar