Abstract

A methodology for identifying prehistoric local learning communities is proposed. We wish to test possible relationships among communities based on continuity and variability in lithic reduction sequence technological traits with different visibility and malleability. Quantitative features reflecting different technological traits are measured on 3-D models of flint cores in different scales: the ratio between core thickness and reduction surface width, the angle between subsequent bands of production blank scars to the relative striking platform, and the average curvature of the ridge between each blank scar striking platform pair. Continuity and variability in these features are used to establish the relations among lithic assemblages on different hierarchical levels: local learning communities and geographically widespread cultural lineages. The Late Upper Palaeolithic and the Epipalaeolithic of the Southern Levant (ca. 27,000–15,000 cal BP) provide an opportunity to test our method. A progressive increase in territoriality is hypothesized throughout this timespan, yet the precise timing and modes of this phenomenon need to be defined. The present study analyzes six core assemblages attributed to different cultural entities, representing chronologically separated occupations of the Ein Gev area and the coastal Sharon Plain. Continuity in technological traits between the Atlitian (ca. 27,000–26,000 cal BP) and Nizzanan (ca. 20,000–18,500 cal BP) occupations of the Ein Gev area suggests that the same learning community repeatedly settled there during a long time span. Two geographically separate learning communities were defined in the study areas within the Kebaran cultural entity (ca. 24,000–18,000 cal BP); the group occupying the Ein Gev area possibly continued to settle there during the Geometric Kebaran (ca. 18,000–15,000 cal BP). Continuity in more conservative traits of the reduction sequence allows to tie these two communities to the same cultural lineage. The ability to track prehistoric learning communities based on quantitative features helps increase the objectivity and the resolution in the reconstruction of past cultural dynamics.

Highlights

  • The present paper focuses on population dynamics during the later stages of the Upper Palaeolithic (LUP; ca. 30,000–24,000 cal BP) and the pre-Natufian Epipalaeolithic (EP; ca. 24,000–15,000 cal BP) in the Southern Levant

  • The present study extends this analysis by adding the geographical comparison with coeval sites from a different area (Sharon Plain) and by including technological traits that might have been transmitted through interaction on different scales inside and outside specific learning communities

  • Due to the large size of the assemblages, cores from Ein Gev I (EG I) and Nahal Hadera V (NH V) were further sampled based on their context within the sites

Read more

Summary

Introduction

The present paper focuses on population dynamics during the later stages of the Upper Palaeolithic (LUP; ca. 30,000–24,000 cal BP) and the pre-Natufian Epipalaeolithic (EP; ca. 24,000–15,000 cal BP) in the Southern Levant. Lacking deeply stratified sequences and a robust chronological framework, our knowledge of the LUP remains incomplete, with few clearly defined archaeological entities (Belfer-Cohen & Goring-Morris 2003, 2014, 2017; Gilead 1991). The EP provides a relatively high resolution archaeological record for defining cultural changes, especially due to the appearance of microliths: standardized, minute lithic implements (Belfer-Cohen & Goring-Morris 2002). The greater investment in stylistic behavior (Sackett 1982, 1986; Wobst 1977) suggested by increasingly pronounced technological and typological differences, decorated items, and symbolism, combined with the intensification in the exploitation of local resources highlights a positive trend in population density, possibly corresponding to increased awareness of group identity and territoriality (Belfer-Cohen & Goring-Morris 2003; Maher, Richter & Stock 2012; Rosenberg 1990, 1998). Based on traditional analysis of archaeological assemblages it is difficult to detect the scale and nature of the relationship between landscape and specific human groups

Objectives
Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call