located on the footslopes of the al-Bara Massif in south central Jordan, not far from Petra. The short monograph reviewed here is a detailed techno-typological study of the roughly 5000 chipped stone artifacts recovered during investigation of the site. The descriptive analysis is exhaustive and undeniably competent. All major indices are presented, as are important technological data like metric distributions of different artifact classes, including blank types. Indeed, the wealth of data is impressive, and are more or less easily incorporated into any greater synthesis of Natufian or Epipaleolithic lithic industries. The book is divided into 10 short chapters. The first five, Introduction, Research situation, Site description, Methodology, and General classification, provide a general background to the site, its assemblage, and the basic frameworks used in the analysis. These background statements are fundamentally sound and straightforward, drawing on standard Levantine Paleolithic practice. They are supplemented by three appendices describing the coding systems and attributes recorded (A), the Tool Type List (B), and a list of raw material types (C). The next four chapters, Technological analysis, Tool blank analysis, Typological analysis, and Comparative analysis, are detailed analytic descriptions of the different elements of the lithic assemblage, followed by a comparison with other selected Natufian collections. The primary conclusions are summarized in the final chapter, Conclusion. Even more briefly summarized they are: 1) that the assemblage constitutes a reasonable sample, in spite of post-depositional disturbance, and by extension, so do other surface assemblages, 2) there was some deliberate selection of raw materials, and some offsite preparation of both cores and debitage, 3) blade production shows more control than does flake production, and there is evidence for some preference for specific attributes in the selection of blades for modification into tools, 4) according to tool frequencies, the site should be dated to the latter part of the Early Natufian, and 5) relatively high tool type diversity, and the low tool:debitage ratio together suggest a longer duration of occupation, although not sedentism. In spite of this, and at the risk of being accused of cursing the light, the study is problematic technically, and in terms of substance. The technical problems begin with what is not presented. There is no map of the site. The text indicates a general scatter on the order of 12,000 sq m, from which 64 sq m were systematically collected in two 2 m x 16 m transects, one N-s and one E-wV, in the center and densest area of the site. This is a huge scatter as far as desert Natufian sites go, yet no estimate is made of the original size of the site, nor even the size of the dense part of the scatter. The problem is particularly acute in light of the claim that movement has not destroyed totally the spatial distribution [p. 20], although no spatial analyses were included due to the erosion of the materials [p. 20]. The 5123 artifacts recovered from the collection area constitute quite a high lithic density, and if this extends over the entire area of the transects, as claimed, the site is one of the richest desert Natufian sites investigated in terms of lithic density (compare to Goring-Morris 1987: 287, table VIII-3). Even in the absence of architecture, a plan of the general scatter with the location of the transects, as well as various topographical f-eatures (runnels, pits, the escarpment) seems a basic part of the documentation of such a site, especially in a monograph. Debitage categories are not presented in a summary chart. Although Table 3 [p. 37] presents the frequencies of Primary Products, there is no breakdown here of flakes, blades, and bladelets. Admittedly, various ratios of different types of blades and flakes are presented in
Read full abstract
Nov 1, 2012
Moustapha Mbaye + 3
Open Access
