Ian Wallace and John Shea’s article, “Mobility Patterns and core technologies in the Middle Paleolithic of the Levant,” discusses the correlation between core types and land use management. They state that expedient core patterns in lithic assemblages are indicative of decreased mobility and a shift towards logistical mobility strategies, or what they refer to as radiating mobility (collectors). This is because most expedient cores indicate little core preparation, as well as little retouch and reuse of tools from these cores. Because formal cores tend to be portable bifaces, curated assemblages indicate a more mobile strategy on the land, or circulating mobility strategies (foragers). These tools tend to be used time and time again for a variety of tasks.
Levantine Middle Paleolithic assemblages typically are dominated by this type of core technique, though cores are typically the least common part of a lithic assemblage. Wallace and Shea believe that the final core forms found at sites are an accurate depiction of core reduction techniques utilized by prehistoric people. However, they do acknowledge that cores are by no means static. A core can start out its use-life as an expedient core reduction strategy and later be used as a biface (formal). This could lead to potential errors when only analyzing cores at a given site. Mobility strategies are also not static, as Wallace and Shea point out. If logistical strategies are less costly than residential for a group of people, then the switch to a different mobility strategy would make sense.
The authors also analyze these cores according to both temporal and spatial scales. They analyze the sites according to their location on the map (i.e. – interior, coastal, and ecotone), and try to see if any differences exist according to the site’s location in the Levant. They also include an analysis of different phases within the Middle Paleolithic. They call these early, middle and late Middle Paleolithic, and they seem to correspond with changes in temperatures and climate. What they conclude is that there is a general increase in the emphasis on expedient core strategies. The coastal sites show more expedient cores, while the interior had fewer expedient cores. The ecotone region, or the intermediate region between the interior and coast, had fewer formal cores, but more cores-on-flakes.
But this could reflect Wallace and Shea’s potential errors with their core classifications. They have two categories which do not fit their formal/expedient classes: others and cores-on-flakes. They claim that cores-on-flakes could be either a formal or expedient reduction strategy because it does not reflect either exclusively. However, the amount of cores-on-flakes at each site is rather large compared to the other two core values. If they were incorporated into either expedient or formal, then we might see some major differences in results. They also leave out a good deal of layers and sites in the region, which must be included for a complete view of prehistoric life in the Levant.
Regardless of some of these issues, Wallace and Shea provide a thorough lithic analysis of the Levant and several of its sites. They show that easy calculations can lead to some insightful trends between given assemblages. They also provide a unique analysis of the differences in Levant regions, and the changes it has experienced over time, and at the same time, indicating these changes and different zones played an important role in land-use strategies in prehistory. They also seem to address most of the potential errors in their work, which is always a positive when using only one method to determine lifestyles far into the past. This will always be problematic unless correlated to other forms of evidence to support it.
Wallace, I.J., and Shea, John J., 2006. Mobility patterns and core technologies in the Middle Paleolithic of the Levant. Journal of Archaeological Science 33, 1293–1309.
No comments:
Post a Comment