Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-f46jp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-12T07:49:37.636Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Critical Role of Technological Analysis for Prehistoric Anthropological Inference

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2011

Gary O. Rollefson
Gary O. Rollefson*
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, San Diego State University, San Diego, CA 92182
Get access

Abstract

Prehistoric archaeology has profited enormously from the expanding role of technological examination of artifactual materials, particularly in the past couple of decades. Indeed, the rapid growth of materials sciences studies has evidently begun to outpace the capacity of many prejistoric archaeologists to accomodate the results of technological analyses into anthropological models to explain perceived changes in the prehistoric archaeological record. The sheer numbers of published technological reports, which increasingly appear in a growing number of specialized journals and other publications, account for some of the communications lag among prehistorians and smaterials scientists. But long-held and persistent myths and “hearsay” evidence also contribute to a widening gap between relevant data and critical evaluation.

The case study presented below compares scenarios that purport to explain striking contrasts in the northern and southern parts of the Levant during the middle part of the Neolithic period, particularly from ca. 6,500-5,000 b.c. One hypothesis (climatic change) is briefly dismissed; the other hinges principally on the environmental implications of plaster production that characterized the cultures of the region. The “collapse” of the southern Levantine settlements is understandable when the specific requirements of lime plaster manufacture are taken into account, while the conditions for the persistence of long-term site continuity in the northern Levant are clear under the less pressing environmental demands of gypsum plaster production.

Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 185: Symposium G – Materials Issues in Art and Archaeology II , 1990 , 365
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1990

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

1. Mellaart, J., The Neolithic of the Near East (Scribner's, New York, 1975), pp. 67–69.Google Scholar
2. Kenyon, K., Digging up Jericho (Benn, London, 1957), p. 76; J. Perrot, Supp. au Dict. de la Bible 8, 403-405 (1968).Google Scholar
3. Horowitz, A., The Quaternary of Israel (Academic Press, New York, 1979), p. 228.Google Scholar
4. e.g. Rollefson, G. and Simmons, A., in The Prehistory of Jordan, edited by Garrard, A. and Gebel, H. (Brit. Arch. Reports, 396, 1988), pp. 393–421; Z. Kafafi, ibid., pp. 451-471; H. Nissen et al., Ann. Dept. Antiq. of Jordan 31, 79-120 (1987); Simmons et al., ibid., 33 (in press, 1989).Google Scholar
5. Rollefson, G. and Simmons, A., Bull. Amer. Schools of Orient. Rsch. Supp. 25 (1986); Simmons et al., Science 240, 35-39 (1988).Google Scholar
6. Rollefson, G. et al. , Bull. Amer. Schools of Orient. Rsch Supp. 28 (in press).Google Scholar
7. e.g. Rollefson, G. and Kafafi, Z., Bull. Amer. Schools of Orient. Rsch. 258, 63–69 (1985).Google Scholar
8. Simmons, A. et al. , Ann. Dept. Antiq. Jordan 33, (in press, 1989).Google Scholar
9. Nissen, H. et al. , Ann. Dept. Antiq. Jordan 31, 79–120 (1987).Google Scholar
10. Edwards, P. and Thorpe, S., Paleorient 12 (2), 85–88 (1986).Google Scholar
11. Kèhler-Rollefson, I. and Rollefson, G., in The Impact of Ancient Man on the Landscape of the Eastern Mediterranean and the Near East, edited by Zeist, W. van and Bottema, S. (Balkema, Rotterdam, in press).Google Scholar
12. Rollefson, G. and Simmons, A., in The Prehistory of Jordan, edited by Garrard, A. and Gebel, H. (Brit. Arch. Reports 396, 1988), Table 1.Google Scholar
13. Rollefson, G., Archaeomaterials 4 (in press).Google Scholar
14. Garstang, J., Ann. Arch. and Anth. 23 (3-4), 166–167 (1935).Google Scholar
15. Kenyon, K., Excavations at Jericho: Vol. III (British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem, London, 1981), pp. 27–28; Archaeology in the Holy Land (Benn, London, 1979), pp. 36, 38, P1. 22.Google Scholar
16. Amiran, R., Bull. Amer. Schools Orient. Rsch 167, 23–25 (1962). I was fortunate to have reviewed a new edition of a standard archaeological textbook that discussed the “clay” statues found at Ain Ghazal in 1983, despite the fact that all published accounts of the discovery referred solely to “plaster” and “lime plaster"; “clay” was never mentioned. Even a detailed technological analysis of the statuary had been published by the time the book manuscript was written (K. Tubb, Mitt. Deutsch. Orient Gesell. 117, 117-134 [1985]).Google Scholar
17. Rollefson, G., in Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan, Vol. IV, edited by Bisheh, G. (Dept. of Antiquities, Amman, in press).Google Scholar
18. Abu, K. Ghunima, private communication.Google Scholar
19. Angier, J., producer, private communication.Google Scholar
20. Huwwar is a Levantine Arabic term that may vary considerably from area to area, even within the southern Levant. The definition given above pertains to the use in northern Jordan, but Kenyon mentioned a “natural deposit of huwwar” at Jericho, presumably a white marl common near the Dead Sea, which may account for some of the confusion in the use of the term “plaster” in her accounts. See reference cited in Note 15, pp. 17, 27-28.Google Scholar
21. Kingery, W., Vandiver, P., and Pripkett, M., Jour. Field Arch. 15 (2), 219–244 (1988).Google Scholar
22. Herein lies another potential source of confusion to the unwary ethno- archaeologist. In the colloquial Arabic of Jordan, “gyps” is used indis- criminately to refer to any “store-bought” plaster, even though gypsum is not used in Jordan.Google Scholar
23. Gourdin, W. and Kingery, W., Jour. Field Arch. 2 (1/2), 133–150 (1975).Google Scholar
24. e.g., Thuesen, I. and Gwodzdz, R., Paleorient 8 (2), 99–104 (1982); H. de Contenson and L. Courtois, Paleorient 5, 177-182 (1979); C. Marechal, Cah. de l"Euphrate 3, 217-251 (1982).Google Scholar
25. Garfinkel, Y., Paleorient 13 (1), 69–76 (1987).Google Scholar
26. Kingery, W., Vandiver, P., and Prockett, M., Jour. Field Arch. 15 (2), p. 221 (1988).Google Scholar
27. The elements of population estimation, numbers of inhabited and abandoned dwellings, treestand density, and other petinent factors are detailed in Rollefson, G. and Kbhler-Rollefson, I., in People and Culture in Change, edited by Hershkovitz, I. (Brit. Arch. Reports 508, 1989), pp. 73–89.Google Scholar
28. Kéhler-Rollefson, I. and Rollefson, G., in The Impact of Ancient Man on the Landscape of the Eastern Mediterranean and the Near East, edited by Zeist, W. van and Bottema, S. (Blakema, Rotterdam, in press).Google Scholar
29. Vandiver, P., private communication.Google Scholar
30. Kingery, W., private communication, argues that this is probably an inflated estimate, but we have maintained it to emphasize the differences in fuel needs for the two plasters.Google Scholar
31. Kèhler-Rollefson, I, Paleorient 14 (1), 87–93 (1988).Google Scholar