Mobility patterns and core technologies in the Middle Paleolithic of the Levant

Citation: Wallace IJ and Shea JJ (2006) Mobility patterns and core technologies in the Middle Paleolithic of the Levant. Journal of Archaeological Science (RSS)
Internet Archive Scholar (search for fulltext): Mobility patterns and core technologies in the Middle Paleolithic of the Levant
Download: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305440306000185
Tagged: Anthropology (RSS)

Summary

During 250kyr - 45kyr, the main form of industry was the Levantine Mousterian. Since the mid-1970, the Levantine Mousterian was culturally divided based off of Garrod’s research in Tabun Cave where the industry was divided into 2 parts: Early Levantine Mousterian (phase 1 of the assemblage) and Late Levantine Mousterian (phase 2 &3 of the assemblages). Recent dates for the Middle Paleolilthics, however, suggest that the Levantine Mousterian should actually be divided in 3 divisions due to climate change. These three different divisions would be divided into the Early Middle Paleolithic (250-128kyr), The Middle Middle Paleolithic (128-71 kyr), and the Later Middle Paleolithic (71 - 45/47Kyr). During the Early Middle Paleolithic, Marine sediment, evidence of pollen, and geochemical analysis of speleothems show a shift towards cold dry conditions while recurrent unidirectional-parallel and bidirectional-opposed core reduction became present.Tools such as endscrapers, burins, and backed knives where also present.The Middle Middle Paleolithic experienced a sudden increase in temperature and humidity while the environment became rather inconsistent. Flakes were the most common tool which included various retouch tools such as sidescrapers. Finally, the Later Middle Paleolithic was when a rapid cool but dry climate took place which resulted in the formation of lakes. There was also a large number of unidirectional-convergent core -reduction and centripetal reduction.

The two major core types in this article that are considered “formal” are Levallois and Prismatic cores. Levallois core are cores that are broken around the surface and then chipped one more time to produce this sharp flake. The form is very predictable though a large amount of skill is need to produce it. Overall, however, the technique allows the person using it to conserve their material. Unfortunately, Levallois cores were overly conservative when they were studied where their differentiation is based on their platform orientation and number. The expedient core are broken down into three different types: discoidal, amorphous, and pebble. These cores are an example of an “instant technology” where there is little need for flint knapping and have very short periods of use.

What they found was that the Later Levantine Middle Paleolithic technology suggested that expedient cores were more prominently made than in the Early Middle Palaeolithic. They also found that in the coastal sample, more expedient core were found than formal cores and very few core on flakes were present than expected. Meanwhile the ecotone sample had fewer formal cores, the expected number of formal cores, and a lot more cores on flakes. The formal vs. expedien cores assemblage show that residential mobility plays a large role in core technology. Meanwhile, Later Middle Paleolithic assemblages with prolonged occupations have low ratios of formal vs. expedient cores and assemblages from the steppic interior Levant has large amounts of formal cores.

Theoretical and Practical Relevance

This article is significant because it shows a different way of mapping the mobility of the people during the Middle Paleolithic. By recording the people’s lithics or more specifically the cores, Wallace and Shea were able to figure out whether or not they were conserving their material or just using it without much thought on the waste. This could also show how much they travelled and give us an idea of how vast their cognitive ability is based on their ability to form Levallois technology, how much preparation they needed to put in to travel large distances, and their ability to adapt.

Though the article does have very in-depth explanations, the explanations of the typologies and environment seem to be longer than the focus of mobility. Wallace also occasionally uses passive vocabulary when making his analysis and connects of how these artifacts support his conclusion which slightly weakens his argument.