Microburins and Microliths of the Levantine Epipalaeolithic: A Comment on the Paper by Neeley & Barton

By Kaufman, Daniel | Antiquity, June 1995 | Go to article overview
Save to active project

Microburins and Microliths of the Levantine Epipalaeolithic: A Comment on the Paper by Neeley & Barton

Kaufman, Daniel, Antiquity

In their recent contribution to ANTIQUITY, Neeley & Barton (1994) propose a novel approach for examining and interpreting inter-assemblage variability in the Levantine Epipalaeolithic. Their paper is provocative and it is probably an understatement to say that their conclusions will be seen as controversial by those archaeologists familiar with the data. Even though culture-stratigraphic classifications and nomenclature are still under debate, there is general agreement that the patterned techno-typological variability represents cultural and temporal markers. Neeley & Barton, on the other hand, see it as representing facies or stages in a reduction sequence within a context of varying degrees of mobility and related economizing behaviours.

This is not to argue against attempts to place lithic assemblages within a behavioural context which incorporates factors such as raw-material exploitation, curation, settlement and mobility; not all inter-assemblage variability can be related only to cultural or temporal differences. To this writer, though, there are serious flaws in the arguments set forward by Neeley & Barton. They do not provide sufficient grounds to overturn the currently employed systematics for the Levantine Epipalaeolithic.

Microburin technique

In the discussion on microburin technique, a number of specific points require clarification. The dichotomous distributions of the by-products of this technique have long been used to differentiate between the Mushabian and the Geometric Kebaran: the Mushabian is characterized by the regular and intensive use of microburin technology, which is extremely rare or absent from the Geometric Kebaran. Neeley & Barton explain this dichotomy by arguing that, in the Geometric Kebaran, both distal and proximal elements resulting from microburin technique were modified into microlithic tools. This, in effect, would mask the utilization of the technique since its by-products 'would be unrecognizable as manufacturing debris' (Neeley & Barton 1994: 278). They support this position by presenting metrical data which indicate that usually two microlithic tools were produced from a single bladelet blank. My own personal observations of Geometric Kebaran assemblages from the central coastal plain of Israel and from the Carmel region substantiate this pattern. What Neeley & Barton do not take into account is the fact that, just as there is more than one way to skin a cat, there is also more than one way to section a bladelet. The use of microburin technique is not requisite; other methods (see e.g. Movious et al. 1968), including simple snapping, are just as effective.

Even if their proposition were correct, there is still only a small likelihood that 100% of the microburin products would have been utilized, and we would expect to find at least some microburin by-products in Geometric Kebaran assemblages. This, indeed, is the case. But what Neeley & Barton fail to recognize is that in almost all of these instances it is Krukowski microburins which occur. Following Bordes (1957), it has been noted (Bar-Yosef 1981; Bar-Yosef & Goring-Morris 1977; Goring-Morris 1987; Henry 1989a) that Krukowski microburins are the accidental results of abruptly retouching bladelets, very often on an anvil. It is also important to note, following Henry (1989a: 93-4), a number of Geometric Kebaran assemblages in which the occurrence of microburin by-products can be seen as more than simply fortuitous. What is significant, though, is that in these cases the habitual use of the technique is associated with assemblages characterized by triangles or lunates and not trapeze/rectangles. Neeley & Barton do not take this variability into account.

A similar difficulty applies for the discussion of the microburin technique in the Natufian. While it is true that the method was employed by many Natufian groups, there is a large number of Natufian assemblages for which the technique is poorly represented or absent, a long-recognized fact (Bar-Yosef 1981; Bar-Yosef & Valla 1979; Henry 1974, 1989a).

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
Loading One moment ...
Project items
Cite this article

Cited article

Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited article

Microburins and Microliths of the Levantine Epipalaeolithic: A Comment on the Paper by Neeley & Barton


Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

While we understand printed pages are helpful to our users, this limitation is necessary to help protect our publishers' copyrighted material and prevent its unlawful distribution. We are sorry for any inconvenience.
Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.

Are you sure you want to delete this highlight?