Technology or Typology?: A Response to Neeley & Barton

By Fellner, Robert | Antiquity, June 1995 | Go to article overview
Save to active project

Technology or Typology?: A Response to Neeley & Barton


Fellner, Robert, Antiquity


In a paper published in the June 1994 issue of ANTIQUITY, Neeley & Barton develop an argument purporting to demonstrate that differences in microlith morphology observed in Epipalaeolithic assemblages from the Near East are the product of technological rather than stylistic variation. If true, their hypothesis would undermine the validity of much of the research in this field carried out during the last 30 years.

Neeley & Barton's paper contains two main arguments:

the microburin technique - a method for sectioning bladelets by placing and deepening a notch until the bladelet snaps (see Tixier 1963: 39-42; Fellner 1995: 53-7) - is not specific to any Epipalaeolithic industry in the Near East, but was used universally;

variation in microlith forms - used by many researchers as fossiles directeurs to identify archaeological cultures - is not due to changes in style but the product of re-sharpening blunted or broken microliths.

Both arguments appear highly questionable.

The microburin technique

Neeley & Barton accept the current evidence that the number of microburins (the waste product of the microburin technique) varies strongly among Epipalaeolithic assemblages; those assigned to Kebaran or Geometric Kebaran A industries contain markedly fewer microburins than those assigned to Mushabian or Ramonian industries. In the traditional view, this variation is additional evidence for the existence of discrete archaeological cultures identified by microlith morphology. Neeley & Barton argue that it is purely a reflection of raw material constraints. They note that the trapeze/rectangles considered typical of Geometric Kebaran A assemblages are slightly shorter (mean 22 mm, SD 4; Goring-Morris 1987: 127-8) than the microlithic points common to Mushabian and Ramonian sites (24 mm, SD 4.5; and 26 mm, SD 3; Goring-Morris 1987: 187-8 and 240-41 respectively), while the trend in bladelet blank length is opposite, with an average of 36 mm for Geometric Kebaran A and 31 mm for Mushabian assemblages (based on a rather small sample; Henry 1989). Neeley & Barton observe that the average Mushabian microlith accounts, in length, for 80% of the average blank size, while Geometric Kebaran A trapeze/rectangles account, on average, for only 61% of the blank. This they take to suggest that 'two (or more) microliths were produced from many Geometric Kebaran bladelets, rather than a microlith and a discarded microburin' (p. 280); they argue that the rarity of microburins in Geometric Kebaran A assemblages does not indicate the absence of that technique: it was simply used without creating waste products.

Neeley & Barton's argument is open to a considerable number of objections: the quality of the numerical evidence on blank size; an analysis based on recognized archaeological cultures while at the same time questioning their reality; raw-material scarcity as an explanatory mechanism in a context where this seems rare; ignoring the traces left by the microburin technique on microliths produced in this way; etc. (see Kaufman, this volume). I will only discuss the most obvious. Trapeze/rectangles, considered typical of the Geometric Kebaran A industry, are microliths with truncations on both ends. The truncations indicate that both the tip and the platform end of the bladelet blank had to be removed to produce this tool type, reducing the workable portion of blank length from an average of 36 mm for the complete object to, at most, 32 mm. How more than one of the 22 mm long (on average) trapeze/rectangles should frequently be produced from one blank seems thus a mystery. To put it differently: 61% is more than half, and certainly more than a third. This being so, the rarity of microburins in Geometric Kebaran A assemblages does indicate that the technique - common in Mushabian, Ramonian and Desert Natufian sites - was not or only rarely used by those producing trapeze/rectangles.

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
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
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

Technology or Typology?: A Response to Neeley & Barton
Settings

Settings

Typeface
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

Style
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?