DOCSLIB.ORG

Exploring Handaxe Function at Shishan Marsh – 1: Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches Using the Edge Damage Distribution Method

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Exploring Handaxe Function at Shishan Marsh – 1: Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches Using the Edge Damage Distribution Method Exploring Handaxe Function at Shishan Marsh – 1: Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches Using the Edge Damage Distribution Method by John K. Murray B.A., Stony Brook University, 2014 Graduate Certificate, Johns Hopkins University, 2015 Graduate Certificate, University of Victoria, 2017 A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF ARTS in the Department of Anthropology ©John K. Murray, 2017 University of Victoria All rights reserved. This thesis may not be reproduced in whole or in part, by photocopy or other means, without permission of the author. Exploring Handaxe Function at Shishan Marsh – 1: Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches Using the Edge Damage Distribution Method by John K. Murray B.A., Stony Brook University, 2014 Graduate Certificate, Johns Hopkins University, 2015 Graduate Certificate, University of Victoria, 2017 Supervisory Committee Dr. April Nowell, Supervisor Department of Anthropology Dr. Yin-Man Lam, Member Department of Anthropology Daniel Stueber, Outside Member Primitive Skills Practitioner ii ABSTRACT Handaxes are some of the longest lasting and most iconic stone tools throughout human evolution. Appearing in the early Pleistocene, these bifacially flaked tools persisted around one and a half million years and span across all of the Old World, from Africa to eastern Asia. Despite their ubiquitous nature, relatively little is known about their function. Handaxes are often speculated to be multi-functional tools which were selected for due to their large cutting edge; however, only a handful of use-wear studies have attempted to elucidate their use in the archaeological record. The lack of experimental use-wear studies surrounding handaxe function is due to preservation issues and the fact that manufacturing and curating handaxes compounds the ambiguity of microwear signatures. The methodology undertaken in this research provides a pathway to overcoming these obstacles through experimental archaeology in conjunction with low powered microscopy, image-based GIS, and statistical hypothesis testing. In particular, this thesis investigates handaxe function at an assemblage scale (n = 56) in a late Lower Paleolithic to Middle Paleolithic archaeological site called Shishan Marsh – 1 (SM-1) in al-Azraq, Jordan. Experimental handaxes (n = 22) were replicated and used in various activities such as butchery, plant processing, woodworking, shellfish processing, and digging. The results of this research corroborates the idea of handaxes being used as multifunctional tools. These results have implications for handaxe function, hominin tool use in a desert refugia, and provides a new pathway to investigate inter-site variability in handaxe use. iii Table of Contents Supervisory Committee…………………………………………………………………………..ii Abstract…………………………………………………………………………………………..iii Table of Contents…………………………………………………………………………………iv List of Tables……………………………………………………………………………………vii List of Figures…………………………………………………………………………………...viii Acknowledgements……………………………………………………………………………….x Chapter 1: Introduction………….………….………….………….………….………….………1 Research Statement………….………….………….………….………….……………...1 Research Goals and Questions………….………….………….………….……………...3 Thesis Outline………….………….………….………….………….………….………..4 Chapter 2: Investigating Function in Lithic Technology……………………………………...…6 History of Use-Wear Analysis in Lithic Technology………….………….……………..6 Low-Powered Approach………….………….………….………….……………6 High-Powered Approach………….………….………….………….………….. 7 Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM) ………….………….………….………..9 Quantification of Use-Wear…..………….………….………….………….…………… 9 Surface Metrology………….………….………….………….……………........12 Laser Profilometry………….………….………….………….………….……...13 Interferometry………….………….………….………….………….……….….13 Atomic Force Microscopy………….………….………….………….…………13 Laser-Scanning Confocal Microscopy (LSCM) ………….…………………….14 Focus Variation Microscopy………….………….………….………….…….…15 Counterparts to Microwear………….………….………….………….………….……..15 Macrofractures………….………….………….………….………….………….15 Residue Analysis………….………….………….………….………….……….16 Approaches to Use-Wear Analysis: A Question of Scale………….………….………...17 Post-Depositional Edge Modification………….………….………….………….……...19 Blind Testing………….………….………….………….………….………….………...20 Summary………….………….………….………….………….………….………….…22 Chapter 3: Contextualizing the Acheulean at Shishan Marsh – 1………….……...….………....23 Introduction………….………….………….………….………….……………………..23 The Acheulean in a Global Context………….……………..…………………...23 The Handaxe Dilemma………….………….………….………………………...25 Functional Studies of Handaxes………….………….………….………….……………27 Microwear Studies………….………….………….………….………….………29 Functional Edges………….………….………….………….………….………..29 Factors Affecting Handaxe Use and Effectiveness………….………….…….....30 Current Approach………….………….………….………….…………………..31 The Acheulean of the Levant………….………….………….………….……………….31 The Acheulean of Jordan………….………….………….………….………….………..34 Southern Mountain Desert………….………….………….………….………….36 iv Western Highlands………….………….………….………….………….………36 Central Plateau………………. ……… ………….………….………….…….....37 Shishan Marsh – 1 (SM-1).………….………….………….….……………........41 Summary…………………………………………………………………………………45 Chapter 4: Materials and Methods……………………………………………………………….47 Materials…………………………………………………………………………………47 Excavation……………………………………………………………………….48 Micromorphology………………………………………………………………..48 Collection of Chert………………………………………………………………49 Flintknapping Replications………………………………………………………50 Prehistoric Assemblage………………………………………………………….54 Methods………………………………………………………………………………….55 Pre-experimental Procedure……………………………………………………..55 Experimental Protocol…………………………………………………………...57 Longitudinal Activities…………………………………………………………..60 Percussive Activities……………………………………………………………..61 Transverse Activities…………………………………………………………….61 Butchery………………………………………………………………………….61 Post-depositional Experiments…………………………………………………..62 Edge Damage Distribution Method……………………………………………...63 Statistical Procedures…………………………………………………………………….68 Paired T-test……………………………………………………………………...68 Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test……………………………………………………...68 Kolmogrov-Smirnov (KS) test…………………………………………………..69 Confounding Factors…………………………………………………………………….70 Summary………………………………………………………………………………...70 Chapter 5: Results……………………………………………………………………………….71 Introduction……………………………………………………………………………...71 Comparative Summary of Lithic Assemblages….………………………………………71 Summary Statistics………………………………………………………………71 Shape…………………………………………………………………………….73 Results of the Experimental Use-Wear Analysis………………………………………..75 Butchery…………………………………………………………………………75 Longitudinal Actions…………………………………………………………….76 Percussive Actions………………………………………………………………77 Transverse Actions………………………………………………………………79 Post-depositional Experiments…………………………………………………..80 Results of the Prehistoric Use-Wear Analysis…………………………………………...81 SM1-3547………………………………………………………………………..81 SM1-3805………………………………………………………………………..82 SM1-4751………………………………………………………………………..84 SM1-4826………………………………………………………………………..85 Results of the Experimental Edge Damage Distribution Analysis………………………87 v Question 1: Is there a significant difference in edge damage distribution between activity groups (i.e., are they distinguishable from one another)?….…...87 Question 2: What is the overall distribution of edge damage in the experimental dataset?………… ………………………………………………………..91 Question 3: Does grip influence edge damage distribution?…………………….92 Results of the Prehistoric Edge Damage Distribution Analysis………………………....94 Question 4: What is the overall distribution of edge damage at SM-1?................96 Question 5: Does the distribution of edge damage at SM-1 differ from a random distribution? ……………………………………………………………100 Question 6: Does tool use change over time? …………………………………101 Question 7: Do the experimental distributions reflect SM-1 handaxe use?........106 Question 8: Do the experimental distributions reflect SM-1 handaxe use within layers? ……………………………………………………………….…107 Overarching Research Question: How were hominins using handaxes at SM-1?...........109 Summary………………………………………………………………………………..110 Chapter 6: Discussion and Conclusion…………………………………………………………112 Introduction……………………………………………………………………………..112 Additions to Use-Wear Methodology…………………………………………………..113 Benefits of Humanistic Experimental Protocols………………………………………..119 A Multi-Stranded Approach……………………………………………………………122 Interpreting Prehistory………………………………………………………………….124 Tip Shape and Handaxe Function………………………………………………………126 Handaxe Use and Hominin Behavior at SM-1…………………………………………127 Conclusions…………………………………………………………………………….130 Bibliography……………………………………………………………………………………132 Appendix I: Directions for Blind Testing in Lithic Technology……………………………….147 Appendix II: Additional Details on Experimental Protocol……………………………………158 vi List of Tables Table 3.1: Comparison of Mean Length, Width, and Thickness of Azraq Assemblages……….45 Table 4.1: Measurements of Handaxes in the Experimental Assemblage………………………53 Table 4.2: Measurements of Handaxes in the SM-1 Assemblage……………………………….54 Table 4.3: Summary of Activities for Experimental Protocol…………………………………...58 Table 4.4: Summary of Experimental Activities with Handaxes………………………………..60 Table 5.1: KS Test Results Comparing Analogous Edges of Activity Groups………………….90 Table 5.2: KS Test Results Comparing Grips……………………………………………………94 Table 5.3: Average Edge Length and Damage at SM-1…………………………………………94 Table 5.4: Total Edge Damage Occurrences at SM-1…………………………………………...95 Table 5.5: Paired t-Test and Wilcoxon Signed-Rank
Load more

Recommended publications
  • LITHIC ANALYSIS (01-070-391) Rutgers University Spring 2010
    SYLLABUS LITHIC ANALYSIS (01-070-391) Rutgers University Spring 2010 Lecture days/hours: Thursday, 2:15-5:15 PM Lecture location: BioSci 206, Douglass Campus Instructors: Dr. J.W.K. Harris J.S. Reti, MA [email protected] [email protected] Office: BioSci, Room 203B Office: BioSci, Room 204C Office Hours: Friday 11:00 – 1:00 Office Hours: Thursday 1:00 – 3:00 COURSE DESCRIPTION: This course is an integrated course that incorporates theoretical, behavioral, and practical aspects of lithic technology. Lithic Analysis is an advanced undergraduate course in human and non-human primate stone technology. Each student is expected to already have taken an introductory course in human evolution, primatology, and/or archaeology. Lithic Analysis is a sub-discipline of archaeology. The focus is on the inferential potential of stone tools with regard to human behavior. Early human ancestors first realized the utility of sharp stone edges for butchery and other practices. Arguably, without the advent of stone tools human evolution would have taken a different path. Stone tools allowed early hominins efficient access to meat resources and provided as avenue for cognitive development and three-dimensional problem solving. This course will provide a three-fold approach to lithic analysis: 1) study of archaeological sites and behavioral change through time relative to lithic technological changes, 2) insight into the art of laboratory lithic analysis and methods employed to attain concrete, quantitative behavioral conclusions, and 3) extensive training in stone tool replication. Such training will provide students with both an appreciation for the skills of our ancestors and with personal skills that will allow for further research into replication and human behavior.
    [Show full text]
  • Blades), Side Scrapers
    226 • PaleoAnthropology 2008 Figure 5. Tool types assigned to the Tres Ancien Paléolithique and the Lower Paleolithic. blades), side scrapers (single, double, and transverse), In Romanian archaeology, it is used as a synonym for the backed knives (naturally backed and with retouched back), Pebble Culture and is meant to designate Mode I indus- and notches/denticulates (Figure 6). tries, as can be inferred from the typology of the material (see Figure 5). Discussion A very difficult issue is learning what meaning under- tErMINoLOGY lies the term Lower Paleolithic itself. In order to clarify this This is a topic that is still very unclear for the Lower Pa- problem, one must look back a few decades, when there leolithic record of Romania. Inconsistencies regarding the was a belief that the cultures that postdate the Pebble Cul- terms are mentioned here. ture were the Abbevillian, Acheulian and Clactonian, all emerging from Pebble Culture industries. After the cul- tres Ancien Paléolithique (tAP) tural meaning of the Abbevillian and the Clactonian were This term refers, sensu Bonifay (Bonifay and Vandermeer- challenged, in Romanian archaeology the framing of this sch 1991), to industries that were prior to the emergence period became more cautious. There was no explicit shift of developed Acheulian bifaces and Levallois technology. defended in publications, but gradually the two terms fell Figure 6. Tool types assigned to the Premousterian. Lower Paleolithic of Romania • 227 out of use in defining distinct industries and became just supposed to be either Clactonian or Premousterian. Some- a typological and a technical description, respectively. At times, due to the particular morphology of the piece, ad- the same time, the existence of the Acheulian north of the ditional interpretations were made regarding the piece’s Danube was no longer claimed, but the term still was used various presumed functions, such as cutting, crushing and in classification of bifaces.
    [Show full text]
  • Characterizing Late Pleistocene and Holocene Stone Artefact Assemblages from Puritjarra Rock Shelter: a Long Sequence from the Australian Desert
    © Copyright Australian Museum, 2006 Records of the Australian Museum (2006) Vol. 58: 371–410. ISSN 0067-1975 Characterizing Late Pleistocene and Holocene Stone Artefact Assemblages from Puritjarra Rock Shelter: A Long Sequence from the Australian Desert M.A. SMITH National Museum of Australia, GPO Box 1901, Canberra ACT 2601, Australia [email protected] ABSTRACT. This paper presents the first detailed study of a large assemblage of late Pleistocene artefacts from the central desert. Analysis of the lithics shows show that Puritjarra rock shelter was used more intensively over time, with significant shifts in the character of occupation at 18,000, 7,500 and 800 B.P., reflecting significant re-organization of activities across the landscape. The same generalized flake and core technology appears to have been used for over 30 millennia with only limited change in artefact typology over this period. SMITH, M.A., 2006. Characterizing Late Pleistocene and Holocene stone artefact assemblages from Puritjarra rock shelter: a long sequence from the Australian Desert. Records of the Australian Museum 58(3): 371–410. Excavations at Puritjarra rock shelter provide a rare 2004). Ethno-archaeological studies involving the last opportunity to examine an assemblage of late Pleistocene generation of Aboriginal people to rely on stone artefacts artefacts from central Australia, dating as early as c. 32,000 have been very influential in this shift in perspective (Cane, B.P. This study presents a quantitative analysis of the flaked 1984, 1992; Gould, 1968; Gould et al., 1971; Hayden, 1977, stone artefacts at Puritjarra, comparing the Pleistocene and 1979; O’Connell, 1977).
    [Show full text]
  • Durham E-Theses
    Durham E-Theses Neolithic and chalcolithic cultures in Turkish Thrace Erdogu, Burcin How to cite: Erdogu, Burcin (2001) Neolithic and chalcolithic cultures in Turkish Thrace, Durham theses, Durham University. Available at Durham E-Theses Online: http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/3994/ Use policy The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that: • a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in Durham E-Theses • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders. Please consult the full Durham E-Theses policy for further details. Academic Support Oce, Durham University, University Oce, Old Elvet, Durham DH1 3HP e-mail: [email protected] Tel: +44 0191 334 6107 http://etheses.dur.ac.uk NEOLITHIC AND CHALCOLITHIC CULTURES IN TURKISH THRACE Burcin Erdogu Thesis Submitted for Degree of Doctor of Philosophy The copyright of this thesis rests with the author. No quotation from it should be published without his prior written consent and information derived from it should be acknowledged. University of Durham Department of Archaeology 2001 Burcin Erdogu PhD Thesis NeoHthic and ChalcoHthic Cultures in Turkish Thrace ABSTRACT The subject of this thesis are the NeoHthic and ChalcoHthic cultures in Turkish Thrace. Turkish Thrace acts as a land bridge between the Balkans and Anatolia.
    [Show full text]
  • The Basques of Lapurdi, Zuberoa, and Lower Navarre Their History and Their Traditions
    Center for Basque Studies Basque Classics Series, No. 6 The Basques of Lapurdi, Zuberoa, and Lower Navarre Their History and Their Traditions by Philippe Veyrin Translated by Andrew Brown Center for Basque Studies University of Nevada, Reno Reno, Nevada This book was published with generous financial support obtained by the Association of Friends of the Center for Basque Studies from the Provincial Government of Bizkaia. Basque Classics Series, No. 6 Series Editors: William A. Douglass, Gregorio Monreal, and Pello Salaburu Center for Basque Studies University of Nevada, Reno Reno, Nevada 89557 http://basque.unr.edu Copyright © 2011 by the Center for Basque Studies All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America Cover and series design © 2011 by Jose Luis Agote Cover illustration: Xiberoko maskaradak (Maskaradak of Zuberoa), drawing by Paul-Adolph Kaufman, 1906 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Veyrin, Philippe, 1900-1962. [Basques de Labourd, de Soule et de Basse Navarre. English] The Basques of Lapurdi, Zuberoa, and Lower Navarre : their history and their traditions / by Philippe Veyrin ; with an introduction by Sandra Ott ; translated by Andrew Brown. p. cm. Translation of: Les Basques, de Labourd, de Soule et de Basse Navarre Includes bibliographical references and index. Summary: “Classic book on the Basques of Iparralde (French Basque Country) originally published in 1942, treating Basque history and culture in the region”--Provided by publisher. ISBN 978-1-877802-99-7 (hardcover) 1. Pays Basque (France)--Description and travel. 2. Pays Basque (France)-- History. I. Title. DC611.B313V513 2011 944’.716--dc22 2011001810 Contents List of Illustrations..................................................... vii Note on Basque Orthography.........................................
    [Show full text]
  • C H a P T E R VII Comparison of Stone Age Cultures the Cultural
    158 CHAPTER VII Comparison of Stone Age Cultures The cultural horizons ami pleistocene sequences of the Upper Son Valley are compared with the other regions to know their positions in the development of Stone Age Cultures* However, ft must not be forgotten that the industries of various regions were more or less in­ fluenced by the local factors: the environment, geology f topography, vegetation, climate and animals; hence some vsriitions are bound to occur in them* The comparison is first made with industries within India and then with those outside India. i) Within India • Punjab Potwar The Potwar region, which lies between the Indus and Jhebm, including the Salt Range, was examined by Oe Terra and Pater son. The latter has recently published a revised 2 stuiy of the cultural horizons. 1. De Terra, H., and Paterson, T.T., 1939, Studies on the Ice Age in India and Associated Human Culture, pp.252-312 2. Paterson, T.T., and Drummond, H.J.H., 1962, Soan,the Palaeolithic of Pakistan. These scholars had successfully located six terraces (Including TD) in the Sohan Valley: "nowhere else in the Potwar is the leistocene history so well recorded as along the So&n Hiver and its tributaries.w The terraces TD and TI placed in the Second Glacial and Second Inter- glacial, respectively fall in the Middle Pleistocene, terraces ? and 3 originated in Third Glacial and Inter- glaual period. Th succeeding terrace viz., T4 has bean connected with the Fourth Glacial period. The last terrace - T5 - belongs to Post-glacLal and Holacene time. The oldest artifacts are located in the Boulder Con­ glomerate and are placed in the earliest Middle Pleisto­ cene or Lower Pleistocene.
    [Show full text]
  • A CRITICAL EVALUATION of the LOWER-MIDDLE PALAEOLITHIC ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECORD of the CHALK UPLANDS of NORTHWEST EUROPE Lesley
    A CRITICAL EVALUATION OF THE LOWER-MIDDLE PALAEOLITHIC ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECORD OF THE CHALK UPLANDS OF NORTHWEST EUROPE The Chilterns, Pegsdon, Bedfordshire (photograph L. Blundell) Lesley Blundell UCL Thesis submitted for the degree of PhD September 2019 2 I, Lesley Blundell, confirm that the work presented in this thesis is my own. Where information has been derived from other sources, I confirm that this has been indicated in the thesis. Signed: 3 4 Abstract Our understanding of early human behaviour has always been and continues to be predicated on an archaeological record unevenly distributed in space and time. More than 80% of British Lower-Middle Palaeolithic findspots were discovered during the late 19th/early 20th centuries, the majority from lowland fluvial contexts. Within the British planning process and some academic research, the resultant findspot distributions are taken at face value, with insufficient consideration of possible bias resulting from variables operating on their creation. This leads to areas of landscape outside the river valleys being considered to have only limited archaeological potential. This thesis was conceived as an attempt to analyse the findspot data of the Lower-Middle Palaeolithic record of the Chalk uplands of southeast Britain and northern France within a framework complex enough to allow bias in the formation of findspot distribution patterns and artefact preservation/discovery opportunities to be identified and scrutinised more closely. Taking a dynamic, landscape = record approach, this research explores the potential influence of geomorphology, 19th/early 20th century industrialisation and antiquarian collecting on the creation of the Lower- Middle Palaeolithic record through the opportunities created for artefact preservation and release.
    [Show full text]
  • Archaeology Activity Pack
    Archaeology activity pack Primary KS2 Stone Age to Iron Age 1 All images and content © Museum of London 2015. This sheet is designed to be edited by teachers. The museum cannot take responsibility for edited content. How does archaeology help us understand what life was like in prehistory? This series of activities looks at how archaeologists record and interpret objects to inform our understanding about life in the past. Pupils will: use clues to sort artefacts into categories consider how and why an archaeologist records accurately where things are found use images of artefacts to think about how groups of objects can give us information about the past suggest reasons why some of our activities leave traces when others do not consolidate prior learning about Stone Age hunter-gatherers understand that there were people living here before London existed. Activity 1 Sort it! Identifying different flint tools Activity 2 The archaeological jigsaw What can we learn from a group of objects? Activity 3 Case study: Three Ways Wharf Hunter-gatherers in Uxbridge Activity 4 Leaving traces Make a Stone Age tool Activity 5 Dig it! Archaeological dig record and field journal worksheets 2 All images and content © Museum of London 2015. This sheet is designed to be edited by teachers. The museum cannot take responsibility for edited content. Activity 1 Sort it! Identifying different flint tools Introduction Begin by showing your pupils a selection of brushes; a toothbrush, a dustpan and brush, a hairbrush, a paintbrush and a floor brush. Ask pupils: What do all these objects have in common? What is each one is used for? Although all the objects are brushes, they are all used to perform different tasks.
    [Show full text]
  • The Aurignacian Viewed from Africa
    Aurignacian Genius: Art, Technology and Society of the First Modern Humans in Europe Proceedings of the International Symposium, April 08-10 2013, New York University THE AURIGNACIAN VIEWED FROM AFRICA Christian A. TRYON Introduction 20 The African archeological record of 43-28 ka as a comparison 21 A - The Aurignacian has no direct equivalent in Africa 21 B - Archaic hominins persist in Africa through much of the Late Pleistocene 24 C - High modification symbolic artifacts in Africa and Eurasia 24 Conclusions 26 Acknowledgements 26 References cited 27 To cite this article Tryon C. A. , 2015 - The Aurignacian Viewed from Africa, in White R., Bourrillon R. (eds.) with the collaboration of Bon F., Aurignacian Genius: Art, Technology and Society of the First Modern Humans in Europe, Proceedings of the International Symposium, April 08-10 2013, New York University, P@lethnology, 7, 19-33. http://www.palethnologie.org 19 P@lethnology | 2015 | 19-33 Aurignacian Genius: Art, Technology and Society of the First Modern Humans in Europe Proceedings of the International Symposium, April 08-10 2013, New York University THE AURIGNACIAN VIEWED FROM AFRICA Christian A. TRYON Abstract The Aurignacian technocomplex in Eurasia, dated to ~43-28 ka, has no direct archeological taxonomic equivalent in Africa during the same time interval, which may reflect differences in inter-group communication or differences in archeological definitions currently in use. Extinct hominin taxa are present in both Eurasia and Africa during this interval, but the African archeological record has played little role in discussions of the demographic expansion of Homo sapiens, unlike the Aurignacian. Sites in Eurasia and Africa by 42 ka show the earliest examples of personal ornaments that result from extensive modification of raw materials, a greater investment of time that may reflect increased their use in increasingly diverse and complex social networks.
    [Show full text]
  • Ch. 4. NEOLITHIC PERIOD in JORDAN 25 4.1
    Borsa di studio finanziata da: Ministero degli Affari Esteri di Italia Thanks all …………. I will be glad to give my theses with all my love to my father and mother, all my brothers for their helps since I came to Italy until I got this degree. I am glad because I am one of Dr. Ursula Thun Hohenstein students. I would like to thanks her to her help and support during my research. I would like to thanks Dr.. Maysoon AlNahar and the Museum of the University of Jordan stuff for their help during my work in Jordan. I would like to thank all of Prof. Perreto Carlo and Prof. Benedetto Sala, Dr. Arzarello Marta and all my professors in the University of Ferrara for their support and help during my Phd Research. During my study in Italy I met a lot of friends and specially my colleges in the University of Ferrara. I would like to thanks all for their help and support during these years. Finally I would like to thanks the Minister of Fournier of Italy, Embassy of Italy in Jordan and the University of Ferrara institute for higher studies (IUSS) to fund my PhD research. CONTENTS Ch. 1. INTRODUCTION 1 Ch. 2. AIMS OF THE RESEARCH 3 Ch. 3. NEOLITHIC PERIOD IN NEAR EAST 5 3.1. Pre-Pottery Neolithic A (PPNA) in Near east 5 3.2. Pre-pottery Neolithic B (PPNB) in Near east 10 3.2.A. Early PPNB 10 3.2.B. Middle PPNB 13 3.2.C. Late PPNB 15 3.3.
    [Show full text]
  • The Earliest Evidence of Acheulian Occupation in Northwest
    www.nature.com/scientificreports OPEN The earliest evidence of Acheulian occupation in Northwest Europe and the rediscovery of the Moulin Received: 5 December 2017 Accepted: 19 August 2019 Quignon site, Somme valley, France Published: xx xx xxxx Pierre Antoine1, Marie-Hélène Moncel2, Pierre Voinchet2, Jean-Luc Locht1,3, Daniel Amselem2, David Hérisson 4, Arnaud Hurel2 & Jean-Jacques Bahain2 The dispersal of hominin groups with an Acheulian technology and associated bifacial tools into northern latitudes is central to the debate over the timing of the oldest human occupation of Europe. New evidence resulting from the rediscovery and the dating of the historic site of Moulin Quignon demonstrates that the frst Acheulian occupation north of 50°N occurred around 670–650 ka ago. The new archaeological assemblage was discovered in a sequence of fuvial sands and gravels overlying the chalk bedrock at a relative height of 40 m above the present-day maximal incision of the Somme River and dated by ESR on quartz to early MIS 16. More than 260 fint artefacts were recovered, including large fakes, cores and fve bifaces. This discovery pushes back the age of the oldest Acheulian occupation of north-western Europe by more than 100 ka and bridges the gap between the archaeological records of northern France and England. It also challenges hominin dispersal models in Europe showing that hominins using bifacial technology, such as Homo heidelbergensis, were probably able to overcome cold climate conditions as early as 670–650 ka ago and reasserts the importance of the Somme valley, where Prehistory was born at the end of the 19th century.
    [Show full text]
  • Managing Lithic Scatters and Sites
    Managing Lithic Scatters and Sites Archaeological guidance for planning authorities and developers 0 Managing Lithic Scatters and Sites: Archaeological guidance for planning authorities and developers Summary Lithic scatters and sites are an important archaeological resource that can provide valuable insights into prehistory. Most commonly found as scatters of worked stone, usually suspended in modern ploughsoil deposits, which have been disturbed from their original archaeological context through ploughing. Undisturbed lithic sites can also be found through further evaluation and excavations, where lithics have been sealed by cover deposits or preserved in sub-surface features/horizons. Lithic scatters can represent a palimpsest of activity, sometimes containing several technologies from different archaeological periods. Consequently, the value of lithic scatters as a source for investigating past behaviour has often been undervalued. However, in many cases, especially for sites dating from the Palaeolithic period through to the Bronze Age, lithic scatters are likely to represent the only available archaeological evidence of past human activity and subsistence strategies. By studying and understanding their formation, spatial distribution and technological attributes, we can get closer to understanding the activities of the people who created these artefacts. Lithic scatters are often perceived as being particularly problematic from a heritage resource and development management perspective, because the standard archaeological methodologies presently employed are often not sufficiently subtle to ensure their effective identification and characterisation (Last 2009). This can either lead to an unquantified loss of important archaeological evidence, or the under-estimation of the magnitude of a site’s scale and importance, leading to missed research opportunities or, in a planning/development context, potentially avoidable expense, delay and inconvenience.
    [Show full text]