Durham E-Theses
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Durham E-Theses Rethinking the signicance of the microlith for hunting in the terminal Pleistocene / Holocene: A comparative study WALKER, JAMES,WILLIAM,PADDISON How to cite: WALKER, JAMES,WILLIAM,PADDISON (2014) Rethinking the signicance of the microlith for hunting in the terminal Pleistocene / Holocene: A comparative study, Durham theses, Durham University. Available at Durham E-Theses Online: http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/11073/ 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 2 Rethinking the significance of the microlith for hunting in the terminal Pleistocene / Holocene: A comparative study James William Paddison Walker A thesis presented for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Archaeology University of Durham England 2014 Rethinking the significance of the microlith for hunting in the terminal Pleistocene / Holocene: A comparative study James William Paddison Walker Abstract Microliths are small cutting implements made from stone and found around the world in a variety of prehistoric contexts. It is assumed without question, due to their size, that these pieces were made with the intention of being hafted. Their presence in the prehistoric record is often interpreted as indicative of multi-component composite toolkit designs. While the possibility of alternative functions cannot be ruled out of consideration, they have traditionally been, and are still most commonly interpreted as having served as armatures for hunting weaponry. As a global phenomenon, the term microlith encompasses a great deal of regional variation. Traditionally, studies of microlithic assemblages have been insularly rooted within the particular research frameworks of these regions. It is only recently that the potential for comparative assessment has been highlighted as a sig- nificantly underexplored avenue for further establishing the values that made microlithic technology desirable in different times and places. This research focusses on three study regions with strong distinct trends of microlithic technology, primarily associated with hunting weaponry: northern Spain, southern Africa and interior Alaska. Using a small sample of sites from each region, variation in microlithic assemblages was assessed over time in each area relative to contemporary trends in ungulate fauna and environmental proxies. This facilitated discussion of how microlithic based hunting practices related to particular prey or conditions, or changes in these factors. Overall, the study found that it is difficult to singularly characterise conditions associated with microlithic technology, even in individual regional analyses. This supports the notion that an important virtue of microlithic armatures is their versatility, allowing for flexible weapon designs that could accommodate variable risk related stresses. Statement of Declaration I, the author of this thesis, declare that this thesis and the work presented herein are my own. No part of the work has been submitted in support of an application for any other degree in this university or any other. Where other sources of information have been used, they have been acknowledged. Signature: James William Paddison Walker Statement of Copyright The copyright of this thesis rests with the author. No quotation from it should be published without the author’s prior written consent and information derived from it should be acknowledged. Table of Contents Table of Contents .......................................................................................................... iv List of Figures ..............................................................................................................xii List of Tables ............................................................................................................... xx List of Appendices ................................................................................................... xxiii Acknowledgements .................................................................................................... xxv 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Aims ............................................................................................................... 2 1.2 Research Design............................................................................................. 3 1.3 Research Context ........................................................................................... 7 1.3.1 Historical Significance ............................................................................... 7 1.3.2 Varying Definitions ................................................................................... 8 1.3.2.1 Form ................................................................................................... 8 1.3.2.2 Terminology ....................................................................................... 9 1.3.2.3 Criteria ............................................................................................... 9 1.3.2.4 Sample Variability ........................................................................... 10 1.3.3 Technological Concepts ........................................................................... 11 1.3.4 The Value of Use-wear Investigations ..................................................... 12 2 Discussion of Use-Wear Analyses and Interpretive Biases ................................. 13 2.1 Methodological Issues ................................................................................. 13 2.2 Interpretive Biases ....................................................................................... 14 2.3 Review of Microwear Studies Conducted on UK Microliths ...................... 15 2.4 Identification of Functional Traces on Projectile Armatures ....................... 18 2.5 Biases against the formation of wears from projectile use .......................... 18 2.5.1 Projectile Polishes and Fractures ............................................................. 19 2.5.2 Method of Delivery .................................................................................. 20 2.5.3 Tips, Barbs and Cutting Insets ................................................................. 20 2.5.4 Nature of Hafting ..................................................................................... 21 2.5.5 Penetration ............................................................................................... 22 2.5.6 Effect upon Impact ................................................................................... 24 2.5.7 Short Use-Life .......................................................................................... 26 2.5.8 Multi-functionality ................................................................................... 28 iv 2.6 Summary ...................................................................................................... 29 3 Final Palaeolithic of Northern Spain (La Riera) .................................................. 31 3.1 Introduction to La Riera ............................................................................... 32 3.1.1 Geographical Setting ................................................................................ 36 3.1.2 History of Investigation ........................................................................... 36 3.1.3 Issues of Stratigraphy ............................................................................... 38 3.2 The La Riera Diagram Explained ................................................................ 39 3.3 Radiocarbon Dates ....................................................................................... 41 3.4 Chrono-Stratigraphy .................................................................................... 42 3.4.1 Lower Magdalenian Levels...................................................................... 43 3.4.2 Upper Magdalenian Levels ...................................................................... 43 3.4.3 Azilian / Asturian Levels ......................................................................... 44 3.5 The Lithics ................................................................................................... 44 3.5.1 The La Riera Bladelets............................................................................. 45 3.5.2 Debitage ................................................................................................... 50 3.6 Palaeoenvironmental and Climatic Evidence .............................................. 50 3.7 Fauna ............................................................................................................ 52 3.7.1 Problems with Faunal Quantification ...................................................... 53 3.8 Reanalysis of Raw Materials at La