Identifying Local Learning Communities During the Terminal Palaeolithic in the Southern Levant: Multi-scale 3-D Analysis of Flint Cores RESEARCH ARTICLE FRANCESCO VALLETTA ITAMAR DAG LEORE GROSMAN *Author affiliations can be found in the back matter of this article ABSTRACT CORRESPONDING AUTHOR: Francesco Valletta A methodology for identifying prehistoric local learning communities is proposed. The Hebrew University of We wish to test possible relationships among communities based on continuity and Jerusalem, IL variability in lithic reduction sequence technological traits with different visibility and [email protected] malleability. Quantitative features reflecting different technological traits are measured on 3-D models of flint cores in different scales: the ratio between core thickness and reduction surface width, the angle between subsequent bands of production blank KEYWORDS: scars to the relative striking platform, and the average curvature of the ridge between Southern Levant; Upper each blank scar striking platform pair. Continuity and variability in these features are Palaeolithic; Epipalaeolithic; used to establish the relations among lithic assemblages on different hierarchical Lithic technology; 3-D models; levels: local learning communities and geographically widespread cultural lineages. Quantitative Features The Late Upper Palaeolithic and the Epipalaeolithic of the Southern Levant (ca. 27,000– TO CITE THIS ARTICLE: 15,000 cal BP) provide an opportunity to test our method. A progressive increase in Valletta, F, Dag, I and territoriality is hypothesized throughout this timespan, yet the precise timing and Grosman, L. 2021. Identifying modes of this phenomenon need to be defined. The present study analyzes six core Local Learning Communities assemblages attributed to different cultural entities, representing chronologically During the Terminal separated occupations of the Ein Gev area and the coastal Sharon Plain. Continuity in Palaeolithic in the Southern Levant: Multi-scale 3-D technological traits between the Atlitian (ca. 27,000–26,000 cal BP) and Nizzanan (ca. Analysis of Flint Cores. Journal 20,000–18,500 cal BP) occupations of the Ein Gev area suggests that the same learning of Computer Applications in community repeatedly settled there during a long time span. Two geographically Archaeology, 4(1), 145–168. separate learning communities were defined in the study areas within the Kebaran DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/ cultural entity (ca. 24,000–18,000 cal BP); the group occupying the Ein Gev area jcaa.74 possibly continued to settle there during the Geometric Kebaran (ca. 18,000–15,000 cal BP). Continuity in more conservative traits of the reduction sequence allows to tie these two communities to the same cultural lineage. The ability to track prehistoric learning communities based on quantitative features helps increase the objectivity and the resolution in the reconstruction of past cultural dynamics. Valletta et al. Journal of Computer Applications in Archaeology DOI: 10.5334/jcaa.74 146 1. INTRODUCTION and ‘societies’ (Borgerhoff Mulder, Nunn & Towner 2006). Technological and typological aspects of lithic The present paper focuses on population dynamics assemblages reflect cultural traits (Lyman & O’Brien 2003) during the later stages of the Upper Palaeolithic that can be transmitted either vertically within a specific (LUP; ca. 30,000–24,000 cal BP) and the pre-Natufian learning community, or horizontally among neighboring Epipalaeolithic (EP; ca. 24,000–15,000 cal BP) in the communities (Borgerhoff Mulder, Nunn & Towner 2006; Southern Levant. Lacking deeply stratified sequences Eerkens & Lipo 2007). Traits that are less visible to external and a robust chronological framework, our knowledge individuals (low visibility) and require a longer and more of the LUP remains incomplete, with few clearly defined complex learning process (technologically rigid) are more archaeological entities (Belfer-Cohen & Goring-Morris likely to be vertically transmitted and, consequently, to 2003, 2014, 2017; Gilead 1991). On the other hand, the be retained within the community than more visible and EP provides a relatively high resolution archaeological technologically malleable ones (Gosselain 2000; Premo record for defining cultural changes, especially due to & Tostevin 2016). Consequently, continuity among lithic the appearance of microliths: standardized, minute assemblages in less visible and malleable traits can be lithic implements (Belfer-Cohen & Goring-Morris 2002). related to a greater degree of cultural intimacy between Patterns in the type of microliths produced and in other the groups that produced them, while more visible stylistic traits allow us to define a series of geographically and malleable traits can be more easily transmitted and chronologically limited cultural entities within the among separated communities belonging to the same EP (Bar-Yosef 1970; Belfer-Cohen & Goring-Morris 2014; geographically wide-spread network. Byrd 1988; Goring-Morris 1987; Goring-Morris & Belfer- LUP and EP cultural entities are traditionally defined Cohen 2017). based on highly visible and technologically malleable Alongside the lithic evidence, the EP archaeological typological traits (Bar-Yosef 1970; Goring-Morris 1987), record is characterized by a progressive increase in the thus, likely representing widespread networks of importance of smaller ungulates and lower ranked interconnected learning communities. On the other prey in the faunal assemblages (Munro 2009b, 2009a; hand, technological traits of the reduction sequence are Munro et al. 2018; Stiner 2001; Stiner, Munro & Surovell barely visible outside the restricted knapper group and 2000; Stutz, Munro & Bar-Oz 2009; Zeder 2012), by their transmission involves a greater investment of time, the development of ground-stone tools and possible energy, and material (Hiscock 2014). These less visible plant cultivation (Dubreuil & Nadel 2015; Nadel et al. and less malleable traits are therefore, more likely to be 2012; Snir et al. 2015; cf. Abbo & Gopher 2020), by the maintained within a specific community and can be used appearance of cemeteries (Bocquentin et al. 2011; Maher to track local populations. et al. 2011), and by the increased production of mobile Local learning communities were previously defined art (Hovers 1990; Kaufman et al. 2017; Shimelmitz et al. within the geographically widespread LUP and EP 2018; Yaroshevich et al. 2016). The greater investment cultural entities based on variability in the typological in stylistic behavior (Sackett 1982, 1986; Wobst 1977) composition of the microlith assemblages (Bar-Yosef suggested by increasingly pronounced technological and 1981; Goring-Morris 2009; Goring-Morris, Hovers & Belfer- typological differences, decorated items, and symbolism, Cohen 2009), or on lower visibility traits such as microlith combined with the intensification in the exploitation of size (Goring-Morris 1987; Kadowaki & Nishiaki 2016), local resources highlights a positive trend in population morphology, use (Macdonald 2013), and core reduction density, possibly corresponding to increased awareness method (Marder 2002). Additionally, our previous study of group identity and territoriality (Belfer-Cohen & on sites attributed to different cultural entities in a Goring-Morris 2003; Maher, Richter & Stock 2012; geographically limited area (Ein Gev, Valletta & Grosman Rosenberg 1990, 1998). The precise timing and modes of 2021) highlighted traits of the core reduction method that these developments are yet to be established. Based on locally outlasted typologically defined cultural entities, traditional analysis of archaeological assemblages it is allowing us to track communities that maintained their difficult to detect the scale and nature of the relationship own manufacturing tradition, despite adopting novel between landscape and specific human groups. typological traits. The present study extends this analysis The aim of this study is to test possible local learning by adding the geographical comparison with coeval sites communities that repeatedly occupied specific areas of from a different area (Sharon Plain) and by including the Southern Levant. Learning communities are defined technological traits that might have been transmitted as uninterrupted chains of teachers and learners, along through interaction on different scales inside and outside which technological knowledge is directly transmitted specific learning communities. from one generation to the subsequent through The Sharon Plain is ca. 90 km from Ein Gev, instruction and/or imitation. These communities have corresponding to the roaming territories proposed previously been referred to with different terminologies, for EP human groups (Byrd, Garrard & Brandy 2016; including ‘populations’ (Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1982) Goring-Morris 2009; Goring-Morris, Hovers & Belfer- Valletta et al. Journal of Computer Applications in Archaeology DOI: 10.5334/jcaa.74 147 Cohen 2009). Continuity of technological traits between two categories of lithic assemblages: those rich in the two areas may, thus, be related to the wide-range bladelets and bladelet cores and those dominated by mobility of a single community, or to a geographically burins on Clactonian truncations/notches with few widespread manufacturing tradition, shared by bladelets and microliths (Belfer-Cohen et al. 2004; different interconnected groups. On the other hand, Belfer-Cohen & Goring-Morris 2003, 2014, 2017).