Interpreting Variability Through Multiple Methodologies: The Interplay of Form and Function in Epipalaeolithic Microliths by Danielle Aviva Macdonald A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Anthropology University of Toronto © Copyright by Danielle Aviva Macdonald 2013 Interpreting Variability Through Multiple Methodologies: The Interplay of Form and Function in Epipalaeolithic Microliths Danielle Aviva Macdonald Doctor of Philosophy Department of Anthropology University of Toronto 2013 Abstract The reason and significance of variation in material culture is one of the most fundamental debates in archaeological studies. These debates factor strongly into Levantine Epipalaeolithic research, where the morphological variability of microlithic tools has been interpreted to represent distinct cultural or ethnic communities. This dissertation addresses microlith variability during the Middle Epipalaeolithic (≈17,500 – 14,600 cal BP) through the analysis of lithic assemblages from Wadi Mataha, ‘Uyun al-Hammâm, and Kharaneh IV (Jordan). Although regionally disparate, the lithic assemblages are characterized by the same geometric microlith type: the trapeze-rectangle. The integration of typological, technological, morphometric, and use- wear analyses allows for the subtleties in material culture to be explored among these sites. In addition to these analyses, new methods for use-wear quantification are presented. This dissertation sets out to test several hypotheses in regards to the microlith assemblages: 1) microliths will have overlapping functions, indicating that function does not drive form; and 2) microliths will show differences in technological style. These hypotheses relate back to current debates in Epipalaeolithic research about the nature of microlith variability. Is variation in microlith morphology the product of different technological sequences of production or microlith function? Or is variability the result of different cultural practices? This material culture variability is explored through the lens of the chaîne opératoire, where I advocate for the inclusion of functional analysis into our study of lithic assemblages. Through the integration of multiple methods, I suggest there is not a direct correlation between microlith form and function. ii Instead, the variability we witness in microliths during the Middle Epipalaeolithic is the result of local expressions within different communities. iii Acknowledgments First, I would like to greatly thank my supervisor, Michael Chazan, for his support, advice, and encouragement. His guidance was invaluable throughout this process. I would also like to thank Ted Banning, who first took me to Jordan in 2004 and has encouraged me throughout my research. Thank you to Carl Knappett for insightful comments and discussions about materiality and the chaîne opératoire. I would also like to thank Ed Swenson and Gary Coupland for their thoughtful observations and support. Thank you to Prof. Ofer Bar-Yosef for his comments and insights as my external examiner. A very special thank you to Lisa Maher, whose continued support and friendship over the past decade led me to study the Epipalaeolithic. The field work and research opportunities she offered me at ‘Uyun al-Hammâm and Kharaneh IV have been invaluable. I look forward to many more years of collaboration. Thank you to the field crews from ‘Uyun al-Hammâm and Kharaneh IV, who made excavations a fun and amazing adventure! Importantly, thank you to Toby Richter and Jay Stock, for late night discussions on the Epipalaeolithic, music, and everything in between. Thank you to Joel Janetski for access to the Wadi Mataha material and for the detailed excavation of such an amazing site. I would like to express my gratitude to Jayne Wilkins and Matt Walls. Our discussions over shared lunches will always be treasured. To all of the University of Toronto graduate students, including Jenn Campbell, Adam Allentuck, Lauren Norman, Lesley Howse, Matt Mosher, Phil Hitchings, Emma Humphrey, Greg Braun, Emily Hubbard, and many more, whose friendship and support I cherish. To David Bilton, for letting me harvest his family’s wheat and for enthusiastically participating in the experiment. Thank you to Peter Bikoulis, who took the time to make beautiful maps. Many people graciously shared their expertise with me over the course of this research. To Ben Schoville, who patiently coached me through the tps programs over e-mail. Dan Rahimi, who made three beautiful hafts with his expert wood-working skills and inspired me to explore the experiential element of hafted tools. To Dodi Ben Ami, who knapped a set of amazing geometric iv microliths. Thank you to Patricia Anderson, who invited me to France to participate in the harvest and showed me such amazing hospitality while I was there. To Sylvie Beyries, who trained me in the art of use-wear analysis. The research on quantitative use-wear could not have been possible without the help and support of many people. Conversations with Adrian Evans, James Stemp, and Harry Lerner ignited an interest in use-wear quantification and I look forward to continued work together. Thank you to Jim York from Moog Inc., for spending his weekends at the office while I used the Alicona and for showing me amazing hospitality while I was visiting. Support and software was generously provided by Manfred Prantl and Stefan Scherer from Alicona. Mountains Map software was provided by Anne Berger and Francois Blateyron from Digital Surf. Most importantly, I would like to thank my husband Jim McCarthy. His support, love, and encouragement got me through these years. Without him this would not have been possible. v Table of Contents Acknowledgments .......................................................................................................................... iv Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................... vi List of Tables ............................................................................................................................... xiii List of Figures ............................................................................................................................. xvii Chapter 1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Material Culture Variability ................................................................................................ 2 1.2.1 Communicative Style .............................................................................................. 3 1.2.2 Technological Style ................................................................................................ 4 1.2.3 Chaîne Opératoire .................................................................................................. 7 1.2.4 Behavioural Archaeology ....................................................................................... 8 1.3 Summary ........................................................................................................................... 10 1.4 Outline of Thesis ............................................................................................................... 12 Chapter 2 The Epipalaeolithic of the Southern Levant ................................................................. 14 2 Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 14 2.1 The Epipalaeolithic ........................................................................................................... 14 2.2 History of Epipalaeolithic Research in the Southern Levant ............................................ 18 2.3 Culture and the Environment ............................................................................................ 22 2.4 The Early Epipalaeolithic (23,000-17,500 cal BP) ........................................................... 27 2.4.1 Masraqan ............................................................................................................... 27 2.4.2 Nebekian ............................................................................................................... 28 2.4.3 Kebaran ................................................................................................................. 28 vi 2.4.4 Nizzanan ............................................................................................................... 29 2.5 The Middle Epipalaeolithic (17,500 – 14,600 cal BP) ..................................................... 30 2.5.1 Geometric Kebaran ............................................................................................... 30 2.5.2 Mushabian ............................................................................................................. 31 2.5.3 Ramonian .............................................................................................................. 32 2.6 The Late Epipalaeolithic (14,600-11,600 cal BP) ............................................................ 32 2.6.1 Early Natufian ....................................................................................................... 32 2.6.2 Late Natufian