Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-vvkck Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T10:04:41.541Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Resharpening and Recycling of Flint Bifacial Tools from the Southern Levant Neolithic and Chalcolithic

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 February 2014

Ran Barkai
Ran Barkai
Affiliation:
Department of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University, POB 39040, Ramat Aviv, 69978 Tel Aviv, Israel
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper attempts at reconstructing the life cycle of flint bifacial tools in two major technological trajectories, each aimed at a different end. It is focused on discarded polished flint bifacial tools (axe, adze, chisel) and bifacial polished debitage items found in Neolithic and Chalcolithic sites (9th–6th millennium BP) from the Southern Levant.

Recent studies of Holocene flint assemblages revealed special types of debitage items such as blades, flakes, cores and core trimming elements, all bearing traces of polish. The discovery of these polished debitage items in Levantine sites enabled a study of bifacial tool resharpening and recycling techniques, emphasising the exceptional attention paid to this tool category. Since polished bifacial tools appear in many old world Holocene archaeological contexts, the data and interpretation presented in this study have implications far beyond the Southern Levant and could relate to universal technological properties of flint axes and other bifacial tools.

Résumé

Cette étude tente de reconstruire le cycle de vie des outils bifaces en silex dans deux trajectoires technologiques majeures, chacune visant un but différent. Elle se concentre sur des outils bifaces en silex polis rejetés (hache, herminette, grattoir) et des résidus polis de débitage de bifaces découverts sur des sites néolithiques et chalcolithiques (7ème–4ème millénaires avant le présent) du Levant méridional.

De récentes études d'assemblages de l'Holocène ont révélé des types particuliers de fragments de débitage tels que des lames, écailles, noyaux et éléments résultant de la taille d'un nucleus, tous portaient des traces de polissage. La découverte de ces résidus de débitage polis sur des sites du Levant a permis une étude des techniques de ré-affûtage et de recyclage des outils bifaces, mettant l'accent sur l'attention toute particulière accordée à cette catégorie d'outils. Comme les outils bifaces polis sont présents dans beaucoup de contextes archéologiques holocènes de l’ ancien monde, les données présentées dans cette étude, et leur interprétation, ont des implications qui s'étendent bien au-delà du Levant méridional et pourraient être liées aux propriétés technologiques universelles des haches en silex et autres outils bifaces.

Zusammenfassung

Dieser Artikel versucht, den Lebenszyklus von bifaziellen Feuersteingeräten in zwei jeweils unterschiedlich ausgerichteten technologischen Untersuchungssträngen zu rekonstruieren. Dabei konzentriert sich der Artikel auf weggeworfene polierte bifazielle Feuersteingeräte (Axt, Beil, Meißel) und bifaziell polierte Abfallstücke, die in neolithischen und chalkolithischen (7. – 4. Jahrtausend BP) Fundstellen in der südlichen Levante gefunden wurden.

Neuere Studien zu holozänen Ansammlungen von Feuerstein haben gezeigt, dass spezielle Typen von Abfallstücken, wie z.B. Klingen, Abschläge, Kerne und Kernpräparationsabfälle, alle Spuren von Polieren aufweisen. Die Entdeckung dieser polierten Abfallstücke in Fundstellen der Levante hat eine Studie der Techniken des Nachschärfens und der Wiederverwertung von bifaziellen Geräten ermöglicht, und verdeutlicht die außergewöhnliche Aufmerksamkeit, die diese Gerätekategorie erfuhr. Da polierte bifazielle Feuersteingeräte in vielen holozänen Fundzusammenhängen der Alten Welt vorkommen, haben die Daten und deren Interpretation, die in dieser Untersuchung vorgestellt werden, eine über die Levante hinaus reichende Bedeutung und könnten auf universelle technologische Eigenschaften von Feuersteinäxten und anderen bifaziellen Geräten zurückgeführt werden.

Résumen

Este artículo intenta la reconstrucción del ciclo de vida de los útiles de sílex de forma bifacial de dos grandes trayectorias tecnológicas, cada una encaminada a un fin distinto. El artículo se centra en útiles de sílex pulimentados de forma bifacial que fueron desechados (hacha, azuela, percutor) y en elementos de retoque pulimentados encontrados en yacimientos del Neolítico y Calcolítico (7° – 4° milenios BP) del Levante Sur.

Estudios recientes de grupos de sílex del holoceno han revelado tipos especiales de elementos de retoque como lascas, fragmentos, núcleos y fragmentos astillados de núcleos, todos los cuales tienen trazas de pulimentación. El descubrimiento de estos elementos de retoque pulimentados en yacimientos del Levante ha permitido un estudio de las técnicas de retoque y reciclaje de útiles bifaces, subrayando la excepcional atención dada a esta categoría. Puesto que instrumentos pulimentados de forma bifacial aparecen en muchos contextos arqueológicos del holoceno en el viejo mundo, los datos y la intepretación que se presentan en este estudio tienen implicaciones más alla del Levante Sur y se podrían poner en relación con propiedades universales de las hachas de sílex y otras herramienras bifaces.

Type
Research Article
Information
Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society , Volume 65 , 1999 , pp. 303 - 318
Copyright
Copyright © The Prehistoric Society 1999

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ashton, N. 1988. Tranchet axe manufacture from Cliffe, Kent. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 54, 315–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barkai, R. 1996. The Flint Assemblage of Nahal Zehora I, A Wadi Raba Site in the Menashe Hills: the implications of a technological and typological analysis. Unpublished M.A Thesis. Tel Aviv University (Hebrew with an English summary).Google Scholar
Binford, L.R. 1979. Organization and formation processes: Looking at curated technologies. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 35/3, 255–72.Google Scholar
Boeda, E. 1995. Levallois: A volumetric construction, methods, a technique. In Dibble, H.L. & Yosef, O. Bar (eds), The Definition and Interpretation of Levallois Technology, 171–83. Madison, Wisconsin: Monographs in World Archaeology 23.Google Scholar
Boydston, R.A. 1989. A cost/benefit study of functionally similar tools. In Torrence, R. (ed.), Time, Energy and Stone Tools, 67–77, Cambridge: University Press.Google Scholar
Bunch, B. & Fell, C.I. 1949. A stone axe factory at Pike of Stickle, Great Langdale, Westmorland. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 15, 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burton, J. 1980. Making sense of waste flakes: New methods for investigating the technology and economics behind chipped stone assemblages. Journal of Archaeological Science 7, 131–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bush, P.R. & Sieveking, G. de G. 1986. Geochemistry and the provenance of flint axes. In Sieveking, G. de G. & Hart, M.B. (eds), The Scientific Study of Flint and Chert. Proceedings of the Fourth International Flint Symposium, 133–40. Cambridge: University Press.Google Scholar
Claris, P. & Quartermaine, J. 1989. The Neolithic quarries and axe factory sites of Great Langdale and Scafell Pike: A new field survey. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 55, 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Copeland, C. 1995. Are Levallois flakes in the Levantine Acheulian the result of biface preparation? in Dibble, H.L. & Yosef, O. Bar (eds), The Definition and Interpretation of Levallois Technology, 171–83. Madison, Wisconsin: Monographs in World Archaeology 23.Google Scholar
Crowfoot Payne, J. 1983. The flint industries of Jericho. In Kenyon, K.M. & Holland, T.A. (eds), Excavations at Jericho. Volume V: the pottery phases of the Tell and other finds, 622–759. Oxford: University Press.Google Scholar
Gazit, D. 1986. Is the polished appearance of flint axes also the result of their use as quarrying tools? Michmanim 3, 37–9.Google Scholar
Gopher, A. & Orrelle, E. 1990. The flint industry of Nahal Zehora I, a Wadi Raba site in the Menashe hills. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 276, 67–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansen, P.V. & Madsen, B. 1983. Flint axe manufacture in the Neolithic. Journal of Danish Archaeology 2, 43–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayden, B. 1989. From chopper to celt: the evolution of resharpening techniques. In Torrence, R. (ed.), Time, Energy and Stone Tools, 7–16. Cambridge: University Press.Google Scholar
Jorgensen, S. 1985. Tree-felling (with original Neolithic flint axes in draved wood). Copenhagen: National Museum of Denmark.Google Scholar
Keeley, L.H. 1983. Microscopic examination of adzes. In Kenyon, K.M. & Holland, T.A. (eds), Excavations at Jericho. Volume V: the pottery Phases of the Tell and other finds, 759. Oxford: University Press.Google Scholar
Lechevallier, M. 1978. Abou Gosh et Beisamoun. Deux gisements du VIIe millenaire avant l'ere chretienne en Israel. Memoires et Travaux du Centre de Resherches Prehistoriques Français de Jerusalem 2. Paris: Association Paleorient.Google Scholar
Madsen, B. 1984. Flint axe manufacture in the Neolithic: experiments with grinding and polishing of thin butted flint axes. Journal of Danish Archaeology 3, 47–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McNabb, J. 1996. More from the cutting edge: further discoveries of Clactonian bifaces. Antiquity 70, 428–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mills, P.R. 1993. An axe to grind: a functional analysis of anasazi stone axes from Sand Canyon Pueblo Ruin (5MT765), Southwestern Colorado. Kiva 58/3, 393–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nadel, D. 1997. The chipped stone industry of Netiv Hagdud. In Yosef, O. Bar & Gopher, A. (eds), An Early Neolithic Village in the Jordan Valley. Part 1: the archaeology of Netiv Hagdud. American School of Prehistoric Research Bulletin 43, 71–149.Google Scholar
Newcomer, M.H. 1971. Some quantitative experiments in hand-axe manufacture. World Archaeology 3, 85–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petrequin, P. & Petrequin, A.M. 1993. From polished stone tool to the sacred axe: the axes of the Danis of Irain Jaya, Indonesia. In Berthelet, A. & Chavaillion, J. (eds), The Uses of Tools by Human and Non Human Primates, 359–77. Oxford: Clarendon.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pigeot, N. 1990. Technical and social actors: flintknapping specialists at Magdalenian Etiolles. Archaeological Review from Cambridge 9.1, 126–41.Google Scholar
Pitts, M. 1996. The stone axe in Neolithic Britain. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 61, 311–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quintero, L. 1998. Neolithic axe and adze production: Data from 'Ain Ghazal. Poster presented at the workshop on Pre-Pottery Neolithic chipped lithic Industries, Venice, November 1998.Google Scholar
Roe, D.A. 1981. The Lower and Middle Palaeolithic Periods in Britain. London: Routledge & Kegan PaulGoogle Scholar
Shafer, H.J. & Hester, T.R. 1983. Ancient Maya chert workshops in northern Belize, Central America. American Antiquity 48, 519–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singer, R; Gladfelter, B.G. & Wymer, J.J. 1993. The Lower Palaeolithic Site at Hoxne, England. Chicago: University Press.Google Scholar
Stahle, D.W. & Dann, J.E. 1982. An analysis and application of the size distribution of waste flakes from the manufacture of bifacial stone tools. World Archaeology 14.1, 84–97.Google Scholar
Tacon, P.S.C. 1991. The power of stone: symbolic aspects of stone use and tool development in western Arnhem land, Australia. Antiquity 65, 192–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Toth, N., Clark, D. & Igabue, G. 1992. The last stone ax makers. Scientific American 267.1, 66–71.Google Scholar
Warren, S.H., Piggott, S., Clark, J.G.D., Burkitt, M.C. & Godwin, H. & M.E., 1936. Archaeology of the submerged land surface of the Essex coast. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 2.2, 178–210Google Scholar
Wenben Smith, F.F. 1989. The use of canonical variates for determination of biface manufacturing technology at Boxgrove Lower Palaeolithic site and the behavioural implications of this technology. Journal of Archaeological Science 16, 17–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiessner, P. 1990. Is there a unity to style? In Conkey, M. & Hastorf, C. (eds), The Uses of Style in Archaeology, 105–12. Cambridge: University Press.Google Scholar
Wilke, PJ. & Quintero, L.A. 1994. Naviform core and blade technology: assemblage character as determined by replicative experiments. In Gebel, H.G. & Kozlowski, S.K. (eds), Neolithic Chipped Stone Industries of the Fertile Crescent, 33–60. Berlin: Proceedings of the First Workshop on PPN Chipped Lithic Industries.Google Scholar
Woodman, P.C. 1992. Excavations at Mad Mans Window, Glenarm, Co. Antrim: Problems of flint exploitation in East Antrim. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 58, 77–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar