Arrowheads of the Neolithic Levant: A Seriation Analysis.

• Author: Knapp, A. Bernard

The Neolithic of the Levant was a dynamic period in human prehistory, when major social, economic, and behavioral changes, such as sedentism, the emergence of agriculture, and pastoralism, led to further socio-structural changes that crystallized in the urban cultures of the Bronze Age. Braidwood's projects in Iraqi Kurdistan and in the Amuq Plain may perhaps be regarded as initiating a trend in region-based research that continues elsewhere to this day, and that may fairly be said to characterize the study under review: Gopher repeatedly emphasizes that the entire Levant, from northern Syria to southern Sinai, must be regarded as a single, regional culture area.

The author starts by questioning the utility of applying any of several economic, ecological, or biological models developed in the 1970s and 1980s to assess or explain emergent sociocultural changes of the Levantine Neolithic. Gopher argues that such models have seldom moved beyond the realm of speculation, because they have not been applied or tested in the field, or applied to empirical data. One solution would be to gain better "chronostratigraphic" controls over the abundant data that do exist, particularly those exhibiting temporal coherence and offering good contextual, and thus chronological and stratigraphic, information.

The chief aims of Gopher's study are (1) to develop a chronostratigraphic framework for the period between 8500-4500 B.C. in the Levant, using seriation and the C14 record to develop, respectively, relative and absolute chronological controls; and (2) to delineate interregional (but still within the greater Levant) population groups, consider their cultural development, and examine their levels of interaction by analyzing the stylistic features of flint tool assemblages, in particular the striking and definitive arrowhead groups.

In chapter seven, on absolute chronology, Gopher reveals that he is using uncalibrated radiocarbon dates, yet he cites dates as "B.C." without further explanation. Is he simply subtracting 1950 years to achieve this? He also suggests that archaeologists may be better served by "old fashioned" relative dating techniques than by the use of dendrochronologically calibrated dates (p. 226). Most prehistorians would disagree. Since Gopher goes on to use unexplained "B.C." dates, his chronology must be regarded as somewhat suspect.

Gopher maintains that variation in arrowhead types is apparent chiefly in their morphology, and that...