Arrowheads of the Neolithic Levant: A Seriation Analysis.

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 changes in morphology may be either stylistic or functional in origin. Does the author regard technology completely separate from morphology? Whereas he acknowledges that variation may also be related to symbolic or social factors, he proclaims that his definitions essentially will be morphological, and so reveals a disinterest in social approaches to the study of the Levantine Neolithic. The database is extensive, if not exhaustive, given the constraints within which Gopher had to work; it comprises material from over one hundred sites. The seriation included data from sixty-seven sites, all of which were ranked according to four levels of archaeological reliability.

In terms of his aims, Gopher has certainly achieved a meticulous chronostratigraphic analysis; he has considered the technological, typological, and stylistic attributes of arrowheads from virtually every Neolithic site in the Levant, and proposed geographic distinctions on that basis. The sites are clearly presented and well characterized, while the data are profusely illustrated throughout the volume. The methodology is explained thoroughly, after which the reader is taken step-by-step through three levels of seriation analysis. One significant conclusion is that the traditional concept of Levantine Neolithic tell sites as continuously functioning settlements spanning hundreds if not thousands of years may be erroneous. Gopher believes instead that such sites were occupied only for several decades or at most a few centuries before their inhabitants, perhaps reacting to economic stress or environmental degradation, moved on to new sites. Note, however, that the remarkable thickness of Pre-Pottery Neolithic mounds such as Jericho, with over nine meters of PPN deposits (6 of PPNA and 3-4 of PPNB), is not factored into Gopher's interpretation.

In terms of contributing insights into the social aspects of the Levantine Neolithic, or of using his results to develop and refine the theoretical models he found wanting in the first place, Gopher is less successful. That is unfortunate, because it is rare in any part of the world to be able to martial such a comprehensive material database, with good contextual information extending across time and through space. Gopher, however, never developed questions that these data might have addressed; nor do the more general impressions offered in conclusion really progress beyond the chronological and culture-historical. When they do, there are references to systemic processes, ranked societies, and chiefdoms, as well as an unfortunate tendency to ascribe change to "diffusion processes" (usually from north to south) or to ill-defined economic factors and population growth. In that respect, this work reflects its origin in the 1980s as a doctoral dissertation (Hebrew University), completed in 1985 and updated only to 1990 (a few comments on work between 1990-1993 are added on pp. xvii-xviii). The tone of the work is almost, in contemporary archaeological terminology, anti-processual, and certainly reflects no awareness of, or interest in, postprocessual or social approaches to the study of the prehistoric past.

On a more practical level, it is annoying that this remarkably rich and lengthy volume, which treats so many different subjects, contains only a single index, of sites.

However, none of this must detract from the Herculean task that Avi Gopher has undertaken, and completed, with this study of Levantine Neolithic arrowheads. His work will remain for some time an indispensable guide and reference for anyone proposing either to study chipped stone tools in the Levant or to consider the geographical spread and chronological placement of such tools. Now that scholars such as Gopher have laid the empirical foundations so well, it is time for the new generation of prehistorians to erect upon them an archaeology of Neolithic society, incorporating the extensive mortuary, architectural, and environmental data that exist, and that clamor still for interpretation from a social perspective.

A. BERNARD KNAPP UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW