The Critical Role of Technological Analysis for Prehistoric Anthropological Inference

Prehistoric archaeology has profited enormously from the expanding role of technological examination of artifactual materials, particularly in the past couple of decades. Indeed, the rapid growth of materials sciences studies has evidently begun to outpace the capacity of many prejistoric archaeologists to accomodate the results of technological analyses into anthropological models to explain perceived changes in the prehistoric archaeological record. The sheer numbers of published technological reports, which increasingly appear in a growing number of specialized journals and other publications, account for some of the communications lag among prehistorians and smaterials scientists. But long-held and persistent myths and “hearsay” evidence also contribute to a widening gap between relevant data and critical evaluation.The case study presented below compares scenarios that purport to explain striking contrasts in the northern and southern parts of the Levant during the middle part of the Neolithic period, particularly from ca. 6,500-5,000 b.c. One hypothesis (climatic change) is briefly dismissed; the other hinges principally on the environmental implications of plaster production that characterized the cultures of the region. The “collapse” of the southern Levantine settlements is understandable when the specific requirements of lime plaster manufacture are taken into account, while the conditions for the persistence of long-term site continuity in the northern Levant are clear under the less pressing environmental demands of gypsum plaster production.