35 Recent trends in World Prehistory

D. K. Bhattacharya

Table of contents:

Introduction

1. Environmental Reconstruction

2. Site Analysis

3. Climatic Changes Summary

Learning outcomes

• To understand the recent trends in world history
• To understand the role of Environmental Reconstruction in it
• To understand the role of Site Analysis in it
• To understand the role of Climatic Changes in it

Introduction

Since the thirties of the last century there have been two distinct trends in archaeology. The first of this was to understand prehistoric technology on more experimental and hence empirical ground and the second of this was to try and create methods of total environmental reconstruction. Tool making techniques were laid down on such details as angle of flaking, nature of the striking platform as also orientation of primary and secondary scars. Ohel, a scholar from Israel re-studied the entire Clactonian collection of Warren and demonstrated many technological features of this industry which was earlier not paid adequate attention by scholars. She even demonstrated that such core types as hand axes are also present within the Clactonian industry. This kind of closer attention to techniques being paid in archaeological research also led to better understanding of fluting technique and blade manufacture. The understanding of tool making technique became also more experimental when archaeologists started attempting to fabricate tools themselves. The use of different kind of hammers and holding cores in different positions in order to replicate tools which compare with the tools retrieved from excavations started revealing rich amount of insights in the understanding of Stone age technologies. This being of special importance because Stone Age tools are found to be made on such large variety of raw material that the result of their fabrication can be different because of the raw material and not the technique used. Quartz, obsidian, sandstone, basalt, limestone and quartzite are some of the varieties of stone used during the Palaeolithic period. The effect and suitability of any fabrication technique cannot be similar in all these stone types. The risk of bifacial flaking is well known. Once you go to flake the second surface after the first surface have been flaked you start running the risk of breaking the tool with every blow. Yet such thin bifaces like laurel leaf or blattspitzen known from European Palaeolithic period at once demonstrate how absorbing force was resorted to by giving a support to the whole surface. Prof. Crabtree has shown that the support was given by holding the tool against one’s thighs. Understanding types and techniques alone cannot help us reconstruct the manner the tool was used. In other words, activity reconstruction and general function of the tools still remained unattended during this entire period.

1.    Environmental reconstruction

Environmental reconstruction, though was not an activity of the archaeologists, was increasingly used by archaeologist to understand the agencies which were active during prehistoric occupation of a site. Ground morain, end morain, solifluction, loess profile or for that matter faunal and floral profile of the region of adaptation was very helpful in understanding human adaptational imperatives. Around the fifties of the last century an entirely new dimension in archaeological research was initiated by the introduction of coprolite analysis. Fossilized human excreta retrieved from archaeological excavations were put to a rigorous laboratory analysis to retrieve the pollens of the past either ingested as part of food or as contamination in the air. This enabled us not only to reconstruct the floristic diversity of the past but also identify human choice in food. Thus, a palaeo-ethno-botanical interpretation was possible.

That is, if in a given ecology there are say, hundred edible plants identified from general palynological analysis and coprolite analysis shows much lesser number of plants used for food we can interpret a lack of subsistence stress. If the number of plants used for food comes closer to the total number of edible plants available we can at once see the population has closed down to the carrying capacity of the chosen ecology. This kind of analysis certainly goes much ahead of the usual researches of techniques of stone fabrication or even general ecological reconstruction. This can on empirical grounds reconstruct constraints of adaptation or time of fission of band or population. Henry de Lumley used coprolite analysis at the French Riviera site of Terra Amata. Here he could only demonstrate the general eco-diversity of the upper slopes on the basis of the pollens extracted from the coprolite. The potentiality of this technique is enormous but unfortunately it depends on availability of specimens in ancient excavated sites. Identifying the probable function of the tools of Stone Age period has always been on a common sense level. Yet without the possibility of proving the function one could hardly reconstruct activities and hence ethnicity. From the time Bordes gave his structural scheme of typological identification there has been some scholars who tried to oppose this. Semenor, a Russian scholar even proposed a typological scheme based on both structure and function. But all these function interpretation was at a common sense basis. ‘Micro edge wears’ analysis was developed at this juncture to reconstruct the function of the tool on the basis of marks of wear on the tool which are visible under microscope. It is argued that silicon or common granules of dust have an abrasive power and these are striation marks not visible to the naked eye. Under microscope one can see these marks and photograph them. If we do a range of functions with same stone material and photograph the marks caused by our function. Finally, we can compare these marks with the marks on prehistoric tools and conclude that the prehistoric tool must have been worked the way we have performed our function. This method enables us to identify the way prehistoric tools were actually used by an empirical way. A large array of different functions of flake and blade tools have been now reconstructed.

2.   Site Analysis

With Binford asking fresh range of questions from archaeological data we observe entirely new trends in research. One of these is what David Clarke calls analytical archaeology. It was argued that a site analysis represents activities of a group. To call such clusters as representing culture of the specific period is not correct. Statistical models can be created and a null hypothesis can be constructed. Subsequently the actual spread of the antiquities can be tested against these hypotheses. Besides a series of tests were formulated to analyse cluster of sites for activity reconstruction. One can approach the minimum of ethnicity from activities again by using statistical method. The effect of Binford and Clarke on traditional archaeology was very negative. They started to question all those broad assumptions done earlier. So much was their anger on these new scholars that they started to nickname them as ‘Bin-Clarke mafia’. For obvious reasons analytical archaeology could not make much head way in archaeology of younger periods. For Stone Age period multivariate analysis with functional loads were used by Binford for the material from Combe Grenal to demonstrate that the 4 faces of Mousterian as identified by Bordes are in reality only one group who had created different tools to suit different environment. Here is a classic case of how activity has been mistaken as ethnicity and only prudent use of statistics can demonstrate these fit falls.

3. Climatic Changes

The involvement with palaeo-climatic research has finally led into two most recent trends in archaeological research. The foremost of these is what is referred to as ‘Catchment Area Analysis’. The second one is called ‘Site Formation Analysis’. Both these branches have developed after Binford usurped in the body of fresh enquiries in traditional archaeology. The activity of archaeologists in the past was always involved in comparing his finds with known finds and then attribute it a specific chrono-cultural status. That is pre-decided stages of cultural successions were used to label status to the new discovery. This was certainly not a faultless approach because it tends to cloud local developments and variations. Such local developments start getting more importance once we start asking questions about the reasons of these changes. Activity reconstruction becomes one of the principal research aim for these new trends in archaeology. Catchment area analysis evolved out of Binford’s fieldwork with the Eskimos. Settlement sites are not necessarily near the areas of large mammal foraging area. Consequently hunting requires developing a strategy of plan of attack. Archaeologists seldom have paid attention to such activity reconstruction. Catchment area analysis can reveal a large series of imperatives under which prehistoric bands operate.

Site formation is another recent trend of research which has revealed numerous sources and activities through which different types of sites are formed through time.

Summary

To sum up it would appear that the emphasis of analysing the antiquities is slowly getting shifted to analysis of the context of these antiquities. This has brought about excellent information of regional developments. These are found to be not always agreeing with the grand chrono-cultural ascriptions which were earlier used. The younger sites like metal smelters and their finish into end products are better understood when we attempt such local analysis. Here I will like to give the example of Ahar and the series of sites called Ganeswara-Jodhpura. Here one can find direct evidence of copper smelting, yet the people have no copper implements for themselves. Even their bangles are of terracotta. It can be easily seen that these were labour camps of miners and smelters. Finished metal as ignots used to arrive at Kalibangan, a Harappan site about 250 k.m. in the north. Thus, activity reconstruction of these sites will show a very impoverish culture which can be understood only when palaeo-ethnic migration is reconstructed.