Sickle blade life-history and the transition to agriculture: an early Neolithic case study from...

Sickle blade life-history and the transition to agriculture: an early Neolithic casestudy from Southwest Asia

Nathan Goodale a,*, Heather Otis a, William Andrefsky Jr. b, Ian Kuijt c, Bill Finlayson d, Ken Bart e

aDepartment of Anthropology Hamilton College, 198 College Hill Road, Clinton, NY, USAbDepartment of Anthropology, Washington State University, Pullman, WA, USAcDepartment of Anthropology, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN, USAdCouncil for British Research in the Levant, Amman, JordaneDepartment of Biology, Hamilton College, Clinton, NY, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 14 September 2009Received in revised form7 December 2009Accepted 9 December 2009

Keywords:NeolithicLithicsUse-wearCurationSickle bladesScanning electron microscope analysisSouthwest Asia

a b s t r a c t

In Southwest Asia, sickle blades first appear early in the sequence of the transition to agriculture. In thepast, detailed qualitative research on silica bearing blade stone tools focus on the characterization of use-wear traces such as polish types and accrual rates. In this paper we approach the study of sickle bladesslightly different, choosing to examine tool life-history by developing a method to quantitatively esti-mate harvesting intensity. The method centers on an experiment of cutting cereal stalks and measuringstone blade edge thickness under a scanning electron microscope as a proxy for cutting time. We endwith regressing the experimental results to provide an estimation of how intensively archaeologicalsickle blades recovered from the site of Dhra’, Jordan were used for harvesting. The results, whilepreliminary, enable an initial interpretation of sickle blades as important tools with long use-life historiesduring the early Neolithic in the Southern Levant.

! 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Objectives

Disentangling the links betweenmajor economic events and theimpact of new technologies, such as with the origins of agriculture,is both challenging and central to reconstructing past human civi-lizations. The cultural signature of the origins of agriculture is oftenheld to be the domestication of plants. While broadly correct,a more nuanced perspective recognizes the interconnectivity ofmultiple cultural processes, including the importance of changes instone tool technology. The development and use of sickle tech-nology provides an important case study of this topic. Sickle tech-nology for harvesting cereals and other plants first appears inSouthwest Asia during the Early Natufian tradition sometimebetween 14,500 and 12,800 cal BP (Bar-Yosef, 1998: 164). Thesetools bear a sheen or gloss caused by silica accumulation subse-quent to cutting silica rich plants. Several exhaustive experimentalstudies (for example Anderson, 1994; Bettison, 1985; Quinteroet al., 1997; Simms and Russell, 1997; Unger-Hamilton, 1989;Yamada, 2000) focus on the type of use-wear produced, the rate of

polish accumulation, and efficiency of harvesting cereals withsickles compared to other methods. Shifting the point of discussionbeyond these topics, in this paper we provide the details of anexperimental and use-wear analysis project incorporating a simplemethod to approximate harvesting intensity. This providesa potential way to estimate how long sickle tools were used, and byextension, sheds light upon their importance within prehistoric lifeways. This research provides a means of tracking the use-life ofsickle tools, assessing whether stone sickles were the main tech-nology used to harvest cereals through the transition to agriculturein Southwest Asia, and provides estimates of cereal processingintensity or tool use-life longevity of prehistoric sickle blades.

2. Sickle blades and archaeological context in Southwest Asia

Recent evidence from the Southern Levant in Southwest Asia(Fig. 1) links several inventions associated with cereal cultivation.These inventions are likely important technological adaptationsplaying significant roles in the transition to agriculture. Crucialamong them are the development of sickle blade harvesting tech-nology (Bar-Yosef, 1998: 164; Edwards, 2007) and substantial grainstorage structures (Kuijt, 2009; Kuijt and Finlayson, 2009). Theseinventions alone suggest purposeful cultivation and a delayed food

* Corresponding author.E-mail address: [email protected] (N. Goodale).

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Archaeological Science

journal homepage: ht tp: / /www.elsevier .com/locate/ jas

0305-4403/$ – see front matter ! 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.jas.2009.12.017

Journal of Archaeological Science 37 (2010) 1192–1201

economy in a predomestication context (Kuijt and Finlayson, 2009)clearly comingwell before actual domesticated grains (see Edwardset al., 2004 for the potential earliest known domesticated grainsoccurring late in the early Neolithic of the Southern Levant and fora detailed overview of the Neolithic transition see Kuijt and Goring-Morris, 2002). Both of these inventions are clearly part of everydaypractice at the early Neolithic community of Dhra’, Jordan (Fig. 1)and although evidence is inconclusive, the inventions likely playeda role in peoples lives at other communities (Kuijt, 2009; Kuijt andFinlayson, 2009).

However, it is remarkable that, while there are large purposebuilt grain storage structures at Dhra’, the number of sickle blades isrelatively modest. The Dhra’ lithic tool assemblage includes 73sickle blades or fragments of sickle blades. This comprises only 1.4%of the analyzed portion of the lithic tool assemblage (Goodale et al.,2007). Other sites in the region exhibit a similar occurrence. AtNetiv Hagdud 162 sickle blades were recovered equaling 4.0% of thetool assemblage (Nadel, 1997: 83), Salibya IX 46 sickle blades wererecovered equaling 4.5% of the tool assemblage (Enoch-Shiloh andBar-Yosef, 1997: 15), ‘Ain Darat 26 sickle blades were recoveredequaling 4.7% of the tool assemblage’ (Gopher, 1996: 449), ‘Iraq ed-Dubb 21 sickle blades were recovered equaling 1.9% of the toolassemblage’ (Kuijt and Goodale, 2006, 2009), at Jericho 240 sickleblades were recovered equaling 4.7% of the tool assemblage(Crowfoot Payne, 1983), and Zahrat Adh-Dhra’ 2, and Wadi Faynan16where no sickle blades were recovered (Pirie, 2007; Sayej, 2004).It is also interesting that the periods before (the Natufian) and after

the early Neolithic (Middle and Late Pre-Pottery Neolithic as well asthe Pottery Neolithic) all demonstrate the same pattern of very fewsickle blades (Anderson and Valla, 1996; Quintero et al., 1997).

We might hypothesize that the number of sickle blades isrelated to either the square or cubic meters excavated at each site.In other words, more excavated sediments equal a higher presumedfrequency of sickle blades. Table 1 illustrates that the amount ofexcavated area in squaremeters does not correlatewith the amountof sickle blades recovered. In contrast, although very difficult toquantitatively estimate from the published literature, a bettervariable to examine could be the total volume of excavated sedi-ments in cubic meters. If, however, we qualitatively arrange thesites based on the nature and duration of excavations as an estimateof the total amount of sediments removed, we see no correlationbetween the amount of excavated sediments and the number ofsickle blades recovered (Table 1).

We can identify several proposed scenarios to account for thiscontrasting relationship between evidence for intensive cerealharvest with such infrequent sickle blades. The first potentialreasonwhy no early Neolithic tool assemblage is comprised ofmorethan 4.7% sickle blades could be related to the identification ofsickle polish on stone tools. Yamada (2000: 220) and Quintero et al.(1997) note that at times silica polish may be misidentified or is toominimal to be detected. Additionally, some stone raw materialsmay not naturally display sickle gloss or the blades may not havebeen used long enough to develop gloss (Quintero et al., 1997).Quintero et al. (1997) also point to a finished sickle with insetunglossed blades recovered from the site of Hacilar as an exampleof why so few sickles are found in Neolithic communities. However,we suggest that the time consuming and expensive process ofsecurely mounting blades into a prepared haft that is then onlyminimally used, is probably a rarity, rather than commonplace. Aswell, other materials such as certain soft minerals or substancescontaining mineral material may produce silica like sheen(Anderson,1994: 62–63), although this should, if anything, producea greater apparent frequency of presumed sickle blades. Above andbeyond this, sickle sheen may only be distinguished from polishesformed by other processes through a combination of both visualinspection and microscopic analysis (Anderson, 1994).

While it is possible that the paucity of sickles from earlyNeolithic sites is related to the misidentification of sickle polish orthat the blades have not been used long enough to develop gloss,the fact that excavations at early Neolithic communities withmultiple lithic analysts consistently only recover sickle blades on

003

006

003

006009

900

1200

Dhra‘

Jericho

Netiv HagdudGilgal I

Hatoula

Nahal Oren

‘Iraq ed-DubbGesher

0 50 km

htroN

‘Ain Darat

Salibiya IX

Wadi Fidan 16

Zahrat adh Dhra‘ 2

Fig. 1. Map of the Southern Levant and location of Dhra’, Jordan. Elevation in meters.

Table 1Early Neolithic sites in the Southern Levant of Southwest Asia linking the number ofsickle blades recovered to the amount of excavated area per site.

Site N sickleblades

% ofassemblage

Excavatedarea m2

Reference

1. Jericho 240 4.7 ?? *2. Dhra 73 1.4 375 Goodale et al., 20073. Wadi Faynan 16 0 0 174 Finlayson and

Mithen, 20074. Netiv Hagdud 162 4.0 592 Nadel, 19975. Zahrat Adh-Dhra’ 2 0 0 59 Sayej, 20046. ‘Ain Darat 26 4.7 ?? **7. Salibiya IX 46 4.5 9 Enoch-Shiloh and

Bar-Yosef, 1997

Note that the sites have been ranked in order of estimating how much total sedi-ment was excavated. This is a qualitative assessment based on the nature andduration of each field project. Due to the nature of the published literature cubicmeters would be very hard to quantitatively estimate. *Denotes that the nature inwhich Jericho was excavated and recorded where no screening was employed,makes the variable impossible to estimate. **Denotes that the variable is not pub-lished in the related literature.

N. Goodale et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science 37 (2010) 1192–1201 1193

the order of 0–4.7% of the total stone tool assemblage, seems tosuggest otherwise. Based on the fairly extensive amount of sicklegloss on the 73 blades from Dhra’, it also appears that sickle gloss iseasily recognizable on the Dhra’ flint and the polish forms readably.

Another potential explanation for the rarity of sickle blades inearly Neolithic contexts is the use of other means to harvest cerealssuch as beaters and baskets or hand picking. These are both viableoptions and have been tested for efficiency in relationship to sickles(Anderson, 1991; Simms and Russell, 1997). Anderson (1991) foundthat beaters and baskets were inefficient in comparison to sickles.Both Anderson (1991) and Simms and Russell (1997) found thathand picking was an efficient alternative to sickle harvesting andSimms and Russell (1997) observed that modern Bedouinharvesters regularly hand pick cereals and only seldom use sickletechnology. Because the evidence for hand harvesting is unde-tectable in the archaeological record, the only way to test whetherhand picking was potentially preferred to sickle technology inprehistory is to develop a proxy for how intensively sickles wereused.

Linking sickle use intensity to a testable hypothesis fromarchaeological and experimental studies requires us to address toollife-history, especially in terms of tool use longevity. Tool life-history, or more specifically tool curation, which can be viewed asthe ratio of realized to maximum utility of a tool (Shott, 1996: 267),has been the subject of recent and active debate (for exampleAndrefsky, 2008; Clarkson, 2002; Eren et al., 2005; Kuhn, 1990;Shott, 1996). These and other authors have developed a series ofindices to understand how tools change through use, repair, andsharpening episodes. While not specifically a curation index(mainly becausewe do not develop a scaled index ranging from 0–1as most indices ultimately arrive), our method described belowdevelops a proxy for sickle blade life-history and thus, providesa proxy value for harvesting intensity. The importance of linkingtool life-history to sickle blades is that it allows us to explore howimportant sickles blades were to the people of the Neolithic tran-sition as either expendable short use-life tools or valuable long use-life tools.

2.1. Southwest Asia sickle blade research

The majority of archaeological work on sickle blades revolvesaround several key issues. First, many scholars explore an under-standing of sickle sheen and its formation on stone tools (Anderson,1991; Clement and Gibaja, 1988; Kardulias and Yerkes, 1996;Quintero et al., 1997; Unger-Hamilton, 1989, 1991; Yamada, 2000).These experimental and analytical research projects focus ondetermining the type of polish development from harvestingdifferent materials and polish accrual rates. Second, many scholars

have examined the efficiency of sickles for harvesting in compar-ison to other methods (Anderson, 1991; Simms and Russell, 1997).This includes examining the stage of senescence of harvestingcereals as well as the height on the culm (close to the ground orclose to the seed head) where cutting would produce the highestyield (Anderson, 1991) (Fig. 2). Third, researchers have gained anunderstanding of the most efficient means to organize or set up thesickle technology. This includes examination of what constitutes anoptimal blade (length of the blade and straightness of the blade),haft morphology (curved versus straight handles), as well as bladeposition in the haft (Anderson, 1991; Quintero et al., 1997; Ibanezet al., 1998; Unger-Hamilton, 1989, 1991). As an extension to theorganization of sickle technology, experiments also attempt todetect the most efficient motion for harvesting (sawing versusunidirectional motion) (Quintero et al., 1997; Yamada, 2000: 228).

Apart from these often exhaustive experimental projects, moststudies, at least to some degree, utilize microscopes to analyze bothexperimental as well as archaeological sickles. Microscopic analysisranges fromwhat could be considered low (<50!) (van Gijn, 1999),middle (50–400!) (Unger-Hamilton, 1989) and high power (1000–5000!) (Bettison, 1985). Studies include the use of epi-illuminating(Unger-Hamilton, 1989) and stereo microscopes (van Gijn, 1999), aswell as scanning electron microscopes (Bettison, 1985; Yamada,2000).

The above studies form an extensive literature regarding manyaspects of sickle technology. Researchers have gained a moredetailed understanding of some of the related aspects betweensickle technology and the origins of agriculture and several studiesbroadly compare sickles from multiple time periods (for exampleUnger-Hamilton, 1989 provides analysis of sickles from the Epi-paleolithic through the Bronze Age in Southwest Asia). Morespecifically, these studies have improved our understanding ofpolish formation and the logistics of harvesting cereals with sickletechnology.

Currently, many sickle blade studies fall into the commonproblem of lithic use-wear studies. The problem lies in the factthat use-wear analysis is inherently qualitative (despite attemptsto quantify polishes, e.g. Grace et al., 1985) and sometimes fairlysubjective; making extensive analyst training necessary, asnotoriously debated in the 1980s (cf Grace et al., 1987; Grace,1990; Moss, 1987; Newcomer et al., 1986). Above and beyond thisproblem, there is still room for confounding problems includinginter-analyst replication of results. With these problems in mind,the inherent logic behind this study is to develop a quantitativemethod to characterize use-wear that can be easily conducted bya minimally trained analyst. In addition, we sought a methodthat should produce easily replicable results from multipleanalysts.

Fig. 2. An artist reconstruction of an early Neolithic cereal harvest with sickle blades at Dhra’, Jordan. Illustration by Eric S. Carlson.

N. Goodale et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science 37 (2010) 1192–12011194

Consideration was given to measuring the amount of sicklepolish as a proxy for how long the sickle has been used. Quinteroet al. (1997), however, found that depending on the morphology ofthe blade, different amounts of polish may form on differentportions of the blade. Thus, we do not believe thatmeasuring polishwould serve as an adequate or reliable proxy of harvest intensity;therefore, below we provide what we believe to be a simple yeteffective measure of blade edge thickness as a proxy for harvestingintensity.

Moving the point of discussion forward, we want to reexaminehow important sickle blades are throughout the transition toagriculture. Our main goal is to develop a quantitative proxy andbase line data of sickle blade processing intensity or tool uselongevity during the Neolithic transition. Such base line data iscritical as this will help us understand whether or not sickle bladetechnology was commonly used to harvest cereal plants, in contrastto other techniques that may be undetectable in the archaeologicalrecord (i.e. beaters and baskets or hand picking).

2.2. Dhra’, Jordan: an early Neolithic community

The site of Dhra’ is located 5 km east of the town of ed-Dhra’,Jordan (Finlayson et al., 2003; Goodale et al., 2002: 126) near thesouthern end of the Dead Sea. The Dhra’ Neolithic site is on a terracenear the Wadi ed-Dhra’, fromwhich the springs of ‘Ain Waida’ flow,forming the northern border of the site and providing a year-roundwater supply (Finlayson et al., 2003; Goodale et al., 2007). Excava-tions from 2001 to 2005 (excluding 2003) recovered the remains ofa substantial early Neolithic community at Dhra’ dating to around11,500 cal BP during the Pre-Pottery Neolithic A period. With thelithic rawmaterial source occurring less than 50 m from the site, thepeople at Dhra’ produced a large assemblage of stone tools and thebyproducts of production. The excavation of a small part of the siterecovered over a million chipped stone tools, debitage, and cores.

The early Neolithic occupation of Dhra’ exhibits permanentarchitecture, grain storage structures, middens, and formalizedactivity areas (Finlayson et al., 2003; Goodale et al., 2002, 2007;Kuijt, 2009; Kuijt and Finlayson, 2009). These aspects of communityorganization have been recently argued to be important featuresthat differentiated the early Neolithic from the preceding Epi-paleolithic life ways in the Southern Levant (Hardy-Smith andEdwards, 2004; Kuijt and Goodale, 2009).

3. Materials and methods

In this study, 17 archaeological sickles were analyzed along withfour experimental blades. Both the Dhra’ sickle blades and theexperimental blades were produced from local flint in close

proximity to Dhra’ (Goodale et al., 2002: 128), thus alleviating anyissues of use-wear accrual rates as a function of lithic raw material(see for example Lerner et al., 2007). All of the Dhra’ blades and theexperimental blades have unmodified edges, characteristic of sickleblades produced during the early Neolithic. We make theassumption that the Dhra’ sickles were used as hafted hand tools,rather than mounted in other means of cereal harvesting tech-nology, such as stone blades mounted into threshing sleds (e.g.Anderson et al., 2004). This is because the earliest evidence ofthreshing sleds, as well as domesticated animals, such as cattle topull the sleds, are not believed to be part of Southwest Asia societiesuntil at least two millennia after the early Neolithic occupation ofDhra’ (Anderson, 2003; Kohler-Rollefson et al., 1988). It is possiblethat threshing sleds could have been human pulled, although weimagine that threshing sled technology was probably not widelyadopted until after the domestication of work animals.

The experimental blades were hafted into a wooden handle inorder to create a sickle, similar to those thought to have been usedduring the Neolithic transition to harvest cereals (see Edwards,2007 for a temporally earlier Natufian example from Wadi Ham-meh 27) (Fig. 3). The experimental sickle comprised a woodenhandle approximately 1.5 inches in diameter (fitting Yamada’s,2000 recommendation) and four flint blades that were hafted ina single row with little to no space between each blade (followingQuintero et al., 1997 recommendation). Each blade was hafted intoa groove in the handle with Super Glue", allowing the blade to beeasily extracted from the handle at specific time intervals. Theblades were produced through a similar reduction sequence to theDhra’ blades (see Goodale et al., 2008 for the core reductionsequence). Each blade was made by N. Goodale through singleplatform blade core reduction with an antler billet. Each blade wasthen segmented with the Krukowski method (described in Tixier,1974) to obtain the straightest portion. Segmentation also reducesspace between each blade when hafted (a criterion recommendedby Quintero et al., 1997).

The primary goal of the study was to examine how blade edgethickness changed (and not the development of sickle sheen orpolish) aswheatwas harvested. Thewheat procured for cuttingwasdomesticated stalk from Long Island, NY and our experiments tookplace in the archaeology research laboratory at Hamilton College.We believe that the dry wheat used in our experiments may beabrasive, causing relatively faster processing intensity results thanwet wheat, and thus, faster blade edge attrition. Because of this, ourend results should if anything be conservative, making it possiblethat the archaeological blades were used even longer than wepropose. We, however, believe that underestimating harvestingintensity in this exploratory model is better than overestimatinghow long the archaeological sickle tools were used.

Fig. 3. Experimental sickle used in this study.


Four blades were used in the experiment to cut wheat stalks.Each hour of cutting equaled approximately 1000 strokes. BladesExp. 3, 5, 7, and 9 were used for 3, 5, 7, and 9 h, respectively. Thewear on Blades Exp. 7 and 9 was then analyzed under the scanningelectron microscope (SEM). After analysis, the four blades wererehafted and all four were used for an additional 7 h of cutting. Thisresulted in blades Exp. 10, 12, 14, and 16 being used to cut wheatstalks for a total of 10, 12, 14, and 16 h, respectively. In the experi-ment, Blade Exp. 9 (representing 9 h of cutting time) is the samephysical blade as Blade Exp. 16 (representing 16 h of cutting time)and Blade Exp. 7 (representing 7 h of cutting time) is the same asBlade Exp. 14 (representing 14 h of cutting time) and so forth(Fig. 4). All cutting was performed by a single researcher, H. Otis,who consistently attempted to ensure that each flint blade wasreceiving equal contact with thewheat stalk during each stroke.Wethen compared the results of the 7, 9, 14, and 16 h experimentalblades (Blade #’s Exp. 7, 9, 14, and 16) to 17 Dhra’ artifacts under theSEM measuring blade edge thickness as a proxy of processingintensity. Edge thickness has been demonstrated to correlate with

use intensity in other case studies (Richter, 1996) and we believethat the results presented here also suggest a strong correlation.

3.1. SEM analysis

Specimens were prepared for SEM analysis by cleaning off loosedebris with compressed air, and gently clamping them in a spec-imen vice. They were then viewed with an FEI Quanta 400 envi-ronmental scanning electron microscope operated in high vacuummode at an accelerating voltage of 20 kV. Backscatter images werecollected using the integrated FEI solid-state backscatter detector.

Backscatter imaging was used because this detector produces lowtopographic contrast images of uncoated specimens. This was animportant consideration in this study becausewewished to avoid thespecimens being permanently modified by the metallic coatingrequired for standard secondary electron imaging. Additionally, thebackscatter imagedoesnotcontain theshadows inherent insecondaryimages, which can confound image analysis by obscuring edges.

Inorder tomeasurebladeedge thickness,eachexperimentalbladeand the Dhra’ archaeological blades were photographed under theSEM at two random places along the blade edge at 240! magnifica-tion. Thismagnificationallowedaneasy recognitionof theblade edgefor measuring. The images were then transferred to XT Docu, animage capture and analysis program. In XTDocu, the thickness of theblade edge was measured every 100 mm (by placing a grid over theimage) for900 mmand then thedatawasautomatically imported intoa spreadsheet (Fig. 5), thus avoiding any transcription errors.

4. Results

The analysis of this data is based on the simple idea thatmore useequals a thickerbladeedge.Thus, the thicker thebladeedge, themore

Exp. 10

Exp. 12

Exp. 14

Exp. 16

SecondHarvest

SecondAnalysis

Exp. 3

Exp. 5

Exp. 7

Exp. 9

FirstHarvest

FirstAnalysisBlade# Blade#

Fig. 4. Flow diagram of the experiment. Four blades were produced for the experimentand were labeled according to the amount of time each was used to cut wheat stalk.Note that the same four blades were used for the entire experiment.

Fig. 5. Grid generation in XT Docu and the measurements every 100 mm.


the sickle bladewas used. A graph (Fig. 6) created from the results inTables 2 and 3, depicts the average blade edge thickness for eachexperimental and archaeological sickle blade demonstrating a clearpattern between the experimental and Dhra’ sickle blades. Theexperimental blade edge thicknesses range from 41 to 292 mmwiththe majority of them <155 mm. In contrast, 91% of Dhra’ blade edgethicknesses are >200 mm. Also for comparison, the average bladeedge thickness for the 17 Dhra’ tools analyzed is 474.21 mm and theaverage blade edge thickness for the four experimental blades is118.99 mm.

The graphical representation in Fig. 6 demonstrates that theexperimental blades have much thinner blade edges which areechoed in the actual SEM images. Unlike the Dhra’ blades, theexperimental blade edges are only starting to accumulate polishand rounding. The difference is easily seen in two images (Fig. 7),which represent an experimental blade edge thickness with a highvalue in comparison to other experimental blades, versus anarchaeological blade edge thickness with a low comparative valueto other archaeological blades. This difference is also evident in theblade edge thickness measurements in Tables 1 and 2.

The difference in edge thickness between the four experimentalblades is also less marked than the archaeological blades. Theaverage thicknesses for the four experimental sickle blades fallbetween 90 and 140 mm, with 95% of the 80 measurements<200 mm. The small range of 35 mm for 9 (Blade # Exp. 9) to 16(Blade # Exp. 16) h of sickling, is in concurrence with the experi-mental edge thickness average being 355.22 mm less than that ofthe Dhra’ tools. This implies that the use intensity of the Dhra’

blades was probably significantly higher than the experimentaltools (or at least >16 h). When comparing the experimental bladewith 14 h (Blade # Exp. 14) of use-wear to the blade with 16 h(Blade # Exp. 16) of use-wear, the average thickness for each bladeedge varies by only 2.88 mm (Blade #’s Exp. 14 " 138.11 mm, Exp.16 " 140.99 mm), which puts into perspective the limited impact2 h of use has on blade edge thickness change. Additionally, whencomparing the average thickness of three Dhra’ sickle blades, Blade# 793 has the lowest value (230.97 mm), Blade Lab #3062 themiddle (336.29 mm), and Blade # 6840 the greatest (1569.11 mm).The differences are easily seen in Fig. 8.

4.1. Predicting harvesting intensity at Dhra’

Based on our experiments combined with our image analysis ofboth experimentally produced and archaeological sickle blades, it ispossible to estimate how long each of the archaeological blades wasused. Simple linear regression analysis using experimental bladedata demonstrates a statistically significant positive correlation topredict thehoursof use frombladeedge thickness (df " 1; F " 14.03;p " 0.0096; r2 " 0.7005) with the resulting equation (Fig. 9):

hours " #2:9316$ 0:1215*m (1)

where m is the average blade edge thickness.Results from this equation suggest that to produce blade edge

thicknesses comparable to that of the Dhra’ sickles theywould haveto be used quite extensively, between 20 h at a minimum, 187 h atamaximum, and an average of around 55 h (Table 4). It appears thatin most cases, the experimental sickle blades were used for perhapsa third of the time that the Dhra’ sickle blades were used. Webelieve that this supports the argument that the Dhra’ sickle bladeswere intended to have long use-lives.

5. Discussion

Assessing harvesting intensity from archaeological sicklescontributes towards our understanding the importance of stonesickles to everyday life in the early Neolithic. This also allows us toconsider the role of one integrated aspect of technology in thetransition from foraging to farming economies. Our results here,while tentative, suggest that sickles could have been commonlyused in cereal harvesting during the early Neolithic with oursample of 17 sickle blades potentially being used for an average of55 h. We should note, as we did earlier, that the dry wheat used inthis studymay cause relatively faster blade edge attrition rates thanwet wheat and thus, our estimates may be conservative. Conse-quently, the archaeological blades may have been used even more

Average

0.00

200.00

400.00

600.00

800.00

1000.00

1200.00

1400.00

1600.00

1800.00

Fig. 6. Average blade thickness for the archaeological and experimental blades. Graphproduced with data from Tables 1 and 2 with the variable Average of Both.

Table 2Experimental sickle blade edge thickness.

Blade Lab # 0 mm 100 mm 200 mm 300 mm 400 mm 500 mm 600 mm 700 mm 800 mm 900 mm Average Average of Both

Exp. 7(1) 143.34 144.94 126.82 120.43 90.05 63.94 71.40 46.89 86.86 90.05 98.47Exp. 7(2) 59.68 103.37 74.60 94.32 86.86 68.74 94.32 118.83 62.34 84.78 84.78 91.63Exp. 9(1) 77.26 111.37 104.97 80.99 62.34 41.03 71.40 116.16 124.69 114.03 90.43Exp. 9(2) 102.31 147.60 97.51 170.52 207.28 165.72 56.48 47.42 119.89 85.26 120.00 105.21Exp. 14(2) 176.41 168.49 152.64 161.09 159.51 59.68 67.08 35.92 108.27 119.37 120.85Exp. 14(1) 125.62 95.41 136.22 134.63 63.60 86.40 112.37 245.41 262.04 292.05 155.38 138.11Exp. 16(1) 133.16 158.95 149.47 96.84 92.63 109.47 147.73 131.76 147.51 140.68 130.82Exp. 16(3) 165.61 153.44 150.26 165.61 160.32 168.78 147.09 154.50 115.87 130.16 151.16 140.99

Average 118.99 118.99

Blade # corresponds to howmany hours of use each sickle blade represents. In other words Exp. 7.1 is representative of 7 h of use and the first image captured for analysis andExp. 7.2 is the same blade but second image captured for analysis. Blade # Exp. 9.1 is representative of 9 h of use and the first image captured for analysis, and so forth. Thevariable Average of both is the average of all measurements taken for both pictures of each blade. Average of both is the variable representing the data used to build Fig. 6 andthe variable Average was used in the regression analysis to approximate harvesting intensity presented in Fig. 9.


extensive than our results suggest. Either way, we can propose thatsickle blades were likely important long use-life tools associatedwith the early Neolithic transition in Southwest Asia. We plan toconduct future experimental studies to address the issue of howmoisture content of cereal stalk may influence blade edge attritionrates.

This study is a first step in our analysis, and contains someother potential problems. In the future we plan to revise ourexperiments in a number of ways as a means to test our conclu-sions. For the purposes of this study it was not possible to conductour experiments in the Southern Levant landscape with local wildwheat or barley. This is a common cautionary tale for researchers

experimentally replicating cereal harvest with sickles (Yamada,2000). While we recognize this, we believe that because we areexamining blade edge thickness and not polish type or accrualrates, that our study is scientifically sound as an exploratorymodel.

Our study is also limited in that both experimental and micro-scopic studies are hugely time consuming. Additionally, when SEManalysis is involved, it can be costly due to beam time and/oroperator fees, limiting access to this method for many researchers.For example, due to limited resources, Yamada (2000) was only ableto examine one sickle blade under an SEM. With this in mind, ourstudy consists of a significantly larger sample size in comparison.

Table 3Archaeological sickle blade edge thickness.

Blade Lab # 0 mm 100 mm 200 mm 300 mm 400 mm 500 mm 600 mm 700 mm 800 mm 900 mm Average Average of both

4607.10 218.90 175.85 198.43 203.15 246.72 289.76 279.27 236.22 250.39 234.65 233.334607.20 329.72 338.71 332.36 334.48 302.77 285.34 325.50 332.89 339.76 275.30 319.68 276.511746.10 474.50 465.52 454.43 455.48 436.99 426.95 419.55 401.06 384.15 396.83 431.551746.20 190.78 200.79 215.02 217.65 202.37 202.37 216.60 218.18 216.60 220.82 210.12 320.836788.10 398.42 394.21 412.63 404.21 434.21 462.11 508.95 547.89 577.37 618.95 475.906788.20 451.25 472.92 505.68 521.00 512.55 518.36 508.32 508.32 501.45 504.10 500.40 488.15696.10 677.66 658.38 655.84 645.69 627.92 616.75 606.60 575.63 554.31 529.44 614.82696.20 507.81 525.52 544.27 554.69 559.90 559.38 569.79 557.81 532.81 511.98 542.40 578.61793.10 157.18 165.74 165.74 145.59 122.42 121.91 133.50 181.36 195.97 154.38 154.38793.20 355.21 338.02 345.31 345.31 342.19 315.10 303.65 251.56 239.58 239.58 307.55 230.971706.10 271.09 274.27 284.88 297.08 318.30 320.95 321.49 319.89 300.27 274.27 298.251706.20 291.11 273.85 266.85 276.01 265.23 253.91 246.36 237.20 195.69 166.04 247.22 272.741946.10 656.06 670.08 682.48 683.56 685.18 672.78 631.81 609.70 584.91 587.06 646.361946.20 386.21 413.79 368.17 369.76 377.19 359.15 351.72 345.89 309.28 301.33 358.25 502.312035.10 519.89 502.92 492.31 482.23 457.82 442.44 413.79 398.41 383.55 389.39 448.282035.20 394.12 415.51 444.39 449.20 470.59 482.89 484.49 520.86 527.27 525.13 471.44 459.862620.10 222.81 231.83 251.46 265.25 280.64 300.27 314.06 319.36 331.56 351.72 286.902620.20 479.68 446.52 427.81 454.01 468.98 481.28 476.47 483.96 479.68 466.31 466.47 376.682928.10 194.12 203.21 201.60 200.00 196.79 198.93 183.42 164.71 143.32 119.25 180.532928.20 259.36 264.17 268.98 256.68 253.48 256.68 243.32 221.39 222.99 167.91 241.50 211.023062.10 274.27 295.49 339.52 354.91 346.95 361.80 371.35 367.11 325.73 292.84 333.003062.20 356.50 376.13 342.71 363.93 372.94 360.74 330.50 320.95 300.27 271.09 339.58 336.294677.10 438.20 442.44 450.40 462.07 430.77 436.60 448.81 448.28 444.03 435.01 443.664677.20 435.29 452.41 459.89 450.80 454.01 434.22 429.41 411.23 403.21 372.73 430.32 436.995488.10 647.21 640.85 625.99 625.99 607.96 603.18 594.16 589.39 580.37 574.01 608.915488.20 662.07 639.79 654.64 656.23 661.01 657.82 648.81 639.79 635.01 627.59 648.28 628.595721.10 789.92 790.98 759.68 738.46 727.85 714.06 716.71 700.27 700.27 645.62 728.385721.20 495.49 502.92 519.89 530.50 546.95 554.38 547.48 554.91 557.56 568.70 537.88 633.136840.10 1308.52 1384.23 1514.20 1535.65 1521.77 1529.34 1570.98 1582.33 1642.90 1665.62 1525.556840.20 1612.66 1610.13 1602.53 1606.33 1616.46 1620.25 1605.06 1606.33 1616.46 1630.38 1612.66 1569.116847.10 120.86 128.34 134.22 125.13 125.13 122.46 128.34 134.22 126.74 126.74 127.226847.20 231.58 231.58 245.26 249.47 246.84 238.95 237.89 253.68 266.32 264.21 246.58 186.906932.10 530.50 542.71 554.91 554.91 568.17 572.94 562.33 559.68 559.15 543.77 554.916932.20 494.43 501.86 525.73 539.52 557.56 567.11 571.88 578.78 589.39 583.55 550.98 552.94

Average 474.21 474.21

Blade Lab # is a sequential number given to each artifact in the Dhra’ collection. Similar to Table 2, Average of both is the variable used to build Fig. 6.

Fig. 7. The experimental Blade#16 representing 16 h (Image 1) of cutting versus the Dhra’ Lab #793 (Image 2).


Lastly, our analysis has focused on blade edge thickness changefrom what we believed to be representative of cutting wheat stalkfor 3–16 h. However, we believe that more cutting time is needed inorder to achieve results even close to those obtained from the Dhra’archaeological sample. If our prediction estimates are at leastsomewhat accurate (suggesting between 20 and 187 h to obtainresults similar to Dhra’), then expanded future replication studiesmight achieve this goal.

Currently, the data suggests that many of the Dhra’ sickle bladeshave high use intensities. Some of the blades could have even beenused for perhaps a season or even multiple seasons. If correct, thiscould be evidence for the extensive use of a limited number ofsickle blades. Edwards (2007) provides evidence from Wadi Ham-meh 27 where a composite sickle was found amidst a hunter-gatherer’s tool kit. Within a larger tool kit comprised of knappingtools, blade blanks, and chipped tools, was a completely intactsickle, lending additional support to our findings that sickles werea key part to a cereal harvesters’ tool kit during the transition toagriculture.

Because other methods of harvesting cereals leave little or nosurviving archaeological evidence, it will always be difficult todetermine whether other techniques were also employed.However, from the current evidence of significant amount of use-wear in the form of blade edge thickness on the Dhra’ blades, it isreasonable to posit that sickle blades may have been the mainharvesting method. All of the sickle blades from Dhra’ were longand straight suggesting that high quality blades were produced tomake sickles for harvesting. Such investment of skill and time inproduction lends additional support to our interpretation thatthese tools were meant to have long use-lives (cf Torrence, 1989).

In addition to our interpretation of sickle use, we believe thatthis technique represents an exciting new advance in use-wearstudies for several reasons. This represents the first study of whichwe are aware that directly links the idea of tool life-history and tooluse intensity to microscopic use-wear analysis. This is an importantlinkage as this concept has recently been at the forefront of lithicanalysis at the macroscopic level (Andrefsky, 2008; Clarkson, 2002;Eren et al., 2005; Kuhn, 1990; Shott, 1996). This is also one ofa growing body of literature beginning to provide quantitativemeasures of use-wear that are easily replicated (Evans and Dona-hue, 2008; Lerner, 2007a,b, 2009; Richter, 1996). This is in contrastto traditional approaches to amassing qualitative descriptive datathat normally requires extensive analyst training to recognizepolish types and accrual rates, striation direction to detect motion,or causes for certain breakage patterns (for the basis of stone tooluse-wear analysis see Andrefsky, 2005; Grace, 1989; Hayden,1979a; Keeley, 1977; Odell, 1977; Semenov, 1964).

This study is also unique in that it departs from exploring issuesof tool function (Semenov, 1964), use action (Odell, 1977), orcontact material (Keeley, 1977). While all of these early studieswere revolutionary in understanding stone tool use and function,approaches combining use-wear with larger archaeological/anthropological issues have been rare (cf Finlayson, 1990), and wehave only recently started to considerably depart from concen-trating on these issues despite the potential problems (but seeEvans and Donahue, 2005, 2008; Lerner et al., 2007 for recentquestions regarding use-wear analysis of stone tools).

Understanding more about sickle blades from the SouthernLevant is especially important because of the area’s centrality toearly cereal farming. In the case of Dhra’, sickle blade life-historymay be the key to why there are so few sickle blades found in thisearly Neolithic community, despite the presence of central grainstorage structures. Our preliminary interpretation of well-madesickles with long use-lives, potentially extending over more thanone harvest season, indicates that the tools were an important partof the early Neolithic tool kit. This importance reflects ideas that theemerging way of life and intensified subsistence strategy on cerealgrains was not only economic, but involved profound shifts inattitudes to material culture (Hodder, 2004). This is possiblyreflected in other tools associated with the early Neolithic transi-tion that also demonstrate long life histories, such as heavy utilitybifacial tools (Yerkes et al., 2003).

From this case study, we can suggest that, sickle blades may besimilar to other kinds of stone tools with regard to hafting energyexpended and use-life trajectories. For instance, North American

Fig. 8. Three measured archaeological sickles. From left Blade # 793 has the lowest value (230.97 mm), Blade Lab #3062 the middle (336.29 mm), and Blade # 6840 the greatest(1569.11 mm). Note that in order to photograph Blade # 6840 the microscope had to be zoomed out to 100! in order for the blade edge to fit within the screen. We used the first 10measurements from the bottom of the photograph in the study.

80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160

esUfo

sruoH

16

14

12

10

8

6

m

hours = -29316+ .1215*

n = 8

F = 14.03p = .0096

r = .70052

Fig. 9. Simple linear regression of experimental blades with blade thickness asthe dependent variable and hours of cutting as the independent variable. Data fromTable 2 variable Average.


hafted bifaces commonly show evidence of resharpening while intheir hafts after becoming dull (Andrefsky, 2006, 2009; Goodyear,1974; Hoffman, 1985; Shott and Ballenger, 2007). The same hasbeen observed with unifacially worked hafted tools such as endscrapers (Hayden, 1979b; Nissen and Dittemore,1974; Siegel, 1984).These studies indicate that tool makers and users tend to extendthe use-life of hafted tools, perhaps because they have gonethrough the time consuming and expensive process of preparinghandles and firmly hafting the tools into mounts, which is part ofongoing decision making on reliability of tools, or maintainability(Bleed, 1986).

6. Conclusions

The study presented here provides the details of an experimentlinking tool use-life to sickle blade harvesting intensity. After 16 hof cutting wheat stalk, the blade edge thicknesses of the experi-mental blades are significantly less than archaeological blades fromthe early Neolithic community of Dhra’, Jordan. Based on regressionanalysis of the experimental blade edge thicknesses, we suggestthat many of the Dhra’ blade edges indicate an extensive amount ofuse that perhaps implies the tools were used on a seasonal orpotentially even multi-seasonal basis. While further work isneeded, this study is important for several reasons: (1) we havedeveloped a method for use-wear analysis that is both quantitativeand examines tool life-history from a microscopic perspective; (2)we have provided an estimation of how important sickle tech-nology was to the harvest of cereals at the early Neolithiccommunity of Dhra’, Jordan; and (3) we have begun to explore thelink between tool life-history and one of the major transitions inhuman economies. By studying lithic technological organizationthrough use-wear analysis, researchers can return to the criticalquestion of how to measure use intensity and understand howimportant certain stone tools were to the people who made andused them in prehistory.

Acknowledgements

This study was made possible through the Microscopy andImaging Facility funded through the Dean of Faculty and theDepartment of Biology at Hamilton College. We extend our thanksto Charlotte Beck, George T. Jones, and Alissa Nauman for theirhelpful comments, editorial contributions, and methodologicaladvice towards this project. Big thanks to Cornelia Lowerre who

facilitated the procurement of the wheat used in this study. EricCarlson graciously illustrated Fig. 2. We also thank two anonymousreviewers for their very helpful comments. Any errors or flaws inlogical thought are completely ours. This is Dhra’ ArchaeologicalProject publication number 21.

References

Anderson, P.C., 1991. Harvesting of wild cereals during the Natufian as seen fromexperimental cultivation and harvest of wild Einkorn wheat and microwearanalysis of stone tools. In: Bar-Yosef, O., Valla, F.R. (Eds.), The Natufian Culture inthe Levant, International Monographs in Prehistory: Archaeology Series 1, pp.521–556. Ann Arbor, Michigan.

Anderson, P.C., 1994. Reflections on the significance of two PPN typological classesin light of experimentation and microwear analysis: flint ‘‘sickles’’ and obsidian‘‘Çayonu tools’’. In: Gebel, H.G., Kozlowski, S.K. (Eds.), Neolithic Chipped StoneIndustries of the Fertile Crescent. Studies in Early Near Eastern Production,Subsistence, and Environment l, ex oriente, Berlin, pp. 61–82.

Anderson, P.C., 2003. Observations on the threshing sledge and its products inancient and present-day Mesopotamia. In: Anderson, P.C., Cummings, L.S.,Schippers, T.K., Simonel, B. (Eds.), Letraitement des recoltes: un regard sur ladiversite du Neolithique au present. ADPCA, Antibes, pp. 417–438.

Anderson, P.C., Valla, F., 1996. ‘‘Glossed tools from Hayonim Terrace: blank choiceand functional tendencies. In: Kozlowski, S.K., Gebel, H.G.K. (Eds.), NeolithicChipped Stone Industries of the Fertile Crescent, and their Contemporaries inAdjacent Regions. Studies in Early Near Eastern Production, Subsistence, andEnvironment 3, ex oriente, Berlin, pp. 341–362.

Anderson, P.C., Jacques Chabot, J., van Gijn, A., 2004. The functional riddle of ‘glossy’Canaanean blades and the Near Eastern threshing sledge. Journal of Mediter-ranean Archaeology 17.1, 87–130.

Andrefsky Jr., W., 2005. Lithics: Macroscopic Approaches to Analysis, second ed.Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

Andrefsky Jr., W., 2006. Experimental and archaeological verification of an index ofretouch for hafted bifaces. American Antiquity 71, 743–758.

Andrefsky Jr., W. (Ed.), 2008. Lithic Technology: Measures of Production, Use andCuration. Cambridge University Press.

Andrefsky Jr., W., 2009. The analysis of stone tool procurement, production, andmaintenance. Journal of Archaeological Research 17, 65–103.

Bar-Yosef, O., 1998. The Natufian culture in the Levant: threshold to the origins ofagriculture. Evolutionary Anthropology 6, 159–177.

Bettison, C.A., 1985. An experimental approach to sickle sheen deposition andarchaeological interpretation. Lithic Technology 14, 26–52.

Bleed, P., 1986. The optimal design of hunting weapons: maintainability or reli-ability. American Antiquity 51, 727–747.

Clarkson, C., 2002. An Index of invasiveness for the measurement of unifacial andbifacial retouch: a theoretical, experimental and archaeological verification.Journal of Archaeological Science 29, 65–75.

Clement, I., Gibaja, J.F., 1988. Working processes on cereals: an approach throughmicrowear analysis. Journal of Archaeological Science 25, 457–464.

Crowfoot Payne, J., 1983. The flint industries of Jericho. In: Kenyon, K., Holland, T.(Eds.), Excavations at Jericho. The British School of Archaeology Jerusalem,London, pp. 622–757.

Edwards, P.C., 2007. A 14,000 year-oldhunter-gatherer’s toolkit. Antiquity81, 865–876.Edwards, P.C., Meadows, J., Sayej, G., Westaway, M., 2004. From the PPNA to the

PPNB: new views from the Southern Levant after excavations at Zahrat adh-Dhra’ 2 in Jordan. Paleorient 30, 21–60.

Enoch-Shiloh, D., Bar-Yosef, O., 1997. Salibiya IX. In: Bar-Yosef, O., Gopher, A. (Eds.), AnEarlyNeolithic Village in the JordanValley Part I: TheArchaeologyofNetivHagdud.American School of Prehistoric Research Bulletin 43, Peabody Museum of Archae-ology and Ethnology, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, pp. 13–40.

Eren, M., Dominguez-Rodrigo, M., Kuhn, S.L., Adler, D.S., Le, I., Bar-Yosef, O., 2005.Defining and measuring reduction in unifacial stone tools. Journal of Archae-ological Science 32, 1190–1201.

Evans, A.A., Donahue, R.E., 2005. The elemental chemistry of lithic microwear: anexperiment. Journal of Archaeological Science 32, 1733–1740.

Evans, A.A., Donahue, R.E., 2008. Laser scanning confocal microscopy: a potentialtechnique for the study of lithic microwear. Journal of Archaeological Science35, 2223–2230.

Finlayson, B., 1990. Lithic exploitation during the Mesolithic in Scotland. ScottishArchaeological Review 7, 41–57.

Finlayson, B., Kuijt, I., Arpin, T., Chesson, M., Dennis, S., Goodale, N., Kadowaki, S.,Maher, L., Smith, S., Shurr, M., Mackay, J., 2003. Dhra’, excavation project, 2002interim report. Levant 35, 1–38.

Finlayson, B., Steven, Mithen (Eds.), 2007. The Early Prehistory of Wadi Faynan,Southern Jordan. Oxbow Books, Oxford.

Goodale, N.B., Kuijt, I., Finlayson, B., 2002. Results from the 2001 excavations atDhra’, Jordan: chipped stone technology, typology, and intra-assemblage vari-ability. Paleorient 28, 125–140.

Goodale, N.B., Kuijt, I., Finlayson, B., 2007. Chipped stone variability: an overviewof thePPNA lithic assemblage fromDhra‘, Jordan. In: Astruc, L., Binder, D., Briois, F. (Eds.),Technical SystemsandNear Eastern PPNCommunities. APDCA, Antibes, pp. 63–74.

Table 4Predicted hours to obtain experimental blade edge thickness with comparablethickness of archaeological sickle blades based on Eq. (1).

Blade Lab # mm Hours

4607 276.51 30.661746 320.83 36.056788 488.15 56.38696 578.61 67.37793 230.97 25.131706 272.74 30.211946 502.31 58.102035 459.86 52.942620 376.68 42.832928 211.02 22.713062 336.29 37.934677 436.99 50.165488 628.59 73.445721 633.13 73.996840 1569.11 187.726847 186.90 19.786932 552.94 64.25

Average 474.21 54.69


Goodale, N., Kuijt, I., Macfarlan, S.J., Osterhoudt, C., Finlayson, B., 2008. Lithic corereduction techniques: modeling expected diversity. In: Andrefsky Jr., W. (Ed.),Lithic Technology: Measures of Production, Use, and Curation. CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 317–336.

Goodyear, A.C., 1974. The Brand Site: A Technofunctional Study of a Dalton Site inNortheast Arkansas. Publications on Archaeology, Research Series 7. ArkansasArchaeological Survey, Fayetteville.

Gopher, A., 1996. A preliminary report on the flints from ‘Ain Darat: a PPNA site inthe Judean Desert. In: Kozlowski, S.K., Gebel, H.G.K. (Eds.), Neolithic ChippedStone Industries of the Fertile Crescent, and their Contemporaries in AdjacentRegions. Studies in Early Near Eastern Production, Subsistence, and Environ-ment 3, ex oriente, Berlin, pp. 443–452.

Grace, R., 1989. Interpreting the Function of Stone Tools. BritishArchaeologicalReports, International Series S474, Oxford.

Grace, R., 1990. The limitations and applications of usewear analysis. In: Graslund, B.,Knutsson, H., Knutsson, K., Taffinder, J. (Eds.), The Interpretative Possibilities ofMicrowear Studies. Societas Archaeologica Upsaliensis, Uppsala, pp. 9–14.

Grace, R., Graham, I.D., Newcomer, M., 1985. The quantification of microwearpolishes. World Archaeology 17, 112–120.

Grace, R., Graham, I.D., Newcomer, M.H., 1987. Preliminary investigation into thequantification of wear traces on flint tools. In: Sieveking, G., Newcomer, M.H.(Eds.), The Human Uses of Flint and Chert. Cambridge University Press, Cam-bridge, pp. 63–70.

Hardy-Smith, T., Edwards, C.E., 2004. The garbage crisis in prehistory: artefactdiscard Patterns at the Early Natufian site of Wadi Hammeh 27 and the originsof household refuse disposal strategies. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology23, 253–289.

Hayden, B. (Ed.), 1979a. Lithic Use-Wear Analysis. Academic Press, New York.Hayden, B.,1979b. Snap, shatter, andsuperfractures: usewearof stone skin scrapers. In:

Hayden, B. (Ed.), Lithic Usewear Analysis. Academic Press, NewYork, pp. 207–230.Hodder, I., 2004. Neo-thingness. In: Cherry, J., Scarre, C., Shennan, S. (Eds.),

Explaining Social Change: Studies in Honour of Colin Renfrew. MacDonaldInstitute of Archaeological Research, Cambridge, pp. 45–52.

Hoffman, C.M., 1985. Projectile point maintenance and typology: assessment withfactor analysis and canonical correlation. In: Carr, C. (Ed.), For Concordance inArchaeological Analysis: Bridging Data Structure, Quantitative Technique, andTheory. Westport Press, Kansas City, pp. 566–612.

Ibanez, J.J., Gonzalez, J.E., Palomo, A., Ferrer, A., 1998. Pre-Pottery Neolithic A andPre-Pottery Neolithic B lithic agricultural tools on the Middle Euphrates: thesites of Tell Mureybit and Tell Halula. In: Damania, A.B., Valkoun, J., Wilcox, G.,Qualset, C.O. (Eds.), The Origins of Agriculture and Crop Domestication.Proceedings of the Harlan Symposium, 10–14 May 1997, Aleppo, Syria, ICARDA:Aleppo, Syria; IPGRI: Rome. FAO, Davis, California, pp. 132–144. UC/GRCP.

Kardulias, N., Yerkes, R.W., 1996. Microwear and metric analysis of threshingsledge flints from Greece and Cyprus. Journal of Archaeological Science 23,657–666.

Kohler-Rollefson, I., Gillespie, W., Metzger, M., 1988. The fauna from Neolithic ‘AinGhazal, in: Garrard, A.N., Gebel, H.G. (Eds.), The Prehistory of Jordan, BritishArchaeology Reports, International Series 396, No. 1, Oxford, pp. 423–430.

Keeley, L.H., 1977. An experimental study of microwear traces on selected BritishPaleolithic implements. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Oxford.

Kuhn, S.L., 1990. A geometric index of reduction for unifacial stone tools. Journal ofArchaeological Science 17, 583–593.

Kuijt, I., 2009. Demography and storage systems during the Southern LevantineNeolithic demographic transition. In: Bocquet-Appel, J.-P., Bar-Yosef, O. (Eds.),The Neolithic Demographic Transition and its Consequences. Springer,Netherlands, pp. 287–313.

Kuijt, I., Finlayson, B., 2009. Evidence for food storage and predomesticationgranaries 11,000 years ago in the Jordan Valley. Proceedings of the NationalAcademy of Sciences 106, 10966–10970.

Kuijt, I., Goodale, N., 2006. Chronological frameworks and disparate technology: anexploration of chipped stone variability and the forager to farmer transition at‘Iraq Ed-Dubb. Jordan. Paleorient 32, 27–45.

Kuijt, I., Goodale, N., 2009. Daily practice and the organization of space at the dawn ofagriculture: a case study from the Near East. American Antiquity 74, 403–422.

Kuijt, I., Goring-Morris, N., 2002. Foraging, farming, and social complexity in thePre-Pottery Neolithic of the Southern Levant: a review and synthesis. Journal ofWorld Prehistory 16, 361–440.

Lerner, H., 2007a. Digital image analysis and use-wear accrual as a function of rawmaterial: an example from northwestern New Mexico. Lithic Technology 32,51–67.

Lerner, H., 2007b. Lithic Raw Material Variability and the Reduction of Short-termUse Implements: An Example from Northwestern New Mexico. BritishArchaeological ReportsSeries, BAR S1688, Archaeopress, Oxford.

Lerner, H., 2009. Lithic raw material variability and use-wear accrual on short-termuse implements: an example from northwestern New Mexico, in: F. Sternke, L.J.Costa, L. Eigeland (Eds.), Non-flint Raw Material Use in Prehistory: Old Preju-dices and New Directions, Sternke, Proceedings of the XV. Congressof theU.I.S.P.P. Archaeopress, Oxford, pp. 81–91.

Lerner, H., Du, X., Costopoulos, A., Ostoja-Starzewski, M., 2007. Lithic materialphysical properties and use-wear accrual. Journal of Archaeological Science 34,711–722.

Moss, E.H., 1987. A review of ‘‘Investigating microwear polishes with blind tests’’.Journal of Archaeological Science 14, 473–481.

Nadel, D., 1997. The chipped stone industry of Netiv Hagdud. In: Bar-Yosef, O.,Gopher, A. (Eds.), An Early Neolithic Village in the Jordan Valley Part I: TheArchaeology of Netiv Hagdud. American School of Prehistoric Research Bulletin43, Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University,Cambridge, Massachusetts, pp. 71–149.

Newcomer, M.H., Grace, R., Unger-Hamilton, R., 1986. Investigating microwearpolishes with blind tests. Journal of Archaeological Science 13, 203–217.

Nissen, K., Dittemore, M., 1974. Ethnographic data and wear pattern analysis:a study of socketed Eskimo scrapers. Tebiwa 17, 67–88.

Odell, G.H. 1977. The application of micro-wear analysis to the lithic component ofan entire prehistoric settlement: methods, problems, and functional recon-structions. Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University. University Microfilms, AnnArbor, Michigan.

Pirie, A., 2007. The chipped stone, in: Finlayson, B., Mithen, S. (Eds.), The EarlyPrehistory of Wadi Faynan, Southern Jordan, Wadi Faynan Series Volume 1,Levant Supplementary Series Volume 4. Oxbow Books and CBRL, Oxford, pp.227–283.

Quintero, L.A., Wilke, P.J., Waines, J.G., 1997. Pragmatic studies of Near EasternNeolithic Sickle Blades. The Prehistory of Jordan, II. Perspectives from 1997.Studies in Early Near Eastern Production, Subsistence, and Environment 4(1997). Berlin, ex oriente, pp. 263–286.

Richter, J., 1996. Weights and measures: estimating food consumption from use-wear analysis. In: Ulm, S., Lilley, I., Ross, A. (Eds.), Australian Archaeology ’95:Proceedings of the 1995 Australian Archaeological Association Annual Confer-ence. University of Queensland, Australia.

Sayej, G., 2004. The Lithic Industries of Zahrat adh-Dhra’ 2 and the Pre-PotteryNeolithic Period of the Southern Levant. Bar International Series 1329.Archaeopress, Oxford.

Semenov, S.A., 1964. Prehistoric Technology. Translated by. Thompson, M.W. Cory,Adams and MacKay, London.

Shott, M.J., 1996. An exegisis of the curation concept. Journal of AnthropologicalResearch 52, 259–280.

Shott, M.J., Ballenger, J.A.M., 2007. Biface reduction and the measurement of Daltoncuration: a southeastern case study. American Antiquity 72, 153–175.

Siegel, P.E., 1984. Functional variability within an assemblage of endscrapers. LithicTechnology 13, 35–51.

Simms, S.R., Russell, K.W., 1997. Bedouin hand harvesting of wheat and barley:implications for early cultivation in Southwestern Asia. Current Anthropology38, 696–702.

Tixier, J., 1974. Glossary for the Description of Stone Tools. Translated by M.H.Newcomer. Newsletter of Lithic Technology: Special Publication Number 1.

Torrence, R., 1989. Tools as optimal solutions. In: Torrence, R. (Ed.), Time, Energyand Stone Tools. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 1–6.

Unger-Hamilton, R., 1989. The Epi-Paleolithic Southern Levant and the origins ofcultivation. Current Anthropology 30, 88–103.

Unger-Hamilton, R., 1991. Natufian plant husbandry in the Southern Levant andcomparison with that of the Neolithic periods: the lithic perspective, in: Bar-Yosef, O., (Ed.), The Natufian Culture in the Levant. International Monographs inPrehistory: Archaeology Series 1. Ann Arbor, Michigan, pp. 521–556.

Van Gijn, A., 1999. The interpretation of sickles: a cautionary tale. In: Anderson, P.C.(Ed.), Prehistory of Agriculture. Monograph 40, Institute of Archaeology.University of California, Los Angeles, pp. 254–259.

Yamada, S., 2000. Development of the Neolithic: Lithic Use-wear Analysis of MajorTool Types in the Southern Levant. Harvard University, Cambridge,Massachusetts.

Yerkes, R.W., Barkai, R., Gopher, A., Bar-Yosef, O., 2003. Microwear analysis of earlyNeolithic (PPNA) axes and bifacial tools from Netiv Hagdud in the Jordan Valley,Israel. Journal of Archaeological Science 30, 1051–1066.


Sickle blade life-history and the transition to agriculture: an early Neolithic case study from...

Documents

Transcript of Sickle blade life-history and the transition to agriculture: an early Neolithic case study from...