Distribution patterns of imported lithics in Early Neolithic Skorba_Clive_Vella

8/3/2019 Distribution patterns of imported lithics in Early Neolithic Skorba_Clive_Vella

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/distribution-patterns-of-imported-lithics-in-early-neolithic-skorbaclivevella 1/14

i

TA’ ĦAĠRAT AND SKORBAANCIENT MONUMENTS IN A MODERN WORLD

EDITED BY

MARIAELENA ZAMMIT & JOANNE MALLIA

STRUCTURAL FUNDS PROGRAMME FOR MALTA 2004 2006PROJECT PARTFINANCED BY THE EUROPEAN UNION COMMUNITY INITIATIVE

INTERREG IIIB ARCHIMED PROGRAMME



iv

Structural Funds Programme for Malta 2004 – 2006Project part-nanced by the European Union Community Initiative

Interreg IIIB Archimed Programme

Copyright © Heritage Malta 2008Literary Copyright © the authors, 2008

Image Copyright © Heritage Malta, unless otherwise stated in the image captionArchive photos are held in the archives of the National Museum of Archaeology

No part of this publication, whether editorial, pictorial or literary, may be reproduced, stored in a retrievalsystem or transmitted in any form by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying , recording or

otherwise, without the previous written permission of the authors and/or rightful owners

ISBN: 978-99932-57-15-8

Published by Heritage MaltaProduced by Midsea Books, Malta

is document has been produced with the nancial assistance of the European Community.e views expressed herein are those of Heritage Malta and can therefore in no way be taken to reect

the ocial opinion of the European Commission.



DISTRIBUTION PATTERNS OF IMPORTED LITHIC TOOLS IN EARLY NEOLITHIC SKORBA 75

Introduction

e importance of lithic tools forarchaeological studies lies in the recognitionof these small objects as artefacts, that is,objects manufactured by humans as opposedto objects shaped by nature (Schoeld 1995:3). e basics of lithic tool productionimply a high-level grasp of planning and preparation which is inuenced by severalfactors, including complex ones such as thestratication of society. erefore it is notsurprising that lithic tools are thought to havebeen a key element in the evolution of humanintelligence. Nowadays, these implementshelp archaeologists to understand human

behavior through the systematic investigationof their attributes and location within anarchaeological site.

Lithic tools have been studied byarchaeologists for several decades and recentanalyses have included studies which rangefrom the micro to the macro scale. As istypical in archaeological studies, these followa long tradition of technological/typologicalstudies but do not attempt to answer afundamental question: Why? Yet, in lithictool analysis, methodologies which address

this do exist, and include models such as thechâine opératoire (Schoeld 1995: 3). In thismodel, lithic tools are not analysed in viewof their ultimate function, but as assemblagesthat are a product of human decisions andactions (Phillips 2003: 8). According toPhillips (2003: 8) the châine opératoire is used

Distribution patterns of imported lithic toolsin Early Neolithic Skorba

*SP]L=LSSH

to understand and explain the life histories of artefacts, and consequently, of living oors.

is article is an attempt to understandthe signicance of imported lithic tools inEarly Neolithic contexts at Skorba, throughthe identication of the relationship between visible architectural spaces and the lithictools found within.

e Maltese Archipelago

e Maltese Archipelago is made up of threemain islands, Malta, Gozo and Comino.Sedimentary in nature, this island group ismade up of 315.6 km2 of dry land with ve

main rock horizons, which are found indiering heights and depths. e topmostrock type is the Upper Coralline limestone,followed by Greensand ( Rina), then BlueClay, Globigerina limestone ( Franka) andlastly the Lower Coralline Limestone. emajority of these sediments are marinecarbonates of shallow water deposits.

Linked to the Ragusa Peninsula of southern Sicily by a submarine ridge, Maltais about 95 km away from the southern tipof Sicily and approximately 320 km from the

North African coast. For part of the year, thelocal bio-ecology is supported by perennialsprings from rainwater and perched aquifers.ese springs tend to form and locatethemselves in the wied (valley) basins andfrequently acted as points of access fortransportation and movement.



76 TA’ ĦAĠRAT AND SKORBA: ANCIENT MONUMENTS IN A MODERN WORLD

Starting from around 5000 BC, thisinsular environment saw the developmentof a unique culture whose material remains, which include masterpieces of megalithicarchitecture, are still the subject of research

and debate. Among these remains is Skorba, asite which yielded evidence of use throughoutMaltese prehistory and which is the focus of this study.

Skorba and its Early Neolithic Contexts

e site was discovered in 1914, whenemistocles Zammit, then Director of Museums, along with Carmelo Rizzo carriedout an inspection of the elds known

as Skorba in Żebbiegħ, limits of Mġarr.From then on, the elds in Skorba weresubject to several investigations, including a stratigraphic excavation by David Trumpin the 1960s with signicant results which changed the chronology of MaltesePrehistory (Trump, this volume).

Among the many signicant remainsin Skorba, the excavators uncovered Early

Neolithic structures dating to the GħarDalam, Grey Skorba and Red Skorba phases (Figure 1 and Timeline). ese EarlyNeolithic structures are so far unparalleledin the Maltese Islands, and are therefore

considered to be a suitable case study for theunderstanding of lithic tool production.

Għar Dalam phase (5,000 – 4,300 BC)

Remains dating to the Għar Dalam phase wereuncovered in two areas. To the southwest of the site, running east to west, was an 11-metre wall partly buried underneath the megalithicTemple. To the north was a hint of a cross wall,indicating that the wall was not necessarilya straight wall (Trump 1966: 10). Trump

notes that “the comparative richness of ndson its north side suggests that this was itsinner face […]” (Trump 1966: 10). Amongstthe nds recovered next to its northern face were charcoal, carbonized grain and severalfragments of daub. Trump interpreted theseas “parts of the wall’s own superstructure, ormore likely of huts enclosed by it which havele no other trace […]” ( Trump 1966: 10).

Fig. 1. Layout of excavation gridsuperimposed over a plan of structures uncovered in Skorba

(aer Trump 1966, courtesy of e Society of Antiquariesof London, with author’smodications)




To the southeast, at the edge of theexcavated area, remains of the western wall of an oval hut, also of the Għar Dalam phase, were discovered only a few centimetres undertop soil (Trump 1966: 10). According to

Trump’s observations, the 0.70m thick wallscould not have supported any substantialsuperstructure. An upturned quern wasfound in the centre of the oor and this was possibly meant to act as the base of a centralcolumn (Trump 1966: 10).

Grey Skorba Phase (4,500 – 4,400 BC)

Grey Skorba was interpreted as a transitional phase of approximately 200-300 years(Trump 1966: 24-30) and only a few tracesof it were found at this site. David Trump

identied a hut in grid OD, which was builton sterile clay. In the north eastern pits,especially QE, OE, and PE, the excavatorsuncovered a large amount of knapped lithicdebris. Trump recounts that ‘[…] althoughmuch more material, particularly refuse fromthe settlement, could be recovered fromfurther trenches to the north, the reward interms of information would be unlikely torepay the eort at this juncture […]’ (Trump1966: 2). Although no architectural elements

emerged from the area, the lithic nds weresubstantial, as shall be explained below.

Red Skorba Phase (4,400 – 4,100 BC)

Two structures dating to the Red Skorba phase were uncovered in the eastern partof the site. e northernmost structure isapproximately 8.40 m by 5.40 m and itsentrance faced west. On the other hand, nodoorway was found in the smaller structure which measures about 5.60 m by 3.20 m.Between these two structures, a paved open

area was uncovered. is paving is level with the bedrock, which is also the oor,of the north room, (Trump 1966: 11-12),indicating that the two are contemporary.

According to Trump, the north and southroom both contained, ‘[…] a great quantityof broken pottery of pure Red Skorba type

including a number of restorable vessels […]above bedrock in both rooms […]’ (Trump1966: 14). is appears to indicate thatrefuse was allowed to accumulate in bothspaces possibly within a short time span

with no attempt at clearing out debris in thesurrounding paved area.

Context and the Châine Opératoire

Lithics can simply be examined as tools which served a purpose and were eventuallydiscarded. However, archaeological princi- ples emphasize that artefacts have little mean-ing without a thorough grasp of their contextof discovery. Contextual understanding re-

quires comprehension of space and the ma-terial culture deposited within (Hodder andHutson 2003: 166-168). e logic behindthis understanding is that dierent humanactivities were carried out in dierent areasof occupation, even within a single hut. is‘sub-zoning’ within structures has remainedunexplained in Maltese archaeology, particu-larly due to the lack of adequate stratigraphicdocumentation.

Lithic tools, as material culture, have a

use life which inuences and is inuencedby their context, making tool and contextinter-dependent. Cognitive Archaeology, abranch of the New Archaeology movement,ne-tuned the concept of intrasite spatialanalysis, and heralded the use of the Châine

Operatoire model. Translated literally as theOperational Chain, this model attempts tostudy the prehistoric mind on the basis of material culture’s use life (Schlanger 1994).e model traces the trajectory whichleads from raw material to material culture

until its eventual discarding, assuming thateach step of this process was consciously planned by the human actor (Schlanger1994: 144). erefore, in trying to identifythe processes which led to the developmentof the archaeological record, an attempt ismade to relate to the whole process or chain.




As a result, there is an obvious connectionbetween the contextualization of artifactsand the application of the châine operatoire.

e next section, will outline and discussthe major trends and patterns of the imported

lithic tools in each structure of Skorba.

A Contextual Analysis of Imported Lithic

Tools in Early Neolithic Spaces

Għar Dalam Wall

ere are several issues which render theunderstanding of this structure dicultand which may lead to very dierentinterpretations. Firstly, the functionalityof this wall is not well understood, and

consequently, there can be no consensus onthe location of the inside or the outside of this structure. Secondly, there is no mentionof where the majority of the lithic tools wererecovered from. Figure 2, which illustratesthe distribution of obsidian and int in thestratigraphic layers of the trenches in Skorba,shows an evident majority of obsidian, whichat rst glance might be misleading.

Arguing from a quantitative point of view,there is a signicant obsidian scatter in grid

SB, located at the northern extent of theexcavated Għar Dalam wall. Trump describeshow, despite the lack of clear evidence of a oor on any side, the ‘[…] comparativerichness of nds on its north side suggestthat it was its inner face […]’ (Trump 1966:

10). is wall contained deposits of charcoal,carbonized grain, lithic tools and animalbones. Of all these layers, only SK SB 6 was identied by Trump as contemporaryto the wall’s prime utilization stage, the

Għar Dalam phase (Trump 1960-1963: 15-23). e dierence between the layers SKSB5, identied as containing Grey Skorbamaterial, and SK SB6 might be caused by theabandonment of the structure. For the scopeof this paper, the analysis of imported lithictool material from this structure is basedentirely on the deposit SK SB6.

e lithic material recovered from thisarea is predominantly obsidian the majorityof which is of the Lipari type. All lithics areunder 1.6 cm in length and 1.7 cm in width,

indicating that they are actually debitage. edebitage from SK SB6 is a good indicator of the utilization strategies which prevailed inMaltese prehistoric communities. In widthall the fragments are about half the length,implying that a large percentage of this group was broken through extensive use. None of the recovered artifacts have a visible distaltermination1 and only one instance retaineda striking platform at the proximal end.During the study it was evident that this

end might have been subjected to pressurestrain, possibly through hand use. e latter point is of interest since nearby Sicily has neexamples of composite tools, where several pieces of lithics were mounted on a handleof dierent material. However, the author

Fig. 2. Chart showing theoccurrence of obsidian and int within excavated deposits.




has yet to encounter a local discussion of the presence/lack of composite tools. In SK SB6only one piece of int lithic was identiedand this was interpreted in the same way asthe obsidian pieces described above.

Despite the fact that other deposits inthis general area are of a later Grey Skorba phase, the nds are equally important forthis study, especially since the latter lacksany substantial structural remains. In thesedeposits, the prevailing lithic raw material isonce again obsidian. One of these deposits,SK NB2, yielded an interesting set of 9broken obsidian blades of the Lipari type,along with a single Pantelleria type fragment.Once more, the size of the obsidian piecesis identical to the Għar Dalam phase tools

recovered and described above. However, inthis case, the broken blades had a single sideedge, meaning that only one side was used forcutting/slicing.

e imported lithic tools found in thisspace indicate that, rather than a living quarter, this area can be more closelyidentied as a refuse zone. e latterinterpretation is upheld by the excavators’note that no ooring was observed and anarray of carbonized material was uncovered

(Trump 1966: 10).

Għar Dalam Hut

e Għar Dalam Hut on the eastern part of the site is the only domestic structure fromthis phase uncovered during the excavations

although unfortunately its eastern side wasdamaged by agricultural activity. Within SK JE (see Figure 3), a centrally located trench inthe vicinity of the upturned quern describedearlier, ve lithics were found. ese were all

ake shatters. Multidirectional ake scars were observed on these lithic tools and thesecan be interpreted as an informal method of knapping. In principle, larger akes detachin a uniform manner from the core sides.erefore, this indicates that the initial sizeof these ve lithics from SK JE would nothave been larger.

Two other lithic tools were recovered fromlayer SK KD2 (Figure 3), which is situated inthe western corner of the hut. ese lithicsare, on average, the same size as those found

close to the Għar Dalam Wall.If one compares the lithic tools discovered

in both Għar Dalam phase structures, itis clear that int tools make up a minor percentage of both assemblages. However,considering that the evidence indicates thatone was a domestic hut, whereas the otheris considered to be a building of specialsignicance, the dierence in quantity, butnot quality, of imported lithic tools foundin the Għar Dalam Hut and the Għar Dalam

Wall requires a closer look. e terminationtypes of obsidian and int tools discoveredin these structures are, in all instances,broken. Broken terminations can occureither because, during knapping, the lithicsnapped unexpectedly, or because the tool

Figure 3: Chart showing the occurrence of obsidianand int within excavateddeposits




was broken through excessive use/pressure.In the case of the obsidian and int toolsfrom these structures, the latter appears tobe the case. ese imported tools also have a very low occurrence of cortical skin on their

surfaces indicating that the material mighthave been imported from overseas aer it hadbeen prepared for working. Considering thatthese tools were made from a raw materialthat required substantial eort to acquire inlimited amounts, it is possible these lithics were used for specic tasks for which localmaterials were not appropriate even thoughlocal chert was being used for a multitudeof tasks. e spatial location of thesescatters indicates that no actual knapping of imported lithic tools was carried out in the

Għar Dalam structures and their discarding is related to chert waste within corners of thesame structures.

Grey Skorba Deposits in North Eastern elds

Deposits situated in the north eastern eldsof Skorba were chosen for study based on thefact that this area contained by far the mostsubstantial Grey Skorba phase deposits.

From the several trenches in these northeastern elds about 700-800 lithic tools were

recovered in Grey Skorba contexts. None of these contexts were identied as being closeto the edge of the archaeological site, butalmost immediately it becomes apparentthat this zone must have been utilized as adumping area of knapped waste.

Approximately 75-80% of the chert lithictools are bulky shatter pieces (more than 1 cmin thickness), and therefore larger than theaverage ake. us, the area was a discarding point for waste pieces and probably a

secondary dump from a nearby location.is interpretation is based on the relativelack of smaller sized lithic tools which arerepresented particularly within structures.Although imported lithic tools are in an evensmaller quantity than in the other depositsand structures at Skorba, there is a largerratio of int than previously described.

Artefact number SK TE4 (13) is anunretouched ake tool, a type of lithic tool which has been observed in limited quantities(Figure 4). is tool indicates that no edge

retouching was added as it was required for varied tasks. is fact is of particular relevancebecause it has yet to be determined whether,in this phase, imported tools, as opposedto local tools, were task specic or not. esame deposit, SK TE4, also contained goodexamples of unretouched int blades whichare broken on both the distal and proximalend, implying breaking caused by applied pressure, probably through hand use. esecharacteristics may be observed in the other

int tools, however, this part of the sitelacked the over-exhausted lithic tools whichare observed in other areas.

ere is once again a consistent lack of obsidian functional tools in this area, exceptfor some fragments which are recognized as

Fig. 4. Chart showing theoccurrence of obsidian and int within excavated deposits




broken blades. erefore, the discovery indeposit SK VE4 of two obsidian cores, onefrom Pantelleria and the other from Lipari,is surprising. e Lipari core, the smallerof the two, appears to have had too many

akes detached from a single platform area.Consequently, the edges of the core becametoo steep and several blows from the distalside were carried out to reduce the steepness.Except for size, the Pantelleria core is similar inits technological traits. e former, however,has a clear example of a single striking platform which indicates the modication of the core’sedges for supposed knapping continuation.

Red Skorba Paved Space

e small number of imported lithic toolsover a relatively large space appears toindicate that this area was not utilized for any working tasks.

SK CF2 (5) and SK CF3 (1), both Liparibladelets, are two of the few obsidian lithic

tools which are still in a functional state. Inthese tools there seems to be no indicationof the haing necessary to create a largercomposite tool. A possible interpretation of this fact is that despite the small size of the

imported lithic tools, they were for the most part hand-held.

Red Skorba North ‘Shrine’ and South Hut

e northern ‘shrine’ structure containedmore than twice the quantity of the lithic toolsof the southern area. ere is an evident chertscatter located at the eastern corner of thishut, directly opposite the doorway discoveredin grid BF. Apart from the single int toolcoming from the doorway, the excavators also

recovered a broken sickle, with unimarginalretouching, which is approximately twice thesize of normal recovered int tools. On theother hand, the eastern corner grids of VDand YD held the largest concentration of imported lithic tools within this architectural






space (Figure 6). However, none of theselithics appear to have been used.

e only other functional lithic tool

observed, SK UE3 (197), was classied as abroken unimarginal blade. is type of blade was observed frequently in int tools andappears to have been a popular solution for various cutting requirements. ese bladeshad no edge retouching indicating that theknapped pieces were sharp enough for therequired tasks

e highest concentration of importedlithic tools was uncovered in the southernhut’s south-west corner (Figure 7). Whereas

the average size of obsidian akes in otherareas of Skorba appeared to be in the 1.7 by0.9 cm range, within this hut the averagesize appears to be around 1.4 by 0.6 cm.Combining this aspect with the interesting lack of functional lithic tools, architecturalspace dierentiation appears evident. ishut has a clear concentration of debitage pieces, which are smaller than the other piecesobserved. is fact presents two possibilities:these are debitage waste pieces; this structuredid not have an inux of good lithic tools.

Since there does not seem to be a substantialamount of knapped pieces uncovered in thishut to indicate that these were debitage waste pieces, the second proposal is slightly morecompelling than the rst.

Comparison between the northern and thesouthern structures does indicate signicant

diversity in size and functions. e variousartefacts collected in the northern hut, suchas the smoothened cow tarsals, isolated goat

skulls and anthropomorphic gurines haveconsistently been interpreted as being purelyritualistic, thereby strongly implying a non-domestic use of this space. e majority of lithics, including local chert, were recoveredfrom the northern structure where it seemsthat knapping might have been carried out,an interpretation which is not plausible inthe case of the southern hut. Imported lithictools are also represented more within thenorthern structure, hinting at the dierent

uses between the two. In fact, the southernhut’s artefact deposit is mundane and relatedto domestic activities. Additionally, fromthe waste scatter within the two structures,it appears as if material was pushed to thesides of the huts where less activity wouldtake place. is is extremely interesting sinceit highlights the importance of detailedrecording of artefact scatters.

Establishing a châine operatoire for the

Early Neolithic phases of Skorba

Aer considering the main imported lithictool scatters within the Early Neolithic phases of Skorba, it is time to attemptto trace the mechanisms which createdthis archaeological record. As discussed previously, an ideal method to describecultural changes and formation processes





is through the use of the châine opératoire model. In this case, this model will be appliedto the various phases and adapted to the localsituation (Figure 8).

For the Procurement Stage, the steps

of Organization, Travel and Acquisition,illustrated in Figure 8, have been identied.ere is evidence that travel between Maltaand Sicily was undertaken. e lack of knapped waste remains from productioncould indicate that either ready-made pieces were imported or else that the quantity of raw material was limited. Indeed, prima facie, this appears to agree with the interpretationof other scholars. However, a dierentinterpretation, based on the core conceptof the Procurement Stage, is possible. Even

during the Early Neolithic, relations withthe outside world must not have been gearedsolely towards procurement of raw material.Surely the demand for such products washigh, and yet the supply was irregular and/or controlled. Another signicant aspectis that only two imported obsidian cores were recovered on site from layer SK VE4attributed to the Grey Skorba period. is

begs the question of whether the inhabitantsof Malta extracted the raw materialsthemselves or used their Sicilian contacts, a vital clue to understanding Skorba and inter-cultural relations at the time.

At this juncture, two conclusions may bedrawn: Trips between Malta and Sicily were not

intended solely for the procurement of lithic raw material,

A dierent value was attributed toint and obsidian, and for the latter,a distinction was made even betweenLipari and Pantelleria obsidian.

ese have wide repercussions on ourunderstanding of contacts between Maltese

and Sicilian prehistoric communities.Although it has oen been assumed thatexchange between the two was fueled bythe impoverished needs of the Maltesecommunities, imported lithic tools show arestricted function aimed at specic tasks which would not have been the case had thesimple lack of raw material been the cause of importation.

Fig. 8. e châine opératoiremodel applied to Skorba




Additionally, the sea vessel’s capacityshould also be considered as this must alsohave had a bearing on materials imported. Akey consideration on this point is the amountof cortex on the dorsal side of int lithic

tools. In the Early Neolithic phases of Skorbathere is only 5% of all the int lithic tools with more than two thirds of cortex on thedorsal surface, whereas 19% are secondaryakes and about 76% are tertiary akes.is implies that the int raw materials werebeing shaped in ecient pieces and only thentaken on the sea crossing. is shows thatecient use was made of the limited spaceavailable on board and throws a light on howmovement in the landscape was planned.

e next stage, Production, starts with

Return, that is, the arrival of the raw materialto its destination followed by Diusion, itsdistribution among the community. ebiggest problem with tackling Diusionlocally is the lack of evidence for domesticsettlements, and as a result, the absenceof data makes it impossible to developarguments in this regard. Interpretations of diusion methods are somewhat dependenton the understanding of the socio-economicsituation of the communities in Early

Neolithic Skorba. e idea of a at basedsociety in early Neolithic Malta appears tohail back to Renfrew’s interpretation of therst communities as “farmers [of ] a simpleagricultural economy […]” (Renfrew 1973:166) whereas the megalithic temple builders were believed to have evolved into “ […]more complex than simple farming villages[…] identied [as] chiefdom societies […]”(Renfrew 1973: 170). In recent literature,Trump describes the Early Neolithiccommunity as a simple society with some

sort of stratication (Trump 2002: 32-34). is interpretation was based on thediscovery of the Għar Dalam Wall and thenorthern Red Skorba Structure. Both thesestructures appear to have been anomalies,indicating a more intricate social systemthan that of a mere group of farmers. If the

interpretation of these structures is correct,considering the amounts of lithics recoveredfrom the Għar Dalam Wall and the northernRed Skorba structure in comparison to theircontemporaries, it seems that imported

lithic tools were more strongly representedin key structures. is might be interpretedas an indication of dierent functions, if noteven of dierent access to valuable materials.In fact, whilst local chert was recovered inlarge amounts, int and obsidian nds werelimited and it is their context which throws alight on their value.

At the Manufacturing Step, there appearsto have been a specic function linked tospecic material/s. Obsidian seems to havebeen manufactured into thin cutting tools.

ese pieces were rarely retouched, indicating that the manufacturer was aer a straight cutand not a serrated type of edge. is type of thin blade production is also core ecientsince such thin pieces prolong the core’s uselife. Flint, on the other hand, was suited to a wider variety of tasks, as deduced from edgetypes represented in the Skorba assemblage.ese types can be summarized as scraping,cutting, serrating and slicing lithic tools, of which the rst two were most commonly

observed. In comparison to obsidian, intis relatively dicult to manufacture in thinakes. Consequently, int tools had a larger percentage of edge retouching than obsidianand local chert tools. Although no retouching type prevailed in any particular trend, allretouching was carried out according to themorphological shape of the lithic tools. Forinstance lithic tools with steep edges wereretouched for scraping motions and it seemsas if the knapper was retouching according to what his work had yielded.

With regards to the Consumption stage,from the brief overviews on local lithic toolsin the literature, one would be tempted toassume that the general lack of functionallithic tools implies a scant lithic assemblage.Yet, it is the author’s opinion that the analysisof edge types of the few functional lithic




tools which were found, may aid in theunderstanding of utilization strategies.

e consumption of an artefact wouldeventually have led to the Discarding Stage, wherein imported lithic tools were recycled

intensively and extensively, a processfrequently referred to as tool curation.Popularised by Lewis Binford in the1970s, this term has been recently utilizedin reference to greenstone axe fragmentsrecovered from the Xagħra Stone Circleexcavations (Malone and Stoddart 2004:98-99). According to Malone and Stoddart(2004: 99) the curation of greenstone axesin the Late Neolithic is identied as a “[…]sacralization to maximize the resource […]”.Yet, already in the Early Neolithic, even

the more common obsidian and int wererecycled to large extents.

With regard to this, although an analogybetween a sedentary Neolithic group inSkorba and the semi-sedentary NunamiutEskimos in Alaska studied by Binford isrisky, it is worth noting the following extract:“[…] very rarely does one go out into theenvironment for the express and exclusive purpose of obtaining raw materials for tools[…]” (Binford 1977: 259). Furthermore, the

Nunamiut are “anticipatory in character”(Binford 1977: 261) and their lithic toolkitalways had backups. Malta’s case stronglysuggests a non-wasteful character whichascribed high value to objects during their uselife. Still, there is as yet no evidence of caching in Early Neolithic Skorba which suggests thatthe imported materials, particularly obsidian,had active purposes, possibly related to theirlocations. Domestic hut assemblages reecta lack of inux of such tools, whereas thenorthern Red Skorba Structure and the

Ghar Dalam Wall have produced some of the only functional lithic tools. From these points one can interpret that Maltese lithictool production, particularly with regard tolithic tools, was anticipatory in nature withan in-depth understanding of the origin, rawmaterial, morphology and current needs.

Conclusion

e lithic tool technology of Skorba during the Early Neolithic appears to have beena variant and localised expression of the

imported raw materials’ value. e ndssuggest that the demand for such rawmaterials was higher than that for the localchert. Yet, factors such as taste and materialcomprehension might have been behindthe driving forces of such an intensivecuration. Evidently, these raw materials wereutilized for tasks in which chert could notbe used to produce ecient tools. e tooltypes observed in the Skorba collection aretherefore largely a local product and reectthe conditions in which the community was

functioning and how they were handling their needs.

Local technology was primarily limitedby availability. However, intra-site variationsindicate that dierent spaces were utilized bydierent persons for diverse functions. ebiographies of these artefacts also hint atthe possibility that the social system withinSkorba was not at or egalitarian. e variedexploitation of obsidian and int should beconsidered in the light of the socio-economic

structure of Early Neolithic Skorba as thisenriches the corpus of knowledge on Maltese prehistoric communities. is underlinesthe importance of the biographies of theseartifacts in Early Neolithic, and even more soin Late Neolithic, Malta.

Early Neolithic Malta is very oenovershadowed by the unique megalithicculture which followed it. Obviously, incomparison to Late Neolithic or ‘Temple’culture, the Early Neolithic inhabitantsappear simple. Yet comparisons between

Maltese and Sicilian Early Neolithicarchaeology indicate an element of variability within the culture, reected in the materialevidence by the Għar Dalam Wall and thenorthern Red Skorba structure. Similarly,imported lithic tool production is dierentfrom that of their Sicilian counterparts.




It is evident that Skorba is contributing toour knowledge of the manner in which EarlyNeolithic local communities led their livesand, more importantly, how they identied with their surrounding world.

Acknowledgements I would like to thank Raquel Ozanich-Vella

for her help in the correction of this study.

Her suggestions helped me stay on track and

be systematic in my studies on such a vast

topic. I am also grateful for all the ideas that

Nathaniel Cutajar and Anthony Pace were

willing to discuss with me. I gratefully thank

the Prehistoric Sites Department at Heritage

Malta for initing me to give my input on such

a publication.

References:

Binford, L.R., 1979, Organization and formation processes: Looking at curated technologies. Journal of Anthropological Research, Vol 35, pgs 255-273.

Evans, J.D., 1953, e prehistoric cultural sequencein the Maltese Archipelago. Proceedings of the

Prehistoric Society , XIX, p.41.Hodder, I. and Hutson, S., 2003, Reading the past:

Current Approaches to interpretation in Archaeology,(3rd ed.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Malone, C. and Stoddart, S., 2004, Towards an islandof mind?. In Cherry, J.F, Scarre, C and Shennan, S,

(Eds.), Explaining social change: Studies in honour of Colin Renew. Cambridge: McDonald Institute forArchaeological Research

Phillips, J. L., 2003, e use of the châine opératoireapproach in the upper Paleolithic Period in Sinai.In Kardulias, P.N and Yerkes, R.W, (Eds.), Writtenin stone: e multiple dimensions of lithic analysis .

Oxford: Lexington Books.Renfrew, C., 1973, Before civilization: e radiocarbon

revolution and prehistoric Europe. Britain: JonathanCape.

Schoeld, A. J., 1995, Artefacts mean nothing. InSchoeld, A.J (Ed.), Lithics in context: Suggestions

for the future direction of Lithic Studies. London:Lithic Studies Society.

Trump, D.H., 1966, Skorba: Excavations carried outon behalf of the National Museum of Malta 1961- 1963, Reports of the Research Committee of theSociety of Antiquaries of London No. XXIII, Oxford:Society of Antiquaries of London

Trump, D. H., 2002, Malta: Prehistory and temples.Malta: Midsea Books Ltd.

Trump, D. H., 1960-1963, Excavation Notebook II,Section II, Malta: Unpublished Manuscript

Notes

1 Distal termination refers to the bottom point of the fracture of any given lithic. ere are varioustypes of terminations which are dependent on theirmorphological characteristics.

2 is tool type is, however, common among chertlithic tools.

3 is methodology is being applied by the Missione

Archaeologica Italiana a Malta in their studies onTas-Silġ.

Distribution patterns of imported lithics in Early Neolithic Skorba_Clive_Vella

Documents

Transcript of Distribution patterns of imported lithics in Early Neolithic Skorba_Clive_Vella