Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-tj2md Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T03:40:52.512Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Pattern in the Epipalaeolithic of the Levant: debate after Neeley & Barton

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Nigel Gorine-Morris ,
Donald O. Henry ,
James L. Phillips ,
G. A. Clark ,
C. Michael Barton  and
Michael P. Neeley
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The ANTIQUITY paper by Neeley & Barton (1994) — hereafter ‘N&B'— prompted responses published in the June number last year: Fellner (1995) and Kaufman (1995). Here are more (all shorter than the full versions received), together with a response from Barton & Neeley (B&N) that rounds off the present discussion. The debaters have seen others’ contributions, so there is some cross-comment within them. The questions and the issues are old fundamentals of lithic research and analsis, which one cannot expect to end with this debate.

Type
Papers
Information
Antiquity , Volume 70 , Issue 267 , March 1996 , pp. 130
Copyright
Copyright © Antiquity Publications Ltd. 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Fellner, R. 1995. Technology or typology?: a response to Neeley & Barton, Antiquity 69: 381–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaufman, D. 1995. Microburins and microliths of the Levantine Epipalaeolithic: a comment on the paper by Neeley & Barton, Antiquity 69: 375–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neeley, M.P. & Barton, C.M. 1994. A new approach to interpreting late Pleistocene microlith industries in southwest Asia, Antiquity 68: 275–88.Google Scholar