Advertisement

A Comparative Study of the Aetokremnos Chipped Stone

Chapter
  • 113 Downloads
Part of the Interdisciplinary Contributions to Archaeology book series (IDCA)

Conclusion

In conclusion, then, no analogues in the chipped stone for Aetokremnos are apparent from either other Cypriot sites or from mainland sites that range in time from Late Epipaleolithic through Aceramic Neolithic. What does this mean? It would be a mistake to make too much out of generalized comparisons that are based only on artifacts. After all, should there be many similarities? In Aetokremnos, we are looking at a small and specialized assemblage used in the processing of a faunal suite with no mainland analogues. We feel that the data strongly support the specialized nature of the Aetokremnos assemblage. Taken as an isolated entity, one could drop these materials into one of the mainland cultural periods, and it would not stand out dramatically in terms of overall typology or technology. It would, however, present some major differences in its proportions of various elements. Most striking among these is the high percentage of scrapers, especially of the thumbnail type, and the high percentage of burins, suggesting to us that the major distinctions at Aetokremnos in comparison with other sites relate to functional variability

Keywords

Assemblage Composition Tool Class Neolithic Site Mainland Site Tool Composition 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2002

Personalised recommendations