Belfer-Cohen, A. and A. N. Goring-Morris 2014The Upper Palaeolithic and Earlier Epi-Palaeolithic of...

1381

Introduction The Near (or Middle) East is an ambiguous term that

refers to Southwest Asia eastwards from the Mediterranean up to and including Iran. The region encompasses Anatolia , the Levant , Cyprus , Mesopotamia , Arabia and, sometimes, Transcaucasia . Prehistoric research throughout the region has been patchy, with a notable historical bias on the Levant (as an offshoot from “biblical” archaeology); this encompasses the area bounded between the Taurus/Zagros and the Red Sea on the one hand, and the Mediterranean and the Arabian Desert on the other. Relatively little research was conducted throughout much of Anatolia or Iran , although this has begun to change in recent years. Within the Arabian Peninsula Late/Terminal Pleistocene research is almost nonexistent.

Pioneering prehistoric research in the Near East was Eurocentric in outlook, as demonstrated by the initial unilin-ear six-stage model proposed for the Upper Palaeolithic of the Levant by Neuville ( 1934 ) and modifi ed by Garrod ( 1951 ). While their model was based on cave and rock shelter sequences in Mount Carmel and the Judean Desert , the nomenclature used was originally European, as were the criteria for defi ning the various local entities through the sequence. Indeed, even much later, changes and variants observed in the local archaeological record often continued to be measured against the European “yardstick” ( e.g., Bordes 1977 ).

An important issue to be considered concerns the integrity of assemblages, especially from cave and rock shelter sites. In some areas of the Near East the reconstruction of cultural processes is still based on excavations conducted many decades ago, using recovery techniques that are wanting by today’s standards, and raising questions as to the integrity of such “assemblages”.

From the beginning of research in the region, it is impor-tant to stress the involvement of numerous different schools of research, whether from the New or Old World, or locally based, that was and continues to be a prime-mover with regard to vying theoretical frameworks ( e.g., Marks 2003 ). This con-tributes to vibrant debates at the most basic, paradigmatic lev-els of research.

Until the mid-1970s, debates on the Upper Palaeolithic of the Near East largely revolved around the original six-part conceptual framework ( e.g., Bar-Yosef 1970 ; Copeland 1975 ;

Garrod 1957 ; Perrot 1968 : Ronen 1976 ; Rust 1950 ). Research in the late 1960s had already led to the adoption of a new status for the microlithic industries of the later part of the sequence, namely, the Epi-Palaeolithic (for history of research see Belfer-Cohen & Goring-Morris 2002 ). But it was only in light of fi eld research in the marginal regions of the southern Levant dur-ing the late 1970s that this unilinear developmental model was replaced by a radically new hypothesis encompassing the entire Levant. This new approach posited the presence of par-allel Upper Palaeolithic phyla (Gilead 1981 ; Marks 1981 ; and see Belfer-Cohen & Goring-Morris 2003 for an overview).

Given the initial Eurocentric bias, it is ironic to note that researchers in Europe are now questioning their own long-entrenched chrono-cultural frameworks and even adopt Near Eastern cultural terminology for European phenomena, that is, the “Ahmarian” (and see later in this chapter). Furthermore, there is an ongoing debate about the very nature of the “European” frame of reference. A primary example concerns the defi nition of the “Aurignacian”, long considered the quint-essential early Upper Palaeolithic occurrence in Europe and hence, in the spirit of Eurocentric research, elsewhere as well. From the beginning of prehistoric studies, scholars took lib-erties in their assignment of archaeological phenomena to the “Aurignacian”, mostly because it was accepted as a generic syn-onym for “Early Upper Palaeolithic”. Over time, this practice made things more complex, since the various entities assigned to the “Aurignacian” sensu lato differ in their specifi c techno-typological characteristics, resulting in incongruent defi ni-tions. Currently “Aurignacian” research within Europe itself is in a state of fl ux, with regard to its material culture characteris-tics, local developments and range of variability. This has major implications for Upper Palaeolithic research and terminology in the Near East (see discussion later in this chapter).

Landscape and Environments As noted in this chapter, the Near East encom-

passes a huge region in which research has been patchy at best. Accordingly the following account focuses on the Levant with only brief descriptions of neighbouring areas.

3 .3 THE UPPER PALAEOLITHIC AND EARLIER EPI-PALAEOLITHIC OF WESTERN ASIA ANNA BELFER-COHEN AND NIGEL GORING-MORRIS

9781107023796c03_p1381-1407.indd 13819781107023796c03_p1381-1407.indd 1381 8/5/2013 9:04:18 PM8/5/2013 9:04:18 PM

1382

A N N A B E L F E R - C O H E N A N D N I G E L G O R I N G - M O R R I S3.3

Levantine topography is characterised by a north-south longitudinal series of alternating elevated and low-lying regions. A transect from west to east includes the coastal plain and western piedmont; the central hill range reaching up to 2000 m asl; the Rift Valley, partially lying below sea level; the Transjordanian/Syrian Plateau rising steeply to elevations between 800 and 2000 m asl; and fi nally a gradual descent eastwards into Saudi Arabia . There are few perennial rivers or streams in the region, the most notable being the Tigris and the Euphrates in the north, and the Orontes and the Jordan far-ther south. Almost all other drainage systems are seasonal and ephemeral. Changes in evapo-transpiration rates were major factors in the presence and extent of late Quaternary inland water bodies. Springs are common in the Mediterranean zone, but are widely dispersed in the more arid margins (“oases”). Obviously, the specifi cs would have changed at various times, depending upon the particular climatic regime.

It is important to stress that within the Middle East, as indeed elsewhere, global climatic changes would have differentially impacted environments at the micro- as well as the macro-regional levels. Late and terminal Pleistocene geomorphological changes varied in their impact on the north and south Levant.

To the northwest, Anatolia is bounded by the Black , Aegean and Mediterranean seas, while to the east the Armenian high-lands separate it from Iran . The Taurus-Zagros mountain range and the Pontic Alps on the Black Sea coast frame the raised Central Anatolian Plateau. Eastern Anatolia , where the Pontus and Taurus mountain ranges converge, is rugged country with higher elevations (up to 5000 m asl), a more severe climate and greater precipitation than is found on the Anatolian Plateau. The coastal plains, as in the northern Levant, are generally nar-row, with mountains descending rapidly to the coast, except for a few areas.

Iran is mostly mountainous, being framed by the alpine Zagros , Caucasus and Alburz mountains in the south, west and north, which together enclose the semidesertic to deser-tic Iranian Plateau. Climates are montane and/or desertic, the only exception being the area adjacent to the Caspian Basin, which is characterised by lush lowland and montane subtropi-cal and temperate rainforests.

Considerable climatic shifts occurred during the course of the late and terminal Pleistocene, resulting in alternate expan-sion and contraction of the main phytogeographic zones. Taken in combination with the varied topography, the semi-arid fringes of the Levant shifted along north–south and east–west axes. In addition, the high mountain ranges in the northern regions would have formed barriers to movements across them, especially during periods of adverse conditions, that is, Transcaucasia and the Iranian and Anatolian plateaus.

Detailed climatic studies are, again, available primarily for the Levant. Being located between Africa and Eurasia, Levantine climate is infl uenced by two major climatic systems, one origi-nating in the west, the Atlantic system, and the other in the southeast, the African/West Asian monsoonal system (Almogi-Labin et al . 2004 and references therein). In addition, there are seasonal infl uences from the northeast. Climatic fl uctuations subjected the entire region to a humid and rainy climate during

warm interglacial periods, when the Atlantic and monsoonal systems nearly overlapped. During glacial times, the whole region became cool and dry, as synoptic confi gurations (weather patterns) shifted. Milder conditions occurred for shorter inter-vals between these two extremes, contributing to highly variable local conditions. Precipitation and its geographical distribution are directly impacted by orographic effects. Relatively smooth north–south and east–west gradients of rainfall are coupled with the “rain shadow” effect on the eastern side of the moun-tain ranges. The outcome of this interplay between climate and topography leads to distinct phytogeographic zonation, culmi-nating in a mosaic pattern of numerous interfacing ecological niches over relatively small distances.

Terrestrial climatic records in the southern Levant are derived from the study of speleothems, refl ecting the relative amounts of annual precipitation (references in Bar-Matthews & Ayalon 2003 ). This is supplemented by marine and lake pol-len cores ( e.g., Enzel et al. 2008 ; Kadosh et al . 2004 ; Rossignol-Strick 1995 ; Weinstein-Evron 1990 ; van Zeist et al . 2009 ). In the Mediterranean phytogeographic belt the annual rains and their distributions through the cold winter months were major fac-tors, more so than temperature fl uctuations, that determined the spatial distributions of the forest, parkland and steppic plant associations. Changing global sea levels also probably had an impact on local climatic conditions.

The 18 O record from Soreq Cave indicates several cycles of transitions from cold and dry conditions to wet and warm ones (Bar-Matthews & Ayalon 2003 ). There are disagreements as to whether the 18 O ratios represent only the source of the rain water in the Mediterranean Sea Basin and not the annual amount of rain ( e.g., Bar-Matthews & Ayalon 2003 vs. Frumkin et al. 1999 ; Kolodny et al . 2005 ). These emanate from correlations between the Jerusalem speleothems and the Lake Lisan deposits that indicate generally wetter conditions during the Last Glacial. A rapid rainfall increase after the Late Glacial Maximum (LGM ) is recorded by the pollen sequences from the Hula Valley , the Ghab and Lake Van (Baruch & Bottema 1999 ; Bottema & Van Zeist 1981 ; Van Zeist et al . 2009 ). Diffi culties in dating the cores complicate correlations with the speleothems, but the general impression is that fl uctuations of annual precipitation over many centuries are expressed in the variable ratios of arboreal pollen.

Chronology As noted in this chapter the initial chrono-cultural

framework derives from the fi eldwork of Garrod and Neuville in the 1930s. Notwithstanding new conceptual approaches, much of the current research is still being incorporated within the aforementioned framework, even if new cultural terminol-ogies have evolved ( Table 3.3.1 ).

The Upper Palaeolithic in the Near East begins c. 48 k cal BP , with the shift to the Epi-Palaeolithic at c. 23 k cal BP , roughly coinciding with the onset of the LGM . The Levantine Epi-Palaeolithic is divided into Early, Middle and Late phases, the latter represented by the Natufi an complex (c. 14.5–11.5 k cal BP ), which is not described here.


1383

Cultural Sequence

The dating of the Middle to Upper Palaeolithic (MP-UP) transition in the Levant is currently based on the TL readings from the latest Mousterian and the earliest radiocarbon dates for the Initial Upper Palaeolithic (IUP), and especially the sequence of both TL and radiocarbon dates from Kebara Cave , where the IUP is missing (Rebollo et al . 2011, and references therein). The new dates document the MP-UP shift occurring between c. 48.5–47.1 k cal BP , corroborating the C14 dates of c. 50 k cal BP for the IUP levels 1–2 at Boker Tachtit (Volkman & Kaufman 1983 ).

Cultural Sequence The Near Eastern Upper Palaeolithic differs from

the Middle Palaeolithic in the shifting emphasis from pre-pared fl ake to serial blade/let-oriented fl int industries (Belfer-Cohen & Goring-Morris 2009 ). Through time, the latter are

transformed into backed microlithic industries, bringing about yet another tempo-cultural subdivision, the Upper/Epi-Palaeolithic transition (Belfer-Cohen & Goring-Morris 2002 ). By contrast, in Europe the microlithic transformation appar-ently coincided with the end of the last glaciation and thus is considered as a separate period, the “Mesolithic”, lasting until at least the Middle Holocene. In the Near East the transforma-tion occurred with the onset of the LGM , that is, correspond-ing to about half of the length of time of the European Upper Palaeolithic, which is the reason why the Near Eastern Upper Palaeolithic and the Epi-Palaeolithic are treated as one unit herein.

While the fossil evidence is almost nonexistent, there is wide-spread consensus that the beginning of the Near Eastern Upper Palaeolithic corresponds with the advent of modern humans and thus represents the fi rst undoubted link in the great chain of modern human presence in the region. The beginning of the Epi-Palaeolithic witnesses a marked increase in the tempo

TABLE 3.3.1. Chronology of cultural entities by main regions in the Middle East (entities in italics with habitual use of the microburin technique).

Dates (cal BP ) Time-Stratigraphic Units

Sociocultural Entities

Steppe and Desert Levant

Mediterranean Levant

Taurus Zagros Southern Caucasus

14,500–13,700 Late Terminal Ramonian

Early Natufi an

Early Natufi an

16,500–13,000 Dzudzuana B 17,000–14,500 Middle Mushabian/ Early

Ramonian 17,500–14,750 Geometric

Kebaran Geometric

Kebaran 18,000–14,000 ‘Epipalaeolithic’ Zarzian 20,000–18,000 Early Nizzanan Nizzanan 21,000–18,000 Kebaran Kebaran hiatus? 23,500–19,000 Masraqan (Late

Ahmarian) Masraqan (Late

Ahmarian) Late

Baradostian 23,000–21,000 Nebekian 24,000 Epi-Palaeolithic hiatus 30,000–22,000? Arqov/Divshon hiatus? 27,000–24,000 Dzudzuana C 27,000–25,000? Atlitian <30,000–24,000 ‘Upper

Palaeolithic’ hiatus? hiatus?

34,500–32,000 Dzudzuana D 37,000–33,000 Levantine

Aurignacian 45,000–25,000 Early Ahmarian Early

Baradostian? 47,000–45,000 Initial UP

(Emiran) Initial UP

(Emiran) hiatus hiatus? hiatus?

48,000 Upper Palaeolithic Middle

Palaeolithic Late

Mousterian Late

Mousterian Late

Mousterian Late

Mousterian Late

Mousterian


1384


of cultural change, culminating in the transformation from mobile foragers to sedentary, incipient agriculturalists.

It is, of course, not clear whether the archaeologically defi ned entities do indeed refl ect discrete ethnic groups. However, cognitive and ethnographic studies provide support for this contention ( e.g., papers in Clark 1991 ; Clark & Lindley 1991 ; and debate in Goring-Morris et al. 1996 ).

The Emergence of the Upper Palaeolithic in the Levant The criteria used to identify cultural changes during

the Palaeolithic are based, by default, on the material culture

remains, refl ected especially in the techno-typological attri-butes of the chipped stone artifacts. Although there is also a technological shift, from surface exploitation (for fl akes) to volumetric concepts (for blade/let production), we believe that the “radical” aspect of this change has sometimes been overemphasised (see Belfer-Cohen & Goring-Morris 2007 ; Bar-Yosef 2000 ; Bar-Yosef & Kuhn 1999 ). In typological terms the emergence of the Upper Palaeolithic is indicated by the dominance of end-scrapers, burins and blade forms (includ-ing points and backed pieces) over the characteristic forms of the late Middle Palaeolithic, that is, fl ake-based points and side-scrapers.

While the fl int assemblages seem to indicate a rather grad-ual transformation, the genetic evidence indicates a more radi-cal scenario of replacement, as modern humans originating in Africa moved by way of the Levant into Europe ( e.g., Olivierri

MAP 3.3.1. Major Upper Palaeolithic and Epi-Palaeolithic sites in Western Asia: 1. Lagama, Mushabi; 1a. W. Sudr; 2. Abu Noshra; 3. Qadesh Barnea; 4. Azariq, Nizzana; Shunera; 5. Boker, Boker Tachtit, Ain Aqev; 6. Tor Hamar, Tor Aied, W. Aghar; 6b. W. Mataha; 7. W. Hasa; 8. Masraq e-Naj; 9. Erq el-Ahmar, el-Khiam; 10. Kharaneh, W. Jilat; 11. Uwaynid, Azraq, Ayn Qasiyah; 12. Fazael, Urkan e-Rubb; 13. Uyyun al-Hammam; 14. Ein Gev, N. Ein Gev; 15. Ohalo; 16. Neve David, N. Oren, el Wad, Kebara, Rakefet; 17. Hayonim; 18. Qafzeh; 19. Ksar Akil, Jiita; 20. Yabrud; 21. Umm el-Tlel; 22. Üç agizli, Kanal; 23. Karain, Ö kuzini; 24. Dzudzuana, Savante Savana, Samerzkhle Klde, Togon Klde, Sakajiya; 24b. Savante Savana, Apianchi; 25. Shanidar, Barak, Hajiah, Babkhal; 26. Zarzi, Turkaka, Kowri Khan, Palegawra, Hazar Merd; 27. Warwasi; 28. Hulailan Valley; 29. Gar Arjeneh.


1385

The Initial Upper Palaeolithic

et al . 2006). The tempo of modern human migration into and through the Near East is indicated by new C14 dating in key sites ( e.g., Mellars 2006 ; Bar-Yosef 2007 ). However, since human remains are almost absent for the period involved, it is currently impossible to clarify the interrelationships between the newcomers and the local populations in the region as a whole.

The Initial Upper Palaeolithic During the pioneering stage of research in the Near

East it was assumed that Early Upper Palaeolithic lithic assem-blages comprised both Mousterian elements ( i.e., Levallois products and side-scrapers) and new tool types ( i.e., blades, end-scrapers and burins), thus heralding the fully fl edged Upper Palaeolithic. Garrod ( 1955 ) suggested labelling the fi rst post-Mousterian entity from Emireh Cave and el-Wad Cave layer E as the “Emiran”. Neuville ( 1951 ) had earlier advocated a lin-ear evolution, considering this industry as “Upper Palaeolithic Phase I” in his six-stage Upper Palaeolithic scheme.

Subsequent investigations established the presence of at least two IUP provinces in the Levant. The Lebanese litto-ral Ksar ‘Akil rock shelter is the most important site known to date, with 15 m of Upper and Epi-Palaeolithic deposits. Reassessment of the sequence there resulted in the coining of the term “Transitional Industry”, as the assemblages from the post-Mousterian layers displayed UP typologies combined with MP technology (Copeland 1975 ; and see Azoury 1986 ; Ohnuma 1988 ).

The notion of “transitional” characteristics was reinforced by a parallel blend of old (MP) and new (UP) traits at Boker Tachtit in the Negev (Marks 1983 ; Marks & Kaufman 1983 ; Volkman 1983 ), where refi tted cores demonstrated that mor-phologically Mousterian artifacts ( i.e., Levallois points) were produced by Upper Palaeolithic bidirectional blade tech-nology; a change in the knappers’ concept of the nodule’s volume (the so-called North African Nubian concept; see also Belfer-Cohen & Goring-Morris 2007 , 2009 ). This dif-fers signifi cantly from the local, convergent late Mousterian Levallois points (Meignen & Bar-Yosef 1991 ; Kerry & Henry 2003 ).

Hence, the term “Transitional Industry” implied a local cul-tural transition from the Levantine MP into the UP. This con-clusion has biological implications as well, since continuity in the realm of lithic production could also refl ect biological con-tinuity (Kuhn 2003 ; and see earlier in this chapter).

In the northern Levant in Ksar ‘Akil (layers XXV–XXIV) and at Abri Antelias , the IUP/Transitional industry is characterised by chamfered blades and fl akes on Levallois blanks – items shaped by a tranchet-type removal, producing a bevelled edge (Newcomer 1968 –9). It is of some interest to note that similar chamfered items are common in the Dabban layers at Haua Fteah Cave , Cyrenaica (Libya), the local IUP culture there (McBurney 1967 ). Chamfered items also appear at the surface

site of Nag Hamadi in the Nile Valley, while only one small surface assemblage has been collected to date in the Negev (Goring-Morris & Rosen 1989 ).

Long-distance similarities have been observed also for the other known IUP variant, the “Emiran”, which is characterised by bifacially thinned Emireh points. Assemblages pertaining to this variant are known mostly from the southern Levant, including surface fi nds in Lebanon, where they appear to chro-nologically overlap with the chamfered elements (Copeland 2001 ). Among the most prominent “Emiran” assemblages are Boker Tachtit levels 1–2, which bear remarkable similarities to the distant Moravian “Bohunician” entity (Svoboda & Bar-Yosef 2003 and papers therein; Tostevin 2003 ). Accordingly, it seems plausible that both IUP variants may refl ect diffusions by long-range, “leap-frogging” movements of highly mobile groups.

The assemblages of Ksar ‘Akil layers XXIII–XXI/XX, overly-ing the “chamfered” IUP, exhibit single-platform pyramidal cores that produced serial convergent blades and elongated, facetted Levallois-type points (Ohnuma & Bergman 1990 ). In this, one may note resemblances to the IUP Emiran variant at Boker Tachtit (and see earlier in this chapter). Moreover, some-what similar techno-typological attributes were uncovered at Tor Sadaf in southern Transjordan (Fox 2003), where, notwith-standing the absence of Emireh points, the reduction sequence comprises a uni-directional technology to produce blades and elongated triangular blanks with facetted platforms (referred to as “Levallois points”). Thus, the production of an old tool form using new core-reduction strategies testifi es to a certain degree of continuity. Furthermore, blade production, a distinc-tive characteristic of the IUP industries, in addition to the pro-duction of triangular points, has been observed within the Nile Valley Mousterian site of Taramsa (Van Peer 2004 ; Vermeersch 2001 ). This would appear to correlate with the genetic evidence for a “wave of advance” of new people from Africa (Olivierri et al . 2006) through the Levant rather than from the Horn of Africa by way of Yemen .

An additional IUP site, situated in the el-Kowm Basin of northeast Syria within the steppic belt, is the open-air site of Umm el Tlel . Here layers II Base and III 2A overlie a long Mousterian sequence and are characterised by a “para-Levallois” reduction sequence (Bo ë da & Muhesen 1993 ; Bourguignon 1998 ). Many of the cores in these layers are volumetrically fl at, producing numerous blades that mostly resemble narrow and elongated Levallois – “Umm el Tlel ” – points that feature unidirectional scar patterns. These cores grade into “regular” blade core types, thus marking the tech-nical change at the beginning of the Upper Palaeolithic; these are somewhat akin to those at Tor Sadaf . The assemblages at Umm el-Tlel also display a pronounced Upper Palaeolithic character with numerous burins and end-scrapers. As in other IUP assemblages these layers furnish some Middle Palaeolithic elements ( e.g., the Nahr Ibrahim technique, notches and denticulates). However, the available dates (accelerator mass spectrometry [AMS] date of 34 k cal BP and a TL date of 36 k for III2A) seem rather late compared with IUP dates elsewhere.


1386


IUP assemblages were uncovered farther north in the Levant, at the coastal sites of Üç agizli and Kanal caves. These assemblages are blade-based, with faceted striking platforms, comprising Umm el-Tlel points, a few chamfered pieces, end-

scrapers, burins and retouched blades (Kuhn et al. 2009). Noteworthy are the marine mollusc beads found in Üç agizli, which are similar to those reported from IUP layers at Ksar ‘Akil (Kuhn & Stiner 2007 ).

FIGURE 3.3.1. Major Upper Palaeolithic sites in the southern Levant (from top to bottom): Boker Tachtit and Boker (central Negev); Erq el-Ahmar (Judean Desert); el-Wad Cave (Mount Carmel).


1387

The Early Upper Palaeolithic

The Early Upper Palaeolithic Early Upper Palaeolithic (EUP) sites in the

Mediterranean belt are quite numerous, including the site

of Ksar ‘Akil , where layer XVII yielded the earliest Upper Palaeolithic Homo sapiens burial (“Egbert”) recovered in the Levant (Bergman & Stringer 1989 ).

The revolutionary notion that there are more Early Upper Palaeolithic cultural entities than the Aurignacian and its derivatives was suggested first independently by Gilead

FIGURE 3.3.2. A selection of some characteristic artifacts for the main Upper Palaeolithic entities in the southern Levant.


1388


(in Sanlaville & Cauvin 1981 ) and Marks (in ibid. ) based on the work in the Negev and Sinai, when they defined the “Ahmarian”. The evidence they presented was subsequently reinforced by data from the Mediterranean zone, whether new discoveries, publication of previously excavated sites or the reinterpretation of finds (Azoury 1986 ; Bar-Yosef et al . 1996 ; Bar-Yosef & Belfer-Cohen 2004 ; Bergman 1987 ; Ohnuma 1988 ; Bachdach 1982 ). It is incongruous to note that the “Ahmarian” was actually first observed in the much earlier excavations at Qafzeh and Erq el-Ahmar caves (see Neuville 1951 ); yet preconceptions barred an awareness of this UP variant and its significance (see also Ronen in Wendorf 1976 ). The Ahmarian was eventually subdivided into an Early – c. 45–30 k cal BP – and a Late phase – c. 30–23/22 k cal BP (see Belfer-Cohen & Goring-Morris 2003 ). In the southern and eastern desertic margins there appears to have been a greater degree of continuity than in the Mediterranean coastal areas, where developments appear to have been interrupted by the incursion of the Levantine Aurignacian.

The Early Ahmarian (c. 42–25 k cal BP ) The Early Ahmarian is distributed throughout

the Levant, but it is most clearly expressed in the semi-arid

margins. In the Mediterranean zone it lasted several thou-sand years from c. 42 k cal BP until the arrival of the Levantine Aurignacian at about 37 to 33 k cal BP . The small and gener-ally relatively ephemeral open-air occupations in the step-pic regions refl ect small groups of highly mobile foragers, usually adjacent to principal springs, for example, Boqer, Lagama , Qadesh Barnea , Ain Qadis , Abu Noshra , Wadi Hasa and Nahal Nizzana . These sites are characterised by numbers of hearths and larger fi repits (Gilead & Bar-Yosef 1993 ; Marks 1983 ; Monigal 2003 ; Becker 2003 ). Within the Mediterranean zone sites are known from cave and rock shelter sites at Erq el-Ahmar , Kebara , Qafzeh and Ksar Akil .

It is important to note that there are similarities and dif-ferences between assemblages from the Mediterranean and steppic regions. Nevertheless, the common denominators of all Early Ahmarian assemblages include the presence of single-platform, narrow-fronted cores to produce series of standardised, symmetrical convergent blade/let blanks. The initial setting up of the core preform and later maintenance produced blanks for other tool classes such as scrapers and burins (Becker 2003 ; Monigal 2003 ; Davidzon & Goring-Morris 2003). Prominent among the tool types is the el-Wad (formerly Font Yves) point initially cited by Garrod ( 1957 ) as a fossile directeur of the Levantine Aurignacian. Yet today the primary association of this rather amorphous type is within Early Ahmarian contexts. Other fi nds include rare bone tools (Coinman 1997 ). Ochre is quite common in many sites,

FIGURE 3.3.3. Left: Hayonim Cave (Western Galilee). Right: view from U ç ag ı zl ı Cave (Hatay, Turkey).


1389

The Early Upper Palaeolithic

together with small quantities of Dentalium (Gilead 1991 ). Rare, unmodifi ed grinding stones have been documented at Qafzeh and Boqer.

The Levantine Aurignacian (c. 37–33 k cal BP ) As noted in this chapter, defi nitions of the local

“Aurignacian techno-complex” initially followed the precepts of the Aurignacian entities as defi ned in western Europe, particularly in France. Just as its bearers there, the Cro-Magnons, became synonymous with modern humans, the term “Aurignacian” came to globally designate virtually all early Upper Palaeolithic industries. More recently, it transpired that liberties have been taken in order to accommodate within this taxon industries that included few, if any, of the original char-acteristics, justifi ed by differences stemming from different environmental backgrounds, admixtures of local traditions and so on. This was compounded by diverse interpretations as to the meaning of what constitutes the “classic” defi nition of the Aurignacian ( e.g., Clark & Riel-Salvatore 2009 ; Mellars 2009 ; and see introduction). For example, material culture hallmarks of the “Aurignacian” have commonly focused on the presence of carination without realising that this technique appears more than once in the prehistoric record. Furthermore, it is cru-cial to differentiate between lateral carination and fl at carination (Belfer-Cohen & Goring-Morris 1986 ; Marks 2003 ; Williams 2006 ). The search for the familiar, that is, European, type fos-sils in assemblages was sometimes accompanied by ignoring “different” lithic elements or associations than those found in Europe. It is instructive to follow Garrod’s growing unease with the situation: “the small, sharp Font-Yves point, which is the special feature of Upper Paleolithic III [ i.e., the Levantine Aurignacian of today], is hardly known in the West” (Garrod 1953 : 25); and also “the Upper Paleolithic III represents the stage at which an incoming Aurignacian group made contact with the natives, adopting and developing the Font-Yves point, which was missing from their original toolkit, and which in any case rather soon went out of fashion again” ( ibid .: 33).

Nonetheless, during the 1968 “Ksar Akil conference” it was decided (by broad consent) to incorporate all pre-LGM Upper Paleolithic variants in the Levant under the term “Levantine Aurignacian”, enumerating the specifi cs of the particu-lar characteristics of each stage – that is, the division of the Lebanese sequence into “Levantine Aurignacian A”, “B” and “C” (Copeland 1975 ). Notwithstanding the subsequent defi ni-tion of a quite separate and distinct Upper Palaeolithic strand (the Ahmarian), the problem of coupling the Early Upper Paleolithic with the “Aurignacian” still hovers over much of Europe and the Near East. While in the Levant the uncoupling of this automatic association has been underway for some time, this is not the case elsewhere in the Near East and farther afi eld (and see later in this chapter).

The geographic distribution of the Levantine Aurignacian is restricted to a few cave and rock shelter sites within the Mediterranean zone, for example, el-Wad , Kebara , Raqefet ,

Hayonim , Ksar Akil and Yabrud . While the available C14 dates are quite dispersed, it is more likely to refl ect merely a brief incursion into the region, most probably from Europe via Anatolia (Goring-Morris & Belfer-Cohen 2006 ; Kozlowski 1992 ). Indeed, the dates are later than those available in cen-tral/western Europe (Conard & Bolus 2003 ); it was thus briefl y contemporaneous with the Early Ahmarian, which continued to develop in the steppic regions (Bar-Yosef et al . 1996 ; Lengyel et al . 2006 ). Occupations are quite limited in scope, such as that in Hayonim Cave, where it was located in a depression, with a few hearths accompanied by a “kitchen midden” (Belfer-Cohen & Bar-Yosef 1981 ).

The technological attributes of the Levantine Aurignacian chipped-stone industry are quite complex in that, while most tool blanks are made on blades and, to a lesser degree, (twisted) bladelets, the vast majority of the debitage items com-prise fl akes. The tool assemblages include classic Aurignacian features (in the sense of “Aurignacian I” of Western Europe), that is, nosed and shouldered carinated items on fl ake blanks, Dufour bladelets, scalar retouched items and a rich bone and antler industry including bi-points (Newcomer 1974 ). Two split-base points, a hallmark of the Early Aurignacian in Western Europe, were reported from Kebara and Hayonim caves (Belfer-Cohen & Bar-Yosef 1999 ). The bone/antler points seem to have replaced the stone points of the Ahmarian. Other unique fi nds were two engraved limestone slabs at Hayonim, and numbers of pierced pendants on teeth of medium-sized mammals (Belfer-Cohen & Bar-Yosef 1981 , 1999 ; Marshack 1997 ).

The “Atlitian” (c. 27/26 k cal BP ) The chrono-stratigraphic position of this entity

remains problematic, being dependent primarily on only a few stratigraphic correlations (Copeland 1975 ). Sites assigned to the Atlitian were centred on the Mediterranean zone, for exam-ple, Ksar Akil VI, Meged C, el-Wad C, Nahal Ein Gev I, Fazael IX and el-Khiam E (9–10) (Garrod & Bate 1937 ; Belfer-Cohen et al. 2004 ; Goring-Morris 1980 ; Neuville 1951 ; Gonz á lez Echegaray 1978 ; Kuhn et al . 2004 ). The Atlitian is a fl ake-based technol-ogy featuring a preponderance of truncation burins, and a vir-tual absence of blade/let production. Of note is a single burial from the open-air site of Nahal Ein Gev I (Arensburg & Bar-Yosef 1973).

Unnamed fl ake-based entity (c. 30–? k cal BP ) This later Upper Palaeolithic entity (sometimes

called Arqov/Divshon) is distributed primarily in the arid zones of the Levant. Again, the chronological position of this entity remains problematic, although the stratigraphic evidence indi-cates that it postdates the later Ahmarian.

These assemblages are characterised by laterally carinated items on thick fl akes (“scrapers”, “burins” or “cores”?) that


1390


differ signifi cantly from classic Aurignacian fl at carinated items (Williams 2003 ; Belfer-Cohen & Grosman 2007 ). Many of these assemblages were initially included within the “Levantine Aurignacian” tradition, that is, the so-called

Arqov/Avdat industry (see Gilead 1991 ; Marks 1981 ). Sites in the Negev and Sinai include Har Horesha I, Ein Aqev , Boqer C, Qadesh Barnea 602, Qseimeh II, Ramat Matred /Har Lavan and Shunera XV, as well as Madamagh in Edom and others in the

FIGURE 3.3.4. Characteristic microliths of Early and Middle Epi-Palaeolithic entities in the southern Levant.


1391

The Early Epi-Palaeolithic

el-Kowm region east of the Rift Valley (and see references in Belfer-Cohen & Goring-Morris 2003 ).

While several radiocarbon dates are available, most sites lack the desired chrono-stratigraphic control, but it seems most likely that most fall between 30 and 22 k cal BP ( ibid. ).

Epi-Palaeolithic Complexes With the onset of the LGM (c. 24–18 k cal BP ) the

tempo of cultural change in the Levant increased signifi cantly. The most distinctive and noteworthy feature separating the Upper from the Epi-Palaeolithic in the region relates to the evidence for increasing territoriality, as denoted especially by the stylistic proclivities of the microlithic assemblages (Goring-Morris & Belfer-Cohen 1997 ). This refl ects increas-ing demographic pressures within refugia ( i.e., territorial packing), eventually leading to the emergence of sedentism, as evidenced by the Late Epi-Palaeolithic Natufi an complex (c. 14.5–11.5 k cal BP ).

The trend towards microlithisation (and especially back-ing) within the chipped stone tool component apparently refl ects developments in hafting techniques associated with composite tools, a sign of increasing effi ciency (Bar-Yosef 1987 ; Belfer-Cohen & Goring-Morris 2002 ; Yaroshevich et al. 2009 ). This technical shift is expressed in the application of abrupt retouch to the bladelets and the eventual appearance of bipolar backing.

The Early Epi-Palaeolithic During this period a general trend towards aridity

is refl ected by a slow increase in average annual temperatures and evaporation rates. There is recent evidence to indicate that the LGM was cold and wet, while south of the Dead Sea cold and hyperarid conditions resulted from lowered sea levels (Enzel et al . 2008 ). Lisan Lake levels record a decline after 24 k cal BP . However, average winter rains were still higher than during the Holocene (Bartov et al . 2003 ).

Intensive research has resulted in the identifi cation of sev-eral distinctive early Epi-Palaeolithic entities: Late Ahmarian/Masraqan, Kebaran, Nebekian and Nizzanan ( e.g., Bar-Yosef & Phillips 1977 ; Byrd 1994 ; Garrard 1998 ; Henry 1995 ; Goring-Morris 1995 ; Olszewski 2006 ). The lithic assemblages of these entities display a diverse set of techno-typological traits, that is, specifi c technologies of core reduction and blank produc-tion, typological variability, especially among the microliths, as well as the presence/absence of the microburin technique and so on.

Many early Epi-Palaeolithic sites are located in the Mediterranean zone and in the more northerly oases of the Transjordanian and the Syro-Arabian deserts ; indeed,

exceptionally large stratifi ed aggregation sites were found on the western margins of the Azraq Basin (papers in Garrard & Gebel 1988 ).

Few data are available concerning the spatial organisa-tion of early Epi-Palaeolithic occupations, although there are a series of superimposed fl imsy fonds de cabane at Kebaran Ein Gev I, Nizzanan Azariq XIII, Jiita and the Masraqan site of Ohalo II (Goring-Morris & Belfer-Cohen 2003b; Nadel & Werker 1999 ; Stekelis & Bar-Yosef 1965 ). The latter site, located on the shore of the early Sea of Galilee , displays unparalleled organic preservation ( e.g., Nadel et al. 2006 ; Weiss et al . 2008 ). Notable innovations at this time include the appearance of mortars, bowls, pestles and mullers, often of basalt or phosphorite, supplementing the previous grinding slabs of the Upper Palaeolithic ( e.g., Wright 1991 ). These comprise a minor but signifi cant component in occu-pations, attesting to the presence of site furniture in redun-dant locations and the greater emphasis on processing plant foodstuffs.

The few early Epi-Palaeolithic burials documented in recent years seem to indicate single articulated burials in shallow pits. The single complete Masraqan burial at Ohalo II is located in an exterior area of the site (Hershkovitz et al . 1995 ). Kebaran burials include a female adult under one of the fl oors at Ein Gev I, another two in uncertain contexts at Kebaran Kharaneh IV/B and another from Ayn Qasiyah in the Azraq Basin (Richter et al . in press ; Rolston 1982 ). Their general paucity may be explained by the presence of seven apparently cremated remains at Kebara C (Smith et al. 1984 ).

Mediterranean marine molluscs are usually present, but are not particularly abundant in most sites: In addition to Dentalia , common species include Nassa sp . and Columbella rustica (Bar-Yosef Mayer 2005 ). Art objects during the Early Epi-Palaeolithic occur only sporadically, the engraved stone plaque from Urkan e-Rubb II being unique (Hovers 1990 ). The bone tool reper-toire of the early Epi-Palaeolithic is also quite impoverished, with occasional awls, points and spatulas, sometimes with notational marks.

Masraqan (“Late Ahmarian”) (c. 24–19 k cal BP ) Sites of this entity were originally viewed as directly

continuing the “Early Ahmarian” tradition and hence were designated as “Late Ahmarian”. The numerous 14C dates from Ohalo II assign it to c. 23–22 k cal BP (Nadel et al . 2001 ), although other assemblages have provided somewhat later dates.

While basic technological similarities between the Early and Late Ahmarian do demonstrate considerable continuity, the later assemblages are characterised by an emphasis on blade-let production and multiple reduction strategies. Tools include high frequencies of non-twisted narrow, fi nely retouched (“Ouchtata”) bladelets, while the el-Wad point disappears (Ferring 1988 ; Goring-Morris 1995 ; Goring-Morris & Belfer-Cohen 1997 ).


1392


The Nebekian (c. 23–21 k cal BP ) The Nebekian is distributed almost exclusively in

the steppic areas east of the Rift Valley (Rust 1950 ; Byrd 1998 ; Garrard et al . in Bar-Yosef & Kra 1994 ; Henry 1995 ). Radiometric and stratigraphic considerations indicate that it is broadly con-temporary with the Masraqan and the Kebaran. The Nebekian is characterized by the production of narrow bladelet blanks, the initiation of intensive backing for biconvexly truncated bladelets and the fi rst habitual application of the microburin technique in the fabrication of microliths.

The Kebaran Complex (c. 21–18 k cal BP ) This complex is centred primarily in the

Mediterranean zone and includes numerous microlithic assemblages in and west of the Rift Valley, although there is considerable regional and chronological diversity (Bar-Yosef 1970 ). Over the years Bar-Yosef modifi ed his original scheme, incorporating both the results of work by Hours ( 1976 ) in Lebanon and more recent investigations elsewhere (Bar-Yosef & Vogel 1987 ). Based on detailed observations on the

microlithic classes together with stratigraphic considerations, it is possible to identify early and late phases of the Kebaran.

There is a general progression from inverse and fi ne retouch, through more abrupt backing techniques, initially typifi ed by curved “Micropoints” and later by backed and obliquely truncated “Kebara” points. These and other stylistic characteristics, including raw material choices, have enabled the defi nition of further geographic subdivisions that probably refl ect the ranges (c. 1250–2000 sq km) of specifi c groups in the local landscape (Goring-Morris et al. 2009 ). Thus, while some groups circulated within the southern coastal plain, other groups would have seasonally shifted from the central coastal plain to the lower Jordan Valley.

Occupation sites in the coastal plain occur as clusters atop aeolianite sandstone ( kurkar ) ridges, then in the centre of the coastal plain, close to breaches by wadis draining westwards. Many localities were repeatedly reoccupied. Kebaran sites are generally quite small, usually from c. 25–100 sq m and rarely exceed 250 sq m.

Nizzanan (c. 20–18 k cal BP ) Assemblages characterised by minute scalene

and isosceles triangles made by the microburin technique

FIGURE 3.3.5. Left: Outline of fond de cabane . Right: refi tted bladelet core on a blade. Early Epi-Palaeolithic Azariq XIII (western Negev dunes).


1393

Middle Epi-Palaeolithic

together with microgravettes (“spiky points”) were described many decades ago (Waechter et al . 1938 ; Bar-Yosef 1970 ). Then undated, they were initially thought to be of Middle Epi-Palaeolithic age. Subsequent investigations including radiometric dating necessitated revision, and the designa-tion “Nizzanan” has been put forward (Goring-Morris 1987 ; Goring-Morris & Belfer-Cohen 1997 ; Garrard & Byrd 1992 ; Marder 2002 ).

Nizzanan sites are located east of the Jordan (Mediterranean and Irano-Turanian steppic zones), including the Rift Valley, and south of the Lisan /Dead Sea , west of the Rift and in the Negev . Occupations vary considerably in size from the huge expanses of Wadi Jilat 6 and Kharaneh IV (each c. 20,000 sq m) in the Azraq Basin, through smaller camps, ephemeral loca-tions and small stands. The two sites in the Azraq Basin appear to represent major aggregation localities.

The lithic industry is characterised by a laminar aspect. Cores are commonly single-platform, pyramidal, although opposed-platform varieties also occur. The tools include elegant, well-made scrapers and burins, particularly dihedral variants. Morphological considerations of the lamelles scal è nes and the intensive use of the microburin technique make the Nizzanan a possible successor to the Nebekian and an ante-cedent to the Middle Epi-Palaeolithic Mushabian.

Middle Epi-Palaeolithic This period corresponds to signifi cant climatic

amelioration, the B ö lling-Aller ø d event , releasing previous environmental constraints within the region. Accordingly, while considerable continuity is displayed within the Mediterranean zone, expansion of the steppic Irano-Turanian zone into peripheral areas enabled populations to exploit them in a much more intensive fashion than previously. This period witnessed increased winter precipitation in the Sinai and the Syro-Arabian zone, as indicated by the presence of local ponds or temporary lakes such as the one in Gebel Maghara , northern Sinai (Goldberg 1986 ).

Two distinctive cultural complexes have been defi ned: the pan-Levantine Geometric Kebaran and the Mushabian, the lat-ter restricted to the Negev and Sinai .

During the Middle Epi-Palaeolithic there is evidence for advances in pyrotechnology. This is refl ected in the culturally specifi c variability of hearths and roasting pits with stones for cooking in the Mushabian, as well as the initiation of small-scale lime-plaster production as an adhesive for attaching microliths to hafts in the Geometric Kebaran (Goring-Morris 1988 ; Kingery et al. 1988 ).

Bone tools are rare, as are ground stone tools ( i.e., bowls, pestles and hand-stones) that were most probably employed in food processing and crushing ochre for obtaining pigments. Marine shells are not common (for body decoration?) and exhibit a preference for the Mediterranean species (Bar-Yosef Mayer 2005 ).

Geometric Kebaran (c. 17.5–14.75 k cal BP ) Sites of this entity were recorded throughout the

entire Levant, from el-Kowm in northeast Syria and neighbour-ing areas to southern Sinai. The Geometric Kebaran is charac-terised by variable technologies of blank production, while the microliths so-produced are highly standardised, mostly com-prising the trapeze-rectangle (Goring-Morris 1995 ). Few sites in the Mediterranean zone have been extensively excavated, so it is still impossible to adequately characterise the nature of the sites and the degree to which they presage the late Epi-Palaeolithic Natufi an in terms of a shift towards sedentism (Kaufman 1992 ). Smaller, ephemeral occupations up to 75 sq m with a single hearth exemplify the steppic, semi-arid areas, refl ecting highly mobile adaptations over large areas by small bands.

A few burials have been reported from Geometric Kebaran contexts, including Neve David in Mount Carmel (Kaufman 1989 ), Moghr el-Ahwal Cave 2 in the north Lebanon mountains (Garrard & Yazbek 2003 ) and in the site of ‘Uyyun al-Hammam in the Jordan Valley; however, the single published 14C date from the last site falls within the range of the later Natufi an (Maher 2005 ). In addition, in Wadi Mataha , southern Jordan, a burial which the excavators suggest belongs to the Geometric Kebaran deposits was uncovered under a Natufi an layer (Stock et al. 2005 ). These burials, whether isolated or a few together, may herald the Natufi an cemeteries that date to a few centuries later.

Mushabian (c. 17–14.5 k cal BP ) Another Middle Epi-Palaeolithic complex has been

recognised in the Negev and Sinai , namely, the Mushabian (including the slightly later Ramonian – originally named “Late Mushabian”; Bar-Yosef & Phillips 1977 ; Goring-Morris 1995 ). A possible precursor is the Nizzanan. There is some 14C and stratigraphic evidence to indicate that, locally, it briefl y coex-isted with the Geometric Kebaran, but that subsequently the Geometric Kebaran and Mushabian segregated and developed in parallel in different areas.

The Mushabian industry is characterised by arch-backed bladelets, often fashioned using the microburin technique. It subsequently transforms into the Ramonian with an added exploitation of the higher elevations of the central Negev . Typologically this is accompanied by a shifting emphasis towards concave backed and truncated bladelets (hence it was originally called “Negev Kebaran”) by means of the microbu-rin technique, and a later addition of semi-abrupt bifacial (Helwan) lunates. In its fi nal stage, the Terminal Ramonian appears contemporaneous with the late Epi-Palaeolithic Early Natufi an, which had by now replaced the Geometric Kebaran in the Mediterranean region.

Mushabian and Ramonian sites display a hierarchy from small, ephemeral sites with a single hearth, to more extensive


1394


FIGURE 3.3.6. From top to bottom: Early Epi-Palaeolithic micolithic “tell” at Kharaneh IV (Azraq Basin, Jordan); Middle Epi-Palaeolithic campsite with hearth and workslab (Shunera II, western Negev); Geometric Kebaran rectangle with mastic (Shunera XIIB); Mushabian core and refi tted microlith (Azariq VII, western Negev); Geometric Kebaran hearth and postholes at Lagama North VIII (northern Sinai).


1395

The Taurus/Zagros Arc

sites with multiple hearths and fi re-pits, probably represent-ing some degree of aggregation. There are likely to have been highland/lowland seasonal movements.

Subsistence in the Upper and Epi-Palaeolithic Levant The small scale of most Upper and Epi-Palaeolithic

occupations generally refl ects a high degree of mobility, with groups focusing on locally available resources, so that exploi-tation ranges were unlikely to extend more than 10–15 km from sites. The ecological and topographic zonation in the Levant was such as to provide a mosaic patchwork of plant and animal resources. However, reconstruction of subsistence practices is hampered by the virtual absence of plant remains, as well as poor faunal preservation, especially in the semi-arid margins.

A notable exception vis- à -vis plant preservation is the Early Epi-Palaeolithic site of Ohalo II; submergence of the site in the Sea of Galilee has provided a unique window on this element of the diet, probably refl ecting patterns of earlier and later periods. The edible plant species recovered include numer-ous small seeded grasses in addition to wild cereals, as well as a wide range of fruits and nuts (Kislev et al . 1992 ; Nadel et al . 2004 ; Piperno et al. 2004 ; Weiss et al . 2004 ).

Notwithstanding the biases of early retrieval methods the faunal species documented display site-specifi c ecological and topographic settings ( e.g., Bar-Oz 2005 ; Davis 1982 ; Garrard 1982 , 1998 ; Garrod & Bate 1937 ; Hooijer 1961 ; Kuhn et al . 2004 , 2009 ; Rabinovich 2003 and references therein; Stiner 2002 ; Tchernov 1981 ). Thus, among the larger species, fallow deer, red deer and roe deer, together with bezoar goats, wild boar, cattle and gazelle (the latter mainly in the south), are found in the forested mountainous regions of the Mediterranean Levant. Open parkland areas east of the highland vegetation belt were the natural setting for mountain and Persian gazelles, boar, ibex (mainly in rocky settings), onager and wild ass. The semi-arid steppes were populated by gazelles and onagers, and the highlands ( i.e., southern Jordan) by bezoar goats, sheep and ibex. Ibex and gazelle were also common in the Negev . Among small prey, fox, hare and tortoise are found in most sites. The former may refl ect the attraction of foxes to garbage and the value of their pelts, while hare and tortoise indicate different hunting/gathering techniques (Stiner & Munro 2002 ). Another feature illustrated by Ohalo II is the practice of fi shing when sites are located in relevant locations. However, it seems likely that the smaller fi sh species present there are simply “back-ground noise”, much in the manner that some smaller faunal remains in cave sites derive from owl pellets. Since Ohalo is located in the Rift Valley on a major migration route between Africa and Eurasia, waterfowl were another important element of the diet at the site (Simmons 2004 ). There are also indica-tions that raptors may have been utilised (in symbolic con-texts?) in the Levantine Aurignacian at Hayonim (Bar-Yosef & Belfer-Cohen 1981 ).

In the northern Levantine littoral ( e.g., U ç agizli and Ksar ‘Akil ) fallow deer, bezoar goat and roe deer are the dominant species. In addition wild boar, red deer and aurochs were pre-sent in smaller quantities (Hooijer 1961 ; Kuhn et al . 2009). The mortality patterns refl ect non-selective hunting as opposed to the prime, adult-biased age profi les seen in other Upper Palaeolithic sites (Stiner 2005 ). Both the macrovertebrates and the microvertebrates document the same general environment of rocky habitats and forested settings.

Farther south, the Carmel cave sites display high frequen-cies of gazelle and fallow deer, together with roe deer and wild cattle, as well as very occasional hartebeest ( Alcelaphus ).

Sites in the Syro-Arabian Desert and the eastern reaches of the Transjordanian Plateau contain the bones of gazelle, wild ass, onager and ibex in the more rugged, rocky areas ( e.g., Palmyra Oasis, Wadi Jilat , Wadi Hasa , Ras en-Naqeb ). The same holds true for southern Sinai.

The Taurus/Zagros Arc Prehistoric research in this huge region of moun-

tains, intermontane valleys and plateaus has been patchy and sporadic, with detailed information available for only restricted areas or selected sites, usually cave localities, fre-quently excavated many decades ago. This severely curtails the information available for scientifi c discourse, so that it is impossible to discuss broad site-distribution patterns. Accordingly, we are constrained to discussions concerning the techno-typological confi gurations of particular assemblages, frequently located hundreds of kilometres from one another. An additional and critical factor that is rarely addressed con-cerns the very integrity of the supposedly “reference” assem-blages, which are mostly derived from deep cave sequences, often excavated decades ago, using recovery methods lacking by today’s standards. An illustrative example is the claim for in situ evolution of the Upper Palaeolithic-cum-“Aurignacian”, based on the presence of Mousterian elements in so-called Aurignacian assemblages from Zarzi and Warwasi , both excavated in the 1950s (Olszewski & Dibble 1994, 2006 ). Consequently, the issues raised concerning the local Upper Palaeolithic still revolve around such basic questions as the nature of the MP-UP shift and whether there is indeed a local i n situ transformation or replacement (Otte et al . 2007 , 2009 ). Researchers in the region often have Eurocentric paradigms ( e.g., Otte 2008 ; Yal ç inkaya et al . 1992). This has affected scien-tifi c agendas so that a focal research issue in the region under discussion concerns the search for the origins of the European Aurignacian, long considered as the synonym for the IUP. This is explicitly illustrated by the fact that, upon initial dis-covery of Upper Palaeolithic in the region, it was labelled by Garrod ( 1930 ) as being of “Upper Palaeolithic of Aurignacian type”. Later Solecki ( 1958 ) named it “Baradostian”, thus acknowledging local developments. More recently it has been renamed the “Zagros Aurignacian” (Dibble & Olszewski 1994 ; Otte 2007 and references therein). This is more than simply an issue of semantics, rather, refl ecting underlying beliefs as


1396


to the nature of Upper Palaeolithic developments in the region and far beyond.

In general, there are certain broad similarities in the sequences and nature of the Upper Palaeolithic across this vast swathe of mountains including the Taurus, Zagros and Alburz mountains, and even as far north as the southern Caucasus.

In Anatolia details on the Upper Palaeolithic are limited to the complementary sequences provided by the adjacent cave sites of Karain and Ö kuzini south of the Taurus on the Mediterranean coast (Otte & Yal ç inkaya 2009 ). Following a long break after the Mousterian the earliest Upper Palaeolithic at Karain dates to later than 30 kyr (Yal ç inkaya & Otte 2000 ;

FIGURE 3.3.7. Top: Dzudzuana Cave (Caucasus, Georgia). Bottom: view across Antalya Plain from Karain Cave (Anatolia).


1397

The Southern Caucasus

Yal ç inkaya et al . 2002 ). This industry is characterised by lat-eral carinated cores producing mostly non-twisted blade/let blanks, which were then retouched or backed. Numbers of scrapers on relatively thick blanks are also found. There are recent claims that this industry is virtually identical to the so-called Aurignacian of the Zagros (Otte 2008 ), corresponding to movements by modern humans with their “Aurignacian” stone industries out of Central Asia into Anatolia and thence to Europe. However, this interpretation ignores the overwhelm-ing evidence from both archaeological and genetic studies that places the origins of modern humans in Africa ( e.g., Mellars 2009).

Following a signifi cant hiatus that apparently corresponds to the LGM , there are late Upper Palaeolithic/Epi-Palaeolithic levels in both Karain E and the base of nearby Ö kuzini begin-ning c. 18 kyr, as well as on the central plateau at Pinarbasi . At Karain these later levels last through to about 12 kyr, while in Ö kuzini and Pinarbasi they continue into the Holocene (Baird 2006 ). These assemblages are microlithic, featuring backed bladelets and increasing frequencies of geometrics in the later part of the sequence. A few other Epi-Palaeolithic sites are known, but these are for the most part poorly documented.

Farther east, within the Zagros, several sites such as Zarzi , Warwasi , Shanidar C, Warkaini (Kermanshah ), Yafteh (Khorromabad ) and Eshkaft-e Gavi (Marv Dasht ) are located in intermontane valleys, while Qaleh-bozi (Isfahan ) is situated on the Iranian Plateau (Bordes & Shidrang 2005 ; Rosenberg 1985 ; Solecki 1958 ; Wahida 1999 ). Although some scholars have argued for local development from the Middle Palaeolithic, it seems more likely that the assemblages from many of these cave sites actually comprise mechanical mix-tures of Middle and Upper Palaeolithic elements. The earliest Upper Palaeolithic industries ( e.g., Yafteh, Hole, & Flannery 1967 ; Bordes & Shidrang 2005 ; Otte et al. 2007 ) are described differently by the various scholars who studied the mate-rial excavated by Hole and Flannery in the 1960s. Thus J.-G. Bordes identifi es a sequence of two different technological traditions, the older producing straight blade/lets from pris-matic cores, with “Arjeneh” points that broadly correspond to el Wad points. Later Upper Palaeolithic levels feature nar-row-fronted cores (including lateral carinated) and twisted retouched (Dufour) bladelets. Others, such as Otte et al . ( 2007 ), see a direct in situ evolution from the Middle to Early Upper Palaeolithic, considering this to be the birthplace of the entire Eurasian “Aurignacian” phenomenon, which then spread westwards and southwards, an archaeological simile for later “Indo-European” diffusions. Again this is a sweeping interpretation based on questionable foundations, especially since there is a growing accumulation of data supporting the notion that early Upper Palaeolithic industries, including those in western Europe, lack “classic” Aurignacian charac-teristics ( e.g., Teyssandier 2008 ).

The Baradostian/Zagros Aurignacian/“classic” Aurignacian is topped by industries attributed to the Zarzian entity. The latter supposedly derives directly from the former and cor-responds broadly to the entire Epi-Palaeolithic, that is, from the LGM to the beginning of the Holocene (Wahida 1999 and

references therein). Microliths are the distinctive hallmark of the Zarzian, with a tendency for increasing numbers of geo-metric microliths and the appearance of grinding stones and even axes in its later phases. However, as virtually no research has been conducted since the 1970s, it is all but impossible to provide a more detailed account. Undoubtedly there was no less diversity in this vast region than is now documented for the southern Levant (and see earlier in this chapter), but only future research will be able to supply us with such data.

In the Alburz region to the north, adjacent to the Caspian , research is in its infancy following a hiatus of more than fi fty years since early pioneering investigations (Berillon et al . 2007 ; Coon 1951 ; Chevrier et al . 2006 ; McBurney 1968 ). Preliminary reports of the techno-typological characteristics of the recov-ered assemblages appear to indicate affi nities mostly with the late Upper Palaeolithic/Epipalaeolithic ( i.e., bladelet cores, retouched bladelets, simple end-scrapers, etc .).

Subsistence in the Taurus/Zagros Arc Since the early pioneering work in the region few

detailed faunal studies of the sites excavated have been pub-lished, rendering discussion of subsistence patterns prob-lematic ( e.g., Hole & Flannery 1967 ). In general, within these mountainous regions sheep/goat and red deer were appar-ently the main ungulate prey, with smaller numbers of gazelle, wild boar and cattle depending on the precise location. The renewed excavations at Yafteh in the Zagros provided evidence for an emphasis on sheep with small numbers of gazelle and cervids, and only a few wild boar (Otte et al . 2007 ). There may be some indications throughout the area towards the end of the Epi-Palaeolithic that humans slightly broadened their diets by adding new ungulate and small game taxa, as demonstrated by Atici (in Yal ç inkaya et al. 2002 ) at Ö k ü zini and Karain B, but this was less marked than in the Levant.

The Southern Caucasus Sandwiched between the Caucasus and the

lesser Caucasus, sites in Georgia display a (climatic?) break between the latest Middle Palaeolithic and the earliest Upper Palaeolithic in the region. Although incomplete, the most rig-orous Upper Palaeolithic sequence is provided by the Cave of Dzudzuana (Meshveliani et al . 2004 ). The thirty radiocarbon dates available from three main occupation units indicate that each phase was separated from the previous by a hiatus of c. 5.5–7 kyr. The most parsimonious explanation is that the cave was abandoned during periods when either precipitation (between units D and C) or colder periods such as the LGM (between units C and B) and during the Younger Dryas (post unit B) made it uninhabitable.


1398


The oldest occupation, Unit D (34.5–32 k cal BP ), resem-bles an early Upper Palaeolithic assemblage radiocarbon dated to c. 38–37 k cal BP reported from Mezmaiskaya Cave on the northern slopes of the Caucasus (Golovanova et al .

2006 ; Adler et al . 2008 ). The latter is dominated by backed blades and bladelets and lacks carinated cores. Also in Dzudzuana, Unit D differs from the following Unit C in having blade cores reduced by uni-directional fl aking and

FIGURE 3.3.8. Characteristic Upper Palaeolithic and Epi-Palaeolithic artifacts in the Zagros (from Yafteh and Zarzi caves).


1399

The Southern Caucasus

no real carinated cores. The proportions between backed bladelets and retouched ones differ from that in the follow-ing Unit C.

Given the location of the two sites, separated geographically by the peaks of the Caucasus, their apparent contemporaneity

raises the possibility that the assemblages represent the same social entity of local foragers. With reference to the issue of the dispersal of Modern humans, it appears that crossing the geographic boundary of the Caucasus Mountains was achieved quite rapidly by the newcomers.

FIGURE 3.3.9. Characteristic artifacts of the Upper Palaeolithic and Epi-Palaeolithic levels at Dzudzuana Cave (south Caucasus).


1400


Unit C (27–24 k cal BP ) is characterised by bladelets derived from carinated cores. Although such cores have often been interpreted as refl ecting “Aurignacian” characteristics, there is actually no justifi cation (technological or typological) for associating any of the Georgian Upper Palaeolithic assem-blages ( e.g., Dzudzuana , Savante Savana , Samerzkhle Klde or Togon Klde ) with the Aurignacian tradition of western Europe. The carinated core reduction strategy was previously described in the Near East under the term “narrow cores” (Bar-Yosef 1970 , 1991 ) or “carinated cores” (Belfer-Cohen & Grosman 2007 ). In preparing the nodule for the detachment of bladelet blanks, the knapper fi rst shaped it into a quasi-biface and then removed one of the thinner (or narrow) sides to prepare the striking platform. From the narrow end of this platform, which is “nosed”, a series of primary and secondary ridge blades were removed. In order to maintain a standard length (and thus to minimise the curvature of the bladelet), the edge opposite the platform (or the “keel” of the core) was “notched” by retouch or bifacial removals of small fl akes. The targeted bladelets were modifi ed into tools mostly by fi ne retouch, reminiscent of Ouchtata bladelets. Indeed the main tool class in Unit C is that of retouched bladelets, prominent among which are the narrow retouched variety. A unique characteristic of Unit C is the “Sakajiya” point – made on blade/lets from unidirectional cores the arched/curved pointed shape is attained by abrupt retouch along the straight edge together with a proximal trun-cation. Although they are reminiscent of Gravette points, they differ technologically. End-scrapers are numerous and, as in the following Unit B, outnumber burins. They range from the small thumbnail scrapers to larger varieties on fl akes and blades.

Unit B, the latest Palaeolithic occurrence at Dzudzuana (16.5–13 k cal BP ) is one of the easternmost occurrences of the Epi-Gravettian techno-complex, again raising the issue of origins. The blade cores are generally bidirectional and often trimmed at the back, with tilted opposed platforms. Characteristic tools include microgravettes and backed and retouched bladelets. The frequencies of the microgravettes decrease from bottom to top. The backed bladelets represent the second largest tool category (after the end-scraper variet-ies), and many bear a distinctive bipolar retouch.

In addition to assemblages similar to those observed in the sequence at Dzudzuana, there are several other Georgian Upper Palaeolithic assemblages that lack radiocarbon dates and differ in their techno-typological properties from those described in this chapter. In view of the several chronologi-cal gaps (32–27 k cal BP and 24–16.5 k cal BP ) observed in Dzudzuana these assemblages could perhaps fi ll in these timespans. One is the assemblage from Savante Savana , a rock shelter in the lowlands, rich in scrapers with scalariform retouch and high frequencies of burins on truncations. It resembles similar assemblages reported from Levantine sites such as the Atlitian, which seemingly date to c. 27 to 25 k cal BP (see earlier in this chapter). If indeed this assemblage corre-lates with that retrieved from Apianchi Cave , on the Black Sea coast, dated to c. 26–25 k cal BP (Tsereteli 1998 ), it would fi ll the earlier chronological gap in Dzudzuana.

Recent excavations at Kotias Klde (Meshveliani et al . 2007 ) have established the dates, c. 12 to 10.5 k cal BP , for the Mesolithic, which is rich in various geometric microliths.

It seems that the earliest manifestations of the Upper Palaeolithic in western Georgia are indeed relatively late when compared with the earliest Upper Palaeolithic in the Near East and southeastern Europe. The early assemblages in the Caucasus appear to have been dominated already by bladelet production. This “bladey” character of the western Georgian assemblages recalls the Ahmarian blade industries from the Levant. When making long-distance comparisons of the local Middle Palaeolithic on both sides of the Caucasus ranges, it should be stressed that the Mousterian of the southern fl anks closely resembles the Mousterian of the Taurus ( i.e., Karain Cave) and the Zagros Mousterian (Adler et al . 2008 ). By con-trast, the Late Mousterian of the northern Caucasus is simi-lar to the Northern European Micoquian Mousterian. Hence, while the Caucasus served as a geographic boundary between the two Neanderthal populations, the early Upper Palaeolithic assemblages on both sides of the Caucasus Mountains demon-strate the dispersal of modern humans throughout the whole region. Contrary to previous claims, the ensuing cultural tradi-tions do not follow the Upper Palaeolithic sequence of western Europe or that of the Near East. In particular, the “carinated core” industries found throughout the Caucasus region lack any evidence for the presence of the “classic” West European Aurignacian ( contra Nioradze & Otte 2000 ).

Subsistence in the Caucasus The most detailed reports on Upper Palaeolithic fau-

nal remains in the Caucasus also derive from Dzudzuana Cave. Bison ( Bison priscus ), aurochs ( Bos primigenius ) and Caucasian tur ( Capra caucasica ) are the most common taxa in all occupa-tion levels (Bar-Oz et al . 2008 ). Other ungulate species, repre-sented in small frequencies, include primarily red deer ( Cervus elaphus ). There is a shift through the sequence from Caucasian tur to steppe bison and aurochs and thence equal proportions of Caucasian tur, steppe bison and aurochs. These may refl ect differences in the season of occupation; the high frequency of Caucasian tur in Unit D may indicate late autumn or winter hunting when herds descended to the higher part of the for-ests. In contrast, the raised frequencies of steppe bison in Unit C may result from early spring or summer hunting when bison herds climbed to the woodlands in the mountainous areas. The same species were hunted at nearby Ortvale Klde , but in the early Upper Palaeolithic layers there, the Caucasian tur is the most abundant prey species (Adler & Bar-Oz 2009 ).

Although no plant remains were recovered, pollen analy-sis revealed numerous non-pollen polymorphs. Among these were the unique fi nds of wild fl ax, including spun and dyed fi bres (Kvavadze et al . 2009). These were recovered from all units, the richest being Unit C. It is of interest that, besides spun fi bres, there are remains of knitted string with numerous


1401

Concluding Remarks

knots, coloured blue, green and pink. The remains of fur and micro-remains of skin beetles and moth also can be inter-preted as evidence for working hide and fl ax. The samples with the highest content of fl ax also contained spores of a fungus Chaetomium , which commonly grow on clothes and textiles, destroying them. There is also tur hair, spun and dyed in grey and green.

Concluding Remarks A crucial region with regard to possible connections

with Africa is Saudi Arabia , but the peninsula still remains a complete terra incognita where the early prehistoric record is concerned (Maher 2009 ). Also of potential interest is the island of Cyprus , where documented colonisation presently dates to the end of the Epi-Palaeolithic, at the site of Aetokremnos Akrotiri (Simmons 2001 ); nevertheless the possibility of earlier seafaring should not be dismissed lightly.

It is important to stress that, prior to the late Epi-Palaeolithic Natufi an, the vast majority of the Upper Palaeolithic material culture remains comprised chipped-stone artifacts, with only very minor components of bone tools and artistic manifes-tations. Architectural remains become more common only during the course of the Epi-Palaeolithic. Stratigraphy and techno-typological seriation remain the principal means for ordering the cultural record, and, with few exceptions, the use of radiometric dates is often problematic.

The initial appearance of the Upper Palaeolithic in the Near East seems to have differed from region to region, not-withstanding the inherent problematics of variable research efforts. In the Levant the transformation from Middle to Upper Palaeolithic was relatively rapid, characterised by considerable techno-typological variability. By contrast, in the more northerly regions of the Taurus/Zagros and the Caucasus there appears to have been a signifi cant hiatus at the end of the Middle Palaeolithic, with Upper Palaeolithic groups recolonising the area only about 10 kyr later, so that there is no evidence for parallels to the Levantine IUP. The latter developed quite rapidly into the blade-based pan-Levantine Ahmarian tradition, which had thrived in more steppic regions and thus is a likely candidate as a source for the early Upper Palaeolithic blade industries of the Taurus/Zagros and Caucasus. Indeed, evidence has accumulated to indicate that some of the highly mobile Ahmarian groups budded off and left their historical “core-area”. Moving by way of southern Anatolia to the Danube Valley and/or the Mediterranean and thence into central and western Europe, they may be responsible for the so-called Proto-Aurignacian ( e.g., Bon 2002). Subsequently, following the emergence of the “classic” Aurignacian in Europe, a brief incursion back into the Mediterranean portions of the Levant corresponds to the “Levantine Aurignacian”, which appears to have a very limited impact on future local developments.

Although the record remains fragmentary, with poor chron-ological control, there are indications that in the rugged moun-tainous areas of the Taurus, Zagros and Alburz, occupations

were relatively ephemeral, perhaps with gaps corresponding to colder phases, in much the same manner as documented for the Caucasus.

With the onset of the LGM the pace of cultural developments increased signifi cantly, as again documented primarily in the Epi-Palaeolithic of the southern Levant. Such techno-typolog-ical and stylistic variability refl ects demographic increases, together with increasing territoriality, eventually leading to the more sedentary Natufi an techno-complex.

Overall, one can observe close ties between our current com-prehension of cultural processes and the relative intensity of research on the Upper Palaeolithic throughout the Middle East. While numerous phases and facies are recognised and defi ned in the southern Levant, the situation in the vast swathe of terri-tories encompassing the Taurus/Zagros through the Caucasus is broadly comparable to the situation in the southern Levant about fi fty years ago. This is perhaps most cogently illustrated by the lumping of all terminal Pleistocene Epi-Palaeolithic vari-ability in the northern regions under the rubric of “Zarzian” (Wahida 1999 ). An uninterrupted, unilinear cultural devel-opment has been posited there, from Middle Palaeolithic to Upper Palaeolithic “Bardostian”/“Zagros Aurignacian” to Epi-Palaeolithic “Zarzian”, ignoring the possibilities of gaps in the record (stemming from climatic changes, diseases, etc. ), and impact of the dynamic movements into and out of the various areas by small foraging groups.

Another issue concerns terminology, which often continues to be heavily Eurocentric in outlook. Indeed, we need to bal-ance both the existence of local developments and interactions, together with the “larger” picture of highly mobile groups moving over huge distances, with the Middle East serving as the bridge between Africa and Eurasia. At the same time, we should be cautious, by fi rst defi ning endemic occurrences, in an unbiased way, without introducing terminologies based on a priori paradigms. Indeed, in conclusion, we believe that there are lessons for European developments, which derive from recent advances in Middle Eastern research. This includes the increasing awareness of the Ahmarian as a “player” on the European scene and the disarticulation of the “Aurignacian” into disparate analytical units.

References

Adler , D. S. , Bar-Yosef , O. , Belfer-Cohen , A. , Tushabramishvili , N. , Boaretto , E. , Mercier , N. , Valladas , H. & Rink , W. J. 2008 . Dating the demise: Neandertal extinction and the establish-ment of modern humans in the southern Caucasus . Journal of Human Evolution 55 : 817 –33.

Adler , D. S. & Bar-Oz , G. 2009 . Seasonal patterns of prey acquisi-tion during the Middle and Upper Palaeolithic of the south-ern Caucasus, pp. 127–40 in (J. J. Hublin & M. P. Richards, eds.) The Evolution of Hominid Diets: Integrating Approaches to the Study of Palaeolithic Subsistence . Springer : Dordrecht .

Almogi-Labin , A. , Bar-Matthews , M. & Ayalon , A. 2004 . Climate variability in the Levant and Northeast Africa during the late Quaternary based on marine and land records, pp. 117–34 in ( N. Goren-Inbar & J. D. Speth , eds.) Human Paleoecology in the Levantine Corridor . Oxbow : Oxford .


1402


Arensburg , B. & Bar-Yosef , O. 1973 . Human remains from Ein Gev I, Jordan Valley, Israel . Pal é orient 1 : 201 –6.

Ati ç i , A. L. & Stutz , A. J. 2002 . Mortality profi le analysis of the ungulate fauna from Ö k ü zini: a preliminary reconstruc-tion of site use, seasonality and mobility patterns, pp. 101–8 in ( M. O. Yal ç inkaya , J. Kozlowski & O. Bar Yosef , eds.) La Grotte d’ Ö k ü zini: Evolution du Pal é olithique Final du Sud-Ouest de l’Anatolie . ERAUL : Li è ge .

Azoury , I. 1986 . Ksar Akil, Lebanon. A Technological and Typological Analysis of the Transitional and Early Upper Palaeolithic Levels of Ksar Akil and Abu Halka . BAR International Series 289 : Oxford .

Bachdach , J. 1982 . Das Jungpal ä olithikum von Jabrud in Syrien . Ph.D. thesis , University of Cologne .

Baird , D. 2006 . The history of settlement and social landscapes in the Early Holocene in the Ç atalh ö y ü k area, pp. 55–74 in ( I. Hodder , ed.) Ç atalh ö y ü k Perspectives: Reports from the 1995–99 Seasons . McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research : Cambridge & London, and The British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara .

Bar-Matthews , M. & Ayalon , A. 2003 . Climatic conditions in the Eastern Mediterranean during the Last Glacial (60–10 ky BP ) and their relations to the Upper Palaeolithic in the Levant: oxygen and carbon isotope systematics of cave deposits, pp. 13–18 in ( A. Belfer-Cohen & A. N. Goring-Morris , eds.) More than Meets the Eye: Studies on Upper Palaeolithic Diversity in the Near East . Oxbow : Oxford .

Bar-Oz , G. 2005 . Epipalaeolithic Subsistence Strategies in the Levant: A Zooarchaeological Perspective . American School of Prehistoric Research (ASPR) Monograph Series: Brill Academic Publishers : Boston .

Bar-Oz , G. , Belfer-Cohen , A. , Mesheviliani , T. , Jakeli , N. & Bar-Yosef , O. 2008 . Taphonomy and zooarchaeology of the Upper Palaeolithic cave of Dzudzuana, Republic of Georgia . International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 18 : 131 –51.

Bartov , Y. , Goldstein , S. L. , Stein , M. & Enzel , Y. 2003 . Catastrophic arid episodes in the Eastern Mediterranean linked with the North Atlantic Heinrich events . Geology 31 : 439 –42.

Baruch , U. & Bottema , S. 1999 . A new pollen diagram from Lake Hula. vegetational, climatic, and anthropogenic implications, pp. 75–86 in ( H. Kawanabe , G. W Coulter & A. C. Roosevelt , eds.) Ancient Lakes: Their Cultural and Biological Diversity . Kenobi Productions : Brussels .

Bar-Yosef , O. 1970 . The Epi-Palaeolithic Cultures of Palestine . Ph.D . Thesis, Hebrew University of Jerusalem .

1987 . Direct and indirect evidence for hafting in the Epi-palaeolithic and Neolithic of the southern Levant, pp. 155–64 in ( D. Stordeur , ed.) La Main et emmanchements Prehistoriques . Maison de l ’ Orient : Lyon .

1991 . Stone tools and social context in Levantine prehistory, pp. 371–95 in ( G. A. Clark , ed.) Perspectives on the Past: Theoretical Biases on Mediterranean Hunter-Gatherer Research . University of Pennsylvania Press : Philadelphia .

2000 . The Middle and Early Upper Palaeolithic in southwest Asia and neighbouring regions, pp. 107–56 in ( O. Bar-Yosef & D. Pilbeam , eds.) The Geography of Neandertals and Modern Humans in Europe and the Greater Mediterranean . Peabody Museum, Harvard University : Cambridge, MA .

2007 . The dispersal of modern humans in Eurasia – a cultural interpretation, pp. 207–18 in ( P. Mellars , K. Boyle, O. Bar-Yosef & C. B. Stringer , eds.) Rethinking the Human Revolution . McDonald Institute Monographs, University of Cambridge : Cambridge .

Bar-Yosef , O. , Arnold , M. , Mercier , N. , Belfer-Cohen , A. , Goldberg , P. , Housley , R. , Laville , H. , Meignen , L. , Vogel , J. C. & Vandermeersch , B. 1996 . The dating of the Upper Palaeolithic layers in Kebara Cave, Mt. Carmel . Journal of Archaeological Science 23: 297 –306.

Bar-Yosef , O. & Belfer-Cohen , A. 2004 . The Qafzeh Upper Paleolithic assemblages: 70 years later . Eurasian Prehistory 2 : 145 –80.

Bar-Yosef , O. & Kuhn , S. L. 1999 . The big deal about blades: lami-nar technologies and human evolution . American Anthropologist 101 / 2: 322 –38.

Bar-Yosef , O. & Phillips , J. L. (eds.) 1977 . Prehistoric Investigations in Gebel Maghara, Northern Sinai . Qedem 7 – Monographs of the Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University : Jerusalem .

Bar-Yosef , O. & Vogel , J. 1987 . Relative and absolute chronology of the Epi-palaeolithic in the southern Levant, pp. 220–45 in ( O. Aurenche , J. Evin & F. Hours , eds.) Chronologies in the Near East . BAR International Series 379 : Oxford .

Bar-Yosef Mayer , D. E. 2005 . The exploitation of shells as beads in the Palaeolithic and Neolithic of the Levant . Pal é orient 31 : 176 –85.

Becker , M. S. 2003 . Spatial patterning in the Upper Palaeolithic: a perspective from the Abu Noshra sites, pp. 134–50 in ( A. Belfer-Cohen & A. N. Goring-Morris , eds.) More than Meets the Eye: Studies on Upper Palaeolithic Diversity in the Near East . Oxbow : Oxford .

Belfer-Cohen , A. & Bar-Yosef , O. 1981 . The Aurignacian in Hayonim Cave . Paleorient 7 : 19 –42.

Belfer-Cohen , A. & Bar-Yosef , O. 1999 . The Levantine Aurignacian: 60 years of research, pp. 118–34 in ( W. Davies & R.Charles , eds.) Dorothy Garrod and the Progress of the Palaeolithic . Oxbow : Oxford .

Belfer-Cohen , A. , Davidzon , A. , Goring-Morris , A. N. , Lieberman , D. & Spears , M. 2004 . Nahal Ein Gev I: A Late Upper Palaeolithic site by the Sea of Galilee, Israel . Pal é orient 30 : 25 –46.

Belfer-Cohen , A. & Goring-Morris , A. N. 1986 . Har Horesha I: An Upper Palaeolithic Site in the Central Negev Highlands . Mitekufat Haeven 19 : 43*–57* .

Belfer-Cohen , A. & Goring-Morris , A. N. 2002 . Why microliths? Microlithization in the Levant, pp. 57–68 in ( R. G. Elston & S. L. Kuhn , eds.) Thinking Small: Global Perspectives on Microlithic Technologies , vol. AP3A 12. Archeology Papers of the American Anthropological Association : Arlington, VA .

Belfer-Cohen , A. & Goring-Morris , A. N. 2007 . From the begin-ning: Levantine Upper Palaeolithic cultural continuity, pp. 199–206 in ( P. Mellars , K. Boyle, O. Bar-Yosef & C. B. Stringer , eds.) Rethinking the Human Revolution . McDonald Institute Monographs, University of Cambridge : Cambridge .

Belfer-Cohen , A. & Goring-Morris , A. N. 2009 . The shift from the Middle Palaeolithic to the Upper Palaeolithic: Levantine per-spectives, pp. 89–100 in ( M. Camps & C. Szmidt , eds.) The Mediterranean from 50,000 to 25,000 BP : Turning Points and New Directions . Oxbow : Oxford .

Belfer-Cohen , A. & Grosman , L. 2007 . Tools or cores? Carinated artifacts in Levantine Late Upper Paleolithic assemblages and why does it matter, pp. 143–63 in ( S. P. McPherron , ed.) Tools versus Cores Alternative Approaches to Stone Tool Analysis . Cambridge Scholars Publishing : Cambridge .

Bergman , C. A. 1987 . Ksar Akil, Lebanon. A Technological and Typological Analysis of the Later Palaeolithic Levels of Ksar Akil . Vol. II: Levels XIII–VI. BAR International Series 329 : Oxford .


1403

Concluding Remarks

Bergman , C. A. & Stringer , C. B. 1989 . Fifty years after: Egbert, an Upper Palaeolithic juvenile from Ksar Akil, Lebanon . Paléorient 15 : 99 –111.

Berillon , G. , Asgari Khaneghah , A. , Antoine , P. , Bahain , J-J. , Chevrier , B. , Zeitoun , V. , Aminzadeh , N. , Beheshti , M. , Ebadollahi Chanzangh , H. & Nochadi , S. 2007 . Discovery of new open-air Paleolithic localities in Central Alborz, Northern Iran . Journal of Human Evolution 52 : 380–7.

Bo ë da , E. & Muhesen , S. 1993 . Umm el Tlel (el Kowm, Syrie): Etude pr é liminaire des industries lithiques du Pal é olithique Moyen et Sup é rieur 1991–1992 . Cahiers de l’Euphrate 7 : 47 –91.

Bon , F. 2002 . L’Aurignacien entre mer et oc é an: r é fl exion sur l’unit é des phases anciennes de l’Aurignacien dans le sud de la France . Soci é t é Pr é historique Fran ç aise : Paris .

Bordes , F. 1977 . Que sont le Pr é -Aurignacien et le Yabrudien?, pp. 49*–55* in (O. Bar-Yosef, ed.) Eretz-Israel 13 . Israel Exploration Society : Jerusalem .

Bordes , J-G. & Shidrang , S. 2005 . Le Pal é olithique Sup é rieur du Zagros: sites de la r é gion de Kermanshah et de Khorramabad (Yafteh), pp. 116–36 in (J. Jaubert & F. Biglari, eds.) Le Pal é olithique d’Iran . BAR International Series 1968 : Oxford .

Bottema , S. & van Zeist , W. 1981 . Palynological evidence for the climatic history of the Near East, 50,000–6000 B.P. , pp. 115–45 in (J. Cauvin and P. Sanlaville, eds.), Pr é histoire du Levant: Chronologie et l’Organisation de l’Espace Depuis les Origines Jusqu’au VIe mill é naire , Association Pal é orient, CNRS : Paris .

Bourguignon , L. 1998 . Les Industries du Pal é olithique Interm é diaire d’Umm el Tlel. Nouveaux el é ments pour le pas-sage entre Pal é olithique Moyen et Sup é rieur dans le Bassin d’El Khowm, pp. 709–30 in (M. Otte, ed.) Pr é histoire d’Anatolie. Gen è se de Deux Mondes . ERAUL 85 : Li è ge .

Byrd , B. F. 1994 . Late Quaternary hunter-gatherer complexes in the Levant between 20,000 and 10,000 BP , pp. 205–66 in ( O. Bar-Yosef & R. S. Kra , eds.) Late Quaternary Chronology and Paleoclimates of the Eastern Mediterranean . Department of Geosciences, University of Arizona : Tucson .

1998 . Spanning the gap from the Upper Palaeolithic to the Natufi an: the early and middle Epipaleolithic, pp. 64–82 in ( D. O. Henry , eds.) The Prehistoric Archaeology of Jordan . BAR International Series 705 : Oxford .

Chevrier , B. , Berillon , G. , Asgari Khaneghah , A. , Antoine , P. , Bahain , J-J. & Zeitoun , V. 2006 . Moghanak, Otchounak, Garm Roud 2 : nouveaux assemblages pal é olithiques dans le Nord de l’Iran. Caract é risations typo-technologiques et attri-butions chrono-culturelles . Pal é orient 32 : 59 –79.

Clark , G. A. 1991 . Perspectives on the Past: Theoretical Biases on Mediterranean Hunter-Gatherer Research . University of Pennsylvania Press : Philadelphia .

Clark , G. A. & Lindly , M. 1991 . On paradigmatic biases and Paleolithic research tradition . Current Anthropology 32 : 577 –86.

Clark , G. A. & Riel-Salvatore , J. 2009 . What’s in a name? Observations on the compositional integrity of the Aurignacian, pp. 323–38 in ( M. Camps & C. Szmidt , eds.) The Mediterranean from 50,000 to 25,000 BP : Turning Points and New Directions . Oxbow : Oxford .

Coinman , N. 1997 . Worked bone in the Levantine Upper Paleolithic: rare examples from the Wadi al-Hasa, west-central Jordan . Pal é orient 22 : 121 –31.

Conard , N. J. & Bolus , M. 2003 . Radiocarbon dating the appear-ance of modern humans and timing of cultural innovations

in Europe: new results and new challenges . Journal of Human Evolution 44 : 331 –71.

Coon , C. S. 1951 . Cave Exploration in Iran, 1949 . University Museum : Philadelphia .

Copeland , L. 1975 . The Middle and Upper Paleolithic of Lebanon and Syria in the light of recent research, pp. 317–50 in ( F. Wendorf & A. E. Marks , eds.) Problems in Prehistory: North Africa and the Levant . Southern Methodist University Press : Dallas .

2001 . Forty-six Emireh points from the Lebanon in the context of the Middle to Upper Paleolithic transition in the Levant . Paléorient 26 : 73 –92.

Davidzon , A. & Goring-Morris , A. N. 2003 . Sealed in stone: the Upper Palaeolithic Early Ahmarian knapping method in the light of refi tting studies at Nahal Nizzana XIII, Western Negev, Israel . Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society – Mitekufat Haeven 33 : 75 –206.

Davis , S. J. M. 1982 . Climate change and the advent of domesti-cation: the succession of ruminant artiodactyls in the Late Pleistocene-Holocene Period in the Israel region . Pal é orient 8 : 5 –15.

Enzel , Y. , Amit , R. , Dayan , U. , Crouvi , O. , Kahana , R. , Ziv , B. & Sharon , D. 2008 . The climatic and physiographic controls of the Eastern Mediterranean over the Late Pleistocene climates in the southern Levant and its neighboring deserts . Global and Planetary Change 60 : 165 –92.

Ferring , C. R. 1988 . Technological change in the Upper Paleolithic of the Negev, pp. 333–48 in ( H. Dibble & A. Montet-White , eds.) Upper Pleistocene Prehistory of Western Eurasia , vol. 54. University Museum Monographs. University of Pennsylvania : Philadelphia .

Fox , J. R. 2003 . The Tor Sadaf lithic assemblage: a technological study of the e å arliest Levantine Upper Palaeolithic in the Wadi al-Hasa. pp. 80–94 in (A. N. Goring-Morris and A. Belfer-Cohen, eds.) More than Meets the Eye: Studies on Upper Palaeolithic Diversity in the Near East . Oxbow : Oxford .

Frumkin , A. , Ford , D. C. & Schwarcz , H. P. 1999 . Continental oxy-gen isotope record in the last 170,000 years in Jerusalem . Quaternary Research 51 : 317 –27.

Garrard , A. N. 1982 . The environmental implications of a reanal-ysis of the large mammal fauna from the Wadi el-Mughara caves, Palestine, pp. 165–87 in ( J. Bintliff & W. V. Zeist , eds.) Paleoclimates, Paleoenvironments and Human Communities in the Eastern Mediterranean Region in Later Prehistory . BAR International Series 133 : Oxford .

1998 . Environment and cultural adaptations in the Azraq Basin: 24,000–7,000 BP , pp. 139–48 in ( D. O. Henry , ed.) The Prehistoric Archaeology of Jordan . BAR International Series 705 : Oxford .

Garrard , A. N. , Baird , D. & Byrd , B. F. 1994 . The chronological basis and signifi cance of the Late Palaeolithic and Neolithic sequence in the Azraq Basin, Jordan, pp. 177–99 in ( O. Bar-Yosef & R. Kra , eds.) Late Quaternary Chronology and Paleoclimates of the Eastern Mediterranean . Radiocarbon : Tucson .

Garrard , A. N. & Byrd , B. 1992 . New dimensions to the Epipalaeolithic of the Wadi Jilat in central Jordan . Pal é orient 18 : 47 –62.

Garrard , A. N. & Gebel , H. G. (eds.) 1988 . The Prehistory of Jordan. The State of Research in 1986. BAR International Series 396 : Oxford .

Garrard , A. & Yazbeck , C. 2003 . Qadisha Valley prehistory project (northern Lebanon): summary of fi rst two seasons’ investiga-tions . Baal 7 : 7 –14.


1404


Garrod , D. A. E. 1930 . The Palaeolithic of southern Kurdistan: excavations in the caves of Zarzi and Hazar Merd . Bulletin of the American School of Prehistoric Research 6 : 8–43.

1951 . A transitional industry from the base of the Upper Palaeolithic in Palestine and Syria . The Royal Anthropological Society of Great Britain and Ireland 82 : 121 –32.

1953 . The relations between Southwest Asia and Europe in the later Palaeolithic age . Journal of World History 1 : 13 –38.

1955 . The Mugharet el-Emireh in Lower Galilee: type station of the Emiran industry . Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 55 : 141 –62.

1957 . Notes sur le Paléolithique Supérieur du Moyen Orient . Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française 55 : 239 –445.

Garrod , D. A. E. & Bate , D. M. A. 1937 . The Stone Age of Mount Carmel , vol. 1. Clarendon Press : Oxford .

Gilead , I. 1981 . Upper Palaeolithic tool assemblages from the Negev and Sinai, pp. 331–42 in ( P. Sanlaville & J. Cauvin , eds.) Pr é histoire du Levant . CNRS : Paris .

1991 . The Upper Paleolithic Period in the Levant . Journal of World Prehistory 5: 105–54.

Gilead , I. & Bar-Yosef , O. 1993 . Early Upper Paleolithic sites in the Kadesh Barnea area, northeastern Sinai . Journal of Field Archaeology 20 : 265 –80.

Goldberg , P. 1986 . Late Quaternary environmental history of the Southern Levant . Geoarchaeology 1 : 225 –44.

Golovanova , L. V. , Cleghorn , N. E. , Doronichev , V. B. , Hoffecker , J. F. , Burr , G. S. & Sulergizkiy , L. D. 2006 . The Early Upper Paleolithic in the Northern Caucasus (New data from Mezmaiskaya Cave, 1997 excavation) . Eurasian Prehistory 4 : 43 –78.

Gonz á lez Echegaray , J. 1978 . Notes toward a systematization of the Upper Palaeolithic in Palestine, pp. 177–91 in ( L. G. Freeman , ed.) Views of the Past: Essays in the Old World and Palaeoanthropology . Mouton : The Hague .

Goring-Morris , A. N. 1980 . Upper Palaeolithic sites from Wadi Fazael, Lower Jordan Valley . Pal é orient 6 : 173 –91.

1987 . At the Edge: Terminal Pleistocene Hunter-Gatherers in the Negev and Sinai . BAR International Series 361 : Oxford .

1988 . Trends in the spatial organization of Terminal Pleistocene hunter-gatherer occupations as viewed from the Negev and Sinai . Paléorient 14 : 231 –43.

1995 . Complex hunter-gatherers at the end of the Paleolithic (20,000–10,000 BP ), pp. 141–68 in ( T. E. Levy , ed.) The Archaeology of Society in the Holy Land . Leicester University Press : London .

Goring-Morris , A. N. & Belfer-Cohen , A. 1997 . The articulation of cultural processes and Late Quaternary environmental changes in Cisjordan . Paléorient 23 : 71 –93.

Goring-Morris , A. N. & Belfer-Cohen , A. (eds.) 2003a . More than Meets the Eye: Studies on Upper Palaeolithic Diversity in the Near East . Oxbow : Oxford .

Goring-Morris , A. N. & Belfer-Cohen , A. 2003b . Structures and dwellings in the Upper and Epi-Palaeolithic (ca. 42–10 K BP ) Levant: profane and symbolic uses, pp. 65–81 in ( O. Soffer , S. Vasil’ev & J. Kozlowski , eds.) Perceived Landscapes and Built Environments . Actes du XIV è me Congr è s UISPP. BAR International Series 1122 : Oxford .

Goring-Morris , A. N. & Belfer-Cohen , A. 2006 . A hard look at the “Levantine Aurignacian”: how real is the taxon?, pp. 297–314 in ( O. Bar-Yosef & J. Zilhão , eds.) Towards a Defi nition of the Aurignacian . Trabalhos de Arqueologia 45. American School of Prehistoric Research/Instituto Português de Arqueologia : Lisbon .

Goring-Morris , A. N. , Henry , D. O. , Phillips , J. L. , Clark , G. A. , Barton , C. M. & Neeley , M. P. 1996 . Pattern in the Epipalaeolithic of the Levant: debate after Neeley and Barton . Antiquity 70 : 129 –47.

Goring-Morris , A. N. , Hovers , E. & Belfer-Cohen , A. 2009 . The dynamics of Pleistocene settlement patterns and human adaptations in the Levant – an overview, pp. 187–254 in ( J. J. Shea & D. Lieberman , eds.) Transitions in Prehistory: Papers in Honor of Ofer Bar-Yosef . David Brown/Oxbow : Oakville, CT .

Goring-Morris , A. N. & Rosen , S. A. 1989 . An Early Upper Palaeolithic assemblage with chamfered pieces from the Central Negev, Israel . Mitekufat Haeven 22 : 31*–40* .

Henry , D. O. (ed.) 1995 . Prehistoric Cultural Ecology and Evolution. Insights from Southern Jordan . Plenum Press : New York .

Henry , D. O. (ed.). 1998 . The Prehistoric Archaeology of Jordan . BAR International Series 705 : Oxford .

Hershkovitz , I. , Spiers , M. S. , Frayer , D. , Nadel , D. , Wish-Baratz , S. & Arensberg , B. 1995 . Ohalo II – a 19,000 years old skel-eton from a water-logged site at the Sea of Galilee . American Journal of Physical Anthropology 96 : 215 –34.

Hole , F. & Flannery , K. 1967 . The prehistory of southwestern Iran: a preliminary report . Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 33 : 147 –206.

Hooijer , D. A. 1961 . The fossil vertebrates of Ksar ‘Akil, a Palaeolithic rock shelter in Lebanon . Zoologische Verhandelingen 49 : 1 –67.

Hours , F. 1976 . L’Epipal é olithique au Liban. R é sultats acquis en 1975, pp. 106–30 in (F. Wendorf, ed.) Deuxi è me Colloque sur la Terminologie de la Pr é histoire du Proche-Orient . IXe Congr è s de l’Union Interntionale des Sciences Pr é historiques et Protohistoriques, Nice.

Hovers , E. 1990 . Art in the Levantine Epi-Palaeolithic: an engraved pebble from a Kebaran site in the Lower Jordan Valley . Current Anthropology 31 : 317 –22.

Kadosh , D. , Sivan , D. , Kutiel , H. & Weinstein-Evron , M. 2004 . A Late Quaternary paleoenvironmental sequence from the coastal Plain, Israel . Palynology 28 : 143 –57.

Kaufman , D. 1989 . Observations on the Geometric Kebaran: a view from Neve David, pp. 275–86 in ( O. Bar-Yosef & B. Vandermeersch , eds.) Investigations in South Levantine Prehistory . BAR International Series 497 : Oxford .

1992 . Hunter-gatherers of the Levantine Epipalaeolithic: the socioecological origins of sedentism . Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 5 : 165 –201.

Kerry , K. W. & Henry , D. O. 2003 . Tor Fawaz (J403): an Upper Palaeolithic occupation in the Jebel Qalkha area, southwest Jordan, pp. 171–84 in ( A. N. Goring-Morris & A. Belfer-Cohen , eds.) More than Meets the Eye: Studies on Upper Palaeolithic Diversity in the Near East . Oxbow : Oxford .

Kingery , D. W. , Vandiver , P. B. & Pickett , M. 1988 . The beginnings of pyrotechnology, Part II: Production and use of lime and gypsum plaster in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic Near East . Journal of Field Archaeology 15 : 219 –44.

Kislev , M. E. , Nadel , D. & Carmi , I. 1992 . Epipalaeolithic (19,000 BP ) cereal and fruit diet at Ohalo II, Sea of Galilee, Israel . Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology 73 : 161 –6.

Kolodny , Y. , Stein , M. & Machlus , M. 2005 . Sea- Rain- Lake rela-tion in the Last Glacial East Mediterranean revealed by d18O-d13C in Lake Lisan aragonites . Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 69 : 4045 –60.

Kozlowski , J. K. 1992 . The Balkans in the Middle and Upper Paleolithic: the gate to Europe or a cul-de-sac? Proceedings of the Prehistory Society 58 : 1 –20.


1405

Concluding Remarks

Kuhn , S. L. 2003 . In what sense is the Levantine Initial Upper Paleolithic a “transitional ” industry? pp. 61–70 in ( J. Zilh ã o & F. d’Errico , eds.) The Chronology of the Aurignacian and of the Transitional Technocomplexes . Instituto Portugues de Arqueologia: Lisbon.

Kuhn , S. L. , Belfer-Cohen , A. , Barzilai , O. , Stiner , M. C. , Kerry , K. W. , Munro , N. D. & Bar-Yosef Mayer , D. E. 2004 . The Last Glacial Maximum at Meged rockshelter, Upper Galilee, Israel . Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society – Mitekufat Haeven 34 : 5 –47.

Kuhn , S. L. & Stiner , M. C. 2007 . Body ornamentation as infor-mation technology: towards an understanding of the signifi cance of early beads, pp. 45–54 in ( P. Mellars , K. Boyle, O. Bar-Yosef & C. B. Stringer , eds.) Rethinking the Human Revolution . McDonald Institute of Archaeology : Cambridge .

Kuhn , S. L. , Stiner , M. C. , G ü le ç , E. , Ö zer , I. , Y ı lmaz , H. , Baykara , I. , A ç ikkol , A. , Goldberg , P. , Molina , K. M. , Ü nay , E. & Suata-Alpaslan , F. 2009 . The early Upper Paleolithic occupations at U ç ag ı zl ı Cave (Hatay, Turkey) . Journal of Human Evolution 56 : 87 –113.

Kvavadze , E. , Bar-Yosef , O. , Belfer-Cohen , A. , Boaretto , E. , Jakeli , N. , Matskevich , Z. & Meshveliani , T. 2009 . 30,000-year-old wild fl ax fi bers . Science 325 : 1359 .

Lengyel , G. , Boaretto , E. , Fabre , L. & Ronen , A. 2006 . New AMS 14 C dates from the Early Upper Paleolithic sequence of Raqefet Cave, Mount Carmel, Israel . Radiocarbon 48 : 253 –8.

Maher , L. 2005 . Recent Excavations at the Middle Epipalaeolithic encampment of `Uyun al-Hammam, northern Jordan . Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 49 : 101 –14.

Maher , L. A. 2009 . The Late Pleistocene of Arabia in rela-tion to the Levant, pp. 187–202 in ( M. D. Petraglia & J. I. Rose , eds.) The Evolution of Human Populations in Arabia: Paleoenvironments, Prehistory and Genetics, Vertebrate Paleobiology and Paleoanthropology . Springer : New York .

Marder , O. 2002 . The Lithic Technology of Epipalaeolithic Hunter-Gatherers in the Negev: The Implications of Refi tting Studies . Ph.D. Thesis, Hebrew University of Jerusalem .

Marks , A. E. 1981 . The Upper Paleolithic of the Levant, pp. 369–74 in ( P. Sanlaville & J. Cauvin , eds.) Pr é histoire du Levant . CNRS : Paris .

(ed.) 1983 . Prehistory and Paleoenvironments in the Central Negev, Israel. Volume III, The Avdat/Aqev Area, Part 3. SMU Press : Dallas, TX .

2003 . Refl ections on Levantine Upper Palaeolithic studies: past and present, pp. 249–64 in ( A. N. Goring-Morris & A. Belfer-Cohen , eds.) More than Meets the Eye: Studies on Upper Palaeolithic Diversity in the Near East . Oxbow : Oxford .

Marks , A. E. & Kaufman , D. 1983 . Boqer Tachtit: the artifacts. pp. 69–125 in (A. E. Marks, ed.) Prehistory and Paleoenvironments in the Central Negev, Israel. Volume III, The Avdat/Aqev Area, Part 3 . SMU Press : Dallas, TX .

Marshack , A. 1997 . Paleolithic image making and symboling in Europe and the Middle East: A comparative review, pp. 53–91 in ( M. Conkey , O. Soffer , D. Stratmann & N. G. Jablonski , eds.) Beyond Art: Pleistocene Image and Symbol . Memoirs of the California Academy of Sciences 23 : San Francisco .

McBurney , C. B. M. 1967 . The Haua Fteah (Cyrenaica) and the Stone Age of the Southeast Mediterranean . Cambridge University Press : Cambridge .

1968 . The cave of Ali Tappeh and the Epipalaeolithic in N.E. Iran . Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 34 : 385 –413.

Meignen , L. & Bar-Yosef , O. 1991 . Les outillages lithiques mous-t é riens de Kebara (Fouilles 1982–1985), pp. 49–76 in ( O. Bar-Yosef & B. Vandermeersch , eds.) Le Squelette Moust é rien de Kebara 2 . CNRS : Paris .

Mellars , P. 2006 . A new radiocarbon revolution and the dispersal of modern humans in Eurasia . Nature 439 : 931 –5.

2009 . La confusion aurignacienne: disentangling the archae-ology of modern human dispersals in Europe. pp. 339–54 in (M. Camps and C. Szmidt, eds.), The Mediterranean from 50,000 to 25,000 BP : Turning Points and New Directions . Oxbow : Oxford .

Meshveliani , T. , Bar-Oz , G. , Bar-Yosef , O. , Belfer-Cohen , A. , Boaretto , E. , Jakeli , N. , Koridze , I. & Matskevich , Z. 2007 . Mesolithic hunters at Kotias Klde, Western Georgia: prelimi-nary results . Pal é orient 33 : 47 –58.

Meshveliani , T. , Bar-Yosef , O. & Belfer-Cohen , A. 2004 . The Upper Palaeolithic in western Georgia, pp. 129–43 in ( P. J. Brantingham , S. L. Kuhn & K. W. Kerry , eds.) The Early Upper Paleolithic beyond Western Europe . University of California Press : Berkeley .

Monigal , K. 2003 . Technology, economy and mobility at the beginning of the Levantine Upper Palaeolithic, pp. 118–33 in ( A. N. Goring-Morris & A. Belfer-Cohen , eds.) More than Meets the Eye: Studies on Upper Palaeolithic Diversity in the Near East . Oxbow : Oxford .

Nadel , D. , Belitzky , S. , Boaretto , E. , Carmi , I. , Heinemeier , J. , Werker , E. & Marco , S. 2001 . New dates from submerged Late Pleistocene sediments in the Southern Sea of Galilee, Israel, pp. 1167–78 in ( H. J. Bruins , I. Carmi & E. Boaretto , eds.) Near East Chronology: Archaeology and Environment , vol. 43 (3). Radiocarbon : Tucson .

Nadel , D. , Grinberg , U. , Boaretto , E. & Werker , E. 2006 . Wooden objects from Ohalo II (23,000 cal BP ), Jordan Valley, Israel . Journal of Human Evolution 50 : 644 –62.

Nadel , D. , Tsatskin , A. , Belmaker , M. , Boaretto , E. , Kislev , M. , Mienis , H. , Rabinovich , R. , Simchoni , O. , Simmons , T. , Weiss , E. & Zohar , I. 2004 . On the shore of a fl uctuating lake: environmental evidence from Ohalo II (19,500 B.P .) . Israel Journal of Earth Sciences 53 : 207 –23.

Nadel , D. & Werker , E. 1999 . The oldest ever brush hut plant remains from Ohalo II, Jordan Valley, Israel (19,000 BP ) . Antiquity 73 : 755 –64.

Neuville , R. 1934 . Le Pr é historique de Palestine . Revue Biblique 43 : 237 –59.

1951 . Le Paléolithique et le Mésolithique du Désert de Judée . Archives de l ’ Institut de Paléontologie Humaine : Paris .

Newcomer , M. H. 1968 –9. The chamfered pieces from Ksar Akil (Lebanon) . Bulletin of the Institute of Archaeology 8 – 9: 177 –91.

1974 . Study and replication of bone tools from Ksar Akil (Lebanon) . World Archaeology 6 : 138 –53.

Nioradze , M. G. & Otte , M. 2000 . Pal é olithique sup é rieur de Georgie . L’Anthropologie 104 : 265 –300.

Ohnuma , K. 1988 . Ksar ‘Akil, Lebanon. A Technological Study of the Earlier Upper Palaeolithic Levels of Ksar ‘Akil , vol. III. Levels XXV–XIV . BAR International Series 426 : Oxford .

Ohnuma , K. & Bergman , C. A. 1990 . A technological analysis of the Upper Palaeolithic Levels (XXV–VI) of Ksar Akil, Lebanon, pp. 91–138 in ( P. Mellars & C. Stringer , eds.) The Emergence of Modern Humans: An Archaeological Perspective . Edinburgh University Press : Edinburgh .

Olivieri , A. , Achilli , A. , Pala , M. , Battaglia , V. , Fornarino , S. , Al-Zahery , N. , Scozzari , R. , Cruciani , F. , Behar , D. M. ,


1406


Dugoujon , J-M. , Coudray , C. , Santachiara-Benerecetti , A. S. , Semino , O. , Bandelt , H-J. & Torroni , A. 2006 . The mtDNA legacy of the Levantine Early Upper Palaeolithic in Africa . Science 314 : 1767 –70.

Olszewski , D. I. 2006 . Issues in the Levantine Epipaleolithic: the Madamaghan, Nebekian and Qalkhan (Levant Epipaleolithic) . Pal é orient 32 : 19 –26.

Olszewski , D. I. & Dibble , H. L. 1994 . The Zagros Aurignacian . Current Anthropology 35 : 68 –75.

Olszewski , D. I. & Dibble , H. L. 2006 . To be or not to be Aurignacian: the Zagros Upper Paleolithic, pp. 355–73 in ( O. Bar-Yosef & J. Zilhão , eds.) Towards a Defi nition of the Aurignacian . American School of Prehistoric Research/Instituto Português de Arqueologia : Lisbon .

Otte , M. 2007 . Arguments for population movement of anatomi-cally modern humans from Central Asia to Europe, pp. 359–66 in ( P. Mellars , K. Boyle, O. Bar-Yosef & C. B. Stringer , eds.) Rethinking the Human Revolution . McDonald Institute of Archaeology : Cambridge .

2008 . Turkey, Paleolithic cultures, pp. 904–8 in ( D. M. Pearsall , ed.) Encyclopedia of Archaeology . Academic Press : New York .

Otte , M. , Biglari , F. , Flas , D. , Hashemi , N. , Mashkour , M. , Mohaseb , A. , Naderi , R. , Radu , W. , Shidrang , S. & Zwyns , N. 2007 . The Aurignacian in the Zagros region: new research at Yafteh Cave, Lorestan, Iran . Antiquity 81 : 82 –96.

Otte , M. , Biglari , F. & Jaubert , J. (eds.) 2009 . Iran Palaeolithic/Le Pal é olithique d’Iran . BAR International Series 1968 : Oxford .

Perrot , J. 1968 . La Pr é histoire Palestinienne, pp. 286–446 in Suppl é ment au Dictionnaire de la Bible , vol. 8. Letougey et Ane : Paris .

Piperno , D. R. , Weiss , E. , Holst , I. & Nadel , D. 2004 . Processing of wild cereal grains in the Upper Palaeolithic revealed by starch grain analysis . Nature 430 : 670 –3.

Rabinovich , R. 2003 . The Levantine Upper Palaeolithic faunal rec-ord, pp. 33–48 in ( A. N. Goring-Morris & A. Belfer-Cohen , eds.) More than Meets the Eye: Studies on Upper Palaeolithic Diversity in the Near East . Oxbow : Oxford .

Rebollo , N. R. , S. Weiner , F. Brock , L. Meignen , P. Goldberg , A. Belfer-Cohen , O. Bar-Yosef & Boaretto , E. 2011 . New radio-carbon dating of the transition from the Middle to the Upper Paleolithic in Kebara Cave, Israel . Journal of Archaeological Science 38 (9): 2424 –33.

Richter , T. , Alcock , S. , Asouti , E. , Colledge , S. , Jones , M. , Maher , L. , Martin , L. , Stock , J. & Thorne , B. 2009 . New light on Final Pleistocene settlement diversity in the Azraq Basin: some preliminary results from Ayn Qasiyah and AWS 48 . Pal é orient 35 : 49 –68

Rolston , S. L. 1982 . Two prehistoric burials from Qasr Kharaneh . Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 26 : 221 –9.

Rosenberg , M. 1985 . Report on the 1978 Sondage at Eshkaft-e Gavi . Iran 23 : 51 –62.

Ronen , A. 1976 . The Upper Palaeolithic in northern Israel, Mt Carmel and Galilee, pp. 153–86 in (F. Wendorf, ed.) Deuxi è me Colloque sur la Terminologie de la Pr é histoire du Proche-Orient . IXe Congr è s de l ’ Union Interntionale des Sciences Pr é historiques et Protohistoriques , Nice .

Rossignol-Strick , M. 1995 . Sea-land correlation of pollen records in the Eastern Mediterranean for the Glacial-Interglacial transition: biostratigraphy versus radiometric time-scale . Quaternary Science Reviews 14 : 893 –915.

Rust , A. 1950 . Die H ö hlenfunde von Jabrud (Syrien) . Karl Wachholtz : Neumunster .

Simmons , A. H. 2001 . The fi rst humans and last pygmy hip-popotami of Cyprus, pp. 1–18 in ( S. Swiny , ed.) The Earliest Prehistory of Cyprus: From First Colonization to Exploitation . CAARI Monograph series 2. ASOR Archaeological Reports 5 : Boston .

Simmons , T. 2004 . A feather for each wind that blows: utilizing avifauna in assessing change patterns in palaeoecology and subsistence at Jordan Valley archaeological sites, pp. 191–206 in ( N. Goren-Inbar & J. D. Speth , eds.) Palaeoecology of the Levantine Corridor . Oxbow : Oxford .

Smith , P. , Bar-Yosef , O. & Sillen , A. 1984 . Archaeological and skel-etal evidence for dietary change during the late Pleistocene, pp. 101–36 in ( M. Cohen & G. Armelagos , eds.) At the Origins of Agriculture . Academic Press : New York .

Solecki , R. 1958 . The Baradostian Industry and the Upper Palaeolithic in the Near East . Ann Arbor University Microfi lms International.

Stekelis , M. & Bar-Yosef , O. 1965 . Un habitat du Pal é olithique Sup é rieur à Ein Guev (Israel). Note pr é liminaire . L’Anthropologie 69 : 176 –83.

Stiner , M. C. 2002 . Carnivory, coevolution, and the geographic spread of the genus Homo . Journal of Archaeological Research 10 : 1 –63.

Stiner , M. C. (ed.) 2005 . The Faunas of Hayonim Cave, Israel: A 200,000-Year Record of Paleolithic Diet, Demography and Society . American School of Prehistoric Research 48. Peabody Museum, Harvard University : Cambridge .

Stiner , M. C. & Munro , N. D. 2002 . Approaches to prehistoric diet breadth, demography, and prey ranking systems in time and space . Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 9 : 181 –214.

Stock , J. T. , Pfeiffer , K. , Chazan , M. & Janetski , J. 2005 . F-81 skel-eton from Wadi Mataha, Jordan, and its bearing on human variability in the Epipaleolithic of the Levant . American Journal of Physical Anthropology 128 : 453 –65.

Svoboda , J. & Bar-Yosef , O. 2003 . Stranska Skala: Origins of the Upper Paleolithic in the Brno area, Moravia, Czech Republic . Peabody Museum, Harvard University : Cambridge .

Tchernov , E. 1981 . The biostratigraphy of the Middle East, pp. 67–97 in ( P. Sanlaville & J. Cauvin , eds.) Pr é histoire du Levant . CNRS : Paris .

Teyssandier , N. 2008 . Revolution or evolution: the emergence of the Upper Paleolithic in Europe . World Archaeology 40 : 493 –519.

Tostevin , G. 2003 . A quest for antecedents: a comparison of the Terminal Middle Palaeolithic and Early Upper Palaeolithic of the Levant, pp. 54–67 in ( A. N. Goring-Morris & A. Belfer-Cohen , eds.) More than Meets the Eye: Studies on Upper Palaeolithic Diversity in the Near East . Oxbow : Oxford .

Tsereteli , L. D. 1998 . The Cultures of the Upper Paleolithic in Georgia, Close to the Black Sea . Matserba : Tbilisi .

Van Peer , P. 2004 . Did Middle Stone age Moderns of Sub-Saharan African descent trigger an Upper Palaeolithic Revolution on in the Nile Valley . Anthropologie 42 : 215 –26.

van Zeist , W. , Baruch , U. & Bottema , S. 2009 . Holocene palaeo-ecology of the Hula area, north-eastern Israel, pp. 29–64 in ( E. Kaptijn & L. P. Petit , eds.) A Timeless Vale. Archaeological and Related Essays on the Jordan Valley in Honour of Gerrit van der Kooij on the Occasion of His Sixty-fi fth Birthday . Archaeological Studies Leiden University. Leiden University Press : Leiden .

Vermeersch , P. M. 2001 . “Out of Africa” from an Egyptian point of view . Quaternary International 75 : 103 –12.

Volkman , P. 1983 . Boker Tachtit. Core reconstructions, pp. 127–88 in ( A. E. Marks , ed.) Prehistory and Paleoenvironments in the


1407

Concluding Remarks

Central Negev, Israel , vol. III. The Avdat/Aqev Area, Part 3 . SMU Press : Dallas .

Volkman , P. W. & Kaufman , D. 1983 . A reassessment of the Emireh Point as a possible type-fossil for the technological shift from the Middle to the Upper Paleolithic in the Levant, pp. 35–52 in ( E. Trinkaus , ed.) The Mousterian Legacy . BAR International Series 164 : Oxford .

Waechter , J. d’A. , Setton-Williams , V. M. , Bate , D. A. & Picard , L. 1938 . The excavations at Wadi Dhobai, 1937–38 and the Dhobaian Industry . Journal of the Palestine Oriental Society 18 : 172 – 86, 292 –8.

Wahida , G. 1999 . The Zarzian industry of the Zagros Mountains, pp. 81–208 in ( W. Davies & R. Charles , eds.) Dorothy Garrod and the Progress of the Palaeolithic . Oxbow : Oxford .

Weinstein-Evron , M. 1990 . Palynological history of the last Pleniglacial in the Levant, pp. 9–25 in ( J. K. Kozlowski , ed.) Feuilles de Pierre: Les Industries à Pointes Foliac é es du Pal é olithique Sup é rieur Europ é en . ERAUL 42 : Li è ge .

Weiss , E. , Kislev , M. E. , Simchoni , O. , Nadel , D. & Tschauner , H. 2008 . Plant-food preparation area on an Upper Paleolithic brush hut fl oor at Ohalo II, Israel . Journal of Archaeological Science 35 : 2400 –14.

Weiss , E. , Wetterstrom , W. , Nadel , D. & Bar-Yosef , O. 2004 . The broad spectrum revisited: evidence from plant remains . PNAS 101 : 9551 –5.

Williams , J. K. 2003 . An examination of Upper Palaeolithic fl ake technologies in the Marginal Zone of the Levant, pp. 196–208 in ( A. N. Goring-Morris & A. Belfer-Cohen , eds.) More than Meets the Eye: Studies on Upper Palaeolithic Diversity in the Near East . Oxbow : Oxford .

2006 . The Levantine Aurignacian: a closer look, pp. 317–54 in ( O. Bar-Yosef & J. Zilhão , eds.) Towards a Defi nition of the Aurignacian . Trabalhos de Arqueologia 45. American School of Prehistoric Research/Instituto Português de Arqueologia : Lisbon .

Wright , K. 1991 . The origins and development of ground stone assemblages in Late Pleistocene Southwest Asia . Pal é orient 17 : 19 –45.

Yal ç inkaya , I. , Otte , M. , Bar-Yosef , O. , Kozlowski , J. , Leotard , J-M. & Taskiran , H. 1992 . Karain 1991 Recherches Pal é olithiques en Turquie du Sud. Rapport provisoire . Pal é orient 18 : 109 –21.

Yal ç inkaya , I. & Otte , M. 2000 . D é but du Pal é olithique sup é rieur à Karain (Turquie) . L’Anthropologie 104 : 51–62.

Yal ç inkaya , I. , Otte , M. , Koslowski , J. & Bar-Yosef , O. (eds.) 2002 . La Grotte d’ Ö k ü zini: É volution du Pal é olithique Final du Sud-Ouest de l’Anatolie . Universit é de Li è ge Press 96 : Li è ge .

Yaroshevich , A. , Kaufman , D. , Nuzhnyy , D. , Bar-Yosef , O. & Weinstein-Evron , M. 2009 . Design and performance of microlith implemented projectiles during the Middle and the Late Epipaleolithic of the Levant: experimental and archaeo-logical evidence . Journal of Archaeological Science 37 : 368 –88.


Belfer-Cohen, A. and A. N. Goring-Morris 2014The Upper Palaeolithic and Earlier Epi-Palaeolithic of...

Documents

Transcript of Belfer-Cohen, A. and A. N. Goring-Morris 2014The Upper Palaeolithic and Earlier Epi-Palaeolithic of...