ANTH 347: Paleolithic Cultures NotesLECTURE 1 & 2: A VICTIM OF HISTORY

• The ghosts of Edouard Lartet and other pioneering Paleolithic archaeologists still haunt

European prehistory.

• Greek philosophers speculated about prehistory, but from the adoption of Christianity as

the official religion of the Roman Empire, the Book of Genesis dominated thought about human origins in the West.

• 1797 – John Frere finds handaxes with hippo bones at Hoxne, southern England.

• Geologist James Hutton writes “Theory of the Earth” in 1785 – first statement of

“uniformitarian” theory.

• William Smiths’ “Strata Identified by Organized Fossils” (1816) establishes the basics of

relative dating.

• With the publication of “Principles of Geology” (3 volumes, 1830-1833) by Charles Lyell,

“old Earth” theory becomes the majority opinion of scientists by the 1850’s.

• Early excavations include Father John MacEnery’s work (1824–1841) at Kent’s Cavern,

Exeter UK

• First Neanderthal was discovered at Gibraltar in 1848, but went unrecognized because

of the dominance of French Paleontologist Georges Cuvier, who was a Catastrophist.

• Beginning in 1837, Jacques Boucher de Perthes collects handaxes in the Somme River

Gravels, Northern France.

• In 1854, a Dr. Rigollot collects more handaxes in a gravel pit at St. Acheul.

• British archaeologists John Evans, Joseph Prestwich and Hugh Falconer authenticate

these finds it 1859.

• The “Origin of Species” by Darwin revolutionizes biology in the same year!

• “Origin” stimulated the development of “cultural evolutionary theory” that structured their

interpretation of the archaeological record.

• Expanding on C. J. Thomsens’ “3-Age System”, the initial concern in France was

subdividing the Stone Age.

• First attempts were technological:

o “Chipped Stone Period” aka Paleolithic

o “Polished Stone Period” aka Neolithic

• Edouard Lartet was the first to subdivide the Paleolithic, and the first to recognize the

Upper Paleolithic as a separate technological tradition.

• 1860 Excavated Aurignac rock-shelter in the Pyrenees and found bone sculptures

• 1863 – 1871 excavated in the Dordogne & Vezère valleys at almost all of the famous

sites.

• In 1868 his son Louis Lartet discovers the famous Cro Magnon skeletons near Les

Eyzies.

• Lartet was trained in paleontology, so he used fauna to define has periods, which

he changed frequently. His best known sequence is:

Period Typical Habitation Sites

3. Reindeer Caves Laugerie Basse, La Madeleine

2. Cave Bear/Mammoth Open-Air and Caves Le Moustier

1. Hippo/warm Elephant Open-Air St. Acheul & Abbeville

• This is roughly equivalent to the Lower, Middle & Upper Paleolithic

• Lartets’ student Gabriel de Mortillet substituted site names & typical artifacts for Lartets’

faunal succession.

• He specifically considered these to represent time periods, NOT cultures in the

anthropological sense.

6. Robenhausien (Neolithic)

5. Magdalenian

4. Solutrean

3. Mousterian

2. Chellean (Handaxes)

1. Thenasian (Now known to be eolithic.)

• The next 50 years of European archaeology was spent trying to refine and/or elaborate

this and other chronological frameworks.

• This is fundamentally a paleontological and biological orientation. Assemblages served

as “marker fossils” to identify a sequence of distinct evolutionary time periods.

• At this time (1870-1910) anthropological theory was dominated by Tylor & Morgans’

cultural evolutionary theory, which emphasized the “Law of Human Progress”. This implied that all societies would pass through the same sequence of evolutionary stages.

• In the early 20th Century, the Abbe Henri Breuil began the shift to interpreting

assemblage types as the remains of cultures rather than just fixed evolutionary stages.

• Breuils’ contributions:

1. Major discoveries of cave art. (Font de Gaume & Les Combarelles.

2. Replaced the “Chellean” with the Abbevillian (Early L. P.) and Acheulian (Late L. P.)

o When he realized that clearly different assemblage types from Eastern Europe

were contemporary with the French material, he began to see them as cultures in the anthropological sense.

o In the West, he identified 3 “cultural” groups of Lower Pal. Flake dominated

industries (Clactonian, Levalloisian & Tayacian)

3. Re-organized the Upper Paleolithic into a single sequence of, from earliest to latest (Paper published in 1912): Chatelperronian – Aurignacian – Gravettian – Solutrean – Magdalenian.

o Denis Peyrony disagreed and argued that the Chatelperronian and Gravettian

were a single evolving Culture that he called the Perigordian, and that this was contemporary with the Aurignacian.

• Although Peyrony paid lip-service to the “cultural” interpretation, he was mainly

interested in chronology, and divided all these periods into numerous phases (given roman numerals).

• He DID recognize contemporary but different technological traditions in the Mousterian,

and divided it into two groups “Typical Mousterian” (scrapers & points) and “Mousterian of Acheulian Tradition (scrapers & handaxes).

• The French still retain Peyronys’ scheme, but beginning with Dorothy Garrod in the

1930’s, the British have gone back to Breuils’ Chatelperronian – Gravettian terminology.

• Development of understanding of Paleolithic assemblages = product of culture & learned

behavior , when Europeans started to accept cultural interpretation of assemblage variability

• Why do they seem to appear & disappear so abruptly in archeological record why not

gradual transformation from one culture to another? How do you explain this “culture change”

• Archaeology generally 10-25 behind socio-cultural anthro in kinds of theory being

applied to archeological record (standard time lag between development of anth theory and development of archeological organizational paradigm before finding its way into arch itself).. When cultural interpretation started being given to archeological assemblages people borrowed from anth theory to explain assemblage change

• 10-20-30: just after eclipse cultural evolutionary theory of linear evolution dreamed up by

Tyler Morgan (trans-gradual transformation from one technology to another) but rapid substitutions caused by way depositional sequences developed, discontinuity

• 1910: descriptive models of culture change developed in socio-cultural anthro: diffusion

& migration

• Before 1920s : appearance of new techno in archaeological sequence described by

migration : when a new stone tool tradition shows up

• After 1920s: migration fell out of vogue, diffusion: spread of technological traits from one

group to a next ((largely speculative) all archaeologists considered releVant to look for

• Continued until end of 1950s.. came back when looking at lower Paleolithic

archaeological record

Post-World War II

• In 1953 Hallam Movius begins excavations at Abri Pataud, and Francois Bordes begins

excavations at Combe Grenal (dus 40 wide trench out of cliff face, excavation strategy limited amount of spatial info he could get, oxidized, limestone, cryoclastic weathering: earlier material farther away from cliff face. Tried to map individual living stones like Mary Leakey at time.

o Brought end to archeological records, caves suffered: used as fortification for war

o Post-war period Dominated by François Bordes & Hallan Movius

- Modern Perspectives

• The Culture-Historical perspective started by Breuil, Peyrony and Garrod dominated

Western Europe through the 1980’s. Its greatest proponent was Francois Bordes.

- Bordes’ Contributions

• “Typologie du Paleolithique: Ancien et Moyen” which was a universal classification

system for Lower and Middle Paleolithic stone tools. made simple numerical classification for individual occupation paying close attention to small layers, looking for continuing occupation, difference between percentage of different stone tools among layers after analyzing 350 assemblages

• Excavations at two classic Lower & Middle Paleolithic sites: Combe Grenal and Pech de

l’Aze (Late Acheulian site).

• Interpreted the interstratification of assemblage types at these sites as evidence of

“cultures” or “tribes” living in small bands. Population density was so low that these groups rarely encountered each other, even though they were contemporary.

• Saw as ethnic units, way things were lerned children imitates parents, different

technological tradition more result of chance than functional implication, Brodes very aware of potential functional implication of stone technology simply thought not important = not going on in the minds of Neanderthals

• Combe Grenal : interstratification

- Movius’ Contributions

• Starts working in garden of Mrs. Pattaud: true area excavation, clears off geological

surfaces, goal to resolve Aurignacian Perigordian Problem, Peyrony argued parallel tradition & defined Perigordian, thought Peyrony persisted first half of Upper Paleolithic, parallel to Aurignacian, interstratification. Auragnacian: bigger blades, thicker ugly step-fracture retouch, Perigordian: little backed blades, tremendous difference, needed to be very careful in identifying stratigraphy, first to bring in sedimentologists as experts, set standard in excavation

• First to have enough money to: Introduced the study of micro-stratigraphy and the

extensive use of C14 dating. (all they had was attempts to correlate with colder warmer periods = dot accurate)

• Demonstrated that the Perigordian & Aurignacian did interstratify (were contemporary).

• Recorded the precise layout of individual campsites, and used campsite sizes to

estimate changes in group sizes over time. Reconstruct patterns of use, following individual microlayers, identify hearths and concentration of artefacts around. Small campsites at first = small group

• First serious attempt in internal sediment patterns studies in French Paleolithic,

ecological and enviro studies essential for Pleistocene adaptations to work out precise enviro context and understand what was going on in sites

o Very well-funded attracted large number of undergraduate students = influential

• Trained an entire generation of Paleolithic specialists who were interested in the

evolution of human adaptations. Approach (Harvard, UCalifornia, UMichigan)

• Bordes “cultural” explanation of assemblage variability was opposed by Lewis Binford,

who argued that assemblage variability was best explained by the activities taking place in sites rather than ethnicity. This is the “Functional Variability” perspective. + Sally Schanfield (Near Eastern Mousterian)

o Lewis Binford set out to transform the whole discipline: excavations at Carlyle

Reservoire, introduced to European archaeology by his wife. Functional Variability

• Lewis-Binford debate dominated for over 40 yrs

• Functional Variability: activities taking place at middle Paleolithic sites define content of

those sites, tools are expedient = different assemblages depending on different types of activities taking on at site

• The Functional Variability perspective was elaborated by Nicholas Rolland and Harold

Dibble, who argued that lithic raw material constraints (availability, quality) and individual tool “life histories” (whether and/or how many times a tool was re-sharpened) were also important determinants of assemblage composition. Eric Boeda, Rolland = season in which a site was occupied = strong determinant, winter = harder to get raw material, resharpening into other types of tools

• French structural anthropology has struck, by 1990s = most European prehistorians

backed away from François Bordes’ early tribal explanation = implausible

• Went compulsive of field methodology = 3D visualization setups, endless excavations, to

fix methodology to answer fundamental questions (gets most approximate data)

• Idea of interconnectedness of all evidence..

- The Chaine Operatoire

• Idea that to understand technological system, reconstruct everything of acquisition of

raw materials from which tool made, manufacture process, use process, modification process, to discarding, to identify what would amount to cultural patterns.

• Trying to identify particular traditional assemblages covering broad period = like Bordes

• Since c. 1980, French archaeologists have retreated from Bordes’ simplistic explanation

of assemblage variability and concentrated on refining field techniques and on a holistic approach to the description of technology, the “chaine operatoire”.

• Since different “chaines” indicate different patterns of learned behavior, some argue that

this is a back-door way to revive the old “cultural” perspective.

• The most important modern theorist outside of France is Clive Gamble, of Univ. of

Southampton.

o Opposes the “cultural perspective”.

o Thinks most tools are “over-classified”. (scrapers in Middle Paleolithic was

ridiculously overclassified) ethno-archaeology experiments, forensics to identify activity they represent to identify evolution and distribution in time and space

o Advocates studies of tool functions.

o Argues that technological evolution has not been uniform, but instead is “mosaic”

o Argues that the distinction between the Lower and Middle Paleolithic is artificial.

(not based of dating evidence but on assumption that tools should evolve from modern to complex) just transformation

o 2 important characteristics of Middle Paleolithic (high frequency of retouched

tools made on flakes and specialized flakes production techniques (like Levallois) can be found in earlier dates.

o The M. P. – U. P. boundary does represent a more profound technological

change that is “real”. much bigger technological differences, transition

o Subdivides the Upper Paleolithic into Early (38-20,000 BP) and Later (20,000 –

12,000 BP) phases rather than the French “cultures”.

o Emphasizes the importance of regional studies, and the environment (uses arctic

analogs). assemblages as complex result of ecological changes

• Basic core & flake attributes discoid core from Germany: Core tablet: deliberate

attempt to remove entire face or striking platform of a core in order to renew it, flat disc shape

• Bifacially worked cores and flakes: Cores are characterized by one or more negative

flake scars. Flakes have a positive flake scar on one face plus cortex on and/or negative flake scars on the other face

• Lithic flake attributes: (standard orientation; platform end down and the axis of flaking

vertical) exterior surface, interior & exterior surface, distal, proximal, medial (see)

• Flake or Tool axes, Types of striking platforms, Other platforms, etc.

• Flake Terminations: (end of the flake opposite the striking platform) Feather or normal

edge wanted, shock wave intersects surface of core creating sharp termination, hinge termination: shock wave begins series of undulations that hinges up termination = bent over, stepped termination (usually failure, snap, break straight instead of curling) Quina done deliberately with hinges (comes down and flake breaks) angular fragments of the midshaft of big ungulate bones (sharp compression notches (pressing very hard against sharp edge), need to be really strong, overstrike or plunging: flake carries right across face of core, terminating into a curl taking off opposite edge of the core, not wanted or deliberate cultural patterns, overstrike= too strong or holding core at wrong angle one exception: blade manufacture, snap overstrike

• Retouch types: feather∕normal terminations irregular in form= scalar retouch, step-

fractured retouch∕Quina: need to be predominantly, sub-parallel retouch, parallel retouch (scalar in form or ridges between scars are roughly parallel or parallel) ex: huge Clovis point

• For lab quiz: attributes, tools, striking platform, what termination, what kind of retouch?

• In lithics, in most cases SIZE DOESN’T MATTER!!!!!!!!!! ** (point platform = plain

simple facet)

• Pieces and or traits are usually defined by their MORPHOLOGY, not their size!

LECTURE 3: METHODS & PLEISTOCENE ENVIRONMENT

• La Ferrassie: Débeneath brought saw for cement = perfectly flat cross-section

• Using both glacial advances and faunal successions to define the Pleistocene (as time

of glacial advances) has proved to be problematic because neither is a world-wide phenomenon.

• Ice sheets were present in northern latitudes, but their presence does not precisely

correlate with wet periods (“pluvials”) in tropical Eurasia & Africa. (did not affect all of the world equally)

• Because of distance, geographical barriers, and different environments, animal

communities differed regionally. For example, the well dated African faunal sequence is useless for dating sites in most of Eurasia. (can’t be applied outside of Africa = different animals)

o Glaciers = most destructive phenomena in nature (ice weighing down on land,

pulverizes & pushes all underneath)

PALEOMAGNETISM

• Reversals of the earths’ magnetic field effect the entire world (arbitrary starting + ending

dates). The direction of the magnetic field at the time fine-grained sediments formed can be measured.

• “Normal” polarity means the positive magnetic pole is in the north (like now), “reversed”

polarity means that the positive pole is in the south.

• Shifts in polarity appear to have been abrupt and probably had no noticeable effect on

the environment. Look at Handout

• The original paleomagnetic definition of the Pleistocene was strongly influenced by

Paleontologists definitions of Pliocene & Pleistocene fauna, so at first, geologists put the Pliocene-Pleistocene boundary at the “Olduvai” paleomagnetic event, a relatively short period of normal polarity from 1.77 to 1.95 MYA that coincided with a significant faunal turnover.

• BUT, the classic definition of the Pleistocene was the period of glacial advances and

retreats, which began earlier than 1.95 MYA, so geologists and paleo-climatologists were unhappy.

o Pleistocene: environmental fluctuations = very dramatic, occurred in as little as

20 years

• So in 2009 an international commission re-set the Plio-Pleistocene boundary to the

Gauss Normal – Matuyama Reversed boundary (2.58 MYA), when climate fluctuations began.

• Many paleontologists want to return to the original definition!

Paleomagnetic Reversals and the Definition of the Pleistocene (temperature fluctuations changing in severity and duration since 2.58 Ma) original definition doesn’t correspond to onset of glaciations- Marine Oxygen Isotope Chronology (deep sea sediment∕ice cores = when glacial

episodes occurred)

• Two isotopes of oxygen occur in dissolved form in sea water, O16 (normal) and O18

(antioxi).

• The ratio of O16 to O18 fluctuates depending on how much water is in the ocean, which

in turn depends on climate because colder climates trap more water in polar ice caps and continental glaciers/ice-sheets.

• O18 is heavier and evaporates less easily than 016. The proportion of O18 to O16 in

sea water goes UP during glacials, and DOWN during interglacials. The ratios are reversed in glacial ice.

• This can be measured in ice-cores from continental ice sheets and in the fossil skeletons

of marine plankton in deep sea sediment cores.

Subdivisions of the Pleistocene: (may change if switch beginning’s of Mayinama Olduvai boundary)

• Lower Pleistocene = 2.588 MYBP – 781,000 BP shift from Mayinama revers to ruyer’s

normal

• Middle Pleistocene = 781,000 – 126,000 BP Blake event marks boundary

• Upper Pleistocene = 126,000 – 11,590 BP marked by the Holocene major glacial event

• Holocene = 11,590 – present (begins with the Younger Dryas cold period)

• Maximum Extent of Pleistocene Glaciation in Europe: Alpine ice sheets covers

significant portion although tiny bit of coast line on Mediterranean, always corridor Europe

• Ice coverage during an “average” glacial advance showing the effects of lowered sea-

levels on coastlines. = areas of continental shelf exposed by lower sea levels during glaciation

North European and Alpine Glacial Terminology (not on exam)• Alps Northern Europe Start Date

• (Gl.) Gunz Eburonian 1,800,000

• (Int.) Gunz-Mindel Waalian 1,500,000

• (Gl.) Mindel Menapian 1,200,000

• (Int,) Mindel-Riss Cromerian 840,000

• (Gl.) Riss Saalian 370,000

• (Int.) Riss-Wurm Eemian 186,000

• (Gl,) Wurm Wiechselian 118,000

• (Int.) Holocene 11,590

• Marine Isotope Stages over the Past Million years (MIS or OIS) = odd numbers are

warmer: 5e

• Major warm = Holocene, MIS1, 5e 9 & 11, Cold = MIS2: 6, 12, 16 (others = interglacials)

• Modern Vegetation zones (simplified map of vegetation zones) step grasslands, alpine,

woodlands, tyga, correal, tundra)

ENVIRONMENTS: Tundra (top-down, shift north = warm, south = cold)• Tundra Vegetation: Grasses, Moss, Lichen, Heather, Water Weeds (bogs), Dwarf Willow,

Dwarf Birch, Dwarf Alder

• Alpine Vegetation: Mosses, Lichens (colder at night, and less oxygen)

• Northern Coniferous Forest (“Taiga”) Vegetation: (biggest forest in world: North

America, Alaska, Siberia)

o (Western Europe): Pine, Spruce, Birch

o (Eastern Eurasia “Taiga”): Siberian Larch, Fir, Spruce (limited but abundant

fauna)

• Mixed Broad-Leaf and Coniferous Forest (closed like rainforest, consequence for

distribution of mammals: do much better in grasslands)

o Oak, Birch, Beech, Chestnut, Fir

o Grasslands: Grasses, (trees concentrated on watercourses), Oak, Fir

• Steppe & Semi-desert (grasses) Mongolia, Eastern Europe = huge herds, widely

dispersed

• Mediterranean Evergreen Forest, (Southwest): Evergreen oak, stone-pine & cork

(refuge)

• Eastern (Levantine) Mediterranean Forest, Evergreen oak, stone-pine, meadows with

aromatic shrubs. Olive & Pistachio in the Levant. (environment = victim of crusades)

Pleistocene Fauna before MIS 12 (coldest episode)• Sabre-tooth Cats (Homotherium)

• Dirk-tooth Cats (Meganteron)

• Giant Short-faced Hyena (Pachycrocuta (with Meganteron)) relation with caves

• Predators after MIS 12:

• Cave Lion, Cave Hyena, Wolf, Bear (omnivore)

• After MIS 12 herbivore populations are dominated by mammoth (Mammuthus) and

rhinoceros (Coelodonta). Also pictured here are horse (Equus caballus) and reindeer (Rangifer tarandus).

• Pleistocene Bovids: Bos primigenius, Bison priscus

• Pleistocene caprids: Capra ibex

• Pleistocene antelope (Saiga): Saiga tatarica

• After MIS 12 Red Deer that become more common in interglacials. Cervus elaphus

• Deer species proliferate: Roe deer (Capreolus capreolus), Fallow deer (Dama dama),

Giant deer (Megaloceros giganteus)+ Reindeer (Rangifer tarandus)

• Mammoth steppe environment Eurasia (Mammoth, horses, bison, muskox)

• During interglacials both before and after MIS 12 the arctic megafauna were replaced

by: Elephant (Elephas antiquus), Hippopotamus (Hippopotamus antiquus)

LECTURE 4: CAVE AND ROCK-SHELTER SEDIMENTS: Cro-Magnon Rock-shelter• Cavity normally occurring only with rocks that can’t be weathered by in limestone

deposits

o In temperate climates: chemical corrosion limestone desolved by acidic rain

water

o In cold climates: Cryoclastic weathering= main factor, Cave: natural overhang in

which can camp

o Collapsed rock-shelter filled with roof-blocks sediment and eboulis. Abri

Castanet, an Early Aurignacian rock-shelter

• Most rock-shelters and cave-mouth deposits are formed by cryoclastic weathering, in

which moisture is porous limestone freezes at exposed surfaces causing pieces to break away. The pieces are called “eboulis” water expands when freezes: in summer= absorbs water easily

• Shelter deposits consist of two major natural components, the eboulis and the

surrounding matrix (sand, silt & clays), but can also have significant amounts of anthropogenic material (anything brought by humans including ash, bones, artifacts, etc.)

• The three major factors that effect cryoclastic weathering are the degree of porosity of

the limestone (light density, the more porous the more water it absorbs, physically softer,

easier to break), the amount of moisture content (rainfall) and the rate, duration and intensity of freezing conditions. (faunal or pollen preserve = environmental reconstruction)

• Colder conditions tend to produce more and larger eboulis, warmer conditions less and

smaller.

• In extreme cold circumstances, “dry eboulis” layers can form where there is little or no

matrix between the eboulis fragments.

• The matrix is formed by a combination of chemical weathering (dissolution) of the

limestone (calcium carbonate) surrounding the shelter (releasing trapped sand & clay), and the settling of dust from the air.

• During cold epochs, layers of eboulis can form quickly, but during warm periods, layers

form more slowly because chemical weathering and dust accumulation are much slower processes.

• Under temporary condition, eboulis is not produced.

Causes of disturbance:1. Cryoturbation = freeze-thaw action in damp deposits. This can move artifacts vertically.

2. Solifluction = This is a type of cryoturbation effecting deposits on sloping ground. It causes down-slope movement, and can compress or contort (warp) layers (Bed M2e at La Ferrassie is a classic example).

3. Compression = caused by large blocks falling off the roof or face of a shelter. This can be a major cause of disturbance. Red: oxidation of iron trace in soil = warm weather phenomena (Holocene)

4. Flowing water = This can come from inside the cave/shelter or from outside (drip-line (on edge of cliff-face on mouth of cave), floods, etc.) limestone absorbs water, water dissolves limestone endless cave systems and springs

The farther away from cliff face: the earlier material will be the closer = the more recent

5. Bioturbation = Disturbance caused by animal activities. This can range from rodent burrowing to cave-bear denning activities (worms, insects, cave bear dens)

6. Chemical weathering: If there is enough acidic ground-water present, this can dissolve eboulis, bones, etc. This is most common outside the drip-line. These “diagenic” processes can sometimes create false hearths. agency of deposition and alteration of deposits, layer of dry eboulis and then layer of warm period, decomposed leaves, humic acid = dissolves eboulis

Looking at eboulis fragment have sharp-angular fragments, if suffered dissolution = eroded

7. Anthropogenic disturbance (human activity)

Trampling. Very common. Can cause both horizontal and vertical movement of artifacts.

Construction. This can include digging pits for storage or burial, building hearths, paving areas or moving blocks to make areas more livable, and deliberate cleaning of floors.

Pêche de l’Aze Stratigraphy- False burned layer (diagenetic hematite concentration) consequence of geology of site

- Peche IV, Layer 8, Thin Sections cemented laminated ash, crushed spongy bone under ash = used as fuel for fires (localized and completely consumed)

LECTURE 5: THE BORDES SYSTEM

François Bordes’ major contributions:1. Standardized classification system for Lower and Middle Paleolithic stone tools; the

“Typology”.

2. Development of simple statistical techniques for comparing assemblages; the “Method”.

3. Recognition of different patterns of tool-type frequencies in different assemblages that he interpreted as evidence if different “cultures”. This was a direct consequence of both his typology and method.

• The Bordes typology and method have flaws, but their almost universal use for over 50

years requires you to learn them to understand any of the current literature. (habitual common language used beyond its usefulness)

• Bordes’ system (the Typology and Method) was a great improvement on what went in

before because it brought reasonable consistency to artifact descriptions and assemblage comparisons.

The Bordean TYPOLOGY• The typology of flake tools is based on the position, extent and nature of retouch relative

to the standardized flake landmarks (face, platform, axis of flaking and axis of the tool.

• Bordes’ typology is similar to 18th & 19th Century biological classifications, where

different “types” are defined by a fixed set of characteristics that differentiate them from other types. (since biology and paleontology were the basis of archaeology in France)

• Bordes believed there were discrete boundaries between morphological types that were

the product of sub-conscious intent on the part of the tool-makers.

• Types could express ethnicity because the behaviors that created them were the

habitual patterns of technological behavior for that society.

• This is a “normative” view of culture which meant that the archaeologists job was to

discover these norms through the careful quantitative & morphological analysis of collections

o Ferrassie Mousterian: acute edge angles, straight or convex scrapers in large

numbers, with scalar retouch, Quina Mousterian: thicker often transverse scrapers with step retouch = patterns of learning through teacher, passed from generation to generation

• Required an “adequate” sample (over100 retouched tools) that were collected in an

unbiased manner from depositional unit (layer or site).

o Prior to that time statistically accurate numbers were not so present

• Bordes rejected “cherry-picking” of best specimens for analysis, which was common in

early archaeology.

• Bordes type-list included 63 named flake-tool and technological element types, plus c.

15 biface types.

Basic problems with this approach include:• Bordes did not take the dynamic nature of the knapping process and tool life-histories

into account.

• Assumed tools were the desired end product of the technology that were discarded

after use rather than being re-worked and/or resharpened. (cores not included)

• Bordes argued that his classification was purely morphological and he (correctly)

rejected functional interpretations of many of his type categories.

o Functional connotation of tool-type names (“scraper”, “burin” etc.) were only used

because of historical precedent. based on assumed function, but risky

• In essence, the Bordes typology relied on an artifact Pompeii Premise where tools were

made to match the mental templates of the “right” shape for a particular culture and then discarded without modification.

o This ignored the degree and causes of variability within and between his type

categories, could have had a number of different functions acting against it.

The Bordean METHODBordes comparative method was primitive and required that tools always be considered in the same order so…

• Tool types were numbered consecutively and arranged based on similarity into “groups”.

• The groups included (in order); technological elements; points; scrapers; “Upper

Paleolithic” types; notches and denticulates; and miscellaneous.

• Bordes used cumulative frequency graphs, a visual method, rather than more advanced

statistics to compare assemblages, in part because computers were not available.

Cumulative Frequency Graph• Types are listed on the horizontal axis, cumulative percentage on the vertical axis.

o This graph includes typical profiles for three of Bordes’ Mousterian “cultural”

types. o Consistent patterns = were believed to have cultural interpretation

• The use of cumulative frequency graphs has been largely abandoned, but a number of

Bordes’ Indices are still widely employed.• An “index” is a ratio or composite percentage number describing specified groups (i.e.

subsets) of tools or technological elements in an assemblage.

• Technological indices use the entire non-biface component of the assemblage

(everything including debris over 2 cm maximum dimension). Today some people restrict this to either whole pieces or pieces with striking platforms. (skewed with breakage, and depends on sample size) Got people to look at debris

• Typological indices only count populations of recognized formal (mostly retouched)

types. This can be tricky because not all if the 63 types are retouched. (Levallois flakes, points, naturally backed knives) So…

Bordes recognized two different formal tool counts:1. The “Real” count = ALL the artifacts identified as types 1 through 63.

2. The “Essential” count = excludes unretouched Levallois pieces (Types 1 - 3); and types 45 – 50 (pieces with either interior, abrupt and/or alternating retouch or isolated bifacial retouch). The latter are excluded because they can be produced by post-depositional processes like cryoturbation and/or trampling.

o Recently, most archaeologists also exclude Pseudo-Levallois points (type # 5)

and Naturally-Backed Knives (type # 38) from the essential count. accident of manufacture

Technological Indices1. Levallois Index (IL) = The number of all Levallois pieces (including retouched Lev.

Pieces) divided by the total of the non-biface pieces. (does not require platform formatting) Memorize

• Because Levallois is complex and not universally employed, this index is useful in

differentiating technological traditions. (multi-stage & difficult to use = behavioural info)

• In Europe = 10% is high, In the Near East∕Levant = 30%-70% is high = Levantine

Mousterian

2. Faceting Index (IF) = Number of faceted and dihedral platforms divided by the total number of observed platforms. = percentage of complex platforms (different technological traditions)

3. Strict Faceting Index (Ifs) multiple facets = Faceted (3+ facets) platforms excluding dihedrals (2 facets) divided by the total number of platforms. (usually Levallois)

4. Blade Index (ILam), also known as the “laminar index” = the number of complete blades (L = 2xW) divided by the total of all complete flakes, blades and points made by any technique. (%) all morphological blades divided by detached pieces

5. Quina Index (IQ) = the number of pieces in types 6 to 29 that have Quina retouch divided by the total number of tools in those types. (particular group of scrapers + Mousterian point & limaces) problematic = raw material can affect termination quality, confounding raw material factor

• Because these technological attributes are more clearly defined and thus less subject to

inter-classifier variation, Bordes’ technological indexes are generally more accurate and useful than most of his other methods. statistically relevant

Typological Indices (potentially more problems & debate over number)1. Typological Levallois Index (ILty) = The number of all Levallois pieces divided by the

total number of all typed tools (the “Real” count).

2. Scraper Index (IR) = Number of all “Mousterian” scraper types (#s 9 – 29, excluding endscrapers) divided by the “Real” count. (Mousterian found in open-air & good outcrops)

3. Total Acheulian Index (IAt) = Total number of bifaces and backed knives (types 38 – typical & 39 - atypical) divided by the “Real” count plus bifaces (Mousterian Acheulian = found in open air)

4. Biface Index (IB) = Total number of bifaces divided by the “Real” count plus bifaces.

Bordes’ Typological GroupsBordes organized his type-list into “typological groups” that were useful in summarizing the “cultural preferences” of ancient tool-makers. The numerical values of these groups are the percentages of tools that fall in each category in an assemblage.

1. Group I (Levallois Group): This is the same as the Typological Levallois Index. (#1-4)

2. Group II (Mousterian Group): The number of types 5 to 29 divided by the “Real” count. (This adds retouched points to the scraper index.)

3. Group III (Upper Paleolithic Group): The number of Upper Paleolithic tool types (#s 30 to 37 plus 40) divided by the “Real” count. problematic for 201: also made on blades in

Middle Paleolithic, made on irregular blanks or flakes (backed knives and handaxes left out)

4. Group IV (Denticulate Group): Originally the number of denticulates (type 43) divided by the “Real” count, now the number of denticulates & notches (42 & 43) divided by the “Real” count.

o Truncation: retouching to shorten, cuts across long axis of a piece rare

Mousterian, big Levallois blade with abrupt retouch

LECTURE 6: THE CHAÎNE OPÉRATOIRE

Bordes’ way of classification was simply to group together regarding biology rather than behaviour (vaguely linked, just way of descrption). demand for gun flint until 70s, initial classification of stone tools= purely descriptive, although descriptions used technological rather than purely morphological attributes

HistoryBinfords’ critique of Bordes typology and interpretations led French archaeologists in the 1980’s to look for new analytical perspectives that might yield more behavioral information... (turned to social-anthropology for new perspectives) Chaîne Opératoire: operational sequence.

• They settled on the chaîne opératoire (operational sequence), an idea developed by

André Leroi-Gourhan, a French cultural anthropologist. (tremendous interest in Paleolithic art)

• This involves attempts to discover/understand all technical stages of the life of an artifact

from raw material acquisition, through manufacture, use, renewal and re-use (if any), and finally discard.

o Tries to reconstruct “the totality of a technical stages from acquisition of raw

material through to discard, including various processes of transformation and utilisation”

o Change in time and space, multiple stages that must be learned and executed

very effectively: cultural learning reflecting behavior

• Attempts to reconstruct the technical knowledge (“connaissance”) and the know how

(“savoir faire” or ability) necessary for the operational sequence to be achieved.

• “Each technical stage reflects specific technical knowledge. The notion of operational

schemas thus expresses the ways of doing things particular to each cultural group.” (Boeda 1995)

• This was a back-door way of finding ethnicity on the archaeological record. (major

proponents are Boeda, Pelegrin, and Meignen) attempting to revive cultural paradigm by

using detailed study of tool production strategies to identify cultural pattern, throwing out Bordes’ “cultures”

• They argue that consistent patterns of core manufacture (reflect learned behaviour that

are deliberate, goal-directed) cluster in time & space, i.e. form cultural traditions. Certain areas with particular tool manufacture reflecting behavioural patterns in culture (learned behaviour)

• Concentrated on cores as the best ways to identify these habitually performed

technological processes.

o Look at waste products of technological processes and reconstruct them:

determining sequence of flake removal on the face of a core by looking at superimposition refitting studies, using same strategy = culturally determined

• Eric Boeda did extensive studies of cores and identified “operational schemes” which in

turn have been used to define specific core technologies & types.

• These have been widely adopted in European archaeology, even by those who do not

accept Boeda’s “cultural” interpretations of these types, because Bordes never developed a systematic set of definitions for core types.

• Bar-Yosef (God-father of Paleo archaeology in Israel) & Van Peer (2009) criticized this

approach as “overformalized”, “rigid”, and essentially subjective in its interpretations. Nevertheless…….

o “Chaine Opératoire as a system of classification: over-classified & provides an

illusion”

• For Lower and Middle Paleolithic cores, a major problem is differentiating Discoid from

Levallois types, so we now have the…

“Volumetric concept” for defining core technologies (Boeda) for differentiating cores from Levallois

• Basic French Terms:

• Façonnage – chipping to shape a piece of stone. The chips produced by this process

are “debris”. (also making a biface) waste that is the result of shaping an object

• Débitage – “Blank production” i.e. flake production intended to produce flakes used as

“supports” (blanks∕support: flakes chosen to be tool) for the production of retouched tools or that could be used as tools themselves. unretouched Levallois flakes, blades, products of discoid cores

o The term “débitage” refers to both the process and the products. So

recognizable Levallois or discoid flakes are called “débitage”.

o Unrecognizable products are called debris.

• François Bordes’ definition for Levallois cores: Any core designed to produce pre-

determined flakes. Not precise, as for blades

• Levallois cores: Tortoise shell flake: one flatter face from which débitage removed &

steeper face on which striking platform located…

Boeda’s Formal Definition of Levallois Technique:1. The core has two asymmetric connecting surfaces, with the intersection of these

surfaces defining a plane.

2. There is a hierarchy of surfaces. One, the “débitage surface” produces “predetermined” flakes (débitage), the other is the location of striking platforms. These CANNOT change functions during lifetime of core, if they do, it is a discoid core or polyhedral core (more than 3 platforms).

3. The débitage surface is prepared/maintained by creating distal and lateral convexities (side of core slope up for pointy end) on that surface. Flakes removed to make the lateral convexities are called éclats débordant (edging flakes: looking like naturally backed knives sometimes).

o Created by centripetal flaking or one blow,

o Renewing convexity: to renew core for Levallois flaking,

4. The fracture plane of the predetermined blanks is parallel to the plane of intersection of the two surfaces.

5. The other (platform) surface is kept perpendicular to the flaking axis (edge that you hit needs to be at least 70°, the closest to 90° the better). The line across the edge of the core is called the “hinge” (intersection of platform edge and face of the core, strike: exactly 90°).

6. Only hard hammer percussion is employed. The axis of flaking must be perpendicular to the hinge. to produce pronounced bulb of percussion. (no margin for error of spot you hit for Levallois: need narrow tip of hard hammer)

o There are two major methods within the “Levallois concept”.

1. “Preferential” – Production of only one predetermined flake for each face preparation. Note that the core face may be re-prepared for an additional removal or removals. (because of re-preparation of face, Really can’t tell without refitting) Chapeau de Gendarme: not taken off prior to adjust, all from renewed preferential core. cannot make convex all around (failed Levallois core= Not equal thickness, and angle coming down, platform around 60°) flake scars coming in from multiple direction

2. Recurrent – Several blanks from a single prepared surface. (with little adjustment of platform but nothing else) flakes coming in from side, other edge with straight edge opposed platform core (opposite directions)

Discoid characteristics:• 2 surfaces that intersect at a plane but not hierarchically organized, each surfaces can

be both surface from striking platform and for débitage removal

• Equally convex on both surfaces, and a pronounced serrated profile

• Hit & turn strategy: result peaked on both surfaces, edge: pronounced serration, could

be set up to produce Levallois-like looking flakes

• Levallois Point Core: steep éclats débordants that overshoot end of core, coming out to

a point: to create nice triangular morphology and create a platform

• Nubian Technique Cores: flake triangular core with flakes coming in from all sides,

produce different-looking Levallois points with deliberate notching for denticulation, double peaks, less regular

Blade Cores• Produce products with Length 2 X Width.

• Have multiple débitage surfaces for the removal of products (2 or 3 of blades taken off

down multiple surfaces) elongated blades all taken from same direction, increasing distal convexity trick: deliberately strike really hard and into piece of stone to overshoot, so that others terminate with feather∕sharp terminations, multiple hinges, Must strike at 90° the surfaces

Other (Informal) Core Types• Relatively few flake removals, less than 10-5

• Single Platform: on one edge

• Double Platform: angular chunk (on 2 edges)

• Polyhedral (Three or more non-parallel flaking surfaces): from rectangular piece, look

like balls

• Core-on-flake (aka “truncated-faceted piece”)

LECTURE 7: BIFACE TYPOLOGY

Background• Bordes excluded bifaces from his retouched tool typology and most of his quantitative

methods of comparing assemblages (the “indices”), creating problems comparing assemblages with significant biface components. didn’t workout method for combining bifaces with flake tool assemblages, rarely worked with them

• This worked in France, where the Acheulian is biface dominated and the MP is flake-tool dominated (except for the Mousterian of Acheulian Tradition).

• But this was very problematic in places like Germany and the Near East, where some Lower Paleolithic assemblages have no bifaces, & many MP assemblages have significant # of biface.

• This problem is particularly acute when dealing with LP-MP transitional assemblages. • Bordes’ approach to bifaces was also fundamentally different from his approach to flake

tools.o *Saw flake tools as two dimensional objects, definable by outline form and the

position and nature of retouch vis-à-vis landmarks. o Saw bifaces as 3-dimensional objects definable by a combination of outline form

(shape) and metrical criteria (thickness). Thickness differing in different forms

Bordes' 3 categories of variables for classifying bifaces:1. Outline shape of the lateral and distal edges. (Less concerned with the shape of the

base = intuitive.)2. The thickness divided by the width (relative thickness of the biface).3. Length divided by the width, which shows how elongated the biface is. (more than

1.5 = elongated)

Measurements: (not on exam)1. Length = Maximum measurement parallel to the long axis of symmetry.2. Maximum width (perpendicular to ling axis).3. Distance from the base to the maximum width along the long axis.4. Width at the midpoint of the long axis.5. Width at ¾ of the length of the base (measures degree to which biface is tapering).6. Maximum thickness (anywhere on the piece).• “Base” and “tip” can be problematic. In ovates or circular forms, the “tip” is the

thinnest end/edge. Ovates∕limandes: difficult to determine tip/base (cortex: base, thinner edge tip)

• depend on orientation of the piece: axis of symmetry, not a problem for triangular forms

• Bordes’ biface “indices” Don’t need for exam• Flake tool Indices: Ratios∕percentage of particular categories of tools (Bordes saw as

unambiguous set of arbitrary category) = aggregate numbers of self-evident facts• Biface indices: set of statistical manipulation for the measurement of each specimen• These are done for each biface, and the resulting figures can then be averaged for an

assemblage to compare it to other assemblages. (metrical relationship)o Location of Maximum Width = midpoint width divided by the maximum width.o Edge Roundedness = midpoint width divided by the maximum length.o Pointedness = width at ¾ length divided by the maximum length.o Elongation Index = length divided by maximum width. (If the result exceeds 1.5, then

the biface is “elongated”.)o Flatness Ratio = max. width divided by max. thickness. (If over 2.35, then the biface

is “flat”, if under 2.35, it is “thick”). Flatness: pattern in production of bifaces in assemblage: flint-knappers

having control over production = choice, cultural difference or raw material difference

• Bordes includes in his classification, added in very late, incorporating Oldowan: choppers (a unifacial flaked edge either on core or big flake convex, straight or pointed, minimally flaked), chopping tools (bifacially worked of hit and turn technique)

• Bifaces: Bifacially retouched large cutting or digging tools almost always made on cores (reduced flint nodules) in Western Europe, except in Spain, in Early phase in Levant, Mid-Acheulian Africa

Bordes’ Biface Shape Categories• Basic subdivision: handaxes: pointed or rounded ends vs. cleavers: with flat or square

ends• Initial grouping was based on the flatness ratio. Types 1 – 6 are “flat” (ratios over 2.35) • Bordes goes straightest∕pointy to roundest:

1. Triangular & Sub-triangular : max width right at base or close, or not perfectly triangular in shape, with edges not perfectly straight, maximal width shifter up

2. Cordiform: (heart-shaped). Wide, rounded base tapering to a point (sharp or round). Maximum width c. 2/3 distance from tip. “Typical” L. = less than 1.5 x width. If over 1.5 “elongated cordiform”. Irregular outline = “sub-cordiform”.

3. Discoid: (circular, very rare). Elongation index under 1.3. (arbitrary cut-off line)4. Ovate : (very common) Generally oval, but usually slightly narrower or pointed at one

end. Maximum width near the center. Elongation index 1.3 to 1.6.o Meplat: deliberately unfinished/blunted spot, not on base but on lateral margin

near the base designed for the handhold. Very consistent pattern in research.o S-twist: deliberate striking alternating faces as retouching (clue to hit-turn

sequence), or one face at a time: non-deliberate habitual pattern of hit-turn (incidental∕deliberate) can be consequence of particular cultural pattern, did not interfere with function, if it had there would have been selection against it.

5. Limande. Similar to an ovate but with an elongation index over 1.6 and with ends roughly equal in width. Maximum width: somewhere near middle, look suspiciously like axes

6. Naviform. Elongated (over 1.5), and with points on both ends. (look like boats)7. Lanceolate . Elongated (thick or thin), with straight sides tapering to a point. Base

can be straight or rounded and is often unfinished. Often “thick”. Regular cross-section.o "Piercers" (a bit concave) used as levers or to pierce and split wood or butcher,

impact fracture = breaks 8. Micoquian . Pointed biface with concave sides creating “shoulders”. Wide base.

Usually thick, but can be thin. If point is thin but rounded, then “a pointe arrondie”. All over Middle Paleolithic and Germany. Getting thicker = to be narrow, soft-hammer percussion

9. Ficron . These can be either lanceolate or Micoquian in outline form, but are crudely flaked, with zig-zag edge profiles and usually unfinished bases. (elongated, pointy, and badly executed) highly impressionistic

10. Lageniform . Elongated, with a long, thick base, parallel sides and a rounded tip. Often, but not always, crudely made. Look like a duck-bill.

11. Amygdaloid . Same shape as a cordiform, but thick and often with an unfinished base. (need to go on a diet, really ugly) look like core (most probably on test) short & wide

12. Partial biface . Bifaces partly, but not entirely, retouched on both surfaces of the sides or tip. Particularly in large flakes, where the bulb remains intact. (only retouched on one side, usually cordiform examples) have lots of cortex

13. Abbevillian . Crudely made thick bifaces with a zig-zag edge profile. Generally large with deep flake-scars. proto-type handaxes (Ficron and lagenifor-like) minimal flaking

14. Pick . Thick lanceolate shape with a triangular cross-section. (not many in collection).15. Divers (miscellaneous/irregular). Bifaces with irregular asymmetrical forms. Can’t fit

in16. Cleaver . Biface with a (usually) straight cutting edge transverse to the long axis of

the tool and opposite the base, which is blunted or unfinished. In Africa, these are almost always made on large flakes (left). If the bit is worked bifacially, it is called a “bifacial cleaver” (right). with flat or square ends, large cutting and butchering tools

• Although these types are imply discrete categories, in fact the shapes tend to grade into each other. One response has been to simplify the typology, the most extreme version being “Ovate” & “Pointed”.• Quiz: Ovate (symmetrical, thin, slightly pointed), Lanceolate (straight sides coming

up to a tip, blunt side), Limande/bifacial cleaver (elongated, relatively equal widths on both sides, thicker on one end then other), micoquian, discoid, cordiforms∕partial biface (not quite straight on sides), Cordiform on top & Oval or elongated cordiforms on bottom (ambiguous category, length more than 1.5).

LECTURE 8: AFRICA & THE FIRST HOMININ DISPERSAL TO EURASIA

• EARLIEST hominins were bipeds on the ground but retained some three-climbing adaptations Ardipithecus ramidus (taller), Australopithecus. Afarensis (3.7-2.9 M, Tanzania-Tchad) Biped evolved by radiation out of forest, no since on woodland, omnivorous but more fruit-oriented than later hominins, left no evidence for technological behavior (species continuity from South to North) +footprint

• The EARLIEST evidence for the use of stone tools was recently reported from Dikika, Ethiopia (most inspected, no vegetation to get in the way)o Date 3.4 MYBPo Stone tool cut-marks on four bovid bones.o Marks seem OK, but NO tools have been found (true or trampling?)o Associated hominin is Australopithecus afarensis!

• Earliest stone tools: KADA GONA, Ethiopia, Date = 2.6 MYBP• Few simple cores and flakes, sometimes associated with a FEW broken and cut-

marked animal bones. Most bones are NOT cut-marked• Sediments that didn't preserve bone well, taphonomic issues

• Seven sites now known ranging from 2.6-2.3 MYBP• There is probably NO single origin of stone manufacture. More likely independent

origins in multiple areas.• The basic technology was VERY simple. The Oldowan "rule" for making stone tools

was: "To strike a flake from a core, hit the best available flat surface near the edge" hit and turn technology: strike flat surface near edge, drive flake, turn core over so that scar is platform for subsequent removals, repeat until final product (starting with natural flat surface = no need to turn over = choppers)

• The GOAL of this technology was just the sharp edges. deliberate and expedient• In the Oldowan, good flakeable stone was sometimes transported up to 15 km. This

behavior is deliberately and pre-planned.• Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania: Mary Leakey identified an increase in the intensity of

flaking activity over time from Bed 1 through Lower Bed II at Olduvai (assessing

sophistication and complexity counting # of scars on cores). She called collections with more heavily reduced core "Developed Oldowan". (larger number of flakes = more activity) persisted until 1.4 Mao Study not replicated in other localities, 1.9Ma = picking right raw material

• Koobi Fora, Kenya, Proto-bifaceo Rare artifact type = Proto-biface: cobble flaked into rough pointed form created

by pattern of hit-turn on 2 converging edges (point) developed from pointed chopper, morph into proto-handaxes

• Developed Olduvan "proto-handaxes" often occur as isolated finds rather than in "sites" (concentrations of tools and bones). Glynn Isaac thought this might reflect their role in gathering plant materials rather than in procuring meat. They may have been used as "picks" to extract edible roots from hard clay soil during the dry season.

• Earliest Acheulian site: Konso, Gardula (So. Eth.)• Date 1.65 MYBP (Nearby Homo erectus hominin)• Large crude handaxes and picks (large)• Site EF-HR in Upper Bed II, Olduvai is slightly younger and similar in composition.

Homo ergaster/erectus• First hominin with MODERN BODY PPROPORTIONS, i.e. arm and leg length ratios .

This means that it was habitually terrestrial, and did less climbing than Homo habilis. Long legs & efficient stride thought to be an advantage in endurance/pursuit hunting (getting an animal to collapse from heat stoke at around noon).

• A characteristic of the African Acheulian is the production of handaxes & cleavers on giant flakes, either made by splitting a large river cobble or striking a large flake off a boulder core. African cleaver on a giant flake. Not past Israel

• The Initial Hominin Dispersal: Possible Routes: Past 20 years, Hominins believed to be restricted to Africa (except Jordan Valley) until 800,000 BP Eurasia not occupied until then but dates from Indonesia 1.8 Ma, yet problematic late form of Homo-erectus∕ergaster, fully-developed Acheulian: hunting big game and creating fire = population expansion into Near East, into Asia, around Black Sea into Europe (colder) = warm-climate episodes, interglacials, 2-3 incursions controlled by climate

"Early" to "Late" dispersals• Until c. 1980 we assumed that hominins were restricted to Africa until c. 800,000 BP,

and that Homo ergaster, bearing Acheulian technology and with the benefits of fire, expanded first into the Near East, and then to East Asia, and lastly in Western Europe. Adherents of this model cited:

• The relatively late chronology of Europe which seemed to begin with Acheulian technology.

• They argued that the very early dates from Indonesia (Homo erectus from Mjokerto) were wrong because the volcanic ash and tektites that were dated were redeposited rather than fresh (not associated with stone tools)

• When Dmanisi (Rep. of Georgia) was discovered, the Late Dispersal model was untenable. Fully developed Acheulian in Europe, informed until 20 years ago (1Ma in Africa vs. 1.6 Ma) fell apart with Dmanisi discoveries, earlier than 800,000 years ago.

• Now the consensus is:

o There were multiple dispersals probably by multiple routes (during Lower Paleolithic)

o The First of these may have been Early Pleistocene or perhaps Late Pliocene (unlikely!) using new dates for Pleistocene (2.6 Ma) Dmanisi pointing to Homo habilis expansion,

o What were the possible Routes where Africa connects or comes close to Eurasia?

o There are 3 possibilities:

1. The Levantine Corridor: This includes the Nile delta, the Suez region of Egypt, the Sinai peninsula and up the eastern Mediterranean Basin.

• Two possible routes, one along the coast west of the Rift Valley , and another hopping from desert basin to desert basin (when these had lakes) up the east side of the Rift.

• Even with sea levels 120 m lower during glacial maxima, the Levantine corridor was the only direct land connection between Africa and Eurasia

• Problems with the Levantine Corridor:o Some argue that marshes in the Nile delta and Suez region made the area

uninhabitable for hominins (marshy during Pleistocene, full of diseases)o Desert conditions in Sinai could also have been barrier to movement North

2. The Strait of Gibraltar• Separates southern Spain from Morocco• 14 km wide at the narrowest point (can see Spain from Morocco). Minimum depth of

300m (internal draining basin turned into desert basin due to current change with remains of salt, biggest waterfall in recorded history as Atlantic poured in gap, cutting deep trench)

• Even during glacial periods, the strait was more than 10 km wide.• (not much water coming into Mediterranean) Strong currents heading east would

sweep a swimmer or raft without paddles or other direction controls into the Mediterranean (warm country = evaporation).

• Advantage is that you can see your destination easily.

3. The Bab-el-Mandeb• Mouth of the Red Sea between Yemen & Djbouti.• 30 km wide with two channels. Peninsula and Perim Island on the Yemen side.• Eastern channel is only 3 km wide and 30 m. deep, so at even moderately low water

levels in the Pleistocene, the island and peninsula would connect.• Western channel is 25 km wide and up to 310 m deep, but the gradient is shallower

than Gibraltar, so during low water levels the channel may have been much narrower.

• Tectonics may have raised the sea floor at times, creating a land-bridge.• Currents flow strongly to the Indian Ocean.• Consensus favors the Levantine Corridor, but many argue that the other two were

used even for the earliest dispersals.• This might require the use of boats by Homo ergaster!!! • If so, then Homo ergaster technology was MUCH more sophisticated than we

thought possible!

WHY Disperse to Eurasia?

• There are 3 different dispersal patterns.1. “Jumps” = One-time movements of people over long distances due to unique events. (A

family rafting across a strait on flood debris.)• “Jump” populations often do not last for long periods because they start too small.

2. “Expansions” = Population increase in an area approaches or exceeds carrying-capacity, or the preferred environment of a species expands because of climate change, resulting in peripheral members shifting outward, or perhaps radiating into neighboring but different environments.• Example: Eitan Tchernov thinks that hominins expanded into the Levant during

wetter periods, when the African biome (flora & fauna) spread northward. (hominins = mammals, part of biodome)

• This process is slower than either jumps or migrations. • Expansions involve enough people that they are more likely to become established.

• Behavior innovation adapts faster than physiological adaptations3. “Migrations” = Movements of people between regions. faster than expansion

1. These may involve enough people to allow a population to become established.2. In migrations, there initially empty space between the parent and migrant population

a. Discontinuous distribution of individuals

• These processes can be complex, particularly because of the rapid and pronounced climate changes of the Pleistocene.

• In both expansions and migrations there may be a “refugia” and/or “pump” situation.• A “refugium” is an area of optimal or at least adequate resources surrounded by less

optimal or uninhabitable territory.• When climate/environment deteriorates, local populations may go extinct or concentrate

in refugia if they are available.• When the climate/environment improves, the surviving population can expand again.• Oscillating climate can “pump” populations from one refugium to another, potentially

speeding expansion.

Causes of the Hominin Dispersal• If Tchernov is right, the initial dispersal is simply a by-product of the expansion &

contraction of the African biome. Or…• An example of the general tendency in biology for successful species to expand their

range. The behavioral flexibility of hominins would help facilitate this. Or…• Hominins in Africa may have developed technology/ culture that gave them an adaptive

advantage, but their populations were limited by endemic diseases. When they came to areas without these diseases, their potential for population growth was much greater. (Bar-Yosef & Belfer-Cohen) Or…

• A response to inter-species ecological competition.• In Africa, hominins were dietary generalists (omnivores).• A shift to more northern lattitudes increased dependence on meat, because of scarcity of

plant foods in winter.

The Predator Guild in Eurasia During the Lower Pleistocene: Meganteron, Wolves, • So the distribution & abundance of competing large carnivores may have influenced

where & when hominins could colonize Eurasia.• All these factors were probably in play.

The Earliest Evidence• Possible earliest site = Yiron, on the west side of the Rift Valley in Northern Israel.• Upper layer of clay with abundant Upper Acheulian handaxes.• Middle layer = 4 m. thick basalt flow dated to 2.4 MYBP• Under the basalt is a gravel layer with simple artifacts.• Flakes and a discoid-core or “chopping tool”. Oldowan grade assemblage.• Some Israeli archaeologists are sceptical.

LECTURE 9: THE ACHEULIAN IN WESTERN EURASIA

Dmanisi shows hominins were in Eurasia by 1.8 MYBP and they appear to have rapidly spread eastward into Southeast Asia and China.

• Expansion into Western Europe was slower, probably due to geographical barriers and difficulties in adapting to colder climates.

• Hominins involved were Homo ergaster/erectus.• The technology of the first western Europeans was “Oldowan” grade core and flakes,

with no handaxes.• The first examples may be as early as 1.6-1.5 MYBP, or the slightly later “Waalian

Interglacial” (MIS 49 & 47; 1.5-1.4 MYBP).

DMANISI

Another possibility is the “Menapian” Interglacial (MIS-37; 1.2 – 1.3 MYBP), a warm period that includes the Sima del Elephante site.

• Sites are scarce, so hominin population densities were probably very low during the early Pleistocene.

• Overall, occupation is described as “sporadic” (situations where hominins moving into Western Europe only during warm oscillations of interglacials/interstadials).

• During colder periods, hominins are restricted to Iberia and the Mediterranean. Example is “Fuente Nueva 3” near Granada, Spain, that dates to 1.3 MYBP.

• Reoccupation occurred from either the Spanish refugia or from the Eastern Mediterranean Levant.

SIMA DEL ELEPHANTE – EARLY HOMININS REMAIN IN EUROPE

UBEIDIYA, ISRAEL

Whether or not Western Europe was occupied continuously after c. 1.5 MYBP is debated.• In other words, is there a single early (Early Pleist., i.e. before 780,000 BP) dispersal, or

multiple dispersals.• Discontinuous archaeological record could support multiple dispersals.• But…the absence of handaxes in all the early sites is a problem.• Handaxes were present at Ubeidiya in the Levant at 1.4 MYBP. If repeated dispersals

from the Levant had occurred, handaxes would appear in Western Europe much earlier than they actually do.

In summary:• The first dispersal(s) into Western Eurasia was restricted to interglacials.

• These were characterized by low seasonality (warmer winters!) and greater habitat diversity.

• This took place some time between 1.8 and 1.3 MYBP.• It was restricted to areas influenced by the Mediterranean climate regime. (Dmanisi,

Ueidiya…)• Distribution of the Acheulian (in Congo basin, Sahara, Arabian Peninsula, India, Turkey,

Portugal) Movius line divide• Distribution of Early Sites in Western Eurasia (Early Pleistocene sites highlighted in

black)

• Early Acheulian sites are all in secondary context.• Earliest is Ubeidiya (upper levels), 1.4 MYBP.• Ubeidiya heavy-duty tools (Bifaces, Picks, Spheroids, core-choppers. crude pointed-

form handaxeso Strong similarity to the African Early Acheulian, i.e. bifaces are not on giant

flakes.• This Early Acheulian represents the SECOND major hominin expansion out of Africa at

c. 1.4 MYBP.• The Levantine Middle Acheulian (1 MYBP to 500 kya) may represent a third wave of

dispersal at c. 1 MYBP.• Wide distribution (Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Israel, Saudi Arabia). excavation permits

very difficult to get, closed off to non-Muslims• Mostly surface sites exposed by erosion. The in situ sites are on the Rift Valley and in

internal drainage desert basins (El Kwom, Syria; Azraq Basin just starting, Jordan; Jordan River, Israel).

• Two assemblage types found in Israel, flake-tool dominated, and biface dominated. pointed flakes, small scrapers, notches and denticulates

Bizat Ruhama (Southern Israel)

• Date c. 1 - .85 MYBP

• Exclusively small flakes (c. 25 mm) with simple notches, used as knives trying to get in to something microlithic material

Middle Acheulian – Latamne, North Syria (600-500 kyr) Pointed bifaces, flake tools 36% of retouched pieces are bifaces (trihedral pick, piercers, minimally modified scrapers and notches), 35% = cores or core choppers fauna not preserved but site in Hula basin = absolute gold mine of ecological information…Gesher Benot Ya’akov (Hula Basin, No. Israel)

• Lake and Marsh no longer exist, farmers drained out Jordan crating geological cut (fault block is very steep slope), turned into big bird refuge & destructed artefacts collection of handaxes

• Date: 840-720 kya. )volcanic episodes associated)• Numerous handaxes, many on giant flakes.• Similar to classic African Acheulian 3rd hominin expansion 800,000 BP• Levallois tech. is present! (cleavers in angled deposits ) water logged deposits

preserve organics, Bessault layers.

• Elephant Skull & Giant Core at GBY (processing of megafauna and small animals, radial core, huge cow. Did elongated transects 3-4 m wide…

• Fauna include megafauna & deer. Hunting & organized carcass processing of deer. Also cooking of fish. (found butchering marks in same places: articulated plan, well organized)

• Fire use at 790 kya (burned seeds, wood & heat damaged flint (explosed flint). (one of oldest)

• Preserved plant foods (seeds of olive, wild barley & wild grape), and pitted anvils showing processing.

• Pitted anvil from GBY (different climatic situation where they are on Mediterranean diet needing plant foods plant processing equipment, doesn’t show plants that don’t preserve) & Fish bones (red) superimposed on heat-altered flint. cooking Wetland marsh = had seasonal rainfall, as river level drops is dry season = channels of trapped fish, mostly catfish (oxygen intake), exploiting oxbows in dry season

Upper Acheulian and “Late Lower Paleolithic” (c. 500 to 2-300 kya) in the Levant• Technology: NUMEROUS bifaces (cordiform, amygdaloid, ovate, and elongated pointed

forms). no longer made on flakes but on cores• Flake tools common.• Levallois tech. (blades & points). large• Open-air sites in lake or marsh-side settings are most common.• Some cave occupations (Tabun, Jamal & Qesem in Israel; Adlun in Lebanon; Yabrud in

Syria).

• Berekhat Ram• Lake-side site on the Golan Heights.• K/A date on volcanic tuff of “over 230 kya”, but typologically it is closer to material dated

to 500-350 kya.• Assemblage includes small bifaces (discoid & amygdaloid), but no cleavers.• Flake tool component includes scrapers, notches, denticulates & points. Cores are

radial Levallois & discoid.• Berekhat Ram “figurine”: The real one and fkae one for sale: controversial little scoriah

pebble very softand crumbly, artificial groove around neck, world’s earliest dated female figurine (eyes = natural surface, neck groove is artificial, absolutely against law to replicate in Israel to be legally sold

• The Late Acheulian of the Azraq Basin, Jordan • North Azraq (Azraq ad-Duruz), South Azraq (Azraq ash-Shishani), RCSN Azraq Wetland

Reserve, Wadi Eoqiyaa (dried up in 1995)• Artificially supported relic pool, Azraq Wetland Reserve, Azraq Ash-Ishani = surrounded

by African big game = Ace hunting location• Steppe grasslands with pistachio and olive• Desert, Eastern Jordan.• Bifacial cleaver from “Ain el-Assad (South Azraq)• Druze Marsh Acheulian Artifacts: Levallois elements, Limande/ovate Bifaces, Cordiform

Biface, Pointed Bifaces, Bifacial cleaver• African & Eurasian : elephant, rhinoceros, wild ass, no real wild cattle but similar & giant

camel

• Biface Frequencies (%): Druze Marsh ‘Ain Soda ‘Ain el-Assad al-JafrOvate/Limande 20.0 2.2 12.4 4.3Cordiform/Amygdaloid 23.3 15.6 18.5 9.4Narrow tip(Lanceo., Mic.) 26.7 10.7 7.4 5.0BifacialCleaver 13.3 62.8 33.3 76.3Miscellaneous 16.7 10.2 28.4 5.0 Number 30 215 81 299Sources: Rollefson 1983; Rollefson et al 1997; Rollefson et al 2005.

What caused the differences in biface forms between the two Azraq localities?• The same basic technological patterns are present in both areas (and in the al-Jafr Basin).

Working Hypothesis 1:• The local micro-environments at Druze Marsh & South Azraq differed significantly. ‘Ain

Soda and ‘Ain el-Assad were hunting/ butchering stations, whereas Druze Marsh combined hunting and butchering activities with the processing of plant materials.

Working Hypothesis 2:• The greater distance (c. 5 km) to lithic raw material at Druze marsh caused bifaces to be re-

worked more times, creating more cordiform, amygdaloid and miscellaneous types.

Tabun Cave, Israel• “Layer F” at Tabun is Upper Acheulian.• Date is uncertain, possibly 4-500 kya

Faceted Platforms (red) and Lip Detachment (green)• Faceted platforms are characteristic of the Middle Paleolithic. Overall, they are less

common in the Acheulian, and the ones present are mostly dihedral. Lip detachments are produced by soft-hammer percussion and are more common in the Acheulian. They are less common in the MP, when hard-hammer percussion dominates,

o Significance: Lithicso AYCC is unique to Levanto 3 simultaneous lithic industrieso – Acheo Significance: Hominin Remainso 8 teeth found associated with Lower Pleistoceneo Found in lower stratigraphic o Recent discoverieso Hearth recently discovered (published 2 weeks ago).

End of the Lower Paleolithic in the Levant is referred to as the Mugharan Tradition. Best site is Tabun Layer E• Dates between c. 400 and 200 kya.• Divided into three (activity?) facies that interstratify randomly.

• Jabrudian facies – Numerous thick scrapers with Quina retouch. Often heavily reduced convergent forms. Few bifaces.

• Acheulian facies – Numerous small and crude amygdaloid, pointed and cordiform bifaces, with some Jabrudian scrapers.

• Amudian facies – Extensive blade production, and many blades are backed or retouched. Few thick scrapers & few bifaces. Some endscrapers & burins. AKA the “Pre-Aurignacian”.

Qesem Cave, Israel (382-c. 200 kyr)• Industry is mainly blade-based Amudian• Yabrudian at Qesem is restricted to two small areas.• Blades used in meat cutting, but also tiny flakes.• Dama (fallow deer) was the primary food source.• Hominin teeth from Qesem are claimed to be AMHs. These are claimed to show the

possibility that AMHs evolved in Eurasia at c. 400 kyr! • There is extensive evidence for the use of fire at Qesem. The most noable feature is a large

hearth (4 m. across) in the center of the cave that was repeatedly used. This hearth may have been partly stone lined. In the same layer, there are 2 “activity areas”, a “Yabrudian” area interpreted as hide processing located under the “shelf”, and an “Amudian” meat processing area around the heart itself. Date = c. 300 kya.

• Acheulian colonization of Western EurasiaTwo Models for the Acheulian colonization of Europe

1. Gamble – Homo antecessor and/or H. heldelbergensis did not have the regular use if fire and couldn’t adapt to colder conditions.o Expansions limited to warmer periods.o Expansion along the Mediterranean coast.o Then north to Southern England and Germany.o Hominin population ranges fluctuate north-south with the climate.o Most of Europe not occupied until the end of the Lower Paleolithic (400-200 kya).

Coastal Route for Acheulian Colonization of Western Europe• Dennell – More continuous occupation beginning 7-500 kya. • Different (i.e. colder) conditions in Europe required changes in diet from the ancestral

African pattern.• Tropical hunter-foragers are strongly dependent on plant foods, which are available on a

year-round basis. • Plant foods are seasonal in northern latitudes, requiring greater dependence on hunting

and/or scavenging.• Among tropical hunter/foragers, hunting is embedded in the plant-collecting regimen. Because plant collecting is more predictable, it requires less behavioral flexibility

• Hunting economies are “higher risk” because the failure rate is greater.

• Scavenging could work in Africa, because plant foods could fill in the gaps when

carcasses weren’t available.

• Scavenging would NOT work in Europe, because of the lack of plant foods in winter.

• So… European hominins had to become better hunters to succeed with a meat-based

economy.

This created 3 requirements/consequences:1. Population densities went down because more territory is needed to support the group.

2. Institutionalized contacts between these widespread groups were necessary to insure a supply of mates.

3. New and more flexible food procurement techniques, including more reliable killing technology such as the spear.

Regional Summaries• France: Numerous Lower Paleolithic (LP) sites but almost all in secondary contexts.

o Some “pebble tools” in the Roussillon River (So, Fr.) may be over a million years

old.

o Acheulian tools appear in the Somme River gravels at c. 650-600 kya.

Sequence goes from cruder to more refined bifaces by c. 290 kya. No cleavers in France, except along the Mediterranean coast.

• Early Acheulian (“Abbevillian”) biface from France

• Terra Amata (Nice) is a rare in situ site located among beach dunes in the sea-shore.

Excavated by Henry de Lumley in 1966. Site has many superimposed layers.

• Faunal dates – 450-380 kya (Probably MIS-11)

• Technology is mostly cores and small flakes, but 1.6% are bifaces and picks.

• Chopper, “Pointed Biface”, pick

• Temperate woodland environment next to the beach. Note: MIS-11 is as warm as today.

• Fauna is typical “warm” species. Elephant, cattle, red deer, fallow deer, pig and

rhinoceros.

• De Lumley claimed he had the outline of several large wooden shelters (7-15 by 4-6 m),

one with a hearth inside.

• One hearth (burned patch) appears to be genuine.

• BUT…The structures are doubted. Paola Villas’ refitting study shows significant mixing

of the sandy layers, making the “post-holes” identified by de Lumley highly suspect.

Middle to Upper Acheulian: England

• England: Due to northern latitude, sites are restricted to the southern ¼ of the country,

which was connected to Europe for most of the Pleistocene.

• Thames and other river gravels include abundant bifaces in secondary context, but there

are also some excellent primary-context sites.

• One of the most famous is Hoxne, first discovered by John Frere in 1797.

• Site dates to c. 400 kya (MIS-11 again!)

• Well made bifaces & thick flake scrapers.

• Reconstruction of the Hoxne site

• Note the claim for the presence of fire. The evidence was dispersed charcoal in the

sediments.

• Boxgrove (student report)

The Clactonian• The Clactonian is a large core and flake-tool tradition with no bifaces that is

contemporary with the Acheulian in England.

• A similar phenomenon is present in Germany.

• Type-site is Clacton-on-sea.

• Technology is thick flakes, many are retouched by removing single flakes with deep

platforms. This creates a “Clacton notch”.

• The first wooden tool found in an LP context came from Clacton-on-Sea in 1911.

• The famous Clacton spear tip

• In France, there is an analogous “industry” called the “Tayacian”.

o Like the Clactonian, it lacks bifaces and is dominated by simple flake tools. But it

contains more scrapers.

o There are many crude “Tayac Points” that are really convergent denticulates on

thick flakes or chunks.

Is the Clactonian a “culture”?• The Clactonian & Tayacian were once thought to be EARLIER than the Acheulian

because they look more “primitive”. Some people thought they were made by different hominins.

• With the discovery of Boxgrove and other well dated sites, they are now definitely

contemporary, and the Acheulian may actually appear earlier.

• Some argue that the Clactonian is an activity facies (variant) of the Acheulian,

specifically an expedient butchering and/or scavenging tool-kit.

• Clactonian is associated with butchering contexts, but bifaces also occur in some

butchering sites.

Germany: Germany is at the northern edge of the range of the Acheulian, so most sites there contain no bifaces.

• Heidelberg (aka Mauer) mandible (c. 600 kya, MIS-15)

• This fossil, the type specimen for Homo heidelbergensis, was found in a river sand

deposit in 1907. The associated fauna was “warm-temperate”. There were no stone artifacts.

• Core & Flake Assemblages

o Bilzingsleben, Germany (370 kya)

o Bilzingsleben “Structures”

o Reconstructed life at Bilzingsleben

o Bilzingsleben: Incised Elephant Tibia

Student Report: SchoningenThe Acheulian in Iberia

• Before 500kya, After 500kya

• Large Flake Based Cleavers, Common in the Iberian Early Acheulian, (Equivalent to the

Middle Acheulian in Africa Cleaver on large quartzite flake

• Bifacial Cleavers, Common in the Iberian Middle Acheulian (Equivalent to the Upper

Acheulian in Africa) Bifacial cleaver

• Strait of Gibraltar was crossed, repeated episodes of moving populations

LECTURE 10 ACHEULIAN RETROSPECTIVE AND THE LP – MP TRANSITION

• What can handaxes tell us about the minds and behavior of early hominins?

• First, some basic questions:

• A: Are there discrete shapes?

o The variety of shapes described by the typology is overly complex. Imposed by

our modern minds rather than “real”.

o Variation appears to be “continuous”, i.e. shape categories grade into each other.

o Well-made ones do appear to have oval or pointed shapes.

• B: Do shape categories segregate in time and space?

o Only to a degree and over broad areas. Examples are the difference in handaxe

form between Iberia versus France & England.

• C: Could shape categories reflect cognitive and/or linguistic categories?

o This is possible, but the continuous variation argues against it.

• D: What can handaxes tell us about society and knowledge transmission?

o Patterns of manufacture are definitely transmitted across generations. Thus….

o Deliberate teaching was taking place.

o Some variation in forms may be the result of children or novices learning how to

knap.

o Exchange of mates between bands over broad areas.

o Implies a common mode of communication, perhaps linguistic, but could also

involve signs and/or gestures.

• E: Are handaxes over-engineered? (Better looking and more complexly made than they

need to be.)

o Probably not, but this depends on function.

o If they are just cutting tools, then they are probably over-engineered.

o But weight might have been essential for some cutting tasks.

• F: What are the functions of handaxes, and is form related to function?

o Experiments show heavy-duty cutting, but more work is necessary.

o Forensic study of use-wear is difficult because of size issues.

o Within broad categories, Form probably is related to function.

• G: Is there any symbolic activity involving handaxes? (largely speculative)

o Difficult to assess.

o Sima de los Huesos Pit of Bones (Atapuerca, Spain) is a vertical shaft cave with

no occupation deposits. didn’t determine cause of death due to gnawing of bears

o Remains of 28 adult and adolescent Homo antecessor (early Neanderthal

ancestors) bodies discarded down the shaft. Not like Neanderthals: babies, ritualized reason? Possible cultural selection

o Date: minimum 530 kya, possibly 600 kya (MIS-15)

o Single handaxe made of pink quartzite (non-local) found with the bones is

described as a funerary offering.

Are handaxes sexy?• Mithin argues that female sexual selection of adept males as mates explains the

symmetry and size of handaxes. display system, hand-eye coordination, analog for human behavior

o Giant handaxes from England = over-engineered?

• The consensus today is that female sexual selection is insufficient to explain the

variability in the quality of handaxes, and that the assumption that handaxes are solely male products is unwaranted. had to see male making handaxe, too avoid deception, doesn’t account for variability and quality of handaxes.

o Assumes that handaxes are being made by men

The LP – MP TransitionThe real question is; was there a real “transition” from the LP to the MP, and if so, what was its nature?

• In technological terms the difference between the LP and MP is an emphasis on core

tools in the LP, and an emphasis on retouched flake tools in the MP. But…

• By “transition” do we mean the boundary period between two arbitrarily defined periods

of time… Or…

• Are we referring to the process of changing one technological tradition to another?

• Either way, we are dealing with events occurring in time, which are not necessarily the

same as defined time “periods” (defined time span with specific set of characteristics, differing in different geographic areas).

• For example:

• The Acheulian (bifacial core-tools) has different time durations in different areas.

• Periods can also have different relationships to each other.

o Two periods may overlap in time. (The chopper & flake assemblages from

Eurasia dating from 1.8 to ca. 1 MYBP overlap with the African Acheulian.) Or…

o There may be a temporal gap between periods. Or…

o There may be temporal continuity (they connect), but one ends and the other

begins abruptly (a “replacement”: abrupt or with gap) Or…

o There may be continuity but with a transitional phase, i.e. a gradual

transformation from one technological tradition to another.

• Archaeologists often think of either replacements or transformations, but in the real world

actual changes often fall between these two extremes and differ from area to area.

• What are the major differences between the LP & MP?

o The claimed clear difference between a core-tool vs. flake tool emphasis is really

a technological continuum, so some people argue that the LP-MP boundary/transition is really an artifact of the way archaeologists classify collections. =arbitrary construction of archaeologists

• If this is true, then from a social and behavioral perspective the “transition” is

meaningless.

o HOWEVER, important changes in society may coincide with the transition.

Evidence?• Michael Chazan argues that very few caves were occupied in the LP, but many were

occupied in the MP.

• Caves were “home bases” where meat was brought and shared.

• This implies modern Hunting/Gathering band organization and pair-bonding. i.e. a late

origin of the human family structure. beginning of monogamous families

• The lack of obvious home bases in the LP suggests food (meat) was immediately

consumed at the kill site and that this implies possibly a primate-like dominance hierarchy, and settlement patterns similar to social carnivores that shadow particular herds of prey.

• Management of fire also differs between the LP and MP.

• Evidence for fire in LP sites in Western Eurasia is debated

• In the Levant, fire is definitely present in Acheulian of Gesher Benat Ya’akov, as well as

in the final LP Acheulo-Yabrudian (Tabun and Qesem).

• In Western Europe, the LP hearths at Schoningen and Terra Amata also look legitimate.

• All these correspond to warm periods (MIS 9c, 11 or 13), so whether or not those

hominins could make fire is uncertain (dry thunderstorms).

The use of fire has important social & cognitive implications.1. Requires pre-planning to collect and stockpile fuel and care to protect fire from the

elements.

2. Created conditions for more prolonged social interaction. staying up at night

3. Some people speculatively link fire to an increase in linguistic communication.

4. Fire may have created a specific social responsibility for some individuals to tend and conserve it.

Côte de Saint-Brelade site report

Hunting behavior changes between the LP & MP• LP hunted large bovids, but also giant mammals (elephant, rhino, hippo).

• Large bovids were targets in the MP, but although giant mammals were available in the

MP, they were rarely hunted.

• MP hominins (Neanderthal) were as big and strong as LP hominins, and probably had

marginally better killing technology, so the rarity of megafauna represents deliberate prey selection.

• Chazan argues that selection of smaller prey reflects the transport and sharing of meat.

(Evidence is the presence of high-utility bones in some cave sites.) legs missing, social transition

• Not everyone agrees! Owen Lovejoy argues that hominins abandoned a primate-like

dominance hierarchy and unimale polygyny over 4 million years ago. no social transition

• Data quality influences how we can assess this question.

• Taphonomic factors have altered the great majority of LP sites. (Older the site, greater

the chance of post-depositional disturbance **)

• Almost all surviving primary context LP sites are in lake or marsh-side settings.

preserve

• These are ideal ambush-hunting locations. This may have skewed our understanding of

LP behavior in favor of whatever took place at kill sites.

In any case, the technological transition between the LP and MP in Western Eurasia occurs between 400 and 200 kya, and the nature of the change varies from region to region.

• Best documented record of this transition is in the Levant.

• The Levant is also a good example of the complexity of this process.

• Bifaces get smaller over time in all Levantine areas (reducing from c. 120 mm to c. 60

mm).

• In the northern coastal oak-pistachio woodland the Acheulian morphs into the Acheuleo-

Yabrudian (A-Y) with its three activity facies at about 400 kya. (Note: No Levallois technique in this technological tradition.)

• This appears to be abruptly replaced by a Levallois blade dominated MP at c. 215 kya. =

sudden replacement

The Levantine desert basins were open savanna grasslands during wet periods, and the A-Y is missing.

• Instead, Middle and Late Acheulian is dominated by biface technology combined with

well-executed Levallois blade & point technique. (handaxes and cleavers to Levallois)

• The technological shift in the desert basins appears to be quick and involved an

abandonment of handaxes and their replacement by large Levallois points and blades as heavy-duty cutting tools.

• This may reflect a gradual shift to an increasingly mobile life-style i.e. a transformation

(reflecting tool kit getting lighter = mobility).

• This may then have spread to the more coastal woodlands, resulting in a more abrupt

technological replacement there (spread by diffusion or population expansion).

LECTURE 11: Bordes’ MP Typology• Francois Bordes, Tools from Le Moustier

Bordes’ Typology• In spite of many flaws, Bordes’ typology is still the primary descriptive system used to

classify MP stone tools in Europe.

• (Review the definitions of flakes and cores, the flake landmarks, platform and retouch

types from Lecture 5.)

• There is a hierarchy of observations that an archaeologist must follow in order to classify

individual tools. This is diagramed on the next slide.

• Essentially, you must…

1. First, determine if a piece is a flake or a core.

2. If it is a flake, is it retouched?

3. If retouched, what type of retouch? Ex. convex

4. If continuous retouch, is it on the exterior or interior face?

5. Then, where is the retouch relative to the flake landmarks, and what is the shape of the retouched part of the tool?

6. Finally, what is the edge angle created by the retouch?

• Hierarchy of Bordes’ Typology

• Rules for designating composite (multiple retouched areas) tools. objective: replicable

among independent observers, where there is an agreement amongst experts.

1. Typical form is more important than atypical form.

2. Rare forms are more important than common forms. (This can contradict rule 1.)

3. If forms are of equal quality and neither is rare, then they can both be counted. (This is very problematic because it can lead to double-counting the artifact.)

4. Unusual placement can over-ride shape. If the retouch is on the interior face, it’s a “scraper on the interior face”, no matter what the shape. If it has bulbar thinning, then “scraper with bulbar thinning”, if it has a thinned back, then “scraper with a thinned back”. Double scaper on interior surface with bulbar thining = bulbar thinning

• Bordes type-list begins with 5 technological elements. With one exception, there are

unretouched.

• TYPE #:

1. Typical Levallois Flake – Lev flake that is symmetrical across the axis of flaking. (Core & flake illustrated here)

2. Atypical Levallois Flake – Levallois flake that is asymmetrical across the axis of flaking (red arrow).

3. A) Levallois Point – Symmetrical across the axis of flaking.

B) Elongated Levallois Point – Length = 2x Width (Levallois point vs. Levallois blade)

4. Retouched Levallois Point – Levallois point with limited retouch unifacial retouch in the tip or sides to “regularize” it. Arrows indicate axis and the area that was retouched.

A) Soyons Point – Interior retouch fixing the tip. (To correct for Concord profile) may have cultural significance where probability to overshoot

B) Emireh Point: - Interior and/or bifacial retouch to thin the base of the tool (to facilitate hafting?). temporal marker in Levantine Mousterian

5. Pseudo-Levallois point – Axis of flaking (arrow) is not the long axis of the tool. (produced by discoid core technique) occurrence associated with non-Levallois technology, or fixing face of Levallois core

6. Mousterian Point – Unifacial retouch on the exterior face to produce a triangular or losenge-shaped point. (not perfectly symmetrical) may be knives

7. Elongated Mousterian Point – Length greater than 2x Width.

8. Limace – Thick bi-pointed “slug”. Often with Quina retouch.

SCRAPERS:

• Scrapers are defined by the shape and position of their retouched edges. (continuous,

regularized, usually unifacial)

• The shape categories of single scrapers are:

Straight (If with straight object touches at more than one point on retouch)

Convex (Touches at one point, and slopes away)

Concave (Touches at 2 points at ends of retouch)

• In Bordes’ classification, it is assumed that all scrapers are “side” unless otherwise

stated.

• “Convergent” scrapers are double scrapers where the two scraper edges actually

intersect.

o Longest edge and best produced = named first: ex: Double straight-concave

• Distinguishing a “transverse” scraper from a “side (lateral)” scraper – If the interior angle

made by the intersection of the axis of flaking and the long axis of the piece is LESS than 45 degrees, it is “lateral”. If over 45 degrees it is “transverse”.

• Type #

9. Single Straight Scraper (Red arrows indicate the axis of flaking and the ends of the retouched edges.)

10. Single Convex Scraper (Red arrows indicate the axis of flaking and the ends of the retouched edge.) & Single convex scrapers, Quina retouch.

11. Single Concave Scraper (Notches = usually obvious, but can be problematic)

• Distinguishing “déjeté” (i.e. “canted” or “angled”) scrapers from convergent scrapers – If

the axis of the tool and the axis of flaking intersect at an angle of greater than 45 degrees, it is a déjeté scraper. Most déjeté scrapers are in fact side and transverse scrapers where the two retouched edges intersect. If both sides are retouched, then it is a “double déjeté” scraper.

o Differentiating between endscaper (subcategory of transverse where

symmetrical, centered around axis of flaking) and transverse scraper

o Scraper with thinned backs, alternate scrapers, bifacial scraper, endscraper,

burin (90 degree edge angle = perfect for wood), perchoirs, backed knife (deliberate abrupt retouch, shorter, half-moony), naturally backed knife (biproduct of discoid core technology), truncated (hafting modification?), tranchée (Mesolithic, arrow tips with wide sharp blade), notches (compound vs. Clacton, simple or compound) & denticulates, retouched becs, tayiac points (convergent scrapers), alternate retouched bec, hachoirs, stemmed points and stemmed tools (rare in French Paleolithic) stemmed point, bifacial foliates, Raclette (39) can be produced by trampling

LECTURE 12: THE WESTERN EUROPEAN MIDDLE PALEOLITHIC

• Neanderthal, Author of the Mousterian: La Chapelle-aux-Saints, Feldhofer Cave (cause

for debate) = found by coring workers

• Although largely discredited as “cultures”, the assemblage types Bordes identified in

Southwestern France are still widely used to characterize collections made elsewhere in Europe, even though they are not always a good fit for regionally specific circumstances. = habit

• Bordes’ tribal interpretation was a “high-level” assumption based on subsidiary “low-

level” assumptions. The accuracy of the high-level assumption is dependent on the accuracy of the low level assumptions. (accuracy of dates, percentages, typologies)

• Bordes employed 2 perspectives in studying assemblages

1. Typological

2. Technological

• Typological perspective = artifact types and their relative proportions in different

assemblages. This involved simple statistical comparisons like the cumulative frequency graph.

• Technological perspective = strategies used to make blanks of tools. This is things like

Levallois vs. non-Levallois or the relative proportions of blades vs. flakes. In other words, Bordes’ technological indices.

• The use of these technological and typological criteria involved unrealistic assumptions

about the nature of lithic technology.

The assumptions were:

1. That retouched stone tools were the desired end-products of the knapping process, i.e. that they were deliberately made to specific designs. (ex: convex sidescraper with Quina retouch)

o Problems:

A) Stone technology is subtractive and knapping errors introduce variability into the results.

B) The skill of individual knappers influences the result. (novices)

2. The availability and quality of lithic raw material had no significant impact on tool forms.

o Problems: Experiments show that raw material quality can have a strong effect

on tool forms. (size of core, shape of blank influences tool form)

3. Tools were produced and discarded rapidly & randomly. Implies that Neanderthals were not thinking about the future.

o Problems: May be true, but any re-use and/or attrition caused by re-sharpening

can radically alter form.4. That form is NOT related to function. (A complex issue because Bordes did link form to

function for the points and the backed knives. However, he did think “scrapers” were

generic multi-functional tools that could not be clues to activities at a site.) bear test for points

o Problems: This only considers tools in their 2-dimensional form. If considered in

3 dimensions (edge angle) form may be linked to function. 5. That the tool categories recognized by archaeologists were the same as those in the

minds of Neanderthals. i.e. Neanderthals were paying attention to the number of types they made.

o Problems: Can we really read Neanderthal minds?

FRANCE

• The MP of France is still described using Bordes’ assemblage types: (background

knowledge)

1. Charentian (first 3 categories may interstratify)

(a) Ferrassie Type : IL(Levallois)=14-30; IR(Racloir)=50-80; few denticulates; IQ(Quina)=6-14; handaxes absent/rare

(b) Quina Type : IL=<10; IR 50-80; few denticulates; IQ=14-30; handaxes absent/rare

2. Typical : IL=variable; IR=>50; moderate # of denticulates; IQ=0-3; handaxes absent/rare; many points

3. Denticulate : IL=variable; IR=4-20; denticulates/notches over 60%; IQ=0; handaxes low but not absent

4. Mousterian of Acheulian Tradition (MTA)

o Subtype A : IL=variable; IR=25-45; Upper Pal. Types (endscrapers, borers,

burins) rarely over 4%; denticulates common; IQ=low; handaxes = 8-40% (well made cordiforms)

o Subtype B : IL=variable; IR=4-20; Upper Pal. Types common;

denticulates/notches up to 60%; IQ=low; handaxes = rare (poorly made cordiforms) Backed knives particular to B

5. Asinipodien : IL=“very common”; IR=“rare” >5%; many naturally-backed knives; denticulates/notches rare; IQ=0; handaxes absent

6. Vasconien : Crude flake tools; MANY cleavers on flakes (The Vasconien is restricted to Southern France near the Spanish border. It occurs in Spain, where it is late in the MP sequence.)

Binford’s “functional” approach

• The functional approach does NOT reject the concept of culture in the Paleolithic,

but DOES reject the idea that Bordean tool-type frequencies denote specific ethnic groups.

• Binford argued that behavior results from an interaction of the cultural repertoire and the

environment. Bordes thought independent of environment

• Bordes’ tool types were so simple & widely distributed that they did not convey “style”

found in most artifacts in later prehistory. (“Style” here refers to morphological variation within functional categories that consciously or unconsciously conveys social information.) of things that could have same function, morphological variability within continual contiguity

• Mousterian tools were almost exclusively “technomic”, i.e. utilitarian objects whose form

was determined by the mechanical requirements of the desired task and the conditions of the physical environment (functional edges).

• They were “expedient”, with short use-lives, and were discarded near where they were

used.

• So…Mousterian assemblages were products of the type, relative frequency & intensity

of activities at a site, which were in turn influenced by environmental & cultural constraints.

• Binford tried to demonstrate this with Factor Analysis, a complex statistical technique

that identifies consistently associated tool types (technological tradition).

Problems with Binford’s approach:

• Binford’s use of factor analysis was incorrect. (results skewed by ordering date input in

data set)

• His intuitive interpretations of the functions of Bordes tool-type categories was

problematic. Initial forensic studies found no correlation between different kinds of use-wear and tool types.

• The “Factors” Binford identified did not correlate with paleo-environments and/or

seasonality.

• Mellars noted that individual tool-types often have multiple functions, invalidating

Binford’s simple functional interpretations.

Mellars’ Evolving Mousterian

• Paul Mellars accepts the reality of Bordes’ assemblage types, but explains them

differently, combining a chronological argument with some elements of Binfords ideas.

• He sees the Mousterian as a single evolving technological tradition. Using Birdes’ terms,

Mellars sees the Ferrassie Mousterian as earliest. It then evolves into the Quina form, then followed in order by the MTA-A and MTA-B

• Mellars claims that the “Typical” –hunting∕butchering, “Denticulate” -butchering,

“Asinipodian”, and “Vasconian” are probably activity facies that can occur any time in the Mousterian sequence. based on reality of tool types, categorize

• In general terms, Mellars chronological sequence does seem to match the evidence.

Problems with Mellars’ approach:

• Because Mellars uses Bordes’ assemblage and tool types, his interpretation is subject to

many of the same criticisms as Bordes’ model of parallel cultural traditions.

• Nicholas Rolland (Victoria) & Harold Dibble (Univ. of Pennsylvania) argue that

Mousterian assemblage variability is primarily the result of differential degrees of reduction of lithic raw materials. (how extensively worked through use life)

• Recognized that the shape of the blank strongly influences the shape of the retouched

edge.

• **Environmental constraints such as overall climate, season and the quality and

availability of lithic raw material interact in complex ways. In general, the less flint was available, the more reduced (re-sharpened) stone tools will be, creating Quina-like assemblages.

o (This example shows how a lateral scraper (simple convex sidescraper) gets

smaller, thicker and more transverse (Quina) if it is frequently re-sharpened. Note that the platform end is normally not modified because it is the part that is held in the hand.)

o Quina = winter sites

• Rolland & Dibble accept that both style and function can influence assemblage

composition, but that practical constraints are more important. (raw material and availability)

Problems with the Rolland = Dibble approach:

• This model is plausible, but it is contradicted by some evidence, for example…

o If “Quina” scrapers are heavily reduced, the artifacts should be smaller, but the

scrapers at the La Quina site itself are large.

o Quina-type retouch does not occur spontaneously and appears to be deliberate.

o Some heavily reduced assemblages do not correlate with raw material that is

difficult to access or of poor flaking quality.

Mousterian Tools as Functional Edges

• One productive way to look at MP tools is to concentrate on the functional edge of the

tool.

• In most cases, the functional edge is the part of the tool that is actually retouched.

• Imposed form only acts on this part of the tool, with few exceptions, the rest is visual

noise.

• In many tools, the geometric relationship of the retouched edge to Bordes’ flake

landmarks (axis of flaking, etc.) is functionally meaningless. patterns of retouch edge and dull part: not mess with striking platform

• Functional edge angle is extremely important. Acute edges (< c. 45 degrees) are

essential for cutting and best for scraping. Edge angles over 45 degrees are better on harder materials. 90 – 110 degree angles work very well planning wood.

• Exceptions:

o In backed knives, the retouched edge is opposite the functional edge.

o Points exhibit more overall imposed form because of the functional requirements

of the tool edges (to pierce), and the need to have an appropriate base shape for hafting.

La Quina, France

1. Location, Topography: Rolling Hills and small valleys, Dating: problem of using radiocarbon dates earlier than 20 years ago, baseline dates = problems in general 30,000, type site for Quina Mousterian, female Neanderthals = found in swamp = stratigraphy difficult

Northern & Central Europe

• For historical/political reasons, this area developed its own terminology for the Middle

Paleolithic. The German typology was published by Bosinski in 1967.

• The northern MP (bifaces) is significantly different from that of France (Acheulian &

Mousterian), with many assemblages having a much greater emphasis on bifacial tools.

1. Early Middle Paleolithic (Mousterian) c. 200-120 kya

Early MP assemblages are “generic” emphasizing flake tools. Technology = discoid and unidirectional cores. Some sites over 150 kya have crude blades retouched on the sides and some bladelets.

Later MP (120-c.37 kya) just useful, not on test

2. Mousterian. Flake tool assemblages including some Levallois technique. Very few or no bifaces.

3. Micoquian (58 – c. 37 kya = MP). Frequent bifacial tools including bifacial scrapers, “leaf-shaped scrapers” and many asymmetrical handaxes. The key types are:

a. Prodnik (“biface with a curved tip”)

b. “Keilmesser” (backed bifaces) cortical & asymmetrical

c. “Faustkeilblatter” (finely retouched bifacial point, blunt base, flat on one face, convex on the other)

d. “Halbkeile” (elongated unifaces with a d-shaped cross section)

e. “Faustel” (small bifaces <6cm of various shape categories).

• German Middle Paleolithic Bifaces

• Middle Paleolithic Biface Types of Western Europe (bifaces much more common in

North)

4. Leaf point industries “Althmuhlgroup”. Very late MP. These are assemblages that include large “leaf shaped” bifacial points/knives (“blattspitzen”). These tools occasionally occur in Micoquian assemblages, but in some assemblages they are very common. Overall, leaf point assemblages are rare. (large, bifacial = proto-version of Solutrean laural leafs) no blades

• EXAM Wednesday in EDUC 434 – questions up to end of this section (long short

answers 5 points each, half a page each 10 out of 14)

Middle Paleolithic in Spain/Portugal

• The Spanish M.P. is essentially generic “Typical Mousterian” and “Denticulate

Mousterian” in the French terminology. Some assemblages in Southern Iberia are extremely rich in points.

• Technology mixes discoid and Levallois technique, with the Levallois cores having

centripetal preparation.

• Neanderthals and the Mousterian appear to last later in Iberia below the Ebro River.

Some sites may date as late as 26-28 kya, although those late dates are contested.

• One late variant of the Mousterian found in the Pyrenees and Cantabrian Spain is

Bordes’ “Vasconian”, which is characterized by cleavers on large flakes.

• The Vasconian appears as early as 50 kya, and disappears at c. 38 kya.

LECTURE 13: THE LEVANTINE MIDDLE PALEOLITHIC (OFER BAR-YOSEF)

• Location of Major Levantine MP Sites,

• TABUN CAVE, Israel First excavations 1931-1934, Dorothy Garrod, Tabun Cave

o Tabun Layers B, C & D (default sequence for the Levant) not horizontal due

to subterranean stream = Tabun is not a simple layer-cake stratigraphy

• Levantine Vegetation Today: Mediterranean = Oak-Pistachio woodland; Irano-

Turanian = Steppe grasslands; Saharo-Sindian = Desert (highly heterogenous in short distances)

• Levantine MP is dominated by Levallois Technique. Levallois cores, Wadi Zark’a

Ma’in Jordan (thin-débitage Levallois) opposed flaking of centripetal flaking

Phase 1, AKA “D-Type”; “Early Mousterian”; “Abu Siffian”; “Hummalian”.

• This is a “blady” industry with both Levallois and prismatic blades.

• Elongated Levallois and Elongated Mousterian points (aka “Abu Sif points”)

• Endscrapers and burins “common”.

• Sites include Tabun layer D, Hayonym, Misliya and Abu Siff in Israel, and Hummal in

Syria.

• Blades (retouched, scrapers) Tabun Layer D, Elongated Point (on Levallois flake)

Tabun Layer D, Elongated Points & Retouched Blade Wadi Enoqiyya, D-Type Moust. Levallois Pt. – Abu Sif Pt. – Ret. Blade (extends from coastal plane to edge margin of desert)

• Subsistence: Big-game hunting – horse, deer & gazelle in savanna areas,

megafauna and aurochs near the coast. Hunting, butchering and meat transport patterns are as efficient as those employed by modern humans. Meat was cooked by roasting at Misliya.

• Evidence for gathering fruit (hackberry) at Douara cave.

• Dating: Short Chron = 250-130 kya (MIS 7-6). Long chron = 300 – 225 kya

• Environment: Warmer & humid in MIS 7, colder & drier in MIS 6.

• Hominin fossils: Fragments in Hayonim layer 3 are thought to be Neanderthal.

Misliya maxilla is not yet identified.

Phase 2, AKA “C-Type”; “Middle Mousterian”.

• This is a Levallois flake technology producing broad, flat flakes from radial or

opposed-platform cores. (problem of guano fires)

• Levallois points are shorter and much less common than in the “D-type” (and “B-

type”) Mousterian.

• Side-scrapers in flakes are “common”. (Described as a “Ferrassie Mousterian”.)

o Levallois Flakes Tabun Layer C, Bottom row are scrapers on Levallois flakes

o Core on Levallois Flake, Tabun Layer C These are referred to as “truncated-

faceted pieces” or Nahr Ibrahim cores (turn flake into blank for Levallois flakes) >raw mater.

• Subsistence: Big-game hunting including megafauna and deer at Tabun. Evidence

for plant collecting at Qafzeh cave.

• Dating: Short Chron = 130-71 kya (MIS 5). Long chron. = up to 220 kya at Tabun

and 150 kya at Hayonim.

• Environment: MIS 5 is warm and humid at the start (MIS 5e), becoming colder and

drier over time except for the early part of MIS 5a (c. 80 kya).

• Evidence of personal ornaments (shell beads) from Skhul Cave dated to c. 110 kya.

Similar beads were also found at Qafzeh dating to c. 92 kya.

• Hominin fossils: Neanderthal female skeleton, Tabun layer C (?). Date c. 130 kya

o AMHs Skhul V. Date c. 120 kya

o AMHs Qafzeh #9. Date c. 92 kya

Student Site Report Combe Grenal (Bordes, & Peyrony, largest and most important OIS 3-6: Mousterian, most complete lithic info) + 8 indiv. Funeral ritual & Canibalism interstratification

Phase 3, AKA “B-Type”; “Later Mousterian”.

• This is a Levallois flake and point technology producing thin triangular flakes from

unipolar convergent cores. Some blades. Few retouched tools. Evidence for tar used in hafting at Um el Tlel, Syria.

• Levallois points are even shorter with broad bases. Points are VERY common than

in some assemblages.

• Sites include Tabun layer B, Nahal Mahanayeem Outlet (NMO) and Kebara in Israel.

• Levallois Point, Tabun Layer B

• Later Mousterian, Dederiyeh Cave, Syria c. 50 kya

• Comparison of Types D, C & B, Levallois Points (over in coast elongated Levallois

points, medium length narrow bases on Levallois points, broad bases and short)

• Subsistence: Hunting small, medium & large bovids and cervids.

• Possible exploitation of herbaceous plants & grass seeds at Amud cave, and definite

cooking of legume seeds at Kebara.

• Dating: Short Chron = 71 – 47/45 kya (MIS 4 and part of 3). cold period

• Environment: MIS 4 begins with a very rapid shift to cold and dry conditions,

possibly started by the Mt. Toba (Indonesia) super-volcanic eruption.

• Hominin fossils: only Neanderthals: Amud, Kebara

o Dederiyeh 1 (Syria) c. 2-year old Neanderthal, Reconstructed burial position.

• The alternation of hominins (Nean. & AMHs) in the Levant is unique, and means that

at one point Neans. may have outcompeted AMHs and replaced them.

• The sequence is:

o Qesem – AMHs(?) teeth at 380 kya

o Zuttiyeh – Nean(?) 350-300 kya

o Tabun – C1 Nean. 130 kya

o Skhul-Qafzeh – AMHs 120-90 kya

o Amud-Kebara-Ded. – Nean. 70-50 kya

o Ksar Akil (Up. Pal.) – AMHs 45 kya

Tchernov – Biogeographic perspective.

• Hominins geographical ranges shift with their climatically-driven biomes.

o During cold periods (MIS 8, 6 & 4) Eurasian flora & fauna, including Neans.

expand south into the Levant.

o During warm periods (MIS 7, 5 & 3) African flora & fauna, including AMHS

expand north into the Levant. Until 45kya developed technological adaptation = no longer limited

Shea – Technological perspective.

• MP hominins made similar technologies but had different land-use patterns (with

Neans having a “radiating” and AMHs a “circulating” pattern), but even the cognitive superiority of AMHs was not sufficient to overcome environmental effects in MIS 8 through 4.

• Development of projectile technology and a more “generalist” adaptation finally gave

AMHS the edge in MIS 3. (spear-thrower)

• Example of a late MP site: Nahal Mahanayeem Outlet (NMO)

• Outlet of the Hula Basin, Northern Israel. North end of the Rift Valley.

• Swamp-side sediments exposed by dredging of the channel of the Jordan River.

Surrounding vegetation was oak-pistachio woodland with some pines.

• Date 65-55 kya.

• Hunting (possibly scavenging) and butchering site. Evidence is numerous cut-marks

on bones.

• Prey was primarily large bovids (Bos primigenius), but also a variety of other animals

and some fish catfish. (one eagle and vulture wing-bone)

• Possibly driving the large mammals into swampy ground as a hunting strategy.

• Excellent floral preservation. Potential plant foods at the site include berries, seeds

and leaves as well as plant underground storage organs.

• Technology: c. 670 in situ artifacts. Assemblage was strongly point & knife

dominated (over 20% aggregate total), with few scrapers. Overall, an expedient hunting/butchering tool-kit.

• Note: This assemblage is more “blady” than most Levantine late MP. This also

occurs in Late MP sites East of the Rift Valley.

LECTURE 14: LIVING WITH THE NEANDERTHALS

Neanderthals on the move, mural by Czech artist Zdenek Burian

Were Neanderthals a Failure?

• No! Neanderthals successfully adapted to harsh conditions.

• They lasted over 250,000 years and appear to have displaced AMHs from the Levant

during MIS-4.

• They may have prevented AMHs from occupying Western Europe for at least 20,000

years. (AMHs had expanded eastward to India, Southeast Asia and Australia by c. 60 kya)

• Some argue that their success was due to physiological and anatomical adaptations

to cold climates rather than cultural/technological adaptations.

• Example: Higher metabolic rate (fueled by a high meat-fat diet) may have kept them

warm instead of clothing.

NEANDERTHAL BEHAVIOR (as it is understood today)

• Some (Shea) argue that Neanderthals lived in small semi-nomadic groups with

a “radiating” settlement strategy around home bases (“dens”, where eating, sleeping, tool manufacture and maintenance took place) occupied for a few weeks or months at a time.

• In a radiating settlement pattern, the group stays in the “den” until resources are

depleted from the surrounding area, then moves to another “den” location.

• Radiating settlement patterns imply “provisioning of place” behavior, i.e. the

collection of resources such as flint or food in the field, and concentrating them in the “den”, where they are processed and/or consumed.

• However, the apparent concentration of activities in caves and rock-shelters may be

a taphonomic effect rather than a real settlement tendency.

o Caves & rock-shelters do provide protection from the elements, so they would

be ideal places to stay.

• But the sheltered nature of these places and the fact that they tend to accumulate

sediments also means that there is a greater chance for occupation deposits to be preserved.

• The natural limits of the shelter also focus human activities in restricted, easy to

identify areas, aiding archaeological study.

• Open-air locations are much more subject to natural disturbance, scattering artifacts,

destroying bone, and generally making them much less desirable targets for archaeological research.

• It is often difficult to tell whether an open-air site is a “den” or a single activity location

because of the disturbance problem.

• There is some evidence in the Levant for a more mobile “circulating” settlement

pattern, where bands frequently moved between locations of desired resources.

• This implies is a “provisioning of individuals” procurement strategy, in which each

individual carries a small, lightweight tool-kit that is replenished “on the go”.

• Evidence for this includes lithic resource sites with lots of expended cores but few

retouched tools or “finished” products like Levallois flakes or points.

• Evidence for “provisioning of place” is sites (away from the lithic source) where there

are abundant chunks of imported raw materials, primary reduction (cortical) flakes & debris, and many more products than cores.

Did Neanderthals organize their use of space?

• This question is related to the issue of the complexity of Neanderthal cognition.

• The palimpsest and disturbed nature of many cave deposits and open-air sites

makes this hard to assess, but some statistical analyses of artifact distributions DO suggest activity areas and/or deliberate cleaning of living spaces.

• Two new discoveries support this:

o ABRIC ROMANI (near Barcelona, Spain), Level N

o Layer dates to 55 kya.

o Nineteen hearths found in 3 clusters. Hearths are described as

“smouldering”, this would release heat slowly (overnight?).

o Position of these hearths suggests a sleeping area for a small group (8-10

individuals) along the rear wall of the shelter.

o Impression of a 5 m long trimmed spruce pole that may have been a support

for a lean-to shelter or tent.

• La Folie (Poitiers, Northern France)

o Open-air site Mousterian of Acheulian Tradition site dating to 58 kya.

o Very rare undisturbed site on flat ground next to a small river. Site occupied

on one occasion, then rapidly covered with mud, preserving the impressions of plant materials on the surface as well as wooden post holes. The posts form an 11 m diameter circle with a gap.

o This interpreted as an encampment of a small group of Neanderthals with a

fence, a hearth in the gap, sleeping area (impressions of “bedding”) opposite the gap, a flintknapping area, and another tool using area. special segregated activities

The Fire Debate

• Because European climates were cold for much of the Pleistocene, it was assumed

that Neanderthals (and their predecessors could use & make fire.

• Recently, Sandgathe & Dibble have challenged this, arguing that long Mousterian

sequences in some sites have NO evidence of fire, whereas others do (repeated hearth construction, evidence of cooking).

• In the sites they studies (Pech de L’Aze IV, Roc de Marsal) they found evidence of

fire associated with warmer periods (not season), but almost no evidence of fire during colder periods.

• This reverse expectations!

• They say this suggests that Neanderthals could only “capture” and conserve natural

fires, but not acturally make fir. A “Quest for Fire” scenario!

• Natural fires are much rarer in colder climate, explaining the absence of fire use

during those periods.

• Many archaeologists disagree, arguing that Sandgathe & Dibble have reached

sweeping conclusions based on only two sites.

•

How efficient was their technology?

• Recent experimental studies suggest that Levallois technology may not be as

wasteful relative to blade technique as was once claimed

• The existence of handles or other mechanical aids is debated

• Most tools appear to be hand (specifically fingertip) held.

• Some evidence for hafting using natural tar in Syria (keep oxygen away from it, very

sophisticated fire management)

• Birch-tar evidence from the Late Lower Paleolithic implies hafting was practiced for a

long time. (could appear and disappear)

• Spear points were definitely hafted.

What was their diet?

• In Europe, carbon isotope evidence shows meat based diet.

• Were effective hunters of big game

• In Europe, hunted bison, red deer, cattle and horse, reindeer in cold

• Stabbing spears used at close-range (Evidence: Many individuals with healed

broken bones. Injury patterns are similar to those of modern rodeo cowboys – bull and bucking horse riders).

o Whether or not there was a sexual division of labor is not known.

• Sometimes used stone spear-points

• Also used their FRONT TEETH as tools, both vice-grips, and to chew to soften them.

Evidence of the “female” activity of hide preparation (use wear on incisors) is in fact more common on male Neanderthal skeletons (BEWARE OF PROJECTING MODERN GENDER STEREOTYPES ONTO THE PAST!!)

• Meat was also scavenged. Example: Neumark Nord 1 & 2 in Southern Germany

o Site consists of two seasonal ponds over a coal deposit. Blooms of

cyanobacteria in the water appear to have caused episodic mass-death events. Entire herds of complete, minimally disturbed carcasses have been found.

o The sites date to 121 +∕- 5 kya and the archaeological site accumulated over

less than 455 years.

o Interglacial environment was oak-spruce forest changing to hornbeam forest

(climate becoming warmer)

o In one layer – 140 large male fallow deer. In another 70 straight-tusked

elephants!

o These mass-death events exploited by Neanderthals

o Investigators are uncertain whether it was purely scavenging or Neanderthals

also driving animals into muddy ground to trap them. Almost no evidence for carnivore involvement with the bones.

o Over 20,000 stone tools recovered, mostly unretouched flakes and some

cores. Few retouched tools. This is a classic expedient tool-kit. (notches, Clacton notch, burination, flakes on cores)

o Cut-marks on the bones of the Fallow deer herd show a consistent pattern

o Tongues were removed and the rumps were de-fleshed dietary preferences

o Because the Neanderthals had an “infinite” supply of meat, these choices

indicate the meat that Neanderthals preferred, ex: “taste”.

• Although meat made up a majority of Neanderthal diets there is now direct evidence

of plant foods from the Levant and elsewhere.

• Dental calculus from Neanderthal Teeth form Spy (Belgium) and Shanidar (Iraq)

reveal both plant phytoliths and starch grains.

• At Shanidar ( a warmer environment), they were eating some legumes, dates, and

barley that was “cooked in a wet environment” i.e. baked or boiled. MUCH more sophisticated food preparations than we expected! (No grindstones in Neanderthal technology.)

• At Spy (Belgium, a colder environment) they were eating water lily bulbs. No

evidence of cooking there.

• Neanderthals are now known to have exploited marine resources. (Most evidence

has been destroyed by high sea levels.)

• At Gorgham and Vanguard caves, Gibraltar, Neanderthals cooked and ate porpoises,

monk seals and mussels gathered from the shore. (The porpoises were probably scavenged from strandings)

• Other bones there Include ibex, red deer, pig and bear.

• Some early Neanderthals treated others as food (at least four sites in France, 2 in

Croatia, one in Spain).

DID NEANDERTHALS ENGAGE IN SYMBOLIC OR RITUAL BEHAVIOR?

• **Deliberate burials go back at least 80,000 year, but are they ritual, or just

hygienic?

• Claims for grave-goods (La Ferrassie) and offerings of flowers (Shanidar) are

controversial.

• The so-called “cave-bear cult” is misinterpreted bear dens. no cultural artifacts

o Winter deaths in dens, recycling of dens by cave bear

o Eastern most Neanderthal skeleton Tezbekistan, flexed position with ibex

horns = ritualized burial

• In the Grotte du Renne, Arcy-sur Cure, France, some of the last Neanderthals were

making beads out of animal teeth and pendants from bone, but were they just imitating Anatomically Modern humans, who were entering Western Europe at the time? The date, stratigraphic integrity and authorship of this site is now being questioned!

• Gotte du Renne (30,000 BP), Gibraltar: red ochre stain (stimulus diffusion or direct

observation)

• At La Roche-Cotard, France, (date c. 35 kya) a small flint fragment with a natural

hole in it had a bone splinter inserted in the hole, creating the impression of a face. This was a Neanderthals, but was it a deliberately created image?

Did Neanderthals have LANGUAGE?

• Lieberman argued that the cranial base suggested a vocal tract more similar to apes

(incapable or producing some consonants). Higher in Neanderthals, lower in AMHs

• However, the discovery of a Neanderthal hyoid bone at Kebara, Israel, shows that

the Neanderthal larynx was nearly identical to modern humans

o Modern Human Kebara Chimpanzee

• SO… *** Neanderthals had the anatomically ability to produce modern

language, but this does not prove that their language was as complex as is ours.

• Genetic evidence also supports the possibility of complex language in Neanderthals.

Their DNA includes the “FoxP2” gene which is associated with complex language in modern humans.

• BUT some specialists still argue that the lack of clearly symbolic artifacts

unquestionably made by Neanderthals means that Neanderthals did not use complex language. (but declarative: hot, hungry, etc. no complex syntax or conveying complex ideas)

• THIS DEBATE REMAINS UNRESOLVED

o Nasty Brutish & short? Or Nice and Altruistic? (but still short)

• Nasty: Sex & Violence Among Neanderthals: The Lurid Story of El Sidron Cave,

Northern Spain

o Deep cave, the human fossils all occur in a collapsed gallery more than 220

m. from the entrance. (lithic refits in all one instance, widely dispersed)

o The archaeological layer dates to over 49,000 Kya

o Only 415 lithics recovered. Described as “Denticulate Mousterian” with some

Levallois elements including a point. Mostly unretouched flakes and a few cores. Many of the pieces conjoin, showing this is a single episode

o However, the deposits are jumbled, probably caused by the collapse aof an

upper chamber that originally contain them.

o Articulated foot bones (left), humeral frag. & isolated teeth (right).

o 2,100 fragments of only 13 individuals recovered so far, 7 adults, 3

adolescents, 2 juveniles, 1 infant. (12 described so far) Adults.

o Infant, juveniles & adolescents

o The number of individuals (13) is consistent with previous estimates of

Neanderthals band sizes (ca. 10-12)

o Of the 12 individuals published there are significant size differences between

the 6 adults.

o Both mitochondrial and nuclear DNA has been extracted from the adults, as

well as the presence or absence of the Y chromosome.

o The DNA confirms that the larger adults were males and the smaller

were females

o Comparing this to Neanderthal DNA from other European sites shows that

overall DNA variation as low, indicating regular genetic contact between Neanderthal bands.

o One juvenile and the infant are linked to one female. The inter-birth interval is

3 years.

o The MDNA also holds clues to social organization mating patterns.

o All three males had exactly the same MDNA, but all three females had

MDNA different from the males and each other.

o This is considered to be evidence of patrilocality, ex: when a pair-bond forms,

the female moves into the group of the males father. So these Neandderthal males stayed in the same band and obtained their mates from other bands.

o These data do not show whether monogamy or polygyny was practiced, but

monogamy was certainly possible there

o All the long bones, the skulls, etc. are broken with “green-bone” fractures,

and so they were broken at the time of death. Hand and foot bones are articulated and intact.

o Numerous cut-marks and percussion marks show that these

Neanderthals were killed, butchered and eaten raw, presumably by

another band of Neanderthals in a single episode, in a single isolated place.

Nice (sort of): Abundant evidence of care from the sick and wounded (Shanidar, Iraq, individual with amputated arm and partially healed stab wound).

LECTURE 15: UPPER PALEOLITHIC TECHNOLOGY & TYPOLOGY

• Predominant Blade Technology: Step 1: Split nodule to create a platform.

• Step 2: Create a ridge intersecting the platform at 90 degrees. This can be done

bifacially or unifacially. The completed ridge

• Step 3: Apply force to the platform (in this case with a punch) immediately above

the ridge. The angle should be c. 70 degrees. (perpendicular) Crested blade = waste products Subsequent blade removals follow the ridges.

• The End Result: Numerous uniform blade blanks for tools.

• “Normal” blade technique appears in the Upper Acheulian. (preparation of

straight platform with elongated & elaborate platform)

• Levallois blade technique also appears in the Upper Acheulian, but only at the

end.

• Both Normal & Levallois tech. are present in the MP, but vary in frequency both

spatially and temporally.

• Both hard and soft hammer direct percussion as well as indirect percussion and

even pressure can be used to make blades.

• LP and MP used direct percussion only, mainly with a hard hammer.

• Early UP is also direct percussion.

• Indirect percussion by c. 25,000 BP.

o Careful of considering UP technologies as arriving as a whole cloth with

all elements attached

Other UP innovations in lithic technology include:

• Pressure retouch (Small parallel or sub-parallel flake scars.) used on

endscrapers

• “Voluntary Fracture” (Deliberate snapping of blades into segments, each of which

became a tool blank). common, hinge fracture is generated: maximizing usability

• Micro-blade manufacture.

Upper Paleolithic Typology

• The “official” type-list for Southwestern France was compiled in the 1950’s by

Denise de Sonneville-Bordes, Francois Bordes’ wife.

• Her type definitions were derived from earlier work by Lartet, de Mortillet, Breuil &

Peyrony.

• List included 92 types. She used these for cumulative frequency graphs and

various typological indices. exactly like Bordes’ methodology (only comprehensible of South-Western France & Spain)

• In the 1970’s Amilcare Bietti & Francois Bordes added additional types specific to

Italy & the Levant, bringing the total up to 105.

- ENDSCRAPERS (Types 1 – 15) from single to complex

• Basic definition: A flake or blade (or on flake) with unifacial non-abrupt retouch,

usually convex in shape, opposite the point of percussion and at right angles to the axis of flaking. Examples below are Type 1, Single Endscrapers (Type 1 & 2).

o Double Endscraper (Type 3)

o Ogival endscraper (Type 4) retouch gets narrower at end, created by

retouched. Can be on proximal end of piece.

o Aurignacian Endscrapers (Types 5 (b) steep retouch on sides but short

and 6 (a) ) on retouched blades

o Fan-shaped Endscraper (Type 7) much narrowing

o Endscraper on flake (Type 8)

o Circular Endscraper (Type 9) Retouch all the way around perimeter

o Thumbnail Scraper (Type 10) Roughly same side as thumb

o Carinated Endscraper (Type 11): Retouch converges on a single sharp

ridge down the center of the exterior surface of the blade. like keel of boat, leftovers of Dufour bladelets 12 is atypical

o Nosed Endscrapers (Types 13 & 14): Retouched end has “shoulders”.

Examples are numbers 8 & 9 below, which are both “Thick” nosed endscrapers (Type 13). = flat-nosed endscraper = 14 on thinner flatter blade

o 15 = core endscraper doesn’t end up into single ridge, 16 = Rabot (push-

plain) angled blade set through = basic carpenter tool for shaving wood (80-90° edge angle)

• Multiple tools (Types 17 – 22): endscrapers, borers and burins permutations

facilitated by working with standardized blanks

o Endscraper – burin

o Endscraper – truncated blade

o Burin – truncated blade (always look at ends of elongated pieces & lateral

margins)

o Borer – truncated blade

o Borer – Endscraper

o Borer - burin

• Borer (Type 23): A narrow point created by abrupt retouch. Used as a drill. (rare)

symmetrical

o 24: Bec (bird’s beak, steeper on one end) used as drills for asymmetrical

holes

o 25: Microbec, 26: Microborer microscope, bowdrills = gauging

• BURINS (Types 27 – 44): Basic definition: A chisel created by striking off one or

both edges of a flake or blade. far too many types (right angles)

o Single or “Simple” burins have a single spall removed.

o Dihedral burins have at least two spalls removed in opposite directions

from the same tip.

o If more than one spall has been taken off each edge, then it is a “multiple

dihedral burin”.

Various Burin types:

o “Straight dihedral burin” has a symmetrical tip. (straight pointy V) =

common

o “Dejete dihedral burin” has an asymmetrical tip. (edge is off on angle)

common

o “Angle” burin has a tip that forms a right angle. (spawl taken off side of the

blade to truncate the spall = pronounced hinge or step fracture)

o “Busque burin” has a hook-like profile. (Strike spawl down side of blade, &

make notch down other side, whole series of strikes on edge to create curved bit) = perfect for cutting broad-based groove Parot beeked (on flake) half moon

o Burin on straight-retouched truncation: create hinge at end, oblique =

common look like straight dihedral truncation (look at retouch, feel) 36-45

• Chatelperron Point (Types 46-47) Elongated curved back, atypical = poorly

executed

• Gravette points (#s 3-5) (Types 48-49): blade retouch, tip comes out straight not

curving

o Vachon: Gravette point, fixed tip with interior face retouch

• Darts (flechette) (#s 8-10) (Type 54) blades with minimal retouch to turn tip in

functioning point, and base that can be stuck in, worked on both ends

• Stemmed point, Font-Robert variety (Type 55): blade sharpened at tip, long stem

with extensive retouch

• Shouldered Points (Types 56-57) small blades with diagonal truncation for tip &

shouldered (58-59 = backed)

• Truncated blades (oblique) (Types 60-64): deliberately retouched to shorten

them, convex, straight or concave, bi-truncated = on both ends

• Solutrean Laurel-leaf point (Type 70)

• Solutrean Shouldered point (Type 72): Elongated narrow sided with percussion

• Solutrean Willow-leaf point (Type 71)

• Term Paper on Western Eurasian Paleolithic

Research Paper: Isotope evidence for the diet of the Neanderthal type specimen (Michael P. Richards & Ralf W. Schmitz 2008)

LECTURE 16: GETTING AMHS OUT OF AFRICA

• Levant, Bab el Mandeb

• The earliest claimed AMHs fossils are the teeth from Qesem Cave, Israel, claimed to

be c. 380 kya. But most physical anthropologists are skeptical, so….

• ***The consensus is that the EARLIEST skeletally modern humans originated

in Africa.

• Omo, Ethiopia, - c. 195,000 BP.

• Herto, Ethiopia, - 160,000 BP, multiple individuals including a child. Childs skull

was conserved.

• AMHs appears in the Levant by c. 115 - 90,000 BP Skhul & Qafzeh

• A possible AMHs mandible from Tabun dates to 130 kya.

• Early AMHs in Africa (200 to c. 100 kya) may not have been significantly different in

terms of behavior and technology than contemporary Archaic Homo sapiens populations.

• AMHs range expanded and contracted with their preferred environment (warm

tropical and sub-tropical savanna) during Pleistocene climate fluctuations.

• This would explain the alternation of hominin types in the Levant.

Geneticists say there was a significant population “bottleneck” in ancestral AMHs populations (A reduction human populations to a small number) at ca. 75-70 kya.

• AMHs populations may have been reduced to as few as 20,000 people including

only 5,000 breeding females.

• Best candidate for the cause: Lake Toba (Indonesia) super-volcanic eruption

(c.71,000 kya), which caused global temperatures to drop 5 degrees c. for at least 5

years, causing severe environmental damage, crashing large mammal populations in general.

• Examples of early advanced technological/cultural elements in Africa.

o “Stillbay” and “Howiesons Poort” Middle Stone Age industries at Klasies

River and Blombos Caves (South Arica, c. 80-60 kya) has blade tools, bifacially flaked spear points, evidence of effective large mammal hunting, and exploitation of marine resources (fish and shellfish).

• Geometric pattern at Blombos at 70,000 BP, first animal depiction and painted ostrich

egg shells at 50,000 BP?

• Survivors of the bottleneck were supposedly technologically and culturally superior,

so their populations increased, and they began expanding their range.

• Australia occupied between 53-60 kya, facilitated by boats or rafts capable of

crossing up to 90 km of ocean.

• Of the three possible dispersal routes out of Africa, only the Levant and the Bab el

Mandeb are considered likely for the AMHs dispersal.

o This is because Neanderthals persisted very late in Spain. (Levant & Bab-

el-Mandeb = eastern phenomenon)

The Northern Route (the Levant)

Problems for the Levant:

• Extreme aridity of Sinai even during “wet” periods. During wet periods rains rarely

went below 31o 30’ north latitude.

• Swamps east of the Nile delta may have been a problem (disease?).

• There is NO agreement on when climate in the corridor was wet enough to facilitate

hominin expansions in the late-middle and Upper Pleistocene.

• Speliothem (cave travertines) data suggest warm periods (MIS-5 [130-74 kya] and

MIS-3 [60-24 kya) were wet. Lake level data (lake Lisan) suggests MIS-4 (74-60 kya) was wet.

The Southern Route (Bab el Mandeb)

• Amanuel Beyin argues that most points in the African MSA are bifacial, but in the

Levant, contemporary points are mostly Levallois with a little basal retouch, but that in the Arabian peninsula, there are bifacial points that are similar to the African MSA.

Problems for the Bab al Mandeb:

• Boat crossing required.

• Problems comparing North African and Near Eastern archaeological records due to

different classificatory schemes and buried UP sites in the Nile Delta.

• Most of Arabian Peninsula was even more arid than Sinai (!), although highlands on

the west side may have been more usable.

• There has been almost no archaeology done in Saudi Arabia except surface

collections in the southwest, so at the moment we’re just guessing. Accurate dating is a major problem

Vegetation: North-east Africa & the Near East

• John Shea discussed the influence of climate on hominin expansions through the

Levant.

• Hominins alternated in the Levant. Early AMHs was present from c. 130 kya but was

REPLACED by Neanderthals at c. 72 kya (MIS-5 to MIS-4 boundary).

• AMHs then REPLACED Neanderthals there at c. 45 kya.

• These two replacements fall on each end of the Late MP (the “Tabun B-type

Mousterian”).

• Shea argues that the “C-type” to “B-type” transition was abrupt, coenciding with a

change in hominin species.

Emiran “type-fossil” artifacts are thought to be “transitional” between the LMP and the EUP, but Shea argues that this is not the case and the Emiran is stable for at least 10,000 years.

• These include “Emireh points” an elongated Levallois point with basal thinning on the

interior face (“a”) and “chamfered endscrapers”, an endscraper with a diagonal blow creating the working edge (“b”).

• Claims that the Emiran is just another facies of the Early UP.

His argument is:

1. The Levant had relatively small hominin populations.

2. Geographically limited populations dependent on large mammal prey are more vulnerable to extinction if climate changes rapidly.

3. There were two rapid drops in terrestrial productivity during the Late Pleistocene, 71 kya and 45 kya (the Heinrich Event), both possibly associated with volcanic eruptions.

4. These coincide with hominin turnovers in the Levant.

5. After these extinction events, successor populations could quickly disperse into the Levant from adjacent regions. At 45 kya, this happened to be AMHs.

LECTURE 17: THE EUROPEAN EARLY UPPER PALEOLITHIC (CHATELPERRONIAN & GRAVETTIAN)

• Debate on how European MP-UP transition has always been linked to ideas about

the Neanderthals, and ultimately to extant conceptions on the nature of both biological & cultural evolution.

• Drawinian conceptions of evolution implied gradual & progressive anatomical

AND cultural change from simple to to complex.

• Why? Because complex structures/organisms are more finely tuned to their

environment and thus adaptively superior. This is an assumption, not necessarily a fact!

• Concepts of gradualism, continuity and the inherent benefits of complexity were

central to early cultural evolutionary theory, but CONFLICTED with the 19th Century conceptions of CLASSIFICATION, which created FIXED species, artifact and cultural types.

• Classification denied the variability that was necessary for continuous change to

occur.

• This conflict continues today in biology/paleontology on the form of the splitters vs

lumpers and gradualist vs. punctuationalist debates.

• In archaeological context, classifications created discontinuities that turned the

archaeological record into a series of discrete steps punctuated by abrupt transitions.

• This also coincided with the rise of diffusion and migration theory from the 1920’s

through the 1950’s.

• The present debates over the MP-UP transition impose this centuries-old debate

between uniformitarian and punctuationalist ideas onto the Eurasian Paleolithic record.

• However, these are potentially testable hypotheses.

The first work by Lartet and Christy around Les Eyzies, France, only sampled parts of the MP-UP sequence.

• However, key work was done at the Grimaldi caves on the Mediterranean coast by

Emile Riviere.

• Lartet Excavations: Le Moustier & Cro Magnon

• Riviere Excavations: Grimaldi Caves (Grotte des Enfants)

• Grotte des Enfants: Erosional discontinuity in Grotte des Enfants

• The “Tete Negroide” (Supposedly a portrait of a Neanderthal by an AMHs artist.)

• Negative attitudes about Neanderthals also had a profound effect. Perpetuated by

Marcelin Boule.

• The abruptness of the transition between Nean. And AMHs was amplified by a

tendency to attribute ALL of the various technological, cultural and artistic achievements to ALL of the UP in general.

• For example, indirect percussion to make blades appears only after the end of the

Early Upper Paleolithic at c. 28,000 kya.

• However, there IS a major difference in respect to bone technology, which is absent

in the MP, but present in the EUP. Bone Awls

• By the 1940’s a replacement scenario was firmly established, in which AMHs had

evolved elsewhere, and moved into Europe eliminating the Neanderthals.

• Francois Bordes began the rehabilitation of the Neanderthals in the 1950’s with his

“Tribal” model and the M.A.T evolving into the Upper Paleolithic “Perigordian I” that had been defined by Peyrony (aka the “Early Gravettian” or “Chatelperronian” as it is now called).

• Francis Harrold provided the “official” definition of the Chatelperronian in the 1960’s.

He argued that the Chatelperronian mixed some MP types such as scrapers & denticulates with a blade technology

Chatelperronian “UP” tool types included:

1. Direct percussion blades with curved backing (Chatelperron points/knives).

2. Simple endscrapers

3. Simple or dihedral burins

4. Circular endscrapers on small flakes

5. A few bone awls

6. Up to 40% MP types incl. a few Mousterian points

• The authorship of the Chatelperronian was supposedly settled in the 1980’s with the

discovery of a Neanderthal skeleton in a Chatelperronian layer in St. Cesaire cave.

• Nevertheless people continued looking for transitional industries in other areas, and

they “found” them. There were 6 or seven, mostly in Eastern Europe. Two examples are:

• During a brief period (1950’s – early 1970’s) some physical anthropologists thought

Neanderthals had actually evolved into AMHs in Europe, although nobody thinks this now!

• BUT this idea did encourage ideas of a gradual technological transition between and

Upper Paleolithic industries in France, with the Chatelperronian being the transitional industry.

• Since the biological transition should have been a general process over all of

Europe, people started looking for transitional industries in other areas and….

• They “found” them. There were 6 or seven, mostly in Eastern Europe. Two

examples are:

The Uluzzian (Italy)

1. Abundant MP types (scrapers, denticulates and notches)

2. UP endscraper on short blades or blade-like flakes

3. Lots of splintered pieces (wedges?)

4. Large crescent-shaped “microliths” (the Uluzzian “type-fossil)

5. Almost no burins.

6. Dates = 40-30/29 kya

• Teeth found with the Uluzzian may be Neanderthal or AMHs!

• Uluzzian teeth from Grotta de Cavallo (Date = ca, 45-43 kya)

The Szeletian (Hungary)

• Two phases, “Early” & “Developed”

• UP style endscrapers, retouched blades and burins outnumber the flake scrapers.

• First dates indicated it was from ca 40-35 kya BUT recent re-excavation of Szeleta

cave date it to LESS than 30 kya and make it contemporary with the Aurignacian.

• Brian Adams considers it to be just another facies of the Aurignacian

• So why do some people consider it “transitional”?

• Because it contains MANY bifacial leaf-shaped points, that are similar to the

“blattspitze” bifaces of the Central and Eastern European MP.

• All ideas of a Neanderthal to AMHs evolution ended in the 1980’s when the MDNA

and fossil evidence all began to point to Africa as the source of AMHs.

• So the people supporting the “transitional” industries changed their tack to argue that

Neanderthals were developing cultural complexity at an early date, even if they weren’t the source of AMHs genes.

The two questions now are:

1. How did AMHs physical traits spread (gene flow or migration)?

2. How did complex cultural traits appear (independent invention, diffusion/acculturation, or migration)?

• The “smoking gun” of AMHs expansion out of a source that is either southeastern

Europe/Anatolia or the Levant is the: Aurignacian

Distinctively Aurignacian technology includes:

1. Large direct percussion blades

2. Blades are often steeply retouched with step-fractures

3. Endscrapers on retouched blades

4. Truncated blades

5. Strangulated blades

6. Nosed and keeled endscrapers, many of which are bladelet cores.

7. Dufour bladelets

8. Numerous burins including busque forms

9. Abundant bone/antler industry including awls & points.

• Peyrony used the bone industry to divide the Aurig. into 5 phases.

• Aurignacian points: The split-based points are the markers for the Early Aurig.

• The Aurignacian also has an elaborate artistic tradition and numerous personal

ornaments that will be discussed when we look at Paleolithic art.

• The Aurignacian occurs at the lower margin of the applicability of radiocarbon dating.

There are MANY problems:

• A conservative time-scale puts the chronology at:

• Chatelperronian, Uluzzian, Szelettian = 41-38 kya, not younger than 35-34 kya

• “Transitional” industries in Eastern Europe plus the “Protoaurignacian” = 39/38-35

kya

• Aurignacian = appears simultaneously throughout Europe at 35 kya. Ends at c. 30-

28 kya.

BUT!

• Different calibrations give different dates.

• Uncalibrated Aurignacian dates range from 37 to 27 kya.

• New calibrations based on the pattern of earlier radiocarbon dates giving uniformly

“young” ages put the Aurig. range at 47 – 41 kya.

• It is important to use calibrations uniformly. Don’t compare calibrated to uncalibrated

dates, or dates calibrated by different methods.

The GRAVETTIAN

• Distinctive Gravettian technology. (Perigordian = synonymous in older literature)

1. Smaller blades than the Aurignacian. Indirect percussion begins during this period. In general, technology is lighter than the Aurignacian.

2. Blades with straight backing. If pointed they are called Gravette points.

3. Backed bladelets. If pointed, “Microgravettes”.

4. Burins often outnumber endscrapers.

5. Abundant bone/antler technology including pierced bars and conical points.

6. The small, lightweight points of the gravettian may indicate the development of the spear-thrower.

• The consensus today is that the Gravettian follows the Aurignacian in time.

• Gravettian Tools: The Gravettian was supposed to have evolved out of the

Chatelperronian, but a temporal gap makes that unlikely

• There are geographical and chronological differences in the Gravettian. The 3

geographical variants are:

1. Western Gravettian (France, Spain & Italy)

• Starts at c. 28 kya. Ends at c. 22 kya in France & Spain. In Italy it evolves into the

“Epigravettian” with lots of microgravettes at c. 20 kya.

• Divided into 5 phases by Peyrony, but this may only be specific to the sequence at

La Ferrassie. He further subdivided each “phase” into “a, b and c” divisions. These fine subdivisions are essentially worthless.

• The earliest phase is characterized by stemmed “Font Robert points”.

• The latest phase (“Vc”) has numerous Noailles burins.

• The various divisions of the Western Gravettian have been attributed to:

1. Evolutionary stages in a single technological tradition.

2. Ethnic groups. Many French archaeologists routinely refer to the “Noaillian” and “Font Robert” cultures.

3. Activities within the Gravettian technocomplex.

• The “Noaillian” dates to 24-22 kya in France and is supposed to be the “culture” that

produced the “Venus” figurines.

• All three geographical variants of the Gravettian include human burials (sometimes

multiple) with elaborate grave goods.

• The environment of the Western Gravettian was becoming colder over time. Boreal

forest was being replaced by steppe.

2. Central Gravettian (Germany & Austria) Concentrates in the Danube valley (Schwabian Jura).

• Starts at c. 30 kya. Ends at c. 26-25 kya because the area was becoming extremely

cold.

• Numerous cave occupations.

• Very elaborate bone/antler technology

3. Eastern Gravettian (Eastern Europe and European Russia. Best sites are in the Don River valley, Ukraine, and the Pavlov Hills, Czech Republic)

• Starts at c. 26 kya. Ends at c. 20 kya

• Highly sophisticated adaptation to a treeless cold mammoth-steppe environment.

Primary game animal was reindeer.

• Settlements with semi-permanent structures made of mammoth bones (hunted or

scavenged?). Mezhirich, Ukraine

• Major technological advances at Dolni Vestonice (Czech Republic) include fired

ceramics, used to make figurines and possibly pottery. Many of the figurines appear to be deliberately “exploded”, i.e. heated before the clay was completely dry, causing them to explode in the hearths.

• Some clay pieces at Dolni Vestonice have impressions of textiles woven from

fibers (plant or animal unknown). It is speculated that they were making nets, bags and/or clothing.

PLANT-FOOD PROCESSING IN THE PALEOLITHIC PRESENTATION: starch grains, 30,000 BC, at all open air sites, different temperate site at Bilancino II Italy (warm & tundra), water plants = source

LECTURE 18: EUROPEAN LATER UPPER PALEOLITHIC

• Last Glacial Maximum (LGM)

o c. 26.5 – 19 kya

o 22-20 kya most severe, this coincides with the EUP-LUP transition

(Gravettian- Solutrean)

o End of EUP is the Gravettian (aka Perigordian V and VI). It features

elongated unifacial points, truncation burins, & lots of backed blades & bladelets including Gravette points. (Flechette: tip and based are retouched, not the rest, and dark)

• Solutrean – 21 to 17 kya Giant Laurel leafs: wide base vs. willow leafs (soft-

hammer)

o Developed locally in France. (Phil Smith doctoral dissertation)

o Precursor is unclear.

o Divided by French prehistorians into “Proto”, Early, Middle, Late and Final

Phases of roughly equal lengths. This sequence does not fit in Spain. so well made = believed to be from Hungary, not sure what it develops out of = precursor unclear

Atterian vs Hungarian hypothesis: population migrations speculations

Non-sensical to compare fully developed Solutrean to beginning: French origins, lasts 4000 years present in severe climate seasons, Peyrony =5

Increase in points near end = increased hunting: cold, pressure retouch

Base: parallel scars of pressure flaking on Willow leaf, heat treating evidence by discoloration of flakes: red ionized minerals by flint: 70,000

Eccentric retouch patterns: notches and projection: practicing or meaning

• Solutrean Tools (All Phases)

• Solutrean Tools (Upper) bone industry restricted

• Late Solutrean Bone Tools (First eyed needles) needed for cold

• Distribution of the Solutrean (IGNORE the DATES on this graphic.) Note its location

in “refugium” areas. Unmatched until 15,000 years = special

• Subsistence: La Solutre: This horse-jump was in use from the Aurignacian through

the Magdalenian. REINDEER are the most common animals in the Solutrean. = reflection in change in resource base, colder: the smaller the number, but the likelier to group in herds (Smith believed smaller species due to Tundra) during final period: notched and spear points appear, bow and arrow probably appears yet does not show up in art (only mesolithic) Art not depicting (ibex, mammoth, hares, salmon and other fish bones)

• Art: personal ornaments, cave paintings: Lascaux? Sculptures, colored flint,

aesthetics multi-colored flint pieces

European Later Upper Paleolithic: MAGDALENIAN (Breuil & Peyrony)

Magdalenian – 17 to 12 kya

• Origin unclear. Definitely different from the Final Solutrean.

• Final Solutrean has elaborate bifacial technology. Earliest Magdalenian has no

bifacial technology and generally looks relatively crude. Its “points” include small, pointed oval “Badegoule points” but most points are made of antler/bone.

• The earliest Magdalenian has some tool types that are similar to Aurignacian and

Gravettian forms, including a few strangulated blades (Aurig.) and backed blades (Gravettian), but these similarities are probably functional rather than “cultural”. (Time overlap)

Magdalenian “phases”:

• Divided into 6 phases grouped into “Lower” (Phases I – III) and “Upper” (Phases IV –

VI)

• Difference in lithics between phases is small. Phases are mostly defined by styles of

bone/antler points and harpoons.

• Followed by the “Azilian”, an Early Mesolithic culture/technology dominated by

microliths and with abundant antler/bone tools, although not as elaborate or decorated as in the Magdalenian.

• Geographical distribution of the Magdalenian (pink) and Italian Epigravettian (red).

(Perinees foothills concentration, Plateau a little too cold) equivalent in Italy

Magdalenian Environment

• First two phases occur during a mild climate episode near the middle of Marine

Isotope Stage 2 (MIS-2).

• The final four phases correspond to the last important glacial advance. Cold

conditions, but not quite as severe as the last glacial maximum.

• Warming trend beginning at c. 14,000 BP begins converting Western Eurasia from

boreal forest and tundra into deciduous forest, setting the stage for the Mesolithic. (Mesolithic = adaptation to rich resource base)

Characteristic Magdalenian Stone Tools

1. Simple Endscrapers

2. Burins, simple and dihedral rather than the truncation burins of the late Gravettian.

3. Special burin types – Parrots-beak burin

4. Star-shaped borers

5. Backed and denticulated bladelets

6. Stemmed points – some people argue these are evidence of the bow and arrow. The other candidates are points in the Spanish Solutrean ar c. 20 kya, or Mesolithic points after 12 kya.

7. Small shouldered points

8. Microliths

Magdalenian Phases (Early)

• Phase I: Thick simple endscrapers and burins, with lots of multiple tools

(endscraper/burins). Also raclettes and splintered pieces (wedges?). Elaborate bone industry with single bevel base bone points, lots of needles, smoothing tools, pierced bars, etc.

• Phase II: Thinner endscrapers, big increase in backed bladelets and triangular

microliths. Biconical bone points. Transition from direct to indirect percussion?

• Phase III: Backed bladelets & microliths decrease relative to simple endscrapers,

burins & multiple tools. Short, conical antler points with an elongated bevel. Decorated antler “wands”.

Magdalenian Phases (Late)

• Phase IV: Little change in stone tool types. Bone industry begins a pattern of

increasing elaboration. Earliest forms of crude harpoons indicating increasing exploitation of anadromous and resident fish (salmonids).

• Phase V: Same stone tools with the addition of small shouldered points and

microgravettes. Harpoons with a single row of barbs and many decorated bone/antler objects including spear-throwers & batons.

• Phase VI: Same stone tools but with tanged points (arrows?). Most elaborate bone

industry. Harpoons with double rows of barbs. Most bone tools are decorated.

• Magdalenian Lithics (Various Phases) saws

• Upper Magdalenian Harpoons / Points

Change in the Magdalenian

• The Upper Paleolithic pattern of increasing specialization and diversification of stone

tool forms remains stable through Phase III, but then begins to reverse itself from Phase IV through the Azilian. Tools become more standardized in a smaller number of simpler forms.

• Phase: I II III IV V VI Azil

• # of types over 0.5%: 36 33 34 23 19 18 16

• Multiple causes: Environmental change and associated changes in subsistence

technology, increase in the use of bone tools (burins increase over time).

• This is NOT necessarily “cultural impoverishment”. smaller #of people to deal with

• Highly efficient hunters specializing in reindeer and ibex (in the Pyrenees and

Spain). Making decorated parkas

• Magdalenian Burial, Female Cap Blanc

• The Magdalenian is characterized by large sites including possible population

aggregations of over 500 people at sites like Les Eyzies and Le Mas d’Azil (Handel for spear thrower)

• Magdalenian rockshelter, Les Eyzies

• There are also open-air sites with tents like Pincevent: much refitting, river cobble-

paved floor

Other features at Pincevent.

• Global warming near the end of the Pleistocene began replacing the open

Mammoth-steppe (grasslands) with more temperate forests.

• Large concentrated herds of game (reindeer, horse & bison) were being replaced by

more dispersed woodland game like red deer and roe deer.

• Large Magdalenian groups could not remain concentrated when resources were

becoming more dispersed.

• By 12 kya the Magdalenian transforms into the “Azilian”, a Mesolithic technological

tradition characterized by smaller group sizes, microlithic technology, and a concentration on hunting smaller game and fishing. high status of individuals in Russia, coordinate and control culture in larger groups, in terms of social complexity, hides to keep floor dry, ochre = coloring agent, trench of red ochre

LECTURE 20: EUROPEAN PALEOLITHIC ART

• Magdalenian engraved rib, Le Chaffaud France. The first piece to be recognized –

perfect 3D perspective

• Magdalenian sculptures from Le Mas D’Azil, France. had to be always displayed

under his labels and his designs, fox with personality, “too good for cavemen”

• Altamira, Spain, the first paintings discovered,

• Gabriel de Mortillet: hardcore atheist against religion, Paleolithic was pre-religious,

abstract symbolism not legitimately associated with Paleolithic, senior old boy ideas

• Carthailhac (left) & de Sautuola (right) non-establishment figures

• Chief of establishment figures : Reinach, champion authenticity : Piette & Breuil,

Piette convinced by holding conferences, Breuil definitively authenticated cave paintings “noble capabilities of cro-magnon men”

• Edouard Lartet & Cro Magnon: Art as just decoration, late Magdalenian engravings

• Hunters in Winter – Pieter Bruegel the Elder (1565) visual reward is only part, in

part entirely culturally contextual, recent art being produced for specific set of recipients: ideas about life yet other elements that contain other meanings: imaginary

• The Arnolfini Marriage – Jan Van Eyck (1434): 3D look, photo realism, witness

statement from marriage, gender roles, dog for marital fidelity, Van del Eyck in mirror

Sympathetic Hunting Magic:

• Animals were depicted in order to capture their souls and symbolically kill them,

ensuring success in hunting Speared ibex, Niaux, France, image as manifestation of thing itself, without ears or eyes,

• Bison sculpted in clay, Le Tuc du Audoubert, France. Begouen argued that these

were mating

Sympathetic Fertility Magic: In this view, animals and humans are depicted pregnant to encourage their reproduction. Lascaux, France. & Prezwalski’s horse

• The “sorcerer” from Le Trois Frères, France : 3000-4000 limestone slabs filled with

engravings on floor, ritual practitioners doing this.

Symbolic Representation of Upper Paleolithic World View: A Leroi-Gourhan saw painted caves as organized compositions opposing male and female symbols Niauz, France, & Font de Gaume, France

John Lewis-Williams – Shamanic Trance Visions

• Most historically recorded rock art in South Africa and Australia was done by shamans

and illustrated animal spirits, seen during trance.

• Chauvet Cave & Vogelherd & Hohle Fels

LECTURE 19: THE LEVANTINE UPPER PALEOLITHIC & EPIPALEOLITHIC

• Levantine Upper Paleolithic: 50/48 to 11.5 kya.

• Begins at about the same time as a shift from warm wet climate (54.5 – 49.5 kya) to

a cold dry period (49.5 – 46 kya) followed by stable cold conditions (46-36 kya).

• Divided into:

o Levantine Upper Pal. (blade tools) 48-20 kya

o Epipaleolithic (microlithic tools) 20-11.5 kya

• These are roughly the temporal equivalents of the Aurignacian + Gravettian and the

Solutrean + Magdalenian in Western Europe.

• May have evolved out of the Levantine Late MP, but this claim is controversial.

• Two geographical subdivisions of the Initial Levantine Upper Paleolithic.

1. Northern variant has more chamfered endscrapers.

2. Southern variant has more Emireh Points.

• Levantine I.U.P. Tools

• Following this transition, there are 2 parallel traditions:

• Ahmarian (Early=45-30 kya; Late=30-23/22 kya)

• Levantine Aurignacian (32-29 kya)

• Distribution of the IUP and Early Ahmarian

• Early Ahmarian Tools: El Wad Points

• Ahmarian Tools: Endscrapers, Truncations, Ksar Akil Scrapers (Little Bone Making)

• Earliest Anatomically Modern Human after disappearance of Neanderthal fossils

Egbirt, outside Levant after Neanderthal 70,000-50,000

• Levantine Aurignacian is intrusive from the north (Anatolia?)

• Earliest published dates are 36/34 kya, but Bar-Yosef thinks it is later (32-29 kya)

• “Classic” Aurignacian tools – carinated and nosed endscrapers, Dufour bladelets,

retouched blades with Quina or Demi-Quina Retouch, bone tools incl. split-base points.

• Distribution of Levantine Aurignacian Caves

• Levantine Aurignacian Stone Tools systematic

• Levantine Aurignacian Bone Tools few art in Aurignacian

• Distribution of Late Ahmarian: bladelet & flake dominated

• Late Ahmarian Tools: Ouchtata Bladelets tiny marginalized retouch blades that

look like Dufour bladelets (pressure retouch on alternating faces) but on both faces

KEBARAN - 23,500 to 14,500 BP (local name for the early Epipaleolithic) late amharan = ancestor

• Sites shift to coastal plains and lowland. Most sites are small. warmer the global

wetter, the wetter in the Levant

• Microlithic technology (steep retouch with oblique diagonal truncation on tip looks like

Black triangular arrow points) rectangular and triangular

• Hunted deer & gazelle, but more gathering of plant foods.

• Acorns or wild wheat processed in bedrock mortars.

• Site: Ohalo II, Sea of Galilee, Israel. Lake-side camp for hunting and/or fishing, 6

circular brush huts. Date: “Ancient Kebaran” c. 23,000 BP. 90,000 seeds in one hut, sea shell beads brought in from ocean & one flexed human burial, tied down & skull cracked open

• The largest Kebaran sites are located in Jordan at the eastern edge of the steppe

grasslands.

• Examples: Khareneh IV and Wadi Jilat 6

• Kharaneh IV: Azraq Basin, Jordan.

• Dates: Multiple occupations between 20,000 and 14,500 BP (“Ancient” to

“Geometric” Kebaran

• Site includes oval “structures”, burials with grave goods, and possibly “ritual”

features.

• Structures:

• Larger seasonal (?) aggregation location of bands of hunter-foragers.

• Most common prey = Gazelle. This was NOT “specialized hunting”, gazelle was the

most common local animal.

• Evidence for long-distance movements and/or contacts in the form of sea-shell

beads.

• Cache of shell beads with red ochre

NATUFIAN - 14,500 to 11,500 BP (late Epipaleolithic transforming(?) to Neolithic)

• Both cave and open-air sites including small circular and sub-rectangular

structures with stone walls.

• Examples: Nahal Oren (village with small interconnected rooms).

• El Wad Cave (wall across part of the cave entrance).

• Hunters (no domestic animals).

• Microliths and reaping knives. (crescent) triple bladed sickler

• Grindstones for processing wheat, barley or acorns

• “Sickle gloss” found on backed blades increases over time, but this is not proof of

domesticated plants.

• May be the actual transition to farming in Israel, but may be extremely intensive

hunter/gatherers.

• Settlements 10X larger than the Kebaran, and found over a bigger area (So. Turkey

to Sinai Peninsula). widely distributed Natufian sites

• Natufian Social Complexity: Natufian ‘shaman”, Hilazon Tachtit, Israel. Female

skeleton buried with 50 tortoise shells, a leopard pelvis, marten skulls, bones of wild boar and eagle, a wild ox tail and a complete human foot. Hilazon Tachtit, Israel. Date: 12 kya.