DOCSLIB.ORG

Ornaments of the Earliest Upper Paleolithic: New Insights from the Levant

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Ornaments of the Earliest Upper Paleolithic: New Insights from the Levant Ornaments of the earliest Upper Paleolithic: New insights from the Levant Steven L. Kuhn*†, Mary C. Stiner*, David S. Reese‡, and Erksin Gu¨ lec¸§ *Department of Anthropology, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721-0030; ‡Peabody Museum of Natural History, Yale University, P.O. Box 208118, New Haven, CT 06520-8118; and §Paleoantropoloji, Ankara U¨ niversitesi, Dil ve Tarih-Cog˘rafya Faku¨ltesi, Sıhhiye, 06100, Ankara, Turkey Edited by Henry C. Harpending, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, and approved April 10, 2001 (received for review December 13, 2000) Two sites located on the northern Levantine coast, U¨ c¸ag˘ ızlı Cave For some time it has appeared that the earliest Upper (Turkey) and Ksar ’Akil (Lebanon) have yielded numerous marine Paleolithic ornaments came from eastern Africa and central shell beads in association with early Upper Paleolithic stone tools. Europe (8, 9). In the Eastern Mediterranean Basin (the Levant), Accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) radiocarbon dates indicate it seemed until recently that ornaments became widespread only ages between 39,000 and 41,000 radiocarbon years (roughly in the late Upper Paleolithic or early Epipaleolithic, after 20,000 41,000–43,000 calendar years) for the oldest ornament-bearing years ago. Reports of shell beads in earlier sites are sporadic, few levels in U¨ c¸ag˘ ızlı Cave. Based on stratigraphic evidence, the earliest in number, and often troubled by the lack of reliable dates (refs. shell beads from Ksar ’Akil may be even older. These artifacts 10–13, but see ref. 14). This fact was particularly puzzling in the provide some of the earliest evidence for traditions of personal context of recent arguments about modern human origins. The ornament manufacture by Upper Paleolithic humans in western Levant is one likely route of movement from North Africa into Asia, comparable in age to similar objects from Eastern Europe and Western Asia. If the origins and spread of Upper Paleolithic Africa. The new data show that the initial appearance of Upper cultures had some connection to the dispersal of early anatom- Paleolithic ornament technologies was essentially simultaneous on ically modern human populations into Eurasia, we might expect three continents. The early appearance and proliferation of orna- to find some of the earliest evidence of ornaments and other ment technologies appears to have been contingent on variable distinctive Upper Paleolithic behavioral traits in the Levant. demographic or social conditions. Results from recent excavations at U¨ ¸agc ˘ızlı Cave in Turkey and reappraisal of mollusk remains from the Lebanese Paleo- oday, the practice of decorating oneself with pigment or lithic site of Ksar ’Akil greatly alter the picture of the antiquity Tobjects is universal among human cultures, such that most of and distribution of early Upper Paleolithic ornament-making us take personal ornaments for granted. Nonetheless, the ap- traditions in the eastern Mediterranean basin. Ornaments are present in large numbers in these sites in layers dating to at least pearance of ornaments such as beads and pendants during the 40,000 years ago, perhaps much earlier, about the same age as Paleolithic marks an important rubicon in the evolution of the earliest ornamental objects known from Central Europe and human behavior. These objects are among the first document- Africa. able forms of information technology, the earliest unambiguous use of material objects as media for communication.¶ Archaeological Background Widespread use of comparatively standard ornament forms Ksar ’Akil is one of the most important prehistoric sites in the such as beads and pendants of shell, tooth, ivory, or stone is a eastern Mediterranean basin. Situated a few kilometers inland hallmark of the Upper Paleolithic (1, 3), a series of archaeolog- from the coast near Beirut, Lebanon, this large rockshelter ical techno-complexes that appeared around or shortly after contained artifact-rich deposits more than 19 m deep and 45,000 years ago in Eurasia. Ornament making traditions are also spanning the late Middle Paleolithic through Epipaleolithic characteristic of the Late Stone Age (LSA), the African equiv- culture periods. Ksar ’Akil was first investigated on a large scale alent of the Upper Paleolithic. The Upper Paleolithic can no by J. F. Ewing in the 1940s (15). J. Tixier reexcavated the upper longer be considered exclusively the product of anatomically layers at the site (16) but was not able to reach the earliest Upper modern humans, at least in Europe (4), but the proliferation of Paleolithic strata before political events forced the project to a the Upper Paleolithic does coincide with the radiation of modern halt. Ksar ’Akil serves as a reference sequence for the Upper humans within Eurasia and the eventual disappearance of the Paleolithic in the northern Levant. The 25 Upper Paleolithic Neandertals. Ornaments have occasionally been reported from layers at this site have been divided into 6 stages (17, 18). Stages archaeological deposits containing late Middle Paleolithic or 1 and 2, representing the earliest Upper Paleolithic, are of Middle Stone Age chipped stone artifacts (1, 5, 6), but questions particular interest here. persist as to whether these rare objects are actually artifacts or The artifact assemblages from Stage I (layers XXV–XXI) are were introduced into Middle Paleolithic layers by subsequent characterized by a method for producing stone flakes and blades disturbance of sediments (7). that closely resembles what is known as Levallois technology, The geographic distribution of the earliest evidence of per- involving flat cores with faceted platforms and hard-hammer sonal ornamentation has implications for the mechanism by (stone-on-stone) percussion. Levallois technology is most often which this behavioral innovation spread. If ornaments appeared much earlier in one small area and spread from there, it could be argued that their diffusion reflected the expansion of a This paper was submitted directly (Track II) to the PNAS office. particular (modern) human population. If similar uses of mate- Abbreviations: B.P., before present; NISP, number of identified specimens. rial objects as media for communication evolved simultaneously †To whom reprint requests should be addressed. E-mail: [email protected]. on a much larger geographic front, more generalized demo- ¶Red ochre pigment is quite common in archaeological sites dating back to more than graphic or social factors are implicated. Answering these ques- 100,000 years ago. However, ochre has practical uses in tanning hides and treating the tions requires reliable radiometric dates, secure stratigraphic surfaces of wooden objects, so its symbolic significance is not self-evident (1). Arguments associations between dated materials and artifacts, and, finally, have also been made about the shapes of certain early stone artifacts carrying intention- ally added symbolic information. Again, the inference can be questioned in that these establishing the artifactual nature of the materials suspected to attributes also have functional implications (2). The distinctive characteristic of beads and ANTHROPOLOGY be ornaments. similar artifacts is that they have no obvious function except as visually arresting objects. www.pnas.org͞cgi͞doi͞10.1073͞pnas.121590798 PNAS ͉ June 19, 2001 ͉ vol. 98 ͉ no. 13 ͉ 7641–7646 Downloaded by guest on October 3, 2021 associated with earlier, Middle and Lower Paleolithic archaeo- XXI, chanfreins are absent. The most recent Upper Paleolithic logical occurrences. In contrast, retouched (intentionally re- archaeological assemblages from layers B through B4 at U¨ ¸agc ˘ızlı shaped) tools from Stage I are typical Upper Paleolithic forms, Cave (Fig. 1 1-8) bear a striking resemblance to artifact assem- including endscrapers and chisel-like burins. Layers XXV blages from layer XVI and XVII at Ksar ’Akil, with well- through XXII are distinguished by the presence of a distinctive developed prismatic blade technology produced by soft-hammer artifact form, the chanfrein or chamfered piece, but these or indirect percussion. Common retouched tool forms include artifacts are much rarer in layer XXI (17). These basal Upper endscrapers and pointed blades (Fig. 1 5-8), and there are very Paleolithic assemblages do not contain bone or antler artifacts few burins. In contrast with Ksar ’Akil, however, bone and antler and many other elements of the complex of traits associated with tools are present in layers B through B4 at U¨ ¸agc ˘ızlı. Artifact so-called ‘‘modern human behavior’’ (12, 17). assemblages from layers C through F document a gradual The combination of Middle Paleolithic technological elements transition between the upper and lower components. (the Levallois features) and Upper Paleolithic retouched tool A number of accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) radiocar- forms in intact sedimentary layers has prompted some research- bon dates have been obtained from U¨ ¸agc ˘ızlı Cave (Table 1). ers to call these earliest Upper Paleolithic assemblages ‘‘transi- Radiometric ages for the layers B–B4 range from 29,000 to tional’’ (e.g., refs. 13 and 17). However, whereas the presence of 32,000 years B.P., those for layers G and H vary between 38,900 Middle Paleolithic elements in the methods of blade manufac- and 41,000 years B.P. (uncalibrated). These dates probably ture does suggest that these technologies developed out of a underestimate the actual or calendar ages by 2,000–3,000 years Middle Paleolithic base somewhere,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Middle Stone Age of East Africa and the Beginnings of Regional Identity
    Journal of Worm Prehistory, Vol. 2, No. 3. 1988 The Middle Stone Age of East Africa and the Beginnings of Regional Identity J. Desmond Clark ~ The history of research into the Middle Stone Age of East Africa and the present state of knowledge of this time period is examined for the region as a whole, with special reference to paleoenvironments. The known MSA sites and occurrences are discussed region by region and attempts are made to fit them into a more precise chronological framework and to assess their cultural affinities. The conclusion is reached that the Middle Stone Age lasted for some 150,000 years but considerably more systematic and in-depth research is needed into this time period, which is now perceived as of great significance since it appears to span the time of the evolution of anatomically Modern humans in the continent, perhaps in Last Africa. KEY WORDS: Middle Stone Age; Sangoan/Lupemban; long chronology; Archaic Homo sapiens; Modern H. sapiens. • . when we eventually find the skulls of the makers of the African Mousterian they will prove to be of non-Homo sapiens type, although probably not of Neanderthal type, but merely an allied race of Homo rhodesiensis. The partial exception.., of the Stillbay culture group is therefore explicable on the grounds that Homo sapiens influence was already at work. (Leakey, 1931, p. 326) The other view is that the cradle of the Aurignacian races lies hidden somewhere in the Sahara area, probably in the south-east, and that an early wave of movement carried one branch of the stock via Somaliland and the Straits of Bab el-Mandeb into Arabia, and thence to some unknown secondary centre of distribution in Asia.
    [Show full text]
  • Bibliography
    Bibliography Many books were read and researched in the compilation of Binford, L. R, 1983, Working at Archaeology. Academic Press, The Encyclopedic Dictionary of Archaeology: New York. Binford, L. R, and Binford, S. R (eds.), 1968, New Perspectives in American Museum of Natural History, 1993, The First Humans. Archaeology. Aldine, Chicago. HarperSanFrancisco, San Francisco. Braidwood, R 1.,1960, Archaeologists and What They Do. Franklin American Museum of Natural History, 1993, People of the Stone Watts, New York. Age. HarperSanFrancisco, San Francisco. Branigan, Keith (ed.), 1982, The Atlas ofArchaeology. St. Martin's, American Museum of Natural History, 1994, New World and Pacific New York. Civilizations. HarperSanFrancisco, San Francisco. Bray, w., and Tump, D., 1972, Penguin Dictionary ofArchaeology. American Museum of Natural History, 1994, Old World Civiliza­ Penguin, New York. tions. HarperSanFrancisco, San Francisco. Brennan, L., 1973, Beginner's Guide to Archaeology. Stackpole Ashmore, w., and Sharer, R. J., 1988, Discovering Our Past: A Brief Books, Harrisburg, PA. Introduction to Archaeology. Mayfield, Mountain View, CA. Broderick, M., and Morton, A. A., 1924, A Concise Dictionary of Atkinson, R J. C., 1985, Field Archaeology, 2d ed. Hyperion, New Egyptian Archaeology. Ares Publishers, Chicago. York. Brothwell, D., 1963, Digging Up Bones: The Excavation, Treatment Bacon, E. (ed.), 1976, The Great Archaeologists. Bobbs-Merrill, and Study ofHuman Skeletal Remains. British Museum, London. New York. Brothwell, D., and Higgs, E. (eds.), 1969, Science in Archaeology, Bahn, P., 1993, Collins Dictionary of Archaeology. ABC-CLIO, 2d ed. Thames and Hudson, London. Santa Barbara, CA. Budge, E. A. Wallis, 1929, The Rosetta Stone. Dover, New York. Bahn, P.
    [Show full text]
  • Tese1997vol1.Pdf
    Dedicado à Cristina e ao João David Advertência prévia Este trabalho corresponde à dissertação escrita pelo autor para obtenção do grau de doutoramento em Pré-História pela Universidade de Lisboa. A sua redacção ficou concluída em Abril de 1995, e a respectiva arguição teve lugar em Novembro do mesmo ano. A versão agora publicada beneficiou de pequenos ajustamentos do texto, de uma actualização da biliografia e do acrescento de alguns elementos de informação novos, nomeadamente no que diz respeito a datações radiométricas. A obra compreende dois volumes. No volume II agruparam-se os capítulos sobre a história da investigação e a metodologia utilizada na análise dos materiais líticos, bem como os estudos monográficos das diferentes colecções. No volume I, sintetizaram-se as conclusões derivadas desses estudos, e procurou-se integrá-las num quadro histórico e geográfico mais lato, o das sociedades de caçadores do Paleolítico Superior do Sudoeste da Europa. A leitura do volume I é suficiente para a aquisição de uma visão de conjunto dos conhecimentos actuais respeitantes a este período em Portugal. Uma tal leitura deve ter em conta, porém, que essa síntese pressupõe uma crítica das fontes utilizadas. Em Arqueologia, o instrumento dessa crítica é a análise tafonómica dos sítios e espólios. A argumentação sobre as respectivas condições de jazida é desenvolvida no quadro dos estudos apresentados no volume II. É neles que deve ser buscada a razão de ser das opções tomadas quanto à caracterização dos contextos (ocupações singulares, palimpsestos de ocupações múltiplas), à sua homogeneidade (uma só época ou várias épocas), à sua integridade (em posição primária ou secundária), à sua representatividade (universo ou amostra, recuperação integral ou parcial) e à sua cronologia (ou cronologias).
    [Show full text]
  • A Later Stone Age Assemblage from Canteen Kopje, Northern Cape
    204 South African Archaeological Bulletin 65 (192): 204–214, 2010 Field and Technical Report A LATER STONE AGE ASSEMBLAGE FROM CANTEEN KOPJE, NORTHERN CAPE TIM R. FORSSMAN1, KATHLEEN KUMAN1,2, GEORGE M. LEADER1,3 & RYAN J. GIBBON1,4 1School of Geography, Archaeology and Environmental Studies, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa E-mail: [email protected] / [email protected] [email protected] / [email protected] 2Institute for Human Evolution 3Department of Archaeology, University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom 4Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana, USA (Received June 2010. Revised November 2010) INTRODUCTION formation in the foraging economy. While such changes Canteen Kopje has been mentioned in archaeological occurred throughout southern Africa (e.g. Dowson 1998; Hall literature for almost a century because of artefacts which & Smith 2000; Sadr 2002), the outcome, according to Kent had come to light during exploitation of the Vaal River gravels (2002), was constrained by site and situational context. Yet, by diamond miners. It was first registered as a diamond mining some general trends are noticed. Most prominently, lithic site in the 1870s under the name Klip Drift (De Wit 2008). In frequencies changed. A general increase in scrapers and corre- 1948, the site was declared a national monument due to the sponding decrease in backed tools occurred across southern richness of its Earlier Stone Age collections (J. Deacon 1993), yet Africa. At the same time, trade items in the form of ceramics, only recently have systematic archaeological excavations been glass beads and iron implements began appearing in the LSA conducted.
    [Show full text]
  • Comments on Mezmaiskaya"
    Eurasian Prehistory, 5 (1) : 131- 136. GETTING BACK TO BASICS: A RESPONSE TO OTTE "COMMENTS ON MEZMAISKAYA" Lubov Golovanova, Vladimir Doronichev and Naomi Cleghorn Marcel Otte recently argued (In "Comments Jar to the Ahmarian tradition, and particularly the on Mezmaiskaya, North Caucasus", Eurasian lithic assemblages from Abu Noshra and the La­ Prehistory, this issue) that the Early Upper Paleo­ gaman, dating between 30 and 35 ky BP (Gilead, lithic (EUP) at Mezmaiskaya Cave can be defined 1991 ). This preliminary conclusion is based on as Aurignacian (versus Golovanova et al., 2006). the prevalence of micro-laminar (bladelet) debi­ This raises an old methodological problem con­ tage, a high percentage of tools made on bladelets cerning the correct use of scientific terms and the (compared with 45 .7 percent at Lagama), and a definition of the Aurignacian. Lithic definitions rather low representation (about 20 percent) of such as Aurignacian and Gravettian, which were endscrapers and burins. It is important to note that ori ginally based on specific materials, have been only the later Ahmarian assemblages provided a rather more loosely applied to assemblages dis­ basis for this comparison. Moreover, despite tant in time and space. We believe that the wider many similarities, the EUP industry from Layer application of these original terms not only sim­ 1C at Mezmaiskaya is not identical to the Ahmar­ plifies them by a subjective reduction of their pri­ ian. mary determining attributes, but also confuses our Ongoing excavations of EUP levels in Mez­ understanding of cultural processes within and maiskaya Cave now permit a more accurate com­ between various regions.
    [Show full text]
  • The Aurignacian Viewed from Africa
    Aurignacian Genius: Art, Technology and Society of the First Modern Humans in Europe Proceedings of the International Symposium, April 08-10 2013, New York University THE AURIGNACIAN VIEWED FROM AFRICA Christian A. TRYON Introduction 20 The African archeological record of 43-28 ka as a comparison 21 A - The Aurignacian has no direct equivalent in Africa 21 B - Archaic hominins persist in Africa through much of the Late Pleistocene 24 C - High modification symbolic artifacts in Africa and Eurasia 24 Conclusions 26 Acknowledgements 26 References cited 27 To cite this article Tryon C. A. , 2015 - The Aurignacian Viewed from Africa, in White R., Bourrillon R. (eds.) with the collaboration of Bon F., Aurignacian Genius: Art, Technology and Society of the First Modern Humans in Europe, Proceedings of the International Symposium, April 08-10 2013, New York University, P@lethnology, 7, 19-33. http://www.palethnologie.org 19 P@lethnology | 2015 | 19-33 Aurignacian Genius: Art, Technology and Society of the First Modern Humans in Europe Proceedings of the International Symposium, April 08-10 2013, New York University THE AURIGNACIAN VIEWED FROM AFRICA Christian A. TRYON Abstract The Aurignacian technocomplex in Eurasia, dated to ~43-28 ka, has no direct archeological taxonomic equivalent in Africa during the same time interval, which may reflect differences in inter-group communication or differences in archeological definitions currently in use. Extinct hominin taxa are present in both Eurasia and Africa during this interval, but the African archeological record has played little role in discussions of the demographic expansion of Homo sapiens, unlike the Aurignacian. Sites in Eurasia and Africa by 42 ka show the earliest examples of personal ornaments that result from extensive modification of raw materials, a greater investment of time that may reflect increased their use in increasingly diverse and complex social networks.
    [Show full text]
  • On the Nature of Transitions: the Middle to Upper Palaeolithic and the Neolithic Revolution
    On the Nature of Transitions: the Middle to Upper Palaeolithic and the Neolithic Revolution The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you. Your story matters Citation Bar-Yosef, Ofer. 1998. “On the Nature of Transitions: The Middle to Upper Palaeolithic and the Neolithic Revolution.” Cam. Arch. Jnl 8 (02) (October): 141. Published Version doi:10.1017/S0959774300000986 Citable link http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:12211496 Terms of Use This article was downloaded from Harvard University’s DASH repository, and is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Other Posted Material, as set forth at http:// nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of- use#LAA Cambridge Archaeological Journal 8:2 (1998), 141-63 On the Nature of Transitions: the Middle to Upper Palaeolithic and the Neolithic Revolution Ofer Bar-Yosef This article discusses two major revolutions in the history of humankind, namely, the Neolithic and the Middle to Upper Palaeolithic revolutions. The course of the first one is used as a general analogy to study the second, and the older one. This approach puts aside the issue of biological differences among the human fossils, and concentrates solely on the cultural and technological innovations. It also demonstrates that issues that are common- place to the study of the trajisition from foraging to cultivation and animal husbandry can be employed as an overarching model for the study of the transition from the Middle to the Upper Palaeolithic. The advantage of this approach is that it focuses on the core areas where each of these revolutions began, the ensuing dispersals and their geographic contexts.
    [Show full text]
  • Lukenya Hill, Kenya)
    Late Pleistocene age and archaeological context for the hominin calvaria from GvJm-22 (Lukenya Hill, Kenya) Christian A. Tryona,1, Isabelle Crevecoeurb, J. Tyler Faithc, Ravid Ekshtaina, Joelle Nivensd, David Pattersone, Emma N. Mbuaf, and Fred Spoorg,h aDepartment of Anthropology, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138; bUnité Mixte de Recherche 5199, de la Préhistoire à l’Actuel: Culture, Environnement, et Anthropologie, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Université de Bordeaux, 33615 Talence, France; cArchaeology Program, School of Social Science, University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD 4072, Australia; dDepartment of Anthropology, New York University, New York, NY 10003; eCenter for the Advanced Study of Hominid Paleobiology, Department of Anthropology, The George Washington University, Washington, DC 20052; fNational Museums of Kenya, Nairobi, Kenya 00100; gDepartment of Human Evolution, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, D-04103, Leipzig, Germany; and hDepartment of Cell and Developmental Biology, University College London, WC1E 6BT London, United Kingdom Edited by Erik Trinkaus, Washington University, St. Louis, MO, and approved January 16, 2015 (received for review September 19, 2014) Kenya National Museums Lukenya Hill Hominid 1 (KNM-LH 1) is Hominid 1 (KNM-LH 1) partial calvaria from site GvJm-22 at a Homo sapiens partial calvaria from site GvJm-22 at Lukenya Hill, Lukenya Hill, Kenya, the only eastern African fossil hominin Kenya, associated with Later Stone Age (LSA) archaeological de- from a Last Glacial Maximum [LGM; 19–26.4 kya (19)] LSA posits. KNM-LH 1 is securely dated to the Late Pleistocene, and archaeological context. We construct a revised accelerator mass samples a time and region important for understanding the origins spectrometry (AMS) radiocarbon chronology built on 26 new of modern human diversity.
    [Show full text]
  • Garm Roud 2, Iran : Bladelet Production and Cultural Features of an Upper Paleolithic Key Site South of Caspian Sea
    Garm Roud 2, Iran : bladelet production and cultural features of an Upper Paleolithic key site south of Caspian sea. S. Bonilauri, B. Chevrier, A. Asgari Khaneghah, M. Abolfathi, R. Ejlalipour, R. Sadeghinegad, G. Berillon To cite this version: S. Bonilauri, B. Chevrier, A. Asgari Khaneghah, M. Abolfathi, R. Ejlalipour, et al.. Garm Roud 2, Iran : bladelet production and cultural features of an Upper Paleolithic key site south of Caspian sea.. Comptes Rendus Palevol, Elsevier Masson, In press. hal-02605799 HAL Id: hal-02605799 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02605799 Submitted on 24 Nov 2020 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution - NonCommercial - ShareAlike| 4.0 International License Garm Roud 2, Iran : bladelet production and cultural features of an Upper Paleolithic key site south of Caspian sea 1 2 3 Stéphanie BONILAURI , Benoît CHEVRIER , Asghar ASGARI KHANEGHAH , Makhameh 1 4 5 1 ABOLFATHI , Roozbeh EJLALIPOUR , Robab SADEGHI , Gilles BERILLON 1. UMR7194 MNHN-CNRS-UPVD / Département Homme et Environnement, Musée de l'Homme, Palais de Chaillot, Paris, France 2. UMR 7041 CNRS ArScan-AnTET, MSH Mondes, Nanterre, France 3.
    [Show full text]
  • Biface Distributions and the Movius Line: a Southeast Asian Perspective
    University of Wollongong Research Online Faculty of Science - Papers (Archive) Faculty of Science, Medicine and Health 2012 Biface distributions and the Movius Line: A Southeast Asian perspective Adam Brumm University of Wollongong, [email protected] Mark W. Moore University of New England Follow this and additional works at: https://ro.uow.edu.au/scipapers Part of the Life Sciences Commons, Physical Sciences and Mathematics Commons, and the Social and Behavioral Sciences Commons Recommended Citation Brumm, Adam and Moore, Mark W.: Biface distributions and the Movius Line: A Southeast Asian perspective 2012, 32-46. https://ro.uow.edu.au/scipapers/4441 Research Online is the open access institutional repository for the University of Wollongong. For further information contact the UOW Library: [email protected] Biface distributions and the Movius Line: A Southeast Asian perspective Abstract The ‘Movius Line’ is the putative technological demarcation line mapping the easternmost geographical distribution of Acheulean bifacial tools. It is traditionally argued by proponents of the Movius Line that ‘true’ Acheulean bifaces, especially handaxes, are only found in abundance in Africa and western Eurasia, whereas in eastern Asia, in front of the ‘line’, these implements are rare or absent altogether. Here we argue, however, that the Movius Line relies on classifying undated surface bifaces as Acheulean on typological grounds alone, a long-standing and widely accepted practice in Africa and western Eurasia, but one that is not seen as legitimate in eastern Asian contexts. A review of the literature shows that bifaces are relatively common as surface finds in Southeast Asia and on this basis we argue that the Movius Line is in need of reassessment.
    [Show full text]
  • Ain Difla Rockshelter (Jordan) and the Evolution of Levantine Mousterian Technology
    Eurasian Prehistory, 5 (1): 47- 83. QUANTIFYING DIACHRONIC VARIABILITY: THE 'AIN DIFLA ROCKSHELTER (JORDAN) AND THE EVOLUTION OF LEVANTINE MOUSTERIAN TECHNOLOGY Mentor Mustafa' and Geoffrey A. Clark2 1 Department ofAnthropology, Boston University, 232 Bay State Road, Boston, MA 02215; [email protected] 2 Department ofAnthropology, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona; 85287-2402; [email protected] Abstract Typological, technological, and metrical analyses of a lithic assemblage from the 'Ain Difla rockshelter in west­ central Jordan are consistent with the results of previous studies that align 'Ain Difla with the Tabun D-type Levantine Mousterian. Technological and typological affinities are discernible from a direct comparison of tools from this assem­ blage with those found in Tabun layer D, as well as metrical and categorical comparisons between 'Ain Ditla and other well-known Tabun D Mousterian sites. The 'Ain Difla sample is dominated by elongated Levallois points. Blanks were obtained from both uni- and bipolar convergent and predominantly Levallois cores that show evidence of bidirectional flaking. The typological and technological comparisons reported here suggest that the evolution of the blade-rich Mouste­ rian can be viewed as a continuum between the early (Tabun) and late (Boker Tachtit) Mousterian; that (on any index) 'Ain Difla falls somewhere around the middle of this continuum, and that Mousterian laminar technologies develop more or less continually into the early Upper Paleolithic Ahmarian. INTRODUCTION rich technologies
    [Show full text]
  • Ahead of the Game: Middle and Upper Palaeolithic Hunting Behaviors in the Southern Caucasus
    Ahead of the Game: Middle and Upper Palaeolithic Hunting Behaviors in the Southern Caucasus The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you. Your story matters Citation Adler, Daniel S., Guy Bar#Oz, Anna Belfer#Cohen, and Ofer Bar# Yosef. 2006. Ahead of the Game: Middle and Upper Palaeolithic Hunting Behaviors in the Southern Caucasus. Current Anthropology 47, no. 1: 89–118. Published Version doi:10.1086/432455 Citable link http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:12242824 Terms of Use This article was downloaded from Harvard University’s DASH repository, and is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Other Posted Material, as set forth at http:// nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of- use#LAA Current Anthropology Volume 47, Number 1, February 2006 89 Ahead of the Game Middle and Upper Palaeolithic Hunting Behaviors in the Southern Caucasus by Daniel S. Adler, Guy Bar-Oz, Anna Belfer-Cohen, and Ofer Bar-Yosef Over the past several decades a variety of models have been proposed to explain perceived behavioral and cognitive differences between Neanderthals and modern humans. A key element in many of these models and one often used as a proxy for behavioral “modernity” is the frequency and nature of hunting among Palaeolithic populations. Here new archaeological data from Ortvale Klde, a late Middle–early Upper Palaeolithic rockshelter in the Georgian Republic, are considered, and zooar- chaeological methods are applied to the study of faunal acquisition patterns to test whether they changed significantly from the Middle to the Upper Palaeolithic.
    [Show full text]