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,