Epipalaeolithic Occupation and Palaeoenvironments of the Southern Nefud Desert, Saudi Arabia, During the Terminal Pleistocene and Early Holocene

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Epipalaeolithic Occupation and Palaeoenvironments of the Southern Nefud Desert, Saudi Arabia, During the Terminal Pleistocene and Early Holocene Accepted Manuscript Epipalaeolithic occupation and palaeoenvironments of the southern Nefud desert, Saudi Arabia, during the Terminal Pleistocene and Early Holocene Yamandú H. Hilbert, Tom S. White, Ash Parton, Laine Clark-Balzan, Rémy Crassard, Huw S. Groucutt, Richard P. Jennings, Paul Breeze, Adrian Parker, Ceri Shipton, Abdulaziz Al-Omari, Abdullah M. Alsharekh, Michael D. Petraglia PII: S0305-4403(14)00277-5 DOI: 10.1016/j.jas.2014.07.023 Reference: YJASC 4144 To appear in: Journal of Archaeological Science Received Date: 13 May 2014 Revised Date: 11 July 2014 Accepted Date: 25 July 2014 Please cite this article as: Hilbert, Y.H., White, T.S., Parton, A., Clark-Balzan, L., Crassard, R., Groucutt, H.S., Jennings, R.P., Breeze, P., Parker, A., Shipton, C., Al-Omari, A., Alsharekh, A.M., Petraglia, M.D., Epipalaeolithic occupation and palaeoenvironments of the southern Nefud desert, Saudi Arabia, during the Terminal Pleistocene and Early Holocene, Journal of Archaeological Science (2014), doi: 10.1016/ j.jas.2014.07.023. This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain. ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 1 Epipalaeolithic occupation and palaeoenvironments of the southern Nefud 2 desert, Saudi Arabia, during the Terminal Pleistocene and Early Holocene 3 Yamandú H. Hilbert 1, Tom S. White* 2, Ash Parton 2, Laine Clark-Balzan 2, Rémy 4 Crassard 1, Huw S. Groucutt 2, Richard P. Jennings 2, Paul Breeze 3, Adrian Parker 4, Ceri 5 Shipton 5, Abdulaziz Al-Omari 6, Abdullah M. Alsharekh 7 and Michael D. Petraglia 2 6 1 CNRS, UMR 5133 ‘Archéorient’, Maison de l'Orient et de la Méditerranée, 7 rue Raulin, 7 69007 Lyon, France 8 2 School of Archaeology, Research Laboratory for Archaeology and the History of Art, 9 University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 2HU, UK 10 3 Department of Geography, King’s College London, Strand, London, WC2R 2LS, UK 11 4 Department of Social Sciences, Oxford Brookes University, Gibbs Building, Gipsy Lane, 12 Oxford, OX3 0BP, UK 13 5 School of Social Science, University of Queensland, Brisbane QLD 4072, Australia 14 6 Saudi Commission for Tourism and Antiquities, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia 15 7 Department of Archaeology, College of Tourism and Archaeology, King Saud University, 16 Riyadh, Saudi Arabia 17 18 ABSTRACT 19 The transition from the Terminal Pleistocene to the Early Holocene is poorly represented in 20 the geological and archaeological records of northern Arabia, and the climatic conditions that 21 prevailed in the region during that period are unclear. Here, we present a new record from the 22 site of Al-Rabyah, in the Jubbah basin (southern Nefud desert, Saudi Arabia), where a 23 sequence of fossiliferous lacustrine and palustrine deposits containing an archaeological 24 assemblage is preserved. Sedimentological and palaeoenvironmental investigations, both at 25 Al-Rabyah and elsewhere in the Jubbah area, indicatMANUSCRIPTe phases of humid conditions, during 26 which shallow lakes developed in the basin, separat ed by drier periods. At Al-Rabyah, the 27 end of a Terminal Pleistocene phase of lake expansion has been dated to ~12.2 ka using 28 optically stimulated luminescence (OSL), with a mid-Holocene humid phase dated to after 29 ~6.6 ka. Palaeoecological reconstructions based primarily on non-marine molluscs and 30 ostracods from the younger lacustrine deposits indicate a relatively shallow body of 31 freshwater surrounded by moist, well-vegetated environments. A lithic assemblage 32 characterized by bladelets and geometric microliths was excavated from sediments attributed 33 to a drier climatic phase dated to ~10.1 ka. The lithic artefact types exhibit similarities to 34 Epipalaeolithic industries of the Levant, and their occurrence well beyond the ‘core region’ of 35 such assemblages (and at a significantly later date) has important implications for 36 understanding interactions between Levantine and Arabian populations during the Terminal 37 Pleistocene–Early Holocene. We suggest that the presence of foraging populations in the 38 southern Nefud during periods of drier climate is due to the prolonged presence of a 39 freshwater oasis in the Jubbah Basin during the Terminal Pleistocene–early Holocene, which 40 enabled them to subsist in the region when neighbouring areas of northern Arabia and the 41 Levant were increasingly hostile. 42 ACCEPTED 43 *Corresponding author: [email protected], +44 (0)1865 275134 44 45 KEYWORDS 46 Epipalaeolithic, Terminal Pleistocene–Early Holocene, Palaeoecology, OSL, Nefud, Saudi 47 Arabia. 48 1 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 49 1. INTRODUCTION 50 51 Previous research in the southern Nefud has identified archaeological assemblages of both 52 Middle Palaeolithic and Neolithic age. The former, characterised by Levallois stone tool 53 technologies, have been dated to humid periods during Marine Isotope Stages (MIS) 7 and 5 54 (Petraglia et al., 2012). Neolithic assemblages similar to the Pre-Pottery Neolithic (PPNA 55 and PPNB), recovered from the surface, have been assigned an age of ~9–8 ka, inferred from 56 proximal Holocene sequences (Crassard et al., 2013). This repeated occupation of the region 57 highlights its importance to human populations over a long period of time, but until now very 58 little evidence for occupation during the intervening period, encompassing the transition from 59 the Pleistocene to the Holocene, has been forthcoming (cf. Maher, 2009). The recovery of a 60 lithic assemblage with affinities to the Levantine Epipalaeolithic (EP) from a dated sequence 61 at Al-Rabyah, in the Jubbah basin, has therefore provided an important opportunity to 62 examine human responses to climatically driven landscape change in the southern Nefud at 63 that time. 64 The Levantine EP is dated to between c. 24 and 11.8 ka and is characterized by a diverse 65 range of lithic industries accompanied by a variety of bone tools, body ornaments, mobile art 66 and other cultural expressions (e.g. Bar-Yosef, 1970; Henry, 1982; Goring-Morris, 1995; 67 Goring-Morris and Belfer-Cohen 1997; Shea, 2013). EP lithic assemblages are typified by 68 blade and bladelet production, based on pyramidalMANUSCRIPT single platform cores. Blanks are further 69 transformed into microliths, which show great morph ological and regional variability through 70 time (e.g. Henry, 1988; Neeley and Barton, 1994; Goring-Morris, 1995; Barton and Neeley, 71 1996; Belfer-Cohen and Goring-Morris, 2002; Maher et al., 2012; Shea, 2013). The core 72 region for the Levantine EP encompasses the Sinai Peninsula, the eastern Mediterranean and 73 Iraq, with the majority of important sites located in the central part of this region (cf. Shea, 74 2013). There are also many general similarities between the Levantine EP and lithic 75 assemblages of roughly equivalent age in Mediterranean North Africa, the Nile Valley and 76 montane western Asia (Kozlowski, 1999; Garcea, 2010; Schild and Wendorf, 2010; Düring, 77 2011; Shea, 2013). In the Arabian Peninsula, evidence for the presence of post-Middle 78 Palaeolithic human groups prior to the Neolithic has so far only been found at a handful of 79 sites in northernACCEPTED and central-southern Saudi Arabia (cf. Maher, 2009; Groucutt and Petraglia, 80 2012) and in southern Oman (Rose and Usik, 2009; Hilbert, 2014), although the assemblages 81 from the latter exhibit few similarities with the Levantine EP and are instead more 82 characteristic of local lithic industries. This technological and spatial disconnect between the 83 core area of EP industries in the Levant and those from southern Arabia highlights the paucity 84 of sites that can be reliably attributed to this period across much of the Arabian interior, and 85 the resulting lack of understanding of the Terminal Pleistocene–Early Holocene in Arabia. 2 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 86 The apparent absence of Late Pleistocene–Early Holocene sites in the Arabian Peninsula has 87 been attributed to the harsh, arid environmental conditions that prevailed across much of the 88 region during the last glacial period, making Pre-Neolithic human incursions into the interior 89 extremely difficult (e.g. Uerpmann et al., 2009; Bretzke et al., 2013). Although it is 90 reasonable to assume that the timing of any demographic expansions into the Arabian desert 91 belt would have coincided with periods of increasingly humid climate, it is important to 92 consider the spatial and temporal variability of these climatic phases across Arabia during the 93 Terminal Pleistocene–Early Holocene. Palaeoclimatic evidence from the Levant suggests that 94 the early Holocene period remained relatively dry (e.g. Vaks et al., 2006; Enzel et al., 2008; 95 Petit-Maire et al., 2010), whereas regions of Yemen and southern Oman, located closer to the 96 Intertropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ) and associated monsoon rain belt, became 97 increasingly humid at ~11 ka (Radies et al., 2005; Davies, 2006; Lézine et al., 2007; 98 Fleitmann et al., 2007). It has therefore been suggested that the onset of wetter conditions 99 occurred earlier in southern Arabia than in the central desert regions (Parker, 2009). To the 100 north, in the southern Nefud desert, Holocene lake formation has been dated to ~10 ka 101 (Whitney and Gettings, 1982; Whitney, 1983; Whitney et al., 1983; Engel et al., 2012). Most 102 recently, evidence from a locality at Jebel Qatar (JQ-200) has indicated humid conditions in 103 the Jubbah basin between ~9–8 ka (Crassard et al., 2013). These findings are at odds with a 104 broader analysis of the timing of late Quaternary lake formation across the Nefud (Rosenberg 105 et al., 2013), which reported no Holocene lake MANUSCRIPTformation; similarly, no evidence for lake 106 formation during the early Holocene has been reported from neighbouring regions such as 107 Jordan (Petit-Maire et al., 2010; Cordova et al., 2013).
Recommended publications
  • Characterizing Late Pleistocene and Holocene Stone Artefact Assemblages from Puritjarra Rock Shelter: a Long Sequence from the Australian Desert
    © Copyright Australian Museum, 2006 Records of the Australian Museum (2006) Vol. 58: 371–410. ISSN 0067-1975 Characterizing Late Pleistocene and Holocene Stone Artefact Assemblages from Puritjarra Rock Shelter: A Long Sequence from the Australian Desert M.A. SMITH National Museum of Australia, GPO Box 1901, Canberra ACT 2601, Australia [email protected] ABSTRACT. This paper presents the first detailed study of a large assemblage of late Pleistocene artefacts from the central desert. Analysis of the lithics shows show that Puritjarra rock shelter was used more intensively over time, with significant shifts in the character of occupation at 18,000, 7,500 and 800 B.P., reflecting significant re-organization of activities across the landscape. The same generalized flake and core technology appears to have been used for over 30 millennia with only limited change in artefact typology over this period. SMITH, M.A., 2006. Characterizing Late Pleistocene and Holocene stone artefact assemblages from Puritjarra rock shelter: a long sequence from the Australian Desert. Records of the Australian Museum 58(3): 371–410. Excavations at Puritjarra rock shelter provide a rare 2004). Ethno-archaeological studies involving the last opportunity to examine an assemblage of late Pleistocene generation of Aboriginal people to rely on stone artefacts artefacts from central Australia, dating as early as c. 32,000 have been very influential in this shift in perspective (Cane, B.P. This study presents a quantitative analysis of the flaked 1984, 1992; Gould, 1968; Gould et al., 1971; Hayden, 1977, stone artefacts at Puritjarra, comparing the Pleistocene and 1979; O’Connell, 1977).
    [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]
  • Aurignacian Ethno-Linguistic Geography of Europe Revealed by Personal Ornaments
    Journal of Archaeological Science 33 (2006) 1105e1128 http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jas Aurignacian ethno-linguistic geography of Europe revealed by personal ornaments Marian Vanhaeren a,b,*, Francesco d’Errico c,d a UMR 7041 CNRS, Arche´ologies et Sciences de l’Antiquite´, Ethnologie pre´historique, Universite´ Paris X, 21 alle´e de l’universite´, F-92023 Nanterre, France b AHRC Centre for the Evolutionary Analysis of Cultural Behaviour, Institute of Archaeology, University College London, 31e34 Gordon Square, London WC1H OPY, UK c UMR 5808 CNRS, Institut de Pre´histoire et de Ge´ologie du Quaternaire, Universite´ Bordeaux I, Avenue des Faculte´s, F-33405 Talence, France d Department of Anthropology, The George Washington University, 2110 G Street, NW, Washington, DC 20052, USA Received 7 April 2005; received in revised form 9 November 2005; accepted 28 November 2005 Abstract Our knowledge of the migration routes of the first anatomically modern populations colonising the European territory at the beginning of the Upper Palaeolithic, of their degree of biological, linguistic, and cultural diversity, and of the nature of their contacts with local Nean- derthals, is still vague. Ethnographic studies indicate that of the different components of the material culture that survive in the archaeological record, personal ornaments are among those that best reflect the ethno-linguistic diversity of human groups. The ethnic dimension of bead- work is conveyed through the use of distinct bead types as well as by particular combinations and arrangements on the body of bead types shared with one or more neighbouring groups. One would expect these variants to leave detectable traces in the archaeological record.
    [Show full text]
  • Exploring the Concept of Home at Hunter-Gatherer Sites in Upper Paleolithic Europe and Epipaleolithic Southwest Asia
    UC Berkeley UC Berkeley Previously Published Works Title Homes for hunters?: Exploring the concept of home at hunter-gatherer sites in upper paleolithic Europe and epipaleolithic Southwest Asia Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/9nt6f73n Journal Current Anthropology, 60(1) ISSN 0011-3204 Authors Maher, LA Conkey, M Publication Date 2019-02-01 DOI 10.1086/701523 Peer reviewed eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California Current Anthropology Volume 60, Number 1, February 2019 91 Homes for Hunters? Exploring the Concept of Home at Hunter-Gatherer Sites in Upper Paleolithic Europe and Epipaleolithic Southwest Asia by Lisa A. Maher and Margaret Conkey In both Southwest Asia and Europe, only a handful of known Upper Paleolithic and Epipaleolithic sites attest to aggregation or gatherings of hunter-gatherer groups, sometimes including evidence of hut structures and highly structured use of space. Interpretation of these structures ranges greatly, from mere ephemeral shelters to places “built” into a landscape with meanings beyond refuge from the elements. One might argue that this ambiguity stems from a largely functional interpretation of shelters that is embodied in the very terminology we use to describe them in comparison to the homes of later farming communities: mobile hunter-gatherers build and occupy huts that can form campsites, whereas sedentary farmers occupy houses or homes that form communities. Here we examine some of the evidence for Upper Paleolithic and Epipaleolithic structures in Europe and Southwest Asia, offering insights into their complex “functions” and examining perceptions of space among hunter-gatherer communities. We do this through examination of two contemporary, yet geographically and culturally distinct, examples: Upper Paleolithic (especially Magdalenian) evidence in Western Europe and the Epipaleolithic record (especially Early and Middle phases) in Southwest Asia.
    [Show full text]
  • ARCL 0141 Mediterranean Prehistory
    INSTITUTE OF ARCHAEOLOGY ARCL 0141 Mediterranean Prehistory 2019-20, Term 1 - 15 CREDITS Deadlines for coursework: 11th November 2019, 13th January 2020 Coordinator: Dr. Borja Legarra Herrero [email protected] Office 106, tel. (0) 20 7679 1539 Please see the last page of this document for important information about submission and marking procedures, or links to the relevant webpages 1 OVERVIEW Introduction This course reunites the study and analysis of prehistoric societies around the Mediterranean basin into a coherent if diverse exploration. It takes a long-term perspective, ranging from the first modern human occupation in the region to the start of the 1st millennium BCE, and a broad spatial approach, searching for the overall trends and conditions that underlie local phenomena. Opening topics include the glacial Mediterranean and origins of seafaring, early Holocene Levantine-European farming, and Chalcolithic societies. The main body of the course is formed by the multiple transformations of the late 4th, 3rd and 2nd millennium BC, including the environmental ‘mediterraneanisation’ of the basin, the rise of the first complex societies in east and west Mediterranean and the formation of world-system relations at the east Mediterranean. A final session examines the transition to the Iron Age in the context of the emergence of pan-Mediterranean networks, and this also acts as a link to G202. This course is designed to interlock with G206, which explores Mediterranean dynamics from a diachronic and comparative perspective. Equally, it can be taken in conjunction with courses in the prehistory of specific regions, such as the Aegean, Italy, the Levant, Anatolia and Egypt, as well as Europe and Africa.
    [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]
  • These Large Cores (Termed "Macrocores" by P. Tolstoy, N.D
    V. NOTES ON LARGE OBSIDIAN BLADE CORES AND CORE-BLADE TECHNOLOGY IN MESOAMERICA Thomas Roy Hester In this paper four very large obsidian polyhedral blade cores from archaeological sites in Mesoamerica are described. The small depleted (ex- hausted) obsidian blade cores abundant at most Mesoamerican sites have been discussed at length in the regional literature (Kidder, Jennings and Shook 1946; Coe 1959; Epstein 1964; MaqNeish, Nelken-Terner and Johnson 1967; Hester, Jack and Heizer 1971; Hester, Heizer and Jack 1971). These worn-out specimens represent the terminal phase of a blade production process which began with the removal of blades from much larger, roughly-shaped cores. These large cores (termed "macrocores" by P. Tolstoy, n.d.) have received little attention, although they, too, are a potential source of information on core-blade technologies in Mesoamerica. It is these cores which repre- sent the initial activities in blade manufacture, activities about which little of substance has been published. The macrocores are discussed in the following pages; one is from southeastern Mexico, and the others are from sites in Guatemala. The Papalhuapa Specimen This large core (Fig. 1,A) collected from the obsidian workshops near the site of Papalhuapa, Guatemala, has been previously described by Graham and Heizer (1968:104). However, a more detailed account of the core attributes seems warranted. Dimensions of this specimen are given in Table 2. The Papalhuapa core is pyramidal in shape. The striking platform is a broad flat surface, created by the splitting of a larger obsidian nodule (concentric force rings are evident on the platform surface).
    [Show full text]
  • Constructing God's Community: Umayyad Religious Monumentation
    Constructing God’s Community: Umayyad Religious Monumentation in Bilad al-Sham, 640-743 CE Nissim Lebovits Senior Honors Thesis in the Department of History Vanderbilt University 20 April 2020 Contents Maps 2 Note on Conventions 6 Acknowledgements 8 Chronology 9 Glossary 10 Introduction 12 Chapter One 21 Chapter Two 45 Chapter Three 74 Chapter Four 92 ​ Conclusion 116 Figures 121 Works Cited 191 1 Maps Map 1: Bilad al-Sham, ca. 9th Century CE. “Map of Islamic Syria and its Provinces”, last modified 27 December 2013, accessed April 19, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilad_al-Sham#/media/File:Syria_in_the_9th_century.svg. ​ ​ 2 Map 2: Umayyad Bilad al-Sham, early 8th century CE. Khaled Yahya Blankinship, The End of the ​ Jihad State: The Reign of Hisham Ibn ʿAbd al-Malik and the Collapse of the Umayyads (Albany: ​ State University of New York Press, 1994), 240. 3 Map 3: The approximate borders of the eastern portion of the Umayyad caliphate, ca. 724 CE. Blankinship, The End of the Jihad State, 238. ​ 4 Map 4: Ghassanid buildings and inscriptions in Bilad al-Sham prior to the Muslim conquest. Heinz Gaube, “The Syrian desert castles: some economic and political perspectives on their genesis,” trans. Goldbloom, in The ​ Articulation of Early Islamic State Structures, ed. Fred Donner (Burlington: Ashgate Publishing Company, 2012) ​ 352. 5 Note on Conventions Because this thesis addresses itself to a non-specialist audience, certain accommodations have been made. Dates are based on the Julian, rather than Islamic, calendar. All dates referenced are in the Common Era (CE) unless otherwise specified. Transliteration follows the system of the International Journal of Middle East Studies (IJMES), including the recommended ​ ​ ​ ​ exceptions.
    [Show full text]
  • Stone Tools in the Paleolithic and Neolithic Near East: a Guide John J
    Stone Tools in the Paleolithic and Neolithic Near East: A Guide John J. Shea New York: Cambridge University Press, 2013, 408 pp. (hardback), $104.99. ISBN-13: 978-1-107-00698-0. Reviewed by DEBORAH I. OLSZEWSKI Department of Anthropology, Penn Museum, 3260 South Street, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA; [email protected] n reading the Preface and Introduction to Shea’s book Stone Age Prehistory,” and lists the origins of genus Homo Iwhere he discusses why he wrote this volume on Near in the Lower Paleolithic period, which is incorrect both Eastern stone tools, I had to smile because his experience as temporally and geographically (Homo ergaster appearing ca a graduate student was analogous to mine. Learning about 1.8 Mya in Africa, or Homo habilis ca 2.5 Mya in Africa, if one stone tools in this world region was not easy because no accepts this hominin as sufficiently derived as to belong to single typology had been developed, at least in the sense genus Homo). And the same is true in this table for several of a widely accepted set of terminology that could be ap- other major evolutionary events for which our earliest evi- plied to the Paleolithic and Epipaleolithic there, or even the dence is African rather than Levantine. Neolithic period. In retrospect, it is somewhat surprising For Chapter 2 (Lithics Basics), the reader is immedi- that in the several decades since no one, until this book by ately immersed in how stone fractures (using terminol- Shea, undertook producing a compendium of information ogy from mechanics), is abraded, and is knapped.
    [Show full text]
  • Human Origin Sites and the World Heritage Convention in Eurasia
    World Heritage papers41 HEADWORLD HERITAGES 4 Human Origin Sites and the World Heritage Convention in Eurasia VOLUME I In support of UNESCO’s 70th Anniversary Celebrations United Nations [ Cultural Organization Human Origin Sites and the World Heritage Convention in Eurasia Nuria Sanz, Editor General Coordinator of HEADS Programme on Human Evolution HEADS 4 VOLUME I Published in 2015 by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, 7, place de Fontenoy, 75352 Paris 07 SP, France and the UNESCO Office in Mexico, Presidente Masaryk 526, Polanco, Miguel Hidalgo, 11550 Ciudad de Mexico, D.F., Mexico. © UNESCO 2015 ISBN 978-92-3-100107-9 This publication is available in Open Access under the Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 IGO (CC-BY-SA 3.0 IGO) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/igo/). By using the content of this publication, the users accept to be bound by the terms of use of the UNESCO Open Access Repository (http://www.unesco.org/open-access/terms-use-ccbysa-en). The designations employed and the presentation of material throughout this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of UNESCO concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The ideas and opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors; they are not necessarily those of UNESCO and do not commit the Organization. Cover Photos: Top: Hohle Fels excavation. © Harry Vetter bottom (from left to right): Petroglyphs from Sikachi-Alyan rock art site.
    [Show full text]
  • Lithic Debitage Alaskan Blade Cores As Specialized Components of Mobile Toolkits: -·
    5 Lithic Debitage Alaskan Blade Cores as Specialized Components of Mobile Toolkits: -·. CONTEXT, FORM, M-EANING Assessing Design Parameters and Toolkit Organization through Debitage Analysis JEFFREY RA.SIC AND WILLIAM ANDREFSKY JR. Bifaces, used as specialized tools and as cores, were a primary component ofthe mobile tooiJcits employed by prehistoric hunter-gatherer groups in North America. In some toolkits, however, particularly those in the Edited by American Arctic, prepared blade cores were also common. The 'USe of blade core technologies has generally been explained in cultural historical WILLIAM ANDREFSKY JR. terms (e.g., Paleoindian versus Paleo-Arctic) or in.terms ofa simple functional argument-blade cores offer a more efficient means ofutt1izing lithic raw materials. Through analysis ofdebitage assemblages produced from bifacial and prepared blade core reductiott experiments, we show that blade cores and bifacial cores are botlt efficient means ofutilizing lithic raw materials, yet they differ in a variety ofother W!lJS. These differences are discussed in terms ofthe costs and benefits presented to prehistoric toolmakers and users. Given this set ofcosts and benefits, the technological choices favored by prehistoric people·may shed light on the situational and organfzational contexts in which these technologies were used. ithic analysts typically measure a variety of flake attributes and assemblage Lcharacteristics in an attempt t9 understand prehistoric technological behav­ ior. Many of these studies seek to identify processes that prehistoric individuals may have been aware of but to which they gave little attention. For example, orir interest in discovering stages of reduction, types of percussors, or reduction strategies would probably have been quite amusing to a prehistoric knapper.
    [Show full text]
  • Earliest Known Oldowan Artifacts at 2.58 Ma from Ledi-Geraru
    Earliest known Oldowan artifacts at >2.58 Ma from Ledi-Geraru, Ethiopia, highlight early technological diversity David R. Brauna,b,1, Vera Aldeiasb,c, Will Archerb,d, J Ramon Arrowsmithe, Niguss Barakif, Christopher J. Campisanog, Alan L. Deinoh, Erin N. DiMaggioi, Guillaume Dupont-Nivetj,k, Blade Engdal, David A. Fearye, Dominique I. Garelloe, Zenash Kerfelewl, Shannon P. McPherronb, David B. Pattersona,m, Jonathan S. Reevesa, Jessica C. Thompsonn, and Kaye E. Reedg aCenter for the Advanced Study of Human Paleobiology, Department of Anthropology, The George Washington University, Washington DC 20052; bDepartment of Human Evolution, Max Planck Institute of Evolutionary Anthropology, 04103 Leipzig, Germany; cInterdisciplinary Center for Archaeology and the Evolution of Human Behaviour, University of Algarve, Campus de Gambelas, 8005-139 Faro, Portugal; dArchaeology Department, University of Cape Town, 7701 Rondebosch, South Africa; eSchool of Earth and Space Exploration, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287; fDepartment of Archaeology and Heritage Management, Main Campus, Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia; gInstitute of Human Origins, School of Human Evolution and Social Change, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287; hBerkeley Geochronology Center, Berkeley, CA 94709; iDepartment of Geosciences, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802; jCNRS, Géosciences Rennes–UMR 6118, University of Rennes, F-35000 Rennes, France; kDepartment of Earth and Environmental Science, Postdam University, 14476 Potsdam-Golm,
    [Show full text]