Issues of Chronological and Geographical Distributions of Middle 4 and Upper Palaeolithic Cultural Variability in the Levant and Implications for the Learning Behavior of Neanderthals and Homo sapiens Seiji Kadowaki Abstract This paper examines chronological and geographical cultural variability during the Middle and Upper Palaeolithic in the Levant, using part of the archaeological database covering a temporal range from ca. 300 to 20 kya and the geographic areas of Africa and Eurasia. This database has been constructed in order to organize archaeological data available from the time periods and geographic areas where Homo sapiens presumably emerged and dispersed with a replacement or assimilation of preceding populations, including Neanderthals. The purpose of this examination is to discuss research issues regarding the potential differ- ences in learning behavior between Neanderthals and Homo sapiens , that are in line with the primary objectives of the research project entitled “Replacement of Neanderthals by Modern Humans: Testing Evolutionary Models of Learning” (the RNMH project; Akazawa, 2012). Although theoretical links between learning strategies and patterns of cultural change are proposed on the basis of cultural evolutionary theory, an attempt to test this objective empir- ically with archaeological data entails a number of challenges. The paper addresses these problems through empirical examinations of chronological and geographic distributions of lithic industries. Keywords Chronology • Levant • Lithic industry • Middle Palaeolithic • Upper Palaeolithic Akazawa 2012 ). The research group “A01” for this project has 4.1 Introduction been compiling archaeological data relevant to the RNMH process with two purposes in mind. The fi rst is to collect and 4.1.1 Aims of the Study organize updated material evidence regarding the RNMH in a comprehensive manner, and the second is to obtain insights This paper derives from one of the many archaeological work- into prehistoric learning behaviors through the observation of shop investigations conducted by the research project entitled diachronic and geographic patterns of cultural variability “Replacement of Neanderthals by Modern Humans: Testing (Nishiaki 2012 ). Using part of the archaeological database Evolutionary Models of Learning” (the RNMH project; compiled since 2010 (i.e., the beginning of the RNMH proj- ect), this paper fi rst examines chronological and geographical cultural variability during the Middle and Upper Palaeolithic S. Kadowaki (*) (hereafter MP and UP respectively) in the Levant and then University Museum, Nagoya University , Chikusa-ku , discusses some implications of this archaeological evidence Nagoya 464-8601 , Japan e-mail: [email protected] on the anthropological processes that took place in the region. T. Akazawa et al. (eds.), Dynamics of Learning in Neanderthals and Modern Humans Volume 1: Cultural Perspectives, 59 Replacement of Neanderthals by Modern Humans Series, DOI 10.1007/978-4-431-54511-8_4, © Springer Japan 2013 60 S. Kadowaki The temporal and spatial range covered by the database of prehistoric cultures. There are two reasons for this. First, for this project is set from ca. 300 to 20 kya in Africa and almost any project dealing with broad temporal and spatial Eurasia, that is broader than those directly related to the ranges, lithics are the only archaeological remains that are RNMH events per se. This is because our aim is not just to consistently available under various conditions and can pro- trace the timings and frontiers of the RNMH events on the a vide a suffi cient sample size to justify plausible interpreta- priori assumption that such anthropological events are tions. In fact, lithic technology constitutes the main directly refl ected in archaeological records, but to organize descriptive features of Palaeolithic archaeology across wide archaeological data available from the time periods and geo- regions, including those targeted in this project (e.g., graphic areas, where Homo sapiens presumably emerged Barham and Mitchell 2008 ; Dennel 2009 ; Hovers and Kuhn and dispersed with replacement or assimilation of preceding 2006 ). Second, recent defi nitions of lithic industries tend to populations, including Neanderthals. Because much remains be based on the concepts of patterned technological behav- to be clarifi ed in the association between archaeological iors/choices, e.g., chaîne opératoires , in the course of lithic remains and hominin taxa, we put more emphasis in this production activities rather than mere morphological simi- study on the systematic presentation and assessment of larity of fi nished products (e.g., Bar-Yosef 2003 , pp. 268– archaeological data broadly related to the RNMH process 270). Because such archaeologically recognizable patterns rather than attempting to provide defi nitive archaeological of technological behaviors/choices should have been answers to anthropological problems of the RNMH. socially shared, i.e., disseminated through social learning, it On the other hand, the broad temporal and spatial ranges would be reasonable to expect that the patterns in the conti- (i.e. 300–20 kya in Africa and Eurasia) of our archaeological nuity or changes of lithic industries are primarily products investigations are expected to provide us with suffi cient data of social communications, that are mediated by members to examine diachronic changes and geographic shifts by who can also practice individual learning and/or exploratory Homo sapiens and other preceding hominins, particularly individual learning strategies. Neanderthals. This analysis is intended to discuss the feasibil- Although the concept of the lithic industry may be use- ity of conducting archaeological research on potential differ- ful for the cultural-historical organization of archaeologi- ences in learning behaviors between Neanderthals and Homo cal data over broad temporal and spatial ranges, how sapiens , that is the primary objective of the RNMH project. reliable is the concept when analyses are directed towards Although theoretical links between learning strategies and the interpretation of prehistoric learning? For example, patterns of cultural changes are proposed on the basis of cul- according to some cultural evolutionary models, learning tural evolutionary theories (the research group “B01”: Aoki strategies can affect the speed and rate of accumulation of 2012 ), an attempt for their empirical testing with archaeologi- cultural evolution (Borenstein et al. 2008 ). If one attempts cal data entails a number of challenges. First of all, archaeo- to examine this model with archaeological data, the rate logical remains that can be securely associated with hominin and accumulative nature of prehistoric culture change taxa are limited. Moreover, it is diffi cult to reliably assess the needs to be measured. Can this be accomplished by refer- speed and cumulativeness of cultural changes, which are con- ring to cultural chronologies based on lithic industries? If sidered signifi cant aspects in cultural evolutionary theories, so, how reliable are these measurements and interpreta- because of numerous chronological issues and variable defi - tions? Additionally, if we are to compare learning behav- nitions of prehistoric cultures. Because these challenges can- ior between Homo sapiens and Neanderthals by inferring not be readily resolved, the present study would rather address them from cultural patterns, we have to identify lithic and clarify these problems through empirical examinations of industries made by these two hominin groups respectively. chronological and geographic distributions of archaeological How plausible are these links? These questions will be cultures. We will then propose parsimonious interpretations discussed in this paper, dealing with actual lithic data of the patterns of cultural changes during the MP and UP from the MP and UP of the Levant. periods in terms of prehistoric learning behaviors as one of our contributions to the goals of the RNMH project. 4.1.3 Construction of the Archaeological Database: Neander DB 4.1.2 Using the Lithic Industry as a Unit of Cultural Variability and a Proxy Consistent with the above research questions and theoretical Measure of Prehistoric Learning: concerns, we designed our archaeological database, named Reasons and Limitations Neander DB , to include four data sets (See the chapter by Kondo and Nishiaki in this volume for details). The fi rst set As a means to organize archaeological data and examine is related to the archaeological sites and their specifi c geo- cultural patterns relevant to the RNMH, this study employs graphic locations (i.e., longitude and latitude), and the site the concept of lithic industry as a fundamental feature of type (e.g., cave, rock shelter, or open-air). The second set 4 Issues of Chronological and Geographical Distributions of Middle and Upper Palaeolithic Cultural… 61 includes various kinds of data on cultural layers, such as the name of the lithic industry, to which excavated assemblages 4.2 Theoretical and Methodological are assigned, estimated ages, radiometric dates, the presence/ Concerns Regarding the Lithic absence of hominin fossils, and the presence/absence of non- Industry Concept lithic materials, particularly those indicative of modern human behaviors, e.g., bone tools and portable art. The third 4.2.1 Lithic Industries Examined dataset describes technological characteristics of lithic in This Study industries that are included in