4

Issues of Chronological andGeographical Distributions of Middle
and Upper Palaeolithic Cultural
Variability in the Levant
and Implications for the Learning
Behavior of Neanderthalsand 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 atemporal 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 thetime periods and geographic areas where Homo sapiens presumably emerged and dispersedwith a replacement or assimilation of preceding populations, including Neanderthals.
The purpose of this examination is to discuss research issues regarding the potential differences in learning behavior between Neanderthals and Homo sapiens, that are in line withthe 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 areproposed on the basis of cultural evolutionary theory, an attempt to test this objective empirically with archaeological data entails a number of challenges. The paper addresses these
problems through empirical examinations of chronological and geographic distributions oflithic industries.
Keywords

Chronology • Levant • Lithic industry • Middle Palaeolithic • Upper Palaeolithic

4.1

Introduction

4.1.1

Aims of the Study

This paper derives from one of the many archaeological workshop investigations conducted by the research project entitled“Replacement of Neanderthals by Modern Humans: Testing
Evolutionary Models of Learning” (the RNMH project;

S. Kadowaki (*)
University Museum, Nagoya University, Chikusa-ku,
Nagoya 464-8601, Japane-mail: kadowaki@num.nagoya-u.ac.jp

Akazawa 2012). The research group “A01” for this project has
been compiling archaeological data relevant to the RNMH
process with two purposes in mind. The first is to collect andorganize updated material evidence regarding the RNMH in acomprehensive manner, and the second is to obtain insights
into prehistoric learning behaviors through the observation ofdiachronic and geographic patterns of cultural variability(Nishiaki 2012). Using part of the archaeological database
compiled since 2010 (i.e., the beginning of the RNMH project), this paper first examines chronological and geographicalcultural variability during the Middle and Upper Palaeolithic(hereafter MP and UP respectively) in the Levant and thendiscusses some implications of this archaeological evidence
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,
Replacement of Neanderthals by Modern Humans Series, DOI 10.1007/978-4-431-54511-8_4, © Springer Japan 2013

59

60

S. Kadowaki

The temporal and spatial range covered by the database ofthis project is set from ca. 300 to 20 kya in Africa andEurasia, that is broader than those directly related to the
RNMH events per se. This is because our aim is not just to
trace the timings and frontiers of the RNMH events on the apriori assumption that such anthropological events are
directly reflected in archaeological records, but to organize
archaeological data available from the time periods and geographic areas, where Homo sapiens presumably emerged
and dispersed with replacement or assimilation of preceding
populations, including Neanderthals. Because much remains
to be clarified in the association between archaeologicalremains and hominin taxa, we put more emphasis in thisstudy on the systematic presentation and assessment ofarchaeological data broadly related to the RNMH processrather than attempting to provide definitive archaeologicalanswers to anthropological problems of the RNMH.
On the other hand, the broad temporal and spatial ranges(i.e. 300–20 kya in Africa and Eurasia) of our archaeologicalinvestigations are expected to provide us with sufficient data
to examine diachronic changes and geographic shifts by
Homo sapiens and other preceding hominins, particularly
Neanderthals. This analysis is intended to discuss the feasibility of conducting archaeological research on potential differences in learning behaviors between Neanderthals and Homosapiens, that is the primary objective of the RNMH project.
Although theoretical links between learning strategies andpatterns of cultural changes are proposed on the basis of cultural evolutionary theories (the research group “B01”: Aoki2012), an attempt for their empirical testing with archaeological data entails a number of challenges. First of all, archaeological remains that can be securely associated with hominin
taxa are limited. Moreover, it is difficult to reliably assess the
speed and cumulativeness of cultural changes, which are considered significant aspects in cultural evolutionary theories,
because of numerous chronological issues and variable definitions of prehistoric cultures. Because these challenges cannot be readily resolved, the present study would rather addressand clarify these problems through empirical examinations ofchronological and geographic distributions of archaeologicalcultures. We will then propose parsimonious interpretationsof the patterns of cultural changes during the MP and UP
periods in terms of prehistoric learning behaviors as one of
our contributions to the goals of the RNMH project.

prehistoric cultures. There are two reasons for this. First, foralmost any project dealing with broad temporal and spatial
ranges, lithics are the only archaeological remains that areconsistently available under various conditions and can provide a sufficient sample size to justify plausible interpretations. In fact, lithic technology constitutes the main
descriptive features of Palaeolithic archaeology across wide
regions, including those targeted in this project (e.g.,
Barham and Mitchell 2008; Dennel 2009; Hovers and Kuhn
2006). Second, recent definitions of lithic industries tend to
be based on the concepts of patterned technological behaviors/choices, e.g., chaîne opératoires, in the course of lithic
production activities rather than mere morphological similarity of finished products (e.g., Bar-Yosef 2003, pp. 268–
270). Because such archaeologically recognizable patternsof technological behaviors/choices should have beensocially shared, i.e., disseminated through social learning, it
would be reasonable to expect that the patterns in the continuity or changes of lithic industries are primarily productsof social communications, that are mediated by members
who can also practice individual learning and/or exploratory
individual learning strategies.
Although the concept of the lithic industry may be useful for the cultural-historical organization of archaeological data over broad temporal and spatial ranges, howreliable is the concept when analyses are directed towards
the interpretation of prehistoric learning? For example,
according to some cultural evolutionary models, learning
strategies can affect the speed and rate of accumulation ofcultural evolution (Borenstein et al. 2008). If one attempts
to examine this model with archaeological data, the rate
and accumulative nature of prehistoric culture change
needs to be measured. Can this be accomplished by referring to cultural chronologies based on lithic industries? If
so, how reliable are these measurements and interpretations? Additionally, if we are to compare learning behavior between Homo sapiens and Neanderthals by inferring
them from cultural patterns, we have to identify lithic
industries made by these two hominin groups respectively.
How plausible are these links? These questions will be
discussed in this paper, dealing with actual lithic datafrom the MP and UP of the Levant.

4.1.3
4.1.2

Using the Lithic Industry as a Unit
of Cultural Variability and a Proxy
Measure of Prehistoric Learning:
Reasons and Limitations

As a means to organize archaeological data and examine
cultural patterns relevant to the RNMH, this study employs
the concept of lithic industry as a fundamental feature ofConstruction of the Archaeological
Database: Neander DB

Consistent with the above research questions and theoreticalconcerns, we designed our archaeological database, named
Neander DB, to include four data sets (See the chapter by
Kondo and Nishiaki in this volume for details). The first set
is related to the archaeological sites and their specific geographic locations (i.e., longitude and latitude), and the site
type (e.g., cave, rock shelter, or open-air). The second set

4Issues of Chronological and Geographical Distributions of Middle and Upper Palaeolithic Cultural…

includes various kinds of data on cultural layers, such as thename of the lithic industry, to which excavated assemblages
are assigned, estimated ages, radiometric dates, the presence/
absence of hominin fossils, and the presence/absence of nonlithic materials, particularly those indicative of modern
human behaviors, e.g., bone tools and portable art. The third
dataset describes technological characteristics of lithic
industries that are included in the database, and finally theforth dataset is the bibliography of data sources (e.g., site
reports and articles).
The collection of these data is mostly a result of a literature survey supplemented with unpublished data from ourown fieldwork. To achieve efficient data collection and construction of the database on numerous sites over vast regions(i.e., Africa and Eurasia), and time periods, ca. 300–20 kya,we have employed a network-based database system, inwhich multiple researchers around the world can access thesame database through the internet and cooperate in its construction (Kondo et al. 2012). In the past 2 years, about 2,000
archaeological sites have been entered into the database, andas described in the next section, data on ca.120 sites in theLevant have been used in the examination of MP and UP
lithic industries.

4.2

Theoretical and Methodological
Concerns Regarding the Lithic
Industry Concept

4.2.1

Lithic Industries Examinedin This Study

61

Table 4.1 and Fig. 4.1 show the list of lithic industries and theirseveral recent chronological schemes dealt with in this study.
The industries proposed by Bar-Yosef (1995) and Henry(2004) cover mainly the MP period, and that by Bar-Yosef(2000) ranges from the late MP to the UP. Chronologies of theUpper and early Epipalaeolithic industries have been organized by Goring-Morris (1995) and, more recently, by BelferCohen and Goring-Morris (2003). Lithic industries that are
widely recognized for the MP period in the Levant are Tabun
D-type, Tabun C-type, and Tabun B-type industries, while theLevantine UP industries include the Initial Upper Palaeolithic(IUP or Emiran); Early Ahmarian; Levantine Aurignacian A;
Classic Levantine Aurignacian; Atlitian; Arqov/Divshon; andLate Ahmarian. For the early Epipalaeolithic period, theNebekian and Kebaran are examined in this study.

Table 4.1 List of lithic industries and some of archaeological sites examined in this study
Early Epipalaeolithic

Upper Palaeolithic

Middle Palaeolithic

Lithic industries
Nebekian

Sites with hominin remainsa

KebaranAin Qasiyya (Area A&B),
Ein Gev I, Kebara (C),Kharaneh IV (B)

Arqov/Divshon
AtlitianClassic Levantine
AurignacianLevantine Aurignacian A?
Late Ahmarian (including
Masraqan)
Early Ahmarian

Nahal Ein Gev I
el-Wad (D)Initial Upper Paleolithic(Emiran)
Tabun BÜçağɩzlɩMughara?c

Tabun C

Ohalo II
Ksal Akil (14–20) and Qafzeh(D)

Neanderthals from Amud(B 1&2), Dederiyeh (3, 11,& 13), Kebara (VII-XII),
Shukba (D), and Tabun (C1)?c
Qafzeh (XV-XXII), Skhul(B), Tabun (C2)?c

Tabun D sensu latoaHomo sapiens unless indicatedLayer numbers/alphabets are shown in parentheses following site namesc
See discussions in the textbSome of other excavated or systematically surveyed sitesb
Ain Qasiyya (Area D), Tor Hamar (E), Uwaynid 14 &18, Jilat 6 (C), Yabrud III (6–7), Yutil Hasa (C, E)
Fazael III, Hayonim (Ca-Ce), Nahal Oren (9), Raqefet(I), Urkan el-Rubb II
Boker BE (I), Boker C, EinAqev, Har Horesha I, TorFawaz?
Antelias (I & II), el-Wad (C), Ksar Akil (6)Antelias (III & IV), Hayonim (D), Kebara (I&II),
Ksar Akil (7–8), Raqefet (III)Ksar Akil (11–13), Umm el-Tlel
Ain al-Buhayra (Unit C, F, and H-I), Ein Aqev East,
Fazael X, Lagama X, Yutil al-Hasa (Areas A and B)
Abu Noshra I, Boker A, Boker BE, Erq el-Ahmar (E-F),
Jebel Humeima, Kebara (III-IV), Lagama VII, Thalab
al-Buhayla, Tor Aeid, Tor Hamar (F-G), Yabrud II (5–6)
Boker Tachtit, KsarAkil (21–25), Tor Sadaf (A & B),
Umm el-Tlel (IIbase& III2a’), WadiAghar
Bezez (B), Erq el-Ahmar (H), Keoue, Sefunim, Tor Faraj,
Tor Sabiha

Dederiyeh (D), Douara (III), Hayonim (upper E), Naamé,Nahr Ibrahim, Ras el-Kelb
Abu Sif, Ain Difla, Dederiyeh (E), Douara (IV),
Hayonim (lower E and F), Hummal (II), Jerf Ajla, Nahal
Aqev, Rosh Ein Mor, Tabun (D), Yabrud I

62

S. Kadowaki

Fig. 4.1 Several chronological schemes of the Middle and Upper Palaeolithic industries in the Levant

The collection and organization of data on these lithic
industries is not a straightforward task. It cannot be done bysimply copying the contents of site reports because the studyof lithic industries involves ongoing controversial issues.
Additionally, various researchers do not always share the sameviews on the definition of lithic industries, their identificationof actual lithic assemblages, and chronological relationships.
To deal with this problem, it is necessary to distinguish current
and widely accepted data from outdated ones regarding thedefinitions, identification, and chronology of lithic industries.
Moreover, we built multiple models for the definition, identification, and/or chronology of some lithic industries when several different scenarios are conceivable or proposed bydifferent researchers. The following section addresses theseconcerns before presenting the chronological and geographic
analyses of lithic industries.

4.2.2

Definitions and Interpretations of Lithic
Industries in the Levant

A lithic industry is defined by techno-morphological characteristics that are repetitively observable in multiple lithic
assemblages, that are primary components of and provide
material evidence to define and understand the lithic industry concept. A lithic assemblage is a collection of lithics
usually defined by stratigraphy and/or context at archaeological sites. According to Marks (2003), who puts moreemphasis on technological aspects rather than morphology,
criteria for defining lithic industries include core reduction
methods, the choice of blanks to be retouched, and retouchtechnology. The grouping and/or classification of lithic
assemblages can be hierarchical depending on the degree ofsimilarity. For example, Henry (1989, pp. 82–83) defines aphase/facies as a group of lithic assemblages sharing thehighest degree of techno-morphological similarity. Phases/
facies sharing similar techno-morphological traits are thengrouped into the same industry, and similar industries arefurther grouped into the same complex. A lineage concept
is proposed by Marks (2003, p. 251) to group lithic industries that are observable over a long time period and overwide areas with gradual variation. Both concepts of complex and lineage belong to categories in a higher hierarchical level than that of industry, and cover wider temporaland geographical ranges.
Among these several different classificatory levels, thisstudy employs the concept of industry as a unit for analyzing
the variability of lithic remains because the definition andidentification of lithic industries are frequently discussed forthe classification of lithic assemblages in the Levant as wellas in other areas studied in the RNMH project. Additionally,
an archaeological entity is also often mentioned as a temporal and spatial unit of material remains. This concept is
applied to various material remains including more than lithics, but its level in the hierarchical classification appears tobe similar to lithic industries (Belfer-Cohen and GoringMorris 2003, pp. 2–9).
While the concept of a lithic industry is empirically basedon lithic morphology and production technology, as describedabove, there is a great deal of controversy over what it represents. In the past few decades, a number of Levantine
Palaeolithic studies examined diachronic and geographic
variability in lithic technology in terms of climatic shifts(e.g., Jelinek 1981). Recent studies on the variability of MP
and UP lithic assemblages also examine ecological factors,
such as the distance to raw material sources and water,
behaviors of raw material acquisition, duration of settlement,
and hunting (Hovers 2009, pp. 207–223; Williams 2003).

4

Issues of Chronological and Geographical Distributions of Middle and Upper Palaeolithic Cultural…

On the other hand, this study considers social and cultural
factors more relevant to the definition of lithic industries as
the study is directed towards the interpretation of prehistoriclearning and takes a theoretical position that a lithic industry
is defined by patterned technological behaviors/choices thatare disseminated among group members through social learning. For example, Hovers (2009, p. 227) suggests that thevariability of MP lithic assemblages from Qafzeh Cave isprincipally organized by “technological tradition, embeddedin the overall social system” rather than environmental or
ecological factors. The technological tradition means sociallyand culturally patterned choices of technological behaviors
that are not necessarily co-related with function or efficiency.
A similar interpretation of a lithic industry is addressed byMarks (2003, p. 251) who suggests that technological characteristics that define lithic industries transcend the contents ofactivities or raw material availability at each site. In addition,
Goring-Morris and Belfer-Cohen (2006, p. 308) criticize
Williams’ (2003, pp. 206–207) explanation on the technological difference between the Ahmarian and the flake-based
assemblages in relation to the distance of sites from water
sources. Instead, Goring-Morris and Belfer-Cohen (2006)
suggest that Levantine Upper Palaeolithic industries, such as
the Ahmarian, Classic Levantine Aurignacian, Arqov/
Divshon, and Atlitian, correspond to different social groups
or cultures, and propose the influx/replacement of populations or indigenous cultural changes as primary factors for thevariability of lithic industries.

4.2.3

Some Issues on the Identificationof Lithic Industries in the LevantThis section describes various issues on the identification oflithic industries and how they have affected the structure andmeaning of actual lithic assemblages, and describes how thisstudy deals with these problems in the construction of the
Neander DB archaeological database.

4.2.3.1 Middle Palaeolithic
This study employs a widely recognized tripartite scheme,
similar to that of the Tabun D/C/B types or Phases 1–3, for
the MP industries in the Levant (Copeland 1975). The threeindustries are grouped under the Levantine Mousterian tradition, and their common use of the Levallois technique distinguishes them from the preceding Yabrudian complex. The
Tabun D-type is characterized by the production of blades
and elongated points both created using the Levallois method
and the “laminar system.” A significant number of Upper
Palaeolithic tool types occur in the D-type assemblages.
In contrast, unilateral side scrapers are representative of the
Tabun C-type industry, that often produces oval flakes withsome points and blades from centripetally and/or bidirectionally prepared Levallois cores. The Levallois cores

63of the Tabun B-type are frequently prepared by unidirectional convergent flaking that produces broad based
points with some blades. Side scrapers dominate theretouched tool inventory with few Upper Palaeolithic types.
The identification of these industries in prehistoric lithic
assemblages is primarily based on recent descriptions (e.g.,
Henry 2004; Shea 2003; Bar-Yosef 2000). When the sameassemblage is assigned to different industries by different
researchers, we adopt all the opinions in the database unlessthey are outdated in light of current evidence so that multiple
scenarios can be examined without a priori selection of various interpretations. In addition, there are some assemblages
whose techno-typological characteristics do not clearly fit
any one of the three MP industries, such as those from
Yabrud Rockshelter I and the el-Kowm basin including
Umm el-Tlel. Although a single ESR date from Quneitra(No. 289 and 290 in Table 4.2) might suggest that it is contemporary with the Tabun B-type industry or Phase 3 (Ziaei
et al. 1990), this chronological position is not corroborated
on techno-typological grounds as I discuss later. The assemblages, named the Late Mousterian or Levalloiso-Mousterian
in the el-Kowm basin, are stratigraphically located above theHummalian, which is contemporary with the Tabun D typeindustry (Le Tensorer et al. 2008). Thus, the chronologicalposition of the former may be close to the Tabun C-type or
B-type industries.

4.2.3.2 Upper Palaeolithic and Early
Epipalaeolithic
While the identification of lithic industries from these time
periods has been traditionally based on the cultural sequence
constructed by Neuville (1951), this study refers to recent
terms and definitions.
The beginning of the UP is marked by the Initial Upper
Palaeolithic (IUP or Emiran) industry that is technologicallycharacterized by the introduction of prismatic cores and the
production of pointed blades with relatively large, sometimes
facetted, striking platforms. The IUP is also typologicallydefined by the high occurrences of Upper Palaeolithic tools(i.e., burins and end scrapers) with some fossil indices, suchas Emireh points and chamfered pieces. Despite the accumulation of IUP assemblages at sites such as Boker Tachtit(Marks 1983); Ksar Akil XXI-XXV (Ohnuma 1988);Üçağɩzlɩ F-H (Kuhn et al. 2009); Wadi Aghar (Coinman andHenry 1995); and Tor Sadaf (Fox and Coinman 2004), thedebate over their interpretations continues (Bar-Yosef and
Belfer-Cohen 2010) with a view that this industry represents
a transitional phase from the Middle to Upper Palaeolithic
period, and an alternate position maintaining that the IUP culture was brought by Homo sapiens dispersing from Africa.
Discussions regarding the techno-typological variabilityof Upper Palaeolithic chipped stones following the IUP often
refer to two cultural traditions, the Ahmarian and theLevantine Aurignacian (Marks 1981; Gilead 1981). The for-64

S. Kadowaki

Table 4.2 List of radiometric dates of Middle Palaeolithic sites in the Levant
No. inthe plot1
2
3

Site nameTabun Cave
Tabun Cave
Tabun Cave

Layer
Layer D
Layer D
Layer D

Datingmethod
TL
TL
TL

4
5
6
7

Tabun Cave
Tabun Cave
Tabun Cave
Tabun Cave

Layer D
Layer D
Layer D
Layer D

TL
TL
TL
TL

8
9
10

Tabun Cave
Tabun Cave
Tabun Cave

Layer D
Layer D
Layer D

TL
TL
TL

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41

Tabun Cave
Tabun Cave
Tabun Cave
Tabun Cave
Tabun Cave
Tabun Cave
Tabun Cave
Hayonim
Hayonim
Hayonim
Hayonim
Hayonim
Hayonim
Hayonim
Hayonim
Hayonim
Hayonim
Hayonim
Hayonim
Hayonim
Hayonim
Hayonim
Hayonim
Hayonim
Hayonim
Hayonim
Hayonim
Hayonim
Hayonim
Hayonim
Hayonim

Layer D
Layer D
Layer D
Layer D
Layer D
Layer D
Layer D
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
Lower E
Lower E
Lower E
Lower E
Lower E
Lower E
Lower E

TL
TL
TL
ESR EU
ESR LU
US/ESR
U-series
TL
TL
TL
TL
TL
TL
TL
TL
TL
TL
TL
TL
TL
TL
TL
ESR EU
ESR LU
TL
TL
TL
TL
TL
TL
TL

42

Hayonim

Lower E

TL

43
44
45

Hayonim
Hayonim
Hayonim

Lower E
Lower E
Lower E

TL
TL
TL

46
47

Hayonim
Hayonim

Lower E
Lower E

TL
TL

Laboratory No.
T36
T23
Unit IX average(2003)
T34
T33
T21
Unit V average(2003)
T19
T25
Unit II average(2003)
T18
T22
T20
Revised average
Revised average
Revised average
556
525
50
518
522
523
57
F top average
527
F base average
516
60
519
526
524
520
95,601 (E/F)
95,601 (E/F)
416
406
410
58
403
E base average
Unit4 (north)average
Unit4 (south)
average417
414
Unit5 (south)
average
409
415

Samples
Burnt flint
Burnt flint
Burnt flint

Date(mean)
276,000
266,000
256,000SD(positive)
29,00035,00018,000SD(negative)
29,00035,00018,000

Selected
dates

O

Burnt flint
Burnt flint
Burnt flint
Burnt flint

248,000
243,000
237,000
222,000

27,00024,00029,00036,00027,00024,00029,00036,000O

Burnt flint
Burnt flint
Burnt flint

215,000
198,000
196,000

23,00022,00017,00023,00022,00017,000O

Burnt flint
Burnt flint
Burnt flint
Tooth
Tooth
Tooth
Tooth
Burnt flint
Burnt flint
Burnt flint
Burnt flint
Burnt flint
Burnt flint
Burnt flint
Burnt flint
Burnt flint
Burnt flint
Burnt flint
Burnt flint
Burnt flint
Burnt flint
Burnt flint
Tooth
Tooth
Burnt flint
Burnt flint
Burnt flint
Burnt flint
Burnt flint
Burnt flint
Burnt flint

191,000
188,000
183,000
133,000
203,000
143,000
110,680
251,000
235,000
233,000
227,000
225,000
224,000
221,000
221,000
210,000
205,000
204,000
189,000
187,000
183,000
175,000
158,000
164,000
208,000
202,000
200,000
197,000
194,000
186,000
176,000

23,00022,00015,00013,00026,00041,000880
20,00026,00020,00024,00041,00021,00016,00022,00025,00035,00017,00020,00020,00060,00022,00020,000221,000
35,00028,00029,00018,00028,00024,00028,00023,00022,00015,00013,00026,00028,000870
20,00026,00020,00024,00041,00021,00016,00022,00025,00035,00017,00020,00020,00060,00022,00020,000221,000
35,00028,00029,00018,00028,00024,00028,000Burnt flint

168,000

27,00027,000O

Burnt flint
Burnt flint
Burnt flint

163,000
160,000
160,000

23,00022,00022,00023,00022,00022,000O

Burnt flint
Burnt flint

159,000
157,000

13,00019,00013,00019,000

O
O
O

O
O

O
O

O
O

(continued)

4Issues of Chronological and Geographical Distributions of Middle and Upper Palaeolithic Cultural…

65

Table 4.2 (continued)
No. inthe plot
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77

DatingmethodTL
TL
TL
TL
ESR EUESR EUESR EUESR EUESR EUESR EUESR EUESR EU
ESR LU
ESR LU
ESR LU
ESR LU
ESR LU
ESR LU
ESR LU
ESR LUTL
ESR EUESR EUESR EUESR EU
ESR LU
ESR LU
ESR LU
ESR LU
U-series

Laboratory No.
401
402
418
412
97,042
95,606
97,04095,602
97,23097,22897,232
97,22997,042
95,606
97,04097,22895,602
97,23097,232
97,229Oxford94,81294816B
94814C
94816A
94816B
94,81294814C
94816A
76NZ6d-4

Samples
Burnt flint
Burnt flint
Burnt flint
Burnt flint
Tooth
Tooth
Tooth
Tooth
Tooth
Tooth
Tooth
Tooth
Tooth
Tooth
Tooth
Tooth
Tooth
Tooth
Tooth
Tooth
Burnt flint
Tooth
Tooth
Tooth
Tooth
Tooth
Tooth
Tooth
Tooth
Travertine

Date(mean)
154,000
151,000
140,000
105,000
200,000
177,000
172,000
160,000
158,000
150,000
142,000
136,000
211,000
182,000
175,000
164,000
160,000
159,000
143,000
136,000
105,000
114,900
112,500
95,80088,300185,600
165,700
154,700
142,800
85,200SD(positive)
17,00017,00016,0009,000
32,00032,00033,00028,00028,00021,00030,00025,00035,00034,00033,00026,00028,00028,00030,00025,00015,00014,20014,60012,00011,50026,60020,50021,30020,70010,000SD(negative)
17,00017,00016,0009,000
32,00032,00033,00028,00028,00021,00030,00025,00035,00034,00033,00026,00028,00028,00030,00025,00015,00014,20014,60012,00011,50026,60020,50021,30020,70010,000

O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O

U-series

76NZ1

Travertine

74,000

5,000

5,000

O

Charcoal
Barite from aHearthHearth ash
Hearth ash
Hearth ash
Hearth ash
Hearth ash
Charcoal
Charcoal
Charcoal
Charcoal
Charcoal
Burnt flint
Burnt flint
Burnt flint
Burnt flint
Burnt flint
Burnt flint

43,00075,000

2,000

2,000

>52,000>43,200>43,200>43,200
38,90045,00030,60020,40016,80019,850
195,000
179,000
175,000
172,000
168,000
165,000

1,700
5,000
2,800
750
500
550
18,00016,00018,00017,00017,00023,000

1,700
5,000
2,100
750
500
550
18,00016,00018,00017,00017,00023,000Burnt flint

139,000

14,00014,000

79
80

Layer
Lower E
Lower E
Lower E
Lower E
Lower E
Lower E
Lower E
Lower E
Lower E
Lower E
Lower E
Lower E
Lower E
Lower E
Lower E
Lower E
Lower E
Lower E
Lower E
Lower E
1–20
1–20
1–20
1–20
1–20
1–20
1–20
1–20
1–20
D at nearby
fossil spring
Nahal Aqev D at nearby
fossil spring
Jerf Ajla
Yellow 1
Douara Cave Horizon IV

81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96

Douara Cave
Douara Cave
Douara Cave
Douara Cave
Douara Cave
Douara Cave
Douara Cave
Douara Cave
Douara Cave
Douara Cave
Tabun Cave
Tabun Cave
Tabun Cave
Tabun Cave
Tabun Cave
Tabun Cave

Unit IVB
Unit IVB
Unit IVB
Unit IVB
Unit IVB
Layer E
Layer E
Layer E
Layer E
Layer D
Layer C
Layer C
Layer C
Layer C
Layer C
Layer C

C14
C14
C14
C14
C14
C14
C14
C14
C14
C14
TL
TL
TL
TL
TL
TL

97

Tabun Cave

Layer C

TL

78

Site nameHayonim
Hayonim
Hayonim
Hayonim
Hayonim
Hayonim
Hayonim
Hayonim
Hayonim
Hayonim
Hayonim
Hayonim
Hayonim
Hayonim
Hayonim
Hayonim
Hayonim
Hayonim
Hayonim
HayonimAin Difla
Ain Difla
Ain Difla
Ain Difla
Ain Difla
Ain Difla
Ain Difla
Ain Difla
Ain Difla
Nahal Aqev

C14
Fission-track
GrN-7599
TK-166
TK-167
TK-168
TK-165
TK-111
GaK-3537
GaK-3539
GaK-3541
GaK-3540
T5
T14
T13
T10
T9
Unit I average(2003)
T8

Selected
datesO(continued)

66

S. Kadowaki

Table 4.2 (continued)
No. inthe plot
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109

Site nameTabun Cave
Tabun Cave
Tabun Cave
Tabun Cave
Tabun Cave
Tabun Cave
Tabun Cave
Hayonim
Hayonim
Hayonim
Hayonim
Hayonim

Layer
Layer C
Layer C
Layer C
Layer C
Layer C
Layer C
Layer C
Upper E
Upper E
Upper E
Upper E
Upper E

DatingmethodTL
ESR EU
ESR LU
US/ESR
U-series
U-series
U-series
TL
TL
TL
TL
TL

110

HayonimUpper E

TL

111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119

Hayonim
Hayonim
Hayonim
Hayonim
Hayonim
Hayonim
Hayonim
Hayonim
HayonimUpper E
Upper E
Upper E
Upper E
Upper E
Upper E
Upper E
Upper E
Upper E

TL
TL
TL
TL
TL
TL
TL
TL
TL

120
121
122
123
124
125

Hayonim
Hayonim
Hayonim
Hayonim
Hayonim
HayonimUpper E
Upper E
Upper E
Upper E
Upper E
Upper E

TL
TL
TL
TL
TL
TL

126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147

Hayonim
Hayonim
Hayonim
Hayonim
Hayonim
Hayonim
Hayonim
Hayonim
Hayonim
Hayonim
Hayonim
Hayonim
Hayonim
Hayonim
Hayonim
Hayonim
Hayonim
Hayonim
Hayonim
Hayonim
Hayonim
Qafzeh Cave

Upper E
Upper E
Upper E
Upper E
Upper E
Upper E
Upper E
Upper E
Upper E
Upper E
Upper E
Upper E
Upper E
Upper E
Upper E
Upper E
Upper E
Upper E
Upper E
Upper E
Upper E
Layer XXIII

TL
TL
TL
TL
TL
TL
TL
TL
TL
ESR EUESR EUESR EUESR EUESR EU
ESR LU
ESR LU
ESR LU
ESR LU
ESR LU
U-series
U-series
TL

Laboratory No.
T15
Revised average
Revised average
Revised average
552
551
551
75
76
68
65
Unit2 (south)
average
Unit3 (south)
average
23
84
67
10
20
11
3
80
Unit3 (north)average74
526
61
Unit2 (north)average
82
24
21
63
25
27
22
9
62
95,603
94,902
95,605
94,901
94,881
95,603
94,902
95,605
94,901
94,881
94,902
95,60576

Samples
Burnt flint
Tooth
Tooth
Tooth
Tooth
Tooth enamel
Tooth
Burnt flint
Burnt flint
Burnt flint
Burnt flint
Burnt flint

Date(mean)
128,000
120,000
140,000
135,000
105,360
101,690
97,840178,000
169,000
163,000
162,000
156,000SD(positive)
14,00016,00021,00060,000
2,580
1,360
430
29,00017,00019,00022,00010,000SD(negative)
14,00016,00021,00030,000
2,520
1,340
420
29,00017,00019,00022,00010,000

Selected
dates

O

Burnt flint

156,000

18,00018,000O

Burnt flint
Burnt flint
Burnt flint
Burnt flint
Burnt flint
Burnt flint
Burnt flint
Burnt flint
Burnt flint

155,000
155,000
149,000
148,000
146,000
146,000
144,000
144,000
144,000

19,00016,00015,00018,00013,00013,00016,00017,0003,000

19,00016,00015,00018,00013,00013,00016,00017,0003,000

OBurnt flint
Burnt flint
Burnt flint
Burnt flint
Burnt flint
Burnt flint

143,000
142,000
140,000
139,000
129,000
129,000

14,00013,00011,00013,00011,00012,00014,00013,00011,00013,00011,00012,000O

Burnt flint
Burnt flint
Burnt flint
Burnt flint
Burnt flint
Burnt flint
Burnt flint
Burnt flint
Burnt flint
Tooth
Tooth
Tooth
Tooth
Tooth
Tooth
Tooth
Tooth
Tooth
Tooth
Tooth
Tooth
Burnt flint

128,000
127,000
126,000
125,000
125,000
124,000
119,000
119,000
114,000
183,000
180,000
178,000
176,000
163,000
191,000
190,000
187,000
182,000
164,000
156,400
117,300
95,00014,00014,00012,00013,00012,00012,00012,00010,00015,00028,00027,00021,00030,00026,00031,00030,00023,00032,00026,000
9,800
900
7,700

14,00014,00012,00013,00012,00012,00012,00010,00015,00028,00027,00021,00030,00026,00031,00030,00023,00032,00026,000
9,000
900
7,700

O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O

O
O
O
O
O
O

(continued)

4Issues of Chronological and Geographical Distributions of Middle and Upper Palaeolithic Cultural…

67

Table 4.2 (continued)
No. inthe plot
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202

Site name
Qafzeh Cave
Qafzeh Cave
Qafzeh Cave
Qafzeh Cave
Qafzeh Cave
Qafzeh Cave
Qafzeh Cave
Qafzeh Cave
Qafzeh Cave
Qafzeh Cave
Qafzeh Cave
Qafzeh Cave
Qafzeh Cave
Qafzeh Cave
Qafzeh Cave
Qafzeh Cave
Qafzeh Cave
Qafzeh Cave
Qafzeh Cave
Qafzeh Cave
Qafzeh Cave
Qafzeh Cave
Qafzeh Cave
Qafzeh Cave
Qafzeh Cave
Qafzeh Cave
Qafzeh Cave
Qafzeh Cave
Qafzeh Cave
Qafzeh Cave
Qafzeh Cave
Qafzeh Cave
Qafzeh Cave
Qafzeh Cave
Qafzeh Cave
Qafzeh Cave
Qafzeh Cave
Qafzeh Cave
Qafzeh Cave
Qafzeh Cave
Qafzeh Cave
Qafzeh Cave
Qafzeh Cave
Qafzeh Cave
Qafzeh Cave
Qafzeh Cave
Qafzeh Cave
Qafzeh Cave
Qafzeh Cave
Qafzeh Cave
Qafzeh Cave
Qafzeh Cave
Qafzeh Cave
Skhul
Skhul

Layer
Layer XXII
Layer XXII
Layer XXII
Layer XXI
Layer XXI
Layer XXI
Layer XXI
Layer XXI
Layer XXI
Layer XXI
Layer XXI
Layer XXI
Layer XXI
Layer XXI
Layer XXI
Layer XXI
Layer XIX
Layer XIX
Layer XIX
Layer XIX
Layer XIX
Layer XIX
Layer XIX
Layer XIX
Layer XIX
Layer XIX
Layer XIX
Layer XIX
Layer XIX
Layer XIX
Layer XIX
Layer XIX
Layer XIX
Layer XIX
Layer XIX
Layer XIX
Layer XVIII
Layer XVIII
Layer XVIII
Layer XVII
Layer XVII
Layer XVII
Layer XVII
Layer XVII
Layer XVII
Layer XVII
Layer XVII
Layer XV
Layer XV
Layer XV
Layer XV
Layer XV
Layer XV
Layer B
Layer B

Datingmethod
TL
TL
TL
TL
TL
TL
ESR EUESR EUESR EUESR EUESR EU
ESR LU
ESR LU
ESR LU
ESR LU
ESR LU
TL
TL
TL
TL
ESR EUESR EUESR EUESR EUESR EUESR EUESR EU
ESR LU
ESR LU
ESR LU
ESR LU
ESR LU
ESR LU
ESR LU
U-series
U-series
TL
TL
TL
TL
TL
TL
TL
TL
TL
ESR EU
ESR LUESR EUESR EUESR EU
ESR LU
ESR LU
ESR LUTL
ESR EU

Laboratory No.
66
65
67
1
61
2
369B
369A
369E
369D
369C
369B
369A
369E
369C
369D
45
77
49
47
371B
368D
371A
368C
368B
368A
371C
371B
371A
368D
368C
368B
368A
371C
368
371
42
40
38
29
14
36
13
33
34
372
372
373
370B
370A
373
370B
370A
Average
521d

Samples
Burnt flint
Burnt flint
Burnt flint
Burnt flint
Burnt flint
Burnt flint
Tooth
Tooth
Tooth
Tooth
Tooth
Tooth
Tooth
Tooth
Tooth
Tooth
Burnt flint
Burnt flint
Burnt flint
Burnt flint
Tooth
Tooth
Tooth
Tooth
Tooth
Tooth
Tooth
Tooth
Tooth
Tooth
Tooth
Tooth
Tooth
Tooth
Tooth
Tooth enamel
Burnt flint
Burnt flint
Burnt flint
Burnt flint
Burnt flint
Burnt flint
Burnt flint
Burnt flint
Burnt flint
Tooth
Tooth
Tooth
Tooth
Tooth
Tooth
Tooth
Tooth
Burnt flint
Tooth

Date
(mean)
91,20086,60085,400109,900
90,90089,200118,000
95,90095,30074,20073,700143,000
118,000
116,000
94,00089,10098,80095,90084,90082,400119,000
111,000
107,000
102,000
99,70087,70082,000145,000
128,000
124,000
117,000
112,000
106,000
101,000
106,350
88,61093,40089,50087,900107,200
106,000
100,700
94,30089,20087,80095,200103,000
94,70094,20092,100116,000
114,000
112,000
119,000
101,000SD(positive)
8,700
7,400
6,900
9,900
8,700
8,900

SD
(negative)
8,700
7,400
6,900
9,900
8,700
8,900

8,900
8,100
7,300
7,700

8,900
8,100
7,300
7,700

2,360
3,240
8,200
7,000
7,200
8,800
9,600
8,200
8,800
8,400
7,200

2,310
3,120
8,200
7,000
7,200
8,800
9,600
8,200
8,800
8,400
7,200

18,00019,00018,00019,000

Selected
dates
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
(continued)

68

S. Kadowaki

Table 4.2 (continued)
No. inthe plot
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257

Site name
Skhul
Skhul
Skhul
Skhul
Skhul
Skhul
Skhul
Skhul
Skhul
Skhul
Skhul
Skhul
Skhul
Skhul
Skhul
Skhul
Skhul
Skhul
Skhul
Skhul
Skhul
Naamé
Naamé
Naamé
Tabun Cave
Tabun Cave
Tabun Cave
Tabun Cave
Amud Cave
Amud Cave
Amud Cave
Amud Cave
Amud Cave
Amud Cave
Amud Cave
Amud Cave
Amud Cave
Amud Cave
Amud Cave
Amud Cave
Amud Cave
Amud Cave
Amud Cave
Amud Cave
Amud Cave
Amud Cave
Amud Cave
Amud Cave
Amud Cave
Amud Cave
Amud Cave
Amud Cave
Amud Cave
Amud Cave
Amud Cave

Layer
Layer B
Layer B
Layer B
Layer B
Layer B
Layer B
Layer B
Layer B
Layer B
Layer B
Layer B
Layer B
Layer B
Layer B
Layer B
Layer B
Layer B
Layer B
Layer B
Layer B
Layer B
VermetStrombus
Strombus
Layer B
Layer B
Layer B
Layer B
B4
B4
B4
B4
B4
B4
B4
B4
B4
B4
B4
B4
B4
B2
B2
B2
B2
B2
B2
B2
B2
B2
B2
B2
B2
B2
B2

DatingmethodESR EUESR EUESR EUESR EUESR EUESR EUESR EU
ESR LU
ESR LU
ESR LU
ESR LU
ESR LU
ESR LU
ESR LU
ESR LU
U-series
U-series
U-series
U-series
U-series
U-series
U-series
U-series
U-series
ESR EU
ESR LU
US/ESR
U-series
TL
TL
TL
TL
TL
TL
ESR EUESR EU
ESR LU
ESR LU
MSUS/ESR
MSUS/ESR
MSUS/ESR
TL
TL
TL
TL
TL
TL
TL
TL
TL
ESR EUESR EUESR EU
ESR LU
ESR LU

Laboratory No.
521c
521a
521b
Average (1989)
522b
522a
522c
521d
521c
521a
521b
Average (1989)
522b
522a
522c
521
856-2
856-1
854
854
522

Revised average
Revised average
Revised average
550DE
51
49
52
46
47
average
95504am
95501-2ak
95504am
95501-2ak
95504Den1
95504Den2
95501-2Den
27
26
10
32
62
63
13
64
Average
95507alk
95508alk
95506alk
95507alk
95506alk

Samples
Tooth
Tooth
Tooth
Tooth
Tooth
Tooth
Tooth
Tooth
Tooth
Tooth
Tooth
Tooth
Tooth
Tooth
Tooth
Tooth
Tooth
Tooth
Tooth
Tooth
Tooth

Tooth
Tooth
Tooth
Tooth
Burnt flint
Burnt flint
Burnt flint
Burnt flint
Burnt flint
Burnt flint
Tooth
Tooth
Tooth
Tooth
Tooth
Tooth
Tooth
Burnt flint
Burnt flint
Burnt flint
Burnt flint
Burnt flint
Burnt flint
Burnt flint
Burnt flint
Burnt flint
Tooth
Tooth
Tooth
Tooth
Tooth

Date
(mean)
94,90088,10086,10081,00073,00068,00054,600119,000
109,000
102,000
102,000
101,000
99,90098,30077,20080,27045,53043,46043,03041,41040,43090,00093,00090,000102,000
122,000
104,000
50,69075,90070,80066,90064,70055,60068,500112,000
68,000115,000
73,000113,000
113,000
70,00059,50055,40053,10052,70052,40045,60044,50044,10056,50066,00054,00051,00077,00065,000SD(positive)
15,60017,90013,10015,0007,000
5,400
10,30025,10020,50022,70018,00012,00012,40010,60015,700
550
740
140
470
390
210
10,0005,000
20,00017,00016,00033,000
230
5,300
3,800
4,900
4,000
4,400
3,400
18,00010,00019,00012,00018,00018,00011,000
4,500
4,000
5,500
5,500
6,800
3,000
3,900
3,100
3,500
8,000
7,000
5,000
11,0008,000

SD(negative)
15,60017,90013,10015,0007,000
5,400
10,30025,10020,50022,70018,00012,00012,40010,60015,700
550
730
140
460
380
210
10,0005,000
20,00017,00016,00018,000
230
5,300
3,800
4,900
4,000
4,400
3,400
18,00010,00019,00012,00018,00018,00011,000
4,500
4,000
5,500
5,500
6,800
3,000
3,900
3,100
3,500
8,000
7,000
5,000
11,0008,000

Selected
dates

O

O

O
O
O
O
O
O

O

O

O

(continued)

4Issues of Chronological and Geographical Distributions of Middle and Upper Palaeolithic Cultural…

69

Table 4.2 (continued)
No. inthe plot
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307

Site nameAmud Cave
Amud Cave
Amud Cave
Amud Cave
Amud Cave
Amud Cave
Amud Cave
Amud Cave
Amud Cave
Amud Cave
Amud Cave
Amud Cave
Amud Cave
Amud Cave
Amud Cave
KebaraKebaraKebaraKebaraKebaraKebaraKebaraKebaraKebaraTor Sabiha
Tor Faraj
Tor Faraj
Tor Faraj
Tor Faraj
Tor Faraj
Tor Faraj
QuneitraQuneitraKsar Akil
Ksar Akil
Ksar Akil
Ksar Akil
Ksar Akil
Far’ah II
Far’ah II
Far’ah II
Far’ah II
Far’ah II
Far’ah II
Far’ah II
Far’ah II
Far’ah II
Far’ah II
Far’ah II
Douara Cave

Layer
B2
B2
B2
B2
B2
B1
B1
B1
B1
B1
B1
B1
B1
B1
B1
Layer XII
Layer XI
Layer X
Layer X
Layer X
Layer IX
Layer VIII
Layer VII
Layer VI
Layer C
Layer C
Layer C
Layer C
Layer C
Layer C
Layer C
Un-stratified
Un-stratified
27A
27A
26A
26A
26A
Floor 1
Floor 1
Floor 1
Floor 1
Floor 1
Floor 1
Floor 1
Floor 1
Floor 1
Floor 1
Floor 1
Horizon III

DatingmethodESR LU
MSUS/ESR
MSUS/ESR
MSUS/ESR
MSUS/ESR
TL
TL
TL
TL
TL
TL
TL
ESR EU
ESR LU
MSUS/ESRTL
TL
TL
ESR EU
ESR LU
TL
TL
TL
TL
AAR
TL
TL
TL
U-series
U-series
AAR
ESR EU
ESR LU
U-series
U-series
U-series
U-series
C14-AMSESR EUESR EUESR EUESR EUESR EU
ESR LU
ESR LU
ESR LU
ESR LU
ESR LU
U-series
C14

Laboratory No.
95508alk
95507Den1
Average
95508Den1
95506Den1
12
37
38
41
40
11
Average
95505alk
95505alk
95505Den1
Average
Average
Average
Average
Average
Average
Average
Average
Average
AAL-5736

AAL-5739

G-8881777S
G-888178
G-888174S
G-888173B
GrN-2579
95368A
95370A
Mean
95367A
95,36695368A
95370AMean
95,36695367A
95367A
GrN-8058

Date
Samples(mean)
Tooth
63,000Tooth
70,000Tooth
61,000Tooth
59,000Tooth
53,000Burnt flint
70,600Burnt flint
61,300Burnt flint
59,400Burnt flint
58,100Burnt flint
51,600Burnt flint
49,000Burnt flint
57,600Tooth
50,000Tooth
57,000Tooth
53,000Burnt flint
59,900Burnt flint
60,000Burnt flint
61,600Tooth enamel
60,400Tooth enamel
64,300Burnt flint
58,400Burnt flint
57,300Burnt flint
51,900Burnt flint
48,300Ostrich eggshell
69,000Burnt flint
52,800Burnt flint
47,500Burnt flint
43,800Ostrich eggshell
62,400Ostrich eggshell
28,900Ostrich eggshell
69,000Tooth
39,200Tooth53,900
Animal Bone
51,000
Animal Bone
49,000
Animal bone
47,000
Animal bone
19,000Dark clay
43,750Tooth54,400Tooth50,100Tooth
49,100Tooth
46,200Tooth45,600Tooth
72,000Tooth62,700Tooth62,200Tooth
57,100Tooth
57,100Tooth enamel
74,500Ostrich eggshell >53,800

SD(positive)
9,000
10,000
9,000
8,000
7,000
6,900
5,200
5,100
4,100
3,700
4,600
3,700
6,000
8,000
7,000
3,500
3,500
3,600
5,900
5,500
4,000
4,000
3,500
3,500
6,000
3,000
3,000
2,000
14,000
3,900
6,000

SD
(negative)
9,000
10,000
9,000
8,000
7,000
6,900
5,200
5,100
4,100
3,700
4,600
3,700
6,000
8,000
7,000
3,500
3,500
3,600
5,900
5,500
4,000
4,000
3,500
3,500
6,000
3,000
3,000
2,000
14,000
3,900
6,000

1,700
4,000
5,000
9,000
5,000
1,500
3,200
3,100
4,100
2,700
2,700
4,900
4,700
7,000
4,100
4,100
1,500

1,700
4,000
5,000
9,000
5,000
1,500
3,200
3,100
4,100
2,700
2,700
4,900
4,700
7,000
4,100
4,100
1,500

Selected
dates

O

O

O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O

O

O

O

70

mer appeared earlier, following the IUP, and is dominated by
the production of blades/bladelets that are modified into
pointed or backed forms. In contrast, the beginning of theLevantine Aurignacian is dated to at least a few millennia
later, and it is characterized by numerous flakes fashioned
into burins and scrapers, and high occurrences of twisted
bladelets detached from carinated tools/cores.
It is generally recognized that the Ahmarian is part of atechnological complex whose autochthonous evolution canbe traced from the IUP through the Early Ahmarian to theLate Ahmarian (Goring-Morris and Belfer-Cohen 2006, p.
308; Belfer-Cohen and Goring-Morris 2007, pp. 200–201).
This local technological tradition, characterized by blade
production, is named the “Levantine Leptolithic Lineage” byMarks (2003, p. 253). The Late Ahmarian is characterized
by the increase of Ouchtata bladelets replacing el-Wad
points, as well as the employment of multiple core-reduction
strategies for bladelet production (Ferring 1988; BelferCohen and Goring-Morris 2003; Coinman 2003; Marks
2003). In addition, some of the Late Ahmarian assemblages,
such as Ohalo II and Fazael X, include microlith types, suchas micropoints, obliquely truncated backed bladelets, andproto-triangles, that are hallmarks of the Kebaran, one of theearly Epipalaeolithic entities (Nadel 2003), indicating thecontinuity of the Levantine Leptolithic lineage from the
beginning of the UP to the early Epipalaeolithic period. It is,however, debatable if this apparent technological continuity
represents that of local populations, and in turn any “accumulative cultural changes.”
The variations within the Levantine Aurignacian havebeen traditionally grouped into Phases A, B, and C on thebasis of stratified assemblages from Ksar Akil layers
VI-XIII (Bergman 2003; Williams and Bergman 2010).
Among the three phases, part of the Levantine Aurignacian
B and C (i.e., layers VII and VIII) shows “classic”
Aurignacian elements, such as flat frontally carinated andnosed scrapers along with bone and antler artifacts, such as
split-based points, similar to the European Aurignacian.
Belfer-Cohen and Goring-Morris (2003) re-define theLevantine Aurignacian by restricting it to the assemblages
with “classic” Aurignacian characteristics, excluding someflake-based assemblages from the Aurignacian tradition andclassifying them into separate industries, such as the Arqov/
Divshon or the Atlitian.
However, there are some assemblages that are notincluded in the Levantine Aurignacian sensu stricto but
remain to be assigned to any of other industries, such as
those from Ksar Akil layer IX-XIII (Bergman 2003).
According to Copeland (2003, p. 246), the assemblages from
Ksar Akil XI-XIII should be placed within the Levantine
Aurignacian A industry, to which UP assemblages from
Kebara Unit I-II and Umm el-Tlel can also be assigned.

S. Kadowaki

A similar view is proposed by Olszewski and Dibble (2006,
p. 363), who suggest that the high occurrence of blades inthe Levantine Aurignacian A assemblages also characterizes
the Zagros Aurignacian industry, that is typified by theassemblages from Warwasi layer P-Z. On the other hand,
Belfer-Cohen and Goring-Morris (2003, p. 274) class the UP
assemblages from Umm el-Tlel as the Late Ahmarian insteadof the Levantine Aurignacian, and the Aurignacian assemblages from Kebara (Bar-Yosef et al. 1996) are included in
the Classic Levantine Aurignacian instead of the Levantine
Aurignacian A (Goring-Morris and Belfer-Cohen 2006,
p. 311). In addition, a recent study of the UP assemblages
from Umm el-Tlel suggests that some assemblages showtechnological characteristics of the late Ahmarian, while others show core-reduction technology indicative of the
Aurignacian (Ploux and Soriano 2003). Interestingly, theseassemblages of apparently different technological traditions
are interstratified at Umm el-Tlel. In this way, there are ongoing issues and various positions regarding the definition of theLevantine Aurignacian and its identification in excavatedlithic assemblages. These alternative perspectives are considered in this study by organizing them within the database.
In contrast to the Ahmarian, that is generally recognized
as representing part of the endemic technological tradition in
the Levant, the Levantine Aurignacian is usually interpreted
to have been brought by foreign groups outside of the Levant(Bar-Yosef 2000, p. 136; Gilead 1995, p. 137; Marks 2003,
p. 256). An ongoing debate on the origin of the Levantine
Aurignacian appears to hinge on what is defined as “theAurignacian” (Goring-Morris and Belfer-Cohen 2006,
p. 308; Olszewski and Dibble 2006). While the Classic
Levantine Aurignacian, typified by Ksar Akil VII-VIII, iscomparable to the Aurignacian I in Europe, the claimed similarity between the Levantine Aurignacian A (including theassemblages of Ksar Akil XI-XII and Umm et-Tlel) and the
Warwasi P-Z assemblages (Olszewski 2009) is not as clear.
Goring-Morris and Belfer-Cohen (2006) further suggest thatthe occurrence of other flake-based industries (i.e., theArqov/Divshon and Atlitian) are also likely to represent the
influx of populations with different cultural traditions.
As for the Nebekian industry in the early Epipalaeolithic,
this study adopts its recent definition and identification proposed by Olszewski (2006; 2008) that incorporates someassemblages, formerly named the Qalkhan industry (Henry
1995, pp. 215–242), as part of the Nebekian. The recent
identification of the Nebekian also includes some assemblages that were once reported as the Kebaran, such as Wadi
Hammeh 26, 31, and 33, because of the presence of the
microburin technique that characterizes the Nebekian(Olszewski 2008).
On the basis of the above understandings of lithic industries as units for the examination of cultural variability, we4Issues of Chronological and Geographical Distributions of Middle and Upper Palaeolithic Cultural…

now present chronological and geographical patterns oflithic industries during the Middle and Upper Palaeolithic in
the Levant.

4.3

Chronological Examination of the
Middle and Upper Palaeolithic
Industries

4.3.1

Middle Palaeolithic

Although the Tabun B-, C-, and D- type industries were originally recognized at Tabun Cave as a stratigraphic sequence of
three assemblages from Layers B, C, and D from the top to thebottom, the same stratigraphic occurrence is observable atonly a few sites, such as Hayonim Cave (the D-type in layers
F and the lower part of layer E, followed by the C-type in theupper layer of E), and probably Douara Cave (the D-type in
Unit IV followed by the C-type in Unit III: Akazawa 1974).
As such, the current scheme of the Levantine MP chronology
primarily draws upon radiometric dating methods, e.g., TL,
ESR, U-series, Amino acid racemization (AAR), and radiocarbon (for the youngest MP: Rebollo et al. 2011), that havebeen applied to these sites, including Tabun, Hayonim, ‘Ain
Difla, Rosh Ein Mor, Qafzeh, Skhul, Naamé, Kebara, Amud,
Tor Faraj, Tor Sabiha, Quneitra, Ksar Akil, and Far’ah II.
We collected 307 radiometric dates from 40 culturallayers at 16 sites from published data (Table 4.2). Amongthese datasets, radiocarbon dates cannot be used as reliableage estimations because the temporal range of the MP isbeyond the limit of this dating method (except for the
youngest MP: Rebollo et al. 2011). Thus, 288 dates by either
TL, ESR, U-series, and AAR are considered in the following
discussions. Figure 4.2 shows the distribution of these radiometric dates by cultural layer that are then grouped into
Tabun D-, C-, and B-type industries. Although recently
reported radiocarbon dates for the youngest MP at Kebara,
associated with the Tabun B-type assemblages (Unit V:
Rebollo et al. 2011), are not included in Table 4.2, they aretaken into account in the following discussions.
The overall pattern indicates that the three industries
occurred in a general order from the Tabun D- through C- to
B-type between ca. 250/200 and 50/45 kya. Although several
dating results might suggest temporal overlap between different industries, they are not sufficient to replace the sequential model that is consistent with the stratigraphic evidence
mentioned above. For example, some dates from ‘Ain Difla(Clark et al. 1997) and Nahal Aqev (Schwarcz et al. 1979)
might indicate that the Tabun D-type industry lasted longer
in the southern arid areas, while it was replaced by the Tabun
C-type in the north. However, if the error intervals are taken
into account, the age estimations range widely between 90
and 180 kya for the former site (Clark et al. 1997, p. 91),71

while the dates of the latter site were actually obtained fromtravertine at the fossil spring 150 m away from the site
(Schwarcz et al. 1979, p. 559). In addition, ESR dates(ca. 164–191 kya) for upper layer E at Hayonim Cave lookanomalous in comparison with other dates for Tabun C-type
assemblages (ca. 80–140 kya), as seen at Qafzeh, Skhul,
Tabun layer C, and Naamé.
As for the dates of the Tabun B-type assemblages, revised
ESR dates for Tabun layer B (ca. 100–120 kya: Grün andStringer 2000) are anomalous, being closer to the dates of the
Tabun C-type assemblages at Qafzeh and Skhul than those ofother Tabun B sites, such as Kebara (Valladas et al. 1987)
and Amud (Valladas et al. 1999). Thus, these revised ESR
dates of Tabun layer B are not congruent with regional
chrono-cultural patterns and require additional examples orfurther explanations to be accepted as reliable evidence.
Otherwise, the dates of the Tabun B-type industry range
between ca. 50/45 kya and 75 kya. Although this temporal
range encompasses ESR dates from Quneitra and Far’ah II,
the lithic assemblages from these sites do not show technological characteristics of the Tabun B-type industry (Shea 2003,
p. 337). In fact, the dominance of flake forms in the Levallois
products as well as the frequent employment of centripetal
flaking in core-reduction at Quneitra (Goren-Inbar 1990) are
more indicative of the Tabun C-type industry. This cultural
attribution also explains the recovery of a flint flake withincised concentric lines from Quneitra because a stone toolwith incised lines was also recovered in association with the
Tabun C-type assemblages at Qafzeh (d’Errico et al. 2003).
U-series dates from Ksar Akil layers XXVI and XXVII,
obtained many years ago, are in the temporal range of the
Tabun B-type although the validity of these dates has notbeen further tested (van der Plicht and van der Wijk 1989).
Some researchers find the assemblages from these layers
similar to the Tabun C-type industry (Bar-Yosef 2000,
p. 116; Shea 2003, p. 336). However, the stratigraphic
changes in lithic technology from layers XXVIII to XXVI,
i.e., an increase of the ovoid-shape Levallois products and adecrease of the converging form, is similar to those of
Tabun-B assemblages from Unit XII to VII at Kebara, i.e., anincrease of Levallois flakes and centripetal flaking in contrast
to a decrease of unidirectional convergent flaking that produces Levallois points (Marks and Volkman 1986; Meignen
and Bar-Yosef 1992).
In addition to the radiometric dates, the faunal sequence
has contributed to the definition and construction of the
Middle Palaeolithic chronology outlined here. For example, faunal assemblages, particularly micromammals,from layers XV-XXV of Qafzeh, associated with the
Tabun C-type assemblages, are characterized by anincrease in Afro-Arabian fauna adapted to savanna conditions (Tchernov 1998, pp. 84–85). This is interpreted torepresent a northward expansion of Afro-Arabian species

Fig. 4.2 Radiometric dates of Middle Palaeolithic sites in the Levant. Note that the dates are grouped by lithic industries and arranged in the descending order. Numbers in the plots correspondto those in Table 4.2

72
S. Kadowaki

4Issues of Chronological and Geographical Distributions of Middle and Upper Palaeolithic Cultural…

with Homo sapiens during MIS 5. In contrast, almost allof the Afro-Arabian environmental elements are absent in
the faunal assemblages at Tabun-B sites, such as Kebara
and Amud, where Palearctic-European fauna are dominant as a result of their southward dispersal with
Neanderthals during the cold and dry climate of MIS 4(Tchernov 1998, p. 86; Bar-Yosef 1989). The faunalassemblages from both Hayonim lower and upper E, associated with Tabun D-type and C-type industries respectively, are characterized by the presence of earlier
Pleistocene fauna and the predominance of Palearctic
mammals, indicating their chronological precedence to
Qafzeh. These patterns in bio-cultural chronology generally fit the radiometric dates for Qafzeh, Kebara, Amud,and Hayonim E. The suggested correlation of the faunafrom Tabun layer B to MIS 4 does not support the revised
ESR dates mentioned above, questioning the validity ofthe dating results (Grün and Stringer 2000).

4.3.2

Upper Palaeolithic and Early
Epipalaeolithic

Despite the presence of key stratigraphic evidence for culturalsequences at some cave and rock-shelter sites, such as at Ksar
Akil, much of the archaeological remains of these time periods
come from open-air sites particularly in the arid zone, necessitating the use of radiometric dates for the establishment of
cultural chronology. For the UP and early Epipalaeolithic, ourdatabase includes 200 dates from 82 layers at 47 sites(Table 4.3). Most of them are radiocarbon dates with some TL
dates from Jerf Ajla and Umm el-Tlel. Excluding radiocarbon
dates on bone or shell as well as clearly anomalous dates, weplot the distribution of 152 dates from cultural layers, andgrouped into lithic industries (Fig. 4.3). Some cultural layers,e.g., Umm el-Tlel, Ksar Akil (Tixier’s VII), and Wadi Kharar
16R (Nishiaki et al. 2012a), are not classed into any of theindustries because their cultural attribution is still under
examination or controversial.
The overall pattern observable in this cultural chronologicalscheme conforms to an earlier suggestion that the IUP or
Emiran is followed by the Ahmarian, that precedes the appearance of the Levantine Aurignacian regardless of its various
definitions and interpretations, as described above (BelferCohen and Goring-Morris 2003; Gilead 1995; Marks 2003).
The distribution of dates for the Early and Late Ahmarian
are continuous, indicating that these two industries
occurred sequentially. This is consistent with the idea that thetechnological shift from the Early to the Late Ahmarian is
gradual (Coinman 2003). Such a gradual transition may also
apply to the boundary between the Late Ahmarian and theKebaran. Their temporal ranges indicated by C14 dates
appear sequential, and some assemblages, e.g. Ohalo II and73

Fazael X, are suggested to represent technological transition
from the Late Ahmarian to the Kebaran (Nadel 2003). If theseobservations are valid, the periodical boundary between the
UP and Epipalaeolithic in the Levant may be characterized by
gradual technological transition rather than sudden shift.
On the other hand, there is considerable overlap in thetemporal range between the Early Ahmarian and the IUP,
although it is widely recognized that the technologicalchange from IUP to the Early Ahmarian is sequential, as
attested by the stratigraphic sequence at Ksar Akil
(Ohnuma 1988) and Üçağɩzlɩ (Kuhn et al. 2009). The
apparent chronological overlap is created by the radiocarbon dates from Kebara Units III and IV (Early Ahmarian;No. 22–29 in Table 4.3) that are dated distinctively earlier
than other Ahmarian assemblages as well as by a younger
group of dates for IUP assemblages from Üçağɩzlɩ, Jerf
Ajla, and Umm el-Tlel (No. 9, 10, 12, 13, 17–21 inTable 4.3). It is untenable to suggest, solely based on the
distribution of radiometric dates, the contemporaneity
between the IUP and the Ahmarian considering the difficulties in obtaining reliable radiocarbon dates close to themethodological limit, as discussed by Kuhn et al. (2009,
pp. 90–91), and possible contamination of charcoal samples at Kebara due to complicated depositional processes
from the latest Middle Palaeolithic (Unit V) to the early
Ahmarian layers (Units III and IV) (Zilhão 2007, p. 11
and the chapter by Zilhão in this volume), as well as large
error ranges of TL dates. However, I suggest that the IUP
industry may have lasted somewhat later in inland Syria
than in the Levant because (1) TL and radiocarbon dates
at Umm el-Tlel (No. 20 and 21 in Table 4.3) are consistent
with each other and (2) we have so far no Early Ahmarianassemblages comparable to those of Ksar Akil XVI-XVIIor Üçağɩzlɩ B-C in inland Syria.
In this way, I suggest more or less sequential occurrences of blade dominant industries, including the IUP, the
Early and Late Ahmarian, and the Kebaran, that is interpreted by some researchers to constitute a long-term
autochthonous lithic tradition (i.e., the Levantine Leptolithic
Lineage: Marks 2003). On the other hand, the distributionof available dates for the Levantine Aurignacian sensu lato
appears discontinuous. This observation is exemplified by
the cluster of dates for the assemblages of the Classic
Levantine Aurignacian, such as Kebara Units I-II, Raqefet
layer III, and Ksar Akil (Tixier’s Phase VI) between ca.
35–30 kya (uncalibrated). Somewhat younger radiocarbon
dates measured on bones from Hayonim D and shells from
Ksar Akil VIII are not considered here. There is a generalcontemporaneity with this period based on a cluster ofdates from Umm el-Tlel, Ksar Akil (Tixier’s Phase VII),and Wadi Kharar 16R (Nishiaki et al. 2012a). Although thecultural attribution of these assemblages is still controversial or under examination, this cluster of dates may indicate

74

S. Kadowaki

Table 4.3 List of radiometric dates of Upper Palaeolithic and early Epipalaeolithic sites in the Levant
No. inthe plot
1
2
3
4
5
6

Site name
Boker Tachtit
Boker Tachtit
Boker Tachtit
Boker Tachtit
Boker TachtitÜçağɩzlɩ Magara

7Üçağɩzlɩ Magara

8Üçağɩzlɩ Magara

9Üçağɩzlɩ Magara

10Üçağɩzlɩ Magara

11
12
13
14

Üçağɩzlɩ MagaraÜçağɩzlɩ MagaraÜçağɩzlɩ Magara
Jerf Ajla

15

Jerf Ajla

16

Jerf Ajla

17

Jerf Ajla

18

Jerf Ajla

19

Jerf Ajla

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42

Umm el-Tlel
Umm el-Tlel
KebaraKebaraKebaraKebaraKebaraKebaraKebaraKebaraKebaraKebaraAbu Noshra II
Abu Noshra II
Abu Noshra II
Abu Noshra II
Abu Noshra II
Abu Noshra II
Abu Noshra VI
Abu Noshra I
Abu Noshra I
Abu Noshra I
Abu Noshra I

Layer
1
1
1
1
4
H [locus 2: test
trench]H [locus 2: test
trench]H [locus 2: test
trench]H [locus 2: test
trench]H [locus 2: test
trench]G
FF
Brown 1 (Units
A, B, C)
Brown 1 (Units
A, B, C)
Brown 1 (Units
A, B, C)
Brown 1 (Units
A, B, C)
Brown 1 (Units
A, B, C)
Brown 1 (Units
A, B, C)
III2a’
III2a’E (IV)E (IV)E (IV)E (IV)E (III)
E (III)
E (III)
E (III)
E (III)
E (III)

Datingmethod
C14
C14
C14
C14
C14
C14-AMS

Laboratory No.
SMU-580
SMU-259
SMU-184
GY-3642
SMU-579
AA-35625

Samples
Charcoal
Charcoal
Charcoal
Charcoal
Charcoal
CharcoalDate(mean)
47,28046,930>45,570>34,950
35,05541,400SD(positive)
9,050
2,420

SD
(negative)
9,050
2,420

Selected
dates
O
O

4,100
1,100

4,100
1,100

O
O

C14-AMS

AA-27994

Charcoal

39,400

1,200

1,200

O

C14-AMS

AA-27995

Charcoal

38,900

1,100

1,100

O

C14-AMS

AA-35261

Charcoal

35,670

730

730

O

C14-AMS

AA-37623

Charcoal

33,040

1,400

1,400

O

C14-AMS
C14-AMS
C14-AMS
TL

AA-37626
AA-37624
AA-35260
JA-7

Charcoal
Charcoal
Charcoal
Burnt flint

39,10035,02034,00042,600

1,500
740
690
5,800

1,500
740
690
5,800

O
O
O
O

TL

JA-2

Burnt flint

40,700

6,400

6,400

O

TL

JA-3

Burnt flint

37,300

4,900

4,900

O

TL

Average

Burnt flint

35,600

3,400

3,400

O

TL

JA-8

Burnt flint

35,500

4,400

4,400

O

TL

JA-1

Burnt flint

31,000

3,400

3,400

O

TL
C14-AMS
C14-AMS
C14-AMS
C14-AMS
C14-AMS
C14-AMS
C14-AMS
C14-AMS
C14-AMS
C14-AMS
C14-AMS
C14
C14
C14
C14
C14
C14
C14
C14
C14
C14
C14

GifA-93215
GifA-93216
Pta-5141Pta-5002
Pta-4987
OxA-3978OxA-3977
OxA-3976
Gif-TAN-90037
Gif-TAN90168
Pta-4267
OxA-1567
SMU-2372
SMU-2122
ETH-3076
ETH-3075
SMU-1762
SMU-1772
SMU-2371
SMU-2254
SMU-2007
SMU-1824
B-12125

Burnt flint
Charcoal
Charcoal
Charcoal
Charcoal
Charcoal
Charcoal
Charcoal
Charcoal
Charcoal
Charcoal
Charcoal
Charcoal
Charcoal
Charcoal
Charcoal
Charcoal
Charcoal
Charcoal
Charcoal
Charcoal
Charcoal
Charcoal

36,00034,53043,70042,50042,10028,89043,80043,50042,50041,70036,10035,60048,25038,92433,94033,47031,58531,023
31,10035,82435,80531,330>30,440

2,500
750
1,800
1,800
2,100
400

2,500
750
1,800
1,800
2,100
400

O
O
O
O
O

2,200

2,200

1,100
1,600
2,810
1,529
790
680
2,275
8,537
300
1,090
1,520
2,880

1,100
1,600
2,810
1,529
790
680
2,275
8,537
300
1,090
1,520
2,880

O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O

(continued)

4Issues of Chronological and Geographical Distributions of Middle and Upper Palaeolithic Cultural…

75

Table 4.3 (continued)
No. inthe plot
43
44
45
46
47
48

Datingmethod
C14
C14
C14
C14
C14
C14

Laboratory No.
B-13898
B-13897
SMU-578
SMU-187
SMU-260
DRI-2965

C14

Pta-2819

C14

Pta-2964

51

Qadesh Barnea
501
Qadesh Barnea
601B
Lagama VIII

C14

SMU-119

52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73

Lagama VII
Lagama VII
Lagama VIIÜçağɩzlɩ MagaraÜçağɩzlɩ MagaraÜçağɩzlɩ Magara
Qafzeh Cave
Qafzeh Cave
Qafzeh Cave
Qafzeh Cave
Qafzeh Cave
Qafzeh Cave
Qafzeh Cave
Qafzeh Cave
Qafzeh Cave
Qafzeh Cave
Qafzeh Cave
Qafzeh Cave
Qafzeh Cave
Qafzeh Cave
Qafzeh Cave
Boker BEC [locus 1]
B1
B
11
11
9
9
9
9
8
8
8
8
8
8
D (8–9)D (8–9)D (8–9)
III

C14
C14
C14
C14-AMS
C14-AMS
C14-AMS
C14-AMS
C14-AMS
C14-AMS
C14-AMS
C14-AMS
C14-AMS
C14-AMS
C14-AMS
C14-AMS
C14-AMS
C14-AMS
C14-AMS
C14
C14
C14
C14

74

Boker BE

III

C14

75

Boker BE

III

C14

76
77
78

Boker BE
Boker BE
A306A

II
II

C14
C14
C14

SMU-172
SMU-185
RT-413A
Gif-8766
AA38201
AA38203
GifA-97338
AA-27290
GifA-97337
AA-27291
GifA-98230
AA-27292
GifA-98229
AA-27294
GifA-97336
AA-27289
Gif-98231
AA-27293
asparatic acidasparatic acidasparatic acid
SMU-188(Level III)
SMU-229(Level III)
SMU-228(Level III)
SMU-227
SMU-565
Pta-2950

79E

C14-AMSC

81

Thalabal-Buhayla
Thalabal-Buhayla
Lagama IIID

82
83
84

Ksar Akil
Ksar Akil
Ksar Akil

Tixier’s III
Tixier’s III
Tixier’s III

49
50

80

Site nameAbu Noshra I
Abu Noshra I
Boker A
Boker A
Boker A
Qseimeh I

Layer

I
I
I

Date
(mean)
29,58025,95037,920>33,600>33,420
34,010SD(positive)
1,610
360
2,810

SD
(negative)
1,340
360
2,810

510

510

33,800940

940

32,470780

780

32,980

2,140

2,140

34,17031,210>19,900
32,25032,67029,13031,52029,32028,34028,02029,06028,38027,51027,08026,72027,00028,46026,54046,95038,95031,95027,450

3,670
2,780

3,670
2,780

O
O

800
760
380
490
360
360
320
390
330
340
270
300
280
360
280

800
760
380
490
360
360
320
390
330
340
270
300
280
360
280

O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O

1,300

1,300

O

Charcoal

26,660

500

500

O

Charcoal

26,030

600

600

O

26,95024,63027,100

520
390
410

520
390
410

O
O

Beta-129817

Charcoal
Charcoal
Ostricheggshell
Charcoal

24,900

130

130

O

C14-AMS

Beta-129818

Charcoal

25,680

100

100

O

C14

SMU-118

30,050

1,240

1,240

C14-AMS
C14-AMS
C14

OxA-1798
OxA-1797
MC-1191

Ostricheggshell
Charcoal
Charcoal
Charcoal

29,30026,90026,500

800
600
900

800
600
900

Samples
Charcoal
Charcoal
Charcoal
Charcoal
Charcoal
Ostricheggshell
Ostricheggshell
Ostricheggshell
Ostricheggshell
Charcoal
Charcoal
CharcoalMarine shell
Marine shell
Marine shell
Charcoal
Charcoal
Charcoal
Charcoal
Charcoal
Charcoal
Charcoal
Charcoal
Charcoal
Charcoal
Charcoal
Charcoal
Bone
Bone
Bone
Charcoal

Selected
dates
O
O
O

O
O
O

(continued)

76

S. Kadowaki

Table 4.3 (continued)
No. inthe plot
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94

Site name
Ksar Akil
Ain al-Buhayra
Ain al-Buhayra
Ain al-Buhayra
Ain al-Buhayra
Ain al-Buhayra
Yutil al-Hasa
Yutil al-Hasa
Shunera XVI
Shunera XVI

Datingmethod
C14-AMS
C14-AMS
C14-AMS
C14-AMS
C14-AMS
C14-AMS
C14-AMS
C14-AMS
C14
C14

Laboratory No.
OxA-1796
Beta-55928
Beta-55931
Beta-56424
Beta-118757
UA-4395
Beta-129813
UA-4396
RT-1084N
RT-1072N

Shunera XVI

C14

Pta-3703

96

Shunera XVI

C14

Pta-3702

97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129

Shunera XVI
Meged
Meged
Ohalo II
Ohalo II
Ohalo II
Ohalo II
Ohalo II
Ohalo II
Ohalo II
Ohalo II
Ohalo II
Ohalo II
Ohalo II
Ohalo II
Ohalo II
Ohalo II
Ohalo II
Ohalo II
Ohalo II
Ohalo II
Ohalo II
Ohalo II
Ohalo II
Ohalo II
Ohalo II
Ohalo II
Ohalo II
Azariq XIII
Azariq XIII
Azariq XIII
Fazael X
Azraq 17 (trench
2)
Meged
Meged
Ain Qasiyya

C14
C14-AMS
C14-AMS
C14-AMS
C14-AMS
C14-AMS
C14-AMS
C14-AMS
C14-AMS
C14-AMS
C14-AMS
C14-AMS
C14-AMS
C14-AMS
C14-AMS
C14-AMS
C14-AMS
C14-AMS
C14-AMS
C14-AMS
C14-AMS
C14-AMS
C14-AMS
C14-AMS
C14-AMS
C14-AMS
C14-AMS
C14-AMS
C14-AMS
C14-AMS
C14-AMS
C14-AMS
C14-AMS

RT-1069
AA-26552
AA-26551
RT-1625
RT-1624
RT-1620
RT-1622Pta-5387
RT-1621
RT-1619
RT-1248
Pta-5386
RT-1616
RT-1342
Pta-5374
OxA-2565
RT-1250
RT-1618
OxA-2566
RT-1251
RT-1252
RT-1358
RT-1617
OxA-2564
RT-1343
RT-1244
RT-1623
RT-1297
RT-1105
OxA-2142
RT-1081OxA-2870
OxA-869

Samples
Charcoal
Charcoal
Charcoal
Charcoal
Charcoal
Charcoal
Charcoal
Charcoal
Carbonate
Ostricheggshell
Ostricheggshell
Ostricheggshell
Charcoal
Charcoal
Charcoal
Charcoal
Charcoal
Fraxinus s.
Pistacia a.
Charcoal
Rhamnus
Tamarix
Charcoal
Charcoal
Pistacia a.
Charcoal
Charcoal
Hordeum
Tamarix
Tamarix
Hordeum
Charcoal
Tamarix
Charcoal
Populus e.
Hordeum
Charcoal
Charcoal
Tamarix
Charcoal
Carbonate
Charcoal
Charcoal
Charcoal
Charcoal

95

C14-AMS
C14-AMS
C14-AMS

AA-22314
AA-22313
Poz-33101

Charcoal
Charcoal
Charcoal

130
131
132

Layer
Tixier’s III
Unit F
Units H-I
Units H-I
Units H-I
Units H-I
Area A
Area A

Area A Unit IIIa

Date(mean)
21,10025,95023,56023,50020,67020,30022,79019,00022,20016,200SD(positive)
500
440
250
270
600
600
80
1,300
400
170

SD
(negative)
500
440
250
270
600
600
80
1,300
400
170

16,100150150

15,800

160

160

102
20,485
18,84021,05020,84020,83020,19020,10020,07019,86019,80019,60019,59019,50019,40019,31019,25019,22019,11019,00018,90018,76018,70018,68018,60018,36018,21017,50019,70015,16010,70015,45013,260

2
155
140
330
290
180
170
440
270
190
360
400
150
170
220
190
460
180
390
190
400
180
180
180
220
230
240
200
400
190
230
130
200

2
155
140
330
290
180
170
440
270
190
360
400
150
170
220
190
460
180
390
190
400
180
180
180
220
230
240
200
400
190
230
130
200

18,12518,065
19,690

135
120
150

135
120
150

Selected
dates
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O

O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O

O
O

(continued)

4Issues of Chronological and Geographical Distributions of Middle and Upper Palaeolithic Cultural…

77

Table 4.3 (continued)
No. inthe plot
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148

Site name
Ain Qasiyya
Ain Qasiyya
Ain Qasiyya
Kharaneh IV
Kharaneh IV
Ein Gev I
Urkan II
Urkan II
Urkan II
Urkan II
Urkan II
Urkan II
Urkan II
Urkan II
Urkan IIUmm el-Tlel

149
150
151

Umm el-Tlel
Umm el-Tlel
Umm el-Tlel

152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173

Ksar Akil
Kharar 16R
KebaraKebaraKebaraKebaraKebaraKebaraKebaraKebaraKebaraKebaraRaqefetHayonim
Hayonim
Hayonim
Ksar Akil
Ksar Akil
Ksar Akil
Ksar Akil
Ksar Akil
Qseimeh II

174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181

Boker BE
Boker BEEin Aqev
Ein Aqev
Ein Aqev
Ein Aqev
Ein Aqev
Madamagh

Layer
Area A Unit IIIa
Area A Unit IIIa
Area B Unit IIIa
Area B
Area B

V (= II 1)
Ahmarian
II 2a Ahmarian
II 2b Aurignacian
XII (= II 4?)
unknown
Tixier’s VII
Area 2
D (II)
D (II)
D (II)
D (II)
D (II)
D (II)
D (II)
D (I)
D (I)
D (I)
III
Layer D
Layer D
Layer D
Tixier’s VI
Tixier’s VI
VIII
VIII
VIII

I
I
12
11
9
7
5
D

Datingmethod
C14-AMS
C14-AMS
C14-AMS
C14-AMS
C14-AMS
C14
C14-AMS
C14-AMS
C14-AMS
C14-AMS
C14-AMS
C14-AMS
C14-AMS
C14-AMS
C14-AMS
C14-AMS

Laboratory No.
OxA-1883
OxA-18832
Poz-33103
OxA-22273
OxA-22274
GrN-5576
OxA-2841
OxA-2835
OxA-2838
OxA-2842
OxA-2840
OxA-2836
OxA-2839
OxA-2837
OxA-1503
Gif-90034

Samples
Charcoal
Charcoal
Charcoal
Charcoal
Charcoal
Burnt bone
Charcoal
Charcoal
Charcoal
Charcoal
Charcoal
Charcoal
Charcoal
Charcoal
Charcoal
CharcoalDate(mean)
17,555
17,495
16,96015,89015,77015,70015,73015,19015,05014,98014,88014,86014,80014,65014,44030,310SD(positive)
75
70
110
90
80
415
130
130
160
200
120
130
130
120
150
670

SD
(negative)
75
70
110
90
80
415
130
130
160
200
120
130
130
120
150
670

Selected
dates
O
O
O
O
O

TL
C14-AMS
C14-AMS

Gif A-93212
Gif-90040

Burnt flint
Charcoal
Charcoal

34,00032,00030,790

2,500
580
760

2,500
580
760

O
O
O

C14
C14-AMS
C14-AMS
C14-AMS
C14-AMS
C14-AMS
C14-AMS
C14-AMS
C14-AMS
C14-AMS
C14-AMS
C14-AMS
C14-AMS
C14-AMS
C14-AMS
C14-AMS
C14-AMS
C14-AMS
C14
C14
C14
C14

MC-1192
IAAA-103837
Gx-17276
OxA-1230
Gif-TAN-90028
OxA-3975
Gif-TAN-90151
Pta-4263
Pta-4269
OxA-3974
Pta-4268
Pta-4247
RTT4945
OxA-2805
OxA-2801
OxA-2802
OxA-1805
OxA-1804
GrN-2195
MC-686-688
MC-680-684
DRI-2966

32,00033,13042,80036,00034,30033,92032,67031,40028,70034,51032,20022,90030,54029,98028,90027,20032,40031,20028,84027,00026,00030,500

1,500
160
4,800
1,600
1,100
690
800
480
450
740
630
250
440
720
650
600
1,100
1,300
380

1,500
160
4,800
1,600
1,100
690
800
480
450
740
630
250
440
720
650
600
1,100
1,300
380

O
O

330

330

C14
C14
C14
C14
C14
C14
C14
C14

SMU-186
SMU-566
SMU-5
SMU-8
SMU-6
I-5495
I-5494
KN-3594

Charcoal
Charcoal
Charcoal
Charcoal
Charcoal
Charcoal
Charcoal
Charcoal
Charcoal
Charcoal
Charcoal
Charcoal
Charcoal
Bone
Bone
Bone
Charcoal
Charcoal
Shell
Shell
Shell
Ostricheggshell
Charcoal
Charcoal
Charcoal
Charcoal
Charcoal
Charcoal
CharcoalBone

25,61025,25019,98017,39017,89017,51016,90015,300

640
345
1,200
560
600
560
250
600

640
345
1,200
560
600
560
250
600

O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O

O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O

O
O

O
O
O
O
O
O
O

(continued)

78

S. Kadowaki

Table 4.3 (continued)
No. inthe plot
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200

Site name
Ksar Akil
Fazael IX
Tor Sageer
Tor Sageer
Tor Sageer
Gaiyfa X
Wadi Hammeh 26
Uwaynid 18
Uwaynid 18
Uwaynid 14
Uwaynid 14
Tor Tareeq
Tor Tareeq
Ain Qasiyya
Madamagh
Jilat 6Jilat 6Jilat 6
Uwaynid 18

Layer
Tixier’s IV

Upper
Upper
Upper
MiddleLower
Lower
Area D Unit IIIa
A
Phase C
Phase B
Phase B
Lower

Datingmethod
C14-AMS
C14-AMS
C14-AMS
C14-AMS
C14-AMS
C14
C14-AMS
C14-AMS
C14-AMS
C14-AMS
C14-AMS
C14-AMS
C14-AMS
C14-AMS
C14
C14-AMS
C14-AMS
C14-AMS
C14-AMS

Laboratory No.
OxA-1803
OxA-2871
Beta-129810
Beta-129811
Beta-129809
DRI-3001
SUA-2101
OxA-864
OxA-868
OxA-865
OxA-866
UA-4391
UA-4392
Poz-33106
KN-3593
OxA-539
OxA-522
OxA-523
OxA-867

the timing of technological diversification between ca.
35–30 kya (uncalibrated).
The number of dates obtained for the Arqov/Divshon
and the Atlitian assemblages are limited, but currently
available dates are later than the Classic Levantine
Aurignacian by thousands of years or more than ten thousand years, except for a single early date for Ksar Akil
(Tixier’s IV). This chronological gap between the Classic
Levantine Aurignacian and other flake-based industries(i.e., the Arqov/Divshon and the Atlitian) is consistent withthe position that these three industries should be separate
entities rather than lumping them as the Levantine
Aurignacian sensu lato (Goring-Morris and Belfer-Cohen2006). It is notable that the temporal ranges of the Arqov/
Divshon and Atlitian significantly overlap that of the
Nebekian, that is conventionally included in the
Epipalaeolithic period. This chronological overlap between
ca. 22 and 17 kya (uncalibrated) may represent anotherphase of technological diversification at the transition fromthe latest UP to the early Epipalaeolithic period.
In sum, the above chronological examination allowed
us to detect a sequential occurrence of blade dominantindustries from the IUP through the Ahmarian to theKebaran that may represent a long-term technologicaltradition. On the other hand, discontinuous clusters of dates
for other industries may indicate a period of increased
cultural variability. However, the apparent chronologicaloverlap in the distribution of radiocarbon dating plots
may only be a product of error ranges. To obtain further

Samples
Charcoal
Charcoal
Charcoal
Charcoal
Charcoal
Charcoal
Charcoal
Charcoal
Charcoal
Charcoal
Charcoal
Charcoal
Charcoal
Charcoal
Bone
Charcoal
Charcoal
Charcoal
CharcoalDate(mean)
30,25017,66022,59020,84020,33019,525
19,50019,80019,50018,90018,40016,90015,58016,08014,3007,980
11,74011,45023,200SD(positive)
850
160
80
340
60
199
600
350
250
250
250
500
250
100
650
150
80
200
400

SD
(negative)
850
160
80
340
60
199
600
350
250
250
250
500
250
100
650
150
80
200
400

Selected
dates
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O

insights, we examine geographical distributions of lithic
industries below.

4.4

Geographical Examination of the
Middle and Upper Palaeolithic
Industries

4.4.1

Middle Palaeolithic

Figures 4.4, 4.5, and 4.6 show the distribution of sites where
Tabun D-, C-, and B-type assemblages were recovered. The
sites with Tabun D-type assemblages are distributed widely in
the Levant from the south at Rosh Ein Mor and Nahal Aqev in
the Negev to the north at Dereriyeh Cave in the Afrin basin(Nishiaki et al. 2011). They are also distributed in the coastal
as well as inland areas. In contrast, the Tabun C-type assemblages are mainly distributed from the central to the northern
Levant, and no Tabun C-assemblages have been recovered in
the southern Levant. While explaining this geographic patternis beyond the scope of this paper, the technological attributionof the Quneitra assemblage to the Tabun C-type is consistent
with its geographical proximity to other Tabun C-type sites(Fig. 4.5). In addition, the lack of Tabun C-type sites in thesouthern Levant cannot be taken as a support for the persistence of some Tabun D-type sites in the southern Levant (e.g.,
Nahal Aqev and ‘Ain Difla) and their contemporaneity with
the Tabun C-assemblages in north unless the dates proposed
for Nahal Aqev and ‘Ain Difla are validated.

Fig. 4.3 Radiometric dates of Upper Palaeolithic and early Epipalaeolithic sites in the Levant. Note that the dates are grouped by lithic industries and arranged in the descending order. Numbersin the plots correspond to those in Table 4.3

4Issues of Chronological and Geographical Distributions of Middle and Upper Palaeolithic Cultural…
79

80

S. Kadowaki

Fig. 4.4 Geographic distributions of the Tabun D-type assemblages
in the Levant

Fig. 4.5 Geographic distributions of the Tabun C-type assemblages
in the Levant

The Tabun B-type assemblages are distributed widelyfrom the north at Dederiyeh Cave (Nishiaki et al. 2011) tosouth at Tor Faraj (Henry 2004), but their distribution in theinland zone is not well attested, as the assemblages there are
distinguished from the Tabun B-type industry on technotypological grounds and named the Late Mousterian, that
may represent a regional cultural variation.

chamfered pieces along the coastal areas, such as at Ksar
Akil and Üçağɩzlɩ (Ohnuma 1988; Kuhn et al. 2009), and by
Umm el Tlel points in the inland areas (Bar-Yosef 2000). To
their south in the central to southern Levant, the IUP assemblages are characterized by Emireh points (e.g., Marks 1983;
Copeland 2000).
The distribution of the Early Ahmarian sites is also broad in
the Levant, significantly overlapping the range of the preceding IUP industry (Fig. 4.8). This is consistent with someresearchers’ understanding that the Early Ahmarian appeared
as a local technological change from the IUP. However, I argue
that this technological change was not uniform in the Levant.
This is because the assemblages that are currently grouped
under the label of “the Ahmarian” encompass regional variability, for example, in the form and frequency of pointed tools
and the dimension of blade products. While Ksar Akil points
and pointes a fáce plane made on relatively large blades characterize the northern coastal areas (Bergman 1981; Kuhn et al.
2009), backed or pointed bladelets occur frequently in thesouthern Levant (Bar-Yosef and Phillips 1977; Marks and4.4.2

Upper Palaeolithic

The IUP sites are widely distributed in the Levant fromÜçağɩzlɩ (Kuhn et al. 2009) in the north to Wadi Aghar(Henry 1995) in the south as well as from coastal areas
through to the inland zones (Fig. 4.7). Although such a wide
geographic range of the IUP is comparable to (or even greaterthan) that of the preceding Tabun B-type industry, the former
is characterized by clearer regional patterns, that are observable in the occurrence of some tool types. For example, the
IUP assemblages in the northern Levant are characterized by

4Issues of Chronological and Geographical Distributions of Middle and Upper Palaeolithic Cultural…

81

Fig. 4.6 Geographic distributions of the Tabun B-type assemblages inthe Levant

Fig. 4.7 Geographic distributions of the Initial Upper Palaeolithic
assemblages in the Levant

Kaufman 1983; Coinman 2003). In the Sinai Peninsula, no
IUP assemblages have been recovered despite clear evidence
for the Early Ahmarian industry in this region (Bar-Yosef andPhillips 1977; Phillips 1988), indicating either a lack of humanoccupation prior to the Early Ahmarian or the lack of discovery of such archeological remains. In contrast, despite thepresence of the IUP in the northern inland zone, particularly at
Umm el Tlel in the el-Kowm basin, no Early Ahmarian assemblages comparable to those from Ksar Akil XVI-XVII orÜçağɩzlɩ B-C have been recovered there. Instead, in the northern inland zone, there are bladelet dominant assemblages at
Umm el Tlel (Ploux and Soriano 2003) and Wadi Kharar 16R(Nishiaki et al. 2012a), whose radiocarbon dates around
33–30 ka (uncalibrated) (No. 148, 150, 151, and 153 in
Table 4.3) follow those of IUP assemblages at Umm el-Tlel(No. 20–21 in Table 4.3).
Cultural regionality during the period of the Early Ahmarianis also evident in the geographic distribution of the Classic
Levantine Aurignacian industry (Fig. 4.9), whose technotypological difference from the Early Ahmarian is widely rec-ognized among researchers (e.g., Goring-Morris andBelfer-Cohen 2006; Marks 2003). In contrast to the broad distribution of the Early Ahmarian assemblages, that of theClassic Levantine Aurignacian is restricted in the central
Levant. Two sites, located east of the coastal mountain ranges,
are Yabrud Rockshelter II and el-Quseir. The coastal areas
may be the central zone of the Classic Levantine Aurignacianindustry given that the cultural attribution of the Yabrud II
assemblages varies among researchers (compare Gilead 1991,
p. 128 with Goring-Morris and Belfer-Cohen 2006, p. 311).
Although the Late Ahmarian assemblages are widely distributed in the Levant (Fig. 4.10), they are not found in the northerncoastal and inland areas or southern Jordan and the Sinai, where
the Early Ahmarian assemblages have been recovered. This difference in geographic extent between the Early and Late
Ahmarian indicates a chrono-cultural gap after the Early
Ahmarian in the areas without the Late Ahmarian sites. Unless
this is merely caused by the lack of discovery or recognition of
the Late Ahmarian assemblages, I suggest that the technologicalchange from the Early Ahmarian involved regional variations

82

Fig. 4.8 Geographic distributions of the early Ahmarian assemblages
in the Levantthat researchers have not yet clarified. At present, it is notablethat the narrow distribution of the Late Ahmarian is similar tothat of the following Kebaran industry. This is consistent withthe chronological and technological observations that the
Kebaran emerged from the Late Ahmarian.
Despite the reduced range of the Late Ahmarian, in comparison to the Early Ahmarian, it is still wider than the extent
of the Arqov/Divshon, the Atlitian, and the Nebekian(Fig. 4.11), that are partly contemporary with the Late
Ahmarian or the Kebaran, according to their radiocarbon
dates. For example, the Arqov/Divshon assemblages aremainly located in the Negev, and the Atlitian assemblages are
currently known only from the central coast and the Jordan
Valley. On the other hand, the Nebekian assemblages aremostly distributed in the inland areas to the east of the Jordan
Valley, partly occupying the areas beyond the range of the Late
Ahmarian. The geographic distributions of these three industries are, thus, restricted and distinct from each other. Suchregionally specific distributions are consistent with the possibility of their contemporaneity suggested by their chronological overlaps in the distribution of radiocarbon dates (Fig. 4.3).

S. Kadowaki

Fig. 4.9 Geographic distributions of the Classic Levantine Aurignacianassemblages in the Levant

4.5Discussions

4.5.1

Chronological and Geographical
Patterns of Lithic Industries

This section summarizes the observations obtained from theabove examinations on the chronological and geographicalpatterns of the MP and UP lithic industries in the Levant. As
for the MP, currently available radiometric dates and stratigraphic occurrences of the three MP industries (i.e., Tabun
D-, C-, and B-types) indicate that they occurred sequentially.
The lack of the Tabun C-type assemblages in the southern
Levant, where young radiometric dates have been reported
for two Tabun D-type sites (i.e., Nahal Aqev and Ain Difla),cannot be taken as evidence for the temporal overlap between
the Tabun D-type and C-type industries because these radiometric dates are either with wide error ranges or without areliable link to the lithic assemblages as discussed earlier.
Other radiometric dates that indicate the chronological overlap between different MP industries are anomalous and can-

4Issues of Chronological and Geographical Distributions of Middle and Upper Palaeolithic Cultural…

83

Fig. 4.10 Geographic distributions of the Late Ahmarian and Kebaran assemblages in the Levant

not be accepted without further support (i.e., ESR dates for
Hayonim Upper E and revised ESR dates for the Tabun
Layer B). In fact, the possibility of these overlaps does notgain support from the geographic patterns.
During the UP and early Epipalaeolithic periods, there are
generally two patterns in the chronological and geographic distributions of the lithic industries. The first consists of the IUP,
the Early and Late Ahmarian, and the Kebaran. Their chronological ranges are sequential, and the geographic distributions
are broad with significant overlap existing among the industries,
although the range may have been somewhat reduced at thetransition point from the Early to the Late Ahmarian. These

patterns, as defined by the sequential occurrence and the wide
overlapping geographic distribution, appear in accord withsome researchers’ understanding that these blade dominantindustries represent the local lithic tradition (Marks 2003;
Belfer-Cohen and Goring-Morris 2007, pp. 200–201).
The second pattern, involving the Classic Levantine
Aurignacian, the Arqov/Divshon, the Atlitian, and the
Nebekian, is characterized by the appearance of industries
in restricted time and space. The chronological ranges areeither discontinuous or significantly overlapping, and in thelatter case, multiple industries may have co-existed because
they tend to be clustered in different regions. Researchers

84

S. Kadowaki

Fig. 4.11 Geographic distributions of the Nebekian, the Arqov/Divshon, and the Atlitian assemblages in the Levant

consider these industries to be technologically different
from the local blade industries that show the first pattern
although it is difficult with available data to determine
whether the second cultural pattern resulted from technological innovations/adaptations by local populations, aninflux of ideas/traits from migrating populations, or achange of local cultures under the influence of different
cultural groups.

4.5.2

Fossil Evidence in Relation to the MP
and UP Industries

4.5.2.1 Middle Palaeolithic
One of the objectives of this paper is to discuss the plausibleness of interpreting the chronological and geographic patternsof lithic industries as they related to the learning behaviors
of Neanderthals and Homo sapiens. For this purpose, the4Issues of Chronological and Geographical Distributions of Middle and Upper Palaeolithic Cultural…

following briefly reviews current records on human fossils
from the MP and UP periods in the Levant (Table 4.1). First,
the Neanderthal occupation in the Levant is attested to by thefossil evidence from Kebara, Amud, Tabun, Dederiyeh, andShukhba (Akazawa and Muhesen 2002; Bar-Yosef andMeignen 2007; Garrod and Bate 1937; Hovers et al. 1995;
Shea 2003; Suzuki and Takai 1970). The contexts of
Neanderthal fossils are mostly dated to the late Middle
Palaeolithic between ca. 45 and 75 kya during MIS 4 on thebasis of radiometric dates, stratigraphic positions, and/or
faunal spectra. This time period corresponds to the chronological range of the Tabun B-type assemblages, that are in factassociated with Neanderthal fossils found in the above sites.
Early Homo sapiens remains recovered in the Middle
Palaeolithic strata of Qafzeh and Skhul correspond to MIS 5,
having been dated by a series of radiometric dates (ca.
75–130 kya) corroborated by faunal species representation.
Lithic assemblages associated with these early Homo sapiens are the Tabun C-type. Human teeth associated with the
Tabun C-type assemblages at Ras el-Kelb were once suggested to be similar to those from Qafzeh and Skhul.
However, a recent reanalysis concludes that the specimens
are unidentifiable (Bourke 1997). In addition, there iscurrently no evidence for the existence of Homo sapiens
between 45 and 75 kya in west Asia.
Although the above records indicate the association of
Neandertals with the Tabun B-type industry and that of
Homo sapiens with the Tabun C-type, the interpretation ofsome fossil finds is controversial. For example, the Tabun
C1 skeleton, associated with the Tabun C-type assemblage,is broadly recognized as possessing anatomical characteristics representative of Neanderthals (Smith 1995, p. 62; Rak
1998), but some researchers, including the excavators,
consider (on the basis of field observations) that the bones
may have shifted downward from layer B (Garrod and Bate
1937, p. 64; Bar-Yosef and Callander 1999). This view is
supported by a recent analysis of U/Th ratios (Grün andStringer 2000). This means that the skeleton was originallyassociated with the Tabun B-type assemblage, that is consistent
with other Neanderthal fossils in the Levant, such as Amudand Dederiyeh.
Another controversial specimen is the Tabun C2 fossil. Its
stratigraphic association with Layer C (and the Tabun C-type
lithic assemblage) is unequivocal, but its biological affinity
has been controversial, representing both Neanderthal and
Homo sapiens attributes (Quam and Smith 1998). If the
Neanderthal affinity is accepted, the TL and ESR dates of
Tabun layer C (120–180 kya) suggest that Neanderthals
appeared in the Levant before Homo sapiens at Qafzeh and
Skhul and produced the Tabun C-type assemblage. If we
accept the attribution of the fossil to Homo sapiens, its
chrono-cultural association is more consistent with the cases
at Qafzeh and Skhul. Alternatively, the controversial ana-85

tomical features of the Tabun C2 showing characteristics ofboth Neanderthal and Homo sapiens could imply problems
underlying the dichotomous classification of late Middle toLate Pleistocene hominins in this region into “Neanderthal”
or “Homo sapiens.”
Additionally, no identifiable human fossils have been discovered in association with the Tabun D-type industry.

4.5.2.2 Upper and Early Epipalaeolithic
All the identifiable human fossils that have been recoveredfrom these time periods are reported to be Homo sapiens(Gilead 1995, p. 136; Smith 1995, p. 64). As listed inTable 4.1, the UP and early Epipalaeolithic industries associated with Homo sapiens include the Early and Late Ahmarian,
the Classic Levantine Aurignacian, the Atlitian, and theKebaran. Given this pattern, it would be reasonable to expectthat the other industries, such as the Arqov/Divshon and the
Nebekian, are also the products of Homo sapiens.
The hominin species associated with the IUP has been asignificant issue since the Tabun B-type industry, immediately
preceding it, is associated with Neanderthals, and the following
one, the Early Ahmarian, is associated with Homo sapiens(Bergman and Stringer 1989). A report of human teeth recovered in association with the IUP and Early Ahmarian assemblages at Üçağɩzlɩ describes that their morphology is “consistent
with an attribution to Homo sapiens, but at least one possesses
features more commonly associated with Neandertals” (Kuhn
et al. 2009, p. 108). In addition, recent re-examinations of apartial maxilla (“Ethelruda”) from Ksar Akil XXV suggested
that it may represent an anatomically modern human (Douka
et al. 2013 and references therein) although more complete
specimens or detailed analyses are necessary in future to clarify the taxonomic status of the makers of the IUP industry.

4.5.3

On the Approach to Learning Strategies
of Neanderthals and Homo sapiens
from Lithic Industry Records

On the basis of the current fossil evidence, as reviewed above,
this section discusses how insights into learning behaviors by
Neanderthals and Homo sapiens can be obtained from thechronological and geographical patterns of the MP and UP
lithic industries. The discussion will focus on the issues
related to the attempt to use lithic industry records to measure
the rate and cumulativeness of cultural changes as these
aspects are considered key variables in the evolutionarymodel of learning behaviors (Borenstein et al. 2008).

4.5.3.1 Duration of the Lithic Industry:
A Rate of Culture Change?
One of the methods for assessing the speed of culture change
is to compare the duration of lithic industries. In fact, the86

S. Kadowaki

Fig. 4.12 Durations of the Middle, Upper, and early Epipalaeolithic industries in the Levant. Note that short and long chronological models are
created for each of the MP industries (see Sect. 4.5 in the text)

time spans of Palaeolithic industries have recently been discussed by Bar-Yosef (2003), who shows that the approximate durations of lithic industries are longer for the MP andshorter for the UP and Epipalaeolithic periods. According to
Bar-Yosef, this pattern indicates the “rigid teaching andtransfer of knowledge within a closed society that persisted
over the course of many generations among Middle
Palaeolithic groups” (Bar-Yosef 2003, pp. 270–272). In contrast, during the Upper and Epipalaeolithic, “[f]asterchanges… of operational sequences, and shifts in retouched
tools…reflect flexible social systems, and rapidly increasing
populations.”
We estimated the duration of lithic industries from theirradiomeric dates, that were screened for reliable dates, as
described above (Tables 4.2 and 4.3). The selected dates
were used to calculate the start and end dates as well as theduration of each lithic industry. The calculation was doneusing phase modeling in the Oxcal program (and partly by
the Calpal program for some radiocarbon dates) with the
68% confidence level (Bronk Ramsey 2009; Danzeglocke
et al. 2012). We made multiple models for the three MP
industries because their radiometric dates, if taken at facevalue, could indicate different scenarios of either start orend date, although the short chronology that models
sequential occurrences of the Tabun D/C/B industries

without temporal overlap is more likely the case as discussed in the chronological examination. Strictly speaking, multiple models can also be considered for some UP
and Epipalaeolithic industries due to the uncertainty anddifferent views on the cultural affiliation of some lithic
assemblages, as discussed earlier. However, the multiple
scenarios for the UP and Epipalaeolithic periods are notdiscussed here because they do not affect their generalcomparison with the MP industries.
As a result, Fig. 4.12 shows the durations of the MP and
UP industries in the Levant. Despite several different models, the duration of MP industries is longer than UP ones as
expected from previous studies. It is notable that the durationof the IUP is closer to the UP pattern than the Tabun B-type.
Does this pattern suggest that UP cultural changes (probably
by Homo sapiens) were more rapid than that of the Tabun
B-type industry, that is currently only associated with
Neanderthal fossils? Although this observation may fit a stereotypical characterization of the MP and UP cultural patterns, we have to keep in mind that the criteria for classifying
lithic industries usually differ between the MP and UP periods. The classification of the MP industries tends to be basedon the characteristics of core reduction technology, while theidentification of the UP industries puts more emphasis on themorphology and composition of retouched tools, that are4Issues of Chronological and Geographical Distributions of Middle and Upper Palaeolithic Cultural…

amenable to finer scales of classification. In fact, from theperspective of core reduction technology, several Levantine
UP blade industries, such as the IUP, the Early Ahmarian, theLate Ahmarian, and the Kebaran, can be grouped together inwhat is known as the Leptolithic Lineage (Marks 2003). The
chronological span of the Leptolithic is comparable to the
Tabun B-type industry.
Additionally, the apparent long duration of the Tabun
C-type industry, associated with Homo sapiens, contradicts aconventional view that contrasts the slow culture change by
Neanderthals with the more rapid shift by Homo sapiens.
This study estimates that the Tabun C-type industry lasted
from either 160 kya or 140 to 80 kya according to the methods described earlier. This could mean that this industry’s
interval was significantly longer than those of the UP industries despite their common association with Homo sapiens.
Moreover, the time span of the Tabun C-type is apparently
longer than the Tabun B-type. The time range of Qafzeh and
Skhul occupations, where Homo sapiens fossils are actuallyassociated with the Tabun C-type assemblages, is shorter
than that of the whole Tabun C-type industry. TL dates of
Qafzeh and Skhul are 102–85 kya and 119 ± 18 kya respectively (Valladas et al. 1998, p. 71), that are more or lessconfirmed by ESR dates. These radiometric dates correspondto MIS 5 and are consistent with the occurrences of AfroArabian micromammals in the faunal spectra from Qafzeh(Tchernov 1998). In this case, the duration of the Tabun
C-assemblages at Qafzeh and Skhul is ca. 40,000 years, thatis still distinctively longer than any UP industries, even considering the error range.

4.5.3.2 Cumulativeness of Culture Change
The cumulativeness of culture change is defined here as thecontinuity of some elements and the change in others from one
culture to another. This aspect is considered significant in thecultural evolutionary model that considers learning behaviors(Borenstein et al. 2008) because the continuity may represent
a result of social learning by creators of a new culture, while
the change may indicate exploratory individual learning
including innovations. Despite this theoretical expectation,
it is difficult, in a practical sense, to assess the degree of continuity or change between lithic industries. Although thiscannot be quantitatively analyzed by using the kinds of data inour database, it is discussed here on the basis of the chronological and geographic patterns of lithic industries.
The most likely case for cumulative cultural change, or atleast technological continuity, is the cultural sequence fromthe IUP through the Early and Late Ahmarian to the Kebaran.
As described above, these industries are generally considered as representing the local evolution of blade dominant
technological traditions from Levallois-based technology
through the development of prismatic blade-core reduction,
to the microlithization of blade tools, labeled the Levantine

87

Leptolithic Lineage by Marks (2003). This study examined
the sequential chronological occurrence of these industries
in the same geographic space covering more or lesswide areas in the Levant (Figs. 4.3, 4.7, 4.8, and 4.10).
Strictly speaking, the apparent technological continuity does
not necessarily mean the continuity of local populations andcould involve the population replacement if the preceding
and the following groups share the same technology.
However, this case does not contradict the notion of cumulative culture change if there was a contact between the twogroups and hence the opportunity for the transmission oflithic technological knowledge.
Is such a cultural pattern observable for the Tabun B-typeindustry, that is often associated with Neanderthal fossils? Inorder to examine this question, a seriation analysis was conducted for some Tabun B-type assemblages from Amud,
Kebara, and Dederiyeh, where Neanderthal fossils were discovered. Although the details of this study are published inanother paper (Nishiaki et al. 2012b), the summary of theresults relevant to this discussion is described here. Nishiaki
et al. (2012b) examined frequencies of four different ways ofcore reduction, tool blank types and tool types by levels at
each cave to see if there was any chronological pattern
among the Tabun-B type assemblages. As a result, the core
reduction method shows the clearest change according to thestratigraphic sequences at the three sites. At Kebara, the earlier phase is characterized by the dominance of convergent
core flaking, typical of the Tabun B-type industry, followedby the later phase, in which the multiple flaking increases. At
Amud in contrast, the convergent flaking occurs in the later
phase, while in the earlier phase, multiple and opposed flaking are more frequent. At Dederiyeh Cave, the use of convergent flaking is dominant throughout the sequence. These
stratigraphic changes in the core reduction method can beseriated from Amud through Dederiyeh to Kebara, that represents a diachronic technological change from a dominanceof opposed and multiple flaking to an increase in convergent
flaking, which then decreases in the last stage. This relative
chronology is in accord with radiometric dates from the threesites, indicating that the Tabun B-type industry involved
some degree of diachronic technological variability.
The primary issue is how these results are to be interpreted.
One could argue that the pattern of changes (i.e., the increase inconvergent flaking followed by its decrease) of the Tabun B-type
can be aptly described as “fluctuation” rather than “accumulation,” and thus differs from the directional development of blade
technology (i.e., from the Levallois-based method, through thetypical prismatic blades with small butts, to the microlithization) during the UP in the Levantine Leptolithic Lineage.
Alternatively, one could also argue that the diachronic patternsof the core-reduction method in the Tabun B-type industry indicate the rate of technological change that is no less frequent, if
not more, than the UP Leptolithic tradition.

88

S. Kadowaki

In addition, it should be noted that there are UP industries that do not show chronological or geographic patterns indicative of cumulative culture change. In theLevantine case, these industries are the Classic Levantine
Aurignacian, the Arqov/Divshon, the Atlitian, and the
Nebekian. The chronological ranges of these industries
are either discontinuous or clustered, and tend to occur indifferent geographic areas making it difficult to observe
any culture-historical relationship with other industries.
The apparent lack of cumulative culture change does notnecessarily mean a specific type of learning strategies
because it can result from a number of different backgrounds, including technological innovations/adaptations,an influx of ideas/traits from migrating populations, or achange of local cultures under the influence of different
cultural groups. The cumulative culture change is notapparent either in some Tabun C-type assemblages associated with Homo sapiens, like Qafzeh and Skhul, where no
stratigraphic technological patterns are observable (Boutié
1989; Hovers 2009).

4.6

Summary and Future Directions

Making plausible interpretations about prehistoric behavior, and past cultures in general, is not an easy task due tothe fragmentary nature of archaeological remains, where
one always encounters the problem of sample size. In an
attempt to deal with these unavoidable conditions, we areconstructing a database to organize currently available
archaeological records relevant to the RNMH process.
Through this database, we aim to obtain insights into prehistoric learning behavior by Homo sapiens andNeanderthals to examine whether learning behavior differed between the two groups. As part of this endeavor, thispaper examined the MP and UP cultural variability in theLevant, focusing on the chronological and geographic patterns of lithic industries. These archaeological records werethen discussed in terms of the anthropological events thattook place in the Levant by reviewing the MP and UP fossil
records. Lastly, this was followed by a discussion on the
duration of lithic industries and the cumulativeness of culture change, that is considered a key variable in evolutionary models of learning behavior.
A simple comparison of the time span among lithic industries (Fig. 4.12) might suggest that the rate of technologicalchanges by Homo sapiens during the UP is more rapid thanthose by Neanderthals (that produced the Tabun B-typeindustry during the MP). However, considering the use ofdifferent criteria for classifying MP and UP lithic industries,
it can be argued that the duration of the UP blade tradition(i.e., Leptolithic Lineage) is comparable to that of the Tabun

B-type. Another inconsistency with the conventional cultural
distinction between Homo sapiens and Neanderthals is anapparently long chronological range of some Tabun C-type
assemblages associated with Homo sapiens, such as Qafzeh
and Skhul.
Changes that may represent the cumulative nature of cultural change are observable only for some UP lithic industries that constitute the Levantine Leptolithic Lineage andnot for other UP industries or the Tabun C-type. The Tabun
B-type industry, associated with Neanderthals, may show
diachronic shifts in the core reduction method, that indicate
the rate of technological change that is no less frequent thanthe UP industries, although the Tabun B-type pattern could
be interpreted to represent “fluctuation” rather than“accumulation.”
The above discussion suggests that the pattern of culturechange by Homo sapiens and Neanderthals in the Levant iselusive and variable. It is elusive because it depends on thecriteria and interpretations in the measurement of the rateand cumulativeness of culture change; and it is variablebecause some lithic industries may indicate rapid and cumulative changes while others do not. The latter case is represented by the Tabun B-type and C-type industries in the MP
and the Classic Levantine Aurignacian, the Arqov/Divshon,
the Atlitian, and the Nebekian in the UP and early
Epipalaeolithic. As described earlier, the emergence of newlithic industries could have resulted from various factors
including innovations by local populations, the influx of foreign groups who can either change or inherit preceding technological traditions, and changes by local groups under thesocial/cultural influence from surrounding populations.
Because available data do not allow us to narrow down therange of relevant factors, it is difficult to identify specifictypes of learning strategies based on chronological and geographical patterns of lithic industries.
In an effort to augment the examination of cultural patterns associated with Homo sapiens and Neanderthals, weneed to look beyond the Levant and collect more records
from other regions. In particular, two essential aspects
require further investigation: (1) the first is the chronologicaland geographical patterns of Neanderthals because this islimited to the Tabun B-type industry in the Levant. For thispurpose, we are collecting relevant records from theEuropean MP; (2) the second is an understanding of culturalvariability by Homo sapiens during the MP because this islimited to some Tabun C-type assemblages in the Levant. For
this purpose, we are constructing a database for Middle
Stone Age cultures in Africa. These additional data should
help us examine cultural variability by Homo sapiens andNeanderthals at a broader temporal and spatial scale so that
we may contribute to a more accurate understanding of theircultural and behavioral evolution.

4

Issues of Chronological and Geographical Distributions of Middle and Upper Palaeolithic Cultural…

References
Akazawa T (1974) Palaeolithic assemblages from the Douara Cavesite. In: Suzuki H, Takai F (eds) The Paleolithic site at Douara
Cave in Syria (Part II). University of Tokyo Press, Tokyo, pp
1–167, The University Museum, The University of Tokyo,
Bulletin 6
Akazawa T (2012) RNMH project series No. 001: RNMH project
2010–2014. RNMH Project Group, Tokyo
Akazawa T, Muhesen S (2002) Neanderthal burials: excavations of theDederiyeh Cave, Afrin, Syria. KW Publications, Auckland
Aoki K (2012) Advanced individual learning – the key to replacement?
In: Akazawa T (ed) RNMH project series No. 001: RNMH project
2010–2014. RNMH Project Group, Tokyo, pp 42–44
Barham L, Mitchell P (2008) The first Africans: African archaeology
from the earliest toolmakers to most recent foragers. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge
Bar-Yosef O (1989) Geochronology of the Levantine Middle
Palaeolithic. In: Mellars PA, Stringer CB (eds) The human revolution. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, pp 589–610
Bar-Yosef O (1995) The origin of modern humans. In: Levy T (ed) The
archaeology of society in the holy land. Leicester University Press,
London, pp 110–121
Bar-Yosef O (2000) The Middle and early Upper Paleolithic in southwest
Asia and neighboring regions. In: Bar-Yosef O, Pilbeam D (eds) The
geography of Neandertals and modern humans in Europe and theGreater Mediterranean. Harvard University, Cambridge, pp 107–156
Bar-Yosef O (2003) Reflections on selected issues of the Upper
Palaeolithic. In: Goring-Morris AN, Belfer-Cohen A (eds) Morethan meets the eye: studies on Upper Palaeolithic diversity in the
Near East. Oxbow Books, Oxford, pp 265–273
Bar-Yosef O, Belfer-Cohen A (2010) The Middle to Upper Palaeolithic
transition in western Asia. In: Boyle KW, Gamble C, Bar-Yosef O(eds) The Upper Palaeolithic revolution in global perspective:
papers in honour of sir Paul Mellars. McDonald Institute forArchaeological research, Cambridge, pp 85–101
Bar-Yosef O, Callander J (1999) The woman from Tabun: Garrod’s
doubts in historical perspective. J Hum Evol 37:879–885
Bar-Yosef O, Meignen L (2007) Kebara Cave, Mt. Carmel, Israel: theMiddle and Upper Paleolithic archaeology, part I. Peabody Museumof Archaeology and Ethnology. Harvard University, Cambridge
Bar-Yosef O, Phillips JL (1977) Prehistoric investigations in Gebel
Maghara, northern Sinai. Qedem 7. The Hebrew University,
Jerusalem
Bar-Yosef O, Arnold M, Mercier N, Belfer-Cohen A, Goldberg P,
Housley R, Laville H, Meignen L, Vogel JC, Vandermeersch B(1996) The dating of the Upper Paleolithic layers in Kebara Cave,
Mt Carmel. J Archaeol Sci 23:297–306
Belfer-Cohen A, Goring-Morris N (2003) Current issues in Levantine
Upper Palaeolithic research. In: Goring-Morris AN, Belfer-Cohen
A (eds) More than meets the eye: studies on Upper Palaeolithic
diversity in the Near East. Oxbow Books, Oxford, pp 1–12
Belfer-Cohen A, Goring-Morris N (2007) From the beginning:
Levantine Upper Palaeolithic cultural change and continuity. In:
Mellars P, Boyle K, Bar-Yosef O, Stringer C (eds) Rethinking thehuman revolution. University of Cambridge, Cambridge, pp
199–206
Bergman C (1981) Point types in the Upper Palaeolithic sequence at
Ksar ‘Akil, Lebanon. In: Cauvin J, Sanlaville P (eds) Préhistoire duLevant. Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Paris, pp319–330
Bergman C (2003) Twisted debitage and the Levantine Aurignacian
problem. In: Goring-Morris AN, Belfer-Cohen A (eds) More than89

meets the eye: studies on Upper Palaeolithic diversity in the Near
East. Oxbow Books, Oxford, pp 185–195
Bergman C, Stringer C (1989) Fifty years after: Egbert, an earlyUpper Palaeolithic juvenile from Ksar Akil, Lebanon. Paléorient
15(2):99–111
Borenstein E, Feldman MW, Aoki K (2008) Evolution of learning influctuating environments: when selection favors both social andexploratory individual learning. Evolution 62(3):586–602
Bourke S (1997) Two human teeth from Ras el-Kelb. In: Copeland
L, Moloney N (eds) The Mousterian site of Ras el-Kelb,
Lebanon, BAR International Series 706. Hadrian Books, Oxford,
pp 68–72
Boutié P (1989) Etude technologique de l’industrie moustérienne de laGrotte de Qafzeh (près de Nazareth, Israël). In: Bar-Yosef O,
Vandermeersch B (eds) Investigations in south Levantine prehistory.
BAR International Series 497, Oxford, pp 213–229
Bronk Ramsey C (2009) Bayesian analysis of radiocarbon dates.
Radiocarbon 51(1):337–360
Clark GA, Schuldenrein J, Donaldson M, Schwarcz H, Rink W, Fish S(1997) Chronostratigraphic contexts of Middle Paleolithic horizons
at the Ain Difla Rockshelter (WHS 634), west-central Jordan.
In: Gebel HG, Kafafi Z, Rollefson G (eds) The prehistory of Jordan
II: perspectives from 1997. Ex oriente, Berlin, pp 77–100
Coinman N (2003) The Upper Palaeolithic of Jordan: new data from theWadi al-Hasa. In: Goring-Morris AN, Belfer-Cohen A (eds) Morethan meets the eye: studies on Upper Palaeolithic diversity in the
Near East. Oxbow Books, Oxford, pp 151–170
Coinman N, Henry D (1995) The Upper Paleolithic sites. In: Henry D(ed) Prehistoric cultural ecology and evolution: insights from southern Jordan. Plenum, New York, pp 133–214
Copeland L (1975) The Middle and Upper Palaeolithic of Lebanon and
Syria in the light of recent research. In: Wendorf F, Marks AE (eds)
Problems in prehistory: north Africa and the Levant. Southern
Methodist University Press, Dallas, pp 317–350
Copeland L (2000) Forty-six Emireh points from the Lebanon in thecontext of the Middle to Upper Paleolithic transition in the Levant.
Paléorient 26(1):73–92
Copeland L (2003) The Levantine Upper Palaeolithic: a commentary on
contributions to the Philadelphia symposium. In: Goring-Morris
AN, Belfer-Cohen A (eds) More than meets the eye: studies on
Upper Palaeolithic diversity in the Near East. Oxbow Books,
Oxford, pp 242–248
Danzeglocke U, Jöris O, Weninger B (2012) CalPal-2007online. http://
www.calpal-online.de/ Accessed 5 May 2012
Dennel R (2009) The Palaeolithic settlement of Asia. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridged’Errico F, Henshilwood C, Lawson G, Vanhaeren M, Tillier A-M,
Soressi M, Bresson F, Maureille B, Nowell A, Lakarra J, Backwell
L, Julien M (2003) Archaeological evidence for the origins of language, symbolism and music. An alternative multidisciplinary perspective. J World Prehist 17:1–70
Douka K, Bergman CA, Hedges REM, Wesselingh FP, Higham TFG(2013) Chronology of Ksar Akil (Lebanon) and implications for thecolonization of Europe by anatomically modern humans. PLoS
ONE 8(9):e72931. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0072931
Ferring CR (1988) Technological change in the Upper Paleolithic of the
Negev. In: Dibble H, Montet-White A (eds) Upper Pleistocene prehistory of western Eurasia. The University Museum, University ofPennsylvania, Philadelphia, pp 333–348
Fox J, Coinman N (2004) Emergence of the Levantine Upper Paleolithic.
In: Brantingham P, Kuhn S, Kerry K (eds) The early Upper
Paleolithic beyond western Europe. University of California Press,
Berkeley, pp 97–112
Garrod DAE, Bate DMA (1937) The Stone Age of Mount Carmel:
excavations at the Wady el-Mughara, vol I. AMS, New York

90
Gilead I (1981) Upper Palaeolithic tool assemblages from the
Negev and Sinai. In: Cauvin J, Sanlaville P (eds) Préhistoire duLevant. Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Paris,
pp 331–342
Gilead I (1991) The Upper Paleolithic period in the Levant. J World
Prehist 5(2):105–154
Gilead I (1995) The foragers of the Upper Paleolithic Period. In: Levy
T (ed) The archaeology of society in the holy land. Leicester
University Press, London, pp 124–137
Goren-Inbar N (1990) Quneitra: a Mousterian site on the Golan Heights.
Hebrew University, Jerusalem
Goring-Morris N (1995) Complex hunter/gatherers at the end of the
Paleolithic (20,000–10,000 BP). In: Levy T (ed) The archaeology ofsociety in the holy land. Leicester University Press, London, pp
141–167
Goring-Morris N, Belfer-Cohen A (2006) A hard look at the “Levantine
Aurignacian: how real is the taxon? In: Bar-Yosef O, Zilhão J (eds)
Towards a definition of the Aurignacian. Instituto Português deArqueologia, Lisbon, pp 297–316
Grün R, Stringer CB (2000) Tabun revisited: revised ESR chronology
and new ESR and U-series analyses of dental material from Tabun
C1. J Hum Evol 39:601–612
Henry O (1989) From foraging to agriculture: the Levant at the end of
the Ice Age. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia
Henry O (1995) Prehistoric cultural ecology and evolution. Plenum,
New York
Henry O (2004) Neanderthal in the Levant: behavioral organization andthe beginnings of human modernity. Continuum, London
Hovers E (2009) The lithic assemblages of Qafzeh Cave. Oxford
University Press, Oxford
Hovers E, Kuhn S (2006) Transitions before the transition: evolution
and stability in the Middle Paleolithic and Middle Stone Age.
Springer, New York
Hovers E, Rak Y, Lavi R, Kimbel WH (1995) Hominid remains from
Amud Cave in the context of the Levantine Middle Paleolithic.
Paléorient 21(2):47–61
Jelinek A (1981) The Middle Paleolithic in the southern Levant fromthe perspective of the Tabun Cave. In: Cauvin J, Sanlaville P (eds)
Préhistoire du Levant. Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique,
Paris, pp 265–280
Kondo Y, Kadowaki S, Kato H, Naganuma M, Ono A, Sano K, Nishiaki
Y (2012) Network computing for archaeology: a case study fromthe 'Replacement of Neanderthals by Modern Humans' databaseproject. In: Verhagen P (ed) Revive the past. Proceedings of the 39th
international conference of computer applications and quantitative
methods in archaeology, Beijing, China, 12–16 April 2011.
Amsterdam University Press, Amsterdam, pp 227–236
Kuhn SL, Stiner MC, Güleç E, Özer I, Yılmaz H, Baykara I, Ayşen A,
Goldberg P, Martínez Molina K, Ünay E, Suata-Alpaslan F (2009)
The early Upper Paleolithic occupations at Ücağızlı Cave (Hatay,
Turkey). J Hum Evol 56:87–113
Le Tensorer J-M, von Falkenstein V, Le Tensorer H, Muhesen S (2008)
Hummal: a very long Paleolithic sequence in the steppe of central
Syria - considerations on Lower Paleolithic and the beginning of
Middle Paleolithic. In: Le Tensorer J-M, Jagher R, Otte M (eds) The
Lower and Middle Palaeolithic in the middle east and neighbouring
regions. ERAUL 126, Liege, pp 235–248
Marks A (1981) The Upper Paleolithic of the Negev. In: Cauvin J,
Sanlaville P (eds) Préhistoire du Levant. Centre National de laRecherche Scientifique, Paris, pp 299–304
Marks A (1983) Prehistory and paleoenvironments in the central Negev,
Israel: the Avdat/Aqev area, part 3. Southern Methodist University,
DallasMarks A (2003) Reflections on Levantine Upper Palaeolithic studies:
past and present. In: Goring-Morris AN, Belfer-Cohen A (eds)

S. Kadowaki
More than meets the eye: studies on Upper Palaeolithic diversity in
the Near East. Oxbow Books, Oxford, pp 249–264
Marks A, Kaufman D (1983) Boker: the artifacts. In: Marks A (ed)Prehistory and paleoenvironments in the central Negev, Israel: theAvdat/Aqev area, part 3. Southern Methodist University, Dallas, pp
283–329
Marks A, Volkman P (1986) The Mousterian of Ksar Akil: Levels
XXVIA through XXVIIIB. Paleorient 12(1):5–20
Meignen L, Bar-Yosef O (1992) Middle Paleolithic lithic variability in
Kebara Cave, Mount Carmel, Israel. In: Akazawa T, Aoki K,
Kimura T (eds) The evolution and dispersal of modern humans in
Asia. Hokusen-sha, Tokyo, pp 129–148
Nadel D (2003) The Ohalo II flint assemblage and the beginning of the
Epipalaeolithic in the Jordan Valley. In: Goring-Morris AN, BelferCohen A (eds) More than meets the eye: studies on Upper Palaeolithic
diversity in the Near East. Oxbow Books, Oxford, pp 216–229
Nishiaki Y (2012) Archaeological research of the learning behavioursof the Neanderthals and early modern humans. In: Akazawa T (ed)RNMH project series No. 001: RNMH project 2010–2014. RNMH
Project Group, Tokyo, pp 32–36
Nishiaki Y, Kadowaki S, Kume S, Shimogama K (2012a) Archaeologicalsurvey around Tell Ghanem Al-‘Ali (V). Al-Rafidan 33:1–6
Nishiaki Y, Kanjo Y, Muhesen S, Akazawa T (2012b) Temporal variability of Late Levantine Mousterian assemblages from Dederiyeh
Cave, Syria. Eurasian Prehist 9(1/2):3–26
Nishiaki Y, Kanjo Y, Muhesen S, Akazawa T (2011) Recent progress in
Lower and Middle Palaeolithic research at Dederiyeh Cave, northwest Syria. In: Le Tensorer J-M, Jagher R, Otte M (eds) The Lower
and Middle Palaeolithic in the Middle East and neighbouring
regions. ERAUL 126, Liège, pp 67–76
Neuville R (1951) Le Paléolithique et le Mésolithique du Désert deJudée. Archives l’Institut de PaléontologieHumaine, Paris
Ohnuma K (1988) Ksar ‘Akil, Lebanon: a technological study of theearlier Upper Palaeolithic levels of Ksar ‘Akil, vol III. BAR
International Series 426, Oxford, Levels XXV–XIV
Olszewski D (2006) Issues in the Levantine Epipaleolithic: theMadamaghan, Nebekian and Qalkhan (Levant Epipaleolithic).
Paléorient 32(1):19–26
Olszewski D (2008) The Palaeolithic period, including the
Epipalaeolithic. In: Adams RB (ed) Jordan: an archaeologicalreader. Equinox, London, pp 35–69
Olszewski D (2009) Whither the Aurignacian in the Middle East?
Assessing the Zagros Upper Paleolithic. In: Otte M, Biglari F, Jaubert
J (eds) Iran Palaeolithic, vol 1968, BAR International Series., pp39–45
Olszewski D, Dibble H (2006) To be or not to be Aurignacian: theZagros Upper Paleolithic. In: Bar-Yosef O, Zilhão J (eds) Towards a
definition of the Aurignacian. InstitutoPortuguês de Arqueologia,
Lisbon, pp 355–373
Phillips JL (1988) The Upper Paleolithic of the Wadi Feiran, southern
Sinai. Paléorient 14(2):183–200
Ploux S, Soriano S (2003) Umm el Tlel, une séquence du paléolithiquesupéieur en Syrie central. Industries lithiques et chronologie culturelle. Paléorient 29(2):5–34
Quam R, Smith F (1998) A reassessment of the Tabun C2 mandible. In:
Akazawa T, Aoki K, Bar-Yosef O (eds) Neanderthals and modern
humans in western Asia. Plenum, New York, pp 405–421
Rak Y (1998) Does any Mousterian cave present evidence of two hominid species? In: Akazawa T, Aoki K, Bar-Yosef O (eds) Neanderthals
and modern humans in western Asia. Plenum, New York, pp
353–366
Rebollo NR, Weiner S, Brock F, Meignen L, Goldberg P, Belfer-Cohen
A, Bar-Yosef O, Boaretto E (2011) New radiocarbon dating of thetransition from the Middle to the Upper Paleolithic in Kebara Cave,
Israel. J Archaeol Sci 38:2424–2433

4Issues of Chronological and Geographical Distributions of Middle and Upper Palaeolithic Cultural…

Schwarcz H, Blackwell B, Goldberg P, Marks AE (1979) Uranium
series dating of travertine from archaeological sites, Nahal Zin,
Israel. Nature 277:558–560
Shea J (2003) The Middle Paleolithic of the east Mediterranean Levant.
J World Prehist 17(4):313–394
Smith P (1995) People of the holy land from prehistory to the recent
past. In: Levy T (ed) The archaeology of society in the holy land.
Leicester University Press, London, pp 58–74
Suzuki H, Takai F (1970) The Amud man and his cave site. The
University of Tokyo, Tokyo
Tchernov E (1998) The faunal sequence of the southwest Asia Middle
Paleolithic in relation to hominid dispersal events. In: Akazawa T,
Aoki K, Bar-Yosef O (eds) Neanderthals and modern humans inwestern Asia. Plenum, New York, pp 77–94
Valladas H, Joron JL, Valladas G, Arensburg B, Bar-Yosef O, BelferCohen A, Goldberg P, Laville H, Meignen L, Rak Y, Tchernov E,
Tillier AM, Vandermmeersch B (1987) Thermoluminescencedates for the Neanderthal burial site at Kebara in Israel. Nature
330:159–160
Valladas H, Mercier N, Froget L, Hovers E, Joron J-L, Kimbel WH,
Rak Y (1999) TL dates for the Neanderthal site of the Amud Cave,
Israel. J Archaeol Sci 26:259–268

91

Valladas H, Mercier N, Joron JL, Reyss JL (1998) Gif laboratory dates
for Middle Paleolithic Levant. In: Akazawa T, Aoki K, Bar-Yosef O(eds) Neanderthals and modern humans in western Asia. Plenum,
New York, pp 69–75
van der Plicht J, van der Wijk A (1989) Uranium and thorium in fossilbones: activity ratios and dating. Appl Geochem 4:339–342
Williams J (2003) An examination of Upper Palaeolithic flake technologies in the marginal zone of the Levant. In: Goring-Morris AN,
Belfer-Cohen A (eds) More than meets the eye: studies on Upper
Palaeolithic diversity in the Near East. Oxbow Books, Oxford,
pp 196–208
Williams J, Bergman C (2010) Upper Paleolithic levels XIII-VI (A andB) from the 1937–1938 and 1947–1948 Boston College excavations
and the Levantine Aurignacian at Ksar Akil, Lebanon. Paléorient
36(2):117–161
Ziaei M, Schwarcs HP, Hall CM, Grün R (1990) Radiometric dating at
the Mousterian site at Quneitra. In: Goren-Inbar N (ed) Quneitra: aMousterian site on the Golan Heights. Hebrew University,
Jerusalem, pp 232–235
Zilhão J (2007) The emergence of ornaments and art: an archaeologicalperspective on the origins of “behavioral modernity”. J Archaeol
Res 15:1–54