Claire Smith
EditorEncyclopedia of
Global Archaeology

With 2619 Figures and 106 Tables

EditorClaire Smith
Department of Archaeology
Flinders University
Adelaide, SA
Australia

ISBN 978-1-4419-0426-3
ISBN 978-1-4419-0465-2 (eBook)
ISBN 978-1-4419-0466-9 (print and electronic bundle)
DOI 10.1007/978-1-4419-0465-2
Springer New York Heidelberg Dordrecht London
Library of Congress Control Number: 2013953915# Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole orpart of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse ofillustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way,
and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software,or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. Exempted from thislegal reservation are brief excerpts in connection with reviews or scholarly analysis or material
supplied specifically for the purpose of being entered and executed on a computer system, for
exclusive use by the purchaser of the work. Duplication of this publication or parts thereof ispermitted only under the provisions of the Copyright Law of the Publisher’s location, in its
current version, and permission for use must always be obtained from Springer. Permissions foruse may be obtained through RightsLink at the Copyright Clearance Center. Violations are liable
to prosecution under the respective Copyright Law.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in thispublication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are
exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
While the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of
publication, neither the authors nor the editors nor the publisher can accept any legal
responsibility for any errors or omissions that may be made. The publisher makes no warranty,
express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein.
Printed on acid-free paper
Springer is part of Springer Science+Business Media (www.springer.com)

Preface

Archaeology – the study of human cultures through the analysis andinterpretation of artifacts and material remains – continues to captivate andengage people on a local and global level. The significance of such international heritage sites such as the pyramids – both Egyptian and Mayan – theLascaux caves, Stonehenge, and Petra all provide insights into our ancestors
and their actions and motivations. However, there is much more to archaeology than famous sites. When archaeologists are asked to elaborate about theirjob, they will touch on archaeological theory, chemistry, geology, history,
classical studies, museum studies, ethical practice, and survey methods, alongwith the analysis and interpretation of their sites. Archaeology is a muchbroader subject than its public image and branches out to many other fields inthe social and hard sciences.
The Encyclopedia of Global Archaeology provides a comprehensive andsystematic coverage of archaeology that is unprecedented. It encompasses thebreadth of the subject area along with those aspects that are tapped by otherdisciplines. In addition, it encompasses all time periods and regions of theworld and all stages of human development. The entries range from succinct
summaries of specific sites and the scientific aspects of archaeological enquiry,
to detailed discussions of archaeological concepts, theories, and practice, thesocial and political dimensions of archaeology and archaeological ethics. The
different forms of archaeology are explored, along with the techniques used foreach and the challenges, concerns, and issues that face archaeologists today.
This 11 volume Encyclopedia of Global Archaeology is available in bothprint and eReference versions. The print version has 1,625 contributions from1,356 authors and over 11,634 cross-references. At the time of publication,
another 200 entries have been commissioned for the eReference version.
Through constant updating, the eReference version of the Encyclopedia of
Global Archaeology will continue to access the best scholarship from aroundthe world. Our aim is to ensure that this reference work will be as useful intwenty years as it is in two years.

An Encyclopedia for a Global WorldThe Encyclopedia of Global Archaeology was designed to be a definitivereference work for archaeologists, cultural heritage managers, and the generalpublic. Its major aim is to disseminate global expertise in archaeology.
vii

viii

We have achieved this through four innovations: an unparalleled level ofcontributions from archaeologists who do not normally publish in English,
the conscious inclusion of multiple perspectives on key topics, biographies ofmajor archaeological figures from throughout the world, and the combinationof print and continuously up-dated eReference publication.
The first major challenge for this encyclopedia was to access the best
scholarship in the world. However, there was a fundamental problem –archaeological experts around the globe do not always write in English. The
best scholars from throughout the world write in a variety of languages. For
example, the problems of site conservation and preservation can be very
different in different parts of the world – and the experts publish in theirown languages. Moreover, not all specialist knowledge is published in
English. Some of the most advanced thinking on archaeological theory
comes from South America, while the French and Spanish have the deepest
knowledge of Upper Palaeolithic rock art and the place to learn about largescale urban excavations or historic reconstructions is Japan. The experts fromthese countries publish their research in their own language. While some also
publish in English, many don’t – and even scholars who speak English can be
reluctant to publish in English, as they may not have the level of writtencompetency to fully express the complexity of their ideas.
The answer was to allow non-English-language speakers to contribute to
the encyclopedia in their own language. This accessed a torrent of hitherto
untapped expertise. Around 140 entries and more than 300,000 words in the
Encyclopedia of Global Archaeology have been translated from French,
Italian, Portuguese, Russian and Spanish. In addition, many more entries
were submitted by authors whose first language is Chinese, German,
Japanese or Turkish. Often, these entries involved significant editing,re-writing, and polishing in order to ensure academic standards and clear
communication. This painstaking work was undertaken by the editors of therelevant sections and by myself. The authors and translators often had toreview several versions of the text, and they did this without complaint. This
cooperative and cosmopolitan approach has brought enormous strengths tothe encyclopedia and produced something that is quite different to what hascome before.
The second challenge was to maximize the value of the Encyclopedia of
Global Archaeology as a teaching resource for schools, colleges, and universities. Some of the best learning is achieved through comparison and debate.
Accordingly, we have included multiple and regional perspectives on key
topics to facilitate comparisons, especially at a global level, and provide richmaterials for classroom debates. The ethics of commercial archaeology, forexample, has individual entries that provide perspectives from Australia,
Brazil, Japan, Nigeria, Southern Africa and the USA. While each entry provides an in-depth discussion of the issues that affect a particular region, taken
together, these entries provide the materials required for students to undertake
analyses of contrasts and comparisons at a global level.
The third challenge was to honor the work of archaeologists from throughout the world. The biographies in the encyclopedia were selected by section
editors on the basis of the contribution of particular archaeologists to specificPrefacePrefaceix

disciplinary areas and also through recommendations from archaeologists inunderrepresented countries. While we attempted to obtain some form of
uniform global coverage in archaeological biographies, this was not possible
as archaeology is at different stages of development in different parts of theworld. The need to build archaeological capacity is greatest on the African
continent. The small number of biographies of African archaeologists reflects
the small number of archaeologists in the continent as a whole. While the vast
majority of these archaeologists are located in South Africa, there are key
nodes in countries such as Kenya and Nigeria. Sometimes these nodes are an
outcome of capacity building that occurred as part of colonial processes, aswith the life work of Charles Thurstan Shaw. Some biographies honor thework of archaeologists who spent their lives building capacity in a part of theworld that is not their home country, as with the work of Betty Meggers inSouth America. All of the biographies provide insights into the life histories
of archaeologists in various periods and in diverse parts of the world. Moreover, cultural attitudes are apparent in the profiles of biographies for eachregion. For example, while many Portuguese biographies are of mid-careerarchaeologists who are still alive, the majority of biographies of Japanesearchaeologists are of people who established important facets of the profession and have now passed away.
The final challenge was to harness the potential of an online environment
not only to ensure global accessibility but also to enrich the encyclopedia’s
content. From the beginning, the Encyclopedia of Global Archaeology wasconceived firstly as an online reference work, and then as a print reference.
This interactive, online reference uses dynamic content to deepen discussions
and to update material published in the print version, and to add information
on new finds, or new ways of approaching the material. Hot links andextensive cross-references between keywords and related articles provide
topics with greater depth and enable efficient searches in a user-friendly
manner. The important innovation here is the continuous updating of entries
and the addition of new entries to the eReference version. This will ensurethat the encyclopedia maintains ongoing relevance.
15 July, 2013

Professor Claire Smith
Adelaide, Australia

West Asia: Paleolithic
SOHN, S. & M. H. WOLPOFF. 1993. Zuttiyeh face: a view
from the East. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 91: 325–47.
TRINKHAUS, E. & M.R. ZIMMERMAN. 1982. Trauma among
the Shanidar Neanderthals. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 57: 61–76.
TRINKHAUS, E., V.A. RANOV, & S. LAUKLIN. 2000. Middle
Paleolithic human deciduous incisor from Khudji,Tajikstan. Journal of Human Evolution 38: 75–583.

West Asia: Paleolithic
Seiji Kadowaki
Nagoya University Museum, Nagoya University,
Nagoya, Aichi, Japan

7769

W

routes to Africa is through the northern Sinai
between the Southern Levant and the Upper
Nile area. Another is Bab el-Mandab between
the Lower Awash River and the southwestern
corner of the Arabian Peninsula. Land routes tonorthern areas are bounded by the MediterraneanSea, Black Sea, and Caspian Sea, and the one
between the latter two is truncated by the
Caucasus Mountains. The landmass to Southand Central Asia is the Iranian plateau flanked
by rugged terrains of the southern Zagros
Mountains along the Persian Gulf and the Alburz
Mountains at the southern Caspian shore.

Definition
Introduction
West Asia is a key locale for the investigation of
Paleolithic human migration and adaptation
because of the area’s location at the crossroads
between Africa and Eurasia as well as its diverse
environmental settings. Geographic units in west
Asia comprise the Levant, the Zagros and Taurus
Mountains, Anatolia, the Caucasus, and theArabian Peninsula. In the Levant, east Mediterranean coastal plains and the rift valley extending
between the Red Sea and the Afrin Basin provided significant habitats and migration routes forearly humans during the Paleolithic. To its east,
inland areas of the Syrian Desert and the Jordanian
Badia are presently under arid environments, but
the inland basins, often associated with oases, suchas el-Kowm, Palmyra, Azraq, and Jafr, used tohold Pleistocene lakes, around which prehistoricsites are clustered. The rugged terrains and cavesystems in the Zagros–Taurus and the Caucasus
Mountains have also been important fields for the
study of early human habitations. In the Arabian
Peninsula, a number of Paleolithic sites have been
located in various environmental settings, including coastal plains, foothills of the Asir and Hadhramaut Mountains, as well as near wadis andlakeshores in interior plains.
Geographic connections between west Asiaand surrounding regions are structured by watermass and mountain ridges (Fig. 1). One of the

Early, Middle, and Late Pleistocene
In 2009, the International Union of Geological
Sciences lowered the base of the Pleistocene
epoch to include the Gelasian Stage that beganc. 2.6 Ma. Thus, the former “Late Pliocene” corresponds to the current “Early Pleistocene.”
However, the stages for the Middle and Upper
Pleistocene are unchanged with their beginnings
at the Brunhes–Matuyama reversal and the lastinterglacial, respectively.
Hominin
The term “hominin” is used to denote humanancestors instead of the old term “hominid,”which is currently used to mean ancestors ofhumans, chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans.

Historical Background
Investigations of some key Paleolithic sites inwest Asia were initiated in the 1920s and 1930s,
as exemplified by the excavations by Dorothy
A.E. Garrod at Mt. Carmel and Southern
Kurdistan, René Neuville at the Judean Desert,
and Turville-Petre at the Galilee area and Kebara
Cave. These early systematic excavations
provided fundamental archaeological records
for the definition of Paleolithic cultures andtheir chronological sequences. Initial influence
from European prehistory on cultural names

W

W

7770

West Asia: Paleolithic

West Asia: Paleolithic, Fig. 1 Map of west Asia showing sites mentioned in the text. The following site names
are in alphabetical order and associated numbers correspond to those in the map: Abu Hureyra (63), Abu Noshra(70), Abu Sif (34), Ain al-Buhayra (48), Ain Difla (47),
Ain Mallaha (10), Ain Qasiyya (36), Ain Rahub (18),Amud (15), Antelias (6), Azariq (42), Azraq (36), Azykh(56), Beidha (49), Berekhat Ram (9), Bezez (8), Bisitun(75), Boker (44), Boker Tachtit (44), C-Spring (36),Dawādmi (83), Dederiyeh (60), Dhofar (82), Dmanisi(55), Douara (66), Dursunlu (58), Ein Aqev (44), Ein
Gev (16), el-Kowm (64), el-Wad (24), Emireh (15), Erq
el-Ahmar (33), Eshkaft-e Gavi (79), Evron (11), Far’ah II(40), FAY-NE 1 (81), Fazael (31), Gar Arjeneh (78),Gesher Benot Ya‘aqov (13), Gharmachi 1b (65), Hatoula(29), Hayonim (12), Holon (27), Humian (77), Hummal(64), Jayroud (5), Jerf Ajla (66), Jilat (39), Karain (59),
Kebara (25), Keoue (1), Khallat Azana (35), Kharaheh IV(38), Ksar Akil (6), Kudaro I (53), Kunji (78), Lagama(67), Latamne (65), Lion Spring (36), Mar Gurgalan Sarab(76), Mureybet (62), Mushabi (68), Naamé (7),Nachcharini (3), Nadaouiyeh (64), Nahal Aqev (44),Nahal Ein Gev I (16), Nahal Oren (23), Nizzana (43),€
Ohalo II (17), Oküzini(59), Ortvala Klde (54), Palegawra(73), Pa Sangar (78), Qafzeh (21), Qesem (26), Quneitra(14), Ramat Matred (45), Raqefet (22), Ras el-Kelb (6),Rasfa (20), Revadim (30), Rosh Ein Mor (44), Rosh
Horesha (46), Rosh Zin (44), Saaide (2), Saflulim (46),
Salibiyah (32), Shanidar (71), Shekaft-i Ghad-i Barm-i
Shur (80), Shukba (28), Shunera (41), Skhul (24), Tabaqa(48), Tabun (24), Tor Faraj (52), Tor Fawaz (52), TorHamar (69), Tor Sabiha (51), Tor Sadaf (48), Tor Sageer€(48), ‘Ubeidiya (17), Uçağizli(61), Umm el-Tlel (64),Umm Qatafa (33), Uwaynid (37), ‘Uyun al-Hammam(19), Wadi Aghar (52), Wadi Fatimah (84), Wadi
Hammeh (19), Wadi Judayid (51), Wadi Mataha (50),
Warwasi (74), Yabrud (4), Yafteh (78), Yarimburgaz(57), Yutil al-Hasa (48), Zarzi (72), Zuttiyeh (15)(e.g., Aurignacian, Levalloiso–Mousterian, andTayacian) was subsequently modified into or
replaced with locally defined cultural entities(e.g., Levantine Aurignacian, Ahmarian, Levantine Mousterian, and Yabrudian). While early
investigators tended to focus on deep culturaldeposits at caves in an effort to establish

Paleolithic cultural sequences, subsequent surveys, and excavations of open-air sites in theinland areas, such as Negev, Sinai, Badia, andSyrian Desert, led to the recognition of greater
diversity of Paleolithic entities as well as
dynamic adaptation of prehistoric populations tovarious environments.

West Asia: Paleolithic

The progress and intensity of Paleolithic
research in west Asia varies depending on geographic areas. The Levant has been most intensively studied since the 1920s, providing
fundamental data sets for studying Paleolithic
populations in west Asia. Although the Zagros
region received early investigations from the
1920s to 1950s, subsequent fieldwork has been
prevented by geopolitical instability. Renewed
investigations of Paleolithic sites have recently
increased in Anatolia, the Caucasus, southern
Iran, and the Arabian Peninsula in relation
to the study of early Homo species and Homosapiens dispersals out of Africa.

Key Issues/Current Debates
Lower Paleolithic
Earliest Hominin Occupation in West Asia
Currently, the earliest evidence for humanoccupation in west Asia is known at Dmanisi,
Georgia, in the southern Caucasus (e.g., Gabunia
et al. 2001). Archaeological deposits at Dmanisi
overlie the Masavera basalt that was dated to c.
1.8–2.0 Ma by 40K/40Ar and 40Ar/39Ar dating.
This basalt and the lower archaeological layers(units A1 and A2) show normal polarity directions (the Olduvai Sub-chron), while the upper

7771

W

ones (units B1 and B2) have a reversed polarity(the Matuyama Chron). Well-preserved bone
remains include four hominin crania, three mandibles, and a number of postcranial specimens.
These hominin remains have been identified as
the primitive form of Homo erectus/ergaster orplaced in a new taxon named Homo georgicus.
Rich faunal remains at Dmanisi include Early
Pleistocene types mostly of Eurasian species
and indicate grassland with some forest as the
local environment. Chipped stone artifacts fromthe site primarily consist of unmodified flakes
and chopping tools, and this lithic industry iscalled “Pre-Oldowan.” These observations let
researchers to consider that the first colonizationof west Asia took place at the early stage in theevolution of genus Homo before the appearanceof the handaxe technology or the Acheulian
tradition. Some researchers also propose thepossibility that Homo erectus originated in Asiaand that some of them migrated into Africa.
Acheulian Tradition

Much of the Lower Paleolithic records in west
Asia comprise Acheulian assemblages witha varying amount of bifaces, i.e., hand axes andcleavers (Fig. 2). A large number of Acheulian
finds are reported in west Asia, and their accounts
accumulated in the last decade particularly inWWest Asia: Paleolithic,
Fig. 2 Hand axes from the
middle Euphrates region

W

7772

Anatolia, the Caucasus (e.g., Azykh andKudaro I), and the Arabian Peninsula(e.g., Wadi Fatimah and Dawādmi) in addition
to the Levant. However, the number of sites withclear contexts and dates is limited. The dates are
estimated by several different methods, including
radiometric dating, paleomagnetic analysis, paleontological comparison, and the paleoenvironmental examination of marine and fluvial
deposits. Researchers proposed several chronocultural entities within the Acheulian tradition,such as Early, Middle, Late, Late evolved, andFinal Acheulian on the basis of technotypological attributes of bifaces (Bar-Yosef
1994).
The earliest assemblages with bifaces in west
Asia are currently known from the Early Pleistocene lake deposits at ’Ubeidiya, Israel, located
3 km south to the Sea of Galilee. The site has
numerous publications on the geological andsedimentological studies as well as lithic andfaunal analyses. The comparison of fauna withthose dated in the African and European
sequences provided a date estimate (c. 1.4 Ma)of the site. Only a small portion of animal bones
show cut marks, and recent sedimentological andfaunal analyses suggest that archaeologicalremains at ‘Ubeidiya were deposited as a resultof low energy fluvial processes rather than “living
floors” at the lakeshore. The industry of chippedstone artifacts from ‘Ubeidiya has been identified
as Early Acheulian or Developed Oldowan,
characterized by core choppers, polyhedrons,
spheroids, and crude bifaces that occur in varying
frequencies in different layers. These tool types
tend to differ from each other in the selection of
raw materials: bifaces are often made from basalt,
chopping tools, and polyhedrons from flint, andmost spheroids from limestone.
The water-logged site of Gesher BenotYa‘aqov (GBY), also located in the Jordan
Valley, is dated to c. 0.7–0.8 Ma by paleomagnetic analyses, which show that lacustrine
deposits with archaeological remains depositedover the Brunhes–Matuyama boundary. Lithic
industry of GBY, designated as Acheulian, ischaracterized by the preferential use of basalt
for bifaces, i.e., hand axes and cleavers, theWest Asia: Paleolithic

blanks of which are frequently provided by the
Kombewa technique. These technologicalfeatures have been interpreted as evidence fora hominin dispersal from Africa. Both Africanand Levantine taxa constitute micromammalianremains. Notable is the recovery of an elephantskull from an archaeological horizon at level 1 inlayer II-6. Whether this skull resulted from hunting, scavenging, or natural mechanisms has been
investigated through a series of taphonomic studies. Well-preserved plant remains include fruit,seeds, bark, and wood, and the excavators suggestthat numerous pitted stones from the site wereused for cracking nuts. In addition, the use of fireat GBY has been suggested through taphonomic
examination of burnt remains (Alperson-Afil &Goren-Inbar 2010).
The accounts of Latamne in the Orontes
Valley and Joub Jannine II in the Beqqa
Valleys often classify their lithic assemblages as
Middle Acheulian or estimate their age to
the Middle Pleistocene. In contrast to these Middle Acheulian sites that are clustered in the
Mediterranean environmental zones, the Late
Acheulian or late Lower Paleolithic sites are
more widely distributed both in the Mediterranean areas (e.g., Holon, Tabun, Umm Qatafa, andGarmachi 1b) and at inland areas (e.g., Lion
Spring, C-Spring, and the sites in the el-Kowm
basin), suggesting the adaptation to driersettings or climatic amelioration during the Late
Acheulian period.
The date of Berekhat Ram in the northern
Golan Heights is broadly estimated asc. 230–780 ka, and its lithic assemblage is characterized by the high proportion of Levallois
products and Upper Paleolithic tool types,
i.e., end scrapers and burins, with few bifaces.
The site is well known for the stone “figurine,”
which has been accepted as an artificiallymodified object after rigorous examination by
microscopes and experimental production.
Hominin fossils associated with Acheulian
artifacts are very limited. A right lower incisor
from ‘Ubeidiya has been broadly assigned to thegenus Homo. At the site of Nadaouiyeh Aı̈n
Askar in the el-Kowm basin, a fragment of leftparietal bone was found in an Acheulian level

West Asia: Paleolithic

that is characterized by oval hand axes andestimated as 450 ka. The bone was classed as
Homo erectus.
Technological Variability: Flake Assemblages andthe Yabrudian Complex

Some Lower Paleolithic assemblages lackbifaces. Such examples include the sites ofEvron Quarry, Bizat Ruhama, Tabun layer G,
Hummal level 13–14, and some sites in the
Orontes and Euphrates Valleys. These occurrences have been explained in several different
ways. The first one regards them as representing
separate cultural entities, naming them the
Tayacian or the Khattabian. Another position isto see them as a response to limited availability of
raw materials. In addition, insufficient sample
size has been pointed out as a reason for theabsence of bifaces at some sites.
A more numerously documented example of
the Lower Paleolithic technological variability
is the Yabrudian complex (also called theAcheulo-Yabrudian or the Mugharan) (Ronen &Weinstein-Evron 2000). The complex comprises
flake-based industries with heavily retouchedscrapers and a varying amount of bifaces(i.e., the Yabrudian and the Acheulo-Yabrudian)and blade-based industries with higher proportions of Upper Paleolithic tool types (i.e., theAmudian and the Pre-Aurignacian). The distribution of this complex is currently known in thecentral and northern Levant. The southern end is
at Qesem Cave, the northern limit is at Dederiyeh
Cave (Fig. 3), and the easternmost site is in theel-Kowm basin. This complex always occurs
stratigraphically above the Late Acheulian andbelow the Tabun D type of the Levantine
Mousterian tradition as seen at Tabun, YabrudI, el-Kowm, and Dederiyeh. Along with this stratigraphic evidence, radiometric dates obtained
from Qesem, Yabrud I, and Tabun layer
E suggest the age of the Yabrudian between
200 and 400 ka at the end of the Lower
Paleolithic. The Acheulian tradition, however,
may have continued during this period in theSouthern Levant, where the Yabrudian complex
is not distributed. Zuttiyeh Cave has yieldedhominin fossil associated with this complex.

7773

W

The skull from this cave has been placed
in several different taxons, including archaic
Homo sapiens. More recently, human teeth
from Qesem Cave have been suggested torepresent a new, locally developed, post Homoerectus lineage.
In Anatolia, the cave of Karain E yielded
flake-based assemblages in the first two phasesof the archaeological sequence (called Clactonian and Charentian), followed by the Mousterian in phase 3. Another flake-dominatedassemblage without bifaces or the Levallois
technique has been documented from
Yarimburgaz Cave, whose estimated age is
mid-Middle Pleistocene on the basis of the faunal
remains. The apparent contemporaneity of theseindustries with the Yabrudian complex in theLevant may have implications for some of theircommon technological aspects.
Middle Paleolithic Period
Cultural Variations and Their Chronology

The account of the Middle Paleolithic culturalvariability usually refers to three lithic industries,
the Tabun B-, C-, and D-types (or phases 1, 2, and
3: Shea 2003), which have been defined by thetechno-typological attributes of lithic assemblages
from layers B, C, and D of Tabun Cave. The threeindustries are grouped under the Levantine Mousterian tradition (Fig. 4), and their common use of
the Levallois technique distinguishes themselvesfrom the preceding Yabrudian complex. The
Tabun D-type is characterized by the productionof blades and elongated points both with theLevallois method and the “laminar system.”
A significant number of Upper Paleolithic tooltypes occur in the D-type assemblages. In contrast,
unilateral sidescrapers are representative in the
Tabun C-type industry, which often produces
oval flakes with some points and blades from
centripetally and/or bidirectionally prepared
Levallois cores. The Levallois cores of the Tabun
B-type are frequently prepared by unidirectional
convergent flaking that produces broad-based
points with some blades. Sidescrapers are dominant in retouched tools with few Upper Paleolithic
types. The attribution of some lithic assemblages
to these industries is shown in Table 1.

W

W

7774

West Asia: Paleolithic

West Asia: Paleolithic, Fig. 3 Yabrudian stone artifacts from Dederiyeh Cave (layer F in K22 and K23) (after
Nishiaki et al. 2011a)

Besides Tabun Cave, the stratigraphic
sequence of the Tabun B-, C-, and D-type industries is observable at only a few sites, such as
Hayonim Cave (the D-type in layers
F and lower E followed by the C-type inupper layer E), and probably Douara Cave(the D-type in unit IV followed by the C-type inunit III). As such, the current scheme of theLevantine Mousterian chronology primarily
draws upon radiometric dating methods, e.g.,
TL, ESR, U-series, and amino acid racemization,
which have been applied to the sites including
Tabun, Hayonim, ‘Ain Difla, Rosh Ein Mor,

Qafzeh, Skhul, Naamé, Kebara, Amud, TorFaraj, Tor Sabiha, Quneitra, Ksar Akil, andFar’ah II. These radiometric dates overall indicate that the three industries occurred in a generalorder from the Tabun D- through C- to B-type
between 250 and 47 ka.
There are several dating results that could
suggest the temporal overlap between different
industries. For example, the dates proposedfor ‘Ain Difla (c. 100 ka) and Nahal Aqev
(c. 70–90 ka) indicate that the Tabun D-typeindustry lasted longer in the southern arid areas,
while it was replaced by the Tabun C-type inWest Asia: Paleolithic

7775

W

West Asia: Paleolithic, Fig. 4 Mousterian stone artifacts from Dederiyeh Cave (layer E in K22) (After Nishiaki et al.
2011a)

the north. In addition, revised ESR dates (c. 100–120 ka) for Tabun layer B is closer to the dates of
the Tabun C-type assemblages at Qafzeh and
Skhul than those of Tabun B sites, such as Kebara
and Amud. However, these anomalous dating
results remain to be verified by additional samples with more secure contexts.
The faunal sequence has also contributed tothe establishment of the Middle Paleolithic chronology. For example, faunal assemblages, particularly micromammals, from layers XV to XXV
of Qafzeh, associated with the Tabun C-type
assemblages, are characterized by the increaseof Afro-Arabian elements adapted to savanna
conditions. This is interpreted to represent thenorthward expansion of Afro-Arabian species
with anatomically modern humans during
MIS 5. In contrast, almost all the Afro-Arabianelements are eliminated in the faunal assemblages at Tabun B sites, such as Kebara andAmud, where Palearctic–European elements are
dominant as a result of their southward dispersal
with Neanderthals during the cold and dry
climate of MIS 4. The faunal assemblages ofboth Hayonim lower and upper E, associatedwith Tabun D-type and C-type industries, respectively, are characterized by the presence of earlier
Pleistocene elements and the dominance of
Palearctic mammals, indicating their chronological precedence to Qafzeh. These accounts forbio-cultural chronology generally fit the radiometric dates of Qafzeh, Kebara, Amud, andHayonim E, although the suggested correlationof the fauna from Tabun layer B to MIS 4 does
not fit the ESR dates mentioned above.
Middle Paleolithic assemblages are profuse
also in other areas in west Asia. Those in the
Zagros–Taurus regions are classed as the Zagros
Mousterian, which is characterized by thefrequent application of retouch that produces

W

W

7776

West Asia: Paleolithic

West Asia: Paleolithic, Table 1 List of Paleolithic entities in west Asia and their principal information

Archaeological entities
Epipaleolithic Zarzian

Late
Late
Epipaleolithic Natufian

MIS1
2

Dates (Ka)22

13–11/10

Early
Natufian

MiddleMushabianEpipaleolithic Ramonian

16/15–13

Geometric
Kebaran

Early
Nizzanan
Epipaleolithic

22/20–16/
15

NebekianQalkhan

Kebaran

Upper
Paleolithic

Baradostian(Zagros
Aurignacian)

3–2

Some of other excavatedSites with hominin or systematicallyremains3
surveyed sites4
Mar Gurgalan Sarab(B–C), Palegawra, Pa
Sangar, Shanidar (B2),
Warwasi (A–O), Zarzi
Abu Hureyra (1), Abou Sif, Ain Rahub,
Ain Mallaha,
Jayroud, Khallat Azana,
Hayonim, Nahal
Mureybet, Raqefet,
Oren, Saaide II,
Rosh Horesha, Rosh Zin,
ShukbaSaflulim, Salibiyah I,
Wadi Humeima
Ain Mallaha, Ain Beidha, Dederiyeh (B),Saratan, Azraq 18, Fazael VI, Salibiyah
El-Wad (B), Erq
XII, Tabaqa, Wadi
el-Ahmar,
Judayid, Yutil Hasa (D)Hayonim (B),
Kebara (B), Wadi
Hammeh 27, Wadi
MetahaAzariq XII, Ein Qadis II,
Har Harif K V, MushabiV, Mushabi XIV/1,
Nahal Sekher 23, Ramat
Matred II, Shunera XXI
Neve David andAzariq II, Douara II‘Uyn al(A&B), Ein Gev III,
Hammamm
Fazael III & VIII,
Hamifgash I, Haon II,
Hayonim Terrace,
Hefzibah, Kharaneh IV(D), Lagama North VIII,
Mushabi XIV/2,
Nadaouiyeh, Nahal
Oren, Palmyra Site 50(Spots B, C, F), Raqefet,
Umm el-Tlel
Azariq IX, Azraq 17(Trench 1), Hamifgash
IV, Jilat 6 (A)Ain Qasiyya (Area D),
Tor Hamar (E),
Uwaynid 14 & 18, Jilat 6(C), Yabrud III (6–7),
Yutil Hasa (C, E)
Ain Qasiyya (Area Fazael III, Hayonim
A&B), Ein Gev I, (Ca-Ce), Nahal Oren (9),Kebara (C),
Raqefet (I), Urkan
Kharaneh IV (B)el-Rubb II
Eshkaft-e Gavi, Gar
Arjeneh, Mar Gurgalan
Sarab (D–E), Pa Sangar,
Shanidar (C), Shekaft-i(continued)

West Asia: Paleolithic

7777

W

West Asia: Paleolithic, Table 1 (continued)

Archaeological entities

Levantine
Aurignacian(a former
grouping)

Ahmarian

MiddlePaleolithic

MIS1

Dates (Ka)2

Arqov/Divshon30/26–17Atlitian

27–26

Nahal Ein Gev I

Classic
Levantine
Aurignacian

32–26

el-Wad (D)Levantine
AurignacianA?
Late(including
Masraqan)

36–32

Early

43–25

25–16

Initial Upper
Paleolithic(Emiran)3

47/42–38/
33

ZagrosMousterian

7?–3

Levantine
Mousterian

Some of other excavatedSites with hominin or systematicallyremains3
surveyed sites4

Tabun B

5/4–3

200/250(Karain E,
Layer
III.2). 148(Humian)
75–47

Tabun C

6–5

160–75Ghad-i Barm-i Shur,
Warwasi, Yafteh
Boker BE (I), Boker C,
Ein Aqev, Har Horesha
I, Tor Fawaz?
Antelias (I & II), el-Wad(C), Ksar Akil (6)Antelias (III & IV),
Hayonim (D), Kebara(1 & 2) Ksar Akil (8–7),
Raqefet (III)Ksar Akil (11–13),
Umm el-Tlel

Ohalo II

Ain al-Buhayra (Unit C,
F, and H-I), Ein Aqev
East, Fazael X, Lagama
X, Yutil al-Hasa (Areas
A and B)
Ksal Akil (14–20) Abu Noshra I, Boker A,
and Qafzeh (D)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, Ksar Akil
Uçağızlı(21–25), Tor Sadaf
Mughara?5(A & B), Umm el-Tlel(IIBase & III2A), Wadi
Aghar
Neanderthals from Humian, Kunji,
Warwasi
Bisitun, Karain
E (III.2)5, Shanidar(D)
Neanderthals from
Amud (B1 & B2),
Dederiyeh (3, 11,& 13), Kebara(VII–XII), Shukba(D), Tabun (C1)?5
Qafzeh (XV–
XXII), Skhul (B),
Tabun (C2)?5

Bezez (B), Erq el-Ahmar(H), Far’ah II, Keoue,Quneitra, Sefunim, TorFaraj, Tor Sabiha

Dederiyeh (D), Douara(III), Hayonim (upperE), Naamé, Nahr
Ibrahim, Ras el-Kelb(continued)

W

W

7778

West Asia: Paleolithic

West Asia: Paleolithic, Table 1 (continued)

Lower
Paleolithic

Archaeological entities
Tabun D

MIS1
8/7–6

Yabrudian/AcheuloYabrudian/Amudian/PreAurignacian/Hummalian

11–7

Flake-dominant assemblages –with no or few bifaces

Acheulian (including
assemblages that have beenclassed as Middle or Late/
Upper Acheulian)

19–7

Early Acheulian ordeveloped Oldowan
Assemblages dominated bycobbles/pebbles andunmodified flakes––

Some of other excavatedSites with hominin or systematicallyDates (Ka)2 remains3
surveyed sites4250/
Abu Sif, Ain Difla,
200–160
Dederiyeh (E), Douara(IV), Hayonim (lower
E and F), Hummal (II),Jerf Ajla, Nahal Aqev,
Rosh Ein Mor, Tabun(D), Yabrud I
c. 400–200 Qesem (post Homo Adlun, Dederiyeh (F),erectus lineage),
el-Kowm, Masloukh,
Zuttiyeh (variously Tabun (E), Yabrud
identified,
I (11–25)
including Archaic
Homo sapiens)c. 750–200
Bizat Ruhama, EvronQuarry, Hummal(14–13), Karain
E (Phases 1&2), Tabun(G), Yarimburgaz
c. 800–200 Nadaouiyeh Aı̈n
Azych, Berekhat Ram,
Askar (HomoC-Spring, Dawādmi,
erectus)
Gesher Benot Ya’aqov,
Gharmachi 1b, Holon,
Joub Jannine II, Kurdaro
I, Latamne, Lion Spring,
Revadim, Tabun (F),Umm Qatafa (D & E),
Wadi Fatimahc. 1,400‘Ubeidiya(‘Ubeidiya)c. 1,750
Dmanisi (HomoDursunlu, Hummal(Dmanisi) georgicus)

1

MIS correlation is uncertain for most Lower Palaeolithic sites
Dates for Upper and Epipaleolithic entities are uncalibrated radiocarbon years, and those for Middle and Lower
Paleolithic are other radiometric dates including TL, ESR, U-series, AAR, and OSL, as well as age estimates fromfaunal spectra
3
Homo sapiens unless indicated4
Layer numbers/alphabets are shown in parentheses
5
Either identification of hominin types or association with lithic industries is unclear
2

various forms of scrapers. Recent studies suggestthat core reduction technology involves Levallois
methods that tend to produce elongated blanks bylinear flaking directions. Similar technologicalcharacteristic is noted at Ortvala Klde in thesouthern Caucasus. Revised TL dates for theearliest Mousterian assemblage (F) at Karain
E are c. 200–250 kya, indicating that theMousterian tradition in this region started before
the last interglacial like the Levantine

Mousterian. In addition, recent finds in southern
Iran and southern Arabia report the associationof bifacial foliates or Nubian Levallois
products, indicating greater variability of Middle
Paleolithic assemblages in west Asia.
The Timing of Neanderthal and Modern Human
Occurrences

The Neanderthal occupation in west Asia is attestedby the fossil evidence from Kebara, Amud, Tabun,

West Asia: Paleolithic

Dederiyeh, Shukhba, Shanidar, and Bisitun Caves.
The contexts of Neanderthal fossils are mostly
dated to the late Middle Paleolithic between
47 and 75 ka during MIS 4 on the basis of radiometric dates, stratigraphic positions, faunal spectra,
and/or lithic-technological attributes. In contrast,
early modern humans recovered in the Middle
Paleolithic strata of Qafzeh and Skhul have been
given earlier dates (c. 75–130 ka) corresponding to
MIS 5 by a series of radiometric dates and theanalyses of faunal assemblages.
There are some fossil records that indicate theearlier occurrence of Neanderthals in west Asia,
but these cases need further supporting data to be
accepted. For example, layer III.2 of Karain E,
associated with human remains with some Neanderthal traits, has been dated around 200–250 kya
by TL. Another case is the Tabun C1 skeleton,
which is broadly recognized as representing
Neanderthal features, but some researchers,
including excavators, consider that the specimen
may have infiltrated down from layer B on
the basis of the field observation as well as themore recent analysis of U/Th ratios. Although
this makes the fossil stratigraphically later,
the revised ESR date for Tabun layer B(c. 100–120 ka) is significantly older than thedates of other sites with Neanderthal fossils,
such as Amud and Kebara, and closer to thoseof Qafzeh and Skhul with early modern humans.
In addition, the stratigraphic affinity of the Tabun
C2 specimen to layer C is unequivocal, but its
biological affinity has been controversial,
representing both Neanderthal and modern
human attributes. If the Neanderthal affinity is
accepted, the TL and ESR dates of Tabun layer
C (120–180 ka) suggest that Neanderthals
appeared in the Levant before modern humans
at Qafzeh and Skhul. In contrast to these
possibilities of the early appearance of Neanderthals, there is currently no evidence for the
existence of Homo sapience during the age
between 47 and 75 ka in west Asia.
Hunting, Residential, and Symbolic Behavior

Faunal remains deposited as human refuse in
the Middle Paleolithic include various ungulates(e.g., gazelle, fallow deer, red deer, roe deer,

7779

W

aurochs, and onager) and large reptiles that areeasy to capture (e.g., tortoise and legless lizards).
The seasonality of site use and mobility appears
to have been variable. For example, the analysesof cementum increment of gazelle teeth suggest
multi-seasonal occupation of the sites with
Neanderthal fossils, such as Tabun layer B and
Kebara, in contrast to shorter-term occupation atsites associated with Homo sapiens fossils, suchas Tabun layer C and Qafzeh XVI–XXIII(Lieberman 1993). The relatively high residential
stability at Kebara, indicated by dense accumulation of refuse and the prolonged use and maintenance of hearths, contrasts to the ephemeral
occupation at Hayonim layer E (Meignen et al.
2006). At the rockshelter of Tor Faraj, associatedwith the Tabun B-type assemblage, the structured
use of living space has been documented throughthe examination of the arrangement of hearths
and the distribution of artifacts and phytoliths(Henry 2004). The evidence for symbolic objects
is limited, but the use of ochre in burials andochre-stained ground stones at Qafzeh is wellknown (Hovers et al. 2003). In addition, perforated sea shells from Qafzeh and Skhul may havebeen used as beads.
Upper Paleolithic Period
Origin: Initial Upper Paleolithic

The beginning of the Upper Paleolithic period ismarked by the Initial Upper Paleolithic (IUP or
Emiran) industry that is technologically characterized by the introduction of prismatic cores andthe production of pointed blades with relatively
large, sometimes facetted, striking platforms.
The IUP is also typologically defined by thehigh occurrences of Upper Paleolithic tools, i.e.,burins and end scrapers, with some fossil indices,such as Emireh points and chamfered pieces.
A series of 14C and TL dates from IUP sites
range between 47 and 33 ka, within which
Boker Tachtit is dated older than northern IUP€
sites at Uçağizli
Mughara, Umm el-Tlel, and Jerf
Ajla. Despite the recent accumulation of IUP
assemblages, the debate over their origin
continues (Bar-Yosef & Belfer-Cohen 2010)
with a view of this industry as representing
a transitional phase from the Middle to Upper

W

W

7780

West Asia: Paleolithic

West Asia: Paleolithic,
Fig. 5 Upper Paleolithic
chipped stones from the
middle Euphrates region

Paleolithic period and the other position
maintaining that the IUP culture was brought by
Homo sapiens dispersing from Africa.
Upper Paleolithic Cultural Variations

Accounts for the techno-typological variability ofUpper Paleolithic chipped stones after the IUP
often refer to two cultural traditions, i.e., theAhmarian (Fig. 5) and the Levantine Aurignacian. The former appeared earlier at c. 43/38 ka,
following the IUP, and it features dominant production of blades/bladelets that are modified into
pointed or backed forms. In contrast, the beginning of the Levantine Aurignacian is dated to atleast a few millennia later around 35 ka, and it ischaracterized by numerous flakes created intoburins and scrapers, and high occurrences oftwisted bladelets detached from carinated tools/
cores.
The variations within the Levantine Aurignacian tradition have been traditionally grouped
into phases A, B, and C on the basis of stratified
assemblages from Ksar Akil layers VI–XIII.
Among the three phases, part of the Levantine
Aurignacian B and C (i.e., layers VII and VIII)
shows “classic” Aurignacian elements, such asflat frontally carinated and nosed scrapers alongwith bone and antler artifacts, such as split-based
points, similar to the European Aurignacian. The
origins of the Levantine Aurignacian tradition areusually assumed outside the Levant, such as
southeastern Europe and the Zagros region(Olszewski & Dibble 2006). Relevance of flakebased assemblages mainly distributed in the arid
marginal zone to the Aurignacian tradition has
been debated, and they have recently beenclassed as a separate industry called the Arqov/
Divshon (Goring-Morris & Belfer-Cohen 2006).
The Ahmarian tradition is often subdivided into
the early and late phases. The Late Ahmarian ischaracterized by the increase of Ouchtata bladelets
replacing el-Wad points, as well as the employment of multiple core-reduction strategies forbladelet production. In addition, some of the Late
Ahmarian assemblages, such as Ohallo II, include
microlith types that are hallmarks of the Kebaran,
one of the early Epipaleolithic entities. As such,the Late Ahmarian has been renamed by somescholars as Masraqan (Goring-Morris 1995). In
either way, Late Ahmarian/Masraqan lithic assemblages are likely to represent a transitional phasefrom the Upper to Epipaleolithic period. Theircontinuous transition is also indicated by theoverlapping range of 14C dates between the Late
Ahmarian and the Early Epipaleolithic, particularly the Nebekian sites in Wadi el-Hasa.
Settlement, Subsistence, and Symbolic Behaviors

The extensive distributions of Upper Paleolithic
settlements, particularly those of the AhmarianWest Asia: Paleolithic

and the Arqov/Divshon, in the steppe/arid zone
have been documented in the Negev, northern
Sinai, and southern Jordan. In contrast, the sitesof the “classic” Levantine Aurignacian and the
Atlitian tend to occur in the Levantine core areas.
In both regions, the sites are small with relatively
thin deposits containing several hearths at most,indicating their ephemeral nature and the highresidential mobility, which are consistent withthe circular settlement pattern proposed for theUpper Paleolithic inhabitants in the central
Negev. A similar view on Upper Paleolithic
occupation has been presented by the seasonality
study of gazelle hunting (Lieberman 1993) andthe decreasing trend in the proportions ofcommensal species (e.g., house mice) from theMiddle to Upper Paleolithic layers at Qafzeh,
Sefnim, and Kebara caves.
Large mammal bones from Upper Paleolithic
sites mostly consist of ungulates including
gazelle, fallow deer, red deer, aurochs, wild
goat, boar, and equid with greater focus on
smaller species (i.e., gazelle) than that of the
Middle Paleolithic. In addition, intentional
exploitation of small prey (e.g., hares, birds, andsmall turtles) is suggested at sites like Ksar Akil,
Hayonim, Kebara, and Ohalo II. At the latter site,
evidence for fishing is also present. Althoughbotanical remains from Upper Paleolithic sites
are scarce in west Asia, they are exceptionallywell preserved at a waterlogged, Late Ahmarian/
Masraqan site of Ohalo II at the lakeshoreof Galilee. The record suggests the exploitationof a wide range of grass species, including wildbarley and emmer wheat, which were probably
processed on ground stones, as suggested starchgrain analysis (Piperno et al. 2004).
Art objects rarely occur in the west Asian
Upper Paleolithic, but animal teeth pendants
and incised limestone slabs from Hayonim Caveoffer common features between the Levantine
and European Aurignacian. In addition, numerous sites of both the Ahmarian and Levantine
Aurignacian traditions yielded ochre fragments,
ochre-stained stones, or marine shells, the latterof which are sometimes perforated, as reported at€
Uçağizli
and Yabrud II. Rare human burials havebeen discovered at Nahal Ein Gev I and Ohallo II,

7781

W

while isolated human bones have been recoveredfrom Ksar Akil, Antelias, Qafzeh, Kebara, andel-Wad. The paucity of burials may be related
to the ephemeral nature of Upper Paleolithic
settlements.
Epipaleolithic Period
Cultural Chronology
Likepreceding
Paleolithic
periods,
Epipaleolithic material cultures are primarily
defined by lithic evidence but classed into muchgreater numbers of categories. This is mainly
related to the variability in the morphology andproduction technique of Epipaleolithic microliths, on which researchers draw to define cultural
entities (Goring-Morris 1995; Olszewski 2008).
In the Levant, Epipaleolithic cultures are oftengrouped into the early, middle, and late phases(Table 1). In general, non-geometric forms of
microliths are dominant in the early phase,
while geometric microliths mark the middle(e.g., trapeze/rectangle and triangle) and latephase (e.g., lunate) (Fig. 6). Furthermore, thepresence/absence of microburin technique,a specific method for segmenting bladelets,shows temporal and geographic patterns, providing a criterion to distinguish between the Kebaran(absent) and the Nebekian (present) in the earlyphase, and between the Geometric Kebaran(absent) and the Mushabian (present) in the middle phase. The microburin technique is morewidespread in the Late Epipaleolithic, or the
Natufian cultural complex, which is divided into
the early, late, and sometimes final phases.
Recent recovery of some Early Natufian sites in
steppe areas in Jordan indicate that a range ofenvironment inhabited by Early Natufian foragers was wider than previously envisioned.
Microlithic assemblages in the Zagros
region are classified as the Zarzian, although
their chronological data are limited. Numerous
Epipaleolithic cave sites have also been discovered in the Antalya area, Turkey, including€OküziniCave, where stratified assemblages
show a diachronic trend from non-geometric togeometric microliths as in the Levant and theZarzian. Another microlithic industry withgeometric microliths, the Trialetian, has been

W

W

7782

West Asia: Paleolithic

West Asia: Paleolithic, Fig. 6 Late Epipaleolithic chipped stones from Dederiyeh Cave (After Nishiaki et al. 2011b)

proposed for the assemblages in the Caucasus,
eastern Anatolia, and the Iranian plateau.
While some researchers suggest that morphological variability of microliths can be caused bytheir re-modification for prolonged use rather
than by intentional stylistic differences, others
consider that both functional and stylistic variability recognized for distinguishing between different entities is likely to represent social groups
with different technological traditions, adaptive
strategies and/or territories. In the case of the
Natufian complex, its regional and temporalvariability is also manifested in groundstone

artifacts, architecture, ornamental objects, decoration motifs, and burials.
Mobility Pattern, Subsistence, and Society

Early and Middle Epipaleolithic sites are generally small and have thin occupational deposits,
indicating that inhabitants have continued highresidential mobility since the Upper Paleolithic
period. The seasonality analysis of gazellehunting also suggests that Kebaran and Geometric Kebaran occupations were seasonal in contrast
to multi-seasonal occupations during the Natufianand Mousterian periods (Lieberman 1993).

West Asia: Paleolithic

However, a few Early and Middle Epipaleolithic
sites are quite large, even allowing for the effectof deflation and sheetwash (e.g., Jilat 6), associated with hut structures (e.g., Ein Gev III,
Kharaneh IV, and Umm el-Tlel), and/or humanburials (e.g., Neve David, Kharaneh IV, and‘Uyun al-Hammam). These sites point to along-term change rather than a sudden shift insettlement system towards the Natufian culture.
The increased sedentism of Natufian foragers is
illustrated by many lines of evidence, includingstone-walled structures, storage facilities, numerous human burials, large site size, dense archaeological remains, and the increase in humancommensals, such as house mice (Valla 1995).
Multi-seasonal occupation is also indicated byseasonally available faunal and botanical species
and the analysis of cementum increment ofgazelle teeth.
Game species during the Epipaleolithic period
include gazelle, equids, aurochs, cervids,
caprines, hare, tortoise, and birds. While similar
range of species was exploited in the Natufian,gazelle hunting was more intensified. Direct evidence for plant diet during the Epipaleolithic israre, but botanical remains from a few Natufiansites, such as Abu Hureyra, Dederiyeh Cave,
Wadi Hammeh 27, and Hayonim Cave, attest
the use of wild cereals (e.g., barley, einkorn,and rye), wild legumes (e.g., lentils and vetches),
wild nuts (e.g., almonds and pistachios), and wild
fruits. Intensive exploitation of cereals during the
Natufian is also suggested by indirect evidence,such as glossed blades and numerous foodprocessing tools, particularly mortars and pestles.
Long-distance distribution of marine shells
continued, and possibly was enhanced, from theUpper to Epipaleolithic period. Their occurrences at inland sites and patterned associations
with particular lithic industries are interpreted as
representing social interactions through theexchange of shells that are often pierced (Ritcher
et al. 2011). Some Early Natufian sites(e.g., el-Wad) yielded numerous shell/bonebeads as grave goods, such as a necklaces and aheaddress, but their social significance remains
controversial. The increase of human burials also
distinguishes the Epipaleolithic from the Upper

7783

W

Paleolithic culture. In early Natufian villages,
burials are often placed in and near residential
space.
In sum, the generally increasing trend insedentism and cereal use, as well as the development of burial customs and exchange of exotic
materials during the Epipaleolithic, is widely
considered precursors of sedentary villages,
food production, and social practices in thefollowing Neolithic period, although the transitional process was complex and variable atdifferent parts in west Asia.

International Perspectives
Although Paleolithic research in southern Arabia
and southern Iran has been underdeveloped incomparison to those in the Levant, recent fieldwork in the former areas discovered Middle
Paleolithic stone assemblages that are technotypologically distinct from the Levantine
Mousterian or the Zagros Mousterian. Morespecifically, bifacial foliates associated in
the FAY-NE 1 assemblage C and Nubian
Levallois products in the Dhofar region show
affinities with Middle Stone Age assemblages ineastern and northeastern Africa. OSL dates indicate that these recent finds in southern Arabia
represent the southern dispersal of early Homosapiens out of Africa during MIS 5 in addition to
the northern route to the Levant at Qafzeh and
Skhul (Armitage et al. 2010; Rose et al. 2011).
Although the southern route hypothesis still needs
to be verified with fossil remains in the future, theinvestigation of the southern and eastern parts ofwest Asia can contribute greatly to archaeologicaltesting of the southern dispersal route of Homosapiens, linking the population history in west
Asia to those in southern and eastern Asia.

Future Directions
Although Paleolithic records in west Asia are
well organized on the basis of numerous cultural
entities and their chronological sequences, asa result of almost a century of research history,

W

W

7784

increasing number of new assemblages indicate
greater material variability, as exemplified byvarious non-bifacial Lower Paleolithic assemblages from the Levant and Turkey, Middle
Paleolithic assemblages with bifacial foliates
in southern Iran and Arabia, and variableflake-based assemblages of the Levantine Upper
Paleolithic. On the other hand, the validity ofnumerous cultural labels assigned for local
Epipaleolithic assemblages is becoming underreexamination. Regardless of the theoreticalorientations in the interpretation of cultural entities, their definition and chronological placement
continue to be significant issues, particularly
along with the progress of radiometric dating
methods that allow researchers to make chronological correlations among archaeological assemblages both at the local and regional scales.
Explaining the variability, both synchronicand diachronic, of archaeological entities isa challenging task. Recent accumulation of radiometric dates and paleoenvironmental records led
some researchers to reexamine temporal correlations between the occurrences of archaeologicalentities (Epipaleolithic and Neolithic) andclimatic events (Maher et al. 2011), althoughsuch examinations would be more difficultfor earlier time periods due to greater range of
estimated dates. Functional interpretationof material variability has been pursued by several regional studies in Negev, southern Jordan,
Azraq, and Wadi Hasa in relation to raw material
availability and proximity to water sources, i.e.,
factors that vary according to daily and seasonal
mobility patterns. The continuation of theseregional studies should accumulate data regarding the ecological aspects of material variability.
On the other hand, the interpretation of lithic
industries as representing social groups can add
evidence from other material records, such as theassociation of specific types of bone/antler
objects in the Classic Levantine Aurignacianand the composition of imported shells in the
Epipaleolithic industries, although the preservation of organic materials can vary under different
environmental settings.
In depth studies of particular Paleolithic behaviors include the use of fire, the use of space,

West Asia: Paleolithic

hunting behaviors, diets, hunting weapon technology, land-use patterns, burial practices, and creation of symbolic objects. While the synchronic
variability of these behaviors can provide insights
into the repertoire of adaptive strategy and culturalvariability, their diachronic examination can contribute to such issues as the behavioral evolution ofearly Homo populations, the socioeconomic andcognitive aspects of the so-called Upper Paleolithic Revolution and the increasing complexityof subsistence/settlement systems and social structures in the Epipaleolithic period.

Cross-References▶ Abu Hureyra: Agriculture and Domestication▶ Acheulean Industrial Complex▶ African Stone Age▶ ‘Ain Difla Rockshelter▶ Archaic Homo sapiens▶ Dmanisi Hominins and Archaeology▶ East Asia: Paleolithic▶ Europe: Middle to Upper Paleolithic
Transition▶ Fossil Records of Early Modern Humans▶ Handaxes and Biface Technology▶ Homo erectus▶ Homo neanderthalensis▶ Homo sapiens▶ Human Evolution: Theory and Progress▶ Human Evolution: Use of Fire
▶ Hunter-Gatherer Settlement and Mobility▶ Hunter-Gatherer Subsistence Variation andIntensification▶ Hunter-Gatherers, Archaeology of▶ Lithic Technology, Paleolithic▶ Material Culture and Education in
Archaeology▶ Middle East Middle to Upper Paleolithic
Transitional Industries▶ Middle East, Central Asia, and the Indian
Subcontinent: Lower Paleolithic▶ Middle East: Epipaleolithic▶ Mousterian Industry Tradition▶ Neanderthals and Their Contemporaries▶ Oldowan Industrial Complex▶ Out-of-Africa Origins

West Asia: Paleolithic▶ Radiocarbon Dating in Archaeology▶ South Asia: Paleolithic▶ West and Central Asia: Early Homo Fossil
Records▶ Zooarchaeology

References
ALPERSON-AFIL, N. & N. GOREN-INBAR. 2010. The Acheulian site of Gesher Benot Ya‘aqov, Volume II: ancient
flames and controlled use of fire. New York: Springer.
ARMITAGE, S.J., S.A. JASIM, A.E. MARKS, A.G. PARKER,
V.I. USIK & H-P. UERPMANN. 2010. The southernroute “out of Africa”: evidence for an early expansionof modern humans into Arabia. Science 331: 453-456.
BAR-YOSEF, O. 1994. The Lower Paleolithic of the Near
East. Journal of World Prehistory 8(3): 211-265.
BAR-YOSEF, O. & A. BELFER-COHEN. 2010. The Middle toUpper Palaeolithic transition in western Asia, in
K. V. Boyle, C. Gamble & O. Bar-Yosef (ed.) The
Upper Palaeolithic revolution in global perspective:
papers in honour of Sir Paul Mellars: 85-101.
Cambridge: McDonald Institute for ArchaeologicalResearch.
GABUNIA, L., S.C. ANTON, D. LORDKIPANIDZE, A. VEKUA,
A. JUSTUS & C.C. SWISHER III. 2001. Dmanisi anddispersal. Evolutionary Anthropology 10: 158-70.
GORING-MORRIS, N. 1995. Complex hunter/gatherers at theend of the Paleolithic (20,000-10,000 BP), in T. Levy(ed.) The archaeology of society in the Holy Land:141-67. London: Leicester University Press.
GORING-MORRIS, N. & A. BELFER-COHEN. 2006. A hardlook at the “Levantine Aurignacian: how real is thetaxon?, in O. Bar-Yosef & J. Zilhão (ed.) Towards
a definition of the Aurignacian: 297-316. Lisbon:
Instituto Português de Arqueologia.
HENRY, D.O. (ed.) 2004. Neanderthal in the Levant:behavioral organization and the beginnings of humanmodernity. London: Continuum.
HOVERS, E., S. ILANI, O. BAR-YOSEF & B. VANDERMEERSCH.
2003. An early case of color symbolism: ochre use bymodern humans in Qafzeh Cave. Current Anthropology 44(4): 491-522.
LIEBERMAN, D. 1993. The rise and fall of seasonal mobility
among hunter-gatherers: the case of the Southern
Levant. Current Anthropology 34(5): 599-631.
MAHER, L.A., E.B. BANNING & M. CHAZAN. 2011. Oasis or
mirage? Assessing the role of abrupt climate change inthe prehistory of the Southern Levant. Cambridge
Archaeological Journal 21(1): 1-30.
MEIGNEN, L., O. BAR-YOSEF, J.D. SPETH & M.C. STINER.
2006. Middle Paleolithic settlement patterns in theLevant, in E. Hovers & S.L. Kuhn (ed.) Transitions
before the transition: 149-69. New York: Springer.
OLSZEWSKI, D. 2008. The Palaeolithic period, including the
Epipalaeolithic, in R.B. Adams (ed.) Jordan: anarchaeological reader: 35-69. London: Equinox.

7785

W

OLSZEWSKI, D. & H. DIBBLE. 2006. To be or not to be
Aurignacian: the Zagros Upper Paleolithic, in
O. Bar-Yosef & J. Zilhão (ed.) Towards a definitionof the Aurignacian: 355-71. Lisbon: Instituto
Português de Arqueologia.
PIPERNO, D.R., E. WEISS, I. HOLST & D. NADEL. 2004.
Processing of wild cereal grains in the Upper
Palaeolithic revealed by starch grain analysis. Nature
430: 670-3.
RONEN, A. & M. WEINSTEIN-EVRON. (ed.) 2000. Towardmodern humans: the Yabrudian and Micoquian400-50 k-years ago (BAR International series 850).
Oxford: Archaeopress.
ROSE, J.I., V.I. USIK, A.E. MARKS, Y.H. HILBERT, C.S.
GALLETTI, A. PARTON, J.M. GEILING, V. ČERNÝ, M.W.
MORLEY & R.G. ROBERTS. 2011. The Nubian complexof Dhofar, Oman: an African Middle Stone Age industry in southern Arabia. PLoS ONE 6(11): e28239.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0028239
RICHTER, T., A.N. GARRARD, S. ALLOCK & L.A.MAHER.
2011. Interaction before agriculture: exchanging material and sharing knowledge in the final Pleistocene
Levant. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 21(1):
95–114.
SHEA, J.J. 2003. The Middle Paleolithic of the East
Mediterranean Levant. Journal of World Prehistory
17(4): 313-94.
VALLA, F. 1995. The first settled societies – Natufian(12,500-10,200 BP), in T. Levy (ed.) The archaeology
of society in the Holy Land: 169-85. London: Leicester
University Press.

Further Reading
AKAZAWA, T., K. AOKI & O. BAR-YOSEF. (ed.) 1998. Neanderthals and modern humans in western Asia.
New York: Plenum Press.
AKAZAWA, T. & S. MUHESEN. (ed.) 2003. Neanderthal
burials: excavations of the Dederiyeh Cave, Afrin,
Syria. Auckland: KW Publications Ltd.
BALTER, M. 2010. The tangled roots of agriculture. Science
327: 404-6.
BAR-YOSEF, O. & L. MEIGNEN. (ed.) 2007. Kebara Cave,
Mt. Carmel, Israel: the Middle and Upper Paleolithic
archaeology, Part I. Cambridge (MA): Peabody
Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard
University.
BAR-YOSEF, O. & D. PILBEAM. (ed.) 2000. The Middle
and early Upper Paleolithic in southwest Asiaand neighboring regions. Cambridge: Harvard
University.
BAR-YOSEF, O. & F. R. VALLA. (ed.) 1991. The Natufianculture in the Levant (International Monographs in
Prehistory, Archaeological series 1). Ann Arbor(MI): International Monographs in Prehistory.
CHAZAN. M. & L.K. HORWITZ. (ed.) 2007. Holon: a Lower
Paleolithic site in Israel. Cambridge (MA): Peabody
Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard
University.

W

W

7786

DENNELL, R. 2009. The Palaeolithic settlement of Asia
(Cambridge World Archaeology). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
GARROD, D.A.E. & D.M.A. BATE. 1937. The Stone Age ofMount Carmel: excavations at the Wady el-Mughara,
Volume 1. New York: AMS Press.
GILEAD, I. 1991. The Upper Paleolithic period in theLevant. Journal of World Prehistory 5(2): 105-54.
- 1995. The foragers of the Upper Paleolithic period, inT. Levy (ed.) The archaeology of society in the Holy
Land: 124-37. London: Leicester University Press.
GORING-MORRIS, A.N. 1987. At the edge: terminal Pleistocene hunter-gatherers in the Negev and Sinai (BAR
International series 361). Oxford: Archaeopress.
GORING-MORRIS, A.N. & A. BELFER-COHEN. (ed.) 2003.
More than meets the eye: studies on Upper
Palaeolithic diversity in the Near East. Oxford:
Oxbow Books.
HENRY, D.O. (ed.) 1995. Prehistoric cultural ecology andevolution. New York: Plenum Press.
- 1998. The prehistoric archaeology of Jordan (BAR
International series 705). Oxford: Archaeopress.
HOVERS, E. 2009. The lithic assemblages of Qafzeh Cave.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
KUHN, S.L. 2002. Paleolithic archeology in Turkey.
Evolutionary Anthropology 11: 198-210.
LE TENSORER, J.-M., R. JAGHER & M. OTTE. (ed.) 2011. The
Lower and Middle Palaeolithic in the Middle East andneighbouring regions (ERAUL 126). Liège: ERAUL.
NEUVILLE, R. 1951. Le Paléolithique et le Mésolithique duDésert de Judée. Paris: Archives l’Institut dePaléontologie Humaine.
NISHIAKI, Y., Y. KANJO, S. MUHESEN & T. AKAZAWA. 2011a.
Recent progress in Lower and Middle Palaeolithic
research at Dederiyeh Cave, Northwest Syria, in
J.-M. Le Tensorer, R. Jagher & M. Otte (ed.) The
Lower and Middle Palaeolithic in the Middle Eastand neighbouring regions (ERAUL 126): 67-76.
Liège: Université de Liège.
- 2011b. Newly discovered Late Epipalaeolithic lithic
assemblages from Dederiyeh Cave, the Northern
Levant, in E. Healey, S. Campbell & O. Maeda (ed.)
The state of the stone: terminologies, continuities andcontexts in Near Eastern lithics: 79-87. Berlin: ex
oriente.
OLSZEWSKI, D. & H. DIBBLE. (ed.) 1993. The Paleolithic
prehistory of the Zagros-Taurus. Philadelphia: The
University Museum, University of Pennsylvania.
OTTE, M., F. BIBLARI & J. JAUBERT. (ed.) 2009.
Iran Palaeolithic/Le Paléolithique d’Iran (BAR International series 1968). Oxford: Archaeopress.
PETRAGLIA, M.D. & J.I. ROSE. (ed.) 2009. The evolution ofhuman populations in Arabia: paleoenvironments,prehistory and genetics. Dordrecht: Springer.
SHEA, J.J. 2007. Behavioral differences between Middle
and Upper Paleolithic Homo sapiens in the East Mediterranean Levant: the roles of intraspecific competition and dispersal from Africa. Journal of
Anthropological Research 63(4): 449-88.

Western Europe: Historical Archaeology
STINER, M. 2005. The faunas of Hayonim Cave, Israel:
a 200,000 year record of Paleolithic diet, demography
and society. Cambridge (MA): Peabody Museum ofArchaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University.
WENDORF, F. & A.E. MARKS. (ed.) 1975. Problems inprehistory: North Africa and the Levant. Dallas:
Southern Methodist University Press.

Western Europe: Historical
Archaeology
Ludomir R. Lozny
Department of Anthropology, Hunter College,
The City University of New York, New York,NY, USA

Introduction
Archaeology is traditionally divided into two
subdisciplines: prehistoric and historic archaeology. The latter might seem as an ambiguous
subdiscipline of being neither history nor prehistory (Deagan 1988), or prahistory, or protohistory, as it is called in some European countries(France, Germany, Poland, Russia). There isa significant distinction, however, in how
European and American archaeologists understand and practice historical archaeology. The
term is commonly used in the USA, where historical archaeologists study the colonial andpostcolonial times, while European archaeologists prefer using specific terms, such as
postmedieval, industrial, urban, and militaryarchaeology. The term “historical archaeology”
has several meanings but it generally relates toresearching societies living at times for which wehave written records, thus it is about peoples whorecorded themselves and others, who may nothave access to script, in writing and produced
complex cultures. There are, however, two waysof understanding what historical archaeology is
about: broad, favored by many European archaeologists, and narrow, followed by some European
and most American archaeologists. The broader
understanding refers to the methodology of
researching past societies and identifies the