In More than Meets the Eye: Studies on Upper Palaeolithic Diversity in the Near East. A.E. Goring-Morris and A. Belfer-Cohen (eds.). Oxbow Books, David Brown Book Co., CT. 2003:196-208.

Chapter 16.  An Examination of Upper Palaeolithic Flake Technologies in the Marginal Zone of the Levant

Introduction

The marginal zone of the Levant has received considerable attention by researchers of prehistory during the past 30 years, compared to the early part of the 20^th century, when pioneering research was primarily restricted to the Mediterranean core zone.  A wealth of information has been provided by discoveries in the Negev, Sinai, and western Jordan.  While new excavations continue to provide important information, there is still plenty to be learned from prior findings.  Arguably, it has become necessary to restudy some of these assemblages, because our knowledge about them is not sufficient to address many of the pressing issues in Levantine Upper Palaeolithic research.  The following analysis takes another look at a group of assemblages that were first published some 25 years ago.  While the primary research objective when these assemblages were discovered was to create a descriptive framework to include the new findings, the impetus for their restudy today is different.  The current challenge is to clarify some aspects of the original frameworks, and to test the validity of their implications.  This is attempted by fashioning a methodology that derives information relevant to current issues of interest to Upper Palaeolithic research, thus furthering the utility of the material.  To this end, the analysis proceeds as follows: (1) by tailoring the analytical procedures to issues concerning the concept of ‘Levantine Aurignacian’, (2) by comparing aspects of the sample group with published information from assemblages located in different phytogeographic zones, and (3) by using different frames of reference (e.g., environmental variables) to observe higher-order derivative patterning.

Background and Research Objectives

Beyond sharing the same name and broad techno-typological similarities, the scale of affinity among assemblages currently labeled ‘Levantine Aurignacian’ is largely unknown, particularly between those from the core and marginal zones, but also within each area.  The term ‘Aurignacian’ was originally used for Levantine assemblages on the basis of their similarity to the European Upper Palaeolithic (Garrod 1953).  In 1969 at the London Conference, a decision was made to preface the term Aurignacian with ‘Levantine’ in order to emphasize its specific characteristics at sites confined to the central and northern Levant (Copeland 1970: 106; Gilead 1981: 339).  In an attempt to describe new data arising from extensive fieldwork in the southern Levant during the mid-1970’s, Gilead (1981) and Marks (1981) independently proposed an expanded descriptive framework, which suggested that two traditions co-existed in the Levant: (1) the ‘Levantine Aurignacian’, and (2) the ‘Ahmarian’.  In the broadest sense, the two-tradition framework described the Levantine Aurignacian as a flake-dominated tradition and the Ahmarian as being dominated by blades and bladelets.  More specifically, southern, marginal zone assemblages were classified as Levantine Aurignacian on the basis of a technology that involved the use of carination, the primary production of flakes that were used for tool blanks (Marks 1977b introduction, 1981), and a typology that was dominated by endscrapers and burins (Gilead 1981).  Both Gilead (1981) and Marks (1981) described the Ahmarian as an elaborate blade-bladelet technology with a toolkit composed mainly of retouched and backed blades, as well as el-Wad points.

This study presents an analysis of seven assemblages from the marginal zone, specifically from the central and western Negev highlands (Figure 16. 1).  Each of these assemblages was excavated during the Central Negev Project (1969-1983), directed by A. E. Marks.  Reports for these assemblages were published in the first two volumes of Prehistory and Paleoenvironments in the Central Negev (Marks 1976c; 1977a).  Five of the assemblages considered for this study are located in the Avdat/Aqev area of the Central Negev Highlands.  Ein Aqev (D31) is situated in the Nahal Aqev, and consists of 60 cm of stratified cultural deposits.  A hearth from Ein Aqev was radiometrically dated to the end of the Upper Palaeolithic (ca. 17,500 bp) (Marks 1976a; Appendix 1).  Flanking the rim of the Nahal Zin canyon, Sde Divshon (D27B) is a surface and in situ concentration of lithic artefacts covering an area of ca. 800 m².  While the lithic assemblage was classified as Ahmarian by its excavator, Gilead (1981) considered it to be characteristic of the Levantine Aurignacian (compare Gilead 1981: 340, Table 1; Marks 1981: 347, Table 2).  Excavations and surface collections at three other assemblages in the Central Negev Highlands, Arkov (D22A), D27A, and D18 revealed abundant surface and shallow subsurface lithic artefacts.  These assemblages were incorporated into the two-tradition framework as marginal-zone representatives of the Levantine Aurignacian (Gilead 1981; Marks 1981).

In addition, two surface assemblages studied for this analysis, K9 and G11, were found on Har Harif, atop the highest plateau in the central Negev Highlands.  These sites possess a flake technology, and a toolkit with high percentages of ‘Aurignacian’ elements (carinated scrapers and burins) (Larson and Marks 1977).