Settlement Dynamics of the Middle Paleolithic and Middle Stone Age Volume IV Edited by Nicholas J. Conard and Anne Delagnes Tübingen Publications in Prehistory Kerns Verlag Tübingen Table of Contents | Foreword Nicholas J. Conard and Anne Delagnes, Series Editors Chapter 1 | Advances in the Study of Settlement Dynamics Nicholas J. Conard, Anne Delagnes Chapter 2 127 | Middle Paleolithic Variability in the Near East as a Reflection of Different Settlement Dynamics: A Comparative Study of Umm el Tlel, Yabrud I (Syria) and Ksar ‘Akil (Lebanon) Marina Pagli Chapter 9 105 | Changes in Land Use and Occupation Intensity at the Onset of the Middle Paleolithic? A View from Tabun Cave, Israel Amy E. Clark Chapter 8 77 | Paleolithic Assemblages from the Central Region of the Emirate of Sharjah (UAE) and Implications for Human Settlement Dynamics in Southern Arabia Knut Bretzke Chapter 7 47 | Développement sur une discontinuité technique dans la séquence Howiesons Poort de l’abri Diepkloof (Afrique du Sud) Guillaume Porraz, Marina Igreja, Pierre-Jean Texier Chapter 6 27 | Coastal Adaptations and Settlement Systems on the Cape and Horn of Africa during the Middle Stone Age Manuel Will, Andrew W. Kandel, Nicholas J. Conard Chapter 5 11 | High-Resolution Geoarchaeology and Settlement Dynamics at the Middle Stone Age Sites of Diepkloof and Sibudu, South Africa Christopher E. Miller Chapter 4 9 | Examples of the Use of Space 77,000 to 62,000 Years Ago at Sibudu, South Africa Lyn Wadley Chapter 3 7 145 | Middle Paleolithic Settlement on the Iranian Central Plateau Saman Heydari-Guran, Elham Ghasidian, Nicholas J. Conard 171 Chapter 10 | Neanderthals at the Open-Air Site of Bojnice III: The Issue of “Missing” Artifacts Petr Neruda, Ľubomíra Kaminská 205 Chapter 11 | Landscape and Cave Use in the Middle Paleolithic of Bockstein: New Results from the Lithic and Faunal Analysis Berrin Çep, Petra Krönneck 227 Chapter 12 | Neanderthal Behaviors from a Spatio-Temporal Perspective: An Interdisciplinary Approach to Interpret Archaeological Assemblages María Gema Chacón, Amèlia Bargalló, Maria Joana Gabucio, Florent Rivals, Manuel Vaquero 253 Chapter 13 | Middle Paleolithic Population Dynamics: A Question of Scale of Analysis? The Example of the Early Weichselian (MIS 5d-a) in the Paris Basin Héloïse Koehler 295 Chapter 14 | Hunting Camp at the End of the Middle Paleolithic at Havrincourt “Les Bosquets” (Pas-de-Calais, France) Emilie Goval, David Hérisson, Emilie Claud, Jean-Luc Locht, Pierre Antoine, Sylvie Coutard 311 Chapter 15 | Middle Paleolithic Mobility Patterns and Settlement System Variability in the Eastern Cantabrian Region (Iberian Peninsula): A GIS-Based Resource Patching Model Joseba Rios-Garaizar, Alejandro García Moreno 329 Chapter 16 | Insights into Eurasian Middle Paleolithic Settlement Dynamics: The Palimpsest Problem Jorge Machado, Carolina Mallol, Cristo M. Hernández 361 Chapter 17 | Hafting and Site Function in the European Middle Paleolithic Veerle Rots List of Contributors 383 411 Chapter 8 | Middle Paleolithic Variability in the Near East as a Reflection of Different Settlement Dynamics: A Comparative Study of Umm el Tlel, Yabrud I (Syria) and Ksar ’Akil (Lebanon) Marina Pagli Abstract. The Near Eastern Middle Paleolithic is a technocomplex characterized by broad patterns in the succession of lithic industries through time, but also by significant technological diversity in some contexts. This chapter presents a geographic interpretation of such diversity based on comparison of the Umm el Tlel, Yabrud I and Ksar ‘Akil sequences. Within the paleoenvironmental mosaic of the Near East, each of these sites is located in a specific environment and allows us to address the question of technological change in different contexts. In these three sequences, in addition to a unique reduction system—Levallois—each industry shows evidence of different objectives and methods. Sites in the inland steppe region (Umm el Tlel and Yabrud I) show several technological changes through time, supporting significant technocultural variability for the populations occupying these sites. In contrast, little variation can be observed throughout the Ksar ‘Akil sequence. The progressive way in which change occurs suggests continuity of a single technological system, and the succession of populations sharing the same knowledge base. This chapter proposes that these different patterns of change through time are the expression of occupation patterns in different areas: a high degree of mobility for populations on the inland steppe region versus more limited territories in the coastal region, facilitating exchanges and communication between groups. Résumé. Le Paléolithique moyen du Proche-Orient est un technocomplexe caractérisé par des grandes tendances dans la succession des industries lithiques dans le temps, mais aussi par une diversité technique importante dans certains contextes. Nous proposons une lecture géographique de cette diversité à partir de la comparaison des séquences d’Umm el Tlel, Yabrud I et Ksar ‘Akil. A l’intérieur de la mosaïque paléoenvironnementale qui caractérise le Proche-Orient, chacun de ces sites est localisé dans un milieu particulier et permet d’appréhender la question des changements techniques dans des contextes différents. Dans ces trois séquences, au delà de l’existence d’un système de débitage unique, le système Levallois, chaque industrie témoigne d’objectifs et de méthodes différentes. Les sites de l’aire intérieure steppique (Umm el Settlement Dynamics of the Middle Paleolithic and Middle Stone Age, Volume IV, ed. by Nicholas J. Conard and Anne Delagnes. Tübingen Publications in Prehistory. © 2015, Kerns Verlag, Tübingen, ISBN: 978-3-935751-22-3. 145 Tlel et Yabrud I) attestent de plusieurs changements techniques dans le temps, qui plaident pour une variabilité techno-culturelle importante des populations qui ont occupé les sites. Au contraire, à Ksar ‘Akil, peu de variations caractérisent la séquence. La façon progressive dont intervient le changement suggère la continuité d’un même système technique, et la succession de populations partageant les mêmes connaissances. Nous proposons que ces différentes modalités de changement dans le temps soient l’expression de modalités d’occupation de l’espace distinctes: une forte mobilité des populations qui occupaient la zone intérieure steppique s’oppose à une occupation de territoires plus restreints dans la zone côtière, facilitant les échanges et les communications entre les groupes. IntroductIon This chapter proposes a geographic approach to Near Eastern Middle Paleolithic variability, focusing in particular on Syria and Lebanon. The objective of the study is to consider the question of technological change in different geographic areas based on comparison of long stratigraphic sequences. In this region of the Mediterranean Basin, the definition of Middle Paleolithic variability follows a tripartite model based on the stratigraphic succession seen in the Tabun sequence (Israel) (fig. 1) (Garrod and Bate 1937; Copeland 1975, 1981; Jelinek 1981, 1982; Bar-Yosef 1998). It is commonly accepted that this model reflects the broad patterns of a technological reality that is much more complex. Each facies defined by the layers at Tabun shows a certain degree of technological variability (Meignen 1995, 1998a; Hovers 1998, 2009; Goren-Inbar and Belfer-Cohen 1998; Meignen and Bar-Yosef n.d.). In addition, the application of a single model of change in lithic industries throughout the Near East contrasts with the existence of regional differences in some contexts (Copeland 1981; Marks 1992), or even with the existence of industries that cannot be attributed to a specific facies or easily included in this model (Quneitra: Goren-Inbar 1990; Umm el Tlel: Boëda and Muhesen 1993; Boëda et al. 1998, 2001; Hummal: Hauck 2011; Ein Qashish: Hovers et al. 2008). Such technological diversity occurs in a highly diversified environment, one of the most striking characteristics of the Near Eastern area (Bar-Yosef 1992; Goring-Morris et al. 2009). The relationship and influence of the topography and climate of the region results in different phytogeographic zones, and in a “mosaic” system composed of many different ecological niches over relatively small distances (GoringMorris et al. 2009; Hours 1992). This environmental diversity includes a littoral zone with Mediterranean climate and vegetation, rich in springs and permanent rivers. To the south and east, the inland zone is characterized by a gradual decrease in rainfall and vegetal cover and a transition via the intermediary of a steppe region to a desert environment (Hours 1992; Sanlaville 2000; Goring-Morris et al. 2009) (fig. 2). Paleoenvironmental reconstructions have shown that the environment changed due to Pleistocene climatic fluctuations. Speleothem analysis shows that the limit between the Mediterranean and semi-arid zones has often shifted (Bar-Matthews et al. 2003; Vaks et al. 2006). However, the main biogeographic zones remained relatively stable during the Middle Paleolithic, with variations in degree (see paleoenvironmental syntheses in Hovers 2009; Pagli 2013). 146 Pagli | Settlement Dynamics IV Fig. 1. Location of Middle Paleolithic sites in the near East (base map, H. david ©IFAPo). Chap. 8 | Middle Paleolithic Variability in the Near East 147 Fig. 2. Phytogeographic zones of the near East. Adaptation of a map created by n. Goring-Morris (Goring-Morris et al. 2009, Fig. 10.2). Faunal and paleobotanical data evidence fairly marked regional paleoenvironmental differences in the different Near Eastern zones. During the entire Middle Paleolithic, the coastal and interior zones represented two very different environments: the first had meso- or xero-Mediterranean conditions while the second was arid or semi-arid with fluctuations toward more humid conditions during certain periods. In the Lebanese coastal zone, faunal associations are typical of a Mediterranean environment, and humid climate and forested environment are associated with Mousterian occupations (Hooijer 1961; Garrard 1998). However, more arid conditions are documented during glacial periods (Gasse et al. 2011). In the Israeli coastal zone, Mousterian sequences show the predominance of forested/temperate or open environment fauna of Mediterranean Batha type (Tchernov 1992), varying in proportion by period (Tchernov 1992; Rabinovich and Hovers 2004; Speth and Tchernov 2007). Paleobotanical evidence also indicates that Middle Paleolithic vegetation distribution in the Near Eastern area could be similar to the modern one (Madella et al. 2002). In contrast, on the Syrian steppe, faunal and palynological associations document arid and semi-arid conditions (Griggo 2004; Courty et al. 2006; Schmid 2007). 148 Pagli | Settlement Dynamics IV While the existence of regional variability in Near Eastern Middle Paleolithic cultures is accepted, the objective here is to explore the question of technological diversity in relation to these diverse environments, using a comparative approach between coastal and inland sites. New research perspectives on Middle Paleolithic variability in this area are opened by this comparison. To facilitate interpretation of space, in the framework of this study, we have divided the Near East into northern and southern zones for purely descriptive reasons. MIddLE PALEoLItHIc tEcHnoLoGIcAL vArIAbILIty In tHE nEAr EAst Since the first research was conducted, scholars have highlighted an important component of the Levallois reduction system in the Near Eastern Mousterian, initially termed Levalloiso-Mousterian (Garrod and Bate 1937). Classification of these Levallois industries throughout the history of research has been based on two elements: the distinction between industries with elongated blanks and industries with short blanks, and the distinction between industries with triangular blanks (points and triangular flakes) and non-triangular blanks (rectangular and oval flakes). A synthesis of technological and chronological data available for Near Eastern Middle Paleolithic assemblages shows the broad patterns in technological change. Although the coexistence of different productions systems—Levallois and laminar—during an early phase of the Middle Paleolithic has been demonstrated (Meignen 2011; Le Tensorer et al. 2011), after the middle of MIS 6, the Levallois system appears to be predominant and almost exclusively attested across the Near East (fig. 3). Technological diversity during this period is thus based on variability in methods and objectives within this production system. A first group of Levallois industries is characterized by flake production, i.e., nonelongated and non-triangular blanks (fig. 3). A recurrent centripetal or preferential method is associated with such production (Hovers 2009; Copeland 1998). The coastal zone in Israel and Lebanon is particularly rich in such assemblages, while they are absent in the southernmost part of the Near East. Chronological data show a significant concentration during MIS 5. These industries have been documented at Qafzeh (Hovers 2009), Hayonim, Upper E (Meignen 1998b), probably at Skhul (BarYosef 1998) and Tabun, layer C (Jelinek 1982). On the Lebanese coast, they are found at Ras El Kelb (Copeland 1998), Nahr Ibrahim (Copeland and Yazbeck 2002), Naamé (Fleish 1970), Ras Lados and Ras Beyrouth (Copeland 1975, 1981) (fig.1, 3). This group of Levallois industries focusing on flake production is also observed at the end of the Middle Paleolithic sequences: at the top of Kebara (Meignen and Bar-Yosef 1991, n.d.) and Ksar ‘Akil (Marks and Volkman 1986; Meignen and Bar-Yosef 2004) sequences, and in a late phase of the Middle Paleolithic, at Quneitra (Goren-Inbar 1990) and Umm el Tlel (Al Sakhel 2004) (fig. 1, 3). A second group of Levallois industries aims at the production of triangular blanks (points and triangular flakes) obtained using a recurrent unidirectional convergent method (Meignen 1995; Boëda et al. 1990). These assemblages have a strong chronological trend because they are generally attested during Late Middle Paleolithic (MIS 4 and beginning of MIS 3) (fig. 3). Their spatial distribution is very broad in the Near East, encompassing both the coastal and inland zones. In the southern coastal zone, they have been documented at Kebara (Meignen and Bar-Yosef 1991, n.d.) and Chap. 8 | Middle Paleolithic Variability in the Near East 149 Fig. 3. schematic overview of near Eastern Middle Paleolithic variability: trends in Levallois blank production. data based on tL dates or on available dates. sources in the text and: Akazawa and Muhesen 2002 (dederiyeh); dockall 1997 (nahr Ibrahim); Gilead 1995 (Farah); Le tensorer et al. 2011 (Hummal 6-7); Weinstein-Evron et al. 2012 (Misliya). For techno-cultural and chronological discussions see Pagli 2013. Amud (Hovers 1998); in the inland zone of the southern Near East at Tor Faraj and Tor Sabiha (Henry 2003); and in the northern coastal zone at Ksar ‘Akil (Marks and Volkman 1986; Meignen and Bar-Yosef 2004) (fig. 1, 3). In the northern inland zone, they are found at the top of the Umm el Tlel sequence (Boëda et al. 1998, 2001), Hummal (Hauck 2011) and Douara (Al Sakhel 2004) (fig. 1, 3). Some variability is visible in this group of industries, related to the methods of Levallois production used to obtain triangular blanks, unidirectional convergent or based on centripetal or bidirectional removals (Boëda et al. 1998); their volumetric traits, including short, broad-based points (Meignen 1998a) or “leaf-shaped” points (Watanabe 1968; Meignen 1998a); and the techno-metric traits of the assemblage, that may be particularly small (e.g., at Keoue: Nishiaki and Copeland 1992). During this post-MIS 6 phase, with a predominantly Levallois production system, we also observe industries aimed at producing elongated blanks (fig. 3). These indus- 150 Pagli | Settlement Dynamics IV tries are especially found in the inland zone: to the south they are documented at the sites of Nahal Aqev (Munday 1977) and ‘Ain Difla (Mustafa and Clark 2007). To the north, several layers at Umm el Tlel (Boëda 2013), Hummal (Hauck 2011) and Douara (Al Sakhel 2004) show an emphasis on the Levallois production of laminar blanks (fig. 1, 3). They are, in contrast, absent on the Lebanese coast and, for this more recent phase, the Israeli coast. A laminar system may be associated with the Levallois system in these industries, but does not appear to be predominant (see synthesis in Meignen 2011). sPAtIAL APProAcHEs to tHE nEAr EAstErn MIddLE PALEoLItHIc Space has always been a key element in the description and interpretation of this technological variability. The geographic variability of the industries and their differential distribution across the region have often been pointed out (Crew 1975; Henry 1995; Meignen 1998a), as well as the existence of different “typo-cultural” areas (Hours 1992; Copeland 1981). In these approaches to space, reconstruction of settlement dynamics and territorial behavior is probably one of the most developed in the Near East. Specific patterns of mobility are thus reflected in the Mousterian occupation in the southern Near East (in the Negev: Marks 1989; in Jordan, with transhumant mobility: Henry 2003). Geographic and diachronic variations in the use of space have been described in the central part of the Near East (Conard et al. 2010; Dietl 2010) and in the northern inland zone in the El Kowm Basin (Rasse and Boëda 2006; Le Tensorer 2001). For the Lebanese coast, the hypothesis of a “coastal network” with a single dynamic of occupation of space has been proposed for Middle Paleolithic sites (Yazbeck 2005-2006). In the southern coastal zone, change in territorial behavior has been noted between the early and late phases of the Middle Paleolithic (Meignen et al. 2006; Hovers 2001, 2009). In this perspective, the technological variability observed during the Late Middle Paleolithic would be directly linked to a decrease in the size of territories occupied by the populations, influenced by demographic and social constraints (Hovers 2001, 2009). The study presented here is a continuation of these approaches and aims to address the role space played in lithic industry variability and, in particular, in the study of technological change through time. To this end, three sites were selected for comparison: they are found in three different environments, making it possible to address the questions of technological variability across space. In addition, they all have long stratigraphic sequences to approach the issue of change through time and the regional history of the human groups that successively occupied each site. sItEs sELEctEd The open-air site of Umm el Tlel (El Kowm Basin) (fig. 4), in the semi-arid steppe zone of Central Syria (fig. 1), is found in an area where aridity is attenuated by the presence of artesian springs. The site is formed by a succession of occupations around a lake or backwaters, attributed to the Mousterian with Levallois reduction (Boëda and Muhesen 1993; Boëda et al. 1998, 2001). For the Late Middle Paleolithic occupa- Chap. 8 | Middle Paleolithic Variability in the Near East 151 Fig. 4. umm el tlel (photo, mission archéologique franco-syrienne d’umm el tlel). tions considered here, paleoenvironmental markers show the transition from an arid steppe (occupations from complex VI3) correlated to the onset of MIS 4, to cooler and more humid conditions (occupations in complex V2) (Boëda et al. 2001; Emery-Barbier 1998; Griggo 2004; Courty et al. 2006). TL dates for the Late Middle Paleolithic sequence (complexes VI and V) range between 71 ± 4 BP for two of the intermediate layers of complex VI3 (VI3 c and d), and 68 ± 6 BP for the last layer of complex V (V2βa) (Boëda et al. 2008). The Yabrud I rockshelter (fig. 5) is located in southern Syria at ca. 1400 m asl (fig. 1). It has yielded an imposing sequence in which the Mousterian occupations with Levallois reduction are found at the top (Rust 1950). Based on the available sedimentary data, the Mousterian occupations are found in fine uniform sediments formed of cave debris and without major breaks in the sequence (Farrand 1965; de Heinzelin 1966). Paleoenvironmental data are not entirely reliable for this site, but reconstruction of an arid climate, with an alternation between steppe and desert vegetation, has been recently proposed for the Upper Pleistocene of the region (Dodonov et al. 2006). These data are consistent with the positioning of Yabrud on the edge of the Syrian desert in a high-altitude context. The Ksar ‘Akil rockshelter is located on the Lebanese coast (fig. 1, 6) and has yielded a long sequence in which the Mousterian occupations with Levallois reduction are found at the base (layers XXXVI-XXVIA) (Ewing 1947). The stratigraphic sequence yielding Mousterian levels is composed of fluviatile alluvial deposits at the base (layers XXXVI-XXVIII), and concentrations of limestone debris interstratified or mixed in red clay layers (layers XXVII-XXVI) (Wright 1962; Farrand 1979). Faunal associations indicate a predominance of woodland species typical of a Mediter- 152 Pagli | Settlement Dynamics IV Fig. 5. yabrud I rockshelter. Fig. 6. Ksar ‘Akil rockshelter. Chap. 8 | Middle Paleolithic Variability in the Near East 153 ranean environment with a damper climate than the present (Hooijer 1961; Kersten 1992). However, some layers provide evidence of climatic change toward drier conditions and an open environment (Kersten 1992). U/Th dates were obtained from bone material in layers XXVIB (G-88174: 47 ± 9 and G-88173: 19 ± 5) and XXXII (G88177: 51 ± 4 and G-88178: 49 ± 5) (Van der Plicht and Van der Wijk 1989). Two recent AMS dates on marine shells from layer XXVIII gave an age between 43.8 and 42.5, and between 44.3 and 43 cal BP (respectively OxA-20491 and OxA-25656: Douka et al. 2013). These dates suggest an attribution of the sequence to a late phase of the Middle Paleolithic. coMPArAtIvE AnALysIs Comparative analysis is based on the reconstruction of chaînes opératoires and operatory schemes in Levallois production (Boëda 1994; Boëda et al. 1990; Meignen 1995). The Levallois production system is predominant in all of the assemblages in the three sequences. Levallois cores are always abundant and the proportion of Levallois blanks is significant in all of the assemblages (between 34 and 62% of the assemblages). A laminar production system is observed in some assemblages that contain a small number of non-Levallois cores and blades (Umm el Tlel – V2πb; Yabrud I – 5, 3 and 2; and Ksar ‘Akil – 27A and B, 26A and B). This is, however, minor in relation to the Levallois system. According to this criterion, a strong continuity is observed between the three sequences, which all belong to the same technocultural group: the human groups occupying these three sites shared a single system of knowledge. Variability can be seen when one takes into consideration the objectives of Levallois production and the methods employed to attain them. The main characteristics of the Levallois system are the diversity of blanks produced (Boëda 1994) and recurrence results in the production of different blanks. Using Boëda’s (1994) definition, we have identified three types of Levallois blanks: flakes, triangular blanks including points and triangular flakes, and laminar flakes. In this study, we use the term “laminar flake” for Levallois blanks for which the length/width ratio is greater than or equal to 2. The term “blade” is used only for products detached in a laminar system. These three types of Levallois blanks (flakes, triangular blanks including points and triangular flakes, and laminar flakes) are always present in each of the industries (Table 1). However, one or more types are dominant in each, linked to an emphasis on the production of certain kinds of blanks. umm el tlel and yabrud I Based on these criteria, assemblages focusing on laminar flake production can be distinguished: these blanks are predominant at Umm el Tlel – V2πb (45.3% of Levallois blanks) and Yabrud I – 2 (39.3% of Levallois blanks) (Table 1). At Umm el Tlel – V2πb, laminar flakes have convergent or non-convergent distal ends (fig. 7, 18-20) and are associated with the production of elongated points (fig. 7, 21). At Yabrud I – 2, the operatory scheme to produce elongated blanks focuses near-exclusively on laminar flakes with a convergent distal end (fig. 8, 1-4). Analysis of production methods as seen on cores and the direction of removal scars on Levallois blanks (Table 2) shows 154 Pagli | Settlement Dynamics IV that these assemblages were produced mainly by recurrent unidirectional parallel and convergent methods and by a recurrent bidirectional method. In other assemblages, the proportion of laminar flakes and Levallois flakes suggests the existence of mixed operatory schemes focusing on two distinct objectives. These assemblages are present at Umm el Tlel – V2πa (fig. 7, 15-17) and V2Δa non pat. (fig. 7, 5-8), where the production of these two kinds of blanks is accompanied by a near-absence of triangular blanks (Table 1). The methods employed are different for the two layers (Table 2): exclusively recurrent unidirectional parallel for V2πa and recurrent unidirectional parallel and preferential for V2Δa non pat. The latter method is evidenced by the large number of type I Levallois removals (Boëda 1994) (Table 2) and Levallois preferential flake cores. A dominance of flakes is attested in several of the assemblages studied (Table 1): at Umm el Tlel – V2Δa pat. (fig. 7, 9-14) and V2γ/Δa (Al Sakhel 2004), and at Yabrud I – 5 (fig. 8, 14-19), where the principal objective is represented by non-elongated and non-convergent blanks. Triangular blanks are nearly absent in these assemblages (Table 1). In Umm el Tlel – V2Δa pat. and Yabrud I – 5, two recurrent methods were Table 1. variation in Levallois blanks in the sequences studied. In bold: the main trends of production. débordant flakes are excluded. sources from Pagli 2013 and for umm el tlel: Al sakhel 2004 (vI3c’ and v2 γ/Δa); Lourdeau 2011 (vI3a’); boëda et al. 1998 (vI3b’); boëda et al. 2001 (vI3b’1); bonilauri 2010 (vI3d’). Umm el Tlel Yabroud I Ksar ‘Akil Layers Flakes Triangular blanks Laminar flakes Total v2 βa 43.3% 30.1% 26.6% 485 v2 γ/Δa 78.9% 8.8% 12.3% 115 v2 Δa np. 48.7% 10.4% 40.9% 342 v2 Δa p. 73.3% 5.5% 21.2% 255 v2 πa 49.0% 13.7% 37.3% 51 v2 πb 31% 23.7% 45.3% 342 vI3a' 35.9% 40.7% 23.4% 432 vI3b' 17% 61% 22% 931 ca vI3b'1 21% 43% 32% - vI3c' 35,1% 42.9% 22% 373 vI3d' 38.4% 36% 25.6% 606 2 25.3% 35.4% 39.3% 229 3 30.8% 48.4% 20.8% 308 4 25.9% 53.2% 20.9% 436 5 51.4% 22.3% 26.3% 350 6 40.1% 42.7% 17.2% 232 XXvIA 71.5% 11.7% 16.8% 137 XXvIb 68.9% 18% 13.2% 228 XXvIIA 65.2% 17.1% 17.6% 187 XXvIIb 46.9% 32.1% 21% 371 XXvIIIA 40.8% 35.4% 23.9% 314 XXvIII 39% 33.4% 27.5% 305 Chap. 8 | Middle Paleolithic Variability in the Near East 155 Fig. 7. selected pieces from umm el tlel (drawings: 1-4: E. boëda and M. reduron; 5-21: M. Pagli). 1-4: v2βa; 5-8: v2Δa non pat.; 9-14: v2Δa pat.; 15-17: v2πa; 18-21: v2πb. 156 Pagli | Settlement Dynamics IV Fig. 8. selected pieces from yabrud I (drawings: 1-10; 13-23: M. Pagli; 11-12: t. Frank, 2004). 1-4: layer 2; 5-8: layer 3; 9-13: layer 4; 14-19: layer 5; 20-23: layer 6. Chap. 8 | Middle Paleolithic Variability in the Near East 157 Table 2. variation in Levallois production methods in the sequences studied, according to dorsal scar direction on Levallois blanks. In bold: the main trends of production. débordant flakes are excluded. sources from Pagli 2013 and for umm el tlel: Al sakhel 2004 (v2 γ/Δa). Umm el Tlel Yabroud I Ksar ‘Akil Layers Type I removals Unidirecional parallel Bidirecional Unidirecional convergent Centripetal Total v2 βa 22.1% 28.1% 12.3% 34.9% 2.7% 602 v2 γ/Δa 37.1% 34.8% 19.6% 4.7% 2.6% 342 v2 Δa np. 25.9% 44.6% 19.4% 8.6% 1.4% 139 v2 Δa p. 12.2% 46.2% 10.3% 3.2% 28.2% 312 v2 πa 5.4% 51.1% 18.5% 13% 12% 92 v2 πb 8.7% 36.3% 27% 24.4% 3.6% 471 2 11.5% 36% 15.5% 30.6% 6.5% 278 3 12.1% 26.9% 7.4% 46.7% 6.9% 405 4 16.3% 19.9% 13.9% 47.8% 2.1% 563 5 11% 27.6% 6.8% 26.5% 28% 471 6 13.4% 30% 12.5% 36.1% 8% 313 XXvIA 12.3% 34.2% 25.2% 5.2% 23.2% 155 XXvIb 8% 34.9% 8.4% 10.9% 37.8% 275 XXvIIA 10.6% 49.3% 5.8% 15% 19.3% 207 XXvIIb 4.5% 54.2% 4.1% 28.9% 8.4% 443 XXvIIIA 5.6% 49.1% 3.7% 31% 10.6% 377 XXvIII 6% 54.7% 2.4% 31.7% 5.1% 369 used: recurrent unidirectional parallel and recurrent centripetal (Table 2), marking a unique association in the two sequences. Umm el Tlel – V2γ/Δa shows other production methods – recurrent unidirectional parallel and preferential – in continuity with the preceding industry. The final group is represented by industries in which the Levallois system focuses either on exclusive production of triangular blanks or a mixed production of flakes and triangular blanks. Triangular blanks are exclusively produced using specific operatory schemes at Umm el Tlel – layers in complex VI3 (Boëda et al. 1998, 2001; Al Sakhel 2004; Bonilauri 2010; Lourdeau 2011), and Yabrud I – 4 and 3 (fig. 8, 5-13). In these assemblages, triangular blanks represent 36-61% of the Levallois blanks (Table 1). The proportion of these blanks and the large number of Levallois cores for triangular blanks suggest the existence of operatory schemes entirely devoted toward these products, among which the utilization of the recurrent unidirectional convergent method is particularly common (Table 2). The occurrence of outrepassant backed flakes (Meignen 1995) with convergent dorsal scars is related to this specific operatory scheme. 158 Pagli | Settlement Dynamics IV Triangular blanks are, in contrast, associated with a high proportion of flakes at Umm el Tlel – V2βa and Yabrud I – 6 (Table 1, fig. 7, 1-4 and fig. 8, 20-23). In these assemblages, analysis of Levallois blanks and cores allows reconstruction of several operatory schemes each focusing on the production of different blank types, convergent and non-convergent. The direction of removal scars on Levallois blanks shows that the very common recurrent unidirectional convergent method is associated with other methods producing non-convergent flakes: recurrent unidirectional parallel for Yabrud I – 6 and recurrent unidirectional parallel and preferential for Umm el Tlel – V2βa (Table 2). Considering technometric traits, the assemblages with particularly small blanks can be isolated (Yabrud I – 5 and Umm el Tlel – V2Δa pat.), with an average length for Levallois production of 3.6 and 3.2 cm, respectively (fig. 7, 9-14; fig. 8, 14-19). These assemblages document the existence of “micro-Mousterian” assemblages in the Near East (Rust 1950). At Umm el Tlel, the dimensions of this industry do not appear to be related to raw material constraints, the acquisition strategies of which did not change from those observed for older layers (Pagli 2013). Other factors, functional and/or cultural, should be proposed to explain the small size of these blanks. Ksar ‘Akil In the Ksar ‘Akil sequence, analysis has shown that the assemblages in the lower layers (XXVIII, XXVIIIA and XXVIIB) feature a Levallois system focusing on the production of flakes and triangular blanks (fig. 9, 11-23). These two kinds of Levallois blanks are both present in significant proportions (Table 1), and were produced using recurrent unidirectional, parallel and convergent methods (Table 2). The operatory scheme for triangular blanks produces in majority leaf-shaped forms in layers XXVIII and XXVIIIA (fig. 9, 20-21 and 16-17). In contrast, broad-based triangular blanks are more common in layer XXVIIB (fig. 9, 11-13). In the upper layers (XXVIIA, XXVIB and XXVIA), a gradual decrease in triangular blanks is offset by an increase in flakes that become generally predominant at the top of the sequence (layer XXVIA) (Table 1). With respect to methods, the decrease in use of the unidirectional convergent method is offset by a gradual increase in recurrent centripetal and bidirectional methods (Table 2). Technological analysis shows a series of technical changes in the sequences at Umm el Tlel and Yabrud I between the different industries related to the Levallois blanks predominant and the methods used (fig. 10). These changes are observed in the layers in complex V2 at Umm el Tlel and between layers 6, 5, 4 and 2 at Yabrud I. In contrast, technological continuity links other assemblages, such as the layers in complex VI3 at Umm el Tlel and layers 4 and 3 at Yabrud I (fig. 6). Conversely, the technological analysis of the assemblages at Ksar ‘Akil demonstrates that this sequence is characterized by technological groups of industries in continuity and by gradual changes (fig. 6). IMPLIcAtIons For sEttLEMEnt dynAMIcs These three sequences have yielded assemblages with characteristics reflecting the variability in Mousterian industries with Levallois production in the Near East. The Chap. 8 | Middle Paleolithic Variability in the Near East 159 Fig. 9. selected pieces from Ksar ‘Akil (drawings: 1-10; 12-23: M. Pagli; 11: Marks and volkman 1986). 1-3: layer 26A; 4-6: layer 26b; 7-10: layer 27A; 11-15: layer 27b; 16-19: layer 28A; 20-23: layer 28. 160 Pagli | Settlement Dynamics IV Fig. 10. technical changes and continuities in the sequences studied. Chap. 8 | Middle Paleolithic Variability in the Near East 161 Levallois production system constitutes an element of technological continuity throughout the three sequences. However, changes in the operatory schemes, methods and production objectives reflect very different technical knowledge bases. Such conceptual variability through time supports the successive occupations of groups with different technical systems, which are thus characterized by different technical cultures. Such technical cultures are related to the regional macro-groups observable in the Near East (industries with triangular blanks, flake, laminar blanks, micro-flakes, etc.) and attest to the circulation of human groups and/or ideas across the territory. Diachronic interpretation of the occupations highlights the fact that the succession of the technological facies is different in each area. However, analysis of the sequences in terms of continuities and discontinuities has demonstrated that their main difference resides in the dynamic of changes between technological facies. The Umm el Tlel sequence presents a series of identical technological cultures, represented by the layers in complex VI3, followed by a series of completely different technological cultures in the layers of complex V2. Data show that the site had different functions over time: butchery, hunting camp or habitat (Boëda et al. 2001; Griggo 2004; Bonilauri 2010). However, it should be noted that the technical variability in the assemblages, as well as the expression of different knowledge sets, does not seem to depend on site function (Rasse and Boëda 2006). The technical data from Yabrud I show a different succession of facies, although the technical variability throughout the sequence is as rich as that seen at Umm el Tlel. Even if dates are not available, diachronic interpretation shows a similarity between these two sites located beyond the Anti-Lebanon Mountains with respect to the pattern of succession of human groups. Further, the fact that these two sequences display the same pattern in diachronic change suggests that the kind of site (open-air or rockshelter) is not a determining factor for differences in technological variability. At Ksar ‘Akil, in contrast, the technological analysis shows large, relatively stable technical complexes following one another in the stratigraphic sequence, with human groups sharing the same traditions or technical memory, or with very little differentiation, and succeeding one another through time. Using a spatial interpretation, we propose that this diversity in the dynamics of change between Umm el Tlel, Yabrud I and Ksar ‘Akil would be the consequence of different settlement dynamics, reflecting two kinds of behavior and territorial organization. The technological variability observable through time at the sites in the northern inland zone reflects highly mobile human groups who moved around the territory. These groups exploited vast areas, sufficiently extensive, to potentially preclude a return to the same site and leading to continuous change in technological cultures over time (fig. 11). This type of mobility has already been proposed for Umm el Tlel (Rasse and Boëda 2006), but comparison with Yabrud I and Ksar ‘Akil gives this hypothesis macroregional significance. We propose to borrow the concept of “reticular space” used in cultural geography (Bonnemaison 2000) to describe this type of mobility in the steppe region. Reticular space is characterized by a linear structure and by the organization of places visited in a network. In this structure, the site is not the central place of a territory, but rather a point along a route. This is a typical behavior of discontinuous environments, and the fact that these sites represent oases, zones rich in water within semiarid regions, is in direct relationship with this pattern of movement. This behavior dif- 162 Pagli | Settlement Dynamics IV Fig. 11. settlement model proposed for inland and coastal sites. fers from the technological continuity observed during other phases (Umm el Tlel, layers in complex VI3, and Yabrud I, layers 4 and 3), that show a succession of identical human groups, and thus the repeated occupation of a single site. At Umm el Tlel, this phase of technological continuity coincides with particularly pronounced arid conditions (Boëda et al. 2001; Griggo 2004; Emery-Barbier 1998; Courty et al. 2006) and thus probably to a concentration of movements within a single water-rich area, such as the El Kowm Basin. In the coastal zone, the stability in the large technological groups following one another in the stratigraphy show, in contrast, continuity in occupations. Such continu- Chap. 8 | Middle Paleolithic Variability in the Near East 163 ity may be that of several occupations by a single human group or several groups with the same knowledge base. It implies regular frequentation of the site and/or significant circulation or transmission of technological ideas due to the proximity of different groups. This model thus reflects a type of mobility in more restricted spaces, exploited concentrically and with frequent returns to the same places of occupation (fig. 11). This hypothesis of settlement dynamics is in line with models of territorial behavior proposed for Late Middle Paleolithic occupations in the southern coastal zone. According to these models, the hypothesis of small territories and repeated use of the same locales would explain the absence of abrupt technological changes in the sequences (Hovers 2001, 2009; Meignen et al. 2006). The proposed model involves consideration of the rate with which change occurred in the three sequences analyzed. We are aware that comparative analysis of the three sites raises the problem of a possibly different scale in the archaeological record. In addition, assemblages from old excavations of sites, such as Yabrud I and Ksar ‘Akil, often have uncertainties related to the sedimentary context and chronology. In this view, the sequence from Umm el Tlel is the most precise recording of archaeological and sedimentary events, and thus of technological changes observed. For this high-resolution sequence, sedimentary analyses show relatively rapid deposition, strictly correlated with the climatic fluctuation of isotopic stages 4 and 3 (Courty et al. 2006). For Yabrud I, no chronological element is available to determine the rate of technological change in the sequence. However, given the available sedimentary data, it is probable that the temporal depth represented by the sequence could be longer than that of Umm el Tlel. The value of technological discontinuities noted between these two sites may thus not be the same: in this case, changes concern the technical phenomena that occur at different times. For Ksar ‘Akil, we should consider the possibility that the few technological changes observed could be due to a shorter chronological sequence, or to a lesser degree of resolution in the occupation levels. To address this problem of scale, the best response lies in looking for macroregional elements of comparison. Comparison with other Near Eastern Mousterian sequences is thus necessary for the evaluation of the validity of this model and the regional value of differences in the variability of industries (for quantitative comparisons, see Pagli 2013). In the coastal area, the sequences at Qafzeh and Ras el Kelb dating to MIS 5 show the production of Levallois flakes that persists through time (see Hovers 2009; Copeland 1998). Variability is visible in the proportion of the methods employed and the Levallois blanks produced, but even in layers where the production of triangular blanks is more important (Qafzeh – XIV and XV), the production of flakes remains predominant (see Hovers 2009). The Kebara sequence shows an internal variability in the composition of Levallois blanks and their modes of production: such variability is included within a trend shifting to predominant production of triangular blanks, with an increase in flake production near the top of the sequence (Meignen and Bar-Yosef 1991; Meignen and Bar-Yosef n.d.). Production methods are dominated by the recurrent unidirectional convergent method in all of the assemblages, and by development toward the top of the sequence of the recurrent centripetal method. In the Amud sequence, the composition of Levallois blanks (Hovers 1998) seems to show a similar pattern: triangular blanks, predominant in the lower layer of the sequence, decrease as flakes increase and become rare in the upper layer. The Keoue sequence (Nishiaki and 164 Pagli | Settlement Dynamics IV Copeland 1992), in contrast, shows no variability in the composition of Levallois blanks and methods. Based on regional data, it is possible to propose that the technological continuity observed at Ksar ‘Akil could in effect typify other sequences of the coastal zone. For the inland steppe zone of the northern Near East, the site of Hummal contains a succession of industries with flakes, laminar flakes and points (Hauck 2011) that is again different from Umm el Tlel and that could be another example of the technocultural diversity in the inland zone over time, further supporting the model presented. cLosInG rEMArKs This study contributes new data for understanding of the Middle Paleolithic variability in the Near East region. The occupation models proposed here should be considered as working hypotheses that should be tested by future research on other Middle Paleolithic sequences. Although analysis of sequences from old excavations, such as Yabrud I and Ksar ‘Akil, leaves some questions open, particularly concerning site formation processes and the correlation between occupations, the diachronic approach based on the stratigraphy is a heuristic tool to reconstruct the major technological changes in the region and their inclusion in current models. The image of major successive technological trends valid for the entire Near East, exemplified by the Tabun schema, is thus nuanced and more complex: while greater technological variability has already been pointed out, this study has shown that it has a geographic significance. More specifically, it springs from the relationship between human groups and the areas they occupied, as specific types of macroregional mobility. The hypothesis of a deeper technological variability of human groups in the northern inland steppe zone, the main conclusion of this work, raises the question of the origin of such diversity. The Near East constitutes, in effect, a true geographic crossroad between the continents, for which the biological variability of the populations attested in this region is evidence. New perspectives about Near East settlement may then be offered by taking into account interactions with and the influence of neighbouring regions. AcKnoWLEdGMEnts I would like to thank Nicholas Conard and Anne Delagnes for inviting me to participate in this book. This contribution summarizes the ideas developed during my doctoral thesis directed by Eric Boëda, whom I thank for his guidance and teaching. Analysis of the collections presented was made possible by the kind authorization of Eric Boëda and Heba Al Sakhel (Umm el Tlel), Jürgen Richter (Yabrud I) and Ofer Bar-Yosef (Ksar ‘Akil). I would like to express my gratitude to Liliane Meignen, who contributed improvements and rigor throughout the completion of this work, and to Sylvain Soriano for his advice and suggestions, and also for his assistance in the graphic representation of technological change. Chap. 8 | Middle Paleolithic Variability in the Near East 165 The comments, discussions and advice of Heba Al Sakhel, Ofer Bar-Yosef, Miriam Belmaker, Stéphanie Bonilauri, Laurence Bourguignon, Nicholas J. Conard, Yuri Demidenko, Christophe Griggo, Thomas Hauck, Erella Hovers, Steven L. Kuhn, Antoine Lourdeau, Michel Rasse, Jürgen Richter, Alain Tuffreau and Corine Yazbeck have all played an important role in the development of this work. I also thank the two reviewers of this article for their constructive suggestions and comments. LItErAturE Akazawa, t., and s. Muhesen. 2002. neanderthal burials. Excavations of the dederiyeh cave, Afrin, syria. Kyoto: International research center for Japanese studies. boëda, E., L. Meignen, and J.-M. Geneste. 1990. Identification des chaînes opératoires lithiques du Paléolithique ancien et moyen. Paléo 2: 4380. Al sakhel, H. 2004. Le Paléolithique moyen dans des oasis du Proche-orient. Phd dissertation, université Paris X-nanterre. boëda, E., L. bourguignon, and c. Griggo. 1998. Activités de subsistance au Paléolithique moyen: couche vI3 b’ du gisement d’umm El tlel (syrie). In Economie Préhistorique: les comportements de subsistance au Paléolithique, ed. by J.-Ph. brugal, L. Meignen, and M PatouMathis, pp. 243-58. sophia Antipolis: APdcA. bar-Matthews, M., A. Ayalon, M. Gilomur, A. Matthews, and c. J. Hawkesworth. 2003. seaLand oxygen Isotopic relationships from Planktonic Foraminifera and speleothems in the Eastern Mediterranean region and their Implication for Paleorainfall during Interglacial Intervals. Geochimica et cosmochimica Acta 67: 181-199. bar-yosef, o. 1992. Middle Paleolithic Human Adaptation in the Mediterraean Levant. In the Evolution and dispersal of Modern Humans in Asia, ed. by t. Akazawa, K. Aoki, and t. Kimura, pp. 189-216. tokyo: Hokusen-sha. 1998. the chronology of the Middle Paleolithic in the Levant. In neandertals and Modern Humans in Western Asia, ed. by t. Akazawa, K. Aoki, and o. bar-yosef, pp. 39-56. new york and London: Plenum Press. boëda, E. 1994. Le concept Levallois: variabilité des méthodes. Monographies du crA 9. Paris: cnrs. 2013. technologique et technologie. une Paléohistoire des objets lithiques tranchants. @rchéo-éditions. boëda, E., and s. Muhesen. 1993. umm El tlel (El Kowm, syrie): Étude préliminaire des industries lithiques du Paléolithique moyen et supérieur 1991-1992. cahiers de l’Euphrate 7: 47-62. 166 Pagli | Settlement Dynamics IV boëda, E., c. Griggo, and s. noel-soriano. 2001. différents modes d’occupation du site d’umm El tlel au cours du Paléolithique moyen (El Kowm, syrie centrale). Paléorient 27: 13-28. boëda, E., s. bonilauri, J. connan, d. Jarvie, n. Mercier, M. tobey, H. valladas, H. Al sakhel, and s. Muhesen. 2008. Middle Palaeolithic bitumen use at umm El tlel Around 70 000 bP. Antiquity 82: 853-61. bonilauri, s. 2010. Les outils du Paléolithique moyen: une mémoire technique oubliée? Approche techno-fonctionnelle appliquée à un assemblage lithique de conception Levallois provenant du site d’umm El tlel (syrie centrale). Phd dissertation, université Paris ouest nanterre La défense. bonnemaison, J. 2000. La géographie culturelle. Paris: ctHs. conard, n. J., K. bretzke, M. Masri, H. napierala, and A. W. Kandel. 2010. Modeling Middle Paleolithic Land use in the damascus Province, syria. In settlement dynamics of the Middle Paleolithic and Middle stone Age, vol. III, ed. by n. J. conard and A. delagnes, pp. 123-44. tübingen: Kerns verlag. copeland, L. 1975. the Middle and upper Paleolithic of Lebanon and syria in the Light of recent research. In Problems in Prehistory: north Africa and the Levant, ed. by F. Wendorf and A. E. Marks, pp. 317-50. dallas: southern Methodist university Press. Emery-barbier, A. 1998. Analyses palynologiques du site d’umm El tlel (El Kown, syrie). In Préhistoire d’Anatolie. Genèse de deux mondes, ed. by M. otte, pp. 765-74. Liège: ErAuL. 1981. chronology and distribution of the Middle Paleolithic, as Known in 1980, in Lebanon and syria. In Préhistoire du Levant, ed. by J. cauvin and P. sanlaville, pp. 239-64. Paris: cnrs. Ewing, J. F. 1947. Preliminary note on the Excavations at the Paleolithic site of Ksar Akil, republic of Lebanon. Antiquity 21: 186-96. 1998. the Middle Palaeolithic Flint Industry of ras el-Kelb. In the Mousterian site of ras elKelb, Lebanon, ed. by L. copeland and n. Moloney, pp. 73-175. oxford: bAr International series 706. copeland, L., and c. yazbeck. 2002. Inventory of stone Age sites in Lebanon. new and revised. Part III. Mélanges de l’université saint-Joseph 55: 121-325. courty, M.-A., E. boëda, A. Emery-barbier, c. Griggo, n. Mercier, I. théry-Parisot, and H. valladas. 2006. the relative timing of Human occupation and Palaeoenvironmental changes in the High-resolution sequence of umm El tlel: A Palaeolithic site in the syrian desert. Geophysical research Abstracts 8. crew, H. 1975. An Examination of the variability of the Levallois Methods: Its Implication for the Internal and External relationships of the Levantine Mousterian. Phd dissertation, southern Methodist university. dietl, H. 2010. settlement dynamics of the Early and Levalloisien Middle Paleolithic at open-air sites in the Khanasiri region, northern Jordan. In settlement dynamics of the Middle Paleolithic and Middle stone Age, vol. III, ed. by n. J. conard and A. delagnes, pp. 103-22. tübingen: Kerns verlag. dockall, J. E. 1997. technological and Functional variability of convergent tools from nahr Ibrahim, Lebanon: behavioral Implication for Levantine Mousterian technological organization. Phd dissertation, A&M university. dodonov, A. E., A. W. Kandel, A. n. simakova, M. Al Masri, and n. J. conard. 2006. Geomorphology, site distribution and Paleolithic settlement dynamics of the Ma’aloula region, damascus Province, syria. In tübingen-damascus Excavation and survey Project 1999–2005, ed. by n. J. conard, pp. 257-73. tübingen: Kerns verlag. douka, K., A. c. bergman, r. E. M. Hedges, F. P. Wesselingh, and t. F. G. Higham. 2013. chronology of Ksar Akil (Lebanon) and Implications for the colonization of Europe by Anatomically Modern Humans. PLos onE 8 (9): e72931. Farrand, W. r. 1965. Geology, climate and chronology of yabrud rockshelter I. Annales Archéologiques Arabes syriennes 15: 35-50. 1979. chronology of Palaeoenvironment of Levantine Prehistoric sites as seen from sediment studies. Journal of Archaeological science 6: 369-392. Fleisch, s. J. 1970. Les habitats du Paléolithique moyen à naamé (Liban). bulletin du Musée de beyrouth 23: 25-98. Frank, t. 2004. die Levallois-spitzen von Jabrud, Felsdach I, schichten 2 – 4. MA thesis, universität zu Köln. Garrard, A. 1998. Food Procurement by Middle Palaeolithic Hominids at ras El Kelb cave. In the Mousterian site of ras el-Kelb, Lebanon, ed. by L. copeland and n. Moloney, pp. 45-65. oxford: bAr International series 706. Garrod, d. A. E., and d. M. A. bate. 1937. the stone Age of Mount carmel, I: Excavations at the Wad-el-Mughara. oxford: clarendon Press. Gasse, F., L. vidal, A.-L. develle, and E. van campo. 2011. Hydrological variability in the northern Levant: A 250 Ka Multiproxy record from the yammoûneh (Lebanon) sedimentary sequence. climate of the Past 7: 1261-84. Gilead, I. 1995. Problems and Prospects in the study of the Levallois technology in the Levant: the case o Fara II, Israel. In the definition and Interpretation of Levallois technology, ed. by H. L. dibble and o. bar-yosef, pp. 79-91. Monographs in World Archeology 23. Madison, Wisconsin: Prehistory Press. Goren-Inbar, n. 1990. Quneitra: a Mousterian site on the Golan Heights. QEdEM 31. Jerusalem: the Hebrew university of Jerusalem. Goren-Inbar, n., and A. belfer-cohen 1998. the technological Abilities of the Levantine Mousterians: cultural and Mental capacities. In neandertals and Modern Humans in Western Asia, ed. by t. Akazawa, K. Aoki, and o. baryosef, pp. 107-25. new york: Plenum Press. Chap. 8 | Middle Paleolithic Variability in the Near East 167 Goring-Morris, n., E. Hovers, and A. belfer-cohen. 2009. the dynamics of Pleistocene and Early Holocene settlement Patterns and Human Adaptations in the Levant: An overview. In transitions in Prehistory. Essays in Honor of ofer bar-yosef, ed. by d. E. Lieberman and J. J. shea, pp. 185-252. oxford and oakville: oxbow. Griggo, c. 2004. Mousterian Fauna from dederiyeh cave and comparisons with Fauna from umm El tlel and douara cave. Paléorient 30: 149-62. Hauck, t. 2011. Mousterian technology and settlement dynamics in the site of Hummal (syria). Journal of Human Evolution 61: 519-37. Heinzelin, J. de. 1966. révision du site de yabroud. Annales Archéologiques Arabes syriennes XvI: 157-63. Henry, d. o. 1995. Prehistoric cultural Ecology and Evolution. Insights from southern Levant. new york: Plenum Press. 2003. neanderthals in the Levant. behavioral organization and the beginning of Human Modernity. London, new york: continuum Press. Hooijer, d. 1961. the Fossil vertebrates of Ksar Akil, a Paleolithic rockshelter in Lebanon. Zoologische verhandelingen 49: 4-67. Hours, F. 1992. Le Paléolithique et l’Epipaléolithique de la syrie et du Liban. beyrouth: dar el-Machreq. Hovers, E. 1998. the Lithic Assemblages of Amud cave. Implications for understanding the End of the Mousterian in the Levant. In neandertals and Modern Humans in Western Asia, ed. by t. Akazawa, K. Aoki, and o. bar-yosef, pp. 143-63. new york: Plenum Press. 2001. territorial behavior in the Middle Paleolithic of the southern Levant. In settlement dynamics of the Middle Paleolithic and Middle stone Age, ed. by n. J. conard, pp. 123-52. tübingen: Kerns verlag. 2009. the Lithic Assemblages of Qafzeh cave. oxford, new york: oxford university Press. Hovers, E., A. buller, r. Ekshtain, M. oron, and r. yeshurun. 2008. Ein Qashish-A new Middle Paleolithic open-Air site in northern Israel. Journal of the Israel Prehistoric society 38: 740. 168 Pagli | Settlement Dynamics IV Jelinek, A. J. 1981. the Middle Paleolithic in the southern Levant. In Préhistoire du Levant: chronologie et organisation de l’espace depuis les origines jusqu’au vIe millénaire, ed. by J. cauvin and P. sanlaville, pp. 299-302. Paris: cnrs. 1982. the Middle Palaeolithic in the southern Levant, with comments on the Appearance of Modern Homo sapiens. In the transition from Lower to Middle Palaeolithic and the origin of Modern Man, ed. by A. ronen, pp. 57-104. oxford: bAr International series 151. Kersten, A. M. P. 1992. rodents and Insectivores from the Palaeolithic rock shelter of Ksar ‘Akil (Lebanon) and their Palaeoecological Implications. Paléorient 18: 1: 27-45. Le tensorer, J.-M. 2001. Paleolithic settlement dynamics in the El Kowm Area (central syria). In settlement dynamics of the Middle Paleolithic and Middle stone Age, ed. by n. J. conard, pp. 101-122. tübingen: Kerns verlag. Le tensorer, J.-M., v. von Falkenstein, H. Le tensorer, and s. Muhesen. 2011. Hummal: A very Long Paleolithic sequence in the steppe of central syria – considerations on Lower Paleolithic and the beginning of Middle Paleolithic. In the Lower and Middle Palaeolithic in the Middle East and neighbouring regions, ed. by J.-M. Le tensorer, r. Jagher, and M. otte, pp. 235-48. Liège: ErAuL. Lourdeau, A. 2011. stability in the Intermittence. A spatio-temporal Approach to Mousterian behavior in the near East based on the technological Analysis of Lithic Industries of complex vI3 at umm El tlel (central syria). In neanderthal Lifeways, subsistence and technology: one Hundred Fifty years of neanderthal study, ed. by n. J. conard and J. richter, pp. 167-86. vertebrate Paleobiology and Paleoanthropology volume 19. London: springer. Madella, M., M. K. Jones, P. Goldberg, y. Goren, and E. Hovers. 2002. the Exploitation of Plant resources by neanderthals in Amud caves (Israel). Journal of Archaeological science 29: 703-19. Marks, A. 1989. Early Mousterian settlement Patterns in the central negev, Israel: their social and Economic Implications. In L’Homme de néandertal, ed. by M. otte. vol. 6, La subsistance, ed. by M. Patou and L. G. Freeman, pp. 115-26. Liège: ErAuL. 1992. typological variability in the Levantine Middle Paleolitic. In Middle Paleolithic: Adaptation, behavior and variability, ed. by H. L. dibble and P. Mellars, pp. 127-42. Philadelphia: university of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology. Marks, A. E., and P. volkman. 1986. the Mousterian of Ksar Akil: Levels XXvIA through XXvIIIb. Paléorient 12: 5-20. Meignen, L. 1995. Levallois Lithic Production systems in the Middle Paleolithic of the near East: the case of the unidirectional Method. In the definition and Interpretation of Levallois technology, ed. by H. L. dibble and o. bar-yosef, pp. 361-80. Monographs in World Archeology 23. Madison Wisconsin: Prehistory Press. 1998a. Le Paléolithique moyen au Levant sud et central: que nous apprennent les données récentes? In Préhistoire d’Anatolie. Genèse de deux mondes, ed. by M. otte, pp. 685-708. Liège: ErAuL. 1998b. Hayonim cave Lithic Assemblages in the context of the near Eastern Middle Paleolithic: A Preliminary report. In neandertals and Modern Humans in Western Asia, ed. by t. Akazawa, K. Aoki, and o. bar-yosef, pp. 165-80. new york: Plenum Press. 2011. contribution of Hayonim cave Assemblages to the understanding of the so-called “Early Levantine Mousterian.” In the Lower and Middle Palaeolithic in the Middle East and neighbouring regions, ed. by J.-M. Le tensorer, r. Jagher, and M. otte, pp. 85-100. Liège: ErAuL. Meignen, L., and o. bar-yosef. 1991. Les outillages Lithiques Moustériens de Kébara (fouilles 19821985). Premiers résultats. In Le squelette Moustérien de Kébara 2, ed. by o. bar-yosef and b. vandermeersch, pp. 49-76. Paris: cnrs. 2004. réflexions sur la fin du Paléolithique moyen et les débuts du Paléolithique supérieur au Proche-orient. In Le Paléolithique Moyen the Middle Palaeolithic. session 5: sessions Générales et Posters, ed. by P. van Peer, P. semal, and d. bonjean, pp. 235-46. oxford: bAr International series 1239. n.d. Kebara cave, Mt. carmel, Israel: the Middle and upper Palaeolithic Archaeology. Part II. cambridge (usA): American school of Prehistoric research, Peabody Museum Press, Harvard university. (In press) Meignen, L., o. bar-yosef, J. d. speth, and M. c. stiner. 2006. Middle Paleolithic settlement Patterns in the Levant. In transitions before the transition: Evolution and stability in the Middle Paleolithic and Middle stone Age, ed. by H. Hovers and s. L. Kuhn, pp. 149-69. new york: springer. Munday, F. c. 1977. nahal Aquev (d35): A stratified, open-Air site Mousterian occupation in the Avdat/Aqev Area. In Prehistory and Paleoenvironnement in the central negev, Israel, vol. II, ed. by A. E. Marks, pp. 35-60. dallas: department of Anthropology, southern Methodist university. Mustafa, M., and G. A. clark. 2007. Quantifying diachronic variability: the ’Ain difla rock shelter (Jordan) and the Evolution of Levantine Mousterian technology. Eurasian Prehistory 5: 47-83. nishiaki, y., and L. copeland. 1992. Keoue cave, northern Lebanon, and Its Place in the context of the Levantine Mousterian. In the Evolution and dispersal of Modern Human in Asia, ed. by t. Akazawa, K. Aoki, and t. Kimura, pp. 107-27. tokyo: Hokusen-sha. Pagli, M. 2013. variabilité du Moustérien au Proche-orient. Approche géographique des dynamiques de changement en milieu méditerranéen et en milieu steppique. Phd dissertation, université Paris ouest nanterre La défense. rabinovich, r., and E. Hovers. 2004. Faunal Analysis from Amud cave: Preliminary results and Interpretations. International Journal of osteoarchaeology 14: 287-306. rasse, M., and E. boëda. 2006. de la lecture verticale à la lecture spatiale des enregistrements archéologiques: réflexions géographiques tirées de l’exemple du site d’umm El tlel (syrie centrale). M@ppemonde 83: 1-11. rust, A. 1950. die Höhlenfunde von Jabrud (syrien). neumünster: Karl Wachholtz. sanlaville, P. 2000. Le Moyen-orient arabe: le Milieu et l’Homme. Paris: Armand colin. schmid, P. 2007. Paléontologie de Hummal. In rapport préliminaire des fouilles préhistoriques de la mission syro-suisse concernant les gisements de Hummal et nadaouiyeh (El Kowm, syrie centrale), ed. by J.-M. Le tensorer, pp. 58-62. bâle: Institut de Préhistoire de l’université de bâle, centre de recherches tell Arida. speth, J. d., and E. tchernov. 2007. the Middle Paleolithic occupation of Kebara cave: A Faunal Perspective. In Kebara cave, Mt carmel, Israel. the Middle and upper Paleolithic Archaeology. Part I, ed. by o. bar-yosef and L. Meignen, pp. 471-83. cambridge: Peabody Museum of Chap. 8 | Middle Paleolithic Variability in the Near East 169 Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard university, American school of Prehistoric research bulletin 29. tchernov, E. 1992. biochronology, Paleoecology, and dispersal Events of Hominids in the southern Levant. In the Evolution and dispersal of Modern Human in Asia, ed. by t. Akazawa, K. Aoki, and t. Kimura, pp. 149-88. tokyo: Hokusen-sha. vaks, A., M. bar-Matthews, A. Ayalon, A. Matthews, A. Frumkin, u. dayan, L. Halicz, A. Almogi-Labin, and b. schilman. 2006. Paleoclimate and Location of the border between Mediterranean climate region and the saharoArabian desert as revealed by speleothems from the northern negev desert, Israel. Earth and Planetary science Letters 249: 384-99. van der Plicht, J., and A. van der Wijk. 1989. uranium and thorium in Fossil bones: Activity ratios and dating. Applied Geochemistry 4: 339-42. 170 Pagli | Settlement Dynamics IV Watanabe, H. 1968. Flake Production in a transitional Industry from the Amud cave, Israel. A statistical Approach to Paleolithic technotypology. In La Préhistoire: Problèmes et tendances, ed. by F. bordes, pp. 499-509. Paris: cnrs. Weinstein-Evron, M., A. tsatskin, s. Weiner, r. shahack-Gross, A. Frumkin, r. yeshurun, and y. Zaidner. 2012. A Window into Early Middle Paleolithic Human occupational Layers: Misliya cave, Mount carmel, Israel. PaleoAnthropology 2012: 202-28. Wright, H. 1962. Late Pleistocene Geology of coastal Lebanon. Quaternaria 6: 525-39. yazbeck, c. 2005-2006. sur les modèles d’occupation du territoire au Paléolithique libanais. Annales d’Histoire et d’Archéologie 16–17: 39-55.