Early Upper Pleistocene Adaptations in the Levant

SALLY R. BINFORD
University of New Mexico Human remains firmly associated with Mousterian artifacts and exhibiting characteristics transitional between those of Neanderthal and fully modern man are known from two Levantine sites. A survey of the archeological evidence suggests that three climatic zones were differentially exploited by Neanderthal man and that some of the sites document a shift in subsistence away from a generalized hunting pattern to the specialized hunting of large, migratory herd animals. The hypothesis is offered that the formal changes documented for the Upper Paleolithic occurred in response to this basic shift in human ecology.

NE OF THE most persistent, and as yet unsolved, problems in anthropology has been the adequate explanation of the initial appearance in the fossil record of anatomically modern man. Most authorities agree with the recent elevation in evolutionary status of Neanderthal man from a separate species that played no role in modem mans ancestry to a historical subspecies of Homo sapiens (Dobzhansky 1962: 178-182, Mayr 1963:337, Howell 1965:128, Camp bell 1967:367-368). This conclusion has been reached on the basis of the similarities between the postcranial skeletons of modern man and Neanderthal man, the superficial nature of the cranial differences, and on a wide range of cultural evidence indicating that Neanderthal man possessed a far greater capacity for symbolic behavior than was believed by early investigators (Howell 1965: 126-130, Bordes 1961, Campbell 1967:317, S. R. Binford 1968a, 1968b). The only fossil forms that are clearly associated with tools of Neanderthal manufacture and that exhibit characters transitional between those of Neanderthal man and fully modern fossil man have been found in Israel at two sites: Skhd, a small cave in the Wadi el-Mughara near the coastal plain; and Qafzeh, a larger cave just south of Nazareth. Howell (1957, 1959), in his analysis of the stratigraphic and paleontological evidence, has suggested that these fossils (10 individuals from Skhiil and at least 7 from Qafzeh) are the remains of a generalized
Accepted for publication April, 16, 1968.

Neanderthal population in the Levant (versus the more specialized classic Neanderthals in western Europe) who were evolving toward the fully modern condition. Although Howells interpretation has been generally accepted, an explanation of how and why this subspecific change came about has not been offered. Most of the traditional explanations of both the biological and cultural changes have been framed in terms of invading populations of modern man from some unspecified point of origin who mixed with the Neanderthalers of the Levant and produced hybrid peoples and cultures (Garrod 1937, 1963; Garrod and Bate 1937; Garrod and Kirkbride 1961). The postulate of pre-Neanderthal fully anatomically modern population is in no way supported by the fossil record, and it might also be pointed out that while human populations can and do cross-breed, stone tools cannot. The major changes in the archeological record that occur between the Mousterian or Middle Paleolithic (associated with Neanderthal man) and the Upper Paleolithic (associated with modern man) involve the use of a new technique of production of stone tools (punch-blade technique) and radical changes in the relative frequencies of tool forms. The best documented Upper Paleolithic sites are in France and eastern Europe, where from 80-90 percent of the faunal remains from occupational debris are single species of herd mammals, especially reindeer in western Europe and mammoth in the east. These sites are located in valleys that served as migration routes for the herds

707

708

American Anthropologist

[70, 1968

in question and where, consequently, man could count on large numbers of animals passing through on a regular seasonal basis. Traditional explanations of the archeological differences between the Mousterian and Upper Paleolithic have stressed the appearance of new artifact forms in terms that indicate a belief in the capacity of stone tools to mutate, breed, and Consistent with this approach has been the expenditure of a great deal of research energy in trying to identify industries transitional between the two cultural phases (Garrod 1951, 1955; Pradel 1966). I have argued elsewhere that lithic industries are most profitably viewed as mans adaptive means and that analytical tools must be developed for relating stone artifacts to human activities (Binford & Binford 1966, s. R. Binford 1968b). The rapid adoption of new technological means for tool manufacture is prompted by adaptive shifts that probably precede the artifactual change seen in the archeological record.S Changes in artifact forms and/ or frequencies are realistically viewed, not in terms of some innate propensity on the part of man to improve himself and manufacture more varied and complex tool kits, but in terms of the requirements of the way in which he exploited his environment. Arranging assemblages of artifacts into nice sequences through time can document very well that changes have occurred; but the explanation of these changes lies in documenting a change in adaptation. The differences in the formal composition of assemblages in the Mousterian and Upper Paleolithic may mask underlying similarities in subsistence and social organization between the late Mousterian and the early Upper Paleolithic. If we wish to understand the transition that occurred, the place to look is in late Mousterian adaptations (S. R. Binford 1968b). It was toward the delineation of this late Mousterian adaptive shift that my research was aimed. The research is based upon several assumptions about the archeological record that are not traditionally held by Paleolithic scholars. In the first place, intersite variability on the same broad cultural level and in the same general area is assumed to reflect differences in function (settlement type) or differences in style (social identity). For the

Mousterian, the assumption of functional variability appears to be the more profitable to investigate ( S . R. Binford 1968c), and preliminary work along these lines has yielded very promising results (Binford and Binford 1966, S. R. Binford 1968b). A second assumption is that changes of a major order in the archeological record reflect changes in adaptation, rather than, as is traditionally held, influences from elsewhere, invasions of new populations, lithic mutations, etc. A third assumption is that demographic variables, traditionally not even considered by many Paleolithic archeologists, are crucial in explaining evolutionary changes in both cultural and human biological systems. In short, man is assumed to be one component in an ecosystem, and culture-his extra-somatic means of adaptation-has enabled him to occupy an increasing variety of ecological niches, thus improving his ability to capture and harness energy. (This analytical frame was very elegantly used by Campbell [1967:200-2081 to explain the evolution of genus Homo.) The existing literature on the prehistory of the Levant contains a number of fascinating bits of data which, if analyzed from the point of view outlined above, give us some indication of the changes that may have occurred in the Mousterian. Mousterian sites in this area are broadly contemporaneous with those in Europe; the age of the European Mousterian is Early Wurm, the first part of the last major glacial period of the Pleistocene. This dating can be supported by both stratigraphy and radiocarbon dating (Howell 1961:9-10, Oakley 1966:166). The great majority of known Mousterian assemblages in the Levant make extensive use of a technique of flake removal from flint cores known as Levallois; this kind of Mousterian is most correctly termed Mousterian of Levallois facies (Bordes 1953) but for brevitys sake will be referred to here as Levallois-Mousterian. There is another less frequently occurring Mousterian that is characterized both by a different technique of flake production and by different frequencies of tool forms; this facies is now generally known as the Jabrudian (Bordes 1955, Howell 1961). The Jabrudian is characterized by high proportions of thick scrapers and choppers, the Levallois-Mous-

BINFORD]

Upper Pleistocene in the Levant

709

terian by higher frequencies of points and knives. The chronological relationship between these two facies is far from certain. It can be argued that most of the known Levallois-Mousterian occupations are later (Howell 1961:9), but the evidence is not conclusive. Two ciccurrences of an industry termed preAurignacian between Jabrudian levels at the site of Jabrud (Rust 1950, Bordes 1955, 1960) and a similar but less clearcut instance at the site of Tabfin (Garrod and Bate 1937, Garrod 1956) certainly raise some questions. Also, at the Lebanese rockshelter of Abri i!umoffen (Adlun) Jabrudian tools overlie several levels of artifacts made with Levallois technique (Garrod and Kirkbride 1961). In the absence of a clear Upper Pleistcicene geological or faunal sequence for the Levant as a whole, the problem of intersite correlations remains to be satisfactorily :solved. There are, however, some deeply stratified sites whose internal relative cultural chronologies can be made use of if a different order of question is asked of the data. We do not ask What is the relative chronology between sites X, Y, and Z? but What does the nature of each site-its environmental setting, its cultural sequence, its paleontological remains-tell us about Mousbrian adaptations in the Levant? We also as,k about the geographical distribution of types of sites in order to determine the environmental correlates of kinds of occupations. We wish to know if there was differential land use in the Levant by Neanderthal populations. We also wish to compare land use of Mousterian and Upper Paleolithic populations in order to measure demographic differences and similarities. Three sub-arms of the Levant were studied: (1) valleys draining eastward into the JordanRift Valley; ( 2 ) the coastal plain; (3) valleys 011 the western slopes of the coastal ranges which drain into the Mediterranean. (1) The Jordan Valley is characterized by geographers as a steppe zone: Immediately east of the crest of the coastal ranges, rainfall diminishes sharply in amount, though the season of onset remains the same [late fall or early winter]. . . . The lowland troughs . . . display a climatic regime markedly different from that of the highlands to the east and west. Though none of the

troughs greatly exceeds 10 miles in widthbeing often much less-we can distinguish a separate regime.. . The great depth of the Jordan Rift, and its openness to the direct rays of the sun, give rise to higher temperatures and to a greatly diminished rainfall [Fisher 1956: 388-3921. Two provinces of the Jordan Valley have received archeological attention: Lower Galilee and the eastern slopes of the Judean Hills. Lower Galilee-The Mousterian sites excavated in this area are Emireh and Zuttiyeh (Turville-Petre 1927), Amud Cave (Manishi et al. 1963, Suziki et al. 1965), and Mugharet es-Shubbabiq (S. R. Binford 1966). The shelters of Emireh were excavated over forty years ago by an inexperienced amateur, and the findings from the site are not reassuring. I am inclined to agree with Garrods original statement on the site-it is badly disturbed and contains a mixture throughout of several cultural periods (Garrod 1951:123). The other sites have all yielded Levallois-Mousterian with, in addition, some Jabrudian Mousterian of uncertain provenance at Zuttiyeh (Garrod 1963). Amud, Shubbabiq, and Zuttiyeh contained from 1.5-2.0 meters of Mousterian cultural deposits. All have yielded a fauna in which Dama and Gazella are the dominant forms but high frequencies of other fauna are also contained; in none of these sites are there remains of Upper Paleolithic occupations. Both Shubbabiq and Amud contained Bronze Age and Roman remains overlying the Mousterian, so we cannot explain the absence of Upper Paleolithic by lack of life space. On the eastern slopes of the Judean Hills, five sites (four caves and one rockshelter) were excavated and reported by Neuville ( 1951) ; they contained Levallois-Mousterian. In the caves (Abou-Sif, Sahba, et-Tabban, and Oumm-Naqous) the LevalloisMousterian deposits ranged from 0.80-1.40 meters in depth. Abou-Sif and Sahba have no Upper Paleolithic horizons, and, although Neuville terms the upper levels at et-Tabban Phase I of the Upper Paleolithic, he does so because of the presence of the Emireh point. The value of this artifact as a fossile directeur has recently received considerable criticism in the literature (Skinner

710

American Anthropologist

[70, 1968

1966, S. R. Binford 1966, 1968b), and its context is most often unmistakably Mousterian. Oumm-Naqous' Mousterian level is overlain by a dark clayey level that yielded ten

Upper Paleolithic artifacts. The only I, Mousterian site in the area in which there are considerable Upper Paleolithic deposits is the Abri de l'Erg el-Ahmar. The fauna

BINFORD]

Upper Pleistocene in the Levant

711

from the sites unfortunately received no upland plain in Mt. Carmel and drains into quantitative treatment, but the elements are the coastal plain at Athlit. Three caves slightly different than in Lower Galilee: occur just east of where the wadi joins the Equus cf. mauritanicus, Gazella sp., a large coastal plain: Tabiin, el-Wad, and Skhiil bovid, and Capra ibex. (Garrod and Bate 1937). (2) The coastal plain today is narrow, Tabiin contains over 23 meters of cultural although the present-day continental shelf deposits: 15 meters of Jabrudian and more was exposed during the periods of lower sea than 8 meters of Levallois-Mousterian. The levels associated with glacial periods (Av- stratigraphic picture at the site is far from nimelech 1952, 1962). The coast receives clear, but current work being done on the abundant winter rainfall, although there is a remaining deposits by Arthur J. Jelinek of sharp gradient from north to south. The Leb- the University of Arizona should help to anese coast receives over thirty inches per clarify the sequence at this important site. year and Gaza only 14 (Fisher 1956:388- The Mousterian deposits at Tabfin are topped 392). Although by June the rains have ceased by a disturbed soil that has yielded Bronze and do not resume again until fall, for most Age to Recent remains. El-Wad contained more than seven meof the coast grasses and marshes remain fresh until autumn.5 ters of Levallois-Mousterian, overlain by The coast of Lebanon has been worked about two meters of Upper Paleolithic derather extensively (Fleisch 1954, 1956) and posits. Skhiil contained three meters of Levalhas yielded a number of Mousterian locations: the shelter at Adlun, also called Abri lois-Mousterian overlain by a disturbed layer Zumoffen (Garrod and Kirkbride 1961), Ras that yielded Upper Paleolithic and later el-Kelb (Garrod and Henri-Martin 1961), materials. Although Garrod (Garrod and the open air station of Amrit (Haller 1941), Bate 1937: 113-1 17) claimed chronological and Abou-Halka (Haller 1942-1943). (Amrit overlap for the Levallois-Mousterian at the and Abou-Halka are north of the area shown three sites, Howell (1957, 1959) argued on in the map.) Adlun and Ras el-Kelb have thin faunal and stratigraphic grounds that eland intermittent Mousterian horizons. Abou- Wad and Skhiils Mousterian occupations are Halka has only one horizon about 20 cms. later than those at Tabiin. This has recently thick that contains any Mousterian, and it is been confirmed by radiocarbon dating apparently mixed in with some Upper Paleo- (Higgs 1961:149, Oakley 1966: 166). Bates lithic. The tool-bearing level at Amrit is also analysis of the fauna from these sites and the climatic inferences drawn from them about 20 cms. thick.6 There have been several open air stations have been the subject of much criticism and with Mousterian artifacts located on the controversy for a number of years (Garrod coastal plain of Israel (Bar-Yosef 1966: and Bate 1937: 139-227, Howell 1959:7-12, personal communication), but they have Neuville 1951:250-253, Hooijer 1961:38never been systematically excavated or de- 39, Shalem 1950). The point to be made scribed. Undoubtedly many coastal plain here is that Bate notes that the frequency of Bos (wild cattle) remains increases in the sites are now drowned. (3) A remarkable change occurs as one Upper Levallois-Mousterian at Tabiin and leaves the coastal plain for the mountains. that numbers of Bos show an enormous inThe western slopes receive the same rainfall crease at Skhd (Garrod and Bate 1937: 148as the coasts, but temperatures are lower, 149). It should be noted that it is also the and from January through March or April site of Skhiil that yielded the remains of ten the wadis become active streams. The humans who appear to be transitional begrasses in the upland meadows appear with tween Neanderthal and fully modern man. Qafzeh is situated between the Mt. Carthe first rains and generally remain green through early spring. The wadis on the west- me1 range and the higher coastal mountains e m slopes of the coastal ranges have yielded of Lebanon overlooking a pass called the the most impressive, deeply stratified Plain of Esdraelon. Near Acre the Plain of Mousterian sites in the Levant. The best Esdraelon forms a broad valley, but as it known series of sites are in Wadi el-Mug- rises inland it is a narrow corridor only one hara, an intermittent stream that rises in an to two miles wide (Fisher 1956:382). It is

712

American Anthropologist

[70, 1968

where this pass is narrow, at the southernmost portion of the Galilee highlands just south of Nazareth, that Qafzeh is located. The site is briefly described by Neuville (1951: 179-184) but has never been fully reported. The cultural deposits consist of more than 4.50 meters of Levallois-Mousterian overlain by 3.50 meters of Upper Pakolithic. The fauna has never been described, nor have the artifacts, Howell (1957) analyzed the human burials from the site and found the same intermediate characteristics as in the S k h d burials. The shelter of Kslr Akil is situated in a bluff above the valley of Antelias. The valley runs from the foothills of the Lebanon range and opens out into the narrow coastal plain just north of Beirut; the site is located about 2 kms. upstream from the coastal plain (Ewing 1947, Wright 1951). The cultural deposits at this site are more than 23 meters deep; 4 meters are clearly LevalloisMousterian, while the overlying 3 meters are described by Ewing as a mixed zone. This is overlain by more than 10 meters of Upper Paleolithic. The Mousterian artifacts are at present being studied by John Waechter at London University. The vertebrate fauna has been analyzed by Hooijer (1961). The most striking aspect of the fauna from the upper Levallois-Mousterian levels is the drastic increase in the number of Bos, which is represented by the remains of 539 individuals, although the preceding level yielded only 12 (Hooijer 1961:57). Rhinoceros also makes its first and only appearance at Kslr Akil in the upper Levallois-Mousterian horizon. The best represented species in this level is Dama mesopofumica (Hooijer 1961:58). In arguing against a strictly climatic interpretation of the fauna, such as that made by Bate for the Wadi el-Mughara caves, Hooijer states: We have noticed an outbreak of Rhinoceros and Bos at levels XXVIA-XXXIXB. This may be interpreted as the result of environmental changes having taken place, but it as well may be attributed to choice on the part of the Palaeolithic hunters. . . . What we have been sampling in the present study is not the climate and the environment, but the history of the Palaeolithic menu at the rock shelter of KsSlr Akil [1961:62].1 Thc site also yielded the maxilla of an im-

mature human for which Ewing (1963: 101104) sees traits intermediate between those of Neanderthal and fully modern man. The provenance of this maxilla is unfortunately not certain, but Ewing and Hooijer agree that it most probably came from level XXV, immediately above the levels that showed a great increase in Bos (Ewing 1966). There are several other sites in these westward draining wadis of the Levant. Examples are Shukbah (Garrod 1928, 1942) with a n estimated 15 meters of LevalloisMousterian, and Abu Usba (Stekelis and Haas 1952) with almost 3.50 meters of Levallois-Mousterian. In both cases, however, the overlying Natufian received most of the attention and the Mousterian was scarcely described. The faunal remains from the relevant levels at Abu Usba were not described at all; the dominant forms from Shukbah were Dama, Gazella, and Bos. The cave of Kebarah is also situated in one of these valleys, 21 kms. south of Wadi el-Mughara. A brief unsigned note in the Israel Exploration Journal of 1953 indicates that there are several meters of Mousterian and two overlying Upper Paleolithic levels. The late Professor Stekelis was analyzing the material from the site during my stay in Israel in 1962, and he was kind enough to show me his unpublished floorplans of the Mousterian levels. When the analysis of the site is completed, presumably by Dr. Ofer Bar-Yosef, who was Prof. Stekelis assistant, the results should be noteworthy. The generalizations to be drawn from the brief survey above (based on admittedly small sample sizes) are as follows: (1) The sites in the wadis that drain into the Jordan-Rift Valley, both in Lower Galilee and in the Judean Hills, have yielded, on the average, about 1.5 meters of Mousterian deposits. Only at one location (Abri de 1Erg el-Ahmar) is the Mousterian succeeded by substantial Upper Paleolithic occupations. It should be noted that the Lower Galilee Mousterian horizons are slightly thicker than those to the south; this area receives more rainfall today than the eastern slopes of the Judean Hills and probably this was true for the Upper Pleistocene also (Fisher 1956:383, Amiran 1960:464, Shalem 1950:605).

BINFORD]

Upper Pleistocene in the Levant

713

(2) The sites on the coastal plain contain relatively thin and intermittent Mousterian horizons. (3) The sites with the thickest layers of Mousterian cultural remains, as well as most of those that are overlain by repeated Upper Paleolithic occupations (el-Wad, Kslr Akil, Kebarah, Qafzeh), occur in valleys on the western slopes of the coastal ranges. At two locations (KsPr Akil and Skhiil) there has been noted a marked increase in remains of Bos in horizons that have yielded late Levallois-Mousterian. In the upper Levallois-Mousterian horizons of three locations (Qafzeh, Skhiil, and Kslr Akil) there are human remains that appear to be transitional between Homo sapiens neanderthalensis and Homo sapiens sapiens. Certainly our question about differential land use within the Mousterian must be answered affirmatively, and the isomorphism of differential depth of deposit and type of climatic zones is striking. The question remains of how much climatic change occurred between the period under study and today. While there is no clearcut agreement on details of a Pleistocene climatic sequence for the Levant, the simple and direct pluvial-interpluvial alternation correlated with northern latitude glaciation and interglacials has been abandoned, even by its formerly staunch advocates (see, for example, Garrod and Bate 1937 vs. Garrod 1963; Picard 1937 vs. Picard 1965). There is general agreement, however, that during the Upper Pleistocene the Levant was slightly cooler and more heavily wooded than it is today (Howell 1959, 1961; Shalem 1950:645-646; Haas 1962: personal communication). The only departure noted from these conditions is a slight drying trend toward the end of Early Wiirm (Butzer 1958:102, Howell 1959:7). There is no evidence to suggest that the seasonality of rainfall was any less marked than at present (Willet 1950)) and some authorities suggest that it may have been even more extreme (Howell 1959:6). There is, therefore, good reason to think that many of the environmental differences observed between the three areas studied also obtained during the early Upper Pleistocene. If we examine the data from the archeological sites in our sample, what information can be obtained on patterns of environmen-

tal exploitation? We have practically no information on the coastal plain sites, except for the fact that the levels are generally thinner than those from the other two zones and therefore represent less frequent and less dense occupations. The sites in the valleys that drain into the Jordan-Rift Valley display three features of interest here: first, the Mousterian deposits seldom exceed 1.5 m.; second, these deposits are not, except for one case, overlain by Upper Paleolithic occupations; third, the faunal remains from the Mousterian horizons suggest a generalized hunting pattern in which several forms are common but no one species greatly outnumbers others. The sites from the third area under study-the valleys on the western slopes of the coastal ranges-have yielded from 3 to 23 m. of Mousterian, often succeeded by intensive Upper Paleolithic occupations. The fauna from these sites suggest that during the terminal Mousterian there was a shift in hunting pattern away from a generalized use of animal resources toward a heavy dependence on wild cattle and fallow deer. The behavioral attributes of these wild ungulates are relevant for explaining the differential site distributions noted above. Three types of localities are generally included in the habitat of wild ungulates-wet season grazing, dry season grazing, and migration routes between these (Pearsall 1962:343). Running, grazing animals are also characterized by their tendency to aggregate into herds (Odum 1959:400). While the last of the wild cattle of Europe and Western Asia (Bos primigenius) became extinct in the seventeenth century, written descriptions and drawings exist. These wild cattle appear to have been huge animals, with bulls standing u p to six and one half feet at the shoulder; they were apparently fierce, temperamental, and extremely agile (Zeuner 1963 :202-204). These data, when put together with differential site distributions, allow US to propose that during Early Wiirm man in the Levant increasingly exploited the ecotones of the region; a n ecotone is a transition between two or more communities in which both the number of species and the population density of some of the species are greater . . . than in the communities flanking

714

American Anthropologist

[70, 1968

it (Odum 1959:278). Such an ecotone ticed local endogamy, but rather that the would be the valleys leading from the kind and extent of exogamous pattern becoastal plain to the foothills and upland tween local groups changed in response to meadows of the coastal mountain ranges. the need for larger groups of males as a The increase in aridity noted for the last labor force and perhaps also to protect fapart of Early Wiirm would have intensified vored locations for the harvesting of game. the seasonal behavior of the ungulates in the Such a change would have greatly increased environment, especially the large animals rates of gene flow, thus producing one of such as Bos and Dama, whose food require- the conditions leading to evolutionary ments are great. The relatively damper change. coastal plain would have provided summer The cooperative hunting of a few males pasture; the inland, more elevated plains to capture one or two animals characterized such as the Plain of Esdraelon, the high- human subsistence from at least Mindel lands of the Valley of Antelias, and the times (Campbell 1967:202, Howell 1965: plain at the head of Wadi el-Mughara would 83), but the large-scale systematic exhave been the winter grazing grounds. ploitation of migratory herd mammals is a Grasses in these upland areas appear only qualitatively different kind of activity, one after the onset of the late fall rains. The that makes totally different structural delower reaches of these valleys would have mands on the human groups involved. This been the migration routes through which kind of hunting is known to characterize large numbers of animals passed on a regular, Upper Paleolithic adaptations, and it is proseasonal basis. posed here that there is evidence to suggest The hunting and butchering of large that not only did this hunting pattern appear numbers of wild cattle by a few individuals before the Upper Paleolithic, but that the would have been an overwhelming task, and formal changes documented from Neanderthere would have been increased selective thal to modern man and from the Moustepressure for larger numbers of humans to rian to the Upper Paleolithic occurred in reaggregate, especially during the herds mi- sponse to this basic structural change in ecogration seasons. The kind of cooperation re- logical relationships. quired for large enterprises such as this is, The above arguments are offered not as a among known primitive peoples, based on thoroughly documented, proven explanation ties of kinship that produce a network of of biological and cultural changes in the late mutual rights and obligations between Mousterian of the Levant, but as a model smaller social units (Service 1962). We may that requires further testing. The sample therefore envision that in the change to the of sites on which the model is based is systematic exploitation of migratory herd admittedly small, and some relevant classes mammals there was a concomitant change of data were not collected or reported in the in human mating pattern to a broader kind earlier site reports. The point to be made of exogamous linkage between formerly here is that this interpretation is testable and self-sufficient small bands. This kind of shift can be tested rather economically. A systefrom a system that tends to isolate local matic survey of site in the three zones would groups to one that brings local groups to- require only test pit excavation to detergether into a broqler social unit has been mine: (1 ) if the pattern of site use and difproposed by ethnologists in response to a ferential depth of deposit hold up when a similar subsistence change. The southwest- larger sample of sites is drawn; (2) whether ern Chippewa, the Plains Cree, and the Da- the adaptive shift suggested can be further kota, upon changing from a woodland-hunt- documented for sites in the wadis of the ing-and-trapping adaptation to the exploita- western slopes of the coastal ranges; (3) tion of large gregarious mammals on the whether the suggested correlation between a Plains, are thought to have undergone the slight climatic drying trend, change in adapkind of mating change suggested above tation, and appearance of forms of man (Eggan 1955:530-532, Hickerson 1962: transitional between Neanderthal and mod74-76). It is not suggested here that Nean- ern man can be supported. The further exderthal populations before this time prac- cavation of new sites from this area without

BINFORD]

Upper Pleistocene in the Levant

715

specific questions in mind will probably do little toward the elucidation of the problem under discussion. No excavator can observe everything about a site or its contents; it is suggested here that the preexcavation formulation of hypotheses, based on extant data, can give badly needed direction to new research efforts.
NOTES Presented in abbreviated form at the 66th Meetings of the American Anthropological Association, Washington, D.C., December 1967. This paper was read in manuscript form by Mrs. Lorraine Copeland of the Institute of Archaeology, London, who has offered some very useful criticism and added to the sample of Lebanese sites considered (see Note 6). Mrs. Copeland has expressed the opinion that my insistence that stone tools do not evolve is rather extreme, since directional changes in the composition of lithic assemblages can be demonstrated. I do not question in the slightest that the contents of archeological sites change through time, nor that in general they tend to become more complex. I do, however, strenuously object to the sympathetic fallacy and to the kinds of thinking it can lead to with respect to stone tools. Only living systems contain genetic material, and only they are capable of evolution. The attribution of evolutionary capabilities to stone tools most often leads to explaining variability within or between lithic assemblages in reductionist terms-cg., The tools from site X are the ancestral form of the tools from site Y. In its most extreme form this kind of thinking associates components of assemblages from the same site with different kinds of people. A classic example of this can be found in a report of a site in Lebanon, the Abri Zumoffen, where blades and thick scrapers occurred within the same level. The authors offered the remarkable interpretation that this phenomenon was produced by two peoples who continued to live side by side for some time, perhaps as the result of intermarriage (Garrod & Kirkbride 1961:43). This is an intriguing and baffiing notion from both a biological and cultural point of view. Mrs. Copeland has expressed some uneasiness with the statement that the change from Middle to Upper Paleolithic involved the rapid replacement of one technological means of tool manufacture by another, since many of the tools in the early Upper Paleolithic of the Near East are made by Middle Paleolithic techniques. The phenomenon is not limited to the Near East; in Europe also the early Upper Paleolithic contains many implements that are not manufactured by punch-blade technique. The problem here is to distinguish between morphological changes in tools and the techniques by which the blanks for the tools were produced. Certainly the forms of the tools themselves change before new techniques for their manufacture are consistently used. Yet when a drastic increase in blade technology appears, it tends to replace in large part the earlier techniques. The word rapid is a rela-

tive one, and given the two million years for which lithic industries are documented, 1 will stick with my assertion that the change from a technique that produced mostly flakes to one that produced mostly blades was rapid. The point that adaptive shifts in earlier levels must be understood in order to explain changes appearing in subsequent levels of organization has been recently made with respect to major steps in vertebrate evolution (Romer 1967: 1633-1634). In criticism of this statement, Mrs. Copeland has mentioned her difficulties in maintaining a garden on the coast at Beirut during the spring, summer, and fall. Since there is almost no extant coastal plain in this region, obviously my generalization is valid only for the more southern areas where there is a rather extensive coastal plain. The experience of the Israeli Department of Health in eradicating malaria from these regions gives some indication that mosquito-breeding conditions prevail. OThe very useful inventory of Paleolithic sites in Lebanon (Copeland & Wescombe 1965, 1966) was graciously sent to me by Mrs. Copeland. There is an imposing list of Middle Paleolithic coastal sites, but unhappily they consist principally of poorly documented surface finds. The only sites that might raise questions about the generalizations I have made are Ras el-Kelb, Bezez, and Nahr Ibrahim. Ras el-Kelb contains deep deposits-i.e., there are several meters of breccia. However, according to the section published by Garrod and Henri-Martin (1961), the Mousterian horizons do not occur continuously throughout the breccia but appear as discrete, discontinuous levels. Bezez (Garrod 1966), a cave very near the present shore, obviously contained rather substantial deposits. The history of the cave and the answer to how much of the deposits are i n sifu are still far from clear (Garrod 1966:8). Nahr Ibrahim, another cave near the coast, has thick breccias that have not yet been dug. Whether or not they w i l l yield evidence of continuous or discrete Mousterian occupations can obviously not be determined at this time. Even if the deposits at Bezez and Nahr Ibrahim should contradict the generalizations made in this paper, the overwhelming proportion of the sites on the coastal plain appear to support my statement that the coastal occupations are less continuous than those in the wadis to the west. Also, as Mrs. Copeland points out: In talking about what are toduy coastal sites, it should be kept in mind that they may have been far from the shoreline durin the Wiirm. [This] puts them nearer ecologicaPiy to such valley sites as Ksar Akil (Copeland 1968). Higgs (1961) in his paper dealing with faunal changes in the Mediterranean coastal areas states that the increases in Bos noted for the Mt. Carmel sites and KsPr ALil are directly due to chanpes in climate. It is argued here that even minor chmatic shifts can produce changes in the distribution of game and that man would respond adaptively to such altered distributions. The frequencies of species of game in archeological sites is not an adequate direcf measure of frequencies occurring in nature; the presence of faunal remains at any site is the result of human action, and it does not seem

...

716

Anierican Anthropologist

[70, 1968

reasonable to assume that man selected a random sample of the fauna available for the hunt. REFERENCES CITED AMIRAN, D. H. K. 1960 Two types of border aridity in Palestine. Corn tes Rendus du XVIII Congrbs Internationaf de GCographie, 1956 (2) :461-465. ANONYMOUS 1953 Notes and news: Kebarah Cave. Israel Exploration Journal 3 :262. AVNIMELECH, M. 1952 Late Quaternary sediments of the coastal plain of Israel. Bulletin of the Research Council of Israel 2 3 - 5 7 . 1962 Morphological character of the Israelian coastal plain. Quaternaria 6:479-495. BAR-YOSEP, 0. 1966 Personal communication. BINFORD, L. R., AND S . R. BINFORD 1966 A preliminary analysis of functional variability in the Mousterian of Levallois facies. American Anthropologist 68 (2), pt. 2238295. BINFORD, S. R 1966 Mugharet es-Shubbabiq: a Mousterian cave in Israel. Israel Exploration Journal 16:18-32, 96103. 1968a A structural comparison of disposal of the dead in the Mousterian and Upper h k o lithic. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 24:139-154. 1968b Variability and change in the Near Eastem Mousterian of Levdlois facies. In New Perspectives in archwolOgY, s. Binford and L. R. Binford, eds. Chicago, Aldine Publishing Co. (in press) 1968c data and the Pleistocene. In Man the Hunter. I. DeVore and R Lee, eds. Chicago, Aldine Publishing Co. (in press) BORDES, F. B. 1953 Essai de classification des industries moust6riennes. Bulletin de la SociCt6 Pr& historique FranGaise 50:226235. 1955 Le Paleofithi ue et moyen de Jabrud (Syrie) e t l a question des pr6-Aurignacien. LAnthropologie 59:486507. 1960 Le prbAurignacien de Yabroud (Syrie) et son incidence la chronologie Quartenair0 en Moyen-orient. Of the Council of Israel 9C391-103. 1961 Mousterian cultures in France. Science 134:803-810. BUTZER, K. W. 1958 Quarternary stratigraphy and climate in the Near East. Bonner Geographische Abhandlungen 24. CAMPBELL, B. G. 1967 Human evolution. Chicago, Aldine Publishing Co. COPELAND, L., AND P. J. WESCOMBE 1965/66 Inventory of Stone Age sites in Lebanon. Mtlanger de IUniversitd %.-Joseph, 9 & I?. DOBZHANSKY, T. 1962 Mankind evolving. New Haven, Yale University Press.

ECGAN, F. 1955 Social anthropology of North American tribes. Chicago, University of Chicago Press. EWING, 1. F. 1947 Preliminary note on the excavations at the Palaeolithic site of Kslr Akil, Republic of k h l l o n . Anti uity 21:186-196. 1963 A probabye Neanderthaloid from Kslr Akil, Lebanon. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 21 :101-104. 1966 Brief note. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 24:275. FISHER, W. B. 1956 The Middle East. 3rd ed. London, Methuen. FLEISCH, H. 1954 Nouvelles stations prdhistorique au Liban. Bulletin de la Soci6t6 Prehistorique FranGaise 51 :564-568. 1956 DCpats prdhistonques de la Cdte Libanaise et leur place dans la chronologie bask sur le Quarternaire marin. Quarternaria 3: 101-132. GARROD, D. A. E. 1928 Excavations of a Palaeolithic cave in western Judaea. Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly 182-1135. 1937 The Near East: a gateway of prehistoric migration. I n Early man. G. MacCurdy, ed. Phdadelphia, Lippincott. 1942 Excavations at the cave of Shukbah, Palestine, 1928. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 8: 1-20. 1951 A transitional industry from the base of the upper palaeolithic in palestine and Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland 80:121-130. 1955 The Mugharet el-Emireh in Lower Galilee: type station of the Emiran industry. Journal of the ~~~~l ~ ~ t h bstitute ~ of ~ Great Britain and Ireland 85:l-22. 1956 Acheulto-Jabroudien et prd-Aurignacien de la grotte du Tabun (Mont Carmel): etude stratigraphique et chronologique. Quarternaria 3 :39-59. 1963 The Middle Palaeolithic of the Near East and the problem of Mt. Camel Man, The Huxley Memorial Lecture, 1962. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland 93:232-259. 1966 Mugharet el-Bezez, Adlun: interim report, July 1965. Bulletin du Mu& de Beyrouth 9:5-9. GARROD* D* A. E.* AND D . BATE 1937 The Stone Age of Mount Carmel, Vol. I. Oxford, Clarendon Press. GARROD, D* A* E** AND HErml-M~TIN 1961 Rapport Prelimingre la fouiUe dune grotte au Ras el-Kelb. Bulletin du M u s k de Beyrouth 16:61-67. GARROD, D. A. E.9 AND D. KIRKBRIDE 1961 Excavation of the Abri Zumoffen, a Paleolithic rock shelter near Adlun, south Lebanon, 1958. Bulletin du M u s k de Beyrouth 16:7-45. HAAS,G . 1962 Personal communication. HALLER, J. 1941 Notes de pr6histoire ph6nicienne; le gise-

BINFORD]

Upper Pleistocene in the Levant

717

ment levdoisien d'Amrit. Bulletin du MusQ 1937 Inferences on the problem of the Pleistode Beyrouth 5:31-33. cene climate of Palestine and Syria drawn from 1942/43 Notes de prdhistoire phknicienne: I'abri the flora, fauna, and stratigraphy. Proceedings de Abou-Halka (Tripoli). Bulletin du M u s h of the Prehistoric Society 3:58-70. de Beyrouth 6:l-19. 1965 The geological evolution of the QuarterHICKERSON, H. nary in the Central-Northern Jordan Graben, 1962 The southwestern Chippewa: an ethnohisIsrael. In International Studies in the Quartertorical study. American Anthropological Asnary. H. E. Wright, Jr. and D. G. Frey. eds. sociation Memoir 92. New York. The Geological Society of AmeriHIGGS, E. S. ca Inc. pp. 337-366. L. 1961 Some Pleistocene faunas of the Mediter- PRADEL, 1966 Transition from the Mousterian to the ranean coastal areas. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, Series 2, 27: 144-154. Perigordian: skeletal and industrial. Current Anthropology 7:33-50. HOOIJER, D. A. A. S. 1961 The fossil vertebrates of Ksiir 'Akil. ROMER, 1967 Major steps in vertebrate evolution. SciZoologische Verhandelingen, Leiden, No. 49: 4-67. ence 158:1629-1637. RUST, A. HOWELL:F. c. 1950 Die hohlenfunde von Jabrud (Syrien). 1957 The evolutionarv sienificance of variation Neumiinster, Karl Wachholtz Verlag. and varieties of 'Ne&d&hal' man. The QuarSERVICE, E. R. terly Review of Biology 32:330-347. 1962 Primitive social organization. New York, 1959 Upper Pleistocene stratigraphy and early Random House. man in the Levant. Proceedings of the AmeriSHALEM, N. can Philosophical Society 130: 1-65. 1950 Attributed climatic changes in the Levant. 1961 Stratigraphie du Pleistocene supCrieur dans Congrbs Internat'l de Ghgraphie, Lisbome, 1'Asie du sud-ouest. L'Anthropologie 65: 1-20. 1949. Compte Rendu 2:593-649. 1965 Early man. Life Nature Series, New York, SKINNER, J. Time Incorporated. 1966 The question of a transitional industry. MANISHI, SUZUKI, WATANABE, AND TAKN Doctoral dissertation, Columbia University. 1963 Preliminary report on 'Amud Cave. Tokyo University Scientific Expedition to Western STEKELIS, M., AND G. HMS 1952 The Abu Usba cave (Mount Carmel). Asia, 1962. Tokyo. Journal of the Israel Exploration Society 2:15E MAYR, 47. 1963 The taxonomic evaluation of fossil homiH.; TAKN, F. AND WATANABE nids. In Classification and human evolution. SUZUKI, 1965 Communications to VII international conS . L. Washburn, ed. Viking Fund Publications gress of Anthropological and Ethnological sciin Anthropology 37:332-346. ences, Moscow, August 3-10, 1964. Tokyo NEWILLE,R University Scientific Expedition to Western 1951 Le Paldolithique et le Mdsolithique de Asia. Tokyo. Desert de Judt5e. Archives de 1'Institute de TURVILLE-PETRE, F. Palkontologie Humaine 24: 1-270. 1927 Researches in prehistoric Galilee, 1925OAKLEY, K. P. 26. London, British School of Archaeology in 1966 Frameworks for dating fossil man. 2nd Jerusalem. ed. Chicago, Aldine Publishing Co. WILLET, H. C. ODUM,E. P. 1950 The general circulation at the last (Wiirm) 1959 Fundamentals of ecology. 2nd ed. Philaglacial maximum. Geogra6ska h a l e r 32: 179delphia and London, W. B. Saunders Co. 1 Rl. PEARSALL, W. H. 1962 The conservation of African plains game WRI(I&. E. H. as a form of land use. In The exuloitation of 1951 The eeoloeic settine of K s h 'Akil.Journal natural animal populations. E. D. *LeCrew and of Near hster'n Studiei 10:115-119. M. W. Holgate, eds. New York, John Wiley ZEUNER,F. E. 1963 A history of domesticated animals. New and Sons, Inc. York and Evanston, Harper and Row Inc. L . PICARD,