Computationally intensive multivariate statistics and relative frequency distributions in archaeology (with an application to the Early Epipaleolithic of the Levant)

Interaction before Agriculture: Exchanging Material and Sharing Knowledge in the Final Pleistocene Levant

“…By focusing not on the identification of archaeological patterns with ethnic or cultural dimensions (modern distinctions whose existence are far from clear in prehistory), but by insisting on the gestured politics and learned habits of persons situated within social structures we aim to highlight one element of organization and interaction in the Final Pleistocene of the Azraq Basin. We would emphasize that this is in line with the way in which many other scholars have discussed variability in the lithic industries of the Final Pleistocene ( Bar-Yosef 1991;Byrd 1994;Goring-Morris 1995;Goring-Morris & Belfer-Cohen 1998;Goring-Morris et al 2009;Henry 1989;Stutz & Estabrook 2004).…”

“…During the Early Epipalaeolithic, Kebaran assemblages (lacking the microburin technique) are found predominantly along the Mediterranean coastal plain and in the central Rift Valley, extending into the Beqaa' Valley to the north (Bar-Yosef 1981;Fellner 1995a;Goring-Morris 1995;Goring-Morris & Belfer-Cohen 1998;Hours 1992;Schyle 1996). Largely contemporary Nebekian inventories are predominantly found in the eastern, more arid Levant, stretching from southern Jordan all the way into central Syria (Byrd 1994;Goring-Morris 1995;Goring-Morris & Belfer-Cohen 1998;Goring-Morris et al 2009;Henry 1995;Olszewski 2001;Rust 1950;Stutz & Estabrook 2004;Schyle 1996). From the Nizzanian onwards, however, there appears to be somewhat less spatial differentiation.…”

Modeling foraging ranges and spatial organization of Late Pleistocene hunter–gatherers in the southern Levant – A least-cost GIS approach

“…At Kharaneh IV these microliths have been classified as Kebaran (Maher et al, 2012a;Muheisen, 1988;Richter et al, 2013), while at Jilat 6 they are considered Nebekian and Nizzanan, the latter considered to be closely related but occurring slightly later in time (Garrard and Byrd, 2013). It is widely perceived that these broadly contemporaneous lithic industries (Kebaran vs. Nebekian and Nizzanan), which are mainly defined by backed bladelet manufacturing techniques and the size and shape of the resulting microliths, represent either distinctive ethnic/social groups or tool manufacturing traditions of long-standing duration (Bar-Yosef, 1991b;Goring-Morris et al, 2009;Goring-Morris and Belfer-Cohen, 1997;Henry, 1995;Olszewski, 2011;Stutz and Estabrook, 2004). This perception is reinforced by the fact that Kebaran sites are documented mainly in the more mesic Western and Central Areas of the Southern Levant, while Nebekian sites appear to be primarily if not exclusively concentrated in the more arid Eastern Area (see Figure 4).…”

An Early Epipalaeolithic sitting burial from the Azraq Oasis, Jordan

“…Area D on the other hand produced an assemblage containing piquant triedre and arched-backed bladelets. These assemblages fall within the spectrum of other known Early Epipalaeolithic chipped stone industries known from the Azraq Basin and the Levant in general ( Bar-Yosef & Vogel 1987;Bar-Yosef 1989;Hours 1992;Byrd 1994;Goring-Morris 1995;Schyle & Uerpmann 1996;Olszewski 2001Olszewski , 2006Stutz & Estabrook 2004). In addition, the site has produced a sizeable faunal assemblage, which has to date only been preliminarily examined (Richter et al 2010).…”