The Ahmarian tradition of the Levantine Upper Paleolithic: the environment of the archaeology

Gladfelter, Bruce G.

doi:10.1002/(sici)1520-6548(199707)12:4<363::aid-gea5>3.0.co;2-z

Cited by 8 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 48 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…There, the Artemisia steppe dominates the landscape due to the more arid conditions (Miebach et al, 2019;Richter et al, 2020). These conditions prevail even under generally more humid conditions as they are assumed for the mid-MIS 3 timeframe of the Early Ahmarian (Gladfelter, 1997;Miebach et al, 2019).…”

Section: Near-field and Far-field Visibility Around Sites In The Early Ahmarianmentioning

confidence: 97%

Gazelle Hunting Strategies in the Early Ahmarian: Close-Range Visuospatial Characteristics of Site Locations Indicate Spatially Focused Hunting Strategies on Gazella sp. During the Early Ahmarian

Sauer

Schoenenberg

2021

J Paleo Arch

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Visual conditions around Palaeolithic sites determine how the landscape was perceived by prehistoric hunter-gatherers. By placing the site in different landscapes, different visual foci were encoded in the locational characteristics of the different places. For the Early Ahmarian sites in the Levant, it can be shown that visual characteristics differ significantly with the combination of large ungulate prey exploited at the respective location. A Higuchi viewshed approach was combined with total viewsheds of the study area to introduce a human scale into the viewshed modelling. While diverse prey locations in the Mediterranean biome provide an overview over the landscape, specialised prey locations in the steppe biomes of the Irano-Turanian and Saharo-Arabian biome have their focus on the immediate vicinity of the sites. This correlates with the placement of sites in the context of highly humid environments which can be best exemplified with the site of Al-Ansab 1 in the escarpments of the Jordanian Rift Valley. Here, the environmental conditions acted as a magnet, focusing gazelles on the migration between different environments.

show abstract

Section: Near-field and Far-field Visibility Around Sites In The Early Ahmarianmentioning

confidence: 97%

Gazelle Hunting Strategies in the Early Ahmarian: Close-Range Visuospatial Characteristics of Site Locations Indicate Spatially Focused Hunting Strategies on Gazella sp. During the Early Ahmarian

Sauer

Schoenenberg

2021

J Paleo Arch

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Thus, the 30-50 Ka year gap in the fossil record for the modern humans re-appearance in the Levant calls into question whether or not the Qafzeh and Skhul humans had any long-term consequence for the evolution of modern humans in Eurasia. The presence of regional Upper Paleolithic industries in the Levant, such as the Ahmarian (Gladfelter, 1997), with no clear evidence of ancestry among North African Upper Paleolithic industries also suggests that the NE African and the Levantine Upper Pleistocene cultures evolved independently.…”

Section: The Levantine Fossil Data and Upper Pleistocene Dispersalsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Bab al Mandab vs the Nile-Levant: An Appraisal of the Two Dispersal Routes for Early Modern Humans Out of Africa

Beyin

2006

Afr Archaeol Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The confusion associated with these definitions may be related to site function (Bergman & Goring-Morris 1987;Bergman 1988). Interpretations of variability and site function centre on the premise that the Levantine Aurignacian developed as an adaptive strategy exploiting the Mediterranean woodland zone of the central Levant and the highlands of the trans-Jordanian plateau, while Ahmarian adaptive strategies were linked to the arid ecological conditions most prevalent in the southern Levant (Kaufman 1988;1998;Phillips 1994;Coinman & Henry 1995;Coinman 1997a;Gladfelter 1997). The applicability of this model to the entire Levant, however, is questionable, based on the recovery of assemblages consistent with an Ahmarian designation from desert, steppe, and Mediterranean woodland settings (Coinman 1997b;Kerry in prep.).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Intra- and Inter-Site Variability within the Levantine Upper Palaeolithic: Evidence from Jebel Humeima (J412), South-west Jordan

Kerry

2000

Proc. Prehist. Soc.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Expanded excavations at the rockshelter of Jebel Humeima (J412) in south-west Jordan provide the basis for re-evaluation of its Upper Palaeolithic lithic assemblage. Initially identified as Levantine Aurignacian, the sample is more closely aligned with the Early Ahmarian. The framework currently used for the Levantine Upper Palaeolithic, combined with spatial clustering of specific blank and tool types, is directly responsible for initial misidentification. This spatial clustering is thought to represent two distinct activity loci: early-stage core reduction and later-stage blade and tool production. This kind of technological and typological variability may also help account for some of the ambiguity within the current Upper Palaeolithic framework of the southern Levant.

show abstract

The Ahmarian tradition of the Levantine Upper Paleolithic: the environment of the archaeology

Cited by 8 publications

References 48 publications

Gazelle Hunting Strategies in the Early Ahmarian: Close-Range Visuospatial Characteristics of Site Locations Indicate Spatially Focused Hunting Strategies on Gazella sp. During the Early Ahmarian

Gazelle Hunting Strategies in the Early Ahmarian: Close-Range Visuospatial Characteristics of Site Locations Indicate Spatially Focused Hunting Strategies on Gazella sp. During the Early Ahmarian

The Bab al Mandab vs the Nile-Levant: An Appraisal of the Two Dispersal Routes for Early Modern Humans Out of Africa

Intra- and Inter-Site Variability within the Levantine Upper Palaeolithic: Evidence from Jebel Humeima (J412), South-west Jordan

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About