Epipalaeolithic settlement dynamics in ... - Wiley Online Library

JOURNAL OF QUATERNARY SCIENCE (2013) 28(5) 467–479

ISSN 0267-8179. DOI: 10.1002/jqs.2629

Epipalaeolithic settlement dynamics in southwest Asia: new radiocarbon evidence from the Azraq Basin TOBIAS RICHTER,1* LISA A. MAHER,2 ANDREW N. GARRARD,3 KEVAN EDINBOROUGH,3 MATTHEW D. JONES4 and JAY T. STOCK5 1 Department of Cross-Cultural and Regional Studies, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark 2 Department of Anthropology, University of California – Berkeley, Berkeley, California, USA 3 Institute of Archaeology, University College London, London, UK 4 School of Geography, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK 5 Department of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK Received 20 March 2012; Revised 21 January 2013; Accepted 23 January 2013

ABSTRACT: A series of radiocarbon dates from two Epipalaeolithic sites – Kharaneh IV and Ayn Qasiyya – in the Azraq Basin of eastern Jordan provide a new perspective on the chronology and settlement patterns of this part of southwest Asia during the Late Pleistocene. We discuss the implications to our understanding of the chronology of Late Pleistocene lithic industries, particularly in regard to current hypotheses for the abandonment of eastern Jordan’s ‘mega-sites’, Kharaneh IV and Jilat 6. Modelling a series of accelerator mass spectrometry dates from Kharaneh IV indicates a much shorter span of occupation for the site than previously assumed by the size and density of its deposits. Given the high density of material accumulated over a relatively short time span, we show that Kharaneh IV was an aggregation site occupied intensively by a significant number of people, providing new perspectives on the east Jordanian phenomenon of Epipalaeolithic ‘mega-sites’. Copyright # 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. KEYWORDS: Epipalaeolithic; Azraq; Jordan; radiocarbon dating; aggregation sites.

Introduction The Epipalaeolithic period (ca. 23 000–11 600 cal. a BP) of southwest Asia marks a phase of human prehistory where, over at least 10 000 years, hunter-gatherers initiated and experienced numerous transitions in economy, technology, social organization and ideology. These changes have long been thought of as critical in precipitating the emergence of agriculture and sedentism during the early Neolithic. Here we present a series of high-resolution accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) dates from two Epipalaeolithic sites excavated by the Epipalaeolithic Foragers in Azraq Project: Kharaneh IV (Maher et al., 2012, 2007; Muheisen, 1983, 1988b) and Ayn Qasiyya (Richter et al., 2007, 2010a, 2010b). Our results provide information concerning three key issues: 1. the formation of the very large and unusual Early Epipalaeolithic sites Kharaneh IV and Jilat 6 through aggregations of large numbers of people; 2. the chronology of Epipalaeolithic chipped stone artefact assemblages in the southern Levant; 3. the relationship between environmental change on the basis of existing palaeoenvironmental data and settlement dynamics, in particular with regard to the abandonment of Kharaneh IV and Jilat 6 at ca. 18 100 cal. a BP. Most significantly, the new data from Kharaneh IV indicate that it was occupied for a maximum time span of 1225 years. Coupled with the site’s large size and high density of finds, we argue that this reflects the aggregation of large numbers of people for extended periods of time, probably on a multiseasonal basis. This has implications for models of cultural change and settlement dynamics that attempt to explain the emergence of semi-sedentary and sedentary communities during the Late Epipalaeolithic Natufian and Pre-Pottery Neolithic A (PPNA). Correspondence: T. Richter, as above. Email: [email protected]

Copyright # 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Obtaining reliable and sufficient numbers of radiocarbon assays for the Epipalaeolithic has been a long-standing concern of archaeologists working in the region (Bar-Yosef and Vogel, 1987; Byrd, 1994, 1998; Goring-Morris and Belfer-Cohen, 1998; Meadows, 2004; Stutz, 2004). Preservation issues have often limited the number of radiocarbon dates available for individual sites, while previously reported radiocarbon dates sometimes lacked specific contextual details or relevant information on the sample material (i.e. charcoal identification). Multiple assays from individual contexts or phases remain rare. Furthermore, until recent refinements in sample preparation, dating and calibration methods were made, many age estimates were associated with errors > 100 years, sometimes greater than the Epipalaeolithic phase they were supposed to provide a date for. These problems have often imposed limitations on the interpretation of social, cultural and economic change during the Late Pleistocene in southwest Asia (e.g. Byrd, 2005; Maher et al., 2011a; Robinson et al., 2006). The new data presented here represent a significant methodological improvement over the earlier work which, together with Bayesian modelling, allows us to increase the chronological accuracy of the available dataset.

Study area and background The Azraq Basin is a 12 000 km2 large drainage system situated predominantly in eastern Jordan (Fig. 1). Today it is dominated by semi-arid to arid steppe and desert vegetation, interspersed with numerous wadis and seasonally flooded playas (Qas). Surface runoff and groundwater drain to the centrally located Azraq Oasis, where several springs fed a series of marshlands that, until recently, provided a rich aquatic environment for human groups who have occupied the basin since the Lower Palaeolithic (Copeland and Hours, 1989; Rollefson, 1983; Rollefson et al., 1997). Given its unique regional environmental conditions the Azraq Basin is at the centre of intensive archaeological research into the Upper Palaeolithic, Epipalaeolithic and early Neolithic,

468

JOURNAL OF QUATERNARY SCIENCE

Figure 1. Distribution of principal Epipalaeolithic sites in the Azraq Basin, eastern Jordan. This figure is available in colour online at wileyonlinelibrary.com.

designed to better understand the role of what has often been described as ‘marginal’ environments in the emergence of food production, herding and sedentism (Betts, 1991, 1998; Byrd, 1994; Byrd and Garrard, 1989; Garrard, 1991, 1998; Garrard et al., 1988, 1994a, b, 1996; Muheisen, 1988a, 1988b). Particularly notable among the numerous Epipalaeolithic sites excavated in the Azraq Basin to date are Jilat 6 and Kharaneh IV, which have sometimes been referred to as ‘mega-sites’ in the literature (Byrd, 1988; Garrard and Byrd, 1992; Garrard et al., 1988, 1994a; Muheisen, 1988a, 1988b). These two enormous, multi-phased Epipalaeolithic sites are unique Late Pleistocene habitation areas, given their 1.9–2.1 ha extent and dense concentrations of finds (Fig. 2). Their appearance and subsequent abandonment has, to date, not been adequately explained. In contrast, Ayn Qasiyya (Richter et al., 2010a) and other Epipalaeolithic sites in the oasis and surrounding environs are considerably smaller and often far less dense in material culture (Garrard et al., 1994a).

Figure 2. Topographic plan of Kharaneh IV showing location of Area B west section and layout of Areas A and B. This figure is available in colour online at wileyonlinelibrary.com. Copyright # 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

The Azraq Basin is also known for its diverse range of lithic industries during the Early Epipalaeolithic, encompassing various techno-typological entities (Byrd, 1988, 1994; Garrard and Byrd, 1992; Garrard et al., 1988, 1994a; GoringMorris, 1995; Muheisen, 1988a; Muheisen and Wada, 1995; Olszewski, 2001, 2006; Richter et al., 2010a, 2011). The series of five AMS dates from Ayn Qasiyya are used to provide further chronological control for occupation of the central Azraq Oasis during the Early Epipalaeolithic. Together with these dates the sequence of stratified dates from Kharaneh IV, and those from other occupations, help to construct a picture of regional settlement chronology, providing absolute chronological markers to contextualize these lithic assemblages. Climatic reconstructions have often described the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) as cold and dry, and the Azraq Basin, apart from the central oasis area, as a hyper-arid locale (e.g. Bar-Yosef, 1987, 1989, 1995, p. 518, Fig. 35.4, 1996; Byrd, 1998; Enzel et al., 2008; Robinson et al., 2006). Although locally available palaeoenvironmental datasets are limited, the radiocarbon assays presented here help to better correlate the local sequence of cultural change with broader climatic and environmental patterns and models (Jones and Richter, 2011). The relatively short period of time reflected in the sequence of radiocarbon dates from Kharaneh IV, combined with the density of finds, uninterrupted stratigraphic sequence, thickness of archaeological deposits, size of Kharaneh IV and presence of dwelling structures, provides a new perspective on settlement patterns in the Azraq Basin (see also Maher et al., 2012). This has implications for our understanding of settlement dynamics beyond this immediate region, and the changing settlement patterns in southwest Asia from a fully hunter-gatherer, nomadic lifestyle towards the beginnings of sedentism and farming.

Methods The site of Kharanhe IV was first excavated by the Jordanian Department of Antiquities under the direction of Muheisen during two field seasons during the 1980s (Muheisen, 1983, 1988a, 1988b). These excavations focused on three main areas (Areas A–C), which revealed a succession of four phases of occupation: Phases A–D. Phases A–C produced assemblages dominated by non-geometric microliths, dating it to the Early Epipalaeolithic. Phase D, which is confined to the southwestern part of the mound, produced a lithic assemblage dominated by large geometric microliths, which show great variation in shape (Muheisen and Wada, 1995). This industry with an affinity to the Geometric Kebaran has been dated to the Middle Epipalaeolithic. Renewed excavations at Kharaneh IV have been underway since 2007 by the Epipalaeolithic Foragers in Azraq Project (EFAP). Work as part of EFAP has reopened Muheisen’s Areas A and B, targeting the Middle and Early Epipalaeolithic sequences respectively. The Early Epipalaeolithic site of Ayn Qasiyya was first reported by Rollefson et al. (2000) and was excavated by EFAP from 2005 to 2007 (Richter et al., 2007, 2010b). Excavations produced a variety of Early Epipalaeolithic industries (Kebaran and Nebekian), a Natufian and an PPNB component. The latter were found in a residual situation and therefore do not form part of the discussion here. The Epipalaeolithic material discussed here was recovered from Areas A, B and D and from exposed sections of an adjacent dry pool (see also Jones and Richter, 2011). J. Quaternary Sci., 28(5) 467–479 (2013)

EPIPALAEOLITHIC SETTLEMENT DYNAMICS IN SOUTHWEST ASIA

Radiocarbon samples from Kharaneh IV were obtained during the 2008 field season, while the Ayn Qasiyya samples were obtained during excavations in 2006 and 2007. The method of collection was the same for both sites. Carbonized botanical remains were transferred directly from their excavated context into sterile sample containers, observing standard protocols for sample recovery. The location of each sample was plotted individually in three dimensions using a total station and, where possible, their locations were also marked directly on section drawings (e.g. Fig. 4). This provides a high degree of stratigraphic and contextual control so that the provenance of each sample is accurately known. At Kharaneh IV samples were taken from the two main excavation areas: Areas A and B. In Area B, which consists of several overlapping occupation phases associated with an Early Epipalaeolithic Kebaran lithic assemblage, a deep sondage was excavated to a depth of 1.9 m into sterile deposits, revealing a 1.5 m thick section of cultural stratigraphy (Figs 3 and 4). This corresponds to Muheisen’s Phases A– C. More than 50 charcoal samples were collected directly from two of the sections of this deep sounding and those that have already been dated are discussed here. In Area A excavations exposed a large horizontal area of a phase associated with large geometric microliths, identified as Geometric Kebran (termed Phase D in Muheisen, 1988a; Muheisen and Wada, 1995). Here, charcoal samples were taken during excavation from a number of in situ subsurface contexts. These contexts consist of compact occupation surfaces or floors, hearths and post-holes (Muheisen, 1988a; Maher et al., 2012). Although Areas A and B are spatially separated they are stratigraphically phased. A deep sounding in Area A excavated in 2010 demonstrated that Early Epipalaeolithic deposits occur beneath the Geometric Kebaran occupation. During the excavations at Ayn Qasiyya samples were obtained from horizontal exposures with their position and contextual association recorded in three dimensions (Richter et al., 2007, 2010a). Samples were also obtained from one exposed section in a now dry pool adjacent to the site where archaeological deposits were documented (Jones and Richter, 2011). Two samples were obtained from Area A, one sample each from Areas B and D, and one sample from Section 1 in the dry pool.

469

Figure 3. Photograph of Kharaneh IV Area B west section detailing the succession of the rich cultural sequence. This figure is available in colour online at wileyonlinelibrary.com.

Preservation of charred remains at both sites, especially Kharaneh IV, was very good and thus we were able to select from a large number of charcoal samples. To minimize problems associated with the ‘old wood effect’ (Schiffer, 1986, 1987; Ward and Wilson, 1978) the selected samples of charcoal from Kharaneh IV and Ayn Qasiyya were first identified to genus and/or species level and only charcoal pieces from twigs or small branches were used for dating (see Table 1). The charcoal from Area A at Kharaneh IV was too small and fragmentary to be identifiable. Nevertheless,

S

N

Muheisen’s phases

(000)

.15 Phase C (Nizzanian)

(057)

640.05 m.a.s.l. .95

.75 Phase B (Late Kebaran)

.65

639.55 m.a.s.l.

(035)

(036)

.85 (038)

(037)

(040)

12 11 3

(043)

(045)

(002)

10

7

(048)

1

.45 (053)

.35 .25

13

.05 638.95 m.a.s.l.

(060) (062)

14

.85 .75

16

(027)

17

15 18

19 20 21

23 22 24

(030) (031)

8

5

(046) 6

(052)

(042) (044) (047) (050) (051)

30

29

.15 Phase A (Early Kebaran)

9

(041)

2

(049)

(039)

4

(028)

(029)

25 27

26 28

(004) (058)

Occupation Surface Floor

(061)

Sterile Disturbed/ Animal burrow Charcoal samples to be submitted Other charcoal samples

.65 .55 .45 .35 .25

Epipalaeolithic Foragers in Azraq Project Kharaneh IV 2008 Area B (R/S2/60) West Section

.15 .05

Figure 4. Drawing of Kharaneh IV Area B west section. Copyright # 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

J. Quaternary Sci., 28(5) 467–479 (2013)

470


Table 1. List of newly obtained and existing dates from Epipalaeolithic occupations in the Azraq Basin.

Site and Excavation context

Lab sample no.

Ayn Qasiyya Section 1, Context 56 OxA 18829 Area A, Context 60 OxA18832 Area A, Context 80 OxA18831 Area A, Context 81 Poz 33101 Area B, Context 1008 Poz 33103 Area D, 3004 Poz 33106 Kharaneh IV Area B, Sample 4 Ph. B OxA 22287 Area B, Sample 10 Ph. B OxA 22274 Area B, Sample 6 Ph. B OxA 22273 Area B, Sample 15 Ph. A OxA 22288 Area B, Sample 19 Ph. A OxA 22275 Area B, Sample 25 Ph. A OxA 22290 Area B, Sample 24 Ph. A OxA 22289 Area A, AP42.9C Ph. D Poz 35078 Area A, AS38.12 Ph. D Poz 35080 Area A, AP37.14 Ph. D Poz 35081 Area A, AP36.37 Ph. D Poz 35082 Area A, AP37.30 Ph. D Poz 35083 Kharaneh IV (Muheisen Excavations) S2/60 loc 15 Ph. B Q-3075 S2/60 loc 6 Ph. C Q-3074 D1/40 loc 5 Ph. D Q-3073 D1/40 loc 1 Ph. D Q-3072 Phase D, A19.37 KN-4192 Phase D, A19.37 KN-4193 Pre-Phase D? GrN-15193 Jilat 6 Middle OxA 522 Middle OxA 523 Upper OxA 524 Upper OxA 525 Upper AA 5494 Upper AA 5493 Upper AA 5491 Upper AA 5492 Uwaynid 18 Upper OxA 864 Upper OxA 868 Uwaynid 14 Lower OxA 866 Upper OxA 865 Jilat 8 OxA 521 OxA 636 Jilat 10 OxA 520 OxA 1000 OxA 918 Jilat 22 Middle OxA 1771 Middle OxA 1772 Lower OxA 2409 Lower OxA 2410 Upper OxA 1770

Charcoal, Charcoal, Charcoal, Charcoal, Charcoal, Charcoal,

14 C age (a BP, 2s range)

Calibrated age (a BP) INTCal09

Material

D13

Amygdalus Amygdalus Chenopodiaceae Chenopodiaceae Tamarix Tamarix

25.90 23.70 11.30 15.80 23.70 25.40

17 17 17 19 16 16

550 495 555 690 960 080

75 75 75 150 110 100

21 21 21 23 20 19

22.96 11.04 23.85 24.05 26.07 24.49 10.16 — — — — —

15 15 15 16 16 16 16 15 15 15 15 15

980 770 890 275 145 200 300 470 520 470 650 480

60 80 90 60 75 65 65 80 80 90 80 80

19 400–18 902 19301–18696 19 387–18 836 19 793–18 957 19 450–18 935 19 555–18 930 19 821–18 989 18 857–18 551 18 880–18 575 18 864–18 546 19 220–18 602 18 861–18 556

Charcoal, Chenopodiaceae Charcoal, indeterminate dicot Charcoal, Chenopodiaceae Charcoal, Chenopodiaceae Charcoal, indeterminate dicot Charcoal, Chenopodiaceae Charcoal, indeterminate dicot Plant species not identifiable Plant species not identifiable Plant species not identifiable Plant species not identifiable Plant species not identifiable

310–20 266–20 313–20 984–22 419–19 435–18

492 477 495 961 603 915

Bone Bone Bone Bone Charcoal? Charcoal? Charcoal

— — — — — — —

13 12 10 9 15 15 14

970 200 620 840 200 700 570

150 140 125 120 450 160 350

17 14 12 16 19 19 18

498–16 877–13 760–12 415–17 415–17 334–18 547–16

776 770 115 449 449 610 995

Charcoal Bone Charcoal Charcoal Charcoal Charcoal Charcoal Charcoal

— — — — — — — —

11 11 15 16 16 16 16 15

470 450 520 010 700 695 575 470

80 200 200 200 140 120 120 130

13 13 19 19 20 20 20 18

487–13 763–12 316–18 541–18 233–19 225–19 097–19 927–18

146 903 147 766 477 484 437 503

Charcoal Charcoal

— —

19 800 350 19 500 250

24 474–22 619 23 905–22 510

Charcoal Charcoal

— —

18 400 250 18 900 250

23 415–21 991 22 476–21 386

Charcoal Bone

— —

13 310 120 10 540 160

16 827–15 504 12 755–11 835

Charcoal Charcoal Charcoal

— — —

14 790 200 13 120 180 12 700 300

18 566–17 502 16 658–15 152 16 440–14 026

Charcoal Charcoal Charcoal Charcoal Charcoal

— — — — —

13 12 13 13 11

040 840 490 540 920

180 140 110 120 180

16 16 16 16 14

601–15 342–14 929–15 986–16 229–13

082 718 985 136 320

The asterisk () indicates dates that seem abnormal compared to other dates from the same site/deposit and the associated material culture.

lacking any other datable samples we felt it was important to proceed with the available material. Samples were dated at the Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit and the Poznan Radiocarbon Laboratory, using AMS. The radiocarbon dates in the case study region were then calibrated to generate a linked series of chronological models. These models allow us to compare both intra-site Copyright # 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

and inter-site temporal variation in more detail following on from recent chronological debate (e.g. Blockley and Pinhasi, 2011; Maher et al., 2011a). We used CalPal calibration software with the IntCal09 calibration curve (Weninger and Jo¨ris, 2008; Reimer et al., 2010). CalPal produces a summed probability distribution frequency in calendar years which provides an accurate rendering of the entire temporal J. Quaternary Sci., 28(5) 467–479 (2013)


spread of all the calibrated dates for each site we present in the case study region (Table 1 and Fig. 5). Despite obvious issues with ‘old wood’ and the history of improvements in radiocarbon dating, we believe our resultant CALPAL multiplots provide an excellent way of evaluating all the extant published radiocarbon evidence at the same time. This allows us to visually explore all these issues with the available data we present, while simultaneously comparing inter-site temporal relationships. The CALPAL radiocarbon summing method has been shown to be both accurate and surprisingly conservative at various regional scales of analysis (Buchanan et al., 2010, 2011; Edinborough, 2008; Shennan and Edinborough, 2007; Weninger et al., 2011). OxCal software (Bronk Ramsey, 2010) and the IntCal 09 calibration curve (Reimer et al., 2010) were used to model the dates for Kharaneh IV (Fig. 6). OxCal uses the prior information of the stratigraphic relationships and the superpositional orderings of calibrated radiocarbon results to derive precise probabilistic statements regarding the temporal relationships between archaeological phases (Bronk Ramsey, 2010). The combination of CalPal summed results with OxCal phased results can be highly informative if the same calibration curve is used (Edinborough, 2008). It allows the precise start, end and duration of the Kharaneh IV occupations to be placed within the context of radiocarbon data from all Epipalaeolithic archaeological sites in the Azraq basin.

Results New results for Kharaneh IV A total of 14 new radiocarbon dates from Kharaneh IV are discussed here. All samples produced results with errors

471

between 60 and 80 years. This resulted in a stratigraphically ordered sequence with no significant chronological outliers except for sample OxA-22288 in Phase 4. We have decided to leave this probable outlier out of our final OxCal analysis, increasing the OxCal Agreement Index of the model to 129%, as opposed to the lower Agreement Index of 95% when this sample is retained in the analysis. (Table 1 and Fig. 6). In terms of lithic technology and typology, the greatest shift in the Kharaneh IV sequence occurs between Areas A and B, with the former representing a Geometric Kebaran-type assemblage with variations of trapeze-rectangles (corresponding to Muheisen’s Phase D; Muheisen, 1988a). Area B, on the other hand, consists of non-geometric microliths such as narrowly backed bladelets, obliquely truncated bladelets, and micropoints (corresponding to Muheisen’s Phases A–B; Muheisen, 1988a). Our Bayesian OxCal site-phase model restricts the age of the Area A material to 18 850–18 600 cal. a BP, while the Area B sequence is bracketed between 19 830 and 18 730 cal. a BP (Fig. 6). Taken as a whole, the Kharaneh IV dates are tightly clustered, placing occupation of the site between 19 830 and 18 600 cal. BP with 95% confidence. This indicates a maximum duration for occupation of the site of 1225 radiocarbon years. This spans a sequence of 1.4 m of deposits in Area B in addition to the 0.5 m thick archaeological horizon of Area A. Although Areas A and B are separate, given the stratigraphic relationship and phasing of the site (see above) they can be considered a continuous depositional sequence (see above). In other words, 1.9 m of dense cultural material accumulated as the result of human activities over the course of 1225 years at most. These dates represent the first continuous sequence of absolute radiometric dates from one of the large east Jordanian Epipalaeolithic

Figure 5. Probability plot of all 14C dates from Epipalaeolithic occupations in the Azraq Basin. Copyright # 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

J. Quaternary Sci., 28(5) 467–479 (2013)

472


Figure 6. Bayesian phasing model of the Kharaneh IV radiocarbon sequence. OxCal v4.1.7 Bronk Ramsey (2010); r:5 Atmospheric data from Reimer et al. (2009).

aggregation site. Their stratigraphic continuity, relatively small analytical errors and secure contextual association mean that they provide a key anchor for the Late Pleistocene cultural chronology in the Azraq Basin.

Previous ages estimates from Kharaneh IV The new dates from Kharaneh IV also allow us to reassess a number of bone and charcoal dates obtained from previous excavations at the site in the 1980s by Muheisen. This includes four dates on animal bone derived from Muheisen’s Phases B, C and D. They produced dates of between 10 700 and 17 400 cal. a BP (Table 1), some of which were Copyright # 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

dismissed as too young (Byrd, 1994, p. 211). The new dates obtained as part of our current excavations confirm that several of these dates are outliers and are substantially too young in comparison to the new dates from the same contexts. Ancient bone has been shown to consistently produce younger dates up until the introduction of ultrafiltration techniques (Brown et al., 1988). We conclude that these samples produced erroneously young age determinations and should therefore be dismissed. The three radiocarbon determinations based on charcoal, which Muheisen obtained from Phase D, on the other hand, fit much better into the sequence of new dates. Ironically, these dates were often considered as somewhat too old for the Phase D horizon and J. Quaternary Sci., 28(5) 467–479 (2013)


473

accompanying lithic industry. However, they are concurrent with the newly obtained radiocarbon dates. We therefore included them in the present model.

Ayn Qasiyya One of the six samples from Ayn Qasiyya produced an age estimate substantially earlier than the dates from Kharaneh IV (Fig. 7 and Table 1). The earliest date (Poz-33101) derives from a charred Chenopodiaceae twig taken from a buried palaeomarsh in Area A (Fig. 8). This deposit immediately overlies sterile lacustrine sediments. This lower palaeomarsh contained very few Early Epipalaeolithic chipped stone artefacts. PoZ 33101 therefore dates the earliest peat formation in this sequence in the oasis rather than the Epipalaeolithic occupation; as such, it has been omitted from assessments of site occupation, although it has some palaeoenvironmental implications (for more details on the site’s stratigraphy and geomorphology see Richter et al., 2010a; Jones and Richter, 2011). The deposits above this initial marsh sediment are also palaeomarsh deposits, but contain abundant chipped stone and faunal remains. They are dated by five samples that were collected from across three excavation trenches. Two age estimates were obtained from the stratified sequence in Area A (OxA-18831 and OxA18832). One date (OxA-18829) derives from the palaeomarsh in the sediment section in the Ayn Qasiyya pool, adjacent to Area A. The other two dates derive from the same palaeomarsh horizon in Areas B and D. Together these five dates provide evidence for the Early Epipalaeolithic occupation of the site from 21 260 to 18 990 cal. a BP, reflecting a span of occupation of 2270 radiocarbon years. The Oxford Laboratory dates are somewhat earlier than the two dates from the Poznan Laboratory. The latest two dates place the site as contemporary with Jilat 6 (Upper Phase) and Kharaneh IV Area B, while the dates from Area A are slightly earlier. These dates provide no vertical stratigraphic resolution because they were obtained from three separate excavation trenches and because fewer samples were dated. Since they derive from the same sedimentary context they date one overall phase of site occupation (Jones and Richter, 2011; Richter et al., 2010a). The lithic industries from Ayn Qasiyya can be

Figure 8. Photograph of Ayn Qasiyya Section 1 showing succession of lake deposits and palaeomarsh sediments. This figure is available in colour online at wileyonlinelibrary.com.

subdivided into two groups: Area A/B and Area D (Richter et al., 2007, 2010a; Richter, 2011). Area A/B is comparable with the industry documented at Kharaneh IV (Area B). The Ayn Qasiyyah Area D assemblage, on the other hand, is comparable to the industries from Uwaynid 14 and 18 (Upper Phase), and Jilat 6 (Lower Phase). The array of radiocarbon dates from Ayn Qasiyya is further constrained by OSL and other radiocarbon ages from above and below the Epipalaeolithic horizon (Jones and Richter, 2011).

Accuracy of results For both Kharaneh IV and Ayn Qasiyya, both of our OxCal models produce a high agreement index and are internally consistent in their results. Nonetheless, it is conceivable that samples from separate areas, processed in separate laboratories, may produce dating inconsistencies due to differences in laboratory processing methods. In the case of Kharaneh IV, all samples from Area A were processed in the Poznan Laboratory, while samples from Area B were processed by the Oxford Laboratory. The samples from Muheisen’s excavations were produced by the Cologne and Groningen

Figure 7. Bayesian phasing model of the Ayn Qasiyya radiocarbon sequence. OxCal v4.1.7 Bronk Ramsey (2010); r:5 Atmospheric data from Reimer et al. (2009). Copyright # 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

J. Quaternary Sci., 28(5) 467–479 (2013)

474


radiocarbon laboratories. Yet all dates from these labs are stratigraphically ordered and consistent with each other. In the case of Ayn Qasiyya, three samples from Area A were processed in the Oxford Lab, while one sample each from Areas A, B and D were processed in the Poznan Lab. One Ayn Qasiyya Area A sample processed in Poznan produced an older date than all other samples from this sequence. However, this sample derives from the lowermost deposit in this trench, just above the sterile lacustrine sediments (see Jones and Richter, 2011; Richter et al., 2010a), and is not inconsistent with our OxCal calibration model. Thus, given all currently available data and a priori knowledge of intraand inter-laboratory processing standards, we are confident that the series of presented dates are consistent, sequential and reliable (Table 1).

Discussion Lithic industries and cultural chronology The radiocarbon assays from Kharaneh IV and Ayn Qasiyya can be contextualized within the existing dates from other Late Pleistocene sites in the Azraq Basin (Garrard et al., 1994a; Garrard and Byrd, 1992; Garrard, 1998). There are few well-dated Epipalaeolithic occupations, except for the Early Epipalaeolithic site of Ohalo II, which has an excellent sequence of dates (Nadel et al., 1995, 2001), as well as Urkan e-Rubb IIa (Hovers and Marder, 1991) and Tor at-Tareeq (Neeley et al., 1998), owing to typically poor preservation of organic matter. Given the general paucity of dates for other Early and Middle Epipalaeolithic sites or single occupations across the Levant, the Azraq Basin sequences therefore provide an important chronological anchor. The earliest dates from the Late Pleistocene sequence in the Azraq Basin are those from Jilat 9 and Uwaynid 14 and 18. The dates from Jilat 9 and those from Uwaynid 18 lower phase situate these occupations quite firmly within the Upper Palaeolithic, although the accompanying lithic assemblages are quite sparse in both cases (Garrard et al., 1988, 1994a). The series of dates from Uwaynid 18 (Upper Phase) and Uwaynid 14 span from 24 200 to 21 500 cal. a BP (Table 1 and Fig. 5). The lithic assemblages from these phases reflect a fully fledged Early Epipalaeolithic toolkit, with numerous non-geometric microliths and microburins. The microliths, as well as the use of the microburin technique, distinguish these assemblages as belonging to the Nebekian industry, rather than the Kebaran (Byrd, 1994, 1998; Garrard and Byrd, 1992, 2013; Goring-Morris, 1995; Henry, 1988, 1995; Olszewski, 2001, 2006). The next group of Epipalaeolithic dates in Azraq are those from Ayn Qasiyya, Kharaneh IV and Jilat 6 (Upper Phase) (Fig. 5). Notably, this group of dates shows that Kharaneh IV and Jilat 6, the two largest sites in the region, were occupied at the same time. The Jilat 6 dates derive from the Upper Phase, which suggests that the Middle and Lower Phases, characterized by microliths made using the microburin technique, are older than 20 000 cal. a BP, and thus occupation may have been contemporary to Uwaynid 18 Upper Phase, which produced a very similar Nebekian-style lithic industry (Garrard and Byrd, 1992) and Ayn Qasiyya. The Middle Phase of Jilat 6 has been identified previously as either a Qalkhan or late Nebekian industry, depending on which nomenclature is preferred (Byrd, 1994, 1998; Henry, 1995; Olszewski, 2001, 2006). If Jilat 6 Lower Phase dates to roughly the same time frame as the comparable occupations from Uwaynid 14 and 18, they would pre-date the Kharaneh IV sequence established so far. Additional dates Copyright # 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

from the earlier phases of Jilat 6 would be required to test this idea. Occupations at both Jilat 6 and Kharaneh IV appear to terminate around 18 000 cal. a BP, with Jilat 6 extending just a little longer. Area D at Ayn Qasiyya produced a Nebekian industry that contains rare Qalkhan points and is dated by one date to 19 510–18 870 cal. a BP. The lack of further dated samples from Ayn Qasiyya Area D makes the reliability of this single date somewhat uncertain, but charcoal preservation in this area was quite sparse. It nevertheless introduces the possibility that, rather than being sequential industries, the Nebekian and Kebaran coexisted for a much longer period of time in the Early Epipalaeolithic than previously recognized (conventional dates place the Nebekian between ca. 22 000 and 20 000 a BP and the Kebaran from ca. 20 000 to 18 000 a BP). Collectively, the Kharaneh IV, Jilat 6 and Ayn Qasiyya dates highlight the considerable degree of diversity in lithic assemblages during the Early Epipalaeolithic in the Azraq Basin, a situation that has been widely acknowledged elsewhere (Bar-Yosef and Vogel, 1987; Goring-Morris, 1995; Goring-Morris and Belfer-Cohen, 1998; Hovers and Marder, 1991; Olszewski, 2004, 2006). As at the Kebaran site Urkan-e-Rubb IIa, the assemblages at Ayn Qasiyya and Kharaneh IV are dominated by obliquely truncated and backed bladelets. At the same time, the dates for these assemblages in Azraq are quite early, highlighting Hovers and Marder’s (1991) argument for a high degree of variability in the Early Epipalaeolithic. This diversity and its apparent contemporaneity suggest that multiple microlithic industries of the Final Pleistocene Levant developed synchronously, rather than as part of a more linear progression (see also Byrd, 1994). The third group of dates is represented by Jilat 8, 10 and 22 (Table 1 and Fig. 5). All these phases and sites post-date the occupations at Kharaneh IV, Jilat 6 and Ayn Qasiyya, and differ notably in their lithic assemblages. Jilat 10 has produced the earliest dates of these three sites, while Jilat 22 Upper Phase produced the latest date. A late date from Jilat 8 has been suggested to be a major outlier (Garrard et al., 1994a). It was obtained on a sample of burnt bone and thus seems to have produced a particularly young age; it is therefore not considered here (see above). These dates show that the post mega-site occupation in the Azraq Basin appears to have continued to be quite intense, as the presence of numerous sites in the Wadi el-Jilat shows. If we look outside the Azraq Basin, this sequence of dates fits in well with the cultural–chronological phasing of the Epipalaeolithic of the southern Levant. Ayn Qasiyya is the first instance of both Kebaran and Nebekian technologies at the same site and provides much-needed refinement for industries within the Early Epipalaeolithic here (Richter et al., 2010a; Richter, 2011). Elsewhere, single-occupation Early Epipalaeolithic entities (e.g. Nebekian or Kebaran) fall within a similar time frame as those in Azraq, but are geographically more circumscribed (i.e. Kebaran sites are concentrated to the west, Nebekian sites to the north, south and east; Bar-Yosef and Vogel, 1987; Goring-Morris, 1987; Goring-Morris et al., 2009). This fits well with the hypothesis that Kharaneh IV and Jilat 6 are aggregation sites where groups may have travelled from significant distances to congregate. The somewhat unusual combinations of Early and Middle Epipalaeolithic assemblages at both Jilat 6 and Kharaneh IV support this scenario; at sites where groups aggregated localized material culture differences may have become less visible over time (Richter et al., 2011). Within a wider Levantine context, perhaps one of the most significant implications of the data presented here are the J. Quaternary Sci., 28(5) 467–479 (2013)


very early dates for the Middle Epipalaeolithic from Kharaneh IV. A clear temporal distinction between Early and Middle Epipalaeolithic phases has always been elusive (Maher et al., 2011a). Kharaneh IV demonstrates that one of the main reasons for the problem in defining the end of the Early Epipalaeolithic and beginning of the Middle Epipalaeolithic is that the current cultural–chronological model is too abrupt and the industries are often seen as diagnostically Early and Middle Epipalaeolithic actually overlap in time. However, at Kharaneh IV the lithic industries are quite distinct from each other. There is a very well-defined difference between geometric and non-geometric microlithdominated occupations (which also extends beyond simply the frequency of geometric microliths) and non-geometric industries clearly disappear when Area B is abandoned, while geometric microliths dominate when Area A is occupied. It seems therefore that the distinction between Early and Middle Epipalaeolithic is not hindered at all by assemblage mixing at a specific site. The Middle Epipalaeolithic levels at Kharaneh IV are securely dated to this early age; however, comparison with dates from other Middle Epipalaeolithic sites suggests this may not be unusual (Maher et al., 2011, Table 2). Sites such as Wadi al-Hammeh 50 and 51, Nahal Neqarot, Nahal Oren, and Nahal Zin D5, with dates originally considered unusually early, should not be so readily dismissed as erroneous, although their very large errors do make their inclusion in Bayesian models problematic. The Azraq evidence therefore supports temporal overlap in Early and Middle Epipalaeolithic industries.

Palaeoenvironment The existence of sites like Kharaneh IV and Jilat 6, and the rich faunal and floral remains they produce, suggests a lush local palaeoenvironment, with abundant food, water and raw materials for occupation of at least two concurrent EpipalaeoTable 2. List of key sites and their phases/industries in the Azraq Basin. Period and Site/phase Early Epipalaeolithic Azraq 17 Kharaneh IV Phase A Kharaneh IV Phase B Jilat 6 Lower Phase Jilat 6 Middle Phase Uweynid 14 Middle Phase Uweynid 14 Upper Phase Uweynid 18 Upper Phase Ayn Qasiyya Area A/B Ayn Qasiyya Area D Kharaneh IV Phase C Jilat 6 Upper Phase Middle Epipalaeolithic Jilat 22 (Lower and Upper Phase) Jilat 10 Jilat 8 Kharaneh IV Phase D AWS 48 Jilat 28 Late Epipalaeolithic Azraq 18 Bawabah (Bawwab al-Ghazal) Khallat Anaza Mugharet el-Jawa Shubayqa I Jebel Subhi Copyright # 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Lithic industry

Masraqian Final Ahmarian/Masraqian Kebaran Nebekian Qalkhan Nebekian Nebekian Nebekian Kebaran Nebekian Nizzanian(?) Nizzanian ? ? ? Geometric Kebaran Geometric Kebaran Geometric Kebaran Natufian Natufian Natufian Natufian Natufian Natufian

475

lithic aggregation sites. Kharaneh IV and Jilat 6 are only approximately 25 km apart, and both occupy similar geomorphological contexts on low terraces adjacent to main wadis and are separated by further smaller valleys and areas of high ground. There is little palaeoenvironmental information of Epipalaeolithic age available from the wadis apart from data obtained from the sites themselves. Jones and Richter (2011) show that most of the LGM was probably a time of reduced water availability, compared to pre 22 ka, as water levels around the springs in the central Azraq Basin seem to have reduced at this time. However, the LGM was still characterized by water availability, as evidenced by lacustrine sediments and the development of a marsh at Ayn Qasiyya. Evaporation during the LGM is likely to have been significantly lower than today due to reduced temperatures at this time and may help explain the existence of several Pleistocene lakes elsewhere in the Near East such as Lake Lisan (Robinson et al., 2006) and Lake Hasa (Schuldenrein and Clark, 2001). This reduced evaporation opens up the possibility of year-round water flowing through these large wadis in the west of the Azraq Basin, or at least for flow to last significantly longer than it does today, and for local, natural damming of any rivers leading to small areas of standing water. The underlying, archaeologically sterile sediments at Kharaneh IV, which predate 19 800–20 000 cal. a BP, consist of clays and silts including freshwater snails, which also indicate a wetter local environment just prior to site occupation during the LGM. It is difficult to envisage a purely environmental reason for the formation of the two large sites at Kharaneh IV and Jilat 6. Evidence from the Azraq Oasis (Jones and Richter, 2011) shows that there was water availability throughout the Early Epipalaeolithic, with Ayn Qasiyya used as a local camp (Richter et al., 2010a), around what was an important source of permanent water where animals would have been readily available. It is unclear why larger sites were not established closer to these rich sources of water and food. Even though conditions around the springs may have been too marshy, other locations nearby would have likely provided more than suitable settlement localities. Kharaneh IV and Jilat 6 are 37 km west and 50 km southwest of Ayn Qassiya, respectively, and 150 m and 320 m higher. Today, summer conditions are much more comfortable at the higher elevations and there are significantly fewer midges compared to the marshes, which certainly impacted the locations of 20th-century nomadic campsites (Lancaster, pers. com.), but it is difficult to provide evidence either way for Epipalaeolithic populations. The faunal evidence from Kharaneh IV (Martin et al., 2010) also shows that these sites were in suitable environments for large numbers of gazelle, and the presence of a small number of waterfowl also hints at the presence of standing water nearby. There is increasing evidence of post-LGM reduction in water availability in the Azraq Basin after ca. 18 000 cal. a BP from a lack of groundwater recharge (Bajjali and AbuJaber, 2001) and sedimentary evidence of reduced lake levels in the Azraq Oasis (Jones and Richter, 2011). Unfortunately, there is no sedimentary evidence of environmental conditions directly around Kharaneh IV. This apparent reduction of extant water could explain the abandonment of the megasites at Kharaneh IV and Jilat 6. There is evidence of post-Jilat 6 occupations in the Wadi Jilat, and although still dense at times they are smaller and more dispersed (Byrd and Garrard, 1989; Garrard et al., 1988, 1994a). The deeply incised, large Wadi Jilat would have likely provided a more stable supply of seasonal fresh water to make continued local J. Quaternary Sci., 28(5) 467–479 (2013)

476


settlement possible (Garrard and Byrd, 1992). Martin et al. (2010) show that there was an increase in the proportion of juvenile gazelle culled at Kharaneh IV through time, with resultantly reduced numbers of equids that may have resulted from either changing in hunting strategies or external factors such as changes in water availability or gazelle herd movements. A drying landscape, caused by increased evaporation of winter rain-sourced rivers and standing water as temperatures increased, or by reduction in the winter rains themselves (either in magnitude or duration), would have made the presence of such large numbers of people in these locations difficult to sustain. Beyond changes in the settlement pattern this may well have also led to changes in subsistence such as the broadening of the food resource basis, although evidence for such a pattern in the Azraq Basin is as yet not available.

Kharaneh IV as an aggregation site The unusual nature of the east Jordanian ‘mega-sites’ has long been acknowledged by archaeologists working in the Late Pleistocene Levant (Garrard and Byrd, 1992; Goring-Morris, 1995) and their unprecedented large size, density and deep stratigraphic sequence have been taken to suggest that they were probably aggregation sites of some kind. With the help of the new radiocarbon dating sequence from Kharaneh IV and Ayn Qasiyya we can now better understand the timeline of these sites. Based on the few radiocarbon dates previously available and lithic typologies it was assumed that Kharaneh IV and Jilat 6 were occupied and reoccupied for a time span of ca. 3000–5000 years. The unusual size and density of Kharaneh IV and Jilat 6 were rationalized by thinking of them as repeatedly revisited locales, with the size and finds reflecting a process of gradual accumulation of cultural material over a long period of time. Although this pattern would be remarkable in itself, the new dates show that these very large, very dense sites were occupied for a fraction of the previously assumed time range. The 1225 years reflected in the maximum range of the radiocarbon dates consequently mean that at least in the case of Kharaneh IV larger numbers of people must have come to the site, probably staying there for longer periods of time than was previously thought. There is no interruption in the stratigraphic sequence of Kharaneh IV: dense cultural layers were laid down on top of each other without any sterile sediments appearing in the main areas of the site thus far excavated. Kharaneh IV covers an area of 21 000 m2, while Jilat 6 is approximately 19 000 m2 in extent. Although erosion and deflation along the edges of both sites may make them appear larger, recent excavations along the margins of Kharaneh IV have shown that this is not as substantial as once thought (of the order of 3–5 m of the overall circumference). Of course, the size of both sites does not reflect a single or just a few occupational events. They are the result of incalculable occupational events, similar to those attested for Ohalo II (Nadel, 2006), although on a larger scale. Excavations in 2010 also identified two oval-shaped hut features in the early Epipalaeoliothic Area B (Maher et al., 2012). Traces of additional structures, in the form of post-holes, hearths and compact surfaces, were also found in Area A. Although the sequence of archaeological deposits at Jilat 6 is also characterized by a high density of chipped stone and faunal remains, it does have three sterile deposits between the upper, middle, lower and basal phases, which suggest interruptions in the occupation (Garrard and Byrd, 1992; Garrard et al., 1977, 1994a; Garrard, 1998). The basal, lower and middle phases can be characterized as short-term, Copyright # 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

ephemeral occupations, but the upper phase – from which the reliable radiocarbon dates from the site originate – is quite substantial and produced evidence of features such as a floor stained with ochre pigment suggesting the presence of at least one structure. Although the initial phases of occupation at Jilat 6 were more ephemeral than those documented at Kharaneh IV, the upper phase that occurred at the same time as Kharaneh IV, with its potential structure, was intensive and covered an extensive area. As yet it is not possible to accurately judge the seasonality of the site or whether it was occupied year-round. Martin et al.’s (2010) study of the faunal remains of Muheisen’s 1980s excavations at Kharaneh IV cautiously suggests that the mortality profiles and presence of some migratory bird species may hint at a predominant use of the site in the winter and early spring. However, not only do they add the caveat that ‘Caution should be applied when attempting identification of hunting seasons from faunal data, because most approaches allow assessment of particular seasons only, and not the whole annual cycle. This is certainly the case for the KHIV data’ (Martin et al., 2010, p. 121), but they also point to the fact that there is some evidence for hunting during other times of the year. A more recent pilot study by Jones (2012), which examined the cementum on a small number of gazelle teeth, provides further tantalizing evidence for the seasonality of occupations at Kharaneh IV. The cementum profiles indicate that gazelle were killed at the site in autumn/winter and spring/summer season, suggesting that the site was occupied on a multi-seasonal basis (Jones, 2012, p. 199). This work provides data suggesting that the site may have been occupied for longer periods and at multiple times of the year (Garrard and Byrd, 1990) and the radiocarbon evidence presented here further contributes to this picture. This multi-seasonal or possibly year-round occupation could clearly relate to a fluctuating human population size, which may have grown seasonally to reach very large numbers perhaps during the winter and spring, when environmental conditions may have been particularly favourable. Nevertheless, it is possible that people continued to be in the Wadi Kharaneh area throughout the year, as the better availability of fresh water, plants and game would have made for an amenable habitat. The sheer amount and accumulation of cultural material over a relatively short time span suggest that Kharaneh IV’s occupants were probably not composed of small bands of hunter-gatherers who came to the site seasonally or sporadically. Instead, the emerging evidence suggests that Kharaneh IV was either repeatedly occupied by very large numbers of people, that it was occupied intensively for prolonged periods of time, or that it was settled more or less year round by fewer people. There is, so far, no accurate means to model rates of deposition of cultural materials over time at a site like Kharaneh IV, or of comparing rates between sites. It is, however, interesting to compare Kharaneh IV with Ayn Qasiyya. Radiocarbon dates suggest a span of 2270 radiocarbon years for Ayn Qasiyya, compared with 1225 years at Kharaneh IV. This longer sequence of time derives from a site which probably extends over an area covering no more than 3000 m2. Therefore, although the occupation covers a substantially longer period of time, it at the same time covers a substantially smaller area, has a more shallow stratigraphic sequence and is overall less dense in finds when compared to Kharaneh IV. This reinforces the idea that Kharaneh IV was occupied by more people during frequent or prolonged stays, or both. The continuity of occupation reflected in the uninterrupted depositional sequence, which is supported by the chronological continuity and integrity of the radiocarbon dates, seems to negate any J. Quaternary Sci., 28(5) 467–479 (2013)


suggestion that the site was only sporadically revisited by groups and there is no evidence for lengthy intervals between occupational events.

Conclusions The implications of the Azraq chronology are important for considering the emergence and evolution of sedentary communities, village life and food production in the Levant. The data presented here show that a more intense, long-lived use of particular locales first appeared during the Early Epipalaeolithic, when large numbers of people began to periodically congregate in specific locales for the first time. Whether or not this occurred during specific seasons or as part of a multiseasonal strategy is an issue that requires further investigation, although initial evidence appears to support a multi-seasonal pattern of occupation. But the implication of the radiocarbon results from Kharaneh IV would indicate a potentially critical change in the way in which people used the landscape during the Early Epipalaeolithic. The data presented here add to those from Ohalo II, where a similar argument for multiseasonal, prolonged occupation of a particular locale was put forward (Kislev et al., 2002; Nadel, 2004a, b, c). In other words, we argue that large, repeatedly occupied and, perhaps, semi-permanent sites, appeared long before the socalled proto-villages of the Early Natufian. This data and the hypothesis developed from it may be seen as controversial by some and certainly requires further careful examination. Many other bioarchaeological and sedimentological data will have to be considered to piece together the formation processes of Kharaneh IV. Nevertheless, we strongly believe that the east Jordanian mega-site phenomenon will continue to provide us with many important insights into patterns and trajectories of cultural and social developments in the Levant. The regional radiocarbon chronology from the Azraq Basin also provides us with a better understanding of the relationship between various lithic industries of the Early and Middle Epipalaeolithic. The dates from Kharaneh IV Area B, Ayn Qasiyya Areas A/B and D, Uwaynid 14/18 and Jilat 6 show that the Kebaran and Nebekian may have been contemporary industries. Although only a single date is available from Ayn Qasiyya Area D, it is possible that the Nebekian extended until ca. 19 000 cal. a BP, and it may have lasted much longer than previously thought. This raises the possibility that it can be subdivided into an early and late phases, with the later phase witnessing the appearance of Qalkhan points (as suggested by Olszewski, 2006). The Nizzanian is also partially contemporary with the Geometric Kebaran (Phase D) at Kharaneh IV. The dates from Kharaneh IV Phase D cause us to rethink the onset of the Middle Epipalaeolithic Geometric Kebaran. The Phase D industry – dominated by large, variously retouched trapeze-rectangles – began as early as 18 800 cal. a BP. The conventional start date for the Middle Epipalaeolithic industries, characterized by abundant geometric microliths, has recently been placed much earlier than pre-existing models have allowed, at around 17 500 cal. a BP (Maher et al., 2011). Simply put, the beginning of the Middle Epipalaeolithic has to be placed significantly earlier, overlapping considerably with the Early Epipalaeolithic. The abandonment of Kharaneh IV and Jilat 6 appear to coincide with increasing evidence for aridification post-LGM, including through the North Atlantic Bølling–Allerød. Although there is evidence for spring activity in the Wadi Jilat between 17 000 and 14 700 cal. a BP, as evidenced by seasonal marsh deposits with phragmites in growth position found at Wadi Jilat 22 (Garrard and Byrd, 1992, pp. 53–54; Copyright # 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

477

see also Table 1), it is unclear how stable this water supply was. This means that long-term occupation of these sites was probably no longer preferred or sustainable. This seems somewhat counter-intuitive, given this is often considered a time of increased precipitation in the wider region (BarMatthews et al., 1997; Jones et al., 2007), but highlights how broad-scale climatic models may often be insufficient to understand local environmental conditions and their effects on settlement. The regional climate patterns, both temporally and spatially, through the Last-Glacial–Interglacial transition appear complex and remain an area of debate (Robinson et al., 2006; Enzel et al., 2008). Preliminary evidence in the Azraq Basin suggests the global climate amelioration led to the disappearance of standing bodies of water due to higher evaporation rates and potentially a switch to a more seasonal precipitation regime, removing the resource base on which sites like Kharaneh IV and Jilat 6 could exist. More local palaeoenvironmental data are required to test this hypothesis. We should guard against constructing simple linear schemes of human development in the prehistory of southwest Asia. There may not have been a simple linear development towards more sedentary sites, leading up to the Neolithic. In fact, the aggregation sites in Azraq remind us that sedentism and agriculture are not necessarily linked – they are two separate phenomena that sometimes, but not always, coincide (e.g. Barker, 2006, p. 77). The dates we have presented and discussed here have allowed us to develop a hypothesis concerning early multi-seasonal, prolonged instances of human occupation in the Epipalaeolithic Levant. It allows us to pose new questions concerning the mechanisms and socio-cultural and economic context in which more sedentary or semi-sedentary lifestyles were taken up by communities and why they stuck or caught on in some cases for longer, but vanished in others. Acknowledgements. Excavations at Kharaneh IV and Ayn Qasiyya were supported by the Arts and Humanities Research Council (UK), the Council for British Research in the Levant, McDonald Institute of Archaeology, University of Cambridge, University College London, University of Copenhagen and the University of London Central Research Fund. We are grateful to the Natural Environmental Research Council and the Arts and Humanities Research Council for providing a separate radiocarbon dating grant on which the above paper is based. Abbreviations. AMS, accelerator mass spectrometry; EFAP, Epipalaeolithic Foragers in Azraq Project; LGM, Last Glacial Maximum; PPNA, Pre-Pottery Neolithic A

References Bajjali W, Abu-Jaber N. 2001. Climatological signals of the paleogroundwater in Jordan. Journal of Hydrology 243: 133–147. Barker G. 2006. The Agricultural Revolution in Prehistory. Why did Foragers become Farmers?. Oxford University Press: Oxford. Bar-Yosef O. 1987. Late Pleistocene adaptations in the Levant. In The Pleistocene Old World. Regional perspectives, Sofer O (ed.). Plenum: New York; 219–236. Bar-Yosef O. 1989. The Last Glacial Maximum in the Mediterranean Levant. In The World at 18,000 BP, Soffer O, Gamble C (eds). Unwin Hyman: London; 58–77. Bar-Yosef O. 1995. The role of climate in the interpretation of human movements and cultural transformations in western Asia. In Paleoclimate and Evolution with Emphasis on Human Origins, Vrba ES, Denton GH, Partridge TC, Buckle LH (eds). Yale University Press: New Haven, CT; 507–523. Bar-Yosef O. 1996. The impact of late Pleistocene-early Holocene climatic changes on humans in southwest Asia. In Humans at the End of the Ice Age: The Archaeology of the Pleistocene–Holocene Transition, Straus LG, Eriksen BV, Erlandson JM, Yesner DR (eds). Plenum: New York; 61–76. J. Quaternary Sci., 28(5) 467–479 (2013)

478


Bar-Yosef O, Vogel JC. 1987. Relative and absolute chronology of the Epipalaeolithic in the southern Levant. In Chronology of the Near East, Aurenche O, Evin J, Hours F (eds). British Archaeological Reports 379. Archaeopress: Oxford; 219–246. Betts AVG. 1991. The late Epipalaeolithic in the Black Desert, eastern Jordan. In The Natufian Culture in the Levant, Bar-Yosef O, Valla FR (eds). International Monographs in Prehistory: Ann Arbor, MI; 217–234. Betts AVG. 1998. The Harra and the Hamad: Excavations and Surveys in Eastern Jordan, Vol. 1. Sheffield Academic Press: Sheffield, UK. Blockley SPE, Pinhasi R. 2011. A revised chronology for the adoption of agriculture in the Southern Levant and the role of Lateglacial climatic change. Quaternary Science Reviews 30: 98–108. Brown TA, Nelson DE, Vogel JS, et al. 1988. Improved collagen extraction by modified Longin method. Radiocarbon 30: 171–177. Buchanan B, Hamilton M, Edinborough K, et al. 2010. Radiocarbon dates as data: quantitative strategies for estimating colonization front speeds and event densities. Journal of Archaeological Science 38: 2116–2122. Byrd BF. 1988. Late Pleistocene settlement diversity in the Azraq Basin. Paleórient 14: 257–264. Byrd BF. 1994. Late Quaternary hunter-gatherer complexes in the Levant between 20,000 and 10,000 B.P. In Late Quaternary Chronology and Paleoclimates of the Eastern Mediterranean, BarYosef O, Kra RS (eds). Radiocarbon: Ann Arbor, MI; 205–226. Byrd BF. 1998. Spanning the gap from the Upper Palaeolithic to the Natufian: the early and middle Epipalaeolithic. In The Prehistory of Jordan, Henry DO (ed). British Archaeological Reports International Series 705. Archaeopress: Oxford; 64–82. Byrd BF. 2005. Reassessing the emergence of village life in the Near East. Journal of Archaeological Research 13: 231–290. Byrd BF, Garrard AN. 1989. The Last Glacial Maximum in the Jordanian desert. In The World at 18,000 BP, Soffer O, Gamble C (eds). Unwin Hyman: London; 78–96. Copeland L, Hours F. 1989. The Hammer on the Rock: Studies in the Early Palaeolithic of Azraq, Jordan, British Archaeological Reports International Series 540. Archaeopress: Oxford. Edinborough K. 2008. Population history, abrupt climate change and evolution of arrowhead technology in Mesolithic south Scandinavia. In Pattern and Process in Cultural Evolution, Shennan SJ (ed). University of California Press: Berkeley, CA; 191–202. Enzel Y, Amit R, Dayan U, et al. 2008. The climatic and physiographic controls of the eastern Mediterranean over the late Pleistocene climates in the southern Levant and its neighboring deserts, Global and Planetary Change. Global and Planetary Change 60: 165–192. Garrard AN. 1991. Natufian settlement in the Azraq Basin, eastern Jordan. In The Natufian Culture in the Levant, Bar-Yosef O, Valla FR (eds). International Monographs in Prehistory. Ann Arbor; 235– 244. Garrard AN. 1998. Environment and cultural adaptations in the Azraq Basin: 24,000–7,000 B.P. In The Prehistory of Jordan, Henry DO (ed.). British Archaeological Reports International Series 705. Archaeopress: Oxford; 139–148. Garrard AN, Byrd BF. 1992. New dimensions to the Epipalaeolithic of the Wadi el-Jilat in central Jordan. Paleórient 18: 47–62. Garrard AN, Byrd BF. 2013. Beyond the Fertile Crescent: Late Palaeolithic and Neolithic Communities of the Jordanian Steppe. Vol. 1. Project Background and the Late Palaeolithic: Geological Context and Technology, CBRL Levant Supplementary Series. Oxbow Books: Oxford; (in press). Garrard AN, Price N, Copeland L. 1977. A survey of prehistoric sites in the Azraq Basin of eastern Jordan. Paleórient 3: 109–126. Garrard AN, Betts A, Byrd BF, et al. 1988. Summary of the palaeoenvironmental and prehistoric investigations in the Azraq Basin. In The Prehistory of Jordan: The State of Research in 1986, Garrard AN, Gebel HG (eds). British Archaeological Reports, International Series 396. Archaeopress: Oxford; 311–337. Garrard AN, Baird D, Byrd BF. 1994a. The chronological basis and significance of the late Palaeolithic and Neolithic sequence in the Azraq Basin, Jordan. In Late Quaternary Chronology and Paleoclimates of the Eastern Mediterranean, Bar-Yosef O, Kra RS (eds). Radiocarbon: Ann Arbor, MI; 177–199. Copyright # 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Garrard AN, Baird D, Colledge S, et al. 1994b. Prehistoric environment and settlement in the Azraq Basin: an interim report on the 1987 and 1988 excavation season. Levant 26: 73–109. Garrard AN, Colledge S, Martin L. 1996. The emergence of crop cultivation and caprine herding in the ‘marginal zone’ of the southern Levant. In The Origins and Spread of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Eurasia, Harris D (ed.). University College London Press: London; 204–226. Goring-Morris AN. 1995. Complex hunter/gatherers at the end of the Paleolithic. In The Archaeology of Society in the Holy Land, Levy T (ed.). Leicester University Press: London; 141–167. Goring-Morris AN, Belfer-Cohen A. 1998. The articulation of cultural processes and late Quaternary environmental changes in Cisjordan. Paleórient 23: 71–93. Goring-Morris AN, Hovers E, Belfer-Cohen A. 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, Shea JJ, Lieberman DE (eds). Oxbow Books: Oxford; 185–252. Henry DO. 1988. The Epipalaeolithic sequence within the Ras enNaqb–el Quweira area, southern Jordan. Paleórient 14: 245–256. Henry DO. 1995. Cultural evolution and interaction during the Epipalaeolithic. In Prehistoric Cultural Ecology and Evolution: Insights from Southern Jordan, Interdisciplinary Contributions to Archaeology. Plenum Press: New York; 337–344. Hovers E, Marder O. 1991. Typo-chronology and absolute dating of the Kebaran complex: implications from the second season of excavation at Urkan e-Rub IIa. Mitekufat Ha’even – Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 24: 34–58. Jones JR. 2012. Using gazelle dental cementum studies to explore seasonality and mobility patterns of the Early–Middle Epipalaeolithic Azraq Basin, Jordan. Quaternary International 252: 195–201. Jones M, Richter T. 2011. Palaeoclimatic and archaeological implications of Pleistocene and Holocene environments in Azraq, Jordan. Quaternary Research 76: 363–372. Jones MD, Roberts CN, Leng MJ. 2007. Quantifying climatic change through the last 21,000 years in central Turkey based on lake isotope palaeohydrology. Quaternary Research 67: 463–473. Kislev ME, Simchoni O, Weiss E. 2002. Reconstruction of landscape, human economy, and hut use according to seed and fruit remains from Ohalo II. In Ohalo II: A 23,000-Year-Old Fisher-HunterGatherers’ Camp on the Shore of the Sea of Galilee, Nadel D (ed.). University of Haifa: Haifa; 21–23. Maher LA, Richter T, Jones D. 2007. Archaeological survey at the Epipalaeolithic site of Kharaneh IV. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 51: 263–272. Maher LA, Banning EB, Chazan M. 2011. Oasis or mirage? Assessing the role of abrupt climate change in the prehistory of the southern Levant. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 21: 1–30. Maher LA, Richter T, Macdonald D, et al. 2012. Twenty thousandyear-old huts at a hunter-gatherer settlement in eastern Jordan. PLoS One 7. http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi% 2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0031447. Martin L, Edwards Y, Garrard AN. 2010. Hunting Practices at an Eastern Jordanian Epipalaeolithic Aggregation Site: the Case of Kharaneh IV. Levant 42: 107–135. Meadows J. 2004. The Younger Dryas Episode and the Radiocarbon Chronologies of the Lake Huleh and Ghab Valley pollen diagrams, Israel and Syria. The Holocene 15: 631–636. Muheisen M. 1983. La Prehistoire en Jordanie Recherches sur l’Epipaleolithic. Vol. II. L’exemple du Gisement de Kharaneh IV. Universite de Bordeaux: Bordeaux. Muheisen M. 1988a. The Epipalaeolithic phases of Kharaneh IV. In The Prehistory of Jordan: The State of Research in 1986, Garrard AN, Gebel HG (eds). British Archaeological Reports International Series 396. Archaeopress: Oxford; 353–367. Muheisen M. 1988b. Le gisement de Kharaneh IV, note sommaire sur la phase D. Paleórient 14: 265–282. Muheisen M, Wada H. 1995. An analysis of the microliths at Kharaneh IV Phase D, Square A20/37. Paleórient 21: 75–95. Nadel D. 2004a. Wild barley harvesting, fishing, and year-round occupation at Ohalo II (19.5 KY, Jordan Valley, Israel). In Section 6: The Upper Palaeolithic (General Sessions and Posters). Acts of the J. Quaternary Sci., 28(5) 467–479 (2013)

EPIPALAEOLITHIC SETTLEMENT DYNAMICS IN SOUTHWEST ASIA XIVth UISSP Congress, University of Lie`ge (September 2001), Congre`s LS (ed.). International Series 1240. BAR: Oxford; 135–143. Nadel D. 2004b. The Ohalo II and the Natufian dwelling structures (Jordan Valley, Israel). In The Last Hunter-Gatherers in the Near East, Delage C (ed.). BAR International Series 1320. BAR: Oxford; 137–151. Nadel D. 2004c. A long continuity: the Ohalo II brush huts (19.5 ky) and the dwelling structures in the Natufian and PPNA sites in the Jordan Valley. Archaeology, Anthropology and Ethnology in Eurasia 13: 34–48. Nadel D, Werker E. 1999. The oldest ever brush hut plant remains from Ohalo II, Jordan Valley, Israel. Antiquity 73: 755–764. Nadel D, Carmi I, Segal D. 1995. Radiocarbon dating of Ohalo II: archaeological and methodological implications. Journal of Archaeological Science 22: 811–822. Olszewski DI. 2001. The Palaeolithic, including the Epipalaeolithic. In The Archaeology of Jordan, MacDonald B (ed.). Sheffield Academic Press: Sheffield, UK; 31–65. Olszewski DI. 2004. The conundrum of the Levantine late upper Palaeolithic and early Epipalaeolithic: perspectives from the Wadi al-Hasa, Jordan. In More than Meets the Eye: Studies on Upper Palaeolithic Diversity in the Near East, Goring-Morris AN, BelferCohen A (eds). Oxbow Books: Oxford; 151–170. Olszewski DI. 2006. Issues in the Levantine Epipalaeolithic: the Madamaghan, Nebekian and Qalkhan (Levant Epipalaeolithic). Paleórient 32(1): 19–26. Reimer PJ, Baillie MGL, Bard E, et al. 2010. IntCal09 and Marine09 radiocarbon age calibration curves, 0–50,000 years cal BP. Radiocarbon 51: 1111–1150. Richter T. 2011. Nebekian, Qalkhan and Kebaran: variability, classification and interaction: new insights from the Azraq Oasis. In The State of the Stone: Terminologies, Continuities and Contexts in Near Eastern Neolithic Lithics, Healey E, Campbell S, Maeda O (eds). Ex Oriente: Berlin; 33–50. Richter T, Colledge S, Luddy S, et al. 2007. Preliminary report on the 2006 season at Epipalaeolithic ‘Ayn Qasiyah, Azraq es-Shishan. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 51: 313–328. Richter T, Alcock S, Asouti E, et al. 2010a. New light on Final Pleistocene settlement diversity in the Azraq Basin: some preliminary results from Ayn Qasiyah and AWS 48. Paleórient 35: 49–68. Richter T, Stock JT, Maher L, et al. 2010b. An early Epipalaeolithic sitting burial from the Azraq Oasis, eastern Jordan. Antiquity 84: 321–334. Richter T, Garrard AN, Allcock S, et al. 2011. Interaction before agriculture: exchanging material and sharing knowledge in the

Copyright # 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

479

Final Pleistocene Levant. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 21: 95–114. Robinson SA, Black S, Sellwood BW, et al. 2006. A review of palaeoclimates and palaeoenvironments in the Levant and Eastern Mediterranean from 25,000 to 5000 years BP: setting the environmental background for the evolution of human civilisation. Quaternary Science Reviews 25: 1517–1541. Rollefson GO. 1983. Two seasons of excavation at Ain el-Assad, eastern Jordan, 1980–1981. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 252: 25–34. Rollefson GO, Schnurrenberger D, Quintero L, et al. 1997. Ain Soda and ‘Ayn Qasiya: New Late Pleistocene and early Holocene sites in the Azraq Shishan area, eastern Jordan. In The Prehistory of Jordan II: Perspectives from 1997, Gebel HG, Kefafi Z, Rollefson G (eds). Studies in Early Near Eastern Production, Subsistence, and Environment. Ex Oriente: Berlin; 45–58. Rollefson GO, Quintero L, Wilke P. 2000. Azraq Wetlands Survey: Preliminary Report. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 45: 71–82. Schiffer MB. 1986. Radiocarbon dating and the ‘Old Wood’ problem: the case of the Hohokam chronology. Journal of Archaeological Science 13: 13–30. Schiffer MB. 1987. Formation Processes of the Archaeological Record. University of New Mexico Press: Albuquerque, NM. Schuldenrein J, Clark GA. 2001. Prehistoric landscape and settlement geography along the wadi al-Hasa, west-central Jordan. Part I. Geoarchaeology, human paleoecology and ethnographic modelling. Environmental Archaeology 6: 23–38. Shennan SJ, Edinborough K. 2007. Prehistoric population history: from the Late Glacial to the Late Neolithic in Central and Northern Europe. Journal of Archaeological Science 34: 1339–1345. Stutz A. 2004. The Natufian in real time? Radiocarbon date calibration as a tool for understanding Natufian societies and their longterm prehistoric context. In The Last Hunter-Gatherers in the Near East, Delage C (ed.). British Archaeological Report International Series 1320. Archaeopress: Oxford; 13–37. Ward GK, Wilson SR. 1978. Procedures for comparing and combining radiocarbon age determinations: a critique. Archaeometry 20: 19–31. Weninger B, Jo¨ris O. 2008. A 14C age calibration curve for the last 60ka: the Greenland–Hulu U/Th timescale and its impact on understanding the Middle to Upper Paleolithic transition in Western Eurasia. Journal of Human Evolution 55: 772–781. Weninger B, Edinborough K, Clare L, et al. 2011. Concepts of probability in radiocarbon analysis. Documenta Praehistorica 38: 1–20.

J. Quaternary Sci., 28(5) 467–479 (2013)