Shifting understandings of the Acheulo-Yabrudian complex and the Lower to Middle Paleolithic transition at Tabun Cave

Abstract

More than 80 years after it was first excavated, Tabun Cave remains a key reference sequence for the Lower and Middle Paleolithic of the Levant. A large part of the sequence at Tabun consists of assemblages termed Yabrudian, Pre-Aurignacian/ Amudian and Acheulo-Yabrudian/Acheulian that comprise Jelinek's Mugharan Tradition. Investigators have assigned these assemblages to either the Lower or the Middle Paleolithic. Alternative classifications reflect changes in prevailing theoretical frameworks for explaining technological and typo-logical variation as well as in the ways larger periods themselves are conceived. Choices to place them within either the Lower or Middle Paleolithic in turn have important consequences for how cultural and biological transitions in the Levant are understood.

Full text

Vocation préhistoire
Hommage à
Jean-Marie Le Tensorer
Etudes et Recherches Archéologiques de l’Université de Liège
Liège, 2017

Édition ERAUL, Collection éditée par
Marcel OTTE
Université de Liège, Service de Préhistoire
Place du XX Août 7, bât. A1
B-4000 Liège - Belgique
Tél. +32/4/366.54.76
Fax +32/4/366.55.51
Emails: marcel.otte@ulg.ac.be
eraul@ulg.ac.be
Web: http://www.ulg.ac.be/prehist/
ISBN 978-2-930495-34-7
Tous droits réservés - Reproduction interdite sans autorisation
Mise en page et impression : Agora Media, Liège
Conception de la couverture: Jacek Wojtzcak
Imprimé avec le soutien de la fondation Tell Arida

Abstract
More than 80 years after it was rst excavated,
Tabun Cave remains a key reference sequence for the
Lower and Middle Paleolithic of the Levant. A
large part of the sequence at Tabun consists of as-
semblages termed Yabrudian, Pre-Aurignacian/
Amudian and Acheulo-Yabrudian/Acheulian that
comprise Jelinek’s Mugharan Tradition. Investiga-
tors have assigned these assemblages to either the
Lower or the Middle Paleolithic. Alternative clas-
sications reect changes in prevailing theoretical
frameworks for explaining technological and typo-
logical variation as well as in the ways larger periods
themselves are conceived. Choices to place them wi-
thin either the Lower or Middle Paleolithic in turn
have important consequences for how cultural and
biological transitions in the Levant are understood.
Introduction
The transition from the Lower to Middle Paleo-
lithic has been examined much less closely than the
Middle-to-Upper Paleolithic transition. The lack of
attention reects the fact that it many parts of Eu-
rasia and Africa it is seen as a gradual, in situ trans-
formation (Monnier 2006; Villa 2009) accompanied
by an equally gradual (or insignicant) biological
transition. It sometimes seems that the only interes-
ting cultural transformations in the Paleolithic are
those which accompanied the appearance and dis-
persal of Homo sapiens. Earlier forms of behavior
are perceived as being less evolved, and transitions
between them are treated as unremarkable if not
inevitable progress from primitive to less primitive
forms (Kuhn and Hovers 2013), incremental steps
on the slope culminating in behavioral modernity
and Homo sapiens.
Despite these biases it is becoming clear that
many important developments in hominin behavior
pre-date the MP-UP transition. In Africa many as-
pects of “modern human behavior” (itself a proble-
matic term) are now associated with the MSA, and
their roots must be sought in earlier periods (e.g.
McBrearty and Tryon 2006; Nowell 2010; Porat et
al. 2010). Researchers also recognize that the Eura-
sian Middle Paleolithic encompasses a highly evol-
ved set of behaviors, clearly different in some ways
from both the MSA and the Upper Paleolithic, and
therefore meriting explanation in its own right
(Kuhn 2013).
In this paper we discuss changing interpretations
of the Acheulo-Yabrudian complex at Tabun Cave,
Israel. The assemblages making up the Acheulo-Ya-
brudian complex are situated stratigraphically and
chronologically between the Acheulian Lower Pa-
leolithic and the Levallois Mousterian Middle Pa-
leolithic, and typically include markers of both
Acheulian and Mousterian. Interpretations of the
Acheulo-Yabrudian complex and of its place in the
transition from Lower to Middle Paleolithic, are
strongly inuenced by archaeological methodolo-
gies as well as theoretical frameworks for understan-
ding variation among Paleolithic assemblages.
These interpretations are also closely linked to the
ways different scholars view the Middle and Lower
Paleolithic as entities. This very basic difference can
lead to radically different understandings of trajec-
tories of cultural evolution in the Levant.
As we use the term, Acheulo-Yabrudian is syno-
nymous with Jelinek’s (1981) Mugharan tradition.
It is comprised of three main assemblage types: Ya-
brudian, Amudian, and Acheulean or Acheulo-Ya-
brudian. A remarkable number of names have been
given to this entity as a whole or its component
parts: Acheulio-Mousterian, nal Acheulian, Ya-
brudian, Acheulian, Micoquian, Acheulo-Yabru-
dian, Prä-Antelien, Pre-Aurignacian, Amudian,
Upper Paleolithic 0, and Acheulian of Yabrudian
facies (Bar-Yosef 1995; Garrod 1934, 1935, 1936,
1937, 1938; Garrod and Bate 1937; Gilead 1970;
Howell 1959; Ronen 1975; Rust 1933, 1950). This
alone shows that various scholars understand their
signicance in quite different ways.
We know comparatively little of the hominins
who produced the Acheulo-Yabrudian lithic assem-
blages. Human remains are scarce and as difcult to
classify as the industries. The skull from Zuttiyeh,
the most complete fossil associated with an
Acheulo-Yabrudian assemblage, has been variously
classied as Neanderthal, archaic Homo sapiens, or
Shifting understandings of the Acheulo-Yabrudian complex and the Lower to Middle Paleolithic transition at Tabun Cav
Shifting understandings of the Acheulo-Yabrudian complex and the Lower
to Middle Paleolithic transition at Tabun Cave.
Ron Shimelmitz1& Steven, L. Kuhn2
1University of Haifa, Israel.
2University of Arizona, USA.
skuhn@email.arizona.edu.
- 343 -

Homo hieldelbergensis (Trinkaus 1982; Vander-
meersch 1982; Zeitoun 2001). Isolated teeth from
Qesem Cave show both archaic characteristics and
features reminiscent of Homo sapiens (Hershkovitz
et al. 2010).
Tabun Cave and the Acheulo-Yabrudian
Complex
For nearly 80 years the archaeological sequence
of Tabun Cave has played a central role in unders-
tandings of the Levantine Paleolithic. Tabun
contains > 25 m of archaeological deposits span-
ning a period of roughly 500,000 years (Mercier and
Valladas 2003; Rink et al. 2004) and encompassing
both Lower and Middle Paleolithic. Roughly one
third (7.10 m) of the stratigraphic sequence of the
cave yields Yabrudian, Amudian, and Acheulo-Ya-
brudian assemblages, providing one of the longest
and most varied record of these phenomena in the
region.
Tabun Cave has been excavated in different eras,
using different methods and following different
schools of thought. The site was rst excavated in
1929-1934 by D.A.E. Garrod (Garrod and Bate
1937:1-2), later in 1967-1971 by A. Jelinek (Jelinek
et al. 1973). A. Ronen continued working at the site
until 2003 (Ronen and Tsatskin 1995). Garrod re-
moved a huge volume of deposits from the cave.
She recognized six thick cultural layers, starting with
the so called ”Tayacian” of Layer G and ending
with the late Mousterian in Layer B (Garrod and
Bate 1937). Jelinek’s project concentrated on a face
10 m high and six m wide, dividing the exposed se-
quence into 14 major stratigraphic units (Jelinek
1982b, 1990). The Acheulo-Yabrudian assemblages
come from Units XIII-X, which are roughly equiva-
lent to Garrod’s Layer E. Ronen’s excavations
concentrated on the parts of the sequence below the
area excavated by Jelinek.
The three facies of the Acheulo-Yabrudian com-
plex are dened according to their technological and
typological features. The Acheulian facies is charac-
terized by abundant bifacial tools and ake produc-
tion, the Yabrudian by ake production and heavy
scrapers, often with Quina retouch, and the Amu-
dian by blade production and ‘Upper Paleolithic’
tools forms. However, elements such as handaxes,
heavy scrapers and blades occur in most assem-
blages at varying frequencies (Copeland 2000; Jeli-
nek 1990). Similar assemblages have been recovered
from sites such as Hummal (Le Tensorer et al.
2007), Adlun (Copeland 1975, 1978; Garrod and
Kirkbride 1961), Yabrud I (Rust 1950) and Qesem
Cave (Barkai et al. 2009; Gopher et al. 2005) among
others. Nowadays, the various assemblages making
up the Acheulo-Yabrudian complex are most often
described as constituting the latest part of the
Lower Paleolithic in the Levant, preceding the Le-
vantine Mousterian (Copeland 2000, Gopher et al.
2010) although some authors (e.g., le Tensorer et al.
2007) assign them to early Middle Paleolithic. They
are dated from 400-220 kyr at a number of sites
(Barkai et al. 2003; Gopher et al. 2010; Grün and
Stringer 2000; Porat et al. 2002; Rink et al. 2004;
Valladas et al. 2013), although the TL dates from
Tabun suggested a somewhat earlier replacement by
the Levallois Mousterian Middle Paleolithic at ca.
250 kyr (Mercier and Valladas 2003).
The perspectives from Garrod’s excava-
tions and era
Garrod’s (1934, 1935) preliminary publications
of her work in Tabun show that she saw interme-
diate or transitional characteristics in the assem-
blages from her layer E. She initially called the
material ‘Acheulio-Mousterian’. Later, after being
convinced of a Lower Paleolithic origin of the heavy
side-scrapers, Garrod proposed the name ‘Upper
Acheulian/Micoquian’ (Garrod 1936; Garrod and
Bate 1937), even later adopting the term ‘Final
Acheulian’ (Garrod 1938). Her understanding of
variability within the Acheulo-Yabrudian complex
was further inuenced by emerging results from
other sites. In her monograph on the site she treated
these assemblages as a single cultural unit (with sub-
units Ea-Ed). Later, Rust (1950) ascribed assem-
blages from the 15 earliest layers at Yabrud I to four
cultures: Acheulian, Yabrudian, Acheulo-Yabru-
dian and Pre-Aurignacian. He argued that Yabrud
I and Tabun represent the same cultures (1950:141-
154). He believed the difference between the two
sites lay in the fact that the Yabrud I assemblages
were reported as distinct entities, while in Tabun
they blended into one another due to poor stratigra-
phic control (Rust 1950). After becoming familiar
with the work of Rust at Yabrud I Garrod altered
the description of Layer E at Tabun (Garrod 1938;
1956).
Much discussion was stimulated by the unexpec-
ted presence of blades deep in the stratigraphies at
Tabun and Yabrud. At the time, systematic blade
production was perceived as characterizing Homo
sapiens exclusively (Bar-Yosef and Kuhn 1999).
Rust (1958) and Howell (1959:37) indeed argued
that the Pre-Aurignacian ought to be attributed to
Homo sapiens while the other facies were made by
Neanderthals. This perspective is clearly evident in
- 344 -
Ron Shimelmitz & Steven, L. Kuhn

Garrod’s assertion (1934:9) that the blades from
Tabun Layer E reected a “…contact with a very
early Aurignacian…”As the name he gave it shows,
Rust (1950:28) saw the ‘pre-Aurignacian’ assem-
blage from Yabrud I, Layer 15 as a blade culture an-
cestral to the later European and Levantine Upper
Paleolithic. Rust believed that the appearance of the
Pre-Aurignacian in the eastern Mediterranean was
a response to climatic changes (1950:129-130). It is
important to recall that at the time the temporal gap
between the Upper Paleolithic and the Acheulo-Ya-
brudian complex was thought to be much shorter
than we now know it to be. Garrod (1934) for exam-
ple, argued that the entire sequence of Tabun
(Layers A-G) represented only 100,000 years, whe-
reas it is now known to represent a period roughly
ve times as long.
Bordes’ (1955) study of Yabrud I reects a simi-
larly compressed chronology. Observing a resem-
blance between the Pre-Aurignacian of Yabrud I
Layer 15 and the Aurignacian Upper Paleolithic
from Yabrud II he concluded that the layer dated to
the Würm II, close in time to the earliest Upper Pa-
leolithic industries of Europe. Bordes' radical inter-
pretation triggered a debate with Garrod (e.g.,
Bordes 1961, 1977; Garrod 1956, 1961, 1962). Gar-
rod emphasized how Bordes’ forcing his preconcep-
tions onto the archaeological record resulted in a
scenario that was stratigraphically and chronologi-
cally improbable : “Bordes…, unable to accept that
a typical blade industry should appear earlier in the
Middle East than in Europe, suggests that the Pre-
Aurignacian is contemporary with the Chatelperro-
nian and that the last stage of the Yabrudian and
the whole of the Levalloiso-Mousterian corres-
ponds in time with the French Aurignacian Perigor-
dian complex.” (Garrod 1962: 236).
In the rst half of the 20th century archaeolo-
gists tended to equate archaeological cultures with
human groups, and explained transformations in ar-
chaeological cultures in terms of migrations and po-
pulation contacts (Trigger 1989). Despite their
disagreements, Garrod, Bordes and Rust shared the
view that the Pre-Aurignacian was produced by, or
at least inuenced by, new immigrants to the region.
They also agreed the Yabrudian and Acheulo-Ya-
brudian had developed directly out of the local
Acheulian culture (e.g. Garrod 1962:234).
Excavations at the Adlun sites (Garrod and Kirk-
bride 1961), which employed more accurate excava-
tion methods, shed a clearer light on the variability
among the assemblages. They showed that Yabru-
dian layers rich in heavy scrapers could also contain
substantial numbers of blades and handaxes. Still,
the explanation remained the same. The layers in-
cluding both large scrapers and blades were sugges-
ted by Garrod (1961:72) to represent a
“Jabrudian-Pre-Aurignacian symbiosis” and the
possibility “that the two peoples continued to live
side by side for some time…” (Garrod and Kirk-
bride 1961: 42). Still, one shift in perspective can be
seen by the replacement of the term ‘Pre-Aurigna-
cian’ with ‘Amudian’- (Garrod and Kirkbride 1961),
a designation not associated with the Upper Paleo-
lithic nomenclature in distant Europe (Garrod
1970).
The Acheulo-Yabrudian complex from the
perspective of Jelinek’s excavations
Starting in 1967, A. Jelinek (et al. 1973) and col-
leagues applied state-of-the-art eld methods at
Tabun in an attempt to rene the understanding of
the cultural and geological stratigraphy of the site.
Jelinek’s meticulous excavations provided vastly bet-
ter stratigraphic resolution than had Garrod’s. Wi-
thin Garrod’s layer E and the lower part of D
(Garrod and Bate 1937:78-87), Jelinek recognized
four major sedimentary units (XIII-X) containing
roughly 140 distinct layers and sub-layers. This en-
abled much closer tracking of trends and variation.
Jelinek's (1982b: 65) excavations conrmed that
within the sequence of Units X-XIII there are two
main facies - one poor in handaxes and rich in side-
scrapers which he called Yabrudian, and one poor
in side-scrapers and rich in handaxes which he as-
cribed to an Acheulian facies. He further observes
that the two facies grade into one another, and that
the ratio of bifaces to scrapers uctuates cyclically
(Jelinek 1981: 270, Fig. 2, 1982a: 1373). Jelinek
(1981: 374, Fig. 3) ascribed Unit XIII to the Yabru-
dian facies, Unit XII to the Acheulian facies, but
identied Unit XI as containing Amudian, Yabru-
dian and Acheulian facies. Jelinek (1981: 273;
1982b: 72) also argued for a basic continuity bet-
ween Acheulian, Yabrudian and Amudian, propo-
sing that: "…we are dealing with a single, but highly
variable industry, within which two extreme facies
can be distinguished…” He proposed that the three
assemblage types be combined as facies of a single
"Mugharan Tradition" (Jelinek 1981: 271).
Jelinek viewed the transition from Lower to Mid-
dle Paleolithic at Tabun as gradual processes. This
is most clearly shown in his (1977) study of the
width/thickness ratio of akes, which demonstrated
a gradual increase in renement (thinness) of blanks
throughout the layers of Tabun. Jelinek also had a
different perspective on the place of the Mugharan
- 345 -
Shifting understandings of the Acheulo-Yabrudian complex and the Lower to Middle Paleolithic transition at Tabun Cave

Tradition with respect to the Lower and Middle Pa-
leolithic. Based on its obvious resemblance to the
Quina Mousterian, Jelinek (1982b:68) argued that
the Yabrudian should “…be considered as the ear-
liest known manifestation of the Middle Paleolithic
in the southern Levant. “ At this time most scholars
also assigned this complex to the Middle Paleolithic
period (e.g. Bordes 1977; Copeland 1975, 1978; Far-
rand 1965, 1979) although some, still ascribed it to
the Lower Paleolithic (e.g., Ronen 1979: 301). Jeli-
nek identied Unit X as an interval of transition
between the assemblages of the Mugharan Tradi-
tion and the Levallois Mousterian (Jelinek 1981).
Bar-Yosef (1995) later argued that the presence of
Levallois elements was a result of mixture and not
evidence for a gradual transition. Our recent exami-
nation of this material reveals that Levallois ele-
ments are abundant only in the upper part of this
unit, while the lower part can be ascribed to the
Acheulian facies with rare Levallois akes.
The New Archaeology’s rejection of the equation
of assemblages with ethnic groups is also reected
in Jelinek’s view of the variation among the
Acheulo-Yabrudian assemblages. Based on his study
of the material from Tabun Layer E and Yabrud I-
15 a few years earlier, Skinner (1965: 175-176) had
suggested that the Pre-Aurignacian/Amudian was
the manifestation of specialized activity rather than
an independent culture (see also Hours et al. [1973],
Parush et al. 2016). Jelinek promoted a similar
view, stating that the Amudian is "simply a speciali-
zed aspect of the Yabrudian" (Jelinek et al. 1973:
174). He suggested that the observed variability re-
ects an adaptive response to a changing environ-
ment, and that the appearance of the facies in Tabun
is correlated with climatic changes and varying sea
levels (Jelinek 1981). The correlation of industries
with climate phases was eventually shown to be in-
correct, rst by the new absolute ages (Mercier and
Valladas 2003) and later by the case of Qesem Cave
(Gopher et al. 2005) where assemblages rich in
blades were made over a period of nearly 200,000
years. Nonetheless, it represents a fundamental re-
orientation of thinking about the meaning of as-
semblage variability in the Levantine Paleolithic.
Other researchers proposed related explanations
for the variability within the Acheulo-Yabrudian
complex. Following her study of the material from
Adlun, Copeland argued that in Bezez Cave
(1975:321-322) the facies of the Acheulo-Yabrudian
complex did not vary between levels but did vary la-
terally, indicating that the cause for differentiation
is more a matter of activity zones. Solecki and So-
lecki (1986) bolstered Copeland’s argument by de-
monstrating that Layers 12-18 in Rust’s (1950) Ya-
brud I sequence are partly overlapping and differ in
horizontal location.
New directions in research on the
Acheulo-Yabrudian complex
Information about the Yabrudian, Amudian and
allied assemblages has greatly increased in the last
three decades following the investigation of sites
such as El Kowm (Copeland and Hours 1983; Le
Tensorer et al. 2007), Jamal Cave (Weinstein-Evron
et al. 1999), Misliya Cave (Weinstein-Evron et al.
2003) and Qesem Cave (Gopher et al. 2005).
One nding relevant to the transition between
the Lower and Middle Paleolithic concerns the an-
tiquity of Acheulo-Yabrudian technology. It is com-
monly assumed that there was a major technological
shift in the Tabun sequence between Layer F
(‘Acheulian Lower Paleolithic‘) and the rst assem-
blages described as Yabrudian (Tabun Layer Ed).
However the technological transition may begin
much earlier. Based on the abundance of elements
typical of Acheulo-Yabrudian technology, Ronen
ascribed assemblages that are stratigraphically
below Jelinek’s Unit XIII to the Yabrudian (Gisis
and Ronen 2006). In fact, dejete and transversal
scrapers with Quina retouch are well represented in
Layer F (Wright 1966), something already noted by
Garrod (Garrod and Bate 1937:87-89).
A technological analysis of blade manufacture
Qesem Cave, Tabun and Yabrud I showed that blade
production is represented to some extent in all fa-
cies, and blade are even present in small numbers in
levels equivalent to Garrod’s Layers F and G
(Acheulean and Tayacian) in Ronen’s excavations
(Gisis and Ronen 2006). Although the frequency of
blades varies considerably, the technology of ma-
king them was rather similar across the facies, sug-
gesting that they were the products of a single
learning tradition or population (Shimelmitz 2009).
The succeeding early Levantine Mousterian of
Tabun Layer D at sites such as Hayonim (Meignen
2007), Hummal (Wojtczak et al. 2014) and Misliya
(Weinstein et al. 2003) is also dominated by blades.
However, the issue of continuity in the knapping
traditions is still in question. Some argue for a
connection (Jelinek et al. 1973; Nishiaki 1989) while
other argues that the technologies are completely
different in character (Monigal 2002; Vishnyatsky
2000). Our recent study (Shimelmitz et al. 2014a)
shows that the industries share some traits.
Another topic of relevance is the presence of Le-
vallois. The Acheulo-Yabrudian complex is gene-
- 346 -
Ron Shimelmitz & Steven, L. Kuhn

rally regarded as ‘non-Levallois’ or lacking Levallois
completely (e.g. Bar-Yosef 1987:33; Gisis and
Ronen 2006; Nishiaky 1998; Solecki and Solecki
1966; Vishnyatsky 2000:148; see Goren-Inbar 1995
for a dissenting view). Part of the discrepancy bet-
ween descriptions may stem from the fact that some
studies were based exclusively on typological obser-
vations while others used technological criteria sug-
gested by Boëda (1995) to identify Levallois.
However, there also seems to be an asymmetry in
discussion of Late Acheulian and and Acheulo-Ya-
briudian complex. The presence of Levallois in
Acheulean collections is often emphasized (e.g. Bar-
Yosef 1995), but it is always presented as being mar-
ginal or intrusive for the Acheulo-Yabrudian (e.g.
Rolland and Dibble 1990; Shea 2001; Tuffreau
2003). Yet Levallois elements are reported from
most of the larger Acheulo-Yabrudian assemblages,
including Tabun (Garrod and Bate 1937:79-89; Jeli-
nek et al. 1973:177; Rollefson et al. 2006:68), Adlun
(Copeland 1983), Yabrud I (Bordes 1984:16-40) and
Masloukh (Skinner 1970). The one exception is
Qesem Cave which has so far yielded no evidence of
Levallois method (Gopher et al. 2005:73). It will be
important to rectify this asymmetry in the detection
and description of the Levallois technology in the
context of exploring links between assemblages and
processes of transition.
Discussion and Conclusion
Nearly 80 years of research have resulted in a
broad picture of the variability within the Acheulo-
Yabrudian complex and an evolving set of explana-
tions for that variability. Researchers are still divided
as to whether it should be assigned to Lower or
Middle Paleolithic. Much of this ambiguity stems
from the ways the larger units, Middle and Lower
Paleolithic, are conceived and from the criteria used.
The presence of handaxes and the absence (or scar-
city) of Levallois would argue for assigning these
component assemblages to the Lower Paleolithic.
However, others nd justication in dening these
same assemblages as (early) Middle Paleolithic
based on the presence of Quina retouched scrapers
(Garrod 1934, 1935; Jelinek 1982b:68), or due to the
importance of ake production as opposed to bifa-
cial faconnage (le Tensorer et al. 2007). Emphasi-
zing other technological indicators, such as a
dominance of predetermined blank production -
blades in the case of the Amudian (Shimelmitz
2009), and large akes in the case of the Yabru-
dian—(Shimelmitz et al 2014a) would tilt the clas-
sication of the assemblages toward the Middle
Paleolithic.
Moving beyond the stone tools, recent results
suggest that this interval did see important changes
in hominin social behavior and foraging. Geologi-
cal and zooarchaeological studies of Qesem Cave
reveal features such as hearth-centric activities and
transport of meat to shelters for sharing which seem
to anticipate later Mousterian and even Upper Pa-
leolithic patterns (Karakanas et al. 2007; Stiner et
al. 2009, 2011). Traces of re have been found in
most of the sites of the Acheulo-Yabrudian com-
plex (Copleand 1975:322, 1983:158; Farrand 1965;
de Heinzelin 1966; Ronen and Tsatskin 1995; Tsats-
kin 2000:135). At Tabun and Qesem intensity of
burning increases in the middle of the Acheulo-Ya-
brudian sequence (Shimelmitz et al. 2014b; Stiner et
al. 2011), suggesting a widespread shift in how ho-
minins used re. Another important development is
intensive use of caves and rockshelters. All sites with
Acheulo-Yabrudian materials are caves or large,
permanent springs; this is in contrast to the Acheu-
lian, which occurs mainly in the openair. The central
place of caves in the life-cycle of the hominins who
produced the Acheulo-Yabrudian assemblages
continued into the succeeding Mousterian. Hunting
strategies focused on prime-aged animals, which
also characterizes both Neanderthals and Homo sa-
piens, are also manifest in layers yielding Yabrudian
and Amudian assemblages (Stiner et al. 2011). At
the same time, evidence from cutmarks suggests that
butchering and food sharing may have been organi-
zed differently than in later periods (Stiner et al
2009).
Whether one assigns the Acheulo-Yabrudian as-
semblages to Middle or Lower Paleolithic is more
than just a matter of terminology. It affects how one
understands the transition between the two periods.
If the Acheulo-Yabrudian complex is assigned to the
Middle Paleolithic then the transition occurred
around 400kya: if it is assigned to the Lower Paleo-
lithic the transition happened 250-200kya, several
climate cycles later. The placement of these indus-
tries also inuences the apparent nature of the tran-
sition. If the Acheulo-Yabrudian complex is seen as
belonging to the Lower Paleolithic, then within the
Levant at least the transition is quite abrupt and is
dened primarily by the (relatively) sudden appea-
rance and spread of laminar Levallois production,
and perhaps by population discontinuity as well. If
however, these groups of assemblages are assigned
to the Middle Paleolithic, we have to dene the tran-
sition in terms of several episodic shifts in emphasis
on different technological options as well as chan-
ging levels of technological variation. In this case the
transition is more likely explicable as the outcome of
gradual evolutionary or adaptive processes.
- 347 -
Shifting understandings of the Acheulo-Yabrudian complex and the Lower to Middle Paleolithic transition at Tabun Cave

Bar-Yosef O. (1995) - The Lower and Middle Palaeolithic in the Mediterranean Levant: chronology, and
cultural identities. In: H. Ullrich (ed.), Man and the environment in the Paleolithic, ERAUL 62, Liège, p. 247-
263.
Bar-Yosef O. & Kuhn S. (1999) - The big deal about blades: Laminar technologies and human evolution.
American Anthropologist 101:322-338.
Barkai R., Gopher A., Lauritzen S.E., Frumkin A. (2003) - Uranium series dates from Qesem Cave, Israel,
and the end of the Lower Palaeolithic. Nature 423:977-979.
Barkai R., Lemorini C., Shimelmitz R., Lev Z., Stiner M.C., Gopher A. (2009) - A blade for all seasons?
Making and using Amudian blades at Qesem Cave, Israel, Human Evolution 24:57-75.
Boëda E. (1995) - Levallois: a volumetric construction, methods, a technique. In: H. Dibble & O. Bar-Yosef
(eds.), The denition and interpretation of Levallois Technology, Madison, Prehistory Press, p. 41-69.
Bordes F. (1955) - Le paléolithique inférieur et moyen de Yabrud (Syrie) et la question du Pré-Aurignacien.
L'Anthropologie 59:486-507.
Bordes F. (1961) - Sur la chronologie du Paléolithique au Moyen Orient. Quaternaria 5:57-69.
Bordes F. (1977) - Que sont le Pré-Aurignacien et le Iabroudien? Eretz Israel 13:49-55.
Bordes F. (1984) - Leçons sur le Paléolithique. Paris, Editions du CNRS.
Copeland L. (1975) - The Middle and Upper Paleolithic of Lebanon and Syria in the light of recent research.
In: F. Wendorf & A.E. Marks (eds.), Problems in prehistory: North Africa and the Levant, Dallas, SMU Press,
p. 317-350.
References
In fact, the Acheulo-Yabrudian assemblages are
not a unique exception to a “natural” classication
of Paleolithic industries: rather, their seemingly ano-
malous features are a natural outcome of the deve-
lopment in the eld. The “big units” used to group
Paleolithic material culture—Acheulean, Mouste-
rian, Aurignacian, and so forth—are legacies from
the early 20th century. They were originally concei-
ved as chronostratigraphic horizons, and were de-
ned in terms of a limited array of index fossils
(handaxes, Levallois, etc.) using results from a small
number of sites. Scholars of the period treated the
archaeological record as a sequence of archaeologi-
cal phases or cultures stacked one on top of one
another, with change occurring only at the bounda-
ries between them (Holdaway and Wandsnider
2006).
Over the past century the amount of information
available about Paleolithic technology and behavior
has expanded by orders of magnitude, resulting in
a more nely-resolved picture of variation and a
greater number of apparently ‘intermediate’ entities.
During this same interval the dominant frameworks
for interpreting synchronic variability and the evo-
lution of cultural behavior have transformed repea-
tedly. It should come as no surprise that the
century-old terms no longer capture what we un-
derstand of variability, and the transitions between
them do not constitute the only, or indeed the most
important, evolutionary dynamics taking place over
the time intervals in question. Forcing the Acheulo-
Yabrudian complex into categories such as Lower
and Middle Paleolithic focuses attention on a few,
arbitrarily-dened periods of transition, and may
blind us to the diverse range of evolutionary dyna-
mics that unfolded at the time hominins in the Le-
vant produced these assemblages. What we do know
is that interval between 400 kya and 220 kya witnes-
sed a range of signicant evolutionary develop-
ments in hominin culture and behavior. The timing
and synchronicity of these developments, and their
relationship to hominin forms, are important ques-
tions to be resolved, and are quite independent of
whether we call them Middle or Lower Paleolithic.
- 348 -
Ron Shimelmitz & Steven, L. Kuhn

- 349 -
Shifting understandings of the Acheulo-Yabrudian complex and the Lower to Middle Paleolithic transition at Tabun Cave
Copeland L. (1978) - The Middle Paleolithic of Adlun and Ras el Kelb (Lebanon): First results from the
study of the int industries. Paléorient 4:33-57.
Copeland L. (1983) - The stone industries. In: D. Roe (ed.), Adlun in the Stone Age. The excavations of
D.A.E. Garrod in Lebanon 1958-1963, BAR International Series 159:89-365.
Copeland L. (2000) - Yabrudian and related industries: The state of research in 1996. In: A. Ronen & M.
Weinstein-Evron (eds.), Toward modern humans: Yabrudian and Micoquian, 400-50 kyears ago, BAR
International Series 850:97-117.
Copeland L. & Hours F. (1983) - Le Yabroudien d'El Kowm (Syrie) et sa place dans le Paléolithique du
Levant. Paléorient 9:21-37.
Farrand W.R. (1965) - Geology, climate and chronology of Yabrud Rockshelter I. Les Annales Archeologiques
de Syrie 15:35-50.
Farrand W.R. (1979) - Chronology and paleoenvironment of Levantine prehistoric sites as seen from
sediments studies. Journal of Archaeological Science 6:369-392.
Foley R. & Gamble C. (2009) - The ecology of social transitions in human evolution. Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society B 364:3267-3279.
Foley R. & Lahr M.M. (1997) - Mode 3 technologies and the evolution of modern Humans. Cambridge
Archaeological Journal 7:3-36.
Garrod D.A.E. (1934) - Excavations at the Wady al-Mughara (Palestine) 1932-1933. Bulletin of the American
School of Prehistoric Research 10:7-11.
Garrod D.A.E. (1935) - Excavations in the Mugharet et-Tabun (Palestine), 1934. Bulletin of the American
School of Prehistoric Research 11:54-58.
Garrod D.A.E. (1936) - A summary of seven seasons' work at the Wady el-Mughara. Bulletin of the American
School of Prehistoric Research 12:125-129.
Garrod D.A.E. (1937) - The Near East as a gateway of prehistoric migration. Bulletin of the American School
of Prehistoric Research 13:17-21.
Garrod D.A.E. (1938) - The Upper Paleolithic in the light of recent discovery. Proceedings of the Prehistoric
Society 4:1-26.
Garrod D.A.E. (1956) - Acheuléo-Jabroudien et “Pré-Aurignacien” de la Grotte de Taboun (Mont Carmel);
Étude stratigraphique et chronologique. Quaternaria 3:39-59.
Garrod D.A.E. (1961) - Comment on M. Bordes’ article “Sur la Chronologie au Paleolithique en Moyen
Orient. Quaternaria 5:71-73.
Garrod D.A.E. (1962) - The Middle Palaeolithic of the Near East and the problem of Mount Carmel Man.
Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland 92:232-259.
Garrod D.A.E. (1970) - Pre-Aurignacian and Amudian: A comparative study of the earliest blade industries
of the Near East. In: K. Gripp, R. Schütrumpf, H. Schabedissen (eds.), Frühe Menschheit und Umwelt, Köln,
Böhlau Verlag, p. 224-229.
Garrod D.A.E. & Bate D.M.A. (1937) - The Stone Age of Mount Carmel. Oxford, Clarendon Press.

Garrod D.A.E. & Kirkbride D. (1961) - Excavation of the Abri Zumoffen, a Paleolithic rock shelter near
Adlun, South Lebanon. Bulletin du Musée de Beyrouth 23:7-46.
Gilead D. (1970) - Early Paleolithic cultures in Israel and the Near East. PhD thesis, Hebrew University,
Jerusalem.
Gisis I. & Ronen A. (2006) - Bifaces from the Acheulian and Yabrudian layers of Tabun Cave, Israel. In: N.
Goren-Inbar & G. Sharon (eds.), Axe Age, Acheulian Tool-Making from Quarry to Discard. London, Equinox,
p. 137-154.
Gopher A., Ayalon A., Bar-Matthews M., Barkai R., Frumkin A.,Karkanas P., Shahack-Gross R. (2010) -
The chronology of the Latelower Paleolithic in the Levant based on U-Th ages of speleothems from Qesem
cave, Israel. Quaternary Geochronology 5:644-656.
Gopher A., Barkai R., Shimelmitz R., Khalaly M., Lemorini C., Heshkovitz I., Stiner M. (2005) - Qesem
Cave: An Amudian site in central Israel. Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 35:69-92.
Goren-Inbar N. (1995) - The Lower Paleolithic of Israel. In: T.E. Levy (ed.), The Archaeology of Society in
the Holy Land. London, Leicester University Press, London, p. 93-109.
Grün R. & Stringer C. (2000) - Tabun revisited: Revised ESR chronology and the new ESR and U-Series
analysis of dental material from Tabun C1. Journal of Human Evolution 39:601-612.
de Heinzelin J. (1966) - Revision du site de Yabroud. Annales Archeologique Arabes Syriennes 16:157-165.
Hershkovitz I., Smith P., Sarig R., Quam R., Rodriguez L., Garcia R., Arsuaga J.-L., Barkai R., Gopher A.
(2010) - Middle Pleistocene dental remains from Qesem Cave, Israel. American Journal of Physical
Anthropology 144:575-592.
Holdaway S. & Wandsnider L. (2006) - Temporal scales and archaeological landscapes from the eastern
desert of Australia and intermontane North America. In: G. Lock & B. Molyneaux (eds.), Confronting Scale
in Archaeology, New York, Springer, p. 183-202.
Hours F., Copeland L., Aurenche O. (1973) - Les industries Paléolithiques du Proche-Orient, essai de
corrélation. L’Anthropologie 77:229-280.
Howell F.C. (1959) - Upper Pleistocene stratigraphy and early man in the Levant. Proceedings of the American
Philosophical Society 103:1-65.
Jelinek A.J. (1981) - The Middle Paleolithic in the southern Levant from the perspective of Tabun Cave. In:
J. Cauvin & P. Sanlaville (eds.), Préhistoire du Levant, CNRS Éditions, Paris, p. 265-280.
Jelinek A.J. (1982a) - The Tabun Cave and Paleolthic man in the Levant. Science 216: 1369-1375.
Jelinek A.J. (1982b) - The Middle Paleolthic in the Southern Levant, with comments on the appearance of
modern Homo Sapiens. In: A. Ronen (ed.), The Transition from Lower to Middle Paleolthic and the Origin of
Modern Man, BAR International Series 151:57-101.
Jelinek A.J. (1990) - The Amudian in the context of the Mugharan Tradition at the Tabun Cave (Mount
Carmel), Israel. In: P. Mellars (ed.), The Emergence of Modern Humans, Ithaka, NY, Cornell University
Press, p. 81-90.
Jelinek A.J., Farrand W.R., Haas G., Horowitz A., Goldberg P. (1973) - New excavation the Tabun Cave,
Mount Carmel, Israel, 1967-1972: A preliminary report. Paléorient 1:151-183.
- 350 -
Ron Shimelmitz & Steven, L. Kuhn

- 351 -
Shifting understandings of the Acheulo-Yabrudian complex and the Lower to Middle Paleolithic transition at Tabun Cave
Karkanas P., Shahack-Gross R., Ayalon A., Bar-Matthews M., Barkai R., Fromkin A., Gopher A., Stiner
M. (2007) - Evidence of habitual use of re at the end of the Lower Paleolithic: Site-formation processes at
Qesem Cave, Israel. Journal of Human Evolution 53:197-212.
Kuhn S. (2013) - Roots of the Middle Paleolithic in Eurasia. Current Anthropology, special issue 8:S255-
S268.
Kuhn S. & Hovers E. (2013) - Introduction to special issue “Alternative pathways to complexity”. Current
Anthropology, special issue 8:S176-S182.
Le Tensorer J.-M., Jagher R., Rentzel P., Hauck T., Ismail-Meyer K., Pümpin C., Wojtczak D. (2007) - Long-
term formation processes at the natural springs Nadaouiyeh and Hummal in the El-Kowm Oasis, central
Syria. Geoarchaeology 22, p. 621-639.
Meignen L. (2007) - Le phénomène laminaire au Proche-Orient, du Paléolithique Inférieur aux débuts du
Paléolithique Supérieur. In: J. Evin (ed.), Congrès du Centenaire: Un Siècle de Construction du Discours
Scientique en Préhistoire, XXVI° Congrès Préhistorique de France. Paris, Société préhistorique française, p.
79-94.
Mercier N. & Valladas H. (2003) - Reassessment of TL age estimates of burnt ints from the Paleolithic site
of Tabun Cave, Israel. Journal of Human Evolution 45:401-409.
Monigal K. (2002) - The Levantine Leptolithic: Blade Production from the Lower Paleolithic to the Dawn of
the Upper Paleolithic. PhD thesis, Southern Methodist University.
Monnier G.F. (2006) - The Lower/Middle Paleolithic periodization in Western Europe: An evaluation.
Current Anthropology 47:709-744.
Nishiaki Y. (1989) - Early blade industries in the Levant: The placement of Douara IV industry in the context
of the Levant Early Middle Paleolithic. Paléorient 15:215-229.
Nowell A. (2010) - Dening behavioral modernity in the context of Neandertal and anatomically modern
human populations. Annual Review of Anthropology 39:437-452.
Parush Y., Gopher A., Barkai R. (2016) - Amudian versus Yabrudian under the rock shelf: A study of two
lithic assemblages from Qesem Cave, Israel. Quaternary International 398:13-36.
Perrot J. (1968) - Le Préhistoire Palestinienne. Supplement du Dictionnaire de la Bible 8:286-446.
Porat N., Chazan M., Schwarcz H., Kolska Horwitz L.K. (2002) - Timing the Lower to Middle Paleolithic
boundary: New dates from the Levant. Journal of Human Evolution 43:107-122.
Porat N., Chazan M., Grün R., Aubert R., Eisenmann V., Kolska Horwitz L. (2010) - New radiometric ages
for the Fauresmith industry from Kathu Pan, southern Africa: Implications for the Earlier to Middle Stone
Age transition. Journal of Archaeological Science 37:269-283.
Rink, WJ, Schwartz, HP, Ronen, A, & Tsatskin, A 2004, ‘Conrmation of a Near 400 ka Age for the
Yabrudian industry at Tabun Cave, Israel’, Journal of Archaeological Science vol. 31, pp. 15-20.
Rolland N. & Dibble H.L. (1990) - A new synthesis of Middle Paleolithic variability. American Antiquity
55:480-499.
Rollefson G.O., Quintero L.A., Wilke P.J. (2006) - Late Acheulian variability in the southern Levant: A
contrast of the western and eastern margins of the Levantine corridor. Near Eastern Archaeology 69:61-72.

Ronen A. (1975) - The Paleolthic archaeology and chronology of Israel. In: F. Wendorf & A.E. Marks (eds.),
Problems in Prehistory: North Africa and the Levant. Dallas, SMU Press, p. 229-248.
Ronen A. (1979) - Paleolithc industries. In: A. Horowitz (ed.), The Quaternary of Israel. New York, Academic
Press, p. 296-307.
Ronen A. & Tsatskin A. (1995) - New interpretation of the oldest part of the Tabun Cave sequence, Mount
Carmel, Israel. In: H. Ullrich (ed.), Man and the Environment in the Paleolithic, ERAUL 62, p. 265-281.
Rust A. (1933) - Beitrag zur Erkenntnis der Abwicklung der vorgeschichtlichen Kulturperioden in Syrien.
Praehistorische Zeitschrift 24:205-218.
Rust A. (1950) - Die Hohlenfunde von Jabrud (Syrien). Neumünster, Wachholtz.
Rust A. (1958) - Über Kulturen des Neandertalers im Nahen Osten. In: H.H.R. von Koenigswald (ed.),
Hundert Jahre Neanderthaler 1856-1956, Köln, Böhlau-Verlag, p. 290-303.
Shea J.J. (2001) - The Middle Paleolithic: Early modern humans and Neandertals in the Levant. Near Eastern
Archaeology 64:38-64.
Shimelmitz R. (2009) - Lithic Blade Production in the Middle Pleistocene of the Levant. PhD Thesis, Tel Aviv
University.
Shimelmitz R., Kuhn S.L., Ronen A., Weinstein-Evron M. (2014a) - Predetermined ake production at the
Lower/Middle Paleolithic boundary: Yabrudian scraper-blank technology. PLoS ONE 9:1-28.
Shimelmitz R., Kuhn S.L., Jelinek A.J., Ronen A., Clark A.E., Weinstein-Evron M. (2014b) - Fire at Will:
The emergence of habitual re use 350,000 years ago. Journal of Human Evolution 77:196-203.
Skinner J.H. (1965) - The Flake Industries of Southwest Asia: a Typological Study. PhD Thesis, Columbia
University.
Skinner J.H. (1970) - El Masloukh: A Yabrudian site in Lebanon. Bulletin du Musée de Beyrouth 23:143-172.
Solecki R.L. & Solecki R.S. (1986) - A reappraisal of Rust’s cultural stratigraphy of Yabroud Shelter I’.
Paléorient 12:53-59.
Stiner M.C., Barkai R., Gopher A. (2009) - Cooperative hunting and meat sharing 400-200 kya at Qesem
Cave, Israel. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 106:13207-13212.
Stiner M.C., Barkai R., Gopher A. (2011) - Hearth-side socioeconomics, hunting and paleoecology during
the late Lower Paleolithic at Qesem Cave, Israel. Journal of Human Evolution 60:213-233.
Trigger B.G. (1989) - A History of Archeological Thought. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Trinkaus E. (1982) - Evolutionary continuity among Archaic Homo sapiens. In: A. Ronen (ed.), The
Transition from Lower to Middle Paleolthic and the Origin of Modern Man. BAR International Series 151:300-
314.
Tsatskin A. (2000) - Acheulo-Yabrudian sediments of Tabun: A view from the microscope. In: A. Ronen &
M. Weinstein-Evron (eds.), Toward Modern Humans: Yabrudian and Micoquian, 400-50 kyears ago. BAR
International Series 850:133-142.
Tuffreau A. (2003) - Book Review: Ronen A., Weinstein-Evron M. (2000) - Toward Modern Humans: The
Yabrudian and the Micoquian 400-50 k-years ago. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française 100:598-
599.
- 352 -
Ron Shimelmitz & Steven, L. Kuhn

- 353 -
Shifting understandings of the Acheulo-Yabrudian complex and the Lower to Middle Paleolithic transition at Tabun Cave
Vandermeersch B. (1982) - The First Homo-Sapiens in the Near East. In: A. Ronen (ed.), The Transition
from Lower to Middle Paleolithic and the Origin of Modern Man, BAR International Series 151:298-299.
Valladas H., Mercier N., Hershkovitz I., Weinstein-Evron M. (2013) - Dating the Lower to Middle Paleolithic
transition in the Levant: a view from Misliya Cave, Mount Carmel, Israel. Journal of Human Evolution
65:585-593.
Villa P. (2009) - The Lower to Middle Paleolithic transition. In: M. Camps & R. Chuahan (eds.), Sourcebook
of Paleolithic Transitions. New York, Springer, p. 265-270.
Vishnyatsky L. B. (2000) - The Pre-Aurignacian and Amudian as intra-Yabrudian-episode. In: A. Ronen &
M. Weinstein-Evron (eds.), Toward Modern Humans: Yabrudian and Micoquian, 400-50 kyears ago. Oxford,
BAR International Series 850, p. 145-151.
Weinstein-Evron M., Bar-Oz G., Zaidner Y., Tsatskin A., Druck D., Porat N. & Hershkovitz I. (2003) -
Introducing Misliya Cave, Mount Carmel, Israel: A new continuous Lower/ Middle Paleolithic sequence in
the Levant. Eurasian Prehistory 11:31-55.
Weinstein-Evron M., Tsatskin A., Porat N., Kronfeld J. (1999) - A 230Th/234U date for the Acheulo-
Yabrudian layer in the Jamal Cave, Mount Carmel, Israel. South African Journal of Science 95:186-188.
Wojtczak D., Le Tensorer J.-M., Demidenko Y. (2014) - Hummalian industry (El Kowm, Central Syria):
Core reduction variability in the Levantine Early Middle Palaeolithic. Quartär 61:23-48.
Wright G.A. (1966) - The University of Michigan Archaeological Collections from et-Tabun, Palestine: Level
F and E. Papers of the Michigan Academy of Science, Arts, and Letters 51:407-23.
Zeitoun V. (2001) - La position taxinomique du crâne de Zuttiyeh. Comptes Rendus de l'Académie des Sciences
- Series IIA 332:521-525.