SSStttooonnnyyy BBBrrrooooookkk UUUnnniiivvveeerrrsssiiitttyyy The official electronic file of this thesis or dissertation is maintained by the University Libraries on behalf of The Graduate School at Stony Brook University. ©©© AAAllllll RRRiiiggghhhtttsss RRReeessseeerrrvvveeeddd bbbyyy AAAuuuttthhhooorrr... The Middle Paleolithic Stone Tool Assemblage from Ar Rasfa: Reconstructing Late Pleistocene Human Behavior in the Jordan Rift Valley. A Thesis Presented by Ghufran Sabri Ahmad to The Graduate School in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts In Anthropology (Archaeology) Stony Brook University August 2009 1 Stony Brook University The Graduate School Ghufran Sabri Ahmad We the thesis committee for the above candidate for the Master of Arts degree, hereby recommend acceptance of this thesis Dr. John J. Shea, Ph.D., Advisor Associate Professor, Department of Anthropology Dr. Katheryn C. Twiss, Ph.D., Member Assistant Professor, Department of Anthropology Dr. Donny G. Youkhanna Ph.D., Member Visiting Professor, Department of Asian and Asian American Studies This thesis is accepted by the Graduate School Lawrence Martin Dean of the Graduate School ii Abstract of the thesis The Middle Paleolithic Stone Tool Assemblage from Ar Rasfa: Reconstructing Late Pleistocene Human Behavior in the Jordan Rift Valley. by Ghufran Sabri Ahmad Master of Arts In Anthropology (Archaeology) Stony Brook University 2009 Ar Rasfa is a Middle Paleolithic open-air site located in the Rift Valley of Northwest Jordan excavated between 1997-1999. This thesis presents a detailed technological, typological, and paleoanthropological analysis of the stone tool assemblage from Ar Rasfa. Artifacts reflecting the initial preparation and exploitation of local flint source dominate the Ar Rasfa assemblage. Typologically, the assemblage is most similar to Levantine Mousterian assemblages such as those from Naamé, Skhul and Qafzeh. Patterns of lithic variability and contextual evidence suggest Ar Rasfa was visited intermittently by human populations circulating between lake/river-edge resources in the Rift Valley bottom and woodland habitats along the ridge of the Transjordan Plateau. iii Table of Contents List of Figures……………………………...………………………..…………...v List of Tables……………………………………………………………....…...vii Acknowledgments………………………….……………………………..….….ix Chapter 1. Introduction…………………….……………………………….……1 Middle Paleolithic Sites in Jordan….….…………………………………….4 Chapter 2. The Ar Rasfa Site and Its Setting……………………………….…....7 Excavation of Ar Rasfa, 1977-1999…………………………………….…....7 Stratigraphy……………………….……………………………………….….8 Analytical Procedures……………………….………………………………..9 Chapter 3. Description of Lithic Artifacts……………………………………...20 Cores………………………………………………………………...………20 Débitage: Flakes and Flake Fragments…………………………...…………22 Retouched Tools….………………………………………………...…….…25 Retouched Edges….………………………………………………...………28 Chapter 4 Analysis of Lithic Artifact Variability.....................………………...29 Raw Material Procurement Strategies……….………………………...……29 Tool Manufacturing Strategies……….……………………………..………32 Tool Use Strategies……………………………………..…………………...34 Flake Width/Thickness Ratios and the Jelinek Index………..........…….…..36 Efficiency of Tool Production………………………………………............37 Chapter 5 Conclusion…………………………………………………………...41 Overview of Findings…………………………………………………..…...41 Comparisons to Other Assemblages………………………………………...44 Prospects for Future Research…………………………………………..…..49 References Cited…………………………...…………………………………...53 Appendix……………………....................……………………………………..68 Tables……………………....................………………………………...…...68 Figures……………………...………………………………………….…..116 iv LIST OF FIGURES 1.1 Map of Levant showing important Middle Paleolithic sites (modified from Shea 2003b, used with permission). 1.2 Map of Jordan showing Middle Paleolithic sites mentioned in the text. 2.1 Ar Rasfa region aerial image (modified from Google Earth). 2.2 Ar Rasfa as seen from above and west, looking east (modified from Google Earth). 2.3 Ar Rasfa view from northeast (J. Shea Photo). 2.4 Topographic map of site (redrawn after J. Shea notebook sketch). 2.5 John Shea & Yacoub Oweis excavating Ar Rasfa in 1997 (J. Shea Photo). 2.6 Stratigraphy of all test pits. 2.7 Stratigraphy of Test Pit #4. 2.8 Ar Rasfa Test Pit #4 North Baulk stratigraphy (J. Shea Photo). 2.9 Ar Rasfa Test Pit #4 North Baulk contact between Levels 3 and 4 (conglomerate)(J. Shea Photo). 2.10 Artifacts from Ar Rasfa Test Pit #4, contact between Levels 3 and 4 (J. Shea Photo). 2.11 Flake completeness. 2.12 Flake striking platform morphology (Modified after Inizan et al. (1999)). 2.13 Flake distal-proximal symmetry. 2.14 Flake medio-lateral symmetry. 2.15 Flake dorsal surface morphology. 2.16 Flake measurements. 3.1. Cores: Large Levallois core, bidirectional-opposed preparation (WY97.14.74). 3.2. Cores: a. Levallois core with bidirectional-opposed preparation (AR97.351), b. small Levallois core with bidirectional-opposed preparation (ID number illegible). 3.3. Cores: Levallois core with radial/centripetal preparation (WY.AR.1E.379). 3.4. Cores: Levallois core with radial/centripetal preparation (WY97.AR.1W.1). 3.5. Cores: a. Levallois core with unidirectional-convergent preparation (WY97.AR.1E.376), b. Small Levallois core with unidirectional- convergent preparation (WY97.AR.1E.402). 3.6. Cores: Chopper (AR99.450). 3.7. Cores: Core-on-flake (AR99.238). 3.8. Cores: Cores-on-flakes (a. WY97.AR.TP4.4, b. AR99.61, c. AR99.63). 3.9. Débitage: Levallois points (a. WY97.AR.4.385, b. WY97.AR.2.67, c. WY97.AR.1e.264, d. AR99.406, e. AR99.443, f. WY97.AR.1E.209). 3.10. Débitage: Levallois flakes, blades (a. AR99.397, b. AR99.158). v 3.11. Débitage: Levallois flakes (a. AR99.89, b. AR99.459, c. AR97.443). 3.12. Débitage: Levallois flakes (a. AR97.339, b. AR97.345, c. AR97.101, d. AR97.382, e. AR97.109). 3.13. Débitage: Core-trimming flakes (overshot flakes/blades)(a. AR97.169, b. AR97.14.83, c. AR97.200, d. AR.97.50). 3.14. Débitage: Cortical core-trimming flakes (a. AR97.214, b. AR97.241, c. AR97.240). 3.15. Débitage: Special pieces, a-b. large non-Levallois flakes (a. AR99.289, b. AR99.459), c. Kombewa/Janus flake (AR99.256). 3.16. Retouched Tools: Points, a. elongated, retouched Levallois point (Abu Sif knife)(AR97.155), b-d. retouched Levallois points (b. AR97.120, c. AR99.24, d. AR97.214). 3.17. Retouched Tools: Scrapers a. transverse scraper (AR99.17), b. end-retouched piece (AR99.252), c. double sidescraper (AR99.163), d. complex scraper (AR99.322). 3.18. Retouched Tools: Other retouched tools, a. notch (AR97.168), b. sidescraper (AR97.159), c. denticulate (AR97.111), d. point/sidescraper (AR97.47), e. point with basal modification (AR97.10). 3.19. Retouched Tools: Large retouched tools, a. perforator (AR97.89), b. large retouched Levallois flake with basal thinning (AR97.146). 4.1 Graph showing cortex extent vs. flake technological length 4.2 A refitting set of artifacts from Ar Rasfa Test Pit 1, Level 3 (for discussion, see text). 4.3 Histogram of FSA/Th values for whole flakes from Ar Rasfa. 4.4 Histogram of PW/PTh values for whole flakes from Ar Rasfa. 4.5 Scatterplot of mean FSA/Th and PW/PTh values for various technological tool types in the Ar Rasfa assemblage. 4.6 Scatterplot of mean FSA/Th and PW/PTh values for selected Levantine Lower, Middle, and Upper Paleolithic assemblages. 5.1 Map of Levant showing known locations of Middle Mousterian assemblages (modified from Shea 2008, used with permission). 5.2 Map showing known locations of Middle Paleolithic sites in the Zagros Mountains or Iraq/Iran (modified from map in Lindly 2005). 5.3 Conjectural reconstruction of the Ar Rasfa’s position in the northern Jordan Valley under warm humid condition like those prevailing today (above) and under cold dry conditions in the past (below). vi LIST OF TABLES 1.1 Excavated Levantine Middle Paleolithic sites. 1.2 Frameworks of Levantine Mousterian Industrial Variability (Modified after Shea (2001: Table 3)). 2.1 Artifact frequency for Test Pit #1 by levels. 2.2 Artifact frequency for Test Pit #2 by levels. 2.3 Artifact frequency for Test Pit #4 by levels. 3.1 Core types. 3.2 Cores: Variation in cortex coverage. 3.3 Cores: Variation in scar directionality. 3.4 Cores: Shape of largest complete scar. 3.5 Cores: Descriptive statistics for mass. 3.6 Cores: Descriptive Statistics for maximum length. 3.7 Cores: Descriptive statistics for maximum width. 3.8 Cores: Descriptive statistics for maximum thickness. 3.9 Cores: Descriptive statistics for length of last scar. 3.10 Cores: Descriptive statistics for worked edge. 3.11 Cores: Descriptive statistics for circumference. 3.12 Débitage: Variation in number of flake scars >30 mm long. 3.13 Débitage: Counts of technological flake types. 3.14 Débitage: Technological types vs. completeness. 3.15 Débitage: Variation in striking platform morphology. 3.16 Débitage: Variation in cortex extent. 3.17 Débitage: Variation in distal-proximal symmetry. 3.18 Débitage: Variation in medio-lateral symmetry. 3.19 Débitage: Variation in dorsal surface morphology. 3.20 Débitage: Retouched tools among technological types. 3.21 Débitage: Variation in flake maximum length. 3.22 Débitage: Variation in flake technological length. 3.23 Débitage: Variation in flake maximum width. 3.24 Débitage: Variation in flake maximum thickness. 3.25 Débitage: Variation in striking platform width by technological types. 3.26 Débitage: Variation in striking platform thickness. 3.27 Débitage: Variation in midpoint width. 3.28 Débitage: Variation in flake midpoint thickness. 3.29 Count of retouched tool types. 3.30 Retouched Tools: Count of completeness. 3.31 Retouched Tools: Variation in striking platform morphology. 3.32 Retouched Tools: Variation in cortex extent. vii 3.33 Retouched Tools: Count of distal-proximal symmetry. 3.34 Retouched Tools: Variation in medio-lateral symmetry. 3.35 Retouched Tools: Variation in dorsal surface morphology. 3.36 Retouched Tools: Distribution of retouched edges on retouched tools. 3.37 Retouched Tools: Variation in maximum length. 3.38 Retouched Tools: Variation in technological length. 3.39. Retouched Tools: Variation in maximum width. 3.40 Retouched Tools: Variation in maximum thickness. 3.41 Retouched Tools: Variation in striking platform width. 3.42 Retouched Tools: Variation in striking platform width. 3.43 Retouched Tools: Variation in midpoint width. 3.44 Retouched Tools: Variation in midpoint thickness. 3.45 Retouched Edges: Cross-tabulation of retouched edge shape and retouch mode. 3.46 Retouched Edges: Summary statistics for maximum invasiveness and maximum spine-plane angle. 4.1 Cortex extent (simplified) on flakes of varying length in the Ar Rasfa assemblage. 4.2 Dorsal surface morphology vs. technological length for whole flakes. 4.3. Frequencies of dorsal surface morphology (simplified) for retouched tools. 4.4. Striking platform morphology vs. flake length. 4.5 Width/Thickness ratio values for flakes of varying length. 4.6. Technological artifact types and core reduction stages. Parentheses enclose subtotals. 4.7 Retouch vs. technological artifact categories. 4.8 Descriptive statistics for flake surface/area (FSA/Th) and striking platform width/thickness (PW/PTh). 4.9 Flake surface/area (FSA/Th) and striking platform width/thickness (PW/PTh) values for cortical and non-cortical flakes. 4.10 Descriptive statistics for flake surface/area (FSA/Th) and striking platform width/thickness (PW/PTh). 4.11 Width/thickness ratios for Levantine Middle Paleolithic assemblages. 4.12 Flake surface/area (FSA/Th) and striking platform width/thickness (PW/PTh) values for selected Levantine Paleolithic assemblages. 5.1 Comparison of Levantine and Taurus-Zagros Middle Paleolithic records. viii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I express thanks to all the people who helped me to complete my research. I am deeply and sincerely grateful to my advisor, Professor John Shea. He guided and mentored me during my research and study at Stony Brook University, encouraged and supported me by all supplies and references, and he also made especial efforts to make this thesis the best that it could be. I thank my thesis committee members, Professor Donny Youkhanna and Professor Katheryn Twiss for their encouragement and insightful comments. I also thank Professor Patricia Crawford for proofreading my thesis. My deepest gratitude goes to Professor Elizabeth Stone, who not only helped me to gain admission into the Masters Program, but who also supported me during summer excavations and the course of my studies at Stony Brook University. I would like to acknowledge Andrew Mellon Foundation, who provided me a grant to study at Stony Brook University. I also wish to express my warm and sincere thanks to Nancy Lannak and Elisabeth Barnum of the Graduate School for their help and logistical support. My warm thanks go out to friends and fellow Stony Brook graduate students, Amanuel Beyin and Mathew Sisk. I am grateful to Professor Ali Ahmad (Dean of College of Archaeology at Mosul University) and Professor Khaled Ismaeel (Head of Cuneiform Department at Mosul University) for introducing me to the Masters Program at Stony Brook University. I would like to express my appreciation to the Administration of the University of Mosul and the Ministry of Higher Education for all helping and facilitating my studies in the USA. Most of all, I would like to thank to my family, for encouraging and supporting me spiritually throughout my life. First, to my Mother and Father, who never gave up on me, and who expected nothing but the best. Without them, I would not be where I am today. Secondly, to my brother and sisters are for their loving support. Finally, all praise is due to Allah for seeing me through. ix