New insights into early MIS 5 lithic technological behavior in the Levant: Nesher Ramla, Israel as a case study

Abstract

Interpreting human behavioral patterns during the Middle Paleolithic in the Levant is crucial for better understanding the dispersals and evolution of Homo sapiens and their possible interactions with other hominin groups. Here, we reconstruct the technological behavior, focusing on the centripetal Levallois method at Nesher Ramla karst sinkhole, Israel. Nesher Ramla karst sinkhole is dated to the Marine Isotope stages (MIS) 6 and 5 and represents one of the oldest occurrences of the centripetal Levallois reduction strategy in the Near East. The Levallois centripetal technology is often seen as a marker of human dispersals and adaptations in the Middle Paleolithic/Middle Stone Age of Africa and the Near East. This technology is documented in East African sites as early as 300 kya and in the Levant as early as 130 kya. However, the degree of similarity between African and Levantine centripetal technology and whether it originates from the same source remain under debate. In this paper, we focus on describing the lithic organization at Unit III of Nesher Ramla (dated to MIS 5), which is dominated by the centripetal Levallois method in association with other reduction sequences. Both preferential and recurrent centripetal Levallois modes were used at the site to produce oval and rectangular flakes. Other minor reduction sequences include unidirectional convergent method for Levallois points production and a specific method for the manufacture of naturally backed knives. The lithic data from Unit III of Nesher Ramla is further used in inter-site comparisons suggesting that the mid-Middle Paleolithic sites in the Near East possess common technological characteristics, especially the use of the centripetal Levallois method as predominant reduction strategy. This trend differs from what is usually observed in Africa and Europe, where the centripetal Levallois method is modestly represented during MIS 5 and is accompanied by other, more dominant, reduction strategies.

Directional changes in Levallois core technologies between Eastern Africa, Arabia, and the Levant during MIS 5

“…This study provides a quantified appraisal of Levallois core variability between eastern Africa, Arabia, and the Levant in MIS 5, demonstrating the near ubiquitous focus on centripetal reduction schemes with considerable overlaps in core morphology. Analyses of core attribute datasets enable nuanced evaluation of patterns of variability in Levallois reduction schemes that complement those that highlight the potential spread of centripetal Levallois methods by Homo sapiens in MIS 5 based on assemblage compositions 10 , 19 , 20 , extending the geographic range of other studies of cores in the region 32 , 41 . While there is extensive shared variability amongst Levallois cores identified here, differences between eastern Africa, Arabia, and the Levant can be resolved in both core shaping and flake production.…”

“…Centripetal Levallois technology is a key component of stone tool production strategies associated with the expansion of Homo sapiens during MIS 5 10 , 19 , 20 (Fig. 1 ).…”

“…However, the extent to which variability exists within such chronologically and technologically distinct assemblages is not clear, highlighting the need to examine the scale of within and between assemblage variability. Assemblage-scale evidence suggests comparability in the focus on centripetal Levallois among MIS 5 assemblages between eastern Africa, Arabia and the Levant 20 , but no artefact-scale comparisons have been conducted to test this in detail.

Figure 1 Map illustrating the distribution of sites studied here (named in bold) among sites with a prominent use of centripetal Levallois reduction (following Prévost and Zaidner 20 ).

…”

“…Assemblage-scale evidence suggests comparability in the focus on centripetal Levallois among MIS 5 assemblages between eastern Africa, Arabia and the Levant 20 , but no artefact-scale comparisons have been conducted to test this in detail.

Figure 1 Map illustrating the distribution of sites studied here (named in bold) among sites with a prominent use of centripetal Levallois reduction (following Prévost and Zaidner 20 ). A concentration of assemblages dating between MIS 8–6 is identified in eastern Africa, followed by more widespread appearance across Eastern/North-East Africa and Southwest Asia in MIS 5.

…”

“… Map illustrating the distribution of sites studied here (named in bold) among sites with a prominent use of centripetal Levallois reduction (following Prévost and Zaidner 20 ). A concentration of assemblages dating between MIS 8–6 is identified in eastern Africa, followed by more widespread appearance across Eastern/North-East Africa and Southwest Asia in MIS 5.…”