Douka_etal_2013_Chronology of Ksar Akil-PLOS ONE With SI
Transcript of Douka_etal_2013_Chronology of Ksar Akil-PLOS ONE With SI
-
8/13/2019 Douka_etal_2013_Chronology of Ksar Akil-PLOS ONE With SI
1/40
Chronology of Ksar Akil (Lebanon) and Implications forthe Colonization of Europe by Anatomically ModernHumans
Katerina Douka1*, Christopher A. Bergman2, Robert E. M. Hedges1, Frank P. Wesselingh3,
Thomas F. G. Higham1
1 Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit, Research Laboratory for Archaeology and the History of Art, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom, 2 URS Corporation,
Cincinnati, Ohio, United States of America, 3 Naturalis Biodiversity Center, Leiden, The Netherlands
Abstract
The Out-of-Africa model holds that anatomically modern humans (AMH) evolved and dispersed from Africa into Asia, andlater Europe. Palaeoanthropological evidence from the Near East assumes great importance, but AMH remains from theregion are extremely scarce. Egbert, a now-lost AMH fossil from the key site of Ksar Akil (Lebanon) and Ethelruda, arecently re-discovered fragmentary maxilla from the same site, are two rare examples where human fossils are directlylinked with early Upper Palaeolithic archaeological assemblages. Here we radiocarbon date the contexts from which Egbertand Ethelruda were recovered, as well as the levels above and below the findspots. In the absence of well-preserved organicmaterials, we primarily used marine shell beads, often regarded as indicative of behavioural modernity. Bayesian modellingallows for the construction of a chronostratigraphic framework for Ksar Akil, which supports several conclusions. The model-generated age estimates place Egbert between 40.839.2 ka cal BP (68.2% prob.) and Ethelruda between 42.441.7 ka calBP (68.2% prob.). This indicates that Egbert is of an age comparable to that of the oldest directly-dated European AMH(Pestera cu Oase). Ethelruda is older, but on current estimates not older than the modern human teeth from Cavallo in Italy.The dating of the so-called transitional or Initial Upper Palaeolithic layers of the site may indicate that the passage fromthe Middle to Upper Palaeolithic at Ksar Akil, and possibly in the wider northern Levant, occurred later than previouslyestimated, casting some doubts on the assumed singular role of the region as a locus for human dispersals into Europe.Finally, tentative interpretations of the fossils taxonomy, combined with the chronometric dating of Ethelrudas context,provides evidence that the transitional/IUP industries of Europe and the Levant, or at least some of them, may be the resultof early modern human migration(s).
Citation:Douka K, Bergman CA, Hedges REM, Wesselingh FP, Higham TFG (2013) Chronology of Ksar Akil (Lebanon) and Implications for the Colonization ofEurope by Anatomically Modern Humans. PLoS ONE 8(9): e72931. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0072931
Editor:Carles Lalueza-Fox, Institut de Biologia Evolutiva Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Spain
ReceivedMay 9, 2013; Accepted July 15, 2013; Published September 11, 2013
Copyright: 2013 Douka et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits
unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.Funding:The dating component of this research was funded by a NERC-NRCF (UK) grant (NF/2008/2/2). During the period this work was undertaken, KD wasfunded by the State Scholarships Foundation (I.K.Y., Greece/www.iky.gr) and the A.G. Leventis Foundation (www.leventisfoundation.org) with two separatepostgraduate scholarships. KD and TFGH are members of the European Research Council Grant PALAECHRON (ERC-2012-AdG324139). The funders had no rolein study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Competing Interests:Dr. Christopher Bergman works as a consultant for a private corporation, URS. All of his research for this article was conducted between1976 and 1985, while a student at the American University of Beirut and the University of London. All work on this article was conducted entirely outside of hisactivities at URS. Dr. Bergman is not aware of any conflicts or competing interests related to his involvement in this article. This does not alter the authorsadherence to all the PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.
* E-mail: [email protected]
Introduction
Significant changes in human behaviour, cognition and
innovation become sharply evident in the archaeological record
of Eurasia at 45,000 years BP and demarcate the end of theMiddle Palaeolithic and the onset of the Upper Palaeolithic
period. The material cultures associated with the latter include the
so-called transitional technocomplexes (e.g., the Chatelperro-
nian of Franco-Cantabria, the Uluzzian of Italy and the
Bachokirian of Bulgaria), and the subsequent Early Upper
Palaeolithic (EUP) technocomplexes, namely the (Proto- and
Early) Aurignacian found throughout the continent. In the Eastern
Mediterranean region (hereafter, the Levant) the earliest Upper
Palaeolithic includes the Emiran and Initial Upper Palaeolithic
(IUP) entities, and the succeeding EUP, locally known as the Early
Ahmarian, technocomplex. When compared to the Middle
Palaeolithic record, these technocomplexes exhibit technological
and typological diversification in stone tools made on blades,
occasional production of organic implements from bone and
antler, and importantly, the sudden appearance of personal
ornamentation in the form of marine shell beads. These were not
part of the behavioural package of previous human populations
(Neanderthals) living in the same region.
Transitional/IUP and EUP assemblages, both in Europe and
the Levant, have been attributed to the expansion of AMH and
the replacement of local Neanderthal populations [13], although
there are widely acknowledged limitations expressed in these
linkages [4,5], especially since there is such scanty fossil evidence
in association. In addition to being extremely rare, human fossils
from the period are usually fragmentary and difficult to
characterize morphologically with certainty [6,7], in some cases
PLOS ONE | www.plosone.org 1 September 2013 | Volume 8 | Issue 9 | e72931
-
8/13/2019 Douka_etal_2013_Chronology of Ksar Akil-PLOS ONE With SI
2/40
they lack an archaeological context (e.g., as at Pestera cu Oase),
and/or are intrusive and of much younger (Holocene) age [8,9].
Recently, the initial colonization of Europe by AMH has been
shown to be earlier than previously thought, dating to ,43
45,000 BP, or even earlier [10,11]. This early presence, along with
subsequent and probably more substantial movements of AMH
towards Europe, e.g., during the Aurignacian, are thought to have
occurred along two different trajectories, both starting or passing
through the Near East [2,3] and following a path either along theMediterranean rim and/or up the Danube fluvial corridor.
The Levant represents a land bridge connecting Africa, Asia
and Europe [12] and has often been viewed as a region of high
palaeoanthropological significance, a starting point where one
might expect to find some of the earliest AMH fossils alongside
EUP assemblages [13], and possibly IUP assemblages, as well.
Indeed, important examples of human fossils in such contexts were
recovered 75 years ago at Ksar Akil in Lebanon. The site and the
fossils, however, lacked a secure absolute chronology, which is the
focus of the present paper. We believe these data may help furtherour understanding of the timing and geographic context of the
dispersal of AMH into Europe.
ContextKsar Akil is the reference Upper Palaeolithic site for the Near
East. It was excavated by the American Jesuits Doherty, Ewing,
and Murphy in 193738 and 194748 [14,15], and later by Tixier
between 19691975 [16] (Text S1 (SI Section I)). It contains a 23 mstratigraphic succession traditionally divided into 36 levels, I-
XXXVI from top to bottom (Fig. 1; see also Text S1 (SI Section I)).During the most recent excavations by Tixier, many more levels
and sub-divisions were established due to more advanced and
thorough recovery procedures. Unfortunately, Tixiers excavations
stopped before ever reaching the important IUP and EUP levels,
due to political instability in Lebanon in the mid-1970s.
The earliest occupation at Ksar Akil, from level XXXVI to level
XXVI at the base of the sequence, is of Middle Palaeolithic
(Mousterian) affinities ([1718]; see also Text S1 (SI Section I)). The
sequence continues with an intermediate archaeological phase,which represents the transition from the Middle to Upper
Palaeolithic period. Assemblages exhibiting similar characteristicsare currently referred to as IUP [1920]. At Ksar Akil, the IUP
phase occupies levels XXVXXI ([2122]; see also Text S1 (SISection I)). The subsequent archaeological levels XXXVI display ashift in some of the characteristics of material culture and lithic
assemblages towards a classic Upper Palaeolithic manifestation,
known as the Ahmarian, specifically the Northern facies of the
Early Ahmarian ([23]; see also Text S1 (SI Section I)). Levels XV
and XIV contain little evidence for human presence and are
thought to represent an occupational hiatus, possibly reflecting an
episode of intensive soil weathering during a wet climatic phase
[14,17]. The upper portion of the Ksar Akil sequence comprises
levels XIIIVI that span approximately 7.25 meters of deposit.
Previously referred to as Levantine Aurignacian A, B, and C [24],recent studies [2529] have avoided this descriptor due to a lack of
clarity surrounding what constitutes the Aurignacian presence in
the Levant. This upper portion of the Ksar Akil sequence is
stratigraphically and culturally complex and is summarized in
Text S1 (Section II), Table S1. It is very likely that the lower
portion is equally complex; however, detailed studies have not
been undertaken yet.
An interesting feature in the long stratigraphy of the site is the
presence of three, well-defined geological formations referred to as
Stone Complex 1, 2 and 3. These are tripartite layers of
cemented angular stones separated by sterile red clay (an in situsoil
formation, product of limestone weathering) found at 1.5 m, 10 m
and 15 m below datum, respectively. They are traditionally
interpreted as indications of a significant environmental instability,e.g., increased precipitation during a wet phase, affecting the
pedostratigraphy of the site.
Ksar Akil 1: EgbertIn 1938, Dohertys team discovered the skull and postcranial
remains of a juvenile Homo sapiensreferred to as Ksar Akil 1, andmore commonly known as Egbert [1415,30]. The remainswere found close to the rockshelter wall, 11.46 m below datum in
square F 3, in level XVII (or XVIII). These levels are associatedwith the Early Ahmarian, a classic Upper Palaeolithic industry in
the Levant. Egbert was covered by a pile of water-worn boulders,
which seem to indicate deliberate internment. An additional
maxilla and some rib fragments were found very close to the body,
indicating that a second individual may have been buried at the
same location. The fossils were poorly preserved and mostly
encased in breccia [30]. Only the skull was extracted and
reconstructed [31]. A metre above the burial(s), a break in the
geological and cultural sequence, a cemented formation referred
to as Stone Complex 2, separates the Early Ahmarian of levels
XXXVI from the subsequent later Upper Palaeolithic levels
XIIIVI [14,2122].The Egbert fossil is currently known only from descriptions,
photographs and reconstructed casts of the skull. Based on the
British Museum casts EM 274 and EM 275, Bergman andStringer [30] confirmed Ewings initial assessment [14,15] that
Egbert is an anatomically modern specimen belonging to a young
individual, possibly female, of about 79 years age at death [30].
The cranium is small and delicately built and there is no visible
supraorbital torus development. The zygomatic and maxillary
areas, as well as the vault and the mandible, reveal an
anatomically modern shape [30].
Ksar Akil 2: EthelrudaDuring the second field campaign at Ksar Akil, between 1947
and 1948, a partial maxilla was recovered from a levelstratigraphically deeper than Egbert. Ksar Akil 2 (referred to as
Ethelruda) was found in level XXV, three meters from the face of
the cliff, 15 m below datum. Level XXV was described as a red
clay, part of the lowest Stone Complex 3 and Ewing [32,33] noted
that the maxilla was definitely associated with an important
change in geology and lithic tradition, now understood to
represent the start of the IUP, the transitional industry of northern
Levant ([20]; see also Text S1 (SI Section I)). Interestingly, a singleatypical Emireh point from Ksar Akil, the fossile directeur for theindustry, was also discovered in level XXV. Ethelruda was thought
to be lost for many years, but the fossil has recently been located in
storage at the National Museum in Beirut (Directorate General of
Antiquities in Lebanon, Serial Number: 25724; see [34]).
The fossil consists of part of the right maxilla, and a small
portion of the left. It lacks all teeth, with the exception of the rightcanine root [32]. Ewing [32] attributed the specimen to a
Neandertaloid female adult on the basis of comparative metric
analysis with the fossils from Tabun I, Skhul IV and V, Gibraltar
and Chapelle-aux-Saints. This attribution however has been
questioned in recent years. According to Metni [35], the published
measurements of the maxilla fall within anatomically modern
ranges, which Ewing did not consider in his study. In addition,
Ewing reported that the Ethelruda fossil was morphologically
similar to Skhul V, which at the time was thought to be a
Neanderthal. Currently, Skhul V is considered to be an archaic
form of modern human [36], dating to between 11090 ka [37] or
Ksar Akil Chronology and Modern Human Expansion
PLOS ONE | www.plosone.org 2 September 2013 | Volume 8 | Issue 9 | e72931
-
8/13/2019 Douka_etal_2013_Chronology of Ksar Akil-PLOS ONE With SI
3/40
later [38]. Metni [35], Copeland and Yazbeck [34] and Yazbeck
[39] have suggested, therefore, that Ethelruda may be an
anatomically modern human. Further analytical work on the
fossil is planned (C. Stringer pers. comm.) and this will finalize the
taxonomic status of the fossil.
With the exception of about 10 teeth from the IUP and EarlyAhmarian levels of Ucagzl Cave in southern Turkey, most likely
belonging to Homo sapiens[4041], Egbert and Ethelruda are the
only other human fossils in the Near East directly linked to EUP
and IUP assemblages, respectively.
The lack of a firm chronostratigraphic framework for the Ksar
Akil sequence and the fact that neither the IUP nor the Early
Ahmarian levels of the site have been dated before, means that
great deal of uncertainty surrounds the age of the fossils and their
contexts. Their relationship, whether ancestral, contemporaneous
or descendant, to the Upper Palaeolithic European technocom-
plexes and to other EUP humans of Eurasia and Africa remainsunknown.
Materials and Dating Methods
Initial attempts to date bone material from Ksar Akil were
unsuccessful due to the complete absence of collagen (Text S1 (SISection II)). Both faunal remains, as well as modified bone objectsand tools, the latter sampled by our team in 2008 at the University
of Bordeaux (Inv. numbers: KA-73/9, KA-72/62, KA-74/59,
KA-72/43, KA-75/49, KA-74/26, KA-75/69, KA-72/42, KA-
72/55, KA-70/7273; with the permission of Prof. Fr. dErrico),
preserved no organics. Since no charcoal was available from Ksar
Akil, another type of material was required for dating purposes.
In the late Middle Palaeolithic, but mainly during the Upper
Palaeolithic periods, marine shell was regularly transported to the
site from about 610 km away for use as personal ornaments, tools
or for food [4244]. The molluscan collection from Ksar Akil is in
Figure 1. Stratigraphic and photographic documentation of the Ksar Akil excavations. (a) Stratigraphic sequence as established by theearly excavations of Boston College. The section drawing of the 23 m-deep stratigraphy illustrates both the archaeological levels (in Latin numerals)and the broad techno-typologically distinct phases (Mousterian, Initial Upper Palaeolithic, etc.) that these levels have been ascribed to; (b) Thediscovery of Egbert (Ksar Akil 1) in 1938. Close up of the skull in situ. Image copyright Pitt Rivers Museum, University of Oxford (accession number:1998.294.820); (c) Inferior view of the partial right maxilla of Ethelruda (Ksar Akil 2), modified after [32].doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0072931.g001
Ksar Akil Chronology and Modern Human Expansion
PLOS ONE | www.plosone.org 3 September 2013 | Volume 8 | Issue 9 | e72931
-
8/13/2019 Douka_etal_2013_Chronology of Ksar Akil-PLOS ONE With SI
4/40
fact one of the largest ever discovered at a Palaeolithic site. It
contains impressive numbers of both marine and terrestrial snails
(,2000 specimens), the vast majority of which carry evidence of
human modification such as perforation for suspension, burning,
polishing, snapping, and ochre residues.
Recent research into ways of addressing contamination when
dating shell carbonates [45] has led to the development of a new
pre-treatment and pre-screening protocol [46], which was used
here to date the Ksar Akil marine shells. This research [45] hasalso identified that the selection of aged gastropod shells was
very limited during the Upper Palaeolithic period, possibly due to
the poor quality of weathered marine shell for piercing and
manufacture into beads. We, therefore, consider the age of the
shell material used for beads to be closely related in the majority of
the cases to its selection and use by humans, as well as its
subsequent deposition at the site. No ornaments were found in
direct association with the human remains from Ksar Akil despite
the fact that large numbers of shell beads were discovered a few
centimetres above and below Egberts location, in levels XVII and
XVIII. Some of these beads were radiocarbon dated and are used
below to statistically constrain the age of the fossil.
Radiocarbon dating was performed at the Oxford Radiocarbon
Accelerator Unit (ORAU). The methods employed in dating shell
and charcoal material in the ORAU have been reviewed byDouka et al. [45,46] and Brock et al. [47], respectively. Overall,
we dated 26 shells from Ewings levels XXVIIIX obtaining 30
new AMS dates (Text S1 (SI Section II), Table S3). All dated
specimens were located at the Naturalis Natural History Museum
(Leiden, The Netherlands) and their inventory numbers are: RGM
550233, 550238, 550219, 550220, 550221, 550223, 550215,
550198, 550200, 550216, 550226, 550197, 550225, 550195,
550227, 550222, 550196, 550228, 550230, 550199, 550231,
550232, 550236. All necessary permits were obtained for the
described study, which complied with all relevant regulations.
Of the sampled material, twenty-one dated gastropod shells had
been transformed into beads, while five were of bivalves with
evidence of human manipulation (Fig. S2). The dated samples
were generally well preserved and no major mineral substitutionswere observed after thorough screening of the carbonate matrix
using X-Ray diffraction.
One charcoal sample from Tixiers excavations, dated in
Oxford in the late 1980s using a less-refined method (ABA), was
subjected to a harsher pre-cleaning protocol (ABOx-SC). This
protocol has been shown to provide more reliable results,
especially for old (.30 ka BP) charcoal [4849]. All radiocarbon
determinations were calibrated using the IntCal-Marine09 curve
[50] on the OxCal 4.1.7 software [51]. Bayesian statistical
methods were employed to analyse the results [51] (Text S1 (SISection III), Figs. S4S5). Comparisons to the NGRIP d18O record
[52] were used for broad climatic correlations.
Results
The new AMS dates on shell range from 39.5 ka BP for the late
Mousterian level XXVIII to ,3029 ka BP for level VIII (TextS1
(SI Section II), Table S3). An additional measurement on charcoal,
dated previously at the ORAU at 29.360.8 ka BP, was re-dated
after pre-treatment with a more rigorous protocol (ABOx-SC) at
30.260.17 ka BP. The new date is statistically identical, but has a
significantly higher measurement precision, and should be
considered more reliable.
Bayesian methods allow the formal incorporation, along with
the calibrated radiocarbon likelihoods, of all lines of evidence
pertaining to the chronostratigraphy of a site, such as breaks in the
sequence and the succession of archaeological levels. In the case of
Ksar Akil, two Bayesian models were built to account for the
degree of variation observed in the radiocarbon results, as well as
the uncertainties regarding the attribution of shell beads to
particular levels.
Initially, most of the old and all of the new determinations were
incorporated in a model structured around the individual levels
from which the dated samples derive. In the second model, the
individual levels were combined within five broad techno-typologically distinct phases and the results were grouped in
them; the assigned depth for each shell was not taken into account
since it only refers to the top of each level (often 12 m thick) and
not the actual position of the shell therein (for further model
specifications see Text S1, (SI Section III)). The second model is
more flexible and allows for a certain degree of material
movement through levels found in close proximity. It also
incorporates most available data with less statistical outliers. It
should be pointed out that the stratigraphy is defined in geological
layers that did not necessarily align with the archaeological levels
and their accompanying artifacts. In addition, several closely
associated levels (e.g. XVIIIXVIIXVI), often indistinguishable
in the field, are regarded as being developmentally very closely
related. Modelling these levels as a single Phase, therefore, does
not distort the archaeological association of the material.
Bayesian modelling outputThe output of the two models described above is very similar
(Fig. 2). Eleven outliers are identified in Model 1 (,28%, Fig. S4)
and 9 in Model 2 (,23%, Fig. S5). This is higher than expected
through statistical variation alone. One species of shell, Columbellarustica, gave consistently variable results and may be seriouslyaffected by post-excavation mixing (Text S1, SI Section III).Excluding determinations of this species, the number of outliers
in Model 2 drops to about 12%.
The age of the basal part of the Ksar Akil sequence is effectively
unknown and probably greater than 50 ka BP. According to the
modelling output (both iterations), the Mousterian terminates at
43.242.4 ka cal BP (68.2% confidence level) and is followed bythe IUP (Ksar Akil Phase 1 of Ohnuma and Bergman). No dates
exist for the lowermost IUP levels XXVXXIV; the phase appears
to be brief and lasts until about 41.640.9 ka cal BP (68.2%;
Model 2), or a millennium later based on Model 1, when the Early
Ahmarian begins. The largest difference in the modelling output
concerns the end of the Ahmarian and the start of the later Upper
Palaeolithic phases (Phases 36 of Williams and Bergman). In the
first scenario (Model 1), the end boundary of the Early Ahmarian
is estimated at ,40.139.5 ka cal BP, while in the second (Model
2) it is at 3937.5 ka cal BP (Fig. 2). Stratigraphically, the Early
Ahmarian is succeeded by sterile level XIV and Stone Complex 2.
Interestingly, the modelled span for the formation of Stone
Complex 2 coincides in both cases with the climate deterioration
during Heinrich Event 4, centred around 40 and 38 ka cal BP
(Fig. 2 and Figs. S4S5). This confirms the assessment of earlygeologists [19] that this geological formation represents a period of
significant climatic variability. Ksar Akil Phase 3 starts immedi-ately after, in Model 1 at 40.039.3 ka cal BP and in Model 2 at
38.134.6 ka cal BP (Fig. 2 and Figs. S4S5).
We used the Date function of OxCal to calculate a
probability distribution function (PDF) for the fossils likely age
within the modelled sequence. The determinations from the Early
Ahmarian layers XVII and XVIII, where Egbert was found, as
well as the determinations from above and below these layers
constrain the probable age of the specimen. In addition, the
modelled age for the beginning of Stone Complex 2 provides a
Ksar Akil Chronology and Modern Human Expansion
PLOS ONE | www.plosone.org 4 September 2013 | Volume 8 | Issue 9 | e72931
-
8/13/2019 Douka_etal_2013_Chronology of Ksar Akil-PLOS ONE With SI
5/40
terminus ante quemfor the deposition of the fossil. This PDF is based
on the assumption that Egbert was excavated in its original
location and is not intrusive from much higher levels. We believe
this to be true based on photographic documentation and other
lines of evidence. For example, there was no visible pit to suggest
downwards intrusion from a much higher level, and part of the
body was found protected by large water-worn and carefully
placed boulders, which may suggest that the child was buried at
about the same level as the occupation floor. The boulders
covering the body at the back of the rockshelter limited major
post-depositional disturbances, as did the presence of intact Stone
Complex 2 directly above the burial.
The same can be claimed for Ethelruda, discovered within the
middle clay layer of Stone Complex 3, and covered by a layer of
angular limestone flakes [32]. Ewing initially claimed that the
maxilla belonged to level XXIV, on the assumption that XXV was
sterile and a purely geological stratum [32]. In 1966 however, hepublished a corrigendum [33] where he acknowledges that
following Hooijers study [53], level XXV was not sterile, but
instead contained substantial amounts of faunal remains [33] as
well as evidence for hearths (D. Garrod photographic archive).
Consequently, the stratigraphic position of Ethelruda was
reinstated to level XXV [53]. In the Bayesian model, the
determinations from the uppermost Mousterian levels, as well as
the ones from the IUP were used to constrain the age of the fossil.
The calculated PDF for the age of Egbert corresponds to
40,85039,200 cal BP (68.2% prob.) or 41,05038,300 cal BP
(95.4% prob.) (Figs. 23). We have run more than 10 variations of
Bayesian models to assess the sensitivity of our modelled results. In
these, the priors were slightly changed, e.g., determinations were
grouped, un-grouped, moved across contexts or completely
excluded, and in all cases the particular PDF falls sharply between
4139 ka cal BP. Our conclusion is that the age estimate for
Egbert is robust.
For the oldest specimen, Ethelruda, the calculated PDF is earlier
and corresponds to 42,40041,750 cal BP (68.2% prob.) or
42,85041,550 cal BP (95.4% prob.). The results from both
models presented above are identical. In the case of Ethelruda, our
estimate is constrained by only a small number of determinations
above and below the fossil. We acknowledge that the addition of
further measurements may alter this estimate, possibly towards
earlier dates. For the moment, however, this is the most reliable
age estimate for this fossil.
Discussion
Comparison of the Ksar Akil specimens with directly andindirectly dated modern humans
In the past three decades, several AMH remains from across
Eurasia and Africa have been directly dated between 5030 ka
BP, although many of these determinations are potentially
problematic due to insufficient decontamination methods used in
the past. Only a small number of human bones have recently been
directly dated using up-to-date methodologies; these include the
skeletal remains from Kostenki 1 and Kostenki 14, Sungir 2 and 3,
Figure 2. Comparison of the start boundaries for each archaeological phase, produced by the two Bayesian models for Ksar Akil(shown in Text S1(SI Section III), Figs. S45). The boundaries, undated events, reflect the most likely age for the beginning of each of the majortechnocomplexes. Models are shown in different colours. The only area of significant discrepancy is the start boundary of the late Upper Palaeolithicphase (Phase 3), starting with layer XIII directly following Stone Complex 2. The start boundary for the Mousterian is very tentative, since there are nodeterminations from the lowermost part of the Mousterian phase. The boundaries and PDFs are compared to the NGRIP d18O record [52] and theGreenland Interstadials are numbered, as are the two relevant Heinrich Events 3 and 4.doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0072931.g002
Ksar Akil Chronology and Modern Human Expansion
PLOS ONE | www.plosone.org 5 September 2013 | Volume 8 | Issue 9 | e72931
-
8/13/2019 Douka_etal_2013_Chronology of Ksar Akil-PLOS ONE With SI
6/40
Figure 3. Comparison of the modelled ages (Probability Distribution Function; PDF) obtained for Egbert and Ethelruda with ageestimates of AMH from other Palaeolithic sites between 50,00030,000 years ago. The PDFs for the Ksar Akil fossils (Model 1 in green,Model 2 in black), as derived from the Bayesian modelling (Text S1 (SI Section III), Figs. S45), are plotted against the currently availabledeterminations for AMH from Europe and Africa [9,10]. The likelihoods for the directly-dated specimens are shown in dark grey, whereas the PDFs forthose dated indirectly, in light blue. Egbert is contemporaneous with the oldest directly-dated European modern human (Pestera cu Oase, [54]) andfalls within the earlier part of the ranges for both Nazlet Khater and Hofmeyer, the African AMH; these dates, however, are very imprecise. The Pesteracu Oase date is a mean of two determinations, one ultrafiltered and one not. The age estimate for Ethelruda is broadly similar to that for the AMHmaxilla from Kents Cavern, but not older than the AMH teeth from Cavallo in Italy. The radiocarbon determinations were calibrated with theINTCAL09/ Marine09 curve [50] and the modelling was performed using OxCal v.4.1.7 [51].doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0072931.g003
Ksar Akil Chronology and Modern Human Expansion
PLOS ONE | www.plosone.org 6 September 2013 | Volume 8 | Issue 9 | e72931
-
8/13/2019 Douka_etal_2013_Chronology of Ksar Akil-PLOS ONE With SI
7/40
Pokrovka, Pestera cu Oase and Pestera Muierii, Cioclovina, Buran
Kaya (partially) and Paviland (see references in [910]).
Important new evidence for the early presence of modern
humans in Europe has been generated in recent years through
indirect dating of human fossils using methods identical to those
employed here, namely Bayesian statistical modelling of chrono-
metric determinations and PDFs. A modern human maxillafragment (KC4) from Kents Cavern in Great Britain, associated
with only a very small number of chronologically non-diagnosticimplements, is placed between 44,20041,500 cal BP [10]. In
Italy, two deciduous molars from the transitional Uluzzian levels of
Grotta del Cavallo were ascribed to AMH, and not Neanderthals
as originally thought, and on the basis of direct radiocarbon dating
of shell beads from the same layers, the PDF for the most likely age
of the teeth was determined to be 45,00043,000 cal BP, and
possibly earlier [11]. Currently these are the oldest, indirectlydated, fossils in Europe.
Comparison of the PDF generated here for the Ksar Akil
specimens with the PDFs for the indirectly dated AMH fossils from
Cavallo and Kents Cavern, as well as with radiometric ages of the
directly dated European and African AMH, allows for an overall
assessment of their antiquity and inferred phylogenetic relation-
ships with these human fossils (Fig. 3). The PDFs for Cavallo and
Kents Cavern [10,11] clearly predate that of Egbert. Interestingly,the age estimate for Egbert overlaps significantly with the oldestdirectly-dated AMH fossil in Europe, the Pestera cu Oase
mandible from Romania [54] (Fig. 3). Unfortunately, the Pestera
cu Oase remains are devoid of an archaeological or cultural
affiliation. The age estimate for Egbert is in accordance with
current dating evidence for the appearance of the fully Upper
Palaeolithic technocomplexes in Europe [55,56], widely accepted
as the result of the establishment of AMH populations on the
continent.
Ethelruda is older and its age appears close to that of contexts
where Cavallo C and KC4 were recovered. It is worth noting that,
just as with the Ksar Akil specimen, Cavallo C also comes from a
transitional (Uluzzian) context.
The vast majority of the remaining directly dated modern
human remains (Fig. 3) are considerably younger. However, as
previously noted, only a few were dated with state-of-the-art
methodologies. Constant improvements in the methods used for
the dating of old and potentially contaminated samples, and their
application to such specimens (e.g. [57]), are needed if we are to
verify their age.
The Levant as a dispersal routeEgbert is clearly not associated with the onset of the Upper
Palaeolithic at Ksar Akil, but Ethelruda appears to be. The
determinations we have obtained from the site for the beginning of
the IUP at around 4142 ka cal BP correspond well with those of
other, recently-dated transitional industries in Europe, but they are
not older than these. This observation has potential implications
for the position of the Levant during the Middle to UpperPalaeolithic transition and in the process of the colonisation of
Europe by modern humans.
Despite increasing archaeological and genetic data in support of
an African origin for modern humans, there is little consensusabout the exact timing or about the route or routes taken during
migration(s) out of Africa and into Asia and Europe [58]. The
notion that modern humans dispersed first into the Near East and
then directly into Europe, is a common perception amongst
palaeoanthropologists and prehistorians. It is currently accepted
that modern humans migrated from Africa in several waves,
probably using a number of dispersal routes. Garcea [59]
distinguishes two Out of Africa movements by AMH, on the
basis of individual features and of being separated by a long time
span. The earlier wave or Out of Africa 2a took place between
about 130,000 and 80,000 years ago, while the second Out of
Africa 2b occurred at ,50,000 years ago, after an apparent gap
of about 30,000 years [59,60].
In the Levant, the archaic modern humans from Qafzeh and
Skhul, manufacturing Middle Palaeolithic tools and dating to
between 13080 ka BP [37] (but see [38]), form the basis of anearly exodus of modern humans through the region. Spatially
explicit modeling of the expansion of AMH allied with climate
reconstructions over the past 120 kyr [61] suggests that population
movement mainly occurred along the southern route, crossing into
the Arabian Peninsula at its most southerly point. Other research
supports this conclusion, (e.g. [62]). However, it is thought that this
early modern human genetic lineage became extinct, possibly at
the transition from MIS 5a to MIS 4 (,74,000 years ago) and did
not contribute to the much later AMH colonization of Europe
[63]. What occurs therefore tens of millennia after the early
expansion and the details of the second (re-)population of the
Levant by AMH, remains unclear and the archaeological record of
the region is at best sparse and difficult to interpret.
Following Qafzeh and Skull, all other fossils that have been
recovered in the Levant belong to Neanderthals until the time ofEthelruda and the likely-modern teeth from Ucagzl [40,41], to be
followed later by Egbert. The last two cases, and Ethelruda if
proved to be a modern human, may be seen as representatives of
the second wave of AMH human expansion in the region
(Garceas Out of Africa 2b). By then, fully anatomically and
behaviourally modern human groups appear to possess an Upper
Palaeolithic toolkit identified with the IUP and EUP technocom-
plexes.
Dating evidence from IUP and EUP sites in the wider Near
East, such as Ucagzl Cave in Turkey may be compared with our
new results from Ksar Akil. Based on the currently published dates
[40] and the output of Bayesian modelling, the IUP (layers IF) in
Ucagzl starts between 44.343.5 ka cal BP (68.2%) and the Early
Ahmarian (layers E (?)B) starts around 41.640.3 ka cal BP(68.2%). The IUP in Ucagzl seems to precede that of Ksar Akil
by 12 millennia, despite significant similarities between the lithic
assemblages. It should be remembered, however, that the
lowermost IUP levels (XXVXXIV) in Ksar Akil have not been
directly dated and there is a wide degree of chronological overlap
between the IUP at both sites. The Early Ahmarian is roughly
contemporaneous at both Ksar Akil and Ucagzl.
In Umm el Tlel (Syria), levels III2a and IIbase, described as
Paleolithique intermediaire, have been dated rather later, at
36.562.5 ka by TL on burnt flint, and at 34.560.89 ka BP with
AMS dating [64].
Much earlier dates, however, are often cited for the beginning of
the IUP in southern Levant, all from the open-air site of Boker
Tachtit [65]. There, basal level 1 is associated with four
conventional radiocarbon determinations on charcoal (SMU-580: 4728469048, SMU-259: 4693062420, SMU-184.45570,
GY-3642.34950 BP). These ages were produced almost 30 years
ago with old pre-treatment protocols and are very imprecise,
possibly reflecting the low amount of carbon in the dated samples,
an indication of possible sample heterogeneity. No effort has been
made to reproduce or add to these original dates from Boker
Tachtit, which have become central in the discussion of the early
arrival of AMH in the Levant.
Another set of early charcoal dates from Kebara Cave [13,66]
place the start of the EUP, specifically the Early Ahmarian Unit
IV, at ,4846 ka cal BP. Kebara is currently the only site where
Ksar Akil Chronology and Modern Human Expansion
PLOS ONE | www.plosone.org 7 September 2013 | Volume 8 | Issue 9 | e72931
-
8/13/2019 Douka_etal_2013_Chronology of Ksar Akil-PLOS ONE With SI
8/40
such early determinations have been obtained for a classic Upper
Palaeolithic assemblage. The site, unlike Ksar Akil and U cagzl,
lacks an IUP layer between the late Middle Palaeolithic Unit V
and the Early Ahmarian Unit IV, but instead an unconformity is
present at this interface. Complex site-formation processes and
erosion-induced sloping surfaces at the interface of these adjacent
stratigraphic units, as well as burrows and a large channel cutting
through the Middle Palaeolithic and Early Ahmarian units
[13,66], render the association of the dated charcoals with thearchaeology they are thought to date potentially problematic.
Some inconsistencies observed between charcoal determinations
produced with the routine (ABA) and more rigorous (ABOx-SC)
pretreatment methods [66] may be suggestive of: (i) complex
chemical processes affecting the samples and/or; (ii) charcoal
groups of different ages existing within adjacent units V and IV.
Rebollo et al. [66] state assuming that in the future such [early] dateswill be supported by samples from Ksar Akil, the Levantine IUP and EUP
assemblages herald the diffusion of UP technologies into Europe. Ksar Akilwith its long record of Upper Palaeolithic occupation, and
Ucagzl, have both yielded determinations that are considerably
younger, by at least 35 millennia, and do not support such a
simple unidirectional model of cultural and/or demic diffusion.
Clearly more work is needed to determine whether the Early
Ahmarian dates from Kebara, as well as those from the IUP layersof Boker Tachtit, are accurate and can be corroborated by data
from nearby sites.
The new chronometric results and Bayesian model from the
reference Palaeolithic site of Ksar Akil suggest that: (i) both the
IUP and the EUP of the northern Levant are roughly
contemporaneous with, and not older than, their corresponding
(transitional and Proto- or Early Aurignacian) technocomplexes in
Europe and; (ii) neither Ethelruda nor Egbert are ancestral to
European fossils associated with transitional and classic Upper
Palaeolithic contexts, respectively.
While the Levant appears an obvious route in and out of Africa
based solely on its geographical position, there is, as yet, no
evidence for significant human and animal migrations during the
Pleistocene ([67], and papers therein), let alone during the short
time window of the Middle to Upper Palaeolithic transition or
during the Out of Africa 2b scenario. The current evidence for
contemporaneity in the appearance of both transitional/IUP and
EUP technocomplexes in Europe and the Levant implies that the
northern Mediterranean Levantine coast might not be the point of
origin for the dispersal of the earliest Upper Palaeolithic outwards
and into Europe. This, in turn, suggests to us that current models
based on old assumptions regarding the pathway(s) of human
dispersal require further testing and, possibly, revision.
The makers of the IUPThe Levantine late Middle Palaeolithic is solely associated with
Neanderthals [68], and Ewings attribution of Ethelruda to a
Neandertaloid individual has helped shaping a generalized view
that Neanderthals may have been involved in the making of thetransitional/IUP layers, at least in its earliest phases (e.g. [5]). The
most recent archaeological and palaeoanthropological data from
Ksar Akil with regards Ethelruda (e.g. [35]), as well as the likely-
modern teeth from Ucagzl, where Mousterian levels have not
been identified, may provide a contrary view to traditional
assumptions on the authorship of the IUP by Neanderthals. Of
course, it is wise to remain cautious on the taxonomic status of
both Ethelruda and the teeth from Ucagzl until more detailed
scientific work has been undertaken using state-of the-art
methodologies. Further work is also urgently required to address
whether other technocomplexes exhibiting similar characteristics,
such as the Balkan Bachokirian (e.g. level 11 of the eponymous
site, containing fossil remains; [69]) or the Bohunician (or Emiro-
Bohunician; [70]) of Central Europe, fall into the same category.
Supporting Information
Figure S1 Location of the Ksar Akil site, Lebanon, a fewkms NE of Beirut.
(TIF)
Figure S2 Examples of the dated shell specimens fromKsar Akil. The vast majority consists of beads of Nassariusgibbosulus/ circumcinctus while KA 30 is an example ofColumbellarusticashell. KA 54, an Ostreasp. shell, is one of the very few shellscoming from Middle Palaeolithic layers.
(TIF)
Figure S3 Plot of all available dates from square E4.OxA-20491 and OxA-25656 come from adjacent square (F5) and
are used here as a terminus post quem. The determinations areplotted here together in order to check the chronological variation
among specimens deriving from the same excavation square. The
dates are consistent with the stratigraphic position. Assuming
constant sedimentation (an over-simplified scenario), we may
calculate an accumulation rate of 0.88 m of sediment deposited atthe site every 1000 years.
(TIF)
Figure S4 Bayesian Model 1. Initial Bayesian plot with allnew dates, as well as previously obtained ones from the Tixier
excavations. The model is structured around individual layers and
phases. Of the 39 determinations, 11 are flagged as outliers.
(TIFF)
Figure S5 Bayesian Model 2. Second modeling iterationcontaining most available dates from the Early Upper and Middle
Palaeolithic levels of the site, including previously obtained dates.
Here, individual layers are grouped together within broad
industrial phases (see text for details). Of the 39 determinations,
9 outliers are identified.
(TIFF)
Table S1 Archeological correlation of the Ksar Akilsequence, Boston College excavations (19371938, 19471948) and Tixier excavations (19691975).
(DOC)
Table S2 Previous chronometric determinations fromKsar Akil. The majority of the dates relate to the late UpperPalaeolithic layers and were obtained on material from Tixiers
excavation.
(DOC)
Table S3 New radiocarbon determinations from KsarAkil and details for stratigraphic details for eachsample. KA 51 was dated twice as it underwent mineralogical
separation (see [32]) due to the presence of calcite in the originalfraction. In the last column the percentage of secondary calcite in
the shell matrix, established by XRD analysis, is indicated. The
differentiation between Nassarius gibbosulusor Nassarius circumcinctuswas not always possible due to the preservation state of the shells;
here they are all tentatively ascribed to the former species. The
d13C value is also given when this was unusual for marine shells,
therefore indicating either some degree of meteoric diagenesis or
other technical issues. The 3 determinations marked with an
asterisk were not used in the modeling since they are most
certainly problematic (see text).
(DOC)
Ksar Akil Chronology and Modern Human Expansion
PLOS ONE | www.plosone.org 8 September 2013 | Volume 8 | Issue 9 | e72931
-
8/13/2019 Douka_etal_2013_Chronology of Ksar Akil-PLOS ONE With SI
9/40
Text S1.
(DOC)
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank the staff of the Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator
Unit (ORAU) at the University of Oxford for the support throughout this
project. Chris Stringer and Corine Yazbeck are kindly thanked for
information on the current work on the Ksar Akil fossil specimens. The Pitt
Rivers Museum, University of Oxford, and Christopher Morton, are
thanked for providing an archival picture from the early excavations in
Ksar Akil.
Author Contributions
Conceived and designed the experiments: KD REMH TFGH. Performed
the experiments: KD. Analyzed the data: KD CAB TFGH . Contributed
reagents/materials/analysis tools: FPW. Wrote the paper: KD CAB
TFGH.
References
1. Kozowski JK, Otte M (2000) The formation of the Aurignacian in Europe.J Anthropol Res 56: 513534.
2. Mellars P (2004) Neanderthals and the modern human colonization of Europe.Nature 432: 461465.
3. Mellars P (2006) Archeology and the dispersal of modern humans in Europe:Deconstructing the Aurignacian. Evol. Anthropol 15 (5) 167182.
4. Zilhao J, dErrico F (1999) The chronology and taphonomy of the earliestAurignacian and its implications for the understanding of Neanderthalextinction. J World Prehistory 13: 168.
5. Zilhao J (2007) The emergence of ornaments and art: an archaeologicalperspective on the origins of behavioural modernity. J Archael Res 15: 154.
6. Churchill SE, Smith FH (2000) Makers of the early Aurignacian of Europe.Yearb Phys Anthropol 43: 61115.
7. Bailey SE, Weaver TD, Hublin JJ (2009) Who made the Aurignacian and otherearly Upper Paleolithic industries? J Hum Evol 57: 1126.
8. Street M, Terberger T, Orschiedt J (2006) A critical review of the GermanPaleolithic hominin record. J Hum Evol 51: 551579.
9. Trinkaus E (2005) Early Modern Humans. Annu Rev Anthropol 34: 207230.10. Higham TFG, Compton T, Stringer C, Jacobi R, Shapiro B, et al. (2011) The
earliest evidence for anatomically modern humans in northwestern Europe.Nature 479 (7374): 521524.
11. Benazzi S, Douka K, Fornai C, Bauer CC, Kullmer O, et al. (2011) Earlydispersal of modern humans in Europe and implications for Neanderthalbehaviour. Nature 479 (7374) 525528.
12. Frumkin A, BarYosef O, Schwarcz HP (2011) Possible paleohydrologic andpaleoclimatic effects on hominin migration and occupation of the LevantineMiddle Paleolithic. J Jum Evol 60: 437451.
13. Bar-Yosef O, Arnold M, Mercier N, Belfer-Cohen A, Goldberg P, et al. (1996)The dating of the upper Paleolithic layers in Kebara Cave, Mt. Carmel.
J Archaeol Sci 23: 297306.14. Ewing JF (1947) Preliminary note on the excavations at the Paleolithic site of
Ksar Akil, Republic of Lebanon. Antiquity 21: 186196.15. Ewing JF (1949) The Treasures of Ksar Akil. Thought 24: 255288.16. Tixier J (1974) Fouille a KsarAqil, Liban (19691974) [Excavation at Ksar Akil,
Lebanon ( 19691974)]. Paleorient 2:187192. French.17. Wright HE Jr (1951) KsarAkil: Its archeological sequence and geological setting.
J Near East Stud 10: 113122.18. Marks AE, Volkman P (1986) The Mousterian of Ksar Akil: Levels XXVIA
through XXVIIIB. Paleorient 12: 520.19. Marks AE (1992) Upper Pleistocene archaeology and the origins of modern
man: a view from the Levant and adjacent areas. In: Akazawa T, Aoki K,Kimura T, editors. The Evolution and Dispersal of Modern Humans in Asia.Tokyo: Hokusensha. 229251.
20. Kuhn S (2003) In What Sense is the Levantine Initial Upper Paleolithic aTransitional Industry? In: Zilhao J, dErrico F, editors. The chronology of the
Aurignacian and of the Transitional technocomplexes: Dating, Stratigraphies,Cultural Implications. Lisbon: Istituto Portugues de Arqueologia ( Trabalhos de
Arqueologia 33). 6170.21. Ohnuma K (1988) Ksar Akil, Lebanon. A Technological Study of the Earlier
Upper Paleolithic Levels at Ksar Akil. Vol. 3, Levels XXVXIV. Oxford: BARInternational Series 426.
22. Azoury I (1986) Ksar Akil, Lebanon: A technological and typological analysis ofthe transitional and Early Upper Palaeolithic levels at Ksar Akil and Abu Halka.
Oxford, BAR International Series 289 (i and ii).23. Goring-Morris AN, Belfer-Cohen A (2004) A hard look at the Levantine
Aurignacian: how real is the taxon? In: Bar-Yosef O, Zilhao J, editors. Towardsa Definition of the Aurignacian. Lisbon: Instituto Portugues de Arqueologia(Trabalhos de Arqueologia 45). 297314.
24. Besancon J, Copeland L, Hours F (1975) Tableaux de prehistoire libanaise[Tables of Libanaise prehistory]. Paleorient 3: 546. French.
25. Bergman CA (1987) Ksar Akil, Lebanon: A Technological and TypologicalAnalysis of the Later Paleolithic Levels of Ksar Akil. Volume II: Levels XIIIVI.Oxford, BAR International Series 329.
26. Bergman CA (2003) Twisted debitage and the Levantine Aurignacian problem.In: Goring-Morris AN, Belfer-Cohen A, editors. More than Meets the Eye:Studies on Upper Palaeolithic Diversity in the Near East. Oxford: OxbowBooks. 185195.
27. Ohnuma K, Bergman CA (1990) A Technological analysis of the UpperPalaeolithic levels (XXVVI) of Ksar Akil, Lebanon. In: Mellars P, editor. The
emergence of modern humans: An archaeological perspective. Edinburgh:Edinburgh University. 91138.
28. Williams JK, Bergman CA (2010) Upper Paleolithic Levels XIIIVI (A and B)from the 19371938 and 19471948 Boston College Excavations and theLevantine Aurignacian at Ksar Akil, Lebanon. Paleorient 36 (2) 117161.
29. Williams JK (2006) The Levantine Aurignacian: A closer look. In: Bar-Yosef O,Zilhao J, editors. Towards a definition of the Aurignacian. Lisbon: InstitutoPortugues de Arqueologia ( Trabalhos de Arqueologia 45). 317352.
30. Bergman CA, Stringer CB (1989) Fifty years after: Egbert, an early UpperPalaeolithic juvenile from Ksar Akil, Lebanon. Paleorient 15: 99111.
31. Ewing JF (1960) Human types and prehistoric cultures at Ksar Akil. Lebanon.Selected Papers Fifth Int. Congr. Anthrop. Ethnol. Sci. Philadelphia 1956,Philadelphia: Univ. of Penn. Press. 535539.
32. Ewing JF (1963)A Probable Neanderthaloid from KsarAkil, Lebanon. Am J PhysAnthropol 21: 101104.
33. Ewing JF (1966) A Correction. Am J Phys Anthropol 24: 275.34. Copeland L, Yazbeck C (2002) Inventory of Stone Age Sites in Lebanon. New
and Revised, Part III. Melanges de l Universite Saint-Joseph 55: 121325.
35. Metni M (1999) A re-examination of a proposed Neandertal maxilla from KsarAkil Rock Shelter, Antelias, Lebanon. Am J Phys Anthropol, Supplement 28:202.
36. Stringer C (2002) Modern human origins progress and prospects. Phil. Trans.Royal Soc. London B 357: 563579.
37. Grun R, Stringer CB, McDermott F, Nathan R, Porat N, et al. (2005) U-seriesand ESR analyses of bones and teeth relating to the human burials from Skhul.
J Hum Evol 49: 316334.
38. Millard AR (2008) A critique of the chronometric evidence for hominid fossils: I.Africa and the Near East 50050 ka. J Hum Evol 54: 848874.
39. Yazbeck C (2004) Le Paleolithique du Liban: bilan critique. Pal eorient 30 ( 2)111126.
40. Kuhn SL, Stiner MC, Gulec E, Ozer I, Yilmaz H, et al. (2009) The early UpperPaleolithic occupations at Ucagzl Cave (Hatay, Turkey). J Hum Evol 56: 87113.
41. Gulec E, Baykara I, Ozer I, Sagr M, Erkman C (2011) Initial Upper Paleolithichuman dental remains from Ucagizli Cave (Hatay, Turkey). Poster presented atthe 1
stMeeting of the European Society for the Study of Human Evolution
(ESHE), Leipzig September 2011.
42. Altena Van Regteren CO (1962) Molluscs and Echinoderms from thePalaeolithic deposits in the rock shelter of KsarAkil, Lebanon. ZoologischeMededelingen 38: 8799.
43. Inizan ML, Gaillard JM (1978) Coquillages de Ksar-Aqil: elements de parure?[Shells of Ksar Akil: Elements of ornamentation?] Paleorient4:295306. French
44. Douka K (2011) An Upper Palaeolithic shell scraper from Ksar Akil (Lebanon).J Archaeol Sci 38:429437.
45. Douka K (2011) Investigating the Chronology of the Middle to UpperPalaeolithic Transition in Mediterranean Europe by Improved RadiocarbonDating of Shell Ornaments. Unpublished PhD thesis. Oxford: University ofOxford.
46. Douka K, Hedges REM, Higham TFG (2010) Improved AMS 14
C dating ofshell carbonates using highprecision X-Ray Diffraction (XRD) and a noveldensity separation protocol (CarDS). Radiocarbon 52: 735751.
47. Brock F, Higham TFG, Ditchfield P, Bronk Ramsey C (2010) Current
pretreatment methods for AMS radiocarbon dating at the Oxford RadiocarbonAccelerator Unit (ORAU). Radiocarbon 52 (1): 103112.
48. Bird M, Ayliffe LK, Fifield K, Cresswell R, Turney C (1999) Radiocarbondating of old charcoal using a wet oxidation-stepped combustion procedure.Radiocarbon 41: 127140.
49. Higham T, Brock F, Peresani M, Broglio A, Wood R, et al. (2009) Problems withradiocarbon dating the Middle to Upper Palaeolithic transition in Italy. Quat SciRev 28:12571267.
50. Reimer PJ, Baillie MGL, Bard E, Bayliss A, Beck JW, et al. (2009) IntCal09 andMarine09 radiocarbon age calibration curves, 050,000 years cal BP.Radiocarbon 51:11111150.
51. Bronk Ramsey C (2009) Bayesian analysis of radiocarbon dates. Radiocarbon51:337360.
52. Svensson A, Andersen KK, Bigler M, Clausen HB, Dahl-Jensen D, et al. (2006)The Greenland Ice Core Chronology 2005, 1542 ka. Part 2: Comparison toother records. Quat Sci Rev 25:32583267.
Ksar Akil Chronology and Modern Human Expansion
PLOS ONE | www.plosone.org 9 September 2013 | Volume 8 | Issue 9 | e72931
-
8/13/2019 Douka_etal_2013_Chronology of Ksar Akil-PLOS ONE With SI
10/40
53. Hooijer DA (1961) The fossil vertebrates of Ksar Akil, a Palaeolithic rock shelterin the Lebanon. Zoologische Verhandelingen 49:467.
54. Trinkaus E, Moldovan O, Milota a, Blgar A, Sarcina L, et al. (2003) An earlymodern human from the Pestera cu Oase, Romania. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA100: 1123111236.
55. Higham TFG, Basell L, Jacobi RM, Wood R, Bronk Ramsey C, et al. (2012)Testing models for the beginnings of the Aurignacian and the advent offigurative art and music: The radiocarbon chronology of Geienklosterle. J HumEvol 62: 664676.
56. Weninger B, Joris O (2008) A 14C age calibration curve for the last 60 ka: theGreenland-Hulu U/Th timescale and its impact on understanding the Middle to
Upper Paleolithic transition in Western Eurasia. J Hum Evol 55:772781.57. Marom A, McCullagh J, Higham T, Sinitsyn A, Hedges R (2012) Single aminoacid radiocarbon dating of Upper Palaeolithic modern humans. Proc Natl AcadSci USA 109: 68786881.
58. Beyin A (2006) The Bab al Mandab vs the Nile-Levant: An Appraisal of the TwoDispersal Routes for Early Modern Humans Out of Africa. Afr Archaeol Rev23:530.
59. Garcea EAA (2010) Bridging the gap between in and out of Africa. In: GarceaEAA, editor. South-Eastern Mediterranean Peoples Between 130,000 and10,000 Years Ago. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 126143.
60. Garcea EAA (2011) Successes and failures of human dispersals from NorthAfrica. Quat Int270: 119128.
61. Eriksson A, Betti L, Friend AD, Lycett SJ, Singarayer JS, et al. (2012) LatePleistocene climate change and the global expansion of anatomically modernhumans. Proc Natl Acad Sci 109 (40): 1608916094.
62. Armitage SJ, Jasim SA, Marks AE, Parker AG, Usik VI, et al. (2012) The
Southern Route Out of Africa: Evidence for an Early Expansion of Modern
Humans into Arabia. Science 331: 453456.
63. Soares P, Achilli A, Semino O, Davies W, Macaulay V, et al. (2010) The
Archaeogenetics of Europe. Cur Biol 20: R174R183.
64. Boeda E, Muhesen S (1993) Umm El Tlel (El Kowm, Syrie): Etude preliminaire
des industries lithiques du Paleolithique moyen et superieur. Cahiers de
lEuphrate 7, 4791.
65. Marks AE (1983) The Middle to Upper Paleolithic Transition in the Levant.
Advances in World Archaeology 2: 5198.
66. Rebollo NR, Weiner S, Brock F, Meignen L, Goldberg P, et al (2011) New
Radiocarbon Dating of the Transition from the Middle to the Upper Paleolithicin Kebara Cave, Israel. J Archaeol Sci 8: 2424243.
67. Goren-Inbar N, Speth JD (2004) Human Paleoecology in the Levantine
Corridor. Oxford: Oxbow Books.
68. Shea JJ (2003) The Middle Paleolithic of the East Mediterranean Levant. J World
Prehistory 17 (4): 313394.
69. Kozlowski JK (2004) Early Upper Paleolithic Levallois-derived industries in the
Balkans and in the middle Danube basin. Anthropologie 43: 289306.
70. Svoboda J (2004) Continuities, discontinuities, and interactions in Early Upper
Paleolithic technologies. In : Brantingham JF, Kuhn SL, Kerry KW, editors.
The Early Upper Paleolithic beyond Western Europe. University of California
Press, 3049.
Ksar Akil Chronology and Modern Human Expansion
PLOS ONE | www.plosone.org 10 September 2013 | Volume 8 | Issue 9 | e72931
-
8/13/2019 Douka_etal_2013_Chronology of Ksar Akil-PLOS ONE With SI
11/40
"
SUPPORTING INFORMATION
Section I: The site of Ksar Akil and further details of the archaeological
sequence
Section II: Radiocarbon dating
Section III: Bayesian-based chronological framework
References
-
8/13/2019 Douka_etal_2013_Chronology of Ksar Akil-PLOS ONE With SI
12/40
"
Section I:
Ksar Akil: The site and archaeological sequence
a. Location and history of research
The Ksar Akil rockshelter (other spellings include: Ksar 'Akil, Ksr 'Akil, Ksar 'Aqil) is
located 10 km northeast of Beirut (Fig. S1), just above the coastal plain in the foothills of the
Lebanon Mountain range. The site is situated at the base of a high limestone cliff on the
north bank of the Antelias River valley.
The investigations at Ksar Akil have now spanned nearly 90 years, beginning somewhat
inauspiciously when the owner of the land probed the site for treasure in 1922 and dug
through 15 meters of deposits. It was not until 1937 that the first large-scale and scientific
excavations began on the advice of the Abb Henri Breuil [1]. The archaeological team
came from Boston College, Massachusetts and was directed by Joseph G. Doherty, S.J. [2,
3]. Doherty, a student of Dorothy Garrod at Cambridge University, was assisted by J.
Franklin Ewing, S.J., of Fordham University who joined the team as paleontologist and
anthropologist in June 1938 [2, 3]. Ewing assumed the directorship of the project for the
1947-1948 field seasons, suggesting these early investigations by the Jesuit priests actually
represent the efforts of both Boston College and Fordham University.
An extensive series of photographs illustrating the 1937-1938 excavations was published by
Bergman [4, 5], using images supplied to Garrod by Doherty [6]. Some of these have now
become publicly available through the Pitt Rivers Museum, University of Oxford, after the
recent digitization of D. Garrods photographic archive (http://web.prm.ox.ac.uk/garrod/).
Based on the surviving documentation, it is apparent that the field methodology does not
measure up to modern standards, although for the time it was relatively rigorous.
The excavation grid was mapped out in 16 two-meter squares, with alphabetic letters
designating the east-west axis, and numbers designating the north-south axis [3, 5]. Shovel
skimming was the primary means of excavation [5] along with troweling of wall sections,
while delicate objects were examined with brush and trowel [5]. Sediments were sieved
through a medium mesh and the artefacts boxed or bagged by provenience unit [5]. Since
most specimens were heavily encrusted with breccia, each artefact was brushed, scraped and
washed [1]. It is estimated that perhaps as many as 2,000,000 lithic artifacts, bone and antler
tools, elements of personal ornamentation, such as shell beads, as well as faunal remains
were recovered in the two field seasons.
-
8/13/2019 Douka_etal_2013_Chronology of Ksar Akil-PLOS ONE With SI
13/40
"
Doherty, guided by the profile visible in the 1920s-era treasure-hunters pit, used geological
layers to define the stratigraphy. These were often of substantial size, often with a thickness
of between 1 and 2 meters, and did not necessarily align with the archaeological levels [7,
8]. These excavations reached 23 meters below datum, and revealed 36 levels, I-XXXVI,
from top to bottom (Fig. 1, Main Text).
In the subsequent 1947-1948 field seasons, Ewing developed a more refined stratigraphy
and concentrated on collecting a greater variety of artifacts, specifically the miniscule
bladelets common in the upper portions of the Ksar Akil sequence [8, 9]. For the later
Upper Palaeolithic levels, this resulted in Dohertys original stratigraphy involving only
eight levels (XIII-VI) being subdivided into 27 levels [8].
In 1969, Tixier began a series of investigations at Ksar Akil [7, 10, 11]. Using careful
excavation techniques, such as the three-dimensional recording of artifacts, he established a
finely divided stratigraphy and recognized a series of sols dhabitat near the shelter wall.
During the course of work that ended prematurely in 1975, Tixier reached a depth of nearly
9 meters and identified 30 different levels. His vastly refined stratigraphy is evidenced by
the fact that he identified 12 discrete levels within the equivalent elevations of Level VIII
from the 1937-1938 investigations. Based upon the published sections from the Boston
College and the 1969-1975 excavations, it would appear that the deepest level excavated by
Tixier between 1969 and 1975 is equivalent to levels X-IX of the 1937-1938 investigations,
or levels XI-Xc of the 1947-1948 season [5, 8].
Overall it is estimated that about 700 m3 of deposit have been removed from the site.
According to the geological observations of Wright [12, 13], there is strong evidence that
climatic variability affects soil formation and occupation patterns. The three Stone
Complexes may be indicative of this.
The actual processes responsible for the formation of the Stone Complexes have been seen
as the result of the effect of pluvial glaciation on the weakening of limestone surfaces
[12]. Ewing himself and other subsequent researchers supported that the intercalated red
clay deposit represents disintegrated and decalcified limestone that separates stony levels
above and below, the latter coming from the overhanging roof of the shelter and therefore
very likely being the result of varying conditions of humidity (and seasonal variations of
temperature) [12]. Azoury [1], on the other hand, suggests that since there is alluvial sand
and pebbles in the deposits below a depth of 16 m (in the MP levels just below Stone
Complex 3), the red clay deposit may have been introduced by the stream rather than having
been developed in situ by soil weathering process. In our opinion, both explanations remain
-
8/13/2019 Douka_etal_2013_Chronology of Ksar Akil-PLOS ONE With SI
14/40
"
tentative and need to be substantiated by further in situ observations and modern analytical
techniques.
b. Archaeological Sequence
Middle Palaeolithic :1937-1938 Season, XXXVI-XXVI
The first Middle Palaeolithic occupation, from level XXXVI to level XXVI (19.415 m
below datum, respectively), took place while the rockshelter was intermittently flooded by
the nearby stream [12]. The alluvial deposits stop between -17 m and -16 m when the course
of the stream changed and habitation of the rockshelter became more stable and dense [14].
Copeland [5] assigned the assemblage to Phase 3/ Layer B (and possibly Phase 2/ Layer C)
Tabun Mousterian, while Marks and Volkman [15] assigned the lower levels (XXVIIIB and
XXVIIIA) to Phase 1/ Tabun D Mousterian based on the presence of ovoid blanks, Levallois
and discoid cores, and Mousterian tool types, while the uppermost levels (XXVIIB to
XXVIA) were assigned to Phase 2/ Layer C type Mousterian due to the presence of blade
and point forms.
Initial Upper Palaeolithic: 1937-1938 Season, XXV-XXI / Ksar Akil Phase 1
The earliest Upper Palaeolithic occupations at Ksar Akil, levels XXV-XXI, have been
regarded as part of the transition from the Middle to Upper Palaeolithic [16, 17]. It should
be noted that many authors have used the term Transitional to describe similar industries,
while recognizing the Upper Palaeolithic character of both the technological operating
chains and tool typology [18, 19]. We agree with recent characterization of these
assemblage types as Initial Upper Palaeolithic (IUP) by scholars [20]. A possible
occupational hiatus in levels XXV-XXIV, identified as Stone Complex 3, possibly
indicates abandonment of the site and separates the latest Mousterian and first Initial Upper
Palaeolithic levels.
There seem to be two distinct stages represented in the Initial Upper Palaeolithic layers,
which collectively are referred to as Upper Palaeolithic Phase I by Ohnuma and Bergman
[17]. The sample from levels XXV-XXIV is small, but characterized by opposed platform
cores with parallel sides. Levels XXIII-XXI, on the other hand, contained numerous single
platform blade cores with faceted platforms and converging sides. The triangular shape of
the cores cause blade removals to converge, resulting in the production of blanks
morphologically similar to elongated Levallois points. The blow used to detach the blades in
-
8/13/2019 Douka_etal_2013_Chronology of Ksar Akil-PLOS ONE With SI
15/40
"
these levels is well on to the striking platform (non-marginal flaking), resulting in relatively
thick blanks with large butts. An analysis of the ventral surfaces of the blanks in these levels
suggests that most blades were detached with soft hammers [17].
The assemblages in levels XXV-XXI are almost entirely composed of Upper Palaeolithic
tool types including varying percentages of chamfered pieces. This artifact type, generally
rare in the rest of the Levant, is made by a tranchet blow at the proximal or distal end of a
flake or blade [21]. Other components of the tool kits include end-scrapers and truncation
burins, which are always more numerous than the dihedral types [6]. Outside of the
Lebanese sites situated along the coastal plain, such as Abu Halka in northern Lebanon,
good comparative material for the Initial Upper Palaeolithic at Ksar Akil has been found at
agizli cave, southern Turkey [19, 22].
Early Ahmarian: 1937-1938 Season, XX-XVI / Ksar Akil Phase 2
Although no clear-cut technological distinction exists between level XX and those
immediately preceding it, there is a shift from cores with single, faceted platforms and
converging sides to parallel-sided cores with opposed, plain platforms [17]. Cresting and the
core tablet technique begin to be used more often for preparation and maintenance. The
blade blanks tend to be much thinner than in levels XXV-XXI and are produced by striking
quite close (marginal flaking) to the edge of the core platform, resulting in tiny butts. In
order to avoid damaging the platform, abrasion is used extensively to remove overhang and
thicken and strengthen the edge. The blades in these levels are believed to have been
detached with soft hammers, probably by direct percussion.
Levels XX-XVI, Ksar Akil Phase 2, have tool assemblages consisting of end-scrapers and
retouched blades and bladelets including backed and partially backed blades, as well as
robust el-Wad points (over 15% of the tool kits) and pointes face plane. Thepointe face
planeat Ksar Akil [4, 6] is a leaf-shaped piece formed by invasive retouch, which has also
been recognized in a remarkably similar Early Ahmarian assemblage at agizli Cave by
Kuhn et al. [19, 22]. A curious feature of all these levels is the relative scarcity of burins;
the burin index for levels XVIII-XVI ranges between 1 and 1.5 [6]. It is widely agreed that
Phase 2 fits the description of the Leptolithic lineage, Ahmarian industry, and has recently
been described as its northern facies [8, 17, 18, 23].
Stratigraphic Hiatus: 1937-1938 Season, XV and XIV
-
8/13/2019 Douka_etal_2013_Chronology of Ksar Akil-PLOS ONE With SI
16/40
"
Above level XVI is level XV, part of Stone Complex 2, while the following level XIV
represents a major break in the occupation of the site [6]. Both were quasi-sterile. Herbert
Wright [13] indicated that at about 10.5 meters below datum there was a distinct layer of
red clay about 30 cm thick overlain by a layer of angular stones of equal thickness. The red
clay has the appearance of the typical terra rosa developed on the limestone in the Jurassic
bedrock [and]is considered to be a soil developed in situ in the rock shelter. The exact
palaeoclimatic significance of Stone Complex 2 was difficult for Wright to interpret, but he
felt that it may represent an episode of intensive weathering, such as during a pluvial phase,
coinciding with a period when the rockshelter was not occupied allowing for development of
the soil. Regardless of the mechanisms of formation, Stone Complex 2 coincides with a
break in the cultural sequence that separates the Early Ahmarian industries of levels XX-
XVI from the later Upper Palaeolithic levels, XIII-VI [4].
Later Upper Palaeolithic :1937-1938 Season, XIII-VI; 1947-1498 Season, XII VI a and b /
Ksar Akil Phases 3-6
The upper portion of the Ksar Akil sequence, comprising levels XIII-VI of the 1937-1938
field seasons and levels XII-VIa and b of the 1947-1948 field season, spans approximately
7.25 meters of deposits from 10.65 meters to about 3.40 meters below datum. Currently the
descriptor Aurignacian has been removed from these layers and researchers (e.g. [8])
prefer the phase designations as summarised in Table S1.
This upper portion of the sequence is stratigraphically and culturally complex (Table S1).
While the Early Ahmarians at Ksar Akil successfully produced the full range of blanks
required for tools within the framework of blade core reduction (e.g., flakes, core tablets,
blades and bladelets), this is seemingly not the case for later Upper Palaeolithic people at the
site. Specifically, each of the levels incorporated into Phases 3-6 is characterized by
multiple operating chains for the production of blades and/or bladelets with twisted profiles,
as well as straight or curved profiles. These involve objects clearly intended for use as
cores, as well as multifaceted burins and a variety of scrapers such as the carinated and thick
nosed and shouldered types, all of which occur in varying frequencies in levels XIII-VI. As
suggested by the work of Chiotti [24] and Hays and Lucas [25], carinated and multifaceted
burins and nosed and shouldered scrapers appear to be multipurpose, serving as both cores
and tools.
There have been considerable problems aligning the upper part of the Ksar Akil sequence
with the rest of the Levant with the notable exception of levels VIII and VII (Phase 5) and
-
8/13/2019 Douka_etal_2013_Chronology of Ksar Akil-PLOS ONE With SI
17/40
"
level VI (Phase 6). These are widely considered to represent the Levantine Aurignacian,
sensu stricto, and the Atlitian, respectively. Whether the blade and bladelet dominated
industries of Phase 3 (Levels XIII-XI) and Phase 4 (Levels X and IX) represent
developmentally earlier stages of the Aurignacian, as posited by Tixier and Inizan [7, 26],
still remains a matter of debate.
-
8/13/2019 Douka_etal_2013_Chronology of Ksar Akil-PLOS ONE With SI
18/40
BOSTON COLLEGE EXCAVATIONS TIXIER EXCAVATIONS
Ksar Akil
Phases
(Boston
College
Excavations)
1937-1938
Field
Season
Levels
1947-1948
Field
Season
Levels
Assemblage Characteristics
Ksar Akil
Phases
(Tixier
Excavations)
1969-1975
Excavation
Levels
Outils Caracteristiques
7 Not studied VIb, VIa
Multiple reduction strategies
including typical
blade/bladelet manufacture
and twisted bladelet
manufacture from lateral
carinated pieces; numerousretouched bladelets; burins
and scrapers present in nearlyequal numbers.
IIICouche7
8a
Numerous retouched
bladelets, scrapers and
burins; burins typically flat-
faced and multifaceted, and
burins on truncation arelarger; end-scrapers on
unretouched blades
6 VI
IXa, VIIIc,
VIIIb,VIIIa,
VIIh, VIIg,
VIIf, VIIe,VIId, VIIc,
VIIb, VIIa
Multiple reduction strategies,
twisted bladelet manufacturewith lateral carination and
twisted bladelet cores,
elevated burin index, burinson concave truncation,
Dufour bladelets
IVCouche
8ac-10a
Truncation burins on small,
thick flakes
-
8/13/2019 Douka_etal_2013_Chronology of Ksar Akil-PLOS ONE With SI
19/40
BOSTON COLLEGE EXCAVATIONS TIXIER EXCAVATIONS
Ksar Akil
Phases
(Boston
College
Excavations)
1937-1938
Field
Season
Levels
1947-1948
Field
Season
Levels
Assemblage Characteristics
Ksar Akil
Phases
(Tixier
Excavations)
1969-1975
Excavation
Levels
Outils Caracteristiques
Not
identified
Notidentified
IXb, IXa,VIIIc,VIIIb,
VIIIa
Multiple reduction strategies,
twisted bladelet manufacture
with lateral carination andtwisted bladelet cores,
elevated burin index, burins
on concave truncation,
Dufour bladelets
VCouche10b-10g
Flat-faced multifaceted
burins (i.e.
Laterallycarinated pieces) and sharprise in bladelets with semi-
abrupt, alternate retouch (i.e.Dufour bladelets)
5VIII and
VII
Xb, Xa,
IXf, IXe,
IXd, IXc
Multiple reduction strategies,flake production,
predominantly blades andbladelets with straight or
curved profiles, but twisted
dbitage also frequent,
elevated scraper index,nosed and shouldered
scrapers, tiny retouchedbladelets, bone and antler
tools
VICouche
10h-11bc
Nosed, shouldered and
carinated scrapers, various
side-scraper types, decline in
retouched bladelets, althoughstill abundant
4 X and IXXIb, XIa,
Xc
Multiple reduction strategies,
blades and bladelets with
straight and curved profiles,
reduction in twisted dbitage,elevated scraper index,
VII Couche 12
El-Wad points, simple end-
scrapers, nosed and
shouldered scrapers, rare
Aurignacian blades, and fewburins
-
8/13/2019 Douka_etal_2013_Chronology of Ksar Akil-PLOS ONE With SI
20/40
BOSTON COLLEGE EXCAVATIONS TIXIER EXCAVATIONS
Ksar Akil
Phases
(Boston
College
Excavations)
1937-1938
Field
Season
Levels
1947-1948
Field
Season
Levels
Assemblage Characteristics
Ksar Akil
Phases
(Tixier
Excavations)
1969-1975
Excavation
Levels
Outils Caracteristiques
retouched bladelets, el-Wad
points and variants
3 XIII-XI XII
Multiple reduction strategies,
twisted blades and bladelets,
elevated burin index, flat-faced carinated burins, lateral
carinated scrapers and burins,twisted el-Wad points
Notexcavated
-
8/13/2019 Douka_etal_2013_Chronology of Ksar Akil-PLOS ONE With SI
21/40
"
Section II:
Radiocarbon dating
a. Previous chronology for Ksar Akil
Prior to this work there were 26 radiometric dates from the site, from the later Upper
Palaeolithic and the Middle Palaeolithic layers but none from the IUP or Early Ahmarian
ones (SI Table S2). These dates were produced in three radiocarbon facilities (Oxford,
Groningen and Monaco) and the vast majority relate to Tixiers excavations [26]. No
radiocarbon dates existed for material from the older excavations although two radiocarbon
determinations (GrN-2579 and GrN-2195) were made on clay and shell samples,
respectively, collected in 1959 from Ewings 1948 open sections [27]. A date (Gro-
2574/75) is mentioned by Ewing but no other record exists for it; it is very likely that this is
the same date as GrN-2579. Finally, four U-series dates on two Mousterian bones from the
bottom of the sequence were produced by van der Plicht et al. [28], but the results were
inconclusive.
During the late 1980s, a series of bones from Ewings excavations submitted to Oxford for
AMS radiocarbon dating but failed to produce any collagen. Similarly, in 2008, we sampled
10 bone points recovered by Tixier and curated at the University of Bordeaux I. We
analysed the points for their N content and calculated the C:N atomic ratios, both used as a
proxy for collagen presence and state of preservation. Again no collagen was identified in
any of the sampled implements and the analytical values ranged much beyond accepted
levels (%N=0.2-0.21 and C:N=20-91; where accepted values are %N=>0.75-1 and
C:N=
-
8/13/2019 Douka_etal_2013_Chronology of Ksar Akil-PLOS ONE With SI
22/40
Table S2 Previous determinations from Ksar Akil. The majority of the dates relate
to the late Upper Palaeolithic layers and were obtained on material from Tixiers
excavation.
Lab. code C Level/ depth Material Excavator
OxA-1791 23170 400 3 upper Charcoal Tixier
OxA-1792 22850 400 3b major Charcoal Tixier
OxA-1793 22050 360 3b lower Charcoal Tixier
OxA-1794 22480 380 3bb Charcoal Tixier
OxA-1795 22850 380 3c Charcoal Tixier
OxA-1796 21100 500 7bb Charcoal Tixier
OxA-1797 26900 600 8a Charcoal Tixier
OxA-1798 29300 800 8ac Charcoal Tixier
OxA-1803 30250 850 9a Charcoal Tixier
OxA-1804 31200 1300 10 lower Charcoal Tixier
OxA-1805 32400 1100 11bm Charcoal Tixier
MC-1191 26500 900 8ai Charcoal Tixier
MC-1192 32000 1500 12.0 m Charcoal Tixier
MC-410 24400 900 3b/ 2.80-2.90 m Landsnail Tixier
MC-411 14100 500 C/ 3.50-3.55 m Bone Tixier
MC-? 28600 680 Phase V n/a Tixier
MC-686-88 27000 Phase V n/a Tixier
MC-679 27350 Phase VI Charcoal Tixier
MC-574-
580
? ? Dates not
published
Shell? Tixier
GrN-2195 28840 380 6-7.5 m Shells Ewing, 1948open section
GrN-2579 43750 1500 XXVI orXXVII/ 16 m
Clay treated ascharred matter
Ewing, 1948open section
Gro-
2574/75
44400 1200 XXVII/ 16 m
Red clay
beneath StoneComplex 3
Clay Ewing, 1948
open section.
Same asabove ?
G-88174 47000 9000 XXVI BE V U-series/ bonesurface
1947-8?
G-88173 19000 5000 XXVI BE V U-series/ bone
bulk
1947-8?
G-88177 51000 4000 XXXII FV U-series/ bone
surface
1947-8?
G-88178 49000 5000 XXXII FV U-series/ bone
bulk
1947-8?
-
8/13/2019 Douka_etal_2013_Chronology of Ksar Akil-PLOS ONE With SI
23/40
"
b. New radiocarbon chronology
Materials for dating
The Upper Palaeolithic molluscan collection of Ksar Akil contains impressive numbers of
both marine and terrestrial landsnails. The shells from the early excavations, about 2000
specimens, were studied initially by Altena Van Regteren [31] at the Rijksmuseum van
Natuurlijke Historie in the Netherlands, where the material was sent by Ewing himself.
Inizan and Gaillard [32] studied about 200 shells from Tixiers recent excavations, from the
upper stratigraphic levels. Forty-five molluscan species were identified; Nassarius
gibbosulus, Columbella rustica, Osillinus turbinatus and Glycymeris sp. are the most
abundant throughout the sequence. Ewing [33] mentions thousands of shells of the terrestrial
snailHelixsp., as well as marine shells ofPatellasp. and Trochussp., from 13 m. (~XIX)
upwards. These are not accounted for in the aforementioned studies nor are currently present
in such numbers in the surviving collection. It is possible that only a portion of the
invertebrate remains made their way out of Lebanon. An interesting comparison of the
molluscan assemblage from Ksar Akil with that of a!zl, in the northern Levant, was
reported by Kuhn et al. [34].
In 2007, the material studied by Altena Van Regteren (31) and lost since, was located by
us at the Naturalis Natural History Museum (Leiden, The Netherlands). The shells appear to
derive from both 1937-38 and 1947-48 excavations, since, according to Hooijer [35],
material from the former campaign is only accompanied by depth (3-15.4 m) and square
information (E5, F3, F5), while material from the latter season has been ascribed level
information too.
We favoured samples with the best possible recording and with the best preservation state.
We selected 54 shells from levels VXVIII, of which 26 were dated (Fig. S2). Most of these
are beads on gastropods, either Nassarius gibbosulus or Columbella rustica, but a few
bivalves (Glycymeris and Acanthocardia sp.) were also dated to check inter-species age
differences and to elucidate modes of exploitation. Many shells preserved original
pigmentation, while some had ochre residues on them (e.g. KA 31 and KA 51, Fig. S2). A
Glycymeris bimaculata(KA 9) bore traces of deliberate edge modification, possibly for use
as a scraper [36].
The pretreatment methods used to date the samples in Oxford were briefly described in the
main text, as well as in recent publications [30, 37].
-
8/13/2019 Douka_etal_2013_Chronology of Ksar Akil-PLOS ONE With SI
24/40
-
8/13/2019 Douka_etal_2013_Chronology of Ksar Akil-PLOS ONE With SI
25/40
"#
Results
Overall, 30 new radiocarbon dates were produced: 29 on shell (KA 51 was dated twice and
KA 54 thrice) and one on charcoal. The new determinations are shown in Table S3 along
with the calibrated ranges obtained using the latest calibration curve, IntCal09 for the
terrestrial charcoal sample and IntCal09-Marine for the shells [38]. A constant marine
reservoir of 400 14C years is included in the marine curve and, in addition, we corrected the
shell measurements for the Mediterranean local reservoir (!R=58 8514C years; [39]).
The lowermost stratigraphic unit for which four dates were obtained, is the Mousterian level
XXVIII, at 16.6 m below datum, just below Stone Complex 3. An Ostrea sp. valve was
dated three times due to problems identified with the carbonate mineral, and produced three
different results (OxA-X-2344-23: 35900 400; OxA-X-2361-17: 33810 180; OxA-
20491: 39310 330 BP). The "13C values for the first two, which are also the youngest,
ranged from -2.6 to -3.8. This suggests some degree of meteoric diagenesis and
incorporation of terrestrial carbon compounds. Unfortunately, shells of Ostrea sp. are
predominantly calcitic in nature and XRD screening cannot help discriminate secondary,
post-depositional mineral formation, such as low-Mg calcite. OxA-20491, the third date,
was produced on a sample taken from a different part of the valve (away from surface layers
sampled before and closer to the thicker umbo area) and this is the oldest determination.
This is considered the most reliable of the three and its "13C value falls within the expected
range for marine carbonates (1.6). In order to determine securely the age of layer XXVIII,
we obtained a second Ostrea sp. valve,