On the industrial attributions of the Aterian and Mousterian of the Maghreb

Journal of Human Evolution 64 (2013) 194e210

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Journal of Human Evolution journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jhevol

On the industrial attributions of the Aterian and Mousterian of the Maghreb Harold L. Dibble a, b, c, *, Vera Aldeias d, Zenobia Jacobs e, Deborah I. Olszewski a, Zeljko Rezek a, Sam C. Lin a, Esteban Alvarez-Fernández f, Carolyn C. Barshay-Szmidt g, h, Emily Hallett-Desguez c, Denné Reed i, Kaye Reed c, Daniel Richter b, j, Teresa E. Steele b, k, Anne Skinner l, Bonnie Blackwell l, Ekaterina Doronicheva a, Mohamed El-Hajraoui m a

Department of Anthropology, University of Pennsylvania, 3260 South Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104-6398, USA Department of Human Evolution, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, D-04103 Leipzig, Germany c Institute of Human Origins, School of Human Evolution and Social Change, Arizona State University, Box 874101, Tempe, AZ 85282-4101, USA d Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Pennsylvania, Hayden Hall, 240 South 33rd Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104-6316, USA e Centre for Archaeological Science, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, NSW 2522, Australia f Department of Prehistory, University of Salamanca, C. Cerrada de Serranos S/N, E-37002 Salamanca, Spain g University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, 3260 South Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104-6324, USA h Archaeology Centre, University of Toronto, 19 Russell Street, Toronto, ON M5S 2S2, Canada i Department of Anthropology, University of Texas at Austin, 1 University Station C3200, Austin, TX 78712, USA j Geographisches Institut, LS Geomorphologie Universität Bayreuth, Universitätsstr 30, D-95447 Bayreuth, Germany k Department of Anthropology, University of California, Davis One Shields Ave., Davis, CA 95616-8522, USA l Department of Chemistry, Williams College, 47 Lab Campus Drive, Williamstown, MA 01267, USA m Institut National des Sciences de l’Archéologie et du Patrimoine, 10001 Rabat, Morocco b

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history: Received 13 May 2012 Accepted 23 October 2012 Available online 9 February 2013

North Africa is quickly emerging as one of the more important regions yielding information on the origins of modern Homo sapiens. Associated with significant fossil hominin remains are two stone tool industries, the Aterian and Mousterian, which have been differentiated, respectively, primarily on the basis of the presence and absence of tanged, or stemmed, stone tools. Largely because of historical reasons, these two industries have been attributed to the western Eurasian Middle Paleolithic rather than the African Middle Stone Age. In this paper, drawing on our recent excavation of Contrebandiers Cave and other published data, we show that, aside from the presence or absence of tanged pieces, there are no other distinctions between these two industries in terms of either lithic attributes or chronology. Together, these results demonstrate that these two ‘industries’ are instead variants of the same entity. Moreover, several additional characteristics of these assemblages, such as distinctive stone implements and the manufacture and use of bone tools and possible shell ornaments, suggest a closer affinity to other Late Pleistocene African Middle Stone Age industries rather than to the Middle Paleolithic of western Eurasia. Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Middle Paleolithic Middle Stone Age Systematics Morocco North Africa Maghrebian Mousterian Atero-Mousterian

Introduction It is becoming increasingly clear that early forms of Homo sapiens are present in Africa by about 200,000 years ago, at Omo Kibish and the somewhat later site of Herto, both in Ethiopia (Horai et al., 1995; White et al., 2003; McDougall et al., 2005). Equally important, is the accumulating evidence suggesting symbolic or complex behavior,

* Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (H.L. Dibble). 0047-2484/$ e see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2012.10.010

such as perforated Nassarius shells (e.g., Henshilwood et al., 2004; d’Errico et al., 2005, 2009; Vanhaeren et al., 2006; Bouzouggar et al., 2007), ochre (including a few engraved pieces) (e.g., Henshilwood et al., 2002, 2009; Marean et al., 2007; Mackay and Welz, 2008), ochre containers (Henshilwood et al., 2011) and decorated ostrich egg shell (Parkington et al., 2005; Texier et al., 2010). In addition, there is evidence for the use of organic materials such as worked bone (e.g., Henshilwood et al., 2001; Backwell et al., 2008), bedding materials (Wadley et al., 2011), the use of compound adhesives for hafting (e.g., Wadley et al., 2009; Wadley, 2010), and heat treatment of raw material for stone tool manufacture (e.g., Brown et al., 2009).

H.L. Dibble et al. / Journal of Human Evolution 64 (2013) 194e210

All of these behaviors occur in Africa relatively early (w60e100 ka [thousands of years ago]) (e.g., Tribolo et al., 2006, 2009; Bouzouggar et al., 2007; Jacobs et al., 2008). While much of the research on the topic of early biological and behavioral modernity has focused on East and southern Africa, North Africa, especially Morocco, continues to yield important new data also relevant to these subjects (Hublin and McPherron, 2012). For example, Morocco has yielded one of the richest and most complete hominin fossil records of early H. sapiens (Hublin, 2001), including important cranial remains from Jebel Irhoud, Dar-es-Soltan II, and Contrebandiers Cave (Debénath, 1976, 2000; Roche, 1976; Roche and Texier, 1976; Ferembach, 1976, 1985, 1998; Hublin and Tillier, 1981; Hublin, 1992; Minugh-Purvis, 1993; Ménard, 1998; Saban, 1998). Associated with some of these Moroccan early H. sapiens is a material culture that displays some of the same intriguing characteristics seen in the pene-contemporaneous sub-Saharan assemblages, including the use of perforated Nassarius shells, distinctive and sophisticated lithic elements, worked bone, and the use of ochre (e.g., Vanhaeren et al., 2006; Bouzouggar et al., 2007; Nespoulet et al., 2008; d’Errico et al., 2009; Dibble et al., 2012). These factors taken together suggest that the emergence of anatomically and behaviorally modern humans is truly a pan-African phenomenon (McBrearty and Brooks, 2000). Early Moroccan H. sapiens is associated with two lithic industries that many have viewed as being distinct: the Aterian and the Mousterian (or Middle Paleolithic). Historically, the Mousterian industries of North Africa were classified as such primarily because of similar lithic types (including sidescrapers, notches and denticulates, and occasionally Mousterian points, burins, and endscrapers) and the presence of Levallois technology, that, at least superficially, made it resemble contemporary industries of western Eurasia (Howe, 1967; McBurney, 1975; Bordes, 1976e1977; Wendorf et al., 1993) (see Figs. 1e3). The Aterian, which reportedly extends from the Atlantic coast almost to the Nile Valley and from the Mediterranean coast to the southern Sahara (Debénath et al., 1986; Wendorf and Schild, 1992; Clark, 1993; Pasty, 1999; Kleindienst, 2001; Van Peer, 2001; Haour, 2003; Garcea, 2004; Bouzouggar et al., 2007), includes these same elements, but also exhibits types not seen regularly in other Mousterian contexts, namely tanged or stemmed artifacts (Reygasse, 1921e1922), and some bifacial foliates (not dissimilar to those that occur in the Nubian Mousterian and in the Still Bay and Lupemban industries of sub-Saharan Africa (Débenath, 1992; Marean and Assefa, 2005). Although tanged pieces were noted earlier by Carrière (1886), the Aterian was named on the basis of Reygasse’s (1921e1922) work at Bir al-Ater (Oued Djebbana) in Algeria, but he never described the entire assemblage other than to single out the tanged pieces as distinctive (but see Morel, 1974). Since then, there has been considerable discussion as to the origins of the Aterian, with some seeing its origins in northwest Africa (Caton-Thompson, 1946, 1952), others (Kleindienst, 2001) suggesting that the core Aterian area is central Saharan, and still others suggesting that it develops out of the early Nubian found, for example, at Bir Tarfawi/Bir Sahara in Egypt (Van Peer, 2001; Van Peer and Vermeersch, 2007). As will be discussed in more detail below, new chronologies for the northwestern African sites now indicate that the Aterian in this region has a much greater antiquity than previously suspected, perhaps lending support to a northwest African origin. Focusing primarily on the Maghreb, this paper will address two issues surrounding the Aterian and Mousterian/Middle Paleolithic industries found there. The first issue is whether the Aterian should be interpreted as a completely separate entity from that of the local Mousterian or if the presence or absence of certain tool types simply reflects variation within a single archaeological entity. In

195

fact, a number of researchers have remarked on the near impossibility of identifying the Aterian, in the absence of the tanged pieces, from the Mousterian of North Africa (hereafter called the Maghrebian Mousterian to avoid confusion with the Mousterian of Western Europe) (e.g., Caton-Thompson, 1946; Wengler, 1997; Richter et al., 2010; Garcea, 2012; but see Kleindienst, 2001; Hawkins, 2004; see also Antoine, 1950; Ferring, 1975; Clark, 1980, 1993). Superficially, this may appear to be only a small problem in archaeological terminology. However, the question of whether the Aterian and Maghrebian Mousterian represent two distinct, independent entities gets to the heart of how lithic industries are delimited, defined and named in archaeology. Furthermore, the degree to which the industries may represent different groups of people with different adaptations is a key to understanding the context in which modern human behavior developed. The second issue has to do with the broader affinities of these two entities, that is, whether they are to be interpreted as being part of the Middle Paleolithic (MP) or the Middle Stone Age (MSA). While many Africanists consider the term MSA to be appropriate for North African sites (e.g., McBrearty and Brooks, 2000; Kleindienst, 2001; Hawkins, 2004; Barich et al., 2006; Van Peer and Vermeersch, 2007; Garcea, 2012), the research traditions in North Africa, and Morocco in particular, have historically used the terminology of MP and/or Mousterian (e.g., Reygasse, 1921e1922; Tixier, 1967; Debénath, 1992; Wendorf et al., 1993; Tillet, 1985; Wengler, 1997; Van Peer, 1998; Barton et al., 2001; Holl, 2005; Nespoulet et al., 2008; Olszewski et al., 2010a, b; see also; Linstädter et al., in press). As stated by Garcea (2004: 31), “the use of European-based terminologies for African contexts has created much confusion and biased understanding of the local African cultural horizons.” Given the suggestion that many characteristics of the sub-Saharan MSA point to early behavioral modernity, as opposed to the conservative nature of the European MP industries, the attribution of the Aterian and Maghrebian Mousterian to one or the other of these higher-order industrial complexes does have significant implications for an interpretation of both the general character and affinities of the early Late Pleistocene record of North Africa. The Aterian and Mousterian: a problem in archaeological systematics Addressing these issues is more difficult than it may initially appear. Basically, both questions e whether or not the Aterian and Mousterian are distinct industries and whether they relate more to the broader Eurasian MP or the African MSA e represent examples of how archaeologists define and categorize their evidence across several hierarchically-arranged levels. At a basic level are the classes, or types, of various lithic artifacts, defined on the basis of overall morphology, the presence, absence, and location of retouch, etc. Moreover, and to a large degree, the recognition and definition of different technologies is a typological problem as well (Dibble and Bar-Yosef, 1995). At another level, individual artifacts are then grouped together into assemblages, which are usually defined in terms of the stratigraphic or spatial context in which they were found. In other words, assemblages are defined on the basis of their archaeological context and not in terms of the types of artifacts that they contain. However, assemblages are then grouped together in higher-order units, often called either industries or complexes, such as the Aterian and Mousterian from the Maghreb, and this level of grouping is based again on the typological and technological characteristics that they have in common, though both chronology and region may also underlie industrial definitions. Ultimately, industries are then grouped together into even higherorder categories such as the Lower/Middle/Upper Paleolithic or

196

H.L. Dibble et al. / Journal of Human Evolution 64 (2013) 194e210

Figure 1. Cores from the Mousterian layers of Contrebandiers Cave (aed) and Aterian layers (fei). All are single-surface cores except (a): Mousterian disc; (f): Levallois.

H.L. Dibble et al. / Journal of Human Evolution 64 (2013) 194e210

197

Figure 2. Levallois flakes from Mousterian layers (aeb) and Aterian layers (cef) of Contrebandiers Cave.

Early/Middle/Later Stone Age. Since all of these classes and categories (types, technologies, assemblages, industries, etc.) represent analytical units (see papers in Ramenofsky and Steffen (1998)) as well as simple descriptive ones, much archaeological debate focuses on interpreting the differences apparent among them. Wellknown examples of such debates include whether different ‘types’ of scrapers represent different functions, different styles, or just different amounts of resharpening (Dibble, 1995), whether the various European Mousterian variants are distinct entities or simply a continuum of variation (Bordes, 1961; Rolland and Dibble, 1990; Dibble and Rolland, 1992), or whether or not the MP is distinct from the MSA (McBrearty and Brooks, 2000). What tends to be forgotten in all of these debates, however, is that we are arguing about relationships among classes that we ourselves created, and it is rare that archaeologists take time out to evaluate how and why the classes were originally defined.

Of course, Paleolithic archaeologists are not alone in having to deal with empirical complexity e every other empirical science has faced the same problem. Historically, Paleolithic archaeology first emerged from paleontology (Lartet and Christy, 1864; Daniel, 1975; Dibble and Rolland, 1992), and in fact, the problems archaeologists face in classifying and organizing lithic artifacts are the same ones that paleontologists face in organizing their materials. In a word, it is a problem of systematics. Simpson (1961: 7) defined systematics as “the scientific study of the kinds and diversity of organisms and any and all relationships among them.” If the word ‘artifacts’ is substituted for ‘organisms,’ then the definition of systematics clearly fits what we do in archaeology. Simpson (1961: 9e11) went on to discuss several other related concepts, all of which have their archaeological correlates. Classification, for example, “is the ordering of animals into groups (or sets) on the basis of their relationships, that is, of

198

H.L. Dibble et al. / Journal of Human Evolution 64 (2013) 194e210

Figure 3. Retouched pieces from Contrebandiers Cave representative of the Mousterian layers (a, d: denticulates; b, c: notches) and Aterian layers (e, f: tanged pieces; g, i, j: scrapers; h: bifacial foliate).

H.L. Dibble et al. / Journal of Human Evolution 64 (2013) 194e210

associations by contiguity, similarity, or both”. In archaeology, this is the delimitation of lithic artifacts into different types or technologies, or the ordering of assemblages into industries and higherorder categories. “Nomenclature is the application of distinctive names to each of the groups recognized in any given zoological classification”. Archaeologists often name type classes for their presumed functions (scrapers, points, knives), and sometimes what we call different industries has a direct bearing on our interpretations of them (see Olszewski and Dibble, 1994). Finally, Simpson (1961: 11) defines taxonomy as “the theoretical study of classification, including its bases, principles, procedures, and rules.” In archaeology, taxonomy becomes a question of how we define our categories or units, and what criteria should be used in distinguishing them. Clearly, we can make any number of distinctions e that is, we can create any number of categories, classes, units, types, industries, etc. e based on any number of different kinds of attributes. From a taxonomic perspective, however, such distinctions should not be totally arbitrary; rather, they should be based on some level of theory that provides some meaning for the distinction. Where archaeology departs from biology is that the latter strives to classify organisms in a way that reflects evolutionary relationships. The process of biological evolution produces a branching tree of life that forms a natural, nested hierarchy of classes: species are nested inside genera inside families etc. The study of systematics works to discover the pattern of the tree of life, while classification, along with the rules of nomenclature, works to produce a stable, organized system of naming and categorizing biodiversity. Following the neo-Darwinian synthesis, biologists generally agree that it would be best if classifications matched, as closely as possible, the pattern of ancestry and descent among lineages. In contrast, archaeology, and especially Paleolithic archaeology, often defines classes subjectively and often without any discussion regarding the criteria underlying the classification. As far back as the 1950s, it was recognized that archaeological units do not have to be ‘real’ to be useful in reconstructing behaviors (Ford, 1954), and today, most Paleolithic archaeologists have moved beyond the unrealistic notion that every defined type represents a desired end product. That being the case, the problem for us, and the one being addressed here, is to determine which criteria are best for classifying artifacts. In other words, how do we evaluate the usefulness of the categories that we define? The same is true for higher-level categories, and in many ways the interpretation of the Aterian and Mousterian in the Maghreb is not very different from the classic debate regarding the French Mousterian industrial variability. In that case, Bordes (1961) originally organized various French Mousterian assemblages according to three basic criteria: the percentage of scrapers relative to other retouched tools, the frequency of Levallois technology, and the presence or absence of bifaces. What followed was a now classic debate that lasted several decades concerning the interpretation of the groups thus defined. Bordes himself argued that they reflected distinct populations, but others argued for activity differences, chronological succession, and varying degrees of intensity of site and artifact use (Mellars, 1965; Binford and Binford, 1966; Binford, 1973; Rolland and Dibble, 1990; Dibble and Rolland, 1992). To some extent, we are stuck in this argument because of historical precedent (Bordes’ original definition of these groups). What does not get discussed as much is the taxonomic question of which criteria are most useful for defining assemblage groups: percentages of particular retouched tools, or emphasis on one kind of technology versus another, etc. This brings us back to the distinction between the Aterian and the Mousterian in the Maghreb. Are they different things? Yes, of course e the Aterian has tanged pieces and the Maghrebian

199

Mousterian does not. They are defined in such a way that they are different in this respect. From a classificatory point of view, this distinction is perfectly valid. However, from a taxonomic point of view (i.e., how such industrial variants should be defined) it is always appropriate to question the significance of the distinction, and that significance should go beyond the criterion used in making the original distinction. In other words, if assemblages with tanged pieces differ in many ways from those that do not have these elements, whether in terms of other aspects of the lithic artifacts, or in terms of chronology, paleoenvironments, etc., then making such a distinction may be justified. If, on the other hand, the only difference between them is the presence or absence of those particular types, then perhaps the distinction would not be as useful. The relationship between the Aterian and the Maghrebian Mousterian The first issue to be discussed centers on whether the Aterian is a completely separate industrial entity from that of the Maghrebian Mousterian or MP, or if the two of them together reflect internal variability within a single industry. This is a topic that has been discussed in the publications of many researchers, but one that has not been demonstrated (i.e., Garcea, 2012; Lindstädter et al., in press). There are two basic ways in which we will approach this issue. The first is to compare these two entities in terms of several characteristics of their lithic assemblages, including typology, technology and physical characteristics of the artifacts. We will then compare them on the basis of recent chronological data. In essence, lithic typology and chronology are primary grounds that have been used traditionally in dividing the archaeological assemblages of the Maghreb into Mousterian and Aterian (see Bouzouggar and Barton, 2012 for review). Our emphasis here will be on those assemblages from the Maghreb (see Fig. 4), thereby leaving aside questions concerning the relationship between the Aterian and Nubian variants further east, especially in Egypt (see Caton-Thompson, 1946; Kleindienst, 1999, 2001; Van Peer, 2001; Hawkins and Kleindienst, 2002; Hawkins, 2004, 2008, 2012; Van Peer and Vermeersch, 2007; Chiotti et al., 2009; Olszewski et al., 2010a, b). It should be pointed out that comparisons of material from the Maghreb require careful consideration of the limitations of the available data sets, and, unfortunately, there are several problems inherent in many Aterian and/or Mousterian assemblages from the Maghreb. On the one hand, many collections remain unpublished, or data are presented in ways that considerably limits any direct comparison. Furthermore, in many key regions, especially in the Sahara, most data come from surface contexts (e.g., CatonThompson, 1946; Cremaschi et al., 1998; Pasty, 1999; Hawkins, 2004, 2008; Barich et al., 2006; Barich and Garcea, 2008) and therefore potentially suffer from a number of limitations, not least of which are lack of materials for chronometric dating, their reworked state due to surface and erosion processes, lack of organics such as fauna and bone tools, and the potential for palimpsests of lithic artifacts from varying temporal periods, which cannot always be separated (Liu and Broecker, 2000). In addition, many collections were either acquired before the advent of modern excavation standards, or have an insufficient amount of material for comparison, or suffer from problems of curation once they became stored (e.g., Tixier, 1958e1959). It is for these reasons that we do not include lithic data from the collections like Dar es-Soltane I Ruhlmann, 1951; Roche, 1956), Mugharet al-Aliya (Howe, 1967; Bouzouggar et al., 2002), Aïn Fritissa (Tixier, 1958e1959) and Station Météo (Wengler, 1997) in the area from the Atlantic coast of Morocco to the Oujda Mountains; Koudiat Bou Gherara (Cadenat, 1953) and Bérard (Vaufrey, 1955) near the Atlas Tellien Mountains of northern Algeria; Oued Djouf el-Djemel (Morel, 1978), Bir el-Ater

200

H.L. Dibble et al. / Journal of Human Evolution 64 (2013) 194e210

Figure 4. Map of sites mentioned in the text.

(Oued Djebbana) (Reygasse, 1921e1922; Morel, 1974), Aïn Métherchem (Vaufrey, 1955) and El-Guettar (Gruet, 1958e1959) between the Great Eastern Sand Sea and Mediterranean coast of Algeria and Tunisia; Zaouïa el-Kebira (Chavaillon, 1971) and Hassi Ouchtat (Chavaillon, 1973) in Wadi Saoura, western Algeria; Tiouririne, north of the Ahaggar highlands of southern Algeria (Arambourg and Balout, 1955); Uan Afuda in the Tadrart Acacus Mountains of western Libya (Cremaschi et al., 1998); Jebel Uweinat in the Libyan Desert (de Heinzelin et al., 1969), etc. A number of Late

Pleistocene contexts have been reported from the Jebel Gharbi Mountains in Tripolitania, northwestern Libya, but to date they have been investigated by test excavations only (Barich et al., 2006; Garcea and Giraudi, 2006; Barich and Garcea, 2008). The relevant material from the Haua Fteah in Cyrenaica, Libya, is also equivocal both in regards to its classification as either Mousterian or Aterian, and the nature of the excavation units employed (McBurney, 1967). Using what limited data that are both available and comparable, Fig. 5 displays the Bordian (Bordes, 1961; Debénath and Dibble,

Figure 5. Bordian ‘essential’ cumulative graph (see Debénath and Dibble, 1994 for details). The horizontal access refer to the list of Bodian types (excluding unretouched pieces, and in this case, tanged pieces). The vertical axis represents the cumulative sum of the percentages of each type. The assemblages attributed to the Aterian come from layer 2 of Rhafas Cave (Wengler, 1997), layer D from Taforalt (Roche, 1967, 1969), the site of Chaperon Rouge (Texier, 1985e1986), sequence of layers 23e25 of Uan Tabu (Garcea, 1998, 2001), spits 26e34 and 50e54 of Ifri N’Ammar (Nami and Moser, 2010), and layers 4, IV-2, and those from sector V in Contrebandiers Cave from our own excavation. Those attributed to the Mousterian are from layer 3b from Rhafas Cave (Wengler, 1997), layer H from Taforalt (Roche, 1967, 1969), layer 21 from Uan Tabu (Garcea, 1998, 2001), spits 35e42 and 55e63 from Ifri N’Ammar (Nami and Moser, 2010), and the section of layers 5e6 from Contrebandiers Cave.

H.L. Dibble et al. / Journal of Human Evolution 64 (2013) 194e210

1994) typological ‘essential’ (primarily retouched pieces only) makeup of several assemblages that either contain tanged pieces or lack them. It is clear that there is abundant overlap between these various assemblages to the extent that no clear distinction can be made. Likewise, Table 1 compares standard groups of types and technological indices, and in no measure is there a statistically significant difference between those assemblages with tanged pieces and those without. More detailed data are available for Contrebandiers, as a result of the recent excavation there (Dibble et al., 2012). Although Roche considered all of the pre-Iberomaurusian deposits to be Aterian, the absence of tanged pieces in Roche’s collections in the lower layers had already led some researchers to question the attribution of these layers as Aterian (Bouzouggar, 1997). This is supported by our own work, in that tanged pieces are found in Layers 4ae4e, IV-2, and V-1a, V-1b, and V-2, with an absence of them in Layers 5ae 5d and 6ae6c. So, given that the presence or absence of tanged pieces is the criterion for attributing assemblages to either the Aterian or Maghrebian Mousterian, respectively, it is now clear that Contrebandiers Cave includes examples of both. In this site, both industries have relatively low frequencies of retouched pieces overall (the tool/flake ratio, based on complete and proximal pieces greater than 2.5 cm in maximum dimension, including tanged pieces, for Aterian ¼ 0.082, for Mousterian ¼ 0.131). They also produced lithic artifacts that are virtually identical in their overall dimensions (Table 2), with the only significant differences found in flake length and scraper width; the rest of the different artifact classes are identical in terms of these dimensional measures. Given that there are twenty comparisons presented here, having two ‘significant’ differences is expected due to chance alone. Finally, a comparison of different core types (Table 3) shows no significant differences between those assemblages having tanged pieces and those without. According to the lithic evidence presented here, it is not possible to distinguish the Aterian and Maghrebian Mousterian on the basis of anything other than the presence or absence of the tanged types, which of course is the primary criteria used to distinguish them in

201

Table 2 Dimensions (mm) and weights (g) of complete lithic artifacts (>2.5 cm in maximum dimension) from Contrebandiers Cave by major artifact class, comparing assemblages (A) with tanged pieces and (B) those without. Length A

Width B

Flakes Mean 35.2 33.15 S. D. 11.8 10.51 N 642 445 Scrapers Mean 34.1 38.49 S. D. 10.3 11.51 N 32 4 Notches/Denticulates Mean 45.3 41.13 S. D. 20.1 13.99 N 33 22 Other tools Mean 54.43 43.52 S. D. 22.77 15.43 N 33 6 Cores Mean 53.67 51.32 S. D. 17.87 21.24 N 87 31

Thickness

Weight

A

B

A

B

A

B

28.2 10.1 644

27.52 9.53 444

9.1 4.8 603

8.91 4.37 425

11.2 15.4 989

10.58 13.49 779

22.5 6.5 32

33.92 6.09 4

7 3.6 30

8.33 4.87 4

8.2 9.7 45

11.17 9.83 8

32.6 11.8 33

30.73 10.63 22

12.7 6.2 32

12 6.26 21

27.1 40.6 47

24.03 28.5 39

40.3 18.2 86

35.26 23.14 6

24.4 18.9 33

16.9 20.74 6

113.3 151.1 41

39.06 72.32 9

46.3 18.2 86

41.05 14.95 31

30.1 14.1 84

26.74 13.98 31

116.8 136.3 129

67.82 78.7 48

Significant differences (p < 0.05) in the comparisons between the assemblages with and without tanged pieces are bolded.

the first place. In terms of typology, there is considerable variation among the stone tool assemblages at the various sites and at the same time, no significant differences in terms of other major technological classes. Furthermore, data from Contrebandiers Cave show only two significant differences in basic artifact dimensions out of twenty possible comparisons. All of this supports what others (e.g., Caton-Thompson, 1946; Hawkins, 2004; Garcea, 2012; Linstädter et al., in press; but see; Wengler, 1997; Kleindienst, 2001; Richter et al., 2010) have thought: without taking into account the tanged pieces, the differences between the Maghrebian Mousterian

Table 1 Comparisons of various typological and technological indices between assemblages A: with tanged pieces and B: without tanged pieces. ‘Upper Paleolithic’ types

Scraper index

Contrebandiers Ifri n’Ammar Uan Tabu Taforalt Rhafas Chaperon Rouge Mean S.D. N T

A

B

30.6 63.7 16.7 27.3 56.1 23.8 36.3 19.0 6

14.5 35.2 23.3 63.2 60.6 39.4 21.8 5 0.246

Difference 16.0 28.4 6.7 35.9 4.5 0.5 24.6 5 0.047

A

B

5.1 7.2 4.2 23.9 6.8 4.6 8.6 7.6 6

7.3 5.6 20.0 10.5 7.5 10.2 5.8 5 0.379

Levallois index

Contrebandiers Ifri n’Ammar Uan Tabu Taforalt Rhafas Chaperon Rouge Mean S.D. N T

A

B

0.0 20.0 5.6 42.2

1.7 8.1 4.5 36.3

8.5 15.3 16.7 5

12.7 16.0 4 0.238

Notched tools

Difference 2.2 1.6 15.8 13.3 0.7 0.8 10.4 5 0.163

A

B

29.9 8.7 56.3 22.7 8.5 30.0 26.0 17.7 6

74.5 38.0 33.3 13.2 12.0 34.2 25.4 5 0.631

Faceting index Difference 1.7 11.9 1.1 5.9

4.3 5.9 4 1.452

A

B

15.0 57.3 N/A 69.4 33.9 29.9 41.1 21.9 5

8.7 43.2 N/A 65.5 32.2 37.4 23.6 4 0.243

Difference 44.6 29.3 22.9 9.6 3.5 9.0 27.7 5 0.725

Blade index Difference 6.3 14.1 3.8 1.7 6.5 5.4 4 2.399

A

B

8.3 5.7 1.6 28.3 8.9 1.6 9.1 9.9 6

1.9 8.2 12.3 29.7 4.6 11.3 11.0 5 0.359

Difference 6.4 2.5 10.7 1.4 4.3 0.8 6.7 5 0.258

See Debénath and Dibble (1994) for definitions of these indices, though note that for here the category notched tools includes types 42, 43, and 54. Two different tests are displayed: first, a T-test of independent means between averages of columns A and B, and a paired T-test of differences between A and B. None of these T-tests are significant at the 0.05 level.

202

H.L. Dibble et al. / Journal of Human Evolution 64 (2013) 194e210

else that can be used to justify continuing to treat them as independent entities. Turning now to the chronological data, it has been argued on stratigraphic grounds that the Aterian is somewhat later than the Mousterian, given that in many cases where they occur together, Aterian deposits overlie Mousterian ones. However, there are exceptions. For example, the site of Ifri n’Ammar (see Table 4) shows that the Mousterian can occur after an Aterian phase within a stratified sequence (Nami and Moser, 2010; Richter et al., 2010), and this has also been found at the site of Aïn El-Guettar, where initial excavations revealed Mousterian deposits above Aterian ones (Aouadi-Abdeljaouad and Belhouchet, 2008). Several recent absolute dating projects in Morocco have specifically focused on determining the age of archaeological deposits that contain the Aterian industry, principally in the Témara region on the Atlantic coast and in the north and northeast region, inland from the Mediterranean coast. Four different techniques have been used, namely optically stimulated luminescence (OSL) dating of sediments, thermoluminescence (TL) dating of burned stones, electron spin resonance (ESR) dating of tooth enamel, and uranium (U)-series dating of calcite formations. All of these have shown that the Aterian began well beyond the range of 14C dating, so the choice of appropriate dating method is critical to resolving the antiquity of the Aterian and Mousterian (Wrinn and Rink, 2003; Bouzouggar et al., 2007; Mercier et al., 2007; Barton et al., 2009; Richter et al., 2010; Schwenninger et al., 2010; Jacobs et al., 2011, 2012). These

Table 3 Breakdown of types of complete cores combined for layers from Contrebandiers Cave with or without tanged pieces. With tanged pieces

Without tanged pieces

3 23 0 0 1 3 1 3 1 11 33 3 82 16.459 12 0.125

0 8 1 1 0 0 0 0 4 4 12 1 31

Levallois Single-surface Mousterian Disc Pyramidal Prismatic Globular Chopper Chopping-tool Kombewa Tested Inform Other Totals Chi-Square¼ df¼ p¼

A chi-square test shows no significant difference between the two assemblage types.

and Aterian lithic assemblages are not that striking. Furthermore, in every comparison made here these two entities are virtually identical. Admittedly, more detailed technological studies done on a wide range of assemblages may eventually discover traits that clearly separate them, but in advance of such studies there is little

Table 4 List of ages obtained using numerical dating techniques applied to samples collected from late Middle and early Late Pleistocene contexts in Morocco. Site name Mugharet el ‘Aliya

Dar es-Soltan I

El Harhoura 2

El Mnasra

Sample code

Industry

Tanged pieces

Context

Technique

97123a

Aterian

N

5

ESR

97122a

Aterian

Y

6

ESR

97121a

Mousterian

N

9

ESR

X2389 X2388 X2387 X2394 X2386 X2385 X2384 X2383 X2382 X2380 X2381 X2379 X2396 X2378 EH09-10 EH09-4 EH09-3 EH09-2 EH09-1 EH08-10 EH08-9 EH08-8 EH08-7 EH08-6 EH08-5 EH08-4 EM10-4 EM10-1 EM10-2 EM10-3 EM10-5 EM08-12 EM10-6 EM08-11 X2416

Devolved Mousterian Aterian Sterile Sterile# Sterile# Sterile Sterile# Sterile Aterian Sterile# Sterile# Sterile# Sterile# Sterile# Aterian Aterian Aterian Aterian Aterian Aterian Aterian Aterian Sterile Aterian Sterile Aterian MP MP MP Aterian Aterian Aterian Aterian Aterian Aterian

N Y N Y Y

(R) C1-C (R) C2 (R) D-E (R) D-E (R) D-E (R) D-E (R) F (R) G-H (R) I (R) J (R) J (R) K (R) K (R) K 3 3 3 3 3 3 4a 4b 5 6 7 8 3 upper 3 upper 3 base 4 4 upper 4 base 4 base 5a 5a

SA-OSL SA-OSL SA-OSL SA-OSL SA-OSL SA-OSL SA-OSL SA-OSL SA-OSL SA-OSL SA-OSL SA-OSL SA-OSL SA-OSL SG-OSL SG-OSL SG-OSL SG-OSL SG-OSL SG-OSL SG-OSL SG-OSL SG-OSL SG-OSL SG-OSL SG-OSL SG-OSL SG-OSL SG-OSL SG-OSL SG-OSL SG-OSL SG-OSL SG-OSL SA-OSL

Y N Y Y Y N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N ? ? ? Y Y Y Y Y Y

Age (ka) 42  3 (EU) 56  5 (LU) 39  4 (EU) 47  5 (LU) 44  5 (EU) 51  5 (LU) 53  3 62  4 73  6 68  5 89  6 90  6 78  6 112  10 123  9 107  7 110  10 158  13 140  11 114  10 57  4 53  3 58  4 52  4 62  4 62  4 74  4 100  6 103  6 116  7 108  6 107  7 mixed 75  6 72  5 95  10 95  9 104  8 107  10 107  7 106  12

Reference Wrinn and Rink (2003)

Barton et al. (2009); Schwenninger et al. (2010)

Jacobs et al. (2012)

Schwenninger e al. (2010); Jacobs et al. (2012)

H.L. Dibble et al. / Journal of Human Evolution 64 (2013) 194e210

203

Table 4 (continued ) Site name

Contrebandiers

Chaperon Rouge I Jebel Irhoud Benzu

Ifri n’Ammar

Sample code EM08-10 EM08-9 EM08-8 EM08-7 X2415 EM08-6 EM08-5 EM08-4 EM08-3 SC30 SC39 SC37 33 34 36 37 39 53 X2409 SC31 SC32 SC21 SC35 SC20 SC8 SC7 X2408 X2410 AT1 PT45 FT94 FT95 SC23 SC34 SC16 5 28 FT93 FT83 PT44 FT84 SC15 52 X2407 SC19 SC14 SC6 SC13 SC1 SC28 SC2 50 X2406 X2411 SC18 SC29 SC12 SC3 X2405 SC11 SC17 SC4 SC10 X2403 X2404 Ox88TLfg Shfd020136 Shfd020135 EVA-LUM05/01 EVA-LUM05/02 EVA-LUM05/03 EVA-LUM05/04 EVA-LUM05/05

Industry Aterian Aterian Aterian Aterian Aterian Sterile Sterile Sterile Aterian Aterian Aterian Aterian Aterian Aterian Aterian Aterian Aterian Aterian Aterian Aterian Aterian Aterian Aterian Aterian Aterian Aterian Aterian Aterian Aterian Aterian Aterian Aterian Aterian Aterian Mousterian Mousterian Mousterian Mousterian Mousterian Mousterian Mousterian Mousterian Mousterian Mousterian Mousterian Mousterian Mousterian Mousterian Mousterian Mousterian Mousterian Mousterian Mousterian Mousterian Sterile Sterile Sterile Sterile Sterile Mousterian Mousterian Mousterian Mousterian Mousterian Mousterian Aterian Mousterian Mousterian Mousterian Mousterian Aterian Aterian Aterian Aterian Aterian

Tanged pieces

Context

Technique

Y Y Y Y Y N N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Y N N N N Y Y Y Y Y

5b 6a 6 7b 7b 8 9a 10 11 upper IV-2 IV-2 IV-2 IV-2 IV-2 IV-2 IV-2 IV-2 IV-2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 V-1a V-1a V-1a V-1b V-1b V-2 5a 5a 5a 5a 5a 5a 5a 5b 5b 5b 5c 5c 5c 5c 5c 5c 5c 5c 5c 5c 6a/b 6a/b 6a/b 6a/b 6a/b 6c 6c 6c 6c 6c 6c

SG-OSL SG-OSL SG-OSL SG-OSL SA-OSL SG-OSL SG-OSL SG-OSL SG-OSL SG-OSL SG-OSL SG-OSL TL TL TL TL TL TL SA-OSL SG-OSL SG-OSL SG-OSL SG-OSL SG-OSL SG-OSL SG-OSL SA-OSL SA-OSL ESR (LU) ESR (LU) ESR (LU) ESR (LU) SG-OSL SG-OSL SG-OSL TL TL ESR (RU) ESR (RU) ESR (RU) ESR (RU) SG-OSL TL SA-OSL SG-OSL SG-OSL SG-OSL SG-OSL SG-OSL SG-OSL SG-OSL TL SA-OSL SA-OSL SG-OSL SG-OSL SG-OSL SG-OSL SA-OSL SG-OSL SG-OSL SG-OSL SG-OSL SA-OSL SA-OSL TL ESR/Th/U SA-OSL Th/U SA-OSL TL TL TL TL TL

Irhoud 3 5 3b 2 upper XV XV XV XV XV

Age (ka) 108  7 107  6 112  7 109  7 108  10 117  6 109  6 109  6 108  7 Mixed 96  8 101  9 87  11 87  10 115  11 80  11 85  11 179  14 59  10 92  6 97  7 103  6 105  9 104  7 108  9 117  9 100  8 99  11 109  7 105  11 86  2 94  3 113  7 107  9 118  9 89  16 92  14 117  18 123  9 89  7 115  8 116  8 89  14 106  10 124  9 113  7 114  8 112  7 115  8 115  8 114  8 116  13 105  8 96  14 114  6 109  7 119  8 107  8 100  10 122  9 119  7 120  8 130  9 129  7 122  7 28  3 160  16 168  11 173  10 254  17 114  18 66  6 131  18 80  12 98  15

Reference

Schwenninger et al. (2010); Jacobs et al. (2011); Dibble et al. (2012)

Texier et al. (1988) Smith et al. (2007) Ramos et al. (2008)

Richter et al. (2010)

(continued on next page)

204

H.L. Dibble et al. / Journal of Human Evolution 64 (2013) 194e210

Table 4 (continued ) Site name

Taforalt

Rhafas

Sample code EVA-LUM05/06 EVA-LUM05/07 EVA-LUM05/08 EVA-LUM05/12 EVA-LUM06/18 EVA-LUM05/09 EVA-LUM06/14 EVA-LUM05/10 EVA-LUM05/11 EVA-LUM06/15 EVA-LUM07/04 EVA-LUM07/05 EVA-LUM06/16 EVA-LUM06/17 EVA-LUM05/13 EVA-LUM07/09 EVA-LUM06/22 EVA-LUM06/23 EVA-LUM07/10 EVA-LUM07/11 EVA-LUM07/12 EVA-LUM05/14 EVA-LUM06/27 EVA-LUM06/24 EVA-LUM07/13 EVA-LUM06/25 EVA-LUM07/14 EVA-LUM06/26 EVA-LUM05/15 EVA-LUM06/28 X2637 X1853 X1852 X2638 X2639 X2643 X1854 K0314 X2640 K0315 X2641 X1856 GR57 GR58 GR73 GR74 GR59 GR60 GR61 GR69 GR71 GR72 Sed

Industry

Tanged pieces

Aterian Aterian Aterian Aterian Aterian Mousterian Mousterian Mousterian Mousterian Mousterian Mousterian Mousterian Mousterian Mousterian Aterian Aterian Aterian Aterian Aterian Aterian Aterian Aterian Aterian Mousterian Mousterian Mousterian Mousterian Mousterian Mousterian Mousterian MP MP MP MP Aterian Aterian Aterian Aterian Aterian Aterian MP MP Proto-Aterian Proto-Aterian Proto-Aterian Proto-Aterian Mousterian Mousterian Mousterian Mousterian Mousterian Mousterian Mousterian

Y Y Y Y Y N N N N N N N N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N N N N N N N N N N N Y Y Y Y Y Y N N Y Y Y Y N N N N N N N

Context XV XV XV XV XV XVII XVII XVII XVII XVII XVII XVII XVII XVII XXII XXII XXII XXII XXII XXII XXII XXII XXII XXXI XXXI XXXI XXXI XXXI XXXI XXXI ‘12’-13 13 13-14 14 16-17 18-21

22e-d 26 upper 27 II-3a II-3a II-3a II-3a II-3b II-3b II-3b II-3b II-3b II-3b III-6d

Technique TL TL TL TL TL TL TL TL TL TL TL TL TL TL TL TL TL TL TL TL TL TL TL TL TL TL TL TL TL TL SA-OSL SA-OSL SA-OSL SA-OSL SA-OSL SA-OSL SA-OSL TL SA-OSL TL SA-OSL SA-OSL TL TL TL TL TL TL TL TL TL TL SA-OSL

Age (ka) 78  12 84  12 83  13 82  13 101  16 135  20 143  25 140  25 105  18 150  23 164  26 132  24 110  17 129  23 153  27 150  22 144  24 142  23 250  28 158  28 152  28 161  26 119  19 181  31 340  29 158  23 199  36 185  26 147  24 183  30 51  4 44  4 49  4 55  5 60  4 60  4 74  6 70  3 85  4 109  5 86  8 104  9 73  7 70  7 60  5 76  8 78  12 62  7 62  7 92  10 91  10 85  9 107  12

Reference

Bouzouggar et al. (2007); d’Errico et al. (2009)

Mercier et al. (2007)

For each site, the ages are presented in stratigraphic order and, for each sample, the archaeological industry to which it was assigned (according to the references provided in the last column). In addition, the table indicates whether or not the layer from which each sample was collected contained any tanged pieces. The dating methods used to determine the ages are: thermoluminescence dating (TL) of burnt stones and single-grain (SG) OSL and single aliquot (SA) OSL dating of quartz grains. The electron spin resonance (ESR) ages were obtained on tooth enamel and the single uranium/thorium (U/Th) age on a flowstone. The hash (#) symbol indicates that many of the stratigraphic layers in Dar es-Soltan I were described as ‘sterile’ by Ruhlmann (1951), but Barton et al. (2009) suggested that traces of occupation occurred in some of these and that they discovered tanged pieces in the existing sections of some of these layers. The asterisk (*) symbol denotes layers at El Mnasra previously described as Upper Paleolithic, but which dating suggests must be earlier. These layers have not been excavated by the current excavation team, so it is currently uncertain whether or not tanged pieces are present in these layers. The section (x) sign indicates that for the TL ages obtained for Ifri n’Ammar, only the weighted mean ages of 83  6 ka (Level XV), 130  8 ka (Level XVII), 145  9 ka (Level XXII) and 171  12 ka (Level XXXI) were plotted in Fig. 3 as it is only the weighted mean age that is meaningful for estimation of the age of the heating event.

recent findings cast doubt on earlier 14C-derived chronologies that suggest the Aterian to be a late industry dating to between 40 and 20 ky BP (thousands of years before present) (Texier et al., 1988; Débenath, 1992; Bouzouggar et al., 2002), and support suggestions that the very recent 14C ages are likely the result of various problems associated with the 14C-dated samples (e.g., Wrinn and Rink, 2003; Garcea, 2004; Close, 2009). As a result, we have chosen to focus only on non-14C ages in our assessment of the current status of the chronology of the Aterian and Mousterian in Morocco, but

summary tables that include existing 14C ages can be found in Cremaschi et al. (1998), Bouzouggar et al. (2002), Wrinn and Rink (2003), Close (2009), Richter et al. (2012), and Linstädter et al. (in press). All published numerical ages for sites from Morocco are listed in Table 4 and plotted in Fig. 6a using two categories: ‘with tanged pieces’ (filled circles) and ‘without tanged pieces’ (open circles). We have also made a further (albeit arbitrary) regional discrimination between sites located in the west of Morocco, close to the Atlantic

H.L. Dibble et al. / Journal of Human Evolution 64 (2013) 194e210

205

Figure 6. Scatter plot showing all numerical age estimates and their associated standard errors (at the 68% confidence interval) for all samples from all sites listed in Table 4. The filled circles represent all ages associated with layers in which tanged pieces were found, whereas the open circles represent ages associated with layers in which no tanged pieces were found. The blue circles show the ages for samples from sites in the west of Morocco, whereas the red symbols show the ages for sites from the north of Morocco. bed) The same data as in a), but displayed as radial plots. The symbols and colors are the same as in a). Each age is denoted by a single point on the radial plot. If a straight line is drawn from the zero-value on the left-hand (‘Standardized Estimate’) axis through one of the plotted points, its corresponding age can be read off as the value where the line intersects the curved (radial) axis on the right-hand side. The relative uncertainty on this age can be found by drawing a vertical line from the same plotted point so that it intersects the ‘Precision’ axis. The precision is the reciprocal of the relative standard error (i.e., an error of 5% corresponds to a precision of 20). b) All the ages for samples associated ‘with tanged pieces’ from the west (blue) and north (red) of Morocco. c) Radial plot of all the ages presented in Fig. 3a, and d) same as b) but ages for samples associated with layers ‘without tanged pieces’. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

Ocean (Mugharet el’Aliya, Dar es-Soltan I, El Harhoura 2, El Mnasra, Contrebandiers Cave, Chaperon Rouge I and Jebel Irhoud), and those located in the north, close to the Mediterranean Sea (Benzú, Ifri n’Ammar, Taforalt and Rhafas). Ages for samples from the west are displayed as blue circles, whereas those from sites in the north are displayed as red circles. It is evident from Fig. 6a that deposits with and without tanged pieces show significant scatter within each group, with considerable chronological overlap between the two groups over a long period of time. The overlap holds even between dates generated from the same technique. When taking into account only the point estimates of age, those obtained for deposits ‘with tanged pieces’ in the west extend from w60 to 122 ka (except for one estimate each from Mugharet el’Aliya and Chaperon Rouge that are considerably younger) and, for the equivalent deposits at sites in the north, from w60 to 145 ka (Fig. 6a). For deposits ‘without tanged pieces’ from sites in the west, the ages extend from w50 to 160 ka and for sites in the north from w45 to 255 ka (Fig. 3). This amounts to an overlap between the two types of assemblages of w85 thousand years, between w60 and 145 ka. We have also displayed the ages as radial plots in Fig. 6bed. Fig. 6b and d show the ages for all samples associated ‘with tanged

pieces’ and ‘without tanged pieces’, respectively. Not all of the ages in either group, or for either region within a group, are statistically consistent at the 95% confidence interval. Instead, there appear to be two or more discrete statistical components. For the ‘with tanged pieces’ group, ages cluster between w60 and 80 ka and between w90 and 110 ka (b). For the ‘without tanged pieces’ group, ages appear to cluster between w50 and 70 ka and between w100 and 120 ka, with several older estimates as well (Fig. 6d). The oldest estimates were obtained for the lowermost Maghrebian Mousterian assemblage at Ifri n’Ammar, the single age estimate for Jebel Irhoud and three age estimates for the middle and lower deposits at Benzú rockshelter (Table 4 and Fig. 6). Thus, we observe that the same broad range of ages applies to both groups of artifacts (with and without tanged pieces). Fig. 6c shows all of the ages plotted in Fig. 6b and d and indicates clearly that the distribution of ages currently available does not suggest a distinct chronological break between deposits ‘with’ and ‘without’ tanged pieces, supporting previous analysis of chronometric data from the region (Richter et al., 2010), but see Jacobs et al. (2011) for possible hiatus between the Maghrebian Mousterian and Aterian at Contrebandiers Cave. Similarly, the pattern of ages in Fig. 6c does not support the co-occurrence of these two groups only

206

H.L. Dibble et al. / Journal of Human Evolution 64 (2013) 194e210

in the middle part of the age range. Instead, it hints at the tandem appearance and disappearance of such assemblages as a persistent feature of the Late Pleistocene in Morocco for at least w85 ka, extending from w145 ka. To summarize the relationship between the Aterian and Maghrebian Mousterian, it is undeniable that they overlap in many ways, including typological and technological characteristics of the lithic assemblages and chronology. In other words, these two ‘groups’ occupied the same region, over the same periods of time, and produced lithic assemblages that cannot be distinguished except by the presence of particular tool types that, for historical reasons only, were used to differentiate them in the first place. From a taxonomic point of view, this is not a particularly compelling argument for maintaining a major industrial distinction between them. Of course, to conclude that these two entities are variants of the same industry does not, in itself, offer any explanation as to why stemmed pieces and/or bifacial foliates occur in some assemblages but not in others. There are several possible explanations at different levels of behavioral significance. At one level, it could simply be a matter of sampling: even when they occur they do so in very low frequencies, and thus their presence or absence is essentially a question of probability. In this case, overall sample size may be one factor, but another may be reflected by their spatial distribution within a site and whether or not those areas were excavated. At another level, the presence or absence of these pieces may reflect variability in quality, quantity, and proximity of suitable raw materials, given that they most often are made on finer grained materials. At still another level, they may reflect differences in site use, activity, or local environmental conditions. Clearly it is of interest to explain both their presence and absence, and it is equally clear that much more work needs to be done in this regard (see Iovita, 2011). However, that is a different problem than the question of whether or not they should be used as criteria to distinguish assemblages at the level of distinct industries. For the rest of this paper we will tentatively refer to these two entities together as the Atero-Mousterian. The Atero-Mousterian as Middle Paleolithic or Middle Stone Age As noted above, the use of terms such as Mousterian and Middle Paleolithic for assemblages and industries of North Africa has been historically the prevailing tendency. For example, all early researchers, such as Reygasse (1921e1922), Caton-Thompson (1946), Ruhlmann (1951), Roche (1956, 1969), Tixier (1958e1959), Howe (1967), McBurney (1967), Camps (1974), Ferring (1975), and Clark (1980) chose one or the other of these terms. This continues to be the case in many instances, for example, in Wengler (1997), di Lernia (1999), Van Peer (2001), Bouzouggar et al. (2002), AouadiAbdeljaouad and Belhouchet (2008), and Nespoulet et al. (2008). Notable exceptions include the work of Kleindienst (2001), Hawkins and Kleindienst (2002), Hawkins (2004, 2008, 2012), Garcea (2012), as well as the synthesis by McBrearty and Brooks (2000), in which the term MSA applies to all African assemblages, including those from the Maghreb. Of course, the same issues that concerned us with the relationship between the Atero-Mousterian assemblages discussed earlier continue to be relevant to the higher-order categories of MP and MSA. Because of the history of research in Morocco, which was, and still is, heavily influenced by French systematics (see Holl, 2005), these assemblages became associated with the MP, and, of course, the term ‘Mousterian’ itself strongly implies affinities with industries from western Eurasia that are associated with Neandertals. In our personal estimation, however, and contra Linstädter

et al. (in press), even the Maghrebian Mousterian, without tanged pieces, is unlike the classic Mousterian from France, the Central European Micoquian, the Levantine Mousterian, or the Zagros Mousterian of Turkey, Iraq and Iran. However, there is no consensus on how the MP from western Eurasia is actually defined vis-à-vis their contemporaries in other parts of the Old World. This problem is made worse by the fact that Eurasian and African industries share many of the basic lithic types (scrapers, notched pieces, etc.) and technologies (e.g., Levallois). But within the MP of western Eurasia, most industrial variation is tied to relative percentages of various types, especially scrapers versus notched pieces, or different technologies of blank production, since most types and technologies are present, though in varying percentages, in all assemblages (Dibble and Rolland, 1992; see also; Dibble and Mellars, 1992). At the same time, the MSA (Goodwin and Van Riet Lowe, 1929) is also not a single entity, but rather represents a series of both timeordered and regionally-restricted industries, for example, the Still Bay (e.g., Wadley, 2007; Villa et al., 2009), Howiesons Poort (Singer and Wymer, 1982), and others (Lombard et al., 2012) of southern Africa, and the Nubian (Wendorf and Schild, 1976; Wendorf et al., 1993; Van Peer, 1998; Vermeersch, 2000; Chiotti et al., 2009; Olszewski et al., 2010a, b), Aduma (Yellen et al., 2005), Lupemban (McBrearty, 1988), and others from East Africa. Most of these industries contain varying frequencies of Levallois, or prepared core, techniques, though blade/bladelet production can be seen in some of them (Soriano et al., 2007). What is most striking about some of these MSA industries is, however, that they are often defined on the basis of diagnostic features, such as points, backed pieces, foliate points, geometric shapes, or bladelets that suggest specific, and at times innovative, adaptations to particular circumstances. The tanged pieces and bifacial foliates that occur in the AteroMousterian likewise represent distinctive artifacts characteristic of North Africa. For the most part, it has been the stone artifacts that have been used as the principal criteria for classifying assemblages into one or the other of these sets of terms. But beyond the lithic evidence are the potentially symbolic behaviors in the MSA as suggested by the perforated Nassarius shells, engraved ochre and ostrich eggshells, the unequivocal use of ochre, compound adhesives, bone tools, etc. (e.g., Henshilwood et al., 2001, 2004, 2009; d’Errico et al., 2005, 2009; Bouzouggar et al., 2007; d’Errico and Henshilwood, 2007; Wadley, 2007; Backwell et al., 2008). The Atero-Mousterian assemblages include some of these features as well, including Nassarius shells, such as those found at Oued Djebbana, Ifri n’Ammar, Rhafas, Taforalt, and Contrebandiers Cave (Vanhaeren et al., 2006; Bouzouggar et al., 2007; d’Errico et al., 2009; Nami and Moser, 2010; Dibble et al., 2012). When the characterization of the Atero-Mousterian is broadened beyond the lithic artifacts to include these other traits, and given that the tanged pieces themselves represent a distinct and innovative technological feature, the overall nature of the Atero-Mousterian fits well into the kinds of variability seen in other MSA industries of East and southern Africa. Again, and admittedly, these arguments are not sufficient to prove that the Atero-Mousterian is not MP or that it is part of the MSA. Both of these higher-level groups are themselves poorly defined, and each encompasses a tremendous amount of variability. Nonetheless, other than historical precedence, in our view there is no reason to continue to refer to these assemblages as MP and so we suggest instead considering them as a Maghrebian variant of the MSA. It was perhaps more difficult to envisage and argue this when it was thought that Aterian assemblages were only 20e 40 thousand years in age. The new dating of Atero-Mousterian sites, which has pushed them back substantially in time, now shows them to fully overlap chronologically with other sub-Saharan MSA assemblages. But given the overall level of similarity to other MSA

H.L. Dibble et al. / Journal of Human Evolution 64 (2013) 194e210

assemblages, and given their association with modern H. sapiens, the suggestion that they are part of the pan-African MSA represents a hypothesis that should be discussed and tested further. There remains a strong possibility that such an attribution might not be valid for earlier industries from Morocco (i.e., those dating prior to 160 ka, such as at Benzú and Jebel Irhoud; Fig. 6 and Table 4), which in many ways do appear to resemble more closely other MP assemblages from Europe and the Near East. Likewise, examination by one of us (HLD) of early MSA assemblages from Cave of Hearths and Bushman’s Rockshelter in South Africa suggests that these two assemblages are much more MP-like than later lithic assemblages from Pinnacle Point, Sibudu or Rose Cottage Cave. While tentative, this might suggest that earlier industries from Africa are more similar to non-African western Eurasian industries, perhaps reflecting typological and technological traits in use at the time of earlier diasporas from the African continent. At some later point in time, perhaps in conjunction with, or shortly after the emergence of fully modern H. sapiens (<160 ka), the later MSA, with its many regional and chronological variants, begins. Conclusions Given the importance of the North African evidence relating to the emergence of biologically and behaviorally modern H. sapiens, there is a clear need to understand better the relationships among the various assemblages found there. Traditionally, these assemblages are attributed to either the Aterian or Mousterian/Middle Paleolithic, with the distinction between them based entirely on the presence or absence of particular types of lithic artifacts, primarily tanged pieces. What we have shown here is that in every other respect, including time, the two entities completely overlap. While there may be those who wish to continue to treat Aterian and Maghebian Mousterian as two distinct entities, or to follow Tixier’s (1967) classification of Aterian as a facies within the Mousterian, in our view, the Aterian should no more be viewed as a type of Mousterian with tanged pieces than the Maghrebian Mousterian should be considered as a type of Aterian without those elements. Rather than using these specific types to classify assemblages into one or another industry, it would be more useful to focus on explaining the significance of the presence or absence of these particular types in terms of how they functioned in the overall adaptation of the hominins to the conditions of early Late Pleistocene of North Africa (see Iovita, 2011; Sisk and Shea, 2011; but also; Hawkins, 2012). At any rate, continuing to use the terms Mousterian (with or without modifiers) and MP only serves to confuse larger issues, especially when the goal is to characterize, and then interpret, various assemblage groups. While the Atero-Mousterian of the Maghreb certainly shares some features with the MP of western Eurasia, such as Levallois, scrapers, denticulates, etc., these features occur in the MSA as well. At the same time, the Atero-Mousterian exhibits other features, such as tanged pieces, bifacial foliates, that clearly are not representative of the larger western Eurasian MP prior to 50 ka. Clearly, the possible association between one industrial complex associated with emerging modern humans (MSA) and the other with Neandertals (MP) is of considerable value in comparing the behavior of these early hominins. This is why an accurate attribution of the Atero-Mousterian to the MSA is important. There is much more to be done in interpreting the variability that is apparent among these Late Pleistocene assemblages of the Maghreb. It quite possibly has to do with issues of sampling, raw material, site use, local environmental conditions during the time of occupation, and/or variations in mobility patterns. But the important point is that the variability observed among these

207

assemblages does not likely represent distinct hominin groups, but rather is a reflection of a broad and varying adaptation that is associated with the emerging populations of H. sapiens in this area. A better understanding of the behavioral processes that underlie the archaeological variability in the early Late Pleistocene Maghreb will allow more informative discussions about the relationship between these assemblages and other MSA assemblages to the south. There is no doubt that paleoanthropology is increasingly moving beyond simple classification for its own sake, and instead is focusing more on interpreting assemblage variability in terms of adaptation and behavior. However, problems of systematics, which often reflect the state of knowledge going back many decades, will continue to cloud the issues and make this task much more difficult. At some point it will become imperative to make explicit and justify exactly how our industrial classifications are made. Until these issues are resolved, the views presented here will remain only as working hypotheses that should be subjected to further testing and evaluation. Acknowledgments The authors thank Kathleen Kuman, Curtis Marean, and Lyn Wadley for their hospitality, access to collections, and, along with Shannon McPherron and Roland Nespoulet, discussion of the topics raised in this paper. The project at Contrebandiers Cave is a joint Moroccan-American project under the auspices of the Moroccan Institut National des Sciences de l’Archéologie et du Patrimoine. The majority of this research was funded by the Australian Research Council through Discovery Project grants DP0666084 to Jacobs and DP1092843 to Jacobs and Dibble and by the National Science Foundation (0935491), with other contributions from the Leakey Foundation, the National Geographic Society, NSF, and the University Research Foundation of the University of Pennsylvania. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. References Antoine, M., 1950. L’Atérien du Maroc atlantique, sa place dans la chronologie NordAfricaine. Bull. Soc. Préhist. Maroc. 1, 5e47. Aouadi-Abdeljaouad, N., Belhouchet, L., 2008. Recent prehistoric field research in Central Tunisia: prehistoric occupations in the Meknassy Basin. Afr. Archaeol. Rev. 25, 75e85. Arambourg, C., Balout, L., 1955. L’ancien lac de Tihodaïne et ses gisement préhistoriques. In: Balout, L. (Ed.), Congrès Panafricain de Préhistoire, Alger. Actes de la IIe session. Arts et Métiers Graphiques, Paris, pp. 281e293. Backwell, L., d’Errico, F., Wadley, L., 2008. Middle Stone Age bone tools from the Howiesons Poort layers, Sibudu Cave, South Africa. J. Archaeol. Sci. 35, 1566e 1580. Barich, B.E., Garcea, E.A.A., 2008. Ecological patterns in the Upper Pleistocene and Holocene in the Jebel Gharbi, Northern Libya: chronology, climate and human occupation. Afr. Archaeol. Rev. 25, 87e97. Barich, B.E., Garcea, E.A.A., Giraudi, C., 2006. Between the Mediterranean and the Sahara. Geoarchaeological reconnaissance in the Jebel Gharbi, Libya. Antiquity 80, 567e582. Barton, R.N.E., Bouzouggar, A., Stringer, C.B., 2001. Bridging the gap: new fieldwork on northern Morocco. Antiquity 75, 489e490. Barton, R.N.E., Bouzouggar, A., Collcutt, S.N., Schwenninger, J.-L., Clark-Balzan, L., 2009. OSL dating of the Aterian levels at Dar es-Soltan I (Rabat, Morocco) and implications for the dispersal of modern Homo sapiens. Quatern. Sci. Rev. 28, 1914e1931. Binford, L.R., 1973. Interassemblage variability: the Mousterian and the ‘functional’ argument. In: Renfrew, C. (Ed.), The Explanation of Culture Change. Duckworth, London, pp. 227e254. Binford, L.R., Binford, S.R., 1966. A preliminary analysis of functional variability in the Mousterian of Levallois facies. Am. Anthropol. 68, 238e295. Bordes, F., 1961. Mousterian cultures in France. Science 134, 803e810. Bordes, F., 1976e1977. Moustérien et Atérien. Quaternaria 19, 19e34. Bouzouggar, A., 1997. Économie des matières premières et du débitage dans la séquence atérienne de la Grotte d’El Mnasra I (ancienne grotte des Contrebandiers - Maroc). Préhist. Anthropol. Méditerr. 6, 35e52.

208

H.L. Dibble et al. / Journal of Human Evolution 64 (2013) 194e210

Bouzouggar, A., Barton, N., 2012. The identity and timing of the Aterian in Morocco. In: Hublin, J.-J., McPherron, S.P. (Eds.), Modern Origins: A North African Perspective. Springer, New York, pp. 93e105. Bouzouggar, A., Kozlowski, J.K., Otte, M., 2002. Étude des ensembles lithiques atériens de la grotte d’El Aliya à Tanger (Maroc). L’Anthropologie 106, 207e248. Bouzouggar, A., Barton, N., Vanhaeren, M., d’Errico, F., Collcutt, S., Higham, T., Hodge, E., Parfitt, S., Rhodes, E., Schwenninger, J.-L., Stringer, C., Turner, E., Ward, S., Moutmir, A., Stambouli, A., 2007. 82,000-year-old shell beads from North Africa and implications for the origins of modern human behavior. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 104, 9964e9969. Brown, K.S., Marean, C.W., Herries, A., Jacobs, Z., Tribolo, C., Braun, D., Roberts, D.L., Meyer, M.C., Bernatchez, J., 2009. Fire as an engineering tool of early modern humans. Science 325, 859e862. Cadenat, P., 1953. Une nouvelle station atérienne au Koudiat Bou Gherara (commune mixte de Tiaret). Libyca 1, 55e86. Camps, G., 1974. Les Civilisations Préhistoriques de l’Afrique du Nord et du Sahara. Doin, Paris. Carrière, G., 1886. Quelques stations préhistoriques de la province d’Oran. Bull. Soc. Géogr. Archeol. Province d’Oran 6, 136e154. Caton-Thompson, G., 1946. The Aterian industry: its place and significance in the Palaeolithic world. J.R. Anthropol. Inst. 76, 87e130. Caton-Thompson, G., 1952. Kharga Oasis in Prehistory. Athlone Press, London. Chavaillon, N., 1971. L’Atérien de la Zaouia el Kebira au Sahara Nord-occidental (République algérienne). Libyca 19, 9e51. Chavaillon, N., 1973. L’Atérien de Hassi-Ouchtat dans le Monts d’Ougarta. Libyca 21, 91e138. Chiotti, L., Dibble, H.L., McPherron, S.P., Olszewski, D.I., Schurmans, U.A., 2009. Prospections sur les plateaux désertiques du désert libyque égyptien (Abydos, Moyenne Égypte). Quelques exemples de technologies lithiques. L’Anthropologie 113, 341e355. Clark, J.D., 1980. Human populations and cultural adaptations in the Sahara and Nile during prehistoric times. In: Williams, M.A.J., Faure, H. (Eds.), The Sahara and the Nile. Quaternary Environments and Prehistoric Occupation in Northern Africa. AA Balkema, Rotterdam, pp. 527e582. Clark, J.D., 1993. The Aterian of the Central Sahara. In: Krzyzaniak, L., Kobusiewicz, M., Alexander, J. (Eds.), Environmental Change and Human Culture in the Nile Basin and Northern Africa Until the Second Millennium B.C. Poznan Archaeological Museum, Poznan, pp. 49e68. Close, A.E., 2009. The Middle-Upper Palaeolithic hiatus of insular North Africa. In: Camps, M., Szmidt, C. (Eds.), The Mediterranean From 50,000 to 25,000 BP: Turning Points and New Directions. Oxbow Books, Oxford, pp. 35e50. Cremaschi, M., di Lernia, S., Garcea, E.A.A., 1998. Some insights on the Aterian in the Libyan Sahara: chronology, environment, and archaeology. Afr. Archaeol. Rev. 15, 261e286. d’Errico, F., Henshilwood, C.S., 2007. Additional evidence for bone technology in the southern African Middle Stone Age. J. Hum. Evol. 52, 142e163. d’Errico, F., Henshilwood, C.S., Vanhaeren, M., van Niekerk, K., 2005. Nassarius kraussianus shell beads from Blombos Cave: evidence for symbolic behavior in the Middle Stone Age. J. Hum. Evol. 48, 3e24. d’Errico, F., Vanhaeren, M., Barton, N., Bouzouggar, A., Mienis, H., Richter, D., Hublin, J.-J., McPherron, S.P., Lozouet, P., 2009. Out of Africa: modern human origins special feature: additional evidence on the use of personal ornaments in the Middle Paleolithic of North Africa. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 106, 16051e16056. Daniel, G.E., 1975. A Hundred and Fifty Years of Archaeology. Duckworth, London. de Heinzelin, J., Haesaerts, P., van Noten, F., 1969. Géologie récente et préhistoire au Jebel Uweinat. Africa-tervuren 15, 120e125. Debénath, A., 1976. Le site de Dar-es-Soltane 2, á Rabat (Maroc). Bull. Mém. Soc. Anthropol. Paris 3, 181e182. Débenath, A., 1992. Hommes et cultures matérielles de l’Atérien Marocain. L’Anthropologie 96, 711e720. Debénath, A., 2000. Le peuplement préhistorique du Maroc: données récentes et problèmes. L’Anthropologie 104, 131e145. Debénath, A., Dibble, H.L., 1994. Handbook of Paleolithic Typology: Lower and Middle Paleolithic of Europe. University Museum Press, Philadelphia. Debénath, A., Raynal, J.-P., Roche, J., Texier, J.-P., Ferembach, D., 1986. Stratigraphie, habitat, typologie et devenir de l’Atérien marocain: données récentes. L’Anthropologie 90, 233e246. di Lernia, S., 1999. The cultural sequence. In: di Lernia, S. (Ed.), The Uan Afuda Cave. Hunter-gatherer Societies of Central Sahara. All’Insegna del Giglio, Firenze, pp. 57e130. Dibble, H.L., 1995. Middle Paleolithic scraper reduction: background, clarification, and review of the evidence to date. J. Archaeol. Method Th. 2, 299e368. Dibble, H.L., Bar-Yosef, O. (Eds.), 1995. The Definition and Interpretation of Levallois Technology. Prehistory Press, Wisconsin. Dibble, H.L., Mellars, P.A. (Eds.), 1992. The Middle Paleolithic: Adaptation, Behavior, and Variability. University Museum Monograph 72. University Museum Press, Philadelphia. Dibble, H.L., Rolland, N., 1992. On assemblage variability in the Middle Paleolithic of Western Europe: history, perspectives, and a new synthesis. In: Dibble, H.L., Mellars, P.A. (Eds.), The Middle Paleolithic: Adaptation, Behavior, and Variability. University Museum Monograph 72. University Museum Press, Philadelphia, pp. 1e28. Dibble, H.L., Aldeias, V., Alvarez-Fernández, E., Blackwell, B., Hallett-Desguez, E., Jacobs, Z., Goldberg, P., Lin, S.C., Morala, A., Meyer, M.C., Olzsewski, D.I., Reed, K., Reed, D., Rezek, Z., Richter, D., Roberts, R.G., Sandgathe, D., Schurmans, U.,

Skinner, A.R., Steele, T.E., El-Hajraoui, M., 2012. New excavations at the site of Contrebandiers Cave, Morocco. Paleoanthropology, 145e201. Ferembach, D., 1976. Les restes humain Atériens de Témara (Campagne 975). Bull. Mém. Soc. Anthropol. Paris 13, 175e180. Ferembach, D., 1985. On the origin of the Iberomaurusians (Upper Palaeolithic: North Africa). A new hypothesis. J. Hum. Evol. 14, 393e397. Ferembach, D., 1998. Le crâne Atérien de Témara (Maroc Atlantique). Bull. Archéol. Maroc. 18, 19e66. Ferring, C.R., 1975. The Aterian in North African prehistory. In: Wendorf, F., Marks, A.E. (Eds.), Problems in Prehistory: North Africa and the Levant. Southern Methodist University Press, Dallas, pp. 113e126. Ford, J.A., 1954. On the concept of types. Am. Anthropol. 56, 42e57. Garcea, E.A.A., 1998. Aterian and ‘Early’ and ‘Late Acacus’ from the Uan Tabu rockshelter, Tadrart Acacus (Libyan Sahara). In: Cremaschi, M., di Lernia, S. (Eds.), Wadi Teshuninat. Palaeoenvironment and Prehistory in South-western Fezzan (Libyan Sahara). All’Insegna del Giglio, Firenze, pp. 155e181. Garcea, E.A.A., 2001. A reconsideration of the Middle Paleolithic/Middle Stone Age in northern Africa after the evidence from the Libyan Sahara. In: Garcea, E.A.A. (Ed.), Uan Tabu in the Settlement History of the Lybian Sahara. Edizioni all’insegna del giglio, Firenze, pp. 25e49. Garcea, E.A.A., 2004. Crossing deserts and avoiding seas: Aterian North AfricanEuropean relations. J. Anthropol. Res. 60, 27e53. Garcea, E.A.A., Giraudi, C., 2006. Late Quaternary human settlement patterning in the Jebel Gharbi. J. Hum. Evol. 51, 411e421. Garcea, E.A.A., 2012. Successes and failures of human dispersal from North Africa. Quatern. Int. 270, 119e128. Goodwin, A.J.H., Van Riet Lowe, C., 1929. The stone age cultures of South Africa. Annls. S. Afr. Mus. 27, 1e289. Gruet, M., 1958e1959. Le gisement d’El Guettar et sa flore. Libyca 6e7, 79e126. Haour, A.C., 2003. One hundred years of archaeology in Niger. J. World Prehist. 17, 181e234. Hawkins, A.L., 2004. A model for Aterian usage of Dakhleh Oasis and the surrounding area. In: Conard, N. (Ed.), Settlement Dynamics of the Middle Paleolithic and Middle Stone Age II. Kerns Verlag, Tübingen, pp. 37e64. Hawkins, A.L., 2008. Preliminary report on the Aterian at Dakhleh Oasis, western desert of Egypt. In: Wiseman, M.F. (Ed.), The Oasis Papers 2: Proceedings of the Second International Conference of the Dakhleh Oasis Project. Oxbow Books, Oxford, pp. 73e82. Hawkins, A.L., 2012. The Aterian of the oases of the western desert of Egypt: adaptation to changing climatic conditions? In: Hublin, J.-J., McPherron, S.P. (Eds.), Modern Origins: A North African Perspective. Springer, New York, pp. 157e175. Hawkins, A.L., Kleindienst, M.R., 2002. Lithic raw material usages during the Middle Stone Age at Dakhleh Oasis, Egypt. Geoarchaeology 17, 601e624. Henshilwood, C.S., d’Errico, F., Marean, C.W., Milo, R.G., Yates, R., 2001. An early bone tool industry from the Middle Stone Age at Blombos Cave, South Africa: implications for the origins of modern human behaviour, symbolism and language. J. Hum. Evol. 41, 631e678. Henshilwood, C.S., d’Errico, F., Yates, R., Jacobs, Z., Tribolo, C., Duller, G.A.T., Mercier, N., Sealy, J.C., Valladas, H., Watts, I., White, A.G., 2002. Emergence of modern human behavior: Middle Stone Age engravings from South Africa. Science 298, 1278e1280. Henshilwood, C.S., d’Errico, F., Vanhaeren, M., van Niekerk, K., Jacobs, Z., 2004. Middle Stone Age shell beads from South Africa. Science 304, 404. Henshilwood, C.S., d’Errico, F., Watts, I., 2009. Engraved ochres from the Middle Stone Age levels at Blombos Cave, South Africa. J. Hum. Evol. 57, 27e47. Henshilwood, C.S., d’Errico, F., van Niekerk, K.L., Coquinot, Y., Jacobs, Z., Lauritzen, S.-E., Menu, M., García-Moreno, R., 2011. A 100,000-year-old ochreprocessing workshop at Blombos Cave, South Africa. Science 334, 219e222. Holl, A.F.C., 2005. Brève histoire d’un concept: le débat Atérien. Sahara 16, 7e26. Horai, S., Hayasaka, K., Kondo, R., Tsugane, K., Takahata, N., 1995. Recent African origin of modern humans revealed by complete sequences of hominoid mitochondrial DNAs. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 92, 532e536. Howe, B., 1967. The Palaeolithic of Tangier, Morocco. Excavations at Cape Ashlar. 1939e1947. American School of Prehistoric Research, Cambridge. Bulletin 22. Peabody Museum. Hublin, J.-J., 1992. Recent human evolution in northwestern Africa. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 337, 185e191. Hublin, J.-J., 2001. Northwestern African Middle Pleistocene hominids and their bearing on the emergence of Homo sapiens. In: Barham, L., Robson-Brown, K. (Eds.), Human Roots. Africa and Asia in the Middle Pleistocene. Western Academic & Specialist Press, Bristol, pp. 99e122. Hublin, J.-J., McPherron, S.P. (Eds.), 2012. Modern Origins: A North African Perspective. Springer, Dordrecht. Hublin, J.-J., Tillier, A.M., 1981. The Mousterian juvenile mandible from Jebel Irhoud (Morocco): a phylogenetic interpretation. In: Stringer, C.B. (Ed.), Aspects of Human Evolution. Taylor and Francis, London, pp. 167e185. Iovita, R., 2011. Shape variation in Aterian tanged tools and the origins of projectile technology: a morphometric perspective on stone tool function. Plos One 6, e29029. Jacobs, Z., Roberts, R.G., Galbraith, R.F., Deacon, H.J., Grün, H.J., Mackay, A., Mitchell, P., Vogelsang, R., Wadley, L., 2008. Ages for the Middle Stone Age of southern Africa: implications for human behavior and dispersal. Science 322, 733e735. Jacobs, Z., Meyer, M.C., Roberts, R.G., Aldeias, V., Dibble, H.L., El Hajraoui, M.A., 2011. Single-grain OSL dating at La Grotte des Contrebandiers (‘Smugglers’ Cave’),

H.L. Dibble et al. / Journal of Human Evolution 64 (2013) 194e210 Morocco: improved age constraints for the Middle Palaeolithic levels. J. Archaeol. Sci. 38, 3631e3643. Jacobs, Z., Roberts, R.G., Nespoulet, R., El Hajraoui, M.A., Debénath, A., 2012. Singlegrain OSL chronologies for Middle Palaeolithic deposits at El Mnasra and El Harhoura 2, Morocco: implications for Late Pleistocene human-environment interactions along the Atlantic coast of Northwest Africa. J. Hum. Evol. 62, 377e394. Kleindienst, M.R., 1999. Pleistocene archaeology and geoarchaeology of the Dakhleh Oasis: a status report. In: Churcher, C.S., Mills, A.J. (Eds.), Reports from the Survey of the Dakhleh Oasis, Western Desert of Egypt. 1977e1987. Oxbow Books, Oxford, pp. 83e107. Kleindienst, M.R., 2001. What is the Aterian? The view from Dakhleh Oasis and the western desert, Egypt. In: Marlow, C.A., Mills, A.J. (Eds.), The Oasis Papers 1: The Proceedings of the First Conference of the Dakhleh Oasis Project. Oxbow Books, Oxford, pp. 1e14. Lartet, L., Christy, H., 1864. Cavernes du Périgord. Objets Gravés et Sculptés des Temps Préhistoriques dans l’Europe Occidentale. Extrait de la Revue Archéologique. Didier et Cie, Paris. Linstädter, J., Eiwanger, J., Mikdad, A., Weniger, G.C. Human occupation of Northwest Africa: a review of Middle Palaeolithic to Epipalaeolithic sites in Morocco. Quatern. Int., in press. Liu, T., Broecker, W.S., 2000. How fast does rock varnish grow? Geology 28, 183e186. Lombard, M., Wadley, L., Deacon, J., Wurz, S., Parsons, I., Mohapi, M., Swart, J., Mitchell, P., 2012. South African and Lesotho Stone Age sequence updated (I). S. Afr. Archaeol. Bull. 67, 123e144. Mackay, A., Welz, A., 2008. Engraved ochre from a Middle Stone Age context at Klein Kliphuis in the Western Cape of South Africa. J. Archaeol. Sci. 35, 1521e1532. Marean, C.W., Assefa, Z., 2005. The Middle and Upper Pleistocene African record for biological and behavioral origins of modern humans. In: Stahl, A.M. (Ed.), African Archaeology. A Critical Introduction. Blackwell, New York, pp. 93e129. Marean, C.W., Bar-Matthews, M., Bernatchez, J., Fisher, E., Goldberg, P., Herries, A.I.R., Jacobs, Z., Jerardino, A., Karkanas, P., Minichillo, T., Nilssen, P.J., Thompson, E., Watts, I., Williams, H.W., 2007. Early human use of marine resources and pigment in South Africa during the Middle Pleistocene. Nature 449, 905e908. McBrearty, S., 1988. The Sangoan-Lupemban and Middle Stone Age sequence at the Muguruk site, Western Kenya. World Archaeol 19, 388e420. McBrearty, S., Brooks, A.S., 2000. The revolution that wasn’t: a new interpretation of the origin of modern human behavior. J. Hum. Evol. 39, 453e563. McBurney, C.B.M., 1967. The Haua Fteah (Cyrenaica) and the Stone Age of the SouthEast Mediterranean. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. McBurney, C.B.M., 1975. Current status of the Lower and Middle Palaeolithic of the entire region from the Levant through North Africa. In: Wendorf, F., Marks, A.E. (Eds.), Problems in Prehistory: North Africa and the Levant. Southern Methodist University Press, Dallas, pp. 411e423. McDougall, I., Brown, F.H., Fleagle, J.G., 2005. Stratigraphic placement and age of modern humans from Kibish, Ethiopia. Nature 433, 733e736. Mellars, P.A., 1965. Sequence and development of Mousterian traditions in southwestern France. Nature 205, 626e627. Ménard, J., 1998. Odontologie des dents de la grotte de Temara (Maroc). Bull. Archéol. Maroc. 18, 67e97. Mercier, N., Wengler, L., Valladas, H., Joron, J.-L., Froget, L., Reyss, J.-L., 2007. The Rhafas Cave (Morocco): chronology of the Mousterian and Aterian archaeological occupations and their implications for quaternary geochronology based on luminescence (TL/OSL) age determinations. Quatern. Geochronol. 2, 309e313. Minugh-Purvis, N., 1993. Re-examination of the immature hominid maxilla from Tangier, Morocco. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 92, 449e461. Morel, J., 1974. La station eponyme de l’Oued Djebbana a Bir el-Ater (Est Algérien). L’Anthropologie 78, 53e80. Morel, J., 1978. L’industrie atérienne de l’Oued Djouf El Djemel. Comparaison avec l‘industrie de l’Oued Djebbana. Le complexe atérien du Maghreb Oriental. Bull. Soc. Prehist. Fr. 75, 487e500. Nami, M., Moser, J., 2010. La Hrotte d’Ifri n’Ammar; Tome 2: Le Paléolithique Moyen. Forschungen zur Archäologie Außereuropäischer Kulturen (FAAK), vol. 9. Reichert Verlag, Wiesbaden. Nespoulet, R., El Hajraoui, M.A., Amani, F., Ben-Ncer, A., Débenath, A., El Idrissi, A., Lacombe, J.P., Michel, P., Oujaa, A., Stoetzel, E., 2008. Palaeolithic and Neolithic occupations in the Témara Region (Rabat, Morocco): recent data on hominin contexts and behavior. Afr. Archaeol. Rev. 25, 21e39. Olszewski, D.I., Dibble, H.L., 1994. The Zagros Aurignacian. Curr. Anthropol. 35, 68e 75. Olszewski, D.I., Dibble, H.L., McPherron, S.P., Schurmans, U.A., Chiotti, L., Smith, J.R., 2010a. Nubian complex strategies in the Egyptian high desert. J. Hum. Evol. 59, 188e201. Olszewski, D.I., Dibble, H.L., Schurmans, U.A., McPherron, S.P., Chiotti, L., Smith, J.R., 2010b. Middle Paleolithic settlement systems: theoretical and modeling frameworks using high desert survey data from Abydos, Egypt. In: Conard, N. (Ed.), Settlement Dynamics of the Middle Paleolithic and Middle Stone Age III. Kerns Verlag, Tübingen, pp. 81e101. Parkington, J.E., Poggenpoel, C., Rigaud, J.-P., Texier, P.-J., 2005. From tool to symbol: the behavioural context of intentionally marked ostrich eggshell from Diepkloof, Western Cape. In: d’Errico, F., Backwell, L. (Eds.), From Tools to Symbols: From Early Hominids to Modern Humans. Witwatersrand University Press, Johannesburg, pp. 475e492. Pasty, J.-F., 1999. Contribution à l’Étude de l’Atérien du Nord Mauritanien. British Archaeological Reports International Series 758. J & E Hedges, Oxford.

209

Ramenofsky, A.F., Steffen, A. (Eds.), 1998. Unit Issues in Archaeology: Measuring Time, Space, and Material. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Ramos, J., Bernal, D., Domínguez-Bella, S., Calado, D., Ruiz, B., Gil, M.J., Clemente, I., Durán, J.J., Vijande, E., Chamorro, S., 2008. The Benzú rockshelter: a Middle Palaeolithic site on the North African coast. Quatern. Sci. Rev. 27, 2210e2218. Reygasse, M., 1921. Etudes de palethnologie Maghrébine (deuxième série). In: Recueil des Notices et Mémoires de la Société Archéologique, vol. 53. Historique et Géographique du Département de Constantine, pp. 159e204. Richter, D., Moser, J., Nami, M., Eiwanger, J., Mikdad, A., 2010. New chronometric data from Ifri n’Ammar (Morocco) and the chronostratigraphy of the Middle Palaeolithic in the Western Maghreb. J. Hum. Evol. 59, 672e679. Richter, D., Moser, J., Nami, M., 2012. New data from the site of Ifri n’Ammar (Morocco) and some remarks on the chronometric status of the Middle Paleolithic in the Maghreb. In: Hublin, J.-J., McPherron, S.P. (Eds.), Modern Origins: A North African Perspective. Springer, New York, pp. 61e78. Roche, J., 1956. Étude sur l’industrie de la Grotte de Dar-es-Soltan. Bull. Archéol. Maroc. 1, 93e118. Roche, J., 1967. L’Atérien de la grotte de Taforalt (Maroc oriental). Bull. Archéol. Maroc. 7, 11e56. Roche, J., 1969. Les industries paléolithiques de la grotte de Taforalt (Maroc oriental). Quaternaria 11, 89e100. Roche, J., 1976. Chronostratigraphie des restes Atériens de la Grotte des Contrebandiers a Témara (Province de Rabat). Bull. Mém. Soc. Anthropol. Paris 13, 165e173. Roche, J., Texier, J.-P., 1976. Paléontologie humaine. Décourverte de restes humains dans un niveau atérien supérieur de la grotte des Contrebandiers, á Témara (Maroc). C.R. Acad. Sci. Paris 282, 45e47. Rolland, N., Dibble, H.L., 1990. A new synthesis of Middle Paleolithic variability. Am. Antiquity 55, 480e499. Ruhlmann, A., 1951. La Grotte Préhistorique de Dar es-Soltan. Institut des hautes Études Marocaines, Larose, Paris. Collection Hespéris No. 11. Saban, R., 1998. Les vaisseaux méningés de l’homme de Témara (Maroc Atlantique). Bull. Archéol. Maroc. 18, 99e107. Schwenninger, J.-L., Colcutt, S.N., Barton, R.N.E., Bouzouggar, A., Clark-Balzan, L., El Hajraoui, M.A., Nespoulet, R., Debénath, A., 2010. Luminescence chronology for Aterian cave sites on the Atlantic coast of Morocco. In: Garcea, E.A.A. (Ed.), South-eastern Mediterranean Peoples Between 130,000 and 10,000 Years Ago. Oxbow Books, Oxford, pp. 19e37. Simpson, G.G., 1961. Principles of Animal Taxonomy. Columbia University Press, New York. Singer, R., Wymer, J., 1982. The Middle Stone Age at Klasies River Mouth in South Africa. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Sisk, M.L., Shea, J.J., 2011. The African origin of complex projectile technology: an analysis using tip cross-sectional area and perimeter. Int. J. Evol. Biol. http:// dx.doi.org/10.4061/2011/968012. Smith, T.M., Tafforeau, P.T., Reid, D.J., Grün, R., Eggins, S., Boutakiout, M., Hublin, J.-J., 2007. Earliest evidence of modern human life history in North African early Homo sapiens. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 104, 6128e6133. Soriano, S., Villa, P., Wadley, L., 2007. Blade technology and tool forms in the Middle Stone Age of South Africa: the Howiesons Poort and post-Howiesons Poort at Rose Cottage Cave. J. Archaeol. Sci. 34, 681e703. Texier, J.-P., 1985e1986. Le site Aterien du Chaperon-Rouge I (Maroc) et son context géologique. Bull. Archéol. Maroc. 16, 27e73. Texier, J.-P., Huxtable, J., Rhodes, E.J., Miallier, D., Ousmoi, M., 1988. Nouvelles données sur la situation chronologique de l’Atérien du Maroc et leurs implications. C.R. Acad. Sci. Paris 307, 827e832. Texier, P.-J., Porraz, G., Parkington, J.E., Rigaud, J.-P., Poggenpoel, C., Miller, C., Tribolo, C., Cartwright, C., Coudenneau, A., Klein, R., Steele, T., Verna, C., 2010. A Howiesons Poort tradition of engraving ostrich eggshell containers dated to 60,000 years ago at Diepkloof Rock Shelter, South Africa. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 107, 6180e6185. Tillet, T., 1985. The Palaeolithic and its environment in the northern part of the Chad basin. Afr. Archaeol. Rev. 3, 163e177. Tixier, J., 1958e1959. Les industries lithiques d’Aïn Fritissa (Maroc). Bull. Archéol. Maroc. 3, 107e244. Tixier, J., 1967. Procédés d‘analyse et questions de terminologie concernant l‘étude des ensembles industriels du Paléolithique récent et de l’Epipaléolithique dans l‘Afrique du Nord-Ouest. In: Bishop, N.W., Clark, J.D. (Eds.), Background to Evolution in Africa. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 771e820. Tribolo, C., Mercier, N., Selo, M., Valladas, H., Joron, J.-L., Reyss, J.-L., Henshilwood, C.S., Sealy, J., Yates, R., 2006. TL dating of burnt lithics from Blombos Cave (South Africa): further evidence for the antiquity of modern human behavior. Archaeometry 48, 341e357. Tribolo, C., Mercier, N., Valladas, H., Joron, J.-L., Guibert, P., Lefrais, Y., Selo, M., Texier, P.-J., Rigaud, J.-Ph., Porraz, G., Poggenpoel, C., Parkington, J., Texier, J.-P., Lenoble, A., 2009. Thermoluminescence dating of a Stillbay-Howiesons Poort sequence at Diepkloof Rock Shelter (Western Cape, South Africa). J. Archeol. Sci. 36, 730e739. Van Peer, P., 1998. The Nile corridor and the Out-of-Africa model. An examination of the archaeological record. Curr. Anthropol. 39, S115eS140. Van Peer, P., 2001. Observations on the Palaeolithic of the South-Western Fezzan and thoughts on the origin of the Aterian. In: Garcea, E.A.A. (Ed.), Uan Tabu in the Settlement History of the Lybian Sahara. Edizioni all’insegna del giglio. Firenza, pp. 51e62.

210

H.L. Dibble et al. / Journal of Human Evolution 64 (2013) 194e210

Van Peer, P., Vermeersch, P.M., 2007. The place of Northeast Africa in the early history of modern humans: new data and interpretations on the Middle Stone Age. In: Mellars, P., Boyle, K., Bar-Yosef, O., Stringer, C.B. (Eds.), Rethinking the Human Revolution. New Behavioural and Biological Perspectives on the Origin and Dispersal of Modern Humans. McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, Cambridge, pp. 187e198. Vanhaeren, M., d’Errico, F., Stringer, C., James, S.L., Todd, J.A., Mienis, H.K., 2006. Middle Paleolithic shell beads in Israel and Algeria. Science 312, 1785e1788. Vaufrey, R., 1955. Préhistoire de l’Afrique. Tome I: Le Maghreb. Masson, Paris. Vermeersch, P.M. (Ed.), 2000. Palaeolithic Living Sites in Upper and Middle Egypt. Egyptian Prehistory Monographs 2. Leuven University Press, Leuven. Villa, P., Soressi, M., Henshilwood, C.S., Mourre, V., 2009. The Still Bay points of Blombos Cave (South Africa). J. Archaeol. Sci. 36, 441e460. Wadley, L., 2007. Announcing a Still Bay industry at Sibudu Cave, South Africa. J. Hum. Evol. 52, 681e689. Wadley, L., 2010. Compound-adhesive manufacture as a behavioral proxy for complex cognition in the Middle Stone Age. Curr. Anthropol. 51, S111eS119. Wadley, L., Hodgskiss, T., Grant, M., 2009. Implications for complex cognition from the hafting of tools with compound adhesives in the Middle Stone Age, South Africa. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 106, 9590e9594.

Wadley, L., Sievers, C., Bamford, M., Goldberg, P., Berna, F., Miller, C., 2011. Middle Stone Age bedding construction and settlement patterns at Sibudu South Africa. Science 334, 1388e1391. Wendorf, F., Schild, R., 1976. Prehistory of the Nile Valley. Academic Press, New York. Wendorf, F., Schild, R., 1992. The Middle Paleolithic of North Africa: a status report. In: Klees, F., Kuper, R. (Eds.), New Light on the Northeastern African Past. Henrich Barth Institut, Köln, pp. 39e78. Wendorf, F., Schild, R., Close, A., 1993. Egypt During the Last Interglacial: The Middle Paleolithic of Bir Tarfawi and Bir Sahara East. Plenum Press, New York. Wengler, L., 1997. La transition du Moustérien à l’Atérien. L’Anthropologie 101, 448e 481. White, T.D., Asfaw, B., DeGusta, D., Gilbert, H., Richards, G.D., Suwa, G., Howell, F.C., 2003. Pleistocene Homo sapiens from Middle Awash, Ethiopia. Nature 423, 742e 747. Wrinn, P.J., Rink, W.J., 2003. ESR dating of tooth enamel from Aterian levels at Mugharet el ’Aliya (Tangier, Morocco). J. Archaeol. Sci. 30, 123e133. Yellen, J., Brooks, A., Helgren, D., Tappen, M., Ambrose, S., Bonnefille, R., Feathers, J., Goodfriend, G., Ludwig, K., Renne, P., Stewart, K., 2005. The archaeology of Aduma Middle Stone Age sites in the Awash Valley, Ethiopia. Paleoanthropology, 25e100.