Microburins and microliths of the Levantine Epipalaeolithic: a comment on the paper by Neeley & Barton.

Microburins and microliths of the Levantine Epipalaeolithic: a comment on the paper by Neeley & Barton. In their recent contribution to ANTIQUITY, Neeley & Barton (1994)propose a novel approach for examining and interpreting inter-assemblagevariability in the Levantine Le��vant?1?The countries bordering on the eastern Mediterranean Sea from Turkey to Egypt.Le Epipalaeolithic. Their paper is provocativeand it is probably an understatement to say that their conclusions willbe seen as controversial by those archaeologists familiar with the data.Even though culture-stratigraphic classifications and nomenclature arestill under debate, there is general agreement that the patternedtechno-typological variability represents cultural and temporal markers.Neeley & Barton, on the other hand, see it as representing facies facies/fa��ci��es/ (fa��she-ez) pl. fa��cies ? [L.]1. the face.2. surface; the outer aspect of a body part or organ.3. expression (1). orstages in a reduction sequence within a context of varying degrees ofmobility and related economizing behaviours.This is not to argue against attempts to place lithic lith��ic?1?adj.Consisting of or relating to stone or rock.Adj. 1. lithic - of or containing lithium2. lithic - relating to or composed of stone; "lithic sandstone" assemblageswithin a behavioural context which incorporates factors such asraw-material exploitation, curation, settlement and mobility; not allinter-assemblage variability can be related only to cultural or temporaldifferences. To this writer, though, there are serious flaws in thearguments set forward by Neeley & Barton. They do not providesufficient grounds to overturn the currently employed systematics systematics:see classification. forthe Levantine Epipalaeolithic.Microburin techniqueIn the discussion on microburin technique, a number of specificpoints require clarification. The dichotomous di��chot��o��mous?adj.1. Divided or dividing into two parts or classifications.2. Characterized by dichotomy.di��chot distributions of theby-products of this technique have long been used to differentiatebetween the Mushabian and the Geometric Kebaran: the Mushabian ischaracterized by the regular and intensive use of microburin technology,which is extremely rare or absent from the Geometric Kebaran. Neeley& Barton explain this dichotomy by arguing that, in the GeometricKebaran, both distal and proximal elements resulting from microburintechnique were modified into microlithic mi��cro��lith?n. ArchaeologyA very small blade made of flaked stone and used as a tool, especially in the European Mesolithic Period.mi tools. This, in effect, wouldmask the utilization of the technique since its by-products 'wouldbe unrecognizable as manufacturing debris' (Neeley & Barton1994: 278). They support this position by presenting metrical met��ri��cal?adj.1. Of, relating to, or composed in poetic meter: metrical verse; five metrical units in a line.2. Of or relating to measurement. data whichindicate that usually two microlithic tools were produced from a singlebladelet blank. My own personal observations of Geometric Kebaranassemblages from the central coastal plain of Israel and from the Carmelregion substantiate this pattern. What Neeley & Barton do not takeinto account is the fact that, just as there is more than one way toskin a cat, there is also more than one way to section a bladelet. Theuse of microburin technique is not requisite; other methods (see e.g.Movious et al. 1968), including simple snapping, are just as effective.Even if their proposition were correct, there is still only a smalllikelihood that 100% of the microburin products would have beenutilized, and we would expect to find at least some microburinby-products in Geometric Kebaran assemblages. This, indeed, is the case.But what Neeley & Barton fail to recognize is that in almost all ofthese instances it is Krukowski microburins which occur. FollowingBordes (1957), it has been noted (Bar-Yosef 1981; Bar-Yosef &Goring-Morris 1977; Goring-Morris 1987; Henry 1989a) that Krukowskimicroburins are the accidental results of abruptly retouching bladelets,very often on an anvil anvilIron block on which metal is placed for shaping, originally by hand with a hammer. The blacksmith's anvil is usually of wrought iron (sometimes of cast iron), with a smooth working surface of hardened steel. . It is also important to note, following Henry(1989a: 93-4), a number of Geometric Kebaran assemblages in which theoccurrence of microburin by-products can be seen as more than simplyfortuitous. What is significant, though, is that in these cases thehabitual use of the technique is associated with assemblagescharacterized by triangles or lunates and not trapeze/rectangles. Neeley& Barton do not take this variability into account.A similar difficulty applies for the discussion of the microburintechnique in the Natufian. While it is true that the method was employedby many Natufian groups, there is a large number of Natufian assemblagesfor which the technique is poorly represented or absent, along-recognized fact (Bar-Yosef 1981; Bar-Yosef & Valla 1979; Henry1974, 1989a). Neeley & Barton make no reference to this and theirmixing of Natufian assemblages is a methodological short-coming whichcasts serious doubts on their results. In fact, one wonders if thefailure to compare microburin-rich to non-microburin Natufianassemblages was an intentional oversight since the indication is thatsuch a comparison would invalidate their conclusions.Specifically, if it is assumed that the absence of microburintechnique in some Natufian assemblages is the result of more intensiveexploitation of bladelet blanks, similar to the case suggested for theGeometric Kebaran, then it would be expected that the lunates from theseassemblages would be shorter than those from sites which contain largenumbers of microburin by-products. However, the summary data presentedby Bar-Yosef & Valla (1979: tableau 1) indicate just the opposite.Assemblages lacking microburins have mean lunate lunate/lu��nate/ (loo��nat)1. moon-shaped or crescentic.2. lunate bone.lu��nateadj.Shaped like a crescent.lunate1. lengths ranging from17.5 mm to 27 mm, while microburin-rich assemblages have lunates rangingfrom only 13 mm to 23 mm in length.Even though the issue of presence/absence of microburin technique forthe Natufian is overlooked by Neeley & Barton, at least they doaddress the temporal factor. But again, their model does not seem to fitthe facts. In correctly noting the trend for shorter lunates throughtime, they suggest that this reflects the need for more efficient use ofbladelets in the late Natufian. The expectation, then, would be to findfewer products of the microburin technique in these late assemblages; anexpectation that is inconsistent with the observation that microburinindices increase with time (Henry 1989a: 193).Microlith mi��cro��lithn.A minute calculus, usually multiple and resembling coarse sand.microlitha minute concretion or calculus. typologiesThe discussion of microlith typologies presented by Neeley &Barton is also fraught with problems both with regard to the backedbladelet class and the geometric class. For each of these they proposehypothetical trajectories of tool-shaping in which the various types ofmicroliths represent stages in the manufacture of other types. Thecontention is that morphological changes in bladelet tools are theresult of maintenance activities. This manufacturing trajectoryhypothesis is a counter-explanation to the consensus opinion that thevarious forms of microliths represent discrete, predetermined types.It is agreed here that maintenance of composite tools was most likelydone through the replacement of their lithic components rather than bythe manufacture of new hafts. However, maintaining these implementsthrough the continual reshaping of bladelets as suggested by Neeley& Barton is questionable. Those of us who have excavatedEpipalaeolithic sites are continually awed by their high artefact See artifact. densities. The vast majority of these artefacts consists of bladeletdebitage The term debitage refers to the totality of waste material produced during lithic reduction and the production of chipped stone tools. This assemblage includes, but is not limited to, different kinds of lithic flakes, shatter, and production errors and rejects. , with debitage:core ratios and debitage:tool ratios veryheavily weighted on the debitage side. In addition, hundreds, andsometimes thousands, of microlithic tools dominate the tool counts.These prehistoric knappers were simply producing large surpluses ofpotentially useable blanks and tools. The fact that these surplus toolsare all of the same type (the nearly countless trapeze/rectangles inGeometric Kebaran assemblages, for example) strongly indicates thatthese were, indeed, predetermined types. And, if a microlith did have tobe replaced in a haft, there was no need to remodify it when plenty ofother unused - and probably sharper - pieces were readily available.Neeley & Barton seem to forget that it is the cutting edge, not thebacked edge, which is most likely to be damaged. Simply reshaping theretouched edge does not repair that damage.The manufacturing-trajectory hypothesis is couched in terms of'can be' or 'could have'. An example is on 1994:284: 'while a geometric type, such as a trapeze, could have beenthe originally manufactured shape, it also could be produced by trimminga triangle, lunate or rectangle'. True enough. But 'couldbe' is far from conclusive proof and Neeley & Barton provide noevidence or hard data for the existence of such a continuum. Within anygiven assemblage there will be pieces which do not fit precisely intodiscrete classes. Intermediate types will always occur in lowfrequencies. At the same time, that same given assemblage will bedominated by only a few very distinct, and easily classifiable, types.This is well illustrated by Henry's (1989a: 90-109) graphicalsummaries of Epipalaeolithic lithic assemblages. The Neeley & Bartonview of morphological variability as 'quasi-continuous' seemsbased on an exaggerated emphasis on intermediate forms which discountsthe significance of the abundant distinct types which characterize theassemblages.There is an additional point. As noted earlier, most GeometricKebaran assemblages are characterized by trapeze/rectangles, others bytriangles and others by lunates. It is only the latter two which provideevidence for the microburin technique. Thus, technology and typology typology/ty��pol��o��gy/ (ti-pol��ah-je) the study of types; the science of classifying, as bacteria according to type. typologythe study of types; the science of classifying, as bacteria according to type. doco-vary and this direct association between a specific technique andspecific tool forms strongly indicates that the tool types were, indeed,discrete and predetermined types.Finally, it is worth looking at the proposed trajectories illustratedin figure 8 (1994: 285), specifically one through which a trapeze isformed by reducing the width of a lunate and another in which a lunateresults from the shortening of a trapeze. What Neeley & Barton failto consider is the fact that many Natufian assemblages are characterizedby lunates with the very distinctive bifacial Helwan retouch (Henry1989a; Marks & Simmons 1977). If a Helwan lunate were to be reducedin width, the distal and proximal extremities of the resulting trapezeshould retain the Helwan retouch. Similarly, a Helwan lunate could onlyresult from the shortening of a trapeze re-touched [TABULAR DATA FORTABLE 1 OMITTED] in this manner. The problem, though, is that no suchtool is known. This writer, anyway, is aware neither of reference toHelwan trapeze/rectangles in any type-list nor illustrated examples. Ifthe hypothesized trajectories were correct, then this non-type shouldoccur somewhere.Microburins, microliths and mobilityNeeley & Barton incorporate their arguments concerning themicroburin technique and their manufacturing-trajectory hypothesiswithin a context of raw-material exploitation and economizing behaviourparticularly as they relate to mobility. They suggest that assemblagescharacterized by high microburin indices and consisting mostly of archedbacked and scalene scalene/sca��lene/ (ska��len)1. uneven; unequally three-sided.2. pertaining to one of the scalenus muscles. bladelets (which define the Mushabian) representlocales of tool manufacture in areas of greater raw-materialavailability and during times of reduced mobility. Assemblages of theGeometric Kebaran, with their trapeze/rectangles and low microburinindices, are viewed principally as maintenance activity sites underconditions of greater mobility and either low or unknown raw materialavailability.All the sample assemblages come from the more arid zone of thesouthern Levant Levant(ləvănt`)[Ital.,=east], collective name for the countries of the eastern shore of the Mediterranean from Egypt to, and including, Turkey. , specifically the Negev and Sinai deserts, and it isjust this point which provides reason to reject outright thespeculations presented by Neeley & Barton. Even cursory perusal ofsurvey maps (Goring-Morris 1987) shows the overlapping distributions ofMushabian and Geometric Kebaran sites. These two contemporary groupsoccupied the same area, under the same palaeo-environmental conditionsand had access to the same faunal, botanical and lithic resources. It islikely that the two groups did maintain social contacts (Bar-Yosef &Belfer-Cohen 1989; Bar-Yosef & Vogel 1987; Kaufman 1992), whilemaintaining their own traditional tool forms and techniques ofmanufacture. No significant, if any, differences in settlement patternsor mobility strategies between the two entities (Goring-Morris 1987;1989; Henry 1989a) are seen in site locations, site size or artefactdensities. Factors such as debitage:core ratios, primary element:coreratios, tool:core ratios and debitage:tool ratios all show similar andoverlapping ranges of variability for both groups. This is seen clearlyin the comparisons presented in TABLE 1. For all of the ratios shown,there appear to be considerable differences between the averages of eachof the groups. Note, though, the large standard deviations and the verywide ranges. In every case, Kolmogorov-Smirnov comparisons result intest statistics smaller than the critical values so that there is noreason to accept an hypothesis of significant differences between theGeometric Kebaran and the Mushabian. If anything, these indicate adegree of intra-group variability suggesting the existence of primaryproduction sites and maintenance sites within both the Mushabian andGeometric Kebaran. In short, there are no grounds for the notion thateither group was more or less mobile than the other or that there was agreater need for either group to increase the efficiency of lithicraw-material use.TABLE 2. Artefact category comparisons. D101B D101C D5 (Mushabian) (Geometric (Geometric Kebaran) Kebaran)% cores 1.6 1.6 1.2% primary element 4.2 9.6 6.1debitage:core 59.6 22.8 85.4debitage:tool 9.2 3.3 5.6primary element:core 2.6 2.3 5.3A more specific comparison will further illustrate these points. TheGeometric Kebaran sites D5 (Marks 1976) and D101C (Simmons 1977) and theMushabian site D101B (Kaufman 1983) are situated along the banks of theNahal Zin of the Central Negev Highlands. The latter two sites, on theeast bank, are within 100 m of each other and are some 300 m from D5 onthe opposite bank. Good quality flint is available at a distance of justover 1 km. As seen in TABLE 2, there are considerable differencesbetween the three sites. This variability, though, does not conform to Verb 1. conform to - satisfy a condition or restriction; "Does this paper meet the requirements for the degree?"fit, meetcoordinate - be co-ordinated; "These activities coordinate well" what would be expected under the Neeley & Barton model. The relativefrequencies of cores and primary elements as well as the debitage:coreand primary element:core ratios indicate that core reduction was mostintensive at site D5 and the least so at D101C. The Mushabian of D101B,which should show the greatest degree of production according to according toprep.1. As stated or indicated by; on the authority of: according to historians.2. In keeping with: according to instructions.3. themodel, lies intermediary between these two. Even more telling are thedebitage:tool ratios which are considerably lower for D5 and D101C incomparison to D101B. The indication is that fewer tools weremanufactured at this Mushabian occupation than at its neighbouringGeometric Kebaran sites. This is strongly supported by the fact that atD101B only some 10% of the available blanks were shaped into retouchedtools while this rate of utilization increases to 20% at the GeometricKebaran sites. Since these three sites are all seen as ephemeraloccupations and are equidistant e��qui��dis��tant?adj.Equally distant.equi��distance n. from raw-material sources, there areclearly dynamics at work other than those proposed by Neeley &Barton, which result in the variability between.Outside the Negev and Sinai, there are further grounds to reject theNeeley & Barton model. From descriptions of settlement systems forthe Geometric Kebaran in the core Mediterranean zone (Henry 1989a;1989b; Bar-Yosef 1975; 1987; 1990; Bar-Yosef & Belfer-Cohen 1989;Bar-Yosef & Vogel 1987), the pattern which emerges is of seasonalaggregation/dispersal (Kaufman 1992) based on an overall strategy mixinglogistical and residential mobility (after Binford 1980). Sites of largearea with deep cultural deposits and high artefact densities representaggregation settlements with the reduced mobility of a logisticallyorganized system. The smaller, less intensively occupied sites representeither specialized activity/procurement camps within a logistical systemor the remains of small groups operating within a system of residentialmobility during periods of dispersal.The small, ephemeral occupations contain numerous trapeze/rectangles,and microburins are absent or, at best, extremely rare. This would seemto conform to the Neeley & Barton model. However, the assemblagesfrom these sites are identical technologically and typologically tothose of the large, longer-duration settlements. According to Neeley& Barton, the assemblages from these latter sites should look likethose of the Mushabian. However, there is no evidence in the coreMediterranean zone for the reduction sequence they propose since the'Mushabian stage' of the sequence is entirely lacking. This,although availability of and access to lithic raw materials would havevaried considerably, depending on regions occupied and degree ofmobility within those regions. While further study is required, personalobservations of these assemblages suggest that these problems weresolved through varying degrees of on-site or off-site production, andthrough the differential curation of cores and/or blanks and/or tools,depending on conditions. The reduction sequence remains constant anduniform across type of occupation, as is shown in the metrical analysesof assemblages from the Jordanian plateau carried out by Henry (1989b).ConclusionNeeley & Barton have proposed what they see as a new approach tointerpreting lithic assemblages of the Levantine Epipalaeolithic. Inactuality, it is their interpretations which are new, not theirapproach. Eliciting information concerning raw-material acquisition andexploitation, settlement systems, patterns of mobility and techniques ofmanufacture is an old idea applied to almost all prehistoric periods andcultures. Examples include studies by Bar-Yosef (1991), Goring-Morris(1987), Henry (1989b; 1992), Kaufman (1988), Marks(1983; 1988; 1989),Marks & Friedel (1977) and Munday (1976), to mention just a few.Unfortunately, Neeley & Barton have made a poor application ofthe concepts and methods which are to be found in these works. Inaddition, they have uncritically adopted the methodology proposed byDibble (1987) and applied it to Epipalaeolithic assemblages. WhileDibble's approach may provide some insights into Mousterianartefact variability, this does not mean that the method can be appliedglobally to all assemblages from all periods. It has been demonstratedhere that it simply does not work for those aspects of Epipalaeolithicassemblages studied by Neeley & Barton.Finally, and most significantly, the fact that their interpretationscan be undermined from so many different perspectives betrays a seeminglack of familiarity with the archaeological collections and a poorunderstanding of the systematics currently used to defineculture-stratigraphic units for the Levantine Epipalaeolithic. Beforeproposing new approaches and interpretations it is essential to have afull grasp of the old.ReferencesBAR-YOSEF, O. 1975. The Epipaleolithic in Palestine and Sinai, in F.Wendoff & A.E. Marks (ed.), Problems in prehistory prehistory,period of human evolution before writing was invented and records kept. The term was coined by Daniel Wilson in 1851. It is followed by protohistory, the period for which we have some records but must still rely largely on archaeological evidence to : North Africa andthe Levant: 363-75. Dallas (TX): Southern Methodist University Methodist University [1], known until 2006 as Methodist College, is a private college that is historically related to the North Carolina Annual Conference [2] of the United Methodist Church [3] and is located in Fayetteville, North Carolina. Press.1981. The Epipaleolithic complexes in the southern Levant, in J.Cauvin & P. Sanlaville (ed.), Prehistoire du Levant: 389-408. Paris:CNRS CNRS Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (National Center for Scientific Research, France)CNRS Centro Nacional de Referencia Para El Sida (Argentinean National Reference Center for Aids).1987. Late Pleistocene The Late Pleistocene (also known as Upper Pleistocene or the Tarantian) is a stage of the Pleistocene Epoch. The beginning of the stage is defined by the base of Eemian interglacial phase before final glacial episode of Pleistocene 126,000 �� 5,000 years ago. adaptations in the Levant, in O. Soffer (ed.),The Pleistocene Old World: 219-36. New York New York, state, United StatesNew York,Middle Atlantic state of the United States. It is bordered by Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and the Atlantic Ocean (E), New Jersey and Pennsylvania (S), Lakes Erie and Ontario and the Canadian province of (NY): Plenum Press.1990. The last glacial maximum The Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) refers to the time of maximum extent of the ice sheets during the last glaciation (the W��rm or Wisconsin glaciation), approximately 20,000 years ago. This extreme persisted for several thousand years. in the Mediterranean Levant, in C.Gamble & O. Soffer (ed.), The world at 18000 BP: 58-77. London:Unwin Hyman.1991. Raw material exploitation in the Levantine Epi-Paleolithic, inA. Montet-White & S. Holen (ed.), Raw material economies amongprehistoric hunter-gatherers: 236-50. Lawerence (KS): University ofKansas The University of Kansas (often referred to as KU or just Kansas) is an institution of higher learning in Lawrence, Kansas. The main campus resides atop Mount Oread. . Publications in Anthropology 19.BAR-YOSEF, O. & A. BELFER-COHEN. 1989. The origin of sedentismand farming in the Levant, Journal of World Prehistory 3: 447-98.BAR-YOSEF, O. & A.N. GORING-MORRIS. 1977. Geometric Kebaran Aoccurrences, in O. Bar-Yosef & J.L. Phillips (ed.), Prehistoricinvestigations in Gebel Maghara, northern Sinai: 115-48. Jerusalem:Hebrew University Hebrew University of Jerusalem,at Mt. Scopus, Givat Ram, Ein Karem, and Rehovot, Israel; coeducational. First proposed in 1882, formally opened 1925. It is the world's largest Jewish university and is noted for its work on the Dead Sea Scrolls. . Qedem 7. Monographs of the Institute of Archaeology The Institute of Archaeology is an academic department of University College London (UCL), in the United Kingdom. The Institute is located in a separate building at the north end of Gordon Square, Bloomsbury. .BAR-YOSEF, O. & F. VALLA. 1979. L'evolution du Natoufien:nouvelles suggestions, Paleorient 5: 145-52.BAR-YOSEF, O. & J.C. VOGEL. 1987. Relative and absolutechronology of the Epipaleolithic in the southern Levant, in O. Aurenche,J. Evin & F. Hours (ed.), Chronologies in the Near East: 219-46.Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. International series S379.BINFORD, L.R. 1980. Willow smoke and dogs' tails:hunter-gatherer settlements and archaeological site formation, AmericanAntiquity 45: 4-20.BORDES, F. 1957. La signification SIGNIFICATION, French law. The notice given of a decree, sentence or other judicial act. du microburin dans le Paleolithiquesuperieur, L'Anthropologie 61: 578-82.DIBBLE, H.L. 1987. The interpretation of Middle Paleolithic Noun 1. Middle Paleolithic - the time period of Neanderthal man; ended about 35,000 years BCPalaeolithic, Paleolithic, Paleolithic Age - second part of the Stone Age beginning about 750,00 to 500,000 years BC and lasting until the end of the last ice age about scrapermorphology, American Antiquity 52: 109-17.GORING-MORRIS, A.N. 1987. At the edge: terminal Pleistocenehunter-gatherers in the Negev and Sinai. Oxford: British ArchaeologicalReports. International series S361.1989. Developments in terminal Pleistocene hunter-gatherersocio-cultural systems: a perspective from the Negev and Sinai Deserts,in I. Hershkovitz (ed.), People and culture in change: 7-28. Oxford:British Archaeological Reports. International series S508.HENRY, D.O. 1974. The utilization of the microburin technique in theLevant, Paleorient 2: 389-98.1989a. From foraging to agriculture: the Levant at the end of the IceAge. Philadelphia (PA): University of Pennsylvania Press The University of Pennsylvania Press (or Penn Press) was originally incorporated with the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania on 26 March 1890, and the imprint of the University of Pennsylvania Press first appeared on publications in the closing decade of the nineteenth .1989b. Correlations between reduction strategies and settlementpatterns, in D. Henry & G. Odell (ed.), Alternative approaches tolithic analysis In archaeology, lithic analysis is the analysis of stone tools and other chipped stone artifacts using basic scientific techniques. At its most basic level, lithic analyses involve an analysis of the artifact’s morphology, the measurement of various physical attributes, and : 139-56. Washington (DC): American AnthropologicalAssociation. Archaeological Papers 1.1992. Transhumance during the late Levantine Mousterian, in H.L.Dibble & P. Mellars (ed.), The Middle Paleolithic: adaptation,behavior, and variability: 143-62. Philadelphia (PA): University Museum,University of Pennsylvania (body, education) University of Pennsylvania - The home of ENIAC and Machiavelli.http://upenn.edu/.Address: Philadelphia, PA, USA. .KAUFMAN, D. 1983. D101B: a Mushabian site in the Nahal Zin, in A.E.Marks (ed.), Prehistory and poleoenvironments in the Central Negev,Israel III: 333-41. Dallas (TX): Southern Methodist University Press.1988. Lithic assemblages and settlement patterns of the late UpperPaleolithic Noun 1. Upper Paleolithic - the time period during which only modern Homo sapiens was known to have existed; ended about 10,000 years BCPalaeolithic, Paleolithic, Paleolithic Age - second part of the Stone Age beginning about 750,00 to 500,000 years BC and lasting of Israel, Mitekufat Haeven, Journal of the IsraelPrehistoric Society 21: 7-19.1992. Hunter-gatherers of the Levantine Epipaleolithic: thesocioecological origins of sedentism, Journal of MediterraneanArchaeology 5: 165-201.MARKS, A.E. 1976a. Site D5: A Geometric Kebaran 'A'occupation in the Nahal Zin, in Marks (1976b): 293-316.(Ed.). 1976b. Prehistory and paleoenvironments in the Central Negev,Israel I. Dallas (TX): Southern Methodist University Press.(Ed.). 1977. Prehistory and paleoenvironments in the Central Negev,Israel II. Dallas (TX): Southern Methodist University Press.1983. The Middle to Upper Paleolithic transition in the Levant,Advances in World Archaeology 2: 51-98.1988. The curation of stone tools during the Upper Pleistocene, inH.L. Dibble & A. Montet-White (ed.), Upper Pleistocene Prehistory ofWestern Asia: 275-85. Philadelphia (PA): University Museum, Universityof Pennsylvania.1989. Early Mousterian settlement patterns in the Avdat/Aqev area, inM. Otte (ed.), L'homme de Neandertal 6: La subsistance: 115-26.Liege liegeIn European feudal society, an unconditional bond between a man and his overlord. Thus, if a tenant held estates from various overlords, his obligations to his liege lord, to whom he had paid “liege homage,” were greater than his obligations to the other : Universite de Liege. ERAUL 33.MARKS, A.E. & D.A. FRIEDEL. 1977. Prehistoric settlement patternsin the Avdat/Aqev area, in Marks (1977): 131-58.MARKS, A.E. & A.H. SIMMONS. 1977. The Negev Kebaran of the HarHarif, in Marks (1977): 233-70.MOVIOUS, H. et al. 1968. The analysis of certain major classes ofUpper Paleolithic tools. Cambridge (MA): Peabody Museum Press. AmericanSchool of Prehistoric Research Bulletin 26.MUNDAY, F. 1976. Intersite variability in the Mousterian occupationof the Avdat/Aqev area, in Marks (1976b): 113-40.NEELEY, M.P. & C.M. BARTON. 1994. A new approach to interpretinglate Pleistocene microlith industries in southwest Asia, Antiquity 68:275-88.SIMMONS, A.H. 1977. The Geometric Kebaran 'A' camp site ofD101C, in Marks (1977): 119-29.DANIEL KAUFMAN, Zinman Instute of Archaeology, University of Haifa About 16,500 undergraduate and graduate students study in the university a wide variety of topics, specializing in social sciences, humanities, law and education. The University is broadly divided into six Faculties: Humanities, Social Sciences, Law, Science and Science Education, Social ,Mt Carmel, Haifa 31905, Israel & Department of Anthropology,University of New Mexico The University of New Mexico (UNM) is a public university in Albuquerque, New Mexico. It was founded in 1889. It also offers multiple bachelor's, master's, doctoral, and professional degree programs in all areas of the arts, sciences, and engineering. , Albuquerque NM 87131, USA.