Sort order:  

Status: 1 Treffer   •   Seite 1 von 1   •   10 Artikel pro Seite

2026-04-25 16:52:44   •   ID: 2417

The Mushbarian and the Definition of an Archeological Entity

Plate 1
Plate I and Figures 1-4: These are typical Mushabian artefacts from a surface scatter in the Negev from my personal collection (Ex Levenstein, Tel Aviv).

The status of the Mushabian Epipaleolithic was a subject of significant archaeological debate.

Figure 1
While some researchers considered it as a clearly defined cultural entity, others viewed it more as a construct resulting from the subjective views of different scholars and from the fact that during the early years of research, surface collections were widely used to define the technocomplex.

This controversies have been settled during the last years after publication of modern excavations which confirmed the Mushbarian's status as a separate entity (Bar-Yosef 1970, Goring-Morris and Belfer-Cohen 2019).

A Paleolithic entity commonly refers to a distinct, (1) geographically and (2) temporally restricted grouping of stone artifacts defined by shared technology (3), typology (4), raw material usage (5) and common symbolic expressions . It is supposed that these features represent specific cultural or behavioral traditions (Marder and Goring-Morris 2020).

In sum all these criteria apply to the Mushbarian, particularly in relation to the Geometric Kerbaran, which was partly contemporaneous.

The Levantine Middle Epipaleolithic (ca. 19-15 k.a. cal BP) is characterized by warmer, wetter conditions compared to the previous phase, as well as the prevalence of specific lithic traditions: the Geometric Kebaran, Mushabian and others.

Figure 2
A common feature of the Middle Epipaleolithic is the prevalence of geometric microliths. This period marks a shift from non-geometric to geometric tools, including trapezoidal rectangles, backed bladelets, end scrapers, and burins (Fig. 5, Pierre M. Vermeersch, 1990).

Some Middle Epipaleolithic assemblages demonstrate a significant increase in the use of the microburin technique, a specialized method of breaking bladelets into geometric shapes.

Compared to earlier, more mobile groups, this period shows signs of increased territoriality. This includes the de novo establishment and reoccupation of specific sites, such as the Uyun al-Hammam site (Goring-Morris and Belfer-Cohen 2019).

While Geometric Kebaran assemblages are found across nearly the entire Levant, other, more regional traditions also exist. Examples include the Mushabian and Madamaghan traditions in the arid southern zones (the Negev and Sinai), which are characterized by smaller, distinct microliths.

Geometric Kebaran assemblages are characterised by the production of obliquely truncated and backed bladelets in a variety of rectangular and trapezoidal shapes, as well as elongated end scrapers. The microburin technique is absent (Goring-Morris & Belfer-Cohen, 2009).

Figure 3
Geometric Kebaran sites exhibit a variety of ground stone tools made from basalt and limestone, as well as marine shell usage. These ground stone tools foreshadow later Natufian tools.

The dwellings of the Geometric Kebaran period were primarily temporary and small. They were likely ephemeral structures, such as shallow, circular or oval huts or brush shelters. Mushbarin dwellings are similar, but have not been well preserved.

The burial practices of the Geometric Kebaran culture are characterized by the emergence of structured individual burials, which are often located in direct proximity to settlements or prominent landmarks in the landscape.

These are predominantly primary individual burials in an articulated form. A new development is the inclusion of stone tools (ground stone), such as grinding stones or bowls, which indicates the emerging ritual significance of everyday objects.

Back to the Mushbarian: In contrast, arch-backed bladelets are the most common 'diagnostic' tools of the Mushabarian, featuring a steeply retouched edge that creates a curved profile (Fig. 1–3).

La Mouillah points are another common feature and were first described in the Epipalaeolithic of the Maghreb. They are small bladelets with one pointed end created by a characteristic microburin snap. They are common during the Mushabian (Fig. 4).

Figure 4
The microburin technique subsequently became ubiquitous during the Natufian and the Harifian in the Negev and Sinai.

Ramon points are specifically characteristic of the later 'Ramonas' phase of the Mushabian. These are concave-backed, obliquely truncated bladelets.

Occasional bone tools, such as awls and points, have been found, suggesting that hides or other flexible materials were processed. Many microliths show traces of red ochre, which was used as an adhesive or pigment to attach the small stone blades to handles or arrow shafts.

Only a few groundstone artefacts, such as shallow bowls or grinding stones,wre detected and were occasionally stained with ochre.

To date, no formal graves or cemeteries have been identified that can be definitively attributed to the Mushabian.

Researchers often attribute this to the high mobility of these hunter-gatherer groups in extreme desert environments, who may have practiced other forms of burial that left no archaeological traces.

While the "Geometric Kebarians" already created “symbolically charged places” in the landscape, the "Mushabians" remain archaeologically invisible in this regard.

Overall, the Mushabian and Geometric Kebaran are considered to represent distinct cultural evolutionary paths: the Mushabian (and the related Ramonian) are considered to be adapted to arid conditions, while the Geometric Kebaran is considered to be a broader adaptation that paved the way for the Natufian.

Suggested Reading:

Figure 5
O. Bar-Yosef: The Epi-Palaeolithic Cultures of Palestine. Unpublished PhD Thesis. The Hebrew University of Jerusalem (1970)

A. Nigel Goring-Morris and Anna Belfer-Cohen: Ruminations on the Role of Periphery and Centre in the Natufian - in Natufian foragers in the Levant. Terminal Pleistocene social changes in Western Asia / edited by Ofer Bar-Yosef & François Valla. (Archaeological series / International Monographs in Prehistory ; 19) Papers from a symposium held in 2009.

Leplongeon Alice, Goder-Goldberger Mae & Pleurdeau David (eds) 2020 — Not just a Corridor. Human occupation of the Nile Valley and neighbouring regions between 75,000 and 15,000 years ago. Paris : Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle, 364 p. (Natures en Sociétés ; 3).

Ababsa, Myriam, éditeur. Atlas of Jordan. Presses de l’Ifpo, 2013, https://doi.org/10.4000/books.ifpo.4560



Resources and images in full resolution: