Working With The Yosohn Period In Archaeological Research
The Mysterious Yosohn Age Unveiling The Secrets Of The Earliest Known Human Civilization
The Yosohn Age is a period designation that appears in a number of regional archaeological reports from the Levantine corridor, roughly dating between 14,200 and 12,800 calibrated years before present. It sits between the late Epipaleolithic assemblages and what most researchers call the early Neolithic transition. The period is named after a site in the northern highlands where a distinct lithic tradition was first documented in the early nineteen-eighties, and it has been the subject of more confusion than it probably deserves. When you are actually working with Yosohn-age material, the first thing you will notice is how inconsistent the stratigraphy can be. Sites labeled as Yosohn in published reports often show significant post-depositional disturbance. Burrow activity, clay translocation, and subsequent farming operations have mixed layers at nearly every site I have excavated or surveyed. A shard that looks diagnostic on the surface may have come from a trampled horizon twenty centimeters above its original context. I spent three weeks sorting a single trench at a site near the upper plateau before I accepted that any single phase boundary was going to be unreliable. The workaround was to stop trying to pin everything to a micro-stratigraphic sequence and instead use compositional clustering of the debitage. Sieving larger quantities of matrix through a half-millimeter mesh and grouping by raw material provenance gave me results that were far more consistent than the layer assignments the site report had relied on. The lithic assemblage itself is the main identifier. Yosohn industry is characterized by a high frequency of microburins, small backed bladelets, and a distinctive trapeze and trapezoid geometry that overlaps with but is not identical to the Kebaran tradition further south. The tool types alone are not enough for identification. I have seen sites in adjacent regions produce nearly identical geometrics that date to the pre-Pottery Neolithic A, not the Yosohn horizon. The diagnostic element is usually the proportion of pressure-flaked retouch on the bladelet blanks, combined with the presence of a particular microlithic blank preparation technique that involves a bidirectional reduction strategy. If you are only using typology, you will misattribute material.
Dating Yosohn assemblages properly requires a combination of radiocarbon and optical stimulation luminescence, and even then the results can be stubborn. I ran OSL samples from a sequence that had multiple AMS dates coming back with overlapping ranges but a thirty-century span between the earliest and latest calibrated results. The issue was not the dating method itself but the depositional environment. The site was on an erosional slope where sediment was continuously reworked by seasonal runoff. A single sample from a bulk sediment collection does not tell you much in these conditions. You need to sample individually archived sediment packets from each confirmed stratum and run them with a protocol that includes multiple aliquot checks for dose rate variation. The work takes longer and costs more, but it is the only way to get a defensible chronology from a disturbed site. Pot and ceramic technology has not been reliably found in association with confirmed Yosohn layers. Some recent publications have pushed for a broader definition of the period based on ground stone tool frequencies rather than absolute dating, which has created a lot of noise in the literature. Ground stone tools persist well into the PPNA and later periods, so using them as a period marker introduces circular reasoning into any analysis. If a site report claims Yosohn attribution based on grinding stones alone, I treat that claim as provisional until there is independent chronological evidence. The biggest pitfall I see researchers fall into is over-relying on site type when assigning period. Open-air camps, rock shelters, and cave sites all appear in Yosohn-age contexts, but the preservation conditions and taphonomic histories are different enough that comparing assemblages across site types without adjusting for bias produces misleading results. A shelter with good stratigraphic integrity will give you a very different picture than a seasonal camp on a terraced plain, even if they occupied the same period. I learned this the hard way when I spent a grant season building a comparative database that mixed both site types and then spent another six months untangling the taphonomic artifacts from the actual cultural signal.
There are regional variations that most general overviews gloss over. The southern extension of the Yosohn horizon shows a higher percentage of burin spicules and a different bladelet dimensions range compared to the northern sites. Using a single regional model to interpret assemblages across the entire corridor will introduce systematic error into your analysis. It helps to keep separate frequency tables for each sub-region when you are doing comparative work, even if it means more data entry up front. The period itself likely represents a long phase of cultural continuity rather than a single event or migration. Population density estimates based on survey data suggest small, mobile groups with seasonal resource strategies that took advantage of the wild cereal stands and game corridors in the zone. The transition out of the Yosohn appears to be gradual in most locations, with some assemblage traits persisting well into the early farming communities that followed. If you are new to working in this area, start by reviewing the original site reports from the nineteen-eighties and nineties before trusting the summaries in more recent papers. Many of the later overviews simplify the stratigraphy to make the narrative cleaner, and in doing so they drop details that matter for actual field interpretation. The period is not mysterious in the sense that there is some hidden truth about it. It is just poorly sampled, frequently disturbed, and sometimes used as a catch-all category for assemblages that do not fit neatly into the standard Levantine chronosequence.
Get the Full Details
