CHARACTERIZATION AND DISTRIBUTION OF BEDROCK FEATURES AT ORNIT CAVE

CHARACTERIZATION AND DISTRIBUTION OF BEDROCK FEATURES AT ORNIT CAVE 37

Characterization and distribution of bedrock features at Ornit Cave, Mt. Carmel, Israel

DANNY ROSENBERG1

DANI NADEL1

1 The Zinman Institute of Archaeology, University of Hifa

ABSTRACTA study at Ornit Cave, located in Mt. Carmel near the city of Haifa, revealed a wealth of bedrock features (mortars and cupmarks). The present paper offers preliminary insights into our work at the Cave, as part of a large-scale endeavor aimed at documenting and analyzing variations in prehistoric bedrock features in Mt. Carmel and beyond. The paper includes a description of the mortars/cupmarks and their spatial distribution in the studied part of the Cave. The discussion focuses on size and shape of the remains, and comparisons to other relevant assemblages in the southern Levant indicate Pre-Pottery Neolithic A, rather than Late Natufian affinities.

INTRODUCTIONFor a long time bedrock features (mortars, cupmarks, etc.) have been a rather neglected subject in the study of prehistoric sites in the southern Levant. This is surprising as these features were noted as early as the late 1920’s in Natufian sites (Garrod and Bate 1937:11). They appear to be characteristic of several Late Natufian, Harifian and Pre-Pottery Neolithic A (PPNA) sites. Indeed, most of the relevant publications mentioning bedrock features from these sites provide very little information and discussion in terms of descriptions, typology, technology, preservation and other relevant subjects (but see Samzun 1994). However, the last decade marks a notable change in this regard and bedrock features are now entering the canonical literature with various studies focusing on a wide array of relevant subjects (e.g., van den Brink 2008; Eitam 2008, 2009; Grosman and Goren-Inbar 2007; Nadel and Lengyel

Journal of The Israel Prehistoric Society 41 (2011), 37-69

37

DANNY ROSENBERG, DANI NADEL38

2009; Nadel and Rosenberg n.d.; Nadel et al. 2008; 2009a, 2009b; Rosenberg and Nadel n.d.).

Bedrock features as a category incorporate a wide variety of human-made cavities with a range of dimensions and cross-sections that were hewn into the rocky surface (e.g., van den Brink 2008; Eitam 2009; Nadel and Lengyel 2009; Nadel et al. 2009a, 2009b; Samzun 1994). There are tiny holes and shallow cavities as well as ‘cupmarks’ and ‘mortars’ of various diameters and depths, and the latter range from shallow and wide, through deep and narrow (sometimes funnel shaped). Also documented are large basins and oblong shallow features, perhaps used as grinding facilities. As the terms ‘mortars’, ‘cupmarks’ and ‘cupules’ do not cover the entire typological variety, and as some terms may be misleading as regarding function (e.g., not all ‘mortars’ were used as such), we tend to use neutral terms such as bedrock features (or Human-made Bedrock Holes, HBHs, see Nadel and Lengyel 2009 and references therein).

In the southern Levant, bedrock features initially appeared during the Early Natufian (the possibility of earlier occurrences is yet to be investigated). Natufian mortars, cupmarks and many other types are found hewn in the bedrock of caves and terraces, as well as in rock exposures of open-air sites (e.g., Garrod and Bate 1937:11; Samzun 1994). These characterize several Natufian sites and a wide range of types has been briefly reported (Garrod and Bate 1937:11; Goring-Morris et al. 1999; Henri 1976; Janetski and Chazan 2004; Johnson et al. 1999; Kenyon and Holland 1981; Nadel and Lengyel 2009; Nadel and Rosenberg n.d.; Rosenberg et al. 2010; Samzun 1994). Interestingly, some of the deep and narrow shafts of the bedrock mortars bear much resemblance to some of the shafts that characterize the so-called Natufian ‘boulder mortars’ (the so-called ‘pipe-mortars’, see Rosenberg and Nadel n.d.; Stekelis and Yizraely 1963; Valla 2009).

In PPNA sites, cupmarks and mortars are present on bedrock exposures within and near some hamlets. In addition, many were found within buildings, frequently made on slabs, boulders and even large grinding tools, placed on floors as part of the building paraphernalia (Edwards and House 2007; Edwards et al. 2002; Garfinkel and Dag 2006; Gopher 1995, 1997; Kuijt 1994; Marder et al. 2008; Nadel et al. 2000; Noy 1979; Rosenberg and Gopher 2010; Rosenberg and Groman-Yaroslavski 2005; Samzun 1994; Shaffrey 2007; Rosenberg and Nadel n.d. for references and discussion). Most of the dated PPNA examples are cupmarks and not mortars, with a relatively small diameter (typically only 10-15 cm across) that tend to be not more than 15-20 cm deep (thus, representing cavities with characteristic small volumes).

By the Middle and Late Pre-Pottery Neolithic B (PPNB) period, these features practically disappear from most sites and from their neighboring bedrock exposures and terraces. This phenomenon correlates well with the establishment of large permanent villages, the adoption


of stone grinding tools as the main implements for (food) processing, and with a dramatic reduction in the numbers of stone pestles in the assemblages (Rosenberg 2004; Wright 1993).

Bedrock features are also absent from most Pre-Pottery Neolithic C sites and Pottery Neolithic sites (including the Wadi Rabah culture and related sites, as defined by Gopher and Gophna 1993). An exception to this statement can be seen at PPNB/PPNC Atlit Yam which yielded several cupmarks, mostly placed on large slabs that were found in association with a ritual installation (Galili 2004:table 5, figs. 58a-b).

By the onset of the Ghassul-Beer Sheba Chalcolithic culture, a new type of bedrock feature appears in several sites, sometimes in large numbers (e.g., van den Brink 2008 and ref. therein). The Chalcolithic type is an oblong, mostly oval cavity, shallow in relation to its length and width. In contrast to many of the earlier bedrock features that were supposedly used with pestles in vertical motion, the Chalcolithic type was mostly a horizontal grinding device, apparently used with upper grinding stones (processors, manos or handstones).

The exact functions of most prehistoric southern Levantine types of bedrock features remain enigmatic. As the variety of types is large, without the aid of residue analyses and use-wear studies from well-dated specimens, it is hard to correlate a specific type with a specific function. However, the use of certain types for food processing is widely documented in the anthropological literature (Adams 1999; Basgall 1987; Cane 1989; Jones and Meehan 1989; Rucks 1994), mainly in relation to processing of vegetal food-stuffs by means of pounding, crushing or pulverizing. While the assumption, based upon these and other ethnographic accounts, that much of the southern Levantine bedrock features were in fact the ‘passive’ element in a pair of pounding implements used for food processing seems by and large justifiable, some specific specimens are hard to perceive as food processing implements (Nadel and Lengyel 2009; Nadel et al. 2009b). Prominent in this regard are the specimens with deep and very narrow shafts.

Suggestions regarding non-food processing utilization of certain Natufian bedrock features include flint extraction activities (Grosman and Goren-Inbar 2007), post-holes (e.g., Kenyon 1981: 272, pl. 145a, b), and symbolic behavior (Nadel and Lengyel 2009). Ethnographic cases provide a very wide range of relevant activities, including musical instruments, incorporation into rock-art, medicinal use, and even utilization within the spiritual sphere (e.g., Bednarik 2008; Lee 1981; Paddayya 1976; Parkman 1986).

However, certain bedrock features may be a major source of information regarding the shift to intensive food processing, and even to incipient agriculture in the southern Levant during the later parts of the Epipalaeolithic and the early Neolithic (e.g., Bar-Yosef 2002; Dubreuil 2004; Wright 1991, 1993). As part of a project aimed at documenting and analyzing prehistoric bedrock features in Israel, we started reconnaissance work at Ornit Cave in 2007, where dozens of bedrock features were reported in the past (Olami 1965). Our work


concentrated on more than 50 specimens found within three chambers in the cave. In this paper, we characterize the hewn features and present their spatial distribution. A preliminary comparison and a discussion regarding potential parallels and cultural assignment of the remains follow.

ORNIT CAVEOrnit Cave is located in Nahal Galim (Wadi el-Ein) that runs down the western slopes of Mt. Carmel (Fig. 1), less than 1 km from the city of Haifa and adjacent to the city of Tirat Hacarmel. It is currently ca. 3 km from the Mediterranean Sea (Fig. 2), and 700 meters to the south of the perennial spring of Ain Qedem where several Epipalaeolithic, Neolithic

Fig. 1: A map showing the location of Ornit Cave


Fig. 2: Ornit Cave, a view from the cave towards the Mediterranean Sea and the City of Haifa

and Chalcolithic occurrences were documented (see Rosenberg et al. n.d.). Near the cave, extensive and probably multi-period systems of flint quarries and workshops were noted (Rosenberg and Nadel 2009).

The site (Fig. 1) was first mentioned by Mülinen (1908) who called it ‘Arak esch-Sheikh, but the earliest archaeological excavations at the site were conducted by Olami in the 1950’s (Olami 1957, 1965, 1984:46, 49-51). Olami, who published the Middle Palaeolithic material he exposed at the site (Olami 1965, 1984: 46, 49-51), also recognized some later remains that included bedrock features as well as flints and pottery sherds.

Ornit Cave is actually a complex of karstic caves situated high on a dolomite cliff on the southern bank of Nahal Galim, near the top of the ridge (Fig. 3). The complex is 220 m above sea level and ca. 120 m above the Nahal Galim wadi bed. The cave has an overall length of about 120 m (Olami 1984:46). Olami and his colleagues identified seven main halls in the cave, and numbered them I-VII from east to west (Fig. 4). So far, we have not documented the entire cave system and the details provided here follow the meticulous work of Olami and his colleagues, who mapped the place and provided a general picture of the complex (Olami 1965, 1984:49-51).


Fig. 4: A plan of Ornit Cave (after Olami 1984)

Fig. 3: A general look at Ornit Cave


Within the cave, Olami noted the large quantities of breccia in many locations, mostly containing Middle Palaeolithic flints. However, he also reported on breccia containing Chalcolithic pottery sherds in his chambers I and II (the latter we termed chamber AI for technical reasons, Figs. 4-5), and Upper Palaeolithic flints in his chamber II (Olami 1957). This breccia is still apparent in many locations in the cave today. It was sampled by us (in chamber AI), and indeed proved to contain isolated flint items of various periods (Fig. 5), although we did not encounter any pottery sherds.

Olami excavated two locations in his chamber V and found the following stratigraphy (Olami 1957):Layer A1: (0.00-0.04 cm), recent layer;Layer A2: (0.04-0.15 cm), reddish soil with historic pottery;Layer A3: (0.15-0.45 cm) gray-brown soil, Chalcolithic/Early Bronze pottery sherds, flints and bones of small rodents;Layer B: Including two unnumbered phases:

- (0.45-0.65 cm), gray breccia, concentration of flints, half of which were eroded, no shards, and- (0.65-1.00 cm), rock;

Layer C: (1.00-1.05 cm): breccia with eroded flints, cemented to the ceiling of the lower chamber.

Fig. 5: Plan of the study area, following Olami’s plan (see figure 4)


Olami mentioned two flint assemblages from layers B and C, containing 616 and 117 items, respectively. Levallois flakes and points constitute 12% and 8% of the very similar assemblages. Burins, cleaver-like specimens, discs, and notches/denticulates were conspicuous, leading Olami to find high resemblance to Layer 9 at Yabrud (pre-Aurignacian). Olami pointed out that a very high proportion of the flints found in the breccia are eroded. In what we termed chamber AII, Olami found 12 bedrock mortars/cupmarks (Olami 1984: fig. 38). Olami also reported a concentration of 23 small cupmarks found further east, in what we term system B (chambers BI and BII), but he did not supply additional details. These and other specimens found during our reconnaissance work in 2007 are described below.

Figure 8: Locus 1

Fig. 6: Flint items from the breccia near chamber AII


THE BEDROCK FEATURES AT ORNIT CAVESWe here focus on three locations with concentrations of bedrock features. However, it should be pointed out that there are several additional features visible in various parts of the cave complex and on the terrace. It is also very likely that a thorough cleaning of the cave floor will expose more specimens in other chambers, covered today by recent deposits and dust.

GeneralMost bedrock features at Ornit Cave are found in three locations in the cave, situated in adjacent, yet distinct chambers (AII, BI and BII, Figs. 7-10). All three have an opening situated above the steep cliff and the terrace, facing Nahal Galim. Chamber AII covers an area of about 30 square meters, and 16 bedrock mortars and cupmarks were found here. Chamber BI is actually a very small chamber with an area of than 3-5 square meters. There are 8 bedrock cupmarks here, all within about 1 sq. m. The largest concentration in the cave was found in chamber BII (ca. 7-8 sq. m). Here, the majority of the 27 cupmarks are found within 1.5 square meters, in very high density. This chamber is so small that in most of its area a person cannot stand upright.

Chamber AII is easily accessible from within the cave (from chamber AI) or from the northern terrace. Chamber BI is also easily accessible from the terrace and from chamber AII. However, in order to get to chamber BII, one has to crawl through a narrow low passage from chamber BI, or climb a vertical rock several meters high.

PreservationOne of the intriguing aspects of the site is the issue of bedrock preservation. It seems that in Ornit Cave, and especially in chamber AII, the present bedrock surface is much eroded. Deep cracks are common, sometimes crossing and damaging bedrock mortars and cupmarks. In most parts of this chamber, the top layer of the bedrock (at least 5-15 cm thick or even thicker) is missing and thus some of the bedrock features lack their upper parts and ‘rims’ (Fig. 11). This in turn, means that reconstruction of the original diameter, depth and volume for most of the specimens in chamber AII and some of the others in chambers BI and BII is rather speculative, although some specimens seem to preserve all or most of their original dimensions.

CharacterizationAll three clusters of bedrock features studied in chambers AII (Figs. 12-15), BI (Figs. 16-17) and BII (Fig. 18-24) are heterogeneous in terms of shapes and sizes. Most are round or somewhat oval in plan, and although many suffered severe damage due to erosion, it is clear that many of them were probably cupmarks rather than deep and/or wide mortars.


Fig. 7: Chamber AII: general plan, sections and distribution of bedrock features


Fig. 8: Chamber BI: general plan, sections and distribution of bedrock features


Fig. 9: Chamber BII: general plan, sections and distribution of bedrock features


Fig. 10: Chamber BII, bedrock features (arrow and scale bar ‒ 20 cm)

The most conspicuous items in the assemblage are those in the size of a small cup, with a concave base and slanting walls, although the angels between walls and bases vary. The angle between the upper parts of the walls (near the openings) and the current bedrock surface is diverse, and as noted above it is highly affected by deterioration of the bedrock.

The diameter of the openings or rims (in items clearly demonstrating their original forms) usually range between 5.0-10.0 cm. Some items with smaller diameters at the opening (3.0-5.0 cm) and a few items with larger diameters (10.0-15.5 cm) were noted as well but these are exceptional. Most walls slant at different angles (this is relevant to the way the mortar was utilized – pestle shape and pounding angle), and the diameters near the bases vary (frequently these are between 2.0-4.0 cm when measured 1.0 cm from the lowest point of the base). Depths range between 1.7-17.5 cm, however most are 4.0-10.0 cm deep. Two items are deeper, and both were found in chamber AII (nos. III and X). These have conical longitudinal sections with relatively steep walls which narrow greatly toward their concave bases.

There are pairs of bedrock features, where two adjacent cupmarks or a cupmark and a mortar have a mutual wall. In chamber BII there are even clusters abutting one another in


Fig. 11: Bedrock feature damage by erosion

Fig. 12: Chamber AII, bedrock features I-III


Fig. 13: Chamber AII, bedrock features IV-VI, VIII


Fig. 14: Chamber AII, bedrock features VII, IX-XI


Fig. 15: Chamber AII, bedrock features XIV-XVI


Fig. 16: Chamber BI, bedrock features I-IV


Fig. 17: Chamber BI, bedrock features V-VIII


Fig. 18: Chamber BII, bedrock features I-IV


Fig. 19: Chamber BII, bedrock features V-VII


Fig. 20: Chamber BII, bedrock features VIII-XI


Fig. 21: Chamber BII, bedrock features XII-XVI


Fig. 22: Chamber BII, bedrock features XVII-XXI


Fig. 23: Chamber BII, bedrock features XXII-XXV


Fig. 24: Chamber BII, bedrock features XXVI-XXVII

such a way (e.g., Figs. 9-10). One or two specimens were noted on the cave walls, but these are yet to be fully explored.

DISCUSSIONBedrock features such as mortars and cupmarks are found in many Mt. Carmel sites. These include sites such as Nahal Oren (Stekelis and Yizraely 1963), el-Wad terrace (Garrod and Bate 1937: plate V:1-2), Raqefet cave (Nadel et al. 2008, 2009a), Ein Qedem 1 and 2 (Olami 1984:49, 52, fig. 49), Nahal Dohan rock shelter (Olami 1984:101, fig. 101) and Horvat Shoqef 2 (Olami 1984:144-145, figs. 140-141). Additional bedrock features are found in other sites, usually as isolated specimens.

Some of the bedrock features in these sites are clearly attributable to the Natufian culture of the later parts of the Epipalaeolithic period (e.g., in excavated sites such as el-Wad terrace and Raqefet cave), while others have been attributed to later periods, mainly to the Neolithic period. Recent work in a variety of sites indicates that Late Natufian assemblages usually


contain a wide variety of types, from tiny holes to deep narrow mortars (e.g., Raqefet cave [Nadel and Lengyel 2009; Nadel et al. 2008, 2009a], Huzuk Musa [Eitam 2009; Nadel and Rosenberg n.d.; Rosenberg et al. 2010] and Rosh Zin [Nadel et al. 2009b]). On the other hand, PPNA assemblages appear to be much more homogeneous, mostly falling within the ‘cupmark’ range, both on slabs within structures and on rock exposures (e.g., [Dorrell 1983], Netiv Hagdud [Bar-Yosef and Gopher 1997; Gopher 1997], Hatoula [Samzun 1994], Tel Bareqet [Rosenberg and Groman-Yaroslavski 2005] and Tzur Natan [Marder et al. 2008]).

Table 1. Characterizations of cupmark assemblages in PPNA sites.

Site/Attributes

Number of ‘blanks’

bearing cupmarks

Number of ‘blanks’

with cupmarks in

each building

‘Blank’ types

Raw materials

‘Blank’ min/m

axsize (cm

)

Number of

cupmarks on

‘blanks’

Cupmarks shapes

Depth-range (cm)

Diameter range

(cm)

Ref.

Hatoula 7 1, 2 Blocks, grinding stone

Limestone 30-50? 1 Round 6-13 4-11 Lechevallier and Ronen 1985, 39; 1989, 314; Samzun 1994

Modi’in ? ? Bedrock Limestone ? ? ? ? ? Zbenovich, pers, com

Kule Many ? Bedrock, boulders and blocks

Limestone Large? 1-many Mainly round

? ? Zbenovich, pers. com.

Tzur Natan

“Numerous” ? Bedrock Limestone ? a few Round ? ? Marderet al. 2008

Tel Bareqet

? ? Bedrock Limestone ? ? Mainly round

? ? Rosenberg and Gorman-Yaroslavski 2005

Nahal Oren

5-15 1, 2 Blocks, slabs,

Limestone ? 1, 2, 4 Round “Very shallow”

? Stekelisand Yizraely 1963

Gesher 1 1 Block, grinding stone

Basalt 40 1 Round 6.5 13 Garfinkel and Dag 2006

‘Iraq ed-Dubb

2 2 Blocks, slabs

? 50-70 1-2 Round? ? ? Kuijt 1994b

Ain Suhun

8 ? Blocks, slabs

Limestone? Large? 1-5 Round Shallow Small? Nadel et al. 1999, 3. fig. 2


Gilgal I 10-15? 1, 2 Boulders, slabs, querns, grinding slabs and platters

Limestone 30-70 1-12 Mainly round

2-5 3-14 Noy 1979; 1989; Rosenberg and Gopher 2010

Netiv Hagdud

12+ 1, 2, 3 Blocks, slabs, bowls and grinding slabs

Limestone 35-60 1-5 Mainly round

2-7? 5-14? Bar-Yosef and Gopher 1997; Gopher 1997

Jericho 16 ? Blocks, slabs, bowls platters

Limestone? ? 1-7 Mainly round

1.2-8.5 6-17 Dorrell 1983

Ain Darat

? 1+? Blocks, grinding slabs

Limestone? ? 1-2 Round Shallow Small? Gopher 1995

Zahrat edh-Dhra’ 2

5 ? Blocks and slabs

Limestone, basalt and sandstone

? 1-4 Round? Shallow Small? Edwards et al. 2002

Wadi Faynan 16

15? ? Blocks, slabs and grinding stones

Sandstone, granite, basalt?

22-71 1-4 Round 2-9 4-10 Shaffrey 2007, 350-353, fig. 11.7

Indeed, some of the Mt. Carmel sites with bedrock features do look much more like the PPNA examples, and the case of cupmarks found on slabs and boulders within structures at Nahal Oren (PPNA) has been noted in the past (Olami 1984:101; Stekelis and Yizraeli 1963). By the same token and based on the accumulating data regarding bedrock features in the southern Levant, we suggest that most, if not all of the bedrock mortars/cupmarks found in the three chambers investigated by us at Ornit Cave are within the realm of PPNA bedrock features, bearing in mind the possibility that some of these (specifically those missing portions of their upper parts, due to the bedrock deterioration) may have been deeper, and thus may have been Natufian.

The exact dating of the Ornit Cave bedrock features remains open for now, lacking further progress on bedrock feature dating methods or data from stratified context in the cave (no PPNA material has been noted during the excavation). However, the narrow morphological and dimensional range are clearly within the realm of PPNA bedrock features, as well as in the range of cupmarks on slabs placed within structures (table 1, and see Rosenberg and Nadel n.d.).

PPNA open-air sites with concentrations of bedrock features, usually limited typologically to cupmarks, include Hatoula (Samzun 1994), Modi’in (Zbenovich pers, com.), Kule (Zbenovich pers. com.), Tzur Natan (Marder et al. 2008) and Tel Bareqet (Rosenberg and


Gorman-Yaroslavski 2005) (table 1). Similar cupmarks are found in PPNA hamlets (mainly within structures), carved on various platforms such as slabs, boulders and on lower grinding implements. These can be found in sites such as Nahal Oren (Stekelis and Yizraeli 1963, 6, fig. 4; pl. A-C), Hatoula (Lechevallier and Ronen 1985, 1989), Gesher (Garfinkel and Dag 2006), ‘Iraq ed-Dubb (Kuijt 1994b), Ain Suhun (Nadel et al. 2000), Gilgal I (Noy 1979; 1989; Rosenberg 2008; Rosenberg and Gopher 2010), Netiv Hagdud (Bar-Yosef and Gopher 1997; Gopher 1997), Jericho (Dorrell 1983), Ain Darat (Gopher 1995), Zahrat edh-Dhra’ 2 (Edwards et. al. 2002) and Wadi Faynan 16 (Shaffrey 2007, 350-353, fig. 11.7). In all these sites, as in the three chambers we explored in Ornit Cave, the dominant type is a cavity (cupmark) ca. 5-15 cm deep and ca. 5-10 cm across at the top, with a volume of ca. 0.5-1.0 litters.

The size of these features raises questions regarding the substance processed in them, the amount processed and the pestles used for pounding in them. While the exact nature of the substance processed (food or other) is unclear for now, it is clear that the amount of material to be processed in each pounding session was small in terms of quantity and weight (compared to many Natufian examples, for instance). However, the possibility of repeated pounding sessions accompanied by frequent changing of the processed (pounded) mass is likely. The known PPNA pestles are indeed compatible (in terms of lengths and diameters) for working with such cupmarks/mortars (e.g., Dorrell 1983; Gopher 1997; Rosenberg and Gopher 2010; Rosenberg 2004; Wright 1993).

The fact that in many cases these bedrock features were set one next to another, sometimes even cross-cutting each other or in high concentrations (even more than 10 per square meter), seems to suggest that at least some of these were made consecutively over an unknown period of time, as it is hard to effectively work in all these at the same time. However, it is probable that at least some were actually in use at the same time. The packed alignment of cupmarks and mortars may thus signify family ties and relation between members of the community. Whatever the production sequence was, it is apparent that the position of these bedrock features had much to do with the fact that all three chambers had good light, ventilation and a view to the northeast. Indeed, many of these were set close to the cave openings.

PPNA settlement patterns in this part of Mt. Carmel are hard to reconstruct due to limited data. The possibility of groups occupying the cave on a seasonal basis and even permanently, exploiting the rich nearby environment is probable. However, it is also possible that the site was occupied only for short intervals, for example when hunting groups traveled in the area. Although speculative, expeditions exploiting the rich flint sources just below the cave may have used the cave while mining.

Ornit Cave is located in a favorable and advantageous place, as it is overlooking the terrain and near the perennial spring of Ein Qedem, and literally adjacent to extensive flint quarries.


A variety of food resources (plants and animals) must have flourished on the nearby slopes and the wide wadi just below, and not far away was the coastal plain and beyond it the Mediterranean Sea. It is thus very likely that the site was repeatedly visited or occupied for these merits, and it is in this context that we should further explore the bedrock features found in it.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTSWe would like to thank all the people who worked with us in the field and especially R. Yeshurun, R. Brown-Goodman, A. Avshalomov, M. Mualem and I. Tahan. We thank V. Damov and I. Rosenberg for their help with the graphics. Work was done under license G62/2007 ‒ from the IAA.

REFERENCESAdams, J. L. 1999. Refocusing the role of food-grinding tools as correlates for subsistence strategies in

the U.S. Southwest. American Antiquity 64: 475-98.Bar-Yosef O. 2002. The Natufian culture and the early Neolithic: Social and economic trends in

southwestern Asia. In Bellwood B. and Renfrew C. (eds.), Examining the Farming/Language dispersal Hypothesis, pp. 113-126. Cambridge, McDonald Institute monographs.

Bar-Yosef O. and Gopher A. (eds.), 1997. An Early Neolithic Village in the Jordan Valley, Part I: The Archaeology of Netiv Hagdud. American School of Prehistoric Research, Bulletin 43. Cambridge, Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology. Harvard University.

Basgall, M. E. 1987. Resource intensification among hunter-gatherers: Acorn economies in prehistoric California. Research in Economic Anthropology 9: 21-52.

Bednarik, R. G. 2008. Cupules. Rock Art Research 25(1): 61-100.van den Brink, E. C. M. 2008. A new fossil directeur of the Chalcolithic landscape in the Shephelah and

the Samarian and Judean Hill countries: Stationary grinding facilities in bedrock. Israel Exploration Journal 58(1): 1-23.

Cane S. 1989. Australian aboriginal seed grinding and its archaeological record: A case study from the Western Desert. In Harris D. R. and Hillman G. C. (eds.), Foraging and Farming, the Evolution of Plant Exploitation, pp. 99-119. One World Archaeology 13. London: Unwin Hyman.

Dorrell P. G. 1983. Stone vessels tools and object. In: Kenyon K. and Holland T. A. (eds.), Jericho V, pp. 485-575. London, London British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem.

Dubreuil, L. 2004. Long-term trends in Natufian subsistence: a use-wear analysis of ground stone tools. Journal of Archaeological Science 31(11): 1613-1629.

Edwards, P. C. and House, E. 2007. The third season of investigation at the Pre-Pottery Neolithic A site of Zahrat adh-Dhra’ 2 on the Dead Sea Plain, Jordan. Bulletin of the American School of Oriental Research 347: 1-19.

Edwards, P. C., Meadows, J., Metzger, M. C. and Sayej, G. 2002. Results from the first season at Zaharat adh-Dhra’ 2: A new Pre-Pottery Neolithic A site on the Dead Sea Plain in Jordan. Neo-Lithics 1/02: 11-16.


Eitam, D. 2008. Plant food in the Late Natufian: the oblong conical mortar as a case study. Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 38: 133-151.

Eitam, D. 2009. Late Epi-Palaeolithic rock-cur installations and groundstone tools in the southern Levant. Methodology and classification system. Paléorient 35(1): 77-104.

Galili, E. 2004. Submerge Settlements of the Ninth to Seventh Millennia BP Off the Carmel Coast. Unpublished Ph. D. Thesis, Tel Aviv University.

Garfinkel Y. and Dag D. (eds.), 2006. Gesher ‒ A Pre-Pottery Neolithic A Site in the Central Jordan Valley, Israel ‒ A Final Report. Berlin :Ex Oriente.

Garrod D. A. E. and Bate D. M. A. 1937. The Stone Age of Mount Carmel: Excavations at the Wady el-Mughara, Vol. I. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Gopher, A. 1995. ‘Ain Darat, A PPNA site in the Judean Desert. Neo-lithics 1/95: 7-8.Gopher A. 1997. Ground stone tools and other stone objects from Netiv Hagdud. In Bar Yosef O.

and Gopher A. (eds.), An Early Neolithic Village in the Jordan Valley. Part 1: The Archaeology of Netiv Hagdud, pp. 151-176. Cambridge: Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University.

Gopher, A. and Gophna, R. 1993. Cultures of the eight and seventh millennia BP in the Southern Levant: A review for the 1990s. Journal of World Prehistory 7(3): 297-353.

Goring-Morris, A. N., Goldberg, P., Goren, Y., Baruch, U. and Bar-Yosef, D. 1999 Saflulim: A Late Natufian base camp in the Central Negev Highlands, Israel. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 131: 1-29.

Grosman, L. and Goren-Inbar, N. 2007. “Taming” rocks and changing landscapes: A new interpretation

of Neolithic cupmarks. Current Anthropology 48(5): 732-740.Henry D. O. 1976. Rosh Zin: A Natufian settlement near Avdat. In Marks A. E. (ed.), Prehistory and

Palaeoenvironments in the Central Negev, Israel, pp. 317-347. Dallas: SMU Press.Janetski J. and Chazan M. 2004. Shifts in Natufian strategies and the Younger Dryas: Evidence from

Wadi Mataha, Southern Jordan. In: Delage C. (ed.), The Last Hunter-Gatherers in the Near East, pp. 161-168. Oxford: BAR International Series 1320.

Johnson, D. J., Janetski, J., Chazan, M., Witcher, S. and Meadow, R. 1999. Preliminary Report on Brigham Young University’s First Season of Excavation and Survey at Wādī Al-Matāha, Petra, Jordan. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan XLIII: 249-260.

Jones R. and Meehan B. 1989. Plant foods of the Gidjingali: Ethnographic and archaeological perspectives from Northern Australia on Tuber and Seed Exploitation. In: Harris D. R. and Hillman G. C. (eds.), Foraging and Farming: The Evolution of Plant Exploitation, pp. 120-135. One World Archaeology 13. London: Unwin Hyman.

Kenyon K. M. and Holland T. A. (eds.), 1981. Excavations at Jericho, Vol. III. London, British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem.

Kuijt, I. 1994. Pre-Pottery Neolithic A settlement variability: Evidence for sociopolitical development in the Southern Levant. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 7(2): 165-192.

Lechevallier M. and Ronen A. (eds.), 1985. Le site Natufien-Khiamien de Hatoula, Près de Latroun, Israël. Paris: Center de Recherché François de Jerusalem.

Lechevallier M. and Ronen A. 1989. L’occupation Post-Natufian de Hatoula, en Judee Occidentale, et sa place dance le cadre regional, In: Bar-Yosef O. and Vandermeersch B. (eds.), Investigation in South Levantine Prehistory, pp. 309-321. Oxford: BAR International Series 497.


Lee, G. 1981. The Rock Art of Soxtonocmu, an inland Chumash Village. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 3(l): 116-126.

Marder., O., Goring-Morris, A. N., Khalaily, H., Milevski, I., Rabinovich, R. and Zbenovich, V. 2008. Tzur Natan, a Pre-Pottery Neolithic A site in Central Israel and observation on regional settlement patterns. Paléorient 33(2): 79-100.

von Mülinen, G. 1908. Beitrage zur Kenntnis des Karmels. Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palätsina Vereins 31: 1-167.

Nadel, D. and Lengyel, Gy. 2009. Human-made bedrock holes (mortars and cupmarks) as a Late Natufian social phenomenon. Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Euroasia 37(2): 37-48.

Nadel, D., Lengyel, Gy., Bocquentin, F., Tsatskin, A., Rosenberg, D., Yeshurun, R., Bar-Oz, G., Bar-Yosef, M. D., Beeri, R., Conyers, L., Filin, S., Hershkovitz, I., Kurzawska, A. and Weissbrod, L. 2008. The Late Natufian at Raqefet Cave: The 2006 Excavation Season. Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 38: 59-131.

Nadel, D., Lengyel, G., Cabellos-Panades, T., Bocquentin, F., Rosenberg, D., Yeshurun, R., Brown-Goodman, R., Tsatskin, A., Bar-Oz, G. and Filin, S. 2009a. The Raqefet Cave 2008 excavation season. Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 39: 21-61.

Nadel, D., Rosenberg, D. and Yeshurun, R. 2009b. The deep and the shallow: The role of Natufian bedrock features at Rosh Zin, Central Negev, Israel. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 355: 1-29.

Nadel D. and Rosenberg D. n.d. Huzuq Musa and the transition from the Epipalaeolithic to the Neolithic in the Jordan Valley. In Bar-Yosef O. and Valla F. R. (eds.), Proceedings of the 2nd Natufian Conference. Paris: Institut National d’Histoire de l’Art.

Nadel, D., Tsatskin, A., Zertal, A. and Simmons, T. 2000. Ein Suhun – A PPNA/B settlement in the Eastern Samarian Hills. Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 30: 73-87.

Noy, T. 1979. Stone cup-holes and querns from Gilgal-I, A Pre-Pottery Neolithic-A site in Israel. Paléorient 5: 233-238.

Noy, T. 1989. Gilgal I ‒ A Pre Pottery Neolithic site, Israel ‒ The 1985-1987 seasons. Paléorient 15(2): 11-18.

Olami Y. 1957. Ornit Cave. Unpublished report, the Israel Antiquities Authority archive.Olami, Y. 1965. Grotte du Sheikh Suleiman (Ornith) Mont Carmel – Israel. Proceedings of the sixth

Congress UISPP: 173-176. Rome.Olami Y, 1984. Prehistoric Carmel. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.Paddayya, K. 1976. Cup-marks in the Shorapur Doab (South India). Man 11: 35-38.Parkman, E. B. 1986. Cupule Petroglyphs in the Diablo Range, California. Journal of California and

Great Basin Anthropology, 8(2): 246-259.Rosenberg, D. 2004. The Pestle: Characteristics and Changes of Stone Pounding Implements in the

Southern Levant from the Early Epipalaeolithic through the Pottery Neolithic Period. Unpublished M. A. Thesis, Tel Aviv University. (Hebrew with English summary).

Rosenberg, D. 2008. Serving meals making a home – The PPNA limestone vessel industry of the Southern Levant and its importance to the Neolithic Revolution. Paléorient 34(1): 23-32.

Rosenberg D. and Gopher A. 2010. Food processing tools and other groundstone implements from Gilgal I and Gilgal III. In Bar-Yosef. O, Goring-Morris A. N. and Gopher A. (eds.), Gilgal: Early Neolithic Occupations in the Lower Jordan Valley: The Excavations of Tamar Noy. American School of Prehistoric Research Monograph, Oxbow, Oxford. Pp. 139-175.


Rosenberg, D. and Groman-Yaroslavski, I. 2005. A PPNA bifacial assemblage from Tel Bareqet, Israel. Neo-Lithics 1/05: 24-28.

Rosenberg, D. and Nadel, D. 2009. Prehistoric flint quarries and workshops in Mount Carmel – The Nahal Galim/Nahal Ornit complex. The Quarry 4: 2:5-12.

Rosenberg D. and Nadel D. n.d. On floor level: PPNA indoor cupmarks and their Natufian forerunners. In Healy E., Maeda O. and Campbell S. (eds.), Provenance, Function, and Technology: The Contribution of Science to the Study of Chipped and Ground stone Tools. Proceedings of the 6th PPN Conference, University of Manchester, Manchester.

Rosenberg, D. and Nadel, D. n.d. Massive mortars and Natufian burial costumes: A new look on the so-called Natufian ‘pipe-mortars’.

Rosenberg, D., Nadel, D and Ronen, A. n.d. A Note on Ein Qedem 2 (EQ2) – A Kebaran site in Mount Carmel, Israel. Documenta Prehistorica.

Rosenberg, D., Yeshurun, R., Groman-Yaroslavski, I., Winter, H., Zertal, A., Brown-Goodman, R. and Nadel, D. 2010. Huzuq Musa – A preliminary report on the test excavation at a Final Epipalaeolithic/PPNA site in the Jordan Valley. Paléorient 36(2):189-204.

Rucks, M. M. 1995. The Social Context and Cultural Meaning of Ground Stone Milling Among Washoe Woman. Unpublished M. A. Thesis. The University of Nevada.

Samzun A. 1994. Le mobilier en pierre. In Lechevallier M. and Ronen A. (eds.), Le Gisement de Hatoula en Judee Occidentale, Israel, pp. 211-226. Memoires et Travaux du Centre de Recherche Francais de Jerusalem No. 8. Paris: Association Paléorient.

Shaffrey R. 2007. The groundstone. In Finlayson B. and Mithen S. (eds.), The Early Prehistory of Wadi Faynan, Southern Jordan, pp. 323-355. Oxford: Oxbow Books and CBRL.

Stekelis, M. and Yizraely, T. 1963. Excavations at Nahal Oren. Israel Exploration Journal 13(1): 1-12.Valla F. R. 2009. Une énigme Natoufienne: les ‘mortiers’ enterrés. In Collectif, De Mediterranne

et d’ailleurs… Méllanges offerts a Jean Guilaine, pp. 751-759. Toulouse: Archives d’Écologie Préhistorique.

Wright, K. 1991. The origins and development of ground stone assemblages in late Pleistocene Southwest Asia. Paléorient 17(1): 19-45.

Wright, K. 1993. Early Holocene ground stone assemblages in the Levant. Levant 25: 93-111.

CHARACTERIZATION AND DISTRIBUTION OF BEDROCK FEATURES AT ORNIT CAVE

Documents

Transcript of CHARACTERIZATION AND DISTRIBUTION OF BEDROCK FEATURES AT ORNIT CAVE