Hof Shahaf: a new Natufian site on the shore of Lake Kinneret

edited by

Ofer Bar-Yosef&

François R. Valla

InternatIonal Monographs In prehIstory

Archaeological Series 19

Natufian Foragers in the Levant

Terminal Pleistocene Social Changes in Western Asia

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Natufian foragers in the Levant : terminal Pleistocene social changes in Western Asia / edited by Ofer Bar-Yosef & François Valla. pages cm. -- (Archaeological series / International Monographs in Prehistory ; 19) Papers from a symposium held in 2009. Includes bibliographical references. ISBN 978-1-879621-45-9 (paperback : acid-free paper) -- ISBN 978-1-879621-46-6 (hard cover : acid-free paper) 1. Natufian culture--Middle East--Congresses. 2. Hunting and gathering societies--Middle East--Congresses. 3. Pleistocene-Holocene boundary--Congresses. 4. Social archaeology--Middle East--Congresses. 5. Social change--Middle East--History--To 1500--Congresses. 6. Excavations (Archaeology)--Middle East--Congresses. 7. Middle East--Antiquities--Congresses. I. Bar-Yosef, Ofer. II. Valla, François Raymond. GN774.3.N38N28 2013 306.3›640956--dc23 2013035516

© 2013 by International Monographs in PrehistoryAll rights reserved

Printed in the United States of AmericaAll rights reserved

Paperback:ISBN 978-1-879621-45-9Hard Cover:ISBN 978-1-879621-46-6

This book is printed on acid-free paper. ∞

International Monographs in PrehistoryAnn Arbor, MichiganU.S.A.

Printed with the support of the American School of Prehistoric Research (Peabody Museum, Harvard University)

Table of Contents

List of Contributors ................................................................................................................... vii

Preface – The Natufian Culture in the Levant: Twenty Years LaterOfer Bar-Yosef and François R. Valla ...............................................................................xv

Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................................xix

Northern Levant

Natufian Lifeways in the Eastern Foothills of the Anti-Lebanon MountainsNicholas J. Conard, Knut Bretzke, Katleen Deckers, Andrew W. Kandel, Mohamed Masri, Hannes Napierala, Simone Riehl and Mareike Stahlschmidt ..............................1

The Natufian of Moghr el-Ahwal in the Qadisha Valley, Northern LebanonAndrew Garrard and Corine Yazbeck ..............................................................................17

The Natufian of Southwestern Syria Sites in the Damascus ProvinceKurt Felix Hillgruber ........................................................................................................28

The Natufian Occupations of Qarassa 3 (Sweida, Southern Syria)Xavier Terradas, Juan José Ibáñez, Franck Braemer, Lionel Gourichon and Luis C. Teira ...................................................................................................................................45

The Early Natufian Site of Jeftelik (Homs Gap, Syria)Amelia del Carmen Rodríguez Rodríguez, Maya Haïdar-Boustani, Jesús E.González Urquijo, Juan José Ibáñez, Michel Al-Maqdissi, Xavier Terradasand Lydia Zapata ..............................................................................................................61

Fish in the Desert? The Younger Dryas and its Influence on the Paleoenvironment at Baaz Rockshelter, Syria

Hannes Napierala .............................................................................................................73

Preliminary Results from Analyses of Charred Plant Remains from a Burnt Natufian Building at Dederiyeh Cave in Northwest Syria

Ken-ichi Tanno, George Willcox, Sultan Muhesen, Yoshihiro Nishiaki, YousefKanjo and Takeru Akazawa..............................................................................................83

Southern Levant

El-Wad

Spatial Organization of Natufian el-Wad through Time: Combining the Results of Past and Present Excavations

Mina Weinstein-Evron, Daniel Kaufman and Reuven Yeshurun ...................................88

iv

The Last Natufian Inhabitants of el-Wad TerraceNoga Bachrach, Israel Hershkovitz, Daniel Kaufman and MinaWeinstein-Evron..............................................................................................................107

Domestic Refuse Maintenance in the Natufian: Faunal Evidence from el-Wad Terrace, Mount Carmel

Reuven Yeshurun, Guy Bar-Oz, Daniel Kaufman and Mina Weinstein-Evron ...........118

Natufian Green Stone Pendants from el-Wad: Characteristics and Cultural ImplicationsDaniella E. Bar-Yosef Mayer, Naomi Porat and Mina Weinstein-Evron ......................139

Eynan

The Final Natufian Structure 215-228 at Mallaha (Eynan), Israel: an Attempt at Spatial Analysis

François R. Valla, Hamoudi Khalaily, Nicolas Samuelian, Anne Bridault, Rivka Rabinovich, Tal Simmons, Gaëlle Le Dosseur and Shoshana Ashkenazi ....................146

A Study of two Natufian Residential Complexes: Structures 200 and 203 at Eynan (Ain Mallaha), Israel

Nicolas Samuelian ..........................................................................................................172

Graves in Context: Field Anthropology and the Investigation of Interstratified Floors and Burials

Fanny Bocquentin, Teresa Cabellos and Nicolas Samuelian ........................................185

Obsidian in Natufian Context: the Case of Eynan (Ain Mallaha), IsraelHamoudi Khalaily and François R. Valla ......................................................................193

Flint Knapping and its Objectives in the Early Natufian. The Example of Eynan- Ain Mallaha (Israel)

Boris Valentin, François R. Valla and Hugues Plisson with the collaboration of Fanny Bocquentin ...........................................................................................................203

Searching for the Functions of Fire Structures in Eynan (Mallaha) and their Formation Processes: a Geochemical Approach

Ramiro J. March ..............................................................................................................227

Avifauna of the Final Natufian of EynanTal Simmons ....................................................................................................................284

Bone Ornamental Elements and Decorated Objects of the Natufian from MallahaGaëlle Le Dosseur and Claudine Maréchal ...................................................................293

Reconstruction of the Habitats in the Ecosystem of the Final Natufian Site of Ain Mallaha (Eynan)

Shoshana Ashkenazi .......................................................................................................312

v

Southern Levant - other sites

Wadi Hammeh 27: an open-air ‘base-camp’ on the Fringe of the Natufian ‘homeland’Phillip C. Edwards, Fanny Bocquentin, Sue Colledge, Yvonne Edwards, Gaëlle Le Dosseur, Louise Martin, Zvonkica Stanin and John Webb ...........................................319

Art Items from Wadi Hammeh 27Janine Major ...................................................................................................................349

The Final Epipaleolithic / PPNA site of Huzuq Musa (Jordan Valley)Dani Nadel and Danny Rosenberg .................................................................................382

Natufian Settlement in the Wadi al-Qusayr, West-Central JordanMichael Neeley ................................................................................................................397

The Steppic Early Natufian: Investigations in the Wadi al-Hasa, JordanDeborah I. Olszewski ......................................................................................................412

The Natufian of the Azraq Basin: An AppraisalTobias Richter and Lisa A. Maher ..................................................................................429

Chert Procurement Patterns And Exploitation Territory: Case Study From Late Natufian Hayonim Terrace (Western Galilee, Israel)

Christophe Delage ...........................................................................................................449

A Faunal Perspective on the Relationship between the Natufian Occupations of Hayonim Cave and Hayonim Terrace

Natalie D. Munro ............................................................................................................463

The Natufian at Raqefet CaveGyörgy Lengyel, Dani Nadel and Fanny Bocquentin ....................................................478

Hof Shahaf: A New Natufian Site on the Shore of Lake KinneretOfer Marder, Reuven Yeshurun, Howard Smithline, Oren Ackermann, Daniella E. Bar-Yosef Mayer, Anna Belfer-Cohen, Leore Grosman, Israel Hershkovitz, Noa Klein and Lior Weissbrod ...............................................................................................505

The Life History of Macrolithic Tools at Hilazon Tachtit CaveLaure Dubreuil and Leore Grosman ..............................................................................527

General Reviews, Climate and Interpretations

Breaking the Mould: Phases and Facies in the Natufian of the Mediterranean ZoneAnna Belfer-Cohen and A. Nigel Goring-Morris ...........................................................544

Ruminations on the Role of Periphery and Center in the NatufianA. Nigel Goring-Morris and Anna Belfer-Cohen ...........................................................562

vi

The Natufian and the Younger DryasDonald O. Henry .............................................................................................................584

Scaphopod Shells in the Natufian CultureAldona Kurzawska, Daniella E. Bar-Yosef Mayer and Henk K. Mienis ......................611

The Natufian Chronological Scheme – New Insights and their ImplicationsLeore Grosman ................................................................................................................622

Natufian Foragers and the ‘Monocot Revolution’: A Phytolith PerspectiveArlene M. Rosen ..............................................................................................................638

Lithic Technology in the Late Natufian – Technological Differences between ‘Core-area’ and ‘Periphery’

Hila Ashkenazy ...............................................................................................................649

Variability of Lunates and Changes in Projectile Weapons Technology during the NatufianAlla Yaroshevich, Daniel Kaufman, Dmitri Nuzhnyy, Ofer Bar-Yosef and Mina Weinstein-Evron..............................................................................................................671

Specialized Hunting of Gazelle in the Natufian: Cultural Cause or Climatic Effect?Guy Bar-Oz, Reuven Yeshurun and Mina Weinstein-Evron .........................................685

Commensalism: was it Truly a Natufian Phenomenon? Recent Cntributions from Ethnoarchaeology and Ecology

Lior Weissbrod, Daniel Kaufman, Dani Nadel, Reuven Yeshurun and Mina Weinstein-Evron..............................................................................................................699

505

Introduction

Researchers working on the Natufian culture highlighted the high variability of Natufian sites in the Levant. Large and probably sedentary hamlets, containing stone architecture, numerous burials and huge quantities of finds, occur mostly in the ‘core area’ of the Mediterranean central Levant (e.g., Bar-Yosef 1991; Belfer-Cohen 1988; Edwards 1991; Garrod and Bate 1937; Perrot 1966; Valla et al. 1991, 2007; Weinstein-Evron et al. herein). Smaller and more ephemeral occupations, sometimes ex-hibiting evidence of specialized activities such as numerous burials or rock-cut installations but little or no architecture, occur in the ‘core area’ as well as the neighboring areas. These sites are mostly assigned to the Late Natufian (e.g., Bar-Yosef 1983; Goring-Morris 1987; Grosman and Munro 2007; Henry 1976; Nadel et al. 2009a; Weinstein-Evron et al. 2007). In 2007–2008 a small site with Natufian re-mains, Hof Shahaf, was excavated above the south-western bank of Lake Kinneret (the Sea of Galilee) (Fig. 1). The nature of the site is intriguing, as it exhibits traits of both sedentary hamlets (a large structure) as well as the small ephemeral camps (low density of finds). The aim of this paper is to present the preliminary results of the excavation, describe the main finds and discuss the place of Hof Shahaf within the Natufian repertoire in its specific setting on the shore of Lake Kinneret.

The Site

The site is situated 200 m below sea level, on a narrow shelf extending eastward on a steep slope that descends to the western shore of the present Lake Kinneret, which is approximately twelve

Hof Shahaf: A New Natufian Site on the Shore of Lake Kinneret

Ofer Marder, Reuven Yeshurun, Howard Smithline, Oren

Ackermann, Daniella E. Bar-Yosef Mayer, Anna Belfer-Cohen,

Leore Grosman, Israel Hershkovitz, Noa Klein

and Lior Weissbrod

meters below (Figs. 1, 2). The site has experienced a number of destructive disturbances, including the construction of both a water-carrying channel and a road along the shoreline, as well as intensive geological and geomorphological events such as tremors that caused the tumbling of basalt boulders and colluvial activity. The site was discovered in 2007 during a system-atic survey of the area conducted under the direction of N. Getzov on behalf of the Israel Antiquities Authority. Some flint artifacts were identified in a small area on the slope and adjacent to the water channel. It was decided to conduct a test excavation

Fig. 1. Location map of Hof Shahaf and other sites mentioned in the text.

506

Ofer Marder et al.

in order to better identify the magnitude of the site and the source of the finds. Five 2 x 2 m squares were excavated in a north-south orientation to the west of the water channel during the 2007 test season (Fig. 3). The two southern squares (FG/42–44 and FG/35–37) revealed the Kinneret Formation which is the remains of a paleolake consisting of marl and silt with small round pebbles. No archaeological finds were present in this matrix. In contrast, a small segment of a round wall (Wall 110) dug into the marl of the Kinneret Formation was uncovered in squares FG/29–30. Archaeological finds, mainly flint artifacts, were uncovered adjacent to both its outer and inner faces i.e. outside and inside Structure 106. The remain-der of the structure was excavated in 2008 during the subsequent more extensive salvage excavation which finds are presented below. In the two northern squares (FG/13–14 and FG/17–18), the remains of brown paleosol contain-ing a large amount of flint artifacts and bones were exposed. Among the finds, one el-Khiam point, awls on blade/lets and a number of microliths were dis-tinctive. Large basalt boulders that had slid down the steep slope predate the paleosol that contained the human occupation. A large salvage excavation was carried out in May–July 2008. The excavation was divided into two areas, West Area and East Area, separated by the modern channel. Ca. 70 m2 were excavated using a 1 x 1 m grid. Vertical spits in clear archeological horizons were ≤5 cm. Material not originating from clear archaeological horizons was dry-sieved with a 10 mm mesh. All the material originating from clear

archaeological horizons was wet-sieved on the shore of the lake using a 1 mm mesh from which finds were retrieved by hand picking. The excavation on the eastern side of the channel exposed the eroded and extremely damaged slope that contained rich Natufian finds, though not necessarily in primary deposition, above carbonatic crusts. In the West Area the entire preserved part of the curvilinear structure (106) was revealed and, based on the characteristic lithic industry, dated to the Natufian time period. A human burial was exposed northwest of the structure. This report describes the finds from the Natu-fian layer (Layer II) unearthed in the center of the West Area (Structure 106 and its surroundings). The excavated volume of the Natufian layer in this area is ca. 4.5 m3 of sediment.

Geological Setting

The site is topographically situated on the shelf of a hill that slopes steeply down to the western shore of Lake Kinneret. The steep incline subjected the site to slope erosion and is eventually being covered with colluvium and boulders up to 200 cm in size (Fig. 2). Five main geological units (Units 1–5 from lowest to highest) were discerned within the area of the excavation (Figs. 4, 5). The geolog-ical/ sedimentological structure of the northern and eastern parts of the site (squares FG13–18 and the East Area) is composed of vesicular and eroded basalt (Unit 1). The site is located on the erosional line (Fig. 6) cutting the marl sediments of the Kinneret Formation of the late Pleistocene (ca.

a. b.

Fig. 2. General views of the site setting: (a) facing north. The archaeological exposure (under the shades) is cut by the water channel and the road. Note the steep slope to the west and Lake Kinneret to the east. (b) The slope above the site.

507


19–35 cal. kyr BP; Hazan et al. 2005). The Kinneret Formation (Unit 2) appears only in the southwestern part of the site (Squares FG26–44). The geological/

sedimentological structure of Unit 2 is composed of lake and beach sediments of alternating layers of laminated marl, cross-bedding granular to pebbles rock fragments to pebbles and laminated pebbles. These layers represent several depositional envi-ronments that reflect the dynamic changes of the Kinneret paleolake over the course of thousands of years. A thin carbonatic crust (Unit 3), 20–30 cm thick, appears in a limited area in the northeastern part of the site (Squares OP10–14) (Figs. 4, 7). The crust covers the basalt rock and coats boulders, flint artifacts, animal bones, Melanopsis shells and crab claws. This localized crust indicates the existence of a prehistoric freshwater spring, which could have attracted human occupation. The Natufian site lies in the paleosol that accumulated and was generated in the erosional depression (Unit 4) (Fig. 6). This unit, 30–90 cm thick, is rich in colluvial angular to sub-rounded rock fragments of limestone and worn vesicular basalt up to 20 cm in length. The unit contains carbonate concretions as well. This unit is overlain by Unit 5: grumic soil, cubic-prismatic clay with fissures and roots, containing colluvial sub-rounded to sub-angular rock fragments up to 40 cm in length.

Fig. 3. Site plan showing the excavation areas (shaded squares).

Fig. 4. Northern section of the OP13-14 trench in the East Area. For location see section C-C’ in Fig. 3.

508

Ofer Marder et al.

Stratigraphy

The eastern and western excavation areas cannot be physically connected due to the presence of the destructive water channel that bisects the site. However, their stratigraphy is similar and we view them as representing one site comprising occupation/s of the same cultural unit. It is strongly possible that relevant prehistoric material was removed by recent construction work. The stratigraphy of the West Area is as follows (Fig. 5): Layer I: Top-soil of cubic-prismatic clay with fissures and roots. This layer stretches along the entire western section, averaging 40 cm in thickness, but ranging between 0.2 –1.2 m. The layer displays

a few small angular stones and large boulders, originating from the slope, from E28 northwards. An extremely large boulder, measuring 2.2x1.5 m., occurs in the E25–26 section. The layer contains mixed archaeological material, including Natufian flint artifacts and small and highly worn Roman, Byzantine, Mameluk and Ottoman period sherds, no larger than 5 cm. Layer II: Light brownish-gray to whitish-gray compact paleosol, which was only found north of Sq. FG30 (Fig. 5). Large boulders, with maximum dimensions of 0.5-0.6 m, appear in part of the layer (FG 26–22, approximately). This layer is the main archaeological (Natufian) occupation of the site, containing architectural remains, flint artifacts, groundstone items, bones, shells, ochre and char-

Fig. 5. Western section of the central West Area (E24-30 line). For location see section A-A’ in Fig. 3

Fig. 6. Site section, looking west. Note the erosional line cutting the marls of Unit 2.

509


taining some angular basalt cobbles. Its thickness ranges between 10 to 40 cm. The paleosol is rich in Natufian archaeological material, with few later intrusions. No architectural remains or clear living surfaces were encountered in the East Area. It is not as yet clear whether the Natufian finds are in primary deposition here.

Architecture

The Natufian stone architecture is the most notable feature of the site (see Appendix 1 for details of all architectural features). It is situated in the center of the West Area (squares FG22–30, Fig. 3). Two architectural phases were discerned: a large structure dug into the existing matrix (Structure 106, Figs. 8a-c, 9) overlain by several small stone installations (Loci 120, 122 and 124; Fig. 10). To the north of the large structure is an area with stony layers and a human burial. Structure 106 is defined by a curvilinear wall (Wall 110) built of undressed fieldstones mostly 10–30 cm in length and preserved to a maximum of four courses, ca. 0.70 m. (Fig. 8c). Construction of the water channel destroyed the eastern portion of the structure and thus its full extent is unknown; the preserved diameter is ca. 4.75 m. No entrance was apparent. The structure was dug into three different geological units: the Natufian paleosol (Unit 4) and possibly also the worn basalt of Unit 1 in the northern part, and archaeologically sterile Kinneret marls (Unit 2) in the southern part. Large basalt boulders were observed beneath the Natufian paleosol inside the southern part of the structure (Figs. 8, 11). The archaeological deposition inside the structure attained a depth of ca. 0.45 m, and consisted of compacted brownish-gray fine paleosol. The finds include flint artifacts, marine shells, ani-mal bones, ochre and sporadic patches of charcoal or other burned material. Notably, intrusive ma-terial from more recent times (e.g., pottery sherds) is extremely rare inside Structure 106, despite the fact that it was cut by the modern water channel. In the upper surfaces several stones similar in size to the stones of Wall 110 were found inside the structure, perhaps the remains of installations or wall collapse. The stones phased-out with the attaining of greater depth. Very few small stones, large artifacts and large bones were found inside the structure, rendering the identification of living surfaces difficult. Two distinct small patches of sediment were recognized inside the structure (Loci 129 and 131), both consisting of compact sediment patches differing in color and matrix from the sur-

coal. In addition to the Natufian industry, in the northwestern part of the site a few PPNA artifacts were found, probably not in primary deposition (see below). Layer II overlies Unit 2 along the West Area, and cuts it in the southern portion of Structure 106 (see below). The East Area (Figs. 4, 7) was a narrow strip situated between the water channel and the de-scending slope, about two meters lower than the West Area in absolute height. The area was covered by a modern disturbance containing a light brown soil with gravels and sand that attains a depth of 10-50 cm. Recent, twentieth century, material was found along with mixed archaeological mate-rial. Below the modern disturbance was Layer I, which is similar to Layer I in the West Area. It is grayish-brown cubic-prismatic clay with fissures and roots, ca. 60-90 cm thick. Basalt boulders were common in this matrix. A light brownish-gray to whitish-gray paleosol (Layer II) was found overlying a white carbonatic crust (Unit 3) or occasionally overlying the basal basalt (Unit 1). The paleosol was likewise found between and below large intrusive boulders, con-

Fig. 7. The carbonatic crust in the east excavation area, overlain by a paleosol with Natufian material.

510

Ofer Marder et al.

rounding sediments. These may represent remains of hearths (Appendix 1).

The upper architectural phase, directly over-lying Wall 110 and possibly dug into the upper levels of Structure 106 (Fig. 11), consists of three features, the best preserved of which is Locus 120 – a small round stone installation with a large slab inside (Fig. 10). The two additional features – Locus 122, which is integrated within the wall of Locus 120, and the adjacent Locus 124 – are more poorly preserved and their configuration is unclear. A small concentration of stones (Locus 119), which is possibly a built feature, was found at the top of Layer II, overlying Locus 120 (Appendix 1). South of the structure, only evidence of the Kinneret formation and its sedimentation were identified with no human related artifacts having been found there. North of the structure are the Natufian paleosol and a stony layer (Locus 127) con-taining the human burial that probably represents an ‘open’ area adjacent to the structure (Fig. 12; Appendix 1). Locus 127 is not regular or leveled in appearance but it may still be an anthropogenic feature – either an inconsistently arranged pave-

Fig. 8a. Structure 106: view to the north-west.

Fig. 8b. Structure 106: aerial view.

511


ment or an unconstructed living surface, with the human burial embedded in it. A slightly greater number of large artifacts (e.g., groundstone items) and animal bones were found here than in the interior of Structure 106.

The Human Burial

A human burial was uncovered ca.1.5 m north-west of the structure, within the stony layer L127 (Fig. 12). A primary burial, the individual was interred in a supine position, with both his upper limbs po-sitioned parallel to the body (Fig. 13). The bones of the trunk (ribs, scapulae, clavicles and vertebrae) were articulated, but in a very bad state of pres-ervation. The upper limb bones were fragmentary and could not be reconstructed to their full length. Phalanges and most carpal and metacarpal bones were missing. The skeleton was not preserved below the torso, probably due to an unspecified postburial disturbance that truncated the burial; the lower elements of the skeleton were, thus, totally missing (innominates and lower limb bones). Although the upper half of the skeleton was preserved, the skull was missing. The lower jaw was, nevertheless, found in situ. It may be surmised that the skull was deliberately removed, as no sign of it was found, while the mandible, the neck and

the torso were uncovered in perfect anatomical articulation. The shape of the mandible, the high symphysis, the developed menton and the robustness of the body lead to the determination that the skeleton is that of a male. The individual’s age could be determined solely on the basis of dental attrition. The degree of occlusal wear, mainly of the third molars, suggests that this individual was ca. 30–40 years of age at the time of death. A marine shell, a fossil scaphopod, was found on the torso. Contrary to the robustness of the mandible, the long bones appear gracile, muscles’ markings are only moderately developed and no sign of joint-diseases (arthritis) could be detected. The mandible does not manifest signs of periodontal diseases, periepical lesion, and no teeth were lost premortem. The teeth are large and the first molars’ cusps are deeply indented. The gonion is averted and its medial aspect show marked bony ridges, both testifying to strong mastication muscles.

Flint Assemblage

Most of the flint artifacts originate from small fist-sized nodules that vary in color: grey, brown, buff, purple and even transparent. The origin of the flint is unclear, although it seems that flint nodules

Fig. 8c. Structure 106: close-up on the wall of the structure.

512

Ofer Marder et al.

are abundant within the conglomerate, which was deposited in the immediate vicinity of the site and along the Lake Kinneret shoreline. This short report focuses on the central West Area. All of the discussed material originates from Structure 106 with a high frequency of debitage and a low percentage of tools (Table 1). The industry is dominated by flakes (n = 3412 ca. 70%), while blades/lets are less common and altogether form 7.71% of the debitage assemblage in Structure 106 (Table 2). The amount of Core Trimming Elements (CTE) is low (<3%), consisting mainly of general CTE, with only four core tablets and one ridge blade. MbT is present in all areas of the excavation (Fig. 14:5) but is uncommon in

Fig. 9. Plan of Structure 106. For section view see Section B-B’ (Fig. 11).

Fig. 10. Round stone installation above Structure 106: Locus 120. Note the working slab inside the installation.

Fig. 11. Southwest-Northeast section in the central West Area (E30-G28 squares). For location see section B-B’ in Fig. 3. Note the Natufian architecture – Wall 110 of Structure 106 and Wall 121 of Locus 120 – both dug into Unit 2 sediments.

Table 1. Breakdown of lithic sample from Structure 106 (not including debris)

Category N %Tools 207 4.14Debitage 4758 95.20Cores 33 0.66

Total 4998 100.00

513


Fig. 12. General view of the area north of Structure 106, showing the location of the burial within locus 127 (the stony layer).

a. b.

Fig. 13. The human burial: (a) plan. The x denotes the location of the fossil Dentalium shell; (b) burial photo.

514

Ofer Marder et al.

Structure 106, where it comprises a mere 0.5% of the assemblage and thus, was probably rarely used. The debitage category includes an additional 761 chunks and unidentified items (16% of deb-itage) many of which show evidence of intensive burning. It seems that the debitage assemblage, unlike the tool assemblage, was heavily modified by fire. 33 cores were found in Structure 106 (Fig. 15). The cores are small: 24.8 cm average length, 27.8 cm average width and 20.9 cm average thickness. At least 22 cores (nearly 70%) were made on small nodules and seven (21%) were made on flakes. The source for the remainder could not be determined. 17 of the 33 cores (52%) were used for the produc-tion of flakes (Fig. 15:1, 4), seven were used for the production of blade/lets and nine were used for both (Fig. 15:2). Single striking platform cores make up nearly 40% of the cores (Fig. 15:1, 4). The majority of the remainder are either two platforms at 90° or two opposing striking platforms (Fig. 15:2-3). These three types comprise 85% of all cores. Other types, such as a three striking platforms core and a radial/discoidal core are not common (one of each).The cores are rather well preserved: only about 18% are broken and 24% are patinated. Approximately one-third of all cores are burnt. Nearly 60% of the tools (n = 207) were made on flakes while 23% were made on bladelets modified into microliths. However, while bladelets were

used almost exclusively for geometric microliths production, there was a fair amount of flake use for non-geometric microliths production: 49% were made on bladelets and 34% were made on flakes. The artifacts are not abraded and there is a low number of burnt or patinated items. More than half of the tools (65%) are broken. The tool assemblage (n = 207) is dominated by microliths, burins, notches and denticulates, and retouched flakes. Awls/borers, backed items, trun-cations, multiple tools and varia were also found (Table 3).

The microlith assemblage (n = 77) comprises more than one-third of all the retrieved tools. In contrast to other tools, bladelets rather than flakes are the preferred blanks. Within this group, eight items are retouched Helwan bladelets - possibly broken lunates. The geometric microliths (n = 23) are almost exclusively Helwan lunates (Fig. 14:1-4, 6-8). Only one backed lunate was identified. The average length of the complete lunates (n = 16) is 19.5 mm and the average width is 6.7 mm. Burins (n = 30) are the second largest tool category. Twenty-three of the 30 burins were made on flakes, approximately half of which are broken. Exactly a third of the burins are dihedral on a break. The other more distinct types are straight dihedral, right angle dihedral and varia. Of particular note is the occurrence of backed pieces, all broken. Among the backed pieces are three sickle blades. One of the sickle blades was modified by Helwan retouch (Fig. 14:9). Five of the backed pieces (including one sickle blade) were made on flakes and two on a blade/let. This accords well

Table 2. Breakdown of the debitage in Structure 106

TYPE N %Flake 2916 61.29Primary Flake 496 10.42Blade 32 0.67Primary Blade 12 0.25Bladelet 288 6.05Primary Bladelet 35 0.74Chunk & Unidentified 761 15.99C.T.E 141 2.96Burin Spall 31 0.65Ridge Blade 1 0.02Core Tablet 4 0.08M.B.T 24 0.50Limestone Item 10 0.21Resharpening 7 0.15

Total 4758 100

Table 3. The tool assemblage from Structure 106

TYPE N %Endscrapers 6 2.9Burins 30 14.49Borers & Awls 13 6.28Backed Pieces 8 3.86Truncations 5 2.42Notches & Denticulates 21 10.14Retouched Pieces 25 12.08Composite Tools 8 3.86Varia 14 6.76Non-geometric Microliths 54 26.09Geometric Microliths 23 11.11

Total 207 100.00

515


Fig. 14. Flint artifacts: Natufian artifacts from Structure 106: 1-4, 6, 8 Lunates; 5, Distal microburin; 9 Sickle blade; 7, Lunate in preparation. PPNA flint artifacts (F-G 13-18): 10, El Khiam point; 11, Lunate modified by abrupt retouch.

516

Ofer Marder et al.

with the main traits of the assemblage, which is dominated by flakes, tools on flake blanks, as well as unstandardized CTE’s. It is important to note that some PPNA mate-rial, possibly not in primary deposition, was found solely in the northwest part of the site, It includes one minute el-Khiam point and one small lunate modified by abrupt retouch (Fig. 14:10-11).

Groundstone Assemblage

Preliminary observations on the groundstone assemblage from all excavation areas, including surface material indicate the presence of a va-riety of types that include mortars (Fig. 16:1), a ‘shaft straightener’ (Fig. 16:2), pestles (Fig. 16:3), handstones (Fig. 16:4), pounders, grinding stone (Fig.16:5) and chipped items almost exclusively

Fig. 15. Natufian Flint artifacts (Structure 106): 1, 4 Single platform core; 2, Multiple platform core – opposite; 3, Amorphous core.

517


made of basalt available on-site. Working slabs were found inside Structure 106 and the small loci above it (Fig. 10). This assemblage contains the familiar types known from other Natufian sites (e.g., Wright 1992). Although bedrock mortars and cupmarks are common in some Natufian sites (e.g., Nadel et al. 2009b) none were found at the Hof Shahaf site or in its vicinity.

Bone artifacts

Eight worked bone items were found both in the excavation and during sorting of faunal mate-rial from the central West Area. One artifact was found in Locus 120, three inside Structure 106 and four north of the structure, including three artifacts from Locus 127. All were found broken,

Fig. 16. Groundstone items: 1, Mortar rim; small mortar (cup); 2, ‘Shaft straightener’; 3, Pestle; 4, Handstone; 5, Grinding stone.

518

Ofer Marder et al.

with the pieces being 15-27 mm in length. Three pieces show signs of burning. One fragment displays a shallow groove, possibly an unfinished sickle haft (Fig. 17:3) known from other Natufian sites (e.g., Edwards 1991: fig. 12:1.5). Two artifacts are points, one is a pierced plaque, and one may be a ‘hook’ similar to those found in the Natufian of the Kebara Cave (Turville-Petre 1932) but larger and wider in diameter. It is also similar to finds from the Late Natufian of Eynan (Le Dosseur 2006: figs. 132, 134) (Fig. 17:2). The remaining fragments of worked bones cannot be classified.

Except for one point/awl (Fig. 17:1) made on a proximal gazelle metacarpus the other bones could not be confidently identified. Most are probably tibial or metapodial fragments of gazelle.

Vertebrate Fauna

The excavation yielded a small faunal assem-blage. All identifiable bone fragments were record-ed, along with multiple taphonomic data. The full procedures for treating macrofaunal remains follow Yeshurun (2011). Faunal remains were recovered from most of the excavation units around and within Structure 106 although in very small quantities as compared to other Epipaleolithic sites (e.g., Yeshurun et al. herein). The low density of faunal (as that of other) remains characterizes the site, along with very high fragmentation of the macrofaunal specimens. Hence, despite the significant volume of excavation, the faunal assemblage is small: 258 identified specimens (NISP, including micromammals) and several hundreds of unidentified fragments from a volume of 4.52 m3 of sediment in the area analyzed. The average length of the identified specimens (excluding micromammals) is only 16 mm, attest-ing to the prevalence of small-bodied taxa in the assemblage, but also to the strong fragmentation processes at the site, and the meticulous collection methods employed in the excavation. As with most Epipaleolithic assemblages, much of the identified mammal specimens were assigned to a size-class rather than species. Size classes are small carnivore; small mammal (which may include small carnivores as well); Gazella-size, or small un-gulate (Gg); Dama-size, or medium ungulate (Dm); and Bos-size, or large ungulate (Bp). The ‘small mammal/small carnivore’ classes are dominated by hare, and the small and medium-size ungulate classes are dominated by gazelles and fallow deer, respectively. At this stage no large ungulate remains (e.g., aurochs) were identified. Among the specimens identified to species, ungulates make up only one-third of the macro-faunal assemblage, with the mountain gazelle (Gazella gazella) being by far the most common ungulate species (Table 4). Larger ungulates are rare, and are represented only by Mesopotamian fallow deer (Dama mesopotamica). Small game is numerous, making up two-thirds of the assemblage (NISP identified to species). It primarily includes remains of Cape hare (Lepus capensis) along with spur-thighed tortoise (Testudo graeca). Also present are a few specimens of red fox (Vulpes vulpes), pine marten (Martes foina), a feline (Felis sp.), hedgehog (Erinaceus europaeus), several nocturnal raptor bones including eagle owl (Bubo bubo), a stork (Ciconia sp.) and seven freshwater crab claws, which probably belong to Potamon cf. potamois (as

Fig. 17. Bone artifacts: 1, Broken point/awl; 2, Hook (?); 3, Grooved item.

519


identified in other Jordan Valley assemblages; see Horwitz and Ashkenazi 2006; Valla et al. 2007). Some variability can be observed within the different archaeological contexts. The interior of Structure 106 is richer in small mammals, crabs and snakes, while the stony layer outside it (Locus 127) is richer in ungulates (Fig. 18). Further study is needed to validate this pattern and to determine whether it is related to human discard habits. The ungulate and small game remains (hare, tortoise, small carnivores and bird) likely rep-resent discarded leftovers of butchered animal carcasses which were consumed and exploited for raw materials by the inhabitants of the site. Burnt specimens amount to 16% of NISP and in-clude all the major taxa in the assemblage. Three cutmarks were found, on gazelle and gazelle-sized limb bone shafts, representing dismemberment and filleting activities. Signs of carnivore ravag-ing are not uncommon and are apparent on 5% of NISP, including gazelle, tortoise and hare bones. Trampling activity or sediment compaction is evident through the frequent occurrence of non-nu-tritional or ‘dry’ breakage on half of the limb bone shafts and first phalanges shafts (following Villa and Mahieu 1991) and by trampling striations on bone surfaces (e.g., Dominguez-Rodrigo et al. 2009) appearing on 4% of the specimens. Thus, the intense fragmentation of the assemblage is probably a result of both consumption and tram-pling/compaction processes. The assemblage was buried quickly, as no weathered bones (stages 3-5, following Behrensmeyer 1978) were found. Root marks (Binford 1981) were found on 37% of relevant specimens and abraded bone edges were noted on 6%. Overall, no significant evidence for erosion or prolonged exposure was found. The origin of the freshwater crab remains could be from natural mortality in the sediments (Horwitz and Ashkenazi 2006) and may be linked to the carbonatic crust layer in the East Area of the site, which possibly represents a spring contempo-raneous with the Natufian habitation. A small number of micromammalian remains was retrieved from the site. This included an NISP of 15 representing four different taxa of rodents: mole rat (Spalax ehrenbergi) common mouse (Mus spp.), vole (Microtus guentheri), and jird (Meriones tristrami) (Table 4). These are the most common taxa typically occurring in Natufian micromamma-lian assemblages (e.g., Nadel et al. 2008: table 10; Weissbrod et al. 2005: table 1) and would therefore be expected even in a small assemblage. The rodent remains represent a minimum of six individuals.

Specimens were identified from a range of skeletal elements, both cranial and post-cranial. The state of preservation varied among the remains. The extent of breakage of most specimens was limited and most specimens exhibited good cortical pres-ervation. Three macrofaunal specimens displayed signs of rodent gnawing, perhaps indicating the sporadic presence of rodents at the site at or soon after human occupation.

Table 4. Taxonomic composition of the Hof Shahaf faunal sample used for this study.

NISP

Gazella gazella 40

Gg-size 70

Dama mesopotamica 2

Dm-size 2

Lepus capensis 36

Erinaceus europaeus 1

Small mammal 15

Vulpes vulpes 3

Felis sp. 1

Martes foina 1

Small carnivore 9

Spalax ehrenbergi 7

Mus spp. 1

Microtus guenthri 1

Meriones tristrami 1

Rodent-unidentified 5

Ciconia sp. 1

Bubo bubo 1

Strigiformes 2

Bird-medium 1

Potamon cf. potamois 7

Testudo graeca 25

Snake 24

Fish-small 2

TOTAL 258

Note: Mammal size classes are small carnivore (unidentified to species); small mammal (which may include small carnivores too); Gazella-size, or small ungulate (Gg), and Dama-size, or medium ungulate (Dm).

520

Ofer Marder et al.

The faunal assemblage contains the same game species as other Natufian assemblages from the Mediterranean zone of the southern Levant (e.g., Bar-Oz 2004; Davis 2005; Munro 2009), but with an emphasis on hare exploitation also noted at the early-Early Natufian of el-Wad Cave (Munro 2004; Rabinovich 1998) and the Early Natufian of Hayonim Cave (Munro 2004). The most striking feature of the faunal assemblage is the fact that fish and waterfowl remains are very rare despite the location of the site on the shore of Lake Kinneret. Only two tiny fish vertebrae were encountered, and no waterfowl was identified at the site.

Mollusc Shells

A large number of mollusc shells were recov-ered, the majority being local freshwater snails abundant in Lake Kinneret today and we assume they were naturally deposited in the site. The thousands of freshwater shells were not studied in detail. However, they consisted primarily of Melanopsis costata, M. buccinoidea, Melanoindes tuberculatus, Theodoxus jordanii, and fragments of Unio sp. Occasional landsnails, many of which were fragmentary and seem recent were also re-trieved. The mollusc remains also include 47 marine shells, reported here. All the marine shells were scaphopods (tusk shells). Most were Antalis spp. from the Mediterranean shore, and one was a fossil, probably Dentalium sexangulum. The Mediterranean Antalis (n = 29) belong to three

species: A. vulgaris (n = 23), A. dentalis (n = 3) and A. cf. inaequicostatum (n = 3). Thirteen additional specimens of Antalis sp. could not be identified to species level because they were too heavily abraded or encrusted in sediment. These shells range in size from 3 to 21 mm. Twenty-two out of the 43 scaphopods, about half, were found in the context of Structure 106 and the rest were collected from various parts of the site but mostly still in the West Area. One shell was securely found within the context of the burial at Hof Shahaf. This was the Dentalium cf. sexangulum, a fossil scaphopod that may have been brought from as far as southeastern Turkey where such fossils are exposed (Bar-Yosef Mayer et al. 2010). This assemblage is similar to Early Natufian shell assemblages judging by the length of the scaphopods (Bar-Yosef Mayer 2008). Significantly, there is a very low percentage of short scaphopods (under 5 mm long), the majority of shells were within the range of 6-10 mm long, and a few were longer (Fig. 19).

Discussion

The excavations at Hof Shahaf revealed a small site displaying several interesting traits. Although there are some sporadic indications of a PPNA presence in one area of the site, the major occupational stage is dated to the Natufian time period. A relatively well-preserved and large cur-vilinear structure and adjacent ‘open air’ living

Fig. 18. Comparison of the faunal composition between two contexts: inside the large structure (Locus 106) and outside the structure, in the stony layer containing the burial (Locus 127). Total NISP = 152.

521


surfaces were uncovered. Outside of the structure, a human burial was uncovered, possibly adorned with a single fossil Dentalium shell. The size of the structure is impossible to determine due to modern disturbances but the fact that it was at least 4.75 m in diameter and its dug pit was ca. half a meter deep, with four courses still observed, imply that it was quite a large structure, comparable to structures at el-Wad (Weinstein-Evron et al. herein), Eynan (Valla 1988), Wadi Hammeh 27 (Edwards 1991), and Upper Besor 6 (Goring-Morris 1998). However, the density of artifacts and animal remains is very low compared to the Natufian sites of the southern Levant where architecture is found, even in the seemingly well preserved context of Structure 106. Natufian foragers frequently left large quantities of trash on their living surfaces and activity areas, including inside dwellings (e.g., Hardy-Smith and Edwards 2004; Valla 1988; Yeshurun et al. herein). In addition to the low density of finds, there are no marine shell types other than scaphopods. This seems to be typical of smaller sites of the Natufian, as was also observed at Epipaleolithic sites in north-ern Sinai (Bar-Yosef Mayer 2005). The relatively sparse artifact density within the structure raises a number of interpretive possibilities: Does this reflect a short-term occupation? Is this a result of site-formation processes as the occupation ‘sits’ on a steep slope and its remains were gradually washed down? Is this a result of continuous cleaning of the

internal living surfaces? Further studies aimed at dating the site, exploring its formation processes and the taphonomy of the remains are expected to shed light on these issues. The supine burial position is rare in the Natufi-an and found only in its early phase (Belfer-Cohen 1988). A similar burial position was found at el-Wad Terrace by Garrod; Homo 13, an adult female, was interred on her chest, but with the legs folded back and the right arm thrown around the head, while the left arm lay alongside the body (Garrod and Bate 1937: 16; Weinstein-Evron 2009: fig. 4:9). We noted that in the Hof Shahaf skeleton the arms were supine and the face pointed forward. The practice of removing the skull is more common in the Late and Final Natufian (e.g., Bachrach et al. herein; Belfer-Cohen 1988; Bocquentin 2003). The practice of adorning burials with scaphopod shells is more common in the Early, rather than the Late, Natufian (Bar-Yosef Mayer 2008). After preliminary observations, it appears that the most diagnostic tool found is the lunate. The lunates were retouched in the Helwan style, indicative of the Early Natufian period, but their length average is small as in Late Natufian lunates. Only further systematic lithic analysis accompa-nied by absolute dating will assist in determining a more exact chronological assignment. Notably, the presence of a large structure, the length of the scaphopod beads and perhaps also the composition of the mammal assemblage are reminiscent of Early Natufian sites in the southern Levant (e.g., Bar-Yo-sef Mayer 2008; Goring-Morris and Belfer-Cohen 2008; Munro 2004; Yeshurun et al. 2009). Some information on the subsistence and human ecology at Hof Shahaf was retrieved. The discovery of a presumed freshwater spring within the bounds of the excavation suggests that the Natufian settlers were attracted to this potable water source. This is supported by studies of the Kinneret paleolake, showing that at 15,000 BP the Kinneret was probably several meters shal-lower and consequently it was both farther from the present shoreline and more saline (Hazan et al. 2005; Rimmer 2003). Hunting of gazelle and hare as well as harvesting tortoises was practiced but, contrary to what may be expected from a site located on the shore of Lake Kinneret, fishing and fowling probably did not play an important part. The adjacent late Upper Paleolithic site of Ohalo II displays abundant fish remains and indications of fishing, as well as abundant waterfowl remains (Simmons and Nadel 1998; Zohar 2003). On the other hand, at the Kebaran site of Ein Gev I, where

Fig. 19. Length of scaphopods from Hof Shahaf (n=43), vs. lengths of other Early and Late Natufian scaphopods. The comparative sample is based on measurements of 654 shells from 7 sites.

522

Ofer Marder et al.

vertebrate faunas are also abundant, fish bones were not found at all and waterfowl is represented by only a few specimens (Davis 1974; Marom and Bar-Oz 2008). Still, strong indication of fishing activity was found in several Natufian hamlets (Bar-Yosef Mayer and Zohar 2010, and references therein). The lack of aquatic resources at Hof Shahaf could not be an issue of recovery techniques because all of the sediment was wet-sieved through a 1 mm mesh and carefully sorted, leading to the identification of many small mammalian and reptilian bones. It may result either from unfavorable conditions for the preservation of fish bones (Nicholson 1996) which does not, however, explain the absence of waterfowl or by human preference for exploiting terrestrial rather than lacustrine game, whatever its roots (ecological, ritual, etc.). In this respect it is interesting that a bone ‘hook’, usually considered to be used for fishing (Garrod and Bate 1937), was retrieved at the site. Long-distance ties are attested to by the pres-ence of Mediterranean shells. In addition, the fossil scaphopod found in the burial may have originated from as distant as Hatay in southeastern Anatolia (Bar-Yosef-Mayer et al. 2010). The results of this excavation contribute new information concerning architecture, spatial orga-nization, burial customs and subsistence strategies of Natufian groups in areas bordering Lake Kin-neret. It is particularly important due to the nearly complete absence of Natufian sites in this region. Though the site of Hof Shahaf displays remarkable architecture and a possibly decorated burial with strong indications of secondary treatment, traits observed in the ‘core area’ Natufian base-camps, it contains little evidence for long-term or intensive, repetitive occupation. Thus it could be suggested that the site was not a sedentary hamlet and that it had a specific, yet unknown role in the framework of the Natufian settlement system of the Jordan Valley and adjacent regions.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank O. Bar-Yosef and F. Valla for inviting us to contribute this paper to the symposium ‘The Natufian Culture in the Levant II’. We thank M. Weinstein-Evron for reading a draft of this paper. The salvage excavation at Hof Shahaf was funded by the Meqorot National Water Company. We thank the people of the IAA northern district for their help during fieldwork, especially G. Jaffe, H. Bron and D. Avshalom-Gorni.

References Cited

Bachrach, N., Hershkovitz, I., Kaufman, D. and M. Weinstein-Evron

herein The Last Natufian Inhabitants of el-Wad Terrace. Edited by O. Bar-Yosef and F. R. Valla. International Monographs in Prehistory, Ann Arbor.

Bar-Oz, G. 2004 Epipaleolithic Subsistence Strategies

in the Levant: A Zooarchaeological Perspective. ASPR Monograph Series/Brill, Boston.

Bar-Yosef, O. 1983 The Natufian in the southern Levant.

In The Hilly Flanks and Beyond: Essays on the Prehistory of Southwestern Asia, edited by T. C. Young, P. E. L. Smith and P. Mortensen, pp. 11-42. Oriental Institute, University of Chicago, Chicago.

1991 The Archaeology of the Natufian layer at Hayonim Cave. In The Natufian Culture in the Levant, edited by O. Bar-Yosef and F. R. Valla, pp. 81-92. International Monographs in Prehistory, Ann Arbor.

Bar-Yosef Mayer, D. E. 2005 The Exploitation of Shells as Beads in the

Palaeolithic and Neolithic of the Levant. Paléorient 31(1):176-185.

2008 Dentalium Shells Used by Hunter-Gatherers and Pastoralists in the Levant. Archaeofauna 17:103-110

Bar-Yosef Mayer, D. E., Gümüş B. A. and Y. İslamoğlu2010 Fossil hunting in the Neolithic: shells from

the Taurus Mountains at Çatalhöyük, Turkey. Geoarchaeology 25(3):375–392.

Bar-Yosef Mayer, D. E. and I. Zohar2010 The role of aquatic resources in the

Natufian Culture. Eurasian Prehistory 7(1):29-43.

Behrensmeyer, A. K. 1978 Taphonomic and ecological information

from bone weathering. Paleobiology 4:150-162.

Belfer-Cohen, A. 1988 The Natufian Settlement from Hayonoim

Cave: A Hunter- Gatherer Band, on the Threshold of Agriculture. Ph.D. dissertation, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

Binford, L. R. 1981 Bones: Ancient Men and Modern Myths.

Academic Press, New York.

523


Bocquentin, F. 2003 Pratiques funéraires, paramètres bi-

ologiques et identités Culturelles au Natoufien: une analyse archéo-anthro-pologique. Ph.D. dissertation, Université de Bordeaux 1, Bordeaux.

Davis, S. J. M. 1974 Animal remains from the Kebaran

site of Ein-Gev I, Jordan Valley, Israel. Paléorient 2:453-462.

2005 Why domesticate food animals? Some zoo-archaeological evidence from the Levant. Journal of Archaeological Science 32:1408-1416.

Domínguez-Rodrigo, M., de Juana, S., Galán, A. B. and M. Rodríguez

2009 A new protocol to differentiate trampling marks from butchery cut marks. Journal of Archaeological Science 36:2643–2654.

Edwards, P. C. 1991 Wadi Hammeh 27: An Early Natufian site

at Pella, Jordan. In The Natufian Culture in the Levant, edited by O. Bar-Yosef and F. R. Valla, pp. 123-148. International Monographs in Prehistory, Ann Arbor.

Garrod, D. A. E. and D. M. A. Bate 1937 The Stone Age of Mount Carmel. Vol.

I. Excavations at the Wadi Mughara. Clarendon Press, Oxford.

Goring-Morris, A. N. 1987 At the Edge: Terminal Pleistocene Hunter-

Gatherers in the Negev and Sinai. BAR International Series 361. Oxford.

1998 Mobiliary art from the Late Epipalaeo-lithic of the Negev, Israel. Rock Art Re-search 15:81-88.

Goring-Morris, A. N. and A. Belfer-Cohen 2008 A Roof Over One’s Head: develop-

ments in Near Eastern residential architecture across the Epipalaeo-lithic–Neolithic transition. In The Neolithic Demographic Transition and its Consequences, edited by J.-P. Bocquet-Appel and O. Bar-Yosef, pp. 239-286. Springer Verlag, Dordrecht.

Grosman, L. and N. D. Munro 2007 The sacred and the mundane: domestic

activities at a Late Natufian burial site in the Levant. Before Farming 4:1-14.

Hardy-Smith, T. and P. C. Edwards 2004 The garbage crisis in prehistory: Artifact

discard patterns at the Early Natufian site of Wadi Hammeh 27 and the origins of household refuse disposal strategies.

Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 23:253-289.

Hazan, N., Stein, M., Agnon, A., Marco, S., Nadel, D., Negendank, J. F. W., Schwab, M. J. and D. Neev

2005 The late quarternary limnological history of Lake Kinneret (Sea of Galilee). Israel. Quaternary Research 63:60-77.

Henry, D. O. 1976 Rosh Zin: A Natufian settlement near

Avdat. In Prehistory and Palaeoenviron-ments in the Central Negev, Israel. Part 1, edited by A. E. Marks, pp. 317-347. Southern Methodist University Press, Dallas.

Horwitz, L. K. and S. Ashkenazi 2006 The fauna. In Gesher: A Pre-Pottery

Neolithic A Site in the Central Jordan Valley, Israel, edited by Y. Garfinkel and D. Dag, pp 159-173. ex-oriente, Berlin.

Le Dosseur, G. 2006 La Néolithisation au Levant Sud à travers

l’exploitation des matières osseuses. Étude techno-économique de onze séries d’industries osseuses du Natoufien au PPNB récent. Ph.D. dissertation, Université Paris I Panthéon-Sorbonne, Paris.

Marom, N. and G. Bar-Oz 2008 “Measure for measure”: taphonomic

reconsideration of the Kebaran site of Ein Gev I, Israel. Journal of Archaeological Science 35:214–227.

Munro, N. D. 2004 Zooarchaeological measures of hunting

pressure and occupation intensity in the Natufian: implications for agricultural origins. Current Anthropology 45:S5-S33.

2009 Epipalaeolithic subsistence intensifica-tion in the southern Levant: the faunal evidence. In Evolution of Hominid Diets: Integrating Approaches to the Study of Paleolithic Subsistence, edited by M. J. Richards and J-.J. Hublin, pp. 141-155. Springer Verlag, Dordrecht.

Nadel, D., Lengyel, G., Bocquentin, F., Tsatskin, A., Rosenberg, D., Yeshurun, R., Bar-Oz, G., Bar-Yosef Mayer, D. E., Beeri, R., Conyers, L., Filin, S., Hershkovitz, I., Kurzawska, A. and L. Weissbrod

2008 The Late Natufian at Raqefet Cave: The 2006 excavation season. Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society - Mitekufat Haeven 38:59-131.

524

Ofer Marder et al.

Nadel, D., Lengyel, G., Cabellos Panades, T., Bocquentin, F., Rosenberg, D., Yeshurun, R., Brown-Goodman, R., Tsatskin, A., Bar-Oz, G. and S. Filin

2009a The Raqefet Cave 2008 excavation season. Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society - Mitekufat Haeven 39:21-61.

Nadel, D., Rosenberg, D. and R. Yeshurun 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.

Nicholson, R. A., 1996 Bone degradation, burial medium and

species representation: debunking the myths, an experiment-based approach. Journal of Archaeological Science 23:513–533.

Perrot J. 1966 Le gisement Natoufien de Mallaha

(Eynan), Israël. L’Anthropologie 70: 437-483.

Rabinovich, R. 1998 Taphonomical aspects of the recent ex-

cavations at El-Wad (appendix III). In Early Natufian el-Wad revisited, edited by M. Weinstein-Evron, pp. 199-224. ERAUL 77, Liege.

Rimmer, A. 2003 The mechanism of Lake Kinneret sali-

nization as a linear reservoir. Journal of Hydrology 281(3):173-186.

Simmons, T. and D. Nadel 1998 The avifauna of the Early Epipalaeolithic

site of Ohalo II (19,400 years BP), Israel: species diversity, habitat and seasonality International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 8:79-96.

Turville-Petre, F. 1932 Excavations in the Mugharet el-Kebarah.

Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 62:271-276.

Valla, F. R. 1988 Aspects du sol de l’abri 131 de Mallaha

(Eynan). Paléorient 14/2:283-296. Valla, F. R., Khalaily, H., Valladas, H., Kaltnecker, E., Bocquentin, F., Cabellos, T., Bar-Yosef Mayer, D. E., LeDosseur, G., Regev, L., Chu, V., Weiner, S., Boaretto, E., Samuelian, N., Valentin, B., Delerue, S., Popeau, G., Bridault, A., Rabinovich, R., Simmons, T., Zohar, I., Ashkenazi, S., Delgado Huertas, A., Spiro, B., Mienis, H. K., Rosen, A. M., Porat, N.

and A. Belfer-Cohen 2007 Les fouilles de Ain Mallaha (Eynan)

de 2003 à 2005: Quatrième rapport préliminaire. Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society - Mitekufat Haeven 37:135-380.

Valla, F. R., Le Mort, F. and H. Plisson 1991 Les fouilles en cours sur la Terrasse

d’Hayonim. In The Natufian Culture in the Levant, edited by O. Bar-Yosef and F.R. Valla, pp. 93-110. International Monographs in Prehistory, Ann Arbor.

Villa, P. and E. Mahieu 1991 Breakage patterns of human long bones.

Journal of Human Evolution 21:27-48. Weinstein-Evron, M.

2009 Archaeology in the Archives: Unveiling the Natufian Culture of Mount Carmel. ASPR Monograph Series/Brill, Boston.

Weinstein-Evron, M., Kaufman, D., Bachrach, N., Bar-Oz, G., Bar-Yosef Mayer, D. E., Chaim, S., Druck, D., Groman-Yaroslavski, I., Hershkovitz, I., Liber, N., Rosenberg, D., Tsatskin, A. and L. Weissbrod

2007 After 70 years: new excavations at the el-Wad Terrace, Mount Carmel, Israel. Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society - Mitekufat Haeven 37:37-134.

Weissbrod, L., Dayan, T., Kaufman, D. and M. Weinstein-Evron

2005 Micromammal taphonomy of el-Wad Terrace, Mount Carmel, Israel: Distin-guishing cultural from natural depo-sitional agents in the late Natufian. Journal of Archaeological Science 32:1-17.

Weinstein-Evron, M., Kaufman, D. and R. Yeshurun

herein Spatial Organization of Natufian el-Wad through Time: Combining the Results of Past and Present Excavations. Edited by O. Bar-Yosef and F. R. Valla. International Monographs in Prehistory, Ann Arbor.

Wright, K. I. 1992 A classification system for ground stone

tools from prehistoric Levant. Paléorient 18/2:53-81.

Yeshurun, R. 2011 The Zooarchaeology of Natufian el-

Wad Terrace and Raqefet Cave, Mount Carmel: Taphonomic and Diachronic Intra- and Inter-Site Analysis. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Haifa.

525


Yeshurun, R., Bar-Oz, G. and M. Weinstein-Evron

2009 The role of foxes in the Natufian economy: A view from Mount Carmel, Israel. Before Farming [online version] 2009/1 article 3.

Yeshurun, R., Bar-Oz, G., Kaufman, D. and M. Weinstein-Evron

herein Domestic Refuse Maintenance in the Natufian: Faunal Evidence from el-Wad

Terrace, Mount Carmel. Edited by O. Bar-Yosef and F. R. Valla. International Monographs in Prehistory, Ann Arbor.

Zohar, I. 2003 Fish Exploitation at the Sea of Galilee

(Israel) by Early Fisher-Hunter-Gatherers (23,000 B.P.): Ecological, Economical, and Cultural Implications. Ph.D. dissertation, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv.

Appendix 1. Architectural features of the West Area

LOCUS SQUARES DESCRIPTION STRATIGRAPHY PERIOD

106 FG25-30Large dug structure defined by curvilinear stone wall 110, preserved to four courses

Directly below features 120 and 122; Dug into sterile Unit 2 marls (south part) & into ar-chaeological Layer II paleosol or weathered Unit 1 basalt (north part).

Natufian

119 F28

Stone concentration, app. 0.5m in diameter. 4 large stones, measuring 35-10cm in length, & some smaller stones.

Uppermost feature in Layer II. Directly overlies Locus 120. Natufian

120 FG27-28

Round feature, app. 0.8m in diameter, defined by stone wall 121. A flat slab & some stones were found inside

Overlain by feature 119, and overlies Wall 110, perhaps also dug into the upper part of structure 106. Contemporary with Locus 122, as it shares a stone with wall 123.

Natufian

122 FG26-27

Possible round feature defined by stone wall 123, app. 1m in diameter, but less preserved than feature 120.

Overlies Wall 110 and possi-bly dug into the upper part of structure 106. Contemporary & shares a stone with Wall 121 of Locus 120.

Natufian

124 F27

Small stone concentration dug into Unit 2 sediment, west (up-slope) of the upper fea-tures. App. 0.5X0.2m.

Possibly contemporary with Locus 120 Natufian

127 FG23-24, F25

Stony layer/concentration embedded in Layer II (Natufi-an paleosol), overlain by large boulders. Top part is much unleveled. Stones become less numerous at bottom. Human burial is present embedded in this stony layer, as well as some relatively large frag-ments of animal bones.

Above stony layer 128. Partly abuts structure 106, which is probably dug into the lower part of 127.

Natufian

128 FG24 Relatively horizontal, thin level of small stones

Below 127, above worn peb-bles of Unit 2 & the yellow basal basalt (Unit 1).

Natufian

526

Ofer Marder et al.

129 G28

Distinct sediment patch of compact-brownish sediment between stones in approxi-mately G28a.

Feature within structure 106 Natufian

130 F26-27

Beginning of curvilinear line of stones, possibly forming a portion of a western structure, light grey sediment possibly with Unit 2 intrusions

Contemporary/ integrated with W110 of structure 106. Natufian

131 F26

Possible hearth – a distinct patch of sediment, dark-er gray with yellow & red (Ochre?) lumps with a bowl-like in section

Feature within structure 106 Natufian

Appendix 1. (Continued)

Hof Shahaf: a new Natufian site on the shore of Lake Kinneret

Documents

Transcript of Hof Shahaf: a new Natufian site on the shore of Lake Kinneret