Nadel Piperno Holst Snir Weiss Antiquity 2012 Processing wild cereal grains at Ohalo.pdf

New evidence for the processing of wildcereal grains at Ohalo II, a 23 000-year-old campsite on the shore of the Sea ofGalilee, IsraelDani Nadel1, Dolores R. Piperno2,3, Irene Holst3, Ainit Snir4 &Ehud Weiss4

Traces of starch found on a large flat stone discovered in the hunter-fisher-gatherer siteof Ohalo II famously represent the first identification of Upper Palaeolithic grindingof grasses. Given the importance of this discovery for the use of edible grain, furtheranalyses have now been undertaken. Meticulous sampling combined with good preservationallow the authors to demonstrate that the Ohalo II stone was certainly used for theroutine processing of wild cereals, wheat, barley and now oats among them, around23 000 years ago.

Keywords: Israel, Ohalo II, Sea of Galilee, Upper Palaeolithic, cereal processing, wheat,barley, oats

IntroductionThe site of Ohalo II, located on the south-western shore of the Sea of Galilee in Israel,was a fisher-hunter-gatherer campsite dating to about 23 000 years ago (Nadel et al. 1995;Nadel 2002). Immediate and quick submergence of the site after it was abandoned providedremarkable preservation conditions (Belitzky & Nadel 2001; Tsatskin & Nadel 2003). Thesite was submerged for millennia, and thus a wide array of material remains were wellpreserved in situ. Of these, the most significant are the brush huts and the finds exposed ontheir floors.

1 The Zinman Institute of Archaeology, The University of Haifa, 31905 Mt. Carmel, Israel (Email:[email protected])

2 Program in Human Ecology and Archaeobiology, Department of Anthropology, National Museum of NaturalHistory, P.O. Box 37012 Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC 20013-7012, USA (Email:[email protected])

3 Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute, Apartado Postal 0843-03092, Balboa, Republic of Panama(Email: [email protected])

4 Institute of Archaeology, The Martin (Szusz) Department of Land of Israel Studies and Archaeology, Bar-IlanUniversity, 52900 Ramat-Gan, Israel (Email: [email protected]; [email protected])

C© Antiquity Publications Ltd.ANTIQUITY 86 (2012): 990–1003 http://antiquity.ac.uk/ant/086/ant0860990.htm

990

Res

earc

h

Dani Nadel et al.

As reported previously (Nadel & Werker 1999; Nadel 2002), the remains of six brushhuts were identified during fieldwork, with several concentrations of hearths around them(Figure 1). Four of the brush huts were fully excavated, and two were comprehensivelysampled. They all had a bowl-like cross-section, indicating that the inhabitants made shallowdepressions in the soft bedrock before constructing the huts. Four huts were oval in generalshape, while two had a kidney-like shape with an entrance from the east. The constructionmaterials of Brush Hut 1, the largest at the site, were identified as thick branches of Tamarix(Tamarisk), Salix (Willow) and Quercus ithaburensis (Oak), covered by smaller branches ofplants such as Atriplex/Seidlitzia (Orach/Seidlitzia) and Prosopis (Mesquite), as well as leavesand grasses (Nadel & Werker 1999: tab. 2).

Brush Hut 1 had three successive floors. Grass bedding was well preserved on the bottomfloor; it was made of bundles of one species, Puccinellia (Nadel et al. 2004a). Evidence forother floors with grass bedding, badly preserved, was found on floor II and in other brushhuts. Tiny fragments of twisted fibre were found in this brush hut, reflecting the possibleuse of cords, strings, nets etc. (Nadel et al. 1994). Wooden objects were found in severalbrush huts (Nadel et al. 2006).

Most remarkable are the charred and even uncharred seeds and fruit. So far a sample ofc. 150 000 specimens has been studied (Kislev et al. 1992; Simchoni 1997; Weiss 2002;Nadel 2004). Most of these are well preserved, and they represent c. 150 taxa, many ofwhich have been identified to species level. The floral assemblage directly informs the diet ofthe inhabitants, as well as the immediate mosaic of plant communities and the environmentin more general terms. The wealth of organic remains also enabled the readings of over 4014C dates, which gave a calibrated range of 22 500–23 500 BP (Nadel et al. 1995, 2004b;Nadel 2002).

The skeleton of one adult male (c. 40 years old) was found in a shallow grave. Theindividual was about 1.73m tall and right-handed. He was buried on his back with handsfolded on the chest, knees folded and head turned to the east (Nadel & Hershkovitz 1991;Hershkovitz et al. 1993, 1995). Other finds include a wealth of faunal remains, of whichfish bones are particularly abundant (Zohar 2002). Within the mammals, gazelles are byfar the most common, followed by fallow deer and smaller species (Rabinovich & Nadel2005). More than 80 species of birds were identified (Simmons & Nadel 1998), and a rangeof micromammals was also studied (Belmaker et al. 2001). Within the brush huts and nearthe hearths we found a rich assemblage of flint artefacts (Nadel 2001), ground stone tools,worked bone tools (Rabinovich & Nadel 1994–95), as well as dentalium and columbellabeads from the Mediterranean Sea (Bar-Yosef Mayer 2002).

Of pivotal interest is a flat basalt stone that was firmly set on the second floor (floor II)of Brush Hut 1 (Figure 1) on a patch of sand and supported by several cobbles (Figure 2;Nadel 2003). The stone has been studied, including through starch grain analysis (Pipernoet al. 2004) as well as the distribution patterns of the seeds around it (Weiss et al. 2008). Thisanalysis indicated that the stone had been employed in the grinding of wild cereals. Such is theimportance of this finding for the Late Upper Palaeolithic and Early Epipalaeolithic economyand subsistence that further scientific examination of the stone and its neighbouring depositswas undertaken. The purpose of this paper is to report and assess the results of this secondanalysis, in particular the identification of traces of foodstuffs on previously untested areas

C© Antiquity Publications Ltd.

991

New evidence for the processing of wild cereal grains at Ohalo II

Figure 1. Plan of the central excavation area at Ohalo II. Brush huts 1, 2, 3, 12 and 15 are included, while Brush Hut 13is further away. Note the contour lines of floors II (inner) and III (wider) in Brush Hut 1. Loci 6, 7, 9 and 18 are areas withhearths; Locus 5 is a grave, Locus 4 is a stone installation, Locus 8 is a small pit, Locus 11 is a hearth and Locus 10 is thepaleo-surface of the camp.

of the artefact (e.g. its lower and certain sections of its top surface), and in the sedimentssurrounding it.

New starch grain studies at Ohalo IIWhen uncovered, the stone appeared to have been carefully positioned on a small patch ofsand supported by small pebbles, suggesting it functioned as an anvil or grinding stone. Theoriginal starch grain study utilised a modern reference collection of plants that included allof the approximately 15 grass genera, and all but one grass species identified by Ehud Weissfrom the macrobotanical remains found on floor II of Hut 1, and from immediately aroundthe stone itself (Piperno et al. 2004 for lists and descriptions). This collection representsvirtually all of the grass taxa found throughout the site. Additionally, modern collections ofstarch grains from non-grass species commonly found on floor II and other large referencecollections described in other studies, together with the published literature, were used inC© Antiquity Publications Ltd.

992

Res

earc

h

Dani Nadel et al.

Figure 2. The stone slab as found in situ on floor II of Brush Hut 1(upper, side view), showing a patch of imported (‘foreign’)sand found exclusively under the slab (lower left, after slab removal), and a section showing the three floors and the locationof the slab (lower right).

the study (see Piperno et al. 2004). The analysis of a sample from the upper stones’ surfaceresulted in the recovery of 150 starch grains, of which 127 were from grasses. Seventy-eightout of the 127 grass grains had the size and morphological characteristics found to be sharedonly by Triticum, Aegilops, and/or Hordeum, members of the Triticeae tribe of grasses, leadingus to propose an AHT starch group (Piperno et al. 2004). Twenty-three grains out of the78 in the AHT group had morphological features found only in Hordeum and this finding,together with the absence of specific grain types characteristic of either Triticum or Aegilops,led us to suggest that seeds from these two genera were probably not processed with thestone. In sum, the evidence indicated that most of the identifiable grass starch recoveredfrom the stone was probably from Hordeum, and the processing of selected wild grasses wastaking place well before their domestication in south-west Asia.

Sediments from Brush Hut 1 were not analysed in the first study, and the underside ofthe stone not tested for starch presence. In this study we looked at the bottom surface andan additional area of the surface of the upward-facing facet of the stone (Figure 3) thathad yielded 150 starch grains in the first study (Table 1). In addition, six sediment samples


993


Table 1. Starch remains from the grinding stone, floor II (Brush Hut 1).

StarchFace Study remains Remarks

Upper First (2004) 150 See textUpper Second (2011) 49 Similar composition of taxa (Hordeum; AHT group but

no Triticum or Aegilops-types) as in the first analysis (seetext)

Lower Second (2011) 13 One probable Hordeum grain (see text)

Figure 3. The stone implement from floor II analysed for starch remains. The upper left and right arrows point to areasanalysed in the first starch grain study. The lower arrow at the bottom left approximately indicates the more central area ofthe stone analysed in this study. Scale in cm.

from two successive floors from Brush Hut 1 were analysed (Table 2). These include thesecond floor (II), where the grinding stone was set, and the third floor (the bottom one,III). These samples serve as control samples aiming to test whether starch granules from thestone simply represented a general distribution of starch within the site.

Starch extraction and identification procedures followed those in Piperno et al. (2004),with the exception that ultrasound was not employed as a step in starch isolation. Since ouroriginal study, research has been carried out on modern plants from the Middle East andEurope that included: 1) other genera of the Triticeae tribe such as Elymus spp., Leymus spp.,C© Antiquity Publications Ltd.

994

Res

earc

h

Dani Nadel et al.

Table 2. Sediment samples from Brush Hut 1 analysed for starch.

Sample Square Height Floor Remarks

1 D81d 212.34–36 II ash2 E79 212.40 II3 E79c 212.42 II white ash4 F80b 212.30 II white ash5 D80d 212.45 III6 E78d 212.50 III

and Secale spp.; 2) additional species of Triticum, Hordeum, Aegilops, and Secale; and 3) grassgenera from other Poaceae tribes (e.g. Henry & Piperno 2008; Henry et al. 2009, 2011).This work confirms that starch grains from the AHT taxa differ in size and morphologyfrom other members of the Triticeae as well as other Poaceae, and that individual genera inthe AHT group may be identified and/or ruled out from representation in archaeologicalsamples using a starch grain assemblage approach (such as the one employed in our firststudy). For this study, we also carried out additional modern reference work that involvedcomparing and contrasting more closely a type of starch grain found in some grasses,compound polyhedral forms, in order to determine if another important genus of grass,Avena, could be identified. As will be discussed in more detail below, it appears that Avenastarch grains do possess diagnostic attributes not seen in other grasses studied.

ResultsIn the six studied control sediment samples, two contained one starch grain each, and nostarch was recovered in the others (Table 2). Plant remains such as pollen, spores, phytoliths,tissue fragments, and charcoal were, however, common. This finding supports our initialconclusion that starch recovered from the upper surface of the stone primarily representsplants processed on the stone, and not contamination from associated sediments.

It should also be remembered that a variety of field observations and taphonomic studiesclearly indicate that the remains on floors in general, and in Brush Hut 1 in particular, weremostly in situ, sometimes hardly having moved since the site was abandoned and inundated.These records include the charred contour of the floors (Nadel & Werker 1999; Nadel2003), thin-section studies (Tsatskin & Nadel 2003), the setting of the grinding stone, andthe non-random distribution patterns of flints (Nadel 2001), fish bones (Nadel et al. 1994)and especially seeds (Weiss et al. 2004a, 2004b, 2008, and see below). The taphonomicbackground is further support for the conclusion that the starch grains found on the uppersurface of the stone represent the stone’s function as a grinding implement.

With regard to the additional tests carried out on the grinding stone itself, analysis ofthe central area of the bottom side of the stone revealed a total of 13 starch grains. Oneof them is probably from Hordeum, another is from the AHT group, eight are bell-shapedgrains, and three are compound grains from grasses. This result can be compared with theadditional analysis of the upper side of the stone. In the first analysis, which yielded 150starch grains, we sampled about two-thirds of its total area (Figure 3). In this study, the


995


remaining, central portion of the stone was sampled by brushing it with a toothbrush,followed by collecting the residue through rinsing with water, and lastly floating the residuewith caesium chloride to isolate the starch. This analysis resulted in the removal of a total of49 starch grains. The large number of grains recovered from the upper surface of the stonein both analyses, together with the considerable difference in starch grain quantities betweenthe top and bottom of the stone, further support our previous interpretation that the stone’sfunction was to grind plants, and that this activity was carried out on its upper side. Thestarch grains recovered from the stone’s bottom may represent plants lying on the groundsurface before the stone was placed there, or the starch may have adhered to the stone whenit was handled. Another possibility is that this facet was less frequently used as a grindingsurface.

The taxa represented by starch grains from the second analysis of the stone were in closeagreement with those previously identified. Out of the 49 grains recovered, five were discoidal(called “lenticular” in Piperno et al. [2004: 670]) shapes from AHT taxa, and three of thesewere identifiable as Hordeum (see Piperno et al. 2004 for a complete discussion). Nine grainswere bell-shaped forms that can occur in a number of taxa, including AHT grasses, andthe 35 other grains were compound, polyhedral forms from grass seed starches. As in theprevious study, none of the discoidal grains had the crater-like impressions characteristicof Triticum or lamellae or ‘pleats’ like those in Aegilops species, suggesting that most of thegrains from the AHT group are from Hordeum. The Hordeum discoidal grains are onceagain most similar to those from H. spontaneum, H. glaucum, and H. bulbosum (see Pipernoet al. 2004), but we cannot distinguish between the three. As in the first analysis, Hordeumspecies such as H. marinum can be ruled out on the basis of size characteristics.

We are now able to make a positive identification of an additional grass taxon that wasnot recognised in the previous study. Eleven out of the 35 compound, polyhedral grainsappear to be from the genus Avena (Figure 4). We made this determination on the basis ofa more detailed study of modern starch grains from this genus, and their comparison withother taxa. The modern Avena species studied were Avena barbata, A. byzantina, A. fatua,and A. sterilis, which were available to us from EW’s collections and folders housed at theherbarium of the National Museum of Natural History (Table 3). Seeds from A. barbataand A. sterilis occurred at Ohalo II. Avena starch grains have numerous small and distinctivepressure facets due to the grains packing together very tightly in the amyloplasts during theirformation (Figure 5). These types of compound polyhedral starches were also described forAvena by Henry & Piperno (2008) and Henry et al. (2009), who considered them a possiblegenus-specific trait. Neither we nor other investigators have described this type of grain inother taxa, and we now consider them to be diagnostic of Avena. A re-evaluation of the56 compound polyhedral grains isolated from the stone in the first study indicates thattwo of these can be identified on a morphological basis as Avena. A size difference can beseen between the modern and archaeological Avena grains (Table 3). The latter had a meanlength of 15.8 μm (range: 10–18 μm) and the modern grains including the domesticatedexhibited a mean length of 6–12 μm (range: 4–18 μm) (Table 3). It may be that anotherwild species of Avena was utilised or, alternatively, that the smallest Avena grains are for somereason not well represented on the stone. The former is probably more likely. In summary,it appears that Avena was also processed on the stone, although only a few of its seeds wereC© Antiquity Publications Ltd.

996

Res

earc

h

Dani Nadel et al.

Table 3. Dimensions of modern and ancient (Ohalo II) Avena starch grains.

Mean RangeSpecies Origin length (μm) (μm)

Avena barbata ssp barbata Pott ex Link E. Weiss 2003 12 6–18Avena barbata Pott NMNH2119068 9.5 6–16Avena barbata Pott Kadesh stream, E. Weiss 8.7 4–12Avena sterilis L. NMNH 1109491 7.7 4–12Avena sterilis L. Mt. Hermon 1994, E. Weiss 8.6 4–14Avena byzantina Koch Gatersleben 1.93, E. Weiss 9.1 4–14Avena fatua L. Gatersleben 1.93, E. Weiss 6 4–10Archaeological Avena grains Ohalo II stone tool (n = 11) 15.8 10–18

Figure 4. Starch grains identified as Avena spp. retrieved from the floor II stone implement. The scale bar represents10 microns.

found on the hut floor. The remainder of the compound, polyhedral grains recovered canbelong to any number of genera in the Poaceae, including Avena and the AHT taxa.

This new identification of Avena granules holds a special importance for ourreconstruction of human diet at the Ohalo II camp. The amounts of oat grains presentwere meagre in relation to other grasses found at the site. For example, on the second floorin Hut 1, where the grinding stone came from, 35 oat grains were found out of a total ofc. 16 000 grass grains; 19 Avena grains were from A. barbata, 6 were from A. sterilis, and10 were identified as A. barbata/sterilis. The third floor, situated directly underneath thesecond floor and covered by mat-like bedding from Puccinelia cf. convoluta stalks (Nadel


997


Figure 5. Starch grains from the seeds of modern Avena barbata. The scale bar represents 10 microns.

et al. 2004a), was richer in Avena: 357 oat grains were recovered with 100 from A. barbata,99 from A. sterilis, and 158 from A. barbata/sterilis (out of c. 15 000 grass grains).

The Avena numbers are two orders of magnitude smaller than the total number of othergrass grains from these two floors. However, as far as we are aware it represents the earliestdirect evidence for the use of oats for human consumption. Moreover, we have alreadydemonstrated (Piperno et al. 2004) that the starch granules from the grinding stone mostprobably represent the grinding of grass grains and the use of the flour-like product forbaking. If so, oats were part of the diet at Ohalo II, together with other cereals and grasses(Weiss et al. 2004b, 2008).

Discussion and conclusionThe new analysis of the Ohalo II grinding stone, along with a study of the associatedsediments and further consideration of starch morphology in modern grasses from theregion, indicate that the central part of the stone had captured high numbers of starchgrains, further supporting its interpretation as a grinding implement. In contrast, sedimentsin the six tested squares from earlier and adjacent contexts contained little starch, showingthat starch grains on the stone do not represent part of a general occurrence. Grasses remainC© Antiquity Publications Ltd.

998

Res

earc

h

Dani Nadel et al.

the dominant type of plant present in the starch record, but to these wild oats can now beadded.

The variety of cereals that were collected, processed and consumed at Ohalo II nowincludes barley, wheat and oats. In terms of food gathering, these reflect a close knowledgeof the environment and specific habitats in the region, as well as the diversity of ediblespecies and their availability. Furthermore, they indicate that the inhabitants chose not torely on one species, but to invest in all three. However, if retrieved seed numbers reflect therelative importance of each species, then oats were much less important in the diet thanbarley and wheat.

The finds discussed here all come from a sealed floor (the second in a sequence ofthree), within a well-delineated brush hut. Importantly, the grinding stone was set on

Figure 6. Distribution of cereal seeds around the floor IIgrinding stone (from Weiss et al. 2008, c©Elsevier).

the floor in a firm pre-planned manner.Furthermore, there was a unique patternof cereal grain distribution around thestone (Figure 6). The numbers werehigh (thousands), and the pattern wasunmistakable. It is noteworthy that starchof cereals was retrieved in two separateanalyses from the upper surface of theimplement. The bottom surface had muchlower quantities, while the sediment aroundthe stone was very poor in starch content.It should also be stressed that other organicfinds were well preserved in the same brushhut, including grass bedding and woodobjects.

The aspect of local diet 23 000 yearsago is also of significance. One shouldremember that the local inhabitants werehunting a wide range of herbivores (withan emphasis on gazelles), procuring largenumbers of fish (most probably by trapsand nets) and catching an astonishinglywide variety of birds (over 80 species). Theplant remains were preserved in very highnumbers on brush hut floors and around

fireplaces, reflecting their central role in the diet. The variety of edible species in general,and of the cereals in particular, indicates the strong reliance on these, at least in the relevantseasons. Furthermore, the numbers of grains, and especially the evidence from the stoneimplement and its immediate surroundings, clearly reflect a well-developed technology forprocessing such foods. It should be stressed that various large flat stone objects were foundin other brush huts, and they are currently under study.

The presence of oats raises an interesting question regarding their use as a staple food.Oat grains, like most cereals, are packed with starch and also contain an appreciable amount


999


of protein. We tend to include oat in the cereals—the group of large-grained annualgrasses which serve as the principal crops for most Old World civilisations. However, inthe archaeobotanical record, oats are quite rare in prehistoric times. The only evidencefor oat cultivation in south-west Asia comes from an unusual assemblage of some 12 000Avena sterilis grains, found at the Neolithic site of Gilgal (Lower Jordan Valley, Israel),radiometrically dated to c. 11 700–10 550 cal BP. These were found with c. 260 000 grainsof wild barley, which together most probably represent pre-domestication cultivation ofbarley fields with an admixture of oats (Hartmann 2006; Weiss et al. 2006). Except for thisrare find, we are unaware of any sign of oat cultivation or domestication in Neolithic orBronze Age sites in south-west Asia and the Mediterranean basin (Zohary et al. 2012).

The rarity of domestic oat remains in Neolithic and later sites, where plant domesticationoccurred, requires explanation. Wild sterilis and fatua forms are widely distributed

Figure 7. A seed dispersal unit of wild oat, Avena sativasubsp. sterilis. Note the smooth disarticulation scar in thelower tip of the spikelet, and the drill-like awns, whichfacilitate the insertion of the spikelet into the ground (fromZohary et al. 2012, c©Oxford University Press).

over many parts of the region. Moreover,wild oats (Avena sterilis), wild emmer(T. turgidum spp. dicoccoides) and wild bar-ley (Hordeum spontaneum) grow togetherand form natural ‘fields of wild cereals’(Zohary et al. 2012). Only small numbersof oat remains have been retrieved fromNeolithic sites in the Fertile Crescent andEurope, and they appear to represent wildor weedy sterilis or fatua forms. Remains ofnon-shattering sativa or byzantina varietieswith their characteristic plump seed—clearindications for their domesticated status—appear first in Europe, in the fourthand third millennia BP (Willerding 1970:345–6; Villaret-von Rochow 1971). It isassumed, therefore (Zohary et al. 2012),that oat was first a weedy type that infestedwheat and barley cultivation. Later, underagricultural regimes, it evolved to be a crop,picked up by the farmers to be yet anotherprincipal food.

The oat grains found at Ohalo II,A. barbata and A. sterilis, were of awild type, which raises the question ofdehusking. In both cases, the distributionunit includes one (A. barbata) or two (A.sterilis) fruits/grains, but not the glumes

that remain on the plant. However, the paleas (the inner bracts of the spikelet, holdingthe grain) are thickly hairy and hold long kinked awns (Figure 7). To prepare the grainsfor grinding, these had to be removed. However, so far no such remains have been foundin Ohalo II. For this reason, we assume dehusking took place somewhere outside the hutC© Antiquity Publications Ltd.

1000

Res

earc

h

Dani Nadel et al.

and clean grains were brought in for grinding. Unlike wheat and barley, dehusking of oatis a relatively simple procedure. We assume that singeing the spikelets and rubbing them inbare hands is all that is needed to separate the grains from the paleas.

At the time of our first analysis, the Ohalo II stone was the earliest implement shown tohave been used directly to process plant materials. During the past five years, research carriedout on even older Upper Paleolithic artefacts from Italy, Russia and the Czech Republic hasdemonstrated (mostly by starch grain analyses) that a variety of plants were ground withstone implements (Aranguren et al. 2007; Revedin et al. 2010). It should be pointed out,however, that in those earlier sites the stones were not regular, and usually not as large or flatas the Ohalo II specimen. The Ohalo and the European Upper Paleolithic cases demonstratethe value of starch analysis, as starch grains may routinely survive on stone artefacts fromPalaeolithic periods, providing detailed information on previously little-understood patternsof plant exploitation.

AcknowledgementsThe Ohalo II project was generously supported by the Irene-Levi Sala CARE Archaeological Foundation, theIsrael Science Foundation (Nos. 831/00 and 711/08), the Jerusalem Center for Anthropological Studies, theL.S.B. Leakey Foundation, the Stekelis Museum of Prehistory in Haifa, the MAFCAF Foundation, the NationalGeographic Society and the Israel Antiquities Authority. We thank the Smithsonian National Museum of NaturalHistory and the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute for their support of the starch grain research. We alsothank two reviewers for their useful advice. Figure 6 is reproduced by kind permission of Elsevier; Figure 7 isreproduced by kind permission of Oxford University Press.

ReferencesARANGUREN, B., R. BECATTINI, M.M. LIPPI & A.

REVEDIN. 2007. Grinding flour in UpperPalaeolithic Europe (25000 years bp). Antiquity 81:845–55.

BAR-YOSEF MAYER, D. 2002. The use of mollusc shellsby fisher-hunter-gatherers at Ohalo II, in D. Nadel(ed.) Ohalo II: a 23,000 year-old fisher-hunter-gatherers’ camp on the shore of the Sea of Galilee:39–41. Haifa: Hecht Museum.

BELITZKY, S. & D. NADEL. 2001. Late Pleistocene andrecent tectonic deformations at the Ohalo IIprehistoric site (19K) and the evolution of theJordan River outlet from the Sea of Galilee.Geoarchaeology: an international journal 17(5):453–64.

BELMAKER, M., D. NADEL & E. TCHERNOV. 2001.Micromammal taphonomy in the site of Ohalo II(19 ky, Jordan Valley). Archaeofauna 10: 125–35.

HARTMANN, A. 2006. Reconstruction of the humanvegetarian diet and landscape at Gilgal I—an EarlyNeolithic site in the Jordan Valley: archaeobotanicalresearch. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Bar-IlanUniversity.

HENRY, A.G. & D. PIPERNO. 2008. Using plantmicrofossils from dental calculus to recover humandiet: a case study from Tell al-Raqa’i, Syria. Journalof Archaeological Science 35: 1943–50.

HENRY, A.G., H.F. HUDSON & D.R. PIPERNO. 2009.Changes in starch grain morphologies fromcooking. Journal of Archaeological Science 36:915–22.

HENRY, A.G., A. BROOKS & D.R. PIPERNO. 2011.Microfossils in calculus demonstrate consumptionof plants and cooked foods in Neanderthal diets(Shanidar III, Iraq; Spy I and II, Belgium).Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of theUSA 108: 486–91.

HERSHKOVITZ, I., G. EDELSON, M. SPIERS, B.ARENSBURG, D. NADEL & B. LEVI. 1993. Ohalo IIman—unusual findings in the anterior rib cage andshoulder girdle of a 19,000 years-old specimen.International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 3: 177–88.

HERSHKOVITZ, I., M. SPIERS, D. FRAYER, D. NADEL, S.WISH-BARATZ & B. ARENSBURG. 1995. OhaloII—a 19,000 years-old skeleton from awater-logged site at the Sea of Galilee. AmericanJournal of Physical Anthropology 96: 215–34.


1001


KISLEV, M.E., D. NADEL & I. CARMI. 1992.Epipalaeolithic (19,000 BP) cereal and fruit diet atOhalo II, Sea of Galilee, Israel. Review ofPalaeobotany and Palynology 73: 161–66.

NADEL, D. 2001. Indoor/outdoor flint knapping andminute debitage remains: the evidence from theOhalo II submerged camp (19.5 ky, Jordan Valley).Lithic Technology 26(2): 118–37.

– 2002 (ed.). Ohalo II—a 23,000 year-old fisher-hunter-gatherers’ camp on the shore of the Sea ofGalilee. Haifa: Hecht Museum.

– 2003. A long continuity: the Ohalo II brush huts(19.5 ky) and the dwelling structures in theNatufian and PPNA sites in the Jordan Valley.Archaeology, Anthropology and Ethnology in Euroasia13(1): 34–48.

– 2004. Wild barley harvesting, fishing, and year-roundoccupation at Ohalo II (19.5 ky, Jordan Valley,Israel), in Le Secretariat du Congres (ed.) Section 6:Le Paleolithique Supeerieur/The Upper Palaeolithic.General sessions and posters. Acts of the XIVth UISSPCongress, University of Liege, Belgium, 2–8 September2001 (British Archaeological Reports internationalseries 1240) : 135–43. Oxford: Archaeopress.

NADEL, D. & I. HERSHKOVITZ. 1991. New subsistencedata and human remains from the earliestLevantine Epipalaeolithic. Current Anthropology32(5): 631–35.

NADEL, D. & E. WERKER. 1999. The oldest ever brushhut plant remains from Ohalo II, Jordan Valley,Israel (19 000 BP). Antiquity 73: 755–64.

NADEL, D., A. DANIN, E. WERKER, T. SCHICK, M.E.KISLEV & K. STEWART. 1994. 19,000 years-oldtwisted fibers from Ohalo II. Current Anthropology35(4): 451–58.

NADEL, D., I. CARMI & D. SEGAL. 1995. Radiocarbondating of Ohalo II: archaeological andmethodological implications. Journal ofArchaeological Science 22(6): 811–22.

NADEL, D., E. WEISS, O. SIMCHONI, A. TSATSKIN, A.DANIN & M.E. KISLEV. 2004a. Stone Age hut inIsrael yields world’s oldest evidence of bedding.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of theUSA 101(17): 6821–26.

NADEL, D., A. TSATSKIN, M. BELMAKER, E. BOARETTO,M.E. KISLEV, H. MIENIS, R. RABINOVICH, O.SIMCHONI, T. SIMMONS, E. WEISS & I. ZOHAR.2004b. On the shore of a fluctuating lake:environmental evidence from Ohalo II (19,500BP). Israel Journal of Earth Science 53: 207–23.

NADEL, D., U. GRINBERG, E. BOARETTO & E. WERKER.2006. Wooden objects from Ohalo II (23,000 calBP), Jordan Valley, Israel. Journal of HumanEvolution 50(6): 644–62.

PIPERNO, D.R., E. WEISS, I. HOLST & D. NADEL.2004. Processing of wild cereal grains in the UpperPalaeolithic revealed by starch grain analysis. Nature430: 670–73.

RABINOVICH, R. & D. NADEL. 1994–95. Bone toolsfrom Ohalo II—a morphological and functionalstudy. Mitekufat Haeven, Journal of the IsraelPrehistoric Society 26: 32–62.

– 2005. Broken mammal bones: taphonomy and foodsharing at the Ohalo II submerged prehistoriccamp, in H. Buitenhuis, A.M. Choyke, L. Martin,L. Bartosiewicz & M. Mashkour (ed.)Archaeozoology of the Near East VI. Proceedings of thesixth international symposium on the archaeozoologyof southwestern Asia and adjacent areas (ARCPublications 123): 34–50. Groningen:ARC-Publications.

REVEDIN, A., B. ARANGUREN, R. BECATTINI, L. LONGO,E. MARCONI, M.M. LIPPI, N. SKAKUN, A. SINITSYN,E. SPIRIDONOVA & J.R. SVOBODA. 2010. Thirtythousand-year-old evidence of plant foodprocessing. Proceedings of the National Academy ofSciences of the USA 107: 18815–19.

SIMCHONI, O. 1997. Reconstruction of the landscapeand human economy 19,000 BP in the UpperJordan Valley by the botanical remains found atOhalo II. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Bar-IlanUniversity, Ramat Gan (in Hebrew).

SIMMONS, T. & D. NADEL. 1998. The avifauna of theearly Epipalaeolithic site of Ohalo II (19,400 BP),Israel: species diversity, habitat and seasonality.International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 8: 79–96.

TSATSKIN, A. & D. NADEL. 2003. Formation processesat the Ohalo II submerged prehistoric campsite,Israel, deduced from soil micromorphology andmagnetic susceptibility studies. Geoarchaeology18(4): 409–32.

VILLARET-VON ROCHOV, M. 1971 Avena ludovicianaDur. im Schweizer Spatneolithikum, ein Beitrag zurAbstammung des Saathafers. Berichte der DeutschenBotanischen Gesellschaft 84(5): 243–48.

WEISS, E. 2002. Issues in reconstruction the humaneconomy and society of the Epipalaeolithic siteOhalo II inhabitants by the macrofossil botanicalremains. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Bar-IlanUniversity, Ramat-Gan.

WEISS, E., W. WETTERSTROM, D. NADEL & O.BAR-YOSEF. 2004a. The broad spectrum revisited:evidence from plant remains. Proceedings of theNational Academy of Science of the USA 101(26):9551–55.

WEISS, E., M.E. KISLEV, O. SIMCHONI & D. NADEL.2004b. Small-grained wild grasses as staple food atthe 23,000 year-old site of Ohalo II, Israel.Economic Botany 588 (supplement): S125–34.


1002

Res

earc

h

Dani Nadel et al.

WEISS, E., M.E. KISLEV & A. HARTMAN. 2006.Autonomous cultivation before domestication.Science 312(5780): 1608–10.

WEISS, E., M.E. KISLEV, O. SIMCHONI, D. NADEL & H.TSCHAUNER. 2008. Plant-food preparation area onan Upper Paleolithic brush hut floor at Ohalo II,Israel. Journal of Archaeological Science 35: 2400–14.

WILLERDING, U. 1970. Vor- und fruhgeschichtlicheKulturpflanzen in Mitteleuropa. Neue Ausgrabungenund Forschungen in Niedersachsen 5: 287–375.

ZOHAR, I. 2002. Fish and fishing at Ohalo II, in D.Nadel (ed.) Ohalo II, a 23,000 year-oldfisher-hunter-gatherers’ camp on the shore of the Sea ofGalilee: 28–31. Haifa: Hecht Museum.

ZOHARY, D., M. HOPF & E. WEISS. 2012.Domestication of plants in the Old World. Oxford:Oxford University Press.

Received: 13 December 2011; Accepted: 16 March 2012; Revised: 10 April 2012


1003

Nadel Piperno Holst Snir Weiss Antiquity 2012 Processing wild cereal grains at Ohalo.pdf

Documents

Transcript of Nadel Piperno Holst Snir Weiss Antiquity 2012 Processing wild cereal grains at Ohalo.pdf