Ruminations on the role of periphery and centre for the Natufian

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

562

Introduction

The historical background to Natufian research was provided through the combination of the pio-neering investigations in Mount Carmel, Samaria and the Judean desert by Garrod and Neuville (e.g. Garrod 1957; Neuville 1951). Subsequent research in the Mediterranean zone at sites such as Eynan, Nahal Oren and Hayonim cave ‘fleshed out’ the framework proposed in earlier decades (e.g. Bar-Yosef and Tchernov 1966; Perrot 1960; Stekelis and Yisraely 1963). Research further afield, e.g. Beidha, Mureybet, and Abu Hureyra (Cauvin 1972; Kirkbride 1966; Moore 1975), including within the peripheral regions of the Negev during the 1960’s and 70’s provided the data for assuming a ‘dichotomy’ between the Mediterranean ‘classic Natufian’ of the ‘core area’ and the arid ‘desert Natufian’ (Goring-Morris 1987; Henry 1973; Marks and Friedel 1977). This geographical expansion of information on the Late Epipaleolithic raised questions concerning the very definition of what might be considered as ‘Natufian’ (e.g. Belfer-Cohen 1989; Olszewski 1986).1

The intent of the following paper is to examine the degree to which the ‘periphery’ was tangential to what are considered mainstream, ‘core area’ Natufian developments. In other words, to what extent does this ‘peripheral’ Natufian distill, in more stark terms, the ultimate essence of the ‘Natufian’ world, if at all? This issue is also pertinent to ques-tions concerning Natufian origins. Since we are most familiar with the Negev and Sinai data, we shall use this region as the basis for the following discussion.2

The Epipaleolithic in Negev and Sinai

The Negev and Sinai together comprise a well-defined geographic region encompassing ca. 72,000 km², being bounded on the west by the

Ruminations on the Role of Periphery and Centre in the

Natufian

A. Nigel Goring-Morris and Anna Belfer-Cohen

Gulf of Suez, on the east by the Rift valley (the Arava and the Gulf of Aqaba) and on the north by the Mediterranean coast and thence eastwards by way of the south Hebron hills to the Dead Sea. Most prehistoric research has been conducted in the western and central Negev, as well as eastern and northern Sinai, accounting for less than a third of the total area (Goring-Morris 1987 and references therein). Phytogeographically, the area is characterized by Irano-Turanian steppes in the highlands and Saharo-Arabian vegetation in the lowlands. Recent environmental research indicates that extremely cold and windy conditions prevailed during the earlier part of the Last Glacial Max-imum (LGM), when the combination of Cyprus low pressure systems funneled across the eastern Mediterranean and lowered sea levels (-120 m bsl) constrained moisture regimes in the Negev and Si-nai facilitating the rapid penetration of dunefields northeastwards from the Nile Delta (Ben-David 2003; Crouvi et al. 2009; Enzel et al. 2006, 2008; Goring-Morris and Goldberg 1991; Muhs et al. 2013; Roskin et al. 2011). Marked amelioration is subsequently accompanied the sharp rise in the number of sites during the Middle Epipaleolithic (Goring-Morris et al. 2009). By the beginning of the Late Epipaleolithic (corresponding to the Bølling/Allerød intervals) sea levels had risen to ca. -70 m bsl, so that the Mediterranean Sinai coastline was still quite distant, while the shallow Gulf of Suez continued to be exposed. Anthracological and pollen evidence indicate more trees in the Negev highlands at this time (Baruch and Goring-Morris 1997; Horowitz 1992). At the end of the Epipaleolithic there is locally little direct evidence for deleterious effects during the Younger Dryas, ca. 12,900–11,500 calBP, (though see Stein et al. 2010 concerning possible evidence from the Dead Sea); and it was only during the Pre-Pottery Neolithic A, at the beginning of the early Holocene, that the region was largely de-serted.

ranean ‘core area’; and that, only subsequently, did it diffuse to the southern periphery in a ‘diluted’ form (e.g. Bar-Yosef 1998; Henry 1989; Marks and Friedel 1977). Intriguingly, it is of interest to note

Background to the Negev/Sinai Natufian

At least three distinct socio-cultural entities relate to the Natufian sequence in the Negev and Sinai (Fig. 1). Based upon techno-typological criteria of the lithic assemblages, these entities comprise: the Terminal Ramonian/Early Natufian, the Late Natufian and the Harifian (Goring-Morris 1987, 1991; Goring-Morris and Belfer-Cohen 1997). While the Terminal Ramonian/Early Natufian and the Late Natufian have furnished few reliable dates, more than 20 dates are available for the Harifian (Fig. 2). While exhibiting certain similarities with the ‘core area’ Natufian, the Late Epipaleolithic sequence in the Negev and Sinai is distinctive on various planes. Inevitably, given the more peripheral envi-ronmental setting, local Natufian subsistence strat-egies within the Irano-Turanian steppes exhibited greater mobility than those within the ‘core area’ Mediterranean zone. Accordingly, logistical mobil-ity was necessary throughout the sequence, with a hierarchy of site types and sizes, in order to exploit the various specific ecological zones on a seasonal basis. The relative density of survey and excavation projects provides an opportunity to evaluate the changing nature and dynamics of these adaptations at a regional scale (for references see: Goring-Morris 1987, 1991; Goring-Morris et al. 1999). The commonly assumed scenario for the Natufi-an sensu lato has been that it first emerged (directly from the Geometric Kebaran) within the Mediter-

563

Fig. 2. Distribution of C14 dates (calBC with 1 sd) for Middle and Late Epipaleolithic assemblages in the Negev and Sinai. Note the spread of Ramonian and Terminal Ramonian/Early Natufian dates.

Fig. 1. Map of Final Natufian and Harifian sites in the Levant.

564


that, while there are instances where Geometric Kebaran levels immediately underlie Natufian ones, the data appear to indicate a complete break between the two, e.g. at Hayonim terrace (contra Henry et al. 1981) and el-Wad (Belfer-Cohen and Goring-Morris 2007; Weinstein-Evron 2009). Fur-thermore, we encounter marked discontinuities in techno-typological aspects of the material culture (i.e. lithics, bone tools, groundstone utensils, etc.) between the ‘core area’ Natufian and the locally preceding Geometric Kebaran (for details see Belfer-Cohen and Goring-Morris herein). Although, by definition, every archaeological entity displays unique characteristics, yet facing an evolutionary sequence, we would expect that the new and the preceding entity would share, to some extent at least, various background features. While the chronological data remain somewhat equivocal, the Negev and Sinai based Terminal Ramonian is apparently earlier and/or coeval with the Early Natufian of the Mediterranean zone. But, in contrast to Geometric Kebaran – Natufian discontinuity within the Mediterranean zone not-ed above, the Terminal Ramonian displays direct techno-typological continuity from the preceding Middle Epipaleolithic Mushabian and Ramonian entities. The Middle Epipaleolithic Mushabian may derive from the Early Epipaleolithic Nizzanan entity as environmental conditions improved to-wards the end of the LGM.3 Technologically, the entities differ in that elongate, distally pointed blade/let blanks in the Nizzanan derive from nar-row-fronted single platform cores, while the stubby blade/let blanks of the Mushabian are produced from wide-fronted cores. The Mushabian, together with its subsequent derivative, the Ramonian, are geographically limited to the Negev and Sinai. The Mushabian is characterized by arch backed and scalene bladelets, together with splayed/blunt ended bladelets; the Ramonian features the ‘Ramon point’, a robust, concave backed and obliquely truncated bladelet (Goring-Morris 1995); microliths in both phases were habitually produced by the microburin technique (mbt).4 Ramonian reduction sequences commonly use wide-fronted and pyramidal single platform cores to produce longer blade/let blanks, often distally slightly overshot or blunt.5 Scrapers often occur on thick blade blanks, while burins are almost absent. Initially, the Mushabian may have been briefly coeval locally with the Geometric Ke-baran. However, the stratigraphy and radiometric dates appear to indicate that the Geometric Keba-ran disappeared quite rapidly from these desertic

regions, so that its complete chronological sequence is documented only in the northern, Mediterranean area.6 The geographic demarcation in the area of the Hebron hills between the late Mushabian/Ramonian and the late Geometric Kebaran seems to be quite pronounced (Hermon 1996; Lamdan et al. 1977; Valla et al. 1979). While the Geometric Kebaran and Mushabian have furnished a series of C14 dates, the situation with regards the Ra-monian and the Early Natufian in the Negev and Sinai remains problematic (Fig. 2). The Ramonian develops into what one of us has called the ‘Terminal Ramonian’ (Goring-Mor-ris 1987). Blade/let blanks usually derive from pyramidal and wide-fronted single platform blade/let cores. This phase is marked by the presence of smaller ‘Ramon point’ variants, together with the addition of Helwan lunates and spokeshave denticulates, the latter two being hallmarks of the early Natufian in the Mediterranean ‘core area’ (Garrod 1957; Neuville 1951).7 Additionally, a few assemblages in the south feature Helwan lunates but totally lack the ‘Ramon point’ varieties; these were denoted as ‘Early Natufian’ (Goring-Morris 1987; Marder 1994, 2002).8 In terms of raw material and technology these ‘Terminal Ramonian/Early Natufian’ assemblages cannot be differentiated (pers. obs.; Marder 1994). A principal difference between the Geometric Kebaran and the Mushabian/Ramonian complexes concerns the habitual and systematic application of the microburin technique in fashioning microliths occurring only in the latter (Belfer-Cohen and Gor-ing-Morris 2002).9 While some scholars continue to believe that the technique derives from North Africa (Bar-Yosef 1987, 2013), there is compelling evidence to suggest that the mbt first appeared in the eastern portions of the southern Levant at the beginning of the early Epipaleolithic, i.e. in Nebekian and then in Nizzanan industries (Goring-Morris 1995). The technique is subsequently ubiquitous during the Natufian and the Harifian in the Negev and Sinai; however, in the ‘core area’ Natufian, the microburin technique occurs in variable intensities, with some assemblages lacking it almost entirely (Bar-Yosef and Valla 1979; Henry 1974; and see Belfer-Cohen and Goring-Morris herein).

Terminal Ramonian and Early Natufian

The distribution of the ‘Terminal Ramonian’ includes the central and western Negev and north-ern Sinai; and there are also indications that it

565

Ruminations on the Role of Periphery and Centre in the Natufian

may even have extended as far west as the Nile valley (Goring-Morris 1995; Schmidt 1996). The sites demonstrate a hierarchy in size and content, ranging from the large residential base-camp (Upper Besor VI lower level – UB VI/lower10) with architecture, through to intermediate campsites (e.g., Shunera VII) and smaller, more ephemeral camps. The latter are found in the higher elevations of the central Negev highlands (e.g. Har Harif K7), the lowland dunes (e.g. Nahal Sekher 23, Mushabi IV and Nahal Lavan IV), as well as in the south Hebron hills (e.g. Beer Faher – for references see: Alon and Noy 1974; Goring-Morris 1987, 1998; Hermon 1996; Horwitz and Goring-Morris 2001; Marks and Simmons 1977; Phillips and Mintz 1977). The assemblages in the Negev designated as ‘Early Natufian’, sensu stricto, are small and quite ephemeral camps. As noted above they share the same characteristics as the ‘Terminal Ramonian’ lithic assemblages, but with the complete absence of Ramon points, and are located also in the lowland dunes. Interestingly, besides the lithic component, the site of Azariq XV also contains large quantities of dentalia tips (recently renamed Antalis shells - scaphopods, or tusk shells); as such the camp could represent the temporary station of a work party traveling from the Edom region across the Negev to the Mediterranean coast to collect shells (Goring-Morris 1987).

Lithics

There is a notable preference for chalcedony on small fractured blocks and other high quality flint as raw material for the medium-sized and microlithic components of the lithic assemblages.11 The blade/let blanks derive from well executed single platform wide-fronted and pyramidal cores; larger cherty nodules were exploited to produce large blade blanks for massive tools. As noted above Terminal Ramonian assemblages are characterized by Helwan (sensu lato) lunates and abruptly backed Ramon point varieties and include variable frequencies of deep, spokeshave notches and denticulates, burins, exquisitely made scrapers on flakes and blades, perforators and massive tools (Fig. 3). Amongst the massive tools, denticulates are a locally notable and long-lasting form (Fig. 4). The Ramon points display greater variability than previously, and though most are backed they sometimes include Helwan retouch on their bases, and their relative numbers with-in assemblages decrease (Goring-Morris 1987). The points and geometrics are habitually made

using the mbt, with usually one microburin per Ramon point and two per lunate. Refitting studies demonstrate the intentional use of Krukowski microburins to shorten the tips of some Ramon points (Marder 1994). As within the ‘core area’, the only presently known residential base-camp, UB VI/lower, displays a greater variability of tool classes and higher proportions of categories other than microliths; additionally, it is the only site documented to date with sickle-blades (Fig. 5).

Architecture

One hallmark of the Early Natufian is the presence and scale of durable structures. To date this has been presented in terms of significant architectural remains within the ‘core area’, with none documented in the periphery prior to the Late Natufian and Harifian. But rarely, one can glimpse an exception, as is the case of UB VI/lower. Located in a strategic setting in the central Negev, excavations have revealed a well-constructed, large semi-circular structure with stone footings, ca. 8 m in diameter (Fig. 6; Goring-Morris 1998; Horwitz and Goring-Morris 2001).12 Several bedrock mortars are integral to the structure.

Non-Lithics

Of note at UB VI is the presence of a meander-in-cised, dome-shaped item on limestone with remark-able similarities to the pattern on a shaft-straight-ener from the Early Natufian occupation across the Arava at Wadi Mataha in the Petra area of Edom (Fig. 7D) (Goring-Morris 1998; Gregg et al. 2011; Chazan pers. comm.). Other notable items at UB VI are numbers of bedrock mortars, while a basalt pestle (closest source 25 km to the south) was found as part of a cache together with an ochre-smeared, massive flint pick. Also present are a partially per-forated bivalve and other sandstone ‘hand-guards’.13 Numerous Mediterranean-type dentalia tips were found around a worktable. Fauna were generally poorly preserved but included gazelle, ibex and wild ass. Ostrich eggshell fragments were also present (Horwitz and Goring-Morris 2001). In other more ephemeral sites such as Shunera VII and Mushabi IV, firepits and hearths, some with quantities of fire-cracked rocks, were recovered. Notable was an intentionally manufactured lump of lime-plaster at Shunera VII, presumably used as mastic for anchoring composite tools in handles or shafts (Fig. 7B) (Y. Goren, pers. comm.; and see Kingery et al. 1988).

566


Fig. 3. Terminal Ramonian/Early Natufian lithics: 1-14, Ramon point variants; 15-21, Shivta points; 22-34, Helwan lunates; 35-38, microburins; 39, burin; 40-42, spokeshave notches and denticulates; 43-44, scrapers.

567


Fig. 4. Massive denticulates: 1, Shunera VII; 2, Abu Salem; 3, Upper Besor VI; 4, Rosh Zin (with burin removal). (#2, after Scott 1977; #4 after Henry 1976).

568


Fig. 5. Upper Besor VI/lower: 1-10, lunates (all but #8 are Helwan retouched); 11-13, 15 Ramon point variants; 14, Shivta point; 16-18, spokeshave notches and denticulates; 19-21, retouched blades (#19 & 20 with sickle gloss); 22-26, microburins; 27-28, perforators; 29-30, burins; 31-32, scrapers.

569


Fig. 6. Upper Besor VI/lower. Photo and plan of Locus 1: dark gray, Terminal Ramonian level; light grey Late Natufian features.

570


Fig. 7. Late Epipaleolithic, Negev: A, fragment of bone handle - Saflulim; B, clump of lime plaster - Shunera VII; C, stone beads - Saflulim; D, handstone with incised meander motif - Upper Besor VI; E, collared pendants (turquoise and natural fossils) and handstone - Abu Salem, Ramat Harif and Shluhat Harif; F, incised ostrich eggshell - Rosh Zin and Upper Besor VI; G, incised bone spatula - Abu Salem; H, sandstone abrader (for beads?) - Rosh Horesha. (#5 after Henry 1976; #7 after Scott 1977; #8 after Marks and Larson 1977).

571


The Late Natufian

The shift to the subsequent local Late Natu-fian seems to be quite abrupt, as reflected by the complete disappearance of Helwan retouch for the backing of lunates. This is accompanied by a seeming contraction in the distribution of sites that are now restricted only to the Negev, with no evidence for Late Natufian in Sinai, indicating a re-arrangement of subsistence patterns. Late Natufian adaptation probably focused around the seasonally occupied aggregation site complex at Rosh Horesha-Saflulim, in the higher elevations of the central Negev highlands. Smaller residential base-camps, e.g. Rosh Zin and UB VI/upper, were located at the margins of the highlands (Henry 1976; Goring-Morris 1998). Numbers of hunting camps and stands of variable size lacking durable architectural remains are found at the edges of the Negev lowland dunefields14 and in the southern Hebron hills.15

Lithics

The choice of raw materials continues the pat-tern described above for the Terminal Ramonian/Early Natufian. So, too, the range of tool classes varies between the larger aggregation and base-camp sites (with sickle-blades and a wider range of tool classes) on the one hand, and the smaller, more ephemeral hunting camps and stands (dom-inated by microliths) on the other (Fig. 8). The blade/let blanks mostly derive from single platform wide-fronted and pyramidal cores. No Ramon point varieties are found, while Helwan backing on micro-liths and blades is to all intents completely replaced by abrupt and semi-abrupt obverse backing. The microburin technique continues to be habitually used to produce the tips at both ends of lunates. Burins usually outnumber scrapers, the latter being poorly made. Sickle-blades occur in small numbers in base-camp sites, as do massive tools.

Architecture

No obvious residential structures have been identified to date at Rosh Horesha-Saflulim. How-ever, a large structure with a kidney-shaped plan constructed of massive slabs is notable at Rosh Horesha (Fig. 9A), as is a plastered surface at Saflulim (Marks and Larson 1977; Goring-Morris et al. 1999). Both sites have what appear to be low terrace walls that may be of Natufian date. Smaller residential base-camps (e.g. Rosh Zin and UB VI/

upper) feature structures 3-4 m in diameter, and have a beehive type arrangement (Henry 1976; Goring-Morris 1998). An unusual structure at Rosh Zin (Locus 4) featured a slab-lined surface and a large monolith, the latter interpreted by the excavator as having phallic connotations (Fig. 9B)(Henry 1976).

Non-Lithics

Elements other than lithics are rare except in the base-camp sites. Numerous bedrock mortars and cupmarks have been described from in and around the Rosh Horesha-Saflulim complex, while they are also present in some numbers at Rosh Zin and UB VI (Goring-Morris et al. 1999; Henry 1976; Nadel and Rosenberg 2010). Stone pestles, handstones and perforated discs were reported from Rosh Zin. Small numbers of basalt and sandstone shaft-straighteners are also present in base-camps. Molluscan assemblages tend to be dominated by Mediterranean species and include large quantities of dentalia, in addition to rare items from the Red Sea and freshwater sources (Bar-Yosef Mayer 2010; Mienis 1977). Of jewelry there are also a small number of limestone and malachite beads (Fig. 7C) (Larson 1978; Goring-Morris et al. 1999). Although bone tools are rare, several points and awls were reported from Rosh Zin, while the presence of a haft fragment at Saflulim is notable (Fig. 7A). Several fragments of incised ostrich eggshell were reported from Rosh Zin and at UB VI (Fig. 7F)(Goring-Morris 1998; Henry 1976).

The Harifian

The following Harifian is a short-lived, but well-defined and distinctive archaeological entity that represents the culmination of local Natufian developments (for more detailed discussion see Goring-Morris 1987, 1991).16 The time span of the Harifian existence broadly coincides with the ‘Younger Dryas’ event. There is some evidence that Harifian seasonal mobility patterns shifted from that of the local Late Natufian (see Butler et al. 1977). While superficially successful, it seems likely that ongoing aridification in the region eventually caused the crossing of a critical threshold, such that the Harifians ultimately were forced to abandon the area and retreat to neighbouring regions – whether to the south (e.g. the site of Abu Madi I in southern Sinai, which may represent an ‘Epi-Harifian’/Khiamian phenomenon17), or to the north and east, where they amalgamated with other

572


Fig. 8. Late Natufian lithics: 1-18, lunates; 19-21, triangles; 23-26, backed microliths; 27-29, blades with sickle gloss; 30-32, perforators; 33-38, microburins; 39-41, burins; 42-43, scrapers. (#40-43 after Henry 1976).

573


Final Natufian communities (Goring-Morris and Belfer-Cohen 1997).18 Such movements probably were instrumental as a catalyst for the emergence

of the subsequent PPNA in adjacent areas (Belfer-Cohen and Goring-Morris 1996; Goring-Morris 1991; Goring-Morris and Belfer-Cohen 1997).

Fig. 9. Late Natufian ‘special’ structures at: 1, Rosh Horesha; 2, Rosh Zin with monolith.

574


Lithics

The Harifian choice of raw materials to some extent continues the patterns already apparent from the Terminal Ramonian/Early Natufian onward. There is some emphasis on chalcedony for microliths and medium-sized tools, though in a less pronounced manner than previously. The trend towards less formalized technology in the production of blanks for the microliths and other, medium-sized tools becomes more pronounced, as elongated flake and blade/let blanks now derived from non-standardized and often multi-platformed cores (Fig. 10; Goring-Morris et al. 1998).19 But separate reduction sequences continued to produce blanks for the larger tools. So, too, the range and relative frequencies of tool classes varies between the larger aggregation/base-camp sites and the smaller, more ephemeral hunting camps and stands (Fig. 10). In the former a relatively more ‘balanced’ range of tool classes is present, including points, microliths (a micro-gravette form is notable), scrapers (often with coarse denticulation of the working end), burins, perforators, well-made backed knives, as well as small quantities of sickle-blades and heavy duty tools; in the latter assemblages tools are dominat-ed by microliths, points and scrapers, with few if any other classes present. A notable innovation is the appearance of aerodynamically-shaped arrowheads, firstly in the form of Shunera points and later as Harif points.20 Especially interesting is the occasional appearance of Khiam points in later Harifian assemblages in each region where Harifian site clusters are documented.

Architecture

Architectural features in the base-camp sites include redundant, spaced and separate semi-sub-terranean structures, ca. 3.5-4.0 m in diameter, often lined with slabs (Fig. 11). Smaller surface structures are also found, sometimes as appendages to the larger structures. The latter were commonly fur-nished with hearths, cup-marked slab worktables and at least one mortar per structure, as at Ramat Harif, Abu Salem and Shluhat Harif (Goring-Morris 1987, 1991). Trash pits were noted at Abu Salem and in Ramat Harif (Scott 1977). Lowland base-camps feature fewer and less invested durable architectural features (e.g. in Maktesh Ramon, see Goring-Morris 1991), while in the western Negev dunes architecture was probably

constructed only of organic materials that have not been preserved.

Non-Lithics

Ground stone tool assemblages are found only in the Harifian base-camps and include numbers of cup-marked slabs but fewer mortars. Pestles are relatively rare, although bell-shaped ‘collared’ grinding stones on green metamorphic rock were recovered at Abu Salem and Shluhat Harif (K3) (Fig. 7E) (Goring-Morris 1991). Other notable items in-clude red micaceous sandstone spatulae, limestone burnishers, basalt and sandstone shaft-straighten-ers, as well as assorted hammerstones. Molluscan assemblages display a greater ten-dency than previously for species deriving from the Red Sea and include large quantities of Red Sea dentalia. Of note are items that seemingly derive from the Indian Ocean (Bar-Yosef Mayer 2010; Mienis 1977). Small numbers of much larger types, such as Pecten sp. and Charonia sp. (trumpet shell) are also notable. Small numbers of turquoise (again ‘collared’), malachite and fossil pendants (Fig. 7E), spacers and beads are also present. In the west-ern Negev open-air site of Shunera X an obsidian fragment was recovered, deriving from Göllu Dag East in Cappadocia, Turkey (Yellin et al. n.d.). Although bone tools are not common, they include points and awls; a decorated spatula is noteworthy (Fig. 7G) (Scott 1977). Ostrich eggshell fragments were recovered in several sites, espe-cially in the lowlands, but they are not decorated (Goring-Morris 1991).

Discussion

In light of the above overview it is clear that a sequence of related entities is documented in the Negev and Sinai from at least the Middle Epipaleo-lithic Mushabian/Ramonian through the Natufian and Harifian at the end of the Epipaleolithic. Though each is quite distinctive, the local lithic industries display not only typological but also, and impor-tantly, technological continuity (Goring-Morris 1987; Marder 2002). Thus the ‘Natufian complex’ in the Negev and Sinai represents the culmination of a long, demonstrably shared cultural tradition. Initially, there is little evidence for direct external connections with adjacent areas during the Musha-bian and Ramonian. However, by the Terminal Ramonian/Early Natufian there is compelling lithic and other evidence to indicate interactions with neighboring regions. During all but the latest

575


Fig. 10. Harifian lithics: 1-5, Shunera points; 6, 12, Ounan (Jordan Valley) points; 7-11, Harif points; 13-14, Proto-Harif points; 15-18, microburins; 19-21, Microgravette variants; 20-26, lunates and triangles; 27-28, blades with sickle gloss; 29, spokeshave notches on blade; 30, perforator; 31-32, curved backed knives; 33, massive denticulate (with polished tip); 34-36, scrapers.

576


stage of the Harifian there is again little evidence amongst the material culture remains for sustained connections with other areas. In general, the archaeological sequence in the Mediterranean region differs, and the Late Epipaleolithic ‘core area’ Natufian demonstrates little continuity from the locally preceding Mid-dle Epipaleolithic Geometric Kebaran (and see above). Accordingly, as noted in the introduction one may enquire as to the degree to which the periph-ery was tangential to ‘mainstream’ developments. Indeed, we again face the conundrum of how and where things first develop. Without doubt the Natufian phenomenon comprises much more than its lithic attributes; but, to date there has been little detailed and substantiated discussion as to the mechanisms involved in its emergence (though see Grosman 2005). We are still at a loss to under-stand the processes involved in the appearance of Natufian complexity. What were the circumstances under which the entity acquired its particular and novel characteristics of large-scale architec-tural activities, burial grounds, a dramatic rise in quantities and diversity of bone tools and ground stone utensils, abundance of personal ornaments, and the tendency towards increasing sedentism? Many of these individual elements first emerged

earlier, but it is the overall scale and intensity of the Natufian that is so striking. How is it possible to explain that, on the one hand groups shared sufficient elements of the lithic techno-typological repertoire to be grouped as part of the Natufian taxon; yet, on the other hand, they displayed considerable variability in other aspects of their existence, creating the observed dichotomy between the ‘core area’ and the ‘periphery’ at the two extremes. Since differing ecological conditions were present in the Mediterranean and the semi-arid regions also prior to the Natufian, it seems to us that the ‘trigger’ for this obvious divergence must be a combination of both environmental and social circumstances (Bar-Yosef and Belfer-Cohen 1989a, 1991; Goring-Morris and Belfer-Cohen 1997). For example, one might speculate that those Geometric Kebaran groups ‘evicted’ from the southern region by the Mushabians retreated into their Mediter-ranean ancestral homeland and in light of the rise in local population densities reached a “... drastic solution, ... regrouping in a radically different con-figuration, which enabled effective increases in the carrying capacities of the available areas and tighter packing - the Early Natufian of the northern prov-ince” (Goring-Morris and Belfer-Cohen 1997:81).21 Sufficient data have accumulated to suggest that those Geometric Kebaran groups brought with them

Fig. 11. Ramat Harif (G VIII). Locus 3 complex.

577


lithic traditions from the south, elements of which were incorporated within the local (i.e. northern) ones. Admittedly, there is actually very little evi-dence for cultural exchange between the Mushabian and the Geometric Kebaran in the Negev (but see Goring-Morris 1987, 1995). Yet, it is well established that the appearance of the microburin technique and the use of Helwan retouch, the hallmarks of Natufian lithic traditions, appeared earlier in the peripheral zones (Goring-Morris 1995; and see above). As a consequence of different socio-economic processes taking place in the different phyto-geographic zones, various elements of the ‘core area’ Early Natufian repertoire are missing or impoverished in the periphery, e.g. rich artistic manifestations, a wide variety of groundstone utensils or burials.22 This may largely be explained through different environmental and social inter-actions (Belfer-Cohen and Goring-Morris 2011; Goring-Morris and Belfer-Cohen 2011). If, within the ecologically favored areas of the Mediterranean zone the ‘average’ exploited territory of Natufian communities was on the order of 1500-2500 km² (i.e. based on an estimated radius of up to 10 km/2 hrs walking distance from the site), within the Ne-gev, the logistically organized groups likely had to range over at least 5-7,500 km² annually in order to make ends meet. In doing so, they had to adapt more flexible responses to ‘hard times’ than in the north. Of course, there would also have been inter-mediate adaptations between greater and lesser mobility within the mosaic environmental zones comprising the southern Levant (and see Binford 1980 with regards the forager/collector continuum). It is important to recognize that this reflects not only differences in the spatial scale of the movements of groups, but also differing community sizes and hence also social scales. Accordingly, it is likely that the entire population of the Late Natufian or Harifian in the Negev comprised but the same number of individuals as only one or perhaps two coeval Natufian hamlets in the more verdant por-tions of the Mediterranean zone. This may portray a social aspect, in addition to economic dictums, for the existence of aggregation sites in the Negev (i.e. the Rosh Horesha-Saflulim complex), representing the periodic (seasonal) in-gathering of the entire Natufian population in the Negev. This would also explain the relatively greater homogeneity of Natu-fian adaptations within each phase in the Negev, as opposed to the greater and eclectic heterogeneity of developments between adjacent hamlets within the ‘core area’.

Obviously, the archaeological record indicates that the pace of changes and transformations was more intense in the north. It has been assumed previously that the Negev Natufian occurrences were but a ‘pale shadow’ of developments in the north, reflecting the budding-off of northern groups moving southwards, or the temporary occupations of visitors from the north; however, the unfolding picture is actually quite different and complex. Thus the data and knowledge accumulated in recent years provide another explanation of what one observes in the archaeological record. The potential for innovation was obviously present amongst both the northern and southern popu-lations (e.g. see the ‘peripheral’ site of UB VI and its inventory compared with ‘core-area’ camps). Yet it was more latent in the south. Indeed, the Negev Natufian was characterized by a certain stasis, whereby changes from one stage to the other were quite abrupt and appear to be caused by extraneous factors. In the north, the changes evolved and became apparent gradually, through time. These contrasts mirror the characteristics of human behavior under optimal versus marginal ecological conditions. Accordingly, there is a far higher degree of conservatism observed in all do-mains of life in the ‘periphery’, where the Natufian population comprised but a single integrated unit; as opposed to the ‘core area’, where numerous inde-pendent groups resided. We believe that a pivotal explanation for the different tempos and directions taken by northern Natufians, in contrast to those in the south, is that the former had the option to exercise their latent potential for experimentation and innovation. In the Negev the margins for error were limited; adaptations were fine-tuned, so that relatively minor changes, environmental and/or social, would have necessitated significant, if not complete re-organization - a luxury not always available vis à vis time, space and resources. This was a matter of life and death. Indeed, without being overly deterministic, it appears probable that the cumulative effects of the Younger Dryas, much more pronounced in the semi-arid and arid zones ‘sounded the death knoll’ for the Final Natufian/Harifian in the south. Ultimately, the Harifians passed a critical threshold and simply had no choice but to relocate, either to adjacent regions, or, farther afield (Goring-Morris 1991).23 It was almost a thou-sand years later during the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B (PPNB), with the onset of ameliorating conditions, that groups re-populated the Negev and Sinai; they were mobile foragers, in the mold of their earlier Epipaleolithic predecessors, forming two distinct

578


facies of the greater PPNB koine (Barzilai 2010; Bar-Yosef 1984; Bar-Yosef and Belfer-Cohen 1989b; Goring-Morris 1993).

Acknowledgements

Much of the fieldwork upon which the research described herein was conducted by ANG-M within the framework of the Emergency Archaeological Survey of the Negev; collaborations with Avi Gopher and Steve Rosen are gratefully acknowledged. The provision of supplementary funding for field and laboratory analyses was made possible by generous grants to ANG-M from the Irene Levi-Sala CARE Foundation (for research on the Harifian and exca-vations at Upper Besor VI) and by the Israel Science Foundation (for refitting studies). Artefact illustra-tions were skillfully drawn by Dahlia Enoch-Shilo and Julia Skidel-Rimer (unless otherwise noted).

Notes

1 And see Belfer-Cohen and Goring-Morris (herein) for discussion of this issue. 2 But see also the Natufian presence in periph-eral areas east of the Rift valley (e.g. Baadsgaard et al. 2010; Betts 1998; Byrd 1989; Byrd and Colledge 1991; Cauvin 1973, 1991; Conard 2006; Neeley 2010; Olszewski 2010; Pederson 1995; Sellars 1991). 3 The distribution of Nizzanan sites includes the Negev (Nahal Nizzana IX, Hamifgash IV), the Azraq Basin in eastern Jordan (Jilat VIA, Kharaneh IVB,) and the eastern Jordan Valley (Ein Gev IV, Wadi Hesban 2) (Edwards et al. 1999; Garrard and Byrd 1992; Goring-Morris 1995). 4 The ‘Ramon point’ differs from the early Epi-paleolithic ‘Kebara point’ in that the blank tends to be more robust, and the oblique truncation is almost invariably at the distal tip of the blank, being accomplished by the application of the mbt. 5 The systematic application of the mbt to the distal end subsequently removes the original slightly splayed end of the blank. 6 In the few instances where stratigraphic as-sociations are present Mushabian and Ramonian layers always overlie Geometric Kebaran levels in the Negev and Sinai, e.g. Mushabi XIV levels 1 and 2, Hamifgash I and VII (Bar-Yosef and Goring-Morris 1977; Goring-Morris 1987). 7 The ‘Ramonian’ corresponds to what Marks and Simmons (1977) originally termed the ‘Harif ’ and ‘Helwan’ phases of the ‘Negev Kebaran’ and

what Bar-Yosef (1970) first called the ‘Geometric Kebaran B’. 8 e.g. Azariq XV and Shunera XIII. Although we favour the above interpretation, it is also plausible that the absence of ‘Ramon point’ varieties in these assemblages could reflect functionality rather than stylistic attributes. 9 Separate reduction sequences for the produc-tion of larger blade blanks for larger tool forms – massive notches, denticulates, scrapers, and burins - are a characteristic feature of all Epipaleolithic entities in the Negev and Sinai (Goring-Morris et al. 1998). 10 The site contains large quantities of dentalia tips (Horwitz and Goring-Morris 2001). 11 While Mushabian assemblages almost always favoured matt flint raw materials, a gradual shift to chalcedony is noted during the course of the Ramonian. 12 At least one other structure of similar dimen-sions is visible on the surface. 13 Although unreported previously, a similar bivalve probably used as a hand-guard is present in the collections from Early Natufian Kebara layer B, stored in the Rockefeller Museum, Jerusalem (pers. obs.). 14 They include sites such as Nahal Sekher VI, Givat Hayil I, Shunera XVIII and XIV, as well as Halutza 87 (Goring-Morris 1987, 1997; Goring-Mor-ris and Bar-Yosef 1987). 15 e.g. Khirbet Janba and Lahavim 2 (Aladjem 2008; Hermon 1996). 16 In its latest phase the Harifian was likely coeval with the Pre-Pottery Neolithic A (PPNA) Khiamian of the Mediterranean zone. Still, it is unfortunate that the Harifian is commonly over-looked as being integral to the Natufian complex sensu lato. 17 Bar-Yosef (1991) assigned the lower levels at Abu Madi I to the PPNA ‘Khiamian’; although the assemblage includes typical Khiam points, we believe the ‘Abu Madi’ points and other elements of the material culture repertoire there indicate continuity of Harifian traditions. 18 The Negev and Sinai were virtually devoid of sites during most of the PPNA, notwithstanding numerous systematic surveys. 19 This tendency goes hand-in-hand with the pronounced diminution in the size of the microlith classes. 20 ‘Shunera points’ were originally called ‘Mushabi points’ (Phillips and Mintz 1977) but were renamed to avoid confusion with the ‘Mushabian’ entity (Goring-Morris 1987).

579


21 As noted above (endnote 2), parallel devel-opments would also have been operating between the Mediterranean zone and the peripheral regions east of the Rift valley. 22 The absence of burials in the south is, of course, notable. In part this may reflect poor bone preservation, but many Natufian base-camps in the south are founded directly on bedrock sur-faces, which would have necessitated disposing of bodies off-site or in some other manner than in the north. 23 Here it is tantalising to note the morpholog-ical similarities between Harifian point varieties and Nemrik points of the Round House horizon of the Upper Tigris-Middle Euphrates region. Is this simply a reflection of convergence? Or could it indicate the actual movements of populations?

References Cited

Aladjem, E. 2008 Khirbat Janba. Hadashot Archeologiot -

Excavations and Surveys in Israel 120.Alon, D. and T. Noy

1974 Beer Faher, a Natufian site. (Hebrew). Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society - Mitekufat Haeven 12:7-10.

Baadsgaard, A., Chazan, M., Cummings, L. S. and J. C. Janetski

2010 Natufian strategy shifts: Evidences from Wadi Mataha 2, Petra, Jordan. Eurasian Prehistory 7:9-29.

Baruch, U. and A. N. Goring-Morris1997 The arboreal vegetation of the central

Negev Highlands, Israel, at the end of the Pleistocene: Evidence from archaeological charred wood remains. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 6:249-259.

Bar-Yosef, O. 1970 The Epi-Palaeolithic Cultures of Palestine.

Ph.D. dissertation, The Hebrew Univer-sity of Jerusalem.

1984 Seasonality among Neolithic hunter-gatherers in Southern Sinai. In Animals and Archaeology: 3. Early Herders and Their Flocks, edited by J. Clutton-Brock and C. Grigson, pp. 145-159. BAR International Series 202, Oxford.

1987 Pleistocene connexions between Africa and Southwest Asia: An archaeological perspective. The African Archaeological Review 5:29-38.

1991 The Early Neolithic of the Levant: Recent advances. The Review of Archaeology 12:1-18.

1998 The Natufian Culture in the Levant, threshold to the origins of agriculture. Evolutionary Anthropology 6:159-177.

2013 Nile Valley-Levant interactions: an eclectic review. In Neolithisation of North-eastern Africa, edited by N. Shirai, pp. 237-248. SENEPSE 16, ex oriente, Berlin.

Bar-Yosef, O. and A. Belfer-Cohen 1989a The origins of sedentism and farming

communities in the Levant. Journal of World Prehistory 40:447-498.

1989b The Levantine “PPNB” interaction sphere. In People and Culture in Change, edited by I. Hershkovitz, pp. 59-72. BAR International Series 508, Oxford.

1991 From Sedentary Hunter-Gatherers to Territorial Farmers in the Levant. In Between Bands and States, Center for Archaeological Investigations, Occasional Paper No. 9, edited by S. A. Gregg, pp. 181-202. Southern Illinois University, Carbondale.

Bar-Yosef, O. and A. N. Goring-Morris 1977 Geometric Kebaran A Occurrences.

In Prehistoric Investigations in Gebel Maghara, Northern Sinai, edited by O. Bar-Yosef and J. L. Phillips, pp. 115-148. Qedem 7. Monographs of the Institute of Archaeology, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem.

Bar-Yosef, O. and E. Tchernov 1966 Archaeological Finds and the Fossil

Faunas of the Natufian and Microlithic Industries of Hayonim Cave (Western Galilee, Israel). Israel Journal of Zoology 15:104-140.

Bar-Yosef, O. and F. R. Valla 1979 L’évolution du Natoufien: nouvelles

suggestions. Paléorient 5:145-152.Bar-Yosef Mayer, D. E.

2010 The lessons of Dentalium shells in the Levant. Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society - Mitekufat Haeven 40:219-228.

Barzilai, O. 2010 Social Complexity in the Southern

Levantine PPNB as Reflected through Lithic Studies: The Bidirectional Blade Industries. BAR International Series 2180, Oxford.

580


Belfer-Cohen, A. 1989 The Natufian Issue: A Suggestion.

In Investigations in South Levantine Prehistory, edited by O. Bar-Yosef and B. Vandermeersch, pp. 297-307. BAR International Series 497, Oxford.

Belfer-Cohen, A. and A. N. Goring-Morris 1996 The Late Epipalaeolithic as the Precursor

of the Neolithic: The Lithic Evidence. In Neolithic Chipped Lithic Industries of the Fertile Crescent and Their Contemporar-ies in Adjacent Regions, edited by S. K. Kozlowski and H. G. Gebel, pp. 217-225. SENEPSE 3. ex oriente, Berlin.

2002 Why Microliths? Microlithization in the Levant. In Thinking Small: Global Perspectives on Microlithic Technologies, edited by R. G. Elston and S. L. Kuhn, pp. 57-68. Archeology Papers of the American Anthropological Association, Arlington, Virginia.

2007 A New Look at Old Assemblages: A Cautionary Tale. In Technical Systems and Near Eastern PPN Communities, edited by L. Astruc, D. Binder, and F. Briois, pp. 15-24. Éditions APDCA, Antibes.

2011 Becoming Farmers, the Inside Story. Current Anthropology 52(S4):S209-S220.

herein Breaking the Mould: Phases and Facies in the Natufian of the Mediterranean Zone. Edited by O. Bar-Yosef and F. R. Valla. International Monographs in Prehistory, Ann Arbor.

Ben-David, R. 2003 Changes in Desert Margin Environments

During the Climate Changes of the Upper Quaternary. Interaction between the drainage systems and the accumulation of dust (loess) and the invasion of dunes at the north-west Negev Desert. Ph.D. dissertation, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem (in Hebrew).

Betts, A. (editor) 1998 The Harra and the Hamad. Excavations

and Surveys in Eastern Jordan, Volume 1. Sheffield Archaeological Monographs 9, Sheffield.

Binford, L. R. 1980 Willow Smoke and Dogs’ Tails: Hunt-

er-Gatherer Settlement Systems and Archaeological Site Formation. American Antiquity 45:4-20.

Butler, B. H., Tchernov, E., Hietala, H. and S. Davis

1977 Faunal exploitation during the Late Epipaleolithic in the Har Harif. In Prehistory and Paleoenvironments in the Central Negev, Israel. Volume II. The Avdat/Aqev Area, Part 2, and the Har Harif, edited by A. E. Marks, pp. 327-346. Southern Methodist University Press, Dallas.

Byrd, B. F. 1989 The Natufian Encampment at Beidha:

Late Pleistocene Adaptations in the Southern Levant. Vol. 23. Jutland Archae-ological Society Publications, Aarhus.

Byrd, B. F. and S. M. Colledge 1991 Early Natufian occupation along the edge

of the southern Jordanian steppe. In The Natufian Culture in the Levant, edited by O. Bar-Yosef and F. R. Valla, pp. 265-276. International Monographs in Prehistory, Ann Arbor.

Cauvin, J. 1972 Nouvelles fouilles à Tell Mureybet

(Syria): 1971-1972. Rapport préliminaire. Annales Archéologiques Arabes Syriennes 22:105-115.

Cauvin, M.-C.1973 Une station de tradition Natoufienne

dans le Hauran (Syrie). Taibe, prés de Deraa. Annales Archéologiques Arabes Syriennes 23:105-110.

1991 Du Natoufien au Levant Nord? Jayroud et Mureybet (Syrie). In The Natufian Culture in the Levant, edited by O. Bar-Yosef and F. R. Valla, pp. 295-314. International Monographs in Prehistory, Ann Arbor.

Crouvi, O., Amit, R., Porat, N., Gillespie, A. R., McDonald, E. V. and Y. Enzel

2009 Significance of primary hilltop loess in reconstructing dust chronology, accretion rates, and sources: An example from the Negev Desert, Israel. Journal of Geophysical Research and Exploration 114:F02017.

Edwards, P. C., Head, M. J. and P. G. Macumber 1999 An Epipalaeolithic Sequence from Wadi

Hisban in the East Jordan Valley. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan XLIII:27-48.

581


Enzel, Y., Agnon, A. and M. Stein (editors) 2006 New frontiers in Dead Sea paleoenviron-

mental research. Vol. 401. Special Papers. Geological Society of America, Boulder.

Enzel, Y., Amit, R., Dayan, U., Crouvi, O., Kahana, R., Ziv, B. and D. Sharon

2008 The Climatic and Physiographic Controls of the Eastern Mediterranean over the Late Pleistocene Climates in the Southern Levant and its Neighboring Deserts. Global and Planetary Change 60:165-192.

Conard, N. J. (editor) 2006 Tübingen - Damascus Excavation and

Survey Project. 1999-2005. Tübingen Publications in Prehistory, Tübingen.

Garrard, A. N. and B. Byrd 1992 New Dimensions to the Epipalaeolithic

of the Wadi Jilat in Central Jordan. Paléorient 18/1:47-62.

Garrod, D. A. E. 1957 The Natufian Culture: The life and

economy of a Mesolithic people in the Near East. Proceedings of the British Academy 43:211-227.

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

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

1991 The Harifian of the Southern Levant. In The Natufian Culture in the Levant, edited by O. Bar-Yosef and F. R. Valla, pp. 173-234. International Monographs in Prehistory, Ann Arbor.

1993 From Foraging to Herding in the Negev and Sinai: the Early to Late Neolithic Transition. Paléorient 19:63-87.

1995 Complex hunter-gatherers at the end of the Paleolithic (20,000-10,000 BP). In The Archaeology of Society in the Holy Land, edited by T. E. Levy, pp. 141-168. Leicester University Press, London.

1997 A Late Natufian Campsite at Givat Hayil I, Western Negev Dunes, Israel. Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society - Mitekufat Haeven 27:43-61.

1998 Mobiliary Art from the Late Epipal-aeolithic of the Negev, Israel. Rock Art Research 15:81-88.

Goring-Morris, A. N., and O. Bar-Yosef 1987 A Late Natufian Campsite in the Western

Negev. Paléorient 13/1:104-109.

Goring-Morris, A. N. and A. Belfer-Cohen 1997 Articulation of Cultural Processes and

Late Quaternary Environmental Changes in Cisjordan. Paléorient 23/1:71-93.

2011 Neolithisation Processes in the Levant: The Outer Envelope. Current Anthropol-ogy 52/(S4):S195-S208.

Goring-Morris, A. N. and P. Goldberg 1991 Late Quaternary dune incursions in the

southern Levant: archaeology, chronology and palaeoenvironments. Quaternary International 5:115-137.

Goring-Morris, A. N., Goldberg, P., Goren, Y., Baruch, U. and D. Bar-Yosef

1999 Saflulim: A Late Natufian base camp in the central Negev highlands, Israel. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 131:1-29.

Goring-Morris, A. N., Hovers, E. and A. Belfer-Cohen2009 The dynamics of Pleistocene settlement

patterns and human adaptations in the Levant - an overview. In Transitions in Prehistory: Papers in Honor of Ofer Bar-Yosef, edited by J. J. Shea and D. Lieberman, pp. 187-254. David Brown/Oxbow, Oakville.

Goring-Morris, A. N., Marder, O., Davidzon, A. and F. Ibrahim

1998 Putting Humpty Dumpty Together Again: Preliminary Observations on Refitting Studies in the Eastern Mediterranean. In From Raw Material Procurement to Tool Production: The Organisation of Lithic Technology in Late Glacial and Early Postglacial Europe, edited by S. Milliken, pp. 149-182. BAR International Series 700, Oxford.

Gregg, M. W., Chazan, M. and J. Janetski2011 Variability in symbolic behaviour in the

southern Levant at the end of the Pleis-tocene. Before Farming 2011/1(article 1):1-12.

Grosman, L. 2005 Computer Simulation of Variables in

Models of the Origins of Agriculture in the Levant. Ph.D. dissertation, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

Henry, D. O. 1973 The Natufian of Palestine: its Material

Culture and Ecology. Ph.D. dissertation, Southern Methodist University, Dallas.

1974 The Utilization of the Microburin Tech-nique in the Levant. Paléorient 2/2:389-398.

582


1976 Rosh Zin: A Natufian Settlement Near Ein Avdat. In Prehistory and Paleoenvi-ronments in the Central Negev, Israel. The Avdat/Aqev Area, Part 1, edited by A. E. Marks, pp. 317-347. Southern Methodist University Press, Dallas.

1989 From Foraging to Agriculture: The Levant at the End of the Ice Age. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia.

Henry, D. O., Leroi-Gourhan, Arl. and S. J. M. Davis

1981 The excavation of Hayonim Terrace: An Examination of the Terminal Pleistocene Climatic and Adaptive Changes. Journal of Archaeological Science 8:33-58.

Hermon, S. 1996 Methodological Aspects of Prehistoric

Surveys. A Test Case - The Yattir Survey. M.A. thesis, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem (in Hebrew).

Horowitz, A. 1992 Archeopalynology in Israel. In Palynology

of Arid Lands, edited by A. Horowitz, pp. 405-428. Elsevier, Amsterdam.

Horwitz, L. K. and A. N. Goring-Morris 2001 Fauna from the Early Natufian site of

Upper Besor 6 in the central Negev, Israel. Paléorient 26/1:111-128.

Kingery, D. W., Vandiver, P. B. and M. Pickett 1988 The Beginnings of Pyrotechnology, Part II:

Production and Use of Lime and Gypsum Plaster in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic Near East. Journal of Field Archaeology 15:219-244.

Kirkbride, D. 1966 Five Seasons at the Pre-Pottery Neolithic

Village of Beidha in Jordan. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 98:8-72.

Lamdan, M., Ziffer, D., Huster, Y. and A. Ronen 1977 Prehistoric Archaeological Survey in

Nahal Shiqma. Sha’ar HaNegev Regional Council, Sha’ar HaNegev, Israel (in Hebrew).

Larson, P. 1978 Ornamental beads from the Late Natu-

fian of Southern Israel. Journal of Field Archaeology 5:120-121.

Marder, O. 1994 Technological Aspects of Lithic Industries

of Epipalaeolithic Entities in the Levant. Chaîne Opératoire in the Ramonian of the Negev. M.A. thesis, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem (in Hebrew).

2002 The Lithic Technology of Epipalaeolithic Hunter-Gatherers in the Negev: The Implications of Refitting Studies. Ph.D. dissertation, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

Marks, A. E. and D. A. Friedel 1977 Prehistoric Settlement Patterns in the

Avdat/Aqev Area. In Prehistory and Paleoenvironments in the Central Negev, Israel. Volume II. The Avdat/Aqev Area, Part 2, and the Har Harif, edited by A. E. Marks, pp. 131-158. Southern Methodist University Press, Dallas.

Marks, A. E. and P. A. Larson 1977 Test Excavations at the Natufian Site

of Rosh Horesha. In Prehistory and Paleoenvironments in the Central Negev, Israel. Volume II. The Avdat/Aqev Area, Part 2, and the Har Harif, edited by A. E. Marks, pp. 191-232. Southern Methodist University Press, Dallas.

Marks, A. E. and A. H. Simmons 1977 The Negev Kebaran of the Har Harif.

In Prehistory and Paleoenvironments in the Central Negev, Israel. Volume II. The Avdat/Aqev Area, Part 2, and the Har Harif, edited by A. E. Marks, pp. 233-270. Southern Methodist University Press, Dallas.

Mienis, H. K. 1977 Marine molluscs from the Epipaleolithic

and Harifian of the Har Harif, Central Negev (Israel). In Prehistory and Pa-leoenvironments in the Central Negev, Israel. Volume II. The Avdat/Aqev Area, Part 2, and the Har Harif, edited by A. E. Marks, pp. 347-354. Southern Methodist University Press, Dallas.

Moore, A. M. T. 1975 The excavations of Tell Abu Hureyra in

Syria: A preliminary report. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 41:5-77.

Muhs, D. R., Roskin, J., Tsoar, H., Skipp, G., Budahn, J. R., Sneh, A. Porat, N., Stanley, D.-J., Katra, I. and D. G. Blumberg

2013 Origin of the Sinai-Negev erg, Egypt and Israel: mineralogical and geochemical evidence for the importance of the Nile and sea level history. Quaternary Science Reviews 69:28-48.

Nadel, D. and D. Rosenberg 2010 New insights into Late Natufian bed

rock features (mortars and cupmarks). Eurasian Prehistory 7:61-83.

583


Neeley, M. P. 2010 TBAS 102: A Late Natufian Site in West-

Central Jordan. Neo-Lithics 1/10:86-91.Neuville, R.

1951 Le Paléolithique et le Mésolithique du Désert de Judée. Archives de l’Institut de Paléontologie Humaine. Mémoire 24, Paris.

Olszewski, D. I. 1986 The North Syrian Late Epipaleolithic:

The Earliest Occupation at Tell Abu Hureyra in the Context of the Levantine Epipaleolithic. BAR International Series 309, Oxford.

2010 On the margins: Early Natufian in the Wadi al-Hasa region, Jordan. Eurasian Prehistory 7(1):89-101.

Pedersen, C. H. 1995 Natufian Chipped Lithic Assemblage

from Sunakh near Petra, Southern Jordan. Museum Tusculanum Press, Copenhagen.

Perrot, J. 1960 Excavations at Eynan (Ain Mallaha):

Preliminary report on the 1959 season. Israel Exploration Journal 10:14-22.

Phillips, J. L. and E. Mintz 1977 The Mushabian. In Prehistoric Investiga-

tions In Gebel Maghara, Northern Sinai, edited by O. Bar-Yosef and J. L. Phillips, pp. 149-183. Qedem 7. Monographs of the Institute of Archaeology, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem.

Roskin, J., Porat, N., Tsoar, H., Blumberg, D. G. and A. M. Zander

2011 Age, origin and climatic controls on veg-etated linear dunes in the northwestern Negev desert (Israel). Quaternary Science Reviews 30(13-14):1649-1674.

Schmidt, K. 1996 Helwan in Egypt: A PPN site? In Neolithic

Chipped Stone Industries of the Fertile Crescent, and Their Contemporaries in Adjacent Regions, edited by by S. K. Kozlowski and H.-G. K. Gebel, pp. 127-136. SENEPSE 4. ex oriente, Berlin.

Scott, T. R. 1977 The Harifian of the Central Negev. In

Prehistory and Paleoenvironments in the Central Negev, Israel. Volume II. The Av-dat/Aqev area, Part 2, and the Har Harif, edited by A. E. Marks, pp. 271-322. South-ern Methodist University Press, Dallas.

Sellars, J. 1991 An examination of lithics from the Wadi

Judayid site. In The Natufian Culture in the Levant, edited by O. Bar-Yosef and F. R. Valla, pp. 445-458. International Monographs in Prehistory, Ann Arbor.

Stekelis, M. and T. Yisraely 1963 Excavations at Nahal Oren - Preliminary

Report. Israel Exploration Journal 13:1-12.

Stein, M., Torfstein, A., Gavrieli, I. and Y. Yechieli 2010 Abrupt aridities and salt deposition in

the post-glacial Dead Sea and their North Atlantic connection. Quaternary Science Review 29:567-575.

Valla, F. R., Gilead, I. and O. Bar-Yosef 1979 Prospection préhistorique dans le Negev

septentrional. Paléorient 5:221-231.Weinstein-Evron, M.

2009 Archaeology in the Archives. Unveiling the Natufian of Mount Carmel. Brill, Boston.

Yellin, J., Gunneweg, J. and I. Perlman n.d. The origin of an obsidian artefact from the

Harifian site of Shunera X. Unpublished manuscript.

Ruminations on the role of periphery and centre for the Natufian

Documents

Transcript of Ruminations on the role of periphery and centre for the Natufian