The origins of sedentism and farming communities in the Levant

Journal of World Prehistory, Vol. 3, No. 4, 1989

The Origins of Sedentism and Farming Communities in the Levant

Ofer Bar-Yosef l'z and Anna Belfer-Cohen 3

Particular geographic features of the Mediterranean Levant underlie the subsistence patterns and social structures reconstructed from the archaeological remains of Epi-Paleolithic groups. The Kebaran, Geometric Kebaran, and Mushabian complexes are defined by technotypological features that reflect the distributions of social units. Radiocarbon dating and pa&oclimatic data permit us to trace particular groups who, facing environmental fluctuations, made crucial changes in subsistence strategies, which, in the southern Levant, led to sedentism in base camps on the ecotone of the Mediterranean woodland-parkland and the lrano-Turanian steppe. The establishment of Early Natufian sedentary communities led to a regional change in settlement pattern. The relatively cold and dry climate of the eleventh millennium B.P. forced Negev groups into a special arid adpatation. The early Holocene onset of wetter and warmer conditions favored the earliest Neolithic (PPNA) development of village life based on the cultivation of barley and legumes', gathering of wild seeds and fruits and continued hunting.

KEY WORDS: Levant; Epi-Paleolithic; Natufian; Early Neolithic; Sedentism; Origins of Agriculture.

I N T R O D U C T I O N

The study of the origins of agriculture as a subsistence strategy in Southwestern Asia, some 10,000 years ago, was, and is an attractive subject of research for many scholars. Various explanations and models have been

~Isotope Department, Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot 76100, Israel. 2Present address: Department of Anthropology, Harvard University, Peabody Museum, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138.

3Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University, Jerusalem 991905, Israel. 447

0892-7537/89/1200-0447506.00/0 © 1989 Plenum Publishing Corporation

448 Bar-Yosef and Belfer-Cohen

offered since the midnineteenth century to clarify how and why early farming communities emerged in the "Fertile Crescent." Surveys of these models, beginning with V.G. Childe and his "propinquity theory," through R. Braidwood's ideas and the ecological-demographic-oriented models are well known in the literature (e.g., Wright, 1971; Smith and Young, 1983; Binford, 1968; 1983; Hayden, 1981; Bender, 1978; Flannery, 1969; Braidwood, 1975; Hassan, 1977, t981; Cohen, 1977; Redman, 1978; Hole, 1984; Starck, 1985; Henry 1985).

Two major issues are treated either briefly or cursorily in most previous publications, namely, the emergence of sedentism or reduced mobility and the first steps of cereal farming. Of these two, we see the establishment of sedentary communities as the "point of no return." Furthermore, we feel that given the available knowledge about the behavior of hunter-gatherers and the Levantine prehistoric records, we can explain why hunter-gatherers in this region gave up mobility. The ensuing emergence of farming communities, in our view, occurred among these sedentary groups.

Summaries of the archaeological, botanical, and faunal evidence dated to the Epi-Paleolithic and Early Neolithic of Southwest Asia often have been published separately and serve as useful sources of information (e.g., Braidwood, 1975; Redman, 1978; Cauvin, 1978; Mellaart, 1975; Moore, 1985; Clutton-Brock, 1981; Kislev, 1984; van Zeist and Bakker-Heeres 1982; t 986). What we would like to contribute in this paper to the ongoing research is twofold: (1) to draw attention to the ecological peculiarities of the Mediterranean Levant which dictated certain preadaptations among Late Pleistocene groups and (2) to demonstrate how known patterns of behavior of ethnographically documented hunter-gatherer groups and principles of cultural change enable us to reconstruct the emergence of sedentism and the earliest farming communities in the Levant.

T H E R E G I O N

The Levant, as a part of southwestern Asia, includes a variety of land- scapes stretching from the southern flanks of the Taurus Mountains in Turkey into the Sinai peninsula. Its eastern border includes the Middle Euphrates Valley, Palmyra basin, Gebel ed-Druz, Azraq, and E1-Jafr basins (Fig. 1). Thus, it is about 1100 km long and about 250-350 km wide.

Topographically, the Levant is divided into elongated strips, aligned more or tess in a north-south direction. The coastal strip narrows in the north and widens in the south and the coastal ridge declines fram 3000m in Lebanon to 2200m northward and to about 1000m above sea level (asl) southward. The Jordan Rift Valley stretches from the Gulf of Eilat northward

Sedentism and Farming Communities in the Levant

i ~ I XERO-EUXIN IAN S t e p p e - f o r e s t .//z I 4~o

K U R D O - . ~ A G R O S I A N -

IRANIAN S-f

449

• :q ' :2 : ""*':: ; " " : : "

M E D I T E R R A N E A N Sea

S A H A R O - A R A B I A N

Fig. I.

0 100 2 0 0 krn

I l 34 ° 318 't" l

M E D I T E R R A N E A N

I R A N O - T U R A N I A N Steppe

Vegetational map of the Levant (after Zohary, 1973). A, E1 Kowm basin; P, Palmyra basin.

along 400 km (part of which is between 200 and 400 m below sea level). This rift continues in Lebanon (the Beqa) and Syria, where it accommodates the Orontes River. The inland mountain ridge is less continuous, and except for the Anti-Lebanon mountains (2400-2800 m asl) it often drops rapidly eastward into a plateau-like landscape. For most of its length the eastern ridge

450 Bar-Yosef and Beifer-Cohen

is higher than the coastal ridge and thus favors higher annum rainfall. The Syro-Jordanian plateau has a series of inland basins in which lakes existed during the Upper Pleistocene.

The climate of the Levant is dominated by two seasons: cold and rainy winters and hot and dry summers. On the mostly limestone and chalky rocks, where annual precipitation reaches 400-1200mm a year, Mediterranean woodland and open parkland vegetation developed. Shrubland, steppic vegetation (Irano-Turanian), and desert associations (Saharo-Arabian) cover the areas where annual precipitation is less than 400 mm.

Today large annual rainfall fluctuations characterize the Levant. Its complicated climatic system (Wigley and Farmer, 1982) makes it difficult to predict the year-to-year changes and even more so to reconstruct the patterns of the past. However, it is generally accepted that two patterns prevail. In the first case the anticyclones which carry humidity from the Mediterranean Sea are pushing southward, while in the second case they cross eastward, leaving most of the Southern Levant as the drier region. Chemical studies of the Lisan beds--the residues of an Upper Pleistocene lake, ca. 215 km long in the Jordan Valley-demonstrate that the rainfall's geographic distribution was similar to that of today (Begin et al., 1980). However, fluctuations in the decadal and centennial averages of precipitation, more than temperature changes, were responsible for expansion and contraction of the vegetational belts as reflected in the palynological sequences (Bottema and van-Zeist, 1981; van-Zeist and Bottema, 1982; Bottema, 1987).

Floral food resources are seasonal, with seeds most abundant in April- June and fruits in September-November (Schmida et al., 1986). Among the three vegetational zones, the Mediterranean zone is the richest in the number of edible fruits, seeds, leaves, tubers, etc. (Zohary, 1973).

The fauna presents a similar picture, with the biomass gradually dwindling further away from the Mediterranean core area. Dense oak forests, where annual precipitation was above 800 ram, probably maintained lower biomass than open parkland. Thus the mosaic associations of Mediterranean vegetation between the isohyets of 600-300mm, bordering the Irano- Turanian shrubland, contain more floral and animal species than other areas in the Levant (Shmida et al., 1986; Harrison, 1972; Uerpmann, 1981).

One of the main meat sources of Epi-Paleolithic and Early Neolithic communities was the gazelle (Gzella gazella). Recent studies of gazelle behavior (Baharav, 1974, 1980, 1982, 1983; Simmons and Ilani, 1975-1977) indicate that this antelope is basically sedentary. Its home range varies between 1 km 2 in the Mediterranean belt and 5 km 2 in the arid areas such as the southern Negev. Females and fawns are more sedentary than the herds of bachelor males, which roam around the territory controlled by the dominant male. Thus the largest territories of the males in the most arid zone reach

Sedentism and Farming Communities in the Levant 451

25 km 2 and they decrease considerably within the Mediterranean vegetation zone. Gazelle densities range from 70 per km z in the watered areas, with no carnivores, to about 10 per km 2 in the Irano-Turanian steppic environments. Reproduction among gazelles depends on the daily accessibility of surface water. Under conditions that favor immediate availability of water, gazelles reproduce all year round. Drier conditions lead to seasonality in the timing of birth generally from March through July (Baharav 1983).

A somewhat similar pattern of behavior can be suggested for Gazella subgutturosa, the species commonly found in the Syro-Arabian desert (Harrison 1968; Meshel 1974). Unfortunately, no behavioral studies of this species are available. Large herds of this gazelle were hunted with the aid of drives, locally known as "desert kites," beginning in the late ninth millennium B.P. (Bar-Yosef, 1986; Legge and Rowley-Conwy, 1987).

Other common species, such as cattle (Bos primigenius), fallow deer (Darna mesopotamica), roe deer (Capreolus capreolus), wild boar (Sus scrofa), and ibex (Capra ibex), also have small home ranges like the gazelle. Thus, the exploited species can be classified as relatively dense and predictable resources. Therefore, the absence of long-distance migrations of animals in the Levant did not require long-range residential or logistical moves.

To sum up, the seasonality of vegetal resources would encourage movement between the lowlands and the highlands (which were always more forested in the Levant), while hunting, especially of gazelles, could be pursued within relatively small territories.

Given the Levantine conditions it seems to us that the optimum exploitation territory for a band of hunter-gatherers within the Mediterranean vegetational belt would have been of the order of 300-500 kin.

If bands were confined to the specific Irano-Turanian and/or the desertic Saharo-Arabian phytogeographical zones, their foraging territories would have been much larger, as a precaution against the hazards of annual fluctuations in resources. We estimate a territory of the order of 500-2000 km 2 for a single band. Similar results were obtained through a survey of the potential biornass of 500km 2 in central Sinai, within the Saharo-Arabian belt. Perevolotsky and Baharav (1987) concluded that 10-20 humans could survive solely on hunting in this area; the figure would be higher if meat, as known from the ethnographic records, formed only 10-20% of the diet.

Situations of stress would be caused by dwindling resources that result from decreasing annual precipitation and shifts in the distribution of rains during the winter. These would affect mainly the Irano-Turanian steppe and the Saharo-Arabian desert belts, while in the Mediterranean belt resources would have been more stable and fluctuations minimal. A number of options would help to solve the stress problem. Among them are (a) aggregation of population in core areas, which were least affected by the depletion of


resources; (b) social and technoeconomic reorganization in an effort to adapt to the new conditions; (c) immigration to adjacent territories, mainly northward (or westward for those in the Syro-Arabian desert), where conditions were still better due to their proximity to the Mediterranean zone; and (d) the combination of several operational strategies.

If movement into the northern territories or westward along the Turkish coast was impractical, aggregation within the Mediterranean vegetational belt (rich in both r- and K-selected resources) ensured survival (Hayden0 1981). The seasonal pattern of residential movements between winter base camps in the lowlands and summer camps in the highlands was already built-in within Mediterranean foragers' society. Regular patterns of mobility of bands would encourage the building of stable installations, storage facilities, and dwellings which could serve during many successive seasons, thus enhancing the direction of seasonally anticipated moves.

Population increase within small territories would lead to an increase in the size of base camps. More efficient exploitation would be achieved by relocating the base camps on ecotones in order to enable more intensive exploitation of a variety of environments. Large numbers of permanent storage facilities and increasing quantities of food refuse would attract rodents, birds, and scavengers. A continuous "broad-spectrum" exploitation, which becomes essential for feeding a large and relatively stable group, will exert pressure on the game population, leading to depletion and extinc- tion of the more rare species. The possible use of fire would enhance the growth of annuals and could even increase the annual yields of wild cereals and pulses. Thus, the base camps situated in the ecotones become more sedentary settlements with increasing exploitation of legumes and cereals.

The definition of sedentism is not a simple one (e.g., Hitchcock, 1982; Rafferty, 1985). There are numerous ethnographic examples in Southwest Asia for settlements with permanent houses and storage facilities from which most of the population moves out seasonally, often in summer time, either to their fields in the lowlands or to the pastures of the highlands. When they are in need of certain objects, they return to the village and bring it to their seasonal camp. The inhabitants consider themselves as sedentary people and their settlements as the permanent dwelling of the group. Can we as archaeologists identify the sites of sedentary communities?

In order not to get entangled in a barren discussion, we adopt here the stance that the inference for sedentism versus mobility and short-term settlements should be drawn from the biological evidence, accumulated from the excavated Epi-Paleolithic and Neolithic sites. In particular, the shift in the microvertebrate spectra of sites from a variety of species to the proliferation of one, and in the specific case of the Levant the dominance of house mice, is taken, together with additional faunal and floral evidence, as an indication


of a major change in mobility patterns and the establishment of sedentary communities (Tchernov, 1984).

In conclusion, well-built structures and storage facilities by themselves cannot be taken to indicate the sedentism of a human group without sup- portive bioarchaeotogical evidence. Well-built structures were uncovered in Early Neolithic sites in southern Sinai, where the available information suggests seasonal residential moves similar to recent Bedouin (Bar-Yosef, 1984). However, the contents of Natufian base camps and Neolithic villages in the Jordan Valley indicate, as presented below, a different semisedentary or sedentary pattern.

Finally, the continuous exploitation of resources in a situation of growing population, when the retreat to an earlier subsistence strategy is not feasible, would eventually lead to active human intervention in increasing the yield of the exploited resources. This was much easier to achieve with the r-selected resources such as the cereals and pulses because yields are expected within a few months. Cultivation could not succeed under severe annual fluctuations of precipitation. The hazards of droughts would not encourage the intentional sowing of about a quarter of the last summer's yield. Therefore, cultivation would most likely have started in well-watered areas. The available paleoclimatic records support this contention.

Before turning to a description of the archaeological sequence, and in view of the importance attributed to environmental changes caused by climatic fluctuations, we briefly summarize the controversial paleoclimatic evidence (see also Henry, 1983; Moore, 1985).

The main issue is whether the observable vegetational fluctuations reflected in the palynological records were more or less synchronous throughout the Levant or instead were separated by a considerable time lag between the northern and the southern Levant (Bottema and van Zeist 1981; van Zeist and Bottema t982; Bottema 1987; Leroi-Gourhan, 1982; Leroi-Gourhan and Darmon, 1987). The palynological sequence of the northern Levant is best represented by the cores from the Ghab marshes (in the Orontes valley), while that of the southern region by drillings in the Hula valley, 300 km to the southwest.

It is generally agreed that during the Late Glacial maximum the climate which prevailed over the entire region was cold and dry and the coastal hilly areas were covered by forests. In the south this cold period was followed by a spell of wetter conditions (14,000-13,000 B.P.), whereas in the northern Levant the cold period lasted until 10,000 B.P. Tsukada's graph from the Hula records an increase in arboreal pollen from about 13,500 B.P. to a decrease after 9500 B.P., with a few fluctuations around 11,500 and 10,000 B.P. Deep-sea core records from the Eastern Mediterranean


(Nesteroff et al., 1983) point to drier conditions around 13,000 B.P. and a relatively wetter period during the early Neolithic.

This sequence is supported by dated geomorphic events and paleosols (Goldberg, 1986; Goodfriend and Magaritz, 1988). The main shrinkage event of Lake Lisan, which covered an area of about 2800 km 2, occurred just before the Early Natufian (Bar-Yosef, 1987). The entire floor area of the Jordan Valley was exposed and the Jordan River, from its outlet in Lake Kinneret, started incising its channel in the soft Lisan marls. This was followed by a somewhat wetter and warmer period (B611ing/Aller6d in the European chronology), and a drier spell of the eleventh millennium B.P. is marked in the Lower Jordan Valley by the faunal spectra of Early Neolithic sites. These record the presence of a freshwater body in the area of Fazael-Satibiya which reflects an increase in annual precipitation and especially the presence of copious springs (Tchernov in Noy et al., 1980). Similar information about climatic improvement around 10,000 B.P. was obtained in Mureybet, and thus we may conclude that at least during the terminal millennia of the Pleistocene and the early ones of the Holocene the entire Levant was subject to similar climatic fluctuations.

Finally, the sea rise since the Late Glacial Maximum was gradual and continued until the eighth millennium B.P. Over a period of about 7000 radiocarbon years, the southern Levant, which has a flat, sandy coastal plain, has lost to the sea a stretch 10-15 km wide. In view of the paucity of aquatic resources in this most saline corner of the Mediterranean Sea, such a change possibly affected little more than the collection of marine shells used for decoration.

The outcome of social decisions, in the face of both short-term climatic amelioration and deterioration, can be traced fully or partially in the archaeological record. Whether these prehistoric cultures can be identified as ethnic groups or reflect only communication networks or alliances among people who adopted similar survival strategies is, in this case, of little importance.

THE CULTURAL COMPLEXES

The Nature of Archaeological Observations

The data sets used by us as a basis for description and discussion were accumulated through excavations and surface collections since the 1930s by scholars who were trained in different archaeological schools, particularly English, French, and North American. Each school is characterized by a different approach to model building, field techniques, and data interpretation.


14CYR. B.P.

9,500

10,000

10,309

11,000

12,000

13,OO0

14,000

15.000

16,000

17,000

18,000

19,000

20,000

Mediterranean i Coast & Lebanese Mediterranean [ trano-Turanian Steppe- Shrubland Saharo-Arabian Mountains Woodlands : trice Euphrates Valley Desert

. . . . . . Sultanian i - - - - Khiamian E A R L Y i N E O L I T H I C

Unamed Early Neolithic Industry

Geometric Kebaran

- - Harifian - -

Late Natufian . . . . .

Early Natufian ~ ,," Facies with Helwan Lunates ~' Late Mushabian

. - • Facies with Lunates or Triangles

. . . . . . - - - - . Early Mushabian [ ~ - - ,

1 I , : . . . . Late Kebaran - - ,

i / " Isolated ". Sites in Oases Early Kebaran .

I Late Upper Paleolithic --4 "& . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _

" - Unamed Industries

Fig. 2. Chronological chart demonstrating the presence of each archaeological entity discussed in the text, in relationship to its ecological distribution.

Through time, these scholars were joined by local researchers who adopted a mixture of approaches. Thus, the use of excavation and survey results for paleoanthropological reconstructions is limited by the various levels of chronological and technotypological resolution obtained over the years (Fig. 2).

The definitions of prehistoric '°cultures" which incorporate a number (as large as possible) of assemblages (derived from uni- or multilayered sites) have been based on the most frequent lithic reduction sequence in each assemblage. It should be stressed that flint (or chert) is found widely in sedimentary rocks which constitute most of the Levantine landscape. Flint of good quality can be found within a day's walk at the most (Bar-Yosef, 1987).

Identification of the knapping techniques and the special ways of tool shaping enabled the differentiation between the various archaeological entities in the Levant. These differences are supplemented by the typological distributions among the retouched artifacts, mainly the microliths such as obliquely truncated backed bladelets, trapeze-rectangles, Helwan lunates, etc. The specific combination of technological and typological features of each assemblage provides the means by which it is assigned to a particular technotypological entity. The entities are then ordered in a less than perfect hierarchy (e.g., Bar-Yosef, 1975, 1981, 1987; Henry, 1977, 1983, 1985).


Lithics, together with other contents (e.g., dwellings, graves, etc.) and attributes (e.g., size, location, etc.) of the sites, are used as criteria for definition. Thus we can define Natufian sites as "base camps" versus "transitory" or "seasonal camps" within the same "cultural entity" by taking into account the evidence of building activities, storage facilities, heavy pounding tools, the frequency and types of burials, and the presence of commensal animals (e.g., Bar-Yosef, 1975; Henry, 1975, 1983).

Site size and the relative density of remains have been offered as distinguishing attributes between sites in "core areas" and ephemerally occupied localities, particularly for those assigned to the earlier cultural complexes such as the Kebaran and Geometric Kebaran (Bar-Yosef, 1975). Densities of retouched pieces per cubic meter have been noted (Bar-Yosef and Goren, 1980; Bar-Yosef, 1983) and are considered as general indicators for the degree of reoccupation of the site as in the case of Natufian versus Early Neolithic mounds as reflecting differences in building materials.

The degree of group mobility and the size of the group (which could have had more than one knapper) are deduced from the site size and the degree of homogeneity in'size and shapes of the microliths. Neverthless, small sites which contain small assemblages expressing morphological homogeneity among the microliths are interpreted as indicating a high degree of mobility. These kinds of assemblages are common in the arid zone excluding the oases. Large sites producing assemblages demonstrating considerable variability of retouched pieces are interpreted as palimpsests of repeated occupations of small groups. The group size is difficult to estimate but we suggest that it ranges from one or two nuclear families to a band of 25-40 people.

Faunal collections are generally thought to reflect subsistence activities. However, biases introduced by the techniques through which collections were recovered should be taken into account. For example, the presence of small nonmammalian food resources such as fish, reptiles, and birds often depends on the sieving techniques. Wet sieving in Natufian sites such as Hayonim Cave and recently Matlaha (Eynan) and El-Wad Terrace has provided evidence for the exploitation of these resources (Bar-Yosef and Tchernov, 1967; Valla, 1984; Bar-Yosef, 1983; Pichon, 1987; Valla et al., 1986). Another example is the wet sieving done in the Early Neolithic mound of Netiv Hagdud, which revealed evidence for intensive exploitation of birds, a phenomenon not recorded in contemporaneous layers at nearby Jericho (Bar-Yosef et al., 1989; Clutton-Brock, 1979).

The prehistoric cultural entities in the Levant were identified based on a series of regional field projects ranging from southern Sinai to northern Syria (i.e., Marks, 1976, 1977; Bar-Yosef and Phillips, 1977; Gilead, 1983; Goring-Morris, 1987; Henry, 1983; Garrard et al., 1986, 1987).


The Kebaran Complex

The first cultural complex which continues the Upper Paleolithic tradition in the Mediterranean Levant was originally named "Kebaran" by D. Garrod after the assemblage collected in layer C in Kebara Cave, Mt. Carmel (Turville-Petre, 1932; Garrod and Bate, 1937). By now over 50 assemblages are known in the Levant, and their typotechnological traits provide the definition of this complex. The chronological range of the Kebaran, established as yet by only a few C-14 dates, lasted from 20,000 to 14,500 years B.P. (Bar-Yosef and Vogel, 1987).

The overall geographical distribution of Kebaran sites indicates a restriction to the Mediterranean vegetational belt in both the coastal Levant and the inland mountainous-hilly range from the Anti-Lebanon to Southern Jordan. Kebaran sites are rare south of the Beer-Sheva Valley or in similar arid environments within the Irano-Turanian belt (Fig. 3A). For example, a few Kebaran occurrences or other Late Paleolithic sites dated to the same period are situated in the rich ecological niches in the western Negev, in the oasis of Nahal Zin or Azraq (Goring-Morris, 1987; Ferring, 1977; Garrard et al., 1986, 1987; Muheisen, 1985). The distribution of Kebaran sites over the Levant was probably limited by the prevailing cold and dry conditions of the Late Glacial maximum (van Zeist and Bottema, 1977, 1982; Bintliff, 1982).

The location of Kebaran sites can be subdivided into lowland and highland sites (Fig. 4). The lowland sites of the coastal plain are concentrated along wadi courses and their height above sea level during the maximum Late Glacial was 150-200 m. A few are located on hilltops which overlook shallow wadi valleys, within a limited west-east strip, 1-5 km long and 1 km wide. The actual sea shore was about 10-15 km westward and thus we should expect to find sites located in the area covered now by the sea, due to the postglaciat sea rise. Known sites in the hilly area are scarce (due to historical agricultural terradng activities) and small (Hovers and Bar-Yosef, 1987). It is assumed that they served as seasonal summer camps. The larger sites in the Jordan Valley can be found at elevations above the highest Lisan lake level (180 m below sea level). Their seasonal summer counterparts are probably in the Samarian-Judean Hills or on top of the Golan and Jordanian plateaus.

The size range of Kebaran sites varies from 25 to 400 m 2. However, the area of a single dwelling probably was not more than about 25-50 m 2 as the few entirely excavated sites demonstrate (Ein Gev I, Yabrud III). When several such dwellings (possibly huts or tents built of branches and hides) were located a short distance from one another on a low or flat hilltop, the distribution of garbage and subsequent erosion have created a continuous large scatter of artifacts. Repeated occupations of the same locality and the penecontemporaneous erosion were responsible for the formation of thick

i ,,I3

2 1~6

~-

i t •

4 32

,~

ee

i

36

t ' 32

\

%

I00

132 <f

36

36

\ 3

2

28

-

Fig.

3.

Dis

trib

utio

n m

aps

of E

pi-P

aleo

lith

ic e

ntit

ies

in t

he L

evan

t: A

, K

ebar

an;

B,

Geo

met

ric

Keb

aran

(ci

rcle

s) a

nd M

nsh

abia

n (

tria

ngle

s);

C,

Nat

ufia

n (c

ircl

es)

and

Har

ifia

n (s

quar

es).

The

das

hed

line

s m

ark

the

Lat

e P

leis

toce

ne s

hore

line

.

~0

,<

o o


COASTAL JUDEAN HILLS JORDAN TRANS-JORDANIAN PLATEAU PLAIN VAtLEY

M

10 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 6 0 7 0 8 0 9 0 100 I10 120 130 [a0 150 160 170 180 190 200 210Kin

Fig. 4. Schematic topographic section across the central Levant indicating the location of Kebaran and Geometric winter camps (filled triangles) and summer camps (open triangles).

archaeological deposits (I meter or more) such as in Nahal Hadera V, Hefsibah, Ein Gev I, etc.

The tithic industry of the Kebaran is characterized by a reduction strategy of single-platform cores resulting in a preponderance of bladelets (Bar-Yosef, 1975; Hours, 1973, 1976). These bladelets are generally narrow, often less than 12 mm, and were shaped into different forms of microliths by fine, semiabrupt retouch (often done on an anvil). There is a shifting quan- titative dominance of the main microlithic types within the various assemblages. This kind of variability is interpreted as expressing both geographic and time-trajectory changes, for example, the Kebaran sequence of Lebanon (Hours, 1976; Hours and Loisselet, 1975-1977) and the local clusters in Israel (Bar-Yosef, 1970, 1975, 1981, 1987) and Jordan (Kirkbride, 1958; Henry, 1983; Muheisen, 1985; Garrard et al., 1986, 1987). The Early Kebaran assemblages show a large variability, while the Late Kebaran is commonly characterized by the obliquely truncated backed bladelet, sometimes known as Kebara or Jiita point (Fig. 5). Additional types of the Late Kebaran are micropoints, which are curved and pointed backed bladelets, and variations of microgcavettes. Several tool types exhibit a limited geographical distribution such as the Fatita point (a "Gravette-like" backed blade), which is restricted to the area east of the Jordan river (Yabrud III, 3; Ein-Gev I-II, Wadi Madamagh). Another example of a local variant is the Dour-Chouier bladelet characterizing the Early Kebaran in the high mountains of Lebanon. There is only limited evidence for the intentional use of the microburin technique in the Kebaran assemblages. An occasional presence of microburins is not surprising. The use of an anvil in the course of backing bladelets results in accidental microburins, Krukowski burins and rarely piquants- trikdres (Bordes, 1957; Tixier, 1963). In a few cases, such as in Nahal Hadera V and Jaita II the presence of microburins resulted from the production of triangles (Saxon et al., 1978).

A few bone points, spatulas, and burnishers (made of horn cores) were found in Kebaran sites. These are shaped more in the tradition of the Upper Paleolithic industries and can be considered as forerunners of the rich

8~

c~

Ill v

~

p~

(

v~

U

0 P~

~Q

0

? c~


Natufian bone industry. Worth noting is a bone point, found in Jaita II, engraved with a zigzag pattern (Copeland and Hours, 1977).

Kebaran marine shell assemblages consist of Dentalium shells, along with small Mediterranean gastropods: Columbella rustica, Nassarius gibbosula, and Mitretla sp. In Kharaneh, (Jordan) there were also a few Nerita shells from the Red Sea, while in Urkan-e-Rubb, a site in the Jordan Valley, the shell assemblage is Mediterranean and seems to have been directly collected by the site's inhabitants (D. Bar-Yosef, 1989; Hovers et al., 1989).

Grinding and especially pounding tools such as basalt bowls, mortars, and pestles have been found in Kebaran sites, mostly within those located in the Mediterranean vegetational belt (Fig. 6).

CM

® Fig. 6. Kebaran and Geometric Kebaran pounding and grinding tools. (1-4) From Hefsibah (after Ronen and Kaufman, 1976); (5-8) Haon III (after Bar-Yosef, 1975); (6, 7) Mushabi V and XIV (after Bar-Yosef and Phillips, 1977); (9-12) from Ein Gev I (after Bar-Yosef, 1970).


Scarce human remains have been found in Kebaran sites (possibly due to the smaller number of large excavations). A semiflexed single burial of a young woman was uncovered in Ein Gev I, inside the living area (Arensburg and Bar-Yosef, 1973). Two burials apparently dated to the Kebaran were uncovered in Kharaneh IV in the Azraq area (Muheisin, 1985; Rolston, 1982). One was in a semiftexed position, while the other was somewhat disturbed. Charred human bones of more than seven individuals were found in Layer C in Kebara Cave (Turville-Petre, 1932). Their burned state may indicate a burial custom of the Kebarans, thus explaining the scarcity of primary' human burials. Morphologically the Kebarans belonged to the local Proto-Mediterranean stock (Arensburg and Bar-Yosef, 1973).

The faunal evidence allows only a limited reconstruction of the Kebaran economy. It appears as if the Kebarans continued the tradition of Upper Paleolithic hunters and hunted the abundant ungulates of the local environment: fallow deer, gazelle, and ibex (Davis, 1982). Avian remains are meager and there is little evidence for the exploitation of aquatic resources. The floral remains are too scanty to be commented upon, but the pounding tools may indicate the processing of wild seeds such as legumes, cereals, and perhaps also acorns.

Geometric Kebaran Complex

This entity exhibits technotypological traits derived from the Levantine Kebaran (Bar-Yosef, 1981; Cauvin, 1981; Henry, 1983), which are briefly described below. The date and duration of the Geometric Kebaran are based on a few stratified sites and numerous C-14 dates, mostly from the southern Levant. It lasted from about 14,500 B.P. to about 13,000/12,800 B.P. (Fig. 2) (Bar-Yosef and Vogel, 1987).

The geographic distribution of the Geometric Kebaran in the coastal forested Levant is similar to that of the Kebaran. However Geometric Kebaran occupations were also dispersed all over the Negev, Sinai, and Syro-Jordanian deserts (Fig. 3B). Numerous occurrences in the arid zones are situated away from any perennial water sources known at present [Bar- Yosef, 1975, 1981; Goring-Morris, 1987; Marks, 1976; Fujimoto, 1979; Cauvin, 1981; Henry, 1983 (who refers to the "Middle Hamran" as a local variant of the Geometric Kebaran complex)]. Apparently Geometric Kebaran hunter-gatherers took advantage of the climatic amelioration which occurred around 14,000-13,000 B.P. in the Levant (Goldberg, 1986; van Ziest and Bottema, 1982) and expanded into the semiarid zone.

Geometric Kebaran lithic assemblages are distinguished by high frequencies of blades and bladelets, shaped mostly into microlithic trapeze-rectangles


(Fig. 5). Their changing average width serves as a chronological yardstick. Narrow geometrics are a continuation of earlier Kebaran microlithic types, while the wider trapeze-rectangles represent a later stage when a proliferation in the production of blades took place. The assemblages of northern Israel and Lebanon display a large variety of additional microlithic forms (including arched backed bladelets, pointed bladelets, etc.) but are dominated by trapeze-rectangles (Hours, 1976; Bar-Yosef, 1975; 1981, 1987). The Negev and Sinai assemblages contain almost exclusively trapeze-rectangles (Goring- Morris, 1987). This "impoverished" tool kit may indicate a specialized adaptation to specific semiarid conditions which dictated a higher mobility when compared to the potentials of the Mediterranean vegetational belt. The final stages of the Geometric Kebaran are marked by the introduction of backed lunates [(Gilead, 1977) "Late and Final Hamran" in Transjordan (Henry, 1983)] and the appearance of a local facies in which the microlithic tool group is dominated by triangles. Both industrial facies present an intentional use of the micro-burin technique (Bar-Yosef, 1975; Henry, 1982; Goring-Morris, 1987; Garrard et al., 1986).

Apart from the lithics the Kebaran tradition was maintained in the Geometric Kebaran through the use of marine shells obtained from the Mediterranean sea shores such as Dentalium sp., Columbella rustica, and Nassarius gibbosula (D. Bar-Yosef, 1989). These shells have been found as far south as Wadi Feiran in southern Sinai (Bar-Yosef and Killbrew, 1984).

Pounding tools, mainly pestles, bowls, and cup-holes, are usually found in the Geometric Kebaran sites located within the Mediterranean belt (Fig. 6) (Bar-Yosef, 1981; Kaufman, 1986).

The size of the Geometric Kebaran sites is similar to that of the Kebarans. Unfortunately, only a small number of sites has been excavated on a large scale. The size of the small sites is 15-25m 2, others reach 100- 150m 2, and there are very few between 300 and 600m 2 (Hours, 1976; Kaufman, 1986; Bar-Yosef, 1975, 1981). Small desertic ephemeral sites preserve the main activity areas with the hearth, debitage piles, and general dumping zone (see Bar-Yosef and Goring-Morris, 1977; Goring-Morris, 1987). The small and medium-size sites in the Negev and Sinai may represent the remains of small highly mobile bands, as indicated by the consistently similar lithic assemblages from sites widely separated in space.

Two Geometric Kebaran burials are known from Neveh David, in the Mount Carmel area (Kaufman, 1986). Both skeletons are mostly fragmentary and partially covered by stone bowls and mortars.

Only scanty information about the economic activities of Geometric Kebaran hunter-gatherers is available. Animal bones are not preserved in the sandy areas of the Western Negev and northern Sinai. Sparse faunal remains embedded in loessic deposits have been interpreted as reflecting the potential


of the exploited areas (Davis, 1982; Tchernov, 1984). Thus the main sources of meat in northern Israel were fallow deer, gazelle, and wild boar (Bar- Yosef, 1981; Kaufman, 1986), while in the Negev and Sinai we may assume that the prime game animals were gazelle, ibex, and hare.

The Mushabian

The Mushabian is defined as a cultural entity on the basis of a set of specific technotypological traits which characterize assemblages found in northern Sinai and the Negev as far north as the southern foothills of the Judean hills (Fig. 3B) (Phillips and Mintz, 1977; Marks, 1977; Goring- Morris, 1987). Its easternmost expansion is recorded in southern Jordan (Henry, 1983).

The time range of the Mushabian, based on stratigraphic evidence and radiocarbon dates, correlates with that of the Geometric Kebaran (14,000- 12,800 B.P.; see Fig. 2) and suggests the coexistence of two entities. The Mushabian lithic industry is different from that of the Geometric Kebaran. Moreover, there is a close affinity between the Mushabian technotypological attributes and those of the Iberomaurusian and related industries in North Africa (e.g., Tixier, 1963; Camps, 1978), the Nile Valley (Phillips, 1973), and Nubia (Close, 1977). Among the most prominent characteristics is the intensive use of the microburin technique, resulting in a high incidence of its products. The use of this technique, which is designed to obtain an oblique snap, is observed on several types of microliths such as the arched backed bladelets and La Mouillah points (Fig. 5). The combination of intensive use of microburin technique and the shapes of the microtiths is clearly a "newcomer" to the Levant (Henry, 1974, 1977). However, intentional use of this technique on a small scale is known from some Kebaran assemblages (e.g., Saxon et al., 1978). Both the Qalkhan and the Late Hamran assemblages (Henry, 1983) dated to ca. 11,500 in the Azaraq Basin (Garrard et al., 1986), and sites dominated by triangles near Ein Gev and in E1-Kowm (Bar-Yosef, 1975; Cauvin 1981) demonstrate intensive, systematic use of microburin technique.

In its later phases in the Negev and Sinai, the Mushabian lithic industry includes obliquely truncated backed bladelets possibly adopted from the endemic Levantine lithic tradition. However, they were shaped in the Mushabian way by using the microburin technique. Geometric forms were adopted as well, but stylistically they are reminiscent of the Mushabian tradition, having a curved truncation instead of the straight one common in Geometric Kebaran assemblages.

Late Mushabian assemblages have been previously named "Negev Kebaran" (Marks and Simmons, 1977) or more recently "Ramonian"


(Goring-Morris, 1987). As the technological and typological continuity from the earlier Mushabian is acknowledged by all archaeologists who worked in the area, its seems unwarranted to have additional names.

The chronological position of the Late Mushabian is inferred from its technotypological properties, as only one C-14 date is available from northern Sinai. In earlier investigations when the Late Mushabian was named "Negev Kebaran," two phases were recognized: the earlier "Harif phase" and the later "Helwan phase" (Marks and Simmons, 1977). The Helwan phase is characterized by the presence of Helwan lunates (in which the back is retouched bifacially) and is considered to be contemporary with the Early Natufian (Marks and Simmons, 1977; Bar-Yosef, 1987). This chronological assignment, although as yet not supported by C-14 dates, means that the Late Mushabian lasted into the end of the thirteenth millennium B.P. (Bar-Yosef, 1980). This tentative conclusion is reinforced by the paucity of the Early Natufian sites in the Negev (Goring-Morris, 1987) and their ephemeral nature as small flint surface scatters.

The meager faunal remains from Mushabian sites and the rare pounding tools can hardly tell us much about the Mushabian economic basis, apart from the general assumption that they were hunter-gatherers intensively exploiting the semiarid Irano-Tauranian belt.

Archaeological assemblages, contemporaneous with the Mushabian, were discovered and described in the Azaraq Basin and in southern Jordan (Henry, 1983; Garrard et al., 1986; Muheisin, 1985).

The Qalkhan industry (Henry, 1982) is characterized by high frequencies of microliths, especially of scalene triangles (Qalkhan point) shaped by microburin technique. On the basis of the stratigraphy at the site of Jilat 6, it seems that this industry dates to ca. 14,000/13,500 B.C. (Bar-Yosef and Vogel, 1987). Its continuation is most probably a facies with an abundance of triangles and the appearance of lunates (for instance, Jilat 6, upper level, and Ein Gev IV).

One of the final phases of the Epi-Paleolithic of southern Jordan (Henry, 1983) is a facies with lunates as the dominant geometric microlith (Late to Final Hamran). Microburin technique is systematically used here as in the industries mentioned above. It is worth noting that the backed lunates (by abrupt or bipolar retouch) precede here the Natufian.

Finally, there is a group of assemblages with a mixture of characteristics, i.e., the microlithic component is dominated by arched backed bladelets, La Mouillah points, and trapeze-rectangles together with an intensive use of the microburin technique. Such assemblages are known from northern Sinai and the Azaraq Basin, the sites of Jilat 8 and Uwayid 14 (Garrard et al., 1986; Bar-Yosef and Vogel, 1987).


To sum up, after the first stages of the Geometric Kebaran, around 14,000 B.P., there seems to have been several coexisting social entities that can be termed "archaeological cultures," each with a defineable territory. Their general contemporaneity was established by C-14 dates and stratigraphic considerations (Fig. 2). The typological variability is most pronounced with the appearance of the Natufian culture, where each cultural unit has a specific combination of reduction sequence, various types, and

NORTH WIND / /~''#'--"~'~NOT EXCAVATED DIRECTI7 / \

/ X I , O \~

t i I

/ • ~ o - " , / "" / / ~ ~ / / .'/ B / /

i / - ~ / I / i I

/

O 2 M

Fig. 7. A suggested reconstruction of activity areas in Lagama North VIII, a Geometric Kebaran site in northern Sinai (redrawn after Bar-Yosef and Goring Morris, 1977). A, heap of ashes mixed with sand; B and C, ashy zones; D, hearth; E, tunnels under hearth.


different frequencies of microliths that presumably were part of hunting devices.

While sites from the Negev and northern Sinai are small to medium in size, preliminary information from the Azaraq basin indicates larger sites (Muhesein, 1985). Extensively large scatters, covering areas of more than 20,000m 2 are most probably the result of natural destruction of agglo- merates of "fonds de cabanes," reminiscent of Lagama North VIII (Fig. 7).

The N a t u f i a n

Many scholars consider the Natufian to represent the culture of sedentary hunter-gatherers in the Mediterranean Levant (e.g., Perrot, 1968; Braiwood, 1975; Henry, 1985). Radiometric dates indicate that its chronological boundaries should be cautiously placed as 12,800/500-10,500 B.P. (Valla, 1987).

The definition of the Natufian as an archaeological entity is based only partly on its technotypological properties (Bar-Yosef, 1975, 1981; Henry 1977, 1983). Interassemblage variability among Natufian sites reflects local variation, a limited geographical range, and changes through time. Yet there is a uniformity in the basic technotypological attributes which can be observed at least in the Natufian assemblages in the southern Levant (Henry, 1977; 1983; Valla, 1984).

Natufian sites are found throughout the Levant, from the middle Euphrates to the Negev highlands and along the Jordanian plateau (Fig. 3C). The greatest density to date has been observed in northern and central Israel and northern Jordan. Natufians appear to have preferred the oak and pistachio belt (Contenson and van Lierre, 1964), which at that time stretched from the Middle Euphrates, through the Damascus basin into the Galilee-Judean Hills, and along the Jordanian plateau as far south as Ras en Naqeb. Thus, the high mountains of Lebanon, the Anti-Lebanon Mountains, the arid areas of the Negev, and the peripheral desertic zone of the Syro-Arabian desert were marginal for the Natufian occupation. The Early Natufians ventured sporadically into the Irano-Turanian zone, and only in Late Natufian times were large settlements established in this belt. Smaller ephemeral sites were found in desertic environments (Betts, 1982; Henry, 1982, 1983; Moore, 1985; Goring-Morris, 1987).

Cave occupation is an additional interesting aspect of Natufian culture. This type of habitation is rarely encountered during Kebaran and Geometric Kebaran times. The Natufians reoccupied most of the caves and rock shelters that had been inhabited for short time spans during the Upper Paleolithic and were later abandoned. This may indicate that the caves were generally


dry and could be used for human occupation and storage (Bar-Yosef and Martin, 1979). Unfortunately, this caused their premature excavation by the pioneers of Near Eastern prehistory, whose goal was to establish the general prehistoric sequence by digging stratified sites. Thus, excavated cave occupations created the false image that the Natufians were the last "cave dwellers."

Natufian sites fall into three size categories: small, 15-100m 2 (e.g., Sefunim Cave, Hayonim Cave, Erq el Ahmar, Nahal Sekher VI, Site 14/7 in the "Black Desert," J406b); medium, 400-500 m 2 (El Wad Cave and Terrace, Rosh Zin, Salibiya I, Wadi Judayid); and large, more than 1000 m 2 (Mallaha, Hayonim Terrace, Nahal Oren, Hatoula, Rosh Horesha, Wadi Hammeh 27). Intensive construction is observed in the large and medium Natufian sites.

The well-preserved structures in Mallaha provide an idea about the building techniques and forms of Early Natufian structures including dwellings and storage facilities (Perrot, 1966; Valla, 1981, 1984). The structures were built on a terraced slope with a rounded or semicircular ground plan. Their diameter varies from 9 to 4m. Hearths were found in each building (Fig. 8). There is evidence for the use of plaster in a bench-like wall. Several postholes uncovered in a large house indicate the use of organic substances for the roofing. Somewhat similar rounded rooms, clustered in two rows, were found inside Hayonim cave (Bar-Yosef, 1983) and remains of more ordinary dwellings were uncovered on the terrace in front of the cave (Henry et al., 1981; Valla, 1987). Additional fragmentary walls are known from El-Wad and Nahal Oren. It should be stressed that most of the known well-built dwellings are dated to the Early and Middle Natufian (Valla, 1987).

The density of lithics per cubic meter in Natufian sites surpasses, in most cases, that of previous cultural entities (Bar-Yosef, 1983). Exploitation of different types of flint and limestone is accompanied by the exhaustion of most cores in the sites within the hilly Mediterranean belt. Natufian core reduction resulted in high frequencies of flakes often along with broad, short bladelets. Many of the latter were shaped into microliths. Prominent among them were lunates. Garrod and Bate (1937; Garrod, 1957) and Neuville (1934, 1951) suggested that the presence or absence of microburin technique as well as variability among the lunates can be used as criteria for subdividing the Natufian into phases. Recently, with the discovery of additional Natufian sites, it appears that there are Early Natufian assemblages with and without microburin technique and Late Natufian assemblages with and without microburin technique (Bar-Yosef and Valla, 1979). Thus, it has been suggested that the use of microburin technique should be considered as a stylistic attribute differentiating between various social groups within the Natufian culture. Similar differences have been recognized between assemblages in which lunates are accompanied by various retouched and backed bladelets and others where the lunates are found together with trapeze-rectangles and


O 2M t" "~ "i- ~i}~{;'i'}:.':?~ i? ? ::..,: :¢~!:;:!;:!';~i:Y"

O O i ,

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ' ' , : -" 0

0,0 -,', A

Fig. 8. Natufian site plans: A, Eynan (Mallaha). Dashed circles, burials; solid circles, pits (after Valla, 1981). B, Hayonim Cave. Dotted area, rooms built with numerous stones; ovals, burials (redrawn from original site plans).


triangles (Valla, 1984). The average length of lunates has also been used as a chronological marker (Valla, 1984) and was recently refined to include the regional-ecological location of the sites (Olszewski, 1986). On the whole, the typological variability within the microlithic tool group is larger in Early Natufian sites than in Late Natufian ones.

The basic Natufian lithic assemblage includes, besides the microlithic component, various tool groups whose frequencies change according to the location of the site (Fig. 9). For example, while in the Galilee and Carmel area burins form an important tool group, in the Judean hills-lower Jordan valley region (for example, in Salibiya I) their numbers are moderate, and in the Negev they are even less common. Sickle blades are also found only in the central Levant and are absent from the southern assemblages. Other tool types, such as retouched notches and denticulates as well as borers and awls, are found in nearly every Natufian assemblage. Finally, the Natufian lithic industry differs from previous complexes by the introduction of new tool types such as sickle blades and eIongated picks, both forerunners of the succeeding Neolithic tool kits (Perrot, 1966; Henry, 1977; Bar-Yosef, 1983; Valla, 1984).

The Natufian bone industry is unique in its richness, variability, and decoration (Figs. 9 and 10). Hunting and fishing tools, hide-working tools, basketry aids, and jewelery are commonly found (Bar-Yosef and Tchernov, 1967; Stordeur 1981). The spatial distribution of these suggests geographical subdivisions of the Natufian. Sites in the Mt. Carmel-Galilee area (and probably northern Jordan) have the richest, most varied collections (Stordeur, 1981).

Ground stone tools are made of limestone, basalt, and sandstone. The main types are pounding tools, portable and bedrock mortars, pestles, cup- marks, bowls, mullers, wet stones, heavy-duty scrapers, shaft straighteners, hammerstones, and so forth (Fig. 10). A unique type is the large limestone "stone pipes" or deep mortars mostly hollowed through, which in several cases were placed vertically in graves (Nahal Oren) or around a platform (Jericho) (Stekelis and Yizraeli, 1963; Bar-Yosef, 1975; Kenyon, 1981). The exact origin of the basalt and sandstone tools found in the various sites is yet not properly investigated. In most cases large Natufian sites are at least 30 km away from the closest basalt sources. Thus, it seems that the artifacts were usually brought to the sites as complete products.

Natufian jewelery and decorative elements are varied and numerous. Beads and pendants were made of limestone, basalt, greenstone, malachite, bone and teeth, and a great variety of marine mollusks, especially Dentaliurn shells (Fig. 9). Exotic materials testify to connections with neighboring regions. Thus, obsidian in Mallaha (Eynan) was brought from Anatolia, the greenstone from Syria, Jordan, or Sinai, and a few marine shells from the Red Sea and the Nile (H. Mienis, 1987; D. Bar-Yosef, 1989).


r

zz~ 2 I

II 12

6G 19 < ~ 2 o

IO

i 13

0 2

C M

(~) 21

2 o 3 24- 2 5 2 6

14

7

16

Fig. 9. Natufian artifacts and bone objects from Hayonim Cave and SaIibiya I. (1-7) Helwan and backed lunates; (8) triangle; (9, 10) microburins; (11) burins; (12-f4) Harif points (from Nahal Lavan 110 in the Negev); (15, 16) sickle blades; (17-21) pendants; (22-24) gorgets; (25, 26) awls; (27, 28) Natufian picks.


0 20 |L T

CM

% • '!4

J

) : , !

i • ~i~,,,~

2

0 I 0 I,, j

Fig. 10. Natufian bone objects and pounding tools from the Early Natufian layers in Hayonim Cave (after Bar-Yosef and Tchernov, 1970; Bar-Yosef and Goren, 1973).

Art objects are an addit ional archaeological characterist ic which enhances the uniqueness of the Natuf ian a m o n g the Epi-Paleolithic cultures. Animal figurines, often interpreted as 'young gazelles (e.g., Cauvin, 1972), but recently redefined as young cattle, were carved f rom stones and bones. A few h u m a n representat ions herald wha t will be a ma jo r subject a m o n g Neoli thic


art objects (Cauvin, 1972; Bar-Yosef, 1983). Several limestone slabs, mostly with incised geometric forms, and one large fish (?) were found in Hayonim Cave (Belfer-Cohen, 1988). Larger carved limestone slabs, exhibiting a meander pattern, were uncovered in Wadi Hammeh 27 (Edwards et al., 1987).

Natufian burials are diversified in position (flexed, semiflexed, and extended), number of individuals per grave (ranging from one to five or more), grave structure, and decoration. The significance of these variations is not yet clear. Some of them are considered merely as indications of changes through time, and others as indications of intergroup variation within the Natufian, while additional attributes are seen by certain scholars as reflecting social stratification (Wright, 1978). The first evidence for selec- tive skull removal was observed among Late Natufian burials at Hayonim cave (Belfer-Cohen, I989). The studied skeletons belong to the Proto- Mediterranean stock (Arensburg and Rak, 1979). Burials of children com- prise about one-third of the dead, with a relatively high mortality among those aged 5-7 years (Arensburg and Belfer-Cohen, in preparation). The paleopathology of this population has not been fully investigated as yet.

The size of Natufian sites and the presence of built structures are interpreted as reflecting somewhat larger bands than in preceding periods. One of the largest Natufian sites, Mallaha (Eynan) in the Hula Valley, has been classified as a village (Perrot, 1966; Cauvin, 1978; Valla, 1981). The investment in leveling slopes in order to build houses on terraces, the preparation of plaster, the transportation of heavy undressed stones into open-air and cave sites (e.g., Hayonim), and the digging of underground storage pits (in Mallaha) indicate energy expenditure expected in base camps but not anticipated in ephemeral, short-season occupations. However, it is the faunal and not the architectural evidence which, in our view, testifies to very long seasonal or permanent residence in these larger sites. For the first time, human commensals (house mouse, rat, and house sparrow) are found, and in large numbers (Aufrey, 1988). The house mouse in Natufian base camps seems to be morphologically different from the ordinary M u s musculus in pre-Natufian deposits (Tchernov, personal communication), thus indicating a morphological change which resulted from the prolonged duration of occupation by humans. This change in the length of habitation is supported by the frequencies of immature gazelle bones which suggest year-round hunting (Davis, 1983).

The faunal evidence, together with dwellings, a few underground storage features, numerous graves, huge quantities of flint artifacts, the proliferation of ground stone objects, art objects, and rich worked bone industry, found in the large and medium-sized sites and largely or entirely absent from small sites, provides a basis for distinguishing between "base camps" and "seasonal


or transitory camps" (Bar-Yosef, 1975). It should be stressed that the Natufian settlement pattern, with either sedentary or semisedentary base camps, marks a major change in Levantine Late Pleistocene prehistory.

Late Natufian Desertic Adaptations

During the second half of the eleventh millennium B.P. a rapid succession of changes is observed in the archaeological record. Following a short transitional period called "Khiamian" (Echegeray, 1966; Crowfoot-Payne, 1976, 1983; Bar-Yosef, 1981) or "epi-Natufian" (Cauvin, 1977), agricultural villages emerged in a defined area, stretching from the middle Euphrates through the Damascus basin into the Jordan Valley. Developments in the desertic regions took another course.

The Late Natufian, as opposed to the early stage, is present over a larger geographic region from the middle Euphrates valley, where it was discovered in Mureybet and Abu Hureira (Cauvin, 1977; Olszewski, 1986) to the Negev. Two major sites were excavated in the Negev highlands; Rosh Zin and Rosh Horesha (Henry, 1976; Marks and Larson, 1977; Goring-Morris, 1987), while in the lowlands of the western Negev and northern Sinai, small sites were found containing a typologically limited tool kit, including lunates, endscrapers, and retouched blades, etc., with intensive use of the microburin technique.

A seasonal settlement pattern can be reconstructed on the basis of indirect evidence including the differences between summer and winter temperatures, location above sea level, and availability of water. Thus, small winter camp sites are dispersed in the sandy lowlands, stretching from the seashore to about 60 km inland. These sandy areas have a much higher carrying capacity than the toessic plains. The summer or early spring marked the movement into the highlands. Local food resources were exploited, including hunting of the gazelle, ibex, and rabbits. Intensive collecting of vegetal food stuffs is indirectly evidenced by the presence of numerous pounding tools including bedrock mortars and some grinding stones. Whether storage was practiced is unknown, but it is conceivable that the use of basketry which commenced in the Natufian, if not earlier, enabled the carrying of some surplus into the lowlands.

The base camps of the Late Natufian in the Negev area lack some of the traits which characterize the Mediterranean base camps, such as burials, building activities, art objects, and rich bone industry. Flimsy structures were uncovered at Rosh Zin and the presence of a few was noted at Rosh Horesha (Marks and Larson 1977; for a different view see Goring-Morris, 1987). A great variety of sea shells, especially of Mediterranean origin, is typical of the


Natufian. Mollusks from the Red Sea possibly point to the development of an exchange network with desertic groups or to the aggregation of groups which, during the winter, descended into the Arava Valley and the Gulf of Eitat.

During the eleventh millennium B.P. (ca. 10,800-10,300/200 B.P.) a phase of increasing aridity is recorded, seemingly contemporary with the Aller6d period in Europe (Nesteroff et al., 1983) or with the Younger Dryas (Goodfriend and Magaritz, 1987). The environmental change, together with Natufian sedentism in the Mediterranean region, which probably meant the defending of their territories, forced the Late Natufians in the Negev to survive mainly on the exploitation of their local food resources. Efforts to improve their hunting methods brought about the invention of a special arrowhead named the "Harif point" (Marks, 1973) (Fig. 9), which may also indicate an improvement in the bow (Bar-Yosef, 1987a). The archaeological assemblages assigned to this stage are dated to 10,700-10,000 B.P. and are defined as the Harifian culture (Bar-Yosef, 1975; Scott, 1977; Goring-Morris, 1987) (Fig. 3C).

A Harifian settlement pattern can be suggested, based on the reconstructed mean of temperatures, availability of water sources, and timing for wild barley harvest and pistachio nut collection. The pattern indicates the existence of different types of sites: summer aggregation base camps on the Har Harif plateau and its surroundings (900-1000 m above sea level), with relatively concentrated resources; and transitory, mostly small winter camp sites in the sandy lowlands of the western Negev and northern Sinai. The known size of the Harifian territory is about 8,000 km 2, based on surveyed area but could have been 30,000 km 2 or more in the Negev and northern Sinai.

Finds from the small sites are mainly tithics, including lunates, endscrapers, and Harif points shaped by the microburin technique. Differences in the frequencies of tools among the various assemblages may indicate different discard patterns characterizing task specific sites.

The larger aggregation sites on Har Harif display a variety of remains (Goring-Morris 1987). Dwelling and storage structures have been uncovered, mostly dug into the loess. Dwelling structures are often 3 m in diameter. Inside and nearby are numerous limestone slabs with cup-marks as well as a few mortars, pestles, and grinding stones. On the rocky slopes near the site of Rosh Horesha, several dozen cup-holes were found. Similar concentrations are known from the Judean desert and the site of Hatoula, on the western edge of the Judean hills (Lechevallier and Ronen, 1985). Vegetal material was not preserved but on the basis of the present flora, it was suggested that the food resources included nuts, legumes, wild barley, etc. (Scott, 1977). Meat was obtained through hunting of ibex, gazelle, and rabbits (Butler et at., 1977) and perhaps also wild sheep (Davis et aI., 198t).


Marine shell assemblages are somewhat different from those of the Late Natufian. Two-thirds of the species originated in the Red Sea and only one-third are from the Mediterranean (Mienis, 1977). It seems that the Harifians had a desertic orientation, and indeed, the projectile type called the Ounan point is found not only in Harifian sites but also in the eastern Sahara (Wendorf and Schild, 1980).

It is only in southern Sinai, an ecologically distinct region, that we find archaeological remains dated to the end of the eleventh and early tenth millennia B.P. The site of Abu Madi lies at an elevation of 1600 m. It contains a well-built, subterranean house, 4 m in diameter, which is considered as a summer occupation given the known harsh climatic conditions of wintertime in the high mountains of this region (Bar-Yosef, 1985). A bell-shaped storage pit has been uncovered outside the house. The hunted animals were mostly ibex, with some gazelle, hare, etc. Dried fish may have been brought from the Red Sea as well as a large collection of sea shells. The dominant arrowheads were Khiam points, which across the Levant characterize assemblages dated to the end of the eleventh and the first half of the tenth millennium B.P. (Cauvin, 1974). A local projectile point was found in similar frequencies (Bar-Yosef, 1985). Among the microliths, both backed lunates and Helwan lunates were present. The latter are considered to be an anachronism when compared to the Mediterranean Levant, where they disappeared about 700 radiocarbon years before. Grinding and pounding tools in this site include handstones, flat grinding slabs, and a few pestles.

Despite intensive surveys, no archaeological continuity in the Negev for the Harifian was found (Goring-Morris, 1987). Sites dated to the tenth millennium B.P. are very rare. It seems that the efforts of the Harifians, who used improved traditional methods of hunting (Harif projectile points) and gathering to survive in territories adjacent to sedentary food-producing communities, have failed.

The Early Neolithic Entities

The term "Neolithic" was originally used in European prehistory to designate archaeological assemblages with a mixture of pottery, polished axes, domesticated cereals, and the domesticated dog. Sites were often settled villages which differed considerably from the preceding Mesolithic ones. Their lithic assemblages also differed. The Neolithic as a term underwent considerable changes in the Near East. Following the Second World War, with the first field seasons of Braidwood and his associates, a new nomen- clature based on socioeconomic factors was introduced (Braidwood, 1953). Kenyon, faced with a Neolithic sequence in Jericho which did not contain


ceramics, suggested the term "Pre Pottery Neolithic" (subdivided into A and B), which is still widely used, often in its abbreviated form (PPNA, PPNB) (Kenyon, 1957).

In recent years two new systems for chronological subdivisions have emerged. Moore, following Kenyon, offered a fourfold subdivision (Moore, 1985): Archaic Neolithic 1 and 2 (= PPNA, PPNB) and Developed Neolithic 1 and 2 (= Pottery Neolithic A and B). The Lyon school (Aurenche et al., 1981), like Braidwood, considered the Epi-Paleolithic and Neolithic as one continuum and offered a periodization in which the Early Neolithic (ca. 10,300-8000 B.P.) is subdivided into periods 2-4.

Maintaining our basic approach of identifying technotypologically distinct archaeological entities, we have followed Crowfoot-Payne (1976) by recognizing the "Khiamian" as a transitional entity seemingly contemporary with the Harifian, Mureybet phase IB (Cauvin, 1977, 1978), and the "Sultanian" as full-blown early Neolithic farming communities.

The Khiamian is still an ill-defined entity, due, in our view, to two reasons: (a) the time span of its existence is hardly 200 or 300 radiocarbon years, ca. 10,500-10,300/10,t00 B.P.; and (b) the information is derived from very limited soundings or from sites where mixture with earlier layers is likely (Echegaray, 1966; Crowfoot-Payne, 1976, 1983; Bar-Yosef, 1980; Lechevallier and Ronen, 1985). Its presence as a short-lived phase (I B = epi-Natufian) in the Mureybet sequence (Cauvin, 1977), however, adds support to its viability as a distinct entity.

The main characteristics of the Khiamian lithic industry are the Khiamian projectile points, asphalt-hafted sickle blades, microliths at low frequencies when compared to the Natufian (often only 25% including lunates), perforators at frequencies of 20-25%, and lack of bifacial or polished celts (Fig. 11). Blank production seems to incline toward blades and flakes, with a pronounced decrease in the frequency of bladelets. When excavations are enlarged in the future, forms of dwellings will be known, as well as other nontithic aspects. The small sounding in Salibiya IX produced carbonized seeds of pulses and some wild barley (Kislev, personal communication).

If dates of the Khiamian are confirmed, then this entity is contemporaneous with the Harifian. While the latter marks the Natufian adaptation to the semiarid zone of the Negev and Sinai, the Khiamian reflects the transition of Natufian communities into fully Neolithic farming communities. The latter, at least in the Jordan Valley, are called "Sultanian."

The Sultanian (Fig. 11), dated to ca. t0,300/100-9300/200 B.P. is known from the excavations of Jericho (Kenyon, 1981; Kenyon and Holland, 1983) Gilgal (Noy et aI., 1980), Netiv Hagdud (Bar-Yosef et al., 1980; Bar-Yosef et al., in preparation), Gesher (Garfinkel, personal communication)


z2Z:a I

12

2 3

8 9

2 • 1

CM

4 5

IO

Fig. 11. Sultanian and Khiamian artifacts from Salibiya IX (after Bar-Yosef, 1980) and Netiv Hagdud (Bar-Yosef et al., 1980, 1987): (1-6) arrowheads; (7-9) Netiv Hagdud truncations; (10, 11, 16) lunates; (12-15) perforators; (17) Tahunian (tranchet ax); (18) sickle blade; (19) polished limestone celt.

Sedentism and Farming Communiiies in the Levant 479

J ; :::7 v ~1~ ~ ' - , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

: . ? ~C . , "? "

....:I / / / / 1

Fig. 12, A reconstructed distribution of vegetational belts for circa 10,000 B.P. based on the interpretation of various palynological records. The marked sites are (1) Mureybet, (2) Tel Aswad, (3) Nahal Oren, (4) Gesher, (5) Netiv Hagdud, (6) Hatula, and (7) Jericho.

Hatoula, on the western flanks of the Judean Hills (Lechevallier e t al., 1989), and Nahal Oren (Stekelis and Yizraeli, 1963) (Fig. 12).

Jericho, Gilgal, and Netiv Hagdud are mounds which contain the remains of rounded and oval houses (Fig. 13). They are semisubterranean, with stone-lined foundations and superstructures built of unbaked mud- bricks (often with loaf-shaped or piano-convex cross section). They differ from Natufian sites such as Mallaha (Eynan), where the superstructures probably were made of branches and hides. The use of mud-bricks along with considerable amounts of organic substances caused rapid accumulation in these Neolithic mounds and low artifact frequencies per excavated volume, when compared to Natufian sites.

Communal efforts are evident in the walls and the tower of Jericho, interpreted by Kenyon (1957) as parts of a defensive system. An alternative interpretation (Bar-Yosef, 1986) views the walls as a protection for the


A

0 4M

fi3 0 2M

C

\ / 0 2M

Fig. 13. Schematic plans of Early Neolithic houses. (A) Nahal Oren (after Stekelis and Yizraeli, 1963); (B) Mureybet III (after Cauvin, 1977); (C) Netiv Hagdud (after Bar-Yosef et aL, 1980); (D) Jericho (after Kenyon, 1981).

settlement against mud flows and flash floods. The tower, built inside the walls, could accommodate on its top a small mud-brick shrine. Evidence for unequivocal public ritual, however, is still missing, probably due to the small areas excavated in these sites.

Hearths were found inside the houses and in open spaces. One type of hearth in Netiv Hagdud was an oval basin-like cobble-floor. Cooking involved heated rocks which created a proliferation of "fire-cracked rocks" again unmatchable by Natufian standards.

Pounding tools (Fig. 14) include slabs with cup-marks (or cup-holes), numerous pestles, shallow grinding bowls, and hand rubbers (manos).

The lithic technology shows a slight preference for blades, but often the existing cores do not match the in situ products. The variety of flint types indicates raw material procurement from diverse sources and possibly from greater distances than before. There is also evidence for heat treatment.


!

4- o 2 0

C M

~ 3

6

"- - -" //zl

0 2 0

7 8 C M

Fig. 14. Grinding and pounding stone tools from Mureybet IB-][]I (after Roy, 1982) and 6i lgai (after Noy, 1979). Note the different scales.

The lithic industry is characterized by Khiam arrowheads, perforators (on blades and flakes), various types of sickle blades, including a type with bifacial edge retouch (Beit Ta'amir knife), axes with an edge formed by a transversal blow ("Tahunian" celts), burins, and a few scrapers. Polished celts made from limestone and basalt occur as well as (Fig. 11).

The assemblages of Mureybet and Tel Aswad I A (M. C. Cauvin, 1974, 1978) exhibit regional differences in having a herminette (an adze made on a thick flake), perforators, relatively high frequencies of scrapers and burins,


and the Khiamian arrowheads. It seems that the forms of projectile points are the common denominator across the Levant.

The economic system of the Sultanian sites in the Jordan Valley and the sites in the Damascus basin and Mureybet included the intensive collection or cultivation of cereals, mainly barley and some wheat (Kislev et al., 1986; van Zeist and Bakker-Heers, 1982, 1986; Hopf, 1983) along with legumes. Wild fruits and seeds were gathered as well. Silos were found in each site, either as small stone-built bins or larger built-up mud-brick structures.

Hunting in the middle Euphrates area was mainly of gazelle, some equids, and cattle and focused in the Jordan Valley predominantly on gazelle, some foxes, and fewer fallow deer, wild boar, and wild cattle. Large numbers of birds, especially ducks, were trapped. Lizards and tortoises were gathered as well. The overall picture is that of a "broad spectrum" similar to that of the Natufian.

Long-distance exchange is evidenced by the central Anatolian obsidian which occurs in Jericho, in small quantities in Netiv Hagdud, and a few pieces in Nahal Oren and Hatoula, while none were found in Gilgal or Gesher. Marine shells were brought from the Mediterranean coast and fewer from the Red Sea. There is a clear shift in the types selected for exchange. Glycymeris and cowries become important but Dentalium shells (where excavated deposits were sieved) are still common as in Natufian sites.

Site size presents a clear hierarchy from the largest ones--Mureybet, Tel Aswad, and Jericho (5.0-2.5 ha), Netiv Hagdud and Tel Aswad (1.5-1.0 ha), Gilgal (1.0-0.5 ha), and Nahal Oren and Hatula (0.5-0.2 ha). Preliminary observations of intrasite variability are based on the excavations of Nahal Oren and Netiv Hagdud. In Nahal Oren, the houses are almost all of the same size clustered together, while in Netiv Hagdud there are clearly different sizes and larger open spaces in between. However, much more published field evidence is needed before any conclusions concerning the size and wealth of various households can be determined.

Burials and art objects shed a little light on beliefs. Most adult burials in Jericho and Netiv Hagdud are single, with no grave goods and often without skulls. The crania were removed, while the lower jaw was left in place, 1 or 2 years after death. No plastered or decorated skulls were found as yet, although the technology for making lime plaster (and gypsum plaster in the northern Levant) was known. A cluster of a few crushed skulls was uncovered in Netiv Hagdud on the floor of a house which contained three slabs with cup-holes and numerous grinding and pounding tools.

Art objects are few (Bar-Yosef, 1980). Those carved of stone from Salibiya IX, Gilgal (surface), and Nahal Oren are interpreted as depicting a schematic kneeling female figure (Fig. 15). In Netiv Hagdud, three baked clay figurines of the "seated woman" were found. The Sultanian figurines, despite


I 0 ~O

C M

O i ....... i

C M

2

O ! F l

C M

3 4-

! Fig. 15. Human figurines from Early Neolithic sites: (1) Gilgal; (2, 4, 5) Mureybet II-III; (3)

Salibiya IX (after Cauvin, 1977; Bar-Yosef 1980). Note the different scales.

their rarity, indicate a shift from Natufian artistic presentations in which animals and indistinct human figures are more prominent. The clear appearance of the female figurine marks the onset of the dichotomy between males and females which will play a more important role in the succeeding millennia (Cauvin, 1972).

The overall geographic distribution indicates that the early farming communities were located along today's boundary between the Mediterranean and the Irano-Turanian vegetational belts. Paleobotanical, archaeozoological,


geomorphic, and palynological evidence demonstrates that they were located within the limits of the Mediterranean belt during this time span. Thus it was in the "Levantine Corridor," from the Middle Euphrates through the Jordan Valley and into southern Jordan, that the first agricultural settlements were founded. On both sides, the coastal range in the west and the semiarid region in the east and south, small bands of hunter-gatherers carried on their way of life. Although the number of the excavated sites is small, both the cave of Nacharini in the Anti-Lebanon mountains (Schroeder, 1977) and Abu Madi I in southern Sinai (Bar-Yosef, 1985) provide ample archaeological information. These are small sites with a dominance of arrowheads (including Khiam points), perforators, some microliths, scrapers, etc. In Abu Madi the marine shell assemblage is dominated by the traditional Dentalium shells.

The later part of the ninth millennium B.P. witnessed additional changes in architecture, lithic industries, site size, etc., which marked the successful establishment of farming communities (known in the southern Levant as PPNB). Its description and discussion are beyond the scope of this paper.

PALEOANTHROPOLOGICAL RECONSTRUCTIONS

The Shift from Small Bands to Larger, Semisedentary Groups

Paleoclimatic evidence indicates that cold and dry conditions prevailed over most of the region during the Late Pleistocene (ca. 19,000-14,500 B.P.). The Mediterranean vegetation belt, narrower than in earlier millennia (van Zeist and Bottema, 1982), was populated by the Kebarans. They lived in small bands, as inferred from the size of their sites, exploiting small territories with base camps located in "core areas" in the lowlands, often along wadi courses. They produced lithic assemblages characterized by a high microlithic component which varied spatially and temporally. At least some of the typological variability described above is interpreted (Bar-Yosef, 1987) as the archaeological expression for the presence of different groups (macro bands?) with social boundaries (Wiessner, 1983).

The hunted game varied along north-south and west-east axes reflecting the environmental variability from the Mediterranean woodland through the Irano-Turanian steppe into the desert. Thus fallow deer, more rarely roe deer, gazelle, wild boar, cattle, and ibex comprised the main meat menu. Closer to the Taurus mountains, in the Euphrates valley, sheep and goat form 8-10% of the hunted fauna (Legge and Rowley-Conwy, 1987). The use of grinding and pounding tools indicates a more efficient processing of vegetal foodstuffs by the Kebarans.


While the Kebaran complex was confined to the Mediterranean climatic zone, the Irano-Turanian zone (Fig. 3) was sparsely populated by small nomadic groups, descendants of the late Upper Paleolithic entities of the Negev Highlands such as Ein Aqev. Radiometric data confirm their broad contemporaneity with the Kebaran in the north (Goring-Morris, 1987). A similar picture emerges in Jordan (Garrard et al., 1987).

Around 14,500/14,000 B.P. a new organizational entity appears with distinct technotypological features derived from the local Kebaran. The geographic distribution of this new cultural complex, named the Geometric Kebaran, stretches from the Euphrates valley in Syria through Sinai. Geo- metric Kebaran hunter-gatherers took advantage of the climatic amelioration which occurred at the time (i.e., Goldberg, 1986; van Zeist and Bottema, 1981; Magaritz and Goodfriend, 1987). They expanded into the Irano- Turanian and Saharo-Arabian belts (Fig. 4), carrying their traditional adaptive strategies into the semiarid zone.

The economy of the Geometric Kebaran was not different from that of the Kebaran. Hunting of gazelle, fallow deer, roe deer, etc., with ibex and hartebeest in the more arid areas, continued. The presence of pounding tools is interpreted as indicating the use of seeds, legumes, or acorns within the Mediterranean belt. However, no pounding tools have yet been recorded in the arid zone.

The common small size of the Geometric Kebaran sites is similar to that of Kebaran sites and is interpreted as reflecting small and mobile bands. The large site of Neve David, at the foot of Mt. Carmel, may represent a size increase in favorable locations (Kaufman, 1986).

The amazing technotypological uniformity of lithic assemblages and site size in the arid region of the Negev and Sinai probably reflects a higher degree of mobility practiced by fewer bands than in the Mediterranean belt. The expansion of the Geometric Kebaran into the arid zone, while retaining the small size of their sites, may indicate population growth when compared to the preceding Kebaran, in response to greater abundance and/or predictabil- ity of food resources in these areas. Under the conditions of climatic improvement, when the Mediterranean vegetational belt could have expanded, we expect that the mechanisms controlling the size of local populations would be relaxed. Population growth, triggered by the addition of stable, reliable food resources, could lead to the exploitation of additional territory by the same group, or by the budding-off of new groups. Moreover, the continuous use of Mediterranean marine shells by the Geometric Kebarans, found as far as Wadi Feiran in southern Sinai, points to the preservation of their social ties with their original homeland.

The opening up of new territories for traditional exploitation strategies tempted contemporary bands of foragers, the Mushabians, originating in the


Nile Valley, to expand into the Sinai (14,500-12,750 B.P.). It should be noted that the available C-14 dates (Bar-Yosef and Vogel, 1987) indicate that the two entities are partially contemporary, but this could be a false impression due to overlapping dates from different laboratories (Waterbotk, 1987). In this case it is not impossible that the Mushabians pushed out the Geometric Kebarans from most of the Levantine arid zone.

The small size of the Mushabian sites indicates small groups, similar to those of the Geometric Kebarans. Sporadic pounding tools may reflect the use of vegetal food but the bad preservation of bone and plant remains in the excavated sites prevents a better knowledge of their foraging strategies. If their North African origin is accepted, then they were simply expanding their territories into habitats which resembled their ancestral ones. The Geometric Kebarans, on the other hand, adapted themselves to a somewhat different phytogeographic habitat by moving from the Mediterranean to the Irano- Turanian and Saharo-Arabian belts. Perhaps this difference between the two populations explains their different rates of success.

Changes took place as early as the thirteenth millennium B.P. The Geometric Kebarans disappeared from the arid south. There are no Geo- metric Kebaran sites contemporary with the Late Mushabian. The latter had small ephemeral sites in the lowlands and a few larger ones (diffused scatters?) in the Negev highlands,

It seems that the Mushabians borrowed several morphological traits from the Geometric Kebaran tool assemblages, while keeping their own basic technique for shaping microliths (the microburin technique). Thus, having a somewhat different set of dominant microliths, the Late Mushabian assemblages have been given different names--"Negev Kebaran" (Marks and Simmons, 1977) and "Ramonian" (Goring-Morris, 1987). However, most scholars agree that the typological changes occurred through time within the same sociocultural entity.

A short abrupt climatic crisis around I3,000/12,500 B.P. led, in our view, to a major change in the relationship between the different populations which were competing for the same general region. As resources dwindled and became tess predictable in the Irano-Turanian steppe and Saharo- Arabian desert belts, the coexistence of the Mushabians and Geometric Kebarans came to an end. Whether forced out by environmental factors or by human adversaries, the Geometric Kebarans were driven back into the Mediterranean parkland belt. There, they possibly joined their parent Geometric Kebaran population, creating increased pressure on the available resources. Perhaps this process took place gradually as the desert bands, following the same game and plant resources, could have moved each dry season further and further into the Mediterranean zone (in a similar fashion to the Bedouin during droughts in the last century and earlier this century).


In this situation, the model based on contemporary human behavior predicts the following options: (a) a northern shift (toward Turkey) of band territories within the Mediterranean vegetational belt; (b) absorption of surplus population by the parent population which dictates a shift in social organization, acquisition of new food and storage techniques, and modifica- tion of existing exploitation strategies; (c) fights and fatal clashes between the parent population and its returning descendents; and (d) starvation and death in place.

It seems that certain preadaptive traits, developed already by the Kebaran and Geometric Kebaran populations within the Mediterranean park forest, played an important role in the emergence of the new socioeconomic system known as the Natufian culture. In our view the semisedentary Kebaran and Geometric Kebaran foraging strategy, or seminomadic in Rafferty's (1985) classification, was based on the exploitation of relatively small territories, with the presence of intensively occupied lowland sites in specific core areas in the Mediterranean belt. This strategy of Pre-Natufian land use was a preadaptation which determined their reaction to the ecological crisis of the early thirteenth millennium B.P. Additional preadaptive utensils were the pounding tools, the use of legumes as the seasonally earliest food, and the recognition of wild cereals and their potentials. Although storage facilities are hardly known from this period, we believe that the technological level exhibited in the bone tools indicates indirectly the presence of baskets and possibly aboveground storage facilities. Population increase in the Mediterranean vegetational belt around 13,000/12,800 B.P. was resolved by social agglomeration and by reduced mobility. The Early Natufian base camps, occupied for many months every year, were larger than any preceding base camps and contain evidence for the new, "broad- spectrum," subsistence strategies and anticipated annual mobility in the form of well-built dwelling structures. Moreover, technotypological studies show a mixture of traits in these sites possibly interpreted as resulting from the merging of various flint knapping traditions. This picture changes through time and the Late Natufian demonstrates greater industrial uniformity (Valla, 1984).

The Natufians placed their base camps in ecotones and turned to exploit a broader spectrum of resources than did their predecessors. Direct evidence for such a strategy is provided by the faunal spectra which include mainly gazelle, with some fallow deer, wild boar, fish (mainly fresh water), reptiles, birds (considerable numbers of water fowl), hardly known from earlier Epi-Paleolithic sites. The abundance of pounding tools might be interpreted as resulting from intensified plant gathering or systematic cultivation of cereals. Direct evidence for intentional cultivation is still lacking but experimental work with sickles, carried out by R. Unger-Hamilton (1989)


tends to support earlier contentions that the particular sheen on sickle blades resulted from harvesting cereals (Garrod, 1957).

The consumption of cereals and pulses is indicated by the attrition and caries of Natufian teeth from most of the sites (Smith, 1972). But when the overall state of the Natufians' health is compared to later populations, the general impression is that they were much healthier than their descendants in the Neolithic and especially the Chalcolithic period (Arensburg, 1985; Smith et al., 1984). However, a sign of increasing stress, caused by prolonged habitation of a large group in a base camp, is the higher rate of mortality of juveniles and especially of children aged 5-7 years, evidenced in the cemeteries of Hayonim cave and Nahal Oren.

An additional view on the changing dietary aspects is provided by Sr/Ca studies. Schoeninger (1981) stated that the Na.tufians consumed :more vegetal material than did the Kebarans, basing her conclusions on comparison between various Natufian populations and a sample of burned human bone from layer C (Kebaran) in Kebara Cave. This comparison was rejected by Sillen (1984), who claimed that burned bones cannot be used for obtaining Sr/Ca ratios due to chemical processes induced by fire. Yet his own conclusions were that the Natufians were more herbivorous in Early and Late Natufian, less so in the Final Natufian. Unfortunately only one human skeleton from Nahal Oren represents the Final Natufian. Schoeninger's statement regarding the different trends observed in the Zagros are supported by Solecki's (1983) archaeological analysis. It appears that while the Levantine Natufians ate less meat than the succeeding PPNB people in the Zagros (who by then had a stock of domesticated animals), the Sr/Ca ratios in human bones indicate a higher level of meat in the human diet before and after the appearance of domesticated animals.

One way of reducing the threat of overexploiting vegetal resources was probably the use of controlled fire. The Mediterranean park-forest, when burned, enabled a quick regeneration of annuals including cereals and pulses (Naveh, t984). This activity, although lacking direct archaeological evidence, can be considered as a preadaptation to incipient agriculture which commenced by the end of the eleventh or early tenth millennium B.P.

Natufian art can be interpreted on the basis of ethnographic com- parisons and interpretations of similar European phenomena as indicating a greater population density and growing awareness of territorial ownership (Belfer-Cohen, 1988; Gamble, 1982; Jochim, 1983; Johnson, 1982; Lewis- Williams, 1982). Generally, the need to increase social cohesion within groups leads to more frequent or intensive rituals as well as the production of paraphernalia. These aspects are not well recorded in the available archaeological remains. Territorialism, on the other hand, is expressed in exchange of gifts including exotic materials and objects (e.g., some obsidian,


basalt objects, marine shells) and especially the use of body decorations as social markers. Such a situation explains the differences in ornamentation among Hayonim, El-Wad, and Mallaha. In spite of the superficial impression led by the archaeological richness of Natufian base camps it seems, especially for the Early (and "Middle Natufian") Natufian, that it was a society under stress.

The situation during the Late Natufian is not as clear due to the paucity of excavations. The expansion of the Late Natufian into adjacent areas possibly indicates a population increase and the implementation of a Natufian subsistence strategy farther away from its original homeland. Climatic conditions became drier during the eleventh millennium B.P. and were still somewhat colder, especially in the northern Levant.

A desertic Late Natufian adaptation, the Harifian, evolved in the Negev, only to demonstrate the vulnerability of an overspedalized system where the broad-spectrum strategy was not applicable.

Within the parkland region and along the parkland-steppe ecotone the exploitation of cereals during Late Natufian and "Khiamian," as shown by their paucity in Mureybet and Salibiya IX, was not intensive as in the forthcoming Neolithic communities. The aridity of the mid-eleventh millennium B.P. did not encourage widespread cultivation. The knowledge of cultivation or its invention as a new technique for food production became applicable with the onset of the wet conditions during the late eleventh and early tenth millennia B.P.

The establishment of Mureybet III and the Sultanian sites such as Jericho, Gilgat, and Netiv Hagdud marked a major social change reflected in site size, intrasite organization (isolated households which required the building of freestanding walls from mud-bricks), communal efforts (walls and tower in Jericho), intensification of exchange networks (large quantities of obsidian, good-quality flint, basalt tools), and hints for craft specialization. These were accompanied by a few technical innovations such as polished axes, heat treatment of flint, the use of cup-holes which necessitated the use of hoppers, hearths with flat stony bases to facilitate parching, the building of aboveground silos, etc.

CONCLUSIONS

Abrupt climatic fluctuations in a marginal environment can force a society to recognize the urgent need for technological and social changes which will secure its survival. The shift from the Kebaran to the Geometric Kebaran was a gradual one and marked the expansion of the same subsistence strategy. However, the emergence of the Natufian was an entirely


different case. The Upper Paleolithic system which faced, since 40,000 B.P., the positive potentials of blooming deserts and the bad times of aridification, collapsed around 13,000 B.P. A different type of climatic crisis, which marked the closing millennia of the Late Pleistocene, resulted in a different social decision. The newly organized Early Natufian societies changed their settlement pattern, experienced a population increase in response to their sedentism, and as a result overexploited their environment. Stresses of both intergroup and intragroup origin were responsible for the emergence of art expressions, as well as some degree of social hierarchy as hinted by the contents of the graves. Higher mortality among children is another indicator of internal stress.

Population increase is marked by the geographic expansion of Late Natufian sites and the emergence of more specialized adaptations such as the Harifian. Our data sets for the Late (including the Final) Natufian in the Mediterranean park forest are not sufficient to evaluate their reaction to the increased aridity of the eleventh millennium B.P. But by the end of this millennium the new social organization of the Early Neolithic suddenly emerged. Its archaeological remains reflect increasing social complexity, intensification of Natufian hunting and gathering techniques, and the possible introduction of cultivation. The possibility that this mode of subsistence was employed before can be examined only with additional Natufian plant remains.

Natufian sedentism, whether year-round or only partial, marked both the planning depth of anticipated logistical mobility, with well-built houses and installations, and a departure from the Paleolithic mode of residential mobility. The process of "abandoning mobility" was deepened in Early Neolithic times, with increasing investments in building dwellings, storage facilities, and cultivating fields. These developments, beginning around 10,000 B.P., occurred during a period of improved climate, which a few millennia earlier would have led the Levantine society to retreat to a traditional hunting-gathering way of life. Thus, the emergence of the Natufian was "a point of no return" that became consolidated in the Early Neolithic.

R E F E R E N C E S

Arensburg, B. (1985). A short review of palaeopathology in the Middle East. Mitekufat Haeven 21"-32".

Arensburg, B., and Bar-Yosef, O. (1973). Human remains from Ein Gev I, Jordan Valley, Israel. Paleorient I: 201-206.

Arensburg, B., and Rak, Y. (1979). The search for early man in Israel. In Horowitz, A. (ed.), The Quartel~ary of Israel, Academic Press, New York, pp. 20t-209.

Aufrey, J. C. (1988). Le commensalisme chez la souris domestique: origine, Ocologie et r6le dans I~volution chromosomique de t'espace, Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Montpeltier, Montpellier.


Aurenche, O., Cauvin, J., Cauvin, M. C., Copeland, L., Hours, F., and Sanlaville, P. (I98I). Chronologie et organization de I'espace dans le Proche Orient de 12,000 fi 5,600 avant J. C. In Cauvin, J., and Sanlaville, P. (eds.), Prdhistoire du Levant, CNRS, Paris, pp. 571- 601.

Baharav, D. (1974). Notes on the population structure and biomass of the Mountain Gazelle, Gazella gazella gazella. Israel Journal of Zoology 23: 39-44.

Baharav, D. (1980). Habitat Utilization of the dorcas gazelle in a desert saline area, Journal of Arid Environments 3: 16t-167.

Baharav, D. (1982). Desert habitat palNtioning by the dorcas gazelle. Journal of Arid Environ- merits 5: 323-335.

Baharav, D. (1983). Reproductive strategies in female Mountain and Dorcas gazelles (GazelIa gazella gazella and Gazella dorcas). Journal of Zoology London 200: 445-453.

Bar-Yosef, D. E. (1989). Late Paleolithic and Neolithic marine shells in the southern Levant as cultural markers. Research Records of the Rochester Museum and Science Center (in press).

Bar-Yosef, O. (1970). The Epi-Palaeolithic Cultures oJ" Palestine, Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Hebrew University, Jerusalem.

Bar-Yosef, O. (1975). The Epi-Paleolithic in Palestine and Sinai. In Wendorf, F., and Marks, A, E. (eds.), Problems in Prehistory: North Africa and the Levant, SMU Press, Dallas, pp. 363-378.

Bar-Yosef, O. (1980). The prehistory of the Levant. Annual Review of Anthropology 9: I0t-133. Bar-Yosef, O. (1981). The Epi-Palaeolithic complexes in the Levant. In Cauvin, J., and

Sanlaville, P. (eds.), Prdhistoire du Levant, CNRS, Paris, pp. 389-408. Bar-Yosef, O. (1983). The Natufian in the southern Levant. In Young, C. T., Smith, Ph. E. L.,

and Mortensen, P. (eds.), The Hilly Flanks and Beyond." Essays on the Prehistory of South- western Asia presented to R. J. Braidwood, Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization No. 36, Oriental Institute, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 11-42.

Bar-Yosef, O. (1985). The stone age of Sinai. Studi di Paleontologia in Onore di Salvatore M. Paglisi, pp. 108-t22.

Bar-Yosef, O. (I986). The walls of Jericho. Current Anthropology 27: 157-t62, Bar-Yosef, O. (1987). Late Pleistocene adaptations in the Levant. In Softer, O. (ed.), The

Pleistocene Old World." Regional Perspectives, Plenum Press, New York, pp. 219-236. Bar-Yoset, O. (1987b). Direct and indirect evidence for hafting in the Epi-Palaeolithic and

Neolithic of the Southen Levant, In Stordeur, D. (ed.), Le Main et l'Outils: Manches et Emmanehements Prdhistoriques, Maison de l'Orient, Lyon, pp. 155-164.

Bar-Yosef, O., and Goren, N. (1973). Natnfian remains in Hayonim Cave. PalOorient 1: 49-68. Bar-Yosef, O., and Goren, N. (1980). Afterthoughts tbllowing a prehistoric surveys in the

Levant. Israel Exploration Journal 30: 1-t6. Bar-Yosef, O., and Goring-Morris, A. N. (1977). Geometric Kebaran A occurrences. In Bar-

Yosef, O., and Phillips, J. L. (eds.), Prehistoric Investigations in Gebel Meghara, Northern Sinai. Qedem 7, Monographs of the Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University, Jerusalem, pp. 115-148.

Bar-Yosef, O., and Killbrew, A. (1984). Wadi-Sayakh--a Geometric Kebaran site in southern Sinai. Paldorient 10: 95-102.

Bar-Yosef, O., and Martin, G. (t979). La prob16me de la "Sortie des Grottes" au Natoufien: R+partition et localization des gisements 6pipaI~olithiques du Levant M6diterran6e. Bulletin de la Soci~t~ Prdhistorique Franfaise 78: 187-I92.

Bar-Yosef, O., and Phillips, J. L. (I977). Prehistoric Investigations in Gebel Meghara, Northern Sinai. Qedem 7, Monographs of the Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University, Jerusalem.

Bar-Yosef, O., and Tchernov, E, (1967). Archaeological finds and the fossil faunas of the Natufian and microlithic industries of Hayonim Cave (Western Galilee-Israel), Israel of Zoology 15: 104-140.

Bar-Yosef, O., and Valla, F. R. (1979). L'6volution du Natufien, nouvelles suggestions. Patdrient 5: 145-I52.

Bar-Yosef, O., and Vogel, J. C. (I987). Relative and absolute chronology of the Epi-Palaeolithic in the southern Levant. In Aurenche, O., Evin, J., and Hours, F. (eds.), Chronologies in the Near East: Relatives Chronologoes and Absolute Chronology 16,000-4,000 B.P., B.A.R. International Series 379, pp. 219-245.


Bar-Yosef, O., Goldberg, P., and Leveson, T. (1974). Late Quarternary stratigraphy and prehistory in Wadi Fazael, Lower Jordan valley. Palkorient 2: 415-428.

Bar-Yosef, O., Gopher, A., and Goring-Morris, A. N. (1980). Netiv Hagdud: a "Sultanian" mound in the lower Jordan Valley. Pal~orient 6: 201-206.

Bar-Yosef, O., Gopher, A., Kislev, M. E., and Tchernov, E. (1989). Netiv Hagdud~an Early Neolithic Village in the Jordan Valley (in preparation).

Begin, Z. B., Nathan, Y., and Ehrtich, A. (1980). Stratigraphy and facies distribution in the Lisan formation: New evidence from the area south of the Dead Sea, Israel. Israel Journal of Earth Sciences 29: 182-189.

Belfer-Cohen, A. (1988). The appearance of symbolic expression in the Upper Pleistocene of the Levant as compared to western Europe. L'Homrne de N~andarthal, VoL 5. La Pensde, Actes du Colloque International, LiOge, 1986, Etude et Recherche Anthroplogique de l'Universit6 de Lirge No. 32.

Belfer-Cohen, A. (1989). The definition of the Natufian: A suggestion. Contributions it L'Etude de l'Hornme au Sud Levant: Anthropologie, Prdhistoire, Pal~oenvironnement, Colloque Francolsraelien, CNRS, Emmaus, 1986 (in press).

Bender, B. (1978). Gatherer-hunter to farmer: A social perspective. Wold Archaeology 10: 204-222.

Bender, B. (198 I). Gatherer-hunter intensif. In Price, D. T., and Brown, J. A. (eds.), Prehistoric Hunter-Gatheres: The Emergence of Social Complexity, Academic Press, Orlando, Fla., pp. 21-57.

Betts, A. (1982). Prehistoric sites at Qa'a Mejalla, Eastern Jordan. Levant 14: 1-34. Binford, L. R. (1968). Post-Pleistocene adaptations. In Binford, S. R., and Binford, L. R.

(eds.), New Perspectives in Archaeology, Aldine, Chicago, pp. 313-341. Binford, L. R. (1980). Willow smoke and dogs" tails: Hunter-Gatherer settlement systems and

site formation processes. American Antquity 45: 4-20. Binford, L. R. (1982). The archaeology of place. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 1:

5-32. Binford, L. R. (1983). In Pursuit of the Past, Thames and Hudson, London. Bintliff, J. L. (1982). Palaeoclimatic modelling of environmental changes in the East Medi-

terranean region since the last glaciation. In Bintliff, J. L., and van Zeist, W. (eds.), Palaeo- climates, Plaeoenvironments and Human Communities in the Eastern Mediterranean Region in Later Prehistory, B.A.R. International Series 113, pp. 485-427.

Bordes, F. (I957). La signification du microburin dans le Pal6olithique Sup~rieur. L'Anthro- pologie 61: 578-582.

Bottema, S. (1987). Chronology and climatic phases in the Near East from 16,000 to 10,000 B.P. In Aurenche, O., Evin, J., and Hours, F. (eds.), Chronologies in the Near East: Relative Chronologies and Absolute Chronology 16,000~4,000 B.P., B.A.R. International Series 379, pp. 295-310.

Bottema, S., and van Zeist, W. (I981). Palynological evidence for the climatic history of the Near East 50,000-6,000 years B.P. In Cauvin, J., and Sanlaville, P. (eds.), Prdhistoire du Levant, CNRS, Paris, pp. I 1 t-132.

Braidwood, R. J., and Braidwood, L. S. (1953). The earliest village communities of southwest Asia. Journal of World Histo~;v I: 278-310.

Braidwood, R. J. (1975). Prehistoric Man, 8th ed., Scott, Foresinan, Ill. Butler, B. H., Tchernov, E., Hietala, H., and Davis, S. J. M. (1977). Faunal exploitation

during the late Epipaleolithic in the Har Harif. In Marks, A. E. (ed,), Prehistory and Palaeoenvironrnents in the Central Negev, Israel, Vol. II. The Avdat/Agev Area, Part 2, SMU Press, Dallas, pp. 327-346.

Cauvin, J. (1972). Rkligions NOolithiques de Syro-Palestine, Publications du Centre de Recherche d'Ecologie et de Prrhistoire, Paris.

Cauvin, J. (1977). Les fouilles de Mureybet (1971-1974) et leur signification pour les origines de srdentarisation au Proche-Orient. Annual of the American School of Oriental Research 44: 19-48.

Cauvin, J. (1978). Les Premiers Villages de Syrie-Palestine de IX~me au VII Miltdnaire av, ant J.C., Maison de FOrient, Lyson.


Cauvin, M. C. (1981). L'Epi-Pal~olithique de Syrie d'apr~s les premiers recherches dans la cuvette d'E1-Kowm (1978-1979). In Cauvin, J., and Sanlaville, P. (eds.), Pr~histoire du Levant, CNRS, Paris, pp. 375-388.

Cauvin, M. C. (1983). Les faucilles prrhistoriques de Proche Orient: Donnrs morphologiques et fonctionelles. Patdorient 9: 55-62.

CIose, A. E. (1978). The identification of styte in lithic artefacts. World Archaeology 10: 223-237. Clutton-Brock, J. (1979). The mammalian remains from the Jericho Tell. Proceedings of the

Prehistoric Society 45: 135-157. Clutton-Brock, J. (1981). Domesticated Animals fi'om Earl), Times, University o f Texas Press,

Austin. Cohen, M. N. (1977). The Food Crisis' in Prehistory: Overpopulation and the Origins of Agricul-

ture, Yale University Press, New Haven, Conn. Contenson, H., and van-Lierre, (1964). Sondages fi Tell Ramad en 1963. Annales ArchOologiques

Arabs-Syriens 14: 109-124. Copeland, L., and Hours, F. (1977). Engraved and plain bone tools from Jiita, Lebanon, and

their Early Kebaran context. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 43: 295-30t. Crowfoot-Payne, J. (1976). The terminology of the aceramic Neolithic period in the Levant. In

Wendorf, F. (ed.), Deuxibme Colloque sur ta Prdhistoire du Proehe-Orient, UISPP Congress, Nice, pp. I31-137.

Crowfoot-Payne, J. (1983). The flint industries of Jericho. In Kenyon, K. A., and Holland, T. A. (eds.), Excavations at Jericho, VoL V, British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem, London.

Davis, S. J. M. (1982). Climatic change and the advent of domestication: The succession of ruminant artiodictyles in the late Pleistocene-Holocene in the Israel region. PalOorient 8: 5-16.

Davis, S. J. M. (1983). The age profiles of gazelles predategl by ancient man in Israel: Possible evidence for a shift from seasonality to sedentism in the Natufian. Pat~orient 9: 55-62.

Davis, S. J. M. (1987). The Archaeology of Animals, Batsford, London. Davis, S. J. M., Goring-Morris, A. N., and Gopher, A. (1982). Sheep bones from the Negev

Epi-Palaeotithic. Pat~orient 8: 87-93. Echegaray, G. J. (I966). Excavation en la Terraza de EI-Khiam (Jordania), Part II, Madrid. Edwards, P. C., Bourke, S. J., Colledge, S. M., Head, J., and Macumber, Ph. G. (1987). Late

Pleistocene prehistory in the Wadi el-Hammeh, Jordan. In Garrard, A. N., and Gebel, H. G. (eds.), The Prehistory of Jordan: The State of research in 1980, B.A.R. International Series 396.

Ellen, R. (1982). Environment, Subsistence and System: The Ecology oj" Small Scale Social Formations, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Ferring, R. C. (1976). Sale Divshon: An Upper Paleolithic site on the Divshon plain. In Marks, A. E. (ed.), Prehistory and Paleoenvironments in the Central Negev, Israel, Vol. L The Avdat/Aqev Area, Part 1, SMU Press, Dallas, pp. 199-226.

Ferring, R. C. (1977). The late Upper Paleolithic site of Ein Aqev East. In Marks, A. E. (ed.), Prehistory and Paleoenvironments in the Central Negev, Israel, Vol. 2. The Avdat/Aqev Area, Part 2, SMU Press, Dallas, pp. 81-119.

Flannery, K. V. (1969). Origins and ecological effects of early domestication in Iran and the Near East. In Ucko, P. J., and Dimbleby, T. W. (eds.), The Domestication of Plants and Animals, Londres, pp. 73-100.

Flannery, K, V. (1972). The origins of the village as a settlement type in Mesoamerica and the near East: Acomparative study. In Tringham, R., Ucko, P. J., and Dimbleby, T. W. (eds.), Man, Settlement and Urbanism, Duckworth, London, pp. 23-53.

Fujimoto, T. (1979). The Epi-Palaeolithic assemblages of Duara Cave. Bulletin University Museum, 7bkyo 16: 47-75.

Gamble, C. (1982). Interaction and alliance in palaeolithic society. Man (n.s.) 17:92 107. Garrard, A. N., Byrd, B., and Betts, A. (I986). Prehistoric environment and settlement in the

Azraq Basin: An interim report on the 1984 excavation season. Levant 18: 1-20. Garrard, A. N., Betts, A., Byrd, B., and Hunt, C. (1987). Prehistoric environments and settle-

ment in the Azraq Basin: An interim report on the 1985 excavation season. Levant 19: 5-25.


Garrod, D. A. E. (1957). The Natufian culture: The life and economy ofa Mesolithic people in the Near East. Proceedings of the British Academy 43:211-227.

Garrod, D. A. E., and Bate, D. M. (1937). The Stone Age of Mount Carmel, Vol. I, Clarendon Press, Oxford.

Gilead, I. (1977). Lagama X. In Bar-Yosef, 0., and Phillips, J. L. (eds.), Prehistoric Investiga- tions in GebeI ~laghara, Northern Sinai, Qedem 7, Monographs of the Institute of Archaeol- ogy, Hebrew University, Jerusalem, pp. 102-114.

Gilead, I. (1983). Upper Palaeolithic occurrences in Sinai and the transition to the Epi- Palaeolithic in the southern Levant. Paldorient 9(I): 39-54.

Goldberg, P. (1986). Late Quarternary geological history of the southern Levant: A geo- archaeological approach. Geoarchaeology 1: 225-244.

Goodfriend, G. A., and Magaritz, M. (1988). Palaeosols and late Pleistocene rainfall fluctuations in the Negev desert. Nature 332: 144-146.

Goring-Morris, A. N. (1987). At the Edge: Terminal Pleistocene Hunter-Gatherers in the Negev and Sinai, B.A.R. International Series 361, 2 vol.

Harrison, D. L. (1968). Mammals of Arabia, 2 vol., Ernest Benn, London. Hassan, F. (1977). The dynamics of agricultural origins in Palestine: a theoretical model. In

Reed, C. A. (ed.), The Origins of Agriculture, Mouton, The Hague, pp. 589-610. Hassan, F. (1981). Demographic Archaeology, Academic Press, New York. Hayden, B. (1981). Research development in the stone age: technological transitions among

hunter-gatherers. Current Anthropology 22(5): 51%548. Henry, D. O. (1975). The fauna in Near Eastern archaeological deposits. In Wendorf, F., and

Marks, A. E. (eds.), Problems in Prehistory: North Africa and the Levant, SMU Press, Dallas, pp. 37%385.

Henry, D. O. (1977). An examination of artifactual variability in the Natufian of Palestine. In Bar-Yosef, O., and Arensburg, B. (eds.), Eretz-Israel 13, Central Press, Jerusalem, pp. 229- 240.

Henry, D. O. (1982). The prehistory of southern Jordan and relations with the Levant. Journal of Field Archaeology 9:417-444.

Henry, D. O. (1983). Adaptive evolution within the Epi-Paleolithic of the Near East. In Wendorf, F., and Close, A. E. (eds.), Advances in World Archaeology, Vol. II, pp. 99-160.

Henry, D. O. (1985). Preagricultural sedentism: the Natufian example. In Price, T. D., and Brown, J. A. (eds.), Prehistoric Hunter-Gatherers: The Emergence of Complex Societies, Academic Press, New York, pp. 365-384.

Henry, D. O., Leroi-Gourhan, Arl., and Davis, S. J. M. (1981). The excavation of Hayonim Terrace: An examination of Terminal Pleistocene climatic and adaptive changes. Journal of Archaeological Science 8: 33-58.

Hitchcock, R. K. (1982). Patterns of sedentism among the Basarwa of Eastern Botswana. In Leacock, E., and Lee, R. (eds.), Politics and Histot3: of Band Societies, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 233-267.

Hole, F. (t984). A reassessment of the Neolithic revilution. Paldorient 10: 49-60. Hopf, M. (1983). Jericho plant remains. In Kenyon, K. M., and Holland, T. A. (eds.), Excava-

tions at Jericho, Vol. V, The British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem, London. Hours, F. (1973). Le K6barien du Liban. Reflexions fi partir des fouilles de Jiita en 1972.

Paldorient 1: 185-200. Hours, F. (1976). L'Epi-Pal6olithique au Liban: r6sultats acquis en 1975. In Wendorf, F.

(chairman) Second Symposium on Terminology of the Near East. Acts of the 9th International Congress for Pre- and Proto-historic Sciences, Nice, 1976.

Hours, F., and Loiselet, J. (1975.-1977). Calcul par ordinateur et techniques de fouilles. Pr6- cisions sur le K6barien ancien de Jiita (Liban). Paldorient 3: 151-180,

Hovers, E., Horwitz, L. K., Bar-Yosef, D. E., and Cope-Miyashiro, C. (1989). Subsistence and mobility patterns at the Kebaran site of Urkan-e-Rub IIa, Lower Jordan Valley. Mitekufat Haeven 21 (in press).

Jochim, M. B. (1983). Palaeolithic cave art in ecological perspective. In Bailey, G. (ed.), Hunte~ Gatherer Economy in Prehistory: A European Perspective, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 212-219.


Johnson, G.A. (1982). Organizational structures and scalar stress. In Renfrew, C. A., Rowlands, M. J., and Seagraves, L. G. (eds.), Theory and Explanation in Archaeology, pp. 389-421.

Kaufman, D. (1986). A reconsideration of adaptive change in Levantine Epi-Palaeolithic. In Strauss, L. G. (ed.), The End of the Palaeolithic in the Old World, B.A.R. International Series 284, pp. 117-128.

Keene, A. S. (1983). Biology, behavior and borrowing: A critical examination of optimal foraging theory in archaeology. In Moore, J. A., and Keene, A. S. (eds.), Archaeological Hammers and Theories, Academic Press, New York, pp. 135-155.

Kelly, R. (1983). Hunter-gatherer mobility strategies. Journal of Anthropological Research 39: 277-306.

Kenyon, K. (1957). Digging Up Jericho, Ernest benn, London. Kenyon, K. M. (1981). Excavations at Jericho, Vol. III, British School of Archaeology in

Jerusalem, London. Kenyon, K. M., and Holland, T. A. (1983). Excavations at Jericho, Vol. V, British School of

Archaeology in Jerusalem, London. Kirkbridge, D. (1958). A Kebaran rock shelter in Wadi Madamagh near Petra, Jordan. Man 58:

55-58. Kislev, M. E. (1984). Emergence of wheat agriculture. PalOorient 10: 61-70. Kislev, M. E., Bar-Yosef, O., and Gopher, A. (1986). Early Neolithic domesticated and wils

cereals from Netiv Hagdud region in the Jordan Valley. Israel Journal of Botany 35: 197-201.

Lechevallier, M., and Ronen, A. (1985). Le Site Natoufien-Khiamien de Hatoula, Les Cahiers du Centre de Recherche Frangais de Jerusalem, No. 1.

Lechevallier, M., Philibert, D., Ronen, A., and Samzum, A. (1989). Une occupation Khiamienne et Sultanienne fi Hatoula. Paldorient (in press).

Legge, A. J., and Rowley-Conwy, P. (1987). Gazelle killing in Stone Age Syria. Scientific American 257: 76-83.

Leroi-Gourhan, A. (1982). Palynological research in Near Eastern archaeological sites. In Bintliff, J. L., and van Zeist, W. (eds.), Palaeoclimates, Plaeoenvironments and Human Communities in the Eastern Mediterranean Region in Later Prehistory, B.A.R. International Series 113, pp. 353-356.

Leroi-Gourhan, A., and Darmon, F. (1987). Analyses palynologiques de sites arch~ologiques du Pl6istoc6ne final dans la Vall6e du Jourdain. Journal of Earth Sciences 36: 65-72.

Lewis-Williams, D. (1982). The economic and social context of southern San rock art. Current Anthropology 23: 429-449.

Marks, A. E. (1973). The Haif point: A new tool-type from the terminal Epi-Palaeolithic of the Central Negev, Israel. Paldorient 1: 99-102.

Marks, A. E. (1976). Prehistory and Palaeoenvieonments in the Central Negev, Israel, Vol. L The Avdat/Agev Area, Part 1, SMU Press, Dallas.

Marks, A. E. (1977). Prehistory and Palaeoenvieonments in the Central Negev, Israel, Vol. H. The Avdat/Agev Area, Part 2, SMU Press, Dallas.

Marks, A. E., and Larson, P. (1977). Test excavations at the Natufian site of Rosh Horsha. In Marks, A. E. (ed.), Prehistory and Palaeoenvieonments in the Central Negev, Israel, Vol. II. The Avdat/Agev Area, Part 2, SMU Press, Dallas, pp. 191-232.

Marks, A. E., and Simmons, A. (1977). The Negev Kebaran of the Har Harif. In Marks, A. E. (ed.), Prehistory and Palaeoenvieonments in the Central Negev, Israel, Vol. II. The Avdat/ Agev Area, Part 2, SMU Press, Dallas, pp. 232-269.

Mellart, J. (1975). The Neolithic of the Near East, Thames and Hudson, London. Meshel, Z. (1974). New data about the "desert Kites". Tel Aviv 1: 129-143. Mienis, H. (1977). Marine molluscs from the Epipaleolithic and Harifian of the Har Harif. In

Marks, A. E. (ed.), Prehistory and Palaeoenvieonments in the Central Negev, Israel, Vol. II. The Avdat/Agev Area, Part 2, SMU Press, Dallas, pp. 347-354.

Mienis, H. (1987). Molluscs from the excavation of Mallaha (Eynan). In Bouchrd, J. (ed.), La Faune du Gisement Natoufien de Mallaha ( Eynan ), Israel, M6moires et Travaux de Centre du recherche Frangais de Jerusalem, No. 4, Association Pal6orient, Paris, pp. 157-178.


Moore, A. M. T. (I978). The Neolithic of the Levant, University of Oxford, D.Phil. thesis, University Microfilms International 78-70075, Ann Arbor, Mich.

Moore, A. M. T. (1985). The development of Neolithic societies in the Near East. In Wendorf, F., and Close, A. E. (eds.), Advances in World Archaeology, Vol. 4, pp. 1-69.

Mortensen, P. (1970). Apreliminary study of the chipped stone industry from Beidha. Acta Archaeologica 41: 1-54.

Muhesein, . (1985). L'Epi-Pal6olithique dans le gisement de Kharaneh IV. Paldorient 11: 149-160.

Naveh, Z. (1984). The vegetation of the Carmel and Nahat Sefunim and the evolution of the cultural landscape. In Ronen, A. (ed.), Sefimim Prehistoric Sites, Mount Carmel, Israel, B.A.R. International Series 2300), pp. 23-63.

Nesteroff, W. D., Grazzini, C. V., Blanc-Vernet, L., Olive, P., Rivald-Znaidi, J., and Rossignol- Strick, M. (1983). Evolution climatique de la M6diterran~e Orientale au cours de la dernibre d6glaciation. In Ghazi, A. (ed.), Palaeoclimatic Research and Models, D. Reidel, Dordrecht, pp. 82-94.

Neuville, R. (1934). Le pr6histoire du Palestine. Revue Biblique 43: 237-259. Neuville, R. (1951). Le Pal~olithique et Mdsolithique du DOsert de JudOe, Archives de l'Institut

de Paleontologic Humaine, Paris. Noy, T., Schuldenrein, J., and Tchernov, E. (1980). Gilgal, a prepottery Neolithic A site in the

Lower Jordan Valley. Israel Exploration Journal 30: 63-82. Olszewski, D. (1986). The North Syrian Late Epi-Palaeolithie: The Earliest Occupation at Tell

Abu-Hureyra in the Context of the Levantine Epipalaeolithie, B.A.R. International Series 309.

Perevolotsky, A., and Baharav, D. (1987). The abundance of "desert kites" in eastern Sinai --an ecological analysis. In Gvirtzman, G., Shmueli, A., Gradus, Y., and Har-E1 M. (eds.), Sinai, Eretz, Tel-Aviv University, Tel-Aviv, pp. 595-603 (in Hebrew).

Perrot, J. (1966). Le gisement Natufien de Mallaha (Eynau) Israel. L'Anthropologie 70: 437-484. Pichon, J. (1987). L'avifaune de Mallaha. In Bouchard, J. (ed.), La Faune du Gisement Natoufien

de Mallaha (Eynan), (Israel), MOmoires et Travaux du Centre de Recherche Franfais de Jerusalem No. 4, Association Pal6orient, Paris, pp. 115-150.

Phillips, J. L. (1973). Two final Palaeolithic sites in the Nile valley and their external connections, Papers of Geological Survey of Egypt 57.

Phillips, J. L., and Mintz, E. (1977), The Mushabian. In Bar-Yosef, O., and Phillips, J. L. (eds.), Prehistoric Investigations in Gebel Meghara, Northern Sinai, Qedem 7, Monographs of the Institute of Archaeology, tIebrew University, Jerusalem, pp. 149-183.

Price, T. D., and Brown, (1985). Aspects of hunter-gatherer complexity. In Price, D. T., and Brown, J. A. (eds.), Prehistoric Hunter-Gatherers: The Emergence of Social Complex Com- plexity, Academic Press, Orlando, Fla., pp. 3-20.

Rafferty, G. E. (1985). The Archaeological record on sedentariness: Recognition, development and implications. In Schiffer, M, B. (ed.), Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, Vol. 8, pp. 113-156.

Redman, C. (1978). The Rise of Civilization, Freeman, San Fransisco. Rolston, S. L. (1982). Two prehistoric burials from Qase Kharaneh. Annual of the Department

of Antiquities, Jordan 26: 221-229. Saxon, E. C., Martin, G., and Bar-Yosef, O. (1978). Nahal Hadera V: An open-air site on the

Israeli littoral. PaHorient 4: 253-266. Schoeninger, M. J. (1981). The agricultural "revolution": Its effects of human diet in prehistoric

Iran and Israel. PalOorient 7: 73-91. Schroeder, H. B. (1977). Nacharini, a stratified post-Natufian camp in the Anti-Lebanon

mountains, Paper presented at the Society for American Archaeology Annual Meeting, Chicago, 1977.

Scott, T. R. (1977). The Harifian of the Central Negev. In Marks, A. E. (ed.), Prehistory and Paleoenvironments in the Central Negev, Israel, VoL II. The Avdat/Agev Area, Part 2, and Hat Harif, SMU Press, Dallas, pp. 271-322.

Shmida, A., Evenari, M., and Noy-Meir, E. (1986). Hot desert ecosystems. In Evenari, M. (ed.), Hot Deserts and Arid Shrubtands, Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 379-387.


Sillen, A. (1984). Dietary variability in the Epipaleolithic of the Levant: The Sr/Ca evidence. Paldorient 10: 149-t55.

Simmons, A. H., and Ilani, G. (1975-1977). What mean these bones? Behavioral implications of gazelles' remains from archaeological sites. PaHorient 3: 269-274.

Smith, P. (1972). Diet and attrition in the Natufians. Annual Journal of Physical Anthropology" 37: 233-238.

Smith, P , Bar-Yosef, O., and Sillen, A. (I984). Archaeological and skeletal evidence for dietary change during the Late Pleistocene/Early Holocene in the Levant. In Cohen, M. N., and Armelagos, G. J. (eds.), Palaeopathology at the Origins of Agriculture, Academic Press, Orlando, pp. 101-136.

Smith, Ph. L., and Young, J. (1983). The force of numbers: Population pressure in the Central Western Zagros. In Young, C. T., Smith, Ph. E. L., and Mortensen, P. (eds.), The Hilly Flanks and Beyond. Essays on the Prehistory of Southwestern Asia Presented to R. J. Braid- wood. Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization No. 36, Oriental Institute, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 141-162.

Solecki, R. S., and Solecki, R. L. (1983). Late Pleistocene-Early Holocene cultural traditions in the Zagros. In Young, C. T., Smith, Ph. E. L., and Mortensen, P. (eds.), The Hilly Flanks and Beyond." Essays on the Prehistory of Southwestern Asia Presented to R. J. Braidwood. Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization No. 36, Oriental Institute, University of Chicago Press, pp. 123-137.

Stordeur, D. (1981). La contribution de l'industrie de l'os/t la d~limination des aires culturelles: L'example du Natoufien. In Cauvin, J , and Sankaville, P. (eds.), Pr&istoire du Levant, CNRS, Paris.

Starck, B. (1986). The origins of food production in the New World. In Meltzer, D. J., Fowler, D. D., and Sabloff, J. A. (eds.), American Archaeology: Past and Future, Smithsonian Institute Press, Washington, p. 321,

Stekelis, M., and Yizraeli, T. (1963). Excavations at Nahal Oren (preliminary report). Israel Exploration Journal 13: 1-12.

Tchernov, E. (1984). Commensal animals and human sedentism in the Middle East. In Clutton- Brock, J., and Grigson, C. (eds.), Animals and Archaeology, Vol. 3. Early Herders and Their Flocks, B.A.R. International Series 202, pp. 91-105.

Thomson, D. F. (1949). Economic' Structure and the Ceremonial Exchange Cycle in Arnhem Land, Macmillan, Melbourne.

Tixier, J. (I963). Typologie de t'~pi-Paldolithique du Maghreb, M~moires du Centre de Recherches Anthropologiques, Pr6historiques et Ethnographiques, Arts et M6tiers Graphiques, Paris.

Turville-Petre, F. (1932). Excavations in the Mugharet et Kebarah. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 62: 270-276.

Uerpman, H. P. (1981). Faunal remains from Shams ed-din Tannira, a Halafian site in northern Syria. Berytus 30: 3-52.

Unger-Hamilton, R. (I989). Epi-Palaeotithic Palestine and the beginning of plant cultivation -- the evidence from harvesting experiments and microwear studies of flint sickle blades. Current Anthropology (in press).

Valla, F. R. (1981). Les btablissments Natoufiens dans le nord d'Israel. In Cauvin, J., and Sanlavilte, P. (eds.), PrOhistoire du Levant, CNRS, Paris, pp. 409-420.

Valla, F. R. (1984). Les Industries de Sitex de Mallaha (Eynan) et du Natoufien clans le Levant, M6moires et Travaux du Centre de Recherche Pr6historique Franqais de Jerusalem No. 3, Association Pal6orient, Paris.

Valla, F. R. (1987). Chronologie relative et chronologic absolute dans le Natoufien. In Aurenche, O., Evin, J., and Hours, F. (eds.), Chronologies in the Near East: Relatives Chronologoes and Absolute Chronology 16,000-4,000 B.P., B.A.R. International Series 379, pp. 267-294.

Valla, F. R., Bar-Yosef, O., Smith, P., Tchernov, E., and Desse, J. (1986). Un nouveau sondage sur le terrasse d'E1-Ouad, israel. PalOorient 12: 21-37.

van Zeist, W., and Bakker-Heeres, J. A. H, (1982). Archaeobotonical studies in the Levant. I. Neolithic sites in the Damascus basin: Aswad, Ghoraifa, Ramad. Palaeohistoria 24: 165-256.


van Zeist, W., and Bakker-Heeres, J. A. H. (1986). Archaeobotanical studies in the Levant. III. Late Palaeolithic Mureybet. Palaeohistoria 26: 171-199.

van Ziest, W., and Bottema, S. (1977). Palynological investigations in western Iran. Palaeo- historia 19: 19-95.

van Zeist, W., and Bottema, S. (1982). Vegetational history of the Eastern Mediterranean and the Near East during the last 20,000 years. In Bintliff, J. L., and van Zeist, W. (eds.), Palaeoclimates, Plaeoenvironments and Human Communities in the Eastern Mediterranean Region in Later Prehistory, B.A.R. International Series 113.

Waterbotk, H. T. (1987). Working with radiocarbon dates in southwestern Asia. In Aurenche, O., Evin, J., and Hours, F. (eds.), Chronologies in the Near East: Relatives Chronologoes and Absolute Chronology 16,000-4,000 B.P., B.A.R. International Series 379, pp. 39-60.

Wendorf, F., and Schild, R. (1980). Prehistory of the Eastern Sahara, Academic Press, New York.

Wiessner, P. (1983). Style and social information in Kalahari San projectile points. American Antiquity 48: 253-276.

Wigely, T. M., and Farmer, G. (1982). Climate of the eastern Mediterranean and the Near East. In Bintliff, J. L., and van Zeist, W. (eds.), Palaeoclimates, Plaeoenvironments and Human Communities in the Eastern Mediterranean Region in Later Prehistory, B.A.R. International Series 113, pp. 3-37.

Wobst, H. M. (1974). Boundary conditions for Paleolithic social systems: A simulation approach. American Antiquity 39: 147-178.

Wobst, H. M. (1976). Locational relationships in Paleolithic society. Journal of Human Evolu- tion 5: 49-58.

Wright, G. A. (1971). Origins of food production in southwestern Asia: a survey of ideas. Current Anthropology 12: 12-43.

Wright, G. A. (1978). Social differentiation in the Early Natufian. In Redman, C. L., Berman, M. J., Curtin, E. V., Laghorne, W. T., Versaggi, N. H., and Wanser, J. C. (eds.), Social Archaeology, Academic Press, New York, pp. 201-223.

Yellen, J. (1977). Archaeological Approaches to the Present: Models for Reconstructing the Past, Academic Press, New York.

Zohary, M. (I973). GeobotaniealFoundations of the Middle East, 2 vol., Gustav Fischer Verlag, Stuttgart.

The origins of sedentism and farming communities in the Levant

Documents

Transcript of The origins of sedentism and farming communities in the Levant