Upper Palaeolithic & Epipalaeolithic Structures

=

STRUCTURES AND DWELLINGS IN THE UPPER AND EPI-PALAEOLITHIC (ca 42-10k BP) LEVANT: PROFANE AND SYMBOLIC USES

Nigel GORING-MORRIS & Anna BELFER-COHEN

Abstract: Although remains of architectural 'furniture' occur sporadically during the earlier Upper Palaeolithic in the Levant, examples of structures, albeit brush huts, were identified only about the time of onset of the Pleniglacial and the Early Epipalaeolithic (ca. 20/22,000 BP). These rare examples reflect exceptional preservation conditions and may be instructional in recognizing earlier manifestations in future. Still it is only with the more sedentary Late Epipalaeolithic Natufian (ca. 12,500 BP) that durable architectural features become commonplace, with considerable diachron.ic and synchronic variability. Many Natu.fian structures clearly were either too large or too small for occupation by nuclear families. Additionally, obvious symbolic/ritual features were sometimes incorporated within structures. The discussion, which follows the data deals with the wider behavioural implications of the phenomena observed, emphasizing that early architectural manifestations represent more than simple shelter from the elements.

Resume: Malgn~ les decouvertes rares des structures d' habitat au Paleolithique superieur ancien du Levant, c'est seulement le fm du plt\niglaciaire et Ia periode initiale de l'Epipaleolithique (d 'environ 22 000 a 20 000 ans B. P.) qui ont foumi des restes des buttes legeres. Ces temoignages rares refletent en effet les cas exeptionnels de Ia preservation et pourraient t!tre signiticatives pour mettre en evidence les structures anciens a l'avenir. C'est avec !'apparition d'un certain degre de sedentarisme a I'Epipaleolique tardifNatoufien (d'environ 12 500 ans B. P.) qu'on voit le vrai developpement architectural avec un variabilite enonne spatiale et ternporaire. Plusieurs structures d'habitat Natoufiens etaient trop large ou trap petits pour une fami lle nucleaire. Sont connus aussi d'autres structures a remplir des fonctions symboliques ou rituelles au seine des habitations. La presentation des donnees est suivi par Ia discussion d'un contexte sociale des habitations; cettes manifestations architecturales etaient plus complexes que les abris protecteurs.

INTRODUCTION

With the appearance of modern human behaviour as represented by the Upper Palaeolithic, there is clear evidence that building activities reflect the differentiation between temporary, mobile aspects of human behaviour and more permanent, stable facets of societies. This may be related also to the fact that, in addition to the profane, functional aspects of shelter from the elements, archaeological architecture also embodies other, subtler elements (illustrated by the different connotations raised by 'house' as compared to those related to the concept of ' home' and see Watkins 1990, 1992). We should also bear in mind the potential symbolic component inherent in at least some of the Upper Palaeolithic building activities of individuals and societies, an aspect mostly ignored in Levantine research.

Evidence for architectural features during most of the Levantine Upper Palaeolithic (ca. 42-20k yrs BP) is rather scanty. Nevertheless recent taphonomic studies, together with hearths, middens and artefact distributions observed in cave, rockshelter and open-air sites, revealed changes in the internal spatial organization ofMiddle versus Upper Palaeolithic sites. With the onset of the Epipalaeolithic (ca. 22/20k yrs BP) well-documented remains of fonds de cabanes are recognizable at a number of sites. Yet it is only with the relatively sodden appearance of the Natufian Complex that evidence for solidly built structures becomes widespread.

65

In the following section we provide a brief overview of chronological developments in the architecture and spatial patterning within Upper and, especially, Epipalaeolithic occupations in the Levant. We also note differences between the Mediterranean zone and more peripheral regions. In the discussion that follows emphasis is placed on the behavioural, social and symbolic correlates of architectural developments, beyond the physical act of creating a 'roof over one's head' ...

OVERVIEW OF ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES (See Table 1)

Evidence for architectural features during most of the Levantine Upper Palaeolithic (ca. 42-20k yrs bp) is extremely scanty. Nevertheless in UyagiZh cave, Hatay, in the northern Levant, there is recent evidence dating to ca. 30k yrs bp for the construction of a single course wall of blocks to segregate activities within the cave (Kuhn et al. in press). Taphonomic studies, together with hearths, middens and artefact distributions (at sites like Kebara and Hayonim caves) all contribute to understanding the internal spatial organization of Upper Palaeolithic sites, which differ from those of the local Middle Palaeolithic (Belfer-Cohen 1980; Belfer-Coben and Bar-Yosef 1981; Bar-Yosef et a/.1996; Goldberg in press; Meignen eta/. 1989; and see also Wadley 2001 for a more general discussion of the differences between

Perceived Landscapes and Built Environments: The Cultural Geography of Late Paleolithic Eurasia

Table 1: Upper and Epipalaeolithic Constructional Features and Site Furniture in the Levant

Period/Culture Architectural Feature Site

UPPER PALAEOLITHIC Wall divider in cave O~ag1zh cave

Storage? pits Abu Noshra

Slab/stone-lined hearths Hayonim cave D; Ein Aqev

Large firepits Abu Noshra; Qadesh Bamea 500

EARLY EPIPALAEOLITHIC Small, semi-subterranean kidney-shaped Ohalo II; Ein Gev I; Nahal Hadera V;

{Masraqan, Kebaran, Nizzanan) brush huts (4-5m diameter); branch Azariq XIII construction, sometimes stone footings

Low stone platforms - work surfaces Ohalo II; Ein Gev I

Large firepits Shunera XVI; Eln Aqev East

MIDDLE EPIPALAEOLITHIC Brush huts? Haon II; Lagama North VIII (Geometric Kebaran, Mushabian)

Postholes? Kharaneh IV

Smoking installation Lagama North VIII

Roasting pits with potboilers Mushabi V; Azariq XII

Small, stone-footed installations Ein Gev Ill

Large semi-subterranean communal structures (5-15m diameter); dug into slope

LATE EPIPALAEOLITHIC & lined with several courses of fieldstones; Eynan (Mallaha); Wadi Hammeh 27; {Early Natufian) one or more sets of postholes for complex Hayonim cave B; Upper Besor 6

roofing; structured spatial arrangements; formal hearths

Daub and/or plaster Eynan (Mallaha); Wadi Hammeh 27; Hayonim cave & terrace; Fazael VI?

Terrace walls Eynan (Mallaha); Wadi Mataha

Mortuary architecture (Eynan) Mallaha (Habitation 1 ); Hayonim cave?; ei-Wad B

Symbolic/ritual architectural structures W. Hammeh 27; Hayonim cave B; el-(monoliths)/features; Immobile mortars Wad terrace; Upper Besor 6

Small semi-subterranean dwellings (3-5 m (Eynan) Mallaha; ei-Wad B; Khallet (Late/Final Natufian & Harifian) diam); bedrock mortars; worklcupmarked Anaza; Rosh Zin; Abu Salem; Ramal

slabs Harif; Abu Hureyra.

Terrace walls Nahal Oren; Rosh Horesha; Saflulim

Mortuary architectureand furniture (hearth; Nahal Oren; Hayonim cave B

'stone pipes'; postholes as markers?)

Symbolic/ritual architecture Hayonim cave B; Rosh Horesha; Rosh Zin

Middle and Upper Palaeolithic spatial organization). Differences can also be noted between the Mediterranean zone and more peripheral regions where there is a whole variety of hearth types, from small, well-defined hearths to extensive deep fue-pits and possibly even storage pits. This phenomenon has still to be investigated systematically (BarYosef and Belfer 1977; Becker in press; Coinman 2000; Gilead 1981; Gilead and Bar-Yosef 1993; Hietala and Marks 1981; Marks I 983; Phillips 1990).

With the Early Epipalaeolithic (ca. 22/20-14.5k yrs bp) well-documented huts and related features are found at sites such as Ohalo n, Ein Gev I and IV, Nahal Hadera V and perhaps also at Azariq XIII (Stekelis and Bar-Yosef 1965; Bar-Yosef I 970; Nadel1996; Nadel and Werker 1999; Saxon eta/. I 978; Gopher pers. comm.; Goring-Morris in prep.) (Figures l-3). Ohalo ll, with its noteworthy preservation of perishable construction materials, provides means to identify such structures in olher sites where similar materials are not preserved. Though various lines of evidence at that site point to year-round use, tlle scale and intensity of occupation appear most compatible witl1 multiple short-term visits to a core locality ratller than a genuine sedentary community. The flimsy, kidney-shaped or sub-oval structures are ca. 3-5m in diameter, with internal floor spaces not exceeding

Thus it appears tl1at the Upper Palaeolithic in the Levant largely parallels developments in Europe, where evidence for structures is at best equivocal prior to ca. 24,000 BP, when mammoth bone structures coincide with the onset of colder conditions (Gamble I 999).

66

...

0

N. Goring-Morris, A. Belfer -Cohen: Structures and Dwellings in the Upper and Epi-palaeolithic ...

I

~· I H EARTH (L9) I

5M

~ • • '; ........ OHALO II GRAVE(L5) ----.--- ---

PLATFORM (L 4)

1~ .. .. "1 . .. .. .. ~ .-:<< .. a

~11 . ...... .. ,. ... . • ..... · . . ... . 4

to: •• • HUT (L3) .. · '-4 . . . .. .. . ... .. .,:i~~·~ . :-:-:-: ·.;'

".4·~-ii>\.~JT}' ..... .. ~ ... ·.·.· ·.· ~ ..... ..... ·-' -.. ·i-lu,: <L2l> ~ ..... .... · -.~

~~~~.::c~i~.;r ~ ~

HEARTH (L8)

-Loc6

,~-"' I • • '\ t:::: ::; ____ .... _~. ·.· ... . ·'

.... .... ,-.-.-;~ :-·::0: '":'_-~:-:.:.:.:.: . :~-: .:. :. } "~.:_':'-:-~ /.· · FLOTSAM? . · .. · . · . . ·. · .· ·· . . ·· ··. · :

-..:_·_-.............. ~: "'."':-'." .... :" .. ~~---- .... .:. .:..:...:. . ·~:.:~~~·~:_:.:~:.:;.i ' ••••• J.

.... _. ___ _

HEARTH (L 1 1)

Figure 1: Plan of architectural features and reconstruction of brush hut at the Masraqan site of Ohalo II, adjacent to the Sea of Galilee. Not all structures were necessarily occupied contemporaneously

(modified after Nadel and Werker 1999)

Figure 2: Organic stains and stones may outline the contours of a brush hut at the Masraqan site of Azariq XIII, western Negev dunes. The entrance probably faced southeast (right).

The unexcavated square at the right rear is 1m.

67


EIN GEV I: LEVEL 3/4

0 ltM ---==== Figure 3: Plan of one phase of a Kebaran hut at Ein Gev I,

adjacent to the Sea of Galilee (modified after Bar-Yosef 1970).

12m2 • They are generally semi-subterranean (ca. 20-40 em deep) and are constructed from the branches of locally available trees and bushes in a wigwam or arched configuration, not unlike sub-recent San huts in the Kalahari (Lee 1979; Yellen 1977). The absolute contemporaneity of the various huts at Ohalo is uncertain, although the sum of the evidence indicates the use of individual huts by nuclear families. Sometimes, as at Kebaran Ein Gev I, also featuring repeated re-construction of the but, rough stone footings are documented (Bar-Yosef 1970). Seemingly, there are no formal internal hearths. Cobble platforms or small paved areas are sometimes found in the vicinity of the structures.

For the Middle Epipalaeolithic (ca. 14.5- 12.5k yrs bp) no complete structures have been reported to date, but at sites such as Ein Gev ill, Haon II, Neve David, Kharaneh IV, and Jilat 6 various architectural features have been described (Bar-Yosef 1970, 1975; Garrard 1998; Garrard and Byrd 1992; Kaufman 1989; Kaufman and Ronen 1987; Muheisen 1990; Rolston 1982). Other items of site furniture include pit caches of artefacts (Qadesh Barnea 8 and Azariq II -Goring-Morris 1995) and a possible hide-smoking feature at Lagama North VIll (Bar-Yosef and Goring-Morris 1977). Pyrotechnical innovations include early lime production (albeit for hafting rather than architectural purposes) in the Geometric Kebaran and roasting pits with many fire-cracked stones in the Musbabian (Kingery eta/. 1988; Goring-Morris 1988).

68

The archaeological evidence for the Early and Middle Epipalaeolithjc generally appears to indicate a pattern of domestic architecture based on small nuclear family units, irrespective of the possible absolute contemporaneity of adjacent huts. The size and intensity of occupations indicate that the majority of Early and Middle Epipalaeolithic sites west of the Rift were only briefly occupied (rarely do they exceed 150m2). However, the status of the much larger aggregation sites (up to 20,000 m2) in eastern Transjordan remains uncertain, although most seem to be primarily winter/ spring occupations (Martin 1994).

With the relatively sudden emergence of the more sedentary Late Epipalaeolithic Natufian Complex (ca. 13/ 12.5- lOk yrs BP), evidence for solidly built structures becomes abundant, especially in the Mediterranean zone. In addition to major changes in the size and scope of arcbitectural features during ti1e course of the Natufian, the evidence clearly indicates that these encompassed not only profane aspects but were also imbued with intense symbolic correlates.

This is especially significant in that the Natufian occupies an intermediate position chronologically and developmentally between two quite distinct adaptive modes, namely it represents the socio-economic shifts from mobile huntergatherers to sedentary farming communities, and thus it has been accorded the status of a "complex foraging society" (Bar-Yosef 1998; Belfer-Cohen and Bar-Yosef 2000 and references therein). Of interest also is the fact that, although at least superficially the Natufian may be regarded as a sophisticated and successful hunter-gatherer adaptation, ultimately, it was an inherently unstable and relatively fleeting mode of life.

Given the marked environmental diversity within the Levant, variability in specific Natufian adaptations between more favomable environmental settings and peripheral regions reflects differences in potential carrying capacities and hence group annual catclunent sizes, which in tum affect both seasonality and relative mobility.

The Natufian provides a total break in concept as compared to that documented earlier, with major changes in local architectural traditions taking place in both the core and peripheral regions. These reflect the marked changes in social organization with the onset of the Natufian, but changes also occurred during the 4,000 years of the Natufian, responding to external environmental events (i.e. the Younger Dryas cold event) as well as internal socio-cultural processes.

Early Natufian architecture in the Mediterranean zone is characterized by the appearance oflarge, durable and spatially segregated ca. 7-15m oval andD-shaped structures (e.g. Wadi Hammeh 27, Eynan [Mallaha] and, perhaps, el-Wad), as well as evidence for intensive terracing/leveling activities (Edwards 1991, 1993; Goring-Morris 1996; Perrot 1966; Perrot and Ladiray 1988; Valla 1990) (Figures 4-8). Postholes (8-15 em diameter and 20-30 em deep) are found in circular arrangements to support relatively sophisticated roofing - sometimes with a single ring (Eynan Locus 131 ), although where necessary with two rings of supports (Wadi Hammeh 27 - see Figure 6).

N. Goring-Morris, A. Belfer-Cohen: Structures and Dwellings in the Upper and Epi-palaeolithic ...

' '

0----===----===~---SM

AIN MALLAHA EARLY PHASE

Figure 4: The earlier phases of occupation at Natufian Mallaha (Eynan), in the Huleh Valley. Note the unusual configuration of Habitation 1, with plastered bench and slabs, perhaps representing funerary architecture.

Figure 5: Plan of the Early Natufian site of Wadi Hammeh 27 in the Jordan Valley. Note the presence of three coeval structures, as well as the location of the large incised monoliths shown in the window

(modified after Edwards 1991 , 1993).

69

. ....


WADI HAMMEH 27 • TENTATIVE RECON STRUcnON OF POSTHOLES & BEAMS

0--===-_,=-_ SM

Figure 6: Tentative reconstruction of the location of postholes and beams at Early Natufian Wadi Hammeh 27.

CAVE

0 5 M

Figure 7: Plan of architectural features and graves at Natufian ei-Wad, Mt. Carmel. Note possible outlines of large structure.

70

N. Goring-Morris, A. Belfer -Cohen: Structures and Dwellings in the Upper and Epi-palaeolithic ...

NATUFIAN STRUCTURES

(/)

~g~ • Early

Q) (/)

Ill C late ()

0 1g~,-- . l; DFinal ~ ' • - '

0-5 5-10 10-20 20-40 40-80 80-160

Internal Floor Space m2

Figure 8: Histogram of Natufian structure sizes by phase, showing a clear diachronic trend of size diminution. Note

that structures with floor spaces of less than 10m2 are unlikely to have functioned as dwellings.

The total floor spaces of the structures at Wadi Hammeh 27 are on the order of ca. I 00-130 m2• lt should be noted that at least two (and more probably three) such adjacent structures were exposed, and thus this appears to be normative architectural patterning within the site. Such a scale is quite different from those encountered previously and it is probable that they were not occupied by nuclear families - perhaps residence was based on units of extended families, age cohorts, moieties and/or lodges (and see discussion in GoringMorris 1996).

Notable are the co-associations within these structures of profane, domestic remains, together with clearly symbolic items, whether as permanent furniture such as the massive incised monoliths at Wadi Hammeh 27 or mobile items, as reflected by the repetitive intentional arrangements of coloured pebbles at Eynan (Valla 1990). Perhaps these can be viewed as forerunners of much more spectacular occurrences on the Middle Euphrates in the PPNA at Jerf elAbrnar and Mureybet (Stordeur eta/. 2001).

While graves occur under the floors of some structures, it seems likely they either pre- or postdate the 'domestic/ profane' use of these structures.lndeed many graves in Early Natufian sites are often spatially segregated (Bar-Yosef 1991 a; Bel fer-Cohen 1990). Occasionally, besides the graves themselves, there is also some distinctive funerary architecture (e.g. Habitation 1 at Eynan with a plastered bench and monoliths- Perrot 1966 and see Figure 4). Other examples of early Natufian architecture incorporate small, 1.5-2.5m diameter, structures, which most probably served for special functions (e.g. Hayonim cave - see Figure 9; BarYosef 1991 a; Bel fer-Cohen 1988). We should note the Natufian use of caves and the terraces in front of them, as at Hayonim and el-Wad (Figure l 0; Bar-Yosef and Martin 1981; Goring-Morris 1996; Henry eta/. 1981; Valla 1986; Valla et a/. 1989, 1991; Weinstein-Evron 1998). The material evidence indicates that in the open-air terrace sites domestic activities were most prominent. The caves provided space for specia l activities, such as burials, crafts (bone tool production, shell bead modification, etc.), storage of valued or curated items (bovine ribs, pestles) and high-risk (and/or symbolic) tasks, such as lime kilns] (and see references above).

71

Contemporary base camp sites in the more arid periphery were probably occupied seasonally, as at Early Natufiao Upper Besor 6, and they also feature large, oval or 0-shaped structures, 7m in diameter, with floor spaces of ca. 40 m2

(Figure I 0; Goring-Morris 1998). A shorter occupation at Shun era Vll may also have featured a more flimsy structure, which was not preserved (Goring-Morris 1987).

To summarise. Early Natufian domestic architecture displays consistent and quite regular patterns of spatially segregated, large (ca. 7-15 m diameter) structures, yielding internal floor spaces on the order of 40-130 m2 • Outer walls were constructed of one or more courses of fieldstones, often featuring negatives of post supports. One or more partial or complete internal rings of post-holes or footings (I 0-15 em diameter and 20-30 em deep) are usually no more than 3 m apart, and one or more central posts are commonly indicated. These are sedentary occupations (Tcheroov 1984, 1991 ), and the presence of both profane and ritual activities is notable. Smaller structures are often too small to be viewed as nuclear family residences.

The Late Natufian in the Mediterranean zone furnishes evidence for smaller domestic residential architecture, 5-7 m in diameter, as at Eynan (Perrot 1966). Small structures continue to occur within caves associated with special activities (Grosman 2002). Late Natufian sites in the Mediterranean zone thus provide less evidence for a standardised concept. Structures are also less meticulously planned and executed. Being of more restricted diameters, none demonstrate evidence for the complex arrays of postholes and footings characteristic of the Early Natufian. The overall impression is of a more opportunistic approach to architectural planning and execution, not unlike that in the earlier Epipalaeolithic, though certain elements do continue from the early Natufian indicating an inherent similarity as both phases pertain to but one, though evolving, entity.

Certain sites during the later stages of the Natufian (i.e. post 11,500 BP) in the Mediterranean zone may have functioned primarily as cemetery sites for more mobile populations focusing on funerary and burial activities (Nahal Oren- Noy 1989, 1991; Noy eta/. 1973; Hilazon Tach tit Cave- Grosman 2002).

In the peripheral regions of the Negev the huge expanse of the Rosh Horesha-Saflulim site complex (ca. 4-5,000 m2 in size - Goring-Morris et a/. 1999) in the highlands likely represents a regional aggregation site. Here durable architectural remains are few, with the exception of a large 8 m diameter structure constructed of massive 1 Vl-2 m long slabs (Figure 11; Marks and Larson 1977)1• It seems unlikely that this functioned as a domestic dwelling, though plastered architectural features are present at Saflulim. Most probably the Rosh-Horesha-Saflulim complex served as a pivotal, temporarily occupied, autumn aggregation locale by Negevbased groups at a time of seasonally abundant, clumped resources.

Although one of us previously questioned wbelher this structure should be attributed to !he Natufian (Goring-Morris 1987), we are inclined today to accept the original designation.


HAYONI M CAVE 8

206

UNEXCAVATEO

Gil

UNEXCIWATEO

TERRACE

L l O .,.---, ,"' ',

f \ \ \ \ GXVII I \ :

\ I ' , ,..__,/

Figure 9: Early and Late Natufian structures and graves inside Hayonim cave, western Galilee. Note the beehive arrangement and the small sizes of many structures.

Jn residential camps at lower elevations a beehive type plan of closely clustered, small residential structures is indicated, for example in Rosh Zin (Henry 1976), where 3-4 stonebuilt domestic structures, ca. 3-5 m in diameter, were uncovered (Figure 12). There the size of most of the structures is fully congruent with that of domicile structures intended for nuclear fammes. However, an unusual, paved structure includes a unique interior monolithic pillar, which was interpreted by the excavator as having a symbolic function (Figure 13). Most likely this and similar sites (e.g. Kballet Anaza in the Black Desert - Betts 1998) were occupied seasonally by small, relatively mobile groups, which acco rd s well with the environmental and phytogeographical data. However, since catchment areas were necessarily larger than in the Mediterranean zone, temporary hunting camps in the lowland dunes probably featured light, perishable huts.

72

The terminal stages of the Natufian in the Mediterranean zone reflect intensification of the processes noted earlier, with an emphasis on smaller individual structures, and perhaps a reversion to domicile based on nuclear families, as revealed by recent excavations at Eynan (Valla eta/. 2001). This evidence for increasing mobility may perhaps in part portray a response to the forcing effects of the Younger Dryas.

Contemporary Harifian seasonal residential base camps in and around the highlands of the Negev and Sinai feature standardised domestic architecture of nuclear families, based on spatially segregated units of single semi-subterranean dwellings 3-4m in diameter, as at Abu Salem, Ramat Harif, Shluhat Harif, and Ma'aleh Ramon East and West (Figures 14-15). These commonly feature functional bedrock mortars and large grinding slabs. They are also sometimes directly associated with smaller, 1-2 m diameter, structures, as

·-

20

27


UPPER BESOR 6 ~ . .

0

() r.:.~·ltCARTH 0 • ...

C) 0

.- ·-·· .. •. ~HEA.RTH ·-... · 0

B t..DNOC:K

Figure 10: Plan of an Early Natufian structure at Upper Besor 6, in the central Negev. The site was subsequently re-occupied in the Late Natufian (lighter shading).

Figure 11 : A large solitary structure constructed of massive slabs at the Late Natufian aggregation site of Rosh Horesha, in the central Negev highlands

(Photo: D. Davis).

73

'

MORTAR

0

v

Perceived Landscapes and Buil t Environments: The Cultural Geography of Late Paleolithic Eurasia

' ' . . ' ' '

' ' ' ' ' .

' \

' ' \

' \

' ' ' ' ' . ' ' ' '

\ \

' . '

' '

' ' ' •,

' ' '

0

' ' \

, -...... , \ \

'

LtJ.tfTOFARTEFACTSCATTER', I .......... _.,

• B EDROCI( MORTAR

ROSH ZIN 0;....= - = ....;;!:IM

' '

Figure 12: Plan of the Late Natufian occupation at Rosh Zin, central Negev. Note the beehive arrangement and location of the monolith.

Figure 13: Monolith at Late Natufian Rosh Zin reset in place.

74

:.19

..

N. Goring-Morris, A. Belfer-Cohen: Structures and Dwellings In the Upper and Epi-palaeolithic ...

19

70

71

W X Y

RAMAT HARIF (G8) BB CC DO EE FF

0

K L M N 0

3.4

3tl

3/

.36

.39

.10

•II

a;>

.,, 44

d5

.t(l

·II

4ft

·II) 0 6 M

!'..0

Figure 14: Plan of the Harifian occupation at Ram at Harif, in the central Negev highlands. Note the discrete spatial layout of architectural units.

Figure 15: The semi-subterranean locus 3 complex (Including loci 1 and 4) at Harifian Ramal Harif.

75

..


appendages and sometimes as independant units (GoringMorris 1991).

DISCUSSION

Traditional approaches to investigating architectural manifestations, prior to the appearance of communal architecture, frequently employ the paradigm of a straightforward sequential evolution. This includes a 'progression' from primitive wind-breaks and/or 'nest'-like constructions to complex architecture, comprising houses as basic shelters (i.e. residential dwellings), through to the grand scale palaces ('house of the rulers') and temples ('house of the gods') of classic ancient Near Eastern urban civilizations. It has thus been assumed that any non-utilitarian use or meaning of a human-made structure would appear late in human evolution. This basic scenario predicted that, with time and technological progress, the flimsy brush hut of the hunter-gatherer gave way to more durable construction elements. This was followed by a shift to cost efficient quadrilateral elements in tandem with the appearance of sedentary communities, at which time with the rise of social complexity, communal architectural endeavours become increasingly frequent.

In many respects this approach is simplistic, being based on 'idealized' optimization and, rather than explicating the archaeological material, merely confuses the matter by imposing itself on the data. Thus the physical structure of the house is viewed simply as a dwelling. with few if any further connotations (but see Boyd 1995; Watkins 1996; Valla 1990). As a cautionary note, it should perhaps be remembered that amongst many recent hunter-gatherer groups (e.g. the Kalahari San) the physical 'hut', though simply constructed of readily available, perishable materials, nevertheless serves to cordon off and demarcate private space at the level of the nuclear family or individual (Yellen 1977). The vast majority of family and individual activities are conducted outside the confines of the hut itself, whether around the exterior hearth or elsewhere on-site. This includes clearly mundane subsistence activities that are often messy, as well as more social activities including sleeping. Inasmuch as the hut is actually used, it serves more for storing equipment, and only occasionally is occupied during inclement weather. Even in the most ephemeral San occupations, 'symbolic' huts/shelters are nevertheless made to demarcate the private domain of the residential unit, whether or not the hut itself is actually occupied or even used (Yellen 1977:87).

One has to bear in mind that architecture ultimately reflects and denotes social organization and the manner in which it is imposed upon space. As such, it reflects elements of the ideological outlook ofthe particular society. Though indeed the following is a special case, it is a sobering example to il lustrate the above; for the Tambenna, who live in northern Togo, anthropomorphism is one of the most important concerns of building design, decoration, symbolism and use (Preston-Blier 1986). Their houses parallel the human body to the extreme, in that it has a mouth [doorway], teeth

76

[grinding stones!] eyes [windows], a vagina [the woman's bedroom], penis [drainpipe!], etc. The house requires nourishment (at the foundation laying) and it also has sponsoring ancestors, deities and spirits. 'Home' is thus perceived as an integral part of the family, defining and maintaining the well-being of each member.

All of these caveats to traditional archaeological thinking should be considered when dealing with the vestiges of human architecture, even from its very beginnings. Yet, very little can be added to the discussion of its meaning, as most Levantine architectural remains prior to the Natufian are scanty and sporadic. It is only with the Natufian that we can try and reconsider the available data along lines that differ from the traditional interpretations that prevailed in the recent past.

The Natufian provides for the first time in the Levant solid evidence for incipient sedentism, including intensive architectural activities in its base-camps. Commonly these have been interpreted as representing a 'proto-village/hamlet', with simple domestic dwellings and related out-door activity areas (i.e. built hearths, graves, storage facilities, etc.). Yet the widely accepted conjecture of a Natufian base-camp representing the beginnings of agricultural settlements derives from a retrospective paradigm, in the sense of searching for the predecessors of the 'classic' Near Eastern village (e.g. Garfmkel and Ben-Shlomo 2002). Thus we find ourselves lumping all structures, whether they are 1.5-2.0 min dian1eter as well as those 15 m in diameter, into the category of simple domestic dwellings.

However, as data have accumulated, it is obvious that this undifferentiated approach does not suffice to encompass the wide range of the preserved architectural vestiges. lt seems to us that perhaps it is time to change the basic concepts (i.e. the Natufian base-camp as the nascent Neolithic village) and approach the Natufian, its social organization and its material correlates from a different perspective. We need to remember that this was a society in change, adapting to new and different circumstances. Rather we should view this cultural complex in terms of novel, experimental attempts, some more successful than others, to accommodate the stresses and strains of larger community sizes (scalar stress) together with initial sedentism (staying together for longer spells of time). This was an on-going process, with marked differences observed between the earlier and later stages of the Natufian. To be more specific, we disagree with Byrd (2000) who sees a continuity of nuclear households from the Natufian through the PPNB. At the same time it seems to us that Flannery's ( 1972) assertion that the Natufian base camp represents the dwellings of individuals as opposed to nuclear family houses during the PPNB also does not reflect the currently available data, particularly during the early Natufian but also for the late Natufian. Claims as to Natufian matrilocal residence patterns should be treated with extreme caution (see Henry 1989), as we feel that direct archaeological data are too scanty, while ethnographic evidence is equivocal.

So, what does the nature of Natufian architecture and the changes it underwent imply? In a preliminary manner, and

N. Goring-Morris. A. Belfer -Cohen· Structures and Dwellings in the Upper and Epi-palaeolithic ...

notwithstanding the systematic work that is still necessary, we nevertheless want to raise and speculate along the following lines, from a different perspective than that which has been widely employed:

Many Natufian structures were clearly either too large or too small for mundane habitation purposes, in contrast to earlier Epipalaeolithic manifestations (and see above). This is particularly evident during the Early Natufian, when the consistent pattern of larger structures can be explained only through the notion of a unique 'grand' ideological/cosmic concept at the community level. At the same time its scale indicates a high level of co-operation and organization in both planning and execution. As an illustration, the probable presence of at least three coeval large structures at Wadi Hammeh 27, as well as successive early Natufian large structures at E ynan (Loci 51, 131, 62, and perhaps another large structure at el-Wad) may be taken to indicate that domicile (if at all) may at least sometimes have been based on criteria other than nuclear families or individuals (i.e. extended families, gender, age, cohorts, moieties, etc.). In this context it is worth recaJiing that even a modest rise in community/group size at the beginning oftheNatufian would have created greater complexity on many levels, together with the need to confront and deflect the ' scalar stress' that would have ensued (see Johnson 1982, 1983). It should be emphasized that 'scalar stress' is incremental and has little to do with absolute numbers per se. Indeed, it has been suggested that 'scalar stress' is relevant to groups with more than seven to nine adult individuals who are responsible for the group's decisions.

Thus, in contrast to earlier mobile forager groups/bands, which seemingly averaged 3-4 nuclear families, the Early Natufian phenomenon actuaJiy represents a problematic combination of 'scalar stress' resulting from slightly larger community sizes (perhaps 5-l 0 families?), plus the 'fallout' from scdentism, i.e. staying together for longer spells of time in groups that are larger than the average nuclear/ extended family. Potential mechanisms for relieving scalar stress include extraneous symbolic behaviours (intensive communal rituals which can be claimed to have been practiced during the Natufian through the presence of associated material manifestations, e.g. monoliths, artistic items, on-site funerary practices, etc.). Over time, as later and terminal Natufian communities reverted to more mobile adaptations (Goring-Morris and Belfer-Cohen 1997) (leading to a reduction in scalar stress) some of these ritual behaviours were modified, the focus probably shifting to burial practices in the Mediterranean core-area, when funerals may have functioned as major occasions for aggregation, serving a focal point of rituals intended to strengthen the sense of unity and identity of any specific group (Kuijt 1996; Grosman 2002). This may provide yet another explanation for the differences observed already by Garrod (1957) between the earlier and later Natufian as regards artistic activities. At the same time, the marked diminution ofNatufian dwellings also reflects major changes in social structure, from larger residential units to nuclear family units during the course of the Natufian in the core area.

77

Results of current research rather indicate that the Natufian phenomenon should be viewed more in terms of a fluid and flexible mosaic evolution through time and space, with different paces in different places. Though broadly similar, a significant distinction exists as to how matters were handled in the Mediterranean compared to the semi-arid zones. One of the main (and obvious) reasons lies in the apparently different economic bases of the groups inhabiting those areas. Undoubtedly variability in mobility patterns needs to be taken into account, all of which most probably influenced and at the same time were reflected in the differences observed in the architectural remains.

The onset of the Pre-Pottery Neolithic A (ca. 10,000 BP) in the Levant displays considerable regional variability, with a bipartite division between the south/central and northern Levant. This is reflected by the continuity of small nuclear family dwellings, e.g. Nahal Oren IT, Iraq ed-Dubb, Abu Madi I (Stekelis and Yizraely 1963; Kuijt et a/.1992; Bar-Yosef 1991 b) or extended family dwellings, e.g. Gilgal, Netiv Hagdud, Jericho, Hatoula, Dhra, etc. (Bar-Yosef et al. in prep.; Bar-Yosef and Gopher 1997; Kenyon and Holland 1983; Lechevallier and Ronen 1994; Kuijt and Mahasneh 1998; Kuijt and Finlayson 2001) in the south, which are accompanied by occasional community structures or precincts in the largest settlements, i.e. Jericho tower and walls (Kenyon and Holland 1983; Bar-Yosef 1986; Ronen and Adler 200 I). ln the northern Levantine arc, from the Euphrates across to the Tigris, recent evidence indicates the appearance of small surface nuclear family dwellings grouped around semi-subterranean, kiva-like community structures (serving extended families?), e.g. Jerf e1-Ahmar, Mureybet, Qermez Dere and Nemrik (Stordeur eta/. 2001; Cauvin 2000; Watkins 1996; Kozlowski 1990, 1992; Peasnall 2000). These in many ways presage similar structures and precincts in the settlements to follow, such as Nevali Cori and Cayonu (Hauptman 1993, 1997, 1999; Ozdogan 1999), or in separate ritual sites such as Gobekli Tepe (Schmidt 1999, 2001).

SUMMARY

In evaluating the architectural endeavours in the Levant prior to the Neolithic, we should bear in mind that such first steps were largely experimental and did not necessarily evolve in a simple unilinear manner. Increasing permanency of occupation involved greater investment in the spatial organization of activities within sites, including more durable construction. Thus the physical remains reflect combinations of the social, economic and cosmological attitudes of the inhabitants at both the individual and group levels.

We have to take into consideration shifts towards permanency, staying put in time and space, sharing space with others, etc. It is tempting to tie in the unique architectural features tl1at portray complexity with the particularistic character ofNatufian society, oflarger group sizes and sedentism. But we do not know implicitly which can1e first - social complexity, the rise in community (as


opposed to overall population) numbers, or sedentism. Just as an illustration, if sedentism involved specialization and intensification of food production, then the appearance of surplus may have played an important role in the shift from the public to the private (Hayden 1990), which is the case in the post-Natufian PPNA, a trend that had undoubtedly some bearing on the nature of the architectural precepts of the inhabitants. Surplus may tie in the function of storage and, indeed, some researchers sought storage facilities in Natufian base camps, though with modest success (and see Henry 1989). Surplus is considered to be one of the prime movers in differentiating society into 'winners' and 'losers', with implications on the scope of domestic and public edifices.

It is quite frustrating to admit that we cannot claim to understand the organization and nature of Natufian camps and the specific roles played by individual structures for their inhabitants. Still, we believe much progress can be made by becoming more aware that the Natufian was not simply a mere stage en route to becoming 'us'. Even if fmally things happened this way, it was not pre-planned. As in other spheres of prehistoric research, so also in the architectural domain we should become cognizant that such endeavours of prehistoric societies portray more than simple attempts at building shelter from the elements. The Natufians, just like their forebears, were not simply the clever piglets improving their building skills, while protecting themselves from the big, bad 'weather' wolf ... Fairy tales should stay strictly in that realm and not find their way into interpretations of prehistoric phenomena.

Nigel GORING-MORRIS & Anna BELFER-COHEN Department of Prehistory, Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University, Jerusalem 91905, ISRAEL. [email protected] [email protected]

Bibliography

BAR-YOSEF, 0., 1970, The Epi-Palaeolithic Cultures of Palestine. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, Hebrew University, Jerusalem.

BAR-YOSEF, 0., 1975, Les Gisements "Kebarien Geometrique A" d'Haon, Vallee du Jourdain, Israel. Bulletin de Ia Socieu! Prehistorique Franr,:aise 72, p. I 0-14.

BAR-YOSEF, 0., 1986, The Walls of Jericho: An Alternative Explanation. Current Anthropology 27, p. 157-162.

BAR-YOSEF, 0 ., 199 J a, The Archaeology of the Natufian Layer at Hayonim Cave. In The Natuflan Culture in the Levant, edited by 0. Bar-Yosef & F. R. Valla. Ann Arbor: International Monographs in Prehistory, p. 81-92.

BAR-YOSEF, 0., 1991 b, The Early Neolithic of the Levant: Recent advances. The Review of Archaeology 12(2), p. 1-18.

BAR-YOSEF, 0., 1998, The Natufian Culture in the Levant, threshold to the origins of agriculture. Evolution01y Anthropology 6, p. 59-177.

BAR-YOSEF, 0., ARNOLD, M., MERCIER, N., BELFERCOHEN, A., GOLDBERG, P., HOUSLEY, R., LAVILLE, H.,

78

MEIGNEN, L., VOGEL, J.C., & VANDERMEERSCH, B., 1996, The dating of the Upper Palaeolithic layers in Kebara Cave, Mt. Carmel. Journal of Archaeological Science 23, p. 297-306.

BAR-YOSEF, 0., & BELFER, A., 1977, The Lagaman Industry. In Prehistoric Investigations in Gebel Maghara, Northern Sinai, edited by 0. Bar-Yosef & J. L. Phillips. Jerusalem: Qedem 7, Monographs of the Institute of Archaeology, p. 42-84.

BAR-YOSEF, 0., & GOPHER, A. (editors), 1997, An Early Neolithic Village in the Jordan Valley. Part I: The Archaeology of Netiv Hagdud. Cambridge: Peabody Museum 43, Harvard University.

BAR-YOSEF, 0., & GORING-MORRIS, A.N., 1977, Geometric Kebaran A Occurrences. In Prehistoric Investigations in Gebel Maghara, Northern Sinai, edited by 0. Bar-Yosef & J. L. Phillips, Jerusalem: Qedem 7, Monographs of the Institute of Archaeology, p. 115-148.

BAR-YOSEF, 0., & MARTIN, G., 1981 , Le probleme de Ia "sortie des grottes" au Natoufien. Bulletin de Ia Societe Prehistorique Franr,:aise 78, p. 187-192.

BECKER, M.S., in press, Spatial Patterning in the Upper Palaeolithic: A Perspective from the Abu Noshra Sites. Tn The Upper Palaeolithic in the Near East: Recent Advances, edited by A. N. Goring-Morris and A. Belfer-Cohen. Oxford: Oxbow.

BELFER-COHEN, A., 1980, The Aurignacian at Hayonim Cave. Unpubl ished MA Thesis (Hebrew). Jerusalem: Hebrew University.

BELFER-COHEN, A., 1990, The Natufian Graveyard in Hayonim Cave. Pateorient 14(2), p. 297-308.

BELFER-COHEN, A., 1988b, The Natufian Settlement at Hayonim Cave: A Hunter-gatherer Band on the Threshold of Agriculture. Unpublished Pb.D. Thesis. Jerusalem: Hebrew University.

BELFER-COHEN, A., & BAR-YOSEF, 0., 1981 , The Aurignacian in Hayonim Cave. Pateorient7(2), p. 19-42.

BELFER-COHEN, A., & BAR-YOSEF, 0., 2000, Early Sedentism in the Near East- A Bumpy Ride to Village Life. In Life in Neolithic Farming Communities. Social Organization, Identity, and Differentiation, edited by I. Kuijt. New York.:Kluwer Academic/Plenum, p. 19-38.

BETTS, A. (editor), 1998, The Harra and the Hamad. Excavations and Surveys in Eastern Jordan, Volume f. Sheffield: Sheffield Archaeological Monographs 9.

BOYD, B., 1995, House and Hearths, Pits and Burials: Natufian Mortuary Practices at Mallaha (Eynan), Upper Jordan Valley. In The Archaeology ofDeath in the Ancient Near East, edited by S. Campbell & A. Green, Oxford: Oxbow, p. 17-23.

BYRD, B. F., 2000, Households in Transition: Neolithic Social Organization Within Southwest Asia 1n Life in Neolithic Farming Communities. Social Organization, Identity. and Differentiation, edited by I. Kuijt. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum, p. 63-98.

CAUVTN, J., 2000, The Beginnings of Agriculture in the Near East: A Symbolic !rJte1pretation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

CO INMAN, N.R., 2000, The Upper Paleolithic in the Wadi al-Hasa. In The Archaeology of the Wadi al-Hasa, West-Central Jordan, Vol. 2: Excavations at Middle, Upper and Epipaleolfthic Site, edited by N.R. Coirunan. Tempe, AZ: Arizona State University Anthropological Research Papers No. 52, p. 143- 159.

EDWARDS, P.C., 1991, Wadi Hanuneh 27: An Early Natufian Site at Pella, Jordan. In The Natufian Culture in the Levant, edited by 0. Bar-Yosef & F.R. Valla. Ann Arbor: International Monographs in Prehistory, p. 123-148.


EDWARDS, P.C., 1993, Final Excavations at the Natufian Site Wadi Hammeh 27. In The Eleventh and 1\velfth Seasons of Excavations at Pella (Tabaqat Fahl) 1989-1990 (by A.G. Walmsley, P.G. Macumber, P.C. Edwards, S.J. Bourke, & P.M. Watson). Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 27, p. 165-239.

FLANNERY, K. V., 1972, The Origins of the Village as a Settlement Type in Mesoamerica and the Near East: A Comparative Study. In Man, Seulement, and Urbanism, edited by P.J. Ucko, R. Tringham & G.W. Dimbleby. London: Duckworth, p. 23-53.

GAMBLE, C., 1999, The Palaeolithic Societies of Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

GARFINKEL, Y. & BEN-SHLOMO, D. 2002, Sha'ar Hagolan Architecture in its Near Eastern Context [n Sha 'ar Hagolan I. Neolithic Art in Context, edited by Y. Garfinkel & M.A. Miller, pp. 71-84. Oxbow, Oxford.

GARRARD, A.N., 1998, Environment and Cultural Adaptations in the Azraq Basin: 24,000-7,000 BP. In The Prehistoric Archaeology of Jordan, edited by D.O. Henry. Oxford: BAR International Series 705, p. 139-148.

GARRARD, A.N., & BYRD, B.F., 1992 New Dimensions to the Epipalaeolithic of the Wadi Jilat in Central Jordan. Paleorient 18(1), p. 47-62.

GARROD, D.A.E., 1957, The Natufian Culture: The life and economy of a Mesolithic people in the Near East Proceedings of the British Academy 43, p. 211-227.

GILEAD, I. , 1981, Upper Palaeolithic in Sinai and the Negev: Sites in Gebel Maghara, Qadesh Barnea and Nahal Zin. Unpublished PhD Thesis, Jerusalem: Hebrew University.

GILEAD, I., & BAR-YOSEF, 0., 1993, Early Upper Paleolithic Sites in the Kadesh Barnea area, northeastern Sinai. Journal of Field Archaeology 20, p. 265-280.

GOLDBERG, P., in press, Some Observations on Middle and Upper Palaeolithic Ashy Cave and Rockshelter Deposits in the Near East, edited by A. N. Goring-Morris & A. Belfer-Cohen. Oxford: Oxbow.

GORING-MORRIS, A.N ., J 987, At the Edge: Terminal Pleistocene Hunter-Gatherers in the Negev and Sinai. Oxford: BAR International Series 361.

GORING-MORRJS, A.N., 1988, Trends in the Spatial Organization ofTerminal Pleistocene Hunter-Gatherer Occupations as Viewed from the Negev and Sinai. Paleorient 14(2), p. 231-243.

GORING-MORRJS, A.N., 1991, The Harifian of the Southern Levant In The Natufian Culture in the Levant, edited by 0. BarYosef & F.R. Valla. Ann Arbor: International Monographs in Prehistory, p. 173-234.

GORING-MORRJS, A.N., 1995, Complex Hunter-Gatherers at the End of the Paleolithic (20,000-10,000 BP). In The Archaeology of Society in the Holy Land, edited by T.E. Levy. London: Leicester University Press, p. 141-168.

GORING-MORRJS, A.N., 1996, The Early Natufian Occupation at el-Wad, Mt. Carmel, Reconsidered In Nature et Culture, edited by M. Ottc. Liege: ERAUL 68, p. 417-428.

GORING-MORRIS, A.N., 1998, Mobiliary Art from the Late Epipalaeolithic of the Negev, Israel. Rock Art Research 15(2), p. 81-88.

GORING-MORRJS, A.N., & BELFER-COHEN, A., 1997, The Articulation of Cu ltural Processes and Late Quaternary Environmental Changes in Cisjordan. Pateorient 23(2), p. 71-93.

GORING-MORRIS, A.N., GOLDBERG, P. , GOREN, Y., BARUCH, U., & BAR-YOSEF, D., 1999, Satlulim: A Late Natufian Base Camp in the Central Negev Highlands, Israel. Palestine Exploration Quarterly J 31(1), p.l-29.

79

GROSMAN, L., 2002, Nahal Hilazort Paper presented at the Annual Meeting oft he Society of American Archaeology (SAA), Denver.

HAUPTMANN, H., 1993, Ein kultgebaude in Nevali Cori. In Between the Rivers and Over the Mountains: Archaeologica Anatolica et Mesopotamia. Alba Palmieri Dedicata, edited by M. Frangipane, H. Hauptman, M. Liverani, P. Matthiae & M. Mellink. Rome: Universita Degli Studi Di Roma "La Sapienza", p. 37-69.

HAUPTMANN, H., 1997, Nevali Cori. TnArchaeologyintheNear East (VolA), edited by E. M. Meyers. Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 131- 134.

HAUPTMANN, H., 1999, The Urfa Region. In Neolithic in Turkey. The Cradle of Civilization I New Discoveries, edited by M. Ozdogan & N. Basgelen. Istanbul: Arkeologie ve Sanat Yayinlari, p. 65-86.

HAYDEN, B., 1990, Nimrods, piscators, pluckers, and planters: the emergence of food production. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 9(1), p. 31-69.

HENRY, D.O., 1976, Rosh Zin: A Natufian Settlement Near Ein Avdat In Prehist01y and Paleoenvironments in the Central Negev, Israel. The Al'dat/Aqev Area, Part I, edited by A. E. Marks. Dallas: SMU Press, p. 317-347.

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

HENRY, D.O., LEROI-GOURHAN, A., & DA VlS, S.J., 1981, The Excavation of Hayonim Terrace: An Examination of Terminal Pleistocene Climatic and Adaptive Changes. Journal of Archaeological Science 8, p. 33-58.

HIETALA, H., & MARKS, A.E., 1981 , Changes in Spatial Organization at the Middle to Upper Paleolithic Transitional Site ofBoker Tachtit, Central Negev, Israel. In Prehistoire du Levant, edited by P. Sanlaville & J. Cauvin. Lyon: CNRS, p. 305-318.

JOHNSON, G.A., 1982, Organizational Structure and Scalar Stress. In Theory and Explanation in Archaeology, edited by C.A. Renfrew, M.J. Rowlands & B.A. Segraves. London: Academic Press, p. 389-421.

JOHNSON, G.A., I 983, Decision-Making Organization and Pastoral Nomad Camp Size. Human Ecology ll (2), p. 175-199.

KAUFMAN, D., 1989, Observations on the Geometric Kebaran: A View from Neve David In Investigations in South Levantine Prehist01y, edited by 0. Bar-Yosef & B. Vandermeersch. Oxford: BAR International Series 497, p. 275-286

KAUFMAN, D., & RONEN, A., l 987, La Sepulture Kebarienne Geometrique de Neve-David, Haifa, Israel. L 'Anthropologie 91(1), p. 335-342.

KENYON, K.M., & HOLLAND, T.A. (editors), 1983,Jericho V. London: British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem.

KINGERY, D.W., VANDIVER, P.B., & PICKETT, M., 1988, The Beginnings of Pyrotecbnology, Part n: Production and Use of Lime and Gypsum Plaster in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic Near East. Journal of Field Archaeology 15, p. 219-244.

KOZLOWSKI, S.K. (editor), 1990, Nernrik 9: Pre-Pottety Neolithic Site in Iraq (General Report- Seasons 1985-1986). Warsaw: Wydawnicta Uniwesyteru Warsawskiego.

KOZLOWSKI, S.K. (editor), J992,Nemrik 9, Pre-Pouery Neolithic Site in Iraq, Volume 2. Warsaw: Wydawnicta Uniwesytetu Warsawskiego.

KUHN, S.L., STTNER, M.C., KERRY, K.W., & GULEC, E., in press, The Early Upper Palaeolithic at Ucagizli Cave (Ratay, Thrkey): Preliminary Results. In The Upper Palaeolithic in the Near East: Recent Advances, edited by A.N. Goring-Morris & A. Belfer-Cohen. Oxford: Oxbow.

·-


KUIIT, 1, 1996, Negotiating equality through ritual: A consideration of Late Natufian and Pre-Pottery Neolithic A period mortuary practices. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 15, p. 313-336.

KUIJT, I., & FINLAYSON, B., 2001 , The 2001 excavation season at the Pre-Pottery Neolithic A period settlement ofDhra', Jordan: preliminary results. Neo-Lithics 2/0 I, p.12-15

KUJJT, L, & MUHASANEH, H., 1998, Dhra: An Early Neolithic village in the southern Jordan Valley. Journal of Field Archaeology 25, p. 153-161.

KUIJT, 1., PALUMBO, G., & MABRY, J. , 199, Report on the 1990 excavations of 'Iraq ed-Dubb, Jordan. American Journal of Archaeology 96, p. 507-508.

LECHEVALLTER, M., & RONEN, A., 1994, Le Gisement de Hatoula en Judee Occidentale, Israel. Paris: Association Paleorient.

LEE, R. B., 1979, The !Kung San: Men, Women, and Work in a Foraging Society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

MARKS, A.E., 1983, The Sites ofBoqer Tach tit and Boqer: A Brief Introduction. Tn Prehistory and Paleoenvironments in the Central Negev, Israel. Volume m. The Avdat/Aqev Area. Part 3, edited by A.E. Marks. Dallas: SMU Press, p. 15-37.

MARKS, A.E., & LARSON, P.A., 1977, Test Excavations at the Natufian Site of Rosh Horesha. In Prehistory and Paleoenvironments in the Central Negev, Israel. Volume II The Avdat/Aqev Area, Part 2, and the Har Harif, edited by A.E. Marks. Dallas: SMU Press, p. 191-232.

MARTIN, L., 1994, Hunting and Herding in a Semi-arid region: An Archaeological and Ethological Study of the Faunal Remains from the Epipalaeolithic and Neolithic of Eastern Jordan. Unpublished PhD Thesis, Sheffield: University of Sheffield.

MEIGNEN, L., BAR-YOSEF, 0., & GOLDBERG, P., 1989, Les Structures de Combustion Mousteriennes de Ia Grotte de Kebara (Mont Carmel, Israel). In Mbnoires du Musee de Prehistoire d 'lie de France, edited by M. Olive & Y. Taborin, p. 141-146.

MUHEISEN, M., 1990, Le Gisement de Kharaneh TV. Note Sommaire de Ia Phase D. Paleorient 14(2), p. 265-269.

NADEL, D., 1996, The Organization of Space in a Fisher-HunterGatherers Camp at ObaJo II, Israel. In Nature at Culture, edited by M. Otte. Liege: ERAUL 68, p. 373-388

NADEL, D., & WERKER, E., 1999, The Oldest Ever Brush Hut Plaut Remains from Ohalo II, Jordan Valley, Israel {19,000 BP). Antiquity 73(282), p. 755- 764.

NOY, T., 1989, Some Aspects ofNatnfian Mortuary Behaviour at Nahal Oren. In People and Culture in Change, edited by J. Hershkovitz. Oxford: BAR International Series 508(i), p. 53-57.

NOY. T., I 991, Art and Decoration of the Natufian at Nahal Oren. In The Natufian Culture in the Levant, edited by 0. Bar-Yosef & F.R. Valla. Ann Arbor: International Monographs in Prehistory, p. 557-568.

NOY, T., LEGGE, AJ., &HIGGS, E.S., 1973, Recent Excavations at Nahal Oren, Israel. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 39, p. 75-99.

OZDOGAN, A., 1999, Cayonu. In Neolithic in Turkey. The Cradle of Civilization I New Discoveries, edited by M. Ozdogan & N. Basgelen. Istanbul: Arkeologie ve Sanat Yayinlari, p. 35-63.

PEASNALL, B.L., 2000, The Round House Horizon Along the Taurus-Zagros Arc: A Synthesis of Recent Excavations of Late Epipaleolithic and early A ceramic Sites in Southeastern Anatolia and Northeastern Iraq. Ph.D. Thesis, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania.

80

PERROT, J., 1966, Les Gisement Natoufien de Mallaha (Eynan), Israel. L 'Anthropologie 70(5-6), p. 437-483.

PERROT, J., & LADIRAY, D., 1988, Les Hommes de Mal/aha (Eynan), Israel. Paris: Memoires et Travaux du Centre de Recherche Frans:aise de Jerusalem No 7, Association Paleorient.

PHILLIPS, J.L., 1990, The Upper Paleolithic of the Wadi Feiran, Southern Sinai. Paleorient 14(2), p.l83-199.

PRESTON-BLIER, S., 1986, 'Houses are Human' : Architectural Self-Image of Africa's Tamberma In Art and Reality. A Casebook of Concern, edited by R. Blaser & R. Dunham. Vancover: Talonbooks, p. 53-71.

ROLSTON, S.L., 1982, Two prehistoric burials from Qasr Kharaneh. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of J01dan 26, p. 221-229.

RONEN, A., & ADLER, D., 2001 , The Walls of Jericho Were Magical. Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 2(6), p. 97-103.

SAXON, E.C., MARTIN, G., & BAR-YOSEF, 0., 1978, Nahal Hadera V: An Open-Air Site on the Israeli Littoral. Paleorient4, p. 253-265.

SCHMIDT, K., 1999, Boars, ducks and foxes - The Urfa Project 99. Neo-Lithics 3/99, p. 12-15.

SCHMIDT, K., 2001, Gobekli Tepe and the Early Neol ithic sites of the Urfa region: a synopsis of new results and current views. Neo-Lithics 1101, p. 9-1 1.

STEKEUS, M., & BAR-YOSEF, 0., 1965, Un Habitat du Paleolithique Superieur a Ein Guev (Israel). Note Pre1iminaire. L 'Anthropologie 69(1 -2), p. 176-183.

STEKELIS, M., & YTZRAEL~ T., 1963, Excavations at Nahal Oren. Israel Exp/orationJouma/13(1), p. 1-12.

STORDEUR, D., BRENET, M., DER APRAHAMIAN, D., & ROUX, J.-C., 200 I, Les Batiments CommunautaiJ·es de Jerf eiAhmar et Mureybet Horizon PPNA (Syrie). Pateorient 26( I), p. 29-44.

TCHERNOV, E., 1984, Commensal Animals and Human Sedentism in the Middle East. In Animals in Archaeology 3. Early Herders and Their Flocks, edited by J. Clutton-Brock & C. Grigson. Oxford: BAR International Series 202, p. 91-115.

TCHERNOV, E., 1991 , OfMice and Men. Biological Markers for Long-Term Sedentism: A Reply. Paleorient 17( 1 ), p. 153-158.

VALLA, F.R., 1986, Des nouvelles structures sur Ia Terrrasse d'Hayonim. Mitekufat Haeven 19, p. 90-92.

VALLA, F.R., 1990, Aspects de Sol de L'Abri 131 de Mallaha (Eynan). Pa/eorient 14(2), p. 283-296.

VALLA,F.R., MORT, F.L., & PLISSON, H., 199l , LesFouilles en Cours sur Ia Terrasse d'Hayonim. In The Natufian Culture in the Levant, edited by 0. Bar-Yosef & F.R. Valla. Ann Arbor: International Monographs in Prehistory, p. 93-110.

VALLA, F.R. , PUSSON, H., & BUXO, R., 1989, Notes Pre1iminaires sur les Fouilles en Cours sur Ia Terraced'Hayonim. Paleorient 15(1), p. 245-257.

VALLA, F.R., KHALAILY, H., SAMUELIN, N., MARCH, R., BOCQUENTIN, F., VALENTIN, B. , MARDER, 0., RABINOVICH, R., LE DOSSEUR, G., DUBREUIL, L., & BELFER-COHEN, A., 2001 , Le Natoufien Final de Mallaha (Eynan), Deuxieme Rapport Prelimina.ire: Les Fouilles de 1998 et 1999. Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society - Mitekufat Haeven 31, p. 43-184.

WADLEY, L., 200 I, What is Cultural Modernity? A Central View and a South African Perspective from Rose Cottage Cave. Cambridge Archaeological Journal I! (2), p. 201-221.

.. N. Goring-Morris, A. Belfer-Cohen: Structures and Dwellings in the Upper and Epi-palaeolithic ...

WATK1NS, T.F., 1990, The Origins of House and Home? World Archaeology 21 (3), p. 336-347.

WATK1NS, T.F., 1992, The Beginning of the Neolithic: Searching for Meaning in Material Culture Change. Pa/eorient 18( I), p. 63-75.

WATKINS, T.F. , 1996, The Origins of Households in North Mesopotamia. [n 4(J~ Rencontre Assyriologique Intemationale,

81

edited by K.R. Veenhof. Leiden: Nederlands HistorischArchaeologisch Institude Te Istanbul, p. 79-87.

WElNSTErN-EVRON, M., 1998, Early Natufian £/-Wad Revisited. Liege: ERAUL 77.

YELLEN, J.E., 1977, Archaeological Approaches to the Present: Models for Reconstructing the Past. New York: Academic Press.

. ..

Upper Palaeolithic & Epipalaeolithic Structures

Documents

Transcript of Upper Palaeolithic & Epipalaeolithic Structures