See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/224005936

The Pre-Natufian Epipaleolithic: Long-term Behavioral Trends in the Levant

Article  in  Evolutionary Anthropology Issues News and Reviews · March 2012

DOI: 10.1002/evan.21307 · Source: PubMed

CITATIONS READS
87 704

3 authors, including:

Jay T Stock
The University of Western Ontario
233 PUBLICATIONS   4,729 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Reconstruction of hominin posture View project

The ADaPt Project: Adaptation, Dispersals and Phenotype View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Jay T Stock on 04 August 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Evolutionary Anthropology 21:69–81 (2012)

ARTICLE

The Pre-Natufian Epipaleolithic: Long-Term

Behavioral Trends in the Levant
LISA A. MAHER, TOBIAS RICHTER, AND JAY T. STOCK

Few cultural developments have taken on as much archeological significance as EP, c. 23,000-14,500 cal BP) to rein-
when people began living in villages and producing their own food. The economic, force the interpretation that many of
social, technological, and ideological transformations immediately preceding and the archeological features used to
following these changes were profound. Early models of culture change associ- distinguish the Natufian and Neo-
ated with pre-agricultural societies of the Levant focused on the sudden, late origin lithic represent long-term trends in
of settled farming villages triggered by climate change. Accompanying this new culture change, and thus, reflect con-
economic and living situation was durable stone-built architecture; intensified plant tinuity in the archeological record.
and animal use; a flourishing of art and decoration; new mortuary traditions, We begin with a brief overview of
including marked graves and cemeteries; elaborate ritual and symbolic behavior— paleoenvironmental conditions pre-
a new way of life. This new life style arguably had a slow start, but really took off vailing during the 10,000 years or
during the Epipaleolithic period (EP), spanning more than 10,000 years of Levan- so of the EP, since these changing
tine prehistory from c. 23,000-11,500 cal BP. The last EP phase, immediately pre- environmental conditions likely con-
ceding the Neolithic, is by far the best-studied in terms of its cultural and economic tributed to changing behaviors of Le-
contributions to questions on the origins of agriculture.1–4 Recently, archeologists vantine hunter-gatherers. We then
have considered the earlier parts of the EP to be more culturally dynamic and simi- present an introduction to the EP
lar to the later phase (Natufian) than was previously thought.3–10 The earlier EP is before considering particular aspects
increasingly seen as demonstrating the behavioral variability and innovations that of material culture. Examination of
help us to understand the economic, technological, and social changes associated the activities, diet, mobility and skele-
with complex hunter-gatherers of the Natufian and farmers of the Neolithic. This tal biology of Early and Middle EP
paper traces the cultural and biological developments of the EP period leading up groups sheds light on whether the
to the Natufian and considers the long-term trajectory of culture change, social cultural changes during the Early and
complexity, and village life in the Near East. Middle EP represent localized occur-
rences or evidence of more fundamen-
tal shifts in human behavior predating
Developing from previous papers fian and Twiss11 on the Neolithic, we the Natufian and the Neolithic. Recent
on other periods in the same region, combine previous and new research research, in particular, significantly
namely by Bar-Yosef1 on the Natu- on the earlier EP (Early and Middle enhances our understanding of
changes in economy, technology, set-
tlement, and society that influenced
Lisa A. Maher is an Assistant Professor of Environmental Archaeology at the University of the emergence of socially complex
California, Berkeley. Her research interests are Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene hunter- hunter-gatherers and, in this case, the
gatherers and paleoenvironmental change in the Near East, North Africa, and Arabia.
Her current field work in Jordan focuses on the study of Epipaleolithic and Early Neolithic
origins of Neolithic society. The evi-
geoarcheology, mortuary archeology, and stone tools. Email: maher@berkeley.edu dence we present here emphasizes that
Tobias Richter is Assistant Professor of Near Eastern Archaeology at the University of the Early and Middle EP should be
Copenhagen. His research interests revolve around the transition from hunting and gather-
ing to farming in southwest Asia, situated learning theory, stone tool analysis, and land- considered as part of a broad cultural
scape archeology. He conducts field work in Jordan and Qatar. continuum with later Natufian and Ne-
Jay T. Stock is Senior Lecturer in Human Evolution and Development at the University of
Cambridge. His research is broadly concerned with the mechanisms controlling phenotypic
olithic groups, demonstrating a tem-
variation among Homo sapiens, with a particular focus on hunter-gatherer diversity and poral mosaic of cultural change that
adaptations, and the influence of behavioral transitions on human biology. extended for more than 10,000 years.
A long-term perspective on cultural
Key words: prehistoric archeology; Epipaleolithic; Near East; material culture; economy; technology developments in prehistory is shed-
ding new light on how we identify,
interpret, and trace the origins of dif-
V
C 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
DOI 10.1002/evan.21307
ferent behaviors in the archeological
Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com). record.12 For example, early work on
70 Maher et al. ARTICLE

human cognition, evolution, and the

beginnings of language focused on a
few sites and strong historical tradi-
tion to argue for a sudden, simultane-
ous, and recent origin of modern
human behavior, calling it the
‘‘human revolution.’’13 After more
sites had been excavated and the find-
ings placed in a wider biological and
archeological context, researchers
became increasingly aware that it was
‘‘the revolution that wasn’t.’’14 Individ-
ual features associated with modern-
ity originated at different times in the
archeological record. Rather than fo-
cusing on discontinuity or the sudden
occurrence of aspects of modern
human behavior, the focus has shifted
to understanding continuity and how
we infer long-term and nonlinear
trends in prehistory and assess their
significance in shaping our past. This
new focus is relevant to understand-
ing the transition from hunter-gather-
ers to farmers in the Near East.15

PALEOENVIRONMENT
The impact of paleoenvironmental
change on hunter-gatherers has long
been a concern of Levantine Late Pleis-
tocene research.16–19 The Levant covers
approximately 380,000 km2, arcing
along the entire eastern Mediterranean
coast and extending inland from south-
ern Turkey in the north, through east-
ern Jordan and Syria and back west-
wards to the Sinai Peninsula (Fig. 1). It
is characterized by an array of varying
landscapes, climates, and microenvir-
onments, and is arguably a major con-
Figure 1. Map of the southern Levant showing the locations of select sites discussed in the
tributing factor to the region’s accom-
text and the approximate paleoshorelines for the Mediterranean Sea, Red Sea, and
panying archeological diversity as pre- Dead Sea (dashed area). [Color figure can be viewed in the online issue, which is avail-
historic groups adapted to changes in able at wileyonlinelibrary.com.]
temperature, vegetation, wildlife, and
terrain over short distances. nously throughout the region20; local not supported by the archeological re-
Paleoenvironmental reconstructions datasets are invaluable for high-resolu- cord. Although, in our view, any direct
of the Levant generally focus on the tion, area-specific reconstructions but, links between climate and culture
beginnings and ends of major climatic taken together, generally agree with change remain tenuous, Figure 2
events, such as the Last Glacial Maxi- global data19; and that there is little presents globally and locally recog-
mum, Bølling-Allerød, and Younger direct correlation between climatic nized climatic events from 23,000 to
Dryas, and how they correlate with or events and the cultural changes they 11,500 cal BP and the approximate
caused major cultural changes in the are purported to have caused.18 While dates for major EP phases.
Late Pleistocene and Holocene. More there is no doubt that changing paleo-
recent synthetic studies provide vari- environmental conditions affected the DEFINING THE EPIPALEOLITHIC
ous lines of evidence to demonstrate activities of hunter-gatherers, a sim-
plistic cause-and-effect relationship is An original defining feature of the
that change did not occur synchro-
EP is the production of stone tools
from small blade blanks less than
5 mm in length, which served as eas-
ARTICLE
Figure 2. Cultural-chronological scheme for the EP of the southern Levant alongside
major climate events. The bars for each phase of the EP represent calibrated radiocar-
bon dates (black) along with associated errors (white). Data compiled from multiple
sources.19,20
ily replaceable parts hafted into com-
posite multi-purpose tools. Building
on and refining stone tool typologies
from North Africa,21,22 the founda-
tion for EP research in the Levant
was provided by O. Bar-Yosef23 in
his seminal work identifying and
defining EP cultures of the southern
Levant based on these tools and
other site features. Over several deca-
des, researchers have defined a vari-
ety of new stone tool industries and
cultural phases.17,23–25 This work has
led to an exhaustive but arguably
complicated picture of EP culture
history (Fig. 2). More recently,
researchers have taken a middle-
ground approach, acknowledging
that several distinct entities are eas-
ily recognizable in the archeological
record over space and time.26,27 For
the purposes of our discussion, these
can generally be divided into Early,
Middle, and Late EP phases.
In general, there is a shift from grac-
ile, narrow nongeometric microliths
(tools made on small blades less than
5 mm in length) in the Early EP (c. 22-
17.5 cal BP) to geometric forms, espe-
cially trapezes and rectangles, in the
Middle EP (c. 17.5-14.5 cal BP), and to
small arrowheads and crescent-shaped
microliths, called lunates, in the Late
EP (Fig. 2). While researchers gener-
ally agree when assigning lithic
assemblages to the plethora of defined
industries, debates over the social
implications of these various entities
persist.7,26,27 Many researchers solve
these conundrums by becoming either
splitters, emphasizing variability, or
lumpers, who focus on continuity and
interaction.7,28 While stone tool pro-
duction is clearly a learned process
that conveys inherent social meaning
and passes on a tradition of technique
and style, the key question that
remains is whether microlith tool
The Pre-Natufian Epipaleolithic 71
types really indicate social group iden-
tity and at what scale.7,26–28 At the
forefront of solving these debates will
be the integration of data provided by
analytical techniques, such as use-
wear and refitting studies, aimed
reconstructing technological knowl-
edge and choice, and theoretical
approaches that can meaningfully put
together patterns in the types of lithic
products, ways of making them, and
ways of using them.
SITE ORGANIZATION AND
SETTLEMENT PATTERNS
Our understanding of the distribu-
tion of Early and Middle EP sites is
hampered by the disparity of research
intensity in different subregions of
the Levant, as well as modern political
challenges to archeological field work.
Some areas, such as the Negev and
Sinai,24,29 Wadi el-Hasa,30,31 central
Jordan Valley,32,33 southern Jordan,25
Coastal Plain,23,34 and the Azraq Ba-
sin35,36 have been intensively sur-
veyed, while other areas, such as
much of Lebanon, the Syrian and
Turkish coasts, and western Syria,
remain virtually terrae incognitae. The
distribution of known sites, therefore,
reflects spatial and temporal snap-
shots where research has been carried
out rather than being a true, region-
wide representation of past settlement
patterns. Furthermore, because of
natural landscape changes and recent
human modification, an absence of
sites in one area may not necessarily
mean absence of occupation. So at
present, it is those areas that have
been intensively studied that contrib-
ute valuable preliminary interpreta-
tions of site distribution and organi-
zation, and settlement patterns.37–41
We hope that future research
throughout the region will provide a
more complete picture.
Early EP sites are generally found
in caves and open-air settings of the
Mediterranean zone and oases to the
south and east (Fig. 1). They are gen-
erally small, ranging from 15 m2 to
400 m2, with low artifact densities
and diversity, and are presumed to
represent seasonal camps. Traces of
structures, including floors, stone
foundations, pavements, and post-
holes, are rare and known from only
72 Maher et al.
Figure 3. Architectural and associated features from the Early EP sites of Ohalo II (A; redrawn43), Ein Gev I (B; redrawn43,112) and
Kharaneh IV (C). [Color figure can be viewed in the online issue, which is available at wileyonlinelibrary.com.]
a few sites. Perhaps the best-known
is Ohalo II (c. 23,000 cal BP), where
researchers discovered several brush
hut structures organized around out-
door hearths, with refuse collected
and dumped in apparently desig-
nated areas (Fig. 3).42,43 At Lagama
North VIII in the Negev24 and ‘Ein
Gev I23,44 and Haon45 in the Jordan
Valley, habitation structures are rec-
ognized at a series of stratified living
floors within semi-subterranean
depressions containing large quanti-
ties of flint and ground stone. At
Kharaneh IV, two oval structures,
each c. 1.5 x 2 m, are associated with
several caches of pierced and ochre-
stained marine shells, red ochre, flint
bladelets and cores, and burned ga-
zelle horn cores (Fig. 3).46
While small Kebaran campsites
are most common, other contempo-
rary seasonally occupied sites have
been identified in eastern and south-
ern Jordan, the Negev and Sinai, and
the Azraq Basin (Fig. 1).24,25,47–50
Large, dense, multi-season, and
multi-phase sites in eastern Jordan,
which have been interpreted as
aggregation sites, do not conform to
the model of small, dispersed camp-
sites.9,51 Jilat 6 and Kharaneh IV
both have typical Early and Middle
EP occupations, but also exhibit
some characteristics unknown else-
where. The El Kown area of south-
ern Lebanon documents several large
Kebaran settlements exhibiting the
remains of structure and a high level
of site organization.52,53 At these
sites, the presence of several phases
of occupation with living floors,
hearths, hut structures, burials, ma-
rine shells, worked bone and stone,
and extensive refuse deposits,51,54 are
very similar to some later Natufian
sites in density, organization, and
reoccupation evidence.
Geometric Kebaran sites of the
Middle EP exhibit the broadest geo-
graphical distribution of all Early
and Middle EP entities, with expan-
sion into the arid zones and high-
lands (Fig. 1); in some areas, they
overlap with other groups, suggest-
ing some form of direct interac-
tion.24,25 Middle EP sites vary
considerably in size and can include
very large encampments. Determin-
ing seasonality of use is extraordi-
narily difficult and based largely on
faunal and botanical remains.55
However, large sites contain dense,
diverse artifact assemblages and
show several episodes of reuse. For
example, along the Coastal Plain of
Israel, the Geometric Kebaran site of
Neve David displays a highly dense
and diverse material culture, as well
as burials, a possible stone wall, and
ARTICLE
distinct activity areas.56 At Kharaneh
IV, several superimposed Middle EP
phases are characterized by compact
living floors and associated hearths
and postholes.54 Alongside these
larger multi-occupation sites are
smaller specialized ones. Their small
horizontal and vertical extent, as well
as low artifact density and diversity,
suggest they were more specialized,
short-lived camps.17,32,34,40,57,58 These
findings suggest that duration of
occupation and site function were
quite varied.
In reconstructing hunter-gatherer
mobility or settlement intensity,
archeologists often rely on models
that incorporate radiating mobility
and circulating mobility.59 Radiating
mobility strategies involve regular
use of several small specialized
camps that radiate around a central,
more permanent base camp. Circu-
lating mobility involves more regular
relocation of the base camp itself.
While not mutually exclusive, the use
of radiating or circulating strategies
relates to degrees of sedentism and
frequencies of seasonal movements.
Some scholars have used these mod-
els to suggest a linear development of
settlement patterns toward increas-
ingly sedentary behaviors. Marks and
Friedel60 argued that Natufian sites in
the Negev and Sinai reflect a pattern
ARTICLE
of radiating mobility with increasing
sedentism while, in contrast, Early or
Middle EP sites exhibit circulating
settlement patterns due to more pre-
carious environmental conditions.
Arguing that radiating or circulating
models were too simplistic for the
patterns of site distributions docu-
mented in southern Jordan, Henry25
used movements of modern Bedouin
groups to suggest that seasonally
changing temperatures led to the use
of campsites at varying altitudes:
Large lowland sites were occupied
during the winter and small, ephem-
eral highland sites were occupied dur-
ing the warmer spring and summer
months. Conversely, Goring-Mor-
ris24,57 suggested a different scenario
for site distributions in the Sinai and
Negev, where sites with differing arti-
fact inventories reflect occupations of
different social groups, with some
groups occupying the same area.
However, changing climatic condi-
tions also influenced the activities of
these groups, as shown by the appear-
ance of specialized Harifian sites here
coinciding with the onset of the
Younger Dryas.18,24,61
Beyond issues of sample size, the
models presented thus far are some-
what problematic in that each fits
only the restricted dataset of a small
area. This begs the question of
whether ‘‘radiating’’ and ‘‘circulating’’
categories are too simplistic to
account for all manner of settlement
diversity during the EP. Ethnographic
studies of hunter-gatherers show that
a simple division of mobility into two
juxtaposed conditions does not reflect
the actual flexibility of individual
groups.62 Suggestions of linearity in
the development of sedentary behav-
iors seem equally problematic, as cir-
culating mobility was not simply
replaced by radiating or logistical mo-
bility. For the Early and Middle EP re-
cord, evidence increasingly shows
much greater variability in site type
and duration of occupation. Geomor-
phological and paleoethnobotanical
data from Ohalo II indicates that the
site was occupied at some point dur-
ing all parts of the year, if not contin-
uously throughout the year, and
repeatedly over several seasons each
time.63,64 Here, the relaying of hut
floors at least three times provides evi-
dence of prolonged maintenance of
these structures. The Early EP site of
Ohalo II is a reminder that defining
sites as occupied permanently, semi-
permanently, or temporarily is not
always clear-cut.
The oft-used but ill-defined and
tautological term ‘‘semi-permanent’’
highlights the problems archeologists
have had in clearly defining the set-
tlement dynamics of the EP. The
aggregation sites of eastern Jordan
illustrate the problems inherent in
the terms permanent or sedentary.
Jilat 6 and Kharaneh IV in the Azraq
Basin of eastern Jordan are both
multi-phased EP sites with high-reso-
lution occupational sequences and
very high concentrations of stratified
artifacts within them. These massive
sites (c. 1.9-2.1 ha) likely represent the
Some sites were
temporary campsites of
seasonally mobile
hunter-gatherers, while
others were clearly
much more substantial,
with evidence of
long-term reoccupation,
long-distance travel and
exchange, and
multi-season
occupation.
aggregation of several groups in a
single location where resources were
abundantly available.While the length
of each occupation remains unknown,
the density of material within individ-
ual phases suggests either very large
numbers of people during each short-
term season of occupation or much
longer-term occupation at any one
time. Furthermore, at least at Khara-
neh IV, analysis of the gazelle remains
suggests occupation at least during
the autumn and winter within each
phase.65
Unfortunately, comparatively little
is known about settlement patterns
in the north but, considering the
range of settlement and mobility
The Pre-Natufian Epipaleolithic 73
patterns already observed, it seems
that Early and Middle EP hunter-
gatherers took advantage of a wide
array of local and nonlocal resources
and ecological conditions. Repeated
and prolonged occupations at Ohalo
II and Kharaneh IV, for example,
show that existing mobility models
do not seem to provide satisfactory
explanations for their occurrence.
Increasingly detailed and new data
therefore call some of these models
into question.9 Some sites were tem-
porary campsites of seasonally mobile
hunter-gatherers, while others were
clearly much more substantial, with
evidence of long-term reoccupation,
long-distance travel and exchange, and
multi-season occupation.
TECHNOLOGIES
Conventionally, the onset of the EP
was defined by the emergence of vari-
ous formal types of backed bladelets
(microliths) which rapidly came to
dominate the tool assemblage.23,47
While it is clear that microlith produc-
tion began as early as 30,000 years ago,
the Early EP nevertheless documents a
focus on microlithic technologies and a
significant change in their shapes and
types of retouch.47 This somewhat sud-
den dominance of microliths may
imply a change in the ways that blade-
lets were mounted into composite tools
to increase tool-kit efficiency and
adaptability.66 Changes in hafting,
undoubtedly relating to function, and
the requirement of having an easily
maintainable, efficient tool kit67 were
likely responsible for the preponder-
ance of backed bladelets with the onset
of the EP, resulting in changes to
chipped- stone tool technology.47,68
Similarly, ground-stone objects
were not new to the EP, although
new forms appeared, including deep
vessels and mortars (Fig. 4).69 In the
Early and Middle EP, ground-stone
tools are prominent in both domestic
and burial contexts and are found, in
varying frequencies, at most sites.
Recent excavations at the Geometric
Kebaran site of ‘Uyun al-Hammam in
the Jordan Valley have turned up pes-
tles, mortars, grinding slabs, and other
vessels in burials and middens.70 Com-
plete basalt mortars were also found
in graves at both Neve David71 and
74 Maher et al.
Figure 4. Breached mortar from Middle Epipaleolithic deposits at Kharaneh IV. [Color fig-
ure can be viewed in the online issue, which is available at wileyonlinelibrary.com.]
Wadi Mataha.72 Use-wear studies are
still preliminary, but do suggest that
many of these objects were multi-
functional and used in a variety of
tasks, not all of which were subsist-
ence-related.73,74 Analysis of starch
grains from a grinding slab inside a
hut at Ohalo II indicates cereals were
pounded or ground as early as 23,000
years ago.75 Although residue analysis
of ground-stone tools is only now
becoming regular practice, it is likely
that many tools were not used exclu-
sively for plant processing. Bar-Oz and
Dayan76 suggest that ground-stone
implements may have been used to
grind bones for fat extraction, while
Dubreuil and Grosman77 have clearly
shown their use for ochre grinding in
the Natufian.
Modification of shell and bone for
decorative and utilitarian purposes is
known from much earlier in the
Paleolithic, but became notably more
common in the Early and Middle
EP. Shell and bone are modified in a
wide variety of ways, including
sharpening, polishing, denticulation,
beveling, abrading, incising, and dril-
ling, to produce an array of objects.
However, some trends in the objects
produced and the types of decoration
they display are noteworthy. For
example, geometric designs or pat-
terned sets of lines far outnumber
anthropomorphic designs. Also, the
majority of perishable objects are
plaques, points, pierced shells, or,
more rarely, fabrics.
The waterlogged conditions at
Ohalo II provide a rare glimpse into
organic construction, cordage, and
netting technologies.43,78,79 In addition
to examples of twisted cordage, the
discovery of net sinkers, accompanied
by numerous fish bones, demonstrates
that nets and knowledge associated
with the exploitation of aquatic
resources were well developed. These
discoveries hint at a hidden wealth of
objects, materials, and technologies
that in most cases have long perished
from the archeological record. Their
discovery at Ohalo II reminds us that
it is difficult to make assumptions
about technological knowledge on the
basis of stone tools alone.
A close look at technologies and
materials during the Early and Mid-
dle EP reveals a complex picture of
the integrated use of different mate-
rials, as well as sets of knowledge
and relationships. The variation in
lithic technology across the Levant,
for example, shows the multiple
ways in which practical knowledge
was propagated, maintained, and
negotiated between people. Many
technological nuances that have
often been highlighted as significant
during the Natufian were already
present during the Early and Middle
EP and do not, in most cases, repre-
sent a radical departure in knowl-
edge, tradition, or behavior.
MOBILE ART AND
ORNAMENTATION
We discuss ornamental and artistic
material expressions together because
it is often difficult for archeologists to
assign objects exclusively to one cate-
ARTICLE
gory or another (for example, utili-
tarian, social, or symbolic and rit-
ual). These objects seem to flourish
in the Natufian period and there are
many well-known, striking examples
from sites throughout the southern
Levant.1 Although mobile art objects
and ornaments are somewhat rare in
Early and Middle EP sites, they are
not unknown. One of the earliest
examples of portable art in the EP is
the engraved pebble from the
Kebaran site of Urkan e-Rubb IIa
(Fig. 5c),80 but it is not alone. Incised
and polished pebbles that may repre-
sent art or another form of symbol-
ism have been found at Kharaneh IV
(Fig. 5d)54 and Mohgr al-Awal (Leb-
anon).81 In addition to stones, more
than 50 pieces of incised or other-
wise carved animal bone have been
found at Kharaneh IV (Fig. 5).54,82
They are remarkably similar to con-
temporary finds at Ksar Akil,83
Saaide,84 Ohalo II,79 and even Upper
Paleolithic sites in Europe.85 Middle
EP examples of decorative carved
bone are rarer, but at Uyun al-Ham-
mam a carved bone spoon and a bone
dagger were found in two adjacent
graves.8 The types of modified objects,
the contexts within which they occur,
and their notable similarity to those of
later periods indicate a great time
depth for these artistic, cosmological,
and symbolic practices.
Despite the abundance of pierced
marine shells at Early and Middle
EP sites, their significance is often
overlooked in favor of rarer examples
of incised bone and stone. It is dif-
ficult to interpret their social
‘‘meaning,’’ but during the Early and
Middle EP pierced shells do appear
more commonly at larger aggrega-
tion sites such as Kharaneh IV and
Jilat 6 in contexts that may have
involved wide-ranging social interac-
tions,9 reinforcing the idea of aggre-
gation sites where several unrelated
groups congregated on a regular
basis. Not only were people likely
coming from a multitude of distan-
ces, they were bringing shells with
them, suggesting that these were val-
uable objects to bring along on the
trip. The pierced marine shells at
Kharaneh IV are abundant and are
found in all contexts and phases.
Over 1,000 shells from the Mediterra-
ARTICLE
Figure 5. Some examples of worked bone, stone, and shell from Early and Middle EP sites in the southern Levant: a-b) polished bone beads
from Uyun al-Hammam (illustrations by A. Sumner), c) worked stone pebble from Urkan e-Rubb (redrawn80), d) incised stone plaquette
from Kharaneh IV (illustration by C. Hebron), e) pierced marine shell from Kharaneh IV, f) incised bone pendant from Kharaneh IV, and g)
incised bone fragments from Kharaneh IV. [Color figure can be viewed in the online issue, which is available at wileyonlinelibrary.com.]
nean and Red Seas show evidence of
piercing or denticulation. Use-wear
studies indicate that most of them
were strung and stained by red
ochre,9 probably forming pieces of
jewelry or clothing. The presence of
shells from such distances, including
some shell from the Indian Ocean
over 2,000 km away, tell us that the
inhabitants of this site were involved
in far-reaching exchange networks.9
It also suggests they were not speci-
alized or elite items. Instead, they
were widely accessible and used by
people even at great distances from
their origin. The exchange of these
shells reinforces the notion that
these networks of social or economic
interaction were not new features of
Neolithic society, but existed through-
out the EP.86 We see networks of
trade and exchange, of both objects
and ideas and, perhaps, aspects of
shared symbolism, cosmology, and
ideology.9,87
HUMAN REMAINS AND
MORTUARY BEHAVIOR
Human burials provide biological
and cultural data integral to address-
ing issues of population history,
morphological evolution, health, ha-
bitual behavior and mobility, dietary
changes, and social organization.
Remains from Early and Middle EP
sites are rare compared to those at
later Natufian cemeteries. Excepting
‘Uyun al-Hammam, there are only
nine relatively complete human buri-
als from latest Upper Paleolithic
to the end of the Middle EP (Fig. 6,
Table 1). Although there is evidence
to suggest regional and temporal var-
iability within the EP,88–90 several
broad trends in skeletal morphology
have been identified from the Early/
Middle to Late EP periods. These
include cranial and postcranial gracili-
zation, decreased body size and sexual
dimorphism, and decreased lateraliza-
tion of robusticity in the body.89,90
These morphological trends may be
related to behavioral changes associ-
ated with different tool technologies
and foraging strategies.
While much of the variation in
skeletal morphology throughout the
EP may represent microevolutionary
changes in the genetic composition
of populations, variability in some
traits may represent changes in ha-
bitual behavior.72,89 To date, most
analyses of EP skeletal biology in the
Levant have focused on the Late EP
and subsequent transition to the Ne-
olithic. Available evidence suggests
that while some remains, such as
Ohalo II, show greater robusticity
than do the Natufians, there is con-
siderable diversity in body size and
skeletal robusticity among other
Early and Middle EP remains, de-
spite general similarities in cranial
features.72 Overall, the EP human
remains from the Levant demon-
The Pre-Natufian Epipaleolithic 75
strate long-term biological continuity
of populations within the region,
combined with gracilization and ho-
mogenization of morphology associ-
ated with the Late EP. A dramatic
increase in the number of burials
from the Middle to Late EP suggests
that this cultural transition may be
associated with considerable demo-
graphic change.
Like the remains themselves, the
mortuary contexts and grave goods of
individuals provide great insight into
the behaviors of EP people. Most
graves are represented by the primary
burial of one individual in extended
position in a shallow earthen pit,
although individuals in flexed posi-
tion, or in group or re-used graves are
known, as are secondary burials (Ta-
ble 1).91,92 Grave goods are present in
most Early and Middle EP burials and
include large unmodified stones
placed over or in graves, ground-stone
objects, and modified and unmodified
animal bones (Table 1). These are of-
ten placed around the skull and pelvis
of individuals, as are the bowls and
mortars at Wadi Mataha and Neve
David, gazelle horn cores and large
stones at Kharaneh IV, and the cobble
markers at Ohalo II (Table 1). Only
one known grave has no associated
goods at all, but it exhibited
a potentially new burial practice
for the Levant: The tightly bound
body of a man was buried in the
marsh at Ayn Qasiyya. Recent work at
76 Maher et al.
Figure 6. Human burials from Uyun al-Hammam (A), Ayn Qasiyya (B; modified113), and
Kharaneh IV (C; modified82). [Color figure can be viewed in the online issue, which is
available at wileyonlinelibrary.com.]
the Natufian site of Ain Mallaha sug-
gests that body binding may
have been a common practice by the
Late EP.93
The interments from ‘Uyun al-
Hammam shed much new light on
Early and Middle EP burial prac-
tices. They exhibit a wide array of
burial positions, many contain grave
goods, and there are both primary
and secondary inhumations (Table 1).8
Almost all of the bodies were placed
in poorly defined shallow earthen
pits and several contain large stones
that may represent grave construc-
tions. Grave goods include a recur-
ring suite of items, such as ground
and chipped stone tools, bone objects
(dagger and spoon), red ochre, and
animal parts, such as a complete fox
skeleton.8 The moving of bones
between graves and reuse of some
graves indicate that the site was
repeatedly used as a burial ground.
When considered in the context of
contemporary sites, the cemetery at
‘Uyun al-Hammam is not unique, but
is indicative of broader trends in
mortuary behavior. It preludes the
larger burial grounds of the Natu-
fian.
The inclusion in graves of stone
tools, stone markers, decorative peb-
bles and shells, as well as particular
ARTICLE
animals, especially fox and gazelle,
are practices that become increas-
ingly common throughout the EP.
Their presence at Early and Middle
EP sites demonstrates that these
practices and treatments have origins
that pre-date the Natufian and Neo-
lithic. For example, fox-human asso-
ciations in burials are well known
from Natufian and Neolithic
sites.87,94,95 Yet fox, gazelle, wild cat-
tle, and tortoise appear in or are
associated with burials from at least
the Early EP onward.8 They hint at
the significance of these animals
before domestication and the full-
blown ritual behaviors that surround
them in the Neolithic.
SOCIAL NETWORKS
Social interaction between and
within groups during the Early and
Middle EP in the Levant has rarely
been discussed, especially as com-
pared to the extensive literature on
this subject in the Early Neo-
lithic.86,95–97 In many ways, inter-
group and intragroup interaction are
considered diagnostic traits of the
Neolithic, heralding a new era in
human social relations. Although few
would stretch the argument to this
time length, it is clear that, until
recently, Near Eastern archeologists
steered clear of discussion of social
interaction before the Natufian.9
Research now suggests that material
culture indicators of social interaction
do indeed appear before the Natufian
and that this interaction took place on
a scale larger than previously thought.
Research over the past thirty years in
the Azraq Basin of eastern Jordan, for
example, has shown that marine shells
were brought to sites from the Red
and Mediterranean Seas. Coupled with
evidence of contemporaneous lithic
industries that also relate to those of
the western and southern subregions
of the Levant, it appears that during
the Early and Middle EP people not
only brought shell beads to Azraq over
distances of several hundred kilo-
meters, but may have exchanged them
with people within the Azraq Basin.9
It appears that regional interaction
and material exchange was a feature
of EP society at least as early as
the earliest EP occupations. More
 TABLE 1. Human Burials from Early and Middle EP Sites in the Southern Levant
Site Date Burial Description
114
Ein Gev I 19,000 cal BP; Early EP Single, primary interment of a gracile adult
female (30–40 yrs old); tightly flexed
position; complete but highly fragmented.
Ohalo II89,92 22,500 cal BP; Early EP Single primary interment of a robust adult
male (35–40 yrs old); semi-flexed; complete.
Kharaneh IV115 19,000 cal BP; Early EP Single, primary interment of an adult male
(55 yrs old) with severe osteoarthritis and a
healed fracture; semi-flexed; complete
(Fig 6C).
Single, primary interment of the partial
skeleton of an adult male.
Ayn Qasiyya113 19,800–20,400 cal BP; Early EP Single, primary interment of an adult male;
tightly flexed and sitting upright position
(Fig 6B).
Neve David116 15,000–16,000 cal BP; Middle EP Single primary interment of an adult male
(25–30 yrs old); flexed; partial.
Single, primary interment of an adult; sex
indeterminant; flexed; partial.
Qadish Valley81 17,500–14,500 cal BP; Middle EP Single, primary interment of only the lower
limbs of a robust adult male; extended.
Wadi Mataha72 17,000 cal BP; Middle EP Single primary interment of a robust adult
male (35-55 yrs old) with head trauma and
skeletal asymmetry; complete; buried
bound and face down.
Uyun al-Hammam8,91 17,700–14,500 cal BP; Middle EP Grave I: 2 adult individuals, 1 male & 1
female, in reused grave; 1 disturbed & 1
flexed.
Grave II: secondary burial of skull and long
bones in stone-lined and stone-filled pit
(unknown date).
Grave III: adult male individual; extended;
primary burial.
Grave IV: adult individual; extended; primary
burial.
Grave V: secondary burial of adult of skull
and
long bones.
Grave VI: 2 adult individuals in reused grave;
both extended and primary burials.
Grave VII: adult female individual; extended;
primary burial with head positioned facing
down (Fig. 6A).
Partial adult male individual and
several isolated bones.
Grave Goods & Context
Buried below living floor with three gazelle
ARTICLE
horn cores associated.
Grave sealed by layer of cobbles; head
resting on three stones; small incised
bone behind head, hammer stone
between legs.
Gazelle horn cores above skull; large
unmodified cobble pinned down lower
limbs and pelvis.
N/A.
None (but buried bound and sitting in
a marsh).
Marked by large stones; stone bowl at
pelvis, grinding slab between legs,
breached mortar over skull.
N/A.
Well-defined pit with two polished stone
pebbles.
Breached ground stone bowl over pelvis;
long flint blade.
Fox skull, chipped & ground stone
tools, worked bone dagger, red ochre.
N/A.
Several large stones over head
and pelvis.
Chipped stone tools and stone
vessel fragment over pelvis.
N/A.
N/A.
Several large cobbles over legs
and beside skull, chipped stone tools.
Red ochre, fox skeleton, chipped
stone tools, several large cobbles, worked
The Pre-Natufian Epipaleolithic 77
bone spatula.
78 Maher et al.
advanced scientific approaches might,
in the future, yield interesting insights
into group movement and intergroup
interaction. For example, isotopic or
ancient DNA studies of human
remains might trace the movements
of individuals or groups from child-
hood to adulthood (that is, patrilocal-
ity or migration). For now, we are left
with more than a hint of extensive
social networks and are reevaluating
the idea that these were something
critically new to the Neolithic.98
SUBSISTENCE
The analysis of faunal and botani-
cal remains suggests a broad subsist-
ence base throughout the Early and
Middle EP,55,65,99,100 but with gazelle
and deer generally dominating most
faunal assemblages. With notable
exceptions, botanical remains are
scarce at many Early and Middle EP
sites. However, evidence from a vari-
ety of different sources suggests that
the shift toward an extensive use of
plants occurred long before domesti-
cation in the Neolithic.101,102 Excel-
lent preservation at Ohalo II, for
example, provides clear evidence of
the use of over 142 plant taxa, with
an abundance of wild grasses like
wheat and barley. The harvesting of
these cereals in early summer, along
with avifauna assessments of hunting
season,103 indicate long-term, perhaps
year-round, occupation of the site.
These remains clearly demonstrate a
dietary shift toward cereals several
thousands of years before the earliest
evidence of plant domestication, and a
period characterized by a gradual shift
from small-grained grasses toward
cereals.102,104 While the so-called
‘‘broad-spectrum revolution,’’ a model
to explain the origins of plant and ani-
mal domestication that hinged on
adaptive strategies of species exploita-
tion to mitigate against unpredictable
resources,105 may be traced in faunal
analyses, there does not appear to be a
similar increase in dietary breadth
among plant remains. Extensive and
diverse plant exploitation seems to
have been a long-term trend of soci-
eties throughout the EP.
Much discussion about EP diet has
focused on taxonomic identification
and detecting trends in prey selection
and processing. Recent work is under-
pinned by discipline-wide methodolog-
ical and theoretical issues dealing with
taphonomic considerations in inter-
pretation and assessment of the valid-
ity of the ‘‘broad-spectrum revolu-
tion.’’55,76,106,107 Several Early and
Middle EP assemblages from the
Coastal Plain of Israel have been ana-
lyzed in relation to these larger issues.
Species representation is quite similar
throughout the EP; however, there are
local and temporal differences among
sites.65,107,108 In general, though, inten-
sification was a gradual process and a
trend that clearly began before and
continued throughout the Natufian.
Early and Middle EP sites in the
Mediterranean zone show very simi-
lar patterns of species representa-
tion, butchery practices, and food
processing. Large, dense sites such
as Hefzibah,76 Neve David99 and
’Uyun al-Hammam109 are dominated
by gazelle (Gazella gazella) and fallow
deer (Dama mesopotamica), with
lesser frequencies of auroch, equids,
hartebeest, roe deer, wild boar, and
small game such as hare, fox, and
tortoise (especially Testudo graeca).
Sites in the Negev and Sinai and
southern and eastern Jordan con-
tinue this pattern, the main differen-
ces being in the relative proportions
of species present.25 Large and me-
dium-sized mammals were preferred
prey, while small game is present at
significantly lower frequencies.
The subsistence picture at eastern
Jordan’s aggregation sites is some-
what similar. While gazelle (G. sub-
gutturosa) heavily dominate the fau-
nal assemblages, often accounting
for more than 85% of all faunal
remains (cf. Kharaneh IV),65 equids,
aurochs, wild boar, wolf, fox, hare,
migratory birds, raptors, and tortoise
are also present. These species were
available within a local habitat that
was lusher and better-watered during
the Early and Middle EP than it is
today. The dominance of gazelle was
probably a result of its relative abun-
dance in the environment rather
than a hunting preference. Seasonal-
ity studies of gazelle remains are
currently under way, but suggest
occupation of the site at times
throughout the year and prolonged
occupation within individual phases.65
As at sites to the west, there is no evi-
ARTICLE
dence of selective carcass transport,
although in the Middle EP phases we
may see an avoidance of juveniles and
hints at potential large group hunt-
ing.65 It is also possible that gazelle
meat was dried and stored in the Mid-
dle EP levels at Kharaneh IV.
Zooarcheologists argue that the
most notable subsistence change in
the EP was intensification: the eventual
The earlier EP periods
provide clear evidence
that Late EP (Natufian)
markers of social
complexity, such as
sedentism, cemeteries,
and artistic expression,
have an earlier
foundation.
overexploitation of gazelle and other
large prey and a consequent increase
in small-game hunting (tortoises,
birds, and small mammals).108 These
changes were gradual and are docu-
mented throughout the EP, but ampli-
fied in the Natufian as a result of
increased sedentism and population
explosion.107 This trajectory of inten-
sification culminated, inevitably, in
food production. The trend towards
intensification of subsistence patterns
throughout the EP implies that popu-
lation increases and increased site use
(perhaps as sedentism) also began in
the early parts of the EP and contin-
ued to the Natufian. Munro108 argues
that the abundance of highly ranked
game and a simultaneous increase in
the exploitation of small ungulates
and small game indicate both
expanded dietary breadth and
decreased foraging efficiency begin-
ning in the Middle EP. With time, the
increased focus on a wide array of
species may also be shown by the
prevalence of ‘‘costly’’ species that
required specialized technologies,
such as traps and nets, for their cap-
ture.108 Thus the subsistence trends
seen in the Late EP Natufian were al-
ready quite well established and rep-
ARTICLE
resented the continuation and culmi-
nation of practices begun earlier.
EMEREGENCE OF THE NATUFIAN
According to conventional frame-
works, it is during the Late EP Natu-
fian that we see, archeologically, the
crucial steps in the evolution of
human groups that led to the rise of
social complexity, the emergence
of sedentary village life, and the
adoption of food production. A focus
on the Late EP credited these groups
as originators of key behavioral ele-
ments that enabled the development
of agricultural villages. Many such
behaviors, including burial practices,
plant and animal intensification,
wide-ranging interaction spheres,
and long-term occupation, are well
documented in the Early and Middle
EP and emphasize continuity
throughout the EP period. The
behaviors attributed to agricultural
communities did not appear sud-
denly in the archeological record,
but rather were long-term trends of
Near Eastern prehistory. Similarly,
interpretations of the biological ho-
mogeneity of human populations in
the Natufian have recently been chal-
lenged.88 There is preliminary evi-
dence of more complex population
dynamics before this period.72 The in-
tensity of research on Late EP com-
munities has tended to overshadow
the evidence of dynamic culture
change provided in the Early and Mid-
dle EP archeological record. The ear-
lier EP periods provide clear evidence
that Late EP (Natufian) markers of
social complexity, such as sedentism,
cemeteries, and artistic expression,
have an earlier foundation.
CONCLUSIONS
The transition between hunter-
gatherers and farmers in the Levant
is among the earliest and best docu-
mented occurrences of the ‘‘agricul-
tural revolution’’ worldwide. The past
few years have seen a revolution in
the way we view the origins of agri-
culture. Cultural changes associated
with this transition are not linear,
clear-cut, or clearly associated with
external factors such as environmen-
tal change.18,61 Recent discoveries at
Early Neolithic sites demonstrate
continued reliance on hunted game
concurrent with the development of
complex and symbolic architecture.11
These new perspectives are accompa-
nied by changing paradigms in the
co-evolution of human societies and
domestic plant and animal species.
Recent evidence suggests that the pro-
cess of plant domestication occurred
over a considerable period of time,
leading to increases in the labor
required to process grains and an
extended period of feedback between
evolving plants and cultural change
throughout the Early Holocene.110
In 2000, McBrearty and Brooks
provided compelling evidence that
the origin of modern human behav-
ior was not an Upper Palaeolithic
revolution, as it has often been inter-
preted, but that the components of
modern human behavior developed
over tens or even hundreds of thou-
sands of years of prehistory within
Africa.14 In the Near East, Gordon
Childe coined the term ‘‘Neolithic
revolution’’ to refer to the develop-
ment of human control over the
reproduction and evolution of plants
and animals,111 which arguably was
the single most significant social, cul-
tural, and biological transition since
the origin of our species. Although
this term has largely fallen out of
use, the sudden and dramatic
changes it implied persisted until
recent work at several sites, which
places these cultural changes in tem-
poral context. Here we have reviewed
evidence for cultural and biological
change in the Early and Middle EP,
which suggests that many ‘‘revolu-
tionary’’ features of the Natufian and
subsequent Neolithic periods devel-
oped gradually over a long time in
the Late Pleistocene. During more
than 10,000 years, we see evidence of
the very early systematic exploitation
of plant and animal species, mobile
art and ornamentation in a range of
materials, evidence for specialized
technologies (nets, cordage, wood
construction), and refinement of
older technologies (microlith produc-
tion), as well as repeatedly used
structures, longer use of sites, large-
scale trade or exchange networks, and
the first (so far) appearance of large
aggregation sites and cemeteries.
The Pre-Natufian Epipaleolithic 79
The combination of evidence of pro-
tracted cultural and biological conti-
nuity in the Levantine EP highlights
the conclusion that culture changes
associated with the origins of agricul-
ture are not dramatic, but appeared
earlier than was previously thought
and extended later into the Neolithic.
We can now see this transition as a
culturally dynamic process that vari-
ously involved intensified plant use,
technological change, population
aggregation and sedentism, and com-
plex social and ideological behaviors.
Long-term continuity in interaction,
the use of large-scale aggregation sites,
symbolic features of human burials,
and the development of agriculture all
support the longer chronology of cul-
tural continuity and in-situ change.
While on evolutionary time scales this
may still be seen as a revolution, it is
increasingly difficult to see it as the
rapid cultural change that Childe
described. Changes associated with
this transition extend over more than
10,000 years of Near Eastern prehis-
tory. In this context, the transition to
agriculture in the Near East could be
interpreted as the second ‘‘revolution
that wasn’t.’’
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We thank Nigel Goring-Morris,
Anna Belfer-Cohen, Ofer Bar-Yosef,
Louise Martin, Dani Nadel, Matthew
Jones, Danielle Macdonald, Kevin
Gibbs, Andrew Garrard, Danny Kauf-
man, Douglas Baird, Trevor Watkins,
Brian Boyd, Gary Rollefson, Phil
Wilke, Leslie Quintero, and countless
others, for insightful discussions on
EP and Neolithic trajectories of cul-
ture change over the last several
years. Without their comments,
advice, and encouragement this pa-
per would not have been possible.
The impetus for this paper was the
design and development of the Epi-
palaeolithic Foragers in Azraq Pro-
ject funded by the Arts and Human-
ities Research Council, UK.
REFERENCES
1 Bar-Yosef O. 1998. The Natufian culture in
the Levant: threshold to the origins of agricul-
ture. Evol Anthropol 6:159–177.
2 Belfer-Cohen A, Bar-Yosef O. 2000. Early sed-
entism in the Near East: a bumpy ride to village
life. In: Kuijt I, editor. Life in Neolithic farming
80 Maher et al.
communities: social organization, identity, and
differentiation. New York: Kluwer Academic/
Plenum Publishers. p 19–37.
3 Belfer-Cohen A, Goring-Morris N. 2009. For
the first time. Curr Anthropol 50:669–672.
4 Belfer-Cohen A, Gorring-Morris N. 2011.
Becoming farmers: the inside story. Curr
Anthropol 52:S209–S220.
5 Goring-Morris AN, Hovers E, Belfer-Cohen A.
2009. The dynamics of Pleistocene and Early
Holocene settlement patterns and human adap-
tations in the Levant: an overview. In: Shea J,
Lieberman D, editors. Transitions in prehistory:
essays in honor of Ofer Bar-Yosef. Oxford:
Oxbow Books. p 185–252.
6 Kaufman D. 1992. Hunter-gatherers of the Le-
vantine Epipalaeolithic: the sociological origins of
sedentism. J Mediterranean Archaeol 5:165–201.
7 Maher L. 2010. People and their places at the
end of the Pleistocene: evaluating perspectives
on physical and cultural landscape change. In:
Warren G, Finlayson B, editors. Landscapes in
transition: understanding hunter-gatherer and
farming landscapes on the Early Holocene of
Europe and the Levant. London: CBRL Mono-
graphs. p 34–44.
8 Maher LA, Stock JT, Finney S, et al. 2011. A
unique human-fox burial from a pre-Natufian
cemetery in the southern Levant (Jordan). PLoS
ONE 6:1–10.
9 Richter T, Garrard A, Allcock S, et al. 2011.
Interaction before agriculture: exchanging ma-
terial and shared knowledge in the final Pleisto-
cene Levant. Camb Archaeol J 21:95–114.
10 Richter T, Maher LA, Edinborough K, et al.
n.d. Radiocarbon dating of the Late Pleistocene
in the Azraq Basin, eastern Jordan. J Hum
Evol. In review.
11 Twiss K. 2007. The Neolithic of the southern
Levant. Evol Anthropol 16:24–35.
12 Gamble C. 2007. Origins and revolutions:
human identity in earliest prehistory. Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press.
13 Mellars PA, Stringer CB, editors. 1989. The
human revolution: behavioral and biological
perspectives on the origins of modern humans.
Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
14 McBrearty S, Brooks AS. 2000. The revolu-
tion that wasn’t: a new interpretation of the ori-
gin of modern human behavior. J Hum Evol
39:453–563.
15 Finlayson B, Warren G. 2010. Changing
natures: hunter-gatherers, first farmers and the
modern world. Cambridge: Duckworth.
16 Bar-Yosef O. 1996. The impact of the Late
Pleistocene-Early Holocene climatic changes on
humans in Southwest Asia. In: Straus LG, Erik-
sen BV, Erlandson JM, Yesner DR, editors.
Humans at the end of the Ice Age: the archaeol-
ogy of the Pleistocene-Holocene transition. New
York: Plenum Press. p 61–78.
17 Goring-Morris N, Belfer-Cohen A. 1998. The
articulation of cultural processes and the late
quaternary environmental changes in Cisjor-
dan. Paléorient 23:71–93.
18 Maher L, Banning EB, Chazan M. 2011.
Oasis or mirage? Assessing the role of abrupt
climate change in the prehistory of the south-
ern Levant. Camb Archaeol J 21:1–29.
19 Rosen AM. 2007. Civilizing climate: social
responses to climate change in the ancient Near
East. Lanham: AltaMira Press.
20 Robinson SA, Black S, Sellwood BW, et al.
2006. A review of palaeoclimates and palaeoen-
vironments in the Levant and eastern Mediter-
ranean from 25,000 to 5000 years BP: setting
the environmental background for the evolution
of human civilisation. Quaternary Sci Rev
25:1517–1541.
21 Roche J. 1963. L’Epipaléolithique Maro-
caine. Paris: Foundation Calouste Gulbenkian.
22 Tixier J. 1963. Typologie de l’épipaléoli-
thique du Maghreb. Paris: Arts et métiers
graphiques.
23 Bar-Yosef O. 1970. The Epipalaeolithic cul-
tures of Palestine. Ph.D. Disseration. Jerusalem:
Hebrew University.
24 Goring-Morris AN. 1987. At the edge: terminal
Pleistocene hunter-gatherers in the Negev and
Sinai. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.
25 Henry DO. 1995. Prehistoric cultural ecology
and evolution: insights from southern Jordan.
New York: Plenum Press.
26 Olszewski D. 2006. Issues in the Levantine Epi-
paleolithic: the Madamaghan, Nebekian and Qal-
khan (Levant Epipaleolithic). Paléorient 32:19–26.
27 Pirie A. 2004. Constructing prehistory: lithic
analysis in the Levantine Epipalaeolithic. J R
Anthropol Inst 10:675–703.
28 Olszewski D. 2001. My ‘‘backed and trun-
cated bladelet’’, your ‘‘point’’: terminology and
interpretation in Levantine Epipalaeolithic
assemblages. In: Caneva I, Lemorini C, Zam-
petti D, Biagi P, editors. Studies in early Near
Eastern production, subsistence and environ-
ment 9. Venice: Ca’Foscari University. Ex ori-
ente. p 303–318.
29 Marks AE. 1976. Prehistory and paleoenvir-
onments in the Central Negev, Israel. Dallas:
Southern Methodist University Press.
30 Coinman NR. 1998. The archaeology of the
Wadi al-Hasa, West-Central Jordan, vol. 1: sur-
veys, settlement patterns and paleoenviron-
ments. Tempe: Arizona State University Press.
31 Olszewski DI. 2000. The Epipalaeolithic in
the Wadi al-Hasa: an overview. In: Coinman
NR, editor. The archaeology of the Wadi al-
Hasa, west-central Jordan. Tempe: Arizona
State University Press. p 227–244.
32 Edwards PC. 2001. Nine millennia by Lake
Lisan: the Epipalaeolithic in the east Jordan
Valley between 20,000 and 11,000 years ago. In:
Bisheh G, editor. Studies in the history and
archaeology of Jordan VII. Amman: Depart-
ment of Antiquity of Jordan. p 85–93.
33 Hovers E, Horowitz L, Bar-Yosef D, et al..
1988. The site of Urkhan e-Rubb IIa: a case
study of subsistence and mobility patterns in
the Kebaran period in the Lower Jordan Valley.
Mitekufat Haeven 21:20–48.
34 Bar-Yosef O. 1981. The Epi-palaeolithic com-
plexes in the southern Levant. In: Cauvin J, Sanla-
ville P, editors. Préhistoire du Levant. Paris: Centre
National des Recherches Scientifique. p 389–408.
35 Garrard A, Baird D, Colledge S, et al. 1994.
Prehistoric environment and settlement in the
Azraq Basin: an interim report on the 1987 and
1988 excavation seasons. Levant 26:73–109.
36 Betts AVG, editor. 1998. The Harra and the
Hamad: excavations and surveys in eastern Jor-
dan, vol 1. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.
37 Bar-Yosef O, Goren N. 1980. Afterthoughts
following prehistoric surveys in the Levant.
Israel Explor J 30:1–16.
38 Goldberg P. 1994. Interpreting Late Quater-
nary continental sequences in Israel. In: Bar-
Yosef O, Kra RS, editors. Late Quaternary chro-
nology and paleoclimates of the eastern Medi-
terranean. Tucson: Department of Geosciences,
University of Arizona. p 89–102.
39 Macumber PG, Edwards PC, Head MJ, et al.
1997. Physical environment and occupation on
the Tabaqat Fahl region, Jordan over the last half
million years. In: Bisheh G, Zaghloul M, Kerhberg
ARTICLE
I, editors. Studies in the history and archaeology
of Jordan VI: landscape resources and human
occupation in Jordan throughout the ages.
Amman: Department of Antiquities. p 87–92.
40 Maher LA. 2011. Reconstructing palaeoland-
scapes and prehistoric occupation of Wadi Ziqlab,
northern Jordan. Geoarchaeology 26:649–692.
41 Schuldenrein J. 1998. Geomorphology and stra-
tigraphy of prehistoric sites along the Wadi
al-Hasa. In: Coinman N, editor. The archaeology of
the Wadi al-Hasa, west-central Jordan, vol. 1: sur-
veys, settlement patterns and paleoenvironments.
Tempe: Arizona State University. p 205–228.
42 Nadel D. 2002. Indoor/outdoor flint knap-
ping and minute debitage remains: the evidence
from the Ohalo II Submerged Camp (19.5 KY,
Jordan Valley). Lithic Tech 26:118–137.
43 Nadel D, Werker E. 1999. The oldest ever
brush hut plant remains from Ohalo II, Jordan
Valley, Israel (19,000 BP). Antiquity 73:755–764.
44 Martin G. 1978. Ein Gev III. Israel Explor J
28:262–263.
45 Bar-Yosef O. 1975. Les gisements ‘‘Kebarien
Geometrique A’’ d’Haon, Vallee du Jourdain,
Israel. Bull Soc Prehist Fr 72:10–14.
46 Maher L, Richter T, Macdonald D, et al. n.d.
Twenty thousand-year-old huts at a hunter-gath-
erer settlement in eastern Jordan. PLoS ONE. In
press.
47 Belfer-Cohen A, Goring-Morris N. 2002.
Why microliths? Microlithization in the Levant.
In: Elston RG, Kuhn SL, editors. Thinking
small: global perspectives on microlithic tech-
nologies. Arlington: American Anthropological
Association. p 57–68.
48 Garrard A, Colledge S, Hunt C, et al. 1988.
Environment and subsistence during the Late
Pleistocene and Early Holocene in the Azraq
Basin. Paléorient 14:40–49.
49 Olszewski DI. 2004. The conundrum of
the Levantine late Upper Palaeolithic and early
Epipalaeolithic: perspectives from the Wadi
al-Hasa, Jordan. In: Goring-Morris AN, Belfer-
Cohen A, editors. More than meets they eye:
studies on Upper Palaeolithic diversity in the
Near East. Oxford: Oxbow Books. p 151–170.
50 Richter T, Alcock S, Jones M, et al. 2010.
New light on final Pleistocene settlement diver-
sity in the Azraq Basin: some preliminary
results from Ayn Qasiyah. Paléorient 35:49–68.
51 Garrard A, Byrd B. 1992. New dimensions
to the Epipalaeolithic of the Wadi el-Jilat in
Central Jordan. Paléorient 18:47–62.
52 Cauvin J, Sanlaville P, editors. 1981. Préhis-
toire du Levant. Paris: CNRS.
53 Cauvin M-C, Coqueugniot E. 1989. L’Oasis
d’El Kowm et le Kébaran Géométrique. Paléo-
rient 14:270–281.
54 Maher L, Richter T, Stock J, et al., n.d.
Preliminary results from recent excavations at
the Epipalaeolithic site of Kharaneh IV. In:
Khraysheh F, Rollefson G, editors. Jordan’s pre-
history: past and future research. Amman:
Department of Antiquities of Jordan. In press.
55 Stutz AJ, Munro ND, Bar-Oz G. 2009.
Increasing the resolution of the broad spectrum
revolution in the southern Levantine Epipaleo-
lithic (19–12 ka). J Hum Evol 56:294–306.
56 Kaufman D. 1987. Excavations at the Geo-
metric Kebaran site of Neve David, Israel: a
preliminary report. Quartär 37/38:189–199.
57 Goring-Morris AN. 1988. Trends in spatial
organization of terminal Pleistocene hunter-
gatherer occupations as viewed from the Negev
and Sinai. Paléorient 14:231–244.
58 Bar-Yosef O, Belfer-Cohen A. 2010. The Le-
vantine Upper Palaeolithic and Epipalaeolithic.
 ARTICLE
In: Garcea EAA, editor. South-eastern Mediter-
ranean peoples between 130,000 and 10,000
years ago. Oxford: Oxbow Books. p 144–167.
59 Binford LR. 1980. Willow smoke and dogs’
tails: hunter-gatherer settlement systems and
archaeological site formation. Am Antiquity
45:4–20.
60 Marks A, Freidel D. 1977. Prehistoric settle-
ment patterns in the Avdat/Aqev area. In: Marks
A, editor. Prehistory and paleoenvironments in
the Central Negev. Dallas: SMU Press. p 131–59.
61 Stutz A. 2004. The Natufian in real time?
Radiocarbon date calibration as a tool for
understanding Natufian societies and their
long-term prehistoric context. In: Delage C, edi-
tor. The last hunter-gatherers in the Near East.
Oxford: John and Erica Hedges. p 13–37.
62 Kelly RL. 1995. The foraging spectrum:
diversity in hunter-gatherer lifeways. Washing-
ton: Smithsonian Institute Press.
63 Tsatskin A, Nadel D. 2003. Formation proc-
esses at the Ohalo II submerged prehistoric
campsite, Israel, inferred from soil micromor-
phology and magnetic susceptibility studies.
Geoarchaeology 4:400–432.
64 Weiss EMK, Simchoni O, Nadel D. 2005.
Small-grained wild grasses as staple food at the
23,000 year old site of Ohalo II, Israel. Eco-
nomic Botany 588:125–34.
65 Martin L, Edwards Y, Garrard A. 2010.
Hunting practices at an eastern Jordanian Epi-
palaeolithic aggregation site: the case of Khara-
neh IV. Levant 52:107–135.
66 Yaroshevich A, Kaufman D, Nuzhnyy D,
et al. 2010. Design and performance of micro-
lith implemented projectiles during the Middle
and the Late Epipaleolithic of the Levant:
experimental and archaeological evidence.
J Archaeol Sci 37:368–388.
67 Eerkens JW. 1991. Reliable and maintain-
able technologies: artifact standardization and
the early to later Mesolithic transition in north-
ern England. Lithic Tech 23:42–53.
68 Bar-Yosef O. 1987. Direct and indirect
evidence for hafting in the Epi-Palaeolithic and
Neolithic of the southern Levant. In: Stordeur
D, editor. La main et l’outil: manches et
emmanchements préhistoriques. Paris: CNRS.
p 155–164.
69 Wright K. 1991. Origins and development of
ground stone assemblages in Late Pleistocene
Southwest Asia. Paléorient 17:19–45.
70 Maher LA. 2007. 2005. Excavations at the
Geometric Kebaran site of ’Uyun al-Hammam,
al-Koura District, northern Jordan. Ann Dept
Antiquities Jordan 51:263–272.
71 Kaufman D. 1989. Observations on the Geo-
metric Kebaran: a view from Neve David. In: Bar-
Yosef O, Vandermeersch B, editors. Investigations
in south Levantine prehistory. Préhistoire du Sud-
Levant. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.
p 275–286.
72 Stock JT, Pfeiffer SK, Chazan M, et al. 2005.
F-81 skeleton from Wadi Mataha, Jordan, and
its bearing on human variability in the Epipa-
laeolithic of the Levant. Am J Phys Anthropol
126:453–465.
73 Dubreuil L. 2004. Long-term trends in Natu-
fian subsistence: a use-wear analysis of ground
stone tools. J Archaeol Sci 31:1613–1629.
74 Wright KI. 1994. Ground-stone tools and
hunter-gatherer subsistence in Southwest Asia:
implications for the transition to farming. Am
Antiquity 59:238–263.
75 Piperno DR, Weiss E, Holst I, et al. 2004.
Processing of wild cereal grains in the Upper
Palaeolithic revealed by starch grain analysis.
Nature 430:670–673.
View publication stats
76 Bar-Oz G, Dayan T. 2003. Testing the use of
multivariate inter-site taphonomic compari-
sons: the faunal analysis of Hefzibah in its Epi-
palaeolithic cultural context. J Archaeol Sci
30:885–900.
77 Dubreuil L, Grosman L. 2009. Ochre and
hide-working at a Natufian burial place. Antiq-
uity 83:935–954.
78 Nadel D, Danin A, Werker E, et al. 1994.
19,000-year-old twisted fibers from Ohalo II.
Curr Anthropol 35:451–458.
79 Nadel D, Grinberg U, Boaretto E, et al. 2006.
Wooden objects from Ohalo II (23,000 cal BP),
Jordan Valley, Israel. J Hum Evol 50: 644–662.
80 Hovers E. 1990. Art in the Levantine Epi-
Palaeolithic: an engraved pebble from a
Kebaran site in the Lower Jordan Valley. Curr
Anthropol 31:317–322.
81 Garrard A, Yazbeck C. 2003. Qadisha valley
prehistoric project (northern Lebanon). Summary
of first two seasons’ investigations. BAAL 7:7–14.
82 Muheisen M. 1988. The Epipalaeolithic
phases of Kharaneh IV. In: Garrard A, Gebel H,
editors. The prehistory of Jordan. The state of
research in 1986. Oxford: British Archaeological
Reports 396. p 353–367.
83 Newcomer M. 1974. Study and replication
of bone tools from Ksar Akil (Lebanon). World
Archaeol 6:138–153.
84 Bar-Yosef O. 1980. Prehistory of the Levant.
Ann Rev Anthropol 9:101–133.
85 Guadelli A. 2004. Etude des Incisions du
plus Ancien os Grave Decouvert dans la Grotte
Kozarnika (Bulgarie du Nord- Ouest) une Pre-
uve de l’existence du Symbolisme au Paleolithi-
que Inferieur. Archaeol Bulgarica 8:1–5.
86 Asouti E. 2006. Beyond the Pre-Pottery Neo-
lithic B interaction sphere. J World Prehist
20:87–126.
87 Goring-Morris AN, Belfer-Cohen A. 2002.
Symbolic behaviour from the Epipalaeolithic
and Early Neolithic of the Near East: prelimi-
nary observations on continuity and change. In:
Gebel HGK, Hermansen GD, Hoffman-Jensen V,
editors. Magic practices and ritual in the Near
Eastern Neolithic. Berlin: Ex oriente. p 67–79.
88 Bocquentin F. 2003. Burial practices, biolog-
ical factors and cultural identities during the
Natufian period: a bioarchaeological perspec-
tive. Bordeaux: Université de Bordeaux 1.
89 Hershkovitz I, Spiers MS, Frayer D, et al.
1995. Ohalo II H2: a 19,000 year-old skeleton
from a water-logged site at the Sea of Galilee,
Israel. Am J Phys Anthropol 96:215–234.
90 Peterson J. 1997. Tracking activity patterns
through skeletal remains: a case study from Jor-
dan and Palestine. In: Gebel HGK, Kafafi Z, Rollef-
son GO, editors. The prehistory of Jordan, II. Per-
spectives from 1997. Berlin: ex oriente. p 475–492.
91 Maher LA. 2007. Microliths and mortuary
practices: new perspectives on the Epipalaeo-
lithic in northern and eastern Jordan. In: Levy
TE, Daviau PMM, Younker RW, Shaer M, edi-
tors. Crossing Jordan: North American contri-
butions to the archaeology of Jordan. London:
Equinox. p 195–202.
92 Nadel D. 1994. Levantine Upper Palaeolithic.
Early Epipalaeolithic burial customs: Ohalo II
as a case study. Paléorient 20:113–121.
93 Bocquentin F. 2007. A final Natufian popula-
tion: health and burial status at Eynan-Mallaha.
In: Faerman M, Horwitz LK, Khana T, Zilber-
man U, editors. Faces from the past: diachronic
patterns in the biology of human populations
from the Eastern Mediterranean. Papers in
honour of Patricia Smith. Oxford: Archaeo-
press. p 66–81.
The Pre-Natufian Epipaleolithic 81
94 Peters J, Schmidt K. 2004. Animals in the
symbolic world of Pre-Pottery Neolithic Göbekli
Tepe, south-eastern Turkey: a preliminary
assessment. Anthropozoologica 39:179–218.
95 Verhoeven M. 2004. Beyond boundaries: na-
ture, culture, and a holistic approach to domesti-
cation in the Levant. J World Prehist 18:179–282.
96 Bar-Yosef O, Belfer-Cohen A. 1989. The
Levantine ‘‘PPNB’’ interaction sphere. In: Hersh-
kovitz I, editor. People and culture change: pro-
ceedings of the Second Symposium on Upper
Palaeolithic, Mesolithic and Neolithic Popula-
tions of Europe and the Mediterranean Basin.
Oxford: British Archaeological Reports, Interna-
tional Series 508. p 59–72.
97 Kuijt I, Goring-Morris N. 2002. Foraging,
farming, and social complexity in the Pre-Pot-
tery Neolithic of the southern Levant: a review
and synthesis. J World Prehist 16:361–440.
98 Watkins T. 2008. Supra-regional networks in
the Neolithic of Southwest Asia. J World Pre-
hist 21:139–171.
99 Bar-Oz G, Dayan T, Kaufman D. 1999. The
Epipalaeolithic faunal sequence in Israel: a view
from Neve David. J Archaeol Science 26:67–82.
100 Tchernov E. 1998. Are late Pleistocene envi-
ronmental factors, faunal changes, and cultural
transformations causally connected? The case of
the southern Levant. Paléorient 23:209–228.
101 Allaby R, Fuller DQ, Brown TA. 2008. The
genetic expectations of a protracted model for
the origins of domesticated crops. Proc Natl
Acad Sci USA 105:13982–13986.
102 Weiss E, Wetterstrom W, Nadel D, et al.
2004. The broad spectrum revisited: evidence
from plant remains. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA
101:9551–9555.
103 Simmons T, Nadel D. 1998. The avifauna of
the Early Epipalaeolithic site of Ohalo II (19,400
years BP), Israel: species diversity, habitat and
seasonality. Int J Osteoarchaeol 8: 76–96.
104 Colledge S, Conolly J. 2010. Reassessing
the evidence for the cultivation of wild crops
during the Younger Dryas at Tell Abu Hureyra,
Syria. Envir Archaeol 15:124–138.
105 Flannery KV. 1969. Origins and ecological
effects of early domestication in Iran and the
Near East. In: Ucko P, Dimbleby G, editors.
The domestication and exploitation of plants
and animals. London: Duckworth. p 73–100.
106 Bar-Oz G, Dayan T. 2002. ‘‘After 20 years’’:
a taphonomic re-evaluation of Nahal Hadera V,
an Epipalaeolithic site on the Israeli Coastal
Plain. J Archaeol Sci 29:145–156.
107 Stiner MC, Munro ND, Surovell TA. 2000.
The tortoise and the hare: small-game use, the
broad-spectrum revolution, and paleolithic
demography. Curr Anthropol 41:39–73.
108 Munro N. 2009. Epipaleolithic subsistence
intensification in the southern Levant: the
faunal evidence. In: Hublin J-J, Richards MP,
editors. The evolution of hominin diets: inte-
grating approaches to the study of Palaeolithic
subsistence. New York: Springer. p 141–155.
109 Maher L, Lohr M, Betts M, et al. 2002.
Middle Epipalaeolithic sites in Wadi Ziqlab,
northern Jordan. Paléorient 27:5–19.
110 Fuller D, Allaby RG, Stevens C. 2010. Domes-
tication as innovation: the entanglement of tech-
niques, technology and chance in the domestica-
tion of cereal crops. World Archaeol 42:13–28.
111 Childe VG. 1928. The most ancient East.
London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
112 Martin G, Bar-Yosef O. 1979. Ein Gev III,
Israel. Paléorient 5:219–220.
113 Richter T, Stock JT, Maher L, et al. 2010.
An Early Epipalaeolithic sitting burial from the