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

net/publication/285734741

Ruminations on the role of periphery and centre for the Natufian

Article · January 2013

CITATIONS READS
22 1,442

2 authors:

Adrian Nigel Goring-Morris Anna Belfer-Cohen

Hebrew University of Jerusalem Hebrew University of Jerusalem
231 PUBLICATIONS   4,081 CITATIONS    201 PUBLICATIONS   7,084 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

The use of shells as personal adornment among PPNB communities in the Mediterranean zone of the Southern Levant View project

The Upper Palaeolithic and Epipalaeolithic in the Near East View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Adrian Nigel Goring-Morris on 18 December 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Natufian Foragers in
the Levant
Terminal Pleistocene Social Changes in Western Asia

edited by
Ofer Bar-Yosef
&
François R. Valla

International Monographs
in Prehistory

Archaeological Series 19
© 2013 by International Monographs in Prehistory
All rights reserved

Printed in the United States of America

All rights reserved

Paperback:
ISBN 978-1-879621-45-9
Hard Cover:
ISBN 978-1-879621-46-6

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Natufian foragers in the Levant : terminal Pleistocene social changes in Western Asia / edited by
Ofer Bar-Yosef & François Valla.
       pages cm. --  (Archaeological series / International Monographs in Prehistory ; 19)
  Papers from a symposium held in 2009.
  Includes bibliographical references.
  ISBN 978-1-879621-45-9 (paperback : acid-free paper) -- ISBN 978-1-879621-46-6 (hard cover :
acid-free paper)
 1.  Natufian culture--Middle East--Congresses. 2.  Hunting and gathering societies--Middle
East--Congresses. 3.  Pleistocene-Holocene boundary--Congresses. 4.  Social archaeology--Middle
East--Congresses. 5.  Social change--Middle East--History--To 1500--Congresses. 6.  Excavations
(Archaeology)--Middle East--Congresses. 7.  Middle East--Antiquities--Congresses.  I. Bar-Yosef,
Ofer. II. Valla, François Raymond.
  GN774.3.N38N28 2013
  306.3›640956--dc23
2013035516

Printed with the support of the American School of Prehistoric Research (Peabody
Museum, Harvard University)

This book is printed on acid-free paper. ∞

International Monographs in Prehistory

Ann Arbor, Michigan
U.S.A.
 Table of Contents

List of Contributors.................................................................................................................... vii

Preface – The Natufian Culture in the Levant: Twenty Years Later

Ofer Bar-Yosef and François R. Valla................................................................................ xv

Acknowledgements.....................................................................................................................xix

Northern Levant

Natufian Lifeways in the Eastern Foothills of the Anti-Lebanon Mountains

Nicholas J. Conard, Knut Bretzke, Katleen Deckers, Andrew W. Kandel, Mohamed
Masri, Hannes Napierala, Simone Riehl and Mareike Stahlschmidt...............................1

The Natufian of Moghr el-Ahwal in the Qadisha Valley, Northern Lebanon

Andrew Garrard and Corine Yazbeck...............................................................................17

The Natufian of Southwestern Syria Sites in the Damascus Province

Kurt Felix Hillgruber.........................................................................................................28

The Natufian Occupations of Qarassa 3 (Sweida, Southern Syria)

Xavier Terradas, Juan José Ibáñez, Franck Braemer, Lionel Gourichon and Luis C.
Teira....................................................................................................................................45

The Early Natufian Site of Jeftelik (Homs Gap, Syria)

Amelia del Carmen Rodríguez Rodríguez, Maya Haïdar-Boustani, Jesús E.
González Urquijo, Juan José Ibáñez, Michel Al-Maqdissi, Xavier Terradas
and Lydia Zapata...............................................................................................................61

Fish in the Desert? The Younger Dryas and its Influence on the Paleoenvironment at Baaz
Rockshelter, Syria
Hannes Napierala..............................................................................................................73

Preliminary Results from Analyses of Charred Plant Remains from a Burnt Natufian
Building at Dederiyeh Cave in Northwest Syria
Ken-ichi Tanno, George Willcox, Sultan Muhesen, Yoshihiro Nishiaki, Yousef
Kanjo and Takeru Akazawa..............................................................................................83

Southern Levant

El-Wad

Spatial Organization of Natufian el-Wad through Time: Combining the Results of Past and
Present Excavations
Mina Weinstein-Evron, Daniel Kaufman and Reuven Yeshurun....................................88
The Last Natufian Inhabitants of el-Wad Terrace
Noga Bachrach, Israel Hershkovitz, Daniel Kaufman and Mina
Weinstein-Evron..............................................................................................................107

Domestic Refuse Maintenance in the Natufian: Faunal Evidence from el-Wad Terrace,
Mount Carmel
Reuven Yeshurun, Guy Bar-Oz, Daniel Kaufman and Mina Weinstein-Evron............118

Natufian Green Stone Pendants from el-Wad: Characteristics and Cultural Implications
Daniella E. Bar-Yosef Mayer, Naomi Porat and Mina Weinstein-Evron.......................139

Eynan

The Final Natufian Structure 215-228 at Mallaha (Eynan), Israel: an Attempt at Spatial
Analysis
François R. Valla, Hamoudi Khalaily, Nicolas Samuelian, Anne Bridault, Rivka
Rabinovich, Tal Simmons, Gaëlle Le Dosseur and Shoshana Ashkenazi.....................146

A Study of two Natufian Residential Complexes: Structures 200 and 203 at Eynan (Ain
Mallaha), Israel
Nicolas Samuelian...........................................................................................................172

Graves in Context: Field Anthropology and the Investigation of Interstratified Floors and
Burials
Fanny Bocquentin, Teresa Cabellos and Nicolas Samuelian.........................................185

Obsidian in Natufian Context: the Case of Eynan (Ain Mallaha), Israel

Hamoudi Khalaily and François R. Valla.......................................................................193

Flint Knapping and its Objectives in the Early Natufian. The Example of Eynan- Ain
Mallaha (Israel)
Boris Valentin, François R. Valla and Hugues Plisson with the collaboration of
Fanny Bocquentin............................................................................................................203

Searching for the Functions of Fire Structures in Eynan (Mallaha) and their Formation
Processes: a Geochemical Approach
Ramiro J. March...............................................................................................................227

Avifauna of the Final Natufian of Eynan

Tal Simmons.....................................................................................................................284

Bone Ornamental Elements and Decorated Objects of the Natufian from Mallaha
Gaëlle Le Dosseur and Claudine Maréchal....................................................................293

Reconstruction of the Habitats in the Ecosystem of the Final Natufian Site of Ain Mallaha
(Eynan)
Shoshana Ashkenazi........................................................................................................312

iv
 Southern Levant - other sites

Wadi Hammeh 27: an open-air ‘base-camp’ on the Fringe of the Natufian ‘homeland’
Phillip C. Edwards, Fanny Bocquentin, Sue Colledge, Yvonne Edwards, Gaëlle Le
Dosseur, Louise Martin, Zvonkica Stanin and John Webb............................................319

Art Items from Wadi Hammeh 27

Janine Major....................................................................................................................349

The Final Epipaleolithic / PPNA site of Huzuq Musa (Jordan Valley)

Dani Nadel and Danny Rosenberg..................................................................................382

Natufian Settlement in the Wadi al-Qusayr, West-Central Jordan

Michael Neeley.................................................................................................................397

The Steppic Early Natufian: Investigations in the Wadi al-Hasa, Jordan

Deborah I. Olszewski.......................................................................................................412

The Natufian of the Azraq Basin: An Appraisal

Tobias Richter and Lisa A. Maher...................................................................................429

Chert Procurement Patterns And Exploitation Territory: Case Study From Late Natufian
Hayonim Terrace (Western Galilee, Israel)
Christophe Delage............................................................................................................449

A Faunal Perspective on the Relationship between the Natufian Occupations of Hayonim

Cave and Hayonim Terrace
Natalie D. Munro.............................................................................................................463

The Natufian at Raqefet Cave

György Lengyel, Dani Nadel and Fanny Bocquentin.....................................................478

Hof Shahaf: A New Natufian Site on the Shore of Lake Kinneret

Ofer Marder, Reuven Yeshurun, Howard Smithline, Oren Ackermann, Daniella
E. Bar-Yosef Mayer, Anna Belfer-Cohen, Leore Grosman, Israel Hershkovitz, Noa
Klein and Lior Weissbrod................................................................................................505

The Life History of Macrolithic Tools at Hilazon Tachtit Cave

Laure Dubreuil and Leore Grosman...............................................................................527

General Reviews, Climate and Interpretations

Breaking the Mould: Phases and Facies in the Natufian of the Mediterranean Zone
Anna Belfer-Cohen and A. Nigel Goring-Morris............................................................544

Ruminations on the Role of Periphery and Center in the Natufian

A. Nigel Goring-Morris and Anna Belfer-Cohen............................................................562

v
The Natufian and the Younger Dryas
Donald O. Henry..............................................................................................................584

Scaphopod Shells in the Natufian Culture

Aldona Kurzawska, Daniella E. Bar-Yosef Mayer and Henk K. Mienis.......................611

The Natufian Chronological Scheme – New Insights and their Implications

Leore Grosman.................................................................................................................622

Natufian Foragers and the ‘Monocot Revolution’: A Phytolith Perspective

Arlene M. Rosen...............................................................................................................638

Lithic Technology in the Late Natufian – Technological Differences between ‘Core-area’ and
‘Periphery’
Hila Ashkenazy................................................................................................................649

Variability of Lunates and Changes in Projectile Weapons Technology during the Natufian
Alla Yaroshevich, Daniel Kaufman, Dmitri Nuzhnyy, Ofer Bar-Yosef and Mina
Weinstein-Evron..............................................................................................................671

Specialized Hunting of Gazelle in the Natufian: Cultural Cause or Climatic Effect?

Guy Bar-Oz, Reuven Yeshurun and Mina Weinstein-Evron..........................................685

Commensalism: was it Truly a Natufian Phenomenon? Recent Cntributions from

Ethnoarchaeology and Ecology
Lior Weissbrod, Daniel Kaufman, Dani Nadel, Reuven Yeshurun and Mina
Weinstein-Evron..............................................................................................................699

vi
 Ruminations on the Role of Periphery and Centre in the
Natufian
A. Nigel Goring-Morris and Anna Belfer-Cohen
Introduction
The historical background to Natufian research
was provided through the combination of the pio-
neering investigations in Mount Carmel, Samaria
and the Judean desert by Garrod and Neuville
(e.g. Garrod 1957; Neuville 1951). Subsequent
research in the Mediterranean zone at sites such
as Eynan, Nahal Oren and Hayonim cave ‘fleshed
out’ the framework proposed in earlier decades
(e.g. Bar-Yosef and Tchernov 1966; Perrot 1960;
Stekelis and Yisraely 1963). Research further afield,
e.g. Beidha, Mureybet, and Abu Hureyra (Cauvin
1972; Kirkbride 1966; Moore 1975), including
within the peripheral regions of the Negev during
the 1960’s and 70’s provided the data for assuming
a ‘dichotomy’ between the Mediterranean ‘classic
Natufian’ of the ‘core area’ and the arid ‘desert
Natufian’ (Goring-Morris 1987; Henry 1973; Marks
and Friedel 1977). This geographical expansion
of information on the Late Epipaleolithic raised
questions concerning the very definition of what
might be considered as ‘Natufian’ (e.g. Belfer-Cohen
1989; Olszewski 1986).1
The intent of the following paper is to examine
the degree to which the ‘periphery’ was tangential
to what are considered mainstream, ‘core area’
Natufian developments. In other words, to what
extent does this ‘peripheral’ Natufian distill, in more
stark terms, the ultimate essence of the ‘Natufian’
world, if at all? This issue is also pertinent to ques-
tions concerning Natufian origins. Since we are
most familiar with the Negev and Sinai data, we
shall use this region as the basis for the following
discussion.2
The Epipaleolithic in Negev and
Sinai
The Negev and Sinai together comprise a
well-defined geographic region encompassing ca.
72,000 km², being bounded on the west by the
562
Gulf of Suez, on the east by the Rift valley (the
Arava and the Gulf of Aqaba) and on the north by
the Mediterranean coast and thence eastwards
by way of the south Hebron hills to the Dead Sea.
Most prehistoric research has been conducted in
the western and central Negev, as well as eastern
and northern Sinai, accounting for less than a
third of the total area (Goring-Morris 1987 and
references therein). Phytogeographically, the area
is characterized by Irano-Turanian steppes in the
highlands and Saharo-Arabian vegetation in the
lowlands. Recent environmental research indicates
that extremely cold and windy conditions prevailed
during the earlier part of the Last Glacial Max-
imum (LGM), when the combination of Cyprus
low pressure systems funneled across the eastern
Mediterranean and lowered sea levels (-120 m bsl)
constrained moisture regimes in the Negev and Si-
nai facilitating the rapid penetration of dunefields
northeastwards from the Nile Delta (Ben-David
2003; Crouvi et al. 2009; Enzel et al. 2006, 2008;
Goring-Morris and Goldberg 1991; Muhs et al.
2013; Roskin et al. 2011). Marked amelioration is
subsequently accompanied the sharp rise in the
number of sites during the Middle Epipaleolithic
(Goring-Morris et al. 2009). By the beginning of the
Late Epipaleolithic (corresponding to the Bølling/
Allerød intervals) sea levels had risen to ca. -70 m
bsl, so that the Mediterranean Sinai coastline was
still quite distant, while the shallow Gulf of Suez
continued to be exposed.
Anthracological and pollen evidence indicate
more trees in the Negev highlands at this time
(Baruch and Goring-Morris 1997; Horowitz 1992).
At the end of the Epipaleolithic there is locally little
direct evidence for deleterious effects during the
Younger Dryas, ca. 12,900–11,500 calBP, (though
see Stein et al. 2010 concerning possible evidence
from the Dead Sea); and it was only during the
Pre-Pottery Neolithic A, at the beginning of the
early Holocene, that the region was largely de-
serted.
Background to the Negev/Sinai
Natufian

At least three distinct socio-cultural entities

relate to the Natufian sequence in the Negev and
Sinai (Fig. 1). Based upon techno-typological criteria
of the lithic assemblages, these entities comprise:
the Terminal Ramonian/Early Natufian, the Late
Natufian and the Harifian (Goring-Morris 1987,
1991; Goring-Morris and Belfer-Cohen 1997). While
the Terminal Ramonian/Early Natufian and the
Late Natufian have furnished few reliable dates,
more than 20 dates are available for the Harifian
(Fig. 2).
While exhibiting certain similarities with the
‘core area’ Natufian, the Late Epipaleolithic sequence
in the Negev and Sinai is distinctive on various
planes. Inevitably, given the more peripheral envi-
ronmental setting, local Natufian subsistence strat-
egies within the Irano-Turanian steppes exhibited
greater mobility than those within the ‘core area’
Mediterranean zone. Accordingly, logistical mobil-
ity was necessary throughout the sequence, with a
hierarchy of site types and sizes, in order to exploit
the various specific ecological zones on a seasonal
basis. The relative density of survey and excavation
projects provides an opportunity to evaluate the Fig. 1. Map of Final Natufian and Harifian sites
changing nature and dynamics of these adaptations in the Levant.
at a regional scale (for references see: Goring-Morris
1987, 1991; Goring-Morris et al. 1999). ranean ‘core area’; and that, only subsequently, did
The commonly assumed scenario for the Natufi- it diffuse to the southern periphery in a ‘diluted’
an sensu lato has been that it first emerged (directly form (e.g. Bar-Yosef 1998; Henry 1989; Marks and
from the Geometric Kebaran) within the Mediter- Friedel 1977). Intriguingly, it is of interest to note

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

563
A. Nigel Goring-Morris and Anna Belfer-Cohen
that, while there are instances where Geometric
Kebaran levels immediately underlie Natufian
ones, the data appear to indicate a complete break
between the two, e.g. at Hayonim terrace (contra
Henry et al. 1981) and el-Wad (Belfer-Cohen and
Goring-Morris 2007; Weinstein-Evron 2009). Fur-
thermore, we encounter marked discontinuities in
techno-typological aspects of the material culture
(i.e. lithics, bone tools, groundstone utensils, etc.)
between the ‘core area’ Natufian and the locally
preceding Geometric Kebaran (for details see
Belfer-Cohen and Goring-Morris herein). Although,
by definition, every archaeological entity displays
unique characteristics, yet facing an evolutionary
sequence, we would expect that the new and the
preceding entity would share, to some extent at
least, various background features.
While the chronological data remain somewhat
equivocal, the Negev and Sinai based Terminal
Ramonian is apparently earlier and/or coeval with
the Early Natufian of the Mediterranean zone.
But, in contrast to Geometric Kebaran – Natufian
discontinuity within the Mediterranean zone not-
ed above, the Terminal Ramonian displays direct
techno-typological continuity from the preceding
Middle Epipaleolithic Mushabian and Ramonian
entities.
The Middle Epipaleolithic Mushabian may
derive from the Early Epipaleolithic Nizzanan
entity as environmental conditions improved to-
wards the end of the LGM.3 Technologically, the
entities differ in that elongate, distally pointed
blade/let blanks in the Nizzanan derive from nar-
row-fronted single platform cores, while the stubby
blade/let blanks of the Mushabian are produced
from wide-fronted cores. The Mushabian, together
with its subsequent derivative, the Ramonian, are
geographically limited to the Negev and Sinai. The
Mushabian is characterized by arch backed and
scalene bladelets, together with splayed/blunt ended
bladelets; the Ramonian features the ‘Ramon point’,
a robust, concave backed and obliquely truncated
bladelet (Goring-Morris 1995); microliths in both
phases were habitually produced by the microburin
technique (mbt).4 Ramonian reduction sequences
commonly use wide-fronted and pyramidal single
platform cores to produce longer blade/let blanks,
often distally slightly overshot or blunt.5 Scrapers
often occur on thick blade blanks, while burins are
almost absent. Initially, the Mushabian may have
been briefly coeval locally with the Geometric Ke-
baran. However, the stratigraphy and radiometric
dates appear to indicate that the Geometric Keba-
ran disappeared quite rapidly from these desertic
564
regions, so that its complete chronological sequence
is documented only in the northern, Mediterranean
area.6 The geographic demarcation in the area of
the Hebron hills between the late Mushabian/
Ramonian and the late Geometric Kebaran seems
to be quite pronounced (Hermon 1996; Lamdan et
al. 1977; Valla et al. 1979). While the Geometric
Kebaran and Mushabian have furnished a series
of C14 dates, the situation with regards the Ra-
monian and the Early Natufian in the Negev and
Sinai remains problematic (Fig. 2).
The Ramonian develops into what one of us
has called the ‘Terminal Ramonian’ (Goring-Mor-
ris 1987). Blade/let blanks usually derive from
pyramidal and wide-fronted single platform blade/
let cores. This phase is marked by the presence
of smaller ‘Ramon point’ variants, together with
the addition of Helwan lunates and spokeshave
denticulates, the latter two being hallmarks of the
early Natufian in the Mediterranean ‘core area’
(Garrod 1957; Neuville 1951).7 Additionally, a few
assemblages in the south feature Helwan lunates
but totally lack the ‘Ramon point’ varieties; these
were denoted as ‘Early Natufian’ (Goring-Morris
1987; Marder 1994, 2002).8 In terms of raw material
and technology these ‘Terminal Ramonian/Early
Natufian’ assemblages cannot be differentiated
(pers. obs.; Marder 1994).
A principal difference between the Geometric
Kebaran and the Mushabian/Ramonian complexes
concerns the habitual and systematic application of
the microburin technique in fashioning microliths
occurring only in the latter (Belfer-Cohen and Gor-
ing-Morris 2002).9 While some scholars continue to
believe that the technique derives from North Africa
(Bar-Yosef 1987, 2013), there is compelling evidence
to suggest that the mbt first appeared in the eastern
portions of the southern Levant at the beginning of
the early Epipaleolithic, i.e. in Nebekian and then
in Nizzanan industries (Goring-Morris 1995). The
technique is subsequently ubiquitous during the
Natufian and the Harifian in the Negev and Sinai;
however, in the ‘core area’ Natufian, the microburin
technique occurs in variable intensities, with some
assemblages lacking it almost entirely (Bar-Yosef
and Valla 1979; Henry 1974; and see Belfer-Cohen
and Goring-Morris herein).
Terminal Ramonian and Early
Natufian
The distribution of the ‘Terminal Ramonian’
includes the central and western Negev and north-
ern Sinai; and there are also indications that it
 Ruminations on the Role of Periphery and Centre in the Natufian
may even have extended as far west as the Nile
valley (Goring-Morris 1995; Schmidt 1996). The
sites demonstrate a hierarchy in size and content,
ranging from the large residential base-camp
(Upper Besor VI lower level – UB VI/lower10) with
architecture, through to intermediate campsites
(e.g., Shunera VII) and smaller, more ephemeral
camps. The latter are found in the higher elevations
of the central Negev highlands (e.g. Har Harif K7),
the lowland dunes (e.g. Nahal Sekher 23, Mushabi
IV and Nahal Lavan IV), as well as in the south
Hebron hills (e.g. Beer Faher – for references see:
Alon and Noy 1974; Goring-Morris 1987, 1998;
Hermon 1996; Horwitz and Goring-Morris 2001;
Marks and Simmons 1977; Phillips and Mintz 1977).
The assemblages in the Negev designated as
‘Early Natufian’, sensu stricto, are small and quite
ephemeral camps. As noted above they share the
same characteristics as the ‘Terminal Ramonian’
lithic assemblages, but with the complete absence
of Ramon points, and are located also in the lowland
dunes. Interestingly, besides the lithic component,
the site of Azariq XV also contains large quantities
of dentalia tips (recently renamed Antalis shells
- scaphopods, or tusk shells); as such the camp
could represent the temporary station of a work
party traveling from the Edom region across the
Negev to the Mediterranean coast to collect shells
(Goring-Morris 1987).
Lithics
There is a notable preference for chalcedony
on small fractured blocks and other high quality
flint as raw material for the medium-sized and
microlithic components of the lithic assemblages.11
The blade/let blanks derive from well executed
single platform wide-fronted and pyramidal
cores; larger cherty nodules were exploited to
produce large blade blanks for massive tools. As
noted above Terminal Ramonian assemblages
are characterized by Helwan (sensu lato) lunates
and abruptly backed Ramon point varieties and
include variable frequencies of deep, spokeshave
notches and denticulates, burins, exquisitely made
scrapers on flakes and blades, perforators and
massive tools (Fig. 3). Amongst the massive tools,
denticulates are a locally notable and long-lasting
form (Fig. 4). The Ramon points display greater
variability than previously, and though most are
backed they sometimes include Helwan retouch
on their bases, and their relative numbers with-
in assemblages decrease (Goring-Morris 1987).
The points and geometrics are habitually made
565
using the mbt, with usually one microburin per
Ramon point and two per lunate. Refitting studies
demonstrate the intentional use of Krukowski
microburins to shorten the tips of some Ramon
points (Marder 1994). As within the ‘core area’,
the only presently known residential base-camp,
UB VI/lower, displays a greater variability of tool
classes and higher proportions of categories other
than microliths; additionally, it is the only site
documented to date with sickle-blades (Fig. 5).
Architecture
One hallmark of the Early Natufian is the
presence and scale of durable structures. To date
this has been presented in terms of significant
architectural remains within the ‘core area’, with
none documented in the periphery prior to the
Late Natufian and Harifian. But rarely, one can
glimpse an exception, as is the case of UB VI/lower.
Located in a strategic setting in the central Negev,
excavations have revealed a well-constructed, large
semi-circular structure with stone footings, ca. 8 m
in diameter (Fig. 6; Goring-Morris 1998; Horwitz
and Goring-Morris 2001).12 Several bedrock mortars
are integral to the structure.
Non-Lithics
Of note at UB VI is the presence of a meander-in-
cised, dome-shaped item on limestone with remark-
able similarities to the pattern on a shaft-straight-
ener from the Early Natufian occupation across the
Arava at Wadi Mataha in the Petra area of Edom
(Fig. 7D) (Goring-Morris 1998; Gregg et al. 2011;
Chazan pers. comm.). Other notable items at UB
VI are numbers of bedrock mortars, while a basalt
pestle (closest source 25 km to the south) was found
as part of a cache together with an ochre-smeared,
massive flint pick. Also present are a partially per-
forated bivalve and other sandstone ‘hand-guards’.13
Numerous Mediterranean-type dentalia tips were
found around a worktable. Fauna were generally
poorly preserved but included gazelle, ibex and wild
ass. Ostrich eggshell fragments were also present
(Horwitz and Goring-Morris 2001).
In other more ephemeral sites such as Shunera
VII and Mushabi IV, firepits and hearths, some with
quantities of fire-cracked rocks, were recovered.
Notable was an intentionally manufactured lump
of lime-plaster at Shunera VII, presumably used
as mastic for anchoring composite tools in handles
or shafts (Fig. 7B) (Y. Goren, pers. comm.; and see
Kingery et al. 1988).
A. Nigel Goring-Morris and Anna Belfer-Cohen

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

566
 Ruminations on the Role of Periphery and Centre in the Natufian

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

567
A. Nigel Goring-Morris and Anna Belfer-Cohen

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

568
 Ruminations on the Role of Periphery and Centre in the Natufian

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

569
A. Nigel Goring-Morris and Anna Belfer-Cohen

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

570
 Ruminations on the Role of Periphery and Centre in the Natufian
The Late Natufian
The shift to the subsequent local Late Natu-
fian seems to be quite abrupt, as reflected by the
complete disappearance of Helwan retouch for
the backing of lunates. This is accompanied by a
seeming contraction in the distribution of sites
that are now restricted only to the Negev, with
no evidence for Late Natufian in Sinai, indicating
a re-arrangement of subsistence patterns. Late
Natufian adaptation probably focused around the
seasonally occupied aggregation site complex at
Rosh Horesha-Saflulim, in the higher elevations of
the central Negev highlands. Smaller residential
base-camps, e.g. Rosh Zin and UB VI/upper, were
located at the margins of the highlands (Henry
1976; Goring-Morris 1998). Numbers of hunting
camps and stands of variable size lacking durable
architectural remains are found at the edges of the
Negev lowland dunefields14 and in the southern
Hebron hills.15
Lithics
The choice of raw materials continues the pat-
tern described above for the Terminal Ramonian/
Early Natufian. So, too, the range of tool classes
varies between the larger aggregation and base-
camp sites (with sickle-blades and a wider range
of tool classes) on the one hand, and the smaller,
more ephemeral hunting camps and stands (dom-
inated by microliths) on the other (Fig. 8). The
blade/let blanks mostly derive from single platform
wide-fronted and pyramidal cores. No Ramon point
varieties are found, while Helwan backing on micro-
liths and blades is to all intents completely replaced
by abrupt and semi-abrupt obverse backing. The
microburin technique continues to be habitually
used to produce the tips at both ends of lunates.
Burins usually outnumber scrapers, the latter being
poorly made. Sickle-blades occur in small numbers
in base-camp sites, as do massive tools.
Architecture
No obvious residential structures have been
identified to date at Rosh Horesha-Saflulim. How-
ever, a large structure with a kidney-shaped plan
constructed of massive slabs is notable at Rosh
Horesha (Fig. 9A), as is a plastered surface at
Saflulim (Marks and Larson 1977; Goring-Morris
et al. 1999). Both sites have what appear to be low
terrace walls that may be of Natufian date. Smaller
residential base-camps (e.g. Rosh Zin and UB VI/
571
upper) feature structures 3-4 m in diameter, and
have a beehive type arrangement (Henry 1976;
Goring-Morris 1998). An unusual structure at
Rosh Zin (Locus 4) featured a slab-lined surface
and a large monolith, the latter interpreted by the
excavator as having phallic connotations (Fig. 9B)
(Henry 1976).
Non-Lithics
Elements other than lithics are rare except in
the base-camp sites. Numerous bedrock mortars
and cupmarks have been described from in and
around the Rosh Horesha-Saflulim complex, while
they are also present in some numbers at Rosh
Zin and UB VI (Goring-Morris et al. 1999; Henry
1976; Nadel and Rosenberg 2010). Stone pestles,
handstones and perforated discs were reported from
Rosh Zin. Small numbers of basalt and sandstone
shaft-straighteners are also present in base-camps.
Molluscan assemblages tend to be dominated by
Mediterranean species and include large quantities
of dentalia, in addition to rare items from the Red
Sea and freshwater sources (Bar-Yosef Mayer 2010;
Mienis 1977). Of jewelry there are also a small
number of limestone and malachite beads (Fig. 7C)
(Larson 1978; Goring-Morris et al. 1999). Although
bone tools are rare, several points and awls were
reported from Rosh Zin, while the presence of a haft
fragment at Saflulim is notable (Fig. 7A). Several
fragments of incised ostrich eggshell were reported
from Rosh Zin and at UB VI (Fig. 7F)(Goring-Morris
1998; Henry 1976).
The Harifian
The following Harifian is a short-lived, but
well-defined and distinctive archaeological entity
that represents the culmination of local Natufian
developments (for more detailed discussion see
Goring-Morris 1987, 1991).16 The time span of
the Harifian existence broadly coincides with the
‘Younger Dryas’ event. There is some evidence that
Harifian seasonal mobility patterns shifted from
that of the local Late Natufian (see Butler et al.
1977). While superficially successful, it seems likely
that ongoing aridification in the region eventually
caused the crossing of a critical threshold, such
that the Harifians ultimately were forced to
abandon the area and retreat to neighbouring
regions – whether to the south (e.g. the site of Abu
Madi I in southern Sinai, which may represent an
‘Epi-Harifian’/Khiamian phenomenon17), or to the
north and east, where they amalgamated with other
A. Nigel Goring-Morris and Anna Belfer-Cohen

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

572
 Ruminations on the Role of Periphery and Centre in the Natufian

Final Natufian communities (Goring-Morris and of the subsequent PPNA in adjacent areas (Belfer-
Belfer-Cohen 1997).18 Such movements probably Cohen and Goring-Morris 1996; Goring-Morris
were instrumental as a catalyst for the emergence 1991; Goring-Morris and Belfer-Cohen 1997).

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

573
A. Nigel Goring-Morris and Anna Belfer-Cohen
Lithics
The Harifian choice of raw materials to some
extent continues the patterns already apparent
from the Terminal Ramonian/Early Natufian
onward. There is some emphasis on chalcedony
for microliths and medium-sized tools, though in
a less pronounced manner than previously. The
trend towards less formalized technology in the
production of blanks for the microliths and other,
medium-sized tools becomes more pronounced, as
elongated flake and blade/let blanks now derived
from non-standardized and often multi-platformed
cores (Fig. 10; Goring-Morris et al. 1998).19 But
separate reduction sequences continued to produce
blanks for the larger tools.
So, too, the range and relative frequencies of
tool classes varies between the larger aggregation/
base-camp sites and the smaller, more ephemeral
hunting camps and stands (Fig. 10). In the former
a relatively more ‘balanced’ range of tool classes
is present, including points, microliths (a micro-
gravette form is notable), scrapers (often with
coarse denticulation of the working end), burins,
perforators, well-made backed knives, as well as
small quantities of sickle-blades and heavy duty
tools; in the latter assemblages tools are dominat-
ed by microliths, points and scrapers, with few if
any other classes present. A notable innovation
is the appearance of aerodynamically-shaped
arrowheads, firstly in the form of Shunera points
and later as Harif points.20 Especially interesting
is the occasional appearance of Khiam points in
later Harifian assemblages in each region where
Harifian site clusters are documented.
Architecture
Architectural features in the base-camp sites
include redundant, spaced and separate semi-sub-
terranean structures, ca. 3.5-4.0 m in diameter, often
lined with slabs (Fig. 11). Smaller surface structures
are also found, sometimes as appendages to the
larger structures. The latter were commonly fur-
nished with hearths, cup-marked slab worktables
and at least one mortar per structure, as at Ramat
Harif, Abu Salem and Shluhat Harif (Goring-Morris
1987, 1991). Trash pits were noted at Abu Salem
and in Ramat Harif (Scott 1977).
Lowland base-camps feature fewer and less
invested durable architectural features (e.g. in
Maktesh Ramon, see Goring-Morris 1991), while in
the western Negev dunes architecture was probably
574
constructed only of organic materials that have not
been preserved.
Non-Lithics
Ground stone tool assemblages are found only
in the Harifian base-camps and include numbers
of cup-marked slabs but fewer mortars. Pestles
are relatively rare, although bell-shaped ‘collared’
grinding stones on green metamorphic rock were
recovered at Abu Salem and Shluhat Harif (K3) (Fig.
7E) (Goring-Morris 1991). Other notable items in-
clude red micaceous sandstone spatulae, limestone
burnishers, basalt and sandstone shaft-straighten-
ers, as well as assorted hammerstones.
Molluscan assemblages display a greater ten-
dency than previously for species deriving from the
Red Sea and include large quantities of Red Sea
dentalia. Of note are items that seemingly derive
from the Indian Ocean (Bar-Yosef Mayer 2010;
Mienis 1977). Small numbers of much larger types,
such as Pecten sp. and Charonia sp. (trumpet shell)
are also notable. Small numbers of turquoise (again
‘collared’), malachite and fossil pendants (Fig. 7E),
spacers and beads are also present. In the west-
ern Negev open-air site of Shunera X an obsidian
fragment was recovered, deriving from Göllu Dag
East in Cappadocia, Turkey (Yellin et al. n.d.).
Although bone tools are not common, they
include points and awls; a decorated spatula is
noteworthy (Fig. 7G) (Scott 1977). Ostrich eggshell
fragments were recovered in several sites, espe-
cially in the lowlands, but they are not decorated
(Goring-Morris 1991).
Discussion
In light of the above overview it is clear that a
sequence of related entities is documented in the
Negev and Sinai from at least the Middle Epipaleo-
lithic Mushabian/Ramonian through the Natufian
and Harifian at the end of the Epipaleolithic. Though
each is quite distinctive, the local lithic industries
display not only typological but also, and impor-
tantly, technological continuity (Goring-Morris
1987; Marder 2002). Thus the ‘Natufian complex’
in the Negev and Sinai represents the culmination
of a long, demonstrably shared cultural tradition.
Initially, there is little evidence for direct external
connections with adjacent areas during the Musha-
bian and Ramonian. However, by the Terminal
Ramonian/Early Natufian there is compelling
lithic and other evidence to indicate interactions
with neighboring regions. During all but the latest
 Ruminations on the Role of Periphery and Centre in the Natufian

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

575
A. Nigel Goring-Morris and Anna Belfer-Cohen
stage of the Harifian there is again little evidence
amongst the material culture remains for sustained
connections with other areas.
In general, the archaeological sequence in
the Mediterranean region differs, and the Late
Epipaleolithic ‘core area’ Natufian demonstrates
little continuity from the locally preceding Mid-
dle Epipaleolithic Geometric Kebaran (and see
above).
Accordingly, as noted in the introduction one
may enquire as to the degree to which the periph-
ery was tangential to ‘mainstream’ developments.
Indeed, we again face the conundrum of how and
where things first develop. Without doubt the
Natufian phenomenon comprises much more than
its lithic attributes; but, to date there has been
little detailed and substantiated discussion as to
the mechanisms involved in its emergence (though
see Grosman 2005). We are still at a loss to under-
stand the processes involved in the appearance of
Natufian complexity. What were the circumstances
under which the entity acquired its particular
and novel characteristics of large-scale architec-
tural activities, burial grounds, a dramatic rise in
quantities and diversity of bone tools and ground
stone utensils, abundance of personal ornaments,
and the tendency towards increasing sedentism?
Many of these individual elements first emerged
Fig. 11. Ramat Harif (G VIII). Locus 3 complex.
576
earlier, but it is the overall scale and intensity of
the Natufian that is so striking.
How is it possible to explain that, on the one
hand groups shared sufficient elements of the lithic
techno-typological repertoire to be grouped as part
of the Natufian taxon; yet, on the other hand, they
displayed considerable variability in other aspects
of their existence, creating the observed dichotomy
between the ‘core area’ and the ‘periphery’ at the two
extremes. Since differing ecological conditions were
present in the Mediterranean and the semi-arid
regions also prior to the Natufian, it seems to us
that the ‘trigger’ for this obvious divergence must
be a combination of both environmental and social
circumstances (Bar-Yosef and Belfer-Cohen 1989a,
1991; Goring-Morris and Belfer-Cohen 1997). For
example, one might speculate that those Geometric
Kebaran groups ‘evicted’ from the southern region
by the Mushabians retreated into their Mediter-
ranean ancestral homeland and in light of the rise
in local population densities reached a “... drastic
solution, ... regrouping in a radically different con-
figuration, which enabled effective increases in the
carrying capacities of the available areas and tighter
packing - the Early Natufian of the northern prov-
ince” (Goring-Morris and Belfer-Cohen 1997:81).21
Sufficient data have accumulated to suggest that
those Geometric Kebaran groups brought with them
 Ruminations on the Role of Periphery and Centre in the Natufian
lithic traditions from the south, elements of which
were incorporated within the local (i.e. northern)
ones. Admittedly, there is actually very little evi-
dence for cultural exchange between the Mushabian
and the Geometric Kebaran in the Negev (but see
Goring-Morris 1987, 1995). Yet, it is well established
that the appearance of the microburin technique
and the use of Helwan retouch, the hallmarks of
Natufian lithic traditions, appeared earlier in the
peripheral zones (Goring-Morris 1995; and see
above).
As a consequence of different socio-economic
processes taking place in the different phyto-
geographic zones, various elements of the ‘core
area’ Early Natufian repertoire are missing or
impoverished in the periphery, e.g. rich artistic
manifestations, a wide variety of groundstone
utensils or burials.22 This may largely be explained
through different environmental and social inter-
actions (Belfer-Cohen and Goring-Morris 2011;
Goring-Morris and Belfer-Cohen 2011). If, within
the ecologically favored areas of the Mediterranean
zone the ‘average’ exploited territory of Natufian
communities was on the order of 1500-2500 km²
(i.e. based on an estimated radius of up to 10 km/2
hrs walking distance from the site), within the Ne-
gev, the logistically organized groups likely had to
range over at least 5-7,500 km² annually in order
to make ends meet. In doing so, they had to adapt
more flexible responses to ‘hard times’ than in the
north. Of course, there would also have been inter-
mediate adaptations between greater and lesser
mobility within the mosaic environmental zones
comprising the southern Levant (and see Binford
1980 with regards the forager/collector continuum).
It is important to recognize that this reflects not only
differences in the spatial scale of the movements
of groups, but also differing community sizes and
hence also social scales. Accordingly, it is likely
that the entire population of the Late Natufian
or Harifian in the Negev comprised but the same
number of individuals as only one or perhaps two
coeval Natufian hamlets in the more verdant por-
tions of the Mediterranean zone. This may portray
a social aspect, in addition to economic dictums, for
the existence of aggregation sites in the Negev (i.e.
the Rosh Horesha-Saflulim complex), representing
the periodic (seasonal) in-gathering of the entire
Natufian population in the Negev. This would also
explain the relatively greater homogeneity of Natu-
fian adaptations within each phase in the Negev, as
opposed to the greater and eclectic heterogeneity
of developments between adjacent hamlets within
the ‘core area’.
577
Obviously, the archaeological record indicates
that the pace of changes and transformations was
more intense in the north. It has been assumed
previously that the Negev Natufian occurrences
were but a ‘pale shadow’ of developments in the
north, reflecting the budding-off of northern groups
moving southwards, or the temporary occupations
of visitors from the north; however, the unfolding
picture is actually quite different and complex.
Thus the data and knowledge accumulated in
recent years provide another explanation of what
one observes in the archaeological record. The
potential for innovation was obviously present
amongst both the northern and southern popu-
lations (e.g. see the ‘peripheral’ site of UB VI and
its inventory compared with ‘core-area’ camps).
Yet it was more latent in the south. Indeed, the
Negev Natufian was characterized by a certain
stasis, whereby changes from one stage to the
other were quite abrupt and appear to be caused
by extraneous factors. In the north, the changes
evolved and became apparent gradually, through
time. These contrasts mirror the characteristics of
human behavior under optimal versus marginal
ecological conditions. Accordingly, there is a far
higher degree of conservatism observed in all do-
mains of life in the ‘periphery’, where the Natufian
population comprised but a single integrated unit;
as opposed to the ‘core area’, where numerous inde-
pendent groups resided. We believe that a pivotal
explanation for the different tempos and directions
taken by northern Natufians, in contrast to those
in the south, is that the former had the option to
exercise their latent potential for experimentation
and innovation. In the Negev the margins for error
were limited; adaptations were fine-tuned, so that
relatively minor changes, environmental and/or
social, would have necessitated significant, if not
complete re-organization - a luxury not always
available vis à vis time, space and resources. This
was a matter of life and death. Indeed, without
being overly deterministic, it appears probable that
the cumulative effects of the Younger Dryas, much
more pronounced in the semi-arid and arid zones
‘sounded the death knoll’ for the Final Natufian/
Harifian in the south. Ultimately, the Harifians
passed a critical threshold and simply had no choice
but to relocate, either to adjacent regions, or, farther
afield (Goring-Morris 1991).23 It was almost a thou-
sand years later during the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B
(PPNB), with the onset of ameliorating conditions,
that groups re-populated the Negev and Sinai; they
were mobile foragers, in the mold of their earlier
Epipaleolithic predecessors, forming two distinct
A. Nigel Goring-Morris and Anna Belfer-Cohen
facies of the greater PPNB koine (Barzilai 2010;
Bar-Yosef 1984; Bar-Yosef and Belfer-Cohen 1989b;
Goring-Morris 1993).
Acknowledgements
Much of the fieldwork upon which the research
described herein was conducted by ANG-M within
the framework of the Emergency Archaeological
Survey of the Negev; collaborations with Avi Gopher
and Steve Rosen are gratefully acknowledged. The
provision of supplementary funding for field and
laboratory analyses was made possible by generous
grants to ANG-M from the Irene Levi-Sala CARE
Foundation (for research on the Harifian and exca-
vations at Upper Besor VI) and by the Israel Science
Foundation (for refitting studies). Artefact illustra-
tions were skillfully drawn by Dahlia Enoch-Shilo
and Julia Skidel-Rimer (unless otherwise noted).
Notes
1
And see Belfer-Cohen and Goring-Morris
(herein) for discussion of this issue.
2
But see also the Natufian presence in periph-
eral areas east of the Rift valley (e.g. Baadsgaard et
al. 2010; Betts 1998; Byrd 1989; Byrd and Colledge
1991; Cauvin 1973, 1991; Conard 2006; Neeley 2010;
Olszewski 2010; Pederson 1995; Sellars 1991).
3
The distribution of Nizzanan sites includes
the Negev (Nahal Nizzana IX, Hamifgash IV), the
Azraq Basin in eastern Jordan (Jilat VIA, Kharaneh
IVB,) and the eastern Jordan Valley (Ein Gev IV,
Wadi Hesban 2) (Edwards et al. 1999; Garrard and
Byrd 1992; Goring-Morris 1995).
4
The ‘Ramon point’ differs from the early Epi-
paleolithic ‘Kebara point’ in that the blank tends
to be more robust, and the oblique truncation is
almost invariably at the distal tip of the blank,
being accomplished by the application of the mbt.
5
The systematic application of the mbt to
the distal end subsequently removes the original
slightly splayed end of the blank.
6
In the few instances where stratigraphic as-
sociations are present Mushabian and Ramonian
layers always overlie Geometric Kebaran levels in
the Negev and Sinai, e.g. Mushabi XIV levels 1 and 2,
Hamifgash I and VII (Bar-Yosef and Goring-Morris
1977; Goring-Morris 1987).
7
The ‘Ramonian’ corresponds to what Marks
and Simmons (1977) originally termed the ‘Harif’
and ‘Helwan’ phases of the ‘Negev Kebaran’ and
578
what Bar-Yosef (1970) first called the ‘Geometric
Kebaran B’.
8
e.g. Azariq XV and Shunera XIII. Although we
favour the above interpretation, it is also plausible
that the absence of ‘Ramon point’ varieties in these
assemblages could reflect functionality rather than
stylistic attributes.
9
Separate reduction sequences for the produc-
tion of larger blade blanks for larger tool forms –
massive notches, denticulates, scrapers, and burins
- are a characteristic feature of all Epipaleolithic
entities in the Negev and Sinai (Goring-Morris et
al. 1998).
10
The site contains large quantities of dentalia
tips (Horwitz and Goring-Morris 2001).
11
While Mushabian assemblages almost always
favoured matt flint raw materials, a gradual shift
to chalcedony is noted during the course of the
Ramonian.
12
At least one other structure of similar dimen-
sions is visible on the surface.
13
Although unreported previously, a similar
bivalve probably used as a hand-guard is present
in the collections from Early Natufian Kebara layer
B, stored in the Rockefeller Museum, Jerusalem
(pers. obs.).
14
They include sites such as Nahal Sekher VI,
Givat Hayil I, Shunera XVIII and XIV, as well as
Halutza 87 (Goring-Morris 1987, 1997; Goring-Mor-
ris and Bar-Yosef 1987).
15
e.g. Khirbet Janba and Lahavim 2 (Aladjem
2008; Hermon 1996).
16
In its latest phase the Harifian was likely
coeval with the Pre-Pottery Neolithic A (PPNA)
Khiamian of the Mediterranean zone. Still, it is
unfortunate that the Harifian is commonly over-
looked as being integral to the Natufian complex
sensu lato.
17
Bar-Yosef (1991) assigned the lower levels
at Abu Madi I to the PPNA ‘Khiamian’; although
the assemblage includes typical Khiam points, we
believe the ‘Abu Madi’ points and other elements
of the material culture repertoire there indicate
continuity of Harifian traditions.
18
The Negev and Sinai were virtually devoid
of sites during most of the PPNA, notwithstanding
numerous systematic surveys.
19
This tendency goes hand-in-hand with the
pronounced diminution in the size of the microlith
classes.
20
‘Shunera points’ were originally called
‘Mushabi points’ (Phillips and Mintz 1977) but were
renamed to avoid confusion with the ‘Mushabian’
entity (Goring-Morris 1987).
 Ruminations on the Role of Periphery and Centre in the Natufian
21
As noted above (endnote 2), parallel devel-
opments would also have been operating between
the Mediterranean zone and the peripheral regions
east of the Rift valley.
22
The absence of burials in the south is, of
course, notable. In part this may reflect poor bone
preservation, but many Natufian base-camps in
the south are founded directly on bedrock sur-
faces, which would have necessitated disposing
of bodies off-site or in some other manner than
in the north.
23
Here it is tantalising to note the morpholog-
ical similarities between Harifian point varieties
and Nemrik points of the Round House horizon
of the Upper Tigris-Middle Euphrates region. Is
this simply a reflection of convergence? Or could
it indicate the actual movements of populations?
References Cited
Aladjem, E.
2008 Khirbat Janba. Hadashot Archeologiot -
Excavations and Surveys in Israel 120.
Alon, D. and T. Noy
1974 Beer Faher, a Natufian site. (Hebrew).
Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society
- Mitekufat Haeven 12:7-10.
Baadsgaard, A., Chazan, M., Cummings, L. S.
and J. C. Janetski
2010 Natufian strategy shifts: Evidences from
Wadi Mataha 2, Petra, Jordan. Eurasian
Prehistory 7:9-29.
Baruch, U. and A. N. Goring-Morris
1997 The arboreal vegetation of the central
Negev Highlands, Israel, at the end of the
Pleistocene: Evidence from archaeological
charred wood remains. Vegetation History
and Archaeobotany 6:249-259.
Bar-Yosef, O.
1970 The Epi-Palaeolithic Cultures of Palestine.
Ph.D. dissertation, The Hebrew Univer-
sity of Jerusalem.
1984 Seasonality among Neolithic hunter-
gatherers in Southern Sinai. In Animals
and Archaeology: 3. Early Herders
and Their Flocks, edited by J. Clutton-
Brock and C. Grigson, pp. 145-159. BAR
International Series 202, Oxford.
1987 Pleistocene connexions between Africa
and Southwest Asia: An archaeological
perspective. The African Archaeological
Review 5:29-38.
579
1991 The Early Neolithic of the Levant: Recent
advances. The Review of Archaeology
12:1-18.
1998 The Natufian Culture in the Levant,
threshold to the origins of agriculture.
Evolutionary Anthropology 6:159-177.
2013 Nile Valley-Levant interactions: an
eclectic review. In Neolithisation of North-
eastern Africa, edited by N. Shirai, pp.
237-248. SENEPSE 16, ex oriente, Berlin.
Bar-Yosef, O. and A. Belfer-Cohen
1989a The origins of sedentism and farming
communities in the Levant. Journal of
World Prehistory 40:447-498.
1989b The Levantine “PPNB” interaction
sphere. In People and Culture in Change,
edited by I. Hershkovitz, pp. 59-72. BAR
International Series 508, Oxford.
1991 From Sedentary Hunter-Gatherers to
Territorial Farmers in the Levant. In
Between Bands and States, Center for
Archaeological Investigations, Occasional
Paper No. 9, edited by S. A. Gregg, pp.
181-202. Southern Illinois University,
Carbondale.
Bar-Yosef, O. and A. N. Goring-Morris
1977 Geometric Kebaran A Occurrences.
In Prehistoric Investigations in Gebel
Maghara, Northern Sinai, edited by O.
Bar-Yosef and J. L. Phillips, pp. 115-148.
Qedem 7. Monographs of the Institute of
Archaeology, The Hebrew University of
Jerusalem, Jerusalem.
Bar-Yosef, O. and E. Tchernov
1966 Archaeological Finds and the Fossil
Faunas of the Natufian and Microlithic
Industries of Hayonim Cave (Western
Galilee, Israel). Israel Journal of Zoology
15:104-140.
Bar-Yosef, O. and F. R. Valla
1979 L’évolution du Natoufien: nouvelles
suggestions. Paléorient 5:145-152.
Bar-Yosef Mayer, D. E.
2010 The lessons of Dentalium shells in the
Levant. Journal of the Israel Prehistoric
Society - Mitekufat Haeven 40:219-228.
Barzilai, O.
2010 Social Complexity in the Southern
Levantine PPNB as Reflected through
Lithic Studies: The Bidirectional Blade
Industries. BAR International Series
2180, Oxford.
A. Nigel Goring-Morris and Anna Belfer-Cohen
Belfer-Cohen, A.
1989 The Natufian Issue: A Suggestion.
In Investigations in South Levantine
Prehistory, edited by O. Bar-Yosef and
B. Vandermeersch, pp. 297-307. BAR
International Series 497, Oxford.
Belfer-Cohen, A. and A. N. Goring-Morris
1996 The Late Epipalaeolithic as the Precursor
of the Neolithic: The Lithic Evidence. In
Neolithic Chipped Lithic Industries of the
Fertile Crescent and Their Contemporar-
ies in Adjacent Regions, edited by S. K.
Kozlowski and H. G. Gebel, pp. 217-225.
SENEPSE 3. ex oriente, Berlin.
2002 Why Microliths? Microlithization in
the Levant. In Thinking Small: Global
Perspectives on Microlithic Technologies,
edited by R. G. Elston and S. L. Kuhn, pp.
57-68. Archeology Papers of the American
Anthropological Association, Arlington,
Virginia.
2007 A New Look at Old Assemblages: A
Cautionary Tale. In Technical Systems
and Near Eastern PPN Communities,
edited by L. Astruc, D. Binder, and F.
Briois, pp. 15-24. Éditions APDCA,
Antibes.
2011 Becoming Farmers, the Inside Story.
Current Anthropology 52(S4):S209-S220.
herein Breaking the Mould: Phases and Facies in
the Natufian of the Mediterranean Zone.
Edited by O. Bar-Yosef and F. R. Valla.
International Monographs in Prehistory,
Ann Arbor.
Ben-David, R.
2003 Changes in Desert Margin Environments
During the Climate Changes of the Upper
Quaternary. Interaction between the
drainage systems and the accumulation
of dust (loess) and the invasion of dunes
at the north-west Negev Desert. Ph.D.
dissertation, The Hebrew University of
Jerusalem (in Hebrew).
Betts, A. (editor)
1998 The Harra and the Hamad. Excavations
and Surveys in Eastern Jordan, Volume
1. Sheffield Archaeological Monographs
9, Sheffield.
Binford, L. R.
1980 Willow Smoke and Dogs’ Tails: Hunt-
er-Gatherer Settlement Systems and
Archaeological Site Formation. American
Antiquity 45:4-20.
580
Butler, B. H., Tchernov, E., Hietala, H. and S.
Davis
1977 Faunal exploitation during the Late
Epipaleolithic in the Har Harif. In
Prehistory and Paleoenvironments in
the Central Negev, Israel. Volume II. The
Avdat/Aqev Area, Part 2, and the Har
Harif, edited by A. E. Marks, pp. 327-346.
Southern Methodist University Press,
Dallas.
Byrd, B. F.
1989 The Natufian Encampment at Beidha:
Late Pleistocene Adaptations in the
Southern Levant. Vol. 23. Jutland Archae-
ological Society Publications, Aarhus.
Byrd, B. F. and S. M. Colledge
1991 Early Natufian occupation along the edge
of the southern Jordanian steppe. In The
Natufian Culture in the Levant, edited by
O. Bar-Yosef and F. R. Valla, pp. 265-276.
International Monographs in Prehistory,
Ann Arbor.
Cauvin, J.
1972 Nouvelles fouilles à Tell Mureybet
(Syria): 1971-1972. Rapport préliminaire.
Annales Archéologiques Arabes Syriennes
22:105-115.
Cauvin, M.-C.
1973 Une station de tradition Natoufienne
dans le Hauran (Syrie). Taibe, prés de
Deraa. Annales Archéologiques Arabes
Syriennes 23:105-110.
1991 Du Natoufien au Levant Nord? Jayroud
et Mureybet (Syrie). In The Natufian
Culture in the Levant, edited by O.
Bar-Yosef and F. R. Valla, pp. 295-314.
International Monographs in Prehistory,
Ann Arbor.
Crouvi, O., Amit, R., Porat, N., Gillespie, A. R.,
McDonald, E. V. and Y. Enzel
2009 Significance of primary hilltop loess in
reconstructing dust chronology, accretion
rates, and sources: An example from
the Negev Desert, Israel. Journal of
Geophysical Research and Exploration
114:F02017.
Edwards, P. C., Head, M. J. and P. G. Macumber
1999 An Epipalaeolithic Sequence from Wadi
Hisban in the East Jordan Valley. Annual
of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan
XLIII:27-48.
 Ruminations on the Role of Periphery and Centre in the Natufian
Enzel, Y., Agnon, A. and M. Stein (editors)
2006 New frontiers in Dead Sea paleoenviron-
mental research. Vol. 401. Special Papers.
Geological Society of America, Boulder.
Enzel, Y., Amit, R., Dayan, U., Crouvi, O.,
Kahana, R., Ziv, B. and D. Sharon
2008 The Climatic and Physiographic Controls
of the Eastern Mediterranean over
the Late Pleistocene Climates in the
Southern Levant and its Neighboring
Deserts. Global and Planetary Change
60:165-192.
Conard, N. J. (editor)
2006 Tübingen - Damascus Excavation and
Survey Project. 1999-2005. Tübingen
Publications in Prehistory, Tübingen.
Garrard, A. N. and B. Byrd
1992 New Dimensions to the Epipalaeolithic
of the Wadi Jilat in Central Jordan.
Paléorient 18/1:47-62.
Garrod, D. A. E.
1957 The Natufian Culture: The life and
economy of a Mesolithic people in the
Near East. Proceedings of the British
Academy 43:211-227.
Goring-Morris, A. N.
1987 At the Edge: Terminal Pleistocene Hunter-
Gatherers in the Negev and Sinai. BAR
International Series 361, Oxford.
1991 The Harifian of the Southern Levant.
In The Natufian Culture in the Levant,
edited by O. Bar-Yosef and F. R. Valla,
pp. 173-234. International Monographs
in Prehistory, Ann Arbor.
1993 From Foraging to Herding in the Negev
and Sinai: the Early to Late Neolithic
Transition. Paléorient 19:63-87.
1995 Complex hunter-gatherers at the end of
the Paleolithic (20,000-10,000 BP). In
The Archaeology of Society in the Holy
Land, edited by T. E. Levy, pp. 141-168.
Leicester University Press, London.
1997 A Late Natufian Campsite at Givat Hayil
I, Western Negev Dunes, Israel. Journal of
the Israel Prehistoric Society - Mitekufat
Haeven 27:43-61.
1998 Mobiliary Art from the Late Epipal-
aeolithic of the Negev, Israel. Rock Art
Research 15:81-88.
Goring-Morris, A. N., and O. Bar-Yosef
1987 A Late Natufian Campsite in the Western
Negev. Paléorient 13/1:104-109.
581
Goring-Morris, A. N. and A. Belfer-Cohen
1997 Articulation of Cultural Processes and
Late Quaternary Environmental Changes
in Cisjordan. Paléorient 23/1:71-93.
2011 Neolithisation Processes in the Levant:
The Outer Envelope. Current Anthropol-
ogy 52/(S4):S195-S208.
Goring-Morris, A. N. and P. Goldberg
1991 Late Quaternary dune incursions in the
southern Levant: archaeology, chronology
and palaeoenvironments. Quaternary
International 5:115-137.
Goring-Morris, A. N., Goldberg, P., Goren, Y.,
Baruch, U. and D. Bar-Yosef
1999 Saflulim: A Late Natufian base camp
in the central Negev highlands, Israel.
Palestine Exploration Quarterly 131:1-29.
Goring-Morris, A. N., Hovers, E. and A. Belfer-Cohen
2009 The dynamics of Pleistocene settlement
patterns and human adaptations in the
Levant - an overview. In Transitions
in Prehistory: Papers in Honor of Ofer
Bar-Yosef, edited by J. J. Shea and D.
Lieberman, pp. 187-254. David Brown/
Oxbow, Oakville.
Goring-Morris, A. N., Marder, O., Davidzon, A.
and F. Ibrahim
1998 Putting Humpty Dumpty Together Again:
Preliminary Observations on Refitting
Studies in the Eastern Mediterranean.
In From Raw Material Procurement to
Tool Production: The Organisation of
Lithic Technology in Late Glacial and
Early Postglacial Europe, edited by S.
Milliken, pp. 149-182. BAR International
Series 700, Oxford.
Gregg, M. W., Chazan, M. and J. Janetski
2011 Variability in symbolic behaviour in the
southern Levant at the end of the Pleis-
tocene. Before Farming 2011/1(article
1):1-12.
Grosman, L.
2005 Computer Simulation of Variables in
Models of the Origins of Agriculture in the
Levant. Ph.D. dissertation, The Hebrew
University of Jerusalem.
Henry, D. O.
1973 The Natufian of Palestine: its Material
Culture and Ecology. Ph.D. dissertation,
Southern Methodist University, Dallas.
1974 The Utilization of the Microburin Tech-
nique in the Levant. Paléorient 2/2:389-
398.
A. Nigel Goring-Morris and Anna Belfer-Cohen
1976 Rosh Zin: A Natufian Settlement Near
Ein Avdat. In Prehistory and Paleoenvi-
ronments in the Central Negev, Israel. The
Avdat/Aqev Area, Part 1, edited by A. E.
Marks, pp. 317-347. Southern Methodist
University Press, Dallas.
1989 From Foraging to Agriculture: The Levant
at the End of the Ice Age. University of
Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia.
Henry, D. O., Leroi-Gourhan, Arl. and S. J. M.
Davis
1981 The excavation of Hayonim Terrace: An
Examination of the Terminal Pleistocene
Climatic and Adaptive Changes. Journal
of Archaeological Science 8:33-58.
Hermon, S.
1996 Methodological Aspects of Prehistoric
Surveys. A Test Case - The Yattir Survey.
M.A. thesis, The Hebrew University of
Jerusalem (in Hebrew).
Horowitz, A.
1992 Archeopalynology in Israel. In Palynology
of Arid Lands, edited by A. Horowitz, pp.
405-428. Elsevier, Amsterdam.
Horwitz, L. K. and A. N. Goring-Morris
2001 Fauna from the Early Natufian site of
Upper Besor 6 in the central Negev, Israel.
Paléorient 26/1:111-128.
Kingery, D. W., Vandiver, P. B. and M. Pickett
1988 The Beginnings of Pyrotechnology, Part II:
Production and Use of Lime and Gypsum
Plaster in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic Near
East. Journal of Field Archaeology 15:219-
244.
Kirkbride, D.
1966 Five Seasons at the Pre-Pottery Neolithic
Village of Beidha in Jordan. Palestine
Exploration Quarterly 98:8-72.
Lamdan, M., Ziffer, D., Huster, Y. and A. Ronen
1977 Prehistoric Archaeological Survey in
Nahal Shiqma. Sha’ar HaNegev Regional
Council, Sha’ar HaNegev, Israel (in
Hebrew).
Larson, P.
1978 Ornamental beads from the Late Natu-
fian of Southern Israel. Journal of Field
Archaeology 5:120-121.
Marder, O.
1994 Technological Aspects of Lithic Industries
of Epipalaeolithic Entities in the Levant.
Chaîne Opératoire in the Ramonian
of the Negev. M.A. thesis, The Hebrew
University of Jerusalem (in Hebrew).
582
2002 The Lithic Technology of Epipalaeolithic
Hunter-Gatherers in the Negev: The
Implications of Refitting Studies. Ph.D.
dissertation, The Hebrew University of
Jerusalem.
Marks, A. E. and D. A. Friedel
1977 Prehistoric Settlement Patterns in the
Avdat/Aqev Area. In Prehistory and
Paleoenvironments in the Central Negev,
Israel. Volume II. The Avdat/Aqev Area,
Part 2, and the Har Harif, edited by A. E.
Marks, pp. 131-158. Southern Methodist
University Press, Dallas.
Marks, A. E. and P. A. Larson
1977 Test Excavations at the Natufian Site
of Rosh Horesha. In Prehistory and
Paleoenvironments in the Central Negev,
Israel. Volume II. The Avdat/Aqev Area,
Part 2, and the Har Harif, edited by A. E.
Marks, pp. 191-232. Southern Methodist
University Press, Dallas.
Marks, A. E. and A. H. Simmons
1977 The Negev Kebaran of the Har Harif.
In Prehistory and Paleoenvironments in
the Central Negev, Israel. Volume II. The
Avdat/Aqev Area, Part 2, and the Har
Harif, edited by A. E. Marks, pp. 233-270.
Southern Methodist University Press,
Dallas.
Mienis, H. K.
1977 Marine molluscs from the Epipaleolithic
and Harifian of the Har Harif, Central
Negev (Israel). In Prehistory and Pa-
leoenvironments in the Central Negev,
Israel. Volume II. The Avdat/Aqev Area,
Part 2, and the Har Harif, edited by A. E.
Marks, pp. 347-354. Southern Methodist
University Press, Dallas.
Moore, A. M. T.
1975 The excavations of Tell Abu Hureyra in
Syria: A preliminary report. Proceedings
of the Prehistoric Society 41:5-77.
Muhs, D. R., Roskin, J., Tsoar, H., Skipp, G.,
Budahn, J. R., Sneh, A. Porat, N., Stanley, D.-J.,
Katra, I. and D. G. Blumberg
2013 Origin of the Sinai-Negev erg, Egypt and
Israel: mineralogical and geochemical
evidence for the importance of the Nile
and sea level history. Quaternary Science
Reviews 69:28-48.
Nadel, D. and D. Rosenberg
2010 New insights into Late Natufian bed
rock features (mortars and cupmarks).
Eurasian Prehistory 7:61-83.
 Ruminations on the Role of Periphery and Centre in the Natufian
Neeley, M. P.
2010 TBAS 102: A Late Natufian Site in West-
Central Jordan. Neo-Lithics 1/10:86-91.
Neuville, R.
1951 Le Paléolithique et le Mésolithique du
Désert de Judée. Archives de l’Institut
de Paléontologie Humaine. Mémoire 24,
Paris.
Olszewski, D. I.
1986 The North Syrian Late Epipaleolithic:
The Earliest Occupation at Tell Abu
Hureyra in the Context of the Levantine
Epipaleolithic. BAR International Series
309, Oxford.
2010 On the margins: Early Natufian in the
Wadi al-Hasa region, Jordan. Eurasian
Prehistory 7(1):89-101.
Pedersen, C. H.
1995 Natufian Chipped Lithic Assemblage
from Sunakh near Petra, Southern
Jordan. Museum Tusculanum Press,
Copenhagen.
Perrot, J.
1960 Excavations at Eynan (Ain Mallaha):
Preliminary report on the 1959 season.
Israel Exploration Journal 10:14-22.
Phillips, J. L. and E. Mintz
1977 The Mushabian. In Prehistoric Investiga-
tions In Gebel Maghara, Northern Sinai,
edited by O. Bar-Yosef and J. L. Phillips,
pp. 149-183. Qedem 7. Monographs of
the Institute of Archaeology, The Hebrew
University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem.
Roskin, J., Porat, N., Tsoar, H., Blumberg, D. G.
and A. M. Zander
2011 Age, origin and climatic controls on veg-
etated linear dunes in the northwestern
Negev desert (Israel). Quaternary Science
Reviews 30(13-14):1649-1674.
583
View publication stats
Schmidt, K.
1996 Helwan in Egypt: A PPN site? In Neolithic
Chipped Stone Industries of the Fertile
Crescent, and Their Contemporaries
in Adjacent Regions, edited by by S. K.
Kozlowski and H.-G. K. Gebel, pp. 127-
136. SENEPSE 4. ex oriente, Berlin.
Scott, T. R.
1977 The Harifian of the Central Negev. In
Prehistory and Paleoenvironments in the
Central Negev, Israel. Volume II. The Av-
dat/Aqev area, Part 2, and the Har Harif,
edited by A. E. Marks, pp. 271-322. South-
ern Methodist University Press, Dallas.
Sellars, J.
1991 An examination of lithics from the Wadi
Judayid site. In The Natufian Culture in
the Levant, edited by O. Bar-Yosef and
F. R. Valla, pp. 445-458. International
Monographs in Prehistory, Ann Arbor.
Stekelis, M. and T. Yisraely
1963 Excavations at Nahal Oren - Preliminary
Report. Israel Exploration Journal 13:1-
12.
Stein, M., Torfstein, A., Gavrieli, I. and Y. Yechieli
2010 Abrupt aridities and salt deposition in
the post-glacial Dead Sea and their North
Atlantic connection. Quaternary Science
Review 29:567-575.
Valla, F. R., Gilead, I. and O. Bar-Yosef
1979 Prospection préhistorique dans le Negev
septentrional. Paléorient 5:221-231.
Weinstein-Evron, M.
2009 Archaeology in the Archives. Unveiling the
Natufian of Mount Carmel. Brill, Boston.
Yellin, J., Gunneweg, J. and I. Perlman
n.d. The origin of an obsidian artefact from the
Harifian site of Shunera X. Unpublished
manuscript.