JOURNAL OF THE

ISRAEL PREHISTORIC SOCIETY

Mitekufat Haeven
Volume 45

Editors:
Dani Nadel
Danny Rosenberg
Daniel Kaufman
Guy Bar-Oz

Supported by the Irene Levi-Sala CARE Archaeological Foundation

THE ISRAEL PREHISTORIC SOCIETY

2015
 Table of Contents

Editors’ forward 4

Jordan River Dureijat - A New Epipaleolithic Site in the Upper Jordan Valley 5
Ofer Marder, Rebecca Biton, Elisabetta Boaretto, Craig S. Feibel, Yoel Melamed, Henk K. Mienis,
Rivka Rabinovich, Irit Zohar and Gonen Sharon

Renewed Fieldwork at the Geometric Kebaran Site of Neve David, Mount Carmel 31
Reuven Yeshurun, Daniel Kaufman, Nurit Shtober-Zisu, Eli Crater-Gershtein, Yona Riemer,
Arlene M. Rosen and Dani Nadel

Renewed Excavations at Site K7: A Final Report of the 2012 Salvage Excavation at Har Harif Plateau 55
Jacob Vardi, Dmitry Yegorov, Onn Crouvi and Michal Birkenfeld

Sha’on Hol, Site 14 (HG14): A New Late Epipalaeolithic Site in the Central Negev Highlands 77
Dmitry Yegorov, Alla Yaroshevich, Jacob Vardi and Michal Birkenfeld

The Natufian Site of Nahal Sekher VI: The 2009 Excavation Season 97
Omry Barzilai, Nuha Agha, Hila Ashkenazy, Michal Birkenfeld, Elisabetta Boaretto, Naomi Porat,
Polina Spivak and Joel Roskin

El-Hamam Cave: A New Natufian Site in the Samaria Hills 131

Ofer Marder, Hila Ashkenazy, Amos Frumkin, Leore Grosman, Boaz Langford, Gonen Sharon,
Micka Ullman, Reuven Yeshurun and Yuval Peleg

The Natufian Sequence of el-Wad Terrace: Seriating the Lunates 143

Daniel Kaufman, Reuven Yeshurun and Mina Weinstein-Evron

Excavations at Holyland Park: An Underground Chalcolithic Complex in Jerusalem 158

Ianir Milevski, Zvi Greenhut, Zinovi Matskevich, Uzi Ad, Anat Cohen-Weinberger
and Liora Kolska Horwitz

Fazael 5: Soundings in a Chalcolithic Site in the Jordan Valley 193

Shay Bar, Haggai Cohen-Klonymus, Sonia Pinsky, Guy Bar-Oz and Golan Shalvi

Motifs on the Nahal Mishmar Hoard and the Ossuaries: Comparative Observations and Interpretations 217
Dina Shalem

Book review
Shalem D., Gal, Z. and Smithline H. 2013. Peqi’in: A Late Chalcolithic Burial Site, Upper Galilee,
Israel (Land of Galilee 2). Tzemach: Ostracon 238
Assaf Nativ

Note for authors 242

Hebrew abstracts 4*
 Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 45 (2015), 97–130

The Natufian Site of Nahal Sekher VI: The 2009 Excavation Season

Omry Barzilai1, Nuha Agha2, Hila Ashkenazy3, Michal Birkenfeld4, Elisabetta Boaretto5,
Naomi Porat6, Polina Spivak7 and Joel Roskin8

1
Israel Antiquities Authority, Jerusalem, Israel. omry@israntique.org.il.
2
Israel Antiquities Authority, Jerusalem, Israel. noha262@yahoo.com.
3
Archaeology Division, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva, Israel. hila.ashkenazy@mail.huji.ac.il.
4
Israel Antiquities Authority, Jerusalem, Israel. michalbi@israntique.org.il.
5
Max Planck Society-Weizmann Institute Center for Integrative Archaeology and Anthropology, D-REAMS Radiocarbon
Laboratory, Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot, Israel. elisabetta.boaretto@weizmann.ac.il.
6
Geological Survey of Israel, Jerusalem, Israel. naomi.porat@gsi.gov.il
7
Israel Antiquities Authority, Jerusalem, Israel. bobrn1@yahoo.com.
8
Department of Maritime Civilizations, Charney School of Marine Studies and the Leon Recanati Institute for Maritime
Studies (RIMS), University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel. Department of Marine Geosciences, Charney School of Marine
Studies, University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel. School of Sciences, Achva Academic College, Israel. yoelr@post.bgu.ac.il.

ABSTRACT
Nahal Sekher VI is a Natufian campsite located within the eastern edge of the northwestern Negev desert dunefield. The
site was test excavated in the 1980’s and entirely re-excavated in 2009. The new excavation area (165 m²) consisted of a
distinct Natufian horizon. The paper presents the new excavation and discusses its results in respect to paleoenvironments,
site formation processes, site function and chronology.
Geoarchaeological analyses of depositional and post depositional processes and artifact characteristics, together with
OSL ages and radiocarbon dates, suggests that the site was exposed for substantial time, and subjected to several deflation
and sand accumulation events. In addition, sediments corresponding to short-lived standing-water bodies were identified
near the site. Though organic remains were not preserved, hunting and related activities as well as plant processing
took place at and around the site as suggested by the composition of the flint and stone tool assemblages. The mutual
presence of Helwan lunates and backed lunates in the lithic assemblage is bewildering. It is uncertain if this represents
repetitive visits to the site by Early and Late Natufians or a single Natufian occupation during which these two lunate
types coexisted.

KEYWORDS: Natufian, Nahal Sekher, Negev Desert dunes, Lunates

INTRODUCTION
Nahal Sekher VI (map ref. 18352–5/55626–33) is located
in the central section of Nahal Sekher (Wadi Mashash), ca.
20 km south of Beer Sheva (Figs. 1–2). The site is situated
on the eastern edge of the northern Sinai–northwestern
Negev erg (Sinai-Negev erg) that extends east of the
Nile Delta (Roskin et al. 2014a). The region acts as the
interface of distinct aeolian and fluvial and aeolian-fluvial
landforms and lithologies. More specifically, the site is
positioned on stabilized sand overlain by slightly active
sands and coppice dunes at an elevation of ca. 350 m
above sea level. Nowadays the climate in the region is
arid, with an average annual precipitation of ca. 200 mm.
The landscape is covered by Tamarix trees planted in the
beginning of the 20th century (Fig. 3).

97
Barzilai et al.
Two main episodes of sand encroachment covered the
site region at the end of the Late Pleistocene (Goring-
Morris and Goldberg 1990; Roskin et al. 2011a, b): An
early intensive episode at 16–13.7 ka, and a less intense
episode, associated with the Younger Dryas, at 12.4–
11.5 ka (Roskin et al. 2011a, 2011b). The latter episode
formed the current sand and dunal cover on both banks
of central Nahal Sekher (Roskin et al., 2011b) and also
probably covered Epipalaeolithic sites (Goring-Morris
and Goldberg 1990).
Nahal Sekher VI was discovered in the 1950’s during
a survey (Burian and Friedman 1975) and subjected
to a small test excavation in 1981 (Goring-Morris and
Bar-Yosef 1987). The excavation apparently exposed
the southern part of the site that was quite profuse with
lithic artifacts and limestone fragments. The size of the
site was estimated to be ca. 60 sq. m, but this assessment
was not verified at the time. Other finds included a few
marine mollusks and a grinding stone. The relatively high
frequency of backed lunates within the lithic assemblage
Figure 1. Location of Natufian and Harifian sites in the Negev region.
98
lead the excavators to assign the site to the Late Natufian
(Goring-Morris and Bar-Yosef 1987: 110).
At least two more Late Epipalaeolithic sites are known
in the Sekher area - Nahal Sekher 23 and Nahal Sekher 30
(Fig. 2). The former, ascribed to the Terminal Ramonian/
Early Natufian, is characterized by the use of chalcedony
for production of bladelets from single platform cores
(Goring-Morris 1987; Marder 2002). The bladelets were
modified by microburin technique for the production of
Ramon points and Helwan lunates (Goring-Morris 1987:
fig. VII-9). The other site, Nahal Sekher 30, was discovered
recently but not excavated yet. It was OSL dated and
assigned to the Harifian/Final Natufian due to the presence
of extremely small backed lunates (Roskin et al. 2014a).
THE 2009 EXCAVATION (O.B. & N.A.)
The current excavation was conducted in the summer of
2009 prior to construction works for upgrading Route 40
into a highway (Barzilai and Agha 2010). Fieldwork was
 Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 45 (2015), 97–130

Figure 2. Location of Nahal Sekher VI, Nahal Sekher 23 and Nahal Sekher 30.

Figure 3. The south section of Nahal Sekher VI before the excavation (view to north). Note the
archaeological horizon is located below active sands and modern Tamarix.

99
Barzilai et al.

carried out in three areas east of the route (Fig. 2). Remains
of the Natufian campsite were exposed in Area A, but not
in the other two Areas (B and C) that included strewn
proto-historic flint artifacts and Byzantine and Ottoman
pottery sherds (Barzilai and Agha 2010). The excavation
of the Natufian site (Area A) was set north and adjacent to
the 1981 excavation. A total of 165 sq. m were excavated
(Fig. 4). A 0.5×0.5 m grid was used and all sediments were
sifted through a 1 mm sieve. Lunates and cores were piece
plotted before collection.
The excavation exposed a thin Natufian horizon (2–
15 cm thick) situated ca. 50–80 cm below the current
surface (Figs. 3, 5). The horizon rests on a compacted Figure 5. The Natufian horizon with broken limestone
and encrusted palaeosurface. The horizon was composed slabs. A view to the East.
mainly of flint artifacts and burnt limestone fragments,
but also included two dentalium shell beads (Barzilai and
Agha 2010: fig. 5). Additional material included small
fragments of intrusive ostrich egg shells (see below) and
a few Neolithic/Chalcolithic pottery sherds. The horizon’s
topography was uneven; it had a flat area (Locus 101) at
the north-east part of the excavation area that sloped to the
south and to the west (Locus 102) (Fig. 4). The horizon
extended to different depths beneath the undulating dunal
surface and appeared to have only sporadic artifacts in
its western part, probably marking the limits of the site.
The presence of two broken limestone slabs (one is an
anvil), hammer stones, a bladelet core and a few Helwan
Figure 6. Close-up view of a fragment of one of the
limestone slabs.

Figure 7. Concentration of lithic artifacts including three

Helwan lunates (light chalcedony) found next to a stone
Figure 4. A schematic plan of excavation area A. Red lines anvil. Note carbonate nodules and land-snail shells are
mark sections studied for geomorphology and OSL dating. strewn on the surface.

100

lunates in the flat Locus 101 suggested that here was a tool
preparation post (Figs. 5–7). Small amounts of Natufian
artifacts were also retrieved from the within the sand
above (Locus 100) and below (Loci 103-104) the horizon,
but were not included in the lithic analysis.
THE GEOMORPHOLOGICAL SETTING (J.R.)
The geomorphic interpretation of the site relies on
analyzing two stratigraphic sections (north and south)
of the excavation area (Figs. 4, 8). The southern section
was further trenched by a backhoe. Laboratory methods
included particle-size analysis, carbonate content,
spectroscopy and OSL dating that are described in Roskin
et al. (2011a, 2012, 2014a, b). An ASD spectrometer
provided spectral measurements of the sand samples. The
spectral redness index (RI) RI=R2/(B*G3) (R=Red ban;
B=blue band; G=green band) was calculated for each
sample in order to establish the relative redness of its sand-
grain ferric coatings. RI values often increases following
pedogenic alterations. This index applied to the Negev
dunes (Tsoar et al. 2008; Roskin et al. 2012) was used to
estimate the relative stability/mobility of the site sand and
possible changes in the sand due to anthropogenic inputs.
As described above, the stratigraphy of Nahal Sekher
VI consists of a distinct archaeological horizon embedded
between two sand units (Figs. 3, 8). Carbonate nodules
and stains were evident in both sand units.
In addition to artifacts, the archaeological horizon
included strewn carbonate nodules, surficial lag
concretions, small limestone pebbles, and biogenic artifacts
- mainly land-snail shells (Fig. 7). The limestone pebbles
are sub-angular to sub-round. Polished pebbles are in the
size range of 2–15 mm. Lag deposits occur in the form of
sandy concretions cemented by calcium carbonate. They
are round (<10 mm), sub-angular and oval (x-axis=5–15
mm; y-axis=2–5 mm). Some of the concretions may have
developed or grown upon an exposed surface. Land-snail
shell preservation and size ranged between broken and
complete (2–40 mm).
The unimodal particle size distribution (PSD) of the
Nahal Sekher VI sediments below, within and above the
Natufian layer is characteristic of aeolian sand in the NW
Negev dune field (Roskin et al. 2014b). The sand content
is 89–93%, silt content 7–9%, while clays comprise only
1–2% of the samples (Fig. 9). Surprisingly, the PSD of the
Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 45 (2015), 97–130
mixed surface in the northern section of Nahal Sekher VI
(NS-6) was no different from the underlying and overlying
sand.
Two lag concretions were also found to have a unimodal
PSD, though they contained ~30% clay and silt, which
may be partially carbonate. The reflectance curves of the
sands of the Nahal Sekher sites, ranging between 400 to
2,400 nm, were quite uniform, and fell within the range of
sand reflectance for the Negev dune field (Fig. 9; Roskin
et al., 2012).
The redness index (RI) values along the sections were
also quite uniform (RI=36–42) (Fig. 10). The fact that
the spectroscopic uniformity of the sand complements
the uniform PSD data suggests that the sand column has
not undergone significant anthropogenic and pedogenic
changes since its deposition.
CHRONOSTARTIGRAPHY (N.P. & E.B.)
The archaeological and sedimentological depositions
at Nahal Sekher VI were dated by optically stimulated
luminescence (OSL) of quartz grains sampled from
the two sand units (below and above the archaeological
horizon), and by radiocarbon dating of ostrich eggshell
fragments from the archaeological horizon (Fig. 8).
The OSL ages
The OSL samples were prepared and measured at the
Luminescence Laboratory of the Geological Survey of
Israel (GSI), Jerusalem. Details of dating procedure,
sample analysis and reliability for the Nahal Sekher VI
are presented in Roskin et al. (2011a, 2014a). The OSL
ages are within errors, in stratigraphic order (Table 1; Fig.
8). The ages, averaged from 17 measured aliquots, have
narrow De distributions, and are relatively homogeneous.
Low over dispersion (OD) values (OD<21) characterized
the samples, with the exception of NS-1 (OD=25) and
NS-6 (OD=37). Sample NS-1 was only 50 cm from
the surface and may have undergone relatively intense
bioturbation and mixing.
Two main OSL age groups were discerned in the
Nahal Sekher VI sections: ~13.6–11.8 ka from below
the Natufian unit and ~3.7–2.9 ka above it (Fig. 8). The
lowest sand samples (NS-4 at 2.3 m and NS-3 at 1.6 m)
were dated to 12.4±1.8 ka and 13.6±0.6 ka, respectively,
essentially the same age within errors. Sample NS-7 from
101
Barzilai et al.

Figure 8. Stratigraphy and ages of the Sekher VI site. LFFD = Low-energy fine-grained fluvial deposits.

Figure 9. Particle-size distribution (PSD) curves of the Sekher VI site sediments. Note the addition of fine
sand and silt to the lag deposits.

102
 Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 45 (2015), 97–130

the northern section was dated to 12.4±0.5 ka, similar to
NS-4. The OSL ages from the lower sand unit at Nahal
Sekher VI suggest the Natufian settled on a stable sand
surface sometime between 13.6–11.8 ka. The young age
of the upper sand unit clearly implies that the Natufian
surface was exposed for long periods, underwent deflation
enabling lag concretion and deposition and then was
covered again by sands sometime between 3.7–2.9 ka.
ranges of these samples are between 7,560 year BP and
7,440 year BP. They imply that the ostrich eggshells are
not an integral part of the Natufian horizon despite their
stratigraphic position. The radiocarbon age of the eggshell
fragments supports the recognition that the site underwent
deflation down to the encrusted Natufian surface since ~7.5
ka. It is unclear if the shell fragments represent biogenic
activity (i.e. ostrich chick hatching from the eggs) or

The radiocarbon ages

Two ostrich eggshell fragments found in the Natufian
horizon were radiocarbon dated (Table 2). The samples
were cleaned from external contamination by etching
for 10 sec in 1N HCl. About 35 mg of each sample were
introduced into a glass ampoule, evacuated, mixed with 4
ml H3PO4 100% and left overnight to dissolve the calcium
carbonate. The produced CO2 was then transferred to
the graphitization system where the CO2 was reduced
to graphite (after Yizhaq et al. 2005) and measured
by accelerator mass spectrometry at the D-REAMS
radiocarbon laboratory (Weizmann Institute). Both
samples RTK 6562 and RTK 6563 provided the expected
percentage of carbon, 10.8% and 12.0% respectively.
Each sample was measured three times to obtain higher
precision. Radiocarbon dates have been calibrated using
the OxCal 4.2.4 (Bronk Ramsey et al. 2013) based on the
calibration IntCal13 data (Reimer et al. 2013).
Figure 10. Plot of spectral redness index (RI), OSL ages,
The weighted average of the triplicated determinations
and percentage of clay and silt per depth for the sand
are 6,592±35 14C years BP for RTK 6562 and 6,580±35 samples of the Nahal Sekher VI north (dashed line) and
14
C years BP for RTK 6563 (Table 2). The calibrated age south (full line) sections.

Depth Total dose No. of Discs De Over-dispersion Age

Sample Description
(m) (mGy/a) (aliqots) (Gy) (OD) (ka)
Nahal Sekher VI: South excavation section
NS-1 Above Natufian unit 0.5 958±28 15/17 3.1±0.1 25 3.1±0.2
NS-2 Sand 0.75 953±28 16/17 11.3±0.3 15 11.8±0.5
NS-3 Dry loose sand 1.5 878±31 17/17 12.0±0.3 8 13.6±0.6
NS-4 Dry loose sand 2.65 1,004±34 19/19 11.4±1.6 12 12.4±1.8
Nahal Sekher VI: North excavation section
NS-5 Bedded sand 1.6 1,016±31 16/17 2.9±0.1 11 2.9±0.1
Lag concretions,
NS-6 1.8 1,061±31 22/24 3.9±0.2 37 3.7±0.3
Natufian artifacts
NS-7 Sand 2.0 994±33 17/17 12.4±0.2 7 12.4±0.5

Table 1. OSL ages and main analytical data for Nahal Sekher VI (after Roskin et al. 2011a).

103
Barzilai et al.

anthropogenic activity (i.e. remains of a meal/a broken
container). The latter explanation seems more likely due
to the presence of several Neolithic/Chalcolithic pottery
sherds at the eastern part of the excavation (Barzilai and
Agha 2010).
SITE FORMATION PROCESESES (M.B.)
Site formation processes were examined by a GIS analysis
of the lithic artifacts from the archaeological horizon
(Loci 101-102). All flint artifacts recorded during the
excavation were plotted using ESRI ArcInfo software,
based on their grid-square location. Distribution maps
were then produced for each category (cores, debitage,
tools, etc.) as well as for the total counts and the various
tool types. Getis-Ord Gi* statistic (Hot-Spots Analysis)
was used to evaluate the distribution of artifact types of
which sufficient numbers were recorded. This method
assesses local association among geo-referenced data, by
comparing local (weighted) averages to global averages,
and looking for statistically significant clusters of high and
low values (Getis and Ord 1996). Artifact types for which
the total counts did not enable the use of statistical tools
(such as the lunates) are presented using the Natural Jenks,
based on Jenk’s optimization method (1967) which seeks
to reduce variance within groups and maximize variance
between them. It partitions data into different classes using
an algorithm that identifies breaks or gaps that naturally
exist in the data. Thus, it calculates groupings of data
values based on natural groups in the data distribution.
Examination of the general distribution of flint
artifacts in the excavated area (Fig. 11) shows two main
concentrations, at the south and at the south-west parts of
the excavation area. This pattern partly follows the micro-
topography of the site but probably does not indicate
slight downslope creep as the artifacts were not moved
towards the steeper slope to the west. This observation is
reflected also in the Hot-Spot distribution map of the flint
chips (artifacts < 1.5 cm) (Fig. 12).
This scenario of post-depositional movement becomes
questionable when examining the distribution pattern of
specific artifact types. For example, a comparison between
the distributions of the lunates, the typo-technological
marker of the Natufian, shows differences between the
Helwan and backed types (Fig. 13). The chronological
implications of this distribution are addressed in the
discussion.
Although both lunate types show some overlap at the
southern part of the excavation area, the backed lunates
are concentrated in the central and south-eastern part
of the excavation area (Fig. 13:A), adjacent to the 1981
excavation area, where dominance of backed lunates
was recorded (Goring-Morris and Bar-Yosef 1987). The
Helwan lunates, on the other hand, are concentrated in
the north, on the more leveled area and adjacent to the
suggested tool preparation area (Fig. 13:B).
We suggest that the lunate distribution reflects an
anthropogenic pattern; there is no apparent reason for
post-depositional processes to affect these lunate types
differently. The suggested tool preparation area was
probably utilized more towards the making of Helwan
lunates.

14
C Age ± 1σ Calibrated 14C range Calibrated 14C range δ13C PDB
# Context C%
year BP ± 1σ year BP ± 2σ year BP ‰
RTK 6,562.1 6,625 ± 60 Sq G6c
RTK 6,562.2 6,595 ± 60 L-102 10.8 -7.3
RTK 6,562.3 6,555 ± 60 B1330
7,550 (4.0%) 7,545 7,565 (19.4%) 7,530
RTK 6,562 6,592 ± 35
7,510 (64.2%) 7,440 7,525 (76.0%) 7,430
RTK 6,563.1 6,555 ± 60 Sq. G14d
RTK 6,563.2 6,595 ± 60 L-102 12.0 -7.4
RTK 6,563.3 6,590 ± 60 B 1106
7,565 (13.2%) 7,535
RTK 6,563 6,580 ± 35 7,500 (68.2%) 7,435
7,520 (82.2%) 7,430

Table 2. Sample information, radiocarbon dates and calibrated ranges for the two ostrich eggshells measured.

104
 Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 45 (2015), 97–130

Figure 11. Hot Spot distribution analysis of flint artifacts (n=4,807)

in the excavated area.

Figure 12. Hot Spot distribution analysis of chips (n=2,976) in the

excavated area.

105
Barzilai et al.

Figure 13. Distribution of Backed lunates (A, n=145) and Helwan lunates
(B, n=74).

106
 Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 45 (2015), 97–130

THE FLINT ASSEMBLAGE (H.A.) Category n %

The lithic assemblage is comprised of 21,139 artifacts of
Tools 377 1.8
which 64.7% are debris (Table 3). The rest are debitage,
Cores 47 0.2
cores and tools. The cores and tools were analyzed using
Goring-Morris’ typological list (1987). Debitage 7,031 33.3
Debris 13,684 64.7
State of preservation Total 21,139 100.0
Examination of patina presence on flint artifacts as
well as breakage patterns can enable assessments for Table 3. Major typo-technological classes at Nahal Sekher
VI.
the occurrence or non-occurrence of post-depositional
processes (e.g. Ekshtain et al. 2011; Friedman et al. 1994).
As recognized above, the main post depositional process Patination Tools Cores
evident at Nahal Sekher VI was deflation while there was n % n %
little if any evidence of artifact rolling. These observations No 92 24.4 17 36.2
were compared with the patina pattern observed on all of Yes 284 75.3 30 63.8
the tools and cores (n=377) (Table 4). The examined items
Indeterminate 1 0.3
were split into a fully patina-covered, and non-patina
Total 377 100.0 47 100.0
covered groups (referring to the cases where the entire
artifact is patinated). There are more patinated cores than Table 4. Degree of patination on samples of cores and
those that bear no patina (63.8% patinated cores; 36.2% tools.
non-patinated). Most of the tools are patinated (75.3%).
Notably no difference was found between Helwan and Complete Broken Total
backed lunates (85% of the backed lunates and 74% of the n % n % n
Helwan lunates are patinated). In summary, the dominance Tools 228 60.5 149 39.5 377
of patinated artifacts indicates they were exposed for
Cores 21 44.7 26 55.3 47
a significant time as indicated from the OSL ages and
Debitage 1,425 21.1 5,327 78.9 6,752
geomorphic analyses.
The breakage pattern was observed on the debitage Table 5. State of preservation of the major artifact classes
(CTE and MBT not included), cores and tools. Table in Nahal Sekher VI.

Blank n n broken* % broken n complete* % complete

Flakes 2,341 1,618 69.1 723 30.9
Blades 843 584 69.3 259 30.7
Bladelets 1,322 1,121 84.8 201 15.2
Cortical flakes 711 559 78.6 152 21.4
Cortical blades 157 89 56.7 68 43.3
Cortical bladelets 70 48 68.6 22 31.4
CTE 248 - - - -
Burin and resharpening spalls 31 - - - -
Fragments 1,308 1,308 100.0 0 0.0
Total 7,031 5,327 1,425

Table 6. Debitage frequency.

* CTE and burin spalls were not divided to broken and complete.

107
Barzilai et al.
5 details the frequency of breakage in each of these
categories. Ca. seventy-nine percent of the debitage are
broken, the frequency of broken cores is 55.3%, and 39.5%
in the tools (MBT scars weren’t considered as breaks).
The differences in breakage pattern between the artifact
categories may suggest the breakage is not necessarily
related to post depositional processes but rather related to
the breakage occurring during the knapping process and
tool maintenance.
Debitage and debris
There are 7,031 debitage pieces (MBT not included here),
of them 248 are CTE and 31 are burin and resharpening
spalls (Table 6). The debris category includes13,684 items
(Table 3); 13,168 chips and 516 chunks. The large number
of chips suggest this assemblage is more or less in situ.
Among the blanks in the debitage (excluding the CTE),
nearly 35% of the debitage category is comprised of
flakes. Blades and bladelets are ca. 32% together. Almost
20% of the debitage artifacts were classified as fragments
since it was not possible to determine whether they are
flakes or blades. Primary elements are less than 14% of
the debitage category. The broken pieces identified to
blank type consist of 56–84% of the total of each blank
(for instance, 69.1% of the flakes are broken while 30.9%
are complete). The bladelets and cortical flakes have the
highest frequency of broken blanks (78%–84%) while the
cortical blades are the least broken – 56.7%.
Core trimming elements
There are 248 core trimming elements in the assemblage;
the most common type (83.9%) is the general CTE,
including overshot blades (Fig. 14:4, 5). The core tablets
(Fig. 14:1) constitute 14.1% and ridge blades (Fig. 14:2,
3) are present but are not very common, only 3.2%.
Burin spalls
The burin spalls include 31 items. It is interesting that
burin spalls are rather frequent, when burins are rare.
Cores
There are 47 cores in the assemblage (Table 3). Most cores
have a single striking platform (Figs. 15:2–6; 16), among
them the cores with plain (un-facetted) striking platforms
are more dominant (plain 48.9%, facetted 10.6%). Cores
with two striking platforms are less numerous, altogether
108
they comprise ca. 17% of the cores (Fig. 15:1); those
with 900 striking platforms (Fig. 15:1) are more frequent
with 10.6% and the opposed striking platforms cores are
only 6.4%. Multi-platform cores (3 striking platforms and
above) are rare (ca. 4.2%), both the amorphic and opposed
+ 900 platform combination cores are equally represented.
Last, the indeterminate cores constitute the second
largest group, with around 20% of the core assemblage.
These cores were classified as such because either they were
too broken or too small to allow determination of a more
specific type. The mean length of all cores is 40.2 mm, the
mean width is 38.7 mm and mean thickness is 31.2 mm.
The STD is rather high (15.2; 10.9; 14.0, respectively).
When examining the size of the cores according to type
it seems that the cores with two striking platforms are
larger than the single striking platform cores (Table 7),
suggesting that either the single striking platform cores
were more heavily exploited than those with two striking
platforms or that the original supports of these two core
types were of different size to begin with.
The blanks removed from the cores (i.e. the scars on the
core) were in most cases mixed, both bladelet and flakes
(or more accurately - flakelets) (see Table 8). Ca. twenty
six percent of the cores were classified as ‘indeterminate’
because it was not possible to determine the type of blanks
removed. Only blade or bladelet removals occur in 21.3%
of the cases and only flake removals occur in 6.4% of the
cases.
Tools
There are 377 tools. The most common tool type are the
microliths (including ‘geometric’ and ‘non geometric’)
comprising ca. 83% of the tools (Fig. 17). Figure 18 shows
the frequency of the tool types in the assemblage. Most
of the larger tool categories, such as scrapers (Fig. 14:10,
11), burins, borers, retouched and backed flakes or blades
(Fig. 14:6–8) truncations and notches and denticulate are
represented in small quantities (less than 4% each).
Macro tool categories
Scrapers (n=2). There are two scrapers on flake, they are
the largest in term of size; one of them was made on CTE
(Fig. 14:10, 11).
Burins (n=5). The most common type is ‘burin on
natural pan or break’; there are also burin on straight
truncation and angle dihedral burin (one of each). As for
 Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 45 (2015), 97–130

blanks, they were made on flakes, blades and on CTE.

Core type Length Width Thickness
Retouched and backed blades (n=11). These include
Mean 39.4 36.7 27.5
partially retouched blades (n=4), fragments of backed Unfacetted
blades (n=3), Helwan blade and varia of backed blades, single striking n 23 23 23
platform
one of each. There are no sickle blades. Std. Dev. 8.9 8.1 9.3
Truncations (n=14). These are mostly oblique Mean 37 36.3 31.4
truncations, other truncations were classified as straight Facetted single
n 5 5 5
truncations and one concave truncation. Most of them platform
Std. Dev. 2.6 5.7 6.1
were on blades.
Notches and denticulates (n=16). The only subtype Opposed Mean 24.2 38.5 24.8
striking
represented in this assemblage is the ‘retouched notch’. n 1 1 1
platforms -
Most of the notches are on blades and bladelets, but three opposite side Std. Dev. . . .
were made on flakes. Opposed Mean 32.3 29.7 24.6
Perforators (n=2). Only awls are present in this striking
n 2 2 2
category. One awl was made on a blade of chalcedony, platforms -
and the second was made on a flint flake. same side Std. Dev. 1.5 5.7 13
Various (n=12). These include retouched flakes and Opposed and Mean 38.9 42.4 21.8
varia – that were classified as such because they don’t fit 90’ striking
n 1 1 1
platforms - 3
any of the other tool categories, but still they were worked platforms Std. Dev. . . .
after their removal (Fig. 14:9).
Mean 33.4 34.3 32.9
Intrusive (n=1). A fragment of truncated blade seems 90’ striking
to represent a Salibiya point, thus suggesting intrusive n 5 5 5
platforms
Pre-Pottery Neolithic A (Nadel et al. 1991). Std. Dev. 9.0 8.8 5.8
Mean 50.8 57.4 98.8
Micro tool categories Amorphic n 1 1 1
Microliths (n=66). Figure 19 shows the frequency of all
Std. Dev. . . .
the types present in the microliths category. The most
Mean 51.4 48.2 35.6
common type is the ‘fragment of retouched or backed
microlith’ (47%). The obliquely truncated bladelets with Indeterminate n 8 8 8
12% are the next most common type and the Helwan Std. Dev. 30.7 17.2 13.1
bladelet with 9%. The rest of the types are represented by Mean 40.2 38.7 31.2
much lower frequencies. Some types (scalene bld., Ramon
Total n 46 46 46
point) are indicative of earlier stages of the Epipaleolithic
Std. Dev. 15.3 11.0 14
but these specific tools in this assemblage are rather rare
and inconclusive with regard to earlier occupations. It is Table 7. Measurements according to core types.n
quite possible that the obliquely truncated bladelet, Helwan
bladelet and some of the backed microliths fragments are
n %
actually broken or unfinished geometrics. The broken
backed bladelet fragments are the most common type in Flakes 3 6.4
the microliths category (47%). Blades/ bladelets 10 21.3
Geometrics (n=249). The dominant type among these
Both 22 46.8
are the lunates (Figs. 17, 20). The other geometric type
found is the triangle. The most frequent sub-type is the Indeterminate 12 25.5
backed lunate (46.4%, Fig. 17:1–8), together with the Total 47 100.0
atypical backed lunate (13.3%) and the triangles (10.5%,
Fig. 17:9, 20–23). The typical and a-typical Helwan Table 8. Blanks removed from cores.

109
Barzilai et al.

Figure 14. 1) core tablet; 2, 3) ridge blades; 4, 5) CTE/overshot; 6–8) retouched pieces; 9) varia; 10, 11) scrapers.

110
 Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 45 (2015), 97–130

Figure 15. 1) change of orientation core; 2–6) single platform cores.

111
Barzilai et al.

lunates (12.5%, 17.3%, respectively, Fig. 17:24–37) are
considerably less frequent but make up around 30% of the
geometric category.
Tool blanks
The bladelets are the dominant blank in the tools (82%).
Tools made on flakes and blades are rare but the frequency
of the two is similar, 5–7%. Interestingly some tools were
made on core trimming elements (some on burin spalls),
and a few even on chunks or cores. Indeterminate tool
blanks refer to cases when it isn’t clear if it’s a blade,
bladelet or flake.
Table 9 shows the frequency of the different blank types
according to tool category. The “flakes” in the geometric
category, probably relates to one of the smaller microlith
or one of the larger triangles that do not display a bladelet
length/width ratio.
Tool dimensions
The tool group with the largest dimensions is the scrapers
(n=2), the smallest are the microliths and geometric
microliths (Fig. 21). It seems that beside the microlithic
categories most of the tools are in the range of 40–30
mm in average length. The geometric and non-geometric
microlithic categories are rather similar in length, which is
interesting since many of the non-geometric microliths are
perhaps unfinished geometric microliths. The similarity in
the mean length of the two categories of microliths may
indicate that the geometric microliths were made on larger
blanks, and therefore the non-geometric microliths are
rejected microliths, and are in fact a separate group.
Examination of length of Helwan lunates, backed
lunates sand triangles show a clear distinction between the
Helwan and the backed lunates (Fig. 22; Table 10). Most
of the Helwan lunates are longer than 21 mm whereas most
of the backed lunates range between 13–18.9 mm. The
triangles are evenly distributed between 11–21 mm.
MBT
There are 763 MBT products. The items included here
are the microburin, piquant trièdre, as well as a few
Krokowski microburins. Figure 23 shows the frequency
of each of these products, 94.4% of the MBT products are
microburins (Fig. 17:38, 39).
Raw material
The raw materials include chalcedony, flint and chert
(Goring-Morris 1987; Marder 2002). Chalcedony is

Flake Blade Bladelet CTE Indeterminate Total

n % n % n % n % n % n %
Scrapers 1 50.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 50.0 0 0.0 2 100.0
Burins 2 40.0 1 20.0 0 0.0 1 20.0 1 20.0 5 100.0
Retouched and
1 9.1 10 90.9 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 11 100.0
backed blades
Truncations 4 28.6 5 35.7 2 14.3 1 7.1 2 14.3 14 100.0
Microliths 0 0.0 0 0.0 61 92.4 0 0.0 5 7.6 66 100.0
Geometrics 2 0.8 0 0.0 242 97.6 0 0.0 4 1.6 248 100.0
Projectile point 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 100.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 100.0
Perforators 1 50.0 1 50.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 100.0
Notches and
3 18.8 8 50.0 4 25.0 0 0.0 1 6.3 16 100.0
denticulates
Various 7 58.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 16.7 3 25.0 12 100.0
Total 21 5.6 25 6.6 310 82.2 5 1.3 16 4.2 377 100.0

Table 9. Blank type according to tool categories.

112
 Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 45 (2015), 97–130

Subtype Length Width Thickness

Mean 25.0 8.0 2.4
Atypical Helwan lunate n 42 42 42
Std. Dev. 3.3 1.0 0.5
Mean 16.4 5.8 2.2
Lunate n 114 114 113
Std. Dev. 2.8 1.0 0.5
Mean 16.7 6.3 2.2
Atypical lunate n 33 33 32
Std. Dev. 3.2 1.4 0.6
Mean 15.2 6.0 2
Isocele triangle n 13 13.0 13
Std. Dev. 2.2 1.1 0.5
Mean 18.3 9.2 2.6
Atypical triangle n 13 13 13
Std. Dev. 2.8 1.9 0.5
Mean 25 8.1 2.4
Helwan lunate n 29 29 28
Std. Dev. 4.7 0.8 0.6
Mean 19.0 6.7 2.3
Total n 244 244 241
Std. Dev. 5.0 1.6 0.6

Table 10. Lunate size according to type.

Figure 16. Core types in the assemblage, n=47.

113
Barzilai et al.

Figure 17. 1–8, 10–19) backed lunates; 9, 20–23) triangles; 24–37) Helwan lunates; 38, 39) microburins.

114
 Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 45 (2015), 97–130

70
65.8

60

50

40
%
30

17.5
20

10
2.9 3.7 4.2 3.2
0.5 1.3 0.3 0.5
0
Scrapers Burins Retouched Truncations Microliths Geometrics Projectile Perforators Notches and Various
and backed points denticulates
blades

Figure 18. Major tool categories.

50
47.0
45
40
35
30
% 25
20
15 12.1
9.1
10
3.0 4.5 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.5
5 1.5
1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5
0
alternatly retouched

partially retouched

complete retouched
inversly retouched

blunt backed or
partial fine retouch

complete fine retouch

splayed

obliquely truncated

Scalene bladelet

La Mouilllah point
obliquely truncated

Ramon point

Helwan bladelet

varia- microliths
and backed

microlith fragments
double truncated
Helwan

Figure 19. Microlith subtype frequency.

115
 Barzilai et al.

50 46.4
40

30
% 17.3
20
12.5 13.3
10
5.2 5.2
0
Helwan atypical backed atypical isocele atypical
lunate Helwan lunate backed lunate triangle triangle
lunate
Figure 20. Geometrics subtype frequency.

60
50.1

50
39.9

37.5

39.0
37.4
37.7
36.2

40
Mean (in mm)

30.9
25.6

30
21.4

19.0
18.1

20.8
19.9
15.0

16.9

12.6
17.6

14.2

12.3

20
10.1

8.2
7.6

5.7
6.7
4.5

10
3.7

2.3

2.3

2.1

0
Scrapers Burins Retouched Truncations Microliths Geometrics Projectile Perforators Notches and Various
and backed points denticulates
blades
length width thickness

Figure 21. Tool dimensions, average in mm.

backed lunate Helwan lunate triangle 87.3

34.6
30.6
23.1 24.5
15.4 15.4
11.5 11.5 11.5
7.5 5.6 8.2 6.1
4.2
1.4 1.4

0-11 11.1 -12.9 13-14.9 15.1 -16.9 17.1 -18.9 19.1 -20.9 21-high

Figure 22. Helwan lunate, backed lunate and triangle length distribution in mm.

116

the dominant raw material in the tool assemblage,
comprising 80% of it. Flint and chert were used in much
smaller quantities, the former comprising 15% of the total
tool assemblage and the latter only 0.8%. Only in the
‘various’ category the flint outnumbers the chalcedony
(Table 11). Most geometrics are made on chalcedony
(82.7%) but it is not exclusive, as 13.7% were made on
flint. Truncations were mostly made on chalcedony. Only
56.2% of the notches were made on chalcedony, the rest
are on flint.
All three raw material types are represented in the
cores - chalcedony, flint and chert, but the chalcedony is
the most frequent. Seventy nine percent of the cores are on
chalcedony, while only one core was made on chert (2%),
the rest are on flint.
Nahal Sekher VI and other Natufian sites in the
Negev lowlands – a lithic comparison
There are several Natufian sites spanning from the Early
Natufian to the Harifian phases in the Negev lowlands
along the southern fringes of the NW Negev dunefield in
similar geomorphic settings as Nahal Sekher VI (Goring-
Morris 1987; 1991). The following discussion compares
the Nahal Sekher VI tool assemblage to the following
Natufian sites: Terminal Ramonian/ Early Natufian -
Nahal Sekher 23 (NS23); Shunera VII (SHVII); Early
Natufian - Azariq XV (AZXV); Late Natufian - Givat
100 94.4
90
80
70
60
% 50
40
30
20
10
0
microburin piquant trièdre
Figure 23. Frequency of the MBT products.
Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 45 (2015), 97–130
Hayil I (GVHI) and Shunera XVIII (SHXVIII) (Goring-
Morris 1987; 1997; Goring-Morris and Bar-Yosef 1987).
The first two columns in Table 12 show the tools from the
two seasons in Nahal Sekher VI (2009 and 1981).
There are a few differences in the frequency of specific
tool types. First, scrapers seem to be rare in most of these
assemblages, except for Azariq XV. Burins seem to be rare
as well, except for Givat Hayil I. Perforators are very rare to
nonexistent. Lastly, notches and denticulates are frequent
in the assemblages, but in most they constitute less than
10%, except for Azariq XV. However these differences are
merely a part of the typological variability known from
other sites, both in the ‘periphery’ area and the ‘core area’
(Belfer-Cohen and Goring-Morris 2013; Goring-Morris
1987, Goring-Morris and Belfer-Cohen 2013).
The tools were divided to two groups – macroliths
that include all tool categories except the microliths
and geometric categories, and microliths, that include
only the latter two categories. The ratio of macroliths to
microliths may reflect the type of activity or activities
done on site, mainly if there is a greater emphasis on
hunting or a more diverse activities. The dominance
of macroliths is more indicative of a higher diversity
of activities, perhaps representing base camp or multi-
purpose sites. The dominance of the microliths may
reflect a stronger emphasis on one activity – possibly
hunting. In all sites the microliths are the dominant group
3.7 1.4
krokowskI microburin
117
Barzilai et al.

Chalcedony Flint Chert Indeterminate Total

n % n % n % n % n %
Scrapers 1 50.0 1 50.0 0.0 0.0 2 100.0
Burins 3 60.0 2 40.0 0.0 0.0 5 100.0
Retouched and backed blades 9 81.8 1 9.1 0.0 1 9.1 11 100.0
Truncations 12 85.7 1 7.1 0.0 1 7.1 14 100.0
Microliths 59 89.4 5 7.6 0.0 2 3.0 66 100.0
Geometrics 205 82.7 34 13.7 1 0.4 8 3.2 248 100.0
Projectile points 1 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 100.0
Perforators 1 50.0 1 50.0 0.0 0.0 2 100.0
Notches and denticulates 9 56.3 4 25.0 1 6.3 2 12.5 16 100.0
Various 3 25.0 8 66.7 1 8.3 0.0 12 100.0
Total 303 80.4 57 15.1 3 0.8 14 3.7 377 100.0

Table 11. Raw material according to tool types.

NSVI (2009) NSVI (1981) NS 23 SHVII AZXV GVHI SHXVIII

Scrapers 0.5 0.6 1.5 1.9 7.4 0.8 0.9
Burins 1.3 3.4 0.4 0.7 1.4 5.0
Multiple tools 0.4 0.9 0.3 0.9
Backed blades 2.9 3.4 2.3 4.7 5.5 6.8 5.5
Truncations 3.7 4.0 0.8 1.2 0.9 3.5
Microliths 17.5 13.6 68.7 46.8 25.8 42.1 29.1
Geometric microliths 65.8 65.0 20.8 27.5 25.3 22.3 53.6
Points 0.3
Perforators 0.5 1.5 0.9
Notches and
4.2 7.9 4.9 13.3 20.7 9.3 3.6
denticulates
Heavy duty tools 4.5
Various 3.2 2.3 0.8 3.8 12.0 8.5 5.4
Total 377 177 265 579 217 399 286

Table 12. Frequencies of the basic typological categories between Natufian sites in the Negev lowlands.

NSVI 2009 NSVI 1981 NS23 AZXV GVHI SHXVIII

n % n % n % n % n % n %
Tools 377 4.6 177 4.4 265 16.2 217 7.9 399 6.3 286 26.3
Cores 47 0.6 14 0.3 26 1.6 12 0.4 54 0.8 11 1.0
MBT 763 9.3 504 12.7 249 15.2 103 3.8 1,345 21.2 110 10.1
Debitage 7,031 85.6 3,286 82.5 1,095 66.9 2,408 87.9 4,543 71.6 681 62.6
Total 8,218 3,981 1,635 2,740 6,341 1,088

Table 13. Comparison of the main lithic components

118
 Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 45 (2015), 97–130

(Fig. 24). However, Azariq XV is unique in that there is mentioned sites. A few interesting differences in the
an almost 50:50 ratio of the macroliths and microliths. composition of these assemblages can be discerned.
Table 13 gives the breakdown of the main lithic First, the frequency of tools in the assemblage of most
component of the assemblage from the previously of the sites is no more than 10% let alone, Nahal Sekher

100
90
80
70
60
% 50
40
30
20
10
0
Nahal Nahal Nahal Shunera Azariq XV Givat Shunera
Sekher VI Sekher VI Sekher 23 VII Hayil I XVIII
(2009) (1981)
Microliths Macroliths
Figure 24. Ratio of macroliths and microliths.

100
90
80
70
60
% 50
40
30
20
10
0
NSVI 09 (n=222) NS23 (n=100) AZXV (n=64) GVHI (n=80) SHXVIII (n=59)
Helwan lunates Backed lunates

Figure 25. Frequencies of Helwan and backed lunates at Nahal Sekher VI and other Natufian sites (Ashkenazy 2014;
Goring-Morris 1987).

119
Barzilai et al.
23, and Shunera XVIII where the tools comprise almost
30%. This is probably due to the function of the site and
diversity of activities in and around the site. Second, the
MBT products seem to have the highest frequency in
Givat Hayil I, as either the site was occupied for a longer
period of time or by several recurring habitations, or it
was inhabited by a larger group. All these interpretations
seem to fit with the suggestion that Givat Hayil I
functioned more as a base camp than a hunting camp
(Goring-Morris 1997). Nahal Sekher VI seems to fit with
the majority of the other sites, suggesting that its main
function was a short term encampment or hunting site.
Lastly, the size and retouch type of the lunate is
compared (Fig. 25). Both Nahal Sekher 23 and Azariq XV
have almost exclusively Helwan lunates, while backed
lunates are dominant in Givat Hayil I and Shunera XVIII.
In NSVI 2009 backed lunates dominate (67%) but Helwan
lunates (33%) are abundant as well.
Figure 26 shows the mean length and width of the
lunates at Nahal Sekher VI, Nahal Sekher 23 and Givat
Hayil I. The lunates from Nahal Sekher VI show similar
size to the ones from Givat Hayil I while the ones from
Nahal Sekher 23 are slightly bigger. But when the lunates
of Nahal Sekher VI are separated to two groups, the Helwan
26
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5
NSVI 09 (Helwan and backed lunates)
nsvi09 (backed lunates)
GVHI
Figure 26. Size (average, mm) of Helwan and backed lunates from Nahal Sekher VI (NSVI 09) and other Natufian sites.
NSVI 09 (n=222), GVHI (n=70) (Ashkenazy 2014); NS23 (n=42) (Goring-Morris 1987).
120
lunates exceed those from Nahal Sekher 23 and the backed
lunates have smaller size than those at Givat Hayil I.
Altogether, the dominance of microliths within the
lithic assemblage at NSVI 2009 seems to be congruent
with the other Natufian sites in the area. Accordingly
the sites’ functions seem to fit with previous suggestions
(Goring-Morris, 1987), as a hunting camp or other
short duration and limited activity type camp. As
for the chronological placement there seems to be a
representation of both Early and Late Natufian traits
– especially according to the lunate types found in the
site. The presence of the two types could attest to two
Natufian occurrences at the site (Early and Late) or a
homogeneous assemblage containing the two types (and
see discussion below).
THE STONE ASSEMBLAGE (P.S.)
Limestone items of a wide size range were collected
from all the excavated loci. Here we present stone items
only from the excavation area (Locus 101; Fig. 4). The
assemblage includes 4,899 limestone items, of which only
seven were defined as tools or tool fragments. Ninety-
seven percent of the limestone items were burnt. This
7 7.5 8 8.5
nsvi09 (Helwan lunates)
NS23

study includes the description of unmodified stones and
fire-cracked fragments, an aspect not commonly addressed
in excavation reports.
A classification method was applied following the
scheme developed for the stone assemblage of Ohalo II
(Spivak 2008). All limestone artifacts were first sorted
by size into four groups: (1) <15 mm, (2) 15–30 mm, (3)
30–50 mm and (4) >50 mm.
According to morphological and techno-typological
parameters, specimens larger than 15 mm (n=2,545) were
divided into four key groups: tools and tool fragments
(n=7); production related implements and debitage (n=39);
and as distinct categories: pebbles and their fragments
(n=33) and fire-cracked fragments (n=2,468).
Raw material
There is a linkage between the raw material type and
the way in which it was used. A suitability level of
Figure 27. Geological formations at the vicinity of the studied area (after Roskin et al. 2014a). LFFDs are low
energy fluvial fine-grained deposits.
Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 45 (2015), 97–130
raw material depends on its physical characteristics:
predominantly hardness, density, brittleness, flexibility
and vesicularity (porousness). The studied limestone
items are relatively hard and dense. Most of them were
probably brought from geological exposures of Eocene
Adulam Formation limestone, less than 250 m west and
south of the site (Fig. 27).
The stone tools
The term “stone tools” or “ground-stone tools” refers
to stone implements that were made using mainly the
technique of grinding and/or polishing (Adams 1996,
2002:1). It also refers to the tools used for grinding,
polishing, knapping or pecking (Adams 1993, 2002:1;
Wright 1991, 1993:93, 1994:240).
The modest Nahal Sekher VI limestone tool assemblage
includes seven artifacts, only two of them are complete.
Most of the tools can be categorized as handstones (Fig.
121
Barzilai et al.

Size group
# Type Locus Basket Color Preservation state
(mm)
Handstone
1 102 1240 50+ white complete
(Bifacial rectilinear/wedged)
2 Possible trapezoidal axe? 102 1780 50+ reddish complete
Handstone
3 102 1682 50+ white eroded
(Bifacial irregular-discoidal/flat )
Handstone fragment
4 102 1928 50+ grey broken/fire-cracked
(Bifacial rectilinear/semi-oval)
5 Miscellaneous fragment 102 1977 30-50 grey broken/fire-cracked
Handstone
6 102 1648 50+ white broken/fire-cracked
(Unifacial irregular/Plano-triangular)
Unifacial grinding
7 101 2012 50+ white broken/fire-cracked
slab fragment

Table 14. Ground-stone tools.

Figure 28. Limestone tools. 1) handstone (bifacial irregular-discoidal/flat); 2) handstone fragment (bifacial rectilinear/
semi-oval); 3) miscellaneous fragment; 4) handstone (unifacial irregular/plano-triangular).

122

28:1, 2, 4) except for two (Table 14:2, 5; Fig. 28:3).
They were classified using criteria developed by Wright
(1992a, b). From a technological point of view the Nahal
Sekher VI tool assemblage is characterized by a high level
of secondary reduction processes - knapping, pecking and
grinding.
The production related implements and debitage
Like flint tools, the ground-stone tools are end products
of a planned chain of actions. It includes a choice of
suitable raw material of proper size and form; primary
and secondary reduction stages; design, repair and
improvement during the tool use.
Wright’s category of debitage includes flakes and flake
cores, pecked preforms and indeterminate spalls (Wright
Figure 29. Limestone flakes. 1, 4) primary flakes; 2) an elongated flake; 3) typical rounded and wide flake.
Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 45 (2015), 97–130
1992: 143). Here all implements indicative of ground-
stone production are presented. The debitage group was
subdivided into flakes (n=22) and flaked implements
(n=7). Manuports (n=5) are presented separately. Another
small group (n=5) includes fragments possibly carrying
polish marks.
Debitage
Flakes (n=22). Flakes were identified by the bulb of
percussion or the striking point (Fig. 29). The flakes have
1–4 scars on their back. Most of the flakes are rounded and
wide. All have an unmodified base. Although all flakes
bear signs of fire, only 6 are broken. Most of the flakes fall
within the 15–30 mm (n=8) and the 30–50 mm (n=9) size
groups. All of the primary flakes (n=3) are larger than 50
123
Barzilai et al.
mm (a group containing a total of five flakes).
Flaked stones. Flaked stones (7) are large (>50 mm)
fragments with flake scars, sometimes bifacial. Of notice
are two remarkably big flat fragments (Fig. 30). One, from
Locus 101 (Figs. 6; 30:1), was possible used as anvil.
Manuports
Manuports (n=5) are big fragments representative of big
stones deliberately brought to the site. These could have
been used as (modified or not) anvils or as working tables
(Wright 2008).
Implements with traces of polish
These (n=5) have clear triangular section, possibly
achieved by polishing. It seems that these are not fragments
of designed tools, but more likely were somehow involved
in tool manufacture. Since in fact the polishing could be
confirmed only by microscopic analysis, currently they
are not to be counted with the tools.
Pebbles
Twenty-five complete and 10 broken pebbles were
identified. The average length of the complete pebbles
Figure 30. Flaked stones. 1) modified limestone slab with slight flaking and pounding marks on its surfaces (possible
anvil); 2) flat limestone slab with lateral flaking marks.
124
is 5.2 cm. Most of the pebbles are sub-angular to sub-
round in shape. Based on negligible striking and polishing
marks on some pebbles, it is possible they were used
as hammerstones. Modern hunter/gatherers use a wide
variety of natural undersigned pebbles as hammerstones
(Cane 1989). As usable pebbles were easy to find along
Nahal Sekher, they were probably used ad-hoc and
carelessly replaced. This could be the main reason for the
lack of more massive observable use-wear signs.
Fragments
Fragments of a wide size range compose 97% of the total
limestone specimens collected. Although fragments are
fresh and sharp no working surface/edge identification is
possible. Some fragments include elements of the outer
face (cortex or designed/worked surfaces) so the original
shape of the complete implement may be estimated. Such
fragments were counted together with other components
of the relevant group defined in the assemblage (tools,
pebbles, etc.). However, most of the fragments derive from
the inner section of the stones, so the original shape is lost.
All fragments share noticeable morphological
properties according to which two types of fragments
 Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 45 (2015), 97–130

shape were defined: flat tabular fragments with two

parallel (more or less) sides; and angular pieces with
more than two fractured surfaces, sometimes the
section line is zigzagged.
The high level of standardization of the fragments
shapes suggests they were all produced during a
single destructive event. Similar assumption regarding
analogous stone fragments found at Ohalo II was
tested in a series of experiments exposing basalt and
limestone pebbles and boulders to open fire, resembling
a burning camp (Spivak 2008). As a result of the fire
all implements were damaged. A few cracked, but most
A of them had exploded resulting in tabular and angular
fragments.
70% The size distribution of fragments from one
experimentally exploded pebble (20 cm long) appears
60%
to be similar to size distributions documented at Ohalo
50% II and Nahal Sekher VI (Fig. 31).

40% Summary and discussion

30%
20%
10%
0%
B of uncompromising collection and examination of all
C the Natufian (Garrod 1957; Kraybill 1977; Weinstein-
Figure 31. The distribution pattern of the stone assemblage
according to size groups: A) fragments from an experimental
heat-treated exploded pebble; B) limestone and basalt
assemblage documented in Ohalo II; C) Nahal Sekher VI
current excavation limestone assemblage.
Stone assemblages with fire-damaged specimens
from poorly preserved prehistoric camps, such as
Nahal Sekher VI, are difficult to interpret. Despite
its fragmented nature, the presented assemblage is
entirely anthropogenic. As such, it deserves proper
attention to all its components. Evidently, as a result
finds, a small tool assemblage and possible manufacture
traces were revealed.
Most of the NSVI seven tools are flat and therefore
should be associated with grinding, possibly related
to food processing. Stone tools used for processing
of plant food are widely presented in archaeological
(Foxhall and Forbes 1982; Higgs and Jarman 1969;
Hillman et al. 2001; Horsfall 1987; Wright 1991) and
ethnographic records (Cane 1989; Hillman 1984; Stahl
1989). A direct association between the tool fragments
and plant food processing would be possible only if
microscopic use-wear analysis is conducted.
It seems that pounding tools, usually common in
Evron et al. 2001; Wright 1992a) were not recorded
here. It may correspond with the general increase in
the frequency of grinding stone tools in Late Natufian
contrasted with the Early Natufian sites (Wright 1993).
Although pounding stone tools in the Negev are

125
Barzilai et al.
associated with the Late Natufian (Goring-Morris 1987,
1991), a general absence of pestles and mobile mortars
was noted at sites south of the Beer-Sheva Valley (Goring-
Morris 1987:306). However, only few stone tools were
reported from Natufian sites in the vicinity of NSVI. In
fact Goring-Morris (1987) described rare perforated
limestone discs from Azariq XV and Halutza 87 and
anvils of angular limestone blocks from Nahal Sekher 23
and Shunera VII.
Rare evidence of production is present in the shape of
flakes and flaked items. Pecking, chopping, pounding,
incising and drilling waste, also associated with ground
stone tools production (Wright 1992a, 1992b:105) usually
cannot be identified. Fragments with possible polish
marks could have been used for those tasks.
Comparable traces of ground stone manufacture were
recorded at Ohalo II (Spivak 2008). Further occurrence
of limestone and basalt debitage in Epipaleolithic and
Natufian assemblages was hardly reported (Wright
1992a).
Since most of the studied stone assemblage is
comprised of unidentifiable burnt fragments the exact
number of tools, pebbles, flakes or manuports cannot be
truly determined. Massive refitting efforts coupled with
a correlated (with other finds) spatial distribution study
would perhaps supply actual figures.
In any case, such a high percentage of widely spread
fragments formed by fire indicate burning event/s at
the camp. Deliberate burning of abandoned camps was
reported from some Neolithic sites in Europe (Stevanovic
1997). Fire at a camp could of course occur unintentionally,
and even be the reason for its abandonment. Additional
research focused on limestone assemblage components,
mainly the fragments, is of great potential for a better
understanding of subsistence strategies that took place at
the investigated site.
DISCUSSION
The 2009 excavation at Nahal Sekher provides new data
concerning palaeoenvironment, site formation process,
site function and its chronology.
Palaeoenvironment
The reconstruction of the paleoenvironments builds
on the geomorphological study of the sites’ immediate
126
environments (Roskin et al. 2014a). The results attest to
fluvial-aeolian fluctuations during the Late Pleistocene-
Holocene interphase. The fluvial events are reflected
by palaeo-water bodies similar to those recognized at
Ramat Hovav (Enzel 1984; Magaritz and Enzel 1990) and
immediately to the south of Nahal Sekher VI (Roskin et
al. 2014a). The sedimentological analysis of the LFFDs
next to Nahal Sekher VI suggest a series of short-lived
standing-water bodies created by low-energy fluvial
runoffs. These were caused due to temporary dune
damming of the Nahal Sekher stream that substantially
slowed the stream flow to form a unique and natural ever-
emptying reservoir-like water body. We assume that these
unique palaeo-water bodies attracted and concentrated
waterfowl and mammals that in turn created an attractive
niche for the Natufians. Although faunal remains were not
preserved the lithic composition at the site support hunting
and meat processing activities.
Site formation processes
The Natufian site was affected mainly by long term
exposure and aeolian activities – namely deflation and
re-depositions of new sands on top of the archaeological
horizon. This recognition is confirmed by the OSL ages of
the upper sand unit, the radiocarbon dates of the ostrich
eggshell fragments, and by the presence of intrusive
artifacts.
The OSL ages of the lower sand units at Nahal Sekher
set the terminus post quem of the Natufian horizon to 13.6-
11.8 ka. After the abandonment of the Natufian site, the
Sekher sands underwent several aeolian modifications
and slight reworking. The Natufian surface was probably
covered immediately by sands. This notion is supported
by the “complete” lithic and stone assemblages (i.e. large
quantities of flint chips and stone debitage and fragments).
After its coverage, the site probably underwent several
deflation events that are attested by the recovery of intrusive
artifacts: a fragment of Salibiya point, a few Neolithic/
Chalcolithic pottery sherds and several ostrich eggshell
fragments radiocarbon dated to 7.5 ka. Thus it is assumed
that the deflation and sand accumulations were short-
termed and occurred continuously for several times. The
assumption of an immediate sand coverage is supported
by the large quantitates of small lithic components (chips)
within the flint assemblage and also by the presence of
non-patinated flint items. The last sand coverage of the

site is estimated to have occurred at ~3.7-2.9 ka following
the OSL ages of the upper sand unit. Sand mobilization at
this time in the NW Negev dunfefield has been reported
for several single sand, dune and LFFD sections by
Zilberman (1991), Ben-David (2003) and Roskin (2011a).
It is assumed that this was the last coverage that sealed the
site until present.
Role of site location
The Natufian-Harifian settlement pattern included annual
circulation between the highland areas where base
camps with constructed dwellings were common to the
lowland regions with its many ephemeral camps (Goring-
Morris 1991). Nahal Sekher VI is one of many Natufian
ephemeral camp sites in the Negev lowlands along the
southern fringe of the NW Negev dunefield (Goring-
Morris 1987). This type of site represents seasonal
exploitation of the lowland areas, which probably was
related to hunting, plant gathering and raw material
exploitation. Such activities are usually reflected in the
composition of the lithic assemblages. For example, raw
material sources and knapping sites are represented by a
high percent of cores and debitage (usually with refitted
aggregates) and low percent of tools. In hunting sites there
are higher frequencies of hunting weapons and other tools
that are related to hide processing and butchering tusks.
The overall characteristics of the tool kit found at Nahal
Sekher VI support hunting tasks like many of the Natufian
sites in the Negev. All are dominated by microliths and
include few larger tool categories (Goring-Morris 1987).
Still, the stone tools that were found at Nahal Sekher VI,
although few in number, imply that plant processing also
took place at the site.
Mixed Helwan and backed lunates
One of the most interesting discoveries of the 2009
excavation at Nahal Sekher VI is the relatively high
percentage of Helwan lunates (30%) along with backed
lunates (70%) (Fig. 21). Notably, the two types were found
in the same archaeological horizon. The presence of these
two chronological markers (e.g. Valla 1984) could be
interpreted in two ways. The 1st explanation is that the site
has two chronological phases that were not recognized due
to deflation process. An Early Natufian phase represented
by large Helwan lunates and Late Natufian phase by
smaller backed lunates. This explanation seems quite
Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 45 (2015), 97–130
reasonable in light of the recognition that site experienced
several deflation episodes. Another parameter that would
support two chronological phases is the clear distinction
in the size of the two types. The Helwan lunates are
significantly larger than the backed lunates and seem to
have been modified on different blank types (Fig. 22). The
spatial distribution of the two also partly supports such
a distinction with the Helwan type being concentrated
at the center of the site while the backed ones at the
southern part (Fig. 13). If indeed the two types represent
two chronological phases, it can be assumed there was a
successive occupation of the same place by the Early and
the Late Natufians.
The 2nd explanation could argue that the two lunate
types coexist in the same assemblage. The first indication
is the latest age of the surface on which the Natufian
horizon was deposited upon that is dated to 11.8 +/- 0.5 ka
(Fig. 8). If the horizon is one this means that the Natufian
artifacts can fit the time range of the Late Natufian, but
not the Early Natufian dated to 15-13.5 ka (e.g. Bar-Yosef
2011: fig. 3).
While the tendency to correlate Helwan lunates with the
Early Natufian and backed lunates with the Late Natufian
has been proven to be valid at certain stratified sites in the
Mediterranean woodland area (e.g. Valla 1984; Weinstein-
Evron et al. 2012: fig. 2), it is somehow less clear for
the Negev lowland area where the sites are ephemeral
and most do not have absolute dates. There are several
obstacles in the Helwan-backed lunate paradigm. One is
how to explain the other types of lunates. For example, it
is not clear to which phase do the small Helwan lunates
at Hof Shahaf correspond: the Early or the Late Natufian
(Marder et al. 2013). Second is the “mixed assemblages”.
There is a tendency to ascribe lithic assemblages as mixed
whenever Helwan and backed lunates are found together.
It might be right in some cases since mixing does occur in
sites, but it should not be the only criteria to determine if
a site is mixed.
“Clean” assemblages dominated by one lunate type
(e.g. NS 23, GVHI) are rare and may have to do with short
term task-specific activity. In fact many of the Natufian
sites in the Negev have the two components (e.g. Ira
22, Rosh Horesha, Halutza 83 and 84, Upper Besor 6;
Goring-Morris 1998). In some cases it seems to be indeed
mixed, for example at Rosh Horesha where Geometric
Kebaran, Late Natufian and Harifian components were
127
Barzilai et al.
identified together with different 14C dates (Goring-Morris
1987: 275). But in other cases such as Ira 22 it has been
suggested that the presence of Helwan and backed lunate
could reflect an “intermediate” Early and Late Natufian
(Goring-Morris 1987:264). If we examine the Pre-Pottery
Neolithic B arrowhead typology for the sake of the
argument, it is quite accepted that different projectile types
can coexist in one chronological phase (e.g. Gopher 1994).
To summarize based on the above points it is proposed
that such rational should be considered when analyzing
Natufian assemblages with different lunate types.
Concerning Nahal Sekher VI, since no stratigraphic
separation and no differences in the patina pattern
exists between the lunates it is difficult to claim their
presence marks two chronological phases. On the other
hand, the spatial distribution differences and mainly the
hypothesized deflation processes that took place at the
site can support the two phase explanation. With the
available evidence it is impossible to prefer one of these
explanations.
ACNOWLEDGEMENTS
Nahal Sekher VI excavation (Permit No. A-5717) was
directed by O. Barzilai and N. Agha on behalf of the Israel
Antiquities Authority was conducted during August–
September 2009. The excavation was sponsored by the
Israel National Roads Company Ltd. We are grateful to
the following students for their devoted work in the field
during the excavation: D. Yegorov, Y. Radashkovski, S.
Mizrahi (Ben-Gurion University), D. Shaham, N. Klein,
A. Vered and A. Malinski-Buller (Hebrew University) and
D. Bonus (Tel Aviv University). Thanks are extended to F.
Sonntag, S. Lender and Y. el-Amor the Israel Antiquities
Authority (administration). We thank A.N. Goring-
Morris, I. Milevski, O. Marder, H. Khalaily, Y. Sharfi and
K. Vardi for their advice during field work. Figures 14-15;
17 were illustrated by M. Smelanski (Artifacts Treatment
Department, Israel Antiquities Authority); Figures 28-30
were prepared by A. Karasik (National digital Laboratory,
Israel Antiquities Authority).
REFERENCES
Adams J.L. 1993. Technological replication of the use of
ground stone tools. Kiva 54: 261–271.
128
Adams J.L. 1996. Manual for Technological Approach
to Ground Stone Analysis. Tucson: Center for Desert
Archaeology.
Adams J.L. 2002. Ground Stone Analysis: A Technological
Approach. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.
Ashkenazy H. 2014. Lithic Production Processes in
the Late Natufian of Israel: Core Area vs. Periphery.
Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, The Hebrew
University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem.
Bar-Yosef O. 2011. Climatic fluctuations and early
farming in West and East Asia. Current Anthropology
52(4): S175–S193.
Barzilai O. and Agha N. 2010. Nahal Sekher,
preliminary report. Hadashot Arkheologiyot 122.
http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/report_detail_eng.
aspx?id=1545%26mag_id=117.
Belfer-Cohen A. and Goring Morris A.N. 2013. Breaking
the mold: Phases and facies in the Natufian of the
Mediterranean zone. In: Bar-Yosef O. and Valla F.R.
(eds.), Natufian Foragers in the Levant: Terminal
Pleistocene Social Changes in Western Asia, pp.
544–561. Ann Arbor: International Monographs in
Prehistory.
Bronk Ramsey C. and Lee S. 2013. Recent and planned
developments of the program OxCal. Radiocarbon
55(2–3): 720–730.
Burian F. and Friedman E. 1975. Prehistoric sites in the
Nahal Sekher Area. Mitekufat Haeven - Journal of the
Israel Prehistoric Society 11: 27–34 (Hebrew).
Cane S. 1989. Australian aboriginal seed grinding and
its archaeological record: a case study from the
Western Desert. In: Harris D.R. and Hillman G.C.
(eds.), Foraging and Farming: The Evolution of Plant
Exploitation, pp. 99–119. London: Unwin Hyman.
Ekshtain R., Barzilai O., Inbar M., Milevski I. and Ullman
M. 2011. Givat Rabi East, a new Middle Paleolithic
knapping site in the Lower Galilee (Israel). Paléorient
37 (2): 107–122.
Enzel Y. 1984. The Geomorphology of the Lower Nahal
Sekher Wadi. Unpublished M.Sc. Dissertation. The
Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem (Hebrew).
Foxhall L. and Forbes H. 1982. The role of grain as a
staple food in classical antiquity. Chiron 12: 41–90.
Friedman E., Goren-Inbar N., Rosenfeld A., Marder O.
and Burian F. 1994. Hafting during Mousterian times
- further indications. Mitekufat Haeven - Journal of the

Israel Prehistoric Society 26: 8–32.
Garrod D.A.E. 1957. The Natufian culture: the life and
economy of a Mesolithic people in the Near East.
Proceeding of the British Academy 43: 211–227.
Getis A. and Ord J.K. 1996. Local spatial statistics: an
overview. In: P. Longley and M. Batty (eds.), Spatial
Analysis: Modelling in a GIS Environment, pp. 261–
277. Cambridge: GeoInformation International.
Gopher A. 1994. Arrowheads of the Neolithic Levant.
ASOR Dissertation Series 10. Winona Lake, Ind.:
Eisenbrauns.
Goring-Morris A.N. 1987. At the Edge: Terminal
Pleistocene Hunter-Gatherers in the Negev and Sinai
(BAR International Series 361). Oxford.
Goring-Morris A.N. 1991. The Harifian of the Southern
Levant. In: Bar Yosef O. and Valla F.R. (eds.), The
Natufian in the Levant, pp. 173–234. Ann Arbor:
Michigan.
Goring-Morris A.N. 1997. A Late Natufian campsite at
Givat Hayil I, western Negev Dunes, Israel. Mitekufat
Haeven - Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 27:
43–61.
Goring-Morris A.N. 1998. Mobility art from the late
Epipalaeolithic of the Negev, Israel. Rock Art Research
15(2): 81–88.
Goring-Morris A.N. and Bar-Yosef O. 1987. A Late
Natufian campsite from the western Negev, Israel.
Paléorient 13(1): 107–112.
Goring-Morris A.N. and Belfer-Cohen A. 2013.
Ruminations on the role of periphery and centre in
the Natufian. In: Bar-Yosef O. and Valla F.R. (eds.),
Natufian Foragers in the Levant: Terminal Pleistocene
Social Changes in Western Asia, pp. 562–583. Ann
Arbor: International Monographs in prehistory.
Goring-Morris A.N. and Goldberg P. 1990 Late Quaternary
dune incursions in the southern Levant: archaeology,
chronology and palaeoenvironments. Quaternary
International 5: 115–137.
Higgs E. and Jarman M. 1969. The origins of agriculture:
a reconsideration. Antiquity 43: 31–41.
Hillman G.R. 1984. Interpretation of archaeological plant
remains: the application of ethnographic models from
Turkey. In: W. Van Zeist and Casparie W. (eds.), Plants
and Ancient Man, pp. 1–42. Rotterdam and Boston.
Hillman G., Hedges R., Moore A., Colledge S. and Pettitt
P. 2001. New evidence of Late glacial cereal cultivation
Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 45 (2015), 97–130
at Abu Hureyra on the Euphrates. The Holocene 11(4):
383–393.
Horsfall G.A. 1987. Design theory and grinding stones.
In: B. Hayden (ed.), Lithic Studies among the
Contemporary Highland Maya, pp. 332–377. Tucson:
University of Arizona Press.
Jenks G.F. 1967. The data model concept in statistical
mapping. International Yearbook of Cartography 7:
186–190.
Kraybill N. 1977. Pre-agricultural tools for the preparation
of foods in the Old World. In: C. Reed (ed.), Origins of
Agriculture, pp. 485–522. Mouton: The Hague.
Magaritz M. and Enzel Y. 1990. Standing-water deposits
as indicators of Late Quaternary dune migration in the
northwestern Negev, Israel. Climate Change 16: 307–
318.
Marder O. 2002. The Lithic Technology of Epipalaeolithic
Hunter-Gatherers in the Negev: The Implications of
Refitting Studies. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation. The
Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem.
Marder O., Yeshurun R., Smithline H., Ackermann O.,
Bar-Yosef Mayer D.E., Belfer-Cohen A., Grosman
L., Hershkovitz I., Klein N. and Weissbrod L. 2013.
Hof Shahaf: A new Natufian site on the shore of Lake
Kinneret. In: Bar-Yosef O. and Valla F.R. (eds.),
Natufian Foragers in the Levant: Terminal Pleistocene
Social Changes in Western Asia, pp. 505–526. Ann
Arbor: International Monographs in prehistory.
Nadel D., Bar-Yosef O. and Gopher A. 1991. Early
Neolithic arrowhead types in the southern Levant: A
typological suggestion. Paléorient 17(1): 109–119.
Reimer P.J., Bard E., Bayliss A., Beck J.W., Blackwell
P.G., Bronk Ramsey C., Grootes P.M., Guilderson
T.P., Haflidason H., Hajdas I., Hattž C., Heaton T.J.,
Hoffmann D.L., Hogg A.G., Hughen, K.A., Kaiser,
K.F., Kromer B., Manning S.W., Niu M., Reimer
R.W., Richards D.A., Scott E.M., Southon J.R., Staff
R.A., Turney C.S.M. and van der Plicht J. 2013.
IntCal13 and Marine13 Radiocarbon Age Calibration
Curves 0-50,000 Years cal BP. Radiocarbon 55(4):
1869–1887.
Roskin J., Porat N., Tsoar H., Blumberg D.G. and Zander
A.M. 2011a. Age, origin and climatic controls on
vegetated linear dunes in the northwestern Negev
Desert (Israel). Quaternary Science Reviews 30(23–
24): 3364–3380.
129
Barzilai et al.
Roskin J., Rozenstein O., Tsoar H., Blumberg D.G. and
Porat N. 2011b. Palaeoclimate interpretations of
Late Pleistocene vegetated linear dune mobilization
episodes: evidence from the northwestern Negev
dunefield, Israel. Quaternary Science Reviews 30(13–
14): 1649–1674.
Roskin J., Rozenstein O., Blumberg D.G., Tsoar H. and
Porat N. 2012. Do dune sands redden with age? –
the case of the northwestern Negev dunefield, Israel.
Aeolian Research 5: 63–75.
Roskin Y., Katra I., Agha N., Goring-Morris A.N. and
Barzilai O. 2014a. Rapid anthropogenic response to
short-term aeolian-fluvial palaeoenvironmental changes
during the Late Pleistocene–Holocene transition in the
northern Negev Desert, Israel. Quaternary Science
Reviews 99: 176–192.
Roskin J., Katra I. and Blumberg D.G. 2014b. Particle-
size fractionation of eolian sand along the Sinai - Negev
erg of Egypt and Israel. Geological Society of America
Bulletin 126(1-2): 47–65.
Spivak P. 2008. Limestone and Basalt Assemblage from
the Epipaleolithic Site of Ohalo II, a 23,000 Years Old
Fisher-Hunter-Gatherers’ Camp. Unpublished MA
Dissertation. Haifa University, Haifa (Hebrew with
English summary).
Stahl A.B. 1989. Plant-food processing: implications
for dietary quality. In: Harris D.R. and G.C. Hillman
(eds.), Foraging and Farming: the evolution of plant
exploitation, pp. 172–194. London: Unwin Hyman.
Stevanovic M. 1997. The age of clay: the social dynamics
of house destruction. Journal of Anthropological
Archaeology 16: 334–395.
Valla F.R. 1984. Les Industries de Silex de Mallaha
(Eynan) et du Natoufien dans le Levant. Paris: Mémoires
et Travaux du Centre de Recherches Préhistoriques
Françaises de Jerusalem 3.
130
Weinstein-Evron M., Kaufman D. and Bird-David N.
2001. Rolling stones: basalt implements as evidence
for trade/exchange in the Levantine Epipalaeolithic.
Mitekufat Haeven - Journal of the Israel Prehistoric
Society 31: 25–42.
Weinstein-Evron M., Yeshurun R., Kaufman D., Eckmeier
E. and Boaretto E. 2012. New 14C dates for the early
Natufian of el-Wad Terrace, Mount Carmel, Israel.
Radiocarbon 54(3–4): 813–822.
Wright K. 1991. The origins and development of ground
stone assemblages in Late Pleistocene southwest Asia.
Paléorient 17(1): 19–43.
Wright K. 1992a. A classification system for ground stone
tools from the prehistoric Levant. Paléorient 18(2):
53–81.
Wright K. 1992b. Ground Stone Assemblage Variations
and Subsistence Strategies in the Levant, 22,000 to
5,500 B.P. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation. Yale
University, New Haven.
Wright K. 1993. Early Holocene ground stone assemblages
in the Levant. Levant 25: 93–111.
Wright K. 1994. Ground stone tools and hunter-gatherer
subsistence in Southwest Asia: implications for the
transition to farming. American Antiquity 59(2): 238–
263.
Wright K.I. 2008. Craft production and the organization of
ground stone technologies. In: Rowan Y. and Ebeling J.
(eds.), New Approaches to Old Stones: Recent Studies
of Ground Stone Artefacts, pp. 130–143. London:
Equinox Publishing Ltd.
Yizhaq M., Mintz, G., Cohen I., Khalally H., Weiner S.
and Boaretto E. 2005. Quality controlled radiocarbon
dating of bones and charcoal from the early Pre-Pottery
Neolithic B (PPNB) of Motza (Israel). Radiocarbon
47: 193–206.