NEW IN SIGHTS INTO LATE NATUFIAN BED ROCK FEA TURES ...
Eurasian Prehistory, 7 (1): 61–83.
NEW INSIGHTS INTO LATE NATUFIAN BEDROCK FEATURES (MORTARS AND CUPMARKS) Dani Nadel1 and Danny Rosenberg2 2
1 The Zinman Institute of Archaeology, the University of Haifa, Israel; [email protected] Laboratory for Groundstone Research, The Zinman Institute of Archaeology, the University of Haifa, Israel; [email protected]
Abstract It has been suggested since the beginning of prehistoric research in the Levant, that the Natufians used stone mortars for the processing of cereals and/or other vegetal resources, though direct evidence is still lacking. A recent detailed study of more than 100 bedrock mortars and cupmarks indicates that, a) they are found in many Late Natufian sites, regardless of their size and ecological setting, b) the variety of dimensions and types is wide, c) in some cases flint cores and stone objects were buried in them, d) some specimens seem to have been deliberately pierced through their bottom, e) in some cases a stone was firmly lodged into the shaft, f) it seems that certain types could not have served for food processing, or at least do not offer a convenient setting for processing floral material, nor to extract the processed substance from the shaft, and g) at least at one site these features appear to be associated with human burials. We suggest that the new data regarding the Natufian production and use of bedrock features should not be viewed solely in the technological and production spheres. Rather, we tentatively propose that by the Late Natufian, the manufacture of some large/deep stone holes may have had an additional social or even symbolic role. Key words: bedrock features, mortars, cupmarks, Natufian.
INTRODUCTION Dramatic changes in subsistence, settlement patterns and social organization took place during the Natufian period (ca. 15,000–11,500 cal.BP), accumulating in the establishment of the first Levantine semi-sedentary / sedentary settlements. Archaeologically visible are changes in domestic architecture, burial practices, art manifestations, tool manufacture and the use of raw materials. It is unclear whether the beginnings of agriculture should be assigned to this period or to the succeeding Pre-Pottery Neolithic A period (PPNA), but the range of changes did finally lead to the establishment of the first Neolithic villages (e.g., Bar-Yosef, 2002; Belfer-Cohen, 1991; Byrd and Monahan, 1995; Garrod, 1957; Garrod and Bate, 1937; Hardy-Smith and Edwards, 2004; Hayden, 2004; Perrot et Ladiray, 1988; Valla, 1995; Weinstein-Evron, 1998).
During the Natufian, a wide range of technological innovations took place. One important sphere where the new technologies are archaeologically well documented is the use of stone for dwelling construction, production of groundstone (henceforth = stone) implements, and especially the manufacture of bowls, portable mortars/ cupmarks, pestles, etc. – the latter group being one of the hallmarks of the period (e.g., Belfer-Cohen, 1988; Belfer-Cohen and Hovers, 2005; Rosenberg, 2004; Wright, 1991, 1992). The Natufians even transported heavy basalt objects for tens of kilometers as part of their exchange system (Weinstein-Evron et al., 1999, 2001). Though the stone industry has been the focus of several studies (Dubreuil, 2004; Dubreuil and Grosman 2009; Rosenberg, 2004; Wright, 1991, 1992), the bedrock features (mortars, cupmarks, etc.) have not been described or analyzed until recently (see Nadel and Lengyel, 2009; Nadel et al.,
62
D. Nadel & D. Rosenberg
western Jordan (Fig. 1). It is the aim of this paper to address the wide variety of Natufian bedrock features, negating common knowledge (not always specifically stated) regarding all of them as one category used for food preparation or storage. Rather, we suggest these were utilized during the Late Natufian for a variety of tasks, reflecting a range of activities not solely restricted to the realm of economy, but also, possibly, representing aspects of the social and maybe even the symbolic spheres.
THE NATUFIAN BEDROCK FEATURES
Fig. 1 Map of major Natufian sites with Humanmade Bedrock Holes in the southern Levant. Note that the el-Wad specimens are Early Natufian
2008, 2009a; Rosenberg and Nadel, in press). Their first appearance in the Levantine archaeological record is dated to the Early Natufian at sites such as el-Wad cave in Mt. Carmel (see Garrod and Bate, 1937: 11) and Upper Besor 6 (Goring-Morris, 1998; Horwitz and Goring-Morris, 2001). Today, hundreds of specimens are known from Natufian sites, located in wide geographical and ecological ranges, including the Mediterranean eco-zone, the Negev desert, the Jordan Valley and the high sandstone mountains in south-
The production of stone implements such as mortars and pestles began in the Levant before the Natufian, though on a very small scale (see Wright, 1991). The number of types and the total number of specimens increase abruptly by the Early Natufian. As for specimens carved into bedrock, the phenomenon seems to begin during the Early Natufian with only a handful of known examples (Garrod and Bate, 1937: 11; Goring-Morris, 1998) and only by the Late Natufian do the numbers and types of bedrock feature increase substantially. Though hundreds of Natufian bedrock-cut holes/cavities are known today (Eitam, 2005; Goring-Morris, 1999; Nadel and Lengyel, 2009; Nadel et al., 2008, 2009a), their study is only beginning to be established. Even a comprehensive terminology has not been developed until recently. The commonly used terms are mortars (for large specimens) or cupmarks or cupholes (for small specimens), and they are not always appropriate as they do not cover the entire typological range documented in Natufian and later sites (see Nadel and Lengyel, 2009; Nadel et al., 2009a, b). Thus, a more neutral term was suggested recently, Human-made Bedrock Hole (henceforth HBH, see Nadel and Lengyel, 2009) or bedrock features (Nadel et al., 2009a), for the entire range of bedrock types (for sake of convenience, we still use the terms ‘cupmark’ for round specimens 10–20 cm deep, and ‘mortar’ for the deeper and usually narrow specimens). A preliminary type list for bedrock features is provided hereby, with bedrock features counts from Raqefet (cave and terrace) as an example (Table 1; see also Figs 2–7).
New insights into Late Natufian bedrock features
63
Table 1 The types and numbers of Human-made Bedrock Holes at Raqefet cave and terrace Type Description A Round shallow holes, 2-5 cm across and 2-5 cm deep, width:depth = +1 B Round shallow holes, 5-10 cm across, 2-5 cm deep, width:depth>1 Round holes (cupmarks), usually bowl-like in shape, 10-15 cm across, 5-10 cm deep, C width:depth = +1 Round holes, usually bowl-like in shape, 15-30 cm across, 5-30 cm deep, width:depth = D +1 Round, deep and narrow cylinders (mortars), 10-20 cm wide along most of the shaft and E very narrow at the bottom, 20-80 cm deep, width:depth1 (The specimen here is I connected to a cupmark and not counted separately) J Composite sets, of a pair (or more) combined together K Varia (specimens that do not fit any of the above categories) Total
Today there are hundreds of known Natufian HBHs, from a wide geographical range (Fig. 1). The manufacture of the large ones must have been costly, in terms of invested time, energy and relevant carving tools; and yet their past functions are not clear. Although commonly referred to as tools used in food preparation by the Natufians, no direct archaeological evidence for such use of these bedrock features is yet available. The association of HBHs and similar portable types with Natufian graves is also known from the beginning of research (Belfer-Cohen, 1988; Bocquentin, 2003; Byrd and Monahan, 1995; Garrod and Bate, 1937; Nadel and Lengyel, 2009). Typologically, the largest variability of HBHs is documented for the Late Natufian period, including tiny holes (sometimes only 2–3 cm across), deep and narrow shafts (5–10 liters in volume), and huge deep and wide types (>20 liters in volume) (Figs 2–7). By the PPNA, most of the Natufian types disappear and one type, a relatively small cavity–the commonly termed ‘cupmark’–dominates; it is also present in slabs set on many dwelling floors (See Rosenberg and Nadel, in press for in-depth summary). The limited available data regarding the Natufian bedrock features is somewhat frustrating, as they may be a major source of information
Cave 5 3
Terrace 4
Total 5 7
13
11
24
22
15
37
3
3
2
2
5 1
1
*1
54
6 1 *1
31
85
concerning past Natufian technology, economy or social life; or even reflect the Natufian shift to intensive plant-food processing, as a major step towards insipient agriculture (Bar-Yosef, 2002; Dubreuil, 2004; Weiss et al., 2006; Wright, 1993, 1994). Indeed, if at least some of these Natufian stone devices were used for food production in general, and grain processing in particular, they should be rigorously studied (see Belfer-Cohen and Hovers, 2005; Dubreuil, 2004; Gopher and Orelle, 1995; Nadel and Lengyel, 2009; Nadel et al., 2008, 2009a, b; Rosenberg, 2004; Wright, 1991, 1992, 1993).
THE LATE NATUFIAN BEDROCK FESATURES IN CONTEXT The first detailed study of Late Natufian HBHs was initiated with the renewed excavations at Raqefet cave (Fig. 1). The two seasons of excavations revealed a Late Natufian graveyard and over 80 bedrock features (more than 50 in the cave, and over 30 additional specimens carved into the terrace bedrock in front of the cave entrance (Lengyel and Bocquentin, 2005; Lengyel et al., 2005; Nadel and Lengyel, 2009; Nadel et al., 2008, 2009b).
64
D. Nadel & D. Rosenberg
Fig. 2. A. Vertical photo of the central part of chamber 1 in Raqefet cave at the end of excavations, with bedrock features in center, and narrow burial cavity (locus 1) on right (scale bar 50 cm). B. A close-up view showing the presence of small carved holes near the large mortars (center of photo, arrow scale 20 cm)
New insights into Late Natufian bedrock features
65
Fig. 3. Locus 1 in Raqefet cave during excavations. Note the elongated shape of the deep rock basin (ca. 2.5 m long), with a deep wide mortar at one end (bottom) and a slab with cupmark at the other (top), and additional bedrock cupmarks on the left. Human skeletal remains are visible neat the bedrock mortar (bottom of photo) and between some of the stone objects
Our second key source of data is the site of Rosh Zin, situated in the Negev desert (Fig. 1). The excavations at the site revealed 18 bedrock mortars (Henry, 1976), and our renewed work documented the presence of seven additional bedrock features (Nadel et al., 2009a). It is of special importance to note that in some Late Natufian sites there are large numbers of specimens, with Saflulim (more than 150, Goring-Morris, 1999) and Huzuk Musa (more than 80, Eitam, 2005; 2008; Rosenberg et al., n.d.) being especially rich. In other sites only a handful of specimens were found (e.g. el-Wad Terrace (dated to the Early Natufian), Eynan, Hayonim cave/terrace, Jericho (not Late Natufian by the flint assemblage, but the large stone mortars appear to be Late Natufian), Nahal Oren, Upper Besor 6, Wadi Mataha and others). In some contemporaneous sites no such bedrock features were documented, either due to lack of rock exposures
or to other reasons. The details presented below are organized by the main issues we believe are relevant, and not as a catalogue of sites. The typological variability At Raqefet cave and terrace, 85 HBHs were found so far (with additional ‘portable’ specimens – most of which were directly associated with burials). The typological variability is indeed high (Table 1), and certain types were not discussed in previous Natufian site reports. For example, there are 12 (14% of the total) small bedrock cavities, only a few cm across and less than 5 cm deep (Figs 2–4; Nadel and Lengyel, 2009; Nadel et al., 2008, 2009a, b). Interestingly, there are no distribution patterns that are size-dependant. Thus, the largest HBH at the site (C-XXIII, 80 cm deep) has near it a variety of small HBHs, including the smallest at the site (Fig. 2). An additional large specimen is located within a 2.5 meter-long deep
66
D. Nadel & D. Rosenberg
Fig. 4. A. Plans and sections of various bedrock features at Raqefet (note the different scales); B. Plans and sections of various bedrock features at Raqefet (note the different scales); C. Plans and sections of various bedrock features at Raqefet (note the different scales)
New insights into Late Natufian bedrock features
Fig. 4 continued
67
68
D. Nadel & D. Rosenberg
Fig. 4 continued
bedrock cavity that was used for burial (locus 1, Fig. 3). The deep narrow specimens, with nearly vertical or funnel-like shafts, as well as the variety of cupmarks are also spread with no apparent distribution pattern, as there are isolated specimens as well as various concentrations. At Rosh Zin, the 25 bedrock documented features are found on flat limestone rock exposures. Here, too, there are several types, ranging from small shallow cavities to deep narrow shafts (Figs 5, 6). The largest concentration, too, includes a range of types juxtaposed to one another. A very interesting array of types is found at the site of Huzuk Musa, with conspicuous large funnel-like specimens – 60–80 cm deep, with a wide opening and a very narrow shaft. At other sites, at least according to the limited available published data, the typological range is narrow and apparently does not include types that are not described here. Two observations should be stressed. First, several examples of short shallow ‘canals’ running perpendicular to the rim of the HBH are documented at Raqefet and at other sites. Second, there appears to be a pattern where adjacent to some large HBHs there are small shallow holes (e.g. Raqefet, Rosh Zin and Huzuk Musa). This is also true for the largest ‘boulder mortar’ at Raqe-
fet, which has a small carved hole on the flat top – near the rim. Buried objects A variety of Natufian objects and human remains were found within preserved bedrock features, and they are grouped here into four main categories. Stones set on edge A pair of juxtaposed HBHs at Raqefet cave (C-I and C-II) was part of an unusual complex (Fig. 7). It included a large angular stone set on edge on the western rim of C-I. A child’s parietal bone fragment (5 cm in diameter) was found lying horizontally within the fill and may have been buried there (Lengyel et al., 2005). Inside C-II, one of the largest bedrock features exposed at Raqefet, four flat stones were set on edge, parallel to each other. Two of them are conjoinable fragments of one stone (Fig. 7B). The four stones had to have been buried deliberately, in order to remain as found. The practice of placing on edge flat / elongated stones is common at Raqefet cave. Noteworthy, it was repeatedly done at the concentration of burials in locus 1 (see Lengyel and Boc-
New insights into Late Natufian bedrock features
Fig. 5.
69
General plan of Rosh Zin (based on Henry 1976) with location of bedrock features
quentin, 2005, Figs 3, 8; Nadel et al., 2009b). Among the several relevant specimens, two cases are pertinent here. The first is a couple of conjoinable large limestone blades, set on edge with
their dorsal plains facing each other (total length ca. 45 cm, Fig. 8A, B). In other words, after the long symmetrical object was broken, the two parts were deliberately set in the burial area in the
70
D. Nadel & D. Rosenberg
Fig. 6. A. Plans and sections of various bedrock features from Rosh Zin of shallow type; B. Plans and sections of various bedrock deeper cupmarks from Rosh Zin with deeper cupmarks
New insights into Late Natufian bedrock features
Fig. 6 continued
71
72
D. Nadel & D. Rosenberg
Fig. 7. A. Plan and three sections of the C-I/C-II complex at Raqefet cave; B. Photo of the complex during excavations. Note the stone on edge above C-I and the flat stones set on edge within C-II
New insights into Late Natufian bedrock features
73
Fig. 7 continued
above-described manner. The second is a flat slab with a shallow round hole carved on its smooth face, again set on edge (Fig. 8C). Thus, the burial of stone objects within C-II follows the pattern observed in the Raqefet burial customs, in two manners: the setting of objects on their narrow edge, and the placing of two parts of the same original item parallel to each other. In this regard, Garrod reported from el-Wad that “A rough lump of limestone was firmly wedged into basin 2, and two blocks of the tabular variety into basin 3” (Garrod and Bate, 1937: 11; note that her “basins” are bedrock mortars). Flint cores Flint cores are numerous in the burials at Raqefet. During the exposure of many of the skeletons, cores were observed on and adjacent to most skulls and bodies. In the C-I/C-II complex more than 70 cores were found in a small volume.
When compared to the flint assemblage from the largest bedrock mortar – where only one core was found – one wonders whether this is a random phenomenon or a direct reflection of past behavior (Nadel and Lengyel, 2009). Cases from other sites are worth mentioning. At Nahal Oren, a high-quality long pyramidal core was found at the bottom of a small conical ash-pit within the graveyard (Nadel et al., 1997). At Rosh Zin, a flint core was set at the bottom of bedrock mortar 17 (Henry, 1976: 337). The mortar was set near a large pavement with a monolith. Several unique objects, including five large symmetrical pyramidal cores, were found there. Henry suggested that these finds were part of ritual activity (Henry, 1976: 319–320, fig. 11-7). Flint cores and lumps were also placed in mortars at el-Wad cave (Garrod and Bate, 1937: 10, 11) and one case of a flint lump was reported from Jericho (Kenyon, 1957: 218).
74
D. Nadel & D. Rosenberg
Fig. 8. Locus 1 at Raqefet cave during excavation. A. Close-up view of locus 1, with human skeleton on right, cupmark at the bottom, and a variety of stone implements set on edge. B. The two conjoinable pieces of a large limestone blade (center). C. The same area after removal of the stone implements, exposing a slab with a shallow cavity set on edge
New insights into Late Natufian bedrock features
Isolated pebbles There are several cases where one stone pebble was found within a deep shaft. Usually, there was one specimen in the shaft – with no other smaller or larger stones. Furthermore, the stones fit the contour of the shaft, as if chosen according to shape and dimensions. In some cases there are crude ‘flaking’ scars on the pebble. There is one example for such ‘cork’ stones from Raqefet cave (Fig. 9) and five from Rosh Zin (Fig. 10). At Raqefet we found lunates and even cereal phytoliths deep in the shaft – under the sealing stone (Rosen, personal communication). When first found at Rosh Zin, Henry reported that “exhausted mortars, hewn through into nonlithic substratum, were rejuvenated by the positioning of a quartzite cobble in the shaft to seal again the bottom of the mortar” (Henry, 1976: 337). This may be incorrect, as in some cases the stones are not near the bottom of the shaft or in a perforated shaft, and the top of these stones are still angular – and not rounded from continuous work within the mortars (Nadel et al., 2009a). The issue of perforated shafts is further discussed in the next section. There are additional examples of isolated stones set inside deep shafts at Raqefet, though not blocking the entire diameter of the shaft like a cork. Also, a red stone was set in a small cupmark inside the cave and in a large cupmark on the terrace. As mentioned above, Garrod reported that at el-Wad: “a rough lump of limestone was firmly wedged into Basin 2, and two blocks of the tabular variety into Basin 3”. At Wadi Mataha, there are several bedrock mortars, one of which contained Natufian objects such as a basalt pestle (Janetski and Chazan, 2004: 164; Johnson et al., 1999). Human burials Raqefet cave is currently the only place where direct evidence for human interments within large bedrock mortars is known. Here, a deep large bedrock mortar was hewn into a natural depression, later used for repeated burials (locus 1). The remains of a human skeleton (Homo 9) were found at the top of the mortar, with the ribs within the rim contour (Figs 3 – bottom left, 8C – top). Though the skeleton is far from complete, it represents an in situ primary burial.
75
The perforated bedrock mortars At Rosh Zin there are at least five cases where the shafts of deep narrow bedrock mortars penetrate through the limestone layer (which is 30–50 cm thick in many of the rock exposures, Figs 10, 11). Where possible to clean under, it became apparent that the bottoms of these shafts were not accidentally broken from repeated heavy-duty work in the mortars (as suggested by Henry, 1976: 337). Furthermore, in three cases there was a stone deliberately inserted in the shaft. Once the stone was removed, the mortar was cleaned and the pierced bottom reached. In one case a deeper bedrock layer, several centimeters below the pierced shaft, had a smooth shallow cavity exactly below the shaft (Fig. 11 specimen I), with no breaks or cracks in it. In all observable cases the bottom of the shaft is round, widening in a very regular manner. In simple words, these examples do not appear to be the result of over-working the deep mortars, or of natural breakage. Rather, our observations strongly suggest that the manufacturers knew the thickness of the local bedrock, and yet continued to produce new deep mortars – with a regular symmetrical pierced base. The reason for hewing a perforated shaft is unclear, but it strongly implies that these were not used as pounding or storage utensils, at least in the last stages of their utilization. As the perforated mortars are intriguing, we also examined several pierced portable mortars from Nahal Oren and Raqefet, and re-evaluated published specimens from several additional sites. All are deep narrow objects, made on large boulders and thus known as ‘boulder mortars’ or ‘pipe mortars’. Considering the details from both the pierced Rosh Zin bedrock mortars and the perforated ‘boulder mortars’ from the Beqaa sites, el-Wad, Hayonim terrace, Jericho, Nahal Oren (Fig. 12), Raqefet and Eynan, the phenomenon is not random and appears to encompass both large bedrock and portable specimens. The mutual characteristics include intentional modification of the pierced bases and narrow shafts, which are sometimes ‘twisted’. Furthermore, many were found in association with special features such as burials and stone pavements (see also Valla, 2009).
76
D. Nadel & D. Rosenberg
Fig. 9. A. Plan and sections of a deep narrow mortar (C-XVI) from Raqefet cave, note the location of the inserted pebble. B. Close-up view of shaft with top of pebble in situ
New insights into Late Natufian bedrock features
77
Fig. 10. Plans and sections of two perforated bedrock mortars from Rosh Zin
DISCUSSION Large-scale manufacture of Human-made bedrock holes became common during the Late Natufian, with deep narrow specimens and smaller and/or shallower examples being the dominant types. During the proceeding PPNA, the almost exclusive type was the relatively small and shallow cupmark, frequently found on slabs set on house floors (Rosenberg and Nadel, in press).
During the PPNB, when there is evidence for wide-scale agriculture based on domesticated cereals and legumes (Bellwood, 2005; Lev-Yadun et al., 2000), bedrock and portable cupmarks / mortars become rare in the southern Levant, and flat or somewhat concave grinding types are prevalent. The ecological setting of Late Natufian sites with HBHs is wide, and they are found in Mount Carmel (el-Wad, Nahal Oren and Raqefet caves,
78
D. Nadel & D. Rosenberg
Fig. 11. A. Plans and sections of five bedrock mortars with inserted pebbles from Rosh Zin; B. Close-up view of shaft with top of pebble in situ
New insights into Late Natufian bedrock features
79
Fig. 12. Bottom view of a perforated ‘boulder mortar’ from Nahal Oren, showing the round regular hole, with no breaks typical of an exhausted / accidentally broken implement
as well as other sites), in the Lower Jordan Valley (Huzuk Musa and Jericho), in the Negev (Rosh Zin, Saflulim and adjacent sites, Upper Besor 6) and in mountainous southern Jordan (Wadi Mataha). Thus, there appears to be no ecological limitations on their production, and as yet, there is no clear typological correlation to geographical locations. However, regarding the natural landscape and the modification of it by the Late Natufians, three non-perishable landmarks (Boyd, 2006) are apparent. One is the stone-built dwellings; another is the graveyards, with the cleared areas and built graves (including large stones and boulder mortars set vertically with their tops above ground). The third includes the manufacture of Human-made bedrock holes, in caves, on cave terraces and on open-air bedrock exposures. The three altered the landscape and remained visible
for years. Could the Late Natufian bedrock features, as well as certain graveyards, represent past landscape (or even territorial) markers - with an emphasis on caves? (see Boyd, 2006; GoringMorris and Belfer-Cohen, 2002; Grosman, 2003). In terms of typological categories, the smallest specimens are not the early manufacture or utilization stage of the larger ones, as they form distinct categories in terms of size – and not a continuum of dimensions. Naturally, the wide variety of types seemingly represents a wide range of utilizations. These may have included food and mineral processing as well as storage. Flint quarrying was also suggested for some of the PPNA bedrock features (Grosman and Goren-Inbar, 2007). Interestingly, in most sites, there is no correlation between the number of bedrock features and that of the recovered stone pestles (at Raqefet there are at least 85 HBHs and ca. 5 stone pestles).
80
D. Nadel & D. Rosenberg
Nonetheless, food preparation is the most common documented use of mortars and cupmarks, with similar techniques being used for millennia all over the world (e.g., Adams, 1999; Basgall, 1987; Kluckhohn, 1971, among many). In the Levant, it has become common to assume, though not always clearly stated, that the Natufians were processing cereals or acorns in stone mortars (e.g., Bar-Yosef, 2002; Goring-Morris, 1987: 439; McCorriston and Hole, 1991; Rosenberg, 2008; Wright, 1991) – without ever studying the relevant details of the bedrock features or the similar portable specimens. The diversity of the Late Natufian bedrock features calls for a new consideration of their past utilization. In most cases they do not appear to be a part of a workshop or a production area (food or minerals) for several reasons. A) Some specimens are tiny (volume < 5 cubic cm). B) Several features are located on steep rock surfaces, uncomfortable for work. C) If the deep narrow mortars functioned in material processing, working in them – and especially extracting the worked products – would have been very difficult. D) Several features were used for burying selected objects such as stones set on edge, flint cores and in one case even a human corpse. E) The insertion of a pebble into some deep shafts changed their use – or even took them out of use. Indeed, at least during one stage of their history the specimens of categories D and E were apparently not part of a production or processing activity. Furthermore, specific attention should be directed at the perforated bedrock and boulder mortars. These are always relatively deep and narrow, and all are made of limestone. Some of these have a somewhat twisted shaft, and most do not have straight inner walls representing careful smoothing during production, or continuous pounding activities. Again, they have no ecological or site-size correlations. So, what were the bedrock features used for? Some of the cupmark types may have been used in food processing. Other utilizations such as quarrying seem very unlikely in light of the virtual absence of flint nodules in many of the sites where bedrock features were found. Also, usually they do not form a pattern of postholes as suggested for Jericho (see Kenyon and Holland, 1981: 272, Plate 145a, b). We cautiously suggest
that at some sites, like Raqefet, where certain bedrock features were associated with human burials, these were related to burial and/or commemoration rites. It is possible that certain specimens were used in several ways, before, during or after their incorporation into the cult of the dead. The association of stone implements such as mortars and pestles with the dead is rarely documented for pre-Natufian sites (e.g., Neve David in Kaufman, 1989), but is common in Natufian sites such as el-Wad cave and terrace (WeinsteinEvron, 1998, 2009; Garrod and Bate, 1937), Eynan (Perrot and Ladiray, 1988; Valla et al., 2004), Hayonim cave (Belfer-Cohen, 1988) and terrace (Valla, 1995; Valla et al., 1989; Valla et al., 1991), Raqefet cave and terrace (Nadel and Lengyel, 2009; Nadel et al., 2008, 2009b) and Saaide II (Schroeder, 1991). As Natufian mortars and cupmarks, both complete but more commonly broken, are frequently found directly associated with burials, it is not a far leap to suggest that some of the bedrock features were hewn into the floor in order to be associated with a burial, or maybe to represent it if the burial itself was elsewhere. To conclude, our analysis of bedrock features suggests that treating them as one category, supposedly representing food processing, is erroneous – and using this bulk of stone features as reflecting intensive food processing may be misleading in terms of reconstructing Late Natufian economy. The wide typological variety and characteristics of these features seem to reflect a complex range of utilizations and histories. Furthermore, some of these probably had nothing to do with food production at any stage of their utilization, as their forms or dimensions are not similar to ethnographic records (e.g., Adams, 1999; Basgall, 1987; Kluckhohn, 1971). In particular, the narrowness of some specimens, the curved or ‘twisted’ profile of a few, the buried objects (some of which appear in very similar ways within graves), the inserted isolated pebbles, the ‘pierced mortars’ (see also Valla, 2009), the incorporation of similar portable types within burials – all suggest that we should also explore the venue of their incorporation within the social and symbolic realms, beyond their mere treatment as functional objects.
New insights into Late Natufian bedrock features
Acknowledgments We would like to thank D. Henry and A. Marks for providing data regarding Rosh Zin; S. Laidlaw and the University College of London, for permission to publish original photos from the excavations of Kenyon in Jericho, and F. Valla for useful discussions and permission to print the specimens from Hayonim Terrace. Drawings were prepared by A. Avshalomov, V. Damov, R. Brown-Goodman, R. Nufi and P. Spivak.
REFERENCES ADAMS J. L. 1999. Refocusing the role of food-grinding tools as correlates for subsistence strategies in the U.S. Southwest. American Antiquity 64(3), 475– 498. BAR-YOSEF O. 2002. The Natufian culture and the early Neolithic: social and economic trends in southwestern Asia. In: P. Bellwood and Renfrew C. (eds.) Examining the Farming/Language dispersal Hypothesis. McDonald Institute monographs, Cambridge, 113–126. BASGALL M. E. 1987. Resource intensification among hunter-gatherers: acorn economies in prehistoric California. Research in Economic Anthropology 9, 21–52. BELFER-COHEN A. 1988. The Natufian Settlement at Hayonim Cave. A hunter-gatherer band on the threshold of agriculture. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, The Hebrew University, Jerusalem. BELFER-COHEN A. 1991. The Natufian in the Levant. Annual Review of Anthropology 20, 167–186. BELFER-COHEN A., HOVERS E. 2005. The ground stone assemblages of the Natufian and Neolithic societies in the Levant – a brief review. Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 35, 299–308. BELLWOOD P. 2005. First Farmers. The Origins of Agricultural Societies. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford. BOCQUENTIN F. 2003. Pratiques funeraires, parameters biologiques et identities culturelles au Natoufien: une analyse archeo-anthropologique. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Bordeaux 1, Talence. BOYD B. 2006. On ‘sedentism’ in the Later Epipalaeolithic (Natufian) Levant. World Archaeology 38(2), 164–178. BYRD F. B., MONAHAN C. M. 1995. Death, mortuary ritual and Natufian social structure. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 14(3), 251–287. DUBREUIL L. 2004. Long-term trends in Natufian subsistence: a use-wear analysis of ground stone tools. Journal of Archaeological Science 31(11), 1613–1629.
81
DUBREUIL L., GROSMAN L. 2009. Ochre and hideworking at a Natufian burial place. Antiquity 83, 935–954. EITAM D. 2005. The food preparation installations and the stone tools. In: A. Zertal (ed.) The Manasse Hill Country Survey. Vol. IV – from Nahal Bezeq to the Sartaba. Appendix 2, site 47 Huzuk Musa. The University of Haifa Press and the Ministry of Defense Press, Haifa, 686–689. EITAM D. 2008. Plant food in the Late Natufian: the oblong conical mortar as a case study. Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 38, 133–151. 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– 247. GARROD D. A. E., BATE D. M. A. 1937. The Stone Age of Mount Carmel. Clarendon Press, Oxford. GOPHER A., ORELLE E. 1995. The Ground Stone Assemblages of Munhata, a Neolithic Site in the Jordan Valley – Israel (a report). Cahiers du Centre du Recherche Francais de Jerusalem no. 7, Association Paléorient, Paris. GORING-MORRIS A. N. 1987. At the Edge. Terminal Pleistocene Hunter-Gatherers in the Negev and Sinai. British Archaeological Reports International Series 361, Oxford. GORING-MORRIS A. N. 1998. Mobiliary art from the Late Epipalaeolithic of the Negev, Israel. Rock Art Research 15, 81–88. GORING-MORRIS A. N. 1999. Saflulim: a Late Natufian base camp in the central Negev highlands, Israel. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 131, 36–64. GORING-MORRIS A. N., BELFER-COHEN A. 2002. Symbolic behavior from the Epipalaeolithic and Early Neolithic of the Near East: preliminary observations on continuity and change. In: H. G. K. Gebel, B. D. Hermansen and C. H. Jensen (eds.) Magic Practices and Ritual in the Near Eastern Neolithic. Ex-oriente, Berlin, 67–79. GROSMAN L. 2003. Preserving cultural traditions in a period of instability: The Late Natufian of the hilly Mediterranean zone. Current Anthropology 44(4), 571–580. GROSMAN L., GOREN-INBAR N. 2007. “Taming” rocks and changing landscapes: a new interpretation of Neolithic cupmarks. Current Anthropology 48(5), 732–740. HARDY-SMITH T., EDWARDS P. C. 2004. The garbage crisis in prehistory: artifact discard patterns at the Early Natufian site of Wadi Hammeh 27 and the origins of household refuse disposal strategies. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 23, 253– 289.
82
D. Nadel & D. Rosenberg
HAYDEN B. 2004. Socio political organization in the Natufian: a view from the northwest. In: C. Delage (ed.) The Last Hunter-Gatherers in the Near East. British Archaeological Reports International Series 1320, Oxford, 263–308. HENRY D.O. 1976. Rosh Zin: a Natufian settlement near Ein Avdat. In: A. E. Marks (ed.) Prehistory and Palaeoenvironments in the Central Negev, Israel, Vol.1. SMU Press, Dallas, 317–347. HORWITZ L. K., GORING-MORRIS N. 2001. Fauna from the Early Natufian site of Upper Besor 6 in the Central Negev, Israel. Paléorient 26, 111–128. JANETSKI J. C., CHAZAN M. 2004. Shifts in Natufian strategies and the Younger Dryas: evidence from Wadi Mataha, southern Jordan. In: C. Delage (ed.) The Last Hunter-Gatherers in the Near East. British Archaeological Reports International Series 1320, Oxford, 161–168. JOHNSON D. J., JANETSKI J. C., CHAZAN M., WITCHER S., MEADOW R. 1999. Preliminary report on Brigham Young University’s first season of excavation and survey at Wâdî Al-Matâha, Petra, Jordan. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan XLIII, 249–260. KAUFMAN D. 1989. Observations on the Geometric Kebaran: a view from Neve David. In: O. Bar-Yosef, B. Vandermeersch (eds.) Investigations in South Levantine Prehistory. British Archaeological Reports International Series 497, Oxford, 275– 285. KENYON K. 1957. Digging Up Jericho. Benn, London. KENYON K. M., HOLLAND T. A. 1981. Excavations at Jericho, vol. III. The British School of Archaeology, Jerusalem. KLUCKHOHN C. 1971. Navaho Material Culture. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachussets. LENGYEL Gy., BOCQUENTIN F. 2005. Burials of Raqefet Cave in the context of the Late Natufian. Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 35, 271–284. LENGYEL Gy., NADEL D., TSATSKIN A., BAR-OZ G., BAR-YOSEF MAYER D. E., BE’ERI R., HERSHKOVITZ I. 2005. Back to Raqefet Cave, Mount Carmel, Israel. Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 35, 245–270. LEV-YADUN S., GOPHER A., ABBO S. 2000. The cradle of agriculture. Science 288, 1602–1603. McCORRISTON J., HOLE F. 1991. The ecology of seasonal stress and the origins of agriculture in the Near East. American Anthropologist 93, 46–69. NADEL D., NOY T., KOLSKA-HORWITZ L., ZOHAR I. 1997. A note on new finds from the Natufian graveyard at Nahal Oren. Journal of the Is-
rael Prehistoric Society 27, 63–74. NADEL D., LENGYEL Gy. 2009. Human-made Bedrock Holes (Mortars and Cupmarks) as a Late Natufian Social Phenomenon. Archaeology, Anthropology and Ethnology in Euroasia 37(2), 37–48. NADEL D., LENGYEL Gy., BOCQUENTIN F., TSATSKIN A., ROSENBERG D., YESHURUN R., BAR-OZ G., BAR-YOSEF-MAYER D. E., BEERI R., CONYERS L., FILIN S., HERSHKOVITZ I., KURZAWSKA A. 2008. Raqefet Cave: the 2006 Excavation Season. Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 38, 59–131. NADEL D., ROSENBERG D., YESHURUN R. 2009a. The Deep and the shallow: The role of Natufian bedrock features at Rosh Zin, Central Negev, Israel. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 355, 1–29. NADEL D., LENGYEL Gy., CABELLOS PANADES T., BOCQUENTIN F., ROSENBERG D., YESHURUN R., BROWN-GOODMAN R., TSATSKIN A., BAR-OZ G., FILIN S. 2009b. The Raqefet Cave 2008 excavation season. Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 39, 21–61. PERROT J., LADIRAY D. 1988. Les Hommes de Mallaha (Eynan) Israel. I. Les Sepultures. Memoires et Travaux du Centre de Recherche Français de Jerusalem no.7, Association Paléorient, Paris. ROSENBERG D. 2004. The Pestle: Characteristics and Changes of Stone Pounding Implements in the Southern Levant from the Early Epipalaeolithic through the Pottery Neolithic Period. Unpublished M.A. Thesis, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv (in Hebrew with English summary). ROSENBERG D. 2008. The possible use of acorns in past economies of the Southern Levant: A staple food or a negligible food source? Levant 40(2), 167–175. ROSENBERG D., NADEL D. (in press). On floor level: PPNA indoor cupmarks and their Natufian forerunners. In: E. Healy, O. Maeda, S. Campbell (eds.) Provenance, Function, and Technology: The Contribution of Science to the Study of Chipped and Ground stone Tools. Proceedings of the 6th PPN Conference, University of Manchester, Manchester. ROSENBERG D., NADEL D., GROMAN-YAROSLAVSKI I., WINTER H., ZERTAL A., YESHURUN R., BROWN-GOODMAN R. (n.d.). Huzuk Musa – A new Final Epipalaeolithic site in the Lower Jordan Valley. Submitted to Paléorient. SCHROEDER B. 1991. Natufian in the central Beqaa Valley, Lebanon. In: O. Bar-Yosef, F. R. Valla (eds.) The Natufian Culture in the Levant. International Monographs in Prehistory, Archaeological Series 1, Ann Arbor, 43–80. VALLA F. R. 1995. The first settled societies – Natu-
New insights into Late Natufian bedrock features fian (12,500 – 10,200 BP). In: T. E. Levi (ed.) The Archaeology of Society in the Holy Land. Leicester University Press, London, 170–187. VALLA F. R. 2009. Une énigme Natoufienne: les ‘mortiers’ enterrés. In: De Mediterranne et d’ailleurs… Méllanges offerts a Jean Guilaine. Archives d’Écologie Préhistorique, Toulouse, 751–759. VALLA F. R., PLISSON H., BUXO R., CAPDEVILA I. 1989. Notes préliminaires sur les fouilles en course sur la terrasse d’Hayonim. Paléorient 15(1), 245–257. VALLA F. R., LE MORT F., PLISSON H. 1991. Les fouilles en cours sur la Terrace d’Hayonim. In: O. Bar-Yosef, F. R. Valla (eds.) The Natufian Culture in the Levant. International Monographs in Prehistory, Archaeological Series 1, Ann Arbor, 93–110. VALLA F. R., KHALAILY H., VALLADAS H., TISNERAT-LABORDE N., SAMUELIAN N., BOCQUENTIN F., RABINOVICH R., BRIDAULT A., SIMMONS T., LE DOSSEUR G., ROSEN A. M., DUBREUIL L., BAR-YOSEF MAYER D. E., BELFER-COHEN A. 2004. Les fouilles de Mallaha en 2000 et 2001: 3eme rapport preliminaire. Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 34, 49–244. WEINSTEIN-EVRON M. 1998. Early Natufian el-Wad Revisited. ERAUL 77, Liege. WEINSTEIN-EVRON M. 2009. Archaeology in the
83
Archives. Unveiling the Natufian Culture of Mount Carmel. Brill, Boston. WEINSTEIN-EVRON M., LANG B., ILANI S. 1999. Natufian trade/exchange in basalt implements: Evidence from Northern Israel. Archaeometry 41(2), 267–273. WEINSTEIN-EVRON M., KAUFMAN D., BIRDDAVID N. 2001. Rolling stones: Basalt implements as evidence for trade/exchange in the Levantine Epi-Palaeolithic. Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 31, 25–42. WEISS E., KISLEV M. E., HARTMANN A. 2006. Autonomous cultivation before domestication. Science 312, 1608–1610. WRIGHT K. 1991. The origins and development of ground stone assemblages in late Pleistocene Southwest Asia. Paléorient 17(1), 19–45. WRIGHT K. 1992. Ground Stone Assemblage Variation and Subsistence Strategies in the Levant, 22.000 to 5.000 b.p. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Yale University, New Haven. WRIGHT K. 1993. Early Holocene ground stone assemblages in the Levant. Levant XXV, 93–111. WRIGHT K. 1994. Ground-stone tools and huntergatherer subsistence in Southwest Asia: implications for the transition to farming. American Antiquity 59(2), 238–263.
NEW INSIGHTS INTO LATE NATUFIAN BEDROCK FEATURES (MORTARS AND CUPMARKS) Dani Nadel1 and Danny Rosenberg2 2
1 The Zinman Institute of Archaeology, the University of Haifa, Israel; [email protected] Laboratory for Groundstone Research, The Zinman Institute of Archaeology, the University of Haifa, Israel; [email protected]
Abstract It has been suggested since the beginning of prehistoric research in the Levant, that the Natufians used stone mortars for the processing of cereals and/or other vegetal resources, though direct evidence is still lacking. A recent detailed study of more than 100 bedrock mortars and cupmarks indicates that, a) they are found in many Late Natufian sites, regardless of their size and ecological setting, b) the variety of dimensions and types is wide, c) in some cases flint cores and stone objects were buried in them, d) some specimens seem to have been deliberately pierced through their bottom, e) in some cases a stone was firmly lodged into the shaft, f) it seems that certain types could not have served for food processing, or at least do not offer a convenient setting for processing floral material, nor to extract the processed substance from the shaft, and g) at least at one site these features appear to be associated with human burials. We suggest that the new data regarding the Natufian production and use of bedrock features should not be viewed solely in the technological and production spheres. Rather, we tentatively propose that by the Late Natufian, the manufacture of some large/deep stone holes may have had an additional social or even symbolic role. Key words: bedrock features, mortars, cupmarks, Natufian.
INTRODUCTION Dramatic changes in subsistence, settlement patterns and social organization took place during the Natufian period (ca. 15,000–11,500 cal.BP), accumulating in the establishment of the first Levantine semi-sedentary / sedentary settlements. Archaeologically visible are changes in domestic architecture, burial practices, art manifestations, tool manufacture and the use of raw materials. It is unclear whether the beginnings of agriculture should be assigned to this period or to the succeeding Pre-Pottery Neolithic A period (PPNA), but the range of changes did finally lead to the establishment of the first Neolithic villages (e.g., Bar-Yosef, 2002; Belfer-Cohen, 1991; Byrd and Monahan, 1995; Garrod, 1957; Garrod and Bate, 1937; Hardy-Smith and Edwards, 2004; Hayden, 2004; Perrot et Ladiray, 1988; Valla, 1995; Weinstein-Evron, 1998).
During the Natufian, a wide range of technological innovations took place. One important sphere where the new technologies are archaeologically well documented is the use of stone for dwelling construction, production of groundstone (henceforth = stone) implements, and especially the manufacture of bowls, portable mortars/ cupmarks, pestles, etc. – the latter group being one of the hallmarks of the period (e.g., Belfer-Cohen, 1988; Belfer-Cohen and Hovers, 2005; Rosenberg, 2004; Wright, 1991, 1992). The Natufians even transported heavy basalt objects for tens of kilometers as part of their exchange system (Weinstein-Evron et al., 1999, 2001). Though the stone industry has been the focus of several studies (Dubreuil, 2004; Dubreuil and Grosman 2009; Rosenberg, 2004; Wright, 1991, 1992), the bedrock features (mortars, cupmarks, etc.) have not been described or analyzed until recently (see Nadel and Lengyel, 2009; Nadel et al.,
62
D. Nadel & D. Rosenberg
western Jordan (Fig. 1). It is the aim of this paper to address the wide variety of Natufian bedrock features, negating common knowledge (not always specifically stated) regarding all of them as one category used for food preparation or storage. Rather, we suggest these were utilized during the Late Natufian for a variety of tasks, reflecting a range of activities not solely restricted to the realm of economy, but also, possibly, representing aspects of the social and maybe even the symbolic spheres.
THE NATUFIAN BEDROCK FEATURES
Fig. 1 Map of major Natufian sites with Humanmade Bedrock Holes in the southern Levant. Note that the el-Wad specimens are Early Natufian
2008, 2009a; Rosenberg and Nadel, in press). Their first appearance in the Levantine archaeological record is dated to the Early Natufian at sites such as el-Wad cave in Mt. Carmel (see Garrod and Bate, 1937: 11) and Upper Besor 6 (Goring-Morris, 1998; Horwitz and Goring-Morris, 2001). Today, hundreds of specimens are known from Natufian sites, located in wide geographical and ecological ranges, including the Mediterranean eco-zone, the Negev desert, the Jordan Valley and the high sandstone mountains in south-
The production of stone implements such as mortars and pestles began in the Levant before the Natufian, though on a very small scale (see Wright, 1991). The number of types and the total number of specimens increase abruptly by the Early Natufian. As for specimens carved into bedrock, the phenomenon seems to begin during the Early Natufian with only a handful of known examples (Garrod and Bate, 1937: 11; Goring-Morris, 1998) and only by the Late Natufian do the numbers and types of bedrock feature increase substantially. Though hundreds of Natufian bedrock-cut holes/cavities are known today (Eitam, 2005; Goring-Morris, 1999; Nadel and Lengyel, 2009; Nadel et al., 2008, 2009a), their study is only beginning to be established. Even a comprehensive terminology has not been developed until recently. The commonly used terms are mortars (for large specimens) or cupmarks or cupholes (for small specimens), and they are not always appropriate as they do not cover the entire typological range documented in Natufian and later sites (see Nadel and Lengyel, 2009; Nadel et al., 2009a, b). Thus, a more neutral term was suggested recently, Human-made Bedrock Hole (henceforth HBH, see Nadel and Lengyel, 2009) or bedrock features (Nadel et al., 2009a), for the entire range of bedrock types (for sake of convenience, we still use the terms ‘cupmark’ for round specimens 10–20 cm deep, and ‘mortar’ for the deeper and usually narrow specimens). A preliminary type list for bedrock features is provided hereby, with bedrock features counts from Raqefet (cave and terrace) as an example (Table 1; see also Figs 2–7).
New insights into Late Natufian bedrock features
63
Table 1 The types and numbers of Human-made Bedrock Holes at Raqefet cave and terrace Type Description A Round shallow holes, 2-5 cm across and 2-5 cm deep, width:depth = +1 B Round shallow holes, 5-10 cm across, 2-5 cm deep, width:depth>1 Round holes (cupmarks), usually bowl-like in shape, 10-15 cm across, 5-10 cm deep, C width:depth = +1 Round holes, usually bowl-like in shape, 15-30 cm across, 5-30 cm deep, width:depth = D +1 Round, deep and narrow cylinders (mortars), 10-20 cm wide along most of the shaft and E very narrow at the bottom, 20-80 cm deep, width:depth1 (The specimen here is I connected to a cupmark and not counted separately) J Composite sets, of a pair (or more) combined together K Varia (specimens that do not fit any of the above categories) Total
Today there are hundreds of known Natufian HBHs, from a wide geographical range (Fig. 1). The manufacture of the large ones must have been costly, in terms of invested time, energy and relevant carving tools; and yet their past functions are not clear. Although commonly referred to as tools used in food preparation by the Natufians, no direct archaeological evidence for such use of these bedrock features is yet available. The association of HBHs and similar portable types with Natufian graves is also known from the beginning of research (Belfer-Cohen, 1988; Bocquentin, 2003; Byrd and Monahan, 1995; Garrod and Bate, 1937; Nadel and Lengyel, 2009). Typologically, the largest variability of HBHs is documented for the Late Natufian period, including tiny holes (sometimes only 2–3 cm across), deep and narrow shafts (5–10 liters in volume), and huge deep and wide types (>20 liters in volume) (Figs 2–7). By the PPNA, most of the Natufian types disappear and one type, a relatively small cavity–the commonly termed ‘cupmark’–dominates; it is also present in slabs set on many dwelling floors (See Rosenberg and Nadel, in press for in-depth summary). The limited available data regarding the Natufian bedrock features is somewhat frustrating, as they may be a major source of information
Cave 5 3
Terrace 4
Total 5 7
13
11
24
22
15
37
3
3
2
2
5 1
1
*1
54
6 1 *1
31
85
concerning past Natufian technology, economy or social life; or even reflect the Natufian shift to intensive plant-food processing, as a major step towards insipient agriculture (Bar-Yosef, 2002; Dubreuil, 2004; Weiss et al., 2006; Wright, 1993, 1994). Indeed, if at least some of these Natufian stone devices were used for food production in general, and grain processing in particular, they should be rigorously studied (see Belfer-Cohen and Hovers, 2005; Dubreuil, 2004; Gopher and Orelle, 1995; Nadel and Lengyel, 2009; Nadel et al., 2008, 2009a, b; Rosenberg, 2004; Wright, 1991, 1992, 1993).
THE LATE NATUFIAN BEDROCK FESATURES IN CONTEXT The first detailed study of Late Natufian HBHs was initiated with the renewed excavations at Raqefet cave (Fig. 1). The two seasons of excavations revealed a Late Natufian graveyard and over 80 bedrock features (more than 50 in the cave, and over 30 additional specimens carved into the terrace bedrock in front of the cave entrance (Lengyel and Bocquentin, 2005; Lengyel et al., 2005; Nadel and Lengyel, 2009; Nadel et al., 2008, 2009b).
64
D. Nadel & D. Rosenberg
Fig. 2. A. Vertical photo of the central part of chamber 1 in Raqefet cave at the end of excavations, with bedrock features in center, and narrow burial cavity (locus 1) on right (scale bar 50 cm). B. A close-up view showing the presence of small carved holes near the large mortars (center of photo, arrow scale 20 cm)
New insights into Late Natufian bedrock features
65
Fig. 3. Locus 1 in Raqefet cave during excavations. Note the elongated shape of the deep rock basin (ca. 2.5 m long), with a deep wide mortar at one end (bottom) and a slab with cupmark at the other (top), and additional bedrock cupmarks on the left. Human skeletal remains are visible neat the bedrock mortar (bottom of photo) and between some of the stone objects
Our second key source of data is the site of Rosh Zin, situated in the Negev desert (Fig. 1). The excavations at the site revealed 18 bedrock mortars (Henry, 1976), and our renewed work documented the presence of seven additional bedrock features (Nadel et al., 2009a). It is of special importance to note that in some Late Natufian sites there are large numbers of specimens, with Saflulim (more than 150, Goring-Morris, 1999) and Huzuk Musa (more than 80, Eitam, 2005; 2008; Rosenberg et al., n.d.) being especially rich. In other sites only a handful of specimens were found (e.g. el-Wad Terrace (dated to the Early Natufian), Eynan, Hayonim cave/terrace, Jericho (not Late Natufian by the flint assemblage, but the large stone mortars appear to be Late Natufian), Nahal Oren, Upper Besor 6, Wadi Mataha and others). In some contemporaneous sites no such bedrock features were documented, either due to lack of rock exposures
or to other reasons. The details presented below are organized by the main issues we believe are relevant, and not as a catalogue of sites. The typological variability At Raqefet cave and terrace, 85 HBHs were found so far (with additional ‘portable’ specimens – most of which were directly associated with burials). The typological variability is indeed high (Table 1), and certain types were not discussed in previous Natufian site reports. For example, there are 12 (14% of the total) small bedrock cavities, only a few cm across and less than 5 cm deep (Figs 2–4; Nadel and Lengyel, 2009; Nadel et al., 2008, 2009a, b). Interestingly, there are no distribution patterns that are size-dependant. Thus, the largest HBH at the site (C-XXIII, 80 cm deep) has near it a variety of small HBHs, including the smallest at the site (Fig. 2). An additional large specimen is located within a 2.5 meter-long deep
66
D. Nadel & D. Rosenberg
Fig. 4. A. Plans and sections of various bedrock features at Raqefet (note the different scales); B. Plans and sections of various bedrock features at Raqefet (note the different scales); C. Plans and sections of various bedrock features at Raqefet (note the different scales)
New insights into Late Natufian bedrock features
Fig. 4 continued
67
68
D. Nadel & D. Rosenberg
Fig. 4 continued
bedrock cavity that was used for burial (locus 1, Fig. 3). The deep narrow specimens, with nearly vertical or funnel-like shafts, as well as the variety of cupmarks are also spread with no apparent distribution pattern, as there are isolated specimens as well as various concentrations. At Rosh Zin, the 25 bedrock documented features are found on flat limestone rock exposures. Here, too, there are several types, ranging from small shallow cavities to deep narrow shafts (Figs 5, 6). The largest concentration, too, includes a range of types juxtaposed to one another. A very interesting array of types is found at the site of Huzuk Musa, with conspicuous large funnel-like specimens – 60–80 cm deep, with a wide opening and a very narrow shaft. At other sites, at least according to the limited available published data, the typological range is narrow and apparently does not include types that are not described here. Two observations should be stressed. First, several examples of short shallow ‘canals’ running perpendicular to the rim of the HBH are documented at Raqefet and at other sites. Second, there appears to be a pattern where adjacent to some large HBHs there are small shallow holes (e.g. Raqefet, Rosh Zin and Huzuk Musa). This is also true for the largest ‘boulder mortar’ at Raqe-
fet, which has a small carved hole on the flat top – near the rim. Buried objects A variety of Natufian objects and human remains were found within preserved bedrock features, and they are grouped here into four main categories. Stones set on edge A pair of juxtaposed HBHs at Raqefet cave (C-I and C-II) was part of an unusual complex (Fig. 7). It included a large angular stone set on edge on the western rim of C-I. A child’s parietal bone fragment (5 cm in diameter) was found lying horizontally within the fill and may have been buried there (Lengyel et al., 2005). Inside C-II, one of the largest bedrock features exposed at Raqefet, four flat stones were set on edge, parallel to each other. Two of them are conjoinable fragments of one stone (Fig. 7B). The four stones had to have been buried deliberately, in order to remain as found. The practice of placing on edge flat / elongated stones is common at Raqefet cave. Noteworthy, it was repeatedly done at the concentration of burials in locus 1 (see Lengyel and Boc-
New insights into Late Natufian bedrock features
Fig. 5.
69
General plan of Rosh Zin (based on Henry 1976) with location of bedrock features
quentin, 2005, Figs 3, 8; Nadel et al., 2009b). Among the several relevant specimens, two cases are pertinent here. The first is a couple of conjoinable large limestone blades, set on edge with
their dorsal plains facing each other (total length ca. 45 cm, Fig. 8A, B). In other words, after the long symmetrical object was broken, the two parts were deliberately set in the burial area in the
70
D. Nadel & D. Rosenberg
Fig. 6. A. Plans and sections of various bedrock features from Rosh Zin of shallow type; B. Plans and sections of various bedrock deeper cupmarks from Rosh Zin with deeper cupmarks
New insights into Late Natufian bedrock features
Fig. 6 continued
71
72
D. Nadel & D. Rosenberg
Fig. 7. A. Plan and three sections of the C-I/C-II complex at Raqefet cave; B. Photo of the complex during excavations. Note the stone on edge above C-I and the flat stones set on edge within C-II
New insights into Late Natufian bedrock features
73
Fig. 7 continued
above-described manner. The second is a flat slab with a shallow round hole carved on its smooth face, again set on edge (Fig. 8C). Thus, the burial of stone objects within C-II follows the pattern observed in the Raqefet burial customs, in two manners: the setting of objects on their narrow edge, and the placing of two parts of the same original item parallel to each other. In this regard, Garrod reported from el-Wad that “A rough lump of limestone was firmly wedged into basin 2, and two blocks of the tabular variety into basin 3” (Garrod and Bate, 1937: 11; note that her “basins” are bedrock mortars). Flint cores Flint cores are numerous in the burials at Raqefet. During the exposure of many of the skeletons, cores were observed on and adjacent to most skulls and bodies. In the C-I/C-II complex more than 70 cores were found in a small volume.
When compared to the flint assemblage from the largest bedrock mortar – where only one core was found – one wonders whether this is a random phenomenon or a direct reflection of past behavior (Nadel and Lengyel, 2009). Cases from other sites are worth mentioning. At Nahal Oren, a high-quality long pyramidal core was found at the bottom of a small conical ash-pit within the graveyard (Nadel et al., 1997). At Rosh Zin, a flint core was set at the bottom of bedrock mortar 17 (Henry, 1976: 337). The mortar was set near a large pavement with a monolith. Several unique objects, including five large symmetrical pyramidal cores, were found there. Henry suggested that these finds were part of ritual activity (Henry, 1976: 319–320, fig. 11-7). Flint cores and lumps were also placed in mortars at el-Wad cave (Garrod and Bate, 1937: 10, 11) and one case of a flint lump was reported from Jericho (Kenyon, 1957: 218).
74
D. Nadel & D. Rosenberg
Fig. 8. Locus 1 at Raqefet cave during excavation. A. Close-up view of locus 1, with human skeleton on right, cupmark at the bottom, and a variety of stone implements set on edge. B. The two conjoinable pieces of a large limestone blade (center). C. The same area after removal of the stone implements, exposing a slab with a shallow cavity set on edge
New insights into Late Natufian bedrock features
Isolated pebbles There are several cases where one stone pebble was found within a deep shaft. Usually, there was one specimen in the shaft – with no other smaller or larger stones. Furthermore, the stones fit the contour of the shaft, as if chosen according to shape and dimensions. In some cases there are crude ‘flaking’ scars on the pebble. There is one example for such ‘cork’ stones from Raqefet cave (Fig. 9) and five from Rosh Zin (Fig. 10). At Raqefet we found lunates and even cereal phytoliths deep in the shaft – under the sealing stone (Rosen, personal communication). When first found at Rosh Zin, Henry reported that “exhausted mortars, hewn through into nonlithic substratum, were rejuvenated by the positioning of a quartzite cobble in the shaft to seal again the bottom of the mortar” (Henry, 1976: 337). This may be incorrect, as in some cases the stones are not near the bottom of the shaft or in a perforated shaft, and the top of these stones are still angular – and not rounded from continuous work within the mortars (Nadel et al., 2009a). The issue of perforated shafts is further discussed in the next section. There are additional examples of isolated stones set inside deep shafts at Raqefet, though not blocking the entire diameter of the shaft like a cork. Also, a red stone was set in a small cupmark inside the cave and in a large cupmark on the terrace. As mentioned above, Garrod reported that at el-Wad: “a rough lump of limestone was firmly wedged into Basin 2, and two blocks of the tabular variety into Basin 3”. At Wadi Mataha, there are several bedrock mortars, one of which contained Natufian objects such as a basalt pestle (Janetski and Chazan, 2004: 164; Johnson et al., 1999). Human burials Raqefet cave is currently the only place where direct evidence for human interments within large bedrock mortars is known. Here, a deep large bedrock mortar was hewn into a natural depression, later used for repeated burials (locus 1). The remains of a human skeleton (Homo 9) were found at the top of the mortar, with the ribs within the rim contour (Figs 3 – bottom left, 8C – top). Though the skeleton is far from complete, it represents an in situ primary burial.
75
The perforated bedrock mortars At Rosh Zin there are at least five cases where the shafts of deep narrow bedrock mortars penetrate through the limestone layer (which is 30–50 cm thick in many of the rock exposures, Figs 10, 11). Where possible to clean under, it became apparent that the bottoms of these shafts were not accidentally broken from repeated heavy-duty work in the mortars (as suggested by Henry, 1976: 337). Furthermore, in three cases there was a stone deliberately inserted in the shaft. Once the stone was removed, the mortar was cleaned and the pierced bottom reached. In one case a deeper bedrock layer, several centimeters below the pierced shaft, had a smooth shallow cavity exactly below the shaft (Fig. 11 specimen I), with no breaks or cracks in it. In all observable cases the bottom of the shaft is round, widening in a very regular manner. In simple words, these examples do not appear to be the result of over-working the deep mortars, or of natural breakage. Rather, our observations strongly suggest that the manufacturers knew the thickness of the local bedrock, and yet continued to produce new deep mortars – with a regular symmetrical pierced base. The reason for hewing a perforated shaft is unclear, but it strongly implies that these were not used as pounding or storage utensils, at least in the last stages of their utilization. As the perforated mortars are intriguing, we also examined several pierced portable mortars from Nahal Oren and Raqefet, and re-evaluated published specimens from several additional sites. All are deep narrow objects, made on large boulders and thus known as ‘boulder mortars’ or ‘pipe mortars’. Considering the details from both the pierced Rosh Zin bedrock mortars and the perforated ‘boulder mortars’ from the Beqaa sites, el-Wad, Hayonim terrace, Jericho, Nahal Oren (Fig. 12), Raqefet and Eynan, the phenomenon is not random and appears to encompass both large bedrock and portable specimens. The mutual characteristics include intentional modification of the pierced bases and narrow shafts, which are sometimes ‘twisted’. Furthermore, many were found in association with special features such as burials and stone pavements (see also Valla, 2009).
76
D. Nadel & D. Rosenberg
Fig. 9. A. Plan and sections of a deep narrow mortar (C-XVI) from Raqefet cave, note the location of the inserted pebble. B. Close-up view of shaft with top of pebble in situ
New insights into Late Natufian bedrock features
77
Fig. 10. Plans and sections of two perforated bedrock mortars from Rosh Zin
DISCUSSION Large-scale manufacture of Human-made bedrock holes became common during the Late Natufian, with deep narrow specimens and smaller and/or shallower examples being the dominant types. During the proceeding PPNA, the almost exclusive type was the relatively small and shallow cupmark, frequently found on slabs set on house floors (Rosenberg and Nadel, in press).
During the PPNB, when there is evidence for wide-scale agriculture based on domesticated cereals and legumes (Bellwood, 2005; Lev-Yadun et al., 2000), bedrock and portable cupmarks / mortars become rare in the southern Levant, and flat or somewhat concave grinding types are prevalent. The ecological setting of Late Natufian sites with HBHs is wide, and they are found in Mount Carmel (el-Wad, Nahal Oren and Raqefet caves,
78
D. Nadel & D. Rosenberg
Fig. 11. A. Plans and sections of five bedrock mortars with inserted pebbles from Rosh Zin; B. Close-up view of shaft with top of pebble in situ
New insights into Late Natufian bedrock features
79
Fig. 12. Bottom view of a perforated ‘boulder mortar’ from Nahal Oren, showing the round regular hole, with no breaks typical of an exhausted / accidentally broken implement
as well as other sites), in the Lower Jordan Valley (Huzuk Musa and Jericho), in the Negev (Rosh Zin, Saflulim and adjacent sites, Upper Besor 6) and in mountainous southern Jordan (Wadi Mataha). Thus, there appears to be no ecological limitations on their production, and as yet, there is no clear typological correlation to geographical locations. However, regarding the natural landscape and the modification of it by the Late Natufians, three non-perishable landmarks (Boyd, 2006) are apparent. One is the stone-built dwellings; another is the graveyards, with the cleared areas and built graves (including large stones and boulder mortars set vertically with their tops above ground). The third includes the manufacture of Human-made bedrock holes, in caves, on cave terraces and on open-air bedrock exposures. The three altered the landscape and remained visible
for years. Could the Late Natufian bedrock features, as well as certain graveyards, represent past landscape (or even territorial) markers - with an emphasis on caves? (see Boyd, 2006; GoringMorris and Belfer-Cohen, 2002; Grosman, 2003). In terms of typological categories, the smallest specimens are not the early manufacture or utilization stage of the larger ones, as they form distinct categories in terms of size – and not a continuum of dimensions. Naturally, the wide variety of types seemingly represents a wide range of utilizations. These may have included food and mineral processing as well as storage. Flint quarrying was also suggested for some of the PPNA bedrock features (Grosman and Goren-Inbar, 2007). Interestingly, in most sites, there is no correlation between the number of bedrock features and that of the recovered stone pestles (at Raqefet there are at least 85 HBHs and ca. 5 stone pestles).
80
D. Nadel & D. Rosenberg
Nonetheless, food preparation is the most common documented use of mortars and cupmarks, with similar techniques being used for millennia all over the world (e.g., Adams, 1999; Basgall, 1987; Kluckhohn, 1971, among many). In the Levant, it has become common to assume, though not always clearly stated, that the Natufians were processing cereals or acorns in stone mortars (e.g., Bar-Yosef, 2002; Goring-Morris, 1987: 439; McCorriston and Hole, 1991; Rosenberg, 2008; Wright, 1991) – without ever studying the relevant details of the bedrock features or the similar portable specimens. The diversity of the Late Natufian bedrock features calls for a new consideration of their past utilization. In most cases they do not appear to be a part of a workshop or a production area (food or minerals) for several reasons. A) Some specimens are tiny (volume < 5 cubic cm). B) Several features are located on steep rock surfaces, uncomfortable for work. C) If the deep narrow mortars functioned in material processing, working in them – and especially extracting the worked products – would have been very difficult. D) Several features were used for burying selected objects such as stones set on edge, flint cores and in one case even a human corpse. E) The insertion of a pebble into some deep shafts changed their use – or even took them out of use. Indeed, at least during one stage of their history the specimens of categories D and E were apparently not part of a production or processing activity. Furthermore, specific attention should be directed at the perforated bedrock and boulder mortars. These are always relatively deep and narrow, and all are made of limestone. Some of these have a somewhat twisted shaft, and most do not have straight inner walls representing careful smoothing during production, or continuous pounding activities. Again, they have no ecological or site-size correlations. So, what were the bedrock features used for? Some of the cupmark types may have been used in food processing. Other utilizations such as quarrying seem very unlikely in light of the virtual absence of flint nodules in many of the sites where bedrock features were found. Also, usually they do not form a pattern of postholes as suggested for Jericho (see Kenyon and Holland, 1981: 272, Plate 145a, b). We cautiously suggest
that at some sites, like Raqefet, where certain bedrock features were associated with human burials, these were related to burial and/or commemoration rites. It is possible that certain specimens were used in several ways, before, during or after their incorporation into the cult of the dead. The association of stone implements such as mortars and pestles with the dead is rarely documented for pre-Natufian sites (e.g., Neve David in Kaufman, 1989), but is common in Natufian sites such as el-Wad cave and terrace (WeinsteinEvron, 1998, 2009; Garrod and Bate, 1937), Eynan (Perrot and Ladiray, 1988; Valla et al., 2004), Hayonim cave (Belfer-Cohen, 1988) and terrace (Valla, 1995; Valla et al., 1989; Valla et al., 1991), Raqefet cave and terrace (Nadel and Lengyel, 2009; Nadel et al., 2008, 2009b) and Saaide II (Schroeder, 1991). As Natufian mortars and cupmarks, both complete but more commonly broken, are frequently found directly associated with burials, it is not a far leap to suggest that some of the bedrock features were hewn into the floor in order to be associated with a burial, or maybe to represent it if the burial itself was elsewhere. To conclude, our analysis of bedrock features suggests that treating them as one category, supposedly representing food processing, is erroneous – and using this bulk of stone features as reflecting intensive food processing may be misleading in terms of reconstructing Late Natufian economy. The wide typological variety and characteristics of these features seem to reflect a complex range of utilizations and histories. Furthermore, some of these probably had nothing to do with food production at any stage of their utilization, as their forms or dimensions are not similar to ethnographic records (e.g., Adams, 1999; Basgall, 1987; Kluckhohn, 1971). In particular, the narrowness of some specimens, the curved or ‘twisted’ profile of a few, the buried objects (some of which appear in very similar ways within graves), the inserted isolated pebbles, the ‘pierced mortars’ (see also Valla, 2009), the incorporation of similar portable types within burials – all suggest that we should also explore the venue of their incorporation within the social and symbolic realms, beyond their mere treatment as functional objects.
New insights into Late Natufian bedrock features
Acknowledgments We would like to thank D. Henry and A. Marks for providing data regarding Rosh Zin; S. Laidlaw and the University College of London, for permission to publish original photos from the excavations of Kenyon in Jericho, and F. Valla for useful discussions and permission to print the specimens from Hayonim Terrace. Drawings were prepared by A. Avshalomov, V. Damov, R. Brown-Goodman, R. Nufi and P. Spivak.
REFERENCES ADAMS J. L. 1999. Refocusing the role of food-grinding tools as correlates for subsistence strategies in the U.S. Southwest. American Antiquity 64(3), 475– 498. BAR-YOSEF O. 2002. The Natufian culture and the early Neolithic: social and economic trends in southwestern Asia. In: P. Bellwood and Renfrew C. (eds.) Examining the Farming/Language dispersal Hypothesis. McDonald Institute monographs, Cambridge, 113–126. BASGALL M. E. 1987. Resource intensification among hunter-gatherers: acorn economies in prehistoric California. Research in Economic Anthropology 9, 21–52. BELFER-COHEN A. 1988. The Natufian Settlement at Hayonim Cave. A hunter-gatherer band on the threshold of agriculture. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, The Hebrew University, Jerusalem. BELFER-COHEN A. 1991. The Natufian in the Levant. Annual Review of Anthropology 20, 167–186. BELFER-COHEN A., HOVERS E. 2005. The ground stone assemblages of the Natufian and Neolithic societies in the Levant – a brief review. Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 35, 299–308. BELLWOOD P. 2005. First Farmers. The Origins of Agricultural Societies. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford. BOCQUENTIN F. 2003. Pratiques funeraires, parameters biologiques et identities culturelles au Natoufien: une analyse archeo-anthropologique. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Bordeaux 1, Talence. BOYD B. 2006. On ‘sedentism’ in the Later Epipalaeolithic (Natufian) Levant. World Archaeology 38(2), 164–178. BYRD F. B., MONAHAN C. M. 1995. Death, mortuary ritual and Natufian social structure. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 14(3), 251–287. DUBREUIL L. 2004. Long-term trends in Natufian subsistence: a use-wear analysis of ground stone tools. Journal of Archaeological Science 31(11), 1613–1629.
81
DUBREUIL L., GROSMAN L. 2009. Ochre and hideworking at a Natufian burial place. Antiquity 83, 935–954. EITAM D. 2005. The food preparation installations and the stone tools. In: A. Zertal (ed.) The Manasse Hill Country Survey. Vol. IV – from Nahal Bezeq to the Sartaba. Appendix 2, site 47 Huzuk Musa. The University of Haifa Press and the Ministry of Defense Press, Haifa, 686–689. EITAM D. 2008. Plant food in the Late Natufian: the oblong conical mortar as a case study. Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 38, 133–151. 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– 247. GARROD D. A. E., BATE D. M. A. 1937. The Stone Age of Mount Carmel. Clarendon Press, Oxford. GOPHER A., ORELLE E. 1995. The Ground Stone Assemblages of Munhata, a Neolithic Site in the Jordan Valley – Israel (a report). Cahiers du Centre du Recherche Francais de Jerusalem no. 7, Association Paléorient, Paris. GORING-MORRIS A. N. 1987. At the Edge. Terminal Pleistocene Hunter-Gatherers in the Negev and Sinai. British Archaeological Reports International Series 361, Oxford. GORING-MORRIS A. N. 1998. Mobiliary art from the Late Epipalaeolithic of the Negev, Israel. Rock Art Research 15, 81–88. GORING-MORRIS A. N. 1999. Saflulim: a Late Natufian base camp in the central Negev highlands, Israel. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 131, 36–64. GORING-MORRIS A. N., BELFER-COHEN A. 2002. Symbolic behavior from the Epipalaeolithic and Early Neolithic of the Near East: preliminary observations on continuity and change. In: H. G. K. Gebel, B. D. Hermansen and C. H. Jensen (eds.) Magic Practices and Ritual in the Near Eastern Neolithic. Ex-oriente, Berlin, 67–79. GROSMAN L. 2003. Preserving cultural traditions in a period of instability: The Late Natufian of the hilly Mediterranean zone. Current Anthropology 44(4), 571–580. GROSMAN L., GOREN-INBAR N. 2007. “Taming” rocks and changing landscapes: a new interpretation of Neolithic cupmarks. Current Anthropology 48(5), 732–740. HARDY-SMITH T., EDWARDS P. C. 2004. The garbage crisis in prehistory: artifact discard patterns at the Early Natufian site of Wadi Hammeh 27 and the origins of household refuse disposal strategies. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 23, 253– 289.
82
D. Nadel & D. Rosenberg
HAYDEN B. 2004. Socio political organization in the Natufian: a view from the northwest. In: C. Delage (ed.) The Last Hunter-Gatherers in the Near East. British Archaeological Reports International Series 1320, Oxford, 263–308. HENRY D.O. 1976. Rosh Zin: a Natufian settlement near Ein Avdat. In: A. E. Marks (ed.) Prehistory and Palaeoenvironments in the Central Negev, Israel, Vol.1. SMU Press, Dallas, 317–347. HORWITZ L. K., GORING-MORRIS N. 2001. Fauna from the Early Natufian site of Upper Besor 6 in the Central Negev, Israel. Paléorient 26, 111–128. JANETSKI J. C., CHAZAN M. 2004. Shifts in Natufian strategies and the Younger Dryas: evidence from Wadi Mataha, southern Jordan. In: C. Delage (ed.) The Last Hunter-Gatherers in the Near East. British Archaeological Reports International Series 1320, Oxford, 161–168. JOHNSON D. J., JANETSKI J. C., CHAZAN M., WITCHER S., MEADOW R. 1999. Preliminary report on Brigham Young University’s first season of excavation and survey at Wâdî Al-Matâha, Petra, Jordan. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan XLIII, 249–260. KAUFMAN D. 1989. Observations on the Geometric Kebaran: a view from Neve David. In: O. Bar-Yosef, B. Vandermeersch (eds.) Investigations in South Levantine Prehistory. British Archaeological Reports International Series 497, Oxford, 275– 285. KENYON K. 1957. Digging Up Jericho. Benn, London. KENYON K. M., HOLLAND T. A. 1981. Excavations at Jericho, vol. III. The British School of Archaeology, Jerusalem. KLUCKHOHN C. 1971. Navaho Material Culture. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachussets. LENGYEL Gy., BOCQUENTIN F. 2005. Burials of Raqefet Cave in the context of the Late Natufian. Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 35, 271–284. LENGYEL Gy., NADEL D., TSATSKIN A., BAR-OZ G., BAR-YOSEF MAYER D. E., BE’ERI R., HERSHKOVITZ I. 2005. Back to Raqefet Cave, Mount Carmel, Israel. Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 35, 245–270. LEV-YADUN S., GOPHER A., ABBO S. 2000. The cradle of agriculture. Science 288, 1602–1603. McCORRISTON J., HOLE F. 1991. The ecology of seasonal stress and the origins of agriculture in the Near East. American Anthropologist 93, 46–69. NADEL D., NOY T., KOLSKA-HORWITZ L., ZOHAR I. 1997. A note on new finds from the Natufian graveyard at Nahal Oren. Journal of the Is-
rael Prehistoric Society 27, 63–74. NADEL D., LENGYEL Gy. 2009. Human-made Bedrock Holes (Mortars and Cupmarks) as a Late Natufian Social Phenomenon. Archaeology, Anthropology and Ethnology in Euroasia 37(2), 37–48. NADEL D., LENGYEL Gy., BOCQUENTIN F., TSATSKIN A., ROSENBERG D., YESHURUN R., BAR-OZ G., BAR-YOSEF-MAYER D. E., BEERI R., CONYERS L., FILIN S., HERSHKOVITZ I., KURZAWSKA A. 2008. Raqefet Cave: the 2006 Excavation Season. Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 38, 59–131. NADEL D., ROSENBERG D., YESHURUN R. 2009a. The Deep and the shallow: The role of Natufian bedrock features at Rosh Zin, Central Negev, Israel. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 355, 1–29. NADEL D., LENGYEL Gy., CABELLOS PANADES T., BOCQUENTIN F., ROSENBERG D., YESHURUN R., BROWN-GOODMAN R., TSATSKIN A., BAR-OZ G., FILIN S. 2009b. The Raqefet Cave 2008 excavation season. Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 39, 21–61. PERROT J., LADIRAY D. 1988. Les Hommes de Mallaha (Eynan) Israel. I. Les Sepultures. Memoires et Travaux du Centre de Recherche Français de Jerusalem no.7, Association Paléorient, Paris. ROSENBERG D. 2004. The Pestle: Characteristics and Changes of Stone Pounding Implements in the Southern Levant from the Early Epipalaeolithic through the Pottery Neolithic Period. Unpublished M.A. Thesis, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv (in Hebrew with English summary). ROSENBERG D. 2008. The possible use of acorns in past economies of the Southern Levant: A staple food or a negligible food source? Levant 40(2), 167–175. ROSENBERG D., NADEL D. (in press). On floor level: PPNA indoor cupmarks and their Natufian forerunners. In: E. Healy, O. Maeda, S. Campbell (eds.) Provenance, Function, and Technology: The Contribution of Science to the Study of Chipped and Ground stone Tools. Proceedings of the 6th PPN Conference, University of Manchester, Manchester. ROSENBERG D., NADEL D., GROMAN-YAROSLAVSKI I., WINTER H., ZERTAL A., YESHURUN R., BROWN-GOODMAN R. (n.d.). Huzuk Musa – A new Final Epipalaeolithic site in the Lower Jordan Valley. Submitted to Paléorient. SCHROEDER B. 1991. Natufian in the central Beqaa Valley, Lebanon. In: O. Bar-Yosef, F. R. Valla (eds.) The Natufian Culture in the Levant. International Monographs in Prehistory, Archaeological Series 1, Ann Arbor, 43–80. VALLA F. R. 1995. The first settled societies – Natu-
New insights into Late Natufian bedrock features fian (12,500 – 10,200 BP). In: T. E. Levi (ed.) The Archaeology of Society in the Holy Land. Leicester University Press, London, 170–187. VALLA F. R. 2009. Une énigme Natoufienne: les ‘mortiers’ enterrés. In: De Mediterranne et d’ailleurs… Méllanges offerts a Jean Guilaine. Archives d’Écologie Préhistorique, Toulouse, 751–759. VALLA F. R., PLISSON H., BUXO R., CAPDEVILA I. 1989. Notes préliminaires sur les fouilles en course sur la terrasse d’Hayonim. Paléorient 15(1), 245–257. VALLA F. R., LE MORT F., PLISSON H. 1991. Les fouilles en cours sur la Terrace d’Hayonim. In: O. Bar-Yosef, F. R. Valla (eds.) The Natufian Culture in the Levant. International Monographs in Prehistory, Archaeological Series 1, Ann Arbor, 93–110. VALLA F. R., KHALAILY H., VALLADAS H., TISNERAT-LABORDE N., SAMUELIAN N., BOCQUENTIN F., RABINOVICH R., BRIDAULT A., SIMMONS T., LE DOSSEUR G., ROSEN A. M., DUBREUIL L., BAR-YOSEF MAYER D. E., BELFER-COHEN A. 2004. Les fouilles de Mallaha en 2000 et 2001: 3eme rapport preliminaire. Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 34, 49–244. WEINSTEIN-EVRON M. 1998. Early Natufian el-Wad Revisited. ERAUL 77, Liege. WEINSTEIN-EVRON M. 2009. Archaeology in the
83
Archives. Unveiling the Natufian Culture of Mount Carmel. Brill, Boston. WEINSTEIN-EVRON M., LANG B., ILANI S. 1999. Natufian trade/exchange in basalt implements: Evidence from Northern Israel. Archaeometry 41(2), 267–273. WEINSTEIN-EVRON M., KAUFMAN D., BIRDDAVID N. 2001. Rolling stones: Basalt implements as evidence for trade/exchange in the Levantine Epi-Palaeolithic. Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 31, 25–42. WEISS E., KISLEV M. E., HARTMANN A. 2006. Autonomous cultivation before domestication. Science 312, 1608–1610. WRIGHT K. 1991. The origins and development of ground stone assemblages in late Pleistocene Southwest Asia. Paléorient 17(1), 19–45. WRIGHT K. 1992. Ground Stone Assemblage Variation and Subsistence Strategies in the Levant, 22.000 to 5.000 b.p. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Yale University, New Haven. WRIGHT K. 1993. Early Holocene ground stone assemblages in the Levant. Levant XXV, 93–111. WRIGHT K. 1994. Ground-stone tools and huntergatherer subsistence in Southwest Asia: implications for the transition to farming. American Antiquity 59(2), 238–263.
