34
PALEOENVIRONMENT. THE STONE AGE
D. Nadel
Zinman Institute of Archaeology, Haifa University,
Haifa, 31905, Israel
E-mil: [email protected]
THE OHALO II BRUSH HUTS AND THE DWELLING STRUCTURES
OF THE NATUFIAN AND PPNA SITES IN THE JORDAN VALLEY
Introduction
defined structures (as opposed to rare earlier partial stone
lines or "walls") reported from the Near East; (2) these
sites were the first in the area to be rich in terms of
ornamentation, decorations and "art" objects; (3) the
core-area Natufian sites were the earliest to provide large
numbers of well-preserved human skeletons; and (4) the
Natufian was the immediate precursor of the Neolithic
culture and, as such, was the focus of studies concerned
with the origins of sedentism and agriculture.
The earliest Neolithic phase (locally termed PrePottery Neolithic A, hence PPNA; 10,300 – 9,300 BP) is
characterized by small and large villages subsisting on a
mixed economy of agriculture and hunting-gathering,
with a sophisticated social organization – both on the
village level and the regional level (see (Bar-Yosef, 1989,
1991, 1998b; Kuijt, 2000) and references therein).
Site structure and dwelling characteristics are well
documented for the PPNA and Natufian sites, but are hardly
evident in earlier contexts. Indeed, there are several reports
on Upper Paleolithic and Early Epipaleolithic sites with
isolated examples of partially preserved stone walls with
an undefined contour. These provide very scarce direct
evidence for the size, shape, and function of dwellings, as
usually there are no floors, nor associated indoor
installations. Examples of pre-Natufian stone alignments
or walls include the Upper Paleolithic caves of Hayonim
(Belfer-Cohen, Bar-Yosef, 1981: 21 – 23) and Sefunim
(Ronen, 1984), and Early Epipaleolithic open-air sites such
as Ein Gev I with six successive layers of what appears to
have been a partially preserved cabin (Fig. 1) (Bar-Yosef,
1978). Though many tens of pre-Natufian sites have been
excavated so far, the number and quality of preserved
structures (or at least walls) is extremely low.
The Epipaleolithic – Early Neolithic sequence of the
Mediterranean Levant is archaeologically welldocumented and serves as one of the most detailed
examples of the transition from a social organization
based on a nomadic hunting-gathering way of life to
sedentism and agriculture (Bar-Yosef, Belfer-Cohen,
1989; Henry, 1989).
The Levantine Epipaleolithic (ca 20,000 – 10,300
BP, all dates uncalibrated; see (Bar-Yosef, Vogel, 1987;
Goring-Morris, 1995)) lasted from the Last Glacial
Maximum to the Pleistocene – Holocene transition.
During most of this period of rapid cultural change, the
rich and varied Mediterranean landscape was inhabited
by small bands moving seasonally, while subsisting on
the hunting and gathering of a wide range of species.
According to material remains retrieved from numerous
sites, they have been grouped into the Masraqan,
Kebaran, and Geometric Kebaran complexes (see recent
summary and discussion in (Goring-Morris, 1995;
Goring-Morris, Belfer-Cohen, 1998) and references
therein).
However, the last phase of the Epipaleolithic was
very different. A new and distinct archaeological entity
evolved in the Mediterranean core area, the Natufian
(12,500 – 10,300 BP) (Bar-Yosef, 1983, 1998a; BelferCohen, 1991, 1995; Byrd, 1989; Garrod, 1957; Garrod,
Bate, 1937; Henry, 1989; Perrot, 1966; Perrot, Ladiray,
1988; Valla, 1995). This well studied culture drew
enormous attention from both scholars and laymen, due
to four major factors: (1) in various sites, stone-lined
structures were discovered, being the oldest clearly
Archaeology, Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 1 (13) 2003
© 2003, D. Nadel
34
E-mail: [email protected]
35
It is interesting to note that at contemporaneous sites
in East Europe and on the Russian plains, the picture is
different. There, dozens of dwellings constructed of large
mammoth bones were well preserved at several sites
(see examples in (Pidoplichko, 1998; Soffer, 1985;
Soffer, Praslov, 1993)). At the same time, in Western
Europe, even in well-preserved sites (e.g., Pincevent
(Leroi-Gourhan, Brezillon, 1966, 1972)), there are
usually no walls surrounding in situ floors. There are,
however, several sites in France where stone-paved areas
have been preserved and interpreted as floors or bases
of dwellings (e.g., Guillassou and Le Cerisier, see
(Gaussen, 1980)). There are cases where pebbles
delineating a rectangle 3 – 4 m long were also preserved,
again probably representing the remains of a dwelling
(Gaussen, 1980, 1994). It appears that in some areas,
dwellings were constructed of perishable materials and
thus not preserved.
Indeed, against the poverty of pre-Natufian structural
evidence, the Ohalo II remains (see Fig. 1) stand out as
an example of a camp where dwellings built of
perishable materials were well preserved. It is the aim
of this paper to show that the current state of knowledge
is the outcome of poor conditions for preservation and
does not imply that the pre-Natufian period was a period
without any forms of construction. Furthermore, the new
finds, radiometrically dated to 19,500 BP (ca 23,000 BP,
calibrated), enable a re-evaluation of the origins of the
Natufian site structure and dwelling organization in the
camp. Indeed, a diachronic study of continuity and
change through 10,000 years can now be based on a
larger sample of the earlier phase. This paper shows new
details of the Ohalo II dwellings, and follows the
development and continuity of certain characteristics as
expressed in the proceeding Natufian sites and early
Neolithic villages in the southern Levant (with an
emphasis on the Jordan Valley). As this time span saw a
dramatic shift in subsistence (from hunting-gathering
to agriculture) and the development of complex
sedentary societies, the kind of correlation between the
two processes and the evolution, if at all, of the basic
unit of dwelling is expected to shed more light on the
daily organization of camp/village life and social
structures of the local communities. A comparative study
with an emphasis on Natufian and especially Neolithic
residential change was recently presented (Byrd, 2000).
However, the issue of pre-Natufian to Natufian
development was so far only partially known (due to
the small size of relevant pre-Natufian cases), and will
be elaborated here.
The Ohalo II structures
The site
The submerged site of Ohalo II is located in the Dead
Sea Rift, on the shore of the current Sea of Galilee, and
0
50 km
Fig. 1. Location map of Early Epipaleolithic (Ohalo II, Ein
Gev), Natufian (Eynan, Wadi el Hammeh 27), and PPNA
(Jericho, Netiv Hagdud) sites in the Jordan Valley with dwelling
remains discussed in the text.
in situ on the Lisan marls (the precursor of the current
lake) at 212 – 213 m below msl (Belitzky, Nadel, in
press; Nadel, 2002a). The camp covers an area of more
than 2000 sq. m, and the excavated remains include six
brush huts, six concentrations of fireplaces, a human
grave, a pit, a stone installation, and midden deposits
(Fig. 2) (Nadel, 1996; Nadel, Hershkovitz, 1991; Nadel
et al., 1994). Submerged under anaerobic conditions,
the organic remains were excellently preserved.
Accordingly, the bases of brush walls (Nadel, Werker,
1999), as well as burnt wood and large quantities of
charred seeds and fruit (Kislev, Nadel, Carmi, 1992)
were preserved. On each floor, and around most hearths,
large quantities of flint artifacts, animal bones, and plant
remains were found, in many cases in what apparently
resemble original distribution patterns. Large samples
of charcoal from most loci provided thirty-three 14C
dates, with an average of ca 19,500 BP (Nadel, Carmi,
Segal, 1995; Nadel et al., 2001; Nadel et al., in press).
The structures
The brush hut remains are the oldest of their kind
ever reported (Nadel, Werker, 1999). So far, the remains
36
0
5m
Fig. 3. Detailed plans of six Ohalo II structures.
Table. Area of Ohalo II hut floors
(rounded to sq. m)
Fig. 2. Plan of Ohalo II site (central area of excavation).
of brush huts 1, 2, 3 and 13 were fully excavated
(Fig. 3). That is, all sediment found within the wall
contours (on the floors and above them) was excavated
and wet-sieved and large samples of the material remains
were already studied. In all cases, sections through and
under the floors showed that there were no deeper
archaeological layers under the observed floors (some
sections were 0.8 m deep). In addition, more than half
of hut 12 was excavated and hut 15 was tested across
the center and at the northern edge.
The full contour of five huts was recorded by following
a dark line of burnt wood and other plant remains, as well
as by documenting the limit of the dark inner sediment,
which was always different from the natural clays and sand.
Also, the shape and dimensions of hut 15 were tentatively
reconstructed according to sections through the floor
remains and by similarity to the other huts. All huts are
more-or-less oval, and in the five fully observable cases
the long axis lies in a north to south direction. In two cases
the entrance was clearly located in the middle of the long
eastern wall (huts 1(floor II) and 2).
The larger huts are 4 – 4.5 m long (huts 1, 3, 12),
while huts 2 and 13 are 2.5 – 3 m long. The area of the
hut floors varies, and the five examples show a range
between ca 5 and 13 sq. m (Table). The two larger ones
(huts 1 and 3) are relatively similar, and are double the
size of hut 13. The sample is statistically small, but there
appears to be a range of dimensions, rather than clusters
of "small" and "large."
All hut floors have a bowl-like section, with the floor
always lower than the surrounding surface (Fig. 4, 5).
This was achieved by digging a shallow oval depression
into the soft bedrock. In the middle, the depression
was 20 – 30 cm lower than the surface. Then, a brush
wall was built around the depression. It was constructed
of thick branches of local trees such as tamarisk (Tamarix),
willow (Salix), and oak (Quercus), forming the skeleton
of the structure. Smaller leaf-bearing branches and grasses
were placed on top, again using local species. No
postholes were detected in or around any of the excavated
huts. Such a simple building technique did not require
heavy logs for a central support, and the huts could have
been constructed during any season.
None of the huts had a stone pavement, nor a
continuous stone-lined wall. It should be stressed that
this is the case for all, regardless of size or floor
thickness. However, hut 12 was different in terms of
stone use. Here, in all parts where the floor bottom was
reached, isolated stones were found under it. They were
usually at least 20 – 40 cm apart, never forming a
continuous area, nor a continuous line. Nonetheless, it
is possible that the stones were deliberately placed where
37
Fig. 4. Hut 1 during the excavation of floor II, facing east.
0
Fig. 5. A section through the bottom part of hut 2 floor.
1m
Fig. 6. The stones outside the northwestern wall of hut 12.
The dark material is the bottom part of the floor, with a large
flat stone embedded inside (upper part of photo). Groups of
two or three stones were set just outside the hut in the sandy
clay, and many of them are erect.
Fig. 7. An elongated stone placed erect through the sandy
clay just outside the wall of hut 12.
found, at the contact plain between the floor and the
underlying Lisan. This is supported by two observations:
(1) the lacustrine bedrock layers are devoid of stones in
all excavated loci, sections, and tractor deep trenches
(the latter totaling more than 100 m in length); (2) some
of the stones were placed erect, on their narrow end.
Furthermore, pebbles and stones (mostly 10 – 20 cm
long) formed a loose arch along the northwestern edge
of the hut (Fig. 6). Most of them were placed in groups
of two or three stones, 20 – 50 cm apart. The majority
are basalt stones, and many are erect (Fig. 7).
Interestingly, broken worked stone implements are also
incorporated in this line. The dark floor sediment does
not reach these stones (except for one group). It should
therefore be concluded that the stones were
intentionally placed around the outer perimeter of the
hut, maybe to support thick diagonal wall stakes. As
there were no dislocated stones of similar size along
this line, it is believed that this was not a stone wall
(with some stones missing or scattered), but rather an
outer support of some kind.
The thickness of the cultural layer within each hut
was usually 10 – 20 cm in the center, becoming thinner
towards the walls. The layer was always dark, in shades
of black, brown and gray, with high densities of charcoal
and organic remains. In some places, there were lenses
of lighter sands or ashes (for sedimentological and thin
section details see (Tsatskin, 2002; Nadel et al., in
press)). In all sections, the lower limit of the
archaeological layer was clearly distinguished from the
underlying light-colored marls, clays, and sands.
In five huts, there were no visible layers within the
fill running from side to side, though local lenses and
"sub-layers" were observed. Thus, it is suggested that
38
à
b
c
Fig. 8. A flat basalt stone on the floor II of hut 1 (a); a flat basalt
stone on the floor of hut 12 (b) and its flat bottom side (c).
the accumulation of debris corresponds to one floor.
However, in hut 1 the situation was different. Here it
was possible to distinguish three successive floors. The
upper (I) was only partially preserved in the southern
half of the hut. The middle (II) was well preserved and
fully excavated in 1991. It was separated from the upper
and lower floors by layers of silt and sand, in most places
3 – 5 cm thick. This floor had a high density of finds,
including horizontally deposited specimens such as flint
artifacts, bones, and a gazelle horn core. Furthermore,
a large flat basalt stone was set horizontally on this floor.
It was placed on a lens of yellow sand brought into the
hut, material not found elsewhere on the floors (Fig. 8,
a). Several small pebbles were set in the sand to secure
the stone in a firm manner. Distribution studies of flints
and fish vertebrae on this floor show non-random
patterns (see below).
The bottom floor (III) was exposed in 2000, and was
shown to be larger than the middle one. It, too, was rich
in flint, bones, and charred remains (as yet unstudied)
and had a unique arrangement of small stones at the
lowest level near the northeastern edge. Floor III was
almost a circle, while floor II was smaller – with an
oval shape and a distinct entrance from the east. Thus,
there were three successive phases of occupation in the
same shallow depression. It is possible that during the
lower phase there was an accumulation of debris near
the entrance. Then, the second floor was established on
a smaller area, leaving this accumulation outside. This
succession of floors is important in understanding past
settlement patterns in terms of site use, repeated
occupations, and length of stay.
In-door installations
Inner (within-hut) installations are not common. In
none of the huts was a stone-lined hearth, nor a clearly
defined hearth preserved, though stains of ashes and
charcoal were present everywhere, as the huts had been
burned. However, there was a round white ashy deposit
on the bottom floor of hut 1 (ca 1 m across). As the hut
floors and outdoor hearths are well preserved, it is
suggested that indoor hearths were very uncommon in
this camp.
Big stones were found in several cases. Three erect
stones (25 – 35 cm high) were still in situ when hut 2
was discovered (Fig. 9). Two of them were placed in
the hut, and not along the wall. One similar stone was
found just outside the northeastern corner of hut 3 (see
Fig. 9, 10), and another near the same corner of hut 12.
Both were set diagonally into the ground, with their
bottom part dipping towards the hut.
Hut 1 was again unique in this sense, as two large
basalt stones were found on floor II. The first
(mentioned above, ca 40 cm long) could have been used
as an anvil or a working surface, though no correlated
distribution of flints or bones was observed. The second
was a large angular stone, ca 50 cm long. It was found
at a point where the wall line surrounding the hut
disappears (see Fig. 4). It looks as if the entrance was
39
here, and it is possible that the stone was placed to
support an entrance frame. A flat basalt stone 40 cm
long was found in hut 12 (see Fig. 6, 8, b, c). In size
and flatness it resembles the "anvil" from hut 1.
However, this stone was found inclining at the very
edge of the basin-like floor, and the bottom side is much
more regular and flat than the upper one. In both huts,
the flat stone was at the northern side.
The last relevant observation concerns small stones
found erect under some floors. The largest number (six)
comes from hut 3 (Fig. 11, a), though some were found
elsewhere, including two small ones under floor III of
hut 1 (Fig. 11, b). In all cases, the stones were 6 – 20 cm
high and mostly made of basalt. They were standing
erect below the floor, so that only the very top was
sticking above the floor, if at all. Due to their small size
and location, it is hard to reconstruct their function. Two
tentative interpretations are suggested. The first would
view them as supports for small above-floor wooden
installations, of which nothing else was preserved. The
second would draw from the sphere of symbolic
behavior. Accordingly, the position of stones represented
some aspects of social behavior, for example, ownership,
which may have caused certain implements to be placed
in an elaborate way under, or through the floor.
Interestingly, a flat stone was set erect near a stone circle
adjacent to the only grave found. Here too, the position
of the stone could have had a symbolic meaning as part
of the grave complex (Nadel, 1994; 2002b; in press).
In-door activities
The recovered finds directly reflect several indoor
activities, and indirectly hint at some others. The flint
assemblages from all huts represent knapping activities.
There are cores, primary elements, core trimming
elements, bladelets, as well as tiny debris on all floors
(Nadel, 1999, 2001a). Thus, all huts were used for core
reduction, and the wealth of bladelets and retouched
pieces attest to indoor flint working as well as use or
storage of retouched implements. There are also several
examples of flint piles or caches on the floors. In
addition, there are con-joinable pieces. Interestingly,
there are fire-cracked con-joinable pieces as well. They
reflect the shattering of the flint on the floor during the
burning of the hut. The overall conclusion is toward
indoor flint knapping, though this is not common in
ethnographic cases.
In hut 1 (floor II), the concentration of flint cores,
debitage and debris shows that flint knapping took place
near the entrance, probably by two or three individuals
(Nadel, 2001a). On the same floor, the distribution of
bones was different. Particularly illuminating are the fish
vertebrae, concentrated in distinct piles (Nadel et al.,
1994). It was suggested that fish were kept in the hut in
baskets of some kind, probably hanging from the walls.
When the hut was burned, everything fell on the floor,
including the stored fish. The presence of small cord
fragments on the same floor strengthens this claim.
It should be noted that large quantities of a variety
of mammal bones were recovered from each floor.
Especially common were gazelle bones, followed by
fallow deer and, to a much lesser extent, by fox and
hare bones (Rabinovich, 1998). These probably reflect
food consumption and may even be some sort of storage.
Bird bones of over 60 species are present, indicating
consumption as well as the use of feathers (Simmons,
Nadel, 1998; Simmons, 2002). Interestingly, remains of
small rodents were also found, mostly within hut 1
(Belmaker, Nadel, Tchernov, 2001).
A completely different phenomenon relates to two
examples of stone bowl fragments. One was found on
the floor of hut 3 and one on the floor of hut 13. Each
was found face down, with no other bowl fragments
anywhere on the floor (Fig. 12). Also, each had a dense
series of incisions on the inner face. It is tentatively
suggested that they were part of symbolic behavior
where chosen objects were placed on, or under, the floors
(see (Nadel, 2002b; in press)).
All the Ohalo II floors are similar in that they reflect
a continuous accumulation of debris within the structure.
There is no size sorting within this material, and it
includes minute and large flint artifacts, animal bones,
and stone implements (mostly basalt). At least some
were found as in situ concentrations or piles, others in
patterned distributions, and there are con-joinable
pieces. One can conclude that (1) there was a continuous
and relatively long period of material accumulation; (2)
a variety of activities took place in each hut; (3) floor
cleaning was not frequent, if it occured at all; and (4) at
abandonment, many things were left as they had been.
Additional aspects of the activities and the intervals of
abandonment are expected to be better understood when
the botanical studies are completed.
It should be stressed that the combined results of
botanical (Kislev, Nadel, Carmi, 1992; Kislev, Simchoni,
Weiss, 2002)*, faunal (Lieberman, 1993; Rabinovich,
2002), and bird remains (Simmons, Nadel, 1998;
Simmons, 2002) studies, as well as field and laboratory
observations, strongly suggest a year-round use of the
camp in general and certain huts in particular.
The Natufian structures
Natufian architecture is widely documented, and since
site reports and many syntheses are available (see, e.g.,
* See also: Simchoni O. Reconstruction of the Landscape
and Human Economy 19,000 BP in the Upper Jordan Valley
by the Botanical Remains Found at Ohalo II. PhD Dissertation.
Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan Univ. (Hebrew), 1997 (unpublished).
40
Fig. 9. Hut 2 before excavations, facing north.
Fig. 10. Close-up view of an erect large stone just outside
hut 3, placed in a sandy clay layer.
à
b
Fig. 11. Close-up view of erect stones under the floor of hut 3, placed in a sandy clay layer (a) and close-up view
of two small erect stones on the bottom of floor III of hut 1 (b).
à
b
Fig. 12. A partial view of the floor of hut 13 with the bowl fragment found up-side-down near a limestone pebble (a)
and the bowl fragment after cleaning (b).
(Byrd, 2000; Goring-Morris, 1996) and references
therein), only a brief summary with an emphasis on
certain aspects is presented here. In addition, some of
the unique structures are not directly dealt with here, as
they do not appear to represent typical dwellings. For
example, structure 1 from Eynan is more elaborate
(and different) than other local structures using
the combination of large flat stones as pavement
41
and lime mortar around the wall, as well as having
a number of sub-floor burials. Indeed, this unique and
complex combination lead Perrot to provide several
interpretations (Perrot, 1966; Perrot, Ladiray, 1988).
The Natufian structures were discovered with a wall
base made of undressed stones. Stone walls are usually
well preserved, and they are viewed as direct evidence
for the size and shape of structures. Three shapes are
documented, namely oval, round and U-like (open oval
or open circle). At Eynan, all shapes are present, and
the U-wall of structure 131 is interpreted as a widely
open hut (Valla, 1988, 1991). It is less likely that in this
and similar cases, the original shape was oval, and only
later disturbances deleted some of the walls, or that
through continuous on-site construction, some of the
stones were reused and thus complete walls were not
always preserved.
The size of Natufian structures varied considerably,
especially through time. It has been shown that large
structures with an effective floor area of 20 sq. m, or
more, are common in the early Natufian sites (Eynan,
Wadi el Hammeh 27, el-Wad B2). They are absent in
the late Natufian, where most structures have an area of
5 – 10 sq. m (for the last phase at Eynan see (Valla et
al., 2001; Goring-Morris, 1996: fig. 3)). The Hayonim
Cave structures (built in the cave) are an extreme
example of small structures. They could have been used
for several purposes such as production or storage
locations, rather than dwellings (Bar-Yosef, Goren,
1973; Belfer-Cohen, 1988).
One of the most common features of Natufian
structures is the floor level, always lower than the
surrounding ground surface. Inner (within-structure)
installations are common, especially stone built hearths.
At Eynan, most excavated structures had an inner hearth,
fully or partially surrounded by stones (Perrot, 1966;
Valla, Lechevallier, 1989; Valla et al., 2001).
Installations within structures were reported from
various sites. For example, large rectangular stone built
features were exposed in Wadi el Hammeh 27, some
looking like benches (Edwards, 1991).
The repeated use of structures, as evidenced by
successive floors, has been documented in various sites
for several huts, i.e., 131 at Eynan (Perrot, Ladiray 1988;
Valla, 1988) and the Wadi el Hammeh structures
(Edwards, 1989, 1991).
Indoor activities are additionally apparent from the
faunal and lithic remains. Animal bones are commonly
present in these structures, probably representing
cooking (indoor hearths) and maybe even, to some
extent, storage. Flint artifacts are abundant, including
all debitage categories and tool types. It is thus
reasonable to suggest that knapping took place inside
the huts, and floor cleaning was not common. Ground
stone implements, especially of basalt, are also found
in some cases. In addition, there are caches of
implements under floors. For example, under the two
floors of hut 131 at Eynan, there were caches of pebbles
and stone tools (Dollfus, 1985; Valla, 1988).
The thickness of deposit accumulations within the
stone walls reaches, in some cases, 50 – 60 cm. In most
examples there are no distinct successive layers or floors
within these fills. That is to say, the debris accumulated
during a relatively long time, with no construction of
new floors and no apparent cleaning of the refuse at the
corners nor outside altogether. Obviously, the in situ
preservation of such accumulations was possible because
the sunken floor and surrounding stone walls created a
protected place for the material from being washed away
by natural processes.
The Natufians constructed some of their dwellings
exactly on top, or almost so, of previous structures
(Edwards, 1989). This could reflect a continuous
ownership of a location within the camp. Alternatively,
and even harder to test archaeologically, it could also
point to some space shortage where, because of social
organization or local political constrains, people were
forced to build their homes at the same place again and
again.
The continuous building of structures within the
Natufian large sites had a direct impact on the landscape.
Never before were so many building materials, both in
terms of variety (especially stone, but probably also mud
and wood) and quantity, brought into a dwelling site
year after year. The result was a true mound. Although
in most open-air Natufian sites the total thickness of
deposits is on a scale of 0.5 – 1 m, continuous building
activities did form a mound, which remained on the
landscape for a millennia.
PPNA structures
The first evidence for an in situ PPNA phase in the
southern Levant has been known from Jericho and Nahal
Oren since the 1950’s, but it was detailed volumes of
the Jericho report that established in literature the
material characteristics of the earliest large villages in
the southern Levant (Kenyon, 1981; Kenyon, Holland,
1982, 1983).
The largest two sites (Jericho and Netiv Hagdud) are
only 12 km apart. They are both located in the Lower
Jordan Valley, but excavated in two different ways. In
Jericho the PPNA remains were exposed in the bottom
of deep narrow trenches, as that was the only way to get
through the thick later layers. In contrast, the Netiv
Hagdud mound has no post-PPNA overlying deposits.
Accordingly, more than 600 sq. m of the Neolithic
village were exposed, most of which were in one
continuous area (Bar-Yosef, Gopher 1997). Smaller
sites, or sites with smaller excavation areas (though all
42
with architectural remains), include ‘Ain Darat (Gopher,
1996), Dhra (Kuijt, Mahasneh, 1998), Gesher
(Garfinkel, 1990), Gilgal (Noy, 1989; Noy,
Schuldenrein, Tchernov, 1980), Hatula (Lechevallier,
Ronen, 1994), Iraq-ed-Dubb (Kuijt, Mabry, Palumbo,
1991), Nahal Oren (Stekelis, Yizraeli, 1963; Noy, Legge,
Higgs, 1973), and WF16 (Finlayson et al., 2000).
All structures are round or oval in shape, although
toward the end of the period there are sub-rectangle
houses at Jericho. The most common building material
is stone, though plano-convex sun-dried mud bricks
are also common in some sites. It appears that stones
were only used for constructing the foundations or
lower parts of walls, as there are no preserved high
walls, nor piles of collapsed stones along the walls.
The upper parts and the roof were probably made of
perishable materials. The floor, as in previous periods,
is always lower than the surrounding surface to the
depth of a step or two.
The inner area of the structures varies even on an
intra-site level. Thus, the oval structures at Netiv Hagdud
are about 25 sq. m in area (although structure 40 is ca
35 sq. m), while the adjacent round structures are usually
only 5 – 7 sq. m, but some are 10 – 12 sq. m. Similar
dimensions have been recorded at other sites.
Inner partitions of the structures are rare, but they
do exist at Netiv Hagdud structure 8 (Bar-Yosef, Gopher,
1997: fig. 3.19) and maybe at the MJ-MH structure at
area M, Jericho (Kenyon, Holland, 1981: plates 277 –
278). Interestingly, the former differs from all structures
at the site in orientation, number of cup marks on heavy
limestone slabs set into the floor, density of heavy duty
stone tools, and the presence of obsidian implements
(Bar-Yosef, Gopher, 1997; Nadel, 1997).
Inner installations include occasional hearths and piles
of fire cracked stones. Caches of implements have been
recorded in some cases. Limestone slabs with cup marks
are common, usually set into the floor, so that the upper
surface of the stone is continuous with the floor.
Additional evidence of in-door activities is provided by
large quantities of flints, bones and other refuse. As in
previous cases, the variety and quantities of finds indicate
domestic activity in most of the structures.
The thickness of deposits within the structures
depends on the height of the preserved walls. In many
cases, the thickness of the fill is more than 50 cm.
However, in most sites it is rare to distinguish floor levels
within these fills. At Jericho, successive floors and
successive buildings are documented in several sections.
Discussion
Discussions of Neolithic architectural development and
changes, as well as their interpretation in terms of social
structure in the southern Levant (or the Near East in
general), have been advanced by several scholars (e.g.,
(Aurenche, 1981; Banning, Byrd, 1989; Byrd, 1994;
Flannery, 1972; Rollefson, 1997)). A perspective
including earlier cultures, especially the Natufian, was
provided by Byrd (2000) and can now be enlarged with
the new finds from Ohalo II.
It is assumed here, as in all the above-cited works,
that most of the architectural remains represent
dwellings and their satellite installations (used as
workshops and storage facilities). Basically, this
assumption rests on the size, shape, number, and
distances between the structures on the one hand, and
on the material remains recovered from their interiors
on the other. Outstanding structures appear to be of
public or ceremonial use, such as structure 1 at Eynan,
structure 8 at Netiv Hagdud, and the tower with the
adjoining complex at Jericho (for the latter see (BarYosef, 1986; Kenyon, Holland, 1981; Ronen, Adler,
2001).
One of the most outstanding phenomena of the Early
Epipaleolithic (Ohalo II) – Early Neolithic (PPNA)
sequence is the number of similarities in terms of
dwelling characteristics. First, in all sites, structures are
oval and round, and only the U-shaped Natufian
examples are different, although they too, could be seen
as a variant of the oval shape with a large entrance at
the narrow end. Second, all structures are free standing
and have no common walls, nor roofed passages between
them. Third, in all documented cases, the floors were
lower than the surrounding surface by 20 – 50 cm. That
is, the first step in each construction was to dig a shallow
depression in the shape and size of the planned structure.
Fourth, building materials always included wood and
perishable materials for the walls and roof. Stones were
commonly used from the Natufian onward for wall
bases, but in earlier sites they were only incorporated
on a sporadic manner and scarcely served as the common
building material of any structural element.
Probably the most important fact would be that the
basic unit was always a one-room structure with one
entrance. Apart from rare PPNA examples, there are no
remains of internal partitioning of the dwelling space.
As has been stated in the past, this has direct implications
upon the reconstructing of social organizations.
Numerous ethnographic examples and various studies
provide a model in which there is direct correlation
between social structure and complexities of
architectural dwellings (Banning, Byrd, 1989; Byrd,
1994, 2000; Kent, 1993; Kramer, 1979, 1982; Watson,
1979). The complexities could be measured by the
number of rooms on the one hand, and the kind of
entrance/passage between the open public area and the
innermost room on the other. Indeed, in all documented
examples discussed here, there was one inner space and
a direct entrance from the public area into that space. If
43
the model is correct, and the basic unit of dwelling
reflects social structure, then the basic social unit did
not change much from the days of Ohalo II, until the
end of the PPNA.
The floor area of dwellings is of particular interest.
The issue of the construction (built roof) area and
population size has been discussed in detail in many
works and will not be elaborated here (e.g., (Byrd,
2000; Naroll, 1962; Van Beek, 1982; Watson, 1979)).
Rather, the continuity of dwelling size from Ohalo II
until the PPNA in the Jordan Valley should be stressed.
In Ohalo II, Eynan (early and late Natufian) and Netiv
Hagdud, there are dwellings with an inner area of ca 8
– 12 sq. m, probably representing the indoor domestic
area of a nuclear family. It is true that in all sites, there
are other smaller or larger structures. For example,
larger structures are found in the early Natufian, where
building techniques were better than ever before. They
could reflect larger residential groups at the beginning
of the period. In addition, it is possible that at least
some of the larger structures served as public centers
within the camps or villages (see (Goring-Morris,
1996)). At Netiv Hagdud, most of the structures are
round and have a standard area of ca 8 – 12 sq. m. The
larger oval structures are found in the same layers, but
they are less common, and at least one (N 8) of the
three is definitely different from all excavated
structures and is interpreted as a public building. So,
although there are large structures in some Natufian
and PPNA sites or levels, a basic hut (8 – 12 sq. m)
with typical domestic debris is much more common.
In the arid zones of the southern Levant, the area is
sometimes even smaller, as at the Harifian sites, which
are contemporaneous with the final Natufian (GoringMorris, 1987, 1996).
Hearths were the focal centers for a variety of
activities, of which food preparation/consumption and
tool manufacture/use are but two examples evident from
the material remains. At Ohalo II most hearths are
between the huts, in open public space. Accordingly, it
is reasonable to suggest that many activities took place
in a communal manner, with a high level of "sharing
between families." This is not the case with the Natufian,
where built hearths are common indoors. Such a shift
could reflect an emphasis on family indoor activities,
with less work done in the open, and less food sharing
(if at all) carried out around an open-air fireplace. Such
a shift is not surprising, as it is common knowledge that
the Natufian settlements were larger and more permanent
than ever before, and thus represent (in the
archaeological record) a settlement pattern requiring a
social organization different from the previous one.
Furthermore, the elaborate burial customs and the variety
and quantity of "art" manifestations have been
interpreted in terms of a changing social organization
(see (Bar-Yosef, 1998a; Bar-Yosef, Belfer-Cohen, 1989,
1992, 1999; Belfer-Cohen, 1991; Byrd, Monahan, 1995),
but also see (Belfer-Cohen, 1995; Boyd, 2001) for a
cautionary perspective).
Another aspect of clear continuity is evident in
successive floors in early Epipaleolithic camps (Ohalo II,
Ein Gev I) and subsequent sites. In addition, the
Natufians (in some cases) and the early Neolithic people
(at least in Jericho) built dwellings directly on top of
earlier ones. This continuity of use, both of the structure
(successive floors) and the location (successive
buildings), represents a system of on-site continuity and
strong ties of people to their house and its place within
the camp/village. It reflects the long-term use of the site,
and could be used to argue in favor of sedentism in
Natufian and later sites – along with other lines of
evidence (Edwards, 1989).
Another aspect of these ties could be seen in certain
remains recovered from the dwellings. Thus, caches
of selected items or piles of chosen artifacts, unusual
arrangements of implements, or erect non-functional
stones are present from the early Epipaleolithic onward
(Nadel, 2002b; in press). Tentatively, they are viewed
as reflections of symbolic behavior within the social
context of life in the camp/village. As these remains
were not common in the first place, and as they are not
always preserved, there is a higher chance of
encountering such cases when excavation areas are
large.
Throughout the discussed period, animal bones and
flint implements are common finds on floors and in the
fillings above them. They represent some of the domestic
activities, which were similar throughout the period.
However, the densities of finds changed dramatically
through time, as has been shown in the past (Bar-Yosef,
1983; Nadel, 2001b). For example, the densities of flint
tools drop from many hundreds (and even ca 2,000 tools
per cubic m) to several tens when moving from
Epipaleolithic to PPNA sites. Naturally, one of the major
relevant factors is the fast accumulation of material
within the later villages, dramatically decreasing the
densities of remains. However, when densities of
specific types (e.g., burins) on floors are considered (thus
eliminating the general processes of mound build-up and
sediment accumulation within abandoned structures),
the differences between Ohalo II and Netiv Hagdud are
small (Nadel, 2001b). Among several possible
explanations, this could reflect a similar number of
people occupying the floors for similar lengths of
occupations.
The Levantine architectural remains, especially in
the Jordan Valley, show a high level of continuity in
many aspects of the indoor built space and in the
activities carried out within that space. During a period
of approximately 10,000 years (from Ohalo II to Netiv
44
Fig. 13. A reconstruction of hut 1.
Hagdud/Jericho) profound economic and technological
changes took place. There was also social reorganization, but according to the basic dwelling unit,
the residential space of the core family hardly changed.
This is not to say, however, that the introduction of the
built hearth in the Natufian home, and the development
of new technologies and building materials during each
period, were not important. Nonetheless, there is no
visible diachronic increase in structural dimension, inner
complexity of room numbers, or even in the shape of
the structure. A general continuity in many aspects is
clearly observed.
Viewed from a different perspective, the social aspect
of the Early Epipaleolithic – Early Neolithic architectural
sequence discussed in this paper could be interpreted in
another way. As it is clear that the Natufian overall social
structure and settlement pattern were different from the
preceding (size of sites and density of structures and
material remains represent a sharp rise of on-site
population density and permanence of occupation), the
fact that most elements of the basic dwelling structure
remained almost constant could be used to argue that one
cannot always use architectural characteristics as a direct
correlation of the general social structure. Along this line
of argument, although some details appear to be similar
and nuclear families could have occupied similar
structures at different periods, the social framework was
nonetheless distinct and thus not reflected by the built
elements of basic social units. For example, the
similarities presented in this work could be the result of
adaptation to the environment. Accordingly, people in the
Jordan Valley enjoyed relatively similar environments
throughout the relevant periods, and hunted and gathered
the same species for several millennia. Maybe for them,
the changing social system had an impact on the number
and density of basic dwelling units (and the relevant
location of the domestic hearth), and not on many
structural elements of the unit itself. Also, during the same
period, symbolic aspects of social life were developed
and established, of which burial customs and the use of
mobiliary art items are two examples.
In the southern Levant, the most dramatic observable
revolution in the domestic space occurred by the onset
of the PPNB period. The basic plan changed from oval/
round to rectangular, inner divisions and the use of
plaster became common, and the overall size of
structures (including the introduction of two-floor
buildings) and village area increased dramatically.
The Ohalo II people were living in simple oval
structures (Fig. 13), in a lakeshore camp on a year-round
basis. Their diet was based on cereals, fish and a variety
of local plant and animal resources. Water, too, was
available year-round. Thus, the idea of all-season
residence in one location was not a Natufian invention,
and was practiced on a local basis in certain times and
places long before the Natufian. It appears that the basic
residential unit, inhabited by the nuclear family, witnessed
environmental oscillations as well as social and economic
changes from the time of Ohalo II until the establishment
of the PPNA villages. Nonetheless, there is clear
continuity in the shape, size and bowl-like section of
dwellings, as well as in several indoor domestic activities.
This stability endured even the introduction of new
building materials and techniques. The use of a round/
oval 8 – 12 sq. m structure with one inner space and one
simple entrance continued for at least 10,000 years, and
changed dramatically only with the onset of the PPNB.
Acknowledgments
I wish to thank Ofer Bar-Yosef and Anna Belfer-Cohen
for reading the manuscript and for their advice. The
Ohalo II project was generously supported by the IreneLevi Sala CARE Archaeological Foundation, the Israel
Academy of Science, the Jerusalem Center for
Anthropological Studies, the L.S.B. Leakey Foundation,
the M. Stekelis Museum of Prehistory in Haifa, the
MAFCAF Foundation, the National Geographic Society,
and the Israel Antiquities Authority.
References
Aurenche O. 1981
La Maison Orientale. L’Architecture du Proche-Orient Ancien
des Origines au Millieu du Quatrième Millénaire. Paris:
Geuthner.
Banning E.B., Byrd F.B. 1989
Alternative approaches for exploring Levantine Neolithic
architecture. Paléorient, vol. 15 (1): 154 – 160.
Bar-Yosef O. 1978
Man – an outline of the prehistory of the Kinneret area. In
Monographiae Biologicae, C. Serruya (ed.), vol. 32. New
York: Hague, pp. 447 – 464.
45
Bar-Yosef O. 1983
The Natufian in the Southern Levant. In The Hilly Flanks and
Beyond, C.T. Young, P.E.L. Smith, P. Mortensen (eds.).
Chicago: Oriental Institute, Univ. of Chicago Press, pp. 11 – 42.
(Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization; N 36).
Bar-Yosef O. 1986
The walls of Jericho: An alternative interpretation. Current
Anthropology, vol. 27 (2): 157 – 162.
Bar-Yosef O. 1989
The PPNA in the Levant – an overview. Paléorient, vol. 15 (1):
57 – 63.
Bar-Yosef O. 1991
The early Neolithic of the Levant: Recent advances. The
Review of Archaeology, vol. 12 (2): 1 – 18.
Bar-Yosef O. 1998a
The Natufian culture in the Levant, threshold to the origins
of agriculture. Evolutionary Anthropology, vol. 6 (5):
159 – 177.
Bar-Yosef O. 1998b
Introduction. In The Transition to Agriculture in the Old World,
O. Bar-Yosef (ed.). The Review of Archaeology (Special Issue),
vol. 19 (2): 1 – 5.
Bar-Yosef O., Belfer-Cohen A. 1989
The origins of sedentism and farming communities in the
Levant. Journal of World Prehistory, vol. 3(4): 447 – 498.
Bar-Yosef O., Belfer-Cohen A. 1992
From foraging to farming in the Mediterranean Levant. In
Transitions to Agriculture in Prehsitory, A.B. Gebauer,
T.D. Price (eds.). Madison: Prehistory Press, pp. 21 – 48.
Bar-Yosef O., Belfer-Cohen A. 1999
Encoding information: Unique Natufian objects from
Hayonim Cave, Western Galilee, Israel. Antiquity, vol. 73:
402 – 410.
Bar-Yosef O., Gopher A. (eds.) 1997
An Early Neolithic Village in the Jordan Valley. Pt. 1: The
Archaeology of Netiv Hagdud. Cambridge: Harvard Univ.,
Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology. (American
School of Prehistoric Research; Bulletin 44).
Bar-Yosef O., Goren N. 1973
Natufian remains in Hayonim Cave. Paléorient, vol. 1 (1):
49 – 69.
Bar-Yosef O., Vogel J.C. 1987
Relative and absolute chronology of the Epipaleolithic in the
Southern Levant. In Chronologies in the Near East,
O. Aurenche, J. Evin, F. Hours (eds.). Oxford: British
Archaeological Reports, pp. 219 – 245. (BAR Inter. Series;
vol. 379).
Belfer-Cohen A. 1988
The Natufian Graveyard in Hayonim Cave. Paléorient,
vol. 14 (2): 297 –308.
Belfer-Cohen A. 1991
The Natufian in the Levant. Annual Review of Anthropology,
vol. 20: 167 – 186.
Belfer-Cohen A. 1995
Rethinking social stratification in the Natufian culture: The
evidence from burials. In The Archaeology of Death in the
Ancient Near East, S. Campbell, A. Green (eds.). Oxford:
Oxbow Books, pp. 9 – 16. (Oxbow Monograph; vol. 51).
Belfer-Cohen A., Bar-Yosef O. 1981
The Aurignacian at Hayonim Cave. Paléorient, vol. 7 (2):
19 – 42.
Belitzky S., Nadel D. (in press)
Late Pleistocene and recent tectonic deformations at the Ohalo II
prehistoric site (19K) and the evolution of the Jordan River
outlet from the Sea of Galilee. Geoarchaeology.
Belmaker M., Nadel D.,
Tchernov E. 2001
Micromammal taphonomy in the site of Ohalo II (19 Ky.,
Jordan Valley). Archaeofauna, vol. 10: 125 – 135.
Boyd B. 2001
The Natufian burials from el-Wad, Mount Carmel. Beyond
issues of social differentiation. Mitekufat Haeven, Journal of
the Israel Prehistoric Society, vol. 31: 185 – 200.
Byrd B.F. 1989
The Natufian: Settlement variability and economic adaptations
in the Levant at the end of the Pleistocene. Journal of World
Prehistory, vol. 3 (2): 159 – 197.
Byrd B.F. 1994
Public and private, domestic and corporate: The emergence of
the southwest Asian village. American Antiquity, vol. 59 (4):
639 – 666.
Byrd B.F. 2000
Households in transition. In Life in Neolithic Farming
Communities. Social Organization, Identity and
Differentiation, I. Kuijt (ed.). New York: Plenum Publishers,
pp. 63 – 98.
Byrd B.F., Monahan C.M. 1995
Death, mortuary ritual and Natufian social structure. Journal
of Anthropological Archaeology, vol. 14 (3): 251 – 287.
Dollfus G. 1985
Le travail de la pierre à Mallaha. Histoire et Archéologie
(Préhistoire en Israël), vol. 100: 69.
Edwards P.C. 1989
Problems of recognizing earliest sedentism: The Natufian
example. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology, vol. 2 (1):
5 – 48.
Edwards P.C. 1991
Wadi Hammeh 27: An Early Natufian site at Pella, Jordan. In
The Natufian Culture in the Levant, O. Bar-Yosef, F.R. Valla
(eds.). Ann Arbor: Univ. of Michigan, pp. 123 – 148.
(International Monographs in Prehistory, Archaeological Series;
vol. 1).
Finlayson B., Mithen S., Carruthers D.,
Kennedy A., Pirie A., Tipping R. 2000
The Danna-Faynan-Ghuwayr early prehistory project. Levant,
vol. 32: 1 – 26.
Flannery K.V. 1972
The origins of the village as a settlement type in Mesoamerica
and the Near East: A comparative study. In Man, Settlement
and Urbanism, P.J. Ucko, R. Tringham, G.W. Dimbleby (eds.).
London: Duckworth, pp. 23 – 53.
Garfinkel Y. 1990
Gesher, un nouveau site "Néolithique Précéramique A" dans
la moyenne Vallée du Jordain, Israël. L’Anthropologie,
vol. 94 (4): 903 – 906.
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,
vol. 43: 211 – 247.
Garrod D.A.E.,
Bate D.M.A. 1937
The Stone Age of Mount Carmel. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
46
Gaussen J. 1980
Le Paléolithique Supérieur de Plein Air en Périgord (Industries
et Structures d’Habitat). In XIVe Supplément à "Gallia
Préhistoire". Paris: Editions du Centre National de la
Recherche Scientifique.
Gaussen J. 1994
Le Plateau Parrain (l’organisation). L’Anthropologie, vol. 98
(2 – 3): 418 – 426.
Gopher A. 1996
A preliminary report on the flints from ‘Ain Darat: A PPNA
site in the Judean desert. In Neolithic Chipped Stone Industries
of the Fertile Crescent, and their Contemporaries in Adjacent
Regions, S.K. Kozlowski, H.G.K. Gebel (eds.). Berlin: Exoriente, pp. 443 – 452.
Goring-Morris A.N. 1987
At the Edge, Terminal Pleistocene Hunter-Gatherers in the
Negev and Sinai. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.
(BAR Inter. Series; vol. 361).
Goring-Morris A.N. 1995
Complex hunter-gatherers at the end of the Paleolithic (20,000 –
10,000 B.P.). In The Archaeology of Society in the Holy Land,
T.E. Levi (ed.). London: Leicester Univ. Press, pp. 141 – 164.
Goring-Morris A.N. 1996
The Early Natufian occupation at El Wad, Mt. Carmel,
reconstructed. In Nature et Culture, M. Otte (ed.). Liège: Univ.
de Liège, pp. 417 – 427. (ERAUL; vol. 68).
Goring-Morris A.N., Belfer-Cohen A. 1998
The articulation of cultural processes and Late Quaternary
environmental changes in Cisjordan. Paléorient, vol. 23 (2):
71 – 93.
Henry D.O. 1989
From Foraging to Agriculture. The Levant at the End of the
Ice Age. Philadelphia: Univ. of Pennsylvania Press.
Kent C. 1993
A cross-cultural study of segmentation, architecture, and the use
of space. In Domestic Architecture and the Use of Space, S. Kent
(ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, pp. 127 – 152.
Kenyon K.M. (ed.) 1981
Excavations at Jericho, vol. III. Jerusalem: British School of
Archaeology.
Kenyon K.M., Holland T.A. (eds.) 1982
Excavations at Jericho, vol. IV. Jerusalem: British School of
Archaeology.
Kenyon K.M., Holland T.A. (eds.) 1983
Excavations at Jericho, vol. V. Jerusalem: British School of
Archaeology.
Kislev M.E., Nadel D., Carmi I. 1992
Epipaleolithic (19,000 B.P.) cereal and fruit diet at Ohalo II,
Sea of Galilee, Israel. Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology,
vol. 73 (1 – 4): 161 – 166.
Kislev M.E., Simchoni O.,
Weiss E. 2002
Reconstruction of the landscape, human economy and hut use
according to seeds and fruit remains from Ohalo II. In Ohalo II,
a 23,000 Year-Old Fisher-Hunter-Gatherers Camp on the
Shore of the Sea of Galilee, D. Nadel (ed.). Haifa: Hecht
Museum, pp. 21 – 23.
Kramer C. 1979
An archaeological view of a contemporary Kurdish village:
Domestic architecture, household size, and wealth. In
Ethnoarchaeology. Implications of Ethnography for
Archaeology, C. Kramer (ed.). New York: Columbia Univ.
Press, pp. 139 – 163.
Kramer C. 1982
Ethnographic households and archaeological interpretation.
A case from Iranian Kurdistan. American Behavioral Scientist,
vol. 25 (6): 663 – 675.
Kuijt I. 2000 (ed.)
Life in Neolithic Farming Communities. Social Organization,
Identity and Differentiation. New York: Plenum Publishers.
Kuijt I., Mabry J., Palumbo G. 1991
Early Neolithic use of upland areas of Wadi El-Yabis:
Preliminary evidence from the excavations of ‘Iraq ed-Dubb,
Jordan. Paléorient, vol. 17 (1): 99 – 108.
Kuijt I., Mahasneh H. 1998
Dhra’: An early Neolithic village in the southern Jordan Valley.
Journal of Field Archaeology, vol. 25: 153 – 161.
Lechevallier M., Ronen A. (eds.) 1994
Le Gisement de Hatula en Judée Occidentale, Israël. Paris:
Association Paléorient. (Memoires et Travaux du Centre de
Recherche Francais de Jérusalem; N 8).
Leroi-Gourhan A.,
Brezillon M. 1966
L’Habitation Magdalénienne No. 1 de Pincevent près
Montereau (Seine-et-Marne). Gallia Préhistoire, vol. 9 (2):
263 – 385.
Leroi-Gourhan A.,
Brezillon M. 1972
Fouilles de Pincevent: Essai d’analyse ethnographique d’un
habitat Magdalénien (la section 36). In VIIe Supplément à
Gallia Préhistoire. Paris: Editions du C.N.R.S.
Lieberman D.E. 1993
The rise and fall of seasonal mobility among hunter-gatherers:
The case of the Southern Levant. Current Anthropology,
vol. 34 (5): 599 – 631.
Nadel D. 1994
Levantine Upper Paleolithic – Early Epipaleolithic burial
customs: Ohalo II as a case study. Paléorient, vol. 20 (1):
113 – 121.
Nadel D. 1996
The organization of space in a fisher-hunter-gatherers camp
at Ohalo II, Israel. In Nature et Culture, Otte M. (ed.). Liège:
Univ. de Liège, pp. 373 – 388. (ERAUL; vol. 68).
Nadel D. 1997
The chipped stone industry from Netiv Hagdud. In An Early
Neolithic Village in the Jordan Valley. Pt. I: The Archaeology
of Netiv Hagdud, O. Bar-Yosef, A. Gopher (eds.). Cambridge:
Harvard Univ., Peabody Museum of Archaeology and
Ethnology, pp. 71 – 149. (American School of Prehistoric
Research; Bulletin 44).
Nadel D. 1999
Scalene and proto-triangles from Ohalo II. Mitekufat Haeven,
Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society, vol. 29: 5 – 16.
Nadel D. 2001a
Indoor/outdoor flint knapping and minute debitage remains:
The evidence from the Ohalo II submerged camp (19.5 ky,
Jordan Valley). Lithic Technology, vol. 26 (2): 118 – 137.
Nadel D. 2001b
Tools on the floor: Examples from Ohalo II and Netiv Hagdud.
In Beyond tools: Redefining the PPN Lithic Assemblages of
the Levant, I. Caneva, C. Lemorini, D. Zampetti, P. Biagi
(eds.). Berlin: Ex-oriente, pp. 273 – 282.
47
Nadel D. (ed.) 2002a
Ohalo II – a 23,000 Year-Old Fisher-Hunter-Gatherers Camp
on the Shore of the Sea of Galilee. Haifa: Hecht Museum.
Nadel D. 2002b
Society and ritual. In Ohalo II – a 23,000 Year-Old FisherHunter-Gatherers Camp on the Shore of the Sea of Galilee,
D. Nadel (ed.). Haifa: Hecht Museum, pp. 60 – 64.
Nadel D. (in press)
Stones in their symbolic context: Epipaleolithic – Pre-Pottery
Neolithic continuity in the Jordan Valley. In Neolithic Chipped
Stone Industries of the Fertile Crescent, N. Balkan-Atli,
D. Binder (eds.). Berlin: Ex-oriente. (Studies in Early Near
Eastern Production, Subsistence and Environment; vol. 4).
Nadel D., Belitzky S., Boaretto E.,
Carmi I., Heinemeier J., Werker E.,
Marco S. 2001
New dates from submerged late Pleistocene sediments in the
Sea of Galilee, Israel. Radiocarbon, vol. 43 (3): 1167 – 1178.
Nadel D., Carmi I., Segal D. 1995
Radiocarbon dating of Ohalo II: Archaeological and
methodological implications. Journal of Archaeological
Science, vol. 22 (6): 811 – 822.
Nadel D., Danin A., Werker E., Schick T.,
Kislev M.E., Stewart K. 1994
19,000 years-old twisted fibers from Ohalo II. Current
Anthropology, vol. 35 (4): 451 – 458.
Nadel D., Hershkovitz I. 1991
New subsistence data and human remains from the earliest
Levantine Epipaleolithic. Current Anthropology, vol. 32 (5):
631 – 635.
Nadel D., Tsatskin A., Bar-Yosef O.,
Mayer D.E., Belmaker M., Boaretto E.,
Kislev M.E., Hershkovitz I., Rabinovich R.,
Simmons T., Weiss E., Zohar I., Asfur O.,
Emmer G., Ghraieb T., Grinberg E.,
Halabi H., Weissbrod L., Zaidner Y. (in press)
The Ohalo II 1999 – 2000 seasons of excavation: A
preliminary report. Mitekufat Haeven, Journal of the Israel
Prehistoric Society.
Nadel D., Werker E. 1999
The oldest ever brush hut plant remains from Ohalo II, Jordan
Valley, Israel (19,000 BP). Antiquity, vol. 73 (282): 755 – 764.
Narrol R. 1962
Floor area and settlement population. American Antiquity, vol.
27: 587 – 588.
Noy T. 1989
Gilgal I: A Pre-Pottery Neolithic site, Israel – the 1985 – 1987
seasons. Paléorient, vol. 15 (1): 11 – 18.
Noy T., Legge A.G., Higgs E.S. 1973
Recent excavations at Nahal Oren, Israel. Proceedings of the
Prehistoric Society, vol. 39: 75 – 99.
Noy T., Schuldenrein J., Tchernov E. 1980
Gilgal I: A Pre-Pottery Neolithic A site in the Lower Jordan
Valley. Israel Exploration Journal, vol. 30 (1 – 2): 63 – 82.
Perrot J. 1966
Le gisement Natoufien de Mallaha (Eynan), Israel.
L’Anthropologie, vol. 70 (5 – 6): 437 – 484.
Perrot J., Ladiray D. 1988
Les Hommes de Mallaha (Eynan), Israël. Pt. I: Les Sépultures.
Paris: Association Paléorient. (Mémoires et Travaux du Centre
de Recherche Francais de Jérusalem; N 7).
Pidoplichko I.G. 1998
Upper Paleolithic Dwellings of Mammoth Bones in the
Ukraine. Kiev-Kirillovskii, Gontsy, Dobranichevka, Mezin
and Mezhirich. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. (BAR
Inter. Series; vol. 712).
Rabinovich R. 1998
"Drowning in numbers" – gazelles dominance and body
size groups in the archaeozoological record. In
Archaezoology of the Near East III, H. Buitenhuis,
L. Bartosiewicz, A.M. Choyke (eds.). Groningen: n.p.,
pp. 45 – 71. (ARC Publications; vol. 18).
Rabinovich R. 2002
The mammal bones: Food, environment and tools. In Ohalo II,
a 23,000 Year-Old Fisher-Hunter-Gatherers Camp on the
Shore of the Sea of Galilee, D. Nadel (ed.). Haifa: Hecht
Museum, pp. 24 – 27.
Rollefson G.O. 1997
Changes in architecture and social organization at Neolithic
‘Ain Ghazal. In The Prehistory of Jordan, II. Perspectives
from 1997, H.G.K. Gebel, Z. Kafafi, G.O. Rollefson (eds.).
Berlin: Ex-oriente, pp. 287 – 307.
Ronen A. 1984
Sefunim Prehistoric Sites, Mount Carmel, Israel. Oxford:
British Archaeological Reports. (BAR Inter. Series; vol. 230).
Ronen A., Adler D. 2001
The walls of Jericho were magical. Archaeology, Ethnology
and Anthropology of Eurasia, vol. 2 (6): 97 – 103.
Simmons T. 2002
The birds at Ohalo II. In Ohalo II, a 23,000 Year-Old FisherHunter-Gatherers Camp on the Shore of the Sea of Galilee,
D. Nadel (ed.). Haifa: Hecht Museum. pp. 32 – 36.
Simmons T., Nadel D. 1998
The avifauna of the Early Epipaleolithic site of Ohalo II
(19,400 BP), Israel: Species diversity, habitat and seasonality.
International Journal of Osteoarchaeology, vol. 8 (2): 79 – 96.
Soffer O. 1985
The Upper Paleolithic of the Central Russian Plain. Orlando:
Academic Press.
Soffer O., Praslov N.D. (eds.) 1993
From Kostenki to Clovis. Upper Paleolithic – Palaeo-Indian
Adapatations. New York: Plenum Press.
Stekelis M., Yizraely T. 1963
Excavations at Nahal Oren. Israel Exploration Journal,
vol. 13 (1): 1 – 12.
Tsatskin A. 2002
Geoarchaeology of a prehistoric campsite on the shore of lake
Kinneret. In Ohalo II, a 23,000 Year-Old Fisher-HunterGatherers Camp on the Shore of the Sea of Galilee, D. Nadel
(ed.). Haifa: Hecht Museum, pp. 56 – 59.
Valla F.R. 1988
Aspects du sol de l’abri 131 de Mallaha (Eynan). Paléorient,
vol. 14 (2): 283 – 296.
Valla F.R. 1991
Les Natoufiens de Mallaha et l’espace. In The Natufian Culture
in the Levant, O. Bar-Yosef, F.R. Valla (eds.). Ann Arbor:
Univ. of Michigan, pp. 111 – 122. (International Monographs
in Prehistory, Archaeological Series; vol. 1).
Valla F.R. 1995
The first settled societies – Natufian (12,500 – 10,200 BP).
In The Archaeology of Society in the Holy Land, T.E. Levi
(ed.). London: Leicester Univ. Press, pp. 170 – 187.
48
Valla F.R., Lechevallier M. 1989
Notes à propos de quelques foyers Natoufiens de Mallaha
(Eynan, Israël). In Nature et Fonction des Foyers
Préhistoriques, M. Olive, Y. Taborin (eds.). Ile-de-France:
pp. 293 – 302. (Mémoires du Musée de Préhistoire d’Ile-deFrance; vol. 2).
Valla F.R., Khalaily H., Samuelian N., March R.,
Bocquentin F., Valentine B., Marder O., Rabinovich R.,
Le Dosseur G., Dubreuil L., Belfer-Cohen A. 2001
Le Natoufien final de Mallaha (Eynan), deuxième rapport
préliminaire: les fouilles de 1998 et 1999. Mitekufat
Haeven, Journal of the Israël Prehistoric Society, vol. 31:
43 – 184.
Van Beek G.W. 1982
A population estimate for Marib: A contemporary tell village
in North Yemen. Bulletin of the Association of Oriental
Research, vol. 248: 61 – 67.
Watson P.J. 1979
Archaeological Ethnography in Western Iran. Tucson: Univ. of
Arizona Press. (Viking Fund Publications in Anthropology; N 57).
Received 14 May, 2002.