Journal of The Israel Prehistoric Society 35 (2005), 299-308
The Ground Stone Assemblages of the Natufian and
Neolithic Societies in the Levant – A Brief Review
ANNA BELFER-COHEN1
ERELLA HOVERS2
Institute of Archaeology, The Hebrew University
Mt. Scopus, Jerusalem 91905
1
[email protected]
2
[email protected]
INTRODUCTION
The term ʻground stoneʼ, although sometimes declared a misnomer (e.g., Wilke and
Quintero 1996; Wright 1992), is used widely to encompass a large variety of tool types
(Kraybill 1977; Wright 1992). Of these, four types, commonly perceived as two sets of
complimenting utensils, have received special attention. These are mortars-and- pestles
(often referred to as pounding utensils), and lower-and-upper stones (i.e., querns and
handstones respectively, commonly referred to as grinding stone). Bedrock cup-holes,
which vary in depth from shallow to very deep (e.g., Garrod and Bate 1937; Gopher 1996;
Goring-Morris 1999 and references therein), constitute a group of their own.
Large numbers of these specimens occur in Natufian and Neolithic sites dated to the
late Pleistocene and early Holocene. Sizes of all four tool types are variable; as a rule
the heaviest items are found among the Natufian pounding tools (specifically mortars),
for which there are no Neolithic equivalents (Bar-Yosef 1983:19; Belfer-Cohen 1988;
Dubreuil 2002; Gopher and Orelle 1995; Gopher 1996; Perrot 1966a; Valla et al. 1991).
The exceptions are the unusual large flat basins known from mid-PPNB Beidha (Kirkbride
1966) or PN Munhata (Gopher and Orelle 1995 and references therein).
The increase in the frequencies of pounding and grinding tools is taken to designate the
299
300
BELFER-COHEN & HOVERS
shift in the economic basis of human societies from extractive to productive economies,
with its profound social implications (e.g., Belfer-Cohen and Bar-Yosef 2000). Because
such artefacts are believed to be clear-cut indications of this significant process, they
have received much attention in the literature (e.g., Dubreuil 2002 and references therein;
Kraybill 1977; Wright 1993, 2000). Still, the implications of their presence and use are
far from being fully explored.
In spite of their acknowledged importance, detailed information pertaining to ground
stone items is rather scanty. Comprehensive site reports and thematic publications are few
(but see Gopher and Orelle 1995). The existing overviews (and especially those of Wright
1992, 1994, 2000 and references therein), though providing a plethora of information
and its interpretations, are still lacking in details. This paucity precludes a thorough
discussion of some specific issues, for example morphological standardization and its
social implications (e.g.,VanPool and Leonard 2002).
The following is a review of some of the topics associated with ground stone tools, in
light of recent finds and new models that have been offered to explain their distributions in
time and space. We do not dwell in length on the mechanisms and reasons that led to the
initial occurrence of these artefacts. Suffice it to state that ground stone tools had appeared
in the archaeological record of the Levant before the terminal Pleistocene (e.g., the Upper
Palaeolithic layers in Qafzeh cave, Ronen and Vandermeersch 1972; terminal Upper
Palaeolithic at Ohalo II, Nadel 1997; early Epipalaeolithic Ein Gev I, Stekelis and Bar-Yosef
1965; middle Epipalaeolithic Wadi Ahmar II, Hovers and Bar-Yosef 1987; see illustrations
in Bar-Yosef and Belfer-Cohen 1989). It is also generally accepted that their first appearance
was not necessarily associated with food processing. In fact, it may have been tied with the
preparation and processing of pigments such as ochre (see Kraybill 1977), a habit that persisted
well into the Natufian (e.g., Belfer-Cohen 1988; Dubreuil 2002; Garrod 1957; WeinsteinEvron 1998; Weinstein-Evron and Ilani 1994). Similarly, techniques used to manufacture
the sporadic pre-Natufian items had been the technological pre-adaptations for the Natufian
ground stone industry, which continued to employ the same production modes.
Two outstanding phenomena form the focus of discussion of Natufian and Neolithic
ground stone tools. One appears at the onset of the Natufian culture, namely, the sudden
increase in the frequencies of such tools. The other outstanding phenomenon in the
archaeological record is the gradual rise (through the Natufian-to-Neolithic time span)
in the frequencies of grinding stones at the expense of pounding stones. Often, these two
trends are conflated and are understood as a continuous single process of technological
change. It might be worthwhile, however, to look more closely at the two phenomena in
order to examine their significance. In the present paper, we review the available studies
concerning these issues, attempting to elucidate the main points to be resolved and the
potential of various directions of research.
THE GROUND STONE ASSEMBLAGES OF THE NATUFIAN AND NEOLITHIC SOCIETIES
301
DISCUSSION
As stated above, the early Natufian ground stone inventory differed neither in form nor in
technique from the sporadic pre-Natufian occurrences. From a strictly technological point
of view, the Natufian ground stone industry was not a conceptual and/or technological
novelty. In this sense, the production of ground stone tools conforms with a familiar theme
of Natufian technological behaviour, namely a gradual addition of new techniques to the
ones already known. A similar phenomenon could be observed in the Natufian bone tool
industry, where new modes of bone working (grinding and polishing) were introduced
gradually to shape new tool types, in addition to the on-going use of a pre-Natufian
technique (sharpening). The morphological and technological conservatism of the early
Natufian ground stone tools indicates that the dramatic rise in their numbers was not due
to a sudden release of technical constraints, which had inhibited en masse production of
these tools in preceding cultural entities.
The most common explanation cited in the literature for the increase in frequencies of
ground stone items is higher reliance on plant food per se in the Natufian as compared with
previous archaeological entities. This is supported by the heavy dental attrition observed
in nearly every Natufian population (e.g., el-Wad, Eynan [Mallaha], Hayonim Cave and
Terrace, Smith 1972; Smith et al. 1984). Still, there is no compelling evidence that the
Natufians relied on plant food more than had their predecessors (e.g., Goren-Inbar et al.
2000; Kislev et al. 1992; Madella et al. 2002; Piperno et al. 2004; and references therein).
The Natufians show higher frequencies of heavy attrition as well as higher incidence of
periodontal diseases compared to the agricultural Neolithic population (e.g., Bocquentin
2003; Eshed 2001:49, fig.3.4, pp.70 onward; and references therein). Thus the difference
between the Natufian and Neolithic patterns of attrition and their intensity reflect an
improvement in the ways plant food was processed, including those caused by the use of
different types of ground stone tools.
Both the increase in the numbers of ground stone tools and the gradual change in
the dominant tool type are sometimes associated with an on-going specialization in the
exploitation of specific plant foods (e.g., acorns, small grained grasses, cereals), as opposed
to increased plant consumption in general (Weiss et al. 2004). Researchers advocating such
views suggest that pounding and grinding with stone implements were the most effective
way to process such specific plants (Henry 1989; McCorriston and Hole 1991).
The picture is complicated by the fact that those changes occurred at different pace
and intensity throughout the Natufian world. For example, Moore (1978), who treated
the appearance of querns as a clear indication for cereal processing, argued for different
economic emphases in the different Natufian sites. According to him, sites in the Natufian
core area exploited the typical forest food plants (i.e., acorns and nuts) that were pounded
in the mortar and pestle sets, whereas grasses (specifically, cereals) were exploited in
302
BELFER-COHEN & HOVERS
more steppic regions (Byrd 1987; Moore 1978; Olszewski 1984). However, at least in
some cases, the archaeological data do not accord with this assumption. While the main
ground stone tool type in Beidha was the quern (Kirkbride 1966), the good preservation
of plant material at the site revealed large quantities of pistachio nuts. A strict ecological
distinction is negated by the recovery of ʻhybridʼ (i.e., possessing pounding/grinding
morphologies) ground stone items, dating to the late Epipaleolithic-early Neolithic, from
the Zagros (Solecki 1969). In addition, ethnographic data suggest that mortars were used
also for grinding (sometimes as a continuum of a single process; see Hovers 1996 and
references therein).
By the same token, the postulated ecological differentiation does not explain the observed
change through time with grinding utensils replacing the pounding ones. Kraybill (1977) takes
this shift to indicate the transition from processing vegetal food in general to specialization in
cereal processing (see Weiss et al. 2004). One should bear in mind that currently also pulses
(and in particular lentils) are included among the first domesticates in the Near East, pertaining
even to the Natufian (Abbo et al. 2003; Kislev and Bar-Yosef 1988; Willcox 2001). Thus
the shift from a general and varied plant exploitation to specialization and intensification in
particular plant species indicates either the intensification of the domestication processes,
or environmental changes which dictated a change in the selection of particular vegetal
foodstuff items or both (Araus et al. 2000; Sage 1995).
The claim that the shift from deep to shallow groundstone utensils has to do with
efficiency of exploitation is brought up by Wright (1991, 1994). She states that grinding
is more efficient than pounding in that finer particle sizes are achieved with larger surface
area, permitting more absorbable nutrients for the consumer.
In this context, it is of interest to note the observation made by Reynolds (1968) who
associates pounding, being a wasteful technique, with times of plenty whereas grinding,
the more economical technique is more common in times of famine. Perhaps we can tie
this observation with the climatic deterioration of the “Younger Dryas” which occurred
in the beginning of the PPNA (Grosman 2005 and references therein; Grosman and
Belfer-Cohen 2002).
The particular characteristics of the Natufian existence (specifically, incipient
sedentism) most probably brought about modifications in the plant processing techniques
(evidenced through the appearance of sickle blades, the increasing numbers of the ground
stone specimens and the gradual replacement of deep morphologies with flat ones). With
time, there was unification in the economic basis of the Natufian entity. The dominance
of flat morphologies in the Neolithic reflects the shared food production strategies,
based on domesticates. This reduces the previously observed variability among Natufian
communities situated in different ecological settings.
The apparent trend for sedentism in the Natufian has often been perceived as playing a
THE GROUND STONE ASSEMBLAGES OF THE NATUFIAN AND NEOLITHIC SOCIETIES
303
major role in the rise of ground stone tools. Such items, especially the heavier ones, are in
fact ʻsite furnitureʼ (in the sense of Binford 1979). Their presence on site as well as their
designs and morphology could have varied according to the extent of pre-planning and
anticipation of site re-occupations (Nelson and Lippmeier 1993). Natufian sedentism was
associated not only with longer durations of site occupation, but also with higher degrees
of regularity of site use, involving allocation of activities to particular locales. The change
in settlement patterns may have encouraged the appearance of heavy tool kits as well as
adoption of tool production processes that anticipated long-term use. Without constraints of
weight and awkwardness, Natufian ground stones, especially mortars, reached unprecedented
dimensions. At the same time, the shift towards sedentism, when coupled with the change
in emphases on plant species to be exploited (and see above), gradually led to modifications
of grinding techniques which caused the replacement of deep and heavy morphologies with
flat and lighter ones. Possibly, with the rise in the intensity of ground stone use, problems of
durability and maintenance needed to be addressed through changes both in the production
and morphologies of the ground stone inventory (Dubreuil 2002).
It seems that boundary restrictions and changes in territorial and mobility patterns are
reflected in the diachronic changes in the composition of the ground stone assemblages.
In fact, it may be significant that the debris of ground stone production was not found in
any of the reported sites (either Natufian or Neolithic). This suggests that the tools were
made elsewhere and imported into the sites (e.g., Belfer-Cohen 1988; Weinstein-Evron
et al. 1999, 2001). This implies that the differences in types and use of the ground stone
artefacts between the Natufian and Neolithic are not related to differences in raw material
availability or preferences.
Methodological issues hinder the discussion of intra-site variation within and between
cultural entities. Notably, excavations are focused on and around structures while the
areas in-between and further afield are often left unexcavated (exceptions are the sites
of Netiv Hagdud, Munhata – Bar-Yosef and Gopher 1996; Perrot 1964, 1966b). Yet it
is quite possible that some of the vegetal processing was done publicly, away from the
communal living areas (e.g., the area of cup-marks adjacent to the structures at Saflulim
- Goring-Morris et al. 1999, and/ or the bedrock mortars on the terrace in front of the elWad cave – Garrod and Bate 1937, and possibly the cup-holes area at the site of Hatoula
– Lechevallier and Ronen 1994). Ethnographically, the pounding and grinding of cereals
are components of a continuous process (Hillman 1984 and references in Dubreuil 2002). It
may reflect a mundane division of functions carried out in the open public spaces (because
of the noise and dirt involved) as opposed to the final stages of processing which can be
carried out in confined spaces.
Underlying the scenario presented above is the assumption that all structures identified
in Natufian sites are dwelling places (or houses). Indeed, most researchers agree that the
304
BELFER-COHEN & HOVERS
large structures at Eynan (Valla 1991) and Wadi Hammeh 27 (Edwards 1991), measuring
7-15 m in diameter, or even smaller ones measuring ca. 6 m in diameter, as at Nahal Besor
6 (Goring-Morris 1998; Horwitz and Goring-Morris 2000) could have been dwelling
units. However, the small structures of Hayonim Cave, measuring 1.5-2.5 m in diameter
(Bar-Yosef 1991; Belfer-Cohen 1988) cannot be considered as a home unit (and see
detailed discussion in Goring-Morris and Belfer-Cohen 2003). Flannery (1972, 2002)
suggested that by carefully studying the contents of habitation structures we should be
able to learn about gendered division of labor. Wright (2000:97) states that “differences
between houses cannot be discerned” in Eynan, Wadi Hammeh 27 and Hayonim Cave.
Perhaps a detailed study that will take into consideration differences in structure functions
will produce more positive results.
Flannery (1972) was among the first to suggest the study of relationship between
grinding utensils and social phenomena. In our view, the great effort put into the
manufacture of large mortars (as evidenced in the Natufian) was justified only if they were
to be used by a number of households. The manufacture of the small querns (mostly in
the later Natufian and Neolithic) is more economical and calls for less effort investment.
Thus, if Natufian social structure had changed with time in such a manner that nuclear
families replaced the extended groups (as the basic social units), we may expect to see it
reflected in the gradual replacement of the mortars and pestles by querns and hand-stones,
and the complete disappearance of the heavy duty mortars. In the Natufian the processing
of the vegetal material was done jointly by members of the group with communally owned
tools. During the Neolithic there was a shift from communal to private activity, when the
processing of the vegetal material was done by smaller units, nuclear families (?), with
family owned utensils. Perhaps this difference in use of ground stone items can explain
the fact that there are more decorated ground stone items in the Natufian (Wright 2000).
The particular patterns of decoration can be interpreted as encoding information of group
identity as a whole. The gradual increase in the numbers of grinding at the expense of
pounding implements reflects a shift in the means of production triggered off by changes
in the social structure of the society. Based on this, we may expect some sort of patterned
relationships between the changes in ground stone tool morphologies and the shift from
circular to rectangular structures, which Flannery (1972, 2002) associated with this type
of change in social relationship.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
Undoubtedly, the ground stone assemblages played a major role in the Neolithization
process. We are fortunate to have at our disposal ethnographic data pertaining to ground
stone items and their uses; and while in the ethnographic record there is a plethora of
THE GROUND STONE ASSEMBLAGES OF THE NATUFIAN AND NEOLITHIC SOCIETIES
305
usages, we can isolate those cases that are relevamt to the Natufian and Neolithic societies.
For example, a general observation that emerges from the ethnographic record is that in
complex societies, there is a more obvious functional and morphological pairing, i.e.,
particular shapes for particular functions (Dubreuil 2002 and references therein). This
pattern is discerned also in the Natufian and Neolithic ground stone record.
It is evident from this brief overview of the available studies that much of the research on
ground stone tools focused on material factors, which might have caused the intensification
in the use of such items and dictated their morphologies. Among such parameters one
encounters intensity of plant processing, their species, the allocated working space, and
mobility patterns. Surprisingly, less attention was paid to social mechanisms, despite the
general agreement among scholars that those mechanisms played a crucial role in the
process of Neolithization. Indeed, the ever-growing database on Neolithization phenomena
opens new avenues of exploration for studies of the ground stone assemblage. It seems
to us that the main avenue to be explored is that involving issues of social structure,
changes in the social meaning of space, and labour division, to mention but a few of the
possibilities.
REFERENCES
Abbo S., Shtienberg D., Lichtenzveig J., Lev-Yadun S. and Gopher A. 2003. Chickpea, summer
cropping, and a new model for pulse domestication in the ancient Near East. Quaterely Review
Biology 78:435-448.
Araus J.L., Slafer G.A., Romagosa I. and Molist M. 2000. Estimated wheat yields during the emergence
of agriculture based on the carbon isotope discrimination of grains: Evidence from a 10th millennium
bp site on the Euphrates. Journal of Archaeological Science 28:341-350.
Bar-Yosef O. 1983. The Natufian of the Southern Levant. In Smith P.E.L. and Mortensen P. (eds.), The
Hilly Flanks and Beyond, pp. 11-42. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Bar-Yosef O. 1991. The Archaeology of the Natufian Layer at Hayonim Cave. In Bar-Yosef O. and Valla
F.R. (eds.), The Natufian Culture in the Levant, pp. 81-92. (Archaeological Series 1). Ann Arbor:
International Monographs in Prehistory.
Bar-Yosef O. and Belfer-Cohen A. 1989. The origins of sedentism and farming communities in the
Levant. Journal of World Prehsitory 40/3:447-498.
Bar-Yosef O. and Gopher A. (eds.), 1996. An Early Neolithic Village in the Jordan Valley. Part I: The
Archaeology of Netiv Hagdud. Cambridge: Peabody Museum, Harvard University.
Belfer-Cohen A. 1988. The Natufian Settlement at Hayonim Cave: A Hunter-gatherer Band on the
Threshold of Agriculture. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
Belfer-Cohen A. and Bar-Yosef O. 2000. Early sedentism in the Near East – a bumpy ride to village
life. In Kuijt I. (ed.), Life in Neolithic Farming Communities. Social Organization, Identity, and
Differentiation, pp. 19-38. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.
Binford L.R. 1979. Organization and formation processes: looking at curated technologies. Journal of
Anthropological Research 35/3:255-273.
Bocquentin F. 2003. Pratiques funéraires, paramètres biologiques et identit
identités culturelles au Natoufien:
une analyse archéo-anthropologique. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, Université Bordeaux 1.
306
BELFER-COHEN & HOVERS
Byrd B.F. 1987. Beidha and the Natufian: Variability in Levantine Settlement and Subsistence.
Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, University of Arizona.
Dubreuil L. 2002. Etude fonctionnelle des outils de broyage natoufiens: nouvelles perspectives sur
l'emergence de l'agriculture au Proche-Orient. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, Universite Bordeaux I.
Dubreuil L. 2004. Long-term trends in Natufian subsistence: a use-wear analysis of ground stone tools.
Journal of Archaeological Science 31:1613-1629.
Edwards P.C. 1991. Wadi Hammeh 27: An Early Natufian site at Pella, Jordan. In Bar-Yosef O. and Valla
F.R. (eds.), The Natufian Culture in the Levant, pp. 123-148. (Archaeological Series 1). Ann Arbor:
International Monographs in Prehistory.
Eshed V. 2001. From Foraging to Farming in the Holocene (The Pre Pottery Neolithic Period 8,3005,600 B.C.) in the Southern Levant: The Skeletal Evidence. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, Tel-Aviv
University.
Flannery K.V. 1972. The origins of the village as a settlement type in Mesoamerica and the Near East:
a comparative study. In Ucko P.J., Tringham R. and Dimbleby G.W. (eds.), Man, Settlement, and
Urbanism, pp. 23-53. London: Duckworth.
Flannery K.V. 2002. The origins of the village revisited: From nuclear to extended households. American
Antiquity 67/3:417-433.
Garrod D.A.E. 1957. The Natufian Culture: The life and economy of a Mesolithic people in the Near
East. Proceedings of the British Academy 43:211-227.
Garrod D.A.E. and. Bates D.M.A. 1937. The Stone Age of Mt. Carmel. Excavations at the Wadi-Mughara
Vol. 1. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Gopher A. 1996. The groundstone tools and other stone objects from Netiv Hagdud. In Bar-Yosef O. and
Gopher A. (eds.), An Early Neolithic Village in the Jordan Valley. Part I:The Archaeology of Netiv
Hagdud, pp. 151-176. Cambridge: Peabody Museum, Harvard University.
Gopher A. and Orelle E. 1995. The Groundstone Assemblages of Munhata. A Neolithic Site in the Jordan
Valley, Israel. (Les Cahiers des Missions Archaéologique Françaises en Israël 7). Paris: Association
Paléorient.
Goren-Inbar N., Feibel C.S., Verosub K., Melamed Y., Kislev M.E., Tchernov E. and Saragusti I. 2000.
Pleistocene milestones on the Out-of-Africa corridor at Gesher Benot Ya'aqov, Israel. Science
289:944-947.
Goring-Morris A.N. 1998. Mobiliary art from the Late Epipalaeolithic of the Negev, Israel. Rock Art
Research 15/2:81-88.
Goring-Morris A.N., Goldberg P., Goren Y., Baruch U. and Bar-Yosef D.E. 1999. Saflulim: a Late Natufian
base camp in the central Negev highlands, Israel. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 131/1:1-29.
Goring-Morris A.N. and Belfer-Cohen A. 2003. Structures and dwellings in the Upper and Epi-Palaeolithic
(ca. 42-10 K BP) Levant: profane and symbolic uses. In Vasil'ev S., Sofer O. and Kozlowski J. (eds.),
Perceived Landscapes and Built Environments: The Cultural Geography of Late Paleolithic Eurasia,
pp. 65-81. (BAR International Series 1122). Oxford.
Grosman L. 2005. Computer Simulation of Variables in Models of the Origins of Agriculture in the
Levant. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
Grosman L. and Belfer-Cohen A. 2002 (1999). Zooming onto the 'Younger Dryas'. In Cappers R.T.J.
and Bottema S. (eds.), The Dawn of Farming in the Near East, pp. 49-54. (SENEPSE 6). Berlin:
ex oriente.
Henry D.O. 1989. From Foraging to Agriculture: the Levant at the End of the Ice Age. Philadelphia:
University of Pennsylvania Press.
Hillman G. 1984. Interpretation of archaeological plant remains: the application of ethnographic
models from Turkey. In van Zeist W. and Casparie W.A. (eds.), Plants and Ancient Man: Studies in
Palaeoethnobotany, pp. 1-57. Rotterdam: Balkema.
THE GROUND STONE ASSEMBLAGES OF THE NATUFIAN AND NEOLITHIC SOCIETIES
307
Horwitz L.K. and Goring-Morris A.N. 1988. Fauna from the early Natufian site of Upper Besor 6 in the
Central Negev, Israel. Paléorient 26/1:111-128.
Hovers E. 1996. The groundstone industry. In Ariel D.T. and De Groot A. (eds.), Excavations at the
City of David 1978-1985, pp. 171-203. (Qedem 35, Monographs of the Institute of Archaeology,
The Hebrew University). Jerusalem.
Hovers E. and Bar-Yosef O. 1987. A prehistoric survey of eastern Samaria: preliminary report. Israel
Exploration Journal 37:77-87.
Kirkbride D. 1966. Five seasons at the Pre-pottery Neolithic village of Beidha in Jordan. Palestine
Exploration Quarterly 98:8-72.
Kislev M.E. and Bar-Yosef O. 1988. The legumes: the earliest domesticated plants in the Near East?
Current Anthropology 29/1:175-179.
Kislev M.E., Nadel D. and Carmi I. 1992. Epipalaeolithic (19,000 BP) cereal and fruit diet at Ohalo II,
Sea of Galilee, Israel. Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology 73:161-166.
Kraybill N. 1977. Pre-agricultural tools for the preparation of foods in the Old World. In Reed C.A. (ed.),
Origins of Agriculture, pp. 485-521. The Hague: Mouton.
Lechevallier M. and Ronen A. (eds.), 1994. Le Gisement de Hatoula en Judée Occidentale, Israël. Paris:
Association Paléorient.
Madella M., Jones M.K., Goldberg P., Goren Y. and Hovers E. 2002. The exploitation of plant resources by
Neanderthals in Amud Cave (Israel): The evidence from phytolith studies. Journal of Archaeological
Science 29:703-719.
McCorriston J. and Hole F. 1991. The ecology of seasonal stress and the origins of agriculture in the
Near East. American Anthropologist 93:46-69.
Moore A.M.T. 1978. The Neolithic of the Levant. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, University of Oxford.
Nadel D. 1997. The Spatial Organization of Prehistoric Sites in the Jordan Valley: Kebaran, Natufian
and Neolithic Case Studies. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
Nelson M.C. and Lippmeier H. 1993. Grinding-tool design as conditioned by land-use pattern. American
Antiquity 58/2:286-305.
Olszewski D.I. 1984. The early occupation at tell Abu Hureyra in the context of the late Epipaleolithic
of the Levant. (Ph.D. University Microfilms). Ann Arbor.
Perrot J. 1964. Les deux premières campagnes de fouilles à Munhata (1962-63), premièrs résultats.
Syria 41:323-345.
Perrot J. 1966a. Le gisement Natoufien de Mallaha (Eynan), Israel. L'Anthropologie 70:437-484.
Perrot J. 1966b. La troisième campagne de fouilles à Munhata (1964). Syria 43:49-60.
Piperno D.R., Weiss E., Holst I. and Nadel D. 2004. Processing of wild cereal grains in the Upper
Palaeolithic revealed by starch grain analysis. Nature 430:670-673.
Reynolds B. 1968. The Material Culture of the Peoples of the Gwembe Valley. Kariba Studies III.
Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Ronen A. and Vandermeersch B. 1972. The Upper Paleolithic sequence in the cave of Qafza (Israel).
Quaternaria 16:189-202.
Sage R.F. 1995. Was low atmospheric CO2 during the Pleistocene a limiting factor for the origin of
agriculture? Global Change Biology 1:93-106.
Smith P. 1972. Diet and attrition in the Natufians. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 37:233238.
Smith P., Bar-Yosef O. and Sillen A. 1984. Archaeological and skeletal evidence for dietary change
during the late Pleistocene. In Cohen M.N. and Armelagos G. (eds.), At the Origins of Agriculture,
pp. 101-136. New York: Academic Press.
Solecki R. 1969. Milling tools and the Epi-Palaeolithic in the Near East. Paper presented at the L'etude
du Quaternaire VIII INQUA, Paris.
308
BELFER-COHEN & HOVERS
Stekelis M. and Bar-Yosef O. 1965. Un habitat du Paleolithique Superieur a Ein Guev (Israel). Note
preliminaire. LʼAnthropologie 69:176-183.
Valla F.R. 1991. Les Natoufiens de Mallaha et lʼespace. In Bar-Yosef O. and Valla F.R. (eds.), The
Natufian Culture in the Levant, pp. 111-122. (Archaeological Series 1). Ann Arbor: International
Monographs in Prehistory.
Valla F.R., Le Mort F. and Plisson H. 1991. Les fouilles en cours sur la Terrasse d'Hayonim. In Bar-Yosef
O. and Valla F.R. (eds.), The Natufian Culture in the Levant, pp. 93-110. (Archaeological Series 1).
Ann Arbor: International Monographs in Prehistory.
VanPool T.L. and Leonard R.D. 2002. Specialized ground stone production in the Casas Grandes region
of northern Chihuahua, Mexico. American Antiquity 67/4:710-730.
Weinstein-Evron M. 1998. Early Natufian el-Wad Revisited. (ERAUL 77). Liège: University of Liège
Press.
Weinstein-Evron M. and Ilani S. 1994. Provenance of ochre in the Natufian layers of el-Wad Cave, Mt.
Carmel, Israel. Journal of Archaeological Science 21:461-467.
Weinstein-Evron M., Kaufman D. and Bird-David N. 2001. Rolling stones: basalt implements as
evidence for trade/exchange in the Levantine Epipalaeolithic. Journal of the Israel Prehistoric
Society - Mitekufat Haeven 31:25-42.
Weinstein-Evron M., Lang B. and Ilani S. 1999. Natufian trade/exchange in basalt implements: evidence
from northern Israel. Archaeometry 41/2:267-273.
Weiss E., Wetterstrom W., Nadel D. and Bar-Yosef O. 2004. The broad spectrum revisited: evidence
from plant remains. PNAS 101:9551-9555.
Willcox G.H. 2001. La naissance de l'agriculture au Proche-Orient. In Marinval P. (ed.), Histoires
d'Hommes, Histoires de Plantes, pp. 79-103. (Memoires de plantes 1. Monique Mergoil and Centre
d'Anthropologie). Toulouse: Millau.
Wilke P.J. and Quintero L.A. 1996. Near Eastern Neolithic Millstone Production: insights from research
in the arid southwestern United States. In Kozlowski S.K. and Gebel H.G. (eds.), Neolithic Chippped
Stone Industries of the Fertile Crescent, and Their Contemporaries in Adjacent Regions, pp. 243260. Berlin: ex oriente.
Wright K.I. 1991. The origins and development of ground stone assemblages in Late Pleistocene southwest
Asia. Paléorient 17/1:19-45.
Wright K.I. 1992. A classification system for ground stone tools from the Prehistoric Levant. Paléorient
18/2:53-81.
Wright K.I. 1993. Early Holocene ground stone assemblages in the Levant. Levant XXV: 93-110.
Wright K.I. 1994. Ground-stone tools and hunter-gatherer subsistence in southwest Asia: Implications
for the transition to farming. American Antiquity 59:238-263.
Wright K.I. 2000. The social origins of cooking and dining in early villages of western Asia. Proceedings
of the Prehistoric Society 66:89-121.