Quaternary of the Levant: Environments, Climate ...

71 The Early and Middle Epipalaeolithic of Cisjordan a. nigel goring-morris and anna belfer-cohen

71.1 INTRODUCTION Research in the late 1960s led to the adoption of a new status for the microlithic industries of the later part of the local prehistoric Upper Palaeolithic sequence in the Levant, namely the ‘Epipalaeolithic’ (for history of research see Belfer-Cohen & Goring-Morris 2002). Although some argued that its original inclusion within the Upper Palaeolithic should be retained (Gilead 1984), there is a marked increase in the settlement densities and in the tempo of cultural change, eventually culminating in the transformation from mobile foragers to sedentary, incipient agriculturalists. Also, the shift to the Epipalaeolithic, at ca. 25 ka cal BP, coincides with the onset of the Late Glacial Maximum (LGM). The Levantine Epipalaeolithic is divided into Early, Middle (together ca. 24/23–15.0 ka cal BP), and Late phases, the latter being almost entirely represented by the Natufian complex, ca. 15–11.5 ka cal BP (Belfer-Cohen & GoringMorris 2002; Grosman & Munro, Chapter 77 of this volume). Although the Epipalaeolithic entities are defined on the basis of technological and typological criteria together with chronological and geographical constraints, it is unclear whether these archaeological ‘cultures’ reflect discrete ethnic groups. Nevertheless, cognitive and ethnographic studies do provide support for this contention (e.g. see debate in Goring-Morris et al. 1996 and references therein).

71.2 LANDSCAPE AND ENVIRONMENTS Terminal Pleistocene geomorphic changes differentially affected the Mediterranean and semi-arid zones of the southern Levant. Orographic and ‘rain shadow’ effects by the central mountain ranges (see topography in Avni, Chapter 2 of this volume) directly affected precipitation distribution (e.g. Kushnir et al., Chapter 4, this volume). This interplay of topography and climate led to distinct phytogeographical zonation, culminating in a mosaic pattern of ecological niches over small distances, especially notable between the Early and Middle Epipalaeolithic.

There is evidence that the LGM was cold and wet, while south of the Dead Sea cold and hyperarid conditions resulted from lowered sea levels affecting the paths of storm fronts (Enzel et al. 2008). Lisan Lake levels record an initial decline some time after 24 ka cal BP (Bartov et al. 2003; Lisker et al. 2010). Following the LGM, climatic amelioration, corresponding to the Bølling–Allerød oscillation, is particularly evident in the marginal zone of the southern Levant when global sea levels began to rise. 71.3 CHRONOLOGY AND CULTURAL SEQUENCE Initially, the first entity recognized as belonging to the Epipalaeolithic was Phase VI of Neuville (1934, 1951) and Garrod’s (1934) Upper Palaeolithic sequence (see Belfer-Cohen & Goring-Morris, Chapter 70 of this volume). This phase incorporated the Kebaran entity discovered in the excavations of Kebara Cave by TurvillePetre (1932) and defined by Garrod (1954). The following entity defined by the research pioneers was the Natufian, considered by them to be a ‘Mesolithic’ culture (Garrod 1932). Since then, many entities have been identified based on lithic techno-typological criteria and radiometric ages as belonging to this period. Even the original ‘Kebaran’ assemblages were subsequently shown to include other, Middle Epipalaeolithic elements (Belfer-Cohen & GoringMorris 2007). The Epipalaeolithic trend towards standardized microlithization (and especially backing) within the chipped stone tool component apparently reflects developments in hafting techniques associated with composite tools, a sign of increasing efficiency (Bar-Yosef 1987; Belfer-Cohen & Goring-Morris 2002; Yaroshevich et al. 2009). It appears that hafting concerns necessitated the application of abrupt retouch and bipolar backing to the bladelet blanks. 71.4 EARLY EPIPALAEOLITHIC Several distinctive early Epipalaeolithic entities are currently recognized: Masraqan (previously called ‘Late Ahmarian’), Kebaran, 639

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, on 22 Aug 2017 at 13:02:08, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316106754.071

A.N. Goring-Morris and A. Belfer-Cohen

640

Table 71.1 Chronology of cultural entities in the main regions in Cisjordan (entities in italics with habitual use of the microburin technique) Age (ka cal BP) 15–13.5

Timestratigraphic units

Socio-cultural entities Mediterranean

Steppe & desert

Late Epipalaeolithic

Early Natufian

Middle Epipalaeolithic Early Epipalaeolithic

Geometric Kebaran Nizzanan

Terminal Ramonian Early Natufian Mushabian/ Early Ramonian Geometric Kebaran Nizzanan

17.75–15

18.5–15 20–18.5 22–18.5 25–22

Kebaran

25.5–20

Masraqan (Late Ahmarian)

25–11.6 48–25

Kebaran Nebekian (Transjordan) Masraqan (Late Ahmarian)

Epipalaeolithic Upper Palaeolithic

(Fig. 71.2; Arensburg & Bar-Yosef 1973). The general paucity of burials could be explained by the presence of seven seemingly cremated remains at Kebara C (Smith et al. 1984). Notable innovations at this time include the appearance of groundstone tools such as mortars, bowls, pestles, and mullers, often on basalt or phosphorite, supplementing the occasional grinding slabs of the Upper Palaeolithic (e.g. Wright 1991). These constitute a minor but significant component in occupations, attesting to the presence of site furniture and greater emphasis on processing vegetal foodstuff in addition to ochre (Zackheim 1997). Almost all the information available concerning the exploitation of plants derives from Ohalo II, which portrays unparalleled organic preservation (Nadel, this volume). The bone tool repertoire of the early Epipalaeolithic is quite impoverished, with occasional awls, points, and spatulas, sometimes with notational marks (Nadel, this volume). Mediterranean marine molluscs are usually present, but are not particularly abundant in most sites; in addition to Dentalia (Antalis sp.), common species include Nassa sp. and Columbella rustica (Bar-Yosef Mayer 2005, Chapter 44 of this volume). Art objects during the Early Epipalaeolithic occur only sporadically, as with the lightly engraved stone plaques from Kebaran Urkan e-Rubb II and ‘En Qashish (Fig. 71.2; Hovers 1990; Yaroshevich et al. 2014, 2016).

71.4.1 MASRAQAN (FORMERLY ‘LATE AHMARIAN’) (ca. 25–20 ka cal BP) Nebekian, and Nizzanan (e.g. Garrod & Bate 1937; Goring-Morris 1987, 1995; Rust 1950). Most entities are present on both sides of the Dead Sea rift valley, albeit with different intensities. Kebaran sites are located primarily in and west of this valley, while Nebekian sites are almost entirely located to the east. Masraqan and Nizzanan sites are found on both sides of the rift valley. Radiometric ages and stratigraphic correlations indicate that the Nebekian and Masraqan pre-date much of the Kebaran and the Nizzanan (Table 71.1). The range of the date sets available remains open to interpretation for most of the described entities, with obvious outliers; accordingly, we provide conservative estimates of the date distributions. The lithic assemblages of these entities display diverse sets of techno-typological traits, i.e. specific technologies of core reduction and blank production, presence/absence of the microburin technique and typological variability, especially amongst the microliths (Fig. 71.1). Few data are available concerning the spatial organization of Early Epipalaeolithic occupations, although there are a series of single flimsy fonds de cabane at Masraqan Ohalo II and Azariq XIII, and Kebaran Ein Gev I and Jiita rockshelter (Fig. 71.2; Stekelis & Bar-Yosef 1965; Goring-Morris & Belfer-Cohen 2003; Melki 2004; Nadel, Chapter 33 of this volume). The few early Epipalaeolithic burials documented in recent years are single articulated burials in shallow pits. The single complete burial at Ohalo II is located in an exterior area (Nadel, this volume). Kebaran burials include a female adult under a floor at Ein Gev I

Sites of this entity were originally viewed as directly continuing the ‘Early Ahmarian’ tradition, and designated as ‘Late Ahmarian’ (but see Goring-Morris & Belfer-Cohen, in press). The most notable site is Ohalo II, which furnished a large series of radiocarbon ages (Nadel, this volume). While basic technological similarities between the earlier ‘classic’ Ahmarian and Masraqan demonstrate considerable continuity, the latter assemblages are characterized by an emphasis on bladelet production from narrow-fronted cores and a separate reduction strategy for massive tools. Amongst the tools, high frequencies of non-twisted, narrow finely retouched (‘Ouchtata’) bladelets occur, while the el-Wad point of the Ahmarian disappears (Fig. 71.1; Ferring 1988; Goring-Morris 1995; Goring-Morris & Belfer-Cohen 1997; Kuhn et al. 2004). Scrapers, burins, and massive tools are also found in variable frequencies.

71.4.2 NEBEKIAN (ca. 25–22 ka cal BP) The Nebekian, first identified and defined at Yabrud III/4–7 (Rust 1950), is distributed almost exclusively in steppe areas east of the rift valley, with no sites reported from Cisjordan. Broadly contemporary with the Masraqan and the Kebaran, its lithic technotypological characteristics differ distinctly from those of the former. Its main component is the narrow, elongated bladelet blank, which is backed and bi-truncated by the microburin technique – the first habitual application of this technique in the Levant.


Early/Middle Epipalaeolithic, Cisjordan

641

Figure 71.1 Characteristic microliths of the various Epipalaeolithic entities in the southern Levant.



642

Figure 71.2 A: Plan of fond de cabane at Kebaran Ein Gev I; B: incised plaque from Kebaran Urkan e-Rubb II; C: outline of probable fond de cabane at Masraqan Azariq XIII. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, on 22 Aug 2017 at 13:02:08, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316106754.071


71.4.3 THE KEBARAN COMPLEX (ca. 21–18 ka cal BP) This complex is centred primarily in the Mediterranean zone, especially in and west of the rift valley, although also including the Azraq basin in Transjordan (Bar-Yosef 1970; Maher, Chapter 75 of this volume). Research incorporating work by Hours (1976) in Lebanon and later investigations elsewhere documented considerable regional and chronological diversity (Bar-Yosef & Vogel 1987). Detailed observations on the microlithic classes, together with stratigraphic considerations, led to the identification of early and late phases of the Kebaran. There is a general chronological progression from inverse and fine retouch to more abrupt backing techniques, initially typified by curved ‘micropoints’ and later by backed and obliquely truncated ‘Kebara’ points (Fig. 71.1). These and other stylistic characteristics enabled the definition of geographical subdivisions that probably reflect the ranges (ca. 1,250–2,000 km²) of specific groups in the local landscape (Goring-Morris et al. 2009; Belfer-Cohen & Goring-Morris 2011). Thus, while some groups would have seasonally shifted from the coastal plain to the lower Jordan Valley (Fig. 71.3), other groups circulated within the southern coastal plain and the Negev (Goring-Morris 2009). Occupation sites in the coastal plain occur as clusters atop aeolianite sandstone (kurkar) ridges (Harel et al., Chapter 50 of this volume), then in the centre of the coastal plain, close to breaches by major wadis draining westwards (Bar-Yosef 1970). Many localities were repeatedly reoccupied. Kebaran sites are generally quite small, usually extending over ca. 25–100 m² and rarely exceeding 250 m².

643

well-made scrapers and burins, particularly dihedral variants, and sometimes scaled pieces. The dominant microlithic form is the small lamelle scalène (scalene triangle), while the microgravette comprises but a small component (Fig. 71.1). The triangles are habitually fabricated using the microburin technique, making the Nizzanan a possible successor to the Nebekian and, perhaps, an antecedent to the Middle Epipalaeolithic Mushabian (see below).

71.5 MIDDLE EPIPALAEOLITHIC This period displays significant climatic amelioration, corresponding to the Bølling–Allerød event. Accordingly, while considerable continuity is displayed within the Mediterranean region, expansion of the steppic Irano-Turanian zone into peripheral areas enabled populations to exploit them more intensively (Fig. 71.4). Two distinctive cultural complexes have been defined, the pan-Levantine Geometric Kebaran and the Mushabian (including also the Ramonian), the latter restricted to the Negev and Sinai. During the Middle Epipalaeolithic, there is evidence for advances in pyrotechnology. This is reflected in the variability of hearths and roasting pits with numerous stones for cooking in the Mushabian, as well as the initiation of small-scale lime-plaster production used as an adhesive for binding microliths to hafts in the Geometric Kebaran (Fig. 71.5; Goring-Morris 1988; Kingery et al. 1988). Bone tools are rare, as are groundstone utensils (i.e. bowls, pestles, and hand-stones) that were most probably employed in food processing and other activities. Marine shells are not common, perhaps because of rapid sea level rise, and reflect a preference for Mediterranean species (Bar-Yosef Mayer 2005).

71.4.4 NIZZANAN (ca. 20–18.5 ka cal BP) Assemblages characterized by minute scalene and isosceles triangles made by the microburin technique together with microgravettes (‘spiky points’) were described in the past at Wadi Dhobai (= Kharaneh IV) and Ein Gev IV (Waechter et al. 1938; Bar-Yosef 1970). Then undated, they were initially thought to be of Middle Epipalaeolithic age. Subsequent investigations in the coastal plain at Nahal Hadera V (Shimelmitz 2002), in the Negev at Hamifgash IV and Azariq IX, adjacent to Nahal Nizzana (Goring-Morris 1987), in Transjordan at Kharaneh IV and Jilat 6 (Garrard, Chapter 76 of this volume; Maher, this volume), as well as in Lebanon at Ksar ‘Akil (Bergman et al., Chapter 30 of this volume), including radiometric ages necessitated revision, and the designation ‘Nizzanan’ has been proposed (Tixier 1970; Goring-Morris 1987; Goring-Morris & Belfer-Cohen 1997; Marder 2002). Most Nizzanan sites are small occupations, though huge aggregation sites are located in the Azraq basin (Garrard, this volume; Maher, this volume), on the east Jordanian plateau that may represent the seasonal ingathering of populations, some perhaps based part of the year west of the rift valley. The Nizzanan lithic industry is characterized by a laminar aspect. Cores commonly have single platforms and are pyramidal, though opposed platform varieties also occur. The tools include elegant,

71.5.1 GEOMETRIC KEBARAN (ca. 18.5–15 ka cal BP) Sites of this entity were recorded throughout the entire Levant, from the middle Euphrates to southern Sinai. The Geometric Kebaran seems to derive directly from the Kebaran, as indicated by stratigraphic evidence at Fazael III, Kharaneh IV and Yabrud III (BarYosef et al. 1974; Maher, this volume). It is characterized by variable technologies of blade/bladelet blank production, while the microliths so produced are highly standardized, mostly comprising variants of the trapeze-rectangle form (Fig. 71.1; Goring-Morris 1995; Marder 2002; Bar-Yosef & Belfer-Cohen 2010). Within the Mediterranean zone, site distributions are similar to those of the Kebaran. However, few Geometric Kebaran sites have been extensively excavated, and it remains difficult to adequately characterize the nature of the sites and the degree to which they presage the late Epipalaeolithic Natufian in terms of a shift towards sedentism (Kaufman 1992; but see Yeshurun et al. 2015). Part of a wall was identified in a test pit at Ha’on (Bar-Yosef 1975) and a small feature at Ein Gev III (Martin 1978). Smaller, ephemeral occupations up to 75 m² in extent with a single hearth exemplify the semi-arid steppes of the Negev and northern Sinai lowlands, reflecting highly mobile adaptations over large areas by small bands.



644

Figure 71.3 Epipalaeolithic sites in the Mediterranean zone. A: Meged rockshelter in western Galilee (view to the northeast); B: Fazael III and X in the lower Jordan Valley (view to the west); C: Givat HaEsev on the bank of Nahal Soreq in the coastal plain (view to the north); D: Newe David at the foothills of Mt Carmel (view to the east). (A black and white version of this figure will appear in some formats. For the colour version, please refer to the plate section.) Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, on 22 Aug 2017 at 13:02:08, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316106754.071


645

Figure 71.4 Epipalaeolithic sites in the marginal zone. A: Geometric Kebaran (left) and Mushabian occupations at Mushabi XIV in northern Sinai; B: Ramonian site K5 atop Har Harif (view to the southwest); C: Ramonian Nahal Neqarot rockshelter in the central Negev (view to the northwest); D: Ramonian Nahal Lavan 1009 in the western Negev dunes (view to northeast). Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, on 22 Aug 2017 at 13:02:08, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316106754.071


646

Figure 71.5 Epipalaeolithic features and pyrotechnology. A: Cache of large artefacts (Qadesh Barnea 8); B: hide smoking(?) installation associated with hearth (Lagama North VIII); C: geometric microlith with plaster adhesive (Lagama North VIII); D: hearth with stones (Mushabi I); E: cross-section of hearth feature (Mushabi XIV/1). (Photos from the archives of the Institute of Archaeology, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, courtesy of O. Bar-Yosef.) Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, on 22 Aug 2017 at 13:02:08, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316106754.071


A few burials have been reported from Geometric Kebaran contexts, including Neve David in Mt Carmel (Bocquentin et al. 2011). These burials, whether isolated or a few together, may herald the Natufian cemeteries that date to some centuries later. 71.5.2 MUSHABIAN AND RAMONIAN (CA. 17.5–15 KA CAL BP) Another Middle Epipalaeolithic complex is recognized in the Negev and Sinai, namely the Mushabian including the slightly later Ramonian – originally named ‘Negev Kebaran’ and ‘Late Mushabian’ (Bar-Yosef & Phillips 1977; Marks & Simmons 1977; GoringMorris 1987). A possible precursor is the Nizzanan. There are radiocarbon ages and stratigraphic evidence (Mushabi XIV/1–2 and Har Harif I-II) to indicate that, locally, it briefly co-existed with the Geometric Kebaran. However, subsequently the Geometric Kebaran and Mushabian segregated and developed in parallel in different areas, the former in the Mediterranean region and the latter in the Negev and Sinai. The Mushabian industry is characterized by arched backed bladelets on short blade/bladelet blanks from wide-fronted cores habitually fashioned using the microburin technique (Fig. 71.1). It subsequently transformed into the Ramonian with an added exploitation of the higher elevations of the central Negev as well as the lowlands. Typologically, this is accompanied by a shifting emphasis towards concave backed and truncated bladelets – Ramon points (hence it was originally called ‘Negev Kebaran’) – by means of the microburin technique, and a later addition of semi-abrupt bifacial (Helwan) lunates (Fig. 71.1). In this final stage, the Terminal Ramonian appears contemporaneous with the Late Epipalaeolithic Early Natufian, which by now had replaced the Geometric Kebaran in the Mediterranean region. Mushabian and Ramonian sites display a hierarchy from small, ephemeral sites with a single hearth, to more extensive sites with multiple hearths and fire-pits probably representing some degree of aggregation. There are likely to have been highland/lowland seasonal movements.

647

The faunal remains are also quite scanty owing to poor preservation, especially in the semi-arid margins. Notwithstanding the biases of early retrieval methods, the faunal species documented display site-specific ecological and topographic settings (Bar-Oz and Weissbrod, Chapter 42 of this volume). Thus, amongst the larger species, fallow deer, red deer and roe deer, together with bezoar goats, wild boar, cattle, and gazelle are found in the forested hilly regions of the Mediterranean Levant. The semi-arid steppes were populated by gazelle, ibex, hartebeest, and onager. Amongst small prey, fox, hare, and tortoise are found in most sites. The former may reflect the attraction of foxes to garbage and the value of their pelts, while hare and tortoise indicate different hunting/gathering techniques (Stiner 2005). Another feature illustrated by Ohalo II is the practice of fishing when sites are located in relevant locations (Nadel, this volume).

71.7 CONCLUDING REMARKS It is important to stress that, prior to the Natufian, the vast majority of the Epipalaeolithic material cultural remains comprised chipped stone artefacts, with only minor components of bone tools, groundstone utensils, and artistic manifestations. Architectural remains become more common only during the course of the Epipalaeolithic. Stratigraphy and techno-typological seriation remain the principal means for ordering the cultural record and, with few exceptions, the radiometric ages are often problematic. With the onset of the LGM, the pace of cultural developments increased significantly, as again documented primarily in the Epipalaeolithic of the southern Levant. Such techno-typological and stylistic variability reflects demographic increases, together with increasing territoriality, eventually leading to the more sedentary Natufian techno-complex. A distinctive and noteworthy feature separating the Upper Palaeolithic from the Epipalaeolithic was the increasing territoriality just mentioned, as denoted especially by the stylistic proclivities of the microlithic assemblages (Goring-Morris & Belfer-Cohen 1997). This reflects increasing demographic pressures within refugia, i.e. territorial packing, eventually leading to the emergence of sedentism in the Natufian.

71.6 SUBSISTENCE IN THE EPIPALAEOLITHIC LEVANT REFERENCES The small scale of most Epipalaeolithic occupations generally reflects a high degree of mobility, with groups focusing on locally available resources, so that exploitation ranges were unlikely to extend more than 10–15 km from sites. The ecological and topographic zonation in the Levant was such as to provide a mosaic patchwork of plant and animal resources. However, reconstruction of subsistence practices is hampered by the virtual absence of vegetal remains. As stated above, a notable exception vis à vis plant preservation is the Early Epipalaeolithic site of Ohalo II. The edible plant species recovered include numerous small-seeded grasses in addition to cultivated cereals, as well as a wide range of fruits and nuts (see Nadel, Chapter 33 of this volume; Snir et al. 2015).

Arensburg, B. & Bar-Yosef, O. 1973. Human remains from Ein Gev I, Jordan Valley, Israel. Paléorient 1: 201–6. Bar-Yosef, O. 1970. The Epi-Palaeolithic Cultures of Palestine. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Bar-Yosef, O. 1975. Les gisements ‘Kebarien Géometrique A’ d’Haon, Vallée du Jourdain, Israel. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française 72: 10–4. Bar-Yosef, O. 1987. Direct and indirect evidence for hafting in the Epipalaeolithic and Neolithic of the southern Levant. In Le Main et Emmanchements Préhistoriques, ed. D. Stordeur. Lyon: Maison de l’Orient, pp. 155–64. Bar-Yosef, O. & Belfer-Cohen, A. 2010. The Middle to Upper Palaeolithic transition in western Asia. In The Upper Palaeolithic



Revolution in Global Perspective: Essays in Honour of Paul Mellars, ed. K.V. Boyle, C. Gamble & O. Bar-Yosef. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, University of Cambridge, pp. 83–98. Bar-Yosef, O. & Phillips, J.L. (ed.) 1977. Prehistoric Investigations in Gebel Maghara, Northern Sinai, Qedem 7. Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University. Bar-Yosef, O. & Vogel, J. 1987. Relative and absolute chronology of the Epi-palaeolithic in the southern Levant. In Chronologies in the Near East, ed. O. Aurenche, J. Evin & F. Hours, BAR International Series 379. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports, pp. 220–45. Bar-Yosef, O., Goldberg, P. & Leveson, T. 1974. Late Quaternary stratigraphy and prehistory of Wadi Fazael, Jordan Valley – a preliminary report. Paléorient 2: 415–26. Bar-Yosef Mayer, D.E. 2005. The exploitation of shells as beads in the Palaeolithic and Neolithic of the Levant. Paléorient 31: 176–85. Bartov, Y., Goldstein, S.L., Stein, M. & Enzel, Y. 2003. Catastrophic arid events in the east Mediterranean linked with the North Atlantic Heinrich events. Geology 31: 439–42. Belfer-Cohen, A. & Goring-Morris, A.N. 2002. Why microliths? Microlithization in the Levant. In Thinking Small: Global Perspectives on Microlithic Technologies, ed. R.G. Elston & S.L. Kuhn. Arlington: AP3A, pp. 57–68. Belfer-Cohen, A. & Goring-Morris, A.N. 2007. A new look at old assemblages: A cautionary tale. In Technical Systems and Near Eastern PPN Communities, ed. L. Astruc, D. Binder & F. Briois. Antibes: Éditions APDCA, pp. 15–24. Belfer-Cohen, A. & Goring-Morris, A.N. 2011. Becoming farmers: The inside story. Current Anthropology 52: S209–S220. Bocquentin, F., Crevecoeur, I., Arensburg, B., Kaufman, D. & Ronen, A. 2011. Les hommes du Kébarien géométrique de Neve David, Mont Carmel (Israël). Bulletins et Mémoires de la Société d’Anthropologie de Paris 23: 38–51. Enzel, Y., Amit, R., Dayan, U. et al. 2008. The climatic and physiographic controls of the eastern Mediterranean over the late Pleistocene climates in the southern Levant and its neighboring deserts. Global and Planetary Change 60: 165–92. Ferring, C.R. 1988. Technological change in the Upper Paleolithic of the Negev. In Upper Pleistocene Prehistory of Western Eurasia, ed. H. Dibble & A. Montet-White. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, pp. 333–48. Garrod, D.A.E. 1932. A new Mesolithic industry: The Natufian of Palestine. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 62: 257–69. Garrod, D.A.E. 1934. The Stone Age of Palestine. Antiquity 30: 133–50. Garrod, D.A.E. 1954. Excavations at the Mugharet Kebara, Mount Carmel, 1931: The Aurignacian industries. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 20: 155–92. Garrod, D.A.E. & Bate, D.M.A. 1937. The Stone Age of Mount Carmel. Vol. 1. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Gilead, I. 1984. Is the term ‘Epipaleolithic’ relevant to Levantine prehistory? Current Anthropology 25: 227–9. Goring-Morris, A.N. 1987. At the Edge: Terminal Pleistocene HunterGatherers in the Negev and Sinai. BAR International Series 361. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. Goring-Morris, A.N. 1988. Trends in the spatial organization of Terminal Pleistocene hunter-gatherer occupations as viewed from the Negev and Sinai. Paléorient 14: 231–43. Goring-Morris, A.N. 1995. Complex hunter-gatherers at the end of the Paleolithic (20,000–10,000 BP). In The Archaeology of Society in the Holy Land, ed. T.E. Levy. London: Leicester University Press, pp. 141–68. Goring-Morris, A.N. 2009. Two Kebaran occupations near Nahal Soreq, and the reconstruction of group ranges in the Early Epipalaeolithic of the Israeli Littoral. Eurasian Prehistory 6: 73–91.

648

Goring-Morris, A.N. & Belfer-Cohen, A. 1997. The articulation of cultural processes and Late Quaternary environmental changes in Cisjordan. Paléorient 23: 71–93. Goring-Morris, A.N. & Belfer-Cohen, A. 2003. Structures and dwellings in the Upper and Epi-Palaeolithic (ca. 42–10 K BP) Levant: Profane and symbolic uses. In Perceived Landscapes and Built Environments, ed. O. Soffer, S. Vasil’ev & J. Kozlowski, BAR International Series 1122. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports, pp. 65–81. Goring-Morris, A.N. & Belfer-Cohen, A. in press. The emergence of the Ahmarian in the Southern Levant. In The Middle and Upper Palaeolithic Archaeology of the Levant and Beyond, ed. T. Akazawa & Y. Nishiaki. New York: Springer. Goring-Morris, A.N., Henry, D.O., Phillips J.L. et al. 1996. Patterns in the Epipalaeolithic of the Levant: Debate after Neeley and Barton. Antiquity 70: 129–47. Goring-Morris, A.N., Hovers, E. & Belfer-Cohen, A. 2009. The dynamics of Pleistocene settlement patterns and human adaptations in the Levant – an overview. In Transitions in Prehistory: Papers in Honor of Ofer Bar-Yosef, ed. J.J. Shea & D. Lieberman. Oakville: David Brown/Oxbow, pp. 187–254. Hours, F. 1976. L’Epipaléolithique au Liban. Résultats acquis en 1975. Deuxième Colloque sur la Terminologie de la Préhistoire du ProcheOrient. Nice: UISPP, pp. 106–30. Hovers, E. 1990. Art in the Levantine Epi-Palaeolithic: an engraved pebble from a Kebaran site in the lower Jordan Valley. Current Anthropology 31: 317–22. Kaufman, D. 1992. Hunter-gatherers of the Levantine Epipalaeolithic: The socioecological origins of sedentism. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 5: 165–201. Kingery, D.W., Vandiver, P.B. & Pickett, M. 1988. The beginnings of pyrotechnology, Part II: Production and use of lime and gypsum plaster in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic Near East. Journal of Field Archaeology 15: 219–44. Kuhn, S.L., Belfer-Cohen, A., Barzilai, O. et al. 2004. The Last Glacial Maximum at Meged rockshelter, upper Galilee, Israel. Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society – Mitekufat Haeven 34: 5–47. Marder, O. 2002. The Lithic Technology of Epipalaeolithic HunterGatherers in the Negev: The Implications of Refitting Studies. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Lisker, S., Vaks, A., Bar-Matthews, M., Porat, R. & Frumkin, A. 2010. Late Pleistocene palaeoclimatic and palaeoenvironmental reconstruction of the Dead Sea area (Israel), based on speleothems and cave stromatolites. Quaternary Science Reviews 29: 1201–11. Marks, A.E. & Simmons, A.H. 1977. The Negev Kebaran of the Har Harif. In Prehistory and Paleoenvironments in the Central Negev, Israel. Vol. II. The Avdat/Aqev Area, Part 2, and the Har Harif, ed. A.E. Marks. Dallas: SMU Press, pp. 233–70. Martin, G. 1978. En Gev III. Israel Exploration Journal 28: 262–3. Melki, E. 2004. Jiita II; La cabane kébarienne. In From the River to the Sea. The Palaeolithic and the Neolithic on the Euphrates and in the Northern Levant. Studies in Honour of Lorraine Copeland, ed. P. Sanlaville. BAR International Series 1263. Maison de l’Orient Jean Pouilloux/Oxford: British Archaeological Reports, pp. 271–80. Neuville, R. 1934. Le Préhistorique de Palestine. Revue Biblique 43: 237– 59. Neuville, R. 1951. Le Paléolithique et le Mésolithique du Desert de Judée. Paris: Archives de l’Institut de Paléontologie Humaine. Rust, A. 1950. Die Höhlenfunde von Jabrud (Syrien). Neumunster: Karl Wachholtz. Shimelmitz, R. 2002. Technological Aspects of the Flint Industry from the Kebaran Site Nahal Hadera V. Unpublished M.A. thesis, Tel Aviv University (Hebrew). Smith, P., Bar-Yosef, O. & Sillen, A. 1984. Archaeological and skeletal evidence for dietary change during the late Pleistocene. In At the



Origins of Agriculture, ed. M. Cohen & G. Armelagos. New York: Academic Press, pp. 101–36. Snir, A., Nadel, D., Groman-Yaroslavski, I. et al. 2015. The origin of cultivation and proto-weeds, long before Neolithic farming. PLoS One 10: e0131422. Stiner, M.C. (ed.) 2005. The Faunas of Hayonim Cave, Israel. A 200,000Year Record of Paleolithic Diet, Demography and Society. Cambridge, MA: Peabody Museum, Harvard University. Stekelis, M. & Bar-Yosef, O. 1965. Un habitat du Paléolithique Supérieur à Ein Guev (Israel). Note préliminaire. L’Anthropologie 69: 176–83. Tixier, J. 1970. L’abri sous roche de Ksar Aqil: La campagne de fouilles 1969. Bulletin de la Musée de Beyrouth 33: 173–91. Turville-Petre, F. 1932. Excavations at the Mugharet El-Kebarah. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 62: 270–6. Waechter, J. d’A., Setton-Williams, V.M., Bate, D.A. & Picard, L. 1938. The excavations at Wadi Dhobai, 1937–38 and the Dhobaian Industry. Journal of the Palestine Oriental Society 18: 172–86, 292–8. Wright, K. 1991. The origins and development of ground stone assemblages in Late Pleistocene southwest Asia. Paléorient 17: 19–45.

649

Yaroshevich, A., Kaufman, D., Nuzhnyy, D., Bar-Yosef, O. & WeinsteinEvron, M. 2009. Design and performance of microlith implemented projectiles during the Middle and the Late Epipaleolithic of the Levant: experimental and archaeological evidence. Journal of Archaeological Science 37: 368–88. Yaroshevich, A., Agha, N., Boaretto, E. et al. 2014. Investigating preagricultural dynamics in the Levant: A new, stratified Epipaleolithic site at ‘En Qashish South, Jezreel Valley, Israel. Antiquity Project gallery. Yaroshevich, A., Bar-Yosef, O., Boaretto, E. et al. 2016. A unique assemblage of engraved plaquettes from Ein Qashish South, Jezreel Valley, Israel: Figurative and non-figurative symbols of Late Pleistocene hunters-gatherers in the Levant. PloS One 11: e0160687. Yeshurun, R., Kaufman, D., Shtober-Zisu, N. et al. 2015. Renewed fieldwork at the Geometric Kebaran site of Neve David. Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society Mitekufat Haeven 45: 31–54. Zackheim, O. 1997. Provenance of Ochre from the Natufian Assemblages of el-Wad, Eynan and Hayonim. Unpublished M.A. thesis, University of Haifa.

