Natufian in the North: The Late Epipaleolithic cultural ...

CNRS ÉDITIONS - TIRÉS À PART - CNRS ÉDITIONS - TIRÉS À PART - CNRS ÉDITIONS - TIRÉS À PART - CNRS ÉDITIONS - TIRÉS À PART

Natufian in the North: The Late Epipaleolithic cultural entity at Dederiyeh Cave, Northwest Syria Y. Nishiaki, M. Yoneda, Y. Kanjou and T. Akazawa

Abstract: This paper discusses the relationship between Late Epipaleolithic evidence recovered at Dederiyeh Cave in Northwest Syria and the Natufian cultural entity from a cultural-historical perspective. The radiocarbon dates indicate that Dederiyeh occupation dates from at least the late 15th and the 14th millennia BP, with the possibility that it encompasses even earlier or later periods. The present study identifies evidence from the Dederiyeh Cave as a northern variant of the Natufian, which displays similarities and dissimilarities with the Natufian defined in the Southern Levant. The presence of these remains far to the north since the period equivalent to the Early Natufian in the south provides a new dimension to understanding the origin and development of the Natufian entity in a larger geographic context. Résumé : Cet article traite de la relation entre l’Épipaléolithique récent de la grotte de Dederiyeh, au nord-ouest de la Syrie, et la culture natoufienne dans une perspective historique. Les datations radiocarbone indiquent que les occupations à Dederiyeh datent d’au moins la fin du 15e et 14e millénaires BP, couvrant même éventuellement des périodes antérieures ou postérieures. L’étude présentée permet de considérer Dederiyeh comme une variante septentrionale du Natoufien, montrant des similitudes et des différences avec le Natoufien défini dans le Levant Sud. La présence de ces éléments dans l’extrémité nord de la région durant la période correspondant au Natoufien ancien dans le sud apporte des éléments nouveaux pour la discussion sur l’origine et le développement de l’entité natoufienne dans un contexte géographique plus large. Keywords: Natufian; Late Epipaleolithic; Northern Levant; Middle Euphrates; Lunates. Mots-clés : Natoufien ; Epipaléolithique récent ; Levant Nord ; Moyen Euphrate ; Segments.

INTRODUCTION The temporal and geographic variability of the Natufian cultural entity has been intensively studied, particularly with respect to the emergence and development of sedentism and food production, believed to have appeared among Late Epipaleolithic hunter-gatherer societies of the eastern Mediterranean (e.g., Bar-Yosef and Valla 1991 and 2013). The classic 1990s model holds that the Natufian originated from a homeland in the Southern Levant before it later expanded into neighboring regions, including the Northern Levant (Bar-Yosef 1998; Bar-Yosef and Belfer-Cohen 1989; BelferCohen 1991). This general interpretation was based on data

Paléorient, vol. 43.2, p. 7-24 © CNRS ÉDITIONS 2017

available at the time, which indicated that numerous Natufian sites, including the oldest, were known from the Southern Levant, whereas just a few were known from the north of this area and dated to a period equivalent to the Late Natufian. The known northern sites, especially Abu Hureyra and Mureybet in the Middle Euphrates Valley (fig. 1), were considered unrelated to the emergence of the Natufian cultural entity because of their younger ages. Thus, it remained unclear whether, or not, the material evidence from those sites, which did not always match that found in the south, should be considered referable to the Natufian (Olszewski 1988; 1991 and 2000; Cauvin 1991; Moore 1991 and 2000; Boyd 2016).

Manuscrit reçu le 15 février 2017, accepté le 9 juin 2017

Y. Nishiaki, M. Yoneda, Y. K anjou and T. Akazawa


8

ALEPPO AL-RAQQAH

HOMS PALMYRA

BEIRUT DAMASCUS

JERUSALEM

‘AMMAN

N

0

100 km

Fig. 1 – Map to show major Late Epipaleolithic sites in the Levant including those mentioned in this study.

Over the last two decades, significantly new data have been collected from the Northern Levant (fig. 1). For example, new evidence has been reported from the Baaz Rockshelter (Conard et al. 2013) and Kaus Kozah Cave (Hillgruber 2013), north of Damascus, as well as from the open-air site of Jeftelik near the Homs Gap (Rodríguez Rodríguez et al. 2013), and Tell Qaramel (Mazurowski et al. 2009; Mazurowski and Kanjou 2012), near Aleppo. Importantly, these include the Early Natufian Jeftelik site, which demonstrates that the Natufian cultural entity existed farther to the north during its early stages of develop-

ment than previously believed. As a result, it is now possible to assess the time-space context of this cultural entity using new archaeological records from Natufian or Natufian-like sites in the Northern Levant. The goal of this paper is to present an examination of Late Epipaleolithic evidence from Dederiyeh Cave. Situated in Northwest Syria, this site is located to the north of the Middle Euphrates Valley and is the northernmost so far known example of a related site (fig. 1; Akazawa and Nishiaki 2017). In addition, this is the first known Natufian-like site from a



Natufian in the North: The Late Epipaleolithic cultural entity at Dederiyeh Cave, Northwest Syria

9

Fig. 2 – Dederiyeh Cave and its excavation areas.

woodland area of the Northern Levant. In other words, Dederiyeh can be compared to other Natufian sites in the homeland of the Southern Levant in terms of its ecological setting, but is geographically closer to the Euphrates steppe, a region where the presence of this cultural entity has been questioned. Thus, the unique setting of this site provides a valuable opportunity to examine variability in the Natufian cultural entity from regional and ecological perspectives. This paper presents a summary of the finds from Dederiyeh Cave with emphasis on the flaked stone artifacts. A comparison is then made with sites in the Southern Levant and Euphrates Valley.

THE EXCAVATIONS AND STRATIGRAPHY OF THE LATE EPIPALEOLITHIC OF DEDERIYEH CAVE Dederiyeh Cave is located on the left bank of Wadi Dederiyeh, which transects the limestone plateau of Jabal Samaan, ca 60 km to the north of Aleppo (fig. 2). The altitude is approximately 450 m, and the annual precipitation currently reaches ca 500 mm, allowing the surrounding region to be included in the Mediterranean woodland vegetation zone (Moore 2000: 43). This cave has two tunnel-shaped entrances;


the main entrance faces the wadi, on the valley slope, while the other, referred to as the “chimney,” opens to the sky from ca 60 m deep at the back end of the cave. Its width ranges between 15 m and 20 m, while its height is 10 m to 15 m. For discussion purposes, the interior space has been divided into entrance, central, and chimney areas (fig. 2). Excavations carried out by the Syro-Japanese mission between 1989 and 2011 have shown that almost the entire area of this cave was occupied during the Paleolithic period (Akazawa and Nishiaki 2017; Nishiaki et al. 2011a). Evidence for particularly dense occupations comes from the entrance and chimney areas, most likely reflecting favorable conditions due to the availability of sunlight. The presence of Late Epipaleolithic occupations was first noted during soundings carried out in 1990 (Akazawa et al. 1993); related lithic artifacts were recovered from the entire area, but intact deposits from this period were only identified in the entrance area. In the following years, excavations focused on the chimney area where rich Middle Paleolithic deposits were uncovered, including a series of Neanderthal fossils (Akazawa and Muhesen 2002). Substantial excavations were also carried out in the entrance area during field seasons between 2003 and 2008 (Akazawa et al. 2009); the excavation of seventeen squares, each 2 m x 2 m in dimensions, revealed the extensive distribution of Late Epipaleolithic deposits interstratified between Middle Paleolithic and Iron Age layers.



10

Fig. 3 – Plan of the six Late Epipaleolithic constructions within Dederiyeh Cave.

Important discoveries from these squares include a series of semi-circular, semi-subterranean constructions built from limestone rocks (fig. 3). At least six constructions, numbered 1 to 6, were identified that overlap one another. Because of this unique discovery, the first of its kind in Syria, we decided to preserve these constructions for future study and education. Thus, complete excavations were carried out on just the most recent building of Construction 1 as well as the sounding area of Square K23 and the southern portion of K24, where parts of Constructions 3 and 5 are situated. The other constructions were only partially excavated. Therefore, and

because of the overlapping, their precise sizes and shapes could only be estimated. Construction 3, with a diameter greater than 6 m and a depth of ca 1 m, appears to be the largest (fig. 3), while Construction 4, ca 60 cm deep and less than 4 m in diameter, is likely to be the smallest judging from its location near the cave wall. Irrespective of these variations in size, construction building methods appear to have been consistent; an interior curvilinear wall lined with limestone cobbles is located on the higher side of a slope, while a straight wall, on the lower slope, faces the main entrance of the cave.




11

Fig. 4 – Building order stratigraphy of Late Epipaleolithic constructions within Dederiyeh Cave.

Construction 1 is the best preserved of these buildings and has yielded exceptionally detailed information about architectural technology. It is a heavily burnt structure comprising a semi-circular pit ca 4 m wide and 2.5 m long, which cuts into the slope to a maximum depth of 80 cm. An enormous quantity of organic remains were recovered inside the pit, including pieces of charred timber and branches (Nishiaki et al. 2011b; Tanno et al. 2013), which were most likely building materials for posts, walls, and the roof of this structure. A series of postholes were also identified (fig. 2); their sizes, as well as those of the charred timbers recovered on the floor suggest the use of two kinds of posts, three larger ones on the linear side (ca 20 cm in diameter) and more than ten smaller ones along the stone back wall (ca 10 cm in diameter). A gap in the stone wall on the linear side (K26) shows that the doorway of Construction 1 faced the main cave entrance. Excavations revealed that Constructions 1 to 6 were all covered with thin Late Epipaleolithic (10 cm to 20 cm in thickness) deposits in some areas and with Iron Age layers in others. The stratigraphic configuration and the building order of these stone constructions allow division of the Late Epipaleolithic sequence within Dederiyeh Cave into the following phases (fig. 4): Phase 1 (oldest): Constructions 3 and 5;


Phase 2: Construction 2; Phase 3: Constructions 1, 4, and 6; Top Layer: deposits that cover the constructions. The Top Layer should primarily correspond to the sediments accumulated after the abandonment of the occupations. However, it might also include sediments contemporaneous to one, or more, of the phases of construction/utilization. Intensive Iron Age pitting and the poor preservation status of the Top Layer do not allow the establishment of a detailed stratigraphic sequence and so this layer is not recognized as Phase 4. At present, 29 radiocarbon dates have been obtained for Phases 2 (Construction 2) and 3 (Constructions 1, 4, and 6; table 1), while none are available for Phase 1 or the Top Layer. The abundance of organic materials from the burnt Construction 1 building explains the large number of Phase 3 dates; these are consistent with our stratigraphic interpretation described above (fig. 5). Importantly, all three Phase 3 constructions evidence a similar range of dates, bracketed by a period encompassing ca 13.3 ka to 12.7 ka, while Phase 2 encompasses a period between ca 14.2 ka and 13.8 ka. These Phase 2 dates are regarded as terminus ante quem for Phase 1, which can be placed well within the 15th millennium BP.



12

Table 1 – Radiocarbon dates for Late Epipaleolithic deposits at Dederiyeh Cave. All samples are charcoal. Architecture

Sample code

Lab no.

Date BP

Const. 2

DED05-C106

TERRA-102306b13

12240 ± 62

Const. 2

DED05-C109

TERRA-102306b16

12123 ± 70

Const. 6

DED05-C104

TERRA-102306b09

11336 ± 59

Const. 6

DED05-C105

TERRA-102306b10

10984 ± 54

Const. 6

DED05-C110

TERRA-102306b17

10683 ± 60

Const. 6

DED05-C108

TERRA-102306b15

10598 ± 57

Const. 1

DED05-C89 (floor)

TERRA-102306b24

11392 ± 62

Const. 1

DED05-C88 (floor)

TERRA-102306b23

10775 ± 64

Const. 1

DC04-125 (#)

TERRA-120804a17

11048 ± 99

Const. 1

DC04-124 (#7)

TERRA-120804a16

11057 ± 65

Const. 1

DC04-113 (#1)

TERRA-120804a03

11029 ± 61

Const. 1

DED05-C100 (#9)

TERRA-102306b25

11015 ± 59

Const. 1

DC04-121 (#5)

TERRA-120804a13

10991 ± 58

Const. 1

DC04-114 (#1)

TERRA-120804a04

10973 ± 63

Const. 1

DC04-115 (#1)

TERRA-120804a05

10969 ± 60

Const. 1

DC04-119 (#4)

TERRA-120804a09

10938 ± 64

Const. 1

DC04-120 (#5)

TERRA-120804a10

10953 ± 59

Const. 1

DC04-122 (#6)

TERRA-120804a14

10935 ± 62

Const. 1

DC04-116 (#2)

TERRA-120804a06

10913 ± 61

Const. 1

DC04-117 (#3)

TERRA-120804a07

10896 ± 61

Const. 1

DC04-118 (#4)

TERRA-120804a08

10906 ± 60

Const. 1

DC04-123 (#7)

TERRA-120804a15

10879 ± 63

Const. 4

DED05-C20

TERRA-102306b07

11530 ± 60

Const. 4

DED05-C14

TERRA-102306b26

11050 ± 58

Const. 4

DED05-C17

TERRA-102306b04

11030 ± 59

Const. 4

DED05-C16

TERRA-102306b03

11012 ± 60

Const. 4

DED05-C24

TERRA-102306b08

10988 ± 61

Const. 4

DED05-C19

TERRA-102306b06

10959 ± 61

Const. 4

DED05-C18

TERRA-102306b05

10861 ± 63

Cal. BC (1 sigma) 12288 BC (68.2%) 12090 BC 12142 BC (54.7%) 11973 BC 11957 BC (13.5%) 11905 BC 11298 BC (68.2%) 11173 BC 10960 BC (68.2%) 10801 BC 10748 BC (68.2%) 10652 BC 10714 BC (68.2%) 10587 BC 11342 BC (68.2%) 11210BC 10786 BC (68.2%) 10716 BC 11072 BC (68.2%) 10859 BC 11060 BC (68.2%) 10882 BC 11034 BC (68.2%) 10861 BC 11021 BC (68.2%) 10850 BC 10977 BC (68.2%) 10807 BC 10958 BC (68.2%) 10791 BC 10947 BC (68.2%) 10789 BC 10908 BC (68.2%) 10771 BC 10920 BC (68.2%) 10780 BC 10906 BC (68.2%) 10770 BC 10871 BC (68.2%) 10767 BC 10855 BC (68.2%) 10765 BC 10862 BC (68.2%) 10767 BC 10845 BC (68.2%) 10760 BC 11481 BC (68.2%) 11362 BC 11048 BC (68.2%) 10881 BC 11033 BC (68.2%) 10864 BC 11020 BC (68.2%) 10846 BC 10976 BC (68.2%) 10803 BC 10935 BC (68.2%) 10783 BC 10834 BC (68.2%) 10753 BC

Cal. BC (2 sigma) 12531 BC (95.4%) 12001 BC 12211 BC (95.4%) 11824 BC 11342 BC (95.4%) 11130 BC 11047BC (95.4%) 10776 BC 10773 BC (95.4%) 1060 6BC 10748 BC (80.2%) 10567 BC 10551 BC (15.2%) 10474 BC 11419 BC (95.4%) 11146 BC 10816 BC (95.4%) 10634 BC 11131 BC (95.4%) 10782 BC 11120 BC (95.4%) 10814 BC 11095 BC (95.4%) 10794 BC 11081 BC (95.4%) 10786 BC 11058 BC (95.4%) 10776 BC 11051 BC (95.4%) 10769 BC 11044BC (95.4%) 10769 BC 11029 BC (95.4%) 10758 BC 11031 BC (95.4%) 10764 BC 11031 BC (95.4%) 10756 BC 11001 BC (95.4%) 10748 BC 10977 BC (95.4%) 10742 BC 10984 BC (95.4%) 10745 BC 10957 BC (95.4%) 10735BC 11530 BC (95.4%) 11309 BC 11113 BC (95.4%) 10818 BC 11094 BC (95.4%) 10796 BC 11078 BC (95.4%) 10785 BC 11060 BC (95.4%) 10774 BC 11038 BC (95.4%) 10766 BC 10925 BC (95.4%) 10725 BC

d13C (‰) -23,9

-21,2

-25,6 -19,5 -28,4

-26,8

-21,6 -27,7 -25,3 -23,2 -24,5 -26,0 -26,7 -25,1 -24,0 -24,3 -28,5 -27,8 -29,3 -26,7 -24,7 -24,3 -24,2 -21,6 -23,9 -23,4 -26,6 -25,2 -24,8




Fig. 5 – Calibrated chart of radiocarbon dates for Dederiyeh Cave.


13



14

LATE EPIPALEOLITHIC MATERIAL REMAINS FROM DEDERIYEH CAVE All Late Epipaleolithic deposits were dry-sieved using a 2.5 mm mesh, while floor deposits from the burnt Construction 1 building and some parts of other constructions were watersieved to recover as many small items as possible. As analysis of the entire collection remains a work in progress, this paper only refers to materials collected during the 1990 field season and between 2003 and 2007. Even if the collection from the 2008 field season is excluded, the sample is large enough to enable a general understanding of the material remains from Dederiyeh Cave. The most abundant objects collected from this cave are flaked stone artifacts (table 2; fig. 6). The raw material for these is predominantly flint, while one piece of obsidian was collected from the Top Layer. Flint outcrops that could have been used for tool manufacture are located along Wadi Dederiyeh in an area ca 2 km away upstream from the cave (Akazawa and Nishiaki 2017). Examination by eye indicates

that local flint was the main raw material for these artifacts as it is colored grayish brown and has whitish spots in place. At the same time, ca 15% of the recovered specimens, notably those that are either chocolate brown or red in color, are interpreted as imported flint. These imported stones were used mostly to produce lunates and other bladelet tools (Nishiaki et al. 2011b). The abundant presence of cortical debitage as well as core preparation elements indicates that core reduction was carried out on site using both local and imported flints (table 1). The proportions of imported flint are much higher for retouched tools (ca 35%) than for debitage (ca 15%) and cores (ca 10%). Some of the non-local flints may have been brought in as finished products. Lithic assemblages from all the occupational phases indicate the presence of a blade-bladelet industry (table 2). About 70% of the cores (46/65), 35% of the debitage (996/2867), and 83% of the retouched tools (606/731) correspond to bladebladelet elements. Blank production primarily used singleplatform cores, prepared with the use of cresting, and at least five cores (one from Phase 1 and four from Phase 3) have so far been found prepared using flake blanks (fig. 6: 1). Additional

Table 2 – Late Epipaleolithic lithic artifacts from Dederiyeh Cave excavated in the 1990 and 2003 to 2007 field seasons. Artifacts

Phase 1

Phase 2

Phase 3

Top Layer

Total

2

0

1

1

4

Single-platform, narrow-faced

3

2

7

3

15

Single-platform, broad-faced

1

1

5

5

12

Single-platform, prismatic

4

2

6

0

12

Opposed-platform

2

1

1

0

4

Multiple-platform

0

0

2

1

3

Single-platform, narrow-faced

0

0

0

0

0

Single-platform, broad-faced

2

1

4

2

9

Multiple-platform

2

5

3

0

10

0

0

2

0

2

Core-edge pieces

9

17

40

17

83

Cores: Semi-flaked cores

Blade cores

Flake cores Fragments

Debitage

Tools

Core tablets

1

0

8

0

9

Crested pieces

1

4

23

3

31 211

Cortical flakes

34

63

63

51

Partially cortical flakes

83

120

183

125

511

Flakes

180

154

595

220

1149

Partially cortical blades

8

17

54

14

93

Blades

37

59

130

112

338

Bladelets

54

93

312

106

565

Chips and fragments

373

173

6962

410

7918

Blade/bladelet tools

33

96

344

133

606

Flake tools

11

16

74

24

125

Pebble tools

3

0

1

4

8

Tool fragments and debris

2

7

42

15

66

Obsidian tool Total

1

0

0

1

1

846

831

8862

1247

11785




15

Fig. 6 – Late Epipaleolithic lithic artifacts from Dederiyeh Cave. 1) Bladelet core, narrow-faced; 2) bladelet core, prismatic; 3-4) lunates (Helwan); 5-6) Lunates; 7) Scalene triangle; 8) Trapeze; 9) backed bladelet; 10) microburin; 11) backed blade; 12) glossed blade; 13) glossed blade (Helwan); 14) borer with glue; 15) truncation burin; 16) endscraper; 17) retouched flake (obsidian); 18) chopper. Phase 1 (3, 7, 11, 13, 18), Phase 3 (1-2, 4–6, 8-10, 12, 14-16), and Top Layer (17).



16

cores could also have been made using flake blanks, but the removal of original flake scars by subsequent reduction prevents further identification. No substantial differences in size were detected between cores made using flakes and those using pebbles; working surfaces comprised the single narrow face (fig. 6: 1), the broad face, or more than two faces of cores (prismatic; fig. 6: 2). This variation is likely to coincide with different stages of core reduction. At the same time, it may also have chronological significance, as prismatic cores with working surfaces present on more than one face of a core blank, a more advanced stage of reduction, are more common in earlier phases (table 2). As a matter of fact, the average core heights are slightly less in Phases 1 (32.8 mm) and 2 (32.5 mm) compared to Phase 3 (36.6 mm) and the Top Layer (34.2 mm). Major target blanks appear to have been bladelets smaller than 5 cm in length and 1.2 cm in width; these bladelets are about twice as frequent as blades throughout the phases at the site (table 1). The relatively rare occurrence of core tablets for platform revival (table 2) suggests that cores were originally prepared small, or that small blanks were chosen for cores (fig. 6: 1). Data show that geometrics dominate the tool assemblage; these comprise ca 40% of the total (table 3), and consist of a far larger number of lunates (fig. 6: 3-6). Other geometrics include a small number of scalene-triangles (fig. 6: 7) and trapezes (fig. 6: 8). In addition, many lunates are badly broken, suggesting that they were mainly used for hunting (Bocquentin and Bar-Yosef 2004; Nishiaki et al. 2011b; Yaroshevich et al. 2013). Complete lunates from this cave are ca 3 cm in average length (table 4); retouch was mostly done via direct abrupt or bipolar flaking, while bifacial Helwan retouch was also employed (fig 6: 3-4) at a smaller percentage, and the use of the microburin technique was rare (fig. 6: 10). In addition to these geometrics, backed blade/bladelets and glossed elements make up another important tool group; of these, backed blades (fig. 6: 11) comprise larger geometric and non-geometric bladelet tools (fig. 6: 9), exhibiting similar morphological variation. The glossed blades are also similar in shape; lunate forms are most abundant (fig. 6: 12), and rectangular examples with snapped ends, either backed or not, take the second place. A few examples exhibit the Helwan retouch (fig. 6: 13). The other tools include borers (fig. 6: 14), burins (fig. 6: 15), side- and end-scrapers (fig. 6: 16), notches, and denticulates as well as retouched blades/bladelets and flakes. One retouched flake was made from a piece of obsidian piece (fig. 6: 17), and a small number of chopper-chopping tools have also been collected (fig. 6: 18). Ground stone artifacts made from basalt, sandstone, and limestone have also been recovered at Dederiyeh Cave (fig. 7: 14-18). The closest nearby outcrops of basalt are in the Afrin


Table 3 – Late Epipaleolithic retouched tools from Dederiyeh Cave excavated in the 1990 and 2003 to 2007 field seasons. Category Geometrics: lunate lunate (Helwan) rectangle trapeze triangle scalene triangle Non-geometrics: backed double-backed oblique truncation arched truncation Backed blades/bladelets: pointed straight arched double-backed Backed flake Glossed blades/bladelets: lunate backed backed (Helwan) plain Borers: on blade/bladelet on flake Burins: on blade/bladelet angle dihedral transverse truncation on flake angle dihedral transverse truncation Truncations: on blade/bladelet on flake Side scrapers: on blade/bladelet on flake End scrapers: on blade/bladelet on flake Notches: on blade/bladelet on flake Denticulates: on blade/bladelet on flake Splintered pieces: on blade/bladelet on flake Retouched blades/bladelets : fine regular Retouched flakes: fine regular Chopper/Chopping tools Hammers Tool manufacturing debris Tool fragments Obsidian retouched flake Total

Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3

Top Layer

Total

8 2 0 0 0 1

44 4 0 1 1 2

152 6 1 3 0 0

46 1 0 0 2 0

250 13 1 4 3 3

2 1 1 1 0

3 1 0 0 0

11 0 13 0 2

4 0 2 0 0

20 2 16 1 2

0 0 0 0 0

2 1 0 0 0

3 22 2 4 1

1 5 2 2 0

6 28 4 6 1

2 0 2 2

1 0 1 3

6 1 0 8

5 2 0 0

14 3 3 13

2 0

2 0

4 3

4 0

12 3

0 0 0 0

2 0 0 0

2 0 3 3

0 0 1 1

4 0 4 4

1 1 0 0

0 0 0 0

4 1 0 2

0 0 1 1

5 2 1 3

0 0

1 1

11 1

0 1

12 3

0 4

0 2

0 4

0 4

0 14

0 0

5 2

4 5

4 2

13 9

1 1

3 1

12 9

9 2

25 13

1 1

3 2

8 12

6 1

18 16

0 1

1 0

2 0

0 2

3 3

5 2

8 7

31 30

26 10

70 49

1 1 2 1 2 0 0 49

2 6 0 0 6 1 0 119

5 27 1 0 27 15 0 461

4 6 3 1 9 6 1 177

12 40 6 2 44 22 1 806




17

Fig. 7 – Late Epipaleolithic ground stone and bone artifacts from Dederiyeh Cave. 1-2) Bone bi-points with incisions; 3) bone point; 4-7) tusk beads; 8) stone bead; 9) perforated marine mollusk; 10-11) bone beads with geometric incisions; 12) bone pendant; 13) bone sickle handle with black pigments; 14) basalt ground slab; 15) basalt hand stone; 16) limestone cup stained with ocher; 17) basalt cup-mortar; 18) sandstone pestle stained with ocher. Phase 1 (14), Phase 2 (3), Phase 3 (1-2, 4-13, 15), and Top Layer (16-18).




18

Table 4 – Lengths of complete lunates from Dederiyeh Cave excavated in the 1990 and 2003 to 2007 field seasons. Period

Average (mm)

Standard deviation

Maximum

Minimum

Top Layer (n=22)

28.9

6.12

20

44

Phase 3 (n=47)

29.9

12.33

18

48

Phase 2 (n=10)

29.4

5.06

18

34

Phase 1 (n=6)

27.7

6.41

18

34

Valley at Jabal Kurd Dar, ca 10 km away from the cave. Sandstone pebbles are also present in the same valley, while limestone is abundantly available locally. Typologically, the ground stone tools from Dederiyeh Cave are dominated by slabs (fig. 7: 14) and hand stones (fig. 7: 15). Pestles (fig. 7: 18) are rare, and deep and bedrock mortars have not been recovered to date. When mortars are recovered, they are either small pebble or cup mortars quite small, and the concavity of their functional surface is rather shallow (fig. 7: 16-17). These stone tools are often also stained with reddish ocher, suggesting that they were used for processing pigment. The bone industry was simple, dominated by pointed tools such as bi-points (fig. 7: 1-2), points (fig. 7: 3), and needles. The small bi-points comprise narrow splints of long bone between 3 cm and 4 cm in length. These bones retain midpoint incisions made by stone tools that probably functioned as attachment points for strings, which indicates they might have been used as fishing gear or buttons (fig. 7: 1-2). Similar tools have also been commonly collected from sites in the Natufian homeland and surrounding regions (Campana 1989). Rare but important examples of sickle handles are also known from Dederiyeh; these implements exhibit a narrow slit along one edge, which is either straight or curved outwards. The longest example yet recovered is 21 cm in length (fig. 7: 13), bears a 10 cm slit into which two or three sickle elements could have been inserted, and is decorated with black painted lines. The other artifacts recovered from this cave include small ornaments made from organic and non-organic materials. Most common among these are tusk shell beads made from species within the family Dentaliidae (i.e., Antalis, Dentalium) (fig. 7: 4-7). This type of tusk shell is available on the Mediterranean coast of Northwestern Syria, some 80 km to the west of Dederiyeh Cave. A few ornaments have also been collected which are made from Dentalium clavus and D. reevei (fig. 7: 6), species which are only found on the coast of the Red Sea, up to 1,000 km to the south (Sofie Debruyne, personal comm.). All of these tusk beads range in length between 2 mm and 3 mm, and no larger specimens similar to those common in the Southern Levant Early Natufian have so far been identified. In

addition to tusk shells, marine mollusks (Nassarius) from the Mediterranean Sea and land snails were also used in bead manufacturing (fig. 7: 9), while stone and bone ornaments have also been collected (fig. 7: 8, 10-12). These ornaments include barrel-shaped pieces with incised geometric lines that are common in the south (Major 2013). Natufian sites often contain associated evidence for human burial. Excavations at Dederiyeh Cave revealed an isolated human skeletal element on the floor of the burnt Construction 1 house (Kondo et al. 2011). This bone is a hemi-mandible that includes a well-preserved right ramus. The developmental stage of surviving teeth within this jaw bone indicates that it belongs to a juvenile individual, between six and nine years of age. Despite the absence of pit or related features, its location close to the curvature wall suggests intentional placement as many of the other finds described above, including ornamental beads and sickle handles, were also collected along the same wall. Analyses of botanical and faunal remains have so far only been carried out on materials from Construction 1. The excellent preservation of these remains due to burning provides an exceptional opportunity to study the subsistence strategies of Late Epipaleolithic communities in this region. Preliminary research has revealed an overwhelmingly large number of Pistacia atlantica and P. palaestina nutshells (Tanno et al. 2013), together with cereals as an important dietary constituent. Emmer and einkorn, absent from Abu Hureyra (Hillman 2001), are dominant at Dederiyeh Cave, which suggests that the plant economy here is comparable to that of other Early Neolithic sites in the same region (Tanno et al. 2013: 86). In contrast, the animal remains collected mostly comprise woodland species, including common records of boar, aurochs, and tortoise. It is noteworthy that the remains of gazelle, which are often dominant at Natufian sites across the Southern Levant and Middle Euphrates (Legge 1975), are rare in this cave (Lionel Gourichon, personal comm.). The presence of additional animal species, including red deer, wildcat, and red fox, point to a woodland rather than steppe environment, while the remains of birds and fish are also present.

THE LATE EPIPALAEOLITHIC EVIDENCE OF DEDERIYEH IN REGIONAL CONTEXT As discussed above, the Late Epipaleolithic artifacts collected from Dederiyeh Cave cover a period of occupation between at least the late 15th millennium BP and the beginning




of the 13th millennium. While the lack of radiocarbon dates for the Top Layer prohibits a determination for the end of occupation, the absence of building structures after Phase 3, which has been dated to ca 13 ka, likely suggests that substantial cave occupation ended at the beginning of the Younger Dryas period. The Natufian homeland in the Southern Levant has been dated to between approximately 15 ka and 11.5 ka; this time period comprises the Early and Late Natufian, with the boundary between the two dated at 13.6 ka to 13.7 ka. Previous work has also divided the Late Natufian into two stages delineated at ca 12.8 ka (Henry 2013; Grossman 2013); thus, based on this chronological framework, the Late Epipaleolithic occupations of Dederiyeh Cave were likely temporally equivalent to the Early (Phases 1 and 2) and Late (Phase 3 and Top Layer) Natufian. Although some temporal variability is also evident (see below), archaeological records from these periods are nevertheless consistent with a single entity without a break or replacement. A major question concerns whether, or not, cultural assemblages from the Northern Levant, including those from Dederiyeh Cave, can be assigned to the Natufian (Moore 2000; Boyd 2016). This question is particularly important for Dederiyeh Cave because occupation at this site began in the period equivalent to the Early Natufian, a key initial discovery from Northern Syria. This fact provides a new dimension within which Late Epipaleolithic cultural evidence from the Northern Levant can be analyzed from a long-term perspective. Prior to excavations at Dederiyeh Cave, the available evidence bearing on this issue was limited to the Late Natufian period; critically, the oldest phase of occupation at Abu Hureyra (referred to Phase 1 by Moore et al. 2000) corresponds to the most recent architectural phase at Dederiyeh Cave (referred to Phase 3 in this paper). The excavators of Abu Hureyra have argued that the Middle Euphrates steppe, ca 150 km to the southeast of Dederiyeh Cave, falls outside the Natufian cultural sphere (Moore 1991; Olszewski 1991). At the same time, Late Epipaleolithic materials from the 15th and 14th millennia BP from Tell Qaramel, just 40 km to the east of Dederiyeh Cave within almost the same environment, have been described as displaying “many important differences from the Kebaran and Natufian traditions” (Mazurowski et al. 2009: 778), although details have not been published. The current consensus is that indisputable Natufian assemblages within the Northern Levant are known from Jeftelik, near Homs; classic elements of this culture, including Helwan lunates, decorated pebbles, and deep mortars, have been recovered from circular stone buildings (Rodríguez Rodríguez et al. 2013). Two radiocarbon dates sug-


19

gest an age for this site between 14.2 ka and 13.8 ka, almost contemporaneous with Phase 2 occupation at Dederiyeh Cave. Finds from Moghr el-Ahwal in Northern Lebanon (Garrard and Yazbeck 2013), from Baaz Rockshelter (Napierala et al. 2013), and from Kaus Kozah Cave (Hillgruber 2013) near Yabrud, have also been assigned with certainty to the Natufian. They exhibit strong similarities in their material culture to the Mount Carmel and Galilee regions; Moghr el-Ahwal has been dated to the Early Natufian (between ca 14.4 ka and 13.9 ka), while the Baaz and Kaus Kozah sites have been assigned to the Late Natufian (between ca 13.0 ka and 12.8 ka). Among these sites, the discovery of classic Early Natufian at Jeftelik is interesting because it indicates that the Natufian homeland extended to the Homs region, or that this culture spread northwards earlier than has been previously assumed. Dederiyeh Cave, however, is situated more than 200 km farther to the north than Jeftelik. Moreover, the Dederiyeh occupations started earlier. The Abu Hureyra excavators listed a number of differences between the Middle Euphrates (Abu Hureyra) and the Southern Levant. First, flake production was more prevalent in the Middle Euphrates region, while blades and bladelets are more common in the south. Second, characteristic core tools, such as gouges and axes, occur in the north, whereas robust borers, picks, and massive scrapers characterize the south. Third, considerably larger lunates are found in the north. Fourth, open dishes and hand stones within the ground stone assemblage are characteristic of the north, while deep mortars and pestles are found in the south. Fifth, naturalistic artistic objects are absent from the north. Six, pit houses that are not made from stone are found in the north while stone-lined architecture characterizes the south. Seven, burial sites have not been recorded in the north (Moore 1991: 289 and 2000; Olszewski 1991 and 2000). Based on these and other differences, excavators have concluded that the cultural entity present at Abu Hureyra cannot be considered Natufian, but must represent an independent cultural sphere distributed across the Northern inland Levant. Interestingly, the archaeological records from Dederiyeh Cave, located to the north of Abu Hureyra, fill a large part of the gap between the two regions discussed above. For example, the architecture at Dederiyeh Cave closely resembles Natufian buildings in the south, best documented at Ain Mallaha (Valla 1988; Haklay and Gopher 2015). At the same time, evidence of human burial at Dederiyeh is limited, but nevertheless falls within the wide range of practices thus far documented from the Southern Levant (Valla et al. 1999). The flaked stone industry seen at Dederiyeh is also undoubtedly related to


20

similar blade-bladelet production in Natufian assemblages to the south. Among small finds, comparable ornamental pieces can be identified, including tusk shells and incised beads. The decorated bone handles for sickle elements are another example of artistic items not present at Abu Hureyra. Nevertheless, it is also important to note that the entirety of this gap cannot be filled with evidence from Dederiyeh Cave, especially with regard to lithic components. The use of lunates larger than those in the Southern Levant, suggested by data from Abu Hureyra, is confirmed by records from Dederiyeh Cave (table 4); indeed, variation in the sizes of lunates is important for identifying the different kinds of hunting gear between the two regions, which, in both cases, was a major material assistance enabling the exploitation of animal resources. Dederiyeh Cave assemblages do not include some of the tools that are often recovered from the Southern Levant, including characteristic borers and picks (Bar-Yosef 1998: 164), while in terms of ground stone assemblages, the absence of deep mortars at Dederiyeh is also marked. On the contrary, ground slabs and hand stones are common, a key similarity with Abu Hureyra, while the absence of bedrock mortars, one hallmark of the Natufian in the south (Rosenberg et al. 2014), has also been noted. One final notable difference is the lack of long tusk beads in Dederiyeh ornaments; the manufacturing of these beads was common in the Southern Levant during the Early Natufian. In order to interpret these data, it is pertinent to refer to a recent study that was carried out on the Southern Levant, which emphasizes the large variety in material culture, even within regions of the Southern Levant, and which has noted that the Natufian culture was not originally monolithic (Belfer-Cohen and Goring-Morris 2013). Variation has been recognized even between individual settlements; as kinshipbased communities likely maintained their own local traditions or customs at settlements, it is not surprising to observe a large variation within this period, especially given the fact that increasing sedentism influenced the segmentation of cultural affinities. Thus, differences between cultural traits seen at sites in the Southern Levant, at Dederiyeh Cave (coastal Northern Levant), and at Abu Hureyra (inland Northern Levant) are not surprising. It is likely that the contrasts advocated between typical Early Natufian sites in the Southern Levant (e.g., Ain Mallaha and Kebara) and the later site of Abu Hureyra, might represent the two extremes of overall Natufian variation, between which the case of Dederiyeh might find its place. Then, should we mix the cultural records of the entire Levant as a collective under the single label of Natufian without


first attempting to identify local traditions? We suggest that the cultural traditions at Dederiyeh Cave were closer to those at Abu Hureyra, representing one group on the Northern Levant. It is interesting to note the similarities in lithic components between the two sites situated in different environmental settings. In spite of marked faunal and floral differences, the Dederiyeh and Abu Hureyra sites are similar in manufacturing large lunates for hunting and ground slabs for processing plants. If deep mortars were related to rituals (Rosenberg et al. 2014), their absence from these sites suggests that the Northern Levant was situated outside the province where ritualistic practices utilized these objects. Other differences, found in the blank production technology and architecture, might have arisen due to variations in local conditions or chronological differences between the sites. There are non-dated sites in the Middle Euphrates contemporaneous to the early phases of Dederiyeh Cave. If the use of the Helwan retouch, unknown at Abu Hureyra, indicates an earlier date then the Nahr el Homr (Boerma et Roodenberg 1977) and Tell Kosak Shamali (Nishiaki 2001) sites, not far from Abu Hureyra, could belong to that period. Dating these sites will prove important so that better comparisons can be made between Northwest Syria and the Middle Euphrates. The origin of the cultural entity at Dederiyeh Cave, whether or not this is referred to as the northern Natufian or the northern facies of Natufian, is unknown. Further efforts are needed to discover and date more assemblages contemporaneous with the 15th millennium BP, such as Phase 1 at Dederiyeh Cave. At the same time, the increasing discoveries of the Middle Epipaleolithic sites in the Northern Levant, which contain large lunate-like bladelets referred to as arch-backed or curved pointed bladelets (Kadowaki and Nishiaki 2016), may contribute to this issue in the future. Regardless of origin, the Dederiyeh Cave community, as well as probably that at Abu Hureyra, apparently maintained close contact with areas to the south. A size reduction trend in lunates over time, previously documented in the south, has also been noted in the Middle Euphrates (Olszewski 1986 and 1990). Results show that the average lengths of lunates from Dederiyeh Cave are slightly larger (between 28 mm and 30 mm; table 4) than those of Abu Hureyra (between 25 mm and 28 mm), confirming this chronological trend. A comparable temporal change can also be seen in the use of the Helwan retouch, which decreased through time in the south (see Olszewski 1990). Although the use of Helwan retouch is less common at Dederiyeh Cave, this method was used and declined from the early to the late phases also in the north




21

Fig. 8 – Chronological changes in the use of Helwan retouching for lunates (light gray) and glossed blades (dark gray) at Dederiyeh Cave; data from Table 3.

(fig. 8). Another parallel change may be in architecture. Large semi-subterranean buildings comparable to Construction 3 of Dederiyeh (Phase 1) are more commonly found in the Early Natufian in the south (e.g., Valla 1988; Edwards 2013; Haklay and Gopher 2015), a tandem change that may indicate that close social ties were maintained with communities in this region. The presence of tusk beads made of Red Sea shells further corroborates this relationship.

CONCLUSIONS Late Epipaleolithic archaeological records from Dederiyeh Cave can be dated to between the late 15th millennium BP and the beginning of the 13th millennium. The existence of occupational evidence contemporaneous with the Early Natufian is important because it provides the first opportunity to assess this cultural entity within the region back to the earliest stages of its development. The results of this study on cultural assemblages reveal a number of similarities and differences to the Natufian in the southern homeland. The Dederiyeh Cave assemblage resembles that of Abu Hureyra on the Middle


Euphrates, particularly with regard to lithic industries, and can probably be defined as a Natufian variant, which can perhaps be referred to as the Northern Natufian or the northern facies of Natufian. The results of this study also demonstrate that occurrences of the Late Epipaleolithic ‘Natufian-like’ cultural entity in the Northern Levant were not due to expansion of this culture from its homeland during a late phase, as has previously been suggested. Indeed, if this expansion did take place, it must have been in the earliest stages of the Early Natufian period. Alternatively, it may have derived from the local Middle Epipaleolithic. This question remains to be answered in the future. Another important conclusion of the present study is that the Late Epipaleolithic community of Dederiyeh Cave maintained close links with the Natufian culture to the south. This is evidenced by long-distance trade in Dentalium shell ornaments as well as changes in lithic manufacturing trends, including a reduction in the use of Helwan lunates. A similar cultural process took place in the south. However, to further characterize the evidence from Dederiyeh Cave as well as variations in contemporaneous assemblages from the Northern Levant, more data will be required from sites of equivalent Early Natufian period, especially from the Middle Euphrates



22

Yoshihiro NISHIAKI Minoru YONEDA

steppe. To date, such sites have been considered representative of the Northern Levant just based on evidence from the period equivalent to the Late Natufian.

The University Museum The University of Tokyo Hongo 7-3-1, Bunkyo Tokyo 113-0033 – JAPAN [email protected] [email protected]

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We are deeply grateful for the support provided to the Dederiyeh excavation project by the Directorate-General of Antiquities and Museum, Damascus. We also wish to sincerely thank Bassam Jamous and Michel al-Maqdissi who provided all the support necessary for our fieldwork, as well as Lionel Gourichon (CNRS, France) for assisting with our study of faunal remains and Sofie Debruyne (Flanders Heritage Agency, Belgium) for help with our shell ornament analysis. Financial support for this research was provided by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology of Japan (#22101002; #16H06408).

Youssef KANJOU Institute for Ancient Near Eastern Studies Tubingen University, Burgsteige 11 Schloss Hohentübingen, Tübingen 72070 – GERMANY [email protected]

Takeru AKAZAWA Research Institute Kochi University of Technology Miyanokuchi 185, Kami Kochi 782-8502 – JAPAN [email protected]

BIBLIOGRAPHY Akazawa T. and Muhesen S. (eds.) 2002 The Neanderthal Burials: Excavations of the Dederiyeh Cave, Afrin, Syria. Kyoto: International Research Center for Japanese Studies. Akazawa T. and Nishiaki Y. 2017 The Palaeolithic cultural sequence of Dederiyeh Cave. In: Enzel Y. and Bar-Yosef O. (eds.), Quaternary of the Levant. Environments, Climate Change, and Humans: 307-314. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Akazawa T., Dodo Y., Muhesen S., Abdul-Salam A., Abe Y., Kondo O. and Mizoguchi Y. 1993 The Neanderthal remains from Dederiyeh Cave, Syria: interim report. Anthropological Science 101,4: 361-387. Akazawa T., K anjo Y., Nishiaki Y., Nakata H., Yoneda M., Kondo O., Tanno K. and Muhesen S. 2009 The 2007-2008 seasons’ excavations at Dederiyeh Cave, Afrin, Northwest Syria. Chronique Archéologique en Syrie 4: 31-38. Bar-Yosef O. 1998 The Natufian culture in the Levant, threshold of the origins of agriculture. Evolutionary Anthropology 159: 159-177. Bar-Yosef O. and Belfer-Cohen A. 1989 The origins of sedentism and farming communities in the Levant. Journal of World Prehistory 3,4: 447-498. Bar-Yosef O. and Valla F. R. (eds.) 1991 The Natufian Culture in the Levant. Ann Arbor (International Monographs in Prehistory, Archaeological Series 1). 2013 Natufian Foragers in the Levant. Terminal Pleistocene Social Changes in Western Asia. Ann Arbor (International Monographs in Prehistory, Archaeological Series 19).

Belfer-Cohen A. 1991

The Natufian in the Levant. Annual Review of Anthropology 20: 167-186.

Belfer-Cohen A. and Goring-Morris A.N. 2013 Breaking the mould: phases and facies in the Natufian of the Mediterranean zone. In: Bar-Yosef O. and Valla F. R. (eds.): 543-561. Bocquentin F. and Bar-Yosef O. 2004 Early Natufian remains: evidence for physical conflict from Mt. Carmel, Israel. Journal of Human Evolution 47: 19-23. Boerma J.A.K. et Roodenberg J.J. 1977 Une deuxième industrie épipaléolithique sur le Nahr el Homr. Palaeohistoria 19 : 7-17. Boyd B. 2016

Abu Hureyra 1 in northwest Syria: “periphery” no more. In: Lillios K.T. and Chazan M. (eds.), Fresh Fields and Pastures New: Papers Presented in Honor of Andrew M.T. Moore: 11-39. Leiden: Sidestone Press.

Bronk R amsey C. 2013 OxCal 4.2. Manual [online] available at: https://c14.arch.ox.ac. uk/oxcalhelp/hlp_contents.html (2013). Campana D.V. 1989 Natufian and Protoneolithic Bone Tools: The Manufacture and Use of Bone Implements in the Zagros and the Levant. Oxford (BAR Int. Ser. 494). Cauvin M.-C. 1991 Du Natoufien au Levant nord ? Jayroud et Mureybet (Syrie). In: Bar-Yosef O. and Valla F. R. (eds.): 295-312.




Conard N.J., Bretzke K., Deckers K., K andel A.W., Masri M., Napierala H., R iehl S. and Stahlshmidt M. 2013

Natufian lifeways in the eastern foothills of the Anti-Lebanon Mountains. In: Bar-Yosef O. and Valla F. R. (eds.): 1-16.

Moore A.M.T. 1991 2000

Edwards P.C. (ed.) 2013

Wadi Hammeh 27, an Early Natufian Settlement at Pella in Jordan. Leiden and Boston: Brill.

The Natufian of Moghr el-Ahwal in the Qadisha Valley, northern Lebanon. In: Bar-Yosef O. and Valla F. R. (eds.): 17-27.

Grosman L. 2013

The Natufian chronological scheme – new insights and their implications. In: Bar-Yosef O. and Valla F. R. (eds.): 622-637.

Haklay G. and Gopher A. 2015

2000

2013

2013

The Natufian and the Younger Dryas. In: Bar-Yosef O. and Valla F. R. (eds.): 584-610.

The Natufian of southwestern Syria sites in the Damascus province. In: Bar-Yosef O. and Valla F. R. (eds.): 28-44.

New evidence of Lateglacial cereal cultivation at Abu Hureyra on the Euphrates. The Holocene 11,4: 383-393.

2011b

K adowaki S. and Nishiaki Y. 2016

New Epipalaeolithic assemblages from the middle Euphrates and the implications for technological and settlement trends in the northeastern Levant. Quaternary International 396: 121-137.

1986

2011

A child hemi-mandible associated with an Epi-Paleolithic Natufian pit dwelling from Dederiyeh cave, Syria. Abstracts of AAPA Poster and Podium Presentations. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 144: 190.

1988

The fauna of Tell Abu Hureyra: preliminary analysis. In: Moore A.M.T., Hillman G.C., Legge A.J., The Excavation of Tell Abu Hureyra in Syria: A preliminary report. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 41: 74-76.

2000

1991

Legge A.J.

Major J. 2013

Mazurowski R.F. and K anjou Y. (eds.) 2012

Tell Qaramel 1999–2007. Protoneolithic and Early Pre-Pottery Neolithic Settlement in Northern Syria. Warsaw: Polish Centre of Mediterranean Archaeology.

A Reassessment of Average Lunate Length as a Chronological Marker. Paléorient 12,1: 39-44. The North Syrian Late Epipalaeolithic and its relationship to the Natufian Complex. Levant 20,1: 127-137. The lithic evidence from Abu Hureyra 1 in Syria. In: BarYosef O. and Valla F. R. (eds.), The Natufian Culture in the Levant: 433-444. Ann Arbor: International Monographs in Prehistory (Archaeological Series 1). The chipped stone. In: Moore A.M.T., H illman G.C. and Legge A.J. (eds.): 133-154.

R eimer P.J., Bard E., Bayliss A., Beck J.W., Blackwell P.G., R amsey C.B. and Grootes P.M. 2013

Art items from Wadi Hammeh 27. In: Bar-Yosef O. and Valla F. R. (eds.): 349-381.

Recent progress in Lower and Middle Palaeolithic research at Dederiyeh Cave, Northwest Syria. In: Le T ensorer J.-M., Jagher R. and Otte M. (eds.), The Lower and Middle Palaeolithic in the Middle East and Neighbouring Regions: 67-76. Liège: Université de Liège (ERAUL 126). Newly discovered Late Epipalaeolithic lithic assemblages from Dederiyeh Cave, the northern Levant. In: H ealey E ., Campbell S. and Maeda O. (eds.), The State of the Stone. Terminologies, Continuities and Contexts in Near Eastern Lithics: 79-87. Berlin: ex oriente (SENEPSE 13).

Olszewski D.I.

Kondo O., K anjou Y., F ukase H., Ishida H., Nishiaki Y. and Akazawa T.

1975

The Palaeolithic artifacts from Tell Kosak Shamali. In: Nishiaki Y. and Matsutani T. (eds.), Tell Kosak Shamali The Archaeological Investigations on the Upper Euphrates, Syria. Vol. 1: Chalcolithic Architecture and the Earlier Prehistoric Remains: 165-178. Oxford: Oxbow Books and The University of Tokyo (UMUT Monograph 1).

Nishiaki Y., K anjo Y., Muhesen S. and Akazawa T. 2011a

Hillman G., Hedges R., Moore A., Colledge S. and Pettitt P. 2001

Fish in the desert? The Younger Dryas and its influence on the paleoenvironment at Baaz Rockshelter, Syria. In: Bar-Yosef O. and Valla F. R. (eds.): 73-82.

Nishiaki Y. 2001

A new look at Shelter 131/51 in the Natufian site of Eynan (AinMallaha), Israel. PLoS ONE 10,7: e0130121.

Hillgruber K.F.

Village on the Euphrates: From Foraging to Farming at Abu Hureyra. London, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Napierala H., Van Neer W., K andel A.W., Peters J., Uerpmann H.P. and Conard N.J.

Henry D.O. 2013

Abu Hureyra 1 and the antecedents of agriculture on the Middle Euphrates. In: Bar-Yosef O. and Valla F. R. (eds.): 277-294. The significance of Abu Hureyra. In: Moore A.M.T., Hillman G.C. and Legge A.J.: 475-510.

Moore A.M.T., Hillman G.C. and Legge A.J.

Garrard A.N. and Yazbeck C. 2013

23

IntCal13 and Marine13 radiocarbon age calibration curves 0–50,000 years cal BP. Radiocarbon 55,4: 1869-1887.

Rodríguez Rodríguez A., Haïdar-Boustani M., GonzálesUrquijo J., Ibáñez J.J., Al-Maqdissi M., Terradas X. and Zapata L. 2013

The early Natufian site of Jeftelik (Homs Gap, Syria). In: BarYosef O. and Valla F. R. (eds.): 61-72.

Mazurowski R.F., Michczyķska D.J., Pazdur A. and Piotrowska N.

Rosenberg D., Nadel D., Belfer-Cohen A., Goring-Morris A.N., Bocquentin F., Conard N.J., Hayden B., Ibáñez J.J., Maher L., Nishiaki Y., Olszewski D.I. and R ichter T.

2009

2014

Chronology of the early Pre-Pottery Neolithic settlement Tell Qaramel, northern Syria, in the light of radiocarbon dating. Radiocarbon 51,2: 771-781.


The sounds of pounding: boulder mortars and their significance to Natufian burial customs. Current Anthropology 55,6: 784812.



24

Tanno K., Willcox G., Muhesen S., Nishiaki Y., K anjou Y. and Akazawa T. 2013

Preliminary results from analyses of charred plant remains from a burnt Natufian building at Dederiyeh Cave in Northwest Syria. In: Bar-Yosef O. and Valla F. R. (eds.): 83-87.

Valla F. R. 1988 Aspects du sol de l’abri 131 de Mallaha (Eynan). Paléorient 14,2 : 283-296.

Valla F. R., K halaily H., Samuelian N., Bocquentin F., Delage C., Valentin B., Plisson H., R abinovitch R. et BelferCohen A. 1999 Le Natoufien final et les nouvelles fouilles à Mallaha (Eynan), Israël 1996-1997. Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 28 : 105-176. Yaroshevich A., K aufman D., Nuzhnyy D., Bar-Yosef O. and Weinstein-Evron M. 2013 Variability of lunates and changes in projectile weapons technology during the Natufian. In: Bar-Yosef O. and Valla F. R. (eds.): 671-684.
