Here too, there is the problematic nature of the Rosh Horesha site. However, at Abu Salem, Horowitz (1977) reported the presence of 5% AP (Olea europeae,.
1991. In The Natufian Culture in the Levant, edited by 0. Bar-Yosef and F. R. Valla, pp. 173-234. International Monographs in Prehi story. Archaeological Series vol. l, Ann Arbor.
The Harifian of the Southern Levant
Nigel Goring-Morris Israel Antiquities Authority, P.O.B. 586, Jemsalem, Israel
Introduction Considerable theoretical efforts have been devoted to the systematization and hierarchical rankingofthematerialremainsrecoveredfrom prehistoric settings (Clarke 1968, 1972; Henry 1989). Yet the realities of the record on the ground have rendered the construction of convincingly detailed models of the behavioural patterns and social structure of actual prehistoric population groupings, along the lines apparent in the ethnographic record, fmstratingly difficulr to achieve. Although discovered and first defined barely two decades ago (Marks, 1973; Bar-Yosef et a/. 1976; Marks and Scott 1976; Scott 1977; Goring-Morris 1987), the Epipalaeolithic Harifian of the Negev and Sinai, representing a lateral facies of the Late/Final Natufian, perhaps comes as close to providing a comprehensive view of a prehistoric hunter-gatherer "tribe" as any other in the Southern Levant. Though geographically peripheral to subsequent mainstream developments further to the north, ultimately it may nevertheless have played a crucial role in those transitions (Fig. 1). The present paper is intended to provide a brief overview of the current status of the Harifian from the perspectives of palaeo-environmental setting, geographical range, chronology, traditions concerning the material remains, and models of the subsistence adaptations. Many aspects of the above have been described elsewhere, and the reader is referred to them for more detailed treatments (Goring-Morris 1987, 1990; Scott 1977). An attempt is then made to place the Harifian within its broader setting, most particularly in respect to its relationship with the Natufian, and the transition to the Neolithic, when major adaptive shifts occured in the region.
Palaeo-environmental Setting Relatively little direct evidence has been forthcoming from the Negev and Sinai concerning environmental conditions during the period under consideration, and some appears to be contradictory. However, it can be stated that a generally aggradational regime is indicated by the geomorphological evidence in the Negev highlands, where loess accumulation seems to have occured before, during, and after the occupation ofHarifian sites. In the western Negev and northern Sinai Harifian sites were atop dunes ofTerminal Pleistocene oate, which were then and shortI y thereafter continuing to accumulate (Goring- Morris and Goldberg in press). The local ponds and playas that had been created somewhat earlier, about the beginning of the Epipalaeolithic by the encroachment of dunefields, appear to have mostly silted up and been breached by the time of the Hariflan.
173
Indirect evidence of increasing dessication could possibly be indil\\I cated by shifts in the age profiles of prey in the later Harifian highland sites, when compared with the local Late = s Cyprv Natufian in the vicinity (see below). ~ However, the data are equivocal on various grounds; it is unclear as to the ..,0 degree that the Rosh Horesha site faunal assemblage really is only Late N atufian and not mixed with a Harifian occupation (Goring-Morris 1987; 1989a; Marks and Larson 1977; Hietala 1989). Site densities and intensity of occupation are other lines of evidence that could and perhaps should be taken to infer increasing aridification during this period in the area (Goring- Morris 1989b; Goldberg and Bar-Yosef, 1982). Here again, however, when considered independently, the meth" ! odological pitfall of circular argumentation may be raised. The pollen evidence from the sites themselves is also open to cri.... \ "' • 0 #em \ k~-~=---' tique as to the degree that samples from relatively shallow settings in sites Fig. 1. Map of the SouLhern Levant, showing Lhe disLribuLion of Final in the semi-arid and arid regions of the N
Natufian (closed circles), Harifian (hatched), and PPNA (stars) sites.
Levant are indeed representative and coeval with the occupations. Here too, there is the problematic nature of the Rosh Horesha site. However, at Abu Salem, Horowitz (1977) reported the presence of 5% AP (Olea europeae, Amygdalus, Juniperus, Quercus, Pinus, and Pistacia), 46% Chenopods, and 19% Graminae and Cyperaceae including 2% cereal grasses. These results, if valid, indicate both a wider range of vegetation than at present, and a more heavily vegetated landscape during the Harifian. The imprints of fossil lichens on limestone at Ram at Harif also indicate more humid conditions than today (Danin, 1983). At present the most solid evidence for environmental conditions during the Harifian appears to be provided by the quite securely dated but somewhat distant Jordan Valley Huleh pollen cores, situated some 250 km to the north (van Zeist and Bottema 1982; and Baruch and Bottema this volume). The two well-synchronised and broadly simi lar Huleh cores display increasingly more humid conditions from about 15,000 BP, which peak ca. 11,000 BP, followed by a trend to an increasingly dry regime, with a trough at ca. 10,500 BP. Thereupon, a slightly more humid environment prevailed, albeit with a fluctuation, till ca. 9,500 BP, when conditions were again drier.
174
-··· ;,.;
~
.:·:~ , • .t,
MEDITERRANEAN · "'. ~
.... __.
·~~' .~ .....:.::..
... ,.:.::::
=· :··=.~~ ir:; · ·~·. :-.. .';:.:::;.;:::::;;.·
.. .. Fig. 2. Map of the Negev and Sinai, showing the location of Harifian and related sites: circled stars- residential bases; stars - hunting camps; circles - sporadic finds. 1, Har Harif area; 2, Ira 25; 3, Upper Besor 6; 4 , Har Arod; 5, Ein Qadis D; 6, Shunera sites; 7, Nahal Lavan sites; 8, Bir Malhi; 9, Lagama IV; 10, Mushabi sites.
Correlation with the chronological framework for the Harifian (see below) would thus seem to indicate that conditions were briefly drier during the Late Natufian/Early Harifian transition, followed by a more humid climate which gradually deteriorated, reaching a nadir about the time of the Harifian demise, although better chronological resolution is required.
Geographical Range The Negev and Sinai together encompass some 72,000 sq km. They are amongst the most thoroughly investigated areas of the Levant, although only perhaps slightly under 1.5% of this has been systematically smveyed. To date some 22 Harifian sites have been reported, with additional numbers of isolated or small find-spots (Fig. 2 and Table 1). The distribution of sites corresponds to the presently more favourably endowed, diffused semi-shrub vegetation associations - the IranoTuranian and the more humid areas of the Saharo-Arabian. In this context it is of note that two-thirds of the Negev and Sinai today receive less than 50 mm precipitation per annum. The present evidence indicates that the Harifian range was perhaps on the order of 20,000 30,000 sq km (Figs. 1 and 2). Considerable inter-site variability in location, size and content are apparent and described at greater length below. Sites with architecture are restricted to the IranoTuranian highland zone of the central and northern Negev, while more areally restricted and ephemeral campsites are located in the northern Sinai and western Negev lowland dunefields. In the
175
Table 1a. Archaeological and Topographic Attributes ofHarifian Sites. (Note: straighteners are shaft straighteners.)
...~ ~
Abu Salem RamatHarif Shluhat Harif Rom am Shluhat Romam Ira25 Maaleh Ramon East Maaleh Ramon West Har Arod Upper Besor 6 Ein Qadis B Shunera VI
:a ~
~ ~
80.
'=' c;)
~
u
~
Cl)
+ + + ? ? ? + +
+ + + + + + + +
+ + + + + ? ? ?
? +?
+ ?
? ?
c;)
!a ::I
t:? c ..c bl) II)
~
~
+ + ?
""0. + + + +
+ ? ? +
?
...
II)
·~ Cl)
.~
....
~
~
8 ..c u
0 ::I C1'
+ + + + + ? + +
+ +
? ?
? ?
+ + + ? ? + +
? ?
~
~ .....
~ .d
·~
Cl)
~
+ + + + + + + + + + ?
+ + + ? ?
? ?
.........
'= .::::il)
.........
8 .........
"0
a
c;)
~
·a
]
980 980 970 950 970 490 700 700 730 490 390 320
600 100+ 500 100+ 500 100+ 250 10+ 150? 50 200 50 200 50 200 50 100 5 150 ?10 ?200 ?10+ 200 10
-
..J
a:
-
UJ
a:
::> :X:
0.
- >
>.: zo
~
a: u
...
z ~
m >-
Ul:X:
o a;
UJ
UJ
a:
::> :>::
t
10
f ....
Fig. 3. Means of C14 dates for sites, phases, and entities from the 13th- lOth millenia BP by geographical area in the Levant. Note that clearly aberrant dates have been excluded. Early NatufWt in the south based on W. Judayid and Beidha; and for the centre on Mallaha, Wadi Hammeh, Hayonim Cave, el Wad, and Kebara. Nwnber of dates are indicated.
178
Fig. 4. Map of the Har Harif vicinity, showing Harifian and Late Natuflan occupations. Note the location of the Byzantine well of Bor Horesha.
I
0941993
T
I
11181993
East
West
!
Har Romam ABU SALEM Rosh Horesha
I
/-tj/"':~
..--
~
Maktesh
\~:1
800
I
700
/
Wadi ei-Gaifeh
_l.,---
I
_)
""
1\1
/
Har Ramon
600
~/
500
/
0
km
Fig. 5. Cross-section of the Hac Harif region, showing the pronounced elevational differences and the exposed location of Abu Salem.
179
5
draining into Wadi Mushabi (Phillips 1977). A similar situation may have existed at Shunera and Nahal Lavan (Goring-Morris in press). Seasonality and function probably were major considerations in terms of specific site exposures; it is highly unlikely that the completely exposed settings of Abu Salem and Ramat Harif would have been chosen for anything other than summer occupations (Figs. 5 and 6). Similarly, Maaleh Ramon East in particular, as well as Maaleh Ramon West and Ein Qadis D, would be ideal winter residences at the highland fringes, on south-facing, protected slopes at elevations some 200 - 600 m lower (Fig. 7). Many locations appear to have been chosen to provide maximum monitoring of the surrounding countryside, whether from the site itself, e.g. Shunera XXIV, Shunera VI, IX, Mushabi ill, XV, XX, and Har Arod, or from immediately adjacent to the site, e.g. Abu Salem, Ramat Harif, Upper Besor 6, Shunera X, Givat Hayil II, Nahal Lavan 110, Lagama IV.
Material Culture The salient features of the realm of material culture in the Harifian include: patterns of site structure and architectural features; the ground stone tool assemblages; the chipped stone tool assemblages; and exotics. It is of interest to note that in terms of presence/absence and quantification, the Harifian displays considerable inter-site variability. Yet, within each category of the material remains it is remarkably homogenous. A factor to take into account is the fact that to date only two sites have been extensively excavated (Abu Salem and Ramat Harif).
Site Structure, Architecture and installations Prior to slopewash and erosion, the larger highland Harifian sites appear to have extended over ca. 200- 750 sq m, contrary to the assertions of Marks and Scott (1976; Scott 1977- it should be noted that Abu Salem includes a substantial PPNB occupation). Given the considerable duration of each of these sites, the extent at any time during occupation was probably even more circumscribed, a point frequently overlooked with respect to the Natufian, so that they should rather be viewed in terms of small hamlets. Durable, stone-built architectural features and installations are only documented from the Irano-Turanian highland zone (Goring-Morris 1987, 1990). Architecture is documented at Ramat Harif, Abu Salem, Shluhat Harif, Maaleh Ramon West and Maaleh Ramon East (Goring-Morris 1987 and Table 1). Further north, architectural features and/or installations may also be present at Upper Besor 6- though they could be Late Natufian (Goring-Morris and Rosen 1987) and Ira 25 (Valla et al., 1979), and they are certainly present also at the Harifian-like site of Abu Madi I (BarYosef, 1981 ). Architecture is likely to be present also at the recently discovered site of Ein Qadis D (Phillips, personal communication). Considerable redundancy is indicated by the patterning of structures (Figs. 8 and 9). Thus the basic unit of construction comprised discrete, spaced architectural units; these commonly are single, but on occasion feature a major dwelling and one or more appended subsidary structures (Fig. 6 and 10). In the larger sites no more than five or six such units are present, and of those at both Ramat Harif and Abu Salem only three units include larger dwellings. Spacing of units is on the order of 45 m, usually in a loose linear alignment. Surface indications at Maaleh Ramon West indicate a similar arrangement, though Maaleh Ramon East may differ somewhat, with an apparent interconnected
180
.......
-
00
Fig. 6. View across Rarnat Harif to the south, showing Locus 7 in the foreground and Locus 3 and subsidiary structures after excavation.
Fig. 7. View across the Maktesh Ramon to the south, with Maaleh Ramon East nestling at the foot of the escarpment
w
TEST PrT
0
X
z
y
19
20 21
RAMAT HARIF (G8)
BB CC DD
22
EE FF
23 24
TmPIT D
PQRS
T
UV
..
SURFACE COLUCTIOrN:___ _ _ _ _...J
TI::S T PrT
~
AA 29
30 K
L
M
N
31
0
0
I) D
()
•
I)
~
•
35
()
Gvl.J..y
0
·~
36
37
.-------,
~
38 39
40 SURFACE COt.J..£cnON
41
42 43
44
45 46 47 48 SU ~ F'A et!: COu..£C'nON
49
0
5M
50
Fig. 8. Plan of Ram at Harif. Note the large numbers of grinding slabs. Hearths are hatched. Another structure is probably present in square P27.
182
E
G
H
K
LM
N
O
0
P
R
u
S
w
v
l
Y
I Z
AA
88
CC
DO
EE
FF
E 1'1
·.
oa_'i::' lOCU>•
~
,•
~#~O
0 !#:-~ ~ '&-~"" ~ :! c5b ~~ ~ 4 :' --- .,.~.. ~ t-o-& 'I
-
00 \,;.)
'tl!l>
-u
/)
"'"-·~~l e.e-o....w
-
.o
',,
~
,...''-~· .~ -" ~~$f'f ts ~ ~.. ~ fh • sf' ~ ~r•s ~
c.
d"o
"Q.
o .
(:$
o(}
' 0
~
~ 8 ~VI.';'~ ~ • • ~
•
