byrd the natufian

8/13/2019 Byrd the Natufian

1/40

The Natufian: Settlement Variability and Economic Adaptations in the Levant at the End ofthe PleistoceneAuthor(s): Brian F. ByrdReviewed work(s):Source: Journal of World Prehistory, Vol. 3, No. 2 (June 1989), pp. 159-197Published by: SpringerStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25800559.

Accessed: 09/01/2012 14:42

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Springeris collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toJournal of World Prehistory.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=springerhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/25800559?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/25800559?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=springer


2/40

Journal of World Prehistory, Vol. 3, No. 2, 1989

The Natufian: SettlementVariability and EconomicAdaptations in theLevant at theEnd of thePleistoceneBrian F. Byrd1

The relationship between current interpretations ofNatufian settlement andsubsistence and available archaeological data are examined in light of recentresearch, particularly inJordan. Regional variability in adaptive strategies isdiscernible, particularly between forest and coastal sites versus steppe anddesert sites. Greater evidence ofplant processing andmore intensiveoccupationcharacterize settlement in theformer, although year-round occupation has yettobe conclusively demonstrated. Patterned variability also exists between twoclasses of steppe and desert area settlements. One set of steppe and desert sitesis characterized by a broad range of activities and moderate settlementpermanence and activity intensity,while lesspermanent occupation andmore specializedactivitiesfocused primarily on hunting typifythe other set of sites.Evidence forfood production in theNatufian is examined and, although the domesticationprocess may have begun, nomorphological evidence existsfor thedomesticationofplants or herd animals. Finally, worthwhile areas for future research areoutlined.KEY WORDS: Natufian; settlement patterns; subsistence; domestication; sedentism; seasonally.

INTRODUCTIONThe end of the Pleistocene and the onset of the Holocene (between

12,500 and 10,200 B.P.) were a time of considerable change in environmentand human adaptation (e.g.,Hayden, 1981). In theLevantine Near East thisperiod has been the focus of considerable research over the last 50 years (e.g.,Garrod, 1958, Perrot, 1962; J.Cauvin, 1978; Bar-Yosef, 1983; Valla, 1984;1Department ofAnthropology, University ofWisconsin?Madison, Madison, Wisconsin 53706.159

0892-7537/89/0600-O159506.00/01989 lenumPublishing orporation


3/40

160 ByrdHenry, 1985). Investigations have emphasized the sequence and underlyingcauses of events leading to the emergence of sedentary communities anddomestic plants (particularly cereals and legumes) and animals (especiallysheep and goat). The role of particular variables in this fundamental development inhuman adaptation has been the subject of intense debate unfettered bythe limitations of thearchaeological data. These models have variously emphasized changes in the environment, population size, settlement patterns, economic strategies, or social organization inattempting to explain the initial stepstowards fully sedentary villages depending substantially upon domesticatedplants and animals (e.g., Braidwood, 1960; Binford, 1968; Flannery, 1969,1973; right,1971; ender,1978; enry, 1981; oore, 1982; edding, 1988).This debate has focused primarily on the late Epipaleolithic culturalcomplex of theNatufian, due to the apparently pivotal position itholds inthe developmental sequence frommobile hunting and gathering societies tosedentary village communities. Interpretations of Natufian adaptations havevaried widely, from models of semisedentary hunting and collecting tosedentary food production (seeMoore, 1982; Bar-Yosef, 1983;Henry, 1985;Perrot, 1962; J.Cauvin, 1978; Cauvin and Cauvin, 1983). Recently, the paceof fieldwork on the lateEpipaleolithic of theLevant has increased dramatically,particularly in Jordan and theNegev. The initial results of these researchprojects, many ofwhich are still inprogress, reveal a richmosaic of varyingsettlement and subsistence strategies. Indeed, theyhave called into questionthe applicability of the term Natufian to all these subsistence and settlement systems (Belfer-Cohen, 1988; Byrd, 1987; Olszewski, 1986).The goals of this review are to examine the relationship or goodness offit between current interpretations ofNatufian settlement and subsistencestrategies and the available archaeological data, to suggest alternativehypotheses, and to indicate areas where more research is needed. For thepurposes of thisdiscussion, I utilize a broad interpretation of thegeographicdistribution of theNatufian which includes Palestine, Jordan, theNegev, andSyria.2By using the termNatufian essentially as a temporal label forLevantineoccupation between 12,500 and 10,200 B.P., the full range and diversity ofregional patterning can be examined.2Recently, there has been discussion of the geographic range towhich the termNatufian shouldbe applied, particularly whether sites in northern Syria should be termed Natufian (M. Cauvin,1981; Perrot, 1983; Bar-Yosef, 1983) or not (Moore, 1983; Olszewski, 1986, 1988). However,with the rapid increase in research in Jordan and the Negev, it appears more germane toconsider whether the termNatufian should be restricted to sites in the Mediterranean forestzone of northern Palestine and northwestern Jordan or whether siteswith lunates in themorearid portions of Jordan, Syria, and theNegev should also be termed Natufian (Belfer-Cohen,1988; Byrd, 1987; Goring-Morris, 1987). For more detailed consideration of this topic see Byrd(1987, pp. 310-313) and the publication of the International Symposium, The Natufian culture.The origins of sedentism and Neolithic societies of theLevant, Sophia Antipolis, France (1989).


4/40

Natufian Settlement Variability and Economic Adaptations 161HISTORY OF RESEARCH ON THE NATUFIAN

The discovery and systematic investigation of latePleistocene microlithicassemblages did not take place until afterWorld War I.Garrod (1932,1942),based on excavations at Shukbah Cave in theWadi en-Natuf andMugharetelWad inMount Carmel (Fig. 1),defined theNatufian as a distinctprehistoriccultural assemblage. Additional investigation in the 1920s and 1930s, byTurville-Petre (1932) atKebarah Cave, Neuville (1934, 1951) in the Judeandesert, and Rust (1950, pp. 119-121) inwestern Syria, confirmed the distinctiveness of the Natufian complex and also revealed stratigraphicallyearlier microlithic industries.In characterizing theNatufian, Garrod used the terms industry andculture interchangeably. Microlithic backed lunates were the key fossilindicators for theNatufian chipped stone industry and other characteristicchipped stone tools included triangles, burins, perforators, end scrapers, corescrapers, and backed blades, which often displayed sickle polish (Garrod,1932, p. 258). The use of themicroburin technique to segment bladelets andofHelwan (bifacial) retouch subsequently to blunt or back these bladeletswas viewed as distinctive of the industry.3 In addition, large chipped stonetools (made of chert) such as picks, choppers, and round scrapers were alsorecovered. Additional characteristics ofNatufian assemblages included bonetools (particularly points, harpoons, gorgets, sickle hafts, and pendants),basalt ground stone vessels and pestles, limestonemortars, sculpture in stoneand bone, burials, and construction features such as walls and pavements.These early researchers characterized the Natufian as the first agriculturalists based on the presence of sickles (to harvest the cereals) andmortars and pestles (to process the grain) (Garrod, 1932, p. 268; Neuville,1934, p. 254). However, no direct botanical evidence was available. Mostscholars accepted these assertions until the 1950s, when results from theexcavation of new Natufian sites called for a reevaluation of these ideas.

In the 1950s and 1960sNatufian settlementswere identified in a broaderrange of geographical and environmental settings including theJordanValley,the hills of northern Palestine, southern Syria, and southwestern Jordan(Bar-Yosef andTchernov, 1967;M. Cauvin, 1974;Kenyon, 1981;Kirkbride,1966; Stekelis and Yizraely, 1963). Of particular importance were the excavations at the large open-air Natufian site of Ain Mallaha. Since a largenumber of stone structures were exposed at Ain Mallaha, Perrot (1966,p. 447) suggested that the sitewas an extensive permanent settlement,withsubsistence based entirely on wild plants and animals. Perrot's views strongly3The microburin technique isnow known to occur in a variety of earlier Epipaleolithic chippedstone industries in the Levant (e.g., Bar-Yosef, 1981).


5/40


6/40

Natufian Settlement Variability and Economic Adaptations 163influenced subsequent models of the development of sedentary villages andthe relationship between sedentism and the origins of food production.Specifically, a model positing sedentary hunting and gathering as a preludeto early food production gained wide currency in the late 1960s and early1970s Binford, 968; lannery,1969; right, 1971). uring this eriodnewsyntheses of theNatufian were also produced (Valla, 1975), with particularemphasis on the chipped stone industries (Bar-Yosef, 1970;Henry, 1973a).For the first time, extensive discussion was given to the details ofNatufiansettlement and subsistence patterns (e.g., Bar-Yosef, 1970; Bar-Yosef andTchernov, 1970; Vita-Finzi and Higgs, 1969).

The pace of field research on theNatufian during the last 20 years hasincreased sharply, producing data on many new sites in a diversity of geographical settings. Excavations and surveys have continued in thehighlandsand coastal regions of northern Palestine (e.g., Bar-Yosef, 1983;Henry andLeroi-Gourhan, 1976; Noy et aL, 1973; Lechavallier and Ronen, 1985). Inaddition, projects have been conducted in the Jordan Valley (Crabtree et aL,1987;Edwards, 1987), n thehighlands f Jordan Byrd,1988;Muheisenet al, 1988), and in the northern Levant (J.Cauvin, 1977;Moore, 1982).Further afield, projects have been undertaken in the steppe and desert areasof theNegev and Sinai in the south (Goring-Morris, 1987; Goring-Morrisand Bar-Yosef, 1987; Henry, 1973b, 1976; Marks and Larson, 1977) andeastward along the edge of theSyrian-Arabian desert (Betts, 1986,1987; Byrdand Rollefson, 1984; Clark et al, 1988; Garrard et ai, 1987, 1988; Henry,1982).With this increased depth and diversity of data on variability in late

Epipaleolithic settlement and subsistence strategies, distinct regional variantsare emerging which challenge previous interpretations ofNatufian economyand organization.

RADIOMETRIC DATINGThe recent development of accelerator mass spectrometer radiometric

dating has allowed most Natufian sites excavated in recent years tobe dated.This technique also permits the dating of specific subsistence remains (i.e.,plant and animal species), providing direct evidence for the antiquity of theseremains (Legge, 1986; Legge and Rowley-Conwy, 1986). Furthermore, thelarge sample of dates now available makes possible independent evaluationof chronological models regarding phases within the Natufian which werebased on changes in tool form (Bar-Yosef and Valla, 1979; Valla, 1984;Olszewski, 1987).The most detailed model of temporal sub-divisions for theNatufian isValla's (1984, 1987a) three-phase model. Decreases in the average length of


7/40

Table.atufianadiocarbonatesrganizedyeriodEarly,ate,inal) Layer

Radiocarbonge

Earlyatufianl adaveEl aderraceAinallaha

Jericho KebaraCaveWadiudayid Wadiammeh7

BeidhaHayonimerraceayonimave ayonimave

LateNatufian

El aderraceoshoresha

B2 B2Ill-House1

III-House51 IV-ouse31 Meso.ii Meso.ii

Meso

l.ii

Meso

l.ii Meso.iiB C C C 8.1

PlotXXD8.1PlotXXD8.1lotXD-01-24:4

C-00-l6:4

C-01-23:4,2 C-01-24:2C-00-l6:2D

Loc./7 oc./5Bl

24-40mFea3Fea5/16

11,92011,4751,3101,7401,5903309,8500,800,80011,1661,0901,1502,0902,7502,7841,9202,2001,9502,9102,4502,1300,910,3901,9202,3602,010

? 60?00 ?80?70 40 00 40?80 40 07 0 ?00 00?000? 59?50?60 ?60?50?70?90?20 90?0 ?60 -809,7950013,09000 0,49030 0,88080

Meansndesultsfann-Whitneyests

Material

BoneoneCharcoal

CharcoalCharcoalCharredeedCharcoal

CharcoalCharcoalCharcoal,shCharcoal

BoneCharcoalCharcoalCharcoal

CharredeedsCharredseedsharredeedsCharcoalCharcoal

CharcoalharcoalharcoalCharcoal

Charredpulsesharredulses

BoneCharcoalharcoal

Charcoal

Labo. UCLA-?CLA-?y-1662y-1661Ly-1660*OxA-543*

*GL-69GL-70*GL-72P-376BM-1407UCLA-?

SMU-805MU-806MU-803OxA-393xA-394xA-507A-1463A-1465AA-1464

AA-1462AA-1461MU-231OxA-742xA-743UCLA-?1-5496MU-9

SMU-10


8/40

I.Continued

Layer

Radiocarbonage

Abuureyra FinalatufianNahalrenerrace

Mureybet

E-326-326-326-326-326-316-316-313-286-286-286-286-285-281-281-276E-275

E-275-275-261-252-303-254E-264-307E-326-324 VIA-R34,la

IA-Q33,B4

10,82010,9201,0901,0700,9000,6801,020

10,60010,4500,4900,4200,4200,9300,7500,000

10,8000,62010,2500,0500,600,06011,160,12010,7921,450,100

160 40 50 60200150 50 00 80 50 40140 50 70 70 60 50 60 80 00 40+1050 82 300200

10,04618 0,0305010,170

?200

Material

Labo.

HumicfractionOxA-468umicfractionOxA-468BurnedoneedateBurnedoneharredrainHumicfractionOxA-430

BurnedoneharredrainHumicfractionOxA-434

BurnedboneCharredrainCharredrain

HumicfractionOxA-473umicractionxA-473

BurnedoneharredrainHumicractionxA-407umicractionxA-407

BurnedoneCharredgrainBurnedbone harcoalharcoalharcoalharredrainCharredgrain

BoneollagenCharcoalharcoal

OxA-470xA-469xA-468xA-387xA-172xA-431xA-430xA-171xA-435xA-434xA-397xA-397xA-474xA-472xA-473xA-386xA-471xA-408xA-407xA-170*OxA-475BM-1718M-1719BM-1121OxA-883*OxA-882BM-764

Mc-733Mc-635


9/40

Table. ontinued

Layer

Radiocarbonge

Material

Labo.

Mureybet

Unclassifiedyalla1987)RakefetaveRakefetaveakefetave

IA-Q33,B4

IA-Q33,B4

IA-Q32,Elc

TA-Q33

IB-P32,4

10,09010,23010,23010,35010,590

170 70170 50 40

10,9806010,38040 ,76000

CharcoalharcoalharcoalCharcoal

CharcoalBoneoneSeed

Mc-674c-73IMc-732

Mc-675Lv-607*I-70321-7030OxA-541

Earlyatufian:ean1,847,D08.2,2 Lateatufian:ean0,649,D57.5,4Final Natufian:

mean=10,217,D = 185.0, N ? &

Asterisk superscripts indicate thatradiocarbondates were not used in the dating analysis.


10/40

Natufian Settlement Variability and Economic Adaptations 167lunates and the frequency of bifacial retouch were used to distinguish phases.The 67 dates available from 13 differentNatufian sites are presented in

Table I, organized into the early, late, and final Natufian phases of Valla.Asterisk superscripts indicate unreliable dates (9)?samples analyzed usingthe early solid carbon method (Henry and Servello, 1974) and samples withextremely disparate dates. Mann-Whitney tests of the radiocarbon samplesindicate that the samples from each phase are from separate populations(Table I; P < 0.005). These results, however, must be viewed with somecaution, as only two sites classified as final Natufian have been dated andfurther dates are needed to confirm the discreteness of this temporal phase.For the purposes of this review the late and final Natufian are consideredtogether.The overall distribution of dates indicates that theNatufian may havebegun by 12,500 B.P. and persisted until almost 10,000 B.P., a somewhatlonger time range than previously suggested (Bar-Yosef, 1981, Fig. 1).Thetwo well-dated sites in northern Syria, Abu Hureyra and Mureybet, wereoccupied only during the latterhalf of theNatufian, while recently dated sitesin Jordan are among the earliestNatufian sites. These early dates promptedHenry (1982, p. 438, 1987a, p. 19) to suggest that theNatufian may wellhave originated on the Jordanian plateau. It is probable, however, that theNatufian complex developed out of a series of local traditions (e.g.,Goring-Morris, 1987, p. 434).

PALEOENVIRONMENTAL RECONSTRUCTIONSModern Environment4

Topographically theLevant can be divided into a series of north-southlongitudinal zones consisting of a narrow coastal plain along theMediterranean; the western hills and mountains, which rise gradually from thecoastal plain and then slope more steeply down to the east; the Rift system,which includes the Jordan River; and the Jordanian-Syrian Plateau, whichrises abruptly from the Rift System and then gradually merges with theSyrian-Arabian desert.

Due in part to these variations in topography, theLevantine climate isextremely diverse in respect to rainfall and temperature. Rainfall is restrictedprimarily to the winter months, with long dry summers. Average yearlyprecipitation ranges from an extreme of over 1400mm in themountains of4This discussion is based primarily on the research of Zohary (1962,1973), Horowitz (1979), andAl-Eisawi (1985).


11/40

168 ByrdLebanon to less than 50mm in thedesert areas. In general, rainfall decreasesfrom north to south and, to a lesser degree, fromwest to east, with theRiftValley disrupting the pattern. Rainfall shadows occur on the eastern slopesof the western mountains, and in the Jordan Valley, the Beq'a, and theSyrian-Arabian desert. The mean annual temperature increases in a similarpattern, ranging from 9?C in themountains of Lebanon to 24?C in the JordanValley.Rainfall distribution and, to a lesser extent, temperature and elevationdictate thedistribution of plant communities. Four main plant-geographicalregions are recognized in theLevant: Mediterranean forest, Irano-Turaniansteppe, Saharo-Arabian desert, and Sudanian desert (Fig. 1).The Mediterranean forest has rainy,mild winters with an annual precipitation ranging from about 300 to greater than 1000mm. The flora consistsprimarily of oaks, pistachios, and pines, as well as annuals. The IranoTuranian steppe, in contrast, is characterized by a more continental climateand highly varied diurnal and annual temperature ranges. The vegetationconsists of a steppic forest of dwarf shrubs, shrubs, and herbs. The SaharoArabian desert has sporadic rainfall and it is often torrential in nature andvaries dramatically in quantity from year to year. Annuals dominate thevegetation and plant coverage and are generally restricted towadis wheremoisture collects. The Sudanian desert contains savannalike vegetationincluding tropical arboreal components and low densities of a lower story ofdwarf-shrubs.

Paleoenvironment

The evidence used to reconstruct the environment at the end of thePleistocene and early Holocene includes deep-sea cores, pollen cores fromlakes and swamps, geomorphological data from sedimentary and lacustrinesequences, and pollen and faunal remains from archaeological sites. Each ofthese kinds of data has inherent limitations, but those derived from archaeological sites are generally viewed with themost caution due to the biasingand disruptive effects of human activity (Turner, 1985). Despite theseproblems, archaeological sites do have the benefit of generally being moreprecisely dated than purely environmental data.Six pollen cores fromNear Eastern lakes cover theperiod of theNatufian.These columns come from theHuleh Basin innorthern Palestine, theGhabValley along the Orontes in northwest Syria, Sogiit Golii in southwestTurkey, Karamik Batakligi in south-central Turkey, Lake Van in southeastTurkey, and Lake Zeribar inwestern Iran (Bottema and van Zeist, 1981). Theclimate during theNatufian is difficult to interpret from these columns due


12/40

Natufian Settlement Variability and Economic Adaptations 169to the small number of associated radiocarbon dates (organic materials arerare in these sediments ofmineral origin) and the necessity of assuming aconstant rate of sediment accumulation. This makes correlation of sequencesbetween different pollen profiles very difficult (Sanlaville, 1981; Bottema,1987). The lack of pollen columns from the steppe and desert regions furtherlimits broad environmental reconstructions for the Levant. Additionally,climatic reconstructions based on lake pollen columns can be skewed by thedeposition of pollen carried downstream fromupland areas (Leroi-Gourhan,1984).

Palynological data from late Pleistocene archaeological sites indicatethat arboreal pollen counts decrease from theGeometric Kebaran throughthe earlyNatufian and the lateNatufian (Byrd, 1987, Table 2). ThroughouttheNatufian the percentage of arboreal pollen is generally less than 12%.Analysis of late Pleistocene alluvial and lacustrine sequences has beenassociated primarily with archaeological research in the southern Levant,particularly theNegev and Sinai, the Jordan Valley, and the highlands andarid portions of Jordan (Goldberg, 1986; Goldberg and Bar-Yosef, 1982;Macumber, 1987; Clark et al, 1988; Garrard et al, 1986, 1988; Darmon,

1987). Research has also been conducted on lacustrine deposits in largeinternal drainage basins, particularly the complex Jordan-Rift lakes and theAzraq Basin of northeastern Jordan. The geomorphological sequencesderived from this research are often poorly dated or unrelated toarchaeologicalsites, although this is changing (e.g., Garrard et al, 1988; Macumber, 1987).There has been a series of climatic reconstructions put forward for thelate Pleistocene (e.g., Bintliff, 1982; Bottema and van Zeist, 1981; Bottema,1987;Goldberg, 1981, 1986;Sanlaville,1981;Henry, 1983, 1987a;Moore,1983, 1985; Valla, 1987a) and several general trends are apparent. First,temperatures rose at the end of the last glacial maximum and this trendcontinued through theNatufian (Valla, 1987a, p. 274). This is supported bythe composition of faunal assemblages atNatufian sites, in terms of both thepresence ofmore temperate adapted species and the increase in the size ofmammals (Davis, 1981, 1982; Kurten, 1965; Pichon, 1985, 1987; Valla,1987a). Deep-sea cores also support this reconstruction and indicate that itwas a worldwide trend (Luz, 1982). Second, with the retreat of theglacial icesheets, air circulation patterns changed worldwide, and on a general level inthe Levant, storm tracks began to shiftnorthward until they reached theirpresent day patterns (Bintliff, 1982). Third, sea levels rose during theNatufian,inundating coastal land in theLevant, and although no submerged Natufiansites have been yet located, a series of PPNB sites occurs off thepresent-dayshore (Galili and Weinstein-Evron, 1985).Within theLevant, regional climatic differences existed between 15,000and 10,000 B.P. and relate inpart to changes inglobal air circulation patterns


13/40

170 Byrd(Bintliff, 1982). The northern Levant was less sensitive to changes in temperature and rainfall, while in the southern Levant small changes seem to havehad significanteffects.There is,however, considerable disagreement regardingwhen these climatic changes took place, how long they lasted (includingregressions), how significant theywere, and what effect these changes had onthe distribution of plant communities.At present two competing models exist of climatic variation during theLevantine late Pleistocene. The first of these, most clearly articulated by

Henry (1983, pp. 114-116, 1987a, pp. 10-12) proposes alternating cycles ofmoist and dry conditions lasting from 2000 to 3000 years. The northernLevant and the northern highlands of Iran and Turkey were cold and dryuntil 11,000 B.P., when warm and moist conditions prevailed. However, thecentral and southern Levant was more varied. A dry period occurred from14,500 to 13,000 B.P., followed by amoister intervalwhich lasted until 11,000B.P. and was replaced by a drywarm period from 11,000 to 10,000 B.P. Thewarm, wetter phase prevailing during the early Natufian in the southernLevant was delayed 1000 to 1500 years in thenorthern Levant. This was dueto a time lag in surface temperature related to the higher latitude andelevation along with a slow shift to thenorth inwinter storm patterns as theglacial ice sheet inEurope retreated. This reconstruction is based primarilyon pollen and faunal samples from archaeological sites and on Tusukada'spollen diagram from theHuleh Basin.An alternative model suggests that theNatufian, and the earlyNatufianin particular, was a dry period (Goldberg, 1981; Goldberg and Bar-Yosef,1982; Bar-Yosef and Vogel, 1987; Leroi-Gourhan, 1984, p. 103). The analysisis based primarily on sediments associated with archaeological sites in thesouthern Levant. During theGeometric Kebaran A, 14,500 to 12,000 B.P.,therewas an accumulation of alluvial and colluvial deposits followed by soildevelopment suggesting a wetter period. However, during theNatufian,12,000 to 10,000 B.P., therewas deposition of wind blown sands and stonycolluvium indicating a drier period, particularly in the lateNatufian.On thebasis of her analysis of pollen from layers 1and 4 atAin Mallaha(located on the edge of theHuleh Lake), Leroi-Gourhan (1984, p. 103) hasquestioned whether theNatufian was wetter than other periods. Her reconstruction of the site's immediate environment suggested a more steppic thanforested situation based on the virtual absence of arboreal pollen at the site'slocation. This contrasted sharply with the high percentages of arborealpollen observed in thepollen columns atHuleh Lake; there, arboreal pollenthroughout theEpipaleolithic ranges in frequency from 30 to 70% (Bottemaand van Zeist, 1981, pp. 114-116). Leroi-Gourhan argued that arboreal pollenin the lake samples was carried long distances downstream from theupper elevations, biasing the relative pollen counts of arboreal and non-arboreal species.


14/40

Natufian Settlement Variability and Economic Adaptations 171In order to resolve the contradictory evidence for the timingand characterof environmental change and to determine whether environmental change

played a role in the development of different settlement and subsistencestrategies, as has been suggested (Bar-Yosef and Vogel, 1987, p. 232; GoringMorris, 1987, pp. 442-443), more detailed local sequences in different areasof the Levant are needed. These sequences should be based on data frompollen columns, alluvial sequences, and pollen and faunal remains fromarchaeological sites integrated with radiocarbon dating of archaeologicalsites. Extreme caution must be exercised inusing site size or the density ofsites during any period to support inferences regarding thenature of climaticregimes.Despite these differences in interpretation, itwas colder during theNatufian than at present and effectivemoisture may well have been greater(Pichon, 1987, p. 147;Valla, 1987a, pp. 276-277). This would have allowedopen forest and steppe areas to be more extensive than today. Furthermore,a more complex mosaic of plant communities may have existed whichincluded associations of species not directly analogous to modern plantcommunities.

NATUFIAN SETTLEMENT AND SUBSISTENCEWild Food Resources

The Levant's diverse range of nutritionally complementary edible wildplants includes cereals, legumes, nuts, and fruits (Flannery, 1965; Helbaek,1964,Renfrew,1973; ohary, 1957, 1962,1973;Zohary andHopf, 1988;Zohary and Spiegel-Roy, 1975). Cereals (particularly einkorn wheat, emmerwheat, and barley) often occur indense stands (Flannery, 1973; Harlan andZohary, 1966;Harlan, 1967;Helbaek, 1959; Ladizinsky, 1975a). Acorns arethemost common nut resource, as oaks dominate theMediterranean forest(Zohary, 1962).Until recent times the Levant embraced a variety of herd animals,particularly ungulates, and their distribution varied considerably betweenenvironmental regions. Avian resources were also quite diverse and includedyear-round residents, winter visitors from Eurasia, summer visitors fromAfrica, and birds migrating between Eurasia and Africa during the springand autumn (Alon, 1969). Residential game birds included partridge, sandgrouse, coursers, chuckar, bustard, and ostrich (Garrard, 1980;Meinertzhagen, 1954).Freshwater fishwere abundant in theHuleh Lake, the Sea ofGalilee, andthe Jordan River and its tributaries (Alon, 1969). Fish were also available in


15/40

172 ByrdtheMediterranean Sea, although perhaps to a lesser degree than in theJordan River system (Garrard, 1980, p. 94). Other exploitable resourcesincluded theNile crocodile along theMediterranean coast and the adjacentswamps and rivers of the Carmel region and several species of marine,freshwater, and land tortoises/turtles (Along, 1969).For theLevant, detailed regional studies of prehistoric resource availability similar toFlannery's (1965,1969) Mesopotamian research are rare (yetseeKislev and Bar Yosef, 1988; Garrard, 1980, 1984). Bohrer (1972, p. 150)has commented that actual diet in a pre-agricultural era would be morereadily reconstructed if therewere adequate studies of the wild plant foodsstill consumed in the Near East. Reconstructions ofNatufian subsistencestrategies have unfortunately focused on individual sites (e.g., J. Cauvin,1977; illman a/., 1989).Modern studies of specific resources, their availability in naturalecological situations, and the amount of energy required to collect them haveemphasized wild cereals (Harlan and Zohary, 1966; Ladizinsky, 1975a).Research has also concentrated on identifying the wild progenitors of cultivated plants (e.g., Helbaek, 1959; Harlan and Zohary, 1966; Ladizinsky,1975b, 1979a,b; Ladizinskyand Adler, 1976;Zohary andHopf, 1973;Zohary and Spiegel-Roy, 1975). This emphasis on plants that ultimatelybecame domesticated, especially cereals, no doubt reflects a cultural bias onthe part of westerners and, of course, the eventual importance of cerealproduction. It has, however, strongly affected the direction of research andinterpretivemodels of Natufian subsistence.Research is notably lacking on the potential density, expected yieldsfrom individual plants or trees, nutritional yields, and amount of energyinvolved in collection and subsequent preparation of wild legumes, fruits,and nuts. Undoubtedly there exists interspecies variability in edibility (foracorns due primarily to the amount of tannin), yields, and predictability ofgood yields (Renfrew, 1973, p. 154; Zohary, 1957). Examination of thedistribution and frequency of smaller grasses and the conditions inwhichtheyform large or dense stands isalso warranted. The variation indensity ofcereals among the basaltic cobble areas of the northern Levant (which havebeen documented as favorable), the terra rossa soils in theMediterraneanzone, and themore open transition zone between the forest and the steppicareas would have important implications for subsistence strategies (Moore,1983; Ladizinsky, personal communication). Alteration of the modernenvironment byman, of course, severely hampers such analysis.Studies of animal behavior, group size and habits, and seasonal variabilityinwild herds are limiteddue to the large number of animals species thathavebecome extinct or severely depleted in theLevant (yet see Simmons and Ilany,1975-1977; Baharav, 1983). Therefore, inferences regarding animal behavior


16/40

Natufian Settlement Variability and Economic Adaptations 173and habitat have drawn on early travelers' accounts and studies of relatedspecies inAsia, Africa, and Europe (e.g., Garrard 1984; Legge and RowleyConley, 1987).Considerable seasonal variation exists in the availability of plant andavian resources and, to some extent, for other faunal resources. Annuals suchas cereals and legumes ripen in the late spring and early summer, and matureseeds are available foronly a brief intervalbefore the seeds disperse themselves.This necessitates close attention to their ripening and collection must berelatively rapid. Perennials, mostly nut, oil, and fruitplants, generally haveamore varied seasonal distribution, ranging from summer through autumn,and nuts can be harvested into latewinter (Flannery, 1969, 1973, p. 274). Inaddition, the time of plant ripening varies with altitude and latitude and issubject to considerably yearly fluctuations due to local climatic events.Little evidence suggests that the availability of herd animals variedgreatly during the year, particularly with respect to long-distance seasonalmigrations (contra Legge and Rowley-Conwy, 1987). However, timing andseasonal changes in calving and the composition of herds no doubt madecertain times of the year more favorable for hunting than others (Davis,1983). Analysis of avian remains has considerable potential for identifyingseasonal exploitation. Winter bird visitors, which arrive between Septemberand December and depart between February and May, include ducks and anumber of other game birds (Nelson, 1973). Summer visitors arrive as earlyas February and leave as late as September. Migratory birds, which stopbriefly in the Levant during the spring and autumn, are particularly abundantin the spring.These birds include herons, egrets, storks, pelicans, cormorants,ibis, flamingos, ducks, swans, geese, raptors, partridge, cranes, bustards,turtle doves, and sand grouse (Nelson, 1973). The shifting availability ofresources, hence, provides considerable potential fordiscerning seasons andpatterns of exploitation when modern recovery and analytical techniques areused.

Previous InterpretationsInterpretations of Natufian subsistence strategies have varied widely,

particularly with respect to the relative emphases on specific resources andwhether some species were domesticated. For example, Henry (1981, p. 428)has asserted that subsistence was focused on intensive cereal collection; otherreconstructions posited a balanced subsistence strategy including cereals,nuts and ungulates (Bar-Yosef, 1980, p. 124,1983, p. 24; Henry, 1983, p. 141,1985, p. 372; Moore, 1982, p. 231) or a diverse strategywhich also includedaquatic resources (J.Cauvin, 1978, p. 21; Cauvin and Cauvin, 1983, p. 45).


17/40

174 ByrdMoore (1982, pp. 228-230,1983, p. 96) has argued thatplant horticulturewas practiced during the entireNatufian, while Henry (1981, p. 430, 1985,

pp. 79-80) stated domestication occurred only during the late Natufian.Other researchers asserted that therewas no plant horticulture during theNatufian (Perrot, 1962; J.Cauvin, 1978, p. 21; Cauvin and Cauvin, 1983,p. 45; Bar-Yosef, 1983, p. 24). Furthermore, thepresence of animal domestication in theNatufian has been contested, with Vita-Finzi and Higgs (1970,p. 35),Noy andothers 1973,p. 96),J.Cauvin (1978,p. 70),Garrard (1982,p. 179) and Moore (1982, p. 227) arguing for a form of animal domesticationor control, particularly of gazelle, while Bar-Yosef (1980, 1983, p. 24) andHenry (1975, p. 374) state that therewere no domesticated herd animals.The Natufian annual settlement cycle consisted of a sedentary base campwith transitorycamps located around it ina radiating distribution accordingtoBar-Yosef and Henry, although theprecise characteristics enumerated forbase camps and transitory camps and the criteria fordistinguishing betweenthem have varied somewhat (see Henry, 1983, p. 138, 1985, pp. 371-372;Bar-Yosef, 1981, p. 399, 1983, pp. 24-25). For base camps the requiredelements included size, depth of cultural deposits, diversity of material culture(including grinding stones and bone tools), architectural features (such asbuildings, storage facilities, and stone pavements), and burials. Transitorysites were characterized by thin cultural deposits, more limited materialcultural assemblage (often specialized tool kits), and cluster near the basecamps. The base camp-transitory camp model, with itsemphasis on qualitativedistinctions (seeYellen, 1977), appears to have only limited support from thearchaeological evidence and probably does not accurately reflectprehistoricbehavior. Although specific sites have been labeled transitory or basecamps, no sites have been related to each other in a working regionalsettlement system and size often appears to be the primary criterion forclassification (Olszewski, 1986, p. 47; Byrd, 1987).5 This settlementmodel canalso be questioned for theunderlying assumption that only one settlement inthe annual cycle will have the characteristics of large size, thick deposits,architecture, burials, and grinding stones (e.g., Henry, 1985, pp. 371-372;Bar-Yosef, 1983, pp. 24-25).Alternatively, theCauvins have suggested that Natufian occupation inmore marginal areas had amobile settlement pattern (J.Cauvin, 1978, p. 20;Cauvin and Cauvin, 1983, p. 45), and Vita-Finzi and Higgs (1969, p. 22)posited for two sites in theMount Carmel area that the yearly cycle alternatedbetween a coastal and an inland camp. Sedentism or year-round habitationhas been asserted for a number of Natufian base camps (e.g., Bar-Yosef,5The base camp-transitory camp model appears to have been borrowed directly from prehistoricresearch in the Zagros (see Mortensen, 1972).


18/40

Natufian Settlement Variability and Economic Adaptations 1751981, p. 401; J.Cauvin, 1978, p. 20; Henry, 1981, p. 429, 1985, 372;Moore,1982, p. 229; Perrot 1966, p. 477). Despite these assertions, there have beenfew attempts to evaluate independently the existence of year-round habitation (yet see Bar-Yosef 1983, p. 25; Hillman et aL, 1989).It seems remarkable that there could be such differences of opinionregarding the nature ofNatufian settlement and subsistence. This isdue, inpart, to inherentweaknesses in the archaeological record, particularly withrespect to the lack of primary paleobotanical evidence. This has forcedresearchers to rely on secondary evidence to inferwhich plants were utilizedand inferences have not always been built systematically from thematerialremains. In addition, given the environmental diversity of the Levant amosaic of subsistence and settlement strategies was possible and researchershave been describing one or another aspect of adaptive variation. I suggestthat the evaluation ofNatufian subsistence and settlement can be facilitatedby what Soffer (1985, p. 249) has termed descriptive modeling, entailingdetailed examination of regional variation, and when possible, quantitativeanalyses of site structural features,material culture, and primary subsistencedata.

Subsistence PatternsSeveral lines of evidence can be considered in examining Natufiansubsistence strategies including primary evidence of faunal and botanicalremains and secondary evidence of subsistence related artifacts. Availabledata on the faunal remains fromNatufian sites are highly disparate, with onlya limited number of reports containing discussions of smallmammal, reptile,

fish, and avian remains. This is due to several factors?excavation prior tothe use of detailed recovery techniques, poor preservation and thematerialrecovered being as yet published. Hence, only the faunal remains of thelargemammals are useful for examining regional variation.Overall, gazelle was thepredominant animal hunted during theNatufian.The three species of gazelle recognized in the Levant, mountain gazelle(Gazella gazella), goitered gazelle (Gazella subguttorosa), and dorcas gazelle(Gazella dorcas), have differenthabitat preferences. Gazella gazella seem tohave preferred forested and mountain areas, Gazella subgutturosa typicallyfrequented steppe and semidesert areas, and Gazella dorcas probably preferredsemidesert and desert areas, particularly sand and stony deserts (Garrard1980). For the purposes of this discussion, regional variation in gazellespecies is not considered.

Although no clear temporal patterns are discernible between early andlate Natufian settlements, variation occurs between broad environmental


19/40

176 ByrdTable DL Minimum Number of Bones for Large Mammal Species from Natufian

Occupational Horizons0

Red Roe FallowP C Gazelle Caprine Cattle Pig deer deer deer Equid NForest & coastal area

Kebarah EElWad B2 EAin Mallaha EWadi Hammeh 27 EHayonim Cave Int. EHayonim Terrace B LElWad Bl LShukbahB LNahal OrenV LNahal OrenVI LHatoula 4 LHatoula 5 LRakefet L

Steppe & desert areaBeidha EWadi Judayid ERosh Horesha LAbu Hureyra LKhallat 'Anaza LAin al Saratan E

50.785.244.683.686.883.385.285.181.582.798.299.677.922.118.560.771.425.924.5

0.00.21.68.03.60.50.20.00.10.00.30.40.0

69.964.737.412.166.70.0

32.93.33.30.4LI0.03.3

11.211.65.40.80.03.25.96.50.10.00.038.0

6.6 1.90.9 0.214.2 7.15.3 0.40.8 2.20.9 0.00.9 0.00.0 0.33.8 0.02.1 0.00.7 0.00.0 0.07.4 0.00.0 0.00.0 0.00.0 0.00.0 0.00.0 0.00.0 0.0

0.90.1

1.41.10.00.00.80.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0

5.23.6

13.5 12.80.4 0.93.9

14.23.63.42.29.90.00.011.60.00.00.00.00.00.0

1.9 2130.1 14320.30.90.0

2.210.31.816.47.437.6

8782253570.0 45220.1 14320.0 3560.0 13590.0 1130.0 20810,0 2460.0 95

13618497714027237

See Byrd (1987, Table 69) for references. P, phase; E, early; L, late; C, tool group cluster.

zones (Table II).6 Gazelle dominate the faunal assemblages of forest andcoastal settlements, usually representing over 80% of the sample. Fallow deerand cattle occur inmoderate frequencies, with more limited exploitation ofpig, roe deer, and red deer. Caprine and equid remains are uncommon orabsent.In steppe and desert sites gazelle are not as predominant and caprinesand equids occur much more frequently. The high frequency of caprines ata number of steppe and desert sites inpart reflects sampling bias, as a largepercentage of the excavated sites are inrocky and craggy topography. Huntingof largemammals certainly varies with respect to localized topographic andphytogeographical situations, most obvious in thepredominance of caprineremains at sites in extremely rugged arid terrain?Beidha, Wadi Judayid 2and Khallat'Anaza (Garrard, 1985;Hecker, 1982;Henry and Turnbull, 1985).In thediverse ecology of theHuleh Basin, where Ain Mallaha is situated, onesees themost eclectic range of largemammal remains (Bouchud, 1987).6Only a limited number of studies have identified theminimum number of individuals (e.g.,Hecker, 1982; Butler et aL, 1977; Henry et aL, 1981; Davis, 1985) and hence thismore reliableindicator was not used.


20/40

Natufian Settlement Variability and Economic Adaptations 177The limited research on variability inhunting patterns, particularly with

respect to off-site butchering techniques, reveals differential exploitationtechniques. At Hayonim Terrace, complete carcasses of gazelle and fallowdeer were usually carried back to the settlement (Henry et aL, 1981, p. 49).At Rosh Horesha, however, a somewhat differentpattern occurs. Althoughcomplete gazelle carcasses were generally brought to the settlement, occasionally only the meat-laden hind quarters were returned (Butler et aL, 1977,pp. 342-343). Goat carcasses were treated differentlyat Rosh Horesha, withthe meat-poor crania and the lower limb bones of the goats generallyremoved at the location of the kill. These differences inbutchering patternsat Rosh Horesha appear to be the result of longer forays needed to exploitthe habitat of wild goats.

Certainly largemammals were not the only source of animal protein.Available evidence from the sites of Ain Mallaha, elWad, Hatoula, Hayonim,Salibiya, andWadi Hammeh 27 suggest that a number of other animals wereexploited (Bar-Yosef and Tchernov, 1967; Bouchud, 1987; Crabtree et aL,1987; Edwards, 1987; Davis, 1985; Valla et aL, 1986). These include hare,squirrel, hedgehog, fox, badger, wild cat (possibly for their pelts), landtortoise, and lizards.Avian remains include chukar and migratory and wintervisitors (particularly ducks) (Bar-Yosef and Tchernov, 1967;Garrard, 1989;Pichon, 1985,1987). In addition, littoralmarine fish nd freshwater fishhavebeen recovered at sites in northern Palestine (Desse, 1987; Valla et aL, 1986),and themarine fish fromHatoula may have been dried prior tobeing broughtto the site (Lernau, 1985).Due to either poor preservation or excavation prior to the use of theflotation technique, archaeobotanical remains are rare from late Epipaleolithic sites. Only three sites, Abu Hureyra (Hillman et aL, 1989), Wadi

Hammeh 27 (Edwards et aL 1988), and Hayonim Cave (Hopf and Bar-Yosef,1987), have yielded appreciable samples of archaeobotanical remains.The excavations atWadi Hammeh 27, an earlyNatufian settlement onthe edge of theforested region in the southern Levant, recovered thepreservedplant remains of wild barley and a variety of legumes, including lentils(Edwards et aL, 1988, pp. 551-552). In addition, the earlyNatufian horizonsatHayonim Cave, situated in the forested region, have provided evidence ofwild barley, wild almond nuts and legumes, particularly lupines (Hopf andBar-Yosef, 1987, pp. 117-119).At Abu Hureyra, a late Natufian settlement in the northern Levantinesteppe, over 150 species of seeds and fruitswere recovered (Hillman et aL,1989). The primary species includewild einkorn, wild rye,other wild grasses(including steppe grasses), various edible wild pulses (including vetches,lentils), and the fruits of several trees and shrubs of theMediterraneanforest zone. Hillman and others (1989), drawing on several lines of evidence


21/40

178 Byrd(including the cooccurrence of wild einkorn wheat and wild ryewith specificweed flora and an uncultivatable perennial wild rye) argue againstpredomestication agriculture at Abu Hureyra. They suggest that thesecereals may have been growing near the settlement. Since climatic reconstructions for this period place the open oak forest no nearer than 150kmwest of Abu Hureyra (Bottema and van Zeist, 1981), this interpretation

questions the validity of the paleoenvironmental reconstruction, along withtheassumption that themodern cooccurrence of plants isanalogous to plantassociations at the end of the Pleistocene.Natufian dental studies (Smith, 1972) and strontium/calcium analysis

(Schoeninger, 1981) suggest that a reliance on plant resources was increasingin the earlyNatufian (Smith et al.9 1984).However, the technique of strontium/calcium analysis is presently undergoing reevaluation (Sillen et al, 1987).Appraisal of secondary evidence for subsistence strategies entails consideration of the distribution and frequency of types of ground stone and

chipped stone artifacts.7Mortars (including bedrock mortars) and pestlesoccur atmost sites in the forest and coastal areas, although often only inverylow frequencies. Querns and handstones, however, are absent at most ofthese forest and coastal sites exceptWadi Hammeh and Ain Mallaha, bothofwhich have substantial architecture. At these two sites a variety of groundstone artifacts occurs including mortars, pestles, querns, handstones, andstone bowls (Edwards et al.9 1988, p. 544; Perrot 1966). In contrast, steppeand desert settlements typically lack grinding stones?exceptions includeAbu Hureyra, Taibe, and Tabaqa. In theNegev, ground stone pounders andbedrock mortars occur only in the lateNatufian (Goring-Morris, 1987, p. 306).Much more work isneeded on quantifying the frequency of differentgrindingstone types and variability in the size of these artifacts, as these data may provide insights intowhich artifactswere potentially more portable and which hadtobe cached during absence froma site (K.Wright, personal communication).Henry 1985, . 372),Moore (1985, . 13), lszewski 1986, p. 148-151),and Goring-Morris (1987, p. 446) have all suggested thatmortars and pestleswere used for nut processing, while querns and handstones were used forcereal processing. Although ethnographically nuts were typically processedinmortars and cereals more commonly ground on querns (Kraybill, 1977),experimental and ethnographic evidence demonstrates that mortars andpestles are well suited for processing cereal remains, particularly wildones (Harlan, 1967, pp. 199-201; Meurers-Balke, 1988). The distinctionbetween these two sets of processing equipment, ofwhich querns and handstones replace mortars and pestles during the early Neolithic, may reflect a7For more detail regarding the study ofNatufian regional variability, particularly the sourcesand themethods used in this research, see Byrd (1987, pp. 278-309).


22/40

Natufian Settlement Variability and Economic Adaptations 179

technological improvement in response to an increased reliance on plantremains. This may have occurred inpart to reduce production costs, allowingmuch more plant material to be processed in a shorter time, rather thanrepresenting a change in the types of plant resources exploited (Smith et al,1984; Bar-Yosef, 1980, p. 127).8Certainly, large quantities of querns occur inthePre-Pottery Neolithic A (PPNA) along with the first vidence ofmorphologically domestic cereals.Intersettlement variation in chipped stone tool assemblages alsoprovides evidence regarding subsistence endeavors (see also Henry, 1973a,1977, pp. 235-237; Olszewski, 1986, pp. 92-98). Cluster analysis of chippedstone tool group percentages from 38Natufian occupation horizons revealsthreemajor clusters (Fig. 2).9Mann-Whitney tests of the summarymeans foreach cluster identify statistically significantdifferences between these clusters(Table III).10 Cluster 1 is characterized by higher percentages of nongeometric backed tools,while cluster 2 has higher percentages of notches anddenticulates, scrapers, and the various tool group, which is composedprimarily of simple retouched pieces. Higher frequencies of geometries andlower percentages of burins differentiate cluster 3. In general, broad environmental differences exist between clusters. The cluster 1 sites are highly

Table III. Chipped Stone Tool Group Means and Standard Deviations for Clusters ofNatufian Occupation HorizonsCluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3

Mean SD Mean SD MeanDScrapers.05 2.81 8.62 4.74 2.38.38Burins.74 5.01 7.62 6.93 1.66 1.64

Notches & denticulates 12.11 6.22 18.66 8.30 7.54.40Drills.61 1.05 2.71 2.69 1.96 2.34Truncations 3.05 2.30 4.40 2.59 3.97.10Geometries 22.94 11.0 21.77 8.98 55.33 8.99Nongeometrics 36.59 7.84 14.05 6.63 13.80 6.89Various3.78 5.16 22.28 8.20 14.10 8.07Sample size 163

8Note the abundance of querns and rarity of mortars in the Neolithic at Beidha, wheremassive quantities of pistachios have been recovered (Kirkbride, 1966), and the useof a combination quern-mortar in the early Holocene of the Zagros (Solecki, 1969,p. 988).9The cluster analysis used the Ward method and the squared Euclidean measure. Althoughmany more sites have been attributed to theNatufian, the 38 assemblages used in this analysisare from sites where sufficiently detailed tools lists have been published.10For all theMann-Whitney testsmentioned P < 0.01. The only exceptions are the higherfrequency of notches and denticulates in cluster 2 versus cluster 1and the higher frequency ofvarious tools in cluster 2 versus cluster 3, where P < 0.05.


23/40


24/40

Natufian Settlement Variability and Economic Adaptations 181correlated with the forest and coastal environments, while sites of clusters2 and 3 more closely correlate with the steppe and desert environ

ments.11The predominance of nongeometric microliths and the significantlyhigher sickle-tool ratio in cluster 1 sites suggests a greater emphasison the processing of plant material with chipped stone tools at thesesites.Whether this represents the gathering of cereals for consumptionor, rather, indicates the gathering of non-subsistence-related plantmaterial is open to debate (e.g., Anderson-Gerfaud, 1983, 1988; Buller,1983; Unger-Hamilton, 1985). Explaining the activities which resultedin the high frequencies of scrapers, notches and denticulates, and simpleretouched pieces in cluster 2 is not altogether obvious due to a varietyof interpretations regarding the functions of these tools (e.g., M. Cauvin,1983; Hayden, 1977; Juel Jensen 1988; Gould et al., 1971). The scrapers,if used for hide processing, would suggest a greater emphasis on theprocessing of animal carcasses, and this would be logical, as the steppeand desert areas would have supported a higher animal biomass. Thepredominance of geometries, probably used as hunting projectiles (BarYosef, 1987; Valla, 1987b; Buller, 1983; Anderson-Gerfaud, 1983), at cluster3 sites indicates that these sitesmay have been more specialized huntingencampments.In summary, the three clusters of Natufian occupational horizons havestrong environmental and regional correlations, as sites in the forest andcoastal areas cluster as one group, and, ingeneral, the steppe and desert areascluster into two groups. One steppe and desert area cluster (No. 2) appearsto be characterized by a broader range of activities than theother steppe anddesert cluster (No. 3), which appears to result from a more specializedemphasis on hunting.The primary subsistence evidence recovered from Natufian settlements reveals the exploitation of a wide range of resources, both faunaland floral, with considerable variation in dietary focus from seasonto season. The more abundant secondary evidence suggests that theemphasis on the processing of plant resources and, hence, their consumption was greater at settlements in the forest and coastal areas.In the steppe and desert areas, the secondary evidence reveals patternedintersite variation in activities and subsistence endeavors, with hunting of locally available game herds constituting a major subsistenceactivity.11There are exceptions to this pattern and these no doubt reflect the oversimplification of theenvironmental classification, the use of modern environmental boundaries, and the morecomplex reality of Natufian adaptations.


25/40

182 ByrdFood Production in the Natufian?

At present, based primarily on the archaeobotanical evidence fromAbuHureyra and Wadi Hammeh 27, there is no morphological evidence fordomesticated plants in theNatufian (Hillman et ai, 1989; Edwards et al,1988; Hopf and Bar-Yosef, 1987). Certainly more research at sites withorganic preservation is needed. Despite these trends, the morphologicalchanges that clearly demonstrate plant domestication may achieve fixationonly a mere two or three decades after thefirstapplication of the appropriateforms of cultivation (Hillman and Davies, 1988). Other systems of cultivationwould not lead to domestication at all. This possibility of long periods ofcultivation ofmorphologically wild types of cereals makes determination oftheinitial tages fplanting xtremelyifficulto identifyHillman, 1978;Kislev, 1984). The use of secondary evidence to inferthepresence of agricultureis, at present, equivocal and open to equally viable alternative interpretations. The presence of sickles (even ifthe sheen iscreated by cereal cutting),grinding stones, and storage facilities, all of which have been used to arguefor cultivation, can also be used forwild plants and other resources. On theother hand, the recent work of Unger-Hamilton (1988) suggests that usewear analysis of sickles offershitherto untapped potential on this subject. Analternative line of research with potential for identifying the early stages ofcultivation entails research on associated plants which grow in disturbancesituations (particularly cultivated fields) and those which will not. This canbe approached by the study of archaeobotanical remains and pollen fromarchaeological sites (e.g.,Hillman et al.9 1989; Fish, 1984).Modern botanicalfield research, however, isneeded to facilitate reliable interpretation of plantremains in this regard.

The first evidence of morphologically domestic plants in the Levantoccurs after theNatufian in the earlyNeolithic (PPNA). At Netiv Hagdudin the Jordan Valley, radiocarbon dated to between 10,260 and 9800 B.P.,there appears to be evidence of domestic barley (Kislev et al.9 1986). A smallproportion of the barley recovered lacks the brittle rachis typical of wildplants; the loss of this brittle rachis, the natural dispersal mechanism for thewild seeds, suggests that selective pressures by human populations hadchanged the characteristics of the plant population's gene pool.12 A smallersample of carbonized barley from theneighboring, more substantial PPNAsettlement at Jericho appears to corroborate these assertions (Hopf, 1969,p. 356). Further evidence from later occupation at Tell Aswad, in the

,2Kislev (1988) has recently argued that there is no evidence for domestic cereals prior to 9000B.P., based primarily on experimental observations that hand stripped wild barley is indistinguishable from domestic barley.


26/40

Natufian Settlement Variability and Economic Adaptations 183lacustrine environment of the Damascus Basin, reveals small quantities(~ 5%) of domestic emmerwheat, peas, and lentils,dating between 9500 and9000 B.P. (de Contenson, 1983). Morphologically wild plants, includingbarley, small legumes, almonds, figs, and pistachios, comprise most of theplant remains. However, by phase II, between 9000 and 8600 B.P., domesticbarley and einkorn wheat also occur, and domestic plants represent 30% oftheplant remains.The dog appears to have been the only domesticated animal during intheNatufian and this evidence, based on the burial of a human youth inassociation with a young canid (Davis, 1978), is not unequivocal. Herdanimals appear not to have been domesticated, and intensive hunting ofgazelle rather than human control may have occurred. The age profiles ofgazelle fromNatufian sites suggest large-scale slaughter of herds rather thanspecialized culling of young animals (Henry, 1975; Simmons and Ilany,1975-1977; Legge and Rowley-Conwy, 1987). Certainly the secure identification of the early stages of animal domestication is, like the early stages ofagriculture, very difficult to ascertain, particularly because no morphologicalchanges may result (Hecker, 1982). The earliest evidence for herd animaldomestication in the Levant occurs considerably later during theNeolithic(Legge and Rowley-Conwy 1986), and Hole (1984) argues that the domestication of sheep and goat occurred in theZagros and spread from there intothe Levant. More detailed examination of changes inNatufian huntingbehavior may well provide evidence for changes in exploitation patterns(Crabtree et al., 1987).

Sedentism, Permanence ofOccupation, and Annual SystemsResearch on sedentism and expected archaeological correlates hasshown that there are no absolute indicators (Bailey et al, 1983; Rafferty,1985; Edwards, 1987, p. 329). In using the term, I follow Rice's definition ofsedentism: Sedentary settlement systems are those inwhich at least part ofthe population remains at the same location throughout the entire year

(1975, p. 97). The assertion of sedentism atNatufian sites, such as Hayonim,is based in large part on the empirical observation that the human commensals house mouse, Mus musculus, house sparrow, Passer domesticus,and rat, Rattus rattus, occur in the occupation deposits (Bar-Yosef andTchernov, 1967; Bar-Yosef, 1981, p. 401, 1983, p. 25; Henry, 1985, p. 372;Phillips, 1984). The assertion that these small animals with long paleontologicalhistories can be associated only with permanent human settlements is opento alternative interpretations, as certainly these species inhabited otherecological niches and were not exclusively associated with permanent human


27/40


28/40

Natufian Settlement Variability and Economic Adaptations 185Table IV. Site Characteristics and Chipped Stone Artifact Variables forNatufian Occupation

Horizons, Organized by Tool Group ClustersThickness Area excv. ST ratio TC ratio C denst

Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD NCluster 1 0.65 0.51 196.8 166.9 5.7 7.6 8.1 4.7 1.5 2.8 15Cluster 2 0.28 0.36 22.5 25.7 6.1 3.8 8.1 6.1 14.4 14.8 10Cluster3 0.31 0.15 12.1 17.9 16.3 5.1 3.2 1.1 58.2 35.4 8aDT ratio, debitage/tool ratio; TC ratio, tool/core ratio; C denst, core density.

of excavation (in square and cubic meters ofmaterial removed) than do sitesin clusters 2 and 3, possibly biasing thispattern (Table IV).Within cluster 1considerable variability exists between sites in the frequency of architecturalfeatureswith theoccupation horizons ofKebarah B, Shukbah B, and elWadBl revealing no architectural features.14Valla (1981) has noted that architectural size decreases over time atAin Mallaha. This trendmay be supportedby the occurrence of large structures during the early Natufian atWadiHammeh 27 (Edwards et ai, 1988) and the presence of smaller structuresduring the lateNatufian at Rosh Zin (Henry, 1976, p. 318), however, the earlyNatufian structures atHayonim Cave are quite small (Hopf and Bar-Yosef,1987, Fig. 1). Storage features, despite being described as an integral aspectof theNatufian, have been demonstrated at only three sites from cluster 1.Burial distribution shows a clear patterning, with almost every site withburials from cluster 1; the burials at Ain el Saratan (Azraq 18) in the desertoasis ofAzraq are the only exception to this pattern (Garrard et al.9 1987,p. 21). In addition, at elWad, Hayonim Cave, and possibly other Natufiansites, group burials were more common during the early Natufian, whileindividual intermentswere predominant during the lateNatufian (Wright,1978; Belfer-Cohen, 1989). The large numbers of burials in the forest andcoastal region may well reflect greater occupational intensity and longersettlement habitation, although at steppe and desert sites the paucity ofburials may be due to different burial practices or sampling error given thesmaller areas excavated.

Based on the results ofMann-Whitney tests (P < 0.05), the intensityand range ofmanufacturing activities related to chipped stone artifact production show clear differences between clusters.15 Cluster 1 is characterizedby the lowest density of cores per cubic meter and bymore retouched tools14Undoubtedly, stone architecture was absent from these occupational horizons. If moreephemeral structures had been present, however, the nature of the excavation technique maynot have permitted their detection.15Local variability in flint raw material does not appear to be a factor in these patterns.


29/40

186 Byrdper corethan luster (Table IV).Cluster2 isdistinguishedy significantlymore cores per cubic meter than cluster 1 and a significantly lower densitythan cluster 3.A higher density of cores per cubic meter and higher numbersof unretouched debitage per tool occur in cluster 3 than in clusters 1and 2.No significantdiscernible differences existwhen temporal, environmental, orgeographic subsets are examined.Several inferences regarding intensity of occupation and settlementpermanence may be made with respect to the differences in chipped stoneartifacts ratios between clusters. First, the increase in the density of cores percubicmeter from cluster 1 to cluster 2 to cluster 3 suggests that core reductionwas most intensive at the forest and coastal area sites, less so at steppe anddesert area sites of cluster 2, and least at the specialized steppe and desert sitesof cluster 3. Second, thehigher unretouched debitage/tool ratios at cluster 3sites, as opposed to sites from clusters 1 and 2, indicate that formal toolmanufacture occurred less frequently and less intensively in cluster 3 sites.Third, the fewer manufactured tools per core at cluster 3 sites than atcluster 1 sites also suggest that tool manufacture was less intense at cluster3 sites.

Activity intensity and settlement permanence varied between clusters.One would expect that sites thatwere occupied for longer periods of timewould show more intensive utilization of on-site raw material than siteswhere occupation was only short-term. If thiswere so, then these resultssuggest that cluster 3 sites were the least intensive occupation and the leastpermanent. In addition, based on the lower core density ratio, the cluster 1siteswere probably more intensively occupied than the cluster 2 sites.In summary, regional differences in settlement intensityand subsistenceemphasis are apparent during theNatufian. Sites of cluster 1, situatedprimarily in forest and coastal areas, are characterized by greater intensityand permanence of occupation. They also have higher frequencies of plantprocessing artifacts. Steppe and desert area sites of cluster 2 are characterizedby a moderate settlement permanence and activity intensity, and a broadrange of activities is represented in the artifact assemblages. Less permanentoccupation and more specialized activities focused primarily on huntingtypify the other set of steppe and desert sites, cluster 3.In attempting to build models ofNatufian annual settlement systems, itmust be kept inmind that the archaeological record is biased in favor oflarge, highly visible Natufian sites and, in the forest area, by cave and sheltersites. Small sites have rarely been located except in theNegev (GoringMorris, 1987). The initial low visibility of small, short-term habitation andprocurement sites and postdepositional disturbances (e.g., sedimentation,erosion, historic human disturbance) inhibit accurate settlement reconstruction. The lack of coastal Natufian settlements, due to the submerged


30/40

Natufian Settlement Variability and Economic Adaptations 187nature of the late Pleistocene shoreline, further limits our understanding ofcoastal adaptations.

Despite these caveats, it is apparent that the range of activities carriedout, the probable types of resources exploited, and the degree of activityintensity and settlement permanence vary between environmental regionsand particular clusters of Natufian sites. Variation in annual settlementsystems can be expected in respect to positioning and logistical strategies(Binford 1980), and the seasonal availabilities ofwater and plant resourceswereundoubtedlyrimary actorsJochim, 981; elly, 1983). ne wouldexpect that in the steppe and desert areas of theLevant, water was more likelyto be a significant determinant. For theNatufian, alternative settlementmodels could include (a) a single settlement, occupied year-round, (b) morethan one base camp of roughly equal archaeological size occupied for aconsiderable timeperiod each year, and (c) seasonal aggregation and dispersalcreating both large and smaller encampments (see Crabtree et ai, 1987;Goring-Morris, 1987, p. 437; Henry, 1987b).In forest and coastal areas, which were better watered and perhapsricher in plant resources, the Natufian settlement cycle may have entailedaggregation in large settlements during a major portion of the year.This would have coincided with periods of maximum availability of plantresources?the late spring/early summer and the autumn. During otherperiods of the year, when resource availability was more limited in theimmediate area of the main settlement, a dispersed settlement strategycould have been employed. For example, during the summer after localstands of wild cereals and legumes were exhausted, smaller family unitsmay have dispersed and exploited low-density resources occurring insomewhat more distant locals. Areas of extremely rich resources, suchas the ecotonal setting of Ain Mallaha, may have had year-roundsettlement.

In steppe and desert areas the lengthof seasonal stays at most settlementsappears tohave been more restricted, andmovement of camps occurred morefrequently in concert with local resource availability. More lengthy periodsof aggregation, perhaps occasionally entailing year-round settlement, wereno doubt possible in portions of themoist steppe near permanent watersources. Aggregation was probably most common during periods of highresource availability, including the spring and early summer when cereals,legumes, and young animals were plentiful. Communal hunting, possiblyentailing game drives,may have taken place during theseperiods ofpopulationaggregation. In contrast, aggregation may have been limited to periods ofrestricted availability of water (the late summer and autumn) in certain areasof the desert and dry steppe. In these areas a more dispersed settlementorganization would have typified other periods of the year, particularly


31/40


32/40

Natufian Settlement Variability and Economic Adaptations 189animals. More pronounced changes in settlement intensity and subsistencestrategies are apparent in themost favorable environmental situations of theLevant during theNatufian, yet the firstmorphological evidence of plantdomestication occurs in theNeolithic of the arid lower Jordan Valley (BarYosef, 1989). Certainly the steppic areas witnessed significant changes inenvironment and resource availability at the end of thePleistocene, but it isuncertain under what conditions local populations began adding plantcultivation to their subsistence repertoire. A clearer picture of thismajoradaptive transition awaits the results of further detailed archaeologicalinvestigations, particularly in the eastern portion of the Levant where ourknowledge ismost limited.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTSSeveral Near Eastern archaeologists commented on an early draft ofthispaper: D. Baird, S. Colledge, A. N. Garrard, G. Hillman, K. I.Wright,and an anonymous reviewer. Their insights and suggestions, although not

always heeded, are appreciated. In addition, the author has benefited fromdiscussion with and advice from E. B. Banning, O. Bar-Yosef, P. Edwards,M. Faught, P. Fish, A. J. Jelinek, R. Netting, J.W. Olsen, D. Olszewski,D. Schyle, and A. P. Sullivan. Elsebet Morville of the Forhistorisk Museum,Moesgaard, illustration staffkindly drafted thefigures.The initial dissertationresearch on which this article isbased was supported by anAmerican Schoolsof Oriental Research Shell Foundation Fellowship (1984-1985) and grantsfrom theAlwyn Cotton Foundation, theEducational Fund forArchaeology,Department of Anthropology, and theGraduate Development Fund at theUniversity of Arizona. Analyses of radiocarbon samples from theNatufianat Beidha were conducted at theAccelerator Mass Spectrometer facility attheUniversity ofArizona throughNSF Grant EAR-8512761.

REFERENCESAl-Eisawi, D. M. (1985). Vegetation in Jordan. In Hadidi, A. (ed.), Studies in theHistory and

Archaeology of Jordan, II, Routledge & Kegan Paul, London, pp. 45-58.Alon, A. (1969). The Natural History of theLand of theBible, Doubleday, New York.Anderson-Gerfaud, P. C. (1983). A consideration of the uses of certain backed and lusteredstone tools from lateMesolithic and Natufian levels of Abu Hureyra and Mureybet (Syria).In Cauvin, M. (ed.), Traces d'Utilization sur les Outils Neolithiques due Proche Orient.Travaux de laMaison de TOrient, 5,Maison de l'Orient Mediterraneen, Lyon, pp. 77-106.Anderson-Gerfaud, P. C. (1988). Using prehistoric stone tools to harvest cultivated wild cereals:Preliminary observations of traces and impact. In Beyries, S. (ed.), Industries Lithiques

?Traceologie et Technologic BAR International Series 411: 175-195 (Oxford).


33/40

190 ByrdBaharav, D. (1983). Observations on the ecology of themountain gazelle in the upper Galilee,Israel. Mammalia 47(1): 59-69.Bailey, G., Carter, P., Gamble, C, and Higgs, H. (1983). Epirus revisited: Seasonality and

inter-site variation in the Upper Paleolithic of north-west Greece. In Bailey, G. (ed.),Hunter-Gatherer Economy inPrehistory, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 59-78.Bar-Yosef, O. (1970). The Epi-Paleolithic Cultures of Palestine, Ph.D. dissertation, HebrewUniversity, Jerusalem.Bar-Yosef, O. (1978). Man?an outline of the prehistory of the Kinneret area. In Serruya, C.(ed.), Lake Kinneret. Monograhiae Biologicae, 32, Junk, The Hague, pp. 447-464.Bar-Yosef, O. (1980). Prehistory of the Levant. Annual Review of Anthropology 9: 101-131.Bar-Yosef, O. (1981). The Epipaleolithic complexes in the southern Levant. In Cauvin, J., andSanlaville, P. (eds.), Prehistoire du Levant. Colloques International du CNRS, 598, CNRS,Paris, pp. 389-408.Bar-Yosef, O. (1983). The Natufian in the southern Levant. InYoung, T. C, Jr., Smith, P. E. L.,

and Mortensen, P. (eds.), The Hilly Flanks and Beyond. Oriental Institute Studies inAncientOriental Civilization, 36, University of Chicago, Chicago, pp. 11-42.Bar-Yosef, O. (1987). Direct and indirect evidence for hafting in theEpi-Paleolithic and Neolithicof the southern Levant. In Stordeur, D. (ed.), La Main et L'outil. Manches et Emmanchements Prehistoriques. Travaux de laMaison de L'Orient, 15,Maison de L'Orient, Lyon,pp. 155-164.Bar-Yosef, O. (1989). PPNA sites in the Jordan Valley. In Colloque International CNRS,Prehistoire du Levant 2, Paleorient 15 (in press).Bar-Yosef, O., and Tchernov, E. (1967). Archaeological finds and fossil fauna of theNatufianand microlithic industries at Hayonim Cave (western Galilee, Israel). Israel Journal of

Zoology 15: 104-140.Bar-Yosef, O., and Tchernov, E. (1970). The Natufian bone industry ofHa-yonim Cave. IsraelExploration Journal 20: 141-150.Bar-Yosef, O., and Valla, F. R. (1979). L'evolution du Natoufien nouvelles suggestions. Paleorient 5: 145-151.Bar-Yosef, O., and Vogel, J. C. (1987). Relative and absolute chronology of the Epipaleolithicin the south of the Levant. In Aurenche, O., Evin, J., and Hours, F. (eds.), Chronologiesin the Near East. BAR International Series 379: 219-246 (Oxford).Belfer-Cohen, A. (1988). The Natufian issue: A suggestion. In Terminal Pleistocene HunterGatherers in theNegev and Sinai. BAR International Series, Oxford (in press).Belfer-Cohen, A. (1989). The Natufian graveyard inHayonim Cave. In Colloque InternationalCNRS, Prehistoire du Levant 2, Paleorient 15 (in press).Bender, B. (1978). Gatherer-hunter to farmer A social perspective. World Archaeology 10: 204-237.Betts, A. (1986). The Prehistory of theBasalt Desert, Transjordan: an Analysis, Ph.D. dissertation,London University, London.Betts, A. (1987). Jebel es-Subhi: A Natufian site in eastern Jordan. Paleorient 13(1): 99-103.Binford, L. R. (1968). Post-Pleistocene adaptations. In Binford, S. R., and Binford, L. R. (eds.),New Perspectives inArchaeology, Aldine Press, Chicago, pp. 313-341.Binford, L. R. (1980). Willow smoke and dog's tails: Hunter-gatherer settlement and archaeological site formation. American Antiquity 45: 4-20.Bintliff, J. L. (1982). Paleoclimatic modeling of environmental changes in the east Mediterranean region since the last glaciarion. In Bintliff, J.L., and van Zeist, W. (eds.), Paleoclimates,Paleoenvironments and Human Communities in the Eastern Mediterranean Region inLater Prehistory. BAR International Series 133: 485-527 (Oxford).Bohrer, V. (1972). On the relation of harvest methods to early agriculture in the Near East.Economic Botany 26: 145-155.Bottema, S. (1987). Chronology and climatic phases in theNear East from 16,000 to 10,000 BP.In Aurenche, O., Evin, J., and Hours, F. (eds.), Chronologies in the Near East. BARInternational Series 379: 295-310 (Oxford).Bottema, S., and van Zeist, W. (1981). Palynological evidence for the climatic history of theNear East, 50,000-6,000 B.P. In Cauvin, J., and Sanlaville, P. (eds.), Prehistoire du Levant.

Colloques Internationaux du CNRS, 598, CNRS, Paris, pp. 111-132.


34/40


Bouchud, J. (1987). Les mammifieres et la petite faune du gisement Natoufien de Mallaha(Eynan). In Bouchard, J. (ed.), La Faune du Gisement Natoufien de Mallaha (Eynan)Israel. Memoires et Travaux du Centre de Recherche Frangais du Jerusalem, 4,AssociationPaleorient, Paris, pp. 1-150.Braidwood, R. J. (1960). The agricultural revolution. Science 203: 130-148.Buller, H. (1983). Methodological problems in themicrowear analysis of tools selected from theNatufian sites of elWad and Ain Mallaha. In Cauvin, M. (ed.), Traces d'Utilization sur lesOutils Neolithiques du Proche Orient. Travaux de laMaison de VOrient, 5,Maison deL'Orient, Lyon, pp. 107-126.Butler, B. H., Tchernov, E., Hietala, H., and Davis, S. (1977). Faunal exploitation during thelate Epipaleolithic in theHar Harif. InMarks. A. E. (ed.), Prehistory and Paleoenvironmentsin the Central Negev, Israel, 2, Southern Methodist University, Dallas, Tex., pp. 327-346.Byrd, B. F. (1987). Beidha and theNatufian: Variability inLevantine Settlement and Subsistence,Ph.D. dissertation, University ofArizona, University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, Mich.

Byrd, B. F. (1988). The Natufian of Beidha: report on renewed field research. InGarrard, A. N.,and Gebel, H. G. (eds.), The Prehistory of Jordan. BAR International Series 396: 175-197(Oxford).Byrd, B. F., and Rollefson, G. O. (1984). Natufian occupation in the wadi el Hasa, southernJordan. Annual of theDepartment of Antiquities, Jordan 28: 143-150.Cauvin, J. (1977). Les nouvelles fouilles de Mureybet (1971-1974) et leurs significations pour lesorigines de la sedentarisation au Proche-Orient. In Freedman, D. N. (ed.), ArchaeologicalReports From the Tabqa Dam Project-Euphrates Valley, Syria. Annual of theAmericanSchools of Oriental Research 44: 19-48.Cauvin, J. (1978). Les Premiers Villages de Syrie-Palestine du IXe-au VIP Millenaire Avant J-C.Sirie Archeologique 3, Collection de laMaison de VOrient Ancien, 4, Maison de l'Orient,Lyon.Cauvin, J., and Cauvin, M. C. (1983). Origines de l'agriculture au Levant: Facteurs biologiqueset socio-culturels. In Young, T. C, Jr., Smith, P. E. L., and Mortensen, P. (eds.), The HillyFlanks and Beyond. Oriental Institute Studies inAncient Oriental Civilization, 36,Universityof Chicago, Chicago, pp. 43-56.Cauvin, M. (1974). L'industrie natoufienne de Taibe dans le Hauran (Syrie). Bulletin de laSociete Prehistorique Francaise 71: 469-478.Cauvin, M. (1981). L'epipaleolithique du Levant. In Cauvin, J., and Sanlaville, P. (eds.),Prehistoire du Levant. Colloques International du CNRS, 598, CNRS, Paris, pp. 439-441.Cauvin, M. (ed.) (1983). Traces d'Utilization sur les Outils Neolithiques du Proche Orient.Travaux de laMaison de VOrient, 5,Maison de l'Orient Mediterraneen, Lyon.

Clark, G., Lindley, J.,Donaldson, M., Garrard, A., Coinman, N., Schuldenrein, J., Fish, S.,and Olszewski, D. (1988). Excavations at Middle, Upper, and Epipaleolithic sites in theWadi Hasa, west-central Jordan. InGarrard, A. N., and Gebel, H. G. (eds.), The Prehistoryof Jordan. BAR International Series 396: 209-285 (Oxford).Crabtree, P. J.,Campana, D. V., and Belfer-Cohen, A. (1987). A report on the first season ofexcavation at the late Natufian site of Salibiya I.Ms. on file,Department of Antiquities,Israel.Darmon, F. (1987). Analyses polliniques de trois sites Natoufiens (Ancien, Recent, Final) dansla region de Salibiya-Fazael Paleorient 13(1): 121-129.Davis, S. (1978). Evidence for domestication of the dog 12,000 years ago in theNatufian ofIsrael. Nature 276: 608-610.Davis, S. (1978). The effects of temperature change and domestication on the body size of latePleistocene toHolocene mammals of Israel. Paleobiology 7(1): 101-114.Davis. S. (1982). Climatic change and the advent of domestication: The succession of ruminantartiodactyls in the late Pleistocene-Holocene in the Israel region. Paleorient 8(2): 5-15.Davis, S. (1983). The age profiles of gazelles predated by ancient man in Israel. Paleorient 9(1):57-64.Davis, S. (1985). A preliminary report of the fauna fromHatoula, a Natufian-PPNA Site nearLatroun, Israel. In Lechevallier, M., and Ronen, A. (eds.), Le Site Natoufien-Khiamien deHatoula, Appendix B. Centre de Recherche Frangais de Jerusalem 1: 71-98 (Jerusalem).


35/40

192 Byrdde Contenson, H. (1983). Early agriculture inwestern Asia. InYoung, T. C, Jr., Smith, P. E. L.,and Mortensen, P. (eds.), The Hilly Flanks and Beyond. Oriental Institute Studies inAncientOriental Civilization, 36, University of Chicago, Chicago, pp. 57-74.Desse, J. (1987). L'ichtyofaune. In Bouchud, J. (ed.), La Faune du Gisement Natoufien deMallaha (Eynan) Israel. Memoires el Travaux du Centre de Recherche Frangais deJerusalem, 4, Association Paleorient, Paris, pp. 151-156.Edwards, P. C. (1987). Late Pleistocene Occupation inWadi al-Hameh, Jordan Valley, Ph.D.dissertation, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.Edwards, P. C, Bourke, S. J., Colledge, S. M., Head, J., and Macumber, P. G. (1988). LatePleistocene prehistory in thewadi al-Hammeh, Jordan Valley. InGarrard, A. N., and Gebel,H. G. (eds.), The Prehistory of Jordan. BAR International Series 396: 525-565 (Oxford).Fish, P. R., and Fish, S. K. (1988). Modeling the transition: A comparative analysis. Paper

presented at the Society forAmerican Archaeology annual meeting, Phoenix, Ariz.Fish, S. K. (1984). Agricultural and subsistence implications of the Salt-Gila aqueduct projectpollen analysis. In Teague, L. S., and Crown, P. L. (eds.), Hohokam Archaeology Alongthe Salt Gila Aqueduct Central Arizona Project. Arizona State Museum ArchaeologicalSeries 150: 111-138 (Tucson).

Flannery, K. V. (1965). The ecology of early food production inMesopotamia. Science 148:1247-1256.Flannery, K. V. (1969), Origins and ecological effects of early domestication in Iran and theNear East. In Ucko, P. J., and Dimbley, G. W. (eds.), The Domestication and Exploitation

of Plants and Animals, Aldine, London, pp. 73-100.Flannery, K. V. (1973). The origins of agriculture. Annual Review ofAnthropology 2: 271-310.Galili, E., and Weinstein-Evron, M. (1985). Prehistory and paleoenvironments of submergedsites along the Carmel coast of Israel. Paleorient 11(1): 37-52.Garrard, A. N. (1980). Man-Animal-Plant Relationships During theUpper Pleistocene and EarlyHolocene of the Levant, Ph.D. dissertation, Darwin College, University of Cambridge,

Cambridge, England.Garrard, A. N. (1982). The environmental implications of a re-analysis of the large mammalfauna from theWadi el-Mughara caves, Palestine. In Bintliff, J.L., and van Zeist, W, (eds.),Paleoclimates, Paleoenvironments and Human Communities in the Eastern MediterraneanRegion inLater Prehistory. BAR International Series 133: 165-187 (Oxford).Garrard, A. N. (1984). The selection of South-west Asian animal domesticates. In CluttonBrock, J., and Grigson, C. (eds.), Animals and Archaeology: 3. Early Herders and TheirFlocks. BAR International Series 202: 117-132 (Oxford).

Garrard, A. N. (1985). Appendix A: Faunal remains. In Black desert survey, Jordan: Thirdpreliminary report, by A. Betts. Levant 17: 47-49.Garrard, A. N. (1989). Environment, settlement and subsistence during the late Pleistocene andearlyHolocene in theAzraq Basin. InColloque International CNRS, Prehistoire du Levant2, Paleorient 15 (in press).Garrard, A. N., Byrd, B. F., and Betts, A. (1986). Prehistoric environment and settlement in theAzraq Basin, an interim report on the 1984 excavation season. Levant 18: 5-24.Garrard, A. N., Betts, A., Byrd, B., and Hunt, C. (1987). Prehistoric environment and settlementin the Azraq Basin: An interim report in the 1985 excavation season. Levant 19: 5-25.Garrard, A. N., Betts, A., Byrd, B., Colledge, S., and Hunt, C. (1988). Summary of paleoenvironmental and prehistoric investigations in theAzraq Basin. In Garrard, A. N., and Gebel,H. G. (eds.), The Prehistory of Jordan. BAR International Series 396: 311-337 (Oxford).

Garrod, D. A. E. (1932). A new Mesolithic industry: The Natufian of Palestine. Journal of theRoyal Anthropological Institute 62: 257-270.Garrod, D. A. E. (1942). Excavation at the cave of Shukbah, Palestine, 1928. Proceedings of thePrehistoric Society 8: 1-20.Garrod, D. A. E. (1958). The Natufian culture: The lifeand economy ofMesolithic people intheNear East. Proceedings of theBritish Academy 43: 211-227.Goldberg, P. (1981). Late Quaternary stratigraphy of Israel: An eclectic view. In Cauvin, J., andSanlaville, P. (eds.), Prehistoire du Levant. Colloques International du CNRS, 598, CNRS,Paris, pp. 55-67.


36/40


Goldberg, P. (1986). Late Quaternary geological history of the southern Levant: A geoarchaeological approach. Geoarchaeology 2: 225-244.

Goldberg, P., and Bar-Yosef, O. (1982). Environmental and archaeological evidence for climaticchange in the southern Levant. In Bintliff, J. L., and van Zeist, W. (eds.), Paleoclimates,Paleoenvironments, and Human Communities in the Eastern Mediterranean Region inLater Prehistory. BAR International Series 133: 399^14 (Oxford).

Goring-Morris, A. N. (1987). At theEdge: Terminal Pleistocene Hunter-Gatherers in theNegevand Sinai. BAR International Series 361 (Oxford).Goring-Morris, A. N., and Bar-Yosef, O. (1987). A late Natufian campsite from the western

Negev, Israel. Paleorient 13(1): 107-112.Gould, R. A., Koster, D. A., and Sontz, A. H. L. (1971). The lithic assemblage of thewesterndesert Aborigines of Australia. American Antiquity 36: 149-169.Harlan, J. R. (1967). A wild wheat harvest inTurkey. Archaeology 20: 197-201.Harlan, J.R., and Zohary, D. (1966). Distribution of wild wheats and barley. Science 153:1075-1080.Hayden, B. (1977). Stone tool functions in the western desert. InWright, R. V. S. (ed.), StoneTools as Cultural Markers: Change, Evolution, Complexity, Australian Institute ofAborigine Study, Canberra, pp. 178-188.

Hayden, B. (1981). Research and development in the stone age: Technological transitionsamong hunter-gatherers. Current Anthropology 22: 519-548.Hecker, H. M. (1982). Domestication revisited: Its implications for faunal analysis. Journal ofField Archaeology 9: 217-236.Helbaek, H. (1959). Domestication of food plants in theOld World. Science 130: 365-372.Helbaek, H. (1964). First impression of the?atal Huyuk plant husbandry. Anatolian Studies 14:121-126.Henry, D. O. (1973a). The Natufian of Palestine: Its Material Culture and Ecology, Ph.D.dissertation, Southern Methodist University, University Microfilms, Ann Arbor,Mich.Henry, D. O. (1973b). The Natufian site of Rosh Zin, Negev, Israel: Preliminary report. Palestine

Exploration Quarterly 105: 129-140.Henry, D. O. (1975). Fauna inNear Eastern archaeological deposits. In Wendorf, F., andMarks, A. E. (eds.), Problems inPrehistory: North Africa and theLevant, Southern Methodist

University, Dallas, Tex., pp. 379-385.Henry, D. O. (1976). Rosh Zin: A Natufian settlement near Ein Avdat. InMarks, A. E. (ed.),Prehistory and Paleoenvironments in the Central Negev, Israel, 1, Southern MethodistUniversity, Dallas, pp. 317-348.

Henry, D. O. (1977). An examination of the artifact variability in the Natufian of Palestine. InArensburg, B., and Bar Yosef, O. (eds.), Eretz Israel, 13, Israel Exploration Society,Jerusalem, pp. 229-239.Henry, D. O. (1981). An analysis of settlement patterns and adaptive strategies of theNatufian.In Cauvin, J., and Sanlaville, P. (eds.), Prehistoire du Levant. Colloques Internationaux duCNRS, 598, CNRS, Paris, pp. 421-432.Henry, D. O. (1982). The prehistory of southern Jordan and relationships with the Levant.Journal of Field Archaeology 9: 417-444.Henry, D. O. (1983). Adaptive evolution within the Epipaleolithic of theNear East. AdvancesinWorld Archaeology 2: 99-160.Henry, D. O. (1985). Preagricultural sedentism: Th

byrd the natufian

Documents