Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 1991. 20:167-86
Copyright © 1991 by Annual Reviews Inc. AU rights reserved
THE NATUFIAN IN THE LEVANT
Anna Belfer-Cohen
Itistitute of Archaeology, Hebrew University, Mt. Scopus, Jerusalem, 91905 Israel
KEY WORDS: origins of agriculture, sedentism, intensive collectors, complex society
INTRODUCTION
The Natufian entity was first identified and described in the early 1930s by D.
Garrod (39) following her excavations at the Shukba Cave in the Samaria
(Figure 1). Other assemblages identified as Natufian were subsequently uncovered
within the boundaries of what was to become identified as the
Natufian core area, encompassing the Galilee, Mt. Carmel, and the Judean
Hills and Desert (41, 64, 83). Though the original definition of the Natufian
complex was based on the characteristics of its chipped stone industry, both
Garrod and Neuville (63, 64), who explored the Judean desert Natufian sites,
were impressed by the nonlithic finds. This is the first Levantine prehistoric
entity with durable architectural remains bearing evidence of intensive building
activities. Some of the sites exceed in size anything known before,
heralding the appearance of the villages and compounds of the Neolithic
cultures to come. Besides an unprecedented abundance (in quantity and
variety) of bone implements, there is a wealth of limestone and basalt
artifacts. Also, for the first time there appear numerous art objects and
ornaments made of a variety of raw materials, both common and exotic. All
these components place the Natufian apart from preceding archaeological
cultures.
Since the early discoveries, sites identified as Natufian have been reported
both from the core area (12, 49, 65, 67, 78, 88) and from regions further
away, some within different phytogeographic zones: northem Syria (26, 27,
60), north and south Lebanon (19), the Jordan Rift Valley (9, 33, 38),
southem Jordan (46, 55, 56), the Syrian-Arabian Desert (20), and the Negev
(43, 58, 61) (Figure 1). The abundant data accumulated over the years
167
0084-6570/91/1015-0167$02.00
168 BELFER-COHEN
Figure 1 Map of the southem Levant showing the major sites of the Natufian and of other
contemporaneous entities.
THE NATUFIAN 169
necessitate a reexamination of several assumptions conceming the Natufian
that until recently were taken for granted. Topics to be reevaluated range from
the functions of various artifacts, to the possible existence of social stratification
within Natufian populations.
In the following sections I address several problems pertaining to the
definition of the Natufian, the question of sedentism, and the origin and
evolution of the Natufian sociocultural complex. All these issues have some
bearing on the unique position of the Natufian, diachronically and culturally
in the sequence of Levantine prehistoric cultures.
GENERAL DESCRIPTION
Natufian flint assemblages are characterized by the dominance of lunateshaped
microliths, the use of bifacial, Helwan retouch, and the use of the
microburin technique. In addition, new tool types appear—sickle blades,
picks, and axes—frequent in the flint assemblages of the succeeding agricultural
entities (6, 40, 48, 64; Figure 2:1-7, 13-14, 18-19). The flint
industries exhibit inter- and intrasite typological variability, and the frequencies
of various tool groups are highly correlated with environmental settings,
site types, and specific activity areas within sites. Yet the technological
pattems are quite homogeneous. A time-dependent variability in the lithic
assemblages was employed to define the various chronological sub-stages of
the Natufian sequence, together with stratigraphic evidence and '"*€ dates.
The groundstone assemblages, earlier occurring sporadically, are here
varied and numerous. Most are made of limestone, but basalt and sandstone
artifacts have also been transported over considerable distances (30 km and
more), either as complete items or as raw material, probably traded by the
locals from other groups. The core area assemblages are dominated by
mortars (Figure 2:15-17) and pestles, but other utensils are present as well—
muUers, plates, shaft straighteners, and whetstones. Quite a few instances of
stone beads and other decorative and decorated elements also occur (12, 17,
32, 33, 67). The assemblages from the core area are substantially different
from assemblages found further away (see below).
Most of the Natufian core area sites have yielded rich bone assemblages, of
both functional and decorative items. Microscopic studies of use-wear traces
reveal that a significant proportion of the functional items had been used
mostly for weaving and hide-working (24, 25). A change in the production
technique of worked bone items is noticeable: While most of the functional
artifacts had been shaped by scraping and shaving, a technique used for
woodworking, the beads and pendants were shaped by grinding. Grinding
was the common technique for working bone in the succeeding Neolithic
cultures, but it is practically unknown from earlier bone industries. Several
170 BELFER-COHEN
Figure 2 Natufian artifacts: flint—1, 4 Helwan lunates; 2-3,5-7 backed lonates; 13-14 sickle
blades; 18-19 picks; bone—8 haft; 9 point; 11 pendant; 12 decorated item; tooth—10 pendant;
groundstone 15-17 mortars (basalt and limestone)
unique items have been recovered: bone hafts (presumably for sickle blades),
and some decorated items of unknown function (12, 17, 33, 40, 64, 79-81)
(Figure 2:8, 9, 12).
Natufian ornaments are varied and numerous. Beads and pendants are made
THE NATUHAN 171
of limestone, basalt, greenstone, and malachite, as well as of bone, teeth, and
a great variety of marine shells. Exotic materials, though rare, testify to
connections with neighboring regions. Thus obsidian found at Eynan (Mallaha)
had been brought from Anatolia, greenstone from Syria, Jordan, or Sinai,
and marine shells from the Red Sea and the Nile. A number of stone and bone
figurines have been found, mostly of animals but some human representations
as well. There are also incised limestone slabs with geometric and figurative
pattems, used as decorative elements in architectural contexts. While many of
the beads and pendants—i.e. personal omaments—have been recovered from
adomed burials, the other artistic items were found only in the living areas (6,
12, 17, 26, 33, 40, 48, 64) (Figure 2:10-12).
More than 400 burials have been recovered so far from Natufian cemeteries
(18, 18a). Most of them are multiple, orderly arranged burials, though
occasionally solitary burials have also been encountered. Burial positions are
varied (flexed, extended, on the side, head facing to the north or to the south,
etc), as is the number of burials per grave (single burials or group burials in
mixed compositions of women, men, and children). Decorated burials—of
children, women, or men—are rare (see 92 for a suggestion of implied social
stratification; see 14 and 18a for its negation). Burials are of every possible
variety: primary and secondary, intemed in pits—sometimes stone lined or
lime washed or in built graves, occasionally with stone pavements or stone
coverings. Some graves had been re-opened to enable new burials, while
others remained sealed (14, 18, 41, 69). Certain mortuary customs underwent
changes or disappeared altogether during the Natufian sequence. Thus the
decoration of burials seems to have ceased in the later Natufian, apparently at
about the same time as the novel custom appeared, of skull removal and
separate burial apart from the skeleton. This custom, first reported from the
agricultural Neolithic societies, has been considered to be an element of an
ancestors cult, denoting ownership and emotional ties to a locality, and
implying the existence of defined territories. Whether the same is true for the
Natufian is hard to tell, but undoubtly there are indications of a certain
continuity between Natufian mortuary practices and those of the Neolithic
cultures to come—including, for example, the strict separation between living
quarters and burial grounds (12, 86)!
The intensity of Natufian building activities is manifested by dwelling
stmctures (some with stone pavements), hearths, built graves, and various
other installations such as the paved or lime-washed pits interpreted elsewhere
as storage bins (69, 88). Most of the building material consists of uncut
limestone slabs, and there is evidence for the use of lime, as well as a lime
kiln uncovered in Hayonim Cave in the Westem Galilee (12).
Natufian subsistence strategies, though varying in accordance with particular
environmental characteristics, focused mainly on hunting and gathering,
with a heavy emphasis on plant processing, especially in the Mediterranean
172 BELFER-COHEN
core area. In the absence of primary paieobotanical evidence, the notion of
intensive plant processing is supported mainly by the number and variety of
the groundstone tools and the presence of sickle-blades, as well as by pattems
of tooth attrition in human skeletons, which exhibit considerable inter-site
diversity (76; for detailed review see 23, 35). Garrod originally regarded the
Natufians as incipient agriculturalists (40), a notion later rejected by others
(26, 68; see also 73, 74, 91) for lack of supportive evidence, but recently
reintroduced (51, 84). Opinions are also divided both about whether cultivation
and agriculture had been practiced all through the Natufian or only
through part of the sequence, and about the possible beginning of domestica-^
tion during its later stages. Domestication of the dog seems to have been
started by the Natufians, as evidenced by joint dog-man burials from at least
two Natufian sites, Eynan and the Hayonim Terrace (31, 88). Hunting-prey
pattems exhibit variations dependant on macro-environmental factors and to a
lesser degree on localized topographic and phytogeographical variables (23).
The faunal assemblages of forest and coastal settlements are dominated by
gazelle, with fallow deer and cattle occurring in moderate frequencies and
caprine and equid remains uncommon or absent. In steppe and desert sites,
gazelles are not as predominant, while caprines and equids occur much more
frequently. St/Ca analyses, presently under reevaluation, do not as yet supply
answers to the issue of meat/plant proportion in the Natufian diet (75).
Variations in diet composition were not paralleled by observable changes in
Natufian health status (but see 18 for possible changes in stature).
At first, the Natufian was chronologically positioned, according to
stratigraphic considerations, in post-Pleistocene times (40, 64), and defined
as a Mesolithic culture predating the Neolithic cultures to come. Later, Perrot
(68) proposed that it should be regarded as an Epipalaeolithic culture. This
assignment to the Late Pleistocene was eventually fully validated by numerous
^'^C dates (89), which firmly placed it in the range between 12,500 and
10,200 years before the present (BP).
A chronological subdivision of the Natufian was proposed on the basis of
consistent variations through time in several components of the material
repertoire. Accordingly, Early Natufian was regarded as characterized by an
abundance of Helwan (bifacial) retouch (Figure 2:1,4) and an absence of the
microburin technique (although later the latter was found to have been
employed in both Early and Late Natufian, though not in every site; 11), as
well as by multiple burials and rich artistic assemblages. The Late Natufian
was regarded as characterized by a scarcity of Helwan retouch, largely
replaced by backing (Figure 2:2-3, 5-7), and by extensive use of the microburin
technique, as well as by single burials and by a decline in artistic
expression. The time ranges for the Early and Late Natufian are 12,500-
11,000 BP and 11,000-10,200 BP, respectively. Recently, a tripartite divi-
THE NATUHAN 173
sion was suggested (89) in which the Late Natufian is further subdivided into
Late and Final stages on the basis of a decline in lunate size, a relative
decrease in Helwan retouch, and an absence of structures in the Final Natufian.
The proposed duration of the Final Natufian is from 10,500 to 10,200
BP.
Though many of the phenomena observed in the Natufian, such as the
ordered burial-grounds and the wealth of artistic manifestation, appear for the
first time in the local prehistoric record, the Natufian is unique mainly
because it constitutes the first deviation from the traditional way of prehistoric
living. Instead of nomadic hunter-gatherers, living in small groups (nuclear or
extended families) and practicing a well-established mode of resource exploitation,
we have in the Natufian indications of sedentism, of larger groups
functioning at a higher level of social organization and exhibiting different
pattems of resource exploitation—namely, intensive and specialized collection,
and possibly incipient agriculture (51, 84). This basic change occurred
about 12,000 years ago, though previous more subtle changes may have
occurred that are unobservable in the available archaeological evidence.
Archaeologists have become aware of this change only in the past 30 years.
Previously, the tuming point was considered to have occurred at what was
commonly known as the "Neolithic Revolution". Since the mid-19th century
it had been well established that about 10,000 years ago agriculture became
the main subsistence strategy in Southwestem Asia. Several models were
advanced to explain the emergence of farming communities in the "Fertile
Crescent," starting with Childe's "propinquity theory," through various
ecological-demographic models and different versions of the "climatic trigger"
approach (7, 16, 37, 48, 61, 72, 73, 74, 91), and still the debate goes on.
Though only a few claim that the Natufian was an agricultural society in the
full sense of the word, certain prerequisites essential for the appearance and
establishment of fanning societies had undoubtedly been met during the
Natufian. As these are recognizable through the archaeological record, the
study of the Natufian culture is cmcial for a better understanding of the
"Agricultural Revolution."
DEFINITION, VARIABILITY, AND DISTRIBUTION
Most Natufian occurrences, located in the Mediterranean phytogeographic
zone where the entity was first identified and described, possess most of the
material components detailed above. In contrast, a growing number of sites
reported from the semi-arid Irano-Turanian vegetational zone as well as from
regions as far away from the original core area as the banks of the Euphrates
in northem Syria, were relegated to the Natufian cultural complex on the basis
of lithic criteria, because most of the other Natufian hallmarks were absent
174 BELFER-COHEN
altogether. Indeed, this absence of cultural components has called into question
the applicability of the term "Natufian" to all these occurrences (6, 27,
70): Should the term "Natufian" be restricted to sites in the Mediterranean
forest zone of northem Israel and northwestem Jordan, or should the assemblages
comprising lunates, in the more arid portions of Jordan, Syria, and the
Negev, also be termed Natufian (15, 22)? Of course it all depends on what is
meant by this term. Thus, for example, Byrd uses the term Natufian "essentially
as a temporal label for Levantine occupation between 12,500 and
10,200 BP" (23, p. 160). In general, a terminological problem seems to
prevail with reserachers using the term Natufian as an equivalent to the term
Pre-Pottery Neolithic A (PPNA)—namely, as a time-stratigraphic unit
encompassing various cultural entities with loose affinities including some
lithic attributes (2, 15).
On closer inspection it became apparent that there were differences also in
the lithic component. A multifactoral approach was urged for the analysis of
lithics (5, 44), and it was suggested, by Henry (44) and subsequently by
others (23, 43, 66) that the typological variability between several Natufian
site-complexes is related to the location of sites in particular macroenvironmental
zones. [A technological variability suggested by Olszewski (66) was
not validated by further study of larger samples (15, 22).]
Henry suggested a clustering system based on similarities in site-type (base
camp or transitory camp) and in macro- and micro-environments, as reflected
in the assemblages to be clustered (44, 45). Thus he defined three clusters: (a)
sites located in dry hilly areas near the coast; (b) sites located in forest/steppe
and steppe vegetation; and (c) sites located up an inland mountain, in the
Mediterranean zone.
Olszewski, elaborating on this scheme, suggested taking into consideration
also the fact whether the site is an open-air or a cave site. Yet another
subclustering, suggested by Byrd (23), distinquishes between forest and
beach sites, steppe and desert sites, and specialized steppe and desert sites.
Clearly, all three clustering systems are generally similar.
Evidently the various clusters are broadly correlated with the corresponding
macro-environments, because there are associations of tool classes with site
locations, which suggest general situational pattems of tool use during the late
Epipaleolithic in the Levant (66).
These clustering systems are affected by serious drawbacks stemming from
the very nature of the available data. Impressive as the statistical methods
employed may be, their application to data that is either very fragmentary or
derived from old excavations, provides a shaky foundation for further speculations,
as illustrated by the case of the Hayonim Cave site. All clustering
analyses pertaining to this site were done on the basis of samples [as opposed
to the whole assemblage (12)]. Thus while in Olszewski's analysis (68) the
THE NATUEIAN 175
percentages of notches in the two samples from Hayonim Cave available to
her are 20.6 and 14.5 (n = 49 and 24, respectively), in the whole assemblage
the notches comprise between 3.9% and 8.6% in the various levels of the
Natufian Layer (n = 88-94). Because both Byrd and Olszewski based their
clusterings on the relative frequencies of particular tool-types, such as the
notches, they assigned Hayonim Cave to the cluster correlated with steppe
and desert environments, thus separating it from the adjacent Terrace site
which was assigned to a different cluster! It should be noted that both scholars
were nevertheless aware that the Hayonim Cave and Hayonim Terrace may
comprise a single site (23, 68). Indeed, the combined samples from El-Wad
Cave and from the adjacent Terrace are treated as one in both their analyses.
There are also differences in the quality between the samples. Microlith
frequencies serve as a criterion for subclustering, yet many of the compared
assemblages originate from excavations where wet sieving was not practiced
(for example, the El Wad Cave and Terrace, the Kebara and the Shukba
Caves). Thus the percentages of the microlithic component, although certainly
reflecting specific modes of subsistence, also reflect to a certain degree the
progress in excavation methods over the last 50 years.
Though a quantitative approach entails focusing on the large tool-groups,
disregard of certain tool-types present in small numbers inevitably distorts the
overall picture and weakens the validity of the correlation between assemblage-profiles
and particular subsistence pattems (66). This is well illustrated
by the omission of the massive tools—^the foremnners of Neolithic axes and
adzes—and especially by the omission of sickle blades, because there are
indications that they were used for harvesting wild cereals (51, 84).
Moreover, the various assemblages were clustered disregarding their
chronological position in the Natufian sequence. Yet it is time-dependent
variations in the lithic components on which the chronological subdivision
into Early and Late phases was initially based.
Site clustering, based on lithic comparisons, obscures the main issue,
which is a definition of the Natufian entity and an evaluation of the extent to
which it could be modified in order to accommodate additional occurrences.
While viewing lithic variability as stemming from differences in subsistence
pattems, it disregards the presence or absence of other cultural components.
Subclustering does not account for the observed variability in nonlithic components—i.e.
their presence or absence at particular sites as well as their
variety and numbers.
It is well established by ethnographic research (57) that changes in lithics
reflect large-scale cultural changes only to a very limited extent. This implies
that similarities in lithics between two entities do not necessarily indicate a
close resemblance in social structure.
While one must be cautious in using flint assemblages as a cultural de-
176 BELFER-COHEN
nominator, there seems to be no doubt about the cultural significance of
cemeteries, artistic manifistations, etc. An absence of cemeteries from sites
exhibiting adequate faunal preservation, whose surface area is similar to that
of sites in which there are cemeteries, should overule the lithic similarities and
lead to the conclusion that they represent different cultural entities.
The different entities most probably came into contact with one another,
influenced, borrowed, and adopted technological and stylistic features from
one another; but it is those characteristics retained only by some of the entities
which should be assigned a different weight. When dealing with a cluster of
interrelating sites, such as the "Desert Natufian" sites in the Negev (43) or
those from northem Syria (66), it is not enough to report that no burials were
recovered or that artistic and decorative elements are missing. The absence of
these features is meaningful.
Byrd rightly assumes (23) that the archaeological record is biased in favor
of the large, highly visible Natufian sites, but the large sites outside the core
area lack many of the components present at the large core-area sites.
He is also right that the range of activities carried out, the types of resources
exploited, and the intensity of activity and permanence of settlement vary
between environmental regions and particular clusters of Natufian sites. But
there is more to it than varying adaptations to different macro-environments.
What about the omaments, the artistic activities, and the cemeteries? How are
these to be understood in relation to the statement above?
Large settlements (such as those found in the Natufian core area), at least
partially sedentary (see below), undoubtedly imply social interaction different
from that found in smaller, mobile bands of hunter-gatherers. Sedentism and
larger community sizes call for a specific social organization, as is well
established by ethnographic data (53).
Such differences between various local groups may have existed in preceding
periods, too, and went unnoticed by reserachers, for lack of data. In the
Natufian, however, we do have at least some means of differentiation between
observed phenomena, and we should use them.
The importance of nonlithic cultural components such as architectural
remains, bone tools, grinding utensils, omaments, and ordered burials to a
better understanding of the cultural processes that accompanied the changes in
the Natufian way of living—^the transition from the Paleolithic existence of
nomadic hunting and gathering to sedentism and perhaps even farming—is
self-evident.
SEDENTISM
It is possible to differentiate between Natufian base camps and seasonal
camps (4). The base camps are much larger, reaching a size of 1000 m^ and
THE NATUHAN 177
even more (67). Nothing like this is known from the previous local cultures.
Moreover, the temporary, task-specific sites lack most of the unique Natufian
cultural characteristics. While in the temporary camps we find mostly flint
artifacts, base camps exhibit the whole range of the material culture. Some of
the utensils and manuports found in base camps are very heavy, such as large
basalt vessels, weighing up to 100 kg and more, known from the sites of
Hayonim Cave and Eynan, or the engraved siltstone slabs from WadiHemmeh
27, weighing several hundred kg—a new and unique phenomenon
when compared with the previous Epi- and Palaeolithic cultures (6, 33, 48).
The issue of Natufian sedentism has been under debate for some time.
Edwards (34) raises the issue of the different and sometimes conflicting
definitions of sedentism, as well as the difficulties in defining solid criteria for
its recognition. He also presents an aitemative view "that sedentism is a
nonfossilizing human organizational feature, for which exclusive archaeological
correlates may not exist" (34, p. 16).
Edwards claims that the material characteristics of the largest Natufian sites
(including extensive and intensive building activities) show considerable
overlap with those of the settlements of recent mobile people and that at
present the precise residence strategies that gave rise to these sites cannot be
elucidated. We also have great difficulty distinguishing large sites made up of
multiple short occupation events from sites of similar size resulting from
continuous occupation.
Yet there is a growing body of circumstantial evidence that Natufian base
camps were indeed at least partially sedentary. Analysis of the content of owl
pellets suggests that various sites had been occupied for at least half of each
year (between November and April), while the remains of certain migratory
birds indicate an occupation of at least 10 months (September through July)
every year (70). Moreover, the remains of a great number of young gazelles
indicate a year-round hunting activity (29). For example, it is likely that
occupation at Abu Hureyra was a year-round one (23). Even if occupation had
not been quite year-round, it would still be considered a sedentary life-style,
especially when compared with preceding and contemporary local cultures.
Though there is indeed an overlap between Natufian base camps and the
settlements of recent mobile people, no sites of similar magnitude were found
in the southem Levant prior to the sedenteiry, fanning Neolithic occupations.
Thus the evidence of intensive building activity, the ordered cemeteries and
storage facilities as well as settlement sizes and degree of complexity, may be
taken under local circumstances to indicate incipient sedentism.
Another line of evidence for sedentism derives from data pertaining to the
density of flint artifacts (6) and to the observed changes in flint exploitation
pattems. While the preceding, highly nomadic Geometric Kebarans were
extravagant in their mode of exploitation of flint cores—as though an unlim-
178 BELFER-COHEN
ited supply of flint was ever available—in the Natufian, fiint cores were much
more thoroughly exploited—as if raw material was not as available as before
(12). Byrd (23), too, observes various differences in flint density and exploitation
pattems between the clusters. The increase in density of cores per
cubic meter from cluster 1 sites through cluster 2 to cluster 3 sites suggests
that core reduction was most intensive at the forest and coastal (i.e. core-area)
sites, less so at the steppe and desert sites of cluster 2, and least intensive at
the specialized steppe and desert sites of cluster 3. The same is indicated by
the higher ratio of tools-per-core in the core-area sites. As sites that were
occupied for longer periods would be expected to yield evidence of more
intensive utilization of on-site raw material than sites where occupation was
only short-term, the above ratios suggest that cluster 3 sites were least
intensively occupied and the least permanent, while the cluster 1 sites were
probably more intensively occupied than the cluster 2 sites.
Edwards (34) offers what he considers evidence for sedentism: the rebuilding
of structures in the position of earlier-phase ones of similar types,
implying long-term knowledge of the position and function of previously
occupied structures.
Omaments, decorative elements, and other manifestations of artistic activity
may be considered indicators of intensive social interaction. According to
recently defined models (13, 57), a rise in the extent of communal artistic
activities testifies to increasing social tensions among various groups forced
into social encounters. This explanation was suggested for the intensive social
activities (art being just one of them) known to occur in aggregation sites.
These activities are actually devices lo relieve tensions created during social
interactions within large groups of people (53). While nomadic societies
conduct just one (yearly) or a few (seasonal) gatherings of this kind, sedentary
people inevitably face a situation that forces them to share territories or even
living quarters with other, not immediately related people, with no option of
splitting into smaller groups. In such situations, a need arises for mechanisms
that would create a sense of (smaller) group identity and (smaller) group
loyalty (for instance personal omamentation; 90), while still retaining a sense
of participation in the greater cultural entity. Thus artistic activity may be
viewed as indirect evidence for extended habitation of given locations by
large groups.
A most significant evidence for Natufian sedentism stems from various
faunal remains, which include for the first time commensals such as the house
rat, the house mouse, and the sparrow. These are new species or subspecies.
For example, the house mouse, Mus spicilegus, was replaced by the domestic
variety, Mus musculus domesticus (1, 82).
Why indeed did the hunter-gatherers in this region give up mobility ? It is
possible that a sedentary trend was reinforced by "residential constraints
THE NATUFIAN 179
imposed on retuming social units by emergent attitudes of ownership or land
tenure in the Natufian period" (34, p. 17). Taking into consideration the
ecological peculiarities of the Mediterranean Levant, which dictated certain
preadaptations within Late Pleistocene groups, it seems that the establishment
of sedentary communities may be considered a point of no retum, because it
seems that farming communities emerged among these sedentary groups.
ORIGINS AND EVOLUTION
The circumstances of the emergence of the Natufian are pertinent to the
emergence of the succeeding Neolithic agricultural societies. If indeed we
accept that much of what is considered Natufian on the basis of a common
techno-typological lithic tradition actually represents more than one cultural
complex, then it is possible to explain (at least regarding the Levant) the
appearance of sedentism and fanning and that of the complex Neolithic
societies. It seems that such explanation would postulate that in the arid zones
of the southem Levant, nomadic people were pursuing the traditional way of
living, while other groups, living further away in the northem Levant, were
practicing other subsistence strategies dictated by different climatic-geographical
circumstances. In both these instances, the material cultures lack the
unique cultural components found in the assemblages of a third contemporaneous
entity, the Natufian of the Mediterranean southem Levant. The
boundaries between these entities are not clearly outlined. Thus it is quite
possible that following a budding-off process, which occurred in the core area
during the Late Natufian, an originally northem group established itself in the
Negev, reconciling its traditional way of life with the different, local circumstances
and applying different logistics to the exploitation of the new
macro-environment (43). Undoubtedly, the study of the issue of incipient
agriculture and the appearance of agricultural societies will profit if we adhere
to this tripartite division and reserve the term Natufian to the Mediterranean
southem occurrences and their offshoots.
Opinions vary about the origin and cultural evolution of the Natufian. The
notion, originally advocated by Garrod (39, 40), of an intmsion from North
Africa of an entity fully grown with no traceable roots in the past (40, p.212)
was subsequently replaced by a general agreement that the Natufian was
continuous with the local Levantine tradition (63) and evolved from the local
Geometric Kebaran (6, 48). Recently it was suggested (43) that at least some
of its material components were derived from entities located outside the
boundaries of the Natufian core area. Thus, the Hamran, an entity defined in
southem Jordan, was proposed (46) to have been the progenitor of the early
Natufian. These claims are at the least problematic as (a) the Early Natufian at
the suggested region lacks a considerable number of attributes, mainly
180 BELFER-COHEN
nonlithic ones, characteristic of the Natufian in the core area; and (b) no
continuity is detectable between Early and Late Natufian in Transjordan.
Climatic fluctuations were often suggested as the main triggering force for
various changes observed in the Natufian (47, 48), yet the whole issue of
climatic changes and their possible impact on the evolution of the Natufian
and on its nature—particularly on its pattems of subsistence and expansion—
is yet to be resolved.
Several general trends can be observed regarding the climate at the end of
the Pleistocene in the Levant: Temperatures were rising, and with the retreat
of the glacial ice sheets, air circulation pattems changed worldwide, storm
tracks began shifting northward until they reached their present day pattems,
and sea level rose, inundating the coastal plain.
While the northem Levant seems to have been less sensitive to changes in
temperature and amount of rainfall, in the southem Levant small-scale climatic
changes seem to have had significant effects. There is, however, considerable
disagreement regarding the exact timing of these changes, their duration,
and their possible effect on the distribution of plant communities. The main
reason for this disagreement is the poor dating of most of the pollen columns
comprising the main source for climatic interpretations in the Levant, which
makes correlations between various local sequences difficult (23). A climatic
reconstruction based on a pollen diagram from Hayonim Terrace (50), postulates
a humid phase about 14,000 years ago followed by cold and dry
conditions; these gave way at the beginning of the Natufian to mild and humid
ones, which continued till the onset of drier conditions in the Late Natufian.
Another climatic reconstruction (21) maintains that the climatic amelioration
that began prior to 14,500 BP reached an optimum at about 10,000 BP and
persisted throughout the Natufian into the period of the early Neolithic
cultures. Yet a third opinion (89) conceives of the Geometric Kebaran (at least
towards its end) and the Early Natufian as periods of wet conditions replaced
in the Late Natufian by dry conditions that persisted until the emergence of the
Neolithic cultures. This notion is supported by recent pollen data (3), which
confirm that about 17,000 years ago the cold period of the Late Glacial
maximum was followed in the southem Levant by a period of more humid
conditions whose peak occurred about 11,500 years ago. In the norUiem
Levant the cold period lasted until about 10,000 BP, and the peak of wet
conditions occurred about 8,000 years ago (21).
In accordance with all these climatic pictures, while most of the Kebaran
sites were located in the Mediterranean zone of the southem Levant, the
succeeding Geometric Kebarans were able, owing to the climatic amelioration
(42), to spread out into the neighboring desert areas and adapt to the local
conditions. The desert sites are generally smaller and had most probably been
occupied by smaller groups exercising a limited range of activities (mainly
hunting). They were mobile, because limitations upon resources precluded
THE NATUFIAN 181
prolonged exploitation of the sites' immediate surroundings (43). Sites located
north of the Negev are much larger and display evidence of complex
activities (including elaborate burials; 54), richer material remains, and some
indications of longer occupancy and larger nuclear groups. Though the desert
sites are small, the total population of the Geometric Kebaran grew in
comparison with its predecessors, as their Mediterranean sites were of the
same size as the previous, Kebaran ones. All in all the existence of the desert
sites can indeed be interpreted as reflecting an increase in population size,
related to additional or more easily available food resources. The same lithic
material is recovered from both the north and the south, and sea-shells from
the Mediterranean are recovered from the southemmost of Geometric Kebaran
sites in Sinai (10). This can be taken as evidence that the desert groups
retained their connections with their contemporaries in the north. An appropriate
analogue to the above scenario is a tribe, spread over a large region,
with all its clans or bands reconfirming their adherence to the tribal entity
through seasonal or annual aggregations. These are held in locations with
optimal conditions for ceremonial activities, matchmaking, and exchange of
goods and information.
The climatic amelioration in the semi-desert and desert regions of the
southem Levant drew other nomadic groups—the Mushabians, of north
African or eastem affinities—to the Negev and Sinai, and even to regions
further north on the southem slopes of the Judean Hills (7, 8). Eventually,
both cultural traditions influenced each other (thus the Mushabians were using
the microburin technique to produce microliths similar to those of the
Geometric Kebarans). According to ''*C dates, the coexistence of these two
cultural traditions lasted for 1000-1500 years. After this period the Geometric
Kebarans disappeared from the Negev and Sinai while Mushabian habitation
of the semiarid regions went on (43). The Geometric Kebarans may have been
pushed back into the Mediterranean zone following intensive competition
with Mushabian groups that had arrived in the arid areas of the Negev from
regions with similar phytogeographical conditions and were therefore better
adapted to life in the desert. The southem Geometric Kebaran populations
joined their macro-bands in the Mediterranean belt, and this inflated population
put heavier pressure on available resources. The need to cope, facing this
increased population, generated various transformations that eventually gave
rise to a new cultural entity—^the Natufian.
This may have been a continuous process, involving desert groups moving
north during the dry seasons, reentering the Mediterranean zone (just like the
Beduins in the last century). Each year additional groups, having come to the
north for the yearly aggregation events, may have decided to remain there
because conditions in the south were not tempting enough to draw tbem back.
The northem Geometric Kebarans assimilated their Negev counterparts
while exploiting new food resources, improving exploitation of familiar ones.
182 BELFER-COHEN
and reorganizing their society. They seem to have made use of passive
knowledge, which may have been acquired accidentally and effortlessly in the
past, through sheer curiosity—a primary motivational force in all primates
(8). Application of this knowledge was a necessity rather than a choice,
because it certainly required investment of energy and changes of familiar
habits. Apparently, some adaptive mechanisms developed by the Mediterranean-zone
Geometric Kebarans played an important role in the establishment
of the new socioeconomic system. Thus a subsistence behavior based on
small territories and on the existence of base camps in specific locations was
necessarily adjusted to the spatial concept of this enlarged population. The use
of pounding and grinding stones, the exploitation of legumes and cereals, the
existence of bone tools testifying to the knowledge of basketry (possibly an
improved means for carrying and storing food), and the employment of broad
spectrum subsistence tactics (35, 52, 62) contributed towards adjustment to
the new social pattems.
Most probably population increase within small territories led to a corresponding
increase in the size of Natufian base camps and to a decrease in
mobility. Evidence for this is diverse. Changes appear in pattems of raw
material exploitation (see above); an observed techno-typological variability
may be interpreted as refiecting merging of flint knapping traditions (this, for
example explains the presence of the microburin technique in certain sites and
its absence from others). It is noteworthy that this diversity decreases with
time, and the Late Natufian exhibits a higher level of technological uniformity.
For the first time in the Levantine record, artistic manifestations appear on
a large scale, thus refiecting intensified pressures resulting from the tight
interaction within various social groups (13). For example, an abundance in
personal decorations, displaying great intergroup variability, is similarly
significant with respect to these complex social dynamics (79). Ordered
graveyards, similar to those encountered later on in the sedentary, farming
Neolithic societies, may also testify to sedentism and territoriality. Permanent
storage facilities and increasing quantities of food refuse would attract rodents,
birds, and scavengers. This may explain the appearance of domesticated
wolves (dogs) in base camps, buried together with their masters (31,
88). Continuous broad-spectmm exploitation, which became essential for
feeding large and relatively stable groups, exerted pressure on game populations,
leading to depletion and extinction of the scarcer species. This
intensive exploitation pattem is refiected also through morphological changes
in the gazelle, as the depletion of its gene pool caused dwarfism (28, 30). The
consumption of cereals and pulses is indicated by attrition and caries found in
Natufian teeth from most sites (76). Recent work carried out by UngerHamilton
(84, 85) supports earlier contentions that the particular sheen on
sickle blades resulted from cereals harvesting. Although harvesting by beating
THE NATUFIAN 183
gives the highest yield per unit of time and demands much less effort,
harvesting by sickles apparently maximizes the yield per unit of area (51).
This calculation is in accord with Natufian territoriality and its pattems of
intensive exploitation. The need to exploit to the utmost their limited-size
"fields" drove the Natufians to maximize energy retums per unit area, instead
of maximizing retums per unit of time spent in harvesting and travel. Moreover,
according to Hillman & Davies (51), harvesting by sickles led to
domestication of wild-type crops. It is important to note that in the "Natufian"
assemblages from the northem Levant sickle blades are rare or nonexistent
(23, 66). Apparently, the domestication process could occur rather rapidly—
within no more than two centuries—which implies that the "Agricultural
Revolution" may have taken place during the Natufian period and that the
Natufians may have been the first farmers in the Levant (A. Belfer-Cohen, in
preparation).
The Natufian economic infrastmcture reflects the need to confront certain
stress conditions. However, data derived from Natufian skeletons indicate
good health and balanced physical conditions within the population (16, 77).
This is additional indirect evidence that it was not famine which drove the
Natufians to take the drastic measures entailed in vast economic change, since
a society cannot afford experimentation in times of stress. Rather it was the
need to accommodate more people.
CONCLUSIONS
The success of the Natufian led to its demise. The short duration of the
Natufian phenomenon and its replacement by the Neolithic cultures suggest
that the unique characteristics of the Natufian created an uncontrolled momentum.
Thus, Natufian populations not only did not starve, but flourished and
kept growing. This population growth presumably led (at least in the
Mediterranean zone) to a growing sense of proprietorship of land, especially
so with the growing dependence on cultivated plants. Sedentism brought
about many changes in settlement pattems, including greater investment of
energy and resources in habitation stmctures and storage facilities. Under
such conditions of population pressure, when each group defends its territory
and strives to differentiate itself from its neighbors, the need for group
identity increases and encourages the appearance of unique characteristics in
each social group. As more and more people are forced to live in close
proximity to one another, the establishment of strong institutional mechanisms
becomes inevitable in order to prevent anarchy and to control emotional
behavior and information exchange within the group. The strengthening of
all these trends culminated in the appearance of a new cultural entity—^the
Neolithic Complex.
184 BELFER-COHEN
Literature Cited
1. .Aufrey, J. C , Tchernov, E. 1989. Origine
du Commensalisme de la souris
domestique (Mus musculus domesticus)
vis-^-vis de I'hotnme. C. R. Acad. Sci.
Paris Ser. R. 307(3):5I7-22
2. Aurenche, O., Cauvin, J., Cauvin,
M.-C, Copeland, L., Hours, F., Sanlaville,
P. 1981. Chronologie et organisation
de l'espaee dans le Proche Orient de
12,0()0 h 5,600 avant J. C. In Prehistoire
du Levant, ed. J. Cauvin. P.
Sanlaville, pp. 571-601. Paris: CNRS
3. Bameh, U., Bottema, S. 1991. Palynologieal
evidenee for elimatic fluctuations
in the Southem Levant ea. 15,000-
8,000 years ago. In The Natufian Culture
and the Origins of the Levantine
Neolithic, ed. O. Bar-Yosef, F. R. Valla.
Ann Arbor: Int. Monogr. Prehist. In
press
4. Bar-Yosef, O. 1970. The Epipaleolithic
cultures of Palestine. PhD thesis, Hebrew
Univ., Jerusalem
5. Bar-Yosef, O. 1981. The Epipaleolithic
complexes in the Southem Levant. See
Ref. 2, pp. 389-408
6. Bar-Yosef. O. 1983. The Natufian in the
Southem Levant. In The Hilly Flanks
andBeyond. ed. T. C. Young Jr., P. E.
L. Smith, P. Mortensen, pp. {\-A2,
Chicago; Univ. Chicago Press
7. Bar-Yosef, O., Belfer-Cohen, A. 1989.
The origins of sedentism and the farming
communities in the Levant. J. World
Prehist. 3:447-98
8. Bar-Yosef, O., Belfer-Cohen, A. 1991.
From sedentary hunter-gatherers to territorial
fartners in the Levant. In Between
Bands and States, ed. S. Gregg.
Carbondale: Univ. S. 111. Press. In press
9. Bar-Yosef, O., Goldberg, P., Leveson,
T. 1974. Kebaran and Natufian sites in
Wadi Fazael, Jordan Valley. Paleorient
2:415-28
10. Bar-Yosef, O., Killbrew, A. 1984.
Wadi-Sayakh—a Geometric Kebaran
site in southem Sinai. Faleorient 10:95-
102
U. Bar-Yosef, O., Valla, F. R. 1979.
L'Evolution du Natoufien: nouvelles
suggestions. Paleorient 5:145-52
12. Belfer-Cohen. A. 1988. The Natufian
settlement at Hayonim Cave. PhD
thesis, Hebrew Univ., Jerusalem
13. Belfer-Cohen, A. 1988. The appearance
of symbolic expression in die Upper
Pleistocene of the Levant as compared to
Westem Europe. In L'Homme de N4andertal.
Vol. 5, La Pense, ed. M. Otte,
pp. 25-29, Leige: Etude Rech. Anthropol.
Univ. Liege No.32
14. Belfer-Cohen, A. 1988. The Natufian
graveyard in Hayonim Cave. Paleorient
14:297-308
15. Belfer-Cohen, A. 1989. The Natufian
issue: a suggestion. In Investigations in
South Levantine Prehistory, ed. O. BarYosef,
B. Vandermeersch, pp. 297-
307. Oxford: BAR Int. Ser. 497
16. Belfer-Cohen. A. 1991. Comment on
"The Ecologieal Genetics of Domestication
and the Origins of Agriculture," by
M. A. Blumer and R. Byme. Curr. AnthropoL
32(l):35-36
17. Belfer-Cohen, A. 1991. Art in Hayonim
Cave, a case study of art in a Natufian
context. See Ref. 3
18. Belfer-Cohen, A., Schepartz, L. A.,
Arensburg, B. 1991. New biological
data for the Natufian populations in
Israel. See Ref. 3
18a. Belfer-Cohen, A., Schepartz, L. A.,
Arensburg, B. 1991. Cultural behavioral
continuities in the Levant. In Upper
Palaeolithic, Mesolithic and Neolithic
Populations of Europe in the Mediterranean
Basin, ed. I. Pap. Budapest. In
press
19. Besangon, J., Copeland, L., Hours, F.
1975-77. Tableaux de prehistoire Libanaise.
Paleorient 3:5-46
20. Betts, A. 1982. A Natufian site in the
Black Desert, Eastem Jordan. Paleorient
8(2):79-82
21. Bottema, S., van Ziest, W. 1981. Palynoiogica!
evidence for the climatic history
of the Near East, 50,000-6,000 B.
P. See Ref. 2, pp. 111-32
22. Byrd, B. F. 1987. Beidha and the Natufian:
variability in Levantine settlement
and subsistence. PhD thesis, Univ. Arizona.
University Microfilms. Ann
Arbor, Mich.
23. Byrd, B. F. 1989. The Natufian: settlement
variability and economic adaptations
in the Levant at the end of the
Pleistocene. J. World Prehist. 3:159-
97
24. Campana, D. V. 1989. Natufian and
Proto Neolithic Bone Tools. Oxford:
BAR Int. Ser. 494
25. Campana. D. V. 1991. The Natufian
bone industry from Hayonim Cave. See
Ref. 3
26. Cauvin, J. 1978. Les Premiers villages
de Syrie-Palestine du IXeme Au VHeme
Millenaire Avant J. C. Lyon: Maison de
rOrient
27. Cauvin, M.-C. 1981. L'Epipai^olithique
de Syrie d'apres les premiferes recherches
dans la cuvette d'El Kowm (1978-
1979). See Ref. 2, pp. 439-41
THE NATUEIAN 185
28. Cope-Miyashiro, C. 1991. The gazelle
economy of the Natufian. See Ref. 3
29. Davis, S. 1983. The age profiles of
gazelles predated by ancient man in
Israel. Paleorient 9:55-62
30. Davis, S. 1985. A preliminary report of
the fauna from Hatoula, a NatufianPPNA
Site near Latroun, Israel. In Le
Site Natoufien-Khiamien de Hatoula,
ed. M. Lechevallier, A. Ronen, pp. 71-
98, Jerusalem: Cent. Rech. Frangais 1
31. Davis, S., Valla, F. R. 1978. Evidence
for domestication of the dog 12,000
years ago in the Natufian of Israel. Nature
276:608-10
32. DoUfus, G. 1985. Le travail de la Pierre
a Mallaha. Doss. Hist. Archaeol. 100:
69
33. Edwards, C. P. 1987. Late Pleistocene
occupation in Wadi al-Hameh, Jordan
Valley. PhD thesis, Univ. Sydney
34. Edwards, C. P. 1989. Problems of
recognizing earliest sedentism: the Natufian
example. J. Mediterranean Archaeol.
2:5-48
35. Edwards, C. P. 1989. Revisiting the
broad spectrum revolution: and its role
in the origins of Southwest Asian food
production. Antiquity 63:225-46
36. Flannery, K. V. 1973. The origins of
agriculture. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2:
271-310
37. Flannery, K. V. 1986. Guila Naguitz—
Archaic Foraging and Early Agriculture
in Oaxaea Mexico. New York: Aca-
demic
38. Garrard, A. N., Betts, A., Byrd, B.,
Hunt, C. 1988. Summary of paleoenvironmental
and prehistoric investigations
in the Azraq Basin. In The Prehistory of
Jordan, ed. A. N. Garrard, H. G.
Gebel, pp. 311-37. Oxford: BAR Int.
Ser. 396
39. Garrod, D. A. E. 1932. A New
Mesolithic Industry: the Natufian of
Palestine. /. Roy. Anthropol. Inst. 62:
257-69
40. Garrod, D. A. E. 1957. The Natufian
culture: the life and economy of a
Mesolithic people in the Near East.
Proc. Brit. Acad. 43:211-27
41. Garrod, D. A. E., Bate, D. M. 1937.
The Stone Age of Mount Carmel. Vol. 1.
Oxford: Clarendon Press
42. Goldberg, P. 1986. Late Quaternary
geological history of the southem
Levant: a geoarchaeological approach.
Geoarchaeology 2:225-44
43. Goring-Morris, A. N. 1987. At the
Edge: Terminal Pleistocene HunterGatherers
in the Negev and Sinai. Oxford:
BAR Int. Ser. 361
44. Henry, D. O. 1977. An examination of
the artifactual variability in the Natufian
of Palestine. Eretz-Israel 13:229-40
45. Henry, D. O. 1982. The Prehistory of
Southem Jordan and relationships with
the Levant. J. Field Archaeol. 9:417-44
46. Henry, D. O. 1983. Adaptive evolution
within the Epipaleolithic of the Near
East. Adv. World Archaeol. 2:99-160
47. Henry, D. O. 1985. Preagricultural
sedentism: the Natufian example. In
Prehistoric Hunter-Gatherers: The
Emergence of Cultural Complexity, ed.
T. D. Price, J. A. Brown, pp. 365-81.
New York: Academic
48. Henry, D. O. 1989. From Foraging to
Agriculture. The Levant at the End of the
Ice Age. Philadelphia: Univ. Penn. Press
49. Henry, D. O., Leroi-Gourhan, A. 1976.
The Excavation of Hayonim Terrace: an
interim report. J. of Field Archeology
3:391^05
50. Henry, D. O., Leroi-Gourhan, A.,
Davis, S. 1981. The excavation of
Hayonim Terrace: an examination of terminal
Pleistocene climatic and adaptive
changes. J.Archeol. Sci. 8:33-58
51. Hillman, G. C , Davies, M. S. 1990.
Measured domestication rates in wild
wheats and barley under pnmitive
cultivation, and their archaeological implications.
J. World Prehist. 4:157-222
52. Hovers, E., Horwitz, L. K., Bar-Yosef,
D. E., Cope-Miyashiro, C. 1988. Subsistence
and mobility pattems at the
Kebaran site of Urkan-e-Rub Ila, Lower
Jordan Valley. Mitekufat Haeven 21:
20^8
53. Johnson, G. A. 1982. Organizational
structure and scalar stress. In Theory and
Explanation in Archaeology, ed. C.
Renfrew, M. J. Rowlands, B. A. Segraves,
pp. 389-421. NY: Academic
54. Kaufman, D. 1989. Observations on the
Geometric Kebaran: a view from Neve
David. See Ref. 15, pp. 275-85
55. Kenyon, K. 1981. Excavations at
Jericho, Vol. III. London: Br. Sch.
Archaeol.
56. Kirkbdde, D. 1966. Five seasons at the
Pre-Pottery Neolithic village of Beidha
in Jordan. Palestine Explor. Q. 98:8-72
57. Lewis-Williams, J. D. 1984. Ideological
continuities in prehistoric southem Africa:
the evidence of rock art. In Past and
Present in Hunter-Gatherer Studies, ed.
C. Schrire, pp. 225-252. New York:
Academic
58. Marks, A. E., ed. 1976. Prehistory and
Palaeoenvironment in the Central
Negev, Israel, Vol. 1. Dallas: SMU
Press
59. Marks, A. E., ed. 1977. Prehistory and
Palaeoenvironment in the Central
186 BELFER-COHEN
Negev, Israel. Vol. IL Dallas: SMU
Press
60. Moore, A. M. T. 1975. The Excavation
of Tell Abu Hureyra: a preliminary report.
Proc. Prehist. Soc. 41:50-77
61. Moore, A.M. T. 1982. Agricultural origins
in the Near East: a mode! for the
1980s. World Archaeol. 14:224-36
62. Nadel, D, 1991. Ohalo II—A submerged
Early Kebaran site in the Sea of
Galilee, Israel. Mitekufat Haeven 23. In
press
63. Neuville, R. 1934. Le pr6historique de
Palestine. Rev. Bibl. 43:237-59
64. Neuville, R. 1951. Le Paldoiithique et le
Misolithique du Desert de Jud4e. Paris:
Masson et Cie
65. Noy, T., Ugge, A. J., Higgs, E. S.
1973. Recent excavations at Nahal
Oren, Israel. Proc. Prehist. Soc. 39:75-
99
66. Olszewski, p. I. 1988. The North Syrian
Late EpipaleolJthic and its Relationship
to the Natufian Complex. Levant
20:127-37
67. Perrot, J. 1966. Le gisement natoufien
de Mallaha (Eynan), Israel. VAnthropologie
70:437-84
68. Perrot, J. 1968. La Prehistoire Palestinienne.
Supplement au Dictionnaire de
la Bible V///.Paris: Letouzey et .An^
69. Perrot, J., Ladiray, D., SoliveresMassei,
0. 1988. Les Hommes de Mallaha
(Eynan) Israel. Paris: Assoe. Paleo-
rient
70. Pichon.J. 1987. L'avifaune de Mallaha.
In La Faune du Gisement Natoufien de
Mallaha (Eynan) Israel, ed. J. Bouchud,
pp. 115-50. Paris: Assoc. Paleorient
71. Rafferty, J. E. 1985. The arehaeological
record on sedentariness: recognition, development,
and implications. In Advances
in Archaeological Method and
Theory, ed. M. B. Schiffer. 8:113-56.
New York: Academic
72. Redding, R. W. 1988. A general explanation
of subsistence change: from
hunting and gathering to food production.
J. Anthropol. Archaeol. 7:56-97
73. Redman, C. L. 1978. The Rise of
Civilization. San Francisco: Freeman
74. Reed. C. A., ed. 1977. Origins of Agriculture.
The Hague: Mouton
75. Sillen, A. 1991. Diet as reflected in the
bone chemistry. See Ref. 3
76. Smith, P. 1972. Diet and attrition in the
Natufians. Am. J. Phys. AnthropoL 37:
233-38
77. Smith, P. 1991. Nutrition and health of
the Natufians as reflected in dental studies.
See Ref. 3
78. Stekelis, M., Yizraely, T. 1963. Exeavations
at Nfdial Oren: preliminary report.
Israel Explor. J. 13:1-12
79. Stordeur, D. 1981. La contribution de
l'industrie de l'os a la delimitation des
aires culturelles: l'example du Natoufien.
See Ref. 2, pp. 433-37
80. Stordeur, D. 1988. Outils et armes en os
du gisement Natoi^ten de Mallaha
(Eynan) Israel. Paris: Assoc. Paleorient
81. Stordeur, D. 1991. The Natufian bone
industry. See Ref. 3
82. Tchemov, E. 1984. Commensal animals
and human sedentism in the Middle
East. In Animals and Archaeology. 3.
Early Herders and Their Flocks, ed. J.
Clutton-Broek, C. Grigson, pp. 91-115.
Oxford: BAR Int. Ser. 202
83. Turville-Petre, F. 1932. Excavations in
the Mugharet el-Kebarah. /. Roy. Anthropol.
Inst. 62:271-76
84. Unger-Hamilton. R. 19S9. Epipalaeolithic
Palestine and the beginnings of
plant cultivation: the evidence from
harvesting experiments and microwear
studies. Curr. AnthropoL 30:88-103
85. Unger-Hamilton, R. 1991. Natufian
siefies and siekle-blades. See Ref. 3
86. Valla, F. R. 1981. Les etablissements
natoufiens dans le nord d'lsrael. See
Ref. 2, pp. 409-20
87. Valla, F. R. 1984. Les industries de
silex de Mallaha (Eynan). Paris: Assoe.
Paleorient
88. Valla, F. R.. Le Mort, F.. Plisson. H.
1991. Note preliminaire sur les fouilles
en cours sur la tenasse d'Hayonim 2.
See Ref. 3
89. Valla, F. R. 1987. Chronologie absolue
et ehronologie relative dans le Natoufien.
In Chronologies in the Near East,
ed. 0. Aurenche. J. Evin, F. Hours.
pp. 267-94. Oxford: BAR Int. Ser.
379
90. Wobst, M. H. 1977. Stylistic behavior
and information exchange. In For the
Director, Research Essays in Honor of
James B. Griffin. Anthropol. Pap.
61:317-42. Ann Arbor: Mus. Anthropol.,
Univ. Michigan
91. Wright, G. 1971. Origins of food production
in Southwest Asia: a survey of
ideas. Curr. Anthropol. 12:447-70
92. Wright, G. 1978. Social differentiation
in the early Natufian. In Social
Archaeoloay. Beyond Subsistence and
Dating, ed. Redman, C. L., Berman,
M. J., Curtin, E. V., Langhome, W. T.
Jr., Versaggi, N. H., etal., pp. 201-24.
New York: Academic