THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF SOCIETY IN THE HOLY LAND Edited by THOMAS E. LEVY Th VALA Buscestex UNIVERSITY PRESS London and Washingtonangois Valla f all the prehistoric cultures in the Levant, the particularly important episode. I is seemingly at ths time, berween 12,500 ard 10,200 BP in radiocarbon years, that the conditions which transformed hunter fptherer societies of the Geometric Kebaran to those of the First cultivators in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic fest began to be put into place. Here, the differences between the | aaltural entities concerned appear more significant than anywhere else. This factor explains the deep interest with ~ which scholars have closely studied the Natufian for over 60 years, in an effort to understand what happened during the two millennia ofits existence (Figure 1) Before we can offer an explanation ofthe phenomenon it is necessary to observe it, take measure ofits complexity, and t0 describe it appropriately. Today there exists no consensus on the fundamental cultural traits of the Natuian, The debates focus on its geographical extent, whether a sedentary or mobile way of lfe was practised, the sie of techniques such asthe creation of clearings by fire, te preparation of land through cultivation, sowing, attitudes toward the gazelle the hunting of which could be more or les controlled), and the actuality and extent of storage, not to mention the eventual hierarchization of society, Archaeological evidence never has an unequivocal meaning, and this is more acute in prehistory than liewhere, The view that each scholar has of the Natufan, therefore, depends upon a series of interpretations. The ‘extreme fragility of our explanations must be stressed: with the help of hypotheses of varying boldness ll explanations fey to account for situations which are themselves reconstructed from questionable opinions. In the following pages, I shall endeavor to present those main characteristics of Natufian material culture that have been recovered through excavation. Although it may be desirable to present an ‘objective’ account, the approach taken here leads us to enter several debates concerning the Natufan, It should thereby be possible to propose a dynamic view of the culture, without concealing the weaknesses of such & tentative approach. AS in painting, all light presupposes dark corners, E FIRST SETTLED SOCIETIES — ATUFIAN (12,500— 10,200 BP) The material The industries Tentifcation of the Natufian rests upon its lithic industry (Figure 2). It has to be this way, since the Natufian was first recognized on the characteristics of this industry (Garrod 1932). Even today, we continue ~ on this basis alone ~ to attribute to the Natufian sphere of influence sites which lack all the other distinctive characteristics of the culture. Typically, the lithic industry makes rather eclectic use of the raw material (it can use on the same site a large variety of fits). Knapping results mainly in the production of flakes, most of them very small: There are ‘more bladelets than blades, but usually these are relatively short. Most tools are microlithic and, among those, Junates are significant. ‘Heavy duty tools’ also appear. A [particular type of bifacial retouch, (‘the back of the implement is not blunted in the ordinary way, but is trimmed obliquely from both surfaces" (Garrod 1982: 261) JfermedHelvan getouch, is fund frequntly ia ha oly Natufian phase, and tends to become less frequent through time, without it necessarily disappearing altogether These basic features are found, with some nuances, from Lebanon to the Negev, and from the middle Enphrrates to southern Jordan. But envisaging the Natufan simply from the characteristics of its flint industry would bbe a singularly reductive approach. Such a view would fail to take into account the majority of the precise aspects of ‘Natufian culture which form its originality and mark its ‘most significant differences with the preceding and following cultures in the region. Next to the flint industry, the working of non-sliceous stone (basal, limestone, etc.) and bone undergoes a relative blossoming. Previously these materials were worked only to a limited extent, but with the Natufian, their use becomes commonplace, Mortars, pestles and grinding stones which are traditional’ implements although rare, now become ‘common (Plate 2; Wright 1991). Grooved stones, absent since Aurignacian times, reappear. These are made in basalt, limestone, sandstone or steatite. Their form and172 Fart lt st Stone Age Adaptation, Evolution and Survival # Frangois Valla 1'=3: Lunates (2: wih Helwan retouch, 4: Truncation, 5: Retouched flake, ~7: Bockod tadalat, 8: Burr-seroper ®: Bonn, 10. Denfevlted lode, 11: Borer, 12 itl lade, 13: orm 14 Hoowy Figure 1 Mop of Nouion se dsbtion in the Levon! dimensions vary, suggesting a variety of functions. Usually they have been interpreted as bone tool polishers or shaft- straighteners. Also known are several flat queens. More than their form, the dimensions of some vessels and pestles reveal an understanding of the raw material, a boldness of conception and a dexterity, all of which are unprecedented. Some mortars are as much as 60 cm in height. Furthermore, some of the basalt objects show faitly elaborate geometric designs. Bone craftsmanship exhibits a growth parallel to that cof stone (Campana 1989; Stordeur 1981, 1991), and there are both tools and ornamental elements (Figure 3) ‘Traditional artifacts, mainly pointed implements made on the split long bone of a small herbivore, increase in number. New types appear, such as armatures (epeatheads or arrows, some of them barbed), unienown in the Levant since the Aurignacian, and small bipoinss. “The most unexpected object, the ‘sickle’ or reaping koife, integrates a handle and a grooved haft to facilitate the inclusion of flint armacures. Usually these tools are made cither on a long bone or a rib. The most impressive are decorated with an animal representation at the extremity ‘of the handle (Plate 3). The ornamental elements include perforated teeth (fox canines) (Belfer-Cohen 1991b: 571), the extremities of sectioned bones (gazelle phalanges, partridge tibio-tarsus) and various beads, such as the well-known ‘cwin-pendants’ (Garrod and Bate 1937: 39) which combines two pyriform elements. Shells were also worked for omamentation purposes. Dentalium shells (Dentalinm sp.), cither complete or sectioned, were used to produce elongated beads (see Plate 1). Sometimes the wall of the shell was perforated. Dentalium shell beads are by far the most dominant form, followed by the less common use of Columbella rustica, Nasea p., Conus sp. etc», which were sometimes worked in such a way as to allow them to be hung. Most often174 Port + Stone Age Adaptation, Evolution and Survival ak Frangots Valo Faure 4 Dated mop ole topography ear Malco, Map ole Ey and ot Notion hose othe sl, Hache candle grove pia‘The First Sotled Societies ~ Notufion {12-500 10,200 BP) 175 Figure 5 Pion view, reconsrucon of rec rom large Notton house ot Mallche others suggest a margin of 20-200 years (Hillman and Davies 1990: 189-93) or even greater (Willcox 1991: 26) While awaiting bezer information, we can try to take relevant aspects of the archaeological context into account, At Abu Huzeyra, the only site which provides a broad sample of plant remains, the wide variety of gathered species (around 150, and almost all edible) do feem entirely characteristic of a population of hunter~ gatherers (Hillman et al. 1989: 257). The micro-traces left fon the sickle blades could be another discriminative factor. ‘The striations which accompany use-polish from the early Natufian onwards could indicate worked land and, therefore, intentional sowing. However, some scholars have stressed the fact that these striations are ambiguous, and have remarked that labor does not facilitare the igrowth of wild cereals. The only change apparent with the [Natufian concerns gathering techniques, namely the use of sickles. This use, which could have ultimately facilitated domestication, is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition of ‘it. At this stage, therefore, we have no Figure 6 Plan ofthe Notion srvtras at Hoyonim Cave (Roman eras nda he graves er O. Bor-Yosaf 1991) indication capable of supporting the hypothesis that the [Natufians could have sown cereals and could have been the fis farmers in the Levant. ‘In contrast 0 plant food remains, poorly preserved everywhere except on the Euphrates, faunal remains are bundant on Natufian sites. The Negev sites, where such remaing ate rare, are the exception. The structure of the ‘tableau de chasse’ (‘the bag’) displays several charac- teristics. Small of mediamesized herbivores, dominate, ‘These ere mainly gazelle but, depending on the environ- ment, there are also caprids (Rosh Horesha), equids (Muteybet), or cervids (Mallaha), Camnivores ace rare except for the fox. Lagomorphs and rodents (hare and occasionally squirrel) were hunted, Birds became, for the fest time, important game (Pichon 1984). Fish, again when. the envionment was suitable, reptiles (tortoise, lard) and both land and feshwrater mollusks were also exploited. In comparing the Natufian fauna with that from preceding periods (unfortunately not wel known as yet, there is the impression that very old practices were maintained and even emphasized, such as the dependence for meat supplies on gazelle populations, a the same time as new practices, aimed at expanding the field of resources to inchide animals of small or very small size, were introduced, The large herbivores — cat, fallow dee, zed deer ~ seem to have been exploited only occasionally. For the first time pethape, the impact of human action on the surrounding fauna was such 2s to provoke visible reactions, In the region of sedentary villages, the culling of garele herds (perhaps mainly males) seems to have caused {degeneration of the species resulting in the extreme variability of the size of the animals (Cope 1991). Furthermore the modifications ofthe environment around the villages induced new behaviors on the part of several species. ‘The sparrow and the mouse used the new176 Patt > Stone Age Adaptation, Evolution and Survival # Frangols Vlla Plate 4 Storage pt lned wih imevone sobs. Hayonim Terrace (photogrorteF Vell) ccological niche created to develop their commensalism with humans (Tehernov 1991; 323-8). The reaction of the wolf possibly led to its domestication, attested for the fst fime in the Levant during the Natuflan (Tehernov and Kolska-Horwitz 1991; Davis and Valla 1978). Mortuary evidence ‘The Natufians often chose to bury their dead within villages. Sometimes, the graves tend to be grouped next 9 houses, such as those of the Early Natufian at Hayonim Cave (Belfer-Cohen 1989), and in the Late Natuflan at Mallaha and Nahal Oren (Perrot et al, 1988; Noy 1985), However, in the early phases at Mallaha, the systemati¢ superimposition of houses above burials suggests that the dead could have been, at least sometimes, buried under hhouse floors. Many of the graves show no particular arrangement, consisting simply of a pit, refilled alter the deposition of the body. There are, however, some graves which are actually constructed: ic. the pit was partially or sometimes completely lined with stones (Hayonim, Nahal Oren) or coated (Mallaha). Occasionally, the pit was sealed with flat stones. The external marking of the grave was sometimes carried out by the placing of a stone, fat or standing, More complex examples involved. the installation of stone paving (Erq el-Ahmar) (Neuville 1951; 109) or the insestion of a large breached mortar into the grave pit (Stekelis and Yiseaeli 1963). But in most cases, nothing indicated the location of the grave to the living population. ‘As with the graves, the modes of deposition of the body are not uniform. There are individual burials in which the ody seems to have been interred without any concern for its position, It may lie on its back, front or side, the limbs more or less flexed in a ‘loose’ position, the body was deliberately intered in the extended flexed postion. We do not know of principle other than that determined by floor into which the grave was cut (Hayonim Terra (Valla et al, 1991). On some occasions, @ grave war ca || into an earlier burial, with the disturbed: bones beng © redeposited with the later interment. ‘Thete are alee examples of graves containing several individuals, bused either together or one after the other In such cases, the successive operations often caused disturbance which mixed up the remains of the previously deposited bode, | a BeWad cave a grave held ten extended individual | (Garrod and Bate 1937: 14-15), A grave containing tw extended individuals, accompanied ‘by a flexed Bhim, was found in Hayonim Cave. Elsewhere, bodies inereg in this way ~ sometimes a dozen together ~ ae fleced in ‘acying positions, some even forced flexed, knees to chin | ‘As withthe individual bua, ri kely that some ofthe corpses were deliberately placed in a precise position. A very different practice from those just described is ale attested in the Natufan: the practice of reburial. In auch eases, the skeleton only found its final resting place ay least partly defeshed and often incomplete. Graves of {ype are rare, Occasionally they also contain a primary burial, Jn general, Natufian graves contain only. skeletal Femains. However, some of the dead were intered with | ornamentation or wearing, decorated clothing. Define funerary materials are few, but the small amount found often appear to carry strong symbolic meaning, Sometimes stones were placed under the head of the deceased or onganized to keep the body in the desired position, Other stones, sometimes quite large, were placed on the head, chest, joints, hands or fet. The use of ochce appears te have been infrequent. Manufactured objets are rare but inchide some cup-marked stones, and a large bone spatulate implement, Animal remains, hardly more ‘numerous, do not represent food offerings, but ate of Particular interest: dogs, gazelle hotn-core, horse tect, tortcis carapaces, The treatment of the dead was not always limited to ‘nhumation. Ste deposits often contain human bones ike the many burnt skull fragments at Wadi Hammmeh 27 (Edwards 1981: 146), which are diffcule to interpre, Already in the Early Natufan a skull with atlas and os was discovered on a floor surface neat a hearth at Mallaha (Perrot 1966: 445). Ar the same site, a cranial cap which had been cut off, apparently deliberately, was Wing on another flor. In the Early Natufan these fds ae isolated, Later, towards the end of the period, the removal ofthe sul, with or without the mandible, atmos: became a custom on certain sites (Hayonim Cave, Nehal Oren), but we do not know what became of the bores which were emoved. Shore as itis, this survey of Natafon | | |The Fie Satled Soctaties ~ Notufion (12,500 10,200 BP) funerary practices reveals a complicated set_of data probably not amenable to simple interpretation. Together, they display the preoccupations of a group towards a part of itself - its dead - which people do not seem to have tried to move away or keep separate from the living, even if the proximity of the dead was able to pose problems. Art ond decorotion Natufian ornamental elements attract attention due to their relative richness. Since they are often found in the ‘protected conditions of grave pits, it has been possible to carry out the reconstruction of a’number of them. The most impressive combine bone and shell beads. At El ‘Wad, a necklace seems to have been made up of 25 ‘twine pendants’ separated by similar number of lengths of dental shell (se Plate 1, p. 170), Some were made by simply linking together bone pendants, like a belt of perforated fox canines and a bracelet of partridge tibio- farsus from Hayonim Cave. Others were produced from various combinations of dentalium shells and worn on the head, chest, or around the arms or legs. Examples of headdsesses include one made from seven parallel rows of dentalium strung end to end, bands of dentalium assembled horizontally one below the other and falling ‘onto the wearer's forehead, and rows of vertical dentalium falling in finges from a cieclet (Garrod and Bate 1937: plates VI and VID), These decorative elements do not appear in late Natufian graves, although the shells persist in sive Al, ‘As with the decorative clement, art, at least that which is represented by the preserved materials, is not one ofthe characteristics of the prehistoric Levant prior to the Natufian. The relative frequency of artistic manifestations in this period, thezefore, appears to be an innovation ‘These manifestations may be classified into three categories: ‘single’ objects (Ggurines, etc), tools, and what may be considered as architectural elements, The Inaterials used are stone, less often bone, and, exceptionally, modelled clay or eggshell Turvile-Petre 1932; Garrod and Bate 1937: 38-9; Newville 1951: 125; Perrot 1966: 474, Henry 1976: 345; Blfer-Cohen 1991b: 570 ff) These is a realistic fSgurative art characterized by several conventions, one of the more common consisting, of the gross enlargement of the subject’s eyes. From there, fone passes to. schematic representations — sometimes difficult to interpret ~ and to a wide variety of designs ‘which are more ot less geometric. On some sites excavations have recovered rather a large number of fragments displaying indecipherable incisions (Plate 5} The Agaratve art shows human and animal cepresenta- tions, The former is limited to ‘single’ objects; only one ‘example displays @ scene ~ an embracing couple in a Seated postion, sculpted in the round of a small block of Plate 5 ‘Geometic! decoration under ha ri ofa basal mero. Mallahe (courtesy Pers, CNRS) cakite (Neuville 1951: 138 and Pl XV; Boyd and Cook 1993). Other pieces show individuals, sometimes reduced to only the head. The only clear human-animal association comes from Nahal Oren, where a long bone had a human face at one end and the head of a ruminant at the other (Noy 1991; $61). The animals represented, where they can be identified, seem ro be herbivore, but there i also a ‘scarab’ from Mallaha, Sometimes representation is limited to the male sex. Among tools, bone sickle hafts may be carved in the shape of a herbivore (see Plate 3) and certain pestle show a phallus or an animal hoof "The geometcie motifs appear on various artifacts, the fanctions of which are not always dscerible. Bone tools are rarely decorated. Designs may show basket or wickerwork, lines of dots, etc. Stone tools seem to be ecorated mote often. Designs appear on the body of vessel, pestles or, sometimes, grooved stones, and take the form of incisions, grooves, crenelated or scalloped lines, fe, The architectural clements are distinguished by their large dimensions. In this category 1 place a series of three engraved slabs which extend to around 1.3 m on one of, the house walls at Wadi Hammeh 27. These slabs repeat, ‘on several rows, a design of concentric ines surrounding a tore or less square core. Another slab, 0.75 m long in a secondary context at Hayonim Cave, displays a group of incisions which may representa fish. Population 1 shall not put much emphasis on the physical aspects of the Natufian population known on the basis of around 400, often very incomplete, skeletons (Belfer-Cohen et al 1991; 412), In general, Natufian people were olichacephalic, although 2 tendency towards brachice- phaly is apparent in the population. One of the more Interesting. results stemming from the physical anthro- pological analysis is that there is evidence for a certain diversity between the inhabitants of different sites. Thus,178 Parti 3 Stone Ago Adoptaion,Evaluion and Survival 3 Frangols Vola the people at Mallaha and Kebara were taller than their neighbors at ELWad, Hayonim, Nahal Oren and Shukba. ‘Those at Hayonim and Mallaha possessed a more robust skeleton than those at Nahal Oren, These nuances are perhaps related to diet. In the same way, certain modifications come to light through time. Sexual dimorphism, measured by the difference in size between men and women, tends to diminish, which could be the result of living conditions becoming a litle more difficult at the end of the period. However, broadly speaking, the Natafian skeleton shows a population frce from serious diseases or deficiencies. The teeth are generally much more healthy than those of Neolithic peoples although, again, there are differences from one site to another. The people at Nabal Oren had more worn teeth than their congeners (Smith 1991). Another significant tat is that there are no signs of violence. We would, of course, like to leara more about the demographic structure of the population, but, besides the difficlties inherent in determining the age at death, especially for elderly individuals, itis well known that any archacologically recovered population represents ealy a small proportion of the living population at the Time and space The foregoing analysis endeavored to put forward a elobal, yet static, image of the Natafan. In outlining the salient tits ofthe culture we were able to introduce some ‘of its main innovations. However, this approach is somewhat limited because it does not take into account the variability of a cultural phenomenon which extends across profoundly different regions, and which occupies a period of more than 2000 years, during which neither the natural conditions nor the ‘society itself remained unchanged. Already in the preceding pages it has proved impossible to avoid reference wo regional specifies and chronological developments. Ie is these aspects which will now be emphasised in an attempe to place the Navufan culture. in an historical perspective, Nevertheless, one should keep in mind that the seriation scheme and the correlations on which these views are based ~ explored elsewhere with more details (Valla 1987, Valla n.d.) ~ rest on interpretations, some of which are supported by solid stratigraphic data while others are just extrapolations, Neither climate nor geography are, in. themselves, sulfcint to explain the solutions brought by people tothe Problems which confronted them. However, together they contribute to the creation ofthe framework within which these problems were presented and resolved. After years of trial and error, it seems that we are now beginning to understand something of the climatic fluctuations ‘experienced during the Natafan. On average, tempera. tures at the end of the Pleistocene were stil several degrees below those of today. But compared to the preceding periods, the Natufian was placed in a time of warming, probably accompanied in the southern Levant by an increase in rainfall. ‘This is indicated in the variation of Oxygen 18 to Oxygen 16 in the eastern Mediterranean basin (Nesterhoff et al. 1983) and in the pollen diageams obtained from the Hula Lake (Baruch and Bottema 1991 and Goldberg, this volume). The presence of palearcic ‘migratory birds which no longer frequent the region confirm this reconstruction. Between 11,000 and 10,000 BP, a brief fluctation - cold and probably dey ~ occurred. However, one must not overestimate the local ‘impact of this episode: despite the dryness, the uplands of the Negev, it seems, continued to support trees. At Aba Horeyra, wild einkorn, which today has retreated 100 kim to the north, and pistachios (equally dispersed) probably remained t0 provide for the inhabitants. Early Natulian phase As is often the case in prehistory, where cultural ‘manifestations become visible only at a certain stage of ‘maturity, the beginnings of the Natufian remain obscure. From a superficial observation one has the impression of a break in cultural tradition, accompanied by regional dliversifcation. In Lebanon, the evidence is very limited and too elusive for us to rely on any of the proposed examples of continuity (Copeland 1991). In northern Isracl the rupture is mainly expressed in the choice of inhabited places, in the extension and thickness of deposits at new sites, in new developments in the industries, etc. ‘The break is less clear in the Negev than in the north because of the presence of lunates as early as the Final Ramonian, It is nevertheless indicated through a shift in settlement pattern: the highlands are abandoned and, contrary to that which occurs in the north, larger sites disappear while small ephemeral stations become the rule (Goring-Morris 1987: 433-6, this volume; Hall and Levy, ibid) At this time, the most characteristic evidence of the Natufian comes from the Carmel and the Galilee areas Sites are few and, for the most part, associated with a cave: Kebara, El-Wad, Hayonim, Wadi Hammeh 27, an ‘open air site in the middle Jordan Valley, may also be considered as part of this group. The first occupation at Mallaha, another open air site on the bank of Lake Hula, ccould have taken place a litle later. All of these sites are settled at low altitudes. The highest, Hayonim, is 250 m. asl (Plate 6). Usually, they are found on the interface between the plain (coastal plain, Hula basin) and the ‘mountains, sometimes in the proximity of a large spring, (Henry 1988). ‘The Barly Natufian is not restricted to these few ‘villages’. However, their extraordinary richness justifies the view that they represent the ‘center’ of the culture in the sense of a limited diffusion. Towards the south, theThe First Setled Sociefes — Natfian (12,500~ 10,200 BP} 179) Plote 6 Genera view of Hayonim Cove sating: Note the Madierroreon soa in he bockgyourd [photograph F. Vale) coastal plain is completely empty. If sites did exist on the coast, they are now submerged and we are unaware of them, On the other hand, some sites are found in the Jordan basin both on high ground (Erq el-Ahmar: $5) and in the valley bottom (Fazael VI, Salibiyah XI, and perhaps Jericho, although the date of Natufian occupation there remains problematic). Further south, a highland site dating to before 12,000 BP exists on the easter side of the Arava at Beidha (alt. 1020 m). Some other sites, at Wadi Judayid (alt, 1100 m) and on the margins of the Jordanian Desert at Tabaga (alt. 705 m), are undoubtedly a litle more recent. In contrast, the Negev sites which are tmaller (often lest than 80 1?) are found in lowland unefelds, to the west of the mountains thar extend the Judean anti-line. This period lasted until around 11,250 BP. The lithic industries are characterized by the use of Helwan retouch fon lunates. However, underlying their deep uniformity, ‘which assures the cultural coherence of the Natufian, is an astonishing diversity from region to region and from one site to another. This diversity is expressed through technical choices (euch as the use or refusal of a system of bladelet segmentation known as the —microburin technique), through typological persistence (such as keeping relict tool types) and through stylistic preferences {as evidenced by the shape of Tunates). At the regional level there is a general use of the microburin technique in the Negev as opposed to northern Israel where itis only sporadically encountered. On average, lunates are relatively longer in the south than in the north. They also tend to be more numerous than non-geometric ‘microliths there, while the opposite is seen in the Carmel land Galilee area, At the site-to-site level, the moderate use fof microburin technique at El-Wad (a unique situation in the ‘center’) is noticeable as is the presence of tools like Dhour Choueir bladelets at Mallaha, or the specificity of tunate shape — broader or narrower ~ on each of the sites in the ‘center, Most of these choices cannot be understood in purely functional terms (despite intecesting attempts by Byrd 1989 and Olszewski 1986). Some of them could be connected t0 the geographical origin of froups (Belfer-Cohen 1991; 182 argues that che Natufan trdusris are the result of a merging of older traditions) More precisely, they seem to attest t0 peopl’s awareness of their social ‘belonging’ at a village, regional and Cultural level (Valla 1984: 77 ff; 182 1) “These arguments may be borne out if we extend our examination to other aspects of the material assemblage. On moving away from the ‘center’, both stone and bone tools diminish very quickly in quantity and variety. They remain relatively abundant in the Judean desert and lower Jordan Valley and sometimes appear on the mountain sites south ofthe Transjordan (at Beidha and, particularly, Tabaqa, where it seems that relatively rich stone material was present), They ate lacking in the Negev, but this may ror be significant since bone is not preserved on the sites Concerned, Even taking into account the disproportionate mount of excavation caried out in the north, this image tnndoubtedly reflects reality. The self esteem of individual villages in the ‘center’ is well atested by the choice of tone decorative elements. At Kebara, pyriform pendants largely dominate. The ‘twin-pendants aze unique to El Wad (see Plae 1). At Hayonim, fox teeth and partridge tibiowarsus are particularly abundant, whereas sectioned gazelle phalanges seem to have been the favoured form at Mallaha and Wadi Hamme 27. While it may be true that these differences are sometimes. emphasized by the presence of one of two individuals wearing a type of Head repeated in a decorative piece, the virtual absence of, fay, sectioned gazelle phalanges at Kebara and Hayonim Spears highly significant in terms of the desire for group individualization “This context helps in understanding the diversity of mortuary practices, although the time factor also has to be taken into consideration. All the villages of the ‘center’ rea contain graves, Some burials exist in the Judean desert, and its likely that continuing fieldwork on sits in the lower Jordan Valley will also reveal such evidence. To the east, dating from towards the end of the Early Natufian or at the beginning of the following phase, 2 burial has been found at Azraq 18 (Garrard 1991: 240) Further south ~cither because the customs were genuinely different, or there has not been enough excavation, ot there is @ problem of preservation - not a single human burial has been found. In an attempt to reconstruct a coherent sequence, one can suggest thatthe oldest burial, individual or collective, were in the extended position (Hayonim Cave, ElWad Cave). Following this there would be some’ primary burials, sometimes containing Uisturbed, not always complete, skeletons. Daring this Stage in the sequence the body was deposited in a more or Jess contracted postion (El-Wad Terrace, Hayonim Cave}.180. Fon Stone Age Adeptaton, Evolution and Sunival 5 Frangols Vall Finally, people would have been buried flexed in and the preceding period does not preclude a real tre kan ate EL Wad, Mallhe}, Decorated pestons contniy, The atasion’ of ae nema annua scempaytroubbow the sequence. Hower an _gathringy computed he alent dreary existence of proto of sore tit pe cd wit che opera! prod, could have appt Se case Frese camel sratgraphic cortaons. Ie ako of change whch the wanttng so e Pleistocene Sonny setae of ebrah which pest fom the may have allowed a decoy hee ie creas, ars if one acpi he conclions ofthe aggregation peods hae cree a ee ea The preteen ting tendency to obser sla: vayin which groupe ate cod che Gore or annie ne 1° PORE that a eal uuforiy ranted th atory canes Aoi es ee a8 never reached, information could be necessary for us to tespond ms te the orga aes Posie to addres the question ueson (ae Goring Moh tk eer eet of she origin ofthe Nasfan phenomenon. Inthe ‘enter’ which shoe cn re from ake alte the Necufan appeus to have ceed tenious te oflet amir eso vague dopey patandeninent of alternating aggregation and indications Ar the mere reese POU was Of tan Pods which ar characteris of the muoniy lied ta few amie, ond ar eae of people cape, sci ands shit tovards groupe coming witin ech groan mean a Natufan, ft vas togther on « mor or less permanent baat inthe same only by rthe moderne Be yanlt.nd) These roups msinained, for most of "The way af ie sueeat experinentd yin he ‘ sud artemis, relpiow, scl and Carma! and Gate wee sto oe ne Te cuanto asl in sacha sation, For Toward the souy, row wita eke ee Tra ity could hee cay explted atonal inermation whe Tovavan ane ens We, Ot, Bi Tadacsy eats Ttlorty of the products of Natiian favored rie of uch a apres, Ste ‘ystem antag ol! echniqus, or took advantage af could not have boot tan mee adaptation Simian acini gil then, underexploied. ecuring In thus envionment near?) Satie the temisaberanean houses. nor forsatppe of cak and pacha ne ee atte suneny, amet was wihout ancien, This Gale stn. Asie such or boo ee came sored heer nae led in new types of ben crop vate bie. Schcta cee oe fave inde nt bat racked (184), 1 may lly tat the sgtgnion petod Ua see ee ada eeet Anne to invent more ine in the (Byrd 19894: 83)" The Neg es a a yet May Been ene, tbe goods Evidence for ths anne, Could she accu Set eam Mot Be inde a Atticus and in the nonicsous stone dunes conespond to ie dieord ace groups Manon (east should nt however, be exaggimted. which gathered on te agin oh hone sonnested Fane Peaanal communication) “nous hat fit by Cong Mowtat ar ace ighlands pcre Somtinaed co be exploked jut at belo in abandoned wher one realé por gs sgprepation same tne ial remained extemey ephemeral Arihe sts thee, ane eae he ere ee the te natal apt led to «more intseexpletaon of ‘mode om the non ceed den oe the natural resources around vilags. The use of «larger shown in he fine foe variety of fle than before goes hand in hand ‘witha reduction in the demands made’ of the knappers The {ating by sickle of cereals while only nearripe, thereby Let Natufian phase Pas © reduce wat, pins inthe same diction, nd The Law Narfan phase laeed fom around 11,250 to the same can be sad for the search for small game, 10,300 8P fhe noes continued to follow the trations new eae tdetom could hae insoduced an ety it had maimed or ee as ge Cenain dn ee dt the surrounding word, by bringing ses were abandoned (Rebar wc 2 kt the wai fant and dangerous animal, sich at Hayoni the min acorn en ct ia Sete mt? oie cul, in act, oly be fom ofthe cave cs Baer Nee were icant neta canons H ceed simply inthe eta t Rake and shove eens exten of the annual gathering prods, and of it ses at low akinde: Mecca at Nek Preceding Ging hh cay he detent ofthe peal pid, speck, Naum infnc con eat eee Nag iich each family was isolated from the other. the weern side ot fe eine dorsal, the cave of soar aig ist eis didnot compllydiappear_Shulbaexptencel cosidenti nth (Garrod and thease aur Kast could continue to dipere Bate 1942) ne aindas got en ot perhaps resource satel weeks dusing the autumn, when inhabited on a nerd Poi ate a Ronen rexourees were more searce 1985) despite Lieberman's sugge ‘That the apparent dislocation bereen the Natfan cceupaton Lisbon noo stion of a multiseasonal (On the easter side, highThe Fiat Sotled Socieies ~ Naan (12,500—10,200 BP) 181 altitude sites are more numerous than before in the Judean Desert (Oumm ex-Zoucitina, elKhiam, Tor Abou Sif) (Neuville 1951), and occupation. persists in the lower Jordan Valley (Salibiyah 1) (Shuldenrein and Goldberg 1981). The Neger is one of the regions where the progress fof the Narufian ‘model’ is more clearly marked. Aggregation sites appear in the highlands at Rosh Zin, Roth Horesha and Safltim, although small sites continue to be found in the dunes. We know almost nothing about the mountains of southern Transjordan, where Beidha was reoccupied in an episodic fashion after a long period of abandonment, Towards the eas, the sites are much more modest than those in the ‘center’, but the Natufan influence is clear at places such as Ain Rahub (alt, 420 m), Taibe (al. 570 m) and in the Black Desert, Khallat Anaza (alt. 880 m), where, despite its remoteness, remains of structures were found (Betts 1991: 219). The oases of the Syrian Desert seem empty; on the other hand, the Middle Euphrates witnesses the installation of a large site at Abu Hlareyra, In Lebanon the situation remains confused, but fone can with certainty attribute to this period the site at Saaide I in the Begaa (alt. 1035 m) (Schroeder 1991). Generally, the lithic industries display a reduction in Helwan retouch and in the length of nates; the use of the microburin technique had spread. However, behind these general shifts, the regional and local specificities of the preceding phase are maintained, It seems that Helwan retouch diminishes only very progressively on the older sites occupying the ‘center’. It disappears much more ‘quickly in the ‘peripheries’: central Palestine, the Negev, ‘eastern Jordan, the Euphrates valley and probably also Lebanon. On the other hand, lunates remain rather longer in the south than those in the ‘center’. They are also very large on the Euphrates. As for the microburin technique is sometimes in use at places in the ‘center’ such as El- ‘Wad and Hayonim Terrace, in contrast to the Negev sites where its waste continues in superebundance. On the Euphrates, Abu Hlureyra makes no use of it but itis well attested at the Lebanese site of Saaide, The more subtle nuances ~ certain types of rare tools, the shape of lunates, exc. = which we have already seen occurring from one site to another in the Early Naewfian, continue in this phase. ‘They probably bear witness to both the permanence of local traditions on those sites where occupation goes on, and the self-esteem of each group in relation to others (Valla 1984: 130 ff, 177). “The stone and bone tool assemblages continue to demonstrate the relative richness of the ‘center’ in comparison to the peripheries. However, this statement should be treated with caution, especially for stone. In the ‘eentee, one generally finds the same types of objects as in the preceding period. Perhaps there is less care taken the production of large mortars, many of which are in limestone, 2s the exterior surface is often fashioned in a rather rudimentary way. However, some of these appear to have functioned while almost entirely buried in the ground (Valla etal. 1989: 255). On the upland sites of the ‘Negev, a particular type of artifact in the form of deep cylindrical mortars eut into the bedrock was developed. ‘These can be mumerous (e.g, 109 at Saflulim). On the Euphrates, Abu Hureyra supple a considerable amount of ‘original material, with flat forms (grinding dishes, ‘quers) taking over from deep forms. ‘The Syrian sites of Jayroud (Cauvin 1991: 226 ff.) and the Lebanese site Saaide I also appear to have been rather well supplied in ‘terms of heavy material artifact. In general, the bone tool assemblage tends to be eather less varied than in the early phase. In the ‘centr’ it sometimes remains very abundant, ‘whereas it is rare in the ‘peripheries’ except at Abu Hureyra. More clearly than in the preceding phase, undoubtedly because the period is shorter, human burials display a superimposition of both regional tendencies and local customs. In the Carmel and Galilee, graves and habitations continue to be associated to some extent. On Hayonim Terrace, the graves and habitations seem to be interstratified. In Hayonim Cave, at Nahal Oren and at Mallaha they are separated. Everywhere, except at Mallaha where this is the period of multiple burisls individual graves dominate. Tn Hayonim Cave and ‘Mallaha secondary inhumations are found. The custom of removing the skull, which appears in this period, is not attested at Mallaha, Only one general point.can be made: the dead are no longer buried with their omamental elements, Leaving the ‘center’, some burials are still found in the close ‘peripheries’ at Shuqba and Saaide Il, but none fare found in the Negev. At Abu Hreyra, dispersed hhuman bones were recovered but there are no actual raves there. “The Late Nanofian appears, therefore, to be marked by an extension of the prestige of the Carmel-Galilee ‘center’. Is way of life influenced distant populations in more evident fashion than before. The edaptations which were recognized from the preceding phase are clearer in this period. In central Palestine, Hatoula, Shukba (2), Salibiyah I, and probably also those in the Judean Desert, the sites appear to have functioned as places for seasonal gatherings. The camps which may have corresponded to dispersal periods are unknown. The picture is more ‘complete and more coherent in the Negev. There, ‘opporite to what we see in the ‘center’, the aggregation sites are allocated at high altitudes. Stady of the gazelle hnunting season shows that these sites were frequented in autumn and winter (Lieberman 1993). For the rest of the year, it seems that groups lived in a dispersed form in the ‘dunes and depressions, Without doubt, neither of these cnvironments could have supported gatherings lasting all year round, The same observation holds for the Black Desert sites, On the Euphrates, on the other hand, it seems that the ‘center’ model could have been adopted182 Port # Stone Age Adoptation, Evolution ond Survival +# Frengois Valla without major transformations other than the necessary adaptations to local resources. The inhabitants of Aba Horeyra seem to have been practically sedentary, Summing up, even when the Carmel-Galilee ‘center’ began to give signs of impoverishment — it is at this time that the gazelle population at Hayonim degenerated because of over-exploitation ~ in the ‘peripheries such as the Negev and the Euphrates Valley, systems are adopted which are derived from the original model, and which went on to become capable of pursuing their own particular development during the last episode of the Natufian, Final Natufian phase ‘The Final Natufian occupies, broadly, the third quarter of the eleventh millennium BP. ‘The relative brieiness of this period, which still had its own particular characteristics, may explain why some scholars prefer to inclade it within the Late Natufian. Its presence, however, is undoubtedly recognizable on certain ‘center’ sites, and is particularly evident in the Negev and on the Euphrates. Treating it as a clearly-defined phase allows us better appreciation of the range of Natufian innovations and the significance of this cculture in the historical development of the Levant. ‘The episode is signalled by an obvious decline of the ‘center’ sites, where architecture is no longer in evidence (Valla 1987: 281). Hayonim is deserted, and at Mallaha the period is represented by a layer of small stones and rubble, probably displaced, but very rich in material and into which the Narufians installed some small structures such as stone basins and pits. Later, after the abandonment of the site, some (still Narufan) burials ‘were ent into a deposit (which has since disappeared) and placed just at the summit of the rubble layer, Perhaps the ancestral way of life was best maintained in the Carmel, where Nahal Oren stands out as the main site. Outside the Carmel and Galilee areas, the presence of the Final Natufian is seen in the Lower Jordan Valley at Fazael IV (Bar-Yosef et al. 1974), but it is above all, as previously mentioned, in the Negev and on the Euphrates that the most significant developments took place. The Harifian results from better adaptation to the desert conditions of the Negev (Scot 1977]. Aggregation sites are found on the high uplands (Abu Salem alt. 970 m, Ramat Harif, Shluhat Harif) and lower down at the base of the plateau (Ma’alch Ramon east and west), to mention only those where built structures are attested. Other sites, less substantial and lacking architecture but which also represent aggregation episodes, exist t0 the west on the border of the dunes (Shunera VI and IX), Finally, some sites — even more modest ~ are encountered everywhere right down to the north of Sinais these could be the remains of temporary camps of isolated families (Goring> Morris 1991: 206 and this volume). By way of contrast 0 this complex situation, the Euphrates only has one site, Mureybet, which was probably occupied all year round (Cauvin, 1981), ‘The general tendencies displayed in the lithic industries of the previous phase have a number of outcomes in the Final Natufian. Helwan retouch disappears almost everywhere. It persists only at Mallaha, which is particularly conservative in this respect. Lunates become very small, and the microburin technique is present everywhere. However, it would be wrong to suggest a standardization of industries. In the ‘center, Mallaha and Nahal Oren remain very different. The former preserved Helwan retouch and broad lunates while the latter produced narrow lunates and rare microburins (Valla 1984: 171 ff) The Negev and the Euphrates, while sell part of the general trend, developed their own original traditions. ‘The Harifian has the first arrow points, of which the most well-known is the Hanif point, and thick serapers with finely denticulated edges are unique to this assemblage. This coincides with a relative decline in the tase of the microburin technique. On the Euphrates, Mareybet is known only from the excavation of small areas. In flint too] material, is main originality lies in the production of the first ‘herminettes de Mureybet’ (adzcs) and larged tanged points which do not appear anywhere in successive periods. ‘The current state of the literature does not allow us to extend our analysis to other elements of Final Natufan ‘material in any great detail, Heavy artifacts continue to be used on the Carmel and Galilee sites. At Nahal Oren, «grooved stones with cylindrical bases, which are unique to this site, seem to be an innovation of this phase (Noy 1991: $57). The Negev, better known, appears very particular. Some sites (those where building activities are evidenced) yielded numerous cupstones. Bedrock mortars become less frequent. Among the artifacts unique to this region, often produced in material coming from Sinai, are bell-shaped handstones in green rock, of which we have two examples, The heavy material of Mureybet in this phase remains largely unknown. Little can be said of the Final Natufian bone industry, which probably maintained the features of the preceding phase ~ standardization at Mallaha, where it is still abundant; rarity in the Negev (poor preservation?) and at Mureybet (due to the rclative paucity of excavation?) Funerary customs appear to follow the same tendencies as the lithic industries. In the ‘center’ they are relatively standardized, but without implying a genuine homo- geneity. Simple individual inhumations dominate, but ‘muhiple burials persist at Nahal Oren, as does the practice Of skull removal. There is no evidence for this last custom, at Mallaha, and, yet again, neither the Negev nor the Euphrates have burials, After the apparent high point of the late Natufian, the cultural connections woven across the Levant under the =The Fist Setled Societies — Notufian (12,500 10,200 BP) 183 influence of the Carmel-Galilee ‘cente:’ seem to slacken daring the final Natufian. In the Carmel and Galilee there is even a return towards a more mobile existence. The prestigious way of life which the people there had sought to maintain tended to be abandoned, Does the reduction in the consumption of vegetal resources which may have taken place at this time (Sillen 1984; Sillen and Lee-Thorp 1991; 406) reflect a cultural choice? Or, alternatively, after almost two millennia of human exploitation, was the environment around the traditional sites exhausted? Was the social network unable to maintain the cohesion of the group for some unknown reason? Since the populations do not seem to have been subjected to strong nutritional constraints (Belfer-Cohen et al. 1991: 422), it may be necessary to envisage a combination of explanations. Whatever the case, the prestige and influence of the Carmel and the Galilee became weaker. This is evident in the Negev and on the Euphrates, where, on different lines, the societies exhibit a tendency to disassociate themselves from the practices in the ‘eenter’. In the Negey, the Farifians seem to convert to a new system of seasonality, perhaps bated on a different mode of resource ‘exploitation, It is likely chat the upland aggregation sites could have been frequented during spring and summer, but no longer in winter as was the case in the Late Natwfian. Another significant shift is that most of the exotic objects, among them the decorative elements, came from the south (Red Sea, Sinai) during this period and no longer from the Mediterranean. On the Euphrates, separation from the ‘center’ worked ina. different direction. At the time when the Carmel and Galilee were abandoning the traditional sedentary way of life, Mureybet seems to have perpetuated it. If the tendency toward sedentism has been one of the specific indicators of the Natufian, then Mureybet is, at this time, the most ‘Natufian’ of all the sites in the Levant. There are also, however, certain traits at Mureybet which bear witness to the spreading of influences from elsewhere. For example, tunlike Abu Hureyra, Mureybet does not have dentalium; fon the other hand, it has Anatolian obsidian, which arrived there in small quantities at a time when it hardly ever reached any further south. Just like its beginnings, the end of the Narufian corresponds to a ‘dislocation’ in the Levantine sequence. The settlement of the country underwent a total transformation, The Carmel and Galilee seem to have become empty, with only Nahal Oren being ceinhabited somewhat later. The Harfian vanished towards the end of the eleventh millennium, and the Negev lacks any evidence ‘of occupation for a long period of time. Mureybet provides the only example of an uninterrupted human presence in the same location. In central Palestine, the brief period known as the Khiamian appears to show small, rather ephemeral, groups of hunters at sites such as Hatoula, el Khiam and Salibiyah IX. This episode is followed by the Sultanian which resumes the carlier architectural ttadition, with a preference for the contemporary steppic environment of the Jordan Valley, at Jericho, Gilgal, Netiv Hagdud and Gesher, although the western side of the Judean mountains is not entirely deserted as is shown at Hatoula, It is in this type of ‘environment, rather than in the Mediterranean zone, that the fist morphologically domesticated plants appear, at ‘Tell Aswad in Damascene, Nevertheless, in the same way thar the dislocation observed at the beginning of the ‘Natufian conceals a number of elements of continuity, the dislocation which marked its end does not prevent the farther transmission of such elements (Bar-Yosef and Belfer-Cohen 1989). But this is a matter for the next chapter (see Chapter 12). Sedentism in the Levantine sequence 1k remains for us to ask ourselves what the Natufan signifies. We have said that itis situated between two Points of dislocation, but we have also shown a profound continuity from the preceding period. If our analyses are reliable, then the key innovation introduced by the Natufian resides in the tendency to prolong as much as possible those periods when families grouped together, at the expense of periods of dispersal. The way of life which resulted from this has been termed, pethaps a. litle incorrectly, sedentary. However, it does undoubtedly appear that the practising of a les mobile way of life than before, along with the habit of returning to the same sites (orhere some members of the group may have stayed), is at the very heart of the majority of the changes which characterize the period. Among the changes more visible to archaeologists are the increase in the size of sites, in the thickness of dep and in the density of the remains which they contain. Following the ideas put forward by Binford (1968), many have regarded these phenomena as secure evidence for an increase in the size of groups compared to the preceding period and, consequently, evidence for a general increase in the population. Relative sedentism could have resulted in changes in the demographic structure, due to a reduction in the length of time berween births. The increasing pressure exerted on the environment could have forced groups to divide up and to colonize land which was incapable of producing naturally the necessary staples. ‘Agricultural practices may have been developed in these ‘peripheries’ where people may have tried to introduce species which did not grow there naturally, but were familiar in their region of origin. Unfortunately, the demographic expansion suggested cannot be sustained by the available evidence. The size of sites and their relative richness can be understood in terms of the way in which people frequented them ~ in terms of changing social Practices, without having to rely on models which cannot184 Part Il Stone Age Adoptaton,Evolofon and Survival 3 Franpols Vala be proven, Furthermore, the stability of traditions, which seems to be one of the characteristics of the period, does not suggest large-scale movement of the population, Finally, ‘evidence from the ‘peripheries’ during the Natufian does not indicate that people there developed agricultural practices The general impoverishment of the culture at the end of the cleventh millennium, which occurred everywhere ‘except in the Euphrates, along with what we observed of the ‘wild’ character of the plant crops, cereals, legumes and others, indicates that nowhere did the Natufians pass the stage of intensive gathering of diverse resources (of which cereals were most probably not as central as may have been thought). This point of view could become ‘more plausible if it could be confirmed (which may be Possible) thar the last Natuflans of the Carmel and Galilee ‘onsumed less plant food than their predecessors. ‘The changes evidenced by the faunal remains may also be explained by a new way of using sites. The hunting of small yame could be rooted in the necessity of thoroughly exploiting the territory close to villages. In this context of limited hunting grounds, it becomes clear how the selective hunting of gazelle led to over-exploitation of the species. However, perhaps the most interesting innova: tions in this field result as much from the behavior of humans as from the behavior of animals, namely the invasion of commensals and the domestication of the dow, 1 is unclear if the domestication of the dog was s0 fevolutionary per se; dogs may have existed elsewhere at the end of the paleolithic. But ehe way in which burials suggest domestication may have been understood at this time - opening the way for further ‘humanization’ of the world at the expense of nature ~ was in itself important for the future (sce Plate 2.1, Window 2), ‘The development of art and decoration no longer seems unusual to this new way of living if it is indeed true that ‘aggregation time is one of intense intellectual and religious sciviy. The omomenal clenees wate a Early Netafian graves have been interpreted as indicators of a hierarchical society because decorated burials seem to cross-cut age and sex differences (Wright 1978). There can be no doubt that these decorative elements had a social function, probably as a means for each group to affirm ther identity. Study ofthe graves does suggest that certain subjects ~ not necessarily those individuals who are decorated ~ may have enjoyed particular prestige. Bit claiming that prestige was hereditary or that the Natufians were organized into chiefdoms (Henry 1989: 210) by imposing on the archaeological evidence an. imported evolutionary model, obscures the facts instead of ‘explaining them. With the current state of the evidence, i is difficult to properly understand Natufian. socal organization beyond noting the desire of each group for seltindividualization, of which there are many indications, ‘This was probably all the more necessary because, on biological grounds, there was a constant demand for matrimonial exchange between local groups, But art and decoration also open the way to symbolic thought. This domain is not any less problematic than that (of social organization, Nevertheless, the male and female symbolic meaning of the marine shells with which the Natufian decorated themselves is universal. Its dificult to ‘imagine that people were unaware of it. This impression is feinforced if one turns to the bone ornamental elements, ‘The fox canines are unambiguous, Some beads appear to imitate deer canines, and these also carry male values, The ‘twin-pendants' from El-Wad are probably also part of the same symbolic system, whether one wishes to see them as ‘wo stylized deer canines or, along with Marshack, as equivalent to the female figurine pendants from Dolni Vestonice. It is, maybe, not necessary to choose between ‘he two interpretations, since che symbolic mind would be able to bring both into play. Finally, the presence of Dhallic representations, and that of a probable female figurine (at Hayonim Terrace), allow us to conclude that the Natufian mind uses the sexual divide to understand the world. We have already noted that towards the end of the Natufian, dentalium shells became relatively less Popular ~ a trend which increased during the following periods. Female figurines increase in number during the Khiamian. It is appropriate to note here the beginnings of this shift, which constitutes yet another connection with the following cultures, even if for the moment one cannot refine much in this field. Conclusion: grounds for future research ‘Ave the Natufian the fist seed societies? Probably yes But this statement must be cautiously delimited. The Natufian does not appear as a uniform whole, either in time or space. On the contrary, we see it as a complex of fegional entities, each of them maintaining their own originality, even if sharing most aspects ‘of the same material culture, From that point of view, the main difference between sites in what is called here the ‘center (the Carmel and Galilee areas) and those in the ‘peripheries’, is a gradual impoverishment of sites the farther they are from the “center”. Nevertheless, even this Picture is stil an oversimplication. The’ so-called ‘peripheries’ that we imagine zecciving innovations from outside, do not appear to have been passive. Not being able to adopt fully the way of life of the ‘center’ they had to adjust the ‘deal’ it may have represented for them to the limitations of the relatively poor, or atleast different, environment in which they were living. Finally, when the ‘center’ lost its dynamism, the peripheries themselves became areas of innovation ~ atleast in the Negev and on the Euphrates. So, what is the Natafian culture? What is called hereTha First Soted Societies ~ Natufan (12,500~10,200 BP) 185 ‘Natufian’ isa ‘culture’ inthe sense that all areas inchuded and groups referred to ate recognizable as part of it on the basis of the material elements they have in common, In other words, we do not assume among those groups a tniform way of life, Maybe this definition would not be acceptable to ethnographers. But prehistorians and tthnographers do not have at their disposal the same kind of data, and the extent £0 which the observations of the later (and a fortir’ theie theoretical constructions) can be imposed on the remains of Pre-Neoitic societies has still to be demonstrated. Tn this context it is relevant to evoke the controversy between those who hold that flint tools are useful cultural markers, and the supporters of the view that they reflect only specific tasks on each site. People influenced by ethnographers tend to accept this second opinion while the traditional mode of reasoning among prehistorians is based on the first . It has been argued in this paper chat flint tools, at least through technology and shape, under certain conditions can be taken as cultural indicators. Tis is especially obvious for miccliths. On-going, research addressing the problem through diferent angles, technological study of debitage, attribute analysis and microwear analysis of tools, will help throw more light on the matter. “The ambiguous relationship berween prehistory and ethnography is again illustrated in the interpretation of such cultural cits as. seelement organization and fanerary habits, ‘There is no place here for a full diseussion ofthis problem, suffice i 10 say that once again Drehistorians are hampered by the limitations and ‘equivocality of their data. Wright's (1978) interpretation of the graves at E-Wad may be legitimate as an exercise showing one possible avenue for further research, Iti less clear if it is acceptable on methodological grounds, in that the author cast the data in a pre-existing mould without questioning whether they could fi another model, But the fragility of his conclusions become obvious if one coriders both the quality ofthe data involved (excavated in the carly 19303) and the quantity of the material (five graves), Nothing seems to be more diffieult to obtain in Pre-Neolithic prehistory than data relevant to social organization; even the ways in which past people thought, elusive a8 they are, may be easier to approach, What is sure, in any case isthe need for more well-excavated and reliable data as a basis for reasoning. In short, research on the Natufian culture during the coming years has 2 good chance of being dominated by debates stemming from the discrepancies between the data coffered by the sites and their excavators) and the questions asked by prehistorians fascinated by the ‘answers’ reached by their ethnographer colleagues Acknowledgments ‘Thanks are due to O. Bar-Yosef, J. Perrot and D. Stordeur who allowed me to reproduce illustrations from their work, and to D. Ladiray and M. Barazani, from the Centre de Recherche Frangais de Jerusalem (CNRS) for help in completing the figures. The text was translated from French by Brian Boyd to whom T owe a special debr.186 poe THE VILLAGE OF MALLAHA, “he Natufian sted at Maloha, near Lake Hula, atthe foc of ope nto which thelr houses were cut In the excavated ae, uses were aligned. They te oval ct semi-drelarin shape Each one covers more or less 25 m™_ On the some Alignment n oval constuction occupying any around 7m? 8 Gaeta inerpet. star as one can ay there was no means of cosure. “he bestknow house probably sen-orcua (late 1.1 “enteriorspace I broken by two sees of ports, one aoa theentance thesecond at around ne mete in ant of the val Lien the hove sees to have been orientated around thee fheplces the frstisaarge oval here, ited by stones el on edge, wich is located on the sof the entrance, Ts earth contens ony seh and naa na concentration of sifacts around ft cola have served mary bs bsoutce of heat orto wats of inset The send expe, Gh the sina ans,apped's os «zane of ash spread around & igs refuse a teve aac malo sachnicl Ss covesand fit toos abound nts rt. “The thie heat, fowards the migele of te sheer, but rot catered sams to Pave been the real focus of domes. is double earth of which ech ofthe to elements nites “byan arc of vereal stones which Rete and ter lean against 3 fosttcesuspor. The principal cement of thishearth conta - a number of bird-bones, probably food remains which were ‘thrown ito the fie. Westby andin th hearth tif are some fatstones whieh could have serves a grils o supports for _htever material yas being heated eth time, Several basalt estes vee found neatiy. These may have been ved for Grinding either fond of pigments. Near this hearth, the hunters taal care of ter weapons, which attested by the onkentation of gfoaved stones and microlthe, the majority ‘unl pabatly served a projec armatures. aly, ts _ earth atvocted objects wich apoeat to have symbolic or rival “fineions, posted roe deer ate, sectioned at the bas, ‘vas found inside the hearth Tas piece could bean erélen of Plate 1.1 Lege house from Mall [courte Paral, CNRS} some kind. Two fragments ofa sculpted stane ~ perhaps an animal epresentation ~ lay nearby, a5 wal 3g a human cranial {8p and an assamblage of smal stones of various colours. ‘although the earths were the prime features in the organitation of space they didnot attract all the activities: bone tools are gepersed throughout the house ins fly homogeneous wa. Inne withthe observations of physical anthropologists, who assume that pele generally worked in the erouened postion, there sro seat at bench In this house. ‘At this petag, the dead were grcuped in twa main concentrations under the two houses wnich have bee fxcavated, The dimensions of these constrictions suggest tat they could have accommodated a nuclear family Al this seems ta paint to these constructions having played the cantral ole in he organization of space-time for thelr occupants “The plan ofthe vilage was modified in the Late Natuian, The houses, semissubterranean, remained algnee acccrding to the fopograpny atthe foot and summit ofthe siepe, A third tanga. bf constructions semt to have existed on the slope isl, but and, athaugh they are more numerous then before, they tend fo be smaller The majriy are hardly more than three meters in Glameter Their interior otganization is less well-known than that ofthe preceding phase They contain a heart, either Bult ‘rsimply a mats of ach and small burt stones. The largest house (28 m) cantsned a large hearth bordered by stones, ‘hea 1 which was a big lock of limestone worked to make & mortar. Against the wall an area of hardly a meter square was ‘markag out by upright stones, representing the fist example of 23 xed partition. Inthisphaze pte are numerous, cutinto fils rext to occupied houses, Two main concentrations of them have been observed ‘Tes 'pits! are of various types: some are simple basins, othets sre mare than one meter dep; some could have been sls, but ‘numberof them contain burials. Doss the shift from large houses to maler constuction, (perhaps for one single Individual) ndiate a loosening of family tesin favor of ‘community ties? To support a hypothesis of his type, we can point tothe grouping of pits and graves in fommunal spaces ft would appear thatthe symbolic representations previously atached to each house by ts occupants was, atleastin pat, transferred tothe village love ‘The Final Natu 's represented by ddepests rh in terms of amount and in material of al gore, out partly displaced Architecture doesnt seem o have played an Important fle. We know only of some stone basins and small pts, The summit ofthe aver ‘snevertheless marked by some buras, sil Natufian, which seem to indicate that memory ofthe ol vilage remained prasont in the collective memory ofthe group after its abandonment, and that peoale continued to bury their dead there, reuniting them with thelr ancestors (Vella 1931),_ THE DOMESTICATION OF THe oc | Levant appear inthe Natuian when, forthe first time, we ind “Bogs buted with humans (aus ard Vall 1976, Vala etal 3997: 102), To date, this type of occurrence ie known from two graves ‘Tha ldact t Mallaha, contained an elderly indvidual and 2 (Puppy, which wes curled vp ina bel ner the person's head, ‘The deceased's left hane rested on the anima''s body (Pate 2.1) “he second grave, on Heycrim Terrace, ismore complex. t ‘contains theee human individuals. Of the frst, mainly the skull langeft arm bones remain. The head lay lose tothe pes oF the second individual, avery robust mal, which iy perpendicular tothe fist A dog had been placed under tis male, forehead to forehead with him, but the body crawn out Plote 2.1 cand F. Volo} - stand dog ssems to han Te salt ications forthe dmestation af the dog inthe same ale wh ws alo ssolted ith two Humon burl wih o pupey fom Mallahe [photograph A. Dagand | 187 so that one spas sia a rein | eaiopoces. The third inva cause ‘ont ee Second accompanied by one orn of sgazele andthe sul ot fahotherwrthitstwo horns. Atleast one stone lyon th stl of fhehotthehunans and tectess ol resend ara ia bets wore crushed by largestone Boek Such complensetal eden od not oecu by scsden “he components colected together hee ar found nda eewhere in s funerary context. Moreove’, the humon-dog- {sree asodsion we ac encountered ona foorsurace Nallahs Therefore, ne an conclude with tiedegmeof Confidence that these components expessa coherentsystan ot thought as THemynonns ni cmaningumina sitet | © possible to stuty the formal variations of _ Hiscomponents, which are particularly "sian as they elec representa that were not neces) conscious From thieeint of vow the apportion between en theane hand gazelle always represented by selected bone) ond on the other, human and dg eometnes teptesnted bya selected bone a3 on@ floor surface at Malaha, and at other tines compli ein th gtaves) carat falta be noted, I slnifies atin same way, symbol thought assimilated the og, butrot te gare, humans. Thicelference!n tegument confims thenew closeness of humans snd dogs, Semething thatthe copresresin grave seedy sweet ease It Hevea tht the Nathan si Comestcaton as an appealing wayin which fo intoduce te anim nto sca). They thraby opted the way tho unlimited expansion ofthe Imurontee wanda ne eer of