36
Documenta Praehistorica XLVII (2020)
Introduction
Since the inception of research in Southwest Asia,
the unique ‘bridging’ role of the Natufian culture1,
between the ‘Palaeolithic’ and the ‘Neolithic’ (with
all that such a role implies) has been widely acknow-
ledged (Garrod 1932; Neuville 1934). The ‘inter-
mediate’ nature of this entity – representing the
shift from the preceding groups of mobile hunter-
gatherers towards the following settled farming so-
cieties, especially in the Mediterranean zone – is re-
flected in many aspects of its material culture and
lifeways (Fig. 1). There is, for the first time, evidence
of long-term, semi-sedentary basecamp sites with
substantial, durable structures accompanied by a
largely microlithic knapped industry (Palaeolithic in
nature), together with a heavy-duty component and
sickle blades (heralding the chipped stone traditions
of the Neolithic). Other distinctive features include
cemeteries exhibiting complex burial rites, extensive
groundstone and bone tool assemblages, and the ap-
pearance of artistic and symbolic manifestations as
constant components of the material culture reper-
toire (see Bar-Yosef, Valla 1991; 2013; Cauvin 2000;
Goring-Morris, Belfer-Cohen 2013a; Grosman, Mun-
ro 2017; Nishiaki et al. 2017; Shaham 2014; Ye-
shurun et al. 2014).
Yet, after many years of systematic research the ter-
minology and processes involved in the transforma-
From the Epipalaeolithic into
the earliest Neolithic (PPNA) in the South Levant
Anna Belfer-Cohen, Nigel Goring-Morris
Institute of Archaeology, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, IL
anna.belfer-cohen@mail.huji.ac.il< nigel.goring-morris@mail.huji.ac.il
ABSTRACT – This paper examines the nature of initial neolithisation indications during the terminal
Pleistocene and earliest Holocene in the Southern Levant. This interval corresponds to a period of
significant and geographically variable environmental changes in the region. Various lines of evi-
dence are provided to demonstrate the long durée (~15 000 years) character of interactions during
the Early, Middle and Late Epipalaeolithic that were instrumental to the emergence of the fully-
fledged agricultural life ways in the later phases of the Early Neolithic (PPNB).
IZVLE∞EK – V ≠lanku raziskujemo naravo kazalcev za≠etne neolitizacije v ≠asu kon≠nega pleistoce-
na in najzgodnej∏ega holocena na obmo≠ju ju∫ne Levante. V tem ≠asu je pri∏lo do pomembnih, ven-
dar geografsko razli≠nih okoljskih sprememb v regiji. Ponujamo razli≠ne dokaze o dolgoro≠ni (ok.
15 000 let) naravi interakcij v ≠asu zgodnjega, srednjega in poznega epipaleolitika, ki so bili klju≠ni
pri oblikovanju razvitih na≠inov poljedelstva v kasnej∏ih obdobjih zgodnjega neolitika (PPNB).
KEY WORDS – Southern Levant; Epipalaeolithic; Natufian; Early Neolithic; cultural continuity
KLJU∞NE BESEDE – ju∫na Levanta; epipaleolitik; Natufijska kultura; zgodnji neolitik; kulturna konti-
nuiteta
Od epipaleolitika do
najzgodnej[ega neolitika (PPNA) v ju/ni Levanti
DOI> 10.4312\dp.47.3
1 Originally considered as ‘Mesolithic’, nowadays it is attributed to the ‘Late Epipalaeolithic’ period, see Table 1.
From the Epipalaeolithic into the earliest Neolithic (PPNA) in the South Levant
37
Current research has clearly demonstrated that
there is solid evidence for local, in situ continuity
between the two cultural manifestations. This is re-
flected by recent investigations of several ‘Epi-Na-
tufian’ and ‘Khiamian’ settlements in the Mediterra-
nean zone.2 Sites are mostly located at low eleva-
tions at the edge of the lower Jordan valley, i.e. Sa-
libiya IX, Gilgal II, Huruk Musa and Nahal Ein Gev II
(Dag, Goring-Morris 2010; Eitam et al. 2015; Enoch-
Shilo, Bar-Yosef 1997; Grosman et al. 2016; Rosen-
berg et al. 2010) and in the low-lying areas west of
the central hill range, i.e. Nahal Oren, Tel Bareqet,
Tzur Nathan, Kaizer, Qula and Hatoula (Grosman,
Goren-Inbar 2007; Herzlinger et al. 2013; Khalaily,
Marder 2010; Lechevallier, Ronen 1994; Marder et
al. 2007; Paz et al. 2009; Ronen, Lechevallier 1991;
Stekelis, Yisraely 1963; Zbenovich 2006), all dating
to the interval of c. 12 500–11 600 cal BP. The ar-
chaeology of those sites provides solid evidence of
tion from the latest Natufian to the first Neolithic
entities, namely the Pre-Pottery Neolithic A (PPNA;
incorporating at least two cultural entities, the ‘Khia-
mian’ and the ‘Sultanian’) has been contentious
and hotly debated (e.g., Abbès 2014; Bar-Yosef et
al. 2010; Belfer-Cohen, Goring-Morris 1996; Crow-
foot-Payne 1976; Garfinkel 1996; Gopher, Barkai
1997; Kuijt 1996, 1997; Nadel 1990; Ronen, Leche-
vallier 1999). Additionally, there has been increas-
ing awareness that, at least in the Southern Levant,
the criteria that justified the use of the term ‘Neoli-
thic Revolution’ actually became apparent only with
the shift from PPNA to PPNB (Goring-Morris, Belfer-
Cohen 2011a; 2016; and see below).
Initially, as is often the case in archaeology, it was
assumed that the Neolithic ‘package’ was ‘exotic’ (i.e.
allochthonous), having arrived from somewhere
outside the region, as it was assumed that major
changes as a rule occurred through
external ‘stimuli’ (e.g., Kenyon
1957). Later, it was believed that du-
ring the latest Natufian phase there
was a reversion to more mobile life-
ways, brought about mostly due to
the ‘forcing’ conditions of the sup-
posedly harsh climatic Younger Dr-
yas event (e.g., Grosman, Belfer-Co-
hen 2002; Moore et al. 2020). Still,
it was assumed that the local Neoli-
thic rose from the ‘ashes’ of the de-
clining Natufian, without going into
the specifics of how this came about,
or the relation of the local southern
Neolithic to the emergence of early
Neolithic phenomena in the north-
ern Levant (Belfer-Cohen, Goring-
Morris 2014; Cauvin 2000; Mellaart
1975). That the local Neolithic rep-
resents Natufian survival, ‘by-the-
skin-of-their-teeth’, is strengthened
also by the presence of only a few
sites with a unbroken Natufian – Neo-
lithic sequence and the fact that most
PPNA occurrences are found in dif-
ferent locations from the preceding
major Natufian base camps (see Bel-
fer-Cohen, Goring-Morris 2010; Go-
ring-Morris, Belfer-Cohen 2016 for
details and references).
Fig. 1. Distribution of Late Epipalaeolithic (c. 15000–11600 cal BP)
sites in the Levant: Early Natufian, Terminal Ramonian, Late Natu-
fian, Harifian and ‘Other’.
2 In the southern desert margins there appears to have been a virtual hiatus between the end of the Epipalaeolithic Harifian enti-
ty (= local variant of the Late/Final Natufian) and the initial PPNB (Goring-Morris 1991). Though see also the ‘Epi-Harifian’ of Abu
Madi I in southern Sinai (Pomerantz-Greenblat 2014).
Anna Belfer-Cohen, Nigel Goring-Morris
38
local, endemic developments ‘bridging’ the end of
the Natufian complex foragers’ existence and the
emergence of larger, clearly sedentary PPNA (Sulta-
nian) settlements.
In attempting to understand the dynamics that ope-
rated to enable the appearance of what is consider-
ed to represent the initial Neolithic, it is necessary
to refer to the Early and Middle Epipalaeolithic. In-
deed, quite a number of ‘Natufian-cum-Neolithic’ cha-
racteristics appear much earlier, already by the Early
Epipalaeolithic, with the onset of the Last Glacial Ma-
ximum (LGM; and see Table 1). This said, we shall
present rather briefly the processes believed to be in-
strumental in shaping the Natufian entity, and which
apparently continued into the Neolithic. Clearly,
some of what will be presented is rather speculative,
but we do rely on evidence to that effect in the ar-
chaeological record. We should clarify that we ad-
here to and point out the separation between long-
term and short-term trends taking place throughout
the entire Epipalaeolithic sequence.
The Early and Middle Epipalaeolithic (Figs. 2, 4)
The effects of the LGM appear to have differed be-
tween the Mediterranean zone (cold and wet) and
areas further to the south (cold and dry) due to
changes in the configuration, tracks and intensities
of the winter storms (‘Cyprus lows’) over the eastern
Mediterranean (Bar-Matthews et al. 1999; Enzel et
al. 2008; though see Miebach et al. 2016). With the
onset of the Early Epipalaeolithic, c. 25 000 cal BP,
a long-term trend of steady demographic growth is
notable in the Southern Levant, continuing thereafter
(Goring-Morris, Belfer-Cohen 2011a.Fig. 2; Gros-
man 2005; Stutz et al. 2009). Concurrent with the
increase in population there was shrinkage in the
scale and scope of the ranges/territories of specific
Epipalaeolithic groups, when a variety of different
entities can be identified based upon the stylistic pro-
clivities of the chipped stone assemblages (Belfer-
Cohen, Goring-Morris 2011; Goring-Morris 1995;
Leplongeon, Goring-Morris 2018; Marder, Goring-
Morris in press). These processes were not linearly
accumulative, since they were also affected by chang-
ing environmental circumstances, including the glo-
bal rise of sea levels and the drop in Lake Lisan lev-
els reflecting significant changes in the ratio if pre-
cipitation vs. evaporation (Lisker et al. 2010; Torf-
stein et al. 2013).
With the beginning of an amelioration following the
LGM, c. 20/19 000 cal BP, the formerly arid south
‘opened up’, and the Middle Epipalaeolithic entities
emerged, expanding throughout the Levant (Goring-
Morris, Belfer-Cohen 2019). It was against this back-
ground of long durée processes that short-term
trends were observed amongst the more specific
and immediate interactions of the various mobile
foraging groups inhabiting the region.
It is in the context of the early Epipalaeolithic Mas-
raqan entity (Tab. 1) that there is already direct evi-
dence for the extensive use of small-grained seeds
and the cultivation and harvesting of cereals in the
Southern Levant (Arranz-Otaeguia et al. 2016; Gro-
man-Yaroslavski et al. 2016; Piperno et al. 2004;
Snir et al. 2015a; 2015b). Although this evidence
derives from only one site, Ohalo II, it can be rea-
sonably assumed that these practices occurred on a
small-scale in other (Early and Middle) Epipalaeoli-
thic communities, at least in the Mediterranean re-
gion. This is also the period when quantities of
pounding and grinding stones are first documented
(Belfer-Cohen, Hovers 2005; Rosenberg 2008).
The sizes of mobile bands of Palaeolithic foragers are
commonly thought to comprise ~25 individuals. In
order to sustain genetically viable populations, the
minimum mating pool should have included ~250
individuals, necessitating contacts with ~10 other
groups, at least on a periodic basis (Birdsell 1968;
Wiessner 1974; Wobst 1975). The presence of mas-
sive aggregation sites, i.e. Kharaneh IV and Jilat 6
(Garrard, Byrd 2013; Maher, Conkey 2019; Maher
et al. 2011; 2016), spanning the later Early and the
beginning of the Middle Epipalaeolithic (c. 19 500–
Period Cultural Entities cal BP Duration Years
Early Epipalaeolithic Masraqan, Nebekian, Kebaran, Nizzanan ~25 000–19 000 ~6000
Middle Epipalaeolithic Geometric Kebaran, Mushabian, Ramonian ~18 500–15 000 ~3500
Late Epipalaeolithic Natufian, Terminal Ramonian, Harifian ~15 000–11 650 ~3350
PPNA Khiamian, Sultanian ~11 650–10 600 ~1050
PPNB Early, Middle, Late, Final PPNB ~10 600–8350 ~2250
Tab. 1. Chronological scheme of terminal Pleistocene and early Holocene cultural entities in the South-
ern Levant.
From the Epipalaeolithic into the earliest Neolithic (PPNA) in the South Levant
39
18 500 cal BP), encompassing several sociocultural
entities in eastern Transjordan, are clearly impor-
tant in this regard. They by far exceed the sizes of
earlier or indeed contemporary occupations else-
where in the Southern Levant. This novel means of
social interaction would have fostered groups’ ties
at a larger scale than previously (Belfer-Cohen, Go-
ring-Morris 2017).
Formerly thought to be strategically located for the
interception of migratory herds of gazelle, recent
preliminary isotopic evidence indicates that the prey
were non-migratory, and instead thrived in large
herds within the local steppic environment (Hen-
ton et al. 2017; 2018). Nevertheless, the size and
scope of the occupations do indicate the (seasonal?)
aggregation of bands from throughout much of the
region, as reflected in the large quantities of marine
molluscs recovered, which derive from both the Red
and Mediterranean Seas (Rich-
ter et al. 2011; and see Byrd et
al. 2016 for modelling of the
ranges of such groups).
The various archaeological en-
tities (identified on the basis of
stylistic techno-typological crite-
ria) of the Early and Middle Epi-
palaeolithic are generally de-
marcated both chronologically and geographically;
the latter is especially observable when comparing
the Mediterranean and the arid areas of the South-
ern Levant. Thus one can follow through the archa-
eological record the spatial movements of groups
pertaining to one entity or the other (e.g., Belfer-
Cohen, Goring-Morris 2011). With the shift to the
Middle Epipalaeolithic, as environmental conditions
improved, the Geometric Kebaran techno-complex
was initially dispersed throughout the northern and
Southern Levant (Bar-Yosef, Belfer-Cohen 1989; Bar-
Yosef, Meadow 1995; Goring-Morris 1987; 1995).
Coevally, the earlier phase of the Mushabian techno-
complex was restricted only to the Negev and Sinai.
Later, the Geometric Kebarans seemingly disappear-
ed from the south, in our opinion ‘evicted’ by the
Mushabians and their descendants, the Ramonians,
albeit while continuing to thrive in the north within
the Mediterranean zone (Goring-Morris 1987; 1995).
Fig. 2. Artistic and symbolic
items from the Levantine Epi-
palaeolithic. Early Epipalaeo-
lithic: A Urkan-e-Rubb II; B Qa-
shish; C–D Kharaneh IV; O Ji-
ita. Late Epipalaeolithic (Early
& Late Natufian): E Wadi Ham-
meh 27; F, G, R, V Eynan (Ain
Mallaha); H, U el-Wad; I Upper
Besor 6; J, L Hayonim Cave; K,
P, S Fazael VI; M Raqefet Cave;
N Hayonim Terrace; T Nahal
Ein Gev II; (Harifian) Q Ramat
Harif. After: Copeland, Hours
1977; Edwards et al. 2013; Gar-
rod 1936–1937; Garrod, Bate
1937; Hovers 1990; Maher et
al. 2012a; 2012b; Noy 1986;
Perrot 1960; 1966; Rosenberg
et al. 2020; Valla 2019; Valla
et al. 2012; Yaroshevich et al.
2016. Photos: Nigel Goring-
Morris, Gabi Laron, Alexander
Marshack – Archives of Insti-
tute of Archaeology, The He-
brew University of Jerusalem.
Note different scales.
Anna Belfer-Cohen, Nigel Goring-Morris
40
Matters changed, however, with the emergence of
the Late Epipalaeolithic Natufian, which apparently
spread throughout the Southern and Northern Le-
vant, with observable adjustments to the particula-
rities of each phytogeographic zone (as reflected in
the different phases and facies of the entity) (Ashke-
nazy 2014; Belfer-Cohen, Goring-Morris 2013).
Though most of the material culture remains from
the Early and Middle Epipalaeolithic are the lithic as-
semblages, the retrieved material also comprises
bone tools, a groundstone industry, ochre and shells
as well as artistic-cum-symbolic manifestations, which
though rare, are more frequent than in the preced-
ing Upper Palaeolithic entities (e.g., Gregg et al.
2011; Hovers 1990; Kaufman 1999; Muheisen
1988; Rabinovich, Nadel 1995; Richter et al. 2011;
Yaroshevich et al. 2016; and see Belfer-Cohen, Go-
ring-Morris in press).
The Late Epipalaeolithic (Figs. 1–4)
It seems that the encounters during the later Middle
Epipalaeolithic between the Geometric Kebarans
and the Mushabians/Ramonians were instrumental
in the emergence of the Natufian techno-complex
(dated to the Late Epipalaeolithic, from c. 15 000 cal
BP onwards), with its distinctive features, to be found
throughout the Southern Levant and beyond. How
did this come about?
We hypothesize that the Geometric Kebarans were
‘pushed out’ of the Negev and Sinai in the south,
where they are seemingly documented for only a
short duration, retreating northwards into the Medi-
terranean zone, back to their ‘ancestral’ territories
that they traditionally shared with those Geometric
Kebaran bands which had continued to exploit the
lusher regions of the Southern Levant, perhaps ‘bear-
ing with them gifts’ from the south (also see below).
Under such circumstances (Mediterranean Geomet-
ric Kebaran communities facing the presence of Geo-
metric Kebaran ‘refugees’ from the south), there
would have been two options:
❶ Either the ‘newcomers’ were rejected and left to
their ‘gruesome’ fate; or,
❷ They were accepted by the local communities,
with whom they most probably continued to
have shared a mating pool.
We believe that the available prima facie archaeo-
logical evidence tends to favour the latter scenario.
Accordingly, individual Geometric Kebaran group
sizes increased, requiring re-alignments in the spa-
tial configurations of their territories, reflecting high-
er population densities and contraction into smaller
territories than previously (Belfer-Cohen, Goring-
Morris 2013; Goring-Morris, Belfer-Cohen 2013a).
While there is no evidence in the Mediterranean
zone for aggregation sites on the scale seen previ-
ously during the earlier Epipalaeolithic (see above)3,
it seems that still other social mechanisms would
have had to be initiated in order to ensure inter-com-
munity contacts and thus retain a sufficiently large
mating pool.
Indeed one can observe certain characteristics that
clearly derived from the south and were incorporat-
ed into the Natufian cultural repertoire, being intro-
duced (rather than ‘imposed’), individually or within
single groups. An obvious example of this is the use
of the microburin technique (mbt) in some Natufian
sites, while absent from others (Bar-Yosef, Valla
1979; Henry 1974). Indeed, we believe that the mbt
– used systematically during the Nebekian, Nizzanan
and Mushabian (and including in the Negev/Sinai
and eastern Transjordan) to shape microliths, but
unknown in the Mediterranean Kebaran and Geo-
metric Kebaran, was now introduced to some Medi-
terranean Natufian communities.4
It seems that there was a need to deal both with the
‘external’ changes in groups’ subsistence resources
(necessitated by changes in territory sizes and pop-
ulation densities), as well as with the ‘inner’ social
alterations affected by increased numbers of group
members, some of whom were the ‘newcomers’
from the south. Even though the changes affected
some groups more than others, overall one can ob-
serve a ‘domino’ effect that ultimately impacted the
entity as a whole. Signalling and symbolling incre-
ased significantly, as is apparent in the rich assem-
blages of artistic manifestations in many Natufian
sites (e.g., Major 2018; Nadel, Langyel 2009; Orrel-
3 In the semi-arid Negev highlands, the Rosh Horesha/Saflulim site complex may represent a Late Natufian aggregation site (Goring-
Morris et al. 1999) that likely reflects the more mobile adaptation of this local facies due to environmental factors as opposed
to coeval Natufian communities in the Mediterranean zone.
4 While, as a rule the Geometric Kebarans did not use the mbt technique habitually, there are sporadic instances in the Negev of un-
usual assemblages with Geometric Kebaran-like typological forms, i.e. trapeze/rectangle variants, fabricated using the mbt at Shlu-
hat Qeren II, amongst other sites (Goring-Morris 1987.170).
From the Epipalaeolithic into the earliest Neolithic (PPNA) in the South Levant
41
le 2014; and references therein).
All of these may contribute to ex-
plaining the appearance of those
novel elements distinguishing the
Natufian from its predecessors,
making it unique among the Epi-
palaeolithic entities; still, some of
these elements continued to be
shared with the immediately en-
suing Neolithic (PPNA – c. 11 600
cal BP).
At the same time, the Natufians
retained features and character-
istics of their preceding ances-
tors. Moreover, detailed studies
have revealed that, in fact, quite
a few of the ‘Neolithic hallmarks’
are deeply rooted in the cultural
realms of the Epipalaeolithic en-
tities, even the earlier ones (Go-
ring-Morris, Belfer-Cohen 2016;
Belfer-Cohen, Goring-Morris in
press).
It seems that by following the di-
stinct and specific trajectory of
the evolution of Natufian ‘exis-
tence’, we can start to unwrap the
beginnings of the PPNA. Thus one
can observe in the Natufian that:
❶ As communities became in-
creasingly sedentary there
were opportunities to accumu-
late more ‘stuff’ (i.e. material belongings).
❷ As communities increased in size there was a ne-
cessity to develop novel social mechanisms to
regulate the increasingly complex nature of inter-
personal, intra-community and inter-community
interactions.
❸ The growing intra- and inter-group densities dic-
tated more marked distinctions among the vari-
ous communities comprising the Natufian entity
as a whole.
Most immediately, many of these phenomena were
expressed in the archaeological record, including a
desire for ‘exotics’, and investments in the decora-
tive and symbolic aspects of both non-utilitarian and
mundane artefacts. The latter was expressed, among
other ways, by the distinct stylistic ‘signatures’ of
specific communities (Belfer-Cohen 1991; Belfer-
Cohen, Goring-Morris 2013; Noy, Brimer 1980; Ro-
senberg et al. 2020; Shaham 2014; Shaham, Bel-
fer-Cohen 2013; Shaham, Grosman 2019; Torres et
al. 2020).
The processes enumerated above continued into the
PPNA, evolving and changing through time (as had
already occurred during the course of the 4000 year
sequence of the Natufian), accompanied by increas-
ed interactions with entities further afield (e.g., Kha-
laily, Valla 2013).
Indeed, similarities and continuities are manifested
in a wide range of material culture realms. Thus
with regard to the constructed environment a num-
ber of architectural concepts continued, with the
ongoing use of semi-subterranean circular structu-
res. Indeed, it was only with the transition to the Pre-
Pottery Neolithic B (PPNB) that the shift to quadri-
lateral concepts in the Mediterranean zone is observ-
Fig. 3. Early (A-G) and Late Natufian (H-J) burials. A-B Hayonim Cave;
C-G, H-J Eynan (Ain Mallaha – note arrangement of three legs in I. All
decorations and grave goods are in orange. (Modified after Belfer-
Cohen 1988; Perrot, Ladiray 1988). Note different scales.
Anna Belfer-Cohen, Nigel Goring-Morris
42
ed, culminating in the Middle PPNB (e.g., Banning
1998; Goring-Morris, Belfer-Cohen 2013b). We be-
lieve that the appearance of obvious communal
structures in the PPNA is, in a way, the culmination
of mostly social processes evolving during the course
of the Natufian.
A unique Natufian phenomenon observed in the Me-
diterranean region is the ‘return to the caves’ (Bar-
Yosef, Martin 1981; Belfer-Cohen, Goring-Morris
2009; Goring-Morris, Belfer-Cohen 2010), namely
the intensive use of caves for special activities, e.g.,
burial grounds, ceremonies, feasting, etc., as illus-
trated by the Hilazon Tachtit cave (Grosman, Mun-
ro 2007, 2016; Grosman et al. 2008; Munro, Gros-
man 2010), Hayonim cave (Belfer-Cohen, Bar-Yosef
2012) and Raqefet cave (Nadel et al. 2013). Perhaps
this restricted use of caves by members of particular
Natufian groups reflects com-
munal activities that would
later take place during the
Neolithic in communal, ‘pub-
lic’ buildings (see Hayden
2012). Indeed it is of interest
to note that during the Natu-
fian, large-scale structures are
first observed in its early sta-
ges; yet they disappear from
the later architectural repertoire, perhaps replaced
by the activities in the caves, as the examples above
all pertain to the Late/Final Natufian. It is of interest
to note that the kiva-type structure, O75, at PPNA
Wadi Faynan 16 (WF16) provides similarities with
the large-scale structures at (early) Natufian Eynan
(L131) and Wadi Hammeh 27 (Edwards 2013; Fin-
layson et al. 2011; Haklay, Gopher 2015; Mithen et
al. 2018; Valla 1988). Clearly, continuity is also ob-
served in the artistic manifestations (Shaham, Gros-
man 2019).
The funerary practices provide an apt example of
such a clear continuity between the Natufian and
PPNA. Mostly because of the detailed data available,
but also because these practices reflect processes and
beliefs that are not impacted directly by the physical
surroundings (as opposed to the more mundane as-
Fig. 4. Epipalaeolithic excha-
nge items. A-B, G-H, J-L Natu-
fian; C, F Harifian; D, E Keba-
ran and Geometric Kebaran.
A Kebara Cave (flint ‘luna-
tes’); B Hayonim Cave, Eynan
and el-Wad (jewelry – bone,
shells and exotic minerals); C
Shluhat Harif (green meta-
morphic handstone); D, E Ka-
raneh IV (marine – Red and
Mediterranean Seas – mollu-
scs); F Ramat Harif (turquo-
ise pendant); G Hayonim
Cave (Mediterranean scapho-
pod beads); H-I Eynan (obsi-
dian blade/bladelets and exo-
tic green stone ornaments); J
Hayonim Cave; K Eynan; L
Kebara Cave (non-local ba-
salt groundstone items). Pho-
tos after: Bar-Yosef Mayer,
Zohar 2010; Khalaily, Valla
2013; Maher et al. 2012a; Ri-
chter et al. 2011; Archives of
Institute of Archaeology, The
Hebrew University of Jerusa-
lem. Note different scales.
From the Epipalaeolithic into the earliest Neolithic (PPNA) in the South Levant
pects of daily existence, such as the availability of
food resources). Clearly there were various proces-
ses already developing during the course of the Na-
tufian (suffice it to note the disappearance of dec-
orated burials in the Late, as opposed to the Early
Natufian, and the rise in the practice of skull re-
moval). Cemeteries emerged in designated areas
within Natufian habitation sites, a phenomenon al-
ready apparent in its initial stages in the Geometric
Kebaran (Maher et al. 2011). By the Natufian, the
funerary practices included dedicated architecture,
as exemplified by the funerary structure of ‘Habita-
tion’ 1 at Eynan (Ain Mallaha), which is quite diffe-
rent from domestic structures with its plastered
bench and upright monoliths (Perrot, Ladiray 1988).
It is during the later Natufian that dedicated burial
sites emerged, e.g., Hilazon Tachtit, Raqefet and Na-
hal Oren (Grosman, Munro 2016; Nadel et al. 2013;
Noy 1993).
In terms of actual burial practices, PPNA burials fol-
low patterns already documented during the Natu-
fian – namely a variety of burial positions: single
and multiple, primary (sometimes disturbed) and se-
condary burials; sometimes with grave markers; se-
lective skull removal; few, if any personal decora-
tions; re-arrangements of human bones; and unique
burials (Croucher 2012; Goring-Morris, Belfer-Co-
hen 2013c; and references therein; and see Fig. 3).
Additionally, certain Natufian and PPNA funerary
practices appear to herald subsequent developments
during the PPNB, i.e. the likely appearance of foun-
dation burials, as exemplified at Natufian Hilazon
Tachtit (Grosman, Munro 2016) and PPNA Burial
F8(298) at WF16 (Mithen et al. 2015). There are
also other practices heralding the PPN, namely the
use of ‘pasty’, plaster-type material to encase and/or
cover burials, e.g., Natufian Nahal Ein Gev II (Frie-
sem et al. 2019; Grosman et al. 2016) and PPNA
WF16 (Mithen et al. 2015).
Continuity of practices is observed through cases of
‘basket’ and ‘bundle’ burials, the use of stone ‘pil-
lows’ in graves, the decorative pigmentation of skulls,
joint human/animal burials, as well as evidence for
funerary feasting. Natufian examples of the above
derive from Eynan (Perrot, Ladiray 1988), Nahal
Ein Gev II (Grosman et al. 2016), Azraq 18 (Boc-
quentin, Garrard 2016), Shubayka 1 (Richter et al.
2019), Hayonim Terrace (Valla 2012), and Hilazon
Tachtit (Munro, Grosman 2010); the PPNA exam-
ples derive mainly from the site of WF16 (Mithen et
al. 2015). In addition, the ‘sitting’ graves in the ce-
metery area at PPNA Hammeh are somewhat rem-
iniscent of both those at the Early Epipalaeolithic
Ain Qasiyah, Natufian Hayonim cave and the later
PPNB burials at Tell Hallula on the Euphrates (Bel-
fer-Cohen 1988; Guerrero et al. 2009; Makarewicz,
Rose 2011; Richter et al. 2010).
Practices observed even earlier, in the Early Epipa-
laeolithic levels of Kharaneh IV (Maher et al. 2011;
2012a) are the introduction of animal horn cores
as head adornments, found also in Natufian Eynan
(Perrot, Ladiray 1988; and see Figure 3.H), and at
PPNA Hatoula (Le Mort 1994; Goring-Morris, Bel-
fer-Cohen 2011b)5. Another feature, quite enigma-
tic, relates to intentionally holed/pierced skulls, whe-
ther with a sizeable or narrow bored hole, observ-
ed as isolated cases all through the Natufian-PPNA-
PPNB sequence. One parsimonious hypothesis claims
that the holes were intentionally bored post-mortem
for suspending the skulls, based on observations
made on a PPNB plastered skull from Jericho (Flet-
cher 2016). Intentional drilling of skulls (rather than
excavation accidents) was also observed on Early
Natufian (H25 at el-W, see Weinstein-Evron 2009)
and Late Natufian individuals (H23 at Nahal Oren,
see Dupouy-Madre, Crognier 1973), and has been
reported in a number of personal observations6. 
The rich symbolic/artistic repertoire of the Natufian
(e.g., Major 2018 and references therein) can be de-
scribed, for our purposes, as reflecting three compo-
nents:
❶ general ‘Natufian’ features through time (phases);
❷ local, site specific and regional particularities (fa-
cies); and
❸ long durée features evolving through time that
continued into the Neolithic.
Illustrations of the latter include the appearance of
artistic manifestations observed in Late Natufian
sites in the Jordan Valley incorporating the use of
5 The accompaniment of horn cores with burials is documented both, earlier in the Late Upper Palaeolithic, at Nahal Ein Gev I (Arens-
burg 1977) and later in the PPNB (Locus 1304) at Kfar HaHoresh associated with a skull cache (pers. obs.).
6 A human cranium with a drilled hole in the parietal (for suspension?) was described from a LPPNB multiple grave (Loc. 1155) at
Kfar HaHoresh (Simmons et al. 2007.17, Fig. 13b). This skull formed part of a deliberate spatial arrangement, perhaps in the form
of a depiction. It also demonstrated evidence for perimortal trauma indicating that the individual may have been a victim of ho-
micide. More recently, a similar phenomenon of a drilled skull was published from PPN Göbekli Tepe, supposedly as an innova-
tion (Gresky et al. 2017).
43
Anna Belfer-Cohen, Nigel Goring-Morris
44
soft limestone/chalk as raw material, or incised pat-
terns on bone and stone (e.g., Grosman et al. 2016;
Hershman, Belfer-Cohen 2010; Shaham, Grosman
2019; and references therein), bead-spacers (Bar-
Yosef Mayer 2010) and the appearance of green
beads (Bar-Yosef Mayer, Porat 2008). Accordingly,
it seems likely that both the material culture of the
Natufian and PPNA designate continuity and change
pertaining to signalling and symbolism of a long
durée nature, most probably indicating the lengthy
process of the transformation before, and in paral-
lel to, the economic ‘turn-over’ to fully agricultural
practices.
Additionally, while there is already evidence dur-
ing the earlier Epipalaeolithic for long distance ex-
change, e.g., marine molluscs (Bar-Yosef Mayer, Zo-
har 2010; Richter et al. 2011), during the course of
the Natufian the range of items and sources involv-
ed in long-distance exchange increased significantly;
this includes basalt for groundstone tools (Wein-
stein-Evron et al. 2001), flint (Delage 2013, 2018)
and obsidian (Khalaily, Valla 2013), as well as green
stone (Bar-Yosef-Mayer, Porat 2008). Source areas
include the Nile Valley, Transjordan, the Mediterra-
nean and Red Seas, western Sinai, northwestern
Saudi Arabia, Cappadocia, as well as sources closer
to home (Belfer-Cohen, Goring-Morris in press; Go-
ring-Morris, Belfer-Cohen in press).
Concluding remarks
In exploring the shift in the Southern Levant from
the Epipalaeolithic to the Neolithic we have suggest-
ed an apparent continuity, illustrating it with a few
examples. Clearly, however, when checking the ac-
cumulating archaeological data, it becomes obvious
that the processes of change were incremental and
of long durée, the initial roots of which can be traced
right back to at least the Early Epipalaeolithic, almost
ten millennia prior to the emergence of the Natu-
fian. Still, during the long and winding course of the
Natufian and after, during the PPNA, cultural proces-
ses demonstrate major changes in life-ways in com-
parison to the preceding Palaeolithic. This is reflect-
ed at the level of the individual community, as well
as within the region as a whole, and beyond. Ultima-
tely, the available evidence indicates that the ‘ar-
chaic’ villages of the PPNA ‘Sultanian’ should be
viewed as the culmination of developments begin-
ning with the emergence of the Natufian, c. 15 000
cal BP ago, setting the backdrop against which the
fully fledged agricultural villages of the subsequent
PPNB emerged.
We have focused on data pertaining to Natufian –
PPNA continuity, primarily within the Mediterra-
nean ‘core area’ (i.e. a ‘linear’, to some degree, pro-
cess), ignoring other contemporaneous develop-
ments taking place farther afield in neighbouring
areas, such as the appearance of the Harifian entity
(c. 12 650–11 650 cal BP), with its particular adap-
tations to the arid Negev and Sinai (Goring-Morris
1991; Goring-Morris, Belfer-Cohen 2013a).
While geographically marginal, environmental chan-
ges in this area (i.e. the Younger Dryas event at
12 900–11 600 cal BP) may have triggered proces-
ses the impact of which reverberated throughout the
broader region. Even if the Mediterranean zone it-
self was not involved (i.e. did not suffer from wors-
ening conditions except to a limited degree, if at all),
the phenomena taking place in the neighbouring,
more arid, regions may also have indirectly impacted
the Mediterranean zone. Indeed, we believe that the
dynamics of such phenomena played a significant
role in developments portraying the neolithisation
processes (e.g., Watkins 2013), including actual
movements of populations, such as the Late Epipa-
laeolithic/Early Neolithic colonization of Cyprus
(Clarke 2014; Simmons 2014). These processes in-
troduced new lifeways, new spiritual paradigms, and,
when moving into territories already settled by in-
digenous populations, invoking what may be view-
ed as the cultural parallel of the biological force of
‘hybridization vigour’.
Summing up all of the above, based on both the ar-
chaeological record and the way we currently un-
derstand cultural evolution (Henrich 2016 and refe-
rences therein), one can conclude by stating that the
Southern Levantine Neolithic phenomenon can be
said to have arisen from the ‘ashes’ of the Natufian.
It was triggered by processes, such as the tighten-
ing of previously established social networks, with
distant ‘cousins’ from the periphery of the Natufian
domain joining their kin in the Mediterranean re-
gion, in much the same manner as had occurred ear-
lier with the transition from the Middle to the Late
Epipalaeolithic (see above), emphasizing the notion
that one must indeed be aware that not every change
comes about through external triggers, and we have
to take into consideration the impact of local dyna-
mics and the effects of their accumulation.
We believe that this is a recurrent phenomenon,
noted in diverse, far-flung regions, with different
chronologies. Two recent publications come to mind
to illustrate this statement, one being concerned
From the Epipalaeolithic into the earliest Neolithic (PPNA) in the South Levant
45
with explaining the emergence of the Neolithic in
Britain (Ray, Thomas 2018), while the other explo-
res the much debated later appearance of the Hy-
ksos in the Nile delta (Stantis et al. 2020).
The generous support of ISF Grant #471/17 is grate-
fully acknowledged.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
References
∴
Abbès F. 2014. Bal’as: un autre scénario de la néolithi-
sation du Proche-Orient (The Bal’as Mountains: a different
scenario of the Near Eastern neolithization). In C. Ma-
nen, T. Perrin, and J. Guilaine (eds.), La Transition Néo-
lithique en Méditerranée – The Neolithic transition in
the Mediterranean. Errance. Paris: 13–27.
Arranz-Otaeguia A., Colledge S., Zapatac L., Teira-Mayoli-
nid L. C., and Ibáñez J. J. 2016. Regional diversity on the
timing for the initial appearance of cereal cultivation and
domestication in southwest Asia. Proceedings of the Na-
tional Academy of Sciences of USA 113(49): 14001–
14006. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1612797113
Arensburg B. 1977. New Upper Palaeolithic human re-
mains from Israel. Eretz Israel 13: 208*–215*.
Ashkenazy H. 2014. Lithic Production Processes in the
Late Natufian of Israel: Core Area vs. Periphery. Unpub-
lished PhD thesis. The Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
Jerusalem.
Banning E. B. 1998. The Neolithic Period. Triumphs of ar-
chitecture, agriculture, and art. Near Eastern Archaeo-
logy 61(4): 188–237.
Bar-Matthews M., Ayalon A., Kaufman A., and Wasserburg
G. J. 1999. The Eastern Mediterranean Paleoclimate as a
Reflection of Regional Events: Soreq Cave, Israel. Earth
and Planetary Science Letters 166(1–2): 85–95.
Bar-Yosef O., Belfer-Cohen A. 1989. The origins of seden-
tism and farming communities in the Levant. Journal of
World Prehistory 40(3): 447–498.
Bar-Yosef O., Goring-Morris A. N., Gopher A., and Kozłow-
ski S. K. 2010. Gilgal and Its Place among Early Neolithic
Sites in the Levant. In O. Bar-Yosef, A. N. Goring-Morris,
and A. Gopher (eds.), Gilgal: Early Neolithic Sites in the
Lower Jordan Valley. The Excavations of Tamar Noy.
ASPR Monograph Series and David Brown/Oxbow. Oak-
ville, CT: 297–327.
Bar-Yosef O., Martin G. 1981. Le problème de la “sortie
des grottes” au Natoufien. Bulletin de la Société Préhisto-
rique Française 78: 187–192.
Bar-Yosef O., Meadow R.H. 1995. The origins of agricul-
ture in the Near East. In D. Price, G. Gebauer (eds.), Last
Hunters, First Farmers: New Perspectives on the Tran-
sition to Agriculture. Schools of American Research Press.
Santa Fe: 39–94.
Bar-Yosef O., Valla F. 1979. L’Evolution du Natoufien: Nou-
velles Suggestions. Paléorient 5: 145–152.
(eds.) 1991. The Natufian Culture in the Levant. In-
ternational Monographs in Prehistory. Ann Arbor.
(eds.) 2013. Natufian Foragers in the Levant. Termi-
nal Pleistocene Social Changes in Western Asia. Inter-
national Monographs in Prehistory. Ann Arbor.
Bar-Yosef Mayer D. E. 2010. Stone beads of the Gilgal
sites. In O. Bar-Yosef, A. N. Goring-Morris, and A. Gopher
(eds.), Gilgal: Excavations at Early Neolithic Sites in the
Lower Jordan Valley. The Excavations of Tamar Noy.
ASPR Monograph Series and David Brown/Oxbow. Oak-
ville, CT: 223–237.
Bar-Yosef Mayer D. E., Porat N. 2008. Green stone beads
at the dawn of agriculture. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences of USA 105(25): 8548–8551.
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0709931105
Bar-Yosef Mayer D. E., Zohar I. 2010. The role of aquatic
resources in the Natufian Culture. Eurasian Prehistory
7(1): 31–45.
Belfer-Cohen A. 1988. The Natufian Graveyard in Hayo-
nim Cave. Paléorient 14(2): 297–308.
1991. Art Items from Layer B, Hayonim Cave: A Case
Study of Art in a Natufian Context. In O. Bar-Yosef, F.
R. Valla (eds.), The Natufian Culture in the Levant. In-
ternational Monographs in Prehistory. Ann Arbor: 569–
588.
Belfer-Cohen A., Bar-Yosef O. 2012. The Natufian in Hayo-
nim Cave and the Natufian of the Terrace. In F. R. Valla
(ed.), Les Fouilles de la Terrasse d’Hayonim (Israel)
1980–1981 et 1985–1989. De Boccard. Paris: 471–519.
Anna Belfer-Cohen, Nigel Goring-Morris
46
Belfer-Cohen A., Goring-Morris A. N. 1996. The Late Epi-
palaeolithic as the Precursor of the Neolithic: The Lithic
Evidence. In S. K. Kozłowski, H-G. Gebel (eds.), Neolithic
Chipped Lithic Industries of the Fertile Crescent and
Their Contemporaries in Adjacent Regions. ex oriente.
Berlin: 217–225.
2009. For the first time. Comments on papers in “Con-
versation on the Origins of Agriculture”. Current An-
thropology 50(5): 669–672.
2010. The initial Neolithic in the Near East: Why it is so
difficult to deal with the PPNA. Mitekufat Haeven –
Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 40: 1–18.
2011. Becoming Farmers: The Inside Story. Current An-
thropology 52(S4): S209–S220.
https://doi.org/10.1086/658861
2013. Breaking the mold: Phases and facies in the Na-
tufian of the Mediterranean zone. In O. Bar-Yosef, F. R.
Valla (eds.), Natufian Foragers in the Levant Termi-
nal Pleistocene Social Changes in Western Asia. Mono-
graphs in Prehistory. Archaeological Series 19. Ann Ar-
bor: 543–561.
2014. North and South – Variable trajectories of the
Neolithic in the Levant. In B. Finlayson and C. Makare-
wicz (eds.), Settlement, Survey, and Stone: Essays on
Near Eastern Prehistory in Honour of Gary Rollefson.
ex oriente and CBRL. Berlin and London: 61–71.
2017. ‘Moving around’ and the evolution of corporate
identities in the Late Epipalaeolithic Natufian of the Le-
vant. In M. Benz, H.-G. K. Gebel, and T. Watkins (eds.),
The Construction of Neolithic Corporate Identities.
Proceedings of ICAANE9, Basle 2014. Studies in Early
Near Eastern Production, Subsistence, and Environment
20. ex oriente. Berlin: 81–90.
https://www.exoriente.org/docs/00100.pdf
in press. The role of networks in the connectivity of the
Levantine Epipalaeolithic. In S. Hansen, F. Klimscha,
and Renn J. (eds.), Prehistoric Networks in the longue
durée: Palaeolithic Innovations enabling the Neoli-
thic Revolution. Topoi. Berlin.
Belfer-Cohen A., Hovers E. 2005. The Ground Stone As-
semblages of the Natufian and Neolithic Societies in the
Levant – Current Status. Journal of the Israel Prehistoric
Society – Mitekufat Haeven 35: 299–308.
Birdsell J. B. 1968. Some predictions for the Pleistocene
based on equilibrium systems among recent hunter-gathe-
rers. In R. Lee, I. DeVore (eds.), Man the Hunter. Aldine
Publishing Co. Chicago: 229–240.
Bocquentin F., Garrard A. 2016. Natufian collective burial
practice and cranial pigmentation: A reconstruction from
Azraq 18 (Jordan). Journal of Archaeological Science:
Reports 10: 693–702.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2016.05.030
Byrd B., Garrard A. N., and Brandy P. 2016. Modeling for-
aging ranges and spatial organization of Late Pleistocene
hunter-gatherers in the Southern Levant – A least-cost GIS
approach. Quaternary International 396: 62–78.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2015.07.048
Cauvin J. 2000. The Birth of the Gods and the Origins of
Agriculture. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.
Clarke J. 2014. Cyprus during the Neolithic period. In M.
Steiner, A. E. Killebrew (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of
the Archaeology of the Levant (ca 8000–332 BCE). Ox-
ford University Press. Oxford: 177–193.
Copeland L., Hours F. 1977. Engraved and Plain Bone
Tools from Jiita (Lebanon) and Their Early Kebaran Con-
text. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 43: 295–
301.
Croucher K. 2012. Death and Dying in the Neolithic
Near East. Oxford University Press. Oxford.
Crowfoot-Payne J. 1976. The terminology of the Acera-
mic Neolithic period in the Levant. In F. Wendorf (ed.),
Deuxieme Colloque sur la Terminologie de la Préhisto-
ire du Proche-Orient. IX Congres UISPP. Nice: 131–137.
Dag D., Goring-Morris A. N. 2010. The Epi-Natufian Occu-
pation of Gilgal II. In O. Bar-Yosef, A. N. Goring-Morris,
and A. Gopher (eds.), Gilgal: Excavations at Early Neo-
lithic Sites in the Lower Jordan Valley the Excavations
of Tamar Noy. ASPR Monograph series and David Brown/
Oxbow. Oakville, CT: 121–138.
Delage C. 2013. Chert Procurement Patterns and Exploita-
tion Territory: Case Study from Late Natufian Hayonim
Terrace (Western Galilee, Israel). In O. Bar-Yosef, F. R.
Valla (eds.), Natufian Foragers in the Levant Terminal
Pleistocene Social Changes in Western Asia. Monographs
in Prehistory. Archaeological Series 19. Berghahn Books.
Ann Arbor: 449–462.
2018. Revisiting Rolling stones: The procurement of
non-local goods in the Epipaleolithic of the Near East.
Quaternary International 464(Part A): 159–172.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2017.07.023
Dupouy-Madre M., Crognier É. 1973. Les Natoufiens du
Nahal Oren (Ouadi Fallah). Etude anthropologique. Palé-
orient 2(1): 103–121.
From the Epipalaeolithic into the earliest Neolithic (PPNA) in the South Levant
47
Edwards P. C. (ed.) 2013. Wadi Hammeh 27, An early
Natufian settlement at Pella in Jordan. Brill. Leiden and
Boston.
Eitam D., Kislev M., Karty A., and Bar-Yosef O. 2015. Expe-
rimental Barley Flour Production in 12,500-Year-Old
Rock-Cut Mortars in Southwestern Asia. PLoS ONE 10(7):
e0133306. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0133306
Enoch-Shiloh D., Bar-Yosef O. 1997. Salibiya IX. In O. Bar-
Yosef, A. Gopher (eds.), An Early Neolithic Village in
the Jordan Valley Part I: The Archaeology of Netiv Hag-
dud. American School of Prehistoric Research Bulletin 43.
Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard
University. Cambridge, MA: 13–40.
Enzel Y., Amit R., Dayan U., Crouvi O., Kahana R., Ziv B.,
and Saron D. 2008. The Climatic and Physiographic Con-
trols of the Eastern Mediterranean over the Late Pleisto-
cene Climates in the Southern Levant and its Neighboring
Deserts. Global and Planetary Change 60(3–4): 165–
192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloplacha.2007.02.003
Finlayson B., Mithen S. J., Najjar M., Smith S., Mari≠evi≤ D.,
Pankhurst N., and Yeomans L. 2011. Architecture, seden-
tism, and social complexity at Pre-Pottery Neolithic A
WF16, Southern Jordan. Proceedings of the National Aca-
demy of Sciences of USA 108(20): 8183–8188.
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1017642108
Fletcher A. 2016. From person to ancestor, the plastered
skull from Jericho. Current World Archaeology 74: 24–26.
Friesem D., Abadi I., Shaham D., and Grosman L. 2019.
Lime plaster cover of the dead 12,000 years ago – new
evidence for the origins of lime plaster technology. Evo-
lutionary Human Sciences 1(e9): 1–23.
https://doi.org/10.1017/ehs.2019.9
Garfinkel Y. 1996. Critical Observations on the So-Called
Khiamian Flint Industry. In K. S. Kozłowski, H.-G. Gebel
(eds.), Neolithic Chipped Stone Industries of the Fertile
Crescent, and Their Contemporaries in Adjacent Region.
ex oriente. Berlin: 15–21.
Garrard A. N., Byrd B. F. (eds.) 2013. Beyond the Fertile
Crescent. Late Palaeolithic and Neolithic Communities
of the Jordanian Steppe. The Azraq Basin Project. Ox-
bow Books. Oxford and Oakville.
Garrod D. A. E. 1932. A New Mesolithic Industry: The Na-
tufian of Palestine. Journal of the Royal Anthropological
Institute 62: 257–269.
1936–1937. Notes on Some Decorated Skeletons from
the Mesolithic of Palestine. Annual of the British School
in Athens 37: 123–127.
Garrod D. A. E., Bate D. M. A. 1937. The Stone Age of
Mount Carmel. Excavations at the Wadi-Mughara. Cla-
rendon Press. Oxford.
Gopher A., Barkai R. 1997. Here Are the Microliths: A Re-
ply to “Where Are the Microliths?” Neo-Lithics 1(97): 16–
18.
Goring-Morris A. N. 1987. At the Edge: Terminal Pleisto-
cene Hunter-Gatherers in the Negev and Sinai. British
Archaeological Reports IS 361. Archaeopress. Oxford.
1991. The Harifian of the Southern Levant. In O. Bar-
Yosef, F. R. Valla (eds.), The Natufian Culture in the
Levant. International Monographs in Prehistory. Archa-
eological Series 1. Berghahn Books. Ann Arbor: 173–
234.
1995. Complex hunter-gatherers at the end of the Pa-
leolithic (20,000–10,000 BP). In T. E. Levy (ed.), The
Archaeology of Society in the Holy Land. Leicester
University Press. London: 141–168.
Goring-Morris A. N., Belfer-Cohen A. 2010. Different Ways
of Being, Different Ways of Seeing... Changing World-
views in the Near East. In B. Finlayson, G. Warren (eds.),
Landscapes in Transition: Understanding Hunter-Ga-
therer and Farming Landscapes in the Early Holocene
of Europe and the Levant. Levant Supplementary Series
8. Oxbow Books. Oxford: 9–22.
2011a. Neolithization Processes in the Levant: The
Outer Envelope. Current Anthropology 52(S4): S195–
S208. https://doi.org/10.1086/658860
2011b. Evolving human/animal interactions in the Near
Eastern Neolithic: feasting as a case study. In G. Aran-
da, S. Montón and M. Sanchez (eds.), Guess who’s com-
ing to dinner. Feasting rituals in the prehistoric socie-
ties of Europe and Near East. Oxbow Books. Oxford:
64–72.
2013a. Ruminations on the role of periphery and cen-
tre for the Natufian. In O. Bar-Yosef and F. R. Valla
(eds.), The Natufian Foragers in the Levant Terminal
Pleistocene Social Changes in Western Asia. Mono-
graphs in Prehistory. Archaeological Series 19. Ann Ar-
bor. Michigan: 562–583.
2013b. Houses and Households: A Near Eastern Per-
spective. In D. Hofmann and J. Smyth (eds.), Tracking
the Neolithic house in Europe – sedentism, architec-
ture and practice. Springer. New York: 19–44.
2013c. Different strokes for different folks: Near East-
ern Neolithic mortuary practices in perspective. In I.
Hodder (ed.), Religion at Work in a Neolithic Society
Anna Belfer-Cohen, Nigel Goring-Morris
48
Vital Matters. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge:
35–57.
2016. The appearance of the PPNA in the Levant: Sud-
den? Gradual? And Where From? In Ü. Yalçın (ed.), Ana-
tolian Metal VII – Anatolia and neighbours 10000
years ago. Der Anschnitt – Zeitschrift für Kunst und
Kultur im Bergbau. Bochum: 185–198.
2019. Packaging the Levantine Epipalaeolithic. In C.
McCartney, L. Astruc, F. Briois, and V. Kassianidou
(eds.), Near Eastern Lithic technologies on the move:
Interactions and contexts of development of Neolithic
traditions. 8th International Conference on PPN Chip-
ped and Ground Stone Industries of the Near East Ni-
cosia, Cyprus. Astrom Editions Limited. Uppsala: 429–
448.
in press. ‘Supply-and-Demand’: Networking in the Initial
Neolithic of the Levant. In S. Hansen, F. Klimscha, and J.
Renn (eds.), Prehistoric Networks in the longue durée:
Palaeolithic Innovations enabling the Neolithic Revolu-
tion. Topoi. Berlin.
Goring-Morris A. N., Goldberg P., Goren Y., Baruch U., and
Bar-Yosef D. 1999. Saflulim: A Late Natufian base camp
in the central Negev highlands, Israel. Palestine Explora-
tion Quarterly 131(1): 1–29.
https://doi.org/10.1179/peq.1999.131.1.36
Gregg M. W., Chazan M., and Janetski J. 2011. Variability
in symbolic behaviour in the southern Levant at the end
of the Pleistocene. Before Farming 2011(1): 1–12.
https://doi.org/10.3828/bfarm.2011.1.1
Gresky J., Haelm J., and Clare L. 2017. Modified human
crania from Göbekli Tepe provide evidence for a new form
of Neolithic skull cult. Science Advances 3(6): e1700564.
DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.1700564
Groman-Yaroslavski I., Weiss E., and Nadel D. 2016. Com-
posite Sickles and Cereal Harvesting Methods at 23,000-
Years-Old Ohalo II, Israel. PloS ONE 11(11): e0167151.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0167151
Grosman L. 2005. Computer Simulation of Variables in
Models of the Origins of Agriculture in the Levant. Un-
published PhD thesis. The Hebrew University of Jerusa-
lem. Jerusalem.
Grosman L., Belfer-Cohen A. 2002. Zooming onto the
‘Younger Dryas’. In R. T. J. Cappers, S. Bottema (eds.), The
Dawn of Farming in the Near East. Studies in Early Ner
Eastern Product ion, Subsistence, and Environment 6. ex
oriente. Berlin: 49–54.
Grosman L., Goren-Inbar N. 2007. “Taming” Rocks and
Changing Landscapes: A New Interpretation of Neolithic
Cupmarks. Current Anthropology 48(5): 732–740.
https://doi.org/10.1086/520966
Grosman L., Munro N. 2007. The sacred and the mun-
dane: domestic activities at a Late Natufian burial site in
the Levant. Before Farming 4: 1–14.
2016. A Natufian Ritual Event. Current Anthropology
57(3): 311–331. https://doi.org/10.1086/686563
2017. The Natufian Culture. The Harbinger of Food-Pro-
ducing Societies. In Y. Enzel, and O. Bar-Yosef (eds.),
Quaternary Environments, Climate Change, and Hu-
mans in the Levant. Cambridge University Press. Cam-
bridge: 699–707.
Grosman L., Munro N. D., Abadi I., Boaretto E., Shaham
D., Belfer-Cohen A., and Bar-Yosef O. 2016. Nahal Ein Gev
II, a Late Natufian community at the Sea of Galilee. Plos
ONE 11(1): 1–32.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0146647
Grosman L., Munro N. D., and Belfer-Cohen A. 2008. A
12,000-year-old Shaman burial from the southern Levant
(Israel). Proceedings of the National Academy of Scien-
ces of USA 105(46): 17665–17669.
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0806030105
Guerrero E., Molist M., Kuijt I., and Anfruns J. 2009. Seat-
ed Memory: New Insights into Near Eastern Neolithic Mor-
tuary Variability from Tell Halula, Syria. Current Anthro-
pology 50: 379–391. https://doi.org/10.1086/598211
Haklay G., Gopher A. 2015. A new look at Shelter 131/51
in the Natufian site of Eynan (Ain-Mallaha), Israel. PloS
ONE 10(7): e0130121.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0130121
Hayden B. 2012. Corporate Groups and Secret Societies
in the Early Neolithic. A Comment on Hodder and Mes-
kell. Current Anthropology 53(1): 126–127.
https://doi.org/10.1086/663331
Henrich J. 2016. The secret of our Success. How Culture
is Driving Human Evolution, Domesticating Our Spe-
cies, and Making Us Smarter. Princeton University Press.
Princeton.
Henry D. O. 1974. The Utilization of the Microburin Tech-
nique in the Levant. Paléorient 2(2): 389–398.
Henton E., Martin L., Garrard A., Jourdan A.-L., Thirlwall
M., and Boles O. 2017. Gazelle seasonal mobility in the
Jordanian steppe: The use of dental isotopes and micro-
wear as environmental markers, applied to Epipalaeoli-
thic Kharaneh IV. Journal of Archaeological Science:
Reports 11: 147–158.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2016.11.031
From the Epipalaeolithic into the earliest Neolithic (PPNA) in the South Levant
49
Henton E., Roe J., Martin L., Garrard A., Boles O., Lewis J.,
Matthew T., and Jourdon A.-L. 2018. Epipalaeolithic and
Neolithic gazelle hunting in the Badia of north-east Jor-
dan. Reconstruction of seasonal movements of herds by
stable isotope and dental microwear analyses. Levant
50(2): 127–172.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00758914.2019.1598764
Hershman D., Belfer-Cohen A. 2010. “It’s Magic!”: Artistic
and Symbolic Material Manifestations from the Gilgal
Sites. In O. Bar-Yosef, A. N. Goring-Morris and A. Gopher
(eds.), Gilgal: Excavations at Early Neolithic Sites in the
Lower Jordan Valley The Excavations of Tamar Noy.
ASPR Monograph Series and David Brown/Oxbow. Oak-
ville, CT: 185–216.
Herzlinger G., Grosman L., and Goren-Inbar N. 2013. The
PPNA quarry of Kaizer Hill, Modi‘in, Israel – The waste
piles. In F. Borrell, J. J. Ibáñez, and M. Molist (eds.), Stone
Tools in Transition: From Hunter-Gatherers to Farming
Societies in the Near East. Proceedings of the 7th Inter-
national Conference on the Chipped and Ground Stone
Industries of the Pre-Pottery Neolithic. Universitat Autò-
noma de Barcelona Press. Barcelona: 395–405.
Hovers E. 1990. Art in the Levantine Epi-Palaeolithic: an
engraved pebble from a Kebaran site in the lower Jordan
Valley. Current Anthropology 31: 317–322.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2743634
Kaufman D. 1999. A Unique Engraved Object from the Epi-
palaeolithic of Israel. Rock Art Research 16(1): 109–112.
Kenyon K. M. 1957. Digging Up Jericho. Benn. London.
Khalaily H., Marder O. 2010. Prehistoric Investigations
along the Cross-Israel Highway: State of Research. ‘Atiqot
64: 5–23.
Khalaily H., Valla F. 2013. Obsidian in Natufian Context:
The Case of Eynan (Ain Mallaha), Israel. In O. Bar-Yosef,
F. R. Valla (eds.), The Natufian Foragers in the Levant
Terminal Pleistocene Social Changes in Western Asia.
Monographs in Prehistory. Archaeological Series 19. Berg-
hahn Books. Ann Arbor: 193–202.
Kuijt I. 1996. Where are the microliths? Lithic technology
and Neolithic chronology as seen from the PPNA occu-
pation at Dhra’, Jordan. Neo-Lithics 2(96): 7–8.
1997. Interpretation, data and the Khiamian of the
south-central Levant. Neo-Lithics 3(97): 3–6.
Lechevallier M., Ronen A. 1994. Le Gisement de Hatoula
en Judée Occidentale, Israel. Association Paléorient. Paris.
Le Mort F. 1994. Les sepultures. In M. Lechevallier, A. Ro-
nen (eds.), Le Gisement de Hatoula en Judée Occiden-
tale, Israel. Memoires et Travaux du Centre de recherche
Francais de Jerusalem No. 8. Association Paléorient. Paris:
39–57.
Leplongeon A., Goring-Morris A. N. 2018. Terminal Pleis-
tocene lithic variability in the Western Negev (Israel): is
there any evidence for contacts with the Nile Valley? Jour-
nal of Lithic Studies 5: 1–39.
https://doi.org/10.2218/jls.2614
Lisker S., Vaks A., Bar-Matthews M., Porat R., and Frumkin
A. 2010. Late Pleistocene palaeoclimatic and palaeoenvi-
ronmental reconstruction of the Dead Sea area (Israel),
based on speleothems and cave stromatolites. Quaternary
Science Reviews 29(9–10): 1201–1211.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2010.01.018
Maher L. A., Conkey M. 2019. Homes for Hunters? Explo-
ring the Concept of Home at Hunter-Gatherer Sites in Up-
per Paleolithic Europe and Epipaleolithic Southwest Asia.
Current Anthropology 60(1): 91–137.
https://doi.org/10.1086/701523
Maher L. A., MacDonald D. A., Allentuck A., Martin L., Spy-
rou A., and Jones M. D. 2016. Occupying wide open spa-
ces? Late Pleistocene hunter-gatherer activities in the East-
ern Levant. Quaternary International 396: 79–94.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2015.07.054
Maher L. A., Richter T., Macdonald D., Jones M. D., Martine
L., and Stock J. T. 2012. Twenty thousand-year-old huts at
a hunter-gatherer settlement in Eastern Jordan. PLoS ONE
7(2): e31447.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0031447
Maher L. A., Richter T., and Stock J. T. 2012. The Pre-Na-
tufian Epipaleolithic: Long-Term Behavioral Trends in the
Levant. Evolutionary Anthropology 21: 69–81.
https://doi.org/10.1002/evan.21307
Maher L. A., Stock J. T., Finney S., Heywood J. J. N., Mira-
cle P. T., and Banning E. B. 2011. A Unique Human-Fox
Burial from a Pre-Natufian Cemetery in the Levant (Jor-
dan). PLoS ONE 6(1): e15815.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0015815
Major J. 2018. Wadi Hammeh 27, Jordan Valley. Natu-
fian Art Items. A Contextual Analysis. ex oriente. Berlin.
Makarewicz C. A., Rose K. 2011. Early Pre-Pottery Neoli-
thic settlement at el-Hemmeh: A survey of the architec-
ture. Neo-Lithics 1(11): 23–29.
Marder O., Goring-Morris A. N. in press. The Lithic Tech-
nologies of the Epipaleolithic Hunter-Gatherers in the Ne-
gev, Israel: Implications from Refitting Studies. In A. Le-
plongeon, D. Pleurdeau, and M. Goder-Goldberger (eds.),
Human occupations of the Nile Valley and neighbor-
Anna Belfer-Cohen, Nigel Goring-Morris
50
ing regions between 75,000 and 15,000 years ago. Sci-
entific publications of the Museum National d’Histoire Na-
turelle France. Paris.
Marder O., Goring-Morris A. N., Khalaily H., Milevski I.,
and Zbenovich V. 2007. Tzur Natan, a Pre-Pottery Neoli-
thic A site in central Israel and observations on regional
settement patterns. Paléorient 33(2): 79–100.
Mellaart J. 1975. The Neolithic of the Near East. Thames
and Hudson. London.
Miebach A., Chen C., Schwab M. J., Stein M., and Litt T.
2016. Vegetation and climate during the Last Glacial high
stand (ca. 28–22 ka BP) of the Sea of Galilee, northern Is-
rael. Quaternary Science Reviews 156: 47–56.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2016.11.013
Mithen S., Finlayson B., Maricevic D., Smith S., Jenkins E.,
and Najjar M. 2015. Death and Architecture: The Pre-Pot-
tery Neolithic A Burials at WF16, Wadi Faynan, Southern
Jordan. In C. Renfrew, M. J. Boyd and I. Morley (eds.),
Death Rituals, Social Order and the Archaeology of Im-
mortality in the Ancient World: ‘Death Shall Have No
Dominion’. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge: 82–
110.
Mithen S., Finlayson B., Mari≠evi≤ D., Smith S., Jenkins E.,
and Najjar M. 2018. WF16 – Excavations at an Early Neo-
lithic Settlement in Wadi Faynan, Southern Jordan. Stra-
tigraphy, Chronology, Architecture and Burials. Coun-
cil for British Research in the Levant. Oxford.
Moore A. M. T. and 13 co-authors. 2020. Evidence of Cos-
mic Impact J. H. at Abu Hureyra, Syria at the Younger
Dryas Onset (~12.8 ka): High-temperature melting at
>2200°C. Scientific Reports 10(1): 4185. 
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-60867-w
Muheisen M. 1988. The Epipalaeolithic Phases of Khara-
neh IV. In A. N. Garrard and H.-G. Gebel (eds.), The Pre-
history of Jordan. The State of Research in 1986. British
Archaeological Reports IS 396(i). Archaeopress. Oxford:
353–367.
Munro N. D., Grosman L. 2010. Early Evidence (ca. 12,000
BP) for Feasting at a Burial Cave in Israel. Proceedings of
the National Academy of Sciences of USA 107(35):
15362–15366. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1001809107
Nadel D. 1990. The Khiamian as a case of Sultanian in-
tersite variability. Journal of the Israel Prehistoric So-
ciety – Mitekufat Haeven 23: 86*–99*.
Nadel D., Danin A., Power R. C., Rosen A. M., Bocquentin
F., Tsatskin A., Rosenberg D., Yeshurun R., Weissbrod L.,
Rebollo N. R., Barzilai O., and Boaretto E. 2013. Earliest
floral grave lining from 13,700–11,700-y-old Natufian bu-
rials at Raqefet cave, Mt. Carmel, Israel. Proceeding of the
National Academy of Sciences of USA 110(29): 11774–
11778. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1302277110
Nadel D., Lengyel G. 2009. Human-made bedrock holes
(mortars and cupmarks) as a late Natufian social pheno-
menon. Archaeology Ethnology and Anthropology of Eu-
rasia 37(2): 37–48.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aeae.2009.08.012
Neuville R. 1934. Le Préhistorique de Palestine. Revue
Biblique 43: 237–259.
Nishiaki Y., Yoneda M., Kanjou Y., and Akazawa T. 2017.
Natufian in the north: The Late Epipalaeolithic cultural
entity at Dederiyeh Cave, northwest Syria. Paléorient
43(2): 7–24. https://doi.org/10.3406/paleo.2017.5763
Noy T. 1986. The Natufian Culture. In K. Howard (ed.),
Treasures of the Holy Land Ancient Art from the Israel
Museum. The Metropolitan Museum of Art. New York:
31–40.
1993. Oren, Nahal. In E. Stern (ed.), The New Encyclo-
pedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holyland.
The Israel Exploration Society and Carta. Jerusalem:
1166–1170.
Noy T., Brimer B. 1980. Adornment of Early Natufian bu-
rials. Israel Museum News 16: 55–64.
Orrelle E. 2014. Material images of humans from the
Natufian to Pottery Neolithic periods in the Levant. Bri-
tish Archaeological Reports IS 2595. Archaeopress. Oxford.
Paz Y., Paz S., and Shimelmitz R. 2009. An incised stone
object from the PPNA of Tel Bareqet, Ayalon. Neo-Lithics
02(09): 29–30.
Perrot J. 1960. Excavations at Eynan (Ain Mallaha): Pre-
liminary report on the 1959 season. Israel Exploration
Journal 10(1): 14–22.
1966. Le Gisement Natoufien de Mallaha (Eynan), Israel.
L’Anthropologie 70(5-6): 437–483.
Perrot J., Ladiray D. 1988. Les Hommes de Mallaha (Ey-
nan), Israel. Association Paléorient. Paris.
Piperno D. R., Weiss E., Holst I., and Nadel D. 2004. Pro-
cessing of wild cereal grains in the Upper Palaeolithic re-
vealed by starch grain analysis. Nature 430: 670–673.
https://doi.org/10.1038/nature02734
Pomerantz-Greenblat M. 2014. The Flint Assemblage from
Abu Madi I. A PPNA Site in Southern Sinai. Unpublished
MA Thesis. The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Jerusa-
lem. (in Hebrew)
From the Epipalaeolithic into the earliest Neolithic (PPNA) in the South Levant
51
Rabinovich R., Nadel D. 1995. Bone tools from Ohalo II –
A morphological and functional study. Journal of the Is-
rael Prehistoric Society 26: 32–63.
Ray K., Thomas J. 2018. Neolithic Britain: The Transfor-
mation of Social Worlds. Oxford University Press. Oxford.
Richter T., Bocaege E., Ilsøe P., Ruter A., Pantos A., Peder-
sen P., and Yeomans L. 2019. Ochre, Ground Stone, and
Wrapping the Dead in the Late Epipalaeolithic (Natufian)
Levant: Revealing the Funerary Practices at Shubayqa 1,
Jordan. Journal of Field Archaeology 44(7): 440–457.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00934690.2019.1645546
Richter T., Garrard A. N., Allcock S., and Maher L. 2011.
Interaction before agriculture: Exchanging material and
sharing knowledge in the final Pleistocene Levant. Cam-
bridge Archaeological Journal 21(1): 95–114.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959774311000060
Richter T., Stock J. T., Maher L., and Hebron C. 2010. An
Early Epipalaeolithic sitting burial from the Azraq Oasis,
Jordan. Antiquity 84(324): 321–334.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X00066606
Ronen A., Lechevallier M. 1991. The Natufian of Hatula. In
O. Bar-Yosef, F. R. Valla (eds.), The Natufian Culture in
the Levant. International Monographs in Prehistory. Ar-
chaeological Series 1. Berghahn Books. Ann Arbor: 149–
160.
1999. Save the Khiamian! Neo-Lithics 1(99): 6–7.
Rosenberg D. 2008. Serving meals making a home. The
PPNA limestone vessel industry of the southern Levant.
Paléorient 34(1): 23–32.
Rosenberg D., Chasan R., Lengyel G., and Nadel D. 2020.
Stone ‘Canvas’ and Natufian Art: an incised Human Figure
from the Natufian Cemetery at Raqefet Cave, Israel. Ox-
ford Journal of Archaeology 39(2): 128–140.
https://doi.org/10.1111/ojoa.12189
Rosenberg D., Yeshurun R., Groman-Yaroslavski I., Winter
H., Zertal A., Brown-Goodman R., and Nadel D. 2010. Hu-
zuq Musa – A preliminary report on the test excavation at
a Final Epipalaeolithic/PPNA site in the Jordan Valley. Pa-
léorient 36(2): 189–204.
Shaham D. 2014. Art Research Tools for Reading Natu-
fian Art: A Methodological Approach and Selected Case
Studies. Unpublished MA Thesis. The Hebrew University
of Jerusalem. Jerusalem.
Shaham D., Belfer-Cohen A. 2013. Incised slabs from Ha-
yonim cave: a methodological case study for reading Na-
tufian art. In F. Borrell, J. J. Ibáñez, and Molist M. (eds.),
Stone Tools in Transition: From Hunter-Gatherers to
Farming Societies in the Near East. Proceedings of the
7th International Conference on the Chipped and Ground
Stone Industries of the Pre-Pottery Neolithic. Universitat
Autònoma de Barcelona Press. Barcelona: 407–419.
Shaham D., Grosman L. 2019. Engraved stones from Na-
hal Ein Gev II – Portraying a local style, forming cultural
links. In L. Astruc, C. McCartney, F. Briois, and V. Kassia-
nido (eds.), Near Eastern Lithic Technologies on the
Move. Interactions and Contexts in Neolithic Traditions.
8th International Conference on PPN Chipped and Ground
Stone Industries of the Near East Nicosia, Cyprus. Astrom
Editions. Uppsala: 133–142.
Simmons A. H. 2014. Stone Age Sailors. Paleolithic Sea-
faring in the Mediterranean. Left Coast Press. Walnut
Creek, CA.
Simmons T., Kolska Horowitz L., and Goring-Morris A. N.
2007. “What Ceremony Else?” Taphonomy and the ritual
treatment of the dead in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B mor-
tuary complex at Kfar HaHoresh, Israel. In M. Faerman,
L. K. Horwitz, T. Kahana, and U. Zilberman (eds.), Faces
from the Past: Diachronic Patterns in the Biology and
Health Status of Human Populations from the Eastern
Mediterranean Papers in Honour of Patricia Smith. Bri-
tish Archaeological Reports IS 1603. Archaeopress. Ox-
ford: 100–126.
Snir A., Nadel D., Groman-Yaroslavski I., Melamed Y.,
Sternberg M., Bar-Yosef O., and Weiss E. 2015a. The ori-
gin of cultivation and proto-weeds, long before Neolithic
farming. PLoS ONE 10(7): e0131422.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0131422
Snir A., Nadel D., and Weiss E. 2015b. Plant-food prepara-
tion on two consecutive floors at Upper Paleolithic Ohalo
II, Israel. Journal of Archaeological Science 53: 61–71.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2014.09.023
Stantis C., Kharobi A., Maaranen N., Nowell G. M., Bietak
M., Prell S., and Schutkowski H. 2020. Who Were the
Hyksos? Challenging Traditional Narratives Using Stron-
tium Isotope (87sr/86sr) Analysis of Human Remains from
Ancient Egypt. PLoS ONE 15(7): e0235414.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0235414
Stekelis M., Yisraely T. 1963. Excavations at Nahal Oren –
Preliminary report. Israel Exploration Journal 13: 1–12.
Stutz A. J., Munro N. D., and Bar-Oz G. 2009. Increasing
the resolution of the Broad Spectrum Revolution in the
Southern Levantine Epipaleolithic (19–12 ka). Journal of
Human Evolution 56: 294–306.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2008.10.004
Anna Belfer-Cohen, Nigel Goring-Morris
52
Torfstein A., Goldstein S. L., Stein M., and Enzel Y. 2013.
Impacts of abrupt climate changes in the Levant from Last
Glacial Dead Sea levels. Quaternary Science Reviews
69: 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2013.02.015
Torres H. R., Groman-Yaroslavski I., Weinstein-Evron M.,
and Yeshurun R. 2020. A micro-wear analysis of Natufian
gazelle phalanx beads from el-Wad Terrace, Mount Car-
mel, Israel. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports
31: 102304. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2020.102304
Valla F. R. 1988. Aspects du sol de l’abri 131 de Mallaha
(Eynan). Paléorient 14: 283–296.
(ed.) 2012. Les Fouilles de la Terrasse d’Hayonim (Is-
raël) 1980–1981 et 1985–1989. De Boccard. Paris.
2019. More on early Natufian Building 131 at Eynan
(Ain Mallaha), Israel. In H. Goldfus, M. I. Gruber, Y.
Shamir, and P. Fabian (eds.), “Isaac went out to the
field” (Genesis 24:63) Studies in Archaeology and An-
cient Cultures in Honor of Isaac Gilead. Archaeopress.
Oxford: 302–315.
Watkins T. 2013. The Neolithic in transition — how to
complete a paradigm shift. Levant 45(2): 149–158.
https://doi.org/10.1179/0075891413Z.00000000022
Weinstein-Evron M. 2009. Archaeology in the Archives.
Unveiling the Natufian of Mount Carmel. Brill. Boston.
Weinstein-Evron M., Kaufman D., and Bird-David N. 2001.
Rolling stones: Basalt implements as evidence for trade/
exchange in the Levantine Epipalaeolithic. Journal of
the Israel Prehistoric Society – Mitekufat Haeven 31:
25–42.
Wiessner P. 1974. A functional estimation of population
from floor area. American Antiquity 39: 343–349.
https://doi.org/10.2307/279593
Wobst H. M. 1975. The demography of finite populations
and the origins of the incest taboo. Memoirs of the So-
ciety for American Archaeology 30: 75–81.
Yaroshevich A., Bar-Yosef O., Boaretto E., Caracuta V.,
Greenbaum N., Porat N., and Roskin J. 2016. A unique as-
semblage of engraved plaquettes from Ein Qashish South,
Jezreel Valley, Israel: figurative and non-figurative symbols
of Late Pleistocene hunters-gatherers in the Levant. PLoS
ONE 11(8): e0160687.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0160687
Yeshurun R., Bar-Oz G., and Weinstein-Evron M. 2014. In-
tensification and sedentism in the terminal Pleistocene
Natufian sequence of el-Wad Terrace (Israel). Journal of
Human Evolution 70: 16–35.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2014.02.011
Zbenovich V. 2006. Salvage excavations at a Pre-Pottery
Neolithic site at Modi'in. ‘Atiqot 51: 1–15.