l. CANEY A, C. LEMORINI, D. ZAMPETTI. and P. BIAG I (eds. ). Beyond roofs. SENEPSE 9 (2001 ). Berlin. ex orieme. The symbolic realms of utilitarian material culture: the role of lithics Nigel Goring-Morris and Anna Belfer-Cohen 1 Introduction Significant strides have been made in the past few years with regards numerous specific facets of the lithic component of the archaeological remains concerned with procurement, production and use. Yet, we believe that a potential contribution to studies of Levantine Prehistory has. with few exceptions, been largely neglected. Lithic studies have rarely been conducted within their social and ideological frameworks, as indicated by their contexts. This encompasses relationships between the various material cu lture components, and their social, ideological and cosmological connotations (e.g. Close 1978; Sackett 1990 and references therein). Widespread ethnographic evidence indicates that seemingly 'utilitarian functional' items, including the chipped stone a11efacts, are almost always imbued with symbolic significance of one form or another (Gould 1980; and see below). While such an approach to archaeological remains is commonly not easily addressed, we believe that an awareness of these aspects can contribute significantly to our perceptions of prehistoric societies. Not all aspects of material culture, including the lithics, shou ld be viewed in purely utilitarian, functional terms, in addition to the chaine operatoire approach (Abbes 1994; Bodu el a/. 1991; Cziesla et a/. 1990), 'reliable' as opposed to ' maintainable' technologies (Eerkens 1991 ), or the use of style for the identification of groups (Conkey and Hesterof 1990; Henry and Odell 1989; Sheppard 1987). In the fol lowing pages, we discuss examples from the later prehistory of the Near East (Natutian and Neolithic), when a wide array of material culture residues are available. This is, of course, not to say that such an approach is not also relevant in much earlier Palaeolithic contexts. Chipped stone remains Chipped stone artefacts constitute the primary realm of many prehistoric Palaeolithic studies. for the simple reason that they are durable and thus the most commonly preserved material remains. In consequence, redundant technological, typological and stylistic attributes of lithic assemblages are widely employed for chrono-cultural assignment, while use-wear studies of the a1tefacts are employed to investigate the utilitarian tasks to wh ich they were put. Co-variations of different a1tefact categories are analysed at the intra-site and inter-site levels to investigate the potential spatial discrimination of patterned activities (e.g. Marks 1983; Volkman 1983; Stappert 1989; Hermon 1996; Nadel 1997; Goring-Morris 1988). In recent years these have al l come to be codified in the chaine operatoire approach to lithic studies. Where other material residues are also preserved. whether faunal remains. groundstone utensils or site furniture such as hearths, attempts are made to integrate these within the same utilitarian. mundane framework. Even items of clear symbolic significance. in the form of burials, ochre, decorative/ornamental items, or sporadic att items, are also generally accom modated within a simil ar, ' middle range ', conceptual paradigm. There is widespread awareness that all societies operate within an ideological framework. Nevertheless, and with but few exceptions, it is exceedingly difficult in archaeological contexts to proceed beyond mechanistic, pragmatic and functional approaches, including eco logical adaptations or 1 Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University, Jerusalem 91905, Israel. 257 other allied optimal foraging explanations (Winterhalder and Sm ith 1981: Keeley 1995). While we pay Iip service to a range of other possibilities, at the interpretative level matters rarely progress fu1ther. Th is is typified by many studies of stone tool procurement, manufacture and discard, which are presented from a practical, 'scientific' empirica l standpoint, wherein the approach of "minimum effort investment" permeates (Pioux 1991; and papers in Clark 1991, for example). We commonly tend to assume that "maximum rationality" prevails and dictates human behaviour, resulting in actions of·'max imum utility" (i.e. minimum energy expend iture; tor a detailed discussion see Barkow eta/. 1992). Ethnogr aphy a nd lithics Ethnographic studies are an area researchers are all aware of, use. and yet tend to shy away from. prec isely because evidence can be mustered to support almost any and all arguments. Yet. v,re can and should make use of the extensive ethnographic ev idence indicating that the rea lm of lithics (procurement, production, use and discard) is commonly incorporated into the wider fabric of human soc iety and accorded sp iritua l aspects. A mere sampling of exam ples is provided below, to be followed in the succeed ing section by a few potential analogies from the prehistoric record . Studies of raw material procurement in no1theastern Australia have revea led that the behaviour of those taking part in this process is highly structured by the aborigines' beliefs and their cosmological outlook. The lithic material thus acquires mystical, animated quali ties, and is besto'vved with a will and ways of its own (Jones and White 1988). Another study from western Australia (Arnhemland) revea led that groups actually sh ifted their raw material preferences according to the changing concepts of aesthetics and the assoc iated "power" of shiny stones (Tacon 1991 ). The function and utility of an artefact, e.g. a projectile point, is dictated not only by its aerodynamic and mechanistic properties. It acquires specia l powers according to whoever made it. received and used it (Balikci 1970; Lee 1979). We can assume that any pa1ticular lithic tool is similarly imbued with : I. a combination of pragmatic fu nctional criteria; 2. representational aspects of group and social identification (inter- and intra-group identity. i.e. ' isochrestic' and ' iconological' approaches as well as 'emblem ic' and 'assenive' styles (Sackett 1977, 1982; Wiessner 1983. 1989; Larick 1985, 1986): 3. and , add itionally. by the other varied components of style within the context of use. and its sym bo lic function. Lithics in the la ter prehistory of th e nea r east In the fo llowing section we deal primarily with the later prehistoric record in the Near East. nevertheless, though it should be noted that glimpses of similar behaviours are documented much earlier in the Old World (e.g. Oakley 1981 ; Bader 1999 to mention just a few). However, from the Natutian and, especially. Neolithic onwards, with the advent of sedentism, the repertoire of the material record takes a quantum jump and objects of obvious symbolic significance are widespread. Undoubted ly this is all associated with the fact that we are investigating modern human populations wi th complex social structures and retaining a corpus of beliefs and abstract ideas as regards the universe and the role of humans with in it (Valla 1996: 1999). We are fully aware of the drawbacks in attempt ing such an approach and that it will never be possible to attain the same level of reconstruction as that of the lithic ' Big Puz.zle', though even there, refitting studies can only provide a somewhat mechanistic interpretation (Cahen et a/. 1979: Cziesla et a/. 1990; Gilead 1988; Goring-Morris et a/. 1997; Marks 1983 ; Hofman and En foe 1992). Prehistoric stud ies in the Near East traditionally continue through until the end of the Neo lithic. and hence are commonly studied by researchers with Palaeol ithic, i.e. li thic, backgrounds. Undoubtedly. this has been beneficial in the sense of a growing cognizance of the importance of develop ing adequate excavation retrieva l methods. Sta1ting with the Late Ep ipalaeo lithic and continuing throughout the entire Neolithic. there is a veritable explosion in the size and scope of sites and, concomitantly. in the 258 range and diversity of the preserved material residues. This plethora of 'new' data is often analyt ica lly accommodated on the basis of general raw materials categories, in addition to large-scale architectu ral features. Resulting syntheses common ly present a series of separate, parallel lines of material culture evidence with Iittle, if any, genuine data integration or investigation of their potential inter-related ness. Spatial analyses are almost non-existent, in part no doubt due to the different scale of the sites. Architecture, fa una, flora, lithics, groundstone utensils, bone tools, ornaments, figurines, etc .. tend to be compartmentalized. catalogued and reported separately. It is the sum of these parallel lines of evidence which we equate with the archaeological ·cultural entity'. This is particularly striking with regards the chipped stone assemblages. In the past couple of decades tremendous advances have been made in developing systematic methodologies for the study of raw material procurement patterns, various knapping technologies, blank production, typological and stylistic attributes, and the pragmatic uses to which they were app lied - the 'classic ' chaine vperatoire approach. Some lines of lithic evidence have been used to suggest the emergence of craft specialists (Quintero and Wilke 1995), while others have even claimed to provide evidence for plant cultivation (Korobkova 1994; Unger-Hamilton 1991). Lithic analyses are used, usually in parallel to studies of other material categories, to define cultural spheres in time and space (Goring-Morris and Bel fer-Cohen 1997: Bar-Yosef 199 1: Cauvin et a/. 1997). Without doubt these are all of great significance in addressing questions relating to the ·where', ' when ' and even ·why' of archaeological phenomena, for example concerning the origins of agriculture (Bar-Yosef 1998). However. precisely because of the abundance of other lines of data. attempts should be made to integrate the lithics within a wider range of behavioural realms. such as the unmistakable evidence for intensive ideological and symbolic practices during the later prehistory of the Near East (see e.g. Cauvin 1994; Rollefson 1983, 1986, 1998). Some examples Raw Materials The appearance of obsidian from the end of the Natufian and during the Neolithic in the southern Levant may be viewed as an example of the use of raw material in a symbolic context. In the northern Levant and Anatolia, relatively close to its sources, use of obsidian may we ll have been primarily utilitarian in terms of its availability, knapping and cutting properties (Cauvin 1990, 1994, 1995). However, in the southern Levant, obsidian is found only in minute quantities. rarely as comp lete tools, but more common ly as small bladelets or amorphous items. Furthermore, there are clear differential quantities of obsidian between various PPNA and PPNB sites in the southern Levant. Notwithstanding differences in retrieval methods, obsidian is far more common at PPNA Jericho than at nearby contemporary Netiv Hagdud, while there is virtually none at neighbouring G iIgal (Bar-Yosef and Gopher 1997: Nadel 1997). In the PPNB the quantity of obsidian at Early PPNB Naha l Lavan I09 in the western Negev Dunes is quite outstanding when compared with other PPNB sites, both in the desert areas or indeed even much further north (Burian and Friedman 1988). These examples clearly retlect the existence of developed and widespread exchange networks of various exotic materials which , besides the obsidian, include also marine molluscs, greenstone and other colourful and rare minerals. It seems highly likely that, while being aware of the knapping and cutting properties of obsidian, it was pri mari ly valued for being rare and exotic, in the much same manner as precious metals in later contexts (Gopher et a/. 1990). In this respect it is perhaps worth recalling that the widespread use of translucent chalcedony during the later Epipalaeolithic (most particularly in the Natufian and Ramonian entities) reflects more than simply its knapping properties and the mobility patterns of the human groups using it (GoringMorris 1987). A similar propensity for translucent chalcedony can also be noted throughout much of the southern Levant during the Early Pre-Pottery Neolithic B. Many Helwan points are tabricated on chalcedony or other fine-grained materials, which may also reflect similar aesthetic and symbo lic concerns (personal observation). 259 The possible application of heat treatment to some of the chert and flint during the Natufian and Pre-Pottery Neo lithic remains an open question (Edwards and Edwards 1990; Nadel 1989; Quintero and Wilke personal communications). Yet in approaching this problem. perhaps potential symbolic. as well as pragmatic and aesthetic concerns also should be taken into consideration. Various researchers have noted the appearance of seemingly non-local and aesthetically attractive flint raw materials during the PPNB, most especially for the 'curated ', more standardised tool categories (e.g. Stekelis and Yizraely 1963). More systematic sourcing studies of apparently non-local PPNB Oint may provide a valuable tool in evaluating not on ly the direction of exchange networks but perhaps also hint at other aspects (Frachtenberg and Yellin 1992). Prestige items ami caches An example of possible symbolic contexts of chipped stone attefacts lies in such items as what may have been prestige items related to non-utilitarian realms. At least one of the three large tile knives of the Late Neolithic 'Tuwailan' industry at Beer Osnat (Crawfoot Payne 1978; see also Goring-Morris 1993; Goring-Morris et a/. 1994) has cortex around all the lateral edges (Sharon 1998), precluding its efficient use as a cutting utensil; nevettheless some ti le knives from other sites appear to have been used for cutting meat (Buller 1988). Indeed, one of us has suggested that such bifacial knives may have been part of a 'package' of domestication exported to the Nile Valley and that such knives could represent forerunners ofthe exquisite pressure flaked knives ofthe Egyptian Prcdynastic (Goring-Morris 1993). In wider contexts, caches of specific attefact types, which are otherwise extremely rare. may hint at symbolic and cultic functions. The small, secluded cave of Nahal Hemar in the southern Judean Desert is probably the most well known example of a Neolithic site which clearly functioned in more than a mundane fashion (Bar-Yosefand Alon 1988). The composition of the lithic assemblage. most of which was apparently in the form of a cache, is quite unique in PPNB contexts. It included vittually no other debitage beyond more than 550 pointed blades from naviform cores (though not a single core was recovered). Many of the blades display signs of burning. Amongst the tools an otherwise almost unique type- a large, bilaterally and proximally notched pointed blade known as the Nahal Hemar knife is, by far, the dominant element (ca 75%) amongst the tool assemblage of 295 items (Fig. I). One Nahal Hemar knife stil l has cord wrapped around the notches, and others display traces of a black substance. As the excavators note .... ·'Cautiously, we suggest that the proliferation of this knife-type in the Nahal Hemar context was related to specific activities performed in and around the site. The rarity of the tooltype in known PPNB sites may hint at the unconventionality of these activities ... the collection includes objects made for a variety of uses, including ritual activities" (Bar-Yosef and Alon 1988: 10). The naviform blade blanks and marginal ly retouched items at Nahal Hemar could also indicate that they too fulfilled a somewhat si milar ritual role to those of the Nahal Hemar knives. In the same vein, it is interesting to note that small caches of blades are often considered to be purely functional collections of blade blanks stored for future modification. such as that in a 'wooden box' from one of the buildings at Beidha (Mortensen 1988). It contained 70 comp lete naviform blade blanks, one distal blade fragment, 30 blades with minimal retouch about the tips. I I arrowheads. two flakes, and a single core fragment. A somewhat similar cache, limited to blades only. was noted at Nahal lssaron (southern Negev), while at Wadi Jibba I (southwestern Sinai) another was found at the toot of a boulder several metres to one side of the settlement. These may indeed srepresent mislaid stocks of blade blanks for future use. However. various lines of evidence indicate that other. perhaps symbolic connotations may sometimes be pertinent (see also Garfinkel 1994). An earlier occurrence could be a smal l cache against the wall of a hut at the Terminal Ramon ian/Early Natufian site of Upper Besor 6 (central Negev - see Goring-Morris 1998). It included a lightly flaked cylindrical, hollow flint nodule (unfit for flaking), together with an ochre smeared flint pick and a basalt pestle. f-urthermore, the presence of a cache in a structure at the Late Natufian site of Rosh Zin was interpreted by the excavator as having "ritual" and symbolic significance (Henry 1976:3 18-320). It included " five unusua lly large pyramidal cores" wh ich had been " specia lly manufactured", together 260 Fig. 1 , Fig. 2 · J. . · ~. :. ~ . .··.,. CM 3 Fig. 1: Nahal He mar knives (after Bar-Yosef a nd AI on 1988) Fig. 2: Ain Ghazal figurine (after J, Cauvin 1994) 261 \'!.• ' ,; •• D ' 0 I he-' CM keel keel 10 bwl Fig. 3: Beer Osnat knives (after Crawfoot-Payne 1978) 262 with a pair of basalt shaft-straighteners and a Iimestone disc at the base of a large 'pha llic' pi liar ( 1.30 x 0.4 m). This category of ceremonial/ritual caches may incorporate also the briefly reported (Banning and Byrd 1987: 313; and E. Banning personal communication) possible presence of intra-mural and subfloor caches of fl ints at Ain Ghazal (perhaps as foundation deposits or dedicatory offerings?). Within a narrower context at Ain Ghaza l, the (unretouched and otherwise totally unremarkable) flint blades embedded in the clay cattle figurines were clearly used symbolically (see Fig. 2), representing ritual killing (Rol lefson 1983; Schmandt-Besserat 1997). Lit/tics in nwrtuary contexts The presence of any gravegoods in the context of Natutian (and Neo lithic) burials is a contentious issue- and indeed by no means any or all items found withi n the til l of a burial necessari ly has symbolic significance, e.g. the bone tool recently pub Iished from A in Ghazal (Bonogofsky 1998). To date there is little obvious use of lithic gravegoods, (in the conventional sense) that has been convincingly documented (Belfer-Cohen 1995; Byrd and Monahan 1995, but see below tor further discussion). Others have suggested that the spatia l arrangements of artefacts, including lithics on house floors at Early Natufian Mall aha (Eynan) (Locus 13 I and Locus 5 I) most Iikely relate to the presence of group burials underlying the same structure (Boyd 1995; Valla 1991; and see Goring-Morris 1996). Ongoing research at the mott uary site of Kfar HaHoresh clearly indicates that much of the material cu lture remains fall within the repertoire of many ' regular' settlements. Nevertheless, it is the specific contexts and co-associations of items, including at least part of the lithic assemb lage, which can provide hints at more than simple functional uses (Goring-Morris in press). Not exclud ing the bas ic level of utilitarian function of the lithic component we shou ld bear in mind that the context clearly indicates an integration of mundane and sacred activities (which may be intricately interwoven) that should be taken into consideration when trying to discern the role of the lithic component. The presence of a tranchet axe (a relat ively outmoded form for this MPPNB phase) and an unusual kn ife at Ktar HaHoresh in a burial pit into which they had obviously been intentionally placed as gravegoods illustrates this matter. In virtually every excavated assemblage large quantities of lithic tools are broken. Th is presumably retlects ' natural ' breakage of items in the course of their usage, whether from impact trampling, etc. However, it is also possible that in cettain contexts prestige items may be broken ri tual ly and/or symbolically, as perhaps in the later site of the Cave of the Warrior (Oshri and Schick 1998) or. and more obv iously, the fine Egyptian knife in a Proto-Urban period burial cave at Azor (Ben-Tor 1975). In this vein, the locations of breakage and the differential proportions of proximal, med ial and distal breakage for the naviform blades and Nahal Hemar knives at Nahal Hemar are of some interest (see Bar-Yosef and AI on 1988: Tab. I). Magic numbers During at least the Neolithic, there are clear examples of artefacts clustering in potent or ' magic ' numbers, as summarized by Kuijt (in press). Several in stances of specific tool types and other objects occurring in clusters of three have been noted at Kfar HaHoresh. These include a cluster of three sickleblades lying parallel to one another, each of a different raw material within a probable buria l context; a pointed bright pink-coloured sickleblade perhaps ' functioning' as a projectile point in a depiction of an animal using human bones; and another cluster of three arrowheads. In th is context it is also interesting to note that the cache at Beer Osnat (Fig. 3) comprises th ree items, as does the above-m entioned cache at Upper Besor 6. Other number configurations may also have symbolic connotations (see Kuijt in press; Valla 1988). Discussion The contexts of various material phenomena are crucial for comprehend ing changes and processes in the evolution of human society. However, while the sites of Kfar HaHoresh and Nahal 263 Hemar are perhaps demonstrably cultic in outlook, most of the examples cited above derive from within demonstrably 'regular', domestic settlements, where the mundane aspects of daily life are very obvious. Thus most lithic assemblages are studied from a utilitarian approach. Indeed, the 'easy way' (relatively speaking!) to interpret archaeological phenomena is by means of the functional/technological approach. Nevertheless, it seems to us that being aware of the contextual framework of the cultural remains, in the present case, of the lithics. encourages new ways of approaching archaeological interpretations. Thus it is very tempting to ignore the thorny issue of the spiritual aspects of human existence, especially since its reconstruction demands a certain "leap of faith". There is ample contextual evidence from non-lithic realms in the Levant for such symbolic behaviour. An illustration is the presence of dogs in Natuftan burials (Davis and Valla 1978; Tchernov and Valla 1997). Continuity of related practices, with other animal species in MPPNB and FPPNB burials is well attested, which was clearly symbolic in nature (see Goring-Morris in press; GoringMorris eL a!. 1998; Rollefson 1998). Although gravegoods are not common throughout the Levant during either the Epipalaeo lithic or the Neolithic, they certainly do occur sporadically, e.g. tortoise carapaces in Natufian burials at Hayonim Terrace, el Wad and Mallaha (Valla 1999: Garrod and Bate 193 7). Simi lar observations can be made with respect to lithics at Kfar Hahoresh in the PPNB (see above), at FPPNB Atilt Yam (Vered Eshed personal communication), and further afield at the somewhat later site of <;atal HoyUk (Mellaa1t 1967). Seriation and gradual replacement of arrowhead types during the course of the Pre-Pottery Neolithic - beyond reflecting si mple changes in hafting techniques, particular prey and effectiveness, may also have social (Bar-Yosef and Belfer-Cohen 1989; Larick 1985, 1986, 1991) or even symbolic connotations. By way of example we can refer to the presence of sporadic Helwan points (typical of the EPPNB) in middle and late PPNB assemblages. Other lithic items of potential symbolic signiticance may include the stone rings or bracelets which are dispersed widely throughout the Levant, but are especially concentrated in some of Transjordanian PPNB sites, e.g. Baja (Starck 1988: Gebel et a/. 1997). The examples presented above are, of course, just a small sample - we have hardly discussed the situation in the northern Levant or Anatolia. For example, the presence of prestige items in grave contexts at <;atal Hoyiik (see above and Mellaa1t 1975, Fig. 48; Hamilton 1996). In central Anatolia, e.g. at Musular, where obsidian is abundant, rare, high-quality flint artefacts may have fulfilled the equivalent role of that of obsidian in the Southern Levant (Qzba~rn in press). At Neva Ii <;:ori the spatial distributions of specific attefact classes has been suggested to have more than simple typological/utilitarian significance (Schmidt 1996: 335). A simi lar conclusion can be drawn for ~ayoni. (Caneva et a!. 1996). Clear cult structures are known from Jericho, Beidha. Ain Ghazal. Munhata. Nevali <;ori , and <;ayonU (see. for example Ozdogan and Ozdogan 1995). to name but a tew. More detailed publications or the lithic and other small finds assemblages from within such contexts would certainly contribute to understanding how ·mundane' objects may articulate within ritual and symbolic frameworks. Summary What we are suggesting here is to supplement the standard interpretations of the lithic assemblages through their techno-typological/functional and spatial aspects, by being more sensitive to the contextual circumstances of the lithic remains, both with regards the spatial distributions and with regards other material cu lture remains. This will fit well within currently prevailing research paradigms (Bal111 1996: Dark 1995: Preucel 1991: Preucel and Hodder and see Conolly 1996: Ham i Iton 1996 ). Even if the contribution of such an approach provides more specu lations than clear-cut statements, it is nevertheless wotthwhile, since it opens new avenues of thought and prov ides insights. however limited, to realms usually shunned by prehistorians dealing with lithics. As the very form ulation of research goals tends to influence the outcome of such investigations, it is perhaps time to 264 redress the balance. In the current state of research priorities, the contextual issue is touched upon only when summing up the fina l outcome of the research, far away from the field, more in the nature of lip service just like the known formula of "further research is needed ... ". Incorporating this awareness of contextuality, a priori, within research goals will perhaps provide both greater insights and unexpected results. Bibliography ABBES F. 1994 Techniques de debitage et gestion de silex sur le Moyen Euphrate (Syrie) au PPNA final et au PPNB ancien. In: H.G. GEBEL and S. K. KOZLOWSKI (eds.), Neolithic Chipped Stone Industries ofthe Fertile Crescent. Studies in Early Near Eastern Production, Subsistence, and Environment I: 299-312. Berlin. ex oriente. BADER N. 1998 Upper Paleolithic site Sungir (graves and environment). Moscow. Scientitic World. BAHN P. G. 1996 Cambridge Illustrated History ofArchaeology. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. BALJKCI A. 1970 The Netsilik Eskimo. New-York, The Natural History Press. BANNING E. B. and BYRD B. F. 1987 Houses and the changing residential unit: domestic architecture at PPNB 'A in Ghazal, Jordan. Proceedings ofthe Prehistoric Society 53: 309-325. BARKOW J. H., COSMIDES L., and TOOBY J. (eds.) 1992 The Adapted Mind. Evolutionary Psychology and the Generation ofCulture. Oxford, Oxford University Press. BAR-YOSEF 0. 1991 Stone tools and social context in Levantine prehistory. In : G.A. CLARK (ed.), Perspectives on the Past: Theoretical Biases on Mediterranean Hunter-Gatherer Research: 37 1-395. Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania Press. I 998 Agricultural Origins: Caught Between Hypotheses and a Lack of Hard Evidence. "The Transition to Agriculture in the Old World". Special Issue. The Review ofArchaeology 19: 58-64. BAR-YOSEF 0. and ALON D. 1988 Nahal Hemar Cave: The Excavations. 'Atiqot XVIII: 1-30. BAR-YOSEF 0. and BELFER-COHEN A. 1988 The Levantine "PPNB" Interaction Sphere. In: I.HERSHKOVITZ (ed.), People and Culture in Change. British Archaeological International Reports- Intern. Series 508.1: 59-72. Oxford, B.A.R. BAR-YOSEF 0. and GOPHER A. (eds.) 1997 An Early Neolithic Village in the Jordan Valley. Part 1: The Archaeology ofNetiv Hagdud.. American School of Prehistoric Research Bulletin Vol. 43. Peabody Museum, Harvard University, Cambridge. BELFER-COHEN A. 1995 Rethinking Social Stratification in the Natufian Culture- The Evidence from Burials. In : S. CAMBELL and A. GREEN (eds.),The Archaeology of Death in the Ancient Near East. Pp. 9-16. Oxbow Monographs 51 , Oxford. BEN-TOR A. 1975 Two Burial Caves ofthe Proto-Urban Period at Azor 1971. The First Season of Excavations at Te/1Yarmuth. Qedem I, Monographs of the Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University, Jerusalem. BODU P., KARLIN C., and PELEGRIN J. 265 1988 Processus techniques et chaines operatoires. Comment les prehistoriens s'approprient un concept elabore par les ethnologues. In : H. BALFET (ed.), Des Chaines Operatoires Pourquoi Faire? pp. 55-62. Paris, Editions CNRS. BONOGOFSKI M. 1998 A grave good from A in Ghazal. Neo-Lithics 3198: I0. BOYD B. 1994 Houses and Hearths, Pits and Burials: Natufian mortuary Practices at Mallaha (Eynan), Upper Jordan Valley. In: S. CAMPBELL and A. GREEN (eds.), The Archaeology of Death in the Ancient Near East. Oxbow Monograph 51: 17-23. Oxford. BULLER H. 1988 Handling, Hafting and Ochre Stains. In : S. BEYRIES (ed.), Industries Lithiques: Traceologie et Technologie. British Archaeological Reports - Intern. Series 411 : 5-32. Oxford. BURIAN F. and FRIEDMAN E. 1988 A Note on the Obsidian Finds from the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B Site I 09 Near Nahal Lavan, Negev. Journal ofthe Israel Prehistoric Society- Mitekufat Haeven 21 :95*-98*. BYRD B. F. and MONAHAN C. M. 1995 Death, Mortuary Ritual, and Natufian Social Structure. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 14: 25 1287. CAHEN D., KEELEY L.H., and VAN NOTEN F. 1979 Stone tools, tool kits, and human behaviour in prehistory. Current Anthropology 20: 661-683. CANEY A 1., LEMORINI C. and ZAMPETTI D. 1995 Lithic Technology and Functionality Through Time and Space at Cayonu. In: S.K KOZ.LOWSKI.and H.G. GEBEL (eds.), Neolithic Chipped Stone Industries ofthe Fertile Crescent, and Their Contemporaries in Adjacent Regions. Studies in Early Near Eastern Production, Subsistence, and Environment 3:385-404. Berlin, ex oriente. CAUVIN J. 1994 Naissance des Divinites Naissance de /'Agriculture. Paris, Editions CNRS. CAUVIN, J., CAUVIN M.-C., HELMER D., and WILLCOX G. 1996 L'homme et son environnement au Levant nord entre 20000 et 7500 BP. Paleorient23(2):5l-69. CAUVIN M.-C. 1990 L'obsidienne au Levant prehistorique: provenance et fonction. Cahiers de I'Euphrate 5-6: 163-190. La circulation de l'obsidienne au Proche-orient Neolithique. In: H.G. GEBEL and S. K. KOZLOWSKI 1994 (eds.), Neolithic Chipped Stone Industries ofthe Fertile Crescent. Studies in Early Near Eastern Production, Subsistence, and Environment I: 15-22. Berlin, ex oriente. 1995 L'Obsidienne dans le Proche-Orient Prehistorique: Etat des recherches en 1996. Anatolica XXII: 1-31. CLARK G. A. 1991 Perspectives on the Past: Theoretical Biases on Mediterranean Hunter-Gatherer Research. Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania Press. CLOSE A. E. 1989 Identifying Style in Stone Artefacts: a Case Study from the Nile Valley. In: D. 0. HENRY and G. H. ODELL (eds.), Alternative Approaches to Lithic Analysis. American Anthropological Association I: 326, Tempe, Arizona. CONKEY M. W. and HASTROF C. A. (eds.) 1990 The Uses ofStyle in Archaeology. Cambridge, Cambridge University. CONOLLY,J. 266 1995 The knapped stone. In: I. HODDER (ed.), On !he Sw:f"ace: (alalhoyiik 1993-95. pp. 173- 198. McDonald Institute Monographs, British Institute of Archaeology in Ankara Monograph No. 22. Oxford. CROWFOOT-PAYNE J. A Hoard of Flint Knives fi·omthe Negev. In : P. PARR (ed.), Archaeology in !he Levant: Essaysfor Kathleen Kenyon, pp. 2-19. Warminster, Aris and Phillips CZIESLA E., EICKHOFF S., ARTS N. and WINTER D. (eds.) 1990 The Big Puzzle. S1udies in Modern Archaeology, Vol. I, Bonn. Holos. DARK K. R. 1995 Theoretical Archaeology. Ithaca, New-York, Cornell University Press. DAVIS J. M. and VALLA F. R. 1978 Evidence for domestication of the dog 12,000 years ago in the Natutian of Israel. Nature 276: 608-6. EDWARDS P.C. and EDWARDS W.I. 1990 Heat of che1t in the Natufian Period. Meditarch 3: 1-5. EERKENS J. W. 1990 Reliable and Maintainab le Technologies: A1tifact Standardizaiton and the Early to Later Mesolithic Transition in Northern England. Lithic Technology 23:42-53. FRACHTENBERG F. and YELLIN J. 199 1 Preliminary Study of Flint Sources in Israel by Neutron Activation Analysis. In: M. WAELKENS, N. HERZ and L. MOENS (eds.), Ancient Stones. Quanying, Trade and Provenance. lnterdisciplincny S!udies on Stones and Stone Technology in Europe and Near East from Prehisloric to the Ear~} ' Chris/ ian Period.(Acta Archaeo logica Lovaniensia 4), pp. 149-1 54. Leuven, Leuven University Press. GARFINKEL Y. 1994 Ritual burial of cultic objects: The earliest evidence. Cambridge Archaeology Journal4(2): 159-188. GARROD D. A. E. and BATE D. M. A. 1937 The Stone Age of Mt. Carmel. Oxford, Clarendon Press. GEBEL H.G.K., BIENERT H.-D., KRAMER T., MULLER-NEUHOF B.. NEEF R., T!MM J. and WRIGHT K. 1995 Ba'ja hidden in the Petra Mountains. Preliminary report on the 1997 excavations. In: H.G. K. GEBEL. Z. KAF AFt and G.O. ROLLEFSON (eds.), The Prehist01y ofJordan fl. Perspectives}i"om !997. pp. 22 1262. Berlin, e.:r orien/e. GILEAD I. 1988 Le site Mousterien de Fara II (Neguev septentrional, Israel) et le remontage de son industrie. L 'A nthropologie 92(3 ): 797-807. GOPHER A., TSUK T., SHALEV S. and GOPHNA R. 1989 Earliest gold artifacts discovered in the southern Levant. Curren/ Anthropology 31: 436-443. GORING-MORRIS A. N. 1987 At the Edge: Terminal Pleislocene Hzmter-Gmherers in the Negev and Sinai. British Archaeologica l Repo1ts, Intern. Series 36 I. Oxford. 1988 Trends in the Spatial Organization ofTerminal Pleistocene Hunter-Gatherer Occupations as Viewed from the Negev and Sinai. Pa/eorient 14(2): 23 1-243. 1993 From foraging to herding in the Negev and Sinai: The Early to Late Neolithic transition. Paleorient I9( I): 63-87. The Early Natufian Occupation at ei-Wad, Mt. Cannel, Reconsidered. In: M. OTTE (ed.), Nalure et Cul!ure, pp. 4 I7-428. E.R.A.U.L. No. 68, Liege. in press The quick and the dead: The social context or Aceramic Neol ithic mortuary practices as seen from Kfar HaHoresh. In: I. KUIJT (ed.). Social Con.figurations oflhe Near Eastern Neolilhic: Communi/)' lden!izv, Hierarchical Organization, and Rilual. New York, Plenum. 1996 267 GORING-MORRIS A., BURNS R., DAVIDZON A., ESHED V., GOREN Y., HERSHKOVITZ 1., KANGAS S. and KELECEVIC J. 1995 The 1997 Season of Excavations at the M01tuary Site of Kfar HaHoresh, Galilee, Israel. Neo-Lithics 1998(3): 1-4. GORING-MORRIS A. N., GOPHER A. and ROSEN S.A. 1994 The Neolithic Tuwailan Cortical Knife Industry ofthe Negev, Israel. In: H.-G. GEBEL and S.K. KOZLOWSKI (eds.), Neolithic Chipped Lithic Industries ofthe Fertile Crescent. Studies in Early Near Eastern Production, Subsistence and Environment I: 511-524. Berlin. ex oriente. GORING-MORRIS A. N. and BELFER-COHEN A. 1998 The articulation of cultural processes and Late Quaternary environmental changes in Cisjordan. Paleorient 23(2):71-93. GORING-MORRIS A.N., MARDER 0., DAVIDZON A. and IBRAHIM F. 1997 Putting Humpty Together Again: Preliminary Observations from Refitting Studies in the Eastern Mediterranean. In: S. Ml LUKEN (ed.), From Raw Material Procurement to Tool Production: The Organisation of Lithic Technology in Late Glacial and Early Postglacial Europe. British Archaeologica l Reports, Intern. Series 700:149-182. Oxford. GOULD R. A. 1980 Living Archaeology. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. HAMILTON N. 1996 Figurines, clay balls, small finds and burials. In: I. HODDER (ed.), On the Swface: Catalhoyiik 1993-95, pp. 215-264. McDonald Institute Monographs, British Institute of Archaeology in Ankara Monograph No. 22, Oxford. HENRY D. 0. 1976 Rosh Zin: A Natufian Settlement Near Ein Avdat. In : A. E. MARKS (ed.), PrehistoJ)' and Paleoenvironments in the Central Negev. Israel. The Avdat!Aqev Area. Part I. vol. 1: 317-347. Da llas. SMU Press. HENRY D. 0. and ODELL G. H. (eds.) 1988 Alternative Approaches to Lithic Analysis. Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association. Tulsa, University ofTulsa. HERMON S. 1996 Methodological Aspects of Prehistoric Surveys. A Test Case- The Yallir Survey (in Hebrew), (unpublished MA thesis) Hebrew University of Jerusalem. HOFMAN J.L. and ENLOE J.G. (eds.) 1989 Piecing Together the Past: Applications of Refilling Studies in Archaeology. British Archaeological Reports, Intern. Series 578. Oxford. JONES R. and WHITEN. 1988 Point Blank: Stone Tools Manufacture at the Ngilipitju Quarry, Arnhem Land, 1981. In : R. JONES and B. MEEHAN (eds.), Archaeology with Ethnography: An Australian Perspective. pp. 51-87. Canberra, Australian National University. KEELEY L. H. 1994 Protoagricultural Practices among Hunter-Gatherers. In : T. D. PRICE and A. B. GEBAUER (eds.), Las! Hunters First Farmers. pp. 95-126. Santa Fe, New-Mexico. School of American Research Press. KOROBKOV A G. 1993 The tools and the beginning of agriculture in the Near East (Russian). Archaeological News 3: 166-184. KUIJT I. 268 In press Keeping the Peace: Ritual, Skull Caching and Community Integration in the Levantine Neolithic. In: I. KUIJT (ed.}, Life in Neolithic Farming Communities: Social Organization, Identity, and Differentiation. New York, Plenum. LARICK R. I 985 Spears, Style, and Time among Maa-Speaking Pastoralists. Journal ofAnthropological Archaeology 4:206-220. Age grading and ethnicity in the style of Loikop (Samburu) spears. World Archaeology I 8:269-283. I 986 1991 Warriors and Blacksmiths: Mediating Ethnicity in East African Spears. Journal ofAnthropological Archaeology I0:299-33 I LEER. B. 1979 The! Kung San. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press. MARKS, A. E. 1983 The sites of Boqer Tachtit and Boqer: A brief introduction. In: A. E. MARKS (ed.) PrehisiOIJ' and Paleoenvironments in the Central Negev, Israel. Volume Ill, the Avdat!Aqev Area, Part 3: I5-37. Dallas, SMU Press. MELLAART J. C";atalhOyiik. A Neolithic Town in Anatolia. New York, MacGraw Hill. 1967 1975 The Neolithic ofthe Near £ast. London, Thames and Hudson. NADEL D. 1988 Flint heat treatment at the beginning of the Neolithic period in the Levant (Hebrew). Mitekufat Haeven 22: 61-67. 1998 The Spolia/ Organization of Prehistoric Sites in the Jordan Valley: Kebaran. Ntlluflan and Neolithic Case Studies (Hebrew). (Unpublished PHD thesis) Jerusalem, Hebrew University. OAKLEY K. P. 1981 Emergence of higher thought, 3.0-0.2 Ma BP. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B292: 205-211. OSHRI A. and SCH ICK T. 1998 The lithics. In: T. SCHICK (ed.). The Cave ofthe Warrior. A Fourth Millennium Burial in the Judean Desert, lAA Reports No.5, Israel Antiquities Authority, Jerusalem. 6ZBA$ARAN M. in press Musu lar: A general assessment on a new Neolithic site in Central Anatolia. In: Neolithic in Turkey. Istanbul. 6ZDOGAN M. and OZDOGAN A. 1993 Buildings of cult and the cult ofbuildings. In: G. ARSEBUK, M.J. MELLINK and W. SCH IRMER (eds.), Light on the Top ofthe Black Hill. Studies presented to Halet C:ambel, pp. 581-60 I. Istanbul. Ege Yaymlan. PLOUX S. 1991 Technologie, technicite, techniciens: methodes de determination d'auteurs et technique individuel. In: 25 Ans d'Etudes Technologiques en Prehistoire, Xle Rencontre lnternationales d'Archeologie et Histoire d'Antibes, pp. 20 1-214, Juan-les-Pins, Editions APDCA. PREUCEL, R. W. (ed.) 1991 Processual and Postprocessual Archaeologies: Multiple Ways of Knowing the Past. Carbondale: Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University at Carbondale. PREUCEL R. W., and HODDER I. (eds.) 1996 Archaeology in Theo1y. A Reader. Oxford, Blackwell Publishers Inc. QUINTERO L. and WILKE P.J. 269 1995 Evolution and economic significance ofnaviform core and blade technology in the southern Levant. Paleorient21(1): 17-33. ROLLEFSON G. 0. 1983 Ritual and ceremony at Neolithic Ain Ghazal (Jordan). Paleorient9(2): 29-38. 1986 Neolithic 'Ain Ghazal (Jordan): Ritual and ceremony II. PahJorient 12: 45-52. 1998 'A in Ghazal (Jordan): Ritual and ceremony Ill. Paleorient 24:43-58. SACKETT J. R. 1976 The Meaning of Style in Archaeology: A General Model. American Antiquity 42(3): 369-381. 1981 Approaches to Style in Lithic Archaeology. Journal ofAnthropological Archaeology I: 59-I 12. 1988 Style and Ethnicity in Archaeology: The Case for lsochrestism. In: M. CONKEY and C. HASTROF (eds.), The Uses ofStyle, pp. 32-43. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. SCHMIDT K. 1995 Nevali Cori: Chronology and lntrasite Distribution of Lithic Tool Classes: Preliminary Results. In: S. K. KOSLOWSK I and H.G.K. GEBEL (eds.), Neolithic Chipped Stone Industries ofthe Fertile Crest.:enl. and Their Contemporaries in Adjacent Regions 3: 363-376. Berlin, e.x oriente. SHARON G. 1998 The Production ofTuwailan Knhles at Har Qeren XIV- Technological Aspects (in Hebrew). Unpublished seminar paper, Hebrew University, Jerusalem. SHEPPARD P. J. 1987 The Capsian ofNorth Aji·ica: Stylistic Variation in Stone Tool Assemblages. British Archaeological Reports, Intern. Series 353. Oxford. SCHMANDT-BESSERAT D. 1997 Animal Symbols at 'A in Ghazal. Expedition 39:48-58. STAPPERT D. 1989 The Ring and Sector Method: lntrasite Spatial Analysis of Stone Age Sites, With Special Reference 10 Pincevent. Palaeohistoria 31:1-57. STARCKJ.M. 1988 Comparative Analysis of Stone-ring Artefacts from Baga and Basta. In: A.N. GARRARD and H.G. GEBEL (eds.), The PrehistOIJ' ofJordan, pp. 137-174. British Archaeological Reports, Intern. Series 396. Oxford. STEKELIS M. and YISRAELY T. 1963 Excavations at Nahal Oren. Israel Exploration Journal 13: 1-13. TACON P. S.C. 1992 The power of stone: symbolic aspects of stone use and roo I development in western Arnhem Land. Australia. Antiquity 65:192-207. TCHERNOV E. and VALLA F. R. 1995 Two new dogs, and other Natufian dogs, fi·om the southern Levant. Journal ofArchaeological Science 24 (I): 65-95. UNGER-HAMILTON R. 1988 Natufian plant husbandry in the southern Levant and comparison with that of the Neolithic Periods: The lithic perspective. In: 0. BAR-YOSEF and F. R. VALLA (eds.), The Natujlan Culture in the Levam. pp. 483-520. Ann Arbor, International Monographs in Prehistory. VALLA F.R. 1988 Aspects de sol de L'abri 131 de Mallaha (Eynan). Paleoriem 14(2):283- 296 1989 Les Natoufiens de Mallaha et L'espace. In : 0. BAR-YOSEF and F.R. VALLA (eds.), The NW11/ian Culture in the Levan/, pp. II 1-122. International Monographs in Prehistory, Ann Arbor. 270 1996 L'animal "bon a penser": Ia domestication et Ia place de l'homme dans Ia nature. In: M. OTTE (ed.), Nature et Culture, vol. 2, Etudes et Recherches Archeologiques de I'Universite de Liege, pp. 651-667. 1999 Liege, I'Un iversite de Liege. The Natufian: A coherent thought? In: W. DAVIES and R. CHARLES (eds.), Dorothy Garrod and the Progress ofthe Palaeolithic, pp. 224-241. Oxford, Oxbow. VOLKMAN P. 1983 Boker Tachtit. Core reconstruction. In A. E. MARKS (ed.), Prehistory and Paleoenvironments in the Central Negev, Israel. Vol. Ill: The Avdat/Aqev Area, Part 3: 127-188. Dallas, SMU Press. WIESSNERP. 1983 Style and Social Information in Kalahari San Projectile Points. American Antiquity 48:253-276. 1988 Style and Changing Relations Between the Individual and Society. In: I. HODDER (ed.), The Meaning of Things, pp. 57-61. London, Harper-Collins Academic. WINTERHALDER B. and SM ITH E. A. 1981 Hunter-Gatherer Foraging Strategies. Chicago, University of Chicago Press. 271