finlayson et al. 2011. on the edge-southern levantine epipalaeolithic-neolithic chronological...

On the Edge: Southern LevantineEpipalaeolithicNeolithic Chronologicalsuccession

Bill Finlayson, Steven Mithen and Sam Smith

The broad picture of the cultural and chronological succession from the Epipalaeolithic to the

Neolithic in the southern Levant is generally well understood. However, at a more detailed, local

level, many questions remain unanswered. In this paper we examine the archaeological record of

cultural developments in southern Jordan and the Negev. Focusing on a series of 14C dates from

the early occupation of the PPNA site of WF16, we provide a critical review of dating evidence for

the region. This review suggests that while the 14C chronology is ambiguous and problematic

there is good evidence for a local historical development from the Harifian variant of the Natufian

to the early PPNA, well to the south of any core Mediterranean woodland zone. This stresses the

importance of considering developments at local scales of analysis, and that the Neolithic

transition occurred within a framework of many interacting sub-regional provinces.

Keywords: Neolithic, PPNA, Harifian, chronology, transition, WF16

Introduction

There is a broad consensus regarding the chronolo-

gical succession from Late Pleistocene to early

Holocene in the southern Levant (Jordan, Israel

and the Palestinian Territories). The overall sequence

of Natufian, PPNA and PPNB is not disputed, but at

a more detailed level there is much uncertainty and

debate. Most authors divide the Natufian into an

Early and Late phase, with some authors adding a

Final (Goring-Morris 1987; Valla 1995), although

this has not been uniformly adopted (cf. Byrd 2005).

A geographically and economically defined later

Natufian entity, the Harifian, has been identified in

the Negev (Goring-Morris 1987), although some

sources would see it as parallel to Neolithic cultures

rather than Natufian (Moore 1982).

The PPNA has frequently been divided into an early

Khiamian phase, followed by a Sultanian phase (e.g.

Cauvin 2000; Crowfoot Payne 1976; Goring-Morris

and Belfer-Cohen 1997; Ronen and Lechevallier

1999). This has been argued against on the basis of

archaeological results (Kuijt 1997; Mithen et al. 2000;

Pirie 2001), or interpreted as relating to function and

distribution rather than culture (Nadel 1990), or as

simply an artefact of taphonomy (Garfinkel 1996).

Edwards et al. (2004) note that the general term PPNA

is gaining ground over the two proposed sub-divisions.

However, despite the uncertainty over the presence of

this cultural divide, it remains an important part of

some models of neolithization, with the Sultanian being

interpreted as the real beginning of the Neolithic and

village life (Byrd 2005; Cauvin 2000) and the Khiamian

as a disintegration of a final Natufian way of life

(Goring-Moris and Belfer-Cohen 1997).

At first sight, this may appear to be a potentially

sterile debate over the semantics of cultural history

and the security of 14C dates, but it is central to our

understanding of the chronology and events surround-

ing the worlds first recorded transition from foraging

to farming societies, and consequently fundamental to

our attempts to explain how and why this process

occurred. Recent results from exploratory excavations

conducted at the site ofWF16 (Fig 1) inWadi Faynan,

southern Jordan (Finlayson and Mithen 2007) shed

some new light on this process.

Byrd, in a recent review paper (2005), has put

together all the 14C dates he considers to be secure

Bill Finlayson (corresponding author), Council for British Research in theLevant, London SW1Y 5AH, UK; email: [email protected]. StevenMithen, University of Reading, Reading RG6 6AH, UK; Sam Smith,Anthropology and Geography, Oxford Brookes University, Oxford OX30BP, UK

Council for British Research in the Levant 2011Published by ManeyDOI 10.1179/175638011X13112549592961 Levant 2011 VOL 43 NO 2 127

from the Natufian, Harifian and PPNA from the

Levant. He provides a useful review of the data, and

suggests that both the onset of sedentary complex

foraging in the Natufian and the onset of intensified

plant cultivation and village life in the PPNA

commence during periods of dramatic climate

improvement. His conclusion appears most easily

accepted for the Natufian, where he argues that only

one date precedes the start of the Blling era,

suggesting that the Natufian commences just after

the arrival of warmer and wetter conditions at 14,600

z/2 300 cal BP. He goes on to argue that the

Sultanian phase of the PPNA, which he associates

with village life, commences with a similar warming

event at the end of the Younger Dryas at 11,570z/2

10 cal BP. This correlation of climate improvement

with cultural change allows him to suggest that the

opportunities presented by richer environments

allowed people to make choices to change their ways

of life, rather than the more typical models where

people are forced to adapt due to climate deteriora-

tion or population pressure.

The Harifian and the PPNA

Byrds inclusion of the Harifian as a discrete entity on

his chronological chart for the Natufian is interesting

(Byrd 2005, fig. 2). The Harifian is a clearly defined

entity (Bar-Yosef 1975) that by and large does not

play a major role in modelling the transition from

foraging to farming. Rather it is seen as a reversion to

a simple foraging society from the early Natufian

once the Younger Dryas commenced, variously

indicated to entirely precede the PPNA (Goring-

Morris 1987) or to overlap with it somewhat (Belfer-

Cohen and Bar-Yosef 2000). However, the chart of

calibrated 14C dates provided by Byrd shows that the

Harifian in general succeeds the Natufian and that

there are remarkably few overlapping dates in the

southern Levant (Byrd 2005, fig. 2). This reflects an

acknowledged problem with the final stages of the

Natufian in the southern Levant, both in its definition

with descriptions implying both a return to greater

mobility (Belfer-Cohen and Bar-Yosef 2000), and in

the paucity of dates (Valla 1995). The gap in the

dating sequence between Natufian and PPNA is

generally ignored. Byrd (2005, 251) states that the

vast majority of late Natufian occurred within the

subsequent Younger Dryas climatic era (c. 12,900 to

11,600 cal BP). In fact, only two of the Natufian dates

he presents fall entirely within this period. A further

date from the Late Natufian Hilazon Tachtit cave of

12,765 to 12,560 cal BP (10,750 z/2 50 uncal BP)

that he does not include also falls into this period

(Grosman 2003), and there are new dates from the

later phases at Mallaha which partly fill the gap, but

there is some uncertainty as several are collective sam-

ples, and some of the dates provided fall well after the

Natufian, cf. Valladas and Kalteneker (2007). There

are no Final Natufian dates from east of the Jordan

(cf. Valla 1998). It is only the Harifian in the south,

and the developments generally seen as paralleling

the Natufian in the northern Levant (dating from c.

13,200 cal BP, see Delage 2004 for a recent

discussion of the use of the term Natufian), that

have dates from this period. Byrds figure 3, showing

the dates of PPNA sites, indicates only a small

cluster of five dates that he mostly attributes to the

Khiamian, that lie before the 11,570 z/2 10 cal BP

onset of the preboreal warm phase. Four of these

dates are actually from Mureybet in the northern

Levant. If these northern dates and the southern

Harifian dates are not included, then there is a

significant gap in the chronological succession be-

tween Natufian and PPNA in what has been seen as

the core zone centred around the Jordan valley (e.g.

Bar-Yosef 2001).

The Harifian is not generally seen as providing a

useful link between the Natufian and PPNA as it is

interpreted as a reversion to a more mobile, less

complex, hunter-gatherer system, a short lived

attempt at an arid adaptation (Belfer-Cohen and

Figure 1 Map showing location of WF16 and other sites

discussed in text. 1. Abu Salem; 2. Ramat Harif;

3. Maale Ramon East; 4. Dhra and ZAD II; 5.

Jericho; 6. Fazael IV; 7. Hilazon Tachtit; 8. Tell

Aswad; 9. Abu Hureyra; 10. Mureybet; 11. Djade

Finlayson et al. On the Edge

128 Levant 2011 VOL 43 NO 2

Bar-Yosef 2000, 30) that disappears without trace

(Goring-Morris 1987, 442). It is generally interpreted

as being Epipalaeolithic in nature, not Neolithic

(Goring-Morris 1991). Goring-Morris and Belfer-

Cohen see the Final Natufian as commencing with

the Younger Dryas and interpret the Harifian as a

self-contained Final Natufian subsistence system

(Goring-Morris and Belfer-Cohen 1997, 82). Goring-

Morris believed that environmental conditions in the

Negev prevented the Harifian population from

crossing the threshold to food production (1987,

448). After the Harifian disappears, the Negev is

generally thought not to have been reoccupied until

later climatic improvements allowed PPNB people to

move in. The Harifian therefore provides an impor-

tant example of hunter-gatherer diversity, adaptation

to local environmental conditions, and the possibility

of groups choosing to abandon complexity and

intensive foraging, without turning to cultivation. It

thus underlines the fact that the Neolithic was far

from being an inevitable outcome. Arguably, the

increasing mobility that can be observed was simply

an extension of a phenomenon that appears to have

occurred more widely during the Late Natufian of the

southern Levant.

Chronologically, Goring-Morris and Belfer-Cohen

see the final Harifian as briefly contemporary with the

Khiamian (1997, 83), and Goring-Morris believes there

is some evidence for contacts between Khiamian and

Harifian (Goring-Morris 1991). Importantly, they

believe the Khiamian to be a real phenomenon

(10,25010,100/10,000 BP) representing the culmina-

tion of Late/Final Natufian trends of disintegration

(1997, 82), which they describe as a crisis, with the

Sultanian starting 10,000 BP and representing the

appearance of the first real villages in the area. Given

their interpretation of the Harifian and Khiamian, it is

not surprising that they look to the Mediterranean

woodland zone for the roots of that transition, despite

the paucity of dated material.

In a similar manner, Valla (1995) argues that the

end of the Natufian represents a dislocation (1995,

183) in the Levantine sequence, with much of the

area, including the Carmel and Galilee, becoming

uninhabited. He notes that with the end of the

Harifian the Negev is deserted until the PPNB, and

Mureybet on the Euphrates represents the only

example of uninterrupted human presence in the

same location (1995, 183). He also sees the Khiamian

as a period of ephemeral hunter-gatherers

Figure 2 14C dates from Harian sites and PPNA WF16 (MRE and MRW are Maale Ramon East and West)


Levant 2011 VOL 43 NO 2 129

followed by the Sultanian which picks up earlier

architectural traditions. It remains unclear however,

from where, after a dislocation, such traditions

would have been picked up.

Here we suggest that data from southern Jordan

and the Negev challenge both the applicability of the

Khiamian to early PPNA evidence from this region,

and also notions of dislocation during this time.

New evidence from the site of WF16, coupled with

a critical review of the Harifian C14 chronology,

suggest a degree of regional occupational continuity

spanning the Younger Dryas-Holocene transition.

New dates from WF16

WF16 is a PPNA site that has been sampled by the

trial excavation of three small trenches and a number

of test pits (Finlayson and Mithen 2007). New

excavations at WF16 conducted from 2008 have not

focused on the earliest occupation of the site (Mithen

et al. 2009). The series of dates from WF16 (Fig. 2,

Table 1) appears at first glance to provide an almost

exact parallel to the Harifian sequence, except that

the material dated is clearly PPNA. These dates do

not suggest an overlap at the end of the Harifian, but

a parallel presence for the entire duration of the

Harifian, and taken at face value start well within the

Younger Dryas. This has clear significance for

models which correlate the PPNA with the begin-

nings of Holocene warming. Moreover, we argue

that the evidence from WF16 suggests that there is

no cultural distinction between a short-lived early

Khiamian and subsequent Sultanian (Pirie 2001)

an interpretation supported by recent work at Dhra

(Goodale et al. 2002). Byrds model relies on a clear

separation of Khiamian and Sultanian, the associa-

tion of architecture only with the Sultanian, and

on a strict chronological succession (Byrd 2005, 239).

This argument is required to demonstrate the clear

relationship between climate amelioration and the

beginning of the PPNA (Sultanian).

At WF16, in well-stratified deposits, there is no

clear distinction between the two cultural entities,

architecture is present in all trenches and from the

earliest occupation of the site, and there is no evidence

for chronological succession from Khiamian to Sul-

tanian in the chipped stone assemblage (Pirie 2001;

2007). Indeed, whilst there is variability in many

realms (including material culture, burial practices and

Figure 3 14C dates from Trench 2 at WF16, arranged in stratigraphic order. Note that Cupressaceae dates are in strati-

graphic order



architecture) throughout the PPNA sequence at

WF16, this does not correlate well with a simple

subdivision into earlier (Khiamian) and later (Sul-

tanian) phases. Rather, the emerging evidence from

WF16 appears to show a complex web of variability

incorporating spatial, functional and chronological

factors. We believe that unravelling the causes of

such variability is actually the goal of our work, a

goal not helped by attempts to pigeonhole evidence

into an increasingly ill-fitting and poorly dated

cultural framework.

In light of the uncertainty in the debate mentioned

at the beginning of this paper, the difficulty in

recognizing Khiamian and Sultanian entities at

WF16 should come as no surprise. However, Byrd

(2005) also refers to the Aswadian in the central

Levant as further evidence for his argument, although

recent work by Stordeur (2003) has effectively

removed the PPNA Aswadian from the PPNA map,

leaving a gap between the southern and northern

Levant at this stage. This is more significant than

simple chronology; Tell Aswad was the main source

Table 1 Dates from Harifan sites and WF16. Calibrated using OxCal 4?0 IntCal04 (source: Wadi Faynan 16, Finlayson andMithen 2007, Harian sites from Goring-Morris 1987.

Cal BP (95?4%)

Site material lab no C14 BP z/2 level from to

Abu Salem charcoal Pta-3292 10550 90 12805 12169charcoal Pta-3293 10420 100 12695 11989charcoal Pta-3291 10140 80 12074 11396charcoal Pta-3080 11660 90 13719 13319charcoal Pta-3290 10340 90 12616 11823charcoal I-5498 9970 150 trashpit 1 1525 12067 11136charcoal I-5500 10230 150 trashpit 1 4555 12600 11336charcoal Pta-3289 10300 100 12610 11708charcoal I-5499 10230 150 trashpit 1 2530 12600 11336

Ramat Harif (G-VIII) charcoal Pta-3009 10500 100 Structure 3 12778 12115charcoal Pta-3284 10380 100 Structure 3 12676 11830charcoal Pta-3001 10300 100 Structure 3 12610 11708charcoal Pta-3285 10390 110 Structure 3 12700 11826charcoal Pta-3288 10250 100 Structure 7 12572 11412charcoal Pta-3286 10100 100 Structure 7 12051 11289

Maale Ramon East charcoal Pta-3371 10530 100 12795 12148charcoal Pta-3483 10430 80 12665 12065

Maale Ramon West charcoal Pta-3483? 10400 100 12688 11845charcoal RT-1068N 10000 200 12385 10868

Abu Maadi I charcoal Pta-2699 10110 100 8 12070 11293charcoal Pta-4568 9970 120 10 11969 11200charcoal Pta-4572 9790 100 10 11604 10786charcoal Pta-4551 9790 100 11 11604 10786charcoal Pta-4552 9920 80 11 11706 11201charcoal Pta-4580 9880 80 12 11691 11174charcoal Pta-4577 9870 100 12 11752 11103

Wadi Faynan 16 contextWF32801 charcoal beta 135110 9180 50 329 10493 10238WF32802 charcoal beta 135111 10220 50 332 12132 11751WF163 charcoal beta120205 9690 50 111 11226 10795WF164 charcoal beta120206 9420 50 111 10777 10509WF165 charcoal beta120207 9400 50 112 10750 10506WF168 charcoal beta120210 10190 50 210 12078 11648WF169 charcoal beta120211 9890 50 211 11598 11202WF1610 ficus beta192520 9900 40 126 11403 11215WF1611 cupressaceae beta192521 10500 40 130 12692 12242WF1612 tamrix sp. beta192522 9880 40 148 11391 11212WF1613 ficus beta192523 9920 40 151 11599 11230WF1614 cupressaceae beta192524 10150 40 232 12026 11621WF1615 cupressaceae beta192525 10350 40 239 12386 12045WF1616 cupressaceae beta192526 10420 40 241 12602 12109WF1617 cupressaceae beta192527 10440 40 243 12625 12135WF1619 charcoal beta192529 9870 40 330 11387 11206WF1620 cupressaceae beta192530 10340 40 332 12385 12033WF1621 tamrix sp. beta192531 9950 40 327 11604 11246WF1622 charred barley beta208671 9560 40 239 11093 10729WF1623 charred bromus beta208672 9430 40 238 10761 10566WF1624 charcoal beta209010 9140 40 310 10415 10225



of evidence that plant domestication had occurred

during the PPNA, a further feature used to suggest a

major change at the start of the Preboreal and

Sultanian. Recent work in the northern Levant

muddies this water still further by suggesting the

beginnings of cultivation occur during the Terminal

Pleistocene and intensifies throughout the PPNA,

with evidence for cultivation of domestic plant

species not apparent in the region (at Djade) until

y10,300 BP and the early PPNB (Willcox et al. 2009 ).These results, along with much recent field data,

increasingly blur the boundary between Terminal

Pleistocene and early Holocene lifeways in the region,

complicating attempts to correlate climate change,

culture history and socio-economic development at a

pan regional scale.

The apparently early WF16 dates require inter-

pretation. The lowest levels so far excavated at WF16

had no seeds to date, and all the dates are on wood

charcoal (Mithen and Finlayson 2007). The earliest

dates obtained are all on charcoal that either could

not be identified or was identified as Cupressaceae,

most likely Juniperus sp., probably J. phoenicea

(Austin 2007). Unidentified samples come from con-

texts that have a prevalence of Cupressaceae. The use

of juniper for 14C dating is known to be problematic

owing to the potential longevity of such trees they

can live up to 1000 years. One of the key juniper trees

used in the dendrochrological studies by Manning

et al. (2005) was 918 years when cut down, while

Touchan and Hughes (1999) have established a

dendrochronological record of 396 years using living

samples of J. phoenicea from southern Jordan. Whe-

ther the area immediately around Wadi Faynan

would ever have supported trees of this age is a

different matter. We were unable to establish whether

the Cupressaceae samples we submitted for dating

came from the outermost rings of the trees, but some

of the wood on-site, possibly including Cupressaceae,

included mature roundwood with evidence for fungal

degradation, suggesting it might have been collected

as deadwood. The 14C dates from our samples

therefore have the potential to be several hundred

years older than the human activity at WF16 that we

wished to date.

However, there is growing evidence that we should

also apply some caution when considering dates

obtained on charred seeds/grains. Nesbitt (2002)

points out that most of the directly dated domes-

ticated cereal grains (8/12 seeds) recovered from

Epipalaeolithic levels at Abu Hureyra have yielded

Neolithic period dates, showing the potential tapho-

nomic issues with dates obtained on small seed/grain

samples. More generally, Perles (1996), discussing the

fact that seed dates tend to be several hundred years

younger than dates on wood charcoal, notes that old

wood may not provide an adequate explanation for

this trend, stating, it is hardly conceivable (or even

feasible) that the wood gathered daily for fireplaces

should have been systematically several hundred

years old. Is there not, then, an intrinsic problem

with seeds? (Perles 1996, 418). Whilst it is not our

intention to develop such an argument here, we feel

that it is important to raise the possibility that dates

on seeds/grains may be problematic in several ways

and that dates on seeds should not always be assumed

to be more reliable than those obtained on charcoal.

Indeed, at WF16 we have very clear evidence of both

animal burrows and bioturbation caused by insects,

either of which may lead to the presence of intrusive

seeds/grains which, if dated, would provide erro-

neously young dates for the dated levels.

Given the scarcity of PPNA dates, we should

perhaps not be too concerned that new excavations

have produced dates that would extend the start of

the PPNA as normally defined (e.g. Kuijt and

Goring-Morris 2002). However, to do so solely on

the basis of what may be old dates from juniper

would appear unwise. If we accepted the dates as

straightforwardly correct, they would imply that the

bulk of activity in Trench 2 occurred at the height of

the Younger Dryas, while those in Trench 1 occurred

in the early Holocene. There is a slight increase in

species diversity for plants (Kennedy 2007), mammals

(Carruthers and Dennis 2007) and birds (Rielly 2007)

from Trench 2 to 1, which might be seen as evidence

for climatic amelioration, but the differences are not

marked and may be explained as a consequence of

small sample sizes, spatial variation in activities and/

or formation processes rather than changing environ-

mental contexts for human activity. Moreover, there

are no apparent differences between the potentially

more sensitive environmental indicator of the micro-

fauna from Trenches 1 and 2 (Edwards and Martin

2007).

Although we were unable to use seeds for dating

for the earliest contexts, we do have two seed dates

from contexts in Trench 2 (see Fig. 3) containing

early charcoal based dates. A charred barley grain,

WF1622 (context 239) returned a date of 11,093 to

10,729 cal BP (956040 14C BP) from the same

context as a Cupressaceae sample with a date of 12,390

to 12,050 cal BP (10,35040 14C BP) (WF1615). At

first glance, this appears to support the notion that the

charcoal dates are too old, however context 239

represents a phase of abandonment, so material could



have accumulated in this layer over an extended

period. Elsewhere, a charred bromus seed fragment,

WF1623 (context 238) which returned a date of 10,761

to 10,566 cal BP (943040 14C BP) came from a

stratigraphically related context to an unidentified

wood charcoal sample with a date of 12,055 to 11,720

cal BP (10,19040 14C BP) (WF1608 [context 210]).

Unfortunately, context 210 was identified in the first

season of trial excavation on the site, when only a very

small trench had been excavated. Subsequent work

separated it into a series of horizons, including a floor,

the fill below that floor, and a lower abandonment

episode, later noted to be below the abandonment

episode labelled context 239, casting some doubt on

the veracity of the supposed association of these

dates. (For detailed context analysis and matrix, see

Finlayson and Mithen 2007, note that the matrix

may oversimplify context 210, and the reconciliation

of the 1997 context 210 with higher resolution

contexts from later seasons is possibly oversimplified

on the matrix, and 210 should include contexts 222

and 239.) The seed samples do come from below

context (232) from which a sample of Cupressaceae

returned a date of 12,026 cal BP 11,621 (10,150

40 14C BP) (WF1614), this sample is clearly out of

sequence and probably represents recycling of old

charcoal material. However, the majority of the

early wood charcoal dates are stratigraphically

below the seed dates.

We argue that four phases of human activity could

be inferred from the archaeological deposits in

Trench 2 (Finlayson and Mithen 2007). Only the

two earliest concern us here. Phase 1 is represented by

the construction of a large boulder wall, floor

construction, the positioning of a quern and of a

multiple burial within a pit. The burial was then

partly covered by a further floor which was cut

through to reopen the burial deposit. Phase 2,

separated from Phase 1 by a period of abandonment,

is represented by an accumulation of floor layers,

occupation deposits and trampling episodes. In our

previous synthesis of these dates, we argued that

there was one dated sample relating to Phase 1,

WF1617, providing a date between 12,60012,100 cal

BP (Finlayson and Mithen 2007). As the wood

concerned is juniper, this date might be between 500

and 1000 years earlier than the date of human

activity causing deposition of this wood, perhaps

making the activity more likely to be 12,100 cal BP at

the earliest, but it could be as young as 11,100 cal BP.

The dated context is a fill of the burial, which was

reopened, so the date may represent this activity

rather than the primary burial activity. As there is an

effectively identical Cupressaceae date (WF1616)

from the floor which we think was the surface from

which the burial was reopened, the former inter-

pretation is perhaps more likely. Here we suggest that

a re-evaluation of the stratigraphic record suggests

that most of the abandonment previously assigned to

the Phase 2 sequence should actually be regarded as

the final stage of Phase 1. In this light, Samples

WF168, 169, 1615, 1616 and 1617 may all relate

broadly to the Phase 1 activity, with the seed dates

(WF1622 and WF1623) and the out-of-sequence

Cupressaceae date (WF1614) relating to the second

phase of activity, the accumulation of successive

layers of floors, occupation deposits and trampling

horizons.

Correcting the Cupressaceae samples by about

1000 years, including the one from stratigraphically

above the dated seeds, would produce a range that

encompasses that of the seeds and still falls within a

correct stratigraphic sequence. However, this does

require that the fairly tight cluster of dates are all of

old wood from the extreme end of the possible

margin of error, which is perhaps an unlikely scenario

as Perles (1996) suggests. In the original site report

(Finlayson and Mithen 2007) we adopted a con-

servative position and suggested that the earliest

dated activity in each trench begins at around 11,600

BP, the end of the Younger Dryas, taking into

account our corrections for old wood. But we noted

that it is unfortunate that the stratigraphically earliest

dates are on Cupressaceae as this creates uncertainty

as to how much we should correct for the use of old

wood (Mithen and Finlayson 2007). However, this is

not the only interpretation of the data. Here, we raise

the possibility, based on analysis of stratigraphy, a

consideration of the old wood problem and the

known problems associated with dates on seeds, that

we should not necessarily assume the need for a

maximal correction to all the early wood charcoal

dates, and suggest that PPNA activity at WF16 may

have commenced before the termination of the

Younger Dryas.

Old wood and the Harifian

This brings us to the Harifian dates. Published

accounts (Goring-Morris 1987) list these simply as

charcoal, and it appears that most of the samples

were not identified to species before submission for

dating, although at Maaleh Ramon East, of the four

samples one was on acacia and another on juniper

(Goring-Morris pers. comm.). Of 6000 identified

samples (not those used for dating) at both Abu

Salem and Ramat Harif, over 99% was identified as



pistacia (Baruch and Goring-Morris 1997) and it

therefore seems safe to assume that many of the dated

samples were pistacia. Pistacia trees are also poten-

tially long-lived (there are several living trees in the

Beidha area which are thought to be around

800 years old), and there may therefore be an old

wood problem within the Harifian. The most obvious

reason for accepting the Harifian dates at face value

is again their good clustering. Given that the dates

come from several distinct sites, this argument is

probably more robust for the Harifian than at WF16,

but the distinction is not great, as each of the three

areas at WF16 has dates belonging to this cluster.

Dating problems are rather more typical of

Natufian/early Neolithic dating than we might wish;

recently Aurenche et al. (2001) produced a calibrated14C chronology for the period, and out of 1300

radiocarbon determinations selected only 731 reliable

ones, and that was largely related to problems with

the dates, not difficulties with contexts and old wood.

At present, logic would appear to suggest that we

can either simply accept both the WF16 and Harifian

wood charcoal dates as broadly accurate reflections

of the date of occupation of the sites, or perhaps

more safely suggest that all such wood charcoal dates

provide dates that are too early by an uncertain

number of years up to around 1000 at maximum, but

more likely around an average of only 500 years. In

either scenario we can see that the earliest PPNA

remains at WF16 and the Harifian are, if not

precisely contemporary, likely to be very close in

age. The above discussion serves to highlight the

limitations imposed by the present state of our

absolute chronology for this critical transition, which

lacks both accuracy and precision and is sufficiently

flexible to allow for multiple interpretations of the

evidence.

The regional context

In order to understand the significance of the new

WF16 dates, it is necessary to commence in the local

region. WF16 is located south of the Dead Sea, on

the eastern side of the Wadi Arabah not far north

of the area on the western side of the Wadi Arabah

where the Harifian has been identified. Given the

contemporary or near-contemporary nature of the

Harifian sites and WF16, and the lack of significant

spatial overlap between PPNA and Harifian despite

their relatively close proximity (Marks and Scott

1976), it seems sensible to consider what may be

happening in this southern region. While develop-

ments in the Harif may have required a complex

pattern of mobility that did not lead to increased

sedentism and the start of a low level food production

economy, such developments may have been ongoing

close by in Wadi Faynan, where the rich environment

of the immediate vicinity permitted people to make

the choice to continue to intensify their use of

resources and stay more and more in one place.

One of the key features that has been used to

identify the PPNA has been the rapid decrease and

then disappearance of microliths, and the appearance

of points, in particular the el-Khiam point, a highly

variable form, but uniformly characterized by pairs

of notches towards its base. This notched point form

continues to be made into the PPNB when it is

replaced by a suite of mostly larger PPNB points

made on blades produced on naviform cores, a

hallmark of most PPNB assemblages. Points of

various forms become so significant in chipped stone

assemblages that an alternative name suggested for

the PPNB has been the Big Arrow Industries

(Kozlowski 1999). Intriguingly, the Harifian is the

only Natufian related culture to have produced

points, in this case predominately the Harif point.

While these are morphologically quite distinct from

the el-Khiam point, their appearance in the south

close to one of the earliest PPNA sites so far

published is striking. Furthermore, there are

instances of el-Khiam points in the Negev, indeed

Noy et al. (1981) classified the site of Nahal Lavan

108 as PPNA on the basis of the presence of these

points. Goring-Morris states that, although rare, they

do occur on Harifian sites, citing this as evidence of

contact between the two groups. He suggests that the

assemblage at Nahal Lavan 108 may belong to the

terminal Harifian, partly on the basis of stone tool

characteristics, and partly because no PPNA proper

has been identified in the Negev (Goring-Morris

1987, 360). He argues that the el-Khiam points from

Nahal Lavan 108 are stylistically between el-Khiam

points and Harifian points: certainly not all the points

illustrated by Noy et al. have the typical notches of el-

Khiam points. Whatever the precise affinities of

Nahal Lavan 108, when it is considered alongside the

new WF16 dates, it seems clear that contact between

these possibly contemporaneous groups must have

been strong, whether the stylistic similarities between

the nature of the points indicates a chronological

succession, or a cultural exchange.

The architecture of WF16 and the Harifian sites

also has striking similarities. This is very obvious

when a photograph of Abu Salem is compared to the

structures in Trench 2 (the earliest part of the site) at

WF16 (where walls and stone slabs with cupholes are

near identical [Fig. 4, based on Goring-Morris 1991,



fig. 10, 185, and Finlayson and Mithen 2007, fig.

6.44]). Structures at both sites are semi-subterra-

nean, sub-circular, made of undressed stone, without

significant freestanding walls or postholes. At 3?0

3?5 m across, the Harifian buildings are also similar

in size to the Trench 2 WF16 structures. Archi-

tectural practices vary at WF16; as yet it is not clear

how much this is a chronological or functional

differentiation.

This relationship between an early southern PPNA

and the Harifian is important. Firstly, it changes the

geographical focus of the transition to the Neolithic

from the Mediterranean woodland zone to a more

arid region in the south. The recent results from

fieldwork in the south of Jordan at WF16, Dhra

(Finlayson et al. 2003) and Zahrat adh-Dhra 2

(Edwards et al. 2004) all emphasize that this area was

not peripheral. Secondly, it raises the possibility that

in the late Pleistocene/early Holocene people were

developing very different solutions to climate change.

At present, we cannot yet resolve issues relating to

chronological or environmental differences, but it is

clear that people recognized the possibility of making

choices, economic and social, regarding how they

coped with new circumstances. As Fish and Fish

(1991, 401) observed, we should not ask how different

triggering mechanisms pushed or pulled earlier

groups away from standard hunter-gatherer beha-

viour, rather we should consider the role of human

agency. Thirdly, the almost simultaneous advent of

point forms in cultures transforming themselves in

different ways emphasizes the cultural value of such

tools, rather than their functional nature. This has

been confirmed by use-wear analysis of the el-Khiam

points and other pointed tools from both WF16 and

Dhra by Smith (2007a and b).

The continuity of transition

It is frequently argued that the Natufian represents

a complex hunter-gatherer system, with decreasing

mobility and an increasing population, based on cla-

ssic hunter-gatherer ethnography (e.g. Henry 1989).

The archaeological evidence, however, does not show

this, at least not in a straightforward manner (cf.

Finlayson 2009; 2011). It does suggest increasing

sedentism, an increasingly sophisticated use of the

landscape and its resources, and possibly an increased

sense of territorial ownership. These emerge from a

trend towards more substantial architecture, more

storage features, greater accumulation of deposits

and burials. However, it does not show a significant

rise in population (the number of structures likely to

have been in use at any one time on most sites

probably remained small), nor the accumulation of

surpluses leading to increased hierarchies (analysis

of storage features suggests that these belonged to

individual families, and were not sufficiently large,

elaborate or numerous to argue that people were

banking a surplus [Kuijt and Finlayson 2009]).

Olszewski provides a detailed review of the claims

for Natufian complexity, and comes to the conclu-

sion that there is little evidence to support the widely

accepted paradigm (Olszewski 1991). Other scholars

have echoed this: strontium analysis of Natufian

skeletal material does not appear to indicate sedent-

ism (Shewan 2004), and Edwards suggests that the

commonly cited evidence of commensals does not

provide such a clear-cut case for sedentism (Edwards

1989).

There are, however, indications of an increasingly

materialized social behaviour. Natufian people began

to produce increasing quantities of decorated arte-

facts, including male and female symbols and beads,

possibly for decorated garments. There appears to

have been increasing attention paid to burial rites.

While specific practices change and develop, these are

all activities that presage the dramatic rise in material

Figure 4 WF16 Trench 2 and Abu Salem (with kind per-

mission from Nigel Goring-Morris)



symbolism that occurs during the Neolithic. This,

combined with elements of continuity between Natu-

fian architecture and PPNA architecture, all argues

that there must have been some continuity between

the two, rather than abandonment of parts of the

country, with an ephemeral Khiamian surviving in

crisis conditions.

One model to explain this is that, following the

same pattern as provided by Byrds chart of dates,

the centre of development moved to the Middle

Euphrates area. This argument, largely promulgated

by the so-called school of Lyon (see Delage 2004 for a

discussion of differing research traditions), fits within

a historical model that appears to identify core areas

for each period that provide the driving force for

development. The idea of centre and periphery that

appears in various forms in debates regarding the

Natufian (for example, the Neolithic homeland,

Bar-Yosef 2001) generally implies a relative super-

iority (Valla 1998) for the centre. Valla argues that

the rise of the Harifian corresponds with a weakening

of the centre. A set of alternative views have recently

been expressed which see the process of neolithization

as a mosaic happening within a broad region

(Rollefson and Gebel 2004). It does not seem

necessary to argue for such core/periphery relation-

ships in late Natufian/early Neolithic societies, where

local developments in response to local conditions

will always have been required, and this appears to be

reflected in the broadly synchronous but distinctive

PPNA developments throughout the southern and

northern Levant.

One argument that can be put forward is that,

while the core of the Natufian homeland was

apparently undergoing a period of reduced popula-

tion, in Wadi Faynan a peripheral group continued

to develop the Natufian way of life, increasing

sedentism and control of the environment. This is

the opposite solution to that applied a short distance

away in the Harif, but, although Wadi Faynan is on

the margins of the arid zone, the springs and streams

that flow into it from the Jordanian plateau may have

ameliorated climate deterioration creating a refugia

of sorts (Smith et al. 2011). The burial rites,

production of figurines and beads and continued

development of architecture, all present at WF16,

suggest that here at least there is direct continuity

between Natufian and PPNA.

It is, of course, not essential that we see the PPNA

as having an early start solely in the south of Jordan.

Early dates from PPNA Jericho (c. 12,60011,700 cal

BP), the type site of the Sultanian (Crowfoot Payne

1976), have largely been dismissed and are highly

problematic both contextually and with large stan-

dard deviations (Bar-Yosef and Gopher 1997); they

do, perhaps, suggest that the chronology of the

PPNA is yet to be resolved. Valla (1998) argues that

there is continuity between Natufian and PPNA in

central Palestine, represented by the site of Fazael IV.

The nearest PPNA site to WF16, Dhra, has as yet no

dates placing it as early as the wood charcoal from

WF16, but there are dates from just after 12,000 cal

BP (Finlayson et al. 2003). No dates have yet been

obtained from the final 2005 season, during which

deeper stratified deposits were located, which will

presumably be at least slightly earlier. It is tempting

to suspect that the apparent abandonment of the

Galilee and Carmel during the final Natufian does

not represent an absence of a Natufian population, so

much as the appearance of the PPNA. Valla has

suggested that around 10,300 uncal BP le Natoufien,

partout dans le Levant, a evolue vers autre chose

(Valla 1987, 273): we would move this forward by a

few hundred years.

Conclusion

WF16 shows a material culture continuity in terms of

architecture and lithics from the Late Natufian, and is

occupied all the way through the PPNA period with

no significant division into what could be described as

Khiamian or Sultanian. The final dates overlap with

those from PPNB Ghuwayr 1 a few hundred metres

away. The PPNA site of WF16 is therefore crucial as

it represents a definite point of continuity in the

southern Levant between the Natufian/Harifian and

PPNB. The early village Neolithic associated by Byrd

with the start of the preboreal may conceivably

commence at WF16 during the Younger Dryas, at

the same time as evidence is showing that domes-

ticated plants do not appear until well into the

Holocene.

The significance of these suggestions goes far

beyond semantics, and has direct relevance for our

understanding of the nature, timing and causes of the

Neolithic transition in south-west Asia. If, as we

suggest, the PPNA at WF16 develops during the

Terminal Pleistocene from local variants of the late/

final Natufian/Harifian and that, in this region

at least, there is no evidence for a transitional

Khiamian phase then models, such as that proposed

by Byrd (2005), become less plausible. If the earliest

Neolithic villages (although we are not convinced by

the use of this terminology, Finlayson et al. in press)

were not limited to the well-watered Mediterranean

zone, and were not caused by the onset of Holocene

warming, and did not develop following late



Natufian/Khiamian disintegration, then we need to

develop alternative explanations for this phenom-

enon. We suggest that much recent data, from WF16

and elsewhere, does not fit well with many existing,

pan regional models of neolithization and that there

is a clear and pressing need to develop more locally

based, well dated sequences of cultural change which

can be directly tied into local reconstructions of

palaeoenvironment. It is only in this way, and at this

scale of analysis, that the complex interconnections

between social and economic change, environment,

climate and culture can be understood.

In a fluid and rapidly changing research environ-

ment, where much current thinking argues for the

polycentric nature of Neolithic developments (cf.

Gebel 2004), the task of constructing local histories

and developmental trajectories becomes key. Part of

such research will require a recognition that cultural

developments, such as the adoption of symmetrical

projectile points, may not necessarily be synchro-

nous across the wider south-west Asian region, and

that the various elements of our cultural packages

will likely have varying developmental trajectories

which differ across both time and space. At a broader

scale, different localities, with different environmen-

tal characteristics and historical trajectories, are likely

to have become Neolithic at different times and by

following rather different routes. Clearly, however,

any such research must be underpinned by the

establishment of accurate, and ideally precise, chron-

ological sequences. Whilst we are clearly some way

from achieving this goal at WF16, we hope that we

have at least outlined the pressing need for such

research.

In this paper we have concentrated heavily on the

south of Jordan and Israel. It appears probable that

other areas (especially Jericho where within the small

areas of early material that were exposed there was

both Natufian and PPNA) also maintained a

dynamic and developing culture in the PPNA.

However, one of the problems that affects early

Neolithic archaeology in the Levant is the desire to

create regional models that explain all aspects of

the transition. Wide-ranging phenomena that spread

over huge areas, such as the appearance of the el-

Khiam point, distract us from the local variations in

the archaeological record. Neither the Natufian/

Harifian nor the PPNA appear to have good

ethnographic analogues, and the use of generalized

models of hunter-gather complexity and sedentism

serves more to mask the specifics of each culture,

rather than help us understand it. During this period

of rapid climate change and the development of local

responses, it is important that we try to understand

what is happening within each area and, we argue, to

do this will require more accurate and precise dating

of archaeological sequences. The rich database pro-

vided by the southern Jordanian PPNA and the

Harifian of the Negev provides a rare opportunity to

examine variation and change within a specific re-

gion. Rather than being seen as dead ends languish-

ing on the margins of the Neolithic world, we believe

that developing an understanding of the Terminal

Pleistocene and early Holocene communities of this

region, has the potential to significantly enrich our

perceptions of one of the ways in which the Neolithic

came into being.

BibliographyAustin, P. (1997) The wood charcoal macroremains. Pp.40819 in

Finlayson and Mithen 2007.

Aurenche, O., Galet, P., Regagnon-Caroline, E. and Evin, J. (2001)

Proto-Neolithic and Neolithic cultures in the Middle East the

birth of agriculture, livestock raising, and ceramics: A calibrated14C chronology 12,5005500 cal BC. Radiocarbon 43, 1191202.

Baruch, U. and Goring-Morris, A. N. (1997) The arboreal vegetation

of the Central Negev Highlands, Israel, at the end of the

pleistocene: Evidence from archaeological charred wood remains.

Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 6/4, 24959.

Bar-Yosef, O. (1975) The Epi-Palaeolithic of Palestine and Sinai.

Pp.36378 in F. Wendorf and A. E. Marks (eds), Problems in

Prehistory: North Africa and the Levant. Dallas: SMU Press.

(2001) From sedentary foragers to village hierarchies: The

emergence of social institutions. P. 138 in W. G. Runciman

(ed.), The Origin of Human Social Institutions. Proceedings of the

British Academy 110. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

and Gopher, A. (eds) (1997) An Early Neolithic Village in the Jordan

Valley, Part I: The Archaeology of Netiv Hagdud. American

School of Prehistoric Research Bulletin 43, Peabody Museum of

Archaeology and Ethnology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard

University.

Belfer-Cohen, A. and Bar-Yosef, O. (2000) Early sedentism in the Near

East: A bumpy ride to village life. Pp.1938 in I. Kuijt (ed.), Life in

Neolithic Farming Communities: Social Organization, Identity, and

Differentiation. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Press.

Byrd, B. (2005) Reassessing the emergence of village life in the Middle

East. Journal of Archaeological Research 13/3, 23190.

Carruthers, D. B. and Dennis, S. (2007) The mammalian faunal

remains. Pp.37286 in Finlayson and Mithen 2007.

Cauvin, J. (2000) The Birth of Gods and the Origins of Agriculture.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Crowfoot Payne, J. (1976) The flint industries of Jericho. Pp.622759 in

K. M. Kenyon and T. M. Holland (eds), Excavations at Jericho:

The Pottery Phases of the Tell and Other Finds. London: British

School of Archaeology in Jerusalem.

Delage, C. (2004) Beyond past cultural geography: Example of the

Levantine late epipaleolithic. Pp.95, 117 in C. Delage (ed.), The

Last Hunter-Gatherers in the Near East. BAR International Series

1320. Oxford: Archaeopress.

Edwards P. C. 1989. Problems of recognizing earliest sedentism: The

Natufian example. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 2, 548.

, Meadows, J., Sayej, G. and Westaway, M. (2004) From the PPNA

to the PPNB: New views from the southern Levant after

excavations at Zahrat adh-Dhra 2 in Jordan. Paleorient 30/2,

2160.

Edwards, Y. and Martin, L. (2007) The microfaunal remains. Pp.387

94 in Finlayson and Mithen 2007.

Finlayson, B. (2009) The complex hunter-gatherer and the transition

to farming. Pp. 17588 in N. Finlay, S. McCartan, N. Milner and

C. Wickham Jones (eds), From Bann Flakes to Bushmills; Papers in

Honour of Professor Peter Woodman. Oxford: Prehistoric Society

Research Paper 1.



(2011) Archaeology, evidence and anthropology: Circular arguments

in the transition from foraging to farming. Pp. 1934 in M. Benz

(ed.), The Principle of Sharing. Segregation and Construction of

Social Identities at the Transition from Foraging to Farming.

Studies in Early Near Eastern Production, Subsistence, and

Environment 14 (2010). Berlin: ex oriente.

, Kuijt, I., Arpin, T., Chesson, M., Dennis, S., Goodale, N.,

Kadowaki, S., Maher, L., Smith, S., Schurr, M. and McKay, J.

(2003) Dhra Excavation Project, 2002 interim report. Levant 35,

138.

and Mithen, S. (2007) The Early Prehistory of Wadi Faynan,

Southern Jordan, Archaeological Survey of Wadis Faynan,

Ghuwayr and al-Bustan and Evaluation of the Pre-Pottery

Neolithic A Site of WF16. Wadi Faynan Series, Vol. 1, Levant

Supplementary Series, Vol. 4. Oxford: Council for British

Research in the Levant and Oxbow Books.

, Kuijt, I., Mithen, S. and Smith, S. (in press) New evidence from

southern Jordan: Rethinking the role of architecture in changing

societies at the beginning of the Neolithic process. Paleorient.

Fish, S. K and Fish, P. R. (1991) Comparative aspects of paradigms for

the Neolithic transition in the Levant and the American

Southwest. Pp.396410 in G. A. Clark (ed.), Perspectives on the

Past: Theoretical Biases in Mediterranean Hunter-Gatherer

Research. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Garfinkel, Y. (1996) Critical observations on the so-called Khiamian

flint industry. Pp.1521 in H. G. K. Gebel and S. K. Kozlowski

(eds), Neolithic Chipped Stone Industries of the Fertile Crescent.

Berlin: ex oriente.

Gebel, H. G. (2004) There was no center: The polycentric evolution of

the Near Eastern Neolithic. Neo-Lithics 1/04, 2832.

Goodale, N., Kuijt, I. and Finlayson, B. (2002) Results from the 2001

excavations at Dhra, Jordan: Chipped stone technology, typol-

ogy, and intra-assemblage variability. Paleorient 28/1, 12540.

Goring-Morris, A. N. (1987) At the Edge: Terminal Pleistocene Hunter-

Gatherers in the Negev and Sinai. BAR International Series, 361/i.

Oxford: BAR.

(1991) The Harifian of the southern Levant. Pp.173216 in O. Bar-

Yosef and F. R. Valla (eds), The Natufian Culture in the Levant.

Ann Arbor, MI: International Monographs in Prehistory.

and Belfer-Cohen, A. (1997) The articulation of cultural processes

and Late Quaternary environmental changes in Cisjordan.

Paleorient 23/2, 7193.

Grosman, L. (2003) Preserving cultural traditions in a period of

instability: The late natufian of the Hilly Mediterranean zone.

Current Anthropology 44/4, 57180.

Henry, D. O. (1989) From Foraging to Agriculture: The Levant at the

End of the Ice Age. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Kennedy, A. (2007) The plant macrofossils. Pp.42028 in Finlayson

and Mithen 2007.

Kozlowski, S. K. (1999) The Eastern Wing of the Fertile Crescent: Late

Prehistory of Greater Mesopotamian Lithic Industries. BAR

International Series 760. Oxford: Archaeopress.

Kuijt, I. (1997) Interpretation, data and the Khiamian of the South-

Central Levant. Neo-Lithics 3/97, 36.

and Goring-Morris, N. (2002) Foraging, farming and social com-

plexity in the pre-pottery Neolithic of the southern Levant: A

review and synthesis. Journal of World Prehistory 16, 361420.

and Finlayson, B. (2009) Inventing storage: Evidence for the earliest

pre-domestication granaries 11,000 years ago in the Jordan Valley.

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United

States of America 106/27, 10,96610,970. Washington DC:

National Academy of Sciences.

Manning, S. W., Kromer, B., Talamo, S., Friedrich, M., Kuniholm,

P. I. and Newton, M. W. (2005) Radiocarbon calibration in the

east Mediterranean region: The East Mediterranean Radiocarbon

Comparison Project and the current state of play. In T. E. Levy

and T. Higham (eds), The Bible and Radiocarbon Dating:

Archaeology, Text and Science. London: Equinox.

Marks, A. E. and Scott, T. R. (1976) Abu Salem: The type site of the

Harifian industry of the southern Levant. Journal of Field

Archaeology 31, 4360.

Mithen, S., Finlayson, B., Pirie, A., Carruthers, D. and Kennedy, A.

(2000) New evidence for economic and technological diversity

in the pre-pottery Neolithic A: Wadi Faynan 16. Current

Anthropology 41, 65563.

Mithen, S., Finlayson, B., Najjar, M., Jenkins, E., Smith, S., Hemsley,

S., Maricevic, D., Pankhurst, N., Yeomans, L. and al-Amarat, H.

(2009) Excavations at the PPNA site of WF16: a report on the

2008 season. ADAJ 53, 11526.

Moore, A. M. T. (1982) Agricultural origins in the Near East: A model

for the 1980s. World Archaeology 14, 22436.

Nadel, D. (1990) The Khiamian as a case of Sultanian Intersite

variability. Mitekufat Haeven 23, 8699.

Nesbitt, M. (2002) When and where did domesticated cereals first occur

in southwest Asia? Pp.11332 in R. Cappers and S. Bottema (eds),

The Dawn of Farming in the Near East. Berlin: ex oriente.

Noy, T., Friedman, E. and Burian, F. (1981) Nahal Levan 108: A pre-

pottery Neolithic A site in the western Negev, Israel. PEQ 113, 81

88.

Olszewski, D. I. (1991) Social complexity in the Natufian? Assessing the

relationship of ideas and data. Pp. 30721 in G. A. Clark (ed.),

Perspectives on the Past: Theoretical Biases in Mediterranean

Hunter-Gatherer Research. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylva-

nia Press.

Perles, C. (1996) Review article. American Journal of Archaeology 100/

2, 41718.

Pirie, A. (2001) Wadi Faynan 16 chipped stone: PPNA variability at

one site. Neo-Lithics 2/01, 58.

(2007) The chipped stone. Pp. 22783 in Finlayson and Mithen

2007.

Rielly, K. (2007) The bird bones. Pp. 395400 in Finlayson and Mithen

2007.

Rollefson, G. O. and Gebel, H. G. K. (2004) Towards new frameworks:

Supra-regional concepts in Near Eastern Neolithiization. Neo-

Lithics 1/04, 2122.

Ronen, A. and Lechevallier, M. (1999) Save the Khiamian. Neo-Lithics

1/99, 67.

Shewan, L. (2004) Natufian settlement systems and adaptive strategies:

The issue of sedentism and the potential of strontium isotope

analysis. Pp.5594 in C. Delage (ed.), The Last Hunter-Gatherers

in the Near East. BAR International Series 1320. Oxford:

Archaeopress Archaeopress.

Smith, S. (2007a) The form and function of the el Khiam point at Dhra

and WF16: Issues for interpreting chipped stone assemblage

variability. Pp. 7586 in L. Astruc, D. Binder and F. Brios (eds),

Syste`mes techniques et communautes du Neolithique preceramique

au Proche-Orient, Actes du 5e colloque international. Antibes:

Editions APDCA.

(2007b) The use wear analysis of chipped stone points. Pp.284318

in Finlayson and Mithen 2007.

, Wade, A., Black, E., Brayshaw, D., Rambeau, C. and Mithen, S.

(2011) From global climate change to local impact in Wadi

Faynan, southern Jordan: Ten millennia of human settlement in

its hydrological context. Pp. 21844 in S. Mithen and E. Black

(eds), Water, Life and Civilisation: Climate, environment and

society in the Jordan Valley. International Hydrology Series.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Stordeur, D. (2003) Tell Aswad: resultats preliminaires des campagnes

2001 et 2002. Neo-Lithics 1/03, 715.

Touchan, R. and Hughes, M. K. (1999) Dendrochronology in Jordan.

Journal of Arid Environments 42, 291303.

Valla, F. R. (1987) Chronologie absolue et chronologies relatives dans

le Natoufien. Pp. 26794 in O. Aurenche, J. Evin and F. Hours

(eds), Chronologies du Proche-Orient. BAR International Series,

379. Oxford: BAR.

(1995) The first settled societies: Natufian (12,50010,200 BP). Pp.

17087 in Levy, T. E. (ed.), The Archaeology of Society in the Holy

Land. London: Leicester University Press.

(1998) Natufian seasonality: A guess. Pp.93108 in T. R. Rocek and

O. Bar-Yosef (eds), Seasonality and Sedentism: Archaeological

Perspectives from Old and New World Sites. Peabody Museum

Bulletin 6. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.

Valladas, H. and Kalteneker, E. (2007) Nouvelles datations carbone 14

en spectrometrie de masse par accelerateur pour les niveaux

Natufiens de Mallaha. Pp.14547 in F. R. Valla et al, Les fouilles

de Ain Mallaha (Eynan) de 2003 a` 2005: Quatrie`me rapport

preliminaire. Mitekufat Haeven, Journal of the Israel Prehistoric

Society 37.

Willcox, G., Buxo, R. and Herveux, L. (2009) Late Pleistocene and

early Holocene climate and the beginnings of cultivation in

northern Syria. The Holocene 19, 15158.



finlayson et al. 2011. on the edge-southern levantine epipalaeolithic-neolithic chronological...

Documents