Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 12

On the Edge: Southern Levantine

EpipalaeolithicNeolithic Chronological
succession
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 chronological 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

Bill Finlayson (corresponding author), Council for British Research in the


Levant, London SW1Y 5AH, UK; email: director@cbrl.org.uk. Steven
Mithen, University of Reading, Reading RG6 6AH, UK; Sam Smith,
Anthropology and Geography, Oxford Brookes University, Oxford OX3
0BP, UK
Council for British Research in the Levant 2011
Published by Maney
DOI 10.1179/175638011X13112549592961

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 surrounding 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 of WF16 (Fig 1) in Wadi 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

Levant

2011

VOL

43

NO

127

Finlayson et al.

On the Edge

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

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 11,570 z/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 deterioration 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

128

Levant

2011

VOL

43

NO

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 (GoringMorris 1987) or to overlap with it somewhat (BelferCohen 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 samples, 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 between 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

Finlayson et al.

Figure 2

On the Edge

14

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

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 BelferCohen 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). GoringMorris 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 important 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 culmination 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

Levant

2011

VOL

43

NO

129

Finlayson et al.

On the Edge

Figure 3

14

C dates from Trench 2 at WF16, arranged in stratigraphic order. Note that Cupressaceae dates are in stratigraphic order

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

130

Levant

2011

VOL

43

NO

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 beginnings 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 association 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 Sultanian in the chipped stone assemblage (Pirie 2001;
2007). Indeed, whilst there is variability in many
realms (including material culture, burial practices and

Finlayson et al.

architecture) throughout the PPNA sequence at


WF16, this does not correlate well with a simple
subdivision into earlier (Khiamian) and later (Sultanian) 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.

On the Edge

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 and
Mithen 2007, Harian sites from Goring-Morris 1987.
Cal BP (95?4%)
Site

material

lab no

C14 BP

z/2

Abu Salem

charcoal
charcoal
charcoal
charcoal
charcoal
charcoal
charcoal
charcoal
charcoal
charcoal
charcoal
charcoal
charcoal
charcoal
charcoal
charcoal
charcoal
charcoal
charcoal
charcoal
charcoal
charcoal
charcoal
charcoal
charcoal
charcoal

Pta-3292
Pta-3293
Pta-3291
Pta-3080
Pta-3290
I-5498
I-5500
Pta-3289
I-5499
Pta-3009
Pta-3284
Pta-3001
Pta-3285
Pta-3288
Pta-3286
Pta-3371
Pta-3483
Pta-3483?
RT-1068N
Pta-2699
Pta-4568
Pta-4572
Pta-4551
Pta-4552
Pta-4580
Pta-4577

10550
10420
10140
11660
10340
9970
10230
10300
10230
10500
10380
10300
10390
10250
10100
10530
10430
10400
10000
10110
9970
9790
9790
9920
9880
9870

90
100
80
90
90
150
150
100
150
100
100
100
110
100
100
100
80
100
200
100
120
100
100
80
80
100

charcoal
charcoal
charcoal
charcoal
charcoal
charcoal
charcoal
ficus
cupressaceae
tamrix sp.
ficus
cupressaceae
cupressaceae
cupressaceae
cupressaceae
charcoal
cupressaceae
tamrix sp.
charred barley
charred bromus
charcoal

beta 135110
beta 135111
beta120205
beta120206
beta120207
beta120210
beta120211
beta192520
beta192521
beta192522
beta192523
beta192524
beta192525
beta192526
beta192527
beta192529
beta192530
beta192531
beta208671
beta208672
beta209010

9180
10220
9690
9420
9400
10190
9890
9900
10500
9880
9920
10150
10350
10420
10440
9870
10340
9950
9560
9430
9140

50
50
50
50
50
50
50
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40

Ramat Harif (G-VIII)

Maale Ramon East


Maale Ramon West
Abu Maadi I

Wadi Faynan 16
WF32801
WF32802
WF163
WF164
WF165
WF168
WF169
WF1610
WF1611
WF1612
WF1613
WF1614
WF1615
WF1616
WF1617
WF1619
WF1620
WF1621
WF1622
WF1623
WF1624

level

trashpit 1 1525
trashpit 1 4555
trashpit 1 2530
Structure 3
Structure 3
Structure 3
Structure 3
Structure 7
Structure 7

8
10
10
11
11
12
12
context
329
332
111
111
112
210
211
126
130
148
151
232
239
241
243
330
332
327
239
238
310

Levant

from

to

12805
12695
12074
13719
12616
12067
12600
12610
12600
12778
12676
12610
12700
12572
12051
12795
12665
12688
12385
12070
11969
11604
11604
11706
11691
11752

12169
11989
11396
13319
11823
11136
11336
11708
11336
12115
11830
11708
11826
11412
11289
12148
12065
11845
10868
11293
11200
10786
10786
11201
11174
11103

10493
12132
11226
10777
10750
12078
11598
11403
12692
11391
11599
12026
12386
12602
12625
11387
12385
11604
11093
10761
10415

10238
11751
10795
10509
10506
11648
11202
11215
12242
11212
11230
11621
12045
12109
12135
11206
12033
11246
10729
10566
10225

2011

VOL

43

NO

131

Finlayson et al.

On the Edge

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 interpretation. 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 contexts 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. Whether 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 domesticated cereal grains (8/12 seeds) recovered from
Epipalaeolithic levels at Abu Hureyra have yielded
Neolithic period dates, showing the potential taphonomic issues with dates obtained on small seed/grain

132

Levant

2011

VOL

43

NO

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 erroneously 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 environmental contexts for human activity. Moreover, there
are no apparent differences between the potentially
more sensitive environmental indicator of the microfauna 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

Finlayson et al.

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

On the Edge

effectively identical Cupressaceae date (WF1616)


from the floor which we think was the surface from
which the burial was reopened, the former interpretation 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 conservative 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

Levant

2011

VOL

43

NO

133

Finlayson et al.

On the Edge

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 potentially 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 calibrated
14
C 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 developments in the Harif may have required a complex
pattern of mobility that did not lead to increased

134

Levant

2011

VOL

43

NO

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 elKhiam 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,

Finlayson et al.

On the Edge

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 behaviour, 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

Figure 4 WF16 Trench 2 and Abu Salem (with kind permission from Nigel Goring-Morris)

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


6.44]). Structures at both sites are semi-subterranean, 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. Architectural 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

It is frequently argued that the Natufian represents


a complex hunter-gatherer system, with decreasing
mobility and an increasing population, based on classic 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 conclusion 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 sedentism (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 artefacts, 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

Levant

2011

VOL

43

NO

135

Finlayson et al.

On the Edge

symbolism that occurs during the Neolithic. This,


combined with elements of continuity between Natufian 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 superiority (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 relationships 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 population, 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

136

Levant

2011

VOL

43

NO

problematic both contextually and with large standard 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 domesticated 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

Finlayson et al.

Natufian/Khiamian disintegration, then we need to


develop alternative explanations for this phenomenon. 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 environment, 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 synchronous 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 environmental 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, chronological 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 elKhiam 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

On the Edge

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 provided by the southern Jordanian PPNA and the
Harifian of the Negev provides a rare opportunity to
examine variation and change within a specific region. Rather than being seen as dead ends languishing 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.

Bibliography
Austin, 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 calibrated
14
C 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.

Levant

2011

VOL

43

NO

137

Finlayson et al.

On the Edge

(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, typology, and intra-assemblage variability. Paleorient 28/1, 12540.
Goring-Morris, A. N. (1987) At the Edge: Terminal Pleistocene HunterGatherers in the Negev and Sinai. BAR International Series, 361/i.
Oxford: BAR.
(1991) The Harifian of the southern Levant. Pp.173216 in O. BarYosef 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 SouthCentral Levant. Neo-Lithics 3/97, 36.
and Goring-Morris, N. (2002) Foraging, farming and social complexity 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.

138

Levant

2011

VOL

43

NO

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 prepottery 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 Pennsylvania 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. NeoLithics 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.

Оценить