299

Journal of The Israel Prehistoric Society 35 (2005), 299-308

The Ground Stone Assemblages of the Natuan and Neolithic Societies in the Levant A Brief Review

ANNA BELFER-COHEN1

ERELLA HOVERS2

Institute of Archaeology, The Hebrew University

Mt. Scopus, Jerusalem 919051Belferac@mscc.huji.ac.il

2hovers@mscc.huji.ac.il

INTRODUCTIONThe term ground stone, although sometimes declared a misnomer (e.g., Wilke and Quintero 1996; Wright 1992), is used widely to encompass a large variety of tool types (Kraybill 1977; Wright 1992). Of these, four types, commonly perceived as two sets of complimenting utensils, have received special attention. These are mortars-and- pestles (often referred to as pounding utensils), and lower-and-upper stones (i.e., querns and handstones respectively, commonly referred to as grinding stone). Bedrock cup-holes, which vary in depth from shallow to very deep (e.g., Garrod and Bate 1937; Gopher 1996; Goring-Morris 1999 and references therein), constitute a group of their own.

Large numbers of these specimens occur in Natuan and Neolithic sites dated to the late Pleistocene and early Holocene. Sizes of all four tool types are variable; as a rule the heaviest items are found among the Natuan pounding tools (specically mortars), for which there are no Neolithic equivalents (Bar-Yosef 1983:19; Belfer-Cohen 1988; Dubreuil 2002; Gopher and Orelle 1995; Gopher 1996; Perrot 1966a; Valla et al. 1991). The exceptions are the unusual large at basins known from mid-PPNB Beidha (Kirkbride 1966) or PN Munhata (Gopher and Orelle 1995 and references therein).

The increase in the frequencies of pounding and grinding tools is taken to designate the

300 BELFER-COHEN & HOVERS

shift in the economic basis of human societies from extractive to productive economies, with its profound social implications (e.g., Belfer-Cohen and Bar-Yosef 2000). Because such artefacts are believed to be clear-cut indications of this signicant process, they have received much attention in the literature (e.g., Dubreuil 2002 and references therein; Kraybill 1977; Wright 1993, 2000). Still, the implications of their presence and use are far from being fully explored.

In spite of their acknowledged importance, detailed information pertaining to ground stone items is rather scanty. Comprehensive site reports and thematic publications are few (but see Gopher and Orelle 1995). The existing overviews (and especially those of Wright 1992, 1994, 2000 and references therein), though providing a plethora of information and its interpretations, are still lacking in details. This paucity precludes a thorough discussion of some specic issues, for example morphological standardization and its social implications (e.g.,VanPool and Leonard 2002).

The following is a review of some of the topics associated with ground stone tools, in light of recent nds and new models that have been offered to explain their distributions in time and space. We do not dwell in length on the mechanisms and reasons that led to the initial occurrence of these artefacts. Sufce it to state that ground stone tools had appeared in the archaeological record of the Levant before the terminal Pleistocene (e.g., the Upper Palaeolithic layers in Qafzeh cave, Ronen and Vandermeersch 1972; terminal Upper Palaeolithic at Ohalo II, Nadel 1997; early Epipalaeolithic Ein Gev I, Stekelis and Bar-Yosef 1965; middle Epipalaeolithic Wadi Ahmar II, Hovers and Bar-Yosef 1987; see illustrations in Bar-Yosef and Belfer-Cohen 1989). It is also generally accepted that their rst appearance was not necessarily associated with food processing. In fact, it may have been tied with the preparation and processing of pigments such as ochre (see Kraybill 1977), a habit that persisted well into the Natuan (e.g., Belfer-Cohen 1988; Dubreuil 2002; Garrod 1957; Weinstein-Evron 1998; Weinstein-Evron and Ilani 1994). Similarly, techniques used to manufacture the sporadic pre-Natuan items had been the technological pre-adaptations for the Natuan ground stone industry, which continued to employ the same production modes.

Two outstanding phenomena form the focus of discussion of Natuan and Neolithic ground stone tools. One appears at the onset of the Natuan culture, namely, the sudden increase in the frequencies of such tools. The other outstanding phenomenon in the archaeological record is the gradual rise (through the Natuan-to-Neolithic time span) in the frequencies of grinding stones at the expense of pounding stones. Often, these two trends are conated and are understood as a continuous single process of technological change. It might be worthwhile, however, to look more closely at the two phenomena in order to examine their signicance. In the present paper, we review the available studies concerning these issues, attempting to elucidate the main points to be resolved and the potential of various directions of research.

301THE GROUND STONE ASSEMBLAGES OF THE NATUFIAN AND NEOLITHIC SOCIETIES

DISCUSSIONAs stated above, the early Natuan ground stone inventory differed neither in form nor in technique from the sporadic pre-Natuan occurrences. From a strictly technological point of view, the Natuan ground stone industry was not a conceptual and/or technological novelty. In this sense, the production of ground stone tools conforms with a familiar theme of Natuan technological behaviour, namely a gradual addition of new techniques to the ones already known. A similar phenomenon could be observed in the Natuan bone tool industry, where new modes of bone working (grinding and polishing) were introduced gradually to shape new tool types, in addition to the on-going use of a pre-Natuan technique (sharpening). The morphological and technological conservatism of the early Natuan ground stone tools indicates that the dramatic rise in their numbers was not due to a sudden release of technical constraints, which had inhibited en masse production of these tools in preceding cultural entities.

The most common explanation cited in the literature for the increase in frequencies of ground stone items is higher reliance on plant food per se in the Natuan as compared with previous archaeological entities. This is supported by the heavy dental attrition observed in nearly every Natuan population (e.g., el-Wad, Eynan [Mallaha], Hayonim Cave and Terrace, Smith 1972; Smith et al. 1984). Still, there is no compelling evidence that the Natuans relied on plant food more than had their predecessors (e.g., Goren-Inbar et al. 2000; Kislev et al. 1992; Madella et al. 2002; Piperno et al. 2004; and references therein). The Natuans show higher frequencies of heavy attrition as well as higher incidence of periodontal diseases compared to the agricultural Neolithic population (e.g., Bocquentin 2003; Eshed 2001:49, g.3.4, pp.70 onward; and references therein). Thus the difference between the Natuan and Neolithic patterns of attrition and their intensity reect an improvement in the ways plant food was processed, including those caused by the use of different types of ground stone tools.

Both the increase in the numbers of ground stone tools and the gradual change in the dominant tool type are sometimes associated with an on-going specialization in the exploitation of specic plant foods (e.g., acorns, small grained grasses, cereals), as opposed to increased plant consumption in general (Weiss et al. 2004). Researchers advocating such views suggest that pounding and grinding with stone implements were the most effective way to process such specic plants (Henry 1989; McCorriston and Hole 1991).

The picture is complicated by the fact that those changes occurred at different pace and intensity throughout the Natuan world. For example, Moore (1978), who treated the appearance of querns as a clear indication for cereal processing, argued for different economic emphases in the different Natuan sites. According to him, sites in the Natuan core area exploited the typical forest food plants (i.e., acorns and nuts) that were pounded in the mortar and pestle sets, whereas grasses (specically, cereals) were exploited in

302 BELFER-COHEN & HOVERS

more steppic regions (Byrd 1987; Moore 1978; Olszewski 1984). However, at least in some cases, the archaeological data do not accord with this assumption. While the main ground stone tool type in Beidha was the quern (Kirkbride 1966), the good preservation of plant material at the site revealed large quantities of pistachio nuts. A strict ecological distinction is negated by the recovery of hybrid (i.e., possessing pounding/grinding morphologies) ground stone items, dating to the late Epipaleolithic-early Neolithic, from the Zagros (Solecki 1969). In addition, ethnographic data suggest that mortars were used also for grinding (sometimes as a continuum of a single process; see Hovers 1996 and references therein).

By the same token, the postulated ecological differentiation does not explain the observed change through time with grinding utensils replacing the pounding ones. Kraybill (1977) takes this shift to indicate the transition from processing vegetal food in general to specialization in cereal processing (see Weiss et al. 2004). One should bear in mind that currently also pulses (and in particular lentils) are included among the rst domesticates in the Near East, pertaining even to the Natuan (Abbo et al. 2003; Kislev and Bar-Yosef 1988; Willcox 2001). Thus the shift from a general and varied plant exploitation to specialization and intensication in particular plant species indicates either the intensication of the domestication processes, or environmental changes which dictated a change in the selection of particular vegetal foodstuff items or both (Araus et al. 2000; Sage 1995).

The claim that the shift from deep to shallow groundstone utensils has to do with efciency of exploitation is brought up by Wright (1991, 1994). She states that grinding is more efcient than pounding in that ner particle sizes are achieved with larger surface area, permitting more absorbable nutrients for the consumer.

In this context, it is of interest to note the observation made by Reynolds (1968) who associates pounding, being a wasteful technique, with times of plenty whereas grinding, the more economical technique is more common in times of famine. Perhaps we can tie this observation with the climatic deterioration of the Younger Dryas which occurred in the beginning of the PPNA (Grosman 2005 and references therein; Grosman and Belfer-Cohen 2002).

The particular characteristics of the Natuan existence (specically, incipient sedentism) most probably brought about modications in the plant processing techniques (evidenced through the appearance of sickle blades, the increasing numbers of the ground stone specimens and the gradual replacement of deep morphologies with at ones). With time, there was unication in the economic basis of the Natuan entity. The dominance of at morphologies in the Neolithic reects the shared food production strategies, based on domesticates. This reduces the previously observed variability among Natuan communities situated in different ecological settings.

The apparent trend for sedentism in the Natuan has often been perceived as playing a

303THE GROUND STONE ASSEMBLAGES OF THE NATUFIAN AND NEOLITHIC SOCIETIES

major role in the rise of ground stone tools. Such items, especially the heavier ones, are in fact site furniture (in the sense of Binford 1979). Their presence on site as well as their designs and morphology could have varied according to the extent of pre-planning and anticipation of site re-occupations (Nelson and Lippmeier 1993). Natuan sedentism was associated not only with longer durations of site occupation, but also with higher degrees of regularity of site use, involving allocation of activities to particular locales. The change in settlement patterns may have encouraged the appearance of heavy tool kits as well as adoption of tool production processes that anticipated long-term use. Without constraints of weight and awkwardness, Natuan ground stones, especially mortars, reached unprecedented dimensions. At the same time, the shift towards sedentism, when coupled with the change in emphases on plant species to be exploited (and see above), gradually led to modicationsof grinding techniques which caused the replacement of deep and heavy morphologies with at and lighter ones. Possibly, with the rise in the intensity of ground stone use, problems of durability and maintenance needed to be addressed through changes both in the production and morphologies of the ground stone inventory (Dubreuil 2002).

It seems that boundary restrictions and changes in territorial and mobility patterns are reected in the diachronic changes in the composition of the ground stone assemblages. In fact, it may be signicant that the debris of ground stone production was not found in any of the reported sites (either Natuan or Neolithic). This suggests that the tools were made elsewhere and imported into the sites (e.g., Belfer-Cohen 1988; Weinstein-Evron et al. 1999, 2001). This implies that the differences in types and use of the ground stone artefacts between the Natuan and Neolithic are not related to differences in raw material availability or preferences.

Methodological issues hinder the discussion of intra-site variation within and between cultural entities. Notably, excavations are focused on and around structures while the areas in-between and further aeld are often left unexcavated (exceptions are the sites of Netiv Hagdud, Munhata Bar-Yosef and Gopher 1996; Perrot 1964, 1966b). Yet it is quite possible that some of the vegetal processing was done publicly, away from the communal living areas (e.g., the area of cup-marks adjacent to the structures at Saulim - Goring-Morris et al. 1999, and/ or the bedrock mortars on the terrace in front of the el-Wad cave Garrod and Bate 1937, and possibly the cup-holes area at the site of Hatoula Lechevallier and Ronen 1994). Ethnographically, the pounding and grinding of cereals are components of a continuous process (Hillman 1984 and references in Dubreuil 2002). It may reect a mundane division of functions carried out in the open public spaces (because of the noise and dirt involved) as opposed to the nal stages of processing which can be carried out in conned spaces.

Underlying the scenario presented above is the assumption that all structures identied in Natuan sites are dwelling places (or houses). Indeed, most researchers agree that the

304 BELFER-COHEN & HOVERS

large structures at Eynan (Valla 1991) and Wadi Hammeh 27 (Edwards 1991), measuring 7-15 m in diameter, or even smaller ones measuring ca. 6 m in diameter, as at Nahal Besor 6 (Goring-Morris 1998; Horwitz and Goring-Morris 2000) could have been dwelling units. However, the small structures of Hayonim Cave, measuring 1.5-2.5 m in diameter (Bar-Yosef 1991; Belfer-Cohen 1988) cannot be considered as a home unit (and see detailed discussion in Goring-Morris and Belfer-Cohen 2003). Flannery (1972, 2002) suggested that by carefully studying the contents of habitation structures we should be able to learn about gendered division of labor. Wright (2000:97) states that differences between houses cannot be discerned in Eynan, Wadi Hammeh 27 and Hayonim Cave. Perhaps a detailed study that will take into consideration differences in structure functions will produce more positive results.

Flannery (1972) was among the rst to suggest the study of relationship between grinding utensils and social phenomena. In our view, the great effort put into the manufacture of large mortars (as evidenced in the Natuan) was justied only if they were to be used by a number of households. The manufacture of the small querns (mostly in the later Natuan and Neolithic) is more economical and calls for less effort investment. Thus, if Natuan social structure had changed with time in such a manner that nuclear families replaced the extended groups (as the basic social units), we may expect to see it reected in the gradual replacement of the mortars and pestles by querns and hand-stones, and the complete disappearance of the heavy duty mortars. In the Natuan the processing of the vegetal material was done jointly by members of the group with communally owned tools. During the Neolithic there was a shift from communal to private activity, when the processing of the vegetal material was done by smaller units, nuclear families (?), with family owned utensils. Perhaps this difference in use of ground stone items can explain the fact that there are more decorated ground stone items in the Natuan (Wright 2000). The particular patterns of decoration can be interpreted as encoding information of group identity as a whole. The gradual increase in the numbers of grinding at the expense of pounding implements reects a shift in the means of production triggered off by changes in the social structure of the society. Based on this, we may expect some sort of patterned relationships between the changes in ground stone tool morphologies and the shift from circular to rectangular structures, which Flannery (1972, 2002) associated with this type of change in social relationship.

CONCLUDING REMARKSUndoubtedly, the ground stone assemblages played a major role in the Neolithization process. We are fortunate to have at our disposal ethnographic data pertaining to ground stone items and their uses; and while in the ethnographic record there is a plethora of

305THE GROUND STONE ASSEMBLAGES OF THE NATUFIAN AND NEOLITHIC SOCIETIES

usages, we can isolate those cases that are relevamt to the Natuan and Neolithic societies. For example, a general observation that emerges from the ethnographic record is that in complex societies, there is a more obvious functional and morphological pairing, i.e.,particular shapes for particular functions (Dubreuil 2002 and references therein). This pattern is discerned also in the Natuan and Neolithic ground stone record.

It is evident from this brief overview of the available studies that much of the research on ground stone tools focused on material factors, which might have caused the intensication in the use of such items and dictated their morphologies. Among such parameters one encounters intensity of plant processing, their species, the allocated working space, and mobility patterns. Surprisingly, less attention was paid to social mechanisms, despite the general agreement among scholars that those mechanisms played a crucial role in the process of Neolithization. Indeed, the ever-growing database on Neolithization phenomena opens new avenues of exploration for studies of the ground stone assemblage. It seems to us that the main avenue to be explored is that involving issues of social structure, changes in the social meaning of space, and labour division, to mention but a few of the possibilities.

REFERENCES Abbo S., Shtienberg D., Lichtenzveig J., Lev-Yadun S. and Gopher A. 2003. Chickpea, summer

cropping, and a new model for pulse domestication in the ancient Near East. Quaterely Review Biology 78:435-448.

Araus J.L., Slafer G.A., Romagosa I. and Molist M. 2000. Estimated wheat yields during the emergence of agriculture based on the carbon isotope discrimination of grains: Evidence from a 10th millennium bp site on the Euphrates. Journal of Archaeological Science 28:341-350.

Bar-Yosef O. 1983. The Natuan of the Southern Levant. In Smith P.E.L. and Mortensen P. (eds.), The Hilly Flanks and Beyond, pp. 11-42. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

Bar-Yosef O. 1991. The Archaeology of the Natuan Layer at Hayonim Cave. In Bar-Yosef O. and Valla F.R. (eds.), The Natuan Culture in the Levant, pp. 81-92. (Archaeological Series 1). Ann Arbor: International Monographs in Prehistory.

Bar-Yosef O. and Belfer-Cohen A. 1989. The origins of sedentism and farming communities in the Levant. Journal of World Prehsitory 40/3:447-498.

Bar-Yosef O. and Gopher A. (eds.), 1996. An Early Neolithic Village in the Jordan Valley. Part I: The Archaeology of Netiv Hagdud. Cambridge: Peabody Museum, Harvard University.

Belfer-Cohen A. 1988. The Natuan Settlement at Hayonim Cave: A Hunter-gatherer Band on the Threshold of Agriculture. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

Belfer-Cohen A. and Bar-Yosef O. 2000. Early sedentism in the Near East a bumpy ride to village life. In Kuijt I. (ed.), Life in Neolithic Farming Communities. Social Organization, Identity, and Differentiation, pp. 19-38. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.

Binford L.R. 1979. Organization and formation processes: looking at curated technologies. Journal of Anthropological Research 35/3:255-273.

Bocquentin F. 2003. Pratiques funraires, paramtres biologiques et identitPratiques funraires, paramtres biologiques et identitPratiques funraires, paramtres biologiques et identit s culturelles au Natouen: une analyse archo-anthropologique. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, Universit Bordeaux 1.

306 BELFER-COHEN & HOVERS

Byrd B.F. 1987. Beidha and the Natuan: Variability in Levantine Settlement and Subsistence.Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, University of Arizona.

Dubreuil L. 2002. Etude fonctionnelle des outils de broyage natouens: nouvelles perspectives sur l'emergence de l'agriculture au Proche-Orient. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, Universite Bordeaux I.

Dubreuil L. 2004. Long-term trends in Natuan subsistence: a use-wear analysis of ground stone tools. Journal of Archaeological Science 31:1613-1629.

Edwards P.C. 1991. Wadi Hammeh 27: An Early Natuan site at Pella, Jordan. In Bar-Yosef O. and Valla F.R. (eds.), The Natuan Culture in the Levant, pp. 123-148. (Archaeological Series 1). Ann Arbor: International Monographs in Prehistory.

Eshed V. 2001. From Foraging to Farming in the Holocene (The Pre Pottery Neolithic Period 8,300-5,600 B.C.) in the Southern Levant: The Skeletal Evidence. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, Tel-Aviv University.

Flannery K.V. 1972. The origins of the village as a settlement type in Mesoamerica and the Near East: a comparative study. In Ucko P.J., Tringham R. and Dimbleby G.W. (eds.), Man, Settlement, and Urbanism, pp. 23-53. London: Duckworth.

Flannery K.V. 2002. The origins of the village revisited: From nuclear to extended households. American Antiquity 67/3:417-433.

Garrod D.A.E. 1957. The Natuan Culture: The life and economy of a Mesolithic people in the Near East. Proceedings of the British Academy 43:211-227.

Garrod D.A.E. and. Bates D.M.A. 1937. The Stone Age of Mt. Carmel. Excavations at the Wadi-MugharaVol. 1. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Gopher A. 1996. The groundstone tools and other stone objects from Netiv Hagdud. In Bar-Yosef O. and Gopher A. (eds.), An Early Neolithic Village in the Jordan Valley. Part I:The Archaeology of Netiv Hagdud, pp. 151-176. Cambridge: Peabody Museum, Harvard University.

Gopher A. and Orelle E. 1995. The Groundstone Assemblages of Munhata. A Neolithic Site in the Jordan Valley, Israel. (Les Cahiers des Missions Archaologique Franaises en Isral 7). Paris: Association Palorient.

Goren-Inbar N., Feibel C.S., Verosub K., Melamed Y., Kislev M.E., Tchernov E. and Saragusti I. 2000. Pleistocene milestones on the Out-of-Africa corridor at Gesher Benot Ya'aqov, Israel. Science289:944-947.

Goring-Morris A.N. 1998. Mobiliary art from the Late Epipalaeolithic of the Negev, Israel. Rock Art Research 15/2:81-88.

Goring-Morris A.N., Goldberg P., Goren Y., Baruch U. and Bar-Yosef D.E. 1999. Saulim: a Late Natuan base camp in the central Negev highlands, Israel. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 131/1:1-29.

Goring-Morris A.N. and Belfer-Cohen A. 2003. Structures and dwellings in the Upper and Epi-Palaeolithic (ca. 42-10 K BP) Levant: profane and symbolic uses. In Vasil'ev S., Sofer O. and Kozlowski J. (eds.), Perceived Landscapes and Built Environments: The Cultural Geography of Late Paleolithic Eurasia, pp. 65-81. (BAR International Series 1122). Oxford.

Grosman L. 2005. Computer Simulation of Variables in Models of the Origins of Agriculture in the Levant. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

Grosman L. and Belfer-Cohen A. 2002 (1999). Zooming onto the 'Younger Dryas'. In Cappers R.T.J. and Bottema S. (eds.), The Dawn of Farming in the Near East, pp. 49-54. (SENEPSE 6). Berlin:ex oriente.

Henry D.O. 1989. From Foraging to Agriculture: the Levant at the End of the Ice Age. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Hillman G. 1984. Interpretation of archaeological plant remains: the application of ethnographic models from Turkey. In van Zeist W. and Casparie W.A. (eds.), Plants and Ancient Man: Studies in Palaeoethnobotany, pp. 1-57. Rotterdam: Balkema.

307THE GROUND STONE ASSEMBLAGES OF THE NATUFIAN AND NEOLITHIC SOCIETIES

Horwitz L.K. and Goring-Morris A.N. 1988. Fauna from the early Natuan site of Upper Besor 6 in the Central Negev, Israel. Palorient 26/1:111-128.Palorient 26/1:111-128.Palorient

Hovers E. 1996. The groundstone industry. In Ariel D.T. and De Groot A. (eds.), Excavations at the City of David 1978-1985, pp. 171-203. (Qedem 35, Monographs of the Institute of Archaeology, The Hebrew University). Jerusalem.

Hovers E. and Bar-Yosef O. 1987. A prehistoric survey of eastern Samaria: preliminary report. Israel Exploration Journal 37:77-87.Exploration Journal 37:77-87.Exploration Journal

Kirkbride D. 1966. Five seasons at the Pre-pottery Neolithic village of Beidha in Jordan. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 98:8-72.

Kislev M.E. and Bar-Yosef O. 1988. The legumes: the earliest domesticated plants in the Near East? Current Anthropology 29/1:175-179.

Kislev M.E., Nadel D. and Carmi I. 1992. Epipalaeolithic (19,000 BP) cereal and fruit diet at Ohalo II, Sea of Galilee, Israel. Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology 73:161-166.

Kraybill N. 1977. Pre-agricultural tools for the preparation of foods in the Old World. In Reed C.A. (ed.), Origins of Agriculture, pp. 485-521. The Hague: Mouton.

Lechevallier M. and Ronen A. (eds.), 1994. Le Gisement de Hatoula en Jude Occidentale, Isral. Paris: Association Palorient.

Madella M., Jones M.K., Goldberg P., Goren Y. and Hovers E. 2002. The exploitation of plant resources by Neanderthals in Amud Cave (Israel): The evidence from phytolith studies. Journal of Archaeological Science 29:703-719.

McCorriston J. and Hole F. 1991. The ecology of seasonal stress and the origins of agriculture in the Near East. American Anthropologist 93:46-69.American Anthropologist 93:46-69.American Anthropologist

Moore A.M.T. 1978. The Neolithic of the Levant. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, University of Oxford.Nadel D. 1997. The Spatial Organization of Prehistoric Sites in the Jordan Valley: Kebaran, Natuan

and Neolithic Case Studies. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem.Nelson M.C. and Lippmeier H. 1993. Grinding-tool design as conditioned by land-use pattern. American

Antiquity 58/2:286-305.Olszewski D.I. 1984. The early occupation at tell Abu Hureyra in the context of the late Epipaleolithic

of the Levant. (Ph.D. University Microlms). Ann Arbor.Perrot J. 1964. Les deux premires campagnes de fouilles Munhata (1962-63), premirs rsultats.

Syria 41:323-345.Perrot J. 1966a. Le gisement Natouen de Mallaha (Eynan), Israel. L'Anthropologie 70:437-484.Perrot J. 1966b. La troisime campagne de fouilles Munhata (1964). Syria 43:49-60.Piperno D.R., Weiss E., Holst I. and Nadel D. 2004. Processing of wild cereal grains in the Upper

Palaeolithic revealed by starch grain analysis. Nature 430:670-673.Reynolds B. 1968. The Material Culture of the Peoples of the Gwembe Valley. Kariba Studies III.

Manchester: Manchester University Press.Ronen A. and Vandermeersch B. 1972. The Upper Paleolithic sequence in the cave of Qafza (Israel).

Quaternaria 16:189-202.Sage R.F. 1995. Was low atmospheric CO

2 during the Pleistocene a limiting factor for the origin of

agriculture? Global Change Biology 1:93-106.Smith P. 1972. Diet and attrition in the Natuans. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 37:233-

238.Smith P., Bar-Yosef O. and Sillen A. 1984. Archaeological and skeletal evidence for dietary change

during the late Pleistocene. In Cohen M.N. and Armelagos G. (eds.), At the Origins of Agriculture, pp. 101-136. New York: Academic Press.

Solecki R. 1969. Milling tools and the Epi-Palaeolithic in the Near East. Paper presented at the L'etude du Quaternaire VIII INQUA, Paris.

308 BELFER-COHEN & HOVERS

Stekelis M. and Bar-Yosef O. 1965. Un habitat du Paleolithique Superieur a Ein Guev (Israel). Note preliminaire. LAnthropologie 69:176-183.

Valla F.R. 1991. Les Natouens de Mallaha et lespace. In Bar-Yosef O. and Valla F.R. (eds.), The Natuan Culture in the Levant, pp. 111-122. (Archaeological Series 1). Ann Arbor: International Monographs in Prehistory.

Valla F.R., Le Mort F. and Plisson H. 1991. Les fouilles en cours sur la Terrasse d'Hayonim. In Bar-Yosef O. and Valla F.R. (eds.), The Natuan Culture in the Levant, pp. 93-110. (Archaeological Series 1). Ann Arbor: International Monographs in Prehistory.

VanPool T.L. and Leonard R.D. 2002. Specialized ground stone production in the Casas Grandes region of northern Chihuahua, Mexico. American Antiquity 67/4:710-730.

Weinstein-Evron M. 1998. Early Natuan el-Wad Revisited. (ERAUL 77). Lige: University of Lige Press.

Weinstein-Evron M. and Ilani S. 1994. Provenance of ochre in the Natuan layers of el-Wad Cave, Mt. Carmel, Israel. Journal of Archaeological Science 21:461-467.

Weinstein-Evron M., Kaufman D. and Bird-David N. 2001. Rolling stones: basalt implements as evidence for trade/exchange in the Levantine Epipalaeolithic. Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society - Mitekufat Haeven 31:25-42.

Weinstein-Evron M., Lang B. and Ilani S. 1999. Natuan trade/exchange in basalt implements: evidence from northern Israel. Archaeometry 41/2:267-273.

Weiss E., Wetterstrom W., Nadel D. and Bar-Yosef O. 2004. The broad spectrum revisited: evidence from plant remains. PNAS 101:9551-9555.PNAS 101:9551-9555.PNAS

Willcox G.H. 2001. La naissance de l'agriculture au Proche-Orient. In Marinval P. (ed.), Histoires d'Hommes, Histoires de Plantes, pp. 79-103. (Memoires de plantes 1. Monique Mergoil and Centre d'Anthropologie). Toulouse: Millau.

Wilke P.J. and Quintero L.A. 1996. Near Eastern Neolithic Millstone Production: insights from research in the arid southwestern United States. In Kozlowski S.K. and Gebel H.G. (eds.), Neolithic Chippped Stone Industries of the Fertile Crescent, and Their Contemporaries in Adjacent Regions, pp. 243-260. Berlin: ex oriente.

Wright K.I. 1991. The origins and development of ground stone assemblages in Late Pleistocene southwest Asia. Palorient 17/1:19-45.Palorient 17/1:19-45.Palorient

Wright K.I. 1992. A classication system for ground stone tools from the Prehistoric Levant. Palorient18/2:53-81.

Wright K.I. 1993. Early Holocene ground stone assemblages in the Levant. Levant XXV: 93-110.Levant XXV: 93-110.LevantWright K.I. 1994. Ground-stone tools and hunter-gatherer subsistence in southwest Asia: Implications

for the transition to farming. American Antiquity 59:238-263.Wright K.I. 2000. The social origins of cooking and dining in early villages of western Asia. Proceedings

of the Prehistoric Society 66:89-121.