Preserving Cultural Traditions in a Period of Instability: The Late Natufian of the Hilly Mediterranean Zone

Volume 44, Number 4, August–October 2003 F 571

tures and the evolution of material culture. Science, January 3,pp. 102–5.

v a n s c h a i k , c . p . , r . o . d e a n e r , a n d m . y. m e r -r i l l . 1999. The conditions for tool use in primates: Implica-tions for the evolution of material culture. Journal of HumanEvolution 36:719–41.

w h i t e n , a . , j . g o o d a l l , w. c . m c g r e w, t . n i s h -i d a , v. r e y n o l d s , y. s u g i y a m a , c . e . g . t u t i n ,r . w. w r a n g h a m , a n d c . b o e s c h . 1999. Cultures inchimpanzees. Nature 399:682–85.

———. 2002. Charting cultural variation in chimpanzees. Behav-iour 138:1481–516.

w r a n g h a m , r . w. , f . b . m . d e w a a l , a n d w. c . m cg r e w. 1994. “The challenge of behavioral diversity,” inChimpanzee cultures. Edited by R. W. Wrangham, W. C. Mc-Grew, F. B. M. de Waal, and P. G. Heltne, pp. 1–18. Cambridge:Harvard University Press.

y a m a d a , m . 1957. A case of acculturation in a subhuman so-ciety of Japanese monkeys. Primates 1:30–46.

y a m a k o s h i , g . , a n d y. s u g i y a m a . 1995. Pestle pound-ing behavior of wild chimpanzees at Bossou, Guinea: A newlyobserved tool-using behavior. Primates 36:486–500.

Preserving Cultural Traditions in aPeriod of Instability: The LateNatufian of the HillyMediterranean Zone1

leore grosmanInstitute of Archaeology, Hebrew University,Jerusalem 91905, Israel ([email protected]).21 i 03

The Near East and in particular the Levantine Corridor(fig. 1) have been a focus of research into the origins offood production since the 19th century. Indeed, in recentdecades this region has provided archaeological evidencefor the transition from hunting and gathering to villagefarming. Research on the origins of agriculture is con-cerned with the description and interpretation of the data

� 2003 by The Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Re-search. All rights reserved 0011-3204/2003/4404-0006$1.00

1. The research reported here was made possible through financialsupport from the Irene Levi CARE Archaeological Foundation, theL. S. B. Leakey Foundation, and B. Arensburg, Tel-Aviv University.I am grateful to O. Bar-Yosef and A. Belfer-Cohen for their assistancein the Hilazon Tachtit Cave project and for their comments on thisreport. I especially thank T. D. Berger, my codirector for the 1995and 1997 seasons. Thanks go also to Gonen Sharon, who assistedin the 2000 and 2001 field seasons, Laure Dubrevil, for drawing themaps through the seasons, Fanny Bocquentin, for excavating thehuman remains, and Natalie D. Munro, for working on the faunalassemblage. Students from the Hebrew University participated inthe fieldwork, and their enthusiasm helped make this a successfulproject that, I believe, produced interesting results. The CarbonDating Lab at the Wiezmann Institute contributed the radiocarbondate. Wren Fournier provided editorial assistance.

and with issues related to the evolution of the humansocial structures that led to the flourishing of Neolithicsociety.

About 2,500 years before the establishment of Neo-lithic villages, changes were observed in the nomadichuman societies of the Levantine Mediterranean zone.The archaeological entity associated with these changesis the Natufian culture, which has been recognized asthe harbinger of the food-producing cultures of the Le-vant (Garrod 1932). Since the 1930s many Natufian siteshave been excavated in the Mediterranean region, theJordan Valley, the Negev, and the Transjordanian Plateau(Bar-Yosef 1991; Edwards 1991; Byrd 1989; Goring-Morris1987, 1997; Henry 1976; Olszewski and Hill 1997; Vallaet al. 1999). Apart from the lithic component, which wasthe main criterion for its definition, other material re-mains unique to the Natufian have been recovered,mostly in the Mediterranean geographic zone. Conse-quently, the Mediterranean zone is commonly referredto as the Natufian “core area,” “homeland” (Bar-Yosefand Belfer-Cohen 1992), or “center” (Valla 1995).

A major change in subsistence took place during theearly phases of the Natufian culture. There is a growingbody of evidence (though mostly circumstantial) that theNatufians were sedentary (Tchernov 1991), and in theNatufian core area there is, for the first time, a distinctdevelopment of stone architecture (Bar-Yosef 1991, Valla1995). A change in the spiritual outlook of the Natufiansis also evident from the organization of burials on site,unknown in previous cultures. Additionally, the relativefrequency of artistic activities has attracted much atten-tion (Belfer-Cohen 1991), mobile art and decorative el-ements being rare in the preserved materials of the pre-historic Levant prior to the Natufian. A significantrepresentation of exotic materials (obsidian, malachite,seashells, etc.) indicates contacts with distant regionssuch as Anatolia (the origin of obsidian) and northernSyria (ochre and basalt) (Valla 1995, Zackheim 1997,Weinstein-Evron, Lang, and Ilani 1999). Not all sites haveyielded artistic and symbolic components: there is in factan association between the larger sites and the presenceof burials, structures, ornaments, decorated implements,etc. Thus it seems that it was in these large sites of longerduration that most of the ritual activities pertaining tothe dead and their burial took place.

The Natufian has been chronologically subdividedinto early (ca. 12,500–11,000 b.p.) and late (ca. 11,000–10,200 b.p. uncalibrated) phases based mostly on changesin certain lithic attributes. A further subdivision addinga final phase (ca. 10,500–10,200 b.p.) was proposed byValla (1984) on the basis of his excavations at Mallaha(Eynan), the largest known open-air Natufian site, wherethe most complete stratified sequence of this entity hasbeen found. The changes in this final phase were a shiftin the type of retouch employed in shaping lunates anda reduction in their size. Longer lunates with Helwan(bifacial) retouch were gradually replaced by shorter onesmodified by an abrupt retouch (Bar-Yosef and Valla 1979,Valla 1984). Natufian flint knapping followed the mi-crolithic tradition established during the preceding cul-

572 F current anthropology

Fig. 1. Part of the Levantine Corridor, showing the location of Hilazon Tachtit Cave and other sites mentionedin the text.

tures coupled with the introduction of new tool typessuch as the sickle blade (only isolated specimens ofwhich had been recovered earlier).

Most of the characteristic features of the Natufian,which evolved rather quickly in a relative small corearea, were recognized in the early Natufian sites. How-

ever, after ca. 1,500 years of Natufian sedentary existencethere is evidence for a major shift in settlement patternand a change in the distribution and density of occupa-tion of sites. A general increase in mobility was ex-pressed in short-term occupations by small bands ofhunter-gatherers. Late Natufian sites such as those in


the Lower Jordan Valley were most likely task-specificcamps that retained many of the attributes seen in theearly Natufian sites of the core area, including a varietyof ground stone utensils, bone tools, and artistic mani-festations (Grosman, Belfer-Cohen, and Bar-Yosef 1999,Crabtree et al. 1991). At one of these sites, Fazael IV(Grosman, Belfer-Cohen, and Bar-Yosef 1999), the highpercentage of sickle blades may indicate the intensifi-cation of cereal exploitation. The site was occupied re-peatedly and may represent a palimpsest of recurringshort-term occupations over an extended time period(Belfer-Cohen and Grosman 1997, Grosman, Belfer-Co-hen, and Bar-Yosef 1999). The same can be said for thelate Natufian site at Hatula, on the western margin ofthe Judean plain, where an accumulation of short-termhalts has been interpreted as representing hunting stands(Ronen and Lechevallier 1991). Still, at sites such as Mal-laha, in the Hula Valley, the sedentary lifestyle wasmaintained, most likely because of its location in a richand variegated environment (Valla et al. 1999).

This settlement pattern differed sharply from that ofthe ensuing Early Neolithic (also known as the Pre-Pot-tery Neolithic A). The Neolithic sites were often estab-lished on alluvial fans and were generally larger than anyof the late Natufian camps, which were located at eco-tones (Henry 1989). The shift in the late Natufian is oftenlinked with the well-documented climatic oscillation ofthe Younger Dryas (Bar-Yosef 1996, Taylor et al. 1997).This event was part of the ongoing oscillations markingthe end of the Pleistocene climate regime and lasted forabout 1,000 years; both its appearance and its termina-tion were quite abrupt. The Younger Dryas is associatedwith climatic deterioration, a return to glacial condi-tions, but undoubtedly there were short-term amelio-rations within this long period. In considering the influ-ence of climate (i.e., environmental changes) in this timeperiod in the Levant we need to take into account boththe general trend and the short-term fluctuations pos-tulated within it (Bar-Yosef 1996, Grosman and Belfer-Cohen 2002).

The late Natufian system is considered the embryo ofcultivation in the Levant. Current evidence from the lateEpi-Palaeolithic occurrences at Abu Hureyra (Hillman2000), Mureybit (Colledge 1998), and other early farmingcommunities indicates that the shift to cultivation tookplace during the final stages of the Natufian. The evi-dence retrieved from the early Natufian sedentary basecamps concerning burial practices and artistic activitiesimplies a distinctive social structure, and one wonderswhether the instability of subsistence strategies of thelate Natufian influenced that structure. Did the late Na-tufians maintain their ancestral social structure in spiteof becoming more mobile?

Spiritual and cosmological perceptions, incorporatingmythical lore and creation stories, are embedded in asociety’s very fabric, and the rate of change in socialbehavior is much slower and more restrained than thatof change in subsistence strategy. Indeed, it has beenargued that some communities maintained their tieswith their original hamlets and returned there to bury

their dead, as is evidenced by the growing number ofsecondary burials during the late Natufian (Bar-Yosef1998). I suggest that while there was a collapse of thelarge central settlements in the late Natufian due to theinstability of subsistence strategies, ritual remained apowerful device for producing social cohesion. Not onlywas tradition maintained but ritual practices were evenintensified. New evidence from the late Natufian site ofHilazon Tachtit Cave is of considerable significance tothis issue. Because of its small dimensions and the burialground it contains, Hilazon Tachtit Cave provides cluesto the core of the late Natufians’ beliefs and their ad-herence to the Natufian tradition.

hilazon tachtit cave

Hilazon Tachtit Cave is located on the right bank ofNahal (wadi) Hilazon, western Galilee, Israel, some 14km from the Mediterranean shoreline. It faces east andis situated at the foot of a limestone cliff on the rightbank of the valley, ca. 120 m above the stream channel.The site is only some 7 km from the major Natufian basecamp of Hayonim Cave and Terrace (Bar-Yosef and Valla1991). Mallaha is 40 km to the northeast in the JordanValley (Valla et al. 1999). The Mt. Carmel sites of el-Wad, Nahal Oren, and Kebara lie only ca. 35 km to thesouthwest (fig. 1).

Excavation in the large chamber of the cave (an areaof 44 m 2) revealed two main stratigraphic units: layer A,which contained mainly ashes and goat dung because ofprolonged herding activity in the area (which began, ac-cording to occasional pottery fragments, in Byzantinetimes), and layer B, an archaeological layer containingthe late Natufian remains. The Natufian layer, 0.3–0.9m thick, had been disturbed by historical digging in sev-eral places, and therefore the full extent and thicknessof the original deposits are unknown. Nevertheless,given that there are no other prehistoric entities repre-sented in the stratigraphic sequence, it was easy to iso-late the historical intrusions. Accordingly, only the up-permost level of the excavated Natufian occupation (20cm) was disturbed, leaving the structures and the burialground intact. It should be noted that within the exca-vated area only a shallow depression in the cavefloor—an area of ca. 30 m2—contained Natufian remains.Elsewhere bedrock was found immediately beneath layerA. The single available radiocarbon date of 10,750 � 50b.p. (uncalibrated), obtained from a large (10 # 12 # 19cm) charcoal lump found in one of the structures, sup-ports the observation that layer B is of late Natufian age.

Natufian sites in the Mediterranean core area revealeda distinct domestic architecture, with circular or semi-circular structures, hearths, built-up graves, and pavedor lime-washed pits (probably storage bins) (Valla 1995).Although Hilazon Tachtit Cave is much smaller thanthe average core-area base camp, two small structures(ca. 1.5 m in diameter) built of undressed limestone cob-bles, similar to those exposed in the base-camp sites of


Fig. 2. Plan of excavation at Hilazon Tachtit Cave.

Hayonim Cave and Mallaha, were uncovered. StructureA (fig. 2) is semicircular and was delineated by importedlarge stones that followed the natural outline of the bed-rock. An artificial oval cut into the breccia formed aninner basin within the structure. Structure B is also bor-dered by the local bedrock and a series of undressedstones. The two structures are too small to have servedfor habitation and probably had a different function (e.g.,as at Hayonim Cave [Belfer-Cohen 1988]).

Similar to other Natufian core-area sites despite itssmall size, Hilazon Tachtit Cave contained burials, andhuman bones were scattered through the entire Natufianlayer. More than 450 burials have been exposed in Na-tufian sites, probably representing just part of the originalnumber of burials, since site deposits often contain scat-tered human bones (Edwards 1991, Valla 1998, Belfer-Cohen 1988). That Natufian mortuary practices were di-verse is apparent from the various types of graves andthe differences in the number of individuals per grave,the position of the skeletons, and the type of burial, pri-mary or secondary. Both primary and secondary burialshave been found both in graves and in built-up structureswith stone floors or stone covers (Belfer-Cohen 1988).

Some of the burials were decorated with jewelry andpersonal objects of adornment and accompanied by bur-ial offerings (Garrod 1957, Belfer-Cohen 1995). A uniquesituation is observed at Hilazon Tachtit, where gravescontaining both primary and secondary burials were un-covered in three different locations:

At the top of layer B, excavation exposed a burial ofan individual lying directly on large stones betweenstructure A and structure B (fig. 2). The skeleton is of ayoung adult (sex unknown) lying on its right side in aflexed position with both hands under its face—a com-mon position for Natufian burials. Unfortunately, manyof the skeleton’s bones are missing, probably because oflater disturbance. The scattered bones of a newborn werefound in the area of the missing pelvis, and it seems thatthe newborn was buried with the young adult.

Collective burials were uncovered in the lower portionof layer B in the inner part of the cave (fig. 2), occupyingan area of 3 # 2 m to a depth of 50 cm. The collectiveburial is made up of several individuals (preliminary es-timate of MNI p 11) representing different age-groups(adults, adolescents, children, and infants). A few obser-vations reveal the nature of the burials: (1) The bones of


several hands and feet were still in articulation. Sincethe tendons of the hands and feet are typically amongthe first articulations to decay, this can be taken as anindication of a primary burial. (2) Bones appearing tobelong to one individual, according to size and age es-timates, were all found in close proximity. (3) Given thenumber of buried individuals, many bones are missing,especially long bones and skulls. It appears that this col-lective grave served as a primary burial ground that waslater reopened and skulls and long bones (skeletal partsthat are usually found in secondary burials) removedfrom it.

Secondary burials, consisting primarily of long bonesand skulls, were uncovered in both the oval basin cutinto the breccia in structure A and the pit in structureB. Although primary and secondary burials have beenreported from early Natufian sites elsewhere (Belfer-Co-hen 1989, Belfer-Cohen, Schepartz, and Arensburg 1991,Byrd and Monahan 1995), Hilazon Tachtit is the first siteat which the complete variety of burial practices duringthe late Natufian occupation is observed. We are testingthe possibility that the primary and secondary burialsare complementary and represent the same individuals(Belfer-Cohen et al. n.d.).

A rich faunal assemblage was retrieved from HilazonTachtit Cave; preservation is quite good overall, as isindicated by the abundance of delicate avian bones.Mammalian remains bear signs of attrition and damagethat according to the taphonomic evidence (e.g., cutmarks, cone fractures, and fragment size) were causedby human activities such as processing and tramplingrather than by postdepositional processes (Munro 2001).A variety of species, in particular gazelle and tortoise,were transported to the cave and clearly butchered formeat. The analysis indicates great similarity to the fau-nal assemblage from the late Natufian occupation atHayonim Cave (Munro 2001).

Six thousand lithic artifacts, representing a relativelylow concentration of ca. 200 artifacts per m3, with a highratio of tools to debitage items (1:4), were studied. Theflint artifacts are generally small and seem to have beenknapped from flint pebbles that were brought into thecave from the streambed below. As a rule, Natufian lithicassemblages are characterized by high frequencies of mi-crolithic tools, in particular lunates, which are some-times considered the Natufian lithic index fossil (fig. 3).At Hilazon Tachtit Cave, microliths make up 40% of the834 tools identified. Nongeometric microliths, mostlyabruptly retouched bladelets, are by far the largest toolclass, accounting for 30% (N p 246) of the tools. Thegeometric component makes up ca. 10% of the tools,about 80% of them lunates and ca. 20% triangles. Nine-teen of the backed blades (N p 50 [2.4%]) retain har-vesting luster and can be considered sickle blades. Thedominance of backed short lunates and the absence ofHelwan retouch assign this assemblage to the later partof the late Natufian (Belfer-Cohen 1988, Valla 1984).Ground stone utensils recovered in the cave (N p 19)include mullers, pestles, and a mortar with red ochre

stains covering its inner surface (fig. 4). The 29 bone toolsconsist of awls, points, and a perforated needle (fig. 5).

The Hilazon Tachtit Cave inhabitants collected curi-ously shaped natural stone objects, most likely becauseof their “aesthetic” appeal. These items (N p 6) werefound in the collective-burial area and may have be-longed to the buried individuals. They appear to be un-modified, except for a fossil flint pebble with some finedistal retouch (fig. 4). Ornaments consist mainly of shellbeads, probably from the Mediterranean Sea. The mostcommon are Dentalium shells, found in the collective-burial area. The tips of the dentalia, which are usuallycut during the manufacture of beads, were recovered aswell, indicating that the beads were made on site (D. E.Bar-Yosef Mayer, personal communication). A uniquependant (fig. 6) made from the lower carnassial tooth ofa canid was found inside structure A, very close to twohuman bones (Grosman and Munro n.d.). The pendantis of considerable interest in view of the claims that theNatufians were the first to domesticate the dog (Garrod1957, Davis and Valla 1978, Tchernov and Valla 1997).The joint human-dog burials at Mallaha and HayonimTerrace are concrete cultural expressions of an intimaterelationship between humans and canids, possibly re-flecting a change in the symbolic relationships betweenhumans and nature (Valla 1998, Valla, Mort, and Plisson1991).

The location of Hilazon Tachtit Cave atop a high, steepescarpment with an excellent view of the valley as itopens to the coastal plain is of interest given the im-portance ascribed to the role of natural features in pastcosmologies (Bradley 2000). It suggests that the site hada specific function, and while it served as a camp forshort-term hunting forays it was also used as a burialground. Although small, it contains all of the character-istics of early Natufian base camps, suggesting it to bea diminutive version of such a camp.

discussion

The nature of the occupation at Hilazon Tachtit Caveaccords with a reversion to a more mobile way of life inresponse to environmental changes caused by the cli-matic deterioration of the Younger Dryas (Bar-Yosef1995). During this period most Natufian base camps inthe core area were abandoned, and there was a return toless specialized economic strategies that entailed short-term occupations by mobile hunter-gatherer bands. Thissettlement pattern implies a scheduled use of a varietyof seasonal resources. Accordingly, it explains the re-peated return of the bands to the Jordan Valley sites,excluding the possibility of a year-round or at least aprolonged occupation.

Both the hill sites and the sites in the Jordan Valleyrepresent shifts in the Natufian exploitation of the en-vironment throughout the time period predating the es-tablishment of Neolithic society. Small bands of mobile


Fig. 3. Microlithic tools. 1,2,3,6, backed bladelets; 4, 5, 7, triangles; 9–16, lunates.

hunter-gatherers were alternating between the variousgeographic zones, going back and forth between the hillsand the valley. These shifts came to an end in the JordanValley with the growing reliance on the exploitation ofcereals. Indeed, in the following Neolithic, full-fledgedsedentary agricultural communities were concentratedmainly in the valley and its vicinity.

The Natufians’ social responses to the economic con-straints varied. It seems that in the hilly zone the lateNatufian retained the traditional customs of the earlyNatufian almost entirely. At Hayonim Cave and HilazonTachtit Cave there is evidence of intensive use as burialgrounds—many formal burials and numerous humanbones and teeth scattered in the occupational deposits(Belfer-Cohen 1988). In contrast, although the excavatedareas of the lower Jordan Valley sites represent only smallportions of the sites, no burials or structures were foundand only a handful of scattered human bone fragmentswere recovered from the deposits (Crabtree et al. 1991,Grosman 1997). In addition, the cultic importance of theHilazon Tachtit Cave is apparent in the energy invested

by the occupants in modifying the inside of the cave bydigging into its surface and erecting two small structures.

A speculative scenario suggests that while there wasa collapse of the large central settlements, ritual contin-ued to produce social cohesion. Mortuary rituals oftenserve as both symbolic and physical expressions of theviews and beliefs of human bands (Metcalf and Hunt-ington 1991, Tainter 1978, among others), and it is evi-dent from the late Natufian sites of the core area (HilazonTachtit Cave included) that mortuary rites were the orderof the day (Belfer-Cohen, Schepartz, and Arensburg1991). The rituals provided a framework for establishing,strengthening, and extending links between bands byelaborate codes of social reciprocity ensuring participa-tion in collective ceremonies. They played a role in theunification of groups that were growing apart because ofshifting subsistence strategies and greater mobility. Notonly was tradition maintained but ritual practices wereeven intensified; caves sanctified the area in which theyoccurred and served as focal points in a “sacred land-scape.” Thus the small Hilazon Tachtit Cave, located on


Fig. 4. Ground stone tools. 1, mortar with red ochre stains; 2, fossilized flint pebble; 3, pestle.

an escarpment, probably served as a landmark with po-litical power and spiritual meaning.

The Natufian mortuary practices unearthed at HilazonTachtit Cave, in particular skull removal but also thecustom of secondary burials, continued into the Neo-lithic. Secondary mortuary practices often reflect aspects

of ancestor worship and responsibility to the deceased.They also permit the scheduling of funeral events at aprearranged time when they will not conflict with othertasks and that is sometimes envisioned as a season offestivities. These practices took place in the hilly zoneduring the late Natufian period, and it was only during


Fig. 5. Bone tools.

the initial stages of the Neolithic that things changed,the continuity of previous practices being retained onlyin the Jordan Valley settlements. Although climatic de-terioration may impose rapid change in subsistence prac-tices, the old traditions were retained in the geographiczone in which they were initially introduced and servedas a mechanism for maintaining group identity in a time

of instability. The burial practices at Hilazon TachtitCave link the early Natufian tradition with the burialpractices of the early Neolithic villages in the JordanValley.

Further research will be required for an understandingof regional patterns in human adaptation to climaticchange, territorial circumscription, and changing life-


Fig. 6. Tooth pendant.

ways during the millennia immediately preceding theagricultural revolution. It is interesting that other cul-tural realms did not display major breaks such as thoseobserved in subsistence strategies (e.g., the lithic indus-tries show continuity from the Natufian to the Neolithic[Belfer-Cohen 1994]). The study of a transitional timespan in human cultural evolution is a demanding task.It is difficult to reconstruct social changes, since theyare triggered and sustained through a complex array ofmajor and minor processes in the various domains ofhuman existence. Progress in the understanding of thistransition, as of any other, will depend on the continuingaccumulation of data.

References Citedb a r - y o s e f , o . 1991. “The archaeology of the Natufian layer

at Hayonim Cave,” in The Natufian culture in the Levant. Ed-ited by O. Bar-Yosef and F. R. Valla, pp. 81–92. Ann Arbor: In-ternational Monographs in Prehistory.

———. 1995. “The role of climate in the interpretation of hu-man movements and cultural transformations in WesternAsia,” in Paleoclimate and evolution, with emphasis on hu-man origins. Edited by E. S. Vrba, G. H. Denton, T. C. Par-tridge, and L. H. Burckle, pp. 507–23. New Haven and London:Yale University Press.

———. 1996. “The impact of Late Pleistocene—Early Holoceneclimatic changes on humans in Southwest Asia,” in Humansat the end of the Ice Age: The archaeology of the Pleistocene-Holocene transition. Edited by L. G. Straus, B. V. Eriksen, J. M.Erlandson, and D. R. Yesner, pp. 61–78. New York: PlenumPress.

———. 1998. The Natufian culture in the Levant, threshold tothe origins of agriculture. Evolutionary Anthropology 6:159–77.

b a r - y o s e f , o . , a n d a . b e l f e r - c o h e n . 1992. “From for-aging to farming in the Mediterranean Levant,” in Transitionto agriculture. Edited by A. B. Gebauer and T. D. Price, pp.21–48. Ann Arbor: International Monographs in Prehistory.

b a r - y o s e f , o . , a n d f . v a l l a . 1979. L’evolution du Na-toufien: Nouvelles suggestions. Paleorient 5:145–52.

———. 1991. “The Natufian culture: An introduction,” in The

Natufian culture in the Levant. Edited by O. Bar-Yosef and F.Valla, pp. 1–10. Ann Arbor: International Monographs inPrehistory.

b e l f e r - c o h e n , a . 1988. The Natufian settlement at Hay-onim Cave: A hunter-gatherer band on the threshold of agricul-ture. Ph.D. diss., Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel.

———. 1989. The Natufian graveyard in Hayonim Cave. Paleo-rient 14:297–308.

———. 1991. The Natufian in the Levant. Annual Review of An-thropology 20:167–86.

———. 1994. “The lithic continuity in the Jordan Valley: Natu-fian unto the PPNA,” in Neolithic chipped lithic industries ofthe Fertile Crescent: Proceedings of the First Workshop onPPN Chipped Lithic Industries. Edited by H.-G. Gebel and S.K. Kozlowski, pp. 91–100. Berlin: Ex Oriente.

———. 1995. “Rethinking social stratification in the Natufianculture: The evidence from burials,” in The archaeology ofdeath in the ancient Near East. Edited by S. Campbell and A.Green, pp. 9–16. Edinburgh: Oxbow Monographs.

b e l f e r - c o h e n , a . , b . a r e n s b u r g , f . b o u c q u e n t i n ,a n d l . g ro s m a n . n.d. The burial ground at Hilazon Tach-tit Cave. MS.

b e l f e r - c o h e n , a . , a n d l . g ro s m a n . 1997. The lithicassemblage of Salibiya I. Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Soci-ety 27:19–41.

b e l f e r - c o h e n , a . , l . s c h e p a r t z , a n d b . a r e n s -b u r g . 1991. “New biological data for the Natufian popula-tions in Israel,” in The Natufian culture in the Levant. Editedby O. Bar-Yosef and F. R. Valla, pp. 411–24. Ann Arbor: Inter-national Monographs in Prehistory.

b r a d l e y, r . s . 2000. An archaeology of natural places. Lon-don and New York: Routledge.

b y r d , b . f . 1989. The Natufian encampment at Beidha: LatePleistocene adaptations in the Southern Levant. Aarhus, Den-mark: Jutland Archaeological Society Publications.

b y r d , b . , a n d c . m . m o n a h a n . 1995. Death, mortuaryritual, and Natufian social structure. Journal of Anthropologi-cal Archaeology 14:251–87.

c o l l e d g e , s . 1998. “Identifying pre-domestication cultivationusing multivariate analysis,” in The origins of agriculture andcrop domestication. Edited by A. B. Damania, J. Valkoun, G.Willcox, and C. O. Qualset, pp. 121–31. Aleppo, Syria:ICARDA.

c r a b t r e e , p . j . , d . v. c a m p a n a , a . b e l f e r - c o h e n ,a n d d . e . b a r - y o s e f . 1991. “First results of the excava-tions at Salibiya I, Lower Jordan Valley,” in The Natufian cul-ture in the Levant. Edited by O. Bar-Yosef and F. R. Valla, pp.161–72. Ann Arbor: International Monographs in Prehistory.

d a v i s , s . j . m . , a n d f . r . v a l l a . 1978. Evidence for do-mestication of the dog 12,000 years ago in the Natufian of Is-rael. Nature 276:608–10.

e d w a r d s , p . c . 1991. “Wadi Hammeh 27: An Early Natufiansite at Pella, Jordan,” in The Natufian culture in the Levant.Edited by O. Bar-Yosef and F. R. Valla, pp. 123–48. Ann Arbor:International Monographs in Prehistory.

g a r ro d , d . a . e . 1932. A new Mesolithic industry: The Na-tufian of Palestine. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Insti-tute 62:257–69.

————. 1957. The Natufian culture: The life and economy of aMesolithic people in the Near East. Proceedings of the BritishAcademy 43:211–27.

g o r i n g - m o r r i s , a . n . 1987. At the edge: Terminal Pleisto-cene hunter-gatherers in the Negev and Sinai. British Archaeo-logical Reports International Series 361.

————. 1997. A Late Natufian campsite at Givat Hayil I, west-ern Negev Dunes, Israel. Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Soci-ety 27:43–61.

g ro s m a n , l . 1997. Natufian lithic assemblages from theLower Jordan Valley: Salibiya I and Fazael IV. M.A. thesis, He-brew University, Jerusalem, Israel.

g ro s m a n , l . , a n d a . b e l f e r - c o h e n . 2002. “Zoomingonto the ‘Younger Dryas,’ ” in The dawn of farming in the


Near East. Edited by R. T. J. Cappers and S. Bottema, pp.49–54. Berlin: Ex Oriente.

g ro s m a n , l . , a . b e l f e r - c o h e n , a n d o . b a r - y o s e f .1999. A final Natufian site: Fazael IV. Journal of the Israel Pre-historic Society 29:17–40.

g ro s m a n , l . , a n d n . d . m u n ro . n.d. Tooth pendantfrom Hilazon Tachtit Cave. MS.

h e n ry, d . o . 1976. “Rosh Zin: A Natufian settlement nearEin Avdat,” in Prehistory and paleoenvironments in the Cen-tral Negev, Israel: The Avdat/Aqev Area, pt. 1. Edited by A. E.Marks, pp. 317–47. Dallas: SMU Press.

———. 1989. From foraging to agriculture: The Levant at theend of the Ice Age. Philadelphia: University of PennsylvaniaPress.

h i l l m a n , g . c . 2000. “Abu Hureyra 1: The Epipalaeolithic,”in Village on the Euphrates: From foraging to farming at AbuHureyra. Edited by A. M. T. Moore, G. C. Hillman, and A. J.Legge, pp. 327–99. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

m e t c a l f , p . , a n d r . h u n t i n g t o n . 1991. Celebration ofdeath. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

m u n ro , n . d . 2001. A prelude to agriculture: Game use andoccupation intensity during the Natufian period in the South-ern Levant. Ph.D. diss., University of Arizona, Tucson, Ariz.

o l s z e w s k i , d . i . , a n d j . b . h i l l . 1997. Renewed exca-vations at Tabaqa (WHS-895), an Early Natufian site in theWadi al-Hasa, Jordan. Neo-Lithics 3(97):11–12.

ro n e n , a . , a n d m . l e c h e v a l l i e r . 1991. “The Natufianof Hatula,” in The Natufian culture in the Levant. Edited byO. Bar-Yosef and F. Valla, pp. 149–60. Ann Arbor: InternationalMonographs in Prehistory.

t a i n t e r , j . a . 1978. Mortuary practices and the study of pre-historic social systems. Advances in Archaeological Theory 1:106–43.

t a y l o r , k . c . , p . a . m a y e w s k i , r . b . a l l e y, e . j .b ro o k , a . j . g o w, p . m . g ro o t e s , d . a . m e e s e , e .s . s a l t z m a n , j . p . s e v e r i n g h a u s , m . s . t w i c k -l e r , j . w. c . w h i t e , s . w h i t l o w, a n d g . a . z i e -l i n s k i . 1997. The Holocene–Younger Dryas transition re-corded at Summit, Greenland. Science 278:825–27.

t c h e r n o v, e . 1991. “Biological evidence for human seden-tism in southwest Asia during the Natufian,” in The Natufianculture in the Levant. Edited by O. Bar-Yosef and F. R. Valla,pp. 315–40. Ann Arbor: International Monographs inPrehistory.

t c h e r n o v, e . , a n d f . r . v a l l a . 1997. Two new dogs,and other Natufian dogs, from the southern Levant. Journal ofArchaeological Science 24:65–95.

v a l l a , f . r . 1984. Les industries de silex de Mallaha (Eynan)et du Natoufien dans le Levant. Memoires et Travaux du Cen-tre de Recherche Francais de Jerusalem 3.

———. 1995. “The first settled societies: Natufian (12,500–10,200 bp),” in The archaeology of society in the Holy Land.Edited by T. E. Levy, pp. 170–87. London: Leicester UniversityPress.

———. 1998. Le Natoufien: Une autre facon de comprendre lemonde? Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 23:171–75.

v a l l a , f . r . , h . k h a l a i l y, n . s a m u e l i n , f . b o u c -q u e n t i n , c . d e l a c h e , b . v a l e n t i n , h . p l i s s o n ,r . r a b i n o v i t z , a n d a . b e l f e r - c o h e n . 1999. Le Na-toufien final et les nouvelles fouilles a Mallaha (Eynan), Israel1996–1997. Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 28:105–76.

v a l l a , f . r . , f . l . m o r t , a n d h . p l i s s o n . 1991. “Lesfouilles en cours sur la Terrasse d’Hayonim,” in The Natufianculture in the Levant. Edited by O. Bar-Yosef and F. R. Valla,pp. 93–110. Ann Arbor: International Monographs inPrehistory.

w e i n s t e i n - e v ro n , m . , b . l a n g , a n d s . i l a n i . 1999.Natufian trade/exchange in basalt implements: Evidence fromnorthern Israel. Archaeometry 41:267–73.

z a c k h e i m , o . 1997. Provenance of ochre from the Natufianassemblages of el-Wad, Eynan, and Hayonim. M.A. thesis, Uni-versity of Haifa, Haifa, Israel.

Simulating Coastal Migration inNew World Colonization1

todd a. surovellDepartment of Anthropology, University of Wyoming,University Station, Box 3431, Laramie, Wyo. 82071,U.S.A. ([email protected]). 20 i 03

The MV-II component of the Monte Verde site in south-ern Chile dates between 12,300 and 12,800 radiocarbonyears b.p., but best estimates by Dillehay and Pino (1997:45–49) place the occupation at approximately 12,570 ra-diocarbon years b.p., thus predating the Clovis complex(11,200 to 10,800 radiocarbon years b.p.)2 by approxi-mately 1,000–1,200 calendar years (Batt and Pollard1996; Fiedel 1999; Taylor, Haynes, and Stuiver 1996). Anumber of additional sites from South America have pro-duced radiocarbon dates contemporaneous with orslightly predating Clovis (Borrero 1999; Bryan et al. 1978;Correal Urrego 1986; Dillehay et al. 1992; Dillehay 1999,2000; Kipnis 1998; Mengoni Gonalons 1986). If the initialentry into the New World occurred via the Bering landbridge and migration proceeded from north to south, howwere prehistoric humans able to migrate to southernChile while leaving very few if any traces along the way?Some would argue that there is already sufficient evi-dence documenting the presence of a pre-Clovis occu-pation in North America (e.g., Adovasio and Pedler 1997,Adovasio et al. 1999, Bryan and Tuohy 1999), but it isnot my intention to join this debate (for comprehensivereviews see Bonnichsen and Turnmire 1999; Dincauze1984; Dillehay 2000; Dixon 1999; Fiedel 2000; Meltzer1993, 1995; Owen 1984; Rogers, Rogers, and Martin1991; Waters 1985). There are at least four possible ex-planations for the spatio-temporal discrepancy betweenthe early archaeological records of North and SouthAmerica: (1) The age, artifacts, or stratigraphic integrityof many early South American archaeological sites areproblematic. (2) Humans entered South America beforethey entered North America. (Obviously, this wouldhave required a transoceanic migration.) (3) Earlier sites

� 2003 by The Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Re-search. All rights reserved 0011-3204/2003/4404-0007$1.00

1. This paper has undergone countless episodes of revision resultingfrom the constructive commentaries of many people. These includeJeff Brantingham, George Frison, Ruth Gruhn, C. Vance Haynes Jr.,Robert Kelly, Marcel Kornfeld, Steve Kuhn, Mary Lou Larson, Car-ole Mandryk, Paul Martin, William Longacre, David Meltzer, Bon-nie Pitblado, Michael Schiffer, James Steele, Mary Stiner, NicoleWaguespack, Steven Zegura, and many anonymous reviewers. Al-bert Goodyear and Carole Mandryk were generous in providinginformation on their ongoing research. I greatly appreciate the thor-ough editorial treatment of the manuscript by Ben Orlove, whoprovided significant guidance in improving the text.2. Two radiocarbon dates (11,540 � 110 and 11,590 � 90 radio-carbon years b.p.) from the Aubrey Clovis sites in Texas may extendthe Clovis age-range (Ferring 1994) by approximately 300 radiocar-bon years.

Documents

Preserving Cultural Traditions in a Period of Instability: The Late Natufian of the Hilly Mediterranean Zone