UDC 903.3

During recent excavations in the Rakefet cave (Carmel, Israel), 77 depressions (stupa-shaped, cup-shaped, etc.) were found, which were cut out in its rock floor and on the adjacent terrace areas in the Late Altufi period. Some of them seem to be related to human burials. Stone products, including flint, were found in separate depressions. Man-made pits in the rock bottom vary greatly in size and morphology. The article suggests a new system of their classification. The deepest and narrowest recesses may not have been used either for processing food, for extracting raw stone, or as storage facilities. Their creation was laborious, involved the use of tools, and also required considerable skill. Some man-made depressions in the cave could be associated with the social and spiritual activities of the bearers of the late-Tatufian culture.

Keywords: Natufian culture, man-made depressions in the rock bottom, Rakefet cave.

Introduction

Rock-cut depressions (in particular, stupa-shaped and cup-shaped ones) were discovered at the very beginning of the study of natuf in the El-Wad caves in Carmel [Garrod and Bate, 1937, p. 11] and Jericho in the Lower Jordan Valley [Kenyon and Holland, 1981, p. 272]. Today, hundreds of such objects are known; they are very widespread in the area of the late-Tatufian culture.

Recently, during excavations in the Rakefet Cave (Carmel, Israel), 77 man - made depressions (hereinafter referred to as RUSDS) were found in its rock bottom and on the terrace adjacent to it, which were carved out in the Late Altufi period. In the upper part of one of them, on a shoulder-shaped ledge, there was a burial, in some others there were stone (including flint) objects. Natufian RUSDS, as well as portable stone tools for food processing, are relatively poorly studied, although they can be the most important source of information about the transition to intensive use of cereals and acorns in Natuf, and even about the beginnings of agriculture (see, for example, [Bar-Yosef, 2002; Belfer-Cohen and Hovers, 2005; Dubreuil, 2004; Hillman et al., 2001]*. The study of the Rakefet cave suggests that certain types of RUSDS were associated with the social sphere of the late Natufian rather than with the processing of food or stone raw materials.

Many publications and reports are devoted to Natufian culture, which eliminates the need to describe it here. Mention should be made of Natufian innovations in burial practices, art, and the use of stone in the construction of walls and pavements (see, for example, [Bar-Yosef, 1998, 2002; Belfer-Cohen, 1991; Byrd and Monahan, 1995; Hayden, 2004; Garrod, 1957; Hardy-Smith and Edwards, 2004; Valla, 1995]). Manifestations of the new are also very

* See also: Rosenberg D. The Pestle: Characteristics and Changes of Stone Pounding Implements in the Southern Levant from the Early Epipalaeolithic through the Pottery Neolithic Period: M. A. Thesis. - Tel Aviv University (in Hebrew), 2004. - 189 p.

page 37

Fig. 1. Map of the Southern Levant with the designation of Late-Atufian sites with RUSDS.

large, decorated stone objects (Edwards, 1991, fig. 10; Henry, 1976, fig. 11, 4; Perrot, 1966, fig. 15], figures depicting people and animals [Boyd and Cook, 1993; Garrod and Bate, 1937, plat. XII, XIII; Weinstein-Evron, 1998, p. 99-105; Weinstein-Evron, Belfer-Cohen, 1993], high-quality bowls, mortars, pestles, etc. This group of polished products represents one of the highest achievements of Natufian technology; such items are rare on earlier monuments (see, for example, [Belfer-Cohen, 1988; Belfer-Cohen and Hovers, 2005;Wright, 1991]*. As for RUSDS, they first appeared in natuf, and in large numbers.

Until now, when describing depressions in the rock, they were called either stupas (large depressions) or cup-shaped holes (small depressions).

A new general term is needed, since the two mentioned ones do not correspond to the entire typological spectrum of objects of this kind recorded on Natufian and later monuments. Traditional terms are clearly not applicable to many depressions: they are either too wide or too narrow [Nadel et al., in print; Nadel, Rosenberg, Yeshuran, in print]. In addition, the designation "stupa" carries an undesirable interpretative burden: it implies the use of depressions for grinding/ pounding, although some of them probably served in a different capacity, for example, flint was mined in them (see [Grosman and Goren-Inbar, 2007]). We offer the collective designation "Manmade Bedrock Holes" for all types of hollows cut into rock surfaces. As for portable items, their typological diversity is not so wide; most of them are similar to ethnographic stupas and cup-shaped vessels. We use the RUSD designation for the group of artificial cavities in the rock bottom as a whole, but we continue to apply the definitions of "stupa" and "cup-shaped" for both portable objects and rock depressions, if they fully correspond to these types of depressions.

Depressions in the rock bottom of Rakefet Cave

Rakefet Cave is located in one of the inner gorges of the south-eastern spur of Carmel (Ramot Menashe, Fig. 1). Late - Tufin materials deposited in situ were found in grotto 1 and on the terrace in front of the cave (Figs.2-4). In 1970-1972, most of the rock floor in Grotto 1 was uncovered; burials and burials were recorded (Noy and Higgs, 1971). Two uncalibrated radiocarbon dates were obtained for the Late Natufian from samples taken from excavations: 10,980 ± 260 and 10,580 ± 140 BP (Lengyel et al., 2005). We uncovered the rock floor at a number of other sites and identified several large RUSDS with in situ Natufian materials, as well as seven burials. In total, 50 rusds and two large stupas carved into limestone boulders were recorded in the cave. Another 27 RUSDS were found in the rocky floor of the terrace (see table).

Characteristics of man-made depressions

To carve depressions in the rock, most of which have a symmetrical shape, it was necessary to have a good knowledge of the local rock features, special tools, high stone-cutting skills, as well as patience and strength for many hours

* See also: Rosenberg D. The Pestle: Characteristics and Changes of Stone Pounding Implements in the Southern Levant from the Early Epipalaeolithic through the Pottery Neolithic Period: M. A. Thesis. - Tel Aviv University (in Hebrew), 2004. - 189 p.; Wright K. Ground Stone Assemblage Variation and Subsistence Strategies in the Levant, 22.000 to 5.000 B. P.: Ph. D. Diss., Yale University. - NewHaven, 1992.

page 38

2. Topographic plan of grotto 1 of Rakefet Cave prepared using photogrammetric methods. The location of four rock depressions, as well as the largest RUSDS, is shown.

3. Sections along the lines of the main depressions in grotto 1.

4. General view of grotto 1 from the north. RUSD CXXIII in the middle, depression 3 below the big rock (top of the central part of the image).

page 39
Artificial depressions in the rock bottom of the Rakefet cave and on the terrace, pcs.

Type

Recesses

Total

Including

Illustrations

In the cave

On the terrace

A

Small, rounded, shallow; width 2-5 cm, depth 2-5 cm; width: depth = ± 1

2

2

-

Figure 11

B

Small, rounded, shallow; width 5-10 cm, depth 2-5 cm; width: depth = > 1

4

2

2

Fig. 5, 11

C

Rounded, medium-sized, usually cup-shaped; width 10-15 cm, depth 5-10 cm; width: depth = ± 1

24

13

11

Figure 11

D

Rounded, large size, usually cup-shaped; width 15-30 cm, depth 5-30 cm; width: depth = ± 1

35

22

13

Figs. 10, 16

E

Deep, narrow, rounded, cylindrical shape (stupas); width in the upper and middle parts 10-20 cm, sharply tapering in the bottom, depth 20-80 cm; width: depth = < 1

3

3

Figure 14

F

Deep, narrow, rounded, funnel-shaped; width in the upper and middle parts 10-20 cm, sharply tapering in the bottom, depth 20-80 cm; width: depth = < 1. The wide top and narrow bottom are separated by a clear bend in the form of a shoulder

2

2

Fig. 7, 14

G

Deep, wide, round-oval, cylindrical shape; width more than 20 cm, depth 20-80 cm; the upper part is much wider than the lower part

6

5

1

Figure 5, 6, 15, 16

H

Oval, shallow; width: depth = > 1

1

1

-

-

L

Elongated, some in the form of short "tubules"; width: depth = > 1

1

1

-

-

J

Combined forms that combine two or more forms

-

-

-

-

K

Different (not included in any of the categories listed above)

-

-

-

-

Total

77

50

27

Fig. 5. Floor in the center of grotto 1 with RUSD CXXIII (left) and adjacent RUSDS.

Fig. 6. RUSD CXXIII. View from above.

hard work. However, there is little direct evidence that stone-cutting operations were performed. The rock surface is usually highly modified by erosion, as well as various crusts and tuffs, which limits the possibility of identifying traces of such operations as picketing, chipping and drilling (Figs. 5-10).

Probably, this circumstance does not allow us to identify as such a number of small and small man-made depressions, and objects of disputed origin are not considered in this work.

Some very small depressions (2 - 3 cm wide) may be the result of the first stage

page 40

Fig. 7. RUSD CXVI. View from above.

Figure 8. RUSD CXVIII. View from above.

Figure 9. RUSD CXVIII. View from above.

Fig. 10. Cup-shaped recess, type D.

11. Plan and sections of the smallest RUSDS (types A, B, and C).
5, 11) [Grosman and Goren-Inbar, 2007]. Two rounded spots in the hollow 4 show signs of heavy picketing; this technique was used at least during the marking and at the initial stage of deepening into the rock. Several rough stone tools of elongated shape found in graves and at some other sites of the monument may have been used at later stages of the work.

page 41

12. Central part of the pit 1.

Fig. 13. Plans and cross-sections of various RUSDS.

Pitfalls

The rock floor is very uneven (see Figures 2-4). Within large natural relief depressions (at least 1 m long), four regular-shaped depressions can be traced. All of them appear to have formed naturally, but were later modified or at least used by the Natufians. One of the sites of pit 1 (locus 1) It served for the burial of the deceased: the body was placed on stones placed on the rib (Lengyel and Bocquentin, 2005). In another area, in the northern part of zapadina 1, there was a limestone slab with a cup - shaped depression, and in the southern part, a large rounded RUSD was cut out (Fig. 12). In the same hollow, inside a small circle of stones, two connected limestone "plates" were found, mounted on the end face and facing each other. Pit 2 contained two large boulder stupas and the remains of a Natufian burial site. In zapadina 3, RUSDS CI and II were recorded. In the floor of the pit 4, two rounded spots can be traced, slightly buried by picketing.

Man-made depressions in the rock bottom

The rocky bottom has an uneven surface. Morphologically, different RUSDS are located at different levels. They vary greatly in size and shape (see Figures 4-15). The type list for these properties in the Levant has not yet been developed. K's job Wright* was aimed at studying small objects; their type list, unfortunately, did not reflect all the morphological diversity. For this purpose, the type list proposed in this article can be used. In it, RUSDS are divided into ten main categories, the boundaries between which in some cases are somewhat arbitrary. Each of these categories may be further divided in the future (see the table).

To date, 77 RUSDS have been identified in the cave and on the terrace. Of the 44 depressions located in the cave are connected to the floor of grotto 1, and six more are connected to a huge collapsed piece of rock in the depths of the cave. Since some areas of the floor have not yet been opened, it is not possible to provide complete quantitative data. The latter also applies to the terrace, where 27 RUSDS have now been discovered, but significant areas have not yet been excavated.

In a number of objects, the finds were found in situ (most of the RUSDS are empty; they are not described in this paper). In RUSD CXVI (type F), a stone was found tightly wedged 30 cm below the upper edge of the depression (see Figs. 7, 14). There were no rocks above or below it. In loose zapol-

* Wright K. Ground Stone Assemblage Variation and Subsistence Strategies in the Levant, 22.000 to 5.000 B. P.: Ph. D. Diss., Yale University. - New Haven, 1992.

page 42

14. Plans and sections of narrow and deep RUSDS CXV (type E) and CXVI.

beneath it are small animal bones, three whole segments, three plates, and two flint scales.

RUSD CXXIII (type G) is the largest recorded on the site and probably the largest known Natufian (maximum depth 65 cm, width in the upper part 80 cm) (see Figures 5, 6, 15). It is bordered by one small depression (type A) and two small ones (Type B; see Figure 5). Its brown filling contained Natufian flints and bones. In addition, there were two flat stones placed on the edge. The bottom was covered with tuff with inclusions of flints and bones. Among the flints (289 pieces), plates and plates predominate (53.6 %), there are also 29 tools, of which 34.5% are segments.

Located in close proximity to RUSDS CI and II, they were identified in depression 3. At the western edge of one of them (CI, type D), an angular block of stone was recorded, placed on an edge (Figs. The bottom of this depression was covered with tuff, containing flints and small stones. A fragment of the child's parietal bone (5 cm in diameter) was found here, lying in a horizontal position and possibly intentionally buried [Lengyel et al., 2005]. The CII depression (type G) is one of the largest excavated to date. Inside it, four stones are fixed, placed on an edge parallel to each other; two of them are connected fragments of the same stone. All four, judging by their position, were deliberately buried. Complex of flint edits-

15. Plan and sections of a large RUSD CXXIII.

16. Plans and sections of the CI and CII complexes.

page 43

17. The CI and CII complex.

Figure 18. Ribs and skull in RUSD CXLIV

The lii (561 units) includes 69 nuclei, 38 tools (segments account for 24 %), and 106 plates.

The RUSD silicon complexes CI and II, as well as CXXII, are generally similar [Ibid]. The segments are represented by a typical late Natufian shape with elements of vertical counter retouching, with an average length of 15.2 mm. The main difference between the complexes is the number of nuclei: in CI and II-69 pcs., in CXXIII-1 pc., and this is despite the fact that in general both collections are comparable in size. We assume that the nuclei were placed in the CI and II RDS intentionally, whereas other flints here may be nothing more than a typical natuf background "noise".

RUSD CXLIV (type G) is located in depression 1, where the highest concentration of burials is noted (see Fig. 2, 3, 12, 18). Several small and medium-sized RUSDS are located directly above the depression (less than 50 cm from it). The bottom and base of the walls of the depressions are covered with tuff with inclusions of flints and bones. One individual (N. 9) was buried in a horizontal position in the shoulder-shaped ledge of RUSD CXLIV; the ribs were below the level of the edge of the depression (Fig. 18). The depression served for at least five burials.

In locus 2, in addition to depressions in the rock bottom, two boulder stupas were found, the upper edges of which were at the same level as the upper edges of neighboring RUSDS. On the larger mortar, near the very crown of the hole, there was a small additional depression (3 × 2 cm). Next to this object, at the level of its base, was a skeleton. Several bones of human limbs were also found at the base of the second stupa. The connection of similar objects with funerary contexts is also recorded on other late-Tatufian monuments.

RUSDS have been identified at various sites of the late Natufian; five large and several small depressions embedded in the leveled rock bottom found in El Wad are dated to the Early Natufian (Garrod and Bate, 1937, p. 10-11). In Haionim, cup-shaped depressions in the rock were recorded near the cave (Belfer-Cohen, 1988, p. 167). In the Natufian layer of Jericho, there are several deep and shallow pits from pillars embedded in the rock (Kenyon and Holland, 1981, p. 272, pi. 145, a, b). There are several RUSDS in the entrance part of the Nahal Oren cave. Hundreds of RUSDS, mostly of small size, are scattered over exposed rock surfaces in Khatul (Samzun, 1994). However, the nature of these pits and the presence of structures typical of the Pre-Ceramic Neolithic A on the monument indicate their Neolithic age. Recently, these RDSS were interpreted as traces of siliconases (Grosman and Goren-Inbar, 2007). Khuzuk Musa (Lower Jordan Valley) contains dozens of RUSDS of various sizes and types dating back to the end of Natuf (Eitam, 2005, pp. 686-689).

Earlier, 18 RUSDS were found in Rosh Zin (Henry, 1976). To date, approx. 25 such objects [Nadel et al., in print, b]. Five yards away, a stone was inserted into the shaft of the cavity. More than 150 Rusds are known in Saflulim (Goring-Morris, 1999), and several dozen are found on the neighboring monuments of Romam and Rosh Horesha. In Upper Besor-6, Early-Tatufian RUSDS were recorded, which were also used by the Late-Tatufian population (Goring-Morris, 1998; Horwitz and Goring-Morris, 2001). In Wadi Mataha (Mount Edom, south-west Jordan), " there are several stupas in a sandstone ledge of rock... the deepest of them (up to 72 cm) became so as a result of intensive use"; their late-Tatufian age is likely [Janetski and Chazan, 2004, p. 164].

Finds from RUSD on several monuments can be divided into two categories: stones placed on an edge, and buried objects. In Rakefet, stones placed on the edge were found in graves and three Rusds. In El Wada, "a block of limestone was tightly wedged into depression 2, and two more slabs were wedged into depression 3" ([Garrod and Bate, 1937, p. 11]; what D. A. E. Garrod calls depressions corresponds to

page 44
RUSD). In Rakefet, the stones were found in the cavities of deep narrow rusds CXVI and XXI. Considering the finds from Rosh Zin, D. O. Henry reports that "worked, pierced through stupas were repaired by inserting quartzite cobblestones into the trunk of the cavity in such a way as to seal the bottom again" (Henry, 1976, p.337). Recently, we have identified five similar cavities. It should be noted that the interpretation proposed by D. O. Henry may be incorrect, since the surface of the stones inserted into the stupas is uneven, angular, and does not show signs of smoothness, which should have been acquired as a result of using the stupas for their intended purpose [Nadel et al., in print]. Interestingly, in both Rakefet and Rosh Zin, stones were inserted into both intact and broken stupas. As a rule, they did not lie at the very bottom; in some stupas - at the top. There has always been only one stone inside, and it matches exactly the contours of the shaft of the recess, so it is difficult to assume that the stones got there by accident. Moreover, some of these stones have negative chipping marks. Most likely, the stones were inserted intentionally, thus sealing part of the RUSD.

Flint nuclei were also placed at the bottom of deep, narrow silos. One nucleus was located at the bottom of Stupa 17 in Rosh Zin (Henry, 1976, p. 337). This stupa was cut into the rock next to a large pavement, where several unique items were found, including five large symmetrical pyramidal nuclei. D. O. Henry suggested that this complex was associated with "ritual activity" [Ibid., p. 319-320, fig.11, 7]. In El Wada, D. A. E. Garrod discovered "an entire limestone stupa... with a hole in the base into which the flint nucleus was squeezed" (Garrod and Bate, 1937, p. 10). In Nahal Oren, a long, high-quality pyramidal nucleus was found at the bottom of a small conical ash pit on the territory of the burial ground (Nadel et al., 1997). A very large accumulation of flint nuclei was found, as mentioned above, in the complex CI and II of the Rakefet Cave, as well as in the graves of zapadina 1.

Thus, stones and flint nuclei were usually left in the RUSD. The stones were not placed to fill a gap in the bottom of the stupa and extend the time of use of the recess. The silicon nuclei did not fall inside by accident. It is incorrect to interpret objects of this kind as repositories or hoards (why keep one stone or one flint nucleus?); they should be considered as the product of symbolic activity of people of the late Natufian.

Discussion

In the Levant, the earliest reliably dated RUSDS belong to Natuf, although polished stone tools have been produced here in small numbers since the late Upper Paleolithic (Wright, 1991). For the Late Altufi period, rusds are common, and the most common are deep, narrow and small cup-shaped cavities. During the pre-ceramic Neolithic period, small cup-shaped structures are the only type of RUSD: they are usually associated with slabs lying on the floor of dwellings. During the Pre-Ceramic Neolithic period B, for which there is evidence of large-scale agriculture based on domesticated cereals and legumes (Bellwood, 2005; Lev-Yadun, Gopher, and Abbo, 2000), rock and portable stupas and cup-shaped structures are rare in the Southern Levant. During this period, flat or slightly concave types of heat sinks prevailed.

Late-Alatufian monuments with RUSD are found in the Carmel - Ramot Menashe range (El-Wad, Nahal Oren, Rakefet, etc.), in the Lower Jordan Valley (Khuzuk Musa and Jericho), in the Negev Desert (Rosh Zin, Saflulim and neighboring monuments, Upper Besor-6), and in mountainous Southern Jordan (Wadi Mataha). The Natufians transformed their habitat in various ways, adding three types of long-term structures to their natural landscapes (Boyd, 2006). The first is stone buildings, the second is burial grounds with cleared areas and burial structures that included vertically placed large stones and boulder stupas, the third is clusters of man-made depressions in the rocky bottom of caves, cave terraces or simply in rock surfaces under the open sky. It is possible that the Late-Tatufian RUSDS served as territorial markers for groups characterized by high mobility (see [Ibid; Goring-Morris and Belfer-Cohen, 2002; Grosman, 2003].

Since RDSS of different sizes form discrete groups and no continuum of their metric indicators can be traced (Figure 19), small RDSS cannot be considered as a reflection of the initial stage of creating or using large depressions. As for their purpose, in the Natufian period, RUSDS of different sizes and shapes could have been used for processing minerals, as storage facilities, and even as places where flint was mined (Grosman and Goren-Inbar, 2007). Of interest is the lack of correlation between the number of RUSDS (77) and pistils (less than five) in the Rakefet.

The use of stupas and cup-shaped forms in food processing is most widely documented. Similar devices for this purpose have been used all over the world for thousands of years (see, for example, [Adams, 1999; Basgall, 1987; Kluckhohn, 1971]). Based on the findings from the Levant, it is concluded that the Natufians pounded grain and acorns in stone stupas (see, for example, [Bar-Yosef, 2002; McCorriston and Hole, 1991;

page 45

Fig. 19. Fractions of RUSDS (y) that differ in the ratio of depth and diameter (x) of the upper part.

Wright, 1991]). However, if this is the case, then why are there so many differences in the number and types of RUSDS and portable stupas / bowls between the Late Tatufi monuments? According to a recent hypothesis, at first the process of grain and legume cultivation was not large-scale, but rather local in nature (Weiss, Kislev, and Hartmann, 2006). Thus, the differences in the distribution of RUSDS and portable stupas among monuments may to some extent reflect the intensity of attempts to develop local agriculture.

In any case, the diversity and specificity of the Rakefet Cave RUSDS encourage a more careful consideration of their functions. There are several reasons to consider the connection of depressions with a workshop or production site (whether processing minerals or food) unlikely. First, some RDSS are tiny in size (less than 5 cm3 in volume). Secondly, sometimes they are located on steeply sloping rock surfaces that are not convenient for working. Third, deep RDSS are so narrow (types D and F) that it would be very difficult to work in them, and especially to get processed foods out of them. Fourth, some RUSDS were used to bury certain objects in them, for example, stones placed on the edge, and flint nuclei. In one large RUSD, a man was buried: the body was placed on a shoulder-shaped ledge. Thus, at least at some point in their history, these RUSDS were not associated with production activities. Fifth, two sites of the highest concentration of RUSDS are adjacent to rock depressions, one of which was used for several burials (the other was empty, although it could also have been used for burial; evidence of this may have been destroyed in later epochs).

So, we have reason to assume that a significant part of the mining activity in the Rakefet cave was not related to the production activities of its inhabitants. These depressions were not mines (there is nothing to extract from the local rock) and, given their location on the plan, they were not pits for pillars (see [Kenyon and Holland, 1981, p. 272, pi. 145, a, b]). We assume that in Rakefet (and, most likely, on other late-Tatufian monuments) RUSDS were associated with human burials and funerary ceremonies. It is also possible that before or during the use for ritual purposes, some of the depressions may have been used in the course of production activities or serve as food storage facilities. Some recesses may have been used for a long time, and their functions may have changed.

The combination of stone forms used for grinding and grinding with burials is recorded both at the Donatufian sites of Neve David (Kaufman, 1989), and at the Natufian sites of El Wad (Garrod and Bate, 1937), Einan (Perrot and Ladiray, 1988), and Hayonim (Belfer - Cohen, 1988). According to a recent suggestion, three types of objects were associated with Natufian burials: a) small tools that made up the kit needed in the other world, b) vertically standing deep stupas-tombstones, c) broken stupas*. Now you can add RUSDS adjacent to graves to this list. In some of them, individual objects or even dead people were buried.

The inclusion of stupas in the funerary inventory was typical for many societies of antiquity and the recent past. This tradition reflected the economic importance of stupas, symbolizing the connection of generations. Stupas could also be useful for cooking in another world (see, for example, Gamble, 1957; Treganza, 1950, p. 118).

The deep, narrow RUSDS, which are the most difficult to make, could not be used for industrial purposes or for storage; they were associated with burials either by location or by some common elements. What role did they play? Were they used as food storage facilities in the afterlife [Stekelis and Yizraely, 1963]? Were they used for the installation of ceremonial pillars [Kenyon and Holland, 1981, p. 272, pi. 145, a, b]? Were they used to mark graves [Stekelis and Yizraely, 1963]** or as some kind of symbolic reference points? Perhaps they represented the dead in their graves or symbolized the female reproductive organs? According to S. Maisen, " pistils have a phallic shape, and the very nature of their use by inserting them into the deep holes of the feet ... is fraught with sexual metaphors...

* Bocquentin F. Pratiques funeraires, parametres biologiques et identites culturelles ail Natoufien: une analyse archeo-anthropologique: Ph. D. diss., University of Bordeaux 1. - Bordeaux, 2003.

** Ibid.

page 46
throughout human history, plant products, tools, and processing operations have often been associated with sexual symbolism." 2007, p. 715-716]. Can the stones standing on the edge in the depth of the RUSD serve as evidence in favor of this interpretation? It is worth noting here that Natufian iconography presents distinct, though sometimes very sketchy, images of men and women (Boyd and Cook, 1993; Weinstein-Evron, 1998, p. 99-105; Weinstein - Evron and Belfer-Cohen, 1993).

A different interpretation of large RDSS is suggested by the theory of cost signaling. For example, from the standpoint of this theory, ethnographers explain the desire of men to hunt hard-to-find species by the fact that, if successful, such hunting has a particularly positive effect on their social status (see, for example: Hawkes and Bliege Bird, 2002; Smith and Bliege Bird, Bird, 2003). In archaeology, the theory of cost signaling is rarely used (see, for example, [McGuire, Hildebrandt, Carpenter, 2007]). We assume that deep, narrow RUSDS may also have been created for the purpose of obtaining some social benefits. In fact, to make them required special tools, great skill, a good knowledge of the properties of rocks, as well as strength and patience.

According to one of the provisions of the theory of costly signaling, signals should be sent in a public place, i.e. there should be an audience. The RUSD complex of the Rakefet Cave is directly connected to the burial site of the deceased. Funerary rites, and perhaps the memorial ceremonies that followed, were central to Natufian life. Thus, RUSDS are located in a public place where they can be seen by many members of the community.

The application of the theory of cost signaling to reconstruct the social behavior of Natufians is one of several possible directions for further research of the interpretive plan. It is obvious that additional data are needed to better understand the accumulation of RUSDS on a number of sites, as well as the features of deep narrow RUSDS. Even now, however, these sites can be seen as yet another manifestation of the increasingly complex Natufian society.

Acknowledgements

Drawings for this article were prepared by A. Avshalomov, V. Damov, R. Brown-Goodman, R. Nufi and P. Spivak. We are grateful to Anna Belfer-Cohen, Larry Conyers, Mina Evron, Danny Rosenberg, and Philip Wilke for reading an early version of this article and making some useful comments. Of course, the responsibility for all omissions lies with us.

List of literature

Adams J. L. Refocusing the role of food-grinding tools as correlates for subsistence strategies in the U. S. southwest // American Antiquity. - 1999. - Vol. 64 (3). - P. 475 - 498.

Bar-Yosef O. The Natufian culture in the Levant, threshold to the origins of agriculture // Evolutionary Anthropology. - 1998. - Vol. 6(5). - P. 159 - 177.

Bar-Yosef O. The Natufian culture and the early Neolithic: social and economic trends in southwestern Asia // In Examining the Farming/Language dispersal Hypothesis / eds. P. Bellwood, С Renfrew. - Cambridge: McDonald Institute monographs, 2002. - P. 113 - 126.

Basgall M. E. Resource intensification among hunter-gatherers: acorn economies in prehistoric California // Research in Economic Anthropology. - 1987. - Vol. 9. - P. 21 - 52.

Belfer-Cohen A. The Natufian Settlement at Hayonim Cave. A hunter-gatherer band on the threshold of agriculture: Ph. D. diss. - Jerusalem. - 1988. - 295 p., bibliography.

Belfer-Cohen A. The Natufian in the Levant // Annual Review of Anthropology. - 1991. - Vol. 20. - P. 167 - 186.

Belfer-Cohen A., Hovers E. The ground stone assemblages of the Natufian and Neolithic societies in the Levant - a brief review// J. of the Israel Prehistoric Society. -2005. - Vol. 35. - P. 299 - 308.

Bellwood P. First Farmers. The Origins of Agricultural Societies. - Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2005. - 360 p.

Boyd B. On 'sedentism' in the Later Epipalaeolithic (Natufian) Levant // World Archaeology. - 2006. - Vol. 38 (2). - P. 164 - 178.

Boyd B., Cook J. A reconsideration of the Ain Sakhri' figurine // Proceedings of the Prehsitoric Society. - 1993. - Vol. 59. - P. 399^05.

Monahan C. M. Byrd F. B., Death, mortuary ritual and Natufian social structure // J. of Anthropological Archaeology. - 1995. - Vol. 14(3). - P. 251 - 287.

Dubreuil L. Long-term trends in Natufian subsistence: a use-wear analysis of ground stone tools // J. of Archaeological Science. - 2004. - Vol. 31 (11). - P. 1613 - 1629.

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

Eitam D. The food preparation installations and the stone tools // The Manasse Hill Country Survey / ed. A. Zertal. - Haifa: The University of Haifa Press and the Ministry of Defense Press, 2005. - Vol. 4: From Nahal Bezeq to the Sartaba Appendix 2, site 47 Huzuk Musa. - P. 686 - 689.

Gamble D. P. The Wolofof Senegambia: together with notes on the Lebu and the Serer. - L.: International African Institute, 1957. - 110 p.

Garrod D. A. E. The Natufian culture: the life and economy of a Mesolithic people in the Near East // Proceedings of the British Academy. - 1957. - Vol. 43. - P. 211 - 247.

Bate D. M. A. Garrod D. A. E., The Stone Age of Mount Carmel. - Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1937. - 240 p.

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

page 47
Goring-Morris A. N. Saflulim: a Late Natufian base camp in the central Negev highlands, Israel // Palestine Exploration Quarterly. - 1999. - Vol. 131. - P. 36 - 64.

Goring-Morris A. N., Belfer-Cohen A. Symbolic behavior from the Epipalaeolithic and Early Neolithic of the Near East: preliminary observations on continuity and change // Magic Practices and Ritual in the Near Eastern Neolithic / eds. H. G. K. Gebel, B. D. Hermansen, C.H. Jensen. - Berlin: Exoriente, 2002. - P. 67 - 79.

Grosman L. Preserving cultural traditions in a period of instability: The Late Natufian of the hilly Mediterranean zone // Current Anthropology. - 2003. - Vol. 44 (4). - P. 571 - 580.

Grosman L., Goren-Inbar N. "Taming" rocks and changing landscapes: a new interpretation of Neolithic cupmarks // Current Anthropology. - 2007. - Vol. 48 (5). - P. 732 - 740.

Hardy-Smith T., Edwards P. C. The garbage crisis in prehistory: artifact discard patterns at the Early Natufian site of Wadi Hammeh 27 and the origins of household refuse disposal strategies // J. of Anthropological Archaeology. - 2004. - Vol. 23. - P. 253 - 289.

Hawkes K., Bliege Bird R. Showing off, handicap signaling, and the evolution of men's work // Evolutionary Anthropology. - 2002. - Vol. 11. - 58 - 67.

Hayden B. Socio political organization in the Natufian: a view from the northwest // The Last Hunter-Gatherers in the Near East / ed. C. Delage. - Oxford: British Archaeological Reports International Series, 2004. - P. 263 - 308. - (BAR; N 1320).

Henry D. O. Rosh Zin: a Natufian settlement near Ein Avdat // Prehistory and Palaeoenvironments in the Central Negev, Israel / ed. AE. Marks. - Dallas: SMU Press, 1976. - Vol. 1. - P. 317 - 347.

Hillman G., Hedges R., Moore A., Colledge S., Pettitt P. New evidence of Lateglacial cereal cultivation at Abu Hureyra on the Euphrates // The Holocene. - 2001. - Vol. 11 (4). - P. 383 - 393.

Horwitz L. K., Goring-Morris N. Fauna from the Early Natufian site of Upper Besor 6 in the Central Negev, Israel // Paleorient. - 2001. - Vol. 26. - P. 111 - 128.

Janetski J. C., Chazan M. Shifts in Natufian strategies and the Younger Dry as: evidence from Wadi Mataha, southern Jordan // The Last Hunter-Gatherers in the Near East / ed. C. Delage. - Oxford: British Archaeological Reports International Series, 2004. - P. 161 - 168. - (BAR; N 1320).

Kaufman D. Observations on the Geometric Kebaran: a view from Neve David // Investigations in South Levantine Prehistory / eds. O. Bar-Yosef, B. Vandermeersch. - Oxford: British Archaeological Reports International Series, 1989. - P. 275 - 285. - (BAR; N 497).

Kenyon K. M., Holland T. A. Excavations at Jericho. -Jerusalem: The British School of Archaeology, 1981. - Vol. 3. - 585 p.

Kluckhohn C. Navaho Material Culture. - Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1971. - 488 p.

Lengyel Gy., Bocquentin F. Burials of Raqefet Cave in the context of the Late Natufian // J. of the Israel Prehistoric Society. - 2005. - N 35. - P. 271 - 284.

Lengyel Gy., Nadel D., Tsatskin A, Bar-Oz G., Bar-Yosef-Mayer D. E., Be'eri R., Hershkovitz I. Back to Raqefet Cave, Mount Carmel, Israel // J. of the Israel Prehistoric Society. - 2005. - Vol. 35. - P. 245 - 270.

Lev-Yadun S., Gopher A., Abbo S. The cradle of agriculture // Science. - 2000. - Vol. 288. - P. 1602 - 1603.

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

McGuire K. R., Hildebrandt W. R., Carpenter K. L. Costly signaling and the ascendance of no-can-do archaeology: a reply to Codding and Jones // American Antiquity. - 2007. - Vol. 72(2). - P. 358 - 365.

Mithen S. Did farming arise from a misapplication of social intelligence? // Philisophical Transactions of the Royal Society Bull. - 2007. - Vol. 362. - P. 705 - 718.

Nadel D., Lengyel Gy., Bocquentin E., Tsatskin A., Rosenberg D., Yeshurun R., Bar-Oz G., Bar-Yosef-Mayer D. E., Beeri R., Conyers L., Filin S., Hershkovitz I., Kurzawska A. Raqefet Cave: the 2006 Excavation Season. - In print.

Nadel D., Noy T., Kolska-Horwitz L., Zohar I. A note on new finds from the Natufian graveyard at Nahal Oren. Mtekufat Haeven // J. of the Israel Prehistoric Society. - 1997. - Vol. 27. - P. 63 - 74.

Nadel D., Rosenberg D., Yeshurun R. The Deep and the shallow. The role of Natufian Human-made Bedrock Holes (HBHs): the case study of Rosh Zin, Central Negev, Israel. - In print.

Noy T., Higgs E. S. Raqefet Cave // Israel Exploration J. - 1971. - Vol. 21. - P. 225 - 226.

Perrot J. Le gisement Natoufien de Mallaha (Eynan), Israel // L'Anthropologic. - 1966. - Vol. 70 (5/6). - P. 437 - 484.

Perrot J., Ladiray D. Les Hommes de Mallaha (Eynan) Israel. - P.: Association Paleorient, 1988. - Dif. I: Les Sepultures. - 208 p. - (Memoires et Travaux du Centre de Recherche Francais de Jerusalem; N 7).

Samzun A. Le mobilier en pierre // Le Gisement de Hatula en Judee Occidentale, Israel / eds. M. Lechevallier, A. Ronen. - P.: Association Paleorient, 1994. - P. 211 - 226. - (Memoires et Travaux du Centre de Recherche Francais de Jerusalem; N 8).

Smith E. A., Bliege Bird R., Bird D. W. The benefits of costly signaling: Meriam turtle hunters. Behavioral Ecology. - 2003. - Vol. 14(1). - P. 116 - 126.

Stekelis M., Yizraely T. Excavations at Nahal Oren // Israel Exploration J. - 1963. -Vol. 13 (1). - P. 1 - 12.

Treganza A. E. An archaeological survey of the Yuki area. - Berkeley: University of California Press, 1950. - 124 p.

Valla E. R. The first settled societies - Natufian (12,500 - 10,200 BP) // The Archaeology of Society in the Holy Land / ed. Т. Е. Levi. - L.: Leicester University Press, 1995. - P. - 170 - 187.

Weinstein-Evron M. Early Natufian el-Wad Revisited. - Liege: Universite de Liege, 1998. - 255 p. - (ERAUL; vol. 77).

Weinstein-Evron M., Belfer-Cohen A. Natufian figurines from the new excavations of the el-Wad cave, Mt. Carmel, Israel//Rock Art Research. - 1993. - Vol. 10. - P. 102 - 106.

Weiss E., Kislev M. E., Hartmann A. Autonomous cultivation before domestication // Science. - 2006. - Vol. 312. - P. 1608 - 1610.

Wright K. The origins and development of ground stone assemblages in late Pleistocene Southwest Asia // Paleorient. - 1991. - Vol. 17(1). - P. 19 - 45.

The article was submitted to the Editorial Board on 19.05.08.

page 48

Permanent link to this publication: