ochre and hide-working at a natufian burial place

Res

earc

h

Ochre and hide-working at a Natufianburial placeLaure Dubreuil1 & Leore Grosman2

Particular stones found on Epi-Palaeolithic sites in the Levant are thought to be for grindingvegetable matter and to be essential instruments in the development of food processing. Findingan assemblage of these tools in a burial cave, the authors ask a harder question: could they havebeen used for processing hides with ochre? Use-wear analysis allows a positive verdict, and so thetools take their place in the ritual apparatus associated with burial.

Keywords: southern Levant, Hilazon Tachtit cave, Epi-Palaeolithic, thirteenth millenniumBP, Natufian, burial site, ochre, ground stones, use-wear

IntroductionUnravelling site function and settlement patterns is crucial for understanding the transitionfrom hunter-gatherers to farmers in the Near East. In the Natufian core-area of the southernLevant – Mount Carmel, Galilee and the Jordan Valley – site function and settlementpatterns have mainly been assessed from the size of the sites, the presence of architecture andburials, as well as the composition of flint assemblages and ground stone tools (e.g. Bar-Yosef1980; Bar-Yosef & Belfer-Cohen 1989; Byrd 1989). Most classifications of site functionsimply distinguish large, semi-permanent base camps and seasonal camps. More recently,some have highlighted the existence during the Natufian of sites with extensive evidenceof symbolic activities (Goring-Morris & Belfer-Cohen 1997; Goring-Morris 2000). Thecave of Hilazon Tachtit (Israel) (hereafter Hilazon) might represent such a location. Recentexcavations have yielded evidence supporting the hypothesis that this cave served mostly asa mortuary site (Grosman 2003; Grosman et al. 2008). The presence of ground stone toolsthere prompted a use-wear analysis, the results of which are presented here. Our studiessuggest that some of the tools were used in hide-processing sequences involving ochre.

The nature of the occupation at HilazonHilazon is a cave located in Lower Galilee (Figure 1), only a few kilometres from the siteof Hayonim Cave (Grosman 2003). The site is at the foot of a limestone cliff on theright bank of the Wadi Hilazon, approximately 120m above the stream channel. Two mainstratigraphic units were encountered during excavation: layer A, containing mostly ashes

1 TUARC, Anthropology Department, Trent University, 1600 West Bank Drive, Peterborough ON K9J 7B8,Canada

2 Institute of Archaeology, The Hebrew University, Mt. Scopus, Jerusalem, Israel; and Computerized Archaeology,Physics of Complex Systems, Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot, 76100, Israel

Received: 22 April 2008; Revised: 22 September 2008; Accepted: 10 March 2009

ANTIQUITY 83 (2009): 935–954

935

Ochre and hide-working at a Natufian burial place

Figure 1. Location of Hilazon Cave and the sites mentionedin the text (modified from Grosman 2003).

and goat dung from herding, accumulatedsince the Byzantine period; and layer B,an archaeological layer corresponding toa Natufian occupation. Absolute dates(calibrated to 12 400-12 000 BP) andcharacteristics of lunate microliths placeit within the Late Natufian. Despiteits relatively small size, the Natufianoccupation of Hilazon presents most ofthe characteristics usually associated withlarger settlements, such as the presenceof structures, burials and ground stones.The size of the site, its location at thetop of a high escarpment and extensiveevidence of burial practices seem to indicatethat the cave was predominantly devotedto ritual activities (Grosman 2003). Thiswas recently reinforced by one of theunearthed burials, which is unlike anyburial found in the Natufian, and arguedto be consistent with expectations for ashaman’s grave (Grosman et al. 2008). Yetmundane activities were also carried outon site as attested by the lithic and faunalassemblages, including tool manufactureand food processing (Grosman & Munro2007).

In order to explore the range of activitiesperformed, the small ground stone tool assemblage from Hilazon was analysed. In Natufiansites the presence of ground stone tools, especially handstones, grinding slabs, and mortarsand pestles, has largely been interpreted as evidence of plant food processing. However, it hasalso been recognised (e.g. Flannery 1969; Wright 1992; Bar-Yosef 1998) that ground stonetools are associated with other activities such as ochre processing. Indeed, recent functionalanalyses of grinding implements would suggest that this category of tools indicates a widervariety of tasks (Dubreuil 2002, 2004).

MethodsFriction between a tool and processed matter generates wear and leads to the progressivetransformation of the tool surface (e.g. Georges 2000). In archaeology, use-wear analysiscentres on the study of the optical manifestations of these transformations under variousmagnifications. Developed for flint implements, use-wear analysis is now being increasinglyapplied in the analysis of ground stone tools (e.g. Adams 1988, 1993, 2002; Fullagar & Field

936

Res

earc

h

Laure Dubreuil & Leore Grosman

1997; Mansur 1997; Procopiou et al. 1998; Gonzalez & Ibanez 2002; Menasanch et al.2002; Risch 2002; Ramos 2005; Zurro et al. 2005; Hamon 2007; Delgado 2008; Delgado &Risch 2008; Hamon & Plisson 2008; Adams et al. in press). Among the various experimentalprogrammes that have been implemented to explore use-wear formation on ground stonetools, one has been specifically designed for the study of the Natufian implements from thesouthern Levant (Dubreuil 2002, 2004, 2008).

The toolsThe assemblage of non-flint stone implements from Hilazon consists of 19 pieces (excludingmaterials excavated in 2005-08). They are represented by three handstones, two pestles,a mortar fragment, a few palets (flat round pebbles with peripheric percussion marks), ashaft straightener, a few sandstone fragments with traces of abrasion, and some fossils andused pebbles (Figure 2). Use-wear analysis was conducted on flat basalt grinding/abradingimplements, i.e. on three distinctive ground stone objects, traditionally classified as‘handstones’ (Figure 3). Although the sample is small, important results for the activitiescarried out at Hilazon were obtained.

Raw material, morphology and manufacture

The three handstones are made of types of basalt detailed in Table 1. Item no. 1 is coarserin texture and is more porous than the other two. The rounded shape and patina found ona portion of the surface indicate that these objects were most probably collected as pebbles.They are ovoid, bi-convex tools that can be held in the hand (albeit determining the shapeof no. 1 is more difficult given its small size). Use-wear is visible on their faces (Figure 4).All three objects are broken. On item no. 2, the presence of a patina and use-wear on somefracture surfaces are from use after breakage. Traces of pecking are found on the face of allthe artefacts, and these marks might correspond to the removal of the outer, weathered layerof the pebble. Similar traces are also observed on the sides of two of the artefacts (nos. 1 and3), indicating shaping of this zone. Shaping is more extensive on item no. 1, which createda flatter profile. For all three objects, the manufacturing technique probably did not involveabrasion. None of the artefacts show any use-wear characteristics resulting from frictionwith another stone (Figure 5).

Macroscopic use-wear

Various types of use-wear were observed macroscopically on the surface of the artefacts, inaddition to the pecking marks:

� sheen is present on the faces of all of the artefacts (Figure 4e). The distribution and typeof wear indicate that the active zone is located on the face of the objects (Figure 4a-d)and that these were used in an abrasive stroke. Moreover, the convexity of the workingsurface and the size of the objects suggest use as an upper-active implement rather thanas a passive tool;

937

Ochre

andhide-w

orkingata

Natufian

burialplace

Table 1. Morphological and petrologic characteristics of the tools, and hypotheses proposed regarding manufacture and life cycle.

Indices of multifunctionalRaw material Procurement Shaping Utilisation or secondary use

Item no. 1 Iddingsite-pyroxenetrachybasalt

Most probably collectedas a pebble

Probable pecking of thesurface and flattening ofthe borders

Kinetics: utilisation asabrader-polisher

Processed matter:undetermined

no

Item no. 2 Olivine or iddingsiteporphyritic basalt


Probable pecking of thesurface and borders


Processed matter: hide, ochre,grease addition?

– Association of percussionmarks and abrasion

– Flake removals andutilisation after breakage

Item no. 3 Olivine or iddingsiteporphyritic basalt


Probable pecking of thesurface


Processed matter: hide, ochre,grease addition?

no

938

Res

earc

h


Figure 2. Examples of non-flint implements found at Hilazon: a-b) fragments of pestles; c-d) palets.

� on objects nos. 2 and 3, the sheen is associated with ochre (Figure 6);� on object no. 2, deep impacts are present on one face, indicating percussion

against a hard material. At least two flakes were removed from the same face(Figure 3). Sheen is developed on the scars and on the lateral side of a fracturesurface.

939


Figure 3. Flat basalt grinding implements selected for use-wear analysis in this study.

Low and high magnification observations and comparison with experimental objects

Comparisons with experimental objects suggest that the three items were used as abraders/polishers, and not as components of a system involving upper and lower stone implements.Above all, the artefacts do not show the micro-topographic configurations observed onexperimental handstones and grinding slabs (Figure 7). The micro-topography of theexperimental abraders/polishers is more irregular and does not show extensive levelling(Figure 8).

The micro-relief of item no. 1 shows an unusual configuration that can be describedas irregular and sinuous at low magnification. This configuration has not been replicatedin our experiments. Some characteristics, however, suggest that the object was used as anabrader/polisher: at high magnification, for instance, the lack of wear indicative of frictionwith another stone on the active surface, and the significant development of micro-polishseem in agreement with this hypothesis (Figure 9a & b).

940

Res

earc

h


Figure 4. Use-wear observed on the face of artefact nos. 1 and 2: a & c) macrocoscopic views; b, d & e) observation with astereomicroscope, photographs originally taken at the magnifications indicated in the picture.

Identification of the processed matter is problematic for item no. 1. Some characteristicssuggest the processing of a pliable or resilient surface such as wood (following Adams 2002terminology), yet other features show a significantly different pattern (Figure 9a).

On items nos. 2 and 3, examination under a binocular microscope indicates that thesheen is most pronounced on the periphery of the faces of the artefacts. Ochre residues tend

941


Figure 5. Surfaces of basalt experimental tools manufactured by abrasion (a, c and d), or by percussion and abrasion (b) withstone hammerstone and abrader. Observations with stereomicroscope (a, b) and metallographic microscope (c, d) on positivecasts, photographs originally taken at the magnifications indicated in the picture.

to be concentrated over the same zones (Figure 6). This might indicate that the tools weremostly used at a tilted angle.

Use-wear characteristics on item nos. 2 and 3 indicate contact with a soft and flexiblematter containing grease, most probably hide (Figure 10, Figure 9c). At low magnification,this is suggested by the rounding of the phenocrist edges and the formation of highlyreflective, translucent to black-opaque areas. Similar patterns have been described by Adams(2002: 39-41) for sandstone hide-processing tools. At high magnification, evidence ofcontact with an abrasive matter, which might be related to the presence of ochre, is also clear(Figure 9d). A closer look at hide-processing sequences will help clarify how handstone-liketools and ochre can be involved in this activity.

Possible tool functionHide-processing and ground stone tools

Adams (1988) has emphasised that artefacts commonly classified as ‘handstones’ by archae-ologists could in fact correspond to hide-processing implements, pointing out that numerous

942

Res

earc

h


Figure 6. Ochre remains observed on artefact no. 3. Macroscopic view and observation with stereomicroscope (photographsoriginally taken at the magnification indicated in the picture).

ethnographic reports describe the use of pebbles or handstone-like tools to process hides.Ethnographic and historical accounts indicate that traditional (pre-industrial) operationalsequences of hide-processing are often diverse, depending, for instance, on the type ofanimal or the part of the animal being processed, the desired end-product, and on the en-vironmental conditions, as well as technical traditions and beliefs (Gusinde 1931/1982:193-5; Hatt 1969; Robbe 1975; Delaporte & Roue 1978; Digard 1981; Albright 1984;Victor & Robert-Lamblin 1989; Hayden 1990, 2002; Beyries 2002; Chahine 2002; Ibanezet al. 2002; Dionne 2007). Once skinning is complete, the hide-working operationalsequences may include several stages. Three main stages can be distinguished (followingForbes 1964; Leroi-Gourhan 1971; Audoin & Plisson 1982; Hayden 1990; Chahine2002): cleaning (removal of the undesirable part); tanning (to improve durability andimpermeability); and currying and final preparation (including operations aimed at softeninghides and at changing the texture of the outer layer, as well as decoration). Traditionalsequences, however, need not systemically include all these stages.

Table 2 summarises the use of ground stones for hide dressing in various ethnographiccontexts. Most frequently, these tools are associated with cleaning, application of tanning

943


Figure 7. Idealised schematic cross-section representation of surfaces of experimental tools, contrasting two examples ofmicro-relief configurations observed on flat implements used for grinding (left) and abrading (right).

lotions, and softening. Cleaning involves rubbing with a rough, but even, stone surface,which cannot tear up the hide. For applying tanning lotions, penetration is achieved byspreading and rubbing the lotion (for instance a greasy substance) with a ground stone.Softening with a ground stone consists of vigorous rubbing of the hide surface, an actionthat softens the hide by breaking collagen fibres.

Experiments of hide-processing with basalt ground stones

Our experiments with basalt ground stone tools involved cleaning hides with and withoutwater. Non-tanned dry hides were then softened. The goal of this experiment was to examinethe efficiency of basalt implements in these activities. In this experiment, the hide of a roedeer was skinned while frozen (due to logistical constraints). Remnant muscle and fat tissueswere removed with a flint tool from the partially thawed hide. The hide was then let todry for four days, covered with a coating of ochre and ashes. The coating was removedwith a flint tool from the then-hard hide. Additional cleaning was performed with a basaltpebble. The hide was placed on a wooden plank and the tool used in a reciprocal stroke.Another surface of the basalt tool was then used for cleaning combined with water (thewater was sometimes spread directly on the hide, but more often the pebble was dippedin it). Softening operations followed cleaning with water. The surface of the basalt tools

944

Res

earc

h


Table 2. A few ethnographic examples of the use of ground stones for hide processing by pre-industrial societies.

Hide processing operations in which a ground stone is used

Application of a Finishing (here:Population and reference Cleaning tanning lotion Softening application of colour)

Amur region(Hatt 1969)

X

Bering Strait natives(Hatt 1969)

X

Nuajamiut (North America)(Le Mouel 1973)

X

Kutchin (North America)(Osgood 1936)

X

Ingalik (North America)(Osgood 1970)

X

Tanaina (North America)(Osgood 1976)

X

Blackfeet (North America)(Ewers 1958)

X X

Sioux (North America)(Belitz 1979)

X

Crow (North America)(Laubin & Laubin 1977)

X

Commanche (North America)(Wallace & Hoebel 1970)

X X X

Wintu (North America)(Lapena 1978)

X

Hopi (North America)(Kewanwytewa & Bartlett 1946)

X X

Yuman (North America)(Spier 1970)

X

Tichitt village (Mauritania)(Roux 1986)

X

Touaregs d’Agadez (Niger)(de Beaune 1989)

X

Khoekhoen (South Africa)(Webley 2005)

X

Aborigines of Australia(Kamminga 1982)

X

were observed at various stages of this process. Overall, the development and intensity ofuse-wear in these experiments appeared to have been more significant when the hide wasprocessed without water (Dubreuil 2002: 189-91). This is in line with experiments on flintimplements, which suggest significant variation of use-wear morphology depending uponwhether the hide had been processed dried or fresh, or with additional substances (Keeley1980: 49-50; Anderson 1981: 53-6; Audoin & Plisson 1982; Moss 1983: 83-6; Plisson1985; Unger-Hamilton 1988: 71; Hayden 1990, 1993; see however Kamminga 1982: 41-2and van Gjin 1990: 28-30).

945


Figure 8. Surfaces of experimental implements observed with an electronic microscope. Each line is constituted by images ofthe same zone at various magnifications. The first line provides an example of a natural surface. Observation of tools focusedon an area where use-wear is well developed. Comparison of the last column more particularly shows that the micro-relief ismore irregular for abraders (bottom) than for grinding implements (top).

946

Res

earc

h


Figure 9. Types of use-wear associated with hide processing observed on archaeological implements (top) and experimental tools(bottom). Encircled in white is a feature (opaque black elongated zone in which the phenocrysts are embedded: homogeneouszone) only observed during our experiments when processing hide. This pattern developed after one hour of use. Observationswith a stereomicroscope, photographs originally taken at the magnification indicated in the picture.

947


Figure 10. High magnification observations of the Hilazon artefacts (metallographic microscope, photographs originallytaken at the magnification indicated in the picture).

Hide-processing and ochre

In the archaeological record, the association of ochre with hide-processing use-wear has beenreported for several types of flint tools (e.g. Audoin & Plisson 1982; Plisson 1992; Philibert1994; Becker 1999; Hayden 2002), as well as on ground stone tools (e.g. Dubreuil 2002;Gonzalez & Ibanez 2002). The argument is often made that in prehistoric contexts, ochremight have been used in hide-processing for its antiseptic properties (e.g. Keeley 1980: 172;Audoin & Plisson 1982; Velo 1984; Couraud 1988; Gonzalez & Ibanez 2002; discussionin Watts 2002 and Wadley 2005). This argument is sometimes based on second-handinterpretations of Mandl (1961), who argued that metal ions can inhibit the productionof collagenase, an enzyme attacking the hide collagen. Experiments conducted by Audoinand Plisson (1982) also seem to validate this hypothesis. However, it has also been observedthat ochre tends to harden and damage hides. In particular, Philibert (1994) emphasisedthat ochre can damage hides if used improperly, for instance if applied on a dried hideor used during the currying process (see also Moss 1983: 72). Thinning and hardening of

948

Res

earc

h


the hide observed during Audoin’s and Plisson’s (1982) experiments suggest that the use ofochre should be regarded as better suited for the production of hard leather (Plisson, pers.comm.). Several accounts from the modern leather business support this proposition (e.g.Pecheux 1922: 56-7; Orthman 1945: 268-9, 274-5; de Fontanelle 1981: 88), documenting,for instance, the use of ochre in shoe leather treatment. According to Philibert (1994), ochrecould be associated with cleaning, grease absorption, drying, or with finely abrading anddyeing of the hide. The efficiency of ochre for drying and absorbing grease has been observedin several experiments (Audoin & Plisson 1982; Ibanez & Gonzalez 1996: 70).

Ethnographically, when final stages of hide processing involve ochre, the latter is generallymixed with a greasy matter. Yet certain groups prefer to mix ochre with water (Rudner 1982).The ochre mixture is described by some ethnographic groups as improving hide preservationand water resistance (Laloy 1906; Peabody 1928). In the majority of cases, however, the useof ochre seems related to dyeing (e.g. Cooper 1917: 195; Sollas 1924: 275, 278; Hatt 1969:18; Rudner 1982: 204; Hassrick 1993: 233-4; Brandt & Weedman 2002; D’Iatchenko &David 2002; Webley 2005).

Discussing the function of Hilazon artefacts

Based on the above observations, the association of ochre residues and hide-working use-wearon the ground stones of Hilazon may indicate different functional contexts:

1. Processing of a previously ochre-treated hide (for instance, for absorbing grease);2. Application of ochre, alone or mixed with other substances, to dye or treat hides;3. Grinding of ochre on a leather receptacle (S. Beyries, pers. comm.).

This last proposition has not been retained because using one of the extremities of thepebbles would have been more appropriate for grinding ochre and because the striationson the archaeological objects are less developed than in the ochre-grinding experiments(Dubreuil 2002: 167-8, 185-6), suggesting contact with an already fine powder.

Observations made during our experiments also led us to rule out the first functionalcontext. During the cleaning with a basalt tool of a hide previously left to dry with ochre,a significant decrease in the abundance of ochre residues on the tool was noted (Dubreuil2002: 189-91). The abundance of ochre residues on the Hilazon implements suggests thatochre was involved in the operation performed with the tools.

Moreover, the extensive sheen, combined with the distribution of the ochre residues onthe surface topography, might indicate the use of additives, most probably a greasy substance,which would be compatible with the second functional context. Indeed, the residues arewell spread into the interstices and seem to adhere to the surface of the grains. Thesecharacteristics have been observed by Logan and Fratt (1993) when processing ochre withan additive. The use of an additive might also explain the fact that striations appear to beshallower on the Hilazon artefacts than on the ground stones used in Gonzalez and Ibanez’s(2002) experiment of direct application of ochre on hide. Yet, as indicated by Logan andFratt’s study (1993), this difference could also be related to variation in the type of ochre used.

To summarise, we propose that the three ‘handstone’ implements from Hilazon arehand-held tools used as abraders/polishers. Two of them were most probably used for

949


hide-processing. On these objects, hide-processing use-wear is associated with ochre, whichin this context might be attributed to finishing operations such as dyeing.

ImplicationsHumans have a long history of using and processing red ochre and applying it to varioussurfaces. The role of ochre during the Middle Stone Age in Africa and the Middle Palaeolithicin Eurasia has recently been the topic of lively discussion and the presence of ochre onarchaeological sites is often interpreted as evidence for symbolic activities (e.g. Hovers et al.2003). The archaeological context of one of the handstones suggests a possible symbolicdimension. Item no. 2 was found in a burial pit partially dug into breccia deposits. Themoderately large size of the handstone leads us to believe that its association with thehuman remains is not coincidental. The intentional deposition of stones and grindingimplements in graves is not uncommon in Natufian sites (e.g. Bocquentin 2003: 325-32).At Hilazon, deposits of stone tools might be related to the ethnographically documentedhabit of burying the dead with significant tools, including hide-processing implements (e.g.Wallace & Hoebel 1970: 152). It could also be suggested that the Hilazon handstones wereused for hide decoration in rituals; yet determining the exact context of use and discard ofthe implements is not unambiguous.

The results presented here show that the occurrence of grinding implements in Natufiansites is not necessarily a testimony of food processing activities. The fact that ochre-stainedground stones are recurrently reported from Natufian sites might bring support to this view(see Wright 1992 for a synthesis; for recent examples see Weinstein-Evron & Ilani 1994;Moore et al. 2000; Hardy-Smith & Edwards 2004).

Flannery (1969, 1973) argued that ground stone technology first developed in relation toochre processing before it was extended to food processing activities. In the broad-spectrumhypothesis, this technology is viewed as a pre-adaptive trait that contributed to the adoptionof agriculture. The extensive analysis of Near Eastern assemblages carried out by Wright(1991, 1992) corroborated this scenario by showing that a high percentage of ground stoneimplements from the beginning of the Upper Palaeolithic are stained with ochre.

The present analysis adds to our knowledge of the functional variability of Natufianground stones. Overall, the use-wear studies carried out so far appear to substantiate someaspects of the broad-spectrum hypothesis. As discussed elsewhere (Dubreuil 2004), theevolution observed during the Natufian may testify to a progressive adaptation of theground stone technology to intensify caloric returns from plants. Flat grinding implementsassociated with craft activities, such as hide processing, are quite common in our Early andLate Natufian samples. In the Final Natufian of Mallaha, the flat implements increased inabundance and were primarily used for plant food processing. To explore these hypothesesfurther, larger archaeological samples and the analysis of other types of tools will be needed.

AcknowledgmentsPart of this paper was written while the first author was a Social Sciences and Humanities Research Councilof Canada postdoctoral fellow at the Centre Interuniversitaire d’Etudes sur les Lettres, les Arts et les Traditions(CELAT, Laval University). Funding for this research was provided by a grant to LD from the Fyssen Foundation

950

Res

earc

h


and from grants attributed by the Levi-Sala Care Foundation and the National Geographic Society to LG forthe excavation of Hilazon Tachtit Cave. The authors would like to thank Jenny Adams, Anna Belfer-Cohen,Sylvie Beyries, Veronique Laroulandie, Liliane Meignen and Hugues Plisson for advice and help while carryingout this study.

ReferencesADAMS, J.L. 1988. Use-wear analysis on manos and

hide-processing stones. Journal of Field Archaeology15(3): 307-15.

– 1993. Technological development of manos andmetates on the Hopi Mesas. Kiva 58(3): 331-44.

– 2002. Ground stone analysis. A technological approach.Salt Lake City (UT): University of Utah Press.

ADAMS, J., S. DELGADO, L. DUBREUIL, C. HAMON, H.PLISSON & R. RISCH. In Press. Functional analysisof macro-lithic artifacts, in F. Sternke, L.J. Costa &L. Eigeland (ed). Non-flint raw material use inprehistory: old prejudices and new directions. Oxford:Archaeopress.

ALBRIGHT, S. 1984. Tahltan ethnoarchaeology. Burnaby(BC): Archaeological Press.

ANDERSON, P. 1981. Contribution methodologique al’analyse des microtraces d’utilisation sur les outilsprehistoriques. Unpublished PhD dissertation,Universite de Bordeaux I.

AUDOIN, F. & H. PLISSON. 1982. Les ocres et leurstemoins au Paleolithique en France: enquete etexperiences sur leur validite archeologique. Cahierdu Centre de Recherches Prehistoriques 8: 33-80.

BAR-YOSEF, O. 1980. Prehistory of the Levant. AnnualReview of Anthropology 9: 101-33.

– 1998. The Natufian culture in the Levant, thresholdto the origins of agriculture. EvolutionaryAnthropology 6(5): 159-77.

BAR-YOSEF, O. & A. BELFER-COHEN. 1989. The originsof sedentism and farming communities in theLevant. Journal of World Prehistory 3(4): 447-98.

BECKER, M. 1999. Reconstructing prehistorichunter-gatherer mobility patterns and theimplication for the shift to sedentism: a perspectivefrom the Near East. Unpublished PhD dissertation,University of Colorado.

BELITZ, B. 1979. Brain tanning the Sioux way. PineRidge (SD): Pine Ridge Reservation Publication.

BEYRIES, S. 2002. Le travail du cuir chez lesTchouktches et les Athapaskans: implicationsethno-archeologiques, in F. Audoin-Rouzeau &S. Beyries (ed.) Le travail du cuir de la Prehistoirea nos jours: 143-57. Antibes: Editions APDCA.

BOCQUENTIN, F. 2003. Pratiques funeraires,parametres biologiques et identites culturelles auNatoufien: une analyse archeo-anthropologique.Unpublished PhD dissertation, Universite deBordeaux I.

BRANDT, O. & K. WEEDMAN. 2002. Theethnoarchaeology of hide working and stone tooluse in Konso, southern Ethiopia: an introduction,in F. Audoin-Rouzeau & S. Beyries (ed.) Le travaildu cuir de la Prehistoire a nos jours: 113-29. Antibes:Editions APDCA.

BYRD, B. 1989. The Natufian: settlement variabilityand economic adaptation in the Levant at the endof the Pleistocene. Journal of World Prehistory 3(2):159-97.

CHAHINE, C. 2002. Evolution des techniques defabrication du cuir et problemes de conservation, inF. Audoin-Rouzeau & S. Beyries (ed.) Le travail ducuir de la Prehistoire a nos jours: 13-29. Antibes:Editions APDCA.

COOPER, J.M. 1917. Analytical and critical bibliographyof the tribes of Tierra del Fuego and adjacentterritory (Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin63). Washington (DC): Government PrintingOffice.

COURAUD, C. 1988. Pigments utilises en prehistoire.Provenance, preparation, mode d’utilisation.L’Anthropologie (Paris) 92(1): 17-28.

DE BEAUNE, S.A. 1989. Exemple ethnographique del’utilisation plurifonctionnelle d’un galet de quartz.Bulletin de la Societe Prehistorique Francaise 86:61-4.

DE FONTANELLE, J.M. 1981. Nouveau manuel completdu chamoiseur, pelletier-fourreur, maroquinier,megisseur et parcheminier. Paris: Chez LeonceLaget.

DELAPORTE, Y. & M. ROUE. 1978. La preparation de lapeau de renne chez les Lapons de Kautokeino.Journal d’Agriculture Traditionnelle et de BotaniqueAppliquee 25(4): 219-44.

DELGADO, S. 2008. Practicas economicas y gestionsocial de recursos (macro)liticos en la prehistoriareciente (III-I Milenios AC) del mediterraneooccidental. Unpublished PhD dissertation,Universitat de Barcelona.

DELGADO, S. & R. RISCH. 2008. Lithic perspectiveson metallurgy: an example from Copper andBronze Age south-east Iberia, in L. Longo (ed.)‘Prehistoric technology’ 40 years later: functionalstudies and the Russian legacy: 235-53. Verona:Museo Civico di Verona and Universita degli Studidi Verona.

951


D’IATCHENKO, V. & F. DAVID. 2002. La preparationtraditionnelles des peaux de poissons et demammiferes marins chez les populations del’Extreme-Orient siberien de langue toungouze, inF. Audoin-Rouzeau & S. Beyries (ed.) Le travail ducuir de la Prehistoire a nos jours: 175-92. Antibes:Editions APDCA.

DIGARD, J.-P. 1981. Techniques des NomadesBaxtyari d’Iran. Paris: Maison des Sciencesde l’Homme.

DIONNE, M.-M. 2007. Le traitement des peaux et lafemme dorsetienne dans le detroit d’Hudson(Nunavik): ethnoarcheologie, traceologie etfonction de l’outillage, in S. Beyries & V. Vate (ed.)Les civilisations du renne d’hier et d’aujourd’hui.Approches ethnohistoriques et anthropologiques:457-71. Antibes: Editions APDCA.

DUBREUIL, L. 2002. Etude fonctionnelle des outils debroyage natoufiens: nouvelles perspectives surl’emergence de l’agriculture au Proche-Orient.Unpublished PhD dissertation, Universite deBordeaux 1.

– 2004. Long-term trends in Natufian subsistence: ause-wear analysis of ground stone tools. Journal ofArchaeological Science 31: 1613-29.

– 2008. Mortar versus grinding slabs function in thecontext of the Neolithization process in the NearEast, in L. Longo (ed.) ‘Prehistoric technology’ 40years later: functional analysis and the Russian legacy:169–77. Verona: Museo Civico di Verona andUniversita degli Studi di Verona.

EWERS, J.C. 1958. The Blackfeet. Raiders on theNorthwestern Plains. Norman (OK): University ofOklahoma Press.

FLANNERY, K. 1969. Origins and ecological effects ofearly domestication in Iran and Near East, in P.Ucko & G.W. Dimbleby (ed.) The domesticationand exploitation of plants and animals: 23-53.Chicago (IL): Aldine Publishing Company.

– 1973. The origins of agriculture. Annual Review ofAnthropology 2: 271-310.

FORBES, R.J. 1964. Studies in ancient technology. Leiden:E.J. Brill.

FULLAGAR, R. & J. FIELD.1997. Pleistoceneseed-grinding implements from the Australian aridzone. Antiquity 71: 300-7.

GEORGES, J.-M. 2000. Frottement, Usure etLubrification. La tribologie ou Science des Surfaces.Paris: CNRS editions.

GONZALEZ, J. & J. IBANEZ. 2002. The use of pebbles inEastern Vizcaya between 12,000 and 10,000 BP, inH. Procopiou & R. Treuil (ed.) Moudre et Broyer.Volume 1: Methode: 69-80. Paris: CTHS.

GORING-MORRIS, N. 2000. The quick and the dead, inI. Kuijt (ed.) Life in the Neolithic farmingcommunities: social organization, identity, anddifferenciation: 103-36. New York: KluwerAcademic.

GORING-MORRIS, N. & A. BELFER-COHEN. 1997. Thearticulation of cultural processes and LateQuaternary environmental changes in Cisjordan.Paleorient 23(2): 71-93.

GROSMAN, L. 2003. Preserving cultural traditions in aperiod of instability: the Late Natufian of the hillyMediterranean zone. Current Anthropology 44:571-80.

GROSMAN, L & N. D. MUNRO. 2007. The sacred andthe mundane: domestic activities at a Late Natufianburial site in the Levant. Before Farming 4(4): 1-14.

GROSMAN, L., N.D. MUNRO & A. BELFER-COHER.2008. A 12,000 year old Shaman burial from theSouthern Levant (Israel). Proceedings of the NationalAcademy of Science 105: 17665-9.

GUSINDE, M. 1931/1982. Los indios de Tierra de Fuego.Volume 1. Buenos Aires: Centro Argentino deEtnologi’a Americana.

HARDY-SMITH, T. & P. EDWARDS. 2004. The garbagecrisis in prehistory: artefact discard patterns at theEarly Natufian site of Wadi Hammeh 27 and theorigins of household refuse disposal strategies.Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 23: 253-89.

HAMON, C. 2007. Functional analysis of stone grindingand polishing tools from the earliest Neolithic ofnorth-western Europe. Journal of ArchaeologicalScience 35(6): 1502-20.

HAMON, C. & H. PLISSON. 2008. Which analyticalframework for the functional analysis of grindingstones? The blind test contribution, in L. Longo(ed.) ‘Prehistoric Technology’ 40 years later: functionalstudies and the Russian legacy: 29-38.Verona: MuseoCivico di Verona and Universita degli Studi diVerona.

HASSRICK, R.B. 1993. Les Sioux. Paris: Albin Michel.

HATT, G. 1969. Arctic skin clothing in Eurasia andAmerica, an ethnographic study. Artic Anthropology5(2): 3-133.

HAYDEN, B. 1990. The right rub: hide working in highranking households, in H. Knutsson, K. Knutsson& J. Taffinder (ed.) The interpretative possibilities ofmicrowear studies: 89-101. Uppsala: SocietasArchaeologica Upsaliensis.

– 1993. Investigating status with hideworking use-wear:a preliminary assessment, in P.C. Anderson, S.Beyries, M. Otte & H. Plisson (ed.) Traces etFonction, les Gestes Retrouves. Volume 1: 118-30.Valbonne: Centre de Recherches Archeologiques duCNRS.

952

Res

earc

h


– 2002. L’evolution des premiers vetements en cuir,inF. Audoin-Rouzeau & S. Beyries (ed.) Le travail duCuir de la Prehistoire a nos Jours: 193-216. Antibes:Editions APDCA.

HOVERS, E., S. ILANI, O. BAR-YOSEF & B.VANDERMEERSCH. 2003. An early case of colorsymbolism. Current Anthropology 44(4):491-522.

IBANEZ, J. & J. GONZALEZ.1996. From tool use to sitefunction: use-wear analysis in some Final UpperPalaeolithic sites in the Basque country (BritishArchaeological Reports International Series 658).Oxford: Tempus Reparatum.

IBANEZ, J., J. GONZALEZ & M. MORENO. 2002. Letravail de la peau en milieu rural: le cas de la Jebalamarocaine,in F. Audoin-Rouzeau & S. Beyries (ed.)Le travail du cuir de la Prehistoire a nos jours: 79-97.Antibes: Editions APDCA.

KAMMINGA, J. 1982. Over the edge: functional analysis ofAustralian stone tools (Occasional Papers inAnthropology 12). St Lucia: AnthropologyMuseum, University of Queensland.

KEELEY, L.H. 1980. Experimental eetermination of stonetool uses. Chicago (IL): University of Chicago Press.

KEWANWYTEWA, J & K. BARTLETT. 1946. Hopimoccasin making. Plateau 19: 21-8.

LALOY, L. 1906. Compte-rendu de S. Steinmann.L’Anthropologie 17: 153-5.

LAUBIN, R. & G. LAUBIN. 1977. The Indian tipi, itshistory, construction and use. Norman (OK):University of Oklahoma Press.

LAPENA, F. 1978. The Wintu, in R. Heizer (ed.)Handbook of North American Indians. Volume 8:California: 324-40. Washington (DC):Smithsonian Institution.

LE MOUEL, J.-F. 1973. Preparation et utilisation despeaux de phoques chez les Eskimos Naujamiut, inL’homme d’Hier et d’Aujourd’hui. Recueil d’etudes enhommage a A. Leroi-Gourhan. Paris: Cujaseditions.

LEROI-GOURHAN, A. 1971. L’Homme et la Matiere.Second edition. Paris: Albin Michel.

– 1973. Milieu et technique. Second edition. Paris: AlbinMichel.

LOGAN, E. & L. FRATT. 1993. Pigment processing atHomol’ovi III: a preliminary study. Kiva 58(3):415-28.

MANDL, I. 1961. Collagenasis and elastases. Advances inEnzymology 23: 164-264.

MANSUR, M.E. 1997. Functional analysis of polishedstone-tools: some considerations about the natureof polishing, in M.A. Bustillo & A. Ramos Millan(ed.) Siliceous rocks and culture: 465-86. Madrid:CSIC.

MENASANCH, M., R. RISCH. & J.A. SOLDEVILLA. 2002.Los tecnologias del procesado de cereal en elsudeste de la peninsula iberica durante el III y el IImilenio A.N.E, in H. Procopiou & R. Treuil (ed.)Moudre et Broyer. Volume I: Methodes: 81-110.Paris: CTHS.

MOORE, A.M.T., G.C. HILLMAN & A.G. LEGGE. 2000.Village on the Euphrates. From foraging to farming atAbu Hureyra. New York: Oxford University Press.

MOSS, E.H. 1983. The functional analysis of flintimplements. Pincevent and Pont d’Ambon: two casestudies from the French Final Palaeolithic (BritishArchaeological Reports International Series 177).Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.

ORTHMANN, A.C. 1945. Tanning processes. Chicago(IL): Hide and Leather Publishing Co.

OSGOOD, C. 1936. Contribution to the ethnography ofthe Kutchin (Yale University Publications inAnthropology 14). New Haven (CT): Departmentof Anthropology, Yale University.

– 1970. Ingalik material culture. New Haven (CT):Human Relations Area Files Press.

– 1976. The ethnography of the Tanaina. New Haven(CT): Human Relations Area Files Press.

PEABODY, C. 1928. Red paint. Journal de la Societe desAmericanistes de Paris 19: 207-44.

PECHEUX, H. 1922. Le cuir, les os, l’ivoire, la corne,l’ecaille, la nacre et les perles, le corail. Paris: LibrairieBailliere et Fils.

PHILIBERT, S. 1994. L’ocre et le traitement des peaux:revision d’une conception traditionnelle desgrattoirs ocres de la Balma Margidena (Andorre).L’Anthropologie 98(2–3): 447-53.

PLISSON, H. 1985. Etude fonctionnelle d’outillageslithiques prehistoriques par l’analyse desmicro-usures: recherche methodologique etarcheologique. Unpublished PhD dissertation,Universite de Paris 1.

– 1992. Le cuir au Paleolithique, in S. Sarrat-langer(ed.) Autour du cuir. Compte-rendu des rencontresarcheologiques de Guiry, 5–6 Avril 1991: 7-18.Guiry-en-Vexin: Musee archeologiquedepartemental du Val d’Oise.

PROCOPIOU, H., E. JAUTEE, R. VARGIOLU & H.ZAHOUNI. 1998. Petrographic and use-wear analysisof a quern from Syvritos Kephala,in F. Facchini,A. Palma di Cesnola, M. Piperno & C. Peretto (ed.)Analyse fonctionnelle des pieces lithiques: situationactuelle de la recherche: 1183-92. Forli: A.B.A.C.O.

RAMOS, R. 2005. The function of the edge-groundcobble put to the test: an initial assessment. Journalof Caribbean Archaeology 6: 1-22.

RISCH, R. 2002. Recursos naturales, medios de producciony explotacion social. Un analisis economico de laindustria lıtica de Fuente Alamo (Almerıa),2250-1400 ANE. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern.

953


ROBBE, B. 1975. Le traitement des peaux de phoquechez les Ammassalimuiut observe en 1972 dans levillage de Tileqilaq. Objets et Monde 15: 199-208.

ROUX, V. 1986. Le materiel de broyage. Etudeethnoarcheologique a Tichitt (R.I Mauritanie). Paris:Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations.

RUDNER, I. 1982. Khoisan pigments and paints and theirrelationship to rock paintings. Cape Town: SouthAfrican Museum.

SOLLAS, W.J. 1924. Ancient hunters and their modernrepresentatives. London: MacMillan.

SPIER, L. 1970. Yuman tribes of the Gila River. NewYork: Cooper Square Publishers.

UNGER-HAMILTON, R. 1988. Method in microwearanalysis (British Archaeological ReportsInternational Series 435). Oxford: BritishArchaeological Reports.

VAN GJIN, A. 1990. The wear and tear of flint. Leiden:University of Leiden, Institute of Prehistory.

VELO, J. 1984. Ochre as medicine: a suggestion for theinterpretation of the archaeological record. CurrentAnthropology 25: 674.

VICTOR, P.E. & J. ROBERT-LAMBLIN. 1989. Lacivilisation du phoque. Bourges: Armand Colin.

WADLEY, L. 2005. Putting ochre to test: replicationstudies of adhesives that may have been used forhafting tools in the Middle Stone Age. Journal ofHuman Evolution 49: 587-601.

WALLACE, E. & A. HOEBEL.1970. The Commanche.Lords of the South Plains. Norman (OK): Universityof Oklahoma Press.

WATTS, I. 2002. Ochre in the Middle Stone Age ofsouthern Africa: ritualized display or hidepreservative? South African Archaeological Bulletin57: 1-14.

WEBLEY, L. 2005. Hideworking among descendants ofKhoekhoen pastoralists in the Northern Cape,South Africa, in L. Frink & K. Weedman (ed.)Gender and hide production: 153-74. New York:Altamira.

WEINSTEIN-EVRON, M. & S. ILANI. 1994. Provenanceof ochre in Natufian layers of El-Wad Cave, MountCarmel, Israel. Journal of Archaeological Science21(4): 461-7.

WRIGHT, K. 1991. The origins and development ofground stone assemblages in Late Pleistocenesouthwest Asia. Paleorient 17(1): 19-45.

– 1992. Ground stone assemblages variation andsubsistence strategies in the Levant, 22 000–5500 BP.Unpublished PhD dissertation, Yale University.

ZURRO, D., R. RISCH & I. CLEMENTE CONTE. 2005.Analysis of an archaeological grinding tool: what todo with archaeological artefacts, in X. Terradas (ed.)Lithic toolkits in ethoarchaeological contexts (BritishArchaeological Reports International Series 1370):57–64. Oxford: Archaeopress.

954

ochre and hide-working at a natufian burial place

Documents