The oldest ever brush hut plant remains from Ohalo II, Jordan Valley, Israel (19,000 BP).

NADEL, DANI ; WERKER, ELLA

Introduction

Architectural remains of dwellings are extremely rare in Upper Palaeolithic (c. 45,000-20,000 BP) and early Epipalaeolithic (c. 20,000-12,500 BP) sites in the Near East (e.g. Bar-Yosef & Belfer-Cohen 1989; 1992; Henry 1989; Garrard et al. 1994; Goring-Morris 1995; Marks 1976; 1977). Typical for these sites are scattered remains of tools and waste made of flint, animal bones and -- in some sites -- isolated hearths. In rare cases human burials were also discovered. Although there are many tens of sites, hut remains are extremely rare. The only examples are the partially preserved hut floors from Jilat 6 Phase A (c. 16,000 BP, Garrard et al. 1994) and Ein Gev I (c. 15,000 BP, Arensburg & Bar-Yosef 1973; Bar-Yosef 1978). At Ohalo II, a submerged site radiometrically dated to 19,400 years BP, excellent preservation conditions created a unique situation where a variety of organic remains were protected from the elements. The remains of three brush huts that have been unearthed make these huts the best preserved and probably the oldest of their kind in the world. This paper presents the construction details of one of these huts. The details include a sample of identified tree and plant species used for constructing the walls and roof. A suggested three-dimensional reconstruction of the hut is provided.

The site

Ohalo II was discovered in 1989, following a drastic drop in the water level of the Sea of Galilee, Jordan Valley, Israel (FIGURE 1). The site is located on the southwestern shore of the lake, at an elevation of 212.5 m below msl. In most years the site is submerged in 2-3 m of water. The archaeological features are in situ, in the marls of the Lisan Formation.

[Figure 1 ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

Excavations revealed the remains of a camp, including three huts, a grave, a stone installation, several kinds of fireplaces and what seems to have been an area for garbage disposal (FIGURES 2, 3) (Nadel 1995; 1996; 1997; Nadel et al. 1994; Nadel et al. 1995). The three huts were very close to one another, each 3-5 m long. Their long axis has a general north-south orientation. All huts were burnt, and their charred remains were clearly visible against the bright marls. They all contained a wealth of remains on the floors, of which are noteworthy flints, animal bones and burnt fruit/seeds. The hearths were placed outside the huts, and three concentrations of them are to the south and west of the huts. In each series of hearths, the sediment and contents are distinct.

[Figures 2-3 ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

A grave was exposed to the west of the huts. A complete skeleton was found in a shallow pit, supine with the head to the north (Nadel 1994; 1995). Three stones were set under the head to support it. A small gazelle bone with several series of short parallel incisions was placed in the grave near the head. The burial was of an adult male, 1.73 m tall and 35-40 years-old at the time of death (Hershkovitz, Edelson et al. 1993; Hershkovitz, Spiers et al. 1995). According to the arm and chest bones, he was a disabled person during his last years. This is interpreted as reflecting social commitment to such members of the local social group.

Many charred plant remains of an impressive variety have been recovered. These are very common in all huts and hearths at Ohalo II, but are rare or absent in most contemporaneous sites in the Middle East and indeed elsewhere (Kislev et al. 1992; Simchoni 1997). Remains of tens of thousands of seeds and fruits of c. 100 species have been identified so far. These include many edible plant species, such as wild barley, wild wheat and acorns. Going by the ripening months of the recovered seeds and fruits (spring, summer, autumn) it proved possible to reconstruct the seasons of occupation at the site. Additional support for a multi-season occupation was found in the analysis of cementum of gazelle teeth (Lieberman 1993) and during the study of some 500 bones of birds (Simmons & Nadel 1998). It is reasonable to conclude that the site was not a temporary seasonal camp but a year-round base camp.

The diet of the people occupying the site seems to have been very rich. Thousands of fish bones attest to the importance fish had in the local economy (Nadel et al. 1994). Furthermore, thousands of gazelle bones and numerous bones of fallow deer, fox, hare and other species indicate the variety hunted and presumably consumed on-site (Rabinovitch 1998; Rabinovitch & Nadel 1994-5).

Twenty-six [sup.14]C dates were obtained, deriving from most of the loci at the site (TABLE 1). The average date is 19,400 BP (Nadel et al. 1995). All dates are of charred plant remains, including isolated grains of wild barley. Dating was carried out by three laboratories who all gave similar dates. There is no doubt that all features at the site belong to one period, which coincides with the Last Glacial Maximum.

TABLE 1. Ohalo II [sup.14]C dates, all on charcoal.

no. laboratory locus years BP

 1 RT-1625 1 21,050 [+ or -] 330
 2 RT-1616 1 19,590 [+ or -] 150
 3 RT-1617 1 18,700 [+ or -] 180
 4 RT-1623 1 18,210 [+ or -] 240
 5 RT-1619 2 19,860 [+ or -] 190
 6 RT-1297 2 17,500 [+ or -] 200
 7 RT-1618 2 19,220 [+ or -] 180
 8 RT-1251 3 19,000 [+ or -] 190
 9 RT-1248 3 19,800 [+ or -] 360
 10 RT-1342 3 19,500 [+ or -] 170
 11 RT-1252 3 18,900 [+ or -] 400
 12 RT-1250 3 19,250 [+ or -] 400
 13 Pta-5387 3 20,100 [+ or -] 440
 14 RT-1343 3 18,600 [+ or -] 220
 15 OXA-2565 3 19,310 [+ or -] 190
 16 OXA-2566 3 19,110 [+ or -] 390
 17 Pta-5374 3 19,400 [+ or -] 220
 18 RT-1244 3 18,360 [+ or -] 230
 19 Pta-5386 3 19,600 [+ or -] 400
 20 RT-1246 4 15,550 [+ or -] 130(*)
 21 OXA-2564 4 18,680 [+ or -] 180
 22 RT-1358 4 18,760 [+ or -] 180
 23 RT-1620 6 20,830 [+ or -] 180
 24 RT-1621 7 20,070 [+ or -] 270
 25 RT-1622 8 20,190 [+ or -] 170
 26 RT-1624 10 20,840 [+ or -] 290

(*) No. 20 is probably aberrant (see Nadel et al. 1995 for details).

The hut

The most extensively excavated hut is 4.5 m long (Locus 1, FIGURE 4). It has a general oval shape, a long axis running north-south, while its entrance is from the east. In cross-section the floor has a shape of a bowl, as it was dug into the underlying marls. Three successive floors were unearthed here. The upper was excavated but found to be partially eroded, the second was well-preserved and fully excavated, while the third was only tested. No stones were used for construction, no post-holes were visible and no central hearth was detected in the hut.

[Figure 4 ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

The second floor, fully excavated, had many in situ remains. A flat basalt stone was set on the floor, much like an anvil or a working surface -- though no macroscopic traces were visible on the surface. Thousands of flint pieces were distributed on the floor. Following a comprehensive techno-typological analysis of the assemblage, the distribution patterns of all tools and debitage categories have been presented (Nadel 1997; in press). These patterns seem to suggest that flint knapping took place on the floor, opposite the entrance (Nadel et al. 1994). Furthermore, the presence of even the smallest chips (c. 1-3 mm) indicates that artefacts on this floor were not cleaned or washed away.

A similar conclusion is reached by a preliminary analysis of the distribution of fish vertebrae. These are found in 3-4 large piles on the floor, while they are rare on other parts of the floor (Nadel et al. 1994). In addition, a wide range of mammals, small mammals and birds were found here (see also Rabinovitch 1998; Belmaker et al. 1998). Thus, the burnt hut contains an in situ floor with a variety and quantity of finds rarely found anywhere in the world.

The hut itself was built of branches and leaves, and had been completely burnt -- like the other two huts. When constructed, the base of the wall was fixed in the local Lisan marl to a depth of c. 20 cm, and the burnt remains of this base were clearly visible during excavations (FIGURES 4, 5). The contour of the hut's wall was easily discernible, except for a section on the eastern side, which may well have been the entrance.

[Figure 5 ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

The wall

At the outset of the excavation the wall around the hut appeared as a black line, several cm thick. It was found to consist of burnt material embedded in the underlying sediment. The burnt remains were composed of two kinds of charcoal fragments. The first was fine material, with high concentrations of delicate stems and leaves -- mostly of grasses (FIGURE 5). The second was woody material, with large pieces of charcoal, some more than 10 cu. cm in volume. These seem to be the remains of thick branches used for construction. Significantly, most of the burnt stems and branches were either parallel to the wall line or perpendicular to it. Carefully chosen burnt specimens from along the wall were retrieved, packed separately and taken for identification. In addition, one sample of burnt remains from the wall was submitted for [sup.14]C dating (RT-1625, 21,051 [+ or -] 330 BP -- see TABLE 1).

The charcoal specimens were first examined with a stereoscopic light microscope. Most of the material was then also examined by a Jeol JC M35 scanning electron microscope. The preparation included the exposure of cross surface and longitudinal-tangential and radial sections for each specimen. These sections were sputtered with gold. Identifications are summarized in TABLE 2.

TABLE 2. Identified burnt plant remains from the wall of a brush hut (Locus 1), Ohalo II.

square species part thickness

E81 Salix branch thick

E81 Salix branch thick

G81c Salix branch thick

E82d Tamarix branch thick

F78d Quercus branch diameter
 ithaburensis 4 mm

G81a Quercus branch diameter
 1.5 mm,
 one growing
 ring
G80b Atriplex/ stem
 Seidlitzia

G81a Atriplex/ stem diameter
 Seidlitzia 7 mm

G82b Atriplex/ stem
 Seidlitzia

F81b Prosopis? branch thin

F81b Prosopis? branch thin

D80a Monocotyledon
 (not Gramineae) straw diameter
 2 mm

The larger identified material includes the remains of Tamarix (Tamarisk), Salix (Willow) and somewhat thinner branches of Quercus (Oak) (FIGURE 6a-f). Remains of bushes include Atriplex/Seidlitzia (Saltbush) and Prosopis (Mezquit) (FIGURE 6g, 6h). In addition, the presence of straw is documented, though unidentifiable to species level (definitely not Gramineae) (the Cereal grasses). It is important to note that many burnt acorns were found along the wall (FIGURE 7).

[Figures 6-7 ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

The wood anatomy of the first, sometimes also of the second, growth rings of many species differs considerably from that of the following growth rings. Therefore, the identification as Prosopis of some very thin branches is uncertain. In charred wood it is difficult to distinguish between the anatomy of Atriplex and Seidlitzia. However, Atriplex halimus is a woody shrub that grows on salines, in the Upper and Lower Jordan Valley (among other places), while Seidlitzia is an annual herb or shrub, which grows in hot deserts, in the Lower Jordan Valley and further southwards. The identification of Atriplex is therefore more plausible. It is important to note that all the plants identified in the hut wall are found growing in the region today.

Discussion

The wall and roof of the hut were most probably constructed of thick tree branches (c. 5 cm in diameter) of Tamarix (Tamarisk) and Salix (Willow) and somewhat thinner branches of Quercus (Oak). These long woody parts were probably the skeleton of the walls/roof. The thick branches were covered by layers of thin branches, grasses and leaves of various species. It should be noted that the identified remains are not a random sample of charcoal fragments found at the hut. Rather, the charcoal specimens discussed here were all carefully collected from the wall line. Nonetheless, these specimens are only a sample, and it is reasonable to assume that more species were used for construction.

There were no signs of post-holes on the floor of the hut or anywhere near the wall. That is, no built stone installations or stone circles of any kind, and no simple unlined holes were visible in the hut or near it. One should note that even simple post-holes would have been preserved and detected during excavation, given that other delicate remains were observable on the hut's floor. Also, that the thickest pieces of charcoal were found exclusively along the wall seems to indicate that no central post was used here. Rather, a series of long branches were probably stuck diagonally in the ground to form a slanting wall with the highest point being somewhere above the middle of the hut (FIGURE 8). This kind of construction, with no central pole and with a variety of plant species used for covering the walls/roof, is commonly used by the Bushmen in the Kalahari (Yellen 1976) and the Aborigines in Australia (Spencer & Gillen 1998 [1898]). Construction is simple, with walls/roof formed by adding branches and leaves in a somewhat careless way. The result is an oval structure with uneven walls and with branches protruding in various directions.

[Figure 8 ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

If the hut was occupied during several seasons, the walls may well have been strengthened and thickened during the period of occupation. It is not uncommon for occupants to take care of and maintain such a structure in order to endure seasonal changes. A second point concerns the wide range of species used as building material. Grasses and young branches of trees were probably incorporated in the structure during spring or early summer. Other materials could have been added during fall, in order to improve the impermeability of the hut before the beginning of the rainy season. Currently, it is impossible to establish during which season initial construction was begun. However, it is suggested that the remains attest to periodic maintenance of the walls of the hut.

The Ohalo II brush hut is unique in several ways. First, it is the oldest brush hut that has ever been preserved in such details. There is no contemporaneous (or older) structure where the exact size, shape, orientation and entrance of a brush hut have been preserved. The best preserved habitations from the Upper Palaeolithic period are the Mammoth dwellings in eastern Europe. Here, the structures were built of massive mammoth bones, and probably covered with hides (see papers in Softer & Praslov 1993). In other cases, habitation units have not or only partially been preserved. In some sites the outlines of dwellings have been reconstructed on the basis of artefact scatters and stone footings. A famous example is Pincevent (a somewhat later open-air site in France), where various reconstructions of huts have been suggested (Leroi-Gourhan & Brezillon 1972).

Second, at Ohalo II the remains of the perishable superstructure have been well preserved, and it is possible to reconstruct the building material down to the species level (the trees and grasses used).

Third, in Near East prehistoric sites, such reconstruction (of perishable materials) is impossible even for the much-later Natufian huts. Some 7000 years later than Ohalo II, these have stone foundations and a variety of indoor and outdoor installations. However, so far no remains of the upper part of a wall or roof have been reported (see Valla 1988).

Fourth, at the Ohalo II hut the remains of daily activities have been preserved on the floor. The composition of the flint assemblage and its distribution on the floor is thought to represent knapping activities on the floor, by 2-3 artisans, and with no sweeping or postdepositional movement that would have blurred the original pattern (Nadel 1997; in press). It is of interest to point out that most of the triangle-shaped microliths found at the site were recovered from this hut. The presence of piles offish vertebrae on the same floor is far from a random distribution of these bones (Nadel et al. 1994). A large fiat basalt stone was carefully placed on the floor, with a patch of sand and several cobbles supporting it (Nadel 1996). Taken together, these facts (and the presence of many animal bones) seem to indicate an in situ floor where remains of daily activities have not been swept out or moved by natural agencies. This is to say, the hut was burnt with the remains on the floor, and covered by water and sand soon after.

Returning to the burnt material, it should be noted that woody remains from Locus I and other parts of the site have been identified in a previous work. There, a sample of 101 specimens have been analysed and identified. These include species common to the Central Jordan Valley today, such as Quercus ithaburensis, Pistacia atlantica, Tamarix, Populus euphratica and Atriplex halimus (Lipschitz & Nadel 1997). A further nine identifications were accomplished by one of us (EW), and these include Quercus ithaburensis, Tamarix, Pistacia atlantica, Amygdalus communis and Equisetum -- all coming from hearths and refuse dumps.

The plant species found in the huts, in the hearths and in the dumping zone indicate the use of a wide variety of grasses, shrubs and trees at the site. The aim of this paper was to present specific identifications of species used for construction, but there may of course have been additional uses of wood and soft plant tissues These were used as fuel for hearths, while many species were most probably used for consumption (their seeds, fruit, leaves etc.). And, although not surprising, the Ohalo II remains do contribute to our knowledge of Upper Pleistocene building technology. They also shed some light on seasonal maintenance activities of brush huts, and thus support a multi-seasonal occupation at the site (a suggestion based on other sources of evidence).

Acknowledgements. DN wishes to thank A. Belfer-Cohen, A.N. Goring-Morris, D. Kaufman, A. Ronen and M. Weinstein-Evron for their comments on an earlier draft of the paper. The Ohalo II project was kindly supported by the Irene-Levi Sala CARE Archaeological Foundation, The Jerusalem Center for Anthropological Studies, the L.S.B. Leakey Foundation, the M. Stekelis Museum of Prehistory in Haifa and the Israel Antiquities Authority (1989: L. 1634; 1990: L. 1724; 1991: 93/91). The reconstructed hut was drawn by Sharon Bar-Yehuda.

References

ARENSBURG, B. & O. BAR-YOSEF. 1973. Human remains from Ein Gev I, Jordan Valley, Israel, Paleorient 1: 201-6.

BAR-YOSEF, O. 1978. Man -- an outline of the prehistory of the Kinneret area, in C. Serruya (ed.), Monographiae Biologicae 32: 447-64. The Hague.

BAR-YOSEF, O. & A. BELFFR-COHEN. 1989. The origins of sedentism and farming communities in the Levant, Journal of World Prehistory 3(4): 447-98.

1992. From foraging to farming in the Mediterranean Levant, in A.B. Gebauer & T.D. Price (ed.), Transitions to agriculture in prehistory: 21-48. Madison (WI): Prehistory Press.

BELMAKER, M., D. NADEL & E. TCHERNOV. 1998. Microfauna and paleoecological research in open air archaeological sites. A paper presented at the 4th International Conference of Archaeozoology of South-West Asia and Adjacent Areas, 29 June-3 July, Paris.

GARRARD, A.N., D. BAIRD & B.F. BYRD. 1994. The chronological basis and significance of the late Palaeolithic and Neolithic sequence in the Azraq Basin, Jordan, in O. Bar-Yosef & R. Kra (ed.), Late Quaternary chronology and palaeoclimates of the Eastern Mediterranean: 177-99. Tuscon (AZ): Radiocarbon.

GORING-MORRIS, A.N. 1995. Complex hunter-gatherers at the end of the Palaeolithic (20,000-10,000 BP), in T.E. Levi (ed.), The archaeology of society in the Holy Land: 141-64. London: Leicester University Press.

HENRY, D.O. 1989. From foraging to agriculture, The Levant at the end of the Ice Age. Philadelphia (PA): University of Pennsylvania Press.

HERSHKOVITZ, I., G. EDELSON, M.S. SPIERS, B. ARENSBURG,, D. NADEL & B. LEVI. 1993. Ohalo II man -- unusual findings in the anterior rib cage and shoulder girdle of a 19,000 years-old specimen, International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 3: 177-88.

HERSHKOVITZ, I., M.S. SPIERS, D. FRAYER, D. NADEL, S. WISHBARATZ & B. ARENSBURG. 1995. Ohalo II -- a 19,000 years old skeleton from a water-logged site at the Sea of Galilee, American Journal of Physical Anthropology 96(3): 215-34.

KISLEV, M.E., D. NADEL & I. CARMI. 1992. Epipalaeolithic (19,000 BP) cereal and fruit diet at Ohalo II, Sea of Galilee, Israel Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology 73(1-4): 161-6.

LEROI-GOURHAN, A. & M. BREZILLON. 1972. Fouilles de Pincevent: Essai d'analyse ethnographique d'un habitat Magdalenien (la section 36). Paris: C.N.R.S. VIIe Supplement a Gallia Prehistoire.

LIEBERMAN, D.E. 1993. The rise and fall of seasonal mobility among hunter-gatherers, Current Anthropology 34(5): 599-631.

LIPSCHITZ, N. & D. NADEL. 1997. Charred wood remains from Ohalo II (19,000 BP), Sea of Galilee, Israel, Mitekufat Haeven, Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 27: 5-18.

MARKS, A. (ed.). 1976. Prehistory and palaeoenvironments in the Central Negev, Israel 1. Dallas (TX): SMU Press. (Ed.). 1977. Prehistory and palaeoenvironments in the Central Negev, Israel 2. Dallas (TX): SMU Press.

NADEL, D. 1994. Levantine Upper Palaeolithic-Early Epipalaeolithic burial customs: Ohalo II as a case study, Paleorient 20(1): 113-21.

1995. The visibility of prehistoric burials in the Southern Levant: how rare are the Upper Palaeolithic/Early Epipalaeolithic graves? in S. Campbell & A. Green (ed.), The archaeology of death in the ancient Near East: 1-8. Oxford: Oxbow. Monograph 51.

1996. The organization of space in a fisher-hunter-gatherers' camp at Ohalo II, Israel, in M. Otte (ed.), Nature et culture: 373-88. Liege: University of Liege. E.R.A.U.L. 68.

1997. The spatial organization of prehistoric sites in the Jordan Valley: Kebaran, Natufian and Neolithic case studies. Unpublished Ph.D thesis, The Hebrew University, Jerusalem. (In Hebrew.)

In press. The scalene triangles from Ohalo II, Mitekufat Haeven, Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society

NADEL, D., I. CARMI & D. SEGAL. 1995. Radiocarbon dating of Ohalo II: archaeological and methodological implications, Journal of Archaeological Science 22(6): 811-22.

NADEL, D., A. DANIN, E. WERKER, T. SCHICK, M.E. KISLEV & K. STEWART. 1994. 19,000 years-old twisted fibers from Ohalo II, Current Anthropology 35(4): 451-8.

NADEL, D. & I. HERSHKOVITZ. 1991. New subsistence data and human remains from the earliest Levantine Epipalaeolithic, Current Anthropology 32(5): 631-5.

RABINOVITCH, R. 1998. Patterns of animal exploitation and subsistence in Israel, during the Upper Palaeolithic and EpiPalaeolithic (40,000-12,500 BP), based upon selected case studies. Unpublished Ph.D thesis, The Hebrew University, Jerusalem.

RABINOVITCH, R. & a. NADEL. 1994-5. Bone tools from Ohalo II -- a morphological and functional study, , Mitekufat Haeven, Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 26: 32-62.

SIMCHONI, O. 1997. Reconstruction of the landscape and human economy 19,000 BP in the Upper Jordan Valley by the Botanical Remains Found at Ohalo II. Unpublished Ph.D thesis, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan. (In Hebrew.)

SIMMONS, T. & D. NADEL. 1998. The avifauna of the early Epipalaeolithic site of Ohalo II (19,400 BP), Israel: species diversity, habitat and seasonality, International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 8(2): 79-96.

SOFFER, O. & N.D. PRASLOV (ed.). 1993. Front Kostenki to Clovis. Upper Palaeolithic-PalaeoIndian adaptations. New York (NY): Plenum Press.

SPENCER, B. & F.J. GILLEN. 1998 [1898] (renewed print). The natives of central Australia. New York (NY): Dover Publications Inc.

VALLA, F.R. 1988. Aspects du sol de l'abri 131 de Mallaha (Eynan), Paleorient 14(2): 283-96.

YELLEN, J.E. 1976. Archaeological approaches to the present. New York: Academic Press.

DANI NADEL & ELLA WERKER, Nadel, Zinman Institute of Archaeology, University of Haifa, Mount Carmel, Haifa 31905, Israel. Werker, Department of Botany, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem 91904, Israel.

Received 18 March 1999, accepted 14 May 1999.