The objective of my doctoral research is to investigate social relations of the Natufian culture in Southwest Asia through interpretation of regional and material-culture variability. The Natufian culture (10,500 - 8,500 BC) is critical to our understanding of the transition from mobile hunter-gatherers to sedentary hunter-gatherer-farmers (Sellars 1998)). The Natufian represents the final period of archaeologically known hunter-gatherers in Southwest Asia, preceding the advent of agricultural economies. The aim of this research is to examine social relations through the development of rigorous systematic grouping and spatial analysis of artifacts. My theoretical perspective is based on social agency rather than the traditional ecological paradigm. The methodology applied in this research is also unique to Natufian research in that grouping is based on degrees of similarities, and spatial analysis is conducted through geographical information systems (GIS). I propose that systematics and spatial analysis will allow me to interpret social relations among groups of people both diachronically and spatially. Furthermore, it is hypothesized that similarities between collections of artifacts from archaeological sites are related to the degree of social interaction between these sites.

Previous research has revealed much about past ecology and environment in the Natufians' core and periphery areas, its technology and material culture, and its settlement and subsistence strategies (Bar-Yosef and Valla 1991; Gorring-Morris 1988; Henry 1995). Within the core area, there is overall consistency in technology and material culture, while variability is much greater in the periphery. Previous researchers have explained this variability primarily from an ecological perspective (Henry 1995), and have given little attention to social relations or the role of production, maintenance and transformation of social institutions in this variability. Two main barriers have limited our understanding of Natufian social relations: the profusion of ecological evidence to explain human behavior and the tendency to treat sites as distinct entities. Unlike previous ecologically focused work, this research will focus on the interactions of individuals and groups of individuals who made, used, and exchanged artifacts and knowledge about artifacts. I propose that we can better understand variability between the core and periphery through an investigation that emphasizes social relations rather than environmental factors.

The remainder of this proposal has three main sections. The first will elaborate on the concept of core-and-periphery spatial dynamics of the Natufian culture and how variability plays a part in this dynamic. It will be evident at the end of this section that there is a need for research into the interactions of Natufian populations. The second section will illustrate how a social-agency paradigm can help us understand social relations in the Natufian culture. This section will also demonstrate that archaeologists can understand social relations and interactions by treating material culture as a medium between humans, their actions and their environments. The third section will elaborate on the methods proposed to conduct this research. The methodology has two components: systematic and spatial.

The Natufian culture is of particular interest to archeologists in the Near East because they appear to have lived during the threshold phase that led to the emergence of agriculture (Bar-Yosef 1998). The period in which the Natufians lived, based on radiocarbon dates from numerous archaeological sites, is approximately 13,000 or 12,800 BP to 10,500 or 10,300 BP (Bar-Yosef and Belfer-Cohen 1999). They lived in the Levant, which now encompasses Israel, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon.

Within the Levant there are three main phytogeographic zones: Mediterranean, Irano-Turanian and Saharo-Arabian (see figure 1). The Mediterranean zone, in its present state, is identified as the core area or "homeland" of the Natufian culture because the majority of archaeological sites have been recorded in this zone (Bar-Yosef 1998; Henry 1995). Palaeo-ecological research indicates that the Mediterranean zone may once have been larger because of increases in temperature and precipitation during the final late Pleistocene and initial Holocene (Baruch and Bottema 1991). This time-span roughly corresponds with the emergence of the Natufian culture. The Mediterranean zone also went through a period of deterioration, known as the Younger Dryas (approximately 11,000 BP), when drier and colder climatic conditions prevailed. The expansion and contraction of the Mediterranean zone has been taken into account in subdivision of the Natufian culture into two time periods: early Natufian (13,000/12,800 - 11,000 BP) and late Natufian (11,000 - 10,500/300 BP).

The early and late Natufian are primarily characterized by their lithic technology and material culture. The lithic technology is identified as a distinctive microlith technology characterized by lunates, short and wide bladelets, and multipurpose cores (Bar-Yosef 1998; Bar- Yosef and Belfer-Cohen 1991; Sellars 1998).

Although the microlith technology is distinctive during the early and late Natufian, the most distinguishing features are the material culture beyond the chipped-stone technology (Bar-Yosef 1998; Bar-Yosef and Belfer-Cohen 1989, 1991, 1999; Belfer-Cohen 1991a; Campana 1991; Henry 1989). Natufian ground-stone technology includes artifacts identified as mortars, pestles, mullers, shaft straighteners and bowls. These ground-stone artifacts were made from limestone, basalt or sandstone. In the Natufian culture we also see a proliferation of tools manufactured from bone. These include points and barbed points, pierced points, awls and borers, and sickle hafts. Of particular social importance are artifacts classified as art or ornamentation, which also appeared frequently in the Natufian. Art and ornamentation recovered includes beads made of bone, stone, or most commonly, marine shell, engraved ostrich-shell fragments, and human and animal figurines made of stone and bone (Bar-Yosef and Belfer-Cohen 1999; Belfer-Cohen 1991a, 1991b; Boyd 1995; Goring Morris 1998; Noy 1991). Another characteristic of the Natufian is the numerous features recorded at various sites. Apart from the Ohalo huts (Nadel and Werker 1999), the earliest architectural remains that Levantine archaeologists have identified belong to the early Natufian period and consists of semi-subterranean circular and curvilinear structures made of stone (Bar-Yosef and Belfer-Cohen 1999; Belfer-Cohen 1991a; Henry 1989). Other features include bedrock mortars, storage pits and burials.

The artifacts and features described above, although characteristic of the Natufian culture, exhibit variability across time and space. Although the technological patterns are quite similar, there is typological variability within each class (Belfer-Cohen 1991a). Traditionally, this variability is interpreted chronologically and in relation to the ecological setting.

During the 1970s and 1980s several authors suggested that the Natufian culture had two types of sites: base camps and transitory camps (Bar-Yosef 1983; Byrd 1989; Vita-Finzi and Higgs 1970), although others further associated variability among sites with open air or cave sites (Olszewski 1988). Base camps are larger and richer in material culture and are located in the Mediterranean core. Transitory camps are used for a short period, usually during procurement activities, and have limited material remains. Although these transitory camps can occur in the core area, they are also found in the peripheral Irano-Turanian and Saharo-Arabian vegetational zones. Because the ecological setting and function of base and transitory camps differ, it was logical to conclude that the material culture recovered from the individual sites would also differ.

Archaeologists of the 1970s and 1980s also thought that the early Natufian was restricted to the core area while the late Natufian was found in both the core and periphery areas. The hypothesized reason for this expansion, as mentioned earlier, was deterioration in size of the Mediterranean core area. This deterioration led to a reduction in resources - mainly vegetational resources - and a need to expand the resource base (Bar-Yosef 1998; Goring-Morris and Belfer-Cohen 1997 Henry 1981, 1995).

In the late 1980s and into the 1990s, further research in the Negev and southern Jordan indicated that the extent of the Natufian culture, particularly the early Natufian, was greater than first thought. Early and late Natufian sites, including both base and transitory camps, were now represented in the periphery area. Regardless of these discoveries, variability still existed and interpretations remained heavily steeped in the ecological tradition. Henry (1982) suggests that variability between individual Natufian sites is related to the location of each site within "micro environmental zones." Furthermore, he suggests a clustering system based on site type and the site’s location in the micro- and macro-environment. Byrd (1989) made the suggestion that clustering be distinguished by further ecological variables found within a micro- or macro-environment.

To date the interpretation of Natufian distribution in the Levant is based primarily on ecological paradigms. It is also clear that Natufian sites are investigated individually or in small groups and hence treated as distinct entities existing in their own micro-environment. What remains to be explained is the fact that, although there is variability at both inter- and intra-site levels, there remains a general homogeneity of Natufian material culture throughout the entire Levant. The proposed research intends to explain this situation from a social approach rather than the ecological approaches of the past.

The history of hunter-gatherer social interaction is steeped heavily in economic and ecological theories (Bettinger and Baumhoff 1982; Binford 1980; Higgs and Vita-Finzi 1972; Jochim 1976, 1998; Kelly 1995; Sahlins 1972; Steward 1937). This tends to leave the human aspect somewhat detached from the interpretation of hunter-gatherers in prehistory. Now archaeologists are seeking alternative paradigms to explain why and how individual hunter-gatherers interacted with one another.

Social agency involves the structuring of social relations and the ongoing production, maintenance, and transformation of societal institutions across time and space (Clark 2000; Dobres 2000; Dobres and Robb 2000; Pred 1986). Important terms used in this paradigm are agent, agency and structure. Agents are socially conscious individuals or groups of individuals. Agency is a continuous flow of conduct through time and space that consists of intentional choices or actions that agents make to achieve their goals. Structures are the sociocultural and ecological surroundings of agents. Structure is both a fluid and complex context of agency. Agents can transform structure, although not necessarily as the agent intended. There is interaction between agents and structures, and agents are embedded in structures. This is known as the duality of structure, which means it can be both the medium and the outcome of the conduct the structure organizes.

According to theories of social agency, individuals make decisions based on their sociocultural and ecological surroundings (i.e., structure), and they, not their technology or artifacts, are the active agents of prehistory (Dincauze 2000; Dobres 2000; Gamble 1999). If this is so, what can we say of technology and artifacts? How can archaeologists, who rely on artifacts as the basis of their interpretation, understand social agency in a culture? Since agency consists of decision-making and actions, it is logical that the development of technological knowledge and skill is part of decision and action. This is where the term agency becomes more operational. According to Dobres and Robb (2000), those who believe that agency is about intentionality also argue that the material world is created and manipulated by agents. Therefore, artifacts can be viewed as "inactive traces, residues, or correlates of particular kinds of human activity and agency" (Dobres and Robb 2000:12). It is possible to take this one step further by suggesting that material culture, including artifacts, represent not only the world within which people act, but also the people themselves (Dobres and Robb 2000). If such is the case, then it is possible to understand social relations and agency through investigation of artifact variability through time and space. According to Wobst (2000), artifacts are the material products and precedents for human action and, thus, can be identified as material interferences. Wobst refers to artifacts as "interferences" because they interfere with the natural variables (i.e., the raw materials used to make the artifact) and they interfere with humans (i.e., social interactions). This view finds wide support (Dobres and Hoffman 1994; Sassaman 2000; Sinclair 2000; Wobst 1999; 2000).

The application of the social-agency perspective in archaeology has become prevalent in the last ten years. In particular, research on prehistoric hunter-gatherers is the fastest-growing sector in archaeology to employ this approach. One ambitious example is Clive Gamble’s (1999) research on Palaeolithic societies in Europe. Gamble builds a model of prehistoric social networks based on his examination of artifacts and sites through a chaînes opératoire lens. Gamble takes the concept of chaînes opératoire further by applying it at a more general level: from the action of the individual to the actions of the group (Gamble 1999:83). In Dobres' and Robb's edited book Agency in Archaeology (2000), several examples of research use agency to explain social relations of prehistoric hunter-gatherers. One notable study is Sassaman's (2000) article, "Agents of change in hunter-gatherer technology," in which pottery production of the Stallings culture of the Middle Savannah River Valley is used to consider how the actions of individuals transform and reproduce social relations, such as gender, kinship and ethnicity. A further example is Dobres' (2000) material research on the Magdalenian, in which she identifies material parameters of Magdalenian social agency through artifact production and use.

In the case of the Natufian, previous research has demonstrated how this culture interacted with and embedded itself in the ecological structure. However, we know little about the social structures that the Natufians created and transformed through actions. To reveal these social structures, we must examine Natufian action and agency through analysis of Natufian technology and artifacts.

Although the analysis will include all artifact types, the focus is on artifacts related to exchange and artistic activities. The reasons for limiting analysis to these artifact classes are threefold: They are present throughout the Levant and demonstrate variability through time and space; they represent the knowledge and actions of individuals with or without the condition of an ecological paradigm; and it is possible to show that they interact with both the ecological and social structures of the Natufian. Recognizing that human interaction takes place over space, it is possible to use artifact evidence from different sites to determine which sites interacted the most with each other and thus had the strongest social relations. The exchange of dentalium shell used in the production of beads in the Natufian illustrates this form of interaction. This research will enrich a neglected area of Natufian research by concentrating on the social relations. Furthermore, this research will complement rather than compete with the present ecological interpretations of variability within the Natufian.

The methods for this research include two components: systematics and spatial analysis. The systematics component is addressed on two levels: the level of the artifact and the level of the site. Acknowledging the current taxonomic grouping for Natufian artifacts, I will measure the similarities between artifact collections in different sites. The spatial component involves input of the data into a GIS to perform various forms of analyses including cluster analysis and spatial auto-correlation. Recognizing that human interaction takes place over space, it is possible to use artifact evidence to calculate which sites interacted the most with each other and thus had the strongest social relations. The main advantage of using a GIS is that each artifact taxon can be investigated both individually and within complete artifact taxonomies over a region through production of individual maps for each artifact taxon. In addition, by implementing the artifact grouping in a GIS makes it possible to account for ecological variability at the same time. The result will illustrate similarities and interrelationships of sites over the landscape that will, in turn, demonstrate the probable social relations of populations that once inhabited these sites. From the results, four potential idealized outcomes may occur through the following hypotheses statements (see figure 2 for schematic diagrams of hypotheses):

H_a1 : Similarity is a function of ecological zones (ecological paradigm).

H_a2 : Similarity is a function of exchange or interaction routes (social interaction paradigm).

H_a3 : Similarity cross-cuts ecological zones and interaction routes, but in a pattern that suggests

seasonality, territorial, or culture group identity).

H_null : No similarity or patterning whatsoever (random).

Systematic classification is "the creation of units of meaning by means of stipulating redundancies (classes)" (Dunnell 1971:44). Classification, as part of systematics, is completely arbitrary in that there are infinite ways to define categories (Banning 2000). Grouping appears similar to classification but, the principle distinction is that while classification involves assigning entities to a predefined set of categories, grouping, by contrast, clumps real entities on the basis of similarity/dissimilarity or some other criterion (e.g., distance) (Banning 2000; Dunnell 1971). Functional classification of Natufian material culture is well developed. However, grouping based on technological and stylistic similarity remains to be conducted. For this research, cluster analysis (numerical taxonomy) is used to group Natufian material culture at the technological and stylistic level.

Cluster analysis is similar to other forms of typological grouping except that the procedures vary (Banning 2000). According to Aldenderfer and Blashfield (1984:7), "cluster analysis is the generic name for a wide variety of procedures that … empirically form clusters or groups of highly similar entities." Of these various methods of cluster analysis, my research will employ hierarchical analysis. Hierarchical clustering is used when sets of objects are compared based on a large number of weighted attributes and those objects that are most similar are grouped together and compared by means of a coefficient of similarity or dissimilarity (Banning 2000). These groupings are then presented in a hierarchical diagram, or a tree diagram. Four of the more common procedures for hierarchical grouping are single-linkage, total-linkage, average-linkage and Ward’s method (Aldenderfer and Blashfield 1984). The advantage of using hierarchical cluster analysis in the case of the Natufian culture is that there is control of material culture at the level of systematics and that this control can include a temporal component. What makes cluster analysis superior to other methods of analysis (e.g., Midwestern Taxonomic Method) is that it is possible to examines artifact similarity at the inter-and intra-site level within one cultural identity, rather than comparing two separate identities. One final advantage of using cluster analysis lies in the validation methods available to test for significance of clustering. Validation methods available include co-phenetic correlation, significance tests on variables used to create clusters, and replication (Aldenderfer and Blashfield 1986).

The Natufian artifacts or features that I propose to use are those related to ground-stone tools, bone tools, ornamentation, architecture and burials. The reasons for choosing these categories are: (1) they are identifiable based on their stylistic attributes; (2) where discovered, these artifact categories are well documented, and (3) these artifacts or features may be related to social aspects of the Natufian culture such as social organization, stratification, and interaction. Steps in this stage of research include collection of data, organization of data and grouping of data.

Data collection involves gathering information from Natufian sites in three areas of the Levant: the Mediterranean zone, the Irano-Turanian zone and the Saharo-Arabian. The Mediterranean is chosen because it represents the core area, while the remaining areas represent the periphery of Natufian occupation. The bulk of the data will come from published, excavated sites but relevant data from surveys and testing will also be included. I propose to obtain as much data as possible to provide a large sample size. Fortunately, the number of recorded Natufian sites is already quite large, allowing a fair sample size.

Data organization will be conducted through a computerized database. All observations will include the site location and a radiocarbon date or group of dates. This will promote spatial and temporal control, which will be important in the second part of the method. Each observation, depending on artifact type, will also include specific variables related to style rather than function. According to Dunnell (1978:198), "stylistic similarity is homologous similarity; it is the result of direct cultural transmission once chance similarity in a context of limited possibilities is excluded." Because each artifact type is treated individually, it is possible to interpret the possible underlying basis for similarity, such as exchange or shared information.

The final step is the actual grouping of the data. For this research SPSS, a statistical package commonly used in the social sciences, will be used to perform the hierarchical grouping of each Natufian material-culture group. The predicted result of this process is a clear understanding of what observations are more similar to one another, both stylistically and temporally. This can give a preliminary indication of possible social interaction between Natufian populations over time. This first section lays the main groundwork for the second part of the methodology, understanding Natufian social relations at a spatial level.

To engage in spatial analysis, a second type of computer program a GIS, is used. GIS are systems of computer hardware, software and procedures designed for collecting, retrieving, transforming and displaying spatially referenced data (Aldenderfer and Maschner 1996; Burrough and McDonell 1998; Green 1990; Heywood 1990; Kvamme 1989; Lock and Harris 1992; Martin 1996; Stine and Lanter1990). There are three main themes of GIS application in archaeology: inventory, spatial analysis and publication. Since inventory is covered in the systematics section, this proposed research will focus on the spatial analysis of Natufian data.

Spatial analysis has always been an important, although somewhat limited, part of archaeological research (Clarke 1977; Hietala 1984; Hodder and Orton 1976; Kroll and Price 1991). The availability of GIS for archaeologists has lifted limitations to database management and the manipulation of data and complex spatial analysis is now being conducted (Kvamme1985; 1988; 1990a and b; 1994). Some feel that spatial analysis remains poorly supported in any GIS (Fisher 1998) but, with improvements in GIS functionality and compatibility with statistical software, this criticism is less valid. For this research, two types of spatial analysis can be conducted: point-pattern analysis and continuous-surface analysis.

Point-patterns are data sets containing a series of point locations in a study region (Bailey and Gatrell 1995). In archaeology, a site, artifact or feature can be identified as a point. In point-pattern analysis, the main interest is to discover spatial patterning and to determine if the patterning is systematic or random. Tests to determine a point-pattern include Kernal estimation, nearest-neighbor distances and the K function. Specialized topics in point-pattern analysis consider cases where more than one type of point is observed and interest lies in the relationships between the patterns of these different types of points (Bailey and Gatrell 1995). Examples of these specialized analyses included space-time clustering, and clustering around a specific point source. If the topic of interest is how one point interacts with another, then methods for spatial interaction data are used.

Continuous-surface analysis helps us understand the spatial distribution of attributes over an entire study area (Bailey and Gatrell 1995). The objective is to model the pattern of similarity or variability over space. Methods used in this analysis include simple modeling, such as trend- surface analysis and generalized least-square analysis, to multivariate methods of analysis, such as functional analysis and cluster analysis. For this research, cluster analysis will once again be performed. The difference between the first form of cluster analysis and the second form of cluster analysis is that, in the latter, analysis will use the already grouped data in conjunction with spatial and environmental data.

Environmental data required are as follows: Digital elevation models (DEM) or digital terrain model (DTM); and digitized hydrological, vegetation, and soil maps. DEMs and DTMs are quantitative models that represent part of the earth’s surface in digital format (Burrough and McDonnell 1998). Many of these maps were originally in paper format and were either digitized or scanned into digital format. Archaeological data include all data from the initial cluster

analysis.

Once spatial analysis is complete, the final step is to test this analysis for accuracy. Testing for accuracy involves dividing the initial data into two: a training set and a testing set. In the Levant, there are several regions that can be used for testing. Other sources of testing for accuracy fall into the realm of geo-statistics. Methods used include Monte-Carlo simulation and spatial autocorrelation, which explores spatial dependence and deviations (Bailey and Gatrell 1995).

The results of the second part of this methodology will illustrate that similarity in artifact style can be demonstrated both temporally and spatially. At the spatial level, it will be demonstrated that similarity is not necessarily a function of proximity, regardless of ecological conditions. Similarity is a product of social interaction, either through shared information and knowledge or through exchange. This will be illustrated through the size, shape, and regional patterning of the clusters.

The proposed research, most importantly, will address problems that detract from progressive research in this region. It will incorporate data from more than one area of the region, thus providing a larger picture of Natufian land use and interaction. This research will also examine the Natufian as a complex whole, rather than as discrete individual sites. It will investigate variability and homology between Natufian sites and within varying physiographic settings from a perspective of social interaction and relations. Thus, this research complements previous research based on ecological paradigms. Finally, this research will have significance, particularly for Natufian research, in that a perspective of social agency is employed. This perspective is recent in archaeological research, therefore needs further investigation. This perspective will also enhance any research on the Natufian to date.

In assessing the feasibility of the proposed research, three issues are evident: The availability of the data, the applicability of the theoretical perspective, and the ability to carry out the methodology. I have made contacts with archaeologists at the Hebrew University in Israel and the Hashimite University in Jordan. Through these contacts, I have secured information and materials needed to conduct this research. The theoretical perspective used in this research is becoming more common in archaeology (Blumfiel 2000; Clark 2000; Cowgill 2000; Dobres 2000, Dobres and Robb 2000; Gamble 1999; and Hodder 2000). To date, three studies ( Kohler and Gumerman 1996; Llobera 1996; and Zubrow 1994) have proven that the concept of agency has its place in archaeological research that employs GIS. The methods employed, primarily systematics, are common in archaeological research and should pose no problems. In addition, the GIS resources needed for this research is available at little or no expense to the researcher.

Upon successful completion of the research proposal, research will commence in January, 2002. At such time, I will be in Israel and Jordan, working for a period of up to six months in order to collect data that could not be gathered in Canada and complete the spatial analysis. Upon completion of this stage, I will return to Canada (estimated date - end of June 2002) and begin further research (mostly library) and write up of dissertation. If necessary, I will return to Israel and Jordan for further research. It is estimated that this stage will be completed by April, 2003. Revisions will begin after this time and I expect to complete them by August of 2003, projected time of Dissertation defense.

 References 

Aldenderfer, M. S. and R. K. Blashfield

1984 Cluster Analysis. Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences 44. Sage Publications Inc., Beverly Hills.

Aldenderfer, M. a. H. D. G. M.

1996 Introduction. In Anthropology, Space and Geographic Information Systems, edited by M. a. H. D. G. M. Aldenderfer, pp. 4-18. Oxford University Press, New York.

Bailey, T. C. and A. C. Gatrell

1995 Interactive Spatial Data Analysis. Longman, Essex.

Banning, E. B.

2000 The Archaeologist's Laboratory: The Analysis of Archaeological Data. Klewer Academic/ Plenum Press, New York.

Bar Yosef, O. and F. R. Valla

1991 The Natufian Culture - An Introduction. In The Natufian Culture in the Levant, edited by O. Bar Yosef and F. R. Valla, pp. 1-10. vol. Archaeological Series 1. International Monographs in Prehistory, Ann Arbor.

Bar-Yosef, O.

1983 The Natufian of the southern Levant. In The Hilly Flanks and Beyond, Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization, edited by P. E. L. Smith and P. Mortensen, pp. 11-42. vol. 36. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Bar-Yosef, O. and A. Belfer-Cohen

1989 The origins of sedentism and farming communities in the Levant. Journal of World Prehistory 3(4):447-498.

Bar-Yosef, O.

1998 The Natufian culture in the Levant: thresholds to the origins of agriculture. Evolutionary Anthropology 6(5):159-177.

Bar-Yosef, O. and A. Belfer-Cohen

1999 Encoding information: unique Natufian objects from Hayonim Cave, western Galilee, Israel. Antiquity 73:402-409.

Baruch, U. and S. Bottema

1991 Palynological evidence for climatic changes in the Levant ca. 17,000-9,000 B.P. In The Natufian Culture in the Levant, edited by O. Bar-Yosef and F. R. Valla, pp. 11-20. Archaeological Series 1. International Monographs in Prehistory, Michigan.

Belfer-Cohen, A.

1991a Art items from layer B, Hayonim Cave: A case study of art in a Natufian context. In The Natufian Culture in the Levant, edited by O. Bar-Yosef and F. R. Valla, pp. 569-587. International Monographs in Prehistory, Ann Arbor.

Belfer-Cohen, A.

1991b The Natufian in the Levant. Annual Review in Anthropology 20:167-186.

Bettinger, R. L. and M. A. Baumhoff

1982 The Numic spread: Great Basin cultures in competition. American Antiquity 47(3):485-503.

Binford, L. R.

1980 Willow smoke and dogs tails: hunter-gatherer settlement systems and archaeological site formation. American Antiquity 45(1):4-20.

Blumfiel, E. M.

2000 On the Archaeology of Choice: Agency Studies as a Research Stratagem. In Agency in Archaeology, edited by M. A. Dobres and J. E. Robb, pp. 249-255. Routledge, London.

Boyd, B.

1995 Houses and hearths, pits and burials: Natufian mortuary practices at Mallaha (Eynana), Upper Jordan Valley. In Archaeology of Death in the Ancient Near East, edited by S. Campbell and A. Green, pp. 17-23. Oxbow Books, Oxford.

Burrough, P. A. and R. A. McDonnell

1998 Principles of Geographic Information Systems. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Byrd, B.

1989 the Natufian: settlement variability and economic adaptations in the Levant at the end of the Pleistocene. Journal of World Prehistory 3:159-197.

Campana, D.

1991 Bone implements from Hayonim Cave: some relevant issues. In The Natufian Culture in the Levant, edited by O. Bar-Yosef and F. R. Valla, pp. 459-466. Archaeological Series 1. International Monographs in Prehistory, Ann Arbor.

Clark, J. E.

2000 Towards a Better explanation of Hereditary Inequity: A Critical Assessment of Natural and Historic Human Agents. In Agency in Archaeology, edited by M. A. Dobres, pp. 92-112. Routledge, London.

Clarke, D. L.

1977 Spatial Archaeology. Academic Press, London.

Cowgill, G. L.

2000 "Rationality" and Contexts in Agency Theory. In Agency in Archaeology, edited by M. A. Dobres and J. E. Robb, pp. 51-60. Routledge, London.

Dincauze, D.

2000 Environmental archaeology: Principles and Practices. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Dobres, M. A. and C. R. Hoffman

1994 Social agency and the dynamics of prehistoric technology. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 13:211-258.

Dobres, M. A. and J. E. Robb (editors)

2000 Agency in Archaeology. Routledge, London.

Dobres, M. A.

2000 Technology and Social Agency. Blackwell Publishers, Oxford.

Dunnell, R. C.

1971 Systematics in Prehistory. The Free Press, New York.

Fisher, P. F.

1997 Geographical Information Systems: Today and Tomorrow? In Sistemi informativi E Reti Geografiche In Archeologia: GIS-Internet, edited by A. Gottarelli, pp. 17-31. Edizioni All'Insegna Del Giglio, Firenze.

Gamble, C.

1999 The Palaeolithic Societies of Europe. Cambridge Press, Cambridge.

Goring-Morris, A. N.

1988 Trends in the spatial organization of Terminal Pleistocene hunter-gatherer occupations as viewed from the Negev and Sinai. Paleorient 14(2):231-244.

Goring-Morris, A. N. and A. Belfer-Cohen

1997 The articulation of cultural processes and late Quaternary environmental changes in Cisjordan. Paleorient 23(2):71-93.

Green, S. W.

1990 Approaching archaeological space: an introduction to this volume. In Interpreting Space: GIS and Archaeology, edited by K. M. S. Allen, S. W. Green and E. B. W. Zubrow, pp. 3-8. Taylor and Francis, London.

Henry, D. O.

1981 An analysis of settlement patterns and adaptive strategies of the Natufian. In Prehistoire du Levant, edited by J. Cauvin and P. Sanlaville, pp. 421-431. vol. 598. Colloques C.N.R.S., Lyon.

Henry, D. O.

1982 The prehistory of southern Jordan and the relationships with the Levant. Journal of Field Archaeology 9:417-444.

Henry, D. O.

1989 From Foraging to Agriculture: The Levant at the End of the Ice Age. University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Henry, D. O.

1995 Prehistoric Cultural Ecology and Evolution: Insights from Southern Jordan. Plenum Press, New York.

Heywood, I.

1990 Geographic information systems in the social sciences. Environment and Planning A 22(1):849-852.

Hietala, H. J.

1984 Intrasite Spatial Analysis in Archaeology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Higgs, E. S. and C. Vita-Finzi

1972 Prehistoric economies: a territorial approach. In Papers in Economic Prehistory, edited by E. S. Higgs, pp. 27-36. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Hodder, I. and C. Orton

1976 Spatial Analysis in Archaeology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Hodder, I.

2000 Agency and Individuals in Long-Term Process. In Agency in Archaeology, edited by M. A. Dobres and J. E. Robb, pp. 21-33. Routledge, London.

Jochim, M. A.

1976 Hunter-Gatherer Subsistence and Settlement: A Predictive Model. Academic Press, New York.

Jochim, M. A.

1998 A Hunter-Gatherer Landscape: Southwest Germany in the Late Paleolithic and Mesolithic. Plenum Press, New York.

Kelly, R. L.

1995 The Foraging Spectrum: Diversity in Hunter-Gatherer Lifeways. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington.

Kohler, T. A. and G. J. Gumerman

1996 Beyond GIS: Populating Worlds With Agents. In The Present State of GIS Applications and Analogous Systems in Prehistoric Archaeology: Theoretical and Methodological Problems, edited by A. Bietti, A. Cazzella, I. Johnson and A. Voorrips. XIII International Congress of Prehistoric and Protohistoric Sciences - Colloquia II. A.B.A.C.O. Edizioni, Forli, Italia.

Kroll, E. M. and T. D. Price

1991 The Interpretation of Archaeological Spatial Patterning. Plenum Press, New York.

Kvamme, K. L.

1985 Determining empirical relationships between the natural environment and prehistoric site locations: A hunter-gatherer example. In For Concordance in Archaeological Analysis, edited by C. Carr. Westport Publishers, St. Louis, Mo.

Kvamme, K. L.

1988 Development and testing of quantitative models. In Quantifying the Present and Predicting the Past: Theory, Method and Application of Archaeological Predictive Modeling, edited by W. J. Judge and L. Sebastian. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

Kvamme, K. L.

1989 Geographic information systems in regional archaeological research and data management. In Archeological Theory and Method, edited by M. B. Schiffer, pp. 139-203. vol. 1. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Kvamme, K. L.

1990a One-sample tests in regional archaeological analysis: new possibilities through computer technology. American Antiquity 55(2):367-381.

Kvamme, K. L.

1990b The Fundamental Principles and Practice of Predictive Archaeological Modeling. In Mathematics and Information Science in Archaeology: A Flexible Framework, edited by A. Voorrips. Studies In Modern Archaeology 3. Holos Verlag, Bonn.

Kvamme, K. L.

1994 GIS Graphics vs. Spatial Statistics: How Do They Fit Together? Archaeological Computing Newsletter 38:3-4.

Llobera, M.

1996 Exploring the Topography of Mind: GIS, Social Space and Archaeology. Antiquity 70:612-622.

Lock, G. R. and T. M. Harris

1992 Visualizing spatial data: The importance of geographic information systems. In Archaeology and the Information Age: A Global Perspective, edited by P. Reilly and S. Rahtz, pp. 81-96. Routledge, London.

Martin, D.

1996 Geographic Information Systems: Socioeconomic Applications. Routledge, London.

Nadel, D. and E. Werker

1. The oldest ever brush hut. Antiquity 73:757-764.

Noy, T.

1991 Art and decoration of the Natufian at Nahal Oren. In The Natufian Culture in the Levant, edited by O. Bar-Yosef and F. R. Valla, pp. 557-568. International Monographs in Prehistory, Ann Arbor.

Olszewski, D. I.

1988 The north Syrian Late Epipaleolithic and its relationship to the Natufian complex. Levant 20:127-137.

Pred, A.

1986 Place, Practice and Structure. Polity Press, Oxford.

Sahlins, M. D.

1972 Stone Age Economics. Aldine-Atherton, Chicago.

Sassaman, K. E.

2000 Agents of change in hunter-gatherer technology. In Agency in Archaeology, edited by M. A. Dobres and J. E. Robb, pp. 148-168. Routledge, London.

Sellars, J. R.

1998 The Natufian of Jordan. In The Prehistoric Archaeology of Jordan, edited by D. O. Henry, pp. 83-101. BAR International Series 705.

Sinclair, A.

2000 Constellations of knowledge: human agency and material affordance in lithic technology. In Agency in Archaeology, edited by M. A. Dobres and J. E. Robb, pp. 196-212. Routledge, London.

Steward, J. H.

1937 Ancient Caves of the Great Salt Lake Region Bulletin 116. Smithsonian Institute, Bureau of American Ethnology, Washington.

Stine, R. S. and D. P. Lanter

1990 Considerations for archaeological database design. In Interpreting Space: GIS and Archaeology, edited by K. M. S. Allen, S. W. Green and E. B. W. Zubrow, pp. 80-89. Taylor and Francis, London.

Vita-Finzi, C. and E. S. Higgs

1970 Prehistoric economy in the Mount Carmel area of Palestine: Site catchment analysis. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 36:1-42.

Wobst, H. M.

1999 Style in archaeology, or archaeologists in style. In Material Meanings: Critical Approaches to Material Culture, edited by E. S. Chilton, pp. 118-132. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Wobst, H. M.

2000 Agency in (spite of) material culture. In Agency in Archaeology, edited by M. A. Dobres and J. E. Robb, pp. 40-50. Routledge, London.

Zubrow, E. B. W.

1994 Knowledge representation and archaeology: A cognitive example using GIS. In The Ancient Mind: Elements of Cognitive Archaeology, edited by C. Renfrew and E. B. W. Zubrow, pp. 107-118. Cambridge University Press.