A Workshop on Prehistory and the World Heritage Convention in The

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization

A Workshop on Prehistory and the World Heritage Convention in the framework of the Action Plan for Prehistory United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization

A Workshop on Prehistory and the World Heritage Convention in the framework of the Action Plan for Prehistory

28 December 2008

1 Published by: Israel Commission to UNESCO

editor: Prof Michael Turner. ISWCommittee, Chair

2 A WorkshopWorkshop oonn PPrehistoryrehistory aandnd thethe WorldWorld HHeritageeritage CConventiononvention iinn tthehe fframerame WWorkork ooff AActionction AAlonlon A Thematic initiative during the chairmanship of the World Heritage Committee by Spain

TTowardsowards aann AActionction PPlanlan aandnd rrelatedelated tthematichematic sstudiestudies – TheThe IsraeliIsraeli pperspective:erspective: - A State Party response to Global Strategy - Reappraising the Tentative List

The Nahal Me’arot cliff (photo M. Weinstein-Evron)

3 TTowardsowards aann AActionction PPlanlan & rrelatedelated tthematichematic sstudiestudies – TThehe IsraeliIsraeli pperspective:erspective: - TheThe StateState PPartyarty rresponseesponse ttoo GGloballobal SStrategytrategy - ReappraisingReappraising tthehe TTentativeentative LListist

SSponsoredponsored bbyy UNESCO World Heritage Centre Spanish Funds-in-Trust Israel National Commission for UNESCO Israel Nature and Parks Authority Israel Antiquities Authority Regional Council Hof HaCarmel Zinman Institute of Archaeology, Haifa University UNESCO Chair on Urban Design and Conservation Studies, Bezalel Academy

GGuestsuests

Dr. Nuria Sanz, Programme Specialist/ Focal Point for Prehistory/ Rock Art, World Heritage Centre, UNESCO Professor Emanuel Anati, Centro Camuno di Studi Preistorici in Capo di Ponte, Italy Professor Ofer Bar Yosef, Dept. of Anthropology, Harvard University, USA Professor Nigel Goring-Morris, Hebrew University, Jerusalem Professor Patricia Smith, Hebrew University, Jerusalem

4 2288 DecemberDecember 22008,008, aatt NNahalahal MMe’arot,e’arot, IIsraelsrael BBackgroundackground

GGreetingsreetings

PPresentationsresentations World Heritage Global Strategy, Dr. Nuria Sanz, World Heritage Centre The Israel Tentative List, Professor Michael Turner, Bezalel Academy

TThehe WorldWorld HHeritageeritage DDocumentsocuments IIsraelsrael DDocumentocument

Israel Prehistory, Professor Ofer Bar-Yosef, Harvard University I. Human Evolution, Professor Patricia Smith, Hebrew University II. Prehistoric Sites, Professor Nigel Goring-Morris, Hebrew University III. Rock Art, Professor Emanuel Anati, Centro Camuno di Studi Preistorici in Capo di Ponte, Italy

Case Study - Mount Carmel Caves, Professor Mina Weinstein-Evron, University of Haifa Appendices 1. Invitation and Agenda 2. List of workshop participants 3. Current Texts 4. Points for consideration in the nomination process

5 GGreetingsreetings The Head of the Regional Council, Mr. Carmel Sela welcomed the participants,, highlighting the growing local interest in the prehistoric sites in the region; Architect Zeev Margalit, Head of Conservation at the Nature and Parks Authority expressed his commitment for the conservation of prehistoric sites; Professor Yossi Ben Artzi, Rector, University of Haifa noted the academic research on prehistoiric sites in the Haifa region in general and Mount Carmel range in particular; Dr Uzi Dahari, Deputy Director, Israel Antiquities Authority greeted the participants and elaborating on the activities of the Israel Antiquities Authority in prehistoric sites including underwater archaeology. Professor Michael Turner, the Chair of the Israel World Heritage Committee thanked the World Heritage Centre, the Director Francesco Bandarin, the prgramme specialist Dr Nuria Sanz and the Spanish-in- Trust for their support of the workshop which is also aimed at raising the awareness of the heritage of pre-history in our region

BBackgroundackground Parallel to the experts meetings at the World Heritage Centre it was proposed to mirror the debate and evaluate the Tentative List of Israel and review some of the issues on the global strategy and the preparation of a summary statement to be presented in the framework of the World Heritage Committee report. Dr Nuria Sanz participated on behalf of the World Heritage Centre. The World Heritage meeting aimed to discuss the thematic studies as well as establishing the foundations for a long-term Action Plan in Prehistory. Experts were invited to: 1. Identify gaps in the World Heritage and Tentative Lists, and suggest a list of sites, processes or cultural phenomena related to Prehistory which are not mentioned or sufficiently represented. 2. Make an intervention during the session related to their expertise in accordance with the subject on the Agenda: Prehistoric Sites, Human Evolution or Rock Art. 3. Suggest ideas to develop the Action Plan on Prehistory and its future implementation, e.g. collaborations with academic institutions or other research centres and experts.

TThehe WWorldorld HHeritageeritage DDocumentsocuments In its Global Strategy analysis, ICOMOS1, identified Pre-History as an under-represented category. With this in mind and with the support of the Spanish Government a series of meetings were proposed that will bring a more coherent document to the World Heritage Committee in 2009 at its 34th meeting in Seville. It is hoped that this will detail the way forward for the preparation of a Thematic Study, together with a proposal to establish

1 The International Council for Monuments and Sites, the World Heritage Convention Advisory Body for cultural heritage.

6 in Spain a UNESCO category II institution for pre-historical research. Israel, currently a member of the World Heritage Committee, with many outstanding pre-historic sites and with excellent recognized international research convened a local meeting of experts to explore the way forward and participate in this endeavor. It was viable for the World Heritage Centre to prepare a document with a broad analysis in order to maintain a global view of the subject and to avoid a debate on establishing a universal chronology for Prehistoric manifestations around the world. The study takes into account Prehistoric sites inscribed or on the Tentative List of States Parties up to the Iron Age, without including the first urban cultures of the Near and Middle East, nor the great civilizations of the Mediterranean Basin. In doing so, the chronology established in the nomination file by the authors at the time of drafting the document (which corresponds approximately to the date of inscription) was taken into account. In the case of the American continent, the sites presented are those which are more ancient than the civilizations traditionally associated to the emergence of writing/classical cultures. The central focus of this preliminary document was on cultural and mixed sites as these particular properties have potential for Outstanding Universal Value (OUV). Some sites which are identified for more recent periods, but have important prehistoric vestiges, have been integrated in our list. The figures presented outline some of the imbalances in the World Heritage and Tentative Lists. The initial meeting at UNESCO, Paris in November 2008, provided a platform for discussion in order to identify other imbalances and cooperate in suggesting future methodology and action. To proceed with the study, three central themes have currently been proposed and will be addressed throughout discussions - Human Evolution, Prehistoric Sites and Rock Art.

IIsraelsrael DDocumentocument Currently the pre-historic sites on the Tentative List of Israel prepared in the year 2000 include Ubadiyya, Sha’ar Hagolan and Mount Carmel Caves and Mount Karkom. The list needs to be reevaluated and regrouped in the light of the World Heritage Thematic Studies and the recent discoveries and knowledge over the past decade. Based on paragraphs 70 - 74 of the Operational Guidelines of the World Heritage Convention it would be important to identify sites in the geo-cultural region in order to propose a wider discussion on their harmonization. The workshop was an opportunity to redefine the prehistoric sites and recommend to the Israel World Heritage Committee an restructured listing. In addition, updated texts on the description, statement of significance and criteria for each site will have to be developed together with a proposed feasibility study for any further stage. Other recommendations, concerning research and public awareness were discussed together with representatives of the Israel Antiquities Authority and the Nature and Parks Authority responsible for many of the sites and participated in this important discussion. The final document will be presented to the World Heritage Centre.

7 WWorldorld HeritageHeritage GGloballobal SStrategy,trategy, DDr.r. NNuriauria SSanz,anz, WWorldorld HHeritageeritage CCentreentre Dr. Nuria Sanz stressed the importance of cooperation among all relevant bodies and individuals in pursuing this project. Many WHS were declared based on monumental architecture or iconic monuments. However, recently more declarations are made based on ‘cultural landscape’ (rock art, human-environment relations, and manifestations of human behavior). It is material that the relevant authorities cooperate on the project, ensure the protection of the site and that the local community participate in it – public solidarity concerning the protection of the site is very important. Dr. Sanz responded to the protection issue raised, saying that UNESCO cannot protect the/any site by itself; it is up to the local authorities and State Party whether a site is a WHS or not. In addition, it is better that the tentative list will focus and does not include numerous sites. “Prehistory covers 2 million years of the record of human life on earth. Two million years of billions of different artefacts, cultural manifestations, kinds of domestic or burial settlements and ways of colonizing even the most extreme geographies of the planet. Prehistory embodies a huge temporal development, and conveys a transcendent and significant quantity of biological, social and cultural process for human evolution; it is a fascinating palimpsest and at the same time produces a sort of intimidation. That is why the World Heritage Centre decided to undertake a consultation exercise to identify the priorities to develop further thematic studies in the near future. In an increasingly homogenized world society, we resist the inherited differentiation between societies with writing and those without. We find prehistory increasingly precious as our inherited storehouse of knowledge about the foundations, variety and diversity of human lives and experience. “Additionally Prehistory recalls attention to the wisdom and, indeed, challenge to integrate culture and nature. Prehistory describes the time before writing. It is used to describe the earliest periods of life on the Earth, relevant to the study of mankind’s remote past. But a precise definition is often subject to discussion. Egyptian prehistory ended around 3000 years BP and in New Guinea ended at the beginning of the twentieth century of our era. Chronology does not help. I emphasized that the term became less strictly used over the last 50 years when a lot of research was undertaken in encoded sources that could be considered writing expressions. Prehistory implies archaeological methodologies and applied research to interpret the nature and behaviour of early phases of human history. “I h ighlighted that among the gaps and imbalances on the World Heritage List, it was noted that historical periods were over-represented in relation to prehistory, and also that Europe was over-represented in relation to the rest of the world. Prehistory is a priority area with regard to filling the overall gaps. The documents received showed some clues

8 to identify the highest priorities for a better representation of a comprehensive reading of human cultural evolution. It was underlined that the World Heritage Committee should thus consider the products of culture by means of several new thematic approaches to include: - Modes of occupation of land and space, including nomadism and migration; -Technology, that enhances peoples’ ability to control nature and to develop new forms of transportation and communication; -Subsistence strategies; -Water management; -Heritage routes for peoples and goods. In conclusion, the List should: • identify key themes in human experience, as visible in prehistory; • consider aspects of the “evolution of human society” among “social, economic and cultural forces”, and have places “of common importance for present and future generations of humanity”. In terms of sites: Paleolithic times are often related with base camps related to hunter- gatherer populations, flint workshops and stone industries. It is difficult to identify the physicality and limits of a “cultural environment”, even more in pre-Paleolithic times, as it could be in the case of some strata of Mount Carmel. And we definitely have challenges in trying to understand what the boundaries are, the limits of sites, groups and territories. When we refer to them as “archaeological” and “prehistoric”, they are often palimpsest. “There are sites in which structures, features, traces, fragmentary and/or intact artifacts’ of human manufacture, by-products as a result of manufacturers, organic materials, human remains, paleontological specimens, and preservation of all the diagnostic attributes convey messages essential to understand the history of human behavior. The integrated conservation should be focused on processes related to the constitution of the landscape by morph-climatic processes including biogeography, hydrology and edafology. “I have underlined the importance of knowledge as to forge the OUV statement. Archaeological sites in Israel have produced well-known knowledge in the Levant and related geographical areas. OUV, I recalled, designates a property which is exceptional as to transcend national boundaries and to be worthy of being designated as one of the sites of the World Heritage List. All of the sites inscribed on the World Heritage List can assert that they are in some way unique and can identify a clear basis for identifying major and distinctive features of OUV verified by a comprehensive comparative analysis to justify that a site is the most distinctive, representative….or even the “best of the best”. In the process of building the OUV statement, the concepts of authenticity and integrity are at the base of the exercise. Authenticity, I recalled, is defined as the ability to understand the value attributed to the heritage. It depends on the degree to which information sources about this value may

9 be understood as credible or truthful. Knowledge and understanding of these sources of information, in relation to original and subsequent characteristics of the cultural heritage, and their meaning, are the requisite bases for assessing all aspects of authenticity. Integrity is expressed by wholeness of the attributes, the intactness of the heritage attributes and the ongoing process that guarantees its integrity in the future. In the case of archaeological sites, integrity is a dynamic concept in accordance with the advancement of the research. The delineation of boundaries is another essential requirement in the establishment of effective protection of nominated properties. Boundaries should be drawn to ensure the full expression of the outstanding universal value and the integrity and/or authenticity of the property. I reminded participants how important it is to ensure that the limits of the property can capture and preserve all the OUV expressions, as well as to analyze if the buffer zone might absorb the impacts of human activities. Essential for future research is the adequacy of the size of the property. “I emphasized that the state of conservation and factors affecting the property section of a nomination must include accurate information on the present state including information on the physical condition of the property and conservation measures in place. It should also include a description of the factors affecting the property (including threats). Information provided in this section constitutes the baseline data necessary to monitor the future conservation of the nominated property. “Each nominated property should have an appropriate management plan or other documented management system which should specify how the outstanding universal value should be preserved, preferably through participatory means.

GGeographicaleographical ddistributionistribution In reference to Prehistoric sites in the World Heritage List, Europe and North America is clearly the region with the most prehistoric sites (35). Latin America and the Caribbean has 14 sites, followed by Asia and the Pacific (12), Africa (10) the Arab States (6). The imbalance can also be observed in the Tentative List, with the predominance of sites in Europe and North America (56). The main difference between the World Heritage List and the Tentative List is that the second most dominant region in the Tentative List is Asia and the Pacific (48). Latin America and the Caribbean (29) follow, with Africa (27) and the Arab States (10) at the bottom of the scale. According to these results Israel plays a role in the Region as to initiating the process, nationally or internationally. This could include the exploration of the opportunities in the Great Rift Valley nomination or future cooperation with Syria and Jordan in the case of the Jordan Valley regional complexes and Rock Art of the Desert with Egypt and Jordan. In the Tentative List, the category of domestic sites is the most frequently encountered (46%), followed by sites which present a long-term evolution (31%) and Rock Art sites (29%). Mount Carmel is a good reference of this tendency.

10 CConcordanceoncordance ofof manifestationsmanifestations iinn PPrehistoricrehistoric ssites:ites: • 14% of the non-monumental sites in the World Heritage List are also domestic sites while that number increases to 33% for the Tentative List; • 14% of the non-monumental sites in the World Heritage List are also valued for their natural heritage, whereas in the Tentative List the proportion is more than double and these sites represent 38%; • In both lists, around two thirds of the cities are sites that have evolved through long chronological sequences, but in most of the cases prehistoric features are not of outstanding significance; • 40% and 30% of the sites with a long-term evolution in the World Heritage List and the Tentative List respectively, are domestic sites; The archeological areas of Israel contain more than 5-6 categories listed in tables, below. Those categories should be taken into account for the comparative analysis.

CCategoryategory NNumberumber ooff NNumberumber ooff ssitesites ssitesites inin thethe iinn tthehe WWorldorld TTentativeentative LListist HHeritageeritage LListist

Anthropological methodology to reveal An 9 19 OUV

Ceremonial site Ce 9 25

Cities, urban complexes Ci 8 21

Domestic site D 17 78

Sites with long-term evolution E 22 52

Fortification, defense systems F 3 7

Human Evolution HE 9 9

Megaliths and Monumental Ruins M 15 37

Necropolis, burial site N 6 22

Sites that have Natural Heritage NH 9 48 potential

11 CCategoryategory NNumberumber ooff NNumberumber ooff ssitesites ssitesites inin thethe iinn tthehe WWorldorld TTentativeentative ListList HHeritageeritage LListist

Non-monumental ruins NM 14 42

Paleontological fauna P 1 9

Prehispanic Ph 10 33

Production sites (mines, workshops, Pr 4 19 technological findings)

Rock Art RA 24 50

CCategoryategory NNumberumber ooff ssitesites NNumberumber ooff ssitesites iinn tthehe iinn tthehe WWorldorld HHeritageeritage TTentativeentative ListList LListist NM - D 2 14 NM = NH 2 16 NM - HE 8 6 NM - An 1 7 Ci - E 5 16 RA = An 6 4 M - Ci 4 6 D - E 9 16 An - NH 3 10

12 IIsraelsrael TTentativeentative LList,ist, PProfessorrofessor MMichaelichael TTurner,urner, CChair,hair, IIsraelsrael WWHH CommitteeCommittee Recommendations for prehistoric sites for Israel’s World Heritage Tentative List and accompanying texts Harmonization of sites in the geo-cultural region - the next stages Prof. Michael Turner explained the hierarchy of sites – the world level, national level and regional level. Sites inscribed as World Heritage should represent the world level. Singularities and universal values should be identified. The ‘top-down’ process of the global strategy and gap analysis prepared by ICOMOS and adopted by the World Heritage Committee is the basic document with an overview of the sites that represent the narrative of the prehistory of the World. The ‘bottom-up’ process is the preparation of Tentative Lists by States Parties to the Convention, indicating those sites that have potential Outstanding Universal Value (OUV). The current list is presented in Appendix 3. The operational guidelines recognize the necessity of the harmonization of sites in the geo-cultural region that is a regional level above the States Parties and below the global level of the General Assembly of States Parties to the Convention. The format of ‘serial nomination’ was raised including a phased proposal whereby the first nomination could stand by itself as a World Heritage property and with the possibility of adding further properties at a later stage. The question as to whether sites should be grouped by geography, by theme or a combination of both needs to be discussed. The results of the workshop would guide the Israel World Heritage Committee in preparing the updated Tentative List of prehistoric sites and allow for comments from the Israeli academia and professionals on the discussion documents to be presented to the World Heritage Convention.

13 IIsraelsrael PPrehistory,rehistory, PProfessorrofessor OOferfer BBar-Yosef,ar-Yosef, HHarvardarvard UUniversityniversity Prof. Ofer Bar-Yosef of Harvard University stressed that in the Levant all revolutions in human evolution are well represented in a very small area, unlike Africa, which lacks sites representing the transition to agriculture. He presented a graphic format to demonstrate the component of the OUV in the area of Upper Jordan Valley and the archaeological complex of Mount Carmel. Since the archaeological areas of Galilee /Golan cover the political land of three States Parties and a process of nomination could take years, it could be considered pertinent to start a process of nomination in Mount Carmel. Mount Carmel sequence starts in the Lower Paleolithic and contains the earliest Middle Paleolithic/ Upper Paleolithic Revolution and the Second Revolution/Natufian industries. Instead of proposing sites, it could be useful to frame archaeological areas. Studies should be undertaken to revise the selection of the related sites: Nahal Amud, the Qafzeh, Kebara and Qesem Caves, and Rosh Ein Mor. He emphasized the importance of two major clusters of sites, the Mount Carmel complex and the Jordan Valley. The Mount Carmel sites include, inter alia, Nahal Me’arot (also termed here the Carmel Caves), Misliya, Kebara, Nahal Oren, Atlit-Yam and Raqefet. The northern section of the Jordan Valley includes, inter alia, ‘Ubeidiya, Gesher Benot Ya’aqov, Nahal Amud, Ohalo II, Ein Gev, Sha’ar Hagolan and Jericho and the Fazael-Gilgal complex. Dr. Ofer Marder of the IAA suggested taking the Negev complex of sites into account, in addition to these two clusters.

14 Professor Ofer Bar-Yosef (photo N. Sanz)

The OUV of prehistoric sites of Mount Carmel and sites related to Jordan Valley, produced by Prof. Ofer Bar-Yosef (photo N. Sanz)

15 II.. HumanHuman EEvolution,volution, PProfessorrofessor PPatriciaatricia SSmith,mith, HHebrewebrew UUnivesritynivesrity The River Jordan is one of the most famous rivers in the world—not the longest, not the widest and certainly not the most beautiful - but famous. Similarly prehistoric sites are not monumental, but they mark significant moments and sometimes periods that provide links in the march of time and help us to understand where we came from. Sites in Israel with major significance for human evolution fall into three main chronological categories: 1. Lower Paleolithic sites documenting early dispersals out of Africa 2. Middle Paleolithic sites representing the northern limit of anatomically modern humans and southern limit of Neanderthal expansion in the Levant. 3. Sites documenting the “Neolithic Revolution”.

11.. LLowerower PPaleolithicaleolithic ssitesites ddocumentingocumenting eearlyarly ddispersalsispersals ooutut ooff AAfricafrica ‘Ubeidiya and Gesher Benot Ya’aqov - These two sites mark the earliest “Out of Africa” migrations. Ubeidiya is one of the early stations of the makers of the Early Acheulian handaxes some 1.6-1.4 Ma ago. Gesher Benot Ya’aqov dated to ca. 0.8 Ma, contains Acheulian cleavers and evidence for the application of an African technology in their production as well as the fact that the tool-kit was made from basalt, a raw material common in Africa. It is important to note that “out of Africa” was a punctuated process – characterized by successive waves of migration. Hence, possible trans-national sites need to be considered with Dminisi in Georgia, Omo in Ethiopia, Olduvai Gorge in Tanzania and Lake Turkana /Rudolph in Kenya. 22.. MMiddleiddle PPaleolithicaleolithic ssitesites rrepresentingepresenting tthehe nnorthernorthern llimitimit ooff aanatomicallynatomically mmodernodern hhumansumans aandnd ssouthernouthern llimitimit ooff NNeanderthaleanderthal eexpansionxpansion iinn tthehe LLevant.evant. In Europe early hominids arrived via Israel (‘Ubeidiya) and also possibly directly from North Africa to Spain. They evolved into Neanderthals some 200,000 years ago and were replaced between 40,000-30,000 years ago by Homo sapiens sapiens presumably moving up “out of Africa” in a later wave of expansion. While some 150,000 years ago Europe was inhabited only by Neanderthals, they were never found in Africa, where anatomically modern humans (AMH) had evolved by this time. Israel is unique in that archaeological sites show evidence of anatomically modern humans from Africa being displaced by Neanderthals. The archaeological sites with human remains dated to the Middle Paleolithic mark the southern boundary of Neanderthals and the most northern boundary of anatomically modern humans. They do not seem to have lived here at the same time. Faunal data show that the Neanderthals

16 lived here during a cold spell and the anatomical modern humans during a warm spell. The latest known AMH remains are more than 20,000 years older than the Neanderthals, with the possible exception of the Tabun woman. The anatomically modern humans are dated to some 100,000-90,000-years ago. The Neanderthals are dated to between 70,000 and 50,000 years ago (with the possible exception of Tabun). The earliest known skeletal remains of Homo sapiens sapiens in Israel are relatively late and date to 35,000 B.P., although there are earlier archaeological sites with Upper Paleolithic tools considered typical of Homo sapiens sapiens, but no skeletons. These two very different types then lived here at different times. The Qafzeh-Skhul skeletons are the largest, most complete series of this type of AMH ever found and provide a direct link with earlier fossils found in Africa at Herto (Ethiopia), Omo-Kibish (Ethiopia), Olduvai (Kenya) and Klasies River Mouth (South Africa) that are at least 150,000 years old. Professor Smith emphasized the vast importance of the human fossils discovered at Mount Carmel. They are extremely important for answering the questions of human origins and adaptations. The Mount Carmel site complex sheds light on the dispersal of anatomically modern humans “Out of Africa” more than 100,000 years ago, and the late appearance of Neanderthals in the Levant.

33.. SSitesites ddocumentingocumenting tthehe ““NeolithicNeolithic RRevolution”evolution” Israel has the largest best documented sample of human remains documenting all stages of the transition from hunting and gathering to plant and animal domestication, Important sites for the Natufian the latest hunters and gatherers, include sites in the Mount Carmel site complex (el Wad, Kebara, Nahal Oren, Rakefet), and Eynan (Ein Mallaha), while different phases of the Neolithic are represented by Nahal Oren, Atlit- Yam, Kfar Hahoresh, Yiftah’el, Beisamoun, Sha’ar Hagolan, Abu Ghosh and others.

CConclusiononclusion Selection of the Mount Carmel site complex, to include Misiliya, Geula, Sefunim and Raqefet Caves, Kebara, Nahal Oren and Atlit-Yam as well as the Carmel Caves –El Wad, the Camel Cave, Tabun and the Skhul rock shelter would then ensure the preservation of well documented sites that cover many important phases in human evolution, and which will repay further investigation in the future. A second parallel proposal should encompass the Jordan Valley sites - many of which may be irreparably damaged if not protected in the near future. While there are sufficient important sites in Israel to cover most periods, inclusion of sites in the Palestinian Authority, Jordan and Sinai (Egypt) would better reflect the geographic boundaries of prehistoric entities. They are listed below in the description of prehistoric sites.

17 III.I. PrehistoricPrehistoric SSitesites , PProfessorrofessor NNigeligel GGoring-Morris,oring-Morris, HHebrewebrew UUniversityniversity Prof. Nigel Goring-Morris emphasized the mobility of hunter-gatherers and a general suitability of this to the category of ‘cultural landscape’. Three themes for prehistoric World Heritage properties were suggested: Out of Africa, Emergence of Anatomically Modern Humans; and Hunter-gatherers to Agriculturists The Levantine Corridor is identified as a principle passage between Africa and Eurasia. These sites include the following groups: ‘Ubeidiya - cultural landscape Jordan Rift Valley as part of the Great Rift Valley (GRV) Gesher Benot Ya’qov, Nahal Amud, Ohalo II, Eynan (Ein Mallaha), Beisamoun, Sha’ar Hagolan Har Karkom and Timna - desert sites Mount Carmel site complex Nahal Me’arot (Wady el-Mughara), Kebara, the submerged Neolithic site of Atlit-Yam, Nahal Oren

‘Ubeidiya photo: M. Turner

18 He further reviewed many important prehistoric sites worthy of inclusion in the Tentative List for World Heritage listing, because they are scientifically important, some are at or near nature reserves and in areas of outstanding natural beauty, and such an inclusion might help in their protection. To these sites could be added: Hayonim-Meged, Qafzeh, Raqefet, Sefunim and Qesem and the desert sites of Avdat-Aqev, Har Harif, Uvda Valley, Shunera Dunes, and Boker.

An additional point for discussion was raised to include the integration of themes with adjacent areas and neighbouring States Parties with specific reference to the following sites: Jordan: e.g. Beidha, Baja, Basta, Wadi Feinan, Azraq, ‘Ain Ghazal Egypt: e.g. Khasm et-Tarif, Qadesh Barnea Palestinian Authority: e.g., Jericho; Netiv Hagdud-Gilgal/Fazael, Shukbah Several sites/areas are endangered by modern development, e.g. Qafzeh and the Western Negev Dunes and the protection of the fragile prehistoric sites needs to be discussed at a national level.

19 IIII.II. RockRock Art,Art, ProfessorProfessor EEmanuelmanuel AAnatinati Prof. Emanuel Anati endorsed Mount Karkom as a WHS, because of its long cultural sequence, important location in the Levantine corridor, large number of sites and manifestations of rock art. For a comparative study he indicated Wadi Rum (Jordan) although with a shorter sequence, and Wadi Hawara (Syria) . MMeaningeaning Thanks to rock art, we know of changes and innovations that have taken place in history. Depictions of extinct animals reveal the process of climatic changes. Hunting societies, pastoral groups, traders, early agriculturalists, represented their methods of survival, their social relations, their habits and traditions. Rock art illustrates the beginning and development of animal domestication and breeding. They provide evidence for the domestication of cattle, camels, horses and other animals at different periods. The introduction of metal tools and weapons, of the wheel and of wheeled vehicles, are documented by the rock art. Early migrations, the arrivals of new people, early cultural connections are also identified. Early attempts at writing and writing in extinct languages provide other sources of history and culture. Recent rock art is a revealing aspect of contemporary art and creativity. Research in rock art is one of the most promising branches of the humanities. It is also a paramount source for historical reconstruction and not confined to the periods of pre-history. Rock art sites are archives of records compiled by the direct protagonists. They describe events, beliefs, myths, feelings and wishes. They are the way of writing of non-literate societies and provide an enormous amount of very valuable information for reconstructing the life and history of desert people. RRegionalegional ddistributionistribution The Middle East is rich in rock art sites. They are mainly located in current desert areas. Major concentrations are known in Saudi Arabia, the High Plateau in Jordan, the Egyptian Sinai and the Israeli Negev. Three major areas of rock art are known in the Negev Desert: the Central Highlands, the Har Karkom region and the Araba Valley. In the Central Negev Highlands about 200 rock art localities are known, counting some 1000 engraved surfaces and over 20,000 engraved items. Har Karkom has so far the major concentration, with about 200 rock art localities, 2000 engraved surfaces and some 40,000 items. In the Araba Valley, including Timna and Nahal Odem, we know of about 60 rock art localities, counting some 350 decorated surfaces and about 6000 items. A systematic study of the available data has allowed the recognition of seven major periods in the rock art of the Negev, referring to and describing 12,000 years of human intellectual and material adventures. Relative dating is provided by the numerous cases

20 of superimposition of different styles and periods. Absolute dating is provided by the presence of Pleistocene extinct fauna in the earliest phases; figures of weapons and tools are dated by comparison with archaeological objects from stratigraphic excavations. The later phases of rock art, referring to the last 3,000 years, are frequently accompanied by datable inscriptions. MMountount KKarkomarkom After large scale explorations covering the whole Sinai Peninsula, the archaeological survey carried on by the Anati Team, focused on an area of 200 km2 in the heart of the Negev desert, with the aim of carrying out a systematic exploration. The specific zone was chosen because of its remarkable richness in rock art. Har Karkom is the mountain located in the middle of this region. Besides rock art, a substantial archaeological legacy has been documented on the mountain and surrounding valleys, in the form of stone structures of living sites and remains of campsites. Among these sites, there are remnants of settlements, some of them counting tens of structures and dwellings and including sanctuaries with altars, menhirs, pillars, stone circles and other prominent stone-built structures. They may have sheltered over 100 people each. Such agglomerates display different architectural typologies, pertaining to various types of social units: clans, extended families and nuclear families. This provided the exceptional opportunity of reconstructing life in the desert from early hominins to contemporary tribal people and the context of understanding the rock art of the area. Wind-erosion phenomena have swept through this territory removing sand and other light materials. Remains of dwellings and other archaeological structures have become visible at the surface. They represent plans of hut foundations, fireplaces, workshops for flint-cutting and other fresh signs of daily life that go back thousands of years. The Har Karkom region is an immense and unique open-air natural museum, and an outstanding workshop for Middle East historical, archaeological and anthropological research. The presence of more than 200 concentrations of rock art, amounting to over 40,000 engraved items, renders this area one of the major rock-art sites known in the Middle East and extends to the area of Timna. Numerous images represent cult scenes with worshippers. Cult symbols vary from sun and moon worship of early periods, to spirit- worship, to the Menorah in the Roman period, to the Cross in Byzantine times. A variety of peoples and faiths have worshipped on this mountain. There are groups of symbols and emblems of repetitive patterns, and compositions illustrating mythological narrations. Several ancient rock engravings refer to narrations having strong similarities to biblical accounts. RResearchesearch pperspectiveserspectives In the domain of historical geography, the study of the ancient trails and of the stations along them has been extended beyond Har Karkom, in order to unveil a network of local

21 and international routes for both the groups moving on foot, and those making use of camels and other beasts of burden. It seems proper to produce publications including the description of the immense cultural heritage revealed by 28 years of field research. It would allow us to obtain a clear and comprehensive view on their identity, use and meaning and become a unique testimony of desert life in the course of ages. Being on the Israel Tentative List and managed by the Nature and Parks Authority, this area could be nominated to the World Heritage List.

CCasease StudyStudy - MountMount CCarmelarmel CCaves,aves, PProfessorrofessor MMinaina WWeinstein-Evron,einstein-Evron, UUniversityniversity ooff HHaifaaifa MMountount CCarmelarmel CCavesaves NNominationomination Prof. Mina Weinstein-Evron reviewed the finds from Mount Carmel Caves (Nahal Me’arot) and stressed their relevancy to the nomination of the site as WHS, based on its long cultural sequence of at least half a million years and its importance to the revolutions of humans including the appearance of AMH, control of fire, deliberate burials, the Upper Palaeolithic and the transition from hunter-gathering to agriculture. 11.. TheThe LongLong cculturalultural ccontinuum:ontinuum: The long cultural sequence that is exposed at the four caves and rock-shelters that make up the site (Tabun, Jamal, el-Wad and Skhul), extends from the Lower Palaeolithic to the present day, thus representing at least half a million years of human evolution. The four main periods represented at the site are: - The Lower Palaeolithic: Acheulian and Acheulo-Yabrudian cultural entities (~500,000- 250,000 BP) at Tabun and Jamal caves. - The Middle Palaeolithic: Mousterian culture (250,000-45,000 BP) at Tabun, el-Wad and Skhul caves. - The Upper Palaeolithic: Levantine Aurignacian (45,000-20,000 BP) at el-Wad cave. - The Natufian (13,000-10,500 BP) at el-Wad cave and Terrace. 22.. C Changeshanges iinn wwaysays ooff llife:ife: From nomadic hunter-gatherers during most of the cultural sequence to the complex, sedentary Natufian groups and the adaptations they were developing which led soon afterwards to the advent of agricultural societies. 33.. HHumanuman eevolution:volution: The occurrence of two human types, Neanderthals (Tabun Cave) and Early Anatomically Modern Humans (Skhul Rock-shelter) within the same Middle Paleolithic cultural entity, the Mousterian, is unmatched anywhere in the world. Both fossil human types are key specimens in the debate concerning the demise of Neanderthals and the origin of Homo sapiens. 44.. Palaeo-environmentalPalaeo-environmental ffluctuations:luctuations The many palaeo-environmental fluctuations registered in its sedimentological/anthropogenic sequence can be related to both regional and global climatic changes (e.g., fluctuations in humidity, as evidenced by changes in the rich faunal and floral data and sea-level changes). Multi-disciplinary

22 research highlights the various palaeo-environmental changes and their relationship with the main socio-cultural processes and human impact on ancient environments. 55.. H Historyistory ofof research:research: Prehistoric, anthropological and paleo-ecological multi-disciplinary research has been continuing at the site since the first excavations were conducted here in the late 1920s to early 1930s. The first archaeologist, Dorothy Garrod, established the cultural yardstick which provided the general chrono-stratigraphic framework for the prehistory of the Levant. Dorothea Bate constructed the first paleo-environmental curve ever drawn for any prehistoric site in the world. The ongoing research of the site has since incorporated all major scientific breakthroughs and advanced technologies in the archaeological sciences. These emphasize the paramount significance of the Carmel caves for the study of human cultural and biological evolution within the framework of palaeo-ecological changes. Prof. Weinstein-Evron also stressed the fact that the Mount Carmel Caves may be the only locality in Israel, which possesses all the characteristics, mentioned above, basically, criteria (iii), (v) and (vi), and represents all the themes highlighted by Dr. Sanz. It is all in one place, protected and accessible by the fact that it is a declared nature reserve. To conclude this part of the session, it was stressed that Mount Carmel Caves present a “continuum of singularities” and a “sequence of human adaptation”, together with continuum of cultural heritage. Thus, such attributes with OUV, and demonstrating the importance for the history of research including geography and geology, could contribute to its inscription as a World Heritage site. The current site management plan, the existing field laboratory and an extended visitors’ centre for prehistory and paleoenvironments places the Mount Carmel complex as a forerunner of the Israeli pre-historic sites for inscription.

23 RResponses:esponses: MMountount CCarmelarmel Prof. Ofer Bar-Yosef of Harvard University suggested that we should proceed initially with the nomination of the Mount Carmel range (Nahal Me’arot) for the WHS list. Dr. Tsvika Tsuk supported the nomination of the Carmel Caves (Nahal Me’arot) at this stage. It is declared as a nature reserve and can easily be protected and presented, unlike other proposed sites. Dr. Uzi Dahari supports focusing on the Carmel Caves (Nahal Me’arot) and suggested not to disperse our limited attention and resources among many sites. The Head of the Regional council, Mr. Carmel Sela announced that the Hof Hacarmel Regional Council would endorse the advancement of the nomination of Nahal Me’arot as a World Heritage Site (WHS) since it is important to the local community who lives in the area. Ze’ev Margalit, Chief Architect of the NPA outlined the process: the University of Haifa should take the lead, with assistance from the NPA and all other stakeholders. He supports declaration of Mount Carmel Caves as a WHS candidate because it is well defined, accessible and protected with a management plan. He claims that we should name a site, not an abstract idea or a cluster with no distinct border. Professor Yossi Ben-Artzi, Rector, University of Haifa, declared the commitment of the University of Haifa to this project of dossier preparation of the Mount Carmel caves, as part of its ties to the community and extra-academic activities and as part of its long- lasting research at the site. The university will help academically and logistically. Dr. Nuria Sanz stated that the Mount Carmel caves could easily fit these categories, as the ‘best of the best’, because of the very long cultural sequence (Tabun is a ‘container of time’); important human fossils; history of research and potential for future and ongoing investigations; and public accessibility and interpretation.

24 SSummaryummary The meeting was valuable, especially in terms of considering the possibility of presenting regional, integrated clusters of sites for consideration - whether the Carmel or the Jordan valley sites. However, there are a number of issues that were not really resolved and that merit further serious consideration. One important issue is that needs to be addressed is where to draw the line with regards the chronological factors relating to prehistory. In the presentations the focus was on sites through to and including the Neolithic period. We did not really touch upon the issue of proto-historic (i.e. Chalcolithic) sites, beyond the mention of early technology (e.g. metallurgy), which actually relates primarily to even later periods, and especially rock art. There is no problem in identifying the rock art at Har Karkom, which is of outstanding universal value, especially as it seems there are strong indications that much of the rock art there relates to the proto-historic and later periods. It is unfortunate that the same regional approach and criteria were not applied to a region of the Negev, such as the Avdat/Aqev area. It was felt that the desert offered special sites and characteristics that should be understood within a single geographical complex. One of the things that was evident in the discussion was the gap between the scientists and the functionaries. It means that they have different starting points. Most people have not visited prehistoric sites and would say that there is nothing to see at places like ‘Ubeidiya. If you have been to the ‘Cradle of Humankind’ site at Sterkfontein you know that the same can be said of that site; but it is magnificent because of the explanations and the knowledge of all that happened / was found/happened on this or that particular spot. There, they provide maps, directions and information about this and other sites included in what could be called the “cluster of sites” that compose the Cradle. We should not recreate the wheel from a perspective without seeing how the chariot functions.

25 CConclusions:onclusions: I GGloballobal strategystrategy

1. Whereas the discussion started with the current proposal for the three groups of prehistory - human evolution, sites and rock art, the experts considered that the categories of prehistory should be grouped under two main headings Human Evolution, which will also include fossil sites Human Settlement 2. A thematic approach could raise many possible groupings, and should be as flexible as possible recognizing that knowledge and research will bring new ideas and evaluation. Themes that were discussed included: Out of Africa, and Emergence of Anatomically Modern Humans Hunter-gatherers to agriculturists 3. Further thematic and reflections of percipience were noted. It seems that the list of sites (probably) or themes (less likely) are infinite and much disagreement is noted as to the nature or sites that might be included. Revolutions Technologies - metallurgy Cultivation or domestication 4. While human evolution could be divided into periods of history, eras or themes, the human settlement could be considered under the headings of - Caves Site or Monument - Rock shelters Site - Open air / camps / villages/tumuli/tel Site or group of buildings As indicated, these sub-headings, in turn, will need to be classified according to the convention as ‘sites, monuments or groups of buildings’. 5. More thought is needed in the understanding of the application of criteria (vi) and (viii) and the use of cultural landscapes in the representation of the environments of human evolution and pre-historic sites. The Earth’s history relating to events as climate and geological changes together with the evidence of fossil remains becomes an important factor in using the criteria of the Convention. As such, greater emphasis should be put on interdisciplinary research and debate. 6. The complexity of pre-historic sites can also be presented and interpreted through a cluster or serial nomination. Whether the ‘whole’ is the summation of the ‘parts’ is questionable when there is so much to ascertain, and with many of the parts missing. Nevertheless, it was felt that much is to be gained by an intelligent grouping of sites by theme or period.

26 The clustering of sites to present the ‘whole picture’ raised many caveats, both in the concept and also in the management and interpretation. This demands a more regional approach and therefore should encourage the harmonization of sites in the same geo- cultural region as indicated in the Operational Guidelines. 7. While prehistoric sites might not have immediate visual significance, they would have OUV from the research and academic fields. How these places can be brought to life and made accessible to the general public would add an important dimension to the presentation of history and human evolution. A higher visibility for prehistoric sites, research and education is required. 8. Prehistoric sites are fragile and more than average protection is needed. It also poses questions concerning the place of depository of the finds; in an on-site building or national museum. 9. The World Heritage Centre Discussion Document noted that ‘it was viable to establish a document with a broad analysis in order to maintain a global view of the subject and to avoid a debate on establishing a universal chronology for Prehistoric manifestations around the world. The study took into account Prehistoric sites up to the Iron Age, without including the first urban cultures of the Near and Middle East, nor the big civilizations of the Mediterranean Basin…… In the case of the American continent, the sites presented are those which are more ancient than the civilizations traditionally associated to the emergence of writing/classical cultures….. Some sites which are identified for more recent periods, but have important prehistoric vestiges, were integrated in the list.’ Nevertheless, focusing on our region, the question regarding the Chalcolithic period and its recognition in pre-history or history needs clarification. 10. Rock Art should be seen as a separate set, and distinct from prehistory as it transcends the periods accepted as such. The experts were emphatic that Rock Art is NOT necessarily pre-history and in many cases, proto-history and even later.

IIII LocalLocal strategystrategy

11. Greater efforts need to be made for regional cooperation between the different government and academic bodies involved, and the harmonization of sites. The sites identified at a regional and national level should be discussed in a wider forum and in specialist working groups, while the inclusion of trans-border nominations may be explored through workshops and experts’ meetings 12. The Tentative List is currently undergoing revision, and special attention needs to be given to the prehistoric and rock art sites. Based on the workshop the icons, clusters and themes need defining and will include the Jordan Valley, the Mount Carmel Complex

27 and the Negev desert. A further workshop should be initiated after the global discussion organized by the World Heritage Centre during the coming months. After this, the proposed sites for prehistory and rock art on the Tentative List should be updated. 13. The relevant authorities should embark on an education and awareness programme to explain and further the knowledge at all age levels to recognize the importance of prehistory and of the knowledge of human evolution. 14. The IAA, NPA the Israel Lands Administration and the Planning authorities should identify the prehistoric sites and protect them using all the legal tools available. This is the first step to ensure a more active role in the protection of prehistoric and rock art sites in Israel.

IIIIII NNominationsominations

15. Whereas the geographic or thematic grouping was not settled, two nominations seem more imminent - Mount Carmel site complex for prehistory and Mount Karkom complex for rock art; the borders and components of which, would be evaluated on the basis of the feasibility study. ‘Ubeidiya has minimal formal recognition and management in Israel and while acknowledged as a world iconic site, it needs national recognition before the nomination can proceed.This should be a high priority given the lack of control and deterioration of the site. 16. The process of national evaluation and the preparation of a feasibility study should be followed in all the sites to integrate the World Heritage Convention guidelines in general and the prehistoric and rock art sites in particular in the hierarchal process of conservation in Israel.

Prof. Turner working on the conclusions of the meeting (photo N.Sanz)

Prof. Anati, underlying the values of Mount Karkom (photo N.Sanz)

29 AAppendixppendix 1 - IInvitationnvitation aandnd AAgendagenda

Invitation to the friends of Prehistory

within the framework of the UNESCO World Heritage Convention, you are invited to take part in a workshop to: re-evaluate the Tentative List of pre-historic sites in Israel, review some of the issues on the global strategy for pre-history and the preparation of a summary statement to be presented in the framework of the World Heritage Committee report. Dr Nuria Sanz will participate on behalf of the World Heritage Centre. The workshop will take place on Sunday 28 December 2008 between 9.30 -17.00 at Nahal Me’arot Nature Reserve, Mount Carmel

30 AAgendagenda 8.30 SSiteite VVisitisit ((optional)optional) 9.30 GGreetingsreetings Carmel Sela Head of the Regional Council Architect Zeev Margalit, Head of Conservation, NPA Professor Yossi Ben Artzi Rector, University of Haifa Dr Uzi Dehari Deputy Director, IAA 10.00 OOpeningpening ssessionession - Chair: Professor Yossi Ben-Artzi World Heritage Global Strategy Dr. Nuria Sanz, World Heritage Centre The Israel Tentative List Professor Michael Turner, Bezalel Academy Israel Prehistory Professor Ofer Bar-Yosef, Harvard University Case Study - Mount Carmel Caves Professor Mina Weinstein-Evron, University of Haifa DDiscussioniscussion 12.30 Light lunch 13.30 Workshop Chair: Professor Michael Turner I. Human Evolution Professor Patricia Smith II. Prehistoric Sites Professor Nigel Goring-Morris III. Rock Art Professor Emanuel Anati 15.00 General Discussion, Recommendations for prehistoric sites for Israel’s World Heritage Tentative List and accompanying texts Harmonization of sites in the geo-cultural region - the next stages Chair: Architect Zeev Margalit Responders Professor Ofer Bar-Yosef, Professor Mina Weinstein-Evron Professor Emanuel Anati, Professor Anna Belfer-Cohen, Dr Tsvika Tsuk, Dr Gideon Avni, Dr. Ofer Marder, Summary Dr Nuria Sanz Professor Michael Turner

31 AAppendixppendix 2 - ListList ofof workshopworkshop participantsparticipants

RRegionalegional CCouncilouncil 1. Carmel Sela, Head of the Regional Council [email protected] 2. Zeela Waxman, spokesperson for the Regional Council [email protected] UUNESCONESCO 3. Michael Turner, Chair, Israel World Heritage Committee [email protected] 4. Daniel Bar Elli, Secretary-General, Israel NatCom [email protected] 5. Nuria Sanz, World Heritage Centre, UNESCO [email protected] HHaifaaifa UniversityUniversity 6. Yossi Ben Arzi [email protected] 7. Mina Evron [email protected] 8. Guy Bar-Oz [email protected] 9. Danny Rosenberg [email protected] 10. Reuven Yeshurun [email protected] 11. Danny Nadel [email protected] NNatureature aandnd PParksarks AAuthorityuthority 12. Tsvika Tsuk, Chief Archaeologist [email protected] 13. Yossi Hahn, Site Manager [email protected] 14. Dotan Rotem, Regional Ecologist [email protected] 15. Zeev Margalit, Chief Conservator [email protected] 16. Shuli Linder-Yarkoni [email protected] 17. Revital Weiss [email protected] IIsraelsrael AntiquitiesAntiquities AAuthorityuthority 18. Uzi Dahari [email protected] 19. Ofer Marder [email protected] 20. Hamudi Khalaily [email protected] 21. Ehud Galili [email protected] 22. Ianir Malevski [email protected] 23. Revit Linn [email protected] HHebrewebrew University,University, JJerusalemerusalem 24. Patricia Smith [email protected] 25. Nigel Goring-Morris [email protected] GGuestsuests 26. Ofer Bar-Yosef, Harvard University [email protected] 27. Emanuel Anati [email protected] BBezalelezalel AAcademycademy 28. Zeev Druckman [email protected] AApologies:pologies: 29. Avraham Ronen, University of Haifa [email protected] 30. Hendrik J. Bruins, Ben Gurion University [email protected] 31. Naama Goren, Hebrew University [email protected] 32. Anna Belfer-Cohen, Hebrew University [email protected]

32 33. Gonen Sharon, Hebrew University [email protected] 34. Liora Kolska Horwitz, Hebrew University [email protected] 35. Gideon Avni, Israel Antiquities Authority [email protected] 36. Giora Solar, ICOMOS, [email protected]

33 AAppendixppendix 3 - CCurrenturrent TTextsexts ffromrom tthehe UUNESCONESCO WWHH wwebsiteebsite

PPre-historicre-historic Sites:Sites: UUbadiyya,badiyya, SSha’arha’ar HHagolan,agolan, MMountount CCarmelarmel Property names are listed in the language in which they have been submitted by the State Party. Israel (Europe and North America) Date of Submission: 30/06/2000 Criteria: Category: Mixed Submission prepared by: Delegation Permanente d’Israel aupres de l’UNESCO Coordinates: Lat. 32°41’ N / Long. 35°37’ E Ref.: 1477

DDescriptionescription Ubadiyya, Sha’ar Hagolan and Mount Carmel furnish the earliest known sites discovered with remains of the settlement of early man identified in the sites of the Rift Valley and the Carmel Mountain Range.

UUbadiyyabadiyya The prehistoric site of Ubadiyya is located on a hill south of Tiberias on the western bank of the Jordan River, named after the nearby historical mound, Tel Ubeidiya. Systematic excavations at the site uncovered Lower Paleolithic artifacts and bones of extinct mammalian species, renamed the Ubadiyya Formation. Researchers reconstructed the geological history of the Ubadiyya Formation and identified the layers - which contained both animal bones and worked-stone artifacts. An impressive 60 plus levels were located. A detailed geological study indicated that the Ubidiyya Formation represents the depositional history of the Lower Pleistocene in the central Jordan Valley. No human remains were found in situ but it can be assumed that members of the Homo erectus lineage were responsible for making the artifacts. The varied fauna of Lake Ubidiyya’s immediate environment provided numerous scavenging opportunities, and the Mediterranean vegetation supplied numerous species of plants from which leaves, fruits, and seeds could be gathered. The archaeological and zoological information from Ubidiyya is for the time being the richest of all early

34 Lower Paleolithic sites in Eurasia and constitute the best evidence for the “out of Africa” movement of Homo erectus. SSha’arha’ar HHaGolanaGolan Sha’ar HaGolan is located in the central Jordan Valley on the western bank of the Yarmuk River. The site includes remains of a Pottery Neolithic village from the second half of the 6th millennium and a village from the Middle Bronze Age I. During the digging of fish ponds in the early 1940’s, members of Kibbutz Sha’ar HaGolan discovered a unique material culture - pottery, flint tools, and abundant clay and stone art objects. Recent excavations exposed residential structures dated to the Middle Bronze Age I. The structures represent an unwalled, single-layered settlement who economy was based on agriculture, pastoralism and hunting. The architecture, pottery and lithic assemblage at this settlement are linked to the material culture of the urbanization period that preceded it. However, it is to be seen as a permanent rural settlement that attests to the radical changes in social structure that occurred after the destruction of the Early Bronze Age cities.

TThehe MMountount CCarmelarmel CCavesaves The caves of Har HaCarmel are an important prehistoric site located along the canyon of Nahal Me’arot, the loveliest and most completely exposed fossilized rudist reefs in Israel, and these remarkable caves bear witness to the continuum of settlements of the life of prehistoric people. These caves, first excavated in the 1920’s, reveal continuous use by the bearers of the Acheulian, Acheulo-Yabrudian, Mousterian, Aurignacian, Natufian and Neolithic cultures, one of the rarest testimonies to the continuum of human settlement in one location for so long a period. Its unique significance derives from (a) the fact that the long cultural sequence exposed at the five caves and rock-shelters that make up the site extends from the Lower Palaeolithic to the present day, thus representing nearly a million years of human evolution, (b) the many palaeo-environmental fluctuations registered in its geological and anthropogenic sedimentological sequence, and (c) the presence of two human types (Neanderthals and Early Anatomically Modern Humans). The numerous well-preserved Middle Palaeolithic burials of both types and the passage it extensively documents from nomadic hunter-gatherer groups to complex, sedentary agricultural societies are only the two most notable of the many cultural developments and revolutions the site witnessed over time in the way of life of the site’s inhabitants. The above factors emphasize the paramount significance of the Mount Carmel caves for the study of human cultural and biological evolution within the framework of palaeo- ecological changes. To this, one may add such other important aspects as the history of archaeological and palaeo-ecological research, the reconnaissance of palaeo-

35 environmental changes and their rapport to bio-diversity management and ecological conservation, and the recent history of cave use in the area. MMountount KKarkomarkom Property names are listed in the language in which they have been submitted by the State Party. Israel (Europe and North America) DDateate ooff SSubmission:ubmission: 30/06/2000 CCriteria:riteria: (iii)(v) CCategory:ategory: Cultural Delegation Permanente d›Israel aupres de SSubmitedubmited bby:y: l›UNESCO CCoordinates:oordinates: Lat. 30°18› N / Long. 34°44› E RRef.:ef.: 1488

DDescriptionescription Mount Karkom is in the southern Negev desert at the northern edge of Nahal Paran and provides among the world’s best examples of rock engravings. Access to the mountain is difficult because of its sheer cliffs, which rise about 300 meters above the surroundings. The prominent plateau, some 800 meters above sea level, can be reached by means of two main ancient paths: one includes a passage of steps partly hewn in antiquity, and the other is snakelike, with concentrations of some of the some best rock engravings and pillars in a desert environment. An impressive 100 plus Paleolithic sites, mostly from the Middle Paleolithic period, were found on Mount Karkom. An abundance of excellent quality flints was found on the surface. Many flint tool workshops, containing numerous cores and flakes, as well as traces of huts from the period were found. Because of the desert conditions, the in situ sites and flakes and tools scattered around cores were found in an excellent state of preservation. The material collected so far indicates that in the Paleolithic period the mountain was an excellent source of raw material for the production of flint tools and an important meeting place. In the Late Chalcolithic, Early Bronze, and beginning of the Middle Bronze ages, the mountain was used as a pilgrimage, ceremonial, and cultic site: numerous rock engravings of religious significance were carved and massebot were set up. Many stone circles and tumuli were also erected, as was a structure that can probably be identified as a temple. After the period of intense occupation, the plateau was abandoned for about 800 years. According to the building remains, it was next occupied by desert inhabitants, who probably did not settle here permanently. The importance of the mountain is indicated by its finds, particularly from the Bronze Age Complex. The burial tumuli, stone circles and other megalithic structures, massebot, and

36 rock engravings reveal that the mountain was sacred as an important cultic and religious center. The mountain exemplifies some of the world’s best rock engravings, more than 100 of which have so far been identified from the Neolithic, Chalcolithic, Early and Middle Bronze Ages, Nabatean, Roman-Byzantine and beginning of the Early Arab periods. Outstanding here is the fact that the enclosures of the late Chalcolithis, Early Bronze, and the beginning of the Middle Bronze ages have rich remains of material culture together with an abundance of rock engravings. Similar examples of rock art in sites in the Sinai and Jordanian plateau are part of the same collection.

37 AAppendixppendix 4 - PointsPoints forfor considerationconsideration iinn tthehe nnominationomination pprocessrocess

CCooperationooperation fforor sserialerial nnationalational oorr ttransnationalransnational nnominationsominations I recalled that particular attention must be given to articles 137 and 138 of the World Heritage Convention regarding serial properties and their nomination: 137. Serial properties will include component parts related because they belong to: a) the same historic-cultural group; b) the same type of property which is characteristic of the geographical zone; c) the same geological, geomorphological formation, the same biogeographic province, or the same ecosystem type; and provided it is the series as a whole - and not necessarily the individual parts of it - which are of outstanding universal value. 138. A serial nominated property may occur : a) on the territory of a single State Party (serial national property); or b) within the territory of different States Parties, which need not be contiguous and is nominated with the consent of all States Parties concerned (serial transnational property)

CConservationonservation The conservation phase is always time consuming and expensive, often costing more than official excavations but for these archaeological sites a specific conservation plan is essential to ensure that significant resources are not lost or destroyed. The Action Plan should reinforce cooperation on this aspect since there is not a solid tradition to develop archaeological impact assessment for vulnerable non-monumental sites. One of our main concerns in terms of prehistory is the destruction of the sites, often caused by industrialization, agriculture and any other human activities. Effects on nature such as global warming and natural erosion through rain can also cause destruction. We are aware that many prehistoric sites are at risk and subject to a wide range of pressures and threats, such us: Impacts from extractive industries’ operations (mining, logging); Encroachment by outsiders: looting of burial grounds or archaeological sites; Poverty and population dynamics (e.g. new settlers) Disrespectful tourism; Recreational activities; Degradation of environments; Climate change as extreme weather events, sea level rise, floods and erosion; Construction fever; Lack of knowledge and awareness of the significance; Communities become better equipped to understand conservation needs and have an increased ability to participate in conservation activities.

38 NNominationomination PProcessrocess

11.. NegevNegev ccomplexomplex - MMountount KKarkomarkom

For further developments in the framework of the nomination process, the following aspects should be considered:

CContextontext • Understanding the territory (site/sites) as a socio-cultural space to be described in geological, geographical, geomorphological and bioclimatical terms (past and present conditions) in explaining the intention to intervene in the landscape; • Topographical and geomorphological links and how they can be taken into account in defining the limits of the site; • The relationship between the property and the routes of communication; • The correctness of interlinking natural conservation values with the cultural values of some properties that have been included in the List, such as cultural landscapes and mixed or natural sites;

AAuthenticityuthenticity aandnd IIntegrityntegrity • Quality of physical environment; • Aesthetic quality; • Extension and quantity; • Rarity of images and themes and exemplary value;

AArtrt • Evidence of long artistic tradition; • Understanding the cultural development of the artists and their cultures; • Duration of the tradition; • Relationship of the tradition up to contemporary times that applies to the rock art; • Involvement of descendants of the artists or local community; • What we know about the site from research and potential for research; • Interpretation; • Use of art as a territorial threshold or marker; • Ethnographic models of production and meaning of the art.

39 MManagementanagement • A management system guided by universal values should follow a broader approach with fresh theoretical and methodological bearings; • State of preservation; • Management and is it threatened; • Available techniques for rapid assessment of impacts on the cultural and physical condition of the sites; • The need to find ways of gauging the social, cultural and economic impacts on these sites once they are nominated; • The need to cooperate in identifying the best methods in use for storing and sharing data viably; • Access to biotic and non-biotic resources;

22.. MMountount CCarmelarmel ccomplexomplex ((Tabun,Tabun, JJamal,amal, eel-Wabl-Wab aandnd SSkhul)khul)

Components to be examined to prepare the OUV of the site: AAnatomicallynatomically MModernodern HHumans.umans. • Emergence of Anatomically Modern Humans. • Coexistence/co-deposit: Homo sapiens / Neanderthal in Tabun;

TThehe NNatufianatufian PPerioderiod ((12.900-12.900- 110.5000.500 BBP)P) • First sedentary hunter-gatherer society (terraces in front of the el-Wed Cave); First sedentary traces in history of human kind (dwellings, cemetery, dumping area); • The sites reported a wide range exploitation of diverse animal species (gazelles, small mammals, avifauna, fish). The origin of domestication could be as well argued at the site (control over wild population of gazelles and intensive exploitation of plants). The lithics are abundant and sophisticated; • First traces of stone walls (built environment) in the human history; • Material culture and stones which demonstrates long distance exchange of raw materials; • The role of the ochre should be explored in terms of first traces of symbolic human behaviors; • In the Mount Carmel area base camps, seasonal or transitory camps have been found. It should be taken into account at the time of defining the limits of the property; • Paleopathologics in the Natufian and Pre-Pottery Neolithic;

40 RResearchesearch • Multidisciplinary studies have been undertaken over the last eight decades; • Long-term research, including geo-archaeological and geophysical survey (since 1988) for accurate knowledge of the formation of the archaeological deposit and its morpho- dynamics; • Essential to understand the behavior of the deposit, important to reconstruct site features, and a forward-looking tool to establish future excavation strategies; • Since the site is under constant research, the OUV should be understood in a dynamic way. Uninterrupted research has taken place since the 1930s. The long sequence of deposit and the long sequence of research are both essential components to justify OUV. The potential of the site has been confirmed by very recent publications and surveys; • History of the research: This includes the comprehensive summary of Garrod’s excavations: Garrod, D.A.E and Bate, D.M.A. 1937. The Stone Age of Mount Carmel. Clarendon Press, Oxford; the book (in print) written by Prof. M. Weinstein-Evron on the historiographic reading of the archaeological interventions at the sites (and the focus on the period of excavation undertaken by Lambert) are essential to justify attributes of authenticity and integrity of the site;

CCulturalultural ssignificanceignificance • Long-term prehistoric sequence; • One of the most prominent sites in the Levant; unique site regarding subsistence strategies and prehistoric “revolutions” (Out of Africa, Upper Paleolithic and Natufian culture). • Combination of a different kind of domestic/burial environment in geological unity (icon in the landscape): open air-sites and caves; • Rich material culture including various stone implements (flints, limestone and basalt), animal bones, shells, ochre etc. and various paleoenvironmental proxies (fauna, pollen, phytoliths); • Huge accumulation of layers: sophisticated research and reading; • Key role of the site in the geo-cultural region, crossroad between continents and part of the Levantine Corridor; the nomination process could also start a harmonization process of the Tentative List of the region while finalizing the comparative analysis; • Archaeological context in relation with migration of birds; • The natural and cultural dimensions at the site, in full coherence with the national system of protection, allow the nomination to integrate all the principles of integrated conservation. An inter-institutional working group could be established to start the candidature process. • Feasible inclusion of the buffer zone to the coastal area of Atlit.

41 CComparativeomparative AAnalysisnalysis The study of the origins of humans is an open question in constant renewal. There are a limited number of sites with hominid findings in the World Heritage and Tentative Lists. If we take a close look at the World Heritage List, we understand that there are quite a limited number of the sites related to the process of Human Evolution (9 sites on the World Heritage List and 9 on the Tentative List). When starting the comparative analysis of the site, it should be taken into account the following criteria: • Inter-disciplinarity in producing the nomination file and in the evaluation; • Scientific recognition and ongoing research in the site; • Eligibility depends more on the possibilities to highlight the discoveries and disseminate knowledge than on spectacular, esthetical or monumental remains; • Comprehensive research and interpretation of the paleo-ecological context; • Facilities for the interpretation of the outstanding universal value of the site; • Clear and close involvement of local communities.

SSitesites wwithith hominidhominid findingsfindings inin thethe WorldWorld HeritageHeritage ListList CCategoryategory Ethiopia - Lower Valley of the Awash Cultural Ethiopia - Lower Valley of the Omo Cultural South Africa - Fossil Hominid Sites of Sterkfontein, Swartkrans, Kromdraai, Cultural and Environs China - Peking Man Site at Zhoukoudian Cultural Indonesia - Sangiran Early Man Site Cultural Spain - Archaeological Site of Atapuerca Cultural

SSitesites wwithith HominidHominid findingsfindings inin thethe TTentativeentative ListList CCategoryategory Chad - Site à Hominidés anciens du Djourab Natural Ethiopia - Konso-Gardula (paleo-anthropological site) Mixed Kenya - Great Rift Valley Ecosystem Mixed South Africa - Pleistocene occupation sites of Klasies River, Border Cave, Cultural Wonderwerk Cave and comparable sites relating to the emergence of modern humans China - Yangtze Gorges Scenic Spot Mixed Philippines - The Tabon Cave Complex and all of Lipuun Cultural Uzbekistan - Boysun Mixed Georgia - Dmanisi Hominid Archaeological Site Cultural Italy – The Murge of Altamura Cultural

42 FFurtherurther developmentsdevelopments

• A continuous monitoring of the outer morphology of the cliff is required. Systems to monitor circulation of air, humidity and temperature are needed to monitor changes in several archaeological contexts: cave, shelters and open air surfaces; • Improvements of the laboratory facilities as an important part of the visit; • “Ideas competition” to rebuild the coverage area of the Natufian excavation area; • Support from IUCN (Karst studies) could be interesting in defining guidelines for a conservation plan of the site; • According to article 98 of the Convention, legislative and regulatory measures at national and local levels should assure the survival of the property and its protection against development and change that might negatively impact the outstanding universal value, or the integrity and/or authenticity of the property. States Parties should also assure the full and effective implementation of such measures. In the case of Mount Carmel, the institutional framework of protection could ensure an integral conservation of the archaeological area.; • Last point but not least: the people in charge and the related communities should answer the question: why the site needs the WH Convention? What is it for? As a starting point, expectations should be clarified. (Nowadays: 50 000 visitors) (Additional visitors for the natural trails). The visits convey a comprehensive message on prehistory richness and vulnerability of the remains. In November 2008, the Prehistory Working Group in Paris identified some criteria for archaeological sites as to improve knowledge of human behaviour that should be taken into account when starting the nomination process: • Provides exceptional insight into theme; • Establishes chronology; • Manifests converging or combining evidence; • Expands the evidence for human experience; • Illuminates a cultural landscape; • Contributes to multi-disciplinary studies; • Offers potential for further analysis; • Was of historic importance to shaping our knowledge of prehistory.

Natufian domestic area with terrace walls and rock-cut basins on the el-Wad terrace Mount Carmel (photos N. Sanz)

Sorting archaeological material at the Mount Carmel field Laboratories of the University of Haifa (photo N. Sanz)

Dr Nuria Sanz and Prof. Mina Weinstein-Evron

Monitoring bat-populations at the entrance of el-Wad Cave (photo N.Sanz)