Steven A Rosen

F Anny Bocquenti N
email: fanny.bocquentin@libertysurf.fr

Naoml Porat
email: naomi.porat@gsi.gov.i

Investigations at Ramat Saharonirn: A Desert Neolithic Sacred Precinct in the Central Negev

Keywords: ..... .., çl';;

fn ve.stigations aJ t/l e open-air sltrf11e ami cairn complex at Ramat Saharonim in the Makhtesh Ramon in 1/te central Negev reveal a sai:red precinc/ or ritua/ ce111er with a focus on a morcuary cult, artributable to .tlie Late Neolirliir, ra. 5000 n.c. The fou r shrines are aligned wirh the set1in1: Still of the s11111mer solstice. along with other landscape features. The tilree /1111111/i l!Xrm•ared, mughly rontemporary with the shrines. revea/ed primary and secondary /Juriai.f and inlentimia/

A LNT RODU CTLON

s with the transitio n from hu111ing-galbering to farmin g in the Mediterranean zone. the rise of pastoral nomadism in the desert periphery entailed far-reacbing transform< Uions in the basic cultural matrix of the desert. The shift from hunting animais to herding them marked a fundamental transformation to a society based o n ownershîp of the basic rneans of subsistence, and the consequent need to preserve those meam. and entailed profound concomitant change in virtually every realm of society (e.g., lngold L980). Archaeologically, it should corne as no surprise that the earliest evidence for e laborate shrines reflecting public ritual and rnortuary c uit in the southern Levantine deserts, in the Late Neoli 1hic ca. 5500-5000 B.c.. o nly slightly postdates the earliest i11fiJtration and adoption of berd animals-sheep and goat-replacing hunting as a primary subsistence base.

The presence of anc ie nt cuit and mortuary sites in the deserts of the southern Levant ba~ been known since the late 19th century-for example, t:rom Palmer"s ( 1872: 12 1) discovery of the nawamis fields of easl Sinai. These sites exhibit a wide range of types and functions, frorn single ste lae, groups of stelae, and e laborate arrangements of standing stones, to tumuli and fie lds of lumuli and otber mortuary structures, and o n lhrough various types of other constructions, us uaJl y lumpeù into the general rubric of "open-air shrinc'' (see especially [START_REF] Avner | Ancient AgriculturaJ Settlcment und Religio11 in the Uvda Valley[END_REF]1990;2002;also Yisrael and Nachlieli L998). Other difficult-to-cl assify feature s. such as Lhe " K-Line" (e.g., Haiman 2000) may also be included in Lhe general category. The general c lass of c alL structures ranges in date fro m the s ixtb mHlennium a.c. through recent lime s-a~. for example, in open-air mosques-and thus has been assocint:ed with the complete complement of c ultures lmown in Lhe deser1 from the historical and pmtohistorical periods.

ln cerms of the earlier part of this long Lime pan, several recenc investigations provide imporiant background for the excavations at Ramat Saharonim. The earliest of these is the syste matic explorat ion of the nawamis fields al Ein el Hudera (Bar-Yosef et al. J 977) and Geb.el Gunna [START_REF] Bar-Yosef | Nawamis and Habitation Sites neur Oebel Gunna, Soulhem SinaL /,1mel[END_REF] in Sinai . These studies doc umented the nawamis. cylindrical corbel arched buildings usually 4-8 m in extemal diameter and 2 m high, as mortuary structures dating to roughly the early fourth millennium B.c. They reflect a local pastoral society (e.g., Coren 1980) organized at a tribal level. wilh cultural linki. 10 Egypt. La1er analyses [START_REF] Bar-Yosef | The Orientation of Nawamis EnLrances in Soulhcrn Sin ai: Expressions of Religious Belief and Seasonalily?[END_REF]Hershkowitz et al. 1985) also established a seasonal and cosmological aspect to the nnwarnis; doorways are aligned to the west, facing the sening sun. with deviations apparently in accordance with the season of construction but wiLh modaliUes suggesüog seasonal preferences. The foc us on the setling sun clearly has symbolic meaning and is tied Lo Egyptiao be liefs in lhe connections be1ween dealh, lhe west. and the setting sun.

The tumulus fields of the central Negev are con-ceptualJy si milar to the nawamis in terms of spatial clustering of the structures and 1heir morruary associations. However, unlike 1 •he nawamis, tumu li excavations have usually (bu t not aJways) shown Lhem to be empty of burial remains, e ithe r from poor prcservation or perhaps the removal of 1hc bones (c.g., [START_REF] Haiman | Cairn Burials and Cairn Ficlc.Js in the Nege v. 811/fo1i11 of the A111erica11 Sc/100/s of Oriental Researclt 287: 25-45. 1993 An Early BronLe A ge Cairn Field at Naha! Mitnan. 'Atiqot 22: 49-61 (Hebrew). 2000 The " K-Lioe'' at Har Romem in Light of the Survey of the Map of Har Ramon (203)[END_REF]. Also contrasting wilh the nawnmis, buriaJ goods are rare in the tu mu li, rendering chronocultural anribution problematic. Although rcciang ular tumuli have usually been auribULed ro the ln1ermediate B ronze Age (= EB l V = MB l), Haiman ( 1992: l993) bas suggested that the s tandard round tumuJi be dated to Lhe Early Bronze Age, based on a pauern of geographic association with large Early Bronze Age campsites. has presented radiocarbon date indicaling earlier occ urrences. and, antic ipaling later discussion. the Ramat Saharonim excavations indicaie a deeper his1ory with the tradilion of tumulus burial beginning in 1he Late Neolithic.

Open-air shrinei., sometimes referred to as temples, have al so been investigated . [START_REF] Yogev | [END_REF] excavaced a courl yard s hrine with stelae in a c is t in the focal corner of the shrine. in the Uvda Valley. llated to the sixlh mille nnium cal s.c. Eddy and Wendorf ( J 998;1999: 36, 39) documented a rectangular shrine in eastern Sinaï simila r to those a l Ra ma t Saharon im. also dating it by radiocarbon to the s ixth milleon.ium caJ o.c., and Rothenberg ( 1979: 125. lig. 28) excavated anothcr, uggesting it be dated 10 the Pre-Ponery Neolithic on the basis of associated anifacts. Given the absence of artifacts ar vinoally ail other such sites, and 1heir consistent Late Neolithic attributîon, il is likc ly ù1at the shrine at Ein Yarka was builL on an earlier occupation. More significantly, Avner's (e.g., 1984Avner's (e.g., : 1990Avner's (e.g., : 2002;;Avner and Cam1i 200 1) pioneering long-te nn research program o n tbe desen cuit has documented numerous hrines in the Negev and Sinaï , many typologjcally idemical 10 those of Ramat Saharooirn. He. too. has dated the origins of these structures to the Late Nenlithic and has noced solstice alignments which he has interpreted in a cosmo logical framework drawn from lmer Mesopotamian civilization [START_REF] Avner | Ancient AgriculturaJ Settlcment und Religio11 in the Uvda Valley[END_REF]: 102-J). On chis basis. he suggests a winter sunrise as o pposed to a summer sunsel orientation . Wilh respect to Ramat Saharo nim itself, Cohen cxplored the site in the 1970s. publishiog plans and n few surface artifacts in his doctoral thesis ( 1986: 8-9. pis. 5-6; also see Avner 2002: table 14.9-12) and Inter in hil> synthetic study of che Negev Highland ( 1999: 2 1-24). Tnformal test excavations werc also cbnducted but never publisbed. Chronologically. Cohe n attributed the site to the Chalcolithic perioù based o n su. rfacc ar1ifac1s, including several wbu lar scrapers !Cohen 1999: fig. 9: 1. 2, 7) and a simple bifacial ly retouchcd knife (Cohen 1999: fig. 9: 11 ). ln fact. tabular scrapers as a class appear in 1he late stages o f ù1e Pottery Neolithic (second half of Lhe sixtb millennium B.C.) (Ro en L997: 75) and continue through the Early Bronze Age. The bifacial knifo is 1101 diagnostic. lniûal assessments based on survey work also tended 1oward the Early Bro nze Age attribution (Rosen and Rosen 2003). especially based on the stro ng arc hitectural simiJarities belween the Early Bronze Age tumuli in the Negev Highlands [START_REF] Haiman | Cairn Burials and Cairn Ficlc.Js in the Nege v. 811/fo1i11 of the A111erica11 Sc/100/s of Oriental Researclt 287: 25-45. 1993 An Early BronLe A ge Cairn Field at Naha! Mitnan. 'Atiqot 22: 49-61 (Hebrew). 2000 The " K-Lioe'' at Har Romem in Light of the Survey of the Map of Har Ramon (203)[END_REF](Haiman : 1993) ) and those of Ramat Sahnronim.

The investigations at Ramai Sabaronim were ini-1ia1ed in o rder to build on these pioneering works. The general goal of 1he project was to survey the site (Rosen and Rosen 2003) and excavate part of il in a methodologicaJly dgorous fashion in anticipation that the greater detail would provide answers lo some of the quesùons conceming the early desert cuit not yet rcsolved. Three sets of issues were LO be addressed:

1. The explication of the relationships. chronological and cultural, between the different components of the site. us ing a suite of field and laboratory methods. including assay in both radiocarbon and opticaJly stimulated luminescence (OSL) datiJ1g. 2. The documentation of ù1e slratigraphy of o shrine in order to understand its construction , ils original fon11 . the different phases of developmenl, and the post-abandonme nt formation processes that result in the current ite features. 3. Examinaiion of the relaùonship between the site, the landscape. and Olher natural features. including astronomical aspects (cf. Ti lJey 1994;Cannichael et al. 1 .994).

The first phase of the project. initiated in 1999, consisted of the intensive mapping of the site (Rosen and Rosen 2003). A large-scale map of the entire precinct was prepared, and 1:20 stonc-by-stone plans of each shrine were completed. The solstice orient<-t • lion of the shrines was also doc umented.

THE REG JON AND T H E

S ITE A R EA

The cuit complex at R amat Saharonim (Israel Grid 1434/0035) is located south of Mt. Ardon in the eastem half of 1he Makhtesh Ramon. a large ero-sionaJ cirque (e.g .. Y. [START_REF] Avni | Early Mosques in the Negev Highlands: New Archaeologiéal Evidence on lslamic Penetration of Southern Palestine[END_REF]: Zilbem1an 2000) located in the soulhem Negev Highlands (fig. 1 ). The region is a rocky desert, receiving roughly 75 mm of rainfall per year, and is characlerized by sparse Saharo-Arabian vegetatfon (e.g .. Roseni\11 and Gllead l 985a: l 985b; Danin 1983: 35. 53). Surface sediment are reg soils. and the shrines resl on a developed desert pavement with a sandy substrale. The tumuli rest on limestoae bedrock. Geomorpbologically, the site is located in a shnllow valley fonned between sets of paraUel cuesta c litfa varyi ng in heigbt from roughly 2 m in the west to up Lo 5 m in tbe east (fig. 2). GeologicaJJy, the site lies on the transition from the Lower-Middle Jurassic Ardon For-m,ation (Zak 1968) (prirnarily, Limestone wiù1 clays, maris. and some sandstones) to the Midd le Jl!rassic lnmar Formation (sandstone) (fig. 3).

Historically, the area has been primarily the reaJm of pastoral nomadic societies. The Azazmeh and Saidiyyin Bedouin tribes inbabited the region in the l 9lh and early 20th centuries. During the periods of c lnssical antiquity, the Earl y 1slamic and Byzantine, Ro man, and He lle nis1ic periods. pastoral sites of vario us kinds dominate the arcbaeology of the Makhtesh Ramon. including most notably Nabataean campsiles (e.g .. [START_REF] Rosen | A Rom1m-Ptiriod Pai.toral Tent Camp in the Negev[END_REF]. lndeed. the site lies adjacent to the Nabataean spice route leading from Perra Lo Gaza (e.g .. [START_REF] Cohen | [END_REF]. Although intensive run-off irrigation farm ing was practiced in desert areas somewhal farther north, in ùie lrano-Turaninn zone, ùiis re.gion remained unexploited agriculturally. With re pect to site prior LO the classical era. s urvey in the general region has revealed campsi1es primariJy from lhe Early Bronze nnd lntermediate Bronze Ages, although not in the immediate vicinity of the site. Neolithic sites are known from the northern Arava (e.g .• Taute 1994). farther south, in the Uvda Valley (e.g .. Goring-Morris and Gopber 1983;[START_REF] Avner | Ancient AgriculturaJ Settlcment und Religio11 in the Uvda Valley[END_REF]. and in lùgher area.-; to the west and north (e.g .. Noy u111d Cohen 1974;[START_REF] Rosen | A Rom1m-Ptiriod Pai.toral Tent Camp in the Negev[END_REF][START_REF] Goring-Morris | The Quick and lhe Dead: The Social Context or Aceramic: Neolithic Mortuary Practices as Seen frorn Kfar HaHoresh[END_REF]: Si mmons 1981 ). Across the Rift Valley. the bighlands of southèrn Jordan saw the evolution of village and Ltrbao settlements from the Nêolithic thrnugh the Bronze Age in a less arid cnvironment more suilable lo scdentary and agricultural pursuits. No habitation s ites are found in the immediate vicinity of Ramat Saharonim.

GENE RAL Sfl'E DESC RlP TLON

The Ramat Saharonim sacred precinct (fig. 2) con ists of three areas: ( l ) the Sbrine Area. wilh four shrines and associated instaUations: (2) Ramat Saharonim East, consisting of L4 tumuli on 1wo parallel cuesta cliffs east of ù1e Shrine Area: and (3) cbe Southern Ridge, with 16 tumuli aligned on the cuesta cfüf south of the Shrine Area and Ramat Saharonim East. ln addition 10 the cuit complex. a sundstone quarry for the production of milling stones is locaced approximately 100-200 m nortb of the Shrine Area. probably dating 10 the Early Bronze Age [START_REF] Abadi | Early Bronze Age Grinding Stone Production in the Ncgev Highlandi[END_REF]Abadi and Rosen in press).

The Shrine Area cons i sL~ of four courtyard shrines (numbered fig. 4). A detailed descrip1ion of the individual shrinc!. 1 as bai-.cd on 'urvey has been presented in the repon on 1hc 'itc survcy (Rosen and Roscn 2003; nlso sec Cohen 1999: 2 1-24; Avner 2002: table 14: 10-12). but se verni fc111urcs derived from the '!urvcy arc imporcant for undcri.tanding the nature of the complex, a wcll a' it., chronology and development. First. each shnne i.how' two componentl.. a largcr. primary rectangular 'tructure. and a maller. more squarii.h '>Ccondttr) one. located on the nonh side or the primary. Although Shrine 3 laèb thii. structure, it 'hows rcmains of u dilTerent character. vaguely rcminisccnt of the .,ecundary ~trucLUres associ:ued with the other shrines. but con'ltructed in a difTcrent fa.,hion and IC\'\ well prescrvcd. Avoer {2002: 120-22. 126) ha ~ refcrred lO lhese pairs or i.tructure a temple pairi. or 1w1n temple<.. 1mplying 1heir con1emporaneity and llUggc.,ting thcy con~ù tute male and femalc pairs, perhap <;pecihc godl> and go<ldel> 'C!.. ln thil> light, the importance of establishing 1hc chronological relationship j., clcar.

The priniary structures are cach on the order of 20-22 m in leng1h. They cons1s1 of a IHrge forw ard wnll on the wcs1 side of the rcctungle. built or two rows of large limestone blocks or slabs with a space of 20-40 cm be1ween the rows. and in the east. a courtyard, fcnced off by a si ngle row. '>ingle course, or small Monc slab . This fencc i' now fallen but origmally stood upright, a<; rcnected 111 a few slabs -;till embeddcd in the ground in Shnne 1 The source for 1he limcstone blocl o. .s (sec di\CUS'>ton below) is locaJ. The we 1ern wall. ongm:illy slood to a height of about 1.5 m. ba ed on the pre,crvcd height of the walls and the quantity of ... 1one fall on 1hc surface and found in excavation.

The sccondury stn1cturcs, buih on the north side of 1he primtu•y shrines. ure square or ni.!ar square structures, upprnximately 8 mon a sic.li.!. built of what appearJ. to have been a si ngle row and single course t1f roumkd wudi cobbles placcd carefu lly one against the othcr n1ey each also show an intcrn:ù feature: a mali '-lone pile. poorly pre.\crved and d10icuh to descnbe. TI1c \Ource for the i.tone of 1hc econdary i.tructurc' appcar. to be conglomerate e~pol>ures located in the immediatc vicinity of the 5hrinc (fig. 5). The con1ra . . . 1 with the primary s1ructurci. is triking. As abovc, Shnne 3 doei. not show a •imilar secondary 'itructure. although smalt "fonce" slabi. suggc t 1ha1 some other feature remim cent ol the 'ecoodary ... 1ruc1urcs walt prei.ent (contra Cohen 1999: fig. 23: Avner 2002: fig. 5:2). ln add111on to the 'econdary '>lructure ... nonde-'>Cnpl slone 'cutter in roughly linear pattern!>. apparenlly panially lhe re ults of human fü: ti v iti e~. and a few iima ll coni.1ruc1ed features ~uch a!. boxe!. made of small limcl>tonc slabs. arc locatcd uround 30 m wesl of Shrinci. 1. 2. and 4 and coincidl.' wi1h conglomcratl.! cxposures. Avner {2002: 1 16-17, fig. 5:2) refen. to thc!tc remuins as "circlc chains," but it is difficult to 'lce any patterns.

The 30 large tumuli at Ramat Saharonim East and the Southern Ridge are arranged in 1wo rough lines along the parallel cuc!.ta cliffo;. '!Omewhat converging toward the ca ... 1. The tumuli arc cach 4-8 macro s m the ba\I.' and about 1-2 m high. con.,tructed of limestonc bluet....:;. ln many cases. a margin of larger '>IOnes i' cv1dent around the ba.,ul circumference. wilh the remaining -.1one~ of the cairn piled more haphazardly on top. MoM of the tumuli are concave on top. and excavations at 01hcr 'itci. (e.g .. [START_REF] Haiman | Cairn Burials and Cairn Ficlc.Js in the Nege v. 811/fo1i11 of the A111erica11 Sc/100/s of Oriental Researclt 287: 25-45. 1993 An Early BronLe A ge Cairn Field at Naha! Mitnan. 'Atiqot 22: 49-61 (Hebrew). 2000 The " K-Lioe'' at Har Romem in Light of the Survey of the Map of Har Ramon (203)[END_REF]Haiman : 1993)) The specific locations of lhe featurei. in lhe complex were clearly chosen for Lheir position!> amid the smaJI-cale topographie relief and larger -scale lnndcape features. Alignmems of the shrines were derermined by landscape feamres-mos1 nouibly a large. black volcanic mouniain in the distance (fig. 5)-ancl to accord generally with the seuing sun of the 1>ummcr ol sticc. with nzimuth deviations from only 2° to 8° (Roscn and Roscn 2003). Thrce of the four shrines were placed so as 10 view this sol1>1ice i.uni.c!I in Lhe shallow depre sion between two low hi lb (fig. 5). The oricntution lOward spccific geogrnphic fcature. in the nonhwes1 <:trongly suppons the summt!r sols1icc sunset interprclation of 1he alignmc111, ai. oppose(.) 10 the wintcr sunrise suggcsced by Avncr (2002: 102-3). for whicb no geographic pmtern s arc evident. Although il is diflicuh 10 pcrceivc any clèar pattern with respect LO the placement of 1he wmuli vis à vi the shrines, the cliffs constitute folsc horizons. wilh Lhe tumuli visible in silhouetLc from grcm dis1ances. seeming to integrate visually wnh more distant ridges. 2 The shrines are locaied tll the open (ea~t) end, between the two lines of 1umuli. They nre. on one hand, set off from the tumuli, and on 1he other. merge with them, forming :l large-cale cumple.>.. There can be littlc doubt as to the deliberate choice in thesc alignments and Lhc placement ot lhe StlC features.

T H E GEOLOGY ANO GEOMOR l'HOLOGY OF T HE S ITE

The special nature of the cuit complex ai R<1mm Saharonim suggested 1ha1 <letailed cxplica1îon of it:geological and geomorphological con1ex1s might o (. fer important insigh1s into understanding various issue:, of site location. feature placement, con:.truction. and general site fornrntion. To this end, the following investigation wcre undertaken: J. A detniled geologicaJ scc1ion of the si te arèa wai. con!>truCtcd (fig. 3). providing a kcy for understanding û1e nature of 1hc site sediments, 1hcir di tribu1ion, and 1hcir ultimaie origin!.. 2. Dctailed geological and geomorphologicnl maps of both the general site area and 1hc

: yu, al Yd.uueli suggc~tcd 1he pos~ibihlu~' of a rcln11on\h1p bc1w~n the di\1ant ndgcs and th.: tumuli on th.: ncarby .:l1fl\. Shrine Aren were constructed (figs. 3. Geoarchaeological survey (on which lhe ectioa and maps were based) also locatcd special gcological features, sucb as the limestone quarries/ cxposures from which lhe building material. for the primary shrines and mmuli were taken. Thi survey also documented the location of the conglomcrate e.xpo ures from which the cobbles used in 1he consLruction of the seconclary . truclllrc origioated.

The gcological section was constructed using an cxposurc east of lhc site area. in the area or the wa-1ershcd berween Naha! Ardon and Nahal Ramon.

The section tilts 7°-10° 10 the norlh. resulting in a typical laycred eue ta. The specilics of the section ure sttmmarized in tigure 3. The uppem1os1 unit of the i.cction. the lnmar Formation. dates to the Middle Jurasi.ic. Il provide. the source materials for the !>and-"' onc milling <,tone quarrics mcntioncd earlier (Abadi

2003: Abad1 and Ro en in press

). The iumuli and shnncl. are associated with different facies of the Ardon Ponna1ion, dating tO the Lower-Middle Juras-Fonnt11ion lies bencath the Ardon Formation. ln nddition to the geological section. geological and geomorphologica.I mapping defined imponant femures in the landscape (fig. 6). Survey wa,<; conductcd u-;ing a 1 :5000 color aerial photograph pmduced hy Ofck Aerial Photographs Lld. in 1989, cnlargèd 10 1 :4000. Geologically, Ramat Saharonim cun hù dividcd into two areas. The geology of che castern urca il> rela1ively straigh1forward, consisting of a r-cquencc of cues1as rilted 7°-10° to the nonh -C<l\I. T he area is cut by a number of generally nonh-sou1h dikes. cspecially eviden1 in Unit 11 . the lime-"tonc capping layer of lhe Ardon Fotmation which forms the primary cuesta anù on which 1he 1umuli of Ramat Saharonim East rest.

T h!.! western area is more complex than the easrem . the rc~u lt of a nonhwest-soutbeast fault which creatcd f\ tructural. geomorphological. and topographical anomalies relative to lhe eastern area. The ~ubidcnce of the block south of the fault line created a long. shullo\\ vaUey in10 which ahal Ramon pcne-Lr:ucd at leas1 twice during 1he Pleistocene. depositing two conglomcrnte units along both the main chnnncl and itt-tributaries. The two units are 15 m and 10 m above the modern chan11cl of Nahul RHmon. They show similar components. primarily large cobble , 20-40 cm in diamett:I', of limesrone, dolomite, llînt. harù sandstone. and basall, t.he bedrock of Makhtesh Ramon. These terraces arc loca1ed in close proximity co the hrîncs and providcd rhe source materials for the secondary structures of the shrines. The g.coarchaeologîcal su.rvey focused on the areas in the immediate vicinity of the s hrines (tig. 5) but exrendcd throughout the site arca. or particular note js the presence of small-scate quarries from which limestone blocks were pried out of the bedrock u ~ ing fi ssures already present in the bcdrock, providing block 40-60 cm in length <md 20-40 cm thick. These quarries are part icularly nbtable in Uni t 11 of the Ardon Fonnation, 200-300 m nonh of the ~hrincs and somewhat closer to the tumuli of Ramar Saharonim East No drag marks were eviderll bctween the quarries and the shrines or the tumul i.

Ahhough lrnowledgc of modern geological science was obviously not a prerequisitc for si1ua1ing. the Ramat Saharonim s hrines in ancient limes. eanh sciences anaJyses indicate that the locales cbosen for the shrines are indecd unusual. For cxample. lhe variery of surface colors and textures, rcflected in the cliJferent geological and geomorphological units present in the dlrect vicin ity of the shrines. con1 rasts sjgnlficantly wïth 1he eastem part or Ramat Saharonim. Shrines 1 and 4 arc even alig11ed wi th color contrasts such that the structures dernarcate unit distinctjons, reflected in surface cotors und textures, Jt is difficult to be unequivocal in rcconstructing chc specific motivation and decisions in 1he placement of lhc shrine on one spot or ano1hcr: however, givcn the solstice aJ ignment and the clear topographie dccisions in placement, mi cro-deci~i on s based on i;urface colon, and texture do not ~eem too far-fetchcd. Of course. speculation as to meuning is beyond our reacb.

EXCAVATIONS AT S HR lNE 4

Following the carlier survey work resuhing in 1 :20 stone-by-stone sit e plans ( fig. 4; aJso Rosc.:n and Rosen 2003), excavations at Shrine 4 were conducted according to a mcter grid square (fig. 7) and arbitrary levels (spits) of 5 cm. 111 the presence of discernible surfaces (the original land surface), the arbicrary spit level was abandoned in favor of the natural s urface. DeAation in the courtyard area of the shrinc, beyond the area immediately adjacent lo the primary wall , rendered excavation in 1his area pointless. and it was not tested. Ali sedimenls were sieved through 2to 3-mm mesh , but in the event , no in situ artifacts were recovered. Severa! sections wcre intentionally left intact. bo1h for later investi-ga1io11 and for stratigraphie documentation. Thal is. elle cntire lengtb of the shrine wall was not excavated since total exposure was considered both scientifically unnecessary and potentially damaging to larer rcsearch. The interior of the primary wall comprised smaller cobbles in an apparently intentional fill (fig. 8). This was cleared in the squares opened. but the in situ block!> of Lhe primary wall were left in place. leaving the W:\11 itself intact.

The excavalious revealed a massive double wail. with 20-40 cm between the rows filled with cobbles and smaller slabs (fig. 8), which served as the western wall of the primary shrine. The double wall was built or large limestone blocks, some up to 450 kg (based on linear dimensions and a specific gravity of 2.5 for limestone). and many greater than 1 OO kg. The wall is preserved to a beight of approxirnately 0.75 m. Considering che stonc fall present on both sides of 1he structure, the original height of the wall can be estimated at about 1.5 m, and a conscrvative estimmc of the total mass of the western wall, including inccrnal 1111, ii. 30 tons. 3 Stratigraphically. four general units can be defined surrounding the double wall. on either side and atso at each of the ends (figs. 9, 10):

Unit/: The modern land surface in the vici nity of 1be sh1;nc, beyond 1hc confines of the site itself. is a defl atcd desert pavement. Il shows a stony gravel and cohblc surface with a substrate of red saody clay or sill with calcium carbonate nodules. probably reflect-. iog Pleistocene pedogenesis known io the Ncgev Highlands (cf. [START_REF] Avni | E11viro11111e11tal Impact Res11/ti11g from Ems/011 t!( Pleis1oce11e Sedime111s in the Negev High-/antls[END_REF].

Unit 1/; The upper surface of the excavation consists of a crust of silt, sand. and grave! 1-2 cm thick, wi th occasional limestone blocks fallen from the double walls rcsting on and in it. This surface

~ .~ . 1) O• • o q. ... OO . • .. o •• 0 •• • ••• 0 • • "1.
' ' 0 o<> r::to reache~ to the top or to within a few centimeters of the top of the preserved wall height and slopes awuy from the wall.

0.0 Cft 0 - o • • r. ... - :" a • .. 0 • o •• 0 0 • 0 • 0 ... ..,. . • • • ,1•• ... (. ':. o-:'• •, .. . . .•~ . J' . • .. . .. "o f f' . ... & ,. . ' . .... • C) : ' • 0 0, .. .
Unit Ill: This layer is comprised of ligbt graybrown silt and sand . li is 20-40 cm thick adjacent lo Lhe double wall and tapers to a feather t.ermination away from the wall. le lies directly beneath the uppcr surface crnst an<l also abuts the double waU. As on the surface layer. limestone blocks fallen from the wall are found in it, marking differenl stages or wall collapse. Lenses and sublayers, marking episodcs of deposiLion, can be distinguished within the general uniL These do not occur withfo alJ sections and Jo nol reflect general episodes.

Unit IV: This . layer is a red sandy Clay or silt horizon, wich small nodules of calci um carbonate. 20-50 cm thick, onJy the upper part of which was exposed during most of the excavation. Il constitutcs the remains of the original land surface al 1he 1ime of shrine construction and is essentiaJJy the same as the modern land surface, but bas been disturbed and is lacking the desert pavemenl The contact between this layer and Unit Ill is sharp and clear. TJ1e deeper parts of rhis layer are more consolidated, supporting the idea or disturbance of the upper portion. Indeed, activities hy the excavators around the site destroyed the dcscrl pavement. leaving a norizon equivalenL 10 the one exposed during excavation. The double wall penctrates tbis layer, indkating the excavation of Iwo narrow foundation channels into which the 1 imcs1one blocks of the wall were placed. Occasional limcstone blocks are found resting on tbis surface, bul these are less common than in the upper strala. ln some cases, these may represent support stones, and in otbers. stone fall. This layer grades inlo the modem land surface 3-4 m from the site.

The stratigraphie relationship berween the features of the site and the units described above suggests a clear developmental sequence in the sire formation (fig. 11 ). This is summarized in four stages: The landscapc is essemially n:u. with a cover o f <>mail gravel (2-5 cm: desen pavement). Lhe uppermosl part of a young <lesert reg soi l. unJcrlafr1 by the gruvcl-free A horizon comprising fine sand and silt (Amil. Harrison, and Enzel 1995) and cssentially the modem land surface beyond the immcdiate proxi mity of the shrines (Su-atigraphic Unit 1). The uppem10-.1 reg soil developed on top of an crosional surface. wh1ch truncate a late Plcistocene calcic paleosol. c harnctcri~ed by carbonate nodules within a red silty mu1rix that developed on a sandy--.i lty unit of the Juras-.ic lnmar Formation.

Stage 2-Co11structio11 a11d initial 11~e <JiR. 11 :2): Thi phase conSÎ'>t' > of Lhe construction of the primary double watt. ca. 1.5 m h1gh. Il '' al-;o po~sible that the counyard fcncc was constructcd al &hi-. lime. but there is no tirm evidcnce conccrning th1 ..,. The activities in and around the shrine destroycd the desert pavement (Stratigraphie Unit 1). leaving only the soft and porous sill and sand A horiton of the reg soil and underlying palcoi.ol (Stratigraphie Unit IV).

During lite course of u~c. one may a~surne some maintenance and repair, perhups even cleaning. Ac-tivit1e~ around the o;hrine would have tended to reduce the accumulat1on of ..,cdirnents. One heanh was pre.,en1 on the original land -.urface in clo'\e proximity to the shrine wull (Sq. 432E). and charcoal. perhap~ from another hearth not preserved, was recovered from the surface a few meters south of that (Sq . 422F). The watigraphic contex1 of the hearlhs. and the1r proximity 10 the wuJI. i strong cvidcnce that they arc in fac1 asc;ociated wilh shrine acti vitic!..

SttH(<! J-Aba11do11111e111 lj1!(. 11 :3 ): With the ces-<>ation of activitics around the shrioe, the massive double wall actcd ai; n sand trap. accumulating wi nd-blow11 sedimcnts (Slrntigraphic Unit Ll i) all around the structure. like a dune. abovc the origi nal l:rnd surface (Strutigraphic Un it IV). The higher elemcnl!. of the <ihrinc. now in disrepair. foll onco the:.e scdiments al diITercnl ...iagc of accumulation (in fact. bcginning carly. presumubly i-.hortly after abandonment). The accumulation of "ed iments abun ing the primary wall Ît'ielf constitutes a significam change in topograph ie relief in the previou ~ly na1 landscape. and alrhough the court}urd wall reslricted dnunage in Lhe hort term, the double wall change:. the basic drainage pallems. rcsulting in increru.ed eroi.ion beyond the 1onc of accumulation. The de. truction of the original dei-ert pavement in the v1cinity of tht> structure also cxpo~c" unprotected areas to wi nd de-natio11 and to local cro-.ion caused by runoff (from lhe increu.,.ed relief) during the infrequeot rain events. This cau,es the stones of the coun ya rd fence to 1opplc. and after the upright stones have fallcn. pedesrnli-are formed (ai. a consequence of difîerential erosion/Jcna1ion cuuscd by the proteclion offered the follcn stones) on which some of the counyard fe nce stones still rest (fig. 11 :3). Huma11 dc.,truction muy al~o play a ro lc here as well, givcn Lhe widcly scattcrcd di tribution of the courtyard fcnce o;tones. whicb i~ difficuh to cxplain by natural process alune.

Sta!(e 4-Sec:ondarv . w•11ct11re co11s1rnctio11 (jig. 11 :3 /ower): The sediments accumulating adjacent to the primary wall create a 1>lope also on the north and 'lOuth ends of the structure. uJtimately capped by the 'urface cru-.t (Stratigraphie Unit Il ). Round conglomeralc cobble~ of the subi.idiary tructure are placed on these accurnu lati oni.. resting in and abovc Stratigraphie Uni1 li (fi gs. 9. 11 ). Therefore, Lhcy mulil postdate the double wall construction by i.ome i.igniticunl span of timc, probably thou aods of ycars ('ee Absolute Chronology below). 12)-were excavated. Excavations wcre conducted from the top down inlo the cist of each 1umulus s-uch that the structure of each was left iniact. A 11 sedi• ments were sieved through 2-lO 3-mm mesh.

The basic llLrucLure of the 1umuli is idcntical to that describcd by previous schol ars {e.g. [START_REF] Haiman | Cairn Burials and Cairn Ficlc.Js in the Nege v. 811/fo1i11 of the A111erica11 Sc/100/s of Oriental Researclt 287: 25-45. 1993 An Early BronLe A ge Cairn Field at Naha! Mitnan. 'Atiqot 22: 49-61 (Hebrew). 2000 The " K-Lioe'' at Har Romem in Light of the Survey of the Map of Har Ramon (203)[END_REF], Haiman : 1993)). Tumulus cons1n1ction begins with 1hc excavation of a shallow pit-in the case of Ramm Saharonim, no more 1han 20 cm deep due LO the sh•ll • l ow dcpth or surface sedimcms on the limcstonc lay• ers or the Ardon Formation. The interior wull of 1hc turnului:; was Lhen constructed around the . hallow pit. A ring of large margin stones was placed dellmiting 1he ou1er edge of the tumulus. The interior c:îs t was constructed using horizontal sl abs of varying lcngth!. 10 forrn a rough oval or polygon. At some point 1hc body (or bodies) wcre placed in the ci:.L. and !.lab:-. wcre placcd over il (or them). The massive super• structure of the tumulus, bctween the wall of lhe cisl and the margin stones. was con. tructed more hap• huardly. Il is likely tbat the cist wa.<; also covered in the process of building the superstructure, although it is difficult to detcrmine wbether the tonet. ln the interior are întentional fill or fall. Given the repcmed use of the tumuli. accessibilily lô the cist must have bccn considered in construction.

The excavation revealed remai_ns of seven in• dividual.;;; 1 six of whom could be associated witb the pcriod of the construction of tbe Lumuü. The seventh, round an 1lw upper level of Tumulus 29, clearly rep• re~cn t!. a Inter reuse of the tu mulus. and indeed lies almmt a metcr above the very poorly pre erved re• m111ns of an inûividual on the lowest surface of the tumulus.

1'11 Ill""' s 2 8

Tumulus 28 has a relatively small cist opening at 1.75 m (nbovc dnium). wilh a rectangular shape ori• and a mandible wilb a hyoid bonc-were also uncovered. Thal is. Lbere was at least one primary inhumation in thi~ area. cven if major disturhances destroyed the buriaJ(s) aflerward. The northwei;t halr of the ci 1 was protected by a large lab. The removal of this slab revealed Lhe lower part of a s keleton (fro m the fourth lumbar vertebra to the feel) in full artic ulati o n (fig. 13B). Preliminary examlnali on in Lhe fi eld suggests these are the remaini. of an adult male. lying on his back with the legs fl exed on the Je ft side, perpendicular to the vertebra l colu mn. We assume Lhat the anacomical c lusters seen in the southcast half of the cist are part o r the samc individual.

The body was otiented in a southeast-northwest direction. wilh the head against the !.outheast wall of the cist. Beneath the bonei., the surface of the cist was carefully paved with large and medium-sjzed s labs (fi g.138 ).

Tumulus 29

Tumulus 29 has the largest cist or the lhree tumuli excavated ( 1.60 x 1 .10 m). The opening is pentagona l in s hape. oriented norlheast-southwei.t. The highest po int of the tumulus is al 2. 12 m. and the highest human remains were discovered al 1.68 m.

At this level, a weU-preserved and complete skeleton of an old woman (over 60 years old ) wns found . The body was p laced on the left lateral side with the head lifted up (fig. L4A). The legs were nexed as well as the arms. which were tight to the body with the right hand under the chin and the tert under the thorax. Pieces of desiccated leather •urrou nded the who le sk e leton. uggesting burial in a tightened sack. or shroud. Arouad the skull , pieces of a different k.iad of organic macerial. perhap rope made of vegetal fibers, wcre ulso found. The excellent state of preservation, the pre ervatio n of Lhe leather. and the high location in the tumulus suggest thar this burial wa ••iocrusive•• to the tumulus. as reflected clearly in the radiocarbon and OSL dates fixing the burial to the Under tllis skeleton, che internai structure of the cist was organized with slabs one on top of rhe other fillin g the east half of the cist down 10 the bottom of lhe tumulus and a fill of infiltrated sandy matrix on the wcst side. in which a second cl us 1er of hum an remains was found between 1.02 and 0.89 m high (fig. 148). Only about 40 bone fragments, in a very poor statc of preservation , were found scattercd. These inc lùde pieces of long bones. vertebrac, ribs, and teeth . More detaîled study is necessary bcforc a1tempting to ioterpret this assemblage in terms of fune rary treatment, but there is no doubt that this is part of the initial use of the tumulus. Small slabs paved the bouom of the cist immedintely beneath the bones.

Tumulus 30

Tumulus 30 is 1.84 m high. The opening of the cist (0.95 x 0.75 m) was pentagonal and oricnced nonheast-soutbwest. The cist was fillecl by infil-Lrated sedünent almosl ro the top. lts internai stnu.:ture was organized with two rows of slahs one above lhe 01her on lhe north side from 1.36 to 1.19 m high.

Slabs were absent from lhe central part of lhe cisL, and the south edge of these areas is filled only by sediment. A few isolaced bone were found between the slabs al the northwes1 corner of the cist, bu1 the major layer of human remains was round henemh Lhe level of the slabs in the central and north part of the cist. No bones were round on the sou1h side, and a very clear "waJ I effect" is shown (fig. 15A). This cou Id be eitber the resull of a perishable structure. which prevenred the dcposit of Lhe body or bones in tbis area, or the result of a specific taphonomic process in tbis area thaL destroyed the remai ns :tfterward. In fact . the alignmenl of che bones at the limit of the empty area suggests that the exis-L ence of a hard perishable structure, now gone, is the most likely bypothesis. Analyses of Lhe sedimem samplcs taken Crom this area will help to answer this quei.tion.

The level of bones was approximately 20 cm thick. lsolated bones were mixed with parts of articulmed skelecons. Ali catcgories of bones are present: long bones, skulls and mandibles, hand and foot bone~. girdJe. and thorax. A minimum of three adult individuaL<; i present in the assemblage. Al Ica t 1wo of them remain parrially articulated at the bollom of the pit (one complète left foot and leg [fig. 1581, one complete right hand and forearm. and a skull articu-Ja1ed with the mandible). but later disturbance does not allow reconstruction of lhe original position of the bt)di e~. The few additional remains suggest Lhat a secondary burial was also made in Tumulus 30. According to the disturbancc&, the cist was visi ted several times for funerary purposes. and the burials were probably not contemporaneous but successive ones. The final stage of the grave. with two skulls lying agai ns1 each other and a cluster of long bones ut lhe center of the cist. is certainly a deliberate reorgani-zaL ion of the bones. Eighc Conus sbells, with holes drilled in the Hat end to form beads, were also recovered at the burial level. Four of lhese were round in a cluster becween foot bones in articulation and a skull (fi g. 158 ).

The bones in Tumulus 30 were resting in a shallow basin filled wilh stony sediment. The bouom is

Summary •a11d Discussin11

The excavation of 1he westernmost tumuli of tbe Southern Ridge reveals well-preserved cist burials. Two are pentagonal-shaped with a major axis ori-en1ed northeast-southwest Jike the shrines, and L he Lhird one is rectangular with an axis perpendicular to 1he previous ones. ln each tumulus. human remains were discovered, clearly associated with Lhe initial construction of the cist. with slab covers and/ or pavements. At least six adult individuals were buried in tbese three rumuli during the Laie Neoli1hk.

Severa! Lhousand year la1er, Tumulus 29 was reused by Nabataeans (mos1 likely) for the inhumation of an old woman. The Neolithic remains are very poorl y preserved, and the bones crumbled on louch. At leas1 three burials were primary inhu mations. With the exception of the half skeleton in Tumulus 28. whicb was well pro1ec1ed by a large slab, the original position of the bodies at burial could not be reconstructed because the Neolithic people reorganized the boues after the decay of soft tissue. Nevertheless, given the arriculated anatomical clusters al the base of the cists, il is clear that the bodies were not covered immecliarely by sedimenl. The stale of preservation of t:he articulations shows thal the decay occurred in an empty space, allowing small movements of the bones during the process of decomposiûon. More likely. and in accord with geomorphological analysis (see discussion below). the bodie!l were covercd by scooe slabs and the sedimenl infi ltrated the graves Jater. Secondary burial is also likely to have been part of funerary customs at Ramat Saharonim. 2)4()-2150 (95.4%) at leasl in Tumulus 30. This tumulus is the best preservcd and seems not to have been reopened since Neoli1hic limes. The state of preservation of the scat-1ered remains in Tumuli 28 and 29 are more difficult to interpret as secondary inhumations because the poor slate of the assemblages could also be 1he result of taphonornic processcs.

Although dst burials are also known from Ponery Neolilhic contexts .in Jordan (e.g., Banning 1995: 1998: 224). tJ1ey differ in numerous particulars. incl uding social context (sedentary fanning vi llages), the presence of grave offerings like pots. the exclusive pracLicc of prima.ry burial. and the absence of tumulus superstructures. These contrasts undoubtedly reflect the fundamenlal contrasts berween the li feways of Lbe desert and the sown.

Finally. ir is imporcanl to emphasize that the burial remains from Lbe Ramat Saharonim tumuli suggest a closer behavioral relalionship with Lhe Sinai nawamis tombs than previously assumed. Wbereas previous assessments teuded 10 view the tumuli as single-episodc. single-burial tombs. in significanl conLrast to the nawamis. Lhe reused and multi-burial iumuli at Ramat Snharonim suggesl similarities not recognized in earlicr studies.

ABSOLUT E C HRONOLOG Y

fn the virtual absence of malerial culture remains associal'ed with the Ramat Saharonim complex, two independent methods of dating, L 4 c and OSL, were nssayed in order to place the site in historical cootexl. A dctailed discussion of the methods and resullS has been publisbed elsewhere (PoraL et al. 2006), but a review bere will allow better evaluation of the dates in light of lhe detailed site description.

The melhod of radiocarbon dating is well knowa (e.g .. [START_REF] Mook | Radinc<1rbo11 Dati118. llandbook for J\rchaeologists 3[END_REF]Ramsey 1995), and the results of the de1ermina1ions are presented in table 1. The two dates from Shrine 4 derive from charcoaJ fragrnenlS associated with the contact bct ween Units Ill and fV, that is. the original land surface associated with the construction of the shrinc.

They clearly place Lhe construction ca. 5000 cal B.c .• the Late Pouery Neolithic in standard Levantine chronological tcrminology. and Lo the early phase of the Timnian in Rothenbcrg's (e.g .. Rothenberg and Glass 1992) desert framcwork.

Although both dates dcrive from wcll-controllcd contexls, RIT-4665 from a 'lmall in siru heanh and RTT-4663 from a concentrntion of charcoal on the original land surface, givèn only two dmes (the rotai charcoal recovered). it i, difficult to as~css the minor differcnce betwecn them. Although they overlup ut the 2-sigma confidence imcrval, in gcneral lhi:: construction of four shrines nnd 30 tumuli supports the likelihood that the s pan in the dates renecrs a long period of site use, implying that the differencc 111 dtues is meaningJul.

The 14 C date for tJ1c upper buriul in Tumulus 29 •uggest a Hellenistic/carly Nabarnean reuse of the tumulus. Beyond dating the burial itself, and possible implications for :in early use of the sou thcrn spice route. the relativcly dose agreement between the t.ic determination und the OSL date (sec helow) lends grcater confidence 10 the chronology in generaJ.

Luminescence dating rnethods (Aitkin 1998) date rhe las1 sunlight exposurc epii.odc in à minernl's hi:-.• tory and use signais thm arc acquire<l by minerai grains such as quartz or fcldspar from the natural environ mental radiation. The magnitude of OSL signal is relatcd 10 che touù radiauon rhat the $ample rccei ved. Sincc the OSL signal is ensirive to sunlight, exposure 10 1he sun during lranspon and deposition of the sedimem will reduce ihe previously acquirec.J OSL signal 10 zero ("blcaching''), and after burial it will grow again. These mcthods are used ex1e11:.ivt:ly for dating Late Pleistocene 10 Holocent! aeolian. alluvial. fluvial. and colluvial sedimcnts, nncl major ap• plicatioas include paJaeoseismology. palaeoclimatc. land cape evolutioa. and prehistoric sites. ln order to date an archaeological installati on, one needi. w sample sedimems (preforably aeolian) deposited cloi.e ro the lime of construction that are likely Lo have becn exposcd to unLight. Appropriarc •edimenl contexts include two basic types: ( 1) sediments underlying stones used for construction whercin presumably the uppermost sand grains were exposed 10 the sun prior to the placement of stones. 1hus providing a maximum luminescence age for the site, and (2) sediment füling interstices betweea construction stoncs which prt:sumably accumulated soon after the construction or abandonment of the site. This age will be a minimum age for rhe sire. By combining the two typei.. the age of the site can be constrai ned.

The need for alternative dating merhod terns Erom the anticipated paucity of charcoaJ on lhe site. and indeed. the OSL date. provided lhe onl y means of daring the earlicr phase of tumulus construction and use. The details of the methods as applied to Ramat Sahuronim arc published el ewhcre [START_REF] Porat | Dating the Ramat Snhoronim LM.' Ncoli1hic Desert Cult Site[END_REF]also see Por:u 2002). Briefly stated, 1wo techniques were employed, one utilizing single aliquots Con the tumuli and the shrîne) whereby a large number of quurt7 graini. (several thousands) are measured LOgether, and the second 11tilizing single graill analyses. Results arc summarized in table 2.

With res pect to the tumuli at Ramat Saharonim. one can c;afely assume that ail the scdiment within thcm, betwcen the slabs abovc and below the burial • and be1wccn Lhe srones of the cist walls. accumulaled after burial (see [START_REF] Porat | Dating the Ramat Snhoronim LM.' Ncoli1hic Desert Cult Site[END_REF] for detailed discussion). The bodies were not covered with soil. as no soil is nvall:lble in the area. but with Stone slabs (sce aJso discussion of <;kcletal remains above). The infil-1ra11ng grains arc fine. wind-bome. and were blown into the tumulus Lhrough gaps in the stone,. Thereforc. 1hcy were mosr Ukely well bleached ut the tirne of dcposition, <U1d their age would give a minimum ag.e l'or buriaL

The i.ample cottected from the ame level as the skcl~ton in Tumulus 28 (RS-8) gave an agc of 6000 ± 600 ycurs B.P., a11d a second sample ( RS-9), taken 2 cm lower, gave 7500 :t 700 years B.P. ln Tumulus 29. the <;ample lRS-11) from the sediment underlying the feet of the skeleton gave 1800 ± 170 yeari> B.1> .. while a second sarnpJe fRS-10), taken from under < • tone in the wull of the cist. from the same level as the upper. well-preserved skcleton. gave un age of 2000 ± 200 years B.P. Evidently. the two burials are of differcnt ages, supporting the idea of secondury use of Tumulus 29. As these ages are from sedimems depoi.11ed after burial. the burial in Tumulus 29 took place ahout 7500 ± 700 years ago, and the b11rial in Tlumllus 28 about 2000 ± 200 years ago. ln the shrine. both pre-and pos1-construc1ion edimcnr., were identified. At the time of construction, the uppcnnosr pan of the surface sediment on which the sroncs wcrc placcd was disturbed and mixed. exposing a layer of several cenrimeters 10 sunlight (a bimilur process happened during the excavation. when a large number of people treaded the surface). This layer could poteotialJy give the timc of con- struction. when the placement of stones ~caJ ed the sedimcnLS off from furthcr exposure to sunlight. After construction and ab<indonment. sand accumu-la1ed along both sides of the main wall. Luter. stones collapsed and covered the accumulatcd sand, seaJing it from further exposure. The sanJ under the collapsed sloncs and between standing stones will give a minimum age of construction. Ali single aJiquot analyse& from the shrine showed a very large intra-aliquot sample i.caller (table 2). The ample with the highest c;catter and olde~t ages are th.ose that wcre collec1ed clo<>e 10 the base uf the site. from the layer tha1 was d"turbed during ~i t e construction. One obvious rea<;On for Lhe e large scaner and old ages is thai in 1.>ome or the sediment grai ns. the OSL signal was not fully rcset during transportation. and thcy carried a c;ubi.tantial residual signaJ at the timc of deposition. The aJiquot with 1he lowesr dose equivalcnt (De) would contain the 2000) of huntlrcdi. of individual grains from the shrine howed a mixed population of young and old age1.>. For each <;ample. 1hcre is a distinc1 peak distri• buLion in the young ages (4000-6000 years 11.P.) with a tail of older grain1.> (~ee Porat el al. 2006). This con• firm~ our inference from the '>ingle aJiquot measure-rncnt1. > that some of the grains in the edimenl were not welJ exposed to sunlight al the Lime of deposition, and that the OSL signal or thcse grains was not fully z.eroed. ft must be notecl 1hat each sample also contains young grajns. with ages as young as 3000 ycars B.t>., indicaling that deposition conti nued for many thousands of years.

Ages calculated from the younger grain population for ail samples cluster beLween 4200 and 6400 years B.P. (tab le 2). with an average of .5400 :t 800 year:. B.P. for au six samples. Thii. age ii, intemally consistent. and it confonns bener to the archaeologicaJ data. This is a post-construction age and rhus is a minimum age of the shrine. Given the radiocarbon dates from the sbrine and U1e OSL dates from Tumu lus 28, we may assume that the shrine and 1he tumulus were constructed and used at the same time; the younger age of the sbr ine OSL dates could be attl'ibutable lo the longer use of the sbrine, and/or the li.me required for sediment accurnulati.on. If the sbrine were in use for a long tune. ~edimentation •rnd hence burin! would have begun only after il was abandoned.

Ahhough no absolute dates were obiained for 1he norLllem secondary structure, il is clearly lacer than Lhe primary structuTe. Given tbat 1he discrepancy between the OSL date& and 14 C dates runs on the orcler of 1000-2000 years. that some effon wa:. made to obtain OSL dates as close to thè interface between the original surface and the sand/silt accumu lation ac; possible. and that the stoncs of the secondary structure lie on the sand/loess accumulation some 2-3 cm above the contact line, one can approximatc a chronological gap al least on the order of 1000-2000 yearl. between the construction of the two struc1ures.

THE RlSE OF THE DES ERT CULT

Given 1he special orientations, tbe associat"ion with complex mortuary behavior. and 1he special construction, the cullic nature of Lhe complex al Ramat Saharonim seems clear. 1\vo additional points adù ful'ther strenglh co lhis interpretalion and provide additional grist Lo the interpretive mîll. First. aJthough a very li ghl scatter of lithic artifacl is present in and around the site, none were recovered in direct association wich Shrine 4 during excavation. This comrasts greatly wilh all domestic sires of the Neolithic, Chalcolithic. and Barly Bronze Age periods of the region, which invariably show high densities of Lilhic artifacts, usuaUy numbering in the Lens of thousands. or more. No other anifacts, besides the eight shell beads in the tumuli, were fou nd . This scarcity of artifacts is typicaJ of desert cuit sites and has constituted one of the prime difficullies in 1hcir lnterpretation (cf. Avner 2002: 114-15).

Second. no domeslic sites were found witrun at least a 2-km radius of ù1e site, from any period. A milling stone quarry, dated roughly to the Early Bronze Age, but possibly earlier 5 [START_REF] Abadi | Early Bronze Age Grinding Stone Production in the Ncgev Highlandi[END_REF]Abadi and Rosen in press). is located about 200 m north of the site, acljacen1 10 sandstone outcrops, and the Nabaiaean inn at Ein SaJrnronim is located about 2 km south. but no contemporary (Late Neolithic) sites have been discovered. nor any other habitation sites from olher periods.

Thus, the cornplcx at Ramat Saharonim is clearly a cul! sile, undoubtedly linked to mortuary behavior (see also Rosen and Rosen 2003 ). Beyond lhe obvious burials in the tu mu li, and the elaborate behaviors associated with the burials. the su.mmer solstice set-Ling sun a1ignmen1 can also be placed in such a mortuary context. Certainly the setting sun in the west signified death in ancient Egypt (e.g .. Erman 1894: 3 J 0), and clcar parallel.s exist between the tumuJus fields of rhe Negev and the Earl y Bronze Age l nawamis tomb fields of Sinai. already tied to Egypr. The summer solstice, marking the dry season in the Near East, i!. the seasun of death, in marked contrast to the winter and spring. the seasons of rain and rebirth. The absence of dome. tic sites and activities in the vicinity of l'he complex also suggests a distinccion between the sacre<l and the profane, and of course, the living and the dead, classic contrasts in the an-Lhropology of religion and cu ll (e.g., [START_REF] Eliade | An Archaeological l1111e.l'fi8ath111 n.f rhf! Central Si11ai. Egypt[END_REF][START_REF] Douglas | Mea11i11gs[END_REF].

lt is nlso possible to place Ramat Saharonim. and the gencral phenomenon of these early desert shrines, into a larger context. First. in contras! to the nortbem agricultural zones where cuit sites and elaborate ritual practices, including rnortuary rites, appea.r perbaps as early as the Natufian and most cenain ly in the Early NeoliU1ic (e.g .. Cauvin 2000; Goring-Morris 1997; Kuijt 2001; Schmidt 200 1). the desert PPNB, a hunter.gatherer society (to be distinguished from 1he agricullural viUage cuhure found in betterwmered areas). shows no evidence for special cuit ~Dating the surface deposits of the quarry i. difficult. The bac.kg round scaucr of 11 few <liagnos1ic flini artifuctS includcd nimerinls a1tribu1able m the span (rom the Pollery Ncolithic tbrough the Early Bronze Age. The preference for the Enrly Bronze. Age date dcrives frorn lhe pe1rographlc links 10 Earl y Bronze Age milling Stones, but this is only suggestive and cannol be considcred slJ()ng cvidencc for allrih111icm. The ttuarry may ho contempurary wirh tht' sacred prccmct: it suit does no1 consti rn1e a llabitaùon si1e .

sites or structures . 6 The earliest evidence for the adoption of domestic animais into the desert economies, in the form of domestic herd dung deposits in rockshe lters in the region, is dared to ca. 6000 B.c. (Rosen e t aJ. 2005; also see Oo ring-Mo rrî s 1993 ; Rosen 2002). Thus, there is a coinc idencc bel ween Lhe earliest herding and the rise o f a ce111'ralized cuit wi th a probable lag lime between Lhe firsl berdfog and the earliest ritual construc tions.

Reasons for this connection are not difficult to suggesL With Lhe rise of herd economies and U1e need 10 ensure Lhe weU-being of the ani mais, terricoriality increases as a means of mni111aining access to grazing gro unds and water (c f. lngold 1980). This, in tum , requires ne w soc ia l tools Io mark . defend, and legitirnize the territories (cf. Re nfrew 1984: Kinnes 1982; aLso see Marx 1977 for rc lationship between tribal organjzation and te rritoriality). ln L his, and in the contrasts with the preced ing Pre-Pottery Neolithic society, we can trace the rise of 1ribal society (e.g .. Parkinson 2002 and papers therein).

Ramat Saharonim em bodies severaJ aspects of this newly developing form of dcsert social group. A morruary cult, as embodied in large-scale mortuary structures and cemeteries, has long becn associated with increased rerritoriality (e.g., Renfrew 1984; also Bar-Yosef and Alon 1988: 28, for 11imilar suggestions concerning Nahal Hemar and Ein Gedi). The presence of ancestors justifies ownership. ccmete ries. and corporate owoership (Kinnes 1982). Large tumuli. set on fal se horizons. are clearly intendcd to be seen and L o send a clear message of terri tory. 1 n the case of Ramat Saharonim, the tumuli may be murking a tribal border. since Late Neolithic s ites are prcsenl in the Arava Valley, south and easr of the Makhtesh Ramon. bu1 are relatively scarce in the central Negev. lt may be noted that the Bedo uin graveyard at Ein Saharonim, o nl y 2 km south. marked the l 9th-to 20th-cemury rribal border between the Azazmeh and Saidi yyin tribes (for map of Lribal borders. ee Bailey 1980: rnap 11 .3). ln the same sense tbat 1he cemetery •eem Lo have marked tbe tribal border in recent times, the tumulus field may bave functioned in a similar fashion.

Furchermore, the seasonal aspect also plays a role. The orientation o f the shrines lndicate11 some kind of aggregation at the s ununer solstice long-term campsites sugges ts short-L erm gatherings, perhap!. of sclected segments of the society. lt is diffi cult to reconstruct the rimais themselves, but Lhe coinci<lence of the solstice shrines with burials and territ.o ri ality suggests tribal identity as one focu s of 1he rites. The presence of secondary burials with the primary burial!.. s uggesting a transport of boues, and the reorgani1.ation of bones wilhin the tumuli , are pan of this syste m.

Finally, the megaJithic a.'ipect o f Ramat Sabarorum requires .;pecial consideration. The massivencss of the construction, bo Lh in the large size of ind ividual stone blocks and in the overal l mass of both the shrines and the tumuli, contras rs significantly wlth the desert cuit and mortuary structures from other periods. For examplc. o pen-ai1• masques, Lhe besl-understood and best-dnted cuit structures in 1he Negev (e.g .. G. Av ni 1994; Rosen a nd Avni 1997: 17-18. figs . 4:26-27, 5: lO-l I ). would eem conceptually similar to the Ramat Saharonim sbrines. cspecially in the stress o n specific directionality, the care Laken in the neat and o rderl y placement of the construction stones, in the scarc ity of associated artifacts, and in the construction of a symboLically enclosed space tha1 is nevertheless open. Yet the mass of the Ramat Saharoni m shrines constitutes an overwhel mi ng contras! with the rathe r del icate aspect of typicul open-air mosques and wi th the majority of other <lesen cuit structures (cf. [START_REF] Avner | Ancient AgriculturaJ Settlcment und Religio11 in the Uvda Valley[END_REF][START_REF] Avner | Ancient AgriculturaJ Settlcment und Religio11 in the Uvda Valley[END_REF]Yisrael and Nachüeli 1998).

ln hi!>torical context, Lhis megalithic a. <;pect refl ectl> the organization of Jabor an order of magnitude g reater thon 1hot of the preceding desert Pre-Po ttery Neolithic socieLies 7 (cf. Renfre w 1984: 165-99). T hat this labor cou Id be drafted is undoubtedly a function of 1he power or the cull ideologies also embodied in the shrines. The stability o r Lhe system, reflected in 1he bui lding of four shrines and tumulus constructio n over what must have been everal generations, and in the conlinued po wer of the p lace as a symbol over 1he long tenu, is suggestive o f the lo ng-renn importa nce of such cuits for desert no madic societies.

•Fig. 1 .

 1 Fig. 1. Location map showing the Mskhtesh Ramon and the Negev ln the Levant, and the location of Ramat Saharonim with1n the Makhtesh Ramon.

Fig. 2 .

 2 Fig. 2. Aenal photograph of Ramat Saharonim wlth srte leatures tndlcated

  revcaled a keleton (Y. Israel. persona! communica-1 ion. 2000).

  4 and 6). nllowing beuer comprehensioa of 1he detail. of 1he placement of individual archaeological feaiure in the l311dscape.

Fig. 6 .

 6 Fig. 6. Map showing geomorphological and geological features. The stratigraphie unit numbers correspond to the stratigraphie units in figure 3.

  i ~ 0, .. ~~ ... ~o "I 1 l).

  Fig. 7. Plan of excavations of Shrlne 4: (A) photograph ol secondary structure; (B) photograph of prlmary structure betore excavation: (C) grid and plan of excavations of prlmary structure: (D) plan of unexcavated areas. Note that the darkened areas ln excavation grid are unexcavated.

Fig. 8 .

 8 Fig.8. Photographs oi primary double wall: (A) portion of wall wlth some 1nterior till duringJatter excavation; (8) portion of wall before excavation; (C} vlew of entire wall af1er excavation (note thal the foreground ls unexcavated; also note the presence of sections left in place); (0) view of section of the western face of the primary wall.

Fig. 9 .

 9 Fig. 9. Ramat Saharon1m Shrme 4 stratigraphy photographs; (A) Section C•F/425-426; (B) strat1graphy ol secondary structure in Square F35.

  Fig. 1 O. Ramat Saharonlm Shrine 4 section drawlngs.

  Fig. 11 . Ramat Saharonim Shrlne 4 slle formation sequence.

Fig. 12 .

 12 Fig. 12. Tumulus 28 looking west. wlth Tumulus 29 ln the background

  en1ed northwest-southeast. From the top. the cist narrows fmm 0 .70 tu 0.60 min width. but increases frorn 0.85 10 1.20 m in length. A few isolated human boncs werc round as high as l.65 m. being probably movcd hy later ùisturbance. The main level of bone wns fCJund from 1.25 10 1.1 3 m. Two di fferent areas. the !ICluthcaM and the nonhwest. were clearly recog-nizc<l during the dig. Scattered fragrnented bones mixcd wi1h numcrous maJI slabs and stones (fig. 13A) fi lied the southeast half of the ci st. At least iwo adult individual!. wcre pan of this assemblage. At the bottom , a right hand wa'i fow1d connecced in a dor al po~ition anJ arc îculated to an ulna. Severa! anatorn• ical ly cohcrent asscmblages-thoracic venebrae cluscered w1 th rios. a skull fragment on top of an atl as, 'A llltJrc Jc111l11.:d phy~ical anthropological report is undcr prepunuion.

Fig. 13 .

 13 Fig. 13. Tumulus 28: (A) view of cls t before exposure of skeletal remelns: (B) view of lower part of articulated skeleton ln northwest hall of cist.

Fig. 14 .

 14 Fig. 14. Tumulu s 29: (A) view of upper skeleton, a secondary use of tumulus, (B) the lower scatter of bones.

Fig. 15 .

 15 Fig. 15. Tumulus 30: (A) central cluster of bones wlth wall affect on south sida; (B) closeup view of articulated foot.

  . The absence of occupational accumulations indicating "Although the PPNB sue of Nnhnl Hcmnr m lhe Judaean De~ert hru. been intcrpreted as a euh site, it is bc•t IJ$.O.OCiated wilh the Judacan Hi Us and the ShephclaJ1 ( B:tr• Yc»ef nnd Alon 198!!: 28) and i~ lbus Linked to the core an:a o f the ngricuhural PPNB.

7 1 !

 1 ls Important lO distinguish hcre betwec n the large PPNB s ites of ~oulhorn Jordan. Lhe megasitcs, clctlrly integrated into a lurgcr ~phere of PPNB ~edcntary agricuhural soc icty and Jocated in the Mcditerraucan and steppe zones enst and southeast o f Ùle Dead Sea. and the smnJJer-scale hunLer-gatherer socielies localcd in the dccpcr dcsen. AltlJougb located due wcst of the mcgasite re• gion, Ramat Saharonim. lllld 1he centrJI Negev in gcncral, is more and thon the Pe1ra/Ba,1a region, environmeni3lly comparable to are115 m Jordan f:u1hcr south. and es~enually comprises a different cnvi runmental (und cullural l zone.

  . U'> well ~Ls at Ramat Saharonim. indicate the prc. encc of bunal ci t. in .. ide. often lacking skeletons. al tht: b~e of 1hc tumulu~. A . ingle cairn <Tumulus 30> opcned in the 1980s by urcbaeologi •1s working for the l rael Department of Antiqu iti e~

1

  Avncr (2002; 100) ~ugge$IS a gencral helgbt of half thi ~ for open-air sa11ctu1lfics. bul his suggestion wa.~ made prior 10 i:xcavalions .11 Ramm Saharonim and lhe documcn1u1ion of large quan-liuc~ of sione fait. He also sur;gests thauomc of the slabs wcrc se1 horilonwlly, sort or .1~ roofing ~labs. ll1i~ wa; indeed the apparent plcturc hu~od on survcy, hui is not borne oui in excavatiC)n, The appurcnl rnofing s lubs ;ire fal ic•n and not present over most of the

T

  ABL~ 1. Radiocarbon Determinations Lum, at approximarely the base of the tumulus ilself. Al this level, the cist was much larger Lhun Lbe upper opening ( 1.30 x 1.50 m). Under the basin, a Sandy. oft sediment was present. sîmilar L O lhe sediment covering t:he upper parl of tbe cii.t.

			14 C Age±
	Context		lu years
	Lab code (square, depth ) 1}•pe	8. P.
	RTI466J Shrinc 4	Chorcnal	Cll1SU~40
	( 422F, 1.40-1.42)
	RTT4665 Shrine 4 bearth	Chun:oal	5945 ±45
	(432E, 1.94)
	RTI4664 Tumulus 29	L.:ulhcr	2225 ± 35
	Upper burial
	situaLed in t:he middle of Lbe cist, l .OJ m ltbove da•

TABLE 2 .

 2 Summary of Op1ically Stimula1cdLuminescence (OSL) Dates

	S111,f?le Aliquot Mt'fH1tre111et11J
	St1111ple	Deptlr (111) De (Gy}
	Slmne 4:
	RS• I	04	268±7.9
	RS-2	0 -~	-Il 2 ± 11)5
	RS-3	04'i	:?O.ll±7 6
	RS--1	() ~	16.8 ± 5.5
	RS-5	0.-1	73±21
	RS-6	0,5	l l 9±2.5
	RS-7	0,2	234 ± 19
	"/1111111/i
	T28 RS-8	O.H	118±1 .2
	T28 RS-9	U.H	147±1.4
	T29 RS-10	() 7	3 :'il: 0 35
	T29 RS-11	0.7	) 0±0.27
	Single Grain M em11re11w11t,f
		No. 11/ De (Gy)
	Somple	grc111u Main peak
	RS• l	12OEl	-17± 1.4
	R •2	3!17.l	8.2± 2.6
	RS•J	271.16	5.4 ± 2.4
	RS-l	30/40	5.1 ± 1.5
	RS•5	9142	5.4 ± 0.7
	RS•6	23/34	6 1 ±2-6

Thc teml .. 1hnnc .. 1~ emplo}cd hcrc 111 ordc:r11111,01d wme of the p1tlolls of u~mg londcd 1enn• -uch J\ .. temple .. or .. ,illlclll.ir)." wh1c:h rc,onuu.: "uh 01hcr mcan111g,. \UO:h '" hou\c or god. or pro-'1dmg shcher, etc Other opt1m1'. \UCh "' "euh ~tructun::• pc:rhap~ tcchmcnll} more corrcc1. 'eem awk" urd

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The Ramai Saharonim Excavation Projcct was supponed by a grant from the National Gcographic Society Commiuee for Research and Exploration. Beyond lhe aulhors. participating field excavatjon staff included Yael Abadi (Bcn-Gurion University): Tali Cohen (Bar-llan University): Serena Love (University College London): Brian Pittman (University of Cambridge); Amon Ram (Ben-Ourion University); Dan Rabin, artist, survcyor; Ynniv Rosen (University of Califomia, Berkeley): Jacob Vardi (Bcn-Gurion University): rmd Rona Winter (Bcn-Gurion University). Other participants included 14 volunteers and staff from che I lar Manegcv Field Scbool, affiliated witlJ the Society for the Protection of Nature. and 4 high school student volunteers from Mil2pc Ramon. Map and plans were prepared for publication by Plltrice KRminsky and Helena Sokoloskayu, of the Archaeological Division of Ben-Gurion University. Alter Fogcl, al o of the Archaeological Divi~ion of Ben-Gurîon University, developed and scanned the photographs. 1 nm grateful to Daniella Bar-Yosef for idenûfying û1e seashclls. Benjamin Saidd and Tsaac Gileaù commcmed on early draf'ts of this papcr. We are grnteful to two anonyrnoui. reviewer!. for their comments.