A Workshop on Prehistory and theWorld Heritage Convention

in the framework of the Action Plan for Prehistory

United NationsEducational, Scientific and

Cultural Organization

1

A Workshop on Prehistory and theWorld Heritage Convention

in the framework of the Action Plan for Prehistory

United NationsEducational, Scientific and

Cultural Organization

28 December 2008

2

Published by: Israel Commission to UNESCO

editor: Prof Michael Turner. ISWCommittee, Chair

3

A Workshop on PrehistoryA Workshop on Prehistory

and the World Heritage Convention in theand the World Heritage Convention in the

frame Work of Action Alonframe Work of Action Alon

A Thematic initiative during the chairmanship of the World Heritage Committee by Spain

Towards an Action Plan and related thematic studies – Towards an Action Plan and related thematic studies –

The Israeli perspective: The Israeli perspective:

- A State Party response to Global Strategy

- Reappraising the Tentative List

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

4

Towards an Action Plan & related thematic studies –Towards an Action Plan & related thematic studies –

The Israeli perspective:The Israeli perspective:

- The State Party response to Global Strategy- The State Party response to Global Strategy

- Reappraising the Tentative List- Reappraising the Tentative List

Sponsored bySponsored by

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

GuestsGuests

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

5

28 December 2008, at Nahal Me’arot, Israel28 December 2008, at Nahal Me’arot, Israel

BackgroundBackground

GreetingsGreetings

PresentationsPresentations

World Heritage Global Strategy, Dr. Nuria Sanz, World Heritage Centre

The Israel Tentative List, Professor Michael Turner, Bezalel Academy

The World Heritage DocumentsThe World Heritage Documents

Israel DocumentIsrael Document

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

6

GreetingsGreetings

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

BackgroundBackground

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.

The World Heritage DocumentsThe World Heritage Documents

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.

7

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.

Israel DocumentIsrael Document

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.

8

World Heritage Global Strategy, Dr. Nuria Sanz, World World Heritage Global Strategy, Dr. Nuria Sanz, World Heritage CentreHeritage Centre

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

9

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

10

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.

Geographical distributionGeographical distribution

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.

11

Concordance of manifestations in Prehistoric sites:Concordance of manifestations in Prehistoric sites:

• 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.

CategoryCategory Number of Number of sites in the sites in the

World World Heritage Heritage ListList

Number of sites Number of sites in the in the

Tentative ListTentative List

Anthropological methodology to reveal

OUV

An 9 19

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

potential

NH 9 48

12

CategoryCategory Number of Number of sites in the sites in the

World World Heritage Heritage ListList

Number of sites Number of sites in the in the

Tentative ListTentative List

Non-monumental ruins NM 14 42

Paleontological fauna P 1 9

Prehispanic Ph 10 33

Production sites (mines, workshops,

technological findings)

Pr 4 19

Rock Art RA 24 50

CategoryCategory Number of sites Number of sites in the in the

World Heritage World Heritage ListList

Number of sites Number of sites in the in the

Tentative ListTentative List

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

13

Israel Tentative List, Professor Michael Turner, Chair, Israel Israel Tentative List, Professor Michael Turner, Chair, Israel WH CommitteeWH Committee

Recommendations for prehistoric sites for Israel’s World Heritage Tentative List and accompanying texts

Harmonization of sites in the geo-cultural region - the next stagesProf. 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.

14

Israel Prehistory, Professor Ofer Bar-Yosef, Harvard Israel Prehistory, Professor Ofer Bar-Yosef, Harvard UniversityUniversity

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.

15

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)

16

I. Human Evolution, Professor Patricia Smith, Hebrew I. Human Evolution, Professor Patricia Smith, Hebrew UnivesrityUnivesrity

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”.

1. Lower Paleolithic sites documenting early dispersals out of Africa1. Lower Paleolithic sites documenting early dispersals out of Africa

‘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.

2. Middle Paleolithic sites representing the northern limit of anatomically modern 2. Middle Paleolithic sites representing the northern limit of anatomically modern humans and southern limit of Neanderthal expansion in the Levant. humans and southern limit of Neanderthal expansion in the Levant.

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

17

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.

3. Sites documenting the “Neolithic Revolution” 3. Sites documenting the “Neolithic Revolution”

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.

ConclusionConclusion

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.

18

II. Prehistoric Sites , Professor Nigel Goring-Morris, Hebrew II. Prehistoric Sites , Professor Nigel Goring-Morris, Hebrew UniversityUniversity

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

19

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, ShukbahSeveral 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.

20

III. Rock Art, Professor Emanuel AnatiIII. Rock Art, Professor Emanuel Anati

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) .

MeaningMeaning

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.

Regional distributionRegional distribution

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

21

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.

Mount KarkomMount Karkom

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.

Research perspectives Research perspectives

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

22

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.

Case Study - Mount Carmel Caves, Professor Mina Case Study - Mount Carmel Caves, Professor Mina Weinstein-Evron, University of HaifaWeinstein-Evron, University of Haifa

Mount Carmel Caves NominationMount Carmel Caves Nomination

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.

1. The Long cultural continuum:1. The Long cultural continuum: 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.

2. Changes in ways of life:2. Changes in ways of life: 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.

3. Human evolution:3. Human evolution: 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.

4. Palaeo-environmental fluctuations4. Palaeo-environmental fluctuations: 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

23

research highlights the various palaeo-environmental changes and their relationship

with the main socio-cultural processes and human impact on ancient environments.

5. History of research: 5. History of 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.

24

Responses:Responses:

Mount CarmelMount Carmel

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.

25

SummarySummary

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.

26

Conclusions:Conclusions:

I Global strategyI Global strategy

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.

27

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.

II Local strategyII Local strategy

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

28

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.

III NominationsIII Nominations

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)

29

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

30

Appendix 1 - Invitation and Agenda Appendix 1 - Invitation and Agenda

Invitation to the friendsof 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 -17.00at Nahal Me’arot Nature Reserve,

Mount Carmel

31

AgendaAgenda

8.30 Site Visit (optional)Site Visit (optional)

9.30 GreetingsGreetings

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 Opening session -Opening session -

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

DiscussionDiscussion

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

32

Appendix 2 - List of workshop participantsAppendix 2 - List of workshop participants

Regional CouncilRegional Council 1. Carmel Sela, Head of the Regional Council carmel@hcarmel.org.il 2. Zeela Waxman, spokesperson for the Regional Council tzeela@hcarmel.org.il

UNESCOUNESCO 3. Michael Turner, Chair, Israel World Heritage Committee turnerm@013.net 4. Daniel Bar Elli, Secretary-General, Israel NatCom barelid@education.gov.il 5. Nuria Sanz, World Heritage Centre, UNESCO n-sanz@unesco.org

Haifa UniversityHaifa University 6. Yossi Ben Arzi yossib@univ.haifa.ac.il 7. Mina Evron evron@research.haifa.ac.il 8. Guy Bar-Oz guybar@research.haifa.ac.il 9. Danny Rosenberg aromat@netvision.net.il 10. Reuven Yeshurun ryeshuru@study.haifa.ac.il 11. Danny Nadel dnadel@research.haifa.ac.il

Nature and Parks AuthorityNature and Parks Authority 12. Tsvika Tsuk, Chief Archaeologist tzuk@npa.org.il 13. Yossi Hahn, Site Manager hannyos@netvision.net.il 14. Dotan Rotem, Regional Ecologist dotanrotem@npa.org.il 15. Zeev Margalit, Chief Conservator zeev.m@npa.org.il 16. Shuli Linder-Yarkoni shuliyarkoni@gmail.com 17. Revital Weiss revweiss@gmail.com

Israel Antiquities AuthorityIsrael Antiquities Authority 18. Uzi Dahari uzi@israntique.org.il 19. Ofer Marder oferm@israntique.org.il 20. Hamudi Khalaily hamudi@israntique.org.il 21. Ehud Galili udi@israntique.org.il 22. Ianir Malevski ianir@israntique.org.il 23. Revit Linn linnravit@gmail.com

Hebrew University, JerusalemHebrew University, Jerusalem 24. Patricia Smith patscc@huji.ac.il 25. Nigel Goring-Morris goring@mscc.huji.ac.il

GuestsGuests 26. Ofer Bar-Yosef, Harvard University obaryos@fas.harvard.edu

27. Emanuel Anati Anati@msh-paris.fr

Bezalel AcademyBezalel Academy

28. Zeev Druckman zdruckman@walla.com

Apologies:Apologies:

29. Avraham Ronen, University of Haifa aronen@research.haifa.ac.il

30. Hendrik J. Bruins, Ben Gurion University hjbruins@bgu.ac.il

31. Naama Goren, Hebrew University goren@cc.huji.ac.il

32. Anna Belfer-Cohen, Hebrew University belferac@mscc.huji.ac.il

33

33. Gonen Sharon, Hebrew University gonen.sharon@mail.huji.ac.il

34. Liora Kolska Horwitz, Hebrew University lix100@excite.com

35. Gideon Avni, Israel Antiquities Authority gideon@israntique.org.il

36. Giora Solar, ICOMOS, giorasolar@gmail.com

34

Appendix 3 - Current Texts from the UNESCO WH websiteAppendix 3 - Current Texts from the UNESCO WH website

Pre-historic Sites: Ubadiyya, Sha’ar Hagolan, Mount CarmelPre-historic Sites: Ubadiyya, Sha’ar Hagolan, Mount Carmel

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

DescriptionDescription

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.

UbadiyyaUbadiyya

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

35

Lower Paleolithic sites in Eurasia and constitute the best evidence for the “out of Africa”

movement of Homo erectus.

Sha’ar HaGolanSha’ar HaGolan

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.

The Mount Carmel CavesThe Mount Carmel Caves

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-

36

environmental changes and their rapport to bio-diversity management and ecological

conservation, and the recent history of cave use in the area.

Mount KarkomMount Karkom

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:Date of Submission: 30/06/2000 Criteria:Criteria: (iii)(v) Category: Category: Cultural

Submited by:Submited by:Delegation Permanente d›Israel aupres de

l›UNESCO Coordinates: Coordinates: Lat. 30°18› N / Long. 34°44› ERef.: Ref.: 1488

DescriptionDescription

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

37

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.

38

Appendix 4 - Points for consideration in the nomination process Appendix 4 - Points for consideration in the nomination process

Cooperation for serial national or transnational Cooperation for serial national or transnational nominationsnominations

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)

Conservation Conservation 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.

39

Nomination ProcessNomination Process

1. Negev complex - Mount Karkom1. Negev complex - Mount Karkom

For further developments in the framework of the nomination process, the following

aspects should be considered:

ContextContext

• 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;

Authenticity and IntegrityAuthenticity and Integrity

• Quality of physical environment;

• Aesthetic quality;

• Extension and quantity;

• Rarity of images and themes and exemplary value;

Art Art

• 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.

40

Management Management

• 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;

2. Mount Carmel complex (Tabun, Jamal, el-Wab and 2. Mount Carmel complex (Tabun, Jamal, el-Wab and Skhul)Skhul)

Components to be examined to prepare the OUV of the site:

Anatomically Modern Humans.Anatomically Modern Humans.

• Emergence of Anatomically Modern Humans.

• Coexistence/co-deposit: Homo sapiens / Neanderthal in Tabun;

The Natufian Period (12.900- 10.500 BP)The Natufian Period (12.900- 10.500 BP)

• 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;

41

ResearchResearch

• 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;

Cultural significanceCultural significance

• 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.

42

Comparative AnalysisComparative Analysis

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.

Sites with hominid findings in the World Heritage ListSites with hominid findings in the World Heritage List CategoryCategoryEthiopia - Lower Valley of the Awash Cultural

Ethiopia - Lower Valley of the Omo Cultural

South Africa - Fossil Hominid Sites of Sterkfontein, Swartkrans, Kromdraai,

and Environs

Cultural

China - Peking Man Site at Zhoukoudian Cultural

Indonesia - Sangiran Early Man Site Cultural

Spain - Archaeological Site of Atapuerca Cultural

Sites with Hominid findings in the Tentative ListSites with Hominid findings in the Tentative List CategoryCategoryChad - 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,

Wonderwerk Cave and comparable sites relating to the emergence of

modern humans

Cultural

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

43

Further developmentsFurther developments

• 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.

44

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)

45

Dr Nuria Sanz andProf. Mina Weinstein-Evron

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