 So what I want to present here today is some of the results from my postdoc research on the technological choices in the early Natufian sequence at Elwad Terrace. The site is excavated by the Zimmer Institute in Haifa in the University of Haifa, and by the co-authors of this presentation. The Natufian is the last of the Epipaleolithic cultures. It marks the transition between the old Paleolithic world of hunter-gatherers and the agricultural villages that come after it. It is dated, as you can see, to between 15,000 to 1,700 calibrated BP. It is usually divided to three late, sorry, early, late, and final. We find in most of the sites, especially those from the Mediterranean ecological zone, a very rich material country that includes art objects, decorated bone tools, jewelry, granstone tools, stone-built architecture. At the top left, you can see a reconstruction of a necklace made from bone pendants and entirely beads. At the bottom, below it, a decorated bone tool both found at Elwad Cave. These are some examples of the granstone tools that we find. And below, you can see the semicircular structure, which was found in Elwad Terrace. It is typical of this phase in the Natufian and is found in other sites. The site itself is located in Nahal-Mearot in the coastal plain of Israel. It is part of the UNESCO site of Mount Carmel Caves that include taboon in Jamal Cave where lower-to-middle paleolithic sequence was found. And Elwad Cave where upper paleolithic to upper paleolithic were found. Elwad Terrace so far only has Natufian, but all the phases of Natufian are represented there. The early Natufian, which is what I worked on, is dated, Natufian at the site, is dated between 14950 to 13195 Calvity. And it is considered to be one of the larger early Natufian base camps. Other base camps include Ainan in the Kholabase in Israel, Wadi Chama-27 in Jordan, Hionin Cave in Terrace in the Western Gallery of Israel. It is considered rather these sites and considered to be semi-sedentary occupation sites. And now for my research, you can see at the right corner the plain of the site. The two red squares are those I worked on. The idea was to compare the area inside the structure of 7 and the area immediately outside of it, or 9. You can see at the table below the counts of each of these squares. The methods I used are based on my PhD research. The first is the attribute analysis. Here I focused on technological attributes. All assemblage components were tested. The second one is, I call it here a typo-technological analysis, but what it is is a more detailed typo-technological analysis. Only the cores and CTE were included here. The idea was, first of all, to divide the cores and the CTE to the different types. And each of these types have a relevant subtypes. For instance, for the single striking platform cores, the circumference of the striking platform, for opposed cores, the function of the second striking platform, whether it was a secondary one, or whether it replaced the old striking platform. For the core trimming elements, again, they were divided into types. And each of them had the relevant subtypes. For instance, for the general CTE type, whether what part of the core was maintained, whether the removal of the debital surface or the striking platform for the core tablets, whether the entire striking platform was removed or only part of it. And the last method is only for the cores. I divided them according to theoretical sequence. In the black, you can see what I consider to be the classic sequences, classic stages in the sequence. In the red is some of the results from my PhD that I think are true also for El-Waad, the main difference between the more classical and what I found is that there is very little, if any, initial shaping in most cases. The decortication occurred along the sequence and not only at the beginning. Also, in some cases, instead of removing core trimming elements, they simply added a new striking platform and started removing black from there. I wanted to focus here on three issues only. As I said, it's only preliminary results. The first is honor of sight-napping. First, in this graph, you see the frequency of the primary elements within each level in each square. And I think what's most clear is while there isn't any chronological trend along the sequence, we can see there is a difference between the two squares in O9, which is outside of the structure. We find more primary elements than inside of it, which is O7. The second here is only the cores. And you can see that, first of all, in both squares, there is very little, if any, cores from initial stages, very few nodules, very few cores in the stages of decortication. There is a difference between the two squares. In O9, we see more abandoned cores. In O7, more cores in initial stages of blank removal. I think what comes from this is, first of all, perhaps we see a different function for each area inside versus outside of the structure. Perhaps we have more napping outside of the structure. The cores maybe showed us that there was more emphasis on the blade or blank production inside the structure and perhaps the outside of the structure either was for napping or perhaps was used as a damp area. The second subject is maintenance activity. First, the frequency of the different core trimming element types. What is true for both squares and for most levels is that the most common is the general CTE type and the rarity of the ridge blade. The difference between the two squares is the frequency of the core tablets, where in O7, the core tablets are more common than in O9. This is some of the results from the technological analysis that I showed. To see that most of the core trimming elements that we find are those that removed the debital surface, that cleaned the debital surface. But the second one is the removal of the second most common activity is removal of the striping platform. And again, perhaps we see different, I'm sorry, just to say that there is a little bit of a difference between the squares in that in O7, we find a few more items or rather a slightly higher frequency of removal of the striping platform. So again, maybe we have different functions that are performed outside and inside an emphasis on maintenance more related to blank production inside the structure and a more general maintenance outside of it. Perhaps again, it is an example that evidence that we have a dump area outside of the structure. Finally, the target blank is the last issue that I'll show here. Micro lists, when you compare them to other tool groups such as Burans and Scrapers, are more common, but what I did here is that I only separated the larger tool groups and the microlif. And you can see that in most cases, the larger tools are more common, but there are a few levels, all of them in O7, in square O7, where first of all, in the yellow, they are nearly equal to the larger tools and in one level, 7A, you can see that microlif are even more common than the larger tools. The main difference between the squares is that in O7, we found that microlif are more common than in the second square, the other one. Now, when you compare the portion, the frequency of bladelets in the debitage and the microlif within the tools, microlif are a larger portion of the tool assemblage than the bladelets of the debitage. The main difference between the squares is that in O7, we see a higher bladelet component as well as microlif within each assemblage, but the differences between O7 and O9 are not that large. There is some difference between levels but they don't seem to have any chronological trend or it's basically that in, for instance, in level 7A, we see that microlif have a very high frequency while bladelets very low and in level 8B, both microlif and bladelets are very low but there isn't a clear trend here and it's true for, I think, many of the aspects that I tested, the levels are rather similar. Okay, finishing us again. But there is, but the difference between the squares is a little stronger. So to conclude, while the assemblage's size from the inside and outside of the structure is more or less similar in terms of how many are, in terms of the typology, different core types and whatever, it is similar. Also, in both cases, microlif seems to be the target blanks but there are a few special differences. First is an emphasis on production of bladelets and disposal, perhaps disposal of bladelet tools inside the structure and on the outside, maybe it functioned as a damp area or maybe it functioned as a more general napping area of the site. And finally, what I want to study in my, what I hope to get from this assemblage is, first of all, to talk about raw material selection. I mean, I already know for now that we have mainly one raw material type. It is a local raw material type that was used nearly for all tools, I think the assemblage is composed mostly of that raw material, it's good quality, but still, I'm not sure that raw material preference is really an issue. Manner of exploitation, abandonment of the core, I think is a, because in most descriptions of Natoofean assemblages, core, it was described that most of the cores are abandoned. And I think that's perhaps how we define it, abandoned cores perhaps is not exactly the case when you look at the cores more detailed analysis. And finally, do we see any functional differences or topological differences along the time and between the areas? Finally, the bigger, perhaps the bigger picture is the garbage crisis of Natoofean that I hope this research might shed some at least small light on the subject. We see inside of the structure and after the structure, we have a very large amount of items and there doesn't seem to be a difference whether it's inside or outside. They don't seem to have any organization of the space that didn't clean the area. It is true also for faunal remains. They don't seem to clean the area of the inside of the structure. And I'm hoping that this analysis, my analysis will perhaps show something. I think already maybe we see a little difference between activities inside and outside. I hope it will become more clear when I finish. And since I haven't shown you a single tool from this period, I thought that I'll finish it with this and that's it. Thank you.