Itkin etal. 2012 Nari in the Levant

DANNY ITKIN, AHARON GEVA-KLEINBERGER, DAN YAALON, URI SHAANAN and HAIM GOLDFUS

210

NĀRİ IN THE LEVANT: HISTORICAL AND ETYMOLOGICAL ASPECTS OF A SPECIFIC CALCRETE FORMATION

DANNY ITKIN,1 AHARON GEVA-KLEINBERGER,2 DAN H. YAALON,3 URI SHAANAN4

AND HAIM GOLDFUS5

1Archaeological Division

Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, P.O.B. 653, Beer Sheva, 84105, Israel [email protected]

2Department of Arabic Language and Literature

University of Haifa, 31905, Israel [email protected]

3Institute of Earth Sciences

The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 91904, Israel [email protected]

4School of Earth Sciences

The University of Queensland, Brisbane 4072, Queensland, Australia [email protected]

5Archaeological Division

Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, P.O.B. 653, Beer Sheva, 84105, Israel [email protected]

Earth Sciences History Vol. 31, 2012. No. 2

pp. 210–228

ABSTRACT The colloquial Arabic term nāri has become, since the late 1890s, the most commonly used term for describing a specific type of calcrete formation in the Levant. While it is reasonable to expect that such a long period of time would be sufficient for the establishment of a coherent use of the term, a combination of extensive literature reviews with field observations prove otherwise. A study of the geological contexts and etymology of the term nāri and a review of literature back as far as the second half of the nineteenth century reveal a great lack of consistency among scientists’ use of the term. Correlating the terminological evolution of nāri with present-day understanding of its formation mechanisms, its stratigraphic associations and contemporary uses of the term among scientists and local Arabs, allows us to propose a clear and consistent definition of nāri. Our suggested definition recognizes it as a distinct surficial lithology. We show that the formation of nāri in the Levant started in a regional calcretisation event in the late Pliocene to mid Pleistocene and is ongoing in the Levant nowadays.

1. INTRODUCTION

Calcretes are near-surface terrestrial accumulations that form polygenetically in permeable host mediums (rocks and soils), and feature secondary calcium carbonate (CaCO3) as their main constituent. Their occurrence is typical of arid and semiarid areas.1 Nāri is the most common colloquial Levantine name for a specific type of calcrete (Blanckenhorn 1896, Canaan 1933, Yaalon and Singer 1974, Yaalon 1978, Dan 1977, Wieder et al. 1993, Dudeen 2001, NRA 2007, Mimi and Assi 2009). It is a calcareous polygenetic formation, formed by pedogenic and

1 The term ‘calcrete’ was introduced by the British geologist, George William Lamplugh (1859–1926)

(Lamplugh 1902). Its most common synonym is ‘caliche’. The latter has double-meaning; it also applies for sodium cemented nitrate deposits in northern Chile and Peru (having no genetic relation to calcrete).

NĀRİ IN THE LEVANT

211

biogenic near-surface processes in soft sediments and is common found in the semiarid region of the Levant. Etymologically, nāri derives from the Arabic word nār (fire, !نا). Specifically, the term derived from the ability of chert to produce sparks. Previous studies that related the term nāri to heating facilities such as ṭābūn (Blanckenhorn 1896, p. 15; Blake 1935, p. 103; Avni-melech 1936, p. 114) have not been supported by our field surveys or by etymological research.2

To the best of our knowledge, the use of the term nāri in the Levant appeared in the literature in 1867 (Fraas 1867). Its initial use was in reference to a rock type in Jerusalem and later it was also used to describe a type of building stone (Blanckenhorn 1896, Canaan 1933, Blake 1935, Avnimelech 1936). Nowadays it is better known by its Levantine synonym nāri instead of calcrete/caliche (Parker 2002, Neuendorf et al. 2005). Its widespread occurrence in the Levant is evident in hilly and mountainous semiarid areas dominated by carbonate lithologies. Until the early twentieth century, the lithological classification of calcretes was problematical. This ‘surficial limy formation’ did not fall into any of the previously known ‘classic carbonates’ such as limestone, chalk and dolomite (Blanckenhorn 1888, Lamplugh 1902). Therefore, terms such as ‘limy crusts’, ‘disturbed limestone’, ‘weathered limestone’, and the like entered the literature (Lartet 1869, Hull 1886, Blanckenhorn 1888). For illustrations relevant to the geography and geology of the present paper, see Figures 1, 2 and 3.

Figure 1. Satellite photo of the Levant, showing locations (yellow dots) and areas (opaque gray) mentioned in the text (satellite photo by CHELYS s.r.l.).

2 A ṭābūn (!ابو% ) is a traditional Middle Eastern oven, built mainly out of soil, clay and field stones.


212

Figure 2. Geological map of east Jerusalem and its vicinity. Though calcrete is widespread in this region it is not included as an independent formation in the geologic map. ‘A’ marks the location of Figure 4; ‘B’ marks the location of Figure 5 (Scale = 1:50,000, after Arkin et al. 1976). This is the region where nāri was first documented by Fraas (1867), and later by Blanckenhorn (1896).

Figure 3. Stratigraphic legend and columnar cross-section for the area of Figure 2 (modified from Arkin et al. 1976).

The many studies conducted in the Levant since the second half of the nineteenth century

have referred to the term nāri and have provided us with a clearer understanding of the subject as well as the uses for the term. These studies have involved field observations accompanied by broad multi-disciplinary analyses, drawing on geochemistry (Sachsse 1896, Blanckenhorn 1904, Blake 1935), geomorphology (Blanckenhorn 1904, Dan 1962, 1966 and 1977), geomicrobiology (Krumbein 1968, Verrecchia 1990b), strength and porosity analysis (Yaalon and Singer 1974), archaeological aspects (Schumacher 1896 and 1902, Shiloh and Horowitz 1975, Ackermann et al. 2005), micromorphology (Verrecchia 1990a, Wieder et al. 1993), radiometric dating (Wieder et al. 1993), and palaeomagnetic dating (Mashiah et al. 2009). Nevertheless, a century and a half


213

of research has not enabled scientists to reach one clear definition for the term nāri. This is evident by the use of diverse terminology in previous studies. Additional problems arise in the absence of nāri in local geological maps (Arkin et al. 1976, Hirsch 1983, Cook 2000, Hatzor 2000, Şenel 2002a and 2002b, Yechieli 2008, Sneh 2008 and 2009), even when it dominates large areas of the maps.

The present paper opens with the results of our independent etymological study, pointing out a typical ‘etymological fallacy’ (Baalbaki 1990) regarding the association between the geological nāri and ‘fire’.3 We then present a chronological review of the literature and the key publications that introduced and often re-defined the term nāri in its various geological contexts. In conclusion we propose a new, consistent and unambiguous definition of nāri and offer a unifying definition for a lithological and mappable unit as well as suggesting a time-frame for Levantine calcretisation events that began in the late Pliocene. For examples of nāri outcrops, see Figures 4, 5, 6 and 7.

Figure 4. A view of a 1.5 m thick hardpan nāri outcrop—a result of calcretization of the Mishash Formation. This is a typical view of the rock type, on the route of Max L. Blanckenhorn (1896) (see Section 3). Location A in Figure 2.

2. ETYMOLOGICAL DERIVATIONS OF THE TERM NĀRİ

2.1 The relation between the terms nāri and ‘fire’ Nāri (Classical Arabic: nāriyy, "$نا) derives from the Arabic word nār (fire, !نا) with the nomen relativum -iyy (literally referred noun, the reference or relation) as a suffix, which is not pronounced as a geminated or a long vowel in Palestinian colloquial Arabic. In Hebrew and Arabic (among other Semitic languages), the root n-w-r means ‘flash’, ‘dazzling’, and in general anything that emits light (Bosworth et al. 1993, pp. 957–958). Nāri in its sedimentary context is actually a shortened form of the full term ḥağar nāri ( "$حج$ نا literally: ‘fire stone’), and omits the word for stone. References that interpret nāri as ‘burnt’ (Blake 1935, p. 103) are

3 There are numerous examples of etymological fallacies derived from Arabic language into modern Hebrew,

especially in the field of geography, e.g. the Hebrew name of the Arabic neighborhood in Jerusalem Wādi Ğōz. This neighbourhood is officially named in Hebrew Naḥal Egóz (literally ‘Nut Stream’), while the historical etymon returns to the Hebrew name of King Jehosaphat. His name was abbreviated by the British authorities during the early twentieth century to ‘Joz’ and then understood by the Arab population, which established this neighborhood as ‘Nut’ (!جو), leading to another etymological fallacy which occurred with the Hebrew naming of this Arab neighborhood (Geva-Kleinberger 2006).


214

etymologically fallacious, reflecting an apparent misunderstanding of the meaning of the term. The Classical Arabic literature (Ibn-Manẓūr 1988), as well as contemporary dialectological Arabic (non-technical) dictionaries (Al-Barghouti 2001), does not refer to nāri in the context of calcrete or any type of carbonatic rock (Barthélemy 1935). Likewise, this term (in its geological context) is neither well known nor commonly used among the Levantine Arab population today. The non-professionals understand the term to mean ‘chert’ and some types of ‘hard white rocks’ (geologically known as ‘hardpan calcrete’). On the other hand contemporary Arab scientists use it solely as a synonym for a hardpan calcrete/caliche (Dudeen 2001, p. 216; Abu-Jaber et al. 2007, pp. 47–98; Mimi and Assi 2009, p. 304) relying on the traditional use of the term among Levantine geologists. Thus both refer to the semantic definition of the ‘fire’ component that derives from the word nār. Yet some modern Arabic dictionaries refer to the term ḥağar nāri in the meaning of ‘fire stone’ or ‘basalt’ (Sharoni 1987, p. 476). Similarly, in its semantic definition, many Arabs understand the term ḥağar nāri as igneous rock, or ‘fire stone’ (meaning chert) but not as ‘calcrete’. In some Arab countries such as Jordan, the term ṣakhr nāri (plural: ṣukhūr nāriyya) is semantically understood as ‘basalt rocks’ or ‘volcanic rocks’ (Al-Kilani 2008, p. 117). 2.2 Nāri and the Hatrurim Formation An important insight can be found in the study of Tawfiq Canaan (1882–1964). When using ‘fire stone’ as a translation for nāri he relied on the Arabic dictionary Muḥīṭ al-Muḥīṭ noting that it did not give the meaning of the term nāri. Seeking an alternative term for nāri he looked up the term ‘limestone’. He found that the Arabic translation for ‘limestone’ is ‘an-nūra’ (!#$4,()لن which later became synonymous with phosphorus and other limestone additive materials (Canaan 1933, p. 10). It should be noted that the reddish to burnt-like facies of the metamorphic Hatrurim Formation (the ‘Mottled Zone’) (Kolodny et al. 1971, Kolodny et al. 1974, Burg 1991, Gur et al. 1995, Burg et al. 1999) corresponds to Canaan’s an-nūra description, as well as to the use by contemporary Arab residents who call the rock ḥatrūra (!"#"حت). It is important to note that there is no etymological connection between nāri and an-nūra, which is consistent with the local Arab residents’ differentiation between nāri and the ḥatrūr rocks (of the Hatrurim Formation). Associating this formation with the use of the term nāri has special significance due to its proximity to nāri outcrops in some localities east and southeast of Jerusalem (see Figures 2 and 3), as well as its pronounced burnt appearance, which would appear to be consistent with the ‘fire’ component.

3. HISTORICAL RECOGNITION AND CHANGING SCIENTIFIC INTERPRETATIONS OF NĀRİ

Since 1867 the word nāri has been used in the geological terminology of the Levant with a variety of connotations. The following review is presented chronologically and in relation to the relevant scientific development.

Oscar Friedrich von Fraas (1824–1897) was apparently the first to publish the term nāri in a geological context (Fraas 1867, p. 201). While surveying Jerusalem and its vicinity, he described a marine formation of oolitic chalky marl in his field book.5

As part of his 1896 research, Max Ludwig Blanckenhorn (1861–1947) studied nāri in the

4 An-nūra sometimes refers to calcium, and etymologically it may be linked to the word nūr (!نو), meaning

‘light’, ‘lightness’, and to ‘be lit’. 5 Der Araber nennt sie “nareh”, nach Herrn Wolff richtiger “narij”. Das Wort bedeutet einen weichen Stein, der

am Feuer (nar) erhärtet und bei der Construction der Feuerherde verwendet wird. Er heisst somit in unserer Sprache der “Feuerfeste”, obgleich ihm diese Eigenschaft nach unseren technischen Begriffen nicht ganz zukommt. (Arabs call it nāreh, or more correctly nārij, according to Mr. Wolff. The word means a soft stone that becomes hard near a fire and is used in the construction of hearths. Thus in our language it would be called the ‘fireproof’ [stone], though in terms of our technical definition it would not quite have that property.)


215

area between Jerusalem and the Dead Sea, and on the eastern side of the Dead Sea (see Figures 2 and 4). Contrary to Fraas, Blanckenhorn defined nāri as a chert breccia that appeared as a crust on top of the Senonian carbonates in the region. He made a connection between the genesis of the nāri crust and the disintegration of the chert beds and chalk of a Late Cretaceous (Senonian) unit that is known today as the Mishash Formation (see Figures 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6).6 Moreover, he argued that the formation of nāri was still occurring at the time of his study. Blanckenhorn described nāri as being widely distributed across areas east and south of Jerusalem, east of the Dead Sea, the Judean Mountains and the northern Negev. As for the terminological origin, Blanckenhorn (1896, pp. 14–15) argued that its fire resistance and use in the construction of ovens were responsible for its name nāri.7 Eight years previously, he had reported a study that encompassed vast areas from Syria, through the arid deserts of North Africa, and to the Atlas Mountains in Morocco. His field descriptions included carbonatic crusts having a wide regional distribution. But he did not mention the term nāri in his earlier publication, using instead the phrase ‘limey crusts’ (Blanckenhorn 1888, p. 50).8

Along with Blanckenhorn, Rudolph Sachsse (1869–?), an agricultural chemist, conducted a chemical analysis of nāri (Sachsse 1896). Sachsse assumed that its formation was restricted to the Quaternary Period. He described nāri as a surficial crust that is a secondary product of the Senonian chalk, and was a chert breccia. Sachsse also demonstrated that nāri is composed of approximately 96% CaCO3 (deliberately excluding the chert from the sample), and concluded that nāri was not a marine sediment (Sachsse 1896, pp. 20–22). By following Sachsse’s clear field descriptions, we have found that the nāri outcrops that he studied are a calcretised Mishash Formation that cover the hills east and south of Jerusalem (see Figures 4, 5 and 6). His detailed report comprised the earliest geochemical description of nāri: CaCO3 = 96.14, CaSO4 = 0.92, FeCO3 = 0.49, Fe2O4 = 0.16, Al2O3 = 0.34, SiO2 = 0.96, H2O = 0.76 (summing to 99.77%) (Sachsse 1896, p. 22). Accordingly, the report of Sachsse contributed a great deal to the preliminary understanding of nāri.

In his 1904 study, Blanckenhorn provided a detailed description of nāri in terms of lithology, formation, geochemistry, geomorphology, geographical distribution, and architectural uses (Blanckenhorn 1904, pp. 100, 117–118). His work was (and remains) an important milestone. Geologically, Blanckenhorn defined two regional formations of surficial crusts: brecciated chert and carbonatic crusts. His theory about the formation of the crusts was that the carbonatic matrix of nāri was a product of the substratum of marine carbonates. The water movement needed for their dissolution was provided by the capillary action of soil moisture, rain, and runoff in regions characterised by short, seasonal periods of heavy rain and significant evaporation during the dry seasons, such as are typical of the Mediterranean belt of the Levant and North Africa. He argued that architecturally, in addition to its use in high temperature ovens or furnaces, its light weight and porosity made it particularly useful for the construction of indoor vaults and courses. Blanckenhorn referred to the south side of Ṣūr Bāhir and al- Ayzariyya as the most important locations where nāri was found (Blanckenhorn 1904, p. 118) (see Figures 2, 4 and 5). He argued that Fraas’s ‘conglomerate’ (Fraas 1867, p. 346) was actually nāri (Blanckenhorn 1904, p. 117), and that Fraas had erred when using the term nāri to describe oolitic chalky marl (Fraas 1867, p. 201).9

6 Mishash Formation is a Campanian marine sequence consisting of alternating siliceous, carbonate and

phosphate rocks deposited in a shallow, semi-closed sea once connected to the ocean (Kolodny 1965). Its chalk outcrops typically bare chert fragments and are often calcretised as a result of Pliocene to contemporary calcretesation.

7 Wegen seiner Feuerfestigkeit und Verwendbarkeit zum Herdbau wird das Gestein bei Jerusalem Näri genannt (The rock is known as Näri in the Jerusalem area because of its resistance to fire and suitability for constructing ovens.)

8 Kalkkrusten (limey crust). 9 Oscar F. Fraas described his relevant field observations in Wadi Joz (Wādi Ğōz), in Jerusalem. By following his

exact description (Fraas 1867, pp. 200–201) it appears that he actually described a calcretised carbonatic rock, known by local residents as nāri.


216

When exploring Mount Carmel (see Figure 1), the Swiss orientalist Eberhard Graf von Muelinen (1861–1927) referred to hadschar nāri as the softest type of carbonatic formation in the Senonian sequence.10 He then emphasised that there were numerous chert fragments in the soft limestone. According to Muelinen, this rock was locally called ṣuwwān (chert) and was used for starting fires (Muelinen 1908, p. 13). This last point is significant as it is similar to that raised by Blanckenhorn (1896) and is consistent with our present understanding of the etymology of the term nāri, as will be shown later.

Figure 5. View of Ṣūr Bāhir looking north-west, showing a hilly landscape of nāri outcrops—Cenozoic calcretisation of the Mishash Formation (Location B in Figure 2).

John Watson (1842–1918) devoted the greater part of his career to studying the economic

aspects of geology. He described nāri as one of ten ‘Syrian limestone’ types, and as a commonly used building stone found in and around Jerusalem. Watson argued that because of its physical properties (later described in Blake 1935) nāri did not meet the minimum requirements for construction work and dismissed it as ‘useless’ for that purpose (Watson 1911, p. 211). He was mistaken, however, both because of the extensive historical use of nāri as a building stone in many areas of the Levant and because he did not refer to the strongly indurated (‘hardpan’) morphology of the nāri.

Tawfiq Canaan was most probably the only local Arab scholar of his time to use the term nāri in a technical sense. According to Canaan (1933), nāri is a white limestone, characterised by its lightness, high porosity and high moisture absorbency. He differentiated between two types: (1) the commonly found rock and (2) its softer facies, called ḥatrūr (Canaan 1933, p. 10). Like Blanckenhorn, Canaan associated the origin of the term nāri with the rock’s ability to withstand high temperatures, both by sustaining its structure (that is, by not breaking apart) when exposed to fire and by not being converted into lime when heated in kilns. Hence he referred to nāri as ‘fire stone’ (Canaan 1933, p. 10). According to Canaan, nāri was the softest type of building stone in local use, found to the east of Jerusalem; and because of its properties it was used mainly for interior courses, ovens, and Turkish baths (Canaan 1933, pp. 10, 12, 30 and 40). Like Watson before him, Canaan did not refer to the hardpan nāri.

10 Hadschar nāri is the old German transcription of ḥağar nāri.


217

Figure 6. Nāri outcrop, showing brownish, angular chert fragments in a calcretised chalk matrix of the Mishash Formation. The rock is mostly covered with lichens and moss (close-up of an outcrop from Figure 5).

George Stanfield Blake (1876–1940) edited an important overview concerning the

stratigraphy of Palestine and its building stones, accompanied by physical and chemical laboratory data (Blake 1935). According to Blake, the meaning of the Arabic term nāri was ‘burnt’ (Blake 1935, p. 103). Geologically, he defined the rock both as a “soft amorphous limestone” (Blake 1935, p. 97) and as a crust that could be harder than chalk (Blake 1935, p. 103). Blake argued that nāri is formed as a result of surficial processes such as chalk alteration and secondary crystallisation, often involving fine gravel, soil, and argillaceous materials (Blake 1935, p. 103). He noted the importance of nāri as a soft building stone, commonly used by the local Arab population. It is interesting to note that his study lacked any reference to Canaan (1933), given that the latter was most probably the only early twentieth-century local scholar to write about nāri, and particularly because Canaan’s work was the most important scientific text on the subject at the time of Blake’s study.

Moshe Avnimelech (1899–1971) thought of nāri as a ‘weathered limestone’ (Avnimelech 1936, p. 32).11 He explained the term as being derived from the Arabic word for ‘fire’ and argued that the rock was used by local people for making a sort of primitive furnace (Avnimelech 1936, p. 114).12 His reference to nāri related mainly to the Shephelah (a range of hills in central Israel), on the foothills of the Judean Mountains (see Figures 1 and 7). Avnimelech accounted for the formation of nāri by capillarity and evaporation during subtropical seasonal changes. He argued that atmospheric agents were responsible for the rock’s alteration, causing the original rock to become unrecognisable. According to him, this alteration masked the parent rock (‘the host’) by losing much of its lithological identity, except for the chert fragments that were unaffected by this alteration. He stressed (Avnimelech 1936, pp. 115–116) that it made field surveying difficult, but found that the lower part of the nāri (the ‘transition zone’) was much softer than the upper part and was apparently the weathered parent rock (Avnimelech 1936, p. 116). He further suggested that nāri develops within the parent rock matrix, and not on it.

11 Au sommet, calcaire altéré (‘Nari’) et terre végétale. (At the top, weathered limestone [‘nari’] and topsoil.) 12 Le nom de ‘Nari’ signifie en arabe ‘le feu’, et il est donné par les habitants à une sorte de calcaire friable

employé pour faire des fourneaux primitifs. (The name ‘nari’ in Arabic means ‘fire’, and is used by local residents for a kind of friable limestone employed for making primitive furnaces.)


218

Leo Picard (1900–1997) described nāri as a ‘surface-crust’ and argued that the presence of nāri ends in the Judean desert at a lower precipitation limit of 300 mm/y (Picard 1943, p. 103). Later on he defined nāri as a ‘caliche-crust’ and erroneously maintained that “there is no trace of the caliche-crust known as nāri” in the Negev (Picard 1951, p. 5). His argument contradicted the 1896 study of Blanckenhorn, which included a clear geographical description of nāri outcrops in the Negev (Blanckenhorn 1896). It can be assumed that Picard’s assumption of the absence of nāri in the Negev was due to having insufficient tools for conducting large-scale geological mapping in the 1950s. But by including the word ‘caliche’ in his description of nāri, he introduced a new and ultimately widely-held understanding among local scientists that nāri is actually a type of calcrete.

Figure 7. Outcrop of nāri in Bet Guvrin, the Shephelah region (see location in Figure 1). The broken line indicates the contact between the parent rock of Eocenic chalk and the nāri which is intensively covered with microbiota (lichens,

fungi, moss, algea and cyanobacteria), soil and Mediterranean flora. (Supplementary data is available at Avnimelech 1936, Dan 1966, Yaalon and Singer 1974 and Wieder et al. 1993).

One can observe further scientific evolution of the term nāri in the works of Joel Dan

who considered nāri to be a pedogenic product (Dan 1962, 1966 and 1977). In discussing some aspects of nāri disintegration and soil formation related to it, Dan described the rock as a “hard calcareous crust” (Dan 1962, p. 189) and as a “fossil” or “caliche relic” (Dan 1962, p. 190). Later on, in his doctoral thesis, he defined nāri as a “nāri rock” (Dan 1966, p. 213) and argued that the widespread distribution of nāri in the western foothills of the Judean Mountains (specifically in the area of Bet-Guvrin) is mostly ‘fossilised’, meaning a “fossilised soil”, i.e. palaeosoil (Dan 1966, p. 233, see Figure 7).

The work of Wolfgang Elisabeth Krumbein (1968), who studied the geomicrobiology and geochemistry of nāri samples from the Negev, made an important contribution to the understanding of the nāri diagenesis. Designating it as “nāri limecrust” (Krumbein 1968, p. 138), Krumbein’s contribution stemmed from his observation that the crust contained high quantities of microflora compared to its limestone substrate. After conducting laboratory experiments, he realised that biochemical reactions have a significant influence on the geochemistry of nāri. The importance of biogenic agents in the formation of nāri and other Levantine calcretes was subsequently discussed in other local studies (Verrecchia 1990b, Wieder and Yaalon 1982, Wieder et al. 1993, Amit and Harrison 1995). On the other hand, it should be noted that biogenic activity can also destruct nāri and other rocks under certain conditions


219

(Danin et al. 1982 and 1985). Krumbein’s study offered a new perspective on the formation of nāri, emphasising its polygenetic nature.

By the 1970s, an international literature on calcretes was already well established (Gile et al. 1965, Netterberg 1969, James 1972, Goudie 1972 and 1973). Local understanding made further advances through the work of Dan Yaalon and Shmuel Singer (1974) as well as that of Joel Dan (1977). Yaalon and Singer considered nāri to be “a variety of calcrete” (Yaalon and Singer 1974, p. 1016) and argued that it was not morphologically limited to a hardpan. Rather it was a multi-horizonal (stratified) sequence. While studying a nāri profile overlaying Eocene chalk, they distinguished three major horizons according to their degree of hardness—in decreasing order: laminar nāri, upper nāri, and lower nāri (Yaalon and Singer 1974). As for the formation path, they stated that nāri was an indurated petrocalcic horizon, meaning that its genesis had been pedogenic but that the laminar crust was non-pedogenic (Yaalon and Singer 1974). Their contribution provided a nāri hardness scale, differentiating between dry and wet conditions.

Later on, Dan (1977) continued to study and map the distribution of nāri while distinguishing it from other lime crusts. He classified nāri as “hard and thick exposed lime crusts” that overlie soft calcareous rocks (Dan 1977, p. 68). He concluded by arguing that nāri outcrops, like other lime crusts, are pedogenic horizons that are formed by the downward movement and reprecipitation of calcium carbonate (known as the per-descensum model). Dan contributed an important insight by suggesting that nāri and all other lime crusts (which he also named ‘calcrete’) are actually one and the same. Notwithstanding the importance of his map, it omitted vast areas that are known today to comprise significant amounts of calcretes (and nāri in particular), such as along the Judean and Samaria Mountains (Dan 1977, p. 70). Nāri alters the near-surface morphology of its parent rock and as such, thus making mapping extremely complex (Avnimelech 1936, Buchbinder 1969). Dan’s map should have influenced the relevant geological maps of the Levant that disregarded nāri (and calcretes as a whole) (Arkin et al. 1976, Hirsch 1983, Cook 2000, Hatzor 2000, Şenel 2002a and 2002b, Bogoch and Sneh 2008, Yechieli 2008, Sneh 2008 and 2009). But it didn’t.

Eric P. Verrecchia referred to nāri as a ‘nāri-calcrete’ and argued that a typical “weathered carbonate profile” in the semiarid area of Israel is known in Arabic as nāri (Verrecchia 1990a, p. 677). By studying micromorphologically a nāri profile in the vicinity of Nazareth, he concluded that it was comprised of three major horizons (after Yaalon and Singer 1974), and that five stages had controlled its formation: (1) chalk alteration during pedogenesis; (2) soil deepening, accompanied by the formation of rhizoliths (calcified roots), aeolian dust enrichment and a preliminary hardening of the so-called Bca horizon; (3) surficial erosion and material movement; (4) biogenetically deposition of a thin laminar crust accompanied by aeolian dust capture; and finally (5) destruction of the upper crust, mainly due to the biogenesis of lichens (Verrecchia 1990a). By studying the calcium oxalate-carbonate cycle, Verrecchia’s subsequent study enabled a better understanding of the biogeochemical role in nāri formation (Verrecchia 1990b).

During the early 1990s, Moshe Wieder, Meir Sharabani, and Arieh Singer (1934–2010) conducted an intensive micromorphological study of three nāri profiles from the Shephelah (see Figure 7) and the Negev (Wieder et al. 1993). They argued that the formation of nāri is controlled by three phases: (1) subterraneous, when nāri develops within the carbonatic host, underneath the soil cover; (2) surficial, after the erosion of the soil, which is mostly biogenic; and (3) alteration by weathering, ending by the breakdown of the hardpan layer into boulders (Wieder et al. 1993). Their understanding that nāri initially develops below the soil cover and that much of its development is non-pedogenic, was opposed to what had previously been presumed (Blanckenhorn 1904, Dan 1962, 1966 and 1977). They differentiated between ‘exposed nāri’, which according to them was common in the more humid areas, and what they called ‘subterraneous nāri’, which was common in arid areas (Wieder et al. 1993, p. 47). The primary shortcoming of their study was its relatively limited geographic scope: it neither included observations from the northern part of Israel nor referred to existing studies that


220

explained the nature and origin of nāri in a meaningful way (Goldberg 1958, Dan 1977, Verrecchia 1990a and 1990b).

Reviewing the soils of Israel, Arieh Singer (2007) described the country’s diverse carbonate accumulations. In discussing “soils of the hills and mountain range” he defined nāri as “a hard weathering crust” with no clear relation to carbonates (Singer 2007, p. 90), and as a hard lime crust (calcrete) (p. 113). In the rest of his book he hardly used the terms nāri or calcrete. Instead he presented all pedogenic carbonate accumulations as ‘carbonate nodules’ (Singer 2007, p. 92, p. 153, p. 157), ‘carbonate concretions’ (Singer 2007, p. 169), or as a recrystallisation of carbonate along root channels (referring to ‘rhizoliths’) (Singer 2007, p. 43, p. 217, p. 220, p. 230).

Another major local soil review was published simultaneously by Joel Dan, Pinchas Fine and Hanoch Lavee (Dan et al. 2007). They defined nāri (calcrete) as a petrocalcic horizon, reflecting its pedogenic origin (Dan et al. 2007, pp. 50–51, p. 326, p. 329).

Thus, our review of the literature shows that until now there has been no single definition of the term nāri. Rather, there has been considerable diversity in its description: ‘chert breccia’ (Blanckenhorn 1896, p. 15), ‘soft rock’ (Watson 1911, p. 211; Canaan 1933, p. 102; Blake 1935, p. 97), ‘surface crust’ or ‘lime crust’ (Picard 1943, p. 103; Krumbein 1968, p. 138; Dan 1977, p. 68), ‘weathered limestone’ (Avnimelech 1936, p. 32), ‘caliche crust’ or ‘a variety of calcrete’ (Picard 1951, p. 5; Yaalon and Singer 1974, p. 1016), ‘nāri rock’ (Dan 1966, p. 213) and ‘nāri-calcrete’ (Verrecchia 1990a, p. 677). Also, the disregard for this formation in mapping gave (and still gives) an inaccurate impression of the surface in many areas of the Levant. Likewise it has distorted important chronostratigraphic data, since in most relevant areas the exposed nāri is much younger than the lithologies of the underlying rocks.

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1 Definition of nāri The evolution of the term nāri (in its calcretic context) reflects on the development of Earth sciences regarding one of their most complex objects: bedrock-soil interface. Motivated by and based on previous studies, we advocate a clear and unambiguous definition for the term (as stated at the beginning of this paper). That is: nāri is a calcareous polygenetic formation, formed by pedogenic and biogenic near-surface processes in soft sediments, and is common in the semiarid Mediterranean region of the Levant. Its morphology varies from that which is slightly- to strongly-indurated, with an approximate thickness of up to three metres or even more, and it may frequently contain chert fragments, carbonate-rich concretions and cracks filled with calcium carbonate or soil. Our study indicates that the term nāri was most probably originated in Jerusalem or its vicinity, as indicated by relevant nineteenth-century studies (Fraas 1867, Blanckenhorn 1896, Sachsse 1896). 4.2 Etymology of nāri The term ‘nāri’ derives from the Arabic word nār (fire, !نا), or in its full syntax ḥağar nāri (fire stone, !نا$" حج ). This nomenclature was originally local and referred to an oolitic chalky marl formation, found in the eastern part of Jerusalem (Fraas 1867, p. 201). Later the term was used to refer to the chert breccia and calcretes (mainly calcretised chalk) of the Mishash Formation, occurring along the surfaces of slopes that descend eastwards from Jerusalem (see Figures 2, 4 and 5) (Blanckenhorn 1896, p. 15). This study has included consideration of field surveys in the locations where nāri was first described (Fraas 1867, Blanckenhorn 1896, Muelinen 1908, Canaan 1933), mainly in Arab settlements east of Jerusalem, the Judean Desert and the Galilee (see Figures 1, 2, 4 and 5). It has shown that the popular acquaintance with nāri chiefly applies to chert (ṣuwwān). In some localities the term also refers to the hardest type of ‘white stone’ (local people referred to


221

hardpan calcrete outcrops). The term ḥağar nāri (as calcrete) is hardly known to young Arab people today and is in much wider use in the area east of Jerusalem, compared to the Judean Desert and the Galilee. When asked about it, the local people interpret nāri to mean ‘a stone that makes sparks’. Questions concerning the relationship of nāri to ṭābūn construction were ruled out on the spot, arguing that only ‘ḥatrūra stones’ (Hatrurim Formation) or ‘ḥawāra earth’ (marl) are in use. Correspondingly, some senior Arab linguists were asked regarding their familiarity with ḥağar nāri. None of them were acquainted with this term in any sense. It is thus not surprising that the term nāri is not to be found in Arabic dictionaries in the discussed geological sense. It should be stressed that the alternative definitions of nār (fire) include ‘sparks’, ‘flash’ and the like, but not ‘heat’ in any sense. This understanding corresponds with that of Muelinen, which accentuated the localised use of the term (Muelinen 1908, pp. 13–14, p. 345). Therefore nāri is colloquially synonymous with chert and derives from its physical capacity to produce fire (sparks). In view of this etymology, chert-bearing calcretes have gained the epithet nāri. Subsequently the popular use of any hardpan-calcretes for ṭābūn making was responsible for relating the term nāri to heating facilities. This ‘broad brush’ terminological usage has given rise to an etymological fallacy. We also found that according to some Arab residents, the local colloquial term mizzi ( "#م) is synonymous to nāri and occasionally relates to various types of hard limestones. This alternative terminology appears in a few previous studies (Canaan 1933, p. 10; Blake 1935, p. 97).

4.3 The terminological linkage between chert- to non-chert-bearing nāri Nāri rocks are exposed very extensively in large areas of the Levant. The terminological evolution of this term that took place in the area of Jerusalem referred mainly to the chert of the Mishash Formation. This understanding comes from the local frequency of this chert-bearing formation in that area (see Figures 4 and 5). The association of chert with nāri is also common in other areas such as the northern Negev, the Judean Mountains, the Shephelah and the Galilee (see Figure 1). Notwithstanding this, the term nāri as related to chert did not survive after the early twentieth century. Since then, nearly all studies have employed the term nāri to describe types of calcretes that lack any presence of chert (Canaan 1933, Picard 1943, Yaalon and Singer 1974, Dan 1977, Wieder et al. 1993). Thus the terminological origin of the non chert-bearing nāri emerges from its field association with chert. Subsequently the designation of all similar calcrete morphologies emerged as nāri, even when having no field association with chert. This terminological evolution caused an etymological fallacy that nowadays obscures any etymological relationship of the term nāri with chert. This variance is a part of a global trend towards designating calcretes with local names. Evidence of that is shown by nearly fifty different names for calcretes worldwide (Goudie 1973, Reeves 1976), most of which are only known in a very local manner. 4.4 The presumed linkage of nāri with heating facilities Nāri was historically an important building stone in the Levant. It can be assumed that the regional use of nāri field stones for different household uses (such as ovens) dates to prehistoric times, simply because of their ready availability at the surface. Particularly, the use of nāri ashlars began during the Iron Age and possibly even earlier (Shiloh and Horowitz 1975, Reich 1987). Then again, the presumed linkage of nāri with heating facilities such as ṭābūns, kilns, etc. (Blanckenhorn 1896, p. 15; Canaan 1933, p. 10; Avnimelech 1936, p. 114; Neuendorf et al. 2005, p. 432) is mistaken. The inconsistent usage of nāri, which ranges from chert (Blanckenhorn 1896, p. 15) to calcretised chalk (Blake 1935, p. 103; Picard 1943, p. 103; Dan 1977, p. 68), suggests that its name has no connection to its ability to withstand high temperatures. In fact, these two types of rock have very different thermodynamic properties (Clauser and Huenges 1995) and react differently when exposed to high temperatures. Due to its clay-rich portion and high porosity, nāri in fact has a poorer thermal conductivity than the much


222

more commonly found marine carbonates (Blake 1935, pp. 93–117). This physical property has misled many scientists, who sought to link the Arabic word nāri with heating apparatuses (Blanckenhorn 1896, p. 15; Canaan 1933, p. 10; Avnimelech 1936, p. 114; Neuendorf et al. 2005, p. 432). Moreover, field observations in archaeological sites show that people mostly used stones and soil that were close at hand for the construction of heating facilities and were not necessarily nāri (see Figure 8).

Figure 8. Pottery kiln of the Tenth Roman Legion, consisting mostly of dolomite and limestone, though its surround is highly enriched with an in situ nāri. Many other inspected heating apparatuses, such as ṭābūns etc., have been found to have little or no nāri (Binyanei Ha’uma site, Jerusalem. Photo by Danit Levi).

4.5 The importance of nāri in geological mapping Despite its widespread distribution within the areas of most of the existing geological maps of the Levant, they currently ignore the presence of nāri (Arkin et al. 1976, Hirsch 1983, Cook 2000, Hatzor 2000, Şenel 2002a and 2002b, Bogoch and Sneh 2008, Yechieli 2008, Sneh 2008 and 2009). That is the case even when nāri is abundant as a thick hardpan and is evidently distinct from its underlying parent rock. At present, this is strikingly inconsistent with the presence in maps of distinct lithologic units of lesser regional abundance, such as (1) Quaternary sediments like travertine (Hatzor 2000, Şenel 2002a, Bogoch and Sneh 2008) or kurkār (calcareous sandstone) (Buchbinder 1969, Segev and Sass 2009) and (2) Miocene, Pliocene and Pleistocene alteration products of Late Cretaceous and Paleocene carbonates (Hatrurim Formation) (Kolodny et al. 1971, Kolodny et al. 1974, Burg 1991, Gur et al. 1995, Burg et al. 1999). We therefore recommend distinguishing and mapping nāri across the Levant. This will correlate stratigraphic data with ‘field reality’ more satisfactorily and will greatly facilitate the understanding of the climatic and tectonic evolution of the region. 4.6 Regional calcretisation events Calcretisation is very much controlled by climate and the host’s mineralogy (James and Choquette 1984, Wright 2007, Tanner 2010, Ildefonso 2010). Many outcrops and near-surface rocks in Jerusalem and its vicinity, have undergone significant calcretisation since late Pliocene (see below). This is evident in the limestone of the Bina Formation (Arkin et al. 1965, Arkin et al. 2007) and chalks of the Menuha and Mishash Formations (Flexer 1968) (see Figures 4, 5 and 6). Calcretised sediments of similar morphologies have been documented in previous studies, among them being Eocenic chalks of the northern Negev (Dan 1977), Late Cretaceous and


223

Tertiary carbonates of the Shephelah (Buchbinder 1969, Bar et al. 2012), Late Cretaceous and Tertiary carbonates of the Galilee (Levi 1983), Late Cretaceous carbonates of Jarash and its vicinity (Bender 1968, Abu-Jaber et al. 2007), Neogene carbonates of Zgharta and its vicinity (Geze 1956, Wolfart 1967), Late Cretaceous limestones of Al-Mukharram and its vicinity (Muir 1951), Eocene and Early Miocene limestones of Gaziantep and its vicinity (Gündoğan et al. 2010) and Late Miocene and Quaternary sediments of Adana and Mersin (Kapur et al. 1987, Kapur et al. 1993, Eren et al. 2008) (see Figure 1). According to their stratigraphic settings, it can be assumed that these calcretes formed in a multiphase process that acted between the late Pliocene and the present. This argument is supported by: (1) radiometric (Wieder et al. 1993) and paleomagnetic (Mashiah et al. 2009) dating results, and as documented in other works (Blake 1935, Verrecchia 1990a, Kapur et al. 1987, Verrecchia and Le Coustumer 1996, Eren et al. 2008), showing coeval formation of the discussed calcrete outcrops in the region; (2) relevant records of arid and semiarid climates (Bar-Matthews et al. 1996, Robinson et al. 2006, Enzel et al. 2007); (3) the regional carbonatic platform of the Levant (Vaumas 1961, Garfunkel 1988), which largely represents the host’s mineralogy; and (4) the occurrence of suitable morphotectonic conditions (Garfunkel 1988, Begin and Zilberman 1997, Bar et al. 2006). Thus in addition to its stratigraphic conformity, the combination of all of the above factors—chronogenesis, semiarid climate conditions, carbonate parent rocks and stable morphotectonic environment—indicates a regional late Pliocene to mid Pleistocene calcretisation event that gave rise to the majority of contemporary calcrete outcrops in the Levant. A coeval similar event of regional calcretisation occurred during that same time in western Mediterranean areas (Candy and Black 2009, Pla-Pueyo et al. 2009, Gallala et al. 2010). It should be noted that pre-Cenozoic calcretes are also present in the Levant. The authors are familiar with some Jurassic calcretes in the Levant but these have not yet been documented. The present climate, carbonatic and morphotectonic settings of the Levant, favour calcretisation. In addition, biotic activity has a major role in producing secondary calcium carbonate during calcretisation (Krumbein 1968, Verrecchia 1990b, Amit and Harrison 1995, Alonso-Zarza and Wright 2010). Therefore the presence of biota associated with carbonate host mediums (rocks and soils) in semiarid areas can indeed suggest an occurrence of calcretisation. Indication of a present regional calcretisation is chiefly evident from the dominance of the above mentioned formation factors in the Levant. A focused chrono-paleoclimatic study of nāri in the Levant can support this conclusion.

5. CONCLUSIONS

1. Nāri is a calcareous polygenetic formation, formed by pedogenic and biogenic near-

surface processes in soft sediments, and is common in the semiarid Mediterranean region of the Levant. Its morphology varies from that which is slightly- to strongly-indurated, with an approximate thickness of up to three metres or even more. It may frequently contain chert fragments, carbonate rich concretions, and cracks filled with calcium carbonate or soil.

2. Since the nineteenth century, and possibly even prior to that, the term nāri was used by Arab residents in Jerusalem and its vicinity to denote a type of chert-bearing building stone, ḥağar nāri. Specifically the term referred to the chert that occurs mostly in the Mishash Formation and its surficial hardpan calcretes.

3. Designating nāri as calcrete outcrops that have no field association with chert indicates an etymological error. However, this common terminology has been generated by designating similar outcrops that are associated with chert, such as the calcretised carbonates of the Mishash Formation.

4. Etymologically, nāri is derived from the ability of chert to produce fire (sparks) and does not refer to its presumed use as a building stone for heating apparatus. Nor does it reflect its ability to withstand high temperatures.

5. Nāri rocks are regionally exposed throughout the Levant, and therefore should be well


224

marked and documented on the relevant geological maps of the region. 6. The combination of chronogenetic, climatic, lithologenetic and morphotectonic

conditions, indicate a late Pliocene to mid-Pleistocene regional calcretisation event that formed the majority of the present calcrete outcrops in the Levant. Recent field observations suggest ongoing calcretisation in the semiarid areas of the Levant.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We wish to thank to all those who contributed to this study: Jonathan Shechter, Ivri Tasker, Roth Shaal, Benny Gurelnik, Moshe Wieder, Rivka (Kiki) Amit, Avinoam Danin, Avraham (Stary) Starinsky, Rami Zeidenberg, Lior Enmar, Ran Frank, Diffallah Khalil, David (Diro) Kosashvili, Hendrik Bruins, Karl Stahr, Hans-Peter Blume, Reinhold Jahn, Wilhelm Römer, Daniela Sauer, Muhsin Eren, Selim Kapur, Yoav Avni, Ron Beeri, Danit Levi, Yildirim Gungor, Memet (Memo) Tanrisever and Luca Mellano. The comments of the journal’s referee are also appreciated.

REFERENCES Abu-Jaber, Nizar and Al-Saad, Ziad (eds). 2007. Landscape, Provenance and Conservation of Stone

Sources from Selected Archaeological Sites in Jordan. Irbid: Yarmouk University. Ackermann, O., Bruins, H., Sarah, P., Zhevelev, H. and Maeir, A. M. 2005. Landscape archaeology in a

dry stream valley near Tell es–Safi/Gath (Israel): agricultural terraces and the origin of fill deposits. Environmental Archaeology 10: 199–215.

Al-Barghouti, Abdullatif M. (ed.). 2001. Dictionary of Colloquial Palestinian Arabic Dialect. Ramallah-Bireh: Palestinian Heritage (in Arabic).

Al-Kilani, Aamir Abd al-Fattah (ed.). 2008. Geological Encyclopedia & the Earth Sciences. Amman: Dar Hijla (in Arabic).

Alonso-Zarza, A. M. and Wright, V. P. 2010. Calcretes. In: Carbonates in Continental Settings: Facies Environments and Processes, edited by Ana Maria Alonso-Zarza and Lawrence H. Tanner, 225–268. Amsterdam and Oxford: Elsevier.

Amit, R. and Harrison, B. 1995. Biogenic calcic horizon development under extremely arid conditions Nizzana sands dunes, Israel. In: Arid Ecosystems, Advances in Geoecology, edited by Hans-Peter Blume and Simon M. Berkowicz, 65–88.

Arkin, Y., Braun, M. and Starinsky, A. 1965. Type Sections of Cretaceous Formations in the Jerusalem—Bet Shemesh Area: Lithostratigraphy. Jerusalem: Geological Survey of Israel.

Arkin, Y., Braun, M., Buchbinder, B., Diamant, E., Itzhaki, Y., Lasman, N., Rot, I. and Shachnai, E. 1976. The Geological Map of Israel 1:50,000 Sheet 11–I/II: Jerusalem and its Vicinity. Jerusalem: Ministry of Infrastructures, Geological Survey of Israel (in Hebrew).

Arkin, Yaacov and Ecker, Amos. 2007. Geotechnical and Hydrogeological Concerns in Developing the Infrastructure Around Jerusalem. GSI/12/2007. Jerusalem: Ministry of Infrastructures, Geological Survey of Israel.

Avnimelech, Moshe. 1936. Études géologiques dans la région de la Shéphélah en Palestine. PhD dissertation, University of Grenoble: Allier père et fils, imprimeurs de l’université.

Baalbaki, Ramzi M. (ed.). 1990. Dictionary of Linguistic Terms. Beirut: Dar el-Ilm lilMalayin. Bar, Oded., Zilberman, Ezra., Gvirtzman, Zohar and Feinstein, Shimon. 2006. Reconstruction of the Uplift

Stages of the Mountain Backbone in Central Israel. GSI/28/2006. Jerusalem: Ministry of Infrastructures, Geological Survey of Israel.

Bar, O., Zilberman, E., Gvirtzman, Z., Feinstein, S. and Buchbinder, B. 2012. From the Judea Mountains to the Judea Plain: erosion-surfaces development in the rims of an uplifted ridge, In: Israel Geological Society Conference, Ashkelon 2012 Field Trips, edited by Eldad Levi and Yael Sagi, 69–95. Jerusalem: Geological Society (in Hebrew).

Bar-Matthews, M. and Ayalon, A. 1997. Late Quaternary paleoclimate in the Mediterranean region from stable isotope analysis of speleothems at soreq cave, Israel. Quaternary Research 47: 155–168.

Barthélemy, Adrien (ed.). 1935. Dictionnaire Arabe-Français. Dialectes de Syrie: Alep, Damas, Liban, Jérusalem. Paris: Librairie Orientaliste Paul Geuthner.

Begin, Ze’ev B. and Zilberman, Ezra. 1997. Main Stages and Rate of Relief Development in Israel. Report GSI/24/97, Jerusalem: Ministry of Infrastructures, Geological Survey of Israel (in Hebrew).


225

Bender, Friedrich. 1968. Geologie von Jordanien. Berlin and Stuttgart: Gebruder Borntraeger. Blake, George S. 1935. The Stratigraphy of Palestine and its Building Stones. Jerusalem: Geological

Advisor, Palestine Government. Blanckenhorn, Max L. 1888. Die geognostiscben Verhaltnisse von Afrika. Gotha: Justus Perthes. Blanckenhorn, Max L. 1896. Entstehung und Geschichte des Todten Meeres: Ein Beitrag zur Geologie

Palastinas. Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palaestina-Vereins 19: 5–51. Blanckenhorn, Max L. 1904. Geologie der naheren Umgebung von Jerusalem. Zeitschrift des Deutschen

Palaestina-Vereins 27: 75–120. Bogoch, R. and Sneh, A. 2008. Geological Map of Israel 1:50,000 Sheet 4–I: Arbel. Jerusalem: Ministry of

Infrastructures, Geological Survey of Israel (in Hebrew). Bosworth, Clifford E., Van Donzel, Emeri J., Heinrichs, Wolfhart P. and Pellat, Charles (eds). 1993. The

Encyclopedia of Islam, New Edition, vol. VII; NIF–NAZ, pp. 957–960. Leiden and New York: E. J. Brill.

Buchbinder, B. 1969. Geological Map of Hashephela Region, Israel 1:20,000—Explanatory Notes. Jerusalem: The Institute for Petroleum Research and Geophysics, Report 1030. The Geological Survey of Israel, report OD/1/68.

Burg, Avihu. 1991. The Geology of the Hatrurim Formation. GSI/18/91. Jerusalem: Ministry of Infrastructures, Geological Survey of Israel (in Hebrew with English abstract).

Burg, A., Kolodny, Y. and Lyakhovsky, V. 1999. Hatrurim–2000: The “Mottled Zone” revisited forty years later. Israel Journal of Earth Sciences 48: 209–223.

Canaan, Tawfiq. 1933. The Palestinian Arab House: Its Architecture and Folklore. Jerusalem: Syrian Orphanage Press.

Candy, I. and Black, S. 2009. The timing of Quaternary calcrete development in semi-arid southeast Spain: Investigating the role of climate on calcrete genesis. Sedimentary Geology 218: 6–15.

Clauser, C. and Huenges, E. 1995. Thermal Conductivity of Rocks and Minerals. In: Rock Physics and Phase Relations: A Handbook of Physical Constants, edited by Thomas J. Ahrens, 105–147. Washington D.C: The American Geophysical Union.

Cook, P. 2000. Geological Map of Israel 1:50,000 sheet 5-IV: Shekhem. Jerusalem: Ministry of Infrastructures, Geological Survey of Israel (in Hebrew).

Dan, J. 1962. The disintegration of Nari lime crust in relation to relief, soil and vegetation. In: Transactions of the Symposium on Photo Interpretation, edited by Commission VII, International Society for Photogrammetry, 189–194. Delft: Uitgeverij Waltman.

Dan, Joel. 1966. The Relief's Impact on the Formation and Distribution of The Country’s Soils. PhD dissertation, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem (in Hebrew).

Dan, J. 1977. The distribution and origin of Nari and other lime crusts in Israel. Israel Journal of Earth Sciences 26: 68–83.

Dan, Joel., Fine, Pinchas and Lavee, Hanoch. 2007. The Soils of the Land of Israel. Tel Aviv: Eretz, Tel Aviv University (in Hebrew with English abstract).

Danin, A., Gerson, R., Marton, K and Garty, J. 1982. Patterns of Limestone and dolomite weathering by lichens and blue-green algae and their paleoclimate significance. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 37: 221–233

Danin, A. 1985. Palaeoclimates in Israel: Evidence from Weathering Patterns of Stones in and near Archaeological Sites. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 259: 33–43

Dudeen, B. 2001. The soils of Palestine (The West Bank and Gaza Strip): current status and future perspectives. In: Soil Resources of Southern and Eastern Mediterranean Countries, edited by Pandi Zdruli, Pasquale Steduto, Cosimo Lacirignola and Luca Montanarella, 203–233. Bari: CIHEAM-IAMB.

Eren, M., Kadir, S., Hatipoğlu, Z. and Gul, M. 2008. Quaternary calcrete development in the Mersin area, southern Turkey. Turkish Journal of Earth Sciences 17: 763–784.

Flexer, A. 1968. Stratigraphy and facies development of Mount Scopus Group (Senonian–Paleocene) in Israel and adjacent countries. Israel Journal of Earth Sciences 17: 85–114.

Fraas, Oscar. F. von. 1867. Geologisches aus dem Orient. In: Jahreshefte des Vereins Für Vaterländische Naturkunde. Stuttgart: Verlag von Ebner & Seubert.

Gallala, W., Gaied M. E., Essefi, E. and Montacer, M. 2010. Pleistocene calcretes from eastern Tunisia: The stratigraphy, the microstructure and the environmental significance. Journal of African Earth Sciences 58: 445–456.

Garfunkel, Z. 1988. The pre-Quaternary Geology of Israel. In: The Zoogeography of Israel, edited by Yoram Yom-Tov and Eitan Tchernov, 7–34. Dordrecht: the Netherlands.

Geva-Kleinberger, A. 2006. Arabic loanwords in Ivrit. In: New Encyclopedia of Arabic Language and


226

Literature, edited by Lutz Edzard and Rudolf de Jong, Vol. 2, 461–464. Leiden: Brill. Geze, M. B. 1956. Carte de reconnaissance des sols du Liban au 1:200,000. Beirut: Ministère de

l’agriculture, station agronomique libano-française. Gile, L. H., Peterson, F. F. and Grossman, R. B. 1965. The K horizon: a master soil horizon of carbonate

accumulation. Soil Science 99: 72–82. Goldberg, Avraham A. 1958. Contributions to the Study of Nari in Israel and Especially in the Eastern

Esdraelon Valley. PhD dissertation, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem (in Hebrew). Goudie, A. S. 1972. The chemistry of world calcrete deposits. Journal of Geology 80: 449–463. Goudie, Andrew S. 1973. Duricrusts in Tropical and Subtropical Landscapes. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Gündoğan, R., Merdun, H., Demirkiran, A. R., Hall, N., Ağtürk, R., Erol A. and Erşahin, S. 2010.

Temporal variation of soil moisture under alley cropping system in pistachio in semi-arid region of Turkey. International Journal of Agriculture & Biology 12: 601–605.

Gur, D., Steinitz, G., Kolodny, Y. Starinskey, A. and McWilliams, M. 1995. 40Ar/39Ar dating of combustion metamorphism (the “Mottled Zone”, Israel). Chemical Geology (Isotope Geoscience Section) 122: 171–184.

Hatzor, Y. H. 2000. The Geological Map of Israel 1:50,000 Sheet 6–I,II: Bet She'an. Jerusalem: Ministry of Infrastructures, Geological Survey of Israel (in Hebrew).

Hirsch, F. 1983. Geological Map of Israel 1:50,000 Sheet 11–III: Bet Guvrin Geological Map. Jerusalem: Geological Survey of Israel (in Hebrew).

Hull, Edward. 1886. The Survey of Western Palestine: Memoir on the Physical Geology and Geography of Arabia Petraea, Palestine and Adjoining Districts. London: The Committee of the Palestine Exploration Fund.

Ibn-Manẓūr, Muhammad ibn Mukarram (ed.). 1988. Lisān al-‘Arab. Beirut: Dār ’Iyā’ at-Turā al-‘Arabī. Ildefonso, A. 2010. Diagenesis of carbonates in continental settings. In: Carbonates in Continental

Settings: Geochemistry, Diagenesis and Applications, edited by Ana Maria Alonso-Zarza and Lawrence H. Tanner, 61–152. Amsterdam and Oxford: Elsevier.

James, N. P. 1972. Holocene and Pleistocene calcareous crust (caliche) profiles: criteria for subaerial exposure. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology 42: 817–836.

James, N. P. and Choquette, P. W. 1984. Diagenesis 9. Limestones: the meteoric diagenetic environment. Geoscience Canada 11: 163–193.

Kapur, S., Chavushgil, V. S. and FitzPatrick, E. A. 1987. Soil-calcrete (caliche) relationship on a Quaternary surface of the Chukurova Region, Adana (Turkey). In: Soil Micromorphology, edited by N. Fedoroff, L. M. Bresson and M. A. Courty, 597–603. Paris: Association Française pour l’étude du sol.

Kapur, S., Yaman, S., Gokcen, S. L. and Yetis, C. 1993. Soil stratigraphy and Quaternary caliche in the Misis area of the Adana basin, southern Turkey. Catena 20: 431–445.

Kolodny, Yehoshua. 1965. Lithostratigraphy of the Mishash Formation in Nahal Efe’e, and the petrology of its siliceous rocks. PhD dissertation, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem (in Hebrew).

Kolodny, Y., Bar, M. and Sass, E. 1971. Fission track age of the “Mottled Zone Event”, Israel. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 11: 269–272.

Kolodny, Y. and Gross, S. 1974. Thermal metamorphism by combustion of organic matter, isotopic and petrological evidence. Journal of Geology 82: 489–506.

Krumbein, W. E. 1968. Geomicrobiology and geochemistry of the “Nari-lime-crust” (Israel). In: Recent Developments in Carbonate Sedimentology in Central Europe, edited by German Muller and Gerald M. Friedman, 138–147. Berlin, Heidelberg and New York: Springer-Verlag.

Lamplugh, G. W. 1902. Calcrete. Geological Magazine 9: 575. Lartet, Louis. 1869. Essai sur la géologie de la Palestine et des contrées avoisinantes, Telles que l’Égypte

et l’Arabie. 1ère partie: géologie générale et stratigraphie. Paris: Martinet. Levi, Y. 1983. The Geological Map of Israel 1:50,000 Sheet 3–II: Shefar'am, Explanatory Notes.

Jerusalem: Geological Survey of Israel (in Hebrew). Mashiah, Moshe., Greenbaum, Noam., Zilberman, Ezra., Ron, Hagai and Ronen, Avraham. 2009.

Pleistocene Tectonic Stability of the Western Carmel Escarpment: Evidence from Magnetostratigraphy of Calcretes. Report ES-35-2008. Jerusalem: The Ministry of National Infrastructures, Geological Survey of Israel (in Hebrew with English abstract).

Mimi, A. and Assi, A. 2009. Intrinsic vulnerability, hazard and risk mapping for karst aquifers: a case study. Journal of Hydrology 364: 298–310.

Muelinen, Eberhard Graf von. 1908. Beitrage zur Kenntnis des Karmels. Leipzig: K. Baedeker. Muir, A. 1951. Notes on the soils of Syria. Journal of Soil Science 2: 163–187. NRA (Natural Resources Authority of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan). 2007. Building Stones. Internet


227

site: http://www.nra.gov.jo/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=47&Itemid=68. Netterberg, Frank. 1969. The Geology and Engineering Properties of South African Calcretes. PhD

dissertation, University of Witwatersrand. Neuendorf, Klaus. K. E., Mehl, Jr, James P. and Jackson, Julia A. (eds). 2005. Glossary of Geology, Fifth

Edition. Alexandria, Virginia: American Geosciences Institute. Parker, Sybil P. (ed). 2002. McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of Science and Technology. 9th edn, 20 vols. New

York: McGraw-Hill Professional. Picard, Leo. 1943. Structure and Evolution of Palestine. Jerusalem: The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Picard, L. 1951. Geomorphogeny of Israel: Part 1 The Negev. Bulletin of The Research Council of Israel 1:

6–32. Pla-Pueyo, S., Gierlowski-Kordesch, E. H., Viseras, C. and Soria, J. M. 2009. Major controls on

sedimentation during the evolution of a continental basin: Pliocene–Pleistocene of the Guadix basin (Betic Cordillera, southern Spain). Sedimentary Geology 219: 97–114.

Reeves, Corwin C. 1976. Caliche: Origin, Classification, Morphology and Uses. Lubbock: Estacado Books.

Reich, R. 1987. Building materials and architectural elements in the ancient world. In: The Architecture of Ancient Israel from the Prehistoric to the Persian Periods. Jerusalem: The Society for the Exploration of Eretz Israel and its Antiquities.

Robinson, S. A., Black, S., Sellwood, B. W. and Valdes, P. J. 2006. A review of palaeoclimates and palaeoenvironments in the Levant and eastern Mediterranean from 25,000 to 5,000 BP: setting the environmental background for the evolution of human civilisation. Quaternary Science Reviews 25: 1517–1541.

Sachsse, R. 1896. Beiträge zur chemischen Kenntnis der Mineralien, Gesteine und Gewächse Palästinas (in German). Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palaestina-Vereins 19: 1–23. Leipzig: K. Baedeker.

Schumacher, G. 1896. Das südliche Basan, zum ersten Male aufgenommen und beschrieben. Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palaestina-Vereins 19: 5–51. Leipzig: K. Baedeker.

Schumacher, G. 1902. Recent discoveries near Galilee. In: Palestine Exploration Fund: Quarterly Statement, edited by Harrison and Sons, 301–304. London: The Fund’s Office.

Segev, A., and Sass, E. (ed.). 2009. Geological Map of Israel 1:50,000 Sheet 3–III: Atlit. Jerusalem: Ministry of Infrastructures, Geological Survey of Israel (in Hebrew).

Şenel, M. (ed.). 2002a. Geological Map of Turkey 1:500,000: Adana. Ankara: General Directorate of Mineral Research and Exploration (in Turkish and English).

Şenel, M. (ed.). 2002b. Geological Map of Turkey 1:500,000: Hatay. Ankara: General Directorate of Mineral Research and Exploration (in Turkish and English).

Sharoni, Avraham (ed.). 1987. The Comprehensive Arabic–Hebrew Dictionary. Tel Aviv: University of Tel Aviv (in Arabic and Hebrew).

Shiloh, Y. and Horowitz, A. 1975. Ashlar quarries of the Iron Age in the hill country of Israel. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 217: 37–48.

Singer, Arieh. 2007. The Soil of Israel. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag. Sneh, A. (ed.). 2008. Geological Map of Israel 1:50,000 Sheet 25–I: Qiryat Gat. Jerusalem: Ministry of

Infrastructures, Geological Survey of Israel (in Hebrew). Sneh, A. (ed.). 2009. Geological Map of Israel 1:50,000 Sheet 11–I: Bet Shemesh. Jerusalem: Ministry of

Infrastructures, Geological Survey of Israel (in Hebrew). Tanner, L. H. 2010. Continental carbonates as indicators of paleoclimate. In: Carbonates in Continental

Settings: Geochemistry, Diagenesis and Applications, edited by Ana Maria Alonso-Zarza and Lawrence H. Tanner, 179–214. Amsterdam and Oxford: Elsevier.

Vaumas, E. (de). 1961. Structure et Morphologie du Proche-Orient. Nouvel essai de synthèse et orientations de recherche. Revue de géographie alpine 49: 645–739.

Verrecchia, E. P. 1990a. New micromorphological interpretation of Nari-calcrete (Israel). In: Developments in Soil Science, Soil Micromorphology: Studies in Management and Genesis 19, edited by Lowell A. Douglas, 677–682. Amsterdam, London, New York and Tokyo: Elsevier.

Verrecchia, E. P. 1990b. Litho-diagenetic implications of the calcium oxalate–carbonate biogeochemical cycle in semiarid calcretes, Nazareth, Israel. Geomicrobiology Journal 8: 87–99.

Verrecchia, E. P. and Le Coustumer, M. N. 1996. Occurrence and genesis of palygorskite and associated clay minerals in a Pleistocene calcrete complex, Sde Boqer, Negev Desert, Israel. Clay Minerals 31: 183–202.

Watson, John. 1911. British and Foreign Building Stones. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wieder, M. and Yaalon, D. H. 1982. Micromorphological fabrics and developmental stages of carbonate

nodular forms related to soil characteristics. Geoderma 28: 203–220.


228

Wieder, M., Sharabani, M., and Singer, A. 1993. Phases of calcrete (Nari) development by micromorphology. In: Developments in Soil Science, Soil Micromorphology: Studies in Management and Genesis 22, edited by Anthony J. Ringrose-Voase and Geoff S. Humphreys, 37–49. Amsterdam, London, New York and Tokyo: Elsevier.

Wolfart, F. 1967. Geologie von Syrien und dem Libanon. Berlin–Nikolassee: Gebrüder Borntraeger. Wright, V. P. 2007. Calcrete. In: Geochemical Sediments and Landscapes, edited by David Nash and Sue J.

McLaren, 10–45. Malden, Oxford and Victoria: Blackwell Publishing. Yaalon, D. H. and Singer, S. 1974. Vertical variation in strength and porosity of calcrete (Nari) on chalk,

Shefela, Israel and interpretation of its Origin. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology 44: 1016–1023. Yaalon, D. H. 1978. “Geoderma”—Continental Sedimentation: Calcrete, Desert Loess and Paleosols,

Sand Dunes and Eolianites (Post-Congress Excursion Y5). Jerusalem: Tenth International Congress on Sedimentology.

Yechieli, Y. 2008. Geological Map of Israel 1:50,000 Sheet 8–III: Lod. Jerusalem: Ministry of Infrastructures, Geological Survey of Israel (in Hebrew).

Itkin etal. 2012 Nari in the Levant

Documents

term calcrete

formation of nri

colloquial arabic term

used term

consistent definition

university of queensland

dan yaalon

literature university